BeninCaju Baseline Report, 22 August, 2016 
Baseline Study Results for the 
Cashew Integration & 
Acceleration Program (BeninCaju) 
Benin 
Eric Weiss, PhD 
Senior M&E Consultant 
17 August, 2016 
ii
Table of Contents 
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... vi
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Part I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Benin 2016 Cashew Campaign ........................................................................................................... 9
1.3 Sampling Considerations .................................................................................................................. 10
1.4 Report Protocols ............................................................................................................................... 12
Part II: Surveyed Cashew Producers ........................................................................................................... 15
2.1. Demographics .................................................................................................................................. 15
2.2 Cashew Plantations and Holdings .................................................................................................... 22
2.2.1 Numbers of Plantations and Cashew Trees ............................................................................... 22
2.2.2 Plantation Intercropping and Other Trees ................................................................................. 28
2.3 Cashew Production, Yield, and Disposition ..................................................................................... 31
2.3.1 Cashew Production .................................................................................................................... 31
2.3.2 Cashew Yield ............................................................................................................................ 32
2.3.3 Disposition of Raw Cashew Nuts (RCN) .................................................................................. 34
2.4 Cashew Expenses ............................................................................................................................. 36
2.5 Cashew Sales and Income ................................................................................................................ 41
2.5.1 RCN Sales ................................................................................................................................. 41
2.5.2 Income from Cashew ................................................................................................................ 47
2.6 Cashew Production Training and Practices ...................................................................................... 53
2.6.1 Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) for Cashew ....................................................................... 53
2.6.2 Harvest and Post Harvest (HPH) Training and Methods for Cashew ....................................... 62
2.6.3: Use of Radio and Mobiles for Cashew ..................................................................................... 68
2.7 Changes in Cashew Harvest Quantity and Quality ........................................................................... 71
2.7.1 Harvest Quantity ....................................................................................................................... 71
2.7.2 Harvest Quality ......................................................................................................................... 73
2.8 Producer Associations/Cooperatives ................................................................................................ 76
2.9 Availability, Access to, and Use of Credit ....................................................................................... 81
2.10 Poverty Scorecard ........................................................................................................................... 85
Part III: Surveyed Members of Producer Groups ....................................................................................... 91
3.1 General Producer Group Information ............................................................................................... 91
3.2 Producer Group Details .................................................................................................................... 93
3.3 Reasons for Joining The Group and Provided Services ................................................................... 94
3.4 Producer Group Management ........................................................................................................... 95
Part IV Surveyed Processors ....................................................................................................................... 97
Part V Processor Employees ..................................................................................................................... 120
5.1 Employee Profile ............................................................................................................................ 120
5.2 Processor Employee Satisfaction .................................................................................................... 125
Annexes .................................................................................................................................................... 133
Annex 1: Producer Questionnaire.........................................................................................................134
11. APPARTENANCE AUX ORGANISATIONS PAYSANNES .....................................................152
Annex 2: Producer Group Questionnaire .............................................................................................159
Annex 3 : Processor Data Collection Form..........................................................................................165
Annex 4: Processor Employee Questionnaire ......................................................................................172
Annex 5: Disaggregated Values of Key BeninCaju Parameters ........................................................... 175
 Annex 6: Avoidance of Contamination Methodology………………………………………………...179 
 Annex 7: Baseline Indicators- Attachment E………………………………………………………….185 
iii
iv
Table of Figures
Figure 2.1-1: Surveyed producers’ home communes ................................................................................. 15
Figure 2.1-2: Age of surveyed producers .................................................................................................... 16
Figure 2.1-3: Surveyed producers’ literacy rates ........................................................................................ 16
Figure 2.1-4: Surveyed producers’ educational level ................................................................................. 17
Figure 2.1-5: Size of surveyed producers’ households ............................................................................... 18
Figure 2.1-6: Percentage of surveyed household members involved with cashew ..................................... 18
Figure 2.1-7: Surveyed households’ total annual income ........................................................................... 19
Figure 2.1-8: Percentage of household income derived from cashew ........................................................ 20
Figure 2.1-9: Primary food crops in which surveyed producers invested cashew income ......................... 20
Figure 2.1-10: Impact on food crop production from investment of cashew income ................................. 21
Figure 2.2-1: Numbers of surveyed producers’ separate cashew plantations ............................................. 22
Figure 2.2-2: Surveyed producers’ total cashew area ................................................................................. 23
Figure 2.2-3: Self-reported numbers of surveyed producers’ cashew trees ................................................ 24
Figure 2.2-4: Total numbers of surveyed producers’ productive cashew trees .......................................... 25
Figure 2.2-5: Ages of “most” of the productive cashew trees in surveyed producers’ plantations ............ 25
Figure 2.2-6: Plantation level cashew tree density in surveyed producers’ plantations ............................. 26
Figure 2.2-7: Overall cashew tree density in surveyed producers’ plantations .......................................... 27
Figure 2.2-8: Overall cashew tree spacing .................................................................................................. 28
Figure 2.2-9: Most recent year that surveyed producers intercropped their cashew trees .......................... 28
Figure 2.2-10: crops intercropped on surveyed producers’ cashew plantations ......................................... 29
Figure 2.2-11: Other types of trees on surveyed producers’ cashew plantations ........................................ 29
Figure 2.2-12: Surveyed producers’ sources of cashew planting materials ................................................ 30
Figure 2.2-13: Types of cashew planting materials used by surveyed producers ....................................... 30
Figure 2.3-1: Surveyed producers’ estimated RCN production .................................................................. 31
Figure 2.3-2: Surveyed producers’ cashew yield per tree for different plantation sizes ............................. 33
Figure 2.3-4: Surveyed producers’ cashew yield per hectare for different plantation sizes ....................... 34
Figure 2.3-5: Surveyed producers cashew yield per hectare for different plantation densities .................. 34
Figure 2.5-1: Number of separate sales of RCN by surveyed producers .................................................... 41
Figure 2.5-2: Average price paid to surveyed producers for RCN over the buying season ........................ 42
Figure 2.5-3: Number of RCN sales by surveyed producers ...................................................................... 43
Figure 2.5-4: Average RCN amount (kg) per sale ...................................................................................... 43
Figure 2.5-5: Average amount (FCFA) received by the surveyed producers per RCN sale .Erreur ! Signet 
non défini.
Figure 2.5-6: Prices paid for RCN by different types of buyers ................................................................. 46
Figure 2.5-6: Types of buyers for surveyed producers’ RCN ..................................................................... 46
Figure 2.5-7: Surveyed producers’ income from sale of RCN ................................................................... 47
Figure 2.5-8: In-kind income from value of unsold RCN ........................................................................... 48
Figure 2.5-9: Surveyed producers’ gross income from cashew .................................................................. 49
Figure 2.5-10: Surveyed producers’ net income from cashew ................................................................... 50
Figure 2.5-11: Net income per producing cashew tree ............................................................................... 50
Figure 2.5-12: Net income per tree disaggregated by total number of producing trees .............................. 51
Figure 2.5-13: Net income per hectare of cashew....................................................................................... 52
Figure 2.5-14: Net income per hectare of cashew disaggregated by total plantation size .......................... 52
Figure 2.6-1: Surveyed producers’ sources of direct training on GAP ....................................................... 53
Figure 2.6-2: Most recent year of surveyed producers’ direct training on GAP ......................................... 54
Figure 2.6-3: Surveyed producers’ other sources for information about GAP for cashew ......................... 55
Figure 2.6-4: Specific GAP for cashew for which surveyed producers got information from indirect 
sources ........................................................................................................................................................ 55
Figure 2.6-5: Most recent time surveyed producers’ cashew trees were pruned ........................................ 56
Figure 2.6-6: Reasons cashew plantations were not pruned ....................................................................... 57
v
Figure 2.6-7: Number of weedings in the last 12 months ........................................................................... 57
Figure 2.6-8: Disposition of weeds resulting from weeding cashew plantations ........................................ 58
Figure 2.6-9: Reasons given by surveyed producers for not protecting plantations against bushfires ....... 59
Figure 2.6-10: Numbers of surveyed producers’ cashew trees with pest infestations ................................ 60
Figure 2.6-11: Surveyed producers methods for treating cashew trees against pests .... Erreur ! Signet non 
défini.
Figure 2.6-12: Number of times cashew plantations were treated against pests ......................................... 61
Figure 2.6-13: Reasons given for not treating cashew plantations against pests ........................................ 61
Figure 2.6-14: Surveyed producers’ sources of direct training on HPH methods ...................................... 62
Figure 2.6-15: Year of surveyed producers’ most recent direct training on HPH methods ........................ 63
Figure 2.6-16: Surveyed producers’ indirect sources of information about HPH methods for cashew ...... 63
Figure 2.6-17: Number of times per month RCN are collected during harvest season .............................. 64
Figure 2.6-18: Surveyed producers’ reasons for not using nylon string to separate the cashew nut and 
apple ............................................................................................................................................................ 65
Figure 2.6-19: How surveyed producers know when RCN are fully dried................................................. 65
Figure 2.6-20: RCN drying locations used by surveyed producers ............................................................ 66
Figure 2.6-21: Materials used by surveyed producers to package RCN ..................................................... 67
Figure 2.6-22: Reasons surveyed producers do not use jute bags to package RCN ................................... 67
Figure 2.6-23: Surveyed producers knowledge of RCN quality criteria used by cashew buyers ............... 68
Figure 2.6-24: Messages/topics about cashew heard on the radio by surveyed producers ......................... 69
Figure 2.6-25: Surveyed producers’ uses of mobile to get information related to cashew ......................... 70
Figure 2.7-1: Surveyed producers perception of change in the harvest quantity ........................................ 71
Figure 2.7-2: Reasons given by surveyed producers for perceived recent increase in harvest quantity .... 72
Figure 2.7-3: Reasons given by surveyed producers for perceived recent decrease in harvest quantity .... 73
Figure 2.7-4: Surveyed producers perception of change in the harvest quality .......................................... 74
Figure 2.7-5: Reasons given by surveyed producers for perceived recent increase in harvest quality ...... 75
Figure 2.7-6: Reasons given by surveyed producers for perceived recent decrease in harvest quality ...... 75
Figure 2.8-1: Surveyed producers’ membership rates in producer organizations ....................................... 76
Figure 2.8-2: Members of surveyed households in producer associations or cooperatives ........................ 77
Figure 2-8-3: Role of surveyed household members in their farmer group ................................................ 77
Figure 2.8-4: Year that surveyed producer household members joined their producer group .................... 78
Figure 2.8-5: Reasons members of surveyed producer households joined producer groups ...................... 79
Figure 2.8-6: Reasons surveyed producer household members did not join any producer group .............. 79
Figure 2.9-1: Surveyed producers’ sources of credit .................................................................................. 81
Figure 2.9-2: Number of times surveyed producers received credit since 2011 ......................................... 82
Figure 2.9-3: Total amount of credit received by surveyed producers since 2011 ..................................... 82
Figure 2.9-4: Surveyed producers’ primary uses of received credit ........................................................... 83
Figure 2.9-5: Percentage of received credit used by surveyed producers for cashew production .............. 84
Figure 2.10-1: Simple Poverty Scorecard for Benin ................................................................................... 86
Figure 2.10-2: Poverty scorecard question scores for surveyed producer households ............................... 87
Figure 3.1-1: Surveyed producer group members’ home communes ......................................................... 92
Figure 3.1-2: Surveyed producer group members’ roles in their group ...................................................... 93
Figure 3.3-1: Reasons surveyed producer group members joined their group ........................................... 94
Figure 3.3-2: Producer group services that surveyed producer group members would like to see improved
 .................................................................................................................................................................... 95
Figure 5.1-1: Surveyed processor employees current employer ............................................................... 120
Figure 5.1-2: Ages of surveyed processor employees .............................................................................. 121
Figure 5.1-3: Surveyed processor employees assigned section ................................................................ 121
Figure 5.1-4: Surveyed processor employees current position status ....................................................... 122
Figure 5.1-5: Surveyed employees time with their current employer ....................................................... 123
Figure 5.1-6: Surveyed employees length of time in their current position .............................................. 123
vi
Figure 5.1-7: Surveyed employees’ time with current employer vs time in current position ................... 124
Figure 5.1-8: Processor employee position vs time with current employer .............................................. 124
Figure 5.1-9: Surveyed employee assessment of their workload .............................................................. 125
Figure 5.2-1: Surveyed employees’ overall job satisfaction ..................................................................... 126
Figure 5.2-2: Surveyed employees' satisfaction with the opportunity for advancement .......................... 126
Figure 5.2-3: Surveyed employees’ satisfaction with opportunity to receive better pay .......................... 127
Figure 5.2-4: Surveyed employees’ agreement that they would recommend their current employer to 
others ......................................................................................................................................................... 128
Figure 5.2-5: Surveyed employees agreement that their work gives them a sense of accomplishment ... 128
Figure 5.2-6: Surveyed employees’ agreement that they have clearly defined work quality goals .......... 129
Figure 5.2-7: Surveyed employees’ agreement that their current job makes good use of their skills and 
abilities ...................................................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 5.2-8: Surveyed employees’ agreement that supervisors and managers are committed to quality 
products ..................................................................................................................................................... 130
Figure 5.2-9: Surveyed employees agreement that they are paid a fair salary .......................................... 131
Figure 5.2-10: Surveyed employees’ agreement that supervisors and managers try to meet requests for 
better working conditions ......................................................................................................................... 131
Figure 5.2-11: Surveyed employees agreement that supervisors and managers are flexible when workers 
need time off ............................................................................................................................................. 132
Table of Tables 
Table EX-1: Required CIAP Indicators ........................................................................................................ 3
Table EX-2: Other key results ...................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2.3-1: Other dispositions of surveyed producers’ RCN .................................................................... 35
Table 2.4-1 Surveyed producers’ cashew farming expenses ...................................................................... 37
Table 2.4-2 Surveyed producers’ cashew farming expenses disaggregated by total plantation size .......... 39
Table 2.4-3 Surveyed producers’ cashew farming expenses disaggregated by total number of producing 
cashew trees ................................................................................................................................................ 39
Table 2.4-4: Total average cashew farming expenses for all surveyed producers by total number of trees
 .................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 2.4-5: Total average cashew farming expenses for all surveyed producers by total plantation size 40
Table 3.1-1: Demographic profile of surveyed producer group members .................................................. 91
Table 3.2-1: Producer group details ............................................................................................................ 94
Table 3.4-1: Surveyed producer group members opinions on the management of their group .................. 96
Table 4.1: Summary of CIAP partner processors ....................................................................................... 99
Table A5-1: Disaggregated values of key BeninCaju parameters ............................................................ 176
1
Executive Summary 
This report presents the key results from the Baseline Study of the BeninCaju Cashew Integration & 
Acceleration Program (BeninCaju) conducted in May-June 2016. In the text and in the figures and tables 
in this report, the terms “CIAP” and “BeninCaju” will be used interchangeably. 
BeninCaju (The Cashew Integration and Acceleration Program - BeninCaju), is a five year program 
implemented by TechnoServe (TNS) in partnership with Catholic Relief Services (CRS). BeninCaju 
encompasses a sector-wide value chain approach that will grow the cashew sector in Benin into a more 
productive, diversified, and inclusive economic growth engine for Benin and its people, and set it on a 
sustainable course for continued growth. BeninCaju will: 
 Improve returns from the major crop of cashew for smallholder farmers and for Benin’s economy 
as a whole 
 Ensure local processors have the financing, managerial capacity, and resources to fulfill their 
potential role as the engine of change by investing in their supply chain, and through satellite 
processing, and farmer financing. 
 Promote innovation particularly in producing cashew by-products, such as juice and oil 
 Strengthen the capacity of key stakeholder organizations in the cashew value chain. 
 Provide assistance to improving the legal/regulatory enabling environment for the cashew sector. 
Expected impacts and outcomes of the BeninCaju program will be: 
 Increased productivity and incomes for farmers, 
 Increased volumes and percentage of processed cashew kernel, 
 Increased sales volumes of cashew byproducts, 
 Strengthened institutional support for the cashew sector in the public, private, and NGO sector 
 Large-scale job creation, 
 Increased returns for actors throughout the value chain – 
Over its five years, BeninCaju will work with smallholder cashew producing households and producer 
groups in the following 12 Communes in four Departments: 
 Department of Collines: all 6 communes, 
 Department of Zou: Djidja commune, 
 Department of Borgou: N`Dali, Parakou and Tchaourou communes 
 Department of Donga: Bassila and Djougou communes 
An overall introduction to the Baseline Study is presented in Part I of this report. 
The primary component of the BeninCaju Baseline Study, the results of which are presented in this report, 
are interviews of 900 smallholder cashew farmers in the BeninCaju operational areas and fieldwork 
measurements taken in their cashew plantations. These 900 farmers comprised two distinct sub-groups; 
452 (50%) cashew producers (farmers) that are in villages that BeninCaju intends to work in (“BeninCaju 
villages”), and 448 cashew producers living in villages that BeninCaju will not work in over the life of the 
2
program (“Control villages”); these producers are the designated Control Group that will be necessary for 
implementation of the double-difference evaluation method, if it is decided by TechnoServe and USDA to 
use this approach to provide an end-of-program assessment of BeninCaju impacts, outcomes, and outputs 
and to allow proper attribution of these results to BeninCaju as appropriate. The results of the Baseline 
Study derived from the interviews and the fieldwork pertaining to the surveyed producers are presented in 
Part II of this report. 
In addition to producers, interviews were also conducted with 403 members of producer groups of whom 
205 (51%) live in the BeninCaju villages and 198 (49%) live in Control villages. Again, using the double 
difference method of evaluation, BeninCaju impacts, outcomes, and outputs for the producer groups in 
the BeninCaju villages can be assessed and attributed to the BeninCaju interventions, as applicable and 
appropriate. These results are presented in Part III of this report. 
Because BeninCaju will also work with cashew processors, Baseline data were collected from key 
informant data from the six cashew processors located within the BeninCaju operational communes. The 
results of these interviews are presented in Part IV of this report. 
Additionally, interviews were conducted with 150 employees of the six BeninCaju partner processors; the 
results and findings from these interviews are presented in Part V of this report. 
The BeninCaju Terms of Reference included a set of indicators that BeninCaju is required to measure at 
Baseline and again as part of the Endline study. The results from these two point-in-time measurements 
will be compared to determine and assess the changes in the values of these key indicators over the life of 
the BeninCaju. The values of these indicators at baseline for BeninCaju producers and Control producers 
(where that distinction is applicable) are presented in Table EX-1. The report section(s) and figure(s) 
and/or table(s) where the indicator is discussed, or especially those cases for which the indicator is not a 
single datum, but rather requires an assessment of several pieces of collected data, are also presented in 
this table for the reader’s easy reference. 
Additionally, the data collected from the six partner processors are presented as separate processor￾specific values rather than aggregated. The reasons for this are that the responses to many of the questions 
are qualitative, responses to some questions were not provided by some processors, and generating 
average values for the quantitative variables from at most 6 cases would not yield reliable or meaningful 
statistics. 
3
Table EX-1: Required BeninCaju Indicators 
Required Indicator
Average 
BeninCaju
Value
Average 
Control
Value
Report 
Section 
Where 
Presented
Producers
Farm (plantation) size (total area summed over all plantations for 
each surveyed producer) (ha) 4.1 3.6 Section 2.2.1 
Figure 2.2-2
Number of productive cashew trees (total counted/estimated for 
each surveyed producer) 703 488 Section 2.2.1 
Figure 2.2-5
Cashew tree density (average over all surveyed plantations)
(trees/ha) 143 124
Section 2.2.1 
Figure 2.2-7, 
Figure 2.2-8
Cashew yield per productive tree (kg/tree) 2.81 2.80
Section 2.3.2 
Figure 2.3-2 
Figure 2.3-3
Cashew yield per hectare of cashew plantation (kg/ha) 225 199
Section 2.3.2 
Figure 2.3-4 
Figure 2.3-5
Price paid for cashews (average over all reported sales during the
entire season) (FCFA/kg) 515.5 Section 2.5.1 
Figure 2.5-2
Average gross income (sales plus in-kind) from cashew (only cases 
with gross income>0) (FCFA) (producer level average) 304,282 223,419 Section 2.5.2 
Figure 2.5-8
Average net income from cashew (only cases with gross 
income>0)(FCFA) (producer level average) 208,461 163,913 Section 2.5.2 
Figure 2.5-9
Access to cashew inputs --- --- Section 2.6
Rates of use of cashew inputs
--- ---
Section 2.4 
Section 2.6
Cashew farming costs (total costs averaged over producers with 
costs > 0) (FCFA) 107,405 73,487 Section 2.4 
Table 2.4-1
Adoption rates of good agricultural practices (GAP) for cashew --- --- Section 2.6.1
Adoption rates for harvest/post-harvest (HPH) practices --- --- Section 2.6.2
Access to credit (percentages of surveyed producers that reported 
they have formal access to credit )
77% 72% Section 2.9
Use of credit (percentages of surveyed producers that have gotten 
credit since 2011) 40% 35% Section 2.9 
Figure 2.9-2
Knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) related to cashew 
production and harvesting --- ---
Section 2.6.1 
Section 2.6.2
Farmer Based Groups/Cooperatives (Group Member Data)
Membership size, including dues-paying members 29.9 31.8 Section 3.2 
Table 3.2-1
Membership fees (Average joining fee) (FCFA) 3273 3919 Section 3.2 
Table 3.2-1
Membership fees (Average share of company fee) (FCFA) 5966 6483 Section 3.2 
Table 3.2
Membership fees (Average yearly membership fee) (FCFA) 2900 2217 Section 3.2 
Table 3.2
Membership services, such as production aggregation and advocacy --- ---
Section 3.3 
Figure 3.3-1 
Figure 3.3-2
Engagement in value-adding activities --- --- Section 3.3 
4
Required Indicator
Average 
BeninCaju
Value
Average 
Control
Value
Report 
Section 
Where 
Presented
Figure 3.3-1 
Figure 3.3-2
Organizational and financial management capacity --- --- Section 3.4
Extent of participation in FBG decisions and management by 
members --- --- Section 3.4
Access to and utilization of credit
--- ---
Section 3.3 
Figure 3.3-1 
Figure 3.3-2
Perceptions of additional services needed as well as constraints and 
barriers to those services --- ---
Section 3.3 
Figure 3.3-2
Processors
Installed processing capacity (m tons)
All available, collected, processor￾related data are presented in
disaggregated (processor-specific) 
format in Table 3-1.
Utilization of new processing technology
Capacity utilization rate
Range of products produced
Finished product prices
Total RCN purchased (m tons)
Total RCN processed (m tons)
RCN loss due to spillage, low quality (m tons)
Sales volumes by product segment
Quality certifications
FTE-adjusted employees
Access to buyers and export markets (number of buyers and/or 
number of export markets reached)
Employee attendance rate, by job category
Processor Employees
Annual turnover rate, by job category (percentage of employees 
looking for another job) 31% Section 5.2
Employee satisfaction, by job category (only overall rate) 74% Section 5.2
Processor procedures for addressing worker and supervisor 
complaints (percentage employees that say management tries to 
meet employee requests)
74% Section 5.2
Figure 5.2-11
Extent to which processors meet worker demands for improved 
work conditions and improved safety (percentage employees that 
say management tries to meet demands)
75% Section 5.2
Figure 5.2-10
Other, key results, disaggregated where applicable by BeninCaju vs Control group producers, are 
presented in Table EX-2. Note that for brevity the term “producer” is used in this table; this should be 
understood to refer strictly and exclusively to surveyed producers only and not to the larger population of 
cashew producers in the BeninCaju areas or more generally in Benin. 
These results, and those in the preceding table, which compare surveyed BeninCaju and Control 
producers, show that the two subgroups are very similar with regard to many of the key parameters of 
interest. This suggests that the samples of surveyed producers are quite similar in many respects, thus 
facilitating the use of the double-difference evaluation method to be employed at BeninCaju Endline. 
5
Table EX-2: Other key results 
Key Result BeninCaju
Producer Value
Control 
Producer Value
Report Section 
Where 
Presented
Producers
Total number of producers interviewed 452 448 Section 2.1
Percentage of producers interviewed that are male 85% 82% Section 2.1
Percentage of producers interviewed that are 
female
15% 18% Section 2.1
Average age of producers (years) 49.9 47.1 Section 2.1
Figure 2.1-2
Average size of producer households (number of 
members)
10.4 9.2 Section 2.1
Figure 2.1-5
Average percentage of producer households 
involved with cashew
50% 48% Section 2.1
Figure 2.1-6
Average annual household income (FCFA) 1,124,695 870,018 Section 2.1
Figure 2.1-7
Average percentage of annual household income 
derived from cashew
23.7% 22.7% Section 2.1
Figure 2.1-8
Percentage of producers that invested cashew 
income in food crops
61% 65% Section 22.1
Average number of separate cashew plantations 1.6 1.5 Section 2.2.1 
Figure 2.2-1
Average total size of producers’ cashew 
plantations (ha) 4.1 3.6 Section 2.2.1 
Figure 2.2-2
Average number of producers’ producing cashew 
trees summed over all plantations
703 488 Section2.2.1 
Figure 2.2-5 
Average overall density of productive cashew trees 
(trees/ha) 143 124 Section 2.2.1 
Figure 2.2-8
Average overall spacing between cashew trees (m) 11.7 12.9 Section 2.2.1 
Figure 2.2-9
Percentage of producers that intercrop their cashew 
trees with other crops in the last 5 years
8% 8% Section 2.2.2
Percentage of producers that have other types of 
trees in their cashew plantations
75% 76% Section 2.2.2
Average estimated production of RCN*
(kg)
(producer level average)
697 466 Section 2.3.1 
Figure 2.2-15
Average cashew yield per tree (kg/tree) 2.81 2.80
Section 2.3.2 
Figures 2.3-2 
Figure 2.3-3
Average cashew yield per hectare (kg/ha) 225 199
Section 2.3.2. 
Figures 2.3-4 
Figure 2.3-5
Average percentage of produced RCN that was 
sold (Percentage over all producers that produced 
some RCN) 
68% 64% Section 2.3.3
Percentage of surveyed producers with non-zero 
cashew farming expenses 
75% 69% Section 2.4 Table 
2.4-1
Average total expense for surveyed producers that 
had non-zero cashew farming expense (FCFA) and 
total reported expenses ;less than FCFA 3,000,000
150,704 106543 Section 2.4. 
Table 2.4-1
Average number of separate sales of RCN 1.9 2.4 Section 2.5.1 
Figure 2.6-1
6
Key Result BeninCaju
Producer Value
Control 
Producer Value
Report Section 
Where 
Presented
Average income from sale of RCN (producers that 
reported sales income only) (FCFA)
220,770 157,090 Section 2.5.2 
Figure 2.5-6
Average in-kind income imputed from the value of 
produced but unsold RCN (FCFA)
116,490 92,196 Section 2.5.2 
Figure 2.5-7
Average total income from cashew calculated from 
producers that reported each type of income) 
(FCFA)
304, 282 223,419 Section 2.5.2 
Figure 2.5-8
Average net income from cashew for producers 
that reported positive gross incomes from cashew 
(FCFA)
208,461 163,913 Section 2.5.2 
Figure 2.5-9
Average net income per tree from cashew for 
producers that reported positive gross incomes 
from cashew (FCFA)
862 1014 Section 2.5.2 
Figure 2.5-10
Average net income per hectare from cashew for 
producers that reported positive gross incomes 
from cashew (FCFA)
75,389 79,238 Section 2.5.2 
Figure 2.5-12
Percentage of producers that received direct (face￾to-face) training on Good Agricultural Practices 
(GAP) for cashew between 2010-2016
39% 32% Section 2.6.1
Percentage of surveyed producers that received 
indirect training and/or other information about 
GAP for cashew
63% 70% Section 2.6.1
Percentage of surveyed producers’ plantations in 
which the cashew trees have been pruned at least 
once
84% 76% Section 2.6.1 
Figure 2.6-5
Percentage of surveyed producers’ cashew 
plantations that have been weeded in the last 12 
months
87% 87% Section 2.6.1 
Figure 2.6-7
Percentage of surveyed producers’ cashew 
plantations that have been protected against 
bushfires
87% 84% Section 2.6.1
Percentage of surveyed producers’ cashew 
plantations that have been burned by bushfires at 
least once
42% 44% Section 2.6.1
Percentage of surveyed producers’ cashew 
plantations in which pests were noticed on trees
77% 80% Section 2.6.1 
Figure 2.6-9
Percentage of surveyed producers’ cashew 
plantations treated against pests
19% 13%
Section 2.6.1 
Figures 2.6.11, 
2.6-12
Percentage of surveyed producers that received 
direct training on harvest/post harvest (HPH) 
methods for cashew in 2010-2016
33% 30% Section 2.6.2
Percentage of surveyed producers that separate the 
cashew nut and apple with a nylon string
2% 1% Section 2.6.2
Percentage of surveyed producers that dry RCN 
before packaging them 
56% 56% Section 2.6.2
Percentage of surveyed producers that have
listened to radio programs about cashew since 
2010
55% 67% Section 2.6.3
Percentage of surveyed producers that think that 
the 2016 cashew harvest quantity was better than 
in previous years
8% 4% Section 2.7.1 
Figure 2.7-1
7
Key Result BeninCaju
Producer Value
Control 
Producer Value
Report Section 
Where 
Presented
Percentage of surveyed producers that think that 
the 2016 cashew harvest quality was better than in 
previous years
51% 54% Section 2.7.1 
Figure 2.7-4
Percentage of surveyed households that have at 
least one member in a producer association or 
cooperative
24% 22% Section 2.8.1 
Figure 2.8-1
Percentage of surveyed producers that reported the 
availability of credit in their home village
77% 72% Section 2.9
Percentage of surveyed producers that have 
received credit since 2011
40% 35% Section 2.9 
Figure 2.9-2
Members of Producer Groups
Average age of surveyed producer group members 
(years)
46.9 47.2 Section 3.3.1 
Table 3.3-1
Average number of years producing cashew 14.5 16.2 Section 3.3.1 
Table 3.3-1
Average number of separate cashew plantations 1.6 1.8 Section 3.3.1 
Table 3.3
Average (self-reported) number of producing 
cashew trees
362 390 Section 3.3.1 
Table 3.3
Average number of years belonging to their current 
producer group
4.5 6.8 Section 3.3.1 
Table 3.3
Processor Employees
Percentage of surveyed employees that are female 49% Section 5.1
Average age of surveyed employees (years) 30.7 Section 5.1
Percentage of surveyed employees that have been 
with their current employer no more than 1 year
33% Section 5.1 
Figure 5.1-6
Percentage of surveyed employees that have been 
with their current employer no more than 2 years
50% Section 5.1 
Figure 5.1-6
Percentage of surveyed employees that thought 
that their assigned workload was about right
73% Section 5.1 
Figure 5.1-10
Percentage of surveyed employees that express 
overall satisfaction or are very satisfied with their 
current job
74% Section 5.2 
Figure 5.2-1
Percentage of surveyed employees that are actively 
looking for another job
31% Section 5.2
Percentage of employees that applied for a job 
with another employer in the previous 6 months
24% Section 5.2
* RCN = Raw Cashew Nuts
8
Part I. Introduction 
1.1 Background 
This report presents the key results from the Baseline Study of the BeninCaju (Cashew Integration & 
Acceleration Program - CIAP) conducted in May-June 2016. 
This Baseline study was primarily implemented using questionnaires developed from reviews of pertinent 
literature relating to other projects on cashew and other surveys of organizational management and 
employee satisfaction. Specifically, the producer questionnaire is largely based on the Baseline and yield 
survey questionnaires primarily developed by this author for the African Cashew initiative (ACi) and used 
in Benin, Cote d’ Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Mozambique and on the assessments and analyses of 
the collected data by this same author. The producer group questionnaire was derived primarily from 
other questionnaires and focus group discussions guidelines developed in large part by this author for 
ACi, the Competitive African Cotton Initiative (COMPACI), and the Coffee Partnership for Tanzania 
(CPT). However, the section of group management (good governance) borrowed heavily from The Good 
Governance Test found at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/The Good Governance Test Fall 2011. 
Finally, the processor employee questionnaire was developed in part by this author based on similar work 
on the above-named projects and also borrowed from The Employee Satisfaction Survey (Scott Smith 
PhD, February 2013, at: https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/employee-satisfaction-survey/).
The survey training for the producer and producer groups surveys was jointly conducted by the Baseline 
Coordinator (this author) and the Deputy Baseline Coordinator in Parakou, Benin and included two days 
of “classroom” training on the individual questions and the expected answers and also on the use of 
handheld GPS devices used for measuring the size (area) of the surveyed producers’ cashew plantations. 
The organization responsible for implementing these surveys (with in the field BeninCaju team oversight 
during the entire surveys) was Programme Analyse de Politique Agricole (PAPA), using enumerators 
from the Beninese cashew producers association (Federation Nationale des Producteurs d'Anacarde du 
Benin (FENAPAB)) and some additional enumerators familiar to PAPA. These organizations were 
selected by BeninCaju for these surveys because of their directly applicable experience in implementing 
the annual Africa Cashew initiative (ACi) yield surveys in Benin. The TNS BeninCaju team 
implemented the processor key informant interviews and the survey of processor employees. 
The BeninCaju Baseline Study was, in its entirety, conducted through the use of quantitative surveys, key 
informant interviews, and Focus Group Discussions (FGD). This report details the findings of the 
quantitative surveys of producers, producer group members, and processor employees as well as the data 
9
collected from key informants regarding the processors. The results in this report will be analyzed by the 
BeninCaju Team and put to three primary purposes: 
1. The values of various key indicators calculated from the data collected in these surveys will 
serve as benchmarks to which endline values of the same parameters will be compared to 
determine outcomes and impacts of the BeninCaju project. 
2. These collected data will also be analyzed for the purpose of looking for refinements and/or 
enhancements to the BeninCaju interventions that would better focus them on needs identified 
from these data. 
3. While the quantitative data contained in this report can answer questions of how much or how 
many, they cannot answer questions of why or why not. Therefore, questions that are not fully 
answered in the collected quantitative data will form the basis for the FGDs to be conducted as 
the qualitative follow-up to these surveys. The target groups for these FGDs will be identified 
through analyses of the results presented here, but are expected to include at a minimum women 
producers, CPA producer groups, and women producer groups. 
1.2 Benin 2016 Cashew Campaign
Overview: The Benin 2016 RCN harvest campaign began in December 2015. The total quantity 
harvested, per various estimates, did not exceed ~100,000 MT with the harvest starting around the first 
week of January with very small quantities. Overall production output was lower than in 2015 (around 
10%-15%) in West Africa and, more specifically, approximately 10% lower in Benin. This was primarily 
due to delayed/low rains in almost all cashew regions resulting in a spike in demand. Production was not 
only low in overall quantity but also in quality; on average, outturn1
in Benin dropped from 48 lbs down 
to 45 lbs (outturn). 
Pricing impact: The 2016 RCN campaign was marked with stark price volatility; with RCN prices 
reaching unprecedented levels. The minimum RCN reference price set by the Government of Benin was 
FCFA 250/ kg; however, very little or almost no trading was noticed in this price range. 
 
1 Outturn is the amount of usable kernels after de-shelling the nut and is a measure of cashew quality. It is expressed 
in lbs quality, which is calculated as the weight of useful kernels (lbs) n per 80 kg of raw nuts (RCN). 48 lbs quality 
and above is standard grade. Buyers normally prefer 48 – 54 lbs quality. Less than 43 lbs quality is a poor grade and 
is usually rejected. (Definition based on material at: 
https://www.sustainabilityxchange.info/filesagri/Flipchart_Quality%20of%20Cashew%20nut_what%20you%20nee
d%20to%20know%20about%20it.pdf) 
10
The average traded price at farm-gate started around FCFA 350/ kg during January but quickly jumped to 
CFA 450 - 500/ kg by late January/early February. This range also was the range in which almost 50-60% 
quantity was traded. However, as the demand picked up and exporter bids started coming in, RCN prices 
during latter half of the season reached new heights; touching around FCFA 600 – 650/ kg at farm gate/ 
village level. 
There are multiple factors for the spike in RCN prices: both domestic and internationally. 
Internationally, there are two key reasons for the increased demand and high bids for Benin RCN. 
Firstly, as Cote d’Ivoire (CIV) increased their RCN export tax to ~FCFA 83/ kg of RCN, many 
international traders and processors reduced their purchase from CIV and came to Benin where there are 
no RCN taxes levied (as an additional benefit, traders obtained better quality nuts as Benin quality is 
considered better in the region). Secondly, the Government of India, in their budget for 2016 introduced a 
new Customs Tariff code which levies a 9.36% duty on all RCN imports, but exempts it for Least 
Developing Countries (LDC’s). Benin falls under this category (unlike Cote D’Ivoire, Ghana, etc). 
Therefore, Indian processors had another added benefit of targeting procurement of Benin RCN over CIV 
& Ghana RCN. These two policies jointly gave ~310 USD (180,000 FCFA) competitiveness to traders in 
Benin and negatively impacted local processing. 
Meanwhile domestically, due to the lack of regulation of activity, traders were able to procure excessive 
quantities of RCN and just strategized to delay sales, thereby creating huge supply shortages and spiking 
up prices. In 2016 intermediate traders made the maximum profits. 
1.3 Sampling Considerations 
The sample sizes and sampling procedures for this Baseline Study varied according to the target 
population being considered and the available sample frame(s). The sample of producers selected for the 
producer part of this baseline study was selected as a true random sample. While it is currently expected 
that the BeninCaju Endline survey will interview the same producers that were interviewed at Baseline, 
this decision has not been taken by TNS and/or USDA. Therefore, in order to not burden the Baseline 
study with the much larger sample sizes that a longitudinal study with Treatment (BeninCaju) and Control 
groups using double-difference evaluation methods would require, the Baseline Coordinator (this author) 
determined the sample size based on ensuring that with 95% confidence, for any continuous or pseudo￾continuous variable such as yield, income, percentage of producers adopting any particular good 
agricultural practice, etc, the average value calculated from the sample of producer responses would be 
within + 7% of the “true” average value that would have been obtained if all possible producers had been 
11
surveyed. The value of 7% was selected as a compromise between 5% which would have required a much 
larger sample size with significant cost implications, and 10% which would have provided results deemed 
to be too imprecise. Two-stage sampling was used to minimize logistical and costs and survey 
implementation time. With these constraints, the minimum required sample size was determined to be 
375 producers. 
Since it is possible (although not yet decided) that at Endline the same BeninCaju and Control producers 
interviewed at Baseline may again be interviewed, 20% oversampling was done to ensure that, with 
attrition, at least 375 of the same producers would be available for interviews at both Baseline and 
Endline. This led to an overall target sample size of 450 BeninCaju and 450 Control producers. Note that 
if the sample size had been designed for an assured double-difference evaluation, the overall sample size 
would have been roughly double this size. If at Endline, the decision is made to interview the same 
producers in both the Treatment and Control groups, a larger Endline sample size may be required. 
As noted, for logistic and economic reasons, two-stage sampling was used, meaning that a subset of 
villages was first selected from the list of all possible target villages in the target communes. The 
Baseline Coordinator decided that the 450 interviews for both BeninCaju and Control producers would be 
generated by selecting 15 producers from 30 of the appropriate villages. The specific villages were 
selected using probability- proportional- to- size (PPS) where the “size” of each village was determined 
by the number of agricultural households in that village as given in a Government of Benin report. (Prior 
to selecting the villages to be surveyed, the numbers and names of cashew producers in each village were 
not known, so the number of agricultural households in the villages was used as a proxy for the number of 
cashew producers.) 
Once the BeninCaju and Control survey villages were selected, lists of names of the cashew farmers in 
each selected village were obtained and the farmers to be included in the survey sample were chosen by 
random selection. Finally, 10 “replacement” farmers were also randomly selected for each survey village 
to be interviewed if any of the planned sample farmers were unavailable or preferred to not participate in 
the survey. 
In order to have the possibility of correlating results from the producer survey with those from the 
producer group survey, and in the interests of cost-effectiveness, the decision was made to conduct the 
producer group survey with group members in villages already selected for the producer survey. It was 
not possible to get lists of producer group members in advance to select a random sample of producer 
group members. Therefore, the sample of producer group members to interview were selected by asking 
interviewed producers if they were members of any producer groups and, if so, to name the other group 
members in their villages who were then identified and approached for the group member survey. This 
12
resulted in a non-random total of 205 group members in BeninCaju villages and 198 group members in 
Control villages being interviewed for the producer group survey. 
Because only six (6) cashew processors are working with BeninCaju, all six of them were approached to 
provide key data about their size, operations, etc. The data provided by these processors is presented in 
Part III of this report. 
Finally, employees of all six of the BeninCaju-related cashew processors were surveyed. Again, it was not 
possible to get advance lists of employees and managers in each section of the processor factory, so 
instead, for each processor, in each section the first employee encountered was interviewed. A form of 
“nearest neighbor selection” with suitable skips was used to randomize the selection of the next employee 
to interview throughout that processor section was then used to select a total of ten (10) workers in each 
section (that had at least 10 employees) including the manager of that section. The manager of each work 
section in each processor was systematically included in the sample. 
Please see Annex 6 for a full description of methodology and anti-contamination strategy. 
1.4 Report Protocols 
Several conventions and protocols were followed and used throughout this entire report. These are: 
 For ease of reviewing some of the results, all percentages in the figures and tables of results have 
(usually) been rounded off to the nearest whole percent. That means that occasionally the sum of 
percentages in a table row or column or discussion in the text will not add up to exactly 100%. 
 Unless otherwise explicitly stated, missing cases and clearly erroneous outliers have been 
excluded from the tables and figures. There are two reasons for this: (1) to avoid statistical 
distortion of the results due to unrealistically large and/or small values, and; (2) to improve the 
clarity and details in some figures by reducing the ranges of the data considered. The 
accompanying text will indicate the ranges of the variables considered valid as well as the 
number and/or percentage of the total number of surveyed producers, members of producer 
groups, or processor employees that are represented in these tables and figures.
 Some other numbers presented in the various tables throughout this report that have smaller 
magnitudes may be rounded off to either the nearest whole number or nearest one-tenth percent. 
 For ease of exposition, the terms “producers” and “surveyed producers” will be used 
interchangeably. In all cases the term “producer” refers in this report to those producer surveyed 
for this Baseline Study unless explicitly stated otherwise. Further, in the context of this report, a 
“household” will be defined to include all of those people that regularly eat together. 
13
 The various figures refer to both surveyed producers and surveyed households. This is because 
some of the collected data refer specifically to just the cashew farmers and other data more 
properly refer to the household as a whole. While these terms are sometimes used 
interchangeably in this report, the meaning should be clear from the associated context. 
 Some figures and tables refer to the percentage of “reporting (or responding) surveyed 
producers.” This is meant to convey to the reader that the percentages in such tables and figures 
are calculated from the base of only those producers that gave valid answers to the questions 
being addressed or to whom the questions are applicable. Thus, such phrasing implies that 
missing responses are not included and so the calculated percentages are based on the subset of 
the total sample of producers that gave valid responses to the question(s) being analyzed.
 Because many of the variables of those parameters shown in tables and figures are continuous 
variables, their ranges cannot easily be put into discrete and distinct bins. So, whereas the 
numbers of counted cashew trees are discrete integers and can be put into non-overlapping bins 
(e.g., 1-100, 101-200, 201-300,etc), this cannot easily be done for continuous variables such as 
the estimated number of cashew trees which, due to the calculation method may not be an integer 
value but may have some decimal component. The same is true for measured plantation size or 
yield. Therefore, the convention used in this report is to consider the minimum value of any 
interval to be open and the maximum value of any specified interval to be closed. Thus, in 
mathematical notation, the interval from A-B would be written (A, B]. This means that any value 
strictly greater than A but less than or equal to B is included in the interval. This convention 
avoids overlapping range bins. 
 The text in the body of this report and in figure and table titles sometimes refers to “producers,” 
“BeninCaju producers,” and/or “Control producers.” In the context of this report, unless 
otherwise explicitly stated, these terms should be understood to refer to “surveyed producers,” 
“surveyed BeninCaju producers,” and/or “surveyed Control producers.”
 Because the project name changed from the “Cashew Integration and Acceleration Program 
(CIAP)” to “BeninCaju” while this report was being written, both terms appear in this report and 
are used interchangeably.
The figures and tables are largely self-explanatory and so no extensive discussions of many of them are 
provided here. In any case, note that any explanation of the results presented here in terms of conditions 
on the ground will necessarily have to come from TNS/CRS who implement the BeninCaju and whose 
14
subcontractor (PAPA/FENAPAB) implemented the Baseline study by conducting all of the producer 
interviews and doing all of the fieldwork measurements in the surveyed producers’ cashew fields. 
The results of the data analysis, presented as figures and tables, are organized into the remaining report 
sections as follows: 
Part II: Surveyed Cashew Producers 
 Section 2.1: Demographics 
 Section 2.2: Cashew Plantations and Holdings 
 Section 2.3: Cashew Production, Yield, and Disposition: 
 Section 2.4: Cashew Expenses 
 Section 2.5: Cashew Sales and Income 
 Section 2.6: Cashew Production Training and Practices 
 Section 2.7: Changes in Cashew Harvest Quantity and Quality
 Section 2.8: Producer Associations/Cooperatives
 Section 2.9: Availability, Access to, and Use of Credit
 Section 2.10: Poverty Scorecard
 Section 2.11: Gender and Income from Cashew
Part III: Surveyed Members of Producer Groups 
 Section 3.1: General Producer Group Information 
 Section 3.2: Producer Group Details 
 Section 3.3: Reasons for Joining The Group and Provided Services 
 Section 3.4: Producer Group Management 
Part IV: Surveyed Processors 
 Section 4.1: Processor Statistics
Part V: Processor Employees 
 Section 5.1: Employee Profile
 Section 5.2: Employee Satisfaction
Annexes 
 Annex 1: Producer Questionnaire
 Annex 2: Producer Group Questionnaire 
 Annex 3: Cashew Processor Data Collection Form 
 Annex 4: Processor Employee Questionnaire 
 Annex 5: Disaggregated Values of Key BeninCaju Parameters
15
Part II: Surveyed Cashew Producers 
2.1. Demographics 
This section presents demographic details about the surveyed producers and their households. Figure 
2.1-1 presents data on the percentages of surveyed producers that live in the different BeninCaju 
operational communes. This figure shows that, while the overall numbers of BeninCaju and Control 
producers are roughly equal (452 vs. 448), the numbers of these producers in the different communes 
are not so equal across the different communes. 
Figure 2.1-1: Surveyed producers’ home communes 
The distributions of the BeninCaju and Control producers’ ages are also very similar as seen in Figure 
2.1-2. The average age of the surveyed BeninCaju producers was 49.9 years compared to the average age 
of 47.1 years for the surveyed Control producers. 
Surveyed Producers' Home Commune
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
BANTE
BASSILA
DASSA
DJIDJA
DJOUGOU
GLAZOUE
N'DALI
OUESSE
SAVALOU
SAVE
TCHAOUROU
Commune
Percentage of Surveyed Producers
BeninCaju Control
16
 Figure 2.1-2: Age of surveyed producers 
The surveyed producers were asked about their level of literacy; this may be an important factor in 
determining the extent to which written materials vs graphic materials are used in the BeninCaju training. 
These results are presented in Figure 2.1-3. “Literacy” in this figure refers only to French and not to any 
local languages. 
Figure 2.1-3: Surveyed producers’ literacy rates 
Age of Surveyed Producers
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81+
Age (Years)
Percentage of Surveyed Producers
BeninCaju Control
Surveyed Producers' Literacy
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
CANNOT READ OR WRITE READ ONLY READ AND WRITE
Literacy Level
Percentage of Surveyed Producers
BeninCaju Control
17
Related to the producer literacy rates are the highest levels of education reached by the surveyed 
producers, as this too may influence the nature of the BeninCaju training provided to the producers and 
the sophistication of the training materials. The highest education levels reached by the surveyed 
producers are shown in Figure 2.1-4. Note that well over half (60%) of the surveyed producers have had 
no formal education, consistent with the large percentages (70%-80%) of surveyed producers unable to 
read or write (French). These results jointly suggest that the training materials developed for BeninCaju 
should depend more on graphics than on written instructions. 
Figure 2.1-4: Surveyed producers’ educational level 
The sizes of the surveyed households varied from just one member (the producer) to more than 25 
members as shown in Figure 2.1-5. The average household size was 10.4 members for BeninCaju 
households compared to 9.2 members in Control households. 
Highest Educational Level 
Reached By Surveyed Producers
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
NO SCHOOL
PRIMARY SCHOOL
SECONDARY SCHOOL 1
SECONDARY SCHOOL 2
TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL 1
TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL 2
UNIVERSITY
APPRENTISSAGE
OTHER 
Educational Level
Percentage of Surveyed Producers
BeninCaju Control
18
Figure 2.1-5: Size of surveyed producers’ households 
The percentages of members of the producers’ households that are involved with cashew production also 
varies considerably but are quite similar overall between BeninCaju and Control households as seen in 
Figure 2.1-6; the average percentage of BeninCaju household members involved with cashew is 50% 
compared to 48% for surveyed Control households. 
Figure 2.1-6: Percentage of surveyed household members involved with cashew 
Size of Surveyed Producers' Households
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26+
Household Size (Number of Members)
Percentage of Surveyed Producers
BeninCaju Control
Percentage of Surveyed Household Members 
Involved With Cashew
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
4%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-99% 100%
Percentage of Household Members
Percentage of Surveyed 
Households
BeninCaju Control
19
The two groups of surveyed households have similar distributions of (self-reported) annual household 
income as shown in Figure 2.1-7, but because of a handful of BeninCaju households with very high 
incomes (relative to the Control households) the average annual income of the surveyed BeninCaju 
households (FCFA 1,124,695- USD 1901) is notably higher than that of the Control households (FCFA 
870,018 –USD 1472)2
. These income distributions are presented in Figure 2.1-7. 
Figure 2.1-7: Surveyed households’ total annual income 
The surveyed households derive different percentages of their overall annual household income from 
cashew; however, on average, the two surveyed subgroups of producers are highly comparable in this 
regard. The surveyed BeninCaju households derive, on average, 23.7% of their annual income from 
cashew compared to an average of 22.7% for the surveyed Control households. These results are 
presented in Figure 2.1-8. 
 
2
 Conversion of FCFA to USD done using the conversion rate of FCFA 591.72 = USD 1 given by 
http://themoneyconverter.com/XOF/USD.aspx 
Surveyed Producers' Annual Household Income
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
48K-250K 250K-500K 500K-750K 750K-1.0M 1.0M-1.5M 1.5M-2.0M 2.0M-3.0M 3.0M+
Annual Household Income (FCFA)
Percentage of Surveyed Producers
BeninCaju Control
20
Figure 2.1-8: Percentage of household income derived from cashew 
The surveyed households were asked if they invested income from cashew in food crops; 61% of 
surveyed BeninCaju producers and 65% of surveyed Control producers reported doing so. The specific 
food crops in which notable percentages of surveyed producers reported invested cashew income are 
listed in Figure 2.1-9 and show great similarity between BeninCaju and Control producers. 
Figure 2.1-9: Primary food crops in which surveyed producers invested cashew income 
Percentage of Surveyed Producers' 
Annual Household Income Derived From Cashew
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
.1%-25% 26%-50% 50%-75% 75%-100% Missing
Percentage of Income
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control
Food Crops in Which Surveyed Producers 
Invested Income From Cashew
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Maize
Cassava
Yam
Chile Pepper
Groundnuts
Beans
Rice
Soya
Other
Food Crops
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers That Invested 
Cashew Income in Food Crops
BeninCaju Control
21
The surveyed producers were asked what impact they thought the effect of their investment of cashew 
income had on their production of food crops. Their responses are presented in Figure 2.1-10. These 
responses suggest that over half of both surveyed BeninCaju and surveyed Control producers feel that 
their income from cashew had a notable and significant influence on food crop production and thus on 
household food security. 
Figure 2.1-10: Impact on food crop production from investment of cashew income 
A separate small study by this author for the African Cashew initiative (ACi) in 2011 showed that 
cashew, despite being a cash crop, has an outsize influence on household food security in Benin by 
allowing smallholder households to use income from cashew to buy food at a time when few if any other 
income sources are available to them. This study also estimated the number of Beninese cashew farming 
households that would have improved food security if they adopted some or all of the cashew farming 
good agricultural practices (GAP) being promoted by ACi. 
The surveyed households that reported a perceived change in food crop production were also asked to 
estimate the magnitude of the change resulting from the investment of cashew income; half of both the 
BeninCaju and Control producers did not have even an estimate of this and the remaining data do not 
appear to be statistically robust and so are not presented here. 
Impact on Surveyed Producers' Food Crops 
From Investment of Cashew Income
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
INCREASE NO CHANGE DECREASE
Impact
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers That Invested 
Cashew Income in Food CRops
BeninCaju Control
22
2.2 Cashew Plantations and Holdings 
2.2.1 Numbers of Plantations and Cashew Trees 
The surveyed producers often have more than one cashew plantation, and so the surveyed producers were 
asked how many separate cashew areas (plantations) they had. On average, surveyed BeninCaju 
producers had 1.6 separate areas compared to an average of 1.5 for surveyed Control producers. The 
specific percentages of surveyed producers having different numbers of cashew plantations are shown in 
Figure 2.2-1. This figure shows that the two subgroups are quite similar in their ownership of different 
numbers of cashew areas. 
Figure 2.2-1: Numbers of surveyed producers’ separate cashew plantations 
The average size of these plantations was also investigated. The survey enumerators used hand-held 
GPS devices to measure the areas of all of the surveyed producers’ cashew plantations. The total, 
summed sizes of all of the surveyed producers’ cashew plantations are presented in Figure 2.2-2. The sum 
total size of all cashew areas is a more useful measure than the size of producers’ individual plantations. 
Number of Surveyed Producers' 
Separate Cashew Plantations
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1 2 3 4 5
Number of Plantations
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control
23
Figure 2.2-2: Surveyed producers’ total cashew area 
Some of the size data in the data base appear to be either measured incorrectly and/or entered into the 
database incorrectly in that they showed individual plantations of over 20 ha in size. These data from 20 
plantations were considered erroneous and so were omitted from Figure 2.2-2 and from the calculation of 
the average total plantation size of 4.1 ha for surveyed BeninCaju producers and 3.6 ha for surveyed 
Control producers. 
The surveyed producers were also asked how many producing cashew trees they had on each of their 
reported plantations. The plantation-level results from the surveyed producers are presented in Figure 
2.2-3. (The distribution of the total number of counted/estimated trees for each surveyed producer is 
presented in Figure 2.2-4). 
Total Size of Surveyed Producers' Cashew Plantations
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-6 6-8 8+
Total Plantation Size (Ha)
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control
24
Figure 2.2-3: Self-reported numbers of surveyed producers’ cashew trees 
Additionally, the numbers of producing trees on each plantation were counted for plantations of less than 
1 ha of measured size, and estimated for larger plantations (> 1 ha). For these 965 (72%) larger than 1 ha 
plantations, the estimation procedure consisted of measuring “representative” sub-areas of the plantations 
approximately 0.25 ha in size and counting all of the trees in the sub-area(s). From the measured size of 
the entire plantation and the measured size(s) of the sub-area(s), a scale factor was calculated and that was 
used to scale up from the total number of counted trees in the sub-area(s) to the estimated total number of 
trees in the plantation. 
These measured and/or estimated numbers of producing cashew trees in each plantation were then totaled 
for each surveyed producer. The distributions of estimated numbers of trees for the two surveyed sub￾groups are presented in Figure 2.2-4. The average number of productive trees for BeninCaju producers 
was estimated using the above method to be 703 vs 488 for Control producers. 
Self-Reported Numbers of Producing Cashew Trees on 
Surveyed Producers' Plantations
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0-50 51-100 101-200 201-300 301-400 401-500 501+
Number of Producing Trees
Percentage of Reported 
Plantations
BeninCaju Control
25
Figure 2.2-4: Total numbers of surveyed producers’ productive cashew trees 
The surveyed producers were also asked the approximate age of most of the productive cashew trees in 
each of their plantations. Their plantation-level responses are summarized in Figure 2.2-5. 
Figure 2.2-5: Ages of “most” of the productive cashew trees in surveyed producers’ plantations 
Counted/Estimated Total Numbers of Surveyed Producers' 
Productive Cashew Trees
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1-100 101-200 201-400 401-600 601-800 801-1000 1001-2000 2001-3000
Number of Trees
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control
Self Reported Age Of Surveyed Farmers' 
Producing Cashew Trees
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31+
Age (Years)
Percentage of Reported 
Plantations
BeninCaju Control
26
Because cashew nuts grow on the outside of the tree canopy which must be exposed to sunlight, cashew 
tree density (trees/ha) and the spacing between trees (m) are important. From the total measured sizes of 
all of the surveyed producers’ cashew plantations and the counted (or estimated) numbers of productive 
trees, the tree density was calculated for each of the surveyed producers’ separate plantations. These 
density distributions are presented in Figure 2.2-6. 
Figure 2.2-6: Plantation level cashew tree density in surveyed producers’ plantations 
Additionally, cashew tree density was calculated as an overall statistic for each surveyed producer (rather 
than at the plantation level). On average, the surveyed BeninCaju producers had 143 trees/ha compared 
to an average of 124 trees/ha for the surveyed Control producers. These producer-level density 
distributions are presented in Figure 2.2-7. 
Note that in comparing Figures 2.2-6 and 2.2-7, that the distributions are quite similar although not 
identical. 
Surveyed Producers' Cashew Plantation Density
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
9-50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-300 300+
Cashew Tree Density (Trees/ Ha)
Percentage of Measured 
Plantations
BeninCaju Control
27
Figure 2.2-7: Overall cashew tree density in surveyed producers’ plantations 
From the tree density, the average spacing between trees can now be estimated. For most varieties of 
cashew trees, spacing of 10-12 meters between trees is recommended to ensure that the outside of the tree 
canopy receives enough sunlight, thereby increasing yield. The estimation of tree spacing used here is 
based on the following equation (that implicitly considers the plantation to be square): 
Average Tree Spacing = 100 / (√[Tree Density] - 1) Equation (1) 
Where tree density is given in units of trees/ha and the resultant average tree spacing is given in 
meters/tree. Through the use of Equation (1) average overall tree spacing was calculated for each 
surveyed producer. These results are presented in Figure 2.2-8. The average estimated spacing for 
surveyed BeninCaju producers was 11.7 m vs 12.9 for the surveyed Control producers. 
Surveyed Producers' Overall Cashew Tree Density
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
5-50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-300 300+
Cashew Tree Density (Trees/ Ha)
Percentage of Surveyed Producers
BeninCaju Control
28
Figure 2.2-8: Overall cashew tree spacing 
2.2.2 Plantation Intercropping and Other Trees 
The surveyed producers were also asked about intercropping other crops and types of trees with their 
cashew trees. Only 8% of surveyed BeninCaju and 8% of surveyed Control farmers reported 
intercropping their cashew trees with other crops (questions about intercropping with other types of trees 
were asked separately). Figure 2.2-9 shows the most recent year in which the producers that did 
intercropping did this. Only the 8% of intercropped plantations are included in this figure; all 
percentages shown in the figure are calculated from the base of just these 8% of plantations. 
Figure 2.2-9: Most recent year that surveyed producers intercropped their cashew trees 
Surveyed Producers' Overall Average Cashew Tree Spacing
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
3-10 10-15 15-20 20-30 30+
Average Spacing (M)
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control
Most Recent Year Surveyed Producers' 
Cashew Plantations Were Intercropped
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1993-
2000
2001-
2005
2006-
2011
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers' Intercropped 
Plantations 
BeninCaju Control
29
The crops that were intercropped with cashew trees are listed in Figure 2.2-10. Note that the percentages 
shown in this figure are based on just those plantations on which intercropping was done. 
Figure 2.2-10: crops intercropped on surveyed producers’ cashew plantations 
Even though intercropping cashew with other crops is not practiced by many of the surveyed producers, 
75% of the surveyed BeninCaju producers and 76% of the surveyed Control producers have other types of 
trees on their cashew plantations. The types of trees are shown in Figure 2.2-11. 
Figure 2.2-11: Other types of trees on surveyed producers’ cashew plantations 
Crops Intercropped on Surveyed Producers' Cashew Plantations
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Maize
Cassava
Yam
Chile Pepper
TOMATE
Groundnuts
Beans
Cotton
Sorghum
Millet
EGUISI
Sweet Potato
Mango
Soya
Watermelon
OTHER
Crops
Percentage of Reporting Plantations That 
Were Intercropped
BeninCaju Control
Types of Other Trees on Surveyed Producers' Cashew Plantations
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Karité Néré Manguier Teck Other
Tree Types
Percentage of Surveyed Producers' 
Plantations With Other Tree Types
BeninCaju Control
30
The primary reason stated for keeping these other types of trees is for the sale or consumption of the fruit, 
mentioned by 88% of surveyed BeninCaju producers and 81% of surveyed Control producers. 
The surveyed producers were asked where they got their cashew planting materials and what types of 
materials they used on each of their plantations. These results are presented in Figures 2.2-12 and 2.2-13, 
respectively. Because multiple responses were allowed, some percentages total more than 100%. 
Figure 2.2-12: Surveyed producers’ sources of cashew planting materials 
Figure 2.2-13: Types of cashew planting materials used by surveyed producers 
Surveyed Producers' Sources of Cashew Planting Materials
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
FENAPAB
MAEP/ CARDER 
Recherche - INRAB
Private Nursery
Community Nursery
Own Production
Other Producer
Other
Source
Percentage of Surveyed Producers
BeninCaju Control
Types of Cashew Planting Materials 
Used By Surveyed Producers
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Cashew Nuts (seeds) Non-Grafted Plants Grafted Plants
Material Type
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers' Reporting 
Plantations
BeninCaju Control
31
2.3 Cashew Production, Yield, and Disposition 
This section presents the Baseline findings regarding production of cashew by the BeninCaju and Control 
producers, the yield or productivity of their cashew farming, and the disposition of their raw cashew nuts 
(RCN) to sales or for other purposes. 
2.3.1 Cashew Production 
The total amount (kg) of RCN produced by the surveyed producers is estimated, for this report, to be the 
sum total of all RCN reported sold and the amounts of RCN reported used for other purposes plus those 
estimated to have been lost to theft and/or animal intrusion into the cashew plantations or remaining in 
stock. The producers’ total estimated production, as defined above, averaged 697 kg for BeninCaju
producers vs 466 kg for Control producers. This difference mirrors the difference in the average numbers 
of productive cashew trees reported by these two subgroups. The distributions of the estimated RCN 
production of these two subgroups are presented in Figure 2.3-1. 
Figure 2.3-1: Surveyed producers’ estimated RCN production 
Surveyed Producers' Estimated Production 
of Raw Cashew Nuts (RCN)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0-100 101-200 201-400 401-600 601-800 801-
1000
1001-
1500
1501-
2000
2001+
Estimated Production (Kg)
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers With Reported 
Production
BeninCaju Control
32
2.3.2 Cashew Yield 
Cashew yield, or productivity, is measured as production per unit of production. Yield, or “productivity,” 
can be calculated for tree crops either in terms of production (kg) per unit area (ha) or production (kg) 
per producing tree. While measuring yield as production per unit area (kg/ha) is a standard measure for 
field crops, it can present some problems for tree crops. The principal problem for this stems from the fact 
that for smallholder producers, the tree density (the number of trees per unit area) can vary considerably 
from one producer to the next, thus making yield, calculated as kg/ha, highly dependent on this density - 
which may be a result of legacy cashew farming and may not be directly related to good agricultural 
practices (GAP) for cashew. In other words, cashew yield measured in terms of kg/ha may vary 
considerably due solely to tree density and thus say nothing about the producer’s farming practices. 
However, because for larger plantations, tree counts are sometimes necessarily estimated rather than 
actually counted, this too can to errors. Therefore, both measurements of yield are presented here. On 
average, BeninCaju producers obtained yields of 2.81 kg/tree and 225 kg/ha compared to Control 
producers that obtained overall average yields of 2.80 kg/tree and 199 kg/ha). 
Therefore, the “units of production” considered in this report are area (ha) and productive cashew tree. 
Yield is measured in this report in units of kg/hectare (kg/ha) and kg/productive tree. In order to put the 
yield calculations into the context of plantation size and plantation tree density, the yield results presented 
in this section are presented for different overall numbers of trees and overall tree densities. 
Figures 2.3-2 and 2.3-3 present the distributions of yield in units of kg/tree for different overall numbers 
of trees and densities, respectively. Figures 2.3-4 and 2.3-5 present the distributions of yield in units of 
kg/ha for different overall numbers of trees and densities, respectively. Note that all of these figures 
represent yield calculated with the total estimated RCN production, total counted/estimated number of 
productive cashew trees, and the overall calculated tree density rather than having these calculations and 
results at the individual plantation level. 
33
Figure 2.3-2: Surveyed producers’ cashew yield per tree for different plantation sizes 
Figure 2.3-3: Surveyed producers’ cashew yield per tree for different plantation densities 
Surveyed Producers' Cashew Yield 
Per Producing Cashew Tree
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1-100 101-250 251-500 501-1000 1001+ All
Number of Producing Cashew Trees
Average Cashew Yield (Kg / 
Tree)
BeninCaju Control
Surveyed Producers' Cashew Yield Per Producing Cashew Tree
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
1-100 100 200-300 300+ ALL
Cashew Tree Density (Trees / Ha)
Average Cashew Yield (Kg / Tree)
BeninCaju Control
34
Figure 2.3-4: Surveyed producers’ cashew yield per hectare for different plantation sizes 
Figure 2.3-5: Surveyed producers cashew yield per hectare for different plantation densities 
2.3.3 Disposition of Raw Cashew Nuts (RCN) 
Apart from selling raw cashew nuts (RCN), the surveyed producers also used RCN for other purposes 
such as payment for labor, gifts, paying debts, etc. In addition to these deliberate dispositions of RCN, 
Surveyed Producers' Cashew Yield 
Per Hectare of Cashew Plantation
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1-100 101-250 251-500 501-1000 1001+ All
Number of Producing Cashew Trees
Average Cashew Yield (Kg / Ha)
BeninCaju Control
Surveyed Producers' Cashew Yield 
Per Hectare of Cashew Plantation
0
50
100
150
200
250
1-100 100 200-300 300+ ALL
Cashew Tree Density (Trees / Ha)
Average Cashew Yield (Kg / Ha)
BeninCaju Control
35
some of the surveyed producers also reported the loss of RCN due to theft and/or intrusion of animals 
(cattle) into their cashew plantations. Some of the surveyed producers also reported still having some 
RCN in stock. 
Cumulatively, the total amounts (kg) of RCN produced but not sold can be substantial for some 
producers. Overall, based on the reported sales and amounts of RCN otherwise disposed of, BeninCaju 
producers sold, on average, 68% of the RCN produced (kg) compared to 64% for the Control producers. 
Most of these various dispositions were only incurred by relatively few surveyed producers. Table 2.3-1 
presents these data. 
Table 2.3-1: Other dispositions of surveyed producers’ RCN 
Disposition of RCN
BeninCaju Control
Percentage 
With This 
Disposition
Average Kg of 
RCN Used For 
This Purpose*
Percentage 
With This 
Disposition
Average Kg of 
RCN Used For 
This Purpose*
Compensate workers 24% 123 31% 94
Used as gifts 12% 72 12% 46
Pay debts 13% 216 12% 139
Pay landowner 1% 68 1% 86
Last due to theft 68% 99 65% 83
Lost due to animal intrusion 57% 77 60% 72
RCN still in stock 2% 3 2% 7
Other dispositions 2% 24 0% N/A
* Percentage calculated from base of only those producers that disposed of RCN for this purpose 
Overall, 20% of BeninCaju producers and 16% of Control producers reported no other dispositions of 
RCN. For the remaining 80% of BeninCaju producers and 84% of Control producers, the average total 
amounts of RCN disposed of in at least one of these other ways or lost to theft or animal intrusion or still 
in stock were 226 kg for BeninCaju producers and 179 kg for Control producers. These quantities of 
unsold RCN represent, on average, for just those producers with unsold RCN, 38% of BeninCaju 
producers’ total production of RCN compared to 40% of total production for Control producers. These 
figures appear somewhat high and reflect what may be the estimated estimates of some of the amounts of 
RCN used for other purposes and/or lost to theft and/or animal intrusion. 
 
36
2.4 Cashew Expenses 
Many of the surveyed producers incurred different types of expenses for cashew farming. These expenses 
mainly involved chemicals to deal with weeds and pests and for hired labor for different tasks associated 
with cashew farming. These expenses are summarized in Table 2.4-1. Note in this table that there were a 
few cases reported expenses for different expense types believed to be unrealistically high (or entered 
incorrectly into the database. Those few data considered to be outlier values that were believed to be in 
error were not included in the data in this table. The limits imposed on credible amounts for the different 
types of expenses are presented as footnotes to this table. 
37
Table 2.4-1 Surveyed producers’ cashew farming expenses 
Cashew Farming 
Expense
BeninCaju Control
% With 
Expense
% Paid 
Cash
% Paid 
In-kind
% Paid 
Cash and 
In-kind
Average 
Amount 
(FCFA) (% 
With 
Expense)
% With 
Expense
% Paid 
Cash
% Paid 
In-kind
% Paid 
Cash and 
In-kind
Average 
Amount 
(FCFA) 
(% With 
Expense)
Herbicide1 25% 100% --- --- 7,001 19% 99% 1% --- 4,276
Insecticide 10% 100% --- --- 2,624 6% 100% --- --- 1,460
Hired labor for 
building fire-break2
41% 99% 1% --- 20,066 40% 90% 5% 5% 14,058
Hired labor for 
pruning cashew 
trees3
32% 90% 10% --- 15,460 29% 91% 5% 4% 12,847
Hired labor for 
weeding4
50% 95% 5% --- 33,346 49% 91% 3% 6% 26,289
Hired labor for 
harvesting cashew 26% 43% 52% 5% 15,833 29% 45% 52% 2% 14,566
Other expense 2% 89% 11% --- 452 2% 67% 33% --- 112
TOTAL 
EXPENSES5
75% N/A N/A N/A 107,405 69% N/A N/A N/A 73,487
1. Maximum value allowed for expense for herbicide: FCFA 150,000 
2. Maximum value allowed for expense for labor for fire-break: FCFA 400,000 
3. Maximum value allowed for expense for pruning: FCFA 300,000 
4. Maximum value allowed for expense for weeding: FCFA 800,000 
5. Maximum value allowed for total expenses: FCFA 2,000,000 
38
While table 2-4-1 summarizes the various cashew farming expenses for the BeninCaju and Control 
producers as subgroups. But, cashew farming expenses will very clearly vary according to the total 
plantation size and the numbers of trees. Accordingly, Tables 2.4-2 and 2.4-3 present these expense data 
disaggregated by total plantation size and total number of producing cashew trees, respectively. 
39
Table 2.4-2 Surveyed producers’ cashew farming expenses disaggregated by total plantation size 
Total 
Plantation 
Size (Ha)
Average Expense (FCFA) For Producers With This Expense
BeninCaju Control
Herbicide Insecticide Labor for 
Firebreak
Labor 
for 
Pruning
Labor 
for 
Weeding
Labor for 
Harvesting Herbicide Insecticide Labor for 
Firebreak
Labor 
for 
Pruning
Labor 
for 
Weeding
Labor for 
Harvesting
0-1 2211 11883 59214 19350 58361 18154 1565 10000 19931 21333 32135 22500
1-2 6056 16563 31179 31636 33129 29813 2714 25000 23818 25929 37364 23100
2-3 7779 26000 31656 44308 39457 27106 5507 8750 29131 35548 44794 35133
3-4 17028 35000 45350 54313 62333 70800 8581 23667 41000 54563 49875 47333
4-6 7947 10600 56438 56421 89931 97958 5963 15500 39563 61429 85107 56300
6-8 4720 16900 58444 75133 87361 42831 6227 36500 49500 61458 96087 59538
8+ 23448 58500 226145 471750 233044 103902 7412 39250 54185 67674 68259 82467
All 9751 26358 75795 127940 85060 60650 4983 24222 35583 42951 56083 52170
Table 2.4-3 Surveyed producers’ cashew farming expenses disaggregated by total number of producing cashew trees 
Total 
Number of 
Productive 
Trees
Average Expense (FCFA) For Producers With This Expense
BeninCaju Control
Herbicide Insecticide Labor for 
Firebreak
Labor 
for 
Pruning
Labor 
for 
Weeding
Labor for 
Harvesting Herbicide Insecticide Labor for 
Firebreak
Labor 
for 
Pruning
Labor 
for 
Weeding
Labor for 
Harvesting
1-100 6476 15422 57214 24130 53286 25618 2311 11667 22059 24056 30239 17909
101-250 7055 26450 28171 35147 35304 27500 4024 11833 25728 37713 40824 31991
251-500 17211 17288 43500 57652 62694 71503 5007 14111 40069 37962 79380 55487
501-1000 14104 22750 55740 79121 75145 40505 11250 32333 42143 54438 65000 61688
1001+ 7187 55000 190141 396121 190115 120448 4389 43750 60000 76706 75593 80077
40
Because different expenses were borne by different subsets of the producers, trying to get overall expense 
totals in these tables would be confusing and ambiguous. Therefore, total cashew farming expenses, 
averaged over all BeninCaju and Control producers and disaggregated by total number of trees and total 
plantations size, are presented in Tables 2.4-4 and 2.4-5, respectively. 
Table 2.4-4: Total average cashew farming expenses for all surveyed producers by total number of trees 
Total Number of 
Producing Trees
Average Total Cashew Farming 
Expenses (FCFA)
BeninCaju Control
1-100 68530 27600
101-250 53781 52313
251-500 100195 99339
501-1000 115833 108714
1001+ 373077 135981
All 140277 73746
Table 2.4-5: Total average cashew farming expenses for all surveyed producers by total plantation size 
Total Plantation 
Size (ha)
Average Total Cashew Farming 
Expenses (FCFA)
BeninCaju Control
0-1 59667 27674
1-2 43196 34083
2-3 67864 60462
3-4 124073 92819
4-6 116722 106712
6-8 125338 127066
8+ 479895 145973
All 139878 73487
41
2.5 Cashew Sales and Income 
This section of the report presents results related to the sales of Raw Cashew Nuts (RCN) and the income 
accrued by the surveyed producers from those sales plus the imputed in-kind income from RCN that were 
produced and (mostly) harvested but not sold. 
2.5.1 RCN Sales 
This subsection of the report presents the baseline findings regarding the sales of RCN by the surveyed 
producers. Some months before the actual Baseline survey - but after the initial sample lists were 
developed, the target producers were given a form on which they agreed to record all sales of RCN from 
that point forward. The data to be recorded included the date of the sale, the amount (kg) of RCN sold, 
the amount of money received (FCFA), and the type of buyer for that sale. From these data, the price 
paid per kg of RCN was calculated for each sale. Because this process was only able to begin well into 
the harvest and buying season (April, 2016), the survey enumerators asked the farers to recall all RCN 
sales that had already taken place this season and the above details for each sale. 
These data allowed a somewhat detailed assessment of the sales patterns of the surveyed producers for the 
2016 harvest season. The first such detail is the average number of separate RCN sales reported for the 
BeninCaju and the Control producers. The average number of separate RCN sales for BeninCaju 
producers was 1.9 compared to 2.4 for the Control producers. The distributions of numbers of RCN sales 
by these two subgroups are presented in Figure 2.5-1. 
 
Figure 2.5-1: Number of separate sales of RCN by surveyed producers 
Number of RCN Sales By Surveyed Producers
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of Separate Sales
Percentage of Reporting Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control



45
Figure 2.5-6: Types of buyers for surveyed producers’ RCN 
The average prices paid per kg of RCN by the different types of buyers are presented in Figure 2.5-6. 
Note that some of the different buyer types were involved in relatively few sales and so the calculated 
average price they paid is based on relatively few data points and so should be viewed with that in mind 
when comparing these average prices. For example, according to the sales records recorded and reported 
by the surveyed producers, only 7 sales (for BeninCaju and Control producers combined) were made to 
cashew processors compared to village buyers who were involved in 1423 of the recorded sales. 
Buyers of Surveyed Producers' Cashew Nuts
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Farmgate Buyers
Village Buyers
Producer Cooperative
Cashew Processors
Traders
Other
Type of Buyer
Percentage of Sales
BeninCaju Control
46
Figure 2.5-6: Prices paid for RCN by different types of buyers 
 
Average Prices Paid For RCN By Different Types of Buyers
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Farmgate
Buyers
Village Buyers Producer
Cooperative
Cashew
Processors
Traders
Buyer Type
Average Price Paid for RCN 
(FCFA/Kg)
47
2.5.2 Income from Cashew 
The surveyed producers earned income from the sale of RCN, but for this study, the in-kind value of RCN 
that was produced but not sold (i.e., was either disposed of in other ways or lost to theft or animal 
intrusions), or was still in stock was also included in the producers’ overall income from cashew, 
consistent with what was done in the African Cashew initiative (ACi) yield surveys in Benin and 
elsewhere. The method by which this amount of in-kind income was calculated was simply to use the 
average price over all 1754 reported sales by the surveyed producers as the imputed in-kind value of each 
kg of RCN that was produced but not sold. As noted in section 2.4.1, that amount was calculated to be 
FCFA 515.5 per kg of RCN. 
The preponderance of income from cashew came, of course from sales of RCN. The average value of this 
real income from RCN sales, averaged over all surveyed producers that reported these amounts, was 
FCFA 220, 770 for BeninCaju producers compared to FCFA 157,090 for Control producers. The 
distributions of the amounts of this income earned by the surveyed producers are presented in Figure 2.5-
7.
Figure 2.5-7: Surveyed producers’ income from sale of RCN 
In-Kind income was only imputed to those producers that reported disposing of RCN in ways other than 
sales, or that reported theft or loss to animals, or had some quantity of RCN still in stock. The value of 
these produced but unsold RCN was calculated as discussed above. Eighty percent (80%) of the 
Income Earned By Surveyed Producers From Sales of RCN
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
450-25K 25K-50K 50K-100K 100K-250K 250K-500K 500K-1000K 1000K+
Income (FCFA)
Percentage of Reporting Surveyed Producers
BeninCaju Control
48
BeninCaju producers and 84% of the Control producers reported having some unsold RCN per the above 
definition. When the value of this RCN was calculated for just those producers that reported having 
unsold RCN, the average in-kind income from cashew for BeninCaju producers was found to be FCFA 
116,490 compared to an average in-kind income of FCFA 92,196 for Control producers. The 
distributions of these amounts are presented in Figure 2.5-8. 
Figure 2.5-8: In-kind income from value of unsold RCN 
When both types of income from cashew are combined, the total amount of gross income from cashew 
can be calculated. Note that some producers only reported sales income while others reported unsold 
RCN, other producers reported no income data at all, and others reported both kinds of income. This 
disparity in the numbers and specific producers reporting each type of income means that average gross 
income cannot be accurately estimated as the sum of average income from sales and average in-kind 
income. However, when the total amount of gross income from cashew is calculated the average for 
BeninCaju producers was found to be FCFA 304,282 compared to FCFA 223,419 for Control producers. 
The distribution of gross income from cashew for only those surveyed producers that reported some gross 
income from cashew were included in these calculations and results, presented in Figure 2.5-9. 
In-Kind Income Imputed to Surveyed Producers From 
Produced But Unsold RCN
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1-25K 25K-50K 50K-75K 75K-100K 100K￾200K
200K￾400K
400K￾600K
600K+
In-Kind Income (FCFA)
Percentage of Surveyed Producers With 
Reported Unsold RCN
BeninCaju Control
49
Figure 2.5-9: Surveyed producers’ gross income from cashew 
Once gross income from cashew and reported cashew farming expenses are known, net income from 
cashew can be calculated. However, because of many cases in which no gross income was reported (i.e., 
the producer did not want to answer or genuinely earned no income from cashew), only those cases with 
some non-zero gross income were included in the following calculations of net income. This decision 
was made to avoid deducting real, non-zero cashew expenses from unreported gross income (for which 
gross income was set = FCFA 0), resulting in excessively large negative values of calculated net income, 
i.e., losses from cashew farming. While it is certainly possible, and even likely, that some of the surveyed 
producers lost money on their cashew farming, excessively large calculated losses were considered 
erroneous and were also omitted from these calculations. Thus, only net incomes larger than FCFA -
5,000,000 (i.e., losses of FCFA 5,000,000) were included in these figures and average values. 
The average overall net income for those producers that met the above constraints was FCFA 208,461 for 
BeninCaju producers and FCFA 163,913 for Control producers. These net income distributions are 
presented in Figure 2.5-10. Note in this figure that, according to the responses given by the surveyed 
producers, approximately 18% of BeninCaju producers and 14% of Control producers lost money on their 
cashew farming in 2016. 
Surveyed Producers' Gross Income From Cashew
(Sales Income Plus In-Kind Income)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1-50K 50K￾100K
100K￾250K
250K￾500K
500K￾750K
750K￾1000K
1000K+ Missing
Gross Income (FCFA)
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control
50
Figure 2.5-10: Surveyed producers’ net income from cashew 
Obviously, gross or net income depend critically on the number of producing cashew trees, so it is useful 
to consider net income per producing tree as was done for Figure 2.5-11. The average amount of net 
income earned per producing trees was FCFA 862 for BeninCaju producers and FCFA 1014 for Control 
producers. 
Figure 2.5-11: Net income per producing cashew tree 
Surveyed Producers' Total Net Income From Cashew
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
-11M- -1M -1M- -100K -100K - 0 1-100K 100K-250K 250K-500K 500K-1M 1M+
Net Income (FCFA)
Percentage of Surveyed Producers
BeninCaju Control
Surveyed Producers' Net Income 
From Cashew Per Producing Tree
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
-20K- -10K 0-500 500-1000 1000-5000 5000+
Net Income (FCFA/ Tree)
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control
51
In order to put the results from the above figure into context, the number of trees needs to also be 
considered since, as has been seen for other tree cash crops, as the total number of trees increases, yield 
and income per tree decreases. Figure 2.5-12 shows the distribution of net income per tree for different 
total numbers of producing cashew trees and shows that as the overall number of trees increases, income 
per tree decreases for both producer subgroups. This counter-intuitive finding is possibly the result of 
limits on household labor, or to an economic decision to accept a lower gross income per tree - since there 
are more trees and the overall amount of income will be higher - and to prioritize other crops (principally 
the staple food crop) for investment of household labor and/or money. 
Figure 2.5-12: Net income per tree disaggregated by total number of producing trees 
Another dimension that is useful to consider is net income per hectare of cashew plantation. The 
distributions of these data are presented in Figure 2.5-13. These data were generated by considering the 
total area of each surveyed producers’ cashew areas together, as a single area. The average net income per 
hectare of cashew plantation was found to be FCFA 75,389 for BeninCaju producers vs FCFA 79.238 for 
Control producers. As with net income per tree, net income per hectare of cashew can also be 
disaggregated, but in this case by the total plantation size. These results are presented in Figure 2.5-14 
Surveyed Producers' Net Income Per Producing Cashew Tree 
By Total Number of Trees
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1-100 101-250 251-500 501-1000 1001+ All
Total Number of Producing Trees
Average Net Income (FCFA/Tree)
BeninCaju Control
52
Figure 2.5-13: Net income per hectare of cashew 
Figure 2.5-14: Net income per hectare of cashew disaggregated by total plantation size 
Surveyed Producers' Net Income Per Hectare of Cashew
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
-1.5M - 0 0-25K 25K-50K 50K-75K 75K￾100K
100K￾150K
150K￾200K
200K￾300K
300K+
Net Income (FCFA)
Percentage of Surveyed Producers 
With Non-Zero Gross Income From 
Cashew
BeninCaju Control
Surveyed Producers' Net Income Per Hectare of Cashew 
By Total Plantation Size
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-6 6-8 8+ All
Total Plantation Size (Ha)
Average Net Income Per Hectare 
(FCFA/Ha)
BeninCaju Control
53
2.6 Cashew Production Training and Practices 
2.6.1 Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) for Cashew 
The surveyed producers were asked a number of questions about any direct (face-to-face) and/or indirect
training they may have had on Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) for cashew from 2010-2016. Thirty￾Nine percent (39%) of the BeninCaju producers reported receiving such training compared to 32% of the 
Control producers. The sources of this training are shown in Figure 2.6-1; note that the percentages shown 
in this figure are calculated from the base of just those producers that reported receiving this training. 
Note also that the producers could name more than one source of this training so the percentages may 
total more than 100%. 
Figure 2.6-1: Surveyed producers’ sources of direct training on GAP 
Note that roughly 5% of the producers that received this training reported receiving it from sources other 
than those listed. There were a diverse group of other sources listed, only one of which were named by 
more than a very few farmers. That one source was the DEDRAS (NGO), named by 4% of BeninCaju 
producers and 5% of Control producers. 
Surveyed Producers' Sources of Direct Training on Good 
Agricultural Practices for Cashew
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
ICA
FENAPAB
MAEP/ CARDER 
Recherche - INRAB
Union de producteurs 
ONG 
Other
Training Source
Percentage of Surveyed Producers That 
Received This Training
BeninCaju Control
54
The most recent year in which most of the surveyed producers received this training was 2015 as shown 
in Figure 2.6-2. 
Figure 2.6-2: Most recent year of surveyed producers’ direct training on GAP 
The surveyed producers were also asked whether they had received any indirect training or gotten any 
other information on GAP for cashew; sixty-three percent (63%) of the BeninCaju producers and 70% of 
the Control producers reported having receiving indirect training and/or other information about GAP for 
cashew. The primary sources of this indirect training and/or information are presented in Figure 2.6-3. 
Year of Surveyed Producers' Most Recent Training on 
Good Agricultural Practices for Cashew
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
2000-2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers That Received 
Direct Training
BeninCaju Control
55
Figure 2.6-3: Surveyed producers’ other sources for information about GAP for cashew 
The specific GAP topics learned about from these various indirect sources are presented in Figure 2.6-4. 
Figure 2.6-4: Specific GAP for cashew for which surveyed producers got information from indirect 
sources 
Surveyed Producers' Other Sources About GAP for Cashew
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Other producers
Radio
SMS
Newspapers
Television
Other producers
Other Sources
Percentage of Surveyed Producers 
That Got Information From Other Sources
BeninCaju Control
Specific GAP for Cashew For Which Information 
Was Provided From Indirect Sources
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Pruning
Weeding
Treatment of
parasites/diseases
Building firebreaks
Other
Specific GAP
Percentage of Surveyed Producers 
That Got Information From Other Sources
BeninCaju Control
56
The producers were asked a series of questions about different specific GAP for cashew; the specific GAP 
mentioned include pruning, weeding, protection of the plantations against bushfires, and protecting 
cashew trees against pests and diseases. In response to questions about pruning¸ 84% of the BeninCaju 
producers’ plantations and 76% of the Control producers’ plantations had been pruned at some time. The 
most recent times that these plantations were pruned are shown in Figure 2.6-5. 
Figure 2.6-5: Most recent time surveyed producers’ cashew trees were pruned 
When the producers were asked the reasons that some of their plantations had not been pruned, the most 
common reason given was that pruning was not necessary. The most common responses given for the 
different plantations not having been pruned are shown in Figure 2.6-6. 
When Surveyed Producers' Cashew Plantations 
Were Last Pruned
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Within Last 12 Months 13-24 Months Ago More than 24 Months Ago
Pruning Period
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers' Plantations That 
Have Been Pruned
BeninCaju Control
57
Figure 2.6-6: Reasons cashew plantations were not pruned 
The surveyed producers were also asked about weeding. For both BeninCaju and Control producers, 87% 
of their plantations had been weeded within the last 12 months. The numbers of times these plantations 
had been weeded during this period are shown in Figure 2.6-7. 
Figure 2.6-7: Number of weedings in the last 12 months 
Reasons Surveyed Producers' Cashew Plantations Not Pruned
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Too Much Work
High Cost of Labor
Too Busy With Other
crops
Not Necessary
Other
Reasons
Percentage of Unpruned Plantations
BeninCaju Control
Number of Times Surveyed Producers Have Weeded 
Their Cashew Plantations in the Last 12 Months
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Once Twice Three Times
Weedings
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers' Plantations 
That Have Been weeded
BeninCaju Control
58
The producers were also asked how they disposed of the weeds that resulted from weeding their cashew 
plantations. Their responses are shown in Figure 2.6-8. Note that the most common disposition was to 
leave the uprooted/cut weeds where they were. 
Figure 2.6-8: Disposition of weeds resulting from weeding cashew plantations 
Despite the producers reporting that over 40% (BeninCaju: 42%, Control: 44%) of their total cashew 
plantations had been burned by bushfires at least once, only 87% of BeninCaju producers’ cashew 
plantations and 84% of Control producers’ plantations were protected against bushfires. The reasons 
given for not protecting the other plantations are shown in Figure 2.6-9. Again, the most commonly 
given reason was that, for these plantations, at least, it was not necessary. 
 
Disposition of Weeds in Surveyed Producers' 
Cashew Plantations
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
THREW THEM AWAY
BURNED THEM
LEFT IN PLANTATION
USED AS ANIMAL
FODDER
OTHER
Disposition
Percentage of Surveyed Producers Weeded Plantations
BeninCaju Control
59
Figure 2.6-9: Reasons given by surveyed producers for not protecting plantations against bushfires 
The surveyed producers were asked about pests; on over three-quarters (77%) of the BeninCaju 
producers’ plantations, pests were noticed on the cashew trees compared to 80% of Control producers’ 
plantations. The overall numbers of trees that were reported affected in the different plantations are 
shown in Figure 2.6-10. 
Figure 2.6-10: Numbers of surveyed producers’ cashew trees with pest infestations 
Reasons Surveyed Producers Did Not Protect Their 
Cashew Plantations Against Bushfires
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Too Much Work
High Cost of Labor
Too Busy With Other
crops
Not Necessary
Other
Reason
Percentage of Reporting, Unprotected Cashew Plantations
BeninCaju Control
Number of Surveyed Producers' Cashew Trees 
With Pest Infestations
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1-20 21-50 51-75 76+
Number of Cashew Trees
Percentage of Reprting 
Plantations With Pest 
Infestations
BeninCaju Control
60
F
Figure 2.6-11: Surveyed producers methods for treating cashew trees against pests 
Only 19% of BeninCaju producers’ plantations and 13% of Control producers’ plantations were treated 
against pests, either as a prophylaxis or curative measure. The means by which these cashew plantations 
were treated are shown in Figure 2.6-11; the numbers of times they were treated are shown in Figure 2.6-
12. 
Surveyed Producers Method for 
Treating Pests on Cashew Trees
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Mechanical Chemical Mechanical and
Chemical
Other
Method
Percentage of Reporting, Treated 
Plantations
BeninCaju Control
61
Figure 2.6-12: Number of times cashew plantations were treated against pests 
Finally, the reasons surveyed producers gave for not treating the untreated cashew plantations are 
presented in Figure 2.6-13. Note that many of the producers reported not knowing which products to use, 
something that BeninCaju training can address (for BeninCaju producers). 
Figure 2.6-13: Reasons given for not treating cashew plantations against pests 
Number of Times Surveyed Producers 
Treated Cashew Trees for Pests
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
ONCE TWICE THREE TIMES
Treatments
Percentage of Reporting, 
Treated Plantations
CIAP Control
Reasons Surveyed Producers Did Not 
Treat Cashew Trees Against Pests
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Too Much Work
Could Not Find Labor
Too Busy With Other crops
High Cost of Labor
Treatment Products Not Available
Don't Know Products to Use
Not Necessary
Other
Reason
Percentage of Reporting, Untreated Plantations
BeninCaju Control
62
2.6.2 Harvest and Post Harvest (HPH) Training and Methods for Cashew 
An analogous series of questions were asked about harvest and post-harvest (HPH) training and practices. 
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the BeninCaju producers and 32% of the Control producers reported 
receiving training on HPH methods between 2010 and 2016. The producers’ sources of this direct training 
on HPH methods are shown in Figure 2.6-14.
Figure 2.6-14: Surveyed producers’ sources of direct training on HPH methods 
Again, the only “other” source mentioned by a significant percentage of the producers was DEDRAS 
ONG. Most of the producers that received this direct training on HPH most recently received it in 2014-
2016 as shown in Figure 2.6-15. 
Surveyed Producers' Sources of Direct 
Harvest/Post-Harvest (HPH) Training
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
ACI MAEP/
CARDER 
Recherche –
INRAB
Union de
producteurs 
ONG/ autres
projets 
OTHER 
Source of Direct Training
Percentage of Surveyed Producers That 
Received Direct HPH training
BeninCaju Control
63
Figure 2.6-15: Year of surveyed producers’ most recent direct training on HPH methods 
Additionally, 56% of BeninCaju producers and 65% of Control producers received information about 
HPH methods for cashew from indirect sources, as shown in Figure 2.6-16.
Figure 2.6-16: Surveyed producers’ indirect sources of information about HPH methods for cashew 
Year of Surveyed Producers' Most Recent Direct Training on 
Harvest/Post-Harvest Methods
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1996-2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year of Training
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers That Received Direct 
HPH Training
BeninCaju Control
Surveyed Producers' Other Sources of Information on 
Harvest/Post-Harvest (HPH) Methods
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Other Producers Radio Programs SMS Newspapers Other
HPH Information Sources
Percentage of Surveyed Producers 
That Got Information About HPH 
Methods From Other Sources
BeninCaju Control
64
The surveyed BeninCaju producers collected their RCN an average of 7.9 times per month during harvest 
season compared to 8.5 times per month for Control producers. The distributions of collection frequency 
for these two sub-groups are presented in Figure 2.6-17. 
Figure 2.6-17: Number of times per month RCN are collected during harvest season 
Almost all of the surveyed producers collect their RCN by picking up the nuts that fall from the trees 
rather than by pulling them off the trees (BeninCaju: 97%; Control: 97%). Further, almost all of the 
surveyed producers separate the cashew nut from the cashew apple by twisting the nut off rather than with 
the use of a nylon string as promoted by ACi to reduce/eliminate the chance for disease to enter the 
separated nut. “Twisting” is used by 98% of the BeninCaju producers and 97% of the Control producers. 
Only 2% of the former and 1% of the latter report using nylon string for this purpose. The reasons that 
the surveyed producers give for not using nylon string are presented in Figure 2.6-18. Note in this figure 
that the primary reason given for this is that the producers don’t know the practice, something that 
BeninCaju can address as part of the program interventions. 
The Number of Times Surveyed Producer Collect 
Cashew Nuts Each Month During Harvest Season
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1-3 4-6 7-10 11+
Number of Collections
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control
65
Figure 2.6-18: Surveyed producers’ reasons for not using nylon string to separate the cashew nut and 
apple 
Fifty-six percent (56%) of both BeninCaju and Control producers reported drying their RCN before 
packaging them. The methods they use to know when the RCN are fully dry are shown in Figure 2.6-19. 
Figure 2.6-19: How surveyed producers know when RCN are fully dried 
Reasons That Surveyed Producers Do Not Use Nylon 
Thread to Separate the Cashew Nut and Apple
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Takes too much time Don't know this
practice
No benefit to this
practice
Other
Reason
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control
How Surveyed Producers Know 
When Cashew Nuts Are Fully Dried
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Rattling noise when dry
Resistance to pressure
from finger
Put hand into bag and
"feel"
Dry the nuts for a
certain number of days
Other
Method
Percentage of Surveyed Producers That Dry Cashew Nuts Before Packaging
BeninCaju Control
66
The various locations used by the surveyed producers to dry their RCN are presented in Figure 2.6-20. 
 
Figure 2.6-20: RCN drying locations used by surveyed producers 
The materials used by the surveyed producers to package their RCN are shown in Figure 2.6-21. Note 
that jute bags are the preferred material recommended for packaging RCN. The reasons that some of the 
surveyed producers do not use jute bags for this purpose are given in Figure 2.6-22. Note that the 
percentages given in this figure are percentages of just those surveyed producers that do not use jute bags 
How/Where Surveyed Producers 
Dried Their Cashew Nuts This Season
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
On a shelf/rack
On the floor in a house
On a tarp outside
On a concrete floor in a house
Outside on the ground
In a basket
Other
Method/Location
Percentage of Surveyed Producers
BeninCaju Control
67
Figure 2.6-21: Materials used by surveyed producers to package RCN 
Figure 2.6-22: Reasons surveyed producers do not use jute bags to package RCN 
The surveyed producers were asked whether they knew the criteria used by cashew buyers to assess the 
quality of RCN; 47% of the BeninCaju producers and 61% of the Control producers reported know what 
Packaging Used By Surveyed Producers 
to Store Cashew Nuts
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
JUTE BAGS PLASTIC BAGS BASKETS/BOWLS None
Packaging
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control
Reasons Surveyed Producers Do Not Use Jute Bags 
To Store Cashew Nuts
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
TOO EXPENSIVE ARE NOT AVAILABLE NOT NECESSARY OTHER
Reason
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers That Do Not Use 
Jute Bags
BeninCaju Control
68
these criteria are. The criteria they mentioned are listed in Figure 2.6-23. Note that the producers could 
name up to three separate criteria, so the percentages of producers that named the various criteria may 
total more than 100%. 
Figure 2.6-23: Surveyed producers knowledge of RCN quality criteria used by cashew buyers 
2.6.3: Use of Radio and Mobiles for Cashew 
The surveyed producers were asked about their use of radio programs and mobiles to get information 
about cashew production and marketing. Of the BeninCaju producers, 55% reported having listened to 
radio programs about cashew GAP since 2010; a greater percentage, 67%, of the Control producers 
reported listening to radio programs about cashew since 2010. The specific messages/topics regarding 
cashew are listed in Figure 2.6-24. Almost all of the surveyed producers that reported listening to radio 
programs about cashew also reported applying at least one of the messages about cashew they heard on 
the radio (BeninCaju: 96%; Control: 95%). 
 Criteria Surveyed Producers Believe 
Buyers Use To Judge RCN Quality 
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
RCN size
Kernel size
Nut Count
KOR
Kernel quality
Shell color
Kernel color
Humidity/water content of RCN
Presence of foreign bodies with RCN
Other
Quality Criteria
Percentage of Surveyed Producers That Reported Knowing Quality Criteria
BeninCaju Control
69
Figure 2.6-24: Messages/topics about cashew heard on the radio by surveyed producers 
Producers were asked about their use of mobiles to get information about cashew since 2010; 19% of 
BeninCaju producers and 25% of Control producers reported doing this. The cashew-related uses to 
which they put their mobiles are shown in Figure 2.6-25 
Messages/Topics About Cashew 
Heard on The Radio By Surveyed Producers
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Pruning
Weeding
Firebreak
Harvesting
Drying
Packaging
Storage
RCN Quality criteria
Information about price
Information on group sales
Other
Message Topic
Percentage of Surveyed Producers That Heard Messages 
About Cashew on the Radio
BeninCaju Control
70
Figure 2.6-25: Surveyed producers’ uses of mobile to get information related to cashew 
Note that most of the surveyed producers that used their mobiles for cashew used them in ways other than 
just getting price or other cashew information by SMS. Most of these other uses involved calls to cashew 
buyers and other calls. 
Finally, the surveyed producers were asked if they had any other sources of information about cashew 
other than radio or mobiles. The principal other sources named by the surveyed producers were “other 
producers” (BeninCaju: 20%; Control: 31%) and “Buyers” (BeninCaju 3%; Control: 2%). 
How Surveyed Producers Used Their Mobiles To Get Information 
About Cashew Production and/or Marketing
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Receive RCN price
information by SMS
Receive cashew
production information by
SMS
Other
Method
Percentage of Surveyed Producers That Used Thier Mobile Regarding Cashew
BeninCaju Control
71
2.7 Changes in Cashew Harvest Quantity and Quality 
The surveyed producers were asked to compare the 2016 cashew harvest quantity and quality with the 
quantity and quality of previous harvest, and to also give their opinion on the primary reason for 
perceived changes in quantity and/or quality (if any). 
2.7.1 Harvest Quantity 
Asked about the change from recent years in the quantity of the cashew harvest, the preponderance of 
opinion, as seen in Figure 2.7-1, is that overall quantity of harvested RCN (kg) has decreased. Roughly 
90% of both subgroups of surveyed producers share this opinion with very few producers believing that 
the harvest quantity has remained the same or increased. 
Figure 2.7-1: Surveyed producers perception of change in the harvest quantity 
For the 8% of surveyed BeninCaju producers and 4% of surveyed Control producers that think that the 
harvest quantity has increased, the most commonly given explanation is that the producers attribute the 
increase to “good climate/weather” as seen in Figure 2.7-2 
How Surveyed Producers Think The Quantity of Their 
Cashew Harvest Has Changed From Previous Seasons
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Increase No change Decrease
Change
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control
72
. 
Figure 2.7-2: Reasons given by surveyed producers for perceived recent increase in harvest quantity
This notion is substantially at odds with the overwhelming majority of surveyed producers who believe 
that the harvest quantity has decreased; almost all of these producers attribute the decrease to “bad 
climate/weather” as seen in Figure 2.7-3. Unless the climate/rainfall in the BeninCaju communes is very 
highly localized, it is difficult or impossible to reconcile these two sets of responses. 
Primary Reason Surveyed Producers Think the 
Quantity of Their Cashew Harvest Has Increased
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Good climate/weather
Adoption of practices taught in training
Age of cashew plantation(s)
Fewer insects and other pests
Other
Primary Reason
Percentage of Surveyed Producers That Think 
Cashew Harvest Quantity Has Increased
BeninCaju Control
73
Figure 2.7-3: Reasons given by surveyed producers for perceived recent decrease in harvest quantity 
2.7.2 Harvest Quality 
When asked about any recent change in the quality of their 2016 cashew harvest from previous years, the 
producers’ responses were still primarily negative although not so strongly negative as when asked about 
harvest quantity. When referring to any change in harvest quality, just slightly more than half of the 
surveyed producers reported that 2016 harvest quality was worse than previous years (BeninCaju: 51%; 
Control: 54%). See Figure 2.7-4. 
Primary Reason Surveyed Producers Think 
the Quantity of their Cashew Harvest Has Decreased
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Bad climate/weather
Not adopting practices
taught in training
Age of cashew
plantation(s)
Many insects and other
pests
Bushfires
Primary Reason
Percentage of Surveyed Producers That Think 
Cashew Harvest Quantity Has Decreased
BeninCaju Control
74
Figure 2.7-4: Surveyed producers perception of change in the harvest quality
For the relatively small percentages of surveyed producers that reported that harvest quality had improved 
(BeninCaju: 12%; Control: 9%), once again most of them attributed to the improvement in harvest quality 
to “good climate/weather.” However, a substantial percentage of these small subgroups of surveyed 
producers attribute the quality improvement to “adoption of the practices taught in the training.” These 
results are shown in Figure 2.7-5. 
How Surveyed Producers Think the Quality of Their 
Cashew Harvest Has Changed From Previous Seasons
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Improve No Change Worse
Change
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control
75
Figure 2.7-5: Reasons given by surveyed producers for perceived recent increase in harvest quality
And, again, the majority of those producers that believe that harvest quality has decreased attribute this 
change to “bad climate/weather.” See Figure 2.7-6. So, in terms of both harvest quantity and quality, 
improvements and declines are simultaneously attributed to climate and weather. 
Figure 2.7-6: Reasons given by surveyed producers for perceived recent decrease in harvest quality 
Primary Reason Surveyed Producers Think the 
Quality of Their Cashew Harvest Has Increased
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Good climate/weather
Adoption of practices
taught in training
Fewer insects and
other pests
Other
Primary Reason
Percentage of Surveyed Producers That Think 
Cashew Harvest Quality Has Increased
BeninCaju Control
Primary Reason Surveyed Producers Think 
the Quality of Their Cashew Harvest Has Decreased
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Bad climate/weather
Not adopting practices
taught in training
Many insects and other
pests
Other
Primary Reason
Percentage of Surveyed Producers That Think 
Cashew Harvest Quality Has Decreased
BeninCaju Control
76
2.8 Producer Associations/Cooperatives 
The surveyed producers were asked about their involvement with any producers’ association and/or 
cooperative (PA/C). Note that the producers whose responses are presented here were chosen as part of 
the random sample of producers, not purposefully as members of any producer group as was done for the 
Producer Group survey discussed in Part III of this report. While the producer group survey was done in 
villages that had been selected for the Producer survey, and while there is some overlap between the two 
sets of respondents, many of the producer respondents were not members of any producer group. In fact, 
73% of the surveyed BeninCaju producers and 78% of the surveyed Control producers reported not being 
in any producer association or cooperative as shown in Figure 2.8-1. 
Figure 2.8-1: Surveyed producers’ membership rates in producer organizations 
In most of the surveyed households where any member is in a PA/C, it is the head of the household 
(which almost always means the surveyed producers) as seen in Figure 2.8-2. The surveyed producers 
were able to name up to three household members that were members of PA/C, so the percentages may 
total more than 100%. 
Surveyed Producers' Membership in 
Farmer Associations or Cooperatives
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
NONE
CASHEW COOP OR
ASSOC
CASHEW PLUS OTHER
CROP COOP OR ASSOC
OTHER CROP COOP OR
Type of Farmer Organization
ASSOC
Percentage of Surveyed Producers
BeninCaju Control
77
Figure 2.8-2: Members of surveyed households in producer associations or cooperatives 
For the most part, the members of the surveyed producer households are just members of their producer 
group and so not have any management or administrative function as seen in Figure 2.8-3. 
Figure 2-8-3: Role of surveyed household members in their farmer group 
Members of Surveyed Producers' Households 
in Producer Associations/Cooperatives
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
SPOUSE OF HOUSEHOLD
HEAD
CO-SPOUSE OF
HOUSEHOLD HEAD
SON OR DAUGHTER OF
HOUSEHOLD HEAD
PARENT OF HOUSEHOLD
HEAD
Household Member
Percentage of Surveyed Producers With Household members in 
Producer Associations/Cooperatives
BeninCaju Control
Role of Surveyed Producer Household Members in 
Producer Associations/Cooperatives
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Member, no function
Management/ Administration(Non-financial)
Accounting/Financial Management
Service Provider
Trainer/Lead farmer
Role/Function
Percentage of Surveyed Producer Households With 
Members in Producer Associations/Cooperatives
BeninCaju Control
78
The members of the surveyed producer households have been joining PA/Cs for a number of years, going 
back more than 20 years, as shown in Figure 2.8-4. Note that up until about 2011, more Control producer 
household members than members of BeninCaju producer households were joining these group. 
Figure 2.8-4: Year that surveyed producer household members joined their producer group 
The surveyed producers with household members in a PA/C were asked their reasons for joining their 
group. The percentages of respondents that mentioned different reasons are shown in Figure 2.8-5. 
Because the respondents could give multiple reasons, the percentages of producers exceed 100%. 
When Members of Surveyed Producer Households Joined 
Producer Associations/Cooperatives
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1995-
2008
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year
Percentage of Surveyed Producer 
Household Members in Producer 
Associations/Cooperatives 
BeninCaju Control
79
Figure 2.8-5: Reasons members of surveyed producer households joined producer groups 
Those surveyed producers that did not have any household members in a producer group were asked to 
give their reasons for not joining. The primary reasons mentioned are presented in Figure 2.8-6. 
Figure 2.8-6: Reasons surveyed producer household members did not join any producer group 
Reasons Members of Surveyed Producers' Households 
Joined Producer Associations/Cooperatives
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
Earn more mmoney from crops
Better access to inputs
Better access to training
Share/exchange farming techniques
Better access to sharing equipment
Share labor
Better access to credit
Reasons
Percentage of Surveyed Producer Households With Members in 
Producer Association/Cooperative That Gave This Reason
BeninCaju Control
Reasons Members of Producers' Households 
Did Not Join Producer Associations/Cooperatives
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
Costs (fees, membership dues)
Takes too much time
Insufficient benefits: Information about prices
Insufficient benefits: Training, sharing of techniques,
access to inputs
Insufficient benefits: Sharing of equipment
Conflicts/disagreements with members of the
association/cooperative Reasons
Percentage of Surveyed Producer With No Household Member 
in Any Producer Assocciation/Cooperatives That Gave This Reason
BeninCaju Control
80
Another reason that some of the surveyed producer households had no members in any PA/C is that no 
such organizations, or in some cases organizations focused solely on cashew, existed in their villages. 
Since the villages to be surveyed were picked from a list of villages where such associations existed at 
one time, those surveyed villages found to have no such association represent cases where the 
associations have become defunct for one reason or another. However, lack of an available association 
was offered as the reason for not being a member by several BeninCaju and Control respondents along 
with less common one-off reasons.
81
2.9 Availability, Access to, and Use of Credit 
When asked if sources of credit were available in their home village, 77% of CAP producers and 72% of 
Control producers reported that credit was available to them in their villages. Further, 62% of the 
BeninCaju producers and 57% of the Control producers reported being able to get credit if they wanted it. 
The sources of credit available to the surveyed producers are shown in Figure 2.9-1. Note that the 
respondents could name several credit sources and so the percentages in this figure may total more than 
100%. 
Figure 2.9-1: Surveyed producers’ sources of credit 
The numbers of times the surveyed producers actually did get credit since 2011 are shown in Figure 2.9-
2. Despite the relatively widespread reported availability of credit, only 40% of the surveyed BeninCaju 
producers and 35% of the surveyed Control producers have actually received credit since 2011. This 
means that over half of both the surveyed BeninCaju respondents and the surveyed Control respondents 
did not receive any credit since 2011. 
Sources of Credit Available to Surveyed Producers
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Savings and Credit Association
NGO
Bank
Microfinance Institution
CVPA
Other Producer Association/Cooperative
Cashew Processor
Other producer organizations
Village Moneylenders
Other
Credit Source
Percentage of Surveyed Producers That Report Availability of Credit
BeninCaju Control
82
Figure 2.9-2: Number of times surveyed producers received credit since 2011. 
Figure 2.9-3 shows the total amount of credit received by the surveyed producers since 2011. Note that 
most of the surveyed producers that received any credit since 2011 received less than FCFA 250,000 
(approximately USD 500) spread across however many separate loans they received. 
Figure 2.9-3: Total amount of credit received by surveyed producers since 2011 
Number of Times Surveyed Producers 
Have Received Credit Since 2011
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7+
Number of Times
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control
Total Amount of Credit Received 
By Surveyed Producers Since 2011
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0 10K-250K 250K-500K 500K-1000K 1000K+
Credit Amount (FCFA)
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers
BeninCaju Control
83
The primary uses to which this credit was put are listed in Figure 2.9-4. It is significant that in this figure 
the most frequently cited use for this credit was “cashew production expenses” (BeninCaju: 36% of 
producers that got credit; Control: 33% of producers that got credit). 
Figure 2.9-4: Surveyed producers’ primary uses of received credit. 
The distribution of the (estimated) percentage of the total credit received used by the surveyed producers 
for cashew production is presented in Figure 2.9-5. On average, Surveyed BeninCaju producers used 
52% of their total received credit for cashew production vs 47% for the surveyed Control producers. 
Surveyed Producers' Uses of Credit
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Cashew production expenses
Expenses for other crops
Purchase of animals/poultry for breeding
Purcahse food
Education expenses
Health care expenses
Home construction/repair
Investment in income generating activities
Other household expenses
Use
Percentage of Surveyed Producers That Received Credit
BeninCaju Control
84
Figure 2.9-5: Percentage of received credit used by surveyed producers for cashew production 
Finally, 35% of the surveyed BeninCaju producers and 31% of the surveyed Control producers reported 
having difficulty repaying this credit.
Percentage of Received Credit Used 
By Surveyed Producers for Cashew Production
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
3%-25% 25%-50% 50%-75% 75%-99% 100%
Percentage of Credit
Percentage of Surveyed 
Producers That Received Credit 
Since 2011
BeninCaju Control
85
2.10 Poverty Scorecard 
In order to try to assess the overall impact of the BeninCaju on poverty reduction, questions from a short 
“Poverty Scorecard” were included in the BeninCaju Baseline questionnaire. The origin of this set of 
questions is that it was developed by “Progress Out of Poverty.” The website for this organization and 
more information about the scorecard is: http://www.progressoutofpoverty.org/fr 
This scorecard and its associated set of questions and the normed (weighted and scored) responses were 
the answers to 10 questions about a household’s characteristics and asset ownership are scored to 
compute the likelihood that the household is living below the poverty line – or above by only a narrow 
margin. The questions used come from: http://www.simplepovertyscorecard.com/BEN 2010 ENG.pdf The 
scoring of the different answers to the different questions is such that higher scores represent better-off 
socio-economic status while lower scores represent lower socio-economic status. Relative scoring for the 
different questions can be seen in Figure 2.10-1 which presents a scanned copy of this scorecard. 
86
Figure 2.10-1: Simple Poverty Scorecard for Benin 
87
The ten questions indicated on the above scorecard were included in the BeninCaju Baseline 
questionnaire. The average “scores” (per the scorecard) for each of these questions are presented in Figure 
2.10-2. Note that the way the answers to the various questions are scored means that higher scores 
represent higher economic status and that the higher the overall, summed, score, the better-off the 
household is economically. 
Figure 2.10-2: Poverty scorecard question scores for surveyed producer households 
Looking at Figure 2.10-2, it is clear that for every one of the ten questions, the BeninCaju and Control 
households have virtually the same scores. The summed, overall poverty scores are therefore also almost 
exactly equal; the total scores were 20.46 for surveyed BeninCaju producer households and 20.60 for 
surveyed Control households. 
The same questions from this poverty scorecard should be included in the Endline survey and the double￾difference evaluation method applied to the Baseline and Endline scores for surveyed BeninCaju and 
Control households. This will enable the analysts involved with the Endline study and the BeninCaju 
impact assessment to determine the relative change in poverty scores for the two subgroups and if any of 
the (hoped for positive) change can be properly attributed to the BeninCaju interventions. 
Surveyed Producer Scores on Poverty Indicators 
.0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
SURVEY DEPARTMENT
MATERIAL USED ON EXTERIOR OF HOUSE
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
CAN THE FEMALE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR MAIN SPOUSE
READ AND WRITE FRENCH?
WHAT IS THE MAIN ENERGY SOURCE FOR LIGHTING IN THE
HOUSE?
HOW MANY ROOMS DOES THE HOUSE HAVE WHERE
MEMBERS SLEEP?
WHAT IS THE PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCE USED FOR COOKING
IN THE HOUSEHOLD?
DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE A MOTORCYCLE OR CAR?
HOW MANY MOBILE PHONES DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD
HAVE?
DOES THE HOUSEHOLD OWN OR RENT ANY LAND DEVELOPED
OR IRRIGATED IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS?
Indicators
Average Indicator Score for Surveyed Producers
BeninCaju Control
88
2.11 Gender and Income from Cashew 
A key component of the CIAP interventions will focus on female cashew producers and ensuring that 
they reach parity with male producers in terms of income from cashew. In order to assess the gaps 
between male and female producers in terms of cashew income, the income data were disaggregated by 
gender and by CIAP status (CIAP or Control). Additionally, in order to try to pinpoint at least some of 
the root cause(s) of any income disparity that might exist between male and female producers, some of 
the parameters that might affect cashew income were also so disaggregated. These results are presented 
in Table 2.11-1. 
The rows with the key income parameters are shaded for the reader’s convenience. 

90
The results in Table 2.11-1 show that for both BeninCaju and Control female cashew producers, male 
producers earn, on average, about 20% higher net income. This is certainly due in large part to the fact 
that, on average, male BeninCaju and Control producers have about 37% more producing cashew trees 
than do their female counterparts. However, when net income per producing tree is considered, the male 
BeninCaju producers earn about 20% more than their female counterparts while male Control producers 
earn about 11% less than their female counterparts. 
In the case of the BeninCaju producers, the male producers are on average 45% more likely to have at 
least one household member in a formal farmers’ association while for Control producers, the male 
producers are 9% less likely to have a member in such an association. Also, BeninCaju male producers 
are 27% more likely to have direct training on good agricultural practices (GAP) for cashew and 32% 
more likely to have received direct training on harvest and post-harvest (HPH) methods for cashew than 
their female counterparts. In contrast to this, for the Control producers, male producers are 10% less
likely to have direct training on good agricultural practices (GAP) for cashew and 7% less likely to have 
received direct training on harvest and post-harvest (HPH) methods for cashew than their female 
counterparts. 
These preliminary results suggest that, in view of the relatively higher income per tree of the female 
Control producers than their male counterparts compared to the reverse situation for BeninCaju 
producers, that membership in formal farmers’ associations and getting direct training on the promoted 
methods for cashew production (GAP) and HPH methods may be significant factors in explaining the 
income disparity between male and female producers. Other data in Table 2-11-1 suggest other factors 
but do not seem as unambiguous as direct training and membership in these organizations in their likely 
role in determining cashew income per tree. 
The BeninCaju team will assess these data in order to determine which of these factors can be affected by 
the planned BeninCaju interventions or by refinements to them. For example, BeninCaju can ensure that 
training done under this project on GAP and/or HPH include a disproportionately large percentage of 
female producers. Similarly, the BeninCaju interventions with the producer groups can actively 
encourage higher levels of female participation and membership. 
BeninCaju interventions can also try to improve female producers’ access to, and acquisition of, cashew 
seedlings and will also consider other ways to increase the female producers’ numbers of producing 
cashew trees. 
91
Part III: Surveyed Members of Producer Groups 
This part of the Baseline Study report presents the results and findings of the survey conducted with 
members of producer groups. Recall from the introduction in Part I that these producer group members 
were all in villages that were part of the producer survey and were chosen because they have producer 
groups in them. However, the specific respondents could not be chosen in a true random fashion due to 
the lack of available sample frames from which the sample of respondents could be randomly selected. 
Therefore, although the specific group members to be interviewed were not purposefully chosen, the set 
of respondents can only be considered to be a “pseudo-random sample.” 
A total of 205 producer group members from BeninCaju villages and 198 producer group members from 
Control villages were interviewed as part of this survey. This section will refer to them as “BeninCaju” 
or “Control” group members according to the status of their village. 
3.1 General Producer Group Information 
Because the focus of this section is on the group rather than on the specific group members, many of the 
findings in this section are presented in simple table format with average values rather than presenting 
detailed distributions of parameters relating to the group members themselves. The demographic profiles 
of the surveyed BeninCaju and Control producer group members are presented in Table 3.1-1. 
Table 3.1-1: Demographic profile of surveyed producer group members 
Parameter
BeninCaju
Producer Group 
Members
Control Producer 
Group Members
Percentage of female group members interviewed 22% 17%
Average age of surveyed group members (years) 46.9 47.2
Average number of years producing cashew 14.5 16.2
Average number of separate cashew plantations 1.6 1.8
Average (self-reported) number of producing cashew trees 362 390
Average number of years in the present producer group 4.5 6.8
As Figure 3.1-1 shows, the BeninCaju and Control surveyed producer group members are not equally 
distributed among the BeninCaju operational communes. 
92
Figure 3.1-1: Surveyed producer group members’ home communes 
Most (89%) of the surveyed BeninCaju producer group members belong to a CVPA group compared to 
99.5% of the surveyed Control group members. Six percent (6%) of the BeninCaju group members 
belong to a Women group compared to 0.5% of the surveyed Control group members, and 5% of the 
surveyed BeninCaju group members belong to some other type of producer group. Virtually all of the 
surveyed group members would recommend to other cashew producers that they join their (the 
respondent’s) producer group (BeninCaju: 99%; Control: 97%). 
As Figure 3.1-2 shows, while most of the surveyed group members were ordinary members of the group 
with no other group function, a significant percentage of the group members had management, financial, 
or other roles in their producer group. 
Surveyed Producer Group Members' Communes
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
BANTE
BASSILA
DASSA
DJIDJA
DJOUGOU
GLAZOUE
N'DALI
OUESSE
SAVALOU
SAVE
TCHAOUROU
Commune
Percentage of Surveyed Producer Group Members
BeninCaju Control
93
Figure 3.1-2: Surveyed producer group members’ roles in their group 
3.2 Producer Group Details 
This section presents some of the details about the different producer groups. Because individual 
members of the same groups often gave conflicting accounts of some of the details regarding group size, 
Board size, frequency of meetings, etc, average values (averaged over the responses given by surveyed 
group members) for some of the parameters are presented. Thus, the data in this section represents group 
member responses rather than “official” group responses which were generally not available during the 
survey. However, because these averages were calculated separately for BeninCaju and Control producer 
groups, the impacts and outcome of BeninCaju interventions will still be measureable at the 
BeninCaju/Control level of disaggregation at BeninCaju Endline. These results are presented in Table 
3.2-1.
Surveyed Producer Group Members' Roles in Their Group
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
ORDINARY MEMBER
BOARD
MEMBER/MANAGEMENT/ADMIN
ACOOUNTANT/FINANCIAL
OTHER
Role
Percentage of Surveyed Producer Group Members
BeninCaju Control
94
Table 3.2-1: Producer group details 
Parameter
Average Value Given By 
Respondents
BeninCaju
Producer 
Group
Control
Producer 
Group
Length of time producer group has been in existence (years) 4.7 8.3
Total Group Membership (number of members) 29.9 31.8
 Male members 21.3 21.8
 Female members 7.3 9.9
Total Board Membership (number of members) 6.6 8.3
 Male Board members 5.3 6.4
 Female Board members 1.7 1.6
Group Joining Fee (FCFA) 3273 3917
Share of Company Fee (FCFA) 5966 6483
Yearly Group Membership Fee (FCFA) 2900 2217
3.3 Reasons for Joining the Group and Provided Services 
The surveyed producer group members were asked why they had joined their particular producer group. 
The results are presented as a table in Figure 3.3-1. Note that the respondents could mention as many of 
the listed reasons as were applicable, so the percentages total more than 100%. 
Figure 3.3-1: Reasons surveyed producer group members joined their group 
Surveyed Producer Group Members' Roles in Their Group
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
Earn more money from cashew
Marketing/selling produce
Better access to inputs through the group
Better information about prices for cashew
Better access to training on cashew
Group provides extension services
Group provides services (e.g., spraying, quality
control)
Sharing of farming techniques
Better access to/sharing of equipment
Sharing of labour
Access to credit
Social events/activities
Role
Percentage of Surveyed Producer Group Members
CIAP Control BeninCaju Control
95
The surveyed producer group members were also asked what services they would like to see improved in 
their group. These results are summarized in Figure 3.3-2. 
Figure 3.3-2: Producer group services that surveyed producer group members would like to see improved 
3.4 Producer Group Management 
The surveyed producer group members were asked whether or not they agreed with a series of statements 
made about the management style and actions of managers of their producer group, and how strongly they 
agreed or disagreed with each statement. The results are presented in Table 3.4-1. 
Producer Group Services Members 
Would Like to See Improved
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Earn more money from cashew
Marketing/selling produce
Better access to inputs through the group
Better information about prices for cashew
Better access to training on cashew
Group provides extension services
Group provides services (e.g., spraying, quality
control)
Sharing of farming techniques
Better access to/sharing of equipment
Sharing of labour
Access to credit
Social events/activities
Services
Percentage of Group Members That Mentioned This Service
CIAP Control
96
Table 3.4-1: Surveyed producer group members opinions on the management of their group 
Statement About Producer Group
Percentage of Surveyed Producer 
Group Members That Agree
BeninCaju Control
Currently all Board positions are filled 78% 79%
The Board always recruit more candidates than there are vacancies 
whenever elections are held 48% 49%
The Board holds General Assembly meetings at least once per year to set 
goals and priorities for the coming yea 76% 89%
The Board communicates regularly with Producer Group members about 
group activities and plans 73% 75%
The Board holds regular board meetings 67% 71%
The Board has a reputation among members for being fair, responsive and 
accountable 77% 85%
The Board calls regular members' meetings, but only when they're needed 75% 70%
Board members are elected by the Producer Group members 87% 90%
Meeting agendas are shared with members in advance 43% 46%
Members receive advance information on matters requiring decisions at 57% 47%
Producer Group financial statements shared with members during the 
meetings 77% 66%
All members are encouraged to participate in discussions during the 
meetings 89% 82%
All decisions taken in the meetings are announced to all attending members 84% 80%
Meetings usually include social activities 41% 29%
Meetings usually include an education component relating to cashew 69% 59%
These results will be compared to the comparable results obtained in the BeninCaju Endline in order to 
see if the BeninCaju interventions focused on the producer groups have improved the management, 
openness, and good governance of these BeninCaju-supported producer groups. 
97
Part IV Surveyed Processors 
The six processors that are working with and are part of BeninCaju (“BeninCaju partner processors”) 
were all asked to provide key pieces of information about their size, staff size, capacities, operations, etc. 
Because there are only six processors, the quantitative data have not been aggregated and averaged, but 
are all presented in Table 4.1. These data will be compared to comparable data at BeninCaju Endline in 
order to assess changes and improvements in these processors operations and business models. Note that 
there is no differentiation among these six processors with regard to BeninCaju vs Control, as this 
disaggregation does not apply to the processors. 
The blue colored cells in this table indicate data that were not provided to BeninCaju by the processors. 
Note that many of the BeninCaju interventions are focused on the processors; the principal such 
interventions are: 
 Trainings of processors staff in business management skills and processing techniques 
and technologies
 Trainings on quality standards 
 Marketing trainings conducted for processors 
 Facilitate buyer-seller relationship 
 Introduce processors to buyers 
 Infrastructure for post-harvest processing 
 Access to credit trainings 
 Funds dispersed from innovation and Enterprise Development Fund (managed by TNS) 
 Capacity building for industry association 
The data in this table will inform those interventions to make them more effective and efficient and, as 
noted, will serve as benchmarks for comparison to similar and analogous results assessed over the life of 
BeninCaju. For example, the data in Table 4-1 show that all but one of the partner processors have had 
training in business management skills, all but one have had training in processing techniques and 
technologies, and all of them have had training in quality standards. However, 3 (50%) of the partner 
processors report that their most recent training on processing techniques and technologies took place in 
2011 or 2012, suggesting that refresher training might be appropriate and would be well-received. 
These results suggest that the partner processors already have a strong base of training and the training 
done under BeninCaju can therefore skip over most of the basics and be more advanced, addressing more 
sophisticated issues. In contrast to this, only 3 (50%) of the partner processors have had training on 
marketing, suggesting an area where training provided by BeninCaju would be well received and 
extremely useful for the processors. 
98
Similarly, while the partner processors have attended different numbers of international trade events, the 
numbers of contracts resulting from these events have been uneven and typically low. This result suggests 
that processors could benefit from training and other support that shows them how to get better results 
from their attendance at these results. 
Also, 4 (67%) of the partner processors report that potential buyers have asked for improvements in the 
processors’ (post-harvest) operations. Some of the specific requests made by these buyers may require 
improved infrastructure for post-harvest processing; something that falls squarely into the BeninCaju 
planned interventions for processors.





















120
Part V Processor Employees 
This last major part of the Baseline Study report summarizes the result of a survey conducted with 
employees of the different BeninCaju partner processors. As mentioned earlier in Section 1.2 of this 
report, employees of all six of the BeninCaju-related cashew processors were surveyed. As it was not 
possible to get advance lists of employees and managers in each section of the processor factory, for each 
processor, in each section the first employee encountered was interviewed. A form of “nearest neighbor 
selection” with suitable skips3 was then used to randomize the selection of the next employee to interview 
throughout that processor section; a total of ten (10) workers in each section (that had at least 10 
employees) was selected to be interviewed including the manager of that section. The manager of each 
work section in each processor was thus purposefully included in the sample. 
5.1 Employee Profile 
This section presents a work-related profile of the surveyed processor employees. A total of 150 
employees from the six partner processors were interviewed. Almost one-half (49%) were female, and 
the average age of all of them was 30.7 years. The employees work for all of the different processors 
included as shown in Figure 5.1-1. Note that these employees are not evenly distributed across the six 
processors; employees from Tolaro are over-represented while employees from Lumiere are under￾represented. At BeninCaju baseline, only Tolaro, Fludor, and Afokantan were in operation, with the other 
processors having only a basic staff in place. 
Figure 5.1-1: Surveyed processor employees current employer 
 
3
 The number of “skips” was determined by taking the total number of workers in the section and dividing by 10 to 
get the number of skips 
Surveyed Processor Employees' Current Employer
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Afokantan Fludor Kakè-5 Lumière Nad & Co Tolaro
Processor
Percentage of Surveyed Processor 
Employees
121
The distribution of the ages of the surveyed employees is presented in Figure 5.1-2. Although the average 
age (of these employees that stated their age) is 30.7, this figure shows that almost one-fifth (19%) of 
these employees are 36 years or older. 
Figure 5.1-2: Ages of surveyed processor employees 
Figure 5.1-3 shows that the surveyed employees are currently assigned to many different sections of the 
processor facilities. The overall levels (status) of their positions are presented in Figure 5.1-4. 
Figure 5.1-3: Surveyed processor employees assigned section 
Age of Surveyed Processor Employees
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
18-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46+ Missing
Age (Years)
Percentage of Surveyed Processor 
Employees
Surveyed Processor Employee Plant Section
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Shelling
Peeling
Grading
Recovery
Accounting / Finance
Personnel
Maintenance
Packaging
Plant Manager
Production Manager
Quality Manager
Warehouse finished products
Warehouse RCN
Plant Section
Percentage of Surveyed Employees

123
Figure 5.1-5: Surveyed employees time with their current employer 
The amounts of time these employees have spent in their current position are shown in Figure 5.1-6. 
Figure 5.1-6: Surveyed employees length of time in their current position 
Figures 5.1-5 and 5.1-6 jointly suggest that the surveyed employees have not as a group enjoyed much job 
advancement or mobility with their current employers. This is somewhat borne out by Figure 5.1-7 
which compares time with current employer to time in current position. Note that many bits of data 
needed to complete this table were not provided by the respondents so percentages of employees in their 
position for different lengths of time do not sum to 100%. 
Length of Time in Current Position
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Less than 6
months
6 months to 1
year
1-2 years 2-5 years More than 5
years
Time in Current Position
Percentage of Surveyed Processor 
Employees
Time in Current Position vs Time With Current Employer
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Less than 6
months
6 months to 1
year
1-2 years 2-5 years More than 5 years
Length of Time With Current Employer
Percentage of Surveyed Processor 
Employees WithTime in Current 
Position
Time in Current Position Less than 6 months 6 months to 1 year
1-2 years 2-5 years More than 5 years
124
Figure 5.1-7: Surveyed employees’ time with current employer vs time in current position
Figure 5.1-7 shows that most employees have been in their current position for as long as they have been 
with their current employer. For example, of the employees that have been with their current employer 
for 1-2 years, 68% of them have been in their current position for 1-2 years. Similarly, 94% of the 
employees that have been with their current employer for 2-5 years have been in their current position for 
2-5 years and 83% of employees that have been with the current employer for more than 5 years have 
been in their current position for more than 5 years. 
These data suggest that the employees are, for the most part, hired into a position where they largely 
remain. Figure 5.1-8 shows that all levels- workers, section supervisors, and managers - have been with 
their current employer for anywhere from 6 months or less up to more than 5 years. 
Figure 5.1-8: Processor employee position vs time with current employer 
The surveyed employees were asked what they thought about their current workload. As shown in Figure 
5.1-9, almost three-quarters of them thought that their workload was about right. 
Surveyed Processor Employees' 
Current Position vs Time With Current Employer
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1. Less than 6
months
6 months to 1 year 1-2 years 2-5 years More than 5 years
Time With Current Employer
Percentage of Employees in This 
Position
Worker Section Supervisor Management

126
Figure 5.2-1: Surveyed employees’ overall job satisfaction 
Figure 5.2-2: Surveyed employees' satisfaction with the opportunity for advancement 
Surveyed Employees' Overall Job Satisfaction
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Very
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neither
Dissatisfied nor
Satisfied
Satisfied Very Satisfied
Satisfaction
Percentage of Surveyed Processor 
Employees
Surveyed Employees' Satisfaction 
With Opportunity to Advance With Current Employer
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Very
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neither
Dissatisfied nor
Satisfied
Satisfied Very Satisfied
Satisfaction
Percentage of Surveyed 
Processor Employees
127
Figure 5.2-3: Surveyed employees’ satisfaction with opportunity to receive better pay 
Surveyed Employees' Satisfaction 
With Opportunity for Better Pay With Current Employer
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Very
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neither
Dissatisfied nor
Satisfied
Satisfied Very Satisfied
Satisfaction
Percentage of Surveyed 
Processor Employees
128
Figure 5.2-4: Surveyed employees’ agreement that they would recommend their current employer to 
others 
Figure 5.2-5: Surveyed employees agreement that their work gives them a sense of accomplishment 
Surveyed Employees' Agreement That They Would Recommend 
That Others Work for Their Current Employer
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Disagree or
Agree
Agree Strongly Agree
Agreement
Percentage of Surveyed Processor 
Employees
Surveyed Employees' Agreement That Their Work Gives 
Them a Sense of Personal Accomplishment
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither Disagree
or Agree
Agree Strongly Agree
Agreement
Percentage of Surveyed 
Processor Employees
129
Figure 5.2-6: Surveyed employees’ agreement that they have clearly defined work quality goals 
Figure 5.2-7: Surveyed employees’ agreement that their current job makes good use of their skills and 
abilities 
Surveyed Employees' Agreement That 
They Have Clearly Defined Work Quality Goals
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Disagree or
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
Agreement
Percentage of Surveyed Processor 
Employees
Surveyed Employees' Agreement That Their Current Job 
Makes Good Use of Their Skills and Abilities
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Disagree or
Agree
Agree Strongly Agree
Agreement
Percentage of Surveyed 
Processor Employees
130
Figure 5.2-8: Surveyed employees’ agreement that supervisors and managers are committed to quality 
products 
Surveyed Employees' Agreement That Supervisors and 
Managers Are Commited to High Quality Products
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Disagree or
Agree
Agree Strongly Agree
Agreement
Percentage of Surveyed 
Processor Employees
131
Figure 5.2-9: Surveyed employees agreement that they are paid a fair salary 
Figure 5.2-10: Surveyed employees’ agreement that supervisors and managers try to meet requests for 
better working conditions 
Surveyed Employees' Agreement That They Are Paid a 
Fair Salary For Their Qualifications and Experience
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Disagree or
Agree
Agree Strongly Agree
Agreement
Percentage of Surveyed 
Processor Employees
Surveyed Employees' Agreement That Supervisors and 
Managers Try To Meet Worker Requests 
For Better Working Conditions
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
Disagree or
Agree
Agree Strongly
Agree
Agreement
Percentage of Surveyed 
Processor Employees
132
Figure 5.2-11: Surveyed employees agreement that supervisors and managers are flexible when workers 
need time off 
In spite of the generally expressed satisfaction and agreement with positive statements about their current 
employer, 31% of the surveyed employees are actively looking for another job, and 24% have applied for 
a job with another employer within the last six months. 
Surveyed Employees' Agreement That Supervisors and 
Managers Are Flexible When Employees Need to Miss Work 
for Family or Health Reasons
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither Disagree
or Agree
Agree Strongly Agree
Agreement
Percentage of Surveyed 
Processor Employees
133
Annexes 
This section of annexes contains the survey instruments (questionnaires) and data collection forms used to 
collect the Baseline data. The data collected from the producers, producer groups, and processor 
employees was collected through the use of formal questionnaires and interviews. The processor data 
was collected through key informant interviews with one key individual from each of the six CIAP partner 
processors. 
As already noted in the Introduction, the producer questionnaire is largely based on the Baseline and 
yield survey questionnaires primarily developed by this author for the African Cashew initiative (ACi) 
and used in Benin, Cote d’ Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Mozambique. The producer group 
questionnaire was derived primarily from other questionnaires and focus group discussions guidelines 
developed in large part by this author for ACi, the Competitive African Cotton Initiative (COMPACI), 
and the Coffee Partnership for Tanzania (CPT). However, the section of group management (good 
governance) borrowed heavily from The Good Governance Test found at: 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/The Good Governance Test Fall 2011. Finally, the processor 
employee questionnaire was developed in part by this author based on similar work on the above-named 
projects and also borrowed from The Employee Satisfaction Survey (Scott Smith PhD, February 2013, at: 
https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/employee-satisfaction-survey/). 
Note that all of the interviews were in French since the various respondents were all French speakers. 
However, the final form of questionnaire for the processor employees was not translated into French 
although it was administered in that language. The processor data collection form is in English due to the 
fact that two of the six key informants are American, some of the others are English-speaking Dutch, and 
the remaining key informants all speak English. Thus, English was the best choice of language for this 
particular form. 
These questionnaires/data collection forms are presented in the order in which the main components of 
the Baseline report were organized; they are presented in the following subsections: 
 Annex 1: Producer Questionnaire 
 Annex 2: Producer Group Questionnaire 
 Annex 3: Processor Data Collection Form 
 Annex 4: Processor Employee Questionnaire 
 Annex 5: Disaggregated Values of Key BeninCaju Parameters 
134
Annex 1: Producer Questionnaire 
ETUDE DE REFERENCE DE BENINCAJU (CIAP) 
INTRODUCTION ET CONSENTEMENT 
Bonjour et merci pour cet entretien. Nous travaillons avec BeninCajù (CIAP : Cashew Integration and Acceleration Program) un programme qui 
vise à accroître le revenu des ménages producteurs d’anacarde. Les informations recueillies au cours de cette enquête sont importantes. Elles 
permettent d’améliorer la politique de soutien apportée aux producteurs de Cajou des communautés locales au Bénin. 
Votre participation à cette étude suppose que vous acceptez de fournir les informations sur la vente des noix au cours de cette saison d’une part, 
et d’autre part de participer aux interviews sur vos anacardiers et leur production et enfin de nous permettre de dénombrer vos anacardiers. 
Votre nom et votre situation géographique resteront confidentiels bien que d’autres informations d’identification, telles que le nom de votre village, 
peuvent figurer dans les données à partager avec le CIAP. Les informations collectées seront gardées au moins jusqu’en 2020 dans le but de 
préparer des rapports sur les changements observés chez les producteurs de cajou. Votre participation est totalement volontaire. Vous avez le 
choix de ne pas répondre aux questions auxquelles vous ne serez pas confortables et vous pouvez ne pas participer à notre enquête à tout 
moment. Si vous avez des questions concernant l’enquête vous pouvez contacter les services de CIAP : Tél : 
1.1 NOM DE L’AGRICULTEUR
1.2 NUMERO CEL AGRICULTEUR (+229)
1.3 NUMERO DE QUESTIONNAIRE |__|__|
1.4 NOM DU VILLAGE
1.5 NOM DE L’ARRONDISSEMENT
1.6 NOM DE LA COMMUNE
1.7 NOM DU DEPARTEMENT
1.8 NOM DE L’ENQUETEUR
1.9 DATE DE L’ENQUETE |__|__|/ |__|__|/|__|__|__|__|
1.10 NOM DU SUPERVISEUR
1.11 DATE DE SUPERVISION |__|__|/ |__|__|/|__|__|__|__|
2.1 Voulez-vous participer à cette enquête ? |__| 1. Oui 
2. Non
INFORMATIONS PERSONNELLES 
135
3.1 Sexe |__| 1. Homme
2. Femme
3.2 Age: |__||__| (années)
3.3 Niveau d’éducation le plus élevé atteint |__|
1. Aucune école
2. Primaire
3. Secondaire 1
4. Secondaire 2
5. Technique et Professionnel 1
6. Technique et Professionnel 2
7. Université
8. Apprentissage 
9. Autres (préciser)………..
3.3a Niveau d’alphabétisation
1. Aucune alphabétisation
2. Peut lire
3. Peut lire et écrire
3.4 Combien des personnes vivent dans votre ménage ? |__||__| (Nombre des personnes qui vivent dans le même ménage)
3.4a Combien des membres de votre ménage participent 
activement à la production de noix de cajou ?
|__||__|
(Nombre de personnes vivant dans le ménage qui prennent part à des 
activités liées à la production de noix de cajou, tels que les bonnes 
pratiques agricoles, la récolte, ou des méthodes post-récolte ; ce 
nombre doit être inférieur ou égal à Q3.4)
REVENUS, DEPENSES ET EPARGNES 
4.1 Quel est votre revenu net annuel du ménage en argent comptant 
pendant les 12 derniers mois ?
[ ] FCFA
4.2 Quelle part de votre revenu gagnez-vous par la production de 
noix de cajou ? [ ] % 
4.3
Avez-vous utilisé des revenus de la production de noix de cajou 
pour acheter des intrants ou de la main d’œuvre pour la 
production des cultures vivrières pendant les 12 derniers mois ?
|___| 1. OUI 
2. NON Si Non  Q4.5
4.3a
Pour quelles cultures vivrières avez-vous utilisé les revenus de la 
production de noix de cajou pour acheter des intrants ou de la 
main d’œuvre ?
(fournir les trois principales)
|___|
|___|
|___|
1. Maïs
2. Manioc
3. Igname
4. Piment
5. Tomate
6. Arachide
7. Haricots
136
8. Sorgho
9. Mil
10. Riz
11. Egusi
12. Patate douce
13. Mangue
14. Soja
15. Autre (précisez) | 
________________________ |
4.4
Comment les rendements des cultures vivrières ont été affecté 
par l'investissement que vous avez fait du revenu des noix de 
cajou ?
|___|
1. Augmenté 
2. Pas de changement  Q 4.5
3. Diminué 
4.4a
Si le rendement de ces cultures vivrières a AUGMENTE ou 
DIMINUE, s’il vous plaît estimez le pourcentage de combien le 
rendement a changé !
|___|
1. 0 -10% (augmentation)
2. 11 – 20% (augmentation)
3. 21 – 30% (augmentation)
4. Plus que 30% (augmentation)
5. 0 -10% (diminution)
6. 11 – 20% (diminution)
7. 21 – 30% (diminution)
8. Plus que 30% (diminution)
4.5
Pour quel autre fin avez-vous utilisé votre revenu provenant de la 
production de noix de cajou ?
(Nommez les trois utilisations les plus importantes ; si aucune autre 
utilisation, inscrivez «0»)
|___|
|___|
|___|
1. L'investissement dans des cultures de rente
2. Les dépenses de santé
3. Les dépenses pour l'éducation des enfants
4. Pour acheter de la nourriture
5. Autres: ....................................................
IINFORMATION SUR LES PLANTATIONS DE CAJOU 
5.1
Combien de plantations de cajou avez-vous ? (Toutes 
les plantations y compris celles qui n’ont pas encore 
produit)
|__||__|
(NB : Prenez le temps de vérifier l’exactitude du nombre de verger)
Demandez tout type de plantation (mal entretenu, jeune verger, vieux 
verger)
NOTE POUR ENQUETEUR : Je vais maintenant vous poser des questions sur vos six principales plantations de Cajou. 
Plantation 
de cajou
A
Plantation de 
cajou
B
Plantation de 
cajou
C
Plantation de 
cajou
D
Plantation 
de cajou
E
Plantation de 
cajou
F
137
Plantation 
de cajou
A
Plantation de 
cajou
B
Plantation de 
cajou
C
Plantation de 
cajou
D
Plantation 
de cajou
E
Plantation de 
cajou
F
5.2
Combien d’arbres 
produisent dans 
cette plantation ?
|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|
5.3
Quel âge a la 
plupart de vos 
arbres qui sont 
productifs ?
|__||__| |__||__| |__||__| |__||__| |__||__| |__||__| Ecrivez le nombre d’année
5.4
Avez-vous 
pratiqué la culture 
d’autres cultures 
dans votre 
plantation de 
Cajou durant les 
cinq dernières 
années ? 
|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. OUI
2. NON Si Non  Q 5.7
5.5
Quand avez-vous 
pratiqué la culture 
d’autres cultures 
dans votre 
Plantation de noix 
de cajou la 
dernière fois ?
|________| |________| |________| |________| |________| |________| S’il vous plaît notez l'année
5.6
Quelles étaient les 
principales 
cultures que vous 
avez intercalées 
avec votre cajou 
durant les cinq 
dernières années
(Nommez les trois 
cultures les plus 
importantes)
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
1. Mais
2. Manioc
3. Igname
4. Gingembre
5. Piment
6. Tomate
7. Arachide
8. Haricot
9. Coton
10. Sorgo
11. Mil
12. Riz
13. Egusi
14. Patate douce
138
Plantation 
de cajou
A
Plantation de 
cajou
B
Plantation de 
cajou
C
Plantation de 
cajou
D
Plantation 
de cajou
E
Plantation de 
cajou
F
15. Mangue 
16. Soja
17. Pastèque
18. Autres 
(préciser) :
|___________________________|
5.7a
Quelles étaient 
vos principales 
sources de 
matériel végétal 
pour les arbres de 
cajou dans cette 
plantation ?
(SVP CLASSER LES
TROIS SOURCES 
PRINCIPALES PAR 
LEUR IMPORTANCE)
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
1. FENAPAB
2. MAEP/ CARDER (service de 
vulgarisation)
3. Recherche - INRAB
4. Pépinière privée
5. Pépinière communautaire
6. Propre production
7. Autre producteur
8. Autres (préciser)
|___________________________|
5.7b
Quel type de plant 
avez-vous utilisé 
pour installer 
votre plantation?
|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|
1 Noix Cajou (semence)
2 Plants Non-greffés
3 Plants Greffés 
4 Autres 
(Specifier___________________) 
5.8
En dehors de 
l’anacardier, 
conservez-vous 
d’autres arbres 
dans votre 
plantation ?
|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|
1 OUI
2 NON Si Non  Q 6.1
5.8a
Quels sont les 
arbres que vous 
conservez ?
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
1. Karité
2. Néré
3. Manguier
4. Teck
5. Autre 
(préciser)|_______________|
139
Plantation 
de cajou
A
Plantation de 
cajou
B
Plantation de 
cajou
C
Plantation de 
cajou
D
Plantation 
de cajou
E
Plantation de 
cajou
F
5.8b
Pourquoi 
conservez-vous 
ces arbres ?
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
|__|
1. Vente/consommation des fruits
2. Pas le temps de les couper
3. Autre 
(préciser)|__________________|
140
NOTE POUR ENQUETEUR : Maintenant, je vais poser des questions sur les formations que vous avez reçues sur la production de noix de 
cajou.
FORMATION ET BONNES PRATIQUES AGRICOLES 
6.1
Avez-vous reçu une formation directe (face à face) sur les bonnes 
pratiques agricoles (comme l'élagage, désherbage, le traitement 
contre les parasites et les maladies, ou la fabrication de pare feu) 
entre 2010 et 2016?
UNE SEULE REPONSE
|___| 1. OUI
2. NON Si Non  Q 6.2
6.1a De qui avez-vous reçu votre dernière formation directe (face à face)
sur ces bonnes pratiques agricoles ? |___|
1. iCA
2. FENAPAB
3. MAEP/ CARDER (service de vulgarisation)
4. Recherche - INRAB
5. Union de producteurs 
(préciser)|__________________________|
6. ONG/ autres projets 
(préciser)|__________________________|
7. Autre (préciser) |_____________________|
6.1b Quand avez-vous reçu votre dernière formation directe (face à face) 
sur les bonnes pratiques agricoles ? |________| S’il vous plaît notez l'année
6.2 Avez-vous appris sur les bonnes pratiques agricoles à partir des 
sources autres que des formations directes (face à face)? |___| 1. OUI
2. NON Si Non  Q 6.3
6.2a
A partir de quelles sources autre que la formation directe (face à face) 
avez-vous appris sur les bonnes pratiques agricoles ? 
(Nommez les trois sources les plus importantes)
|___|
|___|
|___|
1. L'apprentissage auprès d'autres agriculteurs
2. Les programmes radio
3. Les SMS
4. Les journaux
5. Télévision
6. Autres (à préciser) | ___________________ |
141
6.2b Quelles bonnes pratiques agricoles avez-vous apprises de ces 
sources?
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
1. L’élagage
2. Le désherbage
3. Traitement contre les parasites et les maladies
4. Mise en place du pare feu
5. Autre (précisez) | _____________________ |
NOTE POUR ENQUETEUR: 
Je vais continuer maintenant avec les questions sur les pratiques de production que vous pourriez avoir utilisées dans vos champs de cajou. 
Plantation 
de cajou
A
Plantation 
de cajou
B
Plantation 
de cajou
C
Plantation 
de cajou
D
Plantation 
de cajou
E
Plantation 
de cajou
F
6.3
Avez-vous déjà 
taillé vos arbres 
de noix de cajou 
en enlevant les 
branches mortes 
et malades ?
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| 1. OUI
2. NON Si Non  6.3b
6.3a
Quand avez￾vous taillé vos 
arbres de cajou 
la dernière fois ?
|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|
1. Cette saison (au cours des 12 derniers mois) 
 Q 6.4
2. La saison précédente (il y a 13 à 24 mois) (pendant 
les 13 à 24 mois passé)
3. Avant la saison précédente (plus de 24 mois) 
6.3b
Pourquoi n’avez￾vous pas taillé 
vos arbres de 
cajou pendant 
les 12 dernier 
mois?
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
1. Représente trop de travail
2. Coût élevé de la main d’œuvre
3. Trop occupé avec les autres cultures
4. Vérifié et trouvé que pas nécessaire
5. Autre (préciser) |_______________________|
142
Plantation 
de cajou
A
Plantation 
de cajou
B
Plantation 
de cajou
C
Plantation 
de cajou
D
Plantation 
de cajou
E
Plantation 
de cajou
F
6.4
Avez-vous 
désherbé ou 
coupé les 
mauvaises 
herbes dans 
votre plantation 
de cajou durant 
les 12 derniers 
mois?
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| 1. OUI 
2. NON Si Non  Q 6.5
6.4a
Combien de fois 
avez-vous 
désherbé votre 
plantation de 
Cajou pendant 
les 12 derniers 
mois ?
|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|
1. UNE FOIS
2. DEUX FOIS
3. TROIS FOIS OU PLUS
6.4b
Que faites-vous 
des herbes 
coupées ou 
désherbées dans 
votre plantation 
?
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
1. Entassées hors de la plantation
2. Brûlées hors de la plantation
3. Laissées dans la plantation
4. Utilisées comme fourrage pour les animaux
5. Autre (préciser) |______________________|
6.5
Avez-vous 
protégé votre 
plantation contre 
les feux de 
brousse en 
faisant des pare￾feu au cours des 
12 derniers mois 
? 
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| 1. OUI Si Oui  Q 6.6
2. NON 
143
Plantation 
de cajou
A
Plantation 
de cajou
B
Plantation 
de cajou
C
Plantation 
de cajou
D
Plantation 
de cajou
E
Plantation 
de cajou
F
6.5a
Pourquoi n’avez￾vous pas fait des 
pare-feu au 
cours des 12 
derniers mois ?
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
1. Représente trop de travail
2. Coût élevé de la main d’œuvre
3. Trop occupé avec les autres cultures
4. Pas nécessaire
5. Autre (préciser) |_______________________|
6.6
Votre plantation 
a-t-elle été 
brulée au moins 
une fois par un 
feu de brousse ? 
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| 1. OUI 
2. NON
6.7
Avez-vous 
observé la 
présence 
d’insectes 
ravageurs, ou 
maladies 
nuisibles au 
cours des 12 
derniers mois ?
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| 1. OUI 
2. NON Si Non  Q 6.7b
6.7a
Combien 
d’arbres sont 
affectés par les 
insectes 
ravageurs, ou 
maladies 
nuisibles?
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| Notez nombre des arbres
6.7b
Avez-vous traité 
votre plantation 
contre les 
insectes, les 
envahisseurs et 
les maladies au 
cours des 12 
derniers mois ?
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| 1. OUI 
2. NON Si Non  Q 6.7e
144
Plantation 
de cajou
A
Plantation 
de cajou
B
Plantation 
de cajou
C
Plantation 
de cajou
D
Plantation 
de cajou
E
Plantation 
de cajou
F
6.7c
Quels sont les 
moyens de lutte 
que vous 
utilisez ?
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
1. Mécanique (taille)
2. Chimique
3. Mécanique et Chimique
4. Autre (préciser)
|____________________________________________|
6.7d
Combien de fois 
avez-vous traité 
votre plantation 
contre les 
insectes, les 
envahisseurs et 
les maladies au 
cours des 12 
derniers mois?
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
1. UNE FOIS
2. DEUX FOIS
3. TROIS FOIS OU PLUS
6.7e
Pourquoi n’avez￾vous pas traité 
votre plantation 
contre les 
insectes, les 
envahisseurs et 
les maladies ?
(Donner 
seulement la 
raison 
principale) 
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
1. Trop de travail
2. N’a pas trouvé la main d’œuvre
3. Trop occupé avec les autres cultures
4. Coûts élevés de l’activité
5. Produits non disponibles
6. Ne connaît pas les produits de traitement 
7. Pas nécessaire 
8. Autre (Préciser) 
|_______________________________________|
6.8
Votre plantation 
a-t-elle été 
endommagée au 
moins une fois 
par des bœufs 
au cours des 12 
derniers mois ?
|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. OUI
2. NON
145
Plantation 
de cajou
A
Plantation 
de cajou
B
Plantation 
de cajou
C
Plantation 
de cajou
D
Plantation 
de cajou
E
Plantation 
de cajou
F
6.8a
Que faites-vous 
pour vous 
protéger contre 
les dommages 
causés par les 
bœufs ?
|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|
1. Pose de fils de fer barbelés
2. Mise en place de haies vives
3. Rien
4. Autre (Préciser)|__________________
146
NOTE POUR ENQUETEUR : Maintenant, je vais vous poser des questions sur les différents types d'intrants (chimiques / main d’œuvre, etc.) que 
vous avez utilisés pour aider vos anacardiers à pousser cette saison. D'abord, je vais vous demander si ces intrants ont été utilisés cette saison. 
Si OUI, je vais vous demander combien vous avez dépensé au cours de la saison et de quelle manière vous avez payé.
7.1 DEPENSES 
(INTRANTS, 
EQUIPEMENT, 
MAIN￾D'ŒUVRE 
ACHETE) 
TYPES D’INTRANT, EQUIPEMEN, MAIN 
D’OEUVRE
(Considérer toutes les plantations 
présentement en production) 
Utilisé au cours 
des 12 derniers 
mois?
1 OUI
2 NON
Comment avez￾vous payé pour 
l’intrant?
1 En espèces
2 En nature
3 Tous les deux
Combien avez-vous payé ?
(si en nature : estimation de la 
valeur)
7.1a Herbicide pour éliminer les mauvaises herbes |____| |____| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| FCFA
7.1b Insecticides contre les insectes |____| |____| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| FCFA
7.1c Main d’œuvres pour établissement des pare-feu |____| |____| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| FCFA
7.1d Main d’œuvres pour la taille des arbres |____| |____| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| FCFA
7.1e Main d’œuvres pour le désherbage |____| |____| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| FCFA
7.1f Main d’œuvre pour la récolte de cajou/ la 
collecte des noix |____| |____| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| FCFA
7.1g Autres dépenses (préciser) 
|__________________| |____| |____| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| FCFA
7.1g bis Autres dépenses (préciser) 
|__________________| |____| |____| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| FCFA
147
8. FORMATION ET ADOPTION : METHODES DE RECOLTE ET POST-RECOLTES 
8.1
Avez-vous reçu une formation directe (face à face) sur les méthodes 
de récolte et post-récolte, comme la séparation de la noix de la 
«pomme», le séchage, l’emballage et le stockage entre 2010 et 2015?
|___|
1 OUI
2 NON Si Non  Q 8.2
8.1a De qui avez-vous reçu votre dernière formation directe sur les 
méthodes de récolte et post-récolte ? |___|
1. iCA
2. MAEP/ CARDER (service de vulgarisation)
3. Recherche – INRAB
4. Union de producteurs (préciser) 
|_______________________|
5. ONG/ autres projets (préciser)
|__________________________|
6. Autres (préciser) |_____________________|
8.1b Quand avez-vous reçu votre dernière formation directe (en personne) 
sur les méthodes de récolte et post-récolte ? |_______| S’il vous plaît notez l'année
8.2 Avez-vous appris sur les méthodes de récolte et post-récolte d’une 
autre source que les formations face à face ? |___| 1. OUI
2. NON Si Non  Q 8.3
8.2a
A partir de quelles sources autre que les formations directs (en 
personne) avez-vous appris à propos de la récolte et les méthodes 
post-récolte ? (Nommez les trois sources les plus importantes)
|___|
|___|
|___|
1. L'apprentissage auprès d'autres agriculteurs
2. Les programmes radio
3. Les SMS
4. Les journaux
5. Télévision
6. Autres (à préciser) | ___________________ |
8.2b Quelles bonnes pratiques de récolte et post-récolte avez-vous 
apprises de ces sources ?
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
|___|
1. Récolte
2. Séparation de la noix de la pomme
3. Séchage
4. Emballage
5. Stockage
6. Autre (précisez) | _____________________ |
8.3 Comment avez-vous récolté la majorité (la plus grande part) de vos 
noix de cajou pendant la saison de récolte de cette année ? |___|
1. Ramassé les fruits/ noix tombés sur le sol
2. Cueillir les fruits/ noix sur les arbres quand ils sont 
mûrs
3. Autres (préciser) |___________________________|
8.4 En général, Combien de fois par mois avez-vous récolté vos noix/ 
fruits pendant la période de récolte de cette année ? |____| Veuillez écrire le nombre de fois par mois
148
8.5
Comment les ouvriers (travailleurs qui récoltent les noix) ou vous￾même avez séparé la noix de la pomme pendant la saison de récolte 
de cette année ?
|___|
1 Torsion de la noix de la pomme
2 Utilisation d’un fil de nylon  Q 8.6
3 Utilisation d’un couteau pour couper le lien
4 Autre (préciser) |___________________________|
8.5a Pourquoi vous-même ou vos ouvriers n’utilisez pas un fil de nylon ?
|___|
1. Ça prend trop de temps
2. Ne connais pas la pratique
3. Trop sale
4. Aucun bénéfice de l'application de cette pratique
5. Autre (précisez) |________________________|
8.6 Avez-vous séchez la noix avant de l’emballer pendent la saison de 
récolte de cette année ? |___| 1. OUI
2. NON Si Non  8.7
8.6a
Comment les avez-vous séchées pendant la saison de récolte de cette 
année?
(Choisir les trois options les plus importantes)
|___|
|___|
|___|
1 Séchées sur une étagère/ claie
2 Séchées sur le sol dans une maison
3 Séchées sur une bâche au dehors
4 Séchées sur un sol en ciment dans une maison
5 Séchées par terre dehors
6 Séchées dans un panier
7 Autre (préciser) |________________________|
8.6b Comment savez-vous que les noix sont bien séchées ? |___|
1 Bruit de Cliquetis sec
2 Résistance à la pression de l’ongle
3 Met la main dans le sac pour “sentir”
4 Sèche juste pour un nombre donné de jours
5 Autre (préciser)
8.7 Où avez-vous stocké la majorité de vos noix jusqu'à ce que vous les 
vendiez pendant la saison de récolte de cette année ?
|___|
1. Dans une chambre fermée
2. Sous un hangar
3. A l'air libre
4. Autre (précisez) |____________________________|
8.8
Quelles techniques d’emballage avez-vous utilisées pour stocker vos 
noix pendent la saison de récolte de cette année ? |___|
1 Sacs en jute  Q 8.9
2 Sacs en plastique
3 Paniers/ bols
4 Aucune
5 Autre (préciser) |____________________________| 
149
8.8a
Pourquoi n’avez-vous pas utilisé des SACS EN JUTE pour l'emballage 
de la majorité de vos noix de cajou pendant la saison de récolte de 
cette année ?
|___|
1 C’est cher
2 Non disponible
3 Ne vois pas la nécessité
4 Autre (préciser) |__________________________|
8.9 Savez-vous comment les acheteurs évaluent la qualité des noix ? |___| 1. OUI 
2. NON Q 9.1
8.9a
Quels sont, selon vous, les critères utilisés par les acheteurs pour 
évaluer la qualité de vos noix ? 
(Nommez les trois critères les plus importants)
|____|
|____|
|____|
1. La taille des noix
2. La taille de l’amande
3. Comptages des noix (nombre de noix/kg)
4. KOR (ouverture et mesure)
5. Qualité de l’amande
6. Couleur de la coque
7. Couleur de l’amande
8. Humidité/ contenu en eau des noix 
9. Présence de corps étrangers avec les noix
10. Autre (préciser) 
|__________________________________|
9. CONNAISSANCE A TRAVERS LES MESSAGES DES RADIOS POUR AGRICULTEURS 
9.1 Depuis 2010, avez-vous déjà écouté les programmes de 
radios sur les bonnes pratiques agricoles de l’anacarde ? |__| 1. 1 OUI
2. 2 NON SI NON  9.3
9.1a
Quelles sont les messages clés dont vous vous souvenez de 
ces programmes de radio.
(Nommez les trois messages les plus importants)
|___|
|___|
|___|
1. Elagage
2. Désherbage
3. Pare feu
4. Technique de récolte
5. Séchage
6. Emballage
7. Stockage
8. Critères de qualité de noix
9. Informations sur les prix
10. Information sur la vente en groupe
11. Autres |____________________________________|
150
9.2
Avez-vous appliqué au moins une des informations ou des 
messages sur culture de cajou que vous avez entendu à la 
radio ? |___|
1. OUI 
2. NON Si Non  Q 9.3
9.3
Depuis 2010, avez-vous déjà utilisez votre téléphone 
cellulaire pour obtenir des informations sur la production de 
noix de cajou ou de marketing ?
|___| 1. OUI 
2. NON Si Non  Q 9.4
9.3a
Comment avez-vous utilisé votre téléphone cellulaire pour 
obtenir de l’information sur la production de noix de cajou 
ou de marketing ? |___|
1. Recevoir des SMS sur les prix de vente
2. Recevoir des SMS avec des informations sur les pratiques 
de production de noix de cajou (par exemple temps correct
pour la taille des arbres)
3. Autres |____________________________________|
9.4
Depuis 2010, en dehors de la radio et le téléphone, avez-vous 
reçu des informations sur la production ou la 
commercialisation de Cajou par d’autres sources ? |___|
1. OUI
2. NON Si Non  Q 10.1
9.4a Si oui, quelle autre source ?
|____________________________________|
151
10. EVALUATION DU RENDEMENT 
 
10.1
En général, comment se porte la quantité de votre récolte 
de noix de cajou cette année comparé aux années 
précédentes ? Elle était :
|___|
1. Plus qu’avant  Q10.1a
2. Autant qu’avant (pas d’effet)  Q 10.2
3. Moins qu’avant  Q10.1b
10.1a
Si plus qu’avant : Quelle est la principale raison pour 
laquelle vous pensez que la productivité de vos noix de 
cajou a augmenté cette année ?
|___|
1. Bon climat / conditions météorologiques
2. Adoption de pratiques des formations
3. Age de la plantation
4. Peu d’insectes, des parasites et des maladies
5. Autre (précisez) |__________________________|
 Q10.2
10.1b
Si moins qu’avant : Quelle est la principale raison pour 
laquelle vous pensez que la productivité de vos noix de 
cajou a diminué cette année ? |___|
1. Mauvais climat / conditions météorologiques
2. Non-Adoption des pratiques des formations
3. Age de la plantation
4. Beaucoup d’insectes, des parasites et des maladies
5. Feux de brousse
6. Autre (précisez) |__________________________|
10.2 La qualité de vos noix a-t-elle changé cette année par 
rapport aux années précédentes ? |___|
1. Mieux qu’avant  Q10.2a
2. Autant qu’avant (pas d’effet)  TERMINER LA SECTION
3. Pire qu’avant  Q10.2b
10.2a
Si mieux qu’avant : Quelle est la principale raison pour 
laquelle vous pensez que la qualité de vos noix de cajou a 
augmenté cette année ?
|___|
1. Bon climat / conditions météorologiques 
2. Adoption de pratiques des formations
3. Moins d’insectes, des parasites et des maladies
4. Autre (précisez) |__________________________|
10.2b
Si pire qu’avant : Quelle est la principale raison pour 
laquelle vous pensez que la qualité de vos noix de cajou a 
diminué cette année ? |___|
1. Mauvais climat / conditions météorologiques
2. Non-Adoption des pratiques des formations
3. Beaucoup d’insectes, des parasites et des maladies
4. Autre (précisez) | __________________________ |
152
11. APPARTENANCE AUX ORGANISATIONS PAYSANNES
11.1 Aucun membre du ménage n’appartient-il à une coopérative ou association formelle/enregistrée 
des producteurs ? 
0 NON TERMINER, 
1= COOP DES PROD CAJOU, 2= COOP CAJOU & AUTRE CULTURE, 3= COOP AUTRE 
CULTURE (N’INCLUANT LE CAJOU)
|__|
CODES POUR 11.2 a, d, 
g, 
1 CHEF DE MENAGE
2 EPOUSE DU CHEF
3 CO-EPOUSE 
4 FILS/FILLE DU CHEF
5 PARENT DU CHEF
9 AUTRE 
CODES POUR 11.2 b, e, 
h
1 MEMBRE, SANS 
 FONCTION
2 GESTION/ 
.. ADMINISTRATION 
.. (NON-FINANCIER)
3 COMPTABLE/ 
.. FINANCIER 
.. ADMINISTRATION
4 PRESTATAIRE DE 
SERVICE
5 FORMATEUR
 PRODUCTEUR 
PILOTE
9 AUTRE [SPECIFIER]:
Qui dans votre ménage est membre d’une coopérative 
ou association formelle/enregistrée de producteurs ?
Quelle fonction spéciale, la personne a dans 
l’organisation ? 
IDENTIFIER JUSQU’A TROIS (3) MEMBRES DU 
MENAGE
MEMBRE DE MENAGE
CODE
MENAGE
FONCTION ANNEE 
D’ADHESION
11.2 1
ER MEMBRE DU 
MENAGE
(a) |__| (b) |__| (c) 
[___________]
2
EME MEMBRE DU 
MENAGE
(d) |__| (e) |__| (f) 
[___________]
3
EME MEMBRE DU 
MENAGE (g) |__| (h) |__| (i) 
[___________]
11.3 Pour quelles raisons les membres de votre ménage adhèrent-ils à une coopérative ou association formelle/ enregistrée des 
producteurs ? 
SI L’ENQUETE MENTIONNE UNE RAISON, MARQUER “1” DANS LE CASIER DE REPONSE ; S’IL NE MENTIONNE RIEN, MARQUER “0”; ET 
ALLER AU 12
NE SAIT PAS |__|
REFUSE DE REPONDRE |__|
(a) GAGNER PLUS D’ARGENT DE LA CULTURE |__|
(b) MEILLEUR ACCES AUX INTRANTS |__|
(c) MEILLEURE INFORMATION SUR LES PRIX |__|
(d) MEILLEUR ACCES AUX FORMATIONS |__|
(e) ECHANGER SUR LES TECHNIQUES CULTURALES |__|
(f) MEILLEUR ACCESS AUX/ECHANGE DES EQUIPEMENTS |__|
(g) ECHANGER LA MAIN D’OEUVRE |__|
(h) ACCES AU CREDIT |__|
153
(i) AUTRE NON LISTE CI-DESSUS, SPECIFIER __________________ |__|
11.4 Pour quelles raisons les membres de votre ménage n’adhèrent pas à une coopérative ou association formelle/enregistrée de 
producteurs ? 
 
NE SAIT PAS |__|
REFUSE DE REPONDRE |__|
(a) AUCUNE ASSOCIATION DE PRODUCTEURS N’EXISTE DANS LE VILLAGE OU DANS LA 
ZONE
|__|
(b) COÛTS ELEVES (FRAIS/COTISATION DE MEMBRE) |__|
(c) PREND TROP DE TEMPS |__|
(d) NE DONNE PAS DES AVANTAGES SUFFISANTS (ENTERME D’INFORMATION SUR PRIX 
OU PRIX DES CULTURES) |__|
(e) NE DONNE PAS DES AVANTAGES SUFFISANTS (EN TERMES DE FORMATION/ECHANGE 
SUR LES TECHNIQUES CULTURALES, ACCES AUX INTRANTS) |__|
(f) NE DONNE PAS DES AVANTAGES SUFFISANTS (EN TERMES D’ECHANGE DES 
EQUIPE ENTS)
|__|
(g) CONFLIT/DESACCORD AVEC LES MEMBRES DE LA COOPERATIVE/ASSOCIATION |__|
(i) AUTRE NON LISTE CI-DESSUS, SPECIFIER __________________ |__|
12 ACCES AU CREDIT 
12.1 Si vous souhaitez obtenir de crédit, existe-t-il des sources de 
crédit dans votre village ou commune ? |___| 1. OUI
2. NON SI NON TERMINEZ LA SECTION
12.2
Quelles sources de crédit sont disponibles dans votre village ou 
commune ?
(Choisir les trois options les plus importantes)
|___|
|___|
|___|
1. Association d’épargne et de crédit
2. ONG
3. Banques
4. Institution de Microfinance 
5. CVPA
6. Autre coopérative
7. Usine
8. Autres organisations paysannes
9. Usuriers dans le Village
10. Autre (Spécifier:__________________________)
154
12.3 Si vous avez besoin de crédit, pouvez-vous l’obtenir ? |___|
1. OUI 
2. NON SI NON TERMINEZ LA SECTION
12.4 Combien de fois avez-vous obtenu de crédit depuis 2011 ? |___| SI 0  TERMINEZ LA SECTION
12.5 Quel était le plus grand montant de crédit (FCFA) que vous avez 
obtenu depuis 2011 ? |___|
12.6 Sur quoi avez-vous utilisé ce crédit ? 
(Choisir jusqu’à 3 options)
|___| 
|___| 
|___|
1. Dépenses sur la plantation de cajou
2. Dépenses sur d’autres cultures 
3. Achat d’animaux ou de volaille pour élevage
4. Achat d’aliments
5. Dépenses de scolarité
6. Dépenses médicales et de santé
7. Construction/réparation de maisons
8. Investissement dans d’autres affaires/activités 
génératrices de revenu
9. Autres dépenses de ménage
12.7 Quel montant du crédit obtenu avez-vous utilisé pour la 
production de cajou (FCFA) ?
 |_________|
12.8 Avez-vous eu de difficultés à rembourser votre crédit ? |___|
1. OUI
2. NON SI NON  TERMINEZ LA SECTION
13 FICHE ENREGISTREMENT DES RECOLTES ET DES VENTES HEBDOMADAIRES 
NOTE POUR L’ENQUETEUR : Veuillez enregistrez toutes les ventes effectuées au cours de la campagne. 
13.1 Date (JJ/MM/AA)
VENDU A :
1 = Collecteurs bord champ (pisteur)
2 = Acheteurs villageois (sous-pisteur)
3 = Organisation de producteurs (coopérative)
4 = Unités de transformation
5 = Commerçants (magasin intérieur)
6 = Autre (à préciser)
Quantité de noix (kg) Somme d’argent reçu 
(FCFA)
(a) |__|__|/|__|__|/ 16 |__| (|_____________________| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|
155
13.1 Date (JJ/MM/AA)
VENDU A :
1 = Collecteurs bord champ (pisteur)
2 = Acheteurs villageois (sous-pisteur)
3 = Organisation de producteurs (coopérative)
4 = Unités de transformation
5 = Commerçants (magasin intérieur)
6 = Autre (à préciser)
Quantité de noix (kg) Somme d’argent reçu 
(FCFA)
(b) |__|__|/|__|__|/ 16 |__| (|_____________________| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|
(c) | | |/| | |/ 16 | | (| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(d) |__|__|/|__|__|/ 16 |__| (|_____________________| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|
(e) |__|__|/|__|__|/ 16 |__| (|_____________________| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|
(f) |__|__|/|__|__|/16 |__| (|_____________________| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|
(g) |__|__|/|__|__|/ 16 |__| (|_____________________| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|
(h) | | |/| | |/ 16 | | (| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
NOTE POUR L’ENQUETEUR : Maintenant, je vais recueillir des détails sur les noix qui n’étaient pas vendues mais utilisées à d'autres 
fins ou ont été perdues. 
13.2 Indiquez la quantité de noix utilisée pour compenser les ouvriers [ ] KG
13.3 Indiquez la quantité de noix utilisée comme cadeau [ ] KG
13.4 Indiquez la quantité de noix utilisée pour rembourser des dettes [ ] KG
13.5 Indiquez la quantité de noix utilisée comme payement au propriétaire du terrain [ ] KG
13.6 Quantité estimée perdue par vol [ ] KG
13.7 Estimation de la quantité perdue à l'intrusion des animaux (par exemple, les bovins qui 
sont entrés dans la ferme et ont mangé des pommes avec des écrous attachés)
[ ] KG
156
13.8 Avez-vous eu des utilisations de votre cajou autres que celles mentionnées ci-dessus (SI 
OUI, veuillez préciser) |__| 1 OUI
2 NON Si Non  14
a. [ ] KG
b. [ ] KG
c. [ ] KG
13.9 Indiquez la quantité des noix restante dans le stock (pas encore vendue) [ ] KG
14. Question PPI (Tableau de bord Simple de la pauvreté) 
Indicateurs Réponse
14.1. Départements (tel que observés) 1. Littoral
2. Mono
3. Zou, Atlantique ou Collines
4. Couffo
5. Plateau
6. Ouémé
7. Donga ou Borgou
8. Alibori
9. Atacora
14.2. Matériel principal du mur extérieur du bâtiment 
principal (tel qu’observé)
1. Terre, Pierre, Bois/planche, Feuilles de palm/Bambou ou Autre
2. Argile mélangée au ciment
3. Briques
14.3. Combien de membres de ménage sont là ? 1. Huit ou plus
2. Sept
3. Six
4. Cinq
5. Quatre
6. Trois
7. Deux
8. Un
14.4. La femme chef/épouse ménage sait-elle lire, écrire 
avec compréhension en Français ?
1. No
2. Oui
3. Pas de femme chef/épouse
14.5. Quelle est la source principale d’énergie pour la 
lumière dans votre ménage ?
1. Pétrole
2. Electricité, Gaz, Huile, énergie solaire, électricité par groupe 
électrogène (communautaire ou privé), ou Autre
14.6 De toutes les chambres disponibles dans votre 
ménage, combien utilisent les membres de votre ménage 
pour se coucher ?
1. Un
2. Deux
3. Trois ou plus
14.7. Quelle la principale énergie utilisée pour faire la 
cuisine dans votre ménage ?
1. Bois de chauffe ou Paille
2. Charbon, Electricité, Gaz, Pétrole ou autre.
157
14.8. Votre ménage dispose-t-il de moto ou de voiture ? 1. Non
2. Oui
14.9. De combien de téléphones mobiles dispose votre 
ménage ? 
1. Aucun
2. Un
3. Deux ou plus
14.10. Est-ce que le ménage a possédé (y compris en 
héritage) ou loué toute terre morcelée, développée ou 
irriguée au cours des 12 derniers mois ?
1. Ne possède pas etc.
2. En possède etc., mais la terre n’est pas morcelée, développée ou 
irriguée 
3. En possède etc., la terre (une partie) est morcelée, développée ou 
irriguée 
NOTE POUR L’ENQUETEUR : Merci d’avoir répondu à toutes ces questions. Maintenant, j’aimerais compter le nombre d’arbres de cajou et 
mesurer la superficie de votre / vos plantations. 
15. COMPTAGE DES ARBRES DE CAJOU ET MESURE DES SUPERFICIES 
Plantation de cajou
A
Plantation de cajou
B
Plantation de cajou
C
Plantation de cajou
D
Plantation de cajou
E
Plantation de cajou
F
15.1 Latitude de la plantation 
de cajou
N|__|__|º 
|__|__|.|__|__|__|’
N|__|__|º 
|__|__|.|__|__|__|’
N|__|__|º 
|__|__|.|__|__|__|’
N|__|__|º 
|__|__|.|__|__|__|’
N|__|__|º 
|__|__|.|__|__|__|’
N|__|__|º 
|__|__|.|__|__|__|’
15.1a Longitude de la 
plantation de cajou
E
|__|__|__|º 
|__|__|.|__|__|__|’
E
|__|__|__|º 
|__|__|.|__|__|__|’
E
|__|__|__|º 
|__|__|.|__|__|__|’
E
|__|__|__|º 
|__|__|.|__|__|__|’
E
|__|__|__|º 
|__|__|.|__|__|__|’
E
|__|__|__|º 
|__|__|.|__|__|__|’
15.2
Mesure de la plantation 
de cajou (ha)
Veuillez-vous assurer 
que le GPS a réinitialisé 
à zéro avant de 
commencer à mesurer
|__|__| , |__|__|__|__| 
HECTARES
|__|__| , |__|__|__|__| 
HECTARES
|__|__| , |__|__|__|__| 
HECTARES
|__|__| , |__|__|__|__| 
HECTARES
|__|__| , |__|__|__|__| 
HECTARES
|__|__| , |__|__|__|_ 
HECTARES
15.3
Nombre d’arbres de 
cajou produisant
(A compter si la 
superficie < 1 ha)
|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|
15.4a
SOUS-SUPERFICIE 1
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
15.4b |__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRE
158
15.5a SOUS-SUPERFICIE 2
(Si la superficie totale 
est entre 1.0 – 3.0 ha)
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
15.5b |__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRE
15.5a SOUS-SUPERFICIE 3
(Si la superficie totale 
est de 
3.01 ha ou plus grande)
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
|_0_| . |__|__|__|
HECTARES
15.5 |__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRES
|__|__|__|
NOMBRE D’ARBRE
159
Annex 2: Producer Group Questionnaire 
BENINCAJU/CIAP 
Questionnaire sur les organisations des producteurs 
1.0 Général 
1.1: Départment........................................................................................ 
1.2; Commune............................................................................................ 
1.3: Village................................................................................................. 
1.4: Type d’organisation paysanne..................................................................................................... 
1= CVPA 
 2= Groupement féminin 
 3= Autre à Préciser……….. 
1.5: Nom de l’organisation paysanne....................................................... 
1.6: Nom du Répondant ............................................................................ 
1.7: Age du Répondant (années)......................................................................................................... 
1.8: Genre du Répondant................................................................................................................... 
1= Masculin 
 2= Féminin 
1.9: Depuis combien d’années produisez-vous et vendez de cajou (nombre d’années) ?.......... 
1.10: Combien de plantations de cajou avez-vous ? ......................................................................... 
1.11: Combien d’arbres productifs de Cajou avez-vous au total ? ................................................. 
1.12: Depuis combien d’années êtes-vous membre de cette organisation (années) ?..................... 
1.13: Quel est votre rôle dans l’organisation ?.................................................................................. 
1= Membre, aucune autre fonction 
 2= Membre du Bureau /Gestion ou administration de l’organisation 
 3= Comptable/financier 
 4= Autre (Spécifier________________________________) 
1.14: Recommanderiez-vous à d’autres producteurs d’adhérer à cette organisation ?............... 
1= Oui 2= Non 
2.0 Informations sur l’organisation paysanne 
2.1: Depuis combien d’années cette organisation existe-t-elle ? ..................................................... 
2.2: Combien de membres compte actuellement cette organisation ?........................................... 
 2.2a : Hommes ........................................................................................................................ 
160
 2.2b : Femmes ......................................................................................................................... 
2.3: Combien de membres compte le Bureau de cette organisation ? .......................................…. 
 2.3a : Hommes ....................................................................................................................... 
 2.3b : Femmes...................................................................................................................... 
2.4: Combien avez-vous payé pour : 
2.4a: Frais d’adhésion (FCFA)?........................................................................................ 
2.4b : Part sociale (FCFA)? ............................................................................................. 
2.4c : Cotisation annuelle (FCFA)?................................................................................. 
3.0 Services de l’organisation paysanne 
3.1: Quelles sont les raisons qui vous ont amené à adhérer à cette organisation paysanne ? (Choisir 
toutes les raisons qui sont valables) Mettez "1" dans le casier de la réponse choisie, "0" pour celle qui n’est pas choisie 
1= Gagner plus d’argent de cajou............................................................................................. 
2= Commercialisation/Vente de produits................................................................................. 
3= Meilleur accès aux intrants à travers l’organisation............................................................ 
4= Meilleure information sur les prix de cajou........................................................................ 
5= Meilleur accès aux formations sur le cajou....................................................................... 
6= Provision de services de vulgarisation................................................................................ 
7= Provision de services (ex. pulvérisation, contrôle de qualité) ............................................ 
8= Echanger des techniques culturales .................................................................................... 
9= Meilleur accès aux/ échange des équipements.................................................................... 
10= Echange de main d’œuvre................................................................................................ 
11= Accès au crédit.................................................................................................................. 
12= Evénements Sociaux /activités.......................................................................................... 
13= Autre non listé ci-dessus, spécifier __________________ 
3.2a: Quels services/bénéfices aimeriez-vous voir assurés et que l’organisation ne procure pas 
actuellement ? (Choisir toutes les raisons qui sont valables) 
 Mettez "1" dans le casier de la réponse choisie, "0" pour celle qui n’est pas choisie
 1= Gagner plus d’argent de cajou............................................................................................ 
2= Commercialisation/Vente de produits................................................................................ 
3= Meilleur accès aux intrants à travers l’organisation........................................................... 
4= Meilleure information sur les prix de cajou....................................................................... 
5= Meilleur accès aux formations sur le cajou....................................................................... 
6= Provision de services de vulgarisation................................................................................ 
7= Provision de services (ex. pulvérisation, contrôle de qualité) ........................................... 
161
8= Echanger des techniques culturales………………………………………………………… 
9= Meilleur accès aux/ échange des équipements…………………………………………… 
10= Echange de main d’œuvre…………………………………………………………...... 
11= Accès au crédit…………………………………………………………………………. 
12= Evénements Sociaux /activités…………………………………………………………. 
13= Autre non listé ci-dessus, spécifier__________________ 
3.2b: Quels services/bénéfices aimeriez-vous voir améliorés et que l’organisation ne procure pas/de 
façon satisfaisante actuellement ? (Choisir toutes les raisons qui sont valables) 
 Mettez "1" dans le casier de la réponse choisie, "0" pour celle qui n’est pas choisie
 1= Gagner plus d’argent de cajou............................................................................................ 
2= Commercialisation/Vente de produits................................................................................ 
3= Meilleur accès aux intrants à travers l’organisation........................................................... 
4= Meilleure information sur les prix de cajou....................................................................... 
5= Meilleur accès aux formations sur le cajou....................................................................... 
6= Provision de services de vulgarisation................................................................................ 
7= Provision de services (ex. pulvérisation, contrôle de qualité) ........................................... 
8= Echanger des techniques culturales………………………………………………………… 
9= Meilleur accès aux/ échange des équipements…………………………………………… 
10= Echange de main d’œuvre…………………………………………………………...... 
11= Accès au crédit…………………………………………………………………………. 
12= Evénements Sociaux /activités…………………………………………………………. 
13= Autre non listé ci-dessus, spécifier__________________ 
3.3: Quelles contraintes ou autres problèmes avez-vous avec votre organisation?
(Choisir toutes les raisons qui sont valables) Mettez "1" dans le casier de la réponse choisie, "0" pour celle qui n’est pas 
choisie
1= Coûts trop élevés (frais/coût de cotisation de membres) ………………………………. 
2= Prend trop de temps …………………………………………………………………… 
3= Les réunions ont lieu à des endroits trop éloignés de ma maison………………………. 
4= Je ne suis pas capable de quitter ma maison pour aller aux réunions……………………. 
5= Mon époux/épouse ne me permet pas d’assister aux réunions ou autres événements du groupe. 
6= La gestion de l’organisation est corrompue/assure une mauvaise gouvernance………… 
7= Je ne suis pas confortable avec une organisation mixte …………………………………. 
8= Je préfère habituellement travailler indépendamment plutôt qu’en association. ………… 
9= Ne fournit d’information suffisante sur les prix…………………………………………. 
10= Ne donne pas un prix suffisant pour les cultures………………………………………. 
11= Ne donne pas de formation suffisante/échange des techniques de production …………. 
162
12= Ne permet pas un accès suffisant aux intrants de cajou………………………………… 
13= Ne permet pas un échange suffisant des équipements …………………………………. 
14= J’ai un conflit/désaccord avec les membres de la Coopérative/association……………. 
15= Autres non listé ci-dessus, spécifier __________________
3.4: Votre organisation permet-elle l’accès au crédit ? Si Non aller à la question 3.5
3.4a: Quelles institutions associées donne ce crédit? 
Choisir toutes les raisons qui sont valables, Mettez "1" dans le casier de la réponse choisie, "0" pour celle qui 
n’est pas choisie
 1= L’organisation paysanne elle-même....................................................................... 
 2= Institutions de microfinance .................................................................................. 
 3= Banque.................................................................................................................... 
 4= Caisses communautaires de crédit/épargne............................................................ 
 5= Groupe de Tontine.................................................................................................. 
 6= Usines et commerçants…………………………………………………………… 
7= Autres (Spécifier___________________________) 
Pour toutes questions Oui/Non utilisez 1=Oui, 0=Non 
 3.4b: Avez-vous demandé de crédit auprès de l’une de ces sources au cours des 12 
derniers mois?..................................................................................................................... 
 1= Oui 2= Non Aller à la question 3.5
3.4c: Si vous avez demandé de crédit, en avez-vous obtenu de cette source?................... 
1= Oui 2= Non Aller à la question 3.5
 3.4d: Si vous avez reçu de crédit, quel était le montant (FCFA)?..................... 
3.5: Quelles autres activités génératrices de revenu votre organisation paysanne appuie ses 
membres à réaliser? Choisir toutes les raisons qui sont valables. Mettez "1" dans le casier de la réponse choisie, "0" 
pour celle qui n’est pas choisie 
1= Transformation avec valeur-ajoutée de cajou ..................................................................
2= Canal de commercialisation pour les autres cultures autres que le cajou ........................ 
 3= Opportunités pour des transactions informelle............................................................. 
 4= Autre (Spécifier______________________________) 
3.6: Au cours des 12 derniers mois avez-vous reçu d’information sur le marché de cajou de la part 
de votre organisation?............................................................................................................ 
 1= Oui 2= Non 
4.0 Gouvernance et Gestion de l’Organisation paysanne 
4.1 Le bureau/conseil d’administration/comité de gestion de votre organisation paysanne: 
 4.1a: A t-il actuellement tous les postes pourvus?................................................................ 
163
1= Oui 2= Non 
4.1b: Recrute t-il habituellement plus de candidats que de postes vacants lors des 
élections?............................................................................................................................. 
1= Oui 2= Non 
4.1c: Tient-il au moins une Assemblée Générale annuellement ...................................... 
1= Oui 2= Non
4.1d: Tient-il des réunions de planification au moins une fois l’an pour fixer les objectifs et 
priorités de l’année suivante?............................................................................................
 1= Oui 2= Non 
4.1e: Communique t-il régulièrement avec les membres de l’organisation sur les activités 
collectives et la planification?............................................................................................
1= Oui 2= Non 
4.1f: Tient-il des réunions régulières du bureau............................................................... 
1= Oui 2= Non 
 4.1g: A-t-il la réputation parmi les membres d’être équitable, responsable et comptable.
1= Oui 2= Non 
4.1h: Tient-il des réunions régulières des membres, mais seulement quand elles sont 
nécessaires……………………………………………………………………………………
1= Oui 2= Non 
4.1i: Les membres du bureau sont-ils élus par les membres de l’organisation paysanne?
1= Oui 2= Non 
4.2: Les réunions de l’organisation de producteurs :
4.2a: A quelle fréquence votre organisation tient-elle ses réunions? ...............................
1= Au moins une fois par mois
2= Au moins une fois tous les 2 mois
3= Trimestriellement (4 fois par an)
4= Deux fois par an
5= Une fois par an
6= Autre (Spécifier_________________)
4.2b: Les ordres du jour des réunions sont-ils partagés avec les membres en avance?
……………………………………………………………………………………..............
1= Oui 2= Non 
164
4.2c: Les membres reçoivent-ils en avance des informations sur les sujets nécessitant des
décisions au cours des réunions?.............................................................................................
1= Oui 2= Non 
4.2d: Les rapports financiers de l’organisation sont-ils partagés avec les membres au cours
des réunions?............................................................................................................................
1= Oui 2= Non 
4.2e: Tous les membres sont-ils encouragés à participer aux discussions au cours des
réunions?.................................................................................................................................
1= Oui 2= Non 
4.2f: Toutes les décisions prises lors des réunions sont-elles annoncées à tous les membres
participants?............................................................................................................................
1= Oui 2= Non 
4.2f: Les réunions comprennent-elles habituellement des activités sociales?...................
1= Oui 2= Non 
4.2g: Les réunions ont-elles habituellement une composante éducation relative au Cajou?
……………………………………………………………………………………………….…
1= Oui 2= Non 
165
Annex 3 : Processor Data Collection Form 
BéninCajù - Cashew Integration and 
Acceleration Project
Benin, TechnoServe CRS 
(USDA)
A Preliminary/Background 
questions
A.1
.
Name and contact details of 
processor
Name :
Address :
A.2
.
Contact person, designation, email, 
Phone number
Name : 
Email : 
Contact number :
Position - Job Title):
A.3
.
What year did you begin operating 
your cashew processing business
(Start year)
A.4
.
Do you process for a domestic 
and/or export market
Domestic ( ) 
What % ( )
Export ( ), 
What % ( )
A.5
.
Are you involved in other 
businesses? Yes No If No  A.7.
A.6 If yes what are they and how long 
have you been running Them?
1.
2.
3.
A.7
.
How involved are you in the day to 
day operations of your cashew 
business
1- Handle all operations personally
2- Entrusted a Manager for that but onsite
3- Entrusted a Manager for that but offsite
4- Not involved at all
A.8 How much of your time to you 
spend in the factory?
1- 50 to 100% 
2- 25 to 50%
3- Visit occasionally
4- Do not visit more than 1-2 times/year
A.9 How would you rate your 
management team?
1- Highly qualified and experienced 
2- Acceptable, still need some support or training 
3- Inefficient
166
A.1
0.
What industry activities do you 
participate in? Trade Associations 
(for processors), Conferences etc.?
1- CNTC 
2- ACA 
3- Other (specify)
B Assess current operations 
B.1 What is the installed capacity Mt, 
RCN/Year
2013 2014 2015 2016 
(Plan)
B.2 What is your utilized capacity, Mt. 
RCN/Year
2013 2014 2015 2016 
(Plan)
B.3 Value of purchased RCN price 2013 2014 2015 2016 
(Plan)
B.4 Productivity / person/day, Kg, 
manual, 2015
Shelling Peeling Recover
y
Gradi
ng
Productivity / person/day, Kg, 
machine, 2015
Shelling Peeling Recover
y
Gradin
g
Level of mechanization (% of RCN 
processed)
Shelling Peeling Recover
y
Gradin
g
B.5 Total no. of workers, 2015 Shelling Peeling Recover
y
Gradi
ng
Others To
tal
Number of female employees 
(2015)
% of female employees
Labor Turnover (% of workers that 
leave in less than one year)
B.6 Do you use shell? 1- Yes 
2- -No 
If yes, Where do you use it? 1- Burning for production operations 
2- CNSL production
3- Other (specify)
Do you generate any revenue from 
shell?
1- Yes If yes, how much (FCFA)
2- No 
How do you dispose off your surplus 
of shell?
1- Burning as waste 
2- Throwing away
3- Other (specify)
B.7 Do you trace costs of processing 1- Yes 
2- No 
If yes , What is your cost of 
processing/Mt of RCN
1- 2013 
2- 2014 
167
3- 2015 
Do you know processing costs of 
your competitors’ countries?
1- Yes 
2- No 
B.8 How much have you invested in 
Equity ($)?
Do you have access to finance ($) 
for your processing plant?
Yes No 
If yes, which amount (USD) was mobilized for investment? 
2013 2014 2015 2016 
(projected)
What interest rates are you paying 
(%)?
1- Working Capital 
2- Capex 
3- Other (specify) 
Who are your financiers?
C’ PREVIOUS TRAINING
Training (in Past) Business 
Manag. 
Skills
Marketin
g 
Quality 
standar
d 
Acces
s to 
Credi
t 
Processin
g 
technique
s & 
technolog
y
C’1 Have you received any training on 
these (Yes/NO)?
C’2 Who provided that training 
(Institution/individual/NGO 
Project))?
C’3 Was that support enough (Quality)?
C’4 Was that support enough (duration)?
C’5 What was the most recent year of 
that training?
C’6 How many of the practices 
promoted in the most recent training 
have you adopted in your processing 
plant?
1= None
2=Some
3=Most
4=All
C’7 Rate the TA delivered (1-3) 3-
exceed expectation, 2-meet 
expectations, 1 below expectations
168
C Ascertain type and quality of TA received (by previous projects)
C.1 Technical assistance support (in 
Past)
Technolog
y advisory
Farmers 
linkage
General 
Technica
l 
assistanc
e
Access 
to 
finance
Business 
developme
nt services
Fo
od 
saf
ety
C.1
1
Have you received any support on 
these (Yes/NO)?
C.1
2
Who provided that support 
(Institution/individual/NGO 
Project))?
C.1
3
Was that support enough (Quality)?
C.1
4
Was that support enough (duration)?
C.1
5
Rate the TA delivered (1-3) 3-exceed 
expectation, 2-meet expectations, 1 
below expectations 
C.2 Technical assistance support 
(present)
C.2
1
Are you currently receiving any 
support from any organization?
C.2
2
If yes, which organization?
C.2
3
If Yes, what year is that supposed to 
End?
C.2
4
Rate the TA delivered (1-3) 3-exceed 
expectation, 2-meet expectations, 1 
below expectations 
C.6
C.3
What challenges do you face in 
growing a profitable cashew 
processing business 
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
D Assess industry level factors 
driving processing success 
169
D.1 How is competition between RCN 
exporters and RCN processors 
managed in your country?
D.2 How many commercial financiers 
understand and have financed
cashew processing?
D.3 Are there any concessional loan 
facilities available for cashew 
processing?
E Social Impact of business
E.1 Farmers Directly Linked, formal 
linkage
2015 2016 
(Plan)
Comments
E.1
1
Number of farmers directly linked
E.1
2
Number of female farmers directly 
linked
E.1
3
RCN directly purchased, Mt of 
RCN
E.14 Price paid, Mt of RCN on direct 
purchases
E.2 Workers employed 2014 2015 2016
E.2
1
Total Number of workers
E.2
2
Number of Female workers
E.23 Average salaries paid to workers in 
2015(FCFA)
Shelling Peeling Recover
y
Gradin
g
Other
E.2
4
Labor Turnover (% of total staff 
replaced per year)
E.3 What social programs do you have 
for workers?
Creche for 
kids 
Free 
Breakfast
Free 
lunch
Trans
port
Health 
support
Ot
he
r
E.3
1
E.3
2
Are you currently involved in 
farmers training programs
1- Yes 2- No 
E.3
3
If yes, which are they?
1.
2.
3.
170
4.
5.
F Major Markets and price info
F.1. What are the main markets where 
you sell your kernels? specify how 
many end buyers
1.
2.
3.
F.3
F.2
Do you have any credible sources of 
market information?
1- Yes 2- No 
F.3 What are your sources?
F.4. How do you know your sales price 
is the right one?
F.5. Is there any price reference for 
African kernels which you know?
1- Yes 2- No
f.5a If yes, what is the source? 1.
2.
F.6 What resistance do you find in 
different export markets like Europe 
and the USA to buying your 
processed cashew? If any, please 
list these
1.
2.
3.
4.
F.7 Are there worries about sanitation 
and/or quality? If yes, please list 
these
1.
2.
3.
4
 
F.8 Have potential buyers asked for 
improvements and/or changes in 
your operations? If yes, please list 
these
1.
2.
3.
4
171
F.9 Have you attended at international 
trade fairs/conference/trade mission 
in the last 5 years?
Yes No
If Yes, which? 
How many such events have you attended in the last 5 years 
Quote them:
1……………………………………………………………………
…………………………………….
How many purchase contracts resulting from?
2. 
………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………
How many purchase contracts resulting from?
3. 
………………………………………………………………………
………………………………..
How many purchase contracts resulting from?
4. 
………………………………………………………………………
………………………………..
How many purchase contracts resulting from?
5. 
………………………………………………………………………
………………………………..
How many purchase contracts resulting from?
172
Annex 4: Processor Employee Questionnaire 
BeninCaju Processor Employee Questionnaire 
1. General 
1.1: Processor Name…………………………………………………….. 
1.2: Respondent Name…………………………………………………. 
1.3: Gender……………………………………………………………………………………… 
1=Male 
2= Female
1.4: Respondent Age (years)…………………………………………………………………….. 
1.5: Processor plant section where you work………………………………………………….. 
1= Shelling 
2=Peeling 
3= Grading 
4= Recovery 
5= Accounting Finance 
6= Personnel 
7= Maintenance 
8= Security 
9= Other (specify__________________________)
1.6: How long have you worked for this processor?..................................................................... 
 1= Less than 6 months 
 2= 6 months to 1 year 
 3= 1-2 years 
4= 2-5 years 
5= More than 5 years 
1.7: How long have you worked in this same job?......................................................................... 
1= Less than 6 months 
 2= 6 months to 1 year 
 3= 1-2 years 
4= 2-5 years 
5= More than 5 years 
1.8: What is your job level?.............................................................................................................. 
1= Worker 
 2= Section supervisor 
 3= Management 
1.9: In thinking about your job, do you think that you have too many different tasks to do, 
about the right number, or not enough?........................................................................................ 
1= Too many 
 2= About the right amount 
 3= Not enough 
173
2.0 Employee Satisfaction 
2.1: How satisfied are you with your job? ……………………………………………………….. 
1= Very dissatisfied 
 2= Dissatisfied 
 3= Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 
 4= Satisfied 
 5= Very satisfied 
2.2: How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job with this processor?.........
1= Very dissatisfied 
 2= Dissatisfied 
 3= Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 
 4= Satisfied 
 5= Very satisfied 
2.3: How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get higher pay with this processor?............
1= Very dissatisfied 
 2= Dissatisfied 
 3= Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 
 4= Satisfied 
 5= Very satisfied 
2.4: You would recommend to friends and family members that they should work for this processor 
1= Strongly disagree 
 2=Disagree 
 3= Neither disagree or agree 
 4= Agree 
 5= Strongly agree 
2.5: My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment………………………………………
1= Strongly disagree 
 2=Disagree 
 3= Neither disagree or agree 
 4= Agree 
 5= Strongly agree 
2.6: On my job, I have clearly defined quality goals…………………………………………………
1= Strongly disagree 
 2=Disagree 
 3= Neither disagree or agree 
 4= Agree 
 5= Strongly agree 
174
2.7: My job makes good use of my skills and abilities……………………………………………….
1= Strongly disagree 
 2=Disagree 
 3= Neither disagree or agree 
 4= Agree 
 5= Strongly agree 
2.8: The processor supervisors and managers are committed to high quality products…………… 
1= Strongly disagree 
 2=Disagree 
 3= Neither disagree or agree 
 4= Agree 
 5= Strongly agree 
2.9: I am paid a fair salary for my work based on my experience and job performance………… 
1= Strongly disagree 
 2=Disagree 
 3= Neither disagree or agree 
 4= Agree 
 5= Strongly agree 
2.10: My supervisor and manager at this processor try meet worker requests for improved 
working conditions……………………………………………………………………………………… 
1= Strongly disagree 
 2=Disagree 
 3= Neither disagree or agree 
 4= Agree 
 5= Strongly agree 
2.11: When I need to miss work for health or family reasons, my supervisor and manager are 
understanding of my need and show flexibility…………………………………………………………
 1= Strongly disagree 
 2=Disagree 
 3= Neither disagree or agree 
 4= Agree 
 5= Strongly agree 
2.12: Are you actively looking for a job with another employer………………………………………
1= Yes
2= No
2.13: Have you applied for another job outside this organization in the past six months……………
1= Yes
2= No
175
Annex 5: Disaggregated Values of Key BeninCaju Parameters 
A number of the parameters presented in this report are of particular interest to the BeninCaju program as 
they constitute key indicators of program progress. The values of these parameters at Baseline, presented 
in this annex, are benchmarks that will be compared to values of these same parameters at intermittent 
points in the BeninCaju lifecycle, including Endline. 
Therefore, these parameters need to presented at disaggregated levels in order to provide finer resolution 
data that will be used to guide the interventions and assessment of BeninCaju impacts and outcomes. 
Because the data presented in this annex will be used for comparison and program guidance purposes, 
only data collected from the producers in BeninCaju villages are presented in this table (since, by 
definition, BeninCaju will not work in any Control villages and thus will not be comparing future data 
from these villages to Baseline data from them.) 



179
Annex 6: Avoidance of Contamination Methodology 
Executive Summary 
In early planning for the BeninCaju baseline study, it was decided that the collected baseline data should 
capture all cashew production, yield, and income data for the 2016 season. This required that the USDA￾funded Technoserve Benin (TNSB) BeninCaju project baseline survey be delayed until the end of the 
2016 cashew harvest and sales period. This in turn raised the possibility that startup of BeninCaju 
activities and interventions is some villages might occur before the baseline survey in those villages was 
conducted. 
USDA’s justifiable concern about this plan was the possibility that implementation of any BeninCaju 
activities in any selected village before the survey might affect the surveyed producers’ (farmers’) 
responses to questions about their cashew farming practices, their knowledge of Good Agricultural 
Practices (GAP) for cashew, and their responses to other questions or even the 2016 harvest, thereby 
“contaminating” the baseline data by farmers reporting knowledge, opinions, or cashew farming practices 
that were solely due to the startup of the BeninCaju activities. 
TNSB, together with the BeninCaju Baseline Coordinator, developed a plan to schedule startup and other 
activities in the surveyed BeninCaju villages after the baseline survey was completed in those villages. 
This plan, which was correctly implemented, ensured that no BeninCaju activities of any kind were 
undertaken in any of the surveyed BeninCaju villages. In fact, as of 29 September, 2016, to further 
ensure that baseline contamination from any project activities could not possibly take place, all project 
producer activities thus far undertaken have occurred in other project villages. 
Background 
The BeninCaju baseline data collection recall timeframes described were selected to produce the best and 
most valid starting points for BeninCaju based on annual production, processing and institutional 
reporting cycles. Using these recall timeframes will give the best picture of BeninCaju’s impact and will 
help to inform implementation adaptations during the Life of Project (LOP). 
Under USDA M&E policy, projects are normally not allowed to initiate activities before the Baseline 
Evaluation is approved. The timing of the start of BeninCaju between two cashew seasons has required 
some adjustment both to have the best baseline data and simultaneously not to delay project activities. For 
this reason, USDA originally agreed that project activities can start once baseline data has been collected 
(scheduled for the end of July, 2016) and before the Baseline Evaluation report has been fully approved. 
180
However, for BeninCaju to meet the project goals, it was critical to begin some key project activities even 
before the end of baseline data collection. BeninCaju carefully examined what activities were critical to 
begin and how implementation could be undertaken to avoid data contamination. In addition, in order to 
avoid data contamination, BeninCaju developed some methods for the Evaluator to use to adapt the 
geographic rollout of project activities so that the sample of producers selected to be part of the sample 
for the Baseline survey was not included in any BeninCaju activities nor otherwise impacted by them 
until after completion of the Baseline data collection activities in their villages 
While actual implementation of the selected project activities before collection of the baseline data 
required USDA approval, this approval was ultimately granted and was, to a very large extent, based on 
USDA’a acceptance of the ability of BeninCaju and the Evaluator to work together to ensure that no 
contamination would take place. In any case, the Evaluator was responsible for ensuring that data 
contamination does not occur. 
The proposed select project activities fall under three categories: 
1. Producer support activities: begin training and access to finance 
2. Processor support activities: begin technical assistance, access to finance, food safety, 
product diversification 
3. BeninCaju communication activities: develop BeninCaju communication plan
1. Producer support activities: begin farmer training and access to finance 
BeninCaju collected producer baseline data collection starting in April 2016 and completed 
collection by the end of June, 2016. BeninCaju proposed to USDA that they approve starting two 
producer support activities in March, 2016. Although there might have been some risk of 
contamination, BeninCaju and the Evaluator planned and implemented the measures necessary to 
ensure that there was no contamination by either the start of SILC training/facilitation or the start of 
Gold and Silver farmer training. 
Following is a description of each of the two producer activities proposed, with information on how 
contamination of the baseline data was avoided. 
 Gold and Silver farmer training programs, which are the “flagship” (i.e., most 
comprehensive and intensive) farmer training programs. Both of these programs will extend 
over many months and begin with 10 days of agronomic training, including information on 
weeding, spacing, grafting, etc. 
181
BeninCaju asked USDA to allow starting the Gold and Silver packages with the first 2-3 day 
training session in July, 2016, which, in the event, turned out to be after the last baseline date 
were collected . This schedule was necessary to ensure that the farmers can receive the 10-
days of agronomic training followed by the harvest/post-harvest contents of the course in 
time to impact cultivation and harvesting for the 2017 harvest season.
Anti-Contamination Strategy and Update: To ensure that there was no risk of contamination, 
the consultant and BeninCaju team identified the list of 30 Intervention villages and 30 
control villages for the baseline survey. Each village was then mapped with a radius of 10km 
for intervention villages and 5km for control villages. Trainings did not begin until August 
2016. No activities have been done in any of the baseline villages (intervention or control) to 
date or within the respective radius set. No activities will take place within 5km of the control 
villages for the duration of the project. 
 Savings and Internal Lending Community (SILC) training and facilitation, to provide 
better access to capital for farmers during the cashew season. 
BeninCaju requested that USDA approve starting the initial training and organization for the 
SILCs in March, 2016. This was agreed by USDA. Most of the time during which the 
baseline survey was conducted through the completion of baseline data collection in June 
involved forming the initial SILC groups and training and recruiting stakeholders. 
This approval was granted because it was known that the SILCs would not be in a position to 
actually provide financing until well after the baseline. In addition, it was not anticipated that 
farmers would seek financing at that time, since they would have recently received their 
revenues from the recently completed cashew harvest. As such, the SILC training was not 
expected to have an effect on the results of the 2016 harvest or on the BeninCaju baseline 
survey and evaluation. 
Anti-Contamination Strategy and Update: There have been no SILC training or groups 
organized to date as staff is still being recruited and trained, thus there was no opportunity for 
any contamination to occur from these activities. 
182
2. Processor support activities: technical assistance, access to finance, food safety, product 
diversification 
BeninCaju collected baseline data for the six existing processors based on their status as of 
December 31st, 2015. These data captured the results of the 2015 harvest and post-harvest 
processing. The processor data were collected and processed by the end of May, 2016. 
USDA approved BeninCaju starting two processor-support activities before the completion of all 
baseline data. 
The two processor support activities with their starting month(s) are: 
 Food safety technical assistance (April) 
 Diversification into cashew juice (August) 
Following is a description of each proposed processor activity to provide information to the 
Evaluator for designing the Baseline Evaluation to avoid any contamination of baseline data. 
 Food safety 
BeninCaju hired a consultant to conduct an initial assessment for one of the factories. This 
report was received in July. While the assessment was done prior to baseline collection, no 
specific actions were put into place. The full time Food Safety specialist started in September 
and will be moving forward with the action plan proposed by the consultant. 
 Diversification into cashew juice 
BeninCaju began the process of developing juice processing by bringing an international 
volunteer consultant in August, 2016. The volunteer’s focus is on analyzing the market for 
cashew apple-based products in Benin and the region. This has no impact on the processor 
baseline data. 
3. BeninCaju communication activities 
With USDA approval, BeninCaju began the following specific communication activities before 
completion of the baseline data collection: 
 Hiring of local Communications Specialist 
 Development of annual Communications Plan 
 Development of BeninCaju branding & marking policy compliant with USDA requirements 
183
 Preparation of BeninCaju communication materials, including logo, flyers, banners, website, 
social media, etc. 
 Implementation of certain communication initiatives in support of approved project activities, 
including launch events in Cotonou and Parakou. 
 Participation in key national, regional, and international cashew industry conferences and 
events 
These actions had no impact on baseline data collection, as these activities do not directly relate to any of 
the agreed project indicators. 
Contamination Avoidance 
The principal risk of contamination was posed by BeninCaju startup activities and interventions changing 
the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) and, as a remote possibility, the cashew harvest results 
(production, income) of the surveyed project cashew farmers. As noted above, the geographic rollout of 
any and all BeninCaju activities was carefully planned and scheduled to avoid any activities in any survey 
villages until after all survey activities in those villages were completed. In fact, as of this date, all 
project activities of any kind have taken place in non-surveyed villages at the greatest possible distance 
from the survey villages as a conservative measure to further ensure that no contamination could take 
place. 
Table 1, below, presents the start and end date of baseline survey activities in the surveyed BeninCaju 
villages. This table shows that the survey was completed in all selected villages prior to the end of June, 
2016. 
Table 1: Survey dates in surveyed BeninCaju villages 
BeninCaju Survey 
Villages
Survey Dates (DD/MM/YYYY)
Start End
ADJANTE 05/06/2016 09/06/2016
AFFIZOUNGO 04/06/2016 06/06/2016
AMOU 03/05/2016 04/05/2016
AOTRELE 05/06/2016 05/06/2016
ASSANTE 03/06/2016 06/06/2016
ATCHAKPA 05/06/2016 05/06/2016
BIGUINA 05/06/2016 07/06/2016
BOUYEROU 03/06/2016 07/06/2016
DARINGA 02/06/2016 06/06/2016
DOKOUNDOHO 31/05/2016 03/06/2016
EKPA 03/06/2016 04/06/2016
184
FOUMBEA 31/05/2016 02/05/2016
GBAFFO 30/05/2016 31/05/2016
GBOWELE 30/05/2016 04/05/2016
GORO 01/05/2016 09/06/2016
HONNONKON 04/06/2016 05/06/2016
KOMIGUEA 07/06/2016 08/06/2016
KORI 05/06/2016 07/06/2016
KPOTA 07/06/2016 08/06/2016
MADENGBE 03/06/2016 04/06/2016
MAMATCHOKE 01/06/2016 02/06/2016
N'TCHON 07/06/2016 09/06/2016
NAGAYILE 04/06/2016 08/06/2016
OKE OWO 2 30/05/2016 30/05/2016
OKELAGBA 30/05/2016 09/06/2016
OKOUTA OSSE 04/06/2016 08/06/2016
ONKLOU 30/05/2016 10/06/2016
OUESSE CENTRE 01/06/2016 06/06/2016
OUESSE-CENTRE 04/06/2016 07/06/2016
TCHETTI 03/06/2016 04/06/2016
VOSSA 31/05/2016 01/06/2016
Conclusion 
Prior to the start of BeninCaju baseline survey or project activities USDA had serious concern about the 
risk of BeninCaju baseline contamination from early activity startup. This concern was justified and was 
emphasized to the TNS BeninCaju team and to the BeninCaju Baseline Coordinator. In response, the 
TNSB BeninCaju team and the Baseline Coordinator developed a contamination avoidance plan. This 
plan was primarily based on timing the geographic rollout of project activities and defining exclusion 
zones around villages to be surveyed as part of the baseline study. This plan, which was presented to 
USDA and agreed by them, was correctly – and very conservatively - implemented by the TNSB survey 
team. 
Therefore, because of the coordination and planning among USDA, TNS HQ, TNS Benin, and the 
Baseline Coordinator, and the complete and correct implementation of the agreed plan, no contamination 
of the BeninCaju baseline survey or evaluation took place.
185
ANNEX 7- Baseline Indicators- Attachment E (Below)
186
 
ATTACHMENT E- Updated Baseline Indicators 
Activity Indicator
Comments Source
Baseline Value
(Surveyed BeninCaju 
Producers Only)
Activity 1: Capacity 
Building and Improved 
Access to Finance for 
Producer 
Groups/Cooperatives
Number of Cashew Production 
agronomic training sessions conducted 
for farmers (annual)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0
N/A 0
Number of farmers trained in cashew 
production agronomics (annual)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0
N/A 0
Number of Savings and 
Lending/Finance Training Sessions 
conducted for SILC group members 
(annual)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0
N/A 0
Number of SILC group members trained 
in savings and lending/finance (annual)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0
N/A 0
Progress Out of Poverty Index (percent)
Annual indicators need to 
be updated as they are not 
in line with baseline
Producer Survey 20.46
Number of hectares under improved 
techniques or technologies as a result of 
USDA assistance
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0
N/A 0
Number of hectares under sustainable 
agroforestry practices
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0. 
N/A 0
Number of individuals who have applied 
improved techniques and technologies 
as a result of USDA assistance
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0. 
N/A 0
187
Number of germlings sold by project￾supported nurseries
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of individuals benefiting 
indirectly from USDA-funded 
interventions
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of individuals who have applied 
improved farm management practices 
(i.e., governance, administration, 
financial management) as a result of 
USDA assistance.
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A
0
Percent of producers satisfied with 
technical assistance services from 
INRAB/MAEP extension agents
This indicator has been
updated to change 
“MYAB” to “INRAB” and 
“MAEP” extension per the 
PMP.
0 0
Value of agricultural or rural loans 
provided as a result of USDA assistance
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Volume of selected crops (cashew) 
produced per Hectare (yield)
This is expressed at kg per 
hectare
Producer Survey 225
Number of targeted agricultural policies 
that have been approved or enacted
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Percent of producers (farmers) who have 
access to current market information 
through their cooperatives or producer 
associations
Calculated as the % of 
surveyed farmers in cashew 
cooperatives (24%) x% of 
members of cashew 
cooperatives that receive 
information on cashew prices 
from the group (63%)
Producer Survey
15%
188
Number of members of targeted 
producer associations/cooperatives
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0, 
but needs to be reworded to 
remove ‘members of’
N/A
0
Value of new public and private sector 
investment leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of individuals who have 
received short-term agricultural sector 
productivity or food security training as 
a result of USDA assistance
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Value of cashew products sold into 
domestic, regional, and international 
markets
Based on 2015 kernel and 
cashew apple juice sales in 
USD
Market Research $7 802 352
Average margin between farm gate price 
and end product price for selected 
agricultural value chains
Suggest that this indicator be dropped, as both farm gate and FOB will 
go up. Should instead measure % of FOB that went to farmers, for 2015 
it was 44% as well as monitoring farm gate price itself.
Volume of product meeting international 
quality standards
Based on HACCP 
certification
Processor Interview 0
Average production cost per unit of 
output for selected agricultural
commodities
This indicator needs to be 
changed to direct 
production cost of RCN 
processed/Mt of kernels to 
be relevant. Response 
expressed per kg. Data 
based on 2015 production
Processor Interview
6
Percent of product loss due to spoilage 
or improper processing
Yield loss for 2015 Processor Interview
5%
189
 
4
 Total summed over all markets reported by the 6 Partner Processors
Number of distinct markets to which 
selected agricultural products are 
exported4
Different markets for the 
different processors, but 
this is the total unique 
number
Processor Survey
9
Number of purchase contracts resulting 
from processor attendance at 
international trade fairs/conference and 
trade missions
Based on contracts from 
the last 5 years Processor Survey 6
Number of international trade missions 
conducted with host country ag 
exporters and foreign buyers
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of firms in target region that are 
accessing credit through any type of 
'formal' loan product
Based on individual 
processor responses Processor Survey 4
Number of private enterprises, producers 
organizations, water users associations, 
women’s groups, trade and business 
associations, and community-based 
organizations (CBOs) that applied new 
technologies or management practices as 
result of USDA assistance
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0. N/A
0
Number of shared value models 
identified and tested
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Percent of firms in selected value chains 
that actively use business/marketing 
plans
Based on individual 
processor responses
Processor Survey
50%
190
Number of international markets 
covered by government trade promotion 
agencies (i.e., buyer research reports, 
regulations and standards reports, etc.)
Confirmed with National 
government
Market Research
0
Number of agricultural regulations 
related to post-harvest handling, 
processing, and trade procedures vetted 
or reviewed by the public/industry
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of industry associations who 
are aware of international food safety 
standards
There is only one industry 
association for processors
Market Research
1
Number of public-private partnerships 
formed as a result of USDA assistance
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of loans disbursed as a result of 
USDA assistance
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of individuals receiving 
financial services as a result of USDA 
assistance
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of individuals benefiting 
directly from USDA-funded 
interventions
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of jobs attributed to USDA 
assistance
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Activity 2: Training on 
Improved Farm 
Management and 
Improved Post-harvest 
Handling for Producer 
Groups/Cooperatives
Number of training sessions in 
operational and financial management 
conducted for farmers (annual)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0. N/A 0
191
 
5
 Data only tabulated for training done by BeninCaju and does NOT include any prior training done by other organizations or GOB 
Number of farmers trained in 
operational and financial management 
(annual)3
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of post-harvest training sessions 
conducted for cashew farmer groups
(annual)5
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of farmers trained in post￾harvest training (annual)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Activity 3: 
Infrastructure, Capacity 
Building, and Market 
Development of 
Processing Sector
Number of technical advisory sessions 
to new processors (annual)3
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A
0
Number of new cashew processors 
receiving technical advisory services 
(annual)3
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of processors introduced to 
buyers (annual)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of BDS trainings delivered 
(annual)3
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of processor and service 
provider staff trained in business 
management skills and processing 
techniques and technologies (annual)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0. N/A
0
192
Number of quality standards training 
conducted (annual)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A
0
Number of processors receiving training 
in quality standards (annual)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A
0
Number of marketing trainings 
conducted for processors (annual)
3
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A
0
Number of processors trained in 
marketing (annual)
3
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A
0
Number of buyer
-seller introductions 
facilitated (annual)
3
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A
0
Activity 4: Increase 
Access to Finance and 
Investment for 
Processing Sector
Number of access to credit trainings 
provided to producers and processors 
(annual)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A
0
Number of producers and processors 
receiving access to credit training 
(annual)
2
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A
0
Activity 5: Capacity 
Building of Trade 
Associations and Public 
Sector Agencies
Number of capacity building actions 
completed by the project (research 
linkages, trainings, special studies) 
(annual)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A
0
Number of government agencies 
benefiting from research linkages, 
trainings, and special studies facilitated 
by the project (cumulative)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A
0
193
Number of membership services 
trainings conducted for industry 
associations (annual)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
Number of staff members of industry 
associations trained (annual)
This indicator refers to 
what was done as a result 
of BeninCaju and thus is 0.
N/A 0
194
ATTACHMENT E
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Result Indicator Baseline
FTF Goal: Sustainably Reduce 
Global Poverty and Hunger Progress Out of Poverty Index for Target Regions 20.46%
Increased Agricultural 
Productivity
Number of hectares under improved techniques or technologies as a 
result of USDA assistance 0
Number of hectares under improved techniques of technologies as a 
result of USDA assistance (new) 0
Number of hectares under improved techniques of technologies as a 
result of USDA assistance (pest management) 0
Total number of individuals benefiting directly as a result of USDA 
assistance 0
Total number of individuals benefiting directly as a result of USDA 
assistance (new) 0
Total number of individuals benefiting directly as a result of USDA 
assistance (male) 0
Total number of individuals benefiting directly as a result of USDA 
assistance (female) 0
Total number of individuals benefiting indirectly as a result of USDA 
assistance 0
Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance 0
Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance (female) 0
Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance (male) 0
195
Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural 
sector productivity or food security training as a result of USDA 
assistance (continuing)
0
Number of hectares under improved techniques of technologies as a 
result of USDA assistance (Continuing) 0
Number of hectares under improved techniques of technologies as a 
result of USDA assistance (disease management) 0
Number of hectares under improved techniques of technologies as a 
result of USDA assistance (Other - good agricultural practices) 0
Number of hectares under improved techniques of technologies as a 
result of USDA assistance (total w/one or more improved techniques 
or technologies)
0
Increased Leverage of Private￾Sector Resources
Value of new public and private sector investment leveraged as a 
result of USDA assistance 0
Value of new public and private sector investment leveraged as a 
result of USDA assistance (private) 0
Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance 0
Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance (agricultural post-harvest transformation) 0
Value of new public and private sector investment leveraged as a 
result of USDA assistance (public) 0
Increased Capacity of 
Government Institutions
Number of international markets covered by government trade 
promotion agencies (i.e., buyer research reports, regulations and 
standards reports, etc.)
0
Custom: % of producers satisfied with technical assistance services 
from MAEB and INRAB extension agents 0
196
Increased Access to Improved 
Market Information
FFPr 1.4.3: Percent of producers (farms) who have access to current 
market information through their cooperatives or producer 
associations
15%
Improved Policy and Regulatory 
Framework
Number of agricultural regulations related to post-harvest handling, 
processing, and trade procedures vetted or reviewed by the 
public/industry
0
Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in 
each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA 
assistance (stage 2)
0
Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in 
each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA 
assistance
0
Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in 
each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA 
assistance ( stage 1)
0
Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in 
each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA 
assistance ( stage 3)
0
Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in 
each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA 
assistance ( stage 4)
0
Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in 
each of the following stages of development as a result of USDA 
assistance ( stage 5)
0
Improved Capacity of Key 
Groups in the Agriculture 
Production Sector (Coops and 
Small Shareholder Farmers)
Number of targeted producer associations/cooperatives 0
Improved Quality of Land and 
Water Resources Custom: Number of hectares under sustainable agroforestry practices 0
197
Increased Use of Improved 
Agricultural Techniques and 
Technologies
Volume of selected crops (cashew) produced per hectare in kilograms 
(yield). 225
Number of individuals who have applied improved techniques and 
technologies as a result of USDA assistance 0
Number of individuals who have applied new techniques or 
technologies as result of USDA assistance (female) 0
Number of individuals who have applied new techniques or 
technologies as result of USDA assistance (male) 0
Number of individuals who have applied new techniques or 
technologies as result of USDA assistance (New) 0
Number of individuals who have applied new techniques or 
technologies as result of USDA assistance (Pest Management) 0
Number of individuals who have applied new techniques or 
technologies as result of USDA assistance (Other - good agricultural 
practices)
0
Number of individuals who have applied new techniques or 
technologies as result of USDA assistance (Disease Management) 0
Number of individuals who have applied new techniques or 
technologies as result of USDA assistance (Continuing) 0
Number of individuals who have applied new techniques or 
technologies as result of USDA assistance (total w/one or more 
improved techniques or technologies)
0
Increased Availability of 
Improved Inputs Custom: Number of germlings sold by project-supported nurseries 0
Increased Use of Financial 
Services Value of loans provided as a result of USDA assistance 0
Number of individuals receiving financial services as a result of 
USDA assistance 0
198
Number of loans disbursed as a result of USDA assistance 0
Value of loans provided as a result of USDA assistance (female) 0
Value of loans provided as a result of USDA assistance (male) 0
Value of loans provided as a result of USDA assistance (not
applicable) 0
Number of individuals receiving financial services as a result of 
USDA assistance (female) 0
Number of individuals receiving financial services as a result of 
USDA assistance (male) 0
Number of firms in target region that are accessing credit through any 
type of 'formal' loan product (illustrative) 4
Value of loans provided as a result of USDA assistance (joint) 0
Increased Knowledge by 
Farmers of Improved 
Agricultural Techniques and 
Technologies
Number of individuals receiving short-term agricultural sector 
productivity or food security training as a result of USDA assistance 0
Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural 
sector productivity or food security training as a result of USDA 
assistance (female)
0
Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural 
sector productivity or food security training as a result of USDA 
assistance (male)
0
Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural 
sector productivity or food security training as a result of USDA 
assistance (Agricultural Producers)
0
Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural 
sector productivity or food security training as a result of USDA 
assistance (new) 0
199
Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural 
sector productivity or food security training as a result of USDA 
assistance (continuing)
0
Improved Farm Management 
(Operations, Financial)
Number of individuals who have applied improved farm management 
practices (i.e., governance, administration, financial management) 0
Number of individuals who have applied improved farm management 
practices (i.e., governance, administration, financial management) as 
a result of USDA assistance (female)
0
Number of individuals who have applied improved farm management 
practices (i.e., governance, administration, financial management) as 
a result of USDA assistance (agricultural producers)
0
Number of individuals who have applied improved farm management 
practices (i.e., governance, administration, financial management) as 
a result of USDA assistance (male)
0
Improved Knowledge 
Regarding Farm Management
Percent of agricultural producers in target region/area who can 
identify key characteristics of a well-managed farm (illustrative) 0
Expanded Trade of Agricultural 
Products (Domestic, Regional 
and International)
Value of sales by project beneficiaries
 
$26 231 194
Value of sales by project beneficiaries (processed kernel) 
$7 787 352
Value of sales by project beneficiaries (Cashew Apple) $15 000
Value of 2016 sales by project beneficiaries (raw cashew nut) 6 $18 428 842 / 
10 817 730 000 CFA
Total number of individuals benefiting directly as a result of USDA 0
 
6
 Calculated by taking the average of earned by farmer from RCN sales multiplied by expected farmer beneficiaries. Subject to change based on number of 
beneficiaries. ($376/farmer * 49,000) Used average exchange rate for 2016 of 587 CFA/USD. 
200
assistance
Total number of individuals benefiting directly as a result of USDA 
assistance (new) 0
Total number of individuals benefiting directly as a result of USDA 
assistance (male) 0
Total number of individuals benefiting directly as a result of USDA 
assistance (female) 0
Total number of individuals benefiting indirectly as a result of USDA 
assistance 0
Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance 0
Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance (female) 0
Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance (male) 0
Total number of individuals benefiting directly as a result of USDA 
assistance (continuing) 0
Improved Capacity of Key 
Organizations in the Trade 
Sector (Processing 
Organizations and Trade 
Associations)
Number of industry associations who are aware of international food 
safety standards 0
Increased Value Added to Post 
Production Agricultural 
Products
If we are measuring impact on farmers, we have to change this as % 
of farm gate realization of equivalent of end product. Farmers 
received 44% of the sales of equivalent of kernel for the baseline.
Suggest to remove and 
replace with 44% of FOB 
value to farmers 
Improved Quality of Post￾Production Agricultural 
Products
Volume of commodities sold by project beneficiaries
 
24 248 600
201
Volume of commodities sold by project beneficiaries (raw cashew 
nut)7
(total kg RCN sold by surveyed BeninCaju producers in 2016) 
 
23 177 000
Volume of commodities sold by project beneficiaries (processed 
kernel in kg)
 
1 071 600 
Increased Adoption of 
Established Standards by 
Industry
Percent of registered firms in target sectors that obtain certification 
with international standards related to product quality (illustrative) 0
Increased Efficiency of Post￾Production Processes
Average production cost per unit of output for selected agricultural 
commodities $1.16
Increased Use of Improved 
Post-Production Processing and 
Handling Practices
Custom: % of product loss due to spoilage or improper processing 5%
Improved Post-Harvest 
Infrastructure
Percent of agricultural producers (farms) in the target region that 
have access to quality storage and/or post-harvest processing 
facilities (illustrative)
0
Improved Marketing of 
Agricultural Products
Number of purchase contracts resulting from processor attendance at 
international trade fairs/conference and trade missions 6
Increased Access to Markets to 
Sell Agricultural Products
Number of distinct markets to which selected agricultural products 
are exported (illustrative) 0
Improved Linkages Between 
Buyers and Sellers
Number of international trade missions conducted with host country 
ag exporters and foreign buyers (illustrative) 0
Improved Transaction Number of private enterprises, producers organizations, water users 0
 
7 Calculated based on average kg/farmer sold of RCN based on surveyed farmers times total number of expected farmer beneficiaries. 
Subject to change based on number of beneficiaries. (473kg/farmers *49,000 farmers) 
202
Efficiency associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations, and 
community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied new 
technologies or management practices as result of USDA assistance
Custom: Number of shared value models identified and tested 0
Number of private enterprises, producer organizations…that applied 
improved techniques and technologies as a result of USDA assistance 
(new) 0
Number of private enterprises, producer organizations…that applied 
improved techniques and technologies as a result of USDA assistance 
(private enterprise)
0
Number of private enterprises, producer organizations…that applied 
improved techniques and technologies as a result of USDA assistance 
(trade and business association)
0
Number of private enterprises, producer organizations…that applied 
improved techniques and technologies as a result of USDA assistance 
(community-based organization)
0
Number of private enterprises, producer organizations…that applied 
improved techniques and technologies as a result of USDA assistance 
(continuing)
0
Improved Management of 
Buyer/Seller Groups Within 
Trade Sector
Percent of firms in selected value chains that actively use 
business/marketing plans 0