Climate Smart Agriculture in Ethiopia. Climate Smart Agriculture Country Profiles for Africa Series

Abstract

The climate-smart agriculture (CSA) concept reflects an ambition to improve the integration of agriculture development and climate responsiveness. It aims to achieve food security and broader development goals under a changing climate and increasing food demand. CSA initiatives sustainably increase productivity, enhance resilience, and reduce/remove greenhouse gases (GHGs), and require planning to address trade-offs and synergies between these three pillars: productivity, adaptation, and mitigation.

Full text

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) considerations
• The agriculture sector is the backbone of Ethiopia’s economy
and livelihoods. Yet, heavy reliance on rain-fed systems has
made the sector particularly vulnerable to variability in rainfall
and temperature. Climate change may decrease national gross
domestic product (GDP) by 8–10% by 2050, but adaptation ac tion
in the agriculture could cut climate shock-related losses by half.
• Climate risk management interventions and long-term adaptation
actions need to match localized vulnerabilities and impacts. The
drought-prone highland areas are likely to experience more
intense and irregular rainfall, affecting yields of slow maturing,
long-cycle crops; however, the higher altitude moisture-sufficient
parts of the highlands where cereal production is dominant are
expec ted to increase in su itability a nd productiv ity of some cereals .
Increased temperatures and extended drought periods are likely
to negatively affect the lowlands, posing particular challenges to
already vulnerable pastoral and agropastoral populations.
• Smallholder farmers produce over 90% of the agricultural output
in Ethiopi a. Despite high usage of t raditional product ion methods,
there is evidence of increased use of organic fertilizers, adoption
of crop varieties with higher resistance/tolerance to drought,
pests, and diseases, and improved livestock feeding practices, as
attempts to increase productivity and resilience, but also with co-
benefits in terms of reducing agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
• Given the country’s poverty and food insecurity challenges,
priorities for economic growth and increased resilience have
pushed mitigation effor ts backstage. Less than one-fifth of
the climate finance is directed to mitigation efforts, mostly
through renewable energy. Increased investments in agricultural
practices that bring about mitigation co-benefits would bring out
agriculture’s role as a lead sector in low-emissions development.
• A large proportion of the country’s land area is undergoing some
form of soil er osion or land degradatio n, hence CSA-related ef forts
P
A
P
A
M
P
A
Climate-Smart Agriculture in Ethiopia
have been focused on restoring degraded lands through soil and
water conservation measures, agroforestry, farmer-managed
natural regeneration (FMNR), area closures, and dissemination
of improved varieties. Such CSA practices and technologies
are largely supported by the government and its development
partners, through research and development, rural extension and
advisory services as well as direct implementation. Many of these
practices are implemented within the framework of the integrated
watershed management approach through projects such as the
Sustainable Land Management Programme (SLMP).
• Adoption levels of some CSA practices and technologies, such
as conservation agriculture and agroforestry, among smallholder
farmers remain low. Increased public and private support
to enable access to improved inputs, equipment, credit and
insurance schemes is needed to boost farmers’ ability to manage
risks and invest in long-term climate actions.
• Highly fragmented land units are not suited for effective
implementation of some CS A practices, while land tenure regi mes
can significantly hinder credit access for smallholders. Ethiopia
has made great effort to issue land certificates to smallholder
farmers, and such programmes should be accompanied by
sensitization of farmers and microfinance providers on the costs
and benef its of investing in on- farm climate-smar t and sustainable
land management practices.
• Through an ambitious policy framework built largely on the
Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) Strategy and an
enabling institutional infrastructure, Ethiopia has taken major
steps towards mainstreaming climate change into agricultural
planning. To demonstrate its unwavering commitments to green
growth and food security and operationalize strategies and
plans, additional national and international resources need to be
mobilized over the next years, to fill existing financial gaps.
M
$
I
$
$
I
I
$
I
The climate-smart agriculture (CSA) concept reflects an ambition
to improve the integration of agriculture development and climate
responsiveness. It aims to achieve food security and broader
development goals under a changing climate and increasing food
demand. CSA initiatives sustainably increase productivity, enhance
resilience, and reduce/remove greenhouse gases (GHGs), and
require planning to address trade-offs and synergies between these
three pillars: productivity, adaptation, and mitigation [1].
The priorities of different countries and stakeholders are reflected
to achieve more efficient, effective, and equitable food systems
that address challenges in environmental, social, and economic
dimensions across productive landscapes. While the concept is
new, and still evolving, many of the practices that make up CSA
already exist worldwide and are used by farmers to cope with
various production risks [2]. Mainstreaming CSA requires critical
stocktaking of ongoing and promising practices for the future,
and of institutional and financial enablers for CSA adoption. This
country profile provides a snapshot of a developing baseline created
to initiate discussion, both within countries and globally, about entry
points for investing in CSA at scale.
PProductivity
AAdaptation MMitigation Institutions
I $ Finance

2Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile
1 Taking into account 2011-2015 averages. It is worthwhile noting that agricultural GDP has been declining since 2012, from 48% to 40% in 2015.
National context
Economic relevance of agriculture
Agriculture is the mainstay of Ethiopia’s economy and the primary
source of employment for its population. The agriculture sector
has contributed approximately 44% to the gross domestic product
(GDP) over the past 5 years1 [3] and employed more than three
quarters of the economically active population [4]. The livestock
sector, one of the largest in the world in terms of animal heads,
contributes 16–20% to the national GDP and represents a key
subsistence source for some 10 million pastoralists [5]. Roughly
90% of total exports earnings [4] come from agriculture, especially
through the commercialization of coffee, livestock products
(hides, skins), and seeds and pulses. Cereal production is mostly
for subsistence, with any excess sold to cater for other household
needs such as education and healthcare.
Economic relevance of agriculture
in Ethiopia [3, 6]
People, agriculture and livelihoods
in Ethiopia [3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
People, agriculture, and livelihoods
Ethiopia’s population has been increasing rapidly over the past
four decades, from 35 million in the 1980s to 99.4 million in 2015
[3]. The large majority of the population (82%) lives in rural areas,
in the country’s highlands. The lowlands are mostly populated by
pastoralists and agropastoralists.
Poverty rates in the country have decreased from 45% in 1995 to
29.6% in 2010 [3]. However, access to basic resources remains
tight. Roughly 65% of all households and 54% of rural households
have access to improved water resources; the rest of the population
relies on water from ponds, streams and rivers. Almost half (48%)
of all women in the country have no formal education, while 28%
of men are without a formal education [4]. Illiteracy levels among
farmers are high at 55% [4].

3
Ethiopia
Land use in Ethiopia [3 , 6]
Land use
Ethiopia’s land area totals 1.1 million square kilometers (km2).
Agricultural area occupies around 35% of total land area. Through the
Constitution, the State owns all rural land and farmers have land-use
rights.
There are approximately 17.5 million agricultural land holders2 in the
country, occupying 18 million hectares of land. Women represent
only 19% of total agricultural land holders. Most farm holders are
smallholder (farm sizes less than two hectares [ha])3 and they produce
the large majority (over 90%) of the gross agricultural outputs in the
country [4]. As land has been fragmented to satisfy the needs of new
generations, most smallholder farms are between 0.5 and 2 hectares in
size. The small plot sizes in the country are often insufficient to enable
household food security or adequate income to invest in improved
farming methods [5]. Large, commercial farms (over 10 ha) are not
widespread; extending over 1.2% of the total agricultural land area and
contributing less than 5% of gross agricultural output [11].
There has been a steady increase in area under grain crops (cereals,
pulses, oilseeds) over the past decades, from 10 million hectares in
2005/2006, to 12.4 million hectares in 2014/2015 [4]. Agricultural
expansion has been carried out at the expense of natural resources
availability and quality (particularly forests, water and soils). For
example, in the highlands, where most Ethiopians live, over 40% of the
land area is said to be undergoing some form of soil erosion, causing
topsoil losses of over 1,493 million t/year and affecting regional and
national crop production [12]. Unsustainable open grazing practices
have also led to pasture degradation.
Forests occupy approximately 12.3% of total land area, and some
evidence shows between 1990 and 2005 deforestation rates averaged
140,000 hectares per year [13]. The decrease in vegetation cover and
disturbance of the natural ecosystem have caused widespread soil
degradation, contributing to decline in soil organic matter (SOM) and
nutrient stocks [14]. In the lowlands4 and midlands, over 19 million
ha of fertile and uncultivated land is estimated to be available for
agricultural investments [15].
2 “Holder” here is defined by the capacity to manage and make decisions over agricultural land [4].
3 Official statistics report 14.5–15 million farmers holding less than 2 hectares during the main season 2015/16 [4].
4 Lowlands are normally stated as lying between 500 m and 1,500 m.a.s.l., the midlands are said to be between approximately 1,600 and 2,000 m.a.s.l.
Agricultural production systems
Ethiopia’s proximity to the equator and its wide range of altitudes
reflect distinct climate and agro-ecological conditions that favor the
production of a diversity of agricultural goods, while at the same
time posing challenges for technology development and targeting,
mechanization and agricultural input (e.g. fertilizer) recommendations.
The most commonly used categorization of Ethiopia’s agricultural
production systems refers to five main agro-ecological zones (AEZs),
namely, “moisture reliable cereal-based highlands” (where the majority
of the farmers live), “moisture reliable enset-based highlands,”
“drought-prone highlands,” “humid lowlands,” and “pastoralist areas”
[16], Annex 1.
Cereals such as barley, maize, sorghum, wheat, and teff extend over
three quarters of the country’s cultivated land area and constitute
the main source of food and income for the majority of smallholder
farmers. Being a staple food for Ethiopians, teff accounts for 28%
of the total cultivated area; it has traditionally been cultivated in the
highlands, but it is quite adaptable to lower elevations and a variety of
moisture, temperature and soil conditions. Maize is also grown by a
large majority of farmers for food, fodder and sales; with its production
volume being the highest among all crops. Sorghum and wheat each
occupy around 17% of the grain-cultivated land. Sorghum has high
tolerance to drought and high temperatures, but is less suitable for
Ethiopia’s high-altitude areas due to the cold temperatures, which are
not favourable for the crop. Cultivated areas higher than 2,500 m.a.s.l.
are almost exclusively dedicated to barley and wheat, which represent
key components of the country’s diet, and grown using many local
varieties [17].
Faba beans are the most widely produced legumes across the country,
representing an important protein source for rural populations.
Chickpea production follows close behind, accounting for nearly 46%
of the continent’s production, the highest in Africa [18]. Potatoes are
a high-potential staple root crop, and while production averages are
currently low, the crop remains a large contributor to food security.
Coffee is an important cash crop, contributing an average of 33% of
the country’s agricultural exports by value between 2009 and 2013 [6].
The majority of rural households (around 88%) hold livestock, especially
local and indigenous cattle breeds [19]. Cattle heads are estimated
at 53.9 million [20], while other livestock types amount to over
100 million heads [21], making the country home to one of the largest
livestock populations on the continent. Half of the country’s cattle
stocks and a quarter of other livestock are owned by approximately
10 million pastoralists that occupy the lowland peripheral areas [5].
Cattle rely greatly on natural pastures as livestock feed [22], although
in the highlands crop residues are a main source of livestock feed.
Livestock are crucial in Ethiopia as a source of draught power, social
protection, and food and nutrition security (meat, milk and eggs),
while leather and leather products from cattle, goat and sheep hides
comprise major import revenue earners for the country.
The following infographic shows a selection of agriculture production
systems key for Ethiopia’s food security. The importance is based
on the system’s contribution to economic, productivity and nutrition
quality indicators. For more information on the methodology for the
production system selection, consult Annex 2.

4Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile
Agricultural input use in Ethiopia [3, 6]
Production systems key for food security in Ethiopia [3, 6, 23]
Fertilizers (organic and inorganic), supplied mainly by parastatals,
traders and private organizations, among others, were used over
a half of the cultivated area in the 2015/16 season. Almost 70% of
the fertilizers used were inorganic,5 and were applied for cereals;
with high organic and inorganic fertilizer use being recorded for
teff, wheat and maize [4]. Overall Ethiopia’s average fertilizer
use stands at approximately 21 tons per hectares, above the
sub-Saharan average of 15 tons per hectare.
Although improved seeds of most cereals and pulses are available to
smallholders, use of purchased improved seed is quite uncommon
among smallholder farmers; in the 2015/16 season, improved
seed area accounted for only 10.7% of the total cereal growing
area, and this was mostly (83%) related to maize production [4].
Agricultural systems are almost exclusively rain-fed. Of an irrigation
potential of approximately 2.7 million hectares of land, only 2-3%
of the cropland is currently irrigated [5, 24]. In 2015/16, roughly
1.4 million farmers (180,000 ha of cultivated land) used irrigation
for crop cultivation, mainly from rivers and natural ponds, and, to
lesser extents, through installed water harvesting systems. Most of
this irrigated area was for maize, sorghum and coffee production,
[4] while sugarcane, potato and vegetables, such as onions and
tomatoes, are also among the commonly irrigated crops. However,
the country is endowed with huge water resources (springs and
rivers), and their irrigation potential is highly underused.
5 Urea; DAP – Diamonium Phosphate; and NSP – superphosphate.

5
Ethiopia
Food security, nutrition and health
Vulnerability to poverty and food insecurity varies across Ethiopia’s
regions and is related to factors such as distance to input and output
markets; access to productive assets; size, quality and productivity of
land; household education levels and climatic factors. Households
headed by women are particularly vulnerable, since, compared
to men, they are less likely to own land and receive education.
The moisture-reliable lowlands, pastoral areas and drought-prone
highlands are among the regions most vulnerable to food poverty.
Although it may seem counterintuitive that the moisture-reliable
lowlands are vulnerable to food poverty, the region is classified as
having the greatest proportion of poor people in the country [25]. In
the pastoral and drought-prone highlands, in addition to poverty, lack
of assets and low education; exposure to climate shocks is also high.
Pervasive poverty and food insecurity in rural households has also
triggered a relatively high dependence on emergency food aid, in
order to increase domestic food supply. Ethiopia is still one of the
largest recipients of food aid in Africa, with a 2014 estimate indicating
that the country receives around 27% of the global food aid given to
sub-Saharan Africa [26]. Most of the food aid has been channeled to
the country’s north and less so to the south and south-east areas [27].
Household surveys have however shown, that the share of food in
total expenditures is declining (fell from 60% in 1996 to 48% in 2011),
while the quantities consumed (per adult equivalent) have increased
by 55% [28].
In response to high poverty and vulnerability in the country, the
Government of Ethiopia has implemented the Productive Safety
Net Programme (PSNP), a component of the Government’s Food
Security program (FSP)6 to support between 7 and 12 million people
every year [29]. The programme is regarded as the largest social
protection programme in Africa and is based on a cash or food
for work principle. The programme has had some positive effects,
with poverty rates having fallen significantly and the Global Hunger
Index (GHI) score reduced from 43 in 2008 to 33 in 2016.7 However,
undernourishment rates remain high (at 32%) and 27% of children
under five are underweight. Roughly 57% of childhood deaths are
associated with malnutrition [30]. Ethiopia ranks 98th among the
113 countries in the Food Security Index (FSI),8 with a score that has
not changed significantly over the past 5 years. Recent efforts have
also been made to integrate climate-smart agriculture into the PSNP.
On the positive side, as of 2015, Ethiopia was one of 12 African
countries that had achieved the Millennium Development Goal (MDG)
1C target of halving the proportion of undernourished between 1990/92
and 2015, as well as making some progress to achieving the World
Food Summit (WFS) target of halving the total number of chronically
undernourished [31]. Despite making progress towards ending hunger,
malnutrition and poverty, as of 2011, 44% of children under five were
still stunted and 29 percent were underweight. From a nutrition quality
perspective, the diets of rural households are composed mainly of
cereals and tubers. Despite a large livestock population, consumption
of livestock products is low in rural areas, except for the pastoral areas,
where milk is a major component of the diet.9
Food security, nutrition, and health
in Ethiopia [3, 6, 32, 33, 34, 35]
Uganda
6 The PSNP was launched in 2005 and it’s now in its fourth Phase. It targets three
main AEZs, namely enset lowlands, drought-prone highlands, and pastoral areas
and covers approximately 7.9 million individuals.
7 The GHI score takes into account undernourishment rates of the entire population
and stunting, wasting and death rates among children under the age of five. The
higher the GHI score, the higher the level of hunger.
8 The FSI takes into account aspects of food availability, affordability, quality and
safety of food.
9 FAO Nutrition Country Profile for Ethiopia http://bit.ly/2AmOZmy

6Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile
Greenhouse gas emissions in Ethiopia [3, 6]
Greenhouse gas emissions
Total annual emissions in Ethiopia amount to 144 Mt CO2eq,10
the equivalent of approximately 0.3% of global emissions, while
per capita emissions are similarly low, amounting to 2 tons of
CO2eq annually. The agricultural sector in the country is a major
contributor to national emissions, accounting for approximately
60% of total emissions. Given that Ethiopia has the largest
livestock population in Africa and has one of the largest livestock
herds in the world [11], most of the agricultural GHG emissions
emanate from livestock-related activities (methane and nitrous
oxide emissions from enteric fermentation and manure left on
pastures respectively), which account for almost 92% of agricultural
emissions. Crop-related emissions are associated primarily with
burning of natural vegetation, cultivation of organic soils and the
use of synthetic fertilizer. Most emissions from the forest sector are
associated with deforestation for the expansion of agricultural land
[6, 15, 36].
In 2011, in response to the need to reduce emissions, develop
a green economy and build greater resilience to climate change,
the Government of Ethiopia developed the Climate Resilient Green
Economy (CRGE) Strategy. One of the CRGE’s main objectives
is to reduce per capita emissions by a third by 2030, along the
larger goal of advancing the economy and bringing Ethiopia to a
middle-income status country [15]. Furthermore, according to the
Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) prepared and
submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat in 2015, the country plans
to reduce its annual level of emissions by 64% by 2030 compared
to the business-as-usual scenario projection for 400 Mt CO2eq; a
significant portion of this being from the agriculture (90 Mt CO2eq
reduction) and forestry (130 Mt CO2eq reduction) sectors [37].
Low uptake of technologies is not only driven by a lack of financial
resources for initial investments and/or maintenance, but also by
the existing land tenure system. Farmers find few incentives and
opportunities to invest in improved management practices on
land that is insecure,11 whose area is constantly diminishing and
fragmenting as a result of continuous population growth [38]. Some
farming practices, such as agroforestry, may not be suitable for
implementation on small pieces of land as farmers aim to maximize
land under cultivation of the main crop. Additionally, small plot size
often impede credit access and at times may act as a disincentive
for the use of improved seeds and fertilizer [39]. Small land sizes
also place a constraint on mechanization; smallholder investments
in mechanization and uptake of technological innovations therefore
being low and insufficient to improve farm efficiency, and increase
productivity and profitability.
Food losses, which contribute to decreased availability of food in
households and in markets, also result from inadequate storage
facilities, pests and climate hazards. Some reports have indicated
post-harvest losses for horticultural crops of as high as 40%
[40], posing a threat to food security, incomes and profitability of
producers.
10 This includes emissions from Land-Use Change and Forestry (LUCF) sectors.
11 In Ethiopia, land tenure insecurity is reflected by the Government’s ownership of the land resources and the subsequent distribution to farmers, without any contractual
arrangements. However, over the past years, land-use certificates have commenced to be issued.
Challenges for the agricultural sector
The agricultural sector in Ethiopia is faced by a number of
challenges, centered largely on increased pressure over natural
resources (driven by a rapidly growing population and demand
for food), which has led to land degradation on over 40 million
hectares of land [21], declines in soil fertility and high rates of soil
erosion, particularly in the highlands.
In addition, low agricultural yields have been associated with
unfavorable climate conditions in some parts of the country
(including climate shocks such as droughts and floods), which
have had adverse effects on the natural resource base (e.g. soil
erosion caused by intense rains) as well as on the livelihoods of rural
populations who have limited resources ability to invest in resilience
building and adaptation strategies.
Asked about the causes of crop damage in the 2015/16 crop survey,
most farmers reported shortage of rain (57% of all farmers reporting
crop damage), diseases and pests (18%), frost or floods (9%), weeds
(7%), hailstone (7%), excessive rain (5%), wild animals (5%), and
other factors (20%) as the main contributors to crop damage and
even loss. Shortage of rain mostly affected cereals [4] but is also a
significant factor in livestock production; affecting the availability of
water, fodder and pasture with impacts on animal health and the
nutrition and food security of pastoralists and agropastoralists.

7
Ethiopia
Agriculture and climate change
Temperature and rainfall vary across the main regions of Ethiopia.
There is a trend of decreasing temperatures and increasing rainfall
from the lowlands in the south- and north-east to the central and
upper highlands; with rainfall reaching over 2000 mm annually in
the southwestern highlands compared to as low as 300 mm in
the lowlands. The regions also experience very different seasonal
regimes: while the June–September wet season (also known as the
Kiremt season, with rainfall reaching as high as 350 mm/month) is
common throughout most of the country, farmers and pastoralists
in the North and the Centre rely yearly on an additional short wet
season from February–May known as the Belg season. The South
is exposed to rains between February–May and October–December
(the Bega season), while rains are very scarce in the far eastern parts
of the country [41].
Analyses of historic climate data (1981–2014) revealed the occurrence
of more frequent droughts, increases in mean temperatures, more
erratic rainfall, and more frequent heavy rains [42, 43]. These
changes have had an impact on farmer livelihoods as well as on
national economic performance. For example, studies have shown a
close relationship between annual rainfall variability and agricultural
GDP as well as affecting overall GDP growth.12 Droughts in particular
have had great impact on farmers’ livelihoods. In terms of impact
on livelihoods, the 1984 and 2003 droughts affected 7.5 and
12.6 million people respectively [43]. Losses from the 2006 floods
amounted to US$3 million, 800 human lives, and 20,000 homes
[44]. More recently, the El Niño event in 2015/16 resulted in Ethiopia
experiencing one of the worst drought in decades, with over
10.2 million people estimated to be in need of food aid [45].
Projected changes in temperature and precipitation in Ethiopia by 2050 [49, 50, 51]
These events led to crop damage, animal loss, loss of livelihoods,
migration to urban areas and increases in malnutrition.
In terms of future trends, projections using any of the four main
GHG emissions scenarios used by the IPCC indicate a continued
increase in mean temperature throughout the entire country, with
the greatest increases expected to be experienced in the northern
parts of the country. Higher variability of rainfall is also expected,
with rains becoming more unpredictable, more unreliable, and more
intense [46]. Future climate projections are also broadly consistent
in indicating increases in annual rainfall for Ethiopia as a whole, with
these increases being greatest in the southern and southeastern
parts of the country and least in the central and northern parts of
the country. These increases are largely a result of increasing rainfall
during the short rainfall season (October–December) in southern
Ethiopia, which is projected to increase between 10 and 70% on
average.
The possible impacts of these changes on agricultural production in
the country include, among others, the following:
• Changes in water availability for crop and livestock production.
• Increased competition and conflicts over pasture and water for
livestock.
• Geographical shifts and reductions in areas suitable for
production of teff, maize, barley and sorghum [47].
• Shifts from livestock rearing to crop cultivation, from nomadic
to sedentary livestock keeping, and/or from pastoralist to
agropastoralist [48].
12 http://go.nature.com/2Bdh6FU
Changes in annual mean temperature (°C) Changes in total precipitation (%)
Average precipitation (%)Average temperature (°C)

8Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile
Projected change in suitable area in Ethiopia
(2040-2069)
CSA technologies and practices
CSA practices present opportunities for addressing climate change
challenges, while simultaneously supporting economic growth and
development of the agriculture sector. For this profile, practices
are considered climate smart if they maintain or achieve increases
in productivity as well as at least one of the other objectives of
climate-smart agriculture (adaptation and mitigation). Hundreds of
technologies and practices around the world fall under the heading
of CSA [2].
Although traditional agricultural techniques such as repeated tillage,
usage of ox-drawn wooden ploughs, low yielding crop varieties
and traditional animal breeds are still common, Ethiopian farmers
have begun to adopt new, improved technologies in both crop and
livestock production systems. For crop production, there are efforts
to promote organic fertilizer use and precise fertilizer application as
opposed to the use of blanket fertilizer recommendations, while use
of improved (drought- and heat-tolerant) cereal varieties (teff, maize,
sorghum, wheat and barley) and crop rotations are increasingly
being practiced. For pulses (faba beans and chickpea), the use of
improved varieties, application of biofertilizers and development of
cropping calendars informed by meteorological data are among the
CSA practices being implemented. For coffee production, irrigation,
mulching and agroforestry (tree shade) comprise key climate-
smart practices. For agroforestry in coffee production, some key
considerations for success include choice of tree, planting density
and canopy management.
For livestock, the use of improved breeds (hybrids or crossbreeds),
changing to more resilient animal types (goats), fodder conservation
and feed production are common practices. These livestock
management practices are also being combined with broader
sustainable land management practices such as improved rangeland
management, controlled grazing, planting of fodder trees and area
closures,13 which are implemented for environmental, economic and
social benefits. For example, area closures in Ethiopia have been found
to improve soils and natural vegetation, regulate floods, improve
soil fertility, provide alternate income in the form of beekeeping
and provide a source of fodder (cut-and-carry system) for livestock.
These benefits are in addition to the carbon sequestration benefits
that accrue as the land fills with vegetation [52]. Improved animal
veterinary services and the training of community animal health
workers (paravets) are also being promoted as a means of supporting
overall livestock health and resilience to climate hazards, as well as
improved efficiency of production. Many of the crop- and livestock-
based CSA practices also help build system’s resistance to pests and
diseases, such as in the case of drought-tolerant crop varieties and
livestock breeds, and the use of rotations in crop production.
In the broader Ethiopian context, climate-smart practices and
technologies are being implemented within the framework of
integrated watershed management, which incorporate a broad range
of practices in crop and livestock production including agroforestry,
crop rotation and intercropping [11] as well as broader soil and water
conservation measures such as soil/stone bunds, terracing, infiltration
ditches, and tie-ridges among others. It is important to note that
although soil conservation practices, such as reduced tillage and
crop rotations, have long been practised by farmers in Ethiopia, the
promotion of conservation agriculture as a package with associated
benefits has experienced various challenges related to knowledge,
technology and awareness that still need to be addressed [53].
In terms of adoption, most of the CSA practices and technologies
identified have low-to-medium on-farm adoption rates, despite their
potential benefits to adaptation, productivity increase and mitigation
efforts. Many of the key barriers to widespread adoption include
limited or no access to productive inputs (improved seeds and
fertilizer), lack of access to credit, lack of adequate machinery and
technology (e.g. row planters), low access to formal markets to sell
produce, and limited extension service quality and access particularly
in relation to climate-smart agriculture. Low participation in extension
services programmes has also been noted; driven by factors such as
“suspicion of efficacy,” insufficient arable land, and unavailability of
programs that suit the farmers’ needs [4] as well as limited technical
capacity by the extension agents on issues such as climate change
adaptation. Low access to and use of credit is mostly associated with
inability to repay the loan and lack of return on investments, both of
which can be addressed through conducting of cost–benefit analysis
of different CSA practices combined with sensitization of farmers
and microfinance providers on which practices to invest in, the likely
returns and the required repayment periods.
Uncontrolled and free grazing, which limits implementation of
some climate-smart practices (e.g. mulching), has been part of the
tradition and routine of farmers for generations. Switching to new,
improved feeding systems would require a change in perceptions
and attitudes [54], and additional efforts of extension workers to
share and demonstrate to farmers the benefits of practices such
as cut and carry. Capacity building of extension agents in the
on-field implementation of CSA technologies and practices, in
close cooperation with research institutions, becomes of utmost
importance for effective knowledge transfer to farmers.
The following graphics present a selection of CSA practices with
high climate smartness scores according to expert evaluations. The
average climate smartness score is calculated based on the individual
scores of each practice on eight climate smartness dimensions that
relate to the CSA pillars: yield (productivity); income, water, soil, risks/
information (adaptation); energy, carbon and nutrients (mitigation).
A practice can have a negative/ positive/ zero impact on a selected
CSA indicator, with 10 (+/-) indicating a 100% change (positive/
negative), and 0 indicating no change. Practices in the graphic have
been selected for each production system key to food security, as
identified in the study. A detailed explanation of the methodology and
a more comprehensive list of CSA practices can be found in Annexes
3 and 4, respectively.
13 Sometimes also referred to as exclosures.

9
Ethiopia
Selected CSA practices and technologies for production systems
key for food security in Ethiopia

10 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile
Case study of CSA in Ethiopia: the System of Teff Intensification (STI)
Teff (Eragrostis tef) is a staple cereal of Ethiopians’ diet, mainly grown by women and used primarily for making the
traditional fermented bread, injera. Planting involves the manual spread of very tiny seeds (approximately 2,500 per
gram) on repeatedly ploughed soil. This practice is labor intensive with low productivity (an average of just 1.5 ton
per hectare nationally).
In order to increase yields, the System of Teff Intensification (STI), an adaptation of the System of Rice Intensification
(SRI), was initiated in the 2008/09 season at the Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center, Central Ethiopia, by the
Sasakawa-Global 2000 program. In STI, young teff seedlings (20-days old) are transplanted at 20x20 cm spacing.
Organic and inorganic nutrients are also applied to the soil, to help improve yields and address inherent soil nutrient
deficiencies.
The Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA), a federal government agency, conducted STI demonstration trials at
two major centers for agricultural research in Ethiopia, Debre Zeit and Mekele, in collaboration with the local partner,
the Institute for Sustainable Development (ISD), and with partial funding from Oxfam America. Positive results from
the trials encouraged efforts to increase the number of demonstration plots in major teff-producing regions of
Oromia, Amhara, Tigray and SNNPR (Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples’ Region) [55].
From applying STI methods, farmers obtained average yields of 2.7 t/ha in the 2011/12 season (higher than
the 1.5 t/ha national average for broadcasted teff), while maximum yields amounted to approximately 5 t/ha.
In the subsequent year (2012/13 season), a new, less intensified approach, for the STI was tested by roughly
160,000 farmers who replaced transplanting with direct seeding. This approach, which usually requires wider
row spacing and the utilization of a mix of organic (compost) and inorganic (urea and diammonium phosphate
[DAP]) fertilizers to increase soil organic matter, resulted in average yields of 2.1 t/ha [56]. While these yields are
slightly lower than those for full STI implementation, direct-seeded STI requires less labor for sowing and weeding
and improves the balance of moisture and air in the soil [57]. The choice of STI approach, however, depends on the
farmer’s capabilities. Following these trials, the Ethiopian Government scaled out the STI management area to over
1 million hectares in the 2013/14 season.
System of Teff Intensification (STI) in Ethiopia showing high tillering.
(Photo: Cornell University, SRI International Net work and Resources Centre).

11
Ethiopia
CSA
practice
Region and
adoption
rate (%)
Predominant
farm scale
S: small scale
M: medium scale
L: large scale
Climate smartness Impact on CSA pillars
Teff (7.4% of total harvested area)
Precise
fertilizer
application:
type (organic/
inorganic),
time of
application,
placement,
amount
Highlands Productivity
Maintains or increases yield. Reduces
production costs.
Adaptation
Adequate, timing, amount, and placement
of inorganic fertilizers can reduce negative
effects of excessive fertilization. Reduces
soil salinity and nutrient leaching.
Mitigation
Reduces emissions intensity. Precise
fertilizer management can reduce nitrogen
fertilizer-related nitrous oxide (N2O)
emissions.
Midlands
Use of
improved
varieties
Midlands Productivity
Increases in yield and quality at harvest.
Adaptation
Reduces yield loss due to pests and
diseases in periods of adverse climatic
conditions.
Mitigation
Benefits from reduced use of chemical
inputs and energy consumed for pesticide
application.
Lowlands
Potato (0.2% of total harvested area)
Use of
improved
varieties
(tolerance/
resistance to
heat, drought,
diseases)
Highlands
Productivity
Increases in yield and income (reduced
cost for fungicide application).
Adaptation
Improves food security bridges during
shortage months and/or when other crops
are not mature.
Mitigation
Reduces emissions intensity per unit of
product.
Midlands
Table 1. Detailed smartness assessment for top ongoing CSA practices by production system as implemented in Ethiopia.
<30 60>
30-60
30-60%
30-60%
30-60%
30-60%
Yield Income Water Soil Risk/Information Energy Carbon Nutrient
<30%
<30%

12 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile
CSA
practice
Region and
adoption
rate (%)
Predominant
farm scale
S: small scale
M: medium scale
L: large scale
Climate smartness Impact on CSA pillars
Potato (0.2% of total harvested area)
Precise
fertilizer
application:
type, time of
application,
placement,
and amount;
Integrated
disease
management
for bacterial
wilt and late
blight
Highlands Productivity
Maintains or increases yield. Reduces
production costs.
Adaptation
Reduces the use of inputs. Reduces soil
salinity and nutrient leaching.
Mitigation
Reduces nitrogen emissions through
efficient use of fertilizers. Reduces CO2
emissions associated with fertilizer
transport.
Midlands
Sorghum (5% of total harvested area)
Use of
improved
varieties
(tolerance/
resistance to
heat, drought,
diseases)
Highlands
Productivity
Increases in yield and income.
Adaptation
Increased responsiveness to unpredictable
weather patterns.
Mitigation
Reduces emissions intensity per unit of
product.
Midlands
Precise
fertilizer
application:
type, time of
application,
placement,
amount
Highlands Productivity
Increased crop productivity and farmer’s
income.
Adaptation
Increases responsiveness to extreme
weather events. Reduces environmental
impact when inorganic fertilizers are used
(leaching). Efficient use of scarce financial
resources.
Mitigation
Contributes to reduced emissions per unit
of product.
Midlands
<30 60>
30-60
<30%
Yield Income Water Soil Risk/Information Energy Carbon Nutrient
<30%
<30%
<30%
<30%
<30%

13
Ethiopia
CSA
practice
Region and
adoption
rate (%)
Predominant
farm scale
S: small scale
M: medium scale
L: large scale
Climate smartness Impact on CSA pillars
Chickpea (0.6% of total harvested area)
Bio-fertilizer
application
Highlands Productivity
Contributes to an economically and
ecologically sustainable fertilization option.
Adaptation
Increases supply or availability of nitrogen
or other primary nutrients. Reduces
pollution in aquifers and soils due to
over-fertilization.
Mitigation
Reduces energy consumption and
emissions intensity per unit of product.
Midlands
Cropping
calendar
with access
to timely
meteorological
information
Highlands Productivity
Increases land and crop productivity per
unit of product.
Adaptation
Increases resilience to extreme natural
events such as drought or floods, reducing
crop failure. Reduces soil erosion.
Mitigation
Some impact on fertilizers, water and other
inputs saving by enabling timely fertilizer
application and other agronomic practices.
Midlands
Cattle (Dairy and Beef) (20% of total harvested area)
Feed and
feeding
systems
improvement
Highlands Productivity
Increases milk and meat yield and income.
Adaptation
Improves efficiency in natural pastures
management. Increases availability of
pastures/forages during extreme weather
conditions.
Mitigation
Increases in productivity reduce GHG
emissions per unit of product. Reduces
methane (NH4) emissions related to enteric
fermentation.
Midlands
<30 60>
30-60
Yield Income Water Soil Risk/Information Energy Carbon Nutrient
<30%
<30%
<30%
<30%
<30%
<30%

14 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile
CSA
practice
Region and
adoption
rate (%)
Predominant
farm scale
S: small scale
M: medium scale
L: large scale
Climate smartness Impact on CSA pillars
Cattle (Dairy and Beef) (20% of total harvested area)
Veterinary
services
improvement
Highlands Productivity
Increases in productivity and income
through increased product (milk and meat)
quality.
Adaptation
Contributes to the development of optimal
nutritional alternatives for animals. Potential
reductions in post-harvest loss.
Mitigation
Increases production efficiency reducing
GHG emissions per unit of product.
Lowlands
Wheat (4.4% of total harvested area)
Use of superior
seed varieties
(tolerance/
resistance to
heat, drought,
pests)
Highlands Productivity
Increases in yield and income.
Adaptation
Increased responsiveness to unpredictable
weather patterns. Local varieties can
present greater resistance to diseases and
heat stress.
Mitigation
Reduces emissions intensity per unit of
product.
Midlands
Crop rotation
with pulses
Highlands
Productivity
Reduces financial vulnerability by
diversifying production. Medium- to long-
term soil fertility increases can lead to
higher yields.
Adaptation
Improves soil quality (biological, physical
and chemical characteristics). Increases
efficiency in water and soil use.
Mitigation
Nitrogen fixation through leguminous
plants reduces nitrogen fertilizer
requirements. Increases soil organic matter,
and soil carbon stock.
Midlands
<30 60>
30-60
30-60%
30-60%
30-60%
30-60%
<30%
<30%
Yield Income Water Soil Risk/Information Energy Carbon Nutrient

15
Ethiopia
CSA
practice
Region and
adoption
rate (%)
Predominant
farm scale
S: small scale
M: medium scale
L: large scale
Climate smartness Impact on CSA pillars
Barley (2.9% of total harvested area)
Crop rotation
with pulses
Highlands
Productivity
Reduces financial vulnerability by
diversifying production. Medium- to long-
term soil fertility increases can lead to
higher yields.
Adaptation
Conserves soil nutrients and moisture.
Improves soil fertility and reduces pest
and disease risks.
Mitigation
Nitrogen fixation through leguminous
plants reduces nitrogen fertilizer
requirements. Increases soil organic matter,
and soil carbon stock.
Midlands
Precise
application
of soil
amendments
for acidic soil
Highlands Productivity
Greater yield stability and income under
adverse soil conditions.
Adaptation
In conditions of drought or excessive rains,
favors crop adaptation to soil pH. Reduces
crop failure risk.
Mitigation
Increases in productivity reduce GHG
emissions per unit of product.
Midlands
Maize (5.5% of total harvested area)
Use of
improved
varieties
(tolerance/
resistance to
heat, drought,
diseases)
Highlands
Productivity
Increases in yield stability despite climate
variability and biotic stress. Greater income.
Adaptation
Increases in crop resistance to pests and
diseases. Reduction in water consumption.
Greater product quality.
Mitigation
Improves emissions intensity levels due to
productivity increases.
Midlands
<30 60>
30-60
Yield Income Water Soil Risk/Information Energy Carbon Nutrient
>60%
>60%
30-60%
30-60%
<30%
<30%
2.4

16 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile
CSA
practice
Region and
adoption
rate (%)
Predominant
farm scale
S: small scale
M: medium scale
L: large scale
Climate smartness Impact on CSA pillars
Maize (5.5% of total harvested area)
Precise
fertilizer
application:
type, time of
application,
placement,
amount
Highlands
Productivity
Maintains or increases yield. Reduces
production costs.
Adaptation
Reduce the use of inputs. Reduces soil
salinity and nutrient leaching. Benefits
in soil quality when integrating organic
fertilizers.
Mitigation
Reduces nitrogen emissions through
efficient use of fertilizers. Reduces CO2
emissions associated with fertilizer
transport.
Midlands
Beans (faba beans) (0.8% of total harvested area)
Use of
improved
varieties for
heat and pest
tolerance/
resistance
Highlands Productivity
Increases in yield and income. Minimizes
yield loss.
Adaptation
Increases food availability and nutritional
security. Minimizes damage risk due to
pests and diseases.
Mitigation
Reduces GHG emissions per unit of
product.
Midlands
Bio-fertilizer
application
Highlands Productivity
Contributes to an economically and
ecologically sustainable
fertilization option.
Adaptation
Increases supply or availability of nitrogen
or other primary nutrients. Reduces
pollution in aquifers and soils due to
over-fertilization.
Mitigation
Reduces energy consumption and
emissions intensity per unit of product.
Midlands
<30 60>
30-60
30-60%
30-60%
<30%
<30%
<30%
<30%
Yield Income Water Soil Risk/Information Energy Carbon Nutrient

17
Ethiopia
CSA
practice
Region and
adoption
rate (%)
Predominant
farm scale
S: small scale
M: medium scale
L: large scale
Climate smartness Impact on CSA pillars
Coffee (1.4% of total harvested area)
Use of
improved
varieties for
heat and pest
tolerance/
resistance
Highlands
Productivity
Increases in yields and reduces investment
in pesticides and water use.
Adaptation
Maintains local coffee germplasm as well
as quality. Diminishes yield loss due to
reduced risk of pest and disease incidence.
Mitigation
Reduces GHG emissions per unit of
product.
Midlands
Improved
agronomic
practices
(shade trees,
cover crop,
compost
application
and irrigation)
Highlands Productivity
Crop diversification can improve yields,
product quality and income.
Adaptation
Crop diversification can improve yields.
Potential benefits for food and nutrition
security and income diversification (trees
for timber and fruits). Maintains or improves
soil fertility status.
Mitigation
Increases carbon capture and storage both
above- and below-ground. Benefits by
reducing chemical inputs.
Midlands
<30 60>
30-60
Yield Income Water Soil Risk/Information Energy Carbon Nutrient
<30%
<30%
<30%
<30%

18 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile
Enabling institutions and policies for CSA
There are five tiers of government in Ethiopia, each with different roles
and duties with regards to policy making and implementation: the
federal government, the regions, zone administrations, woreda, and
kebele. The federal government is responsible for the formulation
and implementation of national policies, strategies and plans and
also allocates the budget to the regions, depending on population
size and capacity to contribute to national budget through revenues.
The Regional Councils are entitled to legislate and execute laws, but
also to exercise judicial power. The regions design socio-economic
development plans that meet national-level targets and are also able
to generate their own revenue, although dependency on federal
budget is still high [58]. This illustrates a complex context not only
for legislation and policy development, but also for budget allocation
and management.
As weather variability and changes in climate have continued to affect
Ethiopia’s agriculture sector, people’s livelihoods and the economy
as a whole, the CSA approach has gained a lot of momentum in the
institutional and policy sphere over the years, in an effort to reduce
climate impacts and to help build a more resilient, food-secure and
economically competitive agriculture sector.
Most institutions surveyed facilitate information sharing and
extension, and, to a slightly lesser extent, promote technology
development and innovation. Allocation of funds towards mitigation
is minimal across all institutions surveyed.
Climate change action was previously under the mandate of the
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), established after the
Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2009. Following
the restructuring of governmental institutions, the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MEFCC) became the
lead entity for the country’s climate framework, which is now also
in charge of the country’s legislation and coordination of activities
related to environmental degradation and forests. MEFCC is the
overall coordinator of national climate-change-related activities in
the country including being the focal point for the UNFCCC and
Global Environment Fund (GEF) as well as National Designated
Authority (NDA) for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Designated
National Authority (DNA) for the Adaptation Fund.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MoANR) is a key
institution promoting CSA practices in the country, mainly through
various projects and programmes implemented by its different
units including: the Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE)
Coordination Unit, the Sustainable Land Management Programme
(SLMP)14 Coordination Unit, the Soil Information and Fertility
Directorate, Agricultural Growth Programme (AGP) Coordination
Unit, and the National Agricultural Research System, among
others [11]. CSA initiatives promoted by MoANR link to improved
productivity and climate resilience of the agricultural sector, targeting
primarily practices such as soil and water conservation, conservation
agriculture, agroforestry systems, fodder production (cut and carry)
and improved varieties. Apart from the above-mentioned SLMP, the
Ministry also implements the Managing Environmental Resources
to Enable Transitions (MERET) to More Sustainable Livelihoods
Coordination Unit, which is a World Food Programme (WFP)-
supported project initiated in the 1980s, and includes activities such
as water harvesting, reforestation, seedling production, soil fertility
management and construction of farmland terraces [11].
The Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) is an institution
mandated to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. ATA
undertakes four major programmes that target: (i) agricultural
production and productivity of smallholder farmers; (ii) processing
and value addition in agribusinesses for improved market access;
(iii) sustainable and inclusive growth for improved farmers’ resilience;
(iv) and capacity building of agricultural institutions for project
implementation and impact maximization. ATA has a broad portfolio
of CSA-related work, including the training of extension actors
on CSA practices, such as conservation agriculture, enhancing
agricultural decision making through enhanced access to climate
information and weather station installations, supporting improved
access to agrometeorological information.15
In terms of research, the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
(EIAR) and its regional research institutes, federal and regional
research centers, as well as universities constitute the National
Agricultural Research System (NARS) in Ethiopia, whose principal aim
is to generate and promote the adoption of information, knowledge,
improved practices and technologies that increase agricultural
productivity. The NARS collaborates with extension workers,
civil society organizations, NGOs, seed enterprises, international
research centers, and the private sector. EIAR’s work related to
climate-smart agriculture includes climate modelling; conducting of
on-farm trials of new varieties; and the testing of agrometeorological
tools such as Agro-weather Decision Support System (DSS)16 to
improve farmers’ access to weather information and hence support
adaptation efforts. Numerous international research institutes
are also involved in CSA-related research in the country. CGIAR
Centers such as CIAT, International Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center (CIMMYT), International Center for Agricultural
Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), World Agroforestry Centre
(ICRAF), International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), and
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), are working on
topics such as biogas from dairy waste management, soil and water
conservation, agroforestry and conservation agriculture. For example,
CIMMYT is implementing the project on Sustainable Intensification of
Maize–Legume Cropping Systems for Food Security in Eastern and
Southern Africa (SIMLESA), which is conducting research on and
promoting maize–legume intercropping. The Farm Mechanization
and Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification
(FACASI) programme focuses on identifying appropriate small-scale
machinery (e.g. 2-wheel tractors) to improve planting, harvesting,
milling and transport among smallholder farmers. Both projects
are funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research (ACIAR) along with other partners. The Water and Land
Resource Centre (WLRC), associated with the Addis Ababa University,
14 The SLMP was launched in 2008 to address the challenges to agricultural production in the major agricultural potential regions of the Ethiopian highlands through watershed
rehabilitation and productive agricultural use of rehabilitated land. The Ministry has chosen CSA as a guiding paradigm to implement the second SLMP phase [59]. The
intention is to integrate climate-resilient production methods into the rehabilitated landscapes. On-farm soil conservation and re-vegetation measures as well as changes in
livestock management are an integral part of CSA, as they increase farmers’ capacities to adapt to climate impacts.
15 www.ata.gov.et/highlighted-deliverables/agro-meteorology/
16 http://bit.ly/2koPOFm

19
Ethiopia
engages in research activities related to watershed and integrated
landscape management, including implementation of sustainable
land management (SLM) practices to increase productivity,
rehabilitation of degraded lands, and management of the natural
resources base. The Ethiopian Environment and Forest Research
Institute (EEFRI), established in 2015, is also conducting research
related to agroforestry, forest product utilization and climate change,
among others. Haramaya University (HU) is also set to become a
key CSA institution as the host for the soon to be established African
Center of Excellence in Climate-Smart Agriculture and Biodiversity
Conservation, which will aim to produce research and technically
skilled personnel on CSA for the Eastern and Southern Africa
regions; with master’s programs being established in Climate-Smart
Agriculture as well as Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management [53].
The work of national and local NGOs on CSA relates mainly to
building smallholders’ climate resilience and food security in the face
of climate-related hazards, particularly droughts. Ethiopia was also
one of the three initial pilot countries for the African Union-NEPAD
iNGO CSA Alliance, which comprises Oxfam, Concern Worldwide
Ethiopia, World Vision, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and CARE
International and whose aim is to support the adoption of climate-
smart practices by 6 million farming households in sub-Saharan
Africa by 2021. Separately, these NGOs are conducting various
activities related to climate-smart agriculture. World Vision Ethiopia
(WVE), for example, has been implementing the Humbo Assisted
Natural Regeneration Project since 2006. This is a community-
managed afforestation and reforestation initiative covering
2,728 hectares and funded by the World Bank’s BioCarbon Fund
under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
[11]. CARE International also leads a consortium of partners (SNV,
Farm Africa and Mercy Corps, among others) implementing the
Climate-Smart Initiative, which aims to better integrate CSA into
the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) and the Household
Asset Building Programme (HABP). Aspects of the initiative include
supporting development of climate information hubs; supporting
access to biogas technologies and efficient stoves; water harvesting
and efficient irrigation for vegetable production; livelihood
diversification through promotion of chickpea, lentil and faba bean
production as well as support for dairy production. As a whole, rather
than simply providing food or cash incentives, farmers are given
training on climate change and provided with a means to invest
in their own resilience. Organisations such as Food for the Hungry
(FH), Terepeza Development Association (TDA), and Sasakawa
Global (SG2000) have been specifically promoting conservation
agriculture and green manuring within their projects [11].
For international organisations, the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has a long history of
support for conservation agriculture and other climate-smart
practices in Ethiopia, through the organization of demonstration
plots and introduction of equipment (including jab planters and
oxen-drawn seed and fertilizer planters), as well as training of
extension agents for the development of conservation agriculture
farmer field schools [11]. Additionally, FAO, with funding from the
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and
the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD),
has been supporting conservation agriculture awareness raising
and coordination through the Natural Resources Management
Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources
(MoANR). Through the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP),
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has been
providing institutional capacity building support to MoANR and
ATA, for on-field interventions targeting economic growth and
poverty reduction, climate change and environment vulnerability.
The German Development Cooperation Agency (GIZ) has
been supporting the Government of Ethiopia’s sustainable land
management efforts, particularly through development of a CSA
manual for the Sustainable Land Management Programme (SLMP-
II), which includes the identification of “baskets of options” that can
be taken as climate-smart packages to farmers, under the premise
that an integrated approach to CSA provides greater benefits against
the three CSA pillars than a single-practice approach.
The following graphic highlights key institutions whose main activities
relate to one, two or three CSA pillars (adaptation, productivity and
mitigation). More information on the methodology and results from
interviews, surveys and expert consultations is available in Annex 5.
Institutions for CSA in Ethiopia

20 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile
Ethiopia ratified the UNFCCC in 1994 and the Kyoto Protocol in
2005. The Government presented two National Communications
to the UNFCCC, in 2001 and 2016. Furthermore, as part of
its commitments as a member of the Comprehensive Africa
Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), it developed the
CAADP Compact in 2009. This endorsed the three main objectives
set by African Heads of States and Governments through
CAADP, namely agricultural growth, food security and improved
livelihoods, outlining the necessary instruments for using these as
guiding pillars for future Government programmes and activities.
The operationalization of the CAADP Compact is outlined in the
Agricultural Sector Policy and Investment Framework (PIF, 2010-
2020), which prioritizes research and development of crop varieties
and systems adapted to new (dry) climate conditions, water
harvesting techniques, agroforestry, and improved information
systems (weather forecasts). In 2016, FAO supported the screening
of the PIF for climate-smart agriculture, a process meant to identify
and enhance climate-smart components within the investment
plan, coinciding with its mid-term review. This screening along with
other findings of the PIF mid-term evaluation could be important
in directing national-level funding for CSA in the country.
The Government submitted the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation
Actions (NAMA) to the UNFCCC Secretariat in 2010, where key
mitigation strategies for the agriculture sector included investments
in compost production and application and agroforestry systems.
Ethiopia also submitted its Intended Nationally Determined
Contribution (INDC) to the UNFCCC in June 2015, pledging a
64% reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to the business-as-
usual scenario. The INDC is based on Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient
Green Economy (CRGE) Strategy established in 2011, which
represents the first attempt to integrate climate change and green
growth efforts across all sectors of the economy. The CRGE’s
overall goal is to enhance the population’s adaptive capacity and
climate resilience, while achieving middle-income status by 2025.
The strategy is based on four pillars, two of which relate to CSA,
namely: 1) Agriculture: improving crop and livestock production
practices for greater food security and better income for farmers,
while reducing emissions; and 2) Forests: protecting and
re-establishing forests for their economic and ecological values,
including carbon stocks [11]. One of the strategies highlighted
in the CRGE is the use of energy-saving stoves as a means of
reducing deforestation. In agriculture, CSA-related strategies
include soil fertility management, conservation agriculture, residue
management, efficient irrigation and watershed management for
crops, as well as controlled grazing and improved feed production
for livestock. In total, 41 options are identified to facilitate the
attainment of the CRGE objectives in the agriculture and forestry
sectors.
The Agriculture Sector Programme of Adaptation to Climate
Change (ASPACC) was also formulated in 2011 with the main
objectives of contributing to the country’s commitments to the
UNFCCC, through integration of climate change into sectoral
policies and development efforts. The development of a climate
change adaptation plan to minimize agriculture sector vulnerability
was another key objective set by the ASPACC [15].
The Ethiopian Programme of Adaptation to Climate Change
(EPACC) from 2011, built on the National Adaptation Program
of Action (NAPA),17 aims to mainstream climate adaptation
into national-level decision-making processes, with a particular
focus on poverty elimination, climate resilience, and sustainable
development. Sectoral and regional programmes for putting
EPACC into action have already been developed.
The Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP), now in its second
phase (GTP II, 2016–2020), focuses on the gradual shift from
traditional to high-value crops and livestock production in the
highlands and agricultural out-scaling in the lowland areas
(by converting rangelands into irrigation schemes), in order to
accelerate growth in production. A concerted effort was also placed
on mainstreaming climate change adaptation and mitigation
issues across all GTP II pillars.
The country’s vulnerability to climate change is also acknowledged
in the Environmental Policy of Ethiopia (EPE), issued in 1997. The
EPE serves as the overarching environmental policy framework
in the country, with a particular focus on forestry and sustainable
natural resource management.
Overall, the country has a clear institutional and policy framework
to support the mainstreaming of climate change action in
agricultural sector development. The Government, in collaboration
with its development partners, has shown progress in bringing
CSA on the policy arena and closer within farmers’ reach, through
investments in research, capacity building of extension workers
and field demonstrations. As such efforts continue to grow in
number and scope, coordination of interventions and alignment
with existing policies will be key for effective resource spending
and value addition.
Moreover, while efforts to increase productivity and adaptive
capacity are essential to the sector’s sustainable growth, exploring
opportunities that current and potential policy innovations can
bring for mitigation would increase the likelihood of achieving the
triple win: productivity, resilience, and low-emissions development
in agriculture.
The graphic on page 21 shows a selection of policies, strategies
and programs that relate to agriculture and climate change topics
and are considered key enablers of CSA in the country. The
policy cycle classification aims to show gaps and opportunities
in policy-making, referring to the three main stages: policy
formulation (referring to a policy that is in an initial formulation
stage/consultation process), policy formalization (to indicate the
presence of mechanisms for the policy to process at national
level) and policy in active implementation (to indicate visible
progress/outcomes toward achieving larger policy goals, through
concrete strategies and action plans). For more information on
the methodology and results from interviews, surveys and expert
consultations, see Annex 6.
17 The 2007 NAPA is considered to be the first attempt for inter-sectoral coordination on climate adaptation work [11]. Key priority actions and projects included in the NAPA
included, among others: promotion of a drought/crop insurance program; strengthening of drought and flood early warning systems; development of small scale irrigation and
water harvesting schemes; improvement of rangeland resource management practices; community-based sustainable use of wetlands; capacity building; and improved food
security through large-scale water development projects [60].

21
Ethiopia
Policies for CSA in Ethiopia
Financing CSA
In Ethiopia, future expenditures on drought-related interventions
to ensure food security of the population have been projected to
range from US$7.3 million to as high as US$1.2 billion annually,
depending on the climate scenario (wet/dry).18 On the other hand,
very wet climate change shocks could bring about a drop in GDP
by 8%, while the very dry climate scenario may decrease GDP
by 10% by 2050.19 These would include costs for infrastructure
repair and maintenance (especially in the case of floods and
heavy rains), and investments in hydropower generation, among
others. Adapting the agricultural sector to climate change through
investments in research and development and farm management
practices, coupled with irrigation and drainage infrastructure could
reduce the impacts of climate hazards, however, estimates have
placed the costs of adaptation investments between US$68 and
US$71 million annually between 2010 and 2050 [45].
At present, annual investments in the agriculture sector in the
country amount to US$1 billion. Over a third (approximately
40%) is public funding, through MoANR. However, to implement
the 41 forestry- and agriculture-related options outlined in the
CRGE, additional funding of US$400–600 million is estimated
to be required [40]. The CRGE Facility was set up through a
collaboration between the Ministry of Finance and Economic
Development (MoFED) and MEFCC to enable the implementation
of the priority actions identified by the CRGE strategy, through
a coordinated administration of funds allocated from domestic
(public and private) and international resources [61].
Ethiopia currently spends approximately US$440 million annually
on climate change action (primarily on adaptation actions), which
represents almost 11% of total government expenditure and
almost 6% of the yearly financing required to implement the CRGE
Strategy.20 Most funding (approximately 80%) channeled through
the national budget comes from domestic contributions, and not
international public resources, as one would expect.21 International
public climate funds mainly come from the UK, Japan, EU, Ireland,
and Norway and target areas such as food security (37% of total
18 The figures are based on projections for a wet scenario in 2040 and a dry scenario in 2030 respectively.
19 Compared to a scenario with no climate change.

22 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile
international public funds), education (13%) and agriculture (11%),
among others [62].
In 2011/12, three-quarter of the climate change expenditure was at the
MoANR (for irrigation and land management projects) and the Ministry
of Water, Irrigation and Electricity (MoWIE). The amount of international
direct support to climate change projects and programmes has yet to
be estimated. It has also been observed that spending is often vaguely
reported, not offering much detail on the activities targeted by the
funding.
Ethiopia has been accessing climate funds from various international
sources, including the Scaling-Up Renewable Energy Program for Low
Income Countries (SREP) of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF), the
Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM), among the most important ones. For agriculture- and food
security-related projects, funds are sourced from partners such as the
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the International
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the World Bank, and the
Government of Norway, among others. NORAD and the Norwegian
Development Fund (DF), for example, have been supporting national
CSA coordination and various studies through partners such as FAO.
Some of the key initiatives include training of extension service workers
in crop and livestock production, farmers and pastoralists on good
agricultural practices, livestock management, non-cereal (vegetable
and fruit) production, and women in nutritious feeding practices,
among others.
Banks and microfinance institutes also play an important role in
financing CSA investments of smallholder farmers and value chain
entrepreneurs. The Oromia Cooperative Bank of Ethiopia (OCBE),
for example, established by the Oromia Regional Government,
supports local agri-businesses that need to finance activities related to
agricultural production, in a context where commercial banks largely
finance export-related infrastructure. However, access to credit in rural
areas is generally low. Bank coverage in these areas is poor – roughly
1% of the rural population has a bank account. Moreover, land cannot
be used as collateral for credit, which further alienates smallholders
from opportunities to finance their farm investments [63].
To encourage increased adoption of vital agricultural inputs (particularly
fertilizer and improved seed), the MoANR and ATA have developed
an Input Voucher System (IVS), as part of an overall Rural Financial
Services (RFS) strategy. According to this new strategy, distribution of
inputs is primarily financed by the regional governments and distributed
through multipurpose cooperatives by cash or partial credit.
In March 2017, the Adaptation Fund Board approved the first ever
regional Adaptation Fund project titled “Agricultural Climate Resilience
Enhancement Initiative (ACREI),” for which Ethiopia is one of the
target countries along with Uganda and Kenya, and which focuses
on enhancing access to climate information and scaling up of CSA
practices through farmer field schools and community adaptation
initiatives. The project will be implemented by the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO), FAO, the Intergovernmental Authority on
Development (IGAD) and government departments and institutions in
the three target countries.
In addition, agricultural insurance, particularly weather-index based
crop and livestock insurance, is limited. Some innovative financial
instruments, such as the Nyala weather index-based insurance system;
Oromia Insurance Company’s livestock insurance schemes; Horn
of Africa Risk Transfer for Adaptation (HARITA) insurance for work
scheme, and other input and technology financing programmes have
been developed in Ethiopia. However, most are small scale and have
been restricted to pilot programmes rather than being rolled out at
scale. Greater effort could be placed on expanding insurance services
to smallholder crop and livestock farmers, with an opportunity to
both build the resilience of farmers and also encourage private sector
involvement in CSA.
Despite various funds being accessed by the country for CSA-related
activities, additional financing is required to help Ethiopia prepare for
and adapt to the effects of climate change. Although large international
climate financing instruments such as the Green Climate Fund
(GCF) exist, access is contingent upon countries developing high-
quality proposals and having adequate mechanisms for monitoring
and implementation. As an example for the need for high-quality
proposals that do not simply repackage normal development projects
as climate change adaptation projects is the Green Climate Fund
(GCF) Board’s lack of agreement to fund Ethiopia’s US$100 million
project on “Responding to the increasing risk of drought: building
gender responsive resilience of the most vulnerable communities”
that aimed to build resilience of drought-affected communities in the
country.” This, however, still leaves the door open for the development
of improved proposals that better integrate CSA-related activities.
Other funds from bilateral and multilateral partners, while crucially
important, are at the moment not adequate to address the scale of the
climate change challenge in Ethiopia. Ensuring sustainable financing
from public and private sources will be necessary for the scaling up
of CSA efforts. Additionally, increased transparency in how funds are
allocated and spent would foster more cooperation between actors
and would increase the likelihood that commitments would be turned
into results. The methodology and a more detailed list of funds can be
found in Annex 7.
20 The total cost of the CRGE Strategy is estimated at US$150 billion up to 2030, equaling approximately US$7.5 billion annually [41].
21 For 2010–2013, financing for adaptation activities constituted 51% of total international public finding, while mitigation and mitigation + adaptation activities were financed by
19% and 31% of these sources, respectively [58].

23
Ethiopia
Financing opportunities for CSA in Ethiopia Ethiopia’s agricultural sector is a key economic driver and a
source of livelihoods for over 80% of the country’s population,
yet its GDP share has been challenged by other sectors (such as
manufacturing), while the effects of weather variability and climate
hazards on agriculture have been shown to not only have an
impact on food security and agricultural GDP but also on national
GDP and overall economic growth. The sector and those who
rely on it for a living are, therefore, highly vulnerable to weather
variability and climate change and hence the need to continue
investing in resilience building of the sector, while pushing for
sustainable growth within the context of Ethiopia’s economic
development targets as elaborated in the Climate-Resilient Green
Economy Strategy.
Agriculture has been a key forerunner in the effort to mainstream
climate change into planning, receiving most of the climate
financing available through national and international public
funds. While this has been particularly beneficial for projects and
programmes targeting productivity increase and food security,
coordination with other sectors (health, environment) has not
been fully operationalized, leaving important integration potential
untapped.
A number of CSA-related practices have either been practiced,
are currently being practiced or are being promoted by various
organisations (private and public) or through various policies
and programmes. Improving the knowledge on the costs and
benefits of different CSA-related practices at local level could be
an important way of encouraging adoption of locally appropriate
practices that are aligned to both national and local priorities.
A commonly agreed upon principle in Ethiopia is that higher
economic and environmental returns from CSA practices and
technologies are most likely obtained if several measures are
implemented jointly, through an integrated (farm- or landscape-
level) approach to climate-smart agriculture rather than a single-
practice-based approach. A better understanding of how and
under which conditions various CSA practices can be associated
on farms, watersheds and landscapes would help maximize
benefits for farmers and incentivize farmers as well as public and
private sector actors to invest in these efforts.
Lastly, while various CSA-related programmes are being
undertaken and various institutions are involved in CSA-related
activities, there is still need for improved coordination of all actors,
particularly in linking government initiatives with civil society
initiatives. The conservation agriculture task force supported in
recent years could be expanded and given a more prominent role
and permanent seat as a climate-smart agriculture coordination
unit within the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. In
addition, moral, financial and technical support to the activities of
the Ethiopia Climate-Smart Agriculture Alliance could help reach
farmers and locations not currently targeted under other CSA-
related programmes and projects in the country.

24 Climate-Smart Agriculture Country Profile
Works cited
[1] FAO. 2010. “Climate-Smart” Agriculture. Policies, practices
and financing for food security, adaptation and mitigation. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
[2] FAO. 2013. Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Rome. Available at: http://bit.ly/2iJluEQ
[3] World Bank. 2016. World Development Indicators: Ethiopia.
World Bank, Washington D.C.
[4] Central Statistics Agency (CSA). 2016. Agricultural Sample
Surveys 2015/2016 (2008 E.C.), Volumes I-IV. Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia; Ethiopia Central Statistics Agency (CSA),
Addis Ababa.
[5] Yirgu L; Nicol A; Srinivasan S. 2013. Warming to Change?
Climate Policy and Agricultural Development in Ethiopia. Future
Agricultures Working Paper 071.
[6] FAO. 2015. FAOSTAT Database. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
[7] Central Statistical Agency (CSA) and ICF. 2016. Ethiopia
Demographic and Health Survey 2016. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
and Rockville, Maryland, USA.
[8] UNDP. 2015. Human Development Report. United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Available at:
http://bit.ly/1nwKJGt
[9] Ethiopian Panel on Climate Change (EPCC). 2015. First
Assessment Report, Working Group II Agriculture and Food
Security. Ethiopian Academy of Sciences. Addis Ababa.
[10] MoFED. 2014. Development and Poverty in Ethiopia –1995/96-
2010/11. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia. Available at: http://bit.ly/2i81VSw
[11] FAO. 2016. Ethiopia Climate-Smart Agriculture Scoping
Study. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO). Rome. Available at: www.fao.org/3/a-i5518e.pdf
[12] Molla T; Sisheber B. 2017. Estimating soil erosion risk and
evaluating erosion control measures, Solid Earth 8, pp. 13–25.
[13] FAO. 2010b. Global Forest Resource Assessment, Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
[14] Gelaw AM; Singh BR; Lal R. 2014. Soil organic carbon
and total nitrogen stocks under different land uses in a semi-arid
watershed in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
188:256-263.
[15] Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). 2011.
Climate-Resilient Green Economy Strategy. Environmental
Protection Authority (EPA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[16] IFPRI. 2012. Crop Production in Ethiopia: Regional Patterns
and Trends Summary of ESSP II Working Paper 16, “Crop
Production in Ethiopia: Regional Patterns and Trends.” Research
Note 11. IFPRI, Washington D.C.
[17] Chamberlin J; Schmidt E. 2011. Ethiopian Agriculture -
A Dynamic Geographic Perspective. Development Strategy and
Governance Division, International Food Policy Research Institute
Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II, Ethiopia.
[18] Kassie M; Shifereaw B; Asfaw S; Abate T; Muricho G;
Ferede S; Eshete M; Assefa K. 2009. Current Situation and
Future Outlooks of the Chickpea Sub–sector in Ethiopia. ICRISAT
and EIAR Joint Report.
[19] Central Statistics Agency (CSA) and the World Bank (WB).
2013. Ethiopia Rural Socioeconomic Survey. Survey Report.
Ethiopia Central Statistics Agency (CSA) and the World Bank (WB).
[20] Central Statistics Agency (CSA). 2013. Report on
livestock and livestock characteristics. Agricultural sample survey
2012/2013, Volume II, Statistical Bulletin 570. Ethiopia Central
Statistics Agency. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia;
Ethiopia Central Statistics Agency (CSA), Addis Ababa.
[21] Negra C. 2014. Integrated National Policy Approaches to
Climate-Smart Agriculture. Insights from Brazil, Ethiopia, and New
Zealand. CCAFS Report No. 11. Copenhagen: CGIAR Research
Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
(CCAFS).
[22] Alemayehu M. 2006. Range Management for East Africa:
Concepts and Practices, Sponsored by RPSUD and Printed by
A.A.U. Printed Press. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[23] Central Statistics Agency (CSA). 2015. Area and production
of major crops. Agricultural sample survey 2014/2015, Volume 1,
Statistical Bulletin 568.
[24] Aragie EA. 2013. Climate Change, Growth, and Poverty in
Ethiopia, CCAPS Working Paper No. 3. The Robert S. Strauss
Center for International Security and Law.
[25] Hill R; Porter C. 2016. Vulnerability to Drought and Food
Price Shocks: Evidence from Ethiopia. Policy Research Working
Paper; No. 7920. World Bank, Washington, DC.
[26] USDA. 2014. USDA GAIN: Ethiopia Grain and Feed Annual
2014. United States Department for Agriculture (USDA).
[27] Tura H. 2016. Ethiopia’s Persistent Food Insecurity:
What went wrong? All Africa. March 2, 2016. Available at:
http://allafrica.com/stories/201603021761.html
[28] Hassen IW; Dereje M; Minten B; Hirvonen K. 2016. Diet
transformation in Africa: The case of Ethiopia. Ethiopia Strategy
Support Programme. Working Paper 87. International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI).
[29] GOE. 2015. Government of Ethiopia Humanitarian Support
Requirements for the year 2016. Ethiopia Humanitarian Country
Team, Addis Ababa. Available at: http://bit.ly/2C41sd7
[30] Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development
Programme (CAADP). 2013. Food and Nutrition Country Paper –
Ethiopia - draft. Central Africa Regional CAADP Nutrition Program
Development Workshop, Addis Ababa.
[31] FAO. 2015b. Regional overview of food insecurity: African
food security prospects brighter than ever. Accra: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
[32] EIU. 2015. Food Security Index. The Economist Intelligence
Unit (EIU). Available at: http://bit.ly/1U3NT2C
[33] WFP. 2016. Food Aid Information System. World Food
Programme (WFP). Available at: http://bit.ly/1nwKY4r

25
Ethiopia
[34] UNAIDS. 2015. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV
and AIDS. Available at: http://aidsinfo.unaids.org/
[35] Worku I; Dereje M; Minten B; Hirvonen K. 2016. Diet
transformation in Africa: The case of Ethiopia. Ethiopian
Development Research Institute (EDRI). International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI). Working Paper 87.
[36] WRI. 2016. Climate Data Explorer. World Resources Institute
(WRI). Available at: http://cait.wri.org/
[37] Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). 2015.
Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). Available at:
http://bit.ly/1GsfaUZ
[38] Workneh N. 2006. Land Tenure and Technological
Improvement in Smallholder Agriculture in Ethiopia. In: Desalegn
R, Taye A. (eds.). Land and the Challenge of Sustainable
Development in Ethiopia: Conference Proceedings, p. 147–166.
FSS (Forum for Social Studies), Addis Ababa.
[39] Gebreselassie S. 2006. Land, Land Policy and Smallholder
Agriculture in Ethiopia: Options and Scenarios. Future Agricultures
Discussion Paper 008.
[40] Kasso M; Bekele A. 2016. Post-harvest loss and quality
deterioration of horticultural crops in Dire Dawa Region, Ethiopia.
Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences. In Press.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jssas.2016.01.005
[41] DSU. 2016. Climate Change Profile: Ethiopia. The Dutch
Sustainability Unit (DSU) of the Netherlands Commission for
Environmental Assessment.
[42] USAID. 2015. Climate variability and change in Ethiopia.
Summary report. United States Agency for International
Development (USAID).
[43] Murphy C. 2014. Observed and projected climate change
in the Philippines, Honduras, Kenya, Malawi and Ethiopia.
Department of Geography, Maynooth University and Mavuto
Tembo, Mzuzu Unviersity, Malawi. Available at: http://bit.ly/2id29YL
[44] Trócaire. 2014. Feeling the Heat. How climate change is
driving extreme weather in the developing world? Ethiopia. The
Overseas Development Agency of the Catholic Church in Ireland
(Trócaire). Climate Change Report.
[45] WFP. 2016. Drought in Ethiopia: 10 Million People in Need.
http://bit.ly/2zJkC6u
[46] Robinson S; Strzepek K; Cervigini R. 2013. The cost of
adapting to climate change in Ethiopia: Sector-wise and macro-
economic estimates. Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II,
Working Paper 53.
[47] Evangelista P; Young N; Burnett J. 2013. How will climate
change spatially affect agriculture production in Ethiopia? Case
studies of important cereal crops. Climate Change, 119:855–873.
[48] Nassef M; Belayhun M. 2012. Water Development in
Ethiopia’s Pastoral Areas: A synthesis of existing knowledge and
experience. Addis Ababa: Save the Children USA.
[49] Collins M; Knutti R; Arblaster J; Dufresne JL; Fichefet
T; Friedlingstein P; Gao X; Gutowski WJ; Johns T; Krinner G;
Shongwe M; Tebaldi C; Weaver AJ; Wehner M. 2013. Long-
term climate change: Projections, commitments and irreversibility.
In: Climate change. The physical science basis. Contribution
of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Stocker TF; Qin D;
Plattner GK; Tignor M; Allen SK; Boschung J; Nauels A; Xia Y; Bex
V; Midgley PM. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. pp. 1029–1036.
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.024
[50] Ramírez J; Jarvis A. 2008. High-resolution statistically
downscaled future climate surfaces. International Center for
Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); CGIAR Research Program on Climate
Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Cali, Colombia.
[51] Ramírez-Villegas J; Thornton PK. 2015. Climate change
impacts on African crop production. Working Paper No. 119.
CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and
Food Security (CCAFS), Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at:
http://hdl.handle.net/10568/66560
[52] Joosten K; Grey S. 2017. Integrating climate change
adaptation and mitigation into the watershed management
approach in Eastern Africa. Discussion paper and good practices.
Addis Ababa, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO).
[53] AKLDP. 2017. Conservation Agriculture Experience Sharing
and Networking Workshop report. Agricultural Knowledge,
Learning, Documentation and Policy (AKLDP) project,
AgriProFocus and the Canadian Foodgrains Bank (CFGB). Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
[54] Medhin G; Giorgis W; Endale G; Kiflu B; Kassa B. 2001.
Country Profile on Potato Production and Utilization: Ethiopia.
Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO), Holetta
Agricultural Research Centre, National Potato Research Program.
[55] Berhe T; Gebretsadik Z; Edwards S; Areya H. 2013.
Boosting teff productivity using improved agronomic practices
and appropriate fertilizer. In: Assefa H; Chanyalew S; Tadele Z.
(eds). Achievements and prospects of tef improvement. Ethiopian
Institute of Agricultural Research and University of Bern, Institute
of Plant Sciences. pp. 133–140.
[56] Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA). 2013. Results
of 2012 New Tef Technology Demonstration Trials. A collaboration
project among Agricultural Transformation Agency, Ethiopian
Institute of Agricultural Research, and the Ministry of Agriculture.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[57] Abraham B; Araya H; Berhe T; Edwards S; Gujja B; Khadka
RB; Koma YS; Sen D; Sharif A; Styger E; Uphoff N; Verma A.
2014. The system of crop intensification: reports from the field on
improving agricultural production, food security, and resilience to
climate change for multiple crops. Agriculture & Food Security,
3:4. DOI: 10.1186/2048-7010-3-4
[58] Overseas Development Institute (ODI). 2016. Public
spending on climate change in Africa Experiences from Ethiopia,
Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda. ODI, London.
[59] MoANR. 2015. Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) Field
Manual: Zero Draft. CSA Working Group. Federal Ministry of
Agriculture and Natural Resource Management, October 2015,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
[60] UNFCCC. 2014. National Adaptation Programmes on
Action. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Available at: http://bit.ly/1SCCzH9

[61] Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN).
2014. Climate finance and Intended Nationally Determined
Contributions as part of Ethiopia’s green growth strategy. CDKN
News, July 2014. Available at: http://bit.ly/2jIJhRP
[62] Eshetu Z; Simane B; Tebeje G; Negatu W; Amsalu A;
Berhanu A; Bird N; Welham B; Canales Trujillo N. 2014. Climate
finance in Ethiopia. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), UK.
[63] Agriculture Finance Support Facility (AgriFin). 2012.
Enabling Environment: Access to Financial Services in Ethiopia.
AgriFin, September 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/2no6OMR
For further information and online versions of the Annexes, visit: http://dapa.ciat.cgiar.org/CSA-profiles/
Annex 1: Ethiopia’s agro-ecological zones
Annex 2: Selection of agriculture production systems key for food security in Ethiopia (methodology and results)
Annex 3: Methodology for assessing climate smartness of ongoing practices
Annex 4: Long list of CSA practices adopted in Ethiopia
Annex 5: Institutions for CSA in Ethiopia (methodology and results)
Annex 6: Policies for CSA in Ethiopia (methodology and results)
An nex 7: Assessing CSA finances
This publication is a product of a collaborative effort between the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) – lead Center of the
CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) – and the Bureau for Food Security, United States
Agency for International Development (BFS/USAID) to identify country-specific baselines on CSA in Africa (Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Niger,
Senegal and Uganda). The publication is based on the previous work commissioned and led by the World Bank Group to identify country-
specific baselines and entry points for scaling out CSA, through data analysis and a series of dialogues with national stakeholders. The
work complements the CSA Profiles series developed since 2014 by the World Bank, CIAT and CCAFS for countries in Latin America,
Asia, Eastern and Central Europe, and Africa (https://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/csa-country-profiles).
The document was prepared under the co-leadership of Evan Girvetz, Andreea Nowak, and Andrew Jarvis (CIAT); and Oumou Ly, Anne
Williams and Moffatt Ngugi (USAID). It is based on a methodology prepared by CIAT, the World Bank and the Tropical Agricultural
Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) in 2014 and revisited in 2015 by Andreea Nowak, Caitlin Corner-Dolloff, Miguel Lizarazo,
Andy Jarvis, Evan Girvetz, Jennifer Twyman, Julian Ramírez, Carlos Navarro, Jaime Tarapues (CIAT/CCAFS), Charles Spillane, Colm Duffy
and Una Murray (University of Galway).
Main author: Aweke Mulualem Gelaw (independent consultant)
Editors: Andreea Nowak (independent consultant), Miguel Lizarazo (CIAT/CCAFS) and Sebastian Grey (CIAT)
Original figures and graphics: Fernanda Rubiano (independent consultant)
Design and layout: Daniel Gutiérrez and Ximena Hiles (CIAT)
This document should be cited as:
CIAT; BFS/USAID. 2017. Climate-Smart Agriculture in Ethiopia. CSA Country Profiles for Africa Series. International Center for Tropical
Agriculture (CIAT); Bureau for Food Security, United States Agency for International Development (BFS/USAID), Washington, D.C. 26 p.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to representatives of the following institutions for providing information to this study: Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural
Research (EIAR) and its Centers (mainly Holeta, Debrezeit and Melkassa); Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MoANR); Ministry
of Livestock and Fisheries (MoLF); Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA); Ministry of Water, Electricity and Energy (MoWEE); Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Sub-regional Office for Eastern Africa; and Norwegian Development Fund in
Ethiopia.
This document has benefited from comments received from: Kindie Tesfaye Fantaye (CIMMYT), Lulsegad Desta (CIAT) and Zenebe
Adimassu (IWMI).
December 2017