This document analyzes extension services, fertilizer use, and agricultural productivity in Ethiopia's Agricultural Growth Program (AGP) regions based on surveys from 2009-2012. It finds that while access to extension agents and fertilizer supply has improved over time, fertilizer demand remains limited due to issues like high prices and lack of credit. Specifically: - The number of extension agents has increased but agents struggle with limited resources and large workloads. Farmers receiving an agent visit saw a 16% productivity gain. - Fertilizer availability has risen from 76% to 87% on time, but farmers still complain about high prices and lack of credit. Fertilizer use increased slightly from 55% to 56

1. ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Extension, fertilizer use, and agricultural
productivity in Agricultural Growth
Program (AGP) woredas

2. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Extension - Introduction
• Ethiopia one of few African countries that heavily
invested in agriculture in recent years
• Some of these investments have focused on the
provision of advisory and training services
• Over the last two decades, Ethiopia’s extension system
has gone through a number of experimentations

3. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Introduction
• Public extension structure: from federal ministry to
regions to kebeles through frontline extension agents
(Development Agents)
• Each woreda required to identify priority market
oriented commodity production and detailed
projection of input requirements
• Delivery-wise, changed from largely top-down to
significant ownership by the regions and woredas.

4. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Introduction
• Launch of ambitious plan: assure extension service in
each of the 15,000 kebeles in the country
• The plan envisaged: 1/ the establishment of Farmer
Training Center (FTCs) in each kebele and 2/ the
deployment of three Development Agents (DAs) in
each kebele
• Purpose of our analysis is to better understand
functioning of this system based on recent collected
data

5. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Data on extension agents
• Data collected by Ethiopian Economics Association
(EEA) and the International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI) in 2009.
• The surveys were conducted in eight selected
woredas in seven regions:
Afar, Amhara, BeneshangulGumuz, Gambella, Oromia, SNNP, and Tigray
• Kebele-level surveys: Done in all kebeles of each
selected woredas; a total of 156 kebeles; the DAs
interviewed in all these kebeles

6. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Results
• DAs’ profile and capacity
Variables
Values
Age
28.4
Experience
2.4
Female %
17.4
Technical/vocational training (10+3) 64.2
Any need for additional training (%) 99.1
Conclusions

7. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Results
• What are responsibilities of DAs’?
– DAs have a large number of tasks (on top of agricultural
extension): 1/ Advice farmers; 2/ Distribute inputs
(fertilizer, improved seeds, etc.); 3/ Mobilize farmers for
public works; 4/ Take care of community resources; 5/ Give
training; 6/ Receive training; 7/ Attend meetings;
8/ Prepare reports; 9/ Supervise road construction, 10/
Collect data, etc.
– A DA serves 554 households on average [a very good ratio
compared to other countries]

8. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Results
• DAs spend most of their time on activities in the
field
Activities
Field
Office
Training not on field
Receiving training
Others
%
64
18
14
3
1

9. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Results
• Resources at the disposal of DAs:
– Limited transport means: 98% of them mentioned
that they go by foot to visit farmers; Only 2 % of
them have access to a bicycle or motorbike
– Other resources: often only reporting
material, leaflets, and package booklets;
however, these resources are reported to not be
available for around half (50%) of the DAs.
• One caveat of these results: Survey was done
almost five years ago and situation might have
changed in the meanwhile

10. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Extension effects as assessed by farmers
• Data: AGP household surveys
• Conducted in 4 high potential highland regions of
Ethiopia in 2010 and 2012
• The survey covers 93 woredas; 61 AGP and 32 high
potential non-AGP woredas
• Both household and community level questionnaires
were administered
• A total of 7,930 households were interviewed; a
slightly lower number in 2012

11. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions

12. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Results (2010 and 2012)
2010
2012
Gov’t extension or DA office exist in the
kebele
83%
89%
If office outside the PA, what is the distance
to the closest office from the PA center
12km
9km
Improved 76%
Stayed equal 15%
Deteriorated 9%
Average number of DAs in the kebele
2.8
77%
17%
6%
2.8
In the past 2 years, how did access to
extension services change:

13. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Results (2010 and 2012)
Extension agents’ visits
2010
2012
Household was visited at least once in the year
36%
47%
New inputs
35%
39%
New methods
34%
18%
New crops
6%
7%
Fertilizer
13%
20%
Improved seed
7%
10%
Credit
1%
2%
Others
5%
5%
29%
27%
If visited, what kind of advice was given:
If not visited, most important reason?
Not enough extension agents

14. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Fertilizer use - Introduction
• Urea and DAP are the common type of fertilizers
being distributed
• The distribution almost exclusively goes through
cooperative unions and primary cooperatives
• The distribution system has faced several challenges
ranging from logistics to pricing of fertilizer; we
compare assessment of farmers in AGP woredas in
2010 and 2012

15. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Results
• A slight improvement in chemical fertilizer use in the
last five years is seen
Number of years that chemical fertilizers
were used in the last five years
0
1
2
3
4
5
2010
37.2
7.3
4.8
4.6
4.8
41.3
2012
36.9
5.9
4.4
4.3
2.5
45.9

16. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Fertilizer use; Results
• Access to fertilizer
Variables
Fertilizer was available in the PA on time
Problems with fertilizer supply system
1. Shortage of supply
2. Late arrival
3. High price
4. Lack of credit
5. No problem
6. Others
2010
76%
2012
87%
20.61
12.05
35.9
14.81
12.47
4.17
12.07
5.3
43.71
17.47
17.77
3.69
• A HH is considered as having access if;
• Fertilizer was available in the PA on time and the HH mentions that
either DAP or UREA were available on time or choose (code 3 or 5
above) from list of problems or the HH gets fertilizer from out side the
village

17. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Results
• In 2010 meher season, 74% of the farmers had
access to fertilizer; 55 % [56% in 2012]used fertilizer;
Fertilizer users cover 72% of their cultivated area
• 37% of the total cultivated AGP area fertilized
• Complementarity of fertilizer use with improved seed
and water
– Almost all (95%) of improved seed users (21%)
have used fertilizer
– Only 4% of the farmers using irrigation; rain the
main source; close to 85% of fertilizer users have
got enough water either through rain or irrigation

18. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Results
• Estimate the effect of different explanatory
variables on fertilizer demand (double-hurdle
regression; conditional on access)
• Profitability of fertilizer is one of the most
important variables affecting fertilizer demand
• Other variables of importance: Rainfall
expectation; Experience with using fertilizer;
Extension advice; Access to media/information
(ownership of radio and TV); Ownership of
transport animals

19. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Productivity - results
• Plots with fertilizer have larger output per hectare.
• The figures below are results of simple t-test of yield between
plots with fertilizer and without by crop
Plots with fertilizer produce more
Crop
%
Teff
31
Barely
58
Wheat
51
Maize
70
• Farmers who were visited by extension agents at least once in
last year are 16% more productive than those who were not
visited (through simple t-test; more detailed analysis planned)

20. Introduction
Extension
Fertilizer Use
Productivity
Conclusions
Conclusions
• Significant changes in high-potential agricultural (AGP)
areas
• Supply system of agricultural inputs and service delivery
improving over time: More access to extension agents
and an improved fertilizer supply chain
• However, demand issues still an issue: farmers complain
about profitability of fertilizer use (“high price”) and lack
of credit for purchase of modern inputs
• This apparently explains only small improvement of
uptake of modern inputs over time

21. ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Thank you