African Legume Market Dynamics Report
Transcript of 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
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].
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
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
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
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
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
8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 8/110
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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%
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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/)
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
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
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.
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)
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
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
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%
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%
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)
%
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.
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
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
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%
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 47/110
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)
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
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
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
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)
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)
8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 54/110
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.
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
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
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:
8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 59/110
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
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
8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 62/110
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
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.
8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 65/110
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
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.
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
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:
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
8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 71/110
8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 72/110
8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 73/110
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 ,
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 82/110
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 91/110
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)
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.
8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 94/110
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
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
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
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
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
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
8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 101/110
8/13/2019 African Legume Market Dynamics Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/african-legume-market-dynamics-report 102/110
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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