Download - Alan de Brauw (and others) IFPRI "Bio-fortification, Crop Adaption and Health Information"
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Biofortification, crop adoption and healthinformation:
Impact pathways in Mozambique and Uganda
Alan de Brauw1, Patrick Eozenou2, Dan Gilligan1, ChristineHotz4, Neha Kumar1, and J.V. Meenakshi3
1International Food Policy Research Institute
24 September 2013/ CGIAR Science Forum
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Outline
1 IntroductionProject DetailsImpact Evaluation Design
2 Basic FindingsCrop AdoptionDietary Intakes
3 Causal MechanismsConceptual Framework
4 Marketing
5 Conclusion
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Project DetailsImpact Evaluation Design
REU Project: Biofortification
Took place between 2006 and 2009 in Zambézia Province,Mozambique, and UgandaVitamin A deficiency a large concern in both countriesThe REU used an integrated approach to promote OFSPadoption with goal of reducing vitamin A deficiency amongmothers and young children
Seed Systems Component (Production)Demand Creation Component (Consumption)Market/Product Development Component (Exchange)
Large research component, many partners
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Project DetailsImpact Evaluation Design
Objective of Presentation
Understand impacts on major outcome goals: Adoptionand Vitamin A Consumption
Unfortunately, could not randomize in, for example, theconsumption component
Therefore a technique called causal mechanism analysisto determine which factors were important in determining:
Adoption, andVitamin A Consumption
Consider how marketing should be integrated into futurebiofortification programs
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Project DetailsImpact Evaluation Design
Impact Evaluation Design
Model 1, Model 2, Control GroupsVillages were stratified approximately by district in bothcountriesControl group only got vines in 2010 after evaluationcomponent was complete
Impact Evaluation SurveysSocioeconomic Survey : Included information on householddemographics, agriculture, and knowledge gains fromprogramNutrition Survey: Included 24 hour recall module tomeasure individual dietary intakes of vitamin A and othernutrients among young children and their mothers
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Project DetailsImpact Evaluation Design
Impact Evaluation Design
Model 1, Model 2, Control GroupsVillages were stratified approximately by district in bothcountriesControl group only got vines in 2010 after evaluationcomponent was complete
Impact Evaluation SurveysSocioeconomic Survey : Included information on householddemographics, agriculture, and knowledge gains fromprogramNutrition Survey: Included 24 hour recall module tomeasure individual dietary intakes of vitamin A and othernutrients among young children and their mothers
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Project DetailsImpact Evaluation Design
Impact Evaluation Design
Model 1, Model 2, Control GroupsVillages were stratified approximately by district in bothcountriesControl group only got vines in 2010 after evaluationcomponent was complete
Impact Evaluation SurveysSocioeconomic Survey : Included information on householddemographics, agriculture, and knowledge gains fromprogramNutrition Survey: Included 24 hour recall module tomeasure individual dietary intakes of vitamin A and othernutrients among young children and their mothers
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Project DetailsImpact Evaluation Design
Impact Evaluation Design
Model 1, Model 2, Control GroupsVillages were stratified approximately by district in bothcountriesControl group only got vines in 2010 after evaluationcomponent was complete
Impact Evaluation SurveysSocioeconomic Survey : Included information on householddemographics, agriculture, and knowledge gains fromprogramNutrition Survey: Included 24 hour recall module tomeasure individual dietary intakes of vitamin A and othernutrients among young children and their mothers
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Crop AdoptionDietary Intakes
Measures of OFSP Adoption
Primary measure, Adoption, defined as:In Uganda, whether farmers were growing OFSP in fourthseason after receiving vinesIn Mozambique, answer to question: Do farmers keep vinesfor 2010?
Secondary measure (not presented here): Share of OFSPin total area planted in sweet potato
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Crop AdoptionDietary Intakes
Proportion of Households Adopting OFSP,Mozambique
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Crop AdoptionDietary Intakes
Proportion of Households Adopting OFSP, Uganda
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Crop AdoptionDietary Intakes
Summary: Adoption and Nutritional Knowledge
Large impacts on OFSP adoptionNo difference between Models 1 and 2But only modest impacts on knowledge of messages aboutvitamin AMost (almost all) mothers reported knowing of vitamin A atend of project (not shown)
Strong impact on mothers knowing that OFSP is a sourceof vitamin A at endline (30-40% of mothers)
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Crop AdoptionDietary Intakes
Summary: Adoption and Nutritional Knowledge
Large impacts on OFSP adoptionNo difference between Models 1 and 2But only modest impacts on knowledge of messages aboutvitamin AMost (almost all) mothers reported knowing of vitamin A atend of project (not shown)
Strong impact on mothers knowing that OFSP is a sourceof vitamin A at endline (30-40% of mothers)
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Crop AdoptionDietary Intakes
Summary: Adoption and Nutritional Knowledge
Large impacts on OFSP adoptionNo difference between Models 1 and 2But only modest impacts on knowledge of messages aboutvitamin AMost (almost all) mothers reported knowing of vitamin A atend of project (not shown)
Strong impact on mothers knowing that OFSP is a sourceof vitamin A at endline (30-40% of mothers)
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Crop AdoptionDietary Intakes
Summary: Adoption and Nutritional Knowledge
Large impacts on OFSP adoptionNo difference between Models 1 and 2But only modest impacts on knowledge of messages aboutvitamin AMost (almost all) mothers reported knowing of vitamin A atend of project (not shown)
Strong impact on mothers knowing that OFSP is a sourceof vitamin A at endline (30-40% of mothers)
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Crop AdoptionDietary Intakes
Impacts: Dietary Intakes
Main measure: micrograms of vitamin A in dietComputed from foods consumed, which are converted intonutrients
Can also predict the impact on vitamin A deficiency aftercontrolling for intraday variation in intakes (BLUPs)Children in Mozambique aged 6-35 months at baseline;children in Uganda 4-6 years old at baseline
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Crop AdoptionDietary Intakes
Impacts: Dietary Intakes
Main measure: micrograms of vitamin A in dietComputed from foods consumed, which are converted intonutrients
Can also predict the impact on vitamin A deficiency aftercontrolling for intraday variation in intakes (BLUPs)Children in Mozambique aged 6-35 months at baseline;children in Uganda 4-6 years old at baseline
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Crop AdoptionDietary Intakes
Results: Dietary Intakes, Reference Children
Mozambique UgandaImpact, Impact, Impact, Impact,
Group DI BLUPs DI BLUPsModel 1 243.0** 203.8** 308.3** 338.8**
(85.8) (35.0) (148.3) (38.3)Model 2 211.8** 208.4** 677.1** 377.5**
(96.3) (26.3) (222.0) (78.0)Average 226.0** 206.4** 449.7** 274.7**
(81.6) (22.5) (145.7) (42.9)
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Crop AdoptionDietary Intakes
Summary: Impacts on Dietary Intakes
Average vitamin A consumption increase about the USDARDA level (210 µg per day)But no other significant changes to dietAgain, no significant differences between Models 1 and 2
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Conceptual Framework
Mechanisms
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Conceptual Framework
Estimation
Sequentially estimate two equations of the form (Imai et al.,2011):
Mi = α1 + βTi + γ1Zi + ui
Ai = α2 + ηTi + ζMi + γ2Zi + εi
Under assumptions of sequential ignorability and linear effects,β̂ζ̂ is the amount of adoption caused by mediating variable
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Conceptual Framework
Summary: Causal Mechanism Results
We find that demand creation messages – narrowlydefined– did not affect adoption or consumptionAdoption behavior largely explains the amount of vitamin Aconsumed by young children, whether or not they arereference childrenSome unexplained variation in Uganda r.e. dietaryintakes– could be general health messages of project
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Implications for Creating Value Chains: BiofortifiedProducts
For orange sweet potato to be part of value chain, reallyneed two components:
Market for vinesMarket for output (sweet potatoes) and marketable surplus
In both countries:People tend to obtain vines through neighbor exchange, notthrough marketsFarmers tended to grow small amounts of orange sweetpotatoNot enough produced by households for lots of marketedsurplus“Medium term” surveys demonstrate that output marketshave not really developed
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Improved (?) Design to Promote Markets forBiofortified Products
Continue integrated design with seed systems, lightdemand creation approachBegin to try to build markets after the product is alreadybeing grownMarkets should cover both sides (vines and outputmarkets)
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways
IntroductionBasic Findings
Causal MechanismsMarketing
Conclusion
Conclusion
Large impacts of project, but no differences in impactsbetween Models 1 and 2 (heavy and light treatments)Little adoption attributable to detailed nutrition messagesSo hypothetical scale up of Model 2 could delay oreliminate marketing component, scale back demandcreation with little effect on primary impacts (vitamin Aconsumption)Can decrease costs substantially in hypothetical scale-up(larger reductions in Uganda than in Mozambique)
de Brauw et al. REU Impact Pathways