Impact Of Agricultural Market Reforms On Smallholder Farmers In ...
Impact Of Agricultural Market Reforms On Smallholder Farmers In ... Impact Of Agricultural Market Reforms On Smallholder Farmers In ...
Seed use by crop Although only 18 percent of all seed used is purchased, for some crops farrmers rely heavily on purchased seed. For example, farmers purchase three-quarters of their seed requirements for “other vegetables” and a majority (57 percent) of their cowpea seeds. On the other hand, less than 10 percent of the yam, sorghum/millet, and piment seed is purchased. Maize and manioc are in an intermediate position, with purchases meeting 13 and 18 percent, respectively, of the seed requirements of each crop. In the case of cotton, SONAPRA supplies cotton seed without charge to GVs for distribution to farmers (see Table 4.1.40). Seed use by household type The proportion of seed that is bought or received free is higher in the south than in the north. For example, over half the seed used in Atlantique and about one-third of the seed in Ouémé and Mono is bought or received free. In contrast, the corresponding figures for Atacora and Borgou are 9 and 10 percent. Although a relatively high proportion of seed is purchased in Atlantique, the percentage of farm households that buy seed is small, just 26 percent. In contrast, over 70 percent of the farmers in Ouémé and Mono buy seed (see Table 4.1.41). The patterns of seed use between male- and female-headed households present a mixed picture. Male-headed households are somewhat more likely to buy seed, but female-headed households are more likely to obtain free seed. Female-headed households rely on purchased and free seed for a larger share of their total seed requirements (see Table 4.1.42). Similarly, the patterns of seed use across expenditure categories is somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, the proportion of household buying seed is relatively stable, being in the range of 53-62 percent for all groups. On the other, the share of total seed that is purchased or received free rises from 15-17 percent in the first two expenditure categories to 44 percent in the richest category (see Table 4.1.43). It is sometimes suggested that cash constraints keep farmers from purchasing high-yielding varieties of seed. If this is true, cotton farmers should be more likely to use purchased seed than other farmers. In fact, the survey results indicate that cotton growers are no more likely to buy seed than other farmers. For example, maize producers that also grow cotton are no more likely to buy maize seed than maize producers that do not grow cotton (see Table 4.1.44). This suggest that annual cash revenue is not a major constraint on input demand, although cash availability at the time of planting may be. 51
Seed purchase patterns Almost all purchased seed (98 percent) is bought on a cash basis. Unlike fertilizer, it is generally not possible to purchase seed on credit. The most important suppliers of purchased seed are traders (55 percent), other farmers (36 percent), and CARDER (6 percent) (see Table 4.1.45). The suppliers of seed and the large share of cash transactions do not vary markedly between male- and female-headed household, nor across expenditure categories. Changes in the availability of improved seed Farm households were asked whether the availability of improved seed varieties was better or worse than in 1992. Overall, the response was positive. Almost 40 percent reported that availability had improved and just 7 percent said that it had deteriorated. The remainder either saw no change (33 percent), had no opinion (18 percent), or said that the question was not applicable (2 percent) (see Table 4.1.46). The perception of improved availability of seed varieties was strongest in Atacora, where 60 percent saw improvement and just 2 percent reported a deterioration. The perception was weakest in Atlantique, where most farm households reported no change since 1992. Outside of Atlantique, however, the percentage saying that availability had improved was at least four times greater than the percentage saying it had gotten worse (see Table 4.1.46). The perception of improved availability was not limited to male-headed households or richer households. More households reported improvement than deterioration among both male- and female-headed households and among households in all five expenditure categories. In fact, poor households seemed to have a more favorable view of changes in seed availability than richer households did (see Tables 4.1.47 and 4.1.48). Change in use of purchased seed Respondents were also asked if their use of purchased seed for each crop had increased or decreased since 1992. A majority of those growing each crop said that there had been no change in the use of purchased seed, but for most crops the number of households reporting an increase exceeded the number reporting a decrease. The strongest evidence for the wider use of purchased seed is in the case of rice, where 38 percent report an increase, while just 4 percent report a decrease. Purchased seed use has also increased in the growing of sorghum/millet, yams, piment, “other vegetables,” cotton, and “other crops.” The evidence is weaker in the case of manioc and cowpeas. On the other hand, there is no indication of increased use of purchased maize seed and the use of purchased groundnut seed appears to have declined (see Table 4.1.49). 52
- Page 8 and 9: CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Backgr
- Page 10 and 11: villageois, (GV)) was needed as the
- Page 12 and 13: CHAPTER 2: POLICY BACKGROUND FOR BE
- Page 14 and 15: 2.3 Evolution of Economic Policy 2.
- Page 16 and 17: Under pressure from the World Bank
- Page 18 and 19: anking system has been restored to
- Page 20 and 21: Fertilizer can be imported outside
- Page 22 and 23: particularly urban wage-earners. On
- Page 24 and 25: Soulé (1996) describes the evoluti
- Page 26 and 27: led to a more sustainable agricultu
- Page 28: Table 2.4 - Gross farm revenue from
- Page 31 and 32: Malawi’s economy is heavily depen
- Page 33 and 34: the reduction of its operations in
- Page 35 and 36: crops is also difficult because tob
- Page 37 and 38: Table 3.1 CROP 1982/83 1983/84 1984
- Page 40 and 41: CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE BÉNIN SM
- Page 42 and 43: where W v is the weight for a house
- Page 44 and 45: heads. This suggests that some of t
- Page 46 and 47: And school attendance is much highe
- Page 48 and 49: Crop production is the main activit
- Page 50 and 51: (33 percent). Livestock income is m
- Page 52 and 53: Somewhat surprisingly, the relation
- Page 54 and 55: It is no more common among richer h
- Page 56 and 57: production, and women actually spen
- Page 60 and 61: Looking at the results by departmen
- Page 62 and 63: Ouémé presents an unusual case: j
- Page 64 and 65: Market prices have significant effe
- Page 66 and 67: policies of SONAPRA to discourage
- Page 68 and 69: crops are responsible for this incr
- Page 70 and 71: Respondents were asked whether the
- Page 72 and 73: Female-headed households, not surpr
- Page 74 and 75: households are not considered credi
- Page 76 and 77: In almost every category of agricul
- Page 78 and 79: This discussion implies that farms
- Page 80 and 81: eturns per hectare and labor-intens
- Page 82 and 83: farm household and tends to be smal
- Page 84 and 85: Surprisingly, the value of sales as
- Page 86 and 87: Finally, proximity to an all-season
- Page 88 and 89: Changes in crop marketing In this s
- Page 90 and 91: Poor households are more likely to
- Page 92 and 93: it is clear that virtually all grow
- Page 94 and 95: production to total expenditure is
- Page 96 and 97: a significant number of household (
- Page 98 and 99: non-food spending. These are follow
- Page 100 and 101: Larger farms are associated with hi
- Page 102 and 103: This would not be surprising in lig
- Page 104 and 105: Female-headed households appear to
- Page 106 and 107: poorest expenditure category to jus
Seed use by crop Although only 18 percent of all seed used is purchased, for some crops<br />
farrmers rely heavily on purchased seed. For example, farmers purchase three-quarters of their<br />
seed requirements for “other vegetables” and a majority (57 percent) of their cowpea seeds. <strong>On</strong> the<br />
other hand, less than 10 percent of the yam, sorghum/millet, and piment seed is purchased. Maize<br />
and manioc are in an intermediate position, with purchases meeting 13 and 18 percent, respectively,<br />
of the seed requirements of each crop. <strong>In</strong> the case of cotton, SONAPRA supplies cotton seed<br />
without charge to GVs for distribution to farmers (see Table 4.1.40).<br />
Seed use by household type The proportion of seed that is bought or received free is<br />
higher in the south than in the north. For example, over half the seed used in Atlantique and about<br />
one-third of the seed in Ouémé and Mono is bought or received free. <strong>In</strong> contrast, the corresponding<br />
figures for Atacora and Borgou are 9 and 10 percent. Although a relatively high proportion of seed<br />
is purchased in Atlantique, the percentage of farm households that buy seed is small, just 26<br />
percent. <strong>In</strong> contrast, over 70 percent of the farmers in Ouémé and Mono buy seed (see Table<br />
4.1.41).<br />
The patterns of seed use between male- and female-headed households present a mixed picture.<br />
Male-headed households are somewhat more likely to buy seed, but female-headed households are<br />
more likely to obtain free seed. Female-headed households rely on purchased and free seed for a<br />
larger share of their total seed requirements (see Table 4.1.42).<br />
Similarly, the patterns of seed use across expenditure categories is somewhat contradictory. <strong>On</strong> the<br />
one hand, the proportion of household buying seed is relatively stable, being in the range of 53-62<br />
percent for all groups. <strong>On</strong> the other, the share of total seed that is purchased or received free rises<br />
from 15-17 percent in the first two expenditure categories to 44 percent in the richest category (see<br />
Table 4.1.43).<br />
It is sometimes suggested that cash constraints keep farmers from purchasing high-yielding<br />
varieties of seed. If this is true, cotton farmers should be more likely to use purchased seed than<br />
other farmers. <strong>In</strong> fact, the survey results indicate that cotton growers are no more likely to buy seed<br />
than other farmers. For example, maize producers that also grow cotton are no more likely to buy<br />
maize seed than maize producers that do not grow cotton (see Table 4.1.44). This suggest that<br />
annual cash revenue is not a major constraint on input demand, although cash availability at the<br />
time of planting may be.<br />
51