Elsevier

Agricultural Economics

Volume 31, Issues 2–3, December 2004, Pages 197-208
Agricultural Economics

The economic determinants of cereal crop diversity on farms in the Ethiopian highlands

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agecon.2004.09.007Get rights and content

Abstract

In less favoured areas such as the highlands of Ethiopia, farmers manage risk through land allocation to crops and varieties since they cannot depend on market mechanisms to cope. They also grow traditional varieties that are genetically diverse and have potential social value. Supporting the maintenance of crop and variety diversity in such locations can address both the current needs of farmers and future needs of society, though it entails numerous policy challenges. We estimate a model of crop and variety choice in a theoretical framework of the farm household model to compare the determinants of crop and variety diversity, revealing some of these policy considerations. Farm physical features and household characteristics such as wealth and labour stocks have large and significant effects on both the diversity among and within cereal crops, varying among crops. Policies designed to encourage variety diversity in one cereal crop may have opposing effects in another crop. Trade-offs between development-related factors and diversity in this resource-poor system are not evident, however. Market-related variables and population density have ambiguous effects. Education positively influences cereal crop diversity. Growing modern varieties of maize or wheat does not detract from the richness or evenness of these cereals on household farms.

Introduction

In the less-favoured areas of the world where crop production is risky and opportunities are limited for insuring against risk through working off-farm, many farm families still depend directly on the diversity of their crops for the food and fodder they use. Crop biodiversity on farms1 has both inter-specific (among crops) and infra-specific (within a crop) components (Bellon, 1996). The potential to secure harvests in some difficult growing environments is not the only economic issue motivating interest in crop diversity. Maintaining genetic variation in situ as a complementary strategy to conservation in gene banks has re-emerged as a scientific question (Maxted et al., 1997, Brush, 2000).
On-farm conservation of crop diversity poses obvious social, economic and policy challenges. In detailed case studies conducted in Peru (potato), Turkey (wheat), and Mexico (maize), applied economists have sought to identify the factors that affect the prospects that diversity is maintained on farms, while characterising those farmers most likely to continuing conserving it (Brush et al., 1992, Meng, 1997, Van Dusen, 2000, Smale et al., 2001).
Case studies have generally concluded that two major determinants of crop diversity at both the regional and farm level are agroecological heterogeneity and the extent of market development. Recently, however, the assumption that the opportunity costs of growing landraces rises with development and market integration has been challenged (Dyer, 2002). The impact of household characteristics such as human capital, assets and off-farm employment also appears to depend on the context. A negative relationship between modern varieties and crop genetic diversity is typically assumed, though empirical examples suggest that the relationship is more complex (Zimmerer, 1996, Brush et al., 1992).
We test related hypotheses in this paper. Comparing the determinants of inter- and infra- specific diversity among the cereals commonly grown in the highlands of Ethiopia, we highlight three types of policy trade-offs. First, the same policies may enhance the numbers or ‘richness’ of cereals and varieties grown but detract from the ‘evenness’ of their representation on farms. Second, to the extent that the determinants of diversity differ among crops, policies designed to enhance the diversity in one crop may have adverse consequences for the diversity of another crop. Finally, if modern varieties enhance diversity rather than detract from it in some environments, trade-offs between diversity and productivity may not be a policy concern.
The highlands of northern Ethiopia are a suitable empirical context for testing such hypotheses. Ethiopia is a centre of diversity for cereals such as barley, wheat, sorghum, finger millet and teff (Harlan, 1992). Often referred to as one of the eight Vavilovian gene centres of the world, Ethiopia has made a national commitment to conserve genetic resources on farms and in gene banks over the past two decades (Worede et al., 2000). The highlands of northern Ethiopia are relatively less favoured than other areas of the country in terms of both growing environment and market infrastructure, two of the generic factors hypothesized to positively affect crop diversity.
The conceptual framework for the analysis is presented next. The econometric approach follows, including the data, description of variables and related hypotheses. Findings are then presented in Section 4, followed by conclusions, implications and suggestions for further research in Section 5.

Section snippets

Conceptual framework

The conceptual approach to analyse on-farm diversity is based on the theory of the farm household (Singh et al., 1986, De Janvry et al., 1991) and the literature on partial adoption of agricultural innovations (Feder et al., 1985, Feder and Umali, 1993, Smale et al., 1994). A version of the farm household model, suitable for estimation, as applied to the study of on-farm conservation of (inter- and infra-specific) crop diversity was developed by Van Dusen (2000). Other econometric analyses of

Data source

A stratified random sample of 99 Peasant Associations (PAs, usually consisting of 3–5 villages) was selected from highland areas (1500 m asl) in the Tigray and Amhara regions of northern Ethiopia in 1999. The stratification was based upon indicators of agricultural potential, market access and population density. Data analysed here were collected in household and plot surveys conducted with 934 households located in these communities during the 1999 season, supplemented by secondary geographic

Estimation and results

After removing observations with missing relevant data, a sample of 739 remained for analysis. We estimated the diversity regression equations across common cereals (including barley, maize, wheat, teff, sorghum, finger millet and pearl millet) and within barley, maize, wheat and teff. Diversity regressions for sorghum, pearl millet and finger millet could not be estimated because the values of the diversity indices were either mostly zeros (since households cultivated only one variety each of

Trade-offs in diversity goals

No trade-offs are apparent between policies that would enhance the richness, as compared to the equitability, among cereal crops. The direction of the effect of statistically significant factors is the same for both indices. Thus, a policy with a goal to augment one conservation goal would not conflict with another. The same appears to be true for infra-specific diversity of any given cereal crop. Different factors are significant in explaining the richness and equitability among varieties

Acknowledgements

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway and The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation provided financial support for the initial research project from which the data used here were obtained. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) supported the analysis. Special appreciation goes to the many officials, community leaders and farmers who graciously and patiently participated in the research and responded to our numerous questions.

References (31)

  • S. Brush et al.

    Biological diversity and technology adoption in Andean potato agriculture

    J. Dev. Econ.

    (1992)
  • G. Feder et al.

    The adoption of agricultural innovations: a review

    Technol. Forecast. Social Change

    (1993)
  • J.A. Aguirre Gómez et al.

    A regional analysis of maize biological diversity in Southeastern Guanajuato

    Mexico Econ. Bot.

    (2000)
  • B.S. Barnow et al.

    Issues in the analysis of selectivity bias

    Eval. Stud. Rev. Ann.

    (1981)
  • M.R. Bellon et al.

    Folk soil taxonomy and the partial adoption of new seed varieties

    Econ. Dev. Cultural Change

    (1993)
  • M.R. Bellon

    The dynamics of crop infra-specific diversity: a conceptual framework at the farmer level

    Econ. Bot.

    (1996)
  • M.R. Bellon et al.

    Small-scale farmers expand the benefits of maize germplasm: a case study from Chiapas

    Mexico World Dev.

    (2001)
  • B. Blarel et al.

    The economics of farm fragmentation: evidence from Ghana and Rwanda

    World Bank Econ. Rev.

    (1992)
  • A. Deaton

    The Analysis of Household Surveys: A Microeconomic Approach to Development Policy

    (1997)
  • A. De Janvry et al.

    Peasant household behaviour with missing markets: some paradoxes explained

    Econ. J.

    (1991)
  • Dyer, G., 2002. The cost of in situ conservation of maize landraces in the Sierra Norte de Puebla, Mexico. Ph.D....
  • G. Feder et al.

    Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey

    Econ. Dev. Cultural Change

    (1985)
  • W.H. Greene

    Econometric Analysis

    (1993)
  • J.R. Harlan

    Crops and Man

    (1992)
  • Cited by (115)

    • Land fragmentation and production diversification: A case study from rural Albania

      2018, Land Use Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      In this paper, we focus on the farm level production diversification. The main factors affecting farm production diversification identified in the literature include risk, crop rotation, cost complementarities, farm size, and production for household self-consumption (White and Irwin, 1972; Pope and Prescott, 1980; Benin et al., 2004; Culas, 2005; Bowman and Zilberman, 2013; Sichoongwe et al., 2014). Empirical studies mostly focus on the relationship between diversification and farm size, yielding mixed results, however.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1
    Tel.: +1 202 862 5645; fax: +1 703 426 0416.
    View full text