Adoption of Rainwater Management Practice in the Blue Nile
A Description and Analysis of the IFPRI Farm Survey on Climate Change
Noémie Defourny Ms. in Economics , UCL (Belgium)
Internship Timeline
• ILRI: Static Bio Physical Household level Model
Cikeda (Cirad) - IAT (CSIRO)Solutions Feasability in Boneya
• ILRI-IWMI: NBDC Data set 2005-IFPRI
Nile Basin Development ChallengeObjective: to improve the resilience of rural livelihoods in the Ethiopian highlands through a landscape approach to rainwater management.
• Water scarcity and land degradation – concerns livelihoods of millions households in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Water for agriculture – crop production to feed population and Animal 70 to 90% of the all water used in the region. • Growing populations Need - to reverse land degradation
- to improve water productivity.
Landscape (watershed) approach to rainwater managementTo better target or ‘match’ promising technologies (or whole strategies) with particular environments.
Nile Basin Development Challenge
Objective : creating feasibility maps for rainwater management strategies that include socio-economic constraints.
One approach : Mapping Willingness of Adoption
Procedure : Define adoption rules
Based on census data (=data for the whole basin), simulate “virtual farmers”
Run adoption rules on the simulated farmer
N3 : on Targeting and scaling out
Integrating socio economic into feasibility maps
Bio-physical suitability Willingness to adopt
Feasibility map
Objective of the internship
• Aggregate the IFPRI “Climate Change” survey (phase 1) to farm level
• Describe the dataset in terms of Water Related and Soil Conservation Practices
• Compute Variables
• Run first Adoption Models
IFPRI Farm Survey on Climate Change (2005)
• General features:Geo-referenced (GPS coordinates)
1,000 households (6,168 individuals)3 Regions: Fogera, Jeldu and Dapo areas.
Gender51.4% of male 48.6% of female
Ethnic 40% Oromo Ethnic group31% Amhara15% Tigrayan 15% Beninshangul Gumuz 5.00% from SNPP
Religion 86.7% Christian 13% are Islamic.
Descriptive Statistics • Household level Characteristics
90.10% household heads male Age: head45 years old
spouse 35 yearsSize < 6 personsFarmer’s experience in agriculture 23 yearsEducation 5 years of school
50%
30%
20%
Literacy
IlliterateLiterate-read and write formallyLiterate-read and write in-formally
Household characteristics (cont’d)
Assets Drought power: 72.2% own oxen32.4% donkey
12% own horseLabor Labor intensive: Meher, Livestock, Perennials
Own labor:
Hired labor:
Off-farm jobs: seasonal trends Meher > Belg (trader, paid laborers)
7%
69%
11%
13%
Total Labor Force Distribution
BelgMeherPerennialLivestock
HiredOwn
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
7%
93%
6%
94%
8%
92%
19%
81%
Distribution of Labor Source
BelgMeherPerennialLivestock
Household characteristics (cont’d)
• Land Total 1.9 ha3 plots/H, 0.79 Ha
Water Source Rainfed 95.26%, river 2%
Distance to homestead 1.4 km
Certification
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516170
102030405060708090
Number of Plots Certified per Household
Number of Plot per HH
Percentage of HH
Household characteristics (cont’d)• Fertility 60% moderately
30% plots highly • Use
• Erosion Exposure
50.00%38.33%
11.67% No Erosion
Mild Erosion
High Erosion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
Number of Plots per household Rented or Shared
Number of plot per HH
Percentage of HH
Access to Water
• Distance 31.7 km • Source of Water
• Pump 2.60 % HhType Diesel ; 23% ManualOwnership 69.20% HH jointlyPurpose Irrigate the crops; garden
36.00%
1.90%13.20%12.40%3.10%
1.00%
30.10%
1.40%
River or lake
Hand-dug or Drilled private borehole/well
Public hand-dug or Drilled borehole/well
Public stand-pipe
Tap water (public supply)
Other (rain water, dam..)
Spring water
Stream water
Access to Water (cont’d)
• Water Storage 8.50% Hh Type
Ownership
Purpose
26.32
14.4738.16
5.262.63 13.16 Hand-dug borehole/well
Drilled borehole/well Pond/Lake Micro reservoir/dam Barrel/cistern Other
10.53
65.79
11.84
1.32 5.26
Irrigation of garden and crops
Livestock watering
Drinking water
Fish
Other
3.95
28.95
21.05
26.32
10.53
9.21
UnknownHH has ownershipwith other households/farFarmer associationWater user associationOther
Access to Advice, Market and Credits
• Access to Advice
• Access to Market
• Transportation 93.83% On foot3.34%. Animal2.43% Motorized vehicle
Crop production Livestock Activities
Training 47.10% 53.30%
Visit 5 4
Input Output
Distance Km 5.66 km 5.70 km Travel Distance 8.91 hrs 11.32 hrs
Access to Advice, Market and Credits (cont’d)• Access to Credit
50.00% have at least borrowed money once. Purpose
Source
Frequency
28%
12%
24%
9%
28%To buy farm inputTo buy livestockTo buy food or household goodTo pay Health ExpensesOther
11.3%
9.0%
5.7%
4.8%
2.1%1.2% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2%
Governmental Organization NeighborsCredit AssociationFarmer AssociationMicro Finance InstitutionPrivate Money LenderOther sourceWomen AssociationNGO
1 2 3 4 50%
10%20%30%40%50%60%
Number of Credit contracted
Percentage Household
Shocks and Aid
• AidReason for aid activity’ implementation
Type
38.52
9.54
1.41
4.953.89
2.12
2.12
15.55
3.53
3.89
0.710000000000001
11.66
1.77 0.35
Drought
Flood
Hailstorm
Landslide
Pests of crops before harvest
Animal disease
Other (specify)
To prevent malarial outbreak
As part of development activities
Income generation
To increase crop production
Social Security/Health care
protect shocks of drought and flood
To assist new settlers
18.31
53.87
10.92
16.9Cash for work (ETB)
Food for work (kg)
Food,Emergency Relief (kg)
Mosquito (bed) nets
Crop level Characteristics
• Fragmentation
7% 11%18%
24%
30%
35%
43%
45%49%
53%
100%Maize Teff Barley
Wheat Millet Beans
Fieldpeas Oil Seed Sesame
Coffee Potato
1 2 3 40%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%97%
90%77%
59%
43%29%
18%12% 8% 4% 2% 1%
Crop distribution per household
MeherBelg
Number of plot per HH
% of HH
• Type
Crop level Characteristics (cont’d)
• Irrigation
• Fertilizer
15.42
16.74
15.42
5.73
40.53
6.16
Type of Irrigation used for Plot-BergFlood
Furrow
Surface drip
Individual (Hose,Bucket,Watering Can)
Flowing river
Other
Amount of Urea (33.62%)
Amount of DAP (37.16%)
Amount of Manure
(19.46%)
Amount of Compost (9.73%)
0
40
80
120
160
Fertilizer use on Plot-Belg
Mean quantity applied on plot0
100
200
Fertilizer's use on crop -Meher
Mean of quantity ap-
plied on crop
Crop level Characteristics (cont’d)
• Soil Conservation techniques74.5% households practices at least one type
Type
Soil b
und
Stone b
und
Grass s
trip
Water w
ay
Planting t
ree
Ploughing a
long the c
ontour
Others
Do not prac
tice0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Perennials
• Type
• Purpose
8%4% 3%
2%
3%
9%
16%
5%7%
44%
Other Kulkual Banana
Abocado Mango Gesho
Coffee Chat Enset
Eucalyptus
25.14
11.18
12.578.71
0.329999999999999
0.410000000000004
11.18
4.68000000000001
0.980000000000004
1.39999999999999
0.25
22.18Source of income by selling firewood, lSource of income by selling wood as conFor own use as fuel woodFor own use as construction materialSoil conservationShadeIncome security (Eg. In case of crop faMore profitable than annual cropsUsed as fenceFor making instruments of productionMategna (Matint)Consumed as food
Perennials (cont’d)
• Irrigation 4.10% Hh Furrow at 48.44% , sprinkle1 pump
• Fertilizers Only Manure4.30% of household6.20% perennials
• Share 78.2% perennials - 100% plot20.81% perennials - ≤50% plot
• Sell 36.9% of household
Livestock92.3% of household - 3,576 animals. 17.4% of livestock are lost of disease
• Type
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
93% 84% 70% 52% 33% 17% 7% 2% 1%
Number of livestock owned
Percentage of household
0.98
17.7
0.981.59
4.36
13.79
3.783.08
9.933.58
20.58
14.46
3.38 1.01 0.799999999999998
Cattle (for meat)Cattle (for milk)Oxen for fatteningBreeding BullsGoatSheepLambBeehivesDonkeyHorseOxenChickenCalfHeiferother
Livestock (cont’d)
• Source of Feed:
• Source of water:
41%
10%15%
12%
4%
18%
Communal grazing
Private grazing
Crop Residue
CR + Communal grazing
Private and Communal grazing
Grain and leftovers
1.5% 0.7%
5.9%
1.2%0.4%
55.6%2.0%3.7%
28.9%
public surface canals from public dam
public well + public pumping
public river storage + private pumping
water harvesting
rain-fed
river
spring
stream
from domestic consumption
Perception of Climate Change (over last 20 yrs)
• Variation of Rainfall Declined according to 61.53% Hh• Variation of Temperature # of Hot Days, 67.72% Hh• Perceived Cause of rainfall variation Poor vegetation cover (78.98% )• Variation of vegetation cover 50% Hh unchanged, for 35%
decreasing. • Major constraints in changing your farming ways
22%
2%
7%
7%
3%
19%
5%2%
24%
0%2% 1%
3% 3%Shortage of land
Poor soil fertility
Shoratge of labor
Shoratge of agricultural input supply
Shoratge of rain
Lack of information/knowledge
Lack of farm animals/oxen
Climate change
Lack of money
lack of environmental immunity
No water potential for irrigation
Lack of farm tools
Lack of professional advice
No constraints/problems
Perception of Climate Change (cont’d)• Adjustments made to LT shifts- in temperature
- in rainfalls
57%
5%
24%
15%
1% 8%2%0%
2% 0% 0% 5%3% 0%NothingImplement soil conservation schemesChanged crop varietyPut trees for shadingWater harvestingAfforestationSought off-farm activitiesLate plantingEarly plantingMigrated to urban areaUsed irrigationSold livestockChanged farming type (from crop to live
42%
41%
18%
7%
9%
1%5%
5% 1% 3%3% 1%NothingImplement soil conservation schemesChanged crop varietyPlanted treesWater harvestingLate plantingEarly plantingUsed irrigationMigrated to urban areaFound off-farm activitiesChanged farming type (from crop to liveReduced number of livestockAdopted new technologiesWater conservation
Willingness to Adopt
Model Specification• The framework can be estimated with a multivariate PROBIT
estimation. Qualitative depend variable Probit: linear probability model
y= α+ βn,i xn,i+ βn+1,i xn+1,i+εi
y= Pr(PumpT)
• Coefficient Estimators are not BLUE • R² is not a good measure of equation performance. Pseudo-r² (goodness-of fit, maximum loglikelihood)
Results:
1. Adoption of Pump as a Water Management Strategy technology Variables computation Explanatory Variable PUMP ADOPTION Marginal Effects of the
Average HouseholdHousehold Size (persons) HHSIZE1 +
0.003889
Distance to Market for Input (hrs) MARKETINPUT2 -
-0.00235
Number of Task for which Labor was Hired HHHIRELABOR +
0.000923
Whether the household owns or not at least one oxen
OXENTBin +0.014394
The number of visit on crop production and livestock
VISITAGG +0.0007689
ConstantCONSTANT -
0.01456
If SlopeFlat >0 Spatial Restriction
Pseudo-R²0.1893
Number of obs. 572
First Adoption Models
2. Adopting Planting tree as a SWC techniqueVariables computation Explanatory Variable Planting Tree
for SWC ADOPTION
Marginal Effects of the Average Household
Age of the Household Leader
HHHEADAGE-
-0.0034156
Religion of the Household Head
RELIGION-
-0.0961367
Total ha of land owned LANDHOLDINGTOTAL+
0.1843855
Squared of Total ha of land owned
LANDHOLDINGTOTAL²-
-0.0370873
The average distance from plot to Homestead
AVERAGEDISTANCEPLOTHOMESTEAD -
-0.0195627
Whether the household has received visit on crop production or livestock activities along if they have attended a training on either two focus
ACCESSTOADVICE
+
0.05388
CONSTANT-
0.09679
ErosionSevereBin>0 or ErosionMildB>0
Spatial Restriction
Pseudo-R² 0.104
Number of obs. 724
3. Adoption of SC Techniques (Soil bunds, Stone bunds, Grass Stripes and Plouhging contour)Variables computation Explanatory Variable SC techniques
ADOPTIONMarginal Effects of the Average Household
Primary Residence with Metal Roof
METALROOF+ 0.1915296
Primary Residence concrete stone/bricks
CONCRETEHOUSE+ 0.2155
Number of Plot HHNUMBERPLOT+ 0.03245
Number of Task for which Labor was Hired
HHHIRELABOR- -0.0045387
Total ha of land owned LANDHOLDINGTOTAL- -0.189
Has received visit (crop & livestock)
VISITBIN+ 0.1438
Soil conservation aid -binary SOILCONSERVAIDBIN+ 0.3734
Distance Market Input (hrs) MARKETINPUT2+ 0.00713
CONSTANT+ 0.05959
SlopeInclinedBinary>0 or SlopeSteepBinary>0
Spatial Restriction
Pseudo-R² 0.2058
Number of obs. 442
Results
• PUMPSMore productive farmers, closer to market, hiring labour, owning oxen and being informed.
• TREE PLANTINGPlot near homestead, middle size farmers
• SC TECHNIQUESPoorer farmers, further from market & more likely to received Aid
Thank you for your Attention
&
Thank you for welcoming
me at ILRI/IWMI!