www.ifpri.org IFPRI Division Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results. They have not been subject to formal external reviews managed by IFPRI's Publications Review Committee, but have been reviewed by at least one internal or external researcher. They are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment.

Abstract not found

www.ifpri.org IFPRI Division Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results. They have not been subject to formal external reviews managed by IFPRI's Publications Review Committee, but have been reviewed by at least one internal or external researcher. They are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment.

www.ifpri.org IFPRI Division Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results. They have not been subject to formal external reviews managed by IFPRI's Publications Review Committee, but have been reviewed by at least one internal or external researcher. They are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment.

www.ifpri.org IFPRI Division Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results. They have not been subject to formal external reviews managed by IFPRI's Publications Review Committee, but have been reviewed by at least one internal or external researcher. They are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment.

IFPRI Division Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results. They have not been subject to formal external reviews managed by IFPRI's Publications Review Committee, but have been reviewed by at least one internal or external researcher. They are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment. Copyright 2006, International Food Policy Research Institute. All rights reserved. Sections of this material may be reproduced for personal and not-for profit use without the express written permission of but with acknowledgment to IFPRI. To reproduce the material contained herein for profit or commercial use requires express written permission. To obtain permission, contact the Communications Division at ifpricopyright@cgiar.org. ACKNOWLEDGMENT We’d like to thank John Pender for his support as a colleague, for making the data available to us, and for his constructive comments on various drafts of this paper. This paper investigates the effects of wheat genetic diversity and land degradation on risk and agricultural productivity in less favored production environments of a developing agricultural economy. Drawing production data from household survey conducted in the highlands of Ethiopia, we estimate a stochastic production function to evaluate the effects of

IFPRI Division Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results. They have not been subject to formal external reviews managed by IFPRI's Publications Review Committee, but have been reviewed by at least one internal or external researcher. They are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment.

This study was made possible by the support and guidance of many individuals, from the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), University of the Free State (UFS) and the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) all of whom I owe much gratitude to. Firstly my gratitude go to Dr. Anthony Simons (ICRAF) and Professor Izak Groenewald (CSA) for supporting my career development and facilitating my study within my work environment. I am intellectually indebted to my study promoters Dr. Aldo Stroebel, Dr. Tony Simons and Prof. Izak Groenewald for their insights and invaluable advice to the successful completion of my study. MSA lecturers at the UFS are also thanked for their insightful and critical academic modules. I wish to express my profound gratitude, sincere appreciation and indebtedness to many of my colleagues at ICRAF, Dr. Ramni Jamnadass for introducing and encouraging me to pursue this master’s degree course at the UFS, to Jonathan

this paper. The preparation of the discussion paper was supported by the IFPRI. The paper was prepared while the author was a Visiting Professor at the African Studies Center at Michigan State University. Dr David Wiley, the Director of the Center and other colleagues in the Center and in the Department of Agricultural Economics offered valuable administrative and technical support and encouragement. Steve Haggblade and Carl K. Eicher provided incisive comments on the various drafts of the paper. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY consumed. In the early 1960s, Africa accounted for 42 percent of world cassava production. Thirty years later, in the early 1990s, Africa produced half of world cassava output, primarily because Nigeria and Ghana increased their production four fold. In the process, Nigeria replaced Brazil as the worlds leading cassava producer. The cassava transformation involves a shift from production as a low-yielding, faminereserve crop to a high-yielding cash crop increasingly prepared and consumed as gari, a dry cereal. This discussion paper aims to document the key factors which are driving the cassava transformation in Nigeria and Ghana, two of the three largest cassava producing countries in Africa: Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Ghana. In Nigeria and Ghana, four key factors are driving the cassava transformation. First, the IITAs new high-yielding Tropical Manioc Selection (TMS) varieties boosted cassava yield by 40 percent without fertilizer application. Second, high consumer demand for cassava by rural and urban households fueled the producer incentive to plant more land to cassava. Third, the use of the mechanical grater to prepare gari released labor, especially female labor, from processing for planting more cassa...

The study examines the poverty reduction implications of the introduction of three different agricultural technologies by government and NGOs in three rural sites across Bangladesh. The first is new vegetable seeds developed by AVRDC introduced in Saturia to women owning small amounts of land by a local NGO, based on a training and credit dissemination approach. The second is polyculture fish technology developed by World Fish Center and introduced by a government extension program based on private fishponds operated mostly by men in Mymensingh. The third is the same polyculture fish technology, but introduced through a local NGO in Jessore based on the arrangement of leased fishponds operated by groups of low income women, supported by training and credit provision. The study found a number of significant poverty impacts. Among the strongest was in the case of vegetable technology, which is targeted toward women in households with relatively small amounts of land and is a nonlumpy technology requiring a very low level of investment, but with substantial returns and positive impacts on female empowerment and child nutritional status. The private fishpond technology was less successful in terms of poverty impact, since only better-off households tend to own ponds. This technology, however, had positive effects on the pond and crop profits of these households. The operation of the group fishpond technology, though a potentially beneficial agricultural program for poor households, was significantly undermined by collective action problems. Relative to women who did not have access to this group-based program, female group members appeared to have more mobility, greater likelihood of working for pay, higher off-farm incomes, and better nutritional status...