i
 
PRO-Cashew: 
West Africa 
Cashew Project
Baseline Evaluation Report 
Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria 
February 22nd, 2021 (Revised) 
ii
PRO-Cashew Baseline Evaluation Report
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was prepared 
independently by Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) and Agramondis. The authors’ views expressed 
in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International 
Development or the United States Government.
USDA Cooperative Agreement No.: FCC-641-2019/006-00-A 
Implemented by: 
CNFA
L Street NW Suite 710 
Washington, DC 20036 
202-296-3920 (tel.) 
www.cnfa.org 
Authored by:
Agramondis
2, Opeyemisi Bamidele, 
off Freedom Way, 
Lekki Phase 1, 
Lagos, Nigeria
+234 706 530 5009 (tel.) 
www.agramondis.com
3
Table of Contents
Table of Figures............................................................................................................................. 4
Table of Tables.............................................................................................................................. 5
Abbreviations................................................................................................................................ 6
1 Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 8
2 Project Background..............................................................................................................11
Report Structure ...............................................................................................................................................................11
3 Evaluation Framework.........................................................................................................13
4 Data Schema .......................................................................................................................17
4.1 Sampling Strategy....................................................................................................................17
4.2 Database Cleaning and Analysis Methodology.........................................................................23
4.3 Challenges and Lessons Learned from Data Collection .............................................................24
5 Summary of Evaluation Results Analysis..............................................................................28
5.1 Descriptive Statistics of Cashew Farmer Sample ......................................................................28
Sample Sizes......................................................................................................................................................................28
Gender...............................................................................................................................................................................28
Age.....................................................................................................................................................................................28
Education ..........................................................................................................................................................................31
Size of Household..............................................................................................................................................................31
Farm Size ...........................................................................................................................................................................33
Area under Cashew...........................................................................................................................................................33
Cashew Production...........................................................................................................................................................35
Number of Cashew Trees .................................................................................................................................................36
5.2 Quantitative Baseline Performance Indicators.........................................................................38
Yield of Targeted Agricultural Commodities Among Program Participants with USDA Assistance (MT/ha) (FFPr 
Standard Indicator #1)......................................................................................................................................................38
Number of Hectares Under Improved Management or technologies that promote improved climate risk reduction 
and/or natural resources management with USDA assistance (FFPr Standard Indicator #2).................................................42
Value of Annual Sales of Farms and Firms Receiving USDA assistance (FFPr Standard Indicator #18).............................42
Volume of Commodities Sold by Farms and Firms Receiving USDA Assistance (MT) (FFPr Standard Indicator #19)...44
Program-Level Totals........................................................................................................................................................45
5.3 Qualitative Baseline Questions................................................................................................49
Farmer Organizations .......................................................................................................................................................50
Agro-Food Commodity Companies..................................................................................................................................51
Cashew Farm Service Providers........................................................................................................................................51
Government Officials / National Sector Associations / Researchers / Academics / Cashew Regional Organization....52
6 Recommendations for PRO-Cashew.....................................................................................54
7 References...........................................................................................................................57
8 Annex: Questionnaires.........................................................................................................59
4
9 Annex: PRO- Cashew Performance Indicators – Baseline Values (disaggregated) ................72
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Cashew Production Density in West Africa, by Sub-national Geographic Units................ 19
Figure 2: Gender Distribution of Cashew Farm Heads of Household by Country............................. 30
Figure 3: Average Age of the Head of Household by Country and Gender ...................................... 30
Figure 4: Age Group Distribution of Cashew Farm Heads of Household by Country........................ 30
Figure 5: Respondents’ Ability to Read and Write in French (Benin, Burkina Faso, and Côte d'Ivoire) 
or English (Ghana and Nigeria) by Gender....................................................................................... 31
Figure 6: Average Number of People Living in the Household, by Country and Gender of Head of 
Household........................................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 7: Average Household Sizes by Country ................................................................................ 32
Figure 8: Average Total Farm Size by Country and Gender.............................................................. 33
Figure 9: Average Area under Cashew Trees by Country and Gender.............................................. 34
Figure 10: Average Raw Cashew Nut Production by County and Gender ........................................ 35
Figure 11: Average Number of Cashew Trees by Country and Gender ............................................ 37
Figure 12: Average Yield per Area by Country and Gender.............................................................. 39
Figure 13: Yields Found in this Study Compared to Published Yields............................................... 41
Figure 14: Average Cashew Yield per Tree by Country and Gender................................................. 42
Figure 15: Share of Farmers Applying different Good Agricultural Practices, by Country ................ 43
Figure 16: Value of Raw Cashew Nut Sales per Farmer by Country and Gender.............................. 44
Figure 17: Amount of Raw Cashew Nuts Sold per Farmer by Country and Gender.......................... 45
5
Table of Tables
Table 1: Baseline Data Collection Approaches................................................................................. 16
Table 2: Official Administrative Units, Sample Frame Units (FUs) and Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) ..... 19
Table 3: Number of Surveyed Farmers by Country, Region, Gender and Community Type............. 29
Table 4: Summary Statistics of Area Under Cashew Trees............................................................... 34
Table 5: Summary Statistics of Total Cashew Production ................................................................ 35
Table 6: Summary Statistics of Cashew Tree Numbers .................................................................... 36
Table 7: Summary Statistics of Cashew Yield per Area..................................................................... 38
Table 8: Published West African Cashew Yield Data and Yields Found in this Study........................ 40
Table 9: Summary Statistics of Cashew Yield per Tree..................................................................... 41
Table 10: Average Share of Cashew Area (in %) under Different Good Management Practices, by 
Country and Gender......................................................................................................................... 43
Table 11: Summary Statistics of Farmers’ Raw Cashew Nut Sales Value.......................................... 43
Table 12: Summary Statistics of Raw Cashew Nut Sales Volumes.................................................... 44
Table 13: Program-Level Totals for Core Indicators at Baseline (2020)............................................ 46
Table 14: Total volume of Raw Cashew Nuts Purchased by PRO-Cashew Partners in 2020............. 47
Table 15: Core Indicators for PRO-Cashew Partners’ Total Raw Cashew Nut Sourcing in 2020 ....... 47
Table 16: FGDs/KIIs per Stakeholder Group..................................................................................... 49
Table 17: Number of Participants per FGDs..................................................................................... 49
Table 18: Sources of Cashew Data per Country ............................................................................... 52
Table 19: Relevant Cashew Policies per Country.............................................................................. 53
6
Abbreviations 
ACA African Cashew Alliance
APEX Agence pour la Promotion des Exportations du Burkina
ATADA Territorial Agency for Agricultural Development
BCB Burkina Cashew Board
CBA Burkinabe Cashew Council
CBN Central Bank of Nigeria
CCA Council for Cotton and Cashew
CICC Consultative International Cashew Council
CNFA Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture
CRIN Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria 
DDAEP Department of Breeding and Fishing MAEP
DGC Direction générale du commerce (Burkina Faso)
DGDI Direction Générale du Développement de l'Industrie numérique (Burkina Faso)
DGPER Directorate General for the Promotion of Rural Economy
DSA Direction des Statistiques Agricoles(Benin)
FENAPAB National Federation of Producers of Cashew Benin
FFPr Food for Progress Program
FU Sampling Frame Unit
FUAM Federal University of Agriculture Markurdi 
FUNAAB Federal University of Agriculture Abeokuta 
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FMARD Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
FMOT Federal Ministry of Trade
FMTI Federal Ministry of Trade and Industry
IFA Interprofessional Association of the Cashew Sector
INERA Institute of Research
KII Key Informant Interview
7
KOR Kernel Out-turn Ratio
LBA Local Buyers Association
MAAH Ministry of Agriculture and Hydraulic Development
MAEP Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries
MEF Ministry of Economy and Finance
MIC Ministry of Industry and Commerce
MIT Ministry of Industry and Trade
MOFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture
MOF Ministry of Finance
MOUAU Michael Okpara University of Agriculture Umudike 
MT Metric Tons 
NEPC Nigerian Export Promotion Commission
NIHORT National Horticultural Research Institute
ODK Open Data Kit – data collection app
PNDFA Programme National de Développement de la Filière Ananas (Benin)
PSDSA Plan Stratégique de Développement du Secteur Agricole (Benin)
PSU Primary Sampling Unit
RCN Raw Cashew Nuts 
SON Standards Organization of Nigeria
SSU Secondary Sampling Unit
TCDA Tree Crop Development Authority 
URCPA Regional Union of Cashew Producers Cooperative
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USU Ultimate Sampling Unit
WEL Women Economic Leadership
REDAA Africa Cashew Research and Development Network
8
1 Executive Summary
PRO-Cashew is a five-year USDA-funded development program in the West African cashew sector, 
implemented by Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA). The program started in 2020 and is 
working in Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria. It aims at increasing productivity 
and efficiency of farmers and boosting trade of cashew by improving harvest and post-harvest 
techniques and supporting supply chain linkages between farmers and agro-food companies in the 
five intervention countries. 
This baseline evaluation establishes the pre-intervention socio-economic baseline of raw cashew nut 
(RCN) farmers through surveys, as well as cashew sector structures, drivers, barriers, and 
opportunities through focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs) with other 
actors in the value chains, namely: 
• RCN farmer groups
• Cashew producing rural communities
• Agribusinesses like buying agents, aggregators, traders and processors
• Extension service agents
• Input providers
• Industry associations and the public sector
• Academics and researchers 
To that end, a total of 1,733 RCN farmers were surveyed between November 2nd and December 3rd, 
2020, between 336 and 368 per country. In addition, 152 KIIs and 82 FGDs, with a total of 1,285 
participants, were completed across the entire program.
Unlike typical baseline studies, intervention beneficiaries had not been clearly identified at the time 
of the study, owing to the approach taken in PRO-Cashew, which works through cashew processers 
and the farmers in their supply-base, rather than with farmers directly. This made it impossible to 
define intervention (treatment) and non-intervention (control) groups for later evaluation of the 
impacts of the program. The sampling strategy adopted hence aimed to cater for the needs of a 
future statistical evaluation, while working with the realities on the ground. We developed a 
sampling frame that tries to reconcile these objectives, by taking a representative sample of RCN 
farmers in the program intervention area in each of the five countries; while forcing a 50/50 split in 
the sample between farmer communities who were likely to be future beneficiaries and 
communities who were not. The former were defined as farmers with whom PRO-Cashew processing 
partners were either already souring RCNs or were planning to source in the coming years. This split 
will help build balanced samples for treatment and control groups in subsequent evaluations.
Findings for core indicators at baseline are 
9
1. Yields: Farmers’ surveyed RCN yields were 580 kg / ha (=0.580 MT / ha) on average across 
the five countries, varying between an average of 508 kg / ha (=0.508 MT / ha) in Benin and 
703 kg / ha (=0.703 MT / ha) in Nigeria. 
Survey yields are high compared to other published data, including yields found in dedicated 
yield surveys conducted by other USD-funded programs. The high yields found in our survey 
may be an artefact of several factors, mainly unreliable cashew area data from farmers. In 
this survey, cashew area data were based on farmer recall only, as measurements were not 
feasible at the time of the year. To establish a realistic baseline, it is recommended to use a 
multi-year average from robust published sources as the yield baseline, ranging from 
307 kg / ha (=0.307 MT/ ha) in Burkina Faso to 444 kg / ha (=0.444 MT /ha) in Côte d’Ivoire. 
It is also recommended that PRO-Cashew conduct its own yield survey, which would allow 
for retrospective validation or correction of the baseline
2. RCN sales value: In 2020, surveyed farmers on average sold USD 1,464 worth of RCN across 
the five countries, ranging from between an average of USD 915 in Benin to USD 2,699 in 
Nigeria. The baseline value across the program was USD 4.27 million. 
3. RCN sales amount: Surveyed farmers on average sold 2,431 kg of RCN across the five 
countries in 2020, varying between an average of 1,469 kg (=1.47 MT) in Ghana and 4,436 kg 
(=4.44 MT) in Nigeria. The baseline value across the program was 7,200 MT. 
4. Cultivated area under cashew: The survey found that farmers cultivate 3.4 ha of cashew on 
average across the five countries, varying between an average of 1.4 ha of cashew (in Côte 
d’Ivoire) and 4.6 ha (in Nigeria). As mentioned above, these area figures should be treated 
with caution and need to be verified through actual measurements. 
5. Area under improved management: Farmers already applied good agricultural practices to 
their cashew plantations in 2020: On average, 55% of cashew plantation firebreaks had been 
constructed, on 39% trees were pruned, on 27% soil was cultivated around trees, on 23% 
cashew stands were thinned, and on 19% pests and disease control was applied. Organic and 
synthetic fertilizers were applied to 2% and 3% of the cashew area, respectively. The baseline 
value across the program was 4,375 ha. 
6. Number of farmers: PRO-Cashew works with processor partners who support RCN farmers 
that supply them. In 2020, two of the nine PRO-Cashew partner processors who had been 
signed at the time of this study were working directly with farmers, 1,536 in Côte d’Ivoire and 
854 in Nigeria, adding up to a total of 2,391 farmers as the baseline value across the program. 
7. Number of farmers applying improved practices: Of the 2,391 farmers, 2,336 farmers 
applied at least one improved practice, though with strong variation in the uptake of different 
improved practices. 
Beyond these core indicators, the low participation of women and young people in the cashew sector 
become apparent: Only 7.4% of the RCN farmers surveyed were women. The average age of the 
farmers was around 50, and only 2.5% of all farmers surveyed were under 30 years old. Women are 
10
not only seldom involved in cashew cultivation, they also have smaller overall farms and cashew
plantation and are also markedly below their male counterparts on a various socio-economic 
metrics, such as education and access to finance. 
Main recommendations for the PRO-Cashew project are to 
1. Conduct dedicated annual yield and production surveys during the harvest season, including 
verification of plot size measurement (see methodology used by BeninCaju) 
2. Support farmers in accessing markets directly, shortening the value chain and cutting out 
intermediaries that do not add value 
3. Improve the quality of cashew inputs for the farmers
4. Support farmers in replanting and rejuvenation of cashew plantations
5. Encourage the strengthening and formation of cashew farmer organizations
6. Building for agro-food commodity companies and cashew farm services providers
7. To collaborate with other established USDA-funded cashew programs in West Africa to share 
learning, foster synergies, and establish best practice, e.g. in cashew yield measurement. 
Other observations 
1. Participation of women in the cashew value chain is low. A better understanding of the 
underlying reasons and a strategy for addressing them could increase the participation of 
women and would distribute the benefits of any intervention more equitably across genders
2. Young people (below 30 years) participate in the cashew value chain but not as farmers. A 
main issue is access to land. A more detailed understanding of the underlying reasons and a 
strategy for addressing them could increase young people’s participation and share in the 
value created
3. Cashew apples are currently not widely used and present an untapped potential for 
additional value creation and income.
11
2 Project Background
West Africa is the largest cashew producing region worldwide, with 1,795,000 metric tons (MT) of 
raw cashew nut (RCN) harvested in 2018, or 49% of the world supply. The cashew sector provides 
income to an estimated 10 million people in Africa. In recent years, cashew has become the second 
largest export crop in West Africa by value, after cocoa. Despite being the world’s cashew production 
hub, only a fraction of raw cashew nuts is being processed in West Africa, while 90% of the world’s 
production are processed in India and Vietnam.
1 
The PRO-Cashew project is a five year, 23-million-dollar project funded by the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food for Progress program and implemented by Cultivating New 
Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA). PRO-Cashew project will, over five years, support cashew farmers in 
Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria to improve productivity and access to markets.
The objective of this baseline evaluation is to establish the pre-intervention status of farmers and 
stakeholders before the start of project. It seeks to establish baseline levels for all metrics (both 
quantitative and qualitative), against which changes over time, or differences between treatment 
and control group will be assessed to evaluate project impact. 
CNFA has contracted Agramondis to provide technical expertise for the design of the baseline study 
methodology, development of study tools, quality control during field work, and analysis and 
reporting. 
Report Structure
The PRO-Cashew baseline evaluation work is sub-divided into three documents: 
1. PRO-Cashew Baseline Report. This document is the main report of the baseline study. 
2. Country Overviews. The report contains country specific content which covers the analysis 
of both the quantitative and qualitative data from farmers survey, FGDs and KIIs. The 
findings of the baseline study for each of the five countries are captured under the 
following sections: 
1. Characteristics of Cashew Farmers 
2. Agricultural Productivity at Farm Level 
3. Cashew Farmer Communities 
4. Farmer Organizations 
5. Agro-Food Commodity Companies 
6. Cashew Farm Service Providers 
7. Extension Agents 
1 Data: Nitidæ research, see https://www.nitidae.org/files/41dc7432/wa_cashew_sector_review_2019_nitidae.pdf. 
12
8. Government Officials / National Sector Associations 
9. Researchers/Academics 
3. Annexes. The report contains all the annexes used in the PRO-Cashew Baseline Report: 
1. Annex A: Sampling Construction per Country 
2. Annex B: Data Collection Protocols: Cashew Farmer Survey 
3. Annex C: Data Collection Protocols: KIIs and FGDs
4. Annex D: Statement of Work 
5. Annex E: Conflict of Interest signed by the Evaluator. 
6. Annex F: Project Results Framework 
7. Annex G: Project Implementation timeline 
13
3 Evaluation Framework
In December 2019, CNFA began implementing the West Africa Value Chain project (PRO-Cashew) in 
the West Africa region, specifically Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria. This 
project seeks to achieve the following objectives: 
• To increase productivity and efficiency of actors in the cashew value chain through 
strengthening the capacities of cooperatives/producer organizations, nursery systems and 
input suppliers and strengthening data collection and dissemination systems. 
• To improve and expand the trade of cashew and cashew products through improving crop 
quality; rehabilitating and renovating orchards; addressing gaps in data collection, analysis 
and dissemination; strengthening public-private partnerships; and encouraging harmonized 
regional policies to supply products that meet market demands. 
Six key activities comprise the project:
1. Capacity Building: Farmer Organizations and Agro-Food Companies
2. In-Kind Grants: Inputs, Equipment, and Technical Assistance
3. Inputs: Develop Agrodealers and/or Other Input Suppliers
4. Integrated Data System Development
5. Public Information Campaign: Disperse Improved Market Information
6. Capacity Building: Promote Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework
Specifically, CNFA aims to build the capacity of 42,000 farmers, through selected farmer 
organizations and agro-food suppliers over the life of the project, in areas including: business 
management, orchard management and service delivery leading to increased use of improved 
practices and management techniques, productivity, and sales RCN. 
The baseline evaluation used a mixed-methods approach to include the collection of quantitative 
and qualitative data. Data collection aimed to meet the following evaluation objectives: 1) establish 
quantitative values for the performance indicators and use the data to validate and/or revise existing 
targets; 2) establish baseline values for all measures (both quantitative and qualitative) needed to 
both support annual performance monitoring, and mid-term and final evaluation of impact; 3) 
validate program design assumptions; and 4) identify potential strengths, weaknesses, 
opportunities, and threats to program implementation. The data collection approach sought to 
identify specific recommendations to overcome any threats to program implementation and to 
enhance program monitoring. Table 1 provides an overview of the data collection approaches for 
addressing the baseline questions defined by CNFA. 
In summary, the baseline study included the following data collection methods across the five 
project countries: 
14
• Cashew farmer surveys (n = 1,733) to collect detailed information on farm-level indicators 
(e.g., cashew production, trade volumes, household characteristics) 
• Cashew farmer communities focus group discussions (FGDs) (n = 82) to understand farmer 
relationships with organizations, what services are offered and the current management 
practices
• Stakeholder group key informant interviews (KIIs) (n = 152) amongst farmer organizations, 
cashew farmer service providers, agro-food commodity companies, extension agents, 
government officials, associations, researchers and academics to collect information 
primarily related to services offered, the capacity of organizations, sources of information, 
etc. 
Aside from farmer surveys, KIIs and FGDs, we used the body of existing (and forthcoming) published 
and gray literature on the structure of the cashew sector in the five study countries, including, but 
not limited to:
• ACi/ComCashew yield data and sector statistics
• N’kalo monthly trade and production data (2014 to current)
• Consultative International Cashew Council (CICC)
• African cashew research and development network (REDAA)
• LIFFT (under the USDA Food for Progress program in Senegal, The Gambia and Guinea 
Bissau for comparison)
• BeninCaju (under the USDA program in Benin for comparison)
Qualitative approaches were gender sensitive and include gender-representative focus groups and 
key informant interviews to gain a richer understanding of the baseline situation based on the 
perspectives of multiple stakeholders.
In additon, a short summary of the critical ssumptions are as follows: 
For RF 1: Increased Agricultural Productivity
1) The security situation remains stable in the target countries, particularly in Burkina Faso, 
where 2020 saw more an increase in insecurity, with more terrorist’ attacks; 
2) The political situation remains stable in the target countries, and national governments 
remain willing to invest, with or alongside the private sector, in the cashew value chain; 
3) Global market prices and dynamics remain conducive to agri-food commodity companies 
investment in support of farm-level production and farmer-led R&R. 
4) COVID-19 West African government health measures do not limit travel within the 5 PRO￾Cashew countries. Travel is restricted to essential travel with limited flight availability, 
negatively affecting international consultants and firms’ recruitment, and adding time and 
cost to activities’ implementation. 
15
For RF 2: Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products (domestic, regional, and international): 
1) Regional cooperation on supportive RCN export, including regional land cross-border 
export, and tax policies, remains a priority of governments;
2) Policymakers are willing to push the boundaries of decision-making, use data to address 
policy shortcomings, analyze policy options to promote regional trade competitiveness and 
evaluate the impact of anti-competitive practices on long-term development. 
3) COVID-19 West African government health measures do not limit travel within the 5 PRO￾Cashew countries. Travel is restricted to essential travel with limited flight availability, 
negatively affecting international consultants and firms recruitment, and adding time and 
cost to activities’ implementation. 
16
Table 1: Baseline Data Collection Approaches
Note: See the Cashew Farmer Survey (English and French) and the FGDs and KIIs protocol and questionnaires in the PRO-Cashew Baseline Report ANNEXES document.
Beneficiary 
Population
Baseline Question Data Collection Approach Purpose
Direct beneficiary 
RCN farmers
What are the quantitative baseline values for PRO￾Cashew outcome indicators? 
FFPr Standard Indicator #1: Yield of targeted 
agricultural commodities among program 
participants with USDA assistance (MT/ha)
FFPr Standard Indicator #2: Number of hectares 
under improved management practices or 
technologies with USDA assistance
FFPr Standard Indicator #18: Value of annual sales 
of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance (USD) 
FFPr #19: Volume of commodities sold by farms and 
firms receiving USDA assistance (MT)
Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, 
Nigeria:
RCN Farmer Sample Survey. 
Establish quantitative baseline values for PRO￾Cashew performance indicators.
Farmer organizations What are farmer sales to the farmer organization?
What is the baseline capacity of the farmer 
organizations?
What services are currently offered?
Farmer organization study: Survey of direct 
beneficiary farmer organizations, Focus 
Groups and Key Informant Interviews with 
managers and members. 
Triangulate results from the RCN Farmer Sample 
Survey.
Establish farmer organization baseline for current 
management practices, services offered, and 
sustainability.
Agro-food 
commodity 
companies
What are farmer sales to the agro-food 
companies?
What is the baseline capacity of the companies/ What 
are current business management practices?
Agro-Food Commodity Companies 
Study: Survey of direct beneficiary Agro￾food commodity companies, Focus 
Groups and Key Informant Interviews 
with managers and staff. 
Triangulate results from the RCN Farmer Sample 
Survey.
Establish agro-food baseline for business 
management practices and services offered.
Cashew farm service 
providers (Farm R&R 
Providers and Seedling
Retailers)
What are current services offered? What are 
current business management practices?
Survey of direct beneficiary R&R service 
providers, Focus Groups and Key 
Informant Interviews with managers 
and staff. 
Establish qualitative baseline values for R&R 
service providers around current services 
offered, and business management practices.
Extension agents What are current services offered by extension 
agents?
Survey of direct beneficiary extension 
agents; Focus Groups and Key Informant 
Interviews with managers and staff. 
Establish qualitative baseline values for 
extension agents around current services 
offered.
Government 
officials
What are current uses and sources of data? What 
are relevant policy making practices?
Survey of direct beneficiary government 
officials, Focus Groups and Key Informant 
Interviews. 
Establish qualitative baseline values for 
government officials around current use and 
sources of data, policy-making practices.
17
4 Data Schema 
4.1 Sampling Strategy
Objectives
The objective of the statistical design is to show the impact of PRO-Cashew on farmers at country 
level on the selected baseline indicators as shown in Table 1. The objective of this sampling 
strategy is to create a sample of cashew farmers that is (a) representative of farmers in the PRO￾Cashew intervention area prior to the start of the project, and (b) balanced in terms of its 
representation of potential treatment and control farmers, so that the baseline will be valid for 
both groups when they are differentiated in subsequent evaluations. 
Sample Size
Cashew Farmer Survey
For normally distributed variables, the sample size is determined by the desired level of statistical 
confidence, the acceptable margin of error, and the size of the population from which the sample 
is taken. The higher the desired confidence level and the lower the acceptable margin of error, 
the larger the sample size needs to be at a given population size. In monitoring and evaluation, 
limited project resources normally constrain the possible sample size. Evaluators can trade off 
increased accuracy (=low margin of error) against reduced confidence and vice versa. 
For this project, we initially proposed to control for a 5% margin of error to enable us to 
statistically differentiate changes in variables even if they are small. At a manageable sample size, 
this would have enabled a 90% level of confidence. However, 95% confidence were requested by 
the client, which can be traded off against an increase in the margin of error to 5.5%. This means 
that, with a likelihood of 95%, the true value we are trying to determine through the survey (e.g.,
the average yield or farm size) lies within ±5.5% of the surveyed mean.
With these two parameters set, the sample size relies on the total number of farmers in the 
population that we are trying to describe. However, at the time of planning and conducting the 
baseline study, the number of potential beneficiaries in each country had not yet been 
determined. In total, PRO-Cashew aims to impact at least 42,000 farmers across the five 
intervention countries in the first five years, so an average of 8,400 farmers per country. The 
estimated total numbers of cashew farmers in the five project countries range from 65,000 (in 
Burkina Faso) to 330,000 and more (in Côte d’Ivoire and Nigeria).
2 We therefore assumed that 
2 Farmer number estimates from 2019 ComCashew country reports, see https://www.comcashew.org/downloads. 
18
the evaluations need to show statistically significant differences for populations between 8,400 
and 330,000. 
The relationship between sample size and population is non-linear and converges for large 
populations. At the proposed ±5.5% margin of error and 95% confidence, the sample size 
converges to 318 for populations from around 200,000 and higher. This means that the upper 
end of the estimated population range (330,000) needs a sample size of 318. However, because 
of non-linearity, the sample size for the lower end (8,400) is 306, so only 12 surveys less. 
We therefore planned conservatively for the higher sample size of 318 farmers in each of the five 
intervention countries, rounding the number up to 330 to add a safety margin and arrive at an 
easily sub-dividable number. We subdivided the 330 farmers into 30 communities (sampling 
locations) with 11 farmers per community. In practice, the field teams oversampled as well, so 
that between 336 and 368 surveys were conducted.
Stakeholder Interviews
Interviews with different stakeholder groups were conducted to gain contextual information, 
learn about common practices, hopes, aspirations and perceived barriers, and opportunities from 
participants. These interviews were semi-structured and held as Focus Group Discussions (FDGs) 
and as Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). 
The FGDs and KIIs are primarily diagnostic and intended to provide deeper and more nuanced 
insights, explore causal relationships and verify assumptions. The numbers of FGDs and KIIs were 
determined heuristically, with the aim of capturing a broad cross section of views, not with the 
aim of achieving a certain level of statistical confidence or power.
The FGDs and KIIs were held across seven stakeholder groups, with an average of 16 FGDs and 
30 KIIs per country. The sample numbers for the different stakeholder groups per country can be 
found in section 0 in Table 16. 
Sample Construction 
We used a three-stage sampling approach at the level of each individual PRO-Cashew country, 
comprising the sampling of: 
1. Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) geographic locations
2. Secondary Sampling Units (SSU) cashew farmer communities
3. Ultimate Sampling Units (USUs) cashew farmers
Sampling Frame
As the sampling frame we used 1st or 2nd order administrative units in each country in which
1. Cashew is grown; and
2. PRO-Cashew partners (cashew processing companies) operate.
19
Figure 1: Cashew Production Density in West Africa, by Sub-national Geographic Units. 
Source: Nitidae (2019)
The first criterion was determined using cashew trade and production information from N’kalo 
(see Figure 1). The second criterion was based on information collected by CNFA from PRO￾Cashew partners about their current and prospective sourcing areas (locations of aggregation 
centers or villages areas, depending on the partner).
In Ghana, where no PRO-Cashew partners had been identified at the planning stage of this study, 
we only used the first criteria, so included all areas in which cashews are grown.
Table 2 shows the administrative units (subdivisions) in each country that were used to define the 
sampling frame. We refer to them as sampling frame units (FUs) in the following. The level of 
administrative unit was selected as the smallest subdivision for which cashew farmer numbers 
(Côte d’Ivoire) or cashew production figures (Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Nigeria) were 
available. 
Table 2: Official Administrative Units, Sample Frame Units (FUs) and Primary Sampling Units (PSUs)
Benin Burkina Faso Côte d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
Official 
administrative 
subdivisions
1. Départements
2. Communes
3. Arrondissement
4. Villages/towns
1. Régions
2. Provinces
3. Communes
4. Arondissements
5. Villages/towns
1. Districts
2. Régions
3. Départements
4. Sous-préfecture
5. Villages/Communes
1. Regions
2. Districts
3. Councils
4. Unit 
committees
1. States
2. Local 
Government 
Areas (LGAs)
3. Districts
4. Villages/towns
FU Département Province Région Region State
PSU Commune Commune Sous-préfecture N/A District or town
20
Primary Sampling Units 
The Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) in this study are geographic locations. They were determined 
as the smallest administrative units in each country (see Table 2) for which we had sourcing 
information from PRO-Cashew partners. In some countries, the level of detail provided varied 
between partners. We tried to determine as specific locations as possible, but there will be 
remaining variation in the level of spatial exactness.
The selection of the PSUs was based on stepwise allocation process, with the aim to: 
a. Achieve a sampling probability proportional to size (also referred to as ‘PPS’ in the literature)
b. Achieve a balanced representation of different PRO-Cashew partners’ sourcing locations 
within each country, to the extent possible (see below)
c. Force a 50/50 representation of potential partner farmers and non-partner farmers. Note 
that we do not use the terms ‘treatment’ and ‘control’ for the Baseline Evaluation, yet, as the 
treatment group had not been defined at the planning stage of this study. Instead, we use 
the terms ‘partner farmers’, meaning farmers that are within the defined sourcing areas of 
the PRO-Cashew partners and therefore have a high likelihood of being treatment group 
farmers in future evaluations; and ‘non-partner farmers’ for those with a high likelihood of 
being control farmers in the future. This forced 50/50 split is effectively a stratification, but 
with the aim of being able to show that there is no significant difference between the two 
strata prior to the intervention, to test whether the entire group is homogenous (the null 
hypothesis to be rejected in the analysis is that the two strata differ)
d. Randomize selection of PSUs, to the extent possible within above constraints
Per country, we allocated 30 sampling communities across the FUs, each with 11 farmers, to 
arrive at the total sample size of 30 x 11 = 330. In Burkina Faso we used a reduced number of 22 
communities, with a higher number of 15 farmers each, resulting in the same total sample size 
of 22 x 15 = 330. This alteration was made because of the small number of FUs in the country, 
owing to (a) the concentration of cashew growing in a limited geographic area in the South West; 
and (b) the small number of PRO-Cashew partner locations. The 30 (or 22) communities were 
allocated to FUs as follows:
1. Proportional Distribution: First, we distributed the number of communities across all FUs in 
the country, proportional to the FU size. ‘Size’ was the number of cashew farmers in Côte 
d’Ivoire, where detailed census data were available; and the cashew production in the other 
four countries3, as the best available proxy for the number of cashew farmers. This resulted 
3 FAO/Ministère de l’agriculture et du développement rural (2019): Recensement des Exploitants et Exploitations 
Agricoles. Abidjan, 104 pp.
21
in an initial allocation of the 30 (or 22) communities across FUs. The final sampling per country 
by region can be found in section 5 of this report in Table 3. 
2. Adjustments: We then adjusted that distribution to (a) achieve an even number of sampling 
communities per FU (so that half of them could be allocated to partner communities and the 
other half to non-partner communities); (b) include some of the smaller sourcing areas which 
would not have been large enough to be allocated a sampling community; and (c) to 
accommodate as many produce locations as possible, without deviating too far from the 
theoretical (‘initial’) distribution. Finally, for Benin we included the Département of Donga in 
the FU. Currently, no PRO-Cashew partners operate there, so Donga would have been 
excluded from the sampling frame. However, Donga is a major cashew growing area. In the 
expectation that future partner activity might extend to Donga, PRO-Cashew asked to include 
Donga in the sampling frame. To not deviate from our overall approach, we included Donga 
but with a reduced number of sampling communities compared to the theoretical number. 
This was for the practical deliberation that partners might be able to identify a few potential 
sourcing communities in Donga, but unlikely a large number. No adjustments were made in 
Ghana, where no PRO-Cashew partners had been identified at the time of writing this report.
3. Balanced Partner Representation: We then allocated a first round of sampling communities 
to the different PRO-Cashew partners, within the maximum numbers of sampling 
communities per FU as determined in step 2. The aim was to ensure that the different 
partners in one country were equally represented. See Annex A for details on sampling 
construction per country in the Baseline Report Annexes document. 
4. Random Sampling: We then randomly assigned the remaining sampling communities in each 
FU to partner locations within the FU, with a sampling probability proportional to the 
population of the respective administrative unit. The population was chosen as a proxy for 
cashew farmer numbers at the level of the smaller administrative units, where no cashew￾specific information was available. 
The result of this process is a distribution of sampling communities (PSUs) across the intervention 
area in each country that: 
• Is proportional to cashew farmer numbers (or cashew production, as a proxy) at the FU level 
and proportional to population (as a proxy for cashew farmer numbers) at the level of the 
smaller administrative units 
• Creates a 50/50 balance between prospective PRO-Cashew partner and non-partner farmers
• Aims to give PRO-Cashew partners an equal representation (though partners with a larger 
geographic footprint and more locations had a higher chance of being represented more than 
partners with a small geographic footprint and few locations)
• Ensure random sampling as much as possible within the above constraints.
22
Secondary Sampling Units
We defined the Secondary Sampling Units (SSU) as communities, where ‘community’ may mean 
different things, depending on the information available from PRO-Cashew partners. A 
community can be:
• A formal producer group, such as a cooperative
• An informal producer group, such as independent producers represented by a lead farmer
• A group of farmers supplying to the same village buying agent (pisteur) 
• A village or rural community with cashew farmers but without any form of organization
The partner communities (so one half of the SSUs) are already relatively well-defined through the 
approach we used to define the PSUs, which resulted in specific sourcing locations of PRO-Cashew 
partners. The existing networks of farmers from which partners source in these locations are 
represented as ‘communities’. Where a partner sources from several structures in one location, 
we randomly selected one, with a sampling probability proportional to membership numbers.
The non-partner communities were selected in the vicinity of partner communities, as much as 
practically feasible ensuring (a) a spatial buffer to reduce spill-over effects from the partner 
communities as much as possible; and (b) that they are outside the sourcing catchment of any of 
the PRO-Cashew partners. To keep the sampling range within a controlled range we aimed at 
identifying communities of between 300 to 500 members, taking population information into 
account where available to make any in-situ sampling probability proportional to size.
Ultimate Sampling Units 
Ultimate Sampling Units (USUs) are cashew farmers. We planned to random sample 11 cashew 
farmers (15 in Burkina Faso) for each community, plus 5 (7 in Burkina Faso) replacement farmers, 
in case any of the first farmers are unavailable or refuse to participate. 
Three different procedures were used for random sampling (in descending order of preference):
1. Formal list: Farmers were randomly selected from an existing and complete list of group or 
community members, e.g., as provided beforehand by PRO-Cashew partners 
2. Informal list: Random selection from lists drawn up by the field teams with the help of lead 
farmers or community leaders
3. Walking: Sampling by visiting every nth house in the village, where n is the inverse of the 
sampling rate.
For random selections, field teams used random number generators on their mobile phones. 
The decision to use a fixed number of farmers per community owed to practicality and keeping 
instructions for the enumeration teams simple and clear. However, it results in different sampling 
rates in different communities, as the size of communities varies. In a pre-assessment, we found 
that many of the communities for which we had information had between 300 and 500 members, 
which will still create sampling rates that vary by nearly a factor of two. 
23
4.2 Database Cleaning and Analysis Methodology
Quality Control 
Each field team was led by a country manager with enumerators working in teams of two. The 
country managers were in the field with the enumerator teams with dedicated time for re￾training, practical support, and shadowing the enumerators to ensure data quality. Data from the 
cashew farmer survey were entered in the field via mobile devices using ODK, an open-source 
software for collecting, managing, and using data in resource-constrained environments. The 
survey was implemented into ODK as one survey with two language options to reduce errors in 
the case of any updates in the survey during the training and testing phases. We used ODK 
Central, a server to manage the farmer surveys and access across the five countries. Data was 
downloaded live using what is called the OData connector directly to Microsoft Excel where the 
database was managed, and the data cleaning process took place. Restricted value ranges and 
forced data formats in the data entry app provide a first technological barrier to errors, other 
checks were done by both the country managers and the central office on a daily basis.
Data from the FGDs and KIIs were entered by the note-taker on a printed form, as a mobile device 
is not suitable for detailed and quick capture of information during such sessions. Photos of the 
forms were then sent to the country managers for review after each session. Country managers 
checked to ensure answers were complete and legible. The files were then put onto a shared 
Google Drive with a specific naming format where the central office transcribed the results into 
an Excel database, and translated, in the case of French, acting as a triple check for any errors or 
inconsistencies. 
Human checks happened at several levels: 
• During field data gathering, the country managers checked incoming data daily to capture 
any errors early. This allowed us to go back to enumerators early and often while they were
still in the same area. 
• Enumerators mostly worked in teams of two. Team partners were instructed to check each 
other’s work. 
• The country managers were in the field with the enumerator teams, conducting surveys 
themselves and dedicated time to re-training, practical support, and shadowing the 
enumerators to ensure data quality.
Data Entry and Processing 
The central team monitored the incoming data from the field during the data gathering phase. 
They will use both data visualizations and statistical procedures to spot potential error and 
identify outliers. This process is labor-intensive but, in our experience, highly effective in ensuring 
data quality as many errors and ambiguities can be detected and corrected while enumerators’ 
24
memory is fresh, and they may even have an opportunity to verify information with the data 
subject. 
Monitoring the incoming data from the evaluation will include: 
1. Data cleaning to ensure logic and consistency checks
2. Correcting and/or clarifying any missing or unclear data fields via communication with 
country managers or the enumerator(s) directly 
3. Controlling alignment between data collection and planned sampling strategy
4. Keeping a data cleaning log: documenting all steps taken by the consultant to clean and 
corroborate any data points needed for proper analysis and the rationale
A final dedicated step of data cleaning will happen prior to the statistical analysis.
Data Analysis 
We generated descriptive statistics of the farmer survey results per country (mean, median, 5%
and 95% percentiles, minimum, and maximum). Correlation analyses were run with SPSS to 
identify potential co-variates. For key parameters, we tested for statistically significant
differences between the PRO-Cashew partner farmers (potential treatment farmers) and non￾partner farmers (potential control farmers), using non-parametric tests, to exclude any pre￾existing differences (in other words, show that the two data strata are the same). The qualitative
data collected through the FGDs and KIIs was systematically coded per country to analyze trends 
per stakeholder group. 
4.3 Challenges and Lessons Learned from Data Collection 
Summary of What Worked Well 
Generally, in all five countries the ODK app used for data collection worked well, farmers 
cooperated and there was warm welcome of the enumerators by the farming communities. This 
was noted especially in partner communities due to the existing relationship between the 
partners (e.g., Huxley and Vertex in Nigeria). It was therefore easy to leverage on these 
relationships. Even in countries where partners were not present, like Ghana, the farmers still 
cooperated. While in general the access to farmers was positive, there were challenges faced, 
which are explained below. However, overall, there was good collaboration between everyone 
involved in the process (I.e., enumerators, farmers, partners, field supervisors and country 
managers) and a general acceptance of the project and willingness to participate. 
Gender was not a problem in accessing certain categories of the population, except for Benin, 
where women were afraid to speak in front of men which resulted in women being difficult to 
find and responding little.
Specifically, provision of tablets and power banks in countries like Ghana and Benin made work 
easier and enumerators could power up in cases of low battery. 
25
Summary of Challenges Faced
The challenges experienced across all five countries centered around four issues: 
1. Inaccessible roads and long distance between the different survey locations
In all five countries, the road network was poor, and it made going to the farmer communities 
take longer than expected and was stressful due to the short data collection period. Also, the 
distance between the communities were far. This was especially the case between Kampti and 
Tako towns of Burkina Faso. Also, in Nigeria, distance between Ikoyi Ile to Alaja in Oyo state. 
2. The search and replacement of farmers and co-operatives in the field plan
Not every farmer in the contact list provided were available or reachable. Enumerators had to 
improvise and come up with other solutions and ways to reach the farmers. For example, death 
among some PRO-Cashew partner farmers in Burkina Faso led to a search for replacement while 
the listed partner communities were unavailable in Bouaflé and Zanzan town of Côte d'Ivoire. 
The country managers addressed these by asking for support from farmers already identified and 
they pointed the team to the people available. 
3. Farmers unavailability 
In some communities across the five countries, pre-sampled farmers were unavailable at the time 
of the interview, for reasons like harvesting of other cereal crops, market days, prayer time, and 
election. This meant enumerators had to wait for them, return at a later time, or resort to visiting 
replacement farmers instead, of which a few were pre-sampled for each community. The most 
practical course of action was decided by enumerators on the ground, based on circumstances, 
schedule and the likelihood of being able to speak to the originally sampled farmer. Particular 
challenges were: in Burkina Faso, the electoral campaign was being held and it was harvest 
season, resulting in difficulty gathering producer communities and meeting farmer organizations 
members; in Benin, many farmers were harvesting cereals and soybean; In Nigeria, enumerators 
had to adjust their planning to wait for farmers on market days. In Côte d'Ivoire and Burkina Faso, 
the elections led to a delayed start in data collection. 
4. Farmers expecting something in return for providing information
Farmers in some communities across the 5 countries expected money in exchange for providing 
information and enumerators had to convince them further that the program will benefit them 
all in the long run.
5. No farm records
Lack of farm records led to overestimation and underestimation of figures such as cashew farm 
size, and average cashew annual harvest in Ghana and Nigeria. In Nigeria, farmers had to be asked 
repeatedly and enumerators had to depend on experience and sometimes previously provided 
information to vet the originality their answers. Lack of farm records is highly correlated with 
26
their educational level; our analysis of the collected data shows that about 79% of the surveyed 
farmers have either no formal education or only primary education. The surveyed farmers’ 
illiteracy and lack of records also added to the average survey time as they took some time to 
recall estimates of figures. 
There were, however, some country-specific challenges faced: 
1. In some communities in Nigeria and Côte d'Ivoire, all the farmers wanted to be 
interviewed because farmers believe there was some financial benefit attached to 
participating and some felt that only those interviewed will be beneficiaries of the 
program. An example of such was Iyale in Kogi state of Nigeria where the farmers insisted 
that a representative must be taken from each compound. This had to be done for the 
interview to proceed. Also, neighboring communities in Kogi state were not happy that 
their communities were left out. This happened because these communities are clustered 
together and one happening in a community quickly reaches the other community. 
Another reason is most farmer communities and co-operatives have an equal 
representation mandate, hence selecting one community as listed by the field plan 
without the other was naturally unwelcomed.
2. Different units of measurements across different states and sometimes communities in 
Nigeria and Ghana made the conversion a bit difficult and enumerators needed to keep 
asking at every point the measurement that was used in each community to get a correct 
estimate. 
3. In Nigeria, there was overestimation of average annual harvest, that resulted from either 
the assumption they would receive more benefit by having higher production and also 
the farmers not knowing the actual size of their land. The enumerators requested that 
they be truthful so that they could be helped, which improved the data quality. 
Lessons Learned
Potential areas of improvement for the mid-term and final evaluation:
• The questions should be simplified further while bringing similar or related questions 
closer together e.g., total area harvested should be closely linked to total quantity 
harvested. 
• Plan longer tests for the questionnaires and ensure the final version of the forms are 
ready before launching the interviewers on the field.
• Provision of Identification cards for enumerators.
• Train specific set of enumerators to conduct only the KIIs and FGDs
• Provide tablets for enumerators. This would make work easier and questions would be 
more eligible to read. Some enumerators had to buy phones out of the money they were 
given because their phones could not capture GPS even though the phones were Android 
Version 5. 
27
• A background check should be done beforehand to ascertain that the communities and 
lead farmers shortlisted are genuine and exist. In addition, providing the investigator with 
a database of stakeholders – for all the countries - to facilitate contacts would have been 
beneficial. 
• All enumerator teams should have both male and female members, especially where 
gender norms may prevent female interviewees to speak openly to male interviewers. In 
Nigeria we deployed mixed-gender teams throughout the study, which seemed to 
increase community members’ openness to being interviewed. 
Summary of Feedback from the Country Managers 
Country managers (lead enumerators) gave feedback on what the PRO-Cashew project needs to 
consider to be successful:
• Farm mapping technology, and if also available, the technology that can count the 
number of cashew trees, could be adopted to get the exact farm size and number of trees 
at interval. This will ascertain that the numbers provided by farmers are true. 
• Identify communities with special needs. For example, a community in Ilorin (Ehin Afo) is 
severely disturbed by herders and there is nothing they can do about it. Some of the 
farmers said they stopped farming because they were tired of cattle eating all their crops 
and they are unable to speak for fear of being harmed by the herders. 
• Active involvement of women and youth groups in its programs, as well as considerations 
for improving the living conditions of farmers. 
• Train farmers on good management practices for cashew plantations, as well as support 
for stakeholders in the implementation of activities.
• Involvement of all actors in the value chain.
• Facilitate access to a sustainable and profitable market which guarantees the purchase of 
products (nuts and apples) from the production of each season from farmer.
• Consideration for the growers should be a major focal point, especially in relation to 
respecting the price of cashew nuts.
• Carry out cost of production studies per unit area on the basis of which the marketing 
prices will be set.
• Identify the purchasing areas of PRO-Cashew partners to allow capacity building bringing 
actors closer. 
28
5 Summary of Evaluation Results Analysis
5.1 Descriptive Statistics of Cashew Farmer Sample 
Sample Sizes
A total of 1,733 cashew farmers were surveyed across the five study countries between 
November 2nd, 2020, and December 3rd, 2020. The target number of 330 surveys per country was 
exceeded in all countries. Table 3 gives an overview of the total sampled farmer numbers, survey 
dates, gender distribution, and community type (PRO-Cashew partner vs. non-partner, plus 
undefined for Ghana, where no PRO-Cashew partners had been contracted at the time of 
conducting this study). Farmer surveys took an average of one hour to complete, ranging from 
45-75 minutes on average.
Gender 
The majority of surveyed cashew farms were male headed, see Figure 2. Overall, 7.4% of the 
farms were female-headed, though the share varied between countries: Ghana had, with 17.3%, 
the highest share of women-led farms, Burkina Faso with 2.0% the lowest. In Côte d'Ivoire, 8.0% 
of farmer were women-led, 6.5% in Nigeria and 3.5% in Benin. 
These numbers underline that cashew is a more male-dominated crop than others. For instance, 
in Nigeria, the overall share of women-led farming households was found to be 12% 
(representative of 3,026 households, CGAP, 2017), compared to the 6.5% we found here; and in 
Côte d'Ivoire 10% (3,019 households, CGAP, 2017a), compared to the 8% we found in this study. 
Table 3 shows details by region within countries.
Age
The average age of the head of cashew farming households was around 52, with little variation 
between countries and genders within countries, see Figure 3. The only exception were women 
in Burkina Faso, who were nearly ten years younger than their male counterparts. However, with 
only seven women in the sample for Burkina Faso, this difference may be an artefact of the low 
number of women in the survey and is not statistically significant. 
The average age of heads of household is high compared to the average populations in the study 
countries, though it needs to be considered that the head of household will normally be an older 
person, so the higher age comes with the position. No information was collected about the 
average age of all members of cashew farming households. 
We partitioned the heads of household by age group into under 30 years and 30 years and above. 
As Figure 4 shows, only 43 or 2.5% of the farmers were under 30 years old. All of them were male. 
Given the low number we did not differentiate by age group in the further analysis.
29
Table 3: Number of Surveyed Farmers by Country, Region, Gender and Community Type
Baseline total Head of Household Gender Community type
Country, region Surveyed
Farmers
Female Male Partner Non-partner Undefined
Entire study 1,733 129 1,603 725 672 336
Benin 368 13 355 185 183
Alibori 24 1 23 12 12
Borgou 164 6 158 84 80
Collines 76 2 74 41 35
Donga 48 1 47 22 26
Zou 56 3 53 26 30
Burkina Faso 349 7 342 195 154
Cascades 122 1 121 61 61
Haut Bassin 114 6 108 90 24
Sud-Ouest 113 113 44 69
Côte d'Ivoire 340 29 311 156 184
Denguéle 24 7 17 12 12
Sassandra-Marahoué 88 88 44 44
Savanes 22 22 22
Vallée du Bandama 116 13 103 34 82
Woroba 46 5 41 22 24
Zanzan 44 4 40 22 22
Ghana 336 58 277 336
Ahafo 55 13 42 55
Bono 68 20 48 68
Bono East 65 15 50 65
North East 43 3 40 43
Northern 49 3 46 49
Oti 11 11 11
Savannah 44 4 40 44
Nigeria 340 22 318 189 151
Edo 18 3 15 9 9
Enugu 36 3 33 18 18
Kogi 97 2 95 49 48
Kwara 54 11 43 28 26
Oyo 135 3 132 85 50
30
Figure 2: Gender Distribution of Cashew Farm Heads of Household by Country 
Figure 3: Average Age of the Head of Household by Country and Gender
Note: All farmers aged under 30 were male.
Figure 4: Age Group Distribution of Cashew Farm Heads of Household by Country
13 7 29 58 22
355 342 311 277 317
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Benin Burkina Faso Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
Gender Distribution of Cashew Farmers (Head of Household)
Female Male
52 53 49 51 54 53 53 57
41
56 53 55 52 53 49 50 54 53
0
20
40
60
80
Baseline
total
Benin Burkina FasoCote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
Age
Average Age of Head of Household by Country and Gender
Total Female Male
43 10 8 11 7 7
1,558 341 267 301 327 321
0%
50%
100%
Baseline
total
Benin Burkina Faso Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
Age Group Distribution of Cashew Farmers (Head of Household)
Under 30 30 +
31
Education 
We asked for the highest level of education of the survey respondent (who may have differed 
from the head of household, though). Patterns differ between the francophone and anglophone 
countries: In Benin, Burkina Faso, and Côte d'Ivoire, around 60% of respondents had no formal 
education, and only 2% vocational or university education. In Ghana and Nigeria, respondents 
with no education were 35% and 18% respectively, and 13% had vocational or university 
education. Further details on education levels are provided in the separate country overview 
report. 
We also asked for respondents’ ability to read and write in French or English, respectively. This 
question revealed a strong gender disparity literacy in all countries: While 21% to 72% of the 
male respondents said they were able to read and write, only 8% to 45% of the female 
respondents did (see Figure 5).
Size of Household
We surveyed the number of people living in the household who work on cashew, where a 
household was defined as the group of people usually eating from the same pot and answering 
to the same household head. So, this definition differs from a family unit and may include farm 
workers and others living in the same household. Figure 6 shows the average number of people 
in the household who work in cashew, varying between 7.8 members in Benin and 3.5 members 
in Ghana. While in Benin and Ghana female and male-headed households have similar sizes, 
female-headed households in Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, and Nigeria were observed to be 
smaller than male-headed ones. 
Figure 5: Respondents’ Ability to Read and Write in French (Benin, Burkina Faso, and Côte 
d'Ivoire) or English (Ghana and Nigeria) by Gender
29%
8%
29%
10%
45%
27%
46%
34%
21%
47%
64%
72%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Baseline total Benin Burkina Faso Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
% of Respondents
Respondents Who can Read and Write
Female Male
32
Figure 6: Average Number of People Living in the Household, by Country and Gender of Head 
of Household 
Further, we reviewed official nationalstatistics on urban and rural average household sizes across 
the five study countries (see Figure 7). The data show that the number of household members 
currently living in a household is higher in Burkina Faso while the country with the least average 
household size is Ghana. Generally, the average household size is larger in rural areas when 
compared with urban areas across the five countries.
Sources: LSMS – ISA (2019), and GHS (2019, 2015, 2013, and 2012).
Figure 7: Average Household Sizes by Country
5.5
7.8
6.1
4.6
3.5
5.2
4.1
7.5
4.6
3.4 3.4
4.4
5.6
7.8
6.2
4.7
3.5
5.3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Baseline total Benin Burkina Faso Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
No of People
Average Household Size by Region and Gender of Head of Household
Total Female Male
5.2 4.8
5.5 5.7
5.1
5.9
5.1 5 5.1
3.5 3.1
3.9
5.5
4.8
5.9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
National
Urban
Rural
National
Urban
Rural
National
Urban
Rural
National
Urban
Rural
National
Urban
Rural
Benin Burkina Faso Côte d’Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
Average Household Sizes
33
Farm Size
Farmers were asked about the size of their entire farm as well as about the area they have 
planted to cashew trees. Farmers generally had a notion of their total farm size, especially in 
Benin and Côte d'Ivoire, where there had been agricultural census in the past 10 years. Total farm 
sizes differed both between the countries and between genders within all the countries, with 
women-led farms being consistently smaller than those headed by men, see Figure 8. 
Area under Cashew
Although familiar with their total farm size, farmers often did not know the size of the area under 
cashew trees. Farmers do not generally know the size of plots and fields, except for arable cash 
crops like cotton, where buyers map fields for management purposes. This is a known problem, 
particularly in tree crops, where farmers tend to know the approximate number of trees but not 
the area they cover. Also, cashew is often grown in mixed stands with other crops, making it 
difficult to allocate an area to cashew or to clearly define the boundary. As a result, many survey 
respondents stated they did not know the area under cashew; and of those who provided an 
answer, a high proportion gave figures that were not plausible. 
We checked for plausibility across the entire data set as follows:
Is the stated area under cashew equal or less than the total farm size? If not, further manual 
checks were done to find and correct any data entry or unit conversion errors. Where 
inconsistencies remained, farms were discarded for further analysis of tree numbers and derived 
metrics. 
Figure 8: Average Total Farm Size by Country and Gender
7.9
10.9
6.8
9.8
5.5
6.5
3.4 3.3
2.4 3.0
4.1
2.6
8.3
11.2
6.9
10.4
5.7
6.8
0
3
6
9
12
15
Baseline total Benin Burkina Faso Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
ha
Average Farm Size in Hectares
Total Female Male
34
Table 4: Summary Statistics of Area Under Cashew Trees 
Cashew tree 
area (ha)
Baseline 
Total
Benin Burkina 
Faso
Côte
d'Ivoire
Ghana Nigeria
n 1,732 368 349 340 336 339
narea_cashew 862 135 74 89 301 263
narea_cashew / n 0.50 0.37 0.21 0.26 0.90 0.78
Mean 3.4 2.7 1.7 1.4 3.5 4.6
0.05 percentile 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.6
0.95 percentile 10.0 10.0 4.2 4.6 10.0 12.1
Median 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Min 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1
Max 80.0 20.0 9.6 15.0 28.0 80.0
Note: n is the number of surveys per country, narea_cashew is the number of plausible cashew area records that were 
included in the calculation, narea_cashew / n is the ratio of the two. Mean, percentiles, median, minimum and maximum 
were calculated on narea_cashew. 
Table 4 provides summary statistics of the area under cashew in the five study countries, Figure 
9 shows the gender disaggregation. 
We recommend that PRO-Cashew commission dedicated annual yield and production surveys 
that include some plot size measurements, as already done by its sister program BeninCaju.
Figure 9: Average Area under Cashew Trees by Country and Gender
3.4
2.7
1.7
1.4
3.5
4.6
2.4
0.5
0.8 0.6
2.7 2.9
3.5
2.8
1.8
1.4
3.7
4.7
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Baseline total Benin Burkina Faso Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
ha
Average Cashew Area per Farmer
Total Female Male
35
Cashew Production
The total cashew production of surveyed farms was a key statistic, driving the key performance 
indicator yield and influencing other metrics. Based on previous experience, we expected that 
farmers’ recall of last year’s (2020) production volumes may in many cases be inaccurate. We 
hence triangulated total production by asking for three figures:
1. Total cashew production 
Table 5: Summary Statistics of Total Cashew Production
Baseline 
Total
Benin Burkina 
Faso
Côte
d'Ivoire
Ghana Nigeria
N 1,732 368 349 340 336 339
nyield_ha 1,169 296 193 239 242 199
nyield_ha / n 0.67 0.80 0.55 0.70 0.72 0.59
Mean 2,286 1,814 1,949 2,343 1,489 4,213
0.05 percentile 160 150 200 59 160 418
0.95 percentile 6,749 6,136 4,146 6,275 4,033 10,040
Median 1,200 825 1,110 1,500 1,000 3,000
Min 4 4 8 5 30 90
Max 80,000 70,050 70,000 60,050 9,600 80,000
Note: n is the number of surveys per country, nprod is the number of plausible cashew production records that were 
included in the calculation, nprod / n is the ratio of the two. Mean, percentiles, median, minimum and maximum were 
calculated on nprod. 
Figure 10: Average Raw Cashew Nut Production by County and Gender
2,286
1,814 1,949 2,343 1,489
4,213
1,421
594
104
689
1,665
2,349 2,416
1,853 1,959
2,469 1,452
4,318
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Baseline total Benin Burkina Faso Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
kg/year
Average Cashew Production per Farmer
Total Female Male
36
2. Cashew sales amounts and amounts of cashew nuts that were not sold
3. The share of highly productive trees and how much they yield per tree, from which we 
approximated production 
We then checked the consistency of these three figures as follows:
i. Consistency of 1. and 2.: Is the higher of the two numbers within 20% of the lower? If so, we 
used the median of the two as the best estimate for total production. If not, we tested the
ii. Consistency of 1., 2., and 3.: Is the highest of the three numbers within 50% of the lowest? If 
so, we used the median of the three as the best estimate for total production. If not, we 
discarded the farm for productivity analysis as not plausible.
Summary statistics for the resulting set of production data are shown in Table 5, Figure 10 shows 
the gender disaggregation.
Number of Cashew Trees
We asked farmers for the number of cashew trees they currently manage, the number of 
productive trees, as well as information about the evolution of their cashew plantation over time, 
including recent replanting for replacement and expansion purposes. The latter information was 
used for plausibility checks in case cashew tree numbers appeared incorrect. 
From experience, we expected total tree numbers to be relatively accurate, at least 
approximately (most farmers gave a number of trees that was ‘rounded’ to 100 or 50, indicating
that the figures they gave are estimates rather than precise figures). The number of productive 
trees was assumed to be less accurate than total tree numbers. The following plausibility check 
was done across the entire data set:
Table 6: Summary Statistics of Cashew Tree Numbers 
Productive 
trees 
(number)
Baseline 
Total
Benin Burkina 
Faso
Côte
d'Ivoire
Ghana Nigeria
N 1,732 368 349 340 336 339
ntree_num 1,083 310 178 119 287 189
ntree_num / n 0.63 0.84 0.51 0.35 0.85 0.56
Mean 676 506 584 306 300 1,846
0.05 percentile 40 40 100 25 36 50
0.95 percentile 1,400 1,456 1,500 910 800 1,780
Median 250 278 345 200 200 300
Min 1 3 3 1 4 5
Max 250,000 9,500 12,500 1,500 2,550 250,000
Note: n is the number of surveys per country, ntree_num is the number of plausible cashew tree number records that 
were included in the calculation, ntree_num / n is the ratio of the two. Mean, percentiles, median, minimum and 
maximum were calculated on ntree_num. 
37
Figure 11: Average Number of Cashew Trees by Country and Gender
Is the number of productive cashew trees equal or less than the total number of cashew trees? If 
not, further manual checks were done to find and correct any data entry or unit conversion 
errors. Where inconsistencies remained, farms were discarded for further analysis of tree 
numbers and derived metrics. 
Where farmers had only been able to provide a total number of cashew trees, but did not know 
the share of productive trees, we assumed that 50% of the trees were productive, which was the 
average ratio across the farms that had stated both total and productive tree numbers. Summary 
statistics for the cashew tree numbers are shown in Table 6 and Figure 11 shows the gender 
disaggregation. 
676
506 584
306 300
1,846
260 237 192 226
707
518 590
314 302
1,890
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Baseline total Benin Burkina Faso Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
trees
Average Number of Productive Cashew Trees 
Total Female Male
38
5.2 Quantitative Baseline Performance Indicators 
Yield of Targeted Agricultural Commodities Among Program Participants with USDA Assistance 
(MT/ha) (FFPr Standard Indicator #1)
Yield per area (MT/ha) is one of the USDA standard indicators across projects. Based on previous 
experience, we did not ask farmers for yields as this is not a metric they usually know. Instead, 
we calculated the yield as the ratio of production by cashew plantation area. This meant that 
yield per area could only be calculated where both production and area information were 
available. As discussed above, we were able triangulate cashew production data collected from 
farmers, so that this information may be assumed to be relatively accurate. However, the quality 
of the data on farm area under cashew was poor, especially in the three francophone countries, 
leading us to discard data that were not plausible. As a result, the usable data points for yield 
were limited: In Côte d'Ivoire only 8% were usable, in Burkina Faso 11% and in Benin 22%.
The average (mean) yield determined in this way was 580 kg / ha (=0.58 MT / ha), the median 
529 kg/ha (=0.53 MT / ha). For detailed summary statistics of the yield data see Table 7, and 
Figure 12 shows the gender disaggregation. 
To plausibility check our yield data, we compared it to published cashew yields in the five 
countries from reputable sources, see Table 8. Except for Ghana, the yields found in our study 
exceeded the maximum yields found in other sources (Figure 13). The reasons for the 
discrepancies will include
1. The likely inaccuracies in farmers’ estimates of their area under cashew, see above
2. The small number of valid yield data points (see Table 7), which led to a reduced statistical 
accuracy of the yield estimate
Table 7: Summary Statistics of Cashew Yield per Area
Yield 
(kg/ha)
Baseline 
Total
Benin Burkina 
Faso
Côte
d'Ivoire
Ghana Nigeria
n 1,732 368 349 340 336 339
nyield_ha 488 78 40 27 214 129
nyield_ha / n 0.28 0.21 0.11 0.08 0.64 0.38
Mean 580 508 561 694 520 703
0.05 percentile 90 90 104 46 80 173
0.95 percentile 1200 1,096 1,130 1,338 1,054 1,330
Median 529 408 569 860 411 659
Min 6 6 44 27 25 69
Max 1,486 1,429 1,250 1,440 1,350 1,486
Note: n is the number of surveys per country, nyield_ha is the number of plausible yield calculations tree number records 
that were included in the calculation, nyield_ha / n is the ratio of the two. Mean, percentiles, median, minimum and 
maximum were calculated on nyield_ha.
39
Figure 12: Average Yield per Area by Country and Gender
3. We found a high share of better educated farmers among the valid yields data points. We 
may assume that better educated farmers are more likely to be conversant in metrics like 
yield and plot size than less educated farmers and may therefore more likely to provide valid 
answers. At the same time better educated farmers tend to have higher yields (see below). 
Thus, we may have introduced a methodological bias by basing yield measures (or plantation 
area measures, to be precise) on farmer declaration only
4. Variability of yields: agricultural yields are strongly influenced by agro-climatic conditions and 
subject to strong interannual variability. For this reason, a robust yield baseline should 
consider at least 3 years’ data. 
While explicable, the large yield differences between our study and other published data call into 
question their suitability as a baseline. We hence recommend that (a) PRO-Cashew conducts 
yield production surveys, which include cashew plantation area measurements, which will
allow to retrospectively correct the area estimates provided by farmers in this study; and (b)
use as the preliminary yield baseline the median of the following sources
1. African Cashew Alliance Cashew Barometer (ACA, 2021): yields of the past five years (2016 to 
2020), covering Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria. ACA data are based on information 
collected from the state institutions on hectares under cultivation and the annual production 
volumes. These are then triangulated and corrected with information on exports, cross 
border trade and farm losses.
2. ComCashew country profiles (ComCashew, 2019): yields of the past five years (2016 to 2019)
as published by ComCashew and the respective public bodies in Benin (FENABAP), Burkina 
Faso (DGPER), Côte d’Ivoire (CCA), and Ghana (MOFA). 
580
508
561
694
520
715 703
104
698
564
508
572
682
477
703
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Baseline total Benin Burkina Faso Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
kg/ha
Average Yield per Area
Total Female Male
40
3. Nitidae trade information (Nitidae, 2019): yields of 2018 in all five countries, based on market 
observation and monthly data requests from commodity national and international traders.
4. BeninCaju 2020 yield survey (BeninCaju, 2020): 2020 yield for Benin from USDA-funded sister 
program of PRO-Cashew, based on survey among over 1,200 farmers and using validated area 
estimates. 
The data from these sources and the proposed baseline yields derived from them are shown in 
Table 8. 
We conducted a multivariate analysis (mixed linear model) using SPSS’s MIXED procedure, to try 
and identify key determinants of yield. Due to the reduced number of valid yield data points, we 
modelled effect across the five countries, rather than per country. However, no statistically 
significant effects were found, except some geographic regions: parameter estimates for 
Cascades (negative effect on yield) Donga (negative), Kogi (positive), North East (negative), Oti 
(negative), Sassandra-Marahoué (negative) were all significant with a 95%+ confidence level. 
Further, there were yield effects of education level University (positive), Producer group 
membership (negative), and use of chemical pest control (positive), though not statistically 
significant. 
Table 8: Published West African Cashew Yield Data and Yields Found in this Study 
Source Reference 
year
Benin Burkina 
Faso 
Côte 
d'Ivoire 
Ghana Nigeria
External sources
ComCashew 2016 375 245 561 606
2017 377 303 525 600
2018 389 307 650 750
2019 390 350 524 1,000*
ACA 2016 323 461 375 313
2017 355 427 341 375
2018 385 419 396 400
2019 329 422 400 417
2020 343 410 404 416
Nitidae (2019) 2018 377 354 350 400 363
BeninCaju Yield Survey 2020 2020 390
Average (mean) across years and sources 367 312 475 475 381
BASELINE: Median across years and sources 377 307 444 400 388
Range 323-390 245-354 350-650 341-750 313-417
This study
Average (mean) across surveyed farmers 508 561 694 520 703
Median across surveyed farmers 408 569 860 411 659
Notes: * indicates geographically non-representative yield (ComCashew, pers comm. 2021). The median of the shown 
published yield data is the proposed yield baseline for PRO-Cashew. 
41
Notes: ‘Other sources’ the published yields from Table 8. Numbers in the white bars indicate the number of data 
points per country, error bars Indicate the minimum and maximum value of published data. 
Figure 13: Yields Found in this Study Compared to Published Yields 
Poor quality of smallholder yield data is not unique to this project and was expected. This is the 
reason why PRO-Cashew’s sister program BeninCaju is moving to a combination of annual yield 
surveys (on the ground) plus remote sensing. Yield surveys make it possible to monitor the 
production of defined plots during the harvest season and this give much more reliable 
information than farmer recall. Remote sensing is an innovation that TechnoServe are testing. 
CNFA is advised to work with TechnoServe and Shelter for Life, the other two agencies 
implementing USDA programs in cashew in West Africa, about their experiences and strategies 
in collecting reliable yield data.
Table 9: Summary Statistics of Cashew Yield per Tree
Yield 
(kg/tree) 
Baseline 
Total
Benin Burkina 
Faso
Côte
d'Ivoire
Ghana Nigeria
n 1,732 368 349 340 336 339
nyield_ha 688 224 91 81 210 82
nyield_ha / n 0.40 0.61 0.26 0.24 0.63 0.24
Mean 4.8 3.9 3.3 3.9 5.8 6.9
0.05 percentile 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 1.0 1.5
0.95 percentile 11.8 11.2 8.1 10.2 11.1 13.3
Median 3.7 3.0 2.2 2.9 6.0 6.9
Min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.7
Max 15.0 14.3 11.8 15.0 13.3 14.5
Note: n is the number of surveys per country, nyield_tree is the number of plausible yield calculations tree number records 
that were included in the calculation, nyield_tree / n is the ratio of the two. Mean, percentiles, median, minimum and 
maximum were calculated on nyield_tree.
11 5 10 9 6
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Benin Burkina Faso Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
kg / ha
Median yields
This study Other sources
42
Yield per Tree
In addition to the yield per area, we determined the yield per productive cashew tree (kg/tree), 
which is a frequently used figure for comparing cashew productivity. The average (mean) yield 
per tree was 4.8 kg/tree, the median 3.7 kg/tree. Summary statistics are shown in Table 9 and 
Figure 14 shows the gender disaggregation.
Number of Hectares Under Improved Management or technologies that promote improved climate 
risk reduction and/or natural resources management with USDA assistance (FFPr Standard Indicator #2)
We asked farmers whether they applied a set of seven Good Agricultural Practices: (1) Pruning 
trees, (2) Thinning cashew stands, (3) Cultivating soil around trees, (4) Applying organic fertilizer, 
(5) Applying synthetic fertilizer, (6) Creating fire breaks, and (7) Pest and disease control. The 
share of farmers applying each of these practices is shown in Figure 15. We also asked how much
of their cashew area they apply each practice to. Table 10 shows the results by practice and 
country. 
Value of Annual Sales of Farms and Firms Receiving USDA assistance (FFPr Standard Indicator #18) 
Value of annual sales is one of the USDA standard indicators across projects. The average (mean) 
sales in across study countries was USD 1,464, varying between USD915 (Benin) and USD2,699 
(Nigeria), though the mean was influenced by a few large producers in every country. The 
median, as a more representative measure, was USD 727, so about 50% of the mean, varying 
from USD441 (Benin) to USD1,784 (Nigeria). Differentiation between the countries emerges with
Figure 14: Average Cashew Yield per Tree by Country and Gender
4.8
3.9
3.3
3.9
5.8
6.9
6.4
3.5
9.1
4.6
3.9
3.3
4.0
5.5
6.8
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Baseline total Benin Burkina Faso Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
kg/tree
Average Yield per Tree
Total Female Male
43
Figure 15: Share of Farmers Applying different Good Agricultural Practices, by Country
Table 10: Average Share of Cashew Area (in %) under Different Good Management Practices, 
by Country and Gender
Pruning 
trees
Thinning 
cashew stands
Cultivate soil 
around trees
Apply org. 
fertilizer
Apply synth. 
fertilizer
Create fire 
breaks
Pest & disease 
control
T F M T F M T F M T F M T F M T F M T F M
BL 39 36 39 23 19 23 27 24 27 2 1 2 3 1 3 55 54 55 19 16 19
BE 54 71 53 29 38 29 25 37 24 2 0 2 2 6 2 80 71 81 28 31 28
BF 24 23 24 16 14 16 30 20 31 2 0 2 3 0 3 25 23 25 11 17 11
CI 37 23 38 25 8 26 4 1 5 2 0 2 3 3 3 26 22 26 21 19 22
GH 38 42 37 23 26 23 41 28 43 2 1 2 0 0 0 73 74 73 15 11 15
NG 40 21 41 21 9 22 35 34 35 4 2 4 7 0 7 69 42 71 20 17 20
T = total, F = female, M = Male; 
BL = Baseline total, BE = Benin, BF = Burkina Faso, CI = Côte d’Ivoire, GH = Ghana, NG = Nigeria
Table 11: Summary Statistics of Farmers’ Raw Cashew Nut Sales Value 
Sales value (USD) Baseline 
Total
Benin Burkina 
Faso
Côte
d'Ivoire
Ghana Nigeria
n 1,732 368 349 340 336 339
nsales_vol 1,210 293 252 217 234 214
nsales_vol / n 0.70 0.80 0.72 0.64 0.70 0.63
Mean 1,464 915 1,252 1,398 1,311 2,699
0.05 percentile 76 64 119 16 109 198
0.95 percentile 4,505 3,383 3,320 4,387 4,339 7,265
Median 727 441 740 725 797 1,784
Min 1 2 5 1 15 50
Max 45,539 26,023 45,539 44,610 7,252 40,206
Note: n is the number of surveys per country, nsales_val is the number of plausible yield calculations tree number records 
that were included in the calculation, nsales_val / n is the ratio of the two. Mean, percentiles, median, minimum, and 
maximum were calculated on nsales_val. 
71%
47% 42%
5% 5%
68%
60% 76%
48%
38%
4% 4%
84%
67%
56%
40% 46%
6% 5%
39%
60%
75%
57%
15%
4%
7%
49%
67% 64%
40%
59%
3% 1%
82%
43%
83%
50% 53%
7% 12%
84%
66%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Pruning trees Thinning
cashew stands
Cultivate soil
around trees
Apply org.
fertilizer
Apply synth.
fertilizer
Create fire
breaks
Pest and
disease
control
Share of Farmers Applying Good Agricultural Practices
Baseline total Benin Burkina Faso Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
44
Figure 16: Value of Raw Cashew Nut Sales per Farmer by Country and Gender
both metrics: Beninese farmers receive about one quarter of the income of Nigerian farmers 
from cashew sales, Burkinabe, Ivorian and Ghanaian farmers receive around 40% of the income
of Nigerian farmers. Summary statistics for sales value are shown in Table 11. Figure 16 shows 
the gender disaggregation. 
Volume of Commodities Sold by Farms and Firms Receiving USDA Assistance (MT) (FFPr Standard 
Indicator #19)
Volume of annual sales is one of the USDA standard indicators across projects. In line with 
industry convention, we here report volume in kilogram (kg) instead of metric tons (MT). The 
Table 12: Summary Statistics of Raw Cashew Nut Sales Volumes 
Sales volume 
(kg)
Baseline 
Total
Benin Burkina 
Faso
Côte
d'Ivoire
Ghana Nigeria
N 1,732 368 349 340 336 339
nsales_vol 1,217 293 252 217 237 218
nsales_vol / n 0.70 0.80 0.72 0.64 0.71 0.64
Mean 2,431 1,796 2,464 2,287 1,469 4,436
0.05 percentile 152 150 200 50 160 335
0.95 percentile 7,000 6,000 6,890 6,100 4,007 10,424
Median 1,274 800 1,480 1,300 1,000 2,880
Min 3 4 7 5 3 90
Max 80,000 70,000 70,000 60,000 9,600 80,000
Note: n is the number of surveys per country, nsales_vol is the number of plausible yield calculations tree number records 
that were included in the calculation, nsales_vol / n is the ratio of the two. Mean, percentiles, median, minimum, and 
maximum were calculated on nsales_vol. 
1,464
915
1,252 1,398 1,311
2,699
1,276
1,460
434
1,477 1,511
935
1,248
1,464
1,229
2,770
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Baseline total Benin Burkina Faso Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
USD
Value of Cashew Nuts Sold by Farmers in 2020
Total Female Male
45
Figure 17: Amount of Raw Cashew Nuts Sold per Farmer by Country and Gender
average (mean) sales volume for 2020 across study countries was 2,431 kg, varying between 
1,469 kg (Ghana) and 4,436 kg (Nigeria). As with sales value, the mean was influenced by a few 
large producers in every country. The median, as a more representative measure, was 1,274 kg, 
so about 60% of the mean, varying from 800 kg (Benin) to 2,880 kg (Nigeria). Nigerian farmers 
had the largest sales volumes, being twice as much as in Burkina Faso, the country where farmers 
sold the second highest amount. Summary statistics for sales volumes are shown in Table 12, 
Figure 17 shows the gender disaggregation. 
Program-Level Totals 
PRO-Cashew works with processing partners who support farmers that supply them improve their 
practices and access to market. In 2020, two of the nine PRO-Cashew partner processors who had 
been signed at the time of this study were working directly with farmers. According to the PRO￾Cashew program office, they directly sourced around 7,200 MT of RCN from farmers, 50% in Côte 
d’Ivoire and 50% in Nigeria, which on the basis of surveyed average production volumes in these 
countries (see Table 5) converts to 1,536 farmers in Côte d’Ivoire and 854 in Nigeria, so 2,391 
farmers in total. 
Using these volume and farmer number figures, we estimated program-level baseline totals for
the USDA Core Indicators. Results are shown in Table 13. They were computed using the surveyed 
production volume per farmer (Table 5), average area under cashew (Table 4), share of land under 
good practices (Table 10), share of farmers applying good practices (Figure 15), and RCN sales 
value and volume (Table 11 and Table 12), respectively. 
However, PRO-Cashew partners currently only source a small share of their RCNs directly from 
farmers. Most of the volume they bought in 2020 was sourced through intermediaries. 
3,086
1,796
2,464 2,287
1,469
4,436
1,528
584
3,051
667
1,620
2,332
3,200
1,834
2,455 2,399
1,436
4,569
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Baseline total Benin Burkina Faso Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria
kg
Amount of Cashew Nuts Sold by Farmers in 2020
Total Female Male
46
Table 13: Program-Level Totals for Core Indicators at Baseline (2020)
Indicator Baseline 
total
Benin Burkina 
Faso 
Côte 
d'Ivoire 
Ghana Nigeria
Yield (MT) 0.377 0.307 0.444 0.400 0.388
Farmers selling directly to PRO-Cashew 
partners
2,391 0 0 1,536 0 854
Total area of cashew grown by farmers 
selling directly (ha)
6,025 0 0 2,081 0 3,944
Area under improved management (ha) 4,627 0 0 1,184 0 3,191
Pruning trees 2,443 0 0 764 0 1,584
Thinning cashew stands 1,346 0 0 510 0 824
Cultivate soil around trees 1,701 0 0 89 0 1,390
Apply org. fertilizer 183 0 0 36 0 146
Apply synth. fertilizer 326 0 0 62 0 271
Create fire breaks 3,681 0 0 539 0 2,735
Pest and disease control 1,243 0 0 447 0 776
No. of farmers applying good practices 1,997 0 0 1,487 0 849
Use grafted seedlings 257 0 0 113 0 106
Pruning trees 1,590 0 0 1,148 0 708
Thinning cashew stands 1,075 0 0 881 0 431
Cultivate soil around trees 743 0 0 226 0 454
Apply fertilizer 253 0 0 149 0 141
Apply org. fertilizer 111 0 0 63 0 58
Apply synth. fertilizer 173 0 0 113 0 98
Create fire breaks 1,395 0 0 755 0 721
Pest and disease control 1,348 0 0 990 0 567
Use jute bags 1,379 0 0 1,387 0 479
Value of cashews purchased from 
farmers selling directly ('000 USD)
4,267 0 0 1,976 0 2,291
Volume purchased from farmers selling 
directly (MT)
7,200 0 0 3,600 0 3,600
Notes: All numbers are based on Raw Cashew Nut volumes sourced by PRO-Cashew partners 
directly from farmers. The totals for ‘Area under improved management’ and ‘No. of farmers 
applying good practices’ count the use of at least one of the improved practices listed underneath.
Considering indirect sourcing, they have a wider footprint: To calculate this wider footprint, we 
used information provided by PRO-Cashew partners to estimate their total RCN sourcing volume,
as shown in Table 14. Program-level totals were then computed using the surveyed production 
volume per farmer (Table 5), average area under cashew (Table 4), share of land under good 
practices (Table 10), share of farmers applying good practices (Figure 15), and RCN sales value and 
volume (Table 11 and Table 12), respectively. Results are shown in Table 15. 
47
Table 14: Total volume of Raw Cashew Nuts Purchased by PRO-Cashew Partners in 2020
Baseline 
total
Benin Burkina 
Faso 
Côte 
d'Ivoire 
Ghana Nigeria
Volume of RCN (MT) 70,806 7,500 4,800 26,109 0 32,397
Table 15: Core Indicators for PRO-Cashew Partners’ Total Raw Cashew Nut Sourcing in 2020
Indicator Baseline 
total
Benin Burkina 
Faso 
Côte 
d'Ivoire 
Ghana Nigeria
Yield (MT) 0.377 0.307 0.444 0.400 0.388
Farmers supplying to PRO-Cashew 
partners
31,395 4,135 2,336 11,940 0 12,985
Total area of cashew grown for PRO￾Cashew partners (ha)
91,469 11,34
5 
4,017 16,170 0 59,937
Area under improved management (ha) 70,239 10,453 2,095 9,199 0 48,492
Pruning trees 37,096 6,116 973 5,940 0 24,066
Thinning cashew stands 20,440 3,324 637 3,963 0 12,516
Cultivate soil around trees 25,828 2,794 1,220 694 0 21,119
Apply org. fertilizer 2,784 202 81 278 0 2,222
Apply synth. fertilizer 4,953 259 104 479 0 4,111
Create fire breaks 55,875 9,111 1,010 4,188 0 41,567
Pest and disease control 18,868 3,152 459 3,473 0 11,785
No. of farmers applying good practices 30,312 4,090 1,760 11,554 0 12,908
Use grafted seedlings 3,895 1,067 341 878 0 1,609
Pruning trees 24,145 3,157 1,305 8,920 0 10,763
Thinning cashew stands 16,319 1,977 944 6,848 0 6,550
Cultivate soil around trees 11,279 1,550 1,078 1,756 0 6,895
Apply fertilizer 3,848 303 241 1,159 0 2,145
Apply org. fertilizer 1,688 169 147 492 0 881
Apply synth. fertilizer 2,625 146 107 878 0 1,494
Create fire breaks 21,184 3,460 904 5,865 0 10,955
Pest and disease control 20,472 2,764 1,399 7,691 0 8,618
Use jute bags 20,929 2,034 837 10,781 0 7,278
Value of cashews bought by PRO-Cashew 
partners ('000 USD)
41,452 3,843 2,661 14,328 0 20,621
Volume purchased by PRO-Cashew 
partners (MT)
70,806 7,500 4,800 26,109 0 32,397
Notes: All numbers are based on information about total Raw Cashew Nutsourcing of PRO-Cashew 
partners, i.e. refer to their entrire supply base in each country, whether boughts directly (as shown 
in Table 13) or indirectly via intermediaries. The totals for ‘Area under improved management’ and 
‘No. of farmers applying good practices’ count the use of at least one of the improved practices 
listed underneath.
48
Disaggregated figures by farm size, gender and age group for the values shown in Table 13 and 
Table 15 are provided in the Appendix to this report. 
Note, that we used the average farm size to calculate the total cashew area and the area under 
improved management, so the same caveat as with yields applies: Because the data on area under 
cashew may not be reliable (see above), the share of area under good management is, too. We 
recommend that PRO-Cashew verify cashew plantation areas through dedicated yield and 
production surveys and, if need be, retrospectively adjust the baseline with the improved data on 
farmers’ cashew area.
PRO-Cashew originally aimed to reach 42,000 farmers by year 5, however has revised this target to 
55,000 farmers in year 5, distributed across the five countries as follows:
Benin 5,000 
Burkina Faso 5,000 
Côte d'Ivoire 25,000 
Ghana 5,000 
Nigeria 15,000
49
5.3 Qualitative Baseline Questions
A total of 234 KIIs and FGDs (82 FGDs and 152 KIIs) were conducted (see Table 16) across the five 
study countries and the FGDs and KIIs span across seven stakeholder groups. There was a total 
of 1,285 participants in the FGDs amongst cashew farmer communities (see Table 17). The 
interviews were semi-structured with open-ended questions, these questions were designed to 
stimulate deeper in-depth insights from the participants/respondents and address the key 
questions outlined in the evaluation framework. There are less FGDs and KIIs in Ghana because 
the cashew industry is not regulated, and the majority of farmers are working on individual basis, 
hence difficulty was faced interviewing organizations. There were also no KIIs conducted for 
Researchers/Academics in Benin, Burkina Faso or Ghana as the timeline of the study made it 
challenging to reach prospective interviewees. In addition, there were no KIIs for government 
organizations or associations for Côte d'Ivoire due to challenges reaching interviewees and 
willingness to participate. This section presents the key insights per stakeholder group and 
baseline question as outlined in Table 16. 
Table 16: FGDs/KIIs per Stakeholder Group
Number of FGDs & KIIs per Stakeholder Group
Country Total
Cashew 
Farmer 
Communities 
(FGDs)
RCN Farmer 
Organizations 
(KIIs)
Extension 
Agents (KIIs)
Agro-food 
Commodity 
Companies 
(KIIs)
Service 
Providers 
(KIIs)
Government/ 
Associations 
(KIIs)
Researchers/ 
Academics 
(KIIs)
Benin 69 30 11 12 6 9 1 0
Burkina Faso 40 14 4 5 8 4 5 0
Côte d'Ivoire 38 11 9 3 9 4 0 2
Ghana 31 12 2 5 5 5 2 0
Nigeria 56 15 10 11 3 10 2 4
Regional 1 1
Total 234 82 36 36 31 33 11 6
Table 17: Number of Participants per FGDs
Number of FGD Participants Amongst the Cashew Farmer Communities 
Country Number of 
FGDs Men Women 
Young People 
(under 25 years old*)
Total Number of 
Participants 
Benin 30 246 64 105 415
Burkina Faso 14 51 24 27 102
Côte d'Ivoire 11 111 35 36 182
Ghana 12 112 55 65 232
Nigeria 15 108 144 102 354
Total 82 628 322 335 1,285
*For Nigeria young people are defined as being less than 35 years old.
50
Farmer Organizations
What are farmer sales to the farmer organization? 
Generally, most of the cashew farmers do not sell their RCNs to the farmer organization they 
belong across the countries except in Burkina Faso and Côte d'Ivoire. The membership strength 
of the farmer organizations ranges between 10 to 45,699 members across the communities in 
the five countries.
What is the baseline capacity of the farmer organizations? 
Across the five countries the farmer organizations use different criteria to select and admit 
members into the organization. The most common admission criteria include being a cashew 
farmer, payment of membership fees, payment of the organization’s dues, reside within the 
region/community where the organization is headquartered, among others. Most of the 
organizations in the countries have written statutes, and they are accessible by members. The 
leaders are mostly elected by members through voting while few are appointed by selection. For 
example, a person might be selected unopposed as chairman or for any other position because 
of their experience in cashew farming. The leaders stay in office for a fixed period which varies 
across the organizations before the next election is conducted. Most of the organizations hold 
annual general meetings mostly to discuss the challenges confronting the organizations and 
proffer solutions as well as to pass important information to the farmers. Beside the annual 
general meeting, most of the organizations meet on a regular basis to discuss other minor issues 
regarding the welfare of organizations and their members.
What services are currently offered?
In most of the communities, the organizations offer their members the following services:
information about cashew prices and volumes, credit facilities, training of members on best 
agricultural and post-harvest practices, bulk purchases of inputs on behalf of the members, 
nursery for cashew seedlings, warehousing, and distribution of inputs, among others. 
What are current services offered by extension agents?
The common services offered by the extension agents to farmers in most of the communities 
across the countries include advice or training of farmers on best agricultural and post-harvest
practices, dissemination of information about cashew prices and volumes, nursery for cashew 
seedlings, and warehousing and distribution of inputs. Further, most of these services are offered
free of charge to the farmers. However, the major challenges confronting the extension agents 
across the countries are poor funding of extension services, poor renumeration, logistics issues, 
limited number of agents, and poor rural road networks.
51
Agro-Food Commodity Companies
What are farmer sales to the agro-food companies? 
Most of the agro-food companies across the five countries buy RCNs from multiple sources such 
as farmers, merchants, LBAs, and field collectors. Most of these companies do not keep track of 
the exact percentage of their total purchase they buy from their respectively sources. Also, where 
the company is a cashew processing company, they process the RCNs they purchased themselves 
from various sources. However, other companies buy RCNs and sell to local cashew processing 
companies and international bulk buyers across USA, Europe, and Asia. 
What is the baseline capacity of the companies/What are current business management 
practices?
Most of the companies, both registered and non-registered, employ full-time and part-time staff 
including men and women. Most of the companies, especially the ones that are into buying and 
selling of RCNs (mostly not registered) do not have written business plans as well as updated 
purchases, sales, and financial records. Some of the companies have accounting departments 
that oversee their purchases, sales, and financial records and make annual tax returns to the 
government, particularly for the registered companies. Also, some of the companies make 
purchases and sales projections on a weekly, monthly, and annually basis. Further, most of the 
companies source their cashew market price information from ACA, N'kalo (mostly by the 
francophone companies), other buyers, and their buyers. 
Cashew Farm Service Providers 
What are current services offered to cashew farmers by service providers? 
Most of the cashew service providers offer services and products across other value chains. 
Specifically, for cashew value chain across the countries, they offer the following services and 
products to cashew farmers: farm rehabilitation, seedlings, technical support for planting, 
pruning, thinning, weeding, chemicals, tractor, tool and equipment hire, among others.
What are current business management practices?
Generally, most of these companies are not registered and majority of them do not keep updated 
sales, purchases, and financial records. Since most of the companies are not registered, they do 
not make annual tax return to the government. Also, most of the companies do not have a 
written business plan or make annual sales/purchase projection. Further, the majority of the 
companies do not run a stock management system, except for some who run manual stock 
management system while only few on the companies run digital system.
52
Government Officials / National Sector Associations/ Researchers / Academics/ Cashew Regional 
Organization
What are current use and sources of data?
Specifically, most of the government officials and national sector associations across the 
countries as well as the regional organization source their data from multiple sources as indicated 
in Table 18. No data were available for Côte d’Ivoire as no interviews were conducted for 
government officials / national sector associations stakeholder group.
The KIIs were conducted with research institutions and universities in Nigeria and Côte d'Ivoire. 
The responsibilities of the research institutions and universities with regards to cashew value 
chains in the two countries include vocational training at university level, research on cashew 
production, designing of Kernel Out-turn Ratio (KOR) calculation, training materials, agronomy of 
crop, land intensification, monitoring and evaluation of cashew projects/programs, innovation in 
cashew production, training of farmers, among others. The institutions identified the following 
as the most pressing needs of the cashew sector across the two countries: adequate funding, 
genetic diversity, breeding programs, adequate research facilities, market linkages, stable price 
regime, etc. The institutions major challenges in the two countries include inadequate funding of 
the institutions, poor research funding, and unsuitable laboratory equipment. 
Further, the regional organization asserted that the following are the major challenges in the 
cashew sector in Africa; weak institutional structures, lack of sector information from the 
governments, poor support from governments in data collection across the countries, difficulty 
accessing the available data in the countries, and poor funding of the sector. The respondent 
believes that the regional organization can contribute to overcoming these challenges by 
collecting up-to-date data on cashew value chain in Africa, collaborating with governments in 
reviewing cashew sector policies, researching on policies implemented in other cashew 
producing countries around the world, and among others.
What are relevant policies making practices? 
Across the countries, there are numerous policies relevant to cashew sector, while some of these 
policies are general across the entire agricultural value chains in the countries, others are specific 
to cashew sector. Respondents in Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Nigeria highlighted the
Table 18: Sources of Cashew Data per Country
Countries Sources of Data
Benin State services (DSA, DDAEP, ATDA), technical and financial partners
Burkina Faso Ministry of Agriculture and Hydraulic Development (MAAH), Consultative International 
Cashew Council (CICC), cashew producers, national unions, Nitidae, COMCASHEW, and ACA. 
Ghana Ghana Harbor Authority, Ghana Export Promotion Authority and Development partners
Nigeria Within the organization (the department of agriculture) and NBS
Regional Organization Own data source
53
Table 19: Relevant Cashew Policies per Country
Countries Cashew Policies
Benin The National Cashew Sector Development Program 2017-2021.
Burkina Faso National strategy for the development of the cashew sector.
Ghana Implementation of Africa Cashew Initiative / Competitive Cashew Initiative by Ministry of Food 
and Agriculture (MOFA).
Nigeria • Policy on the use of jute bags against polythene bags
• Ban on indiscriminate harvesting and control of moisture content.
policies listed in Table 19. However, the regional organization plays the role of advocacy as well 
as helping cashew producing countries in Africa to set up structures in the sector.
54
6 Recommendations for PRO-Cashew 
The PRO-Cashew project is expected to contribute to achieving an increase in agricultural 
productivity, with a focus on increasing the physical productivity of cashew crops; and expanded 
trade of cashew product. Six key activities are defined to achieve the intended results which 
relate to capacity building of farmer organizations and agro-food companies, in-kind grants, 
inputs, integrated data system development, public information campaign and capacity building
for improved policy and regulatory framework. 
The baseline evaluation results highlight the following key potential strengths, weaknesses, 
opportunities and threats to program implementation: 
• Strengths: Across the countries there is a clear need for improvement for replanting,
renovation and rehabilitation (R&R), access to finance and access to inputs. The 
evaluation results validate that these should be key focus areas for PRO-Cashew activities
to achieve the physical productivity of cashew crops and expanded trade. 
• Weaknesses: While there are some clear similarities across the countries, there are 
different structures within which the value chains are organized, as well as different 
challenges in the respective environments. The program activities should be customized 
per country for optimum outcomes. This is especially relevant for the activity areas 
surrounding the public information campaign for improved market information and the 
capacity building to promote improved policy and regulatory frameworks. 
• Opportunities: The program aims to be focused on gender and youth and the evaluation 
highlighted areas for which there are clear opportunities for improvement. For example, 
in many of the countries, cashew is an interesting crop for farmers. However, the youth 
who would like to farm are restrained due to lack of access to land, including also access 
to capital to secure land for farming.
• Threats: Program success is reliant on access to, and the strengthening of partnerships, 
amongst farmer organizations, traders and other stakeholders. The evaluation uncovered 
that in some of the countries, trust amongst partners may be a constraint in efficient and 
effective implementation. 
Further the evaluator has additional specific recommendations for overcoming any threats to 
program implementation and to enhance program monitoring.
Monitoring and Evaluation
A couple areas noted for improvement on the monitoring and evaluation of the program are:
• Engage in yield survey in the same form as other USDA programs and researchers. Such 
as engaging with LIFFT and BeninCaju project teams about their experience to get better 
yield data. Along the same lines, poor productivity and yield data quality is clearly 
regional, especially in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. Training enumerators on the importance 
at a regional level, and build in regional-level checks, would help to manage this. 
55
• In future monitoring and evaluation, construct a model for cost and revenue calculations 
at regional level to better understand cost and value drivers. 
Implementation 
Support farmers in accessing markets directly to minimize the chain of middlemen: The cashew 
farmers often complain about getting low price for their RCNs during harvesting season from 
their buyers. Most of the buyers are village buyers who sell to other buyers and the chain 
continue until the RCNs get to the final destination (processors). In this process, the farmers who 
put in more effort in cashew production are the ones who always get lower value for their RCNs 
compared to other players along the value chain. It will be worthwhile to look into creating a 
stable market linkage between the cashew farmers and processors where possible or further 
strategize on how to reduce the number of middlemen along the value chain. 
Focus on tree planting and tree rejuvenation: The adoption rate of good agricultural practices is 
relatively positive, apart from fertilizer use. However, there is an opportunity gap with respect to 
replacing old trees. 
Improve the quality of cashew inputs for the farmers: Across different FGDs with the cashew 
farmers in the various countries, the farmers complained about lack of quality and affordable 
inputs. It was observed during the FGDs that most of the inputs such as tarpaulins, nylon thread, 
central drying floor, fertilizers, chemicals, among others were not available within their 
communities, and where some of them are available, the prices are too high. Therefore, we 
recommend a tailored approach based on needs assessment at community level and 
prioritization of inputs needed per community.
Encourage the strengthening and formation of cashew farmer organizations: Most of the 
cashew farmers currently do not belong to any cashew farmer organizations and some of the 
existing organizations are not well structured and organized. It might take some time before the 
farmers are organized into farmer organizations or for the existing organizations to work in a way 
that could accomplish most of their set goals. Therefore, it will be worthwhile to form these 
cashew farmers into organizations as well as strengthen the existing ones, these organizations 
will eventually develop into sustainable and strong cashew farmers organizations across the 
communities in the countries.
Capacity building for agro-food commodity companies and cashew farm services providers:
Most of the companies were identified during the interviews to have weak management and 
business practices across the countries except for registered and fully functioning companies 
such as processing companies. Early focus on capacity building for these companies across the 
countries will lead to a sustainable cashew sector that will meet the needs of every players along 
the value chain in the countries.
56
Other opportunities
Gender strategy with focus on women in the cashew value chain across the countries:
Participation of women in the cashew value chain in all five countries is low. A better 
understanding of the underlying reasons and a strategy for addressing them could increase the 
participation of women and would distribute the benefits of any intervention more equitably 
across genders. In developing a gender strategy, it is important to note the different communities 
across the countries where women are allowed and not allowed to own their farmlands and 
cashew trees based on the existing customs and traditions in such communities. Thus, 
understanding the gender differences across the communities should be based on more in-depth 
gender analyses. The communities which permit women’s entitlement to farmlands and cashew 
trees with relatively higher share of women cashew farmers will provide an easier entry-point to 
developing a gender strategy for the project.
Gain a better understanding of young people participation in cashew value chain across the 
countries: The share of young people (below 30 years) among cashew farmers is low. Young 
people are actively involved in different activities along the cashew value chain across the various 
communities in the countries. The young people are more confronted with the issues of lack of 
funds to finance cashew production and poor access to farmlands to cultivate cashew. The issue 
of inaccessibility of lands is mostly due to the land tenure systems practiced in most of the 
communities. Even where the farmlands are available, the money to buy inputs and hire labor to 
start cashew farming by the young people becomes the major challenge. To better understand 
the needs and aspirations of the young people regarding their interest in cashew farming will be 
valuable across the communities.
Creating opportunities for the untapped cashew apple across the countries: Across most of the 
communities in the countries, the cashew apples are often discarded without adding any 
economic value to the farmers’ income. These apples can be processed into juice, jam, or wine 
for commercial purpose or family consumption. This project can identify and support local 
companies across the countries that can produce the apples into a range of products for wider 
market distribution and this will eventually create another stream of income for the cashew 
farmers.
57
7 References
AFDB (2017): Cashew Development Support Project in Comoé Basin for Redd+. 
https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Project-and-Operations/Burkina
_Faso_Approved_Cashew_Dev__Support_Project_in_Como%C3%A9_Basin.pdf
BeninCajù (2016): Baseline Study Results for the Cashew Integration & Acceleration Program.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_5Zatp4jyR9RWSWHHJfGhvUW8cl5hgKU/edit
BeninCajù (2020): Enquête de rendement anacarde dans les zones d’intervention de BeninCajù. 
Rapport Final, Campagne 2020
CABRI (2019): The Role of Governments in Developing Agriculture Value Chains. 
https://www.cabri-sbo.org/uploads/files/Documents/Case-Study-1_Cashew-ENG.pdf
CGAP (2017): National Survey and Segmentation of Smallholder Households in Nigeria. 
Understanding Their Demand for Financial, Agricultural, and Digital Solutions. 
https://www.cgap.org/research/publication/national-survey-and-segmentation￾smallholder-households-nigeria 
CGAP (2017a): National Survey and Segmentation of Smallholder Households in Côte d'Ivoire. 
Understanding Their Demand for Financial, Agricultural, and Digital Solutions. 
https://www.cgap.org/research/publication/national-survey-and-segmentation￾smallholder-households-Côte-divoire 
ComCashew (2019): Country Reports on Promoting Competitiveness of the Cashew Value Chain. 
https://www.comcashew.org/downloads
FAO/Ministère de l’agriculture et du développement rural (2019): Recensement des Exploitants et 
Exploitations Agricoles. Abidjan. 104 pp. http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/CA3111FR/ 
FAOSTAT (2020): Data on Yield, Harvested Area and Production Quantity. 
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC
GHS (2012): Burkina Faso Enquête Démographique et de Santé et à Indicateurs Multiples (EDSBF￾MICS IV) 2010. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR256/FR256.pdf
GHS (2013): Côte d’Ivoire Enquête Démographique et de Santé et à Indicateurs Multiples 2011-
2012. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR272/FR272.pdf
GHS (2015): Ghana Demographic and Health Survey 2014. 
https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR307/FR307.pdf
GHS (2019): Bénin Enquête Démographique et de Santé 2017-2018. 
https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR350/FR350.pdf
LSMS-ISA (2019): LSMS Integrated Surveys on Agriculture - Nigeria General Household Survey￾Panel Wave 4 - 2018/2019. https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/lsms/initiatives/lsms￾ISA#acc34
Nitidae (2019): Analysis of Cashew Production, Processing and Trade in West Africa. 
https://www.nitidae.org/files/41dc7432/wa_cashew_sector_review_2019_nitidae.pdf
58
The Guardian (2019): Economics and Techniques of Modern Cashew Farming. 
https://guardian.ng/features/agro-care/economics-and-techniques-of-modern-cashew-farming/
The National Cashew Association of Nigeria (2016): PowerPoint Slide on Background of the 
Nigerian Cashew Industry. https://slideplayer.com/slide/11886025/
World Bank (2018): Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Loan in the Amount of Eur 163.7 
million (US$200 million equivalent) to the Cotton and Cashew Council with the Guarantee of 
the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire for a Cashew Value-Chain Competitiveness Project. 
http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/132801523584857502/pdf/Project￾Appraisal-Document-P158810-FINAL-Board-03212018.pdf
World Cashew Convention & Exhibition (2019): Conference Proceedings from the 5th Edition of 
the World Cashew Convention & Exhibition Held in Abu Dhabi. 
http://www.cashewconvention.com/wcc2019/presentation/highlights/English/English_WC
CE_Highlights_2019.pdf
59
8 Annex: Questionnaires 
RCN Farmer Communities 
Questions
Questions
Country
Name of community
Place (village, administrative center, area - replace with correct terminology for your country)
GPS coordinates
Name of facilitator
Name of note-taker
Date of FGD
Number of women present
Number of men present
Num. of young people present(<25yrs, both genders)
1. Since when have you been producing cashew? 
2. Please explain the land ownership and tenure for cashew farms
a. Who owns the land? Who owns the trees?
b. Do people have a formal land title, such as a certificate or is their ownership registered in writing 
with the local authorities?
c. If no formal title, how do people assert their rightful use of land and trees? (e.g., what are the 
customary systems of proving ownership and rights)
d. Is it easy to buy or rent extra land for someone who wants to expand their cashew farm?
e. How much does the owner receive for rented land/trees?
3. Let’s talk about inputs for cashew farming. Inputs are things like seeds, seedling, chemicals, nylon 
threads for cutting, tarpaulin for drying, jute bags, etc.
a. Which inputs are available?
b. Which inputs that are not available would people like to use?
c. Are people satisfied with the quality of these inputs?
d. Are people satisfied with the price of these inputs?
4. Let's talk about the roles of women and men in cashew 
a. Do women and men play different roles in cashew?
b. For each activity that is predominantly done by one gender, what keeps the other gender from 
doing them?
c. Looking at the full value chain, from planting, looking after the trees, harvesting, drying, selling, 
to collection and trading - who does what?
d. Do women and men have different rights to own land or trees? If so, explain
e. Is it as easy for women to buy inputs for the cashew farm as it is for men? Inputs are things like 
seeds, seedling, chemicals, tarpaulin for drying, jute bags, etc. Explain any differences
f. Can women and men alike hire waged works to help in the cashew farm? Explain any differences
g. How many men farm cashews in your community? And how many women?
h. How many men are there in your community that people listen to when it comes to cashew 
farming? And how many women?
60
i. Who does most of the hard-physical work in cashew farming, women or men?
j. Who receives the money from selling the cashew nuts, women or men?
5. Finally, let's talk about the opportunities for young people in cashew
a. Is cashew farming interesting for young people? Please explain your answers
b. Looking at the full value chain, from planting, looking after the trees, harvesting, drying, selling,
to collection and trading - are there certain activities that are mainly done by younger people or 
by older people? 
c. For each activity that is predominantly done by one age group, what keeps the other age group 
from doing them?
d. How easy is it for young people to start cashew farming? Please explain any barriers and how they 
might be overcome?
e. How do the rights in land and trees get passed on between the generations? Is land split between 
the children?
f. Would cashew farmers like their children to also become cashew farmers?
g. How attractive is cashew as a cash crop compared to other cash crops people can grow?
61
 
RCN Farmer Organizations 
Questions
Questions
Country
Name of organization
Name of respondent
Position of respondent
Respondent’s phone number
Respondent’s email
Name of facilitator
Name of note-taker
Date of interview
Place (village, administrative center, area - replace with correct terminology for your country)
GPS coordinates
1. When was this organization established?
2. Please could you explain the membership structure of this organization
a. What is the current number of members as of today?
b. How many of the members are women?
c. How many of the members are men?
d. How many of the members are young people (under the age of 25)?
e. Do you have a written membership list? 
Interviewer note: Ask if it is ok to take a copy for sampling
f. In which localities does the organization have members?
g. What are the criteria for a member to be admitted into the organization? Please list them
h. Has the membership grown since 2015? If yes, can you give the range and if no, why?
i. Have any members left the organization since 2015? If yes, how many and what will you 
consider to be the major reason why they left?
3. Let’s talk about services offered by the organization
a. What type of services does the organization offer to its members?
Interviewer note: Ask for any of the following that have not yet been mentioned:
• Bulk purchases of inputs on behalf of its members
• Warehousing and distribution of inputs
• Nursery for cashew seedlings
• Tool and equipment hire to members, e.g. chain saws or knapsack sprayers
• A central drying place for cashew nuts
• Other value addition or processing of RCNs
• Warehousing of members cashew harvest against receipt
• Advice or training to members on best agricultural and post-harvest practices
• Distribute information about cashew prices and volumes
• Credit (if so, from the organization’s own funds or from banks/MFIs?)
62
• Crop insurance
• Payment for cashews with mobile money
• Profit share and cash bonuses
b. Are you satisfied with the range and quality of services you are able to offer your members? 
If not, what would it need to make improvements?
4. Let’s talk about your cashew trade
a. Do your member farmers exclusive sell their RCNs to you? 
b. Of the RCN produced by members, what percentage is not being sold to you? Please explain. 
c. Do you also buy from other sources than your member farmers (e.g. village traders, other 
associations or farmers that don’t belong to your organization?) If so, from who and how 
much?
d. What volume of cashews do you buy roughly from each type of suppliers every year? 
e. Thinking of this year (2020), did you sell more or less than in a typical year? If more or less, 
why?
f. Which months do you have high and low sales in a year?
g. Do you check the quality of the RCNs delivered by your members and suppliers? If so, how? 
Do you train your members in determining the quality of their RCNs?
h. Do you pay members and suppliers different prices for different qualities of RCNs? If so, 
please explain
i. How much do you disburse to members and suppliers for buying RCNs from them in a typical 
year?
5. Let’s talk about the number and type of customers that your organization sells to
a. What volume of cashew nuts do you expect to sell in a typical year?
b. Was the volume you sold this this year (2020) higher or lower than expected? What were the 
reasons for any deviations? 
c. Briefly describe who your cashew buyers are. Are there different types of buyers and how do 
they differ? 
d. How many buyers of each type do you have?
e. What share (percentage) of the total trade volume do you sell to each of these types of 
buyers?
f. How much did you sell to the PRO-Cashew processor partner this year (2020)? (for 
organization in PRO-Cashew supply chains only)
g. Do you know how the different buyers rate cashew quality? 
h. Can you influence the quality of the cashew nuts you trade? If so, how?
i. What prices do you get paid for different qualities?
6. Finally, let’s talk about the management structure
a. Do you have written statutes? If so, are the accessible to the members?
b. Is the leadership elected or appointed? By whom and for how long? 
c. Is there an annual general meeting? How often do the organization’s member or its 
committees meet outside the general meeting to discuss matters concerning the 
organization?
d. Do you record your purchases and sales? If so, can you show us an example? 
Interviewer note: Describe records in terms of detail (what information is recorded with each 
63
sale and purchase), medium (paper, hand-written, computer, …), and apparent neatness. Ask 
if you may take a picture and upload
e. Can you describe your financial record keeping? Is your organization required to keep books 
and make an annual tax return? 
f. Do you make an annual plan (projection) of weekly or monthly sales and purchases? If so, can 
we see a copy of a previous year? Interviewer note: try to understand the level of commercial 
planning in the organization: are there detailed monthly/weekly purchases, sales and stocks? 
cash flow calculation? profit projections?
g. How do you obtain information about cashew market prices? How reliable do you find these 
sources? Are you satisfied with Do you use any formal information services?
 
Extension Agents
Questions
Questions
Country
Name of organization
Name of respondent
Position of respondent
Respondent’s phone number
Respondent’s email
Name of facilitator
Name of note-taker
Date of interview
Place (village, administrative center, area - replace with correct terminology for your country)
GPS coordinates
1. Which organization do you work for?
a. When did you join the organization?
b. Let’s talk about the services offer by your organization
c. What type of services does your organization offer to its farmers?
Interviewer note: Ask for any of the following that have not yet been mentioned:
• Warehousing and distribution of inputs
• Nursery for cashew seedlings
• Tool and equipment hire, e.g. chain saws or knapsack sprayers
• Central drying for cashew nuts
• Value addition or processing of RCNs
• Warehousing of farmers’ cashew harvest against receipt
• Advice or training to members on best agricultural and post-harvest practices
• Distribute information about cashew prices and volumes
• Credit (if so, from the organization’s own funds or from banks/MFIs?)
• Crop insurance
• Payment for cashews with mobile money
64
c. Are farmers satisfied with these services offered?
d. Are the services offered for free or they are paid for by the farmers?
2. Let’s talk about the number of farmers served
a. What is the estimated number of farmers served across the state by your organization?
b. Will you say all the farmers in the state are adequately covered and served?
c. Which area in the region/state has the highest number of farmers?
d. Specifically, have you work with RCN farmers before in your line of duties?
e. From general knowledge, will you say that RCN farmers are well covered and served in the 
state?
3. Finally, let’s talk about the key challenges of extension officers in your state
a. What will you consider the major challenges of an extension officer in your state? Please list
b. How do you think these challenges can be reduced or eliminated? 
 
Agro-Food Commodity Companies 
Questions
Questions
Country
Name of organization
Name of respondent
Position of respondent
Respondent’s phone number
Respondent’s email
Name of facilitator
Name of note-taker
Date of interview
Place (village, administrative center, area - replace with correct terminology for your country)
GPS coordinates
1. First, I’d like to know more about your business? 
a. What is the legal form? When was this organization established?
b. How would you classify your company? 
1) Field side collector (sous-pisteur) 
2) Village buying agents (pisteur)
3) Local Buyers Association (LBA)(Organisation de producteurs / cooperative)
4) Merchants (warehouse operators) (Commerçant)
5) PRO-Cashew processor partner (Unité de transformation partenaire PRO-Cashew) 
6) Other (specify)
c. Please describe briefly your business model. Except for cashew trading, do you have any 
other lines of business? If so, roughly how much of your business is cashew?
d. Tell us about your staff: How many people do you employ? How many are men and women? 
How men and women are full-time and part-time? How many men and women are skilled 
and unskilled? How many people under 25 years do you employ?
2. Let’s talk about trade data in your company: volume and value of purchase
65
a. On the average what is your monthly and yearly volume of RCN purchased?
b. Has your purchase volume increased or decreased over the past year? If yes, by how much 
and why?
c. Can you estimate which share of the total cashews production in your area of operation you 
buy every year? 
d. Please describe who your suppliers are. Do you buy for different types of suppliers? Do you 
buy any RCNs directly from farmers?
e. What volume of cashews do you buy roughly from each type of suppliers every year? 
f. Do you check the quality of the RCNs delivered by your members and suppliers? If so, how? 
Do you train your suppliers in determining the quality of their RCNs?
g. Do you pay suppliers different prices for different qualities of RCNs? If so, please explain
h. How much do you spend on buying RCNs in a typical year?
7. Let’s talk about the number and type of customers that your organization sells to
a. What volume of cashew nuts do you expect to sell in a typical year?
b. Was the volume you sold this this year (2020) higher or lower than expected? What were the 
reasons for any deviations? 
c. Briefly describe who your cashew buyers are. Are there different types of buyers and how do 
they differ? 
d. How many buyers of each type do you have?
e. What share (percentage) of the total trade volume do you sell to each of these types of 
buyers?
f. How much did you sell to the PRO-Cashew processor partner this year (2020)? (for 
organization supplying PRO-Cashew processor partners)
g. Do you know how the different buyers rate cashew quality? 
h. Can you influence the quality of the cashew nuts you trade? If so, how?
i. What prices do you get paid for different qualities?
3. Let’s talk about services offering
a. Does your offers any kind of services to the RCN farmers and cooperatives? If yes, do they 
pay for it or it’s free?
b. What type of services does your company offer to RCN farmers and cooperatives? Please list 
them 
Interviewer note: Ask for any of the following that have not yet been mentioned:
• Warehousing and distribution of inputs
• Nursery for cashew seedlings
• Tool and equipment hire, e.g. chain saws or knapsack sprayers
• Central drying for cashew nuts
• Value addition or processing of RCNs
• Warehousing of farmers’ cashew harvest against receipt
• Advice or training to members on best agricultural and post-harvest practices
• Distribute information about cashew prices and volumes
• Credit (if so, from the organization’s own funds or from banks/MFIs?)
• Crop insurance
• Payment for cashews with mobile money
c. Why does your company offer this type of services to the RCN farmers and cooperatives?
66
4. Finally, let’s talk about your company’s managerial capacity
a. Do you have a written business or annual plan?
b. Do you record your purchases and sales? If so, can you show us an example? 
Interviewer note: Describe records in terms of detail (what information is recorded with each 
sale and purchase), medium (paper, hand-written, computer, …), and apparent neatness. Ask 
if you may take a picture and upload
c. Can you describe your financial record keeping? Is your organization required to keep books 
and make an annual tax return? 
d. Do you make an annual plan (projection) of weekly or monthly sales and purchases? If so, can 
we see a copy of a previous year? Interviewer note: try to understand the level of commercial 
planning in the organization: are there detailed monthly/weekly purchases, sales and stocks? 
cash flow calculation? profit projections?
e. Does your company run a stock management system? If yes, is it digital, manual or both?
f. How do you obtain information about cashew market prices? How reliable do you find these 
sources? Are you satisfied with Do you use any formal information services?
67
Service Providers 
Questions
Questions
Country
Name of organization
Name of respondent
Position of respondent
Respondent’s phone number
Respondent’s email
Name of facilitator
Name of note-taker
Date of interview
Place (village, administrative center, area - replace with correct terminology for your country)
GPS coordinates
1. First, I’d like to know more about your business? 
a. What is the legal form? When was this organization established?
b. Please describe briefly your business model. Except for cashew trading, do you have any other 
lines of business? If so, roughly how much of your business is cashew?
c. Tell us about your staff: How many people do you employ? How many are men and women? 
How men and women are full-time and part-time? How many men and women are skilled and 
unskilled? How many people under 25 years do you employ?
d. How can we classify your organization? 
i. Cashew seedling nursery
ii. Local input trader
iii. Tractor, tool and equipment hire (may include operators of hired tools) 
iv. Agronomy advisory 
v. Financial institutions
2. Let’s talk about the products and services do you offer to RCN farmers and cooperatives
a. What type of products and services are currently being offered by your company to RCN 
farmers and cooperatives? Please list them
Interviewer note: Ask for any of the following that have not yet been mentioned:
• Warehousing and distribution of inputs
• Nursery for cashew seedlings
• Tool and equipment hire, e.g. chain saws or knapsack sprayers
• Central drying for cashew nuts
• Value addition or processing of RCNs
• Warehousing of farmers’ cashew harvest against receipt
• Advice or training to members on best agricultural and post-harvest practices
• Distribute information about cashew prices and volumes
• Credit (if so, from the organization’s own funds or from banks/MFIs?)
• Crop insurance
• Payment for cashews with mobile money
68
b. Thinking of your companies and others who offer the same products and services, do you think 
RCN farmers and cooperatives are satisfied with the overall offer available to them?
c. Please briefly describe the different types of customers you serve, and which products and 
services different types of customers demand most
d. How many customers of each type do you serve in total? How many do you serve per day? 
e. How many of these customers are RCN farmers and cooperatives?
f. Was the volume you sold this this year (2020) higher or lower than expected? What were the 
reasons for any deviations? 
3. Finally, let’s talk about your company’s Management structures
a. Do you have a written business or annual plan?
b. Do you record your purchases and sales? If so, can you show us an example? 
Interviewer note: Describe records in terms of detail (what information is recorded with each 
sale and purchase), medium (paper, hand-written, computer, …), and apparent neatness. Ask if 
you may take a picture and upload
c. Can you describe your financial record keeping? Is your organization required to keep books 
and make an annual tax return? 
d. Do you make an annual plan (projection) of weekly or monthly sales and purchases? If so, can 
we see a copy of a previous year? Interviewer note: try to understand the level of commercial 
planning in the organization: are there detailed monthly/weekly purchases, sales and stocks? 
cash flow calculation? profit projections?
e. Does your company run a stock management system? If yes, is it digital, manual or both?
f. How do you obtain market information (prices, demand, competitor information etc.)? How 
reliable do you find these sources? Are you satisfied with Do you use any formal information 
services?
69
Government Officials and National Sector Associations 
Questions
Questions
Country
Name of organization
Name of respondent
Position of respondent
Respondent’s phone number
Respondent’s email
Name of facilitator
Name of note-taker
Date of interview
Place (village, administrative center, area - replace with correct terminology for your country)
GPS coordinates
1. When was this organization established?
2. How can we classify your organization? 
I. Ministry 
II. Local agriculture authority
III. National association
3. How would you describe your organization’s role in the cashew sector?
a. How would you describe your organization’s capabilities and capacities to fulfil this role to the 
satisfaction of the various stakeholders in the cashew sector?
4. Let’s talk about sources of information and data
a. From where does your organization source information and data about the cashew sector? 
Does it do its own data gathering or rely on others? 
b. Is there a particular department responsible for information and data sourcing?
c. How do they ensure the quality of information and data collected?
5. Let’s talk about the regulatory process of members (national cashew association only)
a. Does the organization regulate the activities of its members nationwide? How? Please list 
them
b. How many members does your organization have? 
c. What are the criteria for a member to be admitted into the organization? 
d. Will you say the membership strength has grown since 2015? If yes, can you give the range 
and if no, why?
6. Let’s talk about policy making practices across the cashew value chain in the country
a. Which bodies and authorities in [COUNTRY] are concerned with the cashew sector? Is there 
anybody that is especially dedicated to cashews?
b. Which ministries and agencies make laws and regulations that concern the cashew sector?
c. How would you describe the coordination and alignment between all those entities you 
mentioned before?
d. What are relevant policies that have been introduced in the cashew sector in the past 5 years? 
Please list them, with the date. What was your organization’s role in each case? 
70
e. Have these policies benefitted farmers? How have different types of farmers, from the least 
developed to commercial, benefitted from these policies? 
f. Are there new policies that are expected to be introduced in the coming 1-3 years that may 
influence the cashew industry? 
7. Finally, let’s talk about challenges and opportunities
a. What are, in your view, the key challenges for the cashew sector in [COUNTRY]?
b. How can your organization contribute to overcoming them?
c. What will you consider to be the major challenges within your organization? Please list them
d. How do you think these challenges can be overcome? 
e. Are there any opportunities for the cashew sector you would like to highlight?
Researchers and Academics 
Questions
Questions
Country
Name of institution
Name of respondent
Position of respondent
Respondent’s phone number
Respondent’s email
Name of facilitator
Name of note-taker
Date of interview
Place (village, administrative center, area - replace with correct terminology for your country)
GPS coordinates
1. Let’s first talk about your and other organizations in [COUNTRY] that are relevant for cashew 
research, development, innovation, and training
a. When was your institution established?
b. What is your institution’s remit with regards to cashew research, development, innovation, and 
training?
c. Are there other organizations playing important roles in [COUNTRY] in the area of cashew 
research, development, innovation, and training? Is there any one organization with a specific 
mandate for cashew research, development, innovation, and training?
d. How is cashew research, development, innovation, and training in [COUNTRY] funded (in 
general and in for your institution in particular)? Do you believe the funding is sufficient for the 
different organizations to fulfil their roles in cashew research, development, innovation, and 
training to the satisfaction of the stakeholders in the cashew sector?
2. Let’s talk about cashew research, development, innovation, and training across the cashew value 
chain in [COUNTRY] 
a. What do you consider the most pressing cashew research, development, innovation, and 
training needs?
b. Which research, development, innovation, and training programs exits that meet these needs?
71
c. Is there a national cashew breeding program? If so, briefly describe its work and its 
effectiveness
d. Is there research on climate change adaptation and mitigation that is relevant to the cashew 
sector?
e. Sometimes, research institutions get involved in providing services to farmers. Is that the case 
for any research institutions in [COUNTRY]? If so, which service do they get involved in? 
Interviewer note: Ask for any of the following that have not yet been mentioned:
• Warehousing and distribution of inputs
• Nursery for cashew seedlings
• Tool and equipment hire, e.g. chain saws or knapsack sprayers
• Central drying for cashew nuts
• Value addition or processing of RCNs
• Warehousing of farmers’ cashew harvest against receipt
• Advice or training to members on best agricultural and post-harvest practices
• Distribute information about cashew prices and volumes
• Credit (if so, from the organization’s own funds or from banks/MFIs?)
• Crop insurance
• Payment for cashews with mobile money
72
9 Annex: PRO- Cashew Performance Indicators – 
Baseline Values (disaggregated)
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
FFPr 
Standard 
(1) 
MT/ha Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program participants 
with USDA assistance (MT/ha)i
FFPr 
Standard 
(1) - 
Benin
MT/ha Country: Benin (Total) 0.377
Benin: Smallholder (Total) N/A
Benin Smallholder: Male N/A
Benin Smallholder: Female N/A
Benin Smallholder: Age 15-29 N/A
Benin Smallholder: Age 30+ N/A
Benin Non-Smallholder N/A
Benin Non-Smallholder: Male N/A
Benin Non-Smallholder: Female N/A
Benin Non-Smallholder: Age 15-29 N/A
Benin Non-Smallholder: Age 30+ N/A
FFPr 
Standard 
(1) – 
Burkina 
Faso
MT/ha Country: Burkina Faso (Total) 0.307
Burkina Faso: Smallholder (Total) N/A
Burkina Faso Smallholder: Male N/A
Burkina Faso Smallholder: Female N/A
Burkina Faso Smallholder: Age 15-29 N/A
Burkina Faso Smallholder: Age 30+ N/A
Burkina Faso Non-Smallholder N/A
Burkina Faso Non-Smallholder: Male N/A
Burkina Faso Non-Smallholder: Female N/A
Burkina Faso Non-Smallholder: Age 15-29 N/A
Burkina Faso Non-Smallholder: Age 30+ N/A
FFPr 
Standard 
(1) – 
Cote 
d’Ivoire 
MT/ha Country: Cote d’Ivoire (Total) 0.444
Cote d’Ivoire: Smallholder N/A
Cote d’Ivoire Smallholder: Male N/A
Cote d’Ivoire Smallholder: Female N/A
Cote d’Ivoire Smallholder: Age 15-29 N/A
Cote d’Ivoire Smallholder: Age 30+ N/A
Cote d’Ivoire Non-Smallholder N/A
Cote d’Ivoire Non-Smallholder: Male N/A
Cote d’Ivoire Non-Smallholder: Female N/A
73
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Cote d’Ivoire Non-Smallholder: Age 15-29 N/A
Cote d’Ivoire Non-Smallholder: Age 30+ N/A
FFPr 
Standard 
(1) – 
Ghana
MT/ha Country: Ghana (Total) 0.400
Ghana: Smallholder (Total) N/A
Ghana Smallholder: Male N/A
Ghana Smallholder: Female N/A
Ghana Smallholder: Age 15-29 N/A
Ghana Smallholder: Age 30+ N/A
Ghana Non-Smallholder N/A
Ghana Non-Smallholder: Male N/A
Ghana Non-Smallholder: Female N/A
Ghana Non-Smallholder: Age 15-29 N/A
Ghana Non-Smallholder: Age 30+ N/A
FFPr 
Standard 
(1) – 
Nigeria 
MT/ha Country: Nigeria (Total) 0.388
Nigeria: Smallholder (Total) N/A
Nigeria Smallholder: Male N/A
Nigeria Smallholder: Female N/A
Nigeria Smallholder: Age 15-29 N/A
Nigeria Smallholder: Age 30+ N/A
Nigeria Non-Smallholder N/A
Nigeria Non-Smallholder: Male N/A
Nigeria Non-Smallholder: Female N/A
Nigeria Non-Smallholder: Age 15-29 N/A
Nigeria Non-Smallholder: Age 30+ N/A
FFPr 
Standard 
(18)
USD Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance (USD)ii
FFPr 
Standard 
(18) – 
Benin
USD Country: Benin (Total) 0
Agricultural Commodities – Cashews (Total) 0
Producers Smallholder 0
Producers Smallholder - Male 0
Producers Smallholder – Female 0
Producers Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 15-29 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 30+ 0
Producers Smallholder – Age N/A 0
Producers Non- Smallholder 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Male 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Female 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
74
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Producers Non-Smallholder - Age 15-29 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age 30+ 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age N/A 0
Firm – microenterprise
Firm – microenterprise – Male
Firm – microenterprise – Female
Firm – microenterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm – microenterprise – Age 15-29
Firm – microenterprise – Age 30+
Firm – microenterprise – Age N/A
Firm - Small and medium enterprise
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Male
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Female
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 15-29
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 30+
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Age N/A
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation.
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Male
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Female
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Mixed Gender
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation - Age 15-29
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation - Age 30+
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Age N/A
FFPr 
Standard 
(18) – 
Burkina 
Faso
USD Country: Burkina Faso (Total) 0
Agricultural Commodities – Cashews (Total) 0
Producers Smallholder 0
Producers Smallholder - Male 0
Producers Smallholder – Female 0
Producers Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 15-29 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 30+ 0
Producers Smallholder – Age N/A 0
Producers Non- Smallholder 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Male 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Female 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Non-Smallholder - Age 15-29 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age 30+ 0
75
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age N/A 0
Firm – microenterprise
Firm – microenterprise – Male
Firm – microenterprise – Female
Firm – microenterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm – microenterprise – Age 15-29
Firm – microenterprise – Age 30+
Firm – microenterprise – Age N/A
Firm - Small and medium enterprise
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Male
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Female
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 15-29
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 30+
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Age N/A
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation.
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Male
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Female
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Mixed Gender
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation -Age 15-29
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation - Age 30+
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Age N/A
FFPr 
Standard 
(18) – 
Cote 
d’Ivoire 
USD Country: Cote d’Ivoire (Total) 1,975,549
Agricultural Commodities – Cashews (Total) 1,975,549
Producers Smallholder 467,771
Producers Smallholder - Male 435,378
Producers Smallholder – Female 32,393
Producers Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 15-29 9,147
Producers Smallholder - Age 30+ 430,543
Producers Smallholder – Age N/A 28,081
Producers Non- Smallholder 1,507,777
Producers Non-Smallholder – Male 1,500,634
Producers Non-Smallholder – Female 7,143
Producers Non-Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Non-Smallholder - Age 15-29 10,703
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age 30+ 1,456,035
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age N/A 41,040
Firm – microenterprise
76
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Firm – microenterprise – Male
Firm – microenterprise – Female
Firm – microenterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm – microenterprise – Age 15-29
Firm – microenterprise – Age 30+
Firm – microenterprise – Age N/A
Firm - Small and medium enterprise
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Male
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Female
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 15-29
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 30+
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Age N/A
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation.
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Male
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Female
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Mixed Gender
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation -Age 15-29
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation - Age 30+
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Age N/A
FFPr 
Standard 
(18) – 
Ghana
USD Country: Ghana (Total) 0
Agricultural Commodities – Cashews (Total) 0
Producers Smallholder 0
Producers Smallholder - Male 0
Producers Smallholder – Female 0
Producers Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 15-29 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 30+ 0
Producers Smallholder – Age N/A 0
Producers Non- Smallholder 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Male 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Female 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Non-Smallholder - Age 15-29 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age 30+ 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age N/A 0
Firm – microenterprise
Firm – microenterprise – Male
Firm – microenterprise – Female
77
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Firm – microenterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm – microenterprise – Age 15-29
Firm – microenterprise – Age 30+
Firm – microenterprise – Age N/A
Firm - Small and medium enterprise
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Male
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Female
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 15-29
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 30+
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Age N/A
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation.
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Male
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Female
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Mixed Gender
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation -Age 15-29
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation - Age 30+
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Age N/A
FFPr 
Standard 
(18) – 
Nigeria 
USD Country: Nigeria (Total) 2,291,391
Agricultural Commodities – Cashews (Total) 2,291,391
Producers Smallholder 874,019
Producers Smallholder - Male 827,367
Producers Smallholder – Female 46,652
Producers Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 15-29 165,425
Producers Smallholder - Age 30+ 699,183
Producers Smallholder – Age N/A 9,411
Producers Non- Smallholder 1,417,373
Producers Non-Smallholder – Male 1,392,079
Producers Non-Smallholder – Female 25,294
Producers Non-Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Non-Smallholder - Age 15-29 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age 30+ 1,372,598
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age N/A 44,775
Firm – microenterprise
Firm – microenterprise – Male
Firm – microenterprise – Female
Firm – microenterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm – microenterprise – Age 15-29
78
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Firm – microenterprise – Age 30+
Firm – microenterprise – Age N/A
Firm - Small and medium enterprise
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Male
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Female
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 15-29
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 30+
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Age N/A
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation.
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Male
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Female
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Mixed Gender
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation -Age 15-29
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation - Age 30+
Firm- Large enterprise or corporation – Age N/A
FFPr 
Standard 
(19)
MT Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA 
assistance (MT) iii
FFPr 
Standard 
(19) – 
Benin
MT Country: Benin (Total) 0
Agricultural Commodities – Cashews (Total) 0
Producers Smallholder 0
Producers Smallholder - Male 0
Producers Smallholder – Female 0
Producers Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 15-29 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 30+ 0
Producers Smallholder – Age N/A 0
Producers Non- Smallholder 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Male 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Female 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Non-Smallholder - Age 15-29 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age 30+ 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age N/A 0
Firm – microenterprise
Firm – microenterprise – Male
Firm – microenterprise – Female
Firm – microenterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm – microenterprise – Age 15-29
79
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Firm – microenterprise – Age 30+
Firm – microenterprise – Age N/A
Firm - Small and medium enterprise
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Male
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Female
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 15-29
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 30+
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Age N/A
FFPr 
Standard 
(19) – 
Burkina 
Faso
MT Country: Burkina Faso (Total) 0
Agricultural Commodities – Cashews (Total) 0
Producers Smallholder 0
Producers Smallholder - Male 0
Producers Smallholder – Female 0
Producers Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 15-29 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 30+ 0
Producers Smallholder – Age N/A 0
Producers Non- Smallholder 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Male 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Female 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Non-Smallholder - Age 15-29 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age 30+ 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age N/A 0
Firm – microenterprise
Firm – microenterprise – Male
Firm – microenterprise – Female
Firm – microenterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm – microenterprise – Age 15-29
Firm – microenterprise – Age 30+
Firm – microenterprise – Age N/A
Firm - Small and medium enterprise
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Male
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Female
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm - Small and medium enterprise -Age 15-29
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 30+
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Age N/A
80
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
FFPr 
Standard 
(19) – 
Cote 
d’Ivoire 
MT Country: Cote d’Ivoire (Total) 3,600
Agricultural Commodities – Cashews (Total) 3,600
Producers Smallholder 896
Producers Smallholder - Male 839
Producers Smallholder – Female 57
Producers Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 15-29 19
Producers Smallholder - Age 30+ 831
Producers Smallholder – Age N/A 46
Producers Non- Smallholder 2,704
Producers Non-Smallholder – Male 2,693
Producers Non-Smallholder – Female 11
Producers Non-Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Non-Smallholder - Age 15-29 29
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age 30+ 2,600
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age N/A 75
Firm – microenterprise
Firm – microenterprise – Male
Firm – microenterprise – Female
Firm – microenterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm – microenterprise – Age 15-29
Firm – microenterprise – Age 30+
Firm – microenterprise – Age N/A
Firm - Small and medium enterprise
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Male
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Female
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 15-29
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 30+
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Age N/A
FFPr 
Standard 
(19) – 
Ghana
MT Country: Ghana (Total) 0
Agricultural Commodities – Cashews (Total) 0
Producers Smallholder 0
Producers Smallholder - Male 0
Producers Smallholder – Female 0
Producers Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 15-29 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 30+ 0
Producers Smallholder – Age N/A 0
Producers Non- Smallholder 0
81
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Producers Non-Smallholder – Male 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Female 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Non-Smallholder - Age 15-29 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age 30+ 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age N/A 0
Firm – microenterprise
Firm – microenterprise – Male
Firm – microenterprise – Female
Firm – microenterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm – microenterprise – Age 15-29
Firm – microenterprise – Age 30+
Firm – microenterprise – Age N/A
Firm - Small and medium enterprise
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Male
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Female
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 15-29
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 30+
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Age N/A
FFPr 
Standard 
(19) – 
Nigeria 
MT Country: Nigeria (Total) 3,600
Agricultural Commodities – Cashews (Total) 3,600
Producers Smallholder 1,460
Producers Smallholder - Male 1,379
Producers Smallholder – Female 81
Producers Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Smallholder - Age 15-29 308
Producers Smallholder - Age 30+ 1,140
Producers Smallholder – Age N/A 12
Producers Non- Smallholder 2,140
Producers Non-Smallholder – Male 2,108
Producers Non-Smallholder – Female 32
Producers Non-Smallholder – Mixed Gender 0
Producers Non-Smallholder - Age 15-29 0
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age 30+ 2,030
Producers Non-Smallholder – Age N/A 110
Firm – microenterprise
Firm – microenterprise – Male
Firm – microenterprise – Female
82
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Firm – microenterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm – microenterprise – Age 15-29
Firm – microenterprise – Age 30+
Firm – microenterprise – Age N/A
Firm - Small and medium enterprise
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Male
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Female
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Mixed Gender
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 15-29
Firm - Small and medium enterprise - Age 30+
Firm - Small and medium enterprise – Age N/A
FFPr 
Standard 
(2) 
Ha Number of hectares under improved management practices or 
technologies that promote improved climate risk reduction and/or 
natural resources management with USDA assistanceiv
#
Ha Country: Benin 0
Country: Burkina Faso 0
Country: Cote d’Ivoire 1,184
Country: Ghana 0
Country: Nigeria 3,191
FFPr 
Standard 
(4) 
Number Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied 
improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistancev
FFPr 
Standard 
(4) – 
Benin
Number Country: Benin 0
Smallholder Producer 0
 Male 0
Female 0
Age 15-29 0
Age 30+ 0
Age N/A 0
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics - Use of 
grafted seedlings
0
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices -
Thinning of cashew stands
0
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management - Create fire breaks
0
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management - pest and disease control
0
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation - Apply fertilizer
0
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation 0
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation not measured
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
not measured
83
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage - Use jute bags
0
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Other not measured
Non-Smallholder Producer 0
 Male 0
Female 0
Age 15-29 0
Age 30+ 0
Age N/A 0
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics - Use of 
grafted seedlings
0
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices -
Thinning of cashew stands
0
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management - Create fire breaks
0
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management - pest and disease control
0
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation - Apply fertilizer
0
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation N/A
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation not measured
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage - Use jute bags
0
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Other not measured
People in private sector firms
 Male 
Female
Age 15-29
Age 30+
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation
84
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
Management practice/tech type: Other
FFPr 
Standard 
(4) – 
Burkina 
Faso 
Number Country: Burkina Faso 0
Smallholder Producer 0
 Male 0
Female 0
Age 15-29 0
Age 30+ 0
Age N/A 0
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics - Use of 
grafted seedlings
0
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices -
Thinning of cashew stands
0
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management - Create fire breaks
0
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management - pest and disease control
0
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation - Apply fertilizer
0
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation 0
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation not measured
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage - Use jute bags
0
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Other not measured
Non-Smallholder Producer 0
 Male 0
Female 0
Age 15-29 0
Age 30+ 0
Age N/A 0
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics - Use of 
grafted seedlings
0
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices -
Thinning of cashew stands
0
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management - Create fire breaks
0
85
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management - pest and disease control
0
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation - Apply fertilizer
0
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation N/A
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation not measured
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage - Use jute bags
0
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Other not measured
People in private sector firms
 Male 
Female
Age 15-29
Age 30+
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics #
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices #
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management
#
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management
#
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation
#
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation #
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation #
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
#
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage
#
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
#
Management practice/tech type: Other #
FFPr 
Standard 
(4) – 
Cote 
d’Ivoire 
Number Country: Cote d’Ivoire 1,487
Smallholder Producer 678
 Male 569
Female 108
Age 15-29 32
Age 30+ 587
Age N/A 129
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics - Use of 
grafted seedlings
32
86
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices -
Thinning of cashew stands
429
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management - Create fire breaks
357
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management - pest and disease control
452
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation - Apply fertilizer
63
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation 0
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation not measured
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage - Use jute bags
610
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Other not measured
Non-Smallholder Producer 809
 Male 795
Female 14
Age 15-29 14
Age 30+ 732
Age N/A 63
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics - Use of 
grafted seedlings
81
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices -
Thinning of cashew stands
452
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management - Create fire breaks
398
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management - pest and disease control
538
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation - Apply fertilizer
86
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation N/A
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation not measured
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage - Use jute bags
777
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Other not measured
People in private sector firms
 Male 
Female
87
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Age 15-29
Age 30+
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
Management practice/tech type: Other
FFPr 
Standard 
(4) – 
Ghana 
Number Country: Ghana 0
Smallholder Producer 0
 Male 0
Female 0
Age 15-29 0
Age 30+ 0
Age N/A 0
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics - Use of 
grafted seedlings
0
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices -
Thinning of cashew stands
0
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management - Create fire breaks
0
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management - pest and disease control
0
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation - Apply fertilizer
0
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation 0
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation not measured
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage - Use jute bags
0
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Other not measured
88
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Non-Smallholder Producer 0
 Male 0
Female 0
Age 15-29 0
Age 30+ 0
Age N/A 0
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics - Use of 
grafted seedlings
0
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices -
Thinning of cashew stands
0
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management - Create fire breaks
0
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management - pest and disease control
0
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation - Apply fertilizer
0
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation N/A
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation not measured
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage - Use jute bags
0
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Other not measured
People in private sector firms
 Male 
Female
Age 15-29
Age 30+
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics - Use of 
grafted seedlings
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices -
Thinning of cashew stands
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management - Create fire breaks
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management - pest and disease control
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation - Apply fertilizer
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
89
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage - Use jute bags
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
Management practice/tech type: Other
FFPr 
Standard 
(4) - 
Nigeria 
Number Country: Nigeria 849
Smallholder Producer 519
 Male 469
Female 50
Age 15-29 13
Age 30+ 494
Age N/A 21
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics - Use of 
grafted seedlings
71
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices -
Thinning of cashew stands
250
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management - Create fire breaks
429
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management - pest and disease control
383
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation - Apply fertilizer
73
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation 0
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation not measured
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage - Use jute bags
262
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Other not measured
Non-Smallholder Producer 330
 Male 325
Female 5
Age 15-29 5
Age 30+ 310
Age N/A 15
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics - Use of 
grafted seedlings
35
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices -
Thinning of cashew stands
181
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management - Create fire breaks
292
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management - pest and disease control
184
90
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation - Apply fertilizer
68
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation N/A
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation not measured
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage - Use jute bags
217
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
not measured
Management practice/tech type: Other not measured
People in private sector firms
 Male 
Female
Age 15-29
Age 30+
Management practice/tech type: Crop genetics
Management practice/tech type: Cultural practices
Management practice/tech type: Natural 
Resource/ecosystem management
Management practice/tech type: Pest and disease 
management
Management practice/tech type: Soil related fertility 
and conservation
Management practice/tech type: Irrigation
Management practice/tech type: Climate mitigation
Management practice/tech type: Climate 
adaptation/climate risk management
Management practice/tech type: Post harvest handling 
and storage
Management practice/tech type: Value added 
processing
Management practice/tech type: Other
FFPr 
Standard 
(22)
Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs 0
FFPr 
Standard 
(23)
Number of individuals benefiting indirectly as a result of USDA assistance 0
CBLD-9 Percent of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance 0
Custom Number of improved seedlings sold, and polyclonal seeds distributed by 
nurseries and seedling distributors receiving USDA assistance
0
FFPr 
Standard 
(9) 
Number of technologies, practices, and approaches under various phases 
of research, development, and uptake as a result of USDA assistance
0
91
Number Unit Performance Indicator Title Baseline Value
Custom Number of organizations with increased farm management knowledge 
with USDA assistance
0
FFPr 
Standard 
(13)
Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance 
0
FFPr 
Standard 
(14)
Value of new USG commitments and new public and private sector 
investment leveraged by USDA to support food security and nutrition 
(USG) 
0
Custom Number of US companies increasing purchases of cashews as a result of 
USDA assistance.
0
FFPr 
Standard 
(16)
Total increase in installed storage capacity (dry or cold storage) as a result 
of USDA assistance (MT)
0
FFPr 
Standard 
(17)
Number of policies, regulations, and/or administrative procedures in 
each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA 
assistance
0
FFPr 
Standard 
(20)
Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance 0
FFPr 
Standard 
(7) 
Number of loans disbursed as a result of USDA assistance 0
FFPr 
Standard 
(5) 
Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USDA 
assistance
0
i Table shows baseline yields adapted from literature values, as described in Section 5.2, page 37. No 
disaggregates are available for yield values from the literature.
ii Total sales values per country as per Table 13 and Table 15 were disaggregated using the percentage 
shares of small and large farmers, gender, and age group within the survey sample for that country.
iii Total sales values per country as per Table 13 and Table 15 were disaggregated using the percentage 
shares of small and large farmers, gender, and age group within the survey sample for that country.
iv Counting area under any of seven improved managememt practices, as decribed in Section 5.2. 
v Counting farmers applying any of ten improved managememt practices, as decribed in Section 5.2. To 
compute disaggregates, country totals as reported in Table 13 and Table 15 were disaggregated using the 
percentage shares of small and large farmers, gender, and age group within the survey sample for that 
country; and for individual good practices the shares of farmers applying these in each country.
92