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 Page 1
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.
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page 2
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page 3
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page 4
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page 5
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page 6
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page 7
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page 8
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page 9
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page11
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page12
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,
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page13
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page14
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page15
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page16
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page17
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page18
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page19
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.
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page20
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 of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page21
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).
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page22
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?
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page23
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page24
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.
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page25
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page26
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page27
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page28
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,
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page29
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:
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page30
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:
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page31
[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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page32
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:
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page33
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page34
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page35
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page36
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page37
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page38
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page39
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 non- governmental 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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page40
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,
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page41
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,
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page42
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page43
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page44
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page45
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page46
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page47
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
relief USAID, 2003-2004)
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.
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page48
(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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page49
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page50
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.
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page51
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page52
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page53
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page54
effort/cost/facilities. And, farmers liked it because it gave
them a choice in selecting seed. (Evaluation of Emergency seed
relief USAID, 2003-2004)
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page55
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page56
“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.
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page58
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page59
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page60
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page61
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page62
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page63
Novembe
r
Decembe
r
January
Februar
y
March
April
May
June
Remark
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page64
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page65
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:
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page66
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
Impact of Revolving seed project in ensuring food security Page67
Top Related