Is Mozambique on the eve of rice Green Revolution? A case study of the Chokwe irrigation scheme Kei Kajisa (IRRI & FASID) Ellen Payongyong (Michigan State Univ.)

Introduction (1) The importance of rice in Moz. has been increasing rapidly. Rapid consumption growth Stagnated production growth Rapid increase in rice imports Increasing foreign exchange expenditure

Introduction (2) Why has production stagnated since 2000? Stagnated area expansion after the completion of re-settlement. Stagnated rice yield at 1 t/ha.

Introduction (3) Moz. needs an appropriate rice development strategy. Dominant ecosystem in Moz. –61% lowland wet condition, upland dry condition is minor (Balasubramaninan et al., 2007) Seeking an Asian-style GR with an appropriate localization effort could be a key strategy. –Controlled irrigation + modern varieties + modern inputs (chemical fertilizer) –  Skepticism (Africa’s condition is different from Asia!) ↑But many are regional comparison. To investigate the potential of rice, it is better to compare rice growing areas. ↑Some anecdotal success stories are emerging

Introduction (4) More solid micro-level evidence is needed to design an appropriate strategy beyond mere skepticism. The aim of this study –Explore the potential of and constraints to a an Asian-style lowland rice GR in Moz., using household-level data collected in the Chokwe irrigation scheme in 2007 (w/ financial support from JBIC, JSPS, IFAD).

Maputo Chokwe

Why Chokwe ? (1) Chokwe Irrigation Scheme –Gravity system, managed by the state The most favorable area for rice cultivation. –Its potential is as high as the banks of Nile (10 t/ha)! Asia’s experience –GR started in the most favorable areas and then extended to less favorable areas (David and Otsuka, 1994) –Thus, it makes sense to explore if Chokwe has a chance to be a starting point of Moz’s rice GR. –  We compare the current condition of Chokwe with those of Asia’s favorable areas in 60-70’s to conjecture about possible constraints in Chokwe. (1 st step of our analysis)

Why Chokwe ? (2) Besides, within Chokwe, we can observe wide variation in yield, cultivation practice, and household socio-economic conditions. Yield: 3.8 – 0.6t/ha (top25% vs bottom 25%) NPK use: 67 – 0 kg/ha (top25% vs bottom 25%) Different access to irrigation water HH size and schooling years –  Statistically identify household level constraints by estimating a yield function and factor demand functions (2 nd step of our analysis)

no water, a lot of weeds, low yield Sufficient water, proper management, high yield Two plots in Chokwe, different performance

Comparison w/ Asia: Yield Cho- kwe Laguna Philippines Central Luzon, Philippines Tamil Nadu* Moz/ Asia’s 1960s Moz/ Asia’s 1970s Year Major rice varieties MV1TVMV1TVMV1 Paddy Yield (t/ha) Average Average of Top 25%

Comparison w/ Asia: Prices Cho- kwe Laguna Filipinas Época chuvosa Luzon Central Filipinas Época Seca Tamil Nadu* Moz/ Asia’s 1960s Moz/ Asia’s 1970s Year Nitrogen (kg of rice/ kg of N) Labor wage (kg of rice/day)

Comparison w/ Asia: Input Intensity Cho- kwe Laguna Filipinas Época chuvosa Luzon Central Filipinas Época Seca Tamil Nadu* Moz/ Asia s1970s Nitrogen (kg/ha) Labor (days/ha) Prop of hired labor Use of credit (%) 1527

Comparison w/ Asia: Socio Economic Characteristics Cho- kwe Laguna Filipinas Época chuvosa Luzon Central Filipinas Época Seca Tamil Nadu* Moz/ Asia s1970s Farm size (ha) Household size Schooling Years of head Average Schooling Years

Comparison w/ Asia: Findings Yield is higher than Asia before GR but slightly lower than Asia during the early phase of GR.  Potential exist, but slightly lagged behind Extremely expensive N, moderately expensive labor.  Less use of these inputs Inaccessible credit and insufficient water could be other reasons for less intensive use of N. Synchronization of peak labor season and few landless may make intensive use of labor further difficult. On the other hand, no discernible differences in –the extent of mechanization, farm size, schooling years, family size, age.

Determinants of rice yield (1): Approach Yield function y=f(x c, x g, h) Factor demand functions x c =g(x g, z, h) x c : inputs (choice of a farmer, endogenous, e.g. NPK) x g : inputs (given to a farmer, exogenous, e.g. irrig’n) h: HH management ability (educ and age) z: factor endowments/wealth (HH size, non-ag assets, etc) To the make the IV method valid, we would like to have less x c and more z.  linear yield function (no squared terms of x c ) and include h only in factor dem. functions as a part of z.

Determinants of rice yield (2): Yield function

Determinants of rice yield (3): Factor Demand Functions (selected vars) NPKLabor% of hired lab TractorThreshe r Transpla nting Cult area–+++– Insuf irrig’n–+ HH size–+ Sch yr+ Sch yr sq– non-ag assets+++ % of salary earners +–– % of salary earners sq –++

Determinants of rice yield (3): Decomposition of yield increasing factors 14% incl. indirect impacts

Conclusion (1) The conditions of Chokwe for embarking on the Asian-style lowland rice GR are not as disadvantageous as those of Asia in the past, except for excessively expensive chemical fertilizer and moderately costly labor. These inputs are used less intensively in Chokwe, resulting in low yield. Inaccessibility to credit and insufficient water lower input intensity further, resulting in further low yield.

Conclusion (2) Implications –Improvement of irrigation management is important. –Worth thinking strategies to improve farmers’ credit access and liquidity constraint (↑cash on hand) –Introduction of improved modern varieties Shorter maturity duration variety would relax the timing of transplanting and thus spread out the peak season labor demand. Remaining issues –How to make chemical fertilizer cheaper?

Limpopo

Thank you very much