Diagnosing impacts of sustainable rice production

intensification: A case study in Senegal

Romina Cavatassi - Stefania DiGiuseppe

FAO (ESA-AGPM)

ICABR June 28th 2011

Overview

�Background

�Setting the scene

�Objectives

�Methodology

�Some results

�Conclusions

Case study: Senegal

�Context and motivation:� Models used for crop intensification have

generated costly environmental damage (e.g. pollution arising from poor land use management and/or overuse of pesticides and other chemical).

� In view of current and emerging challenges (climate change, food insecurity, price spikes etc.) they need to be revised.

� How?

� Get better understanding of potential success factors and constraints for the development of sustainable intensive production.

� Rice-production in areas with high potential such as the Senegal River valley: a good example.

Produire plus avec moins: SCPI

� In view of sustainable development, the risks of intensifications are increased land degradation and increased pesticide use

� IPPM approach has been running for few years now

� Objective: compare sustainable land management practices with conventional agriculture is thus a good starting point to better understand implications and possibilities for increasing production and yield whilst respecting the environment

The case under study

� Rice is the core staple in Senegal

� average consumption per capita 74- 93 kg per capita per year

� The vast majority of rice consumed in Senegal is imported rice (about 80 % of total rice supply)

� Government of Senegal: top priority in policy agenda “Achieving self-sufficiency in rice production by 2012”� Grand Offensive for Food and Abundance program,

� National Program for Rice Self-Sufficiency,� National Strategy for Development of Rice

Cultivation.

SRI: 6 practices

� Transplanting instead of broadcasting

� Distance between seedlings

� Age of seedlings

� Flooding approach

� Organic fertilisers

� Reduced use of pesticides or IPM approach

FFS on the use of pesticides

� Main training: Integrated Pest Management (IPM).

� Pest control approach that includes a variety of complementary strategies: prevention, observation, and intervention.

� To reduce the use of pesticides while managing pest populations at an acceptable level.

� Key to this approach is the use of traps, but also a number of sustainable land management practices:� use of resistant varieties,

� field sanitation,

� crop rotations,

� use of good quality and undamaged seed,

� monitoring of diseases and pest attack

� alternating different types insecticides to prevent the buildup of resistance;

Approach:

Literature

ReviewField Visit Key informant

interview

Formulate

strategy and

methodology

Focus groups+

value chain an.

Qualitative analysis

Quantitative analysis

Household

survey

Community

level survey

Qualitative findings

� Intensification doable: need to strenghten irrigation

system

� Knowledge diffusion: rice valley

� Value chain to be strenghten: processing, packaging

and commercialization

Sample selection

Done in several steps:

1. Selecting comparable communities (to the participant

communities).

2. Corroboration of communities selected through key

informant interviews and through field visits.

3. On selected communities participants and non –

participants were randomly assigned from the list

provided chèfs des villages and IPPM coordinators

Sample: survey

862 households:

� 1/3 participants

� 1/3 non participants in participant communities

� 1/3 non participants in non- participant communities

Participant communities (21) NON Participant communities(21)

Data

� Collected in the provinces of Dagana and Podor in December 2010-January 2011

� Quasi-experiment

� Common problem of missing data

�KEY: take greater care in defining control and treatment groups than is often done in literature and focus not only in the analysis but on careful data

collection

Analysis and outputs

� Preliminary analysis given data received very late

� Assumption that FFS participants are a good proxy for adoption of sustainable intensification practices

� Compare conventional agriculture with Sust. Intensified Agr. to measure impacts on:

� Farmers welfare:

� Productivity

� Yields, commercialization

� Health related: knowledge and precautions in using pesticides

� Environment:

� Use of agrochemicals

� Application of organic fertilizers

� Application of SCPI practices

What kind of households?

Variable Media Part No Part T-test

Years of education of HH head 2.3 2.67 2.168

Average age of HH head 48.94 44.14 50.66 ***

Female headed HH 9% 18% 7% ***

Family size 10.40 9.53 10.71

Ha of rice land 1.23 0.92 1.36 **

Impacts:

Participants Non Participants t-test Signif

Repiquage 32% 18% ***

Young-plants 52% 37% *

Distance 17% 16% *

Price seeds kg 295 387

Organic Fertilisers(kg/ha) 2883 215 ***

Nr_appl. Pest 1.03 1.19Cost_pest(USD/ha) 19.12 30.07 ***

Knowledge of pesticides’ hazards

9%

6%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

Participants*** Non Participants

Knowledge Pesticides Toxicity

Participants***

Non Participants

Using protection when applying pesticides

Percentage of farmers that use the following precautions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

gloves* boots helmet** pants glasses mask

Non Participants

Participants

Conclusions:

1. FFS relatively successful in knowledge

diffusion and application of sustainable

agriculture

2. Data on yield still very uncertain and to double

check

3. Intensification doable but not enough to reach

2050 objectives if value chain not strengthened

4. FFS as well as rice intensification policy need

to move one step further and strengthen post

harvest activities

Further research:

1. Results very preliminary

2. Need to check for spillover effects

3. Diversify by rice varieties

4. Diversify by type of irrigation system

5. Analyze gender difference and other

heterogeneous effects

THANK YOUfor your attention and to

MICCA for funding participation to the

conference

GRAZIE