IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON COFFEE

PRODUCTION AND FARMERS’ ADAPTATION STRATEGIES:

A CASE OF DALE DISTRICT, SIDAMA REGION, SOUTHERN
ETHIOPIA

M.Sc. THESIS

BEFEKADU DEGU DUMICHO (B.Sc.)

HAWASSA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

AUGUST, 2022

HAWASSA, ETHIOPIA
IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON COFFEE PRODUCTION AND

FARMERS’ ADAPTATION STRATEGIES: A CASE OF DALE

DISTRICT, SIDAMA REGION, SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA

BEFEKADU DEGU DUMICHO

MAJOR ADVISOR: TEWODROS AYALEW (PhD)

CO-ADVISOR: BIRUK AYALEW (MSc, ASSIST. PROF.)

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT, GENDER

AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, GRADUATE PROGRAM OF CLIMATE
CHANGE AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE,

HAWASSA UNIVERSITY

COLLAGE OF AGRICULTURE

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CLIMATE CHANGE AND
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

AUGUST, 2022
HAWASSA, ETHIOPIA

ii
 HAWASSA UNIVERSITY
ADVISORS’ APPROVAL SHEET
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

(Submission Sheet-1)

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Impact of Climate Change on Coffee Production
and Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies: A Case of Dale District, Sidama Region, Southern
Ethiopia” submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters in
Climate Change and Sustainable Agriculture, Faculty of Environment, Gender and
Development Studies, College of Agriculture and has been carried out by Befekadu Degu
Dumicho under our supervision. Therefore, we recommend that the student has fulfilled the
requirements and hereby can submit the thesis to the faculty.

_________________________ _________________ _________________

Name of major advisor Signature Date

________________________ ____________________ ____________

Name of co-advisor Signature Date

i
 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

HAWASSA UNIVERSITY

EXAMINERS’ APPROVAL SHEET-1

(Submission Sheet-1)

As member of the board of examiners of the final MSc open defence, we certify that we
have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by Befekadu Degu, under the title “Impact of
Climate Change on Coffee Production and Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies: A Case of
Dale District, Sidama Region, Southern Ethiopia”, and examined the candidate. This is
therefore, to certify that the thesis has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the degree of Master of Science in Climate Change and Sustainable Agriculture.

_______________________ _________________ _________________

Name of the Chairperson Signature Date

_______________________ _________________ _________________

Name of Major Advisor Signature Date

_______________________ _________________ _________________

Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date

_______________________ _________________ _________________

Name of External Examiner Signature Date

Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of final copy of
the thesis to the school of Graduate Studies (SGS) through the School Graduate Committee
(SGC) of the candidate’s School.

Stamp of SGS Date

Remark

 Use this form to submit the thesis with minor correction suggested by the
examining board in 6 copies

ii
 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
HAWASSA UNIVERSITY
EXAMINERS’ APPROVAL SHEET-2
(Submission Sheet-2)
As member of the board of examiners of the final MSc open defence, we certify that we have read
and evaluated the thesis prepared by Befekadu Degu, under the title “Impact of Climate Change on
Coffee Production and Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies: A Case of Dale District, Sidama Region,
Southern Ethiopia”, and examined the candidate. This is, therefore, to certify that the thesis has been
accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Climate
Change and Sustainable Agriculture.
_______________________ _________________ _________________
Name of the Chairperson Signature Date
_______________________ _________________ _________________
Name of Major Advisor Signature Date
_______________________ _________________ _________________
Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date
_______________________ _________________ _________________
Name of External Examiner Signature Date
Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of final copy of the
thesis to the candidate’s department. Theses approved by
_______________________ _________________ _________________
School Head Signature Date
Certification of the Final Thesis
I hereby certify that all the corrections and recommendations suggested by the Board of Examiners are
incorporated into the final Thesis entitled “Impact of Climate Change on Coffee Production and
Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies: A Case of Dale District, Sidama Region, Southern Ethiopia”.
_______________________ _________________ _________________
Name of the Designate Signature Date
Stamp of SGS Date
Remark
 Use this form to submit the theses with minor correction suggested by the
examining board in 6 copies.

iii
 STATEMENT OF AUTHOR
I declare that this thesis is my own work and that all sources of materials used for this thesis

has been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirement for M.Sc. degree at Hawassa University and is deposited at the University library

to be made available to borrowers under rules of the library. I solemnly declare that this thesis

is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree,

diploma, or certificate.

Name: Befekadu Degu Dumicho Signature_______________

Place: Hawassa University, College of Agriculture, Hawassa

Date of Submission__________________

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all my Almighty God who provided me good people, good opportunity, good time, and good

health deserve to take my best and incomparable thanks. He was and is always good for me!

I am very grateful to my advisor Dr. Tewodros Ayalew who had given me a great help by providing

valuable comments and directions starting from the proposal to final paper submission while he is in a

very tight schedule. Without his encouragement, insight, guidance, and professional expertise,

the completion of this work would not have been possible. I would like to extend my sincere

thanks to Mr. Biruk Ayalew who helped me a lot by co-supervising.

I would like to extend my deepest thanks to Mr. Haileyesus, Mr. Mohamed, and Mr. Assefa

without whom the data collection would have not been possible. Moreover, the 194 sample

respondent farmers and other collaborated individuals from Dale district Agriculture office

and Awada Research Center deserve special thanks for their valuable work and support during

data collection.

I would like to address my deepest thanks and appreciation to my father Degu Dumicho, Mr

Ermias Degu and my brothers and sisters for their encouragement and financial support during

this work.

Finally, I would like to extend my special thanks to my beloved wife Tseganesh Alemu for her

encouragements, patience and support.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page
ADVISORS’ APPROVAL SHEET.....................................................................................................................i
EXAMINERS’ APPROVAL SHEET-1.………………………………………………………………...ii
EXAMINERS’ APPROVAL SHEET-2………………………………………………………………...iii
STATEMENT OF AUTHOR..........................................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................ix
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................................x
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background of the Study…………………………………………………………………………. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problems………………………………………………………………………... 5
1.3 Objectives of the study…………………………………………………………………………… 8
1.3.1 General Objectives…………………………………………………………………………… 8
1.3.2 Specific Objectives…………………………………………………………………………... 8
1.4 Research Questions……………………………………………………………………………….. 9
1.5 Significant of the Study…………………………………………………………………………... 9
1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study……………………………………………………………….. 10
1.7. Operational Term Definitions…………………………………………………………………... 11
2. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………………………………14
2.1. Theoretical Review of the Study………………………………………………………………..14
2.1.1. Theory of climate change………………………………………………………………….. 14
2.1.2 Impacts of climate change on crop production/Agriculture Sector………………………… 15
2.2. Analytical framework for impact of climate change…………………………………………… 16
2.3 Empirical Review……………………………………………………………………………….. 17
2.3.1 Effects of climate change on coffee production in Ethiopia………………………………... 17
2.3.2 Projected climate change impacts on coffee production of Ethiopia……………………….. 19
2.3.3 Impact of climate change on coffee yield and quality……………………………………… 20
2.4 Climate Change Adaptation Strategies………………………………………………………….. 21
2.5 Climate change adaptation strategies employed by Ethiopian farmers…………………………. 21
v
 2.6 Conceptual Framework of the study…………………………………………………………….. 30
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS……………………………………………………………………32
3.1. Description of the Study Area………………………………………………………………….. 32
3.1.1 Geographic location………………………………………………………………………… 32
3.1.2 Topography…………………………………………………………………………………. 33
3.1.3 Climate……………………………………………………………………………………… 33
3.1.4 Land Use……………………………………………………………………………………. 33
3.1.5 Farming System…………………………………………………………………………….. 33
3.1.6 Demographic characteristics………………………………………………………………. 34
3.2. Research Design………………………………………………………………………………... 34
3.3. Data type and Source…………………………………………………………………………… 35
3.4. Sampling Procedure and Sample Size Determination………………………………………….. 36
3.5. Methods of Data Collection…………………………………………………………………….. 37
3.6 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………. 38
3.7. Definition of Variables and Working Hypothesis……………………………………………… 44
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................50
4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents……………………………………………… 50
4.2. Economic characteristics of the sampled respondents…………………………………………..52
4.2.1 Households’ Land Holding Status………………………………………………………….. 52
4.2.2. Farming Type………………………………………………………………………………. 53
4.2.3. Farming Experience………………………………………………………………………... 54
4.2.4. Source of income…………………………………………………………………………... 54
4.3 Climate Rainfall and Temperature Trends Analysis for Dale District………………………….. 56
4.3.1. Rainfall variability and Trend of the Dale Woreda (1990-2020)………………………….. 56
4.3.1.1 Annual rainfall trend and variability in study are………………….…………………..56

4.3.1.2. Seasonal rainfall trends and variability (1991 – 2020)…………………………….….59

4.3.2 Temperature variability and trend in Dale district (1991-2020)……………………………. 65

4.4 Impacts of climate change on coffee production………………………………………………... 67
4.4.1. Trend of coffee production for the Dale District…………………………………………... 67
4.5 Perception of Respondent Farmers on the Effect of Climate change on Coffee Production and
trends………………………………………………………………………………………………… 69
4. 6 Awareness of households over climate change in coffee production sector……………………. 74

vi
 4.7 Farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change impact on crop production…………………... 75

4.7.1 Households’ Adaptation Strategies…………………………………………………………. 80

4.7.2. Constraints that hinders the adaptation strategies………………………………………….. 81
4.8 Households’ Sources of Climate Information and Adaptation Strategies………………………. 82
4.9 Government support on the adaptation strategies to farmers…………………………………… 83
4.10 Determinants of smallholder coffee farmers’ choice of climate change adaptation strategies...
85
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………….......…………..89
5.1. Summary of the Findings……………………………………………………………………….. 89
5.2 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………. 91
5.3 Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………….. 92
REFERENCES……………...………………………………………………………………….………93
APPENDIX...............................................................................................................................................102
Biography...............................................................................................................................................122

vii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 1: Potential climate change impacts on coffee production…………………………………………18
Table 2: Sample household size which produces coffee from each identified kebeles…………………...36
Table 3: Independent variables used in multinomial logit model…………………………………….…...49
Table 4: Independent variables’ of the study…………………………………………………………..….50
Table 5: Demographic characteristics of respondents, Dale district……………………………………53
Table 6: Land holding in hectares of the selected respondents’ farmers (n=194)……………..………….54
Table 7: Farming Type practiced by the sampled respondents in Dale Woreda……………….................55
Table 8: Years of experience on crop production of the sample respondents (n=194)…….....................55
Table 9: Non-coffee related income sources of respondent HH of study area……………………..56
Table 10: Values of annual total rainfall trend analysis of the Dale (1991-2021)………………….58
Table 11: Annual total rainfall variability and coefficient of variation……………………………..58
Table 12: Belg season total rainfall variability and coefficient of variation………………………...63
Table 13: Kiremt season total rainfall variability and coefficient of variation……………….…………..64
Table 14: Summary of coefficient of variance for annual, Belg, and Kiremt rainfall at
Dale (1991-2020)………………………………………………………………………………….…65
Table 15: Values of Pearson’s Correlation (r) between climatic trends and coffee
productivity………………………………………………………………………….………………70
Table 16: Perception of household respondents on the climate change and trends (n=194)………..71
Table 17: Perception of household respondents on the indicators of climate change
(n=194)…………………………………………………………………………………………........72
Table 18: Perception of household respondents on the climate change and trends (n=194)…….……..73
Table 19: Perception of household respondents on the coffee production and trends.....................74
Table 20: Perception of farmers on impacts of cc on coffee production (n=194)…………………...75
Table 21: Awareness of Households over Climate Change…………………………………….........76
Table 22: Proportion of shaded farms with low, medium, and high shade intensity………………..79
Table 23: Households ‘ranking of choice of adaptation strategies………………………….............82
Table 24: Constraints of Adaptation Strategies................................................................................83
viii
Table 25: Government supports on climate services………………………………………………….85
Table 26: Determinants of farmers’ choices for adaptation strategies to climate change…….……..87

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. The Impact of climate change on indigenous coffee Arabica, Ethiopia………………………..20

2. Conceptual framework of study…………………………………………..………………….…….31

3. Map of the study area…………………………………………………………………………...........32

4. Distribution of sample households by income sources…………………………………………….56

5. Annual rainfall trend & variability at dale district (1991-2020)………………………..………….59

6. Belg rainfall trend and variability at Dale district (1991- 2020)……………………………..………63

7. Kiremt rainfall trend and variability at Dale district (1991- 2020)…………………………..…….64

8. Standardized anomaly of total annual rainfall of dale district (1991-2020)…………………....66

9. Trends of annual average minimum temperature at Dale district (1991-2020)………………….......67

10. Trends of annual average maximum temperature at Dale district (1991-2020)……………….68

11. Trends of coffee production & area coverage in Dale district from (2011-2019)……………........69

12. Respondents climate change adaptations strategies in the study area……………………………...77

13. Proportion of incidence of shade trees in shaded coffee farms……………………….………….80

14. Sources of climate information and adaptation strategies……………………………………….....84

ix
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CSA Central Statistical Authority

CSAG Climate System Analysis Group

CORDEX Coordinated Downscaling Experiment

EARO Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization

ECF European Coffee Federation

EEA Ethiopian Employment Agency

EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

ICA International Coffee Agreement

ICO International Coffee Organization

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IFAD International Food and Agriculture Development

GCMs General Circulation Model

GDP Gross Domestic Product

MOA Ministry of Agriculture

NGO Non- Governmental Organization

NMA National Meteorological Agency

RCMs Regional Climate Model

SWC Soil and Water Conservation

WCRP World Climate Research Program

WMO World Meteorological organization

WoADO Woreda Agriculture Development Office

x
WoFED Woreda Finance and Economic Development Office

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

The Impact of Climate Change on Coffee Production and Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies
Employed in Response to Climate Change: A Case of Dale District, Sidama Region,
Southern Ethiopia

Authors: Befekadu Degu (BSc), Tewodros Ayalew (PhD.), Biruk Ayalew (MSc,Assist. Prof.)
ABSTRACT

Coffee is the world’s favourite beverage and the second most traded commodity next to oil.
Ethiopia is the home of Arabica coffee and well-known for its high-quality coffee production.
However, the productivity of coffee is tightly linked to climate conditions, and is likely to be
influenced by climate change. The aim of this study was to evaluate trends of climate parameters
(Temperature and Rainfall), change and its effect on coffee production, and smallholder
farmer’s adaptation strategy in response to climate change in three rural kebeles of Dale
district, Sidama Region, Southern Ethiopia. Both primary and secondary data were collected
and analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. Accordingly, the data obtained from
Questionnaires and interviews were analyzed using SPSS data editor and descriptive statistical
methods. Frequencies and percentiles were also used to summarize and present the result. Time
series data of coffee production was obtained from the study district Agriculture office and
correlated with the long-term meteorological data. The Meteorological data and farmer’s
perception on rainfall and temperature of 30 years were evaluated by linear trend analysis.
Coefficient of variation was used to determine rainfall variability. The result obtained from both
meteorological data of three decades and observation of respondents of smallholder coffee
growing farmers showed a decreasing and increasing trend in rainfall and temperature,
respectively. There was also inter-annual rainfall variability in amount of Kiremt (main rainy
season) and Belg (short rainy season). The Pearson’s correlation analysis also showed that
coffee productivity was significantly affected by both decreasing rainfall and increasing
temperature in the study area. It was also confirmed by the respondent farmers that coffee
productivity and quality is declining during the last three decades presumably related to the
change in local climate. The study applied multinomial logistic regression model in order to
analyze factors affecting smallholder coffee farmers’ adaptation options to climate change. The
result shows that respondents’ age, sex, educational status, family size, access to extension
services, access to climate information, credit availability, farm experience and farm size have a
significant effect on smallholder farmers’ choice of climate change adaptations strategies.
However, different adaptation options are an absolute necessity, such as adjusting planting and
seedling date, soil and water conservation, disease and pest controlling and management,
growing drought and disease tolerant coffee variety, planting shade trees or agroforestry and

xi
using irrigation may help to reduce the vulnerability of districts coffee economy to continued
changes in climate.

Key words: Adaptation, Climate change, Coffee, Farmers, and Impact

xii
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Coffee, which originated in Ethiopia, is a tropical evergreen shrub which grows around the equator
between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, approximately 23°S to 23°N. Arabica coffee (Coffea
Arabica L.) and Robusta coffee (C.canephora pierreex A. Froehner) are the two main species used in
the production, while the former is by far the most dominant providing approximately 70% of
commercial production in the world (International Coffee Organization, 2012). Coffee is the world’s
favourite beverage and the second most traded commodity after oil (Waller et al., 2007). In 2009/10
coffee accounted for exports value estimated 15.4 billion US dollar when some 93.4 million bags
were shipped while the total coffee sector employment was estimated to be about 26 million people
in coffee producing countries (ICO, 2012).

The two most traded varieties of coffee are Arabica (Coffea Arabica) and Robusta (Coffea
canephora) (Waller et al., 2007). Approximately 95% of coffee production in Latin America is the
Arabica species. Coffee was first traded between African and European countries in 1615 and is now
grown in around 80 countries in South and Central America, the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia (ICO,
2014). As the world’s second most traded commodity, retail coffee had an estimated total value of
US$ 19.1 billion in the crop year 2012/13 for a volume of 111.6 million bags (ICO, 2014).
According to the USDA, world coffee production for the crop year 2015/16 is forecasted at 143.4
million bags with an average 60 kg per bag, representing a 1.53% growth from the previous year.
However, due to local consumption, export volume does not represent total production volume. In
the crop year of 2014/15, 110.4 million bags were exported around the world, with an estimated
consumption of 150.2 million bags (European Coffee Federations, 2016; Nolte, 2015). Increasing
coffee production and trade is theorized to have been caused by increasing domestic consumption in
some exporting Asian countries (European Coffee Federations, 2016).

Market liberalization resulted in a rapid increase in global coffee production leading to growing
coffee inventories in consumer countries. Prior to 1989, the global price of coffee was controlled by
the International Coffee Organization (ICO) through a series of International Coffee Agreements
(ICA) setting export quotas for each exporting country to manage supply and maintain price stability
(ICO, 2014, p. 3; Ponte, 2002). Coffee became a “buyer-driven commodity chain” (Kolk, 2010).
1
Therefore, the pricing power shifted to the roasting and retailing end of the coffee supply chain,
which dramatically drove down prices at the end of the 1980s (C. Bacon, 2004; Kolk, 2005). Losing
market control, producing countries and coffee farmers had to pay the price. As many national
agricultural ministries decreased their roles in negotiating and coordinating coffee production and
commercialization, dominant transnational export-import companies gained control over the
majority of coffee trading, which led the collapse of the quota system, followed by the 1989 coffee
crisis (Ponte, 2002; C. Bacon, 2004; ICO, 2014). During the crisis, the market price of coffee fell by
an incredible 50% and remained low until 1993. A second low price period, referred to as the “coffee
crisis,” took place from 1999 to 2004, when the booming production from Vietnam pushed global
prices down (ICO, 2014).

The crisis reveals the critical issue of price volatility in the coffee market, which directly impacts
income security and vulnerability of coffee producers. The general dynamic within the coffee market
suggests that consuming countries have far more control on price than do producing countries. When
the costs of production for inputs rise in coffee prices, farmers bear the entirety of the burden leading
to a severe deterioration in farmers’ abilities to remain resilient (Fox, Furgiuele, Haider, Ramirez, &
Younis, 2015, p. 14; ICO, 2014).

Since Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica L.) spread from Ethiopia to the Yemen peninsula, potentially
as early as 575 A.D (Anthony et al., 2002), coffee has become a globally significant agricultural
commodity with more than a billion cups consumed every day. In 2014, more than 8.5 million tons
were produced by 26 million farmers in 52 countries with an export value of 39.3 billion US$ (ICO,
2016; UNCOMTRAD, 2014). Despite robust demand, concern is growing within the sector about
the impact of climate change which could reduce the suitable area for growing Arabica coffee by up
to 50% globally by 2050 (Bunn et al., 2015).

Even though Ethiopia only accounts for 4-5% of global coffee production (ICO, 2016), it commands
a central position in the sector because it contains most of the global genetic diversity of Arabica
coffee (Labouisse et al., 2008). This genetic resource is critical to developing varieties which are
more resistant to the impacts of climate change, pests and diseases without compromising taste and
quality (Hein and Gatzweiler, 2006; Mehrabi and Lashermes, 2017; van der Vossen et al., 2015). In
addition to the global importance of Ethiopia’s genetic resources, coffee plays a central role in the
national economy and the livelihoods of approximately 4.5 million farmers (EEA, 2015). In 2014 the
country produced 398,000 tons (ICO, 2016) with an export value of approximately 1 billion US$
2
(UNCOMTRAD, 2014), with coffee accounting for 25-30% of total export revenues (Tefera, 2012).
As elsewhere, coffee in Ethiopia is vulnerable to climate change. Modeling studies by Moat et al.
(2017) suggests that the area of bio-climatically suitable space of Arabica coffee could decline
between ~39-59% by the end of the century, depending on the emissions scenario.

Global temperatures have increased by an average of 0.74°C in the last 100 years (1906 - 2005), and
this increase appears to have accelerated since 1970s (IPCC, 2007). The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) predicts that best estimates for average global temperatures, across all
scenarios, will be between 1.8°C to 4.0°C by the end of the twenty first century. Consequently, it has
been projected that sustainability of the coffee industry faces serious challenges in the coming
decades (Camargo, 2010; Haggar and Schepp, 2011). The evidence from coffee farmers, from
numerous coffee growing regions around the world are already suffering from the influence of
increased global warming (Baker and Haggar, 2007, Haggar and Schepp K, 2011).

Growing recognition of the vulnerability of coffee to climate change has amplified interest in
developing resilience in the sector in Ethiopia (Kew, 2013). Addressing resilience, defined by
(Adger, 2000) as ‘the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and
disturbances as a result of social and environmental change is viewed as an imperative in Ethiopia’s
coffee sector, enabling it to continue to contribute to the long-term economic and social well-being
of the country, its citizens, coffee companies and millions of consumers. Despite the growing
intensity of these calls, attention in the academic literature has focused predominantly on the agro-
ecology of the coffee crop (Davis et al., 2012; Jaramillo et al., 2009; Jaramillo et al., 2011; Perfecto
and Vandermeer, 2015) or structural issues in the international coffee market, particularly the
asymmetries of power in the value chain, (Arslan and Reicher, 2011; Daviron and Ponte, 2005; Petit,
2007; Ponte, 2002a) and generally neglected more nuanced, localized and field-based assessments of
the social and economic dynamics which will underpin the capacity of sector to cope with and adapt
to climate change.

Ethiopia heavily relies on agriculture for its foreign exchange earnings while the major agricultural
export crop is coffee. Ethiopia is the home of coffee and known for its production of high quality
coffee, which has got well established and profitable markets; rewarding huge amounts of foreign
currency and enhancing economic development. It is estimated that about 1/4 th of the population of
the country depends on production, processing, distribution and export of coffee source. It also

3
accounts for more than 25% of the growth national product, 40% of the total export earning,
absorbing 25% of the employment opportunity for both rural and urban dwellers, and 10% of the
total government revenue growth domestic product (M0ARD, 2008). In Ethiopia, Coffee is
predominantly produced by small-scale subsistence farmers, private and government owned large-
scale farms while the indigenous Arabica coffee plays a key role in the coffee production of the
country (Teketay, 1999).

Moreover, coffee is seen as green gold for the nation as (Urquhart et al., 2014); it has been and
remains the leading cash crop and export commodity, accounting for about 4 % on average of the
country’s gross domestic product (GDP), 10 % of agricultural production, and about 37 % of total
export earnings over the past decade. According to (MOA, 2014), coffee is the largest agricultural
contributor to gross domestic product (GDP) in Ethiopia. As the report states coffee production is
mostly in the hands of smallholders and about 4.2 million smallholder farming households contribute
between 93 and 95 % of national coffee production. And also the report further elaborated, coffee is
one of high-value crop impacting by climate change, potentially leading to major impacts on national
economies. In addition, Dula (2018) identified during his study, that climate change already had (and
will continue to have) a severe and negative effect on coffee production. Accordingly, in Ethiopia,
rapidly increasing temperatures kill the plants at an alarming rate, pests and disease that target coffee
plants have raised in prevalence.

According to Mekonnen and Daba (2018), rising temperatures and erratic rainfall are threatening
sustainable coffee production by enabling outbreak of diseases and infestations of insect pests that
decrease the quality and yield of coffee berries by citing, Kifle and Demelash (2015). A study on
vulnerability and poverty in Africa under taken by Thornton et al. (2006), shows that Ethiopia is one
of the country’s most vulnerable to climate change, because, the degree to which an agricultural
system is affected by climate change depends on its adaptive capacity. In terms of this adaptation is
widely recognized as a vital component of any policy response to climate change. As Easter Ling et
al., (1993), without adaptation, climate change is generally detrimental to the agriculture sector; but
with adaptation, vulnerability can largely be reduced. According to Admassie and Adenew (2008),
on-going efforts developed in Ethiopia under National Adaptation Plan Action, contributed multi-
disciplinary technical working groups have been formed to assess the country’s vulnerability to the
adverse consequences of climate change, determine current adaptation efforts, and identify ways in
which public agencies could assist in minimizing the adverse impacts of climate change. The study
4
conducted by Dercon (2004, 2005) shows that the implementation of adaptation strategies be very
important to enhance the resilience of agricultural sectors, especially cash crops.

The smallholder coffee producer farmers’ are vulnerable to current and future climate change
risks/impacts because of their low adaptive capacity such as lack of awareness and technical skills,
poverty, and lack of assets and capital to recover or to shift to alternative livelihoods in Sidama
Regional State of Dale Woreda. Because economic welfare and food security of the coffee producer
farmers in Dale Woreda are depends on Agriculture. Dale Woreda has been growing coffee widely
as the cash crop for more than 20 years, and land coverage of coffee crop is about, 14973.27 hectares
prevailing in 31 kebeles of the Woreda. From these 21 kebeles produce coffee by specialization and
10 kebeles by diversification (WoADO, 2020). However, in the recent years, the coffee production
has faced severe difficulties resulting into low yielding and affecting of number of coffee trees,
which influenced by climate change.

Thus, it is essential to adapt coffee crop to current and future climate changes, since most people of
livelihoods and living values are affected by the effect of climate change. Therefore, the current
study was intend to explore climate change adaptation strategies, with undertaking valuable research
that would provide important understandings; with regard to the climate change adaptation strategies
in coffee production, substantially, to cope up the adverse effects of climate change in Sidama
regional State of Dale woreda.

1.2 Statement of the Problems

Climate change is real and unequivocal as there is now ample evidence that the earth’s climate
system is warming at an unprecedented rate leading to ice melting and sea-level rise (IPCC, 2014).
In terms of this, the inevitability of changing climate is increasingly accepted around the world by
scientists and the public. According to Porter et al., (2014), an average increase of 0.85°C in the
global combined land and ocean surface temperatures was calculated for the period of 1880 to 2012.
The report further states that the average world temperature is expected to raise another 2.0 to 7.0°C
continuously. As depicted by Ray et al., (2015) increasing climatic variability may further
complicate agricultural production and food security, and almost one-third of yield variability is
related to climatic variability. The adverse effect of climate change on agriculture will occur

5
predominantly in the tropics and subtropics mainly at sub-Saharan Africa and, to a lesser extent,
South Asia (Vergara et al., 2014).

The most alarming effect on coffee producing regions have been identified as being at a high risk
and need to make extra efforts to prepare for the future (Jassogne et al., 2012). In the case of the
coffee crop, the expected impacts are negative due to the increase in temperatures that will provoke
changes in the crop cycle, with consequences ranging from higher vulnerability to some diseases to
more complicated harvesting and post-harvest tasks. The reduction in coffee yield and quality has
had direct impacts on the livelihoods of thousands of smallholders and harvesters. Consequently, it
has been projected that sustainability of the coffee industry faces serious challenges in the coming
decades (Camargo, 2010); Haggar and Schepp K, 2011). The evidence from coffee producing
farmers, from numerous coffee growing regions around the world is already suffering from the
influences of increased global warming (Baker and Haggar, 2007, Haggar and Schepp K, 2011).
But, currently the relationship between climate parameters and coffee production is complicated,
since climatic factors often influence its growth and the development in different ways during the
various growth stages (Camargo, 2010). Especially the productivity of Arabica coffee is tightly
linked to climate variability, and thus strongly influenced by natural climatic oscillations, (Camargo,
2010), the mean optimum temperature range is 18-21°C, reaching even up to 24°C (Teketay, 1999).
At temperature above 23°C, development and ripening of fruits are accelerated, often leading to the
loss of beverage quality (Camargo, 2010), although in some location higher temperature (24 - 25°C)
can still produce satisfactory yields of beans, such as in northeast Brazil (DaMatta, 2004). However,
continuous exposure to temperatures as high as 30°C causes stress, resulting in depressed growth
and abnormalities, such as the yellowing of leaves and growth of tumour on the stem. Even though
sporadic in occurrence, frost may also strongly limit the economic success of coffee crop (Camargo,
2010).

The perspective study of IFAD (2010) shows that, developing countries are the most adversely
affected by the negative effects of climate induced events because of their low level of adaptation.
Moreover, according to, Ang et al., (2014), most areas of the African continent lack sufficient
climate station data to draw conclusions about trends in annual rainfall, and poor climate change
adaptation strategies. Accordingly, climate in the region has been experiencing unpredictable rainfall
patterns, consequently resulting in declining and uneven yield trends with significant effects on
household (HH) food security.

6
The major climate type of Ethiopia is dry sub-humid, semi-arid and arid, which is prone to
desertification and drought. The country has also fragile highland ecosystems that are currently
under stress due to population pressure and associated socio-economic practices (NAPA, 2007).
Ethiopian agriculture is not highly productive in general due to inadequate farm management, many
covariant risks of production (incidences of pests and disease) and variability on weather and climate
change. This is constrained mainly by climatic factors, soil and land degradation (IPCC, 2007). In
this regard, the current areas for coffee production in Ethiopia are projected to shrink in the coming
decades (Girma et al., 2016).

This is triggered and exacerbated by improper land use such as cultivation of steep slopes, over
cultivation and overgrazing, and socio-economic constraints such as inappropriate policies of land
use and land cover change, subsistence farming and declining farm size mainly due to population
growth (Daniel, 2008). In the study area the fluctuations in precipitation and temperature rates are
directly affecting the production and productivity of the agricultural systems (Greenstone, 2006).
Climate change and variability causes negative impacts on agriculture (Below et al., 2010). Because
of the size and sensitivity of the agricultural sector, the impact is relatively high in developing
countries (IPCC, 2014). Moreover, coffee is remarkably climate-sensitive species which could be
affected by unfavourable climatic events in its productivity and quality, even the ultimate existence of the
crop in its center of origin, Ethiopia (Girma et al., 2016). Consequently, the future distribution of
indigenous Arabica coffee in Ethiopia is predicted to decline by about 65% in a number of bio-
climatically suitable locations, and in the worst scenarios 100% reduction by 2080 (Davis et al.,
2012). Climate change is therefore inevitably threatening the Ethiopian coffee industry in general
and the unique Arabica coffee genetic resources of the country and particularly, Dale district coffee
producer farmers.

The study conducted by Baker and Hagar (2007), erratic temperature and rainfall can affect coffee
plants directly, by bringing about sub optimal growing conditions, and indirectly, by providing
favourable conditions for pests and diseases such as coffee rust and the berry borer and coffee berry
disease which ultimate result in reduced coffee yield quantity and quality. As Camargo (2010),
climate variation such as soil water balance during different growth stages of the coffee crop, can
affect the available soil water and decrease the final yield. In similar studies of Jassogne et al.,
(2013), the negative impacts of climate variability and change are manifested unpredictable rains

7
which will make coffee to flower at various times throughout the year, making the farmers to harvest
small quantities continuously.

Thus, it is essential to adapt coffee crops to current and future climate changes, since most people
livelihoods and living values are affected by the effect of climate change. Therefore, the current
study was intend to explore impact of climate change on coffee production and adaptation strategies,
with undertaking valuable research that provide important understandings; with regard to the climate
change adaptation strategies in coffee production, and substantially, to cope up the adverse effects of
climate change in Dale district, Sidama regional State.

The Dale district coffee producer farmers were vulnerable to current and future climate change risks
because of low adaptive capacity of coffee producers households due to lack of awareness and
technical skills, poverty, and lack of assets and capital to recover or to shift to alternative livelihoods
and the effect of climate change is adversely affecting coffee production. As to the consciousness of
the researcher, no earlier studies have been conducted on the impact of climate change on coffee
production and adaptation strategies employed by farmers in the study area. Thus, this study
designed to make a contribution towards bridging the gap.

1.3 Objectives of the study

1.3.1 General Objectives:

The overall objective of this study was to assess the rainfall and temperature trend, the impact of
climate change on coffee production and farmers’ adaptation strategies employed in response to
climate change in Dale Woreda, Sidama regional state, Southern Ethiopia.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the study were:

i. To analyze the trends of climate parameters (rainfall and temperature) and estimate the
association between the trends of climate change and coffee yield performance;

ii. To investigate the influence of climate change on coffee production;

8
 iii. To identify climate change adaptations mechanisms practiced by smallholder coffee farmers;

iv. To analyze determinants of climate change adaptation strategies adoption by smallholder

coffee farmers.

1.4 Research Questions

This study would intend to answer the following questions.

i. How farmers perceived and impacted by changing climate? How the climatic parameters
(rainfall, and temperature) influence coffee production and as agents of climate change?

ii. What are climate change adaptations strategies practiced by smallholders farmers and
which of the coping strategies are prior for the study area?

iii. What adaptation support do farmers require from government institutions?

iv. What are the determinants of climate change adaptation strategies adoption by
smallholder coffee farmers?

1.5 Significant of the Study

The purpose of this study was to provide insights to the climate change adaptation strategies in
coffee production. The output of the research will help farmers to adjust themselves to the current
and projected impact of climate change and build their adaptive capacity. Besides, it will also update
the existing literature in the area i.e. the impact of climate change on coffee production and farmers’
adaptation strategies in response to climate change. It is also the issue that is important for coffee
producers to prepare for adaptation in ways that apply appropriate strategies temporally and spatially
presenting specifically to its own circumstances regards to rural households and stakeholders would
be identified together.

And also, the study aimed to examine the adaptation strategy to adverse effects of climate change on
coffee production in Dale Woreda in an effort to explore the underlying constructs and determinants
implication for adaptation strategies. Hence, the enquiry would be try to investigate the adverse

9
effects of climate change on coffee production problems in Dale Woreda and would come up with a
way forward to alter the situation there by the core notion of the study.

The study would be prominent for development policies because it intended to create awareness of
how the climate change problem significantly affects coffee production. Also, it guides policy
makers and stakeholders on how climate change adaptation strategies, and what impacts on coffee
production in the country can be solved. It will play a significant role in assessing the adverse effects
of climate change on coffee production and exploring adaptation strategy.

The study is different from other studies conducted so far. Thus, the study strived to give a new
perspective to the impact of climate change on coffee production and adaptation strategies employed
by farmers in Dale woreda. At the end of the study, more comprehensive information on the major
trends associated with climate change adaptation strategies in coffee production in the Woreda
would be provided, which have critical importance for future research on the topic.

1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study was conducted in Dale Woreda, which is found in Sidama regional state. Dale woreda
consists of 31 rural kebeles, out of these Kebeles; the study specifically was conducted in three
Kebeles of the Woreda, which are Maniche, Boa and Soyama. The reasons to focus on these Kebeles
are the higher potential coffee producers and nowadays some of the farmers faced with climate
change threats and exposed to food insecurity. In the study a survey was conducted on coffee
producers’ households’ adaptation strategies to climate change by taking quantitative and qualitative
approaches in order to make a detailed analysis. So to control such vulnerability and consequence of
climate change impacts interfering with climate change adaptation strategy issue is much broader
and needs perception mission to see all kebeles of Woreda and to make it manageable the study to
undertake climate change adaptation strategies in coffee production be critical in assuming of
inevitability of its vulnerability and consequences become threat to income earned and food security
for rural households and their livelihoods coupled with rain fed agriculture and natural resource
based.

10
1.7. Operational Term Definitions
The following are definitions of operational terms

 Weather: The behaviour of the atmosphere on a day-to-day basis in a relatively local area is
known as weather. A description of the weather would include daily temperatures, relative
humidity, pressure, sunshine, wind speed, cloudiness and rainfall (Ramamasy et al., 2007).

 Climate: Long term pattern of weather condition, usually defined as "average weather," or
more rigorously, the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant
quantities over a long period of time. The classical period is 3 decades, as defined by the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (2016). These quantities are most often surface
variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate is the "average weather,”
which is defined as the measurement of the mean and variability of relevant quantities of
certain variables (such as temperature, precipitation or wind) over a period, ranging from
months to thousands or millions of years.
 Climate change: refers to progressive changes in the global systems that result from
anthropogenic heating of the planet due to continuous increases of the emissions of
greenhouse gases, and the loss of the vegetation cover and other carbon reservoirs (FAO,
2008; Mugula, 2013). It can also be defined by (Krishna, 2011; Mugula, 2013), as gradual
changes in climate norms, particularly the temperature and changes in the frequency, scope
and severity of climate and time extremes, explained as a persisting change on the average
and variability of climate variables such as temperature, rainfall, humidity, and soil
moisture. Climate change is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPCC (2007) as the “statistically significant variation of the mean state of climate that can
be detected through modifications of the mean and/or the variability of its properties and
11
 which persists over a long period, generally for decades or more” as stated and described by
(Arouna et al., 2012). The measure in which the geophysical, biological and socioeconomic
systems are sensitive to the negative impact of climate change, including climatic
variability and climate extremes, is defined as the state of climatic variability (IPCC, 2007;
Mugula 2013). For Arouna et al., (2012) stated that it is the inherent characteristics to the
climate that manifest themselves through changes and deviations in time. It is any
significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time.
Climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns,
among others, that occur over several decades or longer.

 Coffee production: cultivation of the coffee plant, usually done in large commercial
operations. The plant, a tropical evergreen shrub or small tree of African origin
(genus Coffea, family Rubiaceae), is grown for its seeds, or beans, which are roasted,
ground, and sold for brewing coffee (Coste, 2018).
 Vulnerability: In the context of climate change, vulnerability is the degree to which a
system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change,
including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character,
magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed, its
sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity as defined by, (IPCC 2007). It is the degree according
to which a system is susceptible or becomes incapable of tolerating the adverse effects of
climate change, notably climate variability and extreme climatic conditions. But Kasperson
et al. (2001) define vulnerability as the degree to which a unit of risk undergoes damage
after having been exposed to a perturbation or a constraint and the capacity of that unit to
withstand it in order to recover or disappear. It can be schematized by the following
functional relation: Vulnerability = Risk (danger x exposure) +/- Adaptation (Responses/
Options) (Dimon, 2008). Similarly considered by (Zongo, 2014) innovations are
considered adaptation strategies developed and implemented for international institutions,
regional organizations, national governments, and local stakeholders (producers; NGOs) to
reduce vulnerability to climate change in order to increase agricultural production.
 Vulnerability to climate change: Vulnerability of the agricultural sector to climate change
is translated by a decrease in yields with the following consequences: food insecurity or
famine, poverty intensification, increase in the price of agricultural products, and low

12
 contribution to the rest of the economy (IPCC, 2014). In such a context, it is commonly
accepted that innovation is crucial in addressing the challenge of climate change adaptation
in order to ensure food security and increase farmers’ revenues (Rivera et al., 2005; OCDE-
CRDI, 2010; Zongo, 2014). The adverse effects of vulnerability to climate change on
agricultural production stimulate not only organizational and technological innovations, but
also institutional developments in agriculture (Chhetri et al., 2012; and Zongo 2014).

 Adaptation to climate change: According to Isa (1995), adaptation is defined as the whole
adjustment made or self-made within natural and human systems as a curative or preventive
response to current or future climate stimuli or to their effects in order to reduce harm or take
advantage of it at the right time. As Ramsey et al., (2008) adaptation is an adjustment in
ecological social and economic systems in response to real or expected climate stimuli and to
their effects or impacts. Accordingly, these are changes in processes, practices, and structures
to reduce potential damage or to take advantage of opportunities associated with climate
change defined as a change of procedures, practices and structures that aims at limiting or
eliminating the potential damages or to take advantage of the opportunities created by
variability and climate change.

Adaptation is a process by which strategies to moderate, cope with and take advantages of
the consequences of climatic events are enhanced, developed, and implemented (UNDP,
2007). It is an adjustment in ecological, social or economic systems in response to actual or
expected stimuli and their effects or impacts. The term refers to changes in processes,
practices and structures to moderate potential damages or to benefit from opportunities
associated with climate change (IPCC, 2007).
 Smallholder coffee farmers: coffee growing small farmers who own/control the land they
farm coffee crop. They produce relatively small volumes on relatively small plots of land.
They may produce an export coffee as a main livelihood activity or as one of many activities.

 Impacts: refer to effects, consequences or outcomes on lives, livelihoods, health,

ecosystems, economies, societies, cultures, services, and infrastructure due to the interaction
of climate changes or hazardous climate events (IPCC, 2014).

13
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Theoretical Review of the Study

2.1.1. Theory of climate change

According to IPCC, Climate change is any deviation in climate overtime, either due to natural
variability or as a result of human activity (IPCC, 2007a). This definition differs from that in the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers
to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the
composition of the global atmosphere in addition to natural climate variability observed over time.
Concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) produced by human activity has increased significantly
(UNFCCC, 1992). However, any statistical significant changes of these climatic components over a
long period of time from 30 years period and above are regarded as climate change (Pielke, 2004).
Wilson (2006) also defined climate change as the changes in the average climate over long period of
time.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading international body for the
assessment of climate change, states that warming of the climate system via human activity is
unequivocal due to increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Their
Fifth Assessment Report states that the atmosphere and oceans have warmed, the amounts of snow
and ice have diminished, the sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have
increased (IPCC, 2017).

Decadal analyses of temperatures strongly point to an increased warming trend across the African
continent over the last 50–100 years. Surface temperatures have increased by 0.5°C or more during
the last 50–100 years over most parts of Africa, with minimum temperatures warming more rapidly

14
than maximum temperatures. Over the last 50 years there has been an increase in seasonal mean
temperature in many areas of Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan, and Uganda (Moat et al., 2017).

Historical data from weather stations for Ethiopia provides specific details of the general warming
trend. Data shows that the mean annual temperature has increased by 1.3˚C between 1960 and 2006,
at an average rate of 0.28˚C per decade, and by 0.3°C per decade in the south western region.
Observations also show significantly increasing trends in the frequency of hot days, and much larger
increasing trends in the frequency of hot nights; the frequency of cold days has decreased
significantly in all seasons except the dry season (December, January and February) (Moat et al.,
2017).

2.1.2 Impacts of climate change on crop production/agriculture sector

According to IPCC (2014), Climate change undermines crop production, resulting in large risks on
food insecurity globally. Africa is one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change in the world.
Previous study made by Mary and Majule (2009) concluded that Africa is particularly, temperature,
rainfall changes and extreme weather events adversely affects crop production and impose a major
constraint on farming vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to the factors such as repeated
droughts, widespread poverty, inequitable land distribution and over dependence on rain fed
agriculture. Climate change compels limitations to crop growth and it also affects the choice of crop
species and cultivars including farm management decisions (Howden and White, 2009).

Confidence in the projected impacts of climate change on agricultural systems has increased
substantially since the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports in IPCC,
(1990). In Africa, much work has gone into downscaling global climate models to understand
regional impacts, but there remains a dearth of local level understanding of impacts and
communities’ capacity to adapt. It is well understood that Africa is vulnerable to climate change, not
only because of its high exposure to climate change, but also because many African communities
lack the capacity to respond or adapt to the impacts of climate change. Warming trends have already
become evident across the continent, and it is likely that the continent’s 2000 mean annual
temperature change will exceed +2 °C by 2100. Added to this warming trend, changes in
precipitation patterns are also of concern: Even if rainfall remains constant, due to increasing
temperatures, existing water stress will be amplified, putting even more pressure on agricultural
systems, especially in semiarid areas. In general, high temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns

15
are likely to reduce cereal crop productivity, and new evidence is emerging that high-value perennial
crops will also be negatively impacted by rising temperatures. Pressures from pests, weeds, and
diseases are also expected to increase, with detrimental effects on crops and livestock (CDKN,
2014).

According to (CDKN, 2014) much of African agriculture’s vulnerability to climate change lies in the
fact that its agricultural systems remain largely rain-fed and underdeveloped, as most Africa’s
farmers are small-scale farmers with few financial resources, limited access to infrastructure, and
disparate access to information. At the same time, as these systems are highly reliant on their
environment, and farmers are dependent on farming for their livelihoods, their diversity, context
specificity, and the existence of generations of traditional knowledge offer elements of resilience in
the face of climate change. Overall, however, the combination of climatic and non-climatic drivers
and stressors will exacerbate the vulnerability of Africa’s agricultural systems to climate change, but
the impacts will not be universally felt. Climate change will impact farmers and their agricultural
systems in different ways and adapting to these impacts will need to be context-specific.

Current adaptation efforts on the continent are increasing across the continent, but it is expected that
in the long term these will be insufficient in enabling communities to cope with the changes due to
longer-term climate change. African farmers are increasingly adopting a variety of conservation and
agro-ecological practices such as agroforestry, contouring, terracing, mulching, and no-till. These
practices have the twin benefits of lowering carbon emissions while adapting to climate change as
well as broadening the sources of livelihoods for poor farmers, but there are constraints to their
widespread adoption. These challenges vary from insecure land tenure to difficulties with
knowledge-sharing (Barton and Leke, 2016).

While African agriculture faces exposure to climate change as well as broader socio economic and
political challenges, many of its diverse agricultural systems remain resilient. As the continent with
the highest population growth rate, rapid urbanization trends, and rising GDP in many countries,
Africa’s agricultural systems will need to become adaptive to more than just climate change as the
uncertainties of the twenty first century unfold.

2.2. Analytical framework for impact of climate change

16
IPCC in 2007 report reveals that, worldwide climatic changes have been raising concerns about
potential changes to crop yields and crop production system. This statement is well supported by
studies conducted to assess the impact of climate change on agriculture and the increasing
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases could lead to regional and global changes in
temperature and precipitation. In additional assessments of IPCC (2007), these changes are projected
to have impacts on crop production systems. According to Schreck and Semazzi (2003), global
warming has increased the intensity of heat and reduced the reliability of rainfall in East of Africa
thus, causing droughts and floods which have been reported to cause failure and damage to crop
production. Similarly, a study conducted by Rosenzweig (2002) revealed that changes in rainfall
patterns and amounts have led to loss of crops in many parts of Africa.

Generally, rainfall and temperature changes are likely to reduce yields of desirable crops. Changes in
rainfall patterns may increase the likelihood of crop failures in the short run and decline in
production in the long run. Although there will be gains in some crops in some regions of the world,
the overall impacts of climate change on crop production are expected to be negative (Rosenzweig et
al., 2002). Increase in average temperature can lengthen growing seasons in regions with relatively
cool spring and fall; adversely affecting crops in regions where summer heat already limits
production (Burke, 2009). In addition, temperature increases lead to higher respiration rates, shorter
periods of seed formation and, consequently, lower biomass production (Battisti and Naylor, 2009).
Furthermore, higher temperatures result in a shorter grain filling period, smaller and lighter grains
and, therefore, lower crop yields and perhaps lower grain quality (Waggoner, 1983). An increase in
temperature of below 1ºC may affect transpiration rate up 30% for some plants (Kimball, 1983).
Also, temperature increases may cause changes in runoff and groundwater recharge rates, which
affect water supplies and changes in capital or technological requirements such as surface water
storage and irrigation methods (Oki et al., 2006).

According to (Olsen and Bindi, 2002), climate changes will more likely lead to a major spatial shift
and extension of croplands as it will create a favourable or restricted environment for crop growth
across different regions and as climate is a primary determinant of agricultural productivity, any
significant changes in climate presently and in the future will influence crop productivity.

2.3 Empirical Review

2.3.1 Effects of climate change on coffee production in Ethiopia

17
Coffee productivity and quality is highly dependent on temperature and rainfall conditions (Haggar
and Schepp, 2012), and is relatively sensitive to drought, excessive moisture, and wind damage
(Tucker et al., 2010). The blossoming and fructification of Arabica coffee requires a specific series
of dry and rainy seasonal alternation (Haggar and Schepp, 2012; The Initiative for Coffee and
Climate, 2015). Steps in coffee production and potential impacts from climate change are included in
Table 1 (FAO, 2008; The Initiative for Coffee & Climate, 2015).

Table 1: Potential climate change impacts on coffee production

Stages of Coffee Condition Needed Climate Potential Outcomes

Changes*
Growth
Pre-Blossoming 3-month dry period UP Weak plants
Blossoming Regular rainfall UP Over-soaking or water
shortage
Fructification Regular rainfall UP & RT** Pests, diseases,
physiological problems
Harvesting Dry season UP Unable to fruit pick in
time
Post-Harvesting Dry but enough water UP Water shortage; unable to
for processing dry beans
* Predicted impacts include unpredictable precipitation (UP) and/or rising temperature (RT).

** FAO (2008) Eco-Crop model estimates optimal temperatures for ripening of Arabica coffee is 14-28°C

Thus, although future variations in climate across regions remains uncertain, increasing temperatures
and unpredictable rainfall patterns are expected to have negative consequences on coffee production
in terms of quality, yield, and pests and diseases (The Initiative for Coffee & Climate, 2015).

As mentioned above, the uneven distribution of climate changes leads to predominantly regional
effects. The IPCC predicts that by 2100, the temperature will increase from 1.6°C to 6.7°C across
Ethiopia (IPCC, 2014a). Climate change models also indicate an increase in unpredictability in
precipitation in the entirety of Ethiopia, which has historically been categorized by highly
predictable rainy and dry seasons. Due to the variation in projection model designs, predictions in
Sub Saharan Africa are immensely variable with percentage change ranging from -22 to +25%,
while those in East Africa are slightly less extreme, ranging from -22 to +7%, which are varied by
the different baseline scenarios and mitigation scenarios utilized in projection models (IPCC, 2014a).
By 2050, Ethiopia may see a reduction in rain of 12% to 20% in the dry season, and an increase of

18
3% to 10% in the wet season (Solomon et al., 2007). According to the World Bank, with a 4-degree
warming scenario, 90% of Ethiopian land would be under influence of heat events, which leads to
extreme droughts in the country’s low land areas and loss of ice in high mountains like Samen and
Bale Mountains (World Bank, 2014).

2.3.2 Projected climate change impacts on coffee production in Ethiopia

Climate change has a significant impact on coffee agronomy as it affects quality, yield and health.
Increased temperatures, especially in the number of extreme hot days, as well as changes in
precipitation, are the main climatic variables affecting coffee production on the Ethiopian
agriculture. Although some uncertainty remains in terms of the direction of climatic changes that
Ethiopia will face, especially regarding precipitation projections, confidence in the projected impacts
of climate change on agricultural systems has increased substantially since the initial
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The IPCC’s fourth assessment report
(IPCC, 2007) presented 23 general circulation models of climate (GCMs), but the underlying data
used to generate information are so highly aggregated to be applicable at the global level that they
are difficult to use in projecting regional climate (Ziervogel et al., 2008). However, growing
recognition of the need for climate information at finer scales has driven work aimed at downscaling
global climate model information for local and regional decision makers; these are regional climate
models (RCMs) (Ziervogel et al., 2008). The Climate System Analysis Group (CSAG) at the
University of Cape Town operates the longest-standing empirical downscaled output for Africa;
other dynamic downscaling techniques are also employed (WRF, Darlam, and PRECIS), although
these are computationally and technically expensive, thereby limiting the number of institutions that
can afford to employ the approach (Ziervogel et al., 2008). The Coordinated Downscaling
Experiment (CORDEX1) of the World Climate Research Program (WCRP), is aiming to overcome
these capacity challenges and is being employed on the African continent to improve understanding
of the differential climate variability experienced between regions (Engelbrecht et al., 2015).

As the Ethiopian coffee production is known in the world export market, its country’s climate
change trends and impacts are more relevant for decision making. Although there are still severe
data shortages for some areas of the country, and our knowledge of regional impacts of climate
19
change has improved: there are now more regional climate models and studies are available. In the
figure 1 below the impact of climate change on Ethiopian indigenous coffee Arabica, is illustrated or
projected in different climate scenarios and models as suggested by Davis et al., (2012).

Figure 1: The impact of climate change on indigenous coffee Arabica, Ethiopia

In a locality analysis the most favourable outcome is 65% reduction in the number of pre-existing
bio-climatically suitable localities, and at worst scenarios almost 100% reduction in coffee
production, by 2080. Arabica coffee is confirmed as a climate sensitivity species, supporting data
and inference that existing plantations will be negatively impacted by climate change (Davis et al.,
2012).

2.3.3 Impact of climate change on coffee yield and quality

The potential yield and quality of coffee is determined by both temperature and rainfall condition
since both abilities to interfere with the phonological growth of the crop (Haggar and Schepp, 2011).
These impacts include, for example, disrupted flowering cycles and prolonged drought periods,
which ultimate result in reduced coffee quantity and quality (Masters et al., 2009). Other climate
variation such as soil water balance during different growth stages of the coffee crop, can affect the
available soil water and decrease of the final yield (Camargo, 2010). The Arabica coffee is more
sensitive to climate variation, specifically during blossoming and fructification stage (Haggar and
Schepp, 2011).

Especially coffee flowering triggered by the first rain fall at the beginning of rain season, meanwhile
if rain drops off or becomes too heavy, flowers and fruit may drop from the coffee tree (Läderach et
al., 2010). The unpredictable rains will make coffee to flower at various times throughout the year,
20
making the farmers to harvest small quantities continuously (Jassogne et al., 2013). This change will
affect the crop physiology especially during the flowering and fruit filling stage (Jassogne et al.,
2013).

2.4 Climate Change Adaptation Strategies

Climate change effects are both complex and highly uncertain. Adaptation strategies are the “efforts
by society or ecosystems to prepare for or adjust to future climate change” (US EPA, 2014). These
can be either proactive to minimize negative impacts of climate change or opportunistic to inspire
and initiate new development practices (The Initiative for Coffee and Climate, 2015). Although
people have faced and adapted to climatic changes since our species evolved, the climate change
predicted for this century is far greater and faster than anything previously known in human history
and prehistory (Salik and Byg, 2007; US EPA, 2014). Due to our increasingly interdependent world,
negative effects of climate change can have repercussions in every social sector and ecosystem (US
EPA, 2014.).

In order to implement the appropriate intervention to adapt to the impacts of climate change on
coffee, governments and agencies need to understand the main factors of smallholders’ choices of
strategy and major barriers of selected adaptation strategy (Deressa, Hassan, Ringler, Alemu, and
Yesuf, 2009). Smallholder producers could either change their agronomic practice by altering
planting dates or other methods to increase their crops’ resiliency or explore other income streams to
increase their livelihood resilience to climate change (Komba and Muchapondwa, 2015, p. 31; Lin,
2011). For this project, for smallholder producers to adapt to uncertain future climate change impacts
on coffee, it is important to ensure that all aspects of their livelihood strategies are resilient to
changing and unpredictable conditions via adaptation strategies.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that adaptation alone may have limitations in the face of climate
change, and further mitigation strategies may be necessary to fight with climate change effects. On-
going efforts are required from governments and communities to sufficiently not only adapt to all the
projected impacts of climate change on coffee agronomy, but also to mitigate its causal factors (e.g.,
greenhouse gas emissions) (Solomon et al., 2007).

2.5 Climate change adaptation strategies employed by Ethiopian farmers

21
From previous researches, different climate change adaptation methods have been identified. The
numerous alternative adaptation strategies to the impact of climate change that are identified in
seven major adaptation methods most commonly used in the different parts of Ethiopia. These
include adjusting planting dates, use of shade trees or agroforestry, use of drought tolerant varieties,
use of water and soil conservation (SWC) practices, Pest management and use of irrigation.

Adjusting planting dates

It involves the adjustment of planting time to better suit the shifts in growing season by delaying or
undertaking early planting/sowing. Hassan and Nhemachena (2008) also identified that changing
planting dates is one among farmers’ adaptation strategies.

Use of shade trees and agroforestry systems

According to (Beetz, 2002), agroforestry is a diversified farming system that incorporates trees,
crops and livestock. Such integration provides multiple benefits such as improved soil quality,
production of fruits and timber, provision of micro-climate for growing crops as well as enhances the
quality of water. It includes growing eucalyptus trees, spice trees, incense trees, rosemary, avocado,
mango, papaya and other fruits and trees used for timber production and has a multi-purpose (as a
source of income and means of keeping climate balance). It also constitutes trees used for energy
consumption and prevents deforestation. Temesgen et al., (2009) also used planting trees as a
common adaptation strategy to coffee production.

While climate change may initiate a spatial response in coffee production, it may also necessitate
changes to farm management practices such as mulching, irrigation, and shade management to
remain productive. Shade cover is particularly important since it regulates flowering and
microclimatic conditions such as humidity and temperature (Cannell, 1985; Carr, 2001). The
importance of shade management under a changing climate is likely to grow in importance because
appropriate shading may buffer the adverse effects of rising temperatures and declining water
availability which stresses plants and makes them more susceptible to disease (Beer et al., 1998). For
example, Lin (2007) shows that important climatic variables such as temperature, humidity, solar
radiation and soil moisture fluctuate more as shade decreases. As such, shade can mitigate against
micro-climatic extremes that are likely to become more prevalent in a changing climate. However,
the interactions between climate, shade level and shade tree diversity, landscape characteristics (for

22
example size and diversity of adjacent forest patches), elevation, irrigation, pests and disease
dynamics are complex (López-Bravo et al., 2012). Field studies assessing the impacts of shade on
coffee productivity and their interactions with these factors are limited. But there is evidence to
suggest the relationship between shade and rain-fed coffee production is hump-shaped, with
productivity limited by high or low shade cover (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2015; Perfecto et al.,
2005; Soto-Pinto et al., 2000). This suggests that identifying and pursuing an optimum level of shade
will be a key part of the agronomic component of a climate resilient coffee production.

Use of drought tolerant coffee variety

It involves using varieties better fitting to the new climate such as the use of stress tolerant coffee
varieties that have a shorter growing period and pest and disease resistant. It also includes cultivating
coffee which is suitable to the new climate and growing conditions. Elasha et al., (2006) mentioned
planting of drought resistant varieties of coffee as one of adaptation measures. The World Bank
(2010) also identified that planting disease and drought-resistant short period varieties is one
measure of adaptation to climate change.

Soil and water conservation practice

Includes the adoption of soil and water conservation practices such as soil/stone bending, terracing,
mulching, and runoff diversion to prevent erosion, improve soil fertility, and conserve soil moisture.
Hassan and Nhemachena (2008) and Solomon et al. (2016) also used this measure as one adaptation
strategy to impact climate change on coffee.

Use of irrigation

It involves the adoption of farmers to build water, harvesting schemes such as traditional hand dug or
shallow open wells for the abstraction of groundwater for irrigation, diversion and pumping of
spring water to practice irrigation. Temesgen et al. (2008) and Solomon et al. (2016) identified use of
irrigation as one strategy for climate change adaptation.

Pest management

Given the predicted temperature increases due to climate change, certain pests and diseases are
predicted to increase and affect coffee at more altitudes than before (Baker and Haggar, 2007). Two
diseases, coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix) (called roya) and American leaf spot (Mycena
23
citricolor) are predicted to begin affecting plants in increasingly higher altitudinal ranges (Baker and
Haggar, 2007). Therefore, proactive monitoring and treatment of pests and diseases is crucial for
farmers to remain resilient.

Integrated pest management (IPM) is an approach to agricultural production based on diligent

monitoring and integrated control methods, while minimizing environmental impacts (What is IPM,
2016). In addition to managing pest populations and minimizing disease outbreaks, an important
piece of IPM is monitoring. One crucial resource for smallholder farmers is the knowledge and
guidance from technics, or field technicians, who are trained agronomists who work full-time for the
farmers. In some cases, farmers seek advice from agricultural extension workers for the agricultural
agency or ministry of their country, though there is more demand for these services than personnel
can supply. Another limitation to keep in mind is the remoteness of many farmers’ plots from not
only their homes, but from the bases out of which these trained professionals operate. In such rural
areas in the tropics, road conditions are frequently bad, further slowing or discouraging the help from
outside experts.

Different literatures are reviewed regarding the factors that affect farmers’ choices of adaption
strategies to the effects of climate change on coffee production. Based on most of the previous
studies, the following are commonly identified factors that affect farmers’ choices of adaptation
strategies to the impact of climate change on coffee production.
1. Agro-ecological setting: It comprises the condition of climate and soil type (growing period,
temperature and moisture) in the area. A study by Gebru et al., (2015) demonstrated that agro-
ecological settings affected the use of irrigation, SWC practices, and changing variety. Temesgen
et al., (2009) also noted that agro-ecology significantly affected the use of irrigation, planting
shade trees, improved coffee variety, and adjusting seedling and planting date. Solomon et al.,
(2016) found that differences in agro-ecology significantly affected use of irrigation and climate
change resilient variety in response to climate change. This implied that farmers living in
different agro-ecological zones have different perceptions and make use of different adaptation
methods.

2. Sex of the household head: It is a state of being male or female. According to Temesgen et al.,
(2009), being male has a positive effect on the use of SWC practices, planting trees, and using
different improved coffee varieties. This implies that male-headed households are more likely to
take these adaptation strategies. However, Nhemachena and Hassan (2007) found that female-
24
 headed households are more likely to take up SWC practices, irrigation, different improved
coffee varieties and adjusting planting dates than male-headed households. The authors explain
that females are engaged in more farm activities than males and have better farm experience and
information. In addition, Abrham et al., (2017) found that male-headed households are less likely
to adapt climate change using planting shade trees. Therefore, this variable is expected to have
either a positive or negative influence on choice of adaptation strategy.

3. Age of the household head: Age is a continuous variable that indicates the length of time that
household head has existed. This variable is measured in years. According to a research by
Gebru et al., (2015), age has a positive effect on the use of different coffee varieties, irrigation,
and SWC practices. Temesgen et al. (2009) also found that age has a positive influence on the
use of irrigation, adjusting planting and seedling date, and planting shade trees while Aschalew
(2014) found a negative influence of age on the same adaptation strategies. In addition, Abrham
et al. (2017) established that an increase in age has a negative influence on the practice of
planting shade trees. Thus, the older the farmer, the more experienced in farming he/she will be
and the more he/she will recognize the past and present climatic conditions so that they are able
to choose the best among alternative adaptation strategies. The variable is hypothesized to have
either a positive or negative effect on choice of adaptation strategy.

4. Educational level of the household head: It is the completed educational level of head of the
household for formal education. It is a discrete variable and measured through completed years
in school. According to Solomon et al., (2016), education improves the level of understanding
about climate change adaptation so that increases the likelihood of using drought and disease
tolerant coffee varieties. Adeoti et al., (2016) found that education increases the use of drought
tolerant variety and adjusting planting dates. The result of Temesgen et al., (2009) also found
that the use of irrigation, SWC practice, drought and disease tolerant coffee variety, planting
shade trees and adjusting planting and seedling date increase whenever education level increases.
Abrham et al., (2017) and Abid et al., (2015) stated that education has a positive influence on the
SWC and adjusting planting date because it is likely to enhance farmers‟ ability to receive,
interpret and comprehend information relevant to make innovative decisions in the farms.
Generally, possession of higher levels of formal education increases farmers’ proximity for new
information and the probability of perceiving and adapting to climate change. Therefore, it is
expected to have a positive or negative influence on choice of adaptation strategy.

25
5. Family size: Family size indicates the number of individuals under a household in man-
equivalent and it is a continuous variable. The research result found by Belayneh et al., (2013)
stated that increase in family size reduces crop diversification and the use of SWC as adaptation
strategy. On the other hand, Gbetibouo et al., (2010) and Abid et al., (2015) stated that family
size positively affected the use of irrigation as an adaptation strategy. Abid et al., (2015) also
added that the increase in family size increases the likelihood of using SWC practice and agro-
forestry. As the size of the family increases, the farmers’ ability for taking some climate change
adaptation measures increase while for some others decreases. The variable is expected to either
positively or negatively affect choice of adaptation strategy.

6. Land holding size: Landholding size is the total amount of cultivated land holding of a farm
household. This variable is continuous and measured in hectares. Nhemachena and Hassan
(2007) found that increase in landholding increases the likelihood of utilizing irrigation, SWC
practice, adjusting planting dates, and use of drought tolerant variety. Wondimagegn and Lemma
(2016) also found that large landholding increases the use of SWC practice. On the other hand,
Aschalew (2014) revealed that large landholding decreases the use of irrigation while it increases
the use of agro-forestry and drought tolerant variety. Landholding size could affect the land
allocation of farmers to different enterprises. The bigger the landholding, the more likely the
farmer is to adopt suitable strategies and less likely to others. The variable is expected to either
positively or negatively affect choice of adaptation strategy.

7. Farm income: It is a return from investment of capital, labor, land and time to the farmer. This is
a continuous variable and measures the amount of income the farmers make per year from
investment in their farm. In other words, it is the amount of annual farm income obtained from
the sale of crop and livestock or livestock products measured in Ethiopian Birr. The work of
Aemro et al., (2012) found that an increase in farm income increases the likelihood of using
SWC practices and drought tolerant variety. Aschalew (2014) and Temesgen et al., (2009)
asserted that as farm income increases the probability of adopting irrigation, adjusting planting
date, and using drought tolerant variety increases. Aschalew (2014) also found that households
with higher farm income are more likely to adopt agroforestry. It was hypothesized that the more
farm income a farmer has the more likely to perceive and adapt to climate change using a
convenient strategy by devoting higher time and money for this activity. It is expected to
positively influence choice of adaptation strategy.

26
8. Off-farm/non-farm income: This refers to annual income obtained from an employment of the
household in off-farm activities like labourer and non-farm activities like petty trading, hand
craft, selling of firewood, gifts and remittance. It is a continuous variable and measured in
Ethiopian Birr. Aemro et al., (2012) found that off/non-farm income positively affected farmers’
use of SWC practices, adjusting planting date, and improved variety. Additionally, Temesgen et
al., (2009) confirmed that off-farm income increases the likelihood of farmers to planting trees
and adjusting planting dates. In contrast to this, Belayneh et al., (2013) revealed that an increase
in off-farm income decreases the likelihood of crop diversification and the use of SWC practices
as adaptation strategy. Farmers are assumed to get additional income sources and may or may
not give time to take adaptation measures and pay less attention to agriculture. Therefore, it is
expected to either positively or negatively affect farmers’ adaptation decisions.

9. Livestock size: It is the amount of all livestock owned by the household. This is a continuous
variable and measured in a tropical livestock unit (TLU). Abrham et al., (2017) revealed that
owning a large number of livestock in tropical regions increases farmers’ likelihood of planting
trees, adjusting planting dates, and use of SWC practices. Contrary to this, the result found by
Temesgen et al., (2009) and Aschalew (2014) disclosed that ownership of a large number of
livestock herds in tropical livestock units adversely affected the use of irrigation as an adaptation
strategy. In farming activities, animals such as oxen, cows, donkeys, horses, mules and others are
capital inputs and farmers who have large livestock are considered affluent. They serve as a
means of ploughing, harvesting and transporting inputs and outputs. It can also serve as food and
can be sold to generate income and fill a household's financial deficit during crop failure due to
climate factors. On the other hand, production of livestock competes with crop production for
labor and land. Therefore, it is expected to have either a positive or negative effect on choice of
adaptation strategies.

10. Access to credit: Access to credit service is about whether a farmer uses credit or not. The study
by Nhemachena and Hassan (2007) demonstrated that access to credit improves probability of
adopting irrigation, adjusting planting date, using different coffee seed varieties, and SWC
practices in response to climate change. Temesgen et al., (2009) also confirmed that access to
credit increases the probability of using irrigation, SWC practices, and adjusting planting and
seedling date in response to climate change. Additionally, Gadédjisso Tossou (2015) stated that
farmers’ use of improved coffee seed variety increases when they have access to credit. Access

27
 to credit mitigates the financial limitation and enables the farmer to adopt strategies that reduce
the negative impact of climate change. Access to credit makes adoption of new technologies such
as improved coffee seed variety, water conservation and irrigation possible by the farmer. It is
expected to have a positive influence on choice of adaptation options.

11. Extension visits: It is the frequency of extension visits by the development agent. It is a discrete
variable measured in the number of contacts per year. Empirically, the study by Temesgen et al.,
(2009) disclosed that extension contact enhances the likelihood of using irrigation, SWC
practices, planting trees, and improved variety in response to climate change. Abid et al., (2015),
Gebru et al., (2015) and Aemro et al., (2012) also confirmed that extension visits enhances the
likelihood of using improved variety. Having access to extension contact increases the
probability of using disease and drought tolerant coffee variety, SWC practices, use of irrigation,
and some others to cope with climate change. It is expected to have a positive effect on selected
adaptation strategies.

12. Farmer-to-Farmer extension: This variable indicates the access to informal extension services.
It involves sharing information and inputs from nearby farmers. Temesgen et al., (2009) found
that access to farmer-to-farmers’ extension services positively affected adjusting planting date,
planting trees, using improved variety, SWC practices, and irrigation in response to climate
change. Such services provide the farmers with information about the agricultural adaptation
practices that are most suitable to their farms which is practically tested by other farmers
themselves. It also enhances the chances for farmers’ decision to adapt to climate change and
influence their preferences for different adaptation strategies. Hence, it serves as a source of
information and experience sharing among farmers and expected to positively affect choice of
adaptation strategies.

13. Access to climate information: It is the availability of information related to climate from
different media. It is about whether farmers got climate information from radio, television,
schools, newspapers and otherwise. The result found by Gebru et al., (2015) confirmed that
access to climate information increases the use of irrigation and SWC practices. Abrham et al.,
(2017) also revealed that the use of SWC practices, adjusting planting and seedling date, and
planting shade trees in response to climate change is enhanced by access to climate information.
Gadédjisso-Tossou (2015) and Temesgen et al., (2009) as well found that access to climate
28
 information improves the use of improved variety and adjusting planting dates in response to
climate change. Access to information on climate from different sources is expected to have an
impact on the adaptation combination of different strategies. This variable is also expected to
have a positive influence on choice of adaptation strategies to climate change.

14. Distance to market: It is about how far the market for inputs and outputs is located from
farmers’ residence. Distance to market is a continuous variable and represented in terms of
kilometres from farmers’ residence to the market. Wondimagegn and Lemma (2016) found that
distance to market positively affected the use of different crop varieties and adjusting planting
date while it negatively affected use of SWC practices. Nhemachena and Hassan (2007) also
found that distance to market positively influences use of improved variety, SWC practices, and
use of irrigation. In contrast to this, Solomon et al., (2016) established that distances to market
negatively affected use of irrigation. A farmer whose residence is too far from the agricultural
input as well as output market was hypothesized to use modern agricultural input less likely than
the farmers who can get the input nearby their farm. In addition, proximity to the market is
important even in helping the farmer to exchange information. On the contrary, closeness to the
market makes the farmer engage in activities other than farming so that it gives less time to
farming and using adaptation strategies. Hence, this variable is hypothesized to either positively
or negatively influence choice of adaptation strategy.

29
2.6 Conceptual Framework of the study

The study uses the following framework to conceptualize and understand climate change effect on
coffee production in the study area (Figure 2).

In this study, farmers’ adaptation process at the farm level is described as a three-step procedure.
First, there is an increasing level of emission of greenhouse gasses to the environment which causes
climate change. The changes in climatic conditions were manifested by an increase in temperature
and decrease in rainfall availability so that emergence of unfavourable situation for agricultural
practices generally and coffee production specifically. Climate change thus causes adverse impacts
on coffee productivity and livelihood of smallholder coffee producer farmers.

Coffee production was challenged by greater seasonal weather variability and change during the
inception and end of growing seasons. Thus, climate related risks like drought, elevated temperature
and heavy rain in the production seasons result coffee yield and quality failure. From all direction the
consequences is worsening of the coffee production.

Smallholder coffee producer farmers then must perceive climate change and its adverse impacts on
their coffee production and their livelihood in order to respond to the change so that they are capable
to lessen side effects. There is also an awareness creation and some other intervention from
government and non-government organizations to enable these farmers to perceive climate change
and to take adaptation measures. Secondly, farmers will take certain measures to adapt to impact of
climate change based on their intervention from governmental and non-governmental organizations.

In fact, there is several adaptation options employed from which farmers made a choice. The
capacity to cope with extreme weather event is highly dependent on level of economic development
and varies between sectors and geographic location, time, socio-economic and environmental
conditions. Exposure to climate impact, low adaptive capacity and high sensitivity of socio-
economic systems affect level of households’ vulnerability. Finally, farmers’ adoption of adaptation
measures is subject to various household socio-economic, environmental, market related and
institutional factors. Adaptation to climate change is greatly reduce vulnerability by enabling
smallholders coffee farmers adjust to change, by moderating potential damage and helping them to
cope up with adverse consequences. The following analytical framework depicted the most
important variables expected to influence the coffee farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change
in the case of Dale District (Figure 2).
30
 Environment
Caused by
 Increased GHGs emissions to
the environment
 Unpredictable RF
Climate Change  Sever erosion
 Temperature rise
 Shortage of rainfall

Coffee production

Impact of climate change

Loss of drought resistant coffee varieties Risk of coffee yield and quality
Incidence of coffee disease and pest failure
Reduction in coffee production and yield

CC adaptation strategies
 Adjusting planting and seedling date Intervention from Gov’t and NGOs
 Use of irrigation
 Use of shade trees/agroforestry
 Soil and water conservation Choice of adaptation strategies to
 Mulching climate change
 Disease and pest controlling

31
 Figure 2: Conceptual framework of the study, Modified from O’brien et al, 2012

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the Study Area

3.1.1 Geographic location

This research was carried out in Dale Woreda which is one of the Woredas of Sidama administrative
Region. It is located at 6 039’ to 6050’N latitude and 38018’ to 38031’E longitude, 320 km south of
Addis Ababa, the national capital and about 45 km from North of Sidama regional capital, Hawassa.
It is bordered by Shabadino woreda in the north, Dara woreda in North West, Aleta Wondo and
Aleta Chuko in the south, Bursa and Wonsho woreda in the East and Loka Abaya in the west, in the
region. There are 31 rural kebeles under the Woreda Administration (WoFED, 2020).

32
Figure 3: Map of the study area Source: Own design 2021

3.1.2 Topography

According to the woreda agricultural development office report (2020), the woreda is found east of
the main road transecting Dale from north to south; here the terrain is hilly, and soils are red (Nit
soil). The elevation of the Woreda ranges between 1626 m to 2423 m above sea level but most of the
woreda is found at about 2123 m.a.s.l.

3.1.3 Climate

According to the simplified traditional agro-climatic classification system, the area lies within moist
Weina Dega (6.25%), and Dega (68.75%) and Kola (25%) (Ketema, 2013). Dale is characterized by
hot and warm conditions and experienced recurrent drought in recent years (Bewket et al., 2015).
The annual rainfall varies from 1041 to 1448mm; the annual mean temperature also varies from 11 0c

33
to 220c with mean value of 160c (Bewket et al., 2015). The rain fall pattern of the area is a bi-modal
type in which the short rainy season is between March and April, while the main Rainy season is
from June to September. Higher temperature variation during dry seasons and erratic rainfall and
moisture stress is the common climatic problem in the study area. [WoADO, 2020]

3.1.4 Land Use

The total area of the woreda is 29629.93 ha of which 470.44 ha is covered by perennial crops, 18404
ha annual crops, 768.38 ha forest (tree), 1830 ha grazing land, 6712 ha swampy areas and 1445.38
ha others (WoADO, 2020).

3.1.5 Farming System

From the total area of the district cultivated land is 45.2% while 22.6% is under forest (WoADO,
2020). Agriculture is the main source of livelihood and the major crops grown in the district includes
perennial crops (mainly coffee, enset and chat), cereals (maize), and legumes (haricot bean) root
crops (sweet potato). The farmers in this District also practice a mixed agriculture system which
includes growing of different cash crops and rearing livestock. The major agriculture and food
security related challenges of the district includes degradation of natural resources, frequent
droughts, severe flooding and increasing population (Bewket et al., 2015). Rainfall during the main
rainy season is erratic that most of the time crops fail due to uneven distribution of rainfall over the
growing period. The farmers in the district are heavily dependent on rain-fed agriculture, and their
geographical location and topography in combination with low adaptive capacity entail a high
vulnerability to adverse impacts of rainfall variability. Torrential rains result in a heavy flush of
water that washes away the soil. Both seasonal drought and frequent floods are already endemic in
the society. Droughts destroy farmlands, and pastures, contribute to land degradation, cause crops to
fail and livestock to perish (WoADO, 2020).

According to IPMS (2005) the main farming systems of the Dale woreda are composed of garden
coffee, enset, and cattle, which are tethered and kept for manure and production of dairy
productivity. Other livelihood practices of the community include natural resources-based business
such as, firewood collection and selling building materials.

3.1.6 Demographic characteristics

34
According to the Woreda Finance and Economic Development office report (2020), the total
population is 255,133, out of which 128,268 (50.3%) were male and 126,865 (49.7 %) female. The
average population growth rate of the district is estimated to be 2.8%, while the average total fertility
rate is 6 children and the population density is eight people per hectare (WoFED, 2020).

3.2. Research Design

To achieve the stated objectives, the study implemented cross-sectional research design as its
framework to guide the process of data collection that involves collection of data mainly using
questionnaires or structured interviews to capture quantitative or qualitative data at a single point in
time. The methodological triangulation data from different sources such as: observations,
documentations and interviews were used in order to harness diverse ideas about the same issue,
simplify the data analysis and assist in cross checking the results as well as increase validity and
reliability of the findings (Senbeta, 2000). In terms of primary data, the study were used a cross
sectional design. Cross sectional design that allows in depth data collection from different groups of
respondents because it assigns at one point at time Bailey (1998), Chris and Diane (2004).
Accordingly, the enquiry was also paid a cross-sectional study, meaning, the study was adopted at
single point in time. Meanwhile, the offered time for finalizing the fully fledged research document
was limited; this ultimately forced the data to be gathering in single time interval. For the secondary
data, longitudinal data of thirty years weather condition trends from Ethiopian Meteorology Agency
was taken to triangulate the house holds response with the actual average climate change in the study
area. The study was targeted farmers who grow coffee and concerned stakeholders in the Dale
woreda. Concerning the variables of the study; the dependent variables of the study is climate
change adaptation strategies. Whereas the independent variables of the study were: demographic,
institutional, socio-economic and market related factors of the coffee producer smallholder
households. The study was employed mixed method research that combines both qualitative and
quantitative forms. The reasons why the study tried to employ a mixed methods design were to
broaden understanding of the impact of climate change and adaptation strategies associated with
coffee production, by incorporating both qualitative and quantitative research, or to use one approach
to better understand, explain, or build on the results from the other approach. Quantitative data was
used to collect household socio-economic, demographic characteristics, perceptions, adaptation
practices and determinants of adaptation practices using questionnaire survey. Qualitative data also
used to grasp coffee producer household’s & key stakeholders’ perceptions towards the impact of
35
climate change on coffee production & adaptation strategies using interview and focus group
discussions (FGD). According to Cress well and Plano Clark, (2007) mixed method providing with
an expanded understanding of research problems, and the overall strength of a study was greater than
either qualitative or quantitative research. Amongst the mixed method approach, the concurrent
embedded strategy was employed in the enquiry. Concurrent embedded mixed strategy is identified
by its use of one data collection phase, during which both quantitative and qualitative data was
collected simultaneously Levelssee, Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998). The purpose of the concurrent
embedded strategy was to use quantitative data and results assists in the interpretation of qualitative
findings Creswell (2009). Since the impartial of the study was to explore and describe climate
change adaptation strategies associated with coffee production in the study area. Therefore, this
impartial was well address with the concurrent embedded strategy.

3.3. Data type and Source

Both primary and secondary data sources were used. The primary data on impact of climate change
on coffee production and local adaptation strategies employed by farmers were collected directly
from sample households, focus group discussions members and key informants through informal and
formal interviews. Reconnaissance surveys and direct observations were also contributed to
supplement the interview data. Both qualitative and quantitative research approaches were used in
the primary data collection process and historical and current information on the impact of climate
change on coffee production and adaptation strategies employed by farmers were also solicited.
Moreover, different methods were used to gather information on socio-economic characteristics,
including participatory approaches such as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) for qualitative data,
questionnaire (for quantitative data) and direct observations. Whereas, secondary data of woredas’
coffee production time series data were obtained from agricultural office, socio economic and
demographic data were obtained from finance and economic development office reports and
meteorological data were obtained from Ethiopian Meteorological Agency. The data on the socio-
economic and physical aspects of farmers were obtained from reviews of both published and
unpublished paper, Regional Bureau of statistics library and National Meteorological Agency used
as a source of secondary data. And also, Awada research center and Dale woreda Agriculture Office
were potential sources of coffee yield time series data.

3.4. Sampling Procedure and Sample Size Determination

36
Two-stage sampling procedure was employed. The first stage was purposive selection of coffee
growing kebeles of the woreda, followed by selection of sample households. The Kebele
identification was based on agro-ecology (2 kebeles from Woina Dega (Mid land) and 1 from Kolla
(Lowland), secondary data review on coffee production and area coverage by coffee. Three coffee
growing kebeles were purposively selected as a sample out of 31 kebeles of the woreda. Before
selecting household heads to be included in the sample, coffee grower household heads of each rural
kebele were identified in collaboration with kebele leaders, key informants and development agents
of the respective rural kebele. Simplified formula provided by Yamane (1967) was used to determine
the required sample size at 95% confidence level along with a 7% (0.07) level of precision as shown
below.

Where n = required sample size

N = total population size (total households heads of selected kebeles)

e = level of precision (expected sampling Error)

In the second stage, 194 household heads was selected from identified coffee growers by using
systematic random sampling technique considering proportional to size (number) of coffee growers
in each of three selected rural kebeles. Bowley‘s (1926) proportion allocation method will be used to
assign sample sizes for each selected kebeles

ni = n

Where ni is assigned sample size for each kebeles, n is total sample size, Ni is household size of
single kebele and N is total household size of selected kebeles.

Table 2: Sample household size which produces coffee from each identified kebeles

No Name of kebeles Agro ecology Household size Sample size

1 Manche Midland (Waina dega) 1271 59
2 Boa Midland (Woina dega) 1268 59
3 Soyama Lowland (Kolla) 1624 76
Total 4163 194

37
 3.5. Methods of Data Collection

To gather the required information, different data collection instruments were implemented. Primary
data such as climate trend and its impact on coffee production, the smallholder farmers’ perception
towards climate change and adaptation strategies practiced were gathered from sample respondents
using semi-structured interview schedule, focus group discussion (FGD) key informant interview
(KII)

i. Household Survey: Semi-structured questionnaires were prepared to collect data on major

research issues such as farmers’ observation changes and trends in the local climate, coffee
production and socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the sample selected farmers as
well as institutional accessibility environmental and market related issues were interviewed. And, the
impact of climate change and examine factors which are challenges for coffee production and
farmers’ coping strategies in face of climate change were collected. The survey on sample
households were handled by three development agents (enumerators) who were selected from
respective kebeles, after giving brief orientation and training by the researcher about the procedure
and other related issues that need to be considered in the field survey. Data collection was supervised
by researcher with following the enumerators at the schedule of face-to-face interviews of farmers.

ii. Key Informant Interviews (KII): Key informants from the district sector of the agriculture
office were interviewed in availing required information or data that the researcher needs. Thus,
experts from different sectors, such as coffee experts, natural resource management, model farmers
and elder farmers which are more knowledgeable about climate change were identified and included
in the discussion. Development agents (DA) from each kebeles and a researcher from Awada
Research Center were included as a key informant interview. The interview checklist was prepared
about climate change, climate trend and its impact on coffee production and adaptation strategies in
the study area.

iii. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): According to Mawanje (2001), focus group discussion helps
to generate data on group dynamics, and allows a small group of respondents reflection guided by a
skilled moderator, and to discuss focusing on key issue of the research topic. Farmers representing
different age groups, with different education levels and different wealth groups were selected from
each kebele and a total of three FGDs were conducted. From these one kebele female focus group
discussion comprising six individuals and two kebeles male focus group discussion from each kebele

38
were comprise seven individuals of the community. The main purpose of the FGDs is to get insights
on and understand the community perception towards climate change and climate trends and its
impact on coffee production and farmers’ adaptation strategies and barriers to employ these options
effectively.

iv. Field Observation: Field observation was conducted throughout the whole process of the
research in order to make sure the validity of information obtained. Observations was taken place
randomly from all farmers those considered in household survey are selected to assess how they
perform the adaptation measures to the impacts of climate change on coffee production and what
they did to reduce soil erosion by conservation practices.

v. Meteorological Data: Climate data (precipitation and temperature) data of 30 years (1991-2020)
were compiled from records of regional branch office of the National Meteorological Agency
(NMA)

3.6 Data Analysis

Qualitative and quantitative data were obtained from questionnaires and interviews and data from the
respondents is verified, compiled, coded, summarized and analyzed by using IBM SPSS Statistics 20
data editor, descriptive statistical methods and Linear Regression model. In addition, frequencies and
percentiles were used to summarize and present the result. The findings were also presented using
frequencies, tables and graphs. Both descriptive and econometric analysis was employed to analyze
data collection from various sources. Appropriate procedures of thematic content analysis such as
identification of themes, paragraphing and synthesizing were applied. The proceeding steps; data
triangulation, analysis from observation, in-depth interview, and focus group discussions,
questionnaires and secondary sources were conducted. Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the
quantitative data and present in percentages in figures and tables.

The annual coffee production data obtained from the agriculture office report of study district was
analysed using quantitative statistical method using Microsoft Exel. Correlation analysis was
employed to identify the relationships between rainfall variability and change and coffee production
as well as relationship among seasonal rainfall amount.

Trend analysis

39
Microsoft Excel was used for trend analysis, the Microsoft Excel function of linear trend as well as
line chart was used to analyse the trend of climate variability and change in the area. The line chart,
trend line, trend equation and the degree of variation within the excel function was used to determine
the nature and direction of the trend of the variables under investigation i.e. annual temperature
(maximum and minimum) and annual rainfall. Again, the inter-annual anomalies for the time series
data (temperature and Rainfall) were calculated using the Microsoft Excel to assess the year- to- year
variability of the climate variability over a 30 year period (1991-2020) in the area.

Trend significant test

Microsoft Excel is used for trend significant test. Hence, Mann-Kendall trend test was used to detect
the trend and normalized Z-score for significant test. A score of +1 is awarded if the value in a time
series is larger, or a score of -1 is awarded if it is smaller. The total score for the time series data is
the Mann-Kendall statistics, which is then compared to a critical value, to test whether the trend in
rainfall is increasing, decreasing or if no trend in rainfall can be determined.

X1, X2, X3………………………Xn represent n data points (Monthly)

Where: Xj represents the data point at a time. Then the Mann-Kendall statistics (S) is given by

S= (Sign (Xj_Xk)

Where Sign (Xj_Xk) = 1 if Xj_Xk > 0

= 0 if Xj_Xk = 0

= -1 if Xj_Xk < 0

Where Xj and Xk are the sequential rainfall values in monthly j and k (j>k) respectively
A positive value is an indicator of increasing (upward) trend
A negative value is an indicator of decreasing (downward) trend
A normalized test statistics (Z- score) was used to check the statistical significance of the increasing
or decreasing trend of mean rainfall and temperature values. The trends of temperature data
determined and their statistical significance were tested using Mann- Kendall trend significant test
with the level of significance 0.05 (Z² = ±1.96).

40
 Z= if S> 0

Z= 0 if S= 0

Z= if S< 0

Var(S) = [n (n-1)] (2n+5) - tp (tp-1) (2tp+5)]

Where N= is the number of data points

q = is the number of tied groups (tied groups is a set of sample data having the same value)

tp = is the number of data values in group

Where S was the Mann- Kendal’s test statistics, xi and xj were the sequential data values of the time
series in the years I and j (j>i) and N was the length of the time series. A positive S- value indicates
an increasing trend and a negative S- value indicates a decreasing trend in the data series.

Multinomial logit test

The decision of whether to use any adaptation option could fall under the general framework of
utility and profit maximization (Komba and Muchapondwa, 2012). Consider a rational farmer who
seeks to maximize the present value of expected benefits of production over a specified time
horizon, and must choose among a set of j adaptation options. Farmer i decide to use j adaptation
option if the perceived benefit from option j is greater than the utility from other options (say, k)
depicted as:

Uij (β,jXi+ϵj) > Uik (β,jXj+ ϵk),K 1

Where Uij and Uik are the perceived utility by farmer i of adaptation option j and k, respectively. Xi
is a vector of explanatory variables that influence the choice of the adaptation option; βj and βk are

41
parameters to be estimated; ϵj and ϵk are the error terms. The probability that farmer i will choose
adaptation option j among the set of adaptation options could be defined as follows:

P(Y=1/X) = P (Uij > Uik/ X)

= P (β, j X, + ϵj_ β, k Xi+ ϵk) > 0/X

= P (β, j - β, k) Xi+ ϵj _ ϵk > 0/X

= P (β*Xi + ϵ* > 0/X)

= P (β*Xi)

Where ϵ* is a random distribution term, β*is a vector of unknown parameters that can be interpreted
as the net effect of the vector of explanatory variables influencing adaptation, and P(β*Xi) is the
cumulative distribution of ϵ* evaluated at β*Xi.

Multinomial logit model was employed to estimate the effect of the hypothesized explanatory
variables on the choice of adaptation options of climate change. As described in Deressa et al.,
(2009), the model is normally estimated using the iterative maximum likelihood estimation
procedure, which yields unbiased, efficient and consistent parameter estimates.

To describe the MNL model, Let y denote a random variable taking on the values (1,2,….,J) for J, a
positive integer, and let x denote a set of conditioning variables. In this case, y denotes adaptation
options or categories and x contain different household, institutional and environmental attributes.
The question is how changes in the elements of x affect, keeping other factors constant, the response
probabilities P (y= j/x) is determined ones we know the probabilities for j = 2…. J. Let x be a 1 x K
vector with first element unit. Thus, the probability that household i with characteristic x choose
adaptation option j is specified as follows:

P(Y= j/x) =

Where P stands for probability, j stands for adaptation options, x for explanatory variables and

= K x 1 is coefficients, j = 1, 2,……,J

42
The equation of multinomial logistic regression model requires the independent irrelevant alternative
assumption (IIA) following Deressa et al., (2009). It indicates that the probability of using a certain
adaptation options by a given household needs to be independent from the probability of choosing
another adaptation options (that is, Pj/Pk is independent of the remaining probabilities). Thus, before
data analysis and presentation, the model has been tested for the validity of the IIA assumptions,
using the Hausman test for IIA as explained in Hassan and Nhemachena (2008) and Deressa et al.,
(2009).

The parameter estimates of the MNL model provide only the direction of the effect of the
independent variables (explanatory variable) on the dependent (adaptation options) variable, but
estimates do not represent either the actual magnitude of change nor probabilities. Differentiating the
equation of multinomial logit model with respect to the explanatory variables provides marginal
effects of the explanatory variables (the probability of change in the dependent variable with a unit
of change of the independent variable) and was calculated as follows.

= P j (β jk_

The marginal effects or marginal probabilities are functions of the probability itself and measure the
expected change in the probability of a particular choice being made with respect to a unit change in
an independent variable from the mean.

Moreover, before running the model it is useful to look in to the problem of multi collinearity among
the continuous variables and verify the degree of association among the hypothesized continuous
explanatory variables. The reason for this is that the existence of multi collinearity will affect
seriously the parameter estimates; inflates the standard error. If it turns out to be significant, the
simultaneous presence of highly correlated variables will attenuate or reinforce the individual effect
of these variables. Accordingly, Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) technique was employed to detect
the problem of multi collinearity for continuous explanatory variables (Gujarati, 1995). A popular
measure of multi collinearity associated with the VIF is defined as:

VIF =

43
If R² of the multiple correlation coefficient that results when the explanatory variable, Xi, is
regressed against all the other explanatory variables, VIF is computed as follows.
Tolerance = 1 – R²

Where VIF is variance inflation factor, R² is the adjusted square of the multi correlation coefficients
that result when one explanatory variable (j) is regressed against all others. If an approximately
linear relation exists among the explanatory variables, then this will result, in large value of R² in at
least one of the test regressions. By default, value of VIF greater than 10 is assumed to indicate
model multi collinearity problem (Gujarati, 1995).
Similarly, there may be also an interaction between categorical variables, which can lead to the
problem of multi collinearity or strong association. To detect this problem, contingency coefficients
were computed from the survey data. The contingency coefficients greater than 0.75 shows a very
high degree of association (Healy, 1984) and it is calculated as follows:

C=

Where C is Contingency Coefficient, X² = Chi- square test, n= total sample size

To analyze data type of adaptation measures and its determinants (objectives) relevant econometric
model was used after model specification test carried out by Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC)
and Chi-square statistics. A long-term rainfall data was analyzed by Standard Precipitation index
(SPI) and Coefficient of Variation (CV) also used to determine rainfall variability. IBM SPSS
(Statistical Package for Social Science) and EXCEL 2010 software were used as a tool for the
analysis. Correlation Analysis was employed to estimate the relationship between temperature,
rainfall and coffee production and yield.

SPI was used to quantify the precipitation deficit for multiple timescales.

SPI

Where SPI is Standardized Precipitation Index, X is discrete precipitation data, is mean,

44
SD is Standard Deviation and SPI is drought index, which is a powerful, flexible and simple to
calculate. In addition, it is just as effective in analysing wet periods as it is in analysing dry periods.
It indicates the moisture level from extremely wet (SPI ≥ 2) to extremely dry (SPI ≤ -2) (McKee et
al., 1993). Intra seasonal rainfall variability was analyzed using the coefficient of variation (CV).
According to Hare (1983), CV (%) values are classified as: < 20% less variable, 20 - 30%
moderately variable and > 30% as highly variable

CV= *1OO

Where: - CV is Coefficient of Variation, SD is Standard Deviation and X is mean

For quantitative findings; logistic regression and logit models were computed to analyze the
determinants of climate change adaptation strategies in the study area. As Kassie et al., (2012), the
determinants of perception and adaptation examined by using logit models. For qualitative analysis
of information from household survey, focus group discussions and key informant interviews was
used in the study. Determination of variations in temperature seasonal and annual trends of
maximum and minimum temperatures and Rainfall trend patterns were computed. Annual Mean
linear Trend models were used on mean temperature of seasons of different years to determine trend
of mean temperature in the past consecutive 30 years. And Mean Squared Deviation was used to
compare goodness fit of different trends in annual rain fall.

The analysis of qualitative data through narrating and description was conducted to explore the
impact of climate change on coffee production and adaptation strategies of smallholders coffee
producers in rural households and selected stakeholders in the study area. In addition, cross
tabulation was used to make comparison, through comparing the climate change adaptability
practices of selected respondents. Percentages, frequencies and means were used to present
households perception in rainfall and temperature trends. Mean and standard deviation was also used
to show households’ socio-economic, demographic, adaptation options, reasons for adaptation and
actual adaptations were implemented. These are the basic descriptive variables of statistical analysis
tools for adaptation proportions, reasons for adaptation and actual adaptations options were
analyzed.

3.7. Definition of Variables and Working Hypothesis

45
 Dependent variables

The dependent variable for multinomial logit model used in this study was households’ choice
decision on climate change adaptation option used by smaller holder coffee farmers. The alternative
climate change adaptation strategies including adjusting planting and seedling date, implement soil
and water conservation practices such as soil/stone banding, terracing, mulching and runoff
diversion to prevent erosion, disease and pest monitoring and management, grow drought and
disease tolerant coffee variety, planting shade trees or agroforestry, use of irrigation and shifting
from coffee to short season crops. These are frequently reported as climate change adaptation
strategies in rain- fed agriculture of many African countries (Hassan and Nhemachena, 2008;
Deressa et al., 2009) thus, the dependent variables in the model are a categorical variables taking a
discrete value of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 representing the below choices, where;

1. Adjusting planting and seedling date: It involves the adjustment of planting and seedling time better
suiting the shifts in the growing season by delaying or undertaking early planting/seedling.

2. Soil and water conservation: Includes the adoption of soil and water conservation practices such
as soil/stone banding, terracing, tie ridging, mulching to improve soil fertility and runoff diversion to
prevent erosion and conserve soil water.

3. Disease and pest monitoring and management: Given the predicted temperature increases due
to climate change, certain pests and diseases are predicted to increase and affect coffee at more
altitudes than before. Two diseases, coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix) (called roya) and American
leaf spot (Mycena citricolor) are predicted to begin affecting plants in increasingly higher altitudinal
ranges. Therefore, proactive monitoring and treatment of pests and diseases is crucial for coffee
farmers to remain resilient.

4. Growing drought and disease tolerant coffee varieties: It involves switching to varieties better
suited to the new climate patterns such as the use of stress tolerant coffee varieties that have a shorter
growing period and pest and disease resistant. It also includes growing coffee better suited to the
new climate and growing condition

5. Planting shade trees or agroforestry: agroforestry is a diversified farming system that

incorporates trees, crops and livestock. Such integration provides multiple benefits such as improved
soil quality, production of fruits and timber, provision of micro-climate for growing crops as well as
enhances the quality of water.

46
6. Use of irrigation: It involves the adoption of farmers to build water, harvesting schemes such as
traditional hand dug or shallow open wells for the abstraction of groundwater for irrigation,
diversion and pumping of spring water to practice irrigation.

Independent Variables

Independent variables are variables that determine whether a household recognize climate change
and take some mechanism used to adapt the impact of climate change. Based on the review of
literature on adaptation studies, a range of household demographic and socio-economic
characteristics, institutional factors were hypothesized to influence farmers’ adaptation choice in the
study area. The expected effects of each of these variables are presented in Table 3 and discussed as
follows.

1. Age of the household head: This indicates the age of the household head in years and can also
be used as a proxy for farming experience of the household head. A continuous variable measured by
years. Adaptation to climate change is developed from experience accumulated over time (Mutekwa,
2009). Moreover, Deressa et al., (2009) and Tesso et al., (2012) also indicated that age of the
household has negative and significant effect on climate change adaptation options.

2. Sex of the household head: this variable is dummy variable it takes 1 if sex of households head
is male, 2 otherwise. The sex of household heads has negative and significant effects on climate
change adaptation strategies (Deressa et al., 2009; Legesse et al., 2013).

3. Family size: It is the total number of persons living in the household working for and dependent
on household for their living. Nemachena and Hassan, (2008) mentioned that household size has
mixed impacts on farmers’ use of agricultural technologies. Larger family size is expected to enable
farmers to take up labor intensive adoption measures. Alternatively, a large family may be forced to
diver part of its labor force in to non-farm and off farm activities to generate more income and
reduce consumption demand. Nevertheless, larger family size entails more economic dependency
and more pressure on the household hence assumed to have negative effect on climate change
adaption strategies.

4. Farm size of the household head: Farm size is the total land holding of the household that uses
for the farming activities. A household who has relatively large coffee farm size are more likely to
different adaptation strategies and then adopt climate change strategies. And the reverse is true for
47
small coffee farm size owners (Wagayehu, 2003). Therefore, the variable is continuous and it is
expected a positive sign for the farmer who used adaptation strategies to climate change on coffee
production.

5. Farm experience: farming experience refers to the number of years respondents spend on coffee
farming activity. Increasing household heads experience is reported to increase the probability of
adapting climate change impacts (Uddin et al., 2014). This could be apparent that adaptation to
climate change is needs experience.

6. Education: Education refers to the literacy level of household head in years of formal schooling.
Adaptation to climate change is a response for understanding the issue and its long term risks and
opportunities embedded. Maddison (2006) noted experienced farmers are more likely to perceive
climate change, but educated farmers are more likely to respond by making at least one adaptation
option. This attributable to the fact that education can enhance individual’s access to information and
technology thereby helping to make a decision on adoption of climate change adaptation options.
Education helps to increase farmer’s ability to obtain, process, information relevant to the climate
change adaption strategies. Education is thus expected to increase the probability of Adaptation
strategies to the impact of climate change.

7. Total coffee income: Total coffee income is operationally defined as the value of the products of
the household from coffee output after home consumption and expressed in birr per year. The
income level is anticipated to have a positive relationship with the dependent variables since
normally it becomes a facilitating factor.

8. Credit availability: credit access refers to the household’s opportunity to get credit service from
formal and/or informal institutions. The availability of credit eases the cash constraints and allows
farmers purchase inputs such as fertilizer, improved crop varieties and irrigation facilities. Studies
dealing with adoption of agricultural technologies showed that there is a positive relationship
between the level of adoption and the availability of credit (Deressa et al., 2009; Ishaya and Adaje,
2008; Tesso et al., 2012). It is expected that access to credit will increase the probability of
adopting climate change strategies. Farmers who have access to credit may overcome their financial
constraints and therefore buy input and other related tools (Nigigi, 2003).

48
9. Information on climate: this represents access to information required to make decision on
adaptation to climate change. The provision of agricultural relevant climate information enhances
farmers’ awareness of climate change and knowledge on adaptation measures (Ishaya and Adaje,
2008).

10. Extension contact: Extension service provided to farmers is the major source of new
information in the study area. It is hypothesized as frequency of contact by the extension personnel
of government with the respondents and it is measured as frequency of contact per month/during the
production year. Research findings in Ethiopia also showed that access to extension have a positive
and significant effect on adaptation to climate change (Deressa et al., 2009).

Table 3: Independent variables used in multinomial logit model

Variable Explanatory Coding/Measurement Category/Type Expected
Code variables Sign/Hypothesis
Age Age 1) 15 – 34 Continuous +/-
(year) 2) 35 – 54
3) 55 and above
Sex Sex of HH 1) Male 0) Female Dummy +/-

EDC Education 1) can’t read write, Continuous +/-

2) can read and write,
3) 1 - 8 4) 9 - 12,
5) certificate & diploma,
6) degree & above
Far Exp Farm 1) <10, 2) 10 - 25, Continuous +/-
experience 3) >25
(year)
Farm Si Farm Size 1) 0.5, 2) 0.5 - 1, Continues +/-
(hectare) 3) 1 - 2, 4) > 2

Ext Serv Access to 1 = Access to extension Dummy +/-

extension services,
services 0 = No extension
Services
Far In Farm income 1) Livestock, Continuous +/-
(Birr) 2) Petty trade/ small
business,
3), Apiculture
4) Remittances,

49
 5) Salary, 6) Wages
Clima Climate 1) Yes, 0) No Dummy +/-
Info Information

Crd Ava Credit 1) Yes, 0) No Dummy +/-

Availability

Fam Family Size 1) 1 - 2, 2) 3 - 5, Continuous +/-

Size number 3) 6 – 9 4) >10

Source: Own design, 2021

Table 4: Independent variables of the study

No. Explanatory Variable Expected sign

1 Age +/-
2 Sex +/-
3 Family Size +/-
4 Education +/-
5 Land holding size +/-
6 Farm income +/-
7 Extension visits +/-
8 Credit availability +/-
9 Climate information access +/-
10 Farm experience +/-

50
NB: +/- signs revealed that the results of the above study variables was either positive or negative to
the impact of climate change on coffee production and adaptation measures of smallholder’s
farmers in the study area.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

Statistical data about the characteristics of a population, such as age, sex, family size, marital status

and education are critical to make a farm decisions and performance in relation to climate change

(Deressa et al., 2009).

Sex of respondents: From the total populations interviewed 93.8% (182) of the respondents were

male household heads and 6.2% (12) were female households (Table 5). Regarding their marital

status 93.8% (182) respondents were married, 4.6% (9) were widowed and 1.6% (3) was divorced.

Respondent’s sex and marital status determine responsibilities for male and female farmers in the

51
whole process of coffee production (Ironkwe et al., 2009). And also in relation to sex, Asfaw and

Admassie study (2004) note that households headed by males have a higher probability of getting

information about new farming technologies and also undertake more risky ventures than female

headed households.

Family size: Out of total sample household heads majority (70.1%) of respondents had 6-9 family

size and the rest 29.9% (58) had 3-5 family size (Table 5). The results also clearly showed that the

mean average family size of the sample households is 6-9. The larger family size among the

respondents in study district indicated that the high population pressure for the limited resources. As

indicated by Austin et al. (2012), increase in family size results in land fragmentation because the

farmer shares his portion of arable coffee farm lands to his male children no matter how widely

spread the lands might be. These shared lands may or may not be used for agricultural purposes by

his children. By so doing, the available land for the purpose of agriculture has been reduced and

which also reduces the amount of coffee production.

Age category: The majority of the respondents fall in the age category of 35-54 which were
161(82.9%) of the total followed by the age category of 55 and above which are 30 (15.5%).
However, only 3(1.6%) respondents fall within the age category of 15 - 34, that indicated limited
involvement in coffee production activities. The result showed that the maximum and minimum age
of the sample households were >55 and 15-34 years, respectively (table 5). Analyses of the
socioeconomic characteristics of the farmers revealed an average age of 35-54 (82.9%) years
implying that most of the farmers interviewed in Dale District were in their productive age and are
expected to have the strength needed for farming. Respondent’s level of age reflects farming
experience. This result is in agreement with the findings of Bewket (2010), who reported that the
productive labour age categories from 35 – 65 years. And also most researchers Gbetiouo et al.,
(2009) shows, age may have a negative effect on the decision to adopt new farming technologies
simply because older farmers may be more risk-averse and therefore, less likely to be flexible than
younger farmers. On the other hand, age may have a positive effect on the decision of the farmers to

52
adopt adaptation strategies, because older farmers may have more experience in farming and
therefore, better able to assess the features of a new farming technology than the younger farmers.

Educational status: The ability to read and write is an important personal asset enabling a
household to have increased opportunities for diversified farm activities. According to their
educational status the respondents were classified from cannot read and write to degree and above.
The results from this study revealed that about 6.2% of the respondents cannot read and write
(illiterate). On the other hand, 52.6, 27.3 and 13.9% of the respondents have educational status of
can read and write, 1– 8, 9 – 12 grades, respectively (Table 5). Generally, the educational status of
the sample households revealed that 79.8 % were at elementary level of education (1 – 8), 13.9 %
were secondary education level (9 – 12) and 6.2 % were illiterates. There is clear evidence that the
educated farmers are more aware of the past, present and future weather conditions, able to adopt
more easily new improved technologies and attend different medias to follow metrological
information for their coffee production. Given the relatively low level of formal education of the
farmers, their perception of climate impacts and adaptation are expected to be low. Respondents’
level of education helps them to understand the improved and newly introduced coffee input
requirements and its application at the right weather season.

Table 5: Demographic characteristics of respondents, Dale district (n=194)

No. Characteristics Label Frequency Percentage (%)

1 Sex of respondents Male 182 93.8
Female 12 6.2
2 Marital status Married 182 93.8
Single - -
Divorced 3 1.6
Widow 9 4.6

53
3 Family size 1-2 - -
3-5 58 29.9
6-9 136 70.1
>10 - -
15-34 3 1.6
4 Age category
35-54 161 82.9
55 & above 30 15.5
Can’t read & write 12 6.2
Can read & write 102 52.6
5 Educational status
1-8 53 27.3
9-12 27 13.9
Certificate & diploma - -
Degree & above - -
Source: Own field survey, 2021

4.2. Economic characteristics of the sampled respondents

4.2.1 Households’ Land Holding Status

In the study area, the target populations were household heads whose livelihood directly or
indirectly depends on land resources. Land holding status, therefore, is one of the decisive
determinants of coffee production and productivity. As presented in table 4, 65.1% of the HHs owns
1-2 hectares of land and 22.1% of the HHs owns 0.5 – 1 hectare farm size. Bradshaw et al., (2004),
reported that land holding status (farm size) has both negative and positive effects on adaptation
options, showing that the effect of farm size on technology adaptation is inconclusive. Hence, land
holdings are both small scale in size which make them vulnerable to impacts of climate change,
because most of the farmers in the study area does not practice fallow based farming system and
practice conventional farming without the use of modern farming implements in the area, which then
adversely affect their coffee production.

Table 6: Land holding in hectares of the selected respondents’ farmers (n=194)

Land Holding size (ha) Frequency Percent

< 0.5 0.0 0.0
0.5 – 1 43 22.1
54
 1–2 127 65.1
>2 24 12.3
Total 194 100.0
Source: Own field survey, 2021

4.2.2. Farming Type

Although mainly the rural community of the study area practice rain fed agriculture, they also
practice irrigated agriculture through the support of government and non- governmental organization
to improve the coffee production and productivity during harsh climatic condition. As it is shown in
Table 7, the survey result indicated that 85.1% of the respondents were practicing rain fed farming
system which is the most susceptible to climate variability and change impacts. Similarly, Pettengell
(2010) reported that, populations who depend on rain fed crop production are particularly vulnerable
to climate change due to the climate sensitive nature of their activities. The FGDs and Agricultural
office experts revealed that the small holder coffee farmers are practicing rain fed coffee production
due to lack of access to water to be used for irrigation.

Table 7: Farming type practiced by the sampled respondents in Dale district

Farming Type Frequency Percent

Rain fed 166 85.1
Irrigated only 0.0 0.0
Both 28 14.4
Total 194 100.0

Source: HH Survey, 2021

4.2.3. Farming Experience

Farming experience refers to the number of years respondents spend in crop production. More
experienced farmers may have better information to evaluate the impacts of climate change on
coffee production and to implement the adaptation strategies. Regarding to farming experience,
59.5% of the sample respondent had 10 - 25 years of crop production experience (Table 8).

Table 8: Years of experience on crop production of the sample respondents (n=194)

55
 Experience on crop Production Frequency Percent

<10 years 8 4.1

10 – 25 years 116 59.5
>25 years 70 35.9
Source: Own field survey, 2021

4.2.4. Source of income

The results revealed that the majority of the sample households 95.8% income sources are obtained
from crop production and only 4.12% income sources are from mixed farming that means a farming
system in which both crop production and livestock rearing performed simultaneously that provides
an important additional source of income (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Distribution of sample households by income sources

Source: Own survey, 2021

And also 69.7% (136) of the major other sources of household respondents’ income that are non-

coffee related are from livestock rearing and 27.7% (54) sample households income sources are

obtained from both livestock rearing and small/petty trade activities. The remaining 2.1% is from

other sources (Table 9).

56
Table 9: Non-coffee related income sources of respondent HH of study area

Non- coffee related Frequency Percent %

income sources

Livestock rearing 136 69.7

Livestock rearing and 54 27.7
small/petty trade
Others 4 2.1
Total 194 100
Source: Own field survey, 2021

4.3 Climate Rainfall and Temperature Trends Analysis for Dale District

In determining trend, the climate variables (temperature and rainfall) were subjected to trend
analysis. The Microsoft excels and Mann Kendall statistics was employed to show the trend of the
climate variables under consideration with the trend line indicating the nature and direction of the
trend.

Major trends of climatic patterns in terms of rainfall and temperature which would affect coffee
production are included in this study. Three decades climatic data such as rainfall, maximum and
minimum temperature were obtained from the National Meteorological Agency of Ethiopian (NMA)
(Hawassa Branch office). While the coffee yield data were obtained from Agriculture Development
of district Office.

4.3.1. Rainfall variability and Trend of the Dale Woreda (1990-2020)

4.3.1.1 Annual rainfall trend and variability in study area

The trend analysis indicates only whether the trend is increasing or decreasing over certain period of
time. According to the Mann Kendall trend analysis the result indicates decreasing rainfall trend in
Dale Woreda. Hence, significant test for the trend is of paramount importance in order to predict the

57
occurrence of extreme weather events and their likely impacts. Accordingly, the trend significance
tests showed statistically significant trend change. Hence, the trend evaluation indicates stable trend
in Dale woreda. According to Mann-Kendall significance test level at 0.05, the test hypothesis is as
follows;

H0=μ = μ0 (there is significant trend/ stable trend in the data)

HA = μ_μ0 (there is significant trend/ unstable trend in the data)

Hence Z² = ±1.96

If -1.96 ≤ Z ≤ 1.96 Accept the hypothesis or else Reject H0

Where S is the Mann-Kendal’s test statics; xi and xj were the sequential data values of the time
series in the years i and j (j>i) and N is the length of the time series. A positive S value indicates an
increasing trend and a negative S value indicates a decreasing trend in the data series.

Table 10: Values of annual total rainfall trend analysis of the Dale (1991-2021)

Sample Station N S-value Sample p-value Trend evaluation (∂=0.05)

Dale Woreda 360 -1214.00 0.574 Stable/decreasing

N- Represents the length of the time series (day/month)

Source: NMA, Ethiopia, (2021)

Table 11: Annual total rainfall variability and coefficient of variation

RF N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Variance CV

Annual RF 30 806.6 1658.8 1157.44 300.622 34.95 25.97

N- Represent the length of time series (yearly/mm),

Source: NMA, 2021

58
There was great variability on annual and seasonal rainfall received in the study site for the last three

decades (Figure 5). The annual rainfall of the study area ranged from 806.6 – 1658.8 mm, indicating

that the inter-annual rainfall variability over the years. The results also revealed that declining

rainfall amount over the last three decades. For instance, in 1998 the amount of rainfall received was

1658.8 mm and it was declined to 806.6 mm in 2018. The chronic rainfall shortage was observed in

2003, 2004, 2011 and 2018 which was 852.5, 832.8, 853.5 and 806.6 mm per year, respectively.

However, there were a number of years with lowest precipitation for coffee cultivation. According to

NMA data of 2020 the variability of rainfall was more pronounced and the amount showed gradual

decreasing trend for over the last 30 years. The analysis of linear trend showed that the amount of

annual rainfall showed a decreasing trend between the year of 1990 and 2020. That means the trend

observed in annual rainfall amounts for Dale district is decreasing for the period 1990-2020.

Figure 5: Annual rainfall trend and variability at Dale district (1991-2020) in mm/year
Souce: NMA, 2021

59
A statistical analysis found out that the decrease in annual rainfall was significant and area

characterized with large inter- annual fluctuation of rainfall. For instance, the year 2003, 2004, 2011

and especially 2018 were generally a dry period in three decades and 1996, 2001, 2006, 2007

particularly 1998 were the rainfall has recovered to more humid conditions in the study area.

This was further supported by household perceptions where the respondents confirmed the year to

year declining trend in the amount of rainfall. In general, the area receives inadequate annual rainfall

amount which affect coffee growth and abundant yields due to variability. This finding is in line with

findings of Some and Kone (2000), who reported a variability in annual rainfall in the semi-arid and

sub humid zones of West Africa. Similarly, Worishima and Akasaka (2010) reported that the rainfall

in southern Africa and parts of the Horn of Africa is decreasing time to time (1987, 1990, 1999,

2000, and 2002). It is obvious from the graph that rainfall indeed experienced a number of variations

over the period under consideration (1991 - 2020) with the highest rainfall (1658.8mm) occurring in

1998. The trend equation and the trend line of the annual rainfall shows a decreasing trend (-

11.408x) which means that the annual rainfall pattern over the 30 years (1991 – 2020) has been

decreasing. This means that even though annual rainfall was decreasing over the periods, the trend of

decrease varies year to year. The degree of variation (R² = 0.2068) shows that the variability in

annual rainfall in the research area. The estimated anomaly of the inter-annual rainfall variation

shows the amount of rainfall that has varied from year to year (Figure 5)

Rainfall variation has adverse effects on coffee production, especially when the production is carried

out in rain-fed conditions and by small household farmers. Regarding the amount of rainfall

received the majority of the respondents (93.9%) perceived a bigger decline in rainfall and an

increase in rainfall variability, duration and intensity. This was also evident during in-depth

interviews, focus group discussions and oral histories where participants agreed that currently

60
rainfall has become highly variable, low in volume and higher in intensity. The interviewed

individuals also indicated that the amount of rainfall received during the growing season was not

sufficient for coffee production and highly variable in amounts. This can be further explained as in

some areas the amount of rains received either light or heavy and are concentrated within a short

duration of time which do not adequately support the growth of coffee from seed germination to

maturity stage. Therefore, this threatens district food production and security which has made the

district dependent on food aid for many years. Similar findings on changes in the amount of rainfall

and decline in rainfall patters have also been reported in studies elsewhere in East Africa (Mongi et

al., 2010).

4.3.1.2. Seasonal rainfall trends and variability (1991 – 2020)

The decline in rainfall amount and increase in annual rainfall variability have resulted in fewer

planting days. Most of the respondents indicated that most of rainy seasons no longer follow known

trends from the past, hence affecting the normal routine of the planting seasons, affecting coffee

survived due to limited soil moisture and heat stress conditions leading to poor productivity. This

finding is supported by Collier et al., (2008) who indicated that climate change will result in the

reduced length of the growing season. Focus group discussions interviews also revealed that rainfall

seasons have changed, where sometimes rainfall starts at the onset or in the middle of the season and

ends when coffee still at the growth stage or had just started producing flowers, that moisture stress

and rainfall variability force coffee crop to grow to maturity before its real time which results in poor

and low quality and yield. This finding is supported by a study by Kangalawe (2009), conducted in

the southern part of Tanzania, which suggested that changing climatic conditions have resulted in

delays and fluctuations in rainfall onset.

61
Chandrappa, (2011) made an argument that climate change threaten agricultural livelihoods and food

security of the people in Africa whose lives depend on agriculture. Hence, this finding agrees with

most of the literature that changing climatic conditions, especially decline in rainfall and increases in

variability, affect the livelihoods of the agriculture dependent farmers. There was high inter-annual

variability in the amount of Belg and Kiremt rainfall (Figure 6). Rainfall of Belg season has shown

declining trend from 1991 – 2020. Similar decreasing trend was also observed on Kiremt rain. Based

on criterion of NMA, the area has experienced significant number of drought years in the period

between 1991 and 2020.

The increased variability and unpredictability of rainfall within the season was also seen to be

responsible for coffee failure and poor yield, because in most cases increased variability in rain days

stressed coffee crop through the prolonged duration of drought and heat (NMA, 2021).

According to Mann Kendall statistics, the seasonality analysis indicates what has happened within

the year, like fluctuations in the peak rainfall time. The peak rainfall time does not occur at the same

date each year the pattern of the variation is altering from year to year which also affect crop

production. Accordingly, monthly values for 360 days at Dale district the monthly average rainfall

values were used to analyse the seasonality of the rainfall.

The impact of rainfall on coffee production can be related to its total seasonal amount or its intra

seasonal distribution. In the extreme case of droughts, with very low total seasonal amounts of

rainfall, coffee production suffers the most. But more subtle intra-seasonal variations in rainfall

distribution during its growing periods, without a change in total seasonal amount, can also cause

substantial reductions in coffee yield. This means that the number of rainy days during the growing

period is as important, if not more, as that of the seasonal total (Woldemlak, 2006).

62
According to National Meteorological Agency of Ethiopia (NMA), and the Sidama Region Dale

District, the seasonal rainfall shows the inter-annual variability of belg (small rainy season, March-

May) and Kiremt (meher or summer) (main rain season, June-August) rainfall. The kiremt and belg

rainfall has shown an increasing and decreasing trend respectively per year in the period noted below

(Figure 6 and 7). The kiremt rain has shown an increasing trend, and increased by 3.01 mm per year.

It is one of the main rain seasons in the study area and farmers engaged to produce coffee production

by using rainfall during this season. However, the analysis results of NMA data shows summer

(kiremt) rainfall variability throughout a year. For instance, as shown in Figure 7, the seasonal total

amount of rainfall during the summer (June to September) showed variability variable especially for

the years 1993, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 and

2018 which were below average of rainfall occur in the study area.

Figure 6: Belg rainfall trend and variability at Dale district (1991-2020)

Source: NMA, Ethiopia (2021)

Table 12: Belg season total rainfall variability and coefficient of variation

63
RF N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Variance CV

Annual RF 30 147.8 614.3 412.29 120.919 0.5415 29.32

Source: (NMA, 2021)

Figure 7: Kiremt rainfall trend and variability at Dale district (1991-2020), RF= Rain Fall

Source: (NMA, 2021)

The data obtained from Ethiopia metrological agency revealed that the coefficient of variation of
study area were 25.97, 29.32 and 31.24% for annual, belg and kiremt rainfall, respectively which
indicate that there was high inter annual variability of rainfall between 1991 – 2020. Degree of
variation in amount of rainfall was higher for kiremt season than belg (Table 14). Various studies
indicated that the trends in inter-annual and inter-seasonal rainfall variability like declining in
amount, increasing in intensity and with increasing temperature are aggravating the rate of erosion,
and consequently negative implication on coffee productivity.

Table 13: Kiremt season total rainfall variability and coefficient of variation

RF N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Variance CV

64
Annual RF 30 214.8 691.3 365.69 114.2615 0.558976 31.24

Source: (NMA, 2021)

TABLE 14: SUMMARY OF COEFFICIENT OF VARIANCE FOR ANNUAL, BELG, AND KIREMT RAINFALL AT DALE
(1991-2020)

Rainfall Mean rainfall (mm) CV (%)

Annual 1157.44 25.97

Belg 412.29 29.32

Kiremt 365.69 31.24

Source: (NMA, 2021)

The standardized anomaly of total annual rainfall in the study area is shown in Figure 8. The results

revealed that, above average rainfall in the area was recorded for 12 years and below average rainfall

for 18 years. A positive anomaly has been observed in the years like 1991-1994, 1996-1998, 2001,

2006-2008, and 2010 and whereas negative anomalies observed during the year 1995, 1999-2000,

2002-2005, 2009, and 2011-2020, and average rainfall during the study period was 1157.44 mm.

The highest amount of rainfalls (1658.8mm) was recorded in 1998. However, the lowest rainfall was

806.6mm was recorded in 2018. The result revealed that the last decade of the study years (2011-

2020) are the most dry and highly rainfall shortage decades for dale district. And then, frequent

drought seasons were observed in the years 2011, 2013, and 2018 with annual rain fall amount of

853.5, 904.9, and 806.6mm respectively. The frequency of consecutive drought years is reduced

from five years to two years. High variable pattern of rainfall at study site reflect the uncertainties to

65
which agriculture production in general, coffee production in specifically is exposed to reduction

(Ayumah et al., 2017).

Figure 8: Standardized anomaly of total annual rainfall of Dale District (1991– 2020). RF- Rain Fall
Source: (NMA, 2021)
4.3.2 Temperature variability and trend in Dale district (1991-2020)

The trend analysis of annual temperature (minimum and maximum) shows statistically significant

increase of the district. UNDP (2008) report also revealed an increasing trend of mean annual

temperature of Ethiopia. In addition to this, according to National Meteorology Agency of Ethiopia

(NMA, 2001), the average annual maximum temperature in the country has increased by 0.1°C per

decade. Similarly, the average annual minimum temperature of the country has increased by 0.37 °C

per decade (NMA, 2007). As indicated in Figures 9 and 10, the minimum and maximum temperature

has varied over the past 30 years (1990-2020). The trend equation and trend line of the mean

minimum temperature generally shows an increasing trend (0.0243x) which means that the average

minimum temperature over the years (1990-2020) has been rising (Figure 9). Hence, the trend

equation and the trend line of the mean maximum temperature generally shows an increasing trend

66
(0.0555x), which means that the average maximum temperature over the years (1990- 2020) has

been increasing (Figure 9). The present study implies that an increase in temperature imposes stress

on coffee production, which may affect coffee production in many ways. For instance, increased

temperature leads to surface drying and lack of moisture which increases duration of drought,

thereby resulting in failure of coffee production reduce coffee quality. This result is in line with

Conway and Schipper (2011), who reported that an increase in minimum and maximum temperature

in Ethiopia in the coming decades will affect coffee production quality.

Figure 9: Trends of annual average minimum temperature at Dale district (1991-2020). Ave. –
Average, Temp. - Temperature
Source: (NMA, 2021)

67
 Figure 10: Trends of maximum temperature in Dale district (1991-2020)

Source: (NMA, 2021)

4.4 Impacts of climate change on coffee production

According to the experts and from the focus group discussion in the study area, coffee production is
the main source of livelihoods, and has significantly been affected by climate change (Figure 11).
The impacts of climate change on coffee production are more negative (IPCC, 2015). Among the
major factors which affect rain fed coffee production and productivity was the variability of two
common elements of climate (unpredictable rainfall and increased temperature) as the most
important ones. The study of Anandh (2011) revealed that, rising temperatures lead to coffee failure
through lowering water availability, causing heat stress on coffee, and increasing pollen sterility.

4.4.1. Trend of coffee production for the Dale District

According to the household survey result, the coffee production is highly vulnerable to climate
variability and change. As a result, the annual variability in coffee production is observed and the
general trend in coffee yield is declining. As shown in Figure 11 below, the yield of coffee in the
area is fluctuating from time to time and the decreasing coffee land coverage from year to year.

68
Hence, the trend equation and the trend line of the coffee productivity and coffee area coverage
generally shows a decreasing trend (-0.5255x) that means coffee productivity remained decreasing
with an average value of 0.5255 qu per hectar annually and (-31.305x) means it decreased 31.305 ha
per year for the last decade respectively, which means that the coffee productivity and the land area
coverage over the years (2011-2020) has been decreasing (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Trends of coffee production and area coverage in Dale district from 2011-2019. Qu-
quntal. One quintal is equivalent to 100Kg
Source: Dale Woreda ARDO, (2021)

The data for rainfall, minimum and maximum temperatures collected from the meteorology stations
were tested against coffee productivity data collected from district Agriculture office on yearly bases
to examine the relationship of rainfall variability as well as minimum and maximum temperatures
with coffee productivity in the study area. The significance level of (p = 0.009) for the relationship
of rainfall and coffee productivity indicated a positive and very high (p≤ 0.01) relationship in the
study area. However, the significance level were (p= 0.096 and -0.354) for minimum and maximum
temperatures respectively (Table 15). However, reducing rainfall causes decline in minimum
temperature especially from October to January resulting in frost incidences, while increases in
maximum temperature leads to reduced climatic suitability for coffee at lower elevation and increase
suitability for higher altitude areas. Increase of coffee pest and diseases also increase loss of quality
due to early ripping of cherries, reduce growth and abnormalities such as yellowing leaves, an
excessive fruit ripping, trees physiological stress and flowers abortion. Due to these processes

69
limited water stress occur because of closing stomata that affect physiological activities of the coffee
plants in the study areas.
Table 15: Values of Pearson’s Correlation (r) between climatic trends and coffee productivity

Variable Coffee productivity

Annual Rainfall 0.009**

Maximum Temperature -0.354*

Minimum Temperature 0.096**

*, ** indicates significant at 1% and 5 % probability level, respectively

In line with this research study conducted in Tanzania found that, there has been a + 1.42 °C increase
in night temperature over the last 49 years, which has led to Arabica coffee yield decrease of
195Kg/ha. Consequently, smallholders in the region faced losses of 46 % leading with many farmers
to complete giving up coffee production (IITA, 2015)

4.5 Perception of respondent farmers on the effect of climate change on coffee

production and trends

The extent of year-to-year decrease in coffee production was largely due to climate factor out of
which rainfall and temperature are playing a big role. Table 16 shows that 57.5 % of the respondents
agreed that the major cause for the decline for their coffee production is climate change, while
27.2% of them agreed that by the declining of soil fertility, the rest 15.3% of them agreed that the
major cause for the decline in their coffee production are disease and pests.

Most of the respondent farmers (97.7%) perceived those changes in local climate is mainly related to
increasing temperature expressed as increases in number of hot days and decreases in number of cold
days (Table 16). Similarly, 73.7% of respondents noticed that, decreased in amount of annual rainfall
and 100% of respondents noticed that, decreased in frequency of annual rainfall and 100% of
respondents noticed that decreased in the duration of rainfall, while 72.9% observed very highly
increase of unexpected climate event (Table 16). On the other hand, 100% of the respondent coffee
farmers confirmed that they perceive occurrence of unusual climate events especially in the last 15
years in their locality, regarding observed changes and trends in temperature and rainfall.

70
Consequently, 94.2% of the respondents agreed that the current amount of rainfall is not sufficient
for their coffee production. Out of which 85.8% were responded the reason is due to reduced rainfall
length to produce coffee. And 82.4% of sample respondents agreed that there were a reduction on
rainfall quantity or amount.

Similarly, during the focus group discussion (FGD) conducted in this study with famers, they
expressed their observations as shortening of the rainy seasons; related to delay in rainfall onset than
they used to see in the past, as well as changes in rainfall amount, frequency and distributions. These
problems have become more severe since the last seven years that can lead to future decline in coffee
production in their locality (Table 16).

Table 16: Perception of household respondents on the climate change and trends (n=194)
Variables Percentage %
Have you ever heard the word “climate change”?
Yes 97.7 (189)
No 2.3 (5)
If yes for, from where / whom do you heard?
From extension workers 57.21
Radio/ TV 22.68
Agriculture officer 15.97
From neighbours 4.2
Since when has the weather changed according to you?
1). Specific date or number of year
8 – 12 Years 21.1
15-16 Years 13.4
20 Years 8.7
25 Years 2.6
30 Years 0.5
2. No specific date, it has been changing continuously / gradually until now 53.3
Do you believe that the current quantity of rain is sufficient for production,
quality and yield?
Yes 5.8
No 94.2
If you say no, what is the reason behind this?
Reduced rainfall length 85.8
Reduced rainfall quantity 82.4
Reduced rainfall intensity 79.3
Reduced rainfall frequency 72.1
Reduced rainfall duration 78.1
Source: Own Survey, 2021

71
Table 17: Perception of household respondents on the indicators of climate change (n=194)

Variables Response
n %
According to your perception, are there any signs that show the weather
has indeed changed?
Yes 190 98.2
No 4 1.8
Loss of some plant and animal species
Yes 169 87.5
No 25 12.5
Increased drought and flood frequency
Yes 151 78.1
No 43 21.9
Growing period shortened
Yes 173 89.4
No 21 10.6
Rainfall comes early or lately
Yes 160 82.4
No 34 17.6
Decline of agriculture yields
Yes 174 89.8
No 20 10.2
Decline of soil fertility
Yes 170 87.8
No 24 12.2
Decreased available water
Yes 160 82.3
No 34 17.7
Is there any change on the coffee production in relation with
the change in climate variability?
Yes 168 86.9
No 26 13.1
If yes on what aspects of it?
Change in growth habit 160 82.3
Change of time to fruit set 142 73.2
Yield reduction 172 88.7
Change in coffee quality 166 85.6
Source: Own Survey, 2021

72
Table 18: Perception of household respondents on the climate change and trends (n=194)
Variables Percentage %
Do you observed change in climate during the last 15 years
Yes 85.8
No 14.2
Observed changes in temperature and rainfall
Yes 85.7
No 14.3
Trend in number of hot days over the year?
Increased 88.2
Decreased 11.8
Trend in number of cold days over the year?
Increased 12.7
Decreased 87.3
Trend in number in the amount of rainfall over the year?
Increased
Decreased 73.7
Changed in time of raining 3.7
Increase in frequency of drought 22.6
Trend of rainfall frequency over the year?
Increased 14.4
Decreased 85.6
Trend of rainfall duration over the year?
Increased 23.7
Decreased 76.3
To what degree unexpected extreme climate events affected your coffee

production, quality and yield?

Very high 70.2

High 29.8

Source: Own Field Survey, 2021

As indicated in Table 19 the result shows reduced coffee yield and quality is the number one impacts
of extreme climate events for the farmers and this is explained mainly due to decreased rainfall and
increased temperature. In line with this, Teka et al., (2012) reported that there was a general
perception among rural households that coffee yield and quality declined in the last 30 years due to
increased temperature and decreased rainfall. The small holder farmers were observed the impacts in
73
different times and its effect on rain fed coffee production. FGDs and key informant interview, and
experts from Dale woreda Agriculture office and Awada research center revealed that the study area
is exposed to coffee pest and disease especially bacterial wilt disease in 2020. According to study of
Aklilu and Alebachewu, (2009), the climate variability and change has direct and indirect impacts on
prevalence and spread of pests and diseases

Table 19: Perception of household respondents on the coffee production and trends n= 194
Variables Percentage %
Did you face failure of Coffee production, quality and yield?
Yes 83.1
No 16.9
If your answer is” yes”, what are the problems you mostly face?
Coffee disease 82.1

Shortage of rainfall 89.3

Flooding 71

Frosts and ice 62.1

Reduction on coffee production and productivity 83.1

Problem of late onset of rainfall 88.2

Problem of early cessation of rainfall 87

Do you face the problem of coffee production and quality reduction

due to changing climate?
Yes 82.1
No 17.9
If yes”, how you think your coffee farming system will be affected

by climate change?

No technological farming systems 58.5

Coffee plants are quite sensitive to change in climate and variability 36.9

Open- sun cultivate coffee 4.6

Do you think that coffee production per unit area has been declining
since the last 30 years?
Yes 86.3
No 13.7
Source: Own Survey, 2021
74
Table 20: Perception of farmers on impacts of cc on coffee production (n=194)

Variables Response

High Moderate Low Not at all Rank

Decrease soil fertility 142 31 9 12 2

High cost of coffee production 149 28 7 10 1

Increase pest and disease attack on coffee 132 38 13 11 5

Decrease coffee yield 128 39 15 12 7

Decrease in number of certain plant and tree species 97 86 22 11 11

Decrease in drought and disease resistant coffee varieties 104 49 29 12 10

Decrease in area under coffee cultivation 113 17 38 26 9

Decrease in shade tree area 126 21 31 16 8

Increase in labour migration to the town 92 73 17 12 12

Decrease in household food security and incomes 82 98 14 0 13

Increased temperatures 135 33 21 5 3

Increased drought, dry season and flood 130 43 15 6 6

Increased rainfall variability 133 38 23 0 4

Source: Own Survey, 2021

4. 6 Awareness of households over climate change in coffee production sector

This section describes the coffee farmers knowledge on the impact of climate change on coffee

production specifically, the adaptation mechanisms to cope up with. It involves their awareness of

climate change impacts and their influences on coffee production. The researcher sought to know if

75
farmers are aware of the changes of climate. This knowledge is of the essence considering that

adaptation measures to minimize the impact. A question was posed to the coffee farmers to

understand that if they are aware of the concept of climate change. Analysis of the data shows that

most of respondents were aware of climate change.

Table 21; Awareness of households over climate change

Responses Kebeles %
Manche Boa Soyama Total %
Yes 87.2 85.8 84.3 85.76
No 12.8 14.2 14.2 14.24
Total 100 100 100 100
Source: Field survey, 2021.

4.7 Farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change impact on coffee production

This study revealed that climate change is real and happened in the study area and there are farmers
implementing the necessary adaptation strategies to the impacts of climate change to their coffee
farm. Similarly, Boko et al., (2007) reported that for poor countries like most African nations,
practicing adaptation strategies is not an option; rather it is a necessity to survive in the changing
climate. There is a variety of smallholder coffee production systems in the district and each of these
systems is adapted to the livelihood of the smallholder coffee farmer; at least, to the best of his or her
possibilities and priorities. Without climate change, smallholder coffee farmers are already
vulnerable due to a lack of capital, declining soil fertility, and increasing pests and diseases. Climate
change only adds pressure on the smallholder farmer already feels. Even though several studies have
shown that climate change is already happening – as explained in the introduction – a smallholder
farmer is very unlikely to adopt any adaptation strategy or technology unless it has a short-term
positive impact on his or her livelihood. Smallholder coffee farmers are generally very vulnerable
and try to survive from day-to-day. Investments that only pay off in the further future (>1 year) are,
therefore, of little or no interest to smallholders who struggle with cash flow problems on a daily
basis.

76
Accordingly, smallholder coffee farmers used different adaptation strategies to reduce the effect of
climate change on coffee production (Figure 12). In this regard, the rural community who perceived
climate change has used adjusting planting and seedling date, soil and water conservation, growing
drought and disease tolerant coffee varieties, irrigation farming, planting shade trees or agroforestry
and disease and pest monitoring and management practices as climate change adaptation strategies.
FGDs and key informants revealed that smallholder coffee farmers practice different adaptation
strategies to minimize the impact of climate change impacts on coffee production.

Figure 12: Responded climate change adaptation strategies in the study area. HH- Household

Source: Own Survey, 2021

Adjusting planting and seedling date: According to household survey result, 35% of respondents
responded that adjusting planting and seedling date is one of the adaptation strategies implemented
to overcome impacts of climate variability and change on coffee production. Results of focus group
discussion and experts pointed out that, adjusting planting and seedling date is one of the effective
adaptation mechanisms they use to overcome the impacts of climate variability and change on coffee
production. According to the respondents, the farmers are practicing these strategies through using
their indigenous knowledge and the training obtained by governmental and non-governmental
organization.

77
Soil and water conservation: the rural community practice the conservation and management of
rain water through digging of water ponds, and working level bound and bench tresses in their
village or in their farm land to adopt the impacts of climate change on coffee production during
drought condition and shortage of rainfall. 24.7% of respondents confirmed soil and water
conservation practice as adaptation strategy toward the impact of climate change in the study area
(Figure 12). Similarly, from field observation and discussion with agricultural experts, it was noted
that farmers are adapting and using water and soil conservation as an adaptation strategies. Soil and
water conservation mechanism improve the soil organic matter by applying soil moisture and
increases coffee yield (Majule, 2009).

Disease and pest controlling and management: was also found to be adaptive measure towards
climate change effects on coffee production. According to respondents (7.73%) employed disease
and pest controlling management as an adaptation strategy (Figure 12). FGDs and experts revealed
that small holder coffee farmers practice disease and pest controlling measures to increase coffee
productivity under climate change. This finding supported the view of Uddin et al,. (2014) who
noted that farmers adapt disease and pest controlling either cultural or chemical methods to reduce
the influence of coffee pest and disease due to climate change in overall farm risk and expand
opportunities for farm profit, which generally boost their average incomes.

Growing drought and disease tolerant coffee variety: the result indicated that 18.77% of the
respondent smallholder coffee farmers employed improved new coffee varieties measure to
overcome the impact of changing climate to their coffee production. This is in line with (Ngigi,
2009) where the use of drought resistant coffee varieties has been tried by smallholder coffee
farmers as adaptation methods to climate change in Nigeria, Senegal, Burkinafaso and Ghana.

Use of irrigation: From the total of 194 valid cases 2% practice irrigation farming. This means
some number of the farmers’ practices irrigation as adaptation strategies due to lack of access to
water near their coffee farm, there were still majority of the respondents who did not practice
irrigation farming. The small number of respondents responded to practice irrigation strategy by
support of governmental and non- governmental organizations by constructing irrigation canal to
ward farm.

Planting shade trees or agroforestry: Adding shade to a coffee garden is, however, an adaptation
strategy that some of respondent farmers are already applying. Shade trees can reduce temperatures
in the coffee canopy by 2–3°C (Vaast et al., 2006) and can even buffer high and low temperature
78
extremes by up to 5°C. Furthermore, shading decreases evapotranspiration compared with coffee
growing in full sun. From the respondent farmers, 75% of the farmers in Manche and 72% of the
farmers in Boa and 83% of the farmers in Soyama were using shade trees in their coffee gardens. Of
the 194 farmers who were interviewed individually, 77% had shade in their coffee garden. The
intensity of shade was estimated during the survey and can be found in Table 22 for farms in mid
land (Woina dega) and low land (Kolla).

Table 22: Proportion of shaded farms with low, medium, and high shade intensity (n=194)

Shade intensity Mid land (Woina dega) Low land (Kolla)

n % n %

≤ 10% 63 53.3 49 64.5

10 – 40% 47 39.8 7 9.2

≥ 40% 8 6.9 20 26.3

Total 118 100 76 100

Source: Own Field survey, 2021

The type of shade tree was also recorded and their incidence is illustrated in Figure 13. A lot of

farmers explained that some trees were already in the plot before they planted coffee, and the plant

trees after coffee plantation. When farmers plant a tree deliberately, the tree would be for a dual

purpose in addition to shade (e.g. fruit trees or timber trees). Nonetheless, most farmers agreed that

shade has a positive impact on coffee production.

79
Figure 13: Proportion of incidence of shade trees in the shaded coffee farms

Source: Own Field survey, 2021

The farmers explained the benefits and limitations of shade trees in their coffee systems. Farmers

also explained that certain shade trees were less interesting for growing with coffee than others. For

example, farmers explained that Ficus is a very good shade tree while Acacia is not because it

competes a lot for water. These findings are in line with other (unpublished) studies in the region

that confirm that coffee performs well under Ficus.

Farmers also intercrop their coffee with banana or annuals. Only 19% of the farmers did not practice

intercropping and only had shade trees in their coffee plots. Banana is the most common crop grown

with coffee at study area. Farmers intercrop with banana because this system provides food and cash

from the same piece of land. At the same time, bananas provide shade and in situ mulch.

80
When farmers manage one of the crops, the other crops also benefit. This increases labour use

efficiency. This was also shown in a study by Jassogne et al. (2012). Some farmers used to intercrop

coffee and banana but the banana got wiped out either due to competition for water and nutrients, or

because of banana bacterial wilt. Farmers also grow beans with coffee. They recognize that when

coffee is inter planted with beans, it benefits from the improved soil fertility thanks to N-fixation.

However, some farmers explained that if the coffee was too densely planted, and that the canopy was

becoming too thick, then intercropping with annuals would not be possible because of lack of light.

4.7.1 Households’ adaptation strategies

The ranking of adaptation strategies which based on coffee producers households “perceived one of
the best strategies mentioned in the Table 23. Among from which adaptation options of six variables
Adjusting planting and seedling date, Soil and water conservation and Growing drought & disease
tolerant coffee variety were ranked first, second and third respectively. The increment of
temperature, rainfall fluctuation and depletion of soil fertility leads to enforce coffee producers’
households to use existing adaptation strategies to withstand hardship conditions and conserving soil
fertility indirectly supporting with adequate information and choice these strategies than given
options. On the other hand, disease and pest monitoring and management and use of irrigation
practices are ranked the last and least with respectively.

In their responses, strategically choices irrigation needs extra investment and techniques with
improved experience to handle the benefits on time and disease and pest monitoring and
management also, needs extra cost and technology with previous experience to participate
sustainably. Additionally, results from FGDs and key informants evidence shows us households
considered use of improved varieties are better for guaranteed adaptation strategies during season lap
period of difficulty responses to copping from climate variability in coffee production.

Planting shade trees and agro-forestry practice is ranked as moderately adaptation choice that
important for climate change adaptation response. As similar findings were conveyed by several
authors, Gebreyesus et al., (2017), the main adaptation strategies of farmers identified include

81
adjusting planting and seedling date, soil and water conservation and growing drought & disease
tolerant coffee variety are mentioned.

Table 23: Households’ ranking of choice of adaptation strategies

Adaptation strategies Frequency Rank

High Medium Low Not at all

Adjusting planting & seedling date 145 28 12 9 1

Use of irrigation 6
4 28 69 93
Disease & pest monitoring and 5
management 88 67 21 18

Growing drought & disease tolerant 3

coffee variety 129 38 22 5

Soil and water conservation 2

132 36 28 34

Planting Shade trees or 4

Agroforestry 98 72 16 8

Source: Own Field survey, 2021

4.7.2. Constraints that hinder the implementation of adaptation strategies

The most hindrance to use of adaptation options followed by increased rainfall variability,
increased temperature, increase pest and disease attack, increased drought and loses of shade tree
become 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th in rank respectively. Also FGD and key informants information
shows the main problem of the area additional to mention in the same level, a rain fall variability
and farmers awareness for adaptation Strategies.

82
Table 24: Constraints for implementing adaptation strategies

Degree of constraint

Constraint
High Medium Low Not at all Rank
Decrease soil 67 78 40 9 6
Fertility

Increase pest and 138 39 9 8 3

disease attack

Decrease of shade 130 44 16 4 5

tree species

Increased rainfall 142 34 6 12 1

variability

Increase in 64 91 25 14 7
poverty

Increased 140 35 8 11 2
temperature

Increased 136 41 15 2 4
drought

Source: Own Field survey, 2021

4.8 Households’ sources of climate information and adaptation strategies

As indicated by respondents, the smallholder coffee farmer who grow rain fed coffee have different
sources of information about climate change (temperature and rainfall pattern). The small holders’ farmers
also have developed indigenous climate change adaptation strategies to minimize its effect on coffee
production. Accordingly, friends and relatives, development/ extension agents, training by experts, radio or
television, and market place are among the important source of climate information and adaptation
mechanisms mentioned by the respondent farmers (Figure 14)

83
 Figure 14: Sources of climate information & adaptation strategies

Source: Own Field survey, 2021

4.9 Government support on the adaptation strategies to farmers

One among many questions that respondents were asked was about training and advice on different topics
of coffee production packages and climate services. 21.7% of the farmers had not received any training
from the government while 78.3% accepted to have attended in some training sessions. Furthermore,
coffee farmers claim that the services provided by government like input supply/provision are insufficient
(Table 25). The majority of coffee farmers (60.8%) declared/ satisfied with agricultural extension services
provided to them.

Table 25: Government supports on climate services

Services Responses/frequency Percent %
Getting training
Yes 152 78.3

84
 No 42 21.7
Advice
Yes 142 73.19
No 52 26.81
Input supply/ provision
Yes 82 42.26
No 112 57.74
Services in government
Sufficient 129 66.49
Insufficient 65 32.99
Training Topics *
Adoption of new coffee technology 108 55.67
Giving information on rain fall 131 67.5
distribution & early warning
services
About climate change impacts & its 112 57.7
copping strategies
Give awareness about coffee 142 73.19
Production
Satisfaction of services
Yes 118 60.8
No 69 39.2
*More than one response is possible, and therefore the sum of percent may be more than hundred

Source: Own Field survey, 2021

4.10 Determinants of smallholder coffee farmers’ choice of climate change adaptation

strategies

85
The result of multinomial logit model output indicates that out of 15 hypothesized variables ten of
them are significantly affect the adaptation status of farmers coffee production in the study area. The
adaptation strategies of small holder coffee farmers in the study area influenced by different
demographic, socio economic and institutional factors such as age, sex, educational level, farm
experience, family size, access to credit, access to climate information, access to extension services,
land holding size and total annual income obtained from coffee.

Multinomial logit model was run taking ‘Adjusting planting and seedling date’ as a reference
category against which the remaining outcomes compared (Table 26). Before analysing the
multinomial logistic regression, collinearity statistics which is associated with the extent of
correlation between two independent variables, the regression model assumes redundancy of one of
these variables that the significance of it becomes too low and its coefficient also be negatively
affected. The problem is checked by tolerance and Variation Inflation Factors (VIF). A tolerance of
>10 and a VIF < 10 are considered as good enough to minimize the effect of multi collinearity
(Miller and Whicker,1999). Thus the result implies that the regration model is affected by higher
correlation between two independent variables (Appendix II Table 1). Likewise, contingency
coefficient was calculated for the categorical variables to detect problem of strong association. The
values of all coefficients were less than 0.75, indicating absence of strong relationship among the
variables (Appendix II Table 2). Therefore, all hypothesized continuous and categorical explanatory
variables were included in the model. Econometric results or multinomial logit output of variable is
shown as below Table 26.

Table 26: Determinants of farmers’ choices for adaptation strategies to climate change

Soil & water Disease & pest Growing drought & Planting shade trees Use of
conservation controlling & disease tolerant coffee or agroforestry irrigation
management variety

86
 VVariable
ss B Sig. B Sig. B Sig. B Sig. B Sig.

Intercept -.518 .790 1.076 .564 -.635 .755 2.015 .376 1.275 .586

Age -.685 .302 -2.03*** .001 -.119 .863 -.384 .601 -1.053 .237

Sex .081 .097 .107 .051 -.028 .681 -032 .662 .039 .584

EDU .247 .389 .047 .879 .065 .806 .398 .126 -.038 .929

Farm Exp .079 .128 .149** .008 .061 .365 .005* .957 .138 .078

Famly Size .321 .071 .007 .583 .652 .362 .031 .079 -.038 .852

Crd Acc .480** .496 -.348 .681 1.159* .049 1.72** .009 1.536 .218

Ext Serv 2.34*** .000 2.02*** .001 .113 .862 .694 .437 2.60** .001

Clima info .368* .632 .808 .324 .003** .997 .898* .197 .302 .789

Farm Size .277 .353 -2.87 .399 -.112 .701 .036 .908 -.443 .399

Total annual 1.244* .047 .324 .448 .032 .953 2.18 .007 .122** .876

coffee income

Reference Category Adjusting planting & seedling date

LR ch²(10) 125.31

Pseudo R² 0.539
-2 Log likelihood 478.67
LR sig. 0.000
Note: Significant at *5%, **1% and ***0.1% probability level respectively
Table 26 presents the determinants of farmers’ choices of different adaptation methods to climate
change. Accordingly, the multinomial logit regression model was significant at 5%, 1% and 0.1%
significance level indicating that all the independent variables jointly influenced the dependent
variables.

Age of the household head; Age of the household heads had a negative influence on the likelihood
of disease and pest monitoring and management at 0.1% significance level. This indicates that
younger farmers had higher probability of protecting their coffee from disease and pest relative to
adapting adjusting planting and seedling date. The results of key informant interview also indicated
87
that farmers’ age affects the farmers’ choice of climate change options. Older household heads
practice adjusting planting and seedling date more likely than younger household heads because this
strategy requires farming experience.

Farm experience: Farming experience of farmers had a positive influence on the likelihood of
disease and pest monitoring and management and planting shade trees or agroforestry at 1% and 5%
significance level respectively. This indicated that experienced farmers had high probability of
monitoring and managing disease and pest and planting shade trees relative to adjusting planting and
seedling date. The results of the key informant interview also indicated that farming experience
develop the farmers’ choice of climate change adaptation option. This result is in line with the
finding of Chalchisa et al. (2016), indicating farm experience facilitates the identification and
implementation of any adaptation strategy and experienced farmers are expected to have more
knowledge and information about climate change and the agronomic practices that can use in
response accordingly.

Credit availability: credit availability to the household head is one of the most important variables
that significantly affect the farmers’ choice of climate change adaptation options. As can be seen
from Table 26, credit availability had a positive influence on the likelihood of soil and water
conservation, planting shade trees or agroforestry and growing drought and disease tolerant coffee
variety relative to adopting adjusting planting and seedling date method. This indicated that credit
access had high probability of soil and water conservation, planting shade trees and growing drought
and disease tolerant coffee variety relative to adapting adjusting planting and seedling date method.
The FGDs also indicated that credit service plays a positive role for soil and water conservation,
planting shade trees and growing drought and disease tolerant coffee variety. In line with this result,
Deressa et al., (2008, 2009) and Tesso et al., (2012) noted that credit access has positive influence
for the farmers’ choice of climate change adaptation strategy.

Extension service: The effect of extension service on adaptation option was significant on soil and
water conservation, disease and pest controlling and management and use of irrigation at 0.1% and
1% significance level. This indicated that access to extension service increases the use of soil and
water conservation, disease and pest controlling and use of irrigation to adapt impact of climate
change. In connection to this finding, the result of Legesse et al. (2013) reported that availability
88
extension services increase the probability of the household to adapt use adaptation strategy of soil
and water conservation farming. In addition, Shongwe (2014) found out that availability extension
service increase the probability of the household to adapt the use of adaptation methods.

Access to climate information: It had a significant and positive impact on soil and water
conservation, planting shade tree and growing drought & disease tolerant coffee variety at 5% and
1% level of significance level respectively. In this line of result, Asfir (2014) and Madison (2006),
who found that farmers who have access to climate information and aware of changes in climate
conditions have higher chances of adopting adaptation strategies in response to observed changes as
compared with farmers who do not have access to climate information.

Total annual coffee income: The income from coffee had a positive influence on the likelihood of
soil and water conservation (p<0.05) and planting shade trees (p<0.01). This indicated that higher
annual coffee income increases the use soil and water conservation and planting shade trees relative
to adjusting planting and seedling time as adaptation measures to climate change. Empirical
evidence by Knowler and Bradshaw (2007) indicate that income of the farmers, whether farm or
nonfarm represents the wealth of individual farm households. Entirely, farmers’ income has a
positive relationship with the uptake of farming technologies since any adoption process requires
that the farmer has sufficient financial wellbeing.

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

89
In the Sidama Region of Dale woreda, this study aims to determine the trends of climate change in
rainfall and temperature, evaluate the impact of climate change on coffee production, evaluate
farmers' perceptions of climate change, and identify smallholder coffee farmers' adaptation strategies
in response to change stressors.

5.1. Summary of the Findings

The study looked at how climate change affected the production of coffee and identified the adaption
strategies used by farmers in Dale District. The study specifically evaluated the meteorological
factors trend during the area's for three decades.

Since agriculture is one of the most susceptible industries to climate change, there is a growing
worry about the issue on a global scale. Consequently, because of this, it served as the foundation for
the development of the current study, which concentrated on the impact of climate change on coffee
production and farmers' adaptation strategies in Dale district, Sidama Region, Southern Ethiopia.

To the purpose rainfall and temperature data of the last 30 years were accessed from NMA; while
coffee productivity data was obtained from Dale district agriculture office.
Additional data on climatic trends, productivity, and adaptation strategies of smallholder coffee grow
ers were gathered through key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and interviews with sa
mple respondents.

The findings of the analysis of the meteorological data revealed high inter-annual variation in the
annual amount of rainfall with a declining trend. Although the variability was observed in both Belg
and Kiremt season, the variability of Belg rainfall was much higher than Kiremt. This suggests that,
without the use of supplemental irrigation techniques, the Belg season is becoming less predictable
for agricultural purposes in the study.

On the other hand, the relationship between rainfall variability and coffee productivity was strong
and positive. This was verified by most of the respondents claiming their observation on long term
changes and variability in the local climate, such as decreasing in frequency of rain, increasing in
number of hot days and decreasing in number of cold days during the last 30 years. There was also
seasonal variability in pattern and distribution of rain fall which confirms the metrological data
findings. Further confirmation of the loss in coffee productivity and production from drying coffee
trees as a result of insufficient water availability since the present amount of rainfall and intermittent

90
drought was provided by the respondents. They are concerned about the decline in coffee
productivity because it could force them to stop producing coffee and switch to short-season annual
crops, if the price of coffee per quintal falls. The annual increase in price, which spurs farmers to
enlarge their plots and recruit new farmers into the industry was one of the reasons that contributed
to the growth of the coffee producing area.

In general, the perception and historical data revealed variation in the volume and pattern of rain fall
in the research region, which demonstrated a decreasing tendency with higher intensity, particularly
in the Belg season, as opposed to the total yearly and Kiremt seasons. This further exacerbated the
Belg season's unreliability for producing annual crops as well as perennial plants like coffee in the
research area. Ecological changes in coffee plants that are being grown at higher elevations are also
being brought on by the increasing trend of maximum and lowering minimum temperature.

Smallholder coffee farmers have begun implementing various strategies to reduce the effects of
climate change, including adjusting planting and seedling dates, cultural disease and pest control,
growing improved coffee varieties, using soil and water conservation techniques, using irrigation,
and planting shade trees or agroforestry.

The lack of financial services, the emergence of new pests and diseases, and the lack of appropriate
technologies for pest and disease control are additional obstacles to adaptation.

These challenges should be overcome through getting loan from different financial institutions,
improving provision of subsidies, availing regular training to the farmers and integrated assessment
of new pests and diseases at coffee farm and involvement of extension officers at village levels.

5.2 Conclusion

91
The findings of this study showed that the size of the farm, the total yearly coffee income, and the
climate knowledge have a positive and significant impact on climate change adaptation techniques.
This is because most farmers relied on their revenue to help them to adopt new agricultural
technologies. In order to diversify revenue levels, this study advises the creation of alternate income
streams. Additionally, in order to support the agricultural transition from extensive farming to
intensive farming through effective use of agricultural information, emphasis should be paid to farm
management issues. Additionally, the outcome of the meteorological data revealed that the yearly
rainfall varied across years and generally exhibited a declination in trend.
Similarly, as regards to annual rainfall, there was also inter-seasonal variability in the amount of
Belg and Kiremt rainfall. Accordingly, Belg and Kiremt rainfall shows decreasing and increasing
trend respectively. Moreover, the average of minimum and maximum temperature showed an
increasing trend. Therefore, it is timely to suggest for establishment of meteorological stations to
generate climate forecast data. In order to adapt the impact of climate change related hazards, the
smallholder farmers have applied different adaptation strategies. The findings revealed that adjusting
planting and seedling date is the most important climate change adaptation strategy practiced in the
area. Awareness creation and knowledge generation on the suitable climate change adaptation option
is also a timely requirement so as to minimize the effect of climate change and optimize coffee yield.

Moreover, farmers still have to deal with issues including limited financial availability, inadequately
enhanced seed types, outdated technology, and the introduction of new pests and diseases. However,
the government's assistance to farmers was perceived as being insufficient (in the farmers' eyes). As
a result, coffee farmers grumbled about the inadequate government support. The farmers also
proposed taking part in a variety of training programs to learn about ways to deal with the effects of
climate change. They also required additional government assistance, such as offering sufficient
inputs and subsidies and regularly dispensing extension services.

5.3 Recommendations

92
Based on the results of the current investigation, the researcher suggests that the following guidance
be followed:
 Adjusting planting and seedling date that could fit the timing of rain fall to suit the coffee
growth stage.
 Growing disease and pest tolerant coffee varieties that could proper for the agro
ecology.
 Reducing negative impacts of increasing temperature on coffee productivity by
furthering shifting coffee production in higher altitudes.
 Synergy of their local knowledge with innovative adaptation strategies.
 Scientific researches should be taken into consideration as new findings on coffee
husbandry and pests and diseases change their patterns of attacking crops especially
coffee crop.
 To understand the increasing and decreasing trend of temperature and rainfall, local
metrology station should be established at least at woreda level. This is important to
monitoring climate data, developing climate forecasts and early warning service for
climate hazards.
 An effort that improves farmers’ awareness on better production techniques, climate
change and access to financial system (credit) which enhance capacity to adopt climate
resilience adaptation options, are important policy measures that should be considered.
However further studies is needed to evaluate impact of climate change on coffee production to
cover a large area in Sidama region so as to get the general picture over the large area.

The indigenous knowledge used by farmers on adaptation to climate change should be assessed to
measure its effectiveness since there is no empirical evidence of their effectiveness yet established.

REFERENCES
93
Abide M, Scheffran J, Schneider UA, Ashfaq M. (2015).Farmers perceptions of an adaptation strategy to
climate change: the case of Punjab province, Pakistan. Earth System Dynamics 6

Adger N. W. et al., (2003). New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Tyndall Centre for Climate
Change Technical Report, 7.Find this resource: Google Preview World Cat

Admassie, A. and B. Adenew (2008). Stakeholders Perceptions of Climate Change and Adaptation Strategies
in Ethiopia,

Anthony, F., Combes, M., Astorga, C., Bertrand, B., Graziosi, G., Lashermes, P. (2002). The origin of
cultivated Coffea Arabica L. varieties revealed by AFLP and SSR markers. Theoretical and Applied
Genetics 104, 894-900.

Antwi-Agyei, P., Dougill, A. J., & Stringer, L.C. (2014). Barriers to climate change adaptation: Evidence
from northeast Ghana in the context of a systematic literature review. Climate and Development, 7(4),
297–309.Find this resource: Google PreviewWorld Cat

Arslan, A., Reicher, C.P. (2011) The Effects of the Coffee Trademarking Initiative and Starbucks Publicity on
Export Prices of Ethiopian Coffee. Journal of African Economies.

Bacon, C. (2004). Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Specialty Coffees Reduce
Small-Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua? Center for Global, International and
Regional Studies. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0xn3f86t

Baker, P. and Hagar J. (2007) Global Warming: the impact on global coffee. CATIE, SCAA, conference
handout.Global_Warming.pdf Coffee division of ED&F Man (2013). Insight special: Debunking
coffee myths

Barton, D., & Leke, A. (2016). 3 reasons things are looking up for African economies. Geneva: World
Economic Forum. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/05/what-s-the-future-of-
economic-growth-in-africa/ (Accessed May 6, 2016).Find this resource: Google PreviewWorld Cat

Beer, J., Muschler, R., Kass, D., & Somarriba, E. (1998). Shade management in coffee and cacao plantations.
Agroforestry systems, 38(1-3), 139-164.

Bradshaw B, Dolan H, Smit B (2004). Farm-level adaptation to climate Variability and change: crop
diversification in the Canadian Prairies. In: Climatic change. Springer (67):1:119-141.

Bryan E, Deressa T, Gbetibouo GA, Ringler C. 2002. Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South
Africa: options and constraints. Environmental Science and Policy 12: 413– 426.

Bunn, C., Läderach, P., Rivera, O.O., Kirschke, D. (2015) A bitter cup: climate change profile of global
production of Arabica and Robusta coffee. Climatic Change 129, 89-101.
94
Cannell, M., (1985). Physiology of the coffee crop, Coffee. Springer, pp. 108-134.

Camargo, M. B. P, (2009). The Impact of climatic variability on the coffee crop. International Conference on
coffee science 22nd, Campinas, Brazil. 7pp.

Coste, René. "Coffee production". Encyclopaedia Britannica, 23 Nov 2018,

https://www.britannica.com/plant/coffee-plant-genus. Accessed 16 June 2021.

Carr, M. (2001). The water relations and irrigation requirements of coffee. Experimental Agriculture 37,1-36.

CDKN. (2014). The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report: What is in it for Africa? London: Climate and
Development Knowledge Network and Overseas Development Institute. Available
at:http://cdkn.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/J1731CDKN.FifthAssesmentReportWEB.pdf
(Accessed May 6, 2016).Find this resource: Google Preview World Cat

Conway D, Schipper ELF (2011). Adaptation to climate change in Africa: challenges and opportunities
identified from Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change 21:227-237.

Daviron, B., Ponte, S. (2005). The coffee paradox: Global markets, commodity trade and the elusive promise
of development. Zed books.

Davis, A.P., Gole, T.W., Baena, and S. & Moat, J. (2012). The impact of climate change on natural
populations of Arabica coffee: predicting future trends and identifying priorities. PLoS ONE 7(11):
e47981.

Davis, A.P., Gole, T.W., Baena, S., Moat, J. (2012). The impact of climate change on indigenous arabica
coffee (Coffea arabica): predicting future trends and identifying priorities. Plos one 7, e47981.

Deressa T, Hassan RM, Alemu T, Yesuf M, Ringler C (2008). Analyzing the determinants of farmers' choice
of adaptation methods and perceptions of climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. International
Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Deressa T. 2008.Analysis of perception and adaptation to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia.
Pretoria: Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy for Africa (CEEPA), University of
Pretoria.

Deressa T, Hassan RM, Ringler C, Alemu T, Yusuf M. 2009. Determinants of farmers‟ choice of adaptation
methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. In: Working paper number 19. Washington
DC: The World Bank.

Eakin, H., Tucker, C., & Castellanos, E. (2005). Responding to the coffee crisis: a pilot study of farmers’
adaptations in Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras. Geographical Journal, 172(2), 156–171.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2006.00195.x
95
EEA, (2015) Report on the Ethiopian Economy. Ethiopian Economics Association, Addis Ababa. FDRE,
(2011) Ethiopia's Climate Resilient Green Economy: Green Economy Strategy, FDRE. Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.

Engelbrecht, F.,et al (2015). Projections of rapidly rising surface temperatures over Africa under low
mitigation. Environmental Research Letters, 10(8), 085004.Find this resource: Google PreviewWorld
Cat

European Coffee Federations, (2016). Coffee Market overview (Overview) (p. 4). Brussels, Belgium.
Retrieved from http://www.ecf-coffee.org/images/Coffee_market_overview_February_2016.pdf
FAO Water. (2008). Crop water information. Available at: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/cropinfo.html

(Accessed May 5, 2016).

FAO. (2006.). Annex 5: Coffee Post Harvest Handling and processing in Kenya. Retrieved April 11, 2016,
from http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6939e/X6939e11.htm

FDRE, (2015) Ethiopia’s Climate Resilient Green Economy: Climate Resilience Strategy Agriculture and
Forestry. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.

Feder, G., & Huppi, M. (1990). The role of groups and credit cooperatives in rural lending. The World Bank
Research Observer, 5(2 (July 1990)), 187–204.

Fox, C., Furgiuele, J., Haider, S., Ramirez, M., & Younis, M. (2015, April 24). Climate Change and Coffee
Communities in Latin America. Duke University, Nicholas School of the Environment. Retrieved
from http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/9688

Girma Adugna, Gezahegn B.., and Fikre L.,2016 Jimma University. Threats of climate change on Arabica
coffee (coffea Arabica L.) in its center of origin Ethiopia

Haggar, J., & Schepp, K. (2012). Coffee and Climate Change: Impacts and options for adoption in Brazil,
Guatemala, Tanzania and Vietnam (NRI Working Paper Series: Climate Change, Agriculture, and
Natural Resources No.4). Natural Resources Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.nri.org/images/documents/promotional_material/D593011_NRI_Coffee_Climate_Change
_WEB.pdf

Hein, L., Gatzweiler, F. (2006) The economic value of coffee (Coffea arabica) genetic resources. Ecological
Economics 60, 176-185.

Howden SM & White DH (2009), „climate and its effects on productivity and management‟ soils, Plant
growth and crop production, NSW, Australia.

96
ICO. (2014). World coffee trade (1963 – 2013): A review of the markets, challenges and opportunities facing
the sector (No. ICC 111-5 Rev.1). London, United Kingdom. Retrieved from
http://www.ico.org/news/icc-111-5-r1e-world-coffee-outlook.pdf

ICO, (2016) Total production by all exporting countries. International Coffee Organisation.

IEH (Instituto de Estudios del Hambre), (2012). Analysis of climate change impacts on coffee coca and basic
grains value chains in Northern Hondurans.

IPCC, (2007). Synthesis report. New York: Cambridge University Press. Find this resource: Google
PreviewWorld Cat

IPCC, (2013). Summary for policy makers. In T. F. Stocker et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The physical
science basis contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Find
this resource: Google PreviewWorld Cat

IPCC, (2014a). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

IPCC, (2014b). IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II
and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva,
Switzerland. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment report /ar5/ syr/ AR5 _SYR_
FINAL_SPM.pdf

IPCC, (2014). Summary for policy makers in climate change 2014. Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability:
contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report. United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.

IPCC, 2015. Expert Meeting on Climate Change, Food and Agriculture Meeting Report. Edited by: Michael
D. Mastrandrea, Katharine J. Mach, Vicente R. Barros, T. Eren Bilir, David J. Dokken, Ottmar
Edenhofer, Christopher B. Field, Taka Hiraishi, Susanne Kadner, Thelma Krug, Jan C. Minx, Ramón
Pichs-Madruga, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Dahe Qin, Youba %Sokona, Thomas F. Stocker, Melinda
Tignor. Dublin, Ireland 27-29 May 2015.

Isoto, R., Kraybill, D., & Erbaugh, M. (2014). Impact of integrated pest management technologies on farm
revenues of rural households: The case of smallholder Arabica coffee farmers. African Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 9(2), 119–131.

J. Ag. Su. 1–15 Joel Iscaro (2014) The Impact of Climate Change on Coffee Production in Colombia and
Ethiopia. Global Majority E-Journal 5(1): 33-43.

97
Jaramillo, J., Chabi-Olaye, A., Kamonjo, C., Jaramillo, A., Vega, F.E., Poehling, H.-M., Borgemeister, C.
(2009) Thermal tolerance of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei: predictions of climate
change impact on a tropical insect pest. PloS one 4, e6487.

Jaramillo, J., et al. (2011). Some like it hot: The influence and implications of climate change on coffee berry
borer (Hypothenemus hampei) and coffee production in East Africa. PloS one, 6(9), e24528.Find this
resource: Google PreviewWorld Cat

Jaramillo, J., Muchugu, E., Vega, F.E., Davis, A., Borgemeister, C., Chabi-Olaye, A. (2011) Some like it hot:
the influence and implications of climate change on coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) and
coffee production in East Africa. PloS one 6, e24528.

Jassogne L, Asten JAV, Wanyama I, Baret PV, (2012), Perceptions and outlook on intercropping coffee with
bananas as an opportunity for smallholder coffee farmers in Uganda.

Jassogne, L., Laderach, P., & Van Asten, P. (2013). The Impact of Climate Change on Coffee in Uganda
(OXFAM Research Reports). CIAT, IITA, OXFAM. Retrieved from
https://www.oxfam.de/system/files/rr-impact-climate-change-coffee-uganda-030413-en.pdf

Jury, M.R. & Funk, C. (2013). Climatic trends over Ethiopia: regional signals and drivers. International
Journal of Climatology 33: 1924–1935.

Kettema Yilma, 2013. Zonal diagnosis and intervention plan Sidama zone, SNNP region

Kew, S., (2013). Building a climate resilient coffee economy for Ethiopia.

Kifle B, Demelash T (2015) Climatic Variables and Impact of Coffee Berry Diseases in Ethiopian Coffee
Production. Biology Agri and Health Care 5(7): 55-64.

Kolk, A. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Coffee Sector: The Dynamics of MNC Responses and
Code Development. European Management Journal, 23(2), 228–236.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2005.02.003

Kolk, A. (2010). Mainstreaming Sustainable Coffee (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1713977). Rochester,
NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1713977

Labouisse, J.-P., Bellachew, B., Kotecha, S., Bertrand, B. (2008) Current status of coffee (Coffea arabica L.)
genetic resources in Ethiopia: implications for conservation. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution
55, 1079-1093.

Lara, B. (2014, December 30). Smallholder Cooperatives, Climate Change and a Cup of Coffee. Retrieved
from http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/9340

98
Legesse, B, Ayele, Y & Bewket, W (2013), „Smallholder Farmers‟ Perceptions and Adaptation to Climate
Variability and Climate Change in Doba District, West Hararghe, Ethiopia‟ Asian Journal of
Empirical Research, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 251-265.

Lin BB. 2007. Agro forestry adaptation and mitigation options for smallholder farmers vulnerable to climate
change. Agro ecology, ecosystems and sustainability.1st e d New York: Taylor and Francis Group.

Lin, B. B. (2011). Agroforestry management as an adaptive strategy against potential microclimate extremes
in coffee agriculture. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 144(1-2), 85-94.

López-Bravo, D. F., Virginio-Filho, E. D. M., & Avelino, J. (2012). Shade is conducive to coffee rust as
compared to full sun exposure under standardized fruit load conditions. Crop Protection, 38.

Mehrabi, Z., Lashermes, P. (2017) Protecting the origins of coffee to safeguard its future. Nature Plants 3.

Moat, J., Williams, J., Baena, S., Wilkinson, T., Gole, T.W., Challa, Z.K., Demissew, S., Davis, A.P. (2017).
Resilience potential of the Ethiopian coffee sector under climate change. 3, 17081.

Moat, J., Williams, J., Baena, S., Wilkinson, T., Demissew, S., Challa, Z.K., Gole, T.W. & Davis. A.P.
(2017). Coffee Farming and Climate Change in Ethiopia: Impacts, Forecasts, Resilience and
Opportunities. – Summary. The Strategic Climate Institutions Programme (SCIP). Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew (UK). Pp. 37.

National Meteorological Agency (NMA) (2001). Initial national communication of Ethiopia to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). NMA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

National Meteorological Agency (NMA) (2007). Climate change national adaptation program of action
(NAPA) of Ethiopia. NMA, Addis Ababa.

Nhemachena C, Hassan R. 2008. Determinants of African farmers‟ adapting to climate change: multinomial
choice analysis. AfJ ARE 2: 83–104.

Nicholson SE, Some B, Kone B (2000). An Analysis of Recent Rainfall Conditions in West Africa, Including
the Rainy Seasons of the 1997 El Nino and the 1998 La Nina Years. Journal of Climate 13:2628-
2640.

Ochieng J.Owuor, G.and Bebe, B.(2012). Determinants of adoption management and interventions in
indigenous chicken production in Kenya. AfARE Vol. 7 No,1. October 2012.

Oke, D. O., & Odebiyi, K. A. (2007).Traditional cocoa-based agroforestry and forest species conservation in
Ondo State, Nigeria. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 122(3), 305–311.Find this resource:
Google Preview World Cat

99
Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. (2015) Coffee Agroecology: A new approach to understanding agricultural
biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainable development. Routledge.

Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., Mas, A., Pinto, L.S. (2005) Biodiversity, yield, and shade coffee certification.
Ecological Economics 54, 435-446.

Petit, N. (2007) Ethiopia's Coffee Sector: A Bitter or Better Future? Journal of Agrarian Change7.

Pettengell C (2010). Climate Change Adaptation: Enabling people living in poverty to adapt. Oxfam Policy
and Practice: Climate Change and Resilience 6(2):1-48.

Ponte, S. (2002). The `Latte Revolution’? Regulation, Markets and Consumption in the Global Coffee Chain.
World Development, 30(7), 1099–1122. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00032-3

Ponte, S. Gonzalez, (2007) Brewing a Bitter Cup? Deregulation, Quality and the Re-organization of Coffee
Marketing in East Africa. Journal of Agrarian Change 2, 248-272.

Porter, JR., Xie, L, Challinor, AJ, Cochrane, K, Howden, SM, Iqbal, MM, Lobell, DB & Travasso, MI 2014,
„Food security and food production systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability‟ Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, CB, Barros, VR,
Dokken, DJ, Mach, KJ, Mastrandrea,MD, Bilir, TE, Chatterjee, M, Ebi, KL, Estrada, YO, Genova,
RC, Girma, B, Kissel, ES, Levy, AN, McCracken, S, Mastrandrea, PR, & White LL, (eds.)],
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485-533.

Rivera Aguierre, A. (2016, Forthcoming). Income Diversification as a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
for Smallholder Coffee Farmers in the Western Highlands in Guatemala. Sanford School of Public
Policy, Duke University.

Salik, J., & Byg, A. (2007). Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research, University of Oxford. Retrieved from http://www.ecdgroup.com/docs/lib_004630823.pdf

Schlenker, W., & Lobell, D. B. (2010). Robust negative impacts of climate change on African agriculture.
Environmental Research Letters, 5(1), 014010–014018.Find this resource:Preview World

Senbeta, F., Denich, M. (2006) Effects of wild coffee management on species diversity in the Afro-montane
rainforests of Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management 232, 68-74.

Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Maquis, M., Averyt, K., & Miller, H. (2007). Climate change
2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Group I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policy makers. Geneva,
Switzerland: IPCC.

100
Soto-Pinto, L., Perfecto, I., Castillo-Hernandez, J., Caballero-Nieto, J. (2000) Shade effect on coffee
production in the northern Tzeltal zone of the state of Chiapas, Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment 80, 61-69.

Tefera, A., (2012). USDA - Ethiopia Coffee Annual Report, Global Agricultural Information Network.
United States Department of Agriculture.

The Initiative for Coffee & Climate.(2015). Climate Change Adaptation in Coffee Production. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.cabi.org/Uploads/projectsdb/documents/44640/Coffee%20and%20climate
%20change %20guide.pdf

The Initiative for Coffee & Climate: (2015) Climate Change Adaptation in Coffee Production. Retrieved from
http://www.cabi.org/Uploads/projectsdb/documents/44640/Coffee%20and%20climate%20change
%20guide.pdf

The World Bank. Merot P, Corgne S, Delahaye D, Desnos P, Dubreuil V, Gascuel C, et al. (2014).
Évaluations impacts ET perceptions du changement climatique dans le Grand Ouest de la France
métropolitaine le projet CLIMASTER. Cahiers Agricultures 23: 96–107.

Tucker CM, Eakins H, Caste llanos EJ (2010), Perceptions of risk and adaptation: coffee producers, market
shocks, and extreme weather in Central America and Mexico. Global Environmental Change 20.

Tucker, C. M., Eakin, H., & Castellanos, E. J. (2010). Perceptions of risk and adaptation: Coffee producers,
market shocks, and extreme weather in Central America and Mexico. Global Environmental Change,
20(1), 23–32. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.006

UNCOMTRAD, (2014) Coffee and coffee substitutes. UN Comtrade and UN Service Trade.

UNDP, (2015) National Human Development Report 2015 Ethiopia - Accelerating Inclusive Growth for
Sustainable Human Development in Ethiopia, Human Development Reports. United National
Development Programme Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

US EPA, C. C. D. (2014). Adaptation Overview [Overviews & Factsheets,]. Retrieved February 21, 2016,
from http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/adaptation/overview.html

US EPA, C. C. D. Adaptation Overview [Overviews & Factsheets, Retrieved February 21, 2016, from
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/adaptation/overview.html

Van der Vossen, H., Bertrand, B., Charrier, A. (2015) Next generation variety development for sustainable
production of arabica coffee (Coffea arabica L.): a review. Euphytica 204, 243-256.

Vergara W, Rios AR, Trapido P, Malarín H (2014). Agriculture and Future Climate in Latin America and the
Caribbean: Systemic Impacts and Potential Responses, Climate Change and Sustainability Division
101
Waller JM, Bigger M, Hillocks RJ (2007). World coffee production. Coffee pests, diseases and their
management. CABI, Wallingford, pp. 17–33

Waller, J., Bigger, M., & Hillocks, R. (2007). Coffee Pests, Diseases, and their Management. United
Kingdom: CABI Publishing.

What is IPM? (2016). [Penn State Extension]. Retrieved February 21, 2016, from
http://extension.psu.edu/pests/ipm/what-is-ipm

WoADO, (2020). Woreda Agriculture Development Office. Unpublished

WoFED, (2020). Woreda Finance and Economic Development Office. Unpublished

Worishima W, Akasaka I (2010). Seasonal trends of rainfall and surface temperature over Southern Africa,
Nihom University. https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/handle/2433/96297

World Bank. (2010). Climate information services, agriculture global practical assistance paper Washington
DC:

World Bank. (2014). Climate information services, agriculture global practical assistance paper Washington
DC:

Ziervogel, G., Cartwright, A., Tas, A., Adejuwon, J., Zermoglio, F., Shale, M. et al. (2008). Climate change
and adaptation in African agriculture. Cape Town: Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI).Find this
resource: Google PreviewWorld Cat

Ziervogel, G., et al. (2008). Climate change and adaptation in African agriculture. Cape Town: Stockholm
Environment Institute (SEI).Find this resource: Google PreviewWorld Cat

APPENDIX

FIELD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES

My name is Befekadu Degu.

Dear Respondent, as one of coffee producer, your household has been selected that could be used to assess
the effect of climate change on coffee agronomy. I assure you that, all the information will be provided are
102
special for academic purpose and not otherwise. Therefore, you are friendly requested to respond truthfully to
the following questions. And your full support and willingness to respond to the question is very essential for
the success of the study. Please read each item separately and indicate your estimation by putting a tick (√)
mark under one of these alternatives.

I thank you in advance A. Questionnaire used to elicit data of coffee producers about Impact of climate
change on coffee production and farmers adaptation strategies , a case Study of Dale Woreda, Sidama
Region, Southern Ethiopia.

A. General Information

1. Region------------------------------------------------2. Zone---------------------------------------------

3. Woreda----------------------------------------------- 4. Kebele------------------------------------------

5. Serial code of the rural kebele--------------------- 6. Village-------------------------------------------

7. Serial code of the interviewer-------------------8. Date of the interview---------------------------

9. Name of respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Signature of the interviewer -----------------------------

B. Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics

11. Age: (1) 15 – 34 (2) 35 – 54 (3) 55 and above

12. Sex: (1) Male (2) Female

13. Marital status: (1) Married (2) Single (3) Divorced (4) Widow

14. Educational status: 1) Illiterate 2) 1-8 3) 9-12 4) Certificate & diploma 5) Degree & above.

15. Family size of the respondent (1) 1-2 (2) 3-5 (3) 6-9 (4) > 10

16. Years of experience in farming: (1) less than10 years (2) 10-25 year (3) More than 25 years

17. Main source of household income: (1) Crop production (2) Livestock production

(3) Mixed farming (4) Other (specify)

18. Do you have your own land? (1) Yes (0) No If Yes, how many hectares do you have?

(1) < 0.5ha (2) 0.5-1ha (3) 1-2ha (4) Above 2ha

19. Number of household members who work on the farm________

20. Secondary sources of household income: (1) Livestock (2) Petty trade/ small business

(3) Apiculture (4) Remittances (5) Others

103
21. What is the total amount of annual income from coffee farm? (ETB) ____________

C. Institutional Information (Access to weather information, markets and extension services)

22. Do you have had contact with kebele development agents or do you receive an extension

service/support? 1) Yes 0) No

23. If your answer for question 22 is “Yes”, what is the frequency of contacts did you have per

production season? 1) Once 2) Two times 3) Three times 4) Four times 5) Above

24. What kind of services did you got from the extension workers? 1) Training 2) Advice
3) Input supply/provision 4) Other
25. Have you got training from kebele development agents? 1) Yes 0) No

26. If your answer for question # 25 is “Yes” On what topic/issue did you have get training?
1) Adoption of new coffee technologies

2) Give information on rainfall distribution and early warning service

3) About climate change impact and its copping strategies

4) Give awareness about coffee production

5) Others (Specify)

27. How long have you been living in this area? 1) < 5 yrs 2) 6-15 yrs 3) 16-25 yrs 4) > 25 yrs

28. Do you get information on rainfall and other weather actions? (1) Yes (0) No

If yes, from where? (1) Meteorological staff (2) Agri. Extension (3) Radio/ television (4) Neighbors

29. Do you have access to market for your farm produce? (1) Yes (0) No

30. Do you have ready access to credit facilities? (1) Yes (0) No

31. Do you share information with other farmers about farming and weather? (1) Yes (0) No

32. Do you belong to any farmer-based organization? (1)Yes (0) No.

If NO, why? ____________________________________

33. Following from question 32, if YES, how many meetings do you clutch in a month? _______

D. Agricultural activities

34. Do you grow coffee? 1) Yes 0) No

35. If yes please fill the information you have in the production year from 2018 to 2020 in the table 1 below.

104
No. Crop grown Year Area coverage of Harvest / coffee Average productivity
Coffee/hectare production bags/qu. qu/ha

1 Coffee 2018

2019

2020

Average

36. What type of agriculture you practiced? 1) Rain fed 2) Irrigated 3) Both

37. If you used irrigation, Estimate the size of irrigated land -------------hectares

38. How many hectares do you have for coffee production? -------------- Hectares

39. How long have you been growing coffee? -------------------

40. What type of coffee variety do you grow? 1) Local variety 2) Improved variety 3) Both

41. If your answer for question # 40 is local, why you don’t grow the improved ones?
1) Lack of access for improved varieties 2) Susceptibility of improved varieties
3) Management demand of the improved varieties 4) High cost of improved seeds
42. If your answer for question # 40 is improved variety, how did you get the improved varieties?
1) From office of agriculture 2) From neighbors/relatives 3) By purchasing from markets
4) From cooperative unions/ organizations 5) others
43. If your answer for question # 40 is both, which do you prefer from climate change adaptation,
yield and market preference viewpoints?
1) Local variety 2) Improved variety
44. Which type of trees do you use for shade management? 1) ---------------------- 2) ------------------3)
----------------------------- 4) ------------------------------- 5) ----------------------------

45. What is the density of shade trees per hectares? 1) ------------------- 2) ------------------3)----------46. Do you
use fertilizer for your coffee plantation? 1) Yes 0) No

47. If your answer is yes for Q# 46, which type of fertilizer do you use?

1) Chemical fertilizer 2) Organic fertilizer 3) Both

48. If you use chemical fertilizer, which types do you use?

105
 1) NPS/B 2) DAP 3) UREA 4) All

49. According to question # 48, what rate do you apply per hectare?

1) 100Kg 2) 100-150Kg 3) 150-200Kg 4) > 200Kg

50. If you use organic fertilizer, which sources do you use?

1) Compost 2) Farm yard manure 3) Green manure 4) All

51. Based on economic feasibility of fertilizer use, which one do you prefer from management,
cost, profitability, market acceptability viewpoints?
1) Compost 2) Farm yard manure 3) Green manure 4) All
52. How many times do you apply organic fertilizer on your coffee plantation per year?

1) Once 2) Twice 3) Three times 4) Four times

53. Is coffee production continuing to be profitable for you? 1) Yes 0) No

54. If No, what is the reason? 1) Yield reduction 2) High cost of production

3) Reduction on coffee farm land 4) Shifting to other crop land 5) others

55. If the reason for question # 54 is a yield reduction, what do you think is the reason for the

reduction of coffee yield?

1) Soil fertility decline 2) Soil erosion 3) Lack of input 4) Climate variability

5) Climate change 6) Unimproved variety application/ Local variety

7) Disease and pests’ outbreak 8) other reasons (specify)

56. Do you have other sources of income that are not coffee related? 1) Yes 0) No

57. If you have non- coffee related income, what is the source of income? Choose all that are

applicable.

1) Livestock rearing 2) Small/petty trade 3) Laborer 4) Government employee 5) Other

58. What is your estimated annual total income? ----------

And how much is contributed by coffee? ----------------
59. Do you have access and use improved production inputs and technologies for your coffee

production? 1) Yes 0) No

60. If your answer is No for Q # 59, what kind of technologies and what change the brought on

yield/livelihood 1) Lack of money 2) Lack of information 3) Lack of knowledge

106
 4) Lack of extension service 5) Lack of labor and other (specify)

61. How about your coffee production area coverage/yield trend?

1) Increased 2) Decreased 3) Unchanged/remained the same
62. If decreasing, what is the major cause for the decline in coffee production and quality?

1) Soil fertility decline 2) Soil erosion 3) Lack of input 4) Climate variability 5) Climate

change 6) Use of local variety 7) Disease and pest outbreak 8) other reasons (specify)

E. About Climate Change

63. Have you ever heard the word or expression “climate change”? 1) Yes 0) No

64. If yes for Q # 63, from where / whom do you heard?

1) From extension workers 2) Radio/ TV 3) Agriculture officer 4) From neighbors

65. Regardless what other people are saying, if you compare the way the weather is now and the way

it was in the past, do you personally think the weather has changed? 1) Yes 0) No

66. Since when has the weather changed according to you? (Choose one of the 2)

1). Specific date or number of years: _______

2. No specific date, it has been changing continuously / gradually until now

67. According to your perception, are there any signs that show the weather has indeed changed?

1) Yes 0) No

68. What are the local indicators do you use to evaluate the changing climate?

Response
No. Factors
1 2
Yes No

1. Loss of some plant and animal species

2. Increased drought and flood frequency
3. Growing period shortened
4. Rainfall comes early or lately

107
 5. Decline of agriculture yields
6 Decline of soil fertility
7 Decreased available water
8 Other (specify)
69. Is there any change on the coffee production in relation with the change in climate variability?

1) Yes 0) No

70. If yes for Q # 69, on what aspects of it? 1) Change in growth habit

2) Change of time to fruit set 3) Yield reduction 4) Change in coffee quality 5) other

71. To what degree unexpected extreme climate events affected your coffee production, quality and

yield? 1) Very high 2) High 3) Medium 4) Low

72. Do you perceive unusual changes to climate in the last Thirty years? 1) Yes 0) No

73. Do you believe that the current quantity of rain is sufficient for production, quality and yield?

1) Yes 0) No

74. If you say no for Q 73, what is the reason behind this, and what options do you using to the

shortage of rainfall? Reason

1) Reduced rainfall length, 2) Quantity 3) Intensity 4) Frequency 5) Duration

75. Did you face failure of Coffee production, quality and yield? 1) Yes 0) No

76. If your answer for Q 75 is” yes”, what are the problems you mostly face?

1) Coffee disease 2) Shortage of rainfall 3) Flooding 4) Frosts and ice

5) Reduction on coffee production and productivity 6) Problem of late onset of rainfall

7) Problem of early cessation of rainfall 8) Other (specify)

77. Do you face the problem of coffee production and quality reduction due to changing climate?

1) Yes 0) No

78. If your answer for Q 77 is” yes”, how you think your coffee farming system will be affected

by climate change?

1) No technological farming systems 2) Coffee plants are quite sensitive to change in climate

and variability 3) Open- sun cultivate coffee 4) Other (specify)

108
79. Do you think that coffee production per unit area has been declining since the last 30 years?

1) Yes 0) No

80. What do you think the major factors affecting coffee agronomy, yield and quality in this area?

Response
No. Factors
1 2 3 4
High Moderate Low Not at all

1. Unpredictable rainfall
2. Increased temperature
3. Increased pest and disease
4. Low soil fertility
5. Post- harvest management
6 Pre-harvest management
7 Use of local seed variety
8 Lack of farm implements (fertilizer, improved seeds,
pesticides etc.)
81. Do you have experienced with the following types of climate change and variability indicators?

Response How often (in past decade Yes or No)

1) Drought 2) Floods 3) Off seasonal rainfall 4) Too much rain 5) Too little rainfall

6) Higher temperature 7) Frost (coolness) 8) High wind 9) Others

82. What has been the trend of rainfall for the past 30 years to date according to your perception?

1) Increasing 2) Decreasing 3) Fluctuating

83. Do you feel that the timing of rain fall is a problem?

1) Yes, it onsets late and ends up late

2) Yes, it onsets early and ends up early

3) No, there is no problem on timing of rainfall but on its amount

4) Yes, it onsets on time but ends up early

5) Yes, it onsets late and ends up early

84. What has been the trend of temperature for the past 30 years to date according to your
109
 perception? (Please tick the appropriate answer)

1) Increasing 2) Decreasing 3) Fluctuating 4) Constant 5) Do not know

85. How do you characterize the weather of your area in terms of its temperature and precipitation?

Is there any change? 1) Yes 0) No

86. If your answer for Q75 is “Yes” how long you have been observing the climate change? ---------

-----------------------------------------------------------------

87. How is the trend in number of hot days over the years?

1) Increased 2) No Changed 3) Decreased 4) I don’t know

88. How is the trend in number of cold days over the years?

1) Increased 2) No Changed 3) Decreased 4) I don’t know

89. How is the trend in the amount of rainfall over the years?

1) Increased 2) No Changed 3) Decreased 4) Changed in time of raining

5) Increase in frequency of drought 6) I don’t know

90. How is the trend of rainfall frequency over the years?

1) Increased 2) No Changed 3) Decreased 4) I don’t know

91. How is the trend of rainfall duration over the years?

1) Increased 2) No Changed 3) Decreased 4) I don’t know

92. Has your management of coffee changed over the past 10-15 years or so? 1) Yes 0) No
93. If yes for Q # 82, what do you do differently today if you compared to 10-15 years before?

____________________________________________________

94. Specifically: have you changed your input use? 1) Yes 0) No

95. Have you changed the varieties you plant? 1) Yes 0) No
96. Why did you change your management practices?

_______________________________________________________________________

97. Trend in coffee production over the past 30 years (if relevant / possible) the production of last
harvest (Nov- Dec 2018) Production________________ kg

98. Compared to this last harvest, how has your production been changing?
1. Decreased sharply moderately from a high of _____kg (year: _______ ) to ____ kg (today)
110
 2. Increased sharply moderately from of a low of _____kg (year: _______ ) to____ kg (today)
3. Fluctuates markedly between __________kg and _________________ kg
4. More or less steady
Reason for above trend:________________________________________________________
99. Do you plan to make any changes in your coffee production or management in the coming years?
(such as: Expansion / Reduction / Uprooting / Change of variety, Change in management
practices, etc.)
_________________________________________________________________________
(If changes envisioned) Why?

F. Farmers perception on temperature

100. Fill the right-column with the appropriate number (4) High (3) Moderate (2) Less (1) Not at all

1 2 3 4
No. Statements
High Moderate Less Not at
all
1. What is the level of temperature risk perceptions regarding the
changing of warming condition?
2. What is your perception level of awareness that increasing
temperature in the area?
3. What is your level of perception about rise of temperature that can
affect coffee production negatively?
4. What is the level of your risk perception towards high temperature
and its consequence to coffee pests and diseases increase?
5. What is your perception level of the frequency occurrences of
drought with an increase of temperature?
6. What is your perception level in land pattern using due to increasing
temperature?

G. Farmers’ Perception on Rainfall

101. Fill the right-column with the appropriate number (4) High (3) Moderate (2) Less (1) Not at all

1 2 3 4
No. Statements
High Moderate Less Not at all

1. What is the level of your perception on patterns of rainfall that

affecting cropping calendar?
2. Have you perceived the amount of rainfall decreasing from
111
 time to time? If so level it.
3. What is the level of your perception towards amount of
rainfall affects agricultural production?
4. What is your level of perception regarding to rain variability
increase and with increasing incidence of crop disease?
5. What is your level perception the shifting of occasion and
onset of rainfall?
6. What have you perceived about the number of rainy days that
has decreased over the last 20 years?
H. Impacts of climate change on coffee production

Table: Perception of farmers on impacts of cc on coffee production

102. How do the factors in the table below influence your coffee production due to climate change? Fill the
right-column with the appropriate number (1) High (2) Moderate (3) Low (4) Not at all

Response
No. Factors
1 2 3 4
High Moderate Low Not at all

1. Decrease soil fertility

2. High cost of coffee production
3. Increase pest and disease attack on coffee
4. Decrease coffee yield
5. Decrease in area under coffee cultivation
6 Decrease in shade tree area
7 Decrease in number of certain plant and tree species
8 Decrease in drought and disease resistant coffee varieties
9 Increase in labor migration to the town
10 Decrease in household food security and incomes
11 Increased temperatures
12 Increased drought, dry season and flood
13 Increased rainfall variability

103. Do you normally experience pest and disease prevalence in the production season?

1) Yes 0) No

I. Adaptation strategies to climate change

104. Have you done something in the way your coffee farm to respond to the (long-term) changes
in weather you just told us about? 1) Yes 0) No
105. Which adaptation strategies do you practice in the way your coffee farm to respond to the

112
 climate change effects?
Improved/introduced (list or describe)________________________,
______________________________________,___________________________________
Indigenous (what are those?)
_____________________,________________________,______________________
106. If improved, where do you get the new adaptive strategies or measures from?

(1) Colleague farmers (2) Agriculture officer (3) NGO (4) Others__________________

107. Do you adopt any indigenous strategies or measures to reduce the effects of climate change on

your coffee farming? (1) Yes (0) No

108. If yes, what strategies or measures do you employ? (1) Adjusting planting date

(2) Planting shade trees (3) Mulching (4) Irrigation (5) Pest management and controlling

(6) Soil and water conservation (7) Other_____________________________

109. How did you develop these strategies?

(1) Colleague farmers (2) From parents (3) Labours (4) Others

J. Choices of indigenous adaptation strategies;

110. Actual indigenous adaptation practices being used by farmers. If your answer is yes, write the

specific practices on Table 5.

No. Adaptation strategies Response Specific

practices
Yes (1) No (0)

113
 1 Use of improved and drought tolerant coffee varieties

2 Use of irrigation

3 Mulching

4 Shade management or Agroforestry practice

5 Implement soil and water conservation practice

6 Adjusting planting and seedling date (Early and late planting)

7 Use of cultural pest and disease control method

8 Planting of new trees (which

variety?)------------------------------------------------------------

9 Pruning

10 Farm yard manure

11 Weeding and harvest management

12 Shifting from coffee to short season crops

13 Others ( Specify)

111. Which of the following is your main reason for using adaptation strategies to climate change?

(1) To reduce effects of drought (2) To reduce effects of frosts

(3) To increase production (4) Others________

112. Is there any factor constraining you to implement the CC adaptation measures? 1) Yes 0) No

113. If yes, which factors most influence the system?

No. Factors influencing farmers´ adoption level Yes (1) No (0)

114
 1 Age of household

2 Sex of household

3 Labour size of household

4 Farm size of households

5 Farm income of households

6 Education level of households

7 Livestock holding of households

8 Access to climate information

9 Access to credits

10 Access to extension services

11 Access to infrastructure

Table 7 Area coverage, production and productivity of coffee at Dale District from 2011 - 2020

No. Year Area coverage in Ha. Productivity qu/ha Production in qu

1 2011
2 2012
3 2013
4 2014
5 2015
6 2016
7 2017
8 2018
9 2019
10 2020
Table 8 Meteorological data of the study areas

No Year Total Rainfall Temperature

Ethiopian Gregorian Maximum Minimum

calendar calendar

115
1 1983 1991
2 1984 1992
3 1986 1994
5 1987 1995
6 1988 1996
7 1989 1997
8 1990 1998
9 1991 1999
10 1992 2000
11 1993 2001
12 1994 2002
13 1995 2003
14 1996 2004
15 1997 2005
16 1998 2006
17 1999 2007
18 2000 2008
19 2001 2009
20 2002 2010
21 2003 2011
22 2004 2012
23 2005 2013
24 2006 2014
25 2007 2015
26 2008 2016
27 2009 2017
28 2010 2018
29 2011 2019
30 2012 2020
Date of interview ____/____/ _______ Woreda _________ Sector _______________

Thank you for your kind co-operation!

1. Checklist for Focus Group Discussions (FGD):

1. What is the pattern of rainfall over the past 15 years: (0) decreasing (1) increasing (2) stable

2. In a particular season, how long do the rains last: (1) 3-4 months (2) less than 3months? (3) More than

4-months

116
3. Do you normally experience drought during the coffee production season? (1) Yes (0) No If YES, which

month? ______________

4. Do you normally experience frost during the production season? (1) Yes (0) No

If YES, which month? ______________

5. What is the pattern of temperature over the past 30 years? (0) decreasing (1) increasing (2) Stable

2. Checklist for Key Informants

1. Do the prevailing rainfall and temperature patterns affect coffee production? (1)Yes (0) No

If yes how? _________________________________________________________

2. Do the prevailing rainfall and temperature patterns affect the environment? (1)Yes (0) No

If yes how? ______________________________________________________________

3. Do the prevailing rainfall and temperature patterns affect the socio-economy? (1)Yes (0) No.
If yes how? __________________________________________________

4. Has the temperature been decreasing over the past 10-30 years ago? (1)Yes (0) No.

If yes how? _________________________________________________

5. Are there any factors contributing to low quality and marketing of coffee in the area? (1) Yes
(0) No

If yes, how? ____________________________________________

Thank you for your kind co-operation!

APPENDIX I

Monthly rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature in the Study area

Appendix Table 1: Monthly Total Rainfall data of Dale district from 1991-2020(mm)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Monthly

117
 RF
1991 9.9 32 76.5 152.3 176.8 126.2 85.1 185.1 274.2 77.4 0 37.2 1232.7
1992 30.1 40.5 64.5 126.8 164.2 95.8 131.2 147.4 170.2 260 48.7 21.2 1300.6
1993 53.7 82.2 32.5 149 298.2 138 35.6 48.6 127.8 290.4 23.3 2.5 1281.8
1994 2.9 13.5 77.3 215.6 192.2 149.9 174.8 136.6 131 75.2 48 17 1234
1995 0 26 75.1 328.9 148.6 48.2 84.6 98.9 181.2 42.9 32.2 54.1 1120.7
1996 86.3 0 200.5 248.8 159.9 175.3 123.5 91.9 291.7 85.3 6.6 2.4 1472.2
1997 22.6 5.4 31.7 59.9 56.2 98.7 156.7 150.7 202.8 370.2 193.6 38.2 1386.7
1998 68.1 46.7 99.4 227.7 164.8 84.9 194.2 200.3 108 443.3 21.4 0 1658.8
1999 16.5 24 98.5 108.4 163.3 62.2 105 184.6 107.7 183.1 13.7 8.7 1075.7
2000 3 0 28.8 170.9 253.9 100 115 87.7 90.9 119.3 55.1 47.1 1071.7
2001 16.1 38.7 126.9 101.7 277.4 104.6 65.3 228.3 224.9 356.9 9.6 23.5 1573.9
2002 47.1 6.2 216.5 106.9 109.2 118.5 37.8 101 89.7 64.1 0 45.1 942.1
2003 52.5 0 81.3 177 25.8 44.4 61.7 76.9 101.3 109.9 61.7 60 852.5
2004 79.6 35.6 51 75 88.4 55.7 108.3 90.5 106.7 102.9 37.8 1.3 832.8
2005 44.4 1.1 81.3 134 243.5 80.1 129.7 67.4 148.8 105.9 64.6 0 1100.8
2006 2.9 36.8 162.9 212.2 153.9 91.4 128.7 197.4 116 165.4 42.3 103 1412.9
2007 66.9 13 111.9 172.6 164.7 164 116.3 210.7 219.3 175.5 67.3 0 1482.2
2008 36 32.7 15.6 161.1 195.9 113.3 163.5 109.8 103.6 181.3 104.7 6.6 1224.1
2009 55.8 46.2 86.5 192.3 98.7 171.8 28 66.1 129.9 145.8 25.1 44.3 1090.5
2010 24.6 94.8 106 209.2 253.8 138.3 86 178.6 89.2 0.3 18.4 28.2 1227.4
2011 0.8 19.4 0 160 277.1 17.3 159.5 38 17.3 112.5 51.6 0 853.5
2012 0 0 19.4 114 96.5 69.2 148.7 245.4 259.2 167 17.6 8.6 1145.6
2013 0 0 32.5 137.4 114 51 168.8 139 129.8 114.2 18.2 0 904.9
2014 18.8 28 32.6 185.5 250.6 117.6 230.2 239 14.6 12.3 10.5 0 1139.5
2015 0 0 100 269.8 244.5 214 75.2 16.2 42.6 50.6 85.4 0 1098.3
2016 11 13.9 33.6 211 227 101.4 71.4 126.4 75.1 103.1 5.5 0 979.4
2017 0 29.8 132.6 49.4 191.1 57.2 128.6 166.5 175.2 81.1 30.4 0 1041.9
2018 0 55.3 24.4 131.2 60 155.5 7.4 115.2 131.2 49.2 36.7 40.5 806.6
2019 0 22.1 48.8 190.6 227.6 294.7 72 103.2 122.7 32 28.5 0 1142.2
2020 9.4 27.8 37.4 76.7 149 128.9 320 242.4 25.5 20.1 0 0 1037.2
Source: National Meteorological Agency, Ethiopia (2021)

Appendix Table 2: Monthly Average Maximum Temperature data of Dale district from 1991-2020 (ºC)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average
1991 29.4 28.5 28.3 27.2 26 25.9 22.4 23.7 24.1 25.1 26.7 28 26.3
1992 27.9 27.9 29.4 27.7 25.8 24.6 23.9 23.7 24.5 24.3 25.8 27.2 26.05
118
1993 27.3 26 29.3 26.4 25.1 23.8 23.8 23.2 22 24.9 28.3 29.4 25.79
1994 29.6 29.7 28.9 26.3 24.4 23.5 22.6 23.5 24.7 26.7 26.5 27.9 26.19
1995 29.3 29.5 27.9 25.8 25.9 25.4 23.8 23.9 25.3 26 27.7 28 26.54
1996 27.7 29.1 28.3 26.4 25.9 23.5 23.3 23.2 24.4 26 27.9 28.3 26.16
1997 28.5 28.9 29.2 28.7 26.8 24.9 23.7 25.6 26.1 25.7 26 26 26.67
1998 26.7 28.3 28.5 29.5 26.7 26.2 24.7 24.8 25.1 25.2 26.6 28 26.69
1999 28.6 30.6 29.5 26.8 27.5 27.5 22.1 24 24.6 24.6 24.8 25.9 26.37
2000 29 29.6 29.8 28.3 20.1 24.7 23.9 24.3 23.9 23.7 25.3 27.1 25.8
2001 28.4 28.7 27.5 26.3 26.5 24.2 25.1 25.3 24.6 25.7 27.9 28.1 26.52
2002 28.7 29.4 29.1 29.4 29.3 27.5 27.8 27.9 27.9 28.4 27.6 28.1 28.42
2003 27.7 29.5 30.1 29.4 28.6 26.9 23 26.1 26.6 27 27.8 27.6 27.52
2004 28 29.4 29.8 29.3 28.9 27 26.4 26.8 26.9 27.8 27.9 28.2 28.03
2005 28.5 30.2 28.7 28.4 24.6 24.3 23.3 24.9 25 25.6 26.6 27.6 26.47
2006 29.4 29.9 28.2 26.3 26.1 24.7 23.3 24 24.5 25.5 26.1 26.3 26.19
2007 27.7 29.3 29.9 27.2 26.1 24 24 23.3 24.2 25.9 26.6 27.4 26.3
2008 28.5 28.8 30.5 27.3 24.4 24.5 23 23.6 24.8 25.2 25.9 27.1 26.13
2009 27.7 28.9 30.5 27 26.8 25.7 24.4 25.6 25.7 25.5 27.4 26.4 26.8
2010 27.3 27.6 27 26.8 25.7 24.8 23.3 24.1 24.2 26 27.6 27.5 25.99
2011 29.7 30.1 30.4 29.7 27 26.4 26.1 25.9 26.9 27.1 27.6 29.2 28
2012 27.6 29.6 30.7 27.3 26.6 25 24.2 24.1 24.7 26 26.5 28.2 26.7
2013 29.2 30.4 30.2 28.4 27.4 26.5 26.9 26.4 26.5 28.9 28.5 29.5 28.23
2014 28.9 28.3 28.4 27.6 26.4 26.1 24.3 24.3 25 24.4 20.1 29 26.06
2015 28.2 30.8 31.2 25.8 27 25.2 25 25.6 26.6 27.7 27.9 27.5 27.37
2016 28.7 29.5 28.9 27.2 27.1 25.4 25.3 25.6 25.7 26.8 27 27.9 27.09
2017 29.4 30.5 31.5 31.2 26.6 26.5 25.1 25.6 24.4 26.5 27.5 29.7 27.875
2018 28.9 29.5 30.1 30.4 29.9 28.2 25.9 26.8 27 27.5 27.9 28.7 28.4
2019 28.8 29.5 29.3 29.1 28.7 29.9 26.6 25.2 26.4 27.4 28.9 28.6 28.2
2020 29.8 29.8 30 28.9 28.6 29.4 24.5 25.4 26.9 27.6 28.7 28.5 28.175
Source: National Meteorological Agency, Ethiopia (2021)

Appendix Table 3: Monthly Average Minimum Temperature data of Dale district from 1991-2020 (ºC)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ava
Min

119
 Temp
1991 11.4 10.8 12.5 10.7 10.8 11.8 11.8 13 13.4 13.9 15.7 15.7 12.65
1992 13.5 13.2 13.7 11.7 10.7 10.9 10.7 9.8 11.4 10.8 12.9 13.5 11.9
1993 12.9 12.8 17.7 17.5 13.5 13 13.1 12.7 11.1 10.8 14.6 10.8 13.37
1994 7.8 10 12.3 13.3 12.8 13.3 13.4 13 12.6 10.1 9.1 7.8 11.29
1995 8.8 11.3 11.4 13.7 12 12.8 13.5 13.3 11.7 12.1 9.8 10.2 11.71
1996 11.4 11.5 11.4 13.2 12.9 13.8 13.3 13.3 13.6 11.9 8.9 8.4 11.96
1997 11.4 8 8.5 8.6 11.3 12 13.3 12.3 12.4 12 11.7 10.5 11
1998 11.5 12.8 12.8 15.1 15.7 11 12.8 14.3 12.9 14.2 10.7 10.7 12.87
1999 12.1 10 12.4 12.6 13.4 11.7 10.6 6.8 6.2 6.9 4.1 4.4 9.26
2000 6.8 7 9.7 11.4 11.5 11.3 12.5 12.1 10.5 11.2 12.4 10.3 10.55
2001 8.8 8.6 11.1 12.2 12.5 12.9 11.7 13.7 12.7 12.6 10.6 9.5 11.4
2002 11.7 11.7 13.5 13.6 13.9 13.3 13.9 13.2 12.1 12.1 10.8 11.5 12.6
2003 10.7 11.2 12.2 13.7 13.2 12.5 12.8 12.6 13 12.4 11.1 10.6 12.16
2004 10.2 10.1 8.1 7.9 10.9 11.4 12.9 13.4 12.8 10.6 11 10.5 10.81
2005 10.4 9.8 13.2 13 12.7 13.2 13.6 13.4 12.2 12.4 9.3 6.6 11.65
2006 10.2 10.7 12.6 11.9 12.3 13 13.7 13.3 13.5 12.6 11.2 11.3 12.19
2007 11.5 12.3 11 13.1 13.9 13.6 13.7 13.3 13.4 10.7 10.1 7.5 12
2008 9 10 10.3 12.1 13 13.1 13.7 13.3 12.7 12.3 9.7 8.5 11.47
2009 9.4 10 10.7 13.1 12.8 11.9 13.1 13.3 12.8 12.3 10.2 12.2 11.8
2010 10.7 13.7 13 14.1 14.8 12.4 13.1 13.3 12.2 12.8 9.8 8.9 12.4
2011 9 8.4 10.6 11.7 12.9 12.8 12.6 12.3 12.8 11.2 11.2 8.3 11.15
2012 10 9.8 10.5 11.5 12.8 12.4 13.1 13.4 13.2 12.7 12.1 9.8 11.78
2013 10.5 9.9 11.5 10.6 10.4 13.8 12.8 13.6 13.9 12.9 10.8 9.8 11.7
2014 10.4 11.5 11.9 13.4 14.2 13.7 13.5 13.6 13.4 12.8 12.4 12.9 12.8
2015 10 12.5 12.3 11.9 10.9 11.2 11.8 11.9 10.8 12.8 12.5 12.9 11.79
2016 10.5 11.9 11.4 14.7 13.3 12.7 13.1 13.2 11.9 10.71 12.1 15 12.54
2017 8.5 11.8 11.6 12.9 13.3 13.9 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.7 12.9 11.2 12.6
2018 11.3 10.5 12.4 12.4 13.7 11.7 13.8 13.9 13.5 13.6 13.7 11.4 12.66
2019 11.9 11.4 11.9 11.5 12.9 13.4 13.7 13.7 13.8 12.9 12.4 12.7 12.68
2020 11.7 11.5 12.1 12.7 12.7 13.7 13.6 13.8 13.6 12.8 12.8 12.9 12.82
Source: National Meteorological Agency, Ethiopia (2021)

Appendix Table 4: Area coverage, Production and Productivity of Coffee at Dale District from 2011-

2020

120
 Year Area coverage in Productivity (qu/ha) Production in (qu)
(ha)

2011 14366 11.62 166932.92

2012 15050.36 10.45 155921.73

2013 15609.61 10.3 160778.98

2014 16420.36 9.91 162725.76

2015 14327.71 9.42 134967.02

2016 15170 8.57 130006.9

2017 14672.19 7.62 111802.08

2018 14763.8 7.6 112204.88

2019 14892.65 7.55 112439.5

2020 14773.27 7.52 111094.99

Sources: Dale district Agricultural Development office (2020)

Appendix II: Multicolinearity Test

121
 Table 1: Variance inflation factor for continuous variable

Collinearity Statistics

Variables Tolerance VIF

Age of the household head .269 3.721

Education of household head .925 1.081

Family size of house hold .908 1.061

Farm experience of household head .262 3.822

Farm size .399 2.507

Mean VIF 2.4384

Source: model output, 2021

Table 2: Contingency coefficient for dummy variable

Variables sex Credit Extension Climate

availability service information

Sex 1.000

Credit availability 0.080 1.000

Extension service 0.167 0.126 1.000

Climate information 0.134 0.526 0.080 1.000

Source: model output, 2021.

122
 Biography

The author was born on April 1990 in Doyogena District, Kembata Tembaro zone SNNP region. He

attended his elementary and high school education at Doyogena town and Hossana city and joined

Ambo University in 2008/9. He graduated with B.Sc. degree in Rural Development in 2010/11. Then

after, he was employed at District Agricultural office in Doyogena. He joined Hawassa University to

pursue his M.Sc. Studies in Climate Change and Sustainable Agriculture in 2019/20. He is married.

And he is a father of 3 children.

123