ETHIOPIA AGRICULTURAL SNAPSHOT 2011/12

Transcription

1 ETHIOPIA AGRICULTURAL SNAPSHOT 2011/12 Roberts, Cleophelia; Azzarri, Carlo MARCH, 2014 HARVESTCHOICE - INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (IFPRI) harvestchoice.org

2 Abstract The purpose of this series of country briefs is to provide a comprehensive and standardized view of agricultural characteristics integrated with socioeconomic variables across countries. In the Ethiopia Agricultural Snapshot, we illustrate the state of agriculture in Ethiopia with reference to both household characteristics and the national context. Graphs and tables are generated using data from the Ethiopia Rural Socioeconomic Survey (ERSS) The ERSS is a collaborative effort of the Central Statistics Agency (CSA) of Ethiopia and the World Bank s Living Standards Measurement Study-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). ERSS focuses on rural areas and small towns in all regions of Ethiopia. The ERSS is the first wave of multi-topic panel data collection at the household level. It was conducted in three rounds: 1) September and October 2011: post-planting activities; 2) November and December 2011: livestock; and 3) January to March 2012: post-harvest activities, household-level information, and community characteristics. Suggested Citation Roberts, Cleophelia; Azzarri, Carlo (2014) "Ethiopia Agricultural Snapshot 2011/12," Working Paper, HarvestChoice - International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 1

3 Contents Abstract... 1 Suggested Citation... 1 List of Tables and Figures Introduction The Country at a Glance Farm Assets, Farming Systems and Agricultural Input Use Crop Production Livestock Nutrition Conclusion References List of Tables and Figures Table 1 : Characteristics of Ethiopia's Population Table 2: Characteristics of Ethiopian 6 Table 3: Characterizics of Ethipian, by Expenditure Quintile 6 Table 4 : Input Use by Household Characteristics 9 Table 5: Input Use by Agricultural Characteristics 10 Table 6 : Fertilizer Use by Household Characteristics 10 Table 7 : Fertilizer Use by Agricultural Characteristics 11 Table 8: Household Livestock Ownership 14 Table 9: Child Nutritional Outcomes 16 Figure 1: Agricultural Engagement by Region 5 Figure 2: Ethiopian Farming Systems 7 Figure 3: Top 15 Crops by Average Production Value per Household 12 Figure 4: Average Production Value per Household, by Expenditure Quintile 12 Figure 5: Top Crop Production Combinations 13 Figure 6: Average Number of Cattle per Household by Region 14 Figure 7: Nutritional Outcomes for Children 15 Figure 8: Stunting Prevalence among Children by Age and Gender 17 Figure 9: Underweight Prevalence among Children by Age and Gender 17 Figure 10: Wasting Prevalence among Children by Age and Gender 17 2

4 1 Introduction More than 80% of the Ethiopian population lives in rural areas (Dorosh and Rashid 2013) and almost all Ethiopians rely on agriculture for their livelihoods (Feleke and Zegeye 2006). Therefore, agriculture is an essential part of the Ethiopian economy. Yet agricultural productivity remains low, even as the rural population expands (Dorosh and Rashid 2013). Improved agricultural productivity and the expansion of non-agricultural opportunities will be important to the future of the economy. Currently, Ethiopia is one of the least urbanized countries in the world. Only 16% of Ethiopia s population lives in cities, whereas in Africa south of the Sahara 30% of the population lives in cities (Dorosh and Rashid 2013). Ethiopia s large and expanding rural population has left progressively smaller areas of land available to rural households. As children reach adulthood, many remain part of their parents household labor because they have few migratory options and their parents do not control enough land to partition. Even if they did, little cultivable land is available for the expansion of crop production (Taffesse, Dorosh, and Asrat 2012). In addition to limited land availability, farmers face frequent droughts and a decline in land productivity through soil degradation due to population pressures (Gebreselassie 2006; Feleke and Zegeye 2006). Furthermore, the use of agricultural inputs is low and less than 2% of cultivated land is irrigated (Gebreselassie 2006; Taffesse, Dorosh, and Asrat 2012; Nisrane et al. 2011). According to Taffesse, Dorosh, and Asrat (2012), 96% of the cultivated area in Ethiopia is farmed by smallholders. The majority of these smallholders cultivate less than one hectare (Nisrane et al. 2011). Most smallholders live in the cereal-producing highlands, which make up 59% of Ethiopia s cultivated area. Very small land holdings are associated with low per capita food production and small incomes; and cereal yields remain low (Taffesse, Dorosh, and Asrat 2012). Some farmers have reported to selling crop residue and manure to earn cash, instead of using these inputs to increase the productivity of their land (Gebreselassie 2006). De Brauw and Mueller (2011) attribute low investment in smallholders land to land tenure insecurity. All rural land in Ethiopia has been public property since the major 1975 land reform. Tenants have gained rights to use the land, but not to sell, mortgage, or exchange it. The 1994 Constitution restated that land is common property not subject to sale or transfer. Only residents of a particular village can acquire the right to use its land (Gebreselassie 2006; de Brauw and Mueller 2011). The government of Ethiopia has redistributed these rights with varying frequency since 1975 (Gebreselassie 2006; de Brauw and Mueller 2011). While land rental is possible, it is highly restricted, although tenants may transfer land to family members. De Brauw and Mueller (2011) propose that tenant investment in land would be more likely with greater tenant control over it. Gebreselassie (2006) claims that the government of Ethiopia sees land tenure as a type of social security through a guaranteed livelihood. This tenure system discourages rural-urban migration as rural tenants cannot sell their land if they migrate and risk losing all rights to it if they leave it uncultivated for one season or longer (Gebreselassie 2006). De Brauw and Mueller (2011) suggest that internal migration to cities could ease land constraints in rural areas. Despite the deterrents to migration, some rural residents do migrate to cities. with migrants tend to have larger land holdings and older household heads with less education than households without migrants (de Brauw and Mueller 2011). The following brief provides a snapshot of the current state of agriculture in Ethiopia. It relies on nationally representative data from the Ethiopia Rural Socioeconomic Survey (ERSS), administered in rural areas and small towns. The ERSS data are regionally representative for Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, and the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples (SNNP). ERSS sample was constructed in two stages. In the first stage, the primary sampling units were selected from a subsample of enumeration areas (EAs) from the Agricultural Sample Survey (AgSS). Of these, 290 were rural areas and 43 were small towns of fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. EAs for the most populous regions, Amhara; Oromiya; Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples (SNNP); and Tigray were subject to quotas to ensure the sample would be representative at this level. Thus, the ERSS sample provides estimates for rural areas and small towns at the national level and for these four regions, while the sample is not representative for the other six regions (Afar, Somalie, Benshagul Gumuz, Gambelia, Harari, and Dire Dawa). However, estimates are possible for these remaining regions together as other regions. The capital, Addis Ababa, is excluded entirely. were selected in the second stage of sampling. Twelve households were selected from each rural EA. Ten of these were randomly selected from 30 households sampled in the AgSS involved in raising crops and livestock. An additional two households were randomly selected from non-agss households, which were not involved in agriculture. In rural EAs where fewer than two nonagricultural households existed, more agricultural households were sampled so that the total number of households interviewed per rural EA remained the same. In EAs of small towns twelve households were selected without stratification. Sampling was done without 3

5 replacements, which resulted in a sample of fewer than the planned 3,996 households. Ultimately, 3,969 households were interviewed, with a response rate of 99.3%. The brief is organized this way. In Section 2 we focus on household characteristics such as wealth, education, and participation in agriculture. Section 3 describes land holdings and input use patterns. Sections 4 and 5 focus on crop and livestock production, respectively. In Section 6 we address the state of child nutrition in Ethiopia, and we conclude in Section 7. 2 The Country at a Glance Table 1 shows that the population of Ethiopia is concentrated in three key regions: Oromia, across central Ethiopia; Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples (SNNP) regions in the southwest section of the country, bordering Kenya and South Sudan; and Amhara, in the northwest section of the country, on the Sudanese border. These regions account for 36.9%, 26.7% and 24.6% of the population, respectively. All population takes part in both crop and livestock activities and the majority lives in male-headed households (94.4%). Figure 1 below presents the regional distribution of agricultural engagement types among Ethiopian households. that cultivate crops are located primarily in SNNP. Crop cultivation is lowest (87%) in Amhara. Livestock raising is also common in Ethiopia. It is most concentrated in Oromia. The combination of crop and livestock cultivation is most widespread in SNNP, with almost 90% of households participating in both. Even at the lowest level, in Amhara, it reaches 83%. Overall agricultural engagement is very high, ranging from almost 90% in Tigray to 97% in SNNP. Table 1 : Characteristics of Ethiopia's Population Region Observations Total Population Percentage of Population Population Engaged in Agriculture Tigray 408 4,129, Amhara ,881, Oromia ,337, SNNP ,159, Other Regions 921 3,053, Type of Agricultural Engagement Crops Only 213 1,814, Livestock Only 88 1,815, Crops and Livestock ,888, No Cultivation 762 3,044, Farming System Agro-pastoral 422 5,258, Pastoral , Highland Perennial ,979, Highland Mixed ,773, Cereal/Root Mixed 58 1,271, Maize Mixed 850 8,601, Gender of Household Head Male ,087, Female 985 8,475, Ethiopia ,563,

6 Figure 1: Agricultural Engagement by Region Table 2 highlights that household size, and other factors, varies with respect to agricultural engagement. participating exclusively in crop production are smaller, on average (3.4 members compared to an overall average of 5.1) and are more likely to be majority female, suggesting that livestock and pastoralism are male-oriented activities in Ethiopia. Larger households, on average, participate more heavily in livestock or a mix of livestock and crop production. These households have a lower share of female members than do households that participate solely in crop production or do not participate in cultivation. In addition, households that participate in livestock production or a mix of livestock and crop production are more likely to be headed by married individuals. The literacy rates of the household head are lower, on average, among households that participate exclusively in crop production with an overall average of 1.5 years of schooling. Finally, the dependency ratio is greater in households that participate in livestock or a mix of livestock and crop production, with an average of 1.3 dependents per working age adult. 5

7 Table 2: Characteristics of Ethiopian Household Size Dependency Ratio Share of Household Female Head Literacy Household Members Years of Head Education Married Household Head Region Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Other Regions Type of Agricultural Engagement Crops Only Livestock Only Crops and Livestock No Cultivation Farming System Agro-pastoral Pastoral Highland Perennial Highland Mixed Cereal/Root Mixed Maize Mixed Gender of Household Head Male Female Ethiopia Table 3 shows the characteristics of Ethiopian households by expenditure quintile. They show an average size of 5.1 members, dependency ratio 1 of 1.3, and about half of the household members are female. Agricultural engagement in Ethiopia is generally high, at 92.7%. The poorest households are slightly less engaged in agriculture than the second poorest quintile households, possibly due to a lack of resources. Meanwhile, the richest households are the least engaged in agriculture perhaps because of other income-generating options. Most Ethiopian households are headed by men (80.1%). The percentage of female-headed households is higher among the poorest and richest households (21.3% and 26.8% respectively), and lowest within mid-quintile households (15.2%). Ethiopia s literacy rate is among the lowest in the world (CIA 2014), and the household head literacy is higher among richer households. Years of household members education also vary by expenditure. The average number of years of education that adults in the lowest quintile have attained (1.0) is less than a third of adults in households in the highest expenditure quintile (3.2). Overall, Ethiopian adults achieve an average of just 2.1 years of formal education. Table 3: Characterizics of Ethipian, by Expenditure Quintile Household Size Dependency Ratio Share of Female Household Members Agricultural Engagement Femaleheaded Household Head Literacy Years of Adults' Education Married Household Head Expenditure Quintile Lowest Highest Ethiopia The dependency ratio is defined as the ratio of children under 15 and adults over 60 to adults aged It is the ratio of dependent household members to adults of working age. 6

8 3 Farm Assets, Farming Systems and Agricultural Input Use Ethiopia is endowed with a heterogeneous agro-ecology (Nisrane et al. 2011). There are six main farming systems in Ethiopia: 1) highland perennial, 2) highland temperate mixed, 3) cereal-root crop mixed, 4) maize mixed, 5) agro-pastoral, and 6) pastoral. The highland mixed farming system, characterized by grains, legumes, and numerous cattle, dominates in Amhara and Tigray, and is practiced by almost half of Oromian households (Figure 2). In Ethiopia, this system is located between 1,800 and 3,000 meters above sea level (FAO 2001). Most households (61%) in SNNP are involved in the highland perennial system. Although landholdings tend to be low, farmers in this system tend to cultivate their land very intensively. This situation is both caused and exacerbated by the high population density in highland perennial areas. Whereas 97% of households in SNNP participate in agriculture (Table 1), they cultivate just 0.6 hectares. Common crops in this system include banana, enset, coffee, cassava, beans, and cereals (FAO 2001). While the maize mixed system is the most significant farming system in East and Southern Africa, few households practice it in Tigray, Amhara, and SNNP. On the other hand, almost 30% of households in Oromia use the maize mixed system (Figure 2). This system s principal staple is maize, as its name suggests. It is particularly common in low areas (FAO 2001). Both the cereal-root mixed and agropastoral systems are used by small numbers of households in Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, and SNNP. There are almost no households in a pastoral system in any of those regions, although more than half of the rest of the country is in the pastoral system. While households in pastoral systems have the greatest land holdings, few of them use inputs aside from purchased seeds and irrigation (Table 5). None of them use fertilizer (Table 6), and their low input use is likely due to the high presence of livestock. Jayne et al. (2003) note that African farmers pay higher prices for fertilizer than farmers in developing countries in other continents. Feleke and Zegeye (2006) find that the more land a farmer allocates to a particular crop, the more likely s/he is to adopt improved seed for that crop. Accordingly, Gebreselassie (2006) observes that tenants of large farms in Ethiopia use fertilizer and improved seed varieties more than smaller ones. Table 5 and Table 7 show that farmers with the highest land size are most apt to use inputs. Smallholders, on the other hand, are more risk averse and less willing to adopt new technologies. Table 6 reports that households with greater resources use fertilizer in greater numbers than poorer households. On the other hand, few household heads with tertiary education use fertilizer compared to those with less education. They hold little land and use the fewest inputs (Table 4 and Table 6). This may indicate that they participate the least in agriculture. Figure 2: Ethiopian Farming Systems 7

9 Gebreselassie (2006) claims that public investment in productivity-enhancing technology, as in China, is needed for Ethiopian smallholders as they cannot make the investment themselves. Most Ethiopian farmers cultivate less than 1 hectare of land (Table 4), although households in Amhara farm 2 hectares, on average. Male-headed households cultivate almost twice as much land as femaleheaded households. They also use more of every type of fertilizer (Table 6), pesticide, irrigation, and extension services. While Howard et al. (2003) concede that high-input technology can be introduced with adequate funding, they question whether such technology can be maintained without robust and continuous public financing. In their examination of Sasakawa-Global 2000 programs, they note that the profitability of maize produce depends not only on yield, but on infrastructure. They see public investment in transport and communication as necessary to reduce the costs of marketing produce. Furthermore, the eventual market costs of supplying inputs must be below farmers willingness to pay for them (Jayne et al. 2003). Whereas the use of most inputs is more common in households with greater expenditures, irrigation and fungicide use follow no such pattern (Table 4). Few households use either. This result is consistent with Nisrane et al. s (2011) suggestion that the relationship between output and rainfall is due to low irrigation. using both traditional and improved seeds use more inputs than households that use only one or the other (Table 5 and Table 7). Furthermore, more of these households use extension services and added inputs. that cultivate only crops have little land (just 0.3 hectares, see Table 5). Those with both crops and livestock, the majority of the population, have more land and use more inputs. Nisrane et al. (2011) claim that these households are more efficient in general. In fact, they assert that the more animals an Ethiopian household has, the more efficient it is. The two main types of inorganic fertilizer recorded in ERSS-11/12 are diammonium phosphate (DAP) and urea. DAP is used to release readily available ammonium and phosphate to plants (IPNI 2014a) and urea provides nitrogen ammonium and nitrate released over time (IPNI 2014b; Overdahl, Rehm, and Meredith 2013). Both require proper use for yield increases. With improper use, farmers 8

10 may experience nitrogen losses or seed damage (IPNI 2014a, University of Hawaii 2014). Several factors may lead to nitrogen losses during the usage of DAP and urea: low rainfall with no irrigation; high temperatures; high soil ph; and the presence of crop residue (Bundy 2001; Jones et al. 2007). Low rainfall is an especially high concern for Ethiopia (Nisrane et al. 2011) and, as Table 4 and Table 5 show, few households irrigate. Nitrogen losses can be reduced by proper tillage, and seed damage can be avoided with appropriately timed planting and fertilizer application (Jones et al. 2007). Extension services can be very useful in communicating how best to use these fertilizers; yet the use of extension is low compared to fertilizer use. While 38.1% and 50.5% of farmers use DAP are urea, respectively, just 32.6% of farmers use extension (Table 4-Table 7). Table 4 : Input Use by Household Characteristics Cultivated Land (Ha) Purchased Seeds Value of Purchased Seeds ($ 2005 PPP) Extension Services Irrigating Pesticides Herbicides Fungicides Region Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Other Regions Gender of Household Head Male Female Expenditure Quintile Lowest Highest Education of Household Head No Formal Educatio Years Years Years Ethiopia

11 Table 5: Input Use by Agricultural Characteristics Cultivated Land (Ha) Purchased Seeds Value of Purchased Seeds ($ 2005 PPP) Table 6 : Fertilizer Use by Household Characteristics Extension Services Irrigating Pesticides Herbicides Fungicides Type of Agricultural Engagement Crops Only Crops and Livestock Farming System Agro-pastoral Pastoral Highland Perennial Highland Mixed Cereal/Root Mixed Maize Mixed Land Quintile Lowest Highest Seed Use Traditional Only Improved Only Both Ethiopia Cultivated Land (Ha) Urea DAP Other Inorganic Fertilizer Manure Compost Other Organic Fertilizer Region Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Other Regions Gender of Household Head Male Female Expenditure Quintile Lowest Highest Education of Household Head No Formal Educatio Years Years Years Ethiopia

12 Table 7 : Fertilizer Use by Agricultural Characteristics Cultivated Land (Ha) Urea DAP Other Inorganic Fertilizer Manure Compost Other Organic Fertilizer Type of Agricultural Engagement Crops Only Crops and Livestock Farming System Agro-pastoral Pastoral Highland Perennial Highland Mixed Cereal/Root Mixed Maize Mixed Land Quintile Lowest Highest Seed Use Traditional Only Improved Only Both Ethiopia Crop Production The majority of farmers in Ethiopia are smallholders, producing mostly for own consumption. Smallholder farms generate 95% of total production for the main crops (cereals, pulses, oilseeds, vegetables, root crops, fruits, and cash crops). The five major cereals (teff, wheat, maize, sorghum, and barley) take up close to three quarters of total cultivated land area. Teff has constituted the largest share of cereal area cultivated since the 1960s, and it accounts for 15% of total food expenditures in urban areas, with more than 10% of cereal expenditures on processed cereals (mainly flour). There has been substantial growth in cereals, in terms of area cultivated, yields and production since 2000, but yields are low by international standards and overall production is highly susceptible to weather shocks, particularly droughts (Taffesse, Dorosh, and Asrat 2012; Dorosh and Rashid 2013). Agricultural production patterns vary remarkably across Ethiopia according to widely varying rainfall and elevation in particular. The main cropping season (called Meher) takes place from September to February. During the Meher season in 2007/08, 96.9% of crops production and 95.5% of cereals were produced. Most smallholder farmers reside in the moisture reliable cereal-based highlands (i.e. 59% of total cultivated area). Farm area in the drought-prone highlands accounts for 26% of total area cultivated. Farmers rely heavily on rainfall to achieve good agricultural productivity, using virtually no irrigation (Taffesse, Dorosh, and Asrat 2012). Uncertain rainfall and very low levels of irrigation make intensive cultivation with improved seeds and fertilizer risky (McCann 1995). Figure 3 illustrates how teff is the top crop in Ethiopia in terms of average production value with more than $100 (PPP). Sorghum provides close to $100 (PPP) production value on average to each household, while maize supply more than $80 (PPP). Wheat and sesame provide $50 to $60 (PPP) to each household. In contrast with the top five crops, the rest of crops have production values around $20 per household. Sesame production has doubled in from 2008 to Ethiopia is the world s second largest exporter of sesame, with export value currently at $300 million per year and expected to increase to $500 million by Figure 4 presents the diversity of average production values of various crops by household expenditure quintiles. Among teff, sorghum, sesame, and millet, households in the second expenditure quintile have the highest annual average production value. The average production value of maize for the wealthiest is almost $150 (PPP), three times more than $50 for the poorest households. The difference in average production value is less striking for wheat, except the highest value of $85 (PPP) among households in the fourth expenditure quintile 11

13 Figure 3: Top 15 Crops by Average Production Value per Household Figure 4: Average Production Value per Household, by Expenditure Quintile Figure 5 shows that maize is included in seven of the top ten cropping systems in Ethiopia. In fact, the top 7 cropping systems are each cultivated by more than 150,000 households, with the top first reaching 200,000 households. The tenth cropping combination is maize, teff and wheat, which is cultivated by almost 100,000 households. Sorghum is also widely cultivated as one of the most important cereal crops in Ethiopia. Maize is one of the most important cereal crops and staple foods in Ethiopia. Despite the fact that Ethiopia is the second biggest maize producer in Africa, it is a heavy importer of maize. Most of the maize import is in the form of food aid. Also, maize value chain is highly inefficient in Ethiopia due to a number of disincentives. The marketing chains of maize are long and involve too many operators who rarely provide marketing services beyond transport and storage. Maize import or export is seldom a commercial option in Ethiopia due to the high transport costs. Moreover, the Government responded to the 2008 price surge with an imposition of export ban on cereals and distributing imported cereals at subsidized prices (FAO 2012; Shahidur, Kindie, and Solomon 2010). Ethiopia s crop agriculture faces serious challenges. Very little suitable uncultivated land remains in the highlands, apart from pastureland. Soil degradation from erosion and soil compaction threatens crop yields (Hamza and Anderson 2005; Taddesse 2001). Uncertain rainfall and very low levels of irrigation make intensive cultivation with improved seeds and fertilizer risky (McCann 1995). 12

14 Furthermore, the policy and market environment should be more informed and cautious in order to realize Ethiopia s potential of exporting maize to deficit countries of the region. Figure 5: Top Crop Production Combinations 5 Livestock Livestock activities account for about one quarter of GDP in Ethiopia (Dorosh and Rashid 2013), and provide a source of revenue for 60 70% of the population (NBE 2005/06; Halderman 2004). Among distinctive livestock assets, cattle, laying hens, and sheep are the most prevalent among households at the national level (72.5%, 44.2%, and 30.2%, respectively). Moreover, the prevalence of livestock ownership in Ethiopia varies by geographic region, farming system, expenditure quintile, and land quintile (Table 8). Ethiopia has the highest cattle population in Africa, at 52 million, including 10.5 million dairy cattle (Steen 2013). In 2007/08, 87% of Ethiopia's cattle were found in Oromiya, Amhara, and SNNP regions, with each region contributing 44, 24, and 20%, respectively, to total cattle population (Tilahun and Schmidt 2012). Figure 6 shows that the percentages of households that own cattle are highest for the highland regions, Oromiya, Amhara, and SNNP (79.7%, 73.1%, and 73.4%, respectively). Highland perennial and highland mixed farming systems are the most prevalent in Ethiopia (Table 8). However, livestock production is often a secondary activity in these areas, used primarily as draught labor as well as insurance against unreliable crop production in the highland regions (Gizaw et al. 2010). In , Ethiopia produced 3.3 billion liters of milk but only about five percent of it was sold in commercial markets. Despite an active dairy sector, individual consumption of milk in Ethiopia is only 19 liters per year. Child undernutrition rates are among the highest in the world. Currently, Ethiopian indigenous cattle only produce one to two quarts of milk per day, which is not enough for the typical Ethiopian family of eight members. As a result, the majority of children in Ethiopia do not consume milk, leading to malnourishment and other complications such as stunted growth (Steen 2013). The seed-farming system, particularly cereals, but also roots and maize mixed, are found throughout the central, northern, and eastern highlands and involve the majority of Ethiopian small holders (Chamberlin and Schmidt 2011). The number of households with poultry and donkeys is predominately high in seed-farming systems. Ten times more households practicing cereal/root mixed farming system own poultry than those practicing pastoral farming system (71.4% vs. 5.8%). On the other hand, the latter own more goats, sheep, and camels that are fed with grains (69.9%, 40.4%, and 23.4%, respectively). Poultry farming is widely practiced in Ethiopia. Almost every farmstead keeps some poultry for consumption and for cash sale. The shares of households owning cattle, laying hens, chicks, sheep, and camels are the highest in middle expenditure quintiles than the highest or lowest, whereas households owning donkeys are higher in the highest land quintiles. In general, greater land quintiles have greater shares of each type of animals. Camels as pack animals in areas below 1,500 meters of elevation also provide pastoralists in those areas with milk, cheese, and meat (LOC 1991). 13

15 Ethiopia has a dynamic livestock sector and great potential for increased livestock production. However, expansion has been constrained by inadequate nutrition, disease, a lack of support services, and inadequate information on how to improve animal breeding, marketing, and processing. The high concentration of animals in the highlands, together with the fact that cattle are often kept for social prestige, restricted the economic potential of Ethiopian livestock (LOC 1991). Table 8: Household Livestock Ownership Share of Cattle Number Owned Share of Poultry Number Owned Share of Goats Number Owned Figure 6: Average Number of Cattle per Household by Region Share of Number Owned Share of Number Owned Share of Region Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Other Regions Gender of Household Head Male Female Farming System Agro-pastoral Pastoral Highland Perennial Highland Mixed Cereal/Root Mixed Maize Mixed Expenditure Quintile Lowest Highest Land Quintile Lowest Highest Ethiopia Sheep Donkeys Camels Number Owned 6 Nutrition Children and their mothers suffer from the poor health and nutrition situation in Ethiopia. In fact, malnutrition is the underlying cause of 57% of child deaths (SCUK 2009). Furthermore, Ethiopian children suffer from some of the highest rates of stunting and underweight in the world. In Ethiopia, the dietary energy supply is not sufficient to meet population energy requirements and almost half of the population is undernourished. Besides being quantitatively insufficient, food supplies also lack diversity. The Ethiopian diet is mainly composed of cereals (maize, sorghum, teff), tubers and root crops (enset, potatoes, sweet potatoes), pulses and oil seeds. Despite a 14

16 large livestock population, the food supply of animal products is very limited. Consumption of animal products is especially low in rural areas, where cattle are often kept for status. Except in nomadic areas, milk is a major component of the diet (FAO 2010). Not only is the prevalence of undernourishment high, micronutrient deficiencies are common. The anemia rate among children from 6 to 59 months is over 44%, contributing to morbidity and mortality in Ethiopia. Iron deficiency is the cause of half of all anemia cases, which can result in deficits in cognitive, behavioral, motor development, and educational achievement (Domellof 2011). Various nutrient deficiencies limit the body s ability to fight infection. At the same time, nutritional needs change due to infection. Therefore, the consequences of decreased food availability are direr for those who are already sick. Moreover, the consequences of sickness on the food insecure are severe. Improved food security increases the likelihood of surviving health and other shocks (Haddad et al. 1996). Figure 7 shows that national child nutrition outcomes are alarming. The overall share of children who are stunted 2 is severe, ranging from 39% to 53% at the highest. Moreover, both the shares of wasted (low weight for height) and underweight children are also significant. Rates of underweight children range from 19% to 35% while the prevalence of wasted children range from 7% to 14%. Different regions have distinctive sets of child nutrition results. SNNP to the southwest has the highest rates of all three indicators for poor child nutrition health (52.74%, 35.22%, and 13.74%). Tigray and Amhara in the north have high prevalence of stunted and underweight children (52.85% and 30.41%, 51.62% and 28.07), but relatively low wasted children (7.01% and 9.89). Oromia region in central Ethiopia has higher rate of stunting than underweight and wasting, while the rest of Ethiopia has an average stunting, wasting, and underweight prevalence around 38.97%, 24.52%, and 10.7%. Ethiopia has an extremely high rate of stunting, 47.8% for boys and 47.9 for girls (Table 9). The rates of stunting, underweight and wasting in children, similar across age groups, are shown in Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10. In female-headed household, stunted children are slightly more common, while underweight children are less common. While stunting, underweight, and wasting do not exhibit a strong relationship with expenditure quintiles, they do vary with the educational level of household head. All three are most common among households whose heads have little or no formal education (50.8%, 31.5%, and 37.9%, respectively). However, the share of stunted boys in households whose heads have over 13 years of education is unusually high (78.6%). In general, boys are more prone to being underweight and wasted than girls. Child nutritional problems are most prominent in households that cultivate crops or livestock only. While both the highest shares of stunted and underweight boys are in crops only households (65.3% and 51.1%, respectively), wasted girls are in livestock only households. Both rates of stunting and underweight for boys are most prevalent in highland perennial farming system (57.1% and 39.5%), while the rates of wasted boys and girls are most prevalent in cereal/root mixed farming system (31%). Figure 7: Nutritional Outcomes for Children 2 Stunting (low height for age) measures long-term childhood nutrition levels. Children who suffer from stunting face a higher probability of early death, lower physical capabilities, and lower mental capacity than children without stunting (Wood et al. 2013). 15

17 Table 9: Child Nutritional Outcomes Stunting Underweight Wasting Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Age of Child, in Months Gender of Household Head Male Female Education of Household Head No Formal Education Years Years Years Expenditure Quintile Lowest Highest Type of Agricultural Engagement Crops Only Livestock Only Crops and Livestock No Cultivation Farming System Agro-pastoral Pastoral Highland Perennial Highland Mixed Cereal/Root Mixed Maize Mixed Region Tigray Amhara Oromia SNNP Other Regions Ethiopia

18 Figure 8: Stunting Prevalence among Children by Age and Gender Figure 9: Underweight Prevalence among Children by Age and Gender Figure 10: Wasting Prevalence among Children by Age and Gender 17

19 7 Conclusion Ethiopia faces myriad challenges in improving the contribution of agriculture to the economy. Nearly all Ethiopians rely on agriculture for employment and food. Yet, because there is little land available to increase crop production, any productivity gains must come from increased yields (Taffesse, Dorosh, and Asrat 2012). These increases must be accompanied by environmental stewardship if they are to be sustainable, because land quality is already at risk. Furthermore, frequent droughts and low irrigation threaten current yields and may inhibit the effectiveness of applied inputs. More effective extension efforts are necessary to promote input use that is suitable to the local ecology. As Gebreselassie (2006) suggests, public investment may be necessary to spur smallholder agricultural productivity. Certainly, land tenure reform should be examined in the coming years as many farmers already face land constraints, which discourage farm investment. However, reform must be undertaken carefully, as it is fraught with potential pitfalls. While less restrictive land transfers may help improve the efficiency of land allocation, completely unrestricted land transfers could lead to the unproductive accumulation of land and the rapid urbanization of the rural poor into slums (Gebreselassie 2006). Urban areas can serve as a setting for productivity growth, as they facilitate information flows and provide a setting for large businesses (Dorosh and Rashid 2013). At the same time, the high and growing rural population density can provide market linkages and encourage small agriculture-related businesses in Ethiopia (Gebreselassie 2006). Low access to markets results in elevated transaction costs, which depresses farmer participation in agricultural markets (Feleke and Zegeye 2006). More efficient and stable land tenure could spur smallholders use of inputs, which are not yet practical for many. In addition, internal migration to cities and support for nonfarm activities (Dorosh and Rashid 2013) in both cities and rural areas could provide expanded opportunities for the rural poor. Because the nutritional consequences of inaction are dire, increased productivity is an immediate concern for Ethiopia. 18

20 REFERENCES Bundy, L.G Managing Urea-containing Fertilizers. Paper presented at University of Wisconsin; Area Fertilizer Dealer Meeting, US November 27-December 6. Chamberlin, J., J. Pender, and B. Yu Development domains for Ethiopia: Capturing the geographical context of smallholder development options. DSGD Discussion Paper 43. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Chamberlin, J., and Schmidt, M., Ethiopian Agriculture: A Dynamic Geographic Perspective. Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) The World Factbook. /library/publications/the-world-factbook De Brauw, A. and V. Mueller Do Limitations in Land Rights Transferability Influence Mobility Rates in Ethiopia? Ethiopia Strategy Support Program Working Paper No. 18. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Dixon, J. and A. Gulliver Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving Farmers Livelihoods in a Changing World. Rome: FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Domellof, M., 2011, Iron requirements in infancy. Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism 59 (1): Dorosh, P., and Rashid, S., Food and Agriculture in Ethiopia: Progress and Policy Challenge. IFPRI Issue Brief 74. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Feleke, S. and T. Zegeye Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties in Southern Ethiopia: Factors and Strategy Options. Food Policy 31(2006): FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) Analysis of Incentives and Disincentives for Maize in Ethiopia. MAFAP (Monitoring and Analysing Food and Agricultural Policies) pdf FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) Nutrition Country Profiles: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Rome. Gebresselassie, S Intensification of Smallholder Agriculture in Ethiopia: Options and Scenarios. Paper prepared for the Future Agricultures Consortium Meeting at the Institute of Development Studies. March 20-22, Gizaw, S., A. Tegegne, B. Gebremedhin, and D. Hoekstra Sheep and goat production and marketing systems in Ethiopia: Characteristics and strategies for improvement. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 23. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute ILRI (ILRI). Haddad, L., S. Bhattarai, M. Immink, and S. Kumar Managing Interactions between Household Food Security and Preschooler Health. IFPRI 2020 Vision Initiative. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Hamza, M.A., and W.K. Anderson Soil compaction in cropping systems: A review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Review Article. Soil and Tillage Research 82 (2): Halderman, M The political economy of pro-poor livestock policy making in Ethiopia. PPLPI Working Paper 19. Rome: Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). IFDC (International Fertilizer Development Center) Sesame is Big Business in Ethiopia: Growing Sorghum in Rotation with Sesame Helps Sustainability. IFDC Report 38 (3). No-3/Sesame-is-Big-Business-in-Ethiopia/ 19

21 International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI). 2014a. Diammonium Phosphate. Norcross, GA: IPNI. 17%20Diammonium%20Phosphate.pdf. 2014b. Urea. Norcross, GA: IPNI. Jayne, T.S., J. Govereh, M. Wanzala, and M. Demeke Fertilizer Market Development: A Comparative Analysis of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Zambia. Food Policy 28 (2003): Jones, C.A., R.T. Koenig, J.W. Ellsworth, B.D. Brown, and G.D. Jackson Management of Urea Fertilizer to Minimize Volatization. United States Department of Agriculture, Montana State University Extension, Washington State University Extension. LOC (Library of Congress) A Country Study: Ethiopia. McCann, J. C People of the Plow: An Agricultural History of Ethiopia, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. NBE (National Bank of Ethiopia). 2005/06. Annual Report. Addis Ababa. Nisrane, F., G. Berhane, S. Asrat, G. Getachew, A. Seyoum Taffesse, and J. Hoddinott Sources of Inefficiency and Growth in Agricultural Output in Subsistence Agriculture: A Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Ethiopia Strategy Support Program Working Paper No. 19. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Overdahl, C.J., G.W. Rehm, and H.L. Meredith Fertilizer Urea. Accessed March 31, PRI (Public Radio International) In Ethiopia, a Saudi Company Leases Land to Grow and Export Rice. December Steen, M., Video of the Week: Partnering to Feed the Future in Ethiopia. USAID. October Shahidur, R., Kindie, G., and Solomon, L., Maize Value Chain Potential in Ethiopia. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. SCUK (Save the Children UK). 2009, Ethiopia National Nutrition Strategy: Review and Analysis of Progress and Gaps. Save the Children UK. London. Tilahun, H., and Schmidt, E., Spatial analysis of livestock production patterns in Ethiopia. Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Taddesse, G Land Degradation: A Challenge to Ethiopia. Environmental Management 27 (6): Taffesse, A., Dorosh, P., and Asrat, S., Crop Production in Ethiopia: Regional Patterns and Trends. Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. University of Hawaii Fertilizer Material. Accessed March 31,