ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF IMPROVED GRAIN STORAGE TECHNOLOGY IN TANZANIA Hanney Mbwambo, Bekele Kotu and Zena Mpenda Africa RISING Writeshop White Sand Hotel.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Global Food Crisis: Creating an Opportunity for Fairer and More Sustainable Food and Agriculture Systems Worldwide Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte and.
Advertisements

JEROME CHIM’GONDA-NKHOMA, MINSTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY, MALAWI.
Economic Potential for Soil Carbon Sequestration in the Nioro Region of Senegal’s Peanut Basin by John Antle, Bocar Diagana, Jetse Stoorvogel and Kara.
Agribusiness Management
Evaluation of Economic, Land Use, and Land Use Emission Impacts of Substituting Non-GMO Crops for GMO in the US Farzad Taheripour Harry Mahaffey Wallace.
Winning Markets for smallholders! Farm Concern International E-Warehouse a turnaround to facilitating Access to Markets and Finance for Smallholder Farmers.
Enhancing partnership among Africa RISING, NAFAKA and TUBORESHE CHAKULA Programs for fast-tracking delivery and scaling of agricultural technologies in.
Africa RISING: an overview
Sustainability Indicators for AR Beginners Peter Thorne International Livestock Research Institute Science Advisory Group – London 17 July, 2014.
Kerstin Hell, Kukom Edoh Ognakossan and Ousmane Coulibaly
Price Volatility: Protecting Farmers and Consumers Antony Chapoto, Steven Haggblade and Thomas Jayne Michigan State University COMESA AAMP Journalists.
Mike Jones, Corinne Alexander, and Jess Lowenberg-DeBoer.
Economic Growth, Rural Growth and Poverty Dr. Donald Mmari REPOA National Poverty Policy Week
REGIONAL CONFERENCE ON INVESTMENT CLIMATE AND COMPETITIVENESS IN EAST ASIA SESSION 3:SKILLS FOR COMPETITIVENESS ADDRESSING SKILLS GAP: MALAYSIAN CASE STUDY.
Drivers of Rural Land Rental Markets in sub-Saharan Africa, and their Impact Household Welfare. Evidence from Malawi and Zambia Jordan Chamberlin (Michigan.
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Africa RISING Technologies in Tanzania: Summary of initial results Bekele H. Kotu Contributing scientists: A. Kimaro, M. Swamila.
Enhancing partnership among Africa RISING, NAFAKA and TUBORESHE CHAKULA Programs for fast-tracking delivery and scaling of agricultural technologies in.
Enhancing partnership among Africa RISING, NAFAKA and TUBORESHE CHAKULA Programs for fast tracking delivery and scaling of agricultural technologies in.
Enhancing partnership among Africa RISING, NAFAKA and TUBORESHE CHAKULA Programs for fast tracking delivery and scaling of agricultural technologies in.
Research Output #1 in ESA -Update from IFPRI- ESA Review and Planning Meeting, Mangochi, 14 July 2015 Carlo Azzarri, Beliyou Haile, Sara Signorelli, Cleo.
Intensification of maize- legume based systems in the semi-arid areas of Tanzania Mathew Mpanda 9 th Sept 2014.
PURDUE IMPROVED COWPEA STORAGE (PICS) PROJECT ACHIEVEMENTS, CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED IN PROGREEN STATES By A. Abifarin, A. M. Bolaji, T. Abdoulaye,
AAMP Training Materials Module 3.3: Household Impact of Staple Food Price Changes Nicholas Minot (IFPRI)
Department of Agricultural Economics Purdue University Measuring Profitability of On- Farm Storage Pest Management in Developing Countries: The case of.
Achievements of Phase 1, loose ends and new research topics to focus on in Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia Kihara group.
Private sector & Post Harvest Management among smallholder farmers “The experience of PICS bag project” Jean Njiru Supply Chain Network Manager East and.
Monday, May, 10, 2010 FFE Programs Using Locally Grown Foods in Sub-Saharan Africa: Potentials and Constraints Akhter Ahmed International Food Policy Research.
I S S MALL S TILL B EAUTIFUL ? T HE F ARM S IZE -P RODUCTIVITY R ELATIONSHIP R EVISITED IN K ENYA Milu Muyanga & T.S. Jayne Agricultural, Food and Resource.
Reducing yield gaps in Babati district Tanzania: Potentials and Opportunities By: Lyimo S.D. 1*, Kihara J. 2, Kizito F. 2, Yangole L. 1 1 Selian Agricultural.
THE UNITED REPIBLIC OF TANZANIA MINISTRY OF WATER AND IRRIGATION NATIONAL IRRIGATION COMMISSION GENDER MAINSTREAMING IN IRRIGATION INTERVENTIONS Presented.
Farm Typologies in Tanzania and Malawi Africa RISING IFPRI) ESA Africa RISING writeshop, Dar es Salaam July 1, 2016.
Enhancing Partnership Among Africa RISING, NAFAKA and TUBORESHE CHAKULA Programs for Fast Tracking Delivery and Scaling of Agricultural Technologies in.
ATAKORA Eric Takyi , OSEI- TUTU Olivia Atakora, Dennice Okrah
Corporate Finance for In-House Counsel
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS-KITCHEN GARDENS INTERVENTION
CISI – Financial Products, Markets & Services
Development of an integrated approach for introducing conservation agricultural practices to the tribal communities of Odisha, India Jacqueline Halbrendt.
Topic: Marketing problems faced by farmers agribusiness sector
Reducing food waste and spoilage through Postharvest Management
Metrics for Marketing Workshop Findings From the Farmer Impact Surveys
Feasibility Study for Thermoforming Production Plant
Agricultural cost of production statistics: main concepts
Road water management for resilience improving livelihood creating resilience - kenya Mekelle, February 2017.
Farm input market system in Western Kenya: constraints, opportunities and policy implications Innovations as Key to the Green Revolution in Africa: Exploring.
Understanding Agricultural Futures
Selling low and buying high? Understanding farm profitability
Project Coordinator-Post Harvest Management
Felix Badoloa, Bekele Kotub, and Birhanu Zemadim Birhanua
Grain legume consumption patterns and demand
Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Agricultural Technologies: Results from Field Experiment Babati, Tanzania Apurba Shee, Carlo Azzarri and Beliyou.
Lesson 11.2 Spending Habits
How to do R&D impact analysis and write the case studies
Food Security Update 28 July 2016.
Theory and Practice of Fertilizer Subsidies in Africa
MEASURING FOOD LOSSES Session 4: Sampling design.
Introduction to the UK Economy
Presentation at the African Economic Conference
Money And Banking BE220 Ahmed Alharbi.
Personal Decision Making
MEASURING FOOD LOSSES Session 4: Sampling design.
AAMP Training Materials
Saving, Investment, and the Financial System
Research and Development
Saving, Investment, and the Financial System
Research and Development
INITIATIVES ON AFLATOXIN CONTROL /RWANDA
Saving, Investment, and the Financial System
INITIATIVES ON AFLATOXIN CONTROL /RWANDA
Developing and strengthening Dairy value chains in Tanzania:
Integrated livestock feed interventions
Presentation transcript:

ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF IMPROVED GRAIN STORAGE TECHNOLOGY IN TANZANIA Hanney Mbwambo, Bekele Kotu and Zena Mpenda Africa RISING Writeshop White Sand Hotel – Dar es Salam 30 June - 2 July 2016

Outline Introduction Methods Results Conclusion

PH losses are substantially high among smallholder farmers in SSA The losses vary by counties, seasons, and among crops They range 20-40% To mitigate this problem farmers had to sale grain at a very low price after harvest and then buy it later at higher prices They are also forced to consume low quality grains

This high loss suggests the need for greater attention PH losses in order to address the problem of hh food insecurity Addressing the problem from the other side To address this problem, several storage technologies have been introduced to farmers through AR project. The technologies have been tested and found to be technically effective in reducing PH grain loss.

Maize stored in Hermetic bag Vs non hermetic bag

However, their economics is little known This study was initiated to address this gap. We do the analysis considering maize because maize is the most important food crop in Tanzania

We compare Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) with polypropylene bags Polypropylene bags were selected because they are commonly used by farmers

Data collection We used mainly primary data in this study Conducted focus group discussion and household survey Group discussion conducted with farmers who have used both the improved storages and traditional ones

Both with female and male farmers Helped to elicit losses

We also conducted a household survey constituting 200 randomly selected households We used the data from hh survey to determine the technology of focus, estimate average maize production and consumption and categorize farmers (among others).

Data analysis Partial budget approach was used for data analysis Used three economic parameters to compare the technologies (net benefit, benefit-cost-ratio, and internal rate of return) Benefits and costs have been discounted to take into account time value of money (20% discount rate)

Conducted sensitivity analysis to check the stability of the conclusions This was done with respect to change in maize grain price and storage prices We varied the prices by 20% and checked the feasibility of the new storages

Total storage costs includes Cost of labor Cost of storage bags and maintenance Depreciation cost Cost of chemical

Results (production and storage) Farmers’ category Quantity produced (kg) Estimated surplus (deficit) Storage needs (number of 100-kg- bags) Number of storage months (own produce) Low producers335(577)35 Lower middle producers741(171)710 Medium producers Upper middle producers Top producers Average (typical)

Adoption of improved storage technologies is limited in the area 24.6% of the sample households use PICS Average storage capacity owned is 104Kg, while the average maize produced is 1826Kg Average farmer store only 6% of his produce in PICS

Storage losses Farmers’ category Quantity produced and stored (kg) Quantity of loss (kg) Polypropylene (PPB)PICS Low producers (0.5%)0 (0%) Lower middle producers74175 (10.1%)0.9 (0.1%) Medium producers (19%)2.6 (0.2%) Upper middle producers (19%)4.5 (0.2%) Top producers (19.2)10.7(0.2%) Average (typical) (19.4%))4.1(0.2%)

Financial benefits, if PICS is adopted Farmers CategoryNet return (Tzs/hh/season)BCRIRR (%) Low producers (1,650) 0.5(10) Lower middle producers12, Medium producers41, Upper middle producers71, Top producers178, Typical farmer67,

Sensitivity Analysis Sensitivity analysis of financial benefits from adoption of PICS ChangeDecision Criteria Net returnBCRIRR Maize price down by 20% ↓25% ↓22% 243->186 Storage price up by 20%↓2.6% ↓15% 243->202

Conclusion Results suggest that it is profitable to invest in the new storage technology However, benefits vary by household categories Top maize producers benefit the most while the low maize producers can lose from the investment.

Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation africa-rising.net The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI. Thank You