120626 evaluation of small ruminant value chain in enhancing household food security the case of...

Evaluation of small ruminant value chain in enhancing household food security: The case of Dale

and Loka Abaya Woreda, Sidama Zone of SNNPR

By Teshale Endalamaw

AdvisorsMajor Advisor: Legesse Dadi (PhD)Co- Advisor: Girma Abebe (PhD)

Hawassa UniversitySchool of Governance and Development Studies

June 2012Hawassa

Presentation Outline• Introduction (Background)

• Statement of the Problem

• Research Questions and

• Objectives of the study

• Research Methodology

• Results and Discussion

• Conclusion and

• Recommendations

• The study focus on food security and value chain & the definition and term the researcher used were as follows:

1. “Food Security (FS) is a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life,”

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2002

2. “A value chain (VC) is the full range of activities that are required to bring a product or a service from conception, through different phases of (the intermediary of) production, involving a combination of physical transformation and the input of various producer services, delivery to final consumers, and final disposal after use”

(Kaplinsky et.al 2000)

3. Small Ruminant (SR) for this study mean Sheep &

Goat

Background Background

•Value chain is a pro-poor when … •Impact beyond increasing income•Strengthens the economic, social and organization capacity

•VC focus on linking HH to growing market

•VC integrate with the 3 dimension of FS – •Availability – at a larger scale •Access – at HH level•Utilization – at individual level

•Food insecurity shapes the behavior of HHs and the success of VC initiatives


•Ethiopia has the largest livestock population in Africa

•Small Ruminant (SR) – 47.8 million (CSA, 2010)

•SR contribution b/n 1995/96 to 2005/06 – in average 11 % of NGDP & 24 % of AGDP

•Dale and Loka Abaya Woredas (the study areas) found in Sidama Zone

•SRs are one of the main source of income and help the HH to diversify its livelihood and asset creation then to HH FS

•PSNP PLUS project help more than 47 thou. CFI HH over 12 Woredas of 4 regions


•Food insecurity in Ethiopia is a long term phenomena caused by a combination of natural & manmade factor

•300 PSNP Woreda in Ethiopia and 78 in SNNPR

•SR as an integral component of CFI HHs have numerous advantage

•they need smaller capital for investment, smaller place, smaller feed requirement, easy to sale, source of food for HH as meat and milk

•CFI HH keeps SR for a variety of economic reasons

•saving and investment, •security and insurance, •stability and social functions as a status

indication

Statement of the ProblemStatement of the Problem

•CFI HH often less likely to take risks to make investments in upgrading and engaging in VC initiatives

•However, SR need a small initial investment - to buy, maintain & add value - & also small risk of loss.

•SR are becoming more important in the export market.

•However, •the potential of the Woredas not recognized•key value chain actors and their functions

integration, sources of market information and strategies, and required infrastructure and support services were not known and documented

•there was no well documented evidence that can show the performance & level of SR VC contribution for HH FS

•the inhibiting bottlenecks were not also identified

Statement of the ProblemStatement of the Problem

•Research Question1.Does SR fattening VC contribute to HH I & FS?2.How key VC actors, supporters and influencers of

SR fattening VC interact with each other?3.What are the challenges and opportunities for SR

fattening VC to contribute for HH FS?

•Objectives of the study1.To assess the contribution of SR fattening VC in

improving CFI HH financial I & FS2.To identify the key VC actors, supporters and

influencers involved in SR fattening VC 3.To identify key challenges and opportunities for SR

fattening VC at different levels

Research Question and Research Question and ObjectivesObjectives

1. Dale• 124, 707 ha;

• 36 Kebles;

• 17 CFI Kebles (PSNP);

• 244, 932 Pp;

• 8677 PSNP

beneficiaries;

• 3 –livelihood zones;

• 17 PSNP PLUS Kebles;

• 579 SR fattening VC

participants

Research MethodologyResearch MethodologyStudy woredas

2. Loka Abaya

• 119, 000 ha;

• 26 Kebles;

• 26 CFI Kebles (PSNP);

• 114, 480 Pp;

• 18,179 PSNP

beneficiaries;

• 2 –livelihood zones;

• 9 PSNP PLUS Kebles;

• 579 SR fattening VC

participants

Research Methodology Research Methodology

Methods of data collection and tools • Qualitative and quantitative methods• Primary and secondary data• Primary data

• Structured Interview questionnaire (open and closed)

• Focus group discussion (two)• 8 SR VC participants of CFI HH

• Key informant interview from• Keble officials, DA, ADO & CMPO experts,

Local Traders (3 Yirgalem, 2 Hawela Tula & 2 Hawassa), Luna, brokers, butchers, & restaurants.

• Researcher personal observation was also employed.

• Secondary data• Desk review of different literatures• Websites• Different organizations (visit & document

review)


Data analysis• Descriptive statistics (%age, frequency, and

mean) using SPSS version 20

• SGP and SGM calculation

• Pearson’s chi-square, correlation and one way

ANOVA

• Value Chain map

• Tables and figures


SGP = Turnover (gross sales) – Direct cost

SGP – T (sales) X 100

T (sales)

SGM =

………………….. (1)

…………………… (2)

Conceptual Framework of the Conceptual Framework of the study study

Income FlowIncome Flow

Consumers (End user)•Local•Abroad

Consumers (End user)•Local•Abroad

Local and Urban

Traders

Local and Urban

Traders

Chronically Food Insecure

Household (CFI HH)

Chronically Food Insecure

Household (CFI HH)

Government Service providers/NGOMFI

Government Service providers/NGOMFI

HFS•Availability•Access•Utilization•Stability

HFS•Availability•Access•Utilization•Stability

Information flowInformation flow

Value additionValue addition

Contributing Factors to upgrade the small ruminant value by CFIH •Availability of small ruminant •Availability of input•Price fluctuation•Availability of veterinary Service•Availability of finance•Availability of feed and water•Infrastructure•Information•Appropriate extension service•Government Policy•Availability of space•Governance Structure

Contributing Factors to upgrade the small ruminant value by CFIH •Availability of small ruminant •Availability of input•Price fluctuation•Availability of veterinary Service•Availability of finance•Availability of feed and water•Infrastructure•Information•Appropriate extension service•Government Policy•Availability of space•Governance Structure

Restaurant and Butchers

Restaurant and Butchers

Input Supplier

Input Supplier

Exporter and Processor

Exporter and Processor

Government Service providers/NGO MFIGovernment Service providers/NGO MFI

Demographic characteristics of the respondents

Results and DiscussionResults and Discussion

Description Dale (n=92) Loka Abaya (n=95) TestMean Mean F-Value P-Value

Age 40.74+2.15 43.85+2.31 3.828 0.052

Family size 5.47+0.34 6.17+0.41 6.743 0.010

PSNP participation in years 6.36+0.16 7.00+0.29 14.597 0.000

Family members in PSNP 2.40+0.17 2.61+0.15 3.330 0.070

Land Holding hectare (ha) 0.49+0.04 0.59+0.06 7.940 0.005

Description Dale (n=92) Loka Abaya (n=95) Overall (N=187)Count % Count % Count %

SexMale 66 71.7 70 73.7 136 72.7Female 26 28.3 25 26.3 51 27.3

Marital StatusSingle 3 3.3 0 0 3 1.6Married 79 85.9 75 78.9 154 82.4Widowed 10 10.9 19 20 29 15.5Divorced 0 0 1 1.1 1 0.5

Education level Illiterate 36 39.1 48 50.5 84 44.9Read and write 15 16.3 22 23.2 37 19.8Elementary 37 40.2 22 23.2 59 31.6High School 4 4.3 3 3.2 7 3.7

SR fattening practice in the study

areas


Description Woreda Name Overall (N=187)

TestDale (n=92) Loka Abaya (n=95)

X2 P-value

Count % Count % Count %Owning sheep

Yes 18 20 1 1 19 10 17.548 0.000

No 74 80 94 99 168 90Owning goat Yes 50 54 61 64 111 59 1.885 0.110

No 42 46 34 36 76 41• There is a positive & significant correlation

between total land holding & goat owning (r=0.402, P<0.01) & grazing land (r=0.469, P<0.01)

• 88.8% respondents considered body conformation, 75.4% age, 74.9% physical characteristics and 44.9% sex as criterion for selecting SRs’ for fattening

• market is the sole source (100%) of SR for fattening

• nearby traders (86.6%) and farmers (13.4%) are the major suppliers

Cont ...• 76.5% (75 % of Dale and 77.9 % of Loka Abaya)

practice supplementary feeding (SF)• Enset leaf “Ensete Ventricusum” (64.3%),

crop residue (60.1%) and wheat bran (55.2%)• 87.7% (76.7 % of Dale and 98.9 % of Loka

Abaya) accessed veterinary services when SRs• got sick (88%) and bought (24.4%)

• 97% of the respondents provide water for SRs

• none of the respondents constructed a house for SRs due to • expensiveness (52.9%), unavailability of

space (38.5%), unavailability of construction material (35.3%) and lack of knowledge (27.3%)


Financial services for SR fattening •respondents borrowed (100.0%) to buy SR,

(16.6%) to pay for SR veterinary service and (12.3%) to buy feed

•main loan source were 100.0% MFI & 19.3% VSLA

•70% loan amount is not enough but 57.8% not enough but it helped & 12.3% it is very low amount; so

• 73.3% decided to buy two small SRs and 26.7% of them decided to buy only one SR

•31% revealed that the loan was untimely - reason

• time taking to get the money (84.7%), short repayment period (76.3%) and difficult to be eligible (35.6 %)

•87% of the respondents repaid their loan


SR Marketing• 98% (Dale) and 79% (Loka Abaya) for targeted

market• Easter (88%), Christmas (76%) & New Year (67%) -

are markets to sell SR

Results and Discussion Results and Discussion

Description Dale (n=92) Loka Abaya (n=95) Overall (N=187)X2 P-ValueCount % Count % Count %

Fattened SR buyersButchers/restaurants 9 9.8 15 15.8 24 12.8 1.507 0.156

Traders 67 72.8 65 68.4 132 70.6 0.437 0.309

Village L. Collectors 14 15.2 3 3.2 17 9.1 8.225 0.004

Consumers 57 62.0 83 87.4 140 74.9 16.040 0.000

Better price offered byButchers/restaurants 25 27.2 56 58.9 81 43.3 19.217 0.000

Traders 44 47.8 87 91.6 131 70.1 42.649 0.000

Village LC 12 13.0 32 33.7 44 23.5 11.067 0.001

Consumers 69 75.0 91 95.8 160 85.6 16.351 0.000

Results and Discussion Results and Discussion Fattened SR Price decision


• SRs supplied for targeted market per respondents for the last six months were

• 3.26 (Dale

• 1.92 (Loka Abaya)

Fattened SR supply interval for targeted market

SR Value chain related


Description Sheep (N=38) Goat (N=

Dale Loka Test Dale Loka Test

Average Fattening cost

(n=36) (n=2) F - value P-Value

(n=36) (n=36) F - value P –Value

551.50 472.00 0.706 0.406 501.59 529.16 1.755 0.187

Average price when the price was …High 842.08 800.00 0.095 0.760 854.85 864.61 0.063 0.802Medium 636.94 650.00 0.019 0.892 619.09 675.56 4.100 0.045Low 495.28 550.00 0.431 0.516 475.30 549.33 9.481 0.002Average SGP when the price was … High 290.58 328.00 0.099 0.755 353.24 335.42 0299 0.585Medium 85.44 178.00 0.979 0.329 117.48 146.38 1.251 0.265Low -56.22 78.00 2.540 0.120 -26.30 20.15 3.120 0.079Average SGM when the price was … High 33.26 41.27 0.568 0.456 40.15 36.28 2.734 0.100Medium 16.41 33.68 0.966 0.332 17.00 18.70 0.245 0.621Low -13.60 14.04 2.734 0.100 -12.98 -0.37 5.518 0.020• CFI HHs obtained the average SGM of 13% and

17% from sheep and goat selling respectively

1. Simplified Gross Profit (SGP) & Simplified Gross Margin (SGM)

2. Fattened SR marketing channels in the study areas

Farmers (CFI HHs)

Traders at Yirgalem, Hantatie, Naramo Della,

Anferara, Derara

Traders at Hawassa, Tula,

Shabadino, Shasahmane

Butchers at Yirgalem, Hantatie, Hawassa, Shabadino, Tula,

Shasahmane

Hotels/Restaurants at Yirgalem, Hantatie,

Hawassa, Shabadino, Tula, Shasahmane

Village Level Collectors at Yirgalem, Hantatie,

Naramo Della, Anferara, Derara

Exporter/Slaughtering House at Modjo

Consumers at Yirgalem, Hantatie, Hawassa, Shasahmane, Tula,

ShabadinoExport market (not

discussed by this study)

Supermarket at Addis, Adama,

Debre Zeit

Cont …

Pd C* R/W Pr E C**

Sm

all R

um

inan

t F

atte

ner

sS

mal

l Ru

min

ant

Fat

ten

ers

Village level collectors

Village level collectors

Traders Traders

Butchers & Hotels/ Restaurants Butchers & Hotels/ Restaurants Loc

al

Con

sum

ers

Loc

al

Con

sum

ers

Woreda ADO, CPMO, CARE, SNV, Sidama MFI, Input

Suppliers, PMC

Woreda ADO, CPMO, CARE, SNV, Sidama MFI, Input

Suppliers, PMC

Input Suppliers CARE, SNV and

transport

Input Suppliers CARE, SNV and

transport

Supermarkets Supermarkets

Export AbattoirsExport Abattoirs

Skin and Hide processors

Skin and Hide processors

EMPEA, Export Promotion, Bank, Ministry of Agriculture, Transport,

Input Supplier

EMPEA, Export Promotion, Bank, Ministry of Agriculture, Transport,

Input Supplier

Municipality, Bank, Transport, CARE & SNV

Municipality, Bank, Transport, CARE & SNV

3. SR fattening VC map in the study area

Remark: (i) Pd – Production, (ii) C* - Collection, (iii) R/W – retailing/wholesaling, (iv) Pr – Processing, (v) E- Exporting, (vi) C** - consumption

Cont …

SR contribution for HH income and

FS


Description Dale (n=92) Loka Abaya (n=95) Overall (N=187)X2 P-ValueCount % Count % Count %

SR contribution for HH incomeIncreasing

89 96.7 54 56.8 143 76.5 41.347 0.000

Decreasing 3 3.3 4 4.2 7 3.7 0.117 0.518I do not know 0 0 37 38.9 37 19.8 44.670 0.000Income source Dale (n=92) Loka Abaya (n=95) Test

Mean (Birr) Percent Mean (Birr) Percent F-value P-value

Coffee 2223.91 32.50 1016.31 19.18 36.599 0.000

Cereal 1057.06 15.45 1740.00 32.83 15.762 0.000

SG Fattening 922.77 13.49 454.21 8.57 53.452 0.000

Other Livestock Prt. 402.17 5.88 210.00 3.96 5.999 0.015Petty Trading 496.73 7.26 296.00 5.58 3.596 0.059Daily Laborer 227.71 3.33 78.94 1.49 4.140 0.043

Cash for Work 1061.41 15.51 1155.78 21.81 2.960 0.087

Other 450.10 6.58 348.94 6.58 1.299 0.256Total 6,841.86 100.0 5,300.18 100.0


• 97% from Dale and 78% from Loka Abaya (P<0.05)

confirmed that SR fattening has a contribution for HH

FSThe way SR contribute for HH FS

Dale (n=89)

Loka Abaya (n=74)

Overall (N=163) X2

P-Valu

eCount

% Count

% Count %

To buy food items for HH consumption

65 73.0 23 31.0 88 53.9 40.462

0.000

To cover other HH expenses

77 86.5 66 89.1 143 87.7 5.254 0.017

Help HH not to sale food items

1 1.1 15 20.2 16 9.8 12.913

0.000

Cont ...


• 90% from Dale and 95% from Loka Abaya respondents did not slaughter SG for HH consumption

Description

Dale (n=92)

Loka Abaya (n=95)

Overall (N=187) X2

P-Valu

eCount

% Count % Count %

SR contribution for HH incomeTo buy farm inputs

46 50.0

81 85.3 127 67.9 26.671 0.000

To pay school fee

17 18.5 36 37.9 53 28.3 8.676 0.003

For medical treatment

16 17.4 14 14.7 36 16.0 0.245 0.384

To purchase food items

34 37.0 18 18.9 52 27.8 7.551 0.005

To pay back credits

85 92.4

66 69.5 151 80.7 15.791 0.000

For next round fattening

44 47.8

28 29.5 71 38.5 6.648 0.007

Cont ...

• 77% across the study woredas have an interest to keep and continue SRs fattening because SRs • are easy to manage (60.7%),• minimize HH vulnerability (47.7%), • have high market demand (42.1%) • are easy to sale (24.8%) and• have immediate return (24.1%).

• 23% respondents do not want to continue SR fattening• SRs management is too difficult (92.9%) and• 71.4 % the business has low ROI

• 60% faced challenge while they fattened & 35% while selling

Results and DiscussionResults and DiscussionSR Fattening Challenges and

opportunities

Cont ...Results and DiscussionResults and Discussion

Description Dale (n=31) Loka Abaya (n=81) Overall

(N=112)Count % Count % Count % X2 P-Value

Fattening Challenges Unavailability of SR for fattening

6 19.4 34 42.0 40 35.7 23.810 0.000

Unavailability of feed 13 41.9 77 95.1 90 80.4 83.845 0.000

Unavailability of water 1 3.2 18 22.2 19 17.0 16.333 0.000

Unavailability of house (space) to keep SR's

1 3.2 52 64.2 53 47.3 66.283 0.000

Unavailability of Veterinary Service

7 22.6 15 68.2 22 19.6 3.013 0.065

Lack of finance 16 51.6 75 92.6 91 81.2 70.890 0.000

Selling Challenges Dale (n=23) Loka Abaya (n=43) Overall (N=66)

Lack of market information 1 4.3 3 7.0 4 6.1 0.958 0.323

Traders bad behavior 4 17.4 33 76.7 37 56.1 27.195 0.000

Fewer buyers/low demand 2 8.7 2 4.7 4 6.1 0.001 0.677

Lower price 15 65.2 38 88.4 53 80.3 12.921 0.000

Weak Bargaining Power 0 0.0 27 62.8 27 40.9 30.560 0.000

High brokers involvement 10 43.5 8 18.6 18 27.3 0.322 0.375

HH Food Security RelatedResults and DiscussionResults and Discussion

1. Access and availability

Dale (n=92) Loka Abaya (n=95) Overall

(N=187)X2 P-

ValueCount % Count % Count %

Producing own food production

Yes 92 100.0 95 100.0 187 100.0 0.974 0.508No 0 0 0 0 0 0

Enough amount of own production

Yes 7 7.6 15 15.8 22 11.8 3.013 0.065No 85 92.4 80 84.2 165 88.2

Availability of enough food amount in the market

Yes 49 53.3 70 73.7 119 63.6 8.425 0.003No 43 46.7 25 26.3 68 36.4

Availability of better quality food in the market

Yes 48 52.2 65 68.4 113 60.4 5.159 0.017No 44 47.8 30 31.6 74 39.6

On time availability of food

Yes 47 51.1 46 48.4 93 49.7 0.133 0.414No 45 48.9 49 51.6 94 50.3

Afford the market food price

Yes 19 20.7 19 20.0 38 20.3 0.012 0.528No 73 79.3 76 80.0 149 79.7

2. Utilization

Consume enough amount of food by HH Reason for lower amount of food consumption

Source of food for HH consumption Reason for shortage and unavailability of food

3. HH food self

sufficiency

• Dale woreda respondents are

food self -sufficient in average

for 8.02 months whereas at

Loka Abaya (P<0.05) they are

only for 6.05 months

Result and Result and DiscussionDiscussion

Food self-sufficient HHsCoping Mechanisms

to fill food gap months

Dale (n=82) Loka Abaya (n=83)

Overall (N=165) X2 P-

ValueCount

% Count

% Count

%

PSNP transfer (CfW) 82 100.0

83 100.0 165 100.0 42.921

0.000

Labour sale in the village to buy food

9 11.0 14 16.9 23 13.9 1.063 0.210

Sale HH assets to buy food 40 48.8 9 10.8 49 29.7 27.948

0.000

Migrate to other place for work 0 0.0 1 1.1 1 0.5 0.974 0.508Minimize meal frequency and amount

32 39.0 59 71.1 91 55.2 13.956

0.000

Use petty trading income to buy food

18 22.0 19 22.9 37 22.4 0.006 0.544

ConclusionConclusion• Family size and members participated in PSNP are

not proportional• The emphasis given for sex to select SR is less• supplementary feeding (SF) of less nutritious feed• SRs to veterinarian when they got sick and there

are limited numbers of veterinarian • Interest to continue SR fattening (but financial

shortages)• In the SR value chain;

• there is no win-win relationship, • the price information transferred in an ear-to-

mouth mechanism, • SRs sold in eye-ball estimation,• there is no legalized trader, • there is no transportation facilities, • there is high brokers involvement, and• there is lack of finance

ConclusionConclusion• six of marketing channels for CFI HH

• To sale fattened SR focused on Ethiopian

holidays

• CFI HHs obtained on ave SGM of 13% (S) & 17%

(G)

• SR contributed for CFI HHs income is increasing

(low)

• SR contribution for CFI HHs food security

• The forward linkage - using the income to buy

farm inputs, food items, and to minimize HH

vulnerability.

• The backward linkage – when pay back loan,

school fee and medical expenses, cover other

HH expenses and help not to sale food items

Conclusion Conclusion • Lack of finance, unavailability of feed, house &

SR are the major fattening bottlenecks

• Lower price, traders delinquency, Weak

bargaining powers and high brokers

involvement are the critical challenges in

selling fattened SRs

• CFI HHs doesn’t consume enough amount of

food and they are food self-insufficient for 3.98

(D) and 5.95 (L) months

Recommendation Recommendation • the government should set and follow a “Push –

Pull” factor to address all

• ADO should work on SF production and

preparation & should encourage private sectors

(PSs) to supply SF

• concerned stakeholders should train CAHWs and

equip with necessary materials and create

linkage with PSs

• CPMO and ADO should

• enhance CFI HH to consider other mkt &

export mkt (CSFs) and create awareness on

pros & cons,

• strengthen PMCs and keep and continue the

MSP,

• legalize traders and brokers and help to

access land

Recommendation Recommendation

Thank you

120626 evaluation of small ruminant value chain in enhancing household food security the case of...

Education

influencers of sr fattening

market vc

snnpr sr

hh fs psnp

value chain vc

key vc actors

cfi kebles psnp

milk cfi hh