International Food Security Dialogue 2014

May 2nd, 2014: University of AlbertaTheme: “Enhancing Food Production, Gender Equity and Nutritional Security in a Changing

World”

Participatory Plant Breeding in Honduras: An Economic Impact Assessment

Sebastian Daly KindsvaterDr. Sally Humphries

Dr. Getu Hailu

Background

• PPB project: funded by IDRC/USC Canada-CIDA since 1999

• Project goals:– Increase food security through improvement of

maize and bean varieties by Honduran farmers– Increase productive capacity of farmers through

capacity building– Increase economic development by value addition

to local production, linking local economies to markets, etc.

Background

• PPB: Participatory Plant Breeding– A plant breeding process whereby seed varieties

are designed, tested and diffused by farmers– Seed varieties produced as a result of the PPB

process: PPB varieties• CIAL: Local Agricultural Research Committee

– Teams of farmers conduct plant breeding research to determine which varieties are best suited to local conditions

Motivation

• Prior studies claim:– PPB variety adoption and CIAL membership are

associated with increased yield levels

• Studies lack quantitative evidence

• We intend to further understanding of the economic impacts of the PPB approach focusing on bean production.

Research Questions

• Does PPB variety adoption have a positive effect on bean yield levels?

• Does CIAL membership have a positive effect on bean yield levels?

Methods/Data

• Primary data collected: Spring and Fall 2012

• Bean yield data based on farmer reporting

• 314 surveys from 40 communities

• Our analysis will focus on 30 communities

• Kruskal-Wallis Test, Ordinary Least Squares, Propensity Score Matching

Take Home Messages

1) Variety adoption decisions are complex:• Rankings/Previous studies• Yield is not the only adoption consideration

2) PPB variety adoption may not have a positive effect on yields in 2012:

• High and low yielding PPB varieties• Econometric analysis (OLS, PSM, K-W test)

3) The impact of CIAL membership on yields is unclear in 2012:• Spring : Positive effect on yield• Fall: Negative effect on yield• Econometric analysis (OLS,PSM)

1)Variety Adoption Decisions are Complex

Variety Categories and Traits

Rank Yield Drought Resistance

Flood Resistance

Pest Resistance

Disease Resistance

Taste Days to Maturity

Sale Value

1 Marcelino(*)

Marcelino(*)

Marcelino (*)

Amadeus (***)

Marcelino (*)

Vaina Rosada

(**)

Vaina Rosada

(**)

Marcelino (*)

2 Macuzalito (*)

Cedron(*)

Vaina Rosada

(**)

Macuzalito (*)

Amadeus (***)

Marcelino (*)

Macuzalito (*)

Deoro (***)

3 Cedron (*)

Carrizalito(***)

Macuzalito (*)

Cedron (*)

Chepe (*)

Deoro (***)

Carrizalito (***)

Macuzalito (*)

(*)PPB (**)Traditional (***)Conventional (n=245)

• PPB varieties: improved by farmers through formal research (design testing diffusion)

• Traditional varieties: improved by farmers through informal research (testing diffusion)

• Conventional varieties: improved by scientists through formal research (design testing diffusion)

Variety Adoption Rates by SeasonSpring 2012 (n=127) Fall 2012 (n=140)

Old-CIAL New-CIAL Non-CIAL

68%64%

40%

21% 18%

39%

11%18% 21%

PPB TraditionalConventional

Old-CIAL New-CIAL Non-CIAL

69% 69%

61%

22%17%

28%

9%14% 11%

PPB TraditionalConventional

2) PPB Variety Adoption has no Positive Effect on Yields in 2012

Yield by Variety Type and Season

Spring 2012 (n=124) Fall 2012 (n=140)

998

808868

972911

848

PPB Traditional Conventional

Yield by Variety Type and SeasonSpring 2012 Fall 2012

PPB TRADITIONAL CON PPB TRADITIONAL CON

01

000

200

03

000

400

0Y

ield

Kilo

s/H

ect

are

0 10 20 30 40Individual Bean Variety (Spring 2012)

010

0020

0030

0040

00Y

ield

Kilo

s/H

ecta

re

0 10 20 30 40 50Individual Bean Variety (Fall 2012)

Non-Parametric Test of Yield Distributions

• Kruskal Wallis equality of populations rank test shows no difference between PPB, traditional and conventional in either season, w/r/t yield levels

SPRING 2012 FALL 2012Variety Type # Obs Chi

Squared w/ Ties

Probability # Obs Chi Squared w/ Ties

Probability

PPB 70 1.395d.f.=2

0.498 93 3.150d.f.=2

0.207

Traditional 34 31Conventional 20 16

OLS Regression and PSM Results

• Spring: PPB adoption has no effect on yields• Fall: PPB adoption has a negative effect on

yields (relative to traditional varieties)

SPRING 2012 FALL 2012ATET (z-value)

OLS Coefficient (t-stat)

ATET (z-value)

OLS Coefficient(t-stat)

-2.307 (-0.02)

0.031(0.21)

-101.393 (-1.08)

-0.342**(-2.08)

3) The Impact of CIAL Membership on Yields is Unclear

Yield by CIAL Membership and Season

Spring 2012 (n=124) Fall 2012 (n=142)

1001

726805 838

979 967

Old-CIAL New-CIAL Non-CIAL

OLS Regression and PSM Results

• Spring: CIAL membership has a positive effect on yields

• Fall: CIAL membership has a negative effect on yields

SPRING 2012 FALL 2012ATET (z-value)

OLS Coefficient (t-stat)

ATET (z-value)

OLS Coefficient (t-stat)

339.839***(3.93)

0.024(0.16)

-407.230***(-3.55)

-0.092(-0.55)

Conclusions

• PPB adoption may not have a positive effect on yield levels– High and low yielding varieties within each

category– PPB does not dominate other categories in either

season– PPB and conventional varieties may come from

the same origins

Conclusions

• The impact of CIAL membership on yield levels is unclear in 2012– Spring 2012: Positive effect– Possibly resulting from better productive practices,

access to improved seed varieties (focus group answers)– Fall 2012: Negative effect – Entrepreneurial of CIAL members may be more inclined

to take risks – Yield may not be the most important adoption

characteristic for Old-CIAL members (eg. commercial value)

Final Thoughts

• Given yield fluctuations by season and variety type, our results support arguments for increased access to a broad range of varieties (agrobiodiversity and resilience)

• Our study highlights the complexity of impact assessment and mixed methods studies

THANK YOU

Happy to answer any questions

Qualitative Responses

CIAL Member Perception of Benefits

21%

79%

Has your income increased as a result of CIAL mem-bership? (n=199)

No (n=41) Yes (n=158)

Focus Group Responses: Ranked Benefits

1) Access to Improved seed varieties2) More food/better nutrition3) Better grain storage/More personal satisfaction and self-

esteem4)Better productive practices/Better ability to teach children

and family5)Ability to produce new seed varieties6)Leadership and the participation of women7) More opportunities to generate income8) Better quality of life9) Better access to credit/Increased productivity