EFFECTS OF MARKET PRICE VOLATILITY
ON PRODUCTION PATTERNS AND
APPARENT RETREAT INTO SUBSISTENCE
FARMING BY KENYAN SMALL HOLDERS
By
Hezron Nyangito, Walter Odhiambo,
Samuel Mwakubo and Lydia
Ndirangu (KIPPRA)

• Farmers in developing economies face large variations in the price of agricultural commodities they produce
• They have devised ways of coping with market risks arising from producer price variations
• Farmers rely on self-insurance and income diversification
• These mechanisms drive households into poverty

INTRODUCTION
• This Policy Brief therefore presents findings of a study that examined the changing maize marketing systems following market reforms and the household strategies for coping with arising market risk

FOOD MARKETS POLICY REFORMS
AND LINKS TO PRODUCER PRICE
VARIATIONS AND INCOME RISKS
• Food policy reforms begun in the early
1980s in the food sub-sector
• Involved market liberalization and price decontrol aimed at providing incentives to the farmers
• However, despite the policy reforms, agricultural production, and food production in particular, has been on the decline

Cont’
• Food production levels are currently below what was achieved in the 1980s
• There has been fluctuations in volumes of marketed outputs for the main food commodities
• Price volatility is also a common feature in the markets
• But post-liberalization marketing systems do not seem to be working any better

Cont’
• The f luctuations in marketed output volumes of the main food commodities and price volatility have serious implications for poverty, risk and vulnerability in the rural areas
• However, the extent to which market structure and price volatility have impacted on food production and shifts in agricultural production among the small farmers is not known

• This is because of inelastic demand for agricultural products and inelastic short-run supply response of agricultural outputs
• The inelasticity of the supply is attributed to
(i)labour, capital and land being considered fixedcosts and fully employed (ii) factors of production which not highly mobile in response to factor price changes; and (iii) producers being entrenched in agriculture as a way of life

Farmers Response to Income
Risks
• Farmers decisions are also affected by risks
• The risk attitude held by the farmer influences the enterprise mix depending on the risk management strategies the farmer employs
• Individuals react to risk in different ways; one could be a risk taker, risk neutral or risk averse
• In general, many small-scale farmers are risk averse and cope with price uncertainty through diversification

• Our Data is from Kakamega district in Western
Province
• It is one of the most densely populated and most agriculturally productive districts in Kenya
• Although the district has been a substantial producer of maize, in the recent past there has been a decline in maize production
• Kakamega district has a diverse range of farm enterprises: maize, beans bananas, sweet potatoes, millets, Kales, tea and sugar cane

Cont’
• With respect to food crops, maize still dominates in both area allocation and production although there is a decline in the post reform period
• There is some evidence of diversification in food crop production - beans and sweat potatoes have emerged as important marketable food crops in the late 1990s
• Significant production has occurred for sweet potatoes in 2000 where hardly any level of production was recorded in the pre-reform

Cont’
• In general, although overall food production increased after 1998, there has been a decline since year 2000
• The decline in bean production is especially noticeable. The changes in enterprises mix could be a reflection of farmers’ reaction in response to various enterprise risks, market or otherwise.

• The maize price trends (Figure 1) were compared using inter-annual price variations of the highest, lowest and average maize prices in the district for the period 1980 to 2002
• The comparison reveals large differences in both the mean and variances for maize with some years having the highest price being more than twice the lowest.
• The high variation between the highest and lowest prices is explained by price fluctuations between the harvests

Fig. 1: Movement in Kakamega market maize price: 1980-2003
2000
1000
0
1980
1982
1984
1986
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2002
Year
Low est maize price i n a year
Highest maize pr ice in a year
A ver age pr ice of mai ze in a year

Cont’
• Prices generally decline immediately after harvest and are at their lowest around December to
February
• The prices then gradually increase from March and are at peak between May and July
• Greater intra-annual differences are observed in the period just after reforms but the fluctuations became less in late 1990s
• However, the fluctuations have been on the increase in recent years and prices have generally been lower than the harvest month.

Cont’
• This is due to ‘distress’ food sales arising from increased poverty levels
• Lower market participation because of decline in purchasing power and uncertainty resulting from price volatility
• Maize imports from neighbouring countries

Cont’
• There has been a slight decline in real producer prices of all the crops in the region
• All commodity prices have generally been volatile with the exception of maize and tea that have been rather stable
• Bean prices have been the most volatile followed by maize
• The area under maize and beans has declined by about 20%, since 1980

Table 1: Crop revenue means, standard deviation and coefficient of variation
Crop
Sugarcane
Tea
Maize
Beans
Sweet
Potatoes
2264.0
2197.4
5064.2
Mean
Revenue
( Ksh/ton) Yield
70369.2
43.1
70024.8
4.6
2.1
1.1
9.2
610.1
1642.1
1528.2
Standard deviation
Revenue
(Ksh/ton) Yield
10467.3
4.0
21118.8
1.0
0.3
0.9
2.1
14.9
30.2
26.9
74.7
30.2
Coefficient of variation (%)
Revenue
(Ksh/ton) Yield
9.2
22.5
15.6
83.1
23.0
Banana 10.4
0.5
4.5

Cont’
• There has been high volatility in crop revenues too
• Sugarcane revenues are the least volatile with a coefficient of variation of about 15%
• All the other crops apart from bananas show quite high volatilities with beans recording the highest fluctuations with a coefficient of variation of 78%
• The higher volatility in the other crops’ revenues may also be arising from fluctuations in yields shown also in the table compounding price variability

Cont’
• Maize yields are only moderately volatile despite high fluctuations in prices possibly due to quick reaction by farmers
• Maize revenues per hectare are quite low
• The higher bean revenues per unit area may explain the higher land allocation for beans over time
• Although hecterage has remained fairly stable since 1998, output has declined over the period

• Crop production is labour intensive
• Qualitative responses from farmers show less usage of fertilizers and pesticides as well as credit compared to pre-reform period
• More farmers have used less of these inputs in
2003 than period before 1990
• Manure use, however, has been fairly stable which is consistent with efforts towards risk management

Cont’
• The level of input usage is related to problems that farmers have been facing post reform
• Some of these problems include lack of operating capital, and costly inputs arising from removal of subsidies by the government
• Market decontrol did not result in lower prices as envisaged
• Total production costs were generally high for dairy, maize and maize/bean enterprises

Cont’
• The cost per unit area for dairy, maize and sugarcane were: Kshs. 13,300, 4,700 and 4,300, respectively. The lowest unit costs were for cassava (kshs 462) and bananas (Kshs 927)
• Dairy, maize and sugar cane have relatively higher capital requirements, which may constrain poorer households
• Sugarcane has highest gross margin per acre, contributing about 63.6%, followed by the dairy enterprise (27.4%). Maize/bean intercrop ranks third with 15%.

Cont’
• On returns to investments, apart from bananas and sweet potatoes, which hardly use inputs, sugarcane ranks highest in terms of returns to labour, land and capital per shilling invested.
• The high return on sweat potatoes may explain the rise in production. Other crops worth noting are
Kale and millet. Although not considered as major crops, returns per shilling invested are high compared to maize and beans

Alternative Off farm Jobs and
Income Opportunities
• Smallholder farmers often rely on off-farm activities as part of their diversification strategies
• Diversification patterns therefore reflect what households consider to be their most attractive options and provide insights on policies that optimize use of the poor’s assets given the risks they face

Cont’
• The proportion of households involved in off-farm activities indicated that over half of the sampled households are involved in off-farm activities
• The results show that households with high farm gross margins had more family members in offfarm businesses, thereby suggesting a close relationship between farm incomes and off-farm business
• More households with low farm incomes were involved in formal employment

• This paper has examined market price volatility arising from market liberalization and decontrol and how households cope with the market risk
• The study found that farmers are sensitive to price fluctuations as shown by increase in area allocation to crops like sugarcane which show stability in prices over time
• This indicates that while farmers may be withdrawing from the market in some food crops such as maize, there is expansion in cash crop production

Cont’
• Weakness in input markets and price volatility responsible for the lack of desired response from market reforms in the maize industry
• There is evidence of market failures in credit market, which in turn may affect purchased input use. Access to extension services is low following reduction of government budgets in extension
• Policy reforms need to consider such constrains that may hinder attractive options for households

Cont’
• Food crop enterprises such as kale and millet that have high returns and also offer greater opportunities for poverty reduction need to be looked into
• Addressing market and infrastructure constraints could assist in expansion of these enterprises
• So should the government attempt to stabilize prices?

Cont’
• History has shown that government stabilization is costly and stock release can at times be unpredictable making private agents reluctant to hold stocks
•
• Addressing storage costs such as reduction of interest rates will attract private traders
• Another issue of concern in long term price stabilization is the interventions in times of deficits. Will lower prices and reduce incentives for private agents

Cont’
• Emphasis on maize in such interventions reduces diversification in consumption that may lead to a reduction in production of other crops such as millet
• Targeted food relief and buying from the local market should be followed
• broad based growth that increases producer’s production levels and productivity through strategies such as improved infrastructure, access to credit, research and extension is called for