1. Assessing the Impact of NERICA on Poverty Reduction: Evidence from Uganda Keijiro Otsuka & Yoko Kijima Foundation for Advanced Studies on International Development (FASID)

2. Introduction  Green Revolution (GR) has taken place not only in tropical Asia but also in Northeast Asia (Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and China) prior to or concurrently with overall economic growth.  GR is known to have significant effects on poverty reduction without deteriorating income distribution.  Is a GR possible in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)?

3. Assessing the Impact of NERICA (New Rice for Africa)

4. Major Traits of Upland NERICA (1) Short maturing (90 days vs.140 days) (2) Drought-tolerant (3) Soil fertility dependent (fertilizer-responsive) (4) High-yielding (2.6 tons/ha vs. 1.0 ton/ha) (5) Extremely labor-intensive  (1) + (2): Suitable for SSA  (3) + (4): Good but soil-fertility depleting  (5): Favorable for labor-abundant small farmers

5. Basic Statistics of NERICA Sample Farmers in Uganda in 2004 Adoption rate of NERICA in Uganda as a whole is less than 1%. Sample size: 250 NERICA growing farmers Average cultivation size: 1.57 ha Average fallow area: 2.29 ha Average NERICA planted area: 0.47 ha Years of NERICA introduction: 2001~04

6. Table 2 Per Capita Income, Income from NERICA, NERICA Adoption, and Land Area per Person by Income Quintile LowLower middle Upper middle High Per capita income (US$) 41100168363 % income from NERICA 27362021 NERICA area/ total land area (%) 17231319 Land per person (ha) 0.330.55 0.65 0.72

7. Table 4 NERICA Yield and Income per ha by Crop Grown in the Preceding Season % of plotsYield (ton/ha) Income (US$/ha) Tobacco183.30840 Legume crop 242.81472 Fallow482.37512 Cereal crop112.26471

8. Table 5 Factor Payment (US$) per ha and Factor Share (%) NERICALegumeCereal Value of production 732 (100) 271 (100) 250 (100) Current inputs52 (7) 27 (10) 22 (9) Capital1 (0) 0 (0) 5 (0) Labor673 (92) 255 (94) 240 (96) Residual profit5 (1) -11.1 (-4) -11.6 (-5)

9. Table 8 Estimated Plot-Level Per Hectare Income Function (t-statistics in parentheses) Cropping pattern dummies (default: Cereal – Cereal) (1) (2) Cereal - NERICA1.67 (1.33)-0.05 (-0.04) Legume - NERICA3.12 (2.50)**1.73 (1.34) Tobacco - NERICA6.39 (4.95)**5.14 (3.71)** Fallow - NERICA3.17 (3.30)**2.89 (3.05)** NERICA interacted with NERICA growing experience dummy - -3.22 (3.02)**

10. Table 9 Actual and Hypothetical Average Income and Head Count Ratio (HCR) of Poverty Actual Without NERICA (Actual – NERICA Income effect) Actual + NERICA growing experience effect on income Actual + NERICA experience effects on income & NERICA area Per capita income (US$) 155 148 171 192 HCR (%) 50.8 52.1 43.6 33.9

11. Major Findings and Conclusion  NERICA is “miracle rice,” comparable to rice MVs in Asia in terms of yield growth.  Since NERICA is highly labor-using, it is pro-poor.  NERICA demonstrates that new agricultural technology can contribute significantly to poverty reduction in SSA.  Adoption rate of NERICA in Uganda as a whole is still low. The development and dissemination of sustainable soil management practice is the key to larger and sustainable impacts.