Bean/Cowpea CRSP West Africa

April, 1997-September 1998

 

Executive Summary

The 1997-98 period was one of greater regional integration and multidisciplinary interaction for Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) social scientists working in West Africa. Through the Bean/Cowpea Social Science Working group (BCSSWG) economists, sociologists and anthropologists developed linkages for the first time. Multidisciplinary interaction was strengthened by the regional planning meeting held in Dakar, in February, 1998, and by many contacts between individual researchers. Additional linkages were made possible through the Cowpea Review and Planning meeting held at the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Ibadan, Nigeria, in March, 1998. The socio-economic research and extension activities of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP in West Africa were largely implemented as outlined in the 1997-98 workplan, with the exception of collection of baseline impact data in southern Ghana and feasibility studies of food technology innovations which were not sufficiently developed to allow for meaningful socio-economic evaluation. An adoption survey in Senegal by Faye and Lowenberg-DeBoer showed that the improved variety Melakh was highly prized by men and women farmers for the production of "green pods" (e.g. cowpeas consumed before maturity as a vegetable). The survey indicated that seed availability was an issue for both Mouride and Melakh. The data indicated that most cowpea in the northern Peanut Basin of Senegal are stored in steel drums using methods developed by the collaboration of CRSP researchers at the Senegalese Agricultural Research Institute (ISRA). Economic evaluation of cowpea storage techniques showed that storage in steel drums is highly competitive in Senegal because of the large supply and relatively low cost of drums. The permanent placement solar heater being developed in Cameroon appears to have about the same cost per kilogram of grain treated as the plastic sheet solar heater. The choice of cowpea storage technique is location specific and a bulletin is being prepared that will help extension services and non-governmental organizations identify the most economical cowpea storage technique in their area. Focus group interviews by Vander Mey and colleagues at the Ejura Cowpea Action Research Site (CARS) in southern Ghana and of participants in the Farmer Field Schools (FFS) in the Northern Region of Ghana indicate that cost cutting was one of the primary motivations for wanting to learn about cowpea integrated pest management (IPM). Many participants in both the CARS and FFS were encouraged to participate by their families and their neighbors in the hopes that the whole community could learn improved practices. Participation was facilitated by access to information from the Crop Research Institute (CRI), Ghana Ministry of Food and Agriculture staff and by providing transportation. Cowpea price and quality data collection has been launched in Cameroon, Ghana and Senegal. Negotiations are underway to collect similar data in Nigeria, the world's largest consumer market for cowpeas. Under the supervision of Cameroon CRSP Coordinator, Georges Ntoukam, two years of data have been collected there. Preliminary analysis in Cameroon indicates that consumers consistently pay a premium for large grain size. No statistically significant discount was estimated for insect damage. Cowpea sellers in Cameroon appear to keep insect damage at a level that consumers are willing to tolerate by use of CRSP and chemical storage techniques and by sorting out damaged grain. Cowpea market structure studies were initiated in Cameroon and Ghana. The work of Jean-Paul Oumarou, a student at Ngaoundéré University, suggests that the cowpea market in southern Cameroon, with links to Gabon and Congo, may be more important to growers in the Far North Province of Cameroon than the Nigerian market. Langyintuo's work in Ghana indicates that cowpea shipping data collected by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture can provide a rich source of information on the flow of cowpea within that country. Lowenberg-DeBoer and Diaz-Hermelo worked to finalize impact assessments for varietal improvement and storage research in Senegal and Cameroon. Their work indicates that even without counting spillover effects in other countries, the net benefits from either varietal improvement or storage research would justify those investments in Senegal and Cameroon. Faye and Langyintuo started graduate work in agricultural economics at Purdue University in August 1998. The cowpea price and quality data, and the cowpea market studies will be part of their dissertation research. The BCSSWG provided short term training in the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) and use of the Policy Analysis Matrix (PAM) in the March 1998 meeting.

I. Specific Research Progress During FY 97B-98 (April 28, 1997-September 30, 1998)

A. Summarize research objectives organized by constraint, and the new organizational design to achieve these objectives highlighting the comprehensive nature of the project.

The objectives behind the activities in the workplan for the socio-economic area were:

Constraint I: Insufficient NRM and production techniques.

Objective 1: Measure adoption of and impact from varietal improvement and storage research in Senegal and Cameroon.

Objective 2: Document the cowpea production practices, acreage and yield by region in Ghana in preparation for impact assessment (baseline data).

Objective 3: Estimate the economic returns to various pest management alternatives for cowpea in Ghana, including alternatives to pesticides.

Constraint II: Limited storage options.

Objective 1: Determine the economic returns to alternative cowpea storage options, including drum storage.

Constraint III: No socio-economics in Constraint III.

Constraint IV: Socioeconomic research insufficiently integrated with production and utilization research.

Objective 1: Estimate the cost of production for cowpea based weaning foods in Ghana.

Objective 2: Measure the market potential of cowpea based weaning foods and fortified traditional foods in Ghana.

Objective 3: Identify social determinants of IPM technology adoption.

Objective 4: Estimate returns to alternative IPM practices.

Objective 5: Quantify the relationship between cowpea characteristics and market prices

Objective 6: Describe cowpea market structure in Ghana, Cameroon and Senegal Objective 7: Estimate the private and social cost of cowpea production in Ghana, Senegal and Cameroon.

Constraint V: Training.

Constraint VI: Insufficient extension services supporting cowpeas in the region

Objective 1. Assess availability of cowpea information among extension staff in Ghana.

Objective 2. Establish linkages with cowpea researchers in Niger and Tchad

Constraint VII: Insufficient collaboration between research and extension

Objective 1. Evaluate Farm Field Schools, Training of Trainers and Cowpea Action Research Site (FFS/TOT/CARS).

Objective 2. Improve understanding of the economics of cowpea Integrated Pest Management (IPM) among field school participants.

Describe efforts to support:

1. Disciplinary integration of research - In West Africa the 1997-98 period has been one of greater collaboration between various social sciences and among social scientists and other disciplines. One vehicle for the greater collaboration among social scientists (e.g. economists, sociologists, anthropologists) has been the West Africa Bean/Cowpea CRSP Social Science Working Group (BCSSWG). This group met for the first time at Clemson in March 1997. In 1998 it met at Purdue. Meetings were organized by Lowenberg-DeBoer as part of his role as regional facilitator. In addition to the training described in section I.D. of this report each participant made a presentation on his or her research and common methodological and implementation problems were discussed. In 1998, this discussion included economists working on cowpea from Niger and Mali.

Another avenue for contacts between social scientists working on cowpea is the PEDUNE/RENACO/IITA/CRSP review and planning meeting. PEDUNE is a Swiss funded project which focuses on sustainable production of cowpea. RENACO is the regional cowpea varietal testing network. In 1998 at the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria, Lowenberg-DeBoer and Vander Mey were able to meet Patti Kristjanson, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya. She is working on an ex-ante impact assessment for forage cowpea and was eager to collaborate in establishing databases for cowpea area, production and price in Africa. In 1999, the BCSSWG expects to meet in conjunction with the PEDUNE/RENACO/IITA/CRSP meeting in Cotonou and further broaden the network of social scientists working on cowpea issues. In addition, Lowenberg-DeBoer worked with IITA economist, Ousmane Coulibaly, to plan the PEDUNE social science research program.

Integration across disciplines has been facilitated by the new regional structure of the CRSP and especially by the regional planning meetings, and by individual contacts among scientists. The regional planning meeting provided a forum at which research planning was discussed among CRSP colleagues and with major regional partners. The West Africa regional meeting in 1998 in Dakar were attended by B.B. Singh, IITA, and Johnson Olufowote, World Vision.

Collaboration between social and biological scientists included: Langyintuo, Halleegoah, Salifu, Owusu-Akyaw, Vander Mey, Nyankori and Shepard collaborated in farmer surveys and documented farmer response to IPM in Ghana. Faye, Seck, Hall and Lowenberg-DeBoer worked together to design and implement an adoption survey for improved cowpea varieties and storage technologies in Senegal. Ntoukam, Murdock and Lowenberg-DeBoer collaborated on the design and collection of cowpea price and quality data in Cameroon. Singh, Kushwaha and Lowenberg-DeBoer worked together to develop a practical approach to gathering cowpea market information in Nigeria.

2. Integration of research across regions - In the 1997-98 period the West Africa group struggled to integrate activities across the countries and former bilateral projects in the region. Regional facilitators have discussed potential for social science interaction across regions, but that has not been implemented.

B. Describe technical research progress from each activity approved in the workplan (listed and discussed individually) by constraint as in the workplan. Highlight specific technologies, value-added products, new knowledge or other output generated.

Constraint I: Insufficient NRM and Production Technology Research Area: H. Evaluate levels of adoption and impact

Activity 1: Detailed adoption survey in Senegal for improved cowpea varieties

Faye and Lowenberg-DeBoer surveyed a stratified random sample of 18 villages in the main cowpea growing area of the northern Peanut Basin (Table 1). The villages categories were: former Minikit villages, World Vision International (WVI) villages and villages with only the general extension (no specific cowpea extension program). Ten farmers were selected randomly in each village, 5 men and 5 women. All villages were visited during the cowpea growing season when cowpea varieties could be verified in the field. The initial 10 villages were visited by a team comprised of M. Faye, Lowenberg-DeBoer, Samba Thiaw, and I. Ndiaye during the period 6-18 Sept. 1997. The remaining villages were visited by Faye, Ndiaye and Assane Sene in late September. The data was analyzed by Faye during a visit to Purdue in February and March 1998.

The survey design responded to criticism of previous adoption surveys in Senegal by interviewing individual farmers (instead of reporting on discussions in village meetings) measuring fields, including an agronomist or agronomy technician in the team, scheduling the survey during the growing season when field verification was possible and using stratified random sampling to ensure that World Vision villages were well represented.

It should be noted that cowpea is one of the top three crops in all villages visited. It was listed as the principal crop in 5 villages and in one village it was planted on over 80% of the crop area in 1997. This large cowpea area was due to the late onset of rains in 1997; cowpea was the crop that had the greatest chance of arriving at maturity in the short growing season.

In most aspects, the Sept. 1997 survey confirms the results of the June, 1996, survey concerning the 1995 crop season and the outcome of the survey by Faye in November and December, 1996, relative to the 1996 crops season. Melakh and Mouride were estimated at about 2% of cowpea area in the region (Table 1). Minikit villages and those with World Vision programs have adoption rates in the range of 3% to 6% of cowpea area. The ISRA/CRSP variety Melakh was much appreciated by farmers for production of early green pods. If Melakh and Mouride were used in a villages, they were used by both men and women farmers in similar percentages.

According to farmers, seed is a major problem for farmers who want to plant Melakh. It is not widely available in the market and it is difficult for farmers to save their own Melakh seed. The difficulty is linked to the high value of cowpea green pods for family consumption and sale. Farmers are reluctant to leave any Melakh mature for seed. An additional problem occurs because Melakh matures during the rainy season and must be picked promptly to avoid spoilage.

Drum storage for cowpea is used in all the villages visited, including the non-intervention villages. Most of the cowpea grain stored is stored in drums. Drums are used by both men and women for cowpea storage. In the 1997 survey few producers reported using insecticide in their drums. Most followed the method that has been proven effective by ISRA/CRSP; which is to fill the drum full with clean grain and seal hermetically. All available evidence points to farmer to farmer transmission of this technology which was tested on farm by the ISRA/CRSP team, but which has not been the object of a widespread extension campaign.

Many of the farmers interviewed in the Louga area reported Mauritanian merchants buying cowpea in local markets in 1997-98. According to the farmers, these merchants were seeking white cowpea to be used industrially in making a type of cracker. These leads will be pursued in the marketing study planned for Senegal.

The 1997 Senegal adoption survey will be documented as part of the report being prepared on impacts of varietal improvement and storage research in Senegal and Cameroon.

Table 1. Village Categories and Adoption of Melakh and Mouride, Senegal, 1997

Category	Total Villages in Category	Number Villages in Sample	Percent of Cowpea Area Melakh & Mouride
Minikit	8	2	3.6%
World Vision	65	8	6.4%
General Extension	1927	8	1.6%
Overall	2000	18	1.8%*

* Weighted average, where the weight is the proportion of villages in that category in the study area.

Risk Analysis - In an effort to better understand the farmer's varietal choice in Senegal, Harounan Kazianga, a student in Lowenberg-DeBoer's Production Economics class did a risk analysis with yield data from the Minikit trials from 1993 to 1996. He did stochastic dominance comparisons for dry grain yields for the overall sample, for trials conducted by men and women farmers and by region (Diourbel, Thies, Louga, St. Louis). Because the same agronomic and pest management practices were used for all varieties in the trials and because seed costs would be approximately the same for all varieties, the risk analysis for net returns would be very similar to the one done on yields.

Kazianga's results indicate that from a risk management perspective Melakh and Mouride clearly dominate the older improved varieties Ndiambour and Diongama for the overall data set, for men and women farmers and by region. For the overall dataset Melakh and Mouride provide a higher level of yield at every probability level in the Minikit trials. The yield advantages of Melakh and Mouride occur at every yield level in the data from men's trials, but in the data from women's trials, the Melakh and Mouride yield advantage occur mainly under the higher yield growing conditions (>400 kg/ha). It should be noted that this analysis does not test Melakh and Mouride against the farmer's traditional varieties because they were not included in the Minikit trials in the 93-97 period.

In the overall data set, in the Diourbel data, and the St. Louis analysis, Melakh dominates Mouride for risk averse decisionmakers. That is to say Melakh is slightly less risky than Mouride. For the analyzes for men and women farmers, for Thies and for Louga, the risk difference between Melakh and Mouride is not clear.

Activity 2: Extension agent survey nationwide in Ghana

Langyintuo and Nyankori implemented a survey of extension agents in northern Ghana to collect information on extension activities related to cowpea. A survey instrument developed by Vander Mey was used. This survey is intended to provide information to facilitate IPM technology transfer and impact assessment at both the farm and national levels. Some 85 extension agents in northern Ghana were surveyed in July and August 1998. They were in Bole District, Northern Region; Bawku East District, Upper East Region; and Nadowli District in the Upper West Region. The data is being analyzed at Clemson. The extension agent survey in southern Ghana has not been implemented.

Activity 3: Review of farming systems research studies in southern Ghana

A review of farming system studies for northern Ghana has been completed. A report is currently being finalized (Nyankori, Langyintuo, Egyir, Marfo). However, comparable work for southern Ghana has not been completed.

Activity 4: Conduct economic analysis of pest management for cowpeas including alternatives to pesticides

A conceptual framework for conducting said analysis has been developed by J. C. O. Nyankori. This report is listed in the non-refereed category of publications found at the end of the current report.

Constraint 2: Limited storage options Research Area: Economic feasibility of alternative storage options

Activity 1: Conduct feasibility studies of drum storage, especially with botanicals, steam treatment and other storage technologies for rural and urban use.

Drum storage was evaluated economically by Faye and Lowenberg-DeBoer as part of the impact assessment in Senegal. With a cost in the range of 4000 FCFA to 7000 FCFA per drum, an opportunity cost of capital of 29% and a 7-year useful life, the annual cost of cowpea drum storage materials is from 11 to 19 FCFA/kg. A 200 l steel drum can hold about 160 kg of cowpeas. Like the solar heater and triple bagging, drum storage has the greatest economic advantage for long storage periods (e.g. > 3 months).

It should be noted that drum storage has a lower labor requirement than solar treatment or insecticides because the grain is handled only to fill and empty the drum. For solar or insecticide treatment the grain must be handled an additional time. Use of botanicals would add mainly to the labor cost of drum storage. This is because of the time required to find and prepare the appropriate plant materials.

In Senegal drum storage is economical, largely because of the large supply and hence modest cost of steel drums. In other parts of the FCFA zone, drums often sell for higher prices and drum storage may be less economical than triple bagging, solar treatment or other storage technologies. Drum storage is included in the cowpea storage economics bulletin being prepared.

The economics of steam treatment for storage was not attempted because the UGA/UGL food scientists working on that technique stated that it is too early in the development process for an economic feasibility study.

Activity 2: Evaluate permanent placement solar heater.

The economic evaluation of the permanent placement solar heater was done by Lowenberg-DeBoer and Ntoukam. The principal economic advantage of the permanent placement solar heater is that it has a long useful life. Ntoukam estimates a useful life of 10 years for the corrugated aluminum that forms the bottom of the heater. The plastic sheets deteriorate with exposure to the sun. They eventually shred along the edges and tear. Their useful life with heavy use is about 2 seasons.

Following the analytic framework developed by Lowenberg-DeBoer in 1994 for comparison of cowpea storage costs, for a 3-month storage period the materials cost, including opportunity cost of capital invested, is about 10 FCFA/kg at the lower volume use of 2000 kg and 7 FCFA/kg at the higher volume use of 4000 kg (Table 2). This baseline estimate for Cameroon assumes a 50% opportunity cost of capital. The lower volume rate was estimated by researchers and corresponds to 40 batches treated. The higher volume use rate corresponds to 80 batches treated.

For a 3-month storage period the permanent placement solar heater costs almost the same on a per kilogram basis as the plastic sheet solar heater (Table 2). The insecticide treatment cost for 3 month storage is slightly lower than the per kilogram cost of the lower volume solar heater and slightly higher than that of the higher volume solar heater. The comparison between solar heater treatment and insecticide is the same as made by Lowenberg-DeBoer in 1994. For a three-month storage period the solar heater is competitive with insecticide if the higher volume of usage is achieved.

For a 6-month storage period the solar heater shows a greater advantage over insecticide treatment than in the 3-month storage case. This occurs because insecticide treatment must be repeated in 3 months involving an additional outlay for more insecticide. If the solar treated cowpea are stored in woven bags, they should also be re-treated in 3 months, but that re-treatment does not require an additional expenditure. If the higher volume usage rate is achieved, the solar heater (either plastic sheet or aluminum sheet) is about 25% cheaper than insecticide use. The per kilogram cost of treatment with the aluminum sheet solar heater is slightly higher than for the plastic sheet heater.

Table 2. Comparison of Costs of Cowpea Storage Using Two Types of Solar Heaters or Insecticide, 1997.

Item	Plastic Sheets Low Vol	Plastic Sheets High Vol.	Permanent Placement Low Vol.	Permanent Placement High Vol.	Insecticide
Volume Treated, k	2000	4000	600	1200	80
Annualized Materials Cost, FCFA*
Woven Bags, 80 k	7500	5000	2400	4500	300
Solar Heater*	5400	5400	938	938	0
Actellique	0	0	0	0	260
Labor	?	?	?	?	?
Cost for 3 Months Storage
Opportunity Cost of Capital, FCFA**	6338	7275	2739	3001	70
Materials Cost per kg stored, FCFA***	10	7	10	7	8
Cost for 6 Months Storage****
Opportunity Cost of Capital, FCFA**	7275	9150	3039	3654	173
Materials Cost Per kg stored, FCFA***	10	7	11	8	11

*Cost in this line is straight line depreciation. The useful lives assumed are: plastic sheets, 2 years (including the top sheet for the permanent placement solar heater), aluminum sheets 10 years. The plastic sheet solar heater is assumed to be 3m x 3m.

**Opportunity Cost of Capital is 50%.

***Storage cost per kilogram includes opportunity cost of capital invested in materials.

****Calculations assume that insecticide and solar heater treatments must be repeated every three months (if grain is not triple plastic bagged). Insecticides must be purchased for the repeat treatment. Depreciation and opportunity cost of capital have already been charged on the solar heater and it is assumed that the retreatment does not substantially change the useful life of the solar heater.

If the opportunity cost of capital is lower, the permanent placement heater has an economic advantage. With a low opportunity cost of capital, its longer lifespan and lower annual depreciation cost, outweighs the higher initial investment. Higher opportunity costs of capital favor use of the plastic sheet solar heater or insecticides because of the lower investment. Tests indicate that the results are not very sensitive to the useful life of the aluminum sheets. Conclusions at a 5-year useful life are very similar to those at 10 years.

Constraint IV: Socioeconomic research insufficiently integrated with production and utilization research. Research Area A: Economics of utilization technology

Activity 1: Cost of production analysis for cowpea based weaning foods.

CRSP food scientists Phillips and Sefa-Dedeh stated that cowpea based weaning foods were too early in the development process to allow for a useful evaluation.

Activity 2: Preliminary evaluation of hydrothermal treatment/weaning foods/fortified traditional foods.

CRSP food scientists Phillips and Sefa-Dedeh stated that these technologies were too early in the development process to allow for a useful evaluation.

Research Area B: Economics and Marketing

Lanygintuo, Halleegoah, Salifu, Owusu-Akyaw, Vander Mey, Nyankori, Shepard, Smith and CRI economists implemented the following activities.

Activity 1: Determinants of IPM technology adoption (social, cultural and demographic).

Interviews and Focus Group Evaluations

Previous baseline research on the initial IPM implementors indicated that they were willing to try IPM on their cowpea if "taught the right way" and if IPM would not be more costly than methods currently being used. In addition, farmers decided to try the IPM because they wanted to reduce their costs, were curious about the results, were optimistic about the innovation, and/or wanted to support the experiment. In addition, several of these adopters had become worried about potential health hazards associated with agrochemical use, and were eager to find alternatives that might be safer.

In August 1998 informal interviews were conducted with Ghana Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) personnel at the Ejura CARS. A focus group interview was conducted with about 15 of the participating farmers (about half of whom were women). The MoFa personnel seemed particularly interested in the CARS so that they personally might not only learn something, but also because they have become concerned about relatively haphazard, if not dangerous, and indiscriminate use of chemicals by farmers. The focus group participants indicated that they had joined CARS because they wanted to acquire the knowledge being imparted, they wanted to teach their husbands this knowledge (agreed to by all women participating), they thought IPM might help them make a better profit on their cowpea, and hoped that IPM can improve their farming so that they can more adequately provide for their families. Stressed among all was their own perceived need for more information so that their farming can be more successful. Among these participants, social correlates include having access to CRI and MoFa staff who could inform them of this opportunity, having provisions made for their transportation so that they could attend the sessions, and having family members at home who want them to teach them what they (the farmers) have learned at CARS. There did not appear to be any gender differences in relation to motivation to learn IPM in hopes of adopting it. Rather, the majority of these participants seemed keenly concerned about the economics of their current farming, and needed less costly alternatives. In addition, most also simply wanted the knowledge.

A focus group evaluation of the FFS conducted near Tamale yielded some slightly different results than those found at Ejura. At the Tamale FFS, the farmers, when asked why they agreed to sacrifice their time to the FFS, said that while they thought the FFS would take a bit of their time, they also thought that it would be beneficial. Farmers were motivated to join the FFS because they wanted the knowledge, they wanted to learn new skills, and have higher yields. Thus, like the farmers at Ejura, economic constraints helped motivate them. However, all of these farmers emphasized knowledge and skills first and foremost. Being given access to knowledge and skills - free of charge - in a nonthreatening, informal setting, seems ideal for limited resource farmers, and not just in Ghana.

Prior to the field school, none of the farmers could identify the insect pests of cowpea. During the evaluation, all participants could identify 5 pests. Several also mentioned that they now know how to minimize pesticide use, and are more informed of the potential hazards of chemical use/misuse. Furthermore, prior to the FFS, none of the farmer participants had used seem to control insect pests on their cowpea. Now, all of them do. Finally, several participants mentioned that they had picked up valuable communication and teamwork skills from the school. These are skills that they are using in other settings now.

Perhaps more interesting is the fact that one participant had never grown cowpea prior to this FFS. He was motivated to join the group and grows cowpea implementing IPM on his fields.

All farmer participants indicated that they started sharing information from the FFS sessions immediately. Several participants stressed that they were especially sharing the information with the women in their families and communities. A few had been asked to hold whole village meetings to convey the knowledge gained to all residents. The FFS participants estimated that on average, each farmer was sharing FFS knowledge with at least 10 others. Some of these other individuals are family members; others are non-kin members of their respective communities. Finally, several participants indicated that children often sought them out upon their return from FFS, wanting to know what had been experienced and learned that day.

An Integrated Evaluation Instrument

It should be noted that these focus group interviews and evaluations were conducted to get a more qualitative idea of why farmers were joining FFS and what they thought might be the benefit of this. In addition, these interviews were used to pre-test the draft of an instrument that is to be used to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate CARS/FFS/TOT. This instrument is being finalized at this time. Vander Mey, Salifu, Shepard and Abatania developed the instrument. Joyce Haleegoah and Vincent Anchinirah have provided some comments. Dr. Janny Voss (CABI) has agreed to serve as external reviewer of this instrument.

This instrument inventories motivations for initially volunteering for CARS/TOT/FFS and an array of farming, IPM, and pesticide use and disposal practices pre- and post a school. It also inventories changes in participants' knowledge about insect pests and beneficials, and specific IPM practices, pre and post. It also is designed to gather information about cowpea home consumption - including weaning food - prior to and after completing one of these schools. Willingness to train others, and numbers of others trained, will be collected. In addition, one section of the instrument focuses on evaluating the costs and benefits of neem preparation and application compared to other approaches to pest management. There also is a section that focuses on relative time-cost analysis of IPM over other approaches. Finally, participants are asked to identify the strengths and weakness of the school they attended, and to make recommendations for continuous improvement.

It should be noted that, in addition to the end-of-session interviews, follow-up evaluations should be conducted one or two growing seasons after participants have completed a school. The reason is that people may initially be very excited and adopt everything that is learned at the school during that growing season. However, as time goes by, the individuals may start tailoring IPM to fit their needs and preferences. Thus, initial follow up evaluations provide valuable information on how participants feel and have been affected by the school in the short-term. But, the instrument that is being finalized is to be administered later so that long-term adoption levels, and the correlates of these levels, can be tapped. In addition, post evaluation some two or three growing seasons after the school should give a clearer picture regarding the "spillover" of IPM adoption to other crops, and how many persons a participant has trained in the succeeding growing seasons. These evaluations, quite necessarily, involve integrating sociology, economics, entomology, and other disciplines together to get the fullest picture possible.

Baseline Survey of Farmers, Ashanti Region

Crops Research Institute conducted a socioeconomic survey of IPM on cowpea in July 1998. The surveys were conducted in the Ejura Sekyere-Odumasi district of the Ashanti region. Another survey is scheduled for the Nkawie district (Ashanti region) this October.

Findings from the survey are still being analyzed, but some preliminary findings are available and are presented below.

The Sample

Male and female farmers (n=70) were selected from Hiawoanwu, Kasei, Dromankoma, Babaso, Memenaso No. 1 and No. 2, Nyamebekyere and Kyenkyenkura in the Ejura Sekyere-Odomasi district in the Ashanti region. In addition to cowpea, farmers grow groundnuts, garden eggs, maize, peppers, tomatoes, cassava, yams, plantain, and cocoyam. Some of the farmers also owned oil palm and cocoa fields that were sited further away in the forests. Farmers typically hired caretakers to maintain these fields.

Cowpea production

The average area (total) of cowpea grown in this study is about 2.5 acres; farmers own most of these lands themselves. Fields are slashed and burned and often are ploughed before planting. Cowpea is monocropped in rows in the major and minor seasons. Insect pests are controlled with chemicals (both recommended and non-recommended), purchased from the Ejura market or local agents. Other farm implements and equipment are also obtained from these sources.

Pests and Disease

Farmers could not identify the names of pests and diseases. However, the descriptions they provided showed that aphids, flower thrips and pod borers are the most important problems for farmers in this district. Farmers usually control these problems with chemicals. Weeds and rodents also were cited as important problems of cowpea.

Consumption and Sale of Cowpea

Both red and white cowpeas are grown in the district. These varieties are mostly sold but they also are consumed as either a main dish or as a side dish. The use of cowpea as a weaning food is limited. Cowpea is not a ceremonial crop in this district and few are given to friends or relatives. Cowpea is usually stored in sacks or in some indoor structure that is specifically dedicated to cowpea storage. Cowpea is stored for up to two or three months. Then, it is sold in bags to traders at the Ejura market.

Access to Extension

Farmers have access to Extension information through direct discussions with Extension agents. Some farmers indicated that they got their farming knowledge from their elders or parents.

Preliminary Interviews With Cowpea Farmers in South Carolina

As previously indicated, a limited cowpea production/farming system, and marketing study was conducted in the spring/summer of 1998. Using an informal agricultural survey approach, Vander Mey, Shepard and Smith interviewed 10 growers and 10 grower/sellers. Most of the interviews were conducted in the Midlands, with a few conducted in the Upstate. The primary focus of the study was limited resource farmers. These interviews were used to give the researchers a better understanding of farming systems and constraints cowpea farmers in South Carolina face, as well as a better sense of the systems and nuances of cowpea marketing in the state. These interviews also were conducted to refine the instruments developed, a process that is underway.

Growers interviewed lived in the Midlands. Growers were asked a series of questions about their farming history, farming practices, acreage owned and rented, insect pests on cowpea, approaches to pest control, family farm divisions of labor, and seed/varietal selection and storage practices, etc. Farmers also were asked how and where they sell their cowpea.

Grower/sellers were interviewed at the Columbia Farmer's Market (Midlands), and the State Farmers' Market in Greenville (Upstate). One grower/seller was interviewed in the Pee Dee (Low Country). Grower/sellers were asked about consumer preferences as per cowpea varieties, background information on cowpea being offered by the sellers, and sellers' reasons for operating in a particular market. Notes also were taken regarding other produce/items being offered by the seller.

For these cowpea growers, cowpea is a minor but not insignificant crop. It is minor relative to other cash crops typically grown (e.g., collards, onions, okra, cucumber, squash, and in the Upstate, corn). But it is not insignificant. There is consumer demand for cowpea, the farmers do make money on this crop, and most also consume cowpea at home.

Most of the growers were using, at any given time, 5-10 acres for cowpea. Total acreage in use ranged from 48 to about 100. Among these growers, monocropping was common. However, row cropping of cowpea also occurred in mixed cropping systems. Most did not practice IPM on their cowpea. Most did not have their soils tested nor scout their fields, for instance. Mississippi Purple Hull cowpeas were grown to be sold in markets in North Carolina, while varieties such as the Mississippi Purple Stripe and the Clemson Purple Hull were grown for sale in South Carolina. Cowpea consumed at home was used right after harvest, or else frozen for later use. Later use included incorporating it into the traditional "good luck" meal Southerners traditionally prepare for New Year's Day . Among farmers who save seed, the seed is first dried and then frozen.

Farm divisions of labor ranged considerably. Some families had the more traditional situation where the husband and wife are both present at the farmstead, but he does the majority of the outside farming work (she may help with seed sowing, harvesting) and she cleans house and tends the books. More affluent farm operations tended to be primarily male-headed, with the wife primarily an overseer of activities within the home. Most farm families had older or grown children who either helped out when needed (weekends), or were regular employee/owners on the farm. One operation was very diversified and productive. On this farm, there were 14 full-time permanent employees, with as many as 25 part-time workers brought in during peak times.

Grower/sellers carried mainly Clemson Purple Hull. The beans were sold either in the pod or shelled. Sheller machines were available on site. Sellers tended also to be growers. However, these grower/sellers also brought in cowpea from friends, family and neighbors to sell in the market. Sellers who were not growers tended to rely on neighbors, friends and relatives living nearby to supply them with beans for the market.

Overall, the farmers did not seem all that knowledgeable about IPM, but were willing to try it. Some were willing simply because they like helping out Clemson University and the Extension Service. Others wanted the knowledge, with the hope that the knowledge could be transferred to other crops. Some also were simply curious. Limited resource farmers seemed especially appreciative of the attention being given their operations and crops by researchers and Extension agents. Given that cowpea is a minor cash crop, it stands to reason that those wanting to experiment with IPM would first try it on a less lucrative crop.

It is hoped that weather and funding will be more favorable next growing season, so that the samples can be larger and more representative of the various regions of the state.

Activity 2: Comparative costs analysis of alternative IPM practices through farm budgets.

Farm level and market price data were collected by Langyintuo and Nyankori for developing comprehensive farm enterprise budgets in Northern Ghana. These data currently are being analyzed.

Research Area C: Regional cowpea marketing and demand structure study

Activity 1: Cowpea price and quality relationships studies

Cameroon - A pilot study of cowpea price and quality relationships was implemented in Cameroon starting in September 1996 in 2 markets in Maroua. Once per month in each market 5 randomly selected cowpea samples were purchased. The study was designed with input from Murdock, Hall, Kitch, Ntoukam and Lowenberg-DeBoer. Dr. George Ntoukam, Cameroon Coordinator, is responsible for on-site supervision of the study because there is no social scientist assigned to the IRAD Maroua Cowpea Section. Lowenberg-DeBoer is responsible for the data analysis.

The cowpea characteristics on which data was collected included: price, 100 grain weight, length, width, skin color, eye color, skin texture, insect damage (e.g. number of holes/100 grains), type of seller (e.g. male or female, farmer or merchant). In July 1997, data collection was started in Mokolo, in the Mandara Mountains, and Banki, on the border with Nigeria. Data is now available through October 1998, with the exception of June 1998, when cashflow problems at IRAD Maroua, prevented purchase of samples. This missing data makes statistical analysis more difficult, but it does not invalidate the data.

Two years of data are needed to begin to identify reliable price patterns, but a preliminary analysis reported at the PEDUNE/RENACO/IITA/CRSP Cowpea Review and Planning Meeting, Ibadan, Nigeria, March, 1998, provide some early indications of results. That analysis using data through Feb., 1998, indicates that cowpea characteristics vary widely (Table 1) and that grain size is the most important single factor influencing price among the variables on which data was collected (Table 2). The analysis reported in Ibadan estimated the price premium for each additional gram per hundred grains to be about 4 FCFA/gram. Length by width is highly correlated with weight per 100 grains and may be a better measure of seed size in highly damaged grain.

In the Cameroon data through Feb. 1998, bruchid holes have a negative impact on price, but so far this has not been shown to be statistically significant (Table 2). The level of bruchid damage in the Cameroon samples has been relatively low. The average is only 13 holes per 100 grains and very few samples go over 30 holes per 100 grains. The hypotheses about why this low level of damage is observed focuses on:

a) increasing use of modern storage techniques, both insecticides and CRSP non-chemical methods,

b) merchants sort out damaged grain to keep the level of damage below some consumer threshold, and c) the ample supply of cowpea in 1997 and 1998 which allowed low quality grain to be diverted to animal feeding.

Table 1. Average, Minimum and Maximum for Cowpea Characteristics in Four Markets, Northern Cameroon, and Three Markets in Northern Ghana

Characteristic	Units	Average	Minimum	Maximum
Cameroon, Sept. 1996-Feb., 1998
Price	FCFA/kg	229	125	540
Weight/100 Grains	Grams	16.18	10.05	28.42
Number of Bruchid Holes	Number	13	0	102
Ghana, Aug., 1997-Feb., 1998
Price	Cedis/kg	707	421	1111
Weight/100 Grains	Grams	12	5	20
Number of Bruchid Holes	Number	13	0	68

Table 2. Initial Hedonic Pricing Model Results1, Cameroon, Sept. 1996 - Feb. 1998.

Variable	Model I	Model II
Number of Holes Per 100 grains (>30)	-0.60	-0.46
Weight/100 grains, grams	3.83*	-
Length*Width, mm2	-	0.56**
Mixed Color Discount	-	-20.81
Brown Discount	-	-13.47
Male Merchant Discount	-	-3.06
Female Farmer Premium	-	5.18
Male Farmer Discount	-	-1.78
R Squared	0.71	0.71

1) Month dummy variable coefficients not listed.

* Statistically significant at the 5% level.

** Statistically significant at the 1% level.

Source: Lowenberg-DeBoer, paper presented at the PEDUNE/RENACO/IITA/CRSP Cowpea Review and Planning Meeting, Ibadan, Nigeria, March 1998.

Other observations include:

a) some premium for white cowpea in the Maroua markets (13 to 20 FCFA/kg),

b) no evidence of price discounts for treatment with insecticides, even when seed treatment insecticides (e.g. Marshal) are used.

c) female farmers seem to command a slight premium for their cowpeas. The hypothesis is that they tend to sell in smaller units for immediate use by very low income consumers and hence gain a small price advantage for providing this service.

A spin off benefit of the Cameroon price and quality study is that a large collection of cowpea traditional varieties is being accumulated. With funding from PEDUNE, Ntoukam is growing out some of these varieties to determine insect and disease resistance.

Ghana

Cowpea price and quality data has been collected in three markets in northern Ghana since August 1997, following the procedures developed in Cameroon. The markets are Tamale, Bolgatanga and Wa. This study was started by A. Langyintuo before he came to the U.S. for graduate training and is being implemented by SARI staff in his absence. Analysis of this data will form part of Langyintuo's Ph.D. dissertation research. Improved varieties with a smooth white seed coat and black eye are predominant in these markets. Most cowpea sellers are women. Compared to Cameroon, the cowpea in the northern Ghana markets are smaller (Tables 1, 3), but the average insect damage level is the same (i.e. 13 holes/100 grains).

Senegal

Collection of cowpea price and quality data started at 6 markets in Senegal in January 1998, in collaboration with the Food Security Commission of Senegal. The data collection procedures and forms developed in Cameroon are being used in Senegal. This price and quality study was started by Mbene Faye before coming to the U.S. for her graduate training and is being implemented in her absence by Ibrahim Ndiaye, a technician at ISRA, Bambey. Analysis of this data will be part of Faye's Ph.D. dissertation research. The markets include both rural and urban sites. They are: Bambey, Diourbel Region; M'Pal, St. Louis Region; Sagatta, Louga Region; Nioro, Kaolack Regon; Castor, Dakar; and Titilene, Dakar

Nigeria

Negotiations are underway to initiate a study of cowpea markets in Nigeria with Dr. S. Kushwaha, Agricultural Economics and Extension, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University (ATBU), Bauchi, Nigeria. This study would include collecting cowpea price and quality data in three retail markets: Kano, Madougari, and Lagos. Nigeria is the largest cowpea market in the world and a major portion of the cowpea grown elsewhere in West Africa are exported to Nigeria. Kano has the largest cowpea market in the world. Lagos data would provide information on preferences of consumers in southern Nigeria. Madougari is in the heart of an area where red or brown cowpeas are preferred. The CRSP needs information on consumer cowpea preferences in Nigeria to guide breeding and other research. At ATBU, the study would be implemented by a Ph.D. student, Shehu Elhadji Musa. Dr. B.B. Singh, IITA, Kano, has facilitated this study by helping with communications and by organizing logistics for Lowenberg-DeBoer's visits to northern Nigeria.

Activity 2: Cowpea market structure studies

Cameroon

A preliminary study of the structure of the cowpea market in northern Cameroon was completed by Jean-Paul Oumarou, a student in Economics, Ngaoundere University, Ngaoundere, Cameroon. The general objective of this study was to characterize the marketing of cowpea produced in Northern Cameroon, including analysis of marketing costs. Oumarou interviewed 60 market participants in the markets where cowpea price and quality data is collected (e.g. Maroua, Salak, Mokolo and Banki), including farmers, local retailers, wholesalers and rural intermediaries. Results include:

* Nigerian merchants are a major buying presence only in the border market of Banki. That market is so dominated by Nigeria that exchanges are primarily in Naira. In the other markets Nigerian merchants are seen only when cowpea shortages drive prices in Nigeria very high.

* Cowpea storage capacity in Maroua is about 25,000 to 30,000 MT. Annual production of cowpea in the Far North Province of Cameroon in the last decade varied from 15,000 to 45,000 MT. Thus if the Cameroon government cowpea production figures are accurate, a high proportion of cowpea production in the Far North Province can be stored by Maroua merchants.

* Some 15,000 to 20,000 MT are shipped from Maroua each year to markets in southern Cameroon, principally Douala and Bafoussam. In those southern Cameroon markets some cowpea are resold to merchants from Gabon and Congo. If storage capacity is a rough estimate of annual cowpea quantity handled by merchants, about half to two thirds of the cowpea sales by Maroua merchants are to southern Cameroon.

* Marketing costs to southern Cameroon include: Trucking from Maroua to Douala or Bafoussam, 40,000 to 50,000 FCFA/MT or 3000 to 4000 FCFA/sack; storage in Douala or Bafoussam until sale, about 300 FCFA/sack, about 30 FCFA/sack for taxes and other fees and 50 FCFA/sack for each time a sack is loaded or unloaded. Typically, the seller or his representative will accompany a load of cowpea to the south. This adds about 400-500 FCFA/sack. Total marketing cost is estimated at 3830- 4930 FCFA/sack.

* Typical price differences for the same period between Maroua and southern Cameroon suggest that the cowpea trade can be modestly profitable. Price difference between harvest and latter periods indicate returns to capital invested of about 50%.

Table 4. Cowpea Price Ranges At Selected Markets Within Cameroon By Period

Period and Locations	Price Range, FCFA/100 kg sack
Rural Markets Around Maroua
October-December	10,000-12,500
January-March	14,500-17,500
April-July	19,000-21,000
Maroua Market
October-December	13,000-14,000
January-March	15,000-19,500
April-July	21,000-22,500
Douala or Bafoussam
October-December	17,000-19,000
January-March	22,500-24,000
April-July	24,000-28,000

Source: Oumarou, 1998.

Ghana

Langyintuo has described the cowpea marketing system in northern Ghana based on his grain market surveys funded by the Savannah Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) and the West and Central African Maize Research Network in 1997-98 and unpublished data from Ghana Ministry of Food and Agriculture. This preliminary description focuses on the four northern Ghana regions: Upper East, Upper West, Northern, and Brong Ahafo.

The survey indicated that farmers in northern Ghana sell about 20% of their "marketable surplus" cowpeas directly to consumers. The remainder is sold to local assemblers at a discount of 5% to 17% off the retail price in northern Ghana urban areas. In 1997 the average price of cowpea in northern Ghana urban areas was ¢80,000/bag, (¢ = Cedis) while the average farm gate price was about ¢67,500/bag. The current exchange rate is about ¢2340/US$. The average bag of cowpeas in Ghana weights about 109 kg/bag.

Cowpea assemblers bear the cost of transporting (including loading and off-loading) cowpeas from the village to the market of about ¢1500/bag, market tolls and local council charges of about ¢300/bag. Local assemblers sell the grain to wholesalers or through commission agents who pass it on to retailers. Commission agents are traders who bear no risk in marketing. They have warehouses, but do not actually purchase the grain. Typically, they charge a fee of ¢100 per bag sold. Since commission traders are incurring storage costs they are motivated to move grain quickly. Wholesalers often hold cowpea stocks for extended periods waiting for higher prices. They often rent storage space and use insecticides to control storage insects.

Transport from northern Ghana to the coastal area costs about ¢5000/bag. Market tolls and commissions to local government costs about ¢2500/bag. In 1997, the average cowpea price difference between northern Ghana urban markets and Accra was ¢22,000/bag. Both the regional cowpea trade in northern Ghana and the trade between northern and southern areas appears to be moderately profitable, but much depends on the cost of capital.

The Ghana Ministry of Agriculture shipping data offers a rich source of information on trade between regions. Thus far Langyintuo has examined only the trade in the four northern most regions. During the period 1993-1997, the Ministry of Agriculture data show an average of about 2300 MT/yr of cowpeas were shipped out of the four northern most regions of Ghana: Upper East, Upper West, Northern and Brong Ahafo Regions.

One of the key questions about this data is how much of the cowpea trade is covered. Shipping data is collected only in markets on market days. What about cowpeas shipped by merchants on their own accounts without passing through a market? What about cowpeas shipped on non-market days. The shipping data is not connected to tax collection, so there is no great motivation to evade, but there is also no incentive to make sure that every truckload is recorded. Future work will need to examine the proportion of the cowpea trade actually captured by this data. The data may be a good source of information on the direction and relative strength of cowpea flows, even if it captures only a relatively small portion of the quantity of cowpeas being moved around the country.

The Ministry of Agriculture data shows that most of the cowpea shipped out of northern Ghana comes from the Upper East or the northeast area of the Northern Region. About 48% of the cowpea shipped out of the Upper East goes to the Greater Accra area and about 26% goes to the Ashanti region.

There is a substantial movement of cowpea from Upper East, Upper West and Northern Regions to Techiman, in Brong Ahafo, which serves as a distribution center for food crops destined for southern Ghana. Over 400 MT/yr. of cowpea are shipped to Techiman. Some 80% of the cowpeas shipped out of Techiman go to Greater Accra or the Ashanti Regions. A substantial quantity of cowpea produced in the northwestern corner of the Northern Region are marketed through the Upper East Region. There is almost no cowpea trade between the Upper East and Upper West.

Cowpea imported from Burkina Faso shows up in the data only for the Upper East, and then only as 2% of all cowpea entering the markets in that region. The hypothesis is that cowpea being shipped from Burkina Faso to Ghana goes directly to the more lucrative markets in the coastal areas.

Activity 3: Cowpea grain private cost of production

As a first step toward estimation of regional comparative advantage in cowpea production, Langyintuo used the Policy Analysis Matrix (PAM) technique taught in the 1998 Bean/Cowpea CRSP Social Science Working Group meeting to compare private and social profitability of cowpea production for three systems: 1) traditional system in the savanna, 2) improved system in the savanna, and 3) improved system in the transition forest zone. In the traditional system, farmers prepare the land with a hoe, plant local cowpea varieties and use no fertilizer or insecticide. Traditional system yields are estimated at 200 kg/ha. The "improved" systems compared the use of mechanized land preparation with bullocks or tractors, phosphate fertilizer, and three insecticide applications. Improved system yields are estimated at 1090 kg/ha for the savanna and 820 kg/ha for the transition zone. Private profitability is calculated at market prices and social benefits are calculated at social opportunity costs.

Langyintuo's analysis shows that both private and social profitability is greater for the improved systems and that the savannah improved system has a comparative advantage compared to the forest transitional zone cowpea production. Current efforts are focusing on incorporating the opportunity costs of working capital and environmental effects.

Constraint VI. Insufficient extension services supporting cowpea in the region

Research Area C: Facilitate mechanisms for extension collaboration

Results from surveys and on-farm trials in Ghana indicate that farmers there do have access to Extension. Some farmers living in very remote areas may have more difficulty, but on balance, farmers' access to Extension information and Extension agents has improved. How sufficient that access is will have to await analyses of the Extension surveys.

In addition, in some areas, field agents do not have adequate transportation, thus some of their clients probably are underserved, if served at all. In addition, the degree to which the personnel of MoFa personally involve themselves in TOT/CARS/FFS further supports the notion that all efforts are being made in Ghana to have Extension "extended" to more farmers. The survey of Extension agents in Ghana should provide guidance on how to improve the frequency and quality of farmer contact with Extensionists and Extension programs and materials.

In the US, however, limited resource farmers have tended either to have less access to Extension or to feel uncomfortable about seeking Extension's assistance. Efforts are underway to make sure that limited resource farmers also have their needs met, in so far as Extension is able to meet them. This project, in fact, is a novel one in South Carolina due to its specific focus on limited resource farmers.

It should be noted that while the Clemson team already has one Extension Agent on the team (Powell Smith; plant health specialist), another Agent has been added. He is Mr. Roy Hollingsworth, a specialist working in Hampton County. He works almost exclusively with minority and limited resource farmers. Much time is spent with these producers and their more traditional, less lucrative cash crops. In addition, Mr. Hollingsworth currently is working toward a Ph.D. in sociology, specializing in the Sociology of Agriculture.

Activity 1: Extension agent survey in Ghana

See description in constraint section I.H.2.

Activity 2: Build on linkages established through the INTERCRSP NRM projects

See section II.B.1. for a description of Lowenberg-DeBoer's work with the INTERCRSP NRM. Through this work cowpea is one of the soil building, intensification technologies being evaluated in Burkina Faso, Niger, Cameroon and Tchad. Dr. George Ntoukam, Cameroon CRSP Coordinator has been closely involved with planning CRSP activities in that country.

Constraint VII: Insufficient collaboration between research and extension

In Ghana the CARS/TOT/FFS schools want to improve collaboration between research and Extension. Given the very active involvement of MoFA in the CARS/TOT/FFS, it appears that the collaboration between research and Extension is strengthening significantly.

On the US side, the Clemson team has Extension agents as full and equal partners. In addition, depending upon the county in which the team will work, other agents will come in to help expedite and facilitate activities.

Furthermore, the plan on the Clemson side is to ultimately hold public forums at Extension facilities wherein findings from the IPM cowpea work can be presented. At these forums brochures will also be available for distribution. These brochures will overview the key principles of IPM, and then focus more specifically on insect complexes of cowpea, and efficacious approaches to using IPM on cowpea in the various growing regions of the state. Copies of these brochures will be available in each of South Carolina's 46 county Extension offices. This plan should assure sufficient collaboration between research and Extension on the Clemson side.

Finally, Dr. Vander Mey's position has been changed at Clemson. Until this year, she was 100% sociology. Due to her various collaborative projects with agriculture and Extension over the past several years, her position has been changed to 50% sociology and 50% Extension (Research and Education). Thus, the composition of the Clemson team itself speaks to ensuring collaboration between research and Extension on this side.

Research Area B: Integrate economic analyses of technology utilization

Activity 1: Incorporate cost and revenue analysis into field school training

Langyintuo has collected the data necessary to incorporate cost and revenue analysis in the field school training. After analysis he will propose an approach to incorporating cost and revenue in the field school training.

C. Describe impacts generated in FY97B-98 including newly expanded impacts from previous years (quantified where possible) and identify collaborators supporting the extension. Include pictures/slides whenever possible.

One of the responsibilities of the West Africa Regional Facilitator is to implement rigorous, quantitative impact assessment, and to facilitate such assessments by others. In the 1997-98 period, economic impact assessment focused on the variety improvement and storage research in Cameroon and Senegal. These are the two oldest Bean/Cowpea projects in the region and they have had time to develop and transfer technologies. During the 1997-98 period Faye and Lowenberg-DeBoer, as well as student employees Diaz-Hermelo and Aghib worked to finalize the analysis.

On the theoretical level, one of the challenges in the assessment of varietal and storage technologies is to avoid double counting. There are well-developed methods for assessing either varietal improvement or storage innovations individually, but it is not obvious that implementing each assessment procedure independently and summing the results will provide a good estimate. For example, improved storage techniques may reduce the impact from varietal improvement because with better storage more grain is available for human consumption from any production level. Diaz-Hermelo and Lowenberg-DeBoer showed that if the economic surplus analysis of storage innovations is implemented with the supply curve after varietal improvement, the benefits are additive. This theoretical development will be documented with the empirical results from Cameroon and Senegal.

Cameroon

In 1998 Lowenberg-DeBoer and Diaz-Hermelo worked on an assessment for Cameroon incorporating both the projected benefits from the new varieties that are being released and the CRSP storage technologies. Economic benefits were estimated using an economic surplus partial equilibrium model. The basic assumptions were an increase in yields of 276 kg/ha for the new varieties based on yields in experimental trials, new variety adoption rate of 20% by 2005, adoption of CRSP storage technologies for 10% of production, and a small open economy because excess production can be exported to Nigeria. On the cost side, research and transfer expenditures were included from the CRSP, IRAD, SAILD and AFP. The discount rate for both the Cameroon and Senegal assessments were estimated at 4.82%, the average real yield for 30 year US Treasury Bonds during the period 1982 to 1995.

With these assumptions, the total net present value (NPV) in 1997 US dollars was $68.6 million and the internal rate of return (IRR) was 32.8%, well above the opportunity cost of capital. The first sensitivity analysis was to reduce the yield to 184 kg/ha, which is 50% of the increase in research station trials. In this case the NPV decreased to $37.0 million and the IRR to 27.8%. The second sensitivity analysis implemented was to decrease the improved variety adoption rate from 20% to 10%. In this case the NPV was reduced to $14.3 million and IRR of 21.3%. With the storage technologies alone, benefits are NPV of $9.3 million and IRR of 25.8%. Either the new varieties or the storage technologies would have been enough to economically justify the Bean/Cowpea CRSP program in Cameroon.

Senegal

An economic surplus partial equilibrium model was used by Faye and Lowenberg-DeBoer to estimate economic benefits from the varietal improvement and storage research in Senegal from 1982 to 2010. The basic assumptions were increase in yields of 40% to 452 kg/ha for the new varieties, green pods variety adoption rate of 2.8% by 2003, decrease in storage losses from 25% to 0% with the drums and adoption rate of CRSP storage technologies for 57% of cowpeas stored. The discount rate is as explained above for Cameroon. The research and transfer costs taken into account include expenditures by CRSP, ISRA, SAFGRAD, RENACO, INSAH and World Vision.

The economic net benefits are significant. The NPV for Operation Cowpea, varietal improvement and storage is $19.1 millions and the IRR is 222%. Because Operation Cowpea generated major benefits early in the period (1985-86), it dominates the NPV analysis. To obtain a clearer picture of the role of research after 1986, a second estimate was done excluding Operation Cowpea costs and benefits. The total net benefit from the Melakh and Mouride and drum storage is $ 5.6 millions with an IRR of 15.1%.

In the scenario without Operation Cowpea the sensitivity of the results to storage loss parameters and yields were examined. Originally storage damage was reduced from 25 to 0%. In the sensitivity analysis storage loss with drums was reduced to 12.5%. In this scenario the NPV decreased to $4.5 million and the IRR to 13.5%. Second, yield from improved varieties was reduced by one third. The NPV in this case is $3.7 millions and the IRR 12.7%. Finally, a third scenario combined lower storage benefits and reduced green pods varieties. The result is still positive with an NPV of $2.6 millions and IRR of 10.8%. Even at the lowest benefit estimates the NPV was positive and the IRR is above the cost of capital to the US government which is the major donor.

The assessment in both Senegal and Cameroon indicates that either the varietal improvement or the storage research by itself could have economically justified the Bean/Cowpea CRSP investment. Together the two components form a substantial contribution to economic activity in these two countries. It should be noted that this analysis does not include spill over benefits from the transfer of these varieties and storage technologies to other countries in the region. A journal article is being prepared by Lowenberg-DeBoer and Diaz-Hermelo.

D. Report degree and nondegree training progress (on-going and completed) giving numbers, names, subject matter and gender (use Training Report form to update information for students previously submitted and add students who are not shown on the enclosed roster.

Workplan Constraint V. Insufficient Cadre of Trained Personnel

Area C. Other Non-Degree Training

Activity 1: Training for Bean/Cowpea CRSP social scientists working in West Africa in SAS (statistical analysis) and PAM (Policy Analysis Matrix).

The training was carried out as part of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP West Africa Social Science Working Group meeting at Purdue March 16-20, 1998. West African participants came from Senegal, Cameroon, Ghana, Niger and Mali. US participants were from Clemson University and Purdue.

The workshop had four objectives: 1) to update participants on cowpea related social science research in CRSP and non-CRSP countries, 2) to review research plans for the 1998-99 fiscal year, 3) to provide training on the Statistical Analysis System (SAS), and 4) to introduce use of the Policy Analysis Matrix (PAM). James Nyankori, Clemson, handled the SAS training. Will Masters, Purdue, led the one day PAM session.

Participating social scientists were: Jean Koulandi, IRAD, Cameroon; Augustine Langyintuo, SARI, Ghana; Susan Egyir, University of Ghana, Legon; Mbene Faye, ISRA, Senegal; Tahirou Abdoulaye, INRAN, Niger; Bakary Coulibaly, IER, Mali; James Nyankori, Clemson; Jess Lowenberg-DeBoer, Purdue. Abdoulaye and Coulibaly are students at Purdue. Biological scientists who participated in the research update and planning sessions were: Larry Murdock, Purdue; George Ntoukam, IRAD, Cameroon, and Ousmane Boukar, IRAD, Cameroon.

This is the second West Africa Social Science Working Group meeting. The first was held at Clemson in March 1997. Next year's meeting is planned in conjunction with the RENACO/PEDUNE/CRSP/IITA cowpea meetings to be held in Cotonou, Benin, the first week of March.

Area D. Degree training

Activity 1: Mbene Faye to be trained in Ag Economics at Purdue

Faye started graduate work at Purdue in August 1998. Lowenberg-DeBoer is her major professor. She was admitted to the M.S. program because of concern about her background in economics. Her previous graduate degree was in a multidisciplinary natural resource management program that contained only a modest amount of economics. She should be allowed to transfer directly to the Ph.D. program when she has taken the M.S. level economics and statistics courses. Dr. Joan Fulton, Ag Economics, a specialist in grain marketing, and Dr. Phil Paarlberg, Ag Economics, a specialist in international trade, have agreed to be on her committee.

Activity 2: A. Langyintuo to be trained in Ag Economics at Purdue

Lanyintuo started his Ph.D. program at Purdue in August 1998, with Lowenberg-DeBoer as major professor. Dr. Joan Fulton, a specialist in grain marketing, and Dr. Phil Paarlberg, a specialist in international trade, have agreed to be on his committee.

II. Funding/Fiscal Management in FY 97B-98

A. Constraints related to level or reporting of CRSP funds.

Budget rescissions should be avoided. Taking back funds already committed to a research area or an institution encourages bad management in the future. If researchers know that unspent funds will be reclaimed, they will less careful about spending. Given the fact that funding is often late PIs lose on both ends. If they don't spend the money on schedule, it is taken away. If they spend it on schedule, they will be forced to curtail activities until the next tranche is released.

If budget rescissions are implemented, they should be negotiated through the same channels as the original subcontracts, that is through the institution's business office instead of individual negotiations with PIs. Depending on the university accounting system, PIs do not necessarily have the most complete or up-to-date information on project accounts at their fingertips.

If funds in the pipeline are a concern, the Management Office could help reducing funds outstanding by switching from quarterly to monthly reimbursement. In part, budget rescissions have been justified by pressure from USAID to reduce funds in the pipeline. The point of this suggestion is that funds in the pipeline can be reduced by the MO as well as by penalizing PIs who manage their funds carefully.

B. Report funding received over and above CRSP funds and U.S./HC contributions. 1. List all leveraged funds that contribute to CRSP objectives. Explain the uses and impact of this additional funding.

Lowenberg-DeBoer is involved in the East Group of the INTERCRSP natural resources management project funded by USAID Africa Bureau. The East Group works in Niger, Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Tchad. The U.S. Universities involved are Alabama A&M, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and Purdue. Lowenberg-DeBoer is INTERCRSP coordinator for Cameroon and Tchad with funding from April 1997-March 1998 of $44,643. Improved cowpea production, storage and processing are among the technologies considered by the INTERCRSP East Group. In Cameroon agroforestry trials involved sorghum, cowpea and various tree species.

In southern Tchad an economic study is being done to compare benefits to the farm households of cowpea production for grain and fodder versus use of the leguminous cover crop Macuna. The cover crop requires very little labor and investment compared to cowpea, but cowpea has the advantage of producing food and/or income in the production year. The benefit of Macuna production is largely through improved soil fertility for the following cereal or cotton crop. A better understanding of the economics of cowpea will facilitate transfer of CRSP technologies to Tchad.

Under Lowenberg-DeBoer's supervision, Francisco Diaz-Hermelo, a Purdue student, has developed an impact assessment framework for the INTERCRSP that integrates economic benefits from production, storage and processing technology. This framework is potentially useful for integrating the economic impacts of Bean/Cowpea CRSP research and technology transfer.

2. Describe funds generated for non-CRSP objectives but generated as a result of CRSP achievements.

III. Workplan Changes - Describe major changes/additions/deletions made in 1997B-98 workplan regarding funding, personnel, research activities, etc. Give reasons for such changes.

Workplans developed in Griffin were followed except for socio-economic feasibility studies of technologies developed by the UGA/UGL food scientists and collection of baseline impact information in southern Ghana. The feasibility studies of steam treatment for storage, cowpea based weaning food and cowpea fortified traditional foods were not implemented because CRSP food scientists said that these technologies were too early in the development stage.

IV. Publications, Presentations and Awards in FY 97B-98

A. List publications in two categories: refereed and non-refereed.

Refereed

None.

Non-refereed

Haque, Mary Taylor, Lolly Tai and Brenda Vander Mey. 1998. "Service learning and environmental education," Hort Science. 33,3:509. (Is this refereed?)

Nyankori, J.C.O, A.S. Langyintuo, and D.P. Pleshette, 1997. "Characterizing sources of cowpea yield loss in Northern Ghana," Socioeconomic Research Reports, Report No. 11-05-97. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. Barre Hall. Clemson University. Clemson, SC, USA.

Nayankori, J.C.O. 1998. "Conceptual framework for impact assessment: Farm household level consequences of IPM for cowpea in Ghana," Socioeconomic Research Reports, Report No. 02-21-98. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. Barre Hall. Clemson University. Clemson, SC, USA.

Oumarou, Jean-Paul, "Etude sur le circuit commercial du niébé dans la province de l'Extreme Nord du Cameroun," Thesis, University of Ngaoundéré, Ngaoundéré, Cameroon, 1998.

B. List presentations including poster sessions, seminars, workshops, etc and also in this section list proceedings of meetings.

Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., "Bean/Cowpea CRSP West Africa Economics Research," presented at the PEDUNE/RENACO/IITA/CRSP Cowpea Review and Planning Meeting, Ibadan, Nigeria, March, 1998.

Vander Mey, B.J. 1998. "Integrated pest management on cowpea in Ghana: Accomplishments and future aims," paper presented at the PEDUNE/RENACO/IITA/CRSP Cowpea Review and Planning Meeting, Ibadan, Nigeria, March 1998.

Vander Mey, B.J., J. Haleegoah, J.E. Hawdon and A. Langyintuo. 1998. "Integrated pest management as participatory, sustainable development: An example from Ghana, West Africa." Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Southern Sociological Society. Atlanta, GA, USA.

C. Report all (U.S./HC) awards and recognitions to CRSP personnel listed on Training Form or Roster.

The American Sociological Association has published a report, "Training for Sociological Practice and Working in an Applied Setting" (Hougland and Schutt, 1998) highlighting Clemson University's Applied Sociology Master's Degree Program as a program engaged in "exemplary practices" in the education of applied sociologists.

Vander Mey also serves as the coordinator of South Carolina Landscapes for Learning. To of the projects in which she is actively involved were featured in Clemson World, Spring, 1998.

V. Ideas for Strengthening Project

· Regional budget discussion should acknowledge that in many cases some "core" budget is needed just to maintain any level of activity. For example, this core might be part of a lab technician's salary, funds to maintain a basic germplasm collection or administrative assistance. In the current system the funds required to maintain the core are often spread over all line items and funding cuts may have distorting effects on research and extension activities. If a major budget item is cut, the proportion of the core supported by this line is effectively distributed over remaining items, thereby reducing the funds available to implement the specific activities in that line. Making the core budget explicit would facilitate discussion of such questions such as: Is the core essential to all other activities? Can the core budget be reduced if certain activities are curtailed?

· A research impact assessment workshop should be organized. West Africa CRSP social scientists met at Clemson in 1997 to discuss impact assessment and a summary of their common understanding was distributed to all senior CRSP scientists in the West Africa region. Unfortunately, biological and food scientists were not part of that Clemson discussion. Lack of information about standard impact assessment methods and disagreement about the appropriate yardstick for assessment is making research planning and budget discussions more difficult than necessary. In particular, the workshop should have an explicit discussion of the difference between impact assessment and marketing the CRSP (e.g. "sell on emotion, justify with fact"). Lowenberg-DeBoer and his colleagues at Purdue, Sanders and Masters, have organized similar workshops for biological researchers in national agricultural research systems in East and West Africa.

· The CRSP hierarchy has too many layers (e.g. Management Office (MO), Technical Committee (TC), Regional Advisors (RA), Bilateral Partnerships, and Scientists. Too much money is absorbed by the administration for travel and meetings to maintain these layers. During the current CRSP phase the structure seems fixed, but costs might be cut by relying more on conference calls and email, thereby reducing the frequency of TC and/or RA meetings. In the next phase, serious thought should be given to reconstituting the technical committee on a regional basis, replacing the RAs. For most purposes the current TC seems too far removed from the details of the work to provide useful feedback. In that plan the CRSP director would attend all regional technical committee meetings. The CRSP director could also have an executive committee of regional chairs to provide feedback between meetings via conferences calls and/or email. Communications between regions could be facilitated by a once per phase conference which would involve not only the senior scientists who now sit on the TC and RA, but a larger cross section of CRSP researchers.

VI. U.S. and HC Roster (See Attached)