1 / 44

Modern Industries, Pollution and Agricultural Productivity: Evidence from Mining in Ghana

Modern Industries, Pollution and Agricultural Productivity: Evidence from Mining in Ghana. Fernando Aragon (SFU) (joint with Juan Pablo Rud , Royal Holloway) CEA Conference May 2013. Main issue. Negative spillovers of modern industries

sereno
Download Presentation

Modern Industries, Pollution and Agricultural Productivity: Evidence from Mining in Ghana

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Modern Industries, Pollution and Agricultural Productivity: Evidence from Mining in Ghana Fernando Aragon (SFU) (joint with Juan Pablo Rud, Royal Holloway) CEA Conference May 2013

  2. Main issue Negative spillovers of modern industries • What is the effect of modern industries on agricultural production? In this paper: • Case of gold mining in Ghana • Modern, capital-intensive industry • Severe concerns of pollution • Near fertile rural area (cacao)

  3. Why is this relevant? • Effect of pollution on agriculture not explored • Literature focuses on effects on human health • Biological evidence that pollution affects crops • Spillovers of modern industries • Thought in terms of input competition • Other non-input negative spillovers (e.g. pollution) neglected • Economic policy • Private and social costs • Compensation and mitigation

  4. What do we do? • Main idea: pollution may affect crop yields • Non-input channels  residual productivity

  5. What do we do? • Estimate an agricultural production function • Effect of mine activities on total factor productivity • Empirical strategy • Repeated cross sections of HH surveys • D-i-D: expansion of mining x exposure to mines (distance) • Endog. inputs: IV and imperfect IV (partial identification)

  6. Main findings • Reduction of agricultural productivity • 40 % decrease between 1998-2005, near mines • But, no change in input use nor prices. • Results consistent with pollution channel • Satellite imagery: increase in air pollutants (NO2) • Increase in rural poverty

  7. Unsolved issues • Cannot measure pollution directly (not available) • Effect on residual productivity  does pollution affect quality of inputs (land, water) or crops’ health? • Large scale and artisanal mines overlap cannot separate source

  8. Outline • Background • Methods • Results

  9. Background – Gold mining in Ghana • Important industry in Ghana • 97% of mineral revenue, 45% of total exports, 12% of fiscal revenue. • Modern, large scale, capital intensive • 96% large scale, rest artisanal/galamsey • Mostly foreign owned, exports all production as raw material.

  10. Background – Gold mining in Ghana • Located in fertile agricultural land • Ashanti gold belt: Western, Ashanti and Central regions. • Cocoa producing regions • Negative spillovers • Population displacement • Environmental pollution: anecdotal and scientific evidence • Significant increase in late 1990s • We exploit this source of variation.

  11. Why would mining affect agriculture? • Input competition channel • Demand-Supply  Increase in price of local inputs

  12. Why would mining affect agriculture? • Input competition channel • Demand-Supply  Increase in price of local inputs • Mining has potential to pollute: air, water and soil • Industry-specific pollutants  cyanide, acid drainages, heavy metals • Similar to small city or power plant  emissions from heavy machinery (air pollutants) • Biological evidence • Exposure to air pollutants from burning fossil fuels  reduction in yields 30-60%, more susceptible to diseases. • Heavy metals in water and soil  vegetation stunted or dwarfed (Environment Canada 2009)

  13. Analytical framework • Production function: F(A, Labor, Land) • Consumer-producer household choose inputs to maximize HH utility.

  14. Analytical framework • With perfect input markets: • input demand is function of: prices and A  endogeneity of inputs problem • If farmers cannot buy/sell inputs • Input demand constrained by HH endowments • Extreme case: Input demand = input endowment • Use endowments as instruments for input use.

  15. Analytical framework • Two possible channels for mining to affect agricultural output (and HH income) • Change on input prices  change in input use • Pollution  change on A • We can isolate effect on A, by estimating the production function i.e. conditioning output on input use

  16. Methods – empirical implementation • Assume Cobb – Douglas, • y, m, l : log of agricultural output, land and labor A is function of: • Svt = measure of exposure to mine activity • Farmer characteristics Zi: age and literacy, land ownership, place of birth • District, year fixed effects , dummy prox. each mine

  17. Methods - Data • Household data • Ghana Living Standard Surveys (GLSS): GLSS 4 (1998-99) and GLSS5 (2005-06), repeated cross sections • Input and output (farming households) • Real output calculated using local agric prices. • Poverty (all HHs) • Geographical coordinates of Enumeration Areas • Distance to mining areas (GIS)

  18. Methods – empirical implementation • Two issues: • Endogeneity of mining activity: mining areas may be systematically different. • Endogeneityof input choice

  19. Methods - solutions • Difference in difference: • Treated and control group defined by proximity to mine • “mining” area = within 20 km of an active mine • Treatment (continuous) : cumulative gold production • Svt = cumulative gold production within 20 km

  20. Results – Mining and Agricultural Productivity Go to: Crop yields Go to: First Stage

  21. Methods - solution • Use of instrumental variables: • Endowments as instruments of input use (with imperfect input markets) • But input endowments may be correlated to error term • Use an imperfect IV strategy (Nevo and Rosen, 2012) • If correlation between instrument and error is weaker than for the instrumented variable and • The sign of that correlation is the same  Bounds of parameter values, i.e., partial identification

  22. Results – Mining and Agricultural Productivity Go to: Crop yields Go to: First Stage

  23. Results – Mining and Agricultural Productivity Go to: Crop yields Go to: First Stage

  24. Increase of one S.D in gold production  reduction of 30% in residual productivity • Between 1998/99 and 2005  40% decrease. • Too large? Consistent with biological evidence: 30-60% decrease in yields of crops exposed to polluted urban air.

  25. Role of distance

  26. Robustness checks • No evidence of compositional change • Farmer’s observables • Agricultural practices • Robust to alternative specifications • Parsimonious vs saturated • Similar for locals and immigrants • Placebo test (future mines) • CES production fct

  27. Is this pollution? • No ground measures of pollution  satellite imagery (cross section only, 2005) • Detect NO2  air pollutant linked to fuel combustion , toxic & precursor of tropospheric ozone

  28. Is this pollution?

  29. Competition for inputs? • Mine demanding more labor / reducing supply of land  • Increase in input prices, reduction in demand for inputs.

  30. Lack of effect of mining on input demand?, but productivity declined… • Consistent with imperfect input markets (inflexible inputs)

  31. Measures of living standards - poverty

  32. Increase in rural poverty (both farmers and non-farmers) • But nothing on urban poverty

  33. Final remarks • Expansion of mining associated to • Significant reduction in agricultural productivity • Deterioration of living standards for rural population • Seems to be driven by pollution instead of competition for inputs • Important crowding out effect of modern industries • Significant spillovers and re-distributive effects • Local farmers lose, rest of country may gain • Disregard for these spillovers over-estimate net benefits of sector

  34. Results – Mining and Crop Yields Back

  35. First stage

  36. Robustness – compositional changes

  37. Robustness – alternative specifications

  38. CES prod function

More Related