Upload
ifsd14
View
36
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
International Food Security Dialogue 2014
May 2nd, 2014: University of AlbertaTheme: “Enhancing Food Production, Gender Equity and Nutritional Security in a Changing
World”
Participatory Plant Breeding in Honduras: An Economic Impact Assessment
Sebastian Daly KindsvaterDr. Sally Humphries
Dr. Getu Hailu
Background
• PPB project: funded by IDRC/USC Canada-CIDA since 1999
• Project goals:– Increase food security through improvement of
maize and bean varieties by Honduran farmers– Increase productive capacity of farmers through
capacity building– Increase economic development by value addition
to local production, linking local economies to markets, etc.
Background
• PPB: Participatory Plant Breeding– A plant breeding process whereby seed varieties
are designed, tested and diffused by farmers– Seed varieties produced as a result of the PPB
process: PPB varieties• CIAL: Local Agricultural Research Committee
– Teams of farmers conduct plant breeding research to determine which varieties are best suited to local conditions
Motivation
• Prior studies claim:– PPB variety adoption and CIAL membership are
associated with increased yield levels
• Studies lack quantitative evidence
• We intend to further understanding of the economic impacts of the PPB approach focusing on bean production.
Research Questions
• Does PPB variety adoption have a positive effect on bean yield levels?
• Does CIAL membership have a positive effect on bean yield levels?
Methods/Data
• Primary data collected: Spring and Fall 2012
• Bean yield data based on farmer reporting
• 314 surveys from 40 communities
• Our analysis will focus on 30 communities
• Kruskal-Wallis Test, Ordinary Least Squares, Propensity Score Matching
Take Home Messages
1) Variety adoption decisions are complex:• Rankings/Previous studies• Yield is not the only adoption consideration
2) PPB variety adoption may not have a positive effect on yields in 2012:
• High and low yielding PPB varieties• Econometric analysis (OLS, PSM, K-W test)
3) The impact of CIAL membership on yields is unclear in 2012:• Spring : Positive effect on yield• Fall: Negative effect on yield• Econometric analysis (OLS,PSM)
1)Variety Adoption Decisions are Complex
Variety Categories and Traits
Rank Yield Drought Resistance
Flood Resistance
Pest Resistance
Disease Resistance
Taste Days to Maturity
Sale Value
1 Marcelino(*)
Marcelino(*)
Marcelino (*)
Amadeus (***)
Marcelino (*)
Vaina Rosada
(**)
Vaina Rosada
(**)
Marcelino (*)
2 Macuzalito (*)
Cedron(*)
Vaina Rosada
(**)
Macuzalito (*)
Amadeus (***)
Marcelino (*)
Macuzalito (*)
Deoro (***)
3 Cedron (*)
Carrizalito(***)
Macuzalito (*)
Cedron (*)
Chepe (*)
Deoro (***)
Carrizalito (***)
Macuzalito (*)
(*)PPB (**)Traditional (***)Conventional (n=245)
• PPB varieties: improved by farmers through formal research (design testing diffusion)
• Traditional varieties: improved by farmers through informal research (testing diffusion)
• Conventional varieties: improved by scientists through formal research (design testing diffusion)
Variety Adoption Rates by SeasonSpring 2012 (n=127) Fall 2012 (n=140)
Old-CIAL New-CIAL Non-CIAL
68%64%
40%
21% 18%
39%
11%18% 21%
PPB TraditionalConventional
Old-CIAL New-CIAL Non-CIAL
69% 69%
61%
22%17%
28%
9%14% 11%
PPB TraditionalConventional
2) PPB Variety Adoption has no Positive Effect on Yields in 2012
Yield by Variety Type and Season
Spring 2012 (n=124) Fall 2012 (n=140)
998
808868
972911
848
PPB Traditional Conventional
Yield by Variety Type and SeasonSpring 2012 Fall 2012
PPB TRADITIONAL CON PPB TRADITIONAL CON
01
000
200
03
000
400
0Y
ield
Kilo
s/H
ect
are
0 10 20 30 40Individual Bean Variety (Spring 2012)
010
0020
0030
0040
00Y
ield
Kilo
s/H
ecta
re
0 10 20 30 40 50Individual Bean Variety (Fall 2012)
Non-Parametric Test of Yield Distributions
• Kruskal Wallis equality of populations rank test shows no difference between PPB, traditional and conventional in either season, w/r/t yield levels
SPRING 2012 FALL 2012Variety Type # Obs Chi
Squared w/ Ties
Probability # Obs Chi Squared w/ Ties
Probability
PPB 70 1.395d.f.=2
0.498 93 3.150d.f.=2
0.207
Traditional 34 31Conventional 20 16
OLS Regression and PSM Results
• Spring: PPB adoption has no effect on yields• Fall: PPB adoption has a negative effect on
yields (relative to traditional varieties)
SPRING 2012 FALL 2012ATET (z-value)
OLS Coefficient (t-stat)
ATET (z-value)
OLS Coefficient(t-stat)
-2.307 (-0.02)
0.031(0.21)
-101.393 (-1.08)
-0.342**(-2.08)
3) The Impact of CIAL Membership on Yields is Unclear
Yield by CIAL Membership and Season
Spring 2012 (n=124) Fall 2012 (n=142)
1001
726805 838
979 967
Old-CIAL New-CIAL Non-CIAL
OLS Regression and PSM Results
• Spring: CIAL membership has a positive effect on yields
• Fall: CIAL membership has a negative effect on yields
SPRING 2012 FALL 2012ATET (z-value)
OLS Coefficient (t-stat)
ATET (z-value)
OLS Coefficient (t-stat)
339.839***(3.93)
0.024(0.16)
-407.230***(-3.55)
-0.092(-0.55)
Conclusions
• PPB adoption may not have a positive effect on yield levels– High and low yielding varieties within each
category– PPB does not dominate other categories in either
season– PPB and conventional varieties may come from
the same origins
Conclusions
• The impact of CIAL membership on yield levels is unclear in 2012– Spring 2012: Positive effect– Possibly resulting from better productive practices,
access to improved seed varieties (focus group answers)– Fall 2012: Negative effect – Entrepreneurial of CIAL members may be more inclined
to take risks – Yield may not be the most important adoption
characteristic for Old-CIAL members (eg. commercial value)
Final Thoughts
• Given yield fluctuations by season and variety type, our results support arguments for increased access to a broad range of varieties (agrobiodiversity and resilience)
• Our study highlights the complexity of impact assessment and mixed methods studies
THANK YOU
Happy to answer any questions
Qualitative Responses
CIAL Member Perception of Benefits
21%
79%
Has your income increased as a result of CIAL mem-bership? (n=199)
No (n=41) Yes (n=158)
Focus Group Responses: Ranked Benefits
1) Access to Improved seed varieties2) More food/better nutrition3) Better grain storage/More personal satisfaction and self-
esteem4)Better productive practices/Better ability to teach children
and family5)Ability to produce new seed varieties6)Leadership and the participation of women7) More opportunities to generate income8) Better quality of life9) Better access to credit/Increased productivity