1

Institutions, Markets, Policy and Impacts

Characterizing village economies in major groundnut producing countries

in West Africa: Cases of Mali, Niger and Nigeria

J. Ndjeunga, A. Ibro, Y. Cisse, Ben Ahmed, I Miko, A Moutari, A. Abdoulaye, O. Kodio,

SG Mohammed and CA Echekwu

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

Working Paper Series no. XXXX

2

About the authors

J. Ndjeunga, Agricultural Economist, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-

Arid Tropics, BP. 12404 Niamey, Niger

A. Ibro, Scientific Officer (Agricultural Economist), International Crops Research Institute

for the Semi-Arid Tropics, BP. 12404 Niamey, Niger

Y. Cisse, Agricultural Economist, ECOFIL, Institut d’Economie Rurale (IER), BP 258

Bamako, Mali.

B. Ahmed, Agricultural Economist, Professor at Ahmadu Bello University. Institute of

Agricultural Research (IAR/ABU); PO Box 1044 Samaru, Zaria, Kaduna, Nigeria.

I Miko, Agronomist, the Institut National de Recherche Agronomique du Niger (INRAN),

PO Box 429, Niamey, Niger

A. Moutari, Legume Breeder, the Institut National de Recherche Agronomique du Niger

(INRAN), PO Box 429, Niamey, Niger

A. Abdoulaye, Scientific Officer (Computer Analyst), International Crops Research

Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, BP. 12404 Niamey, Niger

O. Kodio, Agronomist, the Institut d’Economie Rurale (IER), Kayes, mali (c/o BP 258,

Bamako, Mali)

S G. Mohammed. Lecturer (Groundnut breeder), Bayero State University of Kano, Kano,

Nigeria

C.A. Echeckwu, Groundnut breeder, Professor at Ahmadu Bello University. Institute of

Agricultural Research (IAR/ABU); Samaru, Zaria, Kaduna, Nigeria

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of tables .................................................................................................................... 5

List of figures ................................................................................................................... 7

Acronyms and abbreviations ........................................................................................... 8

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 9

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... 12

I - Introduction .............................................................................................................. 13

II - Description of the study area – Infrastructure and production environment in Mali,

Niger and Nigeria .......................................................................................................... 15

III – Groundnut project and programmes in survey sites in West and Central Africa ...... 18

IV – Methodology and sampling frame .......................................................................... 21

4.1 - Sampling procedure and data collection ............................................................. 21

V – Results and discussions............................................................................................ 22

5.1 – Livelihood assets .............................................................................................. 23

5.1.1 – Human assets ............................................................................................. 23

5.1.2 – Natural and physical assets ......................................................................... 25

Land assets ........................................................................................................ 26

Agricultural equipment and animal traction........................................................ 27

5.1.3 - Durable assets owned by households........................................................... 30

5.1.4 - Social assets (institutional affiliation, contacts and social networks) ........... 33

5.1.5 - Financial assets ........................................................................................... 36

Sources of credit contracted by households ........................................................ 36

Collateral supplied by borrowers ........................................................................ 37

Loan amount and interest rate ............................................................................ 40

Use of credit contracted by households .............................................................. 41

5.2 – Household market participation and transactions in 2007/08 ............................. 43

5.2.1. – Market participation .................................................................................. 43

5.2.2 - Agricultural products .................................................................................. 45

5.2.3 - Livestock trade in 2007/08 .......................................................................... 50

5.2.4 - Factors determining groundnut market participation and the degree of

participation........................................................................................................... 56

5.2.5 – Household crop production and importance of crops by value of agricultural

crop production...................................................................................................... 56

5.3. Exposure and Use of improved groundnut varieties in 2007/08 ........................... 58

5.3.1 – Knowledge of improved varieties ............................................................... 59

5.3.2- Sources of first Information on improved groundnut varieties ...................... 60

5.3.3 - Use of improved varieties in Mali, Niger and Nigeria (2007/08) ................. 62

5.3.4 - Seed sources and transactions ..................................................................... 66

5.7 - Groundnut production systems, cropping patterns and input use ........................ 67

5.7.1 – Characteristics of plots used by households ................................................ 67

5.7.2. Farmers’ perception of soil fertility and production ...................................... 73

5.7.3 - Use of inputs at plot level ........................................................................... 74

5.7.4 - Productivity at plot levels ........................................................................... 76

5.8 - Food security and income indicators .................................................................. 77

5.8.1 – Food security ............................................................................................. 77

4

5.8.2 - Income indicators ....................................................................................... 80

VI. Conclusions and implications .................................................................................... 83

References .................................................................................................................... 85

Annexes ........................................................................................................................ 87

5

List of tables

Table 1. Distribution of HHs/UPAs surveyed by country and region in Mali, Niger and

Nigeria ................................................................................................................... 22

Table 2. Household socio-demographic profile in Mali, Niger and Nigeria ..................... 23

Table 3. Characteristics of household heads in Mali, Niger and Nigeria in 2007/08 ........ 24

Table 4. Land stocks (ha) by types owned by households in Mali, Niger and Nigeria in

2007/08 ................................................................................................................. 26

Table 5. Proportion of household owning at least one type of agricultural equipment or

animal traction in 2007/08 .................................................................................... 27

Table 6. Average number of livestock owned and proportion of household owning at

least one type of animal in Mali, Niger and Nigeria in 2007/08 .............................. 30

Table 7. Proportion of Households owning at least one type of durable assets and

average value of durable assets in Mali in 2007/08................................................ 31

Table 8. Proportion of households owning at least one type of durable assets and

average value of durable assets in Niger in 2007/08 .............................................. 32

Table 9. Proportion of Households owning at least one type of durable assets and

average value of durable assets in Nigeria ............................................................. 32

Table 10. Proportion of households having at least one member affiliated to one of

these institutions ................................................................................................... 33

Table 11. Contacts and social networks in Mali in 2007/08 ............................................ 34

Table 12. Purpose of visits of members of households .................................................. 35

Table 13. Proportion and amount of credit contracted by source by households who

contracted loans in 2008/09 .................................................................................. 36

Table 14. Type of guarantee/collateral supplied by households .................................... 38

Table 15. Type of credit and credit transactions ............................................................ 39

Table 16. Amount requested, amount contracted, balance and credit duration (months)

.............................................................................................................................. 40

Table 17. Use of credit by households and proportion of the amount used for

consumption and investment in Mali in 2007/08 ................................................... 41

Table 18. Use of credit by households and proportion of the amount used for

consumption and investment in Niger in 2007/08 ................................................. 41

Table 19. Use of credit by households and proportion of the amount used for

consumption and investment in Nigeria in 2007/08 ............................................... 42

Table 20. Classes of loan maturity duration in Mali, Niger and Nigeria .......................... 43

Table 21. Proportion of households net sellers, net buyers and in autarky of agricultural

products ................................................................................................................ 43

Table 22. Quantity (kg) and value of crop sale (FCFA or Naira) ....................................... 45

Table 23. Proportion of total cash sales by crop in Mali, Niger and Nigeria .................... 46

Table 24. Quantity purchased (kg) and amount of food expenditures (FCFA) ................ 47

Table 25. Proportion (%) of expenditures by crop in the 3 countries in 2007/08 ............ 48

Table 26. Major buyers of agricultural products ............................................................ 49

Table 27. Number and value of livestock heads sold by Households in Mali, Niger and

Nigeria ................................................................................................................... 50

6

Table 28. Proportion of cash sale generated by type of animal in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

in 2007/08 ............................................................................................................. 51

Table 29. Major livestock buyers in Mali, Niger and Nigeria ........................................... 52

Table 30. Number and value of livestock heads purchased in Mali, Niger and Nigeria ... 52

Table 31. Proportion of expenditures on livestock purchase by type of animal in Mali,

Niger and Nigeria ................................................................................................... 53

Table 32. Proportion of groundnut sold in alternative markets in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

(2008) .................................................................................................................... 55

Table 33. Crop production and value of the crop production in Mali, Niger and Nigeria 56

Table 34. Share of crop in the total value of agricultural production (2007/08) ............. 57

Table 35. Proportion of Households having known and tested improved groundnut

varieties in Mali, Niger and Nigeria in 2007/08 ...................................................... 59

Table 36. Sources of first information on groundnut varieties in Niger (% UPA) ............. 61

Table 37. Sources of first information on groundnut varieties in Nigeria (% UPA) .......... 62

Table 38. Area planted and proportion of Households having planted groundnut

varieties in Mali (2007/08) ..................................................................................... 62

Table 39. Proportion of farmers having planted groundnut varieties in Niger (2007/08)63

Table 40. Proportion of farmers having planted groundnut varieties in Nigeria (2007/08)

.............................................................................................................................. 64

Table 41. Constraints to adoption of modern varieties in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

(2007/08) .............................................................................................................. 65

Table 42. Alternative sources of seed of varieties planted / adopted in Mali, Niger and

Nigeria (2007/08) .................................................................................................. 66

Table 43. Groundnut seed transaction in the 3 countries .............................................. 67

Table 44. Groundnut plot characteristics in Mali (2007/08) ........................................... 68

Table 45. Groundnut plot characteristics in Niger (2007/08) ......................................... 68

Table 46. Groundnut plot characteristics in Nigeria (2007/08) ....................................... 69

Table 47. Soil type ......................................................................................................... 70

Table 48 . Major crops planted in association/intercrop with groundnut ....................... 71

Table 49. Previous crops of groundnut .......................................................................... 72

Table 50. Farmer perception on 2007-08 production..................................................... 73

Table 51. Farmers’ perception on the soil fertility on their plots .................................... 73

Table 52. Average groundnut seed quantity (kg) used by household ............................ 74

Table 53. Use of fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and manure (% households) ........... 75

Table 54. Costs of inputs used by farmers in 2007/08 .................................................. 75

Table 55. Groundnut production (kg) and yield (kg/ha) ................................................. 76

Table 56. Major reasons for getting low production in 2007/08 .................................... 77

Table 57. Proportion of Households experiencing cereal self-insufficiency in Mali, Niger

and Nigeria ............................................................................................................ 78

Table 58. Major factors causing food security problems in Mali, Niger and Nigeria ....... 78

Table 59. Survival and coping strategies in Mali, Niger and Nigeria to resolve food

security problems .................................................................................................. 79

Table 60. Alternative off-farm sources of revenue of households in Niger in 2007/08 ... 80

Table 61. Household revenues ($US) ............................................................................. 82

7

List of figures

Figure 1. Selected villages for the baseline studies in Mali, Niger and Nigeria ................ 17

8

Acronyms and abbreviations

ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

IER Institut d’Economie Rurale

INRAN Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique du Niger

IAR Institute of Agricultural Research

ECOFIL Economie des Filières

KNARDA Kano Area Development Programme Authority

KTARDA Katsina Area Development Programme Authority

JARDA Jigawa Area Development Programme Authority

CILSS Comite Inter-Etat de Lutte contre la Secheresse au Sahel

TLII Tropical Legumes II

WCA West and Central Africa

UNCC Union Nationale des Cooperatives C.

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NARES National Agricultural Research and Extension Systems

DNSI Direction Nationale de la Statistique et de l’Informatique

GSP Groundnut Seed Project

HDI Human Development Index

ICGV ICRISAT Groundnut variety

FDRS Foliar Disease Resistant S ?

SAMNUT Samaru Nuts

9

Summary

This report summarizes the results from the baseline survey of households in 3

countries in West and Central Africa mainly Mali, Niger and Nigeria in West and Central

Africa. Thirty-six villages were selected for the baseline survey in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

of which 18 were the Tropical Legumes II (TL II) program villages and 18 were non-

program villages. A total of 792 households were interviewed with 166 in Mali, 348 in

Niger and 278 in Nigeria. Data were collected on socio-economic and demographic

profile of households, diffusion pathways, knowledge and information on varieties,

sources of first information on varieties, household livelihood assets, and access to

credit markets, market participation and input/output data.

Groundnut remains the major source of rural livelihood for smallholder farmers in the

surveyed areas. Survey results indicate that groundnut is planted on about 36% of total

cultivated area in Mali, 15% in Niger and 34% of cultivated area in Nigeria. Groundnut

contributes to 64% of household cash revenues in Mali, 66% in Niger and 54% in Nigeria.

It accounts for 28% of the total value of crop production in Mali, 31% in Niger and 23%

in Nigeria. No statistical differences were found between program and non-program

villages.

Groundnut market participation is very high in the surveyed sites. Many households

sell groundnut in Niger and Mali and many purchase groundnuts in Nigeria. In Mali, 46%

of households are net sellers with no differences between program and non-program

sites. In Niger, about 79% of households are net sellers of groundnut with high rates in

program versus non-program sites. In Nigeria, 72% of households are net buyers of

groundnut with significantly more households buying groundnut in program versus non-

program sites. Households are net sellers of cowpea for 8% in Mali, 24% in Niger and 7%

in Nigeria. In the 3 countries, market participation in other crops is also important. In

Mali, about 30% and 40% of households are buying rice and sorghum respectively with

no differences between non-program and program sites. Poor millet is thinly traded and

farmers live as in autarky. In Niger, 39 and 42% of households are net buyers of maize

and pearl millet respectively. In Nigeria, households are net buyers of most of the

agricultural products. Marketable surpluses are estimated to

Groundnut variety uptake in surveyed sites is estimated to less than 5% except in the

Dosso region in Niger where this is estimated to 24%. Survey results showed that about

40% of groundnut area is planted with the variety 47-10 and in Niger and 47% of area is

planted with the variety 55-437. In Nigeria, the variety ex-Dakar i.e. 55-437 is planted on

41% of groundnut area. These varieties are ruling varieties introduced at colonial times

in 1950s. The area covered by modern varieties bred or adapted less than 30 years ago

is small. In Mali, modern groundnut varieties (ICGV 86124, JL 24, ICGV 86015, ICG

(FDRS)4 and ICG(FDRS) 10 and Fleur 11) Waliyartiga, introduced during the Groundnut

Germplasm Project (GGP) in 1996 and promoted during the Groundnut Seed Project

(GSP) have not yet being largely taken up by farmers and are planted on about 3% of

10

groundnut area. In Niger, in the Dosso region, several varieties were introduced during

the GGP project and promoted during the GSP project including TS 32-1, RRB, etc have

relatively well adopted with 24% of area planted mostly with RRB. In Nigeria, similar

trends are observed. Improved varieties bred, adapted and introduced (SAMNUT 21,

SAMNUT 22 and SAMNUT 23) during the last 30 years are adopted in less than 6% of

groundnut area. No significant differences were found between program and non-

program sites. The major constraints to using improved have been reported by farmers

to be the non-availability of seed for 83% in Mali, 60% in Niger and 56% in Nigeria. Lack

of cash was cited as a major constraint in Niger and Nigeria. Low grain and haulm yields,

lack of information on crop management, fitness in association, and undesirable color

were also cited as the major constraints in Nigeria.

The use of other inputs (credit, inorganic and organic fertilizers) remains limited in

surveyed areas. Groundnut production requires a larger amount of inputs such as seed,

fertilizers and labor. Credit is required to access these required inputs. Survey results

showed 46% of households have access to formal and informal sources of credit against

43% in Niger and 9% in Nigeria. The average contracted amount is about US$76 in Mali

and $77 in Niger less than the amount needed to purchase one bag of fertilizers or seed

to be planted on a hectare of groundnut. In Nigeria however, this is estimated to

US$500 in Nigeria. The average interest rates on contracted loans are estimated to 24%

in Mali, 11% in Niger and 15% in Nigeria. Most households contract loans for

consumption purposes. In Mali, about 21% of the contracted amount is used for input

purchase, about 30% in Niger and about 25% in Nigeria.

The use of inorganic fertilizers on groundnut fields is limited in Mali and Niger. In fact,

fertilizers are applied to about 2.26% of plots grown by households in Mali and 16% in

Niger. In Nigeria, the use of fertilizers is high estimated to about 61% of the groundnut

plots. Likewise, the use of organic fertilizers is also limited. In Mali, about 14% of

groundnut plots received organic fertilizers, 18% in Niger and 41% in Nigeria. The use of

hired labor is relatively high. In Niger, farmers use hired labor in 26% of the groundnut

plots, 43% in Niger and 67% in Nigeria. Pesticides are widely used in the 3 countries.

However, the intensities of inputs used are very small. On average, farmers use less than

US$20 /ha of inputs in Mali, US$21 in Mali and US$123 in Nigeria.

Groundnut is a woman’s crop in some countries in West Africa. In Mali, 85% of

private/individual belongs to women and 35% in Niger. In Nigeria there is little

participation of women in groundnut production activities. However, women are largely

involved in local groundnut processing activities. There were no differences based on

program and non-program villages.

Households source planting seed from past harvests, village markets, other farmers,

family and parents. In Mali, 80% of the farmers get seed from past harvests, 9% buy

seed from the village markets, 6% from seed traders and about 8% from friends and

parents. In Niger, 86% of the households draw their planting seed from past harvests,

11

7% from village markets, 4% from seed traders and 7% from friends and parents. In

Nigeria, similar trends are observed. Seventy-one (71%) percent of households source

their planting seed from past harvests, 21% from seed traders, 5% from extension

services, and 10% from family and parents. Households have little access to seed of the

varieties released less than 20 years ago.

12

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support from the Tropical legumes II

programme (TL II) implemented by ICRISAT and partners in West Africa. The

contribution of the Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR), Nigeria, the Institut National

de Recherche Agronomique du Niger (INRAN), Niger and the Institut d’Economie Rurale

(IER), Mali in the survey design and implementation are greatly appreciated.

We acknowledge the contribution from numerous key informants or resource persons

in the research and development continuum. These include Dr Sanussi Mohammed

(Groundnut breeder and Professor at Bayero State University) in Kano, Nigeria; staff of

the Area Development Programmes (ADPs) in Nigeria (KNARDA (Mr Awulu Usman, Mr

Balarabe Shehu), JARDA (Mr Ahmed Ahmed, Mr Husaini Abubakar, Mr Ishaq Abullahi,

Mr Haruna Usman and Mr Gado Ibrahim Aliyu) and KTARDA (Mr Abashe Saidou).

We are indebted to all the farmers in the 3 states of Nigeria mainly Katsina, Kano, and

Jigawa, the region of Dosso in Niger and the regions of Koulikoro and Kayes in Mali who

tirelessly responded to our questions and enlightened us on the importance of

groundnut in their livelihoods. The assistance of Rahamatou Mahamane Hambali and

other data entry operators in entering and cleaning the data is appreciated.

13

I - Introduction

Groundnut production, marketing and trade are still the major sources of employment,

income and foreign exchange in many West African countries. Until the mid-1970s,

groundnut contributed between about 15% and 40% of gross domestic production in

Senegal and Gambia respectively. With the exception of Nigeria and Sudan, groundnut

exports provided between 40% to 90% of export revenues of West African countries

during the 1960s and the early 1970s (Kinteh and Badiane 1990).

Groundnut production in West and Central Africa averaged about 7,306 million t in

shells in 2004-08. This represents about 78% of Africa’s production and about 20% of

world production (Ndjeunga et al. 2010). Since 1961, production has been increasing

with an annual growth rate of 1.34%. Groundnut yield in West and central Africa is low

with yield estimated to 1,081 kg/ha below the world average of 1,582 kg/ha. This

represents about one-third of the yield in China estimated to 3,143 kg/ha in 2004-2008.

Nigeria and Senegal are the largest producers accounting together for about 41% of

total African production (FAOSTAT, 2010).

West and Central Africa lost its world production share, which dropped from 27% in

1961-65 to 20% in 2004-08. However, groundnut remains the most important source of

vegetable oils and fats in the sub-region. The development of other competing sources

of oils is becoming important. Soybean (Glycine max) production grew by an annual rate

of 9.11% during 1984-2008 to reach an average of 620,396 tons annually in 2004-2008.

Similarly, sesame (Sesamum indicum) production grew by 5.77% since 1984. Sesame is

also a potential oil seed crop that could serve as second crop in a sequential cropping

system (as in some mono-modal rainfall regions). Its versatility in the local diet renders

it a promising oilseed crop. Cotton (Gossypium spp) seed production is increasing faster

than groundnut. Groundnut and cotton must also compete for land and farm labor.

Given the prospects in the fiber market, the relatively well developed product markets

for cotton, and drought-tolerant character of the crop, cotton production is likely to be

a competitive force to reckon with for the groundnut sector (Ndjeunga et al. 2010).

Groundnut oil prices have fluctuated widely over time with peak in 1981 and 1987. This

variability is partially due to the thinnest of markets; and also to climatic conditions,

policy shocks, or structural changes in these countries. Another factor is substitutability.

Relative to substitutes such as soybean or palm oil, the price of groundnut oil is more

than double. Similarly groundnut meal prices have fluctuated significantly for almost the

same reasons. However, the relative price of meal is lower than that of substitutes,

making it more competitive than soybean meal for example.

Groundnut production has suffered major setbacks from the groundnut rosette

epidemics and foliar diseases, aflatoxin contamination and lack of sufficient and

consistent supply of seed of improved varieties. This has significantly affected

14

productivity and thus production and subsequently led West and Central Africa to lose

its share in the domestic, regional and international markets. To regain its

competitiveness, groundnut yield would have to increase substantially, using yield

enhancing technologies including varieties tolerant or resistant biotic and abiotic

stresses.

The major constraints facing the development of the groundnut sector in West Africa

are known to be, among others, the poor access and availability of high yielding

groundnut varieties resistant to the rosette virus and foliar diseases. Since the 1990s,

the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and

partners – Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR), Institut d’Economie Rurale (IER) and

Institut National de Recherche Agronomique du Niger (INRAN) – have developed or

introduced a range of groundnut varieties with various attributes including different

maturity groups resistant to groundnut rosette disease, foliar diseases and other

desirable agronomic traits. About 39 varieties have been selected from regional variety

trials across a range of agro-ecological zones and are being searched by farmers and

meet market requirements.

In 2007, a large program entitled Tropical Legumes II (TL II) program has been initiated

and is implemented in 3 countries in West and Central Africa namely Mali, Niger and

Nigeria with major objective the development of the groundnut sector. A baseline study

is required as reference point from which program impacts will be assessed. This study

has three main objectives. The first objective is to characterize the livelihood

environment under which groundnut farmers operate, assess the current uptake level of

improved technologies (seed, fertilizers, pesticides) in program and non-program sites,

identify the constraints to groundnut productivity and assess the levels of market

participation by households. The report will address the following performance

questions highlighted in the monitoring and evaluation sheet of the TLII program. The

performance questions are the following:

• What are the livelihood assets owned households at the beginning of the project?

• What are the wealth and food security levels of households in the project and non-

project sites?

• Where are farmers sourcing groundnut seed and what are quantities obtained by

source?

• What are the different seed transactions used by households to obtain their seed?

• What are the levels of uptake of groundnut varieties in project and non-project

sites?

• What is the proportion of households and use intensities of organic and inorganic

fertilizers in project and non-project sites?

• What are the proportion and level of groundnut marketable surplus derived by

households?

15

• What is the proportion of households who has access to credit from formal

sources?

• What are the major sources of credit –and amount obtained from different sources

of households in the project and non-project sites?

• Do crop management practices and access to productive resources differ by

gender?

The report is organized as follows: Section II presents a description of the study regions;

Section III presents the past and current projects and programmes in the survey sites.

Section IV outlines the methodology. The results are presented in Section V and Section

VI concludes with options for improving uptake of modern varieties in West and Central

Africa.

II - Description of the study area – Infrastructure and production

environment in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

This study was undertaken in 3 countries in West and Central Africa (Mali, Niger and

Nigeria) where the Tropical Legumes II project will be implemented. These countries are

groundnut producers with Nigeria being the leading producing country in West and

Central Africa. These countries are among the least developed in the world with low

human development index (HDI). More than 60% of the population lives with less than

US$1/day (UNDP, 2009). Agriculture employs more than 90% of the active population in

Niger and Mali and 43% in Nigeria. The development of the agricultural sector remains a

prerequisite for economic growth. The survey sites by region by country are presented

in Figure 1. The sites span a range of socioeconomic and demographic settings and are

representative of agro-ecologies suitable for groundnut production and in the dry-arid

zones highly susceptible to drought.

Nigeria

Nigeria is the first groundnut producer in Africa with production estimated to 3,657,720

tons accounting for 39% of total groundnut production in Africa. Groundnut yields are

high and estimated to 1,655 kg/ha more than average yield in Africa (1,000 kg/ha) and

the World (1,582 kg/ha). Annual growth in production is estimated 8.12% per annum

from 1984 to 2008 largely explained by both growth in area cultivated (6.23%) and yield

(1.88%) (Ndjeunga et al., 2010). In Nigeria, the study was carried out in Jigawa, Katsina

and Kano states where groundnut production accounts for more than 50% of total

groundnut production. These states are located in the Sudan savanna and Sahelian

ecological zones where pearl millets, sorghum, cotton, groundnut, cowpea, vegetables,

maize, cassava, sugar cane and beniseed are the main crops grown under rainfed and

irrigated conditions. The three states occupy each between 20,400 sq km and 22,600 sq

km with average rainfall ranging between 600 to 900 mm. Farm sizes are relatively small

and are estimated between 1.6 ha in Kano to 2.7 ha in Jigawa. Kano is the most densely

populated, estimated to 276 people/sq km more than double that of Jigawa. Average

household sizes range between 8 and 10 members with average income ranging

16

between 3200 Naira ($25) in Jigawa to 4000 Naira ($30.7) in Kano. The major ethnic

groups are Hausa and Fulani (Ogungbile et al, 1999).

Niger

Niger is also a groundnut producing country in West Africa with production estimated to

181,230 tons in 2004-08. Groundnut production growth rate has been the highest in

Africa estimated to 9.38% from 1984 to 2008 mainly due to area expansion of 7.01% per

annum and yield growth of 2.36% per annum. The Tropical Legume II program is being

carried out in the south-west parts of Niger, in the region of Dosso. This region is

representative of the different agro-ecological zones with different assets endowments

and market orientation. Dosso is the 3rd largest groundnut growing region in Niger,

covering 33,844 sq km with a population density of 44 persons/sq km and population

estimated to 1,504,684 inhabitants accounting for 14% of the total population of Niger

(République du Niger 2005). The climate is the Sudano-Sahelian type, with annual

rainfall ranging between 400 and 1200 mm. Soils are mainly sandy accounting for two-

third of the region, with clayey soils in less than 10% of the region. There are

hydromorphic soils located in the dallol and river valley, which are very rich in organic

matter (Danguiwa 2000). Zarma, Maouri and Peulh are the main ethnic groups

representing 48%, 34% and 12% respectively. The main rainfed crops grown are millet,

sorghum, ‘fonio’, rice, cowpea, groundnut and bambara nuts. Irrigated crops such as

rice, vegetables or fruit trees are grown in the river valley, silty and sandy-clay soils in

the low lying areas and dallol. Major crop associations include millet-cowpea, followed

by millet-sorghum-cowpea, millet-sorghum and millet-cowpea-sesame. The size of

production units ranges between 7.3 ha in the Gaya area to 19.7 ha in the Loga area.

Mali

Mali is also a groundnut producer in West Africa with production estimated to 271,057

tons in 2004-08. Growth in production is estimated to about 4.41% per annum mainly

due to area growth of 4.44% per annum (Ndjeunga et al., 2010). Groundnut production

is concentrated in the west, south and parts of the center, covering the regions of Kayes,

Koulikoro, Sikasso and Segou. These regions account for 97% of the area and 98% of

groundnut production in Mali. Average rainfall ranges from 400 and 800 mm per year.

The survey was carried out in the regions of Koulikoro and Kayes, and specifically in the

districts of Kolokani, Diola, Mande, Kita and Kayes. The region of Kayes is the most

important groundnut producing region, accounting for 33% of area and 35% of

groundnut production in Mali. This is followed by the region of Koulikoro which

accounts for 21% of groundnut area and 24% of groundnut production (DNSI, 1996/97).

17

Figure 1. Selected villages for the baseline studies in Mali, Niger and Nigeria in 2007/08.

18

III – Groundnut project and programmes in survey sites in West and

Central Africa

In the survey sites, since the 1990s, a number of projects and programmes have been

implemented. We here refer to the Groundnut Germplasm Project (GGP) implemented

from 1996 to 2002 and the groundnut seed project (GSP) from 2003 to early 2007. The GGP

was involved with a large germplasm collection followed by a large multi-locational on-farm

testing program where 39 varieties were identified to be suited to the range of agro-

ecologies in West Africa. As a follow-up to the GGP, the GSP also funded by the Common

Fund for Commodities (CFC) in Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal with major objective to

promote varieties adapted during the GGP. In the GSP, during the first 2 years, farmer

participatory variety trials were carried out in pilot sites to evaluate variety performance

under farmers’ own crop management and expose farmers’ to new varieties. This was

followed up by the development of seed supply systems based on varieties selected by

farmers. In late 2007, a larger programme, called Tropical Legumes II was funded. This

program is undertaken in the same sites as former projects but far distant villages. The TLII

is also implemented in Mali, Niger and Nigeria.

Mali.

Since the 1996, the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

(ICRISAT) and the Institut d’Economie Rurale (IER) have been working in Kolokani, one of

the largest groundnut producing areas in the region of Koulikoro. Apart from other

constraints, foliar diseases were targeted as the major biological constraint limiting the

groundnut productivity and were estimated to be responsible for more than 60% of yield

losses. ICRISAT has adapted a range of varieties tolerant or resistant to many foliar diseases

through the GGP. Since 1998, ICRISAT initiated a large on-farm testing program with

partners in the research and development continuum in order to test the performance of

these varieties in the real conditions and provide opportunities to farmers to select their

preferred varieties. Nine groundnut varieties1 resistant to foliar diseases with early- to

medium-maturity, were identified. Selected farmers were given 1 kg seed of each of the

selected varieties. This quantity was sufficient to plant a plot of 10 m ×10 m along with the

traditional variety. Field monitoring and evaluation were conducted by ICRISAT and IER

scientists, and a range of development partners including non-governmental organizations

(NGOs) such as WINROCK International and ADAF GALLE (a local NGO), rural development

projects such as the Office de la Haute Vallee du Niger (OHVN) and la Compagnie Malienne

du Developpement Textiles (CMDT).

Every year, data on yields and farmers’ rapid assessment of their preferences were

collected. In 2000, ICRISAT initiated a small-scale seed production scheme with 4 farmers in

the villages of Bambabougou, Kanekebougou, Tioribougou and Komokorobougou in the

1 (ICG7878, ICG (FDRS) 4, ICG (FDRS) 10, Mossitiga, Demba, Niouma (ICGS (E) 34), ICGV 92093, ICGV 92088, ICGV 92082 and

ICGV 91225

19

region of Kolokani. These farmers produced about 3.6 tons of seed of the variety ICG 7878,

Mossitiga and Demba Niouma. Seed was marketed using small scale pack seed (Ndjeunga et

al. 2003).

From 2003 to 2007, the groundnut seed project (GSP) continued to promote a range of

varieties through PVS trials and focused on the development of seed multiplication and

delivery schemes in other regions of Mali. Four farmers associations and 10 individual

farmers were selected and tasked with seed multiplication and distribution. More than 40

tons of seed were produced by farmers and marketed through seed demand from NGOs, or

individual farmers through village markets and seed exchange between farmers. In 2007,

the TL II program was launched in the same region.

Nigeria.

Since 1990, ICRISAT and IAR developed, tested or adapted 44 groundnut varieties. These

varieties were tested in multi-location trials in partnership with ADPs and Sasakawa Global

2000 in many states including Kaduna, Kano, Jigawa and Katsina. The specific locations for

on-farm testing included Samaru (1996-97,1998-99) in the state of Kaduna, Bagauda (1997-

98), Minjibir (1996-98), Shika (1998-99), Kano (1998-99) in the state of Kano, Katsina (1998-

99) in the state of Katsina and Maiduguri (1998-99) in Borno State2. Following the on-farm

testing program, 3 groundnut varieties (UGA 2 (SAMNUT 21); M 572.80I (SAMNUT 22) and

ICGV-IS-96894 (SAMNUT 23)) were formally released in 2001.

In 2003, the groundnut seed project (GSP) has promoted a range of high yielding groundnut

varieties resistant to rosette with market and farmers’ preferred traits through participatory

variety selection and started the development of seed multiplication and delivery systems.

Four states were targeted including Kaduna, Kano, Katsina and Jigawa. On-farm trials with

farmers’ management were conducted under the supervision of Agricultural Development

Programs, the extension services in Nigeria. Once farmers had selected the preferred

varieties, the next task was to increase access to seed of selected varieties and evaluate the

size of the seed market. Thus, scientists initiated the sale of small -seed packs. Besides, seed

was produced through the private sector with seed companies such as Alheri and Premier

Seeds, and farmers’ associations. Seed was also sold through private companies outlets.

Niger.

In the Dosso region, in 2000 crop season, farmers from Bengou village in Gaya visited the

INRAN research station where a large nursery of groundnut germplasm was being

characterized. Fascinated by the diversity of the varieties, farmers were eager to test some

of them on their farms. They chose the varieties based on their observations, information

2 ICGV IS 96894 (SAMNUT 23), ICGV IS 96900, ICGV IS 96901, ICGV IS 96859, ICGV IS 96909, ICGV IS 96871, , ICGV IS 96898,

ICIAR 18 AR, ICIAR 7B, ICIAR 18 AT, ICIAR 19 BT, ICIAR 9 AT, ICIAR 12 AR, ICIAR 10 B, ICGV IS 96826, ICGV IS 96801, ICGV

IS 96848, ICGV IS 96808*, ICGV IS 96804, ICGV IS 96805, ICGV IS 96855*, ICGV IS 96802, ICGV IS 96845, ICGV IS 96827, ICGV

IS 96840, ICGV IS 96809, ICGV IS 96828, ICGV IS 96835, ICGV IS 96810, ICGV IS 96841, ICGV IS 96847, ICGV IS 96825, ICGV IS

96824, ICGV IS 96816, KH 241 D, RRB, 55-437, ICGV IS 96891*, ICIAR 6AT, ICGV 96891, UGA 2 (SAMNUT 21), UGA 4, M572.80I

(SAMNUT 22), Fleur 11

20

given by ICRISAT technicians, and their know-how. Each of the seventy farmers was given 1

kg of seed of the selected variety after harvest. Overall 52 varieties3 were selected by these

farmers located in Bengou, Koita Tegui and Kouara Zeno These were grown in a 2-hectare

field provided by the village chief. ICRISAT technicians trained the farmers in how to sow in

lines and the basics of good crop husbandry. Farmers themselves carried out all field

operations (land preparation, planting, weeding, and harvesting). The Programme d’Appui

au Développement Local de Gaya (PADEL), a Swiss-funded development project, assisted in

the organization of three field days: 45 days after planting to show plant vigor, at harvest,

and the third one during oil extraction. More than 150 women and men attended each of

the field days.

In 2001, PADEL a rural development project was involved in variety testing and

dissemination in the region of Gaya. Thirteen (13) farmers participated in the on-farm trials

from the villages of Mallan Kadi, Sabon-Birni, Makani, Guéza gado, Mallamawa, Gawassa,

Garin Hamani, Goumandey, and Rountoua Tanda involving the groundnut varieties ICGV

86124, ICGV 9199, ICGV 9346, ICGV 7199, ICGV 86124, ICGV 9199, ICGV 9346, ICGV 7199,

Fleur 11 and J 11.

In 2002, eight individual farmers and 5 farmers associations were targeted to produce seed

of farmers’ selected varieties (J11, Fleur 11, RRB, ICGV 96894, and ICGV 96891) in the

villages of Mallam Kadi, Sabon Birni, Makani, Guéza Gado, Mallamawa, Gawassa,

Goumandeye, Kawara Gohé, Garin Hamani, Tanagaye, Toungan Darfou, Toungan Donfou. In

other villages in the region of Gaya4, farmers associations also were also targeted to

produce seed of the selected varieties ICGV–IS 96891, ICGV–IS 96894, JL 24, J 11, FLEUR 11,

J11 and ICG 9199. Little follow-up was done on the where-about or use of those varieties by

farmers.

In 2003/04 with the inception of the GSP, a mother and baby trial approach was

implemented in 3 villages of western Niger to assess household preferences for plant and

seed traits of 5 groundnut varieties based on a random utility based choice experiment.

Preferences were estimated for 5 groundnut varieties. Median ranking of varieties showed

that farmers’ preferred by order RRB, 55-437, ICG 9346, Fleur 11 and ICGV 96894. Similarly

pod yields follow the same patterns as the overall ranking of varieties. However, ICG 9346

yield significantly more haulm than others varieties. Ordered probit results show that color

(red), maturity (short cycle), pod yield and disease pressure (low) are the most important

attribute by order of importance.

3 55-437, 796, FLEUR 11, ICG 10105, ICG 10187, ICG 10203,ICG 10399, ICG 10425, ICG 10485, ICG 10511, ICG 10514, ICG 10529,

ICG 11028, ICG 12020, ICG 12115, ICG 12139, ICG 12965, ICG 1305, ICG 1476, ICG 2373, ICG 3151, ICG 3190, ICG 3783, ICG 5193,

ICG 544, ICG 564, ICG 6080, ICG 6102, ICG 6118, ICG 6428, ICG 6575, ICG 6592, ICG 6743, ICG 6747, ICG 7257, ICG 7371, ICG

7758, ICG 7759, ICG 7920, ICG 7922, ICG 8055, ICG 8482, ICG 8534, ICG 8801, ICG 8811, ICG 8849, ICG 8852, ICG 8892, ICG 9199,

ICG 9232, ICG 9346, ICG 9360, ICG 9380, ICG 9829, ICG 9829, ICGV 86047, ICGV 86124

4 Tounga Darfo, Tanagueye, Guéza gado, Makkani, Rountoua Dolé

21

In 2004/05, on-farm trials (using the same varieties and statistical design) were extended in

other villages including Faska, Hankoura and Gobery, Fabidji, Sadeizi Kouara and Simiri.

Similar results were obtained. This was followed up by the production of seed of selected

varieties by farmers’ associations and individual farmers. More than 30 tons of improved

seed was produced and marketed through small pack seed sales or by individual farmers in

the village markets or exchange to other farmers.

During the second phase of the GSP starting in 2005/06, the project focused on building

institutions and institutional arrangements that will enhance access and increase seed

availability of selected varieties in quantities and quality to end-users. Breeder and

foundation production and delivery schemes were experimented. While, revolving fund

schemes were established in Niger and Nigeria; production of breeder seed was ensured by

the public sector in Senegal and the GSP project in Mali. Certified and quality declared seed

(QDS) were produced by farmers’ associations and small-scale farmers in pilot sites.

Strategies to enhance delivery of seed include among others the sale of small-seed packs in

pilot sites. Table 5 summarizes the quantities of seed production by seed class, year and

country.

Project activities were undertaken in partnership with NARS, NGO and rural development

projects. Certified and quality declared seed were produced using 3 major seed value chain

actors: farmers’ associations, small-scale seed producers or NARS or rural development

projects or seed multiplication or NGO through contract growers. Following these

interventions, the Tropical Legume II (TLII) program intervention focuses in the same

regions and added additional regions where PVS was not carried out and strengthen the

seed delivery schemes.

IV – Methodology and sampling frame

The study was carried out in program and non-program sites in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

where the TL II program started its activities in 2007/08. These regions encompassed the

Sahelian and Sudanian-savanna zones (Figure 1).

4.1 - Sampling procedure and data collection

The survey was administered from November 2007 to February 2008 in the 3 countries. A

purposive random sampling was used to select program sites. Next to every selected

program site was a non-program site (a neighboring village) where the TL II program will not

intervene. In each program site, 10 on-farm trial participants were selected from the

population of participants and 5 non-trial participants were selected from the population of

non-participants. In case the number of on-farm participants was less than 15 farmers,

enumerators were asked to survey all on-farm trial participants with the remaining

unchanged.

22

The distribution of HHs by program and non-program sites is presented in Table 1. Overall,

792 HHs were selected and interviewed in the three countries including 494 HHs in the

project sites and 298 in the non-program sites. Data was collected at the household and

plot levels using structured survey questionnaires. Survey questions included modules on

(1) socioeconomic and demographic profile of the HHs, (2) diffusion mechanisms pathways

including knowledge of varieties and sources of first information and adoption and dis-

adoption of groundnut varieties; (3) household land stocks, equipment and livestock

ownership; (4) household access to credit, (5) utilization, consumption and

commercialization of groundnut, (6) household market transactions, and (7) input and

output groundnut plot data.

Table 1. Distribution of HHs/UPAs surveyed by country and region in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

Country / Region or State Site

Total Non program site Program site

Mali

Kayes 26 54 80

Koulikoro 28 58 86

Sub-total 54 112 166

Niger

Dogondoutchi 62 68 130

Dosso 33 34 67

Gaya 49 112 151

Sub-total 144 204 348

Nigeria

Jigawa 41 52 93

Kano 19 72 91

Katsina 40 54 94

Sub-total 100 178 278

TOTAL 298 494 792

V – Results and discussions

This section presents the results of the baseline that include the household socio-

demographic characteristics, socio-economic and demographic characteristics of household

heads, land assets, agricultural equipment ownership, livestock ownership, household

durable assets, social assets, financial assets, household crop transactions, household

livestock transactions, utilization of crop production, groundnut marketing, proportion of

groundnut sold, share of crop to total value of production, Exposure and use of improved

varieties, constraints limiting the use of improved varieties, groundnut production systems,

cropping patterns and input use, seed sources and transactions, food security and income

indicators.

23

5.1 – Livelihood assets

The household level characteristics in Mali, Niger and Nigeria are presented by program and

non-program sites in Table 2 to Table 21.

5.1.1 – Human assets

Survey results indicate that in Mali, at household level, the average age of family members

is estimated to 22 years. On average there are 20 members per household with about 10

active members and 13 adult equivalents. The dependency ratio is estimated to about 1.18

and about 50% of household members are female. There are no differences based on the

average household member age, dependency ratio or the proportion of female in program

and non-program sites. However, there are differences based on household size, the

number of active members and the adult equivalents. In effect, households in program

villages are endowed with more family labor than households in non-program sites (Table

2).

In Niger, the average age of family members is estimated to about 20 years old. On average,

there are 10 members per household and the number of active members is estimated to

about 5 with about 7 adult equivalents. The dependency ratio is estimated to about 1.16

and 47% of members who are female. There are no statistical differences in the above

characteristics. Households in the non-program sites have similar family labor stock than

those in the program sites (Table 2).

In Nigeria, the situation is somewhat similar as in Niger. The average age of family members

is estimated to about 21 years old. Households have on average 10 members with about 5

active members and 6 adult equivalents. The dependency ratio is estimated to about 1.15

with 49% of household members who are female. Except for age, there are no significant

differences in the above cited characteristics. The stock of family labor is similar for

households in program and non-program sites.

Table 2. Household socio-demographic profile in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

Type of village

Country / Characteristic Non program site Program site Total sample

Mali (54) (112) (166)

Average age of family member (years) 21.76 21.75 21.75

Household size 14.8 23.01 20.34

Number of active members 7.17 11.04 9.78

Adult equivalents 9.25 14.48 12.78

Dependency ratio 1.16 1.18 1.18

Proportion of female (%) 51.3 49.35 49.98

Niger (144) (204) (348)

Average age of family member (years) 20.05 20.23 20.16

Household size 10.22 10.31 10.27

Number of active members 5.08 5.2 5.15

24

Adult equivalents 6.6 6.68 6.65

Dependency ratio 1.16 1.14 1.15

Proportion of female (%) 47.8 46.47 47.02

Nigeria (100) (177) (277)

Average age of family member (years) 22.02 20.38 20.96

Household size 8.86 9.65 9.37

Number of active members 4.81 5.04 4.96

Adult equivalents 5.96 6.44 6.26

Dependency ratio 1.11 1.16 1.14

Proportion of female (%) 49.1 47.14 47.85

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Table 3 presents the characteristics of household heads. In Mali, survey results showed that

household heads have on average 58 years old and are mainly male for 98%. They are less

educated with less than a year of formal education. About 35% of household heads are

from the Bamanan ethnic group, 45% from the Malinke group and 17% from the Malinke

ethnic group. Agriculture is the main livelihood activity for 74% of them. About 4% have

received numeracy/literacy education and 14 have gone to Koranic schools. There are

significant differences based on age, major occupation and attendance to Koranic School.

Households in the program site are older than those in the non-program sites, with fewer

households involved in agriculture as primary activity but with more of them attending

Koranic School.

Table 3. Characteristics of household heads in Mali, Niger and Nigeria in 2007/08

Type of village

Country / Characteristic Non program site Program site Total sample

Mali (54) (112) (166)

Age of the household head (years) 54.17 60.25 58.27

Number of year s of formal education 1.17 2.04 1.76

Proportion of male (%) 98.15 98.21 98.19

Ethnic groups

Bamanan 33.33 35.71 34.94

Peulh 1.85 0.89 1.2

Malinke 46.3 44.64 45.18

Senoufo 0 0 0

Sarakole 18.52 16.07 16.87

Sonrhai 0 0.89 0.6

Agriculture as the major occupation 85.19 68.47 73.94

Education received by type (%)

Literacy/numeracy 5.56 3.57 4.22

Koranic school 9.26 16.96 14.46

Without formal education (%) 77.78 66.07 69.88

Niger (144) (204) (348)

Age of the household head (years) 47.17 46.64 46.87

25

Number of year s of formal education 0.23 0.68 0.48

Proportion of male (%) 94.9 97.52 96.38

Ethnic groups

Zarma 36.94 22.77 28.97

Peulh 1.27 0.99 1.11

Haoussa 61.78 75.74 69.64

Touareg 0 0.5 0.28

Agriculture as the major occupation 77.07 75.74 76.32

Education received by type(%)

Literacy/numeracy 1.91 4.46 3.34

Koranic school 19.11 40.1 30.92

Without formal education (%) 93.63 86.63 89.69

Nigeria (100) (177) (277)

Age of the household head (years) 49.69 45.95 47.27

Number of year s of formal education 2.93 3.35 3.2

Proportion of male (%) 98.02 95.7 96.52

Ethnic groups

Haoussa 94.06 95.16 94.77

Yoruba 3.96 1.08 2.09

Peulh 0 1.08 0.7

Ibo 0 1.61 1.05

Agriculture as the major occupation 35.64 60.75 51.92

Socio-professional education

Literacy/numeracy 7.92 10.22 9.41

Koranic school 11.88 13.44 12.89

Without formal education (%) 1.98 4.84 3.83

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

In Niger, household heads are younger than in Mali with age estimated to about 48 years

with less than 1 year of formal education. Almost all household heads are male for 98% with

Hausa and Zarma as the main dominant ethnic groups for 69% and 30% respectively. About

4% are involved into numeracy and literacy with 32% attending Koranic School. About 65%

have not received formal education.

In Nigeria, household heads have the same age as those of Niger but more educated with 4

years of formal education. Most of them are male with Hausa being by far the dominant

ethnic group (95%) followed a distant second Yoruba (2%). About 49% reported agriculture

to be their main activity. Ten percent of the household heads are literate and 14% have

attended Koranic School.

5.1.2 – Natural and physical assets

Tables 4, 5, and 6 present the natural and physical assets owned by households in 2007/08.

These include major livelihood assets such as land, agricultural equipment and livestock.

26

Land assets

In Mali, on average, households own about 13 ha of which about 8 ha is cultivated with 1 ha

as low-land field and 3 ha as homestead field. Groundnut is cultivated on average on 3 ha

accounting for about 36% of total cultivated area. There are significant differences between

households in program and non-program sites. Households in program sites own

significantly about double the land owned by households in non-program sites. The average

cultivated area per adult equivalent is estimated to about 0.79 ha (Table 4).

In Niger, on average, households own 14 ha of which 12 ha is cultivated land and 4 ha

homestead field. Household cultivate on average 1.8 ha of groundnut accounting for about

15% of total cultivated area. There are significant differences based on the size of

groundnut fields cultivated by households in program sites and non-program sites. The

average cultivated area per adult equivalent is estimated to about 2.36 ha. More land is

available in Niger than in Mali in groundnut growing areas (Table 4).

In Nigeria, households own less land than in Niger and Nigeria. This is estimated to about 8

ha of which about 7.8 ha is cultivated. Thus there is virtually no fallow land. Groundnut field

is estimated to about 2.6 ha accounting for about 34% of total cultivated area (Table 4).

Table 4. Land stocks (ha) by types owned by households in Mali, Niger and Nigeria in

2007/08

Type of village

Country / Characteristic

Non program

site Program site Total sample

Mali (54) (112) (166)

Total owned (ha) 8.05 15.85 13.34

Total cultivated area (ha) 6.00 9.69 8.50

Land cultivated by AE (ha/AE) 0.70 0.83 0.79

Low-land field (ha) 0.76 0.75 0.75

Homestead field (ha) 2.01 3.05 2.72

Groundnut field (ha) 1.86 2.74 2.45

Fallow land (ha) 3.46 3.44 3.45

Borrowed land (ha) 0.50 0.72 0.65

Rented land (ha) 0.38 0.39 0.39

Niger (144) (204) (348)

Total owned (ha) 14.01 14.02 14.02

Total cultivated area (ha) 12.00 11.87 11.92

Land cultivated by AE (ha/AE) 1.87 1.90 1.89

Low-land field (ha) 0.59 0.56 0.57

Homestead field (ha) 3.85 3.59 3.70

Groundnut field (ha) 1.46 2.08 1.82

Fallow land (ha) 0.54 1.18 0.91

Borrowed land (ha) 0.40 0.61 0.52

Rented land (ha) 0.08 0.24 0.18

Nigeria (100) (177) (277)

27

Total owned (ha) 8.64 8.26 8.40

Total cultivated area (ha) 7.71 7.88 7.82

Land cultivated by AE (ha/AE) 1.28 1.38 1.34

Fallow land (ha) 0.30 0.27 0.28

Groundnut field (ha) 2.77 2.57 2.64

Cotton field (ha) 1.03 0.49 0.68

Sorghum field (ha) 2.20 1.63 1.84

Pearl millet field (ha) 2.20 1.45 1.71

Rice field (ha) 0.76 0.82 0.80

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Agricultural equipment and animal traction

Table 5 presents the types of equipment owned by households in program and non-

program villages. In Mali, about 71% of households own at least a cart, 46% a sprayer, 45%

at least a seeder, 16% a cultivator and 43% own at least one harrow. Donkeys and oxen are

largely used as animal traction for 71% and 63% respectively. Households in program sites

own significantly more donkeys than those in non-program sites.

In Niger, 44% of households surveyed own at least a cart, 33% at least a plough, 32% at

least a weeding hoe. In the Dosso region, farmers own and use more oxen than donkeys for

animal traction, 52% against 4% respectively. Households in the program sites own

significantly less plough than households in non-program sites. In Nigeria, 27% of the

households surveyed own at least a cart, 35% at least a plough, 22% at least a sprayer and

42% at least a cultivator.

Table 5. Proportion of household owning at least one type of agricultural equipment or

animal traction in 2007/08

Type of village

Total sample Country / Item

Mali

Non program site Program site

% HHs Value %HHs Value %HHs Value

(54) (112) (166)

Equipment

Cart 61.82 129848 75.00 112784 70.66 117812

Plough 50.91 24560 58.93 36831 56.29 33179

Cultivator 18.18 49063 15.18 31923 16.17 38452

Tractor 0.00 0 3.57 10000000 2.40 10000000

Sprayer 38.18 27175 50.00 31100 46.11 30039

Sheller 9.09 25000 9.82 31389 9.58 29423

Seeder 38.18 61350 48.21 75578 44.91 71393

Axes 87.27 1671 86.61 3882 86.83 3139

Hoes 83.64 1197 86.61 1349 85.63 1300

Daba 89.09 1661 88.39 2245 88.62 2052

28

Type of village

Total sample Country / Item

Mali

Non program site Program site

% HHs Value %HHs Value %HHs Value

Harrow 41.82 29000 43.75 42765 43.11 38368

Machete 76.36 1259 70.54 5096 72.46 3714

Sickle 80.00 1004 82.14 1055 81.44 1039

Basket 70.91 1296 71.43 1743 71.26 1594

Knife 83.64 370 82.14 445 82.63 420

Weeding hoe 29.09 25375 33.93 54972 32.34 45865

Milling machine 3.64 650000 0.00 .0 1.20 650000

Value equipments (FCFA) 168,126 379,214 309,694

Value equipments ($US) 336 758 619

Draft animal

Oxen 2.39 142203 3.56 211884 3.17 189361

Donkey 2.03 49697 2.12 49584 2.09 49616

Horse 0.38 155000 0.84 183750 0.66 170682

Value draft animals (FCFA) n/a 126645 n/a 173342 n/a 157963

Value draft animals ($US) n/a 253 n/a 347 n/a 316

Draft animal and

equipment value (FCFA) n/a 294771 n/a 552555 n/a 467656

Draft animal and

equipment value ($US) n/a 590 n/a 1105 n/a 935

Niger (144) (204) (348)

Equipment

Cart 44.76 47294 44.12 56520 44.38 52718

Plough 38.46 15846 29.41 14848 33.14c 15259

Cultivator 0.7 2797 0 0 0.29 1153

Tractor 0 0 0.49 19608 0.29 11527

Sprayer 0.7 49 1.96 478 1.44 301

Sheller 0.7 280 1.96 748 1.44 555

Seeder 0.7 70 2.45 79 1.73 75

Axe 88.11 3141 87.75 3547 87.9 3380

Hoe 61.54 4118 75.98 4319 70.02a 4236

Daba 94.41 3687 89.22 2973 91.35c 3267

Herse 0 0 1.96 49 1.15c 29

Machette 46.85 1885 45.59 906 46.11 1309

Sikle 49.65 541 42.16 1362 45.25 1023

Basket 1.4 6 5.39 141 3.75c 86

Knife 90.21 635 91.18 816 90.78 741

Weeding hoe 30.77 3314 32.35 5681 31.7 4705

Water pump 0 0 0.49 417 0.29 245

Milling machine 0 0 0.98 1054 0.58 620

Hilaire 81.12 7107 84.8 8270 83.29 7790

Rake 2.8 26 6.86 78 5.19c 57

Value equipments (FCFA) n/a 90795 n/a 101535 n/a 97096

Value of equipments

($USD) n/a 182 n/a 203 n/a 194

29

Type of village

Total sample Country / Item

Mali

Non program site Program site

% HHs Value %HHs Value %HHs Value

Draft animal

Oxen 51.75 261395 51.47 241289 51.59 249575

Donkey 2.1 699 5.88 2167 4.32c 1562

Horse 0.7 559 0.98 588 0.87 576

Value draft animals (FCFA) n/a 262654 n/a 244044 n/a 251713

Value draft animals ($US) n/a 525 n/a 488 n/a 503

Draft animal and

equipment value (FCFA) n/a 353449 n/a 344318 n/a 348092

Draft animal and

equipment value ($US) n/a 707 n/a 689 n/a 696

Nigeria (100) (177) (277)

Equipment

Cart 27.08 3774 26.55 3614 26.74 3670

Plough 33.33 3401 35.59 4431 34.8 4069

Cultivator 51.04 4815 37.85 814 42.49 2221

Tractor 1.04 6250 0 0 0.37 2198

Sprayer 11.46 518 27.12 2110 21.61 1550

Sheller 1.04 26 2.82 271 2.2 185

Seeder 0 0 1.13 7 0.73 4

Spade 41.67 3254 62.71 475 55.31 1452

Wheelbarrow 32.29 1207 37.29 2523 35.53 2060

Axe 52.08 3884 76.84 2529 68.13 3005

Hoes 97.92 6619 94.92 3731 95.97 4747

Other equipment (handy

tools) 10.42 742 6.21 80 7.69 313

Value of equipment(Naira) n/a 34490 n/a 20584 n/a 25474

Value of equipment ($US) n/a 246 n/a 147 n/a 182

Draft animal

Camel 0 0 0.56 1130 0.37 733

Oxen 17.71 25521 25.99 26801 23.08 26351

Donkey 1.04 125 12.43 2768 8.42 1839

Horse 4.17 4063 2.26 1329 2.93 2290

Value of draft animals

(naira) n/a 29708 n/a 32028 n/a 31213

Value of draft animals

($US) n/a 212 n/a 229 n/a 223

Draft animal and

equipment value (naira) n/a 64199 n/a 52612 n/a 56687

Draft animal and

equipment value ($USD) n/a 459 n/a 376 n/a 405

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Livestock ownership

30

Table 6 presents the average the number of livestock owned by households and the value of

livestock by type and country. In Mali, survey results showed that households own on

average 2 cattle heads, 5 sheep, 5 goats and 18 chickens. The value of livestock owned by

households is estimated to about US$654. In Niger, households own on average 2 cattle

heads, 2 sheep, 4 goats, and about 7 chickens. The estimated value of livestock owned by

households is US$815. Finally, in Nigeria, households own on average 2 cattle heads, 7

sheep, 7 goats and 16 chickens. The total value of livestock owned is estimated to US$1,759

per household.

Table 6. Average number of livestock owned and proportion of household owning at least

one type of animal in Mali, Niger and Nigeria in 2007/08

Country / Livestock type

Type of village

Total sample Non program site Program site

Average

num. %HHs

Average

num. %HHs

Average

num. %HHs

Mali (54) (112) (166)

Cattle 2.03 75.47 3.33 74.31 2.91c 74.69

Sheep 4.34 54.72 5.28 54.13 4.98b 54.32

Goat 4.87 54.72 4.68 53.21 4.74 53.7

Fowl 18.6 60.38 18.17 60.55 18.31 60.49

Value livestock (FCFA) 302,526 339,159 327,174

Value of livestock ($USD) 605 678 654

Niger (144) (204) (348)

Cattle 2.07 68.15 2.03 68.72 2.05 68.48

Sheep 3.64 53.33 3.98 65.64 3.84 60.61b

Goat 2.3 69.63 2.86 77.95 2.63 74.55c

Fowl 6.19 54.81 8.46 69.74 7.53c 63.64

a

Camel 0.04 1.48 0.03 2.05 0.04 1.82

Value of livestock (FCFA) 398,611 413,956 407,678

Value of livestock ($USD) 797 828 815

Nigeria (100) (177) (277)

Cattle 1.92 53.85 1.80 53.18 1.84 53.41

Sheep 5.73 82.42 7.05 84.97 6.59c 84.09

Goat 6.58 79.12 7.51 87.86 7.19 84.85c

Fowl 17.42 75.82 15.10 75.72 15.90 75.76

Camel 0.00 0.00 0.53 1.73 0.34 1.14

Value of livestock (naira) 214,516 262,867 246,200

Value of livestock ($USD) 1,532 1,878 1,759

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

5.1.3 - Durable assets owned by households

Tables 7, 8 and 9 present the proportion of households who own at least one of the durable

assets and the values of durable assets in Mali, Niger and Nigeria respectively. In Mali,

31

about 37% of the households surveyed own at least an improved stove, 15% at least a

motorcycle and 28% at least a bicycle. Farmers are connected to information supply

sources. In fact, 86% of households own at least one radio, 25% at least one television and

55% a cellular phone. The average value of total durable assets owned by households is

estimated to about US$345. Survey results show that the proportion of households owing

at least a VCD in the program site is significantly greater than for those in non-program site.

Similar results are found for motorcycle, radio, television and cellular phones (Table 7).

Table 7. Proportion of Households owning at least one type of durable assets and average

value of durable assets in Mali in 2007/08

Village

Non-program site Program site Total sample

Durable assets (54) (112) (166)

%

EA

Value

(FCFA)

%

EA

Value

(FCFA)

%

EA

Value

(FCFA)

VCD 1.852 161 8.85 2182 6.587c 1453

c

Improved chair 33.333 1077 44.248 3510 40.719 2633

Improved stoves 38.889 485 36.283 616 37.126 569

Gasoline stoves 0 0 1.77 25 1.198 16

Improved stoves 31.481 556 37.168 630 35.329 603

Traditional guns 53.704 20266 56.637 41534 55.689 33868b

Metallic bed 20.37 4613 19.469 13150 19.76 10073

Wooden bed 38.889 6968 45.133 13446 43.114 11111b

Motorcycle 11.111 21065 16.814 55295 14.97 42956c

Radio 81.481 11546 88.496 19353 86.228 16539c

Improved table 59.259 2081 68.142 3473 65.269 2971b

Television 18.519 54286 27.434 92826 24.551 83833

Cellular phone 44.444 11895 60.177 17050 55.090c 15192

Bicycle 27.778 31000 27.434 46887 27.545 42193

Value of durable assets

(FCFA) n.a 105221 n.a 2055767 n.a 172722b

Value of durable assets

($US) 210.442 411.152 345.444

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

Sources: Baseline survey in Mali, ICRISAT/IER 2008

In Niger, households own fewer assets than in Mali. In effect, 19% of households surveyed

owned at least one improved stove, 14% of households own at least one motorcycle, 72% at

least one radio, 17% at least one cellular phone and 51% a bicycle (Table 8).

32

Table 8. Proportion of households owning at least one type of durable assets and average

value of durable assets in Niger in 2007/08

Country / Durable asset

Type of village

Total sample Non program site Program site

%hh Value %hh Value %hh Value

(144) (204) (348)

VCD 0.00 0 1.00 74 1.00 43

Modern chair 15.28 2269 24.00 2221 20.12c 2241

Improve stove 34.72 1974 7.00 207 18.68a 938

c

Traditional gun 1.39 90 1.00 142 1.00 121

Wood bed 36.81 8804 32.00 4872 34.00 6499

Metallic bed 79.17 91502 79.00 89574 79.00 90371

Stalk bed 14.58 2757 15.00 461 15.00 1411b

Sewing machine 0.69 104 2.00 1078 1.00 675

Motorcycle 11.11 25139 15.00 27184 14.00 26338

Radio 66.67 8309 75.00 8578 71.55c 8467

Modern table 4.17 472 11.00 948 8.05b 751

Cellular phone 14.58 3788 18.00 5032 17.00 4517

Television 0.00 0 1.00 1083 1.00 635

Bicycle 45.83 17672 54.00 21833 51.00 20111

Car (vehicle) 0.69 833 0.00 0 0.00 345

Value of durable assets (FCFA) n/a 163714 n/a 163286 n/a 163463

Value of durable assets ($USD) n/a 327 n/a 327 n/a 327

In Nigeria, households owned a range of durable assets. As means of transport apart from

donkeys and oxen driven carts, survey results showed that about 47% of household own at

least a bicycle, 36% own at least one motorbike and about 8% a vehicle. As means of

information and communication, survey results indicate that 77% of Households surveyed

own at least one radio, 18% at least one television set and 29% of households own a cellular

phone (Table 9).

Table 9. Proportion of Households owning at least one type of durable assets and average

value of durable assets in Nigeria

Durable asset

Type of village

Non-program site

(100)

Program site

(177)

Sample

(277)

Value

(naira)

%

EA

Value

(naira)

%

EA

Value

(naira)

%

EA

Satellite antenna 300 2 472 2.81 410 2.52

Beds 13275 58 7143 50 9349 52.88

Jewels 25 1 137 3.93 97 2.88

VCD 595 13 847 8.99 756 10.43

Chairs 2669 21 2565 21.35 2602 21.22

Electricity n.a 1 n.a 0 n.a 0.36

Gasoline 6588 41 2106 44.94 3718 43.53

Improved stoves 40 5 734 44.94 484c 30.58

33

Durable asset

Type of village

Non-program site

(100)

Program site

(177)

Sample

(277)

Value

(naira)

%

EA

Value

(naira)

%

EA

Value

(naira)

%

EA

Generator 0 0 28 0.56 18 0.36

Matelasses 4872 54 11096 53.93 8857a 53.96

Motorcycle 17080 30 21514 39.89 19919 36.33

Cellular phones 2146 29 2255 28.65 2216 28.78

Radio 4568 74 3528 78.09 3902 76.62

Table 300 2 258 8.43 273 6.12b

Television 2920 16 1882 19.1 2255 17.99

Bicycle 1770 31 6576 56.18 4847a 47.12

a

Vehicle 38750 7 30997 8.99 33786 8.27

Value total assets (Naira) 102369 n.a 99206 n.a 100337 n.a

Value total assets (US$) 731 709 717

a = Significant at 1%, et b = Significant at 5%, c Significant at 10%

n.a: non-applicable

Sources: Baseline survey in Nigeria, ICRISAT/ IAR/BUK, 2008

5.1.4 - Social assets (institutional affiliation, contacts and social networks)

In the 3 countries, household members are affiliated to several types of institutions. Overall,

in 95% of households surveyed in Mali, at least one member of the household belongs to

one of the associations. In Niger, the level of association is lesser than in Mali. In 31% of

households, at least one member is affiliated to one of these associations. In Nigeria, it is

similar to Mali.

It can be noted that in Mali, for 35% of the households surveyed, at least one member

belongs to a village counsel, for 35% of households, at least one member of Households

belong to adult associations; for 83% of households at least one woman belongs to a

women’s association, for 48% of households at least one young belong to a Youth’s

association (Table 10).

Table 10. Proportion of households having at least one member affiliated to one of these

institutions

Village

Organization %UPA No. years %UPA No. years %UPA No. years

Mali 54 112 116

Village counsel 35.185 1.275 49.558 1.436 44.910c 1.389

Adults 35.185 9,70 34.513 13,33 34.731 12,14

Women 83.333 7,16 47.788 8,65 47.904 8,18b

Youth 48.148 10,84 8.85 8,79 8.383 9,46

Elder 7.407 21,25 0.885 25,70 1.198 24,43

Black smith 1.852 - 7.08 20,00 10.180c 20,00

Religious 16.667 22,95 0 16,04 0 19,878a

34

Village

Organization %UPA No. years %UPA No. years %UPA No. years

% EA with at least one 94.55 n.a 91.96 n.a 92.81 n.a

Niger

Village counsel 16.67 0.948 21.08 1.551 19.25 1.301

Adults 7.64 0.302 22.06 0.873 16.09a 0.64

b

Women 13.19 0.386 35.29 1.29 26.15a 0.92

a

Youth 13.89 0.48 17.65 0.416 16.09 0.443

Elder 5.56 0.24 8.33 0.302 7.18 0.276

Blacksmith 0.69 0.07 0.49 0.069 0.58 0.069

Religious 5.56 0.203 14.71 1.204 10.92a 0.79

a

% EA with at least one

member 30.556 n.a 61.275 n.a 48.56a n.a

Nigeria

Village counsel 13.21 3.67 9.6 3.55 10.95 3.59

Local Government Area 8.49 1.87 4.52 1.18 6.01 1.44

Women association 1.89 0.27 1.69 0.03 1.77 0.12

Youth association 8.49 2.2 9.04 1.14 8.83 1.53

Elder association 5.66 2.52 14.12 3.33 10.95 3.03

Water users’ association 0 0.02 0.56 0.11 0.35 0.07

Religious association 12.26 4.44 8.47 2.46 9.89 3.19

% EA with at least one 83.33 n.a 30.77 n.a 56 n.a

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

No. years : number of years of affiliation , n/a non-applicable

In parentheses, the number of UPA surveyed

Sources: Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Table 11 presents the contacts that household members have in the same village, out of the

village and in the same cercle and ultimately out of the country. It can be noted that in Mali,

households have regular contacts with family members in the same village, out of the

village but in the same region and outside Mali. Households have contacts with village

traders, regional traders and even those outside the country. The same can be reported for

Niger and Nigeria, except that fewer households are connected to social and economical

based associations.

Table 11. Contacts and social networks in Mali in 2007/08 In the

same

village

Out of village

but in the

same cercle

Out of village but

in the same region

Out of

region

Out of

country

35

Number of household members who

traveled out of the village last season n/a 3 3 3 1

Number of visits rendered by all family

members last season? n/a 14 6 3 0

Number of households members with

whom you have regular contacts 85 141 151 23 13

Number of non-family members with

whom you have regular contacts 10 13 13 6 3

Number of persons to whom you have

contracted a loan? 3 3 2 2 2

Number of persons not from NGOs or

GOs from whom you have asked for

advise on economic activities or

undertaking?

3 3 7 3 2

Number of traders that you know in the

market? 5 15 15 7 3

Number of family members who are

traders? 1 2 2 2 2

Number of family members who are

GOs? 1 1 1 1 0

Number of family members who earn a

monthly salary? 1 1 1 2 3

Table 12 presents the major purposes of visits by household members. The major reasons

for household member’s visits with others are very diverse. In Mali, for example, the main

purposes of visits are social in nature (51% of households), followed by trade (18%), search

for outside jobs (12%), medical treatment (9%) and migration (7%). The same trends are

recorded in Niger and Nigeria.

Table 12. Purpose of visits of members of households

Country / Purpose

Type of village

Total sample Non program site Program site

Mali (54) (112) (166)

Trade 16.98 18.35 17.90

Visit family / social 54.72 49.54 51.23

Medical treatment 5.66 11.01 9.26

Purchase of inputs 3.77 2.75 3.09

Outside job 15.09 10.09 11.73

Training 3.77 1.83 2.47

Migration 9.43 5.50 6.79

Meeting 0.00 0.92 0.62

Farming 0.00 1.83 1.23

Marriage assets 1.89 1.83 1.85

36

Particular needs 1.89 0.00 0.62

Condolences 0.00 0.92 0.62

Niger (144) (204) (348)

Trade 40.38 47.16 45.61

Visit family / social 46.15 48.86 48.25

Medical treatment 11.54 3.98 5.7

Purchase of inputs 17.31 15.34 15.79

Nigeria (100) (177) (277)

Trade 38.24 23.47 27.27

Visit family / social 88.24 85.71 86.36

Medical treatment 2.35 7.11 5.89

Purchase of inputs 0.47 2.16 1.73

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed

Sources: Baseline surveyed in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

5.1.5 - Financial assets

Table 13 presents the sources of credit contracted by households and the proportion of

households contracting credit from alternative sources. The proportion of households

supplying alternative types of guarantees is presented in Table 14. Table 15 highlights the

amount requested against contracted and credit duration and Table 16 summarizes the

uses of credit.

Sources of credit contracted by households

In general, less than 50% of household heads have access to credit. In Mali, 46% of

households surveyed have access to formal and informal sources of credit against 43% in

Niger and 9% in Nigeria. In general, for those who have access to credit, the major sources

are family and friends for about 43%, saving and loan institutions for 21% and NGO and

projects for about 17% in Mali. In Niger, 48% of households get loans from family and

friends, 21% from village traders, 28% from NGO and projects and 7% from money-lenders.

In Nigeria, most farmers (70%) get loans from village traders, 8% from family and friends

and 8% from money-lenders and 8% local governments. In Mali, the amount of credit

obtained is higher from family and friends, followed by savings and loan institutions and

NGOs. In Niger, the contracted amount is higher for family members flowed by village

traders, NGO and projects. Similar trends are observed in Nigeria (Table 13).

Table 13. Proportion and amount of credit contracted by source by households who

contracted loans in 2008/09

Type of village

Credit source Non program site Program site Total sample

% hh Value % hh Value % hh Value

Mali (28) (49) (77)

Family and friends 53.57 14,776 36.73 9,013 42.86 10,884b

Village traders 7.14 4,789 8.16 4,146 7.79 4,355

37

Customer 3.57 658 0.00 0 1.30 214

Banks 0.00 0 4.08 253 2.60 171

Savings and loan institution 14.29 7,237 24.49 7,532 20.78 7436

NGO / project 10.71 2,632 20.41 8,114 16.88 6333

Cooperative 7.14 457 8.16 5,981 7.79 4186c

Office du Niger 3.57 1,842 4.08 4,497 3.90 3635

Amount of loan (FCFA) n/a 33,391 n/a 40,384 n/a 38,112

Amount of loan ($USD) n/a 67 n/a 81 n/a 76

Niger (34) (117) (151)

Family and friends 58.82 14,728 44.35 10,330 47.65 11,334

Village traders 20.59 14,368 21.74 7,235 21.48 8,862

Savings and loan institution 0 0 1.74 365 1.34 282

NGO / project 20.59 7,382 29.57 8,987 27.52 8,621

Cooperative 2.94 1,471 0 0 0.67 336

Money lender 2.94 1,765 8.7 8826 7.38 7,215

Amount of loan (FCFA) n/a 40007 n/a 38,009 n/a 38,465

Amount of loan ($USD) n/a 80 n/a 76 n/a 77

Nigeria (12) (13) (25)

Family and friends 16.67 35,833 0.00 48,538 8.33 42,440

Village traders 66.67 0 75.00 36,154 70.83 18,800

Cooperative 0.00 10,000 16.67 0 8.33 4,800

Banks 8.33 3,333 0.00 0 4.17 1,600

Local government 8.33 417 8.33 3,846 8.33 2,200

Amount of loan (naira) n/a 49,583 n/a 88,538 n/a 69,840

Amount of loan ($USD) n/a 354 n/a 632 n/a 499

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

There are differences in the contracted amounts between program and non-program sites

based on the lender. In the case the lender is a family and/or friend, the contracted amount

in program site is higher than that of non-program site in all countries. In Niger and Mali,

the average contracted amount would barely allow farmers to purchase a bag of fertilizers

estimated to about FCFA 13,500 in 2007/08. In general, the contracted amount is used to

smooth consumption. However, though fewer farmers have access to loans, the volume

contracted can be used for agricultural investment purposes.

Collateral supplied by borrowers

In all the 3 countries, farmers are required to provide collateral of various forms in order to

contract loans. In Mali, about 51% of loan transactions are given without guarantees,

whereas, 14% pledged land, 6% livestock, 14% agricultural equipment and 12% cotton

production. Group guarantees is solely used in 2% of loan transactions. In Niger, group

social collateral in the form of group guarantee is predominant and used in about 71% of

loan transactions. Pledging houses and land titles are also used as forms of collateral. In

Nigeria, 72% of loan transactions are done without any collateral.

38

Table 14. Type of guarantee/collateral supplied by households

Type of guarantee / collateral

Type of village

Non program site Program site Total sample

% HHs Value % HHs Value % HHs Value

Mali (28) (49) (77)

Land 0.00 0 21.88 14361 14.29c 9696

c

Livestock 5.88 353 6.25 1013 6.12 798

Group guarantee 0.00 0 3.13 1266 2.04 855

No guarantee 76.47 13680 37.50 6776 51.02a 9018

Equipment / assets 5.88 5263 18.75 1835 14.29 2949

Saving book (livret d'epargne) 0.00 0 3.13 253 2.04 171

Cotton production 11.76 2805 12.50 1392 12.24 1851

Cash advance 5.88 1316 3.13 633 4.08 855

Amount of loan (FCFA) n/a 33391 n/a 40384 n/a 38112

Amount of loan ($USD) n/a 67 n/a 81 n/a 76

Niger (34) (117) (151)

House 6.67 588 1.00 855 2.31c 795

Land 13.33 7235 11.00 5231 11.54 5682

Livestock 20.00 7500 6.00 3453 9.23b 4364

Equipment / assets 23.33 5382 1.00 26 6.15a 1231

a

Group guarantee 36.67 11213 81.00 23462 70.77a 20704

c

Confidence / reputation 0.00 0 1.00 855 0.77 662

Land title 0.00 0 1.00 171 0.77 132

Amount of loan (FCFA) n/a 40007 n/a 38009 n/a 38465

Amount of loan ($USD) n/a 80 n/a 76 n/a 77

Nigeria (12) (13) (25)

Land 0.00 0 23.08 30000 12.00 15600

Livestock 16.67 6250 7.69 77 12.00 3040

Group guarantee 8.33 2500 0.00 0 4.00 1200

No guarantee 75.00 40833 69.23 58462 72.00 50000

Amount of loan (naira) n/a 49583 n/a 88538 n/a 69840

Amount of loan ($USD) n/a 354 n/a 632 n/a 499

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

The average amount of loans supplied does not necessary tally with the enforcement needs

for reimbursement. This may be explained by the fact that members of these communities

have established the reputation in such a way that it does not require collateral to have

access to large amount of loans. For example, in Mali, farmers have access to loans

averaging 9,000 FCFA without collateral against 9,700 FCFA with land as collateral and 2,949

FCFA pledging agricultural equipment. In Niger, however, the average highest contracted

amount of 20,704 FCFA is supplied through group guarantees, followed by 5,682 FCFA

where land is offered as guarantee and 4,364 FCFA as livestock. Arrangements in Nigeria are

similar to those in Mali. Large amounts of loans ie. $US400 are offered without any form

guarantee (Table 14).

39

Table 15 presents the type of credits offered by parties and the type of credit transactions.

In general, loans are supplied to groups or individual farmers in all the 3 countries. Group

credit is also predominant and estimated to 31% of loan transactions in Mali, 37% in Niger

and about 20% in Nigeria. Cash is the major form of credit transaction followed by in-kind.

In fact, 68% of loan transactions are made in cash in Mali, 54% in Niger and 4% in Nigeria.

In-kind credit dominates in Nigeria with 96% of credit transactions against 35% in Mali and

49% in Niger.

Table 15. Type of credit and credit transactions

Country / variable

Type of village

Total sample Non program site Program site

% hh Value % hh Value % hh Value

Mali (28) (49) (77)

Individual/group

Group credit 32.14 7,525 30.61 15,516 31.17 12,921

Individual credit 67.86 25,866 73.47 24,867 71.43 25,191

Type of transaction

Cash credit 82.14 23,839 60.42 18,677 68.42b 20,354

b

In kind credit 25.00 9,551 41.67 20,441 35.53 16,904

Amount of loan (FCFA) n/a 33,391 n/a 40,384 n/a 38,112

Amount of loan ($USD) n/a 67 n/a 81 n/a 76

Niger (34) (117) (151)

Individual/group

Group credit 23.53 10,618 40.87 15,874 36.91 14,675

Individual credit 76.47 29,390 60.87 22,135 64.43 23,790

Type of transaction

Cash credit 58.82 26,779 53.04 24,687 54.36c 25,164

In kind credit 44.12 13,228 50.43 13,322 48.99c 13,300

Amount of loan (FCFA) n/a 40,007 n/a 38,009 n/a 38,465

Amount of loan ($USD) n/a 80 n/a 76 n/a 77

Nigeria (12) (13) (25)

Individual/group

Group credit 8.33 1,667 30.77 23,077 20c 12,800

c

Individual credit 91.67 47,917 69.23 65,462 80.00 57,040

Type of transaction

Cash credit 8.33 5,000 0.00 0 4.00 2,400

In kind credit 91.67 44,583 100.00 88,538 96.00 67,440

Amount of loan (naira) n/a 49,583 n/a 88,538 n/a 69,840

Amount of loan ($USD) n/a 354 n/a 632 n/a 499

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

40

Loan amount and interest rate

In general, the amount of loans requested is less than the amount of loans supplied. In Mali,

on average farmers requested US$104 but received about US$76 with maturity less than a

year. In Niger, loan volume requests were estimated to about US$79 but farmers received

about US$77 with short maturity less than 6 months. Contrary to Niger and Mali, loan

volumes are relatively large estimated to US$500 on average with maturity of less than a

year (Table 16).

Interest rates on loan contracted by farmers are very higher in Mali and less in Niger and

Nigeria. This is not counter-intuitive if interest reflects the level of risk involved in

contracting. It is estimated that monthly interest rate paid on loans in Mali is about 1.8%,

against 1.2% in Nigeria and 0.9% in Niger. This translates into yearly interest rates of 24% in

Mali, 11% in Niger and 15% in Nigeria. While average interest rate in Mali is higher than

many alternative investments in the Malian rural economy, it is also higher than formal

commercial bank lending rate. Interest rates in Niger and Nigeria although lower than that

of Mali are still higher than the rate of returns on rural investment opportunities.

Table 16. Amount requested, amount contracted, balance and credit duration (months)

Type of village

Country / Variable Non program site Program site Total sample

Local

currency

In

$USD

Local

currency

In

$USD

Local

currency

In

$USD

Mali (FCFA) (28) (49) (77)

Amount contracted / supplied 33,391 67 40,384 81 38,112 76

Amount requested 44,149 88 55,344 111 51,808 104

Loan balance 3,845 8 9,605 19 7,685 15

Interest amount 9,727 19 6,563 13 7,591 15

Loan duration (number of

months) 9.54 10.85 10.32

Niger (FCFA) (34) (117) (151)

Amount contracted / supplied 40,007 80 38,009 76 38,465 77

Amount requested 46,164 92 37,327 75 39,406 79

Loan balance 5,118 10 3,104 6 3,564 7

Interest amount 1,347 3 1,599 3 1,541 3

Loan duration (number of

months) 5.01 4.50 4.61

Nigeria (Naira) (12) (13) (25)

Amount contracted / supplied 49,583 354 88,538 632 69,840 499

Amount requested 58,750 420 215,000 1536 140,000 1000

Loan balance 9,000 64 82,385 588 47,160 337

Interest amount 2,125 15 10,423 74 6,440 46

Loan duration (number of

months) 7.42 7.69 7.56

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed;

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

41

Use of credit contracted by households

In general, contrary to prior beliefs, farmers do make productive investments. In Mali,

about ¼ households use credit to purchase food, 24% to purchase agricultural inputs, 11%

for family needs and 6% to invest in cotton production. Less than 5% of the credit

contracted in invested in agricultural equipment or livestock purchase. They proportionally

invest the same amount of credit contracted (Table 17).

Table 17. Use of credit by households and proportion of the amount used for consumption

and investment in Mali in 2007/08

Type of village

Country / Utilization Non program site (28) Program site (49) Total sample (77)

% household % Used % household % Used

%

household % Used

Livestock purchase 0.00 0.00 6.25 6.75 3.95 4.29

Land purchase 0.00 0.00 6.25 5.44 3.95 3.46

Food 39.29 44.48 16.67 18.37 25.00 27.86

Zinc roof purchase 0.00 0.00 2.08 2.38 1.32 1.52

Family needs 10.71 8.33 10.42 11.90 10.53 10.61

Petit trade 3.57 4.17 2.08 2.38 2.63 3.03

Digging well 0.00 0.00 2.08 2.38 1.32 1.52

Construction 0.00 0.00 2.08 0.00 1.32 0.00

Cotton production 3.57 4.17 8.33 7.14 6.58 6.06

Agricultural equipment 7.14 2.74 16.67 4.76 13.16 4.03

Tabaski feast 3.57 4.17 0.00 0.00 1.32 1.52

Agricultural input purchase 32.14 27.78 18.75 16.67 23.68 20.71

Health 3.57 4.17 2.08 2.38 2.63 3.03

Vegetable production 0.00 0.00 2.08 2.38 1.32 1.52

Credit reimbursement 0.00 0.00 2.08 0.40 1.32 0.25

Transport 0.00 0.00 2.08 2.38 1.32 1.52

SIM and recharge cards 0.00 0.00 2.08 2.38 1.32 1.52

Amount of loan (FCFA) 33391 40384 38112

Amount of loan ($USD) 67 81 76

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

In Niger, 15% of farmers use credit to purchase food, 23% to fulfill family obligations, 15% in

agricultural production, 8% petty trade, and about 6% on livestock fattening. Similar

proportions of credit are allocated to these activities (Table 18).

Table 18. Use of credit by households and proportion of the amount used for consumption

and investment in Niger in 2007/08

Type of village

Country / Utilization

Non program site

(34) Program site (117) Total sample (151)

% % % % % %

42

household Used household Used household Used

Livestock purchase 0.00 0.00 4.00 3.79 3.15 3.00

Food purchase 40.74 41.54 8.00 7.61 14.96a 14.72

a

Labor purchase 7.41 7.69 1.00 1.02 2.36 2.42

Fertilizer 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.06 2.36 2.42

Agricultural activities 0.00 0.00 19.00 19.39 14.96a 15.32

a

AGR 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.08 3.15 3.23

Family needs 7.41 7.69 27.00 26.67 22.83b 22.69

Ceremonies (marriage, feats,

birthdays) 7.41 7.69 3.00 3.06 3.94 4.03

Commerce 7.41 7.69 8.00 7.56 7.87 7.59

Health 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.02 0.79 0.81

For another farmer 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.02 0.79 0.81

Production 14.81 15.38 16.00 14.88 15.75 14.99

Livestock fattening 7.41 7.69 5.00 5.10 5.51 5.65

Travel 3.70 3.85 1.00 1.02 1.57 1.61

Seed production 3.70 0.78 1.00 0.72 1.57 0.73

Amount of loan (FCFA) 40007 38009 38465

Amount of loan ($USD) 80 76 77

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

In Nigeria, farmers use credit to purchase livestock, invest in agricultural activities, housing

construction and fertilizers. And few farmers use credit to fulfill social obligations (Table 19).

Table 19. Use of credit by households and proportion of the amount used for consumption

and investment in Nigeria in 2007/08

Type of village

Country / Utilization Non program site (12) Program site (13) Total sample (25)

% household % Used % household % Used % household % Used

Fertilizer 0.00 0.00 21.43 25.00 11.54 12.50

Livestock purchase 50.00 50.00 28.57 33.33 38.46 41.67

Agricultural activities 16.67 16.67 14.29 16.67 15.38 16.67

Purchase of the inputs 0.00 0.00 14.29 16.67 7.69 8.33

Food purchase 16.67 16.67 0.00 0.00 7.69 8.33

Housing construction 8.33 8.33 7.14 8.33 7.69 8.33

Other uses (health, travel, marriage) 8.33 8.33 14.29 0.00 11.54 4.17

Amount of loan (naira) 49583 88538 69840

Amount of loan ($USD) 354 632 499

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Loan maturity differs by country. In Mali, the proportion of loans of longer maturity (more

than 24 months) is higher in Mali than in other 2 countries. This is estimated to about 48%

43

in Mali compared to 11% in Niger and 4% in Nigeria. Loan transactions are of longer

maturity in Mali supposedly reflecting the lower risk involved in contracting compared to

the other 2 countries. However, this may be explained by the longer maturity and risk

involved in defaulting (Table 20).

Table 20. Classes of loan maturity duration in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

Type of village

Country / Purpose Non program site Program site Total sample

Mali (28) (49) (77)

Short term [<6 months] 23.68 12.66 16.24

Medium term [6 -24 months] 39.47 34.18 35.9

Long term [> 24 months] 36.84 53.16 47.86

Niger (34) (117) (151)

Short term [<6 months] 55.88 67.52 64.9

Medium term [6 -24 months] 32.35 22.22 24.5

Long term [> 24 months] 11.76 10.26 10.6

Nigeria (12) (13) (25)

Short term [<6 months] 33.33 38.46 36.00

Medium term [6 -24 months] 66.67 53.85 60.00

Long term [> 24 months] 0.00 7.69 4.00

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed;

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

5.2 – Household market participation and transactions in 2007/08

This section discusses household market participation by product and the degree of market

participation (levels of sales) in the 3 countries. Table 21 summarizes the quantity sold and

value of sale transactions by households in program and non-program sites.

5.2.1. – Market participation

Table 21 presents the proportion of households who are net sellers, net buyers and

autarkic. Farmers trade different agricultural products in the local markets. In Mali,

household participation is higher for groundnut, sorghum and rice than other crops. About

47% of households sell groundnut and 5% purchase groundnut. But net sellers are

estimated to 46% with a low percentage of net buyers estimated to about 9% and about

46% living in autarky. Likewise, about 9% of households are net sellers of sorghum, 40% are

net buyers and 51% are in autarky. As for rice, 30% of surveyed households are net buyers,

25% net sellers and 68% living in autarky. Other crops such as bambaranut, cowpea, fonio,

maize, legume haulm, pearl millet are thinly traded in the markets.

Table 21. Proportion of households net sellers, net buyers and in autarky of agricultural

products Total

44

Country / Product

Non-program sites Program sites

Net buyer Net seller Net buyer Net seller Net buyer Net seller

Mali

Bambaranut 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.60

Cotton 0.00 1.82 0.00 11.61 0.00 8.38

Cowpea 0.00 10.91 0.00 7.14 0.00 8.38

Fonio 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.60

Groundnut 5.45 43.64 10.71 46.43 8.98 45.51

Legume haulm 1.82 3.64 0.00 0.00 0.60 1.20

Maize 3.64 7.27 9.82 6.25 7.78 6.59

Pearl millet 0.00 1.82 6.25 3.57 4.19 2.99

Rice 29.09 3.64 30.36 0.89 29.94 1.80

Sorghum 34.55 14.55 42.86 6.25 40.12 8.98

Watermelon 0.00 3.64 0.00 0.89 0.00 1.80

Niger

Bambaranut 2.01 22.82 1.90 16.67 1.95 19.22

Cassava 4.03 0.67 7.14 0.95 5.85 0.84

Cereal stalk 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00

Cowpea 2.01 32.21 6.19 18.10 4.46 23.96

Fonio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.56

Groundnut 1.34 71.81 0.00 84.76 0.56 79.39

Legume haulm 0.67 6.04 2.86 5.24 1.95 5.57

Maize 32.89 0.67 43.81 0.95 39.28 0.84

Pearl millet 50.34 7.38 35.71 6.67 41.78 6.96

Rice 2.68 0.00 2.86 0.00 2.79 0.00

Sesame 0.67 3.36 0.00 4.76 0.28 4.18

Sorghum 14.77 2.01 5.24 0.48 9.19 1.11

Sorrel 0.00 10.74 0.00 9.05 0.00 9.75

Nigeria

Cotton 0.00 0.00 8.99 1.69 5.76 1.08

Cowpea 30.00 2.00 34.27 10.11 32.73 7.19

Groundnut 60.00 0.00 78.09 5.06 71.58 3.24

Maize 2.00 22.00 21.35 14.61 14.39 17.27

Pearl millet 15.00 10.00 30.90 6.18 25.18 7.55

Rice 4.00 4.00 11.80 20.22 8.99 14.39

Sesame 10.00 1.00 17.42 1.12 14.75 1.08

Sorghum 12.00 4.00 33.15 11.80 25.54 8.99

Sorrel 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.35 0.00

Soybean 2.00 1.00 7.30 2.25 5.40 1.80

Likewise in Mali, households trade for groundnut, cowpea, maize, pearl millet, sorrel and

sorghum in Niger. Other crops such as bambaranut, cassava, fonio were thinly traded in the

survey sites. About 81% of the households sell groundnut, 32% sell cowpea and 20%

bambaranut. These households are also net sellers of these crops. However, it is estimated

45

that households purchase more cereals such as maize for about 39%, 44% for pearl millet,

and 10% for sorghum. These households are also net buyers of cereal products.

Compared to Mali and Niger, in Nigeria, households participate actively in the market for

almost all crops such as groundnut, cowpea, maize, pearl millet, sorghum, rice, sesame and

sorrel. However, the high rate of participation is observed for groundnut where groundnut

is sold by about 76% followed by cowpea, sorghum, pearl millet and sesame.

5.2.2 - Agricultural products

Cereals, legumes and vegetable are mostly traded in the markets. In Mali, the average

quantity of groundnut sold per household is estimated to 177 kg. For sorghum, this is

estimated to 174 kg, 145 kg for maize but less than 20 kg for millet, cowpea and

watermelon. Households located in program sites sell larger volumes than those in the non-

project sites. In particular, those households sell more than double the amount sold in the

non-program sites (Table 22).

Table 22. Quantity (kg) and value of crop sale (FCFA or Naira)

Non project site Project site Total

Product

Quantity

sold (kg)

Value of

sales (FCFA)

Quantity

sold (kg)

Value of

sales (FCFA)

Quantity

sold (kg)

Value of

sales (FCFA)

Mali

Groundnut 384 (24) 114904 710 (54) 201420 609 (78) 174800

Sorghum 1008 (9) 265811 714(9) 112156 861(18) 188983

Maize 1887 (4) 229625 800 (7) 96950 1195 (11) 145195

Pearl millet 400 (2) 61500 408 (5) 59020 406 (7) 59729

Rice 125 (2) 30250 250 (1) 100000 166 (3) 53500

Cotton 860 (1) 137600 1653 (13) 247264 1596 (14) 239431

Cowpea 91 (1) 26642 242 (8) 89906 178 (14) 62793

Disabe nt nt 400 (1) 160000 400 160000

Watermelon 190 (2) 88500 400 (1) 140000 260 (3) 105667

Bambaranut 120 (1) 30000 nt nt 120 (1) 30000

Fonio 5 (1) 2500 nt nt 5 (1) 2500

Haulm 17 (2) 11250 nt nt 17 (2) 11250

Nigeria

Groundnut 1192 (108) 98895 1217 (178) 91055 1208 (286) 94015

Sorghum 1666 (3) 163333 300 (1) 33000 1325 (4) 130750

Pearl millet 312 (13) 34408 402(18) 66200 365 (31) 52868

Maize 200 (1) 16000 150 (2) 20500 166 (3) 19000

Cowpea 271 (48) 38911 224 (38) 29118 250 (86) 34584

Bambaranut 263 (35) 34444 484 (35) 53857 373 (70) 44151

Sesame 72 (5) 6955 107 (10) 10450 95 (15) 9285

Haulm 90 (9) 24000 76 (11) 18059 82 (20) 20733

Cassava 1 (1) 17000 4.5 (2) 55750 3 (3) 42833

Fonio 475 (2) 60375 nt nt 475 (2) 60375

46

Sorrel 179 (16) 19863 158 (19) 12879 167 (35) 16071

Nigeria

Groundnut 766 (60) 49825 1236 (143) 80380 1097 (203) 71349

Sorghum 235 (12) 17421 475 (63) 35220 437 (75) 32373

Maize 666 (2) 42640 785 (39) 50297 780 (41) 49924

Pearl millet 1046 (15) 73267 620 (57) 43424 709 (72) 49641

Rice 581 (4) 49406 475 (21) 40436 492 (25) 41871

Cotton 2186 (16) 218625 nt nt 2186 (16) 218625

Cowpea 129 (31) 10323 278 (64) 22319 230 (95) 18404

Soybean 230 (2) 11500 407 (13) 20385 384 (15) 19200

Sesame 140 (11) 4220 327 (31) 9814 278 (42) 8349

Sorrel 2000 (1) 180000 nt nt 2000 (1) 180000

In Niger, the same trend is observed except that for groundnut there is no significant

different in the volume of sales in the program and non-program sites. However, this is true

for sorghum and cowpea where significantly more volume of sorghum and cowpea is

transacted in non-program sites than program sites. In Nigeria, the same trend is observed

as in Mali.

Groundnut represents a high proportion of sale revenues in the 3 countries (Table 23).

Groundnut accounts for about 64% of crop sale in Mali, 66% in Niger and 54% in Nigeria. In

Mali, this is followed by cotton, sorghum, maize, pearl millet and cowpea. In Niger, cowpea

is second in the rank of sales, followed by bambaranut and groundnut haulm.

Table 23. Proportion of total cash sales by crop in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

Type of village

Country / product Non program site Program site Total sample

Mali (52) (104) (156)

Groundnut 58.95 66.23 64.00

Sorghum 16.18 4.86 8.33b

Maize 7.70 2.91 4.38

Pearl millet 5.58 2.35 3.35

Rice 1.31 1.43 1.39

Cotton 3.23 15.52 11.74c

Cowpea 4.05 1.80 2.49

"Disabe" 0.00 1.11 0.77

Watermelon 2.08 1.43 1.63

Bambaranut 0.00 1.43 0.99

Fonio 0.00 0.93 0.65

Groundnut haulm 0.93 0.00 0.28b

Value of sales (FCFA) 129788 165635 153686

Value of sales ($USD) 260 331 307

Niger (133) (190) (323)

Groundnut 57.76 71.82 66.01

Sorghum 1.75 0.83 1.21

47

Maize 0.08 0.30 0.21

Pearl millet 2.86 3.75 3.38

Cowpea 16.08 8.96 11.90

Bambaranut 10.14 6.75 8.15

Fonio 0.00 0.32 0.19

Sorrel 2.88 1.03 1.80

Sesame 0.29 1.26 0.86

Groundnut haulm 4.05 4.55 4.34

Other crops (cassava, okra) 4.11 0.43 1.96

Value of sales (FCFA) 116465 111268 113408

Value of sales ($USD) 233 223 227

Nigeria (75) (164) (239)

Groundnut 59.02 51.60 54.04

Sorghum 2.58 8.14 6.31

Maize 0.91 9.73 6.83

Pearl millet 8.90 6.92 7.58

Rice 1.29 3.32 2.65

Cotton 0.00 4.28 2.87

Cowpea 16.82 9.19 11.70

Soybean 1.55 1.92 1.80

Sorrel 0.00 0.30 0.20

Sesame 8.35 3.40 5.03

Other crops (okra fonio) 0.57 1.20 0.99

Value of sales (naira) 66413 151231 124614

Value of sales ($USD) 474 1080 890

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed; n/a : not applicable

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

In Nigeria, the same trend is observed. Same as in Niger, cowpea is the second most

important crop in terms of sales, followed by pearl millet, sorghum, maize and sesame.

Table 24 summarizes the demand for crop products by households in the 3 countries. In the

demand front, households purchase mostly cereal crops including sorghum and rice. Pearl

millet and maize are also purchased in Mali. In Niger, rural households purchase mainly

sorghum, maize and pearl millet. In Nigeria, the demand for cowpea is very important

followed by rice, pearl millet, sesame, groundnut and sorghum. Maize and soybean are also

demanded

Table 24. Quantity purchased (kg) and amount of food expenditures (FCFA)

Product

Non program site Program site Total

Quantity

purchased

Value of

purchases

Quantity

purchased

Value of

purchases

Quantity

purchased

Value of

purchases

Mali

Groundnut 590 (3) 302080 285 (15) 146227 336 (18) 172203

Sorghum 536 (19) 80526 1052 (50) 157872 910 (69) 136574

48

Maize 1125 (2) 163125 545 (11) 79090 634 (13) 92019

Pearl millet 500 (1) 80000 451 (7) 72229 457 (8) 73200

Riz 469 (17) 140824 666 (35) 199971 602 (52) 180635

Haulm 10 (1) 1000 nt nt 10 (1) 1000

Niger

Groundnut 602 (5) 43300 36 (18) 5971 159 (23) 14086

Sorghum 241 (23) 42522 132 (11) 23914 206 (34) 36501

Pearl millet 421 (75) 66445 493 (77) 73765 457 (152) 70153

Maize 279 (49) 42731 275 (92) 42177 276 (141) 42369

Rice 2580 (4) 21125 67 (6) 9663 1072 (10) 14248

Cowpea 34 (4) 7250 46 (14) 10346 43 (18) 9658

Bambaranut 213 (4) 20438 109 (4) 15188 161 (8) 17813

Sesame 300 (1) 60000 nt nt 300 (1) 60000

Haulm 20 (1) 2500 186 (6) 35167 162 (7) 30500

Cassava 48 (6) 6300 46 (15) 7730 47 (21) 7321

Nigeria

Groundnut 1 (2) 13250 935 (15) 211533 825 (17) 188206

Sorghum 237 (4) 7163 936 (23) 133764 833 (27) 115009

Maize 71 (22) 48102 551 (27) 24126 336 (49) 34891

Pearl millet 203 (10) 6470 816 (13) 469258 549 (23) 268046

Rice 37 (4) 725931 66 (37) 153278 63 (41) 209146

Cotton 1510 (4) 10375 nt nt 1510 (4) 10375

Cowpea 150 (2) 11500 983 (18) 668068 900 (20) 602411

Soybean 100 (1) 800000 522 (5) 30632 451 (6) 158860

Sesame 500 (1) 36000 1160 (3) 1610000 995 (4) 1220000

The proportion of crop expenditures is high for sorghum and rice in Mali. Similarly, in Niger,

households spend more on cereals (sorghum, maize and pearl millet). In Nigeria, pearl

millet, cowpea, maize and sorghum are mostly demanded (Table 25).

Table 25. Proportion (%) of expenditures by crop in the 3 countries in 2007/08

Type of village

Country / product Non program site Program site Total sample

Mali (52) (104) (156)

Groundnut 6.86 7.77 7.48

Sorghum 45.96 49.91 48.64

Maize 4.90 5.94 5.61

Pearl millet 2.94 5.17 4.45

Rice 36.39 31.21 32.88

Other products (haulm) 2.94 0.00 0.94

Value of expenditures (FCFA) 481995 147492 258993c

Value of expenditures ($USD) 964 295 518

Niger (99) (133) (232)

Groundnut 2.10 6.33 4.51c

Sorghum 9.56 2.71 5.65a

49

Maize 31.43 42.38 37.67b

Pearl millet 51.94 39.11 44.62a

Cowpea 0.42 2.29 1.49c

Bambaranut 0.46 0.66 0.57

Cassava 0.96 0.82 0.88

Rice 1.10 1.83 1.52

Sesame 1.02 0.00 0.44

Groundnut haulm 1.02 3.86 2.64

Value of expenditures (FCFA) 81588 76215 78508

Value of expenditures ($USD) 163 152 157

Nigeria (36) (89) (125)

Groundnut 4.87 9.83 8.35

Sorghum 18.68 7.64 10.95c

Maize 5.27 14.95 12.04a

Pearl millet 49.97 19.51 28.65b

Rice 0.00 0.19 0.13a

Cotton 3.33 3.00 3.10

Cowpea 9.41 31.14 24.62

Soybean 4.42 8.40 7.20

Sesame 3.33 1.58 2.10

Other crops (okra fonio) 0.71 3.77 2.86

Value of expenditures (naira) 137335 406304 328841

Value of expenditures ($USD) 981 2902 2349

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed; n/a : not applicable

Sources : Baseline surveyed in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Table 26 presents the major actors in the groundnut value chains. In general, traders are

the major demanders of agricultural products. They represent 68% of the buyers in Mali,

76% in Niger and 97% in Nigeria. This is followed by other farmers in Mali and in Niger.

Table 26. Major buyers of agricultural products

Type of village

Client (%) Non-program site Program site Sample

Mali (52) (104) (156)

Traders 78.13 62.9 68.09

Other farmers 34.38 20.97 25.53

Consumers 3.13 3.23 3.19

Cooperatives 0 3.23 2.13

OHVN-rural development projects 6.25 16.13 12.77

Family members 0 1.61 1.06

Niger (99) (133) (232)

Traders 86.861 68.367 75.976

Other farmers 19.708 18.367 18.919

Consumers 0.73 2.551 1.802

50

Type of village

Client (%) Non-program site Program site Sample

Nigeria (36) (89) (125)

Traders 98.48 96.79 97.30

Other farmers 1.52 1.92 1.80

Consumers 1.52 13.46 9.91

Cooperatives 0.00 0.64 0.45

Others 0.00 2.56 1.80 a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

In parentheses, The number of UPA surveyed

Sources: Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

5.2.3 - Livestock trade in 2007/08

Table 27 presents the number and value of livestock sold by type and household.

Households sell livestock to meet their consumption and production needs. In Mali and

Niger for example, households sell on average less than a cattle, goat and sheep. In Nigeria,

almost no sale of cattle was reported by surveyed households especially in the non-program

sites. The liquidity generated by households on livestock is estimated to about US$214 in

Mali, US$256 in Niger and US$189 in Nigeria.

Table 27. Number and value of livestock heads sold by Households in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

Type of animal

Village

Non-program site Program site Sample (166)

Number

sold

Value

(FCFA)

Number

sold

Value

(FCFA)

Number

sold

Value

(FCFA)

Mali (44) (82) (126)

Cattle 0.86 130000 0.6 76091 0.69 95036

Sheep 0.5 10932 0.57 12476 0.55 11937

Goats 0.59 6898 1.52 22143 1.20b 16819b

Chicken 4.21 5645 7.94 12964 6.64c 10408b

Donkeys 0.07 2955 0.31 10839 0.22 8086

Total cash sale (FCFA) 125000 98483 107000

Total cash sale ($US) 250 197 214

Niger (87) (132) (219)

Cattle 0.479 113000 0.466 98627 0.471 104000

Sheep 0.438 15547 0.348 10262 0.385 12449

Goats 0.639 8010 0.539 7050 0.58 7448

Donkeys 0.007 208 0.005 74 0.006 129

Camels 0.007 1389 0 0 0.003 575

Horses 0.007 556 0 0 0.003 230

Chicken 7.306 1827 8.961 3063 8.276 2552

Total cash sale (FCFA) 140000 119000 128000

51

Total cash sale ($US) 280 238 256

Nigeria (43) (109) (152)

Cattle 0.00 0 0.22 12161 0.14a 7771b

Sheep 0.68 7177 1.18 10585 0.10c 9355

Goats 0.49 3383 1.82 7849 1.34c 6236a

Donkeys 0.03 290 0.09 186 0.07 224

Horses 0.01 385 0.05 391 0.03 389

Chicken 1.64 1060 3.25 2575 2.67c 2028

Total cash sale (Naira) 13139 33963 26445a

Total cash sale ($US) 94 243 189

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

Number of HHs surveyed in parentheses

Sources: Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Table 28 summarizes the proportion of cash generated by households selling different types

of animals. In Mali, households generate almost an equal proportion of cash from chicken

and cattle sales, followed by goats and sheep. In Niger, a large of proportion of sales is

generated by cattle sales and equally sheep and goats. In Nigeria, sheep, goats and chicken

are the major suppliers of liquidity for households.

Table 28. Proportion of cash sale generated by type of animal in Mali, Niger and Nigeria in

2007/08

Type of village

Type of animal Non-program site Program site Sample

Mali (44) (82) (126)

Cattle 32.38 34.14 33.52

Sheep 14.31 13.64 13.87

Goats 20.85 20.45 20.59

Donkeys 1.02 5.76 4.09

Chicken 31.45 26.02 27.93

Niger (87) (132) (219)

Cattle 46.76 35.15 39.7c

Sheep 23.24 17.06 19.48

Goats 22.21 28.61 26.1

Donkeys 0.45 0.76 0.64

Camels 0.37 0 0.14

Horses 0.25 0 0.1

Chicken 6.73 17.67 13.39b

Nigeria (43) (109) (152)

Cattle 0 9.11 6.46b

Sheep 51.02 38.81 42.36c

Goats 26.14 29.47 28.5

Donkeys 3.2 1.07 1.68

52

Horses 1.61 0.56 0.87

Chicken 15.49 19.88 18.6

Other animals 0.21 1.11 0.85

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

In parentheses, number of UPA surveyed

Sources: Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Livestock trade is dominated by livestock traders and other farmers. In Mali, 83% of buyers

are livestock traders, against 70% in Niger and 81% in Nigeria (Table 29).

Table 29. Major livestock buyers in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

Type of village

Country / product Non program site Program site Total sample

Mali (44) (82) (126)

Livestock traders 80.56 84.62 83.17

Other farmers 33.33 18.46 23.76

Consumers 8.33 4.62 5.94

Butcher 0.00 3.08 1.98

Niger (87) (132) (219)

Livestock traders 86.21 59.09 69.86a

Other farmers 12.64 14.39 13.7

Consumers 5.75 14.39 10.96b

Other unknown clients 2.30 6.82 5.02

Nigeria (43) (109) (152)

Livestock traders 52.78 92.68 80.51a

Other farmer 8.33 1.22 3.39

Consumers 11.11 7.32 8.47c

Other unknown clients 33.33 2.44 11.86a

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed; n/a : not applicable

Sources : Baseline surveyed in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Table 30 presents the number and value of livestock heads purchased in the 3 countries in

2007/08. In effect, farmers buy about the same number of what they sell in the market.

Table 30. Number and value of livestock heads purchased in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

Type of animal

Village

Non-program site Program site Sample

Number

purchased Amount

Number

purchased Amount

Number

purchased Amount

Mali (44) (82) (126)

Cattle 0.64 24182 0.7 72052 0.68 55335c

Sheep 0.5 12375 0.6 11018 0.56 11492

Goats 0.57 8091 0.27 6534 0.37 7077

53

Chicken 1.43 2269 3.31 5514 2.65 4381

Donkeys 0.05 2955 0.06 2683 0.06 2778

Horses 0.02 3977 0.07 8232 0.06 6746

Total (FCFA) n.a 43079 n.a 77630 n.a 66251

Total ($US) n.a 86 n.a 155 n.a 133

Niger (87) (132) (219)

Cattle 0.41 65960 0.53 74505 0.477 70969

Sheep 0.21 4697 0.43 9340 0.34b 7418b

Goats 0.04 361 0.16 1776 0.11b 1190a

Donkeys 0.00 0 0.01 221 0.006 129

Chicken 0.18 240 0.49 522 0.362 405

Total (FCFA) n.a 71258 n.a 86363 n.a 80113

Total ($US) n.a 143 n.a! 173 n.a 160

Nigeria (43) (109) (152)

Cattle 0.238 17933 0.186 7534 0.206 11406

Sheep 0 0 0.011 90 0.007 57

Goats 0.352 3624 0.356 2764 0.355 3084

Donkeys 0.324 1840 0.192 846 0.241 1216b

Horses 0.01 86 0 0 0.004 32

Chicken 0.019 743 0.006 226 0.01 418

Total (Naira) n.a 24449 n.a 19793 n.a 21527

Total ($US) n.a 175 n.a 141 n.a 154

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

Number of HHs surveyed in parentheses

Sources: Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Table 31 summarizes the proportion of expenditures incurred by households by type of

livestock purchase. Essentially, in Mali, farmers spend 45% of total livestock purchase on

cattle, 23% on chicken, 13% on sheep and 9 % on goats. In Niger, 57% of the total livestock

purchase is cattle, 26% sheep and 9% goats and 7% chicken. In Nigeria, in 2007/08,

households purchase more cattle, goats and donkeys.

Table 31. Proportion of expenditures on livestock purchase by type of animal in Mali, Niger

and Nigeria

Type of village

Type of animal

Non-program

site Program site Sample

Mali (44) (82) (126)

Cattle 35.87 50.9 45.52

Sheep 15.07 11.98 13.09

Goats 16.74 4.96 9.17b

Donkeys 3.78 6.31 5.4

54

Chicken 25.1 22.23 23.26

Horses 3.45 3.62 3.56

Niger (87) (132) (219)

Cattle 61.95 54.13 56.79

Sheep 23.44 26.87 25.70

Goats 6.00 10.17 8.75

Donkeys 0.00 2.02 1.33

Chicken 8.61 6.81 7.42

Nigeria (43) (109) (152)

Cattle 31.98 34.07 33.24

Sheep 0 0.8 0.48

Goats 34.86 41.84 39.06

Donkeys 20.95 16.23 18.11

Horses 3.03 0 1.21

Chicken 4.54 0.95 2.38

Other animals 4.64 6.12 5.53

In parentheses, the number of HHs surveyed

Sources: Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Table 32 presents the market locations where groundnut is sold. Farmers do not travel long

distance to sell groundnut. Most of the groundnut trade takes place in local markets in

program and non-program sites.

55

Table 32. Proportion of groundnut sold in alternative markets in Mali, Niger and Nigeria (2008) Type of village

Country / Product Non program site Program site Total sample

Market near Market near Distant market Distant far off Market near Distant market Distant far off

Mali

Groundnut 97.50 0.00 2.50 85.23 14.77 0.00 89.06

Sorghum 100.00 . . 71.43 28.57 0.00 83.33

Maize 100.00 . . 83.33 16.67 0.00 88.89

Pearl millet . . . 75.00 25.00 0.00 75.00

Cotton . . . 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

Cowpea 100.00 0.00 0.00 93.33 6.67 0.00 96.00

Watermelon 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

Niger

Groundnut 89.06 8.97 1.97 95.08 4.92 0.00 92.82

Pearl millet 100.00 0.00 0.00 90.63 9.38 0.00 94.64

Cowpea 97.73 2.27 0.00 92.29 2.00 5.71 95.32

Groundnut haulm 100.00 0.00 0.00 75.00 25.00 0.00 93.75

Bambaranut 100.00 0.00 0.00 88.71 11.29 0.00 94.26

Sesame 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 88.89

Sorrel 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

Nigeria

Groundnut 91.59 8.41 0.00 88.81 8.81 2.38 89.80

Pearl millet 100.00 0.00 0.00 79.72 15.69 4.58 83.78

Cowpea 86.36 13.64 0.00 80.19 15.93 3.89 82.96

Cotton . . . 48.00 38.67 13.33 48.00

Maize 100.00 0.00 0.00 96.47 3.53 0.00 96.84

Rice . . . 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

Sesame 95.83 0.00 4.17 55.56 22.22 22.22 78.57

Soybean . . . 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

Sorghum 100.00 0.00 0.00 85.64 11.54 2.82 86.00

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

56

5.2.4 - Factors determining groundnut market participation and the degree of

participation

5.2.5 – Household crop production and importance of crops by value of agricultural

crop production

In Mali, households produce on average 727 kg of groundnut, 1559 kg of sorghum, 532

kg of maize, 537kg of pearl millet and 206 kg of cotton. Other crops are relatively less

important such as rice, cowpea, fonio, bambaranut etc. The value of production of

those crops is higher for groundnut, followed by sorghum, maize, pearl millet, cotton

and bambaranut (Table 33).

Table 33. Crop production and value of the crop production in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

Type of village

Country / product Non program site Program site Total sample

Qty (kg) Value Qty (kg) Value Qty (kg) Value

Mali (54) (112) (166)

Groundnut 727 210957 609 176535 687 199340

Sorghum 1559 202678 1460 189831 1526 198342

Maize 532 186164 622 217732 562 196818

Pearl millet 537 80480 345 51678 472 70759

Rice 83 23020 82 22658 83 22898

"Dah" 8 4052 7 3704 8 3934

Cowpea 49 7781 38 6062 45 7201

Cotton 206 61859 65 19611 159b 47601

b

Sesame 1 400 1 370 1 390

Fonio 16 5481 14 4906 15 5287

Watermelon 12 2948 7 1852 10 2578

"Disabe" 4 1887 0 0 3 1250

Bambaranut 27 39906 11 16806 21 32109

Total value (FCFA) n/a 827613 n/a 711745 n/a 788507

Total value ($USD) n/a 1655 n/a 1423 n/a 1577

Niger (144) (204) (348)

Groundnut 674 168509 788 197042 763 190702

Sorghum 163 27735 264 44898 242 41084

Maize 16 10086 53 34421 45 29013

Pearl millet 1858 297310 1557 249096 1624 259810

Cassava 0 0 3 591 2 460

Cowpea 89 22134 69 17195 73 18293

Sesame 7 3254 8 4230 8 4013

Fonio 0 0 14 4914 11 3822

Okra 0 0 0 2 0 2

Sorrel 7 3728 24 11964 20c 10134

c

Bambaranut 37 11043 90 26989 78c 23445

c

57

Groundnut haulm 68 17026 56 14015 59 14684

Total value (FCFA) n/a 560825 n/a 605358 n/a 595462

Total value ($USD) n/a 1122 n/a 1211 n/a 1191

Nigeria (100) (177) (277)

Groundnut 696 45244 1262 82030 1064a 69128

a

Pearl millet 1248 87355 926 64820 1039a 72724

b

Sorghum 806 59645 1206 89251 1066a 78867

a

Maize 16 1001 624 39915 410a 26266

a

Cotton 0 0 420 41957 272c 27241

c

Soybean 4 213 69 3463 46c 2323

c

Rice 56 4747 174 14787 133c 11266

c

Cowpea 122 9729 304 24331 240b 19210

a

Sesame 78 2329 112 3363 100 3000

Total value (naira) n/a 210263 n/a 363917 n/a 310023a

Total value ($USD) n/a 1502 n/a 2599 n/a 2214

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

In the Dosso region of Niger, households produce on average, 1858 kg of pearl millet,

674 kg of groundnut and 163 kg of sorghum. Other crops are produced in low quantities

such as cowpea, maize, bambaranut are produced in relatively small quantities.

However, in terms of value of crop production, pearl ranks first followed by groundnut,

sorghum and cowpea. In Nigeria, households produce on average 1248 kg of pearl

millet, 806 kg of sorghum, 696 kg of groundnut and 122 kg of cowpea. The value of crop

production follows almost the same trend.

Table 34 presents the share of crop in the value of crop production in the 3 countries.

Groundnut occupies a large share of total value of crop production. In Mali, groundnut

accounts for about 28%. In Niger, this is estimated to about 31% and 23% in Nigeria.

Other crops of high values of crop production include sorghum and maize in Mali; pearl

millet in Niger and pearl millet and sorghum in Nigeria.

Table 34. Share of crop in the total value of agricultural production (2007/08)

Type of village

Country / product Non program site Program site Total sample

Mali (54) (112) (166)

Groundnut 29.1 27.15 28.45

Sorghum 23.51 26.55 24.52

Maize 22.93 28.01 24.62

Pearl millet 9.92 8.64 9.49

Rice 2.92 3.62 3.16

"Dah" 0.55 0.7 0.6

Cowpea 1.18 0.79 1.05

Cotton 5.89 2.2 4.66b

58

Type of village

Country / product Non program site Program site Total sample

Sesame 0.06 0.03 0.05

Fonio 0.44 0.73 0.54

Watermelon 0.19 0.11 0.16

"Disabe" 0.16 0 0.1

Bambaranut 3.16 1.47 2.6

Total value (FCFA) 827613 711745 788507

Total value ($USD) 1655 1423 1577

Niger (144) (204) (348)

Groundnut 29.27 31.39 30.92

Sorghum 6.06 6.77 6.61

Maize 1.11 3.63 3.07c

Pearl millet 51.96 45.58 47c

Cassava 0 0.05 0.04

Cowpea 4.55 2.55 2.99a

Sesame 1.34 0.95 1.04

Fonio 0 0.45 0.35

Okra 0 0 0

Sorrel 0.59 1.57 1.35c

Bambaranut 2.07 4.3 3.81c

Groundnut haulm 3.06 2.74 2.81

Total value (FCFA) 560825 605358 595462

Total value ($USD) 1122 1211 1191

Nigeria (100) (177) (277)

Groundnut 17.96 26.22 23.3a

Pearl millet 42.63 18.9 27.3a

Sorghum 28.61 27.37 27.81

Maize 1.11 12.59 8.52a

Cotton 0 3.43 2.22a

Soybean 0.16 1.01 0.71c

Rice 1.37 3.85 2.97c

Cowpea 6.34 5.69 5.92

Sesame 1.82 0.94 1.25c

Total value (naira) 210263 363917 310023a

Total value ($USD) 1502 2599 2214

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed; n/a : not applicable

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

5.3. Exposure and Use of improved groundnut varieties in 2007/08

This section describes the level of knowledge and use of improved groundnut varieties

by surveyed households in 2007/08 in the 3 countries.

59

5.3.1 – Knowledge of improved varieties

Table 35 presents the level of awareness of groundnut varieties by households. In fact,

in Mali, farmers are more aware of improved groundnut varieties in the program sites

than non-program sites. In all surveyed sites, however, it is estimated that about 41% of

households are aware of the varieties 47-10 which is a ruling varieties not accounted in

the list of improved varieties in the context of this study. The proportion of farmers who

knew about modern varieties is estimated to about 5% of households with the varieties

JL 24 and Fleur 11 accounting for a larger share. In general, about 1/3 of those who

knew improved varieties have tested.

In Niger, about 50% of households in the Dosso region are aware of the improved

variety 55-437, a ruling variety bred in 1957 and introduced in Niger in the 1960s.

Relatively newer improved varieties include RRB for about 12%, TS 32-1 for about 1%.

About 12% of the farmers reported knowing improved varieties of which RRB has the

largest share.

Table 35. Proportion of Households having known and tested improved groundnut

varieties in Mali, Niger and Nigeria in 2007/08

Type of village

Country / Varieties Non program site Program site Total sample

% known % tested % known % tested % known % tested

Mali (54) (112) (166)

ICGV 86 124 0 0 3.64 0.91 2.42 0.61

JL 24 0 0 11.82 7.27 7.88a 4.85

c

ICGV 86 015 0 0 1.82 0.91 1.21 0.61

47 10 43.64 41.82 41.82 40.91 42.42 41.21

Fleur11 0 0 9.09 3.64 6.06a 2.42

C 127 0 0 0.91 0.91 0.61 0.61

28-206 0 0 0.91 0.91 0.61 0.61

516-794 0 0 0.91 0.91 0.61 0.61

363-81A 0 0 0.91 0.91 0.61 0.61

Calossabani 45.28 n/a 48.15 n/a 47.2 n/a

Tigaba 79.25 n/a 70.37 n/a 73.29 n/a

Improved varieties 0 0 14.55 8.18 9.7a 5.45

b

Local varieties 96.36 83.64 98.18 91.82 97.58 89.09

Niger (144) (204) (348)

55 437 49.31 45.14 64.71 52.45 58.33a 49.43

Baba gyda 2.08 1.39 1.47 0.98 1.72 1.15

TS32-1 (bagobira) 2.78 2.78 0.49 0.49 1.44 1.44c

Chollom 13.19 6.25 16.18 1.47 14.94 3.45b

Fara 13.19 9.03 31.86 21.08 24.14a 16.09

a

Jini koirey 4.17 4.17 0 0 1.72a 1.72

a

Mota 26.39 25 11.28 9.31 17.53a 15.81

a

RRB 4.17 2.78 17.16 14.71 11.78a 9.77

Silenci 7.64 4.86 6.86 3.92 7.18 4.31

60

Tacontche 46.53 35.42 40.2 27.94 42.82 31.03

Ta tsaye 22.22 20.83 15.2 15.2 18.10c 17.53

Improved varieties 4.17 2.78 17.16 14.71 11.78a 9.77

a

Local varieties 100 95.83 97.06 85.78 98.27 89.94

Nigeria (100) (177) (277)

Bahoussa 33.00 23.00 31.46 29.21 32.01 26.98

Ex-dakar (55-437) 72.00 64.00 66.29 56.74 68.35 59.35

ICIAR 19 BT 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.12 1.08 1.08

ICIAR 6 AT 0.00 0.00 1.69 1.69 1.08 1.08

ICIAR 7 B 1.00 1.00 1.69 1.69 1.44 1.44

Mai bargo 34.00 28.00 34.27 24.16 34.17 25.54

Mai yado 44.00 30.00 61.80 53.37 55.4a 44.96

a

RMP 12 0.00 0.00 18.54 17.42 11.87 11.15

RMP 91 0.00 0.00 1.12 1.12 0.72 0.72

RRB 3.00 3.00 10.67 8.99 7.91 6.83

SAMNUT 21 1.00 1.00 15.73 6.18 10.43 4.32

SAMNUT 22 1.00 1.00 8.43 5.06 5.76 3.60

SAMNUT 23 0.00 0.00 8.99 5.62 5.76 3.60

Yar korshoma 23.00 20.00 19.66 15.73 20.86 17.27

Improved varieties 2.00 2.00 21.35 10.67 14.39 7.55

Local varieties 88.00 80.00 97.75 97.19 94.24 91.01a

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed, n/a : not applicable

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

In Nigeria, about 14% of households are aware of improved groundnut varieties and

about half have effectively tested these varieties. The ruling varieties 55-437 are known

by about 68% of households followed by RMP12 known by about 12% of households or

RRB by 8% of households. Newer varieties include SAMNUT 21, SAMNUT 22 and

SAMNUT 23 known by 10%, 6% and 6% of households respectively.

5.3.2- Sources of first Information on improved groundnut varieties

61

Table 36. Sources of first information on groundnut varieties in Niger (% UPA) First source of information

Variety

Nu

mb

er

of

yea

rs

Re

sea

rch

inst

itu

tes

Ext

en

sio

n s

erv

ice

s

Pro

ject

s /

ON

G

Oth

er

farm

ers

Ra

dio

s

Oth

er

sou

rce

s

On

-fa

rm t

ria

ls o

n

ow

ne

d f

ield

s

Eo

n-f

arm

tri

als

in

oth

er

farm

ers

‘fi

eld

s

Ne

igh

bo

rin

g

farm

ers

Fam

ily m

em

be

rs

PR

A

Oth

er

sou

rce

s o

f

info

rma

tio

n

55-437 (207) 18.84 10.63 2.90 27.05 7.25 7.25 4.35 0.48 2.42 18.84 0.48 0.48

baban gyada (6) 16.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00

Bagobira (5) 60.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cholom (54) 9.26 11.11 0.00 44.44 24.07 1.85 9.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

dan danta (7) 14.29 57.14 0.00 0.00 14.29 14.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fara (84) 7.14 9.52 0.00 58.33 3.57 2.38 13.10 0.00 1.19 8.33 0.00 0.00

fara mota (3) 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

jini kare (6) 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 0.00 0.00

Lema (4) 25.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mota (62) 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

RRB (1) 17.05 11.36 2.27 30.68 2.27 3.41 30.68 3.41 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.00

silenci (25) 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 96.00 0.00 0.00

ta kontche (154) 0.65 0.65 1.95 9.74 44.16 0.65 1.30 0.65 38.31 0.65 1.30 0.65

tatsaye (65) 1.54 18.46 0.00 43.08 10.77 6.15 12.31 1.54 0.00 6.15 0.00 0.00

Local varieties (349) 13.47 12.89 3.44 43.27 28.37 6.3 14.61 0.29 2.01 30.09 0.29 0.86

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

Nombre d’exploitations agricoles enquêtées entre parenthèses

Source : Baseline survey in Niger, ICRISAT/INRAN 2008

62

Table 37. Sources of first information on groundnut varieties in Nigeria (% UPA)

Variety N

um

be

r o

f U

PA

On

Farm

tri

al

Fie

ld d

ays

An

oth

er

farm

er

Re

lati

ves

Dé

mo

nst

rati

on

s

AD

Ps

Oth

er

sou

rce

bahaoussa (80) 15.91 0.00 29.55 47.73 2.27 1.14 3.41

exdakar (190) 6.32 1.58 48.42 19.47 5.79 8.95 11.05

iciar 19at (3) 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33

iciar 6at (3) 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 33.33

iciar 7b (3) 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00

mai bargo (96) 8.33 1.04 54.17 21.88 0.00 7.29 13.54

mai yado (154) 7.14 1.30 33.77 34.42 1.95 7.79 14.94

rmp12 (33) 12.12 0.00 57.58 15.15 0.00 9.09 6.06

rmp91 (2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

RRB (21) 14.29 4.76 42.86 19.05 4.76 9.52 4.76

samnut21 (21) 10.71 0.00 60.71 3.57 0.00 28.57 0.00

samnut22 (16) 25.00 0.00 43.75 6.25 6.25 18.75 0.00

samnut23 (15) 13.33 0.00 26.67 13.33 6.67 33.33 6.67

yar koshoma (56) 8.93 0.00 39.29 28.57 7.14 3.57 12.50

mai chiko (16) 18.75 6.25 12.50 56.25 0.00 6.25 0.00

Improved

varieties (40) 15.00 0.00 55.00 5.00 2.50 27.50 2.50

Local varieties (262) 17.18 3.05 55.34 47.33 7.25 16.41 19.85

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

Nombre d’exploitations agricoles entre parenthèses

Source : Baseline survey in Nigeria, ICRISAT/IAR/ BUK, 2008

5.3.3 - Use of improved varieties in Mali, Niger and Nigeria (2007/08)

Tables 38, and 39 present the area and proportion of farmers using alternative varieties

in Mali, Niger and Nigeria respectively. Households are still using old varieties in the 3

countries. In Mali, the variety 47-10 developed in 1947 is still widely used by about 40%

of Households surveyed. Other improved varieties including ICGV 86124, ICGV 86 015,

Fleur 11 account for 0.03 ha planted by 3% of Households surveyed.

Table 38. Area planted and proportion of Households having planted groundnut

varieties in Mali (2007/08)

Variety

Type of village

Non-program site (54) Program site (112) Total (166)

63

Area planted

(ha)

% UPA

in 2007

Area

planted (ha)

% Area

Planted

in 2007

Area planted

in (ha)

% Planted

in 2007

ICGV86124 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.60

JL24 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.77 0.00 1.19

ICGV86015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.60

47-10 1.05 41.82 1.16 38.94 1.13 39.88

Fleur 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tigaba 0.33 32.73 0.42 34.51 0.39 33.93

Colossabani 0.42 40.00 0.90 40.71 0.74 40.48

Tigaba rouge 0.04 1.82 0.04 3.54 0.04 2.98

Tigableman 0.09 7.27 0.15 9.73 0.13 8.93

Tigadjoloni 0.02 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.60

CMDT 0.02 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.60

Ti0pe 0.09 5.45 0.10 2.65 0.10 3.57

Farekoumba 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.88 0.01 0.60

Tigafima 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.88 0.02 0.60

Woyotiga 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

28-206 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.88 0.01 0.60

Kadjoro 0.00 0.00 0.02 1.77 0.01 1.19

Improved varieties 0.02 1.82 0.04 3.54 0.03 2.98

Local varieties 0.98 70.91 1.80 76.11 1.53b 74.4

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

In parentheses, The number of UPAs surveyed

Source: Baseline survey in Mali, ICRISAT/IER 2008

In Niger, about 63% of household surveyed grow 55-437 an old variety developed more

than 40 years ago. However, the variety RRB is being slowly adopted by 73% of

Households surveyed. However, the area planted with RRB is still modest, about ¼ ha in

the Dosso region. It is found that Households in program sites plant more RRB than

those in the non-program sites, 0.3 ha against 0.13 ha respectively.

Table 39. Proportion of farmers having planted groundnut varieties in Niger (2007/08)

Type of village

Country / Varieties Non program site Program site Total sample

Area (ha) % UPA Area (ha) % UPA Area (ha) % UPA

Niger (144) (204) (348)

55 437 0.37 36.29 0.70 54.31 0.57 47.35a

Baba gyda 0.00 0.81 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.93

TS32-1 (bagobira) 0.01 0.81 0.01 0.51 0.01 0.62

Chollom 0.00 8.87 0.00 1.52 0.00 4.36a

Fara 0.00 3.23 0.05 13.71 0.03 9.66a

Jini koirey 0.00 4.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.87a

Mota 0.31 29.84 0.11 15.23 0.19 20.87a

RRB 0.13 11.29 0.34 31.98 0.26 23.99a

Silenci 0.00 4.84 0.00 5.08 0.00 4.98

Tacontche 0.00 20.97 0.00 21.83 0.00 21.50

64

Ta tsaye 0.09 28.23 0.05 27.92 0.07 28.04

Improved varieties 0.13 11.29 0.34 31.98 0.26 23.99a

Local varieties 0.87 97.58 0.96 87.31 0.93 91.28a

Average area 1.02 n/a 1.30 n/a 1.19 n/a

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed, n/a : not applicable

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

In Nigeria, same as in Niger, about 41% of Households grow the old variety 55-437 also

called Ex-Dakar. Other varieties include RMP 12 and RRB planted by 8% and 3% of

Households. New varieties (SAMNUT 21, 22 and 23) introduced some 15 years ago are

planted by less than 1% of Households on less than 1/10 ha. It can be noted that these

improved varieties are planted in the program sites.

Table 40. Proportion of farmers having planted groundnut varieties in Nigeria (2007/08)

Variety (%)

Type of village

Non-program site

(100)

Program site (177) Sample (277)

% Area

(ha)

%

in 2007

% Area

(ha)

% UPA

in 2007

% Area

(ha)

% UPA

in 2007

SAMNUT 21 0.00 0.00 0.04 3.96 0.03 2.73

SAMNUT 22 0.00 0.00 0.05 5.65 0.04c 3.91

SAMNUT 23 0.00 0.00 0.02 2.83 0.02 1.95

RRB 0.03 1.27 0.03 3.39 0.03 2.73

RMP 12 0.00 0.00 0.20 11.30 0.14b 7.81

RMP 91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.39

Ex-dakar 1.27 63.29 0.54 30.51 0.76a 40.63a

Bahaoussa 0.35 12.66 0.44 15.25 0.41 14.45

Mai bargo 0.12 10.13 0.15 8.48 0.14 8.98

Yar korshoma 0.27 17.72 0.10 7.91 0.15b 10.94b

Kusuru 0.05 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.39

Mai chiko 0.01 1.27 0.13 6.78 0.09c 5.08

Mai yado 0.11 3.80 0.12 5.09 0.12 4.69 Improved varieties 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.08a 0.08 Local varieties 3.15 96.20 2.76 93.79 2.88 94.53 a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA surveyed

Source : Baseline survey in Nigeria, ICRISAT/IAR/ BUK, 2008

5.3.3. Constraints limiting the use of modern varieties

Table 41 presents the major constraints limiting the use of improved varieties in

surveyed sites. Overall, the major constraints cited by households differ on whether

households use modern or local varieties. The major constraint reported by farmers for

not using modern varieties is the non-availability of seed for 83% of farmers in Mali, 60%

65

of farmers in Niger and 56% of farmers in Nigeria. Farmers also reported lack of money

to purchase seed in Niger and Nigeria. Technological constraints were reported by

farmers in Nigeria such as low yield for 11%, not fitted in association for 6%, lack of

information on crop management for 6%, low haulm production for 6%, and undesirable

color for 6% of the households. Framers reported loss of varieties due to drought.

As for the local varieties, several traits were reported as constraining farmers from using

improved varieties. In Niger where about 58% reported lack of seed, about 28% of the

farmers surveyed in Mali, 31% in Nigeria have mentioned non-availability of seed of

local varieties. Loss of variety due to drought, lack of money to purchase groundnut

seed, low yield, and late maturity were mentioned as the major constraints. Many other

constraints were reported by Nigerian farmers such as susceptibility to diseases/insects,

low haulm yield, undesirable color, size of seed and low oil content.

Table 41. Constraints to adoption of modern varieties in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

(2007/08)

Mali Niger Nigeria

Constraint MV (6) LV (91) MV (5) LV (166) MV (18) LV (131)

Non availability of seed 83.33 27.47 60.00 57.83 55.56 30.53

Lack of money 0.00 6.59 20.00 4.82 5.56 6.11

Low yield 0.00 10.99 0.00 9.04 11.11 25.95

Low market value 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.11

Not good in association 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 5.56 2.29

Loss variety due to drought 16.67 40.66 0.00 2.41 0.00 9.92

No information on mgt 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 5.56 3.82

Lack of labor 0.00 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Late maturity 0.00 13.19 0.00 4.22 0.00 9.92

Variety not appreciated 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Liked variety tigaba 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Difficult to grow 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Variety disappeared 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.43 0.00 0.00

Susceptible to disease 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.92

Consumed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.11 4.58

Low haulm yield 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.56 6.87

Undesirable color 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.56 4.58

Susceptible to insects 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.82

Seeds too small 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.82

Low content of oil 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.58

Other constraints 0.00 1.10 20.00 24.70 5.56 18.32

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed, n/a : not applicable

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

66

5.3.4 - Seed sources and transactions

Table 41 presents the major sources of seed to groundnut farmers in the 3 countries. In

Mali, farmers source their seed of modern varieties from on-farm trials, past harvest

and the Institut d’Economie Rurale (the national research institute). In Niger, about 68%

of farmers are using seed of modern varieties from their past harvests, 23% from

cooperatives and little amounts from on-farm trials, village seed traders and ICRISAT.

The major sources of seed reported by farmers in Nigeria 62% for own seeds, 24% from

the Institute of Agricultural Research, 5% from extension services, 5% from on-farm

trials, 2% from NGOs and about 3% from NGOs.

More than 70% of the farmers surveyed in the 3 countries use seed of local varieties

saved from previous harvests. Family and parents, village markets and local seed

traders are the next most important sources of seed.

Table 42. Alternative sources of seed of varieties planted / adopted in Mali, Niger and

Nigeria (2007/08)

Mali Niger Nigeria

Alternative source MV (6) LV (128) MV (79) LV (302) MV (37) LV (257)

On-farm trial 33.33 2.34 1.27 0.00 5.41 14.17

Other farmers 0.00 2.34 0.00 4.30 2.70 14.17

Family/parents 0.00 6.25 0.00 3.31 0.00 9.84

Own seeds 33.33 80.47 68.35 86.42 62.16 70.87

Seed traders 0.00 6.25 1.27 4.30 0.00 21.26

IER 33.33 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

IAR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.32 0.39

ICRISAT 0.00 0.00 2.53 0.00 2.70 0.00

Village markets 0.00 8.59 3.80 6.95 0.00 0.00

Cooperatives 0.00 0.78 22.78 3.31 0.00 0.00

Extension services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 5.41 5.12

Projects 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79

NGOs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.70 0.79

UNCC 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.66 0.00 0.00

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed, n/a : not applicable

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Groundnut seed transactions in Mali and Niger

Table 43 summarizes the type of seed transactions used by farmers in the 3 countries. In

Mali, more than 83% reported getting seed for free. For local varieties, about 16%

purchased or get seed on credit or barter. In Mali, More than 44% reported getting seed

for free, about 16% buy seed on cash delivery, more than 7% on credit. Seed exchange

was reported to be a major form of transaction especially for modern varieties in Mali

for 32% of farmers. In Nigeria, about 75% reported buying seed of local varieties on

cash, 16% on credit and 17% reported receiving seed for free. As for the modern

67

varieties, 80% of farmers surveyed reported getting seed free, 30% on credit and 10%

on cash.

Table 43. Groundnut seed transaction in the 3 countries

Mali Niger Nigeria

Seed transactions MV (6) LV (101) MV (72) LV (246) MV (10) LV (113)

Free 100 83.17 44.44 62.6 80.00 16.81

Credit 0.00 2.97 6.94 9.35 30.00 15.92

Cash 0.00 15.84 16.67 18.29 10.00 75.22

Barter 0.00 0.99 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.00

Seed exchange 0.00 0.99 31.94 8.94 0.00 0.00

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed, n/a : not applicable

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

5.7 - Groundnut production systems, cropping patterns and input use

This section summarizes the technology used by farmers to produce groundnut. Overall,

households surveyed own 532 groundnut plots in Mali, 522 groundnut plots in Niger

and 492 plots in Nigeria. On average, it is estimated that farmers own 3 groundnut plots

in Mali, and about 2 plots in Niger and 2 plots in Nigeria.

5.7.1 – Characteristics of plots used by households

Tables 44, 45, and 46 present the groundnut plot characteristics of farmers in the survey

sites. In Niger and Mali, plots are managed collectively or privately. Collective plots are

those managed by the household heads who production belong to all the members of

the household. Private plots are those owned by individual members of the households.

In Mali for example, 71% of the groundnut plots belong to individual members of the

households and in Niger, 75% of the plots cultivated are private. No significant

differences were found between program and non-program villages.

Groundnut remains a woman crop in Mali and Niger. In Mali for example, 85% of the

private plots are owned by women and 35% in Niger. There is little difference based on

program and non-program site.

On average, a groundnut plot area is estimated to 3.04 ha with no significant differences

between non-program and program sites in Mali, 2.93 ha in Niger and 2.1 ha in Nigeria.

Farmers have to travel on average about 2.06 km from their home to the field in Mali,

2.76 km in Niger and 1.96 km in Nigeria. There are significant differences between

program and non-program sites in Mali and Niger and no significant differences in

Nigeria. In fact, in Mali, in non-program sites, households have to travel on 2.59 km

from home to their fields against 1.84km in program sites. In Niger, farmers have travel

significantly more distance in program sites than non-program sites.

68

Table 44. Groundnut plot characteristics in Mali (2007/08)

Type of village

Non-program site Program site Sample

Plot characteristic (54) (112) (166)

Number of groundnut plots 2.04 2.45 2.32

Area planted with groundnut (ha) 2.48 3.31 3.04

% Sup. Groundnut 9.33 3.33 5.28a

Distance (km) 4.16 1.99 2.68

Collective plots (%) 56.36 55.86 56.02

Female plot owner (%) 96.08 94.29 94.87

Monoculture (%) 45.45 55.86 52.41

Rotation (%) 86.27 89.52 88.46

Plot tenure status (%)

Inheritance 94.87 84.49 87.38

Rent 4.27 10.89 9.05

Purchase 0 0.66 0.48

Borrowed 0.85 3.96 3.1

Reasons for poor yield (%)

Late planting 10.91 10.81 10.84

Drought 18.18 15.32 16.27

Diseases and insects 0 0.9 0.6

Weed 1.82 5.41 4.22

Old seed 0 0.9 0.6

Poor fertilization 3.64 0.9 1.81

Animal damage 0 0.9 0.6

a = significant at 1%, b = significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of HHs surveyed

Source : Baseline survey in Mali, ICRISAT/IER 2008

In Niger, it is estimated that farmers practice mono-cropping on 52% of the groundnut

plots, 58% in Niger and 12% in Nigeria. Farmers practice crop rotation with 88% of the

plots in Mali against 29% of the plots in Niger and 50% in Nigeria.

Table 45. Groundnut plot characteristics in Niger (2007/08)

Type of village

Non-program sites Program site Sample

Plot characteristic (144) (204) (348)

Number of plots 1.41 1.82 1.67a

Area planted (ha) 2.15 3.39 2.93b

% Sup. Groundnut 31.74 33.62 32.93

Distance (km) 2.45 2.92 2.75c

Collective plots (%) 27.52 21.43 23.96

Sex of plot owner (%) 38.26 46.19 42.9

69

Monoculture (%) 38.93 70.95 57.66a

Rotation (%) 22.15 33.33 28.69b

Previous crop (%)

Millet 22.61 27.78 25.88

Sorghum 6.09 13.13 10.54b

Plot tenure status (%)

Inheritance 53.02 65.24 60.17b

Rent 7.38 19.05 14.21a

Purchase 2.68 5.71 4.46

Gage 1.34 0.48 0.84

Borrowed 23.49 21.9 22.56

Reasons for poor production (%)

Late planting 4.03 8.57 6.69

Drought 16.11 35.71 27.58

Disease and insect attacks 0.67 0 0.28

Weeds 0 3.33 1.95

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

In parentheses, The number of UPA surveyed

Source : Baseline survey in Niger, ICRISAT/ INRAN 2008

In Mali, households get access to land by inheritance for 87% and 9% by renting. Similar

trend is observed in Niger where 60% of households own land where they cultivate

groundnut, 14% rent and 23% borrow land. In program sites, households have more

ownership of their land than on non-program sites and households rent significantly

more land in project sites than non-project sites.

Table 46. Groundnut plot characteristics in Nigeria (2007/08)

Type of village

Non-program site Projet Sample

Plot characteristic (100) (177) (277)

Number of plots 2.22 3.57 3.11b

Groundnut area (ha) 1.66 2.33 2.1a

Distance (km) 2.17 1.9 1.99

Monoculture (%) 12.5 12.21 12.31

Rotation (%) 44.32 53.49 50.38

Land tenure (%)

Inheritance 68.18 69.19 68.85

Location 6.82 4.07 5

Purchase 1.14 2.33 1.92

Borrowed 31.82 40.7 37.69

Field exchange 0 0.58 0.38

Reasons for poor production (%)

Late planting 41.94 12.87 19.7a

70

Drought 32.26 77.23 66.67a

Insects and diseases 6.45 9.9 9.09

Weeds 9.68 5.94 6.82

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

In parentheses, The number of UPA surveyed

Source : Baseline survey in Nigeria, ICRISAT/IAR 2008

Groundnut plots differ by soil type. In Mali, according to farmers, groundnut is planted

in dominated clay (22%), gravel (15%), sandy (29%) and rocky soils (7%). In Niger, 47% of

the plots are predominantly sandy, followed by clay soils (19%) and katami (6%).

Table 47. Soil type

Village type

Country / Soil type Non program village Program village Sample total

Mali (153) (379) (532)

Argile et Gravier 5.74 1.27 2.52

Argileux 39.34 15.29 22.02

Argilo-sabloneux 11.48 19.43 17.2

Gounanfara 0 0.32 0.23

Gravier 13.93 14.97 14.68

Guiling 0 0.32 0.23

Roche et sable 0 0.64 0.46

Rocheux 2.46 8.6 6.88

Sable et gravier 0 1.27 0.92

Sablo-limoneux 0 0.64 0.46

Sabloneux 27.05 29.3 28.67

Tientien 0 6.69 4.82

Toumoukoun 0 1.27 0.92

Niger (168) (354) (522)

Argileux 12.73 21.9 18.95

Gueza 9.09 7.78 8.2

Hanimi 0 0.29 0.2

Houda 1.21 0 0.39

Katami 12.12 3.75 6.45

Lateritique 0.61 1.15 0.98

Lesso 0.61 2.59 1.95

sable & gravillons 0.61 0.29 0.39

Sableux 41.82 49.28 46.88

sablo-argileux 1.82 3.17 2.73

Talkamou 0 0.58 0.39

terrain nu 9.7 3.75 5.66

Tombo 9.7 4.61 6.25

Wague 0 0.86 0.59

71

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of groundnut plots cultivated by household,

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Groundnut is planted in association or intercropped with other crops. In Mali,

groundnut is intercropped or in association with rice, “dah”, soybean, okra or sorghum.

In Niger, groundnut is associated with pearl millet, sorghum, maize, bambaranut,

sesame, sorrel and cowpea. In Nigeria, groundnut is intercropped mostly with pearl

millet and sorghum.

Table 48 . Major crops planted in association/intercrop with groundnut

Village type

Country / Crop

Non program

village Program village Sample total

Mali (153) (379) (532)

Pearl millet 1 4.17 3.08

Sorghum 13 15.63 14.73

Maize 0 1.04 0.68

Bambaranut 1 1.56 1.37

Soya bean 10 4.17 6.16

Rice 28 27.6 27.74

"Dah" 25 32.81 30.14

Cowpea 6 7.29 6.85

Okra 10 3.13 5.48

"Dah", okra &

bambaranut 4 0.52 1.71

Okra & marrow 0 2.08 1.37

Sugar cane and marrow 2 0 0.68

Niger (168) (354) (522)

Pearl millet 39.29 41.24 40.61

Sorghum 26.79 33.05 31.03

Maize 14.29 17.23 16.28

Bambaranut 14.29 15.25 14.94

Cowpea 22.62 21.19 21.65

Groundnut 90.48 85.88 87.36

Sesame 4.88 16.67 16.09

Sorrel 29.17 29.66 29.5

Nigeria (147) (345) (492)

Millet 42.86 23.42 28.88

Sorghum 24.76 37.55 33.96

Maize 0 2.97 2.14

Cotton 0.95 2.97 2.41

Soyabean 0 0.37 0.27

Cowpea 3.81 7.81 6.68

72

Village type

Country / Crop

Non program

village Program village Sample total

Groundnut 0 1.49 1.07

Sesame 0 2.6 1.87

Okra 0 1.49 1.07

Millet & sorghum 14.29 7.43 9.36

Millet & cowpea 10.48 6.32 7.49

Sorghum & cowpea 1.9 5.58 4.55

Millet & sesame 0.95 0 0.27

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of groundnut plots cultivated by household,

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

In Mali, groundnut is planted after sorghum for 55% of the plots, pearl millet for 18%,

and maize for 15%. In Niger, groundnut is planted after pearl millet for 68% and

sorghum for 31%. In Nigeria, groundnut is mostly intercropped with pearl millet 37%,

28% with sorghum and 9% with maize.

Table 49. Previous crops of groundnut

Village type

Country / Crops Non program village Program village Sample total

Mali (94) (253) (347)

Pearl millet 28.72 14.62 18.44

Sorghum 48.94 58.1 55.62

Maize 10.64 16.6 14.99

Cotton 0 1.58 1.15

Rice 1.06 0 0.29

Cowpea 2.13 3.56 3.17

Okra 1.06 0 0.29

"Dah" 0 0.4 0.29

Shalow 4.26 5.14 4.9

Fonio 3.19 0 0.86

Niger (39) (160) (199)

Pearl millet 82.05 65 68.34

Sorghum 17.95 35 31.66

Nigeria (6) (135) (191)

Millet 44.64 33.33 36.65

Sorghum 37.5 24.44 28.27

Maize 1.79 11.85 8.9

Cotton 0 2.96 2.09

Soybean 1.79 4.44 3.66

Cowpea 0 8.15 5.76

Groundnut 0 0.74 0.52

Sesame 0 1.48 1.05

73

Sorrel 1.79 0.74 1.05

Okra 1.79 3.7 3.14

Millet & sorghum 5.36 4.44 4.71

Millet & cowpea 3.57 0.74 1.57

Sorghum & cowpea 1.79 2.96 2.62

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of groundnut plots cultivated by household with crop rotation,

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

5.7.2. Farmers’ perception of soil fertility and production

Farmers’ perception of production is closely linked to their perception of production and

productivity.

Table 50. Farmer perception on 2007-08 production

Village type

Country / variable Non program village Program village Sample total

Mali (153) (379) (532)

Good 35.25 37.11 36.56

Average 34.43 39.52 38.01

Bad 30.33 23.37 25.42

Niger (168) (354) (522)

Good 16.17 4.18 8.17

Average 58.08 53.73 55.18

Bad 25.75 42.09 36.65

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of groundnut plots cultivated by household,

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Farmers’ perception is a critical variable in adoption of innovation. In Mali, only 15% of

the farmers perceived their groundnut plots to have low fertility while had perceived

their farms to have average fertility and 38% good fertility. The same trend is observed

in Niger and Nigeria (Table 48).

Table 51. Farmers’ perception on the soil fertility on their plots

Village type

Country / Fertility level Non program village Program village Sample total

Mali (153) (379) (532)

Good 40.16 37.17 38.03

Average 37.7 50.99 47.18

Poor 22.13 11.84 14.79

Niger (168) (354) (522)

Good 40.16 37.17 38.03

Average 37.7 50.99 47.18

Poor 22.13 11.84 14.79

74

Nigeria (147) (345) (492)

Good 48.42 32.81 36.39

Average 37.89 38.13 38.07

Poor 13.68 29.06 25.54

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of groundnut plots cultivated by household.

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Farmers are reporting using improved groundnut varieties on 40% of their plots in Niger

and 20% on Mali.

Type of variety planted by household

Village type

Country / variable Non program village Program village Sample total

Mali (153) (379) (532)

Local varieties 75.82 81 79.51

Improved varieties 24.18 19 20.49

Niger (168) (354) (522)

Local varieties 75.6 51.98 59.58

Improved varieties 24.4 48.02 40.42

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of groundnut plots cultivated by household,

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Table 52. Average groundnut seed quantity (kg) used by household

Village type

Country / variable

Non program

village Program village Sample total

Mali (153) (379) (532)

Seed quantity (kg) 31.43 34.32 33.49

Niger (168) (354) (522)

Seed quantity (kg) 50.34 59.78 56.6

Nigeria (147) (345) (492)

Seed quantity (kg) 51.04 118.26 99.15

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of groundnut plots cultivated by household,

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

5.7.3 - Use of inputs at plot level

Table 52 presents the proportion of households using alternative inputs in their fields.

Except for Nigeria, the proportion of fields where inputs are used in low. For example, In

Mali, inorganic fertilizer is used on 2.26% of the plots surveyed and 2.11% of the plots

75

where manure is used. However about 14% of the plots, farmers use pesticides and on

27% of the plots farmers use hired labor.

In Niger, in about 16% of the plots, farmers apply inorganic fertilizers and organic

fertilizers on 18% of the plots. Farmers hired labor on 43% of the plots. In Nigeria,

farmers use fertilizers on 61% of the plots, pesticides on 90%, manure on 41% and hired

labor on about 67%.

Table 53. Use of fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides and manure (% households)

Village type

Country / Inputs Non program village Program village Sample total

Mali (153) (379) (532)

Inorganic fertilizer 1.96 2.37 2.26

Pesticides 10.46 15.04 13.72

Manure 4.58 2.11 2.82

Hired labor 28.76 25.59 26.5

Niger (168) (354) (522)

Inorganic fertilizer 8.93 18.93 15.71

Pesticides 44.64 21.75 29.12

Insecticides 9.52 12.71 11.69

Manure 11.9 20.34 17.62

Hired labor 39.29 44.35 42.72

Nigeria (147) (345) (492)

Inorganic fertilizer 61.22 61.45 61.38

Pesticides 86.39 91.01 89.63

Manure 31.97 44.35 40.65

Hired labor 59.18 70.43 67.07

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of groundnut plots cultivated by household,

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Table 52 presents the value of inputs used by farmers per hectare of land. As can be

noted, households invest little on inputs. In Mali, farmers invest less than USD 1 per

hectare in inorganic fertilizers, about US$4 in Niger and US$27 in Nigeria. Most farmers’

investments go into hiring labor. For example, in Mali, farmers invest about US$15 per

hectare for hired labor, US$16 in Niger and US$100 in Nigeria.

Table 54. Costs of inputs used by farmers in 2007/08

Village type

Country / Reason

Non program

village Program village Sample total

Mali (FCFA/ha) (54) (112) (166)

Inorganic fertilizer 13 435 295

Pesticides 1247 2638 2177

76

Manure 29 14 19

Labor 5968 8318 7539

Average production cost (FCFA) 7256 11405 10031

Average production cost ($USD) 15 23 20

Niger (FCFA/ha) (144) (204) (348)

Inorganic fertilizer 671 2831 2038b

Pesticides 217 225 222

Insecticides 70 225 168

Manure 100 481 341c

Labor 7467 8268 7974

Average production cost (FCFA) 8525 12030 10742

Average production cost ($USD) 17 24 21

Nigeria (naira/ha) (100) (177) (277)

Inorganic fertilizer 3090 2579 2726

Pesticides 3276 995 1653

Manure 8105 5948 6569

Labor 11144 10411 10622

Average production cost 16393 17693 17226

Average production cost ($USD) 117 126 123

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed,

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

5.7.4 - Productivity at plot levels

Groundnut productivity at plot level is low in all countries. It is estimated that groundnut

yield averages about 730kg/ha in Mali and 362kg/ha in Niger. These numbers are a little

lower than numbers estimated using FAO data to 914 kg/ha in Mali and 443 kg/ha in

Niger. However, FAO estimates in Nigeria, 1655 kg/ha is far lower than 718 kg/ha

calculated from this survey.

Table 55. Groundnut production (kg) and yield (kg/ha)

Village type

Country / variable Non program village Program village Sample total

Mali (153) (379) (532)

Production 765 940 892

Yield 718 735 730

Niger (168) (354) (522)

Production 417 353 376c

Yield 327 381 362c

Nigeria (147) (345) (492)

Production 299 361 346

Yield 155 857 718c

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

77

In parentheses, the number of groundnut plots cultivated by household

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

Farmers explained low groundnut production with the incidence of drought (57%), use

of poor crop management practices such as late sowing (27%), weed (9%), and lack of

fertilizers (4%) in Mali. In Niger, 77% of farmers reported drought and late sowing as

major factors explaining lower yields. In Nigeria, drought followed by late sowing was

also reported as major factors limiting productivity.

Table 56. Major reasons for getting low production in 2007/08

Village type

Country / Reason Non program village Program village Sample total

Mali (37) (68) (105)

Late sowing 29.73 25 26.67

Drought 56.76 57.35 57.14

Insects and pest 0 1.47 0.95

Weed 2.7 11.76 8.57

Old seed 0 1.47 0.95

No fertilization 10.81 0 3.81

Damage by animals 0 1.47 0.95

Other reasons 0 1.47 0.95

Niger (43) (141) (184)

Late sowing 25.58 14.18 16.85

Drought 72.09 78.72 77.17

Insects and pest 2.33 0 0.54

Weed 0 4.96 3.8

Other reasons 0 2.13 1.63

Nigeria (147) (345) (492)

Late sowing 41.86 9.34 15.56

Drought 32.56 72.53 64.89

Insects and pests 6.98 8.24 8

Weed 6.98 4.95 5.33

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs experiencing low production in 2007/08

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

5.8 - Food security and income indicators

Two major indicators of effects of TL2 program intervention are (1) food security and (2)

income.

5.8.1 – Food security

“The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food security as existing “when all people at

all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active

life”. Commonly, the concept of food security is defined as including both physical and

78

economic access to food that meets people's dietary needs as well as their food

preferences.

Food security is built on three pillars:

• Food availability: sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis.

• Food access: having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a

nutritious diet.

• Food use: appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care, as

well as adequate water and sanitation”.

Since most of the food production the Sahel focuses on cereal crops such as sorghum

and pearl millet. An attempt to access the cereal self-sufficiency level by household was

made. In the Sahel, the Comite Inter-Lutte contre la Sécheresse au Sahel (CILSS) has

developed an indicator based on cereal production above which households are

reported to be food secure and below which households are food insecure. In Mali, the

cut-off was estimated to 190 kg of cereals per person per year. In Niger this was

estimated to about 241 kg/person/year. Another qualitative indicator often use is the

number of hungry months per year ie. The number of months that the households go

without food from own harvest.

Table 57. Proportion of Households experiencing cereal self-insufficiency in Mali, Niger

and Nigeria

Variables

Village

Non-program site Program site

Mali (54) (112) (166)

% HH reporting food security problems 52.73 45.95 48.19

% less than 250 kg per capita 32.73 32.43 32.53

Number of hungry months 1.59 2.06 1.89

Niger (144) (202) (348)

% HH reporting food security problems 21.53 59.31 43.68a

% less than 250 kg per capita 66.67 56.86 60.92c

Number of hungry months 1.59 1.77 1.73

Nigeria

% HH reporting food security problems 97.78 87.07 90.06

% less than 250 kg per capita 48 28.81 35.74

Number of hungry months 1.93 1.14 1.36a

On this basis, about 32.5% of households in Mali produced less than 191 kg/person/year

in 2007/08, and in Niger, 61% and in Nigeria 36%. As for the number of hungry months

without food, it is estimated that households in Mali and Niger could go without food

for 2 months during the year and household in Nigeria for about 1 month without food.

Table 58. Major factors causing food security problems in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

79

Type of village

Variables Non-program site Program site Sample

Mali

Low production 79.31 100 92.5a

Price collapse 3.45 0 1.25

Flood 3.45 0 1.25

Lack of agricultural equipment 3.45 0 1.25

Drought 6.9 0 2.5c

Marriage 3.45 0 1.25

Niger

Low production 58.07 67.77 65.79

Price collapse 3.23 2.48 2.63

High food price at hungry period 6.45 7.44 7.24

Low non-farm income 0.00 1.65 1.32

Nigeria

Low production 11.11 48.72 38.27

Price collapse 8.89 25.64 20.99

High food price at hungry period 24.44 35.9 32.72

Low non-farm income 66.67 18.8 32.1

Other reasons 4.44 2.56 3.09

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

Number of HHs surveyed in parenthesis

Source : Baseline survey in Niger, ICRISAT/INRAN 2007/08

Table 57 summarizes the coping strategies used by households at times of drought. In

Mali, most households purchase food, rely on food aid, contract loans, sell their labor or

engage in vegetable production. In Niger, farmers contract loans, sell their labor, engage

in income generating activities, sell livestock, migrate etc. In Nigeria, farmers mostly sell

their livestock.

Table 59. Survival and coping strategies in Mali, Niger and Nigeria to resolve food

security problems

Type of village

Variables Non-program site Program site Sample

Mali

Food purchase 41.38 27.45 32.5

Food aid 3.45 15.69 11.25

Sale of cotton 0 3.92 2.5

Petty trade 0 7.84 5c

Credit 20.69 17.65 18.75

Teaching 0 3.92 2.5

Migration 0 3.92 2.5

Vegetable production 6.9 7.84 7.5

80

Income generating activities 6.9 0 2.5b

Small repairs 0 1.96 1.25

Livestock sale 17.24 21.57 20

Land sale 3.45 1.96 2.5

Labor sale 10.34 13.73 12.5

Sale of chicken 0 1.96 1.25

Wood sale 6.9 0 2.5b

Niger

Income generating activities 12.90 13.22 13.16

Livestock sale 22.58 13.22 15.13

Self-help 6.45 13.22 11.84

Credit 22.58 27.27 26.32

Migration 9.68 12.40 11.84

Labor (cash or food for work) 19.36 25.62 24.34

Nigeria

Livestock sale 0 16.24 11.73

a = Significant at 1%, b = significant at 5%, c= significant at 10%

Number of agricultural firms surveyed

Source : Baseline survey in Niger, ICRISAT/INRAN 2008

5.8.2 - Income indicators

Apart from crop and livestock sources of revenue, farmers derive their revenue from

off-farm sources. The most important households’ off-farm activities include petty

trade, migration, blacksmith, groundnut oil processing. About 18% of households in

Niger practice migration, 39% petty trade, 15% groundnut oil processing, 5% local

groundnut cakes. In terms of value of off-farm revenues, petty trade accounts for about

37% of total off-farm revenue, 30% for migration and 10% for groundnut oil processing.

Table 60. Alternative off-farm sources of revenue of households in Niger in 2007/08

Country / Source of revenue

Type of village

Non program village (144) Program village (244) Total (248)

%UPA Amount %UPA Amount %UPA Amount

Shepherd 0.00 0 0.52 26 0.33 16

Bucher 0.00 0 2.62 2199 1.64c 1377

a

Barber 0.88 88 3.66 2435 2.62 1557

Shoe maker 0.00 0 0.52 262 0.33 164

Migration 25.44 46842 13.61 23953 18.03a 32508

c

Salt extraction 0.88 263 0.00 0 0.33 98

Black smith 3.51 7281 0.00 0 1.31a 2721

a

Local cake ("galette") 3.51 614 6.28 1427 5.25 1123

Watchmen 0.00 0 0.52 131 0.33 82

"Griot" 0.00 0 2.62 2225 1.64c 1393

Broker 0.00 0 1.05 1309 0.66 820

Launderer 0.00 0 0.52 26 0.33 16

81

House construction 1.75 3070 1.57 1728 1.64 2230

Non agricultural labor 0.88 877 2.09 681 1.64 754

Maraboutage 0.88 175 5.76 8207 3.93b 5205

Mechanic 0.00 0 1.57 1099 0.98 689

Mattes 0.88 132 2.09 314 1.64 246

Fishery 0.88 877 0.00 0 0.33 328

Petty trade 43.86 49759 36.65 35628 39.34 40910

Picking / collecting 0.88 351 0.00 0 0.33 131

Soap maker 0.88 175 0.00 0 0.33 66

Trader 0.88 526 1.57 1414 1.31 1082

Tailo0 0.00 0 1.57 550 0.98 344

Transport with motorcycle 0.88 877 1.05 3665 0.98 2623

Groundnut cake 0.88 877 0.52 314 0.66 525

Transport 0.88 175 0.00 0 0.33 66

Groundnut oil 11.40 8596 17.80 12487 15.41 11033

Stalk / straw 0.88 351 2.62 445 1.97 410

Food sales 0.88 175 3.14 539 2.30 403

Total off farm revenue (FCFA) n/a 122083 n/a 101848 n/a 109411

Total off farm revenue ($USD) n/a 244 n/a 204 n/a 219

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed, n/a : not applicable

Sources : Baseline surveys in West and Central Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

82

Table 61. Yearly household net revenues ($US)

Mali Niger Nigeria

Non

program site

Program

site

Total

sample

Non program

site

Program

site

Total

sample

Non program

site

Program

site

Total

sample

Variable (54) (112) (166) (144) (204) (348) (100) (177) (277)

Household major expenses ($US)

Livestock purchase 86.16 155.26 132.50 142.52 172.73 160.23 174.64 39.59 43.05

Production cost 14.51 22.81 20.06 17.05 24.06 21.48 117.09 126.38 123.04

Amount of interest paid 19.45 13.13 15.18 2.69 3.20 3.08 15.18 74.45 46.00

Total of expenses 120.12 191.20 167.74 162.26 199.99 184.79 306.91 240.42 212.09

Expenses per capita 8.12 8.31 8.25 15.88 19.40 17.99 34.64 24.91 22.64

Household gross revenue ($US)

Total value of production

(TVP) 1655.23 1423.49 1577.01 1121.65 1210.72 1190.92 1501.88 2599.41 2214.00

Livestock revenue 605.05 678.32 654.35 797.22 827.91 815.36 1532.26 1877.62 1758.57

Off farm revenue n.a n.a n.a 244.17 203.70 218.82 n.a n.a n.a

Gross revenue 2260.28 2101.81 2231.36 2163.04 2242.32 2225.10 3034.14 4477.03 3972.57

Gross revenue per capita 152.72 91.34 109.70 211.65 217.49 216.66 342.45 463.94 423.97

Net revenue 2140.16 1910.61 2063.62 2000.78 2042.33 2040.31 2727.23 4236.61 3760.48

Net revenue per

capita/year 144.61 83.03 101.46 195.77 198.09 198.67 307.81 439.03 401.33

Share of agriculture, livestock rearing and off farm in total net revenue of HHs (%)

Agriculture product 73.23 67.73 70.67 51.86 53.99 53.52 49.50 58.06 55.73

Livestock 26.77 32.27 29.33 36.86 36.92 36.64 50.50 41.94 44.27

Off farm activities n.a n.a n.a 13.29 10.78 11.62 n.a n.a n.a

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c = Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA/HHs surveyed, n.a : not available

Sources : Baseline surveys in West Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

83

VI. Conclusions and implications

This study characterizes the village economies in major groundnut producing countries

in West and Central Africa. It highlights a range of indicators that will be later used to

assess TLII program impacts.

Survey results indicate that groundnut is a major source of livelihood for farmers in the

survey sites. It contribution in terms of area planted, household cash revenues, and total

value of production are important. Groundnut market participation is important. Many

households sell groundnut in Niger and Mali and many buy groundnuts in Nigeria. In

Mali, 46% of households are net sellers with no differences between program and non-

program sites. In Niger, about 79% of households are net sellers of groundnut with high

rates in program versus non-program sites. In Nigeria, 72% of households are net buyers

of groundnut with significantly more households buying groundnut in program versus

non-program sites. Households are net sellers of cowpea for 8% in Mali, 24% in Niger

and 7% in Nigeria. In the 3 countries, market participation in other crops is also

important. In Mali, about 30% and 40% of households are buying rice and sorghum

respectively with no differences between non-program and program sites. Poor millet is

thinly traded and farmers live as in autarky. In Niger, 39 and 42% of households are net

buyers of maize and pearl millet respectively. In Nigeria, households are net buyers of

most of the agricultural products.

Few households are using the varieties released less than 20 years ago. Survey results

showed that about 40% of groundnut area is planted with the variety 47-10 and in Niger

and 47% of area is planted with the variety 55-437. In Nigeria, the variety ex-Dakar i.e.

55-437 is planted on 41% of groundnut area. These varieties are ruling varieties

introduced at colonial times in 1950s. The area covered by modern varieties bred or

adapted less than 30 years ago is small. In Mali, groundnut varieties (ICGV 86124, JL 24,

ICGV 86015, ICG (FDRS)4 and ICG(FDRS) 10 and Fleur 11) Waliyartiga, introduced

during the Groundnut Germplasm Project (GGP) in 1996 and promoted during the

Groundnut Seed Project (GSP) have not being largely taken up by farmers and are

planted on about 3% of groundnut area. In Niger, in the Dosso region, several varieties

were introduced during the GGP project and promoted during the GSP project include

TS 32-1, RRB, etc have relatively well adopted with 24% of area planted mostly with

RRB. In Nigeria, similar trends are observed. Improved varieties bred, adapted and

introduced (SAMNUT 21, SAMNUT 22 and SAMNUT 23) during the last 30 years are

adopted in less than 6% of groundnut area. No significant differences were found

between program and non-program sites. The major constraints to using improved have

been reported by farmers to be the non-availability of seed for 83% in Mali, 60% in

Niger and 56% in Nigeria. Lack of cash was cited as a major constraint in Niger and

Nigeria. Low grain and haulm yields, lack of information on crop management, fitness in

association, and undesirable color were also cited as the major constraints in Nigeria.

84

Groundnut production requires a larger amount of inputs such as seed, fertilizers and

labor. Credit is thus required to access these required inputs. Survey results showed

46% of households have access to formal and informal sources of credit against 43% in

Niger and 9% in Nigeria. The average contracted amount is about US$76 in Mali and $77

in Niger less than the amount needed to purchase one bag of fertilizers or seed to be

planted on a hectare of groundnut. In Nigeria however, this is estimated to US$500 in

Nigeria. The average interest rates on contracted loans are estimated to 24% in Mali,

11% in Niger and 15% in Nigeria. Most households contract loans for consumption

purpose. In Mali, about 21% of the contracted amount is used for input purchase, about

30% in Niger and about 25% in Nigeria.

The use of inorganic fertilizers on groundnut fields is limited in Mali and Niger. In fact,

2.26% of plots grown by households received fertilizers and 16% in Niger. In Nigeria, the

use of fertilizers is high estimated to about 61% of the groundnut plots. Likewise, the

use of organic fertilizers is also limited. In Mali, about 14% of groundnut plots received

organic fertilizers, 18% in Niger and 41% in Nigeria. The use of hired labor is relatively

high. In Niger, farmers use hired labor in 26% of the groundnut plots, 43% in Niger and

67% in Nigeria. Pesticides are widely used in the 3 countries. However, the intensities of

inputs used are very small. On average, farmers use less than US$20 /ha of inputs in

Mali, US$21 in Mali and US$123 in Nigeria.

Groundnut is a woman’s crop in some countries in West Africa. In Mali, 85% of

private/individual belongs to women and 35% in Niger. In Nigeria there is little

participation of women in groundnut production activities. However, women are largely

involved in local groundnut processing activities. There were no differences based on

program and non-program villages.

Households source planting seed from past harvests, village markets, other farmers,

family and parents. In Mali, 80% of the farmers get seed from past harvests, 9% buy

seed from the village markets, 6% from seed traders and about 8% from friends and

parents. In Niger, 86% of the households draw their planting seed from past harvests,

7% from village markets, 4% from seed traders and 7% from friends and parents. In

Nigeria, similar trends are observed. Seventy-one (71%) percent of households source

their planting seed from past harvests, 21% from seed traders, 5% from extension

services, and 10% from family and parents. Households have little access to seed of the

varieties released less than 20 years ago.

85

References

Badiane, O. and S. Kinteh (1994). Trade Pessimism and regionalism in African countries:

the case of groundnut exporters. Research Report 97. IFPRI.

CPS/IER (1998). Diagnostic de la filière arachide au Mali. Rapport Final. Ministre du

développement Rurale et de l’Eau. République du Mali.

FAOSTAT (2010). Agricultural Statistics Database, 2010, (www.fao.org).

Farrington, J., D. Carney, C. Ashley and C Turton (1999). Sustainable livelihoods in

practice: early applications of concepts in rural Areas. Natural Resources Perspectives,

Number 24, June 1999. Overseas Development Institute, London.

Danguiwa, A. 2000. Etude Agro-socio- économique et amenagements des terroirs dans

le Departement de Dosso. Projet d’Appui au Développement Rural du Departement de

Dosso. Republique du Niger. Avril 2000.

Feder, G ; R. Just and D. Zilberman (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in

developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 33(2):255-

298.

Greene, W.H. (1990). Econometric analysis. Macmillan Publishing Company.

INRAN (1994). Catalogue Nigerien des Varietes de Cereales et Legumineuses. Ministere

de l’Agriculture et de l’Elevage. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique du Niger.

Republique du Niger.

Kinteh, S. and O. Badiane (1990). The market potential for groundnut products facing

West African countries and the role of regional markets. Washington, D.C., USA:

International Food Policy Research Institute.

LABOSEM (2002). Catalogue Officiel des Espèces et Variétés. Laboratoire des Semences.

Direction Générale de la Réglementation et du Contrôle. Ministère de l’Agriculture, de

l’Elevage et de la Pêche. République du Mali (Tomes 1&2).

Mayeux, A., F. Waliyar and B. R. Ntare (2003). Groundnut Varieties Recommended by

Groundnut Germplasm Project (GGP) for West and Central Africa. (In. En., Fr.),

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) : Patancheru

502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India. ISBN 92-9066-456-8.

Ndjeunga, J., A. Ibro, B.R. Ntare Y Cisse and M.A. Zarafi (2010). Groundnut trends and

market prospects in West and Central Africa. ICRISAT Unpublished Report.

86

Ndjeunga, J.; B. Ntare; F. Waliyar, J. Ondio Kodio and A. Traore (2003). Assessing the

Diffusion of Groundnut Varieties in Mali. International Arachis Newsletter No 23. P. 33-

35.

Ogungbile, A.O., R. Tabo, and N. van Duivenbooden. 1999. Multi-scale characterization

of production systems to prioritize research and development in the Sudan Savanna

Zone of Nigeria. Information Bulletin no. 56. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India:

International Crops Research institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 112 pp.

République du Niger (2004). “Stratégie de Developement Rural” Cabinet du Premier Ministre, Secretariat permanent de la SRP, Niamey, Niger.

UNDP (2010). Human development report. Human Development Report 2010

20th Anniversary Edition The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human

Development Published for the United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP)

DNSI (1996/97).

87

Annexes

Annex 1. Proportion of land owned by quartile in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

Village

Area range % UPA Sup. (ha)

%

UPA

Sup.

(ha)

%

UPA

Sup.

(ha)

Non-program

village Program village Total sample

Mali 54 112 166

1st quartile [0-4 ha] 36.36 2.25 22.52 2.36 27.11 2.31

2nd quartile [5-7 ha] 32.73 5.94 24.32 5.63 27.11 5.76

3rd quartile [8-15 ha] 20 11.18 24.32 10.85 22.89 10.95

4th quartile [16-200 ha] 10.91 26.5 28.83 38.13 22.89 36.29

Total 100 7.89 100 15.53 100 13

Niger

1st quartile [0-6.5 ha] 27.54 4.5 25.87 4.21 26.55 4.33

2nd quartile [6.8-10 ha] 26.09 8.33 24.88 8.18 25.37 8.24

3rd quartile [10.15-16

ha] 24.64 12.88 21.89 12.58 23.01 12.71

4th quartile [16.5-140

ha]

21.74

34.16 27.36 29.77 25.07 31.32

Total 100 14.01 100 14.02 100 14.02

Nigeria 100 177 277

1st quartile [1-3 ha] 41.67 2.21 17.71 2.65 26.2 2.40a

2nd quartile [3.50-5 ha] 21.88 4.40 26.86 4.27 25.09 4.31

3rd quartile [5.50-9 ha] 11.46 7.09 32 6.82 24.72 6.87

4th quartile [9.50-200

ha] 25

23.77

23.43

19.06

23.99

20.80

Total 100 8.64 100 8.26 100 8.40

a = Significant at 1%, b = Significant at 5%, c= Significant at 10%

In parentheses, the number of UPA surveyed

% UPA: proportion of UPA, area in hectares

Sources: Baseline surveys in west Africa, ICRISAT/IER/IAR/INRAN, 2007/08

88

Annex 2. Characteristics of groundnut varieties currently on- advanced testing on

farmers’ fields or released in Mali, Niger and Nigeria

Country/Varieties

Crop

cycle

(days)

Aver. Yield

(tons. ha –1)

Year

development /

Introduction

Institution

MALI

1 47-10 90 1.5 Introduction IRHO/CRA Bambey

2 JL 24 90 1.5 Introduction ICRISAT

3 TS 32-1 90 2.0 Introduction INERA

4 55-437 90 2.0-3.0 Introduction IRHO/CRA Bambey

5 Mossitiga 90 1.9 Introduction INERA

6 ICGS(E)-34 (Demba Niouma) 90 Introduction ICRISAT

7 Fleur 11 90 1.3 Introduction China via ISRA

8 ICGV 7878 120 2.5 Introduction ICRISAT

9 ICG(FDRS)4 110 2.0 Introduction ICRISAT

10 ICG(FDRS)10 110 2.0 Introduction ICRISAT

11 ICG 7878 (Waliyartiga) 120 2.0 Introduction ICRISAT

NIGER

1 55-437 90 2.0-3.0 Introduction IRHO/CRA Bambey

2 T-169-83 90 2.5-3.5 1983 INRAN

3 T-181-83 90 2.0-3.0 1983 INRAN

4 TS 32-1 90 2.5-3.5 Introduction INERA

5 796 90 2.0-3.0 Introduction from Russia

6 KH 149-A 90 3.5 1973 IRHO

7 47-10 120 3.5 1977 IRHO

8 57-422 120 3.5 1957 IRHO

9 79-22 1979 IRHO

10 ICGV 9199 Introduction ICRISAT

11 ICGV 9346 Introduction ICRISAT

12 ICGV 96981 Introduction ICRISAT

13 J11 Introduction ICRISAT

14 JL 24 90 1.5 Introduction ICRISAT

15 RRB Introduction IAR

16 T-177-83 1983 INRAN

17 O-20 INRAN

Sources: LABOSEM (2002) and INRAN (1994). AT: Advanced testing, RE: Released

89

Annex 3. Characteristics of groundnut varieties released by country in West Africa

(continued)

Country / Varieties Crop cycle

(days)

Aver. Yield

(tons.ha-1)

Year

development/

Release

Institution

NIGERIA

1 SAMNUT-1 (MK 374) 130-150 2.5-3.0 1960 IAR

2 SAMNUT-2 (SAMARU -

38)

130-150 2.5-3.5 1960 IAR

3 SAMNUT-3 (M-25.68) 130-150 2.8-3.0 1970 IAR

4 SAMNUT-4 (69-101) 130-150 2.5-3.0 1970 ISRA

5 SAMNUT-5 (M.599.74) 130-150 2.5-3.0 1970 IAR

6 SAMNUT-6 (M – 95.71) 130-150 2.0-2.8 1970 IAR

7 SAMNUT-7 (M104.74) 110-120 2.0-2.8 1980 Introduction

8 SAMNUT-8 (M103.74) 110-120- 2.0-2.8 1980 Introduction

9 SAMNUT-9 (59-127) 130-150 2.5-3.0 1980 IAR

10 SAMNUT-10 (RMP 12) 130-150 2.8-3.5 1988 INERA (Introduction)

11 SAMNUT-11 (RMP 91) 130-150 2.8-3.5 1988 Introduction

12 SAMNUT-12 (M 318.74) 130-150 2.5-3.0 1980

13 SAMNUT-13 (Spanish

205)

90-100 2.0-2.8 1980

14 Samnut 14 (55-437) 90-100 2.0-2.8 1988 IRHO/CRA Bambey

15 SAMNUT-15 (F 452.2) 90-100 2.0-2.8 1970 Introduction

16 SAMNUT-16 (M554-76) 130-150 2.5-3.0 1988 IAR

17 SAMNUT-17 (49-115B 130-150 2.5-3.0 1988 IAR

18 SAMNUT-18 (RRB) 100-110 2.0-2.8 1988 IAR

19 SSAMNUT-19 (K720.20) 100-110 2.0-2.8 1994 IAR

20 SAMNUT-20 (M412.801) 120-130 2.8-3.5 1994 IAR

21 SAMNUT- 21 (UGA 2) 110-115 2.5 2001 IAR/ UGA

22 SAMNUT- 22 (M 572.80 I) 110-120 2.5 2000 IAR

23 SAMNUT- 23 (ICGV-IS

96894)

90 1.5-2.5 2001 ICRISAT-IAR

Source: Sources: MDRH/DA/DS (1994) and IAR (1989).

AT: Advanced testing, RE: Released