Nepal's agriculture sector, vital for the country's economy, faces numerous challenges, including low productivity and limited adoption of modern agricultural technologies including improved seed. To address these issues, the Government of Nepal launched the Seed Subsidy Program (SSP) in 2012, providing subsidized seeds to farmers. A recent journal article authored by the Pulte Institute for Global Development’s Shriniwas Gautam, Danice Brown Guzmán, and colleagues, "Does Subsidizing Seed Help Farmers? Nepal's Rice Seed Subsidies," evaluates the effectiveness of the SSP on rice yields and provides insights into potential policy improvements.
Overview of the Study
Purpose and Motivation
The study assesses the impact of the SSP on rice yields among smallholder farmers in Nepal. The evaluation is motivated by the belief that adopting improved seed can boost yields, enhance food security, improve livelihoods, and reduce poverty. Despite these potential benefits, the effectiveness and efficiency of input subsidies remain subjects of debate.
Methodology
The study employs a quasi-experimental approach, comparing rice-growing households that received subsidized seeds (treatment group) with those that did not (control group). The two groups were matched using propensity scoring to ensure comparability. Primary data were collected from a 2019 survey involving 157 treated and 173 control farm households in the Terai lowlands. The study focuses on aggregate and heterogeneous treatment effects on rice yield per hectare.
Key Findings
Lack of Aggregate Impact
The study found no significant evidence of the SSP's impact on rice yield at the aggregate level. One possible explanation is that the SSP promoted a long-standing, open-pollinated variety (OPV) rather than newer, higher-yielding OPVs and hybrids. As a result, the expected yield improvements from the subsidy were not realized.
Heterogeneous Impacts
Despite the lack of aggregate impact, the study identified higher yields among specific subgroups of treated households, particularly those with lower incomes or those located far from agro-dealers and agricultural extension offices. This suggests that the SSP may be more effective for disadvantaged or geographically isolated farmers.
Policy Implications
Given the overall lack of impact on yields, the study suggests several policy adjustments to improve the SSP's effectiveness:
-
-
Targeting Low-Income and Remote Households as these groups showed improved yields from the subsidy.
-
Promoting High-Yielding Varieties to achieve better results, instead of older OPVs.
-
Improving Transparency and Subsidy Administration by considering more cost-effective approaches to administer the program, such as using seed vouchers, and engaging more with private seed providers.
-
Strengthening Last-Mile Seed Delivery to ensure that farmers who need it most can benefit from improved seed varieties.
-
Broader Implications
The findings from this study carry important implications not only for Nepal but also for other developing countries with similar agricultural subsidy programs. The study highlights the importance of targeting and selecting appropriate seed varieties to maximize the benefits of subsidies. It also underscores the need for continuous evaluation and adaptation of subsidy programs to ensure they effectively meet the needs of smallholder farmers.
Conclusion
The SSP in Nepal, while well-intentioned, has not significantly increased rice yields at the aggregate level. However, it shows promise for certain subgroups of farmers. By refining the program to better target low-income and remote households, promoting high-yielding seed varieties, and improving administrative processes, Nepal can enhance the effectiveness of the SSP. These adjustments could lead to improved yields, greater food security, and poverty reduction, supporting broader goals of economic development and sustainability of the agriculture sector.