1.
Improving Rice Productivity to
Increase Rural Incomes and
Food Security in Haiti
Travis J. Lybbert, Professor, Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Davis
Abbie Turiansky, Researcher, Mathematica Policy Research
Haiti Priorise – 2 May 2017

2.
Stubbornly Low Rice Productivity Hurts
• Rice yields in Haiti have
experienced little growth in the
past 50 years
• Consequently, Haiti now imports
80% of the rice it consumes
• Yield gains in recent years are
encouraging but insufficient

3.
Stubbornly Low Rice Productivity Hurts
• Haiti is one of the most food
insecure countries in the
world
• 50%+ of Haitians are
undernourished
• Average calorie consumption is
20% below recommended
levels
• Hunger and food insecurity
abound even in the Artibonite
‘rice basket’

4.
Stubbornly Low Rice Productivity Hurts
• Stagnant and low rice
productivity hurts both
producers and consumers
• Direct harm to subsistence
and other farmers
• Indirect damage inflicted on
the broader rice value chain
• Compromised resilience to
production shocks

5.
Analyzed Solution
Improved Rice Production Practices in the Artibonite:
System of Rice Intensification & Amelioration (SRI-A)

6.
Improved Practices: SRI-A in the Artibonite
Scalable intervention based on Oxfam
America program, 2012-16
1. SRI demonstration plots
2. SRI-A training program
3. Technical support
4. Coordinated by bloc irrigation assoc.
5. Agricultural credit expansion
6. Cleaning canals and drains
7. Incentives to rototiller service providers

7.
SRI-A Costs
• Costs and benefits based on RCT with
design changes
• External implementation costs
• Association support for demos, training,
and technical support
• Credit incentives
• Canal cleaning support
• External support fades by year 7
• Private production costs
• Improved practices demand more labor,
land prep, and other inputs
• Learning reduces costs by 5% annually
• Heterogeneity in added costs implies
important profit heterogeneity
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Costs(MillionUSD)
Year of Intervention
Total Private and External Costs
Total added private costs Total external costs
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Costs(USD/hectare) Year of Intervention
Projected Additional Private Production Costs
Labor Land preparation Fertilizer Harvest, milling, transportation

8.
SRI-A Benefits
• 14% initial yield gain from mix of SRI
and SRA practices
• Baseline yield assumed 5T/ha
• SRI-A adoption increases over time
(extensive margin)
• 5% annual increase in yield gain due to
learning (intensive margin)
• Yield gain valued at $236/T (median
market price for rice)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PercentYieldGain
Year of Intervention
Projected Yield Gains from SRI-A Intervention
Extensive yield gain Intensive yield gain (learning)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ShareofRiceLand
Year of Intervention
SRI-A Adoption Assumptions
Share in SRI Share in SRA

9.
Summary of BCR, Scenarios & Limitations
• Benchmark BCR: 0.76
• Optimistic yet conceivable scenarios,
including very optimistic “best case”
• Limitations
• SRI benefits beyond average yield not included
• Local market and value chain effects of
235,600MT more locally-produced rice?
• Canal cleaning or expanded credit alone may
have BCR>1
• Some may profit significantly from SRI-A
• Targeting these farmers precisely would
increase BCRs
• Important to ensure that farmers can self-select
into optimal production practices
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Benchmark 30% SRI
Price
Premium
30% Lower
External
Cost
Mechanical
Weeder,
50% Lower
Weeding
Labor
Enhanced
Learning,
10% Annual
Efficiency
Gains
"Best Case"
BCR
Benefit Cost Ratios by Scenario
3% 5% 12%