1 / 21

Biofuels and Food Security: Micro-evidence from Ethiopia

Biofuels and Food Security: Micro-evidence from Ethiopia. Martha Negash & Johan Swinnen Center for Economic Performance and Institutions (LICOS), KULeuven. 1. Motivation. I mpact of biofuel expansion views: worsen food insecurity (von Braun, 2008; Mitchel , 2008 ) on the contrary:

val
Download Presentation

Biofuels and Food Security: Micro-evidence from Ethiopia

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. Biofuelsand Food Security: Micro-evidence from Ethiopia • Martha Negash & Johan Swinnen • Center for Economic Performance and Institutions (LICOS), KULeuven

  2. 1. Motivation • Impact of biofuel expansion • views: • worsen food insecurity • (von Braun, 2008; Mitchel, 2008) on the contrary: • high food prices - not always bad • - biofuels stimulates economic growth & reduce poverty (case-Mozambique) (Arndt et al, 2010) • - reduce the incidence of poverty & support food self-sufficiency goals (Huang, et al. 2012) ‘food vs fuel debate’

  3. Other concern: • weak land governance & property rights – risk to vulnerable hhs (Cotula et al 2010) “Fueling exclusion” -> conflict Foreign land investment: • investment brings inefficiently utilized/under-utilized land • emp’t & income effect • cheaper energy source to remote rural areas (quite an issue ‘energy poor countries’) ‘land grab vs land investment’

  4. Evidence in current literature: • based on aggregate economic wide simulations or qualitative studies • largely focused on developed economies • impact analysis on poor smallholder context - limited

  5. Research questions: 1- identify factors associated with biofuel crop adoption decisions? 2- how participation decision influences food security status? Survey– privately organized castor (biofuel feedstock crop) outgrowers in Ethiopia

  6. Ethiopia Hunger index Energy poverty index Source: Nussbaumera et al., 2011 Source: IFPRI, 2010 • unutilized/underutilized land low potential areas • good case to study • modern energy (extremely poor) • food (alarming hunger)

  7. Castor outgrower scheme in Ethiopia Advantages • can be preserved on the field relatively for longer periods - allows piecemeal collection of seeds • good for soil fertility • contract farmers may record higher productivity in food crops through • – higher input use • - spillover effects • - crop management practices • Disadv. • Invasive species • castor has no other use in the area – (bargaining power of farmers ??) • - default is mainly from redirecting input use for other crops

  8. Supply chain Raw seed export Company -> via supervisors -> input loan & seed -> farmers Farmers-> village centers-> via supervisors -> company -> export-> China processors

  9. 2. Data • Sampling frame • all villages in range of 1100– 2000 m.a.s.l. covered by the program included in our sampling frame • Sample size • 24 villages randomly selected • total of 478 household • 30% participants • Participant/Adopters • a household that allocated piece of land for castor & entered contractual agreement w/t the company Most biofuel projects are located in dry & low land areas of the country Source: FEWS, 2010

  10. Sampled villages & castor bean adoption • poor access; • poor infras (tel., electric) • no alternative cash crop • distant villages • alternative cash crop – fruits & ginger • better access • better infras • dairy supply to town

  11. Village level observation • dissemination of the castor crop into inaccessible & remote places • widespread adoption rate (20-33%) in three years of promotion • unlike low rate of new crop or fertilizer adoption rates in developing countries - villages with limited alternative cash crop markets show higher adoption incidence

  12. Descriptive (outcome variables) (1/2) Figure : Food gap (number of months) Figure: Per capita foodconsumption % *** *** measured by number of food shortage months – decline in value  improvement in welfare total consumption in energy equivalent (kcal/person/day) – increase in value ->improvement in welfare

  13. Descriptive (explanatory variables) (2/2) * p<.1; ** p<.05; *** p<.01

  14. 3. Estimation • Effect of castor contract participation on income • represent– participation as a regime indicator variable (1) Regime 1: (2) (3) If cov (ui , ℇ1i) and/or cov (ui, ℇ2i) arestatistically significant, switching is endogenous, self-selection - on obs. or unobser. or both). Identification – assume error terms are jointly distributed IV –improves identification – eligibility & past adoption history (farmers choice) Regime 0:

  15. EndogenousSwitching Regression Model • allows estimation of heterogeneouseffect of covariates • using the information contained in the distribution functions of the error terms & their covariance, allows predicting counterfactual effects Source: Verbeek, 2012; Di Falco, et al. 2011; AJAE • can substitute historical comparative data –but useful in the absence of such data

  16. 4. Results Question 1 First stage: selection to participation • (non-significant) • distance from the village center • gov. extension service • (---) • Maize price • Female • (+++) • Land • Media • Asset

  17. differentiated significance & magnitude of coefficients • e.g. family size & livestock coefficients have different signs • opposite sign of ρ – suggest rational sorting into participation Food gap estimation

  18. Question 2 Treatment effect • Participants • reduction in food gap, 37%, (-11 days) • increase in consumption, 27% • Non-participants • do not benefit, rather food gap would increase, 6% (+2 days) • reduction in consumption, 18%

  19. 5. Policy implications (Question 1) Determinants of adoption: • assets are key factors for adoption • adoption of biofuel declines with price of food crop • physical distance showed no significance unlike most studies • Policy implication: • privately organized technology transfer –may efficiently surpass physical barriers

  20. (Question 2) Effect of participation: • impact is heterogeneous • participants are better-off producing castor than if they had not • non-participants would have been worse-off if they had participated Policy implication: • grant farmers more choice • explore castor’s potential contribution to narrow food gap /smooth consumption/

  21. Thanks!

More Related