Market Access in Pastoral Community Livestock Production (The Case of Benchi-Maji zone Surma Woreda) By HAIMANOT ASMARE

MTU in collaboration with YOM institute of Economic Development
College of Business & Economics Department of Economics
Market Access in Pastoral Community Livestock Production
(The Case of Benchi-Maji zone Surma Woreda)
By: HAIMANOT ASMARE
A Thesis Submitted To the Department of Economics, School of Graduate Studies
Mizan-Tepi University
IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF
MASTER OF SINCE 2 nd DEGREE IN PROJECT PLANING AND MANAGEMENT
PRINCIPAL ADVISOR
SolomonTsehay (PhD)
CO-ADVISOR
Fitsume Aklilu (Msc)
August 2017

SCHOOL GRADUATE STUDIES
Mizan-Tepi UNIVERSITY
As Thesis Research advisor, we here by certify that we have read and evaluated this thesis
prepared, under our guidance, by Haimanot Asmare Muluneh, entitled Market Access in
Pastoral Community Livestock Production: The Case of Market Access in Surma woreda,
SNNP Region. We recommend that it be submitted as fulfilling the Thesis requirement.
Solomon Tsehay (PhD)) _________________ ______________
Major Advisor Signature Date
Fitsume Aklilu (Msc) _________________ ______________
Co-advisor Signature Date
As member of the Board of Examiners of the Final M. Sc. Thesis Open Defense Examination,
we certify that we have read, evaluated the Thesis prepared by Haimanot Asmare Muluneh and
examined the candidate. We recommended that the Thesis be accepted as fulfilling the Thesis
requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in Economics (Project Planning and
Management)
______________________ _________________ _______________
Chairperson Signature Date
______________________ _________________ _______________
Internal Examiner Signature Date
______________________ _________________ _______________
External Examiner Signature Date
ii

STATEMENT OF AUTHOR
First, I declare that this thesis is my work and that all sources of materials used for this thesis
have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillments of the
requirements for an M.Sc degree at the Mizan-Tepi University and is deposited at University
Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. I solemnly declare that this
thesis is not submitted to any other institution for the award of any academic degree, diploma, or
certificate.
Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate
acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or
reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major
department or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies when in his or her judgment the
proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instance, however,
permission must be obtained from the author.
Name: Haimanot Asmare Muluneh
Signature: ………………..
Place: Mizan-Tepi University, Mizan-Tepi
Date of Submission: ………………………………..
iii

BIOGRAPHY
The author was born in Burie Woreda, Western Gojjam Zone of Amhara Region at a place called
Gusha, in November, 1980. He completed his high school and preparatory education in 1999 at
Burie shekudade high school and preparatory school. He joined the then Mizan-Tepi University
of Business and Economics facility Business Management Department in April 25/2000 E.c
and graduated with B.Sc. degree in Business Management Department in Jun 2002.
Soon after his graduation, he was employed in Bero woreda finance and economy development
office and served in Maizan Aman Town Administrative finance and economy development
office for seven years. Since 2003, he is working for Bero woreda finance and economy
development office at various levels. He joined the school of graduate studies at Mizan-Tepi
University in Jun 2007.
iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank the almighty God for his unconditional love, multitude mercy
and protection upon me.
I would like to extend my deepest thanks to my major advisor Solomon Tsehay (PhD) for
devotion of his precious time, invaluable suggestions, comments and guidance from the
inception of designing the proposal to the final write up of the thesis. I appreciate his continuous
encouragement and efforts to keep me on the right truck. I am also thankful to my co-advisor
Fitsume Aklilu (Msc) for sacrificing his expensive time and provision of constructive comments
and suggestion starting from proposal until thesis writing as well as advices on employment of
statistical model.
I would like also to express my sincere appreciation Maizan Aman Town Administrative
finance and economy development office to extend my gratitude to all staff members in all
aspects throughout my study.
My appreciation goes to enumerators, the members of the sample household respondents, and
key informants for their cooperation during data collection and generous devotion of their
precious time. I am also grateful to Surma Worda pastoral development office for their kind
cooperation in all aspects. I am also thankful to Teghabu Belaye and Barejendaye for translating
the interview questionnaire to Suri language. My special gratitude goes to my father Asmare
Muluneh, my mother Addise Awoke and my families for their tireless effort to realize the
financial support and continues encouragement and hospitality. I am also indebted to Getenet
Asmare for devotion of his precious time to read the thesis and give constructive comments and
suggestion.
Last but not the least, my deepest heartfelt appreciation goes to my wife Mesert Fekadu and my
son Beruk Haimanot
hardship at my absence.
for her encouragement, love, and patience to withstand loneliness and
v

ABBREVIATIONS
GDP - Growth Domestic Product
FAO – Food and Agricultural Organization
ESA - Ethiopian statics agency
SNNP - South Nation Nationality People
NGO - Non-governmental Organization
IGAD- Inter Governmental Authority for Development
PRM - Participatory regional management
ASALS- Arid and Semi-arid lands
MIS- Marketing Information System
APFS- Agro pastoral Filed school
TADS – Trans’ boundary Animal Diseases
FMD - Foot and Mouth Diseases
PPR – Peste des petits Ruminants
CBPP- contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia
CCPP – contagious caprine Pleuropneumonia
PFE- Policy Framework on Pastoralism
AU – Africa union
PASC – Pastoral Airs standing Committee
EPD – Ethiopian Pastoral Day
PCDP – Pastoral community development program
MDG – Millennium Development goal
vi

TLU – Tropical Livestock unit
EC- Ethiopia Calendar
Cor – correlation
MFx – Marginal effect
logit- logistics regression
VIF - Variance Inflation Factor
REG – regression
KA - Kebele Administration
TV - Television
PPS - Probability Proportional to Sample size
WAFDO - Woreda Animal and fish development Office
WPDO - Woreda Pastoral development Office
MDA – Market Development agent
vii

Content
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENT OF AUTHOR----------------------------------------------------------------------------- II
BIOGRAPHY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------IV
ABBREVIATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------V
TABLE OF CONTENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------VII
LIST OF TABLES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------XII
LIST OF FIGURES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------XIV
LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX --------------------------------------------------------------------XV
ABSTRACT -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------XVI
CHAPTER ONE-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1. Introduction-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1.1 Background and Justification of the Study ----------------------------------------------------------1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
1.3 Objectives of the Study --------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
1.3.1 General objective ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
1.3.2 Specific objective-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
1.4 Research Question--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
1.5 Scope of the Study--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
1.6 Significance of the Study------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
viii

1.7 Limitation of the Study--------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
1.8 Organization of the Study------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
CHAPTER TWO---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
REVIEW LITERATURE -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
2.1.1 Concept definition of Market accesses in pastoral community livestock production---------8
2.1.2 History and origins of pastoralism-------------------------------------------------------------------9
2.1.3 Livestock Production System in Ethiopia---------------------------------------------------------10
2.1.3.1 Agro-pastoral (highland) system------------------------------------------------------------------10
2.1.3.2 Pastoral (lowland) livestock system--------------------------------------------------------------11
2.2. Future Potential of Ethiopian livestock -------------------------------------------------------------11
2.3. Value chain livestock Production --------------------------------------------------------------------13
2.4. Social importance of livestock to Pastoralists and lack of Alternative Assets-----------------13
2.5 Lack of Transparency on Quality Health and Weight ---------------------------------------------14
2.6 Address Specific Constraints That Cut across Sectors
That Hinder Livestock Development---------------------------------------------------------------------14
2.7. Market Access and Trade------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
2.7.1 Access to market information-----------------------------------------------------------------------16
2.7.2 Marketing of livestock and livestock products----------------------------------------------------18
2.7.3 Livestock production constraints-------------------------------------------------------------------18
2.7.4 Selling Pastoral Products-----------------------------------------------------------------------------19
2.7.5 Marketing infrastructure-----------------------------------------------------------------------------20
2.7.6 Market support infrastructure and information system------------------------------------------20
ix

2.7.7 Livestock marketing infrastructure improved ----------------------------------------------------20
2.7.8 Regional Livestock Marketing Information System strengthened-----------------------------21
2.7.9 Improving livestock mobility and trade in livestock and livestock products-----------------21
2.8 Major contribution of PFE so FAR-------------------------------------------------------------------22
2.8.1 Raising the parole of pastoralist in the country---------------------------------------------------22
2.8.2 Development of regional pastoral policy frameworks and programs--------------------------23
2.8.3 Facts about Ethiopian Pastoralists -----------------------------------------------------------------23
2.9. Empirical Studies---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24
2.10 Conceptual Framework ------------------------------------------------------------------------------28
CHAPTER THREE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30
3. METHODOLOGY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30
3.1 Description of the Study Area ------------------------------------------------------------------------30
3.2 Sampling procedure ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------31
3.2.1. Sampling design -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------31
3.2.2 Sampling frame ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------31
3.2.3. Sample size determination -------------------------------------------------------------------------31
3.2.4. Sample size -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------32
3.3 Data types and source ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------32
3.4 Data Collection Tools and Procedures ---------------------------------------------------------------33
3.4.1 Quantitative data collection methods --------------------------------------------------------------33
3.4.1.1 Interview---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------33
x

3.4.1.2 Focus Group Discussion --------------------------------------------------------------------------33
3.4.1.3 Participant Observation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------34
3.4.2 Qualitative data collection methods --------------------------------------------------------------34
3.4.2.1 Secondary Data -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------34
3.5 Methods of data analysis-------------------------------------------------------------------------------35
3.5.1. Descriptive methods ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------35
3.5.2. Regression analysis ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------35
3.5.3 logit regression ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------36
3.5.4 Model specification ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------36
3.5.5. Variables to be included in the model Analysis of Determinants of MAIPCLP by
pastoralists----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------40
3.6 Definition of Variables ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------41
3.6.1 Dependent variable -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------41
3.6.2 Independent variables --------------------------------------------------------------------------------42
3.6.3 Definition of Independent Variables and hypothesis --------------------------------------------42
CHAPTER FOUR-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------45
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION---------------------------------------------------------------------------45
4. 1 Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------45
4.1.1 Market access in pastoral community livestock production user’s category------------------45
4.1.2 Descriptions of Demographic, Economic, Communication, Situational, Socio-cultural and
Psychological Characteristics of Respondents-----------------------------------------------------------46
4.2 Demographic characteristics of sample household ------------------------------------------------47
xi

4.2.1 Age of respondents -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------47
4.2.2 Education level----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47
4.2.3 Family size---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------48
4.3 Psychological factors-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------49
4.3.1 Knowledge of livestock productivity Package----------------------------------------------------49
4.3.2 Achievement motivation-----------------------------------------------------------------------------50
4.4 Socio-cultural factors-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------50
4.4.1 Social Participation-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------51
4.5 Economic factors----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------52
4.5.1 Livestock owned number /wealth-------------------------------------------------------------------52
4.5.2 Livestock production income (yearly sales) ------------------------------------------------------52
4.5.5. Communication Factors-----------------------------------------------------------------------------53
4.5.1 Mass media exposure---------------------------------------------------------------------------------53
4.5.2 Information sharing behavior------------------------------------------------------------------------56
4.6 Situational factor----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------57
4.6.1 Transportation facility--------------------------------------------------------------------------------57
4.6.2 Distance from the market----------------------------------------------------------------------------57
4.6.4 Distance from Centre---------------------------------------------------------------------------------58
4.7. Analysis of Determinants of MAIPCLP by pastoralists-------------------------------------------59
4.8. Analysis of Determinants of yearly sales (income) by pastoralists------------------------------63
xii

4.9. The extent of Market Access in pastoral community livestock production information
sharing in the study area------------------------------------------------------------------------------------64
4.9.1 Group discussion Market access livestock production information sharing------------------64
4.9.2 Group discussion challenges of formal Market access livestock in the study area-----------64
CHAPTER FIVE -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------69
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION------------------------------------------------------69
5.1 Conclusion-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------69
5.2 Recommendations---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------71
Reference -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------73
7. Appendix --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------76
xiii

LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. List of variables to be included in the logit model is presented ----------------------------------40
2. Distribution of household respondent by level of MAIPCLP ------------------------------------46
3. Association between education level of respondents and MAIPCLP----------------------------48
4. Association between Knowledge of livestock productivity
of respondents and MAIPCLP ------------------------------------------------------------------------49
5. Association between achievement motivation of respondents and MAIPCLP -----------------50
6. Association between social participation of respondents and MAIPCLP -----------------------51
7. Association between media exposure of respondent and their MAIPCLP ---------------------53
8. Distribution of respondents by types of mass media exposure area MAIPCLP ---------------54
9. Importance of media programs attended by household respondent------------------------------55
10. Association between sharing available information by respondent and their MAIPCLP -----56
11. Association between respondent transportation facility and their MAIPCLP ----------------57
12. The maximum likelihood estimates and the marginal effects of logit model output are
presented--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------59
13. The multiple regression effects of multicollinearity output are yearly sale (income)
presented--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------63
14. Association between different distance from the information source of respondent and their
MAIPCLP------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------64
30 Group discussion challenges of formal Market access livestock in the study area--------------66
32. The maximum likelihood estimates and the marginal effects of logit model output are
presented------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------67
xiv

Figure
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Conceptual framework....................................................................................................29
xv

Appendix Table
LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX
Page
1. Sampling procedure--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------76
2. Questionnaire----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------77
3. logit model regression in market access --------------------------------------------------------------94
4. Marginal effects after logit market access ------------------------------------------------------------95
5. Post estimation tests for the logit model Market access--------------------------------------------96
6. Variance Inflation Factor--------------------------------------------------------------------------------96
7. Post estimation tests for the multiple regressions yearly sale (income) --------------------------97
8. estat ovtest(omitted variable) yearly sale (income)--------------------------------------------------97
9. Market Canals and number of Formal and Informal trade Areas ----------------------------------98
xvi

ABSTRACT
This study was conducted in Surma Worda, of Benchi-maji zone, southwest SNNPRG Region
located at about 755Km, southwest of Addis Ababa. The study has tried to look into the extent of
market access in pastoral community livestock production and determinants of market access
livestock production by pastoralists in the area. Cross sectional data collected in 2008 fiscal year
from a total 126 respondents selected using PPS (Probability Proportional to Sample size) was
used for the study. Pre-tested structured interview schedule was employed for collecting the
required quantitative data. Group discussion was used to crosscheck the data collected through
formal survey and also to generate additional contextual data. The finding of the survey shows
that neighbours or friends, other Pastoralists and religious organization are the major market
access information sources and dominantly information sharing on the market access takes place
among pastoral community to pastoralists. Moreover, market access obtained from neighbours or
friends has sound perceived value among pastoralists. Product Moment correlation analysis
between explanatory variable and market access users category by pastoralists shows that level
of level of education, Achievement motivation, wealth, social participation, mass media
exposure, distance from market and distance from the center were negatively related to market
access in pastoral community livestock production at various degree of strength. Whereas, age
of the respondent, information sharing behavior and transportation facility were positively
related to market access in pastoral community livestock production. The logit model coefficient
output indicates that market access in pastoral community by pastoralists were influenced by age
of the respondent, information sharing behavior and transportation facility are positively and of
level of education, achievement of motivation, distance from market, social participation, mass
media exposure and distance from the center negatively. Policy makers should give emphasis
Pastoralist to pastoralist flow of information while promoting new innovated technologies and
market access. Identifying prevailing social networks and informal organizations in every
community and utilizing them in dissemination assumes much importance. As the pastoralists
mainly depend on livestock production for their livelihoods and other cultural values, livestock
market take advantage of the asymmetric market information towards them. Linking producers
to market and its benefits, establishing in cooperatives and development of infrastructure could
play a significant role for optimization of the sector productivity
xvii

CHAPTER ONE
1. Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
Pastoralists in world markets, Pastoralists face specific problems in accessing world markets.
Their reasons for selecting certain animals for sale, and the timing of such sales, are hard for
outsiders to understand and do not necessarily fit well with the demands of modern trading
systems. Poor transport links, difficulties accessing market information and poor infrastructure
also make marketing difficult in market access pastoral community livestock production (Aklilu,
Y. 2008).
When raising livestock in areas with a high incidence of animal diseases and under-developed
veterinary services, complying with international trade regulations is difficult. In response,
donors have been working to improve trade institutions and policies, including the development
of commodity standards in place of certified disease-free status for a region (Aklilu and Catley
2009).
Livestock market heritage is still in Ethiopia pastoralists, As livestock becomes increasingly
recognized for its significant contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and exports, The
authors delineate migration patterns, rationales, and market strategies, and offer for policy
makers and service providers interacting with communities that practice pastoralism. Road is one
of a very important infrastructure in the livestock marketing system. The type of road connecting
an area determines the type of buyers that can get access to its market. It also affects the
livestock production of most of the Participants in the livestock market (Aklilu and Catley 2009).
Ethiopia is the world’s tenth largest livestock producer and the biggest exporter of livestock
in Africa. The country has 40 million cattle, 25.5 million sheep, 23.4 million goats and 2.3
million camels, according to a sample census carried out by the Central Statistics Authority of
Ethiopia between 2001 and 2003(Embassy of Ethiopia Economy 2008). Ethiopia presently offers
the global market a wide range of processed and semi-processed hides and skins. Some of the
products, such as Ethiopian highland sheepskin, are renowned for their quality and natural
characteristics. The export of finished leather and leather products (such as leather garments,
1

footwear, gloves, bags and other leather articles) is also increasing (Embassy of Ethiopia
Economy 2008).
Market centers and their associated infrastructures are important factors that have to be
considered in the move to increase the supply of livestock for both domestic and export markets.
Due to the wider geographical location of pastoralists, some important sources of livestock are
very far from market centers (Gezahegne et al., 2006). Pastoralists from the border areas need to
travel for a week or more to reach these market areas, this influences the marketing behavior of
pastoralists that they either have to keep their animals unsold or they have to go to nearby
informal markets in the neighboring countries, In order to attract such resources to the central
markets, there is a need to thoroughly assess these remote areas and open up primary markets
with at least dry weather roads connecting them to secondary markets (Gezahegne et al., 2006).
Livestock holdings of cattle, camels, goats and sheep often comprise the bulk of their limited
wealth and are an integral part of their socio - cultural life. Along with the unfavorable agroecology
of the study area and the limited livelihood opportunities pastoral systems of the study
areas are exposed to frequent droughts. indicating the loss of productive livestock production
The environmental adaptation of indigenous breeds facilitates livestock production in a wide
range of agro ecological conditions and constraints particularly the areas that most poor
pastoralists inhabit and use Since successful livestock development programmers in the future
will require both enhancement of productivity and maintenance of local adaptation, the
knowledge of ecological importance, breed and trait preferences of the intended beneficiaries
need to be identified prior to attempting any breed improvement interventions (Daka, 2002;
Simbaya 2002).
The domestic market in Ethiopia is supplied largely by highland cattle, due to proximity, to
the exclusion of the pastoral areas - the main reason for the flow of trade herds from pastoral
areas of Ethiopia. However, this trend can change at any time, when and if Ethiopia starts
exporting beef, as was the case with shoats. Also note that there are more cattle in the highland
areas of Ethiopia than in the pastoral areas. Information and knowledge are key elements in rural
development. Knowledge provides much of the ideas and momentum for agricultural and other
changes. Information coming from outside the area can bring fresh ideas, awareness of new
2

opportunities. Knowledge derived from formal research, or developed in other localities, can
stimulate new thinking and practices (Chris et al., 2003).
Traditional livestock farmers also play a pivotal role in the supply of livestock to the
livestock industry especially in the beef sub- sector. However, this category of farmers is
characterized by a number of constraints, major ones being low productivity and limited access
to livestock markets (Aregheore, 2006; Negassa 2008). Low productivity is manifested in low
production and reproduction parameters which result in reduced meat yields and low livestock
numbers (Simbaya 2002), often exacerbated by insufficient and low quality of feed, diseases,
poor animal husbandry and inadequate extension services (Daka, 2002; Simbaya 2002).
While livestock production is itself considered enough indication that the household is well off
(Ali and Khan 2013), investment in improved market access is regarded as a sure means to
accelerate rural poverty reduction (Chapoto et al. 2011). Low market access is often blamed on
limited numbers of livestock owned, long distances to main roads, impassability of roads, and
crop commercialization (Lubungu et al. 2012, Negassa 2008). Makhura (2001) contends that
market participation is higher fo r smaller livestock, which tend to be reared by female farmers
and mainly for livelihood purposes rather than for social status.
Productive potential and market access on livestock production. Weal so test for the existence
of heterogeneous effects across agro-ecological regions, livestock species and poverty stat us of
the household. Unlike most prior studies that use narrow measures of welfare like income or
expenditure (Deshingkar et al., 2008, Greeley 1994), we use a more comprehensive participatory
wealth ranking exercise to classify the households into wealth strata. To the best of our
knowledge, no study has looked at all these issues so comprehensively within a mixed-methods
framework.
In pastoral areas, livestock are usually sold to meet family needs for cash income, which is
used to buy food grains and industrial products such as clothing. Occasionally, seasonal shortage
of rainfall through its impact on feed availability forces higher supply to market. The
pastoralists’ forced supply is constrained by their inability to plan sales in accordance with
market need (time and quality) (Belachew and Jemberu, 2003).
3

Therefore, the objective of this review is:
• To review the factors affecting livestock market access in the study area
• To review livestock market structure and livestock production
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Ethiopia has a huge stock of livestock which makes it the leading in Africa interims of
number. But the contribution of the sector to the economy is infinitesimal. This could be
substantiated by the fact that the sector contributes average 24% of agricultural GDP and only
11% percent of the national GDP (Asfaw, 2009). The main reason for such poor performance of
the sector is limited market access and low quality production. The present performance of the
sector neither matches its potential nor does it meet the country’s food demand and level of
tread. Therefore, the challenge in Ethiopia has been how to make advances in adopting and using
market access to bring about perceptible changes in the live stoke production to enhance
pastoralists’ standards of living in the long-term.
Large segment of the population in pastoralist areas engages in livestock production in
Ethiopia. Particularly, in Surma woreda which is dominantly pastoralist area livestock
production is the dominant sector. The underdevelopment of infrastructure and challenging
topography prevailing in the woreda hampers accessibility of pastoralists to up-to-date market
access livestock production and pastoral community. Most of our pastoralists who are living their
life thoroughly depending on traditional livestock production practice do not dwell close to each
other, which adversely affects the desire they have to know what problems other pastoralists face
and how they are solving those problems in their market accesses in livestock production. It has
highly informal livestock market in the woreda which have the way for the community to benefit
from their livestock.
There is scanty of literature on livestock market access in Ethiopia in general and in Surma
woreda in particular. Many of the research have given emphasis to livestock value chain
assessment (Kefyalew Alemayehu2011), Diagnostic study of live cattle and beef production and
4

marketing (Sintayehu GebreMariam, Samuel Amare 2010), Women livestock ownership and
marketing (jemimah Njuki and pascal c.sanginga 2013), market structure conduct and
performance of cattle in pastoral area ( Zekarias Bassa and Teshale Woldeamanue1) and
Livestock marketing in Kenya (Aklilu Y. 2008). This research generated useful market accesses
are not made accessible to pastoralists for various reason including lack of proper channel to
disseminate existing information and infrastructures. Therefore illuminates light on market
access in pastoral community of livestock production in surma woreda.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
1.3.1 General objective
The general objective of the study is to analyze the market access in pastoral community
livestock production in the study area.
1.3.2 Specific objectives
The specific objectives of the study are:
1. To analyze the extent of market access in pastoral community livestock production.
2. To examine challenges of market access livestock production in pastoralists.
3. To review current market practices and constraint market access livestock production.
1.4 Research Question
1. To what extent does market access in pastoral community livestock production take place?
2. What factors affect market access in pastoral community livestock production?
3. What are the current market practice as well as research advancements in market access and
resolving constraints?
5

1.5 Scope of the Study
The study is limited to only one purposely selected area, surma Woreda of Benchi maji zone
in SNNP Region. Due to limitations of time, financial as well as other relevant resources, the
study focuses only on the market access in pastoral community livestock production in the study
area.
1.6 significance of the study
The findings of this study can be used primarily for making generalizations regarding market
access in pastoral community livestock production in surma worda. However, the research
findings could be used to raise awareness among different stakeholders and also serve as
background market access information for others who seek to do further related research and
would serve in formulating and raising market accesses in pastoral community and livestock
production. This study was contributed toward the understanding of the level of market access in
pastoral community livestock production. Furthermore, the further study of market access in
pastoral community livestock production various stakeholders laboring for betterment of
livestock production. Pastoralists, extension agents, subject matter specialists, planners,
researchers, policy makers, and other related government agencies, Nongovernmental
Organizations (NGOs), and private sectors might use the results of this study, for further
guidance and formulation regarding suitable strategies and polices.
1.7 Limitation of the Study
The limitations of this thesis were limitation of time budget constraints and there are only a
few studies related and conducted in the area of market access in pastoral community livestock
production. Thus, the researcher faced high limitations of empirical studies to make the
comparisons of research findings conducted in the country till to date. To conquer the limitation
of related studies, the review of literature focuses mainly on studies conducted on the adoption
and diffusion in the area of market access in pastoral community livestock production both in
the country and abroad that deal directly or indirectly with how market accesses reaches the
pastoralists.
6

1.8 Organization of the Study
This thesis is composed of four chapters. The first part pinpoints out introduction, background
of the study, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research question, scope of the
study finding of the study, limitation of the study, significance of the study organization of the
study and organization of thesis. The second chapter is about the literature review pertinent to
the research topic, contains conceptual and theoretical issues. The third chapter research
methodology and data collection tools and procedures. The fourth is about Results and
Discussion. The fifth chapter is research conclusions and recommendation.
7

CHAPTER TWO
2. 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1.1 Concept definition of Market accesses in pastoral community livestock production
A pastoral society is a social group of pastoralists, whose way of life is based on pastoralism,
and is typically nomadic. Daily life is centered upon the tending of herds or flocks and lives
mostly in dry, remote areas. Their livelihoods depend on their intimate knowledge of the
surrounding ecosystem and on the well-being of their livestock. Pastoral systems take many
forms and are adapted to particular natural, political and economic environments (Sintayehu
GebreMariam 2010). Pastoralists inhabit zones where the potential for crop cultivation is limited
due to low and highly variable rainfall conditions, steep terrain or extreme temperatures. Within
this unpredictable, vulnerable and dynamic environment, they have developed successful
mechanisms of adaptation to maintain an ecological balance between themselves and the natural
environment (IFAD, 2009).
Pastoralism is the branch of agriculture concerned with the raising of livestock. It is animal
husbandry: the care, tending and use of animals such as camels, goats, cattle, yaks, llamas, and
sheep Pastoralists often use their herds to affect their environment. Livestock are domesticated
animals raised in an agricultural setting to produce commodities such as food, fiber, and labor.
The term is often used to refer solely to those raised for food, and sometimes only farmed
ruminants. Today there are nearly 200 million pastoralists in the world generating income where
conventional farming is limited or not possible (IFAD, 2009). However, pastoral communities
are marginalized and generally not given due consideration in wider socio-political analysis.
Although the livelihoods of these communities are vulnerable to climate change, shifting global
markets, population growth and increased competition for land and other natural resources,
pastoralism remains a viable natural resource management system, and understating its rationale,
importance and dynamics is a key element in efforts to reduce poverty (IFAD, 2009).
Market access is the process to ensure that all appropriate patients who would benefit get rapid
and maintained access to the brand, at the right price. Market access for goods means the
conditions, tariff and Non-tariff measures (NTMs), set by countries for the entry of specific
goods into their markets, In the WTO, tariff commitments for goods are agreed upon and set out
in each member’s schedules of concessions on goods (Sintayehu GebreMariam 2010).
8

2.1.2 History and origins of pastoralism
Pastoral systems take many forms and are adapted to particular natural, political and
economic environments. The types of livestock kept by pastoralists vary according to climate,
environment, water and other natural resources, and geographical area, and may include camels,
goats, sheep, yaks, horses, llamas, alpacas, reindeer and vicunas (www.ifad.org/lrkm/index.htm).
Although this monograph is principally an account of the present situation of pastoralists, it
makes reference to the historical literature. The naivety of much development literature
concerning even the recent past is a source of frequent errors about the present. One common
mistake is to suppose that a crisis in the present signals the final demise of pastoralism. However,
history shows that pastoralists and settled cultures establish dynamic relationships and that, while
pastoralism has a certain ethnic component, it is above all a way of life appropriate to particular
economic and ecological circumstances. Most pastoralists move between seasonal grazing areas,
taking strategic advantage of different forage and water sources as they become available. Very
few pastoralists are the wandering nomads they have been portrayed to be (The UN OCHA
Pastoralist Communication Initiative 2007). Report, http://hdr.undp.org/hd/
The origin of pastoralism has been much discussed, especially in an older type of literature
that is influenced, unconsciously perhaps, by Marxist historical schemas. Pastoralism was seen
as an evolutionary stage in human history, a phase following hunting-gathering and leading to
centralization and agriculture. This may have seemed reasonable, both because of a lack of
archaeological evidence and because it unconsciously reflected the contempt in which settled
people historically held nomads. It may also be influenced by the myth of Cain and Abel, which
places the burden of original sin unambiguously on the livestock producer. However, the
increase of archaeological data and a more careful reading of the historical sources, especially
from Asia, have demonstrated a more complex story (see Cribb, 1991 for a review of modern
theoretical developments). In most parts of the world, Africa excepted, agriculture seems to have
started earlier than pastoralism. Pastoralism develops from surplus, as individuals simply
accumulate too many animals to graze around a settlement throughout the year. In addition, as
herders learned more about the relations between particular types of ecology and the spread of
debilitating diseases they gradually developed the practice of seasonally removing their animals
from danger zones.
9

2.1.3 Livestock Production System in Ethiopia
Ethiopia is a largely rural country with an agrarian economy. Agriculture directly supports 85
percent of the population’s livelihoods, provides 46 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP),
and 80 percent of export revenue (Sintayehu GebreMariam 2010). There are two major livestock
production systems within Ethiopia: the highland crop-livestock system, and the lowland pastoral
systems. It is notable that there are variations within each system, and elements of both systems
at many locations. However, the segmentation between the two production systems is crucial in
informing the findings and recommendations of this report (Sintayehu GebreMariam 2010).
Ethiopia has the largest livestock population and the highest draft animal population in the
continent the country has 40 million cattle, 25.5 million sheep, 23.4 million goats and 2.3 million
camels, according to a sample census carried out by the Central Statistics Authority of Ethiopia
between 2001 and 2003(Embassy of Ethiopia Economy 2008).
2.1.3.1 Agro-pastoral (highland) system
Agro pastoralists can be described as settled pastoralists who cultivate sufficient areas to feed
their families from their own crop production. Agro pastoralists hold land rights and use their
own or hired labor to cultivate land and grow staples. While livestock is still valued property,
agro pastoralists’ herds are usually smaller than those found in other pastoral systems, possibly
because they no longer rely solely on livestock and depend on a finite grazing area which can be
reached from their villages within a day. Agro pastoralists invest more in housing and other local
infrastructure and, if their herds become large, they often send them away with more nomadic
pastoralists. Agro pastoralism is often also the key to interaction between the sedentary and the
mobile communities. Sharing the same ethno linguistic identity with the pastoralists, agro
pastoralists often act as brokers in establishing cattle tracks, negotiating the “camping” of herds
on farms (when crop residues can be exchanged for valuable manure) and arranging for the
rearing of work animals, all of which add value to overall agricultural production. Meat
production is secondary, and thought to involve mainly old and unproductive animals such as
retired draught oxen. Diminishing pasturelands in highland systems, as a result of expanding
croplands, and the heavy reliance of livestock on crop residue and aftermath grazing is an
important trend. Average distance to market in the highland system is about 30 kilometers (FAO)
10

"With a rural population of about 55 million, the highlands account for possibly 80 percent of
cattle (about 40 million heads) in small herds (averaging 2-4 cattle and about 4 sheep and/or
goats). Cattle are used primarily for draught power (oxen are 40-50 percent of the herd) and
dairy (dairy cows are 25 percent of the herd). Meat production is secondary, and thought to
involve mainly old and unproductive animals such as retired draught oxen. Diminishing
pasturelands in highland systems, as a result of expanding croplands, and the heavy reliance of
livestock on crop residue and aftermath grazing is an important trend. Average distance to
market in the highland system is about 30 kilometers" (Sintayehu GebreMariam 2010).
2.1.3.2 Pastoral (lowland) livestock system
This is thought to account for about 20 percent of Ethiopian cattle. The population of 10
million pastoralists’ spans largely nomadic communities and largely sedentary agro-pastoralists:
but nearly all own cattle in herds typically of 10-15 cattle and about 7 sheep and/or goats. Cattle
are used primarily for dairy for household consumption, with the result that the majority of the
herd is female. The pastoral regions are densely populated by international pastoral standards3,
although livestock density is lower than in comparable countries (33, 8 and 7 tropical livestock
units per square kilometer in the three main Ethiopian regions, compared to 46, 11, and 18 in
South Kenya, North Kenya and Botswana respectively). Average distance to market is about 90
kilometers. The key interaction between the systems is the sale of male calves from the lowlands
to the highlands for draught power and eventually, for fattening (Sintayehu GebreMariam 2010).
2.2. Future Potential of Ethiopian livestock
It is the view of this study that livestock have considerable potential to contribute to Ethiopia’s
agricultural growth. Low levels of herd productivity and livestock commercialization create
significant potential to increase the sector’s contribution to producer incomes. This would be
based on improved productivity and enhanced marketing efficiency, and changed producer
behavior in favor of greater off-take (www.ifad.org/lrkm/index.htm). These benefits would be
magnified by spillovers into the related sheep, goat and camel sub-sectors, although the focus of
this report is on cattle. Livestock marketing two prominent issues stand out as constraints to
11

marketing policy: - multiple taxation of traded livestock en route to destinations and restriction
of the sale of livestock across neighbouring borders. The latter practice arises from market
proximity, favourable prices, or lack of alternative market options. Other constraints include lack
of credit for livestock traders and poor infrastructure (roads and communications) and associated
logistical problems to safely transport livestock to interim or final destinations. Enabling policies
could rectify such problems through the following measures (Zekarias Bassa and Teshale
Woldeamanuel 2015). Regionally Ratify a regional agreement among neighbouring countries
with the necessary provisions to let pastoralists sell livestock across the border without
restrictions; COMESA or IGAD could be the appropriate institutional mechanism for achieving
this agreement, Ratify a regional agreement that specifies the SPS requirements for cross-border
livestock trade (www.ifad.org/lrkm/index.htm). Nationally Put in place a nationally binding
system in which traded livestock are taxed once at the point of origin, to avoid unnecessary
multiple taxation and increase income for pastoralists; traders take future taxation into account
when offering low prices to herders, Allow pastoralists to sell livestock across international
borders near them to meet their basic needs in cases where alternative internal markets are nonexistent
or unattractive (Kentucky Agriculture 2007-2014). The solution is to provide alternative
attractive markets rather than restrict selling options for producers. Provide credit services to
livestock traders to enable them to pay pastoralists in cash rather than on credit, which results in
deferred payments or none at all. Set up cattle slaughtering and processing provisions in strategic
locations with appropriate deboning and adequate freezing capacities; provide suitable
refrigerated container carrier trucks to transport frozen beef from abattoirs to ports. Obviously,
such provisions would require substantial investments for individual exporters. The alternative is
for member states to provide these provisions on lease or through service fees to individual
exporters or exporter associations (Aklilu, Y., Little, P.D., Mahmoud, H., and McPeak, J. 2013s)
Promote adequate refrigerated docking facilities in key regional livestock trade ports (Berbera,
Bosasso, Djibouti, Mombasa and Port Sudan) to maintain the cold chain within the
recommended optimum temperature until shipments are loaded onto vessels. Locally ensure that
livestock taxed at the original point of sale are not taxed again at subsequent stages. Allow
pastoralists to sell at cross-border markets without restriction (www.ifad.org/lrkm/index.htm).
12

2.3. Value chain livestock Production
The value chain analysis focused on understanding opportunities and bottlenecks in the live
cattle and beef value chain. Despite substantial meat demand, the livestock system currently
struggles to supply quality cattle and generate income from beef marketing (Sintayehu
GebreMariam 2010). Production is highly fragmented and geographically dispersed, and there
are no large commercial operations. Meat production per head of livestock in Ethiopia is low by
standards of other significant livestock-producing African countries: just 8.5 kg per head of cattle
per year, significantly lower than in Kenya and Senegal (21 and 16 kg respectively). Off-take4in
Ethiopia is low compared with that in other East African countries, suggesting that many
livestock holders prefer to keep their live cattle for domestic use rather than sell them. It is
commonly claimed that inconsistent supply of quality animals is a major constraint to
commercialization, and this was repeatedly confirmed in the rapid appraisal (Sintayehu
GebreMariam 2010).
2.4. Social Importance of Livestock to Pastoralists and Lack of Alternative Assets
Pastoralists are widely perceived to be “subsistence-oriented” rather than “market-oriented”.
Some pastoralists are indeed reluctant to sell livestock (and particularly cattle) beyond that
required to meet their immediate cash needs. In addition to widely cited social reasons (e.g. sign
of status), there is a sound economic rationale for a pastoralist to build his or her herd, Lack of
attractive alternative assets in which to invest; - Savings accounts, which are seldom available,
are seen as risky, and where they exist, savings fees erode an already low rate of return (CSA
(2008/09). The financial rationality of accumulating livestock in such a context has been
observed by researchers. Moreover, excess cash is often more vulnerable to requests from
relatives than is livestock, The importance of herd size to surviving and recovering from
recurrent drought – many livestock producers typically have few animals for sale – small herd
size often makes producers reluctant to sell. Producers with large land areas are also inclined
retain animals to ensure sufficient draught power, Limited access to financial and credit access:
Access to financial and credit services are limited in the area and even the existing services are
often not appropriate to the pastoralist contexts (The UN OCHA Pastoralist Communication
Initiative 2007). Conflict over the use of natural resources: Recurring conflicts between ethnic
13

groups over the use of rangelands has been common phenomenon in most pastoral areas of the
country. Under the programme, efforts will be made to minimize conflicts with the investments
in water and rangelands sub-components with special distribution of facilities that will address
neighbouring communities in equitable manner (Sintayehu GebreMariam 2010).
2.5 Lack of Transparency on Quality Health and Weight
The rapid appraisal reports a lack of transmission within the marketing system of key
information regarding attributes such as quality, health, and weight. Actors along the value chain
were asked “what buyers want”. Results indicate a lack of consensus along the value chain –
producers and cooperatives emphasized breed and color, brokers and traders emphasized size.
Feedlots and butchers were more concerned about condition and health, and none of the actors
listed weight in their three most preferred attributes. These disparate expectations have
implications for alignment toward market forces (Zekarias Bassa and Teshale Woldeamanuel
2015). Commercial aggregation currently fragmented producers lack bargaining power, and cooperatives
fail to exercise marketing advantages. Potential models include public share
companies (e.g. Borena public share company for livestock marketing), or enhanced cooperatives
focused on livestock marketing Alternative wealth accumulation smallholders, and
particularly pastoralists, require alternative savings facilities (Sintayehu GebreMariam 2010).
2.6 Address Specific Consists That Cut across Sectors That Hinder Livestock Development
Access to capital entry of private capital providers should be facilitated by local and national
governments (Getachew Legese, Hailemariam Teklewold, Dawit Alemu and Asfaw
Negassa.2008). In addition, encouragement should be given to providers of financial instruments
and products enabling accelerated and improved payment systems for smallholder livestock
producers, traders that buy from them, and providers of services to them in seasons when
payment is not enabled by sales. Transportation actions to include roads and other infrastructure
are welcome, but more immediate steps might be taken in tariff reduction on equipment and
vehicles. Land use holistic land use planning led by the regional government is also critical to
14

protect the rights of pastoralists, and ensure that economic, social and environmental concerns
are taken into account in land use decisions (Sintayehu GebreMariam 2010).
Infrastructures for water resources access developed / rehabilitated Water development
infrastructures should be developed and rehabilitated strategically along Tran’s boundary animal
movement routes. Hence, the project will support the preparation of maps identifying these
routes (Zekarias Bassa and Teshale Woldeamanuel 2001). To the extent possible, this mapping
will build on the findings of existing studies. These maps, together with the water resource maps
developed under will be both used as inputs to construct the most appropriate water
infrastructures (more particularly ponds with capacity above 10,000 cubic meters) in strategic
points. The selection of appropriate water infrastructure will also depend on the topography,
rainfall, surface cover, sub-surface properties, livestock and human population. Cross-border
meetings, facilitated by IGAD and attended by border officials (from Ethiopia and other
countries) and key water resources development actors, will be organized at local level to create
consensus on cross-border water resources infrastructure planning. Besides, best practices on
water infrastructures and sustainable management will be documented and scaled-up through
workshops and trainings. Small-scale irrigation scheme study and design, and construction and
irrigation management guidelines along trans-boundary water body will be developed at regional
level (Sintayehu GebreMariam 2010).
Access to Natural Resources in the ASALs and Border Countries secured ASAL communities
move with their livestock in search of feed and water which results in resource competition and
depletion (Aklilu, Y., Little, P.D., Mahmoud, H., and McPeak, J. 2013s). These consequently
lead to conflict. The outcome of this sub-component is to reduce conflicts related to access to
natural resources. To achieve the outcome, two outputs have been set; conflict prevention,
management and resolution strategies and approaches disseminated, and policy and legal
frameworks for secured access to natural resource supported. To achieve these outputs, the
project will implement the following activities:
15

2.7. Market Access and Trade
The population of Ethiopia is set to double over the next 20 years, with corresponding growth
expected for animal protein demand. Demand for livestock products, arising from the growing
urban centers of the Horn and vibrant markets of the neighboring Gulf Countries, is increasing
opportunities for international and sub-regional trade. Hence, to support a more competitive
livestock sub-sector, this component will focus on the provision of demand-driven infrastructure
investment packages to improve national systems for livestock marketing and trade
(Mendelsohn, 2006). RPLRP investments will be identified through mapping exercises,
infrastructure gap analysis and participatory consultations through discussions with regional
stakeholders and local communities. Livestock markets are generally under the control of local
authorities. Livestock market locations in primary and secondary markets are typically not
fenced; there are no permanent animal routes and no feed and watering infrastructures. Yet
buyers and sellers are subjected to various service charges by the local authority as well as other
bodies (International Livestock Research Institute2003). Market flows will also be enhanced
through the harmonization of regional trade policies, regional animal disease surveillance,
laboratory diagnostic capabilities and disease information networks. Remote locations with poor
road conditions result in high costs of moving livestock to markets and hinder marketing
efficiency (Mendelsohn, 2006). Moreover, the shortcomings of infrastructure seriously impede
the physical flow of livestock to the market (Mendelsohn, 2006).
2.7.1 Access to market information
Without proper market information, pastoralists cannot hope to become successful
entrepreneurs. This function should be fulfilled by extension services, the agricultural press and
bearing in mind the remoteness of many areas as well as low prevailing levels of literacy, by
private agencies involved in the meat trade (Getachew Legese, Hailemariam Teklewold, Dawit
Alemu and Asfaw Negassa 2008).
Pastoralists must have access to information about market, new technologies before they can
consider adopting them. Since livestock market is important means for pastoralists to gain
information on new technologies, access to extension is often used as a measure of access to
information. Daniel (2002) explains how communities interrelated and the way community
action take place as follows: Community energy seldom mobilizes by itself. Communities need
16

help from officials, who can adjust policies and regulations, facilitate cooperation among faction,
and channel essential resources. The major instrument public agencies use to disseminate
knowledge and information to Pastoralists is agricultural extension. In this regard, it is believed
that can increase livestock productivity and pastoral income by bridging the gap between new
technological knowledge and the pastoralists own practice. An effective extension system elicits
information about the pastoralists needs and concerns them to market accesses According to
FAO (2002), rural community needs a wide variety of other information such as availability of
agricultural support services, government regulations, crop plantings, disease outbreaks,
adaptation of technologies by other farmers, wages rates, and so on. The content of the
information services needs to reflect their diverse circumstances and livelihoods.
The usefulness of extension and related information services rests on both the farmer’s access
to the source of the information and its quality and appropriateness. Access to appropriate
information may have a significant impact on livestock productivity (Doss, 1999). Access to
livestock identification facilities it has been reported that in at least the Eastern Cape Province
there are activities under Way aimed to accelerate the identification process. This should
obviously be done in all the Livestock areas in every province. The main aims must be
accessibility and cost reduction for small pastoralists. Cooperatives can potentially play an
important role in this respect.
2.7.2 Marketing of livestock and livestock products
The sale of livestock and livestock products is the main source of cash income. Small
ruminants (sheep and goats) are used as immediate sources of cash income. However, cattle and
camels are sold when there is a need for a higher amount of cash
(www.ifad.org/lrkm/index.htm). Camels fetch a higher price than any other animals. The price
of animals is influenced by the size and condition of the animals, the season of the year and the
distance from the main marketing centers. There is seasonal fluctuation in the price of animals
coming to the market. In general, animal prices are higher during the rainy season and falls
during the dry season. During the dry season animals lose body condition due to shortage of feed
and the pastoralists also desperately need to sell their animals before further loss of condition and
death and to buy grain for family consumption. These are the main reasons for the significant
decline of the price of animals during the dry season (Getachew Legese, Hailemariam
17

Teklewold, Dawit Alemu and Asfaw Negassa.2008). Animal products are marketed in towns
and market places. Donkeys and light trucks (ISUZUs) are used for transporting milk from the
local markets to the nearby towns, mainly to Moyle town. The price of animal products is
dictated by the season of the year and the distance from the main towns. The price of milk and
milk products is generally higher during the dry season due mainly to limited supply of the
products than during the wet season. The price is also higher in places that are closer to towns as
there is a higher demand for milk in the towns than in the rural areas
2.7.3 Livestock production constraints
Lack of feed and water during the dry season and drought is the main constraint affecting
livestock production in the area. Shortage of rain and the frequently recurring drought in the area
is a major cause for reduced forage production and quality. Shortage of feed and water and the
harsh climatic condition of the area seriously affect the health and productivity of animals. Bush
encroachment is exacerbating the problem of feed shortage. Expansion of cropping and land
grabbing for cultivation and private enclosure are causing shrinkage of grazing areas and loss of
key resources for dry season and drought period grazing. Demarcation of regional boundaries
and ethnic conflicts also hinder movement of the pastoralists in search feed and water thereby
hampering the indigenous coping mechanisms.
2.7.4 Selling Pastoral Products
Pastoralists’ orientation towards the market has been extremely variable across the world,
according to accessibility and ecology. Pastoralists have always had to exchange some products
with outsiders in order to acquire basic foodstuffs and minor household goods (Getachew
Legese, Hailemariam Teklewold, Dawit Alemu and Asfaw Negassa.2008). Extreme-weather
pastoralists have generally reduced this to a minimum because of the difficulties of such trade.
However, pastoralists seem to have co-evolved with highly sophisticated long-distance trade
networks, and make use of these networks to pass information about both market conditions and
forage resources (Blench, 1996). Until recently, many pastoralists functioned essentially without
cash, exchanging livestock products directly for external goods. In the command economies,
18

prices were completely arbitrary, fixed at the center without regard to availability or access costs,
and thus the inverse of a market system. In the sheep herding systems of Central Asia, the former
Soviet Union’s demand for wool caused hardy breeds to be replaced by Merino varieties, which
could be kept alive only with high levels of external inputs (see Van Veen, 1995 for Kyrgyzstan).
As monetized systems and commoditization have penetrated the region, this has caused major
adaptation problems. The system is expected to revert to coarse wool and meat as more
traditional breeds gradually replace the exotics. Monetary economy is that pastoralism is
essentially a slow-response system; the reproductive cycle of livestock is not adapted to making
major changes in strategy over a short period. Thus, if the price of dairy products falls
dramatically, a herd cannot suddenly be switched over to meat production
(www.ifad.org/lrkm/index.htm). It is no accident that livestock producers in the developed world
are usually enmeshed in complex webs of subsidies and price-support mechanisms; they would
otherwise soon go out of business in a world of rapidly changing market conditions.
2.7.5 Marketing infrastructure
It is well known that in South Africa – as in the rest of the continent – rural roads are
generally of poor quality and in poor condition. This has severely constrained local development,
particularly of farming, including livestock production. This should be a much higher priority of
national, provincial and local government than has thus far been the case. According to Kgantsi
and Mokoene (1997) lack of properly maintained roads, telephones, fencing water and electricity
make it very difficult for small farmers to run farming operations. BATAT (2004) has reported
that in Gov't traders. This should be corrected. It is also important to see to it that livestock sales
venues are properly accessible to all potential participants. This does also tie in with proper road
links as well as proper publicity to livestock marketing actions. Serious attention ought be given
to the possibility of establishing one-stop service center’s where farmers can sell their livestock,
assess financial services, obtain inputs such as livestock remedies, feed and supplements, sell
hides and skins and attend training courses. Montshwe (2006) recommended it to be at
municipality level or ward in the case of deep rural areas.
19

2.7.6 Market support infrastructure and information system
The outcome of this sub-component is to enhance market infrastructures and market
information systems at the national and regional levels. This outcome will be achieved through
two outputs, namely: (i) livestock marketing infrastructure improved and, (ii) regional livestock
marketing information system strengthened, which are both described here below.
2.7.7 Livestock marketing infrastructure improved
To support cross-border trade, investments will focus on the construction of primary and
secondary markets, and on the rehabilitation and refurbishment of existing infrastructures, such
as quarantine laboratories. These infrastructures will be positioned along cross-border livestock
routes which will be identified through initial project studies, cross-border consultations with the
support of IGAD and community participation. Studies will comprise of (i) a mapping of
livestock routes movements, with a particular focus on cross-border market axes and (ii) an
infrastructure gap analysis along these route (Aklilu, Y., Little, P.D., Mahmoud, H., and McPeak,
J. 2013s). A feasibility study will also be conducted to establish on a pilot-basis auctions yard in
pastoral areas (more particularly in the cross-border area of Borena) and to develop a harmonized
grading systems between the participating countries.
2.7.8 Regional Livestock Marketing Information System strengthened
Limited access to market information (prices, sources, demands and objective standards for
selling and buying animals) is a real constraint for marketing livestock in the ASALs. Improving
the information flows to local producers is essential to improve market access.
IGAD will develop a regional market information system platform that will enable the region
to share marketing information. At the national level, the project activities will include: (i)
upgrading the national marketing information system with the regional marketing information
system, (ii) undertaking feasibility studies on mechanisms for dissemination of information, and
(iii) providing capacity building of pastoral population and relevant stakeholders on marketing
20

information utilization. Feasibility studies will underpin further investments and explore the
possibility to introduce technologies in the project areas (such as mobile phones and digital pens)
which link and transfer information to and between markets and feed into innovative disease
reporting system (Aklilu, Y., Little, P.D., Mahmoud, H., and McPeak, J. 2013s). Capacity
building on marketing information utilization will be provided through the agro-pastoral field
schools (APFS), which are supported through the activities under component 3. APFS will
provide the appropriate platform for knowledge generation and exchange. The project will train
master trainers (ToT) in marketing information systems and utilization. Master trainers, with
support from the project staff, will assist communities in using, analysing and making the
appropriate use of market information.
2.7.9 Improving livestock mobility and trade in livestock and livestock products
Livestock mobility is critical for sustaining pastoral livelihoods and accessing both national
and international markets. However, a number of Tran’s boundary animal diseases (TADs) such
as the foot and mouth disease (FMD), the paste des petites ruminants (PPR), the contagious
bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP) and the contagious caprice pleuropneumonia (CCPP), affect
animal productivity and negatively impact trade, thereby preventing pastoralists from accessing
the lucrative markets of neighbouring countries. This sub-component aims to support a
coordinated policy harmonization, introduce pilot systems in animal identification and
traceability, and foster public investments towards national veterinary systems (Aklilu, Y., Little,
P.D., Mahmoud, H., and McPeak, J. 2013s). A number of outputs will contribute to the expected
outcome of this sub-component, namely (i) regional trade policies and standards harmonized and
simplified, (ii) animal identification and traceability systems in the region strengthened and
harmonized and, (iii) regional animal diseases surveillance and laboratory network strengthened.
21

2.8. Major Contributions of PFE so Far
2.8.1 Raising the parole of pastoralist in the country
The social status of pastoralists is changing (less use of derogatory words like Zelan/nomad);
pastoral solidarity enhanced; Policy makers have started listening to pastoral plights; the
knowledge gap improved on uniqueness of the pastoral system; the name Arbeto’ader
(pastoralists) have become Word of policy makers, media, and various actors; pastoralism
appears in a vision Statement of higher education (Jigjiga University); better media coverage on
pastoral Issues, etc. enhancement of consultation & participation of pastoralist in development
and related issues, Change in Government policy in favor of pastoralism and pastoral
development; Establishment of Pastoral A airs Standing Committee (PASC) in the Federal
Parliament; recognition of Ethiopian Pastoralist Day (EPD) as a national day; and establishments
and/or formulation of pastoral institutions at the federal and regional levels (Ministry of Federal
and Pastoralist Development A airs, Pastoral bureaus and Commission at regional levels, etc.);
pastoral issues included in the national plans (PRSP generations); amative action given in higher
education, (Policy Brief 72 | May 2014).
2.8.2 Development of regional pastoral policy frameworks and programs
Better economic and social development by Federal and Regional Governments, Donor, and
NGOs; tailor-made pastoral programs (Safety net, PCDP, MDG matching fund, etc.); thus, the
social and economic services are tripled, etc. (Policy Brief 72 | May 2014). Adoption of EPD in
the neighboring countries like Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda the development of AU Policy
Framework on Pastoralism (AU PFP); contributed to formation of bigger networking like
CELEP, IGAD policies & initiatives, etc. Member organizations, especially Ethiopian resident
charities, capacity built before and after the Proclamation 621/2009.In the process of the
Proclamation 621/2009, the Forum has contributed a lot with key partners for the improvement
of the law and guidelines.
2.8.3 Facts about Ethiopian Pastoralists
✓ comprise more than 12 million citizens residing in about 149 woredas in regional states in
Ethiopia
✓ They inhibit 61% of the country's landmass
22

✓ Pastoral livestock population is approximately accounted for 42% of the national average
in Total Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU).
✓ Pastoral areas are rich in ore and fauna, biodiversity; huge mineral, water, energy (solar
and geothermal) resources
✓ Untapped cultural and traditional heritage which are inevitably attractive to development
workers, historians, archeologists and tourists Custodians of genetic resources and
environ-mental protection. (Tezera Getahun,2008)
23

2.9 Empirical Studies
There are only few studies conducted in the area of Market Access in pastoral community
livestock production that result in high limitation of empirical studies to review that limits the
comparisons of research findings conducted Market Access in pastoral community livestock
production in the country till date. To conquer the limitation of related studies, this review
mainly focuses on studies conducted on adoption and diffusion in the area of livestock market
structure, export livestock production, value chine livestock production, animal production
mainly dairy land and highland both in the country and aboard that directly or indirectly deal
with how market access reach the pastorals community. Accordingly the findings of different
studies were explored and presented. The age of pastoralists can generate or erode confidence
towards the market accesses to use. Different studies reported different results upon the effect of
age on acceptance of new technologies and information.
Pastoralism and livestock production are of significant importance to the economies of Kenya
and Ethiopia and to local livelihood systems. In Kenya, livestock production in the Arid and
Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) accounts for nearly 90% of the livelihood base and nearly 95% of
family income, (Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, 2008). Reported that livestock production had
positive and significant relationship with income
Middle wealth and higher wealth group households depend more on livestock sales to meet
annual cash and cereal demands, and sell relatively more animals. These groups will respond to
increased market demands (e.g. growing export markets), but simple bush markets can adapt to
handle any increased trade. As the export trade grows, the main beneficiaries are the various
traders and service providers around the business, and relatively wealthy and middle-wealth
group pastoralists (Tufts University November 2010). Reported that more livestock production
positive and significant relationship wealth households.
Several empirical studies carried out elsewhere support that the view that education by
expanding the person’s capacity to think thoroughly and innovatively, enhances decision making
efficiency and there by the industrious capabilities required to make innovative decision. The
outcome of educating pastoralists indicates the importance of increased human capital values in
triggering and fostering wider technology dissemination and adoption even in extremely poor
agrarian economies like Ethiopia (Tesfaye et al., 2001). Many studies reported that education
24

level has positive relation with farm information utilization. Tesfaye et al., (2001) which have
reported that education had positive and significant relationship with adoption.
Young Family labor availability is one of the most important factors that affect household
utilization of new technologies livestock productivity and market access. The young family size
implies the larger availability of family labor that is needed for livestock production and market
access by the household. Degnet et al., (2001); Kidane (2001) and Tesfaye et al., (2001) reported
that young family labor have positive and significant relation of adoption of technologies that
livestock productivity and market accesses Looked at household-level livestock marketing
behavior among Northern Kenyan and Southern Ethiopian Livestock keepers. The study showed
that the northern livestock keepers are still far from autarky market conditions and the major
driving factors that influence marketing of livestock in the area is adjustment to drought shocks
(Aklilu, Y., Little, P.D., Mahmoud, H., and McPeak, J. 2013s). It further indicated that market
participation widely varies from region to region and from season to season with an ultimate
effect of trading routes for destined market traders, The study extensively explored the ASAL
pastoralist Livestock marketing behavior and observed that: there is insufficient information for
livestock Keepers and traders to plan for incurring transaction costs especially in times of
uncertainty such as drought period (Bellemare et al. 2004) and (Sharonet al. 2003). Reported that
livestock keepers are far from autarky market conditions so young pastoralists are positive and
significance far from market distance area Livestock is one of few livelihood options for
pastoralists, and is the one that enables their way of life and sustains their social structures.
Livestock also offers a gender-positive anti-poverty set of development tools (Sintayehu
GebreMariam 2010).
Pastoral livestock marketing systems associates more market infrastructure with more sales.
Such pathways are unlikely in pastoralist areas. Policy engagement and economic analysis with
Government partners is needed to raise understanding of these issues at federal and regional
levels. Livestock markets in pastoralist areas require basic facilities, such as loading ramps and
water troughs. (Tufts University November 2010). Reported that more market infrastructure with
more sales is positive and significance infrastructure
Gender disparity is one the factors that affects market access information utilization. Due to
long lasted cultural and social grounds in many societies of developing countries, women have
25

less access to household resources and also have less access to institutional services. Jimmy
Smith 2013) in their study on adoption of improved livestock market in Kenya basically asked
the question- why men and women adopt livestock production and market access at different
rates (Jimmy Smith 2013). Reported that male households headed are more likely users of
improved technologies than female household headed
Effect of livestock production number on market access of various pastoral production
different findings was reported explaining both positive and negative impacts. The findings of
Itana (1985), Wolday (1999), Mulugeta (2000), Million and Belay (2004) and Yishak (2005)
shows that livestock production has positively and significantly influence utilization of livestock
production. On the contrary Legesse, (1992) and Degnet et al., (2000) reported that negative
relationship between livestock production number and utilization of agricultural technologies and
livestock production quality. Degnet et al., (2001) and Getahun, (2004) reported that household
livestock production income had positive influence on adoption of improved technologies.
Study reported by Tesfaye and Alemu (2001), indicates that pastoralists who have access to
credit use livestock package than those did not get access to credit. Gockowski and Ndoumbe
(2004) reported that failure of formal rural credit institution significantly affected utilization of
intensive mono-crop horticulture in Southern Cameroon by resource poor households.
Study conducted by Asres (2005) shows that sharing of available information was
significant and positive relation with access to development communication. However, the
finding of Deribe (2007) indicates that sharing of available information of knowledge of dairy
farming with other farmers was insignificant.
Mass media play the greatest role in provision of information in shortest possible time over
large area of coverage. According to Yishak (2005), pastoralists who got access to agricultural
information through various extension services and livestock market accesses have make use of
the available pastoral information they got and improved their livestock production. The study
conducted by Joseph, et al. (2003) shows that to strengthen and better integrate communication,
education and community involvement when formulating and implementing weed management
strategies that remoteness and isolation of communities limit interactions, leading to a lack of
sharing of technical information and consequently hampers uptake of development practices
26

such as pasture weed management. A study conducted by Yared (2006) showed that
interpersonal communication is the main medium to access to information when compared to
radio, extension agents, NGOs, researcher trainings, demonstration and field day. Similarly a
study conducted in Tanzania by Kaliba et al., (1998) clearly indicated that main source of
information was research/extension, other sources and pastoralists in its order of importance.
The study reported by (Jimmy Smith 2010), distance from market significantly and
negatively affect market accesses as pastoralists located at distant from market center. The study
also revealed the more distant pastoralists are located from the market centers; reported that
negative and insignificance. Similar study carried out in Nigeria by Scoones et al., (1996)
revealed that the incentive to invest in intensification would increase as the value of the output
rises. Nevertheless, without good infrastructure and access to markets, the growth in economic
incentives may not parallel demographic pressures and spontaneous innovation and spread of soil
conservation may not take place. However, if a good road systems and competitively priced
transport provide access to urban markets with high demand, then the livestock values market
increase, resulting in higher incentives to invest for long-term gain.
Ethiopian pastoralists livestock as the core asset of pastoralists and includes specific
strategies for supporting trade in livestock and livestock products it needs to:- livestock value
chains, market access, reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers, market information and financing
mechanisms, transport facility, communication network, infrastructure and market development,
financial services, and facilitating access to relevant information on business and related issues in
pastoral livestock marketing (http://www.future-agricultures.org 2014). Reported are positive or
significance in livestock market access
Market performance refers to the impact of structure and conduct as measured in terms of
variables such as prices, costs, and volume of output (Zekarias Bassa and Teshale Woldeamanuel
2015). Reported are prices, costs, and volume of output positive or significance in livestock
market performance. Both channels are dominant as in relation to proximity and long lived
history, pastoralists are accustomed to informal market channel. The formal market channel is a
newly developed one and it has different sub channels (Zekarias Bassa and Teshale
Woldeamanuel 2015). Reported are formal channels positive or significance in livestock market
performance and informal channel negative or insignificance in livestock market channel
27

2.10 Conceptual Framework
Market accesses livestock production is a basic and fundamentally important element in any
pastoral development activities, because it can affect decisions taken affecting the sustainability,
productivity and profitability of Pastoral livelihoods. Market access Pastoral community in
livestock production by pastoralist’s enables them to better define their interest, and increases the
bargaining power and ability to influence a decision making process which shape their current
life and/or the future generation.
The market access is largely influenced by availability, diversity, and intensity of institutional
services, physical access (infrastructure), product market conditions and their level of
integration. Thus, livestock production is affected by availability and arrangements of
institutional services and adequacy and prevalence of contents and quality of productivity
pertaining to technical aspects of a market. These factors play vital roles in governing the
dissemination and flow of information, and decision making process of pastoralists.
livestock marketing is diversity through which pastoralists receive extension services are
affected by pastoral day visit made by extension agents, visits made by pastoralists to
demonstration trials, listening to pastoral education program broadcasts, social participation,
market information seeking behavior, willingness to share available marketing and participation
on any formal training related to pastoral practices.
Based on literature review, empirical studies, discussion with expert and personal observation
the conceptual frame work is formulated by taking in to consideration independent variables that
includes personal, psychological, socio-cultural, economic, communication and situational
factors that affects market access pastoral community in livestock production which is the
dependent variable in this study ( figure1).
28

• .Transportation facility
• Distance from the center
• Distance from nearest market
• Mass Maida Exposure
Communication factors
• Knowledge of
livestock
productivity
• Marketing
Information
sharing
• Achievement
motivation
market access
Situational factors
Socio-cultural factors
MARKET ACCSESS
LIVESTOCK
PRODUCTION
Psychological
factors
Demographic
factors
• Age
o Education level
o Family size
• Social participation
Economic factors
• Livestock wealth number
• On livestock production income(yearly
sales)
Figure 1: Conceptual framework Market Access pastoral community livestock production
29

CHAPTER THREE
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Description of the Study Area
This study was being conducted in the Southwest Ethiopia, Benci-maji zone of SNNP regional
government particularly; Surma is one of the woredas in the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and
Peoples' Region of Ethiopia. It is named for the Surma people, whose homeland lies in this
woreda. Part of the Bench Maji Zone, Surma is bordered on the south and west by South Sudan,
on the northwest by the Gambela Region, on the north by Bero, and on the east by Maji. A
portion of the Omo National Park extends into the southern part of this woreda.
The average elevation in this woreda is 2088 meters above sea level. Rivers include the Kaia
River, a tributary of the Akobo, which has its origins in this woreda. High points include Mount
Naita (2560 meters) on the Ethiopian-South Sudanese border. According to a 2004 report, Surma
had 26 kilometers of dry-weather roads, for an average road density of 5 kilometers per 1000
square kilometers. This lack of roads means remote locations are accessible only by air.
Moreover, there is no radio communication available in this woreda. As of 2008, about 30% of
the total population of Surma has access to drinking water.
The total area of the woreda, it found 755km from Addis Ababa. The woreda were
administrative divided in to 22 kebele. Surma woreda were categorized as kola the total rain fall
was about 1000-1100mm mostly concentrated in the month or May, august to October. The main
annual temperature is estimated (34-36). Based on Ethiopian statistical Authority (ESA) in 2010
national census show that the population of the woreda has 34 thousands has a population of the
pastoralist’s development. To study the conditions the conditions of constraints livestock
production the district was stratified by altitude (765 – 1080m and >1080-1250m) pastoralism
(63.3%) and agro pastoralism 35.5% were dominant animal production system in the study
district. Livestock’s are the main of the community up on which the livelihood of pastoralist
depends on, the sale of livestock and livestock products 88% is the main source of income.
Based on the 2007 national census is 24,598 of which 11,794(49.95%) are Male and
12,804(52.05%) Female (CSA, 2007). Out of the total populations on the Urban is 914 (3.76%)
30

which 467 (51.1%) are male and 447 (48.9%) female and Rural is 23,684 (96.28%) which
11,327(47.83%) male and 12,357(52.17%) female are very large number of rural pastoralists
which shows that in order to market access in pastoral community livestock production
pastoralists we should be get on the market access. The dominant economic activities in the
study area are accessibility on the market.
3.2 Sampling procedure
3.2.1. Sampling design
This study used multi-stage sampling procedure, in which both purposive (non-probability
sampling) and stratified, simple random sampling techniques (probability sampling) was used to
select the sample respondents. The main advantage of this sampling procedure is that it allows
for the collection of information that is directly related to the research objectives.
3.2.2 Sampling frame
In the third stage, each selected pastoralist’s kebeles stratified into Father household and
Mother household and fresh lists of market users’ pastoralists was listed with the help of kebele
manager, extension agents, and key informants of the villages from which sample respondents
were draw. Stratification would be based on the principal variable under study such as income,
age, education, location, etc.
3.2.3. Sample size determination
There are several approaches for sample size determination. These include using a census for
small populations, imitating a sample size of similar studies, using published tables, and applying
formulas to calculate a sample size. This study applied a simplified formula provided by Yamane
(1967) to determine the required sample size at 95% confidence level, degree of variability being
0.5 and level of precision 0.09
n=
N
1+N(e)^2
31

Where n is the sample size, N is the population size (total household heads size), and e is the
level of precision. The above formula required a minimum of 120 respondents, but this study is
the maximum carried out in 140 respondents.
3.2.4. Sample size
In the final stage, taking into account time and resources at the disposal of the researcher, out of
the total list of livestock producers pastoralists by simple size will be use total population of
1207 household head in five kebels female and male household 126 households was selected,
distributed among the pastoralists using probability proportional to size random sampling
households of livestock production market users and sample Pastoralists in the study area.
3.3 Data types and source
Data collected for this thesis proposal research was both quantitative and qualitative in nature.
For this, both primary and secondary data was be used. To get background information and to
understand the socio-economic, agro-ecological and other related information market accesses of
the study area, secondary sources will review. Secondary data sources was reports, records of
DAs and, published and unpublished documents of zone and Woreda office of Animal and fish
development office.
The source of primary data was household head respondents in the study area. Primary data
were mainly focused on personality characteristics, socio-economic factors, situational factors,
cultural factor and psychological factors. Thus, data was collected on variable’s like: age,
education level, sources of information, importance of information, extension participation
(training, on pastoral demonstration, field days, exhibitions), exposure to media (radio, TV,
newsletter, posters and leaflets), information seeking behavior, achievement motivation,
participation in social institutions, livestock production income, knowledge of market access, and
attitude towards livestock productivity. The sources of qualitative data was key informants,
pastoralists, and, groups of women and men pastoralists of the study area.
32

3.4 Data Collection Tools and Procedures
3.4.1 Quantitative data collection methods
3.4.1.1 Interview
The primary information collected by interviewing pastoralists with the help of structured
interview schedules. For this purpose, six enumerators, who have acquaintance with socio
economic concepts and knowledge of the culture of the society as well as local language
proficiency was selected, trained and employed.
Quantitative data was collected through personal interviews. The respondents were interviewed
using a pre-tested, structured interview schedule and pilot interview is conducted with some
concerned body and pastoralists which help to modify market access pastoral community in
livestock production of the draft questionnaire.
3.4.1.2 Focus Group Discussion
Focus group discussion is also used to collect the data. One focus group discussions are
conducted. In the group, two marketing officers, one rode and transportation officers, one wetter
supply officers, one public communication officers, two women and three men from pastoralists,
one cultural expert from the culture and information department was included. This helped me to
draw information about to which extent the Market accesses in pastoral community livestock
production.
33

3.4.1.3 Participant Observation
Observation was used as instrument of data gathering. The researchers have got the chance to
participate and observe Market accesses in pastoral community livestock production.
Photographs of related events and matters supplement the observations. Some of the proceedings
were also tape recorded, in addition to written notes. The method helps me to capture of
significant data on Market accesses in pastoral community livestock production.
3.4.2 Qualitative data collection methods
Qualitative data was used to supplement and to fill gaps during the quantitative data
collection process. Primary information was obtain from pastoralists through personal
observation; informal interviews with key informants and pastoralists. The discussions are held
with groups of pastoralists to see and cross check how they express their ideas in group when
compared with individual views on the improved access of livestock marketing. A personal
observation was used to collect additional information for the study. Focused group discussions
were is held on specific topics with small groups of people that consisted of between 10 to 11
members. Often, the researcher made sure that the discussion does not diverge too far from the
original topic and that no participant dominated the discussion.
3.4.2.1 Secondary Data
To explore the role of the Market accesses in pastoral community and livestock production in
the local area, secondary sources were also be used. According to Kothari (2004:113) the source
of secondary data can be obtained from publications of the central or local state governments,
publications of foreign governments or international bodies and their subsidiary organizations,
technical and trade journals, books, magazines and newspapers, reports and other sources of
published information. In the processes of data gathering from the secondary sources, the
researcher must make a minute scrutiny because it is just possible that the secondary data may be
unsuitable or may be inadequate in the context of the problem which the researcher wants to
study. Hence, pertinent secondary data from relevant library sources collected from books,
journals and proceedings and other published and unpublished materials written on Market
accesses and its livestock production have also been reviewed and identifying the Market
accesses in pastoral community in livestock production.
34

3.5 Methods of data analysis
In this study, data was analyzed using different quantitative and qualitative statistical
procedures and methods. A descriptive statistical tool was used to analyze the quantitative data.
The important statistical measures that will be used to summarize and categorize the research
data are: t=value and p=value probability of f=value the qualitative data was being: analyzed on
the spot during data collection to avoid forgetting and to be able to fill the gaps in the
quantitative data. After collecting the necessary data, I have categorized, combined, synthesized
and there by analyzed the collected data. For the purpose of clarity and convenience the data
collected by each data collection technique is transcribed, compiled and further elaborated in to
meaningful and patterned information soon after the completion of that particular data collection
session. The theme was discussed in respect of literature and the research finding. Any setbacks,
There are a number of factors that might affect its quality. Some of these are: infrastructural
problem, time constraint and financial shortage
3.5.1. Descriptive methods
Descriptive statistics to be employed to analyses generated data are frequencies, mean,
maximum and minimum values, standard deviations, t-value and t-test. In addition, Pearson’s
Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient to measure strength of relationships between dependent
and continuous independent variables; statistics is used to measure the strength and indicate
direction of association between categorical variables.
3.5.2. Regression analysis
Depending on the assumed distribution of that the random disturbance term follows, several
qualitative choice models such as linear probability model in linear regression, logit, or probit
models could be estimated (Pindyck and Rubinfeld, 1997; Green, 2000). Qualitative choice
models are useful to estimate the probability that an individual with agents of attributes was
make one choice rather than an alternative (ibid). Of the three functional relationships often
specified, the linear probability model is computational simpler and easier to interpret parameter
estimates than the other two models. However, its specification creates estimation problems
35

involving the application of OLS such as heterosecedasticity error terms, predicted values may
fall outside the (0, 1) interval, and non-normal distribution of term. Although, transformation
could provide homoscedastic disturbance terms and then apply weight least square procedures,
there is no guarantee that the predicated value was lie in the (0, 1) probability range. These
difficulties with linear probability model compelled econometricians to look for model
specification (Pindyick and Rubinfeld, 1997; Green, 2000). The two most popular functional
forms used in adoption modeling are the probit and logit. These models have got desirable
statistical properties as the probabilities are bound between 0 and 1 (Pindyick and Rubinfeld,
1997; Green, 2000).
3.5.3 logit regression
Sometimes response categories are ordered but do not form an interval scale. There is a clear
ranking among the categories, but the difference among adjacent categories cannot be treated as
the same. Responses like these with categories cannot be easily modeled with classical
regression. Linear regression is inappropriate because of the non-interval nature of the dependent
variable, the spacing of the outcome choices cannot be assumed to be uniform. logit and probit
models have been widely used for analyzing such data (Liao, 1994).
3.5.4 Model specification
Following Liao (1994), Green (2000) and Wooldridge (2002) the functional form of logit model
is specified as follows:
k
y ∗= ∑k=1 βkχk+ε. ------------------------------------------- (1)
y ∗ = is unobserved and thus can be thought of as the underlying tendency of an observed
phenomenon.
ε = we assume it follows a certain symmetric distribution with zero mean such as normal or
logistic distribution. What we do observe is
y = 1 if y ∗ ≤ μ1 (= 0)
36

y = 2 if μ1 < y ∗≤ μ2
y = 3 if μ2 < y ∗ ≤ μ3 (2)
y = j if μj − 1 < y ∗
Where y is observed in j number of categories, μ is are unknown threshold parameters separating
the adjacent categories to be estimated with βs.
The general form for the probability that the observed y falls into category j and the μ is and the
βs are to be estimated with a logit model is
k
Prob (y = j) = 1 −L(µj − 1 ∑k=1 βk × k) ---------------------------------- (3)
Where L (•) represents cumulative logistic distribution
Marginal effects on the probabilities of each market access in pastoral community livestock
production status were calculated by
aprob(y=j)
aXk
k
=f ((µj − 1 ∑k=1 βk × k) -(µj − 1 ∑k=1 βk × k)) ---------------------- (4)
k
Where f (·) represents the probability density function
According to Gujarati (1995) there are various indicators of multicollinearity and no single
diagnostic test will give us complete information regarding the presence of multicollinearity in
the data. For this particular study, Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)) for continues variables were
used. If there is larger value of VIF the more real the problem of multicollinearity.
VIF (Xj) = 1 - Rj2 1
Where, Rj 2 is the coefficient of determination when the variable Xj is regressed on the other
explanatory variables.
37

The Independent variables supposed to influence of market access pastoral community in
livestock production
The regression model will used to obtain an estimate of the market access pastoral community
livestock production the study area. The multiple regression model used to estimate the factors
affecting the market access livestock production of pastoral community’s to improve for
market access in the study area is expressed as: Let MAPCLP* be a latent variable which is not
observed when it is less than or equal to zero but is observed if it is greater than zero. The
multiple regressions is built on a latent variable with the following formulation:
MAIPCLP ∗= xiβ + εi ……………………………………. (4)
Where
β = a vector of coefficients
Xi = vector of Independent Variables
ε = the disturbance term
Expanded in terms of the variables
If FIMAPCLP ∗ > O, we have positively significantly if FIMAPCLP =
1 and if FIMAPCLP ∗ ≤ 0, we have FIMAPCLP = 0. Therefore based on
equation 1 the linear regression model will be: -
FIMAIPCLP ∗= β0 + β1 x1 + β2x 2 + β3 x3 + β4x4 + … … … … … + ε
Where
All the variables are as defined in section 3.1
β0 – βx = are coefficients
where:
MAACSSES = market access in pastoral community livestock production
AGE=Age (Years), EDU=Education level (years spent in school), FSIZE=Family size
SEX=sex (1if male, 0, otherwise), KNLIPR=Knowledge of livestock productivity,
ACMO=Achievement motivation, SOPA=Social participation, Wealth=Wealth, income=income,
MAMEEXP=Mass media exposure, INSHBE=Information sharing behaviour,
38

TRANSFACILITY=Transportation Facility, DIFRMA=Distance from Market,
DIFRCE=Distance from centre.
Like logistic regression, logit uses maximum likelihood methods, and finds the best set of
regression coefficients to predict values of the logit-transformed probability that the dependent
variable falls into one category rather than another. Logistic regression assumes that if the fitted
probability, p, is greater than 0.05(5%), and 0.1(10%) the dependent variable should have value
1 rather than 0. logit doesn't have such a fixed assumption. Instead, it fits a set of cutoff points. If
there are r levels of the dependent variable (1 to r), it will find r-1 cutoff values k1 to kr-1 such that
if the fitted value of logit(p) is below k1, the dependent variable is predicted to take value 0, if
the fitted value of logit(p) is between k1 and k2, the dependent variable is predicted to take value
1, and so on (Bruin, 2006).
The interpretation of the marginal effects for the first alternative (low level of market access
livestock production in pastoral community) and the third alternative (high level of livestock
production pastoralists is straight forward. For the low level, a positive value for the marginal
effect means the probability of using low market access livestock production increases whereas a
negative marginal effect means the probability of shifting out of the low level into higher
categories increases. Shifting out of the low level does not necessarily mean moving into the next
level but simply means a probability using more market access livestock production.
Information utilization shifts into higher categories (Borooah, 2001). In the case of the high
level, a positive marginal effect implies an increased probability for the pastoralists to use all
practices, whereas a negative marginal effect indicates increased probability for a pastoralist to
move into low level of market access livestock production. The impact of each explanatory
variable on the probability of market access livestock production is calculated by keeping the
continuous variables at their mean values and the dummy or discrete variables at their most
frequent value (zero or one or two or three).
39

3.5.5. Variables to be included in the model Analysis of Determinants of MAIPCLP by
pastoralists
As it has been mentioned so far, there are a lot of variables that affect market participation.
Hence, based on theories, experience and literatures the following expected signs of the variables
have been featured.
Table 1, List of variables to be included in presented Table 1 below.
No
Variable
name
description
1 Age Age of
respondent
Variable type Expected
sign
Sources
sign
expectation
for
Value
Measured
t=value
continues + Akilu,(2000) years
2 fsize Family size continues + Senait,
(2002)
All
are
Number of family
size
3 edulevel Education
level
4 knlipr Knowledge of
livestock
productivity
5 acmo Achievement
motivation
6 sopa social
participation
7 Wealth total livestock
Wealth
8 income Income(yearly
yearly sale)
Categorized + Tesfaye et al
,(2001)
Categorized + Deribe,
(2007).
Categorized + Deribe,
(2007).
Categorized + Habtemariam
, (2004).
continues + (Yishak,
2005
continues + Birhanu,
(2002).
Read and write,
primary school,
secondary school
high school and
college
Low, Medium,
High
Low, Medium,
High
Low, Medium,
High
Numbers of cattails
In birr (yearly sale)
40

sale)
9 inshbe Market access Categorized + Asres (2005) Low, Medium,
High
10 mameexp Mass media Categorized + Daniel Low, Medium,
exposure
(2002) High
11 transfacil Transportation Dummy - (Mendelsohn No yes
ity facility
, (2006).
12 difrma Distance from continues - Sintayehu Kilometers
Market
GebreMaria
m (2010).
13 difrce Distance from continues - Legesse Kilometers
center
(2001)
Source: Computed from survey data, 2009
These variables were selected on the basis of theoretical explanations, panel of expert judges,
personal observations and the results of the survey studies. To determine the best subset of
explanatory variables that is good predictors of the dependent variable, the parameters of the
logit model.
3.6 Definition of Variables
3.6.1 Dependent variable
The dependent variable of the study is market accesses livestock production. The variable is
operationalized, as market accesses pastoral community in livestock production. In order to
measure the extent of market accesses pastoral community in livestock production is given to
market accesses livestock production components recommended by research. The significant
recommended market accesses components by research will use in consultation with the
concerned subject matter specialist of zonal and worda. Then suitable questions will pastoral to
gather responses from pastoralists about the important features of market accesses. The
recommended components of market access are given weighted scores as per their
subcomponents and summed up that gave score of the dependent variable. Respondents are
41

classified in to three market access livestock production user’s categories view. Yes informal,
and yes formal based on their deviation from the mean of total livestock production market
access score. This gave market access pastoral community in livestock production as dependent
variable with an ordinal nature.
3.6.2 Independent variables
Independent variables include that supposed to influence of market access pastoral community
in livestock production include personal, psychological, socio-cultural, economic,
communication, infrastructure and situational variables. Relevant independent variables are
selected based on information drawn from previous research and published literatures related to
the study as well as through discussions carried out with experts.
3.6.3 Definition of Independent Variables and hypothesis
The following independent variables were hypothesized to influence the market accesses pastoral
community in livestock production.
Age of household respondent (Age): The age of a pastoralist can generate or erode confidence
towards the livestock production. Even if different study results provide a mixed result, it is
obvious that young pastoralists are eager to get market access, exchange and utilize livestock
production knowledge (Akilu, 2000). It is hypothesized that pastoralists with younger age have
more probability of market access in pastoral community livestock production. It is measured in
number of years and the younger have positively significant to participate towards the market
access.
Education level (EDULEVEL): Education refers to the level of formal and non-formal
education. Educational level as a variable helping exposure to information, and also positively
affects market access information sharing and utilization (Tesfaye et al, 2001). It was measured
in terms of ability to read and write and enrolment in primary, secondary schools or above. It
was assumed to exert positive impact on market access in pastoral community livestock
production.
42

Family labor (Fsize): is the size of family labor of the respondent measured in terms
the family size is the larger the man day equivalent in the family members available for
livestock production would be, and a positive relationship is expected between family labor
force starting from keeping and market accesses in pastoral community and productivity of
livestock production package (Senait, 2002)
.
Knowledge of livestock production package (KNLIPP): In this study it is measured
in terms of procedure knowledge test of livestock production package recommended practices
in total score. It is assumed to have positive influence to dependent variable (cited in Deribe,
2007).It was assumed to positively affect the dependent variable.
.
Information sharing behavior (INSHBE): It is the extent to which respondent shared the
available information with others including family members, friends or neighbors, extension
agent etc. It is purposive in nature and is a consequence of a need to satisfy some goal. Study
conducted by Asres (2005) shows that sharing of available information was significant and
positive relation with access to development communication. It is assumed to have a positive
relationship with market accesses in pastoral community livestock production.
Market distance (MADE): A pastoralists who is at closer distance to the market has a greater
chance to get more market accesses from others that can create variation in input and out
possession of information a pastoral having more market accesses will have higher probability of
utilization of livestock production market. It is measured by distance from market in Km.
Therefore this variable expected to influence positively the of livestock production market
accesses.
Transportation facility (Transfacility): Those pastoralists who are located far away from the
center are at disadvantaged for input and produce transport to market. It is measured by
availability and type of public and private transportation facilities. It is expected to positively
influence market accesses livestock production.
43

Distance of from center (DEFRCE): The longer the house from the Woreda head quarter the
lesser the frequency of visiting the concerned offices that result to limited market access to
livestock production as well as necessary inputs. It is measured in terms of distance from the
Woreda head quarter in km It is assumed to negatively influence the dependent variable.
Achievement motivation (ACMO): It is defined as the need in an individual to perform
different roles with some degree of excellence. Achievement motivation is assumed to have
positive relationship with market access in pastoralists.
Mass media exposure (MAMEEX): is measured in terms of access to mass (TV, radio
and print media) on different weight and frequency to each media. Mass media play greatest
role in provision of information in shortest possible time over large area Daniel (2002). The
effective mass media utilization increases sharing of technical information. It is expected to
have positive influence on market access in livestock production.
Wealth (Wealth):- refers to the total number of livestock production owned by a pastoralist.
The more arable livestock means the more income flows to the household. It was measured in
numbers. Those pastoralists who are relatively better in income has better search and access to
market and capacity (Yishak, 2005). Hence the larger the livestock numbers the more positive
influence it might exert on market access in pastoral community livestock production.
It was expected to influence market access and livestock production positively.
Income (yearly sale) (Income): The pastoral income refers to the total annual earnings of the
family from the sale of livestock production. The household head that have high income earned
from the livestock production activities increases the pastoralist’s financial capacity and increase
the probability of investing on new technologies that is to get and market access than those
having less pastoral income. It is measured by the amount of income from the on livestock
production income. This variable was assumed to influence the market accesses livestock
production positively.
44

CHAPTER FOUR
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Introduction
This chapter is mainly concerned with the analysis and interpretation of the major findings of
the study. Thus, this chapter is subdivided into four sections. These sections are the description
of demographic, economic, psychological, socio-cultural, communication and situational factors;
Market access in pastoral community livestock production, extent of market access pastoralists;
perceived importance of information source relationship between dependent and independent
variables and influences of independent variable on dependent variable.
4.1.1 Market access in pastoral community livestock production user’s category
Market access in pastoral community livestock production user’s category are Majority of
livestock marketing information in the pastoralist level is outdated, unreliable and as the result it
couldn’t able to provide the real picture of the economic contribution of pastoralists sector for
the country economy and the community engaged in the sector. More over these, the critical
problem in livestock marketing sector stands in the course of formulating appropriate policies
and procedures for the purpose of increasing marketing efficiency in the sector. For the
pastoralists’ community undertaking research on structure conduct and performance of livestock
is believed to enhance its productivity by locating economical livestock marketing routes.
Available evidence shows that limited numbers of investigations have been made on local and
regional livestock markets in pastoralist area many factors affect at the markets access (Ayele et
al., 2003). To attain the level of Market access in pastoral community livestock production user’s
category through comparative analysis, each practice included in Market access was valued and
aggregate market access utilization quotients of market access users attained by respondents
were computed.
45

The result reveals that out of 126 respondents, nearly 83% of the respondent uses the
informal market while only 17% of the respondents use the formal market. The finding implies
market access in pastoral community livestock production users is very much limited legal
market access and majority uses informal market in the study area. In order explore the possible
differences between the formal market users and the informal market user’s t test has been used.
The result reveals that there is some degree of differences in these two categories (Table 2).
Table 2. Distribution of household respondent t-test for by level of MAIPCLP (n=126)
Description of variable Mean
Mean T test
(informal ) (formal)
1 Age of respondent 38.16 41.64 0.3041
2 Family size of respondents 8.846154 7.636364 0.3186
3 wealth 70.58654 35.95455 0.100**
4 Yearly sale (income) 31009.95 22919.45 0.1125
5 Distance from Market 20.65385 18.81818 0.4714
6 Distance from center 23.50962 18.40909 0.100**
Source: Computed from own data, 2009 *** significant at 5% and ** significant at 10%
According to the table of t-test, wealth and distance from the center are statistically significant
as the probability p>/t/ is less than 0.10, which is 10% level of significance.
4.1.2 Descriptions of Demographic, Economic, Communication, Situational, Socio-cultural
and Psychological Characteristics of Respondents
Under this sub section description of explanatory variables influencing market access in
pastoral community livestock production are discussed in detail. The explanatory variables are
demographic, economic, situational, communication, socio-cultural and psychological factors.
46

4.2 Demographic characteristics of sample household
Demographic characteristics considered in this study were variables of demographic
dimensions of the individual respondents such as Age, Education level,
4.2.1 Age of respondents
As presented in Table 2, the age of the household respondent has an important role in the
livestock production market of market access in pastoral community livestock production of the
study area. It was hypothesized that the informal market users are eager to get more to formal
market access livestock production and used it. The statistical test also confirms that insignificant
the mean value Mean (informal) = 38.16 Mean (formal) = 41.64 the market users are between
informal and informal users age are no deferent users of market access (t=0.3041).
4.2.2 Education level
Education is one of the most important variables, which increases pastoralist’s ability to obtain,
exchange market information and use market access in pastoral community livestock production.
Thus, educational level of an individual is one of the important factors preparing the individual
to receive and utilize market access livestock production to be more productive. Association
between education level of respondents and market access in pastoral community livestock
production is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Association between education level of respondents and MAIPCLP (n=126)
market access in Educational level
pastoral community
livestock
production
Illiterate read and
write
primary
school
secondary
school
College
above
N=126 79 32 8 5 2
and
percentage 62.70 25.40 6.35 3.97 1.59
cumulative 62.70 88.10 94.44 98.41 100.00
Source: Computed from own data, 2009
47

As shown in Table 3 out of the total household respondents, illiterate, read and write, primary
school, secondary school and college and above were 62.70%, 25.40%, 6.35% and 3.97% 1.59%
respectively. Many studies reported that education level has positive relation with farm
information utilization (Tesfaye et al 2001). The survey result indicates that there is high
illiteracy rate among the household respondent. The study confirms that the low level of
education and high illiteracy rate among pastoralists of the country contribute to low market
access in pastoral community livestock production.
4.2.3 Family size
Family size is one of the major resources owned by pastoral families. Family labor availability
and/or shortage for various areas such as the household, marketing activities and other external
demands including social obligations and duties faced by pastoral household is essential.
As presented in Table 2, in the study area starting from livestock keeping to its selling market,
production of livestock products requires sufficient number of labour power or family size.
Pastoralists are fare from the distance from market center especially marketing and keeping of
livestock call for amount of labour. The statistical analysis shows that insignificance the mean
value market access (informal) =.846 Mean (formal) =7.636 the market users are between
informal and informal users Family size of respondents are no deferent users of market access
(t=0.318). The probable reason might be due to Family size of respondents’ informal market
user’s similar with formal market users upon access to market.
48

4.3 Psychological factors
Psychological factors considered in this study were variables of psychological dimensions of
the individual respondents such as Knowledge of livestock productivity, Attitude toward
livestock production and Achievement motivation.
4.3.1 Knowledge of livestock productivity Package
Knowledge is a vital part of innovation utilization decision process. Knowledge Characterized
by into three; awareness, principle and procedure knowledge levels that affects innovation
utilization. In this study, Knowledge of livestock productivity is defined as the extent of the
respondent’s clarity about Knowledge of livestock productivity in terms of how to do it. The
association between Knowledge of livestock productivity of sample household respondents and
their market access in pastoral community livestock production is presented in Table4, below.
Table 4. Association between Knowledge of livestock productivity of respondents and
MAIPCLP (n=126)
No market access in Knowledge of livestock productivity N=126
pastoral community Frequency percentage Cumulative percent
livestock production
users category
1 Low 64 50.79 50.79
2 Medium 48 38.10 88.89
3 High 14 11.11 100.00
Source: Computed from survey data, 2009. Figures in parenthesis are percentage
As presented in Table4, for better understanding of household respondent level of Knowledge of
livestock productivity, respondents were put under three categories of Knowledge of livestock
productivity possession based on their knowledge. Accordingly, out of the total household
respondents,50.79% were under low possession of knowledge of livestock productivity
categorize, 38.10% under medium possession of Knowledge of livestock productivity categories
49

and only 11.11% were identified as having good possession of Knowledge of livestock
productivity.
4.3.2 Achievement motivation
Achievement motivation is defined as the need in an individual to perform different roles with
some degree of excellence. The association between achievement motivation of sample
household respondents and their market access in pastoral community livestock production is
presented in Table 5, below.
Table 5. Association between achievement motivation of respondents and MAIPCLP (n=126)
No market access in Achievement motivation N=126
pastoral community Frequency percentage Cumulative
livestock production
percent
users category
1 Low 108 85.71 85.71
2 Medium 15 11.90 97.62
3 High 3 2.38 100.00
Source: Computed from survey data, 2009.
As indicated in Table 5, the achievement motivation of sample household respondents of low,
medium and high livestock package market access is 85.71%, 11.90 and 2.38 were respectively.
The sample household respondents were put under three category of low, medium and high
category of achievement motivation for the finding indicates that, the majority household
respondent fall into low category, the result achievement motivation of the respondent ranges
from medium to high achievement motivation
4.4 Socio-cultural factors
In this study, socio-cultural factors include variables of social participation. The survey result of
socio-cultural factor is discussed in this sub section.
50

4.4.1 Social Participation
The person’s affiliation and involvement in social activities or the involvements of a person in
any formal or informal organizations gives higher exposure for different information and
consequently more market access than those who did not involve in social participation. The
level of social participation in formal institution (parent school committee, pastoral cooperatives,
Kebele administration, women association and) and informal (Idir, Ekub, mahber, church and
mosque) and anti HIV/AIDS club participation.
In this study social participation is proxy to participation of the respondent in informal and
formal organizations as a member and leader. Therefore, it was expected that level of social
participation of pastoralists influence livestock production market access users
Table 6. Association between social participation of respondents and MAIPCLP (n=126)
No market access in social participation N=126
pastoral community Frequency percentage Cumulative
livestock production
percent
users category
1 Low 53 42.06 42.06
2 Medium 55 43.65 85.71
3 High 18 14.29 100.00
Source: Computed from own data, 2009.
As presented in Table 6, social participation of sample household respondents of low, and
medium high, market access users category is 42.06%, 43.65% and 14.29% were respectively.
Sample of respondent in market access in pastoral community livestock production users
category based on their medium social participation of the sample respondents.
51

4.5 Economic factors
Economic factors considered in this study were variables of economic factors of the individual
respondents such as wealth/Livestock owned number and on livestock production income (yearly
sale).
4.5.1 Livestock owned number /wealth/
Livestock is a primary source of livelihood for pastoral households in the study area. Livestock
number is an indicator of wealth and social status and influence within a community. It was
assumed that the larger the livestock number, the higher is the possibility to use a combination of
market access in livestock production. In the study area, the number of the livestock owned
differs from household to household.
As presented in Table 2, the total household respondents pastoralists in surma worda has
livestock production. The statistical analysis shows that there is significant at the level of 10% on
market access, the mean value market access (informal) =70.586 Mean (formal) =35.954 the
market users are between informal and formal market users are high wealth informal market
users of the respondents in market access (t=0.100). The probable reason might be due to wealth
of respondents’ informal market user’s high with formal market users upon access to market.
4.5.2 Livestock production income (yearly sale)
The household head who has high income earned from the pastoral activities increases the
pastoralists’ financial capacity and probability of market access. The survey results revealed that
pastoralism is the main source of household income in the study area
As presented in Table 2, the analysis shows that there is among pastoralists in market access in
pastoral community livestock production on the basis of livestock production income is most of
low income. The statistical analysis shows that there is insignificant. The mean value market
access (informal) =31009.95 Mean (formal) =22919.45 the market users are between informal
and formal market users Income (yearly sales) of respondents are no deference in market access
users (t=0.112). The probable reason might be due to Income (yearly sales) of respondents’
informal market user’s and formal market users no difference access to the market.
52

4.5.5. Communication Factors
Communication variables include mass media exposure and willingness to share available
information.
4.5.1 Mass media exposure
Mass media plays vital role in provision of information over large area coverage in shortest
time possible. Access to channels of information facilitates the opportunity to use available
market access information by pastoralists. Under subsection of media exposure, the sample
household respondents were interviewed how frequently they had had the opportunity of radio,
television, newsletter and leaflets. At the same time, they were interviewed to rank which
program is most important to them or market access in pastoral community and why it is
important to them. Association between media exposure of sample household respondent and
their market access in pastoral community livestock production is presented in Table 8.
Table 7. Association between media exposure of respondent and their MAIPCLP (n=126).
N market access in pastoral Mass media exposure N=126
o community livestock Frequency percentage Cumulative
production users
percent
category
1 Low 75 59.52 59.52
2 Medium 47 37.30 96.83
3 High 4 3.17 100.00
Source: Computed from own data, 2009.
As indicated in Table 7, media exposure of sample respondents of low, medium and market
access in pastoral community livestock production users category is 59.52%, 37.30% and 3.17%
respectively. Among household respondents were having no exposure to any mass media. Those
household respondents who have low, medium high media exposure household respondents have
loss media exposure, respectively. This indicates that there are high information access gap
household respondents of the study area.
To get clear picture access to media in the study area further analysis for comparisons of sample
household respondents’ was employed and summarized in Table 9 below.
53

Table 8. Distribution of respondents by types of mass media exposure area MAIPCLP (n=126).
N Frequency Radio Poster leaflets newsletter Television
o
n % n % n % n % n %
1 Never 92 73.02 108 85.71 113 89.68 118 93.65 120 95.24
2 Some times 18 14.29 18 14.29 13 10.32 8 6.35 6 4.76
3 Once a week 9 7.14 0 0 1 0.79 0 0 0 0
4 Daily 7 5.56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Total 126 100 126 100 126 100 126 100 126 100
Source: Computed from own survey data, 2008 N= sample
Those household respondents having no exposure to radio, posters, leaflets, newsletter, and
television were 73.02%, 85.71%, 89.68%, 93.65% and 95.24% of respectively. As it is indicated
in Table 20, 5.56% of the respondents have daily exposure to radio; however, none of them has
daily exposure to posters, leaflets, newsletter, and television. Majority of the household
respondents (26.99%) have exposure to radio out of which 14.29% listen some times, 7.14%
listen once a week and 5.56% of them listen daily. The survey result reveals that posters, leaflets,
newsletter, and television are least used media among respondent of the sample household in the
study area. Among the household respondents, 14.29%, 10.32% and 0.79%, 6.35%, 4.76%
exposed to posters sometimes, leaflets Some times and Once a week, newsletter Sometimes and
television Sometimes respectively. Television is the least utilized in the study area which is
positively related to the education level of the household respondents. The household
respondents were also interviewed to rank types of programs they attend.
The household respondents were also interviewed to rank types of programs they attend. The
types of programs they attend on radio were summarized and presented in Table 10 below.
54

Table 9. Importance of media programs attended by household respondent (n=80)
Program Least
important
Somehow
important
moderately
important
Important
(3)
Most
important
Ran
k
(0) (1) (2)
(4)
n % n % n % n % n %
Music 0 0 1 2.00 19 38.00 1 36.00 12 24.00 1 st
8
Entertainment 6 13.95 16 37.21 15 34.88 4 9.30 2 4.65 2 nd
Drama 1 2.17 4 8.70 11 23.91 2 45.65 9 19.57 2 nd
1
News 4 9.30 10 23.26 19 44.19 9 20.93 1 2.33 3 rd
Livestock 3 8.57 5 14.29 17 48.57 9 25.71 1 2.86 4 th
marketing
program
Source: Computed from own survey data, 2009 N= sample size
As indicated in Table 9, Music, Entertainment, drama, news and Livestock marketing program
were ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respectively. The household respondents focused mainly to
radio program as they relatively have more access to radio compared to the rest of mass media
exposure in the study area. Sample household respondents were also interviewed on why they
ranked those programs they attended. The finding of the survey result that describes reason for
ranking those programs they attended is the household respondents described why they ranked
first was: to refreshment Music classical or dance, Entertainment, Drama, News is important for
my life and Livestock marketing program to improve my livelihood, to get experience and to
know government regulation in their order of importance. The survey result implies that
pastoralists are eager to get up to date Livestock marketing information for their livelihood
improvement.
55

4.5.4 Information sharing behavior
Information sharing behavior the extent to which sample household respondents shared the
information with others which includes; family members, neighbors, relatives and the likes. The
sample household respondents’ sharing available information the higher is the more the
respondent is willing to share available information with others. Association between sharing
available information by household respondent and their maize package information utilization is
presented in Table 15 below.
Table 10.Association between sharing available information by respondent and their
MAIPCLP(N=126)
No market access in Information sharing behavior N=126
pastoral community Frequency percentage Cumulative
livestock production
percent
users category
1 Low 67 53.17 53.17
2 Medium 51 40.48 93.65
3 High 8 6.35 100.00
Source: Computed from own data, 2009
As presented in Table 10, the willingness to share available information of sample respondents
of low, medium and high market access in pastoral community livestock production user’s
category is 53.17%, 40.48% and 6.35% respectively. Study conducted by Asres (2005) shows
that sharing of available information was significant and positive relation with access to
development communication. Among sample household respondents in market access in
pastoral community livestock production users category is based on their willingness to share
available information among Pastoralists. The reason might be due the less willingness of
sharing available information among the majority of the sample respondents.
56

4.6 Situational factor
4.6.1 Transportation facility
Those pastoralists who are located far away from the center are disadvantaged for selling
livestock production, livestock product and transport to market as well as access to market access
information sources. Association between transportation facility of sample household respondent
and their Market access in pastoral community livestock production is presented in Table 11
below.
Table 11. Association between respondent transportation facility and their MAIPCLP (n=126)
Market access livestock Availability of transportation facility (n=126)
production users Frequency percentage Cumulative percent
no 106 84.13 84.13
yes 20 15.87 100.00
Source: Computed from own data, 2009.
As presented in Table 14, despite the importance of transportation facility for marketing of
livestock products and input supply, the survey result shows that 84% of the household
respondents have no transportation facility. Only 15% of the household respondents have access
to lorry transport. The survey result indicates that the household respondent walk on their feet to
get input from market as well as they have either to carry by themselves. Among sample
household respondent in Market access livestock production users based on transportation
facility the majority is no transportation access by the study area.
4.6.2 Distance from the market
The household respondents were located scatter at different distance from main market center
that was located at the center, Surma worda kibish town. In the study area Most of household
respondents livestock production for subsistence whereas chattels and goats are the main cash
income. However, the household respondents use small and less developed market places at their
locality.
As presented in Table 2, the distance of household respondents from nearest market place of
the market access in pastoral community livestock production users The analysis shows that
57

there among sample respondent in market access in pastoral community livestock production
users based on distance from market, The statistical analysis shows that there is insignificant on
market access, the mean value market access (informal) = 20.653 Mean (formal) = 18.818 the
market users are between, informal and informal users Distance from the market of respondents
are no deferent users of market access (t=0.471). The probable reason might be due to Distance
from the market of the respondents’ informal market user’s similar with formal market users
upon access to market.
4.6.3 Distance from Centre
The distance from Centre that reflects that to what extent pastoralists are close to market
access in pastoral community livestock production, inputs, marketing and all other relevant
social services like hospitals and education services that have impact on the living condition of
pastoralists.
As presented in Table 2, the distance of household respondents from the center of market
access in pastoral community livestock production user’s, The analysis shows that there among
sample respondent in market access in pastoral community livestock production users based on
distance from the center the informal market users is high Distance from the center on the study
area. The statistical analysis shows that there is significant at the level of 10% on market access,
the mean value market access (informal) =23.509, Mean (formal) = 18.409 the market users are
between informal and formal market users Distance from the center of respondents are informal
market users far from market access users (t=0.100). The probable reason might be due to
Distance from the center of respondents’ informal market users are low with formal market users
upon access to market.
58

4.7. Analysis of Determinants of MAIPCLP by pastoralists
This section reports results of the analyses of determinants of market access in pastoral
community livestock production in the study area. The significant explanatory variables of the
selected independent variables were put in to logit model to identify those factors affecting
market accesses livestock production and analyses of multiple regression determinants of yearly
sales (income) by market access. The important personal, economic, situational, socio-cultural,
psychological, and communication factors were discussed in details.
Table 12, the maximum likelihood estimates and the marginal effects of logit model output are
presented.
No Variable logit
Marginal effect
name Coefficie Z=value P>|z| Z=valu P>|z| X/coefficient/
nt
e
1 age .0374 1.55 (0.120) 1.56 (0.118) 38.7698
2 edulevel -.984 -2.00 0.046*** -2.13 0.033*** 1.55556
3 acmo -.918 -1.01 (0.313) -0.99 (0.323) 1.15079
4 sopa -.986 -2.10 0.036*** -1.88 (0.061) 1.72222
5 Wealth -.016 -2.62 0.009*** -2.54 0.011*** 64.5397
6 inshbe 2.061 3.70 0.000 *** 2.95 0.003*** 1.53175
7 mameexp -.484 -0.83 (0.407) -0.83 (0.406) 1.43651
8 transfacility .554 0.73 (0.464) 0.63 (0.526) .15873
9 difrma -.039 -1.29 (0.196) -1.28 (0.202) 20.3333
10 difrce -.065 -2.26 0.024*** -2.22 0.027*** 22.619
Source: Computed from survey data, 2009 ***5% level of significant **10% level of significant
As presented Table 12, the probability of market access for the marginal effect is .07027043
when all explanatory variables are fixed at their mean values. And, the marginal effect of change
in market access with respect dy/dx are .00244, -.06430, -.0600, -.0644, -.0010, .1347, -.0316,
.0428, -.0025 and .00426 respectively. But, only variables education, wealth, information sharing
behavior, distance from the center are statistically significance in the context of marginal effect
59

while age, achievement of motivation, social participation, mass media exposure, distance from
the market, transportation facility is not significant.
A positive estimated coefficient in the model implies more market access livestock production
with increased in the value of the explanatory variable. Whereas negative estimated coefficient in
the model implies less informal market access livestock production with increase in the value of
the explanatory variable. The marginal values provide the impacts that a unit changes in the
individual independent variables have on different levels of market access livestock production
when all other variables are held at their means.
The probability of market access for the logit model when all explanatory variables are
positive Coefficient 0.374, 2.061 and 0.554 age, information sharing behavior and transportation
facility are respectively, the results if the variables age, information sharing behavior and
transportation facility increases by one unit, market access(formal and informal ) increasers by
0.374, 2.061 and 0.554 unit respectively. The Coefficient -.984, -.918, -986, -.016, -.484, -0.039
and -.065 educational level, achievement of motivation, social participation, wealth, mass media
exposure, distance from the market and distance from the center respectively, the results if the
variables educational level, achievement of motivation, social participation, wealth, mass media
exposure, distance from the market and distance from the center increases by one unit
respectively, market access (more informal markets) decreases by-.0702, -.3702, -.3498, -.005,
and -0.353 unit respectively, this means informal market users shifts from formal market.
The marginal effects of information sharing behavior were found to be statistically positive
significant. The marginal effect of level of education, wealth and distance from the center were
found to be statistically negatively significant. Age, Achievement of motivation, social
participation, mass media exposure, distance from the market, transportation facility were found
to be statistically no significant.
The logit of information sharing behavior are statistically significant as the probability p>/t/ is
less than 0.05, which is 5% level of statistically positive significant. The logit of level of
education, wealth, social participation distance from the center, were found to be statistically
negatively significant. Age, Achievement of motivation, mass media exposure, distance from the
market, transportation facility were found to be statistically no significant.
60

The logit of information sharing behavior are statistically significant as the probability p>/t/ is
less than 0.05, which is 5% level of statistically positive significant. The logit of level of
education, wealth, social participation distance from the center, were found to be statistically
negatively significant. Age, Achievement of motivation, mass media exposure, distance from the
market, transportation facility were found to be statistically no significant.
Level of education (EDULEVEL): education level has positive relation with farm
information utilization. Tesfaye et al., (2001) which have reported that education had positive
and significant relationship with adoption. The model output that educational level significant
and negative impact on informal market access livestock production at less than 5% level of
significance. The respondents were illiterate, read and write, primary school, secondary school
and college and above were 62.70%, 25.40%, 6.35% and 3.97% 1.59%, respectively. The model
result implies that, indicates that there is high illiteracy rate among the household respondent.
The study confirms that the low level of education and high illiteracy rate among pastoralists of
the country contribute to low legal market access in pastoral community livestock production.
Social participation (SOPA): A study conducted by Yared (2006) showed that interpersonal
communication is the main medium to access to information with neighbors, friends and
relatives, other pastoralists, worda administration, extension, agents, NGOs, researcher trainings,
demonstration and field day etc. the model output that social participation significant and
negative impact on informal market access livestock production at less than 5% level of
significance. Social participation of sample household respondents of high, low and medium,
market access users category is 12.7%, 23.81% and 63.49% were respectively. Sample of
respondent in market access in pastoral community livestock production users category based on
their medium social participation of the sample respondents. The probable social participation is
significant to legal market access livestock production.
Wealth (wealth): on the contrary Legesse, (1992) and Degnet et al., (2000) reported that
negative relationship between livestock production number and utilization of agricultural
technologies and livestock production quality. The model output that wealth significant and
negative impact on informal market access livestock production at less than 5% level of
significance.
61

Information sharing behavior (INSHBE): The independent variable information sharing
behavior has influenced informal market access positively and significantly at less than 5% level
of significance. The model result implies that those pastoralists, who are sharing information
with others, have higher probability of capitalizing information that they have and also get more
opportunity to obtain new information than those who were not sharing information to others.
Information sharing behavior the extent to which sample household respondents shared the
information with others which includes; family members, neighbors, relatives and the likes
(Dogoi 1990). Study conducted by Asres (2005) shows that sharing of available information was
significant and positive relation with access to development communication. The willingness to
share available information of sample respondents of low, medium and high market access in
pastoral community livestock production user’s category is 53.17%, 40.48% and 6.35%
respectively. Among sample household respondents in market access in pastoral community
livestock production users category is based on their willingness to share available information
among Pastoralists. The reason might be due the less willingness of sharing available
information among the majority of the sample respondents.
Distance from center (DISCIV): As hypothesized distance from center is negatively and
significantly influence market access in pastoral community livestock production at less than 5%
level of significance. The model output implies that as a distance from the center increases
market access livestock production declines. In another word, the implication of this negative
relationship is that if the distance between pastoralists’ living home and the center is longer, the
pastoralists will be discouraged to use market access livestock production. This result is in
consistent with the finding of Legesse (2001). The analysis shows that there among sample
respondent in market access in pastoral community livestock production users on far from
distance from the center the informal market is decreases on the study area.
62

4.8. Analysis of Determinants of yearly sales (income) by pastoralists
The multiple regression model output are yearly sale (income) that directly related to market
access in the study area.
Table 13, the multiple regression effects of multicollinearity output are yearly sale (income)
presented.
No Variable name Multiple regression/
Coefficient t P
1 lnfsize .1514 0.82 (0.415)
2 lnage -.0702 -0.37 (0.714)
3 lnedulevel -.3702 -2.04 0.043***
4 Wealth .0042 2.76 0.007***
5 maccess -.3498 -1.61 0.100**
6 inshbe .0517 0.47 (0.640)
7 difrma -.005 -.78 (0.437)
8 Knlipr,r -0.353 -0.35 (0.727)
Source: Computed from survey data, 2009 ***5% level of significant **10% level of significant
As the result Table 13, From the multiple regression yearly sales(income) tests wear as
According to the multicollinearity, wealth are statistically positive significant and educational
level negatively significant as the probability p>/t/ is less than 0.05, which is 5% level of
significance. Market access is statistically negatively significant as the probability p>/t/ is less
than 0.1, which is 10% level of significance. On the same note F-test shows that the goodness of
fit of the model is strong as we measure statistically.
The probability of Yearly sales (income) for the liner regression when all explanatory
variables are Coefficient .1514, .0042 and .0517 family size, wealth and information sharing
behavior respectively, the results if the variables family size, wealth and information sharing
behavior increases by one percent, yearly sale by.1514, .0042 and .0517, percent increasers
respectively. The Coefficient -.0702, -.3702, -.3498, -.005, and -0.353 age of the respondent,
educational level market access distance from the market knowledge of livestock production
respectively, the results if the variables age of the respondent, educational level market access
63

distance from the market knowledge of livestock production package increases by one percent,
yearly sale decreases by-.0702, -.3702, -.3498, -.005, and -0.353 percent respectively.
4.9. The extent of Market Access in pastoral community livestock production information
sharing in the study area
This section covers the information source and extent of Market Access in pastoral community
livestock production information sharing among pastoralists in study area. Information sources
were analyzed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of information source and extent of
information sharing among pastoralists. The extent of information sharing among pastoralists
could investigate from many angles and characteristics, but in this subsection, it is only from
pastoralist’s market information source point of view particularly on market access information.
Distribution of respondents on the basis of Market Access in pastoral community livestock
production information source is described in Table 14.
Table 14. Association between different distance from the information source of respondent and
their MAIPCLP (n=126)
No Information source Information source
Market access Never Sometimes Always
Rank
livestock production (1)
(2)
(3)
users category Freque % Frequenc % Frequenc %
ncy
y
y
1 Neighbors or friends 6 4.76 61 48.41 59 46.83 1
2 Other Pastoralists 22 17.46 56 44.44 48 38.10 2
3 Religious organizations 67 53.60 41 32.80 17 13.60 3
4 Rural radio programs 91 72.22 33 26.19 2 1.59 4
5 WARDO 93 73.81 33 26.19 0 0 4
6 Kebele administration 91 72.22 35 27.78 0 0 5
7 Traders 94 74.60 26 20.63 6 4.76 6
8 Trainingdemonstration 103 81.75 23 18.25 0 0 7
and field days
9 NGOs/pcdp 105 83.33 21 16.67 0 0 8
64

10 Pastoral Days 108
18 14.29 0 0 9
85.71
11 Leaflets and folders 108 85.71 18 14.29 0 0 9
12 Brokers 119 94.44 7 5.56 0 0 10
13 Development agents 115 91.27 11 8.73 0 0 11
14 pastoralist’s
116 92.06 10 7.94 0 0 12
cooperatives
Source: Computed from survey data, 2009 % is percentage
The total number of information sources assessed in the area was 14. As it is stated in Table
14, neighbors or friends, Other Pastoralists are the major source of information among
pastoralists in their order of importance. Upon group discussion, the participants disclosed that
market development agent appears on various meeting conducted for various purpose at different
times and use the occasion for passing their message related to different pastoral practices and
livestock diseases control. The survey result showed that the major sources of information are
religious organizations, rural radio programs, Woreda pastoraldevelopment office, Kebele
administration, and Traders, Training, demonstration and field days, NGOs/pcdp, Leaflets and
folders, Brokers, Development agents, and pastoralist’s cooperatives respectively. The least used
Information sources were Brokers, Development agents, and pastoralist’s cooperatives.
In order to assess extent of information sharing among market access pastoralists household
respondents were interviews with which they share market access in pastoral community
livestock production that obtained from the above stated sources of information. The finding of
the analysis showed generally there extent of formal market access livestock production is low.
However, that there is high extent of informal market access in pastoral community livestock
production neighbors and friends, Other Pastoralists, Religious organizations and rural radio
programs upon their interaction at various occasions (Table 14).
65

4.9.1 Group discussion Market access livestock production information sharing
Upon group discussion, the participants of group discussion were requested to identify and
rank with whom they share market information and rank accordingly. The group members were
exhaustively identified with whom they share market information is shared and ranked after
thorough discussion among themselves. The result of group discussion was summarized and
presented in Table 15.
Table 15. Group discussion ranking level of Market access livestock production information
sharing
No Information shared among actors Group rank
1 Neighbor and friend 1 st
2 Other Pastoralists 2 nd
3 Religious(cultural meting’s) organizations 3 rd
Source: Group discussion of kibish town Administration, 2009
As it can be noted from Table 15, neighbors and friends, Other Pastoralists and Religious
organizations are the main actors with whom pastoralists share market access in pastoral
community livestock production among themselves. Both structured interview and focus group
discussion results indicates that there is high level of pastoralists to pastoralists information
sharing the study area.
4.9.2 Group discussion challenges of formal Market access livestock in the study area
Upon group discussion, the participants of group discussion were requested to identify and
rank challenges of formal Market access livestock in the study area the participants are rank
accordingly. The group members were exhaustively identified the mean reason of group
discussion was highly challenges formal market access in the study area. The result of group
discussion was summarized and presented in Table 18.
66

Table 16. Group discussion challenges of formal Market access livestock in the study area
Challenges Reasons rank
1 Security
problem
- Pastoralists has clash encobe and other ware materials to
keep and protect with other parties robin/Tift with in ethnic
groups across boundary
1
- Legal Traders needed in security
- illegal Traders needed cheap or low cot purchase livestock
production to pastoralists
- pastoralists Crashing with other ethnic groups like killing
other parties don’t move free with marketing and town areas
- Pastoralists needed more livestock products, therefore it
needed robin/Tift other groups and across boundary. So don’t
move free with livestock marketing area and town areas
2 Culture - For marred purpose it needs much more livestock product and
cash in birr so don’t need sale the livestock products and it
needed robin/Tift other groups and across boundary. So don’t
move free with livestock marketing and town areas
3 Market - Pastoralists lived in diversified and high market Distance
Distance from from residence are
residence are - To seek food on livestock products
- Lack of Transportation access
4 Loss intention - less intension infrastructure in the study area
for market - loss awareness creation the livestock market
access - no market chain by pastoralist and formal traders and
governmental exporters
and nongovernmental
- Less intension cultural mired and war material administration
security problems
organizations - -don’t has legal market access days in the woreda center
Source: Group discussion of kibish town Administration, 2009
2
3
4
67

As it can be noted from Table 16, the participants of group discussion were challenges of
formal Market access livestock in the study area pastoralists share market access in pastoral
community livestock production among themselves. Structured interview, observations and
focus group discussion,
security challenges: - it is highly affected market access in the study area Pastoralists has
excess ware materials to keep and protect with other parties robin/Tift with in ethnic groups
across boundary, Legal Traders needed in security, illegal Traders needed cheap or low cost
purchase livestock production to pastoralists, Crashing with other ethnic groups like killing other
parties don’t move free with marketing and town areas, Pastoralists needed more livestock
products, therefore it needed robin/Tift other groups and across boundary. So don’t move free
with livestock marketing area and town areas.
Cultural challenges: - it has a different cultural challenge in the study area. For marred purpose
it needs much more livestock product, clash encobe and cash in birr some pastoralists, so don’t
need sale the livestock products and it needed robin/Tift other groups and across boundary. So
don’t move free with livestock marketing and town areas.
Market Distance from residence area Pastoralists lived in diversified and high market Distance
from residence area and to seek food on livestock products.
Less intention for market access governmental and non-governmental organizations; in the
study area the government and no governmental organizations more focuses build pastoral
villages, institution services and collecting pastoralists. So less intension infrastructure in the
study area, loss awareness creation the livestock market, no market chain by pastoralist and
formal traders and exporters, Less intension cultural mired and war material administration
security problems and don’t has legal market access days in the woreda center.
68

CHAPTER FIVE
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
This study was conducted in Surma Woreda, Benci-maji zone of southwest SNNPRG. So far,
there is no study conducted in Benci-maji zone on market access in pastoral community in
general and market access livestock production in particular. Therefore, this study has tried to
look into the extent of market access in pastoral community livestock production of the study
area and determinants of market access users by pastoralists in the area. Multi stage sampling
procedure was followed to select kebele administration and household respondents for the study.
The kebele administration were stratified into three strata (closest, slightly far and remote) based
on their distance from the Woreda headquarter. Accordingly, five kebele administrations were
selected from the three strata using random sampling techniques. Finally 126 HH respondents
were included into the study.
To address the objective of the study, both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were
used in the study. The primary data necessary for quantitative study were collected using pretested
semi structured interview schedule from 126 sample household respondents which are the
units of observation of the study. Qualitative data were collected through field visit, personal
observations, focused group discussion, informal interview of key informants and kebele
administration leaders. Secondary data were collected from the worda administration pastoral
development office and fish and animal development office and various sources to supplement
the data obtained from the survey.
Different analytical techniques were applied to analyze collected data. Descriptive statistics
such percentage frequency and ranking was used to identify; source of information, perceived
importance and perceived value of market access information in the study area. Multiple
regression, t-test and p-value test were to see association between explanatory variables and
market accesses livestock production. Pearson Moment correlation and were also to see the
relation and strength of explanatory variables with market access (the dependent variable). logit
model is used to determine factors affecting market access in pastoral community livestock
production in the study area.
69

The finding of the survey shows that neighbor’s or friends, other pastoralists and religious
organization are the major market access livestock production information sources for
pastoralists of the study area. The survey result also revealed that, neighbor’s or friends other
pastoralists and religious organization are the most important information sources market
accesses livestock production practice in the study area. In the study area the government and no
governmental organizations more focuses build pastoral villages and institution services and
collecting pastoralists, less intention in the market access and market chain.
Product Moment correlation analysis between explanatory variable and market access by
pastoralists shows that age of the respondent, information sharing behavior, transportation
facility of were noted to positively related to market access in pastoral community livestock
production at various degree of strength. Whereas, achievement of motivation level education,
social participation, mass media exposure, wealth, distance from market and distance from the
Woreda headquarter/ center were negatively related to market access in pastoral community
livestock production.
Some factors considered as determinants of market access in pastoral community livestock
production and entered into logit regression model; such as level of education, wealth,
information sharing behavior, social participation and distance from the Woreda headquarter/
center and were found p-value 5% of significant impact market access in pastoral community
livestock production and transportation facility, age, achievement of motivation, mass media
exposure and Distance from the market are no significant.
70

5.2 Recommendations
All development policy and program interventions livelihood self-reliance through increased
livestock production and productivity of pastoralists in the study area need to consider livestock
market access, how these market access is shared livestock production and what factor influence
market users of available market access for the achievement of the anticipated sustainable
development. Accordingly, the following recommendations are noteworthy to be considered
promotion of efforts of the technologies to be productivity and accessibility of market.
In the study area was high market challenges, mostly; security, culture, market distance, the
governmental and non-governmental less intention to market access livestock production.
Livestock is an asset of in the study area, pastoralists need more legal and stable markets to gain
maximum cot of livestock production. The market access in pastoral community livestock
production governmental and non-governmental organizations more attention to pastoral income
and contribution of the sector to the economy.
Information sharing was found to exert significant impact on the probability of market access
livestock production by pastoralists. This was due to the high prevailing information source from
neighbors, friends, relatives and others friends is easily available and has high perceived value by
the pastoralists. Policy makers should give emphasis pastoralists to pastoralist’s flow of
information while promoting new innovated technologies. Identifying prevailing social networks
and informal organizations in every community and utilizing them in dissemination assumes
much importance.
Social participation showed that interpersonal communication is the main medium to access to
information with neighbors, friends and relatives, other pastoralists, worda administration,
extension, agents, NGOs, researcher trainings, demonstration and field day. The market access in
pastoral community livestock production social participation is highly important market access
livestock production.
It was found that pastoralists who have more livestock production wealth have high
probability of using market access than those who have lower pastoralist’s income. Therefore, in
order to bridge financial shortage needed for food and security, purchase of agricultural input for
proper utilization of available market access governmental and non-governmental organization
71

operating in the area need to facilitate long term and short term credit to resource poor
pastoralists through establishment and strengthening of rural or microfinance institutions and
open livestock market days.
Education level of pastoralists and counting for 62.70% of the study area was found to be very
low of the respondents cannot read and write. As a result of high level of illiteracy among
pastoralists of the study area they were not in a position to use print media that would create
opportunity of gaining market access information. Therefore, concerned government offices and
non-governmental organization operating in the area has to consider functional adult literacy
program to improve the situation. Mass media play the greatest role in provision of information
in shortest possible time over large area easily overcoming geographical limitation hurdles.
Therefore, pastoral related broadcast through the national and local radio program has to give
due consideration to provide pastoralists with relevant market access information timely and
sufficiently.
Distance from the head quarter or center found to exert negative impact on market access
livestock production by pastoralists in study area. The longer the distance from head
quarter/center and is distance from the market, the lower the probability of market access in the
study area. Therefore, in order to conducive environment for market access and increase ability
of informed decision making of technologies use by pastoralists, there is a need to make special
emphasis to target these segments of the community by market development agents.
72

Reference
Aklilu, Y. (2008) Livestock Marketing in Kenya and Ethiopia: A Review of Policies and
Practice, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Feinstein International Center of Tufts University
Aklilu Y and Catley A. 2009. Livestock exports from the Horn of Africa: an analysis of benefits
by pastoralist wealth group and policy implications. Feinstein International Centre, Tufts
University, Medford, MA.
Aklilu Y. 2002. An audit of the livestock marketing status in Kenya, Ethiopia and Sudan, vol. 1
and 2 OAU (Organization of African Unity)/ Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources, Nairobi.
Aklilu Y. 2008. Livestock marketing in Kenya and Ethiopia: a review of policies and practice.
Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, Addis Ababa.
Aregheore, E. M. (2006). Zambia II Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles. Ruminant
Livestock Production Systems. Lusaka, Zambia.
Embassy of Ethiopia Economy and Business Section 3506 International Drive N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
Negassa, A., & Jabber, M.(2008). Livestock Ownership, Commercial off Take Rates and their
Determinants in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Impact Assessment of the ACDI/VOCA Livestock Markets in Pastoralist Areas of Ethiopia PLI
Policy Project Tufts University November 2010
Simbaya, J. (2002). Availability and feeding quality characteristics of on farm produced feed
resources in the traditional smallholder sector in Zambia. In IAEA(International Atomic Energy
Agency) (Eds). Development and Field Evaluation of Animal Feed Supplementation Packages:
Proceedings of the Final review Meeting held in Cairo, Egypt 25-29, November 2000. Vienna,
Austri a: IAEA. URL (last checked 12 January 2014) South-Western College Publishing.
Chapoto, A., Banda, D., Haggblade, P., & Hamukwala, P. (2011). Factors Affecting Poverty
Dynamics in Rural Zambia. FSRP working paper, Lusaka, Zambia.
Ali, A., & Khan, M. A. (2013). Livestock ownership in en suring Rural Household Food Security
in Pakistan. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 23 , 313-318.
73

Daka, D. E. (2002). Livestock sector in Zambia: Opportunities and limitations. In IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency) (Eds). Development and Field Evaluation of Animal Feed
Supplementation Packages: Proceedings of the Final review Meeting held in Cairo, Egypt 25-29,
November 2000. Vienna , Austria: IAEA. URL (last checked 12 January 2014)
http://www-naweb.iae a.org/nafa/aph/public/reports-12.pdf
Lubungu, M., Chapoto, A., & Tembo, G. (August 2012) . Smallholder Farmer Participation in
Livestock Markets: The Case for Zambian Farmers. Working Paper Number 66, Indaba
Agricultural Policy Research Institute, Lusaka, Zambia.
Deshingkar, P., Farrington, J., Rao, L., Akte r, S., Sharma, P., Freeman, A., & Reddy, J. (2008).
Livestock and Povert y Reduction in India: Find ings from ODI livelihood Options Project.
Discussion Paper # 8. ILRI, Addis Abba, Ethiopia.
Central Statistical Authority, “The 2007 population and housing census of Ethiopia results for
SNNP Region” part one tactical report on population size and characteristics). Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.2010
Meyer, H.W.J., 2005. "The nature of information, and the effective use of information in rural
development" information Research, 10(2) paper 214 (Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-
2/paper214.html).
Asres Elias, 2005. Access and Utilization of Development Communication by Rural Women in
Dire Dawa Administrative Council, Eastern Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis Presented to School of
Graduate Studies, Alemaya University.
Belay Kassa, 2003. Agricultural Extension in Ethiopia. The Case of Participatory
Demonstrations and Training Extension System. Journal of Social Development in Africa, 18(1):
49-83
Buford, J.A. 1990. Extension management in the information age. Journal of Extension, 28(1).
Borooah, V. K., 2001. Logit and Probit: Ordered and Multinomial Models. New Delhi, Sara
Miller McCune, SAGE Publications.
74

FAO, 2007. Special Report FAO/WFP Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission to Ethiopia.
23 February 2007 Rome, Italy.
Girmachew Siraw, 2004. Determinants of adoption of soil and water conservation in Semina
mountain national park, Ethiopian. An M.Sc. Thesis presented to Alemaya University, School of
Graduate Studies, Alemaya, Ethiopia.
Gogoi D.K, 1990. Agricultural Communication Networks. A village Level Analysis of Punjab.
RADIANT PUBLISHERS.
Gujarati, D.N., 1995. Basic econometrics. 3rd edition, McGraw Hill, Inc., New York
Habtemariam Abate, 2004. The comparative Influence of Intervening variable in the adoption of
Maize and Dairy Farmers in Shashemene and Debrezieit, Ethiopia. PhD Thesis, University of
Pretoria.
Habtemariam Kassa, 2004. Agricultural Extension with Particular Emphasis on Ethiopia.
Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute, Addis Ababa, pp 80.
Liao, T.F., 1994. Interpreting Probability Models: Logit, Probit, and Other Generalized Linear
Models. Series: On Qualitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks. Landon,
New Delhi. 88p.
Maddala, G.S.1989. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge
University press,
The Future of Pastoralism in Ethiopia The United States of America, 401p. The UN OCHA
Pastoralist Communication Initiative 2007International Fund for
Agricultural Development Via Paolo di Dono, 44 00142 Rome, Italy (www.ifad.org/lrkm/index.
htm)
75

Appendix 1:- Sampling procedure
22 kebele administration of surma
woreda
Closet kebele
Administration
N=5
Slightly kebele
Administration
N=9
Remote kebele
Administration
N=8
Tuligit
Haritga
Bebusin
Moga
Dishou
NHHH
NHH
NHH
NHH
NHH
477
423
153
91
63
PSZ=48
PSZ=43
PSZ=16
PSZ=9
PSZ=7
76

Appendix 2 Questionnaire
SCHOOL OF GRAGUATE STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS IN PROJECT PLANING AND MANAGEMENT
Market Access in pastoral community livestock production in Case of Benchi-maji zone surma
woreda SNNP Regional State
General Instructions to Enumerators
✓ Make brief introduction to each pastoralists before starting the interview, get introduced
to the pastoralists, (greet them in the local way) get his or her name; tell them yours, the
institution you are working for, and make clear the purpose and objective of the study.
✓ Please ask each question clearly and patiently until the pastoral understands (gets your
point).
✓ Please fill up the questionnaire according to the pastoralists reply (do not put your own
opinion).
✓ Please do not try to use technical terms while discussing with pastoralists and do not
forget to record the local unit.
✓ During the process put the answer of each respondent both on the space provided and
encircle in the choose
Identification Number (code) __________
Kebele Administration _______________
Name of enumerator_________________
Date of interview____________________
I. PERSONAL FACTORS
1. Name of the respondent _________________________
2. Name of the household head_____________________
3. Age of respondent ______________
77

4. Marital status 1= Single 2= Married 3= Divorced 4=Widowed
5. Education level 0= illiterate 1= Read & write 2=primary school (grade1-6)
3= secondary school (grade 7-10) 4= College and above
6. Household members (family size)___________________
SN
Relationship to the
Age
Gender
Education level
respondent(a)
0: F 1: M
R1 A1 S1 E1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
(a) Relationship: 1: Husband 2: Son 3: Daughter 4: Relative 5: Raised 6: Other
(b)Education level: 0= illiterate 1= read & write 2=primary school 3= secondary school
78

II. ECONOMIC FACTOR
7. Do you have livestock? 1= Yes 0= No ________________
8. If yes, total livestock number owned ____________
9. Do you sale in livestock last year? 1= yes 2= No
10. If yes, number of livestock sale in market ____________
11. Do you sale any livestock production out of the market last year? 1= yes ____ 2=No_______
12. If yes, number of livestock sale out of the market __________
13. Annual income from marketing of livestock products (in birr), for 2016 (2008) year
SN Income from livestock products activities
Farm activities Amount Income sale (
Unit Total Birr)
13.1 F1 U1 T1 Is
13.2 Sales of chicken
13.3 Sales of eggs
13.4 Sales of milk
13.5 Sales of cheese
13.6 Sales of butter
13.7 Sales of hide & skin
13.8 Sales of calves
13.9 Sales of heifer
13.10 Sales of oxen
13.11 Sales of cow
13.12 Sales of sheep
13.13 Sales of goat
13.14 Sales of camel
13.15 Others, specify
79

14. Do you get any credit institution in your area? 1) Yes 0) No
15. If yes, which are those agencies?
1= Bank 2= NGO 3= Microfinance institute
4 = Local money lender 5 = Service cooperatives 6 = Others (specify)
16. Are you eligible to credit from any agency? 1) Yes 0) No
20. Have you obtained credit for livestock production in the last five years? (Credit utilization) 1)
Yes 0) No
20.1 If yes, Please fill the following table
No Credit source Amount ( in birr) Purpose of use
1
2
3
4
Purpose: 1) For purchasing livestock foods, 2) For purchasing improved synchronization, 3) For
purchasing productive livestock production, 4) all 5) For other purpose (Specify) ____________
III. Communication variable
21. Did you have any contact with market Development agent in your area? 1=Yes 0= No
21.1 If yes, frequency of contact?
Once in four week (4)
Once in two months (3)
Some time (2)
Some times on meeting (1)
21.2 Do you want more contact? 1) Yes 0)No
80

21.3 If no, why? 1= No DA nearby 2 = No need for service
3 = others (specify)
22. What types of service most of the times are you getting from market Development agents?
(1)Technical support:___________
(2) Theoretical information:__________
(3) Input Supply:__________
(4) Experience sharing:_____________
(5) Others (specify)_____________________________
(6)None
23. What types of service most of the times are you searching from market Development agent?
Rank them:
1=Mostly obtained 2= obtained 3=moderately obtained
4=Somehow obtained 5=Least obtained
1. Technical support:___________
2. Theoretical information:__________
3. Input Supply:__________
4. Experience sharing:_____________
5. Others (specify)_____________________________
6. None
81

24. How frequently do you have access to media for the last three years (Media exposure)?
Mass media
Frequency
exposure
Daily
Once in a week
Some times (1) Never (0)
(3)
(2)
Radio
Television
News paper
Posters
Leaflets
25. Which program do you listen to mostly? (Rank according to their importance)
Rank: 1=Most important 2=Important 3= moderately important 4=Somehow important 5=Least
important
Livestock marketing program ( )
News program ( )
Drama program ( )
Music program ( )
Others (specify) ______________ ( )
26. Why first ranked program is the most important to you _____________________
27. How far is your residence from the nearest market town or city? ______ Km, or ____ hours
on foot walk. (Distance from center)
Information seeking behavior
28 Do you believe that you have enough information on market access? 1) Yes 2) No 3) I don’t
know
28.1 If no, do you need market access new information? 1) Yes 2) No
82

28.2 If yes:-How much market access new information you wish to get.
Amount of new information wish to get: 0= No information 1= some information 2= All
information
28.3 How frequently you seek information: - Frequency of seeking information: 1= Rarely
2=sometimes 3= most frequently
29. Out of the obtained information on market accesses, which are the types of information you
have utilized in your livestock production during last season. (Information utilization)
29.1) Information utilization in current season
SN Type of information Amount of information utilized
1 synchronization
2 Livestock food preparation
3 Livestock marketing
4 Disease control
5
Amount of information utilized:
5) All information/most intensively 4) some information/most intensively
3) Some information/less intensively 2) some information/rarely 1) only some information/very
rarely
83

30. Information source and its use pattern:
(Indicate how frequently you use the following sources to get information on Market accesses
livestock production)
SN Information source Frequency of use
Always
(2)
Sometimes
(1)
Never
(0)
1 MOA Office
2 NGOs existing in the area
3 Pastoralists’ cooperatives
4 Peasant associations
5 Development Agents
6 Neighbors/Friends
7 Religious institutions
8 Other Pastoralists
9 Brokers
10 Training, Demonstration &
Field Days
11 Pastoral Days
12 Traders
13 Rural radio program
14 Others (specify)
84

31. Perceived importance of the information source:
(Indicate how you perceive the importance of the following sources to get information on Market
accesses livestock production
SN Information source Importance
Very important
(2)
1 MOA Office
2 NGOs existing in the area
Somewhat
important (1)
Not important
(0)
3 Pastoralists’ cooperatives
4 Peasant associations
5 Development Agents
6 Neighbors/Friends
7 Religious institutions
8 Other Pastoralists
9 Brokers
10 Training, Demonstration &
Field Days
11 Pastoral Days
12 Traders
13 Rural radio program
14 Others (specify)
85

32. Closeness of information source:
(Indicate how close to you the following sources to get information on Market accesses livestock
production)
SN Information source Closeness
Very close (2)
Somewhat
close (1)
Far (0)
Not close
1 MOA Office
2 NGOs existing in the area
3 Pastoralists’ cooperatives
4 Peasant associations
5 Development Agents
6 Neighbors/Friends
7 Religious institutions
8 Other Pastoralists
9 Brokers
10 Training, Demonstration &
Field Days
11 Pastoral Days
12 Traders
13 Rural radio program
14 Others (specify)
86

33. Perceived value of information
(Indicate how much valuable is the information from the following sources)
SN Information source Perceived value for information obtained
Very valuable
(2)
Somewhat valuable
(1)
Not
valuable (0)
1 MOA Office
2 NGOs existing in the area
3 Pastoralists’ cooperatives
4 Peasant associations
5 Development Agents
6 Neighbors/Friends
7 Religious institutions
8 Other Pastoralists
9 Brokers
10 Training, Demonstration &
Field Days
11 Pastoral Days
12 Traders
13 Rural radio program
14 Others (specify)
87

IV. EXTENSION PARTICIPATION
34. Have you ever participated in extension planning last year?
1=Yes 0 =No
34.1 If not, why?
1. Not invited to participate
2. No interest in the program
3. Others specify__________________________________
34.2 If yes, in what area of planning you have participated.
1. Evaluation of the market accesses 2. Current situation analysis
3. Market Problem identification 4. Setting alternative solution
5. Setting plan 6. Others specify, ______________________________
34. 3 If yes, what was your contribution in extension planning?
1. Information supply
2. Need identification
3. Listener
4. Others specify____________________
34. Have you ever participated in extension training last year?
1=Yes 0=No
35. Have you ever attended any pastoralists’ field day last year?
1=Yes 0=No
36.1. If not, why?
88

1. Not invited to participate
2. No interest in the program
3. Others specify___________________
V.SITUATIONAL FACTOR
37. How far is your residence from the following institutions? (Distance from center)
SN Institutions In kilo meter In hour
1 Town
2 Market
3 Worda Head quarter (
center)
38. Do you have transportation facility in your area? 1) Yes 0) No
38.1. If yes, 1) Public 2) Private 3) Trucks 4) lorry
39. Do you have settle residence? 1) Yes 0) No
40. How far is your livestock farm from your residence? In Kilo meter_______ in hour ______
VI.SOCIO- CULTURAL FACTORS
41. How frequently do you visit a nearby town or city? (Cosmo politeness)
1. Daily (4)
89

2. Most often (3)
3. Once a week (2)
4. Sometimes (1)
5. Never (0)
42. What is the purpose of the visit?
1. Agricultural related like purchase/shopping/marketing (4)
2. To visit friends/relatives (3)
3. To get medical treatment (2)
4. Entertainment (1)
5 .Any other purpose (specify) _______purchase drinking alcohol and bordi_________________
43. Are you involved in any activities of formal and informal institutions/ Organizations in your
area? (Social participation) 1= Yes 0= No
43.1. If yes, type of institutions/ organizations and type of membership
SN Organization/ institution Frequency of
participation
43.1.1 Parent committee in villages /neighbor woreda
43.1.2 Pastoral cooperatives
43.1.3 Religious organizations (Mosque/ church)
43.1.4 Informal associations (Idir, Ekub. Mahber
43.1.5 Peasant association
43.1.6 Women’s association
43.1.7 HIV club
43.1.8 Others (Specify)
Frequency of participation: 0= Never 1= Sometimes 2= whenever conducted
Office bearer
/Member
Office bear = 1 Member = 2
90

44. With whom do you share the information you have about market accesses?
(Livestock production)
SN Type of information With whom do How frequently you share
you share
(can have more
than one response)
1 synchronization
2 Livestock food preparation
3 Livestock marketing
4 Disease control
5
6
1= Neighbors 2= Friends/ relatives 3= Husband 4= other family members 5= others
0= Never 2= Sometime 3= Frequently
VII.PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS
45. What do you know about market accesses? (Knowledge test)
45.1 What is the recommended market accesses and livestock production?
1. ________________ 2. __________________
45.2 How many times weeding is required ___________________
45.3 What are the timings of livestock production food preparation? _________________
45. 4 what are the recommended synchronization __________
45. 5 recommended l for livestock disease control? ________________
91

46. How is your feeling to achieve something? (Achievement motivation)
46.1 How true it is to say that your
True
Undecided
Not true
efforts are directed towards
(3)
(2)
(1)
success
46.2 How often do you seek
Always
Sometimes
Never
opportunity to excel?
(3)
(2)
(1)
46.3 Would you hesitate to
Never
Sometimes
Always
undertake something difficult?
(3)
(2)
(1)
46.4 In how many occasions your
Mostly
Sometimes
Never
efforts lead to your failures
(1)
(2)
(3
46.5 In how many situations do
Mostly
Sometimes
Never
you think you will succeed in
(3)
(2)
(1)
doing as much as you can
47. To what degree do you agree on the following statements? (Pastoralist’s attitude towards
market accesses livestock production)
SN Statements Measurement Scale
47.1 To bring about substantial
Strongly
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
improvement in livestock
agree (5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
Disagree (1)
production, it is a necessary to use
the recommended market accesses
48.2 Market accesses’ will help to
Strongly
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
improve my income and livelihood.
agree
(4)
(3)
(2)
Disagree
(5)
(1)
49.3 Market accesses success is
Strongly
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
uncertain and hence using it is risky
agree
(2)
(3)
(4)
Disagree
(1)
(5)
50.4 Using Market accesses’ is the only
Strongly
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly
way to maximize productivity in the
agree
(4)
(3)
(2)
Disagree
92

available livestock production (5) (1)
51.5 Market accesses is a wastage of
money and effort
Strongly
agree
(1)
Agree
(4)
Undecided
(3)
Disagree
(2)
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Group Discussion
48. Discuses in market accesses in pastoral community livestock production.
49. Discuses in market days.
50. Discuses in infrastructure to contribute and barriers in marketing.
51. Discuses in traders and brokers practice livestock production in pastoral community.
52. Discuses in Major actors and their function in livestock Market ;-
52.1 Pastoralist-Broker-Small trader
52.2 Pastoralist-Collectors
52.3 Pastoralist-Brokers
52.4 Pastoralist-broker-informal trader
52.5 Pastoralists-Other Pastoralists
52.6 Pastoralists-Broker-Festival Consumer
52.7 Pastoralists-Broker-Butchers
It helps to draw information about to which extent the Market accesses in pastoral community
livestock production.
93

Appendix3, logit, VIF, regression and marginal effect, Goodness of fit of the model ( estat
gof), estat vif (multicollinearity), estat ovtest(omitted variable) the variables.
Table 1, logit model regression in market access
. logit maaccess age edulevel acmo sopa Wealth mameexp inshbe transfacility difrma
> difrce
Iteration 0: log likelihood = -58.351933
Iteration 1: log likelihood = -44.485744
Iteration 2: log likelihood = -40.023177
Iteration 3: log likelihood = -39.925684
Iteration 4: log likelihood = -39.925515
Iteration 5: log likelihood = -39.925515
Logistic regression Number of obs = 126
LR chi2 (10) = 36.85
Prob > chi2 = 0.0001
Log likelihood = -39.925515 Pseudo R2 = 0.3158
maaccess Coef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf.
Interval]
age .0374558 .0241117 1.55 0.120 -.0098023 .084714
edulevel -.9842543 .492733 -2.00 0.046 -1.949993 -.0185153
acmo -.9187925 .9100673 -1.01 0.313 -2.702492 .8649065
sopa -.9864133 .469539 -2.10 0.036 -1.906693 -.0661339
Wealth -.0164497 .0062721 -2.62 0.009 -.0287428 -.0041566
mameexp -.4842865 .5835225 -0.83 0.407 -1.62797 .6593966
94

inshbe 2.061819 .55681 3.70 0.000 .9704914 3.153146
Transfacility .5547259 .7579608 0.73 0.464 -.9308499 2.040302
difrma -.039163 .0302929 -1.29 0.196 -.0985359 .0202099
difrce -.0652878 .028842 -2.26 0.024 -.1218171 -.0087584
_cons 1.036691 2.128783 0.49 0.626 -3.135646 5.209029
Tabel 2, Marginal effects after logit market access
. mfx
Marginal effects after logit
y = Pr(maaccess) (predict)
= .07027043
variable dy/dx Std. Err. z P>z [ 95% C.I. ] X
age .0024471 .00156 1.56 0.118 -.000619 .005513 38.7698
edulevel -.0643038 .03015 -2.13 0.033 -.123392 -.005216 1.55556
acmo -.060027 .06074 -0.99 0.323 -.179067 .059013 1.15079
Sopa -.0644448 .03435 -1.88 0.061 -.131761 .002871 1.72222
Wealth -.001074 .00042 -2.54 0.011 -.001903 -.000246 64.5397
mameexp -.0316396 .03806 -0.83 0.406 -.106232 .042952 1.43651
inshbe .1347038 .04568 2.95 0.003 .045174 .224234 1.53175
transf~y* .0428331 .06751 0.63 0.526 -.089489 .175155 .15873
Difrma -.0025586 .002 -1.28 0.202 -.006485 .001368 20.3333
difrce -.0042654 .00192 -2.22 0.027 -.008037 -.000494 22.619
(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1
95

Table 3, Post estimation tests for the logit model Market access
Goodness of fit of the model
. estat gof
Logistic model for maaccess, goodness-of-fit test
Number of observations = 126
Number of covariate patterns = 126
Pearson chi2 (115) = 236.70
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
Table 4, Variance Inflation Factor
Variable VIF 1/VIF
Difrma 1.34 0.744748
edulevel 1.26 0.796711
age 1.23 0.812665
Inshbe 1.20 0.835211
difrce 1.19 0.839776
sopa 1.13 0.881173
Acmo 1.10 0.906267
transfacil~y 1.08 0.923137
mameexp 1.07 0.932487
Wealth 1.07 0.936442
Mean VIF 1.17
96

Table 5, Post estimation tests for the multiple regressions yearly sale (income)
estat vif (multicollinearity)
The result of the test has shown that there is no any multicollinerity problem
Variable VIF 1/VIF
Wealth 1.49 0.669490
lnfsize 1.45 0.691793
lnedulevel 1.30 0.768882
maaccess 1.30 0.769828
lnage 1.20 0.834595
difrma 1.18 0.844113
inshbe 1.17 0.852894
knlipr 1.13 0.888179
Mean VIF 1.28
Tabele 6 estat ovtest(omitted variable) yearly sale (income)
There is no any omitted variable in the model
Ramsey RESET test using powers of the fitted values of lnYsale
Ho: model has no omitted variables
F(3, 114) = 9.30
Prob > F = 0.0000
.
97

Appendix 4 Market Canals and number of Formal and Informal trade Areas
Maji tume
Maji worda
Formal
Market
area
Jeba worda
jeba twon
Koka surma
worda koka
kebele
Maji tume
Maji worda and
other kebeles
Jeba worda
bero kebele
jeba twon and
other kebele
Jeba worda berha
kebele gabisa,
shola, gesena, siyali
Informal market
Koka ,
kibish and
othre
surma
worda
Knowbering
worda shasha
ande guraferda
Dima worda
Dima town
98