Agricultural Technology and the Hungry Season: Evidence from NERICA Rice in Sierra Leone Rachel Glennerster and Tavneet Suri

Transcription

1 Agricultural Technology and the Hungry Season: Evidence from NERICA Rice in Sierra Leone Rachel Glennerster and Tavneet Suri Nidhi Parekh 7 th July, 2017 Impacts of international agricultural research: Rigorous evidence for policy Nairobi, Kenya

2 Outline 1. Research Question 2. Motivation 3. The Technology: NERICA Seeds 4. Experimental Design 5. Results 6. Value Added 7. Conclusion

3 Research Questions What would the impact of NERICA, a new seed variety for rice be on yields and subsequently, child nutrition in Sierra Leone? Can there be a causal relation between increased investment in small holder agriculture and child nutrition? (addressing child nutrition in SL)

4 Motivation: Cereal Yields by Region

5 Motivation: Low Use of Improved Varieties in Sub-Saharan Africa

6 Motivation: Africa Lags on Improvements in Stunting Percentage of under 5s stunted and overweight, 1990 and 2014

7 Motivation: Sierra Leone Agriculture in Sierra Leone: Agriculture is the single most important component of Sierra Leone s economy. Contributes 40% of GDP (WB, 2011) In 2011, 57% of households were crop-producing (WB, 2011) Rice is the main crop, 87% of rural farming hh are rice harmers, only 6% of rice harvests are sold (AHTS, 2011) 94% of hh need to purchase imported rice, equivalent to 45% (by weight) of their own rice harvest Poverty in Sierra Leone: PPP adjusted GDP per capita for Sierra Leone is $1400 (2013). It ranks 208th out of 229 countries. Child health in Sierra Leone: Worst under 5 mortality rate in the world (UNICEF, 2014) High rates of child malnourishment: 35% undernourished i.e. eat less than 1809 kcal/day (FAO, 2010), 22% underweight, 34% stunted, 7% wasting (UNICEF, 2010)

8 Motivation: Seasonality in Sierra Leone

9 The Technology: NERICA Seeds NERICA: New Rice for Africa Seeds a cross between African and Asian rice varieties. an early-maturing, high-yielding variety of rice. Other attributes: can be reused in subsequent years, pest resistant, regular maturity, upland variety, rain fed Duration: days (Africa Rice Center); 105 days (measured in a field trial by Genesis Farms) Standard or local upland varieties duration is days

10 Experimental Design RCT: 2-stage randomization: Village and individual level to test for spillover effects. Sample Size: 221 Cross randomized with a training intervention.

11 Experimental Design: Training Intervention Extension services were provided in three stages 1. Land preparation and seeding (seed priming and seeding rates) 2. Crop husbandry (nutrients, weed control and pest/disease control) 3. Post-harvest practices (timing, threshing, cleaning, drying and storing) Each stage involved two visits by the extension agent: 1. Provide information. 2. Monitor progress after 3 weeks. Training plays an important role in the results.

12 Experimental Design: Timeline

13 Results: Take Up

14 Preview of Results Yields: With proper training, the new rice variety raises yields. Harvest Season: Harvests start about five weeks earlier for treated households. Child Health: In addition, there are positive, significant and sizeable impacts on child health. Spillovers: No evidence of any spillovers as of two years post intervention. Training: Striking result is that training helps! Not common in a lot of other agriculture RCTs that look at training.

15 Results: Harvest Week and Purchase of Imports (1) (2) (3) (4) Average Planting Week Earliest Harvest Week Purchased Imports Quantity Purchased (Kg) Treated and Trained *** * ** [0.512] [1.518] [0.060] [29.523] Treated Only *** *** [0.368] [1.583] [0.026] [25.399] Spillover [0.419] [1.334] [0.019] [28.902] Control Mean P-Value for T1=T R-Squared Observations Note: All regressions include strata fixed effects. Earliest harvest and average planting week are defined based on the week number since January of that year. Thirty four weeks represents early September. The quantity of imports purchased in column 4 is unconditional.

16 Results: Yields (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Yields Yields, Winsorized 1% Yields, Winsorized 5% Any Rice Sold Some Crop Failure Germination Issues Insects Treated and Trained ** ** ** [19.397] [19.241] [17.750] [0.047] [0.065] [0.050] [0.064] Treated Only ** *** [18.818] [18.554] [16.622] [0.056] [0.062] [0.050] [0.069] Spillover * [14.875] [14.089] [13.005] [0.037] [0.038] [0.026] [0.051] Control Mean P-Value for T1=T R-Squared Observations Note: All regressions include strata fixed effects. In column 2, the yields above the top percentile were winsorized and in column 3, the yields above the top fifth percentile were winsorized.

17 Results: Child Health (2 surveys stacked) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Weight for Height Z Score Body Mass Index for Age MUAC Full Sample Trim WHO Trim Full Sample Trim WHO Trim Full Sample Treated and Trained ** ** * *** *** ** [0.169] [0.172] [0.138] [0.157] [0.156] [0.137] [0.111] Treated Only [0.150] [0.147] [0.153] [0.147] [0.142] [0.151] [0.168] Spillover [0.133] [0.121] [0.111] [0.127] [0.121] [0.107] [0.108] June *** ** ** ** ** ** *** [0.115] [0.109] [0.098] [0.113] [0.111] [0.094] [0.090] Control Mean P-Value for T1=T R-Squared Observations Note: All regressions include strata fixed effects, age and age squared. The trim drops BMI for age values over 12 and under -7; WHZ above 8 and below -7. The WHO trim drops BMI for age values over 5 and under -5; WHZ above 5 and below -4.

18 Value Added Amount Unit Mean Control Yield Additional Yield for Treatment and Trained group Value of Additional Yield for Treatment and Trained group 215 kg/acre 34 kg/acre 32 USD/acre Assumption: Acres on which NERICA planted (~70% of rice farm land) 2.5 acres Total Value Added by Treatment and Training 79 USD Net Present Value of Value Added (Replanting rate: 0.6; Discount rate: 0.9) 172 USD

19 Conclusion 1. NERICA seeds are associated with: Earlier harvest: Lowered purchases of imported rice Higher rice production Health impacts 2. Possible decentralised way of addressing the issue of child health. 3. This is true even though the technology was a form of the local staple and did not increase the diversity of production (a major focus of agricultural programs aimed at improving nutritional status). 4. Cost-benefit: The costs of providing this technology and associated training outweighs its monetary benefits Could still be more cost efficient than other child health interventions. 5. As with most new technology, now focus should be on reducing costs. 6. However, results could also be driven by training component.

20 Thank You! International Growth Centre London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London WC2 2AE