A Research Proposal Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Art in...

Impact of Revolving Seed Project in ensuring foodsecurity in case of Arsi Negele woreda, Langano

community

A Research Proposal Submitted in Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirements for the Master of Art in Developmental

Economics.

By Maharu Mathewos

ID: DEEW/602/06

Advisor: Solomon Terfasa (Ass. Professor)

Hawassa University

College of Business and Economics

Department of Economics

Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security

July, 2015

Acknowledgement

First I would like to extend my deep gratitude to God withoutwhom the life in this world as well as in other world would havenot existed for a single micro second. Next I would like to thankand appreciate my advisor Solomon Terfasa (Ass.Proffesor) for hisinvaluable support and guidance in course of the study. Lastlybut list I would like to extend my heartily appreciation to ourOrganization BBBCCCDP and its donor CCF Canada for theircontribution and support in different sources of materials.


Table of Content

Acknowledgment---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

Table of content---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2-4

List of Acronyms----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5

Chapter one

1.1 Executive summary -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------6-7

1.2 Background---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7-8

1.3 Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9-10


1.4 Statement of the problem --------------------------------------------------------------------------10-11

1.5 Significance of the study---------------------------------------------------------------------------11-16

1.6 Objective of the study ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------131.6.1 General objective -------------------------------------------------------------------------------131.6.2 Specific objective ------------------------------------------------------------------------------13

1.7 Research Question ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------141.8 Hypothesis to be tested ---------------------------------------------------------------------------14-151.9 Scope and Limitation of the study---------------------------------------------------------------15-161.10 Study Design and Methodology ---------------------------------------------------------------------17 1.10.1 Method of study ------------------------------------------------------------------------------17 1.10.2 Propensity Score Matching (PSM) ----------------------------------------------------17-18


1.10.3 Model Specification ---------------------------------------------------------------------18-19 1.10.4 Estimating Propensity Score ---------------------------------------------------------------19 1.10.5 Propensity Score Matching Methods -----------------------------------------------------19 1.10.6 Caliper Matching ------------------------------------------------------------------------19-20 1.10.7 Assumptions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------20 1.10.8 Variable choice and Covariates --------------------------------------------------------21-22 1.10.9 The outcome Variable -----------------------------------------------------------------------23 1.10.10 Measurement Procedures --------------------------------------------------------------23-24Chapter TwoLiterature Review2.1 Theoretical Literature Review-----------------------------------------------------------------------242.1.1 Background to Emergency seed aid, widely implemented, rarely, analyzed -----------24-252.1.2 Understanding farmers coping strategy in seed-------------------------------------------------252.1.3 Reassessing seed through farmers` own experiences------------------------------------------26


2.2 Empirical Literature Review --------------------------------------------------------------------------262.2.1 Emergency seed aid response: USAID experience --------------------------------------------262.2.1.1 Seed Needs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------26-272.2.1.2 USAID Assistance------------------------------------------------------------------------------272.2.1.3 Evaluation Methodology-------------------------------------------------------------------27-282.2.1.4 Stakeholders and their participation ---------------------------------------------------------282.2.1.5 Organization of seed relief --------------------------------------------------------------------282.2.1.6 Seed Relief Management, Orientation and Monitoring--------------------------------28-292.2.1.7 Seed Relief Distribution Method----------------------------------------------------------29-322.2.1.8 Overall Rating of distribution method -------------------------------------------------------322.2.2 Venders (Sellers of Seed) --------------------------------------------------------------------------332.2.3 Security and Reliability ----------------------------------------------------------------------------33


2.2.4 Impact on local market -------------------------------------------------------------------------33-342.2.5 Criteria for targeting beneficiaries and seed kind ----------------------------------------------342.2.6 Identifying Beneficiaries --------------------------------------------------------------------------342.2.7 Targeting seed kind---------------------------------------------------------------------------------352.2.8 Challenge of USAID Emergency Seed aid Program ------------------------------------------352.2.8.1 Long term need ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------352.2.8.2 Self Help and sustaining system----------------------------------------------------------35-362.2.8.3 Creating sustainable food security through dependable seed supply---------------------362.2.9 The experience of Kenya ----------------------------------------------------------------------36-372.2.9 South Sudan Experience ---------------------------------------------------------------------------37

Work Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------38-39 References ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------40


CRONYMS

AIQCD: Agricultural Input Quality Control, Department,MOA CARE: Cooperative for Assistance & Relief Everywhere CRS: Catholic Relief Services DA: Development Agent, MOA, Govt. of Dem. Republicof Ethiopia DART: Disaster Assistance Response Team DPPC: Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission(GDFRE) EOC: Ethiopian Orthodox Church FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization, UnitedNations


FHI: Food for the Hungry International FY: Fiscal Year GAA: German Agro Action GDFRE: Government of the Democratic Federal Republic ofEthiopia ICARDA: International Center for Agricultural Research inthe Dry Areas MOA: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development,GDFRE MT: metric ton NGO: Governmental OrganizationOFDA: Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, USAID PA: Peasants Association, Ethiopia REST: Relief Society of TigraySCF/UK: Save the Children Fund/United Kingdom USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development WV: World Vision NGO: Non Governmental OrganizationPA: Peasant Association

Chapter one1.1 Executive Summary


Bole Bible Baptist Church Child Care and Community Development

Program (BBBCCCDP) in collaboration with Christian Children`s

Fund of Canadian (CCFC) has been undertaken Various developmental

activities that are overlooked by different developmental actors

in areas where vulnerability, drought and disaster frequently

occur. Among its developmental activities, Disaster and Risk

Reduction (DRR) is one of the program activities in which the

rural subsistence farmers receive different aid in critical

seasons. As it was known, the area in which program intervened

is 225 km south of the capital in ormomiya Region, west Arsi

Zone in Arsi Negele woreda in Langano consists of Six drought

prone kebele including Hadha Boso, Gale Kelo, Daka Harengama,

Daka Horekelo, Gubeta and Keraru. The DRR project`s initially

trend were providing emergency seed aid including wheat and oil

to the rural subsistence farmers in critical season uses as

coping strategy for the recurrent drought associated with

climatic change and disasters. However the coping strategy has

not lift out the subsistence vulnerable households from vicious

circle of poverty yet. Furthermore the community experienced

dependence syndrome that they always need to get aid and support

from the program so as to recover from drought. To mitigate this

problems, the program designed a typical project on subsistence

farmers capacity building that farmer themselves plays an

important role in solving their own problems with their own

ability and local setting. This project is known as revolving

seed project. The project is intended to create an opportunity

Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page10

for improved food security for those of poor subsistence farmers

through providing drought resistance seed for selected farmers

later paid back in kind as well as equivalent value for their

seed group. The seed group was organized to provide seed to poor

and vulnerable rural farmers as credit and later (harvest time)

collected from the farmers either in kind and cash so as to reach

all the farmers. The payment of seed was in the form of either in

cash or in kind depending on farmers willing in which the farmers

are expected to pay ten percent of the seed they receive as a

prepayment. The ten percent of the seed is expected to be used

as insurance at the time of bad harvest so as to provide them

with other seed for the affected members of seed group. Those

poor farmers since they have nothing to pay, the pre payment were

exempted and they can repay the fees if harvest is good enough.

In the provision of the selected seed every members of farmers

expected to receive a single type of seed ones a year. The seed

type the group distributed for its members consists of wheat,

maize, sorghum, and haricot bean. But every members of the seed

group have received for 2012-2015. To extend the provision of

seed to reach all farmers; the program designed an additional

(double payment) from the beneficiaries. For instance if a

farmer receive 50kg of wheat, it is expected to pay back 100 kg

of wheat in good harvest. That is why the seed group

beneficiaries have shown significant increment in these

consecutive years. Currently the seed group organized as large

legal cooperative group which was known Langano Revolving seed


Union has involved Male 835 Female 158 Total 993 beneficiaries

from six sites. The study was expected to assess the impact of

revolving seed projects in ensuring vulnerable community with

food security. Since beneficiaries are selected through non

random selection or with specified criteria, the impact of the

project is assessed using the popular model which was known as

Propensity score Matching. The basic idea of the propensity score

matching method is to match program participants with

nonparticipants typically using individual observable

characteristics. Each program participant is paired with their

respective group of nonparticipants in the comparison group that

are most similar in the probability of participating in the

program. This probability (called propensity score) is estimated

as a function of individual characteristics typically using a

statistical model such as logit or probit model.

1.2 Background

In the 2002-03 occurrence of the cycle of disastrous droughts in

parts of Ethiopia, the affected population (2003) was estimated

at 13.2 million. Estimated total food aid requirements in 2003

were 1.8 million MT (Evaluation of Emergency seed relief USAID,

2003-2004). Affected populations in 2004 were estimated at 7.2

million, with total food aid requirements of 964,690 MT,

(Government of the Democratic Federal Republic of Ethiopia

(GDFRE)). Poverty is endemic; some 80+% of the population depend


on agriculture and are extremely susceptible to drought. Some 96%

of farmland is in small holdings (Evaluation of Emergency seed

relief USAID, 2003-2004). Many are subsistence farmers averaging

0.25 - 0.75 ha, to support a family averaging 5 persons. Even

normally, some of the “poorest of the poor” subsistence farmers

can produce only 40% of their annual nutritional requirements.

This includes families headed by women or elderly, and those with

few male adult worker members. They have no assets to carry them

over a drought, and little or no skills to earn a living in a

market with little or no job opportunities and low harvest-time

prices for farm produce. To try to survive, they are forced to

sell whatever assets they have (livestock, tools, etc., even wood

from their houses). This lowest-asset group is most at-risk in

droughts, and was targeted by Langano Revolving Seed Project.

Langano is located in the rift valleys of Oromia regional state,

West Arsi Zone, Arsi Negelle woreda sarounded by Lake Langano,

Shala and Lake Abjata. The area is known for its recurrent

drought due to scarcity of rain. As a result drought is

negatively affecting the development program that the project

intervening. More importantly; the drought is particularly

affecting children and women who need more attention. The drought

situation is repeatedly threatening the life of people in the

area and hence migration is one of the problems in the area. The

situation is being aggravated by various factors, high population

growth led to a very low farm land holding of household. Even

that small plot of land is not well farmed; as farmers’ skill,


shortage of rain and access to drought resistant and high-

yielding seeds are limited, farmers’ resilience to shocks is so

weak because they mainly depend on growing cereal crops which are

highly susceptible to crop pests, little resistance to drought

and low in productivity. As a result, to address particularly the

food security problem and the risk associated with the livelihood

of rural community, the program designed and currently

implementing the projects which was known Revolving Seed

Projects. The project intervention site is Hadha-Boso, Gale-Kelo,

Daka Harengama, Daka-Horekelo, Keraru and Gubeta. The projects

main activities is Providing Drought resistance seed for

subsistence rural households as well as training and orientation

has been given for the beneficiaries before distributing the

seed. The seed was collected from famers during harvest season

and stored in Seed Bank. Since they pay back the seed in kind as

well as in estimated cost, they easily pay back to their

association at the time of harvest. To get the seed at the time

of farming, they have to pay 10% of the total cost first. The pre

payment uses as an insurance if the farmer face risk and bad

harvest, they can be granted by ten percent. By this mechanism

the vulnerable rural community easily produces what they are

expected to produce and hence feed their family regularly.

1.3 Introduction


Support to vulnerable farmers in the Ethiopia attracts

considerable and growing interest in development research and

practice. The broad goal of helping maintain viable livelihoods

in the face of external stress is shared by fields as diverse as

adaptation to climate change (Adger et al., 2003), social

protection (Devereux, 2002), and disaster assistance (Sperling et

al., 2008). Despite the existence of many studies highlighting

farmers’ sophisticated strategies for coping with stress and

disaster (e.g., Mortimore and Adams, 2001; Corbett, 1988;

Richards, 1986; Thornton et al., 2007), it is rare that

interventions addressing vulnerability engage with or build upon

these strategies. For instance, most efforts promoting adaptation

to climate change overlook the adaptive capacity of vulnerable

populations (Reid and Vogel, 2006). This effectively treats

farmers as passive victims, denying their role in responding to

hazards (Tschakert, 2007). Approaches to reduce farmer

vulnerability tend to be supply-driven, as they reflect what

interventions are on hand, rather than the needs arising from a

specific local setting (the demand side). Such a gap leads to

‘one size fits all’ interventions, which are not necessarily

effective at reducing farmers’ vulnerability, and may even have

inequitable outcomes (Eriksen et al., 2005; Adger et al., 2003).

In general, there is much less known about people’s coping

responses to hazards (i.e., the social dimension of

vulnerability) than about the external bio-physical hazards


themselves (the physical dimension of vulnerability; Adger, 2006;

Turner et al., 2003). This partly reflects the fact that coping

needs to be understood in the context of specific local settings,

and varies within communities along with the capacities and

livelihood strategies of individual actors. There is a lively

theoretical discussion of local coping strategies in relation to

climate change (e.g., Eriksen et al., 2005; Tschakert, 2007), but

as yet few interventions in this field which permit study of

their direct relationship with coping. However, another area of

vulnerability reduction, emergency seed aid, provides many

examples for such an analysis. Seed aid is a response to external

hazards and aims to improve farmers’ resilience in a relatively

defined area—crop production. Money studies opens several novel

perspectives on seed aid, analyzing farmers’ use and views about

seed aid across different regions of Ethiopia, and critically

assessing its effect on local coping strategies.

Emergency seed aid targets farmers’ seed insecurity, helping them

secure access to sufficient, desirable, and healthy planting

material in time for sowing. Such aid follows a crisis such as

drought, flood, or short-term conflict, and tries to accelerate

recovery in affected agricultural systems by ensuring that

farmers can continue with crop production. This study focuses on

farmer’s center Seed distribution which was known Revolving Seed

Project. The projects different from other project in that most

emergency seed aid starts its support after the risk and disaster

occurred and design coping mechanisms for the affected community


through providing them seed so as to resist the shock and risk

associated with stress where as Revolving seed Projects is aimed

at prevention of Risk and disasters before its occurrence design

and implement copping strategies through organizing farmers in a

large single group and providing them Selected drought resistance

seed and training on Risk reduction and preparedness. In this

case before the seed was distributed ten percent of the seed has

to be prepaid for the association. The prepaid amount uses as

insurance when bad harvest occurred and the farmers unable to pay

back the amount. When the farmers harvest is good, the farmers

are expected to pay back what they borrow plus additional amount

for that can use to increase number of beneficiaries and to

sustain projects for the long term need. The additional amount

that was paid by farmers uses to sustain the projects when the

project faith out.

1.4 Statement of the problemIn subsistence agriculture and low income countries like Ethiopia

where small holders dominate the overall national economy,

smallholder work on 96 percent of the total cultivated area and

produce 40% of their annual nutritional requirements (CSA, 2007).

Since smallholder farmers are vulnerable, face severe shortage of

financial resources that uses to purchase productive agricultural

inputs including selected seed and fertilizer; this in turn led

as declining productivity of farming hence food security problem


arises. Ethiopia has been critically affected by recurrent food

insecurity threatening the health and life of the community. The

livelihood of more than 80% of the population of Ethiopia depends

on agriculture. Drought has been one of the major factors

affecting food production in Ethiopia. This often results in food

shortages among the rural and urban poor. According to FAO (2010)

an estimated 41% of the population in Ethiopia is reported to be

vulnerable for undernourished due to drought associated with

climatic change. Despite the existence of many studies

highlighting farmers’ sophisticated strategies for coping with

stress (e.g., Mortimore and Adams, 2001; Corbett, 1988; Richards,

1986; Thornton et al., 2007), it is rare that interventions

addressing vulnerability engage with or build upon these

strategies. For instance, most efforts promoting adaptation to

climate change overlook the adaptive capacity of vulnerable

populations (Reid and Vogel, 2006). The study identifies farmers

as active agents, rather than passive aid recipients, seeking to

understand their use of seed aid in the context of their farming

systems and coping strategies. In our case, recurrent drought in

the projects intervention area (Langano) is negatively impacting

the development intervention of program. More importantly; the

drought is mainly affecting children and women who need more

attention and they are targeted population. As most of the

community’s farming system depends on rain feed agriculture, the

community is vulnerable to risks and shocks associated with

climatic change and drought. Langaono is an area located at the


center of rift valley which is surrounded by three rift valley

lakes: Langano, Shala and Abjata. Since the area is extremely

lowland, the area experienced frequent food insecurity.

This brief study highlights specific questions relating to a

farmer-centered perspective on revolving seed project. How well

does revolving seed project address vulnerability to risk and

drought in general and ensure food security in particular? What

would help farmers to cope better, and recover more swiftly?

The study assesses the impact of Revolving Seed Projects in

ensuring food security. It identifies the core factors affecting

the community participation in the projects and assesses their

impact in ensuring food security and their effect on livelihood

improvement in general. To show the impacts of intervention, it

compares the outcome of beneficiaries with non beneficiaries of

the project. It also analysis what would have happened had they

not been involved in the project.

1.5 Significant of the StudyThere is a lively theoretical discussion of local coping

strategies in relation to climate change and vulnerability (e.g.,

Eriksen et al., 2005; Tschakert, 2007), but as yet few

interventions in this field which permit study of their direct

relationship with coping. However, another area of vulnerability

reduction, emergency seed aid, provides many examples for such an

analysis. Seed aid is a response to external hazards and aims to

improve farmers’ resilience in a relatively defined area of crop


production. Several different approaches are implemented. More-

over, frameworks exist to help analyze the nature of farmers’

vulnerability around seeds, such as the Seed Security Framework

(Remington et al., 2002; Sperling, 2008). This makes seed aid a

useful case for exploring more generally the relationship between

coping strategies and interventions that address vulnerability.

However, Emergency injection of seed aid does not address the

need to develop a local self-help system for the long-run and

lift needy people out of the cycle of poverty and without need of

external relief, and help them to be self-sustainable. So, making

the seed system sustainable is quite important without creating

any dependency syndromes. It is possible to design revolving seed

system, where the farmers will replace either the seed or

equivalent money and that can be re-used to reach other farmers.

Was revolving seed necessary? In drought-affected areas, the

“poorest of the poor” had no resources and had to eat their seed,

if they were able to save any. Without revolving seed and/or

other aid:

Farmers could not plant their own crops, so no crop

would be planted or they must rent out their land.

If they rent out their land, they receive less than 50%

of the crop produced.

They must take loans, with 100% interest, repayable at

harvest when crop prices are lowest.

They sell any assets (livestock, tools, house wood),

and sink lower in poverty.


Able-bodied males migrate looking for work, scarce in a

depressed economy.

Some cut trees and sell wood or charcoal, further

depleting forest cover and causing more erosion which

is already serious.

Already-poor nutrition would be even poorer, as

evidenced by children in therapeutic and supplementary

feeding programs.

“Subsistence farmers would starve and die”.

.

The study evaluate and assess the impacts Revolving Seed

Project`s intervention. The contribution of project to food

security will also be analyzed at the end of the study.

It may be used as a reference for further studies for other

researchers and students. The development actors may adopt the

experiences of Revolving Seed Projects strategy in addressing

vulnerability particularly food security and adopt it in every

developmental policy and strategy in areas where vulnerable

community lives.

1.6 Objective of the study

1.6.1 General objective

The ultimate objective of the study is assessing the impacts of

the Revolving Seed Project in ensuring food security that has


impact on livelihoods of rural community members: farmers, women

headed household, youth, widows and children.

1.6.2 Specific Objectives

The studies particularly assess the following impacts and

livelihood improvements of project

Assess the livelihood of the rural community including

farmers: women headed household, women, youth, children and

widows before the project intervention.

Identify possibility of vulnerability of both treated and

control groups to drought and risk associated with disaster

and climatic change.

Analyze an observable factor that affects the participation

of rural community in the Revolving Seed projects and

impacts in ensuring food security.

Identify variables that affect the participation and the

outcome of project during its implementation.

Analyze the project plan and performance during

implementation, determine factors affecting the performance

of the project; whether the targeted rural community needs

being met or not.

Assess the targeted food securities indicators so as to

evaluate the impact of the intervention (treatments).


Compares the different food security status between treated

(involved) and not treated (not involved) group of

community.

Analyze the impacts of the projects and identify measures

taken in to consideration so as to sustain the project`s

positive impacts and hence assess faith out (graduation)

strategies.

Finally assess feasibility and viability of the project and

design scaling up strategies of the project.

Assess the challenges and success of the projects during

implementation.

1.7 Research Questions

Are farmers, women headed households, youth, women and

children vulnerable as a result of disaster and risks

associated with climatic change due lack of seed before the

project intervention?

Has the projects reduced the vulnerability of rural

community particularly farmers, women headed households,

youth, women and children through providing drought

resistance crops, selected seeds?

How the project manages environmental impacts? What are the

measures taken into consideration? Did environmental factors

have any impact on project progress?


How the projects interventions ensure food security so that

the livelihood of vulnerable rural community improved?

Why control group is more vulnerable to risk and disaster

than treated group after the intervention?

What are observable factors that affect the participation

and involvement in the project?

Are the vulnerability problems of the rural community

directly addressed by the project?

Did design and implementation of the project hold back the

project`s success?

Is the projects achieved and implemented as it was planned?

How to scale up the projects achievements and sustain the

project`s positive impacts?

Are the faiths out (graduation) strategies appropriate and

feasible?

1.8 Hypothesis to be tested

The small holder due to limited financial access, there might be

limited access to different inputs and materials (like seeds, and

the like). The smallholders vulnerability further caused by risk

of climatic change and disaster. To mitigate the risk associated

with limited access of credit, provision of agricultural inputs

including selected seed plays an important role in maintaining

food security and reducing vulnerability in general. The price


rise of agricultural inputs might be considered as another risk

for rural subsistence farmers; it increase vulnerability to risk

through limiting the purchasing power of the smallholder.

Unfavorable climatic condition might be other risk factors which

might have negative effect up on the community. It is

hypothesized to use and adopt drought tolerance seeds which will

survive at certain amount of drought. Revolving Seed project

provide selected drought resistance seed to poor subsistence

farmers who are involved in the project. The following factors

hypothesized to affect the participation and impact of the

project.

Land size of the farmers: the household who has small land

size face food insecurity problems due Lack of seed. Large

land holders to overcome the seed problems sell half of

their land So that they purchase seed for farming. Lack of

seed affects the large holders to sell or rent out his land

while small holders is affected by double problems ( first

Small land has low demand for sale second to farm the small

land, he lacks seed). Moreover if disaster and risk

happened, the small holders are vulnerable for food

insecurity than large holders. The household who has small

land size would like to participate in revolving seed

projects so as to prevent and resist the occurrence of risk

and shock.


Household size of the farmers: Large household size would

like to participate in revolving seed. The small holders

most of the time have large family but small plot of land

that their consumption depends on and even the small size of

farm is sometimes not properly ploughed due to lack of seed.

The large family has no reserved seed for sowing since large

family consumes even the reserved seed. Large household has

more children and hence vulnerable to food insecurity. Large

household has more children than small household and the

household needs more food to meet the family consumption

needs hence the large household would like to participate in

the projects so as to receive seed aid to plough the land

that can cover consumption needs of his/her family.

Involvement in other income generating activities: the

household involved in other income generating activities has

the probability to have access for income that can support

the purchase of seed for farming. So, the household who has

additional income source other than farming would not like

to be involved in the project, where as the household who

has no alternative income generating activities would like

to participate and involved in the revolving seed project.

Head of household`s Sex: Since female headed household has

low access to different treatment due to different social,

economic and cultural factors so that they are vulnerable

for disaster and risks. Women headed household to overcome

vulnerability problems would like to participate in seed


aid. So women headed household has more probability to

participate in the projects than other household (Men headed

household).

Age: the household headed by older has low income for

purchase of seed to plough the existing land holding for

they have no other alternative income than farming. If the

existing land is not farmed properly, the families face food

insecurity problems. Old age headed household needs

different supports from the community, government as well as

from nongovernmental organization. So, the household headed

by older would like to be involved in the projects than

young family.

1.9 Scope and limitation of the study

The study due to time availability, shortage of reliable primary

sources of data, and budget constraint mainly focus on assessing

the impact of revolving seed projects on disaster and risk

reduction in general and food security in particular. The

interviewed household (treated) response might be negative due

to high expectation of additional support among the community.

These may negatively affects the real impacts of the project

under study. The drop out household may not respond the actual

change obtained during their participation since they need to be

involved again. The model (Propensity Score Matching) we are


going to apply cannot measure unobservable factors that affect

the participation and outcome simultaneously. Unobservable

factors that affect the participation are Motivation,

Expectation, Satisfaction and awareness of the household may

affect the participation in the project.

1.10 Study Design

Langano Revolving Seed project has been undertaken its

development activities at lanagano area in six selected

vulnerable peasant association. The projects intervention sites

are Hadha-Boso, Gale-kelo, Daka Delu harangama, Daka Horekelo,

Gubeta and Keraru. Eventhough the sites are stratified in to six

sites, the community organized as a single entity called Langano

Revolving Seed Union. For our analyzing mechanism we grouped both

beneficiaries and controlled group in to two main categories

(Wheat and Maize producers considered as a single group since

they have the same socio-economic profiles where as Haricot bean

producers has same socio-economic status). The beneficiaries in

six kebele are 993 household in average 200 household involved in

revolving seed project. From each category we have randomly

select 40 household of which treated household is 20 while

controlled household 20. In the study almost 80 household is

designed to participate in questionnaires.

1.10.1 Method of Study


Non experimental methods sometimes are also called statistical

methods because they use statistical techniques to simulate the

counterfactual, i.e., the outcome that would have prevailed had

there been no intervention. The most frequently used non

experimental methods available for evaluating development

programs are propensity score matching (PSM), difference in

differences (DD), regression discontinuity design (RDD), and

instrumental variables (IV). But here we are mainly interested

with the first method; i.e., PSM.

1.10.2 Propensity Score Matching (PSM)

The concept of PSM was first introduced by Rosenbaum and Rubin

(1983) in a paper entitled “The Central Role of the Propensity

Score in Observational Studies for Casual Effects.”

Heckman (1997) also played a role in the development of

propensity score matching methods. He focused on selection bias,

with a primary emphasis on making casual inferences when there is

non- random assignment. He later developed the difference-in-

differences approach which has applications to PSM.

Propensity scores are an alternative method to estimate the

effect of receiving treatment when random assignment of

treatments to subjects is not feasible. Propensity score matching

(PSM) refers to the pairing of treatment and control units with

similar values on the propensity score, and possibly other

covariates, and the discarding of all unmatched units (Rubin,


2001). It is primarily used to compare two groups of subjects but

can be applied to analyses of more than two groups.

The basic idea of the propensity score matching method is to

match program participants with nonparticipants typically using

individual observable characteristics. Each program participant

is paired with a small group of nonparticipants in the comparison

group that are most similar in the probability of participating

in the program. This probability (called propensity score) is

estimated as a function of individual characteristics typically

using a statistical model such as logit or probit model. The mean

outcomes of these groups of matched nonparticipants form the

constructed counterfactual outcome. The mean program impact is

estimated by the difference between the observed mean outcome of

the project participants and the mean outcome of the constructed

counterfactual.

The literature has long recognized that impact evaluation is

essentially a problem of missing data. A group of non-

participants may therefore be used as the control group and to

represent the counterfactual (Gebrehawaria, 2008).

1.10.2 Model Specification

Non-experimental methods derive the counterfactual through

statistical techniques. For example, assume that impact

evaluation involves measuring the impact of resettlement on

household food security, specified as:


γi =θ+ βDi +αxi +ƹi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)

Where:

γi is food security level of household i.D is the treatment indicator (Participation/involvement in

revolving seed project)

D =1, when a household involved in Revolving Seed Project.

D =0, when a household not involved in Revolving Seed Project.

Xi captures the exogenous explanatory variable.α and β are estimated parameters

The household that is involved and participated in revolving seed

project (D =1), then the household food security become:

[γ1i /Di=1]=θ+ β +αxi +ƹi

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( 2)

The household that is not involved and participated in revolving

seed project (D =0), then the household food security become:


[γ0i /Di=0] =θ + αxi + ƹi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

( 3)

The difference between equation (2) and (3) is estimated by the

parameter β which is referred to be the impact ofrevolving seed projects on food security givenhousehold characteristics.

The households that are participated and that are participated

whose food security status is represented as γ1i and γ0i ,

respectively. For many households, we must estimate,

ATE = Ḛ (γ1 - γ0 )

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------- ( 4)

Where (.) denotes the expected value and the sample

equivalent is given by:

ATE=1n∑i=0

n[γ1−γ0 ]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- (5)

The average treatment effect (ATE) shows the impact of revolving seed

projects assuming a randomized sample drawn from the population given

household characteristics. My interest in this case is to measure the


average gain (food security) obtained from participation in revolving seed

project compared to what would have been if these households had not

participated and involved in, estimated as:

ATT = E (γ1i - γ0 /Di =1) = E (γ1i/Di =1) – E ( γ0 /Di =1)

---------------------------------------------- (6)

Since E ( γ0 /Di =1) is unobservable, we can replace it by E ( γ0 /Di =0),

so it can be rewritten as follows; ATT = E (γ1i - γ0 /Di =1) = E (γ1i/Di =1) –

E ( γ0 /Di =o)

Since household characteristics (xi), E ( γ0 /Di=1)= E ( γ0 /Di =0).

Equation (6) is the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT),

where the sample equivalent is written as:

ATT = 1n∑

i=0

n[γ1−γ0 ] ̸D =1 =1n {∑

i=0

n¿¿] - ¿} -------------- (7)

1.10.4 Estimating Propensity ScoreWhen estimating the propensity score, two choices have to bemade. The first one concerns the model to be used for theestimation, and the second one is the variables to be included inthis model. We will start with the model choice before we decidewhich variables to include in the model. In this case we useslogit model

Pr {Di =1/Xi} =ɸ (f (xi))-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (8)

Where:


ɸ: denotes the normal (logistic) cumulative distributionfunction. And.

f(xi): is a starting specification which includes all thecovariates as linear terms without interactions or higher orderterms.

1.10.5 Propensity Score Matching Methods:

Once the study obtain an estimated propensity score, an

appropriate matching technique is implemented. Many of the

matching methods incorporate the caliper method to improve the

quality of matching.

1.10.6 Caliper Matching:

In this method, a pre-determined range of values is defined

usually within one-quarter of the standard error (0.25) of the

estimated propensity. Any values that fall outside that range are

removed (Sianesi, 2002).

The range is: | Pi - Pj|< e

Where: Pi is the estimated propensity score for the treated

subjects i

Pj is the estimated propensity score for the

control subjects’ j

e is the pre-determined range of values


Matching within calipers is one of the more frequently used

methods for propensity score matching.

Matching has three benefits, according to Rosenbaum and Rubin

(1983):

1. Matched treated and control pairs provide a simple

representation of the data for researchers,

2. The variance of the estimate of the average treatment

effect will be lower in matched samples than in random

samples. This is due to more similar distributions of the

observed covariates, and

3. Model-based methods are more robust to departures from

underlying model assumptions.

1.10.7 Assumptions

Conditional Independence Assumption:

One possible identification strategy is to assume, that given a

set of observable covariates X which are not affected by

treatment, potential outcomes are independent of treatment

assignment:

1. The conditional independence assumption (CIA) based on the

propensity score (PS) can be written as: (Unconfoundedness

given the PS) Y (0), Y (1) ┴ D|P(X), ∀ X.

2. Common Support: A further requirement besides independenceis the common support or overlap condition. It rules out the


phenomenon of perfect predictability of D given X: (Overlap)

0 < Pr (D = 1|X) < 1

1.10.8 Variable Choice:

More advice is available regarding the inclusion (or exclusion)

of covariates in the propensity score model. The matching

strategy builds on the CIA (Conditional Independence Assumption),

requiring that the outcome variable(s) must be independent of

treatment conditional on the propensity score. Hence,

implementing matching requires choosing a set of variables X that

credibly satisfy this condition. Heckman, Ichimura, and Todd

(1997) show that omitting important variables can seriously

increase bias in resulting estimates. Only variables that

influence simultaneously the participation decision and the

outcome variable should be included. Bryson, Dorsett, and Purdon

(2002) note that there are two reasons why over- parameterized

models should be avoided. First, it may be the case that

including extraneous variables in the participation model

exacerbate the support problem. Second, although the inclusion of

non significant variables will not bias the estimates or make

them inconsistent, it can increase their variance. Hence,

economic theory, a sound knowledge of previous research and also

information about the institutional settings should guide the

researcher in building up the model (see e.g. Smith and Todd

(2005) or Sianesi (2004). Bryson, Dorsett, and Purdon (2002) note

that there are two reasons why over- parameterized models should


be avoided. First, it may be the case that including extraneous

variables in the participation model exacerbate the support

problem. Second, although the inclusion of non significant

variables will not bias the estimates or make them inconsistent,

it can increase their variance.

Observable Variables included in the model

Variables Included in the model that affect the outcome variables

positively and negatively

1. Land size of the farmers: the household who has small land

size face food insecurity problems. So the household who has

small land size would like to participate in revolving seed

projects so as to resist the occurrence of farming risk and

shock.

2. Household size of the farmers-Large household size would

like to participate in revolving seed. Large household has

more children than small household and the household needs

more food to meet the family consumption needs hence the

household would like to participate in the project so as to

cover consumption needs of his/her family.

3. Involvement in other income generating activities: the

households involved income generating activities has access

to get income that can help the subsistence farmers in

purchase of farming inputs including seed. The household who


has other alternative income generating activities may not

like to be involved in the project.

4. Head of household`s Sex: Since female headed household has

low access to different treatment due to different social,

economic and cultural factors so that they are vulnerable

for disaster and risks. So, the female headed household

would like to be involved in the seed projects.

5. Age: the household headed by older has low income for

purchase of seed to plough the existing land holding for

they have no other alternative income than farming. If the

existing land is not farmed properly, the families face food

security problems. Old age headed household needs different

supports from the community, government as well as from

nongovernmental organization. So, the household headed by

older would like to be involved in the seed projects than

young family.

1.10.9 The outcome variable

The outcome of the participation in the Revolving seed projects

is to improve the livelihood of rural community through creating

an opportunity that ensures food security. It is believed that a

household livelihood is improved if and only if the household is

ensured in food security through improving different food

security indicators including food consumption expenditures,

other food expenditures, Crop production and Asset ownership. In

this case food security will be the outcome obtained from the


participation in revolving seed projects. The estimated

propensity score, for subject i,( i = 1,…, N ) is the conditional

probability of being assigned to a particular

treatment(participation or involvement in the project) given a

vector of observed covariates xi (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983):

1.10.10 Measurement Procedures

One can use the propensity score matching (PSM) model and

treatment effects model to address the data with sample

selection problem associated with participation and involvement

in the Revolving Seed Project. In this case the primary data is

collected through focus group discussion, in-depth interviews of

key informants and households and case history studies.

Propensity Score Matching (PSM)

The sample selection problem (bias) resulted from

1. Self selection where the households themselves decide

whether or not to participate in Revolving Seed Project ,

which depends on observable and unobservable household

characteristics, and/or

2. Endogenous program placement where those who design and

implement Revolving Seed Project select (a group of)

households with specific characteristics (e.g. high poverty

rates or reasonably good participants


Chapter Two

Literature Review

2.1 Theoretical Literature Review

2.1.1 Background to emergency seed aid: widely implemented,

rarely analyzed

Emergency seed aid targets farmers’ seed insecurity, helping them

secure access to sufficient, desirable, and healthy planting

material in time for sowing. Such aid follows a crisis such as

drought, food, or short-term conflict, and tries to accelerate

recovery in affected agricultural systems by ensuring that

farmers can continue with crop production (Sperling et al.,

2008). This linking of relief and vulnerability reduction helps

explain its burgeoning popularity in the past 15 years. Seed aid

has occurred in many countries, particularly in sub-Saharan

Africa, involving a wide range of donors, implementers (both

government and nongovernmental organizations, NGOs), and

approaches. Hundreds of projects have been carried out, on a

near-annual basis in some countries (e.g., Zimbabwe—Bramel and

Remington, 2004), and incurring significant costs (e.g., US $500m

for Ethiopia alone since 1974—Sperling et al., 2007). Yet,

despite this breadth of activity, there is still little known

about seed aid’s effects on farmers, particularly about how well

it supports farmers’ strategies for coping with stress. In

general, seed aid is little evaluated. As it is often conceived


as a one-off emergency intervention, few implementers dedicate

time or resources to evaluate seed aid impact (Sperling et al.,

2006). There are some notable exceptions (e.g., Alemu and Yoseph,

2004; Longley, 2006), though these draw mainly from secondary

data and interviews with implementers. Seed aid merits critical

attention. As with other interventions around vulnerability, seed

aid is often supply-driven, rather than problem- or end user-

driven. There is evidence that poorly conducted interventions can

actually increase vulnerability in multiple ways. In the short-

term, supplying maladapted crop varieties causes already

vulnerable farmers to waste scarce labor and land resources. Over

a number of seasons, there is evidence that providing seed aid as

a routine response undermines the functioning of local markets

and stifles the development of small- scale commercial seed

enterprises (Rohrbach et al., 2005). More- over, aid dependency

is an abiding concern and repeated distributions may foster

farmer reliance on aid for part of their routine seed procurement

(Sperling et al., 2008). Finally, it bears mention that seed aid

is often driven by specialist interest groups or policies which

have a specific notion of what should be supplied, and by whom.

For instance, seed aid may be designed to promote new crop

varieties (Sperling, 2002), or to support financially a growing

‘relief seed’ business (Bramel and Reming- ton, 2004). Any

critical reflection on positive and negative impacts of seed aid

over time will need to understand how farmers actually use aid,


and how aid relates to their vulnerability (leverage farmers`

strategies for coping with stress, 2008).

2.1.2. Understanding farmers’ coping strategies in seed

For most crops, farmers’ own harvests supply much of their seed:

farmers select seed from prime plants in the field, store it

carefully, and then sort out planting material just before

sowing. Having frequent shortfalls even in ‘normal’ times,

farmers also make use of off-farm channels, and carefully

discriminate among those in which they have confidence, for

example, neighbors or trusted market vendors. Obtaining the right

materials, on time, and on terms which farmers find acceptable

partly depends on having access to a range of acceptable channels

(Sperling et al., 2008). Several studies give technical insight

into how farmers respond to stress, that is, the details of their

coping. Farmers may stagger sowing times, increase sowing

densities, or re-sow if germination appears to be low (McGuire,

2007). In response to rapidly changing environmental conditions,

labor supply, or even market signals farmers may also alter types

of crops grown, relative crop areas, or variety portfolios

(Fujisaka, 1997). Farmers also respond to stress by making

proportionally greater use of off-farm channels: as harvests

tumble or seed quality declines, markets and social networks may

be drawn upon to fill shortfalls or to help farmers switch toward

specific crops or varieties (Sperling et al., 2008). Access to

channels is often compromised post-crisis by, inter alia,


farmers’ low purchasing power or weakened functioning of social

networks, either because everyone has seed shortfalls (McGuire,

2008), or because neighborly sharing has broken down (as

sometimes occurs following conflict; Sperling, 1997). So, in

terms of coping strategies, ensuring farmers’ access to a range

of seed channels, and allowing them to appropriately maneuver

their planting portfolio (by crop, variety, and sowing date) are

two broad themes which are keys. Of course, farmers in stress

periods have many other non-seed- related coping mechanisms, such

as livelihood diversification, wage labor, or even long-term

migration. We have focused above of those which are seed-sector

specific (leverage farmers` strategies for coping with stress,

2008).

2.1.3. Reassessing seed aid through farmers’ own experiences

Farmer perspectives on their needs during crises, and on the

usefulness of aid for meeting these needs, are essential for

improving the effectiveness of interventions. Seed-related

responses in situations of vulnerability can involve a range of

approaches. Generally, these can be grouped in two types: those

which give seed directly, like direct seed distribution (DSD) and

revolving seed funds where seed is brought into an affected area

from outside a region; and more market-based approaches which

allow farmers themselves to access seed locally, such as vouchers


for seed and cash for seed. In some cases, food aid is given to

protect locally adapted seed stocks from being eaten, or food

swapped with seed. In theory, the specific nature of farmers’

seed insecurity—or if they are seed insecure at all—should guide

choice of response. However, in practice, precise constraints are

rarely assessed prior to delivering aid (Sperling et al., 2006).

Remington et al. (2002) suggest a Seed Security Framework for

such assessments defining three broad parameters: availability—

the presence of sufficient seed for sowing within the region;

access—the ability of farmers to acquire seeds (reflecting their

financial or social assets); and quality—the value of this seed

in terms of adaptation and seed health. Use of this framework can

help identify the main source of vulnerability in a given setting

and the most appropriate aid responses. For instance, DSD (Direct

Seed Distribution) may be best when there is no seed locally

available (or when seed farmers want is not found locally). Where

access is the major constraint, the Seed Security Framework

recommends market-oriented approaches to seed aid. Farmers have

sophisticated understandings of the stresses they face

(Tschakert, 2007) and thus are keys in assessing needs and

designing approaches.(leverage farmers` strategies for coping

with stress, 2008)

2.2 Empirical Literature Review

2.2.1 Emergency seed aid response: USAID Experience in Ethiopia


2.2.1.1 Seed Needs

National seed needs have been estimated as some 480,000 MT. Of

this, some 96% is from the informal seed sector, “grain” seed

produced by local farmers (who use the seed or trade it with

neighbors) without specific “seed quality control”. While this

seed is not certified, it usually germinates adequately to

produce a stand, and is a variety, mixture, or landrace which has

shown adaptation under local conditions. Farmers (at least lower-

income farmers not accustomed to hybrid or certified seed and

optimum input use) prefer local seed of proven adaptation, often

from fields they have seen. (Evaluation of Emergency seed relief

USAID, 2003-2004)

Despite the drought, there always appear to be local seed

supplies, held by farmers who can produce a surplus. But,

“poorest of the poor” are without resources, cannot purchase

seed, are in an extremely precarious situation, and may consume

their seed as food grain. They cannot plant a crop even when the

drought ends, and have no means of survival.

2.2 .1.2.USAID Assistance

The “poorest of the poor”, subsistence farm families most-at-risk

segment of the rural population (variable percentage depending on

locality, estimated at 5-20%) was targeted by USAID for drought-

emergency seed relief, to enable them to plant crops and “get

back on their feet” without suffering further consequences of


drought. (Evaluation of Emergency seed relief USAID, 2003-2004)

In FY 2003 and FY 2004, USAID/OFDA provided more than $50 million

in humanitarian assistance through emergency health and

nutrition, agriculture, water, sanitation, and livelihoods

activities. Of this, some $15 million was in emergency

agriculture programs implemented by NGO’s in drought-stricken

areas, the majority in SNNP, Oromiya, and Tigray regions. This

included $6.2 million for seed, in response to FDRE’s estimated

$10 million seed shortfall. Implementing partners of CARE, CISP,

CRS, FHI, GAA, SCF/UK, Oxfam, and WVI used this for emergency

seed distributions. USAID’s intervention assisted approximately

347,790 drought-affected households in Afar, Amhara, Oromiya,

SNNP, and Somali regions. This is a small part of the affected

population, but is the neediest. (Evaluation of Emergency seed

relief USAID, 2003-2004)

2.2.1.3 Evaluation Methodology

To evaluate the effectiveness and impact of seed assistance

methods, available documents were reviewed, and field interviews

conducted to obtain perceptions and evaluations of NGO’s who

distributed seed aid, farmers who were and were not

beneficiaries, government officials, and others.

As this focused on seed and methods of providing seed aid, an

effort was made to keep the evaluation in practical, “applied to

the beneficiary” terms. Several earlier internal evaluations


include details and figures, so these are not repeated here. It

must be emphasized that this was, and given the constraints could

only be, a subjective evaluation of delivery approaches to

limited seed relief. It does not and could not address the basic

causes and needs. Abject poverty and food insecurity still exist,

and will until the root causes are addressed in a massive way.

(Evaluation of Emergency seed relief USAID, 2003-2004)

2.2.1.4 Stakeholders and their Participation

Seed aid involved a chain of stakeholders. USAID provided

funding. Government agencies, from national to local levels, were

involved in all aspects from policy to targeting beneficiaries to

delivery to monitoring. NGO’s with local experience, staff and

facilities were implementers and evaluators and were critical to

success. Local vendors, traders and farmers supplied seed. Local

groups/leaders were primary beneficiary, helped monitor and

implement seed relief. The identified poorest of the poor

received seed relief and orientation/training. All stakeholders

were involved to the maximum, and cooperation and coordination

appeared to be quite good. Few disagreements were reported, and

these were reportedly resolved effectively and quickly. There was

some initial apprehension about cash aid, but all concerned were

pleased with end results. (Evaluation of Emergency seed relief

USAID, 2003-2004)

2.2.1.5 Organization of Seed Relief


Seed relief was well-organized, efficient and transparent,

especially given local emergency conditions and infrastructure.

Individuals, committees and groups were closely involved, from

national to local levels. Stakeholders appeared well-informed and

aware of what others were doing. (Evaluation of Emergency seed


2.2.1.6 Seed relief Management, Orientation and Monitoring

These aspects appeared to be well-organized and effective, in

large part due to the dedication and efforts of stakeholder

personnel, particularly the NGO’s. Management, from targeting

beneficiaries to identifying recipients to financial records,

appears to be quite good. At all stages, there was orientation

and guidance for all involved, from local people who selected

beneficiaries to workers at distribution points, and

beneficiaries. Close, detailed and frequent monitoring and

follow-up occurred at all levels, and all were aware that it

would take place.(Evaluation of emergency seed USAID,2003-2004)

2.2.1.7 Seed Relief Distribution Methods

The cash and coupons, seed fairs, and local vendors eliminated

many of the costs, losses, risks, and delays of physical handling

and delivery of large stocks of seed. Even the few cases of in-

kind seed distribution were handled well, given local conditions.

Four methods were used by USAID’s NGO implementing partners to

get seed to the “poorest of the poor” farm families.


(1) Cash for seed: General procedures: Cash was given to farmers

for seed, as grants, along with training and orientation. Farmers

could then buy seed (or something else!) from a vendor of their

choice. Most often, cash was provided in the form of coupons, to

ensure that beneficiaries used approved sources and bought good

seed. Separate cash relief grants given to needy families were

often partly used for seed. (Evaluation of Emergency seed relief

USAID, 2003-2004)

Advantages: Puts money into and stimulates the local economy, by

using local seed vendors. Seed is located near where it is

needed; logistical problems of handling/transport are avoided.

Most (but not all) felt that it was easier to implement, as

monitoring and record-keeping were less costly and time-consuming

than seed distribution. It provided flexibility and empowered

choice for beneficiaries, who can select varieties and vendors.

Markets near every kebele (village) and vendors (often farmers

who produce a surplus) sell local varieties, and reduce the crop

risk/distrust of beneficiaries. Requires less advance

arrangement, and most report that it requires less overall effort

and is more cost- effective.

Disadvantages: Money may be spent for other things, but some felt

that this is not undesirable, as beneficiaries may have more

pressing needs. There were a few reports that sometimes the

village leader controlled (and may have misdirected) cash grants.

If much cash is infused into the local economy, dealers may


inflate prices; however, a small percentage of farmers received

aid, so respondents reported no significant price increase.

Careful monitoring and follow-up is essential. Procedures for

withdrawing money from banks and handling money were sometimes

time-consuming and tedious. Security arrangements had to be made,

but government officials were always present, with armed police.

Cash grants do not facilitate introducing improved varieties;

however, subsistence farmers do not readily accept varieties

until they are proven under local farm conditions.

Evaluation: Grants, as used in this assistance program, help

farmers directly and are an excellent aid method. Cash infusions

stimulate the local economy, and bring poor farmers into it.

Purchasing seed empowers the farmer, and stimulates decision-

making (farmers here have been accustomed to docile acceptance of

guidelines). Loans (not used here except in seed bank programs)

defeat the purpose, as prices are high at planting time, then low

at harvest when farmer repay loans (they must repay/sell too much

grain and may actually lose). Seed banks avoid this, as farmers

repay seed/grain rather than cash.

In the cash relief system used here, both the husband and wife

were involved, and the cash was often given to the wife. It was

generally felt that women (previously ignored in such matters)

were more efficient in ensuring that money was spent properly. In

cash for seed relief, this approach was not used, but both

husband and wife were involved and made aware, with mutual


decision-making encouraged. (Evaluation of Emergency seed relief

USAID, 2003-2004) The cash system (including coupons) was felt

by most NGO’s and beneficiaries to be more effective, easier to

handle, requiring less effort, faster, and more beneficial to the

local economy. Its effectiveness is indicated by the report that

the FDRE is beginning to request that aid be in cash.

(2) Coupons: General procedures: Coupons, to be redeemed for

seed, are given to beneficiaries, who can spend them at any pre-

approved, registered participating vendor. The vendor takes the

coupons to the NGO and redeems them for cash. (Note: the term

“voucher” is not preferred locally).

Advantages: Using local vendors stimulates the local economy, and

eliminates seed- handling logistical problems/delays. Using

coupons limits purchases to approved vendors, helps ensure good

seed of locally-adapted varieties, and ensures that farmers buy

seed. Potential for miss-use (as is possible with cash) is

largely eliminated. Gives the beneficiary a wider choice of

vendors and seed; allows him to bargain with vendors, as in cash

purchase. Also empowers the beneficiary, in decision-making in

purchases. (Evaluation of Emergency seed relief USAID, 2003-2004)

Disadvantages: Requires more administrative work and orientation

for beneficiaries. However, in all methods, NGO’s and government

officers went to considerable lengths to orient/advise/train

beneficiaries, so this is not entirely extra effort.


Evaluation: The coupon purchase system has all the advantages of

cash purchase, while eliminating most potential miss-use of cash.

(3) Seed fairs: General procedures: Local specific “seed markets”

organized, at locations so beneficiaries do not have to walk more

than 1.5-2 hours. Pre-approved vendors bring pre-tested seed to

sell. Vendors and their seed are registered. Beneficiaries are

advised in advance, and given coupons to make purchases. Farmers

can visit any approved vendors, and purchase from vendor(s) of

their choice. (Evaluation of Emergency seed relief USAID, 2003-

2004) Advantages: Useful when local vendors are not close enough

to the farmers, seed is not readily available locally, or some

control over vendors is needed. Combined with coupons, it avoids

the pitfalls of cash purchases.

Disadvantages: Seed may be required at different times, so more

than one fair per year may be required. Several fairs may be

needed at about the same time, so more personnel, organization

and monitoring are required.

Evaluation: An excellent method of implementing seed relief where

local merchants are inadequate. However, if enough seed is

available from local vendors, it may be easier to give

beneficiaries coupons and let them patronize selected local

vendors. (Evaluation of Emergency seed relief USAID, 2003-2004)

(4) Seed distribution in kind: General procedures: Involves

buying seed and physically delivering it to beneficiaries. It


requires issuing tenders for large quantities of seed (thus

usually to outside agencies), inspecting bidders and their seed,

contracting large supplies, transporting/storing/handling it to

get it to beneficiaries, and distributing different quantities to

beneficiaries. (Evaluation of Emergency seed relief USAID, 2003-

2004)

Advantages: Bulk buying can reduce cost of seed, and control

seed kinds received by farmers. Can introduce new varieties (if

proven and accepted locally); useful where adequate seed stocks

are not available.

Disadvantages: Farmers may not like the varieties received, which

may not be locally adapted (government/formal seed sector

agencies push hybrids, unsuited for subsistence low-input-use

farmers who plant back their grain). There are reports of farmers

trading “aid seed” in the market for “local seed”. Delivery

logistics may be time-consuming and expensive. Seed is subject to

loss from insects, rats, torn bags, lost bags, rain damage in

transit, miss-use, etc. Trucks, storages, moving/handling

systems, can damage seed or seed quality, increase costs, and

require more investment, management and maintenance. No “ideal”

seed storage was seen (best is new seed banks, e.g., OSHO),

although it is simple to design and construct good storages with

minimum operating costs. Requires staff , facilities, storage,

handling, transport, and delivery arrangements to get seed to

farmers when/where needed. Reportedly, sometimes farmers have to


provide bags, or seed were granted at cities so beneficiaries had

to travel and then take seed home, incurring more expenses. This

method also does not support the local economy or develop local

seed suppliers.

Evaluation: While commonly-used in the past, seed aid in-kind

involves logistical efforts, is costly in time and work, could

involve varieties not well-adapted, and appears to be outmoded by

the more efficient methods listed above. However, carefully

implemented, it can be useful where seed is not readily available

locally, or to introduce proven new varieties. (Evaluation of

Emergency seed relief USAID, 2003-2004)

2.2.1.8 Overall Rating of Distribution Methods

Success in getting seed to beneficiaries was achieved with all

methods, and each has proponents, depending on local situations.

If local vendors/seed are available, either the cash or the

coupon system, combined with seed fairs where good vendors are

not near beneficiaries, appears to be most useful.

In direct relief, both NGO implementing partners and

beneficiaries preferred the cash grant. In seed relief, the

coupon system was equally effective and eliminated some

weaknesses, but required more effort. Coupons were effective

because local seed sources are available, and a monitoring system

is used. Coupons are easier and faster to implement, speed up

delivery to farmers, and required less logistical


effort/cost/facilities. And, farmers liked it because it gave

them a choice in selecting seed. (Evaluation of Emergency seed


2.2.2 Vendors (Sellers of Seed)

It was commonly reported that surveys showed that there was

almost always seed available locally, of locally adapted crops.

It was simply not available to poor families who were

beneficiaries of this program. For seed fairs and coupon

programs, potential vendors were surveyed, and their seed

checked, sampled and tested. Only those with higher quality seed

were accepted. Some vendors were local merchants (who purchased

seed from local farmers), but often vendors were farmers

themselves. Vendors were registered, given ID’s for seed fairs,

and checked in and out, along with their seed amounts and kinds.

Records were kept of seed sold, coupons received, and other data

required for monitoring and control. (Evaluation of Emergency

seed relief USAID, 2003-2004)

2.2.3. Security and Reliability

Handling and distributing cash requires security, and must be

transparent to minimize miss-appropriation. In some environments,

it may have dangers. Here, there were no reported problems, as

involved government officers arranged for police protection. The

Ethiopian rural social structure seems remarkably orderly,

cooperative and transparent so a cash system could be quite


effective. Close monitoring also helped ensure accurate handling

and use of funds. (Evaluation of Emergency seed relief USAID,

2003-2004)

2.2.4. Impact on Local Market

Market/Commerce Development: Using cash or coupons at local

vendors provided locally-acceptable varieties, and stimulated

local seed supply and agri-business. The seed fair, cash grant,

and coupon systems developed contacts between beneficiaries and

local vendors, which are not done with in-kind supply, even with

bulk purchase from local sources. Additional funds from farmers

increase local commerce due to “revolving” the cash from farmers.

Effect of Cash Inputs: If the cash/coupon grant inflow exceeds

the local market’s ability to supply seed, it may cause undue

price rise. However, in this program, the input was comparatively

small (reportedly 5-10% of the population, and small landholders)

and there was no significant price increase. Implementing NGO’s

monitored local markets and prices (reported as weekly), and

reported a stimulating effect, with no price increase due to

increased cash input. Seed In-Kind Inputs: Bringing in seed

from outside sources can compete with and/or disrupt development

of local seed supply. Building a Self-Sustaining Local Seed

Supply: A frequently-expressed need is to develop local good-seed

suppliers and help the local economy, with ability to provide

special inputs to help at-risk needy families in emergencies. The


“seed bank” approach is a move in this direction, but is neither

complete nor extensive enough to be adequate. (Evaluation of

Emergency seed relief USAID, 2003-2004)

2.2.5. Criteria for Targeting Beneficiaries and Seed Kinds

Needy woredas/kebeles were identified by woreda officials, and

reported “up the channels” to policy levels, where final

selection was made, according to budgets. Targeting beneficiaries

was done at the local level, where targeters personally knew

local people and could select most-needy beneficiaries. It was

reported that some needy families were “too proud” to admit their

need, while some less needy persons tried to receive relief, but

this was resolved at the local level.

Each Kebele DA (Development Agent) office reportedly has 3

agricultural DA’s (in addition to those of other government

units): 1 for Natural Resources, 1 for Livestock, and 1 for

Crops. A fourth is reportedly being added, for Marketing. The

local DA office maintains detailed records on local people, and

has regular contacts with them, primarily through the PA.

2.2.6. Targeting/Identifying Beneficiaries

Only “poorest of the poor” local families were selected for seed

aid. Selection criteria included small land holdings, weakest

assets (not having livestock or oxen), headed by women or

elderly, and/or lacking adult male workers. To receive seed,

beneficiaries had to have land, in some cases ready to plant. InImpact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page57

one case, seed relief was given to widows and elderly without

land so seed relief could help them in cooperative efforts. A

problem in selecting beneficiaries is selection-committee

favoritism for close relations; however, although sometimes

nominated for assistance, these were reportedly eliminated if

other committee members did not consider them among the “the

needy”. Also, woreda officials and NGO staff reviewed nominated

beneficiaries (see below for targeting process).

2.2.7. Targeting Seed Kinds

Within local communities, the beneficiary selection committee

also identified seed kinds to be supported, based on local

crop/variety adaptation, MOA expert advice, and nutritional

needs. Crops selected were traditionally grown locally, or needed

(as, forage crops). This ensures that farmers know appropriate

cultural practices. The cash and coupon systems also allowed

flexibility in choice of seed by beneficiaries.

Varieties selected by beneficiaries were those proven under local

conditions. Poor farmers have no “risk capital” and are averse to

experiments; these seed beneficiaries had absolutely no risk-

taking ability.


Perhaps the most common comment was that “local varieties

(landraces) are more suited to local conditions, and efforts were

to ensure access to seed of these varieties”. This was one reason

why cash/coupon grant was overwhelmingly-preferred. Poor

adaptation of higher-yielding improved hybrids to local

drought/subsistence (low input) cropping was often expressed.

(Evaluation of Emergency seed relief USAID, 2003-2004)

2.2.8 Challenges of USAID Emergence Seed AID Program

2.2.8.1 Long-Term Need

There is still significant, serious poverty and food insecurity.

Transitioning smoothly and simply from emergency aid to self-

sustainability is critical. The need is recognized, and included

in USAID’s strategy. “USAID’s Administrator has been a longtime

advocate of finding solutions to address the underlying causes of

food insecurity in order to break the cycle of famine that exists

in the Horn of Africa” (Clark and Westrick, 2004).

Ethiopia has had a continuing cycle of droughts; continuing aid

will likely be required and should be planned and available in a

self-help form. Even without drought, poor subsistence farmers

should have access to yield-improving seed.

2.2.8.2 Self-Help and Self-Sustaining System

To promote food self-sufficiency, a local, self-sustaining

informal-sector seed supply system must be developed, with a


loosely-organized form of providing good seed in normal years,

and emergency seed in droughts. This should not be a high-

technology formal-sector seed system. It must be local, informal-

sector farmer-oriented, providing better seed locally. Each

“unit” should be operated locally, but many units should be

established, on a scale sufficient to help the many who need

better seed or may be affected by drought.

A means of linking disaster assistance with local development

assistance must be implemented, for optimum long-term use of

resources, help ensure food security, and develop rural

economies.

Some USAID-assisted programs seem to have begun initial moves in

this direction. A practical, recommended approach is modeled

below, built from comments received during this evaluation.

2.2.8.3 Creating Sustainable Food Security through Dependable

Seed Supply

Many expressed the need to combine emergency relief with a

transition into long- term development to “lift beneficiaries out

of poverty so they can help themselves without dependency on

external emergency relief”. Seed is basic to rural self-help and

development; an assured local supply of good seed is the first

step toward food security and self-help.

2.2.9 The Experience of Kenya


Community seed bulking: Recommendations for sustainable

programs such as community seeds bulking to improve seed security

are very important especially in situation of chronic seed

insecurity. It builds the capacity of the local community to

multiply their own seeds. Seed banking should be incorporated to

ensure seed availability following bad seasons.

The seed security conceptual framework: The elements of seed

security captured during seed security assessments such as seed

availability, access, quality and suitability are important when

needs arises to distribute seeds. It improves targeting the right

people with the right seeds of good quality. In some situations

seeds have been distributed to farmers without proper assessment

leading to distribution of wrong seeds to the wrong people.

Emphasis on varietal suitability and seed quality: Factors such

as farmer’s seeds preferences should be included to avoid

situations where farmers are given seeds which they do not plant.

It is also important to consider the capacity and ability of

people at the local level to assess seed quality. Do they have

requisite training to assess seed quality?

Importance of the informal seed sector: The program points out

the importance of the informal seed system as the main source of

seeds for most farmers in the region. Like in Sudan, most of the

seeds distributed is said to come from the local seeds systems.

Some countries have not given full support of the informal seed


system in terms of policy, research and finance. There is

therefore need to advocate for inclusion of the informal seed

system in country policies.(community practice in seed security

assessment in Horn of Africa discussion paper,2014)

2.2.10 South SUDAN Experience

Revolving seed to promote sustainable seed system

Building sustainable seed system: Making the seed system

sustainable is quite important without creating any dependency

syndromes. It is possible to design revolving seed system, where

the farmers will replace either the seed or equivalent money and

that can be re-used to reach other farmers. Involving local

community and local leadership is required to implement community

based solution for the people at the grass root level.

I agree that it is possible to have a revolving local seed system

to support vulnerable and crisis affected population. I have seen

such scheme with one of the Local NGO called Women and Training

Association Promotion (WOTAP) in South Sudan. What they normally

do is to have a local seed committee within the community to

identify who to be supported, get involved in ensuring the right

people get supported, monitor their production activities to

ensure that they recover the seed (no money is involved) – it is

part of the local system where seed production is an integral

part of the production system). However, in the events of crop

failure (not all will fail), those affected will be exempted from


paying back the seed and the organization put in some little

effort to raise funding to top up the input. Similar approach was

used by World Vision in Western Equatorial, South Sudan in early

2000s. Such experience need to be documented and shared among us.

(Community practice in seed security assessment in Horn of Africa

discussion paper, 2014)

I. Work Schedule

Month ActivitiesFinalizing

Proposal

Writing And

defense

Data

Collection

and data

management

Analysis First

Draft

Final

Report

Thesis

defense.July

August

Septemb

er

October


Novembe

r

Decembe

r

January

Februar

y

March

April

May

June

Remark


References

Bill Gregg, Ph D 2003-2004, Evaluation of Emergency seed reliefUSAID 8, p 16-20

J. McGuire, 2008 Leverage farmers` strategies for coping withstress 3, p 3-6

Joseph Okid, 2014 Community practice in seed security assessmentin Horn of Africa discussion


Paper p, 2-5

Adger, W.N., 2006. Vulnerability global Environmental Change 16,268–281.

Alemu, T., Yoseph, G., 2004. Provision of seeds to droughtaffected people in eastern and central Tigray: an evaluation.Report for Project Implemented by CISP/REST, Funded by USAID-

ODFA, Makelle, Ethiopia

Bramel, P.,Remington, T., 2004. Relief seed assistance in Zimbabwe. p 2-13

Abay Weldu Hagos (2005). Prospects and Constraints Planned Resettlement Program in Kafta

Humera,

Alem Gebrewahid (2006). Planned Resettlement Program: Its Impact on Environment and

Livelihood, Tigray, Ethiopia

Derese Getachew Kassa (2009). Resettling the Discourse on “Resettlement Schemes” Towards a

new approach. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of Ethiopian Studies,

By Svein Ege, Harald Aspen, Birhanu Teferra and ShiferawBekele, Trondheim

Gebrehawaria Gebreegziabher (2008). Risk and Irrigation Investment in Semi-Arid Economy:

Evidence from Northern Ethiopia.

Kinfe Gebrelibanos (2006). Achievements and Challenges of the Current Resettlement Program:


The Case of Woreda Ganta-Afeshum, Mekelle University, Tigray, Ethiopa

Trevor Trueman (2005). Resettlement in Ethiopia: comparing 1984-6 to 2003-5 Drying out the

ocean to catch the fish. Oromia Support Group, Malvern,England

Wolde-Selassie Abbute (2003). Resettlement as a Response to Food Insecurity: The case of

Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region (SNNPR). UN-OCHA

Emergencies Unit for Ethiopia


A Research Proposal Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Art in...

Documents

Transcript of A Research Proposal Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Art in...