See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/355192596

Benchmarking the Status of Agricultural Mechanization in Ethiopia

Technical Report · October 2021

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29192.96008

CITATION READS

1 1,731

4 authors, including:

Yared Deribe Bisrat Getnet Awoke

18 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS
University of Hohenheim
27 PUBLICATIONS 96 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yared Deribe on 18 January 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Benchmarking the Status of
Agricultural Mechanization in
Ethiopia
Research Report No. 133
Yared Deribe
Bisrat Getnet
Tae Gyoung Kang
Agaje Tesfaye

የኢትዮጵያ የግብርና ምርምር ኢንስቲትዩት

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
 Benchmarking the Status of
Agricultural Mechanization in
Ethiopia

Research Report No. 133

©EIAR, 2021
Website: http://www.eiar.gov.et
Tel: +251-11-6462633
+251-11-6454434
P.O.Box: 2003
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

ISBN: 978-99944-66-85-6

Copyediting and design: Elizabeth Baslyos and Kebrom Birhane

 Contents

List of Figures ........................................................................................... i

List of Tables ............................................................................................ i
Abstract ................................................................................................... 3
Introduction.............................................................................................. 4
Study Methods ........................................................................................ 7
Area of the study ..................................................................................... 7
The sampling design ............................................................................... 9
Methods of data collection and instrument ............................................ 12
Data analysis ......................................................................................... 13
Results and Discussion ......................................................................... 14
Household and farm characteristics ...................................................... 14
Ownership of farm machinery, technologies and farm tools .................. 16
Experience, awareness, and availability of mechanization hiring services
.............................................................................................................. 18
Mechanical power access and mechanization index ......................... 26
Mechanical power access and utilization by locations ...................... 31
Mechanical power access and index for the major crops grown ....... 36
Land size, slope, and mechanization ................................................ 38
Livestock mechanization ................................................................... 39
Farmers’ needs and drivers for mechanization ................................. 40
Constraints for using mechanization ................................................. 42
hiring services by farmers ................................................................. 42
Institutional services and mechanization ........................................... 43
Training and mechanization extension .............................................. 43
Access to finance for mechanization ................................................. 45
Emerging equipment lease financing ................................................ 46
The supply of farm machinery and mechanization hiring services .... 48
Farm machinery import and manufacturing ....................................... 49
 Major constraints in farm machinery import and distribution ............. 53
Major constraints and limitations in the manufacturing of machinery 55
Mechanization hiring service providers ............................................. 58
Major constraints for the mechanization hiring services .................... 61
Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................... 63
References ............................................................................................ 69
List of Figures
Figure 1. Study areas for the mechanization baseline study 10
Figure 2. Farmers’ awareness about mechanization practices 23
Figure 3. The availability of mechanization hiring services 25
Figure 4. Categorization of areas on the size of mechanization users 27
Figure 5. The access and utilization status of pre & post-harvest mechanization 29
Figure 6. Mechanization access and utilization by region 31
Figure 7. The utilization status of tractors 33
Figure 8. The utilization status of combine harvesters 34
Figure 9. The utilization of maize shellers 35
Figure 10. The utilization of water pumps 36
Figure 11. Level of mechanization by major crop grown 37
Figure 12. Mechanization, land size, and slope relationship 39
Figure 13. The sales and distribution of farm machinery 51

List of Tables
Table 1. Education status of the household 14
Table 2. Household information and land use pattern 15
Table 3. Allocated land (ha) and major crop grown 16
Table 4. Ownership of manually operated machines and farm tools 17
Table 5. Ownership of engine-powered farm machines (% of the households) 18
Table 6. Farmers’ experience in utilization of mechanization services 19
Table 7. Mechanization use in different periods 20
Table 8. The level of awareness and availability of mechanization hiring services 22
Table 9. Level of mechanization by the farm operations and regions (%) 32
Table 10. Level of mechanization by the major crop produced 38
Table 11. Prioritization of mechanization needs by farm operation (rank) 41
Table 12. Constraints for using mechanization hiring services 43
Table 13. Training and skill enhancement in crop production 44
Table 14. Training and skill enhancement in livestock production 45
Table 15. Constraints in farm machinery import, and manufacturing 54
Table 16. Major constraints for the hiring service providers 62

[i]
 Benchmarking the Status of
Agricultural Mechanization in Ethiopia
Yared Deribe1, Bisrat Getnet1,2, Tae Gyoung Kang3, and Agajie
Tesfaye2
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Melkassa Agricultural Research Center
2
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa
3
National Institute of Agricultural Science, RDA, Korea

አህፅሮት
የግብርና ሜካናይዜሽን ባለው ውስን የእርሻ መሬት ላይ ከፍ ያለ
ምርትን ለማግኘት ከሚያስችሉና አስተዋፅዖ ካላቸው ዓበይት
ምክንያቶች ውስጥ ቁልፍ ሚና ይጫወታል:: በኢትዮጵያ የግብርና
ሜካናይዜሽን የአቅርቦት ሁኔታ እንዲሁም የተደራሽነትና
የአጠቃቀም ደረጃን ለማወቅ በሰብል ምርታቸው ከፍተኛ በሆኑና
በተመረጡ የኦሮሚያ፣ የደቡብ ብሄር ብሄረሰቦች፣ የአማራና
የትግራይ ክልል አካባቢዎች አርሶ አደሩን መሠረት ያደረገ የዳሰሳ
ጥናት ተደርጓል:: ጥናቱ እንደሚያሳየው የአርሶ አደሩ አማካይ
የመሬት ይዞታ በአማካይ 1.25 ሄክታር ነው:: እንደሚታወቀው
አብዛኛዎቹ አነስተኛ አርሶ አደሮች የእርሻ መሳሪያ ማሽኖችን
ገዝተው የመጠቀም የአቅም ውሱንነት አለባቸው:: ይሁን እንጂ
በተወሰኑ የሀገሪቱ ክፍሎች የሚገኙ አርሶ አደሮች በግል
ባለሀብቶችና ቡድኖች አማካይነት የሜካናይዜሽን የኪራይ
አገልግሎት ያገኛሉ:: በአንፃራዊ መልኩ ሲታይ ከሁሉም
የሜካናይዜሽን ተግባራት የትራክተር እርሻ 17 በመቶ የሚደርስ
ከፍተኛ ተቀባይነት ያገኘ ሲሆን በተከታይነት የኮምባይነር ማጨጃ
ማሽን ተጠቃሚዎች መጠን 12 በመቶ ይደርሳል:: በእንስሳት ርባታ
ሥራ የተለያዩ ተግባራትን ለማከናወን የሜካናይዜሽን አጠቃቀም 1
በመቶ የሚሆን ድርሻ እንዳለው ታውቋል:: በአጠቃላይ 40.3
በመቶ የሚደርሱ አካባቢዎች የተለያዩ የግብርና ተግባራትን
በተቀላጠፈ ሁኔታ ለማከናወን የሚረዱ እንደ ትራክተር፣ ኮምባይነር

[1]
ማጨጃ፣ ሌሎች የመውቂያና የመፈልፈያ ማሽኖች ምንም ዓይነት
ተጠቃሚ የሌላቸው ናቸው:: ቀደም ሲል በመንግስት ድጋፍና እገዛ
ተጀምረው የነበሩ የሜካናይዜሽን የኪራይ አገልግሎቶች ቢቋረጡም
አንዳንድ የሀገሪቱ አካባቢዎች ለረጅም ዓመታት የቆየ የሜካናይዜሽን
ተደራሽነት ሲኖራቸው ሌሎች አካባቢዎች ግን ወደኋላ ሊቀሩ
ችለዋል:: የሜካናይዜሽን ተጠቃሚነት በጊዜ ሂደት ሲተነተን
አብዛኛዎቹ አርሶ አደሮች የኪራይ አገልግሎቶችን ማግኘት
የጀመሩት ከቅርብ 5 ዓመታት ወዲህ መሆኑ ተረጋግጧል:: በተለያዩ
ቦታዎችና ሰብሎች የሜካናይዜሽን የኪራይ አገልግሎት የአቅርቦትና
የአጠቃቀም ደረጃ ልዩነት አለ:: የሜካናይዜሽን አጠቃቀም ኢንዴክስ
በመቶኛ ሲሰላ በኦሮሚያ 12.1 በመቶ፣ በደቡብ ብሄር ብሄረሰቦች
4.38 በመቶ፣ በአማራ 4.35 በመቶ እንዲሁም በትግራይ ክልል
3.48 በመቶ መሆኑ ታውቋል።ከሌሎች የአዝዕርት ሰብሎች ጋር
ሲነፃፀር ስንዴን የማምረት ተግባራት በተሻለ መልኩ በእርሻ መሳሪያ
ማሽኖች የሚተገበሩ ሲሆን በኢንዴክስ ሲገለጽ 9.93 በመቶ
እንዲሁም በቆሎ 5.20 በመቶ፣ ማሽላ 2.25 በመቶ እና ጤፍ 0.84
በመቶ እንደሚደርስ ይገመታል።ከግብርና ሜካናይዜሽን አቅርቦት
ሥርዓት ጋር በተገናኘ ከሚያጋጥሙ ቁልፍና አንገብጋቢ ተግዳሮቶች
ውስጥ የውጭ ምንዛሪ እጥረት፣ የድህረ ሽያጭ አገልግሎት (ጥገና፣
መለዋወጫና የጥሬ ዕቃዎች አቅርቦት) አለመገኘትና ዋጋቸው ከጊዜ
ወደ ጊዜ እየናረ መሄድ እንዲሁም የሰለጠኑ የእርሻ መሳሪያ
ኦፕሬተሮች እጥረት ይገኙበታል። በተጨማሪም የግብርና መሳሪያ
ማሽኖችን በሀገር ውስጥ መገጣጠምና መፈብረክ ከውጭ አስመጥቶ
ከመሸጥ እኩል የፖሊሲ ድጋፍ አይደረግለትም። የሜካናይዜሽን
አቅርቦትና የአጠቃቀም ሂደትን ለማስተካከል እንዲሁም የአርሶ
አደሩን ፍላጎት ለሟሟላት ያሉትን መልካም ዕድሎች ከፍ ማድረግና
በመስኩ ለሚያጋጥሙ ተግዳሮቶች ጥናትና ትንተናን መሰረት
ያደረጉ የመፍትሄ እርምጃዎችን መውሰድ ያስፈልጋል።

[2]
Abstract
Mechanization is the key component among the factors that enhance
the intensification of agriculture. To grasp the benchmark status of
agricultural mechanization, a household survey was conducted in
the crop potential areas of Oromia, SNNP, Amhara, and Tigray
regions. The study indicated that the size of land owned by the
households is estimated at 1.25 ha. Smallholder farmers do not have
the capability to acquire large farm machinery; however, the
mechanism of access in some parts of the country is through private
and group-owned hiring services. Specifically, tractor ploughing
received the largest acceptance for which utilization accounts for
17% followed by combine harvesting with a rate of 12%. Livestock
mechanization makes up only 1% of the overall sample households.
A large portion of the study areas nearly 40.3% have no access to
tractors, combine harvesters, and threshers. Unlike the state-
induced past mechanization attempts that come up with failures,
some parts of the country are better mechanized since many years
ago while the rest of the areas are lagging far behind. The
mechanization trend shows that for all the available practices,
about 50% and even more of the households have become familiar
with the application of mechanical power during the recent five
years. The study findings further declare that there is a large
variation among regions and crop types on the access and
utilization of mechanization, ranging from none to full coverage. As
the weighted mechanization index confirms, the mechanically
operated activities in Oromia, SNNP, Amhara, and Tigray regions
account for 12.1%, 4.38%, 4.35%, and 3.48%, respectively. The
mechanization index is the highest for the wheat crop in contrast to
the major cereals. The proportion of the mechanically operated
activities are found to be 9.93% for wheat, 5.20% for maize, 2.25%
for sorghum, and 0.84% for teff. The major impediments for the
machinery supply system include shortage of foreign currency,
unavailability and expensiveness of maintenance, spare parts and
raw materials, and shortage of trained operators. In contrast to
imports, the machinery-manufacturing sector received inadequate

[3]
 policy support. To maintain the effective functioning of the
agricultural mechanization system and to address the growing
demand for machinery, enhancing the opportunities and taking
strategic measures against the most hampering factors remain
important.
Keywords: mechanization; hiring services; access and utilization; farm
machinery; supply system; variation; mechanization index

Introduction

Ethiopia is an agricultural country where the economy is largely

dependent on smallholder rain-fed farming with limited use of
farm inputs and improved crop management practices. The
agricultural sector is considered the engine of the country’s
economic growth, continued to play a leading role in spurring the
growth of the economy and ascertaining the envisaged
transformation in the rest sectors (FDRE, 2016). By virtue of this,
the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) vested strategic
direction and states that the agriculture sector expected to grow on
average by 8.6% per annum. Improving the production and
productivity of smallholder farmers through increased use of
technologies and farm inputs has been given due emphasis.

The underdevelopment of agricultural mechanization in Ethiopia

is partly explained by the limited support and focus imparted to
the sector. Despite its potential impacts on the intensification of
agricultural production, smallholder farming is still dependent on
traditional practices. Studies show that in many developing
countries, human muscle provides up to 80% of farm power
(Clarke, 2000). Similarly, human muscle and oxen-draft are the
dominant sources of farm power for land preparation and planting
[4]
particularly in cereal-based systems of the country. In the
agroforestry systems, hand-hoe is the dominant farm implement
and human muscle commonly used for all farm operations.

The benefits of mechanization are immense and include the

increment of yield, reduction of post-harvest losses, improvement
in the quality of products, and also makes human labor more
efficient (Giles, 1975; Diao et al., 2016; Reid, 2011). A shortage
of farm power causes delays in the accomplishment of critical
farm operations and eventually constrains the enhancement of
agricultural productivity and farm income (Sims et al., 2016).
Mechanization helps much in making a response to the ever-
increasing demand for food due to the rapid growth of population
and urbanizations. Thus, finding a lasting solution to the
country’s recurrent problems of poverty and food insecurity
requires the use of engine-powered machinery, farm equipment,
implements, and improved hand tools to enhance the efficiency of
farm operations.

Recognizing the benefits of agricultural mechanization, renewed

attention has been given to the enhancement of the access and
utilization of pre and post-harvest mechanical technologies. The
Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) and the Ministry of
Agriculture (MOA) have formulated the Agricultural
Mechanization Strategy (AMS), which is another indication of the
interest to encourage the development of mechanized farming in
Ethiopia as part of the country’s Growth and Transformation Plan
(GTP). The recent track of the promotion of crop technology
packages during the first cycle of the program enhanced the

[5]
demand for row planters, threshers, and post-harvest technologies
(MoANR & ATA, 2014).

Due to the focus of the mechanization strategy, various public and

private institutions now have shown interest to be aware of the
circumstances and make the necessary interference in the
development of the sector. So far, limited socioeconomic research
and evaluations have been conducted in connection to agricultural
mechanization in Ethiopia. The available information on the
access, status of utilizations, and critical bottlenecks did not
adequately represent the national perspective of mechanization in
the country and remained to be the major gap that the research
should address. Beyond the farmer's perspective, the supply-
related factors that hinder the delivery of machines, domestic
fabrication, provision of finance, and hiring services need to be
well examined. It calls for targeted investigation of the situations
that could generate the real picture for the introduction of the
necessary interventions and development backup by the relevant
actors.

Therefore, the study aims to generate baseline information on

farmers’ access and utilization of agricultural mechanization
practices in the crop and livestock production systems. Moreover,
it captures the knowledge about agricultural mechanization,
demand drivers, priorities, and the major bottlenecks in accessing
pre and post-harvest agricultural mechanization practices. The
supply-side analysis explores key challenges the machinery
importers, manufacturers, and hiring service operators are
encountered with and prevalent policy circumstances that are
encouraging or discouraging the proper functioning of the system.
[6]
Study Methods

Area of the study

Ethiopia has a total surface area of 1,104,300 square kilometers,
which has been sub-divided into nine administrative regional
states. The country is endowed with wide varying natural
phenomena and socioeconomic scenarios that nurture agricultural
production and productivity in different ways. The variation of
the conditions dramatically over relatively short distances offers
the opportunity for growing a large variety of crops.

The traditional agro-ecological representation defines only six

traditional zones. Based on the temperature, moisture regimes,
and the elevation of the areas, the country has long been
delineated into 18 major AEZs, which later on become 33
elaborated agricultural zones. Due to the existing heterogeneity of
the systems, the AEZS are further categorized into 49 sub-agro
ecological zones (MOARD, 1998; IFPRI, 2006; EIAR-MoA,
2008). Therefore, the similarities in terms of climate,
physiography, soils, vegetation, land use, farming system, and
animals characterize the subzones. Some crops have wide
adaptation to several zones whereas other crops are restrictive and
could be cultivated only in limited areas. Due to the reliability of
rainfall, the semi-moist, moist, semi-humid, and humid agro-
ecological zones have better cultivated than the sub-agro-
ecological zones of the arid and semiarid classes.

[7]
The data shows that land allocated for the production of cereals is
predominately larger among the grain crops with a share of
81.39% followed by 12.73% for pulses and 5.88% for that of the
oil crops. Furthermore, disaggregation of the main season shares
by the different crops indicates that vegetables take (1.67%), root
crops (1.6%), fruits (0.83%), and coffee (5.28%) (CSA, 2018).

Livestock production is an integral part of most of the farming

systems; its importance as the source of draught power is among
other social and economic values. The utilization of mechanically
processed and compound feeds is insignificant, it indicates that
the major types of utilized livestock feed include grazing and
green fodder (54.59%), residue (31.6%), improved feed (0.31%),
hay (6.85%), by-products (1.53%), and other sources (5.11%)
(CSA, 2016). When it comes to the processing of dairy products,
a study conducted in the Oromia region concluded that the
adoption rate of the milk churner technology is only 1.3%.
Generally, feed and dairy product processing technologies are not
well promoted and disseminated to the users (Tesfaye et al.,
2016).

[8]
The sampling design
The mechanization survey was conducted in the major four crop
producing regions of the country, Oromia and Southern Nation,
Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR), Amhara and Tigray
regions in different agro-ecologies and farming systems taking
into account of the dominant crops grown in each sampling units.
Considering the major crops, reports show that the crop of teff is
cultivated in the range of (1800-2200), wheat (1500-2700), and
barley (2000-3500) up to very cold weather, and maize (l500-
2200) meters above sea level. Sorghum is well adapted to 500 to
1,500 meters in low-moisture lowlands and mid-altitude areas
ranging from 1500 to 2300 meters (Gorfu & Ahmed, 2011; Taye
et al., 2018). The elevation of the actual study areas is wide
ranging that it stretches from the lowest 1462 meters a.s.l to the
highest of 2966.8 masl.

-
Legend
Not selected
Regions

Legend
Not Selected
Zones

0 175 350 700 1,050 1,400

Kilometers

1 cm = 13 km

[9]
 Legend
Not selected
Districts under study

Figure 1. Study areas for the mechanization

baseline study

Due to the prevailing diverse systems and circumstances, the

survey was designed to encompass only the high crop potential
districts as identified by the International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI) (Warner et al., 2015). The districts receive
considerable interventions by different programs due to the
relative importance for agricultural production. Thus, the study
districts are targeted as the crop production corridors where the
farm machinery use is conspicuous and considerable for the
expansion of agricultural mechanization. The study focuses on the
major four cereal crops grown in diverse agro-ecologies and
farming systems, i.e., teff, maize, wheat, and sorghum. The
circumstances with that of livestock has been considered

[10]
simultaneously with the crop commodity targets in the mixed
farming systems.

The design of the survey involved multistage sampling of the

units; stratified selection of the districts followed by the simple
random sampling of the representative Kebeles was performed in
the next stage. The survey covered about 27 districts and those
were assigned in proportion to the size of the population in each
region (Fig.1). Based on the determined number of districts and
crop commodities to be included for the baseline survey, random
samples of the households were drawn to grasp unbiased
statistical estimations and predictions. The desired sample size for
the baseline study is determined with the Cochran technique. A
total of 818 households were addressed, among which 303 from
Oromia, 153 from SNNP, 242 from Amhara, and 120 from Tigray
are the corresponding samples taken in each region.

The selection of machinery suppliers involves the purposive

sampling of mainly the large import dealers. The study also
considered some new firms that have joined the supply market
very recently. In the same way, the major manufacturing firms are
included in the sampling to grasp important information about the
supply of small-medium machinery. About six machinery import
dealers, four firms in both import and manufacturing activities,
one firm that is specialized in manufacturing of small-medium
machinery, and a newly emerged equipment lease company are
consulted. As studies indicated, most of the hiring service
providers are found in the wheat-producing and more mechanized
areas of Arsi and Bale. The purposive sampling of the hiring
service providers is designed in such a way that it includes private
[11]
hiring service businesses, large private commercial farms, farmer
operators, and cooperative unions. From each of the groups, about
10 hiring service providers in total have been contacted for
interviews and to generate the required information.

Methods of data collection and instrument

The prime source of data for the benchmarking study is the
household survey of the peasant households by interviewing the
randomly selected agricultural holders. The availability of the
sampling frame and exhaustiveness was checked through advance
field visits and contacts with concerned offices. In order to
administer the survey and ensure the quality of data, well-trained
enumerators undertook the face-to-face interview with the sample
households. Regular feedback among the survey team, adjustment
of data registry forms, monitoring, and verification of the
responses was undertaken. The collaborating institute has
undertaken a mid-term evaluation regarding the progress of the
tasks, achievement of plan targets, and encountered challenges.

The data was recorded in a structured and tested instrument that is

aligned with the main goals of the research. The paper-based
instrument was converted into an electronic form of data
collection with the use of the CSPro software. The survey
instrument included information about the demographic
indicators, crop, and livestock production, farm power uses in
various farm operations and mechanization. The level of
awareness, mechanization demand of the farmers, and major
constraints that hinder the access and utilization of mechanization
were covered.

[12]
In addition to the household data, the supply-side information was
captured through the formal and qualitative survey of the
machinery importers, manufacturers, a machinery lease provider,
and mechanization hiring services. A separate instrument was
designed for each of the machinery and service supplier
categories to generate information that encompasses existing
policy benefits and gaps, supply characteristics, and required
interference in the machinery supply system.

Data analysis
The data collected through the household survey has undergone
preliminary assessment and cleaning for the subsequent step in
data processing and analysis. It involved recoding of data,
computations, performing necessary conversions, and
standardizations. The dataset was analyzed employing descriptive
statistics to furnish the benchmark status of the access and
utilization of agricultural mechanization and other targets. The
analysis gives the picture of the overall level of mechanization or
mechanization index, and further disaggregates it by regions and
major crops grown. Data analysis comprises the determination of
the level of mechanization in the pre and post-harvest stages of
the farm operations in crop and livestock production. The
exploration of the machinery supply system also employs
descriptive and qualitative analysis.

[13]
Results and Discussion

Household and farm characteristics

The result indicates that the male-headed households comprised
94.6% of the total sample population. The mean education of the
household heads majorly falls in the primary education category
but proportions tell that majority of the households do not have
any literacy. As shown below, the male heads relatively are in a
better position in terms of education status than the female
household heads (Table 1).

Table 1. Education status of the household

Education category Household head Spouse
No literacy 36.94 60.84
Primary 23.85 14.25
Junior 27.50 16.69
High school 10.45 8.22
Tertiary 1.26 0.00
Survey data (2019)

The average size of the households is equivalent to 5.6 and the

age of the household head is 44.5 years. The size of land owned
by the households is 1.25 hectares while other studies declared
that the average holding is 1.80 ha (ATA, 2016). The mean size
of the cultivated land of the study areas was found to be 1.15
hectares. The actual operated land (1.48 ha) is a bit higher than
owned land due to the fact that farmers acquire additional lands
through leasing and sharing arrangements among others who
practice the reverse. The size of uncultivated land was found to be
only 0.02 hectares (1.6%); almost all of the land owned by the
households is already been cultivated.

[14]
Besides, quite a limited proportion of the farmers possess
uncultivated fallow lands. The mean size of grazing land is about
0.08 hectares or 6.4% of the land owned, which indicates that the
households devote considerably most of their land to crop
production (Table 2).

As the comparison shows, the mean cultivated land owned by the

households is 1.75 ha in Oromia, 1.23 ha in SNNP, 1.15 ha in
Amhara, and 0.77 ha in Tigray regional states. The size of
uncultivated fallow lands and grazing lands are also higher for
Oromia than other regional states. The forest and pastureland
exceptionally is a bit higher in the Amhara region followed by the
SNNP region.

Table 2. Household information and land use pattern

Variable Mean SD Min Max
Family size 5.62 1.92 2.00 13.00
Age of the head (years) 44.46 1159 23.00 85.00
Land owned (ha) 1.25 1.05 0.16 12.00
Total cultivated land-owned (ha) 1.15 0.94 0.00 8.00
Total cultivated land (operated) 1.48 1.14 0.13 18.25
(ha)
Uncultivated fallow land (ha) 0.02 0.10 0.00 3.63
Grazing land (ha) 0.08 0.23 0.00 4.00
Forest and pasture land (ha) 0.05 0.14 0.00 2.00
Number of oxen owned 1.74 1.26 0.00 10.00
Survey data (2019)

Teff receives the highest land area concurrent to the CSA data on
the total acreage among the major cereals crops. The land
allocated for the teff crop has a mean of 1.18 ha, which ranges
from the lowest of 0.13 ha to the maximum of 12.1 ha. In the
study areas, the land allocated for the production of wheat was
found to be the second with a mean of 1.13 ha, which falls in
[15]
between 0.13 ha to 6.50 ha. The land allocation status by the type
of crops grown is presented in (Table 3).

Table 3. Allocated land (ha) and major crop grown

Crop Mean SD Min Max
Wheat 1.13 1.07 0.13 6.50
Teff 1.18 1.31 0.13 12.10
Maize 0.71 0.59 0.13 4.38
Sorghum 0.64 0.44 0.13 2.75
Barley 0.62 0.59 0.10 4.00
Survey data (2019)

Ownership of farm machinery, technologies and

farm tools
As the result indicates, ploughing is the dominant operation,
which is carried out using draft animal power, and hence, almost
93.7% of the farmers under study own traditional ploughs locally
called “Maresha”. Even though some farmers are practicing
tractor-hiring services, seed covering and the subsequent tillage
operations are performed by the use of draught power. Other than
simple farm tools, the most owned machine by the farmers
includes a knapsack sprayer and animal-drawn carts. The study
finds that ownership and adoption of the BBM technology is
about 8.8 percent. As recent technology, the hermetic bag is
observed to be a well-promoted improved storage option with a
utilization rate of 38.3 percent, which is particularly higher in
Amhara and Tigray regions (Table 4).

[16]
 Table 4. Ownership of manually operated machines and farm
tools (% of households)
Farm machine and tool Total Oromia SNNP Amhara Tigray
(N=818) (303) (153) (242) (120)
Manually operated machines
Knapsack sprayer 37.12 51.66 20.72 43.65 28.49
Animal cart 18.80 30.13 33.53 18.26 7.14
Treadle pump 3.87 0.88 3.50 4.06 5.68
Wheel barrow 0.57 0.92 2.33 0.24 0.00
Forage cutter 0.24 0.60 0.81 0.00 0.00
Milk churner 1.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00
Farm tools and equipment
Metal Silo 2.07 1.20 0.81 1.01 3.92
Hermetic bag 38.25 11.05 2.84 50.58 57.22
BBM 8.76 15.55 1.54 13.53 3.20
Traditional plough 93.74 92.89 90.55 97.78 92.08
Hand hoe 80.36 84.62 83.41 81.13 76.07
Spade 82.21 81.72 67.00 89.38 81.94
Sickle 96.18 90.24 93.30 98.09 99.28
Mattock 19.95 23.51 19.58 23.09 15.32
Machete 40.80 48.75 48.31 29.49 42.51
Survey data (2019)

When it comes to the individual farmers’ ownership of small,

medium, and large engine-powered mechanization technologies,
quite a negligible proportion of the farmers have purchased
machines such as tractors and attachments, combine harvesters,
threshers, shellers, and other related tools (Table 5). Almost none
to the insignificant number of the farmers owned row planting,
feed chopping, and milk processing technologies. Relatively, the
most owned engine-powered type of machinery is a motorized
water pump with an estimated proportion of users of 4.4 percent.

[17]
 Table 5. Ownership of engine-powered farm machines (% of
the households)
Type of machine Total Oromia SNNP Amhara Tigray
and ancillaries
Tractor (4W) 0.24 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00
Two-wheel tractor 0.37 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disc plough 0.37 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
Harrow 0.12 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Planter 0.12 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tie ridger 0.24 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trailer 0.12 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Threshers 0.49 0.99 0.66 0.00 0.00
Combine harvester 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Motorized water 4.37 9.17 5.81 2.04 2.81
pump
Survey data (2019)

Experience, awareness, and availability of

mechanization hiring services
Unlike the state-induced past mechanization experiences that
ended up with failures, some parts of the country are better
mechanized since many years ago while the rest areas are lagging
far behind. The government-subsidized supply of machines and
hiring services that have been started in the 1980s have vanished
with the collapse of the regime. The farmers started to use tractors
for land preparation on the mean years of 6.4 and 4.5 for planting
purposes through rental services. Despite the large proportions
stated the recent years, some farmers used to hire tractors for the
past 30 years (Table 6). It also shows that there is a growing trend
in the use of combine harvesters. Some farmers had experience
working with the machine for about 40 years, roughly
simultaneous to the historical advent of the Agricultural
Mechanization Service Corporation (AMSC), which started
mechanization hiring service to farmers. On the other hand,
mechanical threshing, pumping of water, and improved storage
[18]
have come into use very recently with a maximum of a decade
and less in most cases.

Table 6. Farmers’ experience in utilization of mechanization

services (years)
Mechanization Total Max. Oromia SNNP Amhara Tigray
practice (mean)
Tractor plough 6.36 30 6.30 4.10 2.36 2.68
Harrowing 5.11 28 7.33 3.83 1.00 -
Planting 4.53 10 4.53 - - -
Combine 7.09 40 9.06 4.90 2.71 -
harvesting
Threshing 3.62 40 2.38 - 1.50 -
Maize shelling 7.84 36 13.04 2.47 3.59 -
Pumping water 3.00 10 2.78 3.34 2.50 2.62
Transporting 7.83 31 8.45 2.81 2.40 -
Improved storage 2.70 5 1.75 3.25 2.34 2.18
Survey data (2019)

The analysis has further examined the dynamics of the AM access

and experience through compartmentalization into different time
regimes. Accordingly, the expansion of agricultural
mechanization is more pronounced in the latest five years as a
large proportion of the farmers have started using most of the
mechanization practices during this time. Despite the limited
coverage of agricultural mechanization, the trend indicates that
there is a changing pattern of farming practices and
transformation of farm power sources in agriculture. There is a
growing interest of the farmers towards the use of farm machinery
in exchange for labor and draught power inputs. For instance,
only about 3% and 9.3% of the users have been realized before 15
years for tractors and combine harvesters, respectively. Whereas,
the mechanization experience that accounts for during the latest

[19]
five years (2015-2019) is about 70% for tractors and 59.7% for
combine harvesters. The farmers started to use mechanical
planting, water pumps, and improved storages in recent times.
With an exception to the Oromia region, the mechanization
practice is almost inexistent before 15 years, and it is only a
decade time since farmers started to learn and use alternative farm
power sources (Table 7).

Table 7. Mechanization use in different periods (percent)

Mechanization Number Oromia SNNP Amhara Tigray Total
use of years
Tractor plough 1-5 58.54 80.95 90.91 94.74 69.92
6-10 24.39 19.05 9.09 5.26 19.55
11-15 12.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.52
Over 15 4.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.01
Harrows 1-5 47.62 100 100 0.00 60.71
6-10 33.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00
11-15 9.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.14
Over 15 9.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.14
Planting/sowing 1-5 70.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.59
6-10 29.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.41
Combine 1-5 46.51 65.52 100 0.00 59.71
harvesting
6-10 22.09 34.48 0.00 0.00 20.86
11-15 16.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.07
Over 15 15.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.35
Threshing 1-5 96.15 0.00 100 0.00 93.10
6-10 3.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.45
11-15 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 3.45
Maize Shelling 1-5 17.86 81.82 86.36 0.00 54.10
6-10 32.14 18.18 13.64 0.00 22.95
11-15 28.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.11
Over 15 21.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.84
Pumping water 1-5 88.89 85.71 100 100 90.00
6-10 11.11 14.29 0.00 0.00 10.00
Transporting 1-5 54.55 100 100 100 59.18
6-10 15.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29
11-15 11.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.20
Over 15 18.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.33
Survey data (2019)
[20]
The majority of the farmers about 88.1% are aware of land
preparation with the application of tractor power followed by
58.8% for that of the mechanical pumping of irrigation water
(Table 8). However, quite small proportions of the farmers are
aware of grain grading, seed cleaning, and mechanical weeding
practices with the use of machines. None of the farmers has
knowledge about grain packaging technologies. Particularly, the
post-harvest handling technologies and techniques are unknown
by the farmers. The availability of the mechanization services as
indicated below is better for tractor ploughing, for which the
existence of the service is mentioned by 46.5% of the households.
The hiring services related to pulping of coffee, improved storage,
seed broadcasting, and planting are insignificant. The practices of
seed cleaning, grading, and packaging using machines are not
available at all.

[21]
 Table 8. The level of awareness and availability of
mechanization hiring services
Mechanization practice Level of awareness Availability (percent)
(percent)
Tractor plough 88.14 46.45
Water pumps 58.80 22.49
Chemical spray 49.02 29.71
Combine harvest 48.17 27.26
Harrow/leveling 38.39 26.89
Shelling 31.17 18.95
Threshing 29.58 17.24
Transport 17.24 9.90
Planting 10.02 5.99
Improved storage 7.82 1.59
Pulping of coffee 7.21 1.59
Survey data (2019)

The study indicates that there is high variation among regions on

the level of awareness towards the pre and post-harvest
mechanization. Tractor ploughing, combine harvest, and
harrow/leveling in order are the most widely known practices in
Oromia with proportions of 91.1%, 68.1%, and 64.5%,
respectively. In Tigray, none to the insignificant proportion of the
farmers knows the mechanization practices other than tractors and
water pumps (Fig.2).

[22]
 Oromia SNNP
Tractor plough
Tractor plough Water pump
Combine harvest Maize shelling
Harrow/level Combine harvest
Water pump
Threshing Harrow/level
Maize shelling Pulping coffee
Transport Improved storage
Planting Threshing
Improved storage Transport
Pulping coffee Planting

Amhara Tigray
Tractor plough
Tractor plough Water pump
Water pump Combine harvest
Combine harvest Threshing
Threshing
Maize shelling Harrow/level
Transport Planting
Harrow/level Maize shelling
Planting Pulping coffee
Improved storage Improved storage
Pulping coffee Transport

80% 40% 0 80% 40% 0

Figure 2. Farmers’ awareness about mechanization practices

[23]
The availability of the mechanization hiring services overall is
better in Oromia. In the same region, tractor ploughing,
harrowing/leveling, and combine harvesting are the most
available services. Considering tractors, the farmers who declared
the availability of the service is 68.4% in Oromia, 47.0% in
SNNP, 24.7% in Amhara, and 34.2% in Tigray regions. Above
40% of the farmers informed the existence of the hiring service
suppliers in their localities. As shown in (Fig.3), almost only three
types of mechanization services are available in the Tigray region.

In the Amhara region, the most available services are the

mechanical spraying of chemicals with the use of a knapsack,
pumping water, and tractor ploughing. Exceptionally, the access
to improved storage almost entirely explains individual ownership
than getting a hiring service from someone else. Though some
farmer cooperatives have purchased seed processing machines,
the result tells that grain cleaning and packaging practices are
unavailable in all areas.

[24]
 Oromia SNNP
Tractor plough
Tractor plough Chemical spray
Harrow/level Harrow/level
Combine harvest
Threshing Combine harvest
Chemical spray Maize shelling
Pumping water Pumping water
Maize shelling Threshing
Transport
Planting Planting
Pulping coffee Transport
Improved storage Improved storage
Pulping coffee
Amhara Tigray
Tractor plough
Chemical spray Chemical spray
Pumping water
Tractor plough Pumping water
Maize shelling Combine harvest
Threshing Harrow/level
Combine harvest Improved storage
Harrow/level Transport
Transport
Improved storage Pulping coffee
Planting Maize shelling
Pulping coffee Threshing
Planting
80% 40% 0 80% 40% 0
Figure 3. The availability of mechanization hiring services

[25]
Mechanical power access and mechanization index
After the termination of subsidized equipment rental service by
the Agricultural Mechanization Service Corporation (AMSC), the
relatively liberalized market at least permitted the emergence of
private operators, which in fact may not guarantee competitive
and efficient hiring businesses. The cooperative groups have a
mission to be an alternative supplier of the hiring service and
stabilization role through the purchase of their own equipment
and offer reasonable rents. Given the circumstances, the farmers
that have already had the experience continued to utilize tractors
and combine harvesters. The existing trend proves that individual
ownership of large machinery is not the necessary condition for
smallholder mechanization. Even though the farmers could not
afford to purchase them, the mechanism of access predominantly
is through the private hiring businesses. In other circumstances,
the large private commercial farms provide mechanization
services to farmers as side business beyond the investment in crop
farming.

The crop potential areas could have better convenience for

mechanization, most of the farmers described that land is highly
suitable accounting for (13.7%), suitable (39.8%) some level of
suitability (37.5%), and not suitable at all (9.0%). The
mechanization status is captured in terms of the proportion of
households that use at least one of the most available and utilized
engine-powered farm machinery, particularly tractors, combine
harvesters, threshers, and maize shellers.

[26]
The crop potential areas could be grouped into five mechanization
regimes that range from none to the high mechanization
categories (Fig.4).

A large proportion of the study areas, nearly 40.3% have no

access to the aforementioned major mechanization practices at all.
Farmers in those areas are entirely relying on traditional farm
power sources. The proportion that reaches 26.2% fall into the
low mechanization regime, i.e., areas with the estimated
mechanization users of less than 25 percent. The relatively highly
mechanized areas make up 18.6%, which includes places where
the majority of the households (75-100%) have access to either
one or more of the machines to undertake the most intensive field
operations.
Percent

Figure 1. Categorization of areas on the size of mechanization

users

[27]
Despite the recognized variation of the type and extent of
mechanization in different production systems, the currently
available and utilized crop mechanization practices include tractor
ploughing, harrows/leveling, planting, combine harvest, threshers,
shellers, water pumps, and improved storage. However, the
application of mechanical power with engine-powered machines
to other pre and post-harvest practices, such as chemical sprays,
weeding/inter-row weeding, seed cleaning, grading, and
processing technologies are hardly accustomed to farmers.

Some progress is observed recently, yet farmers have limited

access and utilization of mechanical power for most of the farm
activities. Utilizations may differ among crops grown within the
same location, for instance, in areas where wheat is mechanized,
it is not comparable with that of barley. It is also generally
observed that irrigated and cash crop areas attract more tractor
mechanization. A weighted data shows that among the large
mechanization inputs, tractor ploughing has the largest acceptance
with an estimated proportion of users that reaches 17%.
Subsequently, combine harvester is the second most used farm
machinery with the estimated users that account for 12% (Fig.5).
Combine harvesting often involves the transport of produce from
farm to storage with a negotiation that depends on the distance
where the plots are located.

[28]
 Figure 2. The access and utilization status of pre and post-
harvest mechanization

Considering the pre-harvest stage of production, the practices of

harrowing/land leveling and sowing (broadcast and row) have
utilizations below 5%. Row planting is among the recommended
technological components for most cereals for it is believed that
the practice enhances crop yields. Despite the recent time
promotional focuses and realized benefits, the requirement of
large labor and cost-effectiveness is questionable particularly
when family labor is considered. The lack of access to
laborsaving mechanical planters impedes further adoptions or
may lead to the non-adoption of the component practices.
Similarly, the study indicates that the utilization of the post-
harvest stages of productions, such as mechanical threshing and
improved storage is minimal.

[29]
Determination of the index of mechanization is performed
considering the currently available and utilized practices in the
pre and post-harvest stages of crop and livestock productions. The
index is constructed with the inclusion of about ten existing
mechanization practices and hence, according to (Ghosh, 2010),
an individual farmer with a score of 10 means highly mechanized
and zero implies no mechanization at all. The weighted index of
mechanization has a mean of 0.06, which indicates that the
majority of the farmers do not access at least one of the practices.
The computed index of mechanization has variations from zero to
a maximum of 0.5, i.e., utilization of about half of the mechanical
operations.

[30]
Mechanical power access and utilization by
locations
Based on the currently available or accessible mechanization
practices in different stages of crop and livestock production, the
Oromia region exclusively has the highest mechanization index of
0.12. This indicates that the application of mechanical power is
limited to about 12.1% of the various farm operations as
mentioned earlier. Proportion wise, the level of mechanization in
SNNP, Amhara, and Tigray regions is represented by 4.38%,
4.35%, and 3.48%, respectively. In contrast to other regions, the
Oromia region takes a share of 49.73% while the rest are below
20%, implying the existing variation in the level of mechanization
among the locations (Fig.6).

Figure 3. Mechanization access and utilization by region

[31]
The level of mechanization of farm operations in all the pre-
harvest and post-harvest stages and regions is compared.
Accordingly, disaggregation of the level of mechanization by
locations and the type of farm operations confirms that farmers in
the Oromia region are in a better position in the application of
tractor power for tillage purposes (27.9%) but the lowest in the
Amhara region. The use of combine harvesters remains the most
popular one, which accounts for 30.5% in Oromia, 12.5% in
SNNP, and 11.5% in the Amhara region. In Tigray, land
tractorization exceptionally remains to be the most familiar
mechanical operation among all the practices and none of the
farmers is using combine harvesting, transport, and maize shelling
practices. The application of mechanical power for the
accomplishment of the practices of harrowing/leveling, planting,
and improved storage is very limited. Tractor attached broadcast
and row planters exceptionally have come into use in Oromia
despite the proportion of users is not so large (Table 9).

Table 9. Level of mechanization by the farm operations and

regions (%)
Farm activity Oromia SNNP Amhara Tigray
Tillage operation 27.86 9.10 7.14 20.87
Harrowing/levelling 7.41 2.53 0.55 0.0
Planting 5.83 0.0 0.0 1.18
Pumping of water 9.87 13.91 6.58 8.33
Combine harvesting 30.50 12.51 11.47 0.0
Threshing 8.60 0.0 0.79 1.18
Shelling 6.69 8.87 11.23 0.0
Transport 22.11 0.40 1.97 0.0
Improved storage 1.20 0.81 1.01 3.87
Survey data (2019)

[32]
The presumed homogeneity of the kebeles within the districts in
terms of the mechanization status remains to be the rationale to
give a clue of the mechanization access and utilization at the
lower sampling units, ‘‘what is where’’ remark despite the
national perspective of the baseline survey. Therefore, the
analysis of the mechanization status in a typical kebele shows that
there is high dissimilarity in the access and utilization of tractors
across the districts, for instance, 55.6% of the study areas have no
or insignificant tractor users. The access and utilization in Bako
and Sebeta Hawas areas (Oromia Region) was found to be lower
than 5%. On the other hand, the top end of the data further
declares that there are areas with utilization rates of above 50%.
The maximum proportion of users was discovered in Asasa
district (West Arsi zone) that comprised 71.9% followed by
Sinana (Bale zone) and Dalocha (Silte zone). In the same way,
moderate level utilization was observed in Dugda and Lume
districts, both in East Shewa and Raya Azebo in the South Tigray
zone (Fig.7).

Figure 4. The utilization status of tractors

[33]
When it comes to combine harvesters (Fig.8), utilization is much
concentrated in the specific areas of the country. The wheat-
growing districts of Asasa and Sinana have high utilizations that
reach 100% and Dalocha (Silte Zone) is found to be among the
top combine harvester users. The mechanical harvesting has also
reached above 75% in Mecha (West Gojjam) where wheat is
cultivated as a double-crop next to maize and Tiyo (Arsi zone)
districts. It also shows limited utilization of below 10% in maize
producing Dugda (East Shewa) and even less than 5% in wheat-
growing Lemo (Hadiya) areas.

Figure 5. The utilization status of combine harvesters

As shown (Fig.9), maize sheller is most popular mainly in Bako

Tibe (West Shewa) and Mecha (West Gojjam); both of the
locations are the major maize potential production areas. The
study shows that most of the maize growing areas do not have the
access to shellers and utilization is restricted in some of the
districts.

[34]
 Figure 6. The utilization of maize shellers

Water pumps are widely utilized in the Lemo district (Hadiya)

where the share of farmers that are familiar with the practice
account for 51.6% followed by Dugda (East Shewa). The rest
locations have utilizations that range from 10-20% as indicated in
(Fig.10), 5-10%, and even much lower.

[35]
 Figure 7. The utilization of water pumps

Mechanical power access and index for the major

crops grown
With the consideration of the currently applied mechanical
operations in the production of the major crops, one to eight scale
is used to determine the level of mechanization. The former index
of mechanization bases on all the available practices regardless of
the crop and livestock commodities. Thus, the mean index of
mechanization for the major four cereal crops is estimated to be
0.05. The study finds that wheat remains on top with an index of
the value of about 0.10. This implies that the mechanically
operated activities comprise 9.93% of the overall farm operations.
Similarly, the proportion of mechanically operated activities are
estimated at 5.20% for maize, 2.25% for sorghum, and 0.84% for
teff crops. Comparatively, teff is the least mechanized that labor
and draught power are the sole sources of farm power in the
production of the crop.
[36]
Considering the share of mechanized activities by the type of
crop, the result indicates that wheat among cereals is relatively
the most mechanized crop with the highest share of 54.5%
followed by maize (Fig.11).

Figure 8. Level of mechanization by major crop grown

The application of mechanical power is further disaggregated by

the type of farm operation in the production of the major crops.
As shown in (Table 10), the level of tractor ploughing is the
highest for the wheat crop, which makes up 23 percent. The level
of mechanization of the major crops also confirms that the most
popular practice is the mechanical harvesting of wheat with a
significant proportion of 41.24 %. Wheat also takes the largest
share in terms of the utilization of threshers as well. Some farmers
are familiar with the practice of tractor harrowing/leveling in the
wheat-growing areas while it is inexistent for the rest of the cereal
crops. Similarly, the wheat-growers are also accustomed to tractor
attached broadcast and row planters in Arsi and Bale areas.
[37]
Though row planting of maize is a widely adopted practice,
mechanical planting is inexistent in all the locations.

The sorghum growing areas are better users of improved storage

technologies compared to teff and maize. In general, there is a
tendency that the wheat-growing areas are on the way to
mechanize the larger portion of the field activities.

Table 10. Level of mechanization by the major crop produced

Mechanization operations Wheat Teff Maize Sorghum
Tractor ploughing 22.99 6.88 6.75 8.48
Harrowing & levelling 4.85 0.00 0.00 0.00
Planting 5.60 0.46 0.00 0.00
Combine harvesting 41.24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Threshing 7.45 0.92 0.00 0.00
Shelling 0.00 0.00 23.63 0.00
Transport 23.72 0.46 1.26 1.12
Improved storage 2.92 0.46 0.42 3.37

Land size, slope, and mechanization

The relationship of the size of land owned by the households and
perceived steepness of the farmlands with that of mechanization
access is illustrated in (Fig.12). The ownership of large land size
more favors the utilization of mechanization, perhaps a reason for
existing variation among regions though influenced by other
factors too. Contrary to this, there is an indication that the steeper
nature of the farmlands has a negative association with the
utilization of tractors and combine harvesters. Despite flat
farmlands, the farmers in SNNP regularly cultivate intercropped
plots and has important implication towards favorableness for
mechanization. The feedback is that plots with perennial crops are
not much attractive for the tractor hiring service providers.

[38]
The smallness of the land owned coupled with the land steepness
less encourages mechanization in the other locations.

Figure 9. Mechanization, land size, and slope relationship

Livestock mechanization
In the mixed farming system, the study attempted to determine
the application of mechanical power to the livestock production
activities. Out of the total sample households, 78.1% at least have
a dairy cow and about 22.2% of the owners are processing milk
for household use or marketable products. It is also found that
only 2.1% have adopted improved dairy processing technologies
where the majority are dependent on the traditional methods.
Concerning honey production, the ownership of traditional and
modern beehives account for 10.4% and 4.7%, respectively. The
proportion of beekeepers of both beehive types is estimated at
13% among which, 34% are extracting honey with the use of
traditional processing methods while only one farmer has used
improved extracting technology.

[39]
As indicated above, labor and timesaving or value-adding
livestock technologies, such as honey extractor, milk churner,
milking machine, feed chopper, and forage cutter quite have very
low utilization with an estimated rate of 1%. Considering the
dairy technologies, two farmers have access to a milking machine
and one farmer that of milk churner in Ada’a (Bishoftu) district.
One of the milking machines is purchased and the other is
acquired through renting. The utilization of a simple and manual
forage cutter belongs to two farmers in Ada’a and three farmers in
Lemo (Hadiya) areas. The utilization of none of the livestock
mechanical technologies is observed in Amhara and Tigray
regions.

Farmers’ needs and drivers for mechanization

Farmers who have adequate awareness about the mechanical
technologies and services stated their preference and prioritized
farm operations provided that the services are available to them.
Overall, a weighted rank shows that tractor-ploughing, combine
harvesting, maize shelling, and chemical spraying practices are
mentioned as important and on top priority. For farmers in
Oromia and SNNP regions, maize shelling takes the third position
preceded by tractors and combine harvesters. The observed
dissimilarity is that in both Amhara and Tigray regions,
particularly chemical spray is the second most demanded
operation followed by combine harvesters (Table 11).

[40]
 Table 11. Prioritization of mechanization needs by farm
operation (rank)
Mechanization Oromia SNNP Amhara Tigray
practices
Tractor ploughing 2 1 1 1
Combine harvest 1 2 3 3
Maize sheller 3 3 5 4
Chemical sprayer 5 4 2 2
Harrows 6 5 4 7
Thresher 4 7 7 8
Planter 8 6 6 5
Water pump 7 9 8 6
Weeder/inter-row 12 10 9 9
weeder
Transport 9 8 10 12
Grain/seed cleaner 10 11 12 10
Improved storage 11 12 11 11

It is generally concluded that the challenges of farm power,

quality of work, timeliness, production, and cost-related issues are
the push factors and as well as realized benefits from
mechanization. The major drivers of mechanization as perceived
by the farmers are shortage of hired and family labor for 66% of
the households, gains of increased productivity (22.7%), shortage
of draught animals (5.1%), cost of production (2.8%), and others
(3.4%). On the other hand, the major benefits due to
mechanization in contrast to traditional power sources are also
declared as labor-saving benefits, mainly the family labor and
considerably accounts for 60.4%, improved productivity-21.6%,
timeliness of operations 12.2% and the remaining 5.8% stated the
gains in terms of less cost of production, the better quality of
work and reduced losses.

[41]
The demand based on the rental service access indicates that
74.1% of the farmers have a preference to get the mechanization
services through the private providers, 23.2% from farmer
cooperatives, 2% would like to buy own machinery and the rest
small proportions indicated supply from public institutions, such
as extension services. Despite growing cooperative-owned
mechanization service provision, the scope of the service is
limited that the private sources take up 97.7% for tractor
ploughing and almost all for that of combine harvesting, planting,
and threshing operations. For maize shelling, 71.7% of the
farmers obtained the service through private operators, 16.7%
from farmer cooperatives, and 11.7% from hybrid sources.

Constraints for using mechanization

hiring services by farmers
For farmers in Oromia, the high cost of the hiring services,
unavailability, and shortage during peak season (delayance)
remain the most important and prioritized bottlenecks for using
mechanization hiring services. The farmers in SNNP declared the
same situations but the unavailability of hiring services matters
most. Beyond the fact that the high cost of the services and
unavailability in order are on top priority for the Amhara region,
experienced failure of machinery is exceptionally the third most
important limitation. From the farmers' perspective in general, the
aforementioned supply-side challenges and unfavorableness of
the farm plot situations are the most limiting factors that hinder
the access and utilization of mechanization (Table 12).

[42]
 Table 12. Constraints for using mechanization hiring services
Hiring related constraints Oromia SNNP Amhara Tigray
High cost of hiring farm machinery 1 2 2 1
Unavailability of farm machinery to 2 1 1 2
hire
Machinery is not available at peak 3 3 5 6
operation
Steepness of the land 4 4 4 4
The small size of the plots 6 5 6 5
Lack of credit to hire services 7 6 8 3
No road access to the farmland 5 7 7 7
The machine does not perform 9 9 3 9
well
Fragmented plots and far from 8 8 9 8
each
Soil not suitable for machinery 10 10 10 10

Institutional services and mechanization

Training and mechanization extension
As the analysis indicates, about 64.9% of the farmers have access
to extension training among all the survey participants. The skill
enhancement efforts that center on the mechanical operations in
the pre and post-harvest stages of the crop and livestock
management practices account for 26.1%. The training on crop
productions mainly focuses on row planting, use of improved
seeds, and fertilizer application (Table 13). The national extension
system has formulated packages for specific commodities, which
encompasses row planting of the major cereal crops. The labor-
consuming nature of the activity and cost-effectiveness are the
presumed factors that push back the full acceptance of the
recommendations. As a result, it entails the application of
mechanical power sources in lieu of labor while the lack of

[43]
availability and access to row planting methods further constrains
adoptions.

On the other hand, the use of effective storage, reduction of

losses, and seed cleaning techniques have received insignificant
attention in the capacity development framework.

Table 13. Training and skill enhancement in crop production

Training topics Access to training (%)
Row planting 53.42
Use of improved seeds 51.10
Fertilizer application 46.94
Seed rate 36.19
Land preparation 35.57
Compost application 34.60
Irrigation 22.13
Pests and chemical application 20.78
Harvesting 19.32
Weed control and weeding 15.40
Seed cleaning 3.42

Considering the livestock management training, the uses of

improved forage and feeding of factory by-products have received
more attention (Table 14). The practices that require mechanical
power sources including feed choppers, milk churners, milking
machines, and honey extractors have been addressed for
participants that reach 30.2%. The awareness and availability of
livestock mechanization technologies remain important for the
significant uptake of livestock management practices, particularly
in the peri-urban and urban areas. The livestock value chain is
underdeveloped that no awareness is created concerning the
processing of dairy products, for instance, cream separation and
packaging for hygienic handling of perishable products.
[44]
Quite a few farmer groups are involved in the collection,
processing, and packaging of dairy products. To enhance the
access and utilization of the livestock mechanization practices,
required interceptions could be made depending on the farm types
and dairy channels, such as milk collection points, women, and
youth groups.

Table 14. Training and skill enhancement in livestock

production
Training focus Access to training (%)
Improved forage 43.77
Use of factory by-products 31.30
Milking & milking machine 24.33
Chopping of feed 24.08
Churning of milk 10.88
Extraction of honey 6.60
Dairy marketing 6.48

Access to finance for mechanization

Among other factors, the dearth of capital remains important and
constrains the purchase of large farm machinery by farmers,
farmer hiring service operators, cooperative hiring services, and
private operators. The credit terms and probable default in
relation to loans dedicated to heavy farm machinery have posed a
huge obstacle in accessing via different formal financial sources.
This has elicited a revisit of the credit supply system and
nowadays, some farmers have started purchasing the less
expensive Chinese-fabricated tractors due to the increased
availability of finance. Similar study by (Berhane et al., 2017)
discussed that for the private operators and service providers, the
purchase of farm machinery is accompanied by a down payment
of 30-50 % and the complete settlement of the loan extends up to

[45]
2-3 three years. However, the nominal interest rate has reached
16% during 2016, which is double than the rate before three
years.

Considering the sample households, the study shows that 23.7%

have the access to credit. More specifically, about 2.4% of the
total households and 10.3% of those who accessed credit have
used it for buying farm implements or spent it to cover the
machinery hiring cost. The Micro Finance Institutions (MFI)
account for 95% of the credit source whereas 5% have obtained
from their relatives. Out of the total samples, only two of the
farmers informed that they purchased tractors through the MFI
credit. In general, the major financial sources in supplying credit
to the rural community are the Micro Finance Institutions (MFIs)
with the largest share of 75.3%. The financing of youth-based
mechanization hiring businesses by the job creation schemes is
the other indirect interference with the complementary objective
of enhancing the farmers’ access to mechanization inputs.

Emerging equipment lease financing

Leasing plays a substantial role in industrialized countries in the
financing of investments, which is provided by financial
institutions, manufacturers, and intermediating leasing companies
(Nair et al., 2004). Leasing offers the opportunity for companies
that do not have the desire to acquire equipment with own capital
or else are restricted by finance to purchase the equipment. In a
similar way to term loans, the finance leases are usually
noncancelable and sequential settlement of the lease is required
based on the initial agreement.

[46]
Up on amortization of the full equipment cost or become a full
payout lease, the lessee has the option to purchase the equipment.

Realizing the existing limitation of finance in the import and

distribution of agricultural machinery in the country, the first
privately owned equipment-leasing firm has emerged very
recently. Ethio Lease has become the new intermediary for
financing the mechanization value chain after it has started its
operation in 2019, acquiring a license from the National Bank of
Ethiopia. Ethio Lease is a subsidiary of the American Africa
Asset Financing Company (AAFC).

The company did not require a distinct guarantee of the asset in

supplying the equipment, rather the farm machinery itself serves
as collateral in the leasing arrangement. The lease finance system
further offers maintenance, insurance, operator training, and
certification in partnership with the machinery suppliers. The
company has outsourced the after-sales services to the major
machinery dealers, such as MOENCO and Kaleb Farmer’s House.
Once the lease finance is recovered within two to three years, the
buyers will have the opportunity to own the machine at pre-
agreed and price lower than the market value at that time. As the
lease-financing firm is a foreign company, it faces no restriction
of exchange currency, which is a vital problem for most of the
machinery dealers and manufacturers that have no export wing
that generates the required foreign currency.

The feedback tells that the company delivers high-quality brand

machinery such as New Holland, Case, John Deere, and Claas,
etc. The major types of farm machines supplied includes tractor,
[47]
combine harvesters, threshers, row planter, tractor mounted
sprayer, boom spray, baler, and trailer (8-ton capacity). Currently,
the firm is working with about ten strong farmers unions across
the country.

As a new company, Ethio Lease faces challenges of access to

information on the exact size of the market, exaggerated demand
prediction, market saturation, and distortion of import. For
instance, the buyers also complained that the recently imported
tractors have failed to accomplish the tillage operation in the Bale
areas. Unfortunately, due to the oversupply of combine
harvesters, the hiring service rate has reduced from 120 to 40
birr/quintal. The service providers demanded the cancelation of
the deal, however in principle; the finance lease remains a legally
binding agreement and dictates enforcement right away.
Unforeseeable business risk has become the major challenge that
is negatively affecting the system. The missing or weak insurance
market and experience in Ethiopia in the handling of associated
business risks has constrained the proper functioning of the
equipment lease finance.

The supply of farm machinery and mechanization

hiring services
The major dealers that are operating in the importation of farm
machinery for long years include, The Motor and Engineering
Company of Ethiopia (MOENCO), Ries Engineering, Gedeb
Engineering, and Gasco Trading (livestock equipment). Wereta
International Business and Albar Trading are the new firms that
have joined the sector. The public-owned Adama Agricultural
Machinery Industry (AAMI), Kaleb Farmers House, and AMIEO
[48]
Engineering are the major agricultural machinery assembly and
manufacturing companies, which are also involved in the
importing business. With its branches located in Addis Ababa and
Hawassa, Selam Technical and Vocational Training Center is
entirely operating assembly and manufacturing of small to
medium farm machinery.

Currently, the company is engaged in the manufacturing of own

machines and the multiplication of improved and patented
mechanical technologies through linkage with the Agricultural
Engineering Research at Melkassa Agricultural Research Center.

Farm machinery import and manufacturing

Among the supplies of farm machinery, a large majority are
importers while few of the firms are engaged in assembling and
the manufacturing of both manual and engine-powered machines.
The dealers have operated in the import and manufacturing
activity from 2 years for the newly entering firms and up to 52
years for the oldest once. Despite investors are exempt from
taxes, farmers and cooperatives should pay import duty and
value-added tax that reach 35-40% of the purchase value of the
machinery. The policy dialogue further led to a complete waiver
of the import duties and taxes on agricultural machinery,
irrigation technologies, and livestock feed ingredients.

Most of the machinery dealers are providing after-sales service

for about one year. After the end of one year, they give a
maintenance service by covering the cost of mechanics while the
owner of the machine covers the cost of spare parts though
situations vary among suppliers.
[49]
Despite the price of the farm machinery is increasing from time to
time, the suppliers indicated that the sales quantity has an
increment over the past five years and even more importantly in
the recent two years. The import dealers also inform that the most
demanded farm machines and implements include tractors higher
than 125 horsepower, combine harvesters, disc ploughs, harrows,
threshers, maize shellers, water pumps, and planters. Among the
livestock technologies and equipment, feed choppers, forage
cutters, feed mixers, and incubators have moderate demand.

The sales and distribution information tells that there is important

involvement of public actors and NGOs in the supply system of
farm machinery. Tractors and attachments, threshers, shellers, and
planters are largely sold through credit arrangements and
assistance by organizations, though in that case, the suppliers
hardly distinguish farmers, hiring operators, and large commercial
farms that are involved both in farming and mechanization hiring
business. Other than planters, the direct purchase of machines by
small-scale farmers is observed following the institutional
facilitation of the access. For the combine harvester, the
predominant share of the distribution comprises hiring firms and
small-scale farmers compared to tractors that are accessed by
multiple buyers. The sale of planters is mainly connected to
promotional activities by different institutions whereas state farms
(large-scale sugarcane farms and seed enterprises) remain to be
the major buyers (Fig.13).

[50]
Figure 10. The sales and distribution of farm machinery

[51]
The manufacturing and assembly activities include dismantling of
parts for easy transportation and the Semi-Knock-Down stages of
the manufacturing process. Adama Agricultural Machinery
Industry (AAMI) is targeting to reach up to 35% for the Semi-
Knocked-Down (SKD) in the short term and Complete-Knocked-
Down (CKD) stage in the long term. The machinery
manufacturers are assembling tractors of light (8-15 hp), medium
(18-40 hp), and heavy (>45 hp) categories. Moreover, pre-harvest
and harvest equipment, such as moldboard plough, tie ridge,
sprinkler, water pumps, row planter, and potato digger and the
post-harvest types including threshers, maize sheller, metal silo,
rice polisher, tomato extractor, and grain cleaner are fabricated.
Trailers of different sizes and those with hydraulic lifts are
manufactured domestically. Among the machines and equipment
used for livestock production or product processing, the firms
supplying feed mixers, milk churners, honey extractors, and feed
choppers. The current supply and use of mechanization is
concentrated in the major wheat-growing areas of the country.
The prospects for expansion of mechanization include the crops
of sesame, maize, barley, teff, sorghum, rice, haricot beans, and
cotton. The experience indicated that the introduction of a grass
cutting kit for teff harvesting and the availability of an
exchangeable blade (header) of combine harvester for the maize
crop has proved promising results. For the two crops, positive
feedback is obtained from hiring service providers that it is
convenient for operating medium-sized farms and clustered
service users. The expansion of commercial farms of irrigated
wheat production in the lowland areas and avocado crops has
stimulated the demand for water pumps and other irrigation
components.
[52]
Major constraints in farm machinery import and
distribution
Currently, one of the major challenges for the import and
manufacturing sectors is the high shortage of foreign currency
coupled with the depreciation of exchange rate, which
exacerbated the expensiveness of machinery and spare parts
(Table 15). The old custom practice was allowing for keeping
machines in stock for only about 3-4 months but now it is
possible to keep more time without restriction. It has also helped
for the reduced bureaucracy of the import and the machinery sales
processes. However, the customs authority started a new
procedure to check on the evidence of certification for
cooperatives or proof of the land tenure status for farmers. The
new procedure has again prolonged the sales and distribution
process. The prolonged bank loan process, lack of skill in
operation and simple repairs, damage of tractors due to
overloading, and delays in the delivery of spare parts are
mentioned. Due to the oversupply of combine harvesters in a
specific area, the buyers returned the machines to Ethio Lease as
the price of the combine hiring service gets lower and they are
afraid that the operators will repay the loans within three years.
There is a lack of reliable information about the markets and
demand factors, categories of the mechanization prospects,
suitability, and appropriate mechanization alternatives for a
specific location.

In connection to livestock, the cooperative exhibition is the only

approach used so far and inadequate promotion of the mechanical
technologies and gaps of awareness remain important. Despite
existing policy advantages for farm machinery import, the
[53]
livestock mechanization inputs, such as feed choppers, forage
harvesters, balers, churning machines, milking machines, and
incubators are not still exempted from taxes by the customs for
unknown reasons. As a result, the high price of the machines and
limited access to currency constrained the supply and utilization.
In response to the request by importers, the customs authority
required further clarification about the livestock equipment from
the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. Based on
the amended policy, the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural
Resources (MoANR) undermentioned the livestock technologies
and implements and claimed the tax exemptions; however, this
did not materialize into practice for more than about a year.

Table 15. Constraints in farm machinery import, and

manufacturing
Machinery import Rank Manufacturing Rank
Shortage of foreign currency 1 High cost of parts and raw 1
materials
Lack of ancillaries (parts) 2 Lack of policy support (tax) 2
High cost of ancillaries 3 Lack of spare parts and raw 3
materials
Lengthy custom duty 4 Expensiveness of machines 4
Capital shortage 5 Unavailability of machines 5
Low market demand 6 Capital shortage 6
Expensiveness of machines 7 Shortage of foreign currency 7
Lack of experience 8 Skill problem 8
Credit default 9 Electricity and power shortage 9
Skill problem 10 Low market demand 10
Trained human power 11 Lack of trained human power 11
problem
Instability and security issues 12 No evaluation and quality control 12
Lack of policy support (tax) 13 Product quality problems 13
Awareness gap (livestock, 14 Limited promotion 14
combine harvesting of maize
and teff)

[54]
Major constraints and limitations in the manufacturing of
machinery
The high price of the machinery parts and raw materials is the
most important issue as routinely raised by the manufacturers.
With the time-to-time rising price of materials for manufacturing,
the price of the good quality assembled product will be expensive
for farmers compared to other manufactured products available on
the market (Table 15). Existing high inflation has affected the
price of engines, parts, bearings, angle iron, sheet metal, and other
materials, which are useful for domestic manufacturing. The
availability problem of preferred high quality and durable engines
particularly for manufacturing of threshers is mentioned. For the
Semi-Knocked-Down (SKD) of 10% or higher, raw materials,
parts, and even the simplest bolts and nuts, which could at least be
manufactured domestically are not easily available. Due to the
interference of brokers in the international market in acquiring
spare parts, some manufacturers have abandoned the assembly
(e.g., threshers).

As the feedback indicates, the policy gives a tax advantage only

to firms that are operating above 35% of the Semi-Knocked-
Down segment of the manufacturing process. It is so difficult for
them to compete due to the lack of exemption of import duty and
VAT in the same way as importation; rather more encouragement
is essential for the growth of the local manufacturing sector. For
instance, a manufacturing firm loses a margin of 100-120
thousand birr in the fabrication of a trailer compared to direct
importation despite the variations in quality and cost efficiency
between the domestic and foreign firms.

[55]
For the replacement of the imports of Complete Built Unit (CBU)
and advancement to Complete-Knocked-Down (CKD), Adama
Agricultural Machinery Industry (AAMI) requires a well-
equipped facility (similar to Bishoftu Automotive Engineering
Industry); however, the shortage of capital investment is the
restriction in advancing the manufacturing effort. Moreover, lack
of testing facility, assembling sections , detailed trouble-shooting,
absence of digital information service, the skill of technicians,
and apprentice training are declared as major areas that need
interventions.

The manufacturers also are facing the challenges of shortage of

currency, frequent interruption of electric power, high interest
rate, and unavailability of interest-free credit for other firms. The
manufacturing of agricultural machinery is also constrained by
the gap of skill, which includes the technical capacity to copy a
given machine with precision and the ability to deliver within the
specified standard quality and time. The absence of decentralized
manufacturing is found to be a retarding factor for the
advancement of the sector. For the manufacturing of a particular
machine, most of the required parts and fittings are produced by
the same company, for example, bearings, pulleys, and small
engines. When a single manufacturer is attempting to produce
everything by itself, not only results in a delay but also has a
disadvantage of cost increment. Alternatively, other similar
enterprises could manufacture the parts separately and vertical
merger enables to enhance the efficiency of the manufacturing
process.

[56]
The manufacturers lack the culture of specialization towards the
particular machinery that they are engaged in producing every
possible equipment that has been requested. Moreover, limited
promotion of the finished products, unavailability of branch
offices in rural areas, shortage of well-trained human power, lack
of innovation, absence of neither of the testing and evaluation
facilities, unavailability of product guarantee, and gaps in
networking with research and technology centers are important
for its growth.

Generally, manufacturing should be encouraged with an aim of

reduction of full imports and the domestic fabrication of at least
parts of the machinery, such as tires, a canvas of the sit, front
light, backlight, horn, hose, etc… has to be emphasized.
Transportation of semi-finished machines and materials is
advantageous for the import; it is convenient for shipping more
tractors instead of the single one. The access to foreign currency
and duty-free advantages for engines, parts, cutting tools, iron,
plate, and belts not only helps to replace imports but also to
resolve the problems that are encountered during the importation
of spare parts. The important roles of the extension service
towards awareness creation, attention by research, and TVET
training are important areas for improvement. The
competitiveness and efficiency of domestic manufacturing even
might induce tariff protection for further encouragement and
technological progress.

[57]
Mechanization hiring service providers
The mechanization hiring schemes that came into existence have
laid down the foundation in promotion of the mechanical
technologies to smallholder households.

According to (Bishop, 1990), the Agricultural Mechanization

Service Corporation (AMSC) was established in 1985 under the
Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) and had a mission for playing a
leading role in rendering the mechanization technologies to the
small-scale farms.

About five categories of mechanization hiring service providers

are existent. It includes private operators, private commercial
farms, farmer cooperatives, medium-scale farmers, and the
recently emerging youth-based models. Considering the size of
the service market, the low-priced tractor owners (farmer-owned)
have estimated users of 60-810 with an annual operated land of
about 100-220 hectares. As the service providers commented, the
hiring business is not much profitable with the low-cost and low-
powered tractors particularly for operating the medium to hard
soil types. For the expensive and high-powered tractor owners,
the service users range from 3000-40000 and the operated area of
1100-4000 hectares. In some places, the farmer-owners started the
tractor-ploughing service in areas where it was unavailable at all.
It is not very common with other suppliers that the farmer-owners
also give services on credit to the neighboring farmers.

The most common types of mechanization hiring services

provided include tractor ploughing and combine harvesting
practices. Though it is not widely, harrowing, sowing, planting,
[58]
and baling of crop residue are among the services offered.
Differently, the Hetossa Farmer Cooperative Union in Arsi
renders seed or grain cleaning service for about 5000 farmers
including extended services to the SNNP region. The tractors
owned by the hiring service providers range from 90-130
horsepower with a working efficiency of 0.5 to 2 hectare per
hour, showing the variation between the tractors. Considering
combine harvesters, 130-180 horsepower are in use.

The tractor ploughing service rate is determined per hectare basis,

which varies from 1000-3000 birr depending on the difficulty of
land, and distance from roads and towns. For harrowing and
sowing activities, the corresponding rate is 600-1000 birr and
600-700 birr per hectare, respectively. The combining harvesting
rate applies per quintal (100 kg) of harvested grain, which ranges
from 40-200 birr depending on land productivity, distance, and
accessibility to roads.

The mechanization association, which is located in Asella, Robe-

Bale, and Shashamene revises the service price each year. The
hiring rate depends on the location of the service, topography, the
price of grain, and negotiation with farmers. Under the
circumstances of clustering, the farmers negotiate on the lower
hiring rate even though it is not a formal group. However, the
information tells that the proportion of cluster-based service out
of the individual service is 17.14%. Non-member operators
indicated that they follow the market rate as determined by the
mechanization association; otherwise, for migratory services
broker agents are deciding the rates. In delivering the
mechanization hiring services, the cooperative unions are
[59]
acquiring relevant information from the district cooperative
office. After covering the variable costs of fuel, oil, and wage of
the operators, the hiring service rate is declared. Generally, the
cooperative unions are charging up to 50% lower hiring rates
compared to the private operators.

The farmers are comparing the machine hiring cost with the labor
cost of harvesting wheat so that they prefer machines. For
combine harvester, other than the convenience of land, the
production per hectare is a barrier for entry to the new areas. With
reduced transportation of the machines between places, the more
productive areas are much attractive for the operators. The
cooperative unions are adjusting the payment for the service
offered on an area basis in the less productive areas. The combine
harvesting hiring rate of 1500 birr/ha and more are used.
However, the cooperatives have many limitations and they are not
adequately responding to the farmers’ demand. The private
operators have started to give services to these areas by charging
more per unit of the harvest if production is below 20 quintals per
hectare. Following the cooperatives, in other cases where the
farmers are not willing to pay more, the private operators offer the
services on a hectare basis.

For the single mechanical operation, the lowest area required by

the service providers ranges from 4-20 hectare for giving services
nearby (below 40-50 km) while for distant areas (above 60 km),
land size of greater than 30 hectares or even more than100 hectare
is expected. The other decision criteria for rending the services is
the request by farmers, expected area of land, hardness of the soil,
wearing of disc plough, presence of stone, topography, road
[60]
condition (nearness to asphalt road and all-weather road),
productivity, weather condition, fuel availability, peace and
security, availability of maintenance and logistics, such as
nearness to towns.

Major constraints for the mechanization hiring services

As the business is profitable, the awareness of the farmers
increased, and the demand for hiring services is there, the desire
to expand the hiring services to unaddressed areas of the country
is limited by the quantity of machinery owned and capital
investment. The private banks are offering credit at a high interest
rate and the supply itself is inadequate. According to the farmer
operators, the brands of tractors also matter for profitability and
they would like to replace them with other high-powered tractors.
There exists a better opportunity of expanding the service and
generating higher revenue.

The cooperative unions raised limitations of capital shortage to

expand the mechanization hiring service, as they are involved in a
multitude of services. For example, buying grain and milling of
flour requires a capital of 50 million birr and more for each of the
services. The lack of focus in terms of capital investment, time,
human power, and management capacity are important handicaps
and with this circumstance, even they are not able to fulfill the
needs of the member farmers.

In general, the lack of trained and skilled machinery operators,

expensiveness and unavailability of machines and spare parts,
high tractor downtime, and lack of maintenance services are
important machine and input-related limitations. The
[61]
mechanization hiring services are also constrained by the physical
and external factors, such as the steepness of land topography,
difficult soil, lack of roads, high transaction cost, and fragmented
nature of the plots, etc... (Table 16).

Table 16. Major constraints for the hiring service providers

Machinery and input Rank Physical and external Rank
related constraints
constraints
Shortage of operators 1 Land topography 1
The high price of spare parts 2 Difficult soil 2
Lack of spare part 3 Road problem 3
Expensiveness of machines 4 High transaction cost 4
Machinery failure 5 Fragmented plots 5
Lack of maintenance 6 Peace and security 6
problem
High oil price 7 Imperfect information (land 7
type, roads, users)
Limited capital and credit 8
Fuel unavailability 9

[62]
Conclusion and Recommendations
As the agricultural sector is considered the engine of the country’s
economic growth, the development programs vested strategic
support for the development of the sector. Moreover, policies
heavily relied on agriculture for ensuring transformations and
eventually propelling the rest wings of the economy. Despite the
observed progress, the Ethiopian agricultural system is still
constrained by the limited application of improved technologies,
farm inputs, and mechanical power and is vulnerable to frequent
climatic shocks.

The study addressed the baseline status of agricultural

mechanization in different agro-ecologies and systems focusing
on the most productive and potential districts in Oromia, SNNP,
Amhara, and Tigray regions. Results show that the mean
education level of the household heads majorly falls in the
primary category.

The mean size of land owned by the households is 1.25 hectares

while cultivated land is equivalent to 1.15 hectares. The
comparison shows that the mean cultivated land owned by the
households is about 1.75 ha in Oromia, 1.23 ha in SNNP, 1.15 ha
in Amhara, and 0.77 ha in Tigray regions.

Mechanization is the key input that enhances factor productivities

and reduces delays in the accomplishment of farm activities
which otherwise the farmer could incur significant yield penalties.

[63]
The agricultural sector in the country remained labor-intensive
occupation and it heavily dependent draft animal and human
power particularly family labor. Induced by dynamic and external
factors that determine the availability of family and hired labor,
emerging interest towards mechanization is observed among
farmers and development actors. The feedback indicates that the
major drivers for increased demand for mechanization include
shortage of hired and family labor, realized gains of land
productivity, shortage of draught animals and animal feed, and
raising wages. The farmers’ factor substitution decision involves
making choices that logically associates with the cost advantages
of mechanization comparative to the labor cost of the specific
field operation.

Considering the ownership of farm machinery, quite a negligible

proportion of the farmers have purchased tractors, combine
harvesters, threshers, and shellers. However, the prevalence of
custom hiring services has significantly improved access and
utilization, particularly in the Arsi and Bale wheat belt areas.

The awareness about the pre and post-harvest mechanization and

availability of the hiring services has wide variation among
regions. For instance, the farmers who have the access to tractor-
hiring services if they wish to utilize them account for 68.4% in
Oromia, 47.0% in SNNP, 24.7% in Amhara, and 34.2% in Tigray
regions. Depending on the proportion of users of a particular
practice, the crop potential areas are categorized into five
mechanization regimes that range from none to the high
mechanization status.

[64]
The study further finds that about 40.3% of the areas do not have
access to tractors, combine harvesters, and threshers.

Though there are farmers who are familiar with the

mechanization practice for the past 30 to 40 years, however, a
large majority have started using mechanization in the latest
years. As the evidence at hand confirms, less than 10% of the
farmers have started using tractors and combine harvesters before
15 years ago, whereas 60% and more of the farmers become
familiar with the practice during the latest five years implying the
ongoing transformation of farm power sources in agriculture.

The computed index of mechanization has a mean value of 0.06

and represents that most of the households do not access either
one of the most available mechanization practices. The
mechanically operated crop and livestock production practices are
determined to be 12.1% in Oromia, 4.38% in SNNP, 4.35% in
Amhara, and 3.48% in Tigray regions. Among the large
mechanization, the utilization of tractors and combine harvesters
is estimated at 17% and 12%, respectively. There is high
dissimilarity in the utilization of tractors and combine harvesters
across the crop potential districts.

The wide utilization of tractors is observed in Asassa and Sinanna

districts with the estimated proportion of users that reach 71.8%
and 63.3%, respectively. Similarly, the proportion of the combine
harvester users has reached 100% in both locations.

Considering the major crop commodities, the computed index of

mechanization in the production of wheat is determined to be
[65]
9.93% followed by 5.20% for maize, 2.25% for sorghum, and
0.84% for teff. The application of mechanical power to livestock
production makes up only 1% of the households. Out of the total
households that process milk, about 2.1% have adopted improved
dairy processing technologies.

As the farmers’ prioritization rating indicates, tractor ploughing,

combine harvesting, maize shelling, and chemical spraying are
the practices for which mechanization is needed most. The
assessment indicated that the major challenges for not using the
mechanization hiring services as indicated by farmers are the
unavailability of the services and the expensiveness of the hiring
services.

Despite the price of farm machinery is increasing from time to

time, the suppliers indicated that the sales quantity has an
increment in the past five years and even more in the recent two
years. The growing mechanization demand and the low level of
mechanization could be tracked by addressing the factors that are
constraining the farmers and the mechanization suppliers.
Research and intervention efforts need to center on preferences
and focus on appropriate technologies, which can be used by a
group of farmers. Depending on the circumstances, clustering of
farmlands and cooperation among farmers is the alternative that
helps in reducing the prevalent supply and demand-side
impediments. In general, improving the machinery supply system
in all stages of (import, manufacturing, and mechanization hiring
services), amendment of the policy gaps and rural infrastructure
development remain important for enhancing the access and
utilization of mechanization.
[66]
Based on the identified supply and demand gaps in the
mechanization value chain, the study recommends specific
interventions and strategic actions that enhance the underlying
opportunities or lessen the major barriers that are negatively
affecting the sector. The mechanization system is severely
constrained by access to foreign currency and investment capital.
The lease financing is expected to reduce the existing burden on
the currency exchange and access to finance. Therefore, resolving
the lease constraints, enacting of contracts, maintaining
competitive and demand-based importation of machinery is
needed. Measures that enhance access to foreign currency and the
customs process remain to be the key areas of interference.
Considering the bank credit, mechanisms of a reduced interest
rate for agricultural machines, the attraction of strong financial
players, and improving the loan system are required.

To address the maintenance and spare part supply problems,

supporting the establishment of agent services and certification
are to be encouraged. The shortage of machinery operators and
training related issues could be tackled through the strategic
cooperation of the public and private actors. The expansion and
access to nearby maintenance centers and operator training
contribute to the proper use of farm machinery and the efficiency
of the hiring services.

Strengthening the rural roads and related infrastructure

development favors the expansion of mechanization and enables
reducing involved transaction cost associated with the
mechanization hiring services. The selection of appropriate
machinery, mechanization advice, counseling, and information
[67]
center are important gaps, which needs to be fulfilled by both the
government and private services.

Furthermore, the coordination mechanism among the

mechanization suppliers, hiring services, mechanization
associations, farmer cooperatives, and supporters to facilitate the
exchange of accurate information are huge gaps that seek the
active involvement of a responsible organization.

Specific to the livestock technologies, giving attention to

awareness creation, dissemination of the feed processing
technologies and value addition in dairy products are the gaps to
be addressed. To overcome the expensiveness of the mechanical
inputs for livestock production and product processing, it calls for
the swift implementation of the policy opportunities by respective
authorities.

The increasing price and availability of spare parts and raw

materials are posing a huge challenge for the importers,
manufacturers, and hiring services as aggravated by the
depreciation of the exchange rate. As a result, separate
importation of parts and raw materials for manufacturing requires
a policy consideration. Equitable treatment of the import and
manufacturing sectors is fundamental that the simultaneous tax
waiver for engines, materials, parts, and finished products enables
for achieving pure business competition. Moreover, through the
systematic effort of building up the local capacity by creating a
joint venture with foreign farm machinery companies,
manufacturing serves as the means for ensuring the domestic
availability of the scarce machinery components.
[68]
Therefore, enhancement of the manufacturing facility,
establishment of quality evaluation and standard control centers,
skilled human power development in the sector and knowledge
transfer are important in advancing the farm machinery
manufacturing process.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank KAFACI-RDA for the financial

support, EIAR and Bureau of Agriculture at Regional, Zonal and
Woreda level staffs for the implementation of the study.

References

ATA. 2016. Agricultural Mechanization use in selected regions of

Ethiopia. Agricultural Transformation Agency. Baseline
study report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Berhane, G, Dereje M, Minten B, and Tamru S. 2017. The rapid –
but from a low base – uptake of agricultural mechanization
in Ethiopia : Patterns, implications and challenges.
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). ESSP
Working Paper 105. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/
collection/ p15738coll2/id/131146
Clarke LJ. 2000. Strategies for Agricultural Mechanization
Development The Roles of the Private Sector and the
Government. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR
Journal.
CSA. 2018. Central Statistical Agency. Agricultural Sample
Survey for the year 2017/18. Report on area and production
[69]
 of major crops. Volume I. Statistical Bulletin No.589. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
CSA. 2016. Central Statistical Agency. Report on livestock and
livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings).
Agricultural Sample Survey 2016/17. Volume II. Statistical
Bulletin No.585. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Diao X, Silver J, and Takeshima H. 2016. Agricultural
mechanization and agricultural transformation. International
Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Discussion Paper
01527, 1-56 (No. 01527). www.acetforafrica.org
EIAR-MoA. 2008. New Agroecological Zones of Ethiopia. The
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa
FDRE. 2016. The Growth and Transformation Plan II (2015/16-
2019/20). The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
National Planning Commission. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ghosh BK. 2010. Determinants of Farm Mechanisation in
Modern Agriculture: A Case Study of Burdwan Districts of
West Bengal. International Journal of Agricultural
Research, 5(12), 1107–1115.
https://doi.org/10.3923/ijar.2010.1107.1115
Giles W. 1975. The Reorientation of Agricultural Mechanization
for the Developing Countries Part I-Policies and Attitudes
for Action Programmes. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.
IFPRI. 2006. Atlas of the Ethiopian Rural Economy. International
Food Policy Research Institute. Washington DC. ISBN-10:
0-89629-154-5.
MoANR and ATA. 2014. Ethiopian National Agricultural
Mechanization Strategy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
www.ata.gov.et
[70]
MOARD. 1998. Agroclimatic Zonation of Ethiopia. Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Gorfu D. and Ahmed E. 2011. Crops and Agro-ecological Zones
of Ethiopia. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
MoANR and ATA. 2014. Ethiopian National Agricultural
Mechanization Strategy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
www.ata.gov.et
Nair A, Kloeppinger, R and Mulder A. 2004. Leasing an
underutilized tool in rural finance. The World Bank.
Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 7.
www.worldbank.org
Reid J. 2011. The Bridge on Agriculture and Information
Technology: The-Impact-of-Mechanization-on-Agriculture.
National Academy of Engineering (NAE). Volume 41 No. 3.
https://www.nae.edu/52645/The-Impact-of-Mechanization-
on-Agriculture
Sims B, Hilmi M, and Kienzle J. 2016. Agricultural
mechanization A key input for sub-Saharan African
smallholders. In Integrated Crop Management (Vol. 23).
www.fao.org/publications
Taye M., Simane B, Selsssie YG, Zaitchik B, and Setegn S. 2018.
Analysis of the Spatial Variability of Soil Texture in a
Tropical Highland: The Case of the Jema Watershed,
Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9).
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091903
Tesfaye A, Mamo T, Solomon T, Deribe Y, Getahun W, Alemu
T, Hunde D, Fikadu T, and Bediye S. 2016. Adoption
analysis of smallholder dairy production technologies in
[71]
 Oromiya region. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural
Research. Research Report 115.
http://publication.eiar.gov.et:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1
23456789/218/Adoption%20Analysis%20of%20small%.
http://www.eiar.gov.et
Warner J, Stehulak T, and Kasa L. 2015. Woreda-Level Crop
Production Rankings in Ethiopia: A Pooled Data Approach.
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

[72]
View publication stats