International Potato Center, Mozambique

1

• International Potato Center, Mozambique
• Annual Review Meeting. Lima, October 27
  November 7, 2008
  

2

• The supply of sweetpotato planting material in
  Southern Africa faces many challenges
  
• Availability of SP planting material constrained
  by limited public sectors or short run projects
  involving large NGOs with a defined free vine
  distribution
• Although considered a public good, dry prone
  areas make it difficult to keep SP vines from one
  season to another
  
• The lack of alternative seed suppliers would
  affect long term sustainability of the Seed
  System
  

3

• Could private sector in Africa engage in a
  sustainable planting material production?
  
• Are small farmers willing to pay for sweetpotato
  vines?
  
• Is it profitable to produce sweetpotato vines
  under local farmer conditions?
  
• Exploring the creation of a decentralize vine
  multipliers network in Central Mozambique
  

4

• How could vine multiplication become a
  sustainable activity?
  
• Are there incentives to encourage private
  planting material production?
  
• Exploring the establishment of decentralize vine
  multipliers The experience of the REU in
  Mozambique
  

5

• Results from a
• Real Choice
• Experiment (RCE)
• In Mozambique

6

• There is no market for sweetpotato vines
• Most of SP vines are distributed freely
• Little planting material sold at arbitrary fixed
  prices
  
• In Mozambique vine price fixed at 0.06 US, well
  below Government/NGO production cost
  
• The RCE was targeted to replicate real market
  conditions farmers faced real purchase choice
  

7

• Participants received 0.24 US with no obligation
  of vine purchase
  
• Participant expressed his/her varietal preference
  and willing to pay on 10 different choice
  scenarios
  
• Paired SP varieties for
• comparison (4 OFSP 1 local)
• Each variety displayed a price
• Prices assigned randomly
• (fractional factorial design)

8
Choice experiment format
9

• In each scenario respondent selects the variety
  he/she prefers and is willing to buy at displayed
  price
  
• Respondents had the option of none of the two
• But, they were aware that at the end of the
  exercise, he/she will randomly select one of the
  10 scenarios and buy the preferred variety at the
  scenario price.
• Farmer free to choose the quantity of vines to be
  purchased (minimum 1 kg)
  
• The same day farmers went home with the purchased
  OFSP variety
  

10

• 120 respondents (6 communities)
• Respondents with OFSP experience
• but with no vine distribution recently
• Variety information (yields,taste,pest
• drought tolerance,vitamin A content)
• With responses to different scenarios we
  estimated their WTP for OFSP vines using an
  econometric mixed logit model
  

11

• Real choice
• Experiment
• Results

12
Experience and knowledge of individual OFSP
varieties among respondents N121)
13

• Farmers evaluation of attributes of OFSP
  varieties

14

• Quantity of vines bought and money invested by
  respondents

15

• Frequency and percentage of selection of
  different OFSP varieties

16

• Farmers responses to different prices in the
  experiment scenario

17

• On average WTP
• 0.06 US for local varieties
• 0.08 US for OFSP vines
• WTP across OFSP Jonathan 100
• (Index) Resisto
  170
  
• MGCL01
  171
  
• LO323
  137

18

• RCE revealed higher WTP for any OFSP variety than
  local varieties
  
• The two most preferred varieties are
• Resisto for yield and taste properties
• MGCL01 for yield, taste and most importantly
  drought resistance
  
• On average farmers invested 0.09 US in buying
  OFSP vines, but a group invested more than 0.24
  US
  
• Farmers are willing to pay more for vines when
  switching to MGCL01 or Resisto

19
(No Transcript)
20

• The REU project
• Experience selling
• Vines in 2008

21

• In 2008 the REU project decided to sell vines in
  at least half of its participant communities
  
• Opted for a differentiated price policy
• 10 vines _at_ 0.04 US
• 25 vines _at_ 0.08 US
• 1-3 kg _at_ 0.10 US per Kg
• 4-11 kg _at_ 0.08 US per Kg
• 12 above Kg at 0.06 US per Kg
• Farmers could request and pay for any quantity

22
REU project OFSP vine sales 2008
23
Average price paid for OFSP vines 2008
24
Relative importance of OFSP varieties bought in
2008 by small growers
25

• 2008 vine distribution is consistent with WTP
  results
  
• Farmers paid on average more than the fixed price
  of 0.06 US
  
• Either paying a higher price or investing in buy
  large quantities of OFSP vines
  
• Farmers value more desired characteristics of
  OFSP varieties and bought more MGCL01 and
  Resisto
  
• Areas with market orientation are willing to pay
  more for OFSP vines
  
• With project support farmers willing to buy high
  quality OFSP vines could buy these vines from
  other farmers, that as demonstrated can produce
  vines commercially

26

• Results from irrigated
• On-farm trials
• Multiplication rates
• Production costs

27

• 16 on-farm trials and 1 on-station
• (4 replications)
• Two levels of comparison
• Multiplication technique
• (Rapid vs. conventional)
• Irrigation scheme
• (Watering can vs. treadle pumps)
• 3 varieties Resisto, Jonathan, MGCL01

28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30

• At farmers conditions, conventional
  multiplication using watering can the more
  attractive scheme
  
• Higher multiplication rates
• Lowest cost per kilogram of vine produced
• While farmers are willing to pay on average 0.07
  US per kilo of OFSP vines (up to 0.08 US), they
  can produce these vines as a low cost as 0.02
  US
• Vine multiplication seems to be attractive to
  small farmers in Mozambique. A network of
  decentralize vine multiplier would enhance the
  sustainability of the Seed System