Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

The Social and Economic Impacts of Conservation Agriculture

Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige

Hier ansehen

1 von 14 Anzeige
Anzeige

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Diashows für Sie (20)

Ähnlich wie The Social and Economic Impacts of Conservation Agriculture (20)

Anzeige

Weitere von FMNR Hub (20)

Aktuellste (20)

Anzeige

The Social and Economic Impacts of Conservation Agriculture

  1. 1. The Social and Economic Impacts of Conservation Agriculture – Zimbabwe Basin Experiences Kizito Mazvimavi Presentation to the Beating Famine Conference, 14-17 April 2015, Lilongwe, Malawi
  2. 2. Background Studies Documents Capacity Building 1. Extensive promotion of Conservation Agriculture (CA) by development agencies • targeting the poor and vulnerable 2. The use of incentives improved the uptake of planting basins CA 3. Insufficient labor often leads to reduced land utilization and late planting - leading to small yields
  3. 3. Assessing the Impacts of CA • Select a treatment village, where CA has been actively promoted • Control Village - in the same ward where CA has not been actively promoted • Need for a counterfactual to attribute impacts due to CA adoption Care not to attribute all livelihood benefits to CA in the absence of robust quantitative approaches could be oversimplification of an otherwise complex process
  4. 4. Zimbabwe CA Panel Surveys 2007-2011…13…15
  5. 5. Intensity of Adoption of CA Components of CA being adopted 1. Higher adoption intensity in higher rainfall areas 2. Receiving NGO support has a positive effect on adoption intensity 3. Time has a negative and significant coefficient - a farmer is likely to adopt fewer techniques in subsequent years from the base. Models to assess Intensity of Adoption (Mazvimavi & Twomlow 2009, and Pedzisa et al, 2014) for the Panel Studies
  6. 6. Why Some Smallholder Farmers Abandon Basin CA 1. Wealthier households are likely to pursue other off- farm livelihood strategies and conventional tillage 2. Larger families are less labour constrained and are likely to persist with digging basins 3. Farmers with more years of experience are likely to continue with basin CA 4. Farmers were more likely to abandon basin CA in 2010 when NGO activity declined compared to 2008. – The likelihood of quitting CA increased by 50% in 2010, then drops to 32 % in 2011 and finally 10% in 2009.
  7. 7. Impact Analysis Quantify some observed relationships to identify factors that contribute to: • Adoption of CA • Yield Impact Attributable to CA • Impact of CA on other Priorities • Aggregate Economic Effects of CA • R&D and Promotion
  8. 8. Yield Impacts of Adoption CA adopters have much higher yields that non-users, in part due to: • Household characterization, • Unmeasured individual attributes • Environmental factors • And the effects of CA itself Controlling for other factors CA => Yield improvement of 60% to 85% in 2011/2012 Similar impact on Maize and Small Grains
  9. 9. Impact of Other Priorities Self-Described Food Security Factors Increasing the Probability of Describing household as having enough food. Factors Decreasing the Probability of Describing the household as having enough food. Value of Assets =>+10% Female Headed Household =>-10% CA Training =>+12% Children Under 6 years => -4% Years for farming experience=>+1% Children 6-16 years => -3% Living in NR III*=>+18% Living in NR V* => -22% *Compared to NR IV
  10. 10. Aggregate Economic Impact • Compare economic costs and returns based on Area under CA (adoption rate) o attributable to CA R&D and promotion (not free input distributions) • Yield Impact • Value of increased production • Cost of R&D and Supplemental Extension Effort • All varying over time and discounting to NPV -Analysis uses DREAM model (IFPRI): Dynamic Research Evaluation for Management (Version 3, 2001) Based on Science Under Scarcity (Alston, Norton, Pardey, 1995) Widely applied to evaluate agric R&D
  11. 11. Impact to date (2001-2013) • Costs: ICRISAT costs for Conservation Agriculture = US$ 4 million over 5 years • Adoption rate attributable to CA -training = 30% • Yield Effect = 80% (based on 2011/2012) • Average import price for period = $250/MT => • NPV benefits = 19.954 million US$ (2001) • Internal Rate of Return = 36.95
  12. 12. Impacts to Date (2001-2013): Robustness check Scenario Parameters Results Adoption Rate Productivity Effect Share of CA R&D Costs Present Value of Benefits (Million US$) IRR 15% 40% 100% 4.941 10.32 15% 80% 100% 9.983 22.50 15% 40% 75% 4.941 15.92 15% 80% 75% 9.983 29.14 30% 40% 100% 9.983 22.50 30% 80% 100% 19.965 36.95 30% 40% 75% 9.983 29.14 30% 80% 75% 19.965 44.88 45% 40% 100% 14.974 30.64 45% 80% 100% 29.948 46.67 45% 40% 75% 14.974 38.00 45% 80% 75% 29.948 55.50
  13. 13. Policy Insights • CA significantly contributes to food production – CA provides essential option for farmers with land and draft constraints • High input demand may limit adoption – High labor demand – High demand for external inputs  There is potential to increase CA plot sizes through mechanization  There is need to include better resourced farmers as technology innovators.  Use of herbicides may reduce labor demand for weeding
  14. 14. Thank you! ICRISAT is a member of the CGIAR Consortium

×