ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE

The Impact of Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) Community Assets on Yield

GrowthFeiruz Yimer, Mekidim Dereje, Alemayehu seyoum Taffesse, Fanaye Tadesse and Bethelhem KoruIFPRI ESSP-II

HiltonDecember 13, 2013Addis Ababa

1

2

Introduction•Addressing persistent food insecurity remains a major problem in many parts of Ethiopia•To address such problem the government of Ethiopia in collaboration with others introduced the Food Security Program (FSP) in 2005.•The program combines a safety-net component that aims at closing the household food gap and at eliminating distress assets sales with food security interventions to bring households out of chronic insecurity •It includes providing food or cash for work and also direct support to households who are not able to participate in the public works.

3

Objective

• Assess the impact of community assets built by PSNP, particularly road construction and soil and water conservation, on the yield growth of both beneficiary and non-beneficiary households.

4

Data• Ethiopian Food Security Survey (EFSS) of four

year longitudinal data (2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012); including both

• Household level data• Community level data

• Sampling is done in multiple stages– Woredas were chosen from each of the four regions– Kebeles with active PSNP are randomly selected

(which serve as enumeration areas (EA))– In each EA, 15 beneficiary and 10 non-beneficiary

households, for a total of 25 households are selected

- The number of households for this study are 2,545 in 2006 and 3,702 in the rest of the rounds; we only use those who produce cereals, pulses and oilseeds

5

Methodology

• Descriptive statistics• Econometrics analysis:

Fixed effect estimation

6

Descriptive Statistics• The study areas are known for prevalence of

chronic poverty and for being drought prone. Prevalence of rainfall shock and crop damage in

the last 12 months

7

• Significant percentage of households that faced input price increase and lack of input access in 2008 and 2010.• More than 30% of households have also faced crop disease/pest damage

Prevalence of shocks relate to input and output prices, lack of input access, crop

disease or pest damage in the last two years

8

Prevalence individual and natural shocks in the last two years

•The incidence of drought in the areas is reported by more than 50% of households in the first three year.

9

Yield values by crop categories

Crop categories Statistics

Year2006 2008 2010 2012

Top 5 cerealsMean 5091 4753 4303 4898Median 3953 3704 3323 3704

Other cereals

Mean 5879 5619 3835 2966Median 4249 4317 2677 238

PulsesMean 8782 5813 6086 6638Median 5900 4461 3956 4334

Oil seedsMean 8089 4178 4100 5792Median 4776 2480 2641 2365

• The average yield level of the top five cereals has declined from 2006 to 2010.• The average yield level of the other cereals have also shown decline in the four rounds

10

Growth rate of yield

Statistics

Year

2006 2008 2010 2012

Real yield value

Mean 13,169 11,537 9,814 12,100

Median 8,971 8,396 6,739 8,277

Growth rate of real yield

value

Mean   -5% -9% 8%

Median -2% -9% 8%

• The average aggregate yield value shows an 8 percent increase in 2012 from 2010• In 2012 the growth rate of yield is positive in value unlike the previous two rounds.

11

Value of yield growth rate by PSNP beneficiary status

Year

  Public work non-

beneficiary

Public work

beneficiary

Direct support

non-beneficia

ry

Direct support

beneficiary

PSNP non-

beneficiary

PSNP benefici

ary2006

2008

Mean -5% -3% -4% -7% -5% -4%Median -4% 1% 0% -9% -3% 0%

2010

Mean -9% -9% -9% -9% -9% -9%Median -8% -9% -8% -12% -7% -10%

2012

Mean 9% 6% 9% 0% 11% 5%Median 8% 6% 8% 3% 9% 5%

•The PSNP beneficiaries have lower yield growth in 2012 and no difference in 2010 •In 2008 PSNP beneficiaries have slightly better growth rates than their non- beneficiary counterparts.

12

Percentage of households benefitting from road and Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) constructions by PSNP

 Year

2006 2008 2010 2012% of households that benefitted from improved market

access through road constructionHousehold

%age 12.9 22.2 24.3 18.7% of households that benefitted from improved

productivity through SWC constructionHousehold

%age 10.5 20.9 26.4 27.9

• Market access benefit from road construction through PSNP work is higher in 2008 and 2010.• Those who benefited productivity gain from SWC construction is the highest in 2012

13

Estimation Result

  Model I Model IILag of ln (yield real value) -0.099*** -0.116***Benefited from road construction -0.009 -0.012Benefited from SWC 0.023** 0.020**DS beneficiary -0.006 -0.010*PW beneficiary 0.002 -0.001Log (fertilizer per ha) 0.001***Hired labor 0.001Constant 0.872*** 1.032***

-SWC (soil and water conservation)-DS beneficiary (Direct support beneficiary-PW beneficiary (Public work beneficiary)- *** stands for 1% level of significance; ** stands for 5% level of significance and * for 10 % level of significance

Dependent variable is yield growth rate

14

Robustness Check

 Model

III Model IV Model VLag of ln (Yield real value) -0.117*** -0.130*** -0.133*** Benefited from road construction -0.011 -0.011 -0.012Benefited from SWC 0.020** 0.020** 0.021**DS beneficiary -0.010* -0.01 -0.011*PW beneficiary -0.001 -0.001 -0.001Log (fertilizer per ha) 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001***Hired labor 0.001 0.011 0.013Rainfall shock -0.051** -0.055** -0.055**Crop disease\pest damage -0.001 -0.003 -0.001Death -0.003 0.000Input price shock 0.011Output price shock -0.061Constant 1.087*** 1.201*** 1.237***

15

Discussion

• The effect of road construction through market access benefits is not statistically significant on yield growth.

• Communal asset of soil and water conservation positively changes the yield growth through productivity gain.

• The inclusion of fertilizer use, labor and different shocks in the model changes the result only slightly.

16

Conclusion• The soil and water conservation (SWC) activities

such as the building of bund and terracing, tree planting, and irrigation help rehabilitate the soil and water resources within the community.

• Communities that have implemented SWC projects may have lower level of flooding and erosion hazards.

• They also benefit from increased biodiversity and carbon sequestration resulting from forestry activities.

• As the areas under study are characterized as drought prone areas, the works on soil and water conservation in particular might have greater impact on productivity gains.