Analysis of Chickpea Value Chain and Determinants of Market Options Choice in Selected Districts of Southern Ethiopia

Tewodros Tefera

doi:10.5539/jas.v6n10p26

Abstract

Chickpea value chain study was conducted in selected districts of the south region where CIFSRF project was operating. In total 227 respondents comprising 162 chickpea producers; 11 local assemblers; 8 rural wholesalers; 8 urban wholesalers and 38 retailers were interviewed. The study finding shows that the chickpea value chain actors are broadly classified into three viz., inputs suppliers, direct market actors and enablers. Chickpea producers sold their chickpea products to different market intermediaries and final consumers. About nine chickpea marketing channels were identified. The total amount of chickpea that was transacted through these marketing channels in 2012/13 was 9,181qts. Out of which the project site farmers supply 77% while 27% were imported from other chickpea producing areas. The study result shows that the total gross marketing margin was 45.8% with producer participation margin of 54.2%. Approximately 10.2% out of a total gross marketing margin of 45.8% constitutes the total marketing charges, giving a net marketing margin of 35.5%. Although this suggests an appreciable level of profits reaped by traders, volumes traded are relatively low as compared to other cereals. The market intermediaries incurred different marketing costs such as packing, processing, transportation and loading unloading. Determinants of chickpea producer participation in alternative market options were analyzed. A multinomial logit analysis results show that family size, landholding, access to market information and Income from crops was positively influences wholesale market participation as compared to farm gate. Similarly landholding, access to market information and extension services positively influence consumer market participation than farm gate while access to information and income from crops positively influences retails market participation than farm gate. On the other hand membership to cooperatives was negatively influences wholesale, retail and consumer market participation than farm gate market option. Households distance from nearest market negatively influences wholesale market participation than farm gate market option while off farm activities negatively influences retail market participation than farm gate. The study suggested that availing credit for agricultural marketing, promoting collective marketing, strengthening of extension service, provision of market information and road development improves farmers marketing margin and chickpea value chain performance.

Highlights

Markets continue to be seen as the means for ensuring that smallholder producers of agricultural products are effectively integrated into the mainstream of national economies, especially in developing countries
The total amount of chickpea that was transacted through these marketing channels in 2012/13 was 9,181qts
Out of which the project site farmers supply 77% while 27% were imported from other chickpea producing areas

Summary

Introduction

Markets continue to be seen as the means for ensuring that smallholder producers of agricultural products are effectively integrated into the mainstream of national economies, especially in developing countries. Markets drive production as farmers strive to meet the demands of consumers and end-users in terms of quantity and quality Their very existence, or how effectively they function, cannot be guaranteed in many developing countries. In Ethiopia, there is a certain urgency to address the real concern that, in spite of considerable investments into restructuring the sector since 1992 and directly tackle agrarian and land reform, poverty is still rife and there is the clear indication that much of this arises from farmers not being able to sell produce at a profit Unlocking markets for this group of farmers is considered a crucial developmental necessity. Research and case studies conducted in various parts of the country point to the importance of the market access to smallholders (Chilot et al, 2010)

Objectives

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion