1

Objective 1: Groundnut, chickpea and pigeonpea for Eastern and Southern

Africa

Several activities have been undertaken in Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) during the past two years

towards meeting the key milestones of the project. This report will provide highlights of the major

activities undertaken and the achievements in terms of the progress made and the key findings from the

research undertaken during this period.

1. Legume situation and outlook assessments

1.1. Mapping of target areas and crop production zones

Spatially disaggregated data for all the target crops has been collected from all the three countries –

chickpea (Ethiopia), groundnut and pigeonpea (Malawi) and groundnut and pigeonpea (Tanzania).

Whereas information is available at the local level in areas or districts where project activities have

started, such disaggregated data is not available at district and sub-district level nationally. The available

data at the zonal and district levels for all crops has been mapped to help delineate and define the major

production areas and target regions for the project in each country. Future work needs to determine the

suitability of selected varieties in the specific farming systems in the larger target environment. We have

also initiated discussions with Harvestchoice to see how the remaining gaps for the legume crops can be

filled.

1.2. Situation and outlook analyses for targeted legumes

The situation and outlook assessments have been completed for all the three legume crops in selected

countries: chickpea (Ethiopia), groundnut and pigeonpea (Malawi). There is an ongoing effort to

complete a market survey for pigeonpea in Tanzania which may also provide some of the required

information for a situation and outlook report on pigeonpea in this country. Data used for this analysis are

primarily obtained from existing data at ICRISAT and from secondary sources such as FAOSTAT,

published documents and various national reports. The secondary data comprised of aggregate data on

global, regional and national production output, data on export and import volumes of targeted crops,

global and national price trends over years, and data related to access to seeds. The time series data used

ranges from a minimum of 3 years to a maximum of 14 years. A number of statistical tools were

employed to analyze, summarize and present the data. For analyzing the historical trends over the years

and estimate the growth rate, descriptive statistics are used. The global food projection modeling

2

framework of IMPACT (the International Model for Policy analysis of Agricultural Commodities and

Trade) recently calibrated and adapted for policy analysis of dryland crops is applied to examine the

future situation for chickpea in Ethiopia and groundnuts and pigeonpea in Malawi. These country sub-

sector assessments have been already published in the TL-II website for a wider use. The reports are

expected to feed into regional situation and outlook reports that would outline the current production

conditions, key socioeconomic and technological constraints and key interventions for unlocking the

potential of the targeted legumes in the region.

In terms of the projected area and production trends over the 20–year horizon for which the projections

are made, the results suggests that chickpea area and production in Ethiopia will show significant growth

in the coming years. However in order to leverage the chickpea sub-sector for poverty reduction and food

and nutritional security in the country, results suggest that there is a need to design a more flexible and

sustainable seed systems that meet the needs of the resource poor farmers. This requires policy makers to

open up the seed sector and encourage and assist private seed companies and community seed producer

associations by improving access to agri-business development services and empowering cooperatives

and village agro-dealers. Results also suggest the need for improving the performance of chickpea value

chains by increasing farmer linkages with the industry and exporters, reducing transaction costs and

targeting the development and distribution of large-seeded kabuli varieties that offer price premiums in

international markets. Ultimately, the competitiveness of smallholder farmers in chickpea production will

depend on accessing, adopting and adapting promising varieties and production practices. This will

require large-scale demonstration efforts and participatory variety selection in key production

environments to identify locally adapted and profitable varieties.

The future outlooks for groundnuts in Malawi seem promising; however, there are a number of

constraints that negatively impact on the development of the groundnut sub-sector. The analysis has

revealed weaknesses in the current seed systems as well as in the enforcement of quality standards. The

technology delivery and the grain marketing systems are underdeveloped, leading to the low use of

improved technologies and the production of poor quality of nuts with high levels of aflatoxins that make

it unacceptable in the international markets. Although the volumes of groundnut exports remain lower

than the levels seen in the late 1980s, the review has shown that Malawi maintains a comparative

advantage in groundnut production and competitiveness in exports suggesting that there is scope for

increasing groundnut exports once the required quality standards are adhered to. Therefore the findings

suggest the need for faster productivity enhancement, strengthening seed delivery systems to reach more

farmers and the development of existing value chains.

3

For pigeonpea in Malawi, historical trends show a rise in harvested area, yield and production.

Furthermore, the outlook analysis based on production and exports simulations shows that area,

production as well as domestic demand will continue to rise. Nonetheless, there are a number of

constraints that negatively impact on the development of the pigeonpea sub-sector. The findings reveal

existing structural weaknesses in seed and technology delivery and grain marketing systems, which have

an effect on the diffusion and adoption of improved technologies and consequently the on-farm

productivity and profitability of this crop. Furthermore, while global demand for pigeonpea continues to

rise, there is an increasing pressure on African farmers to benefit from these markets due to intense

competition for export markets (mainly India) from Myanmar and other emerging producers, as well as

the surging demand for other substitutes. Unless productivity growth and market development help offset

these threats, it can severely affect the overall competitiveness for pigeonpea farmers. The findings

suggest the need for faster productivity enhancement, strengthening seed delivery systems to reach

farmers who continue to rely on low-yielding and disease-susceptible local varieties and development of

existing value chains and alternative pigeonpea export markets.

2. Baseline surveys

This is one of the most demanding activities and milestones undertaken during the first two years. This

started with extensive discussions with various partners, including the project breeders and seed systems

specialists, and visits to the project sites to identify the key issues to be captured in the baseline data. A

standardized survey instrument was then developed at two levels (household and village/community) for

all countries to gather comparable data for understanding limiting constraints, farmer and market

preferences and measuring adoption and multi-dimensional impacts of the project. Baseline data has been

collected for all the three crops in three target countries (pigeonpea and groundnut in Malawi and

Tanzania, and chickpea in Ethiopia) and personnel from local partners were trained in methods for survey

design, sampling and good practices in administering survey instruments. About 39 local staff and

supervisors were trained and the instruments were pre-tested before the surveys were administered using

personal interviews. The baseline studies also benefited from other complimentary projects (e.g. Treasure

Legumes project supported by IFAD) in terms of sharing fixed costs which allowed surveying a larger

sample of the target farmers.

In Ethiopia a combination of stratified and purposive sampling methods was used to select the three

districts included in the survey in the project target areas, namely Gimbichu, Lume-Ejere and Minjar-

Shenkora. These districts represent one of the major chickpea growing areas in the country where new

4

varieties are beginning to be adopted by farmers. Eight kebeles1 from each of Gimbichu and Lume-Ejere

districts and ten kebeles from Minjar-Shenkora district were randomly selected from where a random

sample of 700 households was selected for detailed household survey. This include 400 households in the

two districts (Minjar-Shenkora and Gimbichu) targeted under the TL-II project and 300 households in the

one district (Lume-Ejere) selected for IFAD project. Village level data was also collected from about 40

villages that fall within the 26 kebeles. EIAR/DZARC took the lead for the baseline survey in Ethiopia.

While the larger datasets help understand the broader production and market constraints for chickpea in

Ethiopia, the data from the 400 households will be relevant in evaluating the adoption and impact of the

TL-II project.

In Malawi a total of 594 randomly selected households were surveyed in four purposively selected

districts. The multi-stage sampling process included selection of 16 Sections (four per district) and 48

villages (four randomly selected among the groundnut and pigeonpea growing villages in each Section).

The sample included 298 households in two districts (Michinji and Balala) targeted under the TL-II

project and 296 households in two other districts (Thyolo and Chiradzulu) under the sister project

supported by IFAD. The village level data was also collected from 47 villages in the four districts. About

22% of the sampled households were female-headed, while about 50% of the respondents were also

females. The Malawi baseline was coordinated by ICRISAT-Malawi with support from the University of

Malawi.

In Tanzania the sampling framework is based on a random sample of villages in four districts in the

Northern zone, representing the main pigeonpea and groundnut growing division and wards in Babati and

Kondoa and pigeonpea growing areas in the two districts of Arumeru and Karatu. In each of the four

districts three major divisions were selected giving rise to a total of 12 divisions. Subsequently, two wards

were sampled in each of the selected divisions resulting into a total of 24 wards. Twenty five farmers

were then randomly sampled from a list of farm families in each village and ward. A total of 600 farm

households (of which 50% were supported under the IFAD project) in four districts were surveyed using

the standardized survey instrument. In addition to household surveys, a total of 24 communities/villages

(6 from each of the survey districts) were also surveyed using key informants to gather data on broader

village/community level socioeconomic factors. The survey was undertaken in collaboration with the

Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) and was administered from October to December 2008.

1 It is usually named peasant association and is the lowest administrative unit or local council in the country.

5

The data was subsequently transferred into STATA econometric software package for the analysis. The

data was further checked for consistency and completeness and analyzed. Descriptive statistics such as

frequencies, cross-tabulations, means and ratio were employed to analyze, summarize and present the data

in the baseline report. Analysis was conducted by disaggregating important relevant information by

districts and crops so that a snapshot comparison can be made as needed. In order to improve data quality

and comparability across countries, data entry, analysis and write up of the report is led by ICRISAT

Nairobi. Lack of skilled socioeconomics support within the collaborating national programs also made it

difficult to enter, code and manage the data and lead the analysis at the local level. At the time of

reporting analysis and write up of baseline reports for Ethiopia and Malawi have been completed while

the analysis and report writing for the Tanzania dataset is underway.

3. Major findings

3.1 Household assets

In Ethiopia, the average farm size for the whole sample in the study areas are about 2.24 ha. The average

total land holding for the upper 25% of the sampled households is about 4.1 ha of which 3.8 ha is

cultivated land and 0.5 ha is a fallow land. For the lowest 25% of the sampled households, the average

land holding is 0.6 ha of which the share of fallow land is nil. Average number of plots owned by

sampled households’ amounts to 7.4, with an average size of 0.38 ha. The average farmland under rainfed

conditions is 1.99 ha whereas average irrigated land is negligible (0.02 ha).

Looking at the average livestock holding, sheep and oxen seem to be the highest with mean holding of 2.9

and 2.8, respectively. About 87% of the sampled respondents own house with iron roof whereas only

2.4% own house with stone wall. Only 2% own bicycle which suggest the inferior use of the item for

transporting purposes. About 77% of the sampled households own at least one radio whereas the

ownership of television is very minimal (1.3%). Only 6.1% of sampled households own mobile phone in

the survey regions.

In Malawi, the mean land holding size for the study area is very low: 1.1 hectares. The average land

holding for the upper 25% is 2.1 ha of which 1.9 ha is cultivated. Households in the lower two quartiles

do not practice fallowing due to smaller land sizes. Overall, about 90% of the land owned is cultivated

while about 10% of it is left under fallow.

Looking at livestock ownership, chickens (52%), goats (29%) and pigs (7%) are the predominant types of

livestock in the survey area. Using tropical livestock unit (TLU) as a unit of measurement, households in

6

Malawi have an average TLU per household of 0.37. About 46% of the farm households own a bicycle

while 54% of the households own a radio. Bicycles are one of the major means of transportation in

Malawi. They are used to transport goods as well as people. Very few own a mobile phone (5%) and

Television (3%). About 70% of the households have at least a house made from bricks. Only 26% of the

households dwell in houses with iron sheet roofs.

In Tanzania, the average total owned and operated land size amounts to 4.7 ha and 4.9 ha, respectively.

About 0.8 ha is used as fallow land. The average total own land under rainfed amounts to 4.69 ha whereas

the average own irrigated land only 0.13 ha suggesting the need to promote and invest in irrigation

technologies.

3.2 Area cultivated for legumes

In Ethiopia, the predominant legume crops grown include chickpea, field pea, faba bean, lentil and grass

pea. On average about 0.68 ha (which is about 28% of the total cultivated land) has been allocated to

legumes during 2006/07 cropping season of which chickpea take the lead with about 0.38 ha. Area

devoted to desi chickpea is on average about 0.22 ha which is slightly higher compared to kabuli types

(0.16 ha). The average area devoted to field pea and faba bean is the lowest among the legumes with

about 0.05 ha each. In terms of the proportion of farmers planting legumes during 2006/07 cropping

season, desi chickpea take the lead with about 54% followed by lentil (37%) and faba bean (34%). Kabuli

chickpea is grown by about 30% of the sample farmers during the same season. Looking at chickpea desi

and kabuli together, results suggest that about 65.7% of sampled farmers grow chickpea as a crop.

In Malawi, the prevalent legume crops grown include groundnuts, pigeonpea, chickpea and beans. The

average land allocated to groundnuts and pigeonpea is about 0.3 ha each but it is important to note that

these are often intercropped with other crops like maize. Chickpea and beans have the lowest area

coverage with 0.03 and 0.01 ha respectively. When it comes to the share of area allocated to different

crops, 17% and 15% of the total cultivated land is allocated to groundnuts and pigeonpea, respectively.

The proportion of farmers planting groundnuts during 2006/07 cropping season is the highest among

legume farmers followed by pigeonpea. For the sample as a whole, on average about 35% and 15% of

the sampled farmers planted groundnuts and pigeonpea during the same season, respectively.

However, the percentage of farmers growing groundnut or pigeonpea is much higher when one

considers the results by the growing regions.

7

3.3. Cropping pattern, input use, yield and returns

In Ethiopia, chickpea is grown in wheat and teff-based farming systems mainly through crop rotations

using the residual moisture at the end of the rainy season mainly on black soils. Hence, bread wheat and

teff are the first and second most common cereal crops produced among the sampled households in

survey regions. Desi chickpea is the third most popular crop produced by 53.6% of sampled households.

Bread wheat, kabuli chickpea and durum wheat are the top three crops.

Generally the average amount of fertilizer use on legume crops is low and only few farmers apply any

commercial fertilizers. From the total seed planted during 2006/07 cropping season the share of seed

purchased from the market is about 48.9% for kabuli chickpea while it is only 3.1% for desi chickpea.

The average seed rate for kabuli and desi chickpea amounts to 186.5 and 149.8 kg per ha which is

relatively higher than the recommended rate of maximum 140 kg per ha. About 70% of households use at

least some chemicals in crop production to control pests and diseases on chickpea. The average number

of ploughing for kabuli and desi chickpea amounts to 5.4 and 4.5, respectively whereas the frequency of

weeding for the same crops is about 2.4 and 1.6, respectively. The average labor demand is about 97

person days per ha for kabuli and 83 person days per ha for desi chickpea. The average yield for kabuli

chickpea is about 2.5 tons per ha whereas for desi chickpea it is about 1.9 tons per ha. Kabuli and desi

chickpea have the third and fourth highest gross margin after barley and teff in terms of returns to land

and management among all cultivated crops. When comparing against legumes, chickpea generally stands

out to be the crop with the highest gross margin. Kabuli and desi chickpea have a net-return of about ETB

75322 and ETB 7088 per ha while other legumes such as faba bean and lentil have a net-return of about

ETB 2681 and 4843, respectively.

Malawi is predominantly a maize country and, therefore, not surprising to note that over 90% of the

households planted maize in the 2006/07 cropping season. Groundnut is the second most frequently

cultivated crop (55%), while pigeonpea comes third and it is cultivated by 40% of the households in the

sample. Consistent with the distribution of households growing each crop, maize is allocated more land

(0.70 ha) followed by groundnuts (0.3 ha) and pigeonpea (0.3 ha). Yield results indicate that improved

varieties consistently exhibit higher yields than local varieties. The yield of maize is about 1129 kg/ha,

while the yield of groundnut and pigeonpea averaged 622 kg/ha and 355 kg/ha, respectively. About 85%

of the sampled households apply some chemical fertilizer to some of the crops they grow. Interestingly,

farmers also applied some fertilizer to legume crops (pigeonpea and groundnuts); however, these

quantities are likely to have come from fertilizer applied on maize intercrops. The average seeding density

2 During the time of the survey 1US$ = 9 Ethiopia Birr.

8

for groundnuts is 47 kg/ha (range from 14 kg/ha in Thyolo to 63 kg/ha in Mchinji). About 22% of the

groundnut seed is purchased. The average seed rate for pigeonpea is 13 kg/ha of which 19% is purchased

from local markets and the rest is recycled own saved seed. The results on gross margin analysis indicate

that tobacco is the most profitable crop with the highest average return of about MK 120,000/ha3.

Groundnut and maize have the second (about MK 30,000/ha) and third highest (MK 20,000/ha) average

return, respectively. Interestingly, pigeonpea remains one of the least profitable crops being cultivated.

3.4 Poverty profile

In Ethiopia, the average per capita household expenditure which includes food grains, livestock produce,

vegetables, beverages, clothing and social activities amount to about ETB 2164 for 2006/07 cropping

year. Out of the per capita expenditure, cash expenditure is ETB 819, while the rest, ETB 1346, is

consumption of commodities produced on the farm. The implication is that most food in rural areas of

Ethiopia is derived from own sources. The average annual household income is about ETB 16,797.

Income sources include crop income, livestock income, non-farm activities and wage income. Crop

income (including amount consumed at home) accounts for the largest share of 78%, followed by

livestock incomes of 15% and non-farm business activities of 6% of the total household income. This

indicates that livelihoods are predominantly dependent on crop production while the role of off-farm

income is very limited. The share of wage income is insignificant compared to other sources (0.8%).

When stratified by income quartiles, households in lower income quartiles have lower income shares

coming from crop production than households in higher income quartiles and this result is consistent

across all the three districts. Surprisingly no significant income disparity between male and female headed

households is observed in the study area. Among all the quartiles, the income of female headed

households is a bit higher than the male headed households. Using the international poverty line of 1 US$

per day, results show that about 77% of the sampled households are below the poverty line. The national

average poverty incidence using national poverty line of about US$ 0.45 per day is about 47% for rural

population. The poverty gap and poverty severity for the entire sample is estimated at about 0.12 and

0.04, respectively.

In Malawi, the average annual per capita expenditure for the sample is MK 9068, ranging from MK 8200

for Chiradzulu to MK 9971 for Mchinji district. A larger proportion of the cash expenditure is on

clothing, bedding and energy (25%). Subsequently, the expenditure on livestock products (22%),

vegetables and other food items (21%) are equally important. Interestingly, expenditure on food grains

only accounts for 18% of the cash expenditure. This can be attributed to the fact that most rural

3 During the time of the survey 1US$ = 140 Malawian Kwacha.

9

households consume what they produce. The average annual income for the sample households is MK

65582. Like in Ethiopia, crop income accounts for the largest share of 71% of the total household income

while non-farm income accounts for 16% of the household income. Wage income is the third major non-

farm income source for the study area accounting for 11.3% of the total household income while livestock

income is negligible, accounting for only 2.6%. Crop income accounts for 97% of the total income in the

households belonging to the lowest income quartile but declines to 59% in the highest income group.

Using a national poverty line of 0.3 US$ per day, results on poverty incidence indicate that about 70% of

the sampled households live below the poverty line. These poverty levels are much higher than the

national poverty rate of 55% reported by the National Statistics Office. Overall, more female-headed

households (77%) are poor compared to male- headed households (70%).

3.5. Technologies, production and marketing

3.5.1 Variety preference and adoption

In Ethiopia, the largest proportion of households receive information about kabuli varieties from

neighboring farmers (46.6%) while about 45% receive such information from government extension

services. The third most important source of information is farmer cooperative (26.1%). Neighboring

farmers also remain the major source of information (72.4%) for desi varieties. The improved kabuli

varieties arerti and shasho are known to 43.9% and 48% of farmers, respectively. While majority of the

farmers (98%) knew the local desi varieties, less than 5% were aware of the improved desi varieties. The

most widely grown improved variety among chickpea farmers remains shasho (20.6%) followed by ejere

(11.7%) and arerti (10%). The proportion of chickpea farmers who planted improved desi during 2007 is

less than 3% while about 76% planted the local desi. About 54.5% of the chickpea area is allocated to

local desi followed by shasho (21%) and ejere (11.9%). The potential demand for planting new varieties

is much higher than those who currently plant them – indicating problems in accessing seed. The major

reasons why some farmers never adopted the improved varieties was lack of access to seed and fear of

theft during greens stage. The third and fourth major reasons are related to shortage of land and lack of

cash to buy seed and/or lack of credit. Generally kabuli varieties are highly preferred by chickpea farmers

for their high economic return in addition to their grain color and size. Kabuli varieties perform superior

in terms of yield per ha compared to the desi types.

In Malawi, about 74% of the households are aware of at least one pigeonpea variety. The awareness rate

for improved pigeonpea varieties (ICP 9145 (released in 1987) and ICEAP 00040) is much lower. Of the

two improved varieties, ICEAP 00040 is the most widely known by 20% of the farmers while ICP9145 is

only known by 8% of the farmers. With regards to adoption, although more farmers expressed awareness

10

of pigeonpea, fewer indicated that they have ever grown the crop and much fewer grew the crop in

2007/2008 season. For local pigeonpea although 71% of the farmers know the crop, only 57% have ever

grown it and only 31% grew the crop in 2007/08 season. For Mthawajuni variety, 53% knew the crop,

48% indicated that they ever grew the crop, while 44% actually grew it in 2007/08. As for the improved

varieties, farmers are more aware of ICEAP 00040 (20%) and 18% have ever grown it but only 13% grew

it in 2007/08. In general the sample adoption rate of improved pigeonpea variety in Malawi is about 10%

however if the technology would have been universally known within the population, the potential

adoption rate is about 45%. There is about 35% adoption gap due to lack of awareness of improved

pigeonpea varieties that would justify investment in its further dissemination. As for groundnuts,

chalimbana is the most widely known variety (84%) followed by CG7 (53%) and manipintar (11%).

While 84% of the sample farmers are aware of chalimbana, only 69% have ever grown the variety and

only 43% grew chalimbana in 2007/08.

Farmers were also asked to give their reasons for not planting some of the varieties they knew. Aside

from the lack of awareness for some of the legume varieties seed is a major constraint to adoption. In

Malawi, about 60% of the farmers reported that they lacked seed for some of the groundnut and

pigeonpea varieties they knew but never planted. The second major reason for non-adoption of some of

the groundnut and pigeonpea varieties, reported by about one-fifth of the farmers was that the varieties

were low yielding. Related to the seed problem is the lack of cash to buy seed which was reported by

about 10% of the respondents. Among pigeonpea varieties, mthawajuni and ICEAP040 are the most

preferred varieties with overall rankings of 4.3 and 4.1, respectively. ICPL945 and local pigeonpea are

ranked last with an overall ranking of 3.8 each. The findings further indicate that most highly preferred

varieties are liked for the three key traits they exhibit as follows; high yielding, early maturity and short

time of cooking. Interestingly, mthawajuni, considered as a local variety, is highly preferred for its high

yield, as well as its early maturity and its shorter cooking time.

In Tanzania, although about 88% of the sample respondents grew pigeonpea during 2006/07 season, only

19% planted improved varieties. Area allocated under pigeonpea is about 1.54 ha whereas the average

area for improved ones is only 0.27 ha. The share of improved pigeonpea in total pigeonpea area in the

study areas is about 18%. Groundnut is grown by about 18% of the sampled farmers during 2006/07

cropping season and the average land allocated is about 0.97 ha.

3.5.2 Market participation and marketed surplus

In Ethiopia, about 37% and 64% of chickpea farmers have participated in the marketing of kabuli and desi

chickpea, respectively. Within the kabuli category, the proportion of chickpea farmers involved in

11

marketing of shasho variety is the highest followed by ejere type. Generally the proportion of chickpea

farmers involved in marketing is relatively high (about 82%) indicating the role of this crop as a source of

cash in the study area. The marketed surplus for kabuli chickpea is about 293.7 kg which is higher than

desi types (217 kg) and overall chickpea is the fourth in terms of quantity sold in markets. Durum wheat,

bread wheat and white teff are the first three crops with the highest market surplus during the 2006/07

cropping year. About 74% of the chickpea marketed surplus is sold in the main market which is about 5-

10 km from the farm. About 89% of chickpea producers used donkeys for transporting while about 15%

used public means to ship chickpea to the market. Urban grain traders are the first major buyers of

chickpea in all the three districts followed by rural traders and rural assemblers.

In Malawi, about 73% of the groundnut farmers participated in groundnuts marketing. Each of the

farmers sold an average amount of 137 kg of groundnuts. The degree of market participations appear to

vary with the type of variety grown. In general more than three-quarters of the farmers that planted

chalimbana2005 (improved variety), sold some of the produce while marketing of produce for farmers

that grew other varieties is slightly lower. Results for pigeonpea indicate that 91% of the pigeonpea

farmers sold some pigeonpea, and that only 29% of the pigeonpea produced is marketed. On average,

farmers sold about 71 kg of pigeonpea per year. The major mode of transport to market pigeonpea and

groundnuts is carrying on head or head-load and walking on foot (38%). However, the use of head load is

particularly more prevalent among pigeonpea farmers (50%) than among the groundnut producers (27%).

About a quarter of farmers that marketed their crop used the bicycle to transport their produce.

3.5.3 Seed supply system

Analysis of the baseline data from the target countries show the following key features in relation to the

basic characteristic and performance of seed system.

Ethiopia –chickpea: Farmers who planted chickpea varieties during 2006/07 cropping season were asked

where they source the seed and the corresponding quantity. The first major source of seed for arerti and

shasho varieties is own farm-saved recycled seed followed by producers groups. About 47% of those who

planted arerti and 50% of those who planted shasho used their own saved recycled seed whereas about

33% and 26% of those who planted the same variety sourced from producer marketing groups or

cooperatives. Own saved recycled seed again played a vital source of seed for chefe (77%), worku (77%)

and local desi (84%) varieties while producer marketing groups also contribute for ejere types (33%). The

third and fourth important source of seed for most kabuli and desi varieties is local seed producer and

local trader, respectively. A relatively small share of sampled farmers also sourced seed through farmer-

to-farmer exchange and extension demonstration plots. The quantity of seed sourced from own saved is

12

the highest for most varieties of kabuli and desi chickpea. On average farmers obtained about 48 kg of

shasho, 46 kg of ejere, 39 kg of worku and 45 kg of local desi from own saved seeds during the 2006/07

cropping season. Producer marketing groups and/or cooperatives are the second major sources of seed

especially for kabuli varieties.

Malawi-groundnut: for groundnut about 63% of the seed used comes from own farm-saved recycled

seed. Some 57% of the farmers depend on this source. About 16% of the seed is bought from local seed

markets while about 18% comes from informal farmer-to-farmer seed exchange. About 24% of the

farmers bought seed from local markets. The average amount bought from different sources ranges from 7

to 8 kg. The amount received through informal seed exchanges range from 1 kg to 40 kg with an average

of 14.8 kg. About 16.7% of the farmers rely on these informal sources.

Malawi-pigeonpea: for pigeonpea about 70% of the seed used comes from own farm-saved recycled

seed. About 74% of the farmers depend on this source. About 20% of the seed is bough from local seed

markets while about 11% comes from informal farmer-to-farmer seed exchange. About 17% of the

farmers bought seed from local markets. The average amount bought from different sources ranges

between 3 to 6 kg. The amount received through informal seed exchanges range from 1 kg to 10 kg with

an average of 4.7 kg.

Generally the survey results from all study countries reveal two main seed supply systems for the three

target legumes (pigeonpea, groundnut and chickpea). They are the informal non-market based seed supply

systems and the quasi-formal, mainly market-based seed supply systems. The informal seed supply

sources included own saved seed; gifts from family and friends; farmer-to-farmer seed exchanges and

others (e.g. donations by NGOs, government agencies, farmer groups/cooperatives, research demo/PVS

plots etc.). Across both the target crops and countries, most of smallholder producers got seed from the

informal sources especially the own recycled seed normally referred to as own saved seed. Similarly, by

extension, these informal seed sources accounted again for the highest proportion of the total amount of

seed planted by the farmers in the survey sample. In general these findings are consistent with earlier

expectation that informal seed sources are the most important sources of legume seeds in the surveyed

communities. The importance of quasi-formal or market based channels increases with the availability of

new farmer-preferred varieties which creates incentives for the emergence of markets and trade in the

supply of the new seeds.

The observed low private sector participation in the seed systems may indicate the need for stronger

public support for legume seed production at least in the early stage until demand for is high to attract

private sector seed companies. The high cost of exclusion (low excludability) resulting from the potential

13

for using saved or recycled seed, renders investments in legumes seed systems unprofitable and hence

discouraging the private sector from investing in legume seed production.

4. Monitoring and evaluation

With the completion of the baseline report, it has become important to develop mechanisms for project

monitoring and evaluation. Each of the different Objective components of the project have already

development impact pathways outlining the roadmap for translating activities into measureable outputs,

which in turn lead to desirable outcomes and ultimately into impacts of the project over the long term.

Enhancing attribution and project effectiveness in meting desired goals would require steps for process

evaluation and impact assessment. Process evaluation will aim to determine to what extent the project has

been implemented as planned and identify operation and strategic lessons for smooth implementation.

Monitoring will involve description and measurement of observed outcomes along defined metrics agreed

a priori. The baseline data collected is an important monitoring tool for establishing benchmarks and

measuring progress against selected impact indicators. The key indicators for impact – both qualitative

and quantitative- are being developed.

Impact evaluation will aim to measure the project’s success in achieving stated objectives using a

counterfactual. While process evaluation requires careful description and monitoring of activities and

outcomes, impact evaluation requires measurement of tangible indicators affected by the program and

how this differs from the situation without interventions (counterfactual). The propensity score matching

(PSM) method is being developed to identify a matched sample of non-adopters (a comparator group

having similar characteristics as adopters) among the baseline households which will serve as a

counterfactual. Using the baseline survey from the same target areas, this approach allows identifying

valid comparator group of households (counterfactuals) sharing the same characteristics and probability

of adoption of new technologies. This methodology is being developed and has been tested with data

from Uganda for groundnuts.

14

List of tables showing major finding for Malawi and Ethiopia baseline survey

A. Malawi

Table 1. Fragmentation of plots and land ownership

Chiradzulu Thyolo Balaka Mchinji Total

Number of plots 3 3.6 4.4 2.9 3.5

Average plot size (ha) 0.32 0.27 0.26 0.50 0.34

Tenure status

- Total owned (ha) 0.82 0.86 1.06 1.44 1.05

- Total rented in (ha) 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.06

- Total own irrigated (ha) 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.02

- Total own rainfed (ha) 0.79 0.83 1.05 1.41 1.03

15

Table 2.

Crop

choice,

area

planted

and

technolo

gy

adoption

Crops

Hholds growing

crop (%)

Area

planted (ha)

% total crop area

allocated to improved

varieties

Maize 93.3 0.69 40.2

Groundnut 54.7 0.30 35.3

Pigeonpea 40.4 0.29 14.5

Tobacco 14.3 0.06 96.5

Cotton 7.6 0.05 93.3

Cassava 7.2 0.05 29.5

Sorghum 6.4 0.05 15.8

Sweet potatoes 4.0 0.02 56.3

Chickpea 3.9 0.03 13.8

Beans 2.0 0.01 58.3

Rice 2.0 0.00 66.7

16

Table 3. Crop yields (kg/ha), 2006/07

Crops Chiradzulu Thyolo Balaka Mchinji Total

Maize 949 1205 1093 1432 1177

Groundnut 443 258 671 722 610

Pigeonpea 368 468 372 - 389

Tobacco 796 465 1087 855 844

Cotton - - 673 - 673

Cassava 3721 330 1611 1094 846

Sorghum 190 59 - - 117

Sweet potatoes 486 1533 2597 - 1475

Chickpea 255 199 - - 232

Beans 222 638 - 1328 1079

17

Rice 1597 247 887 494 979

18

Table 4. Groundnut and pigeonpea area planted and technology adoption

Crops Chiradzulu Thyolo Balaka Mchinji Total

Groundnuts

Hholds growing crop (%) 28.9 29.2 70.1 89.6 54.7

Area planted (ha) 0.12 0.19 0.39 0.51 0.30

% area allocated to improved

varieties 13.6 58.7 26.7 41.3 35.3

Pigeonpea

Hholds growing crop (%) 44.1 34 86.1 0 40.4

Area planted (ha) 0.28 0.25 0.69 NA 0.29

% area allocated to improved

varieties 3.0 15.5 20 NA 14.5

19

Fig. 1 Relative gross income and net returns (Kwacha/ha)- accounting for family

labour

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Mai

ze

Gro

un

dn

ut

Pig

eon

pea

To

bac

co

Co

tto

n

Cas

sava

So

rgh

um

Sw

eet

po

tato

es

Bea

ns

Ric

e

Th

ou

san

ds

Gross income Variable cost Return to land and management

Fig 2. Sources of variety information (%)

74

86

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Go

ve

rnm

en

t

Fa

rme

r c

lub

NG

O

Re

se

arc

h

Sto

ck

ist

An

oth

er

farm

er

Ra

dio

/TV

Pa

ren

ts

Groundnut Pigeonpea

20

Table 5. Adoption of pigeonpea and groundnuts varieties (%)

Know the variety

(awareness % of

all farmers)

Ever Planted (%

of all hhs)

Ever Planted

(% hh aware)

Planted in 06/07

(% of all)

Pigeonpea 40

ICEAP 040 (Kachangu) 20 18 86 8

ICPL 9145 (Sauma) 8 6 76 4

Nthawa June 54 48 90 33

Local pigeonpea 72 57 79 21

Groundnuts 55

CG 7 53 38 72 21

Chalimbana 84 69 82 37

Manipintar 11 9 83 2

Chalimbana 2005 9 8 91 5

Kalisere 5 5 100 2

ICGV-90704 (Nsinjiro) 3 3 79 1

ICG 12991 (Baka) 3 2 50 0

JL 24 (Kakoma) 2 1 55 1

21

Table 6. Cropping pattern of Pigeonpea varieties (%)

Varieties

Growers (% of total

sample farmers)

Pigeonpea farmers

growing the variety (%)

Area allocated (% total

pigeonpea area)

ICEAP 040 (Kachangu) 8 19 9

ICPL 9145 (Sauma) 4 10 6

Nthawa June 33 82 52

Local pigeonpea 21 53 33

All pigeonpea 40 100 100

Table 7. Cropping pattern of groundnut varieties (%)

Varieties Growers (% of total

sample farmers)

Groundnut farmers

growing the variety

(%)

Area allocated

(% total

groundnut area)

CG 7 21 38 27

Chalimbana 37 68 53

Manipintar 2 7 7

Chalimbana 2005 5 9 7

Kalisere 2 4 3

ICGV-90704 (Nsinjiro) 1 2 1

JL 24 (Kakoma) 1 2 1

22

All groundnut 55 100 100

Table 8. Market participation and marketed surplus for pigeonpea and

groundnuts

Crops / varieties

Market participation

(% of growers)

Marketed

surplus (kg/hh)

% sold

Pigeonpea

ICEAP 040 (Kachangu) 39 29 16

ICPL 9145 (Sauma) 46 34 23

Nthawa June 55 44 26

Local pigeon pea 55 47 52

Groundnuts

CG 7 56 80 29

Chalimbana 2005 77 139 60

Chalimbana 58 87 35

ICGV-90704 (Nsinjiro) 67 162 33

ICG 12991 (Baka) 67 93 12

Kalisere 60 154 45

Manipintar 61 83 28

23

B. Ethiopia

Table 1. Fragmentation of plots and land ownership

Gimbichu Lume-Ejere Minjar-

Shenkora Total

Number of plots 7.30 8.39 6.22 7.38

Average plot size (ha) 0.38 0.36 0.39 0.38

Tenure status

- Total owned (ha) 2.33 2.56 1.79 2.24

- Total operated (ha) 2.73 2.67 2.03 2.45

- Total own irrigated (ha) 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.02

- Total own rainfed (ha) 1.93 2.20 1.76 1.99

24

Table 2. Crop choice, area planted and technology adoption

Crops Hholds growing crop (%)

Area planted (ha) % total crop area allocated to improved varieties

Kabuli chickpea 30.43 0.16 42.55

Desi chickpea 53.57 0.22 3.11

Field pea 17.57 0.04 2.26

Faba bean 33.86 0.06 0.43

Lentil 36.71 0.14 30.83

Grass pea (guaya) 22.00 0.06 3.03

White teff 66.86 0.54 1.31

Red teff 38.43 0.16 2.30

Bread wheat 94.00 0.79 36.02

Barley 38.29 0.08 3.43

Maize 25.29 0.03 1.49

25

Fig 1. Relative gross income and net returns (Birr/ha)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Ka

bu

li

De

si

Fie

ld p

ea

Fa

ba

be

an

Le

ntil

Gg

ua

ya

Wh

ite te

ff

Re

d te

ff

Bre

ad

wh

ea

t

Gross income Variable cost Return to land and management

26

Fig. 2. Household income by income quartile (Jan – Dec 2007)

Household income (Birr/year) by quartile

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

Lowest

Second

Third

Highest

Lowest

Second

Third

Highest

Mal

e-he

aded

hous

ehol

ds

(N=

651)

Fem

ale-

head

ed

hous

ehol

ds (

N=

49)

27

Fig 3. Sources of variety information

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Gov

ernm

ent e

xten

sion

Farmer c

oope

rativ

e

NG

O

Rese

arch c

entre

See

d/gr

ain

stoc

kies

t

Ano

ther

farm

er/ ne

ighb

our

Radi

o/ne

wsp

aper/T

V

Pro

ducer m

arketin

g gro

ups (P

MG

)

Family

Rela

tives

PercentKabuli varieties

Desi varieties

28

Table 3. Adoption of chickpea varieties, % of growing households

Know the variety

(awareness)

Ever planted Planted in

Aug/Sep 07

Kabuli

- Areti 43.8 16.71 10.09

- Shasho 48 27.57 20.56

- Chefe 6.43 2.29 1.31

- Ejeri 25 14.29 15.33

Desi

- Marye 3 1 0.94

- Worku 2.71 1.57 1.31

- Akaki 0.71 0.43 0.37

- Dubie 1.86 0.86 0.37

- Local 97.86 92 76.03

29

Table 4. Cropping pattern of chickpea varieties (%)

Varieties Growers (% of total sample farmers)

Chickpea farmers growing the variety

Area allocated (% total chickpea area)

Kabuli

- Areti 7.71 10.09 8.77

- Shasho 15.71 20.56 21.15

- Chefe 1.00 1.31 1.00

- Ejere 11.71 15.33 11.93

Desi

- Improved 3.29 4.30 2.73

- Local 51.29 67.10 54.42

Table 5. On-farm crop yields (kg/ha) by variety, 2006/07

Varieties Gimbichu Lume-Ejere Minjar-Shenkora Total

Areti 2710.0 3538.0 3055.5 3112.6

Shasho 2390.5 2943.3 1666.7 2873.3

Chefe 3175.0 1266.7 2880.0 2272.9

Ejere 1688.9 2702.7 4824.2 2950.2

Improved desi 1814.3 2169.2 1400.0 1960.9

Local 2236.7 2137.1 2065.0 2142.9

30

Fig 4. Farmers' Scoring of Chickpea Varieties (5=Very Good)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Yield

Dro

ught

Disea

sePes

t

Ear

lines

s

Pro

d co

st

Uni

form

ity

Col

or

Size

Pric

e

Coo

king

tim

e

Taste

Ove

rall sc

ore

Sc

ore

Areti Shasho Chefe Ejerie Marye Worku Local Desi

31

Table 6. Market participation and marketed surplus

Crops / varieties

Market participation (%)

Marketed surplus (kg)

% sold in main market

Areti 6.29 47.7 7.49

Shasho 16.71 177.31 21.92

Chefe 1 3.91 0.49

Ejeri 7.71 64.79 9.07

Improved Desi 1.29 3.29 0.63

All improved 33 297 39.6

Local Desi 47.43 214.28 35.18

All chickpea 80.43 511.28 74.78

Field pea 44.72 114.48 82.74

Faba bean 45.99 90.67 72.99

Lentil 83.28 426.77 76.46

Grass pea (guaya) 70.78 206.94 68.15