- Impact
Sam Strimling, a Research Associate on PAD’s Kenya team, reflects on the results of a third round of interviews surveying farmers and agro-dealers across Kenya’s agricultural heartland.
CONTEXT
In December 2020, Precision Agriculture for Development (PAD) interviewed 509 crop farmers and 274 agro-dealers registered on the MoA-INFO SMS platform in Kenya. This survey was the third and final round of a panel survey, of which the first round took place between late April and early June 2020, and the second took place from August to early September 2020.The first two rounds of surveys focused on the long rainy season, which is the main agricultural season in Kenya, and the third round examined the short rainy season. Data from all three survey rounds are visualized on our COVID-19 Dashboards.
During the survey period, COVID-19 continued to spread globally and in Kenya. Since the first reported case in Kenya on March 13, according to statistics collated by the World Health Organization, as of February 2, 2021, there have been 100,773 confirmed cases in Kenya, and 1,763 COVID-related deaths.
By the time of the survey, restrictions to mobility and social interaction that had been imposed in March and April in an effort to slow the spread of the virus had been relaxed: A nightly 7pm-5am curfew, first imposed on March 27, was revised to 9pm-4am on June 7. On April 6, a lockdown was imposed on Nairobi, which eventually covered five counties (Nairobi, Mombasa, Kilifi, Kwale, and Mandera). As of July 7, restrictions on movement other than curfew were lifted. Domestic flights also resumed on July 15, and international flights resumed August 1.
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
In order to track the evolving economic and social effects of COVID-19 with the same population over time, across all rounds, we interviewed 1,471 farmers and 735 agro-dealers.
While individual respondents differed slightly across the three survey rounds, the demographics of the survey group remained similar. The below charts summarize select demographic information for both the farmer and agro-dealer surveys:
Round Total respondents Counties represented % male Avg. age % who grew maize as their primary crop Round 1 973 44 58% 41 79% Round 2 974 44 57% 42 80% Round 3 509 42 56% 44 53% The major difference in the farmer demographics across rounds is the percentage of farmers growing maize as a primary crop. It appears a large share of farmers grew beans rather than maize in R3, with 17% of R3 respondents reporting beans as their primary crop — up from 4% in R2. This makes sense in light of the larger seasonal context: farmers tend to focus on maize production during the long rainy season but diversify their crops during the short rainy season.
Round Total respondents Counties represented % male Avg. age Avg. annual sales (2019) Avg. number of employees Round 1 483 40 68% 46 US$11,351 2.2 Round 2 427 40 72% 45 US$11,348 1.8 Round 3 274 35 71% 46 US$10,564 1.5 In an effort to build a panel dataset to track change over time, we prioritized contacting farmers who had participated in our earlier surveys. Respondents who participated in R1 and/or R2 were prioritized; all R1 and R2 respondents were called three times before new respondents were called. Of the farmers interviewed in Round Three (R3), 70% participated in Round Two (R2) and 53% participated in Round One (R1). Of the agro-dealers interviewed in R3, 57% participated in R2 and 55% participated in R1.
FINDINGS
Farmers’ expectations for the previous (2020 long rainy) season were not been met, and farmers anticipated difficulties in purchasing sufficient inputs for the upcoming (2020 short rainy) season
Fifty-eight percent of R3 farmers reported a lower yield relative to the 2019 long rainy season, belying expectations expressed in R2 and R1 when 49% and 52% of farmers, respectively, said they expected a larger harvest relative to the previous year due to good rains and, reportedly, improved farming practices. The reasons cited by farmers in R3 for lower observed harvest were varied: 29% of farmers with a lower observed harvest in the 2020 long rainy season attributed this to excessive rains, with another 24% citing insufficient rain. Additionally, 24% explained that they had used fewer inputs. This makes sense given that 76% of R2 farmers anticipated difficulties purchasing sufficient inputs for the impending short rainy agricultural season, with 66% reporting they did not have enough money to do so.
Furthermore, of the 42% of R3 farmers who had sold all or some of their harvest from the long rainy season, 58% reported receiving a lower price versus the previous year. This again conflicted with the expectations of R2 and R1 farmers, of whom 58% and 66%, respectively, reportedly expected a higher price compared to the 2019 long rainy seasons. The primary perceived cause for dashed expectations appeared to be supply outstripping demand, with R3 farmers who received a lower price for harvest sold citing both higher market supply (43%) and fewer buyers (34%).
Still, expectations for the upcoming short rainy season were much more mixed, with 42% of farmers anticipating a lower harvest and 39% anticipating a higher harvest. These expectations in turn depended on those about rainfall: both the plurality of farmers who expected low harvests, as well as those expecting large harvests, cited rainfall as justification for these expectations. Price expectations in turn depended on expectations about supply: of the 54% of farmers who reported expecting a higher price for their forthcoming harvest, 60% attributed this to low production/market supply. Similarly, of the 31% of farmers reportedly expecting a lower selling price, 60% attributed this expectation to high production/market supply.
However, 80% of R3 farmers anticipated difficulties purchasing inputs for the 2021 long rainy season, a concern 62% attributed to lack of resources. In this way, R3 expectations were a continuation of earlier trends. Agro-dealers confirmed that prices were higher, with 62% of those interviewed in R3 reporting they had increased the prices charged to farmers relative to the same season previous year. This, too, was in line with earlier rounds: 65% of agro-dealers surveyed in R1 and 55% of those surveyed in R2 reported year-on-year price increases for the same set of inputs. However, with agro-dealers facing financial troubles themselves, the only way to stay in business may be through the practice of passing on high prices from suppliers, which have also increased according to 71% of agro-dealers interviewed in R3. Across all rounds, agro-dealers were statistically more likely (at the 1% level) to report charging farmers higher prices if the prices charged to them by suppliers had increased. Farmers’ inability to secure the necessary inputs may in part account for low harvest (and, consequently, high sale price) expectations for the season.
That said, agro-dealers are optimistic about their ability to satisfy the needs of the farmers who did attempt to buy from them: only 8% of R3 agro-dealers anticipated that they would be unable to meet farmer demand, compared with 26% in R2 and 29% in R1. The largest concern — cited by 71% of those in R3 who predicted they would be unable to meet farmer demand — was having insufficient resources to do so.
Continued food shortages and financial distress, relative to 2019
On a positive note, farmers experienced improved household consumption patterns compared to previous rounds, as they adapted to changing circumstances and as restrictions on mobility were lifted. Additionally, some of the improvement in consumption may be due to seasonal changes, as 42% of R3 farmers reported selling at least some of their seasonal harvest from the long rainy season, which means they likely have more cash on hand for household purchases. In R3, 62% of farmers reported difficulties buying food due to market changes over the past week – down from 71% of farmers in R2 and 87% in R1. Additionally, only 28% of farmers reported difficulty accessing markets over the past week due to mobility restrictions. This is just under half of the number who reported this issue in R2 (44%), which was in turn down versus 48% in R1. In further good news, over the past week, significantly fewer farmers in R3 reported reducing the number or size of household meals, reducing the amount of food purchased due to reduced income, and changing their diet composition. (Refer to the table below for the relevant statistics.)
That said, farmers still experienced significant distress compared to before the pandemic. In December 2019, just 8% R3 respondents reported difficulties buying food due to market changes, 5% reported mobility restrictions, 18% reported difficulties purchasing food due to reduced income, 16% reported reducing the size and/or number of meals, and 16% reported changing their diet composition.
Experience Dec. 2019 May 2020 (R1) Aug. 2020 (R2) Dec. 2020(R3) Difficulty purchasing food due to market changes 8% of respondents 57% of respondents 47% of respondents 21% of respondents Difficulty going to the market due to mobility restrictions 5% 48% 44% 28% Difficulty purchasing food due to reduced income 18% 63% 70% 51% Reduced number and/or size of meals 16% 46% 62% 49% Changed composition of meals 17% NA 65% 53% Business as (new) usual?
In an effort to adapt to changing circumstances, agro-dealers across all three rounds made changes to stocking, sales, and operations. Compared with R1 agro-dealers, R2 agro-dealers were statistically more likely to make changes across all three categories, and R3 agro-dealers were statistically more likely to make changes to sales and operations versus R2 agro-dealers. They were also slightly more likely to report making changes in stock, although this result was not statistically significant. (Refer to the below table for the relevant statistics.) These trends suggest changes to the business were imperative for long-term survival.
However, while agro-dealers may have reached a new normal in their stocking practices, sales, and operations, business has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Instead, agro-dealers face serious economic headwinds and a difficult business environment. R3 agro-dealers were statistically more likely than R2 agro-dealers to report lower expected footfall, lower observed sales, and lower expected sales. Fifty-four percent of R3 agro-dealers who observed low footfall attributed this to insufficient resources and the same proportion gave the same reason for low sales. At this stage, respondents perceived the prolonged economic slowdown to present a larger obstacle than government-imposed restrictions or public health precautions.
Experience Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Stock changes 31% of agro-dealers 53% of agro-dealers 56% of agro-dealers Sales changes 29% 54% 77% Operations changes 63% 71% 86% Specifically, in Round 3, 25% of all respondents reported reducing stock and 22% reported and implementing cashless/electronic transactions with their suppliers as a means of coping with the pandemic. Thirty-five percent of agro-dealers also reported implementing cashless/electronic transactions with farmer-customers. The largest changes to sales, however, were increased hygiene measures (handwashing stations, wearing gloves, etc.), undertaken by 51% of agro-dealers, and social distancing, performed by 39% of agro-dealers. Similarly, 62% of agro-dealers reported encouraging handwashing and 51% reported enforcing social distancing as key changes to operations. With the increasing implementation of these measures — and the relaxation of the nationwide curfew and mobility restrictions — agro-dealers were able to resume their pre-pandemic shop hours in R2 and continue through R3.
Additionally, as farmers adapted to the changing conditions, initially differential reactions by gender appear to have converged. In R1, female crop farmers were statistically more likely than their male counterparts to report that household members were spending fewer days on their own farms and paying higher prices for fertilizer (relative to the previous year); this was not the case in R2. However, in both R1 and R2, female crop farmers were significantly more likely than their male counterparts to report that they had had to rely on assistance from family to cover living expenses and were more likely to report having to reduce the size or number of meals served in the 30 days prior to being surveyed. Yet, by R3, there were no statistically significant differences by gender in measurements of production or consumption.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In R3, we asked farmers and agro-dealers directly which interventions or services could help them adjust to ongoing changes in the business environment associated with the pandemic. The purpose of this question was to inform program design not only for PAD, but also for other NGOs, government actors, and other stakeholders in the development community at large.
Our recommendations, informed by respondents’ preferences, fall into three buckets:
- Direct and indirect financial assistance: Unsurprisingly, given the reportedly difficult business environment, 18% of agro-dealers requested direct financial assistance and an additional 16% requested help acquiring inputs affordably. Similarly, 19% of farmers asked for provision of inputs, or requested particular inputs.
- Targeted advisory messages: Both agro-dealers and suppliers expressed a need for additional information. Twenty percent of farmers and 9% percent of agro-dealers requested general farming information, with an additional 7% of agro-dealers requested public health information. More specifically, when farmers were asked to rank proposed interventions pre-selected by PAD for their feasibility and mission alignment, many seemed eager to make the most of their limited funds: 31% chose as their first choice “information on soil testing,” while 27% ranked recommendations on less capital-intensive practices as a first priority.
- Improved market linkages: The plurality of agro-dealers (34%) ranked first “more information from farmers about input preferences,” suggesting a desire to improve market linkages. Along the same lines, the vast majority (96%) indicated they would be willing to share their contact information with interested farmers. Additionally, 91% of agro-dealers expressed a willingness to switch suppliers if a better price was offered. Given the trickle-down effect of supplier prices on the entire supply chain, providing agro-dealers with information and/or communication channels needed to improve their sourcing would help them stay in business while enabling them to meet farmers’ needs.
This research was funded by the COVID-19 Adaptation Fund, a joint initiative between the Global Development Incubator (GDI) and Instiglio. The aim of the Adaptation Fund is to collect data and find innovative solutions for service providers like PAD that serve vulnerable populations disproportionately impacted — socially and economically — by COVID-19.
Tomoko Harigaya, Precision Agriculture for Development’s Director of Research, and Grady Killeen, a former PAD Research Associate, consider the merits of adaptive experiments.
How does one create space to take stock of what we are learning and ensure that high-potential ideas that we have identified are sufficiently resourced and fast tracked for more rigorous testing? How can we ensure that priors and biases don’t lead us to home in too early on a small set of ideas which we *think* will make a big difference leading us to set up many (expensive) trials across a range of sites before we observe results?
Research design and practice requires the weighing of costs and benefits, as well as potential trade-offs. For an organization like PAD, which pursues both research and development practice, concurrently and in real-time, poor decision-making can be both costly, and hugely inefficient.
When there are an infinite number of ideas and we don’t have a great sense of which ones will have large impact margins one efficient approach is to start with experiments on lots of different ideas in different locations (i.e., testing ideas that seem most relevant for a given context). Over time, ideas that show promising results in one place can be picked up by other teams and adapted/replicated in other settings. Simple tweaks that don’t lead to improved outcomes can be put aside, and ideas that don’t show results but have a solid Theory of Change can be considered for further due diligence, major tweaks, and retesting.
This is similar to the concept of adaptive experiments, a new experimental research design approach advanced by Max Kasy and Anja Sautmann. Adaptive experiments are implemented in the form of A/B tests with many arms, and two or more rounds to enable adaptation. Researchers observe outcomes after early rounds of testing, reduce the sample sizes for the worst performing arms and increase them for the best performing arms. Thereafter, this process is repeated throughout the experiment. The key advantages of this design is that it maximizes the number of beneficiaries receiving the best intervention, and does so empirically and efficiently.
Some of PAD’s programs – characterized by a large user base and quality administrative data on frequent farmer feedback – are very well-suited for efficient learning through the use of adaptive experiments. We worked with Sautmann and Kasy to implement this approach to test how best to increase response rates to the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) profiling survey for a large digital extension system PAD has built and manages in a state in India. We were particularly interested in investigating whether warning respondents that the call would be robotic ahead of time would improve the ability of farmers to respond to the IVR profiling survey. We tested whether doing so far in advance (24 hours) or near the time of the call (1 hour before) was more effective, and whether morning (10 am) or evening (6:30 pm) calls yielded higher responses, a total of six treatment arms, over one month.
The experiment stopped when we reached 10,000 total farmers called, which was a predetermined number. The success rate increased with a morning call and an SMS 1 hour before. Some simple tweaks, such as changing the time of day of the call, increased success rates by several percentage points.
However, even with a relatively basic set of questions, the share of usable recordings was quite poor and, as a consequence, the rate of usable profiles to farmers contacted was low. Consequently, we have stopped using IVR profiling and continue to profile our farmers using agents operating from PAD’s call center. As we do so, we continue to explore other low-cost and more easily scalable profiling methodologies.
Notwithstanding these challenges, we continue to find the research proposition advanced through adaptive experiments compelling as we work to empower poor people with information efficiently and effectively, at low cost and at scale. Watch this space!
Read more about Anja Sautmann and Max Kasy’s experience implementing adaptive experiments with PAD >>> VoxDev
We are thrilled and grateful to share the news that Precision Agriculture for Development has been designated as a “standout charity” by GiveWell, a research nonprofit dedicated to finding outstanding giving opportunities.
PAD was the ONLY new organization designated as a ‘standout charity’ in 2020.
We join eight other organizations in sharing this accolade. Taken together with the additional nine organizations on GiveWell’s list of ‘top charities’, PAD now ranks among the world’s eighteen most cost-effective not-for-profit development entities. This is an astonishing achievement!
It has been an unprecedented year: with the recent news of a large grant from an anonymous donor that will generously support multi-year plans to invest in research capabilities and practice, the breaking of ground on a multi-country collaboration with IFAD, and the addition of Nigeria as PAD’s 9th country of operations – PAD has already achieved a great deal this year; all in the crosshairs of an unprecedented public health emergency.
GiveWell is the world’s top research organization assessing non-profit cost-effectiveness, and is highly regarded for the rigor of their practice. Their endorsement of PAD is premised on a thorough evaluation of our work, and many hours of interaction with PAD’s development and leadership teams.
GiveWell concluded, based on their cost-effectiveness analysis, that their “best guess is that PAD’s program is approximately 6 times as cost-effective as GiveDirectly’s program, which provides unconditional cash transfers to poor households in low-income countries.” Moreover, the summary of their evaluation cites PAD’s “Unusually strong self-analysis, particularly in supporting RCTs on its program” and “Standout transparency. It has shared significant, detailed information about its program with us”.
GiveWell also highlighted that PAD needs to do more to demonstrate impact with rigorous evidence. The citation states that “New information could plausibly lead us [GiveWell] to believe that this program is as cost-effective as our top charities [the strongest designation GiveWell makes].”
This year has been challenging for all of us, in ways that were unimaginable less than a year ago. PAD has not only managed to largely take these challenges in stride, but has harnessed the disruptions unleashed by the COVID-19 pandemic to expand our scope and the depth of our programming.
Precision Development (!) will commence 2021 doing more, in more places, with more capacity and expertise, and more recognition.
We applaud the work of our colleagues! Carry on!
Incorporating new survey data, and new visualizations, Dashboard 2.0 allows one to observe and compare trends across rounds of surveys and geographies.
Andrew Wang, a PAD summer research associate on the global research team, who was the primary creator of the new dashboard, writes:
The next iteration of our COVID-19 dashboard is here!
Dashboard 2.0 includes new survey data collected between mid-June and September 2020 in Kenya and two states in India. The new data complements, and is comparable with, Round 1 data collected in Kenya and one state in India in April and June. The updated dashboard also includes a new set of visualizations to illustrate temporal trends over the course of the pandemic.
Building on the first round of surveys in Kenya and State 1 in India, our team conducted a second round of surveys (R2) in Kenya between July and August, and in India between June and September. The updated dashboard also includes data from a round of surveys conducted in a second state in India (State 2) between May and July. Across all three regions, a total of 4,166 farmers, of whom 1,070 (25.7%) were women farmers, were surveyed and their responses are included in this updated dashboard. A third round of data collection is planned in Kenya and State 1 in India, and the dashboard will be updated in due course.
While specific trends differ between, and within, countries, there are several notable findings from the new visualizations. It should be noted that these trends are observational and that, on the basis of these survey results alone, cannot be causally attributed to COVID-19.
- Disruptions to labor markets in India appear to have lessened over the course of the pandemic as the Kharif (summer) cropping season got underway and lockdown restrictions eased. In August and September, over 70% of surveyed farmers in State 1 reported hiring at least as much labor as last year, compared to only 50% in May and June.
- However, measures of reported food insecurity rose throughout the summer in India, with over 60% of respondents reporting that they were unable to buy the amount of food their household usually consumed due to increased prices and/or reduced income. Towards the latter half of the summer, a greater fraction of farmers in both Indian states reported reducing their meal frequency or portions.
- In Kenya, the share of farmers reporting challenges with regard to buying food at affordable prices, or accessing markets decreased slightly (but consistently), from 99% in April to 84% in August. This suggests that market conditions may be recovering following the easing of COVID-related travel and curfew restrictions. However, increased household stress associated with diminished incomes is evident in an increase in the proportion of farmers who reported reducing meal frequency and/or the size of their portions.
- Across all three regions, women respondents were more likely than men to report that they had reduced the portion size or frequency of their meals.
- Notwithstanding these food concerns, when asked about COVID-19 related concerns the fraction of farmers who cited “not having enough food for the household” decreased over time in both Kenya and India State 1 surveys.
- During the second round of surveys in Kenya and State 1 in India, fewer farmers reported worrying about family members contracting COVID-19 (a steady decrease is observable from 57% in May to 34% in September). Concerns about personally contracting the disease also dropped in Kenya (53% in September compared to 67% in May), but not in the Indian state (52% in both May and September). This pattern is consistent for men and women farmers.
Further iterations of this work are in the pipeline: A third round of surveys will go into the field in Kenya soon, and we are developing a separate dashboard to visualize the impacts of the pandemic on Kenyan agro-dealers. Stay tuned!
For a deeper dive into the impacts of COVID-19 on smallholder farmers across geographies, gender, and time, take a look at the dashboard and read through our relevant policy notes and blog posts.
The Evolving Economic Effects of COVID-19 Among Smallholder Farmers and Agro-dealers in Rural Kenya
Sam Strimling, a Research Associate on PAD’s Kenya team, reflects on the results of a second round of interviews surveying farmers and agro-dealers across Kenya’s agricultural heartland.
AGRO-DEALER & FARMER COVID-19 SURVEY, AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2020
Between August and September 2020, Precision Agriculture for Development (PAD) interviewed 974 crop farmers and 427 agro-dealers registered on the MoA-INFO SMS platform in Kenya. This survey was a follow-up to first round surveys undertaken between late April and early June 2020. Fifty-eight percent of Round Two (R2) farmer survey respondents and 60% of R2 agro-dealer survey respondents took part in Round One (R1).[1]
An overview of the results of this survey are summarized in this blog post. Please visit our organizational COVID-19 webpage to access survey instruments and background information, and to view a dashboard presenting global, and other country specific, insights from our survey data. A Policy Note has been produced as a complement to this post, containing graphic representations and additional information useful to policymakers.
CONTEXT
During the survey period, COVID-19 continued to spread globally. Since the first reported case in Kenya on March 13, there have been 38,923 confirmed cases, and 725 deaths.[2] At the same time, restrictions to mobility and interaction have been relaxed. A nightly 7pm-5am curfew, first imposed on March 27 was revised to 9pm-4am on June 7.[3] On April 6, a lockdown was imposed on Nairobi, which eventually covered five counties (Nairobi, Mombasa, Kilifi, Kwale, and Mandera). As of July 7, all restrictions on movement were lifted. Domestic flights also resumed on July 15, and international flights resumed August 1.
The results of PAD’s survey are intended to assist policymakers and the development community at-large to track the evolving economic and social effects of COVID-19. By conducting surveys with the same population over time, we are able to monitor shifts in reported welfare and expectations among smallholder farmers and agro-dealers in rural Kenya.
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Between April 29 and June 2, PAD interviewed 973 crop farmers and 483 agro-dealers.[4] Interviews of farmers and agro-dealers covered 44 and 40 counties, respectively. The farmers interviewed were 58% male, 41 years old on average, and 80% grew maize as the primary crop. The agro-dealers interviewed were 68% male and 46-years-old on average, owned Small to Mid-size Enterprises (SMEs), employing an average of two employees and averaging 1.3 million Kenyan Shillings (KSH – approximately US$12,000) in annual sales.
Between July 28 and September 3, PAD conducted a second round of surveys and interviewed a total of 974 farmers across 44 counties, including 561 who also participated in R1 and 413 who only completed the R2 survey. The total sample was 57% male and 42-years-old on average.
During the second round of data collection, PAD interviewed a total of 427 agro-dealers across 40 counties,[5] including 248 who participated in R1 and 179 who only completed the R2 survey. The total sample was 72% male, 45-years-old on average, and had an average of 1.5 employees and 1.3 million Kenya Shillings (KSH, or approximately US$12,000) in annual sales.[6]
FINDINGS
Farmers optimistic about current harvest, but anticipate financial difficulties will constrain their ability to purchase inputs for the short rains season
Farmers in both R1 and R2 communicated optimism about the prospects of a good harvest for the long rainy season which occurs from early spring to early summer.[7] During R1, 52% of farmers surveyed reported that they expected a larger harvest and 66% expected a higher sale price relative to the previous year. However, R1 came earlier in the long rainy season, when 89% of farmers had not yet harvested; by contrast, 25% of R2 farmers had harvested their crops at the time of their enumeration and an additional 20% had sold their harvest, or were engaged in post-harvest processing. Nevertheless, R2 farmers remained optimistic about volume and prices for the season’s harvest, with 49% of farmers reporting they expected a higher harvest and 58% reporting that they expected a higher sales price relative to this time last year. Expectations were buoyed by good rains and, reportedly, improved farming practices.
That said, 76% of farmers surveyed in R2 anticipated difficulties purchasing sufficient inputs for the impending short rains agricultural season, with 66% reporting they did not have enough money to do so. Agro-dealers similarly reported that a lack of financial resources negatively impacted their ability to meet farmers demand: of the 22% of R2 agro-dealers who said they did not expect to be able to meet farmer demand, 58% percent attributed this to insufficient capital. The next most commonly reported reason was constraints on the availability of inputs (51%). For comparison, of the 29% of R1 agro-dealers who reported that they would be unable to meet farmer demand, 71% attributed this to unavailable inputs, and just 11% reported having insufficient capital.
In both survey rounds, farmers and agro-dealers reported high input prices, which may be either a cause or an effect of decreased input availability. In total, 57% of farmers in R1 and 56% in R2 reporting that at least one key input (i.e. fertilizer, seeds, or pesticides) had risen in price relative to the same season last year. Similarly, 65% of agro-dealers surveyed in R1 and 55% of those surveyed in R2 reported year-on-year price increases for the same set of inputs. In turn, agro-dealers were statistically more likely to report charging farmers higher prices if the prices charged to them by suppliers had increased. Moreover, agro-dealers in R2, were statistically more likely to report price increases from suppliers than those surveyed in R1.
Continued food shortages and financial distress, relative to the same period in 2019
Farmers’ financial woes are also reflected in patterns of reported household consumption. In R2, 71% of farmers interviewed reported difficulties buying food due to market changes – a marked improvement from 87% in R1 – and fewer farmers reported difficulty accessing markets due to mobility restrictions (44% in R2 versus 48% in R1). On the other hand, elevated financial distress is suggested by shifting reported food consumption: 62% of R2 farmers reported reducing the number or size of household meals and 70% reported difficulties purchasing food due to reduced income, compared to 46% and 63%, respectively, in R1.
In R2, we asked farmers similar questions about their life experiences during the same period in 2019 in order to tease out the extent to which the reported difficulties were attributable to the pandemic as opposed to annual consumption patterns due to the agricultural cycle (i.e. “lean season”). The reported results strongly suggest that COVID-19 exacerbated normal seasonal difficulties. Just 20% of farmers reported difficulties buying food due to market changes in 2019 and only 25% reported issues accessing markets due to mobility restrictions during this time. Additionally, just 13% reported reducing the size or number of meals and only 20% reported difficulties purchasing food due to reduced income in 2019. While 65% of R2 respondents reported changing diet composition (e.g. eating fewer vegetables or protein) this year, only 17% reported making such changes in 2019.[8]
Farmers and agro-dealers adapting to changing condition with revised sales and stocking practices
Both farmers and agro-dealers continue to find ways to adapt to changing conditions. In R1, 31% of agro-dealers had made changes to stock in response to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, 29% had made changes to sales, and 63% had made changes to operations. In R2, we saw a continuation of these trends, with R2 agro-dealers being statistically more likely to report making changes in all three categories. Compared to R1 agro-dealers, R2 agro-dealers were statistically more likely to report using cashless or electronic transactions to facilitate interactions suppliers and farmers and more likely to report extending credit to farmers. They were more likely to order inputs in advance and to have them delivered. Additionally, compared to R1 agro-dealers, R2 agro-dealers were statistically more likely to make directional changes in the volume of inputs; that is, more R2 agro-dealers reported both decreasing and increasing the total amount of inputs. Moreover, agro-dealers were statistically more likely to adopt a range of preventative health measures in both sales and operations: for example, they were statistically more likely to report encouraging handwashing, sanitizer use, mask use, and social distancing. With the implementation of these measures — and the relaxation of the nationwide curfew — agro-dealers were able to resume normal shop hours. Sixty-five percent of respondents reported closing between 6-8pm normally,[9] and 67% percent of R2 respondents reported closing during this time interval, compared to just 30% of R1 respondents.
Agro-dealers surveyed in R2 were 21% less likely to report lower sales compared to those in R1. They were also 39% less likely to report lower footfall expectations and 40% less likely to report lower sales expectations for the following week. While this may partially due to seasonal patterns in business operations — farmers are more likely to buy inputs in August versus May, as they prepare for the upcoming short rains — it also suggests that both farmers and agro-dealers are adjusting to evolving conditions.
Additionally, gender differentials in food security observed in R1 seem to have been partially resolved in R2. In R1, female crop farmers were statistically more likely than their male counterparts to report that household members were spending fewer days on their own farms and paying higher prices for fertilizer (relative to the previous year); this was not the case in R2. However, in both rounds, female crop farmers were significantly more likely than their male counterparts to report that they had had to rely on assistance from family to cover living expenses and were more likely to report having to reduce the size or number of meals served in the 30 days prior to being surveyed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
At PAD we are carefully considering which interventions would be more likely to empower farmers and agro-dealers to more effectively adjust to ongoing changes in the business environment associated with the pandemic.
Reported financial considerations and product availability are persistent obstacles constraining the ability of farmers to access the inputs they would typically use in the growing season. Capitalizing on our expertise in providing digital services, one potential way to promote farmer resilience would be to dispense advisory content to farmers about less capital-intensive alternatives, such as organic farming techniques (i.e., composting, mulching, monitoring the farm for pests and diseases and crushing pest eggs early on) that do not rely on chemical fertilizers and pesticides that must be purchased in the marketplace.
At the same time, we see potential in the use of digital technologies to promote more effective communication and information sharing across the supply chain. A majority of agro-dealers (63% in R2) reported receiving more than one message from farmers per day. In both R1 and R2, if an agro-dealer reported receiving more than one message from farmers per day this was statistically correlated with a greater number of customers purchasing inputs in the previous week. In R2, 89% of agro-dealers reported communicating with suppliers at least weekly. Establishing a way for agro-dealers to communicate farmer preferences may enable them to overcome supply chain issues: 41% of agro-dealers reported difficulties sourcing certain products, and an additional 14% reported difficulties finding particular brands of inputs.
Finally, while financial services are not within PAD’s ambit, the dramatic increase in the proportion of agro-dealers reporting an inability to meet farmer demand due to insufficient capital suggests that short-term loans or cash grants to agro-dealers could help agro-dealers stay open by allowing them to pay rent, staff, and other fixed costs until farmer demand rebounds. Given that farmers are also cash-constrained, however, cash grants would be particularly effective if coupled with the provision of vouchers to farmers targeted to support the purchase of inputs.
[1] In an effort to build a panel dataset to track change over time, R1 respondents were prioritized. All R1 respondents were called three times before new respondents were called.
[2] WHO Weekly Epidemiological Update, 05 October 2020. Weak testing infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, suggests the total number of cases may be higher; this is corroborated by antibody testing conducted by a team of immunologists from the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Program, and found that 5.6% of study participants contained SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Nevertheless, the death count remains low compared to other countries across both the developed and developing world.
[3] On September 28, after the end of the survey period, President Uhuru Kenyatta further extended the curfew by two months, with revised hours of 11pm-4am.
[4] In addition to crop farmers, 99 dairy farmers were interviewed. The analysis presented here excludes information reported by dairy farmers.
[5] Two survey respondents (in round 2) did not report their county.
[6] One survey respondent did not report the number of employees and 157 did not report annual sales. Both of these variables were winsorized at the 5th and 95th percentile to adjust for outliers.
[7] Exact timing may vary slightly based on geographic area, but in most counties, the long rainy season starts in February-March and ends in May-June.
[8] This question was added in R2, so this statistic in unavailable for R1.
[9] R1 respondents were asked the following: “At what time do you close your shop normally?” While this question was meant to be asked to new respondents in R2, this was not done due to an error in survey logic.
Two paragraphs of text under the sub-heading “Sample Characteristics” where modified on 27 October 2020 to ensure greater clarity
PAD’s India Research Manager, Hannah Timmis, and Senior Research and Operations Associate, Maya Woser, reflected on lessons learned for the International Growth Centre’s blog
Sam Strimling, a Research Associate on PAD’s Kenya team, reflects on the results of an initial round of interviews surveying farmers and agro-dealers across Kenya’s agricultural heartland.
AGRO-DEALER & FARMER COVID-19 SURVEY, APRIL-JUNE 2020
Between late April and early June 2020, Precision Agriculture for Development (PAD) interviewed 973 crop farmers and 483 agro-dealers registered to the MoA-INFO SMS platform in Kenya. The results of the survey are intended to assist policymakers and the development community at-large to more accurately assess and respond to the impacts of COVID-19 on rural smallholder farmers and other actors across the agricultural value chain.
An overview of the results of this survey are summarized in this blog post. Please visit our organizational COVID-19 webpage to access survey instruments and background information, and to view a dashboard presenting global, and other country specific, insights from our survey data.
CONTEXT
The novel coronavirus, COVID-19, and associated public health mitigation measures — particularly stay-at-home orders and the closing of public spaces such as markets, schools and religious institutions — have had unique effects on poor rural populations in developing countries. In order to develop policies and interventions that effectively respond to the evolving impacts of the pandemic, policymakers require systematic and reliable data to understand the nature of challenges confronting actors across the agricultural value chain.
PAD is uniquely situated to source and analyse timely and accurate data from farmers and agro-dealers. Through our work with government and non-governmental organization (NGO) partners, our two-way digital advisory systems currently service 3.6 million farmers in eight countries. As a matter of course, we collect and disseminate information to empower farmers to adopt behaviour changes that improve productivity and their livelihoods. This blog post summarizes the results of an initial survey of smallholder farmers and agro-dealers administered through the MoA-INFO service in Kenya.
BACKGROUND
In 2018, PAD launched MoA-INFO, a free two-way SMS platform developed in collaboration with the Kenyan Ministry of Agriculture. The impetus for the service arose in response to a national crisis stemming from a novel and rapidly-spreading invasive pest, the Fall Armyworm (FAW). An import from the Americas, FAW decimated African crops, with disproportionately dire impacts for maize farmers — a staple crop and critical source of nutrition in many sub-Saharan African communities.
Today, through a combination of push messages, menu-based content, and interactive decision-support tools, MoA-INFO provides actionable information to farmers to optimize the cultivation of eight crops (maize, beans, potatoes, sweet potatoes, pigeon peas, bananas, tomatoes, and sorghum) in addition to its foundational advisory content relating to how to monitor and address FAW infestation. Farmers rely on agro-dealers to purchase inputs (seed, fertilizer, pesticide, etc.), but also rely on these traders as a source of advice and repository of expertise. As the service matured, agro-dealers have been recruited to the platform to better inform them about farming best practices and the optimal use of inputs so that they can better service their customers.
At present, approximately 367,000 farmers and 1,246 agro-dealers are registered on the MoA-INFO service across all of Kenya’s 47 counties. Given PAD’s ongoing engagement with farmers and agro-dealers via the platform, we are well-placed to survey and interpret data sourced from smallholder and agro-dealer populations which other NGOs and policymakers may have more limited access to.
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Between April 29 and June 2, PAD interviewed 973 crop farmers and 483 agro-dealers. Interviews of farmers and agro-dealers covered 44 and 40 counties, respectively. The farmers interviewed were 58% male, 41 years old on average, and 79% grew maize as their primary crop. The agro-dealers interviewed owned Small to Mid-size Enterprises (SMEs), employing an average of two employees and averaging 1.3 million Kenyan Shillings (KSH – approximately US$12,000) in annual sales.
FINDINGS
A COVID-related challenge confronting farmers in Kenya is a reported reduction in working hours on the part of many agro-dealers. While only 3% of surveyed agro-dealers reported closing their stores entirely, a majority (65%) of agro-dealers reported closing between 4-6pm in the seven days prior to being surveyed, earlier than the typical closing hours of 6-8pm.
Decisions to close early may be partially attributable to the Kenyan Government’s 7pm-5am nationwide curfew, which was in place while the survey was in the field. However, 80% of agro-dealers reported an overall decrease in footfall, and 76% reported lower sales relative to the same month last year; this suggests that agro-dealers have not been able to condense their regular operations into fewer hours.
Furthermore, 62% of agro-dealers interviewed reported that they expect future footfall to continue to be low, and the same number reported low expectations for future sales. Typically, agro-dealers report the highest volume of sales during February and August, when farmers buy their inputs to coincide with the planting schedule for Kenya’s long and short rain seasons, respectively. We hope that future surveys will be able to assess the extent to which the expectations reported by agro-dealers in this round are borne out.
The most common reason for diminished farmer footfall offered by agro-dealers — cited by 81% of agro-dealers interviewed — was that farmers had insufficient resources to purchase inputs. Agro-dealers have tried to address this perceived constraint on business by extending credit to trusted farmers. Fifty-four percent of farmers surveyed reported increased prices being charged by suppliers and, in turn, 47% reported having to increase the prices they charged to farmers.
Increases in input prices are corroborated by farmers: of the 35% who purchased fertilizer, 44% reported price increases, and of the 19% who reported purchasing pesticides, 50% reported a price increase. While only 6% of farmers purchased seeds, 58% of these farmers reported price increases.
Reported price increases were not limited to inputs: 83% of farmers interviewed reported an increase in the price of maize. While price increases are not uncommon at this time of year (the ‘lean season’), the reported effect was particularly dramatic: 86% of farmers reported difficulties buying food due to market changes, and 46% reported having to reduce the size or number of household meals. Moreover, 75% of farmers interviewed reported having to eat into savings, and 55% reported borrowing money in the last 30 days, to cover living expenses. These patterns of reported dis-saving and borrowing may limit farmers’ investment budgets and demand for inputs in the next agricultural season. Moreover, these trends may be further compounded by disruptions to the labor market in the agricultural sector: 33% of farmers reported hiring workers for fewer days to do work on their farm than at the same time last year, and 29% reported working fewer days on others’ farms.
Female crop farmers reported greater food insecurity than their male counterparts across several measures: compared to male farmers, female crop farmers reported that household members reported spending fewer days on their own farms and paying higher prices for fertilizer. Female crop farmers were also significantly more likely than their male counterparts to report that they had had to rely on assistance from family to cover living expenses and having to reduce the size or number of meals served in the 30 days prior to being surveyed.
To inform a better understanding of the persistent effect of COVID-19 on food security, including potential differential effects by gender, we plan to interview farmers over time to monitor changes in staple food prices (relative to the same time the previous year). PAD will commence a second round of surveys in July to monitor how the situation evolves, and to assess shifts in reported welfare and expectations associated with a relaxation or termination of restrictions on movement.
In good news, farmers seemed optimistic about their forthcoming harvests: 52% of farmers interviewed reported that they expect a more bountiful harvest than they did in the previous year; 66% reported that they expect to sell their produce in the market at a higher price; and just 14% reported that they expect not to be able to sell part of their harvest. Farmers indicated that expectations of improved harvests were premised on improved rainfall, as well as higher observed market prices, which led farmers to expect higher prices for future harvests. A majority of farmers (86%) reported having storage space which may enable them to more readily withstand potential market disruptions.
Agro-dealers continue to look for ways to best serve farmers, and adapt to an adverse business environment, with 29% reporting that they had implemented changes to sales. Of the subset of farmers who said they had made such changes, 21% reported allowing farmers to pay for inputs using mobile money. While payment via M-PESA – the mobile money platform operated by Kenya’s largest mobile network provider – had been common throughout Kenya prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, these agro-dealers specifically mentioned instituting these transactions as a means of adapting to the pandemic. Overall, 62% of agro-dealers reported changes in operations due to COVID-19, the two most commonly reported were availing farmers of hand washing options (50%) and encouraging mask use (34%). Moreover, while 26% of agro-dealers stated they were unable to purchase inputs from suppliers – and a majority of these agro-dealers (58%) attributed this difficulty to constrained supply of inputs – many reported making changes to how they stock inputs in order to meet farmers demand. Reported changes included using mobile money when transacting with suppliers, and changing the quantity, time frame, or delivery method for orders. Overall, just over a quarter of agro-dealers (27%) reported that they foresee being unable to meet farmer demand.
While both farmers and agro-dealers have encountered economic challenges related to COVID-19, there nonetheless appears to be broad agreement that, from a public health standpoint, government measures constitute the right course of action: 76% of farmers assessed government actions as “very effective” or “somewhat effective” in mitigating the spread of the virus. Seventy-three percent of agro-dealers and 67% of farmers said that they feared contracting the virus, and 33% of agro-dealers named loss of wage income as a concern.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Taken together, the data collected so far suggest several potential strategies to insulate smallholder populations and agricultural value chains that rely on smallholder productivity from potentially damaging impacts associated with COVID-19. While many farmers remain optimistic about future harvests, there are signs of input market disruptions and increasingly stressed household consumption.
Providing cash transfers and social assistance to smallholder populations will help to insulate poor farming households from the effects of increased market prices for maize flour and other foodstuffs, and help to sustain demand for agricultural inputs to support the forthcoming planting cycle. On May 12, the Indian government released a relief package valued at approximately US$265 billion, which combines targeted financial support (including loans, cash transfers, and wage increases) with direct provision of agricultural staples (i.e., wheat, rice, and pulses) at the individual and household level. A similar package would likely go a long way toward relieving the financial distress and consumption difficulties faced by Kenyan farmers.
Farmers reported strong demand for digital information relating to the pandemic: 88% of farmers surveyed reported an interest in receiving digital updates related to COVID-19. Of those interested, 74% requested public health advisory content, 47% requested news-style updates relating to the progress of the pandemic (cases, recoveries, etc.), and 34% requested updates about pandemic-related government policies and actions.
Overall, 98% of agro-dealers reported communicating with suppliers via mobile phone, and 70% reported receiving messages from farmers about inputs at least once a day. By establishing formal channels across the value chain, farmers can communicate their needs and preferences. Better informed agro-dealers may be better positioned to overcome challenges to meeting farmer demand — for example through communicating farmer requests to suppliers, thus ensuring that needed inputs are available. Additionally, enabling agro-dealers to efficiently communicate with local suppliers to gather information on input availability and prices could help them procure inputs on time. Finally, such a channel would assist agro-dealers in implementing changes to how they stock, which about one-third have already reported adopting, including using cashless transactions and having inputs delivered.
CONCLUSION
As part of the World Bank’s One Million Farmers initiative, PAD is working with 14 start-ups across Kenya which collectively are working to deploy digital technologies toward improving market linkages, input delivery, and provision of crop insurance, credit, and extension advice. At an organizational level, we hope to use the information collected here to more effectively design and implement a service that will empower smallholder farmers and agro-dealers with information to more effectively mitigate challenges associated with this unprecedented disruption to the supply chain.
PAD’s theory of change is based around evidence that well-sourced, timely and actionable information can empower farmers and policy-makers to act in the world to improve lives and secure livelihoods. This theory is core to the design and implementation of the services we deliver across all of our projects globally. Sourcing opinions and data from farmers to more accurately understand their challenges and aspirations is critical for delivering timely information for practical application in farmers’ fields and households. The information collated through this survey and similar surveys in other geographies is intended to contribute to the evidence base in a rapidly shifting context with new and ill-defined challenges. We welcome your feedback and interest in partnering with us as we iterate our work.
This blog post was updated on 07.06.20 to include new gender-related insights
Make an Impact Today
Support our mission to empower farmers and scale sustainable innovations. We estimate that for every $1 invested in PxD’s services, we generate additional agricultural profits of $9 - $15. Your contribution can create lasting change for smallholder farmers worldwide.
