Adoption of Rainwater Management Practice in the Blue Nile

horseheadssolidInternet και Εφαρμογές Web

10 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 6 μήνες)

143 εμφανίσεις

Adoption of Rainwater Management

Practice in the Blue Nile

A Description and Analysis of


the
IFPRI

Farm Survey on Climate Change


Noémie
Defourny



Ms. in
Economics

, UCL (
Belgium
)

Internship Timeline


ILRI:


Static

Bio
Physical

Household

level

Model




Cikeda

(
Cirad
)
-

IAT

(
CSIRO
)


Solutions
Feasability

in
Boneya




ILRI
-
IWMI:


NBDC

Data set 2005
-
IFPRI




Nile Basin Development Challenge

Objective:
to
improve the resilience of rural livelihoods in the Ethiopian
highlands through a landscape approach to rainwater management
.



Water scarcity and land degradation



concerns livelihoods of millions





households in Sub
-
Saharan Africa


Water
for agriculture


crop production to feed population and Animal





70
to 90% of the all water used in the region.


Growing populations


Ne
ed


-

to
reverse land
degradation




-

to
improve water productivity.



Landscape
(watershed) approach to rainwater
management

To b
etter
target or ‘match’ promising technologies (or whole strategies) with
particular environments.

Nile Basin Development
Challenge

Objective
: creating feasibility maps for rainwater management
strategies that include socio
-
economic constraints.


One approach
: Mapping
W
illingness of
A
doption


Procedure :



Define adoption rules


Based on census data (=data for the whole basin),



simulate “virtual farmers”


Run adoption rules on the simulated farmer

N3

: on Targeting and scaling out

Integrating socio economic into
feasibility maps

Bio
-
physical suitability

Willingness to adopt

Feasibility map

Objective of the internship


Aggregate the IFPRI “Climate Change” survey
(phase 1) to farm level



Describe the dataset in terms of Water
R
elated and
Soil Conservation Practices



Compute Variables



Run first Adoption
M
odels


IFPRI

Farm

S
urvey on
Climate

Change (2005)


General
features
:





Geo
-
referenced

(GPS
coordinates
)





1,000 households (6,168 individuals)





3 Regions:
Fogera
,
Jeldu

and
Dapo

areas.


Gender





51.4% of male





48.6% of female




Ethnic

40% Oromo Ethnic group





31%
Amhara





15%
Tigrayan






15%
Beninshangul

Gumuz






5.00% from
SNPP



Religion


86.7% Christian





13% are Islamic.



Descriptive
Statistics



Household level Characteristics


90.10% household heads male


Age:

head45 years old




spouse 35 years


Size


< 6 persons


Farmer’s experience in agriculture

23 years


Education


5 years of school




50%

30%

20%

Literacy

Illiterate
Literate-read and write
formally
Literate-read and write
informally
Household characteristics (cont’d)

Assets


Drought power:

72.2% own oxen







32.4% donkey







12% own horse

Labor


Labor intensive:
Meher
, Livestock, Perennials




Own labor:






Hired labor:





Off
-
farm jobs: seasonal trends
Meher

>
Belg





(trader, paid laborers)



7%

69%

11%

13%

Total Labor Force Distribution

Belg
Meher
Perennial
Livestock
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Hired
Own
7%

93%

6%

94%

8%

92%

19%

81%

Distribution of Labor Source

Belg
Meher
Perennial
Livestock
Household characteristics (cont’d)


Land

Total 1.9 ha




3 plots/H, 0.79 Ha








Water Source

Rainfed

95.26%, river
2%




Distance to homestead


1.4 km








Certification






0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Percentage
of HH

Number of Plot per HH

Number of Plots Certified per Household

Household characteristics (cont’d)


Fertility


60% moderately






30% plots highly



Use










Erosion Exposure



50%

38.33%

11.6700%

No Erosion
Mild Erosion
High Erosion
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Percentage of HH

Number of plot per HH

Number of Plots per household Rented or Shared

Access to Water


Distance


31.7 km


Source of Water





Pump

2.60 %
Hh




Type


Diesel ; 23% Manual




Ownership

69.20% HH jointly




Purpose

Irrigate the crops; garden


36%

1.90%

13.20%

12.40%

3.10%

1%

30.10%

1.40%

River or lake
Hand-dug or Drilled private borehole/well
Public hand-dug or Drilled borehole/well
Public stand-pipe
Tap water (public supply)
Other (rain water, dam..)
Spring water
Stream water
Access to Water (cont’d)


Water Storage

8.50%
Hh




Type




Ownership



Purpose

26.32

14.47

38.16

5.26

2.63

13.16

Hand-dug borehole/well
Drilled borehole/well
Pond/Lake
Micro reservoir/dam
Barrel/cistern
Other
0

10.53

65.79

11.84

1.32

5.26

Irrigation of garden and crops
Livestock watering
Drinking water
Fish
Other
3.95

28.95

21.05

26.32

10.53

9.21

Unknown
HH has ownership
with other households/far
Farmer association
Water user association
Other
Access to Advice, Market and Credits


Access to Advice




Access to Market






Transportation



93.83% On foot






3.34%. Animal






2.43% Motorized vehicle





Crop production

Livestock Activities

Training

47.10%

53.30%

Visit

5

4

Input

Output

Distance Km

5.66 km

5.70 km

Travel Distance

8.91 hrs

11.32 hrs

Access to Advice, Market and Credits (cont’d)


Access to Credit






50.00% have at least borrowed money once.

Purpose




Source




Frequency



28%

12%

24%

9%

28%

To buy farm input
To buy livestock
To buy food or household good
To pay Health Expenses
Other
11.3%

9.0%

5.7%

4.8%

2.1%

1.2%

0.5%

0.4%

0.2%

Governmental Organization
Neighbors
Credit Association
Farmer Association
Micro Finance Institution
Private Money Lender
Other source
Women Association
NGO
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1
2
3
4
5
Percentage
Household

Number of Credit contracted

Shocks and Aid


Aid


Reason for aid activity’ implementation






Type


38.52

9.54

1.41

4.95

3.89

2.12

2.12

15.55

3.53

3.89

0.71

11.66

1.77

0.35

Drought
Flood
Hailstorm
Landslide
Pests of crops before harvest
Animal disease
Other (specify)
To prevent malarial outbreak
As part of development activities
Income generation
To increase crop production
Social Security/Health care
protect shocks of drought and flood
To assist new settlers
18.31

53.87

10.92

16.9

Cash for work (ETB)
Food for work (kg)
Food,Emergency Relief
(kg)
Mosquito (bed) nets
Crop level Characteristics




Fragmentation

7%

11%

18%

24%

30%

35%

43%

45%

49%

53%

100%

Maize
Teff
Barley
Wheat
Millet
Beans
Fieldpeas
Oil Seed
Sesame
Coffee
Potato
30%

10%

3%

1%

97%

90%

77%

59%

43%

29%

18%

12%

8%

4%

2%

1%

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
% of HH

Number of plot per HH

Crop distribution per household

Meher
Belg

Type

Crop level Characteristics (cont’d)


Irrigation





Fertilizer

15.42

16.74

15.42

5.73

40.53

6.16

Type of Irrigation used for Plot
-
Berg

Flood
Furrow
Surface drip
Individual (Hose,Bucket,Watering
Can)
Flowing river
Other
0
50
100
150
200
Amount of Urea
(33.62%)
Amount of DAP
(37.16%)
Amount of
Manure (19.46%)
Amount of
Compost (9.73%)
Mean quantity
applied on plot

Fertilizer use on Plot
-
Belg

0
50
100
150
200
250
Mean of
quantity
applied on
crop

Fertilizer's use on crop
-
Meher

Crop level Characteristics (cont’d)


Soil

Conservation techniques


74.5%
households

practices
at

least one type




Type



0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Soil bund
Stone bund
Grass strip
Water way
Planting tree
Ploughing
along the
contour
Others
Do not
practice
Perennials


Type





Purpose













8%

4%

3%

2%

3%

9%

16%

5%

7%

44%

Other
Kulkual
Banana
Abocado
Mango
Gesho
Coffee
Chat
Enset
Eucalyptus
25.14

11.18

12.57

8.71

0.33

0.41

11.18

4.68

0.98

1.4

0.25

22.18

Source of income by selling firewood, l
Source of income by selling wood as con
For own use as fuel wood
For own use as construction material
Soil conservation
Shade
Income security (Eg. In case of crop fa
More profitable than annual crops
Used as fence
For making instruments of production
Perennials (cont’d)


Irrigation



4.10%
Hh







Furrow at 48.44% , sprinkle






1 pump



Fertilizers


Only Manure






4.30% of household






6.20% perennials



Share



78.2% perennials

-

100% plot






20.81% perennials


-

≤50% plot



Sell



36.9% of household


Livestock


92.3% of household
-

3,576 animals.


17.4% of livestock are lost of disease






Type


93%

84%

70%

52%

33%

17%

7%

2%

1%

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Percentage of
household

Number of livestock owned

0.98

17.7

0.98

1.59

4.36

13.79

3.78

3.08

9.93

3.58

20.58

14.46

3.38

1.01

0.8

Cattle (for meat)
Cattle (for milk)
Oxen for fattening
Breeding Bulls
Goat
Sheep
Lamb
Beehives
Donkey
Horse
Oxen
Chicken
Calf
Heifer
other
Livestock (cont’d)


Source of Feed:






Source of water:


41%

10%

15%

12%

4%

18%

Communal grazing
Private grazing
Crop Residue
CR + Communal grazing
Private and Communal grazing
Grain and leftovers
1.5%

0.7%

5.9%

1.2%

0.4%

55.6%

2.0%

3.7%

28.9%

public surface canals from public dam
public well + public pumping
public river storage + private pumping
water harvesting
rain-fed
river
spring
stream
from domestic consumption
Perception of Climate Change
(over last 20 yrs)


Variation of Rainfall



Declined according to 61.53%
Hh


Variation of Temperature



# of Hot Days, 67.72%
Hh


Perceived Cause of rainfall variation


Poor vegetation cover (78.98% )


Variation of vegetation cover


50%
Hh

unchanged, for 35%






decreasing.


Major constraints in changing your farming ways

22%

2%

7%

7%

3%

19%

5%

2%

24%

0%

2%

1%

3%

3%

Shortage of land
Poor soil fertility
Shoratge of labor
Shoratge of agricultural input supply
Shoratge of rain
Lack of information/knowledge
Lack of farm animals/oxen
Climate change
Lack of money
lack of environmental immunity
No water potential for irrigation
Lack of farm tools
Lack of professional advice
No constraints/problems
Perception of Climate Change
(cont’d)


Adjustments made to LT shifts

-

in temperature




-

in rainfalls






57%

5%

24%

15%

1%

8%

2%

0%

2%

0%

0%

5%

3%

0%

Nothing
Implement soil conservation schemes
Changed crop variety
Put trees for shading
Water harvesting
Afforestation
Sought off-farm activities
Late planting
Early planting
Migrated to urban area
Used irrigation
Sold livestock
42%

41%

18%

7%

9%

1%

5%

5%

1%

3%

0%

3%

1%

Nothing
Implement soil conservation schemes
Changed crop variety
Planted trees
Water harvesting
Late planting
Early planting
Used irrigation
Migrated to urban area
Found off-farm activities
Changed farming type (from crop to live
Reduced number of livestock
Adopted new technologies
Willingness

to
Adopt

Model Specification


The framework can be estimated with a multivariate PROBIT
estimation. Qualitative depend variable

Probit
: linear
probability model

y=
α
+
β
n,i

x
n,i
+ β
n+1,i

x
n+1,i

i


y= Pr(
PumpT
)




Coefficient Estimators are not BLUE








is not a good measure of equation




performance.


Pseudo
-
r² (
goodness
-
of fit, maximum
loglikelihood
)



Results
:

1.

Adoption of Pump as a Water Management Strategy
technology

Variables computation

Explanatory Variable

PUMP ADOPTION

Marginal Effects of the
Average Household

Household Size
(persons)

HHSIZE1

+

0.003889

Distance to Market for
Input (hrs)

MARKETINPUT2

-

-
0.00235

Number of Task for
which Labor was Hired

HHHIRELABOR

+

0.000923

Whether the household
owns or not at least one
oxen

OXENTBin

+

0.014394

The number of visit on
crop production and
livestock

VISITAGG

+

0.0007689

Constant

CONSTANT

-

0.01456

If
SlopeFlat

>0

Spatial Restriction

Pseudo
-


0.1893

Number of
obs.

572

First Adoption
Models

2. Adopting Planting tree as a SWC technique


Variables computation

Explanatory Variable

Planting Tree
for SWC
ADOPTION

Marginal Effects of the
Average Household

Age of the Household
Leader

HHHEADAGE

-

-
0.0034156

Religion of the Household
Head

RELIGION

-

-
0.0961367

Total ha of land owned

LANDHOLDINGTOTAL

+

0.1843855

Squared of Total ha of land
owned

LANDHOLDINGTOTAL²

-

-
0.0370873

The average distance from
plot to Homestead

AVERAGEDISTANCEPL
OTHOMESTEAD

-

-
0.0195627

Whether the household has
received visit on crop
production or livestock
activities along if they have
attended a training on either
two focus

ACCESSTOADVICE

+

0.05388

CONSTANT

-

0.09679

ErosionSevereBin
>0
or

ErosionMildB
>0

Spatial

Restriction



Pseudo
-


0.104

Number of obs.

724

3.
Adoption of SC Techniques

(Soil bunds, Stone bunds, Grass Stripes and
Plouhging

contour)


Variables computation

Explanatory Variable


SC techniques
ADOPTION

Marginal Effects of
the Average
Household

Primary Residence with Metal
Roof

METALROOF

+

0.1915296

Primary Residence concrete
stone/bricks

CONCRETEHOUSE

+

0.2155

Number of Plot

HHNUMBERPLOT

+

0.03245

Number of Task for which
Labor was Hired

HHHIRELABOR

-

-
0.0045387

Total ha of land owned

LANDHOLDINGTOTAL

-

-
0.189

Has received visit (crop &
livestock)

VISITBIN

+

0.1438

Soil conservation aid
-
binary

SOILCONSERVAIDBIN

+

0.3734

Distance Market Input (hrs)

MARKETINPUT2

+

0.00713

CONSTANT

+

0.05959

SlopeInclinedBinary
>
0 or
SlopeSteepBinary
>0

Spatial

Restriction

Pseudo
-


0.2058

Number of obs.

442

Results


PUMPS

More productive farmers, closer to market, hiring
labour, owning oxen and being informed.


TREE PLANTING

Plot near homestead, middle size farmers


SC TECHNIQUES

Poorer farmers, further
from market &
more likely to
received Aid





Thank you for


your Attention





&


Thank you for


welcoming

me at ILRI/IWMI!