Analysis of Coffee Marketing Performance

Reader Impact Factor Score
[Total: 1 Average: 5]

Published on International Journal of Economics & Business
Publication Date: December, 2019

Nasir Ababulgu Abasimel
Department of Agribusiness and Value Chain Management, Wollega University
P. O. Box 38, Wollega University, Ethiopia

Journal Full Text PDF: Analysis of Coffee Marketing Performance (Studied in Jimma Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia).

Abstract
This study aims at analyzing the performance of coffee actors and identifying coffee marketing channels in the study area. The data were collected from both primary and secondary sources. The primary data for this study were collected from 124 households, 10 collectors, eight suppliers, two cooperatives, two exporters and one cooperative union. The major actors of coffee in the study area are input suppliers, coffee producers, collectors, suppliers, cooperatives, cooperative union and exporters. The study result indicated that the exporters and suppliers were the key coffee value chain governors due to the economies of scale. Three main coffee marketing channels were identified in the study area. The result indicated that producers incur the highest cost about 60% of the total cost incurred by actors in the chain and gained less net margin around one-third of the total. The producer share and performance of coffee marketing in the area is affected by lack of input and its high price, illegal traders, the weakness of cooperatives, lack of subsidy, poor market infrastructure, and in efficiency of enabling and supportive services. Therefore, policy needs to emphasize at improving the provision of inputs at fair price, connecting producers to main market through banning or licensing illegal traders who are gaining at the expense of producers, strengthening farmers cooperatives, subsidizing exporters, increasing the accessibility of market and infrastructure, enhancing supportive and enabling service are highly recommended in order to increase producers’ share and accelerate the overall performance of coffee actors.

Keywords: Coffee, Marketing channels, Performance analysis, Margins, Costs, Benefit Share.

1. INTRODUCTION
Ethiopia is famous as the origin of coffee and is the largest producer in Africa. In production of Arabica coffee, Ethiopia is the sixth largest producer in the world. About 15 million people (almost 20 percent of the total population) directly or indirectly depend on coffee for their living (USDA, 2012). Coffee marketing in Ethiopia has undergone several transformations over the decades. Recent initiatives to increase value and benefit of the coffee sector include fair trade certification by cooperatives, organic and specialty coffee promotion, and the trade-marking and licensing initiatives that has successfully established international branding of three of Ethiopia‘s major coffee types: Sidamo, Yirgachefe, and Harar. In July 2008, a new law (Proclamation 702/2008) and the supporting regulation issued by the Council of Ministers replaced the existing coffee quality control and marketing legislation governing the sector for the past nearly four decades. The law stipulates that all coffee supply, with the exception of grower direct exports, are to be traded in the newly established Ethiopia Commodity Exchange (USAID, 2010).
According to Gustaf (2011) there are generally two paths in the Ethiopian Coffee Marketing chain; one through Ethiopia Commodity Exchange (ECX); and other a direct export path through cooperative unions. Fair Trade certified coffee is only sold through the cooperative unions and it is directly exported to different countries in the world. There are 4 coffee cooperative unions established in Ethiopia; namely, Sidamo coffee farmers’ cooperative union (SCFCU), Yirgachefe Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union (YCFCU), Kaffa Forest Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union (KFCFCU) and Oromia coffee farmers’ cooperative union (OCFCU). The structure and regulations of the cooperative unions are the same. They are licensed to bypass the coffee auction (ECX) and can export their coffee directly. Under each union there are a number of Primary Cooperatives (PC´s) with which the farmers can be members. PC´s are typically named after the district in which it is active and the members are the local farmers in this specific area. The PC´s buy the coffee from its members at a price, set by the local market conditions (competition between cooperatives, local traders and Suppliers). When the union buys the coffee from the PC, they pay the current market price set at ECX for the specific kind of coffee. When the union sells the coffee to foreign importing companies, 70% of the net profit is paid back to the primary cooperatives. In turn the primary cooperatives pay back 70% of their net profit as dividend to the farmers (USAID, 2010).
The largest volume of coffee is grown in the two large regions of Oromia (in the central part of the country) and the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR). Only five percent of coffee production is grown on modern plantations, which are owned by private investors or by the government. The rest is grown by smallholder farmers, and about half of that production is in the backyards or gardens. In both cases (modern plantations as well as smallholder production), coffee is generally grown under shade (USDA, 2012). With approximately 95% of coffee production in Ethiopia been considered organic, coffee production in the country is categorized into four (4) systems namely forest coffee, semi-forest coffee, garden coffee and plantation coffee.
Jimma zone covers a total of 21% of the export share of the country and 43% of the export share of the Oromia Region (JZARDO, 2008). In terms of the top 25 woredas, Oromia dominates with 18 of the top 25. More specifically, Jimma zone in Oromia has five of the top 25 producing woredas (IFPRI 2015). According to ECX (2011), agricultural markets in Ethiopia before 2008 had been characterized by small scale producers (95%), high costs and risks of transacting and little access to market information due to a long-chain supply of coffee with several market intermediaries. Aklilu and Ludi (2010) indicated that even though the government deals with coffee marketing, still the country has been constrained by poor marketing performance of agricultural products in general and coffee sub-sector in particular. In addition, without an efficient marketing system, the surplus resulting from increased production benefits neither the producer nor the country (Jema, 2008). Therefore, analyzing the performance of coffee actors is an important means of assessing the efficiency of price formation in and transmission through the chain for policy implications through determining unfair pricing practices or receipt of economic profits by dominant merchants who normally have the bargaining power against the coffee producers. Hence, this study identified coffee marketing channels and analyzed the performance of coffee actors using margins and costs in the study area.

2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Description of the study area
Jimma zone extends between 7013’- 8o56’ North latitude and 35049’- 38038’ East longitude. It is located in the south western part of Oromiya National Regional State. It is bordered with East Wollega zone in the north, with east shawa zone and southwest Shawa zone in north east, with SNNP administration in the south east and south part, and with Illubabor zone in the west and it is found between altitude ranges of 880 to 3340 meters above sea level (PSEPJZ, 2014). The Zone is one of the coffee growing zones in the Oromia Regional State. Currently, the total land area of about 97,155 hectares are covered by coffee, from which a total volume of about 803,224 quintals of coffee are obtained, from 444,216 private peasant holdings in the agricultural year (CSA, 2014/2015). There are favourable climatic conditions, variety of local coffee types for quality improvement and long history of its production in the Zone.

2.2 Sampling Techniques
A two stage random sampling procedure was employed. Among the potential Zones in Oromia Region, Jimma Zone was selected purposively. Selecting representative sample kebeles is also an important criteria. Thus, in the first stage, with the consultation of the agricultural experts and development agents, 3 coffee producers’ kebeles namely Sakala genefo, Ilike tunjo and Gorantu alaga were selected randomly. In the second stage, based on the number of coffee producer households, 124 sample coffee producer households were selected from the sample kebeles using simple random sampling technique with probability proportional to size (Table 1). In addition, suppliers were selected randomly whereas collectors, primary cooperatives, exporters and cooperative union were selected purposively.

2.2.1 Sample Size Determination
Since adequate size of sample is needed for the purpose of econometric analysis, sample size was determined using Yamane (1967) formula. Yamane (1967) developed the following equation to yield a representative sample for proportions. Hence, the sample size was determined based on the following formula given by Yamane (1967).

Where, n is sample size, N is the number of households in the district and e is the desired level of precision. By taking e as 9%, the total number of household was 40123 and therefore, the sample size was 124 sample households which was selected randomly.

Table 1. Sample size distribution in the sample rural kebeles.
Name of selected kebeles Total number of coffee producer households Number of sample households
Sakala genefo 1140 58
Ilike tunjo 1022 52
Gorantu alaga 275 14
Total 2437 124
Source: Own computation survey results, 2017

Other coffee value chain actors like collectors, suppliers, cooperatives, exporters and union were also included. From the lists 16 suppliers, 8 of them were selected randomly. Furthermore, 10 collectors, two primary cooperatives, two exporters and one cooperative union were selected purposively. Since there were not the recorded lists of collectors in the area, they were selected purposively and due to limited number of primary cooperatives in the study area, both of them were selected purposively.

2.3. Types, Sources and Methods of Data Collection
The data, both quantitative and qualitative types, needed for this study were collected from both primary and secondary sources. The primary data were obtained using informal and formal surveys. The formal survey was undertaken through formal interviews with randomly selected households, traders and cooperative union using a pre-tested semi-structured questionnaire for each group. In addition, secondary data of both qualitative and quantitative nature were gathered from Central Statistics Agency (CSA), Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD), and other sources through reviewing and examination of reports as well as records of published and unpublished documents.

2.4. Methods of Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the data collected from coffee producers, collectors, suppliers, cooperatives, exporters and cooperative union.

2.4.1. Descriptive statistics
This method of data analysis refers to the use of percentages, means, standard deviations, t-test, χ2-test, and analysis of the performance of coffee value chain actors in the process of examining and describing marketing margins, costs and benefit share of each actor in the chain were undertaken and coffee marketing channels were identified.

2.4.1.2. Analysis of coffee performance
Estimates of the marketing margins are the best tools to analyze performance of market. Marketing margin was calculated by taking the difference between producers and traders prices. The producers’ share is the commonly employed ratio calculated mathematically as, the ratio of producers’ price to consumers’ price. Mathematically, producers’ share can be expressed as:

Where: PS= Producer’s share
Pp= Producer’s price
Cp = Consumer price
MM = marketing margin
The above equation tells us that a higher marketing margin, diminishes producers share and vice versa. It also provides an indication of welfare distribution among production and marketing agents. Calculating the total marketing margin was done by using the following formula. Computing the Total Gross Marketing Margin (TGMM) is always related to the final price paid by the end buyer and is expressed as a percentage (Mendoza, 1995)

Where, TGMM= Total Gross Marketing Margin.
From this measure, it is possible to see the allocative efficiency of markets. Higher profit of the marketing intermediaries reflects reduced downward and unfair income distribution, which depresses market participation of smallholders. An efficient marketing system is where the net margin is near to reasonable profit. To find the benefit share of each actor the same concept was applied with some adjustments. In analyzing margins, first Total Gross Marketing Margin (TGMM) was calculated as depicted in equation (2). Then, marketing margin at a given stage ‘i’ (GMMi) was computed as:

Where, SPi is selling price at ith link and PPi is purchase price at ith link.
Stage is the chain market at which different actors operates in the value chain like processing, wholesaling and retailing, while the link is the market in which purchasing and selling is carried out (example when retailer purchases the product from wholesaler and sell it).
Total gross profit margin also computed as:
TGPM=TGMM-TOE (5)
Where, TGPM is total gross profit margin, TGMM is total gross marketing margin and TOE is total operating expense. Similar concept of profit margin that deducts operating expense from marketing margin was done by Dawit (2010) and Marshal (2011). Then profit margin at stage “i” can be obtained as follows:

Where, GPMi =Gross profit margin at ith link
GMMi =Gross marketing margin at ith link
OEi =Operating expense at ith link
TGPM=Total gross profit margin

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Coffee Marketing Channels and Performance Analysis
3.1.1. Current Coffee Marketing Channels
The analysis of marketing channels is intended to provide a systematic knowledge of the flow of the goods and services from their origin (producer) to the final destination (consumer). Coffee passes through several stages before it reaches the ultimate consumers. Accordingly, the following three main coffee marketing channels were identified in the study area.
Channel I: Coffee growers Suppliers Coffee exporters
Channel II: Coffee growers Primary Cooperatives Coffee export market/union
Channel III: Coffee growers Coffee collectors Suppliers Exporters

Among there, channel I is the principal coffee marketing channel through which sun-dried coffee passes from coffee producers to coffee suppliers and then processed coffee bean is passed from coffee suppliers to auction market. Channel II is the case in which coffee producers sell their coffee to primary cooperatives and the cooperatives supply the coffee to the Oromia coffee farmers’ cooperative union for export. Following channel II, channel III is also a well-practiced coffee marketing channel through which coffee passes from coffee growers to coffee collectors and ultimately to suppliers for further processing and passes from suppliers to the auction market.
Rural households sell their coffee to the market place which is far from them. They sell their produce in the form of sun-dried cherry (locally named as Jenfel) after storing for some months. There were some farmers who used to sell their coffee in the form of kashir (refers to locally hulled coffee) because of its price advantages over Jenfel. But, recently such practices are forbidden by the district office of agriculture. The reason is that manually hulled, kashir contains significant amount of broken coffee beans which is usually purchased by illegal traders and mixed with better quality coffee to earn higher price margin. The main purchasers of coffee in the area are suppliers, cooperatives and coffee collectors in the given order as summarized below. Coffee suppliers purchase large amount of sun dried coffee either directly or through their agents. Cooperatives were the next largest purchasers of sundried coffee followed by coffee collectors.
According to the survey results, the dominant purchasers of sun dried coffee in the district are coffee suppliers, cooperatives and coffee collectors. In choosing buyers, most farmers (65%) reported that price is the primary decision variable. Selling to coffee collectors is easier, since the time and cost of transportation required in the exchange process are less demanding. However, the price and the weighing scale of suppliers are considered to be attractive and preferable. The survey revealed that 41.1% (51 sample households) sold their sundried coffee to suppliers during the year 2016/17. About 41 households (33.1%) reported to have sold to cooperatives. They do also sell sun-dried coffee to coffee collectors. In this respect, about 25.8% of the sample households reported to have sold their coffee to coffee collectors. Retailers and consumers purchase the rejected coffee and what is supplied by women and children in small quantities. Women and children sell less significant amount of sundried coffee to retailers and consumers that is why this outlet is not included in the channels. The major reason why farmers sell to coffee collectors is the fact that these traders are sometimes willing to offer a better price and collect coffee from farm gates reducing the transportation and other costs that could have been incurred by the producers (Table 2).

Table 2. Proportion of sample households who sold sundried coffee to different agents (in percent) during the year 2016/2017 year.
Agents Number of households Percentage (%) Quantity sold in 85 Kg sack
Suppliers 51 41.1 216.43
Pr. Cooperatives
Collectors 41
32 33.1
25.8 174.31
135.86
Total 124 100 526.60 (44,761.00 kg)
Source: Own computation results, 2017

4.3.2. Performance of coffee marketing
The performance of coffee market was evaluated by considering associated costs, returns and marketing margins. The methods employed for this analysis of coffee marketing performance were channel comparison and marketing margin. The analysis of marketing channels was intended to provide a systematic knowledge of the flow of goods and services from its origin of production to final destination. The estimated volume of production of dry cherry coffee was about 632 in 85 kg sack (53720 kg) from which about 526.6 in 85 kg sack (44761 kg) of coffee was sold in the study area during the survey year.
The analysis of the distribution of costs and gross income at different levels of chain in which actors operate is important in the business of coffee to identify costs, margins and benefit share of each actors in the coffee value chain. Being a highly desirable export cash crop, coffee requires greater attention during both pre and post-harvest handling from the point of production to the final market. The main production cost of coffee are the variable cost (labor cost for seed bed or seedling hole preparation, sowing seed or planting seedling, fencing, weeding and harvesting), coffee seed/seedling cost, the cost incurred for the purchase of farm implements and opportunity cost ( rental value of land). Marketing cost of coffee mainly involves the cost of post-harvest activities incurred before coffee reaches the end market. This includes cost of harvesting and packaging (material and labor costs), handling (sorting, cleaning, grading, loading, and unloading), and transportation and tax costs. Generally, these components constitute a large share in the total margin between the final price and the producers’ price.
The margin calculation is done to show its distribution throughout the various actors as coffee move from producers to collectors, suppliers, cooperatives and finally to exporters (private and cooperatives union). Marketing margin can be used to measure the share of the final selling price that is captured by a particular agent in the value chain. The relative size of various market participants’ gross margins can indicate where in the marketing chain value is added and/or profits are made. In order to calculate the marketing margin of an agent, the average annual price of coffee for that particular agent was taken. Similarly average annual purchasing price of exporters is considered. In order to measure the market share of each agent, all agents have participated in coffee trading were considered. Marketing margins, associated costs and benefit share of value chain actors and marketing margins in different main channels are presented hereunder.

4.3.3 Production and Marketing costs, margins and benefit shares of actors in coffee value chain
Table 3 depicts different types of marketing cost related to the transaction of coffee by producers, collectors, suppliers, cooperatives, union and exporters; and the benefit share of each marketing actors.

Table3. Marketing costs and benefit shares of actors in the coffee value chain.
Items (Birr/85kg) Producers Collectors Cooperatives Suppliers Exporters Union Horizontal Sum
Purchase prices – 1445 1700 1700 2210 2252.5 9307.5
Production cost 509.70 – – – – – 509.70
Marketing cost 128.40 139.5 196.25 198.75 234.60 213.84 1111.34
Total cost 638.1 139.5 196.25 198.75 234.60 213.84 1621.04
Sale prices 1572.5 1700 2252.5 2210 2847.5 2975 13557.5
Marketing margin 1062.8 255 552.5 510 637.5 722.5 3740.30
% share of margin 28 7 15 14 17 19 100
Profit margin 934.4 115.5 356.25 311.25 402.9 508.66 2628.96
% share of profit 36 4 14 12 15 19 100
Source: Own computation results, 2017

According to survey result, producers incur significant costs for the production and marketing of coffee. The estimated cost of production starting from seed and site preparation up to collection of is found to be the cherry was 509.9 Birr/85 kg. The opportunity costs of land and family labor are also included in this cost. The opportunity cost of family labor is considered relying on the current wage market of hired labor in the study area. Moreover marketing cost also incurred for drying, bagging, packing and transporting to the primary market, which was estimated to 128.40 Birr/85 kg. Producers incur the highest cost about 60% of the total cost incurred by actors in the chain and gained less net margin around one-third of the total. On average, farmers’ selling price to suppliers and cooperatives at primary markets are 1700 Birr/85 kg and 1700 Birr/85 kg respectively. It appears to be 1445 Birr/85 kg at farm-gates in remote rural areas where collectors operate. Therefore, the gross margin of farmers obtained by selling their coffee to these markets is found to be 1062.8 Birr /85 kg (28%) around one-third of the total margin.
The marketing cost and margin analysis indicated that in the chain where producers, cooperatives and union are involved or in the fair-trade chain (channel II), the marketing margin and marketing cost for cooperatives are 552.5 Birr/85 kg (15% of the total margin) and 196.25 Birr/85 kg respectively. Whereas, the marketing margin and marketing cost of union are 722.5 Birr/85 kg (19%) and 213.84 Birr/85 kg respectively. The net margin for union is higher than exporters’ net because of lesser marketing cost (less middlemen and tax free government promotion for unions). In the conventional coffee value chain (channel I and III), collectors incur a cost of 139.5 Birr/85 kg for transport, loading and unloading and bagging and marketing margin of 255 Birr/85 kg (7% of the total margin). Likewise, the gross marketing margin of suppliers is 510 Birr/85 kg (14% of the total) which is less than the cooperative’s marketing margin of 552.5 Birr/85 kg (15% of the total) but suppliers marketing cost is 198.75 Birr/85 kg which is higher than cooperative’ marketing cost. This is because coffee suppliers have additional marketing cost such as brokerage fees, ECX service charge, and taxes. Marketing margin for exporter is 637.5 Birr/85 kg (17%) which is lower than union’s marketing margin, because fair-trade FOB-price is above prices for conventional coffee. Marketing cost for exporter is 234.60 Birr/85 kg which is higher than union’s marketing cost because exporters incur additional cost such as export taxes and brokerage fees (Table 3).

4.3.4 TGMM and GMM of actors in different market channels of the coffee value chain
Marketing margins of coffee in the three channels for each group of market players are presented here. TGMM, GMM, GMMp, GMMcol, GMMcoop, GMMs, GMMe and GMMu are total gross marketing margin, gross marketing margin, gross marketing margins of producers, collectors, cooperatives, suppliers, exporters and union, respectively. The total gross marketing margins in the three channels are 40%, 43% and 49% respectively. The producers’ shares in channel I, II and III are 60%, 57% and 51% respectively.

Table 4. Gross marketing margins of each actors in different marketing channels
Actors Channels
Channel I Channel II Channel III
TGMM 40% 43% 49%
GMMp 60% 57% 51%
GMMcol – – 8.82%
GMMcoop – 18.5% –
GMMs 17.6% – 17.64%
GMMe 22.4% – 22.05%
GMMu – 24.5% –
Source: Own computation results, 2017

The total gross marketing margin (TGMM) is the highest accounting 49% in channel III which is shared among collectors, suppliers and exporters. Producer’s share (GMMp) is highest (60%) from the total exporters’ price in channel I and lowest in channel III (51%) because of the involvement of collectors who manage to purchase relatively at a lower price from producers and earn margin at the expense of producers. In channel II, the share of producers is about 57% of the total gross marketing margin taking union price as a common denominator without the addition of members’ dividend at the end of the year. In this channel, producers gain from vertical integration of the national coffee value chain. Even though, channel II or Fair-trade FOB-price is above prices of channel I and III on most markets, fair-trade producers earn a larger share of FOB- price than actors in the chain.
In channel I, the gross marketing margin for collectors is estimated to be 8.82%. Taking the union-price as a common denominator, the gross marketing margin for primary cooperatives is 18.5%, which is greater than that of the supplier in both channel I and III because their selling price is different. The gross marketing margin of the exporters is estimated to be 22% of FOB-price in both channel I and III whereas in channel II, union as exporters get the highest gross marketing margin of up to 24.5% of the FOB-price. Hence, channel I and II are preferable for producers while channel III requires intervention either through licensing collectors or totally banning from coffee marketing in order to maximize producers share.

4. CONCLUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The analysis of marketing channels was intended to provide a systematic knowledge of the flow of coffee from its origin of production to final destination. The study identified three main coffee marketing channels in the study area. The main purchasers of coffee in the area are suppliers, cooperatives and coffee collectors, and coffee suppliers purchase a large amount of sun dried coffee either directly or through their agents since the price and the weighing scale of suppliers are considered to be attractive and preferable. In this case the concerned bodies need to encourage coffee producers to sell to suppliers in order to improve their gains. As the study indicates, a significant amount coffee is sold to collectors by producers due to lack of transportation and other marketing costs. At this point, the government should facilitate transportation and avoid unnecessary costs to increase returns for coffee producers.
The performance of coffee actors’ analysis through analyzing the distribution of costs and gross income at different levels of chain in which actors operate is important in the business of coffee to identify costs, margins and benefit share of each actors in the coffee value chain. The main production cost of coffee are the variable cost (labor cost for seed bed or seedling hole preparation, sowing seed or planting seedling, fencing, weeding and harvesting), coffee seed/seedling cost, the cost incurred for the purchase of farm implements and opportunity cost (rental value of land). Marketing cost of coffee mainly involves the cost of post-harvest activities incurred before coffee reaches the end market. According to survey result, producers incur significant costs for the production and marketing of coffee and they incur the highest cost about 60% of the total cost incurred by actors in the chain and gained less net margin around one-third of the total. To address this problem, less expensive, the required amount, on time provision of inputs and marketing facilities by input suppliers and enablers through government initiatives are recommended. The net margin for union is higher than exporters’ net because of lesser marketing cost (less middlemen and tax free government promotion for unions). In addition to cooperative unions, the policy needs to focus on encouraging exporters through deducting middlemen and taxes, and subsidy. The producers’ shares in channel I, II and III are 60%, 57% and 51% respectively. This shows, channel I and II are preferable for producers while channel III requires intervention through connecting producers to main market through banning or licensing illegal traders who are gaining at the expense of producers in order to maximize producers share.

5. AKNOWLEGMENT
Above all, I thank the Almighty God for giving me health, ability and strength for the completion of this study. The study would not have been possible without advanced help of my father and brothers. To them I say thank you, and May God has mercy on my mother and grant her paradise who passed away when I was just in grade four. Lastly, my special thanks go to Wollega University for the research fund including workers of the finance office for their immediate and supportive response in facilitating expedited disbursements.

6. REFERENCES
Aklilu, A., Ludi, E. 2010. The Effect of Global Coffee Price Changes on Rural Livelihoods and Natural Resource Management in Ethiopia. A Case Study from Jimma Area. NCCR North-South Dialogue, no. 26. Swiss peace Bern, Switzerland
CSA (Central Statistics Agency). 2014/2015. Agricultural sample survey report on area and production of crops (private peasant holdings, meher season). Volume I. CSA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 18 pp.
Dawit Gebregziabher. 2010. Market chain analysis of poultry: The case of Alamata and Atsbi-Wonberta woredas of Tigray Region. M.Sc thesi submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, Haramaya University. 80p.
ECX (Ethiopian Commodity Exchange ECX). 2011. Making market for all. Solving an age Old Problem, Addis Ababa.
Gustaf, D. 2011. Ethiopian Coffee and Fair Trade-An empirical study, School of Business and Economics, Gothenburg University Department of Economics, autumn. Pp. 14.
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 2015. Woreda-Level Crop Production Rankings in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Jema H. 2008. Economic Efficiency and Marketing Performance of Vegetable Production in the Eastern and Central Parts of Ethiopia. PhD Thesis Presented to Sweden University of Agricultural Science, Sweden.
Jimma Zone Agricultural and Rural Development Office (JZARDO). 2008.” Annual Report for year 2007/08, Jimma.”
Marshal Nigussie. 2011. Value chain analysis of sugarcane: The case of Kalu district, South Wollo zone of Amhara National Regional state, Ethiopia. M.Sc thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, Haramaya University. 83p.
Mendoza, G. 1995. A premier on marketing channel and margins. Lyme Rimer Publishers Inc., USA.
PSEPJZ (Physical and Socio-Economic Profile of Jimma Zoze). 2014. Finance planning department.
USAID (The US Agency for International Development). 2010. Ethiopian coffee industry value chain analysis. Profiling the actors, their interactions, costs, constraints and opportunities. Pp. 16.
USDA (United Nations Development Agency). 2012. Foreign Agricultural service. Global Agricultural Network, annual coffee report, Ethiopia. P 2-6
Yamane, T. 1967. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, Edition. New York, Harper and Row.