





























1 
 

In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

 

African Journal of Agricultural Marketing ISSN: 2375-1061 Vol. 11 (2), pp. 001-005, February, 2023. Available 
online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 
 
 
 

Full Length Research Paper 
 

Contextual analysis of Teff marketing: empirical 
evidence from Halaba, Lomie, Shenkora na 

Minjar and Tahtay Maichew 
  

Larry Williams and Kelvin Smith 
 

Accepted 11 February, 2023 

 
 

Abstract 
Grain marketing in Ethiopia is important for the agricultural sector as it is the largest of all the agricultural 
markets, and it involves a large number of participants. Since the adoption of the new economic policy in 
1991 in Ethiopia, agricultural markets have been reformed and prices of commodities are determined 
through market mechanisms. Though Teff marketing was practiced for decades in the study areas, and 
there are studies on the quantitative aspects of the Teff value chain, it is not well supported by qualitative 
research. Thus, the aim of the study is to qualitatively and systematically examine the situation of Teff 
marketing in Ethiopia from smallholder farmers’ and stakeholders’ perspective. 
The researchers used a multistage sampling to select top Teff producing regions, districts, and Kebeles.In 
this regard, four Teff producing districts were purposively selected from four different regions. Moreover, a 
total of eight Kebeles were purposively selected from the four districts. In gathering empirical data, about 
84 focus group participants were purposively selected from eight Kebeles. Moreover, about 25 key 
informants were purposively selected from district, regional, federal level officials, and wholesalers. A 
systematic review of scientific journals and documents were used to assess previous studies. Content 
analysis was used to code and categorize the qualitative data and to generate the key themes.  
The survey result indicates that Teff is a cash crop value. The government is following free market 
economy and farmers are free to sell their crops. However, the Teff marketing in Ethiopia largely relies on 
traditional practices and the farmers are not getting benefits as much as they deserve to be. Thus, it is 
recommended that the government should create an enabling environment for the participation of farmers 
in Teff marketing and develop strategies for modernizing the market.  
 
Keywords: Ethiopia, cooperatives, government, price, smallholder farmers, Teff marketing, transport 
facilities  
 
1. Introduction 
 
In many poor developing countries, agriculture constitutes the backbone of the economy (FAO 2012). 
According to Andrew, Jonathan, Jamie and Ian (2003), agriculture is an important part of the livelihoods 
of many poor people, and it is frequently argued that agricultural growth is a fundamental pre-requisite for 
widespread poverty reduction. In this regard, a large proportion of the small and marginal farmers gain 



2 
 

their livelihoods through production on small pieces of land whereby majority of families, in both the farm 
and non-farm sectors, derive their livelihoods from agriculture (Acharya 2006). Strengthening smallholder 
agriculture is argued to remain important strategy for economic development and poverty reduction in 
developing countries but its development is challenged by the need for institutional innovations to 
overcome market failures (World Bank (2007) and Hazell, Poulton, Wiggins &Dorward (2010)).  
In Sub-Saharan Africa, subsistence agricultural producers face several barriers to gain access to markets 
and productive assets (Alene, Manyong, Omanya, Mignouna, Bokanga, & Odhiambo, 2007). The lack of 
access and absence of required storage facilities leads to local price reduction at harvest time because all 
the poor farmers are obliged to sell their produce at the same time to generate income (Burney, &Naylor 
2011). In the process of selling the agricultural products, farmers face many challengessuch as weak 
market linkages (farmers are unable to take advantage of the deficit markets because the markets are 
poorly coordinated), asymmetry of information (transacting parties do not have equal information), high 
transaction costs (costs associated with information, negotiation and monitoring and costs of transferring 
the products or inputs being traded such as transportation costs and the time spent delivering the product 
to the market) (Bihon 2015). 
The vast majority of households in Ethiopia live in rural areas and agriculture is still the main economic 
activity and they earn their livelihoods primarily from agriculture. In this regard, agriculture in Ethiopia is 
dominated by smallholder farming households that cultivated 94percent of the national cropped area in 
2013/14 (FantuNisraneet al 2015). The agricultural sector, which is stunned by subsistence smallholder 
farmers, is the primary source of livelihood for the majority of the population and the basis of the national 
economy (Azebet al 2017). They rarely produce for the market and are highly dependent on climate for 
their subsistence (Efaet al 2017). 
In order to improve the performance of the agricultural sector in Ethiopia, different strategies have been 
adopted since 1970s. According to Desalegn et al (1998) most strategies have focused on increasing 
agricultural productivity at the farm level through the dissemination of improved production technologies, 
while the marketing aspect of agriculture was relatively neglected. It is only recently that the country 
adopted a market reform policy with the objective of improving agricultural market performance and 
reducing food insecurity through enhancing market efficiency (Desalegn et al 1998).   
The Ethiopian Economics Association (EEA) (2005) indicated that since the adoption of the new 
economic policy in 1991 in Ethiopia, agricultural markets have been reformed and prices of commodities 
are determined through market mechanisms. The PASDEP (Plan for Accelerated and Sustained 
Development to End Poverty)plan (MoFED 2006) focuses on the development of agriculture both as a 
source of production for direct consumption and as raw materials for industrial processing. The plan is to 
accelerate the transformation from subsistence to a more business/market-oriented agriculture. As a 
result of such favorable conditions, a large number of small holder producers are growing a variety of 
cereal products for the local market. 
Marketing is not simply an extension of the production process, but as mentioned by Glahe referring the 
work of Adam Smith in his text The Wealth of Nations (1776), said that: “consumption is the sole end 
purpose of all production, and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be 
necessary for promoting that of the consumer” (Glahe 1978). Marketing refers to the series of services 
involved in moving a product (or commodity) from the point of production to the point of consumption 
(Enibe, Chidebelu et al. 2008; Abdullah and Hossain 2013). Agricultural marketing is defined as the 
performance of all business activities involved in the flow of food products and services from the point of 
initial agricultural production until they are in the hands of consumers (Meulenberg 1997; Siskos, 
Matsatsinis et al. 2001). In this regard, the participation of producers is crucial for the success of 
agricultural marketing.Market participation refers to the extent to which a household participates in the 
market as a seller (Jagweet al 2010). Participation means any situation which involves the exchange of 
goods for money, regardless of location.  
The findings of Seneshaw (2013) indicates that grain marketing in Ethiopia is important for the agricultural 
sector for two reasons: (1) It is the largest of all the agricultural markets, based onvolume of output and 
the geographical area covered; and (2) it involves a large number of participants in production, trade, 
transportation, storage, and retail. In this regard, agricultural growth can promote growth in food 
production that can raise real incomes for the poor by reducing food prices (Diao, Hazell et al. 2010). 
Considering the marketing of agricultural commodities in Ethiopia, one of the major cereal crops is 
Teffwhereby it involves more than 6.7 Teff producers and more than 50 million consumers. 



3 
 

Teff (Eragrostistef) is the most important cereal in terms of both production and consumption in Ethiopia 
(FAO 2015). It is a major staple food crop in Ethiopia, as measured by a number of indicators such as 
acreage, harvesting and consumption. Research results of Demeke and Marcantonio (2013) indicated 
that Teff accounts for the largest share of the cultivated area (28.5% in 2011). It is grown by 6.7 million 
smallholder households in Ethiopia and is cultivated on more than 3 million hectares of land, which 
represents one-third of total cereal acreage and about one fifth of the gross cereal grain production with 
production of 52.8 million quintals of Teff crops (CSA 2017/18).This higher and relatively more stable 
price is one of the main reasons for growing Teff, primarily as the source of cash crops (Habtegebrial and 
Singh 2006). However, due to inefficiency in marketing and associated value chain problems, the country 
is not benefiting from Teff marketing and its opportunities. 
The marketing system in which the actors participate and operate influences the incentives of the 
participants with different implications on the performance of the sector. The marketing system is 
important for producers, traders, and consumers make and it necessary to study the marketing system of 
the crop both for economic and political reasons (Getnet 2007; Minten, Tamru et al. 2013; Abraham 
2015). Considering its market value which is often two or three times higher than maize (the grain with the 
largest volume of production), Teff covers the largest share of the total value of cereal production. 
Teff marketing systems are complex combinations of activities, functions and relations (production, 
handling, storage, transport, processing, packaging, wholesaling, retailing, etc.) that enable the country to 
meet its food requirements. These activities are performed by different economic agents such as food 
producers (farmers), assemblers, importers, transporters, wholesalers, retailers, processors, 
shopkeepers, street vendors, providers of services (such as credit, storage, information and extension), 
packaging suppliers and public institutions. They all need infrastructure, facilities, services and laws as 
well as formal regulations to govern their decisions (Olivio& Cecilia 2005). 
According to Birara (2017), the marketing problem of Teff were identified as poor market linkages, 
collusion of buyers on price setting, high transport cost, unavailability and poor quality of packaging 
materials, adulteration, and inconvenient taxation system. Also, food value chains are characterized by 
many layers of traders between producers and consumers, leading to inefficiency (Masters 2008; World 
Bank 2009). As per the technical report of FAO (2015), the Teff value chain is long and involves too many 
small operators. The supply market is also fragmented as a result of the small volume handled by traders 
and the limited number of large scale buyers. It involves input suppliers, producers, traders (local 
assemblers and wholesalers), retailers, processors and consumers. The marketing chains are long and 
involve too many operators who rarely provide marketing services beyond transport and storage. 
However, the price of Teff has remained relatively high because of the high demand resulting from rising 
incomes, high rates of urbanization and rapidly increasing export demand for fresh Injera and smuggling 
to neighboring countries (FAO 2015). On the other side, the growing demand for local foods is presenting 
new opportunities for smallholder agricultural producers(Matthew and Todd 2009). On the other side, the 
modernization of the global retail food system has raised fears that smallholder farmers may be 
increasingly marginalized (Jayne & Elliot 2010). Thus, understanding the relative benefits of enabling 
environment forTeff marketing is important to maximize farm performance (Matthewand Todd2009). 
In most developing countries, there exist various drivers that are changing food demand. These drivers 
include most importantly rapid urbanization, income growth, changing lifestyle and female participation in 
the workplace, as well as increasing access to better food technologies (such as refrigerators, microwave 
ovens, and gas stoves (Bart et al 2013). On the other side, these modifications in the supply chain 
ultimately influence the rural producer’s production environment; their livelihood might change due to the 
different crops that they grow as well as the impact of changes in input and output prices (Bart, 
Seneshaw, Ermias& Tadesse 2015). In this regard, Daniel Roduner (2007) stated that globalization does 
not only patch up market gaps and brings producers and consumers closer together; it also brings 
regional and international competition into local markets. He also mentioned that any agricultural 
production not consumed by the farmers’ families is a product in the market (local to international) and 
competes today with products coming from nearby or far away. Therefore, all farmers offering their 
products for sale are instantly part of a value chain (Katia C., Longin N.,& Alberto Z., 2012).  
Farmers produce Teff for market and some authors indicate that the average marketable surplus of Teff 
ranges between 26 to 75 % of the harvested crop (Fufa, Behute et al. 2011; Gideon 2016). However, 
farmers in developing countries like Ethiopia are under intense pressure for enhancing their market 
orientation due to the increasing demand for agricultural commodities on domestic markets and abroad. 
In this regard, some authors such as Coleman (1999) argued that smallholder farmers are not benefiting 



4 
 

from the share of the consumer price and they are not producing and selling in an organized system like 
cooperatives and thus part of their benefit may transfer to the middlemen.  
In studying the Teff marketing in Ethiopia, the technical report of FAO documented that the value chain of 
the Teff crop is very long and it involves a lot of actors such as input suppliers, producers, traders (local 
assemblers and wholesalers), retailers, processors and finally consumers (FAO 2009). Similarly, Hyjin 
Lee (2018) argued that Teff value chain in Ethiopia largely relies on traditional practices and the Teff 
market is limited by the government’s export ban. In this regard, identifying the factors that limit the 
participation of smallholder farmers in Teff marketing requires rigorous empirical studies. Though Teff 
marketing was practiced for decades in the study area and there are studies on the quantitative aspects 
of the Teffvalue chain, it is not well supported by qualitative research. Thus, the aim of the study is to 
qualitatively and systematically examine the situation of Teff marketing in Ethiopia from smallholder 
farmers’ and stakeholders’ perspective.Having first-hand information about the enabling environment of 
Teff marketing at district level is essential to devise appropriate strategies aimed at enhancing its value 
chain. In this regard, the paper tries to analyze the enabling environment in terms of access to market 
information, access to road transport and facilities, price determination in the market, role of cooperatives, 
role of government, and challenges inTeff marketing.The specific objectives are described hereunder. 

 To examine access to market information, road and transport facilities 

 To understand how is price fixed in the market 

 To assess the role of government and cooperatives in Teff marketing 

 To identify the challenges of Teff marketing 
The paper is divided into various sections. The section that follows presents the methodology and then 
the findings from the analysis of Teff marketing in Ethiopia. The discussion compares the findings of our 
analysis against previous studies and draws out the policy implications for Teffmarketing. The conclusion 
is a recapitulation of the key ideas emerging from this paper. 
2. Methods 
2.1. Research design 
The paper adopted a cross-sectional research design to guide the data collection process. According to 
Bryman (2008), a cross-sectional research design represents the collection of data at a single point in 
time. In cross-sectional research design, researchers investigate the state of affairs in a population at a 
certain point in time (Bethlehem 1999).   
2.2. Sampling methods 
The target population of the study is household heads involved in Teff production and marketing from four 
districts. A multistage sampling procedure was used to identify the case study areas. The regional states, 
districts and Kebeles were purposively selected for the following reasons. Firstly, Oromiya and Amhara 
regional states are among the top Teff producer and supplier regions with the national contribution of 
48.86 % and 38.6 %, respectively in 2017/18 harvest period (CSA 2017/18). SNNPR (Southern Nation 
and Nationalities and Peoples Region) and Tigrai regional states were selected as there is a potential for 
Teff production with national contribution of 7.01 % and 4.88 %, respectively in 2017/18 harvest period 
and thus remaining less productive as compared to Oromiya and Amhara regional states which need 
further attention of researchers (CSA 2017/18; Gideon 2016).   
At second stage, districts were purposively selected. Lomie district is purposively selected from the East 
Showa zone of Oromiya regional state as it is ranked 1

st
 in Teff production at the national level. Shenkora 

na Minjar district is purposively selected from the North Shewa zone of Amhara regional state as it is 
ranked 4

th
 in Teff production from the Amhara region and 7

th
 in Teffproduction at the national level. These 

two districts are among the top seven Teff producing districts at the national level (Warner, Stehulaket al 
2019). For the same study, Halaba zone from SNNP regional state and Tahtay Maichew district from 
Tigrai regional state were purposively selected as they are the top Teff producer zone and district in their 
respective regions (CSA 2017/18).  
Thirdly, in consultation with the Office of Agriculture and Rural Development at the district level, two Teff 
producing Kebeles were purposively selected from the four districts. A total of eight Kebeles were 
purposively selected for the study at hand. In this regard, Deke Bora and Tulu Re'eeKebeles were 
purposively selected from Lomie district, Agirat and Bolo SilassieKebeles were purposively selected from 
Shenkora na Minjar district, AndegnaHansha and Guba Kebeles were purposively selected from Halaba 
zone, and Kewanit and May BrazioKebeles were purposively selected from Tahtay Maichew district. The 
main criteria for selecting the two Kebeles from each district were potentially Teff producing area, 



5 
 

geographically convenient to conduct surveys, easy to find representative people from Teff producers and 
easy access to transport facilities.  
A purposively sampling technique was also employed to select participants for focus group discussion 
and key informant interviews. In this regard, purposive sampling helped to find those informants who have 
knowledge and experience about the Teff production and marketing, that are capable of providing 
reflection and are willing to take part in the research/ investigation. To understand the enabling 
environment for Teff marketing, eight focus group discussions involving 84 participants and 25 in-depth 
interviews with experts in the area and Teff wholesalers were conducted. Overall, a total of 109 sample 
respondents were involved in the study. The factors that were considered in deciding upon this sample 
include available time and financial resources, discussions with the academic staff and colleagues 
involved in Teff industry in Ethiopia and the sample sizes involved in similar studies conducted earlier.    
2.3. Data-gathering instruments 
The study employed different data collection techniques. Three sources of data were utilized: (1) a desk 
review of relevant documents, (2) focus group discussion with Teff producers and development agents, 
and (3) key informant interviews with key federal, regional, district officers and wholesalers ofTeffcrops. 
Data collection took place from June 2018 to December 2018.  
Data collection was undertaken in two successive stages. First, review of literature and documents on 
Teff production in Ethiopia were undertaken. In this phase, we analysed the literature and data on the 
trends of Teff production at regional levels from scientific journals and Central Statistical Agency, 
respectively.Second, the study employed focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth key informant 
interviews in order to understand community views regarding the enabling environment of Teff marketing. 
Qualitative types of data were collected from FGD and KII participants as primary data sources. In each 
district, two homogenous male and female FGDs were conducted. Each FGD had between seven to 
eleven participants. Each FGD was moderated by a facilitator who asked the questions and then allowed 
the participants to discuss. The facilitator worked with a note-taker who took notes during the FGDs and 
indicated to the facilitator where they needed to probe for further details. In total, about 84 participants (68 
Teff producers, 7 Kebele administrators, and 10 development agents) were involved in eight FGDs. Out 
of the 84 participants, 42 were males while the remaining 42 were female. In each district, region and at 
federal level, key informants were identified and a key informant guide was administered to get insights 
on Teff production. In total, 25 key informants (10 district level experts, 5 regional experts, 4 federal 
experts, and 6 wholesalers) were interviewed. The details of the three methods of data collection used in 
this study are described hereunder. 
2.3.1. Document review  
Document review is one of the data collection tools /methods largely used for reviewing literature on the 
subject. Document analysis involves a systematic review and examination of documents from secondary 
sources like journal articles, textbooks, magazines, reports, etc. relevant to a particular study. It involves 
reading extensive amount of text data to understand and shed more light on a particular field of study. In 
this paper, document review was used as a tool of data collection with the objective of assessing the 
literature and the prevailing Teff production situation at national level.  
The search words we used to get the journal articles and other materials include Ethiopia, Teff, 
marketing, price, transport facilities, smallholder farmers, cooperatives, and government. The inclusion 
criteria for the research words are their significance to title of the study at hand, their relevance to the 
areas of Teffmarketing, possibilities to access to peer reviewed journals from google.scholar, and access 
to updated data or information. In this regard, marketing of other agricultural commodities such as 
vegetables, fruits, spices, etc. is not the subject of the study and thus excluded. Moreover, the research 
words focused on smallholder farmers and thus, medium and large scale Teffsuppliers are excluded from 
the study.  
Relevant documents such as guidelines on cereal marketing were collected from Ministry of Agriculture 
and Rural Development, Agricultural Transformation Agency, related regional offices and Office of 
Agriculture and Rural Development of the study areas. Government related strategic plans and 
performance report documents such as Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty 
(PASDEP), Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP I and II), Poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP), 
Policy and Investment Framework (PIF) and other relevant documents such as FAO and UN reports were 
reviewed. The documents were reviewed to determine the national level and regional level data in relation 
to the involvement of smallholder farmers in Teff marketing. Previous worldwide studies were also 
assessed and reviewed and thus, the literatures on Teffmarketing were assessed from scholarly articles. 



6 
 

We used a systematic review of scholarly articles and documents in assessing previous studies. In this 
regard, a total of 97 documents were retrieved for screening (69 published and 28 grey literature), and 26 
documents were excluded because they were not relevant for Teffmarketing. About 71 documents (5 
books, 41 academic journal articles, 10 working papers,3 dissertations, 4 research papers, 6 reports, and 
2 unpublished articles) were reviewed. 
2.3.2. Focus group discussion  
As per the argument of Kitzinger (1994), focus group discussions (FGDs) are important instruments in 
helping delineate social norms and facilitating discussion on topics generally viewed as taboo such as 
grievances. FGD allows the researchers to generate a substantial amount of information over a relatively 
short period of time (Mack 2005). The discussion is conducted in a neutral, non-judgmental and 
nonthreatening atmosphere which allows participants to reveal the motives they have and processes 
used when making decisions (Suh 2002). The reason for using FGD is that they allow the detailed 
observation of a range of opinions about the issue at hand from the participants. 
Focus group discussions were conducted at Kebele level with purposively selected rural households. The 
focus group participants were selected purposively based on their knowledge and experience on the 
topic. Once the Kebele administrators had granted permission to conduct the study, the development 
agents assisted in identifying and informing the farmers about the focus group discussion and the 
eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria were that the participants should be resident of the Kebele, they 
should be involved in Teff production and marketing in 2010 E.C (2017/18), they should be voluntary to 
take part in FGD and allow for recording, and be aged 18 years or above. FGD participants were invited 
to the focus group discussion following meetings with Kebele administrators and development agents 
where the purpose of the study was explained. 
FGD participants who arrived at the FTC (Farmers’ training center) were taken through the study 
information in line with ethical principles. Their acceptance to participate in the discussion and recording 
of FGDs was required, and only those participants who consented and signed the consent form have 
participated in FGDs. Once the study participants accepted and signed the consent form, discussions 
with FGD participants commenced. The FGD session included participants from smallholderTeff 
producers, Kebele administrators, and development agents. To ensure confidentiality and protection of 
study participants, each discussant was given a unique identification number throughout the discussion 
(Ndinda et al 2016).  
The FGDs were moderated by experienced researcher and a facilitator who posed open ended questions 
and probed the participants, and a note-taker ensured that the electronic recorder was functioning. The 
issues covered in the focus group discussion include: access to road and transport facilities, access to 
market information, price determination in the market, the role of cooperatives in Teffmarketing,the role of 
government in Teff marketing, and challenges in Teff marketing. The reflections of FGD participants were 
tape recorded and notes were taken as a back-up for the recordings. The notes also helped in identifying 
participants by their pseudonyms when transcription took place. 
2.3.3. Key informant interview  
In-depth interviews were chosen as one data collection method in this paper as it provides the opportunity 
to explore issues in depth and seek explanations of concepts that are unclear (Curry, Nembhard et al. 
2009). In this regard, in-depth interviews were conducted in Sri Lanka by Bandula, Jayaweera et al (2016) 
with selected value chain representatives to determine the role of underutilized crop value chains in rural 
food and income security. Moreover, interviews with key informants were also used by Hailu, Weersinket 
al (2015) in the value chain to understand how the Teff value chain is transforming. The purposively 
identification and selection of appropriate individuals within agriculture sector were done in consultation 
with bureau heads and high level officers.  
The in-depth interview is conducted with purposively selected key informant interviewees from experts at 
district, regions and federal level officials such as the Office of Agriculture and Rural Development. Like 
FGD, the key informants were informed about the purpose of the study and ethical principles. It was 
planned to undertake an interview with 31 key informants. However, about 25 key informants were 
involved in the study as the required information is collected, repetitive, and similar nature of the 
responses. The interviewers explained the purpose of the study, and the right to withdraw at any time 
without penalty, and confidentiality, while participants provided verbal or written documentation of consent 
to participate (Ndindaet al 2018). In line with ethical standards and to ensure anonymity, the key 
informants were identified by numbers and places. The key informant interviews were electronically 



7 
 

recorded, but in two cases where individuals declined being recorded, the study team took notes. The 
interviews were conducted at mutually agreed times and at venues that were free from distractions.   
2.4. Data analysis 
The raw qualitative data (recordings) from the focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with 
extension agents, experts,and wholesalers were captured on audio recordings in local languages. The 
FGD and KII recordings were transcribed verbatim in the local language (Tigrigna and Amharic) and later 
translated into English (Ndinda et al 2016). The first step was transcribing the recordings verbatim and 
translating the raw data into English before commencing the data analysis. The data were carefully 
examined for the correction of mistakes arising out of transcription and organization. These transcribed 
data along with field notes were organized and prepared for analysis based on the categories of 
participants.  
Thematic content analysis was applied to qualitative data collected from focus group discussions and in-
depth interviews. It involves the extraction of themes or categories from the data and then using these to 
explain phenomena under investigation (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). Thematic content analysis is a well-
established and widely used technique in qualitative research, particularly in case study methodology 
(Attride-Stirling 2001; Hsieh and Shannon 2005). Content analysis is chosen as one of data analysis in 
this paper as it is widely used qualitative research technique and it is a flexible method for analyzing text 
data (Cavanagh 1997). In this paper, guided by the key research questions, thematic analysis was used 
to code both documents and transcripts, and results were reported thematically (Ndinda et al 2018). The 
conceptual analysis begins with identifying research questions and about six questions were developed 
that helped in developing manageable content categories. By reducing the text to categories consisting of 
a word, set of words or phrases, the researchers focused on, and code for, specific words or patterns that 
are indicative of the research question.  
Recorded interviews were transcribed, edited to remove typographical and grammatical errors and real 
names of study participants. For this purpose, the transcribed data were thoroughly read many times in 
order to understand the true contextual meanings, so that concepts were properly derived from the textual 
data. Then the raw data were transformed into concepts. These derived concepts were categorized into 
different categories based on the research questions that allow the creation of a number of concepts and 
themes from the data. In this regard, important themes relating to the enabling environment of 
Teffmarketing (access to road, access to transport, fixing price, roles of cooperatives and government, 
challenges in Teff marketing) among FGD participants and key informants were extracted.  
The textual data were subjected to thematic analysis whereby entailed the researchers getting immersed 
in the data to ensure sensitivity. Inductive coding was used to explore the attitudes identified in greater 
detail. In textual data analysis, we broadly characterized coding, categorization, and theme identification. 
The codes were categorized according to emerging dominant ideas from the textual data and interpreter 
reliability helped in comparing the themes identified. What emerged were themes that were similar, while 
differences in analysis of the data were accounted for by the emphasis placed on some themes and 
selection of extracts to support the dominant themes (Ndinda et al 2016). 
2.5. Ethical considerations 
The research ethics protocol and procedures which are appropriate for the cross-cultural context in 
Ethiopia settings were applied. In this regard, before conducting the field research, an ethical clearance 
with reference number 2017_DEVSTUD_Student_31 was obtained from the University of South Africa 
(UNISA), Department of Development Studies, Research Ethics Review Committee. Moreover, 
notifications of expedited approval with reference number 1107/2017 were obtained from Mekelle 
University, College of Health Science, Health Research Ethics Review Committee. 
Moreover, in order to ensure the validity of the data, only willing respondents were included and they 
were taken into full confidence by disclosing the purpose and nature of the study. In order to maintain the 
confidentiality of the survey, each FGD and KII participants was given a unique identification number. The 
confidentiality and privacy of their responses were assured. In this research, informed consent was 
applicable and hence, written permission was obtained from the individual participants in the FGD, and 
key informant interview before they provide the information. In this regard, prior to conducting field 
activities, the research participants were informed that the participation in the research is voluntarily and 
the participant has the right to ask questions during the interview. Moreover, information collected for this 
study was kept strictly confidential and all interviewees are anonymous. 



8 
 

3. Results 
3.1. Access to market information  
According to Antonaci, Demeke et al (2015) up-to-date information, including different market prices of 
both commodities and inputs, and their intra-seasonal variation, allows farmers to make more profitable 
decisions on production activities. Thanks to market information, farmers are able to better plan planting 
and storage decisions, finding appropriate markets for their produce and gain from profitable trade deals. 
In this regard, in a focus group discussion, a study participant from Tahtay Maichew district highlighted 
the following in relation to access to market information.  
 
“Most of the farmers get information from other farmers who have sold Teff crops. But if this is not 
available, the farmers must check for the price by going to the market in person. Otherwise, we have no 
other method of market orientation with the exception of few farmers who get information from the radio” 
(Tahtay_Maichew_FGD_1). 
Another study participant from Lomie district said the following in relation to the access to market 
information.  
“In addition to a personal search for information from market and peers, mobile and extension workers 
are the source of market information for farmers” (Lomie_FGD_14). 
A study participant from Shenkora na Minjar district also stated the following in relation to the access to 
market information.  
“Our sources of market information are mobile, cooperatives and extension agents” (Shenkora_na_ 
Minjar_FGD_19). 
By supporting the above arguments, a key informant from Halaba zone stated the following concerning 
the access to market information. 
“Farmers get market information from other farmers, traders, development agents, mobile and radio” 
(Halaba_KII_1). 
A key informant from Shenkora na Minjar district also stated the following in relation to the problems of 
accessing market information.  
“Farmers get market information from different sources;however, its reliability is questionable. Due to the 
nature of supply and demand of agricultural commodities, the price ofTeff is changing from time to time. 
Thus, there should be systems for the timely dissemination of reliable and relevant market informationto 
farmers at grassroots’ levelspecially on price, amount of demand, market places and other issues so that 
they will be able to exploit the exiting marketing opportunities” (Shenkora_na_Minjar_KII_1). 
From the above discussion, we can realize that farmers do have multiple options for accessing market 
information including personal search in the market, peer farmers, traders, mobile, extension workers and 
cooperatives.Farmers get market information from different sources;however, its reliability is 
questionable. 
3.2. Infrastructure and access to transport facilities 
If the distance from residence to the market is closer, the lesser would be the transportation cost and time 
spent by farmers (Tegegn 2013). Other researchers such as Hailu, Weersink et al (2015) also found that 
producer prices over distance travelled decline in line with transportation costs.In a discussion with study 
participants, a respondent from Tahtay Maichew district stated the following in relation to the means of 
the transport facilities they use to bring their Teff crops to the market. 
“If the transport route is available, the farmers use freight vehicles. However, most farmers use donkey 
and mule as a means of transportation. Few farmers carry their product by themselves to market” 
(Tahtay_Maichew_FGD_10). 
A respondent from Lomie district stated the following about the transport facilities they use to bring their 
Teff crops to the market. 
“Farmers transport their crops from rural areas to asphalt or road by using donkeys and mules and then 
use vehicles to transport to town markets. We use human labour if the amount of Teff is small such as 
less than 25 kg, pack animals up to two quintals and tracks for more than two quintals” (Lomie_FGD_3). 
A respondent from Shenkora na Minjar district stated the following in relation to the transport facilities 
they use to bring their Teff crops to the market. 
“We use a combination of pack animals and vehicles. Farmers use pack animals to transport their Teff 
crops to Kebele market and vehicles to Woreda market” (Shenkora_na_Minjar_FGD_11). 
A respondent from Halaba zone stated the following concerning the mode of transport used to transport 
their Teff crops to the market. 



9 
 

“We often take it through a cart pulled by our donkey. Some of us do have own carts and some don’t and 
those who do not own it try to rent a cart from the owners of the carts” (Halaba_FGD_17). 
From the above discussions, we can learn that the farmers located around the main roads use freight 
cars. However, those who are away from the road use their pack animals such as donkeys and mules to 
transport their Teff crops to market. They also use human labour if the amount of Teff crops is small such 
as less than 25 kg. In Halaba zone, the farmers often use a cart pulled by donkeys.  
3.3. Price determination  
Since the adoption of the new economic policy in 1991 in Ethiopia, agricultural markets have been 
reformed and prices of commodities are determined through market mechanisms (EEA 2005). However, 
the report of Ethiopian Economics Association  revealed that due to the weak bargaining power of 
producers and harvest fluctuations, the price free notion of markets have been found to affect 
producers(EEA 2005). Food price movements are scrutinized by consumers and governments, as food 
expenditures continue to represent an important share of household budgets, especially in developing 
countries (OECD/Food and Nations 2015). Changes in price might have negative effect on the 
productivity of farmers and eventually, on their food self-sufficiency and food security status and in such 
cases monthly cereal price variability in the country is not only among the highest in the world but has 
even worsened since 2000 (Gabre-Madhin and Mezgebou 2006; Getnet 2008). 
A question was raised to the study participant and key informant on how price is determined in the market 
and whether the farmers are satisfied with the price. An FGD participant from Tahtay Maichew district 
stated the following.   
“Teff is the most expensive of all the other crops that farmers produce, especially if it is white Teff. It is 
considered as the main source of income for the farmers. When we come to the question whether it is fair 
or not, the price is determined by the seller and buyer through negotiation and farmers benefit from it. Its 
high price and its scarcity in market make it hard for customers to afford. I don’t think the price is fair for 
buyers in general” (Tahtay_Maichew_FGD_17). 
The FGD participant from Lomie district described the problem of price determination as follows. 
“The problem with farmers is that they sell in bulk immediately after harvest when the price has gone 
down. They do not store it until the price is back to its normal value and they run out of supply when the 
price becomes expensive. Therefore, the farmer are not benefiting as they are just selling their produce 
immediately after harvest to fulfill their livelihood requirements” (Lomie_FGD_23). 
A study participant from Shenkora na Minjar district stated the following about the price determination in 
the market and associated problems in price determination. 
“It is the traders who set the price. If the traders don’t buy with the price they set, there is nothing the 
farmers can do. Farmers face problem that they may return home without selling their product” 
(Shenkora_na_Minjar_FGD_1). 
Another study participant from Shenkora na Minjar district stated the following by supporting the free 
market notion as important for the farmers. 
“I strongly believe that the free market is important for farmers. If the price goes down, the farmer has the 
right not to sell his/her product. Most of the time the price is fair, but sometimes it fluctuates” 
(Shenkora_na_Minjar_FGD_12). 
Another FGD participant from Halaba zone said the following. 
“It depends on the time of selling. If you sale immediately after harvest, the price could be low and if you 
wait till April and May, the price could be high. The price for Teff crops is also fluctuating” 
(Halaba_FGD_6). 
A key informant from Lomie district stated the following concerning the unfair price in the market. 
“I think farmers don’t get fair price in the market. The problem is that traders talk to one another and fix 
the price as they wish” (Lomie_KII_1). 
A key informant from wholesalers in Addis Ababa statedthe following about the price determination of Teff 
crops’ in the market. 
“The price depends on the type of the Teff quality. I almost have all types of Teff. I have white Teff, but 
often I am demand oriented. Whatever my customer wants, I buy and provide. I am the one who sets the 
price based on how much I bought it. As a trader, I conducted market survey. If there is more supply, the 
price goes down and when there is less supply it goes up. We call each other to talk over the price and 
share information with the other traders as well” (Wholesaler_KII_6). 
A key informant from the Ministry of Trade and Industry highlighted the following in relation to the price 
determination in market places. 



10 
 

“It is the farmer who set the price. If farmers don’t agree on the price, they let it stay. The price is 
determined on daily basis and it is not permanent or fixed. It fluctuates on daily bases. Sometimes, it 
increases and decreases based on the production and supply of Teff crops. Even there is a difference 
between the price that is set in the morning and in the afternoon. In general, the price of Teff has an 
increasing trend from year to year and even within a year. Sometimes when Teff is production is low due 
to bad weather situation, the supply might decrease and the price might increase due to shortage of 
supply. Usually, smallholder producers do sale their Teff crops immediately after harvest (December or 
January) and thus get lower price as there is excess supply in the market. The government has no 
interference in the Teff market because of its free market policy” (Federal_official_KII_2). 
From the above discussions, we can understand that Teff is cash crop for the farmers and its market 
value is higher as compared to other cereal crops. The price depends on the time of selling and the 
quality of the Teff. Usually, smallholder producers do sale their Teff crops immediately after harvest 
(December or January) and thus get lower price as there is excess supply in the market. The government 
has no interference in the Teff market as it is following free market economy and farmers are also free to 
sell their crops. The price of Teff has an increasing trend from year to year and even within a year. In 
principle the price is determined through negotiations in the market and the farmers do have the right not 
to sale their crops. Sometimes, the traders talk each other and fix the price of Teff crops. If the traders 
don’t buy with the price they set, there is nothing the farmers can do. Farmers face problem that they may 
return home without selling their Teff crops.This result is like the previous research output of Getnet 
(2007) which states despite their perception of low producer prices in December, January and February, 
the majority of farmers sell their marketable Teff during these months, mainly for cash income generation 
to settle annual land use tax bills and outstanding loans on commercial fertilizer. It is also similar to the 
research result of Kebebew Assefa et al (2013) that state about 85% of Teff is sold during the months of 
December and January mainly due to liquidity requirements to cover various expenses such as credit, 
social obligations, school fees, clothing, and the likes. 
3.4. Membership in cooperative marketing  
Farmers’ organizations link farmers to inputs, outputs and credit markets (Bernard and Taffesse 2012). 
Other researchers such as Tadesse and Guttormsen (2011) also recommended the importance of 
cooperatives in breaking the self-centered mentality and create awareness towards established Teff 
supply chains characterized by win-win cooperation among chain actors. 
In this regard, discussions were undertaken with the focus group participants (FGDs) and key informants 
in relation to the contribution and limitations of cooperatives in creating sustainable market for the 
farmers. Accordingly, the study participants from Tahtay Maichew district described their opinion 
hereunder.  
“There are three cooperatives in our Kebele; one is saving and credit cooperatives, the second is Teff 
producer cooperative (for improved seed provision) and the third is multipurpose cooperatives. The 
producer cooperative is the only supplier of improved seed in our district and the farmers take a good 
advantage of it. Earlier, farmers took their products to the market and dump it for cheap and unfair price. 
However, last year the producer cooperative has bought our entire product for better price” 
(Tahtay_Maichew_FGD_7). 
The other study participant from the same district also stated the following. 
“Most of the farmers weren’t involved in cooperatives in the past. The reason was that there were some 
problems within the cooperative societies in relation to the transparency of financial issues and 
management of the resources of cooperatives and farmers have had less trust in the cooperatives. But 
now we have managed and solved the problem through discussion and the cooperative has promised to 
buy our Teff crops by providing a price in the market plus 2 % and we have reached agreement, which 
has made all the famers happy” (Tahtay_Maichew_FGD_21). 
A study participant from Lomie district stated the following in relation to the role of marketing cooperatives 
in their areas. 
“Sometimes cooperatives provide market information to their members otherwise they do not have roles 
in marketing. However, some farmers are selling their crops to cooperative but most farmers do sale their 
crops to traders” (Lomie_FGD_18). 
A key informant from Lomie district stated the following in describing the limited role of marketing 
cooperatives. 
“Cooperatives don’t have visible role in Teff marketing. However, they support the farmers by supplying 
sugar and edible oil, fertilizer and other inputs such as chemicals. However, they have never been 



11 
 

involved in Teff marketing and the tie between cooperatives and farmers is not as such strong. The 
cooperative that we have in our area has not yet begun purchasing of Teff crops from farmers” 
(Lomie_KII_1). 
A study participant from Shenkora na Minjar district also said the following in relation to the role of 
cooperatives marketing in their areas.  
“Sometimes cooperatives purchase Teff from farmers during the harvest period and sale it later at a better 
price. Then the dividend is divided to members based on their contribution” (Shenkora_na_ 
Minjar_FGD_2). 
A key informant from Shenkora na Minjar district stated the following in describing the limited role of 
marketing cooperatives. 
“The involvement of cooperatives in Teff marketing in our area is almost nonexistent. They don’t have a 
role in improving the market as they buy the product at a lower price than the traders. This makes the 
farmers move away from cooperatives and sell their crops to traders or consumers” 
(Shenkora_na_Minjar_KII_1). 
Similarly, a study participant from Halaba zone said the following. 
“The multipurpose cooperatives sometimes purchase Teff from members and supply to local consumers 
in towns” (Halaba_FGD_15). 
From the above discussions, we can learn that cooperatives do not have a visible role in Teff marketing 
apart from providing market information to their members. They are focusing on the distribution of input 
and supply of industrial goods to the farming community. Some farmers are selling their Teff crops to 
cooperatives during harvest time at cheap price and in return get dividend after the crop is sold at a better 
price later. The research result also revealed that as cooperatives don’t provide a better price and most of 
the farmers prefer to sale their crops to traders or consumers. However, in Tahtay Maichew district efforts 
are made by the local government to introduce marketing cooperatives and linking with major buyers. As 
a result, an agreement is reached between farmers and cooperatives to provide a price in the market plus 
2%. There were also concerns in the transparency of financial issues and management of resources of 
cooperatives which is now solved through discussions. 
3.5. Government policyin Teff marketing 
In Ethiopia, steps taken to liberalize markets in the 1990s and promote fertilizer and seed packages have 
yet to generate payoffs in terms of higher cereal yields, lower food prices, or reduced dependency on 
food aid (Spielman, Byerlee et al. 2010). As per the argument of Bonger, Gabre-Madhin (2002), 
interventions and policies to improve grain markets can be grouped into four main areas: interventions 
related to infrastructure, institutions, regulatory policies, and capacity-strengthening. In this regard, 
discussions were undertaken with the focus group participants (FGDs) and key informants about the 
government policy and its contribution and limitations in creating a sustainable market for the farmers.  
In a focus group discussion, a study participant from Tahtay Maichew district highlighted the following in 
relation to the role of the government.  
“The existing free-market policy does support the transaction of Teff crops in the market as it provides 
freedom for farmers in setting the price of his/her own products. Since the policy gives liberty for the 
farmer to get profit from his/her product, we believe the policy is at the farmer’s best interest. Farmers do 
need a lot of support from the government such as equal and peaceful market opportunities for all 
farmers. Above all, farmers need road infrastructure. This is because not only human beings need access 
to the road but also mules and donkeys need a better road to transport products to the market. Therefore, 
infrastructure and loan provisions are needed from the government” (Tahtay_Maichew_FGD_21). 
Another study participant from Lomie district highlighted the following about the role of the government in 
Teff marketing.  
“The government has no interference in the Teff market as its policy is a free-market economy. The role 
of the government is regulating illegal trade” (Lomie_FGD_17). 
A key informant from Lomie district also said the following in relation to the role of the government in Teff 
marketing. 
“The government doesn’t intervene in the market to determine the price of Teff crops like the Dergregime 
because of its free-market policy. However, the government must monitor the collusion of traders in fixing 
the price of Teff crops” (Lomie_KII_2). 
A key informant from Halaba zone also highlighted the following concerning the role of the government in 
Teff marketing. 



12 
 

“I think the government is supporting in promoting Teff production like provision of technical support and 
access to inputs to farmers but its involvement in marketing is very limited except organizing cooperatives 
or unions” (Halaba_KII_1). 
An expert from the Ministry of Trade and Industry stated the following about the free-market economy the 
government is following. 
“Free-market has a very broad definition and the policy that a country implements also matters in this 
regard. So the meaning of free-market can be interpreted in the context of how much wealth one is 
allowed to accumulate and since there is no limit set by the government, the market can be said to free. 
Any farmer can produce as much as s/he can and can sell it without a limitation and intervention from the 
government or another third party. Also, the farmers are provided with market linkage services from the 
federal and regional offices and thus we can say that the market is free and the price is being set through 
negotiations” (Federal_official_KII_2). 
Similarly, an expert from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development said the following concerning 
the policy and strategy of the government in creating a sustainable market for Teff producers.  
“The fact that the market is free benefits everyone because it provides the opportunity of buying and 
selling and other terms and condition of the contract including the price and quality of the crops to be 
decided by the buyers and sellers in the market. It provides better competition opportunity. The benefit of 
free-market is that it does not limit the right of farmers, traders or consumers in buying and selling 
decisions. The government has a supportive role including developing national marketing policies and 
strategies, establishing a legal framework, developing market infrastructures such as road, market places, 
providing training, organizing marketing cooperatives and regulatory issues. Otherwise, the government 
doesn’t interfere in the market to fix the price of commodities unless it subsidized through its budget such 
as petroleum products, sugar, edible oil and flour mill” (Federal_official_KII_1). 
Contrary to the above views, a trader from Addis Ababa stated the following concerning the problems of 
illegal traders. 
“The free-market has killed our business as there are illegal sellers and brokers without a proper license 
and storage. They get a lot of benefits as they have no rent to pay for warehouse and most customers 
buy Teff from such illegal traders as they sell it at a lower price as compared to traders with license and 
with storage facilities. There are only 280 traders with storage. However, the number of traders is 
assumed to be around 2000. The ones with the store have gone bankrupt and sold out their business. 
However, the farmers are benefited because they sell their product either ways” (Wholesaler_KII_3). 
Another key informant (wholesaler) from Addis Ababa also stated the following about the problems faced 
during business transactions in Teff marketing. 
“We get Teff from the farmers following the governmental procedure, which is working through a license. 
There were a lot of problems in the years 2007 E.C to 2009 E.C and the main problem was that the 
Oromiya region’s license was not valid in Addis Ababa. When we go and ask the concerned 
governmental bodies, their response was that we are only permitted to sell in Oromiya and that was a big 
problem for us. However, this problem has been solved even though we see illegal traders and brokers 
who participate in Teff marketing using trucks. They sell the product and go back to the regions. If they 
could have delivered it straight to the legal traders, without reaching illegal brokers, the price could have 
been fair” (Wholesaler_KII_4). 
From the above discussions, we can understand that the government is following a free-market economy. 
This result is like the findings of Bihon (2015) which states the present government, which took power in 
1991 enforced new economic reform (free-market) in 1991. The existing free-market policy provides 
freedom for farmers in setting the price of his/her products and it is believed the policy is at the farmers’ 
best interest. The farmers, traders and consumers are free to buy and sell Teff crops at anytime and 
anywhere and the price is being set though negotiations. Any farmer can produce as much as s/he can 
and can sell it without a limit and intervention from the government or other third parties. The government 
has a supportive role including development of national marketing policies and strategies, establishing a 
legal framework, development of market infrastructures such as road, market places, providing training, 
organizing marketing cooperatives and regulatory issues. However, the issue of licensing and illegal trade 
and brokers are the major problems in Teff marketing that need the attention of the government. The 
government should monitor the illegal trade and collusion of traders in fixing the price of Teff crops 
through strengthening its regulatory mechanisms. 



13 
 

3.6. Problems of Teffsupply 
To identify the major problem of Teff marketing, discussions were undertaken with FGD participants and 
key informants in all districts. As a result, a study participant from Tahtay Maichew said the following. 
“The market chain is too long and the farmers are not benefited as much as they deserve to be. The 
biggest market problem that we have is that we pay a high amount of tax when we want to sale Teff 
crops. The tax is two hundred birr per quintal when a farmer wants to sale his/her Teff crops and this is a 
big problem for farmers” (Tahtay_Maichew_FGD_13). 
A study participant from Lomie district said the following in relation to market problems. 
“There are problems with the scale and in some case adulteration (mixing with others) of Teff crops” 
(Lomie_FGD_19). 
A study participant from Shenkora na Minjar district said the following about the market problems. 
“The price is fixed by the traders and thus farmers face problem that they may return home without selling 
their product” (Shenkora_na_Minjar_FGD_43). 
A study participant from Halaba zone said the following about the market problems. 
“Lack of proper scale and price fluctuations are the main problems in Teff marketing” (Halaba_FGD_14). 
A key informant from Lomie district said the following in relation to the problems of Teff marketing.  
“Actually, the traders are fixing the price for Teff crops in the market. Though the farmers do have the 
right to reject the price set by traders, the farmer is usually the price-taker. Some traders store Teff for 
long time to manipulate the price and the market so that they sell it when it gets expensive. This makes 
the market unstable” (KII Lomie_2). 
A key informant from Addis Ababa highlighted the following about the problems of Teff marketing.  
“The farmers do not directly contact the consumers or traders as there are illegal traders and brokers in 
between. There are government offices responsible for addressing this issue. However, they are not 
working as expected. The other problem is inflation of price of Teff crops when the demand gets high. If 
the production improves, I think that the problem will be solved” (Wholesaler_KII_1). 
Another key informant from Addis Ababa also stated the following in relation to the major problems of Teff 
marketing. 
“There are sometimes market instabilities and it is hard to make the market stable all the time. It is often 
hard to decide on the market or the farmers. The farmers have information on the price of Teff and the 
price is left for competition” (Wholesaler_KII_3). 
A key informant from Addis Ababa also highlighted the following about the problems of Teff marketing.  
“The government and district level authorities have tried to get rid of illegal traders and brokers who buy 
and sell directly from freights. But the job has not been consistent and effective” (Wholesaler_KII_6). 
A key informant from Tigrai region also stated the following in relation to the problems of Teff marketing.  
“The major marketing problems are long value chain from farmers to consumers, the absence of strong 
marketing cooperatives, and lack of transport facilities from remote areas to urban areas” 
(Tigrai_official_KII_1). 
A key informant from the Ministry of Trade and Industry also stated the following concerning the problems 
of marketing. 
“Exporting Teff could potentially increase concerns of inflation and rising commodity prices in local 
markets. On the other side, thelocal Teff marketing largely relies on traditional practices.The market chain 
for Teff crops is too long. This makes the illegal traders and brokers as part of the chain and without 
adding value they are getting financial benefits. In this regard, the farmers are not getting benefits as 
much as they deserve to be” (Federal_official_KII_2). 
From the above discussions with FGD participants and key informants, we can see that Teff marketing 
largely relies on traditional practices. The majorTeff marketing problems identifiedin the discussion are 
highlighted as follows. The existence of illegal traders and brokers in the Teff value chain, poor monitoring 
of the illegal traders from government authorities, price is fixed by traders and usually the farmers are 
price takers, absence of strong marketing cooperatives, fluctuations and inflation of price of Teff crops 
price, lack of proper scale, traders store Teff for long time to manipulate the price (hoarding), lack of 
transport facilities to remote areas, high of tax rates and adulteration (mixing with others). 
4. Conclusion 
Teff (Eragrostis Teff) is one of the major cereal crops in Ethiopia in terms of production and consumption. 
The country is the largest Teff producing country and has adopted Teff as a staple crop. Though Teff 
marketing was practiced for decades in the study areas and there are studies on the quantitative aspects 



14 
 

of the Teff value chain, studies on the qualitative aspect is limited. Thus, the aim of the study is to 
qualitatively and systematically examine the situation of Teff marketing among smallholder farmers. 
The sampling design used in this study was multistage sampling method.Purposive sampling method was 
used to select top Teff producing regions, districts, Kebeles, key informants and FGD participants. The 
data collection tools used in this study includes a literature review, focus group discussions and key 
informant interviews. A total 84 FGD participants and 25 key informants were involved in the study. The 
data were analyzed qualitatively through content analysis.  
From the findings of the research we can learn that Teff is cash crop for the farmers and its market value 
is higher as compared to other cereal crops. We can also understand that the government is following a 
free-market economy. The existing free-market policy provides freedom for farmers in setting the price of 
his/her products and it is believed the policy is at the farmers’ best interest. The farmers, traders and 
consumers are free to buy and sell Teff crops at anytime and anywhere and the price is being set though 
negotiations. Any farmer can produce Teffas much as s/he can and can sell it without a limit and 
intervention from the government or other third parties. On the other side, the government’sTeff export 
ban policy limited the participation of smallholder farmers in the global market. This indicates the 
intervention of the government in Teff marketing which is in contradiction with its free market policy. The 
reason for government’sTeff export ban policy could be exporting Teff could potentially increase concerns 
of inflation and rising commodity prices in local markets. On the other side, the local Teff marketing 
largely relies on traditional practices.The price determinationdepends on the time of selling and the quality 
of the Teff. However, smallholder producers do sale their Teff crops immediately after harvest (December 
or January) and thus get lower price as there is excess supply in the market. 
The study also revealed that farmers do have multiple options for accessing market information such as 
personal search in the market, peer farmers, traders, mobile, extension workers and cooperatives; 
however, the reliability of the information is questionable.Farmers who have access to main roads use 
freight cars while farmers who are away from the road use their pack animals such as donkeys, mules, 
and cart pulled by donkeys or human labour to transport their Teff crops to market. We can also learn that 
cooperatives do not have a visible role in Teff marketing apart from providing market information to their 
members. However, some farmers are selling their Teff crops to cooperatives during harvest time at 
cheap price and in return get dividend after the crop is sold at a better price later.  
The government has a supportive role including development of national marketing policies and 
strategies, establishing a legal framework, development of market infrastructures such as road, market 
places, providing training, organizing marketing cooperatives and regulatory issues. However, as per the 
discussion with study participants, the issue of licensing and illegal trade and brokers are the major 
problems in Teff marketing. In this regard, sometimes, the traders talk each other and fix the price of Teff 
crops. If the traders don’t buy with the price they set, there is nothing the farmers can do. Farmers face 
problem that they may return home without selling their Teff crops.  
The existence of illegal traders and brokers in the Teff value chain, poor monitoring of the illegal traders 
from government authorities, collusion of price by traders and usually the farmers are price takers, 
absence of strong marketing cooperatives, fluctuations and inflation of price of Teff crops price, lack of 
proper scale, traders store Teff for long time to manipulate the price (hoarding), lack of transport facilities 
to remote areas, high of tax rates and adulteration (mixing with others) are some of the problems raised 
by study participants.Having reviewed the major findings of the empirical studies, the following policy 
implications are recommended.  

 The government should develop systems of monitoring the illegal trade,hoarding,and collusion of 
traders in fixing the price of Teff crops through strengthening its regulatory mechanisms.  

 Creating strong marketing cooperatives can improve the bargaining power of farmers and thereby 
shortening the long market chain that can benefit both producers and end-users. 

 Crafting of marketing information system at district and Kebele level so that farmers will have 
easily access to reliable and up-to-date market information.  

 The Teff marketing largely relies on traditional practices and the farmers are not getting benefits 
as much as they deserve to be. Thus, the government should develop strategies for creating enabling 
market environment and modernizingthe market as it is having a major role in the development of national 
marketing policies, strategies, regulations and infrastructure.  

 Though it might have its advantages and disadvantages, the participation of smallholder farmers 
in global Teff market is limited by the government’s export ban policy. However, this requires regular 
review of the export ban policy through critical studies. In this regard, the government should assess the 



15 
 

trends of global Teffmarket regularly and see strategies forintroducing opportunities to enhance and 
maximize the benefits of smallholder farmersfrom the participationin global Teff market. 
  



16 
 

Reference 
Abdullah, M. and M. R. Hossain (2013). "A new cooperative marketing strategy for agricultural products in 
Bangladesh." World Review of Business Research 3(3): 130-144. 
Abraham, R. (2015). "Achieving food security in Ethiopia by promoting productivity of future world food 
tef: A review." Adv Plants Agric Res 2(2): 00045. 
Acharya, S. S. (2006). "Sustainable agriculture and rural livelihoods." Agricultural Economics Research 
Review 19(2): 205-217. 
Alene, A.D., Manyong, V,M., Omanya, G., Mignouna, H., Bokanga, M., & Odhiambo, G. (2007). 
Smallholder market participation under transactions costs: Maize supply and fertilizer demand in Kenya. 
Food Policy, 318-328. 
Andrew Dorward, Jonathan Kydd, Jamie Morrison and Ian Urey. (2003). A Policy Agenda for Pro-Poor 
Agricultural. World Development Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 73–89, 2004 Imperial College London, UK. 
Antonaci, L., M. Demeke, et al. (2015). "The Challenges of Implementing Price and Production Risk 
Management in Sub-Saharan Africa." Scientific Paper 9b, ULYSSES project, EU 7

th
 Framework 

Programme. 
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). "Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research." Qualitative 
research 1(3): 385-405. 
Azeb, B., Tadele, M., Challa, D. Asha, L. (2017). “Determinants of smallholder farmers in Teff market 
supply in Ambo district, West Shoa zone of Oromiya, Ethiopia.”  International Journal of Advanced 
Research in Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 2. 
Bandula, A., C. Jayaweera, et al. (2016). "Role of underutilized crop value chains in rural food and 
income security in Sri Lanka." Procedia food science 6: 267-270. 
Barrett, C. B. (2008). "Smallholder market participation: Concepts and evidence from eastern and 
southern Africa." Food policy 33(4): 299-317. 
Bart, M., Seneshaw, T., Ermias, E., and Tadesse K. (2013). Ethiopia’s value chain on the move: The 
Case of Teff. Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II. ESSP working paper 52. 
Bart, M., Seneshaw, T., Ermias, E., and Tadesse K. (2015). Feeding Africa’s Cities: The Case of the 
Supply Chain of Teff to Addis Ababa. The University of Chicago, Economic Development and Cultural 
Change. 
Bernard, T. and A. S. Taffesse (2012). "Returns to scope? Smallholders' commercialisation through 
multipurpose cooperatives in Ethiopia." Journal of African Economies 21(3): 440-464. 
Bethlehem, J. (1999). "Cross-sectional research." Research methodology in the social, behavioural and 
life sciences 110: 142. 
BihonKassaAbrha. (2015). Factors Affecting Agricultural Production in Tigray Region, Northern Ethiopia. 
PhD Thesis, UNISA. 
Birara, D. (2017). "Challenges of Social Reintegration for the 2013 Saudi Arabian Returnees in Ethiopia." 
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research 3: 31-37. 
Bonger, T., E. Gabre-Madhin, et al. (2002). "Agriculture technology diffusion and price policy." 
Bryman, A.  (2008). Social Research Methods. Third edition. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. 
Burney, J.A., & Naylor, R.L. (2011). Smallholder Irrigation as a Poverty Alleviation Tool in Sub-Saharan 
Africa. World Development, 40, 110-123. 
Catherine Ndinda, Tidings P. Ndhlovu, Pamela Juma ,GershimAsiki and Catherine Kyobutungi (2018). 
The evolution of non-communicable diseases policies in post-apartheid South Africa. BMC Public Health 
Article number: 956 (2018). 
Catherine Ndinda& Tidings P. Ndhlovu (2016). Attitudes towards foreigners in informal settlements 
targeted for upgrading in South Africa: A gendered perspective, Agenda. 
Cavanagh, S. (1997). "Content analysis: concepts, methods and applications." Nurse researcher 4(3): 5-
16. 
Coleman, B. E. (1999). "The impact of group lending in Northeast Thailand." Journal of development 
economics 60(1): 105-141. 
CSA. (2017/18). "Agricultural sample survey. Report on area and production of major crops (private 
peasant holding, Meher season."  Statistical bulletin 586. 
Curry, L. A., I. M. Nembhard, et al. (2009). "Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions 
to outcomes research." Circulation 119(10): 1442-1452. 



17 
 

Daniel Roduner. (2007). Donor Interventions in Value Chain Development: Community of Practice on 
Value Chains in Rural Development. VCRD CoP. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation 
(SDC), Switzerland. 
Demeke, M. and F. Di Marcantonio (2013). Analysis of incentives and disincentives for teff in Ethiopia. 
Technical notes series, MAFAP, FAO, Rome. 
Dessalegn, G., T. S. Jayne, et al. (1998). Market structure, conduct, and performance: Constraints of 
performance of Ethiopian grain markets, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and 
Resource Economics. Grain Market Research Project Working Paper 8. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 
Diao, X., P. Hazell, et al. (2010). "The role of agriculture in African development." World development 
38(10): 1375-1383. 
Ethiopian Economic Association (EEA). 2005. Transformation of the Ethiopian agriculture: Potentials, 
constraints and suggested intervention measures. Report on the Ethiopian Economy, Vol. IV 2004/05. 
Ethiopian Economic Association/Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute, Addis Ababa. 
Efa, G., Degye, G., Tinsae, D., and Tadesse, K. (2017). “Determinants of market participation and 
intensity of marketed surplus of Teff producers in Bacho and Dawo districts of Oromia State, Ethiopia.” 
Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Vol. 5(2), pp. 020-032. Ellis. 
Enibe, D., S. Chidebelu, et al. (2008). "Policy issues in the structure, conduct and performance of Banana 
Market in Anambra State, Nigeria." Journal of Agricultural Extension 12(2). 
Fantu, N., Bethelihem, K., and Alemayehu, S. (2015). Smallholder Teff Productivity and Efficiency: 
Evidence from High-Potential Districts of Ethiopia. International Conference of Agricultural Economics, 
Milan. 
FAO. (2015). Analysis of price incentives for Teff in Ethiopia Technical notes series, MAFAP, by Assefa 
B. Demeke M., Lanos B, Rome. 
FAO. (2015). Regional overview of food insecurity: African food security prospects brighter than ever, 
FAO Accra. 
FAO. (2012). The State of Food and Agriculture Looking Ahead in World Food and Agriculture: 
Perspective 2050. Agricultural Development Economics Division, Economic and Social Development 
Department. www.fao.org/economic/esa/esag/en/. 
FAO. (2009). "Country profile: food security indicators country: Ethiopia." 
Fufa, B., B. Behute, et al. (2011). "Strengthening the tef value chain in Ethiopia." Addis Ababa: Ethiopian 
Agricultural Transformation Agency. 
Gabre-Madhin, E. and T. Mezgebou (2006). "Prices and volatility in the Ethiopian grain market." Ethiopia 
Strategy. 
Getnet, K. (2008). "From market liberalization to market development: The need for market institutions in 
Ethiopia." Economic Systems 32(3): 239-252. 
Getnet, K. (2007). "Spatial equilibrium of wheat markets in Ethiopia." African Development Review 19(2): 
281-303. 
Gideon, E. O. (2016). "Platform for Agricultural Risk Management: Managing risks to improve farmers‟ 
livelihoods, Agricultural Risk Assessment Study." 
Glahe, F. R. (1978). Adam Smith and the wealth of nations: 1776-1976 bicentennial essays, Colorado 
Associated University Press. 
Habtegebrial, K. and B. Singh (2006). "Effects of timing of nitrogen and sulphur fertilizers on yield, 
nitrogen, and sulphur contents of Tef (Eragrostistef (Zucc.) Trotter)." Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems 
75(1-3): 213-222. 
Hailu, G., A. Weersink, et al. (2015). Rural organizations, agricultural technologies and production 
efficiency of teff in Ethiopia. 
Hazell, P. Poulton, C. Wiggins, S. &Dorward, A. (2010). The future of small farms: trajectories and policy 
priorities.World Dev. 38(10), 1349-1361. 
Hsieh, H.-F. and S. E. Shannon (2005). "Three approaches to qualitative content analysis." Qualitative 
health research 15(9): 1277-1288. 
Hyejin L. (2018). Teff, a Rising Global Crop: “Current Status of Teff Production and Value Chain.” The 
Open Agriculture Journal, Volume 12. 
Jagwe,  J.,  Machethe,  C.,  Ouma,  E.  (2010). Transaction costs and smallholder farmers‟ participation 
markets in the Great Lakes Region of Burundi, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Afr. J. 
Agric. Res. 6(1), pp. 1-16. 

http://www.fao.org/economic/esa/esag/en/


18 
 

Jayne, T. S., D. Mather, et al. (2010). "Principal challenges confronting smallholder agriculture in sub-
Saharan Africa." World development 38(10): 1384-1398. 
Katia Covarrubias, LonginNsiima and Alberto Zezza. (2012). Livestock and livelihoods in rural Tanzania A 
descriptive analysis of the 2009 National Panel Survey. The United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of 
Livestock and Fishers Development. 
Kebebew, A., Solomon, C., and Zerihun, T. (eds.). (2013). Achievements and Prospects of Teff 
Improvement; Proceedings of the Second International Workshop, November 7-9, 2011, Debre Zeit, 
Ethiopia. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Institute of Plant Sciences, 
University of Bern, Switzerland. Printed at Stämpfli AG, 3001 Bern, Switzerland. ISBN: 978-3-033-03818-
9. 
Kitzinger, J. (1994). "The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research 
participants." Sociology of health & illness 16(1): 103-121. 
Mack, N., Woodsong, A., Macqueen, K., Guest, G. and Namey, E., (2005). Qualitative Research    
Methods: A data Collector’s Field Guide. Family Health International. USA. 
Masters, A. (2008). Unpleasant Middlemen. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 68, no. 
1:73–86. 
Matthew, N. and M. Todd (2009). "Choosing the Right Marketing Channels for Small-Scale Vegetable 
Producers." Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University 
Meulenberg, M. T. (1997). Evolution of agricultural marketing institutions: a channel approach. 
Agricultural marketing and consumer behavior in a changing world, Springer: 95-108. 
Minten, B., S. Tamru, et al. (2013). "Ethiopia’s value chains on the move: The case of teff." Ethiopia 
Strategy Support Program II Working Paper 52: 1-26. 
MoFED, A. (2006). Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP), Ministry 
of Finance and Economic Development Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 
OECD/Food and A. O. O. T. U. Nations. (2015). OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2015, OECD Publishing 
Paris. 
Olivio, A. & Cecilia, M. (2005). Urban food supply and distribution in developing countries and countries in 
transition: A guide for planners. FAO. Rome 
SeneshawTamru. (2013). Spatial Integration of Cereal Markets in Ethiopia.  ESSP (Ethiopia Strategy 
Support Programme II) working paper 56. 
Siskos, Y., N. F. Matsatsinis, et al. (2001). "Multi-criteria analysis in agricultural marketing: The case of 
French olive oil market." European Journal of Operational Research 130(2): 315331. 
Spielman, D. J., D. Byerlee, et al. (2010). "Policies to promote cereal intensification in Ethiopia: A review 
of evidence and experience." Food Policy 35(3): 185-194. 
Suh, J. (2002). "Estimation of Non-market Forest Benefits Using Choice Modelling." 
Tadesse, G. and A. G. Guttormsen (2011). "The behavior of commodity prices in Ethiopia." Agricultural 
Economics 42(1): 87-97 
Tegegn, A. (2013). "Value chain analysis of vegetables: The case of Habro and Kombolcha Woredas in 
Oromia Region, Ethiopia." An MSc Thesis Presented to School of Graduate Studies of Haromaya 
University. 
Warner, J., T. Stehulak, et al. (2019). "Woreda-level crop production rankings in Ethiopia: A pooled data 
approach." Gates Open Res 3. 
Wolelaw, S. (2005). "Factors determining supply of rice: A study in Fogera district of Ethiopia." An MSc 
Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. 
World Bank. (2009). Eastern Africa: A Study of the Regional Maize Market and Marketing Costs. Report 
no. 49831-ET, World Bank, Washington, DC. 
World Bank. (2007). Explaining Sources of Food Price Inflation in Ethiopia: A Just in Time Policy Note. 
 
 


