community assets and crop diversification: evidence from ethiopia's psnp

Community Assets and Crop Diversification:

Evidence from Ethiopia's PSNP

Getachew A. Abegaz (IFPRI)

Mateusz J. Filipski (IFPRI)

Motivation Crop diversity has welfare and efficiency benefits

Regenerates the environment and sustains varieties of genetic resources (Lipper and Cooper 2009).

Helps for diet diversity and poverty reduction (Hirvonen and Hoddinott 2014; Jeffrey and Josephson 2015).

Risk avoiding strategy (Benin et al. 2003; Falco and Chavas 2009; Mulumbaa et al. 2012).

These ecological, nutritional and efficiency benefits of crop diversification have an impact on improving household food security.

Motivation The public works wing of the PSNP have the potential to increase crop

diversity

Rural road construction-access to markets Soil and water conservation projects Construction of irrigation channels

Impact of projects goes beyond beneficiaries of the program

Previous works in this area Community assets on yield (Mekdim et al., 2013) Economy wide impacts on income through local income multipliers (Mateusz et

al., 2016)

This study attempts to test whether these projects have an impact on crop diversity in areas where these programs are active.

Community Assets and Crop Diversity

Decisions on diversity are limited by cultural, environmental, socio-economic factors and government policies (Bellon and Smale 1998).

The closer farmers are to markets, the more diversity (Metzel and Ateng 1993; Sichoongwe et al. 2014).

Low profitability, high input cost and risk in selling crop outputs limit diverisity (Metzel and Ateng 1993).

Community Assets and Crop Diversity Increasing proximity to markets help them

make seeds accessible for their farms (Lipper et al. 2010; Bellon 1996).

o 1- Market integration might also lead to

specialization and a decrease in crop diversity (Dusen, Eric, and Taylor 2005).

High improved and high yielding seedsEasier ways of selling of crop output

Community Assets and Crop Diversityo 2-Complementarities of inputs for crop diversification

or specialization

Diversity depend on other complementary factors– supply of irrigation water,– soil and water conservation activities.

E.g.: Irrigation water is a variable input that exhibits high degree of complementarities with other variable inputs especially inputs of high yielding crop varieties (Ellis, 1998)

Similar arguments can be made on the role of SWC for crop diversity


o 3- A U-shaped causal relationship between the extent of the market and the pattern of crop specialization in a village economy (Emran and Shilpi 2012).

Diversity initially increases with the extent of the market.

After the market size reaches a threshold, the production structure starts to specialize again.

So, whether PSNP projects might influence diversity or specialization is unknown a priori.

Data and Methods

The Ethiopian Food Security Surveys (a.k.a. PSNP datasets) collected to evaluate the program.

Surveys: 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012 surveys

Community and price surveys

Other data sets: Rainfall (NASA) and classification of agro-ecology by zone (EDRI SAM)

Data and Methods Crop diversity in terms of – Number of crops– Margalef, Shannon, and Simpson following from

Meng et al (1999),

Indices account for Reachness (i.e. the number of species

encountered in a given sampling)Evenness-distribution/allocation of land

Data and Methods

Data and Methods Making use of the PSNP panel data, a fixed

effects model was specified

Dit =crop diversity within householdCnit= cumulative number of projects in an EAXit =community, socioeconomic and household characteristics

Data and Methods

Possible interactions among projects were taken care of

Other community and household characteristics include – area cultivated, number of parcels, fertilizer applications– Number of livestock (TLU), PSNP payments– Agro-ecology, rainfall

Results

Crop Groups 2006 2008 2010 2012

All Grains 88.8 92.6 93.0 84.0

All Cereals 82.7 84.3 84.6 77.5

Teff 6.9 9.2 10.0 7.4

Other Cereals 75.8 75.0 74.6 70.0

Oil Seeds 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.3

Pulses 5.0 7.1 7.3 5.3

Fruits 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

Vegetables 0.8 1.1 0.9 1.3

Enset and Tubers 1.1 0.7 1.1 0.9

Cash Crops 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Other Crops 9.3 5.5 4.9 13.7

Patterns-share of area cultivated

Results

Results

2006 2008 2010 20120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

121

150

115 118114

145137

171

51

80

58

83

1525

19

36

Road Soil Tree planting Well IrrigationClinic & School

Number of PSNP public works projects

ResultsSummary stats of other covariates

Fixed effects estimates-IIndependent Variables

Model -INum. Marg. Shan. Simp.

Roads -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.03(0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)

Irrigation 0.30*** 0.03*** 0.06*** 0.12* (0.08) (0.01) (0.02) (0.06)Soil cons. 0.09*** 0.01** 0.04*** 0.08***

(0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Wells -0.05 -0.01 -0.02* -0.00 (0.04) (0.00) (0.01) (0.03)Tree planting -0.04 -0.00 -0.01 0.00 (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Area of land cultivated 0.23*** 0.01*** 0.01 0.00 (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Number of parcels 0.26*** 0.03*** 0.07*** 0.15*** (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01)Chemical fertilizer 0.00** 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)Number of livestock 0.01** 0.00** 0.00** 0.01*....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Results

Fixed effects estimates-IIIndependent variables Model- II

Num. Marg. Shan. Simp.Roads -0.04 -0.00* -0.00 0.01 (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Irrigation 0.23*** 0.02*** 0.05** 0.08 (0.08) (0.01) (0.02) (0.06)Soil cons. 0.08*** 0.01** 0.04*** 0.08*** (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Wells -0.03 -0.00 -0.02* 0.00 (0.04) (0.00) (0.01) (0.03)Tree planting 0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.02 (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.03)Roads & irrigation (int.) 0.07*** 0.01*** 0.01** 0.03*** (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01)Area of land cultivated 0.23*** 0.01*** 0.01 0.00 (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Number of parcels 0.26*** 0.03*** 0.07*** 0.15*** (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01)Chemical fertilizer 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)Number of livestock 0.01** 0.00** 0.00** 0.01**

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Results

ResultsIndependent variables Model -III

Num. Marg. Shan. Simp.Roads -0.06 -0.01 0.01 0.08** (0.05) (0.00) (0.01) (0.03)Irrigation 0.29*** 0.03*** 0.06*** 0.12* (0.09) (0.01) (0.02) (0.06)Soil cons. 0.10** 0.01** 0.07*** 0.20*** (0.04) (0.00) (0.01) (0.03)Wells -0.01 -0.00 -0.01 0.07 (0.07) (0.01) (0.02) (0.05)Tree planting 0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.01 (0.05) (0.01) (0.02) (0.04)Roads & irrigation (int.) 0.14*** 0.02*** 0.04*** 0.13*** (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Roads & soil cons. (int.) 0.01 0.00 -0.01** -0.03*** (0.01) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01)Irrigation & wells (int.) 0.12*** 0.02*** 0.01 0.04 (0.05) (0.00) (0.01) (0.03)Roads & wells (int.) -0.02 -0.00 -0.00 -0.03** (0.02) (0.00) (0.01) (0.01)Roads & tree planting (int.) -0.01 -0.00 -0.00 -0.01 (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01)Area of land cultivated 0.23*** 0.01*** 0.01 0.00 (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.02)Number of parcels 0.26*** 0.03*** 0.06*** 0.14*** (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01)Chemical fertilizer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)Number of livestock 0.01** 0.00** 0.00** 0.01**

Fixed effects estimates-III

Total impact for the average EA

Models Project Average impact per period

Average # of projects per EA in all PSNP

Total for the average EA

Model I

Irrigation 0.30 1.25 0.37

SWC 0.09 2.60 0.23

Public works contribution to diversity (crops/farmer) 0.61

Model II


SWC 0.10 2.60 0.26

Roads and Irrigation 0.07 2.87 0.20


Model II


SWC 0.08 2.60 0.21

Roads and Irrigation 0.14 2.87 0.40


Results

Conclusion and implications

On average farmers grow 3.8 crops during the four years with

3.6 in 2010 and 4.3 in 2012.

Diversity increases with the number of PSNP irrigation and

soil conservation projects

There is also an interaction among PSNP projects

In implementing these projects, stakeholders identifying

project requirements should consider the interactions among

projects

Thank you

community assets and crop diversification: evidence from ethiopia's psnp

Government & Nonprofit