african legume market dynamics report

110
 African Legume Market Dynamics Prepared by Monitor Group with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation July 2012

Upload: sofia-zen

Post on 04-Jun-2018

229 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 1/110

 

African Legume Market DynamicsPrepared by Monitor Group with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

July 2012

Page 2: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 2/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundatio

 African Legume Market Dynamics was prepared by Monitor Group on behalf of the Bill & Melinda GatesFoundation.

DisclaimerThough this publication has been funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, its content does notnecessarily 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 theinformation is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at their own risk andliability.

For questions about this report please contact [email protected]

Page 3: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 3/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundatio

Table of Contents

1.  Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................8 

2.  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 

3.  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 

4.  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 

5.  Profiling Legume Farmers .................................................................................................42 

5.1.   Number of Legume Farmers .....................................................................................42 

5.2.  The Voice of the Farmer ...........................................................................................42 

5.3.  Farmer Segments ......................................................................................................43 

6.  Legume Market Opportunities ..........................................................................................45 

6.1.  Commercial Buyer Market Opportunities ................................................................45 6.2.  Food Security Relief Market Opportunities ..............................................................50 

7.  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.  Farmer s’ Organizations Constraints ..........................................................53 

Page 4: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 4/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundatio

7.1.4.  Data Constraints .........................................................................................53 

7.2.  Action Agenda for Constraints that Affect Multiple Commodities ..........................54 

7.3.  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 

7.4.  Targeting the Action Agenda ....................................................................................74 

8.  Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................77 

9.  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 

Page 5: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 5/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundatio

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 (1961 – 2007).27 

Figure 3.13: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in Brazil (1961 – 2007) ..........................27 

Figure 3.14: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in China (1961 – 2007) ...........................27 

Figure 3.15: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in India (1961 – 2007) ............................27 

Figure 3.16: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in South Africa (1961 – 2007)................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, 2000 – 2010 ...................................................30 

Figure 4.5: Legume and Cereal Compound Annual Production Growth Rate, by Continent .......30 

Figure 4.6: Production, by Legume: Focus Countries, (2000 – 2010) ............................................31 

Figure 4.7: Compound Annual Growth Rate by Legume within Focus Countries, (2000 – 2010) 32 

Figure 4.8: Legume and Cereal Production, Focus Countries and Rest of Africa 2000 – 2010.....34 

Figure 4.9: Global Legume and Cereal Consumption 2005 – 2010 ................................................35 

Figure 4.10: Legume and Cereal Consumption, Focus Countries 2005 – 2010 ..............................35 

Figure 4.11: Legume and Cereal Consumption Compound Annual Growth Rate, by Continent .36 

Figure 4.12: Consumption, by Legume (Focus Countries) 2000 – 2010 ........................................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 ofAfrica (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 

Page 6: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 6/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundatio

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 

Page 7: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 7/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundatio

Glossary

 AfDB African Development Bank

 ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International and Volunteers in Overseas

Cooperative Assistance

 AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa

BMGF Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

CRSP Collaborative Research Support Program

ETG Export Trading Group

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GAFSP Global Agriculture and Food Security Program

ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

NGO Non-governmental Organization

P4P Purchase for Progress

PASS Program for Africa‘s Seed Systems 

SHF Smallholder Farmer

SME Small or Medium Enterprise

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WFP World Food Programme

Page 8: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 8/110

Page 9: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 9/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundatio

biodiversity of the farm plot has been shown to reduce pest and disease damage to farmers‘ primarycrops.

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

the 21st 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; demandfor 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 andcompetitiveness.

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, theavailability 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

Page 10: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 10/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 rolebetween 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 forthose opportunities to be realized.

Page 11: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 11/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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

correspondingly ii. These efforts have focused heavily on staple crops like maize, rice, or cassava as

exemplified by AGRA‘s Breadbasket Strategy in Ghana 1 and USAID‘s Feed the Future Strategy in Mali2.

Simultaneously, multiple efforts — such as AGRA‘s 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 forconsumption. The LSMS-ISAiii 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 don‘t see amarket 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 andstorage 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-programiii Living Standards Measurement Study — Integrated Surveys on Agriculture

Page 12: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 12/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

2.2.  Objectives

The objectives of this report are to:

  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 chainsthat 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.

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

Page 13: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 13/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

  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

analysis provides a representative assessment of overall legumes activity in Africa iv. Throughout the

report the term ―legumes‖ refers to the core focus legumes, unless otherwise noted.  

2.4.  African Legume Market Dynamic Report Structure

The structure of the report is as follows:

  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 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

Page 14: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 14/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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

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 offood security, health and nutrition benefits, the primary benefits are: (i) positive nutrition and food security-

related 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. Eachof 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

Farmer Income and

Market Opportunities

Food Security, Health

and Nutrition Benefits

Soil Health and

Climate Benefits

Page 15: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 15/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

systems. In addition to this, legumes carry the title of ―poor man‘s meat‖. This gives rise to the question ofwhether 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 cropimprovement programs in sub-Saharan Africa6 

Note: (i) Cereals refer to scientists involved in maize and rice crop improvementprograms across sub-Saharan Africa; (ii) Legumes refer to scientists involved ingroundnut and common bean crop improvement programs in sub-Saharan Africa; (iii) The f igure excludes scientists researching other legume and cerealcropsSource: International Food Policy Research Institute

3.1.  Farmer Income and Market Opportunities

3.1.1.  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 Nigeria‘s southern Guinea Savanna found thatroughly 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 oflegumes 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

11.0

5.2

CerealsLegumes

+112%

Page 16: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 16/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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

North Sahel region of Burkina Faso is growing rapidlyv.

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 economicallyattractive 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

recycled grain, given the self-pollinating nature of legumesvi.

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, low-

reward/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 incombination 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

stored for later use or salevii.

 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 surplussale 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

vi 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

Page 17: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 17/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Figure 3.3: Summary of Legume Uses10,11

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 manureSource: 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

Note: (i) Domestic consumption excludes exports; (ii) Other under the ―other‖ category includes wastage Source: Agdev Resources; FAOSTAT; Monitor Analysis; Expert Interviews

Use

Common

Beans &

Chickpeas

CowpeasGround-

nutsSoybeans

Human

Consumption

Direct/

primary  Food grain eaten raw, sprouted, cooked, boiled, roasted, fried

Processed/Industrial

Use

Natural sources of amino acids, vitamin E, complex carbohydrates, potassium, calcium, f iber, antioxidants, aminoacids, fatty acids and other nutrients

Processed into high-protein snacks, ground into (cotyledon) fortified flour, juiced into milk, canned

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)

Other

Animal

Feed

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

Seed   Used in the generation of seed

Other 

Nitrogen-fixation: Intercropped to leverage nitrogen-fixing properties

Health: E.g., Cowpeas treat boils, groundnut-based solvents used in medicine, soybeans aid kidney functioning

Biofuels: Used to make biodiesel, given oilseed properties

Common Beans 100% - - - -

Chickpeas NA NA NA NA NA

Cowpeas 69% 30% 1% - -

Groundnuts 45% 37% 12% 4% 2%

Soybeans 9% 52% 34% 3% 3%

All Legumes 58% 30% 8% 2% 2%

Domestic

Consumption

Human Other  

Food Processing Feed Seed Other  

Page 18: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 18/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

3.2.  Food Security and Health Benefits

3.2.1.  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 focuscountries. In five of the seven focus countries (see Figure 3.5 below) legumes provide at least 16% of the

per capita protein intake. When combined with cereals, legumes can form a complete protein diet viii.

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 

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 completeprotein, other legumes lack the amino acid methionine. Major cereals such as rice, maize and wheat containmethionine, but are deficient in another essential amino acid, lysine. It has been shown that even modest amounts ofhigher lysine protein foods such as legumes can have major impact on diet and that complete protein can beachieved (Source: ―Plant proteins in relation to human protein and amino acid nutrition‖, Young & Pellett, 1994;Nutrition Expert Interview)

Focus Countries where legumes co ntribute

>10% of per capital protein intake

Focus Countries where legumes co ntribute

<10% of per capital protein intake

South Asian countries

India 13%

Ethiopia 16%

Bangladesh 5%

Ghana 6%

Mali 9%

Nigeria

25%

17%

Tanzania 19%

19%

Uganda

Burkina Faso

Page 19: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 19/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Figure 3.6: Protein and Calories Provided by Legumes, per USD ix,15,16 

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 pricedata 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 producerfrom the purchaser for a unit of a good or service produced as output minus any VAT, or similar deductibletax, 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 takeninto account when considering the nutritional benefit of the cropSource: 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 Figure3.7 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. Micro-

nutrient intake is discussed further in the section entitled A balanced diet .

ix Producer prices used to calculate affordability

722

664

965

1,860

9,942

8,551

6,487

6,935

9,103

13,086

11,377

Goat

Chicken

Beef 

Wheat

Pork

Chickpeas

Cowpeas

Maize

CommonBeans

Groundnuts

Soybeans

76

128

145

148

246

277

339

485

515

600

918

Wheat

Chicken

Maize

Groundnuts

CommonBeans

Soybeans

Pork

Chickpeas

Goat

Cowpeas

Beef 

Unit: Calories per USDUnit: Protein Grams per USD

Calories per USDProtein per USD

Page 20: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 20/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Figure 3.7: Protein and Calories Provided by Legumes, per USDx,17, 18, 19 

Note: All calculations based on market prices collected from seven markets in the Tanzanian SouthernHighlands, except for egg which is sourced from a market survey in TanzaniaSource: Nutrition Data; Market Interviews

Figure 3.8: Iron, Zinc and Vitamin A, per USD, 20, 21, 22 

Note: All calculations based on market prices collected from seven markets in the Tanzanian SouthernHighlands, except for egg which is sourced from a market survey in TanzaniaSource: 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 ofmaize, 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

311

472

446

3,114

7,892

3,614

3,314

3,245

2,713

3,169

Chicken

Beef 

Wheat

Maize

Groundnuts

Chickpeas

Common

Beans

Soybeans

Cowpeas

Egg28

50

67

101

195

166

173

183

219

222

Wheat

Beef 

Chicken

Maize

Groundnuts

Chickpeas

Common

Beans

Soybeans

Cowpeas

Egg

Unit: Calories per USDUnit: Protein Grams per USD

Calories per USDProtein per USD

Egg   22%

Chicken   5%

Beef    0%

Wheat   0%

Maize   87%

Groundnuts   0%

Chickpeas   9%

Common

Beans  0%

Soybeans   0%

Cowpeas   9%

Egg   15%

Chicken   12%

Beef    76%

Wheat   211%

Maize   325%

Groundnuts   140%

Chickpeas   209%

Common

Beans  183%

Soybeans   201%

Cowpeas   379%

Unit:% of RDA per USD

Vitamin A per USDIron per USD

Egg   22%

Chicken   9%

Beef    25%

Wheat   275%

Maize   325%

Groundnuts   159%

Chickpeas   319%

Common

Beans  357%

Soybeans   529%

Cowpeas   508%

Zinc per USD

Unit:% of RDA per USD Unit:% of RDA per USD

Page 21: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 21/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 thecalories 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 

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.

2,270

1,090

1,400

2,000

3,640

3,400

3,360

3,640

3,430

5,670

4,460

1,430

Pork

Goat

Beef 

Chicken

Maize

Wheat

Chickpeas

Cowpeas

Common

Beans

Groundnuts

Soybeans

Egg

180

210

210

210

90

110

190

190

240

260

360

130

Pork

Goat

Beef 

Chicken

Maize

Wheat

Chickpeas

Cowpeas

Common

Beans

Groundnuts

Soybeans

Egg

Unit: Calories per KGUnit: Protein Grams per KG

Calories per KGProtein per KG

Page 22: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 22/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Figure 3.10: Dietary Implications of Various Budget Allocationsxi,25,26, 27 

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) Watersoluble vitamins is a composite including folate, niacin, pantothenic acid, riboflavin, thiamin, and vitamins B6, B12 & CSource: 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 continuebecause 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, aconsumer 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 calciumdeficiencies, 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

Option 1: Maize Only

Budget Allocation2

Maize – USD 0.50 (1080 grams)

Percentage of RDA Met

Option 3: Maize and Chicken

Budget Allocation

Maize – USD 0.20 (430 grams)Chicken – USD 0.30 (70 grams)

Percentage of RDA Met

Option 2: Maize and Common Beans

Budget Allocation

Maize – USD 0.20 (430 grams)Common Beans – USD 0.30

(290 grams)

Percentage of RDA Met

Zinc   158%

Iron   293%

Calcium   11%

Water Soluble

Vitamins  96%

Vitamin A   0%

Carbohydrate

Protein

Fat

178%

65%

82%

Zinc   69%

Iron   123%

Calcium   6%

Water Soluble

Vitamins  41%

Vitamin A   5%

Carbohydrate

Protein

Fat

71%

33%

64%

Zinc   117%

Iron   355%

Calcium   62%

Water Soluble

Vitamins  132%

Vitamin A   0%

Carbohydrate

Protein

Fat

110%

72%

37%

Maize Common

Beans

Maize

Chicken

Maize

Page 23: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 23/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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

diabetesxii.

xii The World Health Organization estimates that Type 2 Diabetes in our focus countries will grow at a compounded

annual rate of 3.3% over the 30-year period between 2000 and 2030, compared with 1.8% in the USAxii

. The majorityof the increase in diabetes prevalence will be amongst the poorer households who derive most of their energyrequirements from high glycemic index (GI) cereals (Source: ―Data and Statistics‖, World Health Organization,accessed March 2012, http://www.who.int/research/en/)

Page 24: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 24/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Figure 3.11: Diabetes Prevalence in Focus Countries, Millions28 

Source: World Health Organization

3.3.  Soil Health and Climate Benefits

3.3.1.  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 improvesoil 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 breakthrough 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

9.3

3.4

2030

2000

Page 25: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 25/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 Brazil‘s green revolution, soybeans were included among the priority crops. Soybean benefitssuch as improved soil health were widely popularized and significant investments were made intoimproved seed varieties32. As a result, today, Brazil is the second largest exporter of soybeans globally,

accounting for approximately a third of total legume export volumes xiii . Soybeans are the country‘spreeminent agricultural export commodity since the 1990s, and have transformed rural and farming

economies substantially33. Today, Brazil is an anchor trade partner with China  –  the world‘s largestimporter of soybeans  – and the soybeans it exports to China are crucial in supporting China‘s domesticfood security effortsxiv,34.

On the contrary, during India‘s green revolution, legumes were ignored, while priority investments favoredcash 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 man‘s meat‖. 

xiii The United States is the largest exporter of soybeans, accounting for 50% of total global export volumes

xiv Brazil accounts for approximately 40% of China‘s soybean imports

Page 26: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 26/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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. InFigure 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 3.13 –Figure 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.

Page 27: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 27/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Figure 3.12: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in Emerging Economies(1961 –2007)35 

Figure 3.13: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in Brazil (1961 –2007)36 

Figure 3.14: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in China (1961 –2007)37 

Figure 3.15: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in India (1961 –2007)38 

Figure 3.16: GDP per capita and Legume Consumption in South Africa (1961 –2007)39 

Note: (i) Emerging Economies refers to a composition of Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Africa Thailandand Turkey; (ii) Staple Consumption refers to consumption of the most consumed staple in each country; (iii) In Brazil maizeis the most consumed staple, in China and India rice is the most consumed staple; (iv) Legume consumption refers toconsumption of common beans, groundnut and soybeans in each country; (v) Brazil, China and India are singled out fromthe rest of the emerging economies since these countries consume the most legumes out of the group; (vi) GDP per capitafor the group of emerging economies is calculated by aggregation of individual country GDP per capita, by population sizeSource: World Bank Databank; FAOSTAT; Monitor Analysis

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

60

0

201020001990198019701960

120

30

90

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M   T  U

 S D

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

1990198019701960

450

150

600

300

0

20102000

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M   T  U

 S D

Corr = 0.99 Corr = 0.89

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

20001990198019701960

40

30

20

10

0

2010

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M   T  U

 S D

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,00060

15

45

30

0

201020001990198019701960

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M   T  U

 S D

Corr = 0.91 Corr = 0.88

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

1990198019701960

60

45

30

15

0

20102000

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M   T

 U S D

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

201020001990198019701960

150

100

200

0

50   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M   T  U

 S D

Corr = 0.99 Corr = 0.70

0

200

400

600

80020

15

19801970 19901960

10

5

0

20102000

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M   T  U

 S D

0

200

400

600

800

0

20101990198019701960 2000

160

120

80

40   M

   i   l   l   i  o  n   M   T   U

 S D

Corr = 0.90 Corr = 0.91

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

0.4

0.8

0.2

0.6

19801970 19901960

0.0

20102000

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M   T  U

 S D

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2010

10

1990198019701960 2000

2

4

6

8

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M   T   U

 S D

Corr = 0.44 Corr = 0.59

Legend corresponding to Figure 3.12 –Figure 3.16 above:

GDP per capita

(RHS Axis)

Legume

Consumption(LHS Axis)

 Major Staple

Consumption(LHS Axis)

Page 28: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 28/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 

Note: Other includes: cereals, roots, tubers, sugar, milk and dairySource: 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 Change42,43:  Heightened focus on climate change can potentially have a positive

impact on legume markets in focus countries as legumes assist with decreasing carbon

2.9%

2.5%2.7%

3.1% Meat

Vegetable

Oils

Legumes

2030

426

2.4%

2.9%

2.5%

2015

404

92.2%

2.7%

‘97–‘99

383

92.8%

2.4%

2.3%

‘79–‘81

360

92.0%

2.4%

2.7%

Other 91.5%

   K   G   /   C  a  p   i   t  a   /   Y  e  a  r

Page 29: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 29/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 

Note: (i) CO2 is carbon dioxide; (ii) N2O isnitrous oxideSource: Swiss Confederation

6.  Ample Land Availability 45: 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 

Source: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development;Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food& Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0

-13%

20%

Legumes

CO2

N2O

No

Legumes

CO2

N2O

0

100

200

300

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Rest of 

the World

Focus

Countries

   I  n   d  e  x   V  a   l  u  e

Page 30: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 30/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

4.2.  Key Market Metrics

4.2.1.  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 xv.

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.

Figure 4.4: Global Legume and Cereal Production, 2000 –2010

Note: Cereals refer to maize and riceSource: FAOSTAT

Figure 4.5: Legume and Cereal Compound Annual Production Growth Rate, byContinent48 

Note: Cereals refer to cassava, maize, millet, rice, sorghum and wheatSource: FAOSTAT

xv Reference to Europe includes Oceania (14 islands/countries in the tropical Pacific Ocean including Australia, New

Zealand, etc.)

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M  e   t  r   i  c   T  o  n  s

The

 Americas

 Asia

 Af rica

Europe

2010

338.9

70%

21%

6%  2%

2005

285.0

68%

24%

7%  1%

2000

224.8

64%

27%

+4%

7%   1%

+2%

 Asia

The

 Americas

 Af rica

Europe

2010

1,426.4

60%

34%

6%  0%

2000

1,125.1

62%

33%

5%   0%

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M  e   t  r   i  c   T  o  n  s

Legumes Cereals

Period   ’00-’10 ’05-’10 ’08-’10  Cereals

(’00-’10)

Europe 7.0% 7.7% 16.9% -7.3%

Africa 3.0% 2.4% 1.2% 3.2%

Asia 1.6% 0.8% 1.3% 1.9%

The

Americas 4.6% 3.6% 4.3% 2.6%

Page 31: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 31/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 wellas 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

legume production among focus countries is led by Ghanaxvi  (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 promisingat 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, (2000 –2010)49 

Source: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment; 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

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M  e   t  r   i  c   T  o  n  s

Groundnuts

Cowpeas

Common

beans

Soybeans

Chickpeas

2010

10.5

43%

31%

16%

7%

3%

2005

10.8

45%

33%

13%

7%

2%

2000

8.0

46%

31%

14%

7%2%

Page 32: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 32/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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,(2000 –2010)50 

Source: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; GhanaianMinistry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives;Monitor Analysis

2.7

1.92.4

4.14.8

9.4

8.5

10.3

4.14.8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Chickpeas CowpeasCommon

Beans

Groundnuts Soybeans

Focus Countries Focus Countries

(excld. Nigeria)

%

Page 33: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 33/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Chickpeas

Chickpea production growth has

been promising, however,

chickpeas still only accounted for

3% of legume production in 2010

within the focus countries, a slightgain 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.

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 world‘s largest cowpea producer and as such Nigerian trends dominate those of the other focuscountries. 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

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 threeresearch 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 1970‘s, more than 30varieties 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.

Page 34: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 34/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 Africa2000 –201051 

Note: Cereals refer to maize and riceSource: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; TanzanianMinistry 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

2005 –2010, 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 Africa‘s legumes. 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

34%

2%2%

4%

1%  2%

2%2%

5%

2000

15.6

+3%

Rest of Af rica

Nigeria

Tanzania

Uganda

Ghana

Burkina Faso

50%

52%

4%

4%

Ethiopia

Mali

4%

3%

24%

7%

2%

2005

18.6

44%

36%

6%

4%

2010

21.5

5%2%

2.5%

-0.3%

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M  e   t  r   i  c   T  o  n  s

CAGR

(’00–’10)

8.1%

1.9%

14.1%

9.3%

7.3%

3.4%

Rest of Af rica

Nigeria

Ethiopia

Mali

Ghana

Uganda2%

2010

66%

12%

6%

Burkina Faso

2%2%

  1%

3%

2%

5%

4%

2000

61.8

73%

12%

Tanzania

4%

4%

2%

87.1+3%

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M  e   t  r   i  c   T  o  n  s

2.3%

3.2%

CAGR

(’00–’10)

6.7%

4.6%

13.1%

5.9%

2.6%

9.1%

Legumes Cereals

Page 35: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 35/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

relatively strong. Despite accounting for the largest volume of consumption within focus countries, Nigeria

is experiencing significant declines in consumption at 4% per annum xviii . 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 2005 –201052 

Note: Cereals refer to maize and riceSource: FAOSTAT; International Trade Center; Monitor Analysis

Figure 4.10: Legume and Cereal Consumption, Focus Countries 2005 –201053 

Note: Cereals refer to maize and riceSource: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; TanzanianMinistry 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

+4%

The

 Americas

 Asia

 Af rica

Europe &

Oceania

2010

338.6

70%

22%

6%   2%

2008

304.6

69%

23%

7%   1%

2005

284.9

68%

24%

7%   1%

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M  e   t  r   i  c   T  o  n  s

30%

7%   0%

2010

+3%

 Asia

The

 Americas

 Af rica

Europe1,426.2

63%

30%

7%   0%

2005

1,246.9

64%   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M  e   t  r   i  c   T  o  n  s

Legumes Cereals

CAGR

(’05–’10)

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M  e   t  r   i  c   T  o  n  s

2%

18.7

2005

45%

4%

24%

+3%

Rest of

 Africa

Nigeria

Tanzania

Uganda

Ghana

Ethiopia

Burkina Faso

Mali

4%

3%

3%

2%

2008

20.8

21.6

53%

2010

7%

50%

31%

5%

4%

4%

2%

2%

5%

37%

6%

2%2%2%2%

2.0%

4.1%

10.8%

1.0%

4.3%

-4.3%

13.6%

5.5%

CAGR

(’05–’10)

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M  e   t  r   i  c   T  o  n  s

Tanzania

+5%

Nigeria

Mali

Ethiopia

Ghana

Uganda

2010

104.3

71%

Burkina Faso

5%

4%

4%

3%

2%1%

2005

81.9

70%

12%

6%

5%

2%2%

2%2%

Rest of Africa

10%

2.1%

3.9%

5.6%

2.1%

2.9%

1.7%

13.3%

4.4%

Legumes Cereals

Page 36: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 36/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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, byContinent54 

Note: No growth rate is represented for Europe since the formula for consumptionentailed 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 world‘s largest consumer of cowpeas, Nigeria has a significant impact onconsumption 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

Period   ’05-’10 ’08-’10  Cereals

(’05-’10)

Europe &

Oceania6.6% 14.0% -

Africa 2.4% 1.1% 4.1%

Asia 0.9% 1.5% 2.0%

The Americas 3.6% 4.3% 2.6%

Page 37: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 37/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Nigeria each year, the imports could not keep pace with the production declines. Consumption of

cowpeas in Nigeria decreased at a rate of 4% per annum between 2005 and 2010 xix.

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 byhouseholds 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 impliesincreased 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) 2000 –201055 

Source: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment; 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 of2,4% between 2010 and 2020

Soybeans

Common

Beans

Cowpeas

Groundnuts

2010

10.1

45%

30%

16%7%   2%

2005

10.4

47%

32%

13%7%1%

2000

2%7%14%

8.0

0

47%

30%

8

10

12 Chickpeas

2

4

6

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M  e   t  r   i  c

   T  o  n  s

Page 38: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 38/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Figure 4.13: Legume Consumption Compound Annual Growth Rate, by Legume56 

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 thetrue 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 Countriesand Rest of Africa (RHS), 201057 

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.

Legume   ’00-’10 ’05-’10 ’08-’10

Chickpea 1.8% 10.7% -4.5%

Soybean 2.7% 0.3% -5.6%

Common

Bean3.5% 2.6% 11.2%

Cowpea 2.0% -1.4% -4.3%

Groundnut 1.7% -1.4% -0.9%

Asia

Europe

& Oceania

80

40

-80

-60

-40

-20

100

0

20

60

Africa

Americas

Net

Exporters

Net

Importers

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   M  e   t  r   i  c   T  o  n  s

21

13

0

1

5

17

4

1

8

5

0

GhanaEthiopia

135

Burkina

Faso

Mali

600

UgandaTanzania Rest of

 Africa

2,201

106

Nigeria

   T   h  o  u  s  a  n   d   M  e   t  r   i  c   T  o  n  s

Export Import

Page 39: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 39/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 significantimporters 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.

Page 40: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 40/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Figure 4.15: Net Exports, by Legume in Focus Countries, 2010 59 

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 industriesproducing 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 country‘s 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, Togo, Cote d‘Ivoire, Ghana, Mali and Benin and imported fromNiger. 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 mostlychanneled to regional neighbors with the main trade partners being Ghana xx, Cote d‘Ivoirexxi, Mali, Niger

and Togo.

xx Ghana primarily imports groundnuts from Burkina Faso for human consumption

xxi Cote d‘Ivoire primarily imports groundnuts from Burkina Faso for production of groundnut cake (animal feed)  

   T   h  o  u  s  a  n   d   M  e   t  r   i  c   T  o  n

  s

47

19

1

14

SoybeansGroundnuts

58

Chickpeas

88

Common

Beans

116

ImportExport

Page 41: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 41/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 d‘Ivoire. No data exists on theinformal 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 sentto Zambia, Burundi and Uganda.

Uganda

Common beans are the most widely informally-traded legume with respect to Uganda; 84% of U ganda‘scommon 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.

Page 42: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 42/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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

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 themesemerged 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.

0.30.8

1.2

2.4

2.5

4.1

6.517.8

Total Ethiopia Tanzania MaliUganda GhanaNigeria Burkina

Faso

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   S  m  a   l   l   h  o   l   d  e  r   F  a  r  m  e  r  s

Represents~20% of total smallholder

farmers in Sub Saharan Africa

Page 43: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 43/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

  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 Act ion 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 forsurplus, 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 tosupport 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 maygrow 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 anysegmentation effort

Page 44: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 44/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Market-Mainly Farmers

Farmers in the ―Market-Mainly‖ segment grow legumes for subsistence, with a high proportion ofmarketable 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 morecommercialized. 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% Male-

headed 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 theirbenefit 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.

Page 45: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 45/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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. Bunge‘s 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. OtherCommodities66,67,68,69,70,71 

Note: (i) SFMC stands for Savanna Farmers Marketing Company; (ii) NMC stands for National Milling Company; (iii) ETG stands forExport Trading GroupSource: 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 wellestablished 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

can replace half of current imports originating from North and Central America xxiii. A significant share of

chickpea imports originate from the United States of America, Canada and Mexico, over which East

xxiii 

Legumes

Cocoa

Maize

Aggregators / Co-ops Processors Exporters

23

3SFMC

Socatène

70

138SACO

Foods

200NMC

Ghana

Nuts25

ETG   151

Cargill   204

 Acos Ltd

Traded in Keny a (’09 ) 

Traded in

Cote d’Ivoire (’09 ) 

Haricot Beans in 

Ethiopia (’10 est.)Various Legumes 

Cocoa Grinding Cote d’Ivoire (’09)

Mill ing in Zambia 

Soybeans in Ghana

(‘09)

N/A

Thousand MT Thousand MT Thousand MT

Page 46: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 46/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

 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, 2010 72 

Source: International Trade Center

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 importdemand.

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

Spain

36

78%

23%

1%

5%

5%22%

Bangladesh

23790%

0%51%

78

73%

India

73%

18196%

78%   22%

Jordan

38100%

88%

106

22%

Pakistan

 Algeria

United ArabEmirates

45

Iran

Saudi Arabia 4289%

0% 4%

75

4%

49%

UnitedKingdom

36

6%

11%

5%

0%

5%

Total Imported from Ethiop ia

Total Imported f rom other Countries

Total Imported from North America & Mexico

Thousand MT

Page 47: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 47/110

Page 48: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 48/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Figure 6.4: Cowpea Consumption Market Size, 201074 

Note: (i) CAGR stands for Compound Annual Growth rate; (ii) Data availability islimited for Ghana, inhibiting a CAGR to be calculated for 2001 –2010. The CAGR for2007 –2010 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 importdemand. Assuming these countries could achieve a 20%xxiv  share of this import demand, the potential

market size is 110,000MT.

Figure 6.5: Global Groundnut Import Market75 

Source: United States Department of Agriculture

xxiv Assumes 20% replaceable import demand which is what imports from Argentina, Brazil and China currently

account for

Ghana

219

2,243

Burkina FasoNigeria

216

Mali

312

1% 1% - 12%CAGR 

’01- ’10 

   T   h  o  u  s  a  n

   d   M   T

1,923

1,241

20071997

4.5%

Global Groundnut Trade (97-07)

7%

8%9%

EU-27

IndonesiaMexico

Canada

23%

Russia

Others

7%

8%

38%

Japan

Share of Global Import

(2007)

   T   h  o  u  s  a  n   d   M   T

Brazil

Netherland 7% 6%

USA 12%

Others

8%

China

17%

 Argentina

49%

EU

Suppliers(2007)

Page 49: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 49/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

West Africa holds a geographic advantage over Argentina, Brazil and China for exports to Europe, which

currently account for nearly 75% of the EU‘s groundnut imports. However, a number of challenges hinder Africa‘s 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 storageexacerbates 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 

Source: International Trade Center

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.

Sub-Saharan Imports,

Soybean Products (2010)

   T   h  o  u  s  a  n   d   M   T

1,625

3,164

1,179

Soybean OilSoybean MealSoybean,Raw

West Africa Imports,

Soybean Products (2010)

76

28

1

Soybean OilSoybean MealSoybean,Raw

   T   h  o  u  s  a  n   d   M   T

Page 50: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 50/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 Program‘s Purchase for Progress (P4P) and various

public feeding programs. SONAGESS xxv , 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 WFP‘s P4P program purchases common beans, cowpeas and soybeans. Akey 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 P4P‘s purchases or about 88,000MT.

Figure 6.7: World Food Programme P4P Procurement of Legumes79 

Source: World Food Programme

Food security opportunities primarily relate to farmers in the ―Subsistence -Only‖ segment, whose legumeproduce 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.

xxv Société Nationale de Gestion du Stock de Sécurité Alimentaire 

Oceania

23%

North America   1%

Europe

14%

Latin America   7%

 Asia

19%

 Africa35%

Share of Legume Volume

by Region (2010)

2010

Legumes7%

93%

3,166

Others

Legumes

Others

2010

10%

90%

1,250

By Volume (2010)By Value (2010)

   M   i   l   l   i  o  n   U   S   D

   T   h  o  u  s  a  n   d   M   T

Page 51: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 51/110

 

African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Founda

 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 

Source: FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture; Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives

South Africa   1.53

South Asia   1.14

Uganda   0.71

Tanzania   0.96

Nigeria   1.00

Mali   0.93

Ghana   1.50

Ethiopia   1.35

Burkina Faso   0.71

 Argentina

Brazil

2.79

2.72

0.59

1.07

1.06

0.59

0.89

0.43

1.31

0.77

1.18

0.47

0.49

0.72

1.49

1.26

0.93

1.82

1.08

1.13

0.87

1.40

0.69

1.90

1.53

1.26

2.91

2.94

0.85

0.55

0.85

1.34

0.92

Groundnuts Cowpeas Common Beans Soybeans Chickpeas

Page 52: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 52/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 agriculture‘s contribution to GDP as well as itspotential 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/100km2 

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 theregions 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 socio-

economic 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

for all focus countries is less than 0.5%xxvi,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)

Page 53: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 53/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

and less than 10%6,xxvii  of global electricity consumption per capita. Both statistics indicate a significant

gap in electrification.

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 maximizeincomes (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 noteducated 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, seedproduction 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)

Page 54: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 54/110

Page 55: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 55/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 better-

placed to positively impact farmer incomes and nutrition. As an example, in Burkina Faso, cowpeas havebeen 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 government‘s 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 women‘s landownership. 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, inTanzania, 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.

Page 56: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 56/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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

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 sevenfocus 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:

Burkina

Faso

  Ethiopia Ghana Mali Nigeria Tanzania Uganda

Improved seed

registration

Seed multiplication and

distribution

Legume exports

For legumes, in general,

the government promotesthe following:

Private Sector

Participation in the

Legume Value Chain

All major legumes as

priority crops

 

High government promotionof this policy dimension

Medium government promotionof this policy dimension

 Low government promotionof this policy dimension

Page 57: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 57/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

 –   Refine existing policies to promote and prioritize legumes and relax restrictive policies which limitthe potential of the legume industry

 –   Reduce/remove any inconsistencies and contradictions in current policies, which limit thepotential of legumes; streamline policies so that all agricultural agencies work toward the samegoals; 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

incomes, national balance of trade, and, importantly, climate mitigation xxix 

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

staff xxx

, (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 researchinstitutions — 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 youngbreeders/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 country‘s agricultural GDP forresearch 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 obtaincarbon credits for planting legumes, and other potential sources of funding that can support additional programs topromote and develop the legume sectorxxx

 This is not unique to legume crops

Page 58: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 58/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

  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-generatingactivities 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 institutionsare, 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 country-crop 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:

Page 59: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 59/110

Page 60: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 60/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 improvedseed 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 demandfrom 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 pricefor 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 glegumes 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

Page 61: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 61/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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-dealerwas 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 relativelyunattractive 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 high-

input 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

Page 62: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 62/110

Page 63: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 63/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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

subsistence oriented, or subsistence plus market.xxxii

 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 women‘s crop‖ in the past, but field research indicated that in any casewhere 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 subsistenceor 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

Page 64: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 64/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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

Programme‘s 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 potentialdestination 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.

Page 65: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 65/110

Page 66: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 66/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

 –    At the farm level (storage in shells): 0 –15ppb

 –    At the market level: >20ppb

 –   Processed (unroasted): >30ppb

  Mali 101: 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 (35 –172ppb); after about 5 months in storage (176 –450ppb)

 –   Farmers —  aflatoxin contamination: At harvest (35% –61%); after about 5 months in storage(39% –96%)

 –   Traders —  aflatoxin levels: At initial purchase (68 –130ppb); after about 5 months in storage(~280ppb)

 –   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, groundnut‘s 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 socially-

conscious 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

Page 67: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 67/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 willbe 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 Institute‘s 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 privatebuyers, 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.

Page 68: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 68/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

In aggregate, medium-/high-level processingxxxiv  accounts for a low share of the demand structure of

legumes, but is the fastest-growing of all uses 103. 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:

  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 primarycommodity grown by smallholder farmers in a polyculture environment. Because legumes are a second-

order 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

Page 69: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 69/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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, aresometimes 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 Programme‘sP4P, 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 mustbe 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:

Page 70: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 70/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

  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 sectoragriculture. 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 sup port 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 benefit women. For example, cheap andportable hand-processing machinery could be provided to women. The Universal Nut Sheller ,

developed by the founder of a NGO on the request of a women‘s   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 mar kets 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

Page 71: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 71/110

Page 72: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 72/110

Page 73: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 73/110

Page 74: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 74/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 ―Subsistence-Only‖ farmers are a smaller, more difficult toreach segment.

Interventions targeted toward ―Subsistence-Only‖ farmers must aim to increase nutrition, while thosetargeted at ―Market-Mainly‖ farmers must aim to increase incomes. Interventions targeted toward

―Subsistence/Market‖ farmers must aim to increase both their incomes and nutrition, and recognize theunique 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 thelegume 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 ―Market -Mainly‖ and ―Subsistence/Market‖ farmers who are more responsive to economic incentives and directlylinked 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 needto look to improve taste and nutritional characteristics, whereas for ―Market-Mainly‖ farmers, interventionsneed 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 ,

Page 75: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 75/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 don‘t, 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 belargely 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 pestsare 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 involved 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

Page 76: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 76/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 toparticipate 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.

Page 77: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 77/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 income-

generating possibilities, contribute so strikingly to macro- and micro-nutrient intake and improve soilhealth 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.

Page 78: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 78/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

AfterwordThis report was commissioned by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to fill the gap in informationavailable on legumes in Africa. By providing data on production, consumption and opportunities formarket development, and by providing insights into how the growth of the legumes market can contributeto improving farmer incomes, food security, nutrition, and soil health, the report makes the case for aconcerted 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 fordiscussion with a view to designing and implementing a multi-stakeholder plan of action to unlock thelegumes value proposition.

Page 79: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 79/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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. Individualcountry-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, seedproducers, 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.

Page 80: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 80/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Figure 9.1 Contacts Made During the Project

Country Name of Organization Type of Organization Contact Name

BurkinaFaso

- - Mr Traore Boubakar

BurkinaFaso

 AGRA - Mr Abdou M. Konlambigue

BurkinaFaso

Purdue University Academic institution Mr Jess Lowenberg-DeBoer

BurkinaFaso

Purdue University Academic institution Mr Bokar Moussa

BurkinaFaso

FNGN (Fédération Nationaledes Groupements Naam :peasantès organization)

Farmer organization Mr Hamidou Ganame

BurkinaFaso

President farmer group of PobeMengao

Farmer organization Mr Amadoum Cisse

BurkinaFaso

FENOP (National Federation ofPeasant Organizations)

Farmer organization Mr Issouf Sanou

BurkinaFaso

CPF (Confédération Paysannedu Faso : Faso's peasantsconfederation)

Farmer organization Mr Ousmane Ouedraogo

BurkinaFaso

General Manager BOUTAPASarl (Boutique de l‘agro pastoral)  Input supplier Mr Ablasse Ilboudo

BurkinaFaso

Zoundi & Freres Input supplier Mr Harouna Zoundi

BurkinaFaso

KING AGRO Input supplier Mr Joanny Konditamde

BurkinaFaso

JICAJapanese cooperationagency

Mr Yoshifumi Tsukii

BurkinaFaso

National Laboratory of PublicHealth

Laboratory Dr Karim Koudougou

BurkinaFaso

Ministry of Agriculture (DGPV) Ministry Mr Kabore

BurkinaFaso

Ministry of Agriculture (Directiondes Filieres)

Ministry Mr Robert Ouadraogo

BurkinaFaso

FAO Multilateral Agency Mr. François Rasolo

BurkinaFaso

West African Economic andMonetary Union

Multilateral agency Mr Moussa Kabore

BurkinaFaso

SONAGESSNational Food SecurityCompany

Mr Abdoulaye Sawadogo

BurkinaFaso

WFP NGO Mr Batamaka

BurkinaFaso West Africa Seed Alliance NGO Mr Adama Neya

BurkinaFaso

FASOPLASTPlastic wrappingcompany

Mr Andre Pare

BurkinaFaso

 Agro Burkina Private buyer Mr Samuel Doamba

BurkinaFaso

Olam International Private buyer Mr Pathak Dharmendra

BurkinaFaso

Export Trading Group Private buyer Mr Shibu Abraham

Page 81: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 81/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Country Name of Organization Type of Organization Contact Name

BurkinaFaso

 Agro-Production Private seed supplier Mr Jonas Yogo

BurkinaFaso

FAGRI (Faso Agriculture) Private seed supplier Mr Issaka Kolga

Burkina

Faso

NAFASO (Neema Agricole du

Faso)Private seed supplier Mr Abdoulaye Sawadogo

BurkinaFaso

 Agrifaso Processor Mr Hermann Schopferer

BurkinaFaso

INERA Research institute Dr Amos Minoungou

BurkinaFaso

INERA Research institute Dr Zagre Bertin

BurkinaFaso

IITA Research institute Mr Haruki Ishikawa

BurkinaFaso

INERA Research institute Dr Issa Drabo

BurkinaFaso

INERA Research institute Mr Ilboudou

BurkinaFaso

INERA Research institute Mr Adama Bonkoungou

BurkinaFaso

INERA Research institute Dr Jean-Baptiste Tinegre

BurkinaFaso

National Union of SeedProducers of Burkina (UNPSB)

Seed producerMrs Assita PriscilleOuedraogo

BurkinaFaso

- Seed producer Mr Mesmin Millogo

BurkinaFaso

Societe des Produits du Cru duBurkina

Trader Boukary Ouedraogo

Ethiopia World Food Program (WFP) Food Aid NGO Ambachew Tesfaye

Ethiopia Omega FarmsCommercial chickpeafarming Daniel Gad

Ethiopia Agricultural Growth Project(AGP)

Government Initiative Gelila Woodeneh

EthiopiaEthiopian AgriculturalTransformation Agency (ATA)

Government agency Khalid Bomba

EthiopiaEthiopian CommoditiesExchange (ECX)

Commodity Exchange Bemnet Aschenaki

EthiopiaDebre Zeit Agricultural ResearchCentre

Research Centre underthe EIAR

Dr. Mekasha Chichyibelu

EthiopiaDebre Zeit Agricultural ResearchCentre

Research Centre underthe EIAR

Dr. Asnatha

EthiopiaDebre Zeit Agricultural ResearchCentre

Research Centre underthe EIAR

Dr. Asnake Fikre

EthiopiaEIAR-Melkassa

Research Centre underthe EIAR

Mr. Kidane Tumsa

Ethiopia WFP/P4P Melanie Jacq

Ethiopia

 Amhara Regional AgriculturalResearch Institute (ARARI)

Government ResearchInstitute

Dr. Fentahun Mengistu

Ethiopia

 Amhara Regional AgriculturalResearch Institute (ARARI)

Government ResearchInstitute

Dr. Yigzaw Dessalegn

Ethiopia  Arba & Tryaki Grain and Pulse Abdullah

Page 82: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 82/110

Page 83: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 83/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Country Name of Organization Type of Organization Contact Name

TanzaniaSelian Agricultural ResearchInstitute (SARI)

Government ResearchInstitute

Phillemon Mushi

TanzaniaSelian Agricultural ResearchInstitute (SARI)

Government ResearchInstitute

Mariethe Owenya

Tanzania

Selian Agricultural Research

Institute (SARI)

Government Research

InstituteSosthenes Kweka

TanzaniaSelian Agricultural ResearchInstitute (SARI)

Government ResearchInstitute

John Msakey

TanzaniaSelian Agricultural ResearchInstitute (SARI)

Government ResearchInstitute

Simon Slumpa

Tanzania BACAS (University of Soikone) Research Centre Dr Fulgence Mishili

Tanzania Agricultural Seed Agency

Foundation seedproducer (parastatal)

 Andrew Kunda

Tanzania Export Trading Group Importer and exporter Sharad Dixit

TanzaniaUyole Agricultural ResearchInstitute

Government ResearchInstitute

Benjamin Kiwobele

Tanzania Afri-Youth Pride (Halisi Products)

Food processor (startedby NPO)

Sara Kessy

TanzaniaSATEC - Suba Agro Trading andEngineering Co. Ltd.

 Agro-inputs Solomon Nnko

TanzaniaMeru Agro-Tours & ConsultantsCo. LTD

Local seed producerand distributor

Watanga Chacha

TanzaniaYARA Tanzania Limited (Mishili'scontact)

Input supply - fertilizer Wayne Forbes

TanzaniaKilimo Markets

Private SectorDevelepment Company

Daniel Charles

TanzaniaKilimo Markets

Private SectorDevelepment Company

Edward Charles

Tanzania Ministry of Agriculture Government Agency Geoffrey Kirenga

TanzaniaTanzania Official SeedMultiplication Institute (TOSCI)

Government Agency Tasiana Maingu

Tanzania Ministry of Agriculture Government Agency Ntikha Onasimbo

Tanzania Ministry of Agriculture Government Agency Patrick Ngwediagi

Tanzania Ministry of Agriculture Government Agency Janet Kaaya

Tanzania  Agricultural Seed Agency Government Agency Dr Firmin Mizambwa

TanzaniaTanzania Seed Traders Association (TASTA)

Trade Organisation Bob Shuma

TanzaniaTanzania Horticultural Association (TAHA)

Industry BodyJacqueline Mkindi

TanzaniaUyole Agricultural ResearchInstitute

Research CentreDr. Zacharia Malley

TanzaniaUyole Agricultural ResearchInstitute

Research CentreCatherine Kabungo

Tanzania Uyole Agricultural ResearchInstitute Research Centre Rose Mongi

TanzaniaUyole Agricultural ResearchInstitute

Research CentreMichael Kilango

Tanzania Ngaramtoni Traders Local Traders Christopher Mollet

Tanzania Ngaramtoni Traders Local Traders Frank Dickson

Uganda National Crops Reseach Institute Research Institute Michael Ugen

Uganda National Semi-Arid Resources Research Institute David Okello

Page 84: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 84/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Country Name of Organization Type of Organization Contact Name

Uganda WFP P4P Donor Organization Vincent Kiwanuka

Page 85: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 85/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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, goatand 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

Page 86: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 86/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 feedingrates 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 1,300pound dairy cow that consumes approximately 1.1% of its body weight in NDF. Legume-based animalfeeds have lower NDF content than most other animal feed types, as shown in  Figure 9.2 below. As aresult, 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 experiencemore/faster growth, because lower NDF values imply better milk and growth.

  Produce more milk: ―6–10 pounds more milk are produced from a legume-based ration than a grass-

based 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 to0.33 pounds more gain each day than the same grass species without legumes fertilized with

nitrogen‖111 

Page 87: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 87/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Figure 9.2: Average Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) of Pastures and Implied FeedConsumption

Feed AverageNDF

FeedConsumed(pounds)

AverageNDF

FeedConsumed(pounds)

AverageNDF

FeedConsumed(pounds)

Pasture Hay Silage

Grassxxxv

  53% 27 65% 22 59% 24

Mixed mostlygrass

xxxvi 

48% 30 60% 24 56% 26

Mixed mostlylegume

xxxvii 

44% 33 51% 28 49% 29

Legumexxxviii

  31% 46 41% 35 45% 32

Feed Average NDF Feed Consumed(pounds)

Energy and protein supplements

Barley 21% 68

Brewers grains, wet 48% 30

Corn, dry 11% 130

Corn, high moisture shell 11% 130

Corn, high moisture ear 21% 68

Cottonseed, whole 51% 28

Distillers grains, dry 39% 37

Poultry litter 43% 33

Oats 30% 48

Soybeans 16% 89

Soybeans, heated 18% 79

Soybean cake 11% 130

Wheat 16% 89

Wheat, midds 38% 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 true112:

  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

xxxv Less than 15% legume

xxxvi 15-49% legume

xxxvii 50-85% legume

xxxviii Greater than 85% legume

Page 88: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 88/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

  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 CommonlyUsed as Aquafeeds in Uganda

Feed/IngredientsDigestible

Energy (kcal/g)Dry Matter

CrudeProtein

CrudeLipid

Phosphorus

Cotton seed oil 9,000 68.6 18.4 99.5 0.4

Soybean, whole 4,241 90.0 36.0 18.8 0.5

Maize 3,593 85.0 8.8 3.9 0.4

Wheat flour 3,441 88.0 12.0 2.0 0.4

Sweet potato 3,440 87.5 3.8 0.7 0.2

Sesame cake 3,337 89.5 38.5 9.0 0.9

Barley 3,274 88.0 10.6 2.4 0.4Cassava 3,188 88.0 2.5 4.0 0.1

Soy cake, pressed 2,900 87.0 43.0 1.8 0.7

Cotton seed cake 2,422 94.0 41.1 6.2 0.5

Sunflower cake, pressed 2,086 88.0 25.0 10.2 1.0

Rice hull 1,950 89.9 7.0 1.0 0.5

Broken maize 1,900 85.0 12.0 4.0 0.4

Cane molasses 1,800 88.0 4.0 4.0 0.1

Wheat pollard 1,450 90.0 13.0 4.0 0.4

Sunflower oil cake - 94.8 41.7 12.9 4.6

Maize bran - 87.2 6.9 5.8 0.4

Page 89: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 89/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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)

Page 90: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 90/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 women‘scoop 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.

Source: Mayapedal Website114

 

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 Website115

 

Page 91: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 91/110

Page 92: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 92/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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. Bunge‘s 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

Bunge‘s Food & Ingredients business practice comprises of edible oils and milling. The edible oilsbusiness produces specialty oils and fats, margarines, mayonnaise and other whipped toppings.

  Bunge is the world‘s largest seller of vegetable oils 

  Soybeans are a vital input into one of Bunge‘s leading bottled oil brands ―Soya”  

  Edible oil production volumes remained flat between 2008 and 2010 as a result of the financial crisis

Bunge‘s strategic objectives include strengthening its position in global oils, expanding the margarinebusiness and maintaining its strong regional position in milling in the Americas.

2008 2009 2010

MillingProducts

Edible Oil

Products

Sugar andBioenergy

29%

17%

25,015 15%

20%

24%

28,347

17%

23%

31%

26,512

45%

Fertilizer 41%

16%

23%

Bunge Sales Volumes, excluding Agribusiness (MT)

Page 93: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 93/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 productsthrough 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.

Page 94: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 94/110

Page 95: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 95/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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.

Processing Warehouses Buyers/ConsumersCollection/Logistics

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 off-take 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

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

~10% is processed further at ETG‘s

various processing plants

~90% of the produce repackaged and

distributed locally or exported

internationally

 – WFP is the largest customer 

Container terminal in Tanzania, servingown/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

Page 96: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 96/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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 asopposed to those producing a marketable surplus

o  Analyze how different farmer segments react in different ways to economic incentives as aresult 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 aswell as comparison of costs to global markets

o  Percentage of market price captured at each stage of the value chain

o  Existence (and associated costs) of other services and service providers (e.g. financialservices, business development services, etc.)

  Comparison of value chain economics with cereals and cash crops

o  Expected farmer return on investment (ROI) for legumes versus cereals and cash crops

o  Understand whether legumes require as much upfront capital (for the purchase of inputs) ascash crops and cereals

Global Buyers and Processors

  For processors specifically, research the:

o  Proportion of each type of processor (small-, medium-,large-,high-end) in each focuscountry, or across all focus countries

o  Processing capacity of each processor

o  Processing capacity utilization of each processor

o  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

Page 97: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 97/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

  Analyze the dynamics of the informal trade system, which characterizes legumes markets in East andWest Africa in order to gain a sense of how big markets are and where the greatest regional marketopportunities lie

Market Opportunities and Threats

  Undergo a deeper investigation of export opportunities for legumes

o  Compare the competitiveness of African legume producers with the biggest legume exportersand investigate how big the potential markets for exports available to African producers are

o  Assess the potential of African legume producers to take advantage of geographical andother strategic advantages to gain market share in export markets

  Assess the potential for import substitution of legumes through an investigation of price and qualitycompetitiveness of local producers compared with foreign exporters

o  Elicit the views of major buyers as to why they choose to import and what changes wouldneed to occur for them to consider sourcing locally

  Analyze the potential damage to local producers that could be inflicted by large foreign producerssuch as the U.S.A scaling-up legumes production in reaction to a price increase

Page 98: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 98/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation │ 98

Annex H: Existing and On-Going Initiatives

Key Legumes-related Initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa

ValueChain

Project Name Donor(s) Partner Organization(s)Duration

Project DescriptionFrom To

Discovery TheCollaborativeCrop ResearchProgram (CCRP)

McKnightFoundationsupportedby BMGF

Mbarara Zonal AgriculturalResearch and DevelopmentInstitute (MBAZARDI)Foundation for AIDS

Orphaned Children (FAOC),Makerere University, Kenya

 Agricultural Research Institute(KARI), International Centre ofInsect Physiology and Ecology(ICIPE), Sokoine University of

 Agriculture, CompatibleTechnology International (CTI)Sokoine University of

 Agriculture, InternationalResearch Institute for theSemi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT),Department of AgriculturalResearch Services (DARS)Natural Resources Institute,University of GreenwichRoyal Botanical Gardens Kew(RBGK), Centro Internacionalde Agricultura Tropical (CIAT)Ministry of Agriculture, Malawi,University of Malawi, Natural

Resources Institute, Universityof Greenwich, Instituto deInvestigação Agrária deMoçambique (IIAM)Pennsylvania State University(PSU), Michigan StateUniversity, EkwendeniC.C.A.P. Hospital, Universityof Virginia, AgriculturalResearch Institute (ARI)-Ilonga, University of WesternOntario, Agricultural ResearchInstitute, Uyole , Institutd'Economie Rurale du Mali(IER), L'institut del'Environnement et de

2010 2014   Overview: The Collaborative Crop Research Program (CCRP) is acompetitive grants program funded by The McKnight Foundation for thepurpose of increasing food security for resource-poor people in developingcountries. As of 3/14/2011, the program supports 39 collaborative projects

in 17 countries around the world. Key legumes-related grants in Africainclude:

- Enhancing sustainable productivity and utilization of chickpea (Cicerarietinum) in the banana farming system of Uganda

- Improving food security through participatory development of highyielding and pests resistance cowpea varieties in Uganda

- Multiple legumes and management strategies for reinvigorating andmaintaining the health and productivity of smallholder mixed farmingsystems

- Enhancing smallholder farmers' capacity for learning and adoption ofpush-pull technology through video and computer communicationtools in East Africa

- Introgression of bruchid resistance into farmers preferred varieties forincreased productivity and stability of bean supply

- Enhancing child nutrition and livelihoods of rural households inMalawi and Tanzania through post-harvest value-chain technologyimprovements in groundnuts

- Optimized pest management with botanical pesticides on legumecropping systems in Malawi and Tanzania

- Development and promotion of bambara groundnuts for improvedhuman nutrition in Malawi, Mozambique, and Tanzania

- Increasing Bean Productivity and Household Food Security inStressful Environments in Mozambique Through Use of Phosphorus-efficient Seeds by Farm Households

- Groundnut varieties improvement for yield and adaptation, humanhealth and nutrition

- Groundnut varieties improvement for yield and adaptation, humanhealth 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 inMalawi, Mozambique, and Tanzania

- Innovative communication media and methods for more effective

Page 99: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 99/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation │ 99

ValueChain

Project Name Donor(s) Partner Organization(s)Duration

Project DescriptionFrom To

Recherches Agricoles(INERA), Instituto deInvestigação Agrária deMoçambique (IIAM),Pennsylvania State University(PSU)

aflatoxin mitigation, variety uptake and use interventions in groundnutin Malawi and Tanzania

- Benchmark study of legume policies in Malawi, Tanzania, andMozambique

- Inception grant to study social factors and food practices affectingcowpea use in central Tanzania

- Improving bean production and utilization by smallholder farmersthrough integration of climbing beans in the smallholder farmingsystems 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 millet‐sorghum‐cowpea system productivity in Niger

Republic by introducing high yielding drought‐resistant phosphate-efficient cowpea varieties

  Budget: ~$74 mn  Target Countries: Uganda, Malawi, Tanzania, Niger, Mozambique,

Burkina Faso, Mali  Target Crops: Legumes

Discovery TropicalLegumes I (TL1),Phase 2

Bill &MelindaGatesFoundation,EuropeanCommission, DFID,World Bank

Jointly implemented by theInternational CropsResearch Institute in theSemi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT),the International Center forTropical Agriculture (CIAT),and the International Instituteof Tropical Agriculture(IITA), in close collaborationwith partners in the nationalagricultural research systems

of target countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and India

2010 2014   Overview: This project helps national and international breeding programsaccelerate the development of robust new varieties by strengthening theirabilities to use molecular markers and controlled field screening plots.Research activities in Phase I resulted in significant increases in thegenomic tools for these legumes, a thorough knowledge of droughttolerance traits, as well as markers available for specific diseases. TLIPhase II will emphasize the ‗application‘ of these outputs obtained duringthe first phase, using the genetic resources and genomic tools developed.This second phase of the project also has a strong capacity-buildingcomponent that will build on Phase I efforts to improve human resourcesand 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

Discovery West AfricanCowpeaConsortium(WACC)ResearchProjects

KirkhouseTrust

University of Virginia, NationalResearch Institutions - INERA(Burkina Faso), IRAD(Cameroon), IER (Mali), ISRA(Togo), ITRA (Senegal),University of Agriculture(Nigeria)

2010 2012   Overview: The WACC aim is to deliver cowpea varieties with a specificbeneficial trait(s), manifested on farmers' fields as improved productivityunder conditions which otherwise lead to loss in cowpea grain and/orfodder. In 2005 the Kirkhouse Trust decided to fund research on cowpea inWest Africa. In 2006 a contract was signed to fund the research of theCowpea Genomics Initiative at the University of Virginia.

  Budget: N/A  Target Countries: Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mali, Togo, Senegal  Target Crops: Cowpea

Page 100: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 100/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation │ 100

ValueChain

Project Name Donor(s) Partner Organization(s)Duration

Project DescriptionFrom To

Discovery PeanutCollaborativeResearchSupport Program(CRSP)

USAID The University of Georgia incollaboration with more than13 Universities and multipleNational Research Institutions

1982 On-going

  Overview:  Since 2007 a renewed Peanut CRSP has been organizedaround a value chain approach with research projects addressing producervalues, processor values and consumer values. A constant feature of theprogram has been the emphasis on capacity development and aflatoxin.The program has become a leading center for aflatoxin epidemiology andpublic 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-basedproduction systems in Ghana

- Overcoming Abiotic and Biotic Constraints to Yield, and Production ofHigh-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 farmingsystems in East Africa

- Strategies for Controlling Groundnut Rosette Disease in Sub-Saharan Africa

- Improving the health and livelihood of people of East Africa byaddressing aflatoxin and gender-related constraints in peanutproduction, processing and marketing

  Notables: In 2005, the CRSP joined forces with the Full Belly Project, aNorth Carolina NGO, to introduce the shellers in Ghana. The Full BellyProject creates simple machines to solve agricultural problems indeveloping countries, and then provides kits and education to build andrepair the machines. In Africa it takes 5 people all day to shell 100 lbs. ofsun dried peanuts. With the universal nut sheller one person can do that inan hour. More protein for less labor means greater income and moreproductivity. 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 attwenty 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

Discovery / Adaptation& Inputs

 AGRA Programfor African SeedSystems (PASS)

BMGF,RockefellerFoundation

 AGRA funds multipleuniversities, agro-dealers,private seed companies, seedbreeders, national researchorganizations

2006 2011   Overview: The project links training and support to national breedingprograms that use conventional breeding with investment in private sectorseed production and distribution to provide access to seed of new cropvarieties to small farmer in 13 Sub-Saharan African countries. The foursub-programs are: Education for African Crop Improvement (EACI); Fundfor the Improvement and Adoption of African Crops (FIAAC); SeedProduction for Africa (SEPA), and the Agro-dealer Development

  Budget: $150 mn  Target Countries: Sub-Saharan Africa

Page 101: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 101/110

Page 102: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 102/110

Page 103: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 103/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation │ 103

ValueChain

Project Name Donor(s) Partner Organization(s)Duration

Project DescriptionFrom To

Trade &Marketing

 ADVANCE (TheGhana

 AgriculturalDevelopmentand Value ChainEnhancement)Project

USAID ACDEP, ACDI/VOCA 2009 2013   Overview: A 4-Year USAID sponsored project awarded to ACDI/VOCAand being implemented in partnership with a team of agencies including

 ACDEP as the lead implementer in the Northern Sector. The programadopts a value chain approach where smallholder farmers are linked tomarkets, finance, inputs and equipment services and information throughrelatively larger nucleus (commercial) farmers and large traders(aggregators) who have the capacity to invest in these chains. Theprogram builds the capacity of smallholder farmers to increase theefficiency of their farm business with improved production and post-harvesthandling 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

Trade &Marketing

SavannaFarmersMarketingCompany

 ACDEP Savanna Farmers MarketingCompany

2004 On-going

  Overview: SFMC is a company dedicated to marketing crops forsmallholder farmers in Ghana. The company was established in 2004 byan NGO, the Association of Church Development Projects (ACDEP).SFMC serves as a marketing intermediary (aggregator) linking farmers tobuyers. The aim of SFMC is to transition ownership to participatingfarmers. Since its inception, SFMC has seen growing popularity amongfarmers, as they realize the benefits they can reap by engaging withSFMC. 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

Discovery, Adaptation& Inputs /Trade &Marketing,Policy

 Advocacy

 African-ledPartnership for

 Aflatoxin Controlin Africa (PACA)

BMGF,USAID, DfID

Meridian Institute and theInternational Institute onTropical Agriculture (IITA),

 African Union Commission(AUC), and with interest from

 African and othergovernments, RegionalEconomic Communities, theprivate sector, farmers‘organizations, and civil societyleaders from across Africa

2012 TBD   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 aneffective regulatory environment; better coordinate existing efforts tocontrol 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

Page 104: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 104/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation │ 104

Supplementary Initiatives

ValueChain

ProjectName

Donor(s) Partner Organization(s)Duration

Project DescriptionFrom To

Discovery / Adaptation& Inputs

HarvestPlusII

 ADB, AustrianMinistry ofFinance, BMGF,CIDA, ILSI,DANIDA, SIDA,SyngentaFoundation for

Sustainable Agriculture,DFID, USAID,USDA, TheWorld Bank,WFP

International Center forTropical Agriculture (CIAT)and International Food PolicyResearch Institute (IFPRI) incollaboration with more than200 scientists, researchers,and other experts around the

world

2009 2013   Overview: This project continues to support development and delivery ofbiofortified staple crops, including maize, sweet potato, beans, millet,cassava, rice, and wheat, to reduce micronutrient deficiencies indeveloping countries. This phase of work focuses on crop improvement,nutrition retention, and efficacy studies, collaborating with institutions. Aportion 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 AMaize, Vitamin A Sweet Potato, Zinc Rice, Zinc Wheat 

 Adaptation& Inputs,Farm &Production

 AGRA SoilHealthProgram(SHP)

BMGF,RockefellerFoundation

CGIAR centers, NGOs, otherprojects such as BNF, AfSISas well as input dealers andoutput markets like the WorldFood Program‘s P4P. 

2007 2013   Overview: This program will help build a sustainable foundation for theagricultural sector growth by restoring African soil fertility through the useof improved soil fertility management practices and fertilizers that stablyincrease crop productivity. The program focuses on six key areas alongthe 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 productionfinancing especially for grain legumes v) markets access and vi) policy tosupport 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 

Farm &Production

FarmerVoice Radio

BMGF American Institutes forResearch in the Behavioral

Sciences

2009 2013   Overview: This project supports the creation of a network of radiobroadcasters, 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 

Trade &Marketing

Purchase forProgress(P4P)

Bill & MelindaGatesFoundation(BMGF),Howard G.BuffettFoundation,EuropeanCommission,Governments ofBelgium,

Working relationships specificto P4P with approximately 220different partners including-Governments (ministries &other agencies), UN agencies,local and international NGOshave been established

2008 2013   Overview: This project seeks to increase smallholder farmers' incomes bylaunching a program that connects farmers to World Food Programpurchasing. Through P4P, WFP‘s demand provides smallholder farmers in21 pilot countries with a greater incentive to invest in their production, asthey have the possibility to sell to a reliable buyer and receive a fair pricefor their crops. P4P at the same time invests in capacity building at countrylevel in areas such as post-harvest handling or storage, which will yieldsustainable 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,

Page 105: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 105/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation │ 105

ValueChain

ProjectName

Donor(s) Partner Organization(s)Duration

Project DescriptionFrom To

Canada,France, Ireland,Luxembourg,the UnitedStates of

 America and theKingdom ofSaudi Arabia

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 GrownSchool

Feeding

BMGF Imperial College London 2009 2014   Overview: This project aims to increase incomes for smallholder farmers,create rural jobs, and improve child nutrition in 10 Sub-Saharan Africancountries by providing training and technical support to country-level teamsof stakeholders.

  Budget: $9.6 mn+  Target Countries: Ghana, Mali, Kenya, Cote d ‘Ivoire, Nigeria and others  Target Crops: N/A 

Trade &Marketing

GhanaSchoolFeedingProgramme(GSFP)

Government ofGhana

The Ministry of LocalGovernment and RuralDevelopment (MLGRD) hasoversight responsibility. Othertechnical ministries anddevelopment partners play animportant role - Ministry ofFood & Ag, Health, Education,etc. and Dutch Embassy,WFP, SNV, PCD, SENDFoundation, IFDC, GAIN, etc

2005 On-going

  Overview: The Ghana School Feeding Programme (GSFP) is an initiativeof the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme(CAADP) Pillar 3 of the New Partnership for Africa‘s Development(NEPAD). The Programme is part of Ghana‘s efforts towards theattainment of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (UN-MDG) on hunger, poverty and primary education. GSFP is consistent withother major policies and development strategies of the Government. Theconcept of the programme is to provide children in selected public primaryschools and kindergartens in the poorest areas of the country with one hot,nutritious meal per day, using locally grown foodstuffs. The current localprocurement is standing at slightly less than 20%.

  Budget: $48 mn (in 2011)  Target Countries: Ghana  Target Crops: N/A 

Trade &Marketing

NationalProgrammefor FoodSecurity

Government ofBurkina Faso

SONAGESS (National FoodSecurity ReserveManagement Company)

On-going

  SONAGESS manages a national food stock (Stock National de Sécurité

 Alimentaire [SNSA]), a reserve of humanitarian aid (Stock d‘Intervention,co-managed with humanitarian agencies). SONAGESS has beensupplying cowpeas to school feeding programs, and other public entities(e.g., prisons, military) in Burkina Faso since 2010. The national securitystock is renewed every 3 years by a system of rotation. That means thatevery year part of the stock is renewed. Tenders are issued by CT/CNSA(Comité Technique du Conseil National de Sécurité Alimentaire). Farmersgroups and the large cereal traders are notified when this will happen.

  Budget: N/A  Target Countries: Burkina Faso  Target Crops: Millet, Sorghum, Maize, Cowpea

Trade &Marketing

NationalProgrammefor FoodSecurity

Government ofNigeria, AfDB,IDB, BADEA,Federal andState

The National Food Reserve Agency, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and WaterResources

2007(Phase 2) 

2014   Overview: This project aims at the enhancement of food security andpoverty reduction in Nigeria. (Expansion phase of National SpecialProgramme for Food Security). Specifically, the program aims to

- Assist farmers in achieving their potential for increasing output,productivity and incomes

Page 106: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 106/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation │ 106

ValueChain

ProjectName

Donor(s) Partner Organization(s)Duration

Project DescriptionFrom To

Governments,LGCs

- Strengthen the effectiveness of research and extension services inbringing technology and new farming practices developed byresearch institutes to the farmers

- Concentrate initial effort in pilot areas for maximum effect and ease ofreplicability

- Train and educate farmers in the effective utilization of available land,water and other resources and facilities to produce food and createemployment. Utilize international experience for integrated farmingpractices in Nigeria, to maximize use of existing facilities andknowledge and to spread benefits to wider areas

  Budget: $364 mn  Target Countries: Nigeria   Target Crops: N/A

Trade &Marketing,InfoSystems

Market AccessProgramInvestment

BMGF Alliance for a GreenRevolution in Africa (AGRA)

2010 2014   Overview: This reinvestment in the Market Access Program continuesefforts to increase the income of smallholder farmers marketing staple foodcrops. To improve the market opportunities for smallholder farmers,

 AGRA‘s 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 providetimely and accurate information to smallholders.

- Value addition to farmers‘ crops by supporting efforts to institutegrades and standards, and develop low cost small- and medium-scale processing facilities for drying, sorting and packaging.

- Increasing demand for commodities by developing markets foralternative uses, such as processing cassava for animal feed.

- Promoting an enabling environment by improving access to credit andremoving inappropriate government policies that create majorchallenges for a variety of stakeholders across staple food commodityvalue 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) Policy

 AdvocacyPolicy Hubs BMGF Alliance for a Green

Revolution in Africa (AGRA)2009 2012   Overview: This program identifies key policy constraints, devises solutions

to policy bottlenecks, and mobilizes support for regulatory and legislativereform

  Budget: $15 mn+  Target Countries: Mozambique, Ghana, Mali, Ethiopia  Target Crops: N/A 

Policy Advocacy

Seed PolicyEnhancement in AfricanRegions(SPEAR)

BMGF Iowa State University incollaboration with regional andnational organizations

2010 2013   Overview: This project is designed to facilitate access to seed of improvedvarieties for small farmers in selected African countries. It aims to enablethe implementation of agreed-on variety release procedures and developmechanisms to address foundation seed needs by creating mechanismsfor access to new varieties.

  Budget: $1.45 mn

Page 107: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 107/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation │ 107

ValueChain

ProjectName

Donor(s) Partner Organization(s)Duration

Project DescriptionFrom To

  Target Countries: Nigeria, Malawi, Zambia  Target Crops: N/A 

InfoSystems

 African SoilInformationService(AfSIS)

BMGF Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT)

2009 2012   Overview: This project will create an information system comprised of ahigh-resolution functional soil map of Africa and associated data. It willalso provide recommendations for soil fertility management to inform soilimprovement strategies by stakeholders in African development, includingfarmer organizations and policymakers.

  Budget: $15.2 mn  Target Countries: Africa

  Target Crops: N/AInfoSystems

LivingStandardsandMeasurement Study(LSMS)— IntegratedSurveys in

 Agriculture

BMGF, USAID International Bank forReconstruction andDevelopment

2009 2015   Overview: This project supports the collection of high-quality, nationallyrepresentative, multitopic household panel surveys in six Sub-Saharan

 African countries. The surveys are implemented by African statisticsoffices and include information on agricultural production and householdwelfare.

  Budget: $19.4 mn  Target Countries: Tanzania, Uganda, Nigeria, Malawi, Ethiopia, Niger,

Mali  Target Crops: N/A 

InfoSystems

HarvestChoice PhaseII: SupportingStrategicInvestmentChoices in

 AgriculturalTechnologyDevelopmentand Adoption

BMGF, USAID,CommonwealthScientific andIndustrialResearchOrganisation(CSIRO),InternationalLivestockResearchInstitute (ILRI)

Coordinated by theInternational Food PolicyResearch Institute and theUniversity of Minnesota

2010 2014   Overview: This project supports developing a specialized geographicinformation system (GIS) to characterize the impact of specific investmentsin agricultural development. The goal is to support data-driven decisionmaking and investments to support agricultural productivity improvementsand poverty reduction.

  Budget: $8.5 mn+  Target Countries: Sub-Saharan Africa  Target Crops: N/A 

Page 108: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 108/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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/11582 ―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/soils4 FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture;

Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis5  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 20116 Ibid.

7 Bationo et al, ―Fighting Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Multiple Roles of Legumes in Integrated Soil Fertility

Management", 20118 FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture;

Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis9 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.htm11

 ―Legumes and Their Use‖, Hawaii University website, accessed March 2012,

http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/bnf/Downloads/Training/BNF%20technology/Legumes.PDF12 ―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#ancor17

 ―Nutrition Facts‖, Nutrition Data website, accessed March 2012, http://nutritiondata.self.com/ 18

 Interviews with market traders in Southern Tanzania – March 201219

 ―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 201222

 ―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 Mahan et al., ―Krause‘s Food and Nutrition Therapy‖, 13 th

 Edition, 201128

 ―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-africa30

 Bogale et al., "Legume fallows for maize-based systems in eastern Africa: contribution of legumes to enhancedmaize productivity and reduced nitrogen requirements", 200131

 Sekamatte et al., "Effects of maize –legume intercrops on termite damage to maize, activity of predatory ants andmaize yields in Uganda", 2002 32

 Mario Osava, ―Green Revolution on the Savannah‖, IPS News, published 21 September 2007, accessed March2012, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=3934333

 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-revolution35 World Bank Databank; FAOSTAT36

 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

Page 109: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 109/110

 

 African Legume Market Dynamics  © 2012 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

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-into-carbon-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-for-like/carbon-credits-for-legumes.html44

 Nemecek et al., "Environmental Impacts of Introducing Grain Legumes into European Crop Rotations and Pig FeedFormulas", 200645

 ―World Agriculture Towards 2015/2030: Summary Report‖, FAO website, published 2002, accessed March 2012,ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/004/y3557e/y3557e.pdf46

 ―Production: Crops: Area Harvested‖, FAOSTAT website, accessed March 2012,http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx47

 ―Production: Crops: Production Quantity‖, FAOSTAT website, accessed March 2012,http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx48

 Ibid.49

 FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture;Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis50

 Ibid.51

 Ibid.52

 FAOSTAT; International Trade Center53

 FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture;

Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis54 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 Analysis56

 Ibid.57

 ―Trade Maps‖, International Trade Center website, accessed March 2012, http://www.intracen.org/ 58

 Interviews with processors in Ghana – January 201259

 Ibid.60

 ―400 million smallholders a ‗vital global asset‘‖, Global Donor Platform for Rural Development website, accessedMarch 201261

  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/Tanzania_2002-03F_2.pdf63

 ―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+rate64

  Anderson et al., ―LSMS – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture, United republic of Tanzania: Legumes‖, 2012 65

 Ibid.66

 ―la Socaténé et le Cocoa‖, Socatene website, accessed February 2012, http://www.socatene.com/cacao.html67

 Interview with Ghana Nuts CEO – February 201268

 ―Premuim Cocoa‖, Saco Foods Website, accessed February 2012, http://sacofoods.com/products/view/premium-cocoa69―Databases, Tools and Methods‖, International Center for Tropical Agriculture website, accessed March 2012,http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/Publicatios/Pages/databases_tools_methods.aspx70

 Interview with ACOS Ethiopia representative, February 201271

 ―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 Analysis75 ―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 201178

 Interviews with processors in Kumasi, Ghana – February 201279

 WFP Food Procurement‖, World Food Programme website, accessed March 2012,http://one.wfp.org/operations/Procurement/food_pro_map_10/fpm_popup/fpm_popup.html80

 FAOSTAT; Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; Ghanaian Ministry of Food & Agriculture;Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Cooperatives; Monitor Analysis

Page 110: African Legume Market Dynamics Report

8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 110/110

 

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~menuPK:337135~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:337116,00.html82

 ―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.K283

 ―Access to electricity (% of population)‖, World Bank Databank website, accessed March 2012,

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS84 ―Electric power consumption (kWh per capita)‖, World Bank Databank website, accessed March 2012,

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC85

 ―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.ZS86

 ―AGRA‘s Farmer Organization Support Centre for Africa (FOSCA)‖, AGRA website, accessed March 2012,http://www.agra-alliance.org/section/work/fosca_prog87

 ―Bulletin Board on Statistical Capacity‖, World Bank website, accessed March 2012, http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/bulletin-board-on-statistical-capacity88

 Tom Vilsack, ―USDA Accomplishments 2009-2011: Global Food Security‖, USDA website, accessed March 2012,http://www.usda.gov/documents/Results-Global-Food-Security.pdf89

 International Food Policy Research Institute, ―Agricultural R&D: Investing in Africa‘s Future‖, published 2011,accessed March 2012, http://www.asti.cgiar.org/pdf/conference/Theme1/CaseStudies/Lwezaura.pdf90

 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, accessed March

2012, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/WDR_00_book.pdf94

 Watanga Chacha, Expert Interview, Interview conducted on 4 February 201295

 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, accessed March 2012,http://vicam.com/regulations-europe98

 John F. Leslie, ―Ranajit Bandyopadhyay and Angelo Visconti, Mycotoxins: detection methods, management, publichealth, and agricultural trade‖, (Cambridge, MA: C.A.B. International, 2008), 10699 Eshetu Legesse, ― Aflatoxin Content of Peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) in Relation to Shelling and Storage Practices ofEthiopian Farmers‖ (PhD diss., Addis Ababa University, 2010)100

  Archileo N. Kaaya, ―Management of Aflatoxins in Cereals, Legumes and Tubers‖, Makerere University, accessedMarch 2012101 ―Aflatoxins in Mali: An Overview‖, IFPRI, published August 2010, accessed March 2012,http://www.ifpri.org/publication/aflatoxins-mali-overview102

 ―Pre and Postharvest Management of Aflatoxin Contamination in Groundnut‖, ICRISAT website, accessed March2012, www.icrisat.org/aflatoxin/Presentations/AflatoxinManagement.pps 103

 Agdev Resources; FAOSTAT; Monitor Analysis; Expert Interviews104

 ―Food Procurement Map; 2010‖, WFP website, accessed March 2012, http://www.wfp.org/procurement/food-procurement map