Transfers out of poverty: research insights, policy progress, and positive outcomes - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Transfers out of poverty: research insights, policy progress, and positive outcomes PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 14cd06-OWUyM


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Transfers out of poverty: research insights, policy progress, and positive outcomes


IFPRI's early work on social protection paid particular attention ... Crucible Group. Keystone International Dialogue. FAO. CGIAR. In-Trust. Agreements - 1994 ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:90
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 96
Provided by: IFP98


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Transfers out of poverty: research insights, policy progress, and positive outcomes

Transfers out of poverty research insights,
policy progress, and positive outcomes
  • Jere R. Behrman
  • 20 February 2007
  • PORIA Case Studies
  • Methods Planning Workshop

  • Central objective Assuring Household Access to
    Food From Subsidies toward Safety Nets and
    Other Modern Instruments
  • IFPRIs early work on social protection paid
    particular attention to considering ways of
    reforming food subsidies

  • Over time, in part because of influence of
    IFPRIs research, attention shifted to innovative
    approaches for social protection. Two strands
  • understanding famines improving mechanisms to
    mitigate droughts floods.
  • Evaluating effectiveness of programs such as
    conditional cash transfers that sought to ensure
    minimum levels of food consumption for poor while
    also investing in human capital of subsequent
  • (Also, e.g., gender, household allocations,
    insurance, employment programs)

Output from the POR
  • Books and Papers
  • Workshops and Conferences
  • Meetings, Presentations, Briefings
  • Citations in ISI, Google Scholar

Proposed impact assessment approach and
  • Primarily focus on the demand for this type of
    information of governments and NGOs.
  • Survey of policy makers in nations that have
    modernized their safety-net to learn how they
    acquired their guidance, sources of information
    (including IFPRI), methods of analysis used in
    interpreting the experience, etc., and then
    documenting the proportion of budgets allocated
    to such activities, and the oversight mechanisms
    for ME.

  • 2. Identify and, where possible, quantify
    influence by meta-analysis of evaluation
  • 3. identify and quantify impacts and, where
    possible, a reasonable estimate of the dollar
    value of impacts and costs of the POR

Challenges 1.Survey Policy Makers
  • How identify respondents, gain access? (Key
    people may be very few, e.g., Mexico Levy,
    Gomez-Leon, Zedillo, Fox)
  • How identify IFPRI impacts?
  • More than some case studies? Resource costs?

2. Identify Influences
  • Distinguish influence from impact
  • Question of influence of what presumably IFPRI
    input (and not, say, PROGRESA).

3. Impacts and Costs
  • How measure impact (Not, e.g., some IR 8 variety
    that can be traced) and how value?
  • How identify IFPRI contribution from that of
    national (and other) partners?
  • How get resource costs for relevant venture?

How Might Proceed?
  • Case Study of IFPRI/PROGRESA (cherry not
  • Clearly international public good aspects
  • Data, studies, inferences for other countries
  • Direct references in interviews with national
    policy makers and international policy advisors
  • Document as possible channels of possible
    influence (citations in policy-oriented
    organizations such as World Bank and IDB and in
    academic venues, interviews)

  • Great challenge identifying IFPRI influence or
    impact from that of PROGRESA itself. Possibly
    desirable to undertake jointly with PROGRESA
  • Very limited resources.
  • Risk that seen as cherry already picked (e.g.,
    Shoufias, Levy).
  • Other options for this case?
  • Other cases? Limon?

Impact of the In-Trust Agreements between FAO
the CGIAR centres on germplasm availability and
  • Elisabetta Gotor
  • Institutional Learning and Change Unit
  • Bioversity International
  • 20-21 February 2007

Presentation Outline
  • Historical Background
  • Approach to the Study
  • Procedure of the Study
  • Counterfactual
  • Accountability
  • Methodology
  • Alternatives

Convention on Biological Diversity 1992-Resolutio
n 3 of the Nairobi final Act
  • Issue of Sovereign Right of Nations over Their
    Genetic Resources

Is a Germplasm a private properties or a public
good ? WTO-TRIPS Art. 27.3(b) Members shall
provide for the protection of plant varieties
either by patents or by an effective sui generis
system or by any combination thereof. The
provisions of this subparagraph shall be reviewed
four years after the date of entry into force of
the WTO Agreement.
Keystone International Dialogue
  • Crucible Group

In-Trust Agreements - 1994
SINGER System-wise Information Network for
Genetic resources
Genetic Resources Policy Committee of the CGIAR
SGRP System wide Genetic Resources Programme
Approach to the Study
  • Demand led approach

Starting Point
In Trust Agreements
OUTCOMES of the policy
Procedure of the study
Identify Bioversity International role played
for the achievement of the In-Trust Agreement?
Main Objective
First Part
  • How Ideas and positions evolve throughout the
  • making process?
  • What perspectives do key parties in the policy
  • process have on how the policy change was

Procedure of the study
Assess the impacts of the In Trust-Agreements
on conservation and access to germplasm
Main Objective
Second Part
Counterfactual What Would have occurred without
the In trust Agreement?
Without a regulation would donor countries
have continued to donate germplasm?
Without a regulation how host countries would
have considered the acquired germplasm?
Would the 2001 Treaty have came through?
Procedure of the study
Estimate the value of the additional germplasm
conserved because of the policy
Main Objective
Third Part
Accountability What is the empirical evidence of
the In-Trust Agreement??
Assess the Actual Flows of germplasm
SINGER System-wise Information Network for
Genetic Resources
Estimate the additional amount of germplasm made
available or maintained by CGIAR genebanks
Methodology to assess phase 2 and 3
  • Two-step procedure
  • Assess the impacts of the In Trust-Agreements on
    conservation and access to germplasm
  • Hierarchical correlated count data model
  • 2. Valuing its incremental impact on the overall
    value of plant genetic resources because of
    the policy in place
  • Conventional methodology Choices

Step 1 Assess the impacts of the In
Trust-Agreements on conservation and access to
Correlated Count Data Chib, S. and R.
Winkelman Markov Chain Monte Carlo Analysis
of Correlated Count Data. Journal of Business
and Economic Statistics 19 (2001) 428-435
Panel count data Chib, S., E. Greenberg and
R. Winkelman Posterior Simulation and Bayes
Factors in Panel Count Data Models Journal
of Econometrics 86 (1998) 33-54
Hierarchical Model Lindley, D. V. M. and A. F.
M. Smith Bayes Estimates for the Normal Linear
Model Journal of The Royal Statistical Society
Series B Methodological 34 (1972) 1-41 Chib, S.
and E. Greenberg Hierarchical Bayes Modeling
in Palgrave Dictionary in Economics Second
Fundamamental Observational Equation
  • yijk ?(xijk, zijk) uijk

Where i denotes a site j denotes a species k
denotes a time period y denotes accessions (or
distributions) thus Yijk denotes the number of
accessions (distributions) occurring at site i
for species j at time k
Explaining yijk ?(xijk, zijk) uijk
  • xijk denotes treatments at site i for species
    j at time k
  • zijk denotes controls at site i for species j
    at time k
  • uijk denotes errors at site i for species j
    at time k

Explaining yijk ?(xijk, zijk) uijk
  • What do I mean by Treatments?
  • Anything that caused accessions or distributions
    to change in the time series at site i for
    species j in a fundamental way
  • The main treatment of interest, the over-arching
    concern and the hypothesized driver of difference
    pre-and post enactment is the In-Trust
  • Ad hoc at present, but a binary treatment ( 0
    before enactment, 1 post enactment) may suffice

Explaining yijk ?(xijk, zijk) uijk
  • What do I mean by Controls?
  • Anything that neither caused accessions (or
    distributions) to change in the time series at
    site i for species j in a fundamental way but
    may give rise to differences across sites and
    across species.
  • Problematic If accessions are supply-driven we
    need an in-depth analysis of research resources
    devotes to species at sites and at times …
    complicated …
  • Problematic If distributions are demand-driven
    we need in-depth analysis if the
    demand-structures at sites across species and
    across time … complicated …

Explaining yijk ?(xijk, zijk) uijk
  • What do I mean by Errors?
  • Anything that is unexplained by treatments or
    controls across sites, species and time periods.
  • Correlations?
  • Problematic Complicated by the site-species-time
  • Problematic Complicated by the fact that yijk
    denotes a count
  • Correlations across time (same species and site)
  • Correlations across sites (same species and
  • Correlations across species (same site and time)
  • Correlations in counts?
  • Complicated

Hierarchical Modelling A General Structure
A General Structure
Applied to Accessions and Distributions Impact
of the In-Trust Agreement
Across the sample
Across the sites
Across species
Across time periods
  • ?i is a random draw from ?(.?)
  • ?ij is a random draw from ?(.?i)
  • ?ijk is a random draw from ?(.?ij)
  • where ?(.?) denotes a probability density
    function conditioned by parameters ?

Bayesians Like to Hierarchically Model
  • How data are generated
  • Added flexibility
  • Versatility
  • Choices available

  • The hierarchical ordering
  • Hypothesized
  • sites ?(.population)
  • species ?(.sites)
  • periods ?(.species)

Alternative Two periods ?(.population) sites
?(.periods) species ?(.sites)
Alternative One species ?(.population) sites
?(.species) periods ?(.species)
Many alternative formulations
  • Which model is best and how to measure best ?
  • Gelfand, A. and A. F. M. Smith.
  • Sampling-Based Approaches to Calculating
    Marginal Densities. Journal of the American
    Statistical Association 85(1990)3972-985
  • Chib, S.
  • Marginal likelihood from the Gibbs
    Output. Journal of the American Statistical
    Association 90(1995)41313-21

Posterior predictive distribution from the
correlated panel count model p(yy) The p for
an unobserved Sample y given the observed
sample y Embodies the sample that would have
existed had the agreement not been enacted
Posterior predictive distribution from the
correlated panel count model p(yy)
Posterior distribution from the correlated
panel count model p(?y)
Second Step
  • Use information in p(yy) to estimate value of
    plant genetic resources because of the policy in
  • Conventional methodology Choices

  • Recent additions to the literature
  • Standard total-factor productivity study
  • Search studies
  • Evenson, R. E. and Y. Kislev A Stochastic Model
    of Applied Research Journal of Political
    Economy 84 (1976) 265-281
  • Koo, B., P. G. Pardey and B. D. Wright et
    al. Saving Seeds The Economics of Conserving
    Crop Genetic Resources Ex Situ in The Future
    Harvest Centers of the CGIAR CABI Publishing
  • Gollin, D., M. Smale and B. Skovmand Searching
    an Ex Situ Collection of Genetic
    Resources. American Journal of Agricultural
    Economics 82 (2000) 812-827(2004)

Case 3 WorldFish
Impact Assessment of Community Based Fisheries
Management (CBFM) in Bangladesh
Diemuth E. Pemsl
Presentation for SPIA POR IA Workshop 20 21
February 2007, IFPRI Washington
Project Background - Bangladesh
  • Rich inland fishery resources (42 of total fish
  • Fish most important animal protein
  • 80 of rural households catch fish for
  • Siltation and encroachment (resource degradation)
  • Broadly two types of waterbodies
  • - haor, baor, lakes and beels (revenue
    oriented) ? Short-term lease, no incentive to
    conserve, over extraction
  • - floodplains and rivers (open access, no
    management) ? Commons dilemma persists

  • Two important elements of Community Based
    Fisheries Management (CBFM)
  • Institutions
  • a) Participatory, involves all
  • b) Linkages with local level government
  • Fisheries Management
  • a) Habitat restoration
  • b) Conservation measures

Description of the POR research
Research Phase
Dissemination Phase
Outcomes of CBFM POR
  • Developed and tested CBFM approaches (including 2
  • Increased awareness of wider public and
    government bodies of need for improved
    management of inland fisheries
  • General understanding of the CBFM concept by
    decision makers e.g. DoF officers in charge
  • Informing decision makers for upcoming policy
  • Foundation of 130 community based organizations
    (CBO) and provided training/assistance in CBFM
    and legal support

Outcomes of CBFM POR (continued)
  • Policy changes for 117 project water bodies
    (transfer of use rights, reduction of lease fees
    and abolition of taxes)
  • Conservation practices are being followed in
    project water bodies, including establishment of
    186 fish sanctuaries
  • Fish production in project water bodies increased
    on average by 20 with no change in the control
    sites over same period
  • Income from fish is up 21 for project
    participants compared to 15 for fishers in
    control sites
  • Fish abundance in project water bodies increased
    at 17 per year with increasing trends in
    biodiversity whereas control sites experienced
    significant declines in fish abundance

Methodological approaches for POR IA
  • Inputs
  • Outputs
  • Dissemination
  • and Uptake
  • Influence
  • Impact

Trace back to project outputs
Identify outputs first
Attribute impact
Start from specific recent policy change
Impact pathway for CBFM research
Graph forthcoming …
CBFM impact categories
Direct impacts
  • Productivity and sustainability of inland
  • International public good (IPG) community based
    management systems and habitat restoration
  • Awareness of general public and policy makers
  • Contribution to policy changes (and impact of

Indirect impacts
  • Subsequent changes in fish price?
  • Others?

Proposed IA methodology
How to assess/quantify?
Costs ? project docs, partner
estimates Outputs ? inventory of publications
by topic, others e.g. of people
trained Dissemination ? stakeholder surveys
awareness Uptake/Influence ? stakeholder
surveys adoption Impact ? sum up
assigning value counterfactual,
sustainability elicit share of WorldFish
Indicators for impact of CBFM
  • Farm-level
  • Net income, consumption/nutrition changes?
  • Inter and intra-household allocation of benefits
  • Water body-level
  • sustainability of fisheries
  • total yield/capacity
  • biodiversity
  • CBOs
  • social capital?
  • Policy changes
  • Role of CBFM work to influence policy
    changes (based on feedback from decision makers,
    partner NGOs, donors, other players working in
    the field

Methodological challenges for IA
  • Counterfactual
  • Control sites (with NGO activities beyond CBFM)
  • Speeding up the process? (Who are) other players?
  • Attribution
  • (Who are) other players? WorldFish share on
  • Sustainability
  • Trial phase versus sustainable change/adoption?
  • How sustainable are changes once project stops

Methodological challenges for IA (continued)
  • Evaluation and assessment of benefits
  • Assessment/measurement of non-market
    benefits Adding up different types of non-market
  • Identify and measure direct and indirect effects
    (e.g. increase in the fish catch vs changes in
    fish prices and thus income changes?)
  • Equity implications
  • Value of benefits arising to different
    stakeholders (different producers, consumers,
    government)? Question of benefits for poor
    versus non-(or less) poor

Next steps for POR IA of CBFM
  • What data are available/have been collected for
    the CBFM project that can be used for POR IA?
  • What information is missing?
  • Identify data that have to be collected
  • Decide on methodologies
  • Funds available from CBFM project?
  • Allocate tasks for IA study
  • Literature review of previous work (especially
    with regard to policy change and policy processes
    in Bangladesh)

Work plan and time line
  • Final CBFM project workshop in Dhaka 6 7 March
  • Field visit to project sites
  • Planning session and briefing with project
  • Develop detailed work plan and time line for POR
  • Submit detailed work plan to SPIA by 15 March

Thank you
Policy Change in Dairy Marketing in Kenya and
East Africa Economic Impact and Pathways to
Influence from Research
PORIA Methods and Planning Workshop 20-21
February 2007, IFPRI HQ, Washington, DC
Kenya Dairy Policy (written policy)
  • Main Issues
  • Outdated document, 1958 Kenya Dairy Act
  • Protects interests of large scale settler dairy
  • Criminalizes activities of small-scale production
    and marketing
  • Ignores contribution of smallholder producers and
    traders to economic development

Activities of SDP (1997-2005)
  • Low cost and appropriate technologies
  • Training programs on safe milk handling
  • Improve standards of milk processing in informal
  • Provision of incentives for improved milk
  • Supportive milk dealer certification system

Milk Marketing Chain (Omore et al, 1999)
Policy Change
  • Behaviour changes among SSMVs, KDB agents, and
    other milk handlers
  • Reduced transactions costs
  • Bribes paid
  • Milk lost/poured
  • Milk cans confiscated
  • Etc

Impact Pathways
Study Activities
  • Qualitative study of impact pathways - activities
    and processes leading to policy change in Kenya
  • Ex-post economic impact assessment using a
    multi-market model

Methods Qualitative Assessment (Research and
Policy in Development (RAPID) Outcome Assessment
  • Episode studies of specific policy changes
  • - Tracking back from policy changes to identify
    key actors, events and influences, and assessing
    their relative importance
  • Case study analysis of specific research projects
  • Tracking forward from specific research and
    related activities to assess their impact
  • Outcome mapping approaches
  • Identifying changes in behaviour of key actors
    and analysing what influenced these changes

Methods Economic Impact Assessment
  • Model Attributes
  • 2 output markets (milk, maize)
  • 4 input markets (fertilizer, labour, napier,
  • 1 proxy for non-food expenditures (housing
  • 3 Production systems (subsistence, major dairy
    enterprises, limited dairy enterprises)
  • 4 household consumption groups (urban rich, urban
    poor, rural rich, rural poor)

Methods Economic Impact Assessment
  • Data Requirement
  • Food production by consumption group
  • Food imports and exports
  • Input use by production system
  • Expenditure on consumption goods
  • Value of per capita consumption
  • Commodity prices
  • Consumption data
  • Household income
  • Elasticities
  • (output ss elasticities wrt input and output
    prices, input dd elaticities wrt input and output
    prices, income elasticities, etc)

Methods Economic Impact Assessment
  • Specific policy evaluated ex-post
  • Reduction in transactions costs resulting from
    changes in the dairy policy
  • Policy variables monitored
  • Consumer and producer prices
  • Supply of commodities by production system
  • Consumption levels by households
  • Household income

Potential Regional Impacts (Regional economic
impact assessment not promised to SPIA)
  • ECAPAPA facilitation of learning of cross-border
    lessons in the dairy sectors
  • Rationalization and harmonization of policies,
    regulations and standards in the dairy industry
  • (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi)

Assessing the Impact of CIFORs Influence on
Policy and Practice in the Pulp and Paper Sector
  • David A. Raitzer

Overview of the Research
  • Study of the political economy of the
    Indonesian pulp and paper sector
  • Basic problem massive investments in pulp
    mills, but plantations not being developed as
    fiber source
  • Reliance on conversion of natural forest for pulp
  • Encouraged by subsidies, poor institutions and
    information asymmetries.

Identified causes of pulp overcapacity
  • Subsidies
  • Cheap wood (gt2 cubic meter in royalties)
  • Reforestation Fund allocations
  • Soft loans from State banks
  • Poor regulations
  • Related-party loans from conglomerate owned banks
  • Use of conglomerates and shell companies
  • Financial mark-up schemes
  • Poor investor due diligence
  • Little involvement of forestry experts
  • Rarely use independent audits of forestry
  • Export credit guarantees reduce risk to financial

  • 15 billion of debt accrued by Asia Pulp and
    Paper (APP) and Asia Pacific Resources
    International Ltd (APRIL)
  • Study released on Bloomberg newswire in December
    2000 as APP tried to renegotiate its debt
  • APP defaulted on 13.5 billion in March 2001
  • 1.3 billion of Indonesian non performing loans
    assumed by the Indonesian Bank Restructuring
  • Creditors made conditional agreements with APP on
    other debts
  • Profits on Paper spurred high profile campaigns
    by NGOs.

Impact pathways
  • NGOs
  • Profits on Paper spurred high profile
    campaigns by WWF, Friends of the Earth, the
    Indonesian Environmental Forum and others.
  • Increased attention to effects of new mills
  • Increased pressure for responsible investing
  • Pressure for environmental provisions in debt
    restructuring agreements for APP and APRIL
  • Continued reporting on operations

Impact pathways
  • Creditors
  • Requested profits on paper directly
  • Use in lawsuits
  • Inserted environmental requirements (audits, etc)
    in Master Restructuring Agreement for APP
  • Increased attention to environmental safeguards
  • Increased attention to risk
  • Other investors
  • Increased attention to environmentally and
    socially responsible investing
  • Increased attention to risk
  • Potential motivation for formation of Equator

Impact pathways
  • APRIL and APRIL Improvements since study
  • Environmental audits/reporting
  • Tesso Nilo National Park (APRIL, 200k ha)
  • Conservation set asides (400k ha)
  • Committed to legal wood sourcing
  • Certification (APRIL concession)
  • Community programmes (APRIL)
  • Proposed UFS pulp mill
  • NGO lobbying led to non issuance of MIGA
    political risk guarantees

Improvements in Indonesian forestry regulations
  • NGO campaigns led to boycotts of Indonesian pulp
  • GoI aims to regain consumer confidence
  • Ministerial Decree 101/Menhut-II/2004 on the
    'acceleration of plantation development and pulp
    and paper industry raw material supply
  • Now repeatedly presented by Ministry as a
    requirement that all pulp must be harvested from
    plantations by 2009 even though this is not what
    the Decree states

Global improvements in due diligence and
responsible investment practices
  • NGO campaigns related to the APP/APRIL experience
    may have influenced
  • the Equator Principles, which most of the largest
    international banks now follow
  • policies and commitments concerning pulp-paper
    and/or forestry investments by large financial
  • FLEGT action plan commitment to improve due
    diligence for forestry investments by EC
    financial institutions

CIFOR pulp sector research
Other investors
World Bank
Gov Agencies
Equator Principles
FLEG initiative
Forestry Ministry
No mill
Fiber Sourcing Decree
Less corruption
More CSR
Changes in SFM
Assessment methods
  • Supply and demand led
  • Supply led - document direct influence on
    intermediate processes that are believed to drive
    outcomes, so as to identify their counterfactual
  • Demand led - identify impact of intermediary
    processes (that were influenced).
  • Put the two together to identify impact of

Assessment methods
  • Interviews with representatives of NGOs and
    bilateral agencies that were actively involved
  • Changes to attention to the Indonesian pulp
  • Changes to pulp fibre supply shortfalls
  • Involvement in lobbying that led to the Equator
  • Origins of the FLEGT action plan and bilateral
    UK-Indonesia MOU
  • CIFORs influence on campaigns and plausible
  • Triangulation
  • Changes in sustainability of APRIL and APP
  • Perceptions of Ministerial Decree

  • Interviews with APP and APRIL creditor
  • Changes in awareness of fiber sourcing
  • Influences for sustainability requirements of
    debt restructuring agreements
  • CIFORs influence on subsequent changes and
    plausible counterfactuals
  • Interviews with APRIL and APP managers
  • Changes made to operations
  • Role of creditor requirements and external
    assessments mandated by creditors
  • Role of NGOs
  • Perceptions of counterfactual without creditor
    requirements scenarios

  • Interviews with MIGA and World Bank Indonesia
  • Considerations regarding proposed United Fiber
    Systems mill in Southern Kalimantan
  • Fiber supply appraisal
  • Factors leading to political risk guarantee
  • Role of NGOs
  • Interviews with officials from Indonesian
    Ministry of Forestry and Forest Council
  • Realized and anticipated effects of Ministerial
    Decree 101/Menhut-II/2004
  • Implementation and enforcement mechanisms
  • Influences that led to Decree
  • CIFORs influence on subsequent policy changes
    and plausible counterfactuals

  • Interviews with headquarters International
    Finance Corporation Staff
  • Current pulp and paper involvement
  • Procedures for appraisal of pulp and paper
  • Changes in appraisal procedures and investment
  • Influences on changes in investment procedures
    and patterns
  • Role of CIFORs findings and plausible
  • Telephone interviews with officials of banks that
    adopt deforestation policies
  • Changes in investment patterns due to policy
  • Specific examples of averted investments
  • Influences on deforestation policy
  • CIFOR attributable influence and plausible

Impact supplement
  • Indonesian forester - interviews with other pulp
    producers and provincial government officials
  • Expectations about Ministerial Decree
  • Plantation development rates to date
  • Anticipated plantation development
  • Forest clearing rates over time
  • Changes attributable to Ministerial Decree
  • Depending on findings, use counterfactual for
    Ministerial Decree to assess impact attributable
    to CIFOR

Methodological challenges
  • Policy reform in the context of corruption and
  • Differing presentations of Ministerial Decree
  • Companies with histories of falsification
  • Unstable context, reforms could be retracted
  • Controversial research on a high stakes subject
    neutrality difficult
  • Non-market benefits, valuation difficulties

Methodological issues for discussion
  • How to handle agencies for which influence
    imposed costs?
  • APP
  • MIGA
  • Degree of confidentiality in interviews
  • How to query about confidential decision
    processes (e.g. WB Board deliberations)
  • Presentation of key informant responses

  • Economic Assessment of a Change in Chemical
    Registration Policy due to IRRI Research on
    Pesticide Use and Philippine Farmer Health

20-21 February 2007 IFPRI HQ Washington DC
  • The aim of this study is to measure the economic
    benefits attributable to a change in pesticide
    registration policy and assess what proportion of
    the benefits policy change can be attributed to
    IRRI research on pesticide use and Philippine
    farmer health.

  • Understand
  • pest ecology and the relationship between pest
    infestation and yield loss
  • farmer KAP in pest management
  • pesticide market
  • researchers, chemical companies and policy
    makers perceptions of pest-related yield losses
    and control methods.
  • Determine the degree of awareness of the research
    among FPA and DoA.
  • Determine the degree to which this research
    influenced the banning of category 1 chemicals.
  • Develop a plausible counterfactual scenario of
    policy evolution in absence of the IRRI
    pesticide-health research.
  • Measure the benefits under the counterfactual and
    actual scenarios to quantify the magnitude and
    distribution of these benefits.

Research-gtpolicy change-gtimpact
Impact of pesticides on human health 1987
Other research C of M (1985) Dr Rola (1987) IRDC
Task Force to write new pesticide policies
Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority
IRDC Institutional Change
IPM research and results
Civil society / media
Department of Agriculture
Meetings Italy, Germany and Switzerland
Pesticide suppliers
Bureau of Agricultural Extension
Theoretical framework
  • Expected utility function, EU(p, r),
    incorporating health costs due to pesticide
    exposure is specified as
  • EU(p, r) EU(py wx HC)
  • where
  • p profit
  • r risk
  • p output price
  • y output, a random variable whose distribution
    is conditionally defined on the input vector x
  • w vector of input prices
  • x input vector
  • HC health cost as a result of illness due to
    pesticide exposure

Health Cost Model
  • Health costs are associated with total pesticide
    use pesticide exposure pesticide hazard
    category and other farmer characterisics.
  • ln HC f(LAGE, WTHT, DS, DD, LTD, LDI, LDH)
  • where
  • Ln HC log of health costs
  • LAGE log of famers age
  • WTHT farmer weight / height
  • DS dummy for smoking
  • DD dummy for alcohol
  • LTD log of total dose of pesticides
  • LDI log of dose of insecticides
  • LDH log of dose of herbicides

  • EU(p, r) wo90 - EU(p, r) w90
  • and/or
  • EU(p, r) wo07 - EU(p, r) w07
  • need to determine
  • Toxicity relationship between category 1-2 and
    3-4 pesticides
  • Price relationship between category 1-2 and 3-4
  • Efficacy relationship between category 1-2 and
    3-4 pesticides

Economic Surplus
  • Expected change in production costs due to fall
    in health costs k shift
  • Number of farmers affected adoption level
  • Change in producer and consumer surplus total
  • Cost of projects plus other costs(?)
  • Returns to POR benefits/costs

Research-gtpolicy change-gtimpact attribution
IRRI Research
Other research Other information
Policy task force Partnerships
FPA Institutional arrangements
IRDC Institutional research
IPM Other information
Civil society / media Coercion
DoA Political change
Meetings Italy, Germany and Switzerland
Pesticide suppliers Competing interest
BAE Competing interest
Farmers Competing interest
Data sources
  • Project documents and outputs
  • Literature review / databases
  • other PORIA studies
  • other relevant pesticide use/health studies
  • pest ecology and the relationship between pest
    infestation and yield loss (actual)
  • pesticide market
  • number of farmers affected by policy change.
  • Interviews with Dr Pingali, Dr Palis, Dr Rola, Mr
    Max Obuson, Frank Conejo, FPA, and chemical
  • researchers, chemical companies and policy
    makers perceptions of pest-related yield losses
    and control methods
  • determine the degree to which this research
    influenced the banning of category 1 chemicals.
  • Household surveys in the three locations
  • input/output data
  • farmer KAP in pest management
  • farmer perceptions of changes in pest ecology and
    optimal pest management practices
  • farmer information sources on best pest
    management practices

  • February initial meetings and questionnaire
  • March Literature review / databases.
  • April June encoding, data analysis, meetings
    with key players/policy makers
  • July August initial finings, draft report
  • September November follow-up meetings, model
  • December Final report