DISCLAIMER: The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the 
views of the United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Government.
Foreign Agricultural 
Service, United States 
Department of Agriculture
Senegal Local and Regional Food 
Procurement Project 
Baseline Evaluation
July 2019
DISCLAIMER: The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the 
views of the United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Government.
Senegal Local and Regional Food Procurement Project 
Counterpart, along with partners NCBA CLUSA and Virginia Tech University, will implement 
the LRP project for up to three years in Senegal. The program will work to link millet and cowpea 
producer organizations supported through USDA funded value chain projects with the school 
feeding programs at the 204 primary schools that will be supported through the McGovern-Dole 
program in the Saint-Louis Region. The baseline evaluation provides baseline data values as well 
as context and recommendations to inform project implementation.
Agreement Number: LRP-685-2018/015-00
Project Duration: 2018-2021 
Implemented by: Counterpart International
Evaluation Authored by: Chris Root, IMC Worldwide
i 
Table of Contents
1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE.................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 MILLET ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 COWPEA............................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................................................. 2
2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 SURVEY................................................................................................................................................................ 3
2.2 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION......................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................................................ 4
3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
3.1 SURVEY................................................................................................................................................................ 5
3.2 QUALITATIVE RESULTS - MILLET .......................................................................................................................10
3.3 QUALITATIVE RESULTS – COWPEA.....................................................................................................................11
3.4 QUALITATIVE RESULTS – MILLET AND COWPEA PRODUCER AND HUB CAPACITY ...............................................12
4. RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................................................13
4.1 PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................................13
4.2 EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................................14
5. ANNEX – DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ....................................................................................................15
6. ANNEX – PERFORMANCE INDICATOR BASELINE VALUES.............................................................24
List of Tables
Table 1: Millet and cowpea organizations ..................................................................................... 5
Table 2: Volume of commodities sold this season (MT) (USDA LRP 7)..................................... 6
Table 3: Value of commodities sold this season (‘000 XOF) (USDA LRP 8) .............................. 6
Table 4: Average sales price by month (XOF/KG) ....................................................................... 7
Table 5: Volume of sales by month to date (% of sales to date) .................................................... 8
Table 6: Market outlets (% of sales by volume)............................................................................ 9
Table 7: Procurement model (% of volume).................................................................................. 9
Table 8: Trainings received in the past year (% of organizations) .............................................. 10
Table 9: Performance indicator baseline values .......................................................................... 24
Table 10: Millet and cowpea producer groups contributing to the project’s value and volume of 
sales ............................................................................................................................................... 25
ii
Acronyms and Terms
CLUSA NCBA CLUSA
CNIFN Cadre National Interprofessionnel de la Filière Niébé
KG Kilogram
MGD McGovern-Dole
MT Metric Ton 
PAFA Projet d'Appui aux filières Agricoles
PO Producer Organization 
TACSS Transition d'Alimentation dans les Cantines Scolaires au Senegal 
USD United States Dollar
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
XOF West African CFA Franc
1 
1. Background and purpose
Counterpart, along with partners NCBA CLUSA (CLUSA) and Virginia Tech University, will 
implement the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funded Local and Regional Food 
Aid Procurement (LRP) Program called Transition d'Alimentation dans les Cantines Scolaires au 
Senegal (TACSS) for up to three years in Senegal. The program will work to link millet and cowpea 
producer organizations supported through USDA and other donor-funded value chain projects in 
Senegal with the school feeding programs at the 204 primary schools that will be supported 
through the McGovern-Dole (McGovern-Dole) program in the Saint-Louis Region. LRP aims at 
improved effectiveness of food assistance through local and regional procurement (LRP SO1). 
TACSS will take over supply of school feeding commodities from McGovern-Dole once schools 
are deemed ready to begin procuring commodities on their own. Over the course of the project, 
LRP anticipates linking approximately 270 millet and cowpea producer hubs and organizations 
with McGovern-Dole schools through contracts between schools and producer hubs and 
organizations. TACSS will provide capacity building to ensure producer hubs and organizations 
are able to fulfil their delivery obligations. 
1.1 Millet
TACSS’ partner organization NCBA CLUSA has been working with millet producer organizations 
in Central Senegal since 2009. The first phase of their work focused on food security and 
productivity. The second and current phase, initiated in 2014, focuses on improved storage, 
organizational management, processing and increased trade. The second phase also introduces 
hubs. Hubs are one level above producer organizations and focus on access to inputs, cleaning and 
pre-treatment of millet for value addition, marketing and access to finance. 
TACSS will work at the hub level to build hub capacity to deliver orders to McGovern-Dole
schools. There are six hubs that have been selected to participate in TACSS based on their high
volume of transactions and their professionalism. In total there are about 200 millet producer 
organizations that are members of these project hubs, with an average of 24 farmer members in 
each producer organization. 
Millet hubs purchase millet from producer groups. However less than half of millet producer
organizations in the survey are involved in trading millet. Some producer organizations, including 
those not involved in trading, provide inputs or input finance for members. Millet producer 
organizations may also store grain for their members for future consumption or sale. Hubs offer 
member producer organizations access to larger and higher value markets as well as access to 
lower cost finance. Producer organizations charge their members fees ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 
West African CFA franc (XOF) annually and pay of share of these membership fees to hubs which 
use the fee revenue in part to finance millet purchases. 
1.2 Cowpea
TACSS cowpea activities are implemented through the Cadre National Interprofessionnel de la 
Filière Niébé (CNIFN) based in Diourbel and supported by the Projet d'Appui aux filières 
Agricoles (PAFA). This project, started in 2011, is funded through the International Fund for 
Agricultural Development (IFAD) and has worked to improve production, processing and 
2 
marketing of cowpea, among other value chains. PAFA works with approximately 100 producer 
organizations, many of them women led and focused. For many, cowpea is only one of several 
crops the groups produce. Cowpea producer organizations are not organized into hubs but many 
have access to storage facilities provided by PAFA. 
PAFA is currently focusing on improved seeds, access to finance, processing, packaging and 
marketing. Cowpea products that PAFA helps producer organizations produce include cereal, 
powder (flour), and couscous. While PAFA does not promote hub organizations to aggregate 
production like CLUSA has with millet, PAFA is currently building 50 storage facilities each with 
150 MT capacity that will be used by cowpea producer organizations. PAFA hosts events through 
which cowpea producer organizations are introduced to buyers and also provides contract 
assurance. 
Just under 30 percent of producer organizations in the survey reported buying and selling cowpea. 
Instead many appear to act as intermediaries between producers and buyers, communicating with 
buyers to inform them on availability and with producers to let them know they have a buyer. The 
transaction that follows takes place independently between producer and buyer. As with millet, 
cowpea producer organizations also facilitate access to finance for production and inputs, and 
charge membership fees. 
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of the baseline study is to produce baseline data to be used for assessing program 
outcomes and impacts during the final evaluation as well as to inform program implementation
during TACSS implementation. The study also aims to assess the capacity of producer groups to 
meet the increased demand for millet and cowpea from McGovern-Dole schools and aims to 
provide other findings and recommendations that may be useful during program start-up. 
3 
2. Methodology 
The baseline study featured mixed methods methodology, with a survey of millet and cowpea
producer organizations, millet hubs, as well as qualitative interviews. Fieldwork was carried out 
from April 30 through May 10, 2019. 
2.1 Survey
The baseline survey featured simple random samples of millet and cowpea producer groups. The 
sample frame was the list of 198 millet producer organizations and 99 cowpea producer 
organizations provided by the project. Using a 95% confidence interval and a 5% margin of error 
with simple random sampling results in a sample size of 131 millet producer organizations and 79
cowpea organizations across the five TACSS regions (Fatick, Kaolack, Kaffrine, Diourbel and 
Louga). Additionally, all six millet producer hubs affiliated with TACSS were surveyed. 
The survey was completed by an 8-person enumeration team (7 interviewers and 1 supervisor) 
using tablets and Open Data Kit (ODK) over approximately 10 working days. Interviewers 
received a one-day training and conducted pilot interviews and the questionnaire was refined 
through these steps. 
The baseline survey collected data on producer organizations’ current contribution to the following 
results. 
• Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance (USDA LRP 7) 
• Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance (USDA LRP 8) 
• Share of sales in past year by market outlet (e.g. local trader, regional trader, 
processors/exports) 
• Volume and average price of sales by month 
• Number of current members of producer organization 
• Training received in past year by organization or members including provider, topics, 
frequency and effectiveness 
• The level of millet and cowpea consumption (kilogram per child) throughout the canteens1
 
The time frame for these indicators is the season immediately previous to the study, or since the 
last harvest, which for millet and cowpea in Senegal is primarily around September. In some cases, 
producer organizations had purchased product that they have not yet sold but intend to sell in the
coming months. In order to capture this information, we asked respondents which months they 
expect to sell their remaining stock and what price they expected to receive. These expected results 
are noted in the results that follow. 
1 The last indicator (which is not a USDA requirement) will not be possible to collect through this study as it would 
require complex longitudinal data collection from schools. The IMC Baseline Team, which is also carrying out the 
MGD baseline study, included in its MGD baseline study recommendations for how Counterpart can build the capacity 
of its schools feeding programs to track their inventory. This will be imperative for LRP and MGD to lead to 
sustainable school feeding program.
4 
2.2 Qualitative data collection
The IMC Baseline Team conducted 22 key informant interviews in all 5 TACSS procurement 
regions. Sampling was purposeful in response to logistical considerations. However, effort was 
made to interview a mix of both more urban and more rural producer organizations. The interviews 
were distributed as follows: 
• 6 with millet producer organizations 
• 6 with millet producer hubs 
• 8 with cowpea producer organizations 
• 1 with CLUSA
• 1 with CNIFN 
These interviews assessed producer organizations’ ability to meet increased demand from 
McGovern-Dole schools as well as capacity gaps that might hinder their ability to meet this 
demand. A question checklist was used to ensure that interviews addressed the same key questions 
for all respondents while also allowing flexibility to uncover important but unanticipated 
information. 
2.3 Limitations
One limitation for the baseline study was that, because TACSS is a new initiative, limited detailed 
information about its implementation was available. This presented challenges for the Evaluation 
Team to fully understand how the project intended to work and to design methodology 
accordingly. For example, the Evaluation Team only learned about the inclusion of processed 
millet and cowpea products while fieldwork was underway. Consequentially, the questionnaire 
does not reflect this focus on processing. 
Another limitation is that, as mentioned above, the survey was conducted before all sales were 
made and therefore some sales figures are projections rather than actual numbers. This is 
unavoidable unless a survey was done at the very end of the season when all sales are made. 
However, such a survey would have suffered from more recall error as respondents tried to 
remember details of transactions made as many as 9 months in the past. 
5 
3. Results
3.1 Survey
The survey results below are presented for cowpea producer organizations, millet hubs and in 
many instances, millet producer organizations. Note that for millet, hubs are the level at which 
TACSS will work and therefore USDA indicator results are drawn from this level only. 
Table 1 below shows the total number of producer organizations and hubs affiliated with the 
project, and the average number of members per organization. Cowpea producer organizations are 
the largest, with an average of 166 member farmers. Millet hubs are networks of producer 
organizations and have 64 millet producer organization members on average. Millet producer 
organizations are the smallest, with just under 24 members on average. Note that millet hubs report 
having about twice as many producer organization members as are participating in the project, as 
many millet producer organizations trade with hubs even if they are not yet formally registered 
members of the hubs. 
Additionally, the table below shows the percent of producer organizations buying and selling 
cowpea or millet. Only just over a quarter of cowpea and millet producer organizations trade these 
crops. All six hubs sell millet. Based on qualitative interviews, producer organizations that are not 
selling are likely providing or facilitating access to finance and/or inputs. Additionally, some 
producer organizations act as intermediaries between their farmer members and buyers without 
ever actually purchasing the crop. 
Table 1: Millet and cowpea organizations
Cowpea producer 
organizations
Millet hubs Millet producer 
organizations
Number of organizations 99 6 198
Mean number of members 
per organization2
166.1 64.3 23.5
Percent selling commodities 27.8 100 26
Table 2 shows the volume, in metric tons (MT), of commodities sold so far this season for cowpea 
producer organizations and millet hubs affiliated with TACSS (this corresponds to USDA 
indicator LRP 7). The table shows producer organization and hub totals and not averages. Cowpea 
producer organizations have sold 237 MT so far this season while millet hubs have sold 410 MTs. 
Table 2 also shows which organizations and hubs have purchased but not yet sold at the time of 
the survey. The total combines these two figures to approximate the volume of commodities that 
will be sold during the 2018/2019 season. Cowpea producer organizations are expected to a total 
of 292 MTs this season while millet hubs are expected to sell 715 MTs.
2 For producer organization a member is a household. For hubs, a member is a producer organization. Note that hubs 
have members which are not yet registered and therefore not considered among the 200 millet POs affiliated with the 
project. 
6 
Table 2: Volume of commodities sold this season (MT) (USDA LRP 7) 
Cowpea producer 
organizations 
Millet hubs
Volume of sales to date 236.6 410
Purchases unsold 55.4 305
Total 292 715
Table 3 shows the value of sales of cowpea and millet that have already been sold and the expected 
value of what will be sold (this corresponds to USDA indicator LRP 8). The price for what will be 
sold is according to respondent expectation for the price they will receive (see table 4 below) and 
should be interpreted with caution. At the time of the survey, cowpea producer organizations had 
generated nearly 140 million XOF in revenues compared to 77 million for millet hubs. End of 
season projections show 181 million XOF revenue for millet producer organizations compared to 
142 million for millet hubs. Due to higher prices, cowpea producer organizations have higher sales 
revenues despite having lower sales volumes. 
Table 3: Value of commodities sold this season (‘000 XOF3
) (USDA LRP 8) 
Cowpea producer 
organizations4
Millet hubs
Value of sales to date 139,498 77,135
Purchases unsold 41,874 64,320
Total 181,372 141,455
Sales prices in XOF per kilogram (KG) are shown in table 4 below. The table shows average prices 
for what was already sold as well as the prices respondents expect to receive for the portion of 
millet and cowpea was unsold at the time of the survey. The prices for crops that have already been
sold are in all three cases lower than what respondents expected to earn from sales of crops they 
still had in storage. This result is intuitive as producer organization and hubs are holding on to 
production hoping for a higher price later in the season when supply is low. 
Table 4 also shows average prices per month. For months November through the first part of May, 
the prices are actual prices based on actual sales. For the second half of May through September, 
the table shows the respondents’ expected prices. Note that in addition to containing expected 
3 AT the time of the survey, 1 USD = 585 XOF. 4 Note that this includes revenue for some processed products in addition to unprocessed cowpea.
7 
prices, there are a limited number of transactions per month, and therefore monthly prices should 
not be interpreted as reflective of precise monthly market prices.5
 
Table 4: Average sales price by month (XOF/KG)
Cowpea producer 
organizations 
Millet hubs Millet producer 
organizations
Average actual price 590 188 180
Average expected price 756 211 216
Average monthly prices
November 550 190
December 650 137
January 513 225 157
February 360 216 187
March 508 188 183
April 825 185 190
May 875 200 210
June 767 205 221
July 750 218
August 213 205
September 210
Table 5 shows volume of actual sales by month, up to the time of the survey in early May. Cowpea 
organizations reported selling the majority of their cowpea in the first part of May. However, this 
result is influenced by one large cowpea organization that made a very large sale in May. Aside 
from May and this single large transaction, February is the month with the most cowpea sales by 
volume. March and April were the busiest sales months for millet hubs and producer organizations, 
with 92 percent and 77.8 of sales to date this season taking place in those two months. 
5 Average millet retail prices for Kaolack over the period from 2013/2014 to 2017/2018 show prices gradually 
decreasing from October to February and then increasing gradually from March to September. (http://fews.net/west￾africa/senegal/price-bulletin/may-2019). Historical monthly price information for cowpea was not found. 
8 
Table 5: Volume of sales by month to date (% of sales to date) 
Cowpea producer 
organizations 
Millet hubs Millet producer 
organizations
November 2.1 0 2
December 2.3 0 2.6
January 3.1 0.7 4.9
February 8 7.3 12.7
March 1.4 50.5 30.8
April 1.4 41.5 47
May (first half) 81.8 0 0
Table 6 below shows the share of sales by volume going to different market outlets. Institutional 
buyers such as government or international organizations are the largest buyer by volume for 
cowpea producer organizations accounting for 87.7 percent of purchases. Cowpea producer 
organizations sell about 9.1 percent to wholesalers and 2.3 percent within their community. Based 
on qualitative interviews, what is sold within the community is likely to include a large share of 
processed cowpea products. 
For millet producer organizations and hubs, wholesalers are the largest market outlet at 52.8 
percent for millet hubs and 83.2 percent for millet producer organizations. Millet hubs sell 44.4 
percent to processors and 3.8 percent to input dealers to repay inputs provided on credit at the 
beginning of planting season. For millet producer organizations, 9 percent of sales went to 
processors, 5.2 percent to retailers and 2.7 percent to hubs (see note in table). 
9 
Table 6: Market outlets (% of sales by volume)
Cowpea producer 
organizations 
Millet hubs Millet producer 
organizations
Millet hubs 0 2.76
Wholesalers 9.1 52.8 83.2
Processors 0.5 43.4 9
Institutional buyers 87.7
Retailers 0.1 5.2
Input dealers 0.3 3.8
In the community 2.3
Table 7 shows the transaction models used by the three organization types. Buying, storing and 
selling is the conventional model whereby the producer organization or hub purchases from their 
members and then sells to buyers. The majority of transactions by volume were conducted this 
way – 89 percent for cowpea producer organizations, 80 percent for millet hubs and 50 percent for 
millet producer organizations. Paying later is when the producer organization or hub pays part or 
all of the value of the production only after sale to the buyer. This was uncommonly used except 
for by millet producer organizations. In kind transactions is when cowpea or millet is used to pay 
back goods provided on credit, most likely inputs. This was most commonly used by millet hubs 
and accounted for 12 percent of their transactions by volume in the current season. 
Table 7: Procurement model (% of volume)
Cowpea producer 
organizations 
Millet hubs Millet producer 
organizations
Buying, storing and selling 89 80 50
Pay later 6 8 50
In kind 4 12 0
Finally, table 8 shows the share of producer organizations and hubs receiving training in the past 
year and the topics of trainings. Nearly 60 percent of cowpea and organizations received training 
last year. Five out of six millet hubs and 62 percent of millet producer organizations received 
training from sources other than CLUSA. For both cowpea and millet producer organizations, the 
most common trainings are in good agricultural practices. For millet producer organizations, the 
6 Note that this figure likely does not include in kind exchanges by which producer organizations repay hubs for inputs 
or finance provided during planting season. Hubs reported procuring 12 percent through this model, which would 
increase the share of transactions with hubs to 28 percent for producer organizations. Also, respondents may have in 
some cases referred to millet hubs as wholesalers so this number is likely higher.
10 
next most common training was on storage and for cowpea producer organizations the next most 
common training was on processing. Only two out six hubs received training on record keeping, 
which appears to be a need. 
Table 8: Trainings received in the past year (% of organizations)7
Cowpea producer 
organizations 
Millet hubs Millet producer 
organizations
Received training last year 58.8 83.3 61.8
Topics
Marketing 5.1 66.7 7.6
Record keeping 2.5 33.3 1.5
Good storage techniques 11.4 66.7 28.2
Management 7.6 83.3 9.9
Good agricultural 
practices
34.2 83.3 54.2
Processing 2.6 0 6.1
Composting 0 0 9.9
Malnutrition 0 0 6.1
Other 3.8 0 2.3
3.2 Qualitative results - Millet
Below are the key results on millet identified by the evaluation team through qualitative research. 
Market segment misalignment - TACSS aims to complement CLUSA’s ongoing work with millet 
producers by providing a sizable market – McGovern-Dole school feeding programs – and 
building capacity to fulfil this market’s requirements. TACSS is envisioned to supply high quality 
variety, more nutritious, clean and sorted, well packaged and safe raw millet and processed millet 
products to schools, increasing incomes for millet producers and improving access to high quality 
food for school children. 
Many millet hubs and producer organizations spoken with expressed dissatisfaction with market 
prices, and were storing product while they wait for prices to go up. Many are using the exporter￾preferred Suna 3 seeds.8 While producer organizations expressed satisfaction with these seeds, the 
added cost requires that they sell their product for higher prices to remain profitable. Additionally, 
7 Millet hubs and producer organizations were asked about trainings received from organizations other than CLUSA. 
However mistakenly cowpea organizations were not asked about trainings received from organizations other than 
partner CNIFN and therefore these results may have an upward bias. 
8
 It is unclear if this is with the encouragement of the project
11 
the high cost of finance – for inputs and for purchasing – necessitates higher sales prices to remain 
profitable. Value added opportunities would be welcomed by millet producers, organizations and 
hubs. 
There is a stark contrast between this price-increasing value addition envisioned on the production 
side and the reality of school’s limited resources for school feeding. School feeding programs are 
far from self-sufficient financially. The 2018 final evaluation of McGovern-Dole showed that 
school feeding programs were able to cover about one quarter of USDA meal schedule through 
community canteens, government funding and a school farm. That is less than two meals per week 
out of the recommended seven meals per week. Furthermore rice, which is the native staple for 
Saint Louis, is commonly available in the market in Saint Louis. 
Finance – Millet producer organizations and hubs rely on finance for both purchasing inputs for 
planting season and for purchasing millet for trading. Hubs report accessing 9-month loans for 
between 7 and 8 percent interest over this period, mostly from Caisse Nationale de Crédit Agricole 
du Sénégal (CNCAS). Interest rates are significantly lower for hubs than for producer 
organizations accessing finance directly. 
Access to finance to make purchases was cited by many as the primary constraint to meeting a 
hypothetical 25 percent increase in demand. It appears that the quantity of finance available is 
limited, especially for purchasing harvest from members. Though the evaluation team was unable 
to determine the exact cause of the impediment, one possibility is that having outstanding balances 
from loans taken at planting causes lenders to limit availability of finance for purchase. 
Not only is finance limited, but its cost adds to the cost of production that must be passed on to 
consumers (McGovern-Dole schools). One hub reported financing purchase through 60 percent
finance and 40 percent through membership fees. Increasing the share of finance would, all else 
equal, add to the cost of millet. 
Another issue reported with finance is the time frame of the loan. Loan repayment periods are 9 
months. Purchases are mostly made after harvest in September or October, which means that 
repayment will be due June or July when prices are reaching their peak. This forces premature 
sales and gives buyers an advantage if they know that hubs need to sell as soon as possible to repay 
credit. Planting loans are taken in June and must be repaid even earlier in March or April, 
necessitating even earlier sales for repayment. 
Contracts – Some millet producer organizations and hubs have had contracts with buyers, which
specify a quantity to be purchased within a month or so. However, millet POs and hubs reported 
that contracts sometimes are not respected, with buyers agreeing to purchase a certain quantity and 
then not showing up. Some also reported that they would like to have advanced contracts, 
especially for larger orders. 
3.3 Qualitative results – Cowpea
Below are the key results on cowpea identified by the evaluation team through qualitative research.
Processing and market segment misalignment – As with millet, PAFA is focusing on value 
addition for cowpea, especially through processing and packaging. As discussed in the millet 
subsection, schools have extremely limited resources and will need to stretch them as much as 
possible through procurement of low-cost but nutritious commodities. Value added cowpea 
12 
products such as cereal and couscous then do not seem to be a fit for this market. This may be 
especially true since the one thing school feeding programs generally have enough of is volunteer 
cooks for food preparation. Just like with millet, reconciling the high-value impetus on the 
production side with schools needs for cost effectiveness will be key for project success. 
Cowpea producer groups spoken with are very enthusiastic about processing. Some received 
training on processing and were anxious to process but lacked processing equipment as well as 
knowledge of possible markets for processed products. 
Finance – Whereas finance at harvest for producer organization and hub purchase from members 
appeared to be the major constraint for millet, for cowpea the primary financial constraint appears 
to be for seed purchase during planting. Indeed, procuring an adequate supply of seeds was the 
most common response when producer organizations were asked what would be the challenge in 
meeting a hypothetical 25 percent increase in demand. 
Contracts – Purchase contracts negotiated and executed with PAFA assistance appear to work and 
generally be respected by both parties. Some cowpea producer organizations reported getting 
contracts with several months lead time at market price with a 50 XOF bonus per kilogram for 
better quality. Several producer organizations said they had relationships with the same buyer over 
multiple years. It is not clear however what will happen to this contracting system once PAFA 
ends in June 2020. 
Storage – Farmers often store cowpea at home before sale. Cowpeas can only be stored for four 
to six weeks at home with traditional storage methods before the quality starts to deteriorate. 
Several producer organizations that did not yet have access to PAFA storage reported that 
members lost significant production while storing at home. When storage facilities are completed, 
it is not yet clear how members will utilize them. Will producer organizations not currently 
purchasing from members begin to purchase to utilize storage in bulk? Will individual producers 
utilize the storage using a warehouse receipt system? In either case, capacity building will be 
required. Effective utilization of PAFA storage facilities should be addressed through TACSS. 
3.4 Qualitative results – Millet and cowpea producer and hub capacity
Millet hubs and producer organizations appear to be more business oriented than cowpea producer 
organizations which are more reliant on the project (PAFA) to directly assist with marketing. In 
general, organizations of all three types are weak in accounting and financial management and 
planning. This result is self-reported but also evidenced by their inability to articulate plans to 
make needed or desired productivity investments. For example, several cowpea organizations 
wanted equipment for processing but were unable to communicate a plan to acquire this equipment 
through a mixture of savings and loans and simply appeared to be waiting for the equipment to be 
given to them.
13 
4. Recommendations
4.1 Programmatic recommendations 
TACSS senior leadership and partners should come together to take a sober look at how to 
overcome the fundamental challenge facing TACSS: how to reconcile a production side initiative 
focusing on quality, value addition and higher prices with a demand side initiative (McGovern￾Dole school feeding) that needs to stretch its scarce resources as far as possible. Without solving 
this fundamental challenge, it is not clear how the project can succeed. 
The key question to answer is how can TACSS facilitate transactions that benefit both producer 
organizations and school feeding programs. Based on the above results, below are several 
recommendations for TACSS’ work with millet hubs and cowpea producer organizations. 
Reducing costs – Offering wholesale prices through bulk purchases appears to be the project’s key 
strategy to make project commodities affordable for school feeding programs. However, this will 
likely not be enough to offset the value addition the project plans. Credit is a significant part of 
costs of production with some hubs and producer organizations financing both input purchase and 
procurement of harvest through credit. Credit repayment could add as much as 15 percent to the 
cost. If school feeding programs could finance purchases in advance (at time of planting and/or 
harvest) they could reduce the need for finance and in return get access to reduced-cost 
commodities. This pre-financing would of course need to be accompanied by a contract specifying 
the terms of delivery. 
Forward contracts from school feeding programs might also allow producer organizations and 
hubs to access additional finance at lower cost from other financial service providers. And it would 
give producer organizations and hubs the security they are looking for, allowing them to invest in 
inputs to expand member production. 
There would of course however be the significant risk of producer organizations and hubs not 
delivering the promised production to schools. Some monitoring and enforcement mechanism 
would be needed to ensure that producer organizations and hubs delivered to schools as per the
terms of their contract. One possibility is to involve local government but this obviously introduces 
a new host of challenges. 
Contracts – Millet producer hubs complained about weak contracts and unreliable buyers whereas 
cowpea producer organizations spoken with were generally happy with their relationships with 
buyers. For cowpea producer organizations, these relationships had been nurtured by PAFA, 
providing a possible model for TACSS’ work with millet hubs and McGovern schools. However, 
both cowpea producer group and millet hub capacity should be built to negotiate and manage these 
contracts themselves, and project support to manage these contracts should be weaned out over 
time to enhance prospects for sustainability. 
Capacity building – TACSS should develop a curriculum to build the capacity of producer groups 
and hubs in accounting and financial management. In addition to tracking orders by McGovern￾Dole schools 
(and other buyers), a focus should be how organizations can financially plan for and achieve 
reasonable goals to improve profitability such procuring more seed for members. 
Saint Louis school feeding commodities market study - TACSS should carry out a study to assess 
price and availability of grains and pulses in major Saint Louis markets such as Saint Louis, 
Richard Toll, Dagana and Podor. This study will give a target for the prices that TACSS affiliated 
14 
production needs to compete with to be economically viable for school feeding programs. It is 
worth also considering that managing procurement of commodities in bulk from Central Senegal 
may be less preferable for school management committees that getting them from local markets 
that people are familiar with. The price of TACSS commodities should be lower than is available 
on the local market to make buying them a worthwhile proposition for school feeding programs. 
Identifying alternative markets for processed millet and cowpea production – Both millet and 
cowpea TACSS partner projects seek to improve incomes for producers by giving them access to 
higher value markets, including through processing. It was beyond the scope of this baseline study 
to assess how strong this market actually is. If this market study for the products promoted through 
TACSS partner projects have not been carried out, they should be. Community funded school 
feeding programs should not be the primary target market for relatively costly processed 
agricultural products. 
If there is not sufficient market for these products other than the possibility of McGovern-Dole
school feeding programs, this strategy of premium quality and processing should be reconsidered. 
Instead the focus should be on increasing productivity, reducing costs of finance and improving 
marketing.
4.2 Evaluation recommendations
Rolling baseline – Since new producer organizations will likely join TACSS, their baseline status 
should be assessed. New members can be issued the same questionnaire that was used for this 
baseline survey and their data compiled separately for use with the final evaluation. This will 
require that TACSS be aware of new member entry and issue the questionnaire as soon as possible 
after they do enter. 
Assess the extent of processing – The extent of processing done by producer organizations was not 
assessed through this baseline. Nevertheless, it should be assessed by the final evaluation as it is 
an important dimension of the project. 
15 
5. Annex – Data Collection Tools
Questionnaire9
 - Questions
Question 
label
English French
noteinfo You have been selected to participate in a 
survey as part of the Transition 
d’Alimentation dans les Cantines Scolaires 
au Senegal (TACCS) project. The 
information you provide will be used to 
understand how much progress the project 
is making in helping your organization do 
more business.
Your participation in this study is entirely 
voluntary. You are under no obligation to 
participate. You have the right to refuse to 
answer questions and to withdraw from the 
study at any time. 
All your answers are strictly confidential.
Vous avez été sélectionné pour participer à 
une enquête dans le cadre du projet 
TACCS (Transition d'Alimentation dans 
les Cantines Scolaires au Sénégal). Les 
informations que vous fournirez seront 
utilisées pour comprendre les progrès 
réalisés par le projet pour aider votre 
organisation à plus d'affaires.
Votre participation à cette étude est 
entièrement volontaire. Vous n'êtes pas 
obligé de participer. Vous avez le droit de 
refuser de répondre aux questions et de 
vous retirer de l'étude à tout moment.
Toutes vos réponses sont strictement 
confidentielles. 
consent Ask for the respondents consent. If the 
person agrees, continue the interview.
Demander le consentement des 
répondants. Si vous obtenez le 
consentement de la cible, continuez 
l'entretien.
lrp LRP Baseline Study LRP Baseline Study
interviewer_n
ame
Please select the interviewer name from 
the list below
Veuillez sélectionner le nom de 
l'intervieweur dans la liste ci-dessous.
q1 Is this is a millet or cowpea producer 
organization?
S'agit-il d'une organisation de producteurs 
de mil ou de niébé?
producer_hub Is the a producer organization or a hub? Est-ce une organisation de producteurs ou 
un hub?
producer_repl
acement
Is this a replacement producer 
organization? 
Est-ce une organisation de producteurs de 
remplacement?
region region Région
commune commune commune
organization Name of producer organization Nom de l'organisation de producteurs
q2 Is the respondent the manager/leader of the 
producer organization?
Le répondant est-il le responsable / 
dirigeant de l’organisation de producteurs?
q2.1 What is the title or position of the 
respondent?
Quel est le titre ou la position du 
répondant?
q3 What is the gender of the manager/leader? Quel est le sexe du manager / leader?
noteinfo #training #entraînement
9 Modified from original ODK version for presentation.
16 
q4 How many current members do you have? Combien de membres avez-vous 
actuellement?
q5 Has your organization received any 
training from government or any other 
organization besides CLUSA in the last 12 
months? 
Votre organisation a-t-elle reçu une 
formation du gouvernement ou d'une autre 
organisation en dehors de CLUSA au cours 
des 12 derniers mois?
q6 What was the name of the organization or 
government department that provided you 
the most training in the past 12 months?
Quel est le nom de l'organisation ou du 
ministère qui vous a fourni le plus de 
formation au cours des 12 derniers mois?
q7 What were the topics? (mark all that apply) Quels étaient les sujets? (cochez toutes les 
réponses qui s'appliquent)
q7.1 Other (specify) Autre précisez)
q8 How useful was the ${q7.1} training? Quelle a été l’utilité de la formation 
${q7.1}?
q8.1 How useful was the marketing training? Quelle a été l’utilité de la formation 
marketing?
q8.2 How useful was the Record keeping 
training? 
Quelle a été l’utilité de la formation Tenue 
de registres ?
q8.3 How useful was the Good storage 
techniques training? 
Quelle a été l’utilité de la formation 
Bonnes techniques de stockage?
q8.4 How useful was the management training? Quelle a été l’utilité de la formation 
gestion? 
q8.5 How useful was the good agricultural 
practices training? 
Quelle a été l’utilité de la formation 
Bonnes pratiques agricoles ?
q9 From how many members did you buy this 
past season? 
De combien de membres avez-vous acheté 
cette saison?
q10 How much ${q1} did you aquire from your 
members this past season? (Tonnes)
Combien de ${q1} avez-vous acquis de 
vos membres la saison dernière? (Tonnes)
q10.5 Approximately how much did you 
purchase directly from members (Tonnes)
Combien avez-vous acheté
approximativement ${q1} directement des 
membres (tonnes)?
q11 What was the average price you paid your 
members? (CFA/Tonne)
Quel est le prix moyen que vous avez payé 
à vos membres? (CFA/KG)
q11.2 Approximately how much did you market 
for your members? (tonne)
Environ combien avez-vous 
commercialisé pour vos membres? (tonne)
q11.1 What fee did you charge your members? Quels frais avez-vous facturé à vos 
membres?
unit Specify the unit Spécifiez l'unité
q11.3 Approximately how much was in kind? 
(Tonnes)
Environ combien était en nature? (Tonnes)
q12 Approximately what percent of your 
members production do you think you 
bought this season?
Environ quel pourcentage de la production 
de vos membres pensez-vous avoir acheté 
cette saison?
17 
q13 Approximately what percent of their 
production do they sell to other buyers?
Environ quel pourcentage de leur 
production vendent-ils à d'autres 
acheteurs?
q14 Did you buy from non-members also this 
season?
Avez-vous acheté à des non-membres 
également la saison dernière?
q15 How much ${q1} did you buy from non￾members this past season? (Tonness)
Combien de ${q1} avez-vous acheté à des 
non-membres la saison dernière? 
(Tonness)
q16 What was the average price you paid non￾members? (CFA/KG)
Quel était le prix moyen que vous avez 
payé aux non-membres? (CFA/KG)
q17 How much of this ${q1} you purchased 
since this past harvest season have you 
sold so far? (Tonness)
Combien de ce ${q1} que vous avez acheté 
depuis la dernière saison de récolte avez￾vous vendu jusqu'à présent? (Tonness)
q18 How much total revenue (CFA) did you 
get from these sales of {q1}?
Combien de revenus totaux (CFA) avez￾vous tirés de ces ventes de ${q1} ?
q19 How many buyers have you had this 
season?
Combien d'acheteurs avez-vous eu cette 
saison?
q20 What type of buyer has made the #1 largest 
purchase this season? ${q1} 
Quel type d'acheteur a effectué le plus gros 
achat cette saison? De ${q1}
q20_other Other (specify) Autre précisez)
q20.1 In which month did they make this 
purchase?
Au cours de quel mois ont-ils effectué cet 
achat?
q20.2 How much did they purchase (Tonnes)? Combien ont-ils acheté (Tonnes)?
q20.3 What was the price? (CFA/KG) Quel était le prix? (CFA/KG)
q21 What type of buyer has made the #2 largest 
purchase this season? of ${q1} 
Quel type d'acheteur a effectué le 
deuxième achat le plus important cette 
saison? de ${q1}
q21_other Other (specify) Autre précisez)
q21.1 In which month did they make this 
purchase?
Au cours de quel mois ont-ils effectué cet 
achat?
q21.2 How much did they purchase (Tonnes)? Combien ont-ils acheté (Tonnes)?
q21.3 What was the price? (CFA/KG) Quel était le prix? (CFA/KG)
q22 What type of buyer has made the #3 largest 
purchase this season? of ${q1} 
Quel type d'acheteur a effectué le troisième 
achat le plus important cette saison? de 
${q1}
q22_other Other (specify) Autre précisez)
q22.1 In which month did they make this 
purchase?
Au cours de quel mois ont-ils effectué cet 
achat?
q22.2 How much did they purchase (Tonnes)? Combien ont-ils acheté (Tonnes)?
q22.3 What was the price? (CFA/KG) Quel était le prix? (CFA/KG)
q23 What type of buyer has made thefourth 
largest purchase this season? of ${q1} 
Quel type d’acheteur a effectué le 
quatrième achat en importance cette 
saison? de ${q1}
18 
q23_other Other (specify) Autre précisez)
q23.1 In which month did they make this 
purchase?
Au cours de quel mois ont-ils effectué cet 
achat?
q23.2 How much did they purchase (Tonnes)? Combien ont-ils acheté (Tonnes)?
q23.3 What was the price? (CFA/KG) Quel était le prix? (CFA/KG)
q24 What type of buyer has made the #5 largest 
purchase this season? of ${q1} 
Quel type d'acheteur a effectué le plus gros 
achat cette saison? de ${q1}
q24_other Other (specify) Autre précisez)
q24.1 In which month did they make this 
purchase?
Au cours de quel mois ont-ils effectué cet 
achat?
q24.2 How much did they purchase (Tonnes)? Combien ont-ils acheté (Tonnes)?
q24.3 What was the price? (CFA/KG) Quel était le prix? (CFA/KG)
q24.4 Besides the 5 you told me, how many other 
buyers have you sold to this season?
Outre les 5 que vous m'avez dit, combien 
d'autres acheteurs avez-vous vendu à cette 
saison?
q25 Do you still have ${q1} in storage from 
this season's harvest?
Avez-vous toujours ${q1} en réserve de la 
récolte de cette saison?
future_sales
q26 In which months are expecting to sell most 
of the rest of your harvest from this 
season? (multiple choice)
Au cours de quels mois compte-t-il vendre 
la majeure partie du reste de votre récolte 
de cette saison? (choix multiple)
q27 What price do you expect to get? 
(CFA/KG)
Quel prix comptez-vous obtenir? 
(CFA/KG)
thanks Thank the respondent for their time and 
end the interview
Remerciez le répondant pour son temps et 
terminez l'interview
19 
Questionnaire - Response choices
Question 
label
English answer choice French answer choice
consent Yes Oui
consent No non
q1 Millet millet
q1 Cowpea niébé
producer_re
placement
Yes Oui
producer_re
placement
No non
producer_hu
b
producer organization organisation de producteurs
producer_hu
b
hub hub
q2 Yes Oui
q2 No non
q3 male mâle
q3 female femelle
q5 Yes Oui
q5 No non
q7 1. Marketing 1. marketing
q7 2. Record keeping 2. Tenue de registres
q7 3. Good storage techniques 3. Bonnes techniques de stockage
q7 4. Management 4. gestion
q7 5. Good agricultural practices 5. Bonnes pratiques agricoles
q7 6. Other (specify) 6. Autre (précisez)
q8 1. Very useful 1. très utile
q8 2. Somewhat useful 2. Un peu utile
q8 3. Not very useful 3. Pas très utile
q8 4. Useless 4. inutile
q8.1 1. Very useful 1. très utile
q8.1 2. Somewhat useful 2. Un peu utile
q8.1 3. Not very useful 3. Pas très utile
q8.1 4. Useless 4. inutile
q8.2 1. Very useful 1. très utile
q8.2 2. Somewhat useful 2. Un peu utile
q8.2 3. Not very useful 3. Pas très utile
q8.2 4. Useless 4. inutile
q8.3 1. Very useful 1. très utile
q8.3 2. Somewhat useful 2. Un peu utile
q8.3 3. Not very useful 3. Pas très utile
q8.3 4. Useless 4. inutile
20 
q8.4 1. Very useful 1. très utile
q8.4 2. Somewhat useful 2. Un peu utile
q8.4 3. Not very useful 3. Pas très utile
q8.4 4. Useless 4. inutile
q8.5 1. Very useful 1. très utile
q8.5 2. Somewhat useful
2. Un peu utile
q8.5 3. Not very useful 3. Pas très utile
q8.5 4. Useless 4. inutile
unit
%
%
unit CFA/KG CFA/KG
q14 Yes Oui
q14 No non
q20 1. Millet hub 1. Moyeu de millet
q20 2. Wholesaler 2. Grossiste
q20 3. Processor 3. transformateur
q20 4. Institutional buyer 4. Acheteur institutionnel
q20 5. Retailer 5. détaillant
q20 6. Other (specify) 6. Autre (précisez)
q20.1 September (2018) septembre (2018)
q20.1 October (2018) octobre (2018)
q20.1 November (2018) novembre (2018)
q20.1 December (2018) décembre (2018)
q20.1 January (2019) janvier (2019)
q20.1 February (2019) février (2019)
q20.1 March (2019) Mars (2019)
q20.1 April (2019) avril (2019)
q20.1 May (2019) Mae (2019)
q21 1. Millet hub 1. Moyeu de millet
q21 2. Wholesaler 2. Grossiste
q21 3. Processor 3. transformateur
q21 4. Institutional buyer 4. Acheteur institutionnel
q21 5. Retailer 5. détaillant
q21 6. Other (specify) 6. Autre (précisez)
q21 7. Only one buyer 7. Un seul acheteur
q21.1 September (2018) septembre (2018) q21.1 October (2018) octobre (2018)
q21.1 November (2018) novembre (2018)
q21.1 December (2018) décembre (2018)
q21.1 January (2019) janvier (2019)
q21.1 February (2019) février (2019)
q21.1 March (2019) Mars (2019)
q21.1 April (2019) avril (2019)
21 
q21.1 May (2019) Mae (2019)
q22 1. Millet hub 1. Moyeu de millet
q22 2. Wholesaler 2. Grossiste
q22 3. Processor 3. transformateur
q22 4. Institutional buyer 4. Acheteur institutionnel
q22 5. Retailer 5. détaillant
q22 6. Other (specify) 6. Autre (précisez)
q22 7. Only two buyers 7. Seulement deux acheteurs
q22.1 September (2018) septembre (2018)
q22.1 October (2018) octobre (2018)
q22.1 November (2018) novembre (2018)
q22.1 December (2018) décembre (2018)
q22.1 January (2019) janvier (2019)
q22.
1 February (2019) février (2019)
q22.1 March (2019) Mars (2019)
q22.1 April (2019) avril (2019)
q22.1 May (2019) Mae (2019)
q23 1. Millet hub 1. Moyeu de millet
q23 2. Wholesaler 2. Grossiste
q23 3. Processor 3. transformateur
q23 4. Institutional buyer 4. Acheteur institutionnel
q23 5. Retailer 5. détaillant
q23 6. Other (specify) 6. Autre (précisez)
q23 7. Only three buyers 7. Seulement trois acheteurs
q23.1 September (2018) septembre (2018)
q23.1 October (2018) octobre (2018)
q23.1 November (2018) novembre (2018)
q23.1 December (2018) décembre (2018)
q23.1 January (2019) janvier (2019)
q23.1 February (2019) février (2019)
q23.1 March (2019) Mars (2019)
q23.1 April (2019) avril (2019)
q23.1 May (2019) Mae (2019)
q24 1. Millet hub 1. Moyeu de millet
q24 2. Wholesaler 2. Grossiste
q24 3. Processor 3. transformateur
q24 4. Institutional buyer 4. Acheteur institutionnel
q24 5. Retailer 5. détaillant
q24 6. Other (specify) 6. Autre (précisez)
q24 7. Only four buyers 7. Seulement quatre acheteurs
q24.1 September (2018) septembre (2018)
q24.1 October (2018) octobre (2018)
22 
q24.1 November (2018) novembre (2018)
q24.1 December (2018) décembre (2018)
q24.1 January (2019) janvier (2019)
q24.1 February (2019) février (2019)
q24.1 March (2019) Mars (2019)
q24.1 April (2019) avril (2019)
q24.1 May (2019) Mae (2019)
q25 Yes Oui
q25 No non
q26 May (2019) Mai (2019)
q26 June (2019) Juin (2019)
q26 July (2019) Juillet (2019)
q26 August (2019) Août (2019)
q26 September (2019) Septembre (2019)
q26 October (2019) Octobre (2019)
23 
Question checklist for Millet and Cowpea producer organizations 
Background
 Region
 Name of producer group
 Is it a millet or cowpea producer organization?
 How many members do they have?
Purchases
 How much millet/cowpea has the organization purchased this season?
o Were you able to get enough to meet your buyers requirement?
 Do they buy all of their members millet/cowpea sales? 
o If not, is there any difference in quality between what they buy and what other buyers buy?
o How much do members typically consume?
 How do you finance purchases?
o Any constraints?
Buyers and transactions
 In the past few seasons, have you been able to find enough buyers?
 Are you able to meet your buyers quality requirements?
 Who have been their largest buyers the past few seasons? 
o How large were the orders?
 Did they have any challenges meeting any of these buyers’ requirements?
o Volume
o Timing
o Quality
o Logistics
o Contracts
Organizational capacity
 How is the organization structured?
 What services do they offer?
 What organizational capacity needs do you have? (e.g. financial management, record keeping)
o How do you intend to address these gaps?
Conclusion
 If next season buyers wanted to buy 25 percent more than this year, would you be able to meet this 
increased demand?
o What would be the biggest challenge?
24 
6. Annex – Performance Indicator Baseline Values
 
Table 9: Performance indicator baseline values for Activity: Create Market Linkages with Food Producers to Supply Food to Schools10
Indicator Baseline Target for 2019 Target for 2020 Target for 2021
Quantity of commodity 
procured (MT) as a result of 
USDA assistance (LRP 7)11 - 
Senegal Total 
1,007 196.05 587.8 587.8
LRP 7 - Millet 715 139.3 417.8 417.8
LRP 7 -Cowpea 292 56.75 170 170
Cost of commodity procured 
as a result of USDA 
assistance (LRP 8)12 – 
Senegal Total 
$551,841 $89.748.54 $258,173.16 $258,173.16
LRP 8 - Millet $241,803.40 $45,673.53 $130,249.16 $130,249.16
LRP 8 - Cowpea $310,037.60 $44,075.01 $127,924 $127,924
10 This table only presents baseline values for the two performance indicators requiring baseline values. 11 This indicator is the same as “Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance (USDA LRP 7)” on page 7 and in Table 2. Note that the targets 
are changes compared to the baseline and not totals 12 This indicator is the same as “Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance (USDA LRP 8) on page 7 and in Table 3. XOF are 
converted into USD using an exchange rate of 585 XOF to 1 USD. 
25 
Table 10: Baseline list of millet and cowpea represent producer groups contributing to the project’s value and volume of sales
Producer/Firm Type Local 
product 
concerned
Number of
Producer’s 
organizations
Male female 15-29 years 
old
+ 30 years 
old
Number 
of 
producers
Producer Smallholder millet 56 1907 527 114 2434
Producer Smallholder Cowpea 260 5210 5207 2705 7712 10417
Producer nonsmallholder millet 11 29 0 0 29 29
Producer nonsmallholder Cowpea 4 897 519 113
1303 
1416
Firm microenterprises 
employ <10 
people,
Millet 0 0 0 0 0 0
Firm small 
enterprises 
employ 10-49 
people
Millet 2 78 712 171 639 810
Firm medium 
enterprises 
employ 50-249 
individuals)
Millet 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 
Firm microenterprises 
employ <10 
people,
Cowpea 0 0 0 0 0 0
Firm small 
enterprises 
employ 10-49 
people
Cowpea 0 0 0 0 0 0
Firm medium 
enterprises 
employ 50-249 
individuals)
Cowpea 0 0 0 0 0 0