Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Presented at the Beating Famine Southern Africa conference
14-17 April 2015
Menale Kassie and Paswel Marenya, CIMMYT-Kenya
Economic Incentives for the adoption of sustainable intensification practices(SIPs)
Sample household size in maize based
farming system(2013/14)
Ethiopia- 875
Malawi- 732
Kenya- 550
Tanzania-541
Mozambique- 400
Sample household size in maize based
farming system(2013/14)
Ethiopia- 875
Malawi- 732
Kenya- 550
Tanzania-541
Mozambique- 400
Sample household size in maize based
farming system(2013/14)
Ethiopia- 875
Malawi- 732
Kenya- 550
Tanzania-541
Mozambique- 400
country Weeding frequency
Ploughing frequency
Ethiopia 2.45 3.57Kenya 1.17 0.96Malawi 1.26 1.00Tanzania 1.88 1.29Mozambique 2.28 1.18
Maize yield (t/ha) for improved maize varieties-excluding recycled varieties
Incentives for the adoption of SIPs
Sample size (maize based farming systems)• 1, 920 households(hhlds)• 2, 900 Maize plots• Data collected in 2010/11
Sample size (maize based farming systems)• 2, 500 hhlds & over 4,500 maize
plots collected in 2010/11• 2, 400 hhlds & over 3, 900 maize
plots collected in 2013/14
Intercropping (I)
Rotation (R)
Variety (V)
R1I0V0(5.68%)
R0I1V0(16.43%)
R1I1V1(4.52%)
R1I0V1(7.19%)
R0I1V1(18.89%)
R0I0V1(24.71%)
R0I0V0(19.44%)
R1I1V0
(3.15%)
Synergies from joint adoption of technologies largely forgone (Malawi)
Impacts of SIPs adoptionDiversificationImproved variety
rotmzlegcr maizevarresidtill
Conservation tillage
D1V0T0
(11%)
D1V1T0(13.0%)
D0V1T0(31.3%)
D1V0T1(3.7%)
D0V1T1(10.9%)
D1V1T1(3.9%)
D0V0T1
(6.2%)
D0V0T0(19.2%)
Synergies from joint adoption of technologies largely forgone (Ethiopia)
N fertilizer (kg/ha)
Combination of SIPsInput subsidized farmer
Unsubsidized farmer
Intercropping + rotation +improved varieties (RVI) 15.91** NE
Intercropping (I) 9.67*** -2.02*Rotation (R) 10.66*** -6.22**Improved varieties (V) 12.26*** 6.09***Intercropping + rotation (RI) 8.17** NEIntercropping + improved varieties (VI) 10.08*** -2.06Rotation + improved varieties (RV) 9.92*** -5.11**
Outcome
Herbicides +Pesticide applications (Lit./acre)Adoption status Adoption
EffectsAdopting(j= 2,. . .,8)
Non- Adopting(j=1)
D E F=(D-E)
I 0.26 (0.03) 1.28 (0.63) -1.01 (0. 63)**
R 0.02 (0.01) 0.86 (1.06) -0.83 (1.05)
V 1.86 (0.22) 0.36 (0.56) 1.50 (0.60)***
RI 0.11 (0.05) 1.88 (1.60) -1.78 (0.68)***
VI 0.13 (0.03) 1.66 (0.77) -1.53 (0.77)**
RV 0.10 (0.02) 1.10 (1.67) -0.99 (1.67)
RVI 0.12 (0.02) 1.54 (1.14) -1.42 (1.14)*
Multiple SIPs adoption reduces production costs-Malawi
Figure . Cumulative distribution for the impact of fertilizer subsidy on net crop income (‘000)
0.2
.4.6
.81
CD
F
0 200 400 600Net crop income (MK/acre)
Without fertilizer subsidyWith fertilizer subsidy
Multiple SIPs adoption reduces production costs-Ethiopia
Outcome
Adoption status –herbicides+ Pesticides (lit/ha)
Adoption EffectsAdopting
(j= 2,. . .,8)Non-Adopting
(j=1)Improved maize
varieties(V)1.50 (0.00002) 1.11 (0.002) 0.389 (0.002)***
Intercropping/rotations (D)
1.01 (0.003) 1.11 (0.004) -0.096 (0.006)***
Minimum tillage 1.50 (0.0003) 1.16 (0.007) 0.345 (0.007)***
V+D 1.05 (0.002) 1.09 (0.004) -0.046 (0.004)***
V+T 1.74 (0.002) 1.10 (0.004) 0.635 (0.005)***
D+T 1.05 (0.006) 1.12 (0.008) -0.065 (0.009)***
V+D+T 1.08 (0.009) 1.09 (0.007) -0.011 (0.011)
OutcomeAdoption status –N fertilizer (kg/ha)
Adoption EffectsAdopting(j= 2,. . .,8)
Non-Adopting(j=1)
V 25.97 (0.42) 17.01 (0.30) 8.96 (0.51)***
D 7.03 (0.24) 14.99 (0.40) -7.96 (0.47)***
T 12.02 (0.72) 16.99 (0.26) -4.96 (0.77)***
V+D 22.86 (0.37) 17.60 (0.45) 5.26 (0.58)***
V+T 16.04 (0.59) 11.57 (0.32) 4.46 (0.68)***
D+T 20.76 (3.12) 30.76 (0.22) -9.99 (3.13)***
V+D+T 15.07 (0.67) 22.49 (0.45) -7.41 (0.80)***
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30
50
100
150
200
250
Adoption of crop diversification and Minimum tillage
Non-adoption Adoption
Farmers’ risk behavior index
Cost
of r
isk
(kg/
ha)
• SIPs reduce cost of risk but higher reduction achieved when they are adopted jointly • SIPs avoid the traditional high-risk, high-return (low-risk, low return) tradeoff
Source: Kassie et al. (2015), Journal of agricultural Economics
Multiple SIPs adoption reduces downside and cost of risks-Malawi
• Income increases as combination of SIPs increases
• Net crop income increases by – 117-171%
when improved maze varieties combined with legume rotations and intercropping
Net crop income: net of fertilizer, seeds, pesticides and hired labour
Source: Kassie et al. (2014)
Net crop income: net of fertilizer, seeds, pesticides, hired labour and oxen
Source: Kassie et al. (2014)
• Income increases as combination of SIPs increases
• Net crop income increases by – 14-41% when
improved maze varieties combined with minimum tillage, intercropping/rotations
0.2
.4.6
.81
CD
F
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000Calore consumption per adult equivalent (Kcal)
Calore consumption with V0D0Calore consumption with V1D0Calore consumption with V0D1Calore consumption with V1D1
0.2
.4.6
.81
CD
F
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Consumption Diversity (Simpson Index)
Consumption diversity with V0D0Consumption diversity with V1D0Consumption diversity with V0D1Consumption diversity with V1D1
Multiple SIPs adoption improves household nutrition security and diversity (Ethiopia)
V-improved maize varieties; D-crop diversification (legume-maize intercropping and rotation)
Source: Kassie et al. (2014): work on-progress
From Results to Lessons: Implications• Practices that conserve natural resources (moisture, soil, nutrients)
also reduce costs of production– Suggesting clear opportunities for sustainable intensification using
“simple” techniques: • Such as legume intercrops/rotations, reduced frequency of tillage
• Risk is a major objective (perhaps co-equal to productivity)– SIPs practices reduce downside and cost of risks– Providing extra incentives for adoption
• Joint adoption provides more benefits than individual adoption of practice
• An in-depth diagnosis of farmers production problems to increase modern inputs productivity
0 1 2 3 4 5 60
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Kenya Malawi Ethiopia Tanzania
Number of SIPs
Ado
ptio
n ra
te, %
Level of adoption of SIPs
SIPs: chemical fertilizer, improved seeds, manure, minimum tillage, crop diversification (legume intercropping/rotations), SWC
