The Untold Stories of African Agriculture: Lessons from Ethiopia

1Critical Issues in African Agriculture: A Synthesis Report

Tsedeke Abate*

Homegrown Vision, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Abstract

This book presents the results of a comprehensive in-depth assessment of Ethiopian agriculture and draws lessons from it to generate unambiguous recommendations that can inform policy decisions and priority setting for agricultural transformation in Africa. The current chapter provides a synthesis of the entire book so that the reader is equipped with adequate background information for delving into specific chapters in the rest of it. The book consists of eight parts, comprising 25 chapters. The parts include the introductory chapters, measuring productivity gains, biotechnology, crop protection, input use, environment, extension and long-term socioeconomic benefits of investing in agriculture. It provides summaries of partnerships, missed opportunities and unfinished agenda for African agriculture. The key lesson from the book is that development cannot be outsourced.

Introduction

Rationale and conceptual premises

Africa is blessed with ample agricultural land (Annex Fig. 1.1) and has good potential for irrigated agriculture. And yet, as of the early1980s, its agricultural commodities import costs have outpaced its export earnings from agricultural products (Fig. 1.1). In 2021, the continent imported agricultural products valued at US$111 billion, compared to the export earnings of less than US$66 billion. The international donor community and development partners have tried to help improve Africa’s agricultural productivity since the early 1970s, but so far, any changes in production have come mainly from increases in the cultivated area rather than from increases in productivity. For example, between 2000 and 2021, the cultivated area grew at an annual rate of 2.44% vs 0.88% for yield (FAO, 2023c). This means that about 74% of the increase in production was attributed to area expansion whereas the contribution of increase in yield was 26%. The unchecked land area expansion contributes to a decline in biodiversity and environmental degradation and leads to an obvious decline in soil fertility.

Fig. 1.1. Export and import values of agricultural products in Africa. Source: calculated and constructed by the author from FAO (2023a).

The African agricultural research and development (AR&D) system, as perceived by the international development partners, has undergone several paradigm shifts – from alley cropping to food security, to poverty alleviation, to conservation agriculture, to agriculture intensification, and now regenerative agriculture – over the past five decades. However, there has been no benefit from comprehensive and coherent in-depth studies to isolate the root causes of the problem, and as a result no powerful, clear and unambiguous recommendations are available. Nor has it strongly embraced an African voice. We therefore intend to offer an African perspective in this study and forward suggestions on the changes that need to be implemented to jumpstart African agriculture, using the Ethiopian example to illustrate what went well and why, and what did not go well and why.

Ethiopia has a long history of agriculture, starting with the domestication of enset (Ensete ventricosum) some 8000 years ago and cereals about 1000 years later. The use of the maresha (single-tine plough), drawn by draft animal power, for land preparation goes back to more than 1500 years. However, this country’s agriculture has remained traditional for a long time.

Concerted efforts to ‘modernize’ Ethiopian agriculture started with the establishment of the Imperial Ethiopian College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts (now Haramaya University) in 1952, followed by the Institute of Agricultural Research (now Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research [EIAR]) in 1966, which was mandated to develop and demonstrate improved technologies suited to the diverse agroecologies of the country. The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), established in 1907 under the reign of Emperor Menelik II, was charged with the responsibility for delivering the improved technologies.

Successive governments gave AR&D high priority and made significant investments. Initially, the imperial government (through to 1974) focused on building the infrastructure and a critical mass of researchers. The military-socialist regime (1974–1991) expanded the agroecological coverage. The EPRDF (Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Front) that ruled Ethiopia between 1991 and 2018, envisioned agricultural transformation, capitalizing on the technological progress made by its predecessors and concentrated on delivery. The current Prosperity Party government is embarking on transformation of Ethiopian agriculture.

Like many of its peers in Africa, and elsewhere in the developing world, Ethiopia has experimented with various models of AR&D over the past nearly six decades and has registered varying levels of progress. These cumulative investments are now paying dividends. A large number of crop varieties (Fig. 1.2) and production technologies have been developed for various crops over the years, and these have been vital to the advances being made in agricultural productivity in the country over the past two decades. Ethiopia has achieved significant improvements in cereals (particularly maize) and grain legumes (mainly common bean and chickpea) productivity. The cereal and grain legume agriculture in many of the major producing areas in Ethiopia can now be characterized as ‘smallholder commercial production’ in the sense that it is primarily market rather than subsistence led. Yields of both groups of crops have more than doubled between 2000 and 2020. In the second most populous country in Africa, these led to substantial improvements in the calorie intake from cereals and revenues from foreign export of grain legumes. These changes (despite some shortcomings) represent some of the untold positive stories from Ethiopia that can provide valuable insights for agricultural transformation in Africa.

Fig. 1.2. Running totals of major crop varieties released in Ethiopia between 1970 and 2017. Source: constructed by the author from MOALR (2017).

Through its Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP I and GTP II), the EPRDF government has made efforts to introduce agricultural transformation during the two decades before 2018. However, the GTP has not benefited from the results of comprehensive and coherent scholarly studies that can help to tackle the complex problems of Ethiopian agriculture. Also, it followed a top-down approach, without the participation of key stakeholders. The recent literature dealing with agricultural transformation in this country dwelt more on the transformative aspects of markets, value chains, processing and shifts in dietary preferences rather than the bigger issue of sustainability at the farm level.

Even though the country has made substantial productivity gains with its main cereals and grain legumes, there have been missteps and missed opportunities that could have been avoided. Productivity of oilseeds and the majority of other crops cultivated in Ethiopia has remained low and increases in the production of these came largely from increases in area expansion rather than improvements in yield. Their production has remained at subsistence levels. By focusing heavily on the cereals for food security and on selected grain legumes for export earnings, Ethiopia has missed the opportunities to exploit the full potential of its own sustainable indigenous/traditional crops such as enset, oilseeds like Ethiopian mustard and safflower, and even coffee. Even for major cereals like wheat, Ethiopia remained a net importer despite the strong potential for import substitution. Despite the continued focus on food security through selected staples, the current government is attempting to change this with a national effort to improve productivity of wheat.

Ethiopia (and Africa as a whole) faces the dual challenges of ensuring food and nutrition security and economic wellbeing for its rapidly growing population, while maintaining the integrity of its natural resources and enhancing resilience against climate change. Diversifying and improving agricultural productivity through demand-led and climate-responsive approaches is the only way for Ethiopia to achieve these goals, thereby avoiding crises and maintaining social and political stability. Much remains to be done to keep pace with the population growth rate (estimated at 2.8% per annum) and the rapid land degradation and decline of biodiversity that are threatening to create crises for food and nutrition security and economic wellbeing of the country. Implementation of the past agricultural transformation agenda as it stands today has not delivered the desired results – especially in terms of increasing national capacity for sustainable development – and is an opportunity that has been missed.

Cognizant of the challenges Ethiopian agriculture is facing at present and motivated by the strong desire and commitment to bring about sustainable positive change to the development of Ethiopia (and other African countries), I conceived this book in mid-2017 and solicited support from a group of like-minded professionals in AR&D as contributing authors, under the umbrella of Homegrown Vision (HGV), a not-for-profit independent think tank (www.homegrownvision.org). As the name suggests, HGV strongly believes that Ethiopia (and Africa as a whole) should seek homegrown solutions for their sustainable development, and for this to happen, governments, policy makers and research organizations should take the leadership of their development agenda and be accountable. One of the main aims of HGV is to support Ethiopian (and other African) government agencies and other institutions to develop and implement agricultural transformation agendas that are commensurate with the demands of the 21st century.

Objective

The overall objective of this book is, therefore, to develop a comprehensive in-depth assessment to generate unambiguous recommendations that would inform policy decision and priority setting for agricultural transformation in Africa.

The perception about African agriculture by the general public both within and outside Africa has not been so positive. Authoritative stories describing African agriculture and told by Africans are virtually non-existent. On the other hand, researchers from outside Africa (e.g. Bindraban et al., 2009; Haggblade and Hazell, 2010; van Ittersum et al., 2016; Christiansen and Demery, 2018; Schurman, 2018; Giller, 2020; Giller et al., 2021; Dixon et al., 2021), not to mention various foreign initiatives like Millennium Villages and the One Acre Fund, have attempted to promote debate on the future of African agriculture. In this book, an attempt is made to tell credible and evidence-based stories and lessons learnt from AR&D initiatives over the past 50 years. Our stories and lessons are not something we have learnt from the literature, but something we have lived through and worked with.

It is my hope to change the negative narrative about African agriculture by using stories from Ethiopia and other countries on the continent. I believe that researchers and policy makers in Africa can draw lessons from the Ethiopian experience when they prioritize their AR&D agenda. They should be asking several questions, including what went so well and what did not, and why. How could they adapt and adopt some of the good practices from the Ethiopia experience and avoid the pitfalls?

Organization of the book

This book consists of eight parts and comprises a total of 25 chapters. For brevity, this current volume mainly focuses on crop-based agriculture and does not include in-depth analysis of livestock agriculture or natural resources.

Part I contains the introductory chapters: the introduction and synthesis (Chapter 1) and then the resource base for Ethiopian agriculture (Chapter 2).

Part II contains assessments of productivity gains of major crops cultivated in the country: cereals (Chapter 3), roots and tubers (Chapter 4), grain legumes (Chapter 5), oilseeds (Chapter 6), vegetables (Chapter 7), fruit crops (Chapter 8), spices (Chapter 9) and coffee and other plantation/industrial crops (Chapter 10). A chapter on apiculture (Chapter 11), considering the importance of honeybees for crop pollination, is also included in this part.

Part III is a single chapter on biotechnology (Chapter 12), which assesses what modern science can offer to enhance agricultural productivity.

Part IV considers crop protection. It includes entomology (Chapter 13), plant pathology (Chapter 14) and weed science (Chapter 15).

Part V discusses agricultural inputs, comprising seed systems (Chapter 16), fertilizer use trends (Chapter 17), pesticide use patterns (Chapter 18) and agricultural mechanization (Chapter 19).

Part VI deals with the environment. It contains a chapter each on climate change (Chapter 20) and irrigation water use (Chapter 21).

Part VII consists of two chapters, one on extension (Chapter 22) and the other on early childhood and agricultural education (Chapter 23).

Part VIII discusses the long-term socioeconomic benefits of investing in agriculture. It contains two chapters; one is on the nutritional wellbeing of the country (Chapter 24) and the other on agricultural commodity trade (Chapter 25).

Summaries

The resource base

As in many countries in Africa, Ethiopia is a country blessed with a huge agricultural resource base. This includes (among others) nearly 38 million ha of agricultural land (FAO, 2022b), diverse agroecologies, climates and farming systems, diverse crop species for many of which it is the primary or secondary centre of origin (Westphal, 1975), adequate surface water and groundwater for irrigation, a large youthful population, and a well-established AR&D system. About 16 million ha of the available agricultural land is currently arable, suggesting that there is about 22 million ha of land that can be harnessed in the future with well-planned public/private investment.

Successive governments of Ethiopia over the last seven decades have attempted to improve agricultural productivity. The initial efforts by the imperial government (1950–1974) concentrated on institution building. The military-socialist government (1974–1991) expanded agroecological coverage of research centres. The most recent past government (1991–2018) embarked on extending and delivering available technologies developed thus far. The current government (2018–present) is trying to transform Ethiopian agriculture, as an engine for economic development of the country.

As of 2018, there were more than 80 agricultural research centres covering various agroecologies and more than 3000 researchers working in the country. The Ethiopian Agricultural Research and Development System has succeeded in establishing the culture of AR&D. The government increased the number of FTCs (farmer training centres) and DAs (development agents). The research system introduced new crop species and released nearly 1200 crop varieties between 1970 and 2017, along with production technologies suited to Ethiopian agriculture. It has achieved many milestones, starting in the 1970s with successful identification and introduction to smallholder farmers of coffee lines resistant to the coffee berry disease. A large number of technologies have been developed and a large amount of scientific knowledge has been accumulated.

Past efforts on agricultural transformation in this country have not benefited from well thought out comprehensive and coherent studies. There are no reviews that measure the successes or inadequacies and lessons learnt from existing programmes that can be used to feed policy and priority setting for the future. Cognizant of these challenges, HGV launched this study in 2017 to address these critical issues in Ethiopian agriculture.

Measuring yield gains

Ethiopia has registered remarkable productivity growth for its cereals (Fig. 1.3). The aggregate yield more than doubled between 2000 and 2020. The overall yield gain was 92 kg/ha/yr, the third largest gain (after Brazil and the USA) and ahead of Canada, China, Indonesia, India, Russian Federation, Nigeria, Australia and Kazakhstan, among the top ten cereal-producing countries of the world. The estimated aggregate yield of about 2.9 MT/ha in 2020 was second only to South Africa among those African countries where the crops are produced mainly under rainfed conditions. The 2020 yield for maize was >4.2 MT/ha, the second highest in Africa after South Africa. Its yield gain was 127 kg/ha/yr, fourth highest (after Ukraine, Indonesia and Brazil) and followed by the US, China, Argentina, Mexico, India, Nigeria and Tanzania, among the world’s top ten cereal-producing countries (where Ethiopia is ranked 12th). Investment in extension systems and improved access to modern varieties suitable for the different agroecologies, as well as yield-enhancing inputs, contributed to improving yields of smallholder agriculture.

Fig. 1.3. Aggregate grain yields of cereals and grain legumes in selected major producing countries of the world. Source: constructed by the author from FAO (2022b).

As presented in Fig. 1.3, the country has also done well with grain legumes (or pulses), common bean and chickpea, in particular. The aggregate grain legumes yield in Ethiopia rose from ~880 kg/ha in 2000 to ~1880 kg/ha in 2020. The yield gain of 56 kg/ha/yr was the highest among the top ten producing countries in the world (superior to Canada, Brazil, China, Niger, Australia, Nigeria, Mexico, India and Russian Federation). Ethiopia has overtaken China’s first place in its grain legumes yield (Fig. 1.3).

Even though there are at least nine species of cultivated root crops in Ethiopia, vital statistics (area, yield and production) are available only for taro, potato, sweet potato and yam. There are no reliable data for enset, the most important root crop in the country. It is grown in densely populated areas and remains relevant to the local economies of about 39 million people. This is an indigenous sustainable system with great potential for the future of Ethiopia and beyond. It has the highest fresh weight yield per unit area of cultivated land and has many other benefits, including its service as soil cover, preventing erosion and land degradation. In addition, enset has the highest content of Ca, Fe, K, Mg, and Zn among all staples in the country. Some progress has been made with the productivity of potato and sweet potato, but it is not nearly as robust as the cereals or grain legumes mentioned above. The area occupied by yam is declining fast. Overall, policy makers in Ethiopia have not given roots and tubers the attention commensurate with their socioeconomic contribution to the country.

All oilseeds, except sesame, showed highly significant (P<0.01) yield gains between 2000 and 2020. Leading the group was soybean, with 110 kg/ha/yr. Yields of all oilseeds except sesame and gomenzer (Ethiopian mustard) have doubled during this period, even though the overall yield was still relatively low when compared to the top ten largest producing countries of the world. Soybean was the fastest growing oilseed in area and yield. The area occupied by the traditional oilseeds of linseed, safflower, gomenzer and noug (Guizotia abyssinica) declined during the above period.

One major achievement with vegetables in Ethiopia is the increase in the number of species cultivated, from only a few through the 1990s to more than 20 species in recent years. Increased involvement of the private sector, starting in the early 1990s, appeared to have helped the country to make good progress with increasing the diversity of vegetables for food and nutrition security as well as for export diversification. Results with productivity gains of vegetables in Ethiopia varied from crop to crop. There were positive yield gains for green pepper, miscellaneous vegetables, green bean and cabbages, whereas lettuce, dry onion, tomato, garlic and carrot had declining yield gains. Overall, the estimated national average yield of about 6 MT/ha fresh yield is much lower than the world average of ~17 MT/ha. Inefficient irrigation systems and lack of access to high-yielding and disease and pest resistant cultivars remain major limiting factors on the supply side. Underdeveloped marketing systems and logistics that lead to significant crop losses along the supply chain are key challenges on the demand side.

Ethiopia grows more than a dozen species of cultivated fruits. Just as in vegetables, productivity gains in fruit crops varied according to crop. With a yield gain figure of 146 kg/ha/yr, banana was the only fruit crop that showed highly significant (P<0.01, R²=0.69) yield gain increases with time. Although the yield gain for papaya of 346 kg/ha/yr was non-significant, it was the only fruit crop for which increases in production was the result of increase in yield (65%) rather than increase in area (33%). Miscellaneous fresh fruits, grape, avocado, mandarin and mango all suffered non-significant yield losses. Ethiopia’s average yield of just over 6 MT/ha is much lower than the world average of 11 MT/ha. This country has been a net importer of fruits and fruit products since 2003. Export earnings from fruit crops in Ethiopia were estimated at US$7 million, compared to import costs of nearly US$24 million annually in the 2016–2020 period. Biotic and abiotic factors are responsible for the relatively poor performance of this sector. Some of the limiting constraints for fruit production in Ethiopia include: diseases such as leaf anthracnose on mango and pseudocercospora leaf/fruit spot on orange and other citrus species; insects such as the white mango scale on mango and pineapple mealybug on pineapple; generally poor crop management practices; and lack of market access due to lack of transportation connecting remote producers with markets, cold storage and underdeveloped processing capacity in remote rural areas.

Ethiopia embarked on diversification of its agricultural exports away from heavy reliance on coffee in the early 1970s and found that modernizing its rich spice diversity could contribute significantly to this goal. This country grows more than 50 species of spices and herbs, but data are available only for six of these and a miscellaneous category. These are ‘spices, nes’ (i.e. various spices not elsewhere specified, or miscellaneous spices), dry chilli, fenugreek, peppers (Piper spp.), coriander, ginger and cardamoms. Production of all spices has been increasing over the last two decades (2000–2020), but with the exception of fenugreek, it was due more to area expansion rather than to increases in productivity. Yield gains were highly significant (P<0.01) for ‘spices, nes’, fenugreek, coriander, peppers and cardamoms, but non-significant for dry chilli. Ginger suffered a highly significant yield loss of about 26 kg/ha/yr (P<0.01, R²=0.65). In general, average yields for all spices and herbs in Ethiopia were low when compared to their potential, the world average and averages for many of the top ten producing countries in the world. Depending on the crop, the major limiting factors for spice production in Ethiopia are declines in forest cover (as most of the spice crops are adapted to forest conditions) and biodiversity. This was linked also with declining soil fertility, mainly due to removal of organic matter, poor agronomic practices and lack of widespread use of improved varieties. In the case of dry chilli, farmers in the central rift valley (a major producing region), are switching to teff (Eragrostis tef) and maize, because the latter are more profitable. The chilli crop has an additional burden of maintaining the purity of varieties because of its high level of outcrossing.

Ethiopia produces exclusively arabica coffee – the preferred type worldwide because of its superior cup quality – whereas its major competitors, including Viet Nam, Uganda, Malaysia, Cote d’Ivoire and Thailand produce only the robusta type with its higher yields per unit land area. Unlike many of those countries, the yield of coffee, the largest export earner in Ethiopia, declined at a non-significant 3 kg/ha/yr. By contrast, the area grew at an annual rate of 7.45% per annum. Ethiopia’s national average yield of coffee is estimated at 650 kg/ha, which is much lower than its potential and less than the world average of 760 kg/ha. Traditionally, coffee in this country was grown ‘wild’ in the forest where there is plenty of organic matter, adequate moisture and abundant biodiversity that kept insect pests and diseases in check. At present, forest coffee accounts for only 10% of production, whereas individual garden, semi-managed forest and plantation coffee covered ~50%, ~30% and ~10% of coffee-growing areas, respectively. There has been heavy attrition of senior researchers from coffee over the past two decades; at present, there are few seasoned researchers to provide the technical leadership, future direction and mentoring of young scientists.

Tea is one of the success stories in Ethiopian agriculture. Though first introduced in 1927, initiatives to expand cultivation started in 1981, under the military-socialist government. The country produced more than 10,000 MT of tea annually during the 2016–2020 period. The area, yield and production grew at an annual rate of 5.45%, 0.84% and 6.34%, respectively, indicating that the bulk of increases in production were the result of increases in area rather than increases in productivity. The yield gain was estimated at 8 kg/ha/yr, lower than the top ten producers but still statistically significant (P<0.01, R²=0.81). The average yield is estimated at 1.04 MT/ha, which is below the world average of 1.88 MT/ha but similar to that of Indonesia, Taiwan Province of China, Nepal, Mainland China and Mozambique. Much higher yields are reported for Argentina, Iran and Thailand.

Sugarcane cultivation area has increased, whereas its yield and production has declined steadily over the years. In 1976–1980, Ethiopia had the highest yield in the world of 177 MT/ha compared to 45 MT/ha in 2016–2020. The ROG (annual rate of growth) for area grew at 1.70% per annum while the yield and production declined at 5.08% and 3.47%, respectively, between 2000 and 2020. This means a yield loss of fresh cane of about 3.6 MT/ha/yr, which was highly significant (P<0.01, R² = 0.54). These losses are attributed to the loss of skilled technical and managerial level senior staff after the nationalization of the private sector by the military-socialist government in the mid-1970s. There has been continued bad governance and mismanagement ever since, e.g. senior management assignments have not been based on merit. The government of Ethiopia spent ~US$255 million on sugar imports annually during the 2016–2020 period. The sugarcane case is a good example of negative policy effects.

Cotton has also faced an almost similar situation to that of sugarcane, although most production indicators increased in the 2000–2020 period. They varied considerably with time: area, yield and production all saw a steady fall through the early 2000s, following nationalization. The yield and production rose from early 2000s but fell sharply from the early 2010s onwards. Ethiopia cultivated ~70,000 ha of cotton and produced ~148,000 MT of seed cotton, with an average yield of 2.1 MT/ha in the 2016–2020 period. This yield is much lower than the world average of nearly 3.0 MT/ha. Overall, the area, yield and production increased at an annual rate of 1.91%, 4.17% and 6.16%, respectively, between 2000 and 2020. Ethiopia is a net exporter of cotton. A simple regression analysis showed that this country registered a yield gain of about 61 kg/ha/yr during the above period. The yield gain compares favourably with several of the top ten cotton-producing countries of the world. With 169 kg/ha/yr, China, followed by Myanmar, Türkiye, Brazil and Australia, made by far the highest gains. Ethiopia’s yield gain in cotton was similar to those of the USA and India. Yield gains were negative in Turkmenistan, Greece, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Chad and Mali, but all were statistically non-significant.

Ethiopia has a long tradition of apiculture. With more than 6 million hives and 52,000 MT of annual production, it ranks fifth and tenth in the world in the number of colonies and honey production, respectively. About 95% of beehives in smallholder apiaries are traditional, with the modern and transitional systems accounting for a little over 3% and 1%, respectively. The average honey yield was 9 kg/colony, compared to the world average of 23 kg/colony. Honey and wax yields declined at an annual rate of 0.56% and 0.67%, respectively, between 2002 and 2019 while the number of hives grew by 3.04%, and production showed a positive annual growth rate of 1.91% for honey and 2.47% for beeswax.

The external parasitic mite (Varroa destructor) has sharply reduced honey production in the European honeybee (Apis mellifera subspecies scutellata) in North America and Europe. Its presence has been recorded in parts of Ethiopia, but it is very unlikely to be the major factor for the poor performance of honeybees in this country where a different honeybee subspecies, A. m. simensis, that is resistant or tolerant to the mite is utilized. Long-term pesticide exposure is also unlikely to play a major role in the loss of production in Ethiopia due to low levels of application (<0.3 kg/ha active ingredients (AI) of arable land, compared to 2.6 kg/ha for the USA). The most likely major factors could be loss of abundance and diversity of flowers, nutrition, inadequate management practices, low stock diversity of bees and environmental change. However, well-designed scientific studies are needed to generate information that would help to isolate major factors affecting honeybee populations and its performance and provide appropriate recommendations.

Biotechnology in Ethiopian agriculture

Ethiopia has made substantial progress in building its agricultural biotechnology institutions, the centrepiece of which is the National Biotechnology Research Center at Holetta. The centre is staffed by close to 300 biotechnology-related researchers, of which nearly 46%, 40% and 15%, respectively, are PhD, MSc and BSc degree holders. Applications of tissue culture, disease cleaning, molecular markers and bio-fertilizer development have been successfully used in 32 plant species.

EIAR is now working on an additional four crops, including genetically modified (GM) enset, cotton, maize and finger millet. However, proponents of the use of GM technology in Ethiopia have not presented a compelling case. There is no objectively proven evidence that either the Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton nor Bt maize have any advantage over the existing locally developed varieties or hybrids under insect attack. The work on GM enset has not considered the priority needs for the crop, and there is no indication of the outcome considering the lack of previous work on this or any related crops outside the country, or the current level of expertise within the country. The emerging biotechnology tools (such as gene editing using CRISPR-Cas9 or TALENs) could have great perspectives to help break the low-yield deadlock of important traditional oilseeds such as noug, safflower, gomenzer, linseed and many other crops, without the attendant market issues raised by the use of transgenics.

Crop protection

Past efforts in crop protection research and development focused on integrated pest management (IPM), dealing mostly with smallholder agriculture that is the dominant crop production system at the present time in Ethiopia. However, there are indications that commercial farming on a larger scale is going to be expanding in the coming years and decades, following the current government policy to modernize agriculture as the major engine of economic development. This, plus a changing climate, would mean changes in the pest complex – including resurgence of existing pest species or appearance of new ones. The research system needs to gear itself towards tackling those problems using existing and emerging scientific advances and initiate a scouting system to give advance warning of changes in pest numbers and pest species.

Pest dynamics are bound to change more quickly with the government’s intent to expand and intensify agriculture in the coming years. The research community needs to be ready to provide practical solutions as quickly as possible. The research system gave particular emphasis to diseases associated with cereals and grain legumes while many of the diseases on other crop groups did not receive the attention they deserve. This needs to change. It is very likely that priorities will change as the government enters into a new phase of expanded and intensified agricultural development, and researchers should make themselves ready to keep ahead of the evolving dynamics of both pests and farmers.

The need for prioritizing pest problems based on the country’s development agenda and available resources is stressed by listing pest species that need to be given special emphasis by research in the immediate future. These include the pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum) on pea; white mango scale (Aulacaspis tubercularis) on mango; fruit flies (Bactrocera invadens) on avocado and mango; Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxius) and the green bug (Schizaphis graminum) on wheat; sesame seed bug (Elasmolomus sordidus) on sesame; African bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) on cotton and tomato; pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) on cotton; fall armyworm (Spodotera frugiperda) on maize and sorghum; and tomato leaf miner (Tuta absoluta) on tomato. The criteria used in arriving at this list of priority arthropod pests included: (i) the government priority for the crop; (ii) the current and potential importance of the crop (in terms of food security, export earning, import substitution and raw material supply for the local industry); (iii) the importance of the pest; and (iv) the availability or the lack thereof of control measures currently in place.

The available literature shows that the research system in Ethiopia has accumulated adequate knowledge and skills to tackle plant disease problems, especially in major diseases of high-priority crops. Management practices are based largely on host plant resistance and cultural practices. Although information on the control of many diseases by chemical sprays is available, there are limitations in the availability, affordability, knowhow, logistics, human hazard risk and environmental concerns that constrain chemical sprays in smallholder conditions.

The top 20 priority diseases identified are: root rot/decline (Phytophthora cinnamomi) on avocado; purple blotch (Alternaria porri) and white rot/bulb rot (Sclerotium cepivorum) on onion/shallots; garlic rust (Puccinia alli) on garlic; wilt complex (Fusarium sp. and Phytophthora sp.) on hot pepper; leaf and fruit spot (Pseudocercospora angolensis) on citrus; anthracnose (Colletotrichum gloeosporioides) on mango; halo blight (Pseudomonas phaseolicola) and brown leaf spot (Colletotrichum boltshauseri) on mungbean; ascochyta blight (Ascochyta phaseolorum) on cowpea; chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) and faba bean gall (Physoderma viciae) on faba bean; phyllody (mycoplasma-like organism) and bacterial blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. sesami) on sesame; Dubti syndrome (unidentified) on cotton; coffee berry disease (Colletotrichum kahawae) and coffee rust (Hemileia vastatrix) on coffee; and stem/black rust (Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici) and yellow/stripe rust (Puccinia striiformis) on wheat.

Weed science research in Ethiopia has contributed significantly to the areas of identifying major species, developing the national database, determining yield losses and delivering management practices both for smallholders and commercial farms in the country. Nearly 1100 species of weeds representing 552 genera and 126 families have been registered so far. Losses range from 15% to total crop failure in the worst-case scenario.

There have also been successes in the biological control of the whitetop weed (Parthenium hysterophorus); integrated management of the witchweed (especially Striga hermonthica) on sorghum, using host plant resistance and improved cultural practices; and using crop rotation in the management of herbicide-resistant annual and perennial grasses in commercial wheat farms in the Arsi and Bale highlands. Future work will focus on the further development of the national database, understanding weed biology, risk analysis, monitoring herbicide resistance in weeds, herbicide residues and environmental safety, among others.

Agricultural inputs use

The Ethiopian Seed Enterprise, now under the Ethiopian Agricultural Business Corporation (EABC) was the first and sole formal seed source of the country since its establishment in 1979 through to the 1990s. The number of private seed companies has grown rapidly since the 1990s following the rolling out of direct seed sales (i.e. private companies selling seed directly to the smallholders rather than through the government apparatus) in the first half of the 2010s. As of December 2021, there were a total of 54 seed companies licensed to produce seed in Ethiopia. These include 4 public, 2 transnational, 1 farmers’ cooperative union and 47 small private seed companies that are owned by Ethiopian nationals. Research institutes are solely responsible for the production and maintenance of breeder seed, whereas the public entities produced 98% of the total EGS (early generation seed). Cereals, grain legumes and oilseeds constituted 89%, 9% and <3%, respectively, of the total EGS production (2016–2018 average). Oromia Seed Enterprise and EABC each accounted for about 40% of the total certified seed production, with Corteva contributing about 14%; the small national companies were responsible for the remaining 6% (2019–2020 average).

Out of the overall estimated average annual demand of about 729,000 MT of certified seed between 2016 and 2018, the formal seed system was able to supply about 60%, of which 57% was distributed. The supply (and distribution) for cereals, grain legumes and oilseeds, respectively, was 64% (60%), 24% (21%) and 18% (17%). Maize and wheat among cereals, mungbean and common bean among grain legumes, and soybean and sesame among oilseeds received the highest percentage distribution of certified seed. In general, the proportion of distribution was higher for crops of high priority – whether for food security or the export market. The lack of recognition by policy makers of organized farmers’ (community) seed production contributed to the low supply of improved seed in Ethiopia.

Cereals, particularly hybrid maize, dominate certified seed production in Ethiopia. For example, 17 out of 22 (77%) seed companies for which there are data were engaged in certified maize seed production, whereas wheat and teff seeds were produced by 8 certified companies. Three companies produced chickpea and onion seeds and two produced common bean, soybean, noug, forages, pepper and mango seeds; malt barley, black cumin, tomato, vegetables, fruits, papaya, sesame, potato, pigeonpea, alfalfa and sesbania were each all available from one certified producer. Corteva, a US-based seed company, supplied 25% of the total maize seed (2015–2019 average).

Even though the EARS (Ethiopian Agricultural Research System) has released nearly 1200 cultivars of cultivated crops between 1970 and 2017, it has not put in place strict rules over the rate of variety turnover. Consequently, many cultivars that are essentially obsolete are still under production. For example, the average age of all crops cultivars in Ethiopia is 23 years (range: 9–42). The average age of teff is 22 years (range: 14–37); maize is 20 years (range: 9–33); and wheat 18 years (range: 9–26). The malt barley cultivar ‘Beka’ was released in 1976 and another malt barley cultivar, ‘Holker’, in 1979. The onion cultivar ‘Adama Red’ was released in 1980. All of these and many others were reported to be under production as recently as 2017. Continued cultivation of obsolete cultivars reduces the economic impact of AR&D investments. Their replacement would require awareness creation for new and better cultivars, focusing on their superior economic benefits and increased production and delivery of certified seed to meet the demand.

The total area under certified seed varied widely among major cereals over the years. For example, our calculation of seed replacement rate shows that 82% of maize area was covered under certified seed in the 2020 meher season, compared to 15% in 2006. By contrast, the sorghum area under certified seed stayed at less than 1% and changed little over the above period. Overall, the area under certified seed for wheat, teff and barley was about 17%, 7% and 5%, respectively, in 2020, compared to about 5% for wheat and <1% each for teff and barley in 2006. This indicates the remaining gaps in delivering modern inputs and the underutilized potential to increase production of teff, barley and dryland cereals such as sorghum and millets. While more rigorous analysis is needed, there seems to be a strong economic rationale to expand production to meet the growing unmet demand and potential for exports (especially for teff).

It is concluded that small private seed companies, farmers’ cooperatives and community seed producers have yet to build their capacity to produce an adequate amount of quality improved seed to satisfy Ethiopia’s growing demand. Public sector and established transnationals will continue to be the major sources of certified seed for the foreseeable future in Ethiopia.

The use of mineral fertilizer to enhance crop productivity in Ethiopia began in the early 1960s following the imperial government’s efforts to modernize agriculture. It has since become an essential component of farm management practices for both smallholder and commercial farming. All of the national demand is met through imports, which makes it highly vulnerable to price volatility similar to the situation after the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. The import in 2020 of mineral fertilizers (by product) was 1.6 million MT, valued at US$500 million, making it the third largest importer in Africa after Morocco and South Africa. Mineral fertilizer use (by nutrient) showed progressive growth, especially after the mid-2000s. The total consumption was 157,000 MT in 2000 compared to 586,000 MT in 2020, a 4.38-fold increase (or annual growth rate of 9.83%). Mineral fertilizer nutrients in Ethiopia consisted of roughly 70% N and 30% P, with negligible amounts of K.

The application rate (kg of NPK nutrients per ha of arable land) followed similar trends to national consumption; it was 12 kg/ha in the 2000–2004 period vs 35 kg/ha in 2016–2020. This makes Ethiopia the sixth highest country (after Zambia, South Africa, Morocco, Kenya and Cote d’Ivoire, followed by Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mali and Senegal) among the top ten countries with the largest amount of arable land in Africa. Of those, only the first four achieved the African Union (AU) recommendation of 50 kg/ha of nutrients per ha of arable land. Even though Ethiopia is one of the countries in Africa where the overall application rate is below the AU recommendation, high-priority crops (including maize, teff and wheat) appeared to receive close to the recommended rates, especially in the well-watered areas.

Mineral nutrient application in Ethiopia varied widely from crop-to-crop and among crop groups. Cereals accounted for 88% of the total mineral fertilizers used; of those, 29%, 27% and 22% were used on maize, teff and wheat, respectively, because these were the crops accorded the highest priority for food security by policy makers. Smallholder farmers use both mineral and organic fertilizers (the latter including farmyard manure, compost, household refuse and crop residue). Calculations using the Central Statistical Agency (CSA) data show that mineral fertilizer use in Ethiopia grew by 3.16% annually between 2006 and 2019, whereas organic fertilizers declined by 2.24% during the same period. The decline in organic fertilizer use is attributed partly to the shift towards mineral fertilizers and partly to the removal of crop residue and farmyard manure for other uses. Crop residue and farmyard manure are important sources of livestock fodder and firewood for smallholder farmers and rural households in Ethiopia. Cereals crop residue is used as animal feed, for construction and firewood; given the scarcity of fuel wood, dried cow dung has become an important source of energy for cooking. Grain legumes residue is also totally removed from the field for animal feed. All this means that there is heavy biomass removal and little or no biomass that goes back to the soil, leading to increasing soil mining and degradation across the highland regions.

Overall, smallholder farmers in Ethiopia selectively apply mineral fertilizers on crops with higher commercial value (such as major cereals, dry pepper, onion and potato) and organic fertilizers on traditional crops primarily grown for own consumption. Mineral and organic fertilizers covered about 62% and 12%, respectively, of the total cultivated area in 2017–2019. In general, smallholder farmers apply suboptimal amounts of mineral fertilizers – less than the extension package recommendations – mainly because they cannot afford the high price or because they are farming in climatically risky areas.

The use of microbial fertilizers (MF) has not received the due attention commensurate with its economic, environmental and other benefits. This technology is mature to take off (even though research has yet to perfect the delivery mechanisms). Demonstrations on farmers’ fields have shown that MF inoculation of grain legumes, with or without P, increased seed yield by 21–79%, depending on the crop type and geographical location. A good number of smallholder farmers are already buying from local small businesses in Addis Ababa and using MF on grain legumes in many parts of the country. However, there is a compelling case for the government to incorporate MF and micronutrients as an essential component of the extension package for increased productivity of grain legumes.

Agricultural pesticide use

As of August 2020, 184 AI used in synthetic agricultural pesticides, represented by 586 trade names, have been registered for use in Ethiopia; 22 of these AI are banned and another 21 are on the watch list in other countries. The reasons for their ban are international conventions and their acute and chronic toxicity to humans and the environment, including the honeybee. Herbicides, insecticides, fungicides-bactericides, and others constituted roughly 75%, 15%, 9% and <1%, respectively, of agricultural chemicals registered for use. The largest number of individual chemicals by active ingredient (n=50), are registered for use against cut flower pests.

Ethiopia imported close to 18,000 MT (of agrichemical products) valued at US$108 million each year, during 2016–2020. The total pesticide consumption for this country was about 4100 MT of active ingredient per annum (2016–2020 average). This translates to an application rate of 0.2568 kg AI per ha of arable land. Comparing the world’s top 10 countries with the largest area of arable land, the rates for Brazil, Argentina, France, Türkiye, Mexico, China and USA, respectively, were 25-fold, 23-fold, 14-fold, 9-fold, 9-fold, 9-fold, 9-fold higher than that for Ethiopia (Fig. 1.4). Among African countries, South Africa, Morocco, Zambia, Cameroon, Malawi and Zimbabwe apply 8-fold, 7-fold, 4-fold, 4-fold, 2-fold and 2-fold, respectively, more synthetic pesticide than Ethiopia.

Fig. 1.4. Pesticide use (kg active ingredient per ha of cropland) of synthetic pesticides in Ethiopia, compared with the top ten countries with the largest cropland area in the world, 2016–2020. Note: Countries with the largest cropland area are India, US, China, Russian Federation, Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, Argentina and Ukraine; Ethiopia is 19th out of 223 countries and territories. Source: calculated and constructed by the author from FAO (2023).

There are two plausible explanations to the relatively low level of pesticide use in Ethiopia: (i) the research system has developed viable IPM approaches, using cultural practices and host plant resistance as major components (especially for commercial agriculture); and (ii) Ethiopian agriculture is smallholder-dominated whereby crop production is carried out under complex, diverse cropping systems rather than monoculture and, therefore, regular pest outbreaks are uncommon. Historically, the largest amounts of pesticides in Ethiopia were targeted against migratory pests – the desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria), the African armyworm (Spodoptera exempta) and the weaver bird (Quelea quelea) – invasions and outbreaks.

Synthetic pesticide consumption in Ethiopia showed accelerated growth from 2006 but seems to have remained virtually unchanged since 2010. Pesticides covered about 25% of the total cultivated area, and roughly 11% of smallholders use them in Ethiopia (2016–2020, average). Two factors dictate smallholder farmers’ choice to use pesticides on their crops: value of the crop as source of cash and availability of alternative options for controlling the pest. Smallholder farmers selectively apply pesticides to those crops that they produce for sale rather than those they produce for their own consumption. These findings suggest that there is no widespread contamination of the environment in Ethiopian agriculture.

Climate change and irrigation water use

Ethiopia is highly vulnerable to climate variability and change, which has significant implications for the realization of its development objectives. Rainfed agriculture, which accounts for more than 95% of cultivated area, is most vulnerable to climate shocks. The threat of climate change is already affecting productivity in many countries, reflected in terms of frequent droughts, pest and disease incidence and other extreme events that reduce land and labour productivity. Climate change will reduce national food security and affect export earnings from major export commodities such as coffee and tea. Cross-sectoral efforts, investments and policies are needed to expand the adoption of climate smart solutions and reduce exposure and sensitivity of agriculture and food systems to climate change. Investments in sustainable irrigation and improved management of natural resources, including reduced soil degradation and deforestation and protection of watersheds, would increase climate resilience. The review suggests the risk of climate change is well recognized in Ethiopia and significant progress has been made in formulating several climate-related policies, strategies and plans to reduce vulnerability and build resilience.

Despite this remarkable progress, however, there is a deficit in government-led planned adaptation actions at the local level. Most of the reviewed adaptation projects and programmes are financed by international organizations, and hence these financial sources may not be sustainable and adequate in the long run. To translate its national adaptation policies and strategies into concrete adaptation actions at the local level, the government is facing financial, institutional, technical and informational barriers. On the other hand, smallholder farmers are adopting numerous agricultural adaptation measures to combat the risk of climate change and improve their livelihoods, though various barriers impede these efforts. Together, Ethiopia needs to address the issues connected to barriers to autonomous and planned adaptation actions if it is to effectively tackle future impacts of climate change.

Ethiopia has huge water potential based on its available groundwater and surface-water resources. Increased irrigation could substantially increase crop productivity and production if properly planned and managed. Surface water, groundwater and rainwater are the sources of irrigation in this country. Ethiopia possesses 12 basins, with a total annual flow of 122 billion cubic metre (BCM) surface water and 2.65 BCM groundwater. Estimates for land equipped for irrigation vary, depending on the source. The FAO estimates suggest that about 858,000 ha of the total cropland (or 4.80%) could currently be irrigated (2016–2020 average), whereas the total cropland area actually irrigated was 554,000 ha (or 3.10%; average for 2017, 2018 and 2020). However, recent studies in Ethiopia estimate the total physical irrigation potential to be about 7.50 million ha.

The total suitable land of all the 12 basins for both surface and pressurized irrigation is estimated at about 37 million ha. This figure reflects only the land suitability, regardless of water availability. Irrigation potential should be necessarily based on both land and water availability. It was therefore said that about 8%, 58% and 34%, respectively, of the estimated land area here is considered highly suitable, moderately suitable and marginally suitable for irrigation.

Currently, there are 269 irrigation schemes implemented by the MOA. About 90% of those are medium and small scale and 10% are large scale. Of those, 41% are fully functional, 50% are partially functional and 9% are non-functional. This shows that the efficiency of irrigation schemes in Ethiopia is low – about 45% overall average (40% large scale and 60% for medium scale). An additional 59 irrigation schemes, consisting of 22 medium and small scale and 37 large scale are under study or construction (as of 2021). The GTP II under the MOA planned to bring more than 3 million ha (or about 17%) of cropland under irrigation (about 14% under small scale and 3% under medium and large scale) by 2019/20, but there is no indication how much of this has been achieved. However, this remains critical for building resilience and buffering smallholder production from climate shocks and ensuring food security under the changing climate.

Agricultural mechanization

The importance of agricultural mechanization, defined here as the use of any kind of tools powered by humans, animals or engine/motor in the process of agricultural production, has long been recognized in Ethiopian agriculture, but its uptake has been low until recent years. Less than 1% of the arable land is prepared using tractors. The exception to this has been wheat, where 25% is harvested using combiners. Continued efforts have been made to develop and introduce improved farm tools such as the enset processor, the maresha (single-tine plough), row planter, weeder, tied-ridge maker and donkey cart. Those efforts have yet to demonstrate substantial success.

Agricultural extension

Depending on the political system of the time, Ethiopia has experimented with various agricultural technology transfer models and approaches over the past decades. Several actors have been involved. These included various bilateral projects and innovations by the national research system; each has left behind varying levels of legacies. The country has the largest public extension system in Africa. The government has increased the number of FTCs to 15,000 as of 2016; there were more than 72,000 DAs serving about 16.7 million smallholders. This means a DA-to-farmer ratio of 43:10,000 (or 1:230), the densest in the world.

The number of smallholders and crop area receiving extension packages grew rapidly between 2006 and 2019. Each of them has at least doubled during this period. The overall average proportion of smallholders and crop area under extension grew from 7% to 26% and from 13% to 36%, respectively. Cereals were by far the largest recipients. The proportion of cereal growers receiving an extension package rose from 19% in the base year to 54% in the final year, while the area coverage was 17% in the base year versus 46% in the final year. Other crop groups also showed varying levels of growth.

The proportion of smallholders receiving extension packages among individual cereals varied from 55%, 50%, 47%, 45% and 42%, respectively, for wheat, maize, rice, teff and millet, compared to 3% for yam, and 5% each for taro and papaya, and 4% each for avocado and sugarcane. In a similar fashion, maize, wheat, millet, potato and rice area coverage under extension package was 64%, 59%, 50% and 49% each, respectively, whereas yam, taro, coffee and noug had 4% each; the coverage for avocado was 3%. Data for enset and cotton are conspicuously absent from CSA records of extension packages.

The priorities of the smallholders are not necessarily always aligned with government policy. For example, smallholders invest more in ch’at (Catha edulis) than coffee; proportions of area covered by extension packages for potato are not very far from those for major cereals; the level of farmers’ investment on rapeseed, tomato, onion, dry pepper and garlic is comparable to that of teff. The smallholders’ decision to invest in a crop is predicated by its market value rather than by government priority.

Socioeconomic benefits of investment in agriculture

Two important socioeconomic benefits from investment in AR&D are discussed – one is improvements in the overall nutrition and the other in the growth of agricultural exports. Ethiopia’s dietary energy intake was estimated at about 1600 kcal/person/yr, 1700 kcal/person/yr and 2500 kcal/person/yr in 1975–1979, 1995–1999 and 2015–2019, respectively, indicating that the country has met the World Health Organization (WHO) minimum requirement of 2100 kcal/person/day by 2010. However, the diets are low in fat, protein and micronutrients compared to many African peers and models in Asia and Latin America. Plant sources accounted for 96% of dietary energy, 91% of dietary protein and 71% of dietary fat in the 2015–2019 period. This study has demonstrated that complex carbohydrates, protein and fat constituted 78%, 14% and 4%, respectively, of the total dietary energy versus the WHO recommendation of 55–70% carbohydrates and 15–30% fat for a healthy diet. Diversification of food production towards more sustainable, nutritious and healthy options to increase access and diversify dietary intake is key to addressing hunger and malnutrition in Ethiopia, and elsewhere in Africa.

Even though there was modest growth in per capita consumption of fruits (~9 kg/person/yr, 2015–2019 average) and vegetables (~14 kg/person/yr), Ethiopia compared unfavourably with most of the countries reviewed as part of this study (Fig. 1.5). The per capita consumption for red meat (5.40 kg/person/yr), chicken (0.72 kg/person/yr) and egg (0.40 kg/person/yr) has progressively declined over the years and is among the lowest in Africa. Milk consumption (~28 kg/person/yr) showed slight improvements starting in 2002 and was about the same as the continental average. Fish consumption (0.51 kg/person/yr) also showed some growth but was the lowest among all African countries.

Fig. 1.5. Fruit and vegetable per capita consumption in Ethiopia compared with other African countries. CAR = Central African Republic; DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo. Source: calculated and constructed by the author from FAO (2022a).

Maize has displaced teff and sorghum as the top staple food crop, while enset and other root crops have shown the fastest growth rate over the last four decades despite the fact that they have not been given high priority by policy makers – i.e. their production and usage has expanded as part of farmers’ innovation and increased demand by the general public who cannot afford high-priced cereals like teff. Another major shift was from traditional oilseeds to imported processed oil (dominated by palm oil). The per capita consumption of oilseeds declined from 3.32 kg/person/yr in 1975–1979 to 1.44 kg/person/yr in 2015–2019; conversely, manufactured oil consumption grew from 0.85 kg/person/yr in 1975–1979 to 3.65 kg/person/yr in 2015–2019.

In conclusion, this study has brought to light the need for Ethiopia to reduce heavy reliance on limited cereals and upgrade its investment in objectively identified native staples and oilseeds, as well as other potential under-utilized crops, to harness their full potential for achieving a sustainable food and nutrition security in the foreseeable future.

Ethiopia relies heavily on agricultural commodity export as a major source of foreign currency earnings. It also imports a large number of agricultural items to compensate for the shortfall in food and nutrition security and raw material supply for the local industry. The country has made substantial growth in the quantity of agricultural products exported and therefore the amount of earnings obtained over the last two decades. Export earnings showed fast growth starting from 2009 and peaked at ~US$3.61 billion in 2014; they took a downward trend thereafter but showed signs of recovery in 2019 and 2020 (see Chapter 25). The average export earnings for 2016–2020 were ~US$1.45 billion, compared to ~US$382 million in the 1996–2000 and ~US$313 million in the 1976–1980 periods. The number of export items also grew from 76 in 1976–1980 to 195 in 2016–2020; the top ten export items are coffee, oilseeds, grain legumes, meat, vegetables, spices, crude materials, prepared food, live animals and fruits. The top ten fastest growing export items are fresh vegetables, faba bean, honey, alcoholic beverages, pastry, goat meat, beer of barley, chickpea, common bean and mutton; by contrast, earnings from ginger, mustard, frozen vegetables and non-alcoholic beverages have declined.

In addition to the yield gaps for several agricultural products, the major challenge for Ethiopia’s export market competitiveness is that approximately 89% of all agricultural products are exported without value addition. For example, this country is the world’s fifth largest producer of coffee (after Brazil, Viet Nam, Colombia and Indonesia), but nearly 99% of it is sold as green coffee. By contrast, Italy, France, the Netherlands and Germany produce no coffee, but roasted coffee accounted for approximately 93%, 88%, 76% and 41%, respectively, of their total coffee export; the USA produces less than 1% of its total export, of which 69% is roasted.

That said, Ethiopia had good examples of value addition with its hides and skins and goat meat export. For example, the country exported 4341 MT of dry or wet salted sheep skins and sheep skins with wool at an estimated value of ~US$20.3 million in 1976–1980; similarly, it exported 1077 MT for an estimated value of nearly ~US$16.9 million in 1996–2000. There was a negligible number of unprocessed hides and skins exported in 2016–2020; the hides and skins were either processed or semi-processed locally and then exported for increased earnings, or they were used by the local leather industry to manufacture leather goods for export or for the local market. By contrast, the country earned approximately US$78.4 million annually from the export of 14,000 MT of goat meat in 2016–2020; the earning in 1996–2000 was about US$2.9 million from 1400 MT, whereas there was no