African Legume Market Dynamics Report

July 2012
African Legume Market Dynamics

Prepared by Monitor Group with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
African Legume Market Dynamics was prepared by Monitor Group on behalf of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Disclaimer Though this publication has been funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, its content does not necessarily reflect the official position of the Foundation and is entirely the responsibility of the authors. The information in this document is provided as it is and no guarantee or warrant is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at their own risk and liability. For questions about this report please contact legumes@monitor.com.
2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 2
Table of Contents
1. 2. Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................8 Introduction .........................................................................................................................11 2.1. Rationale for the Report ............................................................................................11 2.2. Objectives .................................................................................................................12 2.3. Country and Crop Focus ...........................................................................................12 2.4. African Legume Market Dynamic Report Structure ................................................13 Why Invest in Legumes? ....................................................................................................14 3.1. Farmer Income and Market Opportunities ................................................................15 3.1.1. Increased Incomes from Selling into Growing Markets ............................15 3.1.2. Lower Input Costs ......................................................................................16 3.1.3. Risk Diversification ...................................................................................16 3.2. Food Security and Health Benefits ...........................................................................18 3.2.1. Nutritional and Food Security Benefits .....................................................18 3.2.2. Health Benefits...........................................................................................23 3.3. Soil Health and Climate Benefits ..............................................................................24 3.3.1. Soil Health Improvement and Ecosystem Resilience ................................24 3.3.2. Climate Change Mitigation ........................................................................25 3.4. Challenges to the Legume Value Proposition ...........................................................25 Legume Market Overview .................................................................................................28 4.1. Key Macro Trends ....................................................................................................28 4.2. Key Market Metrics ..................................................................................................30 4.2.1. Legume Production ....................................................................................30 4.2.2. Legume Consumption ................................................................................34 4.2.3. Legume Trade ............................................................................................38 Profiling Legume Farmers .................................................................................................42 5.1. Number of Legume Farmers .....................................................................................42 5.2. The Voice of the Farmer ...........................................................................................42 5.3. Farmer Segments ......................................................................................................43 Legume Market Opportunities ..........................................................................................45 6.1. Commercial Buyer Market Opportunities ................................................................45 6.2. Food Security Relief Market Opportunities ..............................................................50 Value Chain Constraints and Agenda for Action ............................................................52 7.1. General African Agriculture Constraints and Potential Interventions ......................52 7.1.1. Infrastructure Constraints...........................................................................52 7.1.2. Extension Services Constraints ..................................................................53 7.1.3. Farmers Organizations Constraints ..........................................................53
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
7.2. 7.3.
7.4. 8. 9.
7.1.4. Data Constraints .........................................................................................53 Action Agenda for Constraints that Affect Multiple Commodities ..........................54 Legume-Specific Constraints and Interventions .......................................................55 7.3.1. Government Policy ....................................................................................55 7.3.2. Seed Research and Development ...............................................................57 7.3.3. Seed Production, Distribution and Adoption .............................................60 7.3.4. Labor-Saving Technologies .......................................................................63 7.3.5. On-Field Pests ............................................................................................64 7.3.6. Aflatoxin ....................................................................................................65 7.3.7. Private Sector, Legume Markets and Trade ...............................................67 Targeting the Action Agenda ....................................................................................74
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................77 Annexes ................................................................................................................................79 Annex A: About the Report ..................................................................................................79 Annex B: Methodology for calories per USD and protein per USD calculations ................85 Annex C: Animal Feed Applications of Legumes ................................................................86 Annex D: Methodology for estimation of smallholder legume farmers ...............................89 Annex E: Labor-Saving Processing Technologies used in other Developing Countries......90 Annex F: Profiles of Emerging Buyers, Major Buyers and a Marketing Intermediary ........91 Annex G: Additional Research Recommended for African Legumes Analysis...................96 Annex H: Existing and On-Going Initiatives........................................................................98
Table of Figures
Figure 3.1: Categories of Legume Benefits ...................................................................................14 Figure 3.2: Average number of full-time equivalent scientists involved in crop improvement programs in sub-Saharan Africa ....................................................................................................15 Figure 3.3: Summary of Legume Uses ..........................................................................................17 Figure 3.4: Legume Demand Structure in Focus Countries, by Legume ......................................17 Figure 3.5: Legume Contribution to Per Capita Protein Intake, 2007 ...........................................18 Figure 3.6: Protein and Calories Provided by Legumes, per USD,, ...............................................19 Figure 3.7: Protein and Calories Provided by Legumes, per USD,, , .............................................20 Figure 3.8: Iron, Zinc and Vitamin A, per USD, , , ........................................................................20 Figure 3.9: Protein and Calories Provided by Legumes, per KG ..................................................21 Figure 3.10: Dietary Implications of Various Budget Allocations,,, .............................................22 Figure 3.11: Diabetes Prevalence in Focus Countries, Millions ....................................................24 Figure 3.12: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in Emerging Economies (19612007).27 Figure 3.13: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in Brazil (19612007) ..........................27 Figure 3.14: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in China (19612007)...........................27 Figure 3.15: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in India (19612007) ............................27 Figure 3.16: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in South Africa (19612007)................27 Figure 4.1: Changes in Commodity Composition of Food in Sub-Saharan Africa .......................28 Figure 4.2 Global Warming Potential (~100 years) .......................................................................29 Figure 4.3 Land Harvested with Legumes, Indexed to 1985 .........................................................29 Figure 4.4: Global Legume and Cereal Production, 20002010 ...................................................30 Figure 4.5: Legume and Cereal Compound Annual Production Growth Rate, by Continent .......30 Figure 4.6: Production, by Legume: Focus Countries, (20002010) ............................................31 Figure 4.7: Compound Annual Growth Rate by Legume within Focus Countries, (20002010) 32 Figure 4.8: Legume and Cereal Production, Focus Countries and Rest of Africa 20002010.....34 Figure 4.9: Global Legume and Cereal Consumption 20052010 ................................................35 Figure 4.10: Legume and Cereal Consumption, Focus Countries 20052010 ..............................35 Figure 4.11: Legume and Cereal Consumption Compound Annual Growth Rate, by Continent .36 Figure 4.12: Consumption, by Legume (Focus Countries) 20002010 ........................................37 Figure 4.13: Legume Consumption Compound Annual Growth Rate, by Legume ......................38 Figure 4.14: Net Exports, Africa and Other Regions (LHS) and Focus Countries and Rest of Africa (RHS), 2010 ........................................................................................................................38 Figure 4.15: Net Exports, by Legume in Focus Countries, 2010 ..................................................40 Figure 5.1: Estimated Number of Smallholder Legume Farmers in Focus Countries...................42
Figure 6.1: Comparison of Major Private Sector Player Size, Legumes vs. Other Commodities .45 Figure 6.2: Top 10 Global Chickpea Importers, 2010 ...................................................................46 Figure 6.3: Top 10 Global Common Bean Importers, 2010 ..........................................................47 Figure 6.4: Cowpea Consumption Market Size, 2010 ...................................................................48 Figure 6.5: Global Groundnut Import Market ...............................................................................48 Figure 6.6: Imports of Soybeans in West Africa ...........................................................................49 Figure 6.7: World Food Programme P4P Procurement of Legumes .............................................50 Figure 6.8: Production Yields MT per Hectare, 2010 ...................................................................51 Figure 7.1: Government Policies Impacting the Legume Industry ................................................56 Figure 7.2: Major Patient and Private Legume Buyers..................................................................72 Figure 7.3: Legume Processors ......................................................................................................73 Figure 9.1 Contacts Made During the Project ...............................................................................80 Figure 9.2: Average Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) of Pastures and Implied Feed Consumption87 Figure 9.3: Approximate Composition of Local Feed and Feed Ingredients Commonly Used as Aquafeeds in Uganda .....................................................................................................................88
Glossary
AfDB ACDI/VOCA African Development Bank Agricultural Cooperative Development International and Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Collaborative Research Support Program Export Trading Group Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Global Agriculture and Food Security Program International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics International Institute of Tropical Agriculture International Food Policy Research Institute Non-governmental Organization Purchase for Progress Program for Africas Seed Systems Smallholder Farmer Small or Medium Enterprise United States Agency for International Development World Food Programme
AGRA BMGF CRSP ETG FAO GAFSP ICRISAT IITA IFPRI NGO P4P PASS SHF SME USAID WFP
1. Executive Summary
While a great deal of government and donor investment has been channeled into the promotion of agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, the vast majority of attention has been devoted to traditional staple crops and cash crops. Legumes have historically been neglected. The thesis underlying African Legumes Market Dynamics Report is that low levels of attention to legumes is a missed opportunity to improve nutrition, lives, and livelihoods for smallholder farmers (SHFs) in Africa. Ensuring food security and alleviating poverty are the twin goals at the core of nearly all agricultural support programs and have motivated decisions to focus on cereal and cash crops. African Legumes Market Dynamics investigates the potential of legumes to assist in achieving these goals and more generally, to improve the lives of smallholder farmers in Africa. Monitor Group was commissioned by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to study the value chains of five crops (chickpeas, common beans, cowpeas, groundnuts and soybeans) in seven countries (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda) in order to gain deeper insight into the current constraints and potential opportunities in the African legumes sector.
Why Invest in Legumes?

Despite the lack of attention devoted to legumes in the past, there is a strong case for stimulating legume production and value addition in Africa. Legumes provide numerous opportunities to improve the lives of smallholder farmers and benefit local communities. The value of legumes for SHFs can be divided into three categories: income-generating opportunities, improved nutrition and health benefits, and soil and eco-system health. The majority of SHFs are already selling the surplus legumes they grow over and above meeting household consumption needs. In cases where farmers have been confronted with ready markets, they have reacted by increasing their production in order to generate additional income. Growing domestic and international demand for key legumes is driving growth in legume cultivation in the focus countries, a trend which is predicted to continue into the future. If SHFs can be linked with markets, substantial opportunities exist to turn legumes into a significant commercial opportunity. In addition to income generation, legumes can lower input costs of farmers main crops and help to diversify the risks associated with cultivating only one crop. By intercropping legumes with cereals, the soil health improves and the risk of crop failure and market price fluctuations is reduced. Whilst the promotion of cereals is vital in order to achieve food security in African nations, legumes offer a highly affordable source of protein and energy, which complements starches such as maize, rice and cassava. Diets too heavily based on starch lead to a number of nutritional deficiencies and related diseases. Diabetes prevalence is rising rapidly in Africa as a result of the high glycemic index, carbohydrate diet in many households. Legumes provide a large amount of essential micro- and macronutrients, without having any major nutritional pitfalls and as such present the opportunity to accompany cereal crops in the provision of an affordable, healthy and balanced diet. Legumes also provide a unique advantage to farmers engaging in polycropping with their cereal crops. Legumes fix nitrogen into the soil, leading to yield increases for paired crops. Furthermore, the increase in
i
Polycropping is used here to refer to various cropping systems involving more than one crop such as intercropping or rotation cropping
biodiversity of the farm plot has been shown to reduce pest and disease damage to farmers primary crops.
Findings
Through a comprehensive analysis of the market for legumes both globally and the at the country level, the Monitor team was able to establish that there is significant growth potential for legumes. Globally, legume production grew at 4% per annum between 2000 and 2010. Legume production in Africa is small (6%) relative to world production and has been growing slightly slower than the global average, and in 2010 Africa overall produced about 21.5M metric tons of legumes (vs. about 87.1M metric tons of cereal production). However, within focus countries and excluding Nigeria, growth has been significant during st the 21 century, at 7% per annum. This indicates that the potential for scaling up legumes production in Africa exists. High demand for legumes coupled with low levels of local production in South Asia is driving chickpea exports from East Africa, while increasing global demand for processed soybean and groundnut products provides a significant opportunity for focus countries situated in West Africa. Rising costs of animal feed and the applicability of processed legumes to this purpose is an indication that the value of soybeans and groundnuts will continue to increase. Little processing of common bean and cowpea is occurring; demand for these legumes is driven primarily by local consumption in East and West Africa, respectively. Despite the recent growth in legumes production within the focus countries, there are a number of constraints preventing SHFs from taking full advantage of the opportunities offered by legumes. In addition to barriers which farmers of other crops in Africa face, seven categories of legumes-specific constraints are apparent. The greatest constraints exist in seed research and development, seed production, distribution and adoption, and market linkages between SHFs and large-scale legumes buyers. The lack of importance placed on most legumes by focus country governments adds further barriers to various aspects of legumes value chains, which other crops may not face. In addition, on-field pests and diseases lead to severe losses in productivity and aflatoxin, a disease which infects groundnuts, impedes access to a large export market. Finally, the lack of affordable, labor-saving technologies being developed for and adopted by legumes farmers hampers productivity and competitiveness. The constraints to SHFs taking advantage of legumes seed varieties capable of resisting pests and drought and producing higher volumes of grain with more uniform and desirable characteristics run along two dimensions. Firstly, legumes seed research and development in the focus countries is limited due to a lack of funding available to research institutions and legumes being de-prioritized relative to staple crops. Secondly, and perhaps more critically, legumes seed production and distribution infrastructure in focus countries is virtually non-existent. Most countries fund research and development of legumes seed, which they make available to private sector seed companies to multiply, distribute and sell to farmers. However, since legumes seeds are recyclable and are viewed as less important than other crops, few private sector companies are willing to make the investments required to multiply and distribute seed. Since in most cases no public institutions are mandated to market and distribute legumes seed, the availability of improved varieties to SHFs is severely hampered. Improving the quality of SHF legume produce, through measures such as increasing the adoption of improved seed varieties, are vital for buyers to choose to procure from SHFs. Equally important is the creation of access-to-market opportunities for farmers, so that they have the economic incentives and means to make the necessary investments in legumes inputs to improve the quality of their produce. The low volumes and high levels of dispersion of SHFs provide the greatest constraint to their market access. Legume processing industries in focus countries are often forced to operate below capacity or to import
raw legumes because they are incapable of aggregating large enough volumes from so many smallholder farmers. Foreign and local private and patient buyers face similar challenges. Immense opportunities exist for SHFs to serve the needs of large-scale local and international buyers; however, aggregation, storage and transportation of their produce are preconditions to capitalizing on these opportunities.
Implications and Recommendations

The lack of emphasis placed on legumes in the past has resulted in a host of potential areas where private sector players, governments, non-governmental organizations and donors could participate in the legumes value chain. Stakeholders can invest in multiple or individual parts of the value chain. The development of cowpea storage bags is an example of a successful intervention, which targeted a specific challenge faced by legumes farmers, that of off-field pests. Organizations with the capacity to do so, might consider full value chain interventions, which can overcome numerous inter-related barriers at once. Such interventions should focus on increasing the development and adoption of improved seeds as well as linking SHFs with markets for their produce. One private sector model, which has proved successful at surmounting the challenge of legume marketing, albeit on a small-scale, is that of legumes intermediaries, which aggregate produce from many SHFs and supply large processors and buyers. These organizations also play an intermediate role between agro-input dealers such as seed producers and SHFs and in doing so address the two major challenges faced by SHFs. Savannah Farmers Marketing Company, which has been successful in linking SHFs with processors in Northern Ghana, required financial support from non-governmental organizations. To implement such a model on a large scale would require significant investment in the creation of legumes intermediary/marketing companies. These sorts of cross-value chain actors will have the ability to deliver the benefits which legumes offer to SHFs. The establishment of agricultural marketing companies, which link farmers to buyers and agricultural inputs, is one among many potential methods of addressing the challenges faced by legumes farmers. What is important is that the actions of private sector and donor organizations are cohesive. The opportunities for legumes to improve the livelihoods of SHFs exist along several dimensions, however intelligent investment and assistance from the international donor community is essential in order for those opportunities to be realized.
2. Introduction
2.1. Rationale for the Report
In recent years, efforts to address food security and smallholder farmer (SHF) incomes in Africa have ramped up substantially. Spending by both donors and private investors on agriculture has increased ii correspondingly . These efforts have focused heavily on staple crops like maize, rice, or cassava as exemplified by AGRAs Breadbasket Strategy in Ghana1 and USAIDs Feed the Future Strategy in Mali 2. Simultaneously, multiple efforts such as AGRAs Soil Health Program3 have taken on the difficult issues of low levels of input usage and poor soil health in many African countries. However, despite increasing efforts to address these issues generally, relatively little attention has been paid to legumes. Legumes have the potential to provide significant benefit to SHFs both as a source of protein and nutrition, and as a potential source of income as a cash crop. Moreover, some legumes (e.g., pigeon peas) have certain qualities that enhance soils and improve productivity, while other legumes (e.g., soybeans) require relatively little fertilizer compared to maize for example. As a consequence, the cost and risk equation for SHFs is potentially improved by participating in certain legume value chains. Despite this promise and focus, anecdotal data suggests that most SHFs grow only enough legumes for iii consumption. The LSMS-ISA should provide more concrete evidence for this claim. Data is expected to be released in the near future. Farmers have suggested that they could grow more, but dont see a market for their produce. However there is only vague information on farmer behavior. Furthermore, the legume market in Africa is not well-covered by major sources of agricultural data. Given the potential high impact on nutrition and livelihoods for SHFs, improved market data, such as consumer preferences for certain legume characteristics would complement the investments already made in research and development (R&D) by various organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). Advanced scientific research into ways of improving yields from the major legume crops is currently being funded by such organizations, with particular interest in the application of this research to Africa. Other projects have focused on soybeans for feed markets and storage for pigeon peas. However, there is little information in the public domain to guide these investments, particularly those involving R&D for better yields. There is also little information about the dynamics of the African legume market and there are particular gaps regarding the composition of individual countries domestic markets and the balance between domestic consumption and export (if any). The hypothesis is that the legumes market could be significantly larger if bottlenecks were addressed through critical investment from public sector and from private sector traders, exporters, and processors. This report aims to provide a better understanding of the dynamics of the African legume market with the intent to assist interested stakeholders to make better decisions on how to prioritize funding, and potentially catalyze other funding activity and attention from a range of stakeholders across the value chain that would benefit SHFs.
ii
For an example please refer to The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, GAFSP website, accessed March 2012, http://www.gafspfund.org/gafsp/content/global-agriculture-and-food-security-program iii Living Standards Measurement Study Integrated Surveys on Agriculture
2.2.
Objectives
Provide an overview of the dynamics of the African legume market, and generate an overall picture that consolidates available secondary and primary data on the size and trends in the market with a focus on seven countries (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Uganda) and respective sub-regions, as well as five crops (groundnuts, cowpeas, common beans, chickpeas, and soybeans); Provide an overview of the major consumption patterns of legumes to illuminate opportunities to further improve nutrition, and to increase smallholder farmer incomes; Highlight potential market failures and identify areas where outside intervention could have greatest impact, and where private sector involvement and investment could be catalytic and have positive social and commercial returns; and Provide a list of potential policy or program interventions for a broad base of key interested parties who can help spur further activity in the legume market, either through new interventions or by building on current and planned activities by various parties in selected countries that seek to address legume market failures, improve access to markets, or generally create more efficient value chains that benefit smallholders and enhance nutrition. In doing the above, the report makes the case for additional donor and public sector investment into legumes as an important set of value chains that can make meaningful contributions to long-term food security, nutrition, farmer incomes, and sustainability.
The objectives of this report are to:
2.3.
Country and Crop Focus
Seven focus countries and five core focus legumes were selected to assess the dynamics of the legume industry. These countries represent 47% of all African legume production and consumption, while the five focus legumes account for 87% of African legume production 4. The focus countries and legumes are as follows:

Countries: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda Legumes: Chickpeas, common beans, cowpeas, groundnuts, soybeans
In addition to the focus legumes listed above, for Ethiopia and Tanzania specifically, additional legumes were included for analysis given their significant production volumes and nutritional importance in these countries. Based on production volumes and nutritional importance in focus countries, the following country-crop combinations were assessed:

Burkina Faso: Cowpeas, groundnuts, soybeans Ethiopia: Chickpeas, common (haricot) beans, faba beans, field peas, lentils Ghana: Cowpeas, groundnuts, soybeans Mali: Cowpeas, groundnuts, soybeans Nigeria: Cowpeas, groundnuts, soybeans Tanzania: Chickpeas, common beans, cowpeas, groundnuts, soybeans, pigeon peas
Uganda: Common beans, cowpeas, groundnuts, soybeans
While these countries and legumes do not represent the complete market, they represent substantial portions of the market in Africa and a diverse set of countries in East and West Africa. As such, the iv analysis provides a representative assessment of overall legumes activity in Africa . Throughout the report the term legumes refers to the core focus legumes, unless otherwise noted.
2.4.
African Legume Market Dynamic Report Structure

Section 3 outlines the case for investment in the legume value chain, with an overview of three related categories of benefit: farmer income and market opportunities; food security, health and nutritional benefits; and soil health and climate benefits Section 4 reviews the data and trends which define the legume market , with a focus on the seven focus countries and some consideration for key regional and global dynamics Section 5 profiles smallholder legume farmers and categorizes farmers into four groupings with different characteristics Section 6 describes legume market opportunities, with respect to both commercial opportunities and food security opportunities Section 7 outlines the key challenges that exist along the legume value chain and provides recommended interventions that could have greatest impact
The structure of the report is as follows:
The Annexes to the African Legume Market Dynamics report are as follows:

Annex A provides background information on the preparation of this report Annex B describes the methodology used to calculate the nutrition per dollar and nutrition per kilogram data Annex C details uses and applications of legumes in animal feed Annex D describes the methodology used to calculate the number of smallholder farmers Annex E highlights three labor-saving processing technologies used in other developing countries which are applicable to legumes Annex F profiles emerging buyers, major buyers and a marketing intermediary Annex G details recommendations for future research
iv
We recognize that this approach will not capture specific country and regional variations. For in-depth portraits of very specific country-crop combinations, further research will be required
3. Why Invest in Legumes?

Although donors and experts have paid substantial attention to and made significant investment in cereal crops in recent years, comparatively speaking, the same is not true of legumes. The thesis and animating idea underlying this report is that such inattention is a mistake, or at best, a substantial missed opportunity to improve nutrition, lives, and livelihoods for smallholder farmers in Africa. In addition to having the potential to impact a significant number of farmers, legumes present a strong value proposition not only in terms of their commercial potential, but also in terms of the social and household benefits they provide. As such, more investment in legumes should be a priority. The case for legumes can be found in three related categories of benefit: farmer income and market opportunities; health and nutrition solutions; and soil health and climate improvement.
Figure 3.1: Categories of Legume Benefits
Farmer Income and Market Opportunities
Food Security, Health and Nutrition Benefits
Soil Health and Climate Benefits
Within farmer income and market opportunities, the main benefits include: (i) increased incomes from selling into growing markets, (ii) lower input costs, and (iii) farmer risk diversification. In the category of food security, health and nutrition benefits, the primary benefits are: (i) positive nutrition and food securityrelated effects (e.g., as a cost-effective protein source), and (ii) health-related benefits. And in the soil health and climate category of benefits, the benefits are: (i) soil health improvement and ecosystem resilience, and (ii) climate change mitigation. Finally, legumes remain an important commodity in countries even as incomes rise, so that investment made now will not be stranded in later years. Each of these benefits is discussed in detail below. One metric for quantifying the prioritization of cereals over legumes is the relative number of scientists involved in research of the respective crops. Figure 3.2 indicates the average number of scientists involved in sub-Saharan African crop improvement programs. According to a study performed by the International Food policy Research Institute, a total of 93.4 full time equivalent scientists were involved in 18 crop improvement programs focused on common beans or groundnuts. Comparatively, 264.1 full time equivalent scientists were actively researching maize and rice in 24 sub-Saharan African crop improvement programs.5 Government and donor decisions to prioritize cereals over legumes have been based on a number of beliefs and perceptions about legumes. The high impact of cereals on calorie intake and the desire to ensure food security is considered the primary reason for the emphasis placed on cereals. Legumes on the other hand have been viewed as labor-intensive, low opportunity crops, with problematic seed
systems. In addition to this, legumes carry the title of poor mans meat. This gives rise to the question of whether or not legumes should be invested in, if consumption is expected to slow as incomes rise. This challenge to the legumes value proposition is carefully considered in this section.
Figure 3.2: Average number of full-time equivalent scientists involved in crop improvement programs in sub-Saharan Africa6
+112%
11.0
5.2
Legumes
Cereals
Note: (i) Cereals refer to scientists involved in maize and rice crop improvement programs across sub-Saharan Africa; (ii) Legumes refer to scientists involved in groundnut and common bean crop improvement programs in sub-Saharan Africa; (iii) The figure excludes scientists researching other legume and cereal crops Source: International Food Policy Research Institute
3.1.
3.1.1.
Farmer Income and Market Opportunities

Increased Incomes from Selling into Growing Markets
When legumes are paired with cereals and other cash crops in polyculture, farmers have the potential to increase their incomes. To generate revenue, farmers often derive income from the proportion of legumes that they sell. As an example, a study 7 conducted in Nigerias southern Guinea Savanna found that roughly 40% of income in the households surveyed was derived from the sale of soybeans. Increases in the production and sale of soybeans were found to have a significant relationship with spending on household consumer items and improved material living standards. Thus, soybeans provided farmers an opportunity to increase their annual income and improve their quality of life. Farmers in the study often invested to grow and sell more if there was a ready market. Markets for legumes are growing overall. As shown in the Market Overview section below, production of legumes saw a positive 10-year compounded growth rate (CAGR) in all focus countries, with Ghana being a standout market (production growth CAGR of 15%). Specific legumes in focus countries have also experienced growth levels that match. For example, cowpeas and pigeon peas in Tanzania have both grown at a 10-year CAGR of 15% also, in comparison to single digit growth rates for maize and cassava8. Not all legume markets are well-organized and many are purely local, but the study found across all countries covered that where a strong market existed for farmers to sell surplus into active markets with
demand, they responded by planting additional volumes and sometimes moving to monocropping larger areas. For example, this was the case for cowpea farmers in Burkina Faso who choose to intercrop or monocrop based on the risk profile of their output. In the low-risk scenario, where a market is guaranteed and a buyer is identified before the planting season, Burkinabe farmers choose to monocrop to maximize their yields in order to meet production targets. In the high risk scenario, where cowpeas are sold into the open market and no buyers are identified before the planting season, farmers intercrop cowpeas with cereals because low yields are acceptable. As the commercial potential of cowpeas grows, and Burkina Faso strengthens its cowpea trade partnerships with countries like Nigeria, monocropped area in the v North Sahel region of Burkina Faso is growing rapidly .
3.1.2.
Lower Input Costs
Farmers can save on input costs as legumes provide a less expensive alternative to inorganic fertilizers, and save the average smallholder farmer while increasing their income, nutrition or both. Research performed in Uganda9 identified that a 50KG bag of diammonium phosphate fertilizer costs 35,000 ushs or eight times the price of a 5KG bag of common bean seed. In other words, 50KG of common bean seed costs only 25% more than a 50KG bag of fertilizer. In some cases intercropping cereals with legumes can reduce the need for other inputs such as fertilizer. Thus, given the relative affordability of legumes seed and the potential savings on certain input costs, purchasing legumes seeds may be economically attractive to farmers. Furthermore, for most legumes, the seed can often be more affordable to the farmer due to the ability to re-use it over multiple years and the fact that a significant proportion of the seed is vi recycled grain, given the self-pollinating nature of legumes .
3.1.3.
Risk Diversification
Legumes also offer smallholder farmers flexibility as a buffer crop in terms of both income and agronomics. Most smallholder legume farmers, like most smallholder farmers in general, are risk averse and operate in high-stakes environments. As a result, when making their planting decisions, farmers must often make a tradeoff between allocating land to high-risk, high-reward/profit crops and low-risk, lowreward/profit crops. When included in the crop mix under polyculture, legumes are essential in diversifying farmer risks in terms of incomes and subsistence volumes. When farmers grow legumes in combination with other crops, they become less vulnerable to crop failure (caused by pests, diseases, drought, etc.) and fluctuating prices. In the scenario where markets are guaranteed or stable and known in advance, legumes have an attractive risk profile. They can be sold for cash, consumed on-farm or vii stored for later use or sale . Agronomically, many smallholders use legumes as a buffer to not only insure nutrition and surplus, but to also keep land fertile and rotated. Planting legumes in rotation arrangements is particularly apparent in Ethiopia, where legumes are mostly planted under rotation, and there is a rotation calendar that farmers are advised to use with seven annual crops on the calendar. The diversification argument extends to the variety of potential uses. Unlike cash crops there are multiple opportunities to use many legumes, and like key cereals, they have both nutrition and potential surplus sale value. Legumes are typically used for human consumption raw or processed and for other purposes such as animal feed and seed. Annex B provides a summary of animal feed application of legumes, while the chart below provides a summary of legume uses in Africa and elsewhere:
v
Most legume exports from Burkina Faso are exported from the Northern regions Ironically, this fact is one of the reasons it has been unattractive to larger seed companies to invest. vii Some commodities, like groundnuts, are more difficult to store without triggering aflatoxin concerns
vi
Figure 3.3: Summary of Legume Uses10,11

Use Direct/ primary
Common Beans & Chickpeas
Cowpeas
Groundnuts
Soybeans
Food grain eaten raw, sprouted, cooked, boiled, roasted, fried Natural sources of amino acids, vitamin E, complex carbohydrates, potassium, calcium, fiber, antioxidants, amino acids, fatty acids and other nutrients Processed into high-protein snacks, ground into (cotyledon) fortified flour, juiced into milk, canned

Human Consumption Processed/ Industrial Use
Confectionery products and oil; groundnuts and soybeans are both oilseeds Building/textile materials Made into solvents and oils; used as ingredients in cosmetics and soaps
Peanut butter
Processed into high-protein snacks, noodles and soy nut butter; curdled into tofu; fermented into soy sauce Input in the manufacturing of: Candles, paint, crayons and fibre (SoySilk)
Animal Feed Other

Seed
Ingredient in animal feed (E.g., common beans for poultry feed, chickpea feed for horses, high quality cowpea feed/hay, groundnut cakes/hay, soybean meal) Crop residue post harvest also used as forage for livestock; particularly in the case of cowpeas Used in the generation of seed Nitrogen-fixation: Intercropped to leverage nitrogen-fixing properties Health: E.g., Cowpeas treat boils, groundnut-based solvents used in medicine, soybeans aid kidney functioning
Other
Biofuels: Used to make biodiesel, given oilseed properties
Note: Under the Use column, the sub-category other refers to uses such as an input in the manufacturing of timber, tannins, resins, gums, insecticides, green manure Source: US Emergency Supply; Hawaii University; Expert Interviews
The diversity of legume uses depends on how sophisticated the end-consumers are. In regions such as Europe and North America, in general, legume consumption is skewed more toward feed, processed and industrial uses. In contrast, in focus countries, legume consumption is skewed toward food (direct) consumption, with the bulk of the remainder split between processing, animal feed and seed. The schematic below12 shows the estimated demand structure of legumes, across all focus countries:
Figure 3.4: Legume Demand Structure in Focus Countries, by Legume

Domestic Consumption
Human
Other
Food Common Beans Chickpeas

Cowpeas Groundnuts
Processing NA
30% 37%
Feed NA
1% 12%
Seed NA
4%
Other NA
2%
100% NA
69% 45%
Soybeans All Legumes
9% 58%
52% 30%
34% 8%
3% 2%
3% 2%
Note: (i) Domestic consumption excludes exports; (ii) Other under the other category includes wastage Source: Agdev Resources; FAOSTAT; Monitor Analysis; Expert Interviews
3.2.
3.2.1.
Food Security and Health Benefits

Nutritional and Food Security Benefits
High Protein Content13

Legumes constitute between 3% and 11% of diets in terms of caloric intake for poor households in focus countries. In five of the seven focus countries (see Figure 3.5 below) legumes provide at least 16% of the viii per capita protein intake. When combined with cereals, legumes can form a complete protein diet . Legumes provide a healthy and affordable alternative to other protein sources, and as a result consumption is much higher than in comparable countries such as India (13%) and Bangladesh (5%).
Figure 3.5: Legume Contribution to Per Capita Protein Intake, 200714

Uganda Burkina Faso Tanzania Nigeria Ethiopia India Mali Ghana Bangladesh 6% 5% 9% 13%
Focus Countries where legumes contribute >10% of per capital protein intake Focus Countries where legumes contribute <10% of per capital protein intake South Asian countries
25% 19% 19% 17% 16%
Source: Agdev Resources
Cost-effective high-protein source

Importantly, from an affordability perspective, legumes consistently provide more protein and calories per US dollar than cereal and meat options. According to the analysis summarized below, performed using producer prices, on a per US dollar basis, legumes provide up to eleven times more protein and twenty times more calories than meats. They also provide a similar level of calories as staple crops per US dollar and between two and three times the amount of protein, as shown below:
viii
A complete protein diet includes all nine essential amino acids, which can be obtained from food. Legumes and cereals complement each other in the provision of complete protein. While soybeans are a source of complete protein, other legumes lack the amino acid methionine. Major cereals such as rice, maize and wheat contain methionine, but are deficient in another essential amino acid, lysine. It has been shown that even modest amounts of higher lysine protein foods such as legumes can have major impact on diet and that complete protein can be achieved (Source: Plant proteins in relation to human protein and amino acid nutrition, Young & Pellett, 1994; Nutrition Expert Interview)
Figure 3.6: Protein and Calories Provided by Legumes, per USDix,15,16

Protein per USD
Soybeans Groundnuts Common Beans Cowpeas Chickpeas Wheat Maize
Pork Beef
Calories per USD

918 600
Soybeans Groundnuts Common Beans Cowpeas Chickpeas Wheat Maize

Pork
11,377 13,086 9,103 6,935 6,487 8,551 9,942 1,860 965 664 722
Unit: Calories per USD
515 485 339 277 246 148 145 128 76

Unit: Protein Grams per USD
Beef Goat Chicken
Goat Chicken
Note: (i) All calculations based on producer prices in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali and Nigeria; (ii) Nutritional value based on raw food; (iii) Chickpea and common bean calculations based on producer price data for Ethiopia only due to lack of data for other countries; (iv) Producer prices are prices received by farmers for primary agricultural products. The producer's price is the amount receivable by the producer from the purchaser for a unit of a good or service produced as output minus any VAT, or similar deductible tax, invoiced to the purchaser. It excludes any transport charges invoiced separately by the producer; (v) Only 61% of soybeans in focus countries are consumed by humans, something which needs to be taken into account when considering the nutritional benefit of the crop Source: FAOSTAT; NutritionData
The methodology used for calculations in this section is shown in Annex B. The use of producer prices may distort the results regarding the affordability of nutritional sources for consumers, since various stages of value addition and aggregation impact upon the price of a food as it progresses from the farm gate to the market. A similar analysis, using market data from the Tanzanian Southern Highlands confirms the affordability of legumes as a source of protein and calories relative to meat; however, this particular analysis implies that, in this region, maize provides as much protein per US dollar as most legumes and significantly more calories per US dollar. These results are shown in Figure 3.7 below. Furthermore, legumes are shown (Figure 3.8) to provide a similar quantity of the important micro-nutrients, Iron and Zinc as maize in Tanzania. However, legumes are a poor source of Vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency can lead to blindness and has severe impacts in many developing countries. Micronutrient intake is discussed further in the section entitled A balanced diet.
ix
Producer prices used to calculate affordability
Figure 3.7: Protein and Calories Provided by Legumes, per USDx,17, 18, 19
Protein per USD
Cowpeas Soybeans Common Beans Chickpeas Groundnuts Maize Wheat Beef Chicken Egg
28 50 67 101 183 173 166 195 222 219
Calories per USD

Cowpeas Soybeans Common Beans Chickpeas Groundnuts Maize Wheat Beef Chicken Egg
446 472 311 3,114 3,169 2,713 3,245 3,314 3,614 7,892
Unit: Protein Grams per USD
Unit: Calories per USD
Note: All calculations based on market prices collected from seven markets in the Tanzanian Southern Highlands, except for egg which is sourced from a market survey in Tanzania Source: Nutrition Data; Market Interviews
Figure 3.8: Iron, Zinc and Vitamin A, per USD, 20, 21, 22
Iron per USD
Cowpeas Soybeans Common Beans Chickpeas Groundnuts Maize Wheat Beef Chicken Egg 12% 15% 76% 211% 201% 183% 209% 140% 325% 379% Cowpeas Soybeans Common Beans Chickpeas Groundnuts Maize Wheat Beef Chicken Egg 25% 9% 22% 159% 325% 275% 357% 319%
Zinc per USD

508% 529%
Vitamin A per USD

Cowpeas Soybeans Common Beans Chickpeas Groundnuts Maize Wheat Beef Chicken Egg 0% 0% 5% 22% Unit:% of RDA per USD 9% 0% 0% 9% 0% 87%
Unit:% of RDA per USD
Unit:% of RDA per USD
Note: All calculations based on market prices collected from seven markets in the Tanzanian Southern Highlands, except for egg which is sourced from a market survey in Tanzania Source: Nutrition Data; Market Interviews
Based on data gathered in Tanzania, legume prices are ~2.8 times higher than maize prices. In May 2011, the Tanzanian government imposed export bans on maize in an effort to reduce the rate of inflation. In the Southern Highlands region, where large quantities of maize are produced, grain surpluses were built up and prices fell sharply. Maize prices in Kenya, to which Tanzania is a major supplier of maize, were rising before the export ban due to low levels of production and increased by over 30% when the ban was put in place. Though the export ban was finally lifted by the government in October 2011 as a result of significant pressure from the East African Community the price impacts of the ban are likely still being felt. Other factors such as harvest seasons, drought, or crop disease are likely to have an impact on prices within a country and thus all analyses wishing to compare the affordability of different
x
Price data was aggregated from 7 separate markets in the Tanzanian Southern Highlands
crops as sources of nutrients need to remain cognizant of the country-specific conditions impacting on price. A similar analysis performed with prices from Kenyan markets would likely reveal, that for Kenyans in the recent past, legumes have been a significantly cheaper source of important macro-nutrients than maize. Legumes also provide superior protein content, versus comparable volumes of cereal and meat alternatives. On a per kilogram basis, legumes provide up to four times the protein and six times the calories found in cereal and meat as shown below. In an African context, this high nutritional value is extremely important. Protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) leads to the deaths of tens of thousands of child deaths per year in Tanzania alone. This condition is a result of the low protein and fat component in the diets of many African people, whose meals are primarily made up of carbohydrate rich foods. Young children and the elderly often find it difficult to consume enough food to meet their energy requirements because of the lack of protein and fat, leading to PEM 23.
Figure 3.9: Protein and Calories Provided by Legumes, per KG24

Protein per KG
Soybeans Groundnuts
Calories per KG
360 260
Soybeans Groundnuts
4,460 5,670 3,430 3,640 3,360 3,400 3,640 2,000 1,400 1,090 2,270 1,430
Common Beans Cowpeas Chickpeas Wheat Maize Chicken Beef Goat Pork Egg
130 110 90 190 190
240
Common Beans Cowpeas Chickpeas Wheat Maize
210 210 210 180
Chicken Beef Goat Pork Egg
Unit: Protein Grams per KG
Unit: Calories per KG
Source: Nutrition Data
A balanced diet
Protein and calories are only two indicators of nutritional importance. In assessing the value of legumes it is more important to investigate the value of combining legumes with staple crops as a means to form a more balanced diet and avoid micro-nutrient deficiencies.
Figure 3.10: Dietary Implications of Various Budget Allocationsxi,25,26, 27

Option 1: Maize Only Option 2: Maize and Common Beans Option 3: Maize and Chicken
Maize
Budget Allocation2
Maize USD 0.50 (1080 grams) Maize
Budget Allocation
Maize USD 0.20 (430 grams) Common Beans USD 0.30 (290 grams)
Common Beans
Budget Allocation
Maize USD 0.20 (430 grams) Chicken USD 0.30 (70 grams)
Maize
Chicken
Percentage of RDA Met

Carbohydrate Protein 65% 178%


Fat Vitamin A Water Soluble Vitamins Calcium

Iron Zinc
82% 0% 96% 11%

293% 158%

Iron Zinc
37% 0% 132% 62%

355% 117%

Iron Zinc
64% 5% 41% 6%
123% 69%
Note: (i) RDA stands for recommended daily allowance; (ii) RDA is based on a 90kg male between the ages of 31 and 50; (iii) All serving sizes are based off of a USD 0.50 budget being allocated according to average market prices in Tanzania; (iv) Water soluble vitamins is a composite including folate, niacin, pantothenic acid, riboflavin, thiamin, and vitamins B6, B12 & C Source: Market Interviews; Nutrition Data; Mahan, Escott-Stump & Raymond
As is illustrated in Figure 3.10 above, budgetary allocation decisions between a few foods have a significant impact on macro- and micro-nutrient intake. In option 1, where USD 0.50 is spent on maize, the majority of nutrients recommended daily allowances are achieved. What is hidden is the type of nutrients within each category that a consumer of maize only would receive. In order to achieve adequate protein and mineral intake, consumers choosing option 1 would have to consume a very large quantity of carbohydrate. Furthermore, the carbohydrate in maize has a high glycemic index. This combination increases the risk of obesity and Type II Diabetes. The prevalence of these two conditions is increasing dramatically, a trend which is predicted to continue because of the large composition of starchy cereals in many African peoples diets (see Figure 3.11). Furthermore, although 65% of a persons protein RDA may be met by a maize only budget allocation, a consumer of option 1 would not achieve complete protein, since maize lacks the vital amino acid, lysine. Since 82% of the recommended daily allowance of fat is used up by this quantity of maize, there is little room for other fatty foods such as margarine and vegetable oils, which in practice form an important part of diet in the focus countries. Although on aggregate 96% of water soluble vitamins can be sourced with an all-maize diet of just over one KG per day, vitamin B12 and vitamin C are absent from this diet. In addition to these deficiencies, calcium intake is extremely low. Low levels of these micronutrients lead to conditions such as anemia, scurvy and osteoporosis. A combination of maize and chicken (option 3) entails more severe micronutrient deficiencies to those found in option 1. This is largely due to the high price of chicken. In addition to vitamin C and calcium deficiencies, consumers choosing to allocate their budget between chicken and maize will lack zinc, folate and riboflavin, the consequences of which can include impairment of vision, the formation of skin lesions, stunting and cognitive and motor impairments. This diet fails to meet recommended daily allowances of carbohydrates and protein as well, although complete protein is achieved, since all nine essential amino acids can be sourced from a combination of chicken and maize. The carbohydrate component carries a
xi
Price data was aggregated from 7 separate markets in the Tanzanian Southern Highlands
high glycemic index and is low in dietary fiber. Despite the fact that the combination of animal products and maize make it difficult to ensure a balanced diet when consumers are constrained by a tight budget, animal products are a very important source of nourishment in Africa. Vitamin B12 for example, can only be sourced from animal products and thus it is vital that animal products are consumed, even if only in small amounts. Furthermore, as Figure 3.10 indicates, Vitamin A can be sourced in small amounts from animal products such as chicken, but can not be found in beans or maize. In general, vegetables such as spinach, sweet potato and carrots provide Vitamin A and would as such need to supplement all diets in order to avoid Vitamin A deficiency and associated disorders such as blindness. In the context of these options, the combination of common beans and maize (option 2) provides a far more balanced and healthy basis for a diet. Carbohydrate intake is slightly over the recommended daily allowance and is high in dietary fiber (above the RDA). While roughly 65% of the carbohydrate is sourced from the maize component of this diet, carbohydrate sourced from common beans and other legumes has a low glycemic index. Thus, this source of carbohydrates is superior to the other two options, since it provides a consumer with the recommended daily calories, promotes bowel health, reduces the risk of diabetes and obesity and keeps consumers fuller for longer. Furthermore this option provides the greatest level of protein and, since legumes and maize are complementary sources of amino acids, ensures complete protein. Importantly, this diet is low in fat, particularly saturated fat, and thus allows for other fatty foods to be consumed alongside legumes and maize. Option 2 is the best option in terms of sourcing micronutrients as well. Of the water soluble vitamins, only vitamin B12 is absent from this diet, as it can only be sourced from animal products. It has been shown, however, that vitamin B12 is retained in the body for an extended period of time and thus does not need to be consumed regularly.
3.2.2.
Health Benefits
Legumes offer several health benefits: they reduce cancer risks, lower cholesterol levels and provide antioxidants. As an example, every legume under consideration can be used for health purposes in traditional and western medicine; cowpeas treat boils, groundnut-based solvents are used in medicine and soybeans aid kidney functioning. Legumes are also lower in saturated fats than other sources of protein such as meat. Very little meat is wasted among the poor in Africa, and as a result organ meat and other fatty cuts of meat are consumed regularly. These sources of meat are high in saturated fat and increase the risk of heart disease. And finally, although diabetes is not a major health concern in Africa at the moment, the prevalence of the disease is increasing dramatically. Legumes have a low glycemic index (GI) as a result of their high fiber and resistant starch content, and are thus more filling and take a longer time to digest. When legume-based diets are consumed, this reduces the risk of developing xii diabetes .
xii
The World Health Organization estimates that Type 2 Diabetes in our focus countries will grow at a compounded xii annual rate of 3.3% over the 30-year period between 2000 and 2030, compared with 1.8% in the USA . The majority of the increase in diabetes prevalence will be amongst the poorer households who derive most of their energy requirements from high glycemic index (GI) cereals (Source: Data and Statistics, World Health Organization, accessed March 2012, http://www.who.int/research/en/)
Figure 3.11: Diabetes Prevalence in Focus Countries, Millions28

9.3 2000 2030
3.4
Source: World Health Organization
3.3.
3.3.1.
Soil Health and Climate Benefits

Soil Health Improvement and Ecosystem Resilience29
Soil health benefits and ecosystem resilience are realized when legumes are paired with other crops in polyculture. These benefits fall into five categories, some of which offer direct cost savings to smallholder farmers in terms of not having to spend on relatively expensive crop protection and fertilizer inputs. In most countries, smallholder farmers lack sufficient funds to regularly use the correct inputs required for improved productivity or to protect the soil from damage. This is accentuated in rain-fed areas where input purchase is subject to enormous risk of failure, with little or no insurance against such failure. So legumes offer a potentially lower cost alternative to what farmers sometimes perceive as high risk interventions, whether on fertility or pest issues. Nitrogen fixation and increased soil fertility: Legumes have the ability to biologically fix nitrogen into the soil, and effectively serve as a supplement to inorganic fertilizer. The nitrogen-fixating ability of legumes creates spillover benefits for other crops with which legumes are paired in polyculture. Legumes improve soil health as well as productivity of their crop pairings. In a study performed by Bogale et al (2001)30, researchers found that intercropping and rotating legumes with maize had positive impacts on both soil fertility and maize yields in Ethiopia, Tanzania and Uganda. In Tanga, Tanzania, intercropping common beans with maize led to a 12% increase in maize yield, relative to monocropped maize. Maize monocropped with 50KG of nitrogen fertilizer applied per hectare achieved identical yields to maize intercropped with common beans. Furthermore, intercropping with common beans significantly improved the quality of the soil. Monocropped maize planted on the plot where maize had been intercropped with common beans in the previous season achieved a yield roughly 60% higher than monocropped maize grown on a plot where maize had been monocropped the season before. Improved soil structure: Overall soil structure can improve when legumes are planted in combination with other crops. This is because legumes generally have deeper root systems which allow them to break through hardpans and derive moisture and nutrients from deeper in the ground, versus other crops with shallow roots which bind topsoil, reduce soil erosion and aerate the soil. Pest and disease management: When legumes are used in polyculture, they prevent build-up of pest populations and diseases. Pests find it more difficult to move from one host plant to another, and they are controlled by a number of beneficial insects hosted by crop pairings. A study 31 conducted in Uganda investigated the impact of intercropping common beans, groundnuts and soybeans with maize on termite damage to maize. Approximately 65% of monocropped maize, unprotected by insecticide, was found to
have termite damage. Intercropping legumes with maize reduced the termite damage prevalence rates to between 25% and 50% in maize plants. Soybeans were the most effective and common beans the least effective in reducing termite damage to maize crops. Properly-applied insecticide was found to be more effective than any legume intercropping system, however, poor understanding of insecticide application as well as high cost and limited availability of insecticides make legume intercropping a more viable alternative for many SHFs. Similarly, when legumes are used in polyculture, they prevent the build-up and flowering of weeds. And in general, legumes require less water and are generally more drought-resistant than other crops such as maize and wheat.
3.3.2.
Climate Change Mitigation
Legumes produce lower carbon emissions than nitrogen-based inorganic fertilizers, and have low negative environmental impact in general. This attribute of legumes is described in more detail in the Market Overview section below.
3.4.
Challenges to the Legume Value Proposition
During Brazils green revolution, soybeans were included among the priority crops. Soybean benefits such as improved soil health were widely popularized and significant investments were made into improved seed varieties32. As a result, today, Brazil is the second largest exporter of soybeans globally, xiii accounting for approximately a third of total legume export volumes . Soybeans are the countrys preeminent agricultural export commodity since the 1990s, and have transformed rural and farming economies substantially 33 . Today, Brazil is an anchor trade partner with China the worlds largest importer of soybeans and the soybeans it exports to China are crucial in supporting Chinas domestic food security effortsxiv,34. On the contrary, during Indias green revolution, legumes were ignored, while priority investments favored cash crops and cereals. Over the years, the country has had to pay heavily for this decision. According to 2009 trade statistics, India is a top 10 importer of most major legumes (common beans, chickpeas, dry peas) and is the destination for between 10% and 50% of global legume exports. Africa stands to face the same challenges and will be in the same position if measures are not taken to enable legumes to realize their full potential. In focus countries, legumes do not receive as much attention as their strong value proposition would warrant. They are neglected for a variety of reasons:
Benefits unknown: Smallholder farmers (and stakeholders more broadly) are not fully aware of the multiple benefits that can be derived from legumes. Cash is king: All focus legumes, except soybeans, are not considered cash crops. As a result, when farmers make their planting decisions, legumes are either not grown at all or are often relegated to marginal land where yields are lower. Psychological barriers: There are psychological barriers that sometimes discourage the consumption of legumes, despite their place as a part of local diets in many African countries already. These barriers primarily arise from the fact that legumes are reputed to have a long cooking time, cause flatulence and are informally know as the poor mans meat.
xiii xiv
The United States is the largest exporter of soybeans, accounting for 50% of total global export volumes Brazil accounts for approximately 40% of Chinas soybean imports
These factors, combined with the experience in India, raise the question as to whether any investment in legumes in Africa is worth making. When Africa gets wealthier and moves to more meat protein and other additions to the traditional diet, will there still be demand for legumes, or will any investment risk being redundant 15 years later after African diets have evolved? Evidence from other markets suggests that there is a relatively low risk of investment redundancy. Legume consumption is highly correlated with GDP per capita in a number of emerging economies. In Figure 3.12, the aggregate GDP per capita over time of Emerging Economies (Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa, Thailand and Turkey) is compared to the consumption of legumes over the same period in these countries. The data indicates that as GDP per capita rises, legume consumption rises with it. The correlation between legume consumption and GDP per capita is 0.99, compared with a correlation of 0.89 between major staple consumption and GDP per capita. Implications of the data are consistent on a country-by-country basis also, as shown in Figure 3.13Figure 3.16. Although aggregate GDP per capita in focus countries (USD 628/capita) is currently well below the aggregate GDP per capita of Emerging Economies (USD 1,636/capita), focus country aggregate GDP is expected to rise above USD1,000/capita over the next decade and a half. By extrapolation, it is expected that as the per capita GDP in focus countries trends towards that of Emerging Economies, consumption of legumes will follow suit.
Figure 3.12: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in Emerging Economies (19612007)35
120
Million MT
2,000
600
2,000
Corr = 0.89
Million MT
90 60 30 0 1960
Corr = 0.99
1,500 1,000 500 0
450 300 150 0 1960
1,500
USD
USD
1,000 500 0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Figure 3.13: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in Brazil (19612007)36
40
Million MT
5,000
60
5,000
Corr = 0.88
Million MT
30 20 10 0 1960
Corr = 0.91
4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
45 30 15 0 1960
4,000
USD
USD
3,000 2,000 1,000
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Figure 3.14: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in China (19612007)37
60
Million MT
2,000
200
Million MT
2,000
Corr = 0.70
45 30 15 0 1960
Corr = 0.99
1,500
150 100 50 0 1960
1,500
USD
USD
1,000 500 0
1,000 500 0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Figure 3.15: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in India (19612007)38
20
Million MT
800
160
Million MT
800
Corr = 0.91
15 10 5 0 1960
Corr = 0.90
600 400 200 0
120 80 40 0 1960
600
USD
USD
400 200 0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Figure 3.16: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in South Africa (19612007)39
0.8
Million MT
4,000
Corr = 0.44
10
Million MT
4,000
Corr = 0.59
0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1960
3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000
8 6 4 2 1960
3,500
USD
USD
3,000 2,500 2,000
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Legend corresponding to Figure 3.12Figure 3.16 above:
Legume Consumption (LHS Axis)
GDP per capita (RHS Axis)
Major Staple Consumption (LHS Axis)
GDP per capita (RHS Axis)
Note: (i) Emerging Economies refers to a composition of Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa Thailand and Turkey; (ii) Staple Consumption refers to consumption of the most consumed staple in each country; (iii) In Brazil maize is the most consumed staple, in China and India rice is the most consumed staple; (iv) Legume consumption refers to consumption of common beans, groundnut and soybeans in each country; (v) Brazil, China and India are singled out from the rest of the emerging economies since these countries consume the most legumes out of the group; (vi) GDP per capita for the group of emerging economies is calculated by aggregation of individual country GDP per capita, by population size Source: World Bank Databank; FAOSTAT; Monitor Analysis
4. Legume Market Overview

4.1. Key Macro Trends
Six key trends point to a positive outlook for the legumes market and are likely to have a net positive impact on legume consumption and production growth in Africa. 1. Rising Incomes 40 : As incomes increase, populations in focus countries (and globally) will consume more poultry (and other meats), processed foods and vegetable oils. This will have a net positive effect on the legume industries in focus countries and boost demand for soybean use in animal feed as well as demand for other legumes in general. As the Why Invest in Legumes section above has noted, GDP per capita growth correlates closely with increased legume consumption. Additionally, over a 20-year horizon, the dietary importance of legumes in Sub-Saharan Africa will be sustained, as shown in the graph below.
Figure 4.1: Changes in Commodity Composition of Food in Sub-Saharan Africa41

360 383 2.3% 404 2.4% 426 2.5% Legumes
2.7%
KG/Capita/Year
2.4%
2.4%
2.7%
2.9%
Vegetable Oils
2.5% 2.9% 2.7% 3.1%
Meat
92.0%
92.8%
92.2% 91.5% Other
7981
9799
2015
2030
Note: Other includes: cereals, roots, tubers, sugar, milk and dairy Source: FAOSTAT
2. Population Growth: Urbanization trends and growing populations both in Africa and its top export destinations are likely to boost the legume industries in focus countries. This will lead to increased local demand as well as increased export demand from markets such as South Asia and the Middle East. 3. Food Security: Legumes have an important part to play in the efforts to increase food security as they are typically intercropped with traditional food security crops whilst also being food security crops themselves, as they are important staples and important sources of protein. 4. Rising Fertilizer Prices: Fertilizer prices are closely linked to crude oil prices. Rising oil prices provide an incentive for farming legumes and for their inclusion in polyculture pairings. Legumes play a role in soil health due to their moisture retention and nitrogen fixation properties. 5. Climate Change Heightened focus on climate change can potentially have a positive impact on legume markets in focus countries as legumes assist with decreasing carbon
42,43:
dioxide levels. Figure 4.2 below shows that when legumes are included in crop rotations, carbon dioxide levels can be decreased by approximately 13%. However, this heightened focus on climate change could have unintended negative consequences on legumes as it could potentially reduce available arable land for cultivation.
Figure 4.2 Global Warming Potential (~100 years)44

4.0 -13% 3.0 2.0
1.0 0
N2O
N2O
CO2
CO2
No 20% Legumes Legumes

Note: (i) CO2 is carbon dioxide; (ii) N2O is nitrous oxide Source: Swiss Confederation
6. Ample Land Availability45: Africa is one of the few continents where unused arable land is widely available. With mechanization, land area under cultivation could grow significantly, so there is no immediate land ceiling on the ability to increase the volumes produced in Africa. This is of course true for other crops for instance, maize, cassava and sorghum.
Figure 4.3 Land Harvested with Legumes, Indexed to 198546

300
Index Value
Focus Countries
200
Rest of the World

100
0 1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Source: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis
4.2.
4.2.1.
Key Market Metrics

Legume Production
All growth rates referred to in the Legume Production section are compound annual growth rates for the period 2000-2010, unless otherwise stated.
Overall Legume Production47

Global production has grown at 4% compounded annually since 2000, led by the Americas and Europe . Comparatively, production of cereal crops has grown at 2% per annum worldwide over the same period of time. Africa accounts for 6% of total global legume production. Outside of Africa, soybean production volumes are significantly higher than production for any other legume; soybeans account for 95% of legume production in the Americas, for example. Indeed, soybean growth is the major driver of global production growth.
xv
Figure 4.4: Global Legume and Cereal Production, 20002010

Legumes
+4%
Cereals
Million Metric Tons
338.9 2% 6% 21%
+2%
Europe
Million Metric Tons
224.8 1% 7% 27%
285.0 1% 7% 24%
68%
Af rica Asia
6% 1,125.1 0% 5% 33%
62%
1,426.4 0%
Europe Af rica
34%
The Americas
70%
The Americas
60%
Asia
64%
2000 2005 Note: Cereals refer to maize and rice Source: FAOSTAT 2010 2000 2010
Figure 4.5: Legume and Cereal Compound Annual Production Growth Rate, by Continent48
Period Europe Africa Asia The Americas 00-10 7.0% 3.0% 1.6% 4.6% 05-10 7.7% 2.4% 0.8% 3.6% 08-10 16.9% 1.2% 1.3% 4.3% Cereals (00-10) -7.3% 3.2% 1.9% 2.6%
Note: Cereals refer to cassava, maize, millet, rice, sorghum and wheat Source: FAOSTAT
xv
Reference to Europe includes Oceania (14 islands/countries in the tropical Pacific Ocean including Australia, New Zealand, etc.)
In Africa, production growth has lagged global trends, growing at 3% per annum. Drivers of growth are the area harvested, access to inputs, demand trends, and yields. For each legume, aggregate growth is largely determined by country-specific combinations of trends and drivers. Within Africa in 2010, focus countries accounted for 47% of legume production, with Nigeria accounting for 24% of total legume production in Africa. Despite this, the growth in legume production in Nigeria has declined at 0.3% per annum, due to a combination of reductions in area harvested with legumes, as well as low yields for cowpeas, groundnuts and soybeans. For Nigeria, cowpea and soybean land area shrunk 3% and 5% respectively, while groundnut land area grew 5%. Total land area devoted to growing legumes has declined at 1% per annum. Groundnut yields have decreased at 4% per annum, while cowpea and soybean yields have grown at 4% and 5% respectively, off of a very low base. Growth in xvi legume production among focus countries is led by Ghana (14%), Burkina Faso (9%) and Tanzania (8%). In fact, if one removes Nigeria from overall focus country production volumes, then growth is closer to 7%; considerably higher than the global average. Groundnuts and cowpeas account for the greatest volume of legumes produced in focus countries at 43% and 31%, respectively. However, in these countries, growth in groundnut and cowpea production has been slow at 2% for each, as is the growth in soybean production at 3%. When Nigeria is excluded from the group of focus countries growth rates of cowpeas, groundnuts and soybeans are far more promising at 10%, 9% and 9%, respectively. Common beans and chickpeas are exhibiting high per annum growth in production at about 4% and 5%, respectively this production is almost entirely concentrated in the East African region.
Figure 4.6: Production, by Legume: Focus Countries, (20002010)49

10.8 2% 7% 13% 8.0 16% 2% 7% 14% 33% 31% 31% Cowpeas 10.5 3% 7% Chickpeas Soybeans Common beans
Million Metric Tons
45% 46%
43%
Groundnuts
2000 2005 2010 Source: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis
xvi
Ghanaian production growth is overstated due to accurate data only being recorded after 2007
Africa Legume Production

The aggregation of five different commodities masks several important trends within each legume crop.
Figure 4.7: Compound Annual Growth Rate by Legume within Focus Countries, (20002010)50
12 11 10 9 8
10.3 9.4 8.5
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
4.8 4.8 4.1 4.1 2.4 2.7 1.9
Chickpeas
Common Beans
Cowpeas
Groundnuts
Soybeans
Focus Countries
Focus Countries (excld. Nigeria)
Source: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis
Chickpeas
Chickpea production growth has been promising, however, chickpeas still only accounted for 3% of legume production in 2010 within the focus countries, a slight gain from 2% in 2000. Production has grown strongly at 5% across the focus countries, primarily driven by Ethiopia, where production rose by 5% per annum. The growth in Ethiopian chickpea production is being driven by increased domestic demand and demand for exports to Asia.
Legume Production Success Story

A good example of successful legume promotion and production growth is the National Bean Research Program in Tanzania that arose due to the food security importance of the Phaseolus bean. The research is done collaboratively between three research stations, based on elevation. Soikone handles <1000 meters above sea level (masl), The Selian Agriculture Research Institute (SARI) handles elevations of 1000-1500 masl, and Uyole handles >1500 masl. Since the 1970s, more than 30 varieties have been released in Tanzania, 23 of which have been developed by these three institutes. SARI has released eight bean varieties, five bush varieties and three climbing varieties Uyole has released more than ten varieties, while Soikone has released about five varieties. The need for climbing varieties arose due to land scarcity for farming on mountain slopes, such as in the Kilimanjaro region, which SARI covers.
Common Beans
Similar to chickpeas, common beans are predominantly grown in East Africa and experienced strong growth in production within focus countries as a result of growing demand and increasing area harvested, primarily in Tanzania and Ethiopia. Tanzania experienced a 5% per annum increase in common bean production, while Ethiopia experienced growth of 9%. Both countries have also seen a general increase in access to inputs and improving yields due to numerous research efforts into improving common bean productivity funded by international research institutes such as the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).
Cowpeas
Across the focus countries, cowpea production has grown modestly since 2000 (2% CAGR). Nigeria is the worlds largest cowpea producer and as such Nigerian trends dominate those of the other focus countries. Excluding Nigeria from the analysis indicates that cowpea production has grown at 10% in the other focus countries. Burkina Faso, the second largest producer of cowpeas within the group experienced cowpea production growth of 12% per annum.
Groundnuts
Similar to cowpeas, production of groundnuts has been strong throughout the focus countries, apart from Nigeria. Excluding Nigeria, groundnut production grew at 9% (in comparison to a 1% per annum decline in Nigeria). Production growth was very strong in East Africa (particularly Ethiopia and Tanzania), where growth rates were as high as 15% and 22%, respectively. Only Uganda and Nigeria had groundnut production growth rates shy of 5% per annum.
Soybeans
Soybean production growth in focus countries has grown at 3%, or 9% when Nigeria is excluded. Although Nigeria is the largest producer of soybeans within the focus countries, it produces only 53% of the overall focus country production. This is lower than the 64% and 72% contributions it makes to focus country production of groundnuts and cowpeas, respectively. Soybean growth has been strong in East Africa, but growth in Burkina Faso and Ghana has been exceptional. For example, in Burkina Faso, soybean production has increased by 18% per annum since 2000, driven primarily by large tracts of land
being allocated to soybean production in response to growing market opportunities. Soybeans have also benefited as one of the replacements for declining cotton production.
Figure 4.8: Legume and Cereal Production, Focus Countries and Rest of Africa 2000201051
Legumes
21.5
2% 3%
CAGR (0010)
Cereals
+3%
87.1
2% 2% 3% 4% 5%
CAGR (0010) Burkina Faso Uganda

Ghana Mali Ethiopia
Mali
Ethiopia Burkina Faso
3.4%
7.3%
9.1% 2.6%
5.9% 13.1%
+3% 18.6
2% 2% 4% 2%
4%
4%
9.3% 14.1%
1.9%
Ghana
Uganda
4% 7%
4.6%
6.7%
Million Metric Tons
Million Metric Tons
Tanzania
8.1%
6%
5%
Tanzania
15.6
2% 2% 2% 1% 5%
4% 6%
61.8
2%
1% 2% 2% 4%
12%
Nigeria
3.2%
24% 36%
Nigeria
-0.3%
34%
4%
12%
66%
Rest of Af rica
2.3%
44% 50%
52%
Rest of Af rica 2.5%

73%
2000
2005
2010
2000
2010
Note: Cereals refer to maize and rice Source: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis
4.2.2.
Legume Consumptionxvii
All growth rates in the Legume Consumption section are compound annual growth rates for the period 20052010, unless otherwise stated. Consumption trends are similar to production trends. Global consumption grew at 4% compounded annually since 2005, led by Europe and the Americas. This growth in consumption is driven primarily by population and income growth and is slightly higher than growth in cereal consumption over the same period. Africa accounts for only 6% of global consumption. Within Africa, focus countries account for 47% of African consumption, again led by Nigeria which consumes over 24% of Africas leg umes. Legume consumption in Africa has grown by 2% per annum with Ghana, Ethiopia and Tanzania driving the bulk of this growth in consumption. Growth rates of 14% in Ghana, 11% in Ethiopia and 4% in Tanzania are
xvii
Consumption is estimated using the formula: consumption = production + imports - exports
relatively strong. Despite accounting for the largest volume of consumption within focus countries, Nigeria xviii is experiencing significant declines in consumption at 4% per annum . Overall, in focus countries, legume consumption is primarily a result of population growth, and increased demand for industrial/processing use of legumes, especially for animal feed.
Figure 4.9: Global Legume and Cereal Consumption 2005201052

Legumes
+4% 338.6 6% 2%
Cereals
+3%
Million Metric Tons
284.9 7% 1%
24%
304.6 7% 1%
23%
Million Metric Tons
Europe & Oceania

Af rica
22%
1,246.9 0% 7% 30%
1,426.2 7% 0% 30%
Europe
Af rica
Asia 70% The Americas
The Americas
68%
69%
64%
63%
Asia
2005 2008 2010 Note: Cereals refer to maize and rice Source: FAOSTAT; International Trade Center; Monitor Analysis
2005
2010
Figure 4.10: Legume and Cereal Consumption, Focus Countries 2005201053

Legumes
CAGR (0510)
Cereals
CAGR (0510)
+3%
20.8
2% 2% 2%
21.6
2% 3% 3% 4%
4%
+5%
Mali Burkina Faso Ethiopia Ghana Uganda Tanzania
2.0%
4.1%
104.3
1% 2% 3% 4% 4% 5%
Uganda Burkina Faso

Ghana
2.1%
3.9%
10.8% 13.6%
5.6% 13.3% 2.1%

2.9%
Mali Ethiopia
Tanzania
18.7
4% 4% 5% 7%
2% 2% 2% 2%
4.3%
Million Metric Tons
Million Metric Tons
1.0%
5% 6% 31%
24%
81.9
2%
Nigeria
-4.3%
2% 2% 2% 5% 6%
10%
Nigeria
1.7%
37%
53% 50% 45%
Rest of Af rica
5.5%
12%
71%
Rest of Af rica
4.4%
70%
2005
2008
2010
2005
2010
Note: Cereals refer to maize and rice Source: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; International Trade Center; Monitor Analysis
xviii
Nigerian data quality is marred by the lack of formal trade data for cowpeas. This may significantly impact upon overall Nigerian consumption data and overstate the decline in consumption of legumes
Globally, a number of trends have affected the consumption of legumes over the past few years and contributed to the overall, relatively slow growth in consumption of the focus crops.
Figure 4.11: Legume and Cereal Consumption Compound Annual Growth Rate, by Continent54
Period Europe & Oceania Africa Asia The Americas 05-10 6.6% 2.4% 0.9% 3.6% 08-10 14.0% 1.1% 1.5% 4.3% Cereals (05-10) 4.1% 2.0% 2.6%
Note: No growth rate is represented for Europe since the formula for consumption entailed that European consumption was negative in 2010 Source: FAOSTAT; International Trade Center; Monitor Analysis
Chickpeas
Globally, chickpea consumption has grown at 4% per annum, driven by population growth, especially in India as India is the largest consumer of chickpeas globally. Within focus countries, however, consumption was highly volatile, primarily due to Ethiopia, which dominates consumption in focus countries.
Common Beans
At a global level, consumption of common beans grew at just under 4% per annum due to population growth. Focus countries have experienced above-global growth in common bean consumption at 3% between 2005 and 2010. Interestingly, the strongest growth in consumption of common beans has come since the global recession of 2007/2008. Common bean consumption increased at a rate of 11% per annum between 2008 and 2010 with Ethiopia and Tanzania being the greatest contributors to this growth with 19% and 14% per annum increases, respectively. This growth in common bean consumption has been driven by the sustained importance of common bean in traditional diets as well as consumption promotion campaigns undertaken by governments. In Tanzania, the Selian Agriculture Research Institute (SARI) distributed recipe books explaining various ways of preparing common beans.
Cowpeas
Globally, cowpea consumption has increased at 3% per annum. Consumption growth within the focus countries was largely slowed by production declines in Nigeria as a result of a reduction in the land area harvested with cowpeas. As the worlds largest consumer of cowpeas, Ni geria has a significant impact on consumption trends. Pest attacks and terminal drought throughout the West African region decreased production and played a significant role in this decline. Though large volumes of cowpea are imported into
Nigeria each year, the imports could not keep pace with the production declines. Consumption of xix cowpeas in Nigeria decreased at a rate of 4% per annum between 2005 and 2010 .
Groundnuts
At a global level, groundnut consumption remained essentially flat at ~37 million metric tons between 2005 and 2010. On a volume basis groundnuts remain the biggest legume commodity consumed by households in focus countries. Anecdotally, groundnut demand increased during and after the recession due to its affordability as a source of protein. However, rising world soybean prices have led many farmers to switch from production of groundnuts to soybeans, placing supply constraints on groundnuts. Consumption of groundnuts in focus countries has declined with Nigeria being the major driver of this decline; consumption growth in Nigeria has declined 5%.
Soybeans
Global consumption of soybeans has grown at slightly over 3% per annum with the major drivers of this growth being population growth and increasing incomes, especially in China and India. Rising global incomes are driving a migration to meat-based diets and processed foods. Increased consumption of meat-based diets as well as the EU ban of meat and bone cake to curb mad cow disease implies increased demand for soybean-based animal feed (soybean cake). Lastly, with respect to focus countries specifically, the low market prices of soybean oil versus alternatives (e.g., groundnut oil) have promoted its consumption. Within focus countries, soybean consumption has remained flat. Significant declines in consumption in Nigeria and Mali (6% and 3% respectively) have been countered by consumption growth in East Africa. Consumption declines in West Africa are strongly linked to falling local supply.
Figure 4.12: Consumption, by Legume (Focus Countries) 2000201055

12
Million Metric Tons
10.4 1% 7% 13%
10 8
6 4
2
8.0 2% 14% 30% 47% 2000
10.1 7% 2% 16% 30%
Chickpeas Soybeans Common Beans Cowpeas Groundnuts
7% 32%
47%
45%
0
2005 2010
Source: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; International Trade Center; Monitor Analysis
xix
Cowpea consumption data is equivalent to production data due to the lack of official trade data for cowpeas. The tropical legumes II project predicts that cowpea consumption in Nigeria will grow at a compound annual growth rate of 2,4% between 2010 and 2020
Figure 4.13: Legume Consumption Compound Annual Growth Rate, by Legume56

Legume Chickpea
Soybean
00-10 1.8%
2.7%
05-10 10.7%
0.3%
08-10 -4.5%
-5.6%
Common Bean Cowpea Groundnut
3.5% 2.0% 1.7%
2.6% -1.4% -1.4%
11.2% -4.3% -0.9%
Source: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; International Trade Center; Monitor Analysis
4.2.3.
Legume Trade
When considering formal trade data, Africa and all other regions, except the Americas, are net importers of legumes. It is important to note that the bulk of trade in Africa is largely informal and volatile. While directionally correct, official data does not fully capture volume movement and grossly underestimates the true dynamics around significant informal trade within Africa. Furthermore, no official trade data is available for cowpea, a significant legume and trade crop in West Africa.
Official Trade
The bulk of production within focus countries is consumed locally with only 3% of production volumes being exported. Exports, however, grew at 11% per annum between 2001 and 2010. Forty-eight percent of these exports are destined for African countries with the remainder going to the rest of the world.
Figure 4.14: Net Exports, Africa and Other Regions (LHS) and Focus Countries and Rest of Africa (RHS), 201057
100 Americas 80 60 40 20 0 Africa -20 -40 -60 -80 Asia Europe & Oceania Net Exporters
135 2,201 600
Million Metric Tons
Thousand Metric Tons
106
21 17
Net Importers
5 1 0
Burkina Ethiopia Faso
8 3 0
Ghana
4 1 1
Mali
Nigeria Tanzania Uganda
Rest of Africa
Export
Import
Source: International Trade Center
According to official data, focus countries are net exporters of legumes, with common beans, chickpeas and groundnuts accounting for the bulk of volume movements. However, the absolute volume of legume net exports is low with export potential being limited by an inability to meet global quality standards on the part of focus producer countries, the existence of strict trade barriers and prohibitively high tariffs on exports in certain commodities.
Chickpeas
Chickpeas account for a third of total legume export volumes from focus countries with Ethiopia accounting for approximately two thirds of the exports, and Tanzania accounting for the bulk of the remainder. Most chickpeas are exported to Pakistan and India, but the overall value of trade is relatively low.
Common Beans
Common beans account for 43% of total legume export volumes from focus countries. The highest volumes of exports originate from Ethiopia and Uganda, which account for 70% and 16% of total common bean exports from focus countries, respectively. In Ethiopia, the bulk of this is in the form of exports of white haricot beans which are traded through the Ethiopian Commodity Exchange (ECX) and typically bound for European markets such as Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Cowpeas
No formal trade data are available for cowpeas, however, anecdotally; cowpeas are traded significantly within West Africa as it is a major staple in the region. This is one of the key data gaps in understanding legume markets.
Groundnuts
Groundnuts account for 22% of total legume export volumes from focus countries. According to official trade data, 91% of focus country exports originate from Tanzania and are typically bound for trade partners within East Africa, particularly Malawi.
Soybeans
According to official data, soybeans only account for 2% of total legume export volumes from focus countries. Uganda and Tanzania provide the bulk of soybean exports from focus countries, representing 38% and 32% of total soybean exports respectively. However, some countries, like Ghana, are significant importers of soybeans. Officially, Ghana imports ~400MT of raw soybeans per annum and ~3,700MT of soybean cake and oil. These figures grossly underestimate the true quantity of soybeans being imported in order to supply the local processing industry. Estimates of soybean imports by processors are closer to 50,000MT 58 . The majority of soybean oil is imported from European markets, while raw soybean is imported from Brazil and other markets outside of Africa. This is due to superior price competitiveness of Brazilian soybeans and market price setting by the Government of Ghana that has rendered local soybeans and processed soybean products uncompetitive.
Figure 4.15: Net Exports, by Legume in Focus Countries, 201059

116
Thousand Metric Tons
88 58
19 14 7 4 1
Common Beans
Chickpeas
Groundnuts
Import
Soybeans
Export Source: International Trade Center
Unofficial Trade
The bulk of trade for legumes in focus countries is informal. As a result, official data provided above, while directionally correct, underestimates the true volume of trade that takes place on the ground. Export destinations for legumes originating from East Africa are primarily Asian countries, with Pakistan and India featuring as key trade partners. Of the three key legumes cultivated in West Africa, namely groundnuts, cowpeas and soybeans there is limited trade outside of the West African region. The high level of informal cross-border trade is increasing due to factors such as the growing processing industries producing soybean and groundnut oil and cake. Each focus country has legumes that play a more significant role in the informal trade movements these dynamics are outlined below for each country.
Burkina Faso
The key crops that feature in informal trade patterns in Burkina Faso are cowpeas, groundnuts and soybeans. Low volumes of soybeans are traded informally with regional neighbors as key trade partners. Burkina Faso is a net exporter of cowpeas. Although cowpeas are the countrys most exported legume, trade is not tracked formally at all and informal trade volume is estimated at 50% of total production volume. Cowpeas are exported to Nigeria, T ogo, Cote dIvoire, Ghana, Mali and Benin and imported from Niger. Burkina Faso accounts for a significant proportion of Ghanaian and Togolese cowpea imports. Informal groundnut exports from Burkina Faso are lower than cowpea exports. Exports are mostly xx xxi channeled to regional neighbors with the main trade partners being Ghana , Cote dIvoire , Mali, Niger and Togo.
xx xxi
Ghana primarily imports groundnuts from Burkina Faso for human consumption Cote dIvoire primarily imports groundnuts from Burkina Faso for production of groundnut cake (animal feed)
Ethiopia
Faba beans and red kidney beans play the most significant role in informal trade from Ethiopia. Faba beans are frequently smuggled into Sudan, while red kidney beans are traded primarily from the South of Ethiopia into Northern Kenya.
Ghana
Ghana has some limited export of cowpeas to Togo.
Mali
As with Burkina Faso, the key legumes that play a role in informal trade are cowpeas, groundnuts and soybeans. Soybean exports from Mali are also low with regional neighbors being the key trade partners. Mali is a net exporter of cowpeas which are primarily channeled to Cote dIvoire. No data exists on the informal trade of groundnuts, but similar to Burkina Faso, Mali likely engages in trade with regional neighbors.
Nigeria
Nigeria is not exporting legumes in significant volumes, even informally. As a market with such a significant population, the country is the consumption basin for legumes and as such imports large quantities of legumes, particularly cowpeas. There is, however, limited export of cowpeas to Gabon and Benin.
Tanzania
Common beans and groundnuts are the legumes that play the most significant role in informal regional trade with respect to Tanzania. Common beans are the most informally traded legume in Tanzania. The top trade destinations for common beans from Tanzania are Kenya (small red beans), Malawi (cream colored and sugar beans), Zambia (cream colored beans) and the DRC (red-mottled beans). The bulk of informal regional groundnut exports are channeled to Malawi and Kenya with much smaller volumes sent to Zambia, Burundi and Uganda.
Uganda
Common beans are the most widely informally-traded legume with respect to Uganda; 84% of U gandas common bean output is traded informally with key trade partners such as Kenya, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan. While Uganda is also a large producer of common beans, there are still some informal imports from Tanzania since consumers often desire different varieties grown outside of Uganda.
5. Profiling Legume Farmers

5.1. Number of Legume Farmers
In focus countries, legumes are grown by an estimated 18 million smallholder farmers; approximately 20%60 of all smallholder farmers in Sub Saharan Africa. More than half of these farmers are located in Ethiopia and Nigeria, with the remainder split across the other five focus countries. The methodology used to estimate the number of smallholder legume farmers is shown in Annex D. The recently conducted Living Standards Measurement Study conducted in Tanzania found that 57% of smallholder farmers cultivated legumes. 61 Thus, based on the 2002/03 Tanzanian National Sample Census of Agriculture 62 and the population growth rate in Tanzania 63 , there could be as many as 3.5 million smallholder farmers growing legumes. The analysis detailed in Annex D and used to produce Figure 5.1 is likely conservative and provides a lower bound of the number of legume-producing smallholder farmers in focus countries.
Figure 5.1: Estimated Number of Smallholder Legume Farmers in Focus Countries

Represents ~20% of total smallholder farmers in Sub Saharan Africa
Million Smallholder Farmers
17.8
6.5
4.1 2.5 2.4 1.2 0.8 0.3
Total
Ethiopia
Nigeria
Tanzania
Uganda
Burkina Faso
Ghana
Mali
5.2.
The Voice of the Farmer
The research team spoke to 52 SHFs across three countries (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Tanzania). These discussions were used to confirm secondary data, help inform some rudimentary segmentation views, and identify key farmer behavior drivers and inhibitors in a qualitative fashion. Four main themes emerged from these conversations about legumes: farmer education, improved seed costs, labor-saving technologies and storage.
Fully comprehensive farmer education: Farmers expressed a desire for fully comprehensive training covering all aspects of production from good agronomic practices to marketing of produce. There are few extension agents providing this advice on legumes, and few co-operatives focused on legumes who can give this training to the small farmers.
Improved seed costs too high: Farmers generally understood the benefits of using improved seed, but reported that they found seed costs to be too high. Moreover, seed was not easily accessible, discouraging farmers from adopting improved varieties. Need for Labor-Saving Technologies: Farmers could save on both time and labor costs as well as receive higher income for value-added products through the use of simple equipment to help with planting, harvesting, and even on-farm processing. Need for Storage: Farmers expressed the need for storage, in order to improve their chances to negotiate for better prices, for both their legumes and other primary crops.
These themes are discussed in more detail in the Action Agenda section below.
5.3.
Farmer Segments
While it was beyond the scope of this research to develop definitive segments of farmers, distinctive groups of farmers were identified with different behavior and priorities with respect to legume production. At a broad level, smallholder legume farmers in focus countries can be divided into four high-level segments that differ according to their responsiveness to economic incentives and whether they grow legumes for subsistence only, or for surplus; the land allotted to legumes; income derived from legumes; cropping systems employed; or gender dynamics in the cultivation of the crop. In terms of economic incentives, legume farmers behave with these crops in a way similar to the way they do with other crops, e.g., maize. That is, if they are able to access inputs on credit and / or at a subsidized price, they are more likely to use these inputs, as long as they believe this will lead to increased incomes and that there are markets for any surplus. Given that legumes are often grown more as an intercropped filler for subsistence purposes than for surplus, one of the key driver of decisions to grow and sell surplus was the existence of a secure final market. Unlike maize or other crops, for which small farmers always know they can sell surplus (albeit often at a poor price to a farm gate broker), legumes are often not viewed the same way. As such, small farmer decisions on legumes can vary between a small garden plot for nutrition purposes, intercropping to support both nutrition and selling surplus, and monocropping larger volumes as cash crops to sell into assured markets. Brief summaries of the four distinctive farmer categories and their characteristics are provided below .
xxii
Subsistence-Only Farmers
Farmers in the Subsistence-Only segment tend to grow legumes for subsistence purposes; they may grow cash crops and cereals for sale. Subsistence-only farmers grow legumes on minor/garden plots, which sometimes have less-productive soils. Limited attention is given to these marginal lands by men; the legumes are managed almost entirely by women. Farmers in this segment primarily intercrop, as legumes are grown in combination with other crops. The Living Standards Measurement Survey conducted in Tanzania found that eighty one percent of legume plots were intercropped in the long rainy season and 91% were intercropped during the short rainy season. 64 Compared to other farmer segments, subsistence-only farmers are the least likely to respond to economic incentives.
xxii
Note that this segmentation is based on relatively small sample of farmer interviews, discussions with buyers and field leaders, and other experts. A more thorough effort would be required to validate and add nuance to any segmentation effort
Market-Mainly Farmers
Farmers in the Market-Mainly segment grow legumes for subsistence, with a high proportion of marketable surplus. For farmers in this segment, legumes are sometimes the principal crop, with larger areas of land allotted to legume cultivation. Legumes are mainly grown under monocropping, given the higher expected yields. The market-mainly segment is dominated by men, who are more focused on external market signals and opportunities, and are more involved as legumes become more commercialized. The Living Standards Measurement Survey conducted in Tanzania found that 36% of male-headed households sold beans compared with 29% of female-headed households. 48% Maleheaded households sold groundnuts, while only 39% of female-headed households sold groundnuts.65 Most soybean production in focus countries falls into this segment of farmers.
Subsistence/Market Farmers
Subsistence/Market farmers are a hybrid between Market-Mainly farmers and Subsistence-Only farmers. They grow legumes for subsistence, with a small proportion of marketable surplus. Most legume farmers fall within this segment, with many of them growing cowpeas, chickpeas and common beans. Volumes sold/marketed are generally low. Subsistence/market farmers are moderately likely to respond to economic incentives.
Soil Health Benefit Farmers

As the segment name suggests, farmers in the Soil Health Benefit segment grow legumes for their benefit to soil health; few farmers fall within this segment. Farmers in this segment grow legumes to maximize yield and performance of their principal crop, and are less focused on maximizing the yields of the legume which provide soil health benefits. These farmers have a high propensity to switch to legume crops if incentives are adequately aligned. An example of such farmers would be pigeon pea farmers in Tanzania, who scatter pigeon peas across their field given:

Limited competition for nutrients with other crops, as pigeon pea has a deeper root system Nitrogen fixation due to nodulation on pigeon pea roots Moisture preservation due to the ability of pigeon pea root systems to break hardpans
In designing any investments and interventions in the legume value chain, it is vital to consider the differences between these segments and the unique dynamics that are specific to each segment, in order to deliver impact. As an illustration, for the third segment of subsistence/market farmers, for instance, distributing seeds in a way that recognizes and builds on the intercropping behavior, and focusing on nutritional content of seeds are two important implications.
6. Legume Market Opportunities

Each focus crop presents significant market potential that can be tapped into to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers cultivating legumes, and selling surplus to generate income. The greatest market opportunities exist in soybean and groundnut cultivation. There is approximately 134,000MT of replaceable soybean imports in West Africa and potential groundnut export opportunities of at least 110,000MT to the European Union.
6.1.
Commercial Buyer Market Opportunities
Opportunities to use large commercial buyers to anchor a value chain of pull-through demand for processing or packaging are relatively limited for legumes in Africa. There are relatively few large commercial buyers looking to procure significant volumes of legumes, and volumes are low, especially compared with other staple or cash crop commodities. However, in recent years commercial activity has begun to increase. Bunges entry into Africa via its partnership with Senwes in South Africa signals increasing interest in commodities such as soybeans beginning to attract more global firms.
Figure 6.1: Comparison of Major Private Sector Player Size, Legumes vs. Other Commodities66,67,68,69,70,71
Aggregators / Co-ops Processors Exporters
Thousand MT
Thousand MT
Thousand MT
Legumes
SFMC
3
Soybeans in Ghana (09)
Ghana Nuts
70
Various Legumes
Acos Ltd
25
Haricot Beans in Ethiopia (10 est.)
Cocoa
Socatne
23
Cote dIvoire (09)
SACO Foods
138
Cocoa Grinding
Cargill
204
Traded in Cote dIvoire (09)
Maize
N/A
NMC
200
Milling in Zambia
ETG
151
Traded in Kenya (09 )
Note: (i) SFMC stands for Savanna Farmers Marketing Company; (ii) NMC stands for National Milling Company; (iii) ETG stands for Export Trading Group Source: Company websites; Expert Interviews; International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) Website; Monitor Analysis
Chickpea Market Opportunities

The key market opportunities for chickpeas lie in Ethiopia and Tanzania which are already well established exporters of chickpeas and can further explore opportunities to expand import share or develop new export destinations. Expansion of import share in existing markets in close geographical proximity represents an opportunity of roughly 25,000MT for Ethiopia and Tanzania, assuming that they xxiii can replace half of current imports originating from North and Central America . A significant share of chickpea imports originate from the United States of America, Canada and Mexico, over which East
xxiii
African countries have a significant geographical advantage since the majority of chickpea importers are situated in the Middle East and South Asia. Geographical proximity and early growing seasons provide opportunities to expand share of imports in key destinations such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the United Arab Emirates, and to export to new destinations within a close geographical proximity to East Africa, such as Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, Tunisia and Sri Lanka.
Figure 6.2: Top 10 Global Chickpea Importers, 201072

Pakistan Bangladesh United Arab Emirates Algeria
Spain
73% 96% 22% 90% 0% 4% 5% 5% 237
181
5%
75
78%
22% 0% 78
51%
89% 6% 5%
49%
0% 106
Saudi Arabia Iran India United Kingdom

Jordan
42
100%
38
22% 1%
78%
45
88% 11% 36 73% 23% 4%
36
Thousand MT
Total Imported f rom other Countries Total Imported f rom North America & Mexico Total Imported f rom Ethiopia
Common Bean Market Opportunities

The key opportunity for the common bean market is in the expansion of exports both regional and global from East Africa, particularly from Ethiopia and Tanzania. Within East Africa alone, there is 45,000MT of import demand; globally, the United Kingdom, India and Italy represent 791,000MT of import demand. The current demand for common beans already surpasses domestic production and this trend is forecasted to continue. There is high potential to expand regional and global exports. East and Southern Africa account for ~5% of global exports of common beans with Ethiopia as the main contributor accounting for 2.4% of global exports, followed by Uganda which contributed 0.5% of global common bean exports in 2010. Ethiopia, Uganda and Tanzania have potential geographical advantages over
Canada and China for common bean exports to the EU shipment from China to the EU can take up to nine weeks compared to shipments from Ethiopia which take up to three weeks. In Ethiopia, the average growth rate of global exports increased by 9% between 2001 and 2010. During this time, India increased imports of common beans by 16%. Emerging economies in Asia provide a significant opportunity for East African common bean exports. For Tanzania, common beans are mainly exported to Kenya, Malawi, Zambia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where common bean production shows a stagnant or a declining trend. As production from previously large exporters of common beans such as the USA declines, countries such as South Africa will increasingly need alternative sources of common beans.
Figure 6.3: Top 10 Global Common Bean Importers, 201073
India Brazil United States of America United Kingdom

Mexico
91% 100% 99% 1% 142 4% 0%
2%
8%
558
181
96%
125
100%
97%
117
3% 0%
Italy Japan Pakistan Venezuela

South Africa
108
100%
107 94 92
5% 0%
100% 100% 95%
88 Thousand MT
Total Imported f rom other Countries Total Imported f rom Ethiopia Total Imported f rom Tanzania
Cowpea Market Opportunities

Cowpeas offer a 61,000MT market opportunity through regional trade in West Africa (namely Nigeria, Ghana, Burkina Faso and Mali) to fill the annual shortfall. West Africa offers a sizeable regional market with potential to grow as demand currently outstrips supply in the region. Nigeria is the largest producer and consumer of cowpeas in the world and this is expected to expand with increasing GDP and population growth. Burkina Faso and Ghana also exhibit strong growth in cowpea consumption.
Figure 6.4: Cowpea Consumption Market Size, 201074

CAGR 01-10
Thousand MT
1%
2,243
1%
12%
312
219
216
Nigeria Mali Ghana Burkina Faso Note: (i) CAGR stands for Compound Annual Growth rate; (ii) Data availability is limited for Ghana, inhibiting a CAGR to be calculated for 20012010. The CAGR for 20072010 is 16.5% Source: FAOSTAT; International Trade Center
The challenges that prevent the realization of this market potential are:

High transportation costs and numerous cross border check points; Policy constraints in the form of high export taxes and import duties, and lengthy, bureaucratic licensing and registration processes; Low volumes and fragmented production with limited aggregation of produce due to the high cost of pooling fragmented produce; Lack of market information; and Lack of capital to support small-scale traders.
Groundnut Market Opportunities

The key market opportunities for groundnuts are to open groundnut export markets to the European Union (EU) and fulfilling growing local/regional demand in West African focus countries, namely Nigeria, Ghana, Mali and Burkina Faso. This opportunity offers the potential to target 550,000MT of EU import xxiv demand. Assuming these countries could achieve a 20% share of this import demand, the potential market size is 110,000MT.
Figure 6.5: Global Groundnut Import Market75

Global Groundnut Trade (97-07) Share of Global Import (2007)
Others
EU Suppliers (2007)
Others
Argentina USA
Thousand MT
4.5%
1,923
23%
38%
EU-27
12%
49%
1,241
Japan 7%
7%
Netherland 7% 6% Brazil 8%
17%
Canada
Russia
8%
8%
9%
China
Mexico
Indonesia
1997 2007 Source: United States Department of Agriculture

xxiv
Assumes 20% replaceable import demand which is what imports from Argentina, Brazil and China currently account for
West Africa holds a geographic advantage over Argentina, Brazil and China for exports to Europe, which currently account for nearly 75% of the EUs groundnut imports. However, a number of challenges hinder Africas access to EU markets and some represent significant obstacles:
Aflatoxin levels in groundnuts originating from West Africa are significantly higher than EU and United States import restrictions (see the Aflatoxin section below for more details on aflatoxin levels in focus countries versus EU and United States standards). Lack of adequate and high quality storage exacerbates aflatoxin issues in the region. West Africa is currently not cost competitive in production and processing, making the landed costs of groundnuts from Argentina, Brazil and China in the EU cheaper than West African produce. There is limited processing capacity for groundnuts, hindering potential oil and poultry feed processing uses of the crop in domestic markets.
Soybean Market Opportunities

The key market opportunities for soybeans are to increase soybean processing and value-addition and to replace imports in local markets. This opportunity is greater for Nigeria and Ghana than for Burkina Faso and Mali. There is potential to replace 104,000MT of imported processed soybean in West Africa. Soybean processors in West Africa are largely under-utilized due to insufficient local volumes; therefore, substitute products such as groundnut and palm oil are being processed as substitutes for soybean oil, or processors are importing from Latin America. Some of these imports result from price distortions introduced by policies, but processors in Ghana also reported that even without price floors set by government, many small producers could not produce volumes at a cost sufficiently low to compete with landed imports.
Figure 6.6: Imports of Soybeans in West Africa76
Sub-Saharan Imports, Soybean Products (2010)

3,164
West Africa Imports, Soybean Products (2010)

Thousand MT
76
Thousand MT
1,625 1,179
28 1
Soybean, Raw
Soybean Meal Soybean Oil
Soybean, Raw
Soybean Meal Soybean Oil
The key challenges that hinder this opportunity are:
Low volumes of soybeans produced and poor aggregation which fail to meet the demand, exacerbated by capital constraints that prevent the expansion of aggregation and storage; Poor quality and size of locally-produced soybeans compared to Latin America and North America 77; and Policy distortion of pricing in Ghana through the setting of price floors for soybeans disadvantages locally-produced soybean cake78.
6.2.
Food Security Relief Market Opportunities
In addition to trade and local market opportunities, there is room to expand procurement of legumes in Africa by patient buyers such as the World Food Programs Purchase for Progress (P4P) a nd various xxv public feeding programs. SONAGESS , supplies a school feeding program in Burkina Faso and purchases 9,000MT of cowpeas annually. Similar public feeding programs exist in other focus countries, but many of them do not maintain accurate procurement records. Of the focus legumes, the WFPs P4P program purchases common beans, cowpeas and soybeans. A key opportunity lies in expanding local sourcing for relief and feeding programs from all focus markets. There is currently a potential 54,000MT to 88,000MT replaceable procurement source within P4P; Europe and North America account for approximately 37% of P4Ps purchases or about 88,000MT.
Figure 6.7: World Food Programme P4P Procurement of Legumes79
By Value (2010)
1,250 10%
Million USD
Legumes
By Volume (2010)
3,166 7%
Legumes
Share of Legume Volume by Region (2010)

Oceania North America
1% 23%
35%
Thousand MT
Africa
90%
Others
93%
Others
Latin America 7% 14%
Europe
19% Asia
2010
Source: World Food Programme
2010
Food security opportunities primarily relate to farmers in the Subsistence -Only segment, whose legume produce is consumed entirely on-farm with no marketable surplus. These farmers are also more likely to consume legumes for their nutritional benefits. In linking these farmers to food security opportunities, key priorities include:
Seed research & development: For example, breeding for improved farmer/consumer preferences with respect to taste and nutrition; and On-field pests: Protect farmers from drastic yield losses to promote their food security.
Food security opportunities are less relevant for Subsistence/Market farmers and Market -Mainly farmers. Key challenges that prevent the realization of this market opportunity are:

Higher procurement costs for legumes than other crop or vegetable products; and Relatively higher legume prices in Africa (USD576/MT) vs. Europe (USD427/MT) and North America (USD399/MT). It would cost an extra ~USD14.6 million to replace all legumes procured in North America and Europe with legumes from Africa.
Socit Nationale de Gestion du Stock de Scurit Alimentaire
xxv
Among the major obstacles to capturing these market opportunities are the relatively low volumes and fragmented production of smallholder legume farmers. These obstacles originate, in part, from the fact that productivity remains low and varies significantly across countries/crops.
Figure 6.8: Production Yields MT per Hectare, 201080
Groundnuts
Burkina Faso Ethiopia Ghana Mali Nigeria Tanzania
Uganda
Cowpeas
0.77
Common Beans
Soybeans
1.26
Chickpeas
0.71 1.35 1.50 0.93 1.00 0.96

0.71
1.49 1.31 0.43 0.89 0.59

1.06
1.53 1.90 0.69 1.40
1.34
0.72
0.49
0.87
1.13
0.85
0.55
Argentina Brazil South Asia South Af rica 1.14 1.53
2.79 2.72 1.07 0.59 0.47
1.26 0.93 1.08 1.18 1.82
2.91 2.94
0.92
0.85
Source: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives
7. Value Chain Constraints and Agenda for Action

The full market and nutritional potential of legumes in Africa has never been realized due to significant constraints that exist along the entire legume value chain. Some of these constraints are general, and are applicable to multiple African commodities or value chains within agriculture. Others, however, are legume-specific and warrant more attention.
7.1.
General African Agriculture Constraints and Potential Interventions
General constraints are those constraints that apply not only to legumes, but other sectors within smallholder-oriented agriculture in Africa. Given that general constraints are foundational and systemic, interventions designed around them would be long-term in nature and could support multiple commodities, not just legumes. Four general constraints have been identified as being particularly relevant for discussion; these include weak infrastructure, poor farmer organization, inadequate extension services, and poor data availability.
7.1.1.
Infrastructure Constraints
Infrastructure is a significant constraint, as it is in most areas of African agriculture. Infrastructure-related constraints span the entire agricultural value chain, limiting agricultures contribution to GDP as well as its potential to impact overall economic growth and transformation. With respect to infrastructure, constraints are specifically related to roads/transportation, electricity, and other factor inputs (telecommunications, sanitation, water/irrigation, etc.). Road networks: Poor road networks limit both domestic and regional market potential. Firstly, for the focus countries under consideration, only between ~4% and ~23% of roads are paved 81. In addition to an extension in the time required to obtain inputs and products, unpaved roads inflate transportation costs. Secondly, road networks are not dense, with densities in focus countries ranging between 2km/100km 2 and 34km/100km2,82. Given this limited connectedness between various points, inputs and final products are difficult and expensive to transport from one location to another. This is especially the case in the regions where legumes are predominantly grown; for instance, soybeans in northern Ghana. Warehousing: as is the case with many other commodities, storage is a constraint for legumes. This is important both for the ability to shift the timing of sale of produce, as well as for the more legume-specific issue of ensuring proper dryness and temperatures, which is critical for crops like groundnuts where moisture and other factors can lead to unacceptable levels of aflatoxin presence. Electricity: Similarly to logistical infrastructure, widespread access to electricity will have positive socioeconomic implications. In the context of agriculture, the availability of electricity is particularly important for aggregators, processors and major buyers who participate further along the value chain. For example, aggregators and major buyers need electricity to control the temperatures in storage facilities, while processors need it to effectively operate the machinery in their processing plants. With respect to focus countries, a low proportion of the populations in these countries have access to electricity, limiting the consumption on a per capita basis. The proportion of the population with access to electricity ranges between 61% in the best case (Ghana) and 9% in the worst case 83. Per capita consumption of electricity xxvi for all focus countries is less than 0.5% ,84 of maximum achievable electricity consumption per capita
xxvi
Maximum electricity consumption per capita among focus countries (Ghana: 265 kWh/capita)/Maximum electricity consumption per capita globally (Iceland: 265 kWh/capita)
and less than 10%6, gap in electrification.
xxvii
of global electricity consumption per capita. Both statistics indicate a significant
7.1.2.
Extension Services Constraints
Limited extension services are a real constraint. Smallholder farmers are not fully aware of the best agronomic practices to produce legumes efficiently, sustainably and economically in order to maximize incomes (productivity, output) and nutrition. This issue is compounded by low literacy rates. In Burkina Faso and Mali the laggards in the group literacy is as low as 25%85 for the entire population and is likely much lower among rural farmers. Extension services for other commodities are typically not significantly better than they are for legumes. As a result, any overall upgrading of extension services in a given country would likely offer spillover benefits to legumes efforts as well.
7.1.3.
Farmers Organizations Constraints
Weak farmer organizations are a major constraint. Although there are farmer organizations in many of the focus countries, there are significant variations in the strength and effectiveness of these farmer organizations. As a result, farmer commitment to these organizations is variable also, especially when farmers see the weakness and ineffectiveness of some farmer organizations or when farmers are not educated on the benefits of being members of well-run farmers organizations. As with all other forms of smallholder-based agriculture, aggregating farmers into larger groups is essential to (a) improve market power for sales and make volumes more attractive to buyers, (b) provide needed skills transfer and training on a cost-effective basis, and (c) provide necessary inputs efficiently and cost-effectively. Many also offer benefits in terms of better access to financing. But few, if any, farmer groups exist to support legumes-specific outputs the way they do in, for instance, coffee production.
7.1.4.
Data Constraints
Poor data on legumes is a constraint as well, as it is in other value chains, although perhaps more acute in certain legumes. A critical challenge within the agricultural sector across all focus countries is the availability of data on everything from seed multiplication through to production (land area, yield), consumption, prices (producer, market), trade, value chain economics, etc. There are few central sources for data, especially in legumes, and some commodities are not tracked at all by either government or outside parties; for instance there is no data on cowpea trade throughout the focus countries. The crux of the matter is that national statistical bureaus often lack the resources and capacity to run agricultural censuses as often as they are required. As such, governments and other data-gathering entities resort to forecasting and estimation, which are inaccurate because of weak forecasting methods and are based on incorrect data to begin with. As an example, while conducting research on the legume industry in focus, the following issues were confronted:
Seed Production Data: As a result of weak seed registration and certification systems, seed production data is limited. For example, of the three countries visited none had widely available seed catalogs outlining characteristics and prices of (improved) seeds in circulation Production Data: Production data, when provided by Ministries, is often misleading as most legume experts interviewed suggested that official production volumes and yield figures were likely higher
xxvii
Maximum electricity consumption per capita among focus countries (Ghana: 265 kWh/capita)/World average electricity consumption per capita globally (2,826 kWh/capita)
than reality, due to incentives in the Ministries. Even where such an incentive may not exist, production data typically has extreme unexplained spikes; for instance data published by the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development regarding chickpea, soybean and groundnut xxviii production
Trade Data: Trade data for legumes is the most inaccurate of all key metrics. Many of the focus countries engage in regional trade which is largely informal. As a result, although official trade estimates may exist, they only provide a directional sense of trade but grossly misrepresent the actual volumes since most trade is informal and occurs within the region (among countries with poor data gathering) Consumption Data: Ministries typically do not have consumption data for legumes. FAOSTAT collects these data, but they have not been updated for half a decade (since 2007) for all focus countries. Consumption surveys are infrequent and often focus on granular details instead of aggregate consumption data. These issues mean that consumption figures must be derived from production and trade data, which is typically inaccurate in the first place
7.2.
Action Agenda for Constraints that Affect Multiple Commodities
A range of steps will be required to address these issues which are characteristic of smallholder African agriculture in many commodities and crops, many of which have been outlined and advocated in other action plans. These constraints, whether in terms of infrastructure, farmer organizations, data, or other areas affect the legume markets in specific ways, but many of the solutions are similar to those being advocated for other, broad-based agriculture support:
Infrastructure: The agenda on infrastructure for legumes reflects the broader agenda to provide required infrastructure to many crops: roads, feeder roads, irrigation, storage, cold storage in some cases, better ports for exports, and electricity in rural areas all figure into the agenda, for legumes and many other crops Extension: Many parties are already at work on extending the impact and reach of African extension services, which will not be covered here. Incremental extension services could also be provided to farmers through expansion of the World Food Programmes (WFPs) Food for Assets Program, or the establishment of specific extension programs specifically dedicated to legumes with specific attention to intercropping, aflatoxin prevention, pest management, labor-saving possibilities, seed usage, and other key factors Farmer organizations: Groups like AGRA already have undertaken significant programs to strengthen the ability of farmer organizations to function and meet the market, and gain access to credit86. In addition, many value chains have specific programs to build capacity of specific farmer groups, for instance, ACDI-VOCA working with small soybean farmers in northern Ghana, Technoserves work with small coffee farmer co-ops in East Africa, or Vredeseilanden assisting common bean farmers to form producer groups in eastern Uganda. As with all smallholder agricultural organizations, more needs to be done to strengthen these farmer groups in most aspects of operation Data: part of the dearth of data on legumes is symptomatic of broader data and statistical gaps in agriculture ministries in many African countries, but much of the data scarcity results from legumes not being made priority crops by the Ministries at a policy level, and the minimal resulting investment in measurement (see policy section below). Beyond this change, legumes will benefit from ongoing
xxviii
The official Ethiopian production data implied yields upwards of 10MT/hectare and as a result this data was not included in the current analysis
initiatives to strengthen the underlying data and capability to collect it, funded by donors such as the World Bank, which through its Bulletin Board on Statistical Capacity monitors and rates the national statistical systems of various developing countries. 87 The United Stated Department of Agriculture has also conducted analyses on statistical capacity; specifically, in-depth assessments have been undertaken in Ghana, Haiti, Tanzania and Bangladesh.88 These efforts can be leveraged in order to further improve the body of agricultural data collected in Africa thus far.
7.3.
Legume-Specific Constraints and Interventions
In addition to the obstacles that are common to many crops and countries, the research also identified seven legume-specific constraints which are substantial and need to be addressed in order to improve legume consumption and production for both surplus and nutrition purposes. These constraints cluster around: (i) government policy, (ii) seed research and development, (iii) seed production, distribution and adoption, (iv) labor-saving technologies, (v) on-field pests, (vi) aflatoxin, and (vii) private sector, market and trade linkages.
7.3.1.
Government Policy
Constraints
Inadequate policy focus on legumes is a significant constraint to raising incomes and nutritional levels using legumes. Government policy drives the direction of the legume industry and dictates the success of most other potential interventions. Constraints around government policy appear to originate primarily as a result of limited knowledge, weak implementation and in some cases disabling policies which impede the potential success of legumes. A significant issue with respect to policy is that there appears to be relatively limited knowledge amongst policy makers of the benefits of legumes with regards to food security and nutrition, soil health, and income generation. Governments therefore have articulated only limited policies focused on promoting legumes. Those legumes which receive more government support and attention are generally betterplaced to positively impact farmer incomes and nutrition. As an example, in Burkina Faso, cowpeas have been given priority status by the government, while groundnuts and soybeans have not. As a result, improved cowpea seeds are subsidized and distributed by the government, and cowpeas are bought by the governments food security company for school-feeding programs. In some cases, governments already have good policies in place, but these policies exist only on paper and have not been put into practice. This is the case in Burkina Faso with respect to womens land ownership. Alternatively, these policies may be inconsistent or contradictory and can change without notice, as is the case for seed laws in Mali, where for example, it is unclear whether seed law applies to both improved varieties and traditional varieties or not. Finally, restrictive policies that apply sometimes inadvertently to legumes are also a concern. In some cases, restrictive policies, laws and regulatory barriers limit the potential for legumes. For example, in Tanzania, frequent bans on the export of staples (e.g., maize) negatively impact the legume market, as the bans are not clear and are often incorrectly enforced by border agents, causing difficulties in the trade of legumes. Price floors on raw soybeans were put in place in Ghana in an effort to protect smallholder farmers and ensure that they achieved good returns on their produce; however, the policy resulted in Ghanaian soybean producers becoming uncompetitive with their Brazilian counterparts. As a result, soy processors and manufacturers who are able to purchase in large enough quantities are choosing to import soybeans, while others are operating below capacity.
The scorecard below shows how focus countries compare against one another on five key legume policy dimensions:
Figure 7.1: Government Policies Impacting the Legume Industry

For legumes, in general, the government promotes the following: Burkina Faso
Ethiopia
Ghana
Mali
Nigeria
Tanzania
Uganda
Improved seed registration
Seed multiplication and distribution
x x
x
Legume exports
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Private Sector Participation in the Legume Value Chain
All major legumes as priority crops
x
Medium government promotion of this policy dimension
High government promotion of this policy dimension
Low government promotion of this policy dimension
Action Agenda: Government Policy

Compared to the effort put into other food security and cash crops, focus country governments will need to place more emphasis on legumes to create environments that support legume production and trade, which could in turn provide economic and food security benefits. To address the constraints in the area of government policy, the following issues will need to be addressed:
Research support: Fund the work of policy researchers and PhD students whose focus is on agricultural reform or legumes specifically. Right now, relatively little expenditure is allocated to support legume-specific research in most countries. In Tanzania, the Division of Research and Development (DRD) is responsible for agricultural research institute budget allocations. They created three tiers of crops in order to prioritize research and development funding. Of the 11 crops in the first tier, groundnuts and common beans were the only legumes included. Cowpeas, pigeon peas and chickpeas were amongst the 22 crops in the second tier, while soybeans were relegated to the bottom category89 Establish legume units in Ministries: Fund the establishment of dedicated legume units in the Ministries of Agriculture in key legume producing and consuming countries. Right now, of the seven focus countries only Ethiopia has something, which resembles a dedicated legumes unit; The Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency has a pulses division Technical assistance and legume experts: Donors can provide technical assistance to help governments establish legume policies and send legume experts to focus countries to help shape these policies Policy/advocacy support: To improve the enabling conditions for legume markets in Africa, the action agenda will include advocacy with national governments to:
Refine existing policies to promote and prioritize legumes and relax restrictive policies which limit
the potential of the legume industry
Reduce/remove any inconsistencies and contradictions in current policies, which limit the
potential of legumes; streamline policies so that all agricultural agencies work toward the same goals; support implementation of good legumes policies already on the books
Commit funding to support legume development, on the grounds of nutrition and food security, farmer xxix incomes, national balance of trade, and, importantly, climate mitigation
7.3.2.
Seed Research and Development
Constraints
Inadequate seed research and development poses a substantial constraint. The field research suggests that improved legume seed research and development is limited by five factors: (i) legumes are not prioritized at the research level as research is focused on cereals and cash crops, (ii) aging research xxx staff , (iii) insufficient research funding, (iv) inappropriate varieties, and (v) unrealistic breeding conditions. Further detail is provided on each constraint below. Legumes not prioritized: Where government legume-promoting policies are limited, many research institutions which are often government-run tend to place very low priority on improved legume seed research and development. Research stations take their cue from government policy; legumes that are promoted from a policy and government perspective are generally well-researched with several improved varieties in circulation. However, the picture is bleak for low priority legumes, which receive little/no attention and can go for decades without new variety releases. In Burkina Faso, improved soybean and groundnut varieties have not been developed since the 1970s and the mid-1990s, respectively. Research institutes in Tanzania and Ethiopia have neglected cowpea, which is not considered an important crop in many East African countries. Aging research staff: A problem in the area of improved seed research and development in Africa is the aging research staff in most countries. In most government-run research institutes, current researchers/breeders were employed at least two to three decades ago and there is no cadre of young breeders/researchers who joined these institutions within the last decade. Without planning for the long term viability of research institutes, efforts toward improved seed variety research may be futile as research continuity and institutional memory are at risk. Insufficient research funding: Research institutions are largely underfunded. The New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) set a target of the equivalent of 1% of a countrys agricultural GDP for research and development spending. Uganda was the only country of the seven focus countries which met this target90. Research institutions therefore rely heavily on donor assistance, limiting their ability to research and develop improved seed varieties in a timely fashion. It can take up to 10 years to release a new variety; research, in general, takes a long time to complete given the following:
Research laboratories lack modern equipment such as Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) machinery, which shorten the variety release time by a season
xxix
Given that legumes have the potential to reduce the amount of fertilizer required, one analysis to support this advocacy for funding should include current amounts spent on fertilizer and fertilizer subsidy, opportunities to obtain carbon credits for planting legumes, and other potential sources of funding that can support additional programs to promote and develop the legume sector xxx This is not unique to legume crops
Legal requirements around testing before release often delay the time to farmer. For example, in Burkina Faso, improved seeds must be tested for two years on-farm before being registered Interviews with seed researchers and visits to research stations in three countries suggested that research stations are under-staffed and their employees are underpaid. As a result, first, there are few researchers/breeders to conduct all the research that is required. Second, those few researchers/breeders are often split between the core research function and other income-generating activities such as the provision of extension services on behalf of NGOs
Sub-optimal breeding: In addition to challenges around staffing and funding, research institutions have yet to breed optimal improved varieties that solve for desired traits along the entire legume value chain. For example, while haricot bean researchers/breeders in Ethiopia have released varieties that adequately meet farmer/consumer preferences as well as pest- and disease-resistance, there have been no major gains in yield. In fact, some of the later varieties have lower yield potential but increased resistance to pests and disease. In this instance, a greater focus needs to be placed on yield potential, especially as haricot beans are largely commercialized. The Italian food producer, ACOS, has worked closely with research institutions in Ethiopia to test the adaptability of successful legume varieties to local conditions. They brought in a chickpea variety from Mexico and a red kidney bean from the United States of America. Examples of collaboration between private sector and other organizations with local research institutions are, however, scarce. Local research institutions stand to benefit greatly from external assistance to guide their breeding agenda. Unrealistic breeding conditions: In some cases, researchers breed legume seeds under high-input conditions. When these varieties reach the farmers, who are often producing under low-input conditions, the seeds typically underperform in comparison to traditional varieties grown in low-input conditions. This was the case for cowpeas bred in Burkina Faso, where research stations typically monocrop, have good soils, access to fertilizer, high-yielding varieties and at least two insecticides.
Action Agenda: Seed Research and Development

Seed research will need funding, support, and direction to ensure that legume varieties adequately meet the needs of the market on a number of dimensions including consumer preferences, higher yields, balancing tradeoffs, drought-, pest- and disease-resistance. Program possibilities with the goal of improving seed research and development fall into three major categories: (i) capacity-building, (ii) funding for equipment, and (iii) funding for improved seed research and development.
Capacity-building: Work with the government, local universities, and/or interest private sector participants to plan for the succession of researchers at research institutions. To this end, incentivize local students to join research institutes and structure incentives so that they stay for the 5-year apprenticeship period and beyond Provide essential research station machinery: Assist research institutions in accessing funding for improved machinery and equipment to shorten variety release time, for instance MAS equipment Fund improved seed research and development: Funding priorities differ depending on the countrycrop combination under consideration. For example, for common beans, in Tanzania breeding for pest- and drought-resistance is a priority, while in Ethiopia breeding for high yields is a priority. Broadly speaking therefore, depending on the country and crop under consideration, funding will be directed towards different channels. Seed breeders will need to take into account a range of tradeoffs that the research identified in the field, depending on which end use and/or market is being supported. For instance, research will need to reconcile across:
Breeding to balance any tradeoffs that may exist (e.g., tradeoff between grain size and drought
resistance)
Breeding for local farmer/consumer taste preferences (including farmer participatory studies,
demonstration, variety testing, etc.)
Breeding for suitability to local agro-ecology Breeding for disease-, drought- and pest-resistance, where applicable Breeding for higher yields
Market guidance to seed breeding: In addition to the above, broadly speaking, key characteristics to breed will need to be driven by the demand structure of the legume under consideration. The following is a general, market-oriented, set of preferences that emerged from research conducted in the field:
Chickpeas: Chickpeas, which are primarily produced in Ethiopia, are exported to the Middle East, Sudan, India and Pakistan, which are less quality conscious than European markets. There is high demand for large seeded Kabuli chickpea varieties in export markets and these usually command a higher price. There is also an opportunity in canning the Kabuli variety to target sophisticated consumers in export markets. For local consumption, Desi variety chickpeas will be required to meet local consumer preferences. As such, breeding priorities are: larger-size Kabuli varieties, suitability for canning, and taste characteristics of the Desi varieties to suit the local palate Common beans: Common beans are almost entirely consumed in direct/unprocessed form, and frequently traded informally among East African countries. As such, common beans must be bred to meet preferences of consumers not just in one locale, but throughout the region, to the extent possible. In East Africa there are a number of, different types of common beans most easily classifiable by their color and size. According to Wortmann et al. 91 , red and mottled beans are preferred by consumers in East Africa. White beans are often canned and preferable traits include an oval shape and a sparkling white color. In addition, other breeding priorities include short cooking time, low flatulence and longer storage time Cowpeas: The majority of cowpeas in focus countries are consumed in direct/unprocessed form. Cowpeas are mostly informally traded among West African countries. As such, cowpeas must be bred to meet preferences of consumers not just in one locale, but throughout the region, to the extent xxxi possible . In addition, other breeding priorities include low flatulence and high yields in intercropping situations Groundnuts: Groundnuts are consumed equally in direct/unprocessed forms and processed forms. As a result, breeding priorities are aflatoxin resistance and high oil content for higher yield in oil processing Soybeans: Soybean consumption is heavily skewed towards processing. As a result, breeding for low oil content for high yield in poultry feed processing is a priority
xxxi
In Burkina Faso, consumers share a number of preferences regarding cowpeas, such as a short cooking time, high water uptake and black eye color, however in the south consumers prefer a smooth textured grain, while in the north a rough texture is favoured
7.3.3.
Seed Production, Distribution and Adoption
Constraints
Inadequate seed production, distribution and adoption are significant constraints. On average, improved seeds have the potential to enhance yields by up to 40%. The Living Standards Measurement survey of Tanzania found that only 2% of bean and groundnut plots and only 5% of cowpea plots adopted improved seed varieties. 92 Several constraints impede the distribution and ultimate adoption of improved seed varieties, as outlined below:
Constraints to improved seed production and distribution

Insufficient improved seed multiplication: For most legumes covered in the research, insufficient quantities of improved breeder/foundation/certified seed are multiplied. In focus countries, as much as 80% of seed production is focused on cereals, with legumes and other minor crops accounting for the remainder. Multiplication of breeder and foundation seed is not demand-driven, meaning that research stations do not multiply breeder and foundation seed based on demand from certified seed producers. As a result, improved seed availability is often low. Additionally, multiplication of certified seed is not demand-driven either. This means that certified seed producers do not produce seed based on demand from smallholder farmers. As a result, seed producers are sometimes unable to sell their seeds as they are located in regions with low demand, are multiplying too many seeds to serve that region alone and lack market information and distribution channels to sell their seed. High barriers to becoming a seed producer: There are high barriers to becoming a certified seed producer; as several conditions must be satisfied. In Burkina Faso, for example, to become a certified cowpea seed producer, a farmer must be: (i) operating under high-input conditions, (ii) affiliated with a farmer organization and pay allowances (iii) trained and certified. As a consequence, there are only approximately 1,000 accredited seed producers for cowpeas in Burkina Faso, most of who are located in the North of the country. Similarly, in Ethiopia, seed producers must own adequate land and may only retain 10% of their produce; however, the Ethiopian Seed Enterprise is making an effort to incentivize farmers to produce seed, by offering them a premium of up to 15% over and above the market grain price for seed of a high quality. Disincentivized private sector: Improved seed multiplication is primarily conducted by public research institutions; very few private sector participants multiply seed because they are bulky (implying high transportation costs) and unprofitable to produce. Generally, farmers who are involved in the production of agricultural produce, which requires regular seed replacement or uniform output, provide strong economic incentives for private seed producers to supply them with improved seed. 93 However, legumes are self-pollinating and have a low level of genetic degradation, and furthermore, smallholder farmers in Africa often do not require entirely uniform produce due to the lack of well established value chains. Thus, private sector firms lack strong incentives to invest money in producing and distributing legumes seed to smallholder farmers. According to a private sector seed company in Tanzania, Meru Agro, There are no companies seriously marketing legumes seed in Tanzania[since] there is nothing wrong with recyclin g legumes seed two or even three times.94 Complex distribution systems and long distance to seed: Improved seeds often have to follow a complex path before reaching smallholder farmers. In cases where seed is not being produced under a smallholder farmer-based seed model, seed is usually multiplied in central locations at great distance from most farmers. Once seed has been through the often lengthy certification process, it is stored in warehouses before being divided amongst agricultural input dealers. These dealers usually have distribution depots in rural areas and may provide seed to smaller rural trading stores as well. The
logistical networks are often of poor quality, increasing the time to move seed from central to rural locations. Smallholder farmers usually then have to travel a great distance to reach these points of sale and often seed is bought from family members and friends who have made the trip. This complexity makes it difficult to differentiate official, improved varieties from counterfeits and incentivizes recycling local varieties instead of purchasing improved seed.
Constraints to improved seed adoption

Seeds are easily recyclable: Due to the low level of genetic degradation of legumes and their ability to self-pollinate, legumes seeds are easily recyclable. When faced with budget tradeoffs, between improved seed and other agro-inputs or purchases for the household, smallholder farmers often decide against purchasing improved legumes seed, since seeds from the previous harvest are usually readily available. Lack of public distribution mandate: While research institutions have a specific mandate to research and develop improved legumes varieties, in most countries there is little public mandate to distribute seed to smallholder farmers. Research organizations rely on private sector seed companies to multiply the improved varieties they develop and distribute them, however, the lack of economic incentives for private sector firms entails that much research is wasted as improved varieties are developed, but do not reach the farmers growing legumes. Throughout the field research performed in Tanzania, not one agro-dealer was found, which supplied legumes seed to smallholder farmers, yet there is no public distribution method in place either. Too expensive: As with many agricultural inputs, some farmers state high prices as a barrier to improved seed adoption. Prices of improved legume seeds are high both in absolute terms and relative terms. In Ethiopia, haricot bean seeds cost roughly USD 590 per metric ton, while maize seeds cost less than one sixth that of haricot bean seeds at just over USD 90 per metric tonne. This is impacts on legumes SHFs in the following ways:
Low purchasing power: Farmers have low purchasing power; the absolute price of seeds is a barrier to their adoption Subsidies: Government subsidies for other crops, particularly cereals, make legume prices relatively unattractive to farmers. While the majority of agricultural sectors in the focus countries have undergone liberalization in the recent past, seed and other inputs such as fertilizer applicable to staple crops are subsidized with the goal of ensuring food security. 95 The preference for staple crops and priority given to them ignores the importance of a balanced diet, which can only be achieved by a combination of foods High switching costs: Improvements may not be significant enough to justify the switching costs that farmers will incur
Sentimental attachment to traditional varieties: Through interviews conducted across three countries, it is evident that farmers are sentimentally attached to traditional varieties, which are often passed on from generations before them. Inappropriate varieties: As noted in the section above, researchers often breed legume seeds under highinput conditions. When these varieties reach the farmers, who are often producing under low-input conditions, these varieties typically underperform traditional varieties grown in low-input conditions. Preferences not adequately met: In some countries, research institutes have historically tended to breed to meet yield or other requirements, rather than farmer/consumer preferences. Groundnuts in Uganda were bred in this way by many researchers, however, increasingly researchers are collaborating with farmers in order to breed for characteristics which they view to be important. Interviews with breeders in
Ethiopia revealed that farmer preferences were the most important priority in their research. Where specific/important preferences are not met, farmers will not adopt the use of improved seeds. Limited knowledge and unclear benefits: Improved seeds are poorly marketed. In Tanzania, aside from legumes seed posters inside the walls of the research institutions, no advertising of improved varieties was taking place. A Ugandan breeder pointed out that those seed companies which sell legumes seed often package them in volumes too great for smallholder farmer purposes. The lack of marketing on behalf of private sector companies and public institutions entail that there is limited knowledge of the benefits and characteristics of improved seeds in terms of their agronomic traits, yield potential and prices.
Action Agenda: Seed Distribution, Production, and Adoption

Increase multiplication of breeder/foundation/certified seeds: Two measures could significantly improve seed multiplication at the breeder/foundation seed stage and at the certified seed stage. Both would require working country-by-country with local research stations, rather than national or international bodies:
Decentralize and increase multiplication of breeder/foundation seed: Invest to enhance the capacity to multiply breeder/foundation seed in more research stations and increase the volumes of seed multiplied Decentralize and increase multiplication of certified seed: Remove the barriers related to becoming a seed producer and pilot a comprehensive improved seed production system in areas where the bulk of legume production occurs
Identify districts with potential for production and organized farmer group structures as pilot
districts
Supply farmers with improved foundation seed from research institutions on credit, and provide a
guaranteed market and price for multiplied seed
Engage the research stations to train farmers on seed production and processing Ensure that the certified seed production schemes are embedded in the district to promote
sustainability Increase marketing of improved seeds: Expand knowledge around the benefits of improved seed through the following interventions:
Improved variety sample programs: Establish variety sample programs, which would allow farmers to test small quantities of improved varieties, priced at-cost. With each sample pack, also include a farming manual to mitigate concerns around complication of cultivation Provide extension services and create demonstration farms: Three measures can be taken to encourage farmers to adopt the use of improved seeds
Provide extension services, which are focused towards specific objectives. Farmers in regions
that can take advantage of market opportunities should be given training in methods to increase volumes and produce uniform output with characteristics desirable to buyers. In regions, where legumes provide an opportunity to improve nutrition and ensure food security, extension services should be focused on utilizing legumes to maximize yields of both legumes and staple crops with which they are polycropped
Create demonstration farms where farmers can physically see the benefits of improved seeds
and learn best agronomic practices throughout the season
Sensitize farmers to the benefits of improved varieties through farmer education and counseling
Distribution/marketing reassignment: In countries like Burkina Faso and Ethiopia where both marketing and distribution of improved seed are controlled by the government, encourage the creation of an independent organization that is mandated to take responsibility for the marketing/distribution of improved legume seeds. In countries where government efforts to stimulate private sector interest in legume seed distribution, advocate that those governments implement a similar strategy. For legumes that are intercropped, there may be an opportunity to provide seed through the distribution channel of main intercrop seeds such as maize.
7.3.4.
Labor-Saving Technologies
Constraints
In focus countries, farmers primarily use manual labor; labor costs account for the largest share of all costs. The use of equipment to replace/enhance human labor has the potential to drive significant labor savings and increase production/productivity (as well as income and nutrition, by extrapolation). In many of the countries, legume farming is the domain of women, especially in the segments which are primarily xxxii subsistence oriented, or subsistence plus market. The field research suggested that this was true of cowpea in Tanzania, which is viewed as a garden crop and is grown by women on tiny plots in order to eat their leaves as a side vegetable. Legumes have been dubbed a womens crop in the past, but field research indicated that in any case where commercial gains were to be had in producing legumes, men took just as great an interest in legumes as women. Having said this, labor-intensive activities such as seed sowing, weeding, harvesting, cleaning and storage of legumes are largely carried out by women, while men take responsibility for the marketing and selling of legumes, in both the East and West African focus countries. The disconnect between the labor-intensive production and processing activities, carried out primarily by women, and the commercial activities, carried out by men, contributes to the lack of labor-saving technologies produced and adopted in legumes production. Additionally, the effort required in some farming practices leads farmers to adopt quality-reducing and yield-compromising agronomic habits, especially for crops which are not deemed as primary subsistence or income-generating crops. For example:
Broadcasting: Farmers scatter seeds across their fields; they do not comply with agronomic standards on row spacing. This causes weeding and harvesting problems as well as significant seed losses Harvest-trampling: Farmers use animals or vehicles to trample their harvest to shell or husk crops. This is a common post-harvest practice for chickpeas in Ethiopia. This is an unhygienic method, since the animals will often urinate or defecate on the chickpeas. Furthermore it is inefficient and results in significant volume losses as trampling is not selective Incorrect harvesting: Farmers harvest groundnuts incorrectly, for example, and can leave as much as a third of the groundnuts in the ground. This causes and exacerbates aflatoxin contamination
xxxii
The more wives you have, the more land you are able to farm. As an example, a farmer interviewed in Niangoloko village (Burkina Faso) with 30 hectares allotted to groundnuts had 10 wives
Action Agenda: Labor-Saving Technologies

Interventions that improve access to labor-saving technologies, both pre- and post-harvest, would allow farmers to pay more attention to their agronomic practices and ultimately improve the yields and quality of their output. Three interventions are proposed: (i) design new technologies (ii) enhance existing technologies and/or (iii) fund the expansion of existing programs that work toward increasing access to labor-saving technologies. Design new technologies: For example, to ease the effort required at the production stage, there should be a market for a low-cost, easy-to-make plow that can easily be replicated/produced by local blacksmiths, using locally-available inputs. Although this implement would be low-cost, for extremely resource-poor farmers, agrodealers could offer them on equipment rental programs. The development of small, low-cost technologies is not only limited to production. Such technologies would have an impact on harvesting and processing also (e.g., threshers, shellers, or hand-operated legume processors for women). Annex E highlights three labor-saving technologies used in other developing countries which are applicable to legumes. Enhance existing technologies: For example, field workers in several countries suggested the possibility to adapt ox-plows for planting by adding a small box that drops seeds into the ground as plowing occurs. Potentially combine this with a small box that drops fertilizer concurrently, allowing the germinating seed to have adequate nutrients. Support existing programs: For example, donors should consider investing to (i) scale up the World Food Programmes current attempts to provide cooperative unions with shellers, cleaners and fumigation sheets, where applicable. Programs aimed at increasing access to agricultural equipment have been so effective in Brazil, that they have not only created a competitive agricultural sector, but have also allowed an agricultural machinery industry to develop.96 Agricultural equipment production volumes are so high that Brazil is now a major exporter of labor-saving equipment and views Africa as a high potential destination for their products. (ii) encourage local production of these small machines to boost local industry (e.g., small hand-held threshers). In on-farm ground nut processing, for instance, this can allow small producers to add significant value in the process, and avoid expensive and time consuming hand shelling that serves currently as a disincentive to add value before the groundnuts leave the farm gate.
7.3.5.
On-Field Pests
Constraints
On-field pests are at present a real constraint for legume farmers. Cowpeas West Africa: Cowpea production is highly susceptible to pest damage both on- and off-field. Although several interventions related to the cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) have targeted off-field losses to pest damage, on-field pest damage remains a challenge. Where farmers have purchased and adopted the innovative PICs storage bags, which limit off-field pest damage, those surveyed now state that on-field pests are the largest constraint to their production. On-field pests can result in a farmer experiencing as much as a 100% loss of cowpea produce and this is exacerbated by limited/no pest-resistant varieties as well as poor production, distribution and adoption of pest-resistant varieties. Improved varieties have yet to be developed that are resistant to key cowpea pests such as flower thrips and pod bugs.
Common Beans Tanzania: In Tanzania, climate change is having a number of adverse effects on common beans. Not only is the increased incidence of drought affecting yields, but it is causing pests that were formerly minor such as bean flies, flower thrips and spider mice to become a major problem for common bean farmers.
Action Agenda: On-Field Pests

Fund breeding for resistance to major on-field pests: In West Africa, fund breeding for resistance to podsucking bugs, aphids, blister beetles and pod borers. In East Africa, fund breeding for resistance to bean flies and spider mice. Educate villages on Integrated Pest Management (IPM): Core aspects/modules of training would include:

Monitor and manage pests: Regular field inspection and ability to identity major pests Control pests: Understanding what acceptable levels of pest attack are Mechanical controls: For pest attacks surpassing the acceptable levels, application of mechanical control methods, such as simple hand-picking, insect barriers, traps which attract insects away from the fields, vacuuming, tillage and shaking plants to disrupt breeding and dislodge pests Biological controls: Introduction of predator pests and microorganisms that eat target pests Promote naturally occurring pesticides Promotion of polyculture: Polyculture (e.g., crop rotation, multi-cropping, intercropping, companion cropping, companion planting, beneficial weeds, alley cropping, etc.) is an effective method of fighting on-field pests and disease
High levels of farmer education are required for this set of activities to succeed with the most significant investment to this end involving the provision of extension agents.
7.3.6.
Aflatoxin
Constraints
Although groundnuts are the single largest volume crop examined in the research and there are substantial domestic and export markets for the output, inadequate aflatoxin testing and control is a major constraint. Aflatoxin contamination is the single largest impediment to groundnut trade between African countries and potential partners in the European Union (EU) and the United States (U.S.). Groundnuts xxxiii imported into the EU cannot have aflatoxin levels above 4ppb , while those imported into the U.S. cannot have aflatoxin levels exceeding 20ppb 97 . Aflatoxin levels in groundnuts in focus countries far exceed both EU and U.S. standards. For example:
Ghana98: A nationwide survey carried out in the late 1990s across 22 different markets found aflatoxin levels between 6ppb and up to the thousands Ethiopia 99: A study performed by Addis Ababa University in the Harar area (East Ethiopia) found aflatoxin contamination in ~65% of the samples, with aflatoxin levels as high as 447ppb in some samples Uganda100: According to a report published by the Department of Food Science and Technology at Ugandas largest university (Makerere), aflatoxin levels in groundnuts range between 0120ppb. Contamination was found to increase significantly as groundnuts move along the value chain
ppb parts per billion
xxxiii
At the farm level (storage in shells): 015ppb At the market level: >20ppb Processed (unroasted): >30ppb
Mali101: In 2009/2010, ICRISAT collected 4,923 groundnut samples from farmers, traders, wholesales, processors and markets in four regions: Kolokani, Kita, Kayes, Bamako
Farmers aflatoxin levels: At harvest (35172ppb); after about 5 months in storage (176
450ppb)
Farmers aflatoxin contamination: At harvest (35%61%); after about 5 months in storage

(39%96%) (~280ppb)
Traders aflatoxin levels: At initial purchase (68130ppb); after about 5 months in storage Wholesalers aflatoxin levels: Up to 1,492ppb Processors aflatoxin levels: ~309ppb in groundnut paste Markets aflatoxin levels: ~601ppb in groundnut paste
Besides its impact on trade and economic losses, high consumption of aflatoxin is also hazardous to local populations from a food safety and public health perspective. Specifically, aflatoxin negates positive nutritional impact of other foods, exacerbates malnutrition and is increases the risk of cancer. Aflatoxin is also immunogenic, teratogenic, and retards growth among children. Given all of the public health concerns outlined above, groundnuts potential as an anchor crop for structured demand programs (school feeding, food security, etc.) is also constrained; donor-funded food security and school feeding programs are unable to procure groundnuts due to the public health risks and mismatch with sociallyconscious objectives. Smallholder farmers are not adequately equipped to tackle the aflatoxin issue without substantial support from outside parties. First, farmers have limited knowledge of market standards in terms of aflatoxin levels. Second, farmers do not have access to extension services in order to gain understanding of aflatoxin-preventing agronomic practices. The issue of poor agronomic practices is exacerbated further in some countries. In Mali, for example, groundnuts are primarily produced as a secondary crop by women, on small parcels of marginal land, and are de-prioritized by the head of the household. This cultural pattern of cultivation leads to poor access to improved seed; late soil preparation, planting and harvesting, as equipment is first used to harvest crops prioritized by the head of the household; and no access to proper storage facilities. All of which increase the risk of aflatoxin infection.
Action Agenda: Aflatoxin

Any intervention that seeks to curb aflatoxin must be comprehensive, since contamination occurs both pre- and post-harvest. There is no quick-fix that can be applied to a discrete segment of the groundnut value chain. Key components of a holistic intervention include farmer awareness building, aflatoxin control through good agronomic practices, better storage, and aflatoxin testing. Build farmer awareness: Farmers need to be sensitized to the aflatoxin issue; there is very limited awareness of the magnitude of this problem and the limit it poses to market access. Provide extension services/farmer education: Establish programs to provide extension services and educate groundnut farmers on improved, aflatoxin-limiting, agronomic practices. At a minimum, such an extension program must teach farmers proper harvesting, drying and storage techniques as well as optimal methods for applying lime and organic manure. Two recent ICRISAT studies conducted in Mali
showed that improved harvesting and drying techniques can reduce aflatoxin contamination by ~65% and lime application can reduce aflatoxin contamination by ~84% 102. In addition to being educated on good agronomic practices, farmers must be educated on the commercial potential and marketability of aflatoxin-free groundnuts. Specifically, farmers must be educated on the premium that buyers both locally (food security and school feeding programs) and abroad would pay for aflatoxin-free groundnuts. When farmers realize the commercial potential of groundnuts, groundnuts will be prioritized and production will be moved to fields where soil quality is better. Market existing varieties and technologies: In countries where aflatoxin-resistant varieties or low-cost testing technologies are available, increase awareness around the existence of these testing methodologies and their value proposition; promote and market technologies to traders and smallholder farmers. Develop and/or transfer aflatoxin-resistant varieties: In countries where no aflatoxin-resistant varieties exist, research and develop aflatoxin-resistant varieties that maintain suitability in terms of agronomics, farmer/consumer preferences and agro-ecological fit. In addition to dedicated seed research and development, test the adaptability of aflatoxin-resistant varieties already released in other countries. As suitable varieties are released, build awareness around their existence. Develop and/or transfer cost-effective testing technologies: In countries where no cost-effective testing technologies have already been developed, develop and/or transfer cost-effective technologies.
Any technology transfer must be accompanied by awareness building around the existence of these testing methodologies and their value proposition, and must target both small local traders and smallholder farmers In the case of developing new technologies, leverage results from the BMGF-funded International Food Policy Research Institutes 2011 study to promote and implement the most cost -effective approaches to reducing aflatoxin infection
Establish aflatoxin testing: In countries where there is no large-scale aflatoxin testing, provide funding to improve or establish internationally-accredited in-country aflatoxin-testing available to NGOs, large private buyers, processors and customs.
7.3.7.
Private Sector, Legume Markets and Trade
Currently, legume value chains are relatively undeveloped, and, apart from soybeans in West Africa, large-scale processing of legumes is very limited in focus countries. Driving pull-through demand from major patient and private buyers will help upgrade the entire legume value chain, even the subsistence segment.
Constraints Constraints to legume processing

Despite substantial growth in both production and consumption over time, limited private sector, market and trade linkages are a recurring constraint. There is a lack of sophisticated buyers/consumers in most focus countries, limiting the potential of the processing industry. There is very little large-scale formalized processing of legumes in focus countries; processing is mostly basic, occurring at a small-scale at the farm level.
In aggregate, medium-/high-level processing accounts for a low share of the demand structure of legumes, but is the fastest-growing of all uses103. Rapid urbanization (increase in both populations and incomes) will further drive increased consumption in the processed form as meat-based diets become more prevalent and processed foods become more popular. This presents a significant opportunity for those companies that can process legumes, especially soybeans, into animal feed and processed foods. As a result of limited processing capacity/capability, it is often the case that a country may be a net exporter of a legume in its raw form, but a net importer of the same legume in its processed form. Within the focus countries, net exports of raw soybeans and groundnuts totaled 36 387 metric tonnes in 2010, while net exports of groundnuts and soybeans processed into oil and cake in 2010 was -17,913 metric tonnes. An opportunity exists not only to substitute imports, but also to sell into markets abroad. Processing must be supported on two fronts for staples and export crops. Leguminous staple processing must be encouraged for domestic consumption purposes, for example, in the case of groundnuts in Ghana and cowpeas in Nigeria. Likewise, processing of the significant export legumes must also be encouraged to boost exports further, for example, in the case of pigeon peas in Tanzania. Large-scale processing requires heavy investments, high risk-taking, and significant capital spending. Private companies have underinvested in large-scale legume processing operations as a result of two sets of factors:
xxxiv
Typical factors that discourage agricultural investment overall, for instance, risk aversion, lack of access to (affordable) capital, relatively low returns, typical business registration obstacles, and other frequently chronicled obstacles. Processors also cite the difficulty in generating consistent, low-cost, high quality supply from fragmented and small farmers. This is a particular constraint for soybean and groundnut processors in Ghana, as well as soybean processors in Nigeria. Legume processors, like other processors, also noted that efforts to establish contract farming schemes were hampered by typical issues with contract fulfillment and enforcement Legume-specific factors: processors reported that one of the main hurdles is that consumer preferences are unknown, especially around end consumer preferences for processed goods. A telling example is in soybeans in Burkina Faso, where processors have tried to produce both soymilk and fortified soy flour but these products have been unsuccessful
Another issue specific to legumes relates to legumes role as a buffer crop that is often not the primary commodity grown by smallholder farmers in a polyculture environment. Because legumes are a secondorder crop grown by many smallholder farmers, processors are often unable to source the required volumes locally. Moreover, aggregation of these farmers tends to be weak. Strong farmer groups and/or marketing companies are not the norm; processors are often forced to source very low volumes at a time. Some processors have unsuccessfully attempted to implement outgrower schemes with smallholder farmers in order to meet their demand. A leading soybean processor in Ghana attempted to stimulate local supply by providing seed and harvesting equipment to smallholder farmers, but abandoned the program in favor of importing soybeans. In Burkina Faso, there is a lack of understanding of consumer preferences with respect to processed soy products, and there have been failed attempts at meeting consumer needs:

Soymilk processing was attempted and failed; the milk had a nutty taste that consumers did not like Soy-fortified bread was also attempted, but likely failed. Farmers interviewed in Garanga stated that buyers/processors that had purchased soybeans for this purpose in 2010 never came back in 2011 after the test-phase of their product. Similar to the case of soymilk above, the product likely failed
xxxiv
This refers to processing that is not conducted at a very small-scale on-farm
Finally there is the related factor of low, inconsistent yields. As a result of the lack of a guaranteed market for legumes, farmers are reluctant to make the investments necessary to improve the quality and consistency of their produce, and will at times only grow enough for consumption on farm. This can compound the difficulty for large scale processors to source the necessary volumes. Where processors exist, they often operate below capacity and supplement local volumes with volumes from abroad. This is because legumes in focus countries, sourced from fragmented smallholders, are sometimes more expensive than legumes from other regions.
Constraints related to patient buyer linkages

As a result of poor commercialization networks and poor knowledge of market access options, farmers are sometimes unable to sell their excess production because they are unaware of the (major) sources of demand. These sources of long-term, stable demand include programs like the World Food Programmes P4P, school feeding programs, and others that require local agricultural commodities. However, there is also a lack of emphasis placed on the superior nutritional value of legumes by patient buyers. Organizations such as the WFP could be procuring far more legumes than they currently are. Volumes procured are low, less than 2% of production in a given country in the majority of cases. For example, in 2010 in Burkina Faso 5,716MT of cowpeas were procured by the WFP in comparison to 432,400MT produced, representing 1.3% of total production104. Furthermore, volumes both procured and consumed locally are even lower. Besides the potential to increase volumes, other aspects of existing school-feeding programs present an opportunity. For example, as of 2009 in Mali, some school-feeding programs were importing oil and legumes and the food basket in WFP-supported school feeding programs only provided 15% of the daily protein requirement per child per ration (15g of legumes).
Constraints to private buyer linkages

There is a lack of awareness of the commercial potential of legumes and major sources of private demand among farmers, except in situations where farmers are managing to sell their produce to large exporters, as is the case with pigeon pea in Tanzania. Other than the WFP and in-country food security agencies that source some produce directly from farmers and farmer groups, there is limited direct purchasing of agricultural produce from smallholder farmers. Large legumes buyers cite several challenges that inhibit their linkage to farmers, many of which are quite similar to problems they have in other value chains. The most significant obstacle they cite is the uncertainty/erratic nature of supply. Large buyers also express concern about high prices, insufficient volumes and the risk of farmers reneging on contracts.
Action Agenda
To mitigate constraints on legume processing and improve market linkages to private buyers and processors, two primary actions are required, similar to other markets. First, increased local processing of legumes is a priority, to pull through demand from smallholders. Second, marketing intermediaries must be created to bridge and aggregate the smallholders to serve the processors efficiently. With guaranteed demand from processors and marketing intermediaries, farmers will be incentivized to improve their yields and quality in order to meet the demands and quality standards of processors. Improved market linkages would also ensure that large buyers receive adequate supply of raw materials to keep their businesses running and also allow farmers to garner better prices. Establish local processing of legumes and create marketing intermediaries:
Market analysis: Assist relevant ministries to perform a market analysis to identify potential target markets and major sources of demand for processed legumes, both at a local and a regional level Government engagement and promotion to attract private investment in legumes: Governments will need to support and promote both local processing enterprises as well as foreign multinationals that process legumes. They will need to be able to provide incentives, one-stop shop services and investor after-care through existing processes established in countries to promote private sector agriculture. Examples include the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT), or the new Ghana Commercial Agricultural Promotion (GCAP) Provide financial incentives: Provide financial incentives to processors and marketing intermediaries interested in engaging in the legume value chain to minimize the financial burden faced by such companies and reduce some of the financial risk. Such incentives include, but are not limited to catalytic funds to offer support for required local infrastructure (e.g., irrigation, feeder roads), support for farmer training, research support (see Government Policy section above) and potentially loan guarantees Establish, invest in, and support the formation and growth of Smallholder Farmer Aggregators which will trade in legumes and sell to larger processors, and in the process create stable private demand. Examples include Savanna Farmers Marketing Company in Ghana, Kilimo Markets in Tanzania and Afro-Kai in Uganda. These firms work as intermediate entities to assemble produce from large numbers of smallholder farmers and create an assured supply of legumes to large processors. These groups take on the task of organizing and aggregating farmers, training them, and sometimes providing needed inputs and credit. These aggregators sign long term supply contracts with larger buyers to assure the demand they need to make it worth their while to engage large numbers of small farmers Seed research and development: Support breeding for market preferences in legumes so that buyer grade and quality requirements are met
Expand local/regional processing of legumes
Strengthen small-scale processing that benefits women: For cowpeas specifically, evaluate options to strengthen the small-scale/home processing industry to be nefit women. For example, cheap and portable hand-processing machinery could be provided to women. The Universal Nut Sheller, developed by the founder of a NGO on the request of a womens coop in Mali provides a cost effective and easy way to shell groundnuts on the farm. The materials required to assemble a Universal Nut Sheller are accessible and in total it would cost only USD 50 to produce Build the pull-through demand by improving and investing in local processors serving primarily local markets. Legume value chains can be stimulated by creating demand for raw legumes through increasing processing capacity. This can involve private investment into processors to expand, and allow them to diversify their existing legume processing operations where a strong processing sector already exists for one or more legumes in a country (e.g., soybeans and groundnuts processed into oils). In addition, by establishing aggregators (see above) or fa rmer marketing intermediaries, farmers can get the training and inputs they need to improve productivity and reduce their costs, to become more competitive with imports (especially in soy). This, in turn, can address issues of processors underutilized capacity. Finally, technical assistance, of the kind provided by General Mills Partners in Food Solutions, can assist smaller local processors with their operations so they can expand and increase demand for farmers legume output and find markets for legume-based products
Link farmers to patient buyers
Link farmers to patient buyers: Link legume farmers with patient buyers who place a premium on nutritional value including hospitals, school feeding programs, food aid NGOs, and others
Create buyer/processor associations: Facilitate the creation of country-level and regional associations of large legume buyers; primary membership would be processors and patient buyers, with representation from across the value chain. The purpose of these associations would be to increase firms bargaining power in order to advocate for policy, favorable to the legumes sector, and to facilitate collaborative private sector interventions, which individual firms can not achieve on their own
Support processors and exporters with market knowledge and preference information: there is an opportunity to assist smaller scale processors and other parties in the value chain with needed market preference information to inform the products they produce and the varieties they source. Specific markets to cover include:
Chickpeas: Domestic markets, South Asia, Middle East, Common Beans: East and Southern Africa regions to leverage significant unofficial trade that already occurs Cowpeas: West Africa region to leverage significant unofficial trade that already occurs Groundnuts: West Africa region, European Union (and major potential buyers like Export Trading Group, Intersnack, etc.) to cater to unmet demand Soybeans: Domestic and regional markets to leverage positive trends in the animal feed and processing industries
Annex F profiles emerging buyers, major buyers and a marketing intermediary
A list of private and patient buyers, trading companies, and intermediaries identified in the research is provided below:
Figure 7.2: Major Patient and Private Legume Buyers

Buyer Burkina Faso Ethiopia Ghana WFP Mali Tanzania Uganda SONAGESS Agro-Burkina ACOS Ethiopia Soreti International Trading Ethiopia Ethiopian Grain Trade Enterprise Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Legume Cowpeas Haricot Beans Cowpeas Cowpeas Common Beans Common Beans Corn-Soya Blend Cowpeas Groundnuts Chickpeas Haricot Beans Common Beans Chickpeas Chickpeas Common Beans Soybeans Amal Trading Company Export Trading Group Olam International Intersnack Bunge Tanzania N/A N/A N/A Chickpeas Haricot Beans Groundnuts Pigeon Peas Groundnuts Common Beans Groundnuts Soybeans 6,000MT 2,000MT 80,000MT 0MT 0MT 0MT Exports to Europe for haricot beans and Asia for chickpeas Groundnuts: Exports Global agricultural commodity trader Confectionary products for European consumers Sells soybean oil globally, and is the worlds largest supplier of vegetable oil Annual Local Purchase Quantity 5,761MT 24,406MT 687MT 129MT 5,468MT Common Beans: 9,401MT Corn-Soya Blend: 8,181MT 9,000MT 100MT Haricot Beans: 145,000MT 10,700MT primarily Haricot Beans 4,200MT primarily Haricot Beans Supplies to school feeding programs Exports shelled groundnuts to Europe Exports to Europe Export Distributes food and agricultural produce globally in order to alleviate hunger End-User/Customer
Export
A list of processors identified in the research is provided below, to give a snapshot of the capacity and utilization issues in the sector:
Figure 7.3: Legume Processors

Processor Legume Annual Processing Capacity Annual Capacity Utilization End-Use/ Customer Medium-sized processor processing groundnuts and soybeans into fortified porridge and soy drink Exports groundnut oil to Europe; sells groundnut cake to local animal feed industry Exports oil to Europe, UK, India and Japan Ghana Nuts Ghana 3 A&K Industries Golden Web Limited Grand Cereals and Oil Mills Nigeria Fortune Oil Mills Nigeria Soybeans Soybeans Groundnuts Soybeans Groundnuts Soybeans 16,000MT 13,200MT 100,000MT each Groundnut: Unknown Soybean: 100,000MT 2,000MT 1,000MT Groundnut: 36,000MT Soybean: 100,000MT Groundnut: 18, 000MT Soybean: 30,00090,000MT Soybeans 70,000MT 7,500MT Sells cake to animal feed industry Sells oil to West African consumers Unknown Sells cake to poultry feed manufacturers Sells oil exclusively within Nigeria Sells oil exclusively within Nigeria
Afri-Youth Pride
Tanzania
Groundnuts
Unknown
Unknown
Agrifaso
Burkina Faso
Groundnuts
400MT
200MT
7.4.
Targeting the Action Agenda
As outlined in section 5.3, above, smallholder farmers can be segmented into subsistence-only, subsistence/market, market mainly and soil health benefit farmers. In general, most of the interventions described above to support the growth of the legumes sector will be more feasible when targeted at Subsistence/Market and Market-Mainly farmers than when targeted at Subsistence-Only farmers. This is primarily driven by the fact that S ubsistence-Only farmers are a smaller, more difficult to reach segment. Interventions targeted toward Subsistence-Only farmers must aim to increase nutrition, while those targeted at Market-Mainly farmers must aim to increase incomes. Interventions ta rgeted toward Subsistence/Market farmers must aim to increase both their incomes and nutrition, and recognize the unique characteristics of this segment namely that legumes are a swing crop for these farmers, grown for nutrition and occasionally surplus, but as a second priority to a primary staple crop.
Government policy
Outside of the realm of seeds, most government policies will be more applicable to the latter stages of the legume value chain such as industrial processing and the sale of legumes. These two issues are not relevant for Subsistence-Only and Soil Health Benefit farmers and, as a result, interventions which seek to alter, impact upon or inspire legume-promoting government policies will primarily affect MarketMainly and Subsistence/Market farmers who are more responsive to economic incentives and directly linked to markets. An improved policy and regulatory environment, which emphasizes the importance of legumes and increases the ease of doing business for legumes farmers and value chain participants, will have a large impact on smallholder farmers who sell some proportion of their produce.
Seed research and development

Interventions which aim to improve seed research and development are relevant for all farmer segments, albeit for different reasons. As an example, for Subsistence-Only farmers, research interventions need to look to improve taste and nutritional characteristics, whereas for Market -Mainly farmers, interventions need to look to improve the yield, grain size and storability of legumes. For Subsistence/Market farmers, a delicate balance must be struck between the nutritional value of the legumes and the economic potential in the form of yields. Success in this realm will be reliant upon research institutes, most of which are relatively well-functioning but require additional funding and modern equipment to undertake research activities. Seed research and development can have a major impact on all farmer segments as it will solve for the major characteristics that are required by each segment and thus improve livelihoods and incomes, appropriately.
Seed production, distribution and adoption

Adoption of improved seed varieties is a particular challenge in the legumes sector, since seed can easily be recycled. This ability to recycle on the one hand makes legumes potentially attractive to smallholder farmers, as costs are lower, but conversely makes the market unattractive to major seed producers, as they cannot recoup a return on their research investments. Thus interventions which seek to increase the adoption of improved legumes seed through increasing seed production capacity and distribution networks will need to address this market failure, Any initiative in this area can have a major impact on all farmer segments and should be targeted at all smallholder legumes farmers. The Market-Mainly segment may be affected less than other segments ,
since these farmers are most likely to already be making use of improved seed. The lower the level of commercial legumes activity, the lower the chance that farmers are adopting improved varieties and hence the greater impact seed production and distribution interventions will have. Conversely, the feasibility of such interventions is higher amongst farmers who grow legumes for commercial purposes and lower for those who dont , since farmers who already interact with buyers are already part of some sort of logistical network, which can be leveraged in order to improve seed distribution. Having said this, research performed in Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania found that even smallholder farmers who are not heavily involved in commercial activities are eager to purchase improved seed varieties if they are marketed appropriately. Importantly, seed had to be sold in small packages and the benefits of the specific variety detailed on the package.105 Feasibility of seed distribution initiatives targeted at the Soil Health Benefit farmer segment will be largely dependent on the level of commercial activity in which these farmers are already involved in with their primary crops. If they sell most of their primary crops and utilize improved cereal seeds, then most likely those logistical networks can be leveraged to achieve improved legumes seed adoption.
Labor-saving technologies
Initiatives related to labor-saving technologies are primarily relevant to and targeted toward Subsistence/Market and Market-Mainly farmers who have marketable surplus. The more marketable surplus a farmer has, the more relevant labor-saving technologies are to them. Access to labor saving technologies will have a high impact, if issues around affordability, distribution, and adoption can be addressed. Labor-saving technologies may have the additional benefit of lifting those farmers in the Subsistence Only segment out of it through enabling them to produce surplus legumes, which could be used for commercial benefit.
On-field pests
On-field pests have a negative impact on many legumes and can cause a farmer to lose her entire crop. The purpose for growing legumes is largely irrelevant to the impact of pests, since all categories of farmers are forced to face crop loss challenges. Thus interventions which seek to reduce on-field pests are applicable to all legumes farmer segments. Interventions around on-field pests will have a particularly major impact on Subsistence-Only and Soil Health Benefit farmers. On-field pests affect the latter group since pests migrate from legumes to the primary crop, which farmers are trying to support with legumes. For Subsistence/Market and Market-Mainly farmers, on-field pests are harmful in that they reduce the volumes which are edible and marketable. Interventions related to on-field pests will have a moderate impact on farmers who are involved in commercial transactions with their legume produce since these farmers are more likely to already be taking steps to reduce on-field pests. Smallholder farmers deriving an income from legumes are better able and have a stronger incentive to take steps to reduce the spread of on-field pests.
Aflatoxin
Aflatoxin-reduction interventions should also be targeted towards all farmer segments. Aflatoxin contamination limits groundnut exports to the European Union and the United States and thus has a greater impact on smallholder farmers who have, or could have, marketable surplus. Farmers in the Market-Mainly segment are the most likely of all segments to be involv ed with export of groundnut and thus aflatoxin-reducing interventions will have a major impact on these farmers. Soil Health Benefit farmers who intercrop maize with groundnut run the risk of aflatoxin spreading from the groundnuts to the primary crop and thus interventions in this sector will have a moderate impact. Farmers with the greatest
incentives to reduce aflatoxin are those who have the most opportunities for export and thus it is these farmers who will be the most receptive to external assistance.
Private sector, legume markets and trade

Initiatives related to market access are primarily relevant to and targeted toward Subsistence/Market and Market-Mainly farmers who have marketable surplus. Market access is the greatest challenge for Subsistence/Market farmers, who often do not produce adequate volumes for aggregation or to participate regularly in commercial supply chains. As a result, interventions which aim to improve the linkages between farmers in this segment and buyers will have a s ignificant impact. Market-Mainly farmers typically have better access to markets, have adequate volumes for aggregation and are more willing to make investments to improve the quality of their produce. As a result, interventions which aim to improve the linkages between farmers in this segment and buyers will only have a moderate impact.
8. Conclusion
The prioritization of cereal crops and cash crops and the neglect of legumes by focus country governments, private sector and international donor organizations have resulted in a missed opportunity. Legumes have the power to improve smallholder farmer livelihoods along numerous dimensions and contribute to poverty alleviation and food security efforts in Africa. Few other crops provide incomegenerating possibilities, contribute so strikingly to macro- and micro-nutrient intake and improve soil health and eco-system resilience. The challenges faced by smallholder legumes farmers are varied and severe; however, the growth in both local and global demand is incentivizing farmers, buyers, governments and donors alike to work together to overcome the obstacles which are impeding progress. Poor connections between buyers and SHFs entail that farmers do not realize the commercial opportunities which legumes hold and at the same time, buyers are unwilling to make substantial investments in legumes due to the difficulty of aggregating large volumes from SHFs in Africa. Furthermore, the biological characteristics of legumes disincentivize private sector seed companies from investing in legumes seed production and distribution and, as such, SHFs lack access to the most important of agro-inputs, improved seed varieties. The ability to overcome these two major obstacles will determine whether or not the benefits of legumes can be taken advantage of by SHFs to improve their livelihoods.
Afterword
This report was commissioned by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to fill the gap in information available on legumes in Africa. By providing data on production, consumption and opportunities for market development, and by providing insights into how the growth of the legumes market can contribute to improving farmer incomes, food security, nutrition, and soil health, the report makes the case for a concerted effort among public sector, private sector, donors and NGO stakeholders to invest in the development of legume value chains in Africa. In this endeavor, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation hope that this report will provide a platform for discussion with a view to designing and implementing a multi-stakeholder plan of action to unlock the legumes value proposition.
9. Annexes
Annex A: About the Report
This report was prepared by Monitor Group with the support of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and reflects findings from desk research and field visits. The report involved both desk and field research conducted over a period of four months. Individual country-level reports were developed for each of the seven focus countries through a process of review of existing materials, surveys, reports and other analysis, supplemented by in-person and telephone interviews. Two-three week long field visits were made to Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Tanzania for validation of desk research findings. Countries were selected to provide representative views across different legume crops, different usage patterns, and different regions of Africa. Another field visit in Ghana focused only on the soybean value chain and market there to ensure some primary coverage of soybeans. During field visits, the team interviewed more than 150 stakeholders across the value chain and visited several facilities, including:
Agriculture expert interviews:
13 agronomy/legume program coordinators (NGOs and program officers) 24 seed experts (breeders & researchers) 7 Ministries
Farmers:
52 smallholder farmers, representing 11 farmers organizations and 6 villages
Private sector participants:
52 private sector players (food manufacturers, commodity exporters, agro-dealers, seed

producers, traders)
Facilities visited:
6 informal markets 4 local supermarkets 4 storage facilities 4 processing plants

See Figure 9.1 for a detailed list of some of the main contacts made during the project. In addition to the country level reports, a higher level macro analysis was performed across the focus countries. Finally, African Legume Market Dynamics was compiled using the granular knowledge gained during the preparation of the country-level reports, as well as taking a critical view of the role which legumes currently play within focus countries, the potential that they have to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and the constraints these farmers face.
Figure 9.1 Contacts Made During the Project

Country Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Name of Organization AGRA Purdue University Purdue University FNGN (Fdration Nationale des Groupements Naam : peasants organization) President farmer group of Pobe Mengao FENOP (National Federation of Peasant Organizations) CPF (Confdration Paysanne du Faso : Faso's peasants confederation) General Manager BOUTAPA Sarl (Boutique de lagro pastoral) Zoundi & Freres KING AGRO JICA National Laboratory of Public Health Ministry of Agriculture (DGPV) Ministry of Agriculture (Direction des Filieres) FAO West African Economic and Monetary Union SONAGESS WFP West Africa Seed Alliance FASOPLAST Agro Burkina Olam International Export Trading Group Type of Organization Academic institution Academic institution Farmer organization Farmer organization Farmer organization Farmer organization Input supplier Input supplier Input supplier Japanese cooperation agency Laboratory Ministry Ministry Multilateral Agency Multilateral agency National Food Security Company NGO NGO Plastic wrapping company Private buyer Private buyer Private buyer Contact Name Mr Traore Boubakar Mr Abdou M. Konlambigue Mr Jess Lowenberg-DeBoer Mr Bokar Moussa Mr Hamidou Ganame Mr Amadoum Cisse Mr Issouf Sanou Mr Ousmane Ouedraogo Mr Ablasse Ilboudo Mr Harouna Zoundi Mr Joanny Konditamde Mr Yoshifumi Tsukii Dr Karim Koudougou Mr Kabore Mr Robert Ouadraogo Mr. Franois Rasolo Mr Moussa Kabore Mr Abdoulaye Sawadogo Mr Batamaka Mr Adama Neya Mr Andre Pare Mr Samuel Doamba Mr Pathak Dharmendra Mr Shibu Abraham
Country Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia
Name of Organization Agro-Production FAGRI (Faso Agriculture) NAFASO (Neema Agricole du Faso) Agrifaso INERA INERA IITA INERA INERA INERA INERA National Union of Seed Producers of Burkina (UNPSB) Societe des Produits du Cru du Burkina World Food Program (WFP) Omega Farms Agricultural Growth Project (AGP) Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA) Ethiopian Commodities Exchange (ECX) Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Centre Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Centre Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Centre EIAR-Melkassa WFP/P4P Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI) Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI) Arba & Tryaki Grain and Pulse
Type of Organization Private seed supplier Private seed supplier Private seed supplier Processor Research institute Research institute Research institute Research institute Research institute Research institute Research institute Seed producer Seed producer Trader Food Aid NGO Commercial chickpea farming Government Initiative Government agency Commodity Exchange Research Centre under the EIAR Research Centre under the EIAR Research Centre under the EIAR Research Centre under the EIAR Government Research Institute Government Research Institute
Contact Name Mr Jonas Yogo Mr Issaka Kolga Mr Abdoulaye Sawadogo Mr Hermann Schopferer Dr Amos Minoungou Dr Zagre Bertin Mr Haruki Ishikawa Dr Issa Drabo Mr Ilboudou Mr Adama Bonkoungou Dr Jean-Baptiste Tinegre Mrs Assita Priscille Ouedraogo Mr Mesmin Millogo Boukary Ouedraogo Ambachew Tesfaye Daniel Gad Gelila Woodeneh Khalid Bomba Bemnet Aschenaki Dr. Mekasha Chichyibelu Dr. Asnatha Dr. Asnake Fikre Mr. Kidane Tumsa Melanie Jacq Dr. Fentahun Mengistu Dr. Yigzaw Dessalegn Abdullah
Country
Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ghana Ghana Ghana Ghana Ghana Ghana Ghana Ghana Mali Mali Mali Mali
Name of Organization Industry Ethiopian Grain Trade Enterprise (EGTE) Agricultural Commodity Supplies (ACOS) Ethiopia Gozamen CU Damot CU Merkeb CU Ethiopian Seed Enterprise FAO Amal Trading YARA East Africa Tiger Brands Ghana Nuts Limited 3A&K Industries Golden Web Limited Vester Oil Mills Savanna Farmers Marketing Company ACDI/VOCA Venture Capital Trust Fund N2Africa FAO ICRISAT ICRISAT ICRISAT
Type of Organization
Contact Name Mr Kelem
Legume processor Cooperative Union Cooperative Union Cooperative Union Public Seed Producer and Supplier Research Organisation Exporter of oilseeds and pulses Fertilizer Company Food processor Food Processor Food Processor Food Processor Food Processor Farming Intermediary NGO Investment Fund NGO Research Organization Research Organization Research Organization Research Organization Private Buyer and Exporter Large Processor Government Research Institute Private Seed Company Private Seed Company Government Research Institute Government Research Institute Market Traders Association Government Research Institute Government Research Institute
Mr. Kassahun Alemu Chane Dires Alazar Migibaru Wubie Dr Tafese Gebru Bateno Kabeto (Ph.D) Mohammed Bahajri James Craske Greg Bates Prince Asante Obeng Yaw Adu Poku Emelia Afrakomu Kwasi Nyamekye Agartha Ayirewogye Catherine Phiri Hamadiya Ismaila Joseph Rusike Maguette Ndiaye Dr Bonny Ntare Dr Norbert G. Maroya Dr. Eva Weltzien-Rattunde
Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria
Export Trading Group Grand Cereals Limited National Cereals Research Institute (NCRI) Maslaha Seeds Limited Alheri Seeds Limited Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR) IAR Dawanau Market Association Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI)
Jim Craven Sanjeev Jain Dr Adagba Mfaiga Akwaya Mr Ibrahim Abdullahi Mr Steven Atar Prof Candidus Echekwu Mohammad F Ishayaku Ahmed Imam
Tanzania Tanzania
Frank Mmbando Theresia Gregory
Country Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Uganda Uganda
Name of Organization Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) BACAS (University of Soikone) Agricultural Seed Agency Export Trading Group Uyole Agricultural Research Institute Afri-Youth Pride (Halisi Products) SATEC - Suba Agro Trading and Engineering Co. Ltd. Meru Agro-Tours & Consultants Co. LTD YARA Tanzania Limited (Mishili's contact) Kilimo Markets Kilimo Markets Ministry of Agriculture Tanzania Official Seed Multiplication Institute (TOSCI) Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture Agricultural Seed Agency Tanzania Seed Traders Association (TASTA) Tanzania Horticultural Association (TAHA) Uyole Agricultural Research Institute Uyole Agricultural Research Institute Uyole Agricultural Research Institute Uyole Agricultural Research Institute Ngaramtoni Traders Ngaramtoni Traders National Crops Reseach Institute National Semi-Arid Resources
Type of Organization Government Research Institute Government Research Institute Government Research Institute Government Research Institute Government Research Institute Research Centre Foundation seed producer (parastatal) Importer and exporter Government Research Institute Food processor (started by NPO) Agro-inputs Local seed producer and distributor Input supply - fertilizer Private Sector Develepment Company Private Sector Develepment Company Government Agency Government Agency Government Agency Government Agency Government Agency Government Agency Trade Organisation Industry Body Research Centre Research Centre Research Centre Research Centre Local Traders Local Traders Research Institute Research Institute
Contact Name Phillemon Mushi Mariethe Owenya Sosthenes Kweka John Msakey Simon Slumpa Dr Fulgence Mishili Andrew Kunda Sharad Dixit Benjamin Kiwobele Sara Kessy Solomon Nnko Watanga Chacha Wayne Forbes Daniel Charles Edward Charles Geoffrey Kirenga Tasiana Maingu Ntikha Onasimbo Patrick Ngwediagi Janet Kaaya Dr Firmin Mizambwa Bob Shuma Jacqueline Mkindi Dr. Zacharia Malley Catherine Kabungo Rose Mongi Michael Kilango Christopher Mollet Frank Dickson Michael Ugen David Okello
Country Uganda
Name of Organization WFP P4P
Type of Organization Donor Organization
Contact Name Vincent Kiwanuka
Annex B: Methodology for calories per USD and protein per USD calculations
The analysis performed to highlight the affordability of legumes as a source of protein and energy relative to other foods was conducted using the following methodology: 1) Producer price data was retrieved from FAOSTAT for the following crops and food types: Chickpeas, common beans, cowpeas, groundnuts, soybeans, maize, wheat, cattle, chicken, goat and pigs 2) Producer price data was only available for Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali and Nigeria; absent for Tanzania and Uganda 3) Production data for the relevant foods and countries were retrieved from FAOSTAT106 and used as weights to create aggregate prices for each food 4) Data indicating the quantity of protein and the number of calories per 100 grams of each food type were retrieved from the Nutrition Data website107 a. Nutrition Data includes a variety of types of each food and the important nutritional information relating to that food. For example for beef, nutritional information is available for various cuts of meat as well as various methods of preparation (boiled, grilled, etc.) b. In all cases, nutritional information was chosen from uncooked categories of food and in the case where a number of different cuts were available for a specific type of meat an average figure was derived 5) Finally, the aggregated price data and the nutritional data were combined in order to calculate two metrics for each food type: a. The amount of grams of protein provided by one US dollar of each food type for focus countries, in aggregate b. The amount of calories provided by one US dollar of each food type for focus countries, in aggregate
Annex C: Animal Feed Applications of Legumes

Legumes are not only consumed by humans; animals derive many of the same benefits from legume consumption as humans do. Most parts of legume plants are used for animal feed; the grains are processed into cake and the leaves, stems and crop residue are used as forage. When legumes are fed to animals, they provide the following benefits108:

High protein and high protein intake/efficiency High fiber content and digestibility Long term availability Rapid re-generation and re-growth after harvest, cutting or grazing
As an example, for dairy cattle specifically, higher forage intake and digestibility allow lower grain feeding rates without reducing milk production or animal growth 109. Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) is an indicator that shows how much fiber an animal uses and indicates, by proxy, how much animal feed an animal will consume. Different feed types have varying NDF content and NDF content impacts the feed intake, cow growth rates as well as milk, fat and protein production. For each type of feed, the chart below shows the amount of dry matter that can be consumed by a 1,300 pound dairy cow that consumes approximately 1.1% of its body weight in NDF. Legume-based animal feeds have lower NDF content than most other animal feed types, as shown in Figure 9.2 below. As a result, a dairy cow would need to consume more legume-based animal feed than other animal feed types. A dairy cow on a legume-based animal feed diet is expected to produce more milk and experience more/faster growth, because lower NDF values imply better milk and growth.
Produce more milk: 610 pounds more milk are produced from a legume-based ration than a grassbased ration having the same balance of energy, protein, and minerals 110 Grow more/faster: For growing steers, a pasture containing 30 percent legumes will provide 0.25 to 0.33 pounds more gain each day than the same grass species without legumes fertilized with nitrogen111
Figure 9.2: Average Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) of Pastures and Implied Feed Consumption
Feed Average NDF Feed Consumed (pounds) Average NDF Hay 27 30 33 46 Feed 65% 60% 51% 41% Average NDF 22 24 28 35 59% 56% 49% 45% Feed Consumed (pounds) Feed Consumed (pounds) Average NDF Feed Consumed (pounds) Silage 24 26 29 32
Pasture Grass
xxxv
53% 48% 44% 31%
Mixed mostly xxxvi grass Mixed mostly xxxvii legume Legume

xxxviii
Energy and protein supplements Barley Brewers grains, wet Corn, dry Corn, high moisture shell Corn, high moisture ear Cottonseed, whole Distillers grains, dry Poultry litter Oats Soybeans Soybeans, heated Soybean cake Wheat Wheat, midds 21% 48% 11% 11% 21% 51% 39% 43% 30% 16% 18% 11% 16% 38% 68 30 130 130 68 28 37 33 48 89 79 130 89 38
In addition the lower NDF quantity and higher potential to produce milk, legume-based animal feeds and animal feed ingredients also have more attractive digestible energy, dry matter, crude protein and crude lipid, versus other animal feeds and animal feed ingredients. To highlight the superior quality of legumes as animal feed, the example of soybeans versus other feeds in the aquafeed industry in Uganda highlights the key issues. With respect to soybeans versus other animal feeds, the following are true 112:

xxxv
Soybeans have the highest digestible energy, in kilo calories per gram, after cotton seed oil Soybeans have dry matter in the top 25th percentile of animal feed ingredients Soybean cake has the highest crude protein content
Less than 15% legume 15-49% legume xxxvii 50-85% legume xxxviii Greater than 85% legume
xxxvi
Soybeans have the highest crude lipid content, after cotton seed oil Soybeans and soybean cake have the highest phosphorus content after sunflower oil cake and sesame cake
More detailed information on animal feeds and animal feed ingredients is shown below:
Figure 9.3: Approximate Composition of Local Feed and Feed Ingredients Commonly Used as Aquafeeds in Uganda
Feed/Ingredients Cotton seed oil Soybean, whole Maize Wheat flour Sweet potato Sesame cake Barley Cassava Soy cake, pressed Cotton seed cake Sunflower cake, pressed Rice hull Broken maize Cane molasses Wheat pollard Sunflower oil cake Maize bran Digestible Energy (kcal/g) 9,000 4,241 3,593 3,441 3,440 3,337 3,274 3,188 2,900 2,422 2,086 1,950 1,900 1,800 1,450 Dry Matter 68.6 90.0 85.0 88.0 87.5 89.5 88.0 88.0 87.0 94.0 88.0 89.9 85.0 88.0 90.0 94.8 87.2 Crude Protein 18.4 36.0 8.8 12.0 3.8 38.5 10.6 2.5 43.0 41.1 25.0 7.0 12.0 4.0 13.0 41.7 6.9 Crude Lipid 99.5 18.8 3.9 2.0 0.7 9.0 2.4 4.0 1.8 6.2 10.2 1.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 12.9 5.8 Phosphorus 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.4 4.6 0.4
Annex D: Methodology for estimation of smallholder legume farmers

For countries visited (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia and Tanzania), the number of legume farmers is estimated using a combination of Ministry data, agricultural survey data and estimation (see below). The number of farmers for the remaining countries is estimated using the following formula: Number of smallholder legume farmers = Population x Labor force participation rate x Labor force in agriculture (excludes livestock farmers) x Agricultural contribution to GDP x Smallholder farmer proportion (vs. total farmers) x Proportion of arable land allotted to legumes (proxy for proportion of legume farmers)
Annex E: Labor-Saving Processing Technologies used in other Developing Countries
Labor-Saving Processing Technologies: Example of Success

There are a number of innovative, low cost technologies being used to increase the ease of agricultural processing globally; transferring these technologies to focus countries would prove beneficial. Universal Nut Sheller was developed by the founder of an NGO called the Full Belly Project. It was initially invented to shell groundnuts at the request of a womens coop in Mali. It requires less than US$50 to make with basic materials such as concrete, wood, a small amount of fiberglass and a wrench to manufacture and can serve a village of 2,000 people. The Universal Nut Sheller is a hand-operated machine capable of shelling 50KG of groundnuts/hour.
Source: Instructables Website
113
Pedal Powered Nut Sheller was designed by a Guatemalan NGO called Mayapedal. It is manufactured using donated second-hand bicycles and basic materials. It is used in Guatemala for de-casking ripe macadamia and acatropha nuts, but transferrable to other nut-processing activities. It is capable of processing over 1,000KG/day.
114
Source: Mayapedal Website
Bicycle Corn Thresher was designed by a Guatemalan NGO called Mayapedal. It is an adapted bicycle, attached to a hand-powered grinding mill. It is capable of degraining ~500KG/day and only requires one person to operate.
Source: Mayapedal Website
115
Annex F: Profiles of Emerging Buyers, Major Buyers and a Marketing Intermediary
Emerging Buyer Profile: Intersnack UK

Intersnack UK, a subsidiary of the Intersnack Group, is the United Kingdoms leading nut supplier. The company produces confectionary items: potato chips, nuts, baked products and specialty snacks. Products are sold to consumers throughout Europe. Confectionary items are produced at three different sites across the United Kingdom. The company continues to grow its production and processing capacity:

Increased processing capacity through factory acquisitions in 2009 Investment of over 1 million in processing factories in 2011 Plan to acquire some of the many small confectionary companies that are currently in the market
Currently, no groundnuts are being procured from African countries given high aflatoxin levels and inadequate volumes produced by smallholder farmers. Until the establishment of the Bolivian Peanut Project, in partnership with USAID and the Dutch Royal Institute for the Tropics, Intersnack sourced most of its groundnuts from Argentina. The company began sourcing groundnuts from Bolivia in order to diversify sourcing and reduce risk of over-exposure to Argentina. With respect to Bolivia, Intersnack now sources from 2,500 smallholder farmers, providing training, inputs and other extension services. Intersnack views Africa as having similar potential to Bolivia.
Intersnack UK Revenue ( M)
250
+28%
80
44
2009
2011
2016 (Projected)
Emerging Buyer Profile: Bunge

Bunge is a global agribusiness and agro-processing company, active in 40 countries and operating since 1818. Business activities are split into four practice areas: Agribusiness, Sugar & Bio-energy, Food & Ingredients and Fertilizer. Bunge procures from three countries in Africa. Bunges South Africa business serves as a hub for the rest of Africa. In South Africa, grains and oilseeds (including soybeans) are produced for supply to the domestic market and other countries in Africa. In Egypt, Bunge has a distribution business, with offices located in Cairo and Port Said. In Morocco, Bunge produces fertilizer products for shipment to Central and South America Bunges Food & Ingredients business practice comprises of edible oils and milling. The edible oils business produces specialty oils and fats, margarines, mayonnaise and other whipped toppings.

Bunge is the worlds largest seller of vegetable oils Soybeans are a vital input into one of Bunges leading bottled oil brands Soya Edible oil production volumes remained flat between 2008 and 2010 as a result of the financial crisis
Bunges strategic objectives include strengthening its position in global oils, expanding the margarine business and maintaining its strong regional position in milling in the Americas.
Bunge Sales Volumes, excluding Agribusiness (MT)

28,347
26,512 25,015 16% 20% 23% 23% Edible Oil Products 15% 17%
Milling Products
41%
45%
29%
Fertilizer
24%
17%
31%
Sugar and Bioenergy
2008
2009
2010
Major Buyer Profile: Grand Cereals & Oils, Nigeria

Grand Cereals & Oils was incorporated in 1983, originally to produce wheat flour but is now the largest private buyer of groundnuts and soybeans (and other crops) in Nigeria. The company owns and operates two mills, an animal feed plant and strategic silos. Cereal Mill cleans sorghum for industrial use and processes maize into flour, grits and offal as a by-product. Oil Mill processes groundnuts, soybeans, palm kernel, and cotton seed oil into high quality deodorized groundnut oil, cakes, soap stock and lecithin. Processing capacity for groundnuts and soybeans is ~6,000MT and ~30-40,000MT, respectively. Animal Feed Plant processes by-products (bran and cake) from the Cereal and Oil Mills respectively at ~140MT/day. Also processes pelletized poultry feed, cow, pig and fish feed on request. The company recently embarked on capacity expansion initiatives, to create a modern, fully-automated feed plant, with feed production capacity of ~400MT/day Strategic Silos hold ~16,000MT of grains. Grand Cereals currently sources locally and from abroad. The company currently sources all products through agents/intermediaries, but is looking to develop a model to source directly from smallholder farmers. Grand Cereals is currently in talks with the USAID MARKETS Program and GTZ, to determine how they can participate in programs to procure directly from farmers and/or farmer co-operatives. Because Grand Cereals does not receive the quality and quantity of soybeans, the company imports soycake. Approximately 90,000MT of soycake are imported from South America to be used in poultry feed. Locally-procured soybeans/soycake is only ~10% cheaper than imported volumes.
Major Buyer Profile: Agricultural Commodity Supplies (ACOS), Ethiopia

ACOS is an Italian company involved in the production and sale of organic dried legumes in containers. The company has operations in Ethiopia. ACOS has a global supply network with vertical consolidation to increase the degree of supply control across 10 countries and 4 continents, connecting headquarters in Italy with various production sites through own factories, satellite offices, joint venture, and partnerships. Direct control of the food supply chain allows complete traceability of all products due to product identification in the field and an informatics system. ACOS has 7 factories (6 food and 1 textile), employs 650 individuals worldwide, ships 4,000 containers per year and produces 90 million kilograms of processed products per year.
Marketing Intermediary Profile: Savanna Farmers Marketing Company (SFMC)

SFMC is a company dedicated to marketing crops for smallholder farmers in Ghana. The company was established in 2004 by an NGO, the Association of Church Development Projects (ACDEP). Since its inception, SFMC has seen growing popularity among farmers, as they realize the benefits they can reap by engaging with SFMC.
Farmer involvement quadrupled between 2004 and 2010 and has several impacts on farmer incomes
Farmer involvement grew from 3,000 in 2004 to 12,000 in 2010

Increased incomes: Farmer incomes are up ~33% Increased access to credit: ~80% of SFMC-affiliated farmers take credit from SFMC/banks Lower production and transport costs Higher prices than market: SFMC pays more than market price at the time of purchase Guaranteed market prices allow farmers to plan expenditures accordingly Access to extension agents who visit farms to provide planting assistance
Value-added services provided: Collection, weighing, loading and transportation are provided by
SFMC-contracted agric stations in each region SFMC establishes close business relationships with farmers by setting up regular meetings and organizing SHFs into Farmer-Based Organizations (FBOs). SFMC signs supply contracts with these FBOs, based on contracts with agro-processors:

When signing the supply contract, farmers commit to selling their produce to SFMC at a fixed price These contracts guarantee the volumes bought by SFMC from farmers and give farmers access to credit for production, through SFMC or through local banks
Credit is provided through primary and higher-level secondary groups to ensure repayment; each primary group is responsible for the debt of its members (if one individual defaults, every group member is liable). Although farmer behavior can be opportunistic some of them prefer to sell to local traders if prices are higher SFMC brings value to farmers by minimizing market risks and providing credit to facilitate access to equipment and inputs.
Soybean
Rural Banks ACDEP
Legend
Credit Flow Produce Flow
Ghana Nuts, Vesta, Alpha Omega, Golden Web

Guinness Ghana Breweries Limited (GGBL) MIM Cashew Processing Ghana Nuts, Golden Web, Vesta
Sorghum
Cashew
FBOs
ACDEP Agric Stations
SFMC
Groundnut
Major Buyer Profile: Export Trading Group

Export Trading Group (ETG) is a global company, headquartered in Singapore, but operating in all the focus countries. The produces, processes and distributes agricultural commodities, farm inputs and farm implements. ETG is committed to promoting market access for smallholder farmers, expanding product offering and breaking into the biofuels market. Farming is a long term investment area for ETG. The company focuses on R&D into new technologically enhanced farming practices and commodities such as bio-fuels. Currently ETG has three farming estates in Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique totaling 60,000 hectares. Robust logistical support, ample warehousing and processing capacity and large international customers make ETG a leader in the Africa legumes market.
80% of commodities sourced from farmers, through an aggregator or through Farmer Service Centers (FSCs); ETG buys from small traders also Farmers must organize themselves to bring produce to the warehouses Farmers are paid immediately for their produce Farmer Service Centers provide: extension services to farmers (e.g., post-harvest handling), financing; SHF microfinance scheme, inputs (e.g., storage, fertilizers, equipment), guaranteed pricing and market pricing information, guaranteed offtake for crops, logistics support Logistics team in each country Uses combination of rail, road and water Fleet of trucks in larger countries Once collected from farmers, commodities go to small buying centers for grading Quality issues: Poor moisture control due to insufficient drying of produce by farmers, making it difficult to trade with sophisticated buyers such as WFP No cleaning, grading and sorting of produce; grit, sand and rubbish in bags increase the weight
~10% is processed further at ETGs various processing plants ~90% of the produce repackaged and distributed locally or exported internationally WFP is the largest customer Container terminal in Tanzania, serving own/third party cargo transshipment requirements Legumes and maize key trade routes: From: Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia To: India, Singapore, North Korea, China, Japan, Europe, South Africa & Kenya
Collection/Logistics
Processing
Warehouses
Buyers/Consumers
21 processing plants in Ethiopia, India, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia, Soy pieces 7,350 MT/year Processed in Ethiopia, Malawi, Uganda, Zambia Sold under SEBA and Tasty Pieces brands Dal (Pigeon Peas) 48,000 MT/year Processed in Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania Exported under Toor brand
After processing, goods are standardized before being transferred to warehouses. ETG has 500+ warehouses; 1.69M MT warehousing capacity Tanzania 34 warehouses 145,000 MT capacity Invested in a container terminal in Tanzania to service its own and third party cargo transshipment requirements Uganda 3 warehouses 6,300 MT capacity Ethiopia 1 warehouse 7,000 MT capacity
Annex G: Additional Research Recommended for African Legumes Analysis

The scope of the African Legume Market Dynamics project prevented extensive research in a number of areas. In addition to the data gaps outlined in section 7.1.4. Data Constraints, further research in the following areas will benefit the legumes sector and organizations hoping to take advantage of the opportunities, which legumes offer to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. Farmer Segmentation & Cropping Systems Segment farmers to gain a quantitative understanding of farmers producing purely for subsistence as opposed to those producing a marketable surplus o Analyze how different farmer segments react in different ways to economic incentives as a result of their socio-economic circumstances and the purpose of their use of legumes
Understand what proportion of farmers grow legumes under polyculture (intercropping, crop rotation, etc.) versus those who do not, for each legume in each country
Prices Investigate market/consumer prices of legumes for each legume, in each focus country Exports: Compare the price of legumes sourced from focus countries as opposed to other regions Imports: Compare the price of locally-produced legumes with legumes imported from other countries
Value Chain Economics Expansion of value chain economics analysis to include processing, shipping and landing costs as well as comparison of costs to global markets o o Percentage of market price captured at each stage of the value chain Existence (and associated costs) of other services and service providers (e.g. financial services, business development services, etc.)
Comparison of value chain economics with cereals and cash crops o o Expected farmer return on investment (ROI) for legumes versus cereals and cash crops Understand whether legumes require as much upfront capital (for the purchase of inputs) as cash crops and cereals
Global Buyers and Processors For processors specifically, research the: o o o o Proportion of each type of processor (small-, medium-,large-,high-end) in each focus country, or across all focus countries Processing capacity of each processor Processing capacity utilization of each processor Processing shortage vs. demand
Create detailed profiles of other major global buyers who are not oil processors or patient buyers (e.g. animal feed producers) Document legume sourcing/buyer success stories and research their strategies and business models
Analyze the dynamics of the informal trade system, which characterizes legumes markets in East and West Africa in order to gain a sense of how big markets are and where the greatest regional market opportunities lie
Market Opportunities and Threats Undergo a deeper investigation of export opportunities for legumes o o Compare the competitiveness of African legume producers with the biggest legume exporters and investigate how big the potential markets for exports available to African producers are Assess the potential of African legume producers to take advantage of geographical and other strategic advantages to gain market share in export markets
Assess the potential for import substitution of legumes through an investigation of price and quality competitiveness of local producers compared with foreign exporters o Elicit the views of major buyers as to why they choose to import and what changes would need to occur for them to consider sourcing locally
Analyze the potential damage to local producers that could be inflicted by large foreign producers such as the U.S.A scaling-up legumes production in reaction to a price increase
Annex H: Existing and On-Going Initiatives

Key Legumes-related Initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa
Value Chain
Discovery
Project Name
The Collaborative Crop Research Program (CCRP)
Donor(s)
McKnight Foundation supported by BMGF
Partner Organization(s)
Mbarara Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MBAZARDI) Foundation for AIDS Orphaned Children (FAOC), Makerere University, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Sokoine University of Agriculture, Compatible Technology International (CTI) Sokoine University of Agriculture, International Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Department of Agricultural Research Services (DARS) Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich Royal Botanical Gardens Kew (RBGK), Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) Ministry of Agriculture, Malawi, University of Malawi, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Instituto de Investigao Agrria de Moambique (IIAM) Pennsylvania State University (PSU), Michigan State University, Ekwendeni C.C.A.P. Hospital, University of Virginia, Agricultural Research Institute (ARI)Ilonga, University of Western Ontario, Agricultural Research Institute, Uyole , Institut d'Economie Rurale du Mali (IER), L'institut de l'Environnement et de
Duration From
2010
To
2014
Project Description
Overview: The Collaborative Crop Research Program (CCRP) is a competitive grants program funded by The McKnight Foundation for the purpose of increasing food security for resource-poor people in developing countries. As of 3/14/2011, the program supports 39 collaborative projects in 17 countries around the world. Key legumes-related grants in Africa include: - Enhancing sustainable productivity and utilization of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) in the banana farming system of Uganda - Improving food security through participatory development of high yielding and pests resistance cowpea varieties in Uganda - Multiple legumes and management strategies for reinvigorating and maintaining the health and productivity of smallholder mixed farming systems - Enhancing smallholder farmers' capacity for learning and adoption of push-pull technology through video and computer communication tools in East Africa - Introgression of bruchid resistance into farmers preferred varieties for increased productivity and stability of bean supply - Enhancing child nutrition and livelihoods of rural households in Malawi and Tanzania through post-harvest value-chain technology improvements in groundnuts - Optimized pest management with botanical pesticides on legume cropping systems in Malawi and Tanzania - Development and promotion of bambara groundnuts for improved human nutrition in Malawi, Mozambique, and Tanzania - Increasing Bean Productivity and Household Food Security in Stressful Environments in Mozambique Through Use of Phosphorusefficient Seeds by Farm Households - Groundnut varieties improvement for yield and adaptation, human health and nutrition - Groundnut varieties improvement for yield and adaptation, human health and nutrition - Best Bets Legumes Two: For a Changing World - Development and promotion of Alectra resistant cowpea cultivars for smallholder farmers in Malawi and Tanzania - Development and promotion of Alectra resistant cowpea cultivars for smallholder farmers in Malawi and Tanzania - Supporting Communities to Increase Bean Productivity Through Enhanced Accessibility to Seed of Preferred Bean Varieties in Malawi, Mozambique, and Tanzania - Innovative communication media and methods for more effective
Value Chain
Project Name
Donor(s)
Recherches Agricoles (INERA), Instituto de Investigao Agrria de Moambique (IIAM), Pennsylvania State University (PSU)
Duration From To
Project Description
aflatoxin mitigation, variety uptake and use interventions in groundnut in Malawi and Tanzania - Benchmark study of legume policies in Malawi, Tanzania, and Mozambique - Inception grant to study social factors and food practices affecting cowpea use in central Tanzania - Improving bean production and utilization by smallholder farmers through integration of climbing beans in the smallholder farming systems in Malawi, Mozambique, and Tanzania - ALIVE and nutritious cropping systems: A Legume Intensification and Variety Enhancement participatory approach - Improving productivity of Voandzou and the link with the market in Burkina Faso - Improving milletsorghumcowpea system productivity in Niger Republic by introducing high yielding droughtresistant phosphateefficient cowpea varieties Budget: ~$74 mn Target Countries: Uganda, Malawi, Tanzania, Niger, Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Mali Target Crops: Legumes Overview: This project helps national and international breeding programs accelerate the development of robust new varieties by strengthening their abilities to use molecular markers and controlled field screening plots. Research activities in Phase I resulted in significant increases in the genomic tools for these legumes, a thorough knowledge of drought tolerance traits, as well as markers available for specific diseases. TLI Phase II will emphasize the application of these outputs obtained during the first phase, using the genetic resources and genomic tools developed. This second phase of the project also has a strong capacity-building component that will build on Phase I efforts to improve human resources and local infrastructure. It will be implemented in close partnership with institutions in the target countries. Budget: $12.1 mn (BMGF: $8.5 mn) Target Countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, India, and Zimbabwe Target Crops: Chickpea, Groundnut, Cowpea, Common Bean Overview: The WACC aim is to deliver cowpea varieties with a specific beneficial trait(s), manifested on farmers' fields as improved productivity under conditions which otherwise lead to loss in cowpea grain and/or fodder. In 2005 the Kirkhouse Trust decided to fund research on cowpea in West Africa. In 2006 a contract was signed to fund the research of the Cowpea Genomics Initiative at the University of Virginia. Budget: N/A Target Countries: Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mali, Togo, Senegal Target Crops: Cowpea
Discovery
Tropical Legumes I (TL1), Phase 2
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, European Commission , DFID, World Bank
Jointly implemented by the International Crops Research Institute in the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), in close collaboration with partners in the national agricultural research systems of target countries in SubSaharan Africa and India
2010
2014
Discovery
West African Cowpea Consortium (WACC) Research Projects
Kirkhouse Trust
University of Virginia, National Research Institutions - INERA (Burkina Faso), IRAD (Cameroon), IER (Mali), ISRA (Togo), ITRA (Senegal), University of Agriculture (Nigeria)
2010
2012
Value Chain
Discovery
Project Name
Peanut Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP)
Donor(s)
USAID
The University of Georgia in collaboration with more than 13 Universities and multiple National Research Institutions
Duration From
1982
To
Ongoing
Project Description
Overview: Since 2007 a renewed Peanut CRSP has been organized around a value chain approach with research projects addressing producer values, processor values and consumer values. A constant feature of the program has been the emphasis on capacity development and aflatoxin. The program has become a leading center for aflatoxin epidemiology and public health associated with aflatoxicosis in developing countries. Notable Africa-related sub-projects include: - Aflatoxin financial and health risks along the peanut marketing chain in Ghana - Improved West African peanut production for enhanced health and socioeconomic status through the delivery of research-based production systems in Ghana - Overcoming Abiotic and Biotic Constraints to Yield, and Production of High-Quality Peanuts in West Africa and Texas - Enterosorbent intervention therapies for populations at risk for Aflatoxin related diseases - Improving livelihoods of farm households in peanut based farming systems in East Africa - Strategies for Controlling Groundnut Rosette Disease in Sub-Saharan Africa - Improving the health and livelihood of people of East Africa by addressing aflatoxin and gender-related constraints in peanut production, processing and marketing Notables: In 2005, the CRSP joined forces with the Full Belly Project, a North Carolina NGO, to introduce the shellers in Ghana. The Full Belly Project creates simple machines to solve agricultural problems in developing countries, and then provides kits and education to build and repair the machines. In Africa it takes 5 people all day to shell 100 lbs. of sun dried peanuts. With the universal nut sheller one person can do that in an hour. More protein for less labor means greater income and more productivity. Raw materials for the machine include only half a sack of concrete and a few metal parts, which cost less than $50 US per machine. Maintenance is nearly zero, and a machine's lifespan is estimated at twenty years. Budget: N/A Target Countries: The program presently involves 10 U.S. States, 13 Universities and 11 nations from 4 continents Target Crops: Groundnuts Overview: The project links training and support to national breeding programs that use conventional breeding with investment in private sector seed production and distribution to provide access to seed of new crop varieties to small farmer in 13 Sub-Saharan African countries. The four sub-programs are: Education for African Crop Improvement (EACI); Fund for the Improvement and Adoption of African Crops (FIAAC); Seed Production for Africa (SEPA), and the Agro-dealer Development Budget: $150 mn Target Countries: Sub-Saharan Africa
Discovery / Adaptation & Inputs
AGRA Program for African Seed Systems (PASS)
BMGF, Rockefeller Foundation
AGRA funds multiple universities, agro-dealers, private seed companies, seed breeders, national research organizations
2006
2011
Value Chain
Project Name
Donor(s)
Duration From To
Project Description
Target Crops (Grants approved between 2007-2012 by crop): Cassava (8 grants), Groundnut (6), Beans (4), Rice (3), Millet (2), Soybean (2), Banana (1), Cowpea (1), Pigeon Pea (1), Sesame (1), Sorghum (1), and Sweet potato (1) Overview: This project aims to increase legume productivity, family nutrition, soil health, cropping systems, and farm income for small farmers in Burkina Faso, Mali, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, and Malawi by expanding the use of selected legumes, proven tools of biological nitrogen fixation, and sound agronomic principles. Budget: $19.2 mn Target Countries: Ghana, DRC, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe Target Crops: Cowpea, Soybean, Groundnut, Climbing Bean, Bambara Nut, Bush Bean, Green Gram, Fodder Legume, Garden Pea, Pigeon Pea, Faba Bean Overview: Through participatory research and follow-on development with farmers, extension agencies, non-governmental organizations, Universities and agribusiness along the value chains, the program aims to improve maize and legume productivity by 30% and to reduce the expected downside yield risk by 30% on approximately 500,000 farms within ten years. Through sub-regional research organizations and existing networks, the program will foster spillovers of improved crop systems management practices, knowledge and germplasm to other countries in the east central and southern Africa regions Budget: $21 mn Target Countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania and Australia Target Crops: Maize, Legumes
N2 Africa: Putting Nitrogen Fixation to Work for Smallholder Farmers in Africa
BMGF
Wageningen University
2009
2013
SIMLESA (Sustainable Intensification of Maize-Legume cropping systems for food security in Eastern and Southern Africa program)
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)
Adaptation & Inputs
Tropical Legumes II (TL2)
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF)
Managed by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in collaboration with the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA) and the NARS of Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania. Additional partners include the International Center for Research for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), the Agricultural Research Council of South Africa (ARC RSA), the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland, and Murdoch University in Western Australia Jointly implemented by the International Crops Research Institute in the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), in close collaboration with partners in the national
2010
2013
2007
2011
Overview: This project works to enhance food security and increase farmer incomes by developing new varieties of tropical legumes. This project specifically aims to increase productivity and production of legumes and the income of poor farmers in SSA and SA by 15 percent, with improved varieties occupying 30 percent of the total area planted by some 57 million poor farmers in the coming 10 years. It is expected that this will result in an additional value gain of more than US$ 300 million during that period. Budget: $20.5 mn
Value Chain
Project Name
Donor(s)
agricultural research systems of target countries in SubSaharan Africa and India
Duration From To
2007 2011
Project Description
Target Countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and India Target Crops: Chickpea, Groundnut, Pigeon Pea, Cowpea, Soybean, Common Bean Overview: The WASA goal is to establish a sustainable commercial seed industry capable of ensuring that small-scale farmers have affordable, timely and reliable access to high quality seeds and planting materials with adapted genetics and traits. This means WASA plays a leading role in the growth and development of viable agricultural inputs systems thus supporting the overall growth of the West Africa agricultural sector. Budget: N/A Target Countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo Target Crops: Vegetables, Cowpea, Groundnut, Soybean, Rice Overview: This project aims to link small-scale soy producers to buyers, including feed processors, in Mozambique and Zambia. It works to introduce soy into crop rotations, develop risk mitigation tools, increase soybean production, and develop models to link farmers to markets. Budget: $8 mn Target Countries: Mozambique and Zambia Target Crops: Soybean Overview: This project works to minimize post-harvest cowpea losses in West and Central Africa by educating smallholder farmers on the use of triple-layer storage bags, and supporting the establishment of a sustainable supply chain to ensure local access to the bags. Budget: $11.4 mn Target Countries: Ghana, Chad, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Benin, Togo, Niger, Nigeria, Mali, Senegal Target Crops: Cowpea Overview: The collaboration has worked with private sector partners in four value chains: (1) fine flavor cocoa in Ghana, (2) certified cocoa in Ghana and Cte dIvoire, (3) outdoor smallholder flowers in Kenya, and (4) dried beans in Ethiopia. They worked with approximately 15,000 farmers to improve the trade of white beans into retail markets in the United Kingdom. Activities were facilitated by CRS, which had a long-term field presence in Ethiopia; SFL and IIED provided technical support for interactions with formal private sector partners; RA provided technical support to the monitoring and evaluation process. Notables: Between 2000 and 2008, CRS also partnered with the Mwanza Rural Housing Project (MRHP) and local farmers in Tanzania to increase chickpea production in the region and improve export marketing. The project was called The Chickpea Promotion Project Budget: N/A Target Countries: Ghana, Cte dIvoire, Kenya, Ethiopia Target Crops: Cocoa, Dried Beans
Adaptation & Inputs
West Africa Seed Alliance (WASA)
USAID and AGRA
Farm & Production / Trade & Marketing
Soy Value Chains: Linking Small-Scale Soy Producers to Industrial Feed Processors Hermetic Storage for Cowpea in West and Central Africa - Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage (PICS) New Business Models for Sustainable Trading Relationships project
BMGF
Implemented by International Crops Research Institute For The Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), CNFA, and Seed Science Center at Iowa State University (SSC-ISU); Supported by the African Seed Trade Association (AFSTA), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) TechnoServe, Inc. in partnership with the Zambia Agriculture Research Institute, CLUSA Mozambique, Cargill Zambia and ZARI/AGRA and local farmer organizations Multiple PICS partners, NGOs, Government
2010 2014
Post Harvest System
BMGF, Purdue University
2007
2012
Trade & Marketing
Catholic Relief Service (CRS)
Sustainable Food Laboratory (SFL), the International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Rainforest Alliance (RA) and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)
2007
2011
Value Chain
Trade & Marketing
Project Name
ADVANCE (The Ghana Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement) Project
Donor(s)
USAID
ACDEP, ACDI/VOCA
Duration From
2009
To
2013
Project Description
Overview: A 4-Year USAID sponsored project awarded to ACDI/VOCA and being implemented in partnership with a team of agencies including ACDEP as the lead implementer in the Northern Sector. The program adopts a value chain approach where smallholder farmers are linked to markets, finance, inputs and equipment services and information through relatively larger nucleus (commercial) farmers and large traders (aggregators) who have the capacity to invest in these chains. The program builds the capacity of smallholder farmers to increase the efficiency of their farm business with improved production and post-harvest handling practices that include improved seed varieties and access to quality inputs, mechanization services and market access. Budget: N/A Target Countries: Ghana Target Crops: Soybean, Maize, Rice Overview: SFMC is a company dedicated to marketing crops for smallholder farmers in Ghana. The company was established in 2004 by an NGO, the Association of Church Development Projects (ACDEP). SFMC serves as a marketing intermediary (aggregator) linking farmers to buyers. The aim of SFMC is to transition ownership to participating farmers. Since its inception, SFMC has seen growing popularity among farmers, as they realize the benefits they can reap by engaging with SFMC. Value-added services are provided by SFMC: Collection, weighing, loading and transportation through SFMC-contracted agric stations Budget: N/A Target Countries: Ghana Target Crops: Soybean, Cashew, Sorghum, Groundnut Overview: The PACA is focused on improving food security, public health, and trade in Africa and works through CAADP (The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme) to raise awareness and create an effective regulatory environment; better coordinate existing efforts to control aflatoxin; and increase investments in agricultural extension, management, and scale up of effective mitigation activities Budget: ~$33.4 mn (BMGF: $19.8 mn, USAID: $12 mn, DfID: $1.6 mn) Target Countries: Sub-Saharan Africa Target Crops: Groundnuts, Maize
Trade & Marketing
Savanna Farmers Marketing Company
ACDEP
Savanna Farmers Marketing Company
2004
Ongoing
Discovery, Adaptation & Inputs / Trade & Marketing, Policy Advocacy
African-led Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA)
BMGF, USAID, DfID
Meridian Institute and the International Institute on Tropical Agriculture (IITA), African Union Commission (AUC), and with interest from African and other governments, Regional Economic Communities, the private sector, farmers organizations, and civil society leaders from across Africa
2012
TBD
Supplementary Initiatives
Value Chain
Project Name
HarvestPlus II
Donor(s)
ADB, Austrian Ministry of Finance, BMGF, CIDA, ILSI, DANIDA, SIDA, Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture, DFID, USAID, USDA, The World Bank, WFP BMGF, Rockefeller Foundation
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in collaboration with more than 200 scientists, researchers, and other experts around the world
Duration From
2009
To
2013
Project Description
Overview: This project continues to support development and delivery of biofortified staple crops, including maize, sweet potato, beans, millet, cassava, rice, and wheat, to reduce micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries. This phase of work focuses on crop improvement, nutrition retention, and efficacy studies, collaborating with institutions. A portion of this grant funds research that uses transgenic approaches. Budget: $45 mn+ Target Countries: Nigeria, DRC, Mozambique, Zambia, Rwanda, Uganda, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh Target Crops: Iron Beans, Iron Pearl Millet, Vitamin A Cassava, Vitamin A Maize, Vitamin A Sweet Potato, Zinc Rice, Zinc Wheat Overview: This program will help build a sustainable foundation for the agricultural sector growth by restoring African soil fertility through the use of improved soil fertility management practices and fertilizers that stably increase crop productivity. The program focuses on six key areas along the value chain that impact on the lives of the farmers including i) extension/ knowledge delivery ii) strengthening farmers organizations iii) micro-financing for farmers to help access fertilizers iv) seed production financing especially for grain legumes v) markets access and vi) policy to support out-grower schemes contractual arrangements. Budget: $180 mn Target Countries: Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Mozambique, Malawi, Zambia, Mali, Burkina Faso and Nigeria Target Crops: Various Overview: This project supports the creation of a network of radio broadcasters, farmer groups, knowledge partners, ministries of agriculture, and the private sector to provide smallholder farmers with accurate, relevant and timely agricultural information Budget: $9.97 mn Target Countries: Kenya, Malawi, Zambia, Mali, Ghana, and Tanzania Target Crops: N/A Overview: This project seeks to increase smallholder farmers' incomes by launching a program that connects farmers to World Food Program purchasing. Through P4P, WFPs demand provides smallholder farmers in 21 pilot countries with a greater incentive to invest in their production, as they have the possibility to sell to a reliable buyer and receive a fair price for their crops. P4P at the same time invests in capacity building at country level in areas such as post-harvest handling or storage, which will yield sustainable results in boosting national food security over the long term. Budget: $140 mn+ Target Countries: 21 countries (In Africa, Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali,
Adaptation & Inputs, Farm & Production
AGRA Soil Health Program (SHP)
CGIAR centers, NGOs, other projects such as BNF, AfSIS as well as input dealers and output markets like the World Food Programs P4P.
2007
2013
Farm & Production
Farmer Voice Radio
BMGF
American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences
2009
2013
Trade & Marketing
Purchase for Progress (P4P)
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), Howard G. Buffett Foundation, European Commission, Governments of Belgium,
Working relationships specific to P4P with approximately 220 different partners includingGovernments (ministries & other agencies), UN agencies, local and international NGOs have been established
2008
2013
Value Chain
Project Name
Donor(s)
Canada, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia BMGF
Duration From To
Project Description
Mozambique, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia) Target Crops (2011 Procurement Breakdown by Crop by Volume): Maize (77%), Pulses (9%), Rice, Other Cereals (Sorghum, Millet, Wheat), Blended Foods, Processed Foods
Trade & Marketing
Home Grown School Feeding
Imperial College London
2009
2014
Trade & Marketing
Ghana School Feeding Programme (GSFP)
Government of Ghana
The Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD) has oversight responsibility. Other technical ministries and development partners play an important role - Ministry of Food & Ag, Health, Education, etc. and Dutch Embassy, WFP, SNV, PCD, SEND Foundation, IFDC, GAIN, etc
2005
Ongoing
Trade & Marketing
National Programme for Food Security
Government of Burkina Faso
SONAGESS (National Food Security Reserve Management Company)
Ongoing
Trade & Marketing
National Programme for Food Security
Government of Nigeria, AfDB, IDB, BADEA, Federal and State
The National Food Reserve Agency, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources
2007
(Phase 2)
2014
Overview: This project aims to increase incomes for smallholder farmers, create rural jobs, and improve child nutrition in 10 Sub-Saharan African countries by providing training and technical support to country-level teams of stakeholders. Budget: $9.6 mn+ Target Countries: Ghana, Mali, Kenya, Cote dIvoire, Nigeria and others Target Crops: N/A Overview: The Ghana School Feeding Programme (GSFP) is an initiative of the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) Pillar 3 of the New Partnership for Africas Development (NEPAD). The Programme is part of Ghanas efforts towards the attainment of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (UNMDG) on hunger, poverty and primary education. GSFP is consistent with other major policies and development strategies of the Government. The concept of the programme is to provide children in selected public primary schools and kindergartens in the poorest areas of the country with one hot, nutritious meal per day, using locally grown foodstuffs. The current local procurement is standing at slightly less than 20%. Budget: $48 mn (in 2011) Target Countries: Ghana Target Crops: N/A SONAGESS manages a national food stock (Stock National de Scurit Alimentaire [SNSA]), a reserve of humanitarian aid (Stock dIntervention, co-managed with humanitarian agencies). SONAGESS has been supplying cowpeas to school feeding programs, and other public entities (e.g., prisons, military) in Burkina Faso since 2010. The national security stock is renewed every 3 years by a system of rotation. That means that every year part of the stock is renewed. Tenders are issued by CT/CNSA (Comit Technique du Conseil National de Scurit Alimentaire). Farmers groups and the large cereal traders are notified when this will happen. Budget: N/A Target Countries: Burkina Faso Target Crops: Millet, Sorghum, Maize, Cowpea Overview: This project aims at the enhancement of food security and poverty reduction in Nigeria. (Expansion phase of National Special Programme for Food Security). Specifically, the program aims to - Assist farmers in achieving their potential for increasing output, productivity and incomes
Value Chain
Project Name
Donor(s)
Governments, LGCs
Duration From To
Project Description
- Strengthen the effectiveness of research and extension services in bringing technology and new farming practices developed by research institutes to the farmers - Concentrate initial effort in pilot areas for maximum effect and ease of replicability - Train and educate farmers in the effective utilization of available land, water and other resources and facilities to produce food and create employment. Utilize international experience for integrated farming practices in Nigeria, to maximize use of existing facilities and knowledge and to spread benefits to wider areas Budget: $364 mn Target Countries: Nigeria Target Crops: N/A Overview: This reinvestment in the Market Access Program continues efforts to increase the income of smallholder farmers marketing staple food crops. To improve the market opportunities for smallholder farmers, AGRAs Market Access Program is investing in: - Reducing transaction costs by improving farm storage technologies; facilitating the development of warehouse receipt systems; commodity exchanges; and market information systems that provide timely and accurate information to smallholders. - Value addition to farmers crops by supporting efforts to institute grades and standards, and develop low cost small- and mediumscale processing facilities for drying, sorting and packaging. - Increasing demand for commodities by developing markets for alternative uses, such as processing cassava for animal feed. - Promoting an enabling environment by improving access to credit and removing inappropriate government policies that create major challenges for a variety of stakeholders across staple food commodity value chains in Africa Budget: $28 mn Target Countries: 13 African Countries Target Crops: Cassava, Maize, Millet, Rice, Sorghum and Grain Legumes (Soybean in Kenya and Nigeria) Overview: This program identifies key policy constraints, devises solutions to policy bottlenecks, and mobilizes support for regulatory and legislative reform Budget: $15 mn+ Target Countries: Mozambique, Ghana, Mali, Ethiopia Target Crops: N/A Overview: This project is designed to facilitate access to seed of improved varieties for small farmers in selected African countries. It aims to enable the implementation of agreed-on variety release procedures and develop mechanisms to address foundation seed needs by creating mechanisms for access to new varieties. Budget: $1.45 mn
Trade & Marketing, Info Systems
Market Access Program Investment
BMGF
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)
2010
2014
Policy Advocacy Policy Hubs BMGF Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) 2009 2012
Policy Advocacy
Seed Policy Enhancemen t in African Regions (SPEAR)
BMGF
Iowa State University in collaboration with regional and national organizations
2010
2013
Value Chain
Project Name
Donor(s)
Duration From To

Project Description
Target Countries: Nigeria, Malawi, Zambia Target Crops: N/A Overview: This project will create an information system comprised of a high-resolution functional soil map of Africa and associated data. It will also provide recommendations for soil fertility management to inform soil improvement strategies by stakeholders in African development, including farmer organizations and policymakers. Budget: $15.2 mn Target Countries: Africa Target Crops: N/A Overview: This project supports the collection of high-quality, nationally representative, multitopic household panel surveys in six Sub-Saharan African countries. The surveys are implemented by African statistics offices and include information on agricultural production and household welfare. Budget: $19.4 mn Target Countries: Tanzania, Uganda, Nigeria, Malawi, Ethiopia, Niger, Mali Target Crops: N/A Overview: This project supports developing a specialized geographic information system (GIS) to characterize the impact of specific investments in agricultural development. The goal is to support data-driven decision making and investments to support agricultural productivity improvements and poverty reduction. Budget: $8.5 mn+ Target Countries: Sub-Saharan Africa Target Crops: N/A
Info Systems
African Soil Information Service (AfSIS)
BMGF
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT)
2009
2012
Info Systems
Info Systems
Living Standards and Measuremen t Study (LSMS) Integrated Surveys in Agriculture HarvestChoi ce Phase II: Supporting Strategic Investment Choices in Agricultural Technology Development and Adoption
BMGF, USAID
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
2009
2015
BMGF, USAID, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
Coordinated by the International Food Policy Research Institute and the University of Minnesota
2010
2014
Endnotes
1
Breadbasket Strategy to boost agricultural production in Ghana's Northern region, AGRA website, published 2010, accessed March 2012, http://www.agra-alliance.org/content/news/detail/1158 2 Mali, Feed the Future website, accessed March 2012, http://www.feedthefuture.gov/country/mali 3 AGRA's Soil Health Program, AGRA website, accessed March 2012, http://www.agra alliance.org/section/work/soils 4 FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis 5 Alene et al., Measuring the effectiveness of agricultural R&D in sub -Saharan Africa from the perspectives of varietal output and adoption, prepared for the ASTI/IFPRI-FARA Conference, December 2011 6 Ibid. 7 Bationo et al, Fighting Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Multiple Roles of Legumes in Integrated Soil Fertility Management", 2011 8 FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis 9 Omamo, Fertilizer trade and pricing in Uganda", 2003 10 All About Legumes, US Emergency Supply website, accessed March 2012 , https://www.usaemergencysupply.com/information_center/all_about_beans_legumes.htm 11 Legumes and Their Use, Hawaii University website, accessed March 2012, http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/bnf/Downloads/Training/BNF%20technology/Legumes.PDF 12 Tools & Dashboards Agdev website, accessed March 2012, http://agdev.info/ 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Nutrition Facts, Nutrition Data website, accessed March 2012, http://nutritiondata.self.com/ 16 Prices: Producer Prices, FAOSTAT website, accessed March 2012, http://faostat.fao.org/site/703/default.aspx#ancor 17 Nutrition Facts, Nutrition Data website, accessed March 2012, http://nutritiondata.self.com/ 18 Interviews with market traders in Southern Tanzania March 2012 19 Cost of Living in Tanzania, Numbeo website, accessed April 2012 20 Nutrition Facts, Nutrition Data website, accessed March 2012, http://nutritiondata.self.com/ 21 Interviews with market traders in Southern Tanzania March 2012 22 Cost of Living in Tanzania, Numbeo website, accessed April 2012 23 Mazengo et al., Food Consumption in rural and urban Tanzania, 1997 24 Nutrition Facts, Nutrition Data website, accessed March 2012, http://nutritiondata.self.com/ 25 Ibid. 26 Interviews with market traders in Southern Tanzania March 2012 27 th Mahan et al., Krauses Food and Nutrition Therapy, 13 Edition, 2011 28 Country and Regional Data on Diabetes, WHO website, accessed March 2012 29 Maize intercropping systems in Africa, Cereal Knowledge Bank website, published 2007, accessed March 2012, http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/ckb/index.php/agronomy/maize-intercropping-systems-in-africa 30 Bogale et al., "Legume fallows for maize-based systems in eastern Africa: contribution of legumes to enhanced maize productivity and reduced nitrogen requirements", 2001 31 Sekamatte et al., "Effects of maizelegume intercrops on termite damage to maize, activity of predatory ants and maize yields in Uganda", 2002 32 Mario Osava, Green Revolution on the Savannah, IPS News, published 21 September 2007, accessed March 2012, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39343 33 Ibid. 34 Imbalance in the global agricultural market helps Brazil, Community Brazil News, published 27 May 2011, accessed March 2012, http://www.tubalcaim.com/?tag=green-revolution 35 World Bank Databank; FAOSTAT 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 World Agriculture Towards 2015/2030: Summary Report, FAO website, published 2002, accessed March 2012, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/004/y3557e/y3557e.pdf
42
Claudine Renaud, African farmers battle to break into carbon credit market, Mail & Guardian, published 6 November 2011, accessed March 2012, http://mg.co.za/article/2011-11-06-african-farmers-battle-to-break-intocarbon-credit-market/ 43 Carbon credit for legumes, Ciasse de Depots website, published 13 September 2011, accessed March 2012, http://www.caissedesdepots.fr/en/news/all-the-news/half-year-2009-2010-sales-up-10-on-a-reported-basis-03-like-forlike/carbon-credits-for-legumes.html 44 Nemecek et al., "Environmental Impacts of Introducing Grain Legumes into European Crop Rotations and Pig Feed Formulas", 2006 45 World Agriculture Towards 2015/2030: Summary Report, FAO website, published 2002, acce ssed March 2012, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/004/y3557e/y3557e.pdf 46 Production: Crops: Area Harvested, FAOSTAT website, accessed March 2012, http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx 47 Production: Crops: Production Quantity, FAOSTAT website, accessed March 2012, http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx 48 Ibid. 49 FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid. 52 FAOSTAT; International Trade Center 53 FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis 54 FAOSTAT; International Trade Center 55 FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; International Trade Center; Monitor Analysis 56 Ibid. 57 Trade Maps, International Trade Center website, accessed March 2012, http://www.intracen.org/ 58 Interviews with processors in Ghana January 2012 59 Ibid. 60 400 million smallholders a vital global asset, Global Donor Platform for Rural Development website, accessed March 2012 61 Anderson et al., LSMS Integrated Surveys on Agriculture, United republic of Tanzania: Legumes, 2012 62 Tanzania Agricultural Census 2002 2003 Main Results, FAO website, accessed April 2012, http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/world_census_of_agriculture/main_results_by_country/Tanzan ia_2002-03F_2.pdf 63 Tanzania Population Growth rate, Google Public Data website, accessed April 2012, http://www.google.co.za/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:TZA&dl=en&hl= en&q=tanzanian+population+growth+rate 64 Anderson et al., LSMS Integrated Surveys on Agriculture, United republic of Tanzania: Legumes, 2012 65 Ibid. 66 la Socatn et le Cocoa, Socatene website, accessed February 2012, http://www.socatene.com/cacao.html 67 Interview with Ghana Nuts CEO February 2012 68 Premuim Cocoa, Saco Foods Website, accessed February 2012, http://sacofoods.com/products/view/premiumcocoa 69 Databases, Tools and Methods, International Center for Tropical Agriculture website, accessed March 2012, http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/Publicatios/Pages/databases_tools_methods.aspx 70 Interview with ACOS Ethiopia representative, February 2012 71 Commodities: Maize, Export Trading Group website, accessed February 2012, http://www.etgworld.com/ 72 Trade Maps, International Trade Center website, accessed March 2012, http://www.intracen.org/ 73 Trade Maps, International Trade Center website, accessed March 2012, http://www.intracen.org/ 74 FAOSTAT; International Trade Center; monitor Analysis 75 Production, Supply and Distribution, United States Department of Agriculture website, accessed February 2012, http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/ 76 Trade Maps, International Trade Center website, accessed March 2012, http://www.intracen.org/ 77 Interviews with processors in Nigeria December 2011 78 Interviews with processors in Kumasi, Ghana February 2012 79 WFP Food Procurement, World Food Programme website, accessed March 2012, http://one.wfp.org/operations/Procurement/food_pro_map_10/fpm_popup/fpm_popup.html 80 FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis
81
Transport: Paved Roads (% of total roads), World Bank website, accessed March 2012, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTTRANSPORT/0,,contentMDK:21762040~isCURL:Y~me nuPK:337135~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:337116,00.html 82 Road density (km of road per 100 sq. km of land area), World Bank Databank website, accessed March 2012, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.ROD.DNST.K2 83 Access to electricity (% of population), World Bank Databank website, accessed March 2012, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS 84 Electric power consumption (kWh per capita), World Bank Databank website, accessed March 2012, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC 85 Literacy rate, adult total (% of people ages 15 and above), World Bank Databank website, accessed March 2012, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.ADT.LITR.ZS 86 AGRAs Farmer Organization Support Centre for Africa (FOSCA), AGRA website, accessed March 2012, http://www.agra-alliance.org/section/work/fosca_prog 87 Bulletin Board on Statistical Capacity, World Bank website, accessed March 2012, http://data.worldbank.org/datacatalog/bulletin-board-on-statistical-capacity 88 Tom Vilsack, USDA Accomplishments 2009-2011: Global Food Security, USDA website, accessed March 2012, http://www.usda.gov/documents/Results-Global-Food-Security.pdf 89 International Food Policy Research Institute, Agricultural R&D: Investing in Africas Future, published 2011, accessed March 2012, http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/conference/Theme1/CaseStudies/Lwezaura.pdf 90 International Food Policy Research Institute, African Agricultural R&D in the New Millennium, published 2011, accessed March 2012, http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/pr24.pdf 91 Wortmann et al., Atlas of Common Bean Production in Africa, CIAT Publication No. 297, 1998 92 Anderson et al., LSMS Integrated Surveys on Agriculture, United republic of Tanzania: Legumes, 2012 93 The World Bank, World Development Report: Agriculture for Development, published 2008, ac cessed March 2012, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/WDR_00_book.pdf 94 Watanga Chacha, Expert Interview, Interview conducted on 4 February 2012 95 Melinda Smale, Derek Byerlee & Thom Jayne, Maize Revolution in Sub -Saharan Africa, (The World Bank, 2011) 96 Mariette Thibaudeau, The Latin American Farm Machinery Market, 2011 97 Regulations: European, US & Canada Mycotoxin Regulations, Vicam website, a ccessed March 2012, http://vicam.com/regulations-europe 98 John F. Leslie, Ranajit Bandyopadhyay and Angelo Visconti, Mycotoxins: detection methods, management, public health, and agricultural trade, (Cambridge, MA: C.A.B. International, 2008), 106 99 Eshetu Legesse, Aflatoxin Content of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) in Relation to Shelling and Storage Practices of Ethiopian Farmers (PhD diss., Addis Ababa University, 2010) 100 Archileo N. Kaaya, Management of Aflatoxins in Cereals, Legumes and Tubers, Makerere University, accessed March 2012 101 Aflatoxins in Mali: An Overview, IFPRI, published August 2010, accessed March 2012, http://www.ifpri.org/publication/aflatoxins-mali-overview 102 Pre and Postharvest Management of Aflatoxin Contamination in Groundnut, ICRISAT website, accessed March 2012, www.icrisat.org/aflatoxin/Presentations/AflatoxinManagement.pps 103 Agdev Resources; FAOSTAT; Monitor Analysis; Expert Interviews 104 Food Procurement Map; 2010, WFP website, accessed March 2012, http://www.wfp.org/procurement/foodprocurement-map 105 Sonia David & Louise Sperling, Improving technology delivery mechanisms: Lessons from bean seed systems research in eastern and central, 1999 106 Prices: Producer Prices, FAOSTAT website, accessed March 2012, http://faostat.fao.org/site/703/default.aspx#ancor 107 Nutrition Facts, Nutrition Data website, accessed March 2012, http://nutritiondata.self.com/ 108 Feeding Legumes to Cattle, Government of Alberta Canada website, published 2003, accessed March 2012, http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex6516 109 Forage Quality - Fiber and Energy, West Virginia University Forage Management website, published 1997, accessed March 2012, http://www.caf.wvu.edu/~forage/fiber_energy.htm 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112 Analysis of feeds and fertilizers for sustainable aquaculture development in Uganda, FAO website, published 2007, accessed March 2012, http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/a1444e/a1444e00.htm 113 Universal Nut Sheller, Instructables website, accessed March 2012, http://www.instructables.com/id/UniversalNut-Sheller/ 114 Pedal Powered Nut Sheller, MayaPedal website, accessed March 2012, http://www.mayapedal.org/ 115 Bicycle Corn Thresher, MayaPedal website, accessed March 2012, http://www.mayapedal.org/

African Legume Market Dynamics Report

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

African Legume Market Dynamics Report

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

July 2012

African Legume Market Dynamics

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 2

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 3

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 4

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 5

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 6

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 7

Why Invest in Legumes?

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 8

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 9

Implications and Recommendations

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 10

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 11

The objectives of this report are to:

Country and Crop Focus

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 12

Uganda: Common beans, cowpeas, groundnuts, soybeans

African Legume Market Dynamic Report Structure

The structure of the report is as follows:

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 13

3. Why Invest in Legumes?

Figure 3.1: Categories of Legume Benefits

Farmer Income and Market Opportunities

Food Security, Health and Nutrition Benefits

Soil Health and Climate Benefits

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 14

Farmer Income and Market Opportunities

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 15

Lower Input Costs

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 16

Figure 3.3: Summary of Legume Uses10,11

Common Beans & Chickpeas

Human Consumption Processed/ Industrial Use

Animal Feed Other

Biofuels: Used to make biodiesel, given oilseed properties

Figure 3.4: Legume Demand Structure in Focus Countries, by Legume

Food Common Beans Chickpeas

Soybeans All Legumes

African Legume Market Dynamics

2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 17

Food Security and Health Benefits

High Protein Content13

Figure 3.5: Legume Contribution to Per Capita Protein Intake, 200714

25% 19% 19% 17% 16%

Source: Agdev Resources

Cost-effective high-protein source

African Legume Market Dynamics