Biofortification in Ethiopia: Opportunities and Challenges

Abstract

Background:

Children younger than 5 years and women of reproductive age often suffer from micronutrient deficiencies. Biofortification, which involves enriching staple crops with micronutrients, is a nutritional intervention focused on addressing micronutrient deficiencies. It is equitable, sustainable, and costs less than other nutritional interventions.

Objective:

This study investigates biofortification in Ethiopia, considering 6 globally biofortified crops, 5 of which are currently being biofortified in Ethiopia. However, only 2 of these crops are important in the consumption baskets of most Ethiopians. Therefore, efforts to mainstream biofortification should begin with studies to identify crops that have larger impacts in reducing local micronutrient deficiencies and their cost-effectiveness.

Methods:

Literature was searched between July and December 2021 using Google Scholar to provide insights into the state of biofortification in Ethiopia. Key-informant interviews were conducted to gain insights into the state of biofortification in Ethiopia and to identify bottlenecks for scaling up the production and consumption of biofortified foods. Furthermore, Annual Agriculture Sample Survey and 2015/16 Ethiopian Household Consumption and Expenditure Survey data were used to describe the area under production of biofortifiable crops and their importance in total consumption, respectively.

Results:

Mainstreaming biofortification in Ethiopia faces several challenges. Policy documents appear to be inconsistent, regressive, and vague regarding biofortification. Critically, there is no specific institution to oversee and/or coordinate biofortification-related activities.

Conclusion:

Overall, the success of biofortification depends upon a strong coordination body with clear mandates from detailed policies; adequate funding for research and development; and robust monitoring and evaluation of the identified production, adoption, and consumption issues.

Introduction

Vitamin A, iron, and zinc deficiencies have long-lasting consequences, particularly for children younger than 5 years and women of reproductive age. The costs of micronutrient deficiency-related diseases are staggering. ^{1 -4} Micronutrient deficiencies impair the physical growth, cognitive development, and overall health of a significant share of the population in developing countries. ^1,5 This has resulted in a relatively poorer quality of life, low educational attainment, productivity, and earning potential and has far-reaching consequences concerning overall economic development for current and future generations. ^4,5

Micronutrient deficiencies often result from poor-quality diets in developing countries where there is a high dependence on monotonous starchy staple diets that are low in micronutrients. ^2,3 Significant reductions in food insecurity have occurred in much of sub-Saharan Africa in the last 2 decades, mainly due to rapid agricultural and economic growth and global antipoverty efforts, such as the Sustainable Development Goals. ^{6 -8}

Nevertheless, the narrow focus on increasing the production of cereal staples has likely contributed to low diet diversity in developing countries because agricultural policymaking did not consider the maximization of nutritional content of items produced as an explicit goal of its production systems until recently. ^7,8 Diet diversification—a higher consumption of fruits, vegetables, pulses, and animal products that are dense in vitamins and minerals—is considered a sustainable strategy to reduce micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries. ^{7 -9} While diet diversification requires a paradigm shift in agriculture, so it can sustainably produce the right type and quantity of food to constitute a healthy diet, a consensus is forming that improving nutritional outcomes requires a food-systems-based solution. This involves a long-term investment and collaboration between agricultural scientists, nutritionists, health care specialists, policymakers, and their institutions, aimed at sustainably increasing the production of both staple foods and, critically, nonstaple foods. ^1,7,8

Coupled with these long-term efforts at diet diversification, there have been other interventions aimed at improving nutritional outcomes. This includes food fortification and micronutrient supplementation, which, along with nutrition education, and disease control, are adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization as the 4 main strategies for improving dietary intake. Biofortification, which involves enhancing specific nutrients in the edible parts of staple plant varieties, is a relatively recent intervention that complements food fortification and supplementation. Biofortification is consistent with the efforts to make agriculture nutrition-sensitive and is considered the most cost-effective and equitable intervention currently in use. ^4,10,11

Ethiopia has made notable progress in reducing malnutrition over the last 2 decades, mainly as a result of rapid income growth, increased coverage of health services, and increased agricultural productivity. ^6,12 Yet, malnutrition is still widespread and the prevalence of inadequate intake of micronutrients is high. In Ethiopia, deficiencies in vitamin A, iron, and zinc are of public health importance. ¹² Specifically, 82% of women do not consume enough vitamin A, and 50% lack sufficient zinc in their diets. ¹³ Furthermore, a nationally representative survey of micronutrient status in Ethiopia reported that 14% of children younger than 5 years and 4% of adult women were vitamin A deficient, well over the 2% WHO target level of deficiency. ¹² Zinc deficiency is also prevalent in Ethiopia; 35% of preschool children and 34% of women are zinc deficient. ¹²

In 2016, Hirvonen ¹⁴ indicates that despite diverse agroecology, livelihood patterns, and food cultures, Ethiopians consume among the least diverse diets in sub-Saharan Africa and the diversity of nutrient sources appears to be declining. Ethiopians generally consume monotonous diets that are heavily dependent on starchy staples and consumption levels of nutrient-dense foods such as animal source foods (ASF), fruits, and vegetables are low. ¹⁵ Such diets, devoid of ASF, fruits, and vegetables, have been associated with poor child growth, compromised immunity, and poor cognitive outcomes in Ethiopia. ^15,16 In contrast, access to adequate nutrition contributes to increased human capital and, thereby, labor productivity, which lie at the heart of the future economic success of developing countries. Consequently, improving nutritional outcomes has become an important priority in Ethiopia for policymakers, development partners, and researchers. ^{14 -16}

Currently, supplementation programs such as vitamin A and iron/folic acid supplementation that target vulnerable populations are implemented at scale. ¹⁷ Voluntary guidelines for the fortification of wheat and edible oil are also in place. However, the coverage of these interventions is low as they are mainly consumed by urban residents, creating inequities in access to micronutrient-fortified foods. Moreover, dietary diversity among women and children is generally inadequate and has been decreasing. ¹⁸ As a result, biofortification emerges as a viable strategy to address dietary gaps and combat micronutrient deficiencies. Studies conducted in Mozambique ¹⁹ and Uganda ²⁰ assessed the impact of large-scale interventions involving the introduction of orange-fleshed sweet potato (OFSP) and reported increased vitamin A intake among children and women. Biofortified crops, such as zinc- and iron-enhanced wheat, millets, and haricot beans, can potentially improve micronutrient intakes and reduce deficiencies. Nonetheless, further evidence is required to establish the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions in addressing zinc and iron deficiencies and enhancing their respective intakes. The main objective of this research is to highlight the pathways through which biofortification can reduce micronutrient deficiencies in Ethiopia.

Methodology

Review of Literature

We summarize available literature to provide insights into the advantages of biofortification and the state of biofortification in Ethiopia. Literature was searched between July and December 2021 using Google Scholar. The main terms used for the literature search included “biofortification,” “fortification,” “micronutrient deficiencies,” and “Ethiopia.” The search was limited to publications in the English language. In addition to peer-reviewed sources, gray literature, including policy and strategic documents, reports, working papers, proceedings of conferences, research notes, and policy briefs, were included in this review.

Key Informant Interview

Seven key-informant interviews (KIIs) ²¹ were conducted among the main biofortification actors to gain insights into the current state of biofortification in Ethiopia and to identify bottlenecks for scaling up the production and consumption of biofortified foods. A key informant interview guide was used to guide the discussion.

Secondary Data Sources

We used secondary data to study the importance of 6 items (maize, wheat, sweet potato, haricot beans, millet, and rice) in the consumption basket of rural households in Ethiopia. We computed the share of these items in the total quantity and spending on food consumed by each household. To describe the area under production of biofortifiable crops, we used data from the Central Statistical Agency’s (CSA’s) Annual Agriculture Sample Survey, which is an annually published statistical report on agricultural output and input use representative at the national, regional, and zonal levels. The data pertain to Ethiopian smallholder farmers who dominate agricultural land use and cover the 5-year period of 2015/2016 to 2019/2020. ^22,23 For our purposes, we used the term biofortifiable to refer to any crop that can potentially be biofortified using existing technologies. We also used CSA data from the 2015/2016 Ethiopian Household Consumption and Expenditure Survey (HCES) to show the importance of biofortifiable items in total consumption. ²⁴ The HCES serves as the official source for poverty statistics in Ethiopia and is the latest among the 5 rounds of repeated cross-sectional surveys.

Potentials of Biofortification in Ethiopia

This section reviews the literature on the advantages of biofortification, particularly relative to other nutritional interventions. The section also aims to underline the importance of biofortified items in consumption and crop agriculture of Ethiopians. Nevertheless, there are no current data that can be used for this purpose. Consequently, the last 2 sections compile secondary data on biofortifiable (ordinary varieties of) items to indicate the potentials of biofortification in consumption and crop production in Ethiopia.

Advantages of Biofortification

Biofortification capitalizes on the high importance of a few food staples that dominate crop production and consumption in most developing countries. Making these nutrient-enriched cultivars available for farmers helps address the micronutrient deficiencies of less accessible populations in these countries, where health infrastructure is weak and subsistence farming is predominant. ^4,25,26 Women and children have fewer resources and limited access to micronutrient-rich foods despite their elevated needs for minerals and vitamins for reproduction and growth. Biofortification targets food staples that are consumed in relatively large quantities by all family members, which generally makes it a more equitable nutrition intervention. ^2,10

Biofortification interventions cost considerably less than the costs of nutritional interventions set by international institutions, and, relative to other nutritional interventions, biofortification is the best in terms of cost-effectiveness. ^{27 -31} In addition, biofortification does not need regular monitoring because the seeds fortify themselves. This added advantage is important not only from a cost-saving aspect but also because it guarantees food safety, which is important in countries like Ethiopia where food adulteration is becoming a concern.

The Importance of Biofortifiable Items in Ethiopian Diets

Maize accounts for 18% of the quantity of food consumed by rural households in Ethiopia, and wheat accounts for another 10% (Figure 1). Sweet potato, haricot beans, millet, and rice, aggregated together, account for an additional 5% of the total quantity of food consumed. Overall, the 6 items represent approximately 33% of the total food consumed in an average rural Ethiopian household. Their importance is much lower in urban areas where the 6 items accounted for only 16% of total consumption.

Figure 1.

Share of biofortifiable items in total quantity and consumption spending of rural residents, 2015/2016.

Four additional observations can be made regarding the importance of these items in food consumption. First, their share of food expenditure (21%) is considerably lower, implying that these are relatively inexpensive items consumed by poorer households. Second, there is significant spatial variation in the importance of these items (Figure 2). For instance, wheat accounts for 30% of total consumption in Afar but only 2% in Gambella, while maize accounts for nearly 40% of total consumption in Gambella but less than 10% in Tigray. Third, teff accounts for more than 8% of average household consumption, and its importance is greater in Tigray and Amhara regions. This indicates that biofortifying other crops, not typically consumed internationally, may prove even more important than some of the 6 crops focused on in this study. Fourth, the data also reveal that these food staples are less important for urban households (Figure 3), accounting for 11% of food expenditure. Each of these shares is about half the corresponding magnitude for rural households, underlining the fact that these food staples are more important in rural areas where the majority of the poor in Ethiopia reside.

Figure 2.

Share of biofortifiable items in total quantity consumed in rural and urban areas 2015/2016, by region.

Figure 3.

Rural and urban households that consume biofortifiable items (in %), 2015/2016.

Importance of Biofortifiable Crops in Area and Output

This section reviews CSA data on crop outputs and area used to compute the importance of the 6 biofortifiable items in Ethiopian agriculture. The data cover the 2014/2015 to 2018/2019 meher agricultural season, meher is the main cropping season in Ethiopia that relies on rainfall between June and September. ²² The importance of these items is computed out of all major crops, which includes cereals, pulses, oilseeds, fruits, vegetables, root crops, chat, coffee, hops, and sugar cane. We summarize the results in Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4.

Share of biofortifiable crops in total area and output of major crops (%), 2014 to 2018 average.

Figure 5.

Share of biofortifiable crops in total area under major crops (%), 2014 to 2018 average by region.

Figure 4 shows that maize accounted for more than 15% of the crop area in an average year during the 5-year period of 2014/2015 to 2018/2019. This is second in importance after teff (more than 21%, not shown in the figure). The share of area under millet (3.2%) is larger than the nutrient-dense food categories of vegetable and fruit areas combined (2.3%). The sum of the area under sweet potato and rice is less than 1%. Wheat accounted for 12% of the area under major crops, which is less than the area under sorghum (13%, data not shown). We highlight the importance of crops that are currently not biofortified in Ethiopia (data not shown in the figure) to bring attention to their relative importance. The 6 crops being discussed here are chosen because of their importance for biofortification globally, but every country needs to consider crops that are important to their local production and consumption.

The right panel of Figure 4 indicates that the share of 5 of the 6 items in outputs is higher than their importance in area, the exception being haricot beans. This indicates that the overall yield of these items is higher than the yield of an average crop. Overall, the 6 biofortifiable crops accounted for more than 43% of the crop output in an average year during 2015/2016 to 2019/2020. This shows the quantity of food production that can potentially be nutritionally improved through biofortification using existing technologies.

As expected, spatial variations exist regarding the relative importance of these crops in terms of output and area under cultivation. In Figure 5, we provide the importance of these crops in area across regions. Maize is by far the most important crop, accounting for more than 50% of the area and 70% of the output in Afar, and accounts for about 20% of the total planted area in 5 other regions. Wheat accounts for about 10% or higher in Tigray, Amhara, and Oromiya. Relative to other regions, sweet potato is more important in Oromiya and Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples regions.

Biofortification in Ethiopia: Crops, Policies, and Challenges

Who Does Biofortification of Staple Crops in Ethiopia?

Data from HarvestPlus, an institution that strives to improve nutrition and public health by developing and promoting biofortified food crops, indicate that 12 crops are biofortified with either 1 or 2 micronutrients including iron, zinc, and/or pro-vitamin A caroteniods. ³² Twelve crops have either been released or at trial/testing stages in 37 African, 15 Asian, and 11 Latin American and Caribbean countries. The crop-nutrient combinations are iron bean, iron pearl millet, zinc maize, zinc rice, zinc wheat, vitamin A banana/plantain, vitamin A cassava, vitamin A maize, vitamin A orange sweet potato, iron/zinc cowpea, iron/zinc Irish potato, iron/zinc lentil, and zinc/iron sorghum. The data also indicate that in Ethiopia, iron bean, zinc wheat, vitamin A cassava, vitamin A maize, iron/zinc potato, and iron/zinc lentil varieties are at trial stages, while OFSP has been released. ³² Although HarvestPlus has no presence in Ethiopia, they collaborate with researchers in Ethiopia on biofortification research. ^{21,32 -34}

Table 1 summarizes the information obtained from our KIIs on types of crops being biofortified in Ethiopia as well as the importance of items in quantity consumed based on the authors’ calculations. ^21,24 The table indicates that several varieties of iron and zinc biofortified beans, OFSP, and quality protein maize (QPM) have been released in the last decade although research on QPM has stagnated in recent years mainly due to a lack of funding. Biofortified varieties of wheat will be released in the near future, while the current research stage of millet was unavailable. Table 1 lists an equal number of nonbiofortified crops staple in Ethiopia. The overall importance of crops not biofortified in consumption is slightly higher relative to crops biofortified. Furthermore, 2 of the crops (teff and enset) are staple only in Ethiopia, indicating that the biofortification of these would need to be initiated in Ethiopia.

Table 1.

Institution and Stages of Biofortification in Ethiopia, by Crop.

	Share in quantity (%)	Being biofortified in Ethiopia (Yes/No)	Nutrients enriched with	Biofortifying institution	Research stage
Maize	14.4	Yes	Provitamin A and QPM	EIAR	QPM released
Teff	11.9	No	–	–	–
Wheat	10.0	Yes	Iron and zinc	EIAR	Not released
Sorghum	7.3	No	–	–	–
Enset	6.2	No	–	–	–
Barley	2.6	No	–	–	–
Millet	1.6	Yes	Iron and zinc	EIAR	Not released
Sweet potato	1.0	Yes	Provitamin A	EIAR/CIP	Released
Rice	0.9	No	–	–	–
Haricot beans	0.9	Yes	Iron and zinc	EIAR	Released

Abbreviations: CIP, International Potato Center; EIAR, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research; QPM, quality protein maize.

Source: Authors’ computation using HCES (2015/2016) and KII (2021) data.

Policies Concerning Biofortification in Ethiopia

This section reviews 4 policy documents of the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (GFDRE), ^{17,35 -37} which mention the word biofortification in any of its forms. Furthermore, information obtained from KII is used to provide further insights into the policy environment toward the development and dissemination of biofortified varieties.

Biofortification policy: Official policy documents

The National Nutrition Program (NNP) of Ethiopia: 2016-2020 ³⁷ , mentions biofortification five times and is more specific about objectives. It indicates that the government will Support the development of biofortified crops and vegetables and increase access to them by farmers…; Establish biofortification center and capacity at the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research…; Distribute biofortified seeds from research entities and other higher institutions and [p]romote production and consumption of biofortified pulses and vegetables. Nevertheless, this document does not include biofortification in the accountability and results matrix for NNP implementation.

The National Nutrition Sensitive Agriculture Strategy ³⁶ indicates the government will implement several core activities to achieve its Strategic Objective 3: Increase year-round availability, access and consumption of diverse, safe and nutritious foods. Included among these core objectives is to Promote production of bio fortified crops… using Social and Behavioral Change Communication (SBCC) materials and tools. The document also indicates that the government will Support agriculture research institutions to conduct operational research works on improved and nutrient dense varieties e.g. biofortification. Finally, the results matrix of this document includes # of bio-fortified crops promoted to monitor the progress in the core activities mentioned above. From a biofortification point of view GFDRE (2017) ³⁶ is a diluted version of GFDRE (2015) ³⁷ except that it includes a way to monitor the progress of biofortification. As a Nutrition Sensitive Agricultural Strategy, it contains no specifics on either how agriculture is linked with biofortification or how the production of biofortified crops is promoted using SBCC.

The third document reviewed, National Food and Nutrition Strategy, ³⁸ appears to emphasize biofortification by referring to it many times throughout the document. Overall, the document has the objective of addressing food security, food safety, food quality and postharvest management, and other system-level issues. The document breaks down overarching policy directions into strategic objectives, directions, and initiatives. Biofortification is considered in 3 of the 13 strategic objectives and in 6 strategic initiatives. The document, which mentions biofortification more than the combined number of mentions in remaining Ethiopian government documents, includes the mention of biofortification in the right places: production, consumption, and nutritional communication of biofortified foods. Therefore, it is difficult to indict the document with a lack of focus on biofortification. Nevertheless, for the most part, this document begins with the production of biofortified foods. Biofortification requires a range of activities that begin with the selection of items that will have an impact on a large share of the population. The 3 crops mentioned in the document multiple times (OFSP, QPM, iron-rich bean) to exemplify biofortified foods either have little importance in consumption or are no longer being biofortified/produced. Given the short period since the adoption of this strategy, more time is needed to gauge the full impact of this strategy.

The most recent of the documents reviewed is Game Changing Solutions to Transform Ethiopia’s Food System. ³⁵ The document lists 22 game changers to transform Ethiopia’s food system, one of which is to promote and enhance the production and consumption of fortified nutrient-dense staple foods through using industrial food fortification and biofortification and public and private partnership initiatives. This document likely reflects the most recent state of thinking among policymakers in Ethiopia regarding biofortification. It is encouraging to see that biofortification is mentioned in the list of game changer solutions. However, the manner it is juxtaposed with fortification appears to imply that biofortification is an extension of industrial food fortification. Moreover, there are no specifics in this document concerning how biofortification is going to be implemented.

Biofortification policy: Findings from key-informant interviews

The key-informant interviews reveal general optimism for the increasing recognition biofortification is receiving by policymakers in Ethiopia. Yet, these discussions provide mixed insights regarding the attention it has received so far.

The key informants made several recommendations that, if included in future policies, will help mainstream biofortification while also acknowledging the need for continued advocacy to get policymakers’ attention. The researchers indicated that given the many desirable properties of biofortification, a clear set of guidelines that require staple crops to be biofortified will ensure increased production and consumption of micronutrients. They also indicate that the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) has currently selected some strategic commodities for interventions, and these interventions leave out most of the crops currently being biofortified in Ethiopia. Specifically, the list of strategic commodities mostly includes cereals and leaves out root crops, such as potato and sweet potato, which generally receive attention only during droughts.

The key informants also pointed to the need for a large-scale promotion and awareness creation campaign on the production and consumption of biofortified crops. Currently, only a few, mostly international, institutions are engaged in awareness creation, and these activities are not cost-effective because they do not have policy support. The key informants indicate that public policies and investments are needed to strengthen public–private partnerships that promote the introduction and mainstreaming of biofortification. Policies will, among others, encourage local media to provide such educational programs at low or no cost to the public.

Key informants also suggested the creation and/or strengthening of the incentive structure (eg, tax and investment credits) that encourages private investments in biofortification (eg, planting material propagation, seed development, seed production), food processing, and other areas in the biofortified food-chain. The need for policies that reduce bureaucratic hurdles for startup businesses while also pointing out that different policies/mechanisms are needed for different crops. Incentive structures for farmers are also suggested to encourage farmers to grow biofortified seeds, which may include labeling of biofortified produce.

Challenges of Biofortification in Ethiopia

Our study reveals 4 major, but interrelated, challenges to biofortification in Ethiopia, in addition to the lack of focus on the policy discussed earlier.

Inadequate financial and complementary inputs

Overall agricultural research is inadequately funded in Ethiopia. This is particularly important for biofortification because the lack of attention in policymaking means that financial and other resources are not allocated specifically for research to develop biofortified varieties. Some public research institutions conduct biofortification research by reassigning funds from other areas, given the importance of biofortification for nutrition security. Researchers also seek grants from international, mostly Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, institutions to fund their research. Research on QPM, which has been described as successful, relative to similar projects in other Eastern African countries, was terminated due to a lack of funding.

Respondents also indicated that there is a lack of well-equipped laboratories needed at later stages of biofortification research, including functional laboratories needed to produce virus-free planting materials and for micropropagation. There is also a lack of near-infrared spectroscopy to measure nutrient content in biofortified crops in Ethiopia.

Institutional and organizational

There is no specific organization that monitors biofortification-related activities in Ethiopia. Although biofortification is a relatively new area of research, considerable lessons have been gained from experiences in other countries. An institution or body is needed to oversee and/or coordinate basic research on developing biofortified varieties, research on the effectiveness of biofortified foods for human nutrition, cost-effectiveness studies, promotion of biofortification in production and consumption, and other biofortification-related activities. Such an institution/body could also help coordinate the activities of research institutions within Ethiopia and between Ethiopia and international or national research institutions in other countries. Currently, experts in the Food and Nutrition Coordination office at the MoA provide some support on biofortification issues, which is overlaid with their already existing responsibilities.

Discussions with key informants also indicate the need for increased collaboration and coordination of activities between central government institutions. Federal government activities need to also be synchronized with regional governments. Regional governments, bureaus of agriculture, and other institutions need to be better engaged in biofortification with central government institutions.

Seed system and policy

Developing micronutrient-enriched varieties presents several unique challenges. However, all KII participants place the seed system in Ethiopia among the most critical challenges for biofortification. Seeds must be reproduced, transported, and supplied to farmers, and farmers need to be willing to adopt these seeds. All these activities must occur in a timely fashion given the seasonal nature of crop production, especially in Ethiopia where crop production is predominantly rainfed. That the success of biofortification needs a well-functioning seed system, which has serious problems even without the biofortification objective, adds another dimension to the effort of mainstreaming biofortification in Ethiopia.

Participants of the KII indicate that the seed certification process, which happens twice per year, is a relatively well-functioning process governed by a seed release code and a regulatory body at the MoA. The Ethiopian Institute of Agriculture has the power of attorney from the MoA to evaluate “new variety” seeds presented for certification by researchers. Seeds presented for certification will be compared with other, already released, varieties in terms of yields, agronomic traits (drought tolerance, pest resistance, etc), or other characteristics, such as added nutritional values, including biofortification. Seeds accepted according to these criteria will further be checked on farms and research stations by multidisciplinary experts. In the case of biofortified seeds, there are also international standards set by HarvestPlus regarding the level of nutritional enhancement done to the seed. HarvestPlus does not endorse biofortified varieties that do not meet these standards although countries may approve the release of such varieties.

Several challenges were identified by our KII during the production and distribution phase of the seed system. These challenges include the number of seed producers, their lack of timely delivery, and their motivation. In addition, KII identified a general lack of coordination between seed developers, seed producers, and seed demand analyzers.

There are only a few seed producers in Ethiopia. Consequently, they have limited geographic coverage and improved seeds are frequently in short supply. This also has implications for monopoly power and pricing of improved seeds. Key informants indicate interventions are needed to increase the number of seed producers or that seed production needs to be much more decentralized. In the case of OFSP, it is impossible to supply planting material without a decentralized or localized seed production because OFSP vines must be planted within a few days and seedlings are also time-sensitive. Furthermore, decentralized seed suppliers may focus on producing more localized varieties. A delay in seed supply is another problem that is also related to the number of seed producers. Farmers often complain about the shortage of seed supply and the untimeliness of the supply, which has a detrimental effect on their harvests. Policymakers can help increase the number of seed producers by encouraging and incentivizing entry into the subsector using tax, credit, investment, and import policies.

Key informants indicate that seed producers are motivated solely by profits. However, the profit motive may not serve all the objectives of policymakers and the community. For instance, it is problematic if seed producers supply a variety of seeds that accrue higher profits to parts of the country with higher ability-to-pay while leaving other parts unserved with a less-profitable drought-tolerant variety. There are common policies to make seed producers incorporate these objectives into their decision-making, including subsidies that incentivize seed producers to supply varieties deemed important.

Seed producers lack coordination with seed developers and with those that analyze seed demand. The lack of backward linkages means that seed producers do not have information on upcoming new-generation seeds and thus do not start multiplication as soon as these varieties are released. Furthermore, seed producers avoid the risk of producing newly released varieties until there is a well-established demand for the varieties and are not interested in promoting potentially risky new varieties. Key informants also indicate that there is a lack of preplanned requests for seeds by seed distributors and those that analyze seed demand. While this is due to the lack of well-established seed distribution strategies/policies, it is discouraging for the seed producers, and it impinges on the performance of seed developers and others involved. Moreover, if the newly developed varieties are not promoted to farmers, there may not be sufficient demand for the seed producers to invest in producing the seeds. To succeed in mainstreaming biofortification, the collaboration and coordination of different stakeholders in the seed supply chain are indispensable.

Low adoption of biofortifiable (improved but nonbiofortified) varieties

Figure 6 summarizes the information on the proportion of farmers that adopted improved varieties of the 6 biofortifiable crops, which was computed using CSA data on input use. ²³ The summary indicates that nearly 40% of maize farmers used improved maize varieties, while about 12% of wheat farmers used improved varieties. Less than 2% of haricot bean farmers have used improved varieties, while the proportion is less than 1% for the remaining crops. Researchers have commented that aspects of the CSA survey design may underestimate the actual use of improved seed in Ethiopia. ³⁹ Farmers are asked whether they have purchased improved seeds rather than whether they are using them. This specific framing of the question may significantly underestimate the actual levels of adoption because farmers tend to reuse improved seeds for several years as well as obtain seeds from their neighbors.

At least 2 observations can be made concerning these results. First, if the proportions of farmers using improved seed varieties are considered indicative of the proportions that will be using biofortified varieties, then the implication is that these proportions are too low for a viable/cost-effective biofortification intervention for most crops. Second, the proportions using improved seeds observed here imply that efforts to increase modern input adoption must be among the important goals of policymakers and those working to mainstream biofortification in Ethiopia.

Figure 6.

Percentage of farmers who adopted improved varieties of crops, 2015 to 2019 average.

Conclusions and Policy Implications

Vitamin A, iron, and zinc deficiencies have long-lasting consequences, particularly for children younger than 5 years and women of reproductive age. Biofortification involves enriching with micronutrients, mostly vitamin A, iron, and zinc, staple crops cultivated and consumed by households in rural areas of developing countries. We reviewed the current state of biofortification in Ethiopia where vitamin A, iron, and zinc deficiencies are of significant public health importance. The findings of this study have at least 5 important policy implications to better integrate biofortification into Ethiopia, including the need for well-articulated policy documents, a coordinating body, an efficient seed production and distribution system, demand side management that is responsive to farmer’s awareness and needs, and locally developed biofortified seed varieties that better address current crop production and consumption patterns.

Policymakers must give closer attention to biofortification and incorporate it more clearly into national nutritional, agricultural, and food policy documents. Policy documents in Ethiopia lack clarity and, more importantly, appear to be lapsing in the attention they provide to biofortification. Increased support by policymakers will help ameliorate the lack of funding and facilities needed to develop biofortified varieties. Increased advocacy, by both experts and researchers in relevant disciplines, is needed to raise public awareness of the benefits of biofortification.

Second, an institution/center or body that oversees and/or coordinates the activities of different stakeholders engaged in biofortification is crucially needed in Ethiopia. Such an institution should promote biofortification; advocate for policy support; coordinate and strengthen public–private partnerships; and oversee the activities of crop researchers, nutritionists, agricultural policymakers, extensionists, seed producers, and distributors, as well as other stakeholders.

Success in mainstreaming biofortification depends importantly on the success of the seed system, which has several already existing challenges. Policy instruments can be used to incentivize entry to the seed subsector. Subsidies can be used to help seed producers internalize objectives that improve public welfare. Coordination of efforts to develop, produce, and distribute seeds will considerably reduce the time it takes to produce and distribute a sufficient amount of early generation seed varieties, including biofortified seeds.

Efforts to mainstream biofortification need to also pay attention to several factors affecting the adoption of biofortified seeds by farmers. Information about growing biofortified varieties, household education and resource endowment, social networks, access to complementary inputs, and levels and changes in nutritional knowledge are important in determining the adoption of biofortified varieties.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, researchers/institutions working on developing biofortified varieties should choose the crops, and the nutrients to biofortify into these crops, based on specific local conditions. Crop-nutrient combinations that can efficiently and effectively address the broad micronutrient deficiencies of a large proportion of the population should be given the highest priority. The feasibility of biofortifying a certain crop depends on its cost-effectiveness relative to other crop biofortifications as well as relative to other nutritional interventions. One implication of this is that biofortification efforts in Ethiopia should also be directed toward predominately nationally produced crops such as teff, sorghum, enset, and barley.