Impacts of aflatoxin contamination on livelihoods of the poor households

Marites Tiongco, IFPRI

on behalf of the Aflacontrol team

November 30, 2011

International Food Policy Research Institute International Center for the Improvement of Maize

and Wheat International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics University of Pittsburgh

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences ACDI/VOCA/Kenya Maize Development Program Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Institut d’Economie Rurale The Eastern Africa Grain Council

Used semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions(value chain approach): • Role of maize in people’s

livelihoods (diversified by gender)

• Production, storage, marketing practices

• Sources of information regarding inputs, improving production practices, disease, market information

• Knowledge about aflatoxin risk

Kenya – 6 villages – 3 east; 3 west

• Conducted household surveys t o 1344 HHs in

Kenya (from 120 sublocations in 6 AEZ)+ 300 HHs from prevalence sample;

• Main objective is to assess the effect of “aflatoxin contamination” on income and wealth.

• We take the farm household as the unit of analysis

• Treat aflatoxin contamination as a negative externality to the production function

• Measure health costs and production costs (including aflatoxin contamination)

Sample of 217 HHs from districts that experienced aflatoxicosis outbreak in 2004 in Kenya—151 HHs are in dry transitional and 66 are in dry mid altitude)

Number of sublocation

Number of households

per sublocaton

Number of household

Lowland Tropics 15 6 90

Dry mid-altitudes 18 12 217

Dry transitional 18 12 203 Moist Transitional 30 12 354

Moist Mid-altitudes 20 12 240

Highlands 20 12 240

total 1344

Dry Transitional

Dry Mid-Altitudes

Moist Mid-Altitude

Moist Transitional High Tropics Low Tropics

All Households

Proportion of female household heads 19% 22% 25% 14% 17% 8% 18% Household head's age (years) 55 52 52 52 52 52 52 Household head's years of education 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 Years of farming experience 29 28 24 27 26 24 26

Low Tropics

Dry Mid-altitudes

Dry Transitional

Moist Transitional

High Tropics

Moist Mid-Altitude

All Households

Household size 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 Proportion of children (<15 years old) in the household 39% 41% 49% 37% 41% 48% 42%

(<5 years old) 11% 12% 12% 10% 10% 12% 11%

Annual income (in 1000 KShs) 157,961 98,474 106,982 368,925 188,811 142,727 200,298

Share of income from maize to total annual income 20.5% 28.9% 26.2% 9.3% 22.0% 21.7% 16.5%

Dry Transitional

Dry Mid-Altitudes

Moist Mid-Altitude

Moist Transitional

High Tropics Low Tropics

All Households

Maize area 2010 (ha) 4.1 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.5

Maize produced 2010 (kg) 1384 1272 1404 1736 1960 1367 1561

Maize yield (kg/ha) 385 316 375 878 1228 487 672

Maize sold 2010 (kg) 1321 230 219 1648 369 193 693

Households selling maize (%) 26% 29% 23% 25% 37% 13% 26%

Dry Transitional

Dry Mid-Altitudes

Moist Mid-Altitude

Moist Transitional

High Tropics

Low Tropics All Households

Cash transfers and others 21.5% 29.4% 27.2% 22.1% 43.0% 26.7% 26.8%

Maize production 20.5% 28.9% 26.2% 9.3% 22.0% 21.7% 16.5%

Salary employment 27.8% 17.6% 22.1% 6.3% 12.5% 26.5% 13.2%

Cash crop (tea,coffee) 4.0% 1.1% 5.9% 12.9% 26.0% 1.7% 11.9%

Food crops (includes F&V) 6.7% 8.4% 14.8% 5.2% 15.4% 18.0% 8.9%

Livestock 2.5% 7.8% 5.1% 3.0% 9.2% 2.5% 4.5%

Off-farm work 6.2% 10.0% 5.2% 1.6% 2.8% 4.2% 3.5%

Number of income sources 3 3 3 4 3 3 3

Note: The Household Food Insecurity Index (Coates et al) ranges from 0 -27 with 0 being the least food insecure and 27 being the most food insecure. Given the food insecurity situation, the most vulnerable to demand shocks would be the poorest among the poor HHs.

0 2 4 6 8p 50 of hfias

high tropics

moist transitional

dry transitional

lowland tropics

moist mid-altitudes

dry mid-altitutes

Note: Income changes are higher for those HHs with higher share of income from maize; income effects on average are small

Low

Tropics Dry Mid-altitudes

Dry Transitional

Moist Transitional

High Tropics

Moist Mid-altitudes

All Households

50% loss in production + 50% fall in price 17% 21% 18% 12% 13% 16% 14%

50% reduction in price of maize 11% 14% 12% 8% 8% 11% 10%

70% reduction in price of maize 16% 20% 17% 11% 12% 15% 14% 50% increase in price (effect on net buyers) 32% 63% 54% 30% 46% 37% 30%

Share of income from maize production to total household income on average is small because of diversified income sources

Income changes are higher for those households with higher share of income from maize

Income effects due to price changes are significant relative to maize income increase in prices affects net buyers more

Estimate the productivity loss in terms of human health effects

Investigate if there are differences in income effects between high risk and low risk areas using prevalence data