Baseline Report:
Potato Processing in Ethiopia: missing link in the value chain
Authors: Roger Bymolt, Marcelo Tyszler
[email protected] | [email protected]
January 2016
"Potato Processing in Ethiopia: missing link in the value chain" is a project of Veris Investments B.V., Senselet Food Processing PLC, Solagrow
PLC, Wageningen UR through Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek, the Agri Business Support Facility (part of the Addis Ababa
Chamber of Commerce and Sectoral Associations) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands within the Facility for Sustainable
Entrepreneurship and Food Security (FDOV)
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table of contents
Table of contents............................................................................................................................... 2
Tables ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figures........................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Baseline evaluation ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Background to the project ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Potato sector in Ethiopia ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Methodology................................................................................................................................... 10
Baseline reporting ........................................................................................................................... 14
Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................14
Food security .............................................................................................................................................................14
Grameen Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI) ..............................................................................................................14
Household income sources.........................................................................................................................................15
Land size and ownership ............................................................................................................................................15
Crops grown and sold.................................................................................................................................................15
Potato production and practices.................................................................................................................................16
Crop rotation .............................................................................................................................................................18
Farmer groups ...........................................................................................................................................................18
Storage ......................................................................................................................................................................18
Losses ........................................................................................................................................................................19
Labour .......................................................................................................................................................................19
Marketing and consumption ......................................................................................................................................20
Training .....................................................................................................................................................................21
Savings and loans .......................................................................................................................................................21
Record keeping and decision making ..........................................................................................................................22
Gender analysis..........................................................................................................................................................22
Farm model ...............................................................................................................................................................23
Data output ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Food security .............................................................................................................................................................25
Household income sources.........................................................................................................................................26
Land size and ownership ............................................................................................................................................26
Crops grown and sold.................................................................................................................................................29
Potato production and practices.................................................................................................................................31
Crop rotation .............................................................................................................................................................38
Farmer groups ...........................................................................................................................................................39
Storage ......................................................................................................................................................................40
Losses ........................................................................................................................................................................41
Labour .......................................................................................................................................................................42
Marketing and consumption ......................................................................................................................................45
2
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Training .....................................................................................................................................................................47
Savings and loans .......................................................................................................................................................48
Record keeping and decision making ..........................................................................................................................50
Farm model (Inputs, labour, revenue, profits model) ..................................................................................................51
Annex .............................................................................................................................................. 54
Tables
Table 1 Respondents surveyed by Woreda (horizontal) and Kebele (vertical) .....................................................................11
Table 2 Woreda – frequency and percentage of respondents ............................................................................................11
Table 3 Respondent perception of rainfall amount last year compared with the past 5 years .............................................13
Table 4 Respondent perception of rainfall timing last season compared with the past 5 years ...........................................13
Table 5 Respondent - Head of household by gender (freq. and percent) ............................................................................24
Table 6 Household characteristics ....................................................................................................................................24
Table 7 Household head education...................................................................................................................................25
Table 8 Percent of respondents having 3, 2 or 1 meal per day, by month...........................................................................25
Table 9 household income sources - all, biggest and second biggest (percent) ...................................................................26
Table 10 Land owned and used for all crops (average, hectares)........................................................................................26
Table 11 Land use for potatoes (average, hectares) ..........................................................................................................27
Table 12 Crops produced and sold last season (percent)) ..................................................................................................29
Table 13 Crops - most important and second most important ...........................................................................................30
Table 14 Number of crops grown per household...............................................................................................................30
Table 15 Production - average bags produced, by household and per hectare ...................................................................31
Table 16 Production - average yield, by district and by gender of household head (KGs/hectare) .......................................32
Table 17 Production practices (percent of respondents doing) ..........................................................................................33
Table 18 Irrigation sources ...............................................................................................................................................33
Table 19 Irrigation methods .............................................................................................................................................34
Table 20 Planting in rows .................................................................................................................................................35
Table 21 Potato seed planted and purchased....................................................................................................................35
Table 22 Seed – all places purchased/obtained .................................................................................................................35
Table 23 Seed - Main place obtained ................................................................................................................................36
Table 24 Seed - number of potato varieties grown last season ..........................................................................................37
Table 25 Seed - Main variety grown last season ................................................................................................................37
Table 26 Seed - number of years since purchasing what is believed to be clean seed .........................................................37
Table 27 Number of times weeding done .........................................................................................................................37
Table 28 Means of transport from field to store................................................................................................................38
Table 29 Crop rotation - number of seasons before returning potatoes to the same plot ...................................................38
Table 30 Crops rotated with potatoes ...............................................................................................................................38
Table 31 Farmer group membership (by gender of household head) .................................................................................39
Table 32 Farmer group details ..........................................................................................................................................39
Table 33 Farmer groups, ways NGOs/companies support them .........................................................................................40
Table 34 Storage - where potatoes were stored ................................................................................................................40
Table 35 Potato bulking....................................................................................................................................................40
Table 36 Losses – percent of respondents experiencing at least some losses from diseases, handling and during storage ...41
Table 37 Losses - Average number of bags lost, percent of total production ......................................................................41
Table 38 Losses – most common diseases, among those who experienced diseases ..........................................................41
Table 39 Losses - reasons for losses during storage (percent) ............................................................................................42
3
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 40 Average number of labour days per activity, per hectare.....................................................................................42
Table 41 Labour days - proportion of household, hired and communal ..............................................................................43
Table 42 Labour - average daily rates for hired labour (Birr) ..............................................................................................44
Table 43 Share of labour inputs by men and women per activity .......................................................................................44
Table 44 Marketing and consumption of potatoes – average proportion sold, consumed, lost etc......................................45
Table 45 Main place potatoes sold last season ..................................................................................................................45
Table 46 Number of weeks before selling most of the potato crop ....................................................................................45
Table 47 Contracts - percent of farmer groups and respondent households contracted to supply to a company .................46
Table 48 Prices - common, highest and lowest prices actually received by respondents (Birr) ............................................46
Table 49 Prices, distribution of responses on the low, common and high price per kg of potatoes (Birr) .............................46
Table 50 Training - farmers receiving training in the past 5 years .......................................................................................47
Table 51 Training - sources of training (percent) ...............................................................................................................47
Table 52 Training - types of training received (percent) .....................................................................................................47
Table 53 Savings and loans (% of all respondents) .............................................................................................................48
Table 54 Loans - sources of lending for potato production and marketing (% of all respondents) .......................................48
Table 55 Loans - amounts borrowed and repayment time .................................................................................................48
Table 56 Loans – how were used for potato production and marketing (% of all respondents) ...........................................49
Table 57 Loans - reasons for not taking loans ....................................................................................................................49
Table 58 Loans - type of collateral used ............................................................................................................................49
Table 59 Record keeping – percent of household keeping written records.........................................................................50
Table 60 Household decision making – who makes decisions about marketing potatoes ....................................................50
Table 61 Profit model - labour costs, input costs, revenue and profit (Birr per hectare)......................................................51
Table 62 Grameen PPI lookup tables – Likelihoods of being in poverty ..............................................................................54
Figures
Figure 1 Map of research areas (Woreda) .........................................................................................................................12
Figure 2 Grameen Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI).......................................................................................................24
Figure 3 Percent of respondents having 3, 2 or 1 meal per day, by month .........................................................................25
Figure 4 Land size, all land owned (hectares) ....................................................................................................................27
Figure 5 Land size, land used for potatoes (hectares) ........................................................................................................28
Figure 6 Number of crops grown per household (percent of respondents).........................................................................30
Figure 7 Production, yield distribution (KGs per hectare) ...................................................................................................32
Figure 8 Prices, distribution of responses on the low, common and high price per kg of potatoes (Birr) ..............................46
Figure 9 Profit distribution, revenue per hectare (Birr) ......................................................................................................52
Figure 10 Profit distribution, revenue – cost of inputs per hectare (Birr) ............................................................................52
Figure 11 Profit distribution, revenue – cost of inputs – cost of hired labour per hectare (Birr)...........................................53
Figure 12 Profit distribution, revenue – cost of inputs – value of all labour (hired, communal, household), per hectare (Birr)
........................................................................................................................................................................................53
4
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Introduction
Baseline evaluation
The following baseline report presents data illustrating the current situation of Ethiopian potato
farmers in Wenchi, Cheha, Enemor, and Soro Woreda (districts). In November 2015, The Royal Tropical
Institute (KIT)1 conducted a baseline study for the project ‘Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing
link in the value chain’, a Public Private Partnership supported by the Facility for Sustainable
Entrepreneurship and Food Security (FDOV) of the Netherlands Enterprise Agency2. The project aims
to build the first industrial-scale potato processing company in Ethiopia which will work with
smallholder potato farmers and procure potatoes from them.
The baseline research will benefit the project in several ways: i) It will provide an up-to-date dataset
which will inform implementing partners as they develop their strategy; ii) it will act as a benchmark
from which future activities and progress can be measured and iii) it will be essential for an impact
assessment at the conclusion of the project to measure changes in key indicators in order to assess
the project’s overall impact on smallholder potato farmers.
The report is structured as follows: The introduction section provides a basic background to the
project, including its objectives, planned activities and expected outcomes, before elaborating on the
general context of the potato sector in Ethiopia. This is followed by a methodology chapter explaining
how the baseline study was carried out, and a description of the sampling frame and research areas.
The chapter ‘Baseline reporting’ discusses the findings of the baseline study in relation to data
presented in the final section ‘Data output’, where data is mainly presented in the form of tables and
figures.
Background to the project
The project’s objective is to establish the first industrial-scale potato processing company in Ethiopia,
which will link smallholder potato farmers to a market for quality fresh potatoes and processed potato
products in Ethiopia. The project thereby aims to improve food security in Ethiopia by driving market
efficiency and value chain sustainability, ultimately leading to increased local availability of affordable
potatoes3.
Veris Investments B.V. has partnered with Senselet Food Processing PLC, Solagrow PLC, Wageningen
UR through Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek, the Agri Business Support Facility (part of
1
http://www.kit.nl/sed/
See http://www.rvo.nl/subsidies-regelingen/projecten/potato-processing-ethiopia
3 See Project Plan, Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Food Security Facility (FDOV) 2014
2
5
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
the Addis Ababa Chamber of Commerce and Sectoral Associations) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the Netherlands within the Facility for Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Food Security (FDOV).
Project activities
The project will begin by developing the potato supply chain with smallholder farmers and will
construct a potato sorting and processing factory which will further develop the market for processed
potatoes. It will provide a stable off-take for potatoes with fair and consistent prices throughout the
season.
Expected project outcomes
The project’s involvement in the sector will add to producer incomes, which will in turn allow for
greater investment, improved quality and higher productivity in the Ethiopian potato sector. The
enhanced market efficiency, and greater sustainability, throughout the value chain will contribute to
food security in the whole of Ethiopia by enabling consumption of attainable, affordable local
potatoes.
The project will provide the farmers stable, transparent prices while rewarding them for producing
high quality potatoes. This will incentivize the farmers to invest in their crops, resulting in superior
productivity and quality. In the medium term, improving access to input and services will lead to
increased productivity of quality potatoes as well as farmer income.
In the longer term, as the project and the industry grow, more farmers will be involved, all striving for
better quality and improved incomes. This in turn will lead to lower potato prices, which will be offset
by the higher productivity levels of the smallholders.
Fundamentally, the increased market efficiency and enhanced value chain sustainability of the value
chain set in motion by this project is hoped to have an impact on a significant proportion of Ethiopia’s
1.3 million potato farmers and will improve food security for the country’s 90+ million inhabitants.
Potato sector in Ethiopia
Ethiopia is the second-most populous country in Sub-Saharan Africa with a population of over 90
million. Ethiopia’s economic performance in recent years has been strong with largely double-digit
economic growth since 2004. Agriculture remains one of the most important sector of Ethiopia’s
economy, accounting for over 80% of employment and 40% of GDP4.
Despite its impressive growth, Ethiopia is one of the most food insecure countries in the world
according to the FAO. Over 30% of its population is undernourished and the country’s per capita GDP
4
Bymolt, R (2014). Creating Wealth with seed potatoes in Ethiopia. CFC report
6
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
of US$1,300 is ranked at place 211 out of the 228 countries5. The Netherlands Embassy in Addis Ababa
in its Multi-Annual Strategic Plan 2014-2017 further indicates that there are substantial obstacles in
the business climate such as a lack of credit, a very basic trade logistics system and underdeveloped
infrastructure.
Potatoes in Ethiopia are almost exclusively grown by smallholder farmers and an estimated 1.3 million
households depend on potatoes for part of their income. Due to lack of financial means, these
smallholders invest little in the potato production with low productivity as a result. During food crises,
the price of potatoes fluctuate less than the prices of other crops (cereals in particular), as they have
a local market, that reflects local supply and demand.
In the current market setup, with smallholder potato farmers selling the vast majority of their potatoes
on local village markets, the prices they receive are very low, especially directly after harvest. In an
effort to increase their income, some smallholder farmers resort to ‘storing’ potatoes in the ground in
the cold period after the September harvest6. Although this may achieve somewhat higher prices, it
also leads to substantial losses. The potatoes on the local village market are bought by middlemen
who often have an information advantage, since potato farmers do not know the price levels at the
larger markets. In addition to abusing the information asymmetry, the middlemen also exploit the
sales timing since producers are all in need of cash at or after harvest which is a period of high
availability.
Main issues in the sector
There are believed to be two central problems to be addressed in order to improve the position of
smallholder potato farmers:
Potato availability: In Ethiopia, potato availability is low and volatile, despite the favourable climatic
conditions for potato production. Yields are estimated to be at 20% of their potential. Because of a
lack of storage, the spike in supply during and directly after harvest currently cannot be absorbed nor
be dampened by the market. Together with a lack of proper distribution and processing, this causes
considerable potato losses before they can be consumed7.
Low and volatile incomes: The 1.3 million smallholder potato farmers in Ethiopia invest little in the
potato production with low productivity as a result. At local village markets, currently the only outlet
for most smallholder farmers, middlemen form the only link between the farmers and the wider
market. These middlemen often exploit the farmers’ need for cash soon after harvest and the lack of
5
World Bank. (2014). Ethiopia GDP per capita. Available:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD/countries/ET?display=graph. Last accessed 20/10/2015.
6 Gildemacher et al. (2009). Improving Potato Production in Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia: A System Diagnosis. Potato Research. 52 (52),
173.
7 Appendix 1, Project Plan, Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Food Security Facility (FDOV)
7
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
storage by offering low prices, using the information advantage they have over the farmers on the
long and non-transparent supply chain8.
Future potential
However, Ethiopia’s tropical highlands are one of the most promising areas for potato production in
Sub-Saharan Africa. This provides an opportunity for growth and development, especially in food
security. The growing season of the potato is short, so it can be harvested after the onset of the rainy
season which is an important feature to overcome the ‘green hunger’ – created due to lack of available
food while crops grow.
Potatoes also provide a viable alternative to Ethiopia’s substantial grain imports, which have been one
of the biggest imported food items over the past few, costing an average of $500 million per year over
the past five year period. In addition to the financial savings, potatoes are one of the most productive
food crops available in terms of yields (edible energy and good quality protein) per day, per hectare
(double that of grains). There are substantial amounts of micronutrients present in the potatoes to
tackle nutrient deficiencies, vitamin C in particular, as well as being a crop which requires less water
than other major food groups.
A recent study by Haverkort et al9. indicates that yields of up to 50 tons/ha are achievable. The same
report concludes that the main problems in achieving higher yields are: the availability and
affordability of good quality seed potatoes, the lack of proper soil preparation, the lack of proper
fertilization and the limited availability of other varieties. Because storage of harvest ware potatoes is
virtually non-existent, farmers do not have a choice but to sell the limited amount that they produce
at or shortly after harvest. This causes a spike in potato supply, which cannot be absorbed nor be
dampened by the market in the current setup. Together with a lack of proper distribution and
processing, this causes a considerable amount of potatoes to rot in markets or during transport before
it can be consumed.
Political-economic context
The government of Ethiopia, via the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) and the Agricultural
Growth Plan (AGP) has provided a roadmap for agricultural development, with predicted GDP growth
of 11-15% in the 2010-2015 period. The investment opportunities will predominantly arise in the
agricultural and industrial sectors, with up to eight million acres of land offered to commercial farming
investors. This participation opens up opportunity for modernisation of the farming sector; movement
towards high value crops, advanced irrigation, better quality seeds, increased fertilizer use and
strategies to yield multiple harvests a year.
8
Appendix 1, Project Plan, Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Food Security Facility (FDOV)
Haverkort et al. (2008). Societal Costs of Late Blight in Potato and Prospects of Durable Resistance Through Cisgenic Modification. Potato
Research.
9
8
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
The emphasis of the Ethiopian government by its research institutes is to enhance the productivity of
the main food crops. As the cereals form the majority of Ethiopia’s food crops, these grain crops
receive most attention, while the essential vegetable crops like potato receive much less attention.
Still, as well for cereals and potato the focus of research is on the productivity, improving seed systems
and field crop production. That is why the ambition of private investors to invest in the currently
missing processing link of the potato value chain is appreciated by the Ethiopian government and its
institutions.
Investments in fertilizers, quality seed and other inputs are often inadequate, as some farmers
perceive there to be too greater risk that returns will not adequately cover investments due to low
prices during the peak harvest in September. Offering those farmers a fair price for their produce will
support them to apply the fertilizers and chemicals at the recommended and environmentally safe
rates. In this way the close relationship between potato farmers and the project will support the
proper use of (environmental) resources, in accordance to GlobalGAP and food safety regulations.
9
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Methodology
The Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), Amsterdam, was responsible for designing the research
methodology and developing the tools for the baseline research. Household surveys were the primary
data source for the baseline study, as the primary objective of the research was to collect a rigorous
and reliable set of quantitative data points from which future change can be measured.
KIT trained a local team of enumerators led in the field by a local consultancy, Shayashone PLC, who
carried out the household surveys in November 2015. The survey design was based on the project’s
‘Theory of Change’10 and was checked against the project’s reporting requirements to Netherlands
Enterprise Agency (‘RVO’). In addition the baseline covered in detail information about respondent
households (including education, poverty profile, food security etc), land (sizes, titling, land under
potatoes etc.), potato production practices (including all activities, labour days, and gender roles),
marketing and consumption, respondent training, and savings and loans behaviour. All data collected
refers to the most recently completed potato season (i.e. last season).
All survey observations included the GPS location and the gender of the respondent and head of
household. This means that data points can be disaggregated by gender and Woreda for granular
analysis. However, care needs to be taken when doing so as the sample size is not large enough to
make statistically significant comparisons for some variables at Woreda level.
The survey tool was programmed using XLSForm11 and deployed on Android tablets running the
software Open Data Kit12. There are several advantages to this over conventional paper survey forms:
The programming allows for considerable control over what can be entered in each form field by
enumerators (text, integers, decimals, select multiple etc); ‘skip logic’ shows/hides questions based
on earlier responses; live calculations are run on imputed data to ensure that entered responses fall
within reasonable ranges (else error/warnings notifications are given); and there is no need for
transcription from paper to digital formats where errors commonly occur. In this way, KIT has
enhanced the reliability of the data collected.
The available resources for the baseline research allowed the survey to be administered to 351
respondents. Sampling was done in the following ways: the Woreda were purposefully selected based
on i) the importance of the Woreda being a major potato producing area ii) these Woreda are where
the project currently plans to source its potatoes from in the future and iii) this is where the project
intends to engage in various activities to build the capacity of smallholder potato farmers. The project
has not yet identified the producer groups that it will work with, so the baseline focussed on collecting
10
A ‘theory of change’ explains how inputs and activities are understood to produce a series of results (outputs, outcomes) that contribute
to achieving the final intended impacts.
11 http://xlsform.org/
12 https://opendatakit.org/
10
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
representative data from potato growing households in the research areas which can be used as a
point for comparison in the endline evaluation.
Within the Woreda, potato producing Kebele13 and villages were randomly selected. Respondents at
the village level were selected randomly. Village lists were obtained prior to visiting each village, and
village leaders assisted by indicating which villagers grew potatoes last season. From this list, every
nth name14 was taken and these villagers were mobilized to participate in the survey.
Each survey took between 45 minutes and 1 hour to complete.
Table 1 Respondents surveyed by Woreda (horizontal) and Kebele (vertical)
Wenchi
Chaha
Enemor
Soro
Total
Haro Wenchi
50
50
Welde Telfam
50
50
Yejoka
43
43
Dakuna
38
38
Agata
23
23
Werkat
16
16
Andegna Jajura
41
41
Kecha
43
43
Wesheba
47
47
131
351
Total
100
81
39
N=351
Table 2 Woreda – frequency and percentage of respondents
Woreda
Freq
Percent
Wenchi
100
28.49%
Cheha
81
23.08%
Enemor
39
11.11%
131
37.32%
Soro
N = 351
Following the data collection phase, KIT analysed the data using STATA, output relevant tables, graphs,
and models and reported on the findings. KIT removed outliers greater than 4 standard deviations
from the mean. This means that for a given variable (e.g. yield per hectare), at least 98% of responses
13
A kebele is the smallest administrative unit of Ethiopia, similar to a ward. It is part of a woreda (district) which in turn are grouped into
one of the regions that comprise the Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
14 Nth name because some lists were longer than others. Depending on the length of the list this could have been every 5 th, 7th or 9th name
on the list.
11
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
to a given question were included in the analysis, with extreme values15 excluded so as to not unduly
affect the mean.
Figure 1 Map of research areas (Woreda)
Respondents were asked how the amount of rainfall last season and the timing of rainfall compared
with recent years. The perception of respondents was that last season could be considered more or
less a ‘normal’ season with regards to rainfall. Further analysis would require access to historical
rainfall data which was not available for this report.
15
Extreme values could result from respondent reporting errors not picked up by enumerators, or enumerator inputs errors. However,
programming in ODK to check errors at the point of imputation greatly reduces the number of outlier respondents.
12
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 3 Respondent perception of rainfall amount last year compared with the past 5 years
Freq.
Percent
Much less
24
7%
A little less
104
30%
About the same
111
32%
A little more
49
14%
A lot more
63
18%
Table 4 Respondent perception of rainfall timing last season compared with the past 5 years
Freq.
Percent
Very early
7
2%
A little early
26
7%
About normal
166
47%
A little late
104
30%
Very late
48
14%
13
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Baseline reporting
Introduction
The baseline reporting section describes the data presented subsequently in the ‘Data output’ section.
The baseline survey was conducted with 351 respondents in Wenchi, Cheha, Enemor and Soro
Woreda. The majority of respondents were male (85%) and 90% of all respondents described
themselves as being the ‘head of the household’ (Table 5). On average, there were found to be just
over 7 members per household (Table 6). In most cases, the household head has completed only
primary school education (59%), with 18% having completed no formal education (Table 7).
Food security
Chronic hunger
Ethiopians may suffer from 'green hunger', where food stocks and/or money run low and households
have fewer meals per day before harvesting and selling their crops. Table 8 shows that there were
virtually no respondents (0-1%) reporting ‘chronic hunger’ in the baseline sample (defined as 1 meal
per day or less)16.
Shortened period of hunger
From around June to September some households are less food secure than at other times of the year.
For example, the proportion of households consuming three meals per day falls from a high of 85% in
March down to a low of 60% in August, before rising again. The project hopes to contribute to
shortening this period of hunger for affected households.
Grameen Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI)
Table 6 and Figure 1 present an analysis of household data applying the Grameen ‘Progress out of
Poverty Index®’. This is a poverty measurement tool for organizations and businesses with a mission
to serve the poor. Respondents were asked 10 questions about their household’s characteristics and
asset ownership which were then scored to compute the likelihood that the household is living above
or below the poverty line. The PPI helps organizations identify those who are most likely to be poor
or vulnerable to poverty, which may inform strategic decision-making17. The data presented in Table
6 and Figure 1 should be interpreted using the official Grameen Lookup Tables for Ethiopia (Table 62).
The Lookup Tables show the different likelihoods of a household being 'in poverty' based on different
16
Note this is a different measure of chronic hunger than FAO standards, due to the amount of data that needs to be collected for FAO
definitions.
17 See http://www.progressoutofpoverty.org/country/ethiopia
14
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
poverty
line
definitions ($1/day/2005 PPP, $1.25/day/2005 PPP, $1.75/day/2005 PPP,
$2.50/day/2005 PPP).
The average calculated PPI score in the research area was 33.01. In our sample, the likelihood that the
average household falls below each of the poverty line definitions was found to be as follows:
-
Definition $1/day/2005 PPP: 13.4%
-
Definition $1.25/day/2005 PPP: 28.4%
-
Definition $1.75/day/2005 PPP: 60.8%
-
Definition $2.50/day/2005 PPP: 89.6%
This clearly shows that the potato farmers in the sample have only modest incomes which likely
constrains farmers from making significant investments in their agricultural production in addition to
normal costs of living.
Household income sources
Most respondents said that their household's biggest source of income was the sale of crops (87%).
However, it was not uncommon for households to supplement this crop income with other sources of
income. 35% of respondents reported earning income from the sale of livestock of animal products,
with another 16% indicating that someone in the household had a small business. A further 9% receive
remittances and 8% from temporary non-farm employment. Very few (2%) reported receiving income
from temporary farm labour (Table 9). We report below that hired labour is a relatively small
proportion of total labour, and that communal labour is more common than hired labour in potato
production in the research areas (p.19).
Land size and ownership
Households own on average 1.34 hectares of land, and use 1.35 hectares (including leased land) for
all their farming activities (Table 10, Figure 4). This is split into an average of 2.23 separate plots of
land per household. Potato producing households allocated an average of 0.29 hectares of owned
land (22% of total owned land) to potatoes (Table 11). When including leased and borrowed land, the
average land under potatoes was 0.33 hectares. Figure 5 shows a narrow range of land under potatoes
among respondents, with only around 5% of the sample allocating 1 hectare to potatoes.
Crops grown and sold
Table 12 presents the most common crops produced and sold in the research areas. The most common
crops grown were Irish potatoes (100%), enset (87%), barley (80%) and wheat (76%). A third of
respondents grew teff, and around a quarter grew cabbages, faba beans, and maize. The main crops
sold were Irish potatoes (96%), barley (50%) and wheat (59%). Farming households produced an
15
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
average of 5.85 different crops last season (Table 14). Respondents were asked what they considered
to be their most important and second most important crops, however they chose to define
‘important’ (Table 13). 41% said that enset was their most important crop, which probably reflects the
traditional importance of enset to food security. 34% considered Irish potato as their most important
crop.
Potato production and practices
Table 15 shows the average number of bags of ware potatoes produced by respondents last season.
Respondents were also asked how this compares with good, bad and average seasons. When
considered alongside rainfall data (Table 3, Table 4), it appears that last season can be considered a
'normal' season. The average yield last season was 8506 kg/hectare (Table 16). This varies somewhat
between Woreda, however the sample size is too small per Woreda to draw significant conclusions
about the reasons for this (Wenchi 10424 kg/ha; Chaha 6629 kg/ha; Enemor 7737 kg/ha; Soro 8505
kg/ha). Male headed households had a higher average yield per hectare than female headed
households, but again the sample size for female headed households is too small for this to be
statistically significant (male 8611 kg/ha; female 7438 kg/ha).
Table 17 shows the percent of respondents performing various potato production activities. There are
a few notable findings here: Respondents plough their potato plots an average of 3.16 times and
perform weeding 2.12 times per season. Very few respondents use tractors to plough (3%), with
animal plough (oxen, 59%) being slightly more common than manual land ploughing (49%).
Respondents may use mixed ploughing methods, such as animal ploughing for the more heavy first
plough, while manual labour is often employed for building mounds.
Fertilizer was reported as being applied by 100% of respondents. This was a surprising finding, and as
such was re-checked by the researchers several times. Top dressing was applied in 85% of cases, which
is also very high by East African standards. Fewer than 10% of respondents applied manure, or used
pesticides, fungicides or herbicides.
Irrigation was practiced by 11% of respondents, with the most common source being streams/rivers
(9%). However, we find that 6% used buckets (by hand) with 2% reporting irrigation by flooding (e.g.
of streams). Therefore, the level of irrigation technology is low and households still depend mainly on
rainfall.
16
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Virtually all respondents plant their potatoes in rows, with an average spacing of 34cm by 57cm (Table
20). Respondents planted an average 1250 kg of seed potatoes per hectare. The average multiplication
rate was calculated as 7.418 (Table 21).
51% of respondents bought seed last season, with the remainder recycling seed from the previous
season. There are obvious advantages to recycling seed, such as saving money (1 bag of seed cost 365
Birr on average, with around 12 bags required per hectare) and avoiding the need to source and
transport seed from elsewhere. However, over three seasons or so basic potato seed will deteriorate
considerably in quality resulting in lower yields. This should encourage farmers to purchase new basic
seed as it would almost certainly result in a big positive return on investment. Unfortunately, farmers
rarely do so due to the cost, availability of working capital and availability/access to clean basic seed
in the area.
The main place farmers obtained seed was from their own fields (49%) or from the market (34%)
where it is unlikely to be quality, disease free basic seed. 65% of farmers grow only one potato variety
per season, however 35% grow two or more varieties (Table 24). Quality seed is a major known
constraint to potato yields in Ethiopia and East Africa generally, and should be given attention by the
project.
The main variety grown last season was Gudene (46%), followed by Jalene (29%). These are relatively
new improved varieties introduced to the area, and which were promoted by at least one recent
project19. This suggests that there is a good availability of these improved varieties and may also
suggest that farmers are willing to produce new varieties if there are significant push factors (e.g. seed
price, seed availability and systematic multiplication) and pull factors (market demand, market prices
etc.).
Many farmers (around 40%) say that they believe they have purchased clean seed within the past 3
years (Table 26). However, many farmers also found it difficult to reliably judge if the seed is ‘clean’
since they are typically buying from other local farmers or at the local market, rather than from
registered, certified sellers. This challenge is perhaps reflected by the 36% of respondents who say
that they 'don't know' how many years it has been since they purchased clean seed.
Most farmers transport their potatoes from the field to the household store on foot, which is
heavy work when producing an average of 20 bags of 100kgs each (Table 28). 37% say that they use a
donkey (on its back), while 16% report using a donkey cart.
18
The multiplication rate is calculated for each farmer using yield / seed planted. The average of the multiplication rate calculated for all
farmers is 7.4 (outliers were removed where the multiplication rate was greater than 15) (n=316). Note that this is not the same as taking
the average yield/the average amount of seed planted which equates to 8506/1250= 6.80
19 International Potato Center (CIP). (2008-2012). Wealth Creation through Integrated Development of the Potato Production and
Marketing Sector in Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia. Funded by Common Fund for Commodities (CFC). (CFC/FIGG/39)
17
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Crop rotation
90% of respondents said that they practiced crop rotation (Table 17). However, the number of seasons
before a farmer returned potatoes to the same plot varied. 36% said that they wait only 1 season, and
34% wait only 2 seasons before again planting potatoes on the same plot. This is an insufficient period
for potato diseases to be flushed out of the soil. Furthermore, the most common crops rotated with
potatoes are barley (56%) and wheat (54%), with teff being the next most commonly rotated crop at
15%. Barley and wheat are typically rotated because there is a reasonably good market for these as
cash crops. However, as rotation crops, they are less than ideal as good rotation includes Solanaces
(potatoes, peppers, tomatoes, eggplants), Poaceae (maize, wheat, sorghum, oats), Brassicaceae
(cabbages, cauliflowers, brocolli and kales), Papilionaceae (beans, peas, french beans)20.
Farmer groups
27% of respondents in the sample indicated that someone in their household is a member of a farmer
group. Male headed households were slightly more likely to have a member of their household in a
farmer group (28%) compared with female headed households (19%), although this is not statistically
significant due to the small sample size of female headed households. Virtually all such respondents
indicated that they are ‘active’ (as opposed to merely registered on a list).
18% of respondents said that they were a member of a legally registered cooperative, while 8% said
they were in a non-registered small farmer group. On average, farmer groups have been running for
5.48 years and have around 37 members each. Very few respondents indicated that their group had
more than 100 members (Table 31). 10% of respondents said that an NGO or company supported their
farmer group in some way. The most common support involved input provision (selling or giving seed,
fertilizer etc.) (8%) or by giving trainings (8%) . Very few respondents (2%) indicated that an NGO or
company procured potatoes from their group last season (Table 33).
Storage
Most respondents stored their potatoes inside their house (75%), with 27% saying that they put their
potatoes in a store outside the house. Respondents may store their potatoes inside their house
because they lack the capital investment to build a store. More worrying however is that 8% of
respondents store their potatoes in the field, where diseases can build up in the soil or the can be
prone to damage from animals or environmental factors (Table 34). In saying this, the extent to which
this is a problem depends on how long farmers wait to sell most of their potato crop (the average is 4
weeks, Table 46).
20
Lung'aho et al. (2007). Commercial seed potato production in eastern and central Africa. Kenya Agricultural Research Institut e.
18
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
18% of respondents indicated that they bulk at least some of their potatoes in a group store. 64%
indicated that they stored their seed potatoes in a diffused light store (DLS) (Table 35). This finding is
at odds with what is expected, and should be treated as unreliable. It is very uncommon for
households to have their own DLS and a DLS is usually a group seed store. However, as indicated
earlier, only 27% of respondents are members of a farmer group so it is difficult to see how such a
high percent of respondents could bulk in a group DLS. It is more likely that this question was not well
understood.
Losses
Data on ‘losses’ in potato production (and indeed any agricultural produce) are dependent on the
definition of a ‘loss’. The researchers have thus tried to breakdown types of losses experienced by
farmers at different points in their production cycle.
During production, potato diseases were experienced by 35% of respondents last season. 46% of
respondents said that some potatoes were damaged during harvest handling. 39% of respondents
indicated that they had experienced some losses during storage last season (Table 36).
However, actual losses are arguably fairly moderate compared with average production levels. On
average, 2.7% of farmers’ total production was lost due to disease, 4.3% from handling during
harvesting and 2.5% during storage (Table 37). These loss rates are slightly lower than loss rates
reported in a recent USAID study21.
The most commonly cited disease was Early Blight (50%), however the next most common response
was 'don't know' (33%) (Table 38). This suggests that there is a knowledge gap that the project could
address, should it wish to help farmers reduce losses caused by disease. The main reason for losses
during storage was mould/fungus (22%) (Table 39).
This baseline research did not study the entire value chain, where losses also occur at the trader level
and on the open market22.
Labour
Table 40 shows the average number of labour days 23 used per activity per hectare, and thus the
relative labour intensity of various activities. This is consistent with what is expected, with ploughing
21
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00JPSD.pdf
See http://www.germanfoodpartnership.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/GIZ-Post-harvest-losses-in-potato-value-chains-inKenya_2014.pdf for data on value chain losses in Kenya.
23 Labour days are calculated as number of persons * number of days laboring. E.g. 3 persons doing an activity for 5 days is 15 labour days.
22
19
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
(59.5 person days), weeding (46.2 person days) and harvesting (42.9 person days) taking the most
labour days. The total average labour days per hectare is 219.4.
Table 41 shows the proportion of household, hired and communal labour used per activity. In total,
52% of all labour was provided by the household, with a surprisingly high 35% provided by communal
labour (labour provided by others for free in exchange for also labouring on their farm). Only 13% of
total labour was hired.
Daily labour rates are presented in Table 42. This finds that for most activities the hired labour rate
for males is around 35 to 37 Birr per day. The female daily labour rate tends to be lower for more
labour intensive (heavy) activities, such as land clearing, ploughing and transporting. However, for
these tasks females are hired much less often, possibly because male labourers are regarded as
‘stronger’ and hence more efficient at these tasks. For planting and fertilizer application, male and
female labour rates are very similar and within the statistical margin of error. However for weeding
and harvesting, women earn about a quarter to a third less than men per day. It should be noted that
there is a low prevalence of hired female labour reported in our sample. Only 13% of all labour is hired
labour, and of this less than 20% for a given activity is carried out by hired female labourers. Table 43
shows that men provide considerably more labour inputs than women, regardless of whether this is
household, hired or communal labour, for virtually all activities.
Marketing and consumption
Table 44 shows that on average 46% of potato production is marketed, while 33% is consumed at
home. The remainder is either stored as seed, or is lost. The main place that potatoes are sold is at
the local market (64%), rather than to traders (20%) which is atypical for most crops throughout East
Africa (Table 45). On average, farmers sell most of their potato crop within 4 weeks of harvesting.
However, there was found to be quite a range of marketing strategies, with 11% selling almost
immediately, and 11% selling more than 10 weeks after harvesting (Table 46). Virtually no household
or farmer group is contracted to a company (Table 47).
Farmers were asked for the highest, lowest and common prices that they actually sold potatoes for
last season. (Note, this is not the same as asking about the range that prices fluctuate throughout the
year, as farmers usually sell all of their potato production within 3 months (Table 46)). The common
price is that which farmers sold most of their produce for. The average of the ‘common’ price was
found to be a little over 3 Birr per kg (Table 48). The average of the low price was just over 2 Birr/kg
and the average of the high price was 4 Birr/kg. Averages conceal the range of responses, and so the
distribution of responses to the common price cited in the sample is presented in Table 49 and Figure
8. This price data appears reasonably consistent, if a little higher than other recent studies24 where
24
http://common-fund.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Projects/FIGG/FIGG_39/CFC_Seed_Potatoes_FIGG_39.pdf
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00JPSD.pdf
20
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
prices range from between 1 and 3 birr per kg. It must of course be kept in mind that market prices
vary from season to season according to factors influencing supply and demand.
It should be noted that in 2015 there was a drought event that afflicted Ethiopia and which caused
food prices to be inflated by as much as 28.6% in Addis Ababa region, according to the FAO25.
Therefore the price data reported in this study is likely higher than in other recent years due to the
drought event.
The production and sales of local crisps
This sub-section uses data from a separate study 26 on the potato crisp industry. The retail price of
these imported potato crisps at supermarkets and mini-markets is around USD 25/kg. The factory gate
price of locally processed good standard crisps is around USD 5/kg while the retail prices are in the
range from USD 9-10/Kg. The home-made crisps without standard packaging are distributed at price
of USD 2-2.5/kg and sold at USD 3-3.5/Kg. The pricing summary is based on the assumption of 35%
sales and distribution cost for all types of product.
Training
A little under half of all respondents (46%) indicated that they had received some training in the past
5 years (Table 50). Most of this training was delivered by government extension services, and very
little by NGOs or companies (Table 51). The training received tended to be quite broad, and typically
included line planting and spacing, use of fertilizer, use of improved planting material, disease
management, storage and soil conservation (Table 52).
Savings and loans
Most households do not have a bank account, with only 30% indicating that they do (Table 53). This
should be taken into account by the project when considering how to pay farmers who supply to the
company.
Only 11% of all respondents reported taking a small loan for potato production in the past year. Those
who took a loan most frequently did so from family or friends (7% of all respondents), with only a few
borrowing from a microfinance institution (3% of all respondents (Table 54). Of those who borrowed
money, the average amount borrowed was 1990 Birr (86EUR, US$94), with an average repayment
period of nearly 7 months (Table 55). The most common use of the loans was to buy fertilizer or seed
(Table 56).
https://www.wageningenur.nl/upload_mm/5/b/a/44cf848f-6e4c-4ec8-85d3-6cce0964c5fc_2-Ethiopia - Potato Prospects for Ethiopia.pdf
25 http://www.fao.org/giews/countrybrief/country.jsp?code=ETH
26 Shayashone Consulting. (2014). Processed potato quick market assessment
21
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Reasons for not taking loans were 'I don't want to be in debt' (33%), 'I didn't need credit' (32%) and a
lack of availability (23%). As most farmers borrowed from family and friends, usually no collateral was
required to obtain a loan (Table 58).
Record keeping and decision making
The majority of respondent households do not keep records (86%), which is consistent with other
recent studies of smallholder farmers conducted by the researchers in Ethiopia and East Africa. 12%
indicated that they keep basic records (such as what was spent on inputs), but very few keep detailed
records of all costs, labour days, productivity etc. across seasons (Table 59). This may be partly due to
education levels discussed above.
Most respondents said that decision making on potato marketing is a consultative process involving
both men and women (75%), or even including the whole family (Table 60). However, caution is
required in interpreting results on decision making power in the household from survey data, and such
issues are often better captured with qualitative research (i.e. focus group discussions, interviews
etc.).
Gender analysis
The following sub-section brings together data on gender related variables presented throughout this
report. The majority of the 351 respondents in the sample were male (85%), with 15% of respondents
being female (Table 5). Respondents said that a male was the head of the household in 91% of the
cases (regardless of whether the respondent himself/herself was the head).
Male headed households were slightly more likely to have a member of their household in a farmer
group (28%) compared with female headed households (19%), although this is not statistically
significant due to the small sample size of female headed households.
Male headed households had a higher average yield per hectare than female headed households, but
again the sample size for female headed households is too small for this to be statistically significant
(male 8611 kg/ha; female 7438 kg/ha).
Respondents were asked who provided most of the labour for each potato production activity.
Respondents could respond that either men, women or both did most of the work. Men were found
to provide labour inputs much more frequently than women for virtually all activities (Table 43).
Ploughing was particularly labour intensive for men compared with women, as was the application of
chemical inputs. Even during harvesting, an activity where women are typically active in the
agricultural sector, male labour was found to be more common than female labour. The only
exception is a slightly higher occurrence of female household labour for manure application, although
very few respondents actually apply manure, so this finding is not significant. It should also be noted
22
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
that men have an even higher frequency of labour burden than women for ‘hired’ and ‘communal’
labour types than they do for ‘household’ labour (Table 43).
In terms of daily labour rates, men were paid around 35-37 Birr per day for most activities (Table 42).
The female daily labour rate tends to be lower than the male rate for more labour intensive (heavy)
activities, such as land clearing, ploughing and transporting. However, for these tasks females are
hired much less often, possibly because male labourers are considered ‘stronger’ and hence more
efficient at these tasks. For planting and fertilizer application, male and female labour rates are very
similar and within the statistical margin of error. However for weeding and harvesting, women earn
about a quarter to a third less than men per day.
Most respondents said that household decision making on potato marketing is a consultative process
involving both men and women (75%), or even including the whole family (Table 60). However, caution
is required in interpreting results on decision making power in the household from survey data, and
such issues are often better captured with qualitative research (i.e. focus group discussions, interviews
etc.).
Farm model
Table 61 presents a profit model (revenue, input costs, labour costs, profit) per hectare, per season.
Average revenue was calculated as 26247 Birr/hectare, 21843 Birr/hectare when we deduct input
costs, 20533 Birr/hectare when deducting input and hired labour costs, and 14369 Birr/hectare when
deducting all costs (including the value of household and communal labour)27. However, averages can
conceal much so the distribution of profits among smallholder farmers is presented in a series of
histograms (Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12). It should be again noted that this data presents
the value of potato production per hectare per season (rather than cash profit). Households only
market an average of 46% of their potato production (Table 44) and have an average of 0.33 hectares
under potatoes (Table 11).
27
We include here the value of labour days spent per hectare (based on hired labour rates) regardless of whether household, hired or
communal labour was used because this represents the opportunity cost of farming potatoes.
23
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Data output
Table 5 Respondent - Head of household by gender (freq. and percent)
Gender
No
Yes
Total
Male
11 (4%)
288 (96%)
299 (85%)
Female
25 (48%)
27 (52%)
52 (15%)
Total
36 (10%)
315 (90%)
351
Table 6 Household characteristics
Average
LCI
UCI
Average age of household head
43.44
42.15
44.73
Average # of people in the household
7.07
6.79
7.34
Males over 65
0.12
0.09
0.15
Females over 65
0.14
0.10
0.18
Males 15-65
2.14
1.99
2.29
Females 15-65
2.05
1.91
2.18
Male children 0-14
1.40
1.27
1.53
Female children 0-14
1.22
1.10
1.33
PPI Score*
33.01
31.42
34.60
N = 351; LCI = Lower confidence interval, UCI = upper confidence interval
Figure 2 Grameen Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI)
24
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 7 Household head education
Freq.
Percent
None completed
63
18%
Primary school (grade 1-8)
208
59%
Secondary (grade 9-10)
38
11%
Preparatory (grade 11-12)
26
7%
University
2
1%
Adult education (informal)
14
4%
N = 351
Food security
Table 8 Percent of respondents having 3, 2 or 1 meal per day, by month
Num.
meals
Nov
2014
Dec
2014
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
3+
79%
81%
83%
83%
85%
84%
80%
72%
64%
60%
70%
79%
2
21%
19%
16%
17%
14%
16%
20%
27%
36%
40%
29%
20%
1
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Figure 3 Percent of respondents having 3, 2 or 1 meal per day, by month
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3 per day
2 per day
1 per day
25
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Household income sources
Table 9 household income sources - all, biggest and second biggest (percent)
All
Biggest
source
Second
biggest
source
Sale of own crops
98%
87%
16%
Sale of own livestock or livestock products (e.g. milk, eggs)
35%
2%
25%
Own business / self-employed (excluding agricultural and livestock
production)
16%
6%
8%
Remittances/ money gifts from friends and family
9%
1%
6%
Temporary employment (non-farm)
8%
1%
6%
Permanent employment (non-farm)
5%
1%
3%
Temporary farm labour (paid by someone outside the household)
2%
0%
1%
Sale or lease of own land
2%
2%
0%
Permanent farm labour (paid by someone outside the household)
0%
0%
0%
Not applicable
0%
0%
34%
Income source
N = 351; Note ‘Income all’ may not add up to 100% because households may have several sources of income
Land size and ownership
Table 10 Land owned and used for all crops (average, hectares)
Average
LCI
UCI
Own land
1.34
1.26
1.43
Leased land
0.13
0.09
0.16
Borrowed land
0.02
0.00
0.05
Communal land
0.04
-0.01
0.09
Shared crop land
0.05
0.03
0.07
Total land used (all crops)
1.35
1.27
1.43
Average number
of land parcels (plots)
2.23
2.11
2.35
Leased to others
0.02
0.00
0.05
N = 351; LCI = Lower confidence interval, UCI = upper confidence interval
26
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Figure 4 Land size, all land owned (hectares)
Table 11 Land use for potatoes (average, hectares)
Average
LCI
UCI
Own land
0.29
0.27
0.31
Leased land
0.04
0.02
0.05
Borrowed land
0.01
0.00
0.01
Communal land
0.01
0.00
0.01
Shared crop land
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.31
0.35
1.15
1.01
1.30
Total land used
for potatoes
Average number of
land parcels (plots)
N = 351; LCI = Lower confidence interval, UCI = upper confidence interval
27
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Figure 5 Land size, land used for potatoes (hectares)
28
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Crops grown and sold
Table 12 Crops produced and sold last season (percent))
Crop
Produced
sold
100%
96%
Enset
87%
26%
Barley
80%
50%
Wheat
76%
59%
Teff
33%
22%
Cabbages
27%
8%
Beans -faba
26%
13%
Maize
26%
6%
Coffee
15%
1%
Avocado
14%
5%
Sorghum
14%
3%
Kale
11%
4%
Carrots
11%
3%
Other
11%
5%
Onions
10%
3%
Beans - field pea
10%
3%
Tomatoes
10%
4%
Beans - chick pea
8%
4%
Garlic
6%
3%
Bananas
4%
2%
Beans - haricot
4%
0%
Chili
3%
1%
Beans - grass pea
2%
0%
Sugar cane
2%
1%
Cow pea
2%
0%
Beans - soya
1%
0%
Tea
1%
1%
Hot pepper
1%
0%
Millet
1%
0%
Peas
1%
0%
Coriander
1%
0%
Pineapple
1%
0%
Potato (Irish)
N = 351; note does not add up to 100% because each respondent may produce a number of different crops.
29
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 13 Crops - most important and second most important
Crop
Most
important
Second most
important
Enset
41%
13%
Potato (Irish)
34%
37%
Wheat
16%
18%
Teff
3%
7%
Barley
2%
12%
Other
1%
1%
Maize
1%
5%
Beans -faba
0%
1%
none, not applicable
0%
1%
Note: only crops over 1% for most important or second most important are reported
Table 14 Number of crops grown per household
# crops
Freq.
Percent
1
1
0%
2
8
2%
3
36
10%
4
66
19%
5
82
23%
6
50
14%
7
30
9%
8
23
7%
9
18
5%
10
8
2%
11+
29
8%
Mean
5.85
N= 351
Figure 6 Number of crops grown per household (percent of respondents)
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
10
11
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Potato production and practices
Table 15 Production - average bags produced, by household and per hectare
Bags
Average bags produced last season,
by household
Expected bags produced in an
average season, by household
25.79
25.91
Expected bags produced in a bad
season, by household
15.54
Expected bags produced in a good
season, by household
33.11
Average bags produced last season,
per hectare
Expected bags produced in an
average season, per hectare
Expected bags produced in a bad
season, per hectare
Expected bags produced in a good
season, per hectare
Average size of a bag of potatoes
(KGs)
86.65
86.39
55.30
114.30
101.34
31
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 16 Production - average yield, by district and by gender of household head (KGs/hectare)
Average
LCI
UCI
Average (all)
8506
8010
9002
Wenchi
10424
9493
11356
Chaha
6629
5875
7382
Enemor
7737
6047
9426
Soro
8505
7695
9314
Male
8611
8088
9135
Female
7438
5934
8941
Farmer group member
9303
8310
10295
Not a farmer group
member
8216
7647
8785
Figure 7 Production, yield distribution (KGs per hectare)
32
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 17 Production practices (percent of respondents doing)
Average
LCI
UCI
Land clearing
62%
56%
67%
Ploughing
100%
100%
100%
Ploughing, average number of times
done per plot
3.16
3.09
3.23
Ploughing, tractor used
3%
1%
5%
Ploughing, animal plough used
58%
53%
64%
Ploughing, manual labour used
49%
44%
55%
Planting
100%
100%
100%
Irrigation (non-rainfall)
11%
8%
14%
Crop rotation practiced
90%
87%
93%
Planting fertilizer applied
100%
100%
100%
Top dressing applied
85%
81%
89%
Manure applied
7%
5%
10%
Pesticides applied
8%
5%
10%
Fungicides applied
25%
21%
30%
Selective herbicides applied
3%
1%
5%
Weeding done
97%
95%
98%
Weeding, average number of times
done last season
2.12
2.03
2.21
N= 351
Table 18 Irrigation sources
Irrigation source
Average
LCI
UCI
Stream/ river
9%
6%
12%
Lake/pond
1%
0%
2%
Water pan / water reservoir
(dug, and maybe lined with polythene)
1%
0%
2%
Ground water tank (concrete)
0%
0%
0%
Roof harvesting of rainwater
0%
0%
0%
Borehole/ well
0%
0%
0%
Other
0%
0%
0%
N=351
33
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 19 Irrigation methods
Method
Average
LCI
UCI
Buckets of water/watering cans (by hand)
6%
4%
9%
Flooding
2%
1%
4%
Drip irrigation (gravity, using hose pipes)
1%
0%
2%
Other
1%
0%
2%
Furrow irrigation (gravity)
0%
0%
1%
Motorised pump
0%
0%
0%
Pedal pump
0%
0%
0%
N=351
34
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 20 Planting in rows
Average
LCI
UCI
N
Did you plant your potato seed in rows last season?
99%
97%
100%
351
Average spacing between seed (cm)
34
33
35
343
Average spacing between rows? (cm)
57
56
59
343
Table 21 Potato seed planted and purchased
Average
LCI
UCI
N
Amount of seed planted per hectare (KGs)
1250
1138
1363
351
planted)28
7.46
7.11
7.81
316
Percent of respondents who bought seed
51%
45%
56%
351
Cost of a bag of potato seed
365
339
393
178
Size of potato bags for purchased seed (KGs)
97
90
104
178
Multiplication rate (yield/seed
Table 22 Seed – all places purchased/obtained
Average
LCI
UCI
Own field
56%
50%
61%
Market place
34%
29%
39%
Other farmer
8%
5%
11%
Farmer organisation
5%
3%
7%
Agro-business dealer
(certified)
3%
2%
5%
Government
3%
1%
5%
NGO
2%
1%
3%
Research institute
1%
0%
3%
Company I market to
1%
0%
2%
Other
1%
0%
1%
Store (non-certified)
0%
0%
0%
Not relevant
0%
0%
0%
N = 351; note may not add up to 100% as seed can be obtained from multiple sources
28
The multiplication rate is calculated for each farmer using yield / seed planted). The average of the multiplication rate calculated for all
farmers is 7.4, removing outliers where the multiplication rate was greater than 15 (n=316). Note that this is not the same as taking the
average yield/the average amount of seed planted which equates to 8506/1250= 6.80
35
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 23 Seed - Main place obtained
Freq.
Percent
Own field
171
49%
Market place
112
32%
Other farmer
22
6%
Farmer organisation
17
5%
Government
9
3%
Agrobusiness dealer (certified)
8
2%
NGO
7
2%
Company I market to
2
1%
Research institute
2
1%
Not relevant
1
0%
36
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 24 Seed - number of potato varieties grown last season
Freq.
Percent
1
227.00
64.67%
2
110.00
31.34%
3
10.00
2.85%
4
2.00
0.57%
Average number of varieties
1.48 varieties
Table 25 Seed - Main variety grown last season
Freq.
Percent
Gudene
163
46%
Jalene
101
29%
Keydinch
45
13%
Other
26
7%
Belette
11
3%
Don't know
4
1%
Guasa
1
0%
Table 26 Seed - number of years since purchasing what is believed to be clean seed
Years
Freq.
Percent
1
54
15%
2
46
13%
3
45
13%
4
28
8%
5
15
4%
6
12
3%
7
11
3%
8
7
2%
9
2
1%
10+
4
1%
Don’t know
126
36%
Freq.
Percent
Table 27 Number of times weeding done
# times
0
8
2%
1
41
12%
2
214
61%
3
84
24%
4
3
1%
37
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 28 Means of transport from field to store
Means of transport
Average
LCI
UCI
On foot (carried or on
head)
67%
62%
72%
Donkey
37%
32%
42%
Donkey cart
16%
12%
19%
Car / truck
1%
0%
2%
Wheelbarrow
1%
0%
2%
Oxen cart
0%
0%
1%
Other
0%
0%
1%
not applicable
0%
0%
1%
Bicycle
0%
0%
0%
Motorcycle
0%
0%
0%
Crop rotation
Table 29 Crop rotation - number of seasons before returning potatoes to the same plot
Seasons
Freq.
Percent
1
125
36%
2
121
34%
3
56
16%
4
1
0%
Don’t know
47
13%
Average
1.85 seasons
Table 30 Crops rotated with potatoes
Average
LCI
UCI
Barley
56%
50%
61%
Wheat
54%
48%
59%
Teff
15%
11%
19%
Beans - faba
10%
7%
13%
Maize
5%
3%
8%
Beans - chick pea
3%
1%
5%
Tea
2%
1%
3%
Sorghum
2%
0%
3%
Cabbages
1%
0%
3%
Beans - field pea
1%
0%
2%
Tomatoes
1%
0%
2%
Beans - other
1%
0%
2%
Bananas
1%
0%
1%
Beans - grass pea
1%
0%
1%
38
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Farmer groups
Table 31 Farmer group membership (by gender of household head)
Someone in the respondent household is a member of a
potato farmer group
Someone in the respondent household is an active
member of a potato farmer group
N
Table 32 Farmer group details
Average number of years the farmer
group has been running
Average number of active members
in the group
Small farmer group (not legally
registered)
5.48
37
8%
Cooperative (legally registered)
18%
Group supported by an NGO or
company?
10%
39
Male
Female
Average
28%
19%
27%
27%
19%
26%
319
32
351
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 33 Farmer groups, ways NGOs/companies support them
Average
LCI
HCI
Inputs (Selling or giving
inputs, seed, fertilizer etc.)
8%
5%
11%
Giving trainings
8%
5%
11%
Building stores
3%
2%
5%
Buying potatoes
2%
1%
3%
Offering loans / credit
1%
0%
2%
Building farmer group
office
0%
0%
1%
Other
0%
0%
1%
Storage
Table 34 Storage - where potatoes were stored
Freq.
Percent
Inside my house
264
75%
In a store (outside the house)
95
27%
In the field
29
8%
In a store/warehouse owned by my
group/cooperative
11
3%
In a friend/family store
2
1%
Did not store
2
1%
Other
1
0%
In a rented store/warehouse
0
0%
Note: May not add up to 100% as respondents may store in more than one place
Table 35 Potato bulking
Freq.
Percent
Potatoes bulked in a group store
64
18%
Seed potatoes stored in a diffused
light store (DLS) ?
223
64%
N = 351
40
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Losses
Table 36 Losses – percent of respondents experiencing at least some losses from diseases, handling and during storage
Average
LCI
UCI
Potato diseases
35%
30%
40%
Damage during harvest
handling
46%
41%
51%
During storage last season
39%
34%
44%
N = 351
Table 37 Losses - Average number of bags lost, percent of total production
Average # bags lost
Percent of total production
Disease
1.02
2.7%
Handling
0.91
4.3%
Storage
0.68
2.5%
N=351
Table 38 Losses – most common diseases, among those who experienced diseases
Freq.
Percent
Early blight
61
50%
Don’t know
40
33%
Late blight
19
15%
Other
8
7%
Potato tuber moth
6
5%
Bacterial wilt
3
2%
Leaf roll virus
1
1%
N=123
41
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 39 Losses - reasons for losses during storage (percent)
Freq.
Average
Mould/ fungus
78
22%
Handling damage
52
15%
Rotting
36
10%
Diseases
26
7%
Rodents (mice, rats)
14
4%
Wild animals
4
1%
Other
2
1%
Labour
Table 40 Average number of labour days per activity, per hectare
Total days
Household
days
Hired days
Communal
days
Resp. doing
(percent)
14.7
8.5
1.9
4.4
62%
0
0
0
0
1%
Ploughing
59.5
25.6
9.3
24.7
100%
Planting
13.9
7.2
2.3
4.7
100%
9.1
5.1
1.1
3
100%
10.6
6.7
0.9
3.4
85%
Manure application
0.8
0.8
0
0
7%
Pesticides application
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
8%
Fungicides application
1.4
0.8
0.5
0.1
25%
Herbicide application
(selective)
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
3%
Weeding
46.2
25.5
4.6
16
97%
Harvesting
42.9
21.6
6.4
15.1
100%
Transporting
19.7
12.1
2.4
5.2
100%
219.4
114.2
29.6
76.7
Land clearing
Herbicide application
(non-selective)
Fertilizer application
Top dressing application
Total days
42
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 41 Labour days - proportion of household, hired and communal
Household
Hired
Communal
Land clearing
58%
13%
30%
Herbicide application
(non-selective)
33%
67%
0%
Ploughing
43%
16%
42%
Planting
51%
16%
34%
Fertilizer application
56%
12%
33%
Top dressing application
63%
8%
32%
Manure application
98%
2%
0%
Pesticide application
68%
17%
15%
Fungicide application
55%
36%
8%
Herbicide application
(selective)
61%
36%
3%
Weeding
55%
10%
35%
Harvesting
50%
15%
35%
Transporting
61%
12%
26%
Total
52%
13%
35%
43
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 42 Labour - average daily rates for hired labour (Birr)
Male
Female
Land clearing
35
18
Ploughing
33
18
Planting
35
32
Fertilizer application
34
29
Pesticide application
59
-
Weeding
37
25
Harvesting
37
28
Transport
48
30
Table 43 Share of labour inputs by men and women per activity
Household
men
Household
women
Hired men
Hired
women
Communal
men
Communal
women
Land clearing
67%
33%
96%
4%
90%
10%
Herbicide application
(non-selective)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ploughing
83%
17%
86%
14%
91%
9%
Planting
67%
33%
84%
16%
85%
15%
Fertilizer application
72%
28%
89%
11%
86%
14%
Top dressing
application
67%
33%
87%
13%
78%
22%
Manure application
44%
56%
-
-
-
-
Pesticide application
83%
17%
100%
-
-
-
Fungicide application
79%
21%
81%
19%
83%
17%
Herbicide application
(selective)
70%
30%
83%
17%
69%
31%
Weeding
65%
35%
90%
10%
79%
21%
Harvesting
61%
39%
87%
13%
76%
24%
Transporting
65%
35%
94%
6%
80%
20%
44
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Marketing and consumption
Table 44 Marketing and consumption of potatoes – average proportion sold, consumed, lost etc.
Average
LCI
UCI
Sell (for money)
46%
44%
48%
Consume at home
33%
31%
35%
Store as seed for next season
11%
10%
12%
Lose in total
7%
6%
7%
Give away free
2%
2%
3%
Give potatoes as payment for labour
0%
0%
1%
Give any potatoes in exchange for
other goods
0%
0%
0%
Table 45 Main place potatoes sold last season
Freq.
Percent
Local market
223
64%
Traders / brokers
69
20%
Local villagers (neighbours)
28
8%
District market
16
5%
Other
7
2%
Farmer cooperative/union
4
1%
Government institution
2
1%
Company (includes processors and
millers)
1
0%
.
1
0%
Weeks
Freq.
Percent
0
38
11
1
55
16
2
69
20
3
27
8
4
79
23
5
8
2
6
9
3
8
25
7
10+
39
11
Average
4.2 weeks
Table 46 Number of weeks before selling most of the potato crop
N=349
45
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 47 Contracts - percent of farmer groups and respondent households contracted to supply to a company
Freq.
Percent
Farmer group contracted to a
company
1
0.28%
Household has a contract with a
company
0
0%
Table 48 Prices - common, highest and lowest prices actually received by respondents (Birr)
Average
LCI
UCI
Common price
3.06
2.94
3.18
Highest price
4.10
3.94
4.26
Lowest price
2.10
2.00
2.21
N=351
Table 49 Prices, distribution of responses on the low, common and high price per kg of potatoes (Birr)
Birr
Low price
Common price
High price
1
28%
7%
2%
2
47%
25%
10%
3
16%
40%
23%
4
7%
19%
28%
5
2%
6%
21%
6
1%
3%
11%
7
0%
1%
3%
8
0%
0%
1%
Figure 8 Prices, distribution of responses on the low, common and high price per kg of potatoes (Birr)
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1
2
3
Low price
4
5
Common price
6
High price
46
7
8
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Training
Table 50 Training - farmers receiving training in the past 5 years
Freq.
Percent
No
190
54%
Yes
161
46%
N = 351
Table 51 Training - sources of training (percent)
Average
LCI
UCI
Government extension
42%
36%
47%
Research institute
7%
5%
10%
Farmer organisation
5%
3%
7%
NGO
3%
1%
5%
Model/lead farmer
3%
1%
4%
Company
1%
0%
2%
Other
0%
0%
0%
N = 351
Table 52 Training - types of training received (percent)
Average
LCI
UCI
Line planting and crop spacing
46%
40%
51%
Fertilizer usage
45%
40%
50%
Use of improved seed and planting materials.
42%
37%
47%
Post-harvest handling
34%
29%
39%
Pests and diseases management
33%
28%
38%
Storage
33%
28%
38%
Soil, water and nutrient conservation
28%
23%
32%
Herbicide usage
17%
13%
20%
Marketing
16%
12%
20%
Record keeping
12%
9%
15%
Group management
11%
8%
14%
Finance and loans
9%
6%
12%
Other
1%
0%
2%
47
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Savings and loans
Table 53 Savings and loans (% of all respondents)
Average
LCI
UCI
30%
26%
35%
11%
7%
14%
Respondent household with a
bank account
Loan taken for potato production
last season
N= 351
Table 54 Loans - sources of lending for potato production and marketing (% of all respondents)
Average
LCI
UCI
Family or friends
7%
4%
9%
Microfinance institution (MFI)
3%
1%
4%
Village money lender
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
Savings and Credit Cooperative
(SACCO) / Credit Union
Village savings and loans group
(VSLA)
0%
0%
1%
Bank
0%
0%
0%
Trader
0%
0%
0%
Company
0%
0%
0%
Church
0%
0%
0%
Other
0%
0%
0%
Average (Birr)
LCI
UCI
How much did you borrow?
1990
1528
2452
How many months did you
have to repay the loan?
6.76
5.46
8.06
N = 351. Note only 11% of respondents took a loan for potato production last season
Table 55 Loans - amounts borrowed and repayment time
N=37
48
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Table 56 Loans – how were used for potato production and marketing (% of all respondents)
Average
LCI
UCI
Buying fertilizer
9%
6%
12%
Buying seed
5%
3%
8%
Hiring labour
2%
1%
3%
Buying herbicides
0%
0%
1%
Buying pesticides
0%
0%
1%
Buying farm hand tools
0%
0%
1%
Cooperative membership
fees
0%
0%
1%
Tractor hire
0%
0%
0%
Animal plough hire
0%
0%
0%
Buying a tractor
0%
0%
0%
Buying a motorbike/car
0%
0%
0%
leasing or buying land
0%
0%
0%
Paying for transport costs
0%
0%
0%
Paying for storage
0%
0%
0%
Processing
0%
0%
0%
Other
0%
0%
0%
N=351. Note only 11% of respondents took a loan for potato production last season. The averages add up to more than 11% because some
respondents took a loan for more than one reason related to potato production and marketing.
Table 57 Loans - reasons for not taking loans
Average
LCI
UCI
I don’t want to be in debt
33%
28%
38%
I didn’t need any credit
32%
28%
37%
Not available in the village
23%
19%
28%
Other
3%
1%
5%
Interest rate too high
2%
1%
3%
Repay period too short
1%
0%
1%
Lack of collateral /security
1%
0%
1%
Spouse refused
0%
0%
0%
Table 58 Loans - type of collateral used
Freq.
Percent
Nothing
20
6%
Other
6
2%
Land
4
1%
Crops
2
1%
Cash deposit
1
0%
Not applicable, loan not taken
318
91%
N=351
49
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Record keeping and decision making
Table 59 Record keeping – percent of household keeping written records
Freq.
Percent
No
303
86%
Yes basic records
43
12%
Yes detailed records
5
1%
N=351
Table 60 Household decision making – who makes decisions about marketing potatoes
Freq.
Percent
Both men and women together
262
75%
Male household head
32
9%
Entire family, men, women and
children together
29
8%
Female household head
21
6%
Male NOT household head
4
1%
Female NOT household head
2
1%
N = 350
50
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Farm model (Inputs, labour, revenue, profits model)
Table 61 Profit model - labour costs, input costs, revenue and profit (Birr per hectare)
Yield
Average (Birr)
LCI (Birr)
UCI (Birr)
8506
8010
9002
Average (EUR)
Rate: 0.0436311
Price
3.06
2.94
3.18
Revenue (yield * price)
26247
24645
27849
1145
Land clearing
465
405
526
20
Herbicide application
(non-selective)
1
-1
3
0
Ploughing
1933
1730
2136
84
Labour Costs
Planting
475
440
509
21
Fertilizer application
304
282
326
13
Top dressing
application
355
318
393
16
Manure application
20
7
33
1
Pesticide application
17
7
26
1
Fungicide application
52
40
63
2
Herbicide application
(selective)
11
2
19
0
Weeding
1769
1623
1915
77
Harvesting
1583
1483
1684
69
Transporting
683
606
759
30
Herbicide (nonselective)
6
-2
13
0
Seed
1610
1377
1842
70
Planting fertilizer
2190
2033
2348
96
Pesticides
274
11
538
12
Herbicides (selective)
15
4
27
1
21843
20317
23369
953
20533
18908
22159
896
14369
12664
16073
627
Input costs
Profit
Revenue minus input
costs
Revenue minus input
costs, minus hired
labour
Revenue minus input
costs, minus all labour
51
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Figure 9 Profit distribution, revenue per hectare (Birr)
Figure 10 Profit distribution, revenue – cost of inputs per hectare (Birr)
52
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Figure 11 Profit distribution, revenue – cost of inputs – cost of hired labour per hectare (Birr)
Figure 12 Profit distribution, revenue – cost of inputs – value of all labour (hired, communal, household), per hectare (Birr)
53
Baseline Report - Potato processing in Ethiopia: the missing link in the value chain
Annex
Table 62 Grameen PPI lookup tables – Likelihoods of being in poverty
Note: For more information about the Grameen PPI, see http://www.progressoutofpoverty.org/country/ethiopia
54