Doing policy analysis on linking farmers to markets

Doing policy analysis on linking farmers to markets

When I learned about the International Center for Tropical Agriculture’s (CIAT) mission to reduce hunger and poverty and improve human nutrition in the tropics, through research aimed at increasing the eco-efficiency of agriculture, I found that I had a strong desire to contribute. The research theme Linking Farmers to Markets (LFM) especially captured my attention after perusing the Decision and Policy Analysis (DAPA) blog. Despite growing up in Colombia – the host country of CIAT’s headquarters – I had never heard of the dynamic research for development taking place in my country and across Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, and Africa.

As a matter of fact, you may have read statements on the DAPA-LFM blog like “Farmers cooperatives are increasingly asked to play the critical role while alleviating rural poverty and preserving natural resources” and “smallholders farmers are not always are successful in linking to emerging value chains. They face many constrains such as lack of assets, managerial skills, public support, etc.”

These facts resounded in my mind as I filled out a job application to work at CIAT in early 2011. While after graduation most of my friends ended up working for the private sector, in banks and marketing firms, I started a non-linear career as an economist mainly working for development organizations such as the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the World Bank over 12 years ago. At the end, I got the job at CIAT and happily joined the LFM team, led by senior researcher Mark Lundy, mainly contributing through public policy analysis.

I am involved in projects that assess market access policies in Colombia. One project explores the effectiveness of the current agricultural supply chain policy. Among other interesting findings, my team and I have found that while in some cases these policies have been effective in decreasing poverty and increasing the competitiveness of farmers, often they do not reach the most vulnerable populations. Furthermore, the degree of implementation of this policy varies greatly by commodity and location. These outcomes have significant implications for public policy design and, hence, livelihood opportunities across the regions of the countr

Community-based sheep improvement – research helps breed strong rural communities in Ethiopia

Community-based sheep improvement – research helps breed strong rural communities in Ethiopia



Ethiopia is known for having the largest livestock population of Africa. Across the country, millions of cattle, donkeys, camels, chickens, sheep and goats live and work alongside people. The relationships between people and animals are long-standing, close and deeply embedded in culture and traditions.

Animals are power for transport and ploughing, they are food and nutrition, their skins and wool can be turned into useful products, their dung fertilizes fields and fuels cooking fires, and their sale pays for education and other necessities.

Yet millions of rural people remain locked in poverty. They work long hours to feed themselves, they battle harsh natural environments, often far from roads, clinics and markets and they and their animals lead far less productive lives than their urban cousins.

The picture is not all bleak. Public services and infrastructure are fast expanding, markets are growing, fueled by urban and export demands for food, and agricultural growth and transformation is a driving goal of government.

Communities are also taking power into their own hands, transforming local resources into assets that benefit them all. Animals are often at the heart of this transformation.

Empowering a rural community

Molale is a rural community in Menz – a well-known sheep region north east of Addis Ababa. It’s a community of 2700 households growing crops and raising sheep in the high hills. Their sheep are widely known for their good and tasty meat and they are well-adapted to life above 3000 metres.

In the past five years many of the households have moved from being struggling food aid recipients to being productive farmers with cash to feed and educate their families. Much of this was achieved through a novel community based sheep breeding and marketing initiative.

In 2009, a research for development project started in Molale involving the community, local extension agents, the government’s Debre Birhan agricultural research centre and international scientists from the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), and the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU, Austria). When the research team started to discuss ways to improve the sheep breeds the farmers had heard about a government scheme to distribute a more productive type of sheep known as Awassi. They wanted to try it out. Fortunately, as it turns out, there weren’t enough Awassi rams for Molale.

The community and the research team came up with a different approach. Recognizing the potential of the local Menz sheep, they decided to join forces to improve the local breed rather than count on an imported Awassi type. The result was a 5-year community based breeding program that trained farmers to improve their animals and keep proper records, helped them develop a breeding and marketing cooperative, changed selling priorities and empowered the community to express their own needs.

Later, when the government returned with Awassi rams, the community said ‘no.’ They instead asked for help setting up their cooperative.

Livestock and smallholder farmers

Livestock and smallholder farmers

Livestock production in smallholder systems exists throughout the developing world in a great variety of forms. Farm animals contribute considerably to the livelihood strategies of the poor and can be an important source of income.

Livestock keeping can also make a vital contribution to household food and nutritional security. The value of production of different livestock species in different production systems varies considerably. Due to a range of constraints, most small-scale livestock keepers are operating at levels of productivity well below their potential. Livestock investment must consider the positioning of small-scale livestock producers within the whole value chain.

The following facts and figures, taken from a synthesis prepared by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on livestock as instruments of poverty alleviation and well-being, draws on examples from sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
(Source: ILRI, Targeting strategic investment in livestock development as a vehicle for rural livelihoods: BMGF-ILRI project on Livestock Knowledge Generation, October 2009)

Key elements of livestock livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia

An ongoing ‘livestock revolution’ is characterized by accelerating demand for livestock products in developing countries due to increasing populations and incomes.

This livestock revolution is creating new opportunities for rural producers to participate in income-generating livestock enterprises.

Two regions that experts regard as the most critical for reaching the poorest are sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Mixed humid systems contain relatively more poor livestock keepers than other systems, but livestock are of high relative importance in all rural systems.

Livestock production (dairy, small ruminants, poultry) accounted on average for close to 40% of total household income across all livestock production systems, species and regions.

Pastoral production systems showed the highest contribution of livestock to household incomes (55%).

Livestock production generates roughly half of the household income in the pastoral areas of Kenya.

Pastoral communities in Ethiopia, Niger and Burkina Faso derive over 80% of their incomes from livestock.

The average contribution of livestock to household incomes for mixed crop/livestock systems is 33%.

Among species, dairy in mixed crop-livestock systems contributed the highest share of household income at 70%, with an average income of US$958.

Poultry was the next highest proportion of income at 50%, but gave the highest household income (US$2,207-6,837).

Results of two case studies show the potential contribution that poultry can make to reducing rural poverty if a commercial system can be maintained.

Role of livestock in human nutrition

Per capita consumption of livestock products (dairy, beef, poultry meat and eggs, small ruminant meat) was least in Bangladesh and Central Africa and most in India and East and Southern Africa.

Beef and small ruminants provide most energy and protein per kilogram consumed, but, because of their longer production cycles, are generally less frequently available for consumption (from own production) than poultry meat and eggs and dairy products.

In Eastern Africa and South Asia dairy products alone account for most of the livestock products consumed.

In the other African subregions dairy products represent less than half the total consumed, and fall behind other products, such as pork and bush meat in Central Africa.

Small ruminant meat makes a minor contribution in all subregions.

Those countries in which consumption of livestock (especially dairy) products is high are often those with dry climates and less potential for crop production.

Undernutrition is widespread in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, with an estimated 461 million, or 25% of the population, undernourished in 2001–2003.

Animal-source foods are able to combat a range of nutritional deficiencies, particularly when consumed as a component of a diverse diet that includes plant- source foods.

Animal-source foods are energy dense and good sources of protein and micronutrients.

Moderate increases in consumption of animal-source foods in undernourished populations can provide critical nutritional benefits.

Animal-source foods are excellent sources of essential micronutrients such as iron, zinc, calcium, riboflavin, iodine, vitamin A and vitamin B12, and many nutrients are better absorbed from animal-source than from plant-source foods.

Addressing micronutrient deficiencies in children is particularly important, as the impact of undernutrition on physical capacity and cognitive development is established early in life, with substantial long-term effects on human capital development and productivity.

Productivity gaps in livestock production

Within sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, livestock support the livelihoods of vast numbers of small-scale producers who face formidable challenges in improving the scale and efficiency of production and the quality of their products.

Three main factors account for the productivity gaps seen between livestock production in these regions vs developed countries: differences in animal husbandry practices, genotypes and production systems.

The genetic potential of most livestock genotypes is not being realized in smallholder settings, and there is considerable potential in all regions to increase yields with adoption of improved genotypes and better animal husbandry practices.

The highest potential to increase milk production was observed in East Africa in crossbred animals.

In West/Central Africa the genetic potential was greatest for purebred indigenous cattle and in Southern Africa for exotic cattle.

In South Asia, results indicate that it is possible to more than double milk production from indigenous and crossbred animals with targeted genetic interventions and due attention to animal nutrition and health.

Poultry is a promising sector for nutrition and poverty alleviation, as modest initial capital investment can act as the first step on the ladder of capital accumulation.

For indigenous poultry genotypes, selective breeding, improved management, supplementary feed and disease control can significantly improve both meat and egg productivity.

The commercial poultry sector, with its wealth of human, technical and financial resources, could be a catalyst in promoting backyard poultry production as a practical and viable option for poverty alleviation.

Small ruminants are highly suited to low-income households in marginal environments, given their low feed and capital requirements, their ability to utilize a wide range of feed resources and their adaptation to prevailing conditions.

With average landholding sizes decreasing due to increased human population and with increased competition for animal feed resources, small ruminants are expected to play a bigger role in sustaining livelihoods in the future.

Where environmental conditions and management standards are conducive, exotic and crossbred livestock genotypes can more than triple milk and meat productivity.

The climatic conditions in West Africa are not conducive to optimal performance by exotic and crossbred livestock but rather favour the best-adapted indigenous breeds, which offer a high potential for meat productivity.

Unlike crops, livestock not only produce products such as milk or egg, but also reproduce and grow in numbers and lead to herd growth, some of which can be sold.

The highest gains from livestock interventions are generally those that reduce mortality in calves and adults (but improving feed has a higher impact when milk yield only is considered).

Short-term gains in livestock productivity can be achieved relatively simply and quickly through feed improvement but over the long run, interventions in animal health have greater cumulative benefits.

Livestock value chains and market opportunities

Investment in livestock may provide a pathway out of poverty for millions of people in developing countries. Targeting such investment requires a careful appraisal of current value chains and identification of those areas where
investment might prove most beneficial. Central to returns on investment are
the market opportunities driving demand for the resulting products.

Levels of exportation relative to domestic production are low for all livestock products across all regions.

Market orientation (both export and domestic) is generally low among smallholder farmers, who account for most livestock production in sub-Saharan African and South Asia.

The low market orientation of livestock producers is due to lack of a reliable, profitable market and low levels of available surplus product (due to low production or high consumption levels within the family unit). Exceptions include milk marketing in Kenya and parts of India.

Five livestock value chains have the most pro-poor promise: South Asia dairy, East Africa dairy, West Africa small ruminant meat, West Africa beef, Southern Africa small ruminant meat.

11 Best Apps for Your Next Trip to the Farmers Market

Dirty Dozen. Free. Published by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit environmental research organization. This app focuses on which types of conventionally raised produce are the lowest in pesticides and which types are the highest. Lists include the Dirty Dozen, like apples, spinach, and grapes, and the Clean Fifteen, like sweet corn, asparagus, and cantaloupe. The app helps decide when finding an organic alternative is especially important. The Dirty Dozen Plus, an expanded app, includes a list of hot peppers and leafy greens.

Farmstand. Free. The app lists more than 8,700 farmers markets around the world and connects shoppers with markets for locally grown food. It supports local communities by supporting linking users to each other by allowing them to take and post pictures of markets and vendors, alert others to great finds, and browse information posted by fellow market-goers. Markets can be sorted by location and opening times.

Good Guide. Free. A wide-ranging shopping app that includes everything from produce to pet food, the Good Guide rates products and producers according to their health, environmental, and social benefits. In the case of fresh produce, dairy, and meats, items can be sorted using filters such as organic, vegan, and specific nutrition aspects (low sodium, etc.). The app can be tailored to highlight shoppers’ personal requirements.

Harvest. Paid. The app provides a list of pesticide levels on fruit and vegetables and instructs shoppers on methods for picking the best and ripest piece in-season produce, from shaking blueberries to knocking on watermelons. It also provides information on the best means of storage for different kinds of produce.

HarvestMark Food Traceability. Free. Participating fruit, vegetable, and dairy brands label their products with a 16-digit HarvestMark code or QR code; shoppers use the app to scan the code, retrieve the product’s harvest information, and give feedback. The app connects food producers with their customers and offers food production transparency.

Locavore. Free. Locavore has a large database of local farmers markets, farms, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), and vendors selling organic produce and in-season foods. It showcases recipes using in-season ingredients and also allows users to tag local sellers, share reviews, and post new finds.

Love Food Hate Waste. Free. Produced by the United Kingdom-based organization WRAP, the app helps shoppers reduce food waste by better organizing their kitchen, cooking, and shopping habits. It helps eaters keep track of what’s in their cupboards, posts alerts where there are duplicate items, highlights recipes for how to best use the food that’s already there, and cuts down on unnecessary purchases.

Seafood Watch (U.S.) / Good Fish Guide (U.K.). Free. Optimized for use in the United States or in the United Kingdom respectively, these two apps help shoppers identify the most sustainable seafood options at the market. Seafood Watch highlights best choices and indicates the options to avoid. The Good Fish Guide uses a traffic light rating system.

Seasons. Paid. The app lists natural growing season data and local availability of hundreds of kinds of produce, from herbs to mushrooms to fruits. It also includes the import seasons of produce, photos, and the location of farmers markets around the world.

True Food. Free. Some countries, including the United States, do not require mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This app, created by the nonprofit environmental advocacy organization Center for Food Safety, helps shoppers identify which foods contain GMOs, including dairy products, meat, and meat alternatives.

What’s on my food? Free. Created by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), this app accesses an extensive and up-to-date database of all pesticides used on various kinds of produce. Pesticide residues remain on some fruits and vegetables even after washing. Watermelon in the United States, for example, can have up to 26 different pesticide residues by the time it reaches market, according to PAN. The app illuminates the health effects of each pesticide, from the relatively benign to the downright dangerous.

Read the orginal: http://foodtank.com/news/2014/10/harvesting-the-best-10-apps-for-healthy-organic-shopping 

Five Ways Cell Phones are Changing Agriculture in Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa now has more than 650 million mobile phone subscribers. Mobile technology is especially transformative for the agriculture sector. Here are five important ways cell phones are changing African agriculture:

1) Access to market prices: Mobile phones allow farmers to gain access to vital informationabout prices of crops before they travel long distances to markets. Cell phone services employ SMS text messaging to quickly transfer accurate information about wholesale and retail prices of crops, ensuring farmers can  negotiate deals with traders and improve their timing of getting crops to the market. SokoniSMS64 is one popular service used in Kenya to provide farmers with accurate market prices from around the country.

2) Micro-insurance: Cell phones are also used for a “pay as you plant” type of insurance. Kilimo Salama, meaning “safe agriculture” in Swahili, is a micro-insurance company that protects farmers against poor weather conditions. The insurance is distributed through dealers who utilize camera phone technology to scan and capture policy information through a code using an advanced phone application. The information is then uploaded to Safaricom’s mobile cloud-based server that administers policies. Farmers can then receive information on their policy, as well as payouts based on rainfall, in SMS messages. This is a paperless, completely automated process.

3) iCow from M-Farm: This cell phone application calls itself “the world’s first mobile phone cow calendar.” It enables farmers to keep track of each cow’s individual gestation so farmers never miss the valuable opportunity to expand their herd. iCow also keeps track of feed types and schedules, local veterinary contact information, and precise market prices of cattle.

4) Instant weather information: Mobile technology provides farmers with crucial weather data so they can properly manage their crops. Programs such as Tigo Kilimo in Tanzania give small-scale farmers instant weather information combined with appropriate agricultural tips.

5) CocoaLink: This app makes use of western Ghana’s rapidly expanding mobile network to deliver important information to cocoa farmers. The World Cocoa Foundation created this program to provide free voice and SMS text messages about farm safety, child labor, health, and improvements in farming practices, crop disease prevention, and crop marketing. Farmers receive messages in English or their local language.

by Suzannah Schneider

How Smallholder Farmer Access to ICTs are Improving Farming

My earliest memories on issues involving small holder farmers’ access to Information and Communication Technologies are with the introduction of the radio. I had recently migrated from Kenya to India in the early days of 1970 to study and everything was new and strange to me, including Indian village life.

My family had a farm in a village in Telengana in South-Central India. Villagers would gather daily around 6:30 in the evening at the Panchayat (community) building to listen to Krishi Darshan (Farmer’s Voice). The radio, a valve set operated on electricity to receive broadcasts in the medium wave (MW) band, was kept in a cupboard under lock and key in the Panchayat building. It was hooked up to a large, trumpet-like loud speaker, on a wooden pole outside the structure. The village children would gather in the front, while the male villagers sat on their haunches on the ground. The Sarpanch (village leader), who was usually the largest and richest landowner, sat on a wooden chair. There were rarely women, as they were not allowed to mix with the males socially.

The radio program would last for an hour in the local language, but usually as spoken (or actually written in the program’s script) by the highly educated and not in the dialect of the ordinary villager. The villagers could not fully comprehend the program because of the rather “snooty” language. There would be a talk on a farming practice and sometimes an interview. Following the farmers program, there would be broadcasts of folk songs or a small educational skit. At 8:00, there would be the news and after it, the session for the village radio would end and the actual radio would be safely locked in the cupboard. The Panchayat building was one of the few buildings that had electricity. There was always disappointment when there was no electricity and the radio could not operate.

This scene reveals a lot regarding ICTs and their access to the resourceful poor farmer. The control of the ICT in the hands of the Sarpanch, who also had the only capacity to operate the radio in the village, the hierarchy, class, caste and gender differences in the village community in the access to its broadcast, the design, and delivery of content along with the problems, regarding necessary infrastructure such as electricity needed to effectively use the technology.

The stranglehold on real control and access to the radio in villages in India was only broken when lower cost, domestically made “transistor” radios, were available in the market. Then, the radio could be owned and controlled by the farmer, so he could carry it to his field and the women in the family could listen to some of the programs in the evening in the privacy and seclusion of their homes. Of course, there were several social concerns expressed on the “bad” influence of the radio on the youth and women of the village.

The same scene repeated itself when television, initially through the Satellite Instructional Television Experiment (SITE) (later through terrestrial broadcast) was introduced. Instead of the radio in the Panchayat building, there was the black and white TV set. However, for TV, it took more time to spread in order to be used by villagers. This was not only because of the cost, but also because it needed electricity to operate. Not many homes, especially among the poor, had access to electricity.

However, things changed, when the cost of TV was reduced through production in India, Cable TV became widespread and electricity connections in villages became more common. But, on the whole, for contributing to innovating farming and agriculture, it was largely a missed opportunity in using a powerful ICT. The content for farming and agriculture, largely from the government in an initially government-controlled media, were not paid attention to as an important public function. And, the private sector, with very little commercial benefit in generating the content, just ignored agriculture until recently. Now that rural incomes have grown and farmers are becoming consumers of products such as soap, cosmetics, refrigerators and washing machines, in addition to tractors and farm equipment.

Ownership of phones in India till late 1990s was only in the hands of a few. In villages, it was usually the richest that had a phone connection. All this changed when the public call offices (PCO) were introduced in India. Soon, all villages had at least one PCO. The cost of making a phone call was also reduced and almost everybody could use it. Within a few years, the cell phone was introduced and this brought in the shift in the ownership and control of the communication device. Along with it, the government introduced policies that made phone calls affordable by even the poor. Soon, many of the poor farmers had cell phones which they could use at their will and convenience. Today India has almost 800 million cell phone connections and is now ubiquitous.

With cell phones came several new services, including the Kisan Call Centres where farmers could call up government-run extension services for assistance on their farming problems. However, certain other issues in access continued such as the use of cell phones by rural women. In a country where women provide the majority of the agricultural workforce  and many of these manage farms on their own, not being able to by social barriers use cell phones and other ICTs is a major constraint for rapid innovation and capacity development needed for modern farming in the country.

The new generation of ICTs coming into common use in rural India is the smart phone. The smart phone promises access to the instant messaging, the World Wide Web, audio and video recording, playback and streaming capabilities, and the ability to send and receive multimedia while participating in social media. Some smart phones can even use applications that can share, exchange and process data while supporting decision-making. This has the potential to revolutionize access to information from across the world by farmers. At the moment the same issues as with other ICTs in the past such as of its access, affordability, the generation and design of the content so that it is relevant and useful, the capacity to make effective use of the information are being repeated. Apparently, we need to study the past and learn from it to be prepared for ICTs to be more useful in the present and the future.

Ajit Maru is Senior Officer at the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) where he has been pursuing improving information and communications management and knowledge  sharing in agricultural research and development.

The Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) brings together all those working to strengthen and transform agricultural research for development around the world. During 2014 and the International Year of Family Farming (IYFF), GFAR is working with Food Tank to showcase and raise awareness and understanding of the challenges faced by smallholders and help identify efficient ways to support family farmers.

Written by Ajit Maru

The False Banana, Key to Food Security

Enset is a plant native to Ethiopia that is often referred to as the false banana because, not surprisingly, of its resemblance to the banana plant. It is grown in the less arid highlands of the southwestern region of Ethiopia. Enset contributes to improved food security for approximately 15 million Ethiopians and, according to Ethiopian researchers, there is potential for expanding consumption of the crop. Over the coming weeks, Food Tank will feature different ways in which the enset plant has significant environmental, social, and economic benefits for farmers and consumers.

A recent report from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) shows that Ethiopia may be facing a famine, based on the coinciding factors of a growing population, detrimental weather conditions, and an unsustainably structured food system. While macro factors like these may be intractable, the production of one native Ethiopian crop has been historically proven to keep food security problems at bay: enset. In a report entitled The Tree Against Hunger from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), five criteria were listed to evaluate food security: adequate volume of food; adequate nutritional intake; annual stability of food supply; accessibility of food; and long-term sustainability of food production. Enset achieves, or helps to achieve, all of these criteria.

The plant is used mostly for its starchy pseudostems. The stems are scraped for starch, which is then combined with water to become a pulp. The pulp is fermented with yeast and turned into kocho, a type of bread. Each enset plant can produce up to 40 kilograms (88 pounds) of food after reaching maturation in four to five years. Tilahun Amede released a working paper in 2006 studying different cropping systems in the Ethiopian Highlands. In his report, he found that out of 14 major crops in Ethiopia, enset produces the highest yield per hectare and highest energy content per kilogram of edible yield. Its value is not unknown; a study of enset consumption patterns in Ethiopia from the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP) found that it makes up 17.5 percent of food intake in rural Ethiopia, and is a vital component of south and southwestern Ethiopian diets.

It is an extremely hardy and versatile crop with high nutritional value: rich inpotassium, calcium, and iron, although low in protein. Kocho is often eaten with other food, like kale and kitfo, which creates a high-calorie and highly nutritious meal. In Dr. Amede’s 2006 report, he noted that areas with enset-based farm systems had the lowest rates of Vitamin A deficiency, partly due to the practice of eating kocho with kale. A 2004 report, also by Mr. Amede, concluded that barley-based farm systems would see improved food security by switching over 50 percent of their land to enset, kale and faba beans. 

Because it is a perennial crop, enset production is staggered so that the crop contains plants in several different stages of maturation at once. Its deep roots and high water retention make it relatively drought resistant, and the parts of the plant harvested (stems and roots) are more resistant to bad weather than flowering crops. Finally, the staggered pattern of perennial growth makes it harvestable year-round—making it a valuable way to ensure an adequate volume of food all year round. 

Enset also helps to increase the long-term sustainability of food production by reducing soil erosion and increasing soil fertility through leaf decomposition and manure application. Leaves and stalks can be used for animal fodder, helping to make fertilization a closed system.

While the plant is extremely valuable for food security, enset is used for more than just food – the fibrous leaves and stalks are used for production of clothing, shelter, and baskets, as well as for ceremonial practices. Parts of the plant are also used to promote maternal health by aiding in stimulating placental discharge, and traditional practitioners use it to help heal broken bones and reduce swelling of joints in both livestock and humans. 

One study from Debub University in Hawassa notes that the Ethiopian government has historically promoted research and development of cereal crops, which are more susceptible to natural disasters such as drought, and are typically sold for profit instead of directly generating food security and benefitting local communities. The Tree Against Hunger offers several potential reasons for a focus on cereals instead of enset. Enset production is complex and varies based on location, making it unappealing for many development programs, even for domestic Ethiopian aid initiatives. It also is primarily produced in some of the areas of Ethiopia that are least developed and most difficult to access. These barriers, and the tendency for Western developmental aid to focus on cereal production have limited international extension programs designed for enset. With high cereal prices and low yields, the importance of generating awareness and investing research and resources into enset production grows greater.