FY 2016 Burkina Faso Food for Progress 
Sesame Marketing and Export
Baseline Evaluation 
5/8/2017 
Sesame Marketing and Exports (SESAME) Project Baseline Study 
Report
Program: Food for Progress 
Agreement Number: [FCC- 686-2016/005-00]
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2017 
Project Duration: October 2016/ September 2021 
Implemented by: Lutheran World Relief 
Evaluation Authored by: LWR Internal staff
DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of Lutheran World Relief through 
the SESAME Project funded by the United States Department of Agriculture. It was prepared by 
an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s views expressed in this publication do 
not necessarily reflect the views of Lutheran World Relief or the United States Department of 
Agriculture or the United States Government. 
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov 
Sesame Marketing and Exports (SESAME) Project 
Baseline Study Report
Contents
v. May 8, 2017
I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 4
II. Project background ............................................................................................................. 5
III. Purpose of the baseline study .............................................................................................. 5
IV. Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 5
1. Sampling methodology for individual farmers.................................................................... 6
2. Composition of the focus groups ......................................................................................... 8
3. Key informant consultations ................................................................................................ 8
4. Data collection tools............................................................................................................. 9
5. Data collection, cleaning and analysis............................................................................... 11
V. Findings and analysis........................................................................................................ 11
1. Baseline values................................................................................................................... 12
2. Sesame production techniques........................................................................................... 12
3. Sesame aggregation and sales............................................................................................ 22
4. Employment ....................................................................................................................... 26
VI. Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 28
VII. Next Steps......................................................................................................................... 31
VIII. Annexes ............................................................................................................................. 32
1. Annex A: Terms of Reference: Baseline Study ................................................................. 32
2. Annex B: List of persons consulted ................................................................................ 42
3. Annex C: Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 44
4. Annex D: Data collection tools .......................................................................................... 45
5. Annex E: Tabulated raw data............................................................................................. 58
List of Tables
Table 1: Indicator baseline results .................................................................................................. 4
Table 2: Summary of sample by province, disaggregated by age and sex ..................................... 8
Table 3: Focus group composition.................................................................................................. 8
Table 4: Matrix of data collection methodology ........................................................................... 10
Table 5: Baseline values for Standard Indicator 13 and 14, and Custom Indicator 9 ................... 12
Table 6: Average area dedicated to sesame production in hectares.............................................. 13
Table 7: Average disaggregated area by sex and age ................................................................... 13
Table 8: Total area in hectares treated with improved sesame production techniques ................. 15
Table 9: Amount of sesame produced (in tonnes) on average by youth and adult males and
females.......................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 10: Average yield (in kg / ha) obtained by men and women and by province ................... 20
Table 11: Monetary value of sesame in F CFA sold by sesame producers (2016/2017 season).. 23
Table 12: Quantity of sesame sold in MT to the various actors by sesame producers in MT
(2016/2017 season)....................................................................................................................... 24
Table 13: Proposed purchase price of kg of sesame indicated by some exporters according to
sesame quality (F CFA / Kg) ........................................................................................................ 26
Table 14: Total number of workers employed by producers in the two regions and average length
of employment .............................................................................................................................. 27
List of Figures
Figure 1: Average net income of disaggregated sesame producers by sex and age ..................... 17
Figure 2: Responsibility of sesame sale within a household, disaggregated by farmer and another
family member.............................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 3: Frequency of selling of sesame carried out by someone other than the producer......... 18
Figure 4: Perception of the main difficulties of the sector seen by the producers........................ 19
Figure 5: Farmers’ current perception of sesame in their livelihood strategies and perspectives on
the importance of sesame farming in their livelihood strategies in the medium term (by the end of
the project) .................................................................................................................................... 21
List of Acronyms
Deff Design effect
DGPER Direction Générale de la Promotion de l'Économie Rurale/ Directorate-General of the 
Promotion of the Rural Economy
DGPV Direction Générale des productions végétales/ Directorate-Generalfor Vegetable 
Production
DRAH Direction Régionale de l'Agriculture et de l'Hydraulique/ Regional Directorate of 
Agriculture and Water
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States 
FTE Full Time Equivalent
GPS Global Positioning System
ICC Interclass Correlation
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development 
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
LWR Lutheran World Relief
MT Metric Ton
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NPK Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium
OCADES Organisation Catholique pour le Développement et la Solidarité/ Catholic Organization 
for Development and Solidarity
ONUDI L'organisation des Nations Unies pour le développement industriel/ The United Nations 
Industrial Development Organization
PDA/GTZ Programme de Développement de l'Agriculture/ Agriculture Development Program/ 
German Technical Cooperation
PEA Producer Enterprise Agent
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PSU Primary Sample Units
SAFCOD Société Africaine de Commerce et de Distribution/ African Society ofCommerce and 
Distribution
SE/CNSA Secrétariat Exécutif du Conseil National de Sécurité Alimentaire/Executive Secretariat 
of the National Food Security Council
SEASME Sesame, Marketing, and Exports
SPAPA Service Provinciale des Aménagements et des Productions Agricoles/ Provincial 
Department of Agricultural Development and Production
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences(software)
SRPER Service Régionale de la Promotion de l’Economie Rurale/ Regional Service for the 
Promotion of Rural Economy
TOR Terms of Reference
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 4 of 70
I. Executive Summary
This baseline study gathered data from 565 farmers to present the major challenges that will be addressed 
by the SESAME project funded by the USDA Food for Progress Program. The table below summarizes 
baseline values for the listed indicators. Other data collected include, but is not limited to, why the 
production process and exportation of sesame needs a complete overhaul in Burkina Faso in order to 
move farmers, families and the economy in a more positive direction towards better outcomes for all.
Table 1: Indicator baseline results
Indicator Baseline
Standard indicator 13: Value of sales [of sesame] by project 
beneficiaries
$2,834,116 (1,700,469,728 F 
CFA)
At farm-gate $2,351,300 (1,410,779,931 F CFA )
Union sales $482,816 (289,689,797 F CFA )
Custom indicator 9: % of farmer sales through unions 
(calculation: farm-gate divided by union sales times 100%
17%
Standard indicator 14: Volume of commodities [sesame] (MT or 
metric tons) sold by project beneficiaries
3,603 MT
At farm-gate 3,028 MT
Union sales 575 MT
Custom indicators 2: % increase of price from the previous year 
per MT sold to trader/exporter as a result of USDA assistance
N/A
Farm-gate sales / MT = total sales (indicator 13) / MT 
sold (indicator 14)
465,911 F CFA/MT ($776.52/MT)
Union price / MT = total sales (indicator 13) / MT sold 
(indicator 14)
503,808 F CFA/MT ($839.68/MT)
The following recommendations are proposed as a result of the baseline study findings. The SESAME 
project managers will develop a management plan to define if they accept (and incorporate) or reject the 
recommendations.
1. Lower Year 1 targets for Indicator 16 and Indicator 17 and adjust Year 2-5 targets to achieve the 
initial Life of Project target.
2. Decide if Life of Project and Year 2-5 targets for Indicator 16 and Indicator 17 need to be 
adjusted.
3. Correct targets for Years 1-5 for Indicator 13.
4. Adjust definition of jobs and targets for Indicator 15.
5. Adjust PMP indicator definition for Standard Indicator 2.
6. Change Custom Indicator 3 and Custom Indicator 4.
7. Add evaluation questions to those included in the Evaluation Plan.
8. During coordination efforts with other stakeholders, pay close attention to efforts of existing 
partners and government departments working on SESAME.
9. Consider having activities that support local sesame processing by women’s groups.
10. Develop interventions that facilitate access to equipment and otherinputs.
11. Refine interventions with women to increase access to agricultural inputs and equipment to lower 
the discrepancy between income from sesame for men and women.
12. Continue to emphasize investment in clean/high quality sesame, though recognizing it is not the 
sole driver for higher sesame prices.
13. Develop mitigation measures to help producers manage weather hazards.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 5 of 70
II. Project background
The SESAME project, a 5 year, $24 million project funded by USDA’s Food for Progress Program, will 
assist more than 500,000 people directly and indirectly by working with farmers, agricultural 
cooperatives1
, buyers, exporters, financial institutions and government bodies to increase their capacity to 
meet sesame export quality standards, access lucrative markets and improve buyer-seller relationships.
The project will focus on sesame production in the regions of Est, Boucle du Mouhoun, Hauts Bassins, 
and Cascades in Burkina Faso through seven major activities:
Activity 1: Market Access: Facilitate buyer-seller relationships 
Activity 2: Capacity Building: Producer groups/cooperatives 
Activity 3: Market Access: Facilitate access to market information 
Activity 4: Financial Services: Facilitate agricultural lending
Activity 5: Capacity Building: Promote improved policy and regulatory framework 
Activity 6: Infrastructure: Post-harvest handling and storage
Activity 7: Capacity Building: Agriculture extension agents/services
III. Purpose of the baseline study
The purpose of the SESAME baseline study was to document starting conditions relevant to the changes 
LWR expects to bring about through the project in order to be able to objectively measure impact.
Specifically, the baseline study sought to:
1. Establish the baseline measures for selected project indicators.
2. Confirm/adjust calculations and assumptions used to calculate annual targets for project indicators.
3. Understand the basic situation to refine the implementation strategy of certain activities as well as 
identify potential threats to achieving project outcomes.
4. Understand additional conditions at the beginning of the project that will allow LWR to assess the 
impact of the project after five years.
5. Provide recommendations on how to adjust project targets, beneficiary targeting, indicator 
definitions, and/or strategies to mitigate threats.
There are additional components that LWR uses to understand baseline conditions but that are not 
included in this study (see Annex A: Terms of Reference for more details on how additional information 
will be collected and documented).
IV. Methodology
LWR conducted the baseline study using its own staff, using external technical assistance from research 
specialists at Ipsos Public Affairs to refine the appropriate sampling methodology for individual farmers. 
The SESAME Project M&E Specialist led the data collection, analysis and report writing process (see 
Annex A: Terms of Reference for a description of roles and responsibilities of LWR staff for the baseline 
study).
1 Sesame farmers in Burkina Faso are organized under two legal modalities: unions and associations/cooperatives. 
Unions are organized at the same geographic levels as government administrative units (commune, province, region, 
national) whereas associations/cooperatives can encompass membership across geographical boundaries. In general, 
both represent a way for farmers to work collectively to advance their interests. In this study, LWR consulted both 
types of farmer organizations but did not separate any results. Therefore, throughout the document, the two types of 
organizations are combined and referred to as “unions/associations.” LWR and its partners will further explore how 
functional differences may or may not affect the implementation of the project.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 6 of 70
The M&E Specialist consulted secondary sources (see Annex C: Bibliography) to prepare the baseline 
study but not as data sources for the baseline findings themselves.
LWR collected quantitative and qualitative baseline data from primary sources:
• Sesame farmers who are members of unions in the Est and Boucle de Mouhoun regions.
• Sesame buyers and exporters that are the major exporters in Ouaga and buyers that have a 
presence in the target regions.
• Key informants, including leaders from the two regional unions and associations (Est and 
Boucle de Mouhoun) and the six targeted provincial unions, regional and provincial level 
technical staff from government ministries, NGOs, and other project leads that work on the 
sesame value chain in Burkina Faso.
1. Sampling methodology for individualfarmers
For farm- and farmer-level measures, LWR sampled villages covered by the provincial unions/ 
associations in Est and Boucle de Mouhoun, the two regions where LWR will initiate extension services 
in Year 1 and used union/associations’ member lists from those provinces (with a total of 7,698 farmers, 
lower than the 13,500 estimated from the project design phase). LWR sampled the following project￾targeted provinces for the baseline: Gourma, Kompienga, and Tapoa in Est region and Banwa, Kossi, and 
Mouhoun in the Boucle de Mouhoun region.
The overall sample size was calculated to capture a representative sample of the existing members of the 
provincial unions (see “Sample size calculation” below). Specific respondents were randomly selected 
from membership lists using a three-stage cluster design: commune, village, union/association member.
In the first stage, communes were selected using probability proportional to size based on the total 
number of targeted farmers (current union/association members) within each cluster. Of note is that the 
targeted unions/associations do not have members in all communes, therefore some communes were 
excluded from the sample. The number of villages to be sampled in each region took into consideration 
the weight of each province in the region (based on the total number of union/association members in 
each province). LWR aimed to minimize a large design effect by balancing the number of clusters 
(villages) and primary sample units (PSUs, which in this study are farmers/cooperative members) 
sampled.
Sample size calculation
The following formula was used to calculate the sample size:
No = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
1+𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃(𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒2 )
No = sample size
P= total number of members of unions in Est and Boucle du Mouhoun, which is 7698 
e= sampling error
This formula assumes a maximum variance of 0.5 and will be used in the SESAME project to compare 
baseline values to endline values to be able to measure change over time. The type 1 error rate is 5% (e, 
or sampling error), and the power is 80% with a 95% confidence interval.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 7 of 70
Based on these values, No = 380. This calculation was compared to two other calculations using the Chi 
squared test (one tailed, with an effect size of 0.3 and power of 80%) and the T test with the same 
parameters. The Chi squared test resulted in No = 396, and the T test resulted in No = 362. Therefore, the 
No of 380 was retained, balancing these two results and also considering the availability of resources such 
as financial, human, and time.
LWR then adjusted the initial sample size of 380, using a design effect (Deff) of 1.35 and an estimated 
10% non-response rate. To calculate this design effect, LWR assumed a village-level intraclass 
correlation (ICC) of 0.014 and applied the following formula:
Deff= 1 + ICC (m-1), where 
Deff = design effect
ICC = intraclass correlation
m = average number of farmers per village, which is 26.
Therefore, the sample size N was calculated using these values as follows:
N=No*Deff (1+non-response rate)
The final sample size was 565 farmers to whom the questionnaire was delivered. A stratified sample for 
each geographic division (region, province, and commune) was calculated. That is, based on the 
proportion of total union members in each region, the size of the sample for Boucle de Mouhoun was 296, 
and the sample size for Est was 269. In the same way, the provinces and communes’ sample sizes were 
calculated based on the proportion of members in each of the targeted provinces and communes. LWR 
then used list of villages in the communes selected in the sample, and any villages that had fewer than 20 
union members were excluded from the sample (about 25% of villages were thus eliminated). Some 
communes only had villages with less than 20 members, and therefore, some communes were then taken 
out of the sample. Of the remaining villages, the sample size per village was calculated proportional to the 
weight of the village. Individual respondents were then selected at random from the list of union 
members.
LWR did not oversample any demographic subgroups of farmers (i.e., women farmers, older farmers, 
etc.). In electing not to oversample, LWR avoided incurring design effects resulting from the need to 
weight the data post hoc to bring sample sub-group proportions in line with population proportions. LWR 
relied on the demographic makeup of the current membership rolls. This strategy is consistent with the 
objective of achieving a self-weighting sampling design. Through focus groups (see below), LWR sought 
more specific perspectives of adult and young men and women (classified as youth).
Some individuals who were selected to be in the sample were unavailable (physically absent and/or not 
reachable by telephone when a number was available). In such a case, they were replaced by a randomly 
selected replacement farmer from the list of union members in the same village. To the extent possible, 
replacement farmers were matched in sex to the originally selected farmers.
Based on the methodology described above that was applied to the existing union membership roster, the 
sample can be summarized as follows in Table 2.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 8 of 70
Table 2: Summary of sample by province, disaggregated by age and sex
Region/Province
Male Total 
Male
Female Total 
Female
Total of 
Youth Adult Youth Adult All
Est
Gourma 23 67 90 15 46 61 151
Tapoa 7 44 51 10 12 22 73
Kompienga 2 25 27 2 16 18 45
Total 32 136 168 27 74 101 269
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 7 64 71 3 24 27 98
Mouhoun 11 61 72 3 10 13 85
Kossi 11 83 94 3 16 19 113
Total 29 208 237 9 50 59 296
Total 61 344 405 36 124 160 565
Youth are people aged 30 and under; adults are people aged 31 and older.
2. Composition of the focus groups
LWR organized focus groups to understand perceptions of sesame farmers on challenges and 
opportunities related to sesame production. LWR convened four focus groups per province: adult men 
and women aged 31 and over, and male and female youth aged 30 and under. Four villages were chosen 
randomly from all the villages in the provincial sample. One focus group was convened in each of those 
villages, and each group was made up of eight to twelve participants. The groups’ composition was as
follows:
Table 3: Focus group composition
Region/Province
Number of 
male youth
Number of 
male adults
Number of 
female youth
Number of 
female adults
Total 
participants
Est
Gourma 5 5 5 5 20
Kompienga 5 7 5 7 24
Tapoa 6 8 7 6 27
Total 16 20 19 18 73
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 6 8 6 8 28
Kossi 11 11 4 8 34
Mouhoun 10 6 6 7 29
Total 27 25 16 23 91
Total 43 45 35 41 164
3. Key informant consultations
LWR interviewed resource persons in the Est, Boucle du Mouhoun and Ouagadougou. These interviews 
were designed to better understand the problems of sesame production, what lessons had been learned 
and what elements should be taken into account in the baseline study in order to effectively guide the 
implementation of the project and collect baseline data.
Government structures
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 9 of 70
Farmer organizations
Organizations with sesame projects
Sesame exporters and sesame traders
4. Data collection tools
The tested/finalized data collection tools were used to collect the information needed from various data 
sources (summarized below in Table 4; for the actual tools used, see Annex D: Data collection tools).
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 10 of 70
Table 4: Matrix of data collection methodology
Data source Tool Data/information needed Type of data
Sesame farmers (men, 
women, adults and 
youth)
Questionnaire -Area of sesame farming
-Sesame production 
practices
-Yields and sales (quantity 
and price)
-Seasonal labor used
-Income gained from 
sesame production
-Roles of men/women, 
adults/youth at the farm 
level for the production 
and marketing of sesame
Quantitative
Groups of farmers: 
adult men, male youth, 
adult women, female 
youth (max. 12 people 
per group)
Focus group -Specific needs that affect 
the quantity and quality of 
sesame produced
-Role of sesame in 
farmers’ livelihood 
strategies (current and 
potential)
Qualitative
Key informants from 
provincial unions (e.g. 
board chairpersons, 
union managers, 
marketing committee 
chairpersons)
Questionnaire -Sesame from members 
(quantity and price paid)
-Quantity of sesame sold
-Main buyers and prices 
offered
-Sales contracts (existence, 
problems faced in 
managing them)
-Existence, condition, 
management of 
warehousing
-Type of employment 
available at the union level
Quantitative
Key informants from 
provincial and regional 
level government 
agencies involved in 
agriculture and 
economic development
Semi-structured 
interview
-State of sesame 
warehousing (current or 
planned)
-Other planned projects 
related to sesame (storage 
or cleaning infrastructure, 
technical assistance, 
financing, etc.)
Qualitative and 
quantitative
Projects Semi-structured 
interview
-State of sesame 
warehousing (current or 
planned)
-Other planned projects 
related to sesame (storage 
or cleaning infrastructure, 
technical assistance, 
financing, etc.)
Qualitative and 
quantitative
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 11 of 70
Key informants from 
buyers/exporters
Semi-structured 
interview [possibly a 
group interview if 
accessing 
information through 
any trade 
association.]
-Warehousing 
infrastructure (existing or 
planned)
-Cleaning equipment 
(existing or planned)
-Main constraints related 
to ability to offer higher 
prices for quality sesame 
and needed conditions in 
order to raise prices
-Estimate of future price 
increases for quality 
sesame
-Quantity of clean sesame 
(>95% clean) bought and 
quantity of less clean 
sesame (<95%)
-Types of employment 
available with 
buyers/exporters
-Sales contracts (existence, 
problems faced in 
managing them)
Qualitative and 
quantitative
5. Data collection, cleaning, and analysis
The baseline study lead, LWR’s M&E Specialist, created a data collection form on paper and in Excel for 
the farmer questionnaire. Twenty-one enumerators and six supervisors carried out the farmer 
questionnaires. After training on the questionnaire and GPS units, the enumerators and supervisors tested 
the draft questionnaire. The finalized questionnaire included adjustments from the field test, and each 
enumerator was assigned his/her sample. Each enumerator used a paper questionnaire, then entered the 
responses per the agreed upon coding in Excel. The supervisors verified that the data were collected 
accurately- checking most of the data collected in the first few days, then a sample of data every day 
thereafter. Any questionable data were verified through field visits and via telephone with the respondent. 
The M&E Specialist spot checked the accuracy of data collected. He then combined the data and cleaned 
the data again, triangulating with other primary data. For instance, if the volume of sesame sold exceeded 
the yield, then the yield value was corrected to the same quantity sold. He then analyzed the cleaned data 
set using Excel.
For qualitative data collected through focus groups and the interviews with union officials, supervisors 
collected and documented responses directly on paper forms. The M&E Specialist compiled and analyzed 
those responses. The M&E Specialist also conducted interviews with other key informants, recording 
responses on paper forms, which he then compiled.
V. Findings and analysis
The following sections categorize findings into several topics: the baseline values for select project 
indicators, quantitative and qualitative findings related to sesame farmers, information about sesame 
aggregation/sales, and findings related to employment in the sesame sector that most relate to project 
results.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 12 of 70
1. Baseline values
The baseline study established the following baseline figures. Baseline figures derived from individual 
farmer responses were extrapolated from a sample of 565 farmers (405 male, 120 female) as detailed in 
the methodology section above.
Table 5: Baseline values for Standard Indicator 13 and 14, and Custom Indicator 9
Indicator Baseline
Standard indicator 13: Value of sales [of sesame] by project 
beneficiaries
$2,834,116 (1,700,469,728 F 
CFA)*
At farm-gate $2,351,300 (1,410,779,931 F CFA )
Union sales $482,816 (289,689,797 F CFA )
Custom indicator 9: % of farmer sales through unions 
(calculation: farm-gate divided by union sales times 100%; “as a 
result of USDA assistance” crossed out as the project has not 
started)
17%
Standard indicator 14: Volume of commodities [sesame] (MT) 
sold by project beneficiaries
3,603 MT
At farm-gate 3,028 MT
Union sales 575 MT
Custom indicators 2: % increase of price from the previous year 
per MT sold to trader/exporter as a result of USDA assistance
N/A**
Farm-gate sales / MT = total sales (indicator 13) / MT 
sold (indicator 14)
465,911 F CFA/MT ($776.52/MT)
Union price / MT = total sales (indicator 13) / MT sold 
(indicator 14)
503,808 F CFA/MT ($839.68/MT)
*Exchange rate used: $1.00 = 600 F CFA, which was the approximate rate at the time of the study.
** There is no specific baseline for this indicator. However, to report on it for the end of Year 1, the price 
per MT reported is the baseline price against which the percentage change will be measured.
Further details on these baseline values are outlined in the following section.
2. Sesame production techniques
Area devoted to sesame production
An average of 2 hectares of sesame per farm was used to calculate annual targets for Indicator 1 (Number 
of hectares of land under improved techniques or technologies as a result of USDA assistance). Using 
GPS measures, the hectares of sesame planted by farmers during the 2016 season showed farmers planted 
an average of 2 ha per farmer, matching the value used for the initial targets for this indicator. A 
breakdown of this average is shown in the following table.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 13 of 70
Table 6: Average area dedicated to sesame production in hectares
Region/Province Male Female Male/Female Combined
Est
Gourma 2.61 1.11 2.01
Tapoa 1.67 0.94 1.45
Kompienga 2.33 2.77 2.51
Average 2.28 1.37 1.94
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 1.67 1.44 1.62
Mouhoun 1.73 0.79 1.58
Kossi 2.94 1.67 2.72
Average 2.19 1.36 2.04
Overall average 2.23 1.37 1.99
Source: farmer survey
The disaggregated data is shown below in Table 7. The average area cultivated by men (2.23 ha), is 
significantly different from that of women (1.37 ha). There is no significant difference between the 
average area sown by adult men and young men on the one hand and between adult women and young 
women on the other hand, irrespectively of region and province. Overall (male and female combined), 
the average area is 1.99 ha. The highest average areas are found in Kossi for men and in Kompienga for 
women. The average area cultivated by women in the Kompienga is even higher than that cultivated by 
men.
Table 7: Average disaggregated area by sex and age
Region/Province
Male (M) Average 
M
Female (F) Average 
F
Total 
Youth Adult Youth Adult Average
Est
Gourma 2.50 2.64 2.61 0.85 1.19 1.11 2.01
Tapoa 1.47 1.70 1.67 1.17 0.74 0.94 1.45
Kompienga 3.05 2.27 2.32 1.06 2.98 2.76 2.50
Average 2.31 2.27 2.28 0.99 1.51 1.37 1.94
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 1.06 1.73 1.66 0.60 1.52 1.44 1.61
Mouhoun 1.62 1.74 1.72 0.62 0.84 0.79 1.58
Kossi 1.89 3.11 2.97 1.34 1.73 1.66 2.75
Avereage 1.59 2.29 2.20 0.88 1.44 1.36 2.05
Average 1.97 2.28 2.23 0.96 1.48 1.37 1.99
Source: farmer survey
Improved sesame growing techniques
To calculate the number of hectares of land currently under improved techniques or technologies, LWR 
consulted farmers and asked if they sowed sesame using at least one of the improved techniques. The
For Standard Indicator 1 “Number of hectares of land under improved techniques or technologies as a 
result of USDA assistance,” 2 ha is an appropriate amount to use for the calculation of indicator targets 
as the average hectarage under sesame cultivation by farm.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 14 of 70
findings are summarized in Table 8 below, with further disaggregated data in Tables 18.1-26 in Appendix
E.
It should be noted that 92% of producers (94% men and 89% women) plow/till their fields before planting 
sesame (see Tables 18.1 and 18.2 in Appendix E). All women in the Boucle du Mouhoun region practice 
plowing, while 82% of women practice it in the Est region. In the Est region, it can be noted that in the 
provinces of Gourma and Kompienga, all men also practice plowing against 97% and 89% respectively 
for women. On the other hand, at in Tapoa, 61% of men practice plowing, and only 36% of women till 
their fields before planting.
 In the case of seeding in line, only 67% of producers (men and women) use this technique. 
Women are slightly more likely to practice seeding in line compared to men. In fact, 70% of 
women practice seeding in line compared to 66% of men. In the provinces of Gourma and 
Kompienga, both men and women apply this technique of seeding. In the province of Tapoa, 
broadcast sowing remains preferable, especially among women. In the the Boucle du Mouhoun 
region, in line seeding is not common in the Banwa and Kossi provinces. It is only practiced 19% 
in the Banwa province and 21% in the Kossi province. In the same region, the same trends were 
observed in men who mainly practice broadcast sowing at the expense of in line seeding, except 
in the province of Mouhoun, where this trend is reversed (see Tables 18.3 and 18.4 in Appendix 
E).
 Regarding the use of improved seed), 68% of producers (both men and women) reported using 
improved seed versus 32% who did not use improved seed. Overall, there is no significant 
difference between men and women in the use of improved seed. The utilization rate of improved 
seed in Mouhoun is the highest. In this province, 97% of male producers and 100% of women 
reported using improved seed. In general, the percentage of women using improved seed in the 
Boucle du Mouhoun region is significantly higher than in the Est region (84% in Boucle du 
Mouhoun compared to 59% in the Est region) (see Tables 18.5 and 18.6 in Appendix E.
 Concerning the application of mineral fertilizer in sesame fields, only 26% of producers reported 
applying fertilizer to their fields at an average rate of 39 kg / ha. There is no significant difference 
between men and women in the use of fertilizer (26% men apply fertilizer compared to 24% of 
women) (see Tables 18.7, 18.8, 22, and 23 in Appendix E).
 In rural areas, some producers have built small storage facilities with thin sheets of metal to 
stockpile their production. However, a large majority (43%) store their production in their homes 
(see Table 27 in Appendix E).
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 15 of 70
Table 8: Total area in hectares treated with improved sesame production techniques
Region/Province Tillage Seeded 
area in 
line
Seeded 
area with 
improved 
seed
Area 
fertilized 
with 
fertilizer
Area 
fertilized 
with 
organic 
manure
Area treated 
with at least 
one water/ 
soil 
conservation 
technique
Area treated 
with a 
phytosanitary 
product
Total area having 
benefited from 
one or more 
improved 
technique (s)*
Est
Gourma 3663 3656 3132 541 2599 1741 507 3669
Tapoa 1031 1564 1298 77 1795 806 325 1820
Kompienga 1068 1273 273 504 1040 678 3085 1272
Average/Total 5761 6493 4703 1122 5434 3226 3917 6761
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 2226 783 1694 732 1164 143 1273 2248
Mouhoun 1801 1594 1785 807 727 1439 1748 1840
Kossi 4312 1060 1857 870 599 2765 4659 4338
Average/Total 8339 3437 5337 2409 2490 4347 7680 8426
Total 14,100 9,930 10,040 3,532 7,924 7,573 11,597 15,187
Source: farmer survey
* When a farmer’s response was any one or more of the listed techniques, that area was counted.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 16 of 70
The baseline study found that in all provinces, the majority of sampled male and female farmers already 
apply one of the improved techniques that the project will promote. In most provinces, 90% to 100% male 
and female farmers apply an improved technique. The lowest percentage of farmers is in Tapoa province 
in Est where 73% of women apply an improved technique.
Yields, marketing and income
LWR expects that sesame farmers will increase their income from sesame sales over the life of the project 
as yields and/or quality increases as well as the benefits of collective marketing are realized. Therefore, 
the baseline study examined how much on average the sampled farmers are making from sesame.
The average income is 210,000 F CFA for adult men and only 110,880 for adult women. At the youth 
level, the income of young men is 169,500 F CFA compared to 78,500 F CFA for young women.
Whatever the region, the income of men is significantly different from that of women. This can partially 
be explained by the role of women in marketing. As Figure 1 below shows in more detail, 92% of men 
sell their own sesame, while women only sell 51% of theirs. When the a woman does not sell her sesame 
directly (in 42% of cases), it is the husband who deals with the marketing.
For Standard Indicator 1 “Number of hectares of land under improved techniques or technologies as a 
result of USDA assistance,” LWR has defined individuals as “sesame farmers targeted by PEAs who 
apply one or more improved sesame cultivation techniques (per PMP).” The baseline findings are that 
already a majority of farmers already apply at least one technique.
For Standard Indicator 1 “Number of hectares of land under improved techniques or technologies as a 
result of USDA assistance,” LWR needs to add to the indicator definition the list of improved 
techniques the following practices in bold:
• Pest management: application of pesticides (phytosanitary products)
• Disease management: not applicable to disaggregate since included in pest management as 
phytosanitary products
• Irrigation: not applicable in this project
• Soil-related fertility and conservation: soil tillage, development of wind-breaks, application of 
fertilizer, practice of crop rotation, water conservation
• Water management: non-irrigation based: not applicable in this project
• Climate mitigation or adaptation: not applicable in this project – component of use of 
improved seeds
• Other: use of improved seeds, adequate date of seeding, seeding in lines, thinning of 
seedlings, weeding, proper post-harveststorage
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 17 of 70
Women and younger men have significantly
lower average incomes (in CFA) than older men.
Younger
Men
Women
148,817
86,262
Figure 1: Average net income of disaggregated sesame producers by sex and age
Older
208,568
96,231
Source: farmer survey
The quantities of sesame produced by men are on average higher than the quantities produced by women 
(see Table 9). The difference is 24 points against women (a significant difference). This same trend is 
observed between young women and young men in the production of sesame.
Table 9: Amount of sesame produced (in tonnes) on average by youth and adult males and females
Region/Province
Male
Average 
All Males
Female Average 
All 
Females
Overall 
Youth Adult Youth Adult Average
Est
Gourma 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.25 0.51 0.44 0.68
Tapoa 0.33 0.49 0.47 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.38
Kompienga 0.72 0.74 0.74 0.29 0.36 0.36 0.58
Average 0.73 0.71 0.72 0.23 0.42 0.37 0.58
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.30
Mouhoun 0.29 0.38 0.37 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.34
Kossi 0.28 0.55 0.52 0.37 0.28 0.29 0.48
Average 0.30 0.44 0.42 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.38
Moyenne 0.52 0.54 0.54 0.23 0.33 0.31 0.48
Source: farmer survey
As far as marketing is concerned, 92% of men answer that they sell their sesame themselves, whereas 
with women, it is only 51% that sell their sesame. Forty-nine percent of women say that it is someone else 
who is responsible for selling their sesame product. When women declare that it is someone else who 
sells their sesame, in the majority of cases it is their spouse (48%), and when it is not their spouse, it is 
their brother-in-law.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 18 of 70
Women selling their husband's sesame account for only 4.5% of respondents who reported selling their 
sesame to someone else. A youth in Boucle du Mouhoun reported during his interview that his father sold 
some of the sesame he grew, and he did not receive any of the money. While this issue was only reported 
by one person, this may be important to explore further as an issue for young farmers who are working on 
the family farm. Culturally, youth are not in a position to ask for their share of the money from parents.
However, not receiving proceeds (or at least being engaged in the decisions about how the family will use 
proceeds) can affect a young adult’s engagement in sesame growing.
Figure 2: Responsibility of sesame sale within a household, disaggregated by farmer and another 
family member
Female sesame farmers are less likely to sell their 
product themselves than males.
Someone
Males Females
Source: farmer survey
Figure 3: Frequency of selling of sesame carried out by someone other than the producer
Source: farmer survey
When someone other than the farmer sells sesame, that personis
typically a male family member.
Wife, 5% Daughter, 1%
Son, 27%
*Other includes father, uncle, brother, and neighbor
Husband, 48% Other*, 20%
Someone 
else, 49%
else, 8%
Self, 92%
Self, 51%
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 19 of 70
Challenges and opportunities for sesame producers
In its Evaluation Plan, LWR includes the following evaluation questions related to impact:
• What are the key impacts of the project for the targeted organizations and farmers?
• In what way did the project contribute to improvements in quality and quantity of sesame
exports?
LWR discussed with farmers their perceptions on current challenges and future opportunities for sesame 
farmers to better understand specific areas where the SESAME project may create lasting change.
Difficulties faced by farmers and unions
When the producers (in the individual interviews) were asked to indicate the main difficulties encountered 
in the production of sesame, several were mentioned, which can be grouped into five main categories as 
shown in Figure 4 below. Across both regions, the top three concerns expressed by farmers were (in order 
of highest frequency):
1. Poor access to inputs
2. Instability of sesame sale prices
3. Lack of farm materials
These three problems were cited most frequently by farmers in Est with respondents in each province 
citing almost the same three though in different orders of frequence. In Boucle de Mouhoun, farmers were 
most concerned about weather hazards before lack of farm materials, driven primarily by farmers in Kossi 
citing weather hazards more frequently than price instability or lack of farm materials.
Figure 4: Perception of the main difficulties of the sector seen by the producers
Source: farmer survey Province
Number of respondents
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 20 of 70
The 2016/2017 growing season was marked by both flooding and pockets of poor rain. This was a major 
difficulty cited by farmers and confirmed by various union leaders, which had a major impact on the low 
yields in 2016/2017.
Though total yields were lower than average, the 2016/2017 figures show that there was no significant 
difference in yields obtained by men and women farmers, except in the Gourma province in Est, women 
had notably lower average yields. Table 10 details the average yields. In addition, there were no notable 
differences between male and female responses related to issues raise by farmers through individual 
interviews and focus groups. Therefore LWR concluded that the challenges faced by farmers is equally 
felt by men and women.
Table 10: Average yield (in kg / ha) obtained by men and women and by province
Region/Province Average yield (men) Average yield (women)
Est
Gourma 320 398
Tapoa 269 195
Kompienga 316 128
Total 308 269
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 208 153
Mouhoun 216 200
Kossi 173 174
Total 191 169
Total 241 235
Source: farmer survey
The constraints the farmers raised are the same as those brought up by the leaders of the unions through 
their interviews. Other difficulties, however, were specific to the unions:
- Little sesame buying/bulking of sesame from members at the union level
- Absence of guarantee funds as is the case for cotton
- No involvement of the state in the various links of the sesame sector
The needs expressed by the producers during the focus groups and which are likely to help them 
overcome the constraints mentioned above relate to:
- Access to inputs (seed, mineral and organic fertilizer, phytosanitary products)
- Access to agricultural equipment (plow, cart, sprayers, rakes, wheelbarrow, etc.)
- Access to post-harvest equipment (tarpaulin, cleaning equipment/blowers,sieves)
- Construction of storage / storage infrastructure
- Acquisition of draft animals
- Capacity building and follow-up support 
See Table 29 in Appendix E for more details.
Producers were asked about how they perceive sesame contributing to their livelihoods presently and in 
the medium term (see Tables 30 and 31 in Appendix E) based on a scale of “minimally,” “adequately,” or 
“significantly.”
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 21 of 70
Figure 5: Farmers’ current perception of sesame in their livelihood strategies and perspectives on 
the importance of sesame farming in their livelihood strategies in the medium term (by the end of 
the project)
Male perception of sesame's 
current and future significance in 
their livelihoods
Female perception of sesame's 
current and future significance in 
their livelihoods.
Current Perception
Perception of Future
Current Perception 
Perception of Future
no change minimal adequate significant
Source: farmer survey
no change minimal adequate significant
Farmers were asked to what extent sesame cultivation currently contributed to their overall livelihood- at 
Overall, both men and women recognized the importance of sesame. However, women who consider that 
sesame contributes little to the improvement of their living conditions number more (21%) than the men 
who share this perception (13%).
In their individual interviews, producers justified the place of sesame in their livelihoods by the fact that 
they could now:
- Acquire means of transportation (motorcycle tricycle)
- Build houses with metal roofs with electricity
- Pay their children's tuition fees
- Buy animals and farm equipment
At the level of the focus groups, it emerged from the exchanges that sesame occupies a predominant place 
in producers’ livelihoods in the sense that thanks to sesame:
- Producers have means to do things they could not before (celebrate parties, purchase clothes for 
children, seek health care)
- Producers are no longer obliged to sell their cereals at the end of the season to meet urgent 
expenses
- Producers have developed small business in the village
- Producers can prevent starvation and improve the nutritional status of children
Women specifically justified this optimism by the fact that sesame is easy to cultivate and, with a little 
help, it is possible to have their own income and support their family. The basis of men’s optimism by is 
the fact that cotton does not provide much income, whereas with sesame, it is possible to earn a lot of 
money. In the Est region, it was found that many producers abandon cotton because of the benefit of 
sesame, or they retain only a small portion of their fields to grow cotton. In Boucle of Mouhoun, the men 
also point out that the areas devoted to sesame are in marked progression.
In the medium term, both men and women think that sesame will play an even more important role in 
their livelihood. Compared to perceptions of its current place in livelihoods, there is a significant increase 
in the number of women and men who believe in the future of sesame: 51% male respondents perceive 
sesame cultivation to be a significant contribution at present whereas 82% feel it will have a significant 
contribution in the future. With women farmers, 46% feel sesame currently contributes significantly to
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 22 of 70
their livelihoods, and 81% feel it will be significant in the future (see Tables 31 and 32 in Appendix E). 
They foresee investing increased income to:
• Acquire means of transportation (motorcycle tricycle)
• Increase their livestock
• Improve their living environment (build new hard-working homes)
• Acquire agricultural equipment such as tractors, etc.
As one way to increase sesame production, and thus income from sesame, is to increase the cultivation 
areas. Farmers were asked whether they felt they could increase the amount of land on which they could 
plant sesame (based on responses of not likely, possible, very likely). The majority of producers (51%) 
reported that they still have opportunities to increase their area with farmers in Tapoa (Est) responding at 
the highest level (66% saying likely) and Kompienga (Est) responding at the lowest level (33% saying 
likely). Considering that the current average area is 2 ha, the sesame sector still has significant margins of 
progression.
3. Sesame aggregation and sales
Storage
The project has planned to increase storage capacity at the provincial union level, with Standard Indicator 
11 (Total increase in installed storage capacity (dry or cold storage) as a result of USDA assistance) as the 
associated indicator. The baseline study examined the current state of sesame storage capacity through 
interviews with government, private, and NGO/bilateral key informants. Between the two regions, there 
are five warehouses in good condition. In the Est Region, there is one warehouse of 300 MT in Gourma 
province built by the US African Development Foundation in 2016. Boucle de Mouhoun has more 
warehouses. There are two in Banwa province of 44 MT combined. One 24 MT warehouse was built by 
Projet d’appui aux communes de l’Ouest du Burkina Faso in 2014, and the other 20 MT warehouse was 
built by Union Président Intiative in 2016. A 100 MT warehouse was built in Mouhoun by Cadre Integré 
Renforcé in 2015, and another 75 MT warehouse was built in Kossi by DGPER (Direction Générale de la 
Promotion de l’Economie rurale) in 2016. All storage warehouses were found to be in good condition.
In addition to this infrastructure, the export companies located in Ouagadougou and Bobo also have a 
storage warehouse. These warehouses are not only for sesame but also for other commodities. The 
one private actor group alone has nine warehouses in Ouaga with a cumulative storage capacity of 
about 30,000 MT. In regards to storage construction projections, one private actor is the only
company that has planned to build a warehouse in Boucle du Mouhoun in 2018 with a capacity to 
hold up to 3,000 MT, again for sesame and other commodities.
Sesame sales volume and value
In order to measure the value of sales by project beneficiaries (Standard Indicator 13), farmers were asked 
to whom they sold their sesame in the 2016/2017 season. The summary of responses is listed below.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 23 of 70
Table 11: Monetary value of sesame in F CFA sold by sesame producers (2016/2017 season)
Region/Province Union* Collector* Local/village 
market Other** Total
Est
Gourma 229 425 075 180 068 662 87 061 090 71 293 516 567 848 344
Tapoa 21 974 941 101 388 248 111 359 685 42 625 664 277 348 539
Kompienga 7 732 889 41 718 089 80 976 975 130 427 953
Total 261 735 789 312 855 222 285 960 853 113 542 389 974 094 254
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 1 342 286 180 349 040 2 556 735 184 248 060
Mouhoun 21 475 821 101 227 520 7 297 237 40 516 184 170 516 761
Kossi 5 125 947 268 474 255 98 054 628 371 654 830
Total 27 954 008 550 022 850 107 882 432 40 516 184 726 375 474
Total
289 689 797 
($428,816)
862 878 072 
($1,438,130)
393 843 286 
($656,405)
154 058 573 
($256,764)
1 700 469 728 
($2,834,116)
Source: farmer survey
*Sales to unions is inclusive of collective sales at lower levels of farmer groups.
**Collectors are buyers who come to each farm offering to buy sesame. “Other” includes individual 
farmer sales at urban markets or other types of merchants.
Non-union/farm-gate sales totaled 1,410,779,931 F CFA ($2,351,300). For the 2016/2017 season, the 
value of sesame sold through farmer groups/unions compared to the total sold was only 17% 
(289,689,797 F CFA divided by 1,700,469,728 F CFA x 100%).
In the same way as sales totals, farmers were asked the volume of 
sesame sold to the different buyers (Standard Indicator 14). The 
volume was usually reported in local measurements. Enumerators 
weighed the sesame in the containers that farmers used and 
calculated the average weight represented by those measures (see 
sidebar). The farmer responses were converted to kilograms, then 
MT.
In Table 12, data shows that most of the production is sold to 
collectors. Indeed, 54% of producers reported selling their sesame 
to the collectors. The number of producers selling their sesame to 
collectors is higher in the Boucle du Mouhou region (77% against 
37% for the Est). In the Est region, there is no significant 
difference between sales made with the union and sales made with 
other players even if the total volume of trade is 200 MT higher 
with the union than the collectors.
The baseline values for Standard Indicator 13 is taken from Table 11.
Conversion of local measures 
to kilograms
Measure Average kg 
equivalent
Tomato can 1.33 kg
Basin (tine) 13.33 kg
50 kg bag 40 kg
100 kg bag 80 kg
100 kg bag 6 basins
1 basin 10 cans
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 24 of 70
Table 12: Quantity of sesame sold in MT to the various actors by sesame producers in MT 
(2016/2017 season)
Region/Province Union* Collector** Local/village 
market Other** Total
Est
Gourma 447(36%) 453 (37%) 186 (15%) 149 (12%) 1236 (100%)
Tapoa 54 (10%) 148 (41%) 260 (25%) 85 (24%) 548 (100%)
Kompienga 18 (7%) 100 (37%) 173 (57%) 291 (100%)
Total 519 (28%) 701 (37%) 619 (23%) 235 (12%) 2075 (100%)
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 3 (1%) 406 (98%) 5 (1%) 413 (100%)
Mouhoun 42 (11%) 242 (62%) 17 (4%) 92 (24%) 392 (100%)
Kossi 11 (2%) 527 (73%) 184 (25%) 722 (72%)
Total 55 (4%) 1175 (77%) 205 (13%) 92 (6%) 1528 (100%)
Grand Total 575 (17%) 1876 (54%) 824 (19%) 327 (9%) 3603 (100%)
Source: farmer survey and union records
*Sales to unions is inclusive of collective sales at lower levels of farmer groups.
**Collectors are buyers who come to each farm, offering to buy sesame. “Other” includes individual 
farmer sales at urban markets or other types of merchants.
Sales contracts
Two contracts were signed in 2015/2016 by the Est and Boucle du Mouhoun regional unions. The two 
contracts were for the sale of 45 MT in Est and 71 MT in Boucle du Mouhoun. While the sales were 
completed, the final sales price was not what was originally negotiated. For the current marketing year, no 
contracts have been signed with the regional unions. However, one local CBO sold 300 MT in Est, and 
unions sold 32 MT in Boucle du Mouhoun to traders, OCADES and the government. At the time of the 
baseline study, over 7 MT were unsold and in storage in Kossi.
Overall, provincial unions sell through pre-negotiated contracts. Exporter companies are not inclined to 
negotiate quantities to be purchased through formal contracts. However, some companies do prefer to 
sign agreements or sales contracts with aggregators/traders, often with the possibility of renegotiating 
prices according to the world price. For the 2016/2017 season, one buyer has signed 20 sesame 
delivery agreements with collectors and small traders. By 2015, 15 agreements had been signed. The 
condition to deliver to the company was to ensure that the impurity rate did not exceed 3%.
Sesame quality
The intent of Custom Indicator 3 (Volume of sesame sold to exporters that is 95% clean as a result of 
USDA assistance (MT)) and Custom Indicator 4 (Percent of sesame sold to exporters that is 95% clean as 
a result of USDA assistance) is to measure whether project efforts at all levels, before exporters purchase 
sesame to improve the purity (level of non-sesame matter), have resulted in higher quality sesame. If they 
are able to purchase sesame that comes close to the level of purity required by their overseas buyers, the 
less time and expense they would need to invest in bringing the sesame up to export standards, giving
The baseline values for Standard Indicator 14 is taken from Table 12.
Recent experiences related to sales contracts between unions and buyers related to the results for 
Custom Indicator 7: Number of contracts between unions and buyers that are fully honored.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 25 of 70
them a possibly larger profit margin, with all other conditions (such as global sesame prices) remaining 
constant. Spending less on cleaning is one factor that may allow buyers to pass along savings to sellers 
(be they farmers or collectors) and offer a higher price.
In consulting some exporters, LWR learned it is difficult for these companies to know the exact source of 
the sesame. They often purchase with collectors or small traders, who buy and bulk sesame from many 
places, even often as far as Mali. The representatives of the export companies with whom LWR talked 
noted a trend that sesame purchased in Boucle du Mouhoun is lower (higher levels of sand) than that 
purchased in the Est region. According to the exporters, collectors do not necessarily control for purity 
and some collectors add sand to increase the weight of each sack. In addition to the sand, some collectors 
mix pure white sesame with variegated sesame, hiding the variegated between a bottom and top layer of 
white so any inspection on either end of the bag gives the impression it is a bag of white sesame. Most 
often these cases are only discovered by chance or during cleaning. When sesame is exported under these 
conditions, it damages the credibility of exporters.
To counteract this practice, some companies do not buy sesame when impurity levels exceed 3%. These 
companies have a probe to assess the impurity rate before any purchase. All companies consulted clean 
sesame to some extent before exporting, either in Burkina Faso, or as a result of selling to the 
international market through an intermediary in a second country, and do not necessarily assess the level 
of purity of what they buy since they clean it all. In addition to these factors, LWR cannot be certain that 
exporters keep the kind of records needed to measure these indicators. For instance, one buyer pays the 
same price, regardless of quality; therefore, it is unlikely they keep records of the purity of the sesame 
they buy.
Sesame price in relation to quality
A large number of SESAME project interventions seek to increase the revenue that farmers, unions, 
collectors, and exporters earn from sesame, addressing the issue from many angles. Farmers may earn 
more from better business planning and increased yields; farmers may earn more from better negotiated 
prices as they work through unions; unions negotiate higher prices by delivering clean sesame to buyers; 
exporters expand their global market share by offering what importers want. Thus, the increase in the 
price traders and exporters pays to producers cannot depend solely on the quality of the sesame. 
According to the exporters, it depends on the demand and supply of the international market and 
especially on the regional supply in so far as Burkina is not the only country producing sesame.
At the present global prices, all exporters are prepared to pay a premium for sesame with as little impurity as 
possible in order to reduce the costs of cleaning that is obliged in order to be able to export. For instance, a 
buyer is currently ready to add 10 to 20 F CFA per kg if the level of impurity is less than 1%. This company 
does not buy when the impurity rate is above 3%, and the average current purchase price for this quality of 
sesame is 500 F CFA. For an impurity level of less than 2%, another estimates its price at 535 F CFA/ Kg, 
and EBT Trading is ready to buy it at 600 F CFA/ Kg. A third one is even more demanding and does not buy 
when the impurity rate is above 2%, and the average price they pay for this quality is negotiated at 500 F 
CFA. These companies recognize, however, that they do not control world prices and this lack of control of 
the international market may be the main constraint in increasing the price of sesame in Burkina Faso.
These companies most often buy from collectors and small traders, not directly from producers. If prices 
are to increase, it is at the level of these collectors and traders that the increase will be felt since the
For Custom Indicator 3 and Custom Indicator 4 exporters’ standards and or record keeping are not 
conducive to measuring the results of project interventions to improve sesame quality.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 26 of 70
quantities collected by the unions from their members represents only 17% of the total volume of trade. 
However, by increasing the regional unions' collection capacity and ability to negotiate favorable prices 
directly with exporters, producers will be drawn to sell with unions if prices are more profitable and thus 
benefit from increases in prices.
Considering the above factors that affect the price exporters can 
offer for sesame, decreased levels of impurities is one component
that can facilitate increasing the price exporters offer. Exporting 
companies prefer to buy sesame that does not contain too much 
impurity. Some companies do not buy when the impurity rate is 
over 3%. On the other hand, companies, according to the exporters 
themselves, do not take into consideration impurity rates to fix 
prices. These exporters take more account of price developments 
in international markets and market demand.
Moreover, all officially non-registered exporters do not look at 
quality before buying.
In view of the current average price of 455 F CFA (see side bar) 
and taking into account the projected purchase prices of exporters 
according to the quality of the sesame (see Table 13 below). To 
reach below 1% will hardly be possible unless the unions are 
equipped with high quality blowing machines.
Table 13: Proposed purchase price of kg of sesame indicated by some exporters according to 
sesame quality (F CFA / Kg)
Company Name Purchase price of kg of sesame according to the impurity rates in CFA 
francs
Inferior 
to 1%
1 to 2 % 2% to 3% 3% to 4% 4 to 5% Superior to 
5%
Private buyer 1 535 535 525 525 525 495
private buyer 2 520 500 500 NA NA NA
Private buyer 3 500 495
Private buyer 4 600 600 500 450 450 250
Private buyer 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Average 545 535 510 490 490 375
Source: company records
4. Employment
The proposed indicator definition for Standard Indicator 15 (Number of jobs attributed to USDA 
assistance) states, “Jobs are those positions paid for through USDA assistance relevant to the sesame 
value chain that last over one month during the life of the project. Specifically, those are: sesame seed 
multipliers, input providers, short term farm labor, staff of traders/exporters, and PEAs.”
In calculating targets for Custom Indicator 2 (% increase of price from the previous year per MT sold 
to trader/exporter as a result of USDA assistance), an increase of 50 to 55 F CFA / Kg is possible if 
significant work is done to reduce impurity levels to between 1% and 2%.
Calculation of average price per 
kg of sesame (all types) for the 
2016/2017 sale period
Month Average monthly 
price ( FCFA/Kg)
Oct ‘16 351
Nov ‘16 397
Dec ‘16 426
Jan ‘17 458
Feb ‘17 537
Mar ‘17 563
Period 
average 455
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 27 of 70
In the project design, LWR had projected being able to affect and count the following types of new jobs. 
The baseline study included consultation with value chain actors to validate the types of jobs where job 
growth can be expected during the life of the SESAME project and how the full time equivalent for those 
jobs can be estimated. The summary of findings from interviews and surveys is as follows:
1. PEAs (producer enterprise agents under stipend for the project): this type of job will be counted 
as planned.
2. Input vendors (full or part time jobs to meet increased demand): Input venders, as well input 
suppliers, did not anticipate the creation of new jobs as a result of project actions. Even with the 
opening of other input shops to bring their structure closer to the customer base, job creation at 
this level will be marginal.
3. Union or exporter employees (to run sesame cleaning machines): This type of job is 
measurable, but the number of full time equivalent employees is hard to anticipate.
4. Trader or exporter employees (as a result of increased business): Job creation is uncertain as 
most of these exporters have permanent employees who are involved in marketing and collection. 
Increasing the quantity of sesame bought will not necessarily result in new job creation. 
Temporary employment will be created but at a very marginal level (day labor).
5. Seed producers (labor to increase seed as a result of increased demand): To some extent, job 
creation can be expected in this area (and measurable) based on the baseline sampling of sesame 
farmers who produce seed.
6. Farm labor (full or part time labor to increase sesame production): The baseline study examined 
this most closely, but a good portion does not meet the Food for Progress indicator definition of 
counting jobs that last over one month.
In order to understand the demand for farm labor, and therefore, the potential for growth in hired labor 
during the life of the project, the baseline study examined a number of questions through the farmer 
surveys.
Farmer survey respondents who confirmed hiring labor were as follows in Table 14. Most hired additional 
labor for a few days, followed by employment for a week and then one month. Taking the totals for both 
regions, 6.6% of the total of 2,715 non-family members employed by the sampled farmers fit the 
definition of having a job of four or more weeks.
Table 14: Total number of workers employed by producers in the two regions and average length 
of employment.
Region/Province Week or less Month Year Total
Est
Gourma 48 0 1 49
Tapoa 170 51 21 242
Kompienga 158 23 0 181
Total 376 74 22 472
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 625 28 0 653
Mouhoun 671 0 0 671
Kossi 863 56 0 919
Total 2159 84 0 2243
Total 809 158 22 2715
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 28 of 70
Respondents did indicate a need for non-family labor, citing tilling, planting, and harvesting as the 
greatest need (see Table 28 in Appendix E). In measuring farm labor, LWR will have to understand which 
of those jobs, if new during the measurement period, are for a period of a month or more.
VI. Recommendations
Based on the quantitative and qualitative findings of the baseline study, SESAME project managers 
should consider a number of adjustments to indicator baseline and target figures, numbers used for 
calculating indicator targets, components of indicator definitions, evaluation questions and program 
strategies.
Recommendation 1: Lower Year 1 targets for Indicator 16 and Indicator 17 and adjust Year 2-5 targets 
to achieve the initial Life of Project target.
Recommendation 2: Decide if Life of Project and Year 2-5 targets for Indicator 16 and Indicator 17 need 
to be adjusted.
During project design, unions reported membership numbers to LWR. However, when the M&E 
Specialist asked for membership lists, not all unions were able to provide them. LWR assisted 
these unions in creating member lists by consulting leaders of local farmer groups that are 
members of higher-level unions. Based on this revised list, the total number of members in Est 
and Boucle de Mouhoun is 7,698, which is much lower than the number of farmers LWR 
expected to target in Year 1 (13,500 farmers). While LWR expects union membership to grow as 
the project helps farmers achieve improved production and unions demonstrate the benefits of 
membership to farmers, the Year 1 target should be revised for Standard Indicator 16 
(Number of individuals who have received short- term agricultural sector productivity or food 
security training as a result of USDA assistance) and Standard Indicator 17 (Total number of 
individuals benefiting directly as a result of USDA assistance).
At the current stage of the project, there is no indication that the Life of Project target is 
unreasonable. The registered membership of the unions in Est and Boucle de Mouhoun was 
lower than verbally communicated to LWR during the project design phase. LWR noted that 
there are farmer groups present in communes that do not belong to the existing unions because 
their low level of organization does not qualify them for union membership. Current Ministry of 
Agriculture data shows that there are over 84,000 sesame farmers in the targeted provinces in Est 
and Boucle de Mouhoun2
. Also, there are likely farmers involved in some sesame production in 
these regions who are not members of groups or unions but whose interest in the project will be 
piqued and will join the unions to participate in the project.
Project management needs to determine how to still achieve the Life of Project target, and 
how the annual targets for Years 2-5 will change to achieve the Life of Project target, 
whether it is adjusted or remains the same.
2 Verbal communication from agricultural statistics team of the Agriculture Ministry staff, citing data from the 2016 
growing season, collected through the Enquête Permanente Agricole.
The indicator definition related to the types of jobs that will be measured for Standard Indicator 15: 
Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance needs to be reviewed to match the definition and be 
realistic to measure.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 29 of 70
Recommendation 3: Correct targets for Years 1-5 for Indicator 13.
For Standard Indicator 13 (Value of sales by project beneficiaries), a correction needs to be made 
to the targets. In addition to updating the baseline according to the results of this study, the 
calculation for the targets used the volume of commodities (MT) sold by project beneficiaries 
(Standard Indicator 14) multiplied by the price of sesame in F CFA/ Kg instead of price in US 
dollars per metric ton. Therefore the targets for Years 1-5 will have to be adjusted, possibly 
changed due to the baseline value and calculated with the price per ton (using an exchange 
rate of $1 = F CFA 600).
Recommendation 4: Adjust definition of jobs and targets for Indicator 15.
Current targets for Standard Indicator 15 (Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance) 
need to be re-evaluated and likely lowered. The USDA indicator definition emphasizes 
measuring jobs that are “attributed to USDA assistance…where USDA investments were 
intentional in assisting in any way to expand (or contract) jobs and where a program objective of 
the USDA investment was job creation.” The only intentional job creation strategy is the hiring 
and use of PEAs as a means to improve the agricultural extension services sesame farmers 
receive. By increasing the production, sales, and export of sesame, there may be new job creation 
with other sesame actors, but LWR is not seeking deliberately to do so. In addition, stakeholders 
stated that they do not necessarily anticipate creating new jobs as a result of improved sesame 
production, processing, and trade. LWR should seek to measure job creation but reduce 
targets significantly to capture PEA employment, some farm-level employment, and new 
jobs among other value chain actors.
Recommendation 5: Adjust PMP indicator definition for Standard Indicator 2.
Due to the high level of farmers already practicing some improved sesame cultivation techniques, 
the individuals who should be counted toward the measurement of this indicator should be 
changed from one to three and the initial part of the indicator definition should read as follows: 
“Individuals are sesame farmers targeted by PEAs who apply three or more improved 
sesame cultivation techniques.”
Recommendation 6: Change Custom Indicator 3 and Custom Indicator 4.
After consulting with exporters during the baseline study, it became clear that the current 
indicators will not adequately measure the results of multiple project interventions to improve the 
quality of sesame before it is purchased by exporters. Some exporters do not accept sesame that 
has a certain amount of impurity while others may not measure levels of impurity at all. Exporters 
may not keep documentation of the quality of sesame they are buying, and it is not within the 
scope of the SESAME project to ensure such documentation exists. Therefore, the 
recommendation is to change the indicators to measure cleanliness at the provincial union 
level since the project has activities directed at the union and producer levels that include 
promoting improved sesame quality. The proposed changes to the two indicators are:
Custom indicator 3: Volume of sesame sold to exporters by targeted unions that is 95% clean as 
a result of USDA assistance (MT)
Custom indicator 4: Percent of sesame sold to exporters by targeted unions that is 95% clean as 
a result of USDA assistance
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 30 of 70
Recommendation 7: Add evaluation questions to those included in the Evaluation Plan.
Additional evaluation questions beyond what has been outlined in the Evaluation Plan should 
include:
- The place of sesame in farmers’ livelihoods - to what extent have the perceptions of 
producers changed by the end of the project (with an expectation that sesame is more 
important than the baseline).
- The role of women and men in the marketing of sesame – in what way have producers' 
perceptions of each member's position in the management of household resources evolved?
- To what extent the project helped to meet producers’ specific needs and what impact this 
response has had on improving the quality and quantity of sesame produced?
Recommendation 8: During coordination efforts with other stakeholders, pay close attention to efforts of 
partners and government departments working on SESAME.
Close coordination with other initiatives is critical for the SESAME project’s success and to 
avoid duplication of effort. For instance, a project has similar activities to the SESAME project 
in Boucle du Mouhoun, including activities related to capacity building. Various government 
departments are drawing up more specific plans related to the sesame sector. The SESAME 
project should accompany the operationalization of this specification because its application 
will undoubtedly contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the project.
Recommendation 9: Consider having activities that support local sesame processing by women’s groups.
The local processing of sesame is not sufficiently developed and could be a niche for job creation, 
especially for women. The project could include in its activities support to women's groups 
for the local processing of sesame. The development of this link will be another added value of 
the project. In order to add this set of activities, LWR should conduct a special study to better 
understand domestic sesame processing (number of actors in the targeted geographies, quantity of 
sesame processed, challenges faced related to sesame processing, market demand, etc.)
Recommendation 10: Develop interventions that facilitate access to equipment and other inputs.
Recommendation 11: Refine interventions with women to increase access to agricultural inputs and 
equipment to lower the discrepancy between income from sesame for men and women.
The main constraints raised by producers to increase the quantity of sesame produced are related 
to access to inputs, agricultural equipment, the volatility of the price of sesame and the lack of 
capital of union members which prevents them from purchasing the sesame seeds. The project 
should include flexible mechanisms to facilitate access to agricultural equipment as well as 
credit and agricultural inputs.
The income earned by women is significantly lower than the income earned by men. One reason 
is that men farm sesame on larger areas than women, yet the project should work not to 
accentuate gender inequalities as a result of its activities. Because it is not likely that women can 
significantly expand the areas under sesame cultivation, the SESAME project can have more of 
an impact on increasing women’s income from sesame by supporting access to agricultural 
inputs and equipment.
Recommendation 12: Continue to emphasize investment in clean/high quality sesame, though 
recognizing it is not the sole driver for higher sesame prices.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 31 of 70
The project should maintain the strategy to help increase producers' incomes by improving the 
quality of sesame, reflected in how clean it is when delivered to buyers. Exporters currently incur 
cost to clean sesame before exporting it and may be able to pay an additional 50 to 55 F CFA/ Kg 
to buy sesame with less than 1% impurity (if market prices remain favorable). Therefore, the 
project activity aimed at supporting provincial unions to access financing to buy blowers to 
clean their members' sesame is definitely needed. Exporting high quality sesame will also 
enable the Burkinabe sesame sector to maintain and gain shares in the global market as Burkina 
Faso’s sesame better meets buyers’ demand.
LWR’s project design takes into consideration, however, that the unit price of sesame or 
farmers’ income from sesame is not solely dependent on quality. Helping farmers acquire 
farm business skills and improving collective marketing will help improve farmers’ incomes. 
Supporting better coordination between sesame actors and improving quality can lead to 
efficiencies and higher returns that then drive higher sesame prices. However, global market 
demand and prices are the ultimate driver of what exporters offer, and the SESAME project 
targets for price increase may be affected by external factors beyond the control of any of the 
project stakeholders.
Recommendation 13: Develop mitigation measures to help producers manage weather hazards.
The 2016/2017 growing season and harvest was affected by both periods of dryness and flooding. 
Producers identified weather hazards as a major constraint to their sesame production. LWR can 
consider interventions that assist producers in dealing with these stressors.
VII. Next Steps
In order to make use of the baseline study to adjust project targets, beneficiary targeting, indicator 
definitions, and/or strategies to mitigate threats, LWR will engage in three exercises:
Management response: LWR SESAME senior managers will process the findings of the report in order 
to:
1. Accept or reject the recommendations (with justifications for any rejections).
2. Make decisions about the need to alter any indicator targets (annual and/or life of project) in light 
of the findings.
3. Consider any other programmatic changes.
Date: Completed by June 30, 2017
Monitoring and Evaluation Systems Development Workshop: LWR’s M&E staff and program staff 
responsible for the implementation and monitoring of activities will review indicator definitions, 
measurement frequency, targets and other elements of the PMP to ensure all indicators are measurable 
and targets are realistic. The participants will also develop data collection tools. The purpose of this 
workshop is described in more detail in the Evaluation Plan.
Date: June 8-12, 2017
Update the Evaluation Plan: LWR’s M&S Specialist will update the project Evaluation Plan to 
incorporate adjustments made as a result of the management response and M&E workshop.
Date: By June 30, 2017
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 32 of 70
VIII. Annexes
1. Annex A: Terms of Reference: Baseline Study
USDA Food for Progress: SESAME Project
December 23, 2016
1. BACKGROUND
The Sesame Marketing and Exports (SESAME) project, a 5 year, 24 million dollar project funded by 
USDA’s Food for Progress program, will assist more than 500,000 people directly and indirectly by 
working with farmers, agricultural cooperatives, buyers, exporters, financial institutions and government 
bodies to increase their capacity to meet sesame export quality standards, access lucrative markets and 
improve buyer-seller relationships. The project will focus on sesame production in the regions of Est, 
Boucle du Mouhoun, Hauts Bassins, and Cascades in Burkina Faso.
The SESAME project in Burkina Faso will:
• Support local sesame processors at an industrial or semi-industrialscale;
• Improve the quality and traceability of local sesame to meet standards of exportmarkets.
To achieve these results, LWR will conduct seven agricultural development activities, in coordination 
with the private sector, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. These 
activities include:
Activity 1: Market Access: Facilitate buyer-seller relationships 
Activity 2: Capacity Building: Producer groups/cooperatives 
Activity 3: Market Access: Facilitate access to market information 
Activity 4: Financial Services: Facilitate agricultural lending
Activity 5: Capacity Building: Promote improved policy and regulatory framework 
Activity 6: Infrastructure: Post-harvest handling and storage
Activity 7: Capacity Building: Agriculture extension agents/services
LWR conducted a baseline study to establish a point of reference at the beginning of the project that will 
allow LWR to objectively measure the impact of the interventions. This Terms of Reference defines the 
scope of the study as well as the methodology to collect and analyze baseline information.
2. BASELINE STUDY OBJECTIVES
2.2.Purpose
The purpose of the SESAME baseline study was to document starting conditions relevant to the changes 
LWR expects to bring about through the project in order to be able to objectively measure impact.
2.3.Objectives
The objectives of the baseline study are to:
1. Establish the baseline measures for selected project indicators.
2. Confirm/adjust calculations and assumptions used to calculate annual targets for project indicators.
3. Understand the basic situation to refine the implementation strategy of certain activities as well as 
identify potential threats to achieving project outcomes.
4. Understand additional conditions at the beginning of the project that will allow LWR to assess the 
impact of the project after five years.
5. Provide recommendations on how to adjust project targets, beneficiary targeting, indicator 
definitions, and/or strategies to mitigate threats.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 33 of 70
2.4.Expected Results
The expected results in terms of each of the objectives are as follows: 
Measure the baseline for the following indicators:
 Standard indicator 13: Value of sales [of sesame] by project beneficiaries
The baseline measure for this indicator will be calculated by combining the value of the sales of 
the 2015/2016 sesame season sold collectively by unions (to be targeted in Year 1) and the sales 
made directly by farmers to buyers at their farms (a representative sample of Year 1 targeted 
farmers).
 Custom indicator 9: % of farmer sales through unions as a result of USDA assistance
The baseline measure for this indicator will be calculated from the measure for Standard 
Indicator 13 by dividing the value of collective sales through unions by the sum of farm-gate and 
union sales.
 Standard indicator 14: Volume of commodities [sesame] (MT) sold by project beneficiaries
The baseline measure for this indicator will be calculated by combining the volume of the sales of 
the 2015/2016 sesame season sold collectively by unions (to be targeted in Year 1) and the sales 
made directly by farmers to buyers at their farms (a representative sample of Year 1 targeted 
farmers).
Confirm calculations and assumptions used to set annual targets for the following indicators:
 Indicator 1: Number of hectares of land under improved techniques or technologies as a result of 
USDA assistance
An average of 2 hectares of sesame per farm was used to calculate annual targets for this 
indicator. The baseline will determine to what extent this average is accurate with targeted 
farmers. In addition, the baseline will measure to what extent farmers already practice improved 
sesame production techniques that will be promoted in the project3
.
 Standard indicator 15: Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance
The baseline will validate the types of jobs identified in the indicator definition that are likely to 
be created as well as the calculations used to set the targets (see project PMP). It will also 
determine measurability of the job growth for each type of job.
 Custom indicator 2: % increase of price from the previous year per MT sold to trader/exporter as 
a result of USDA assistance
The baseline will confirm or adjust the annual targets. Buyers/exporters will be consulted to 
estimate the increases in sesame prices due to improved quality.
Understand general baseline conditions:
 Custom indicator 3: Volume of sesame sold to exporters that is 95% clean as a result of USDA 
assistance (MT) and Custom indicator 4: Percent of sesame sold to exporters that is 95% clean as 
a result of USDA assistance
Through the baseline survey, LWR will come to understand issues related to ensuring quality of 
sesame that is delivered to exporters (how clean it is) and major sources of foreign material (e.g. 
sand deliberately added to increase weight, lack of proper processing, etc.). LWR will also be
3 LWR defined “improved techniques” as use of improved seeds, application of fertilizer, practice of crop rotation, 
development of wind-breaks, adequate date of seeding, soil tillage, soil water conservation, thinning of seedlings, 
and weeding.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 34 of 70
able to estimate the volume of quality sesame (measured by 5% or less of sand and other 
impurities in the volume) delivered to exporters from the 2015/2016 marketing season (if 
exporters do not have accurate records, the baseline measure may be their estimate. The report 
will note the nature of the baseline data (actuals or estimates).
 Standard indicator 11: Total increase in installed storage capacity (dry or cold storage) as a result 
of USDA assistance
The baseline will assess the size, condition, ownership, and management of existing sesame dry 
storage to inform the intention to build or renovate one warehouse per targeted province. It will 
also assess any plans to build or renovate sesame storage by other initiatives to avoid duplication 
and ensure coordination.
 Custom indicator 7: Number of contracts between unions and buyers that are fully honored
The baseline will determine how many, if any, contracts between unions and buyers have been 
put in place in the past, and if there have, the results of those agreements (conditions honored or 
not). The survey will also collect any information on reasons for non-compliance.
Establish initial conditions to help measure the likely impact of the project4
:
 The main needs of sesame farmers that affect the quantity and quality of sesame grown.
 The constraints traders and exporters face in increasing the price offered to farmers as a function 
of the quantity or quality of sesame delivered.
 Average income from sesame production for farmers.
 An understanding of the roles of men and women (adults and youth) in the production and 
marketing of sesame at the household level.
 A qualitative understanding of the perspectives farmers have on how sesame production affects 
their livelihoods.
• Farmers’ perspectives on the importance of sesame farming in their livelihood strategies in the 
medium term (by the end of the project).
Note: There are additional components that LWR uses to understand the baseline conditions but that are 
not part of the baseline study. The following will be documented elsewhere:
 Sub-recipient Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture will conduct a study during Year 1 to 
understand the starting situation of the regulatory environment related to sesame production under 
Activity 55
. The findings of the study and the subsequent changes in the regulatory environment 
will allow LWR to assess the relevance6 of the interventions under this activity.
4 The evaluation questions related to impact will include :
 What are the key impacts of the project for the targeted organizations and farmers?
 In what way did the project contribute to improvements in quality and quantity of sesame exports?
5 Activity 5: Capacity Building: Promote improved policy and regulatory framework. LWR will provide technical 
assistance to the Government of Burkina Faso to strengthen their understanding of international import 
requirements. LWR will identify best practices of the various market actors in the value chain, the marketing 
channels that link them together, and the distribution of product flows. LWR ensure that advocacy on improved 
regulatory policy is continuously discussed through the interprofession. 6 The evaluation questions related to relevance will include :
 To what extent do SESAME activities meet the needs of SESAME beneficiaries?
 How is SESAME aligned with the country's agriculture and/or development investment strategy and with 
the Foreign Agriculture Service and US Government's development goals, objectives and strategies?
 How is SESAME aligned with other relevantinitiatives?
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 35 of 70
 The study on the regulatory environment and subsequent stakeholder consultations will inform 
any adjustments needed to the indicator definition and targets related to Standard indicator 12: 
Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the following stages 
of development as a result of USDA assistance. Any needed changes will be noted in the PMP 
and communicated with USDA.
 To understand the baseline conditions related to the capacities of the targeted unions and any 
need for capacity strengthening, LWR will conduct an assessment as part of Activity 27
. The 
findings will both inform how the capacity strengthening activities will be refined and provide a 
baseline against which changes can be measured at the end of the project.
3. USE OF BASELINE STUDY
The primary audience of the baseline study is the SESAME project managers (LWR and sub-recipients) 
who will use the findings to make decisions related to any adjustments to indicator targets and incorporate 
any other contextual issues that may affect activity design or risk management. As the baseline study 
results will be available at the beginning of project activities, LWR will communicate to Burkinabe 
institutions, primarily those that will be directly involved in the project implementation (government, 
private sector, sesame farmers’ unions, etc.), the objectives and anticipated results of the project inclusive 
of the findings of the baseline study. USDA will provide comments and inputs on the study and react to 
LWR’s recommended changes resulting from the study.
4. METHODOLOGY
The methodology will include the collection of quantitative and qualitative data from primary sources, 
including farmers, union leaders and staff, managers of private sector (input providers, buyers, exporters), 
and government staff. For farmer-level data, LWR will gather data using surveys and focus groups. For 
the remaining data sources, LWR will use key informant interviews. When available, documents such as 
recent government-level statistics or business records will be reviewed to triangulate other information 
collected.
4.1.Characteristics of the data sources for the study
The baseline study will be built off of three sources of information:
• Sesame farmers who are members of unions in the Est and Boucle de Mouhoun regions;
• Sesame buyers that have a presence in the target regions and exporters in Ouaga;
• Key informants, including leaders from the two regional unions (Est and Boucle de Mouhoun) 
and the six targeted provincial unions, regional and provincial level technical staff from 
government ministries, NGOs, and other project leads that work on the sesame value chain in 
Burkina Faso.
4.2.Sampling methodology for individual farmers
For farm and farmer-level measures, LWR will sample villages covered by the provincial unions in Est 
and Boucle de Mouhoun8
, the region where LWR will initiate extension services in Year 1, and use union 
member lists from those provinces. Respondents will be selected using a two-stage cluster design. In the 
first stage, clusters (villages) are randomly selected using probability proportional to size based on the
total number of targeted farmers (current cooperative members) within each cluster. In each selected
7 Activity 2: Capacity Building. Producer Groups/Cooperatives. LWR will form new cooperatives and unions in 
areas where they do not exist and strengthen existing ones in the target areas through strategic partnerships,
member-focused interventions, and participatory planning. LWR will conduct needs assessments of producer groups 
and cooperatives to develop market-focused trainings. 8 The baseline measures for farm/farmer level indicators will be done in the Year 1 intervention areas, which are the 
provinces of Gourma, Kompienga, and Tapoa in Est region and Banwa, Kossi, and Mouhoun in the Boucle de 
Mouhoun region.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 36 of 70
cluster, a predetermined number of PSUs will be selected using simple random sampling. The number of 
clusters and PSUs selected will be determined by the geographical spread of clusters. LWR will minimize 
a large design effect by balancing the number of clusters (villages) and PSUs sampled, and if needed, by 
increasing the number of clusters and decreasing the number of PSUs to meet the calculated sample size. 
For union-level measures, LWR will use a census sample of all active/existing provincial unions (none 
exist at the time of the beginning of the project in the region of Hauts-Bassins).
4.3 Composition of the focus groups
LWR will organize focus groups to understand perceptions of sesame farmers on challenges and 
opportunities related to sesame production. LWR will convene four focus groups: adult men and women 
aged 31 and over, and young men and women aged 30 and under. Four villages will be chosen randomly 
from all the villages in the study sample, and one focus group will be convened in each of those villages. 
Eight to twelve participants for each group will be chosen randomly from the sample of producers that are 
interviewed individually for the project.
4.4 Initial list of sesame buyers and exporters to be interviewed.
List hidden due to Personally Identifiable Information
4.5 Initial list of institutional key informants
Government structures 
List hidden due to Personally Identifiable Information
Unions
List hidden due to Personally Identifiable Information
Donors of sesame projects 
List hidden due to Personally Identifiable Information
4.6 Data collection tools
Data collection tools will be developed, translated, and finalized after field testing per the information 
needed and data sources, as summarized below:
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 37 of 70
Data source Tool Data/information needed Type of data
Sesame farmers (men, 
women, adults and 
youth)
Questionnaire -Area of sesame farming
-Sesame production 
practices
-Yields and sales (quantity 
and price)
-Seasonal labor used
-Income gained from 
sesame production
-Roles of men/women, 
adults/youth at the farm 
level for the production 
and marketing of sesame
Quantitative
Groups of farmers: 
adult men, male youth, 
adult women, female 
youth (max. 12 people 
per group)
Focus group -Specific needs that affect 
the quantity and quality of 
sesame produced
-Role of sesame in 
farmers’ livelihood 
strategies (current and 
potential)
Qualitative
Key informants from 
provincial unions (e.g. 
board chairpersons, 
union managers, 
marketing committee 
chairpersons)
Questionnaire -Sesame from members 
(quantity and price paid)
-Quantity of sesame sold
-Main buyers and prices 
offered
-Sales contracts (existence, 
problems faced in 
managing them)
-Existence, condition, 
management of 
warehousing
-Type of employment 
available at the union level
Quantitative
Key informants from 
provincial and regional 
level government 
agencies involved in 
agriculture and 
economic development
Semi-structured 
interview
-State of sesame 
warehousing (current or 
planned)
-Other planned projects 
related to sesame (storage 
or cleaning infrastructure, 
technical assistance, 
financing, etc.)
Qualitative and 
quantitative
PDA/GTZ 
JICA
Semi-structured 
interview
-State of sesame 
warehousing (current or 
planned)
-Other planned projects 
related to sesame (storage 
or cleaning infrastructure, 
technical assistance, 
financing, etc.)
Qualitative and 
quantitative
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 38 of 70
Key informants from 
buyers/exporters
Semi-structured 
interview [possibly a 
group interview if 
accessing 
information through 
any trade 
association.]
-Warehousing 
infrastructure (existing or 
planned)
-Cleaning equipment 
(existing or planned)
-Main constraints related 
to ability to offer higher 
prices for quality sesame 
and needed conditions in 
order to raise prices
-Estimate of future price 
increases for quality 
sesame
-Quantity of clean sesame 
(>95% clean) bought and 
quantity of less clean 
sesame (<95%)
-Types of employment 
available with 
buyers/exporters
-Sales contracts (existence, 
problems faced in 
managing them)
Qualitative and 
quantitative
4.7 Data analysis
LWR will create a data collection form in Excel for the farmer questionnaire. Each enumerator will enter 
the responses in Excel every evening. The supervisors will verify that the data are collected accurately –
s/he will check most of the data collected in the first few days, then a sample of data every day thereafter. 
The M&E Specialist will also spot check the accuracy of data collected. S/he will then tabulate and 
analyze the data. If needed, data can be imported into SPSS should more robust analyses (beyond totals 
and averages) be needed.
For qualitative data collected through focus groups and the interviews with union officials, supervisors 
will collect and document responses directly on paper forms. The M&E Specialist will compile and 
analyses those responses. The M&E Specialist and the LWR Country Director will conduct the interviews 
with other key informants and record responses on paper forms. The M&E Specialist will also compile 
those responses.
As needed, secondary sources from national statistics or government strategies will serve as sources to 
triangulate findings such as export volumes, or the proportion of farmers that are male and female and 
their age groups.
4.8 Deliverables
The baseline study will produce:
a. An inception report, in French that includes the following sections:
o Sampling frame for achieving a representative sample (location, size of sample with 
supporting calculations, m/f breakdown, etc.)
o Data analysis plan for qualitative and quantitative data, specifying analyses such as type 
of calculations necessary, cross tabulations, data disaggregation, etc.
o Detailed work plan including enumerator training, data collection days per team, analysis, 
and report writing
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 39 of 70
o Logistics support required (to be discussed with project team)
o Revised budget (as agreed with the project team)
b. First draft of data collection tools (household surveys, key informant semi-structured interview 
questionnaire, and focus group guide), which are then refined after field testing
c. Database of raw, cleaned quantitative data (Excel) and raw typed qualitative data (Word)
d. Draft, then final baseline study report (25 pages maximum, excluding annexes), written in 
English, with the following sections:
o Executive summary
o Purpose of the baseline study
o Sampling methodology
o Findings and analysis
 Baseline figures for relevant indicators (disaggregated by sex, where applicable)
 Confirmation or adjustments to assumptions and calculations for setting targets
 Other details that may affect project implementation (e.g. differences by sex or 
geography)
o Questions and recommendations to be considered for the ongoing measurement of the 
indicators on which the baseline study focused.
o Recommendations, including (as relevant):
 Adjustments to implementation strategy/activities
 Adjustments of evaluation questions
o Annexes:
 Baseline terms of reference
 Final version of data collection tools, including household surveys, key informant 
semi-structured interview questionnaire, and focus group guide.
 Tabulated raw data: table of variables, baseline figures by sex, confidence 
levels/margins of error as appropriate, and details of note that may inform project 
implementation (such as geographic or gender differences in findings)
 Bibliography
 List of persons consulted.
e. Updated Evaluation Plan, indicating the baseline sampling methodology with sample size 
calculations.
f. Verbal presentation of the findings with accompanying visual aids (e.g. PowerPoint slide deck)
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 40 of 70
5 BASELINE STUDY LOGISTICS
1.1 Timeline of baseline study activities
Activity 2016 2017
O N D J F M
Stage I: Prepare Terms of Reference (LWR will conduct study)
Draft TOR
Submit to USDA for review
Finalize TOR
Stage II: Desk Research
Review existing documentation (past evaluation reports, 
government demographic and agricultural data, etc.)
Stage III: Preparation of Field Research Tools
Sampling method established
Field visit itinerary developed
Field visit logistics finalized
Meetings/interviews scheduled
Quantitative and qualitative tools completed
Inception plan completed
Translate data collection tools (English to French and/or to 
local language)
Local consultants/enumerators identified and contracted
Stage IV: Field Research Data Collection
Local consultants/enumerators trained
Quantitative and qualitative tools tested and updated
Respondents selected per sampling method
Data sets gathered
Stage V: Data Analysis and Report Preparation
Draft report to USDA
Incorporate comments and submit final report to USDA, with 
copy to Burkina Faso USAID mission
Update Evaluation Plan and PMP based on report findings
1.2 Roles and responsibilities
Management team
M&E Specialist (SESAME project staff)
Mr. Karfo will lead the baseline study and oversee the management team. He is responsible for 
recruiting and training qualified enumerators and field supervisors; creating, testing, and 
finalizing data collection tools; coordinating the logistics for field work; ensuring data quality; 
data analysis; report compilation (in French).
LWR Burkina Faso Country Director
will assist in interviewing key informants and review the terms of reference, data collection 
tools, and versions of the baseline study report.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 41 of 70
Deputy Regional Director for Operations
will contribute to the development of the terms of reference and data collection tools, coordinate 
input from the Short-Term Technical Advisor on sampling methodology, assist with French to 
English translation, and liaise between the project team and USDA.
SESAME Project Chief of Party
will provide overall support to project M&E and the study process and will review the draft 
and final reports.
Regional Technical Advisor for M&E in West Africa
will participate in the review of the draft and final reports.
Technical Assistance
Through a prior bidding process, LWR engaged Ipsos Public Affairs to provide short-term consulting on 
the sampling methodology (including calculation of sample size) for the farmers. The two-person
technical team will work in collaboration with project team to provide guidance and critique of the 
sampling methodology. Their technical support will be provided remotely through written 
correspondence and teleconference work sessions.
Data collection team
Most data will be collected by a team of enumerators, overseen by supervisors. The enumerators will 
collect data from individual farmers, and in addition to supervising that process, the supervisors will 
facilitate focus groups and interview union key informants.
Enumerators will have a minimum of a Diplôme d'études universitaires générales degree in social 
sciences (similar to a US associate’s degree) or equivalent. In addition, s/he will have:
• Minimum of 3 years’ experience in quantitative and qualitative data collection (5 years for those 
who do not have the degree)
• Fluency in written and spoken French, and fluency in at least one of the main languages spoken in 
Est and Boucle de Mouhoun
• Availability of a laptop computer with Excel for data entry
Supervisors must have the following qualifications:
• University degree in social sciences
• At least 5 years’ experience supervising data collection of a similar scope to the LWR baseline 
study
• Demonstrated knowledge of primary data collection (qualitative and quantitative), especially 
interviews
• Fluency in written and spoken French, and fluency in at least one of the main languages spoken in 
Est and Boucle de Mouhoun
• Availability of a laptop computer with Excel and Word for data entry
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 42 of 70
2. Annex B: List of persons consulted.
Est Region
Family Name First Name Role/Organization Telephone
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 43 of 70
Boucle du Mouhoun Region
Family Name First Name Role/Organization Telephone
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 44 of 70
Exporters
Family Name First Name Role/ Company Telephone
National Government Agencies
Last Name First Name Role/Agency Telephone
3. Annex C: Bibliography
The following secondary sources helped shape the research approach for the baseline study.
Gildemacher, Peter, et al. 2015. Sesame Sector Development: Lessons Learned in Burkina Faso and Mali.
Common Fund for Commodities, Royal Tropical Institute, Helvetas, International Fertilizer 
Development Center.
Traoré, Félicité. 2012. Rapport de Pré Diagnostic des Filières Bétail-Viande et Sésame. ONUDI, IFAD, 
FAO.
Ministère de l’agriculture. 2013. Situation de Reference des Principales Filières Agricoles au Burkina 
Faso.
RONGEAD. 2013. Le Sésame au Burkina Faso - Etat des Lieux : Production et Semence.
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 45 of 70
4. Annex D: Data collection tools
Questionnaire adressé aux producteurs
Numéro du questionnaire / / /
CONSENTEMENT APRÈS INFORMATION
Bonjour. Mon nom est , et je travaille pour l’ONG LWR. Nous conduisons
une étude et apprécierons ta participation. Les échanges que nous allons avoir porteront sur sésame. Cette 
information va aider LWR à planifier les services adaptés à la filière sésame. Cet échange dure environ 30 à 45 
minutes. L’information que tu vas partager avec nous sera gardée strictement confidentielle.
La participation à cette étude est volontaire et tu peux choisir de ne pas répondre à certaines questions ou toutes les 
questions. Cependant, nous espérons que tu participeras dans cette étude puisque ton point de vue est important.
Est-ce que vous souhaiterez avoir d’autres clarifications sur l’étude ?
RÉPONDANT EST D’ACCORD POUR ÊTRE
INTERVIEWÉ.............................................1
RÉPONDANT N'’EST PAS D’ACCORD POUR ÊTRE
INTERVIEWÉ ...................................................... 2
IDENTIFICATION
REGION Est ................................................... 1
Boucle du Mouhoum…………….2 Code
| |
Province Banwa……..…………1 Gourma..................... 4
Mouhoun….………….2 Tapoa ........................ 5
Kossi….………………3 Konmpienga .............6
Code
| |
COMMUNE
VILLAGE
Nom et prénoms du producteur
Reference CNIB/Tel
Date de l’enquête Ecrire en format : 
JJ-MM-AAAA |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__|
Heure du début de l’enquête : Format 24h |__|__|H |__|__|
Heure de fin de l’enquête : Format 24h |__|__|H |__|__|
Nom et prénom de 
l’enquêteur/enquêtrice
Ecrire nom complet
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 46 of 70
Signature de l’enquêteur/enquêtrice
Nom et prénoms du superviseur Visa du superviseur
A. INFORMATIONS SUR LE PRODUCTEUR
N° Question Code Réponse
A1 Statut du producteur 1. Producteur de sésame
2. Producteur semencier de 
sesame
3. Producteur semencier
et producteur de 
sésame
| |
A2 Sexe 1. Masculin
2. Féminin
| |
A3 Age Inscrire l’âge dans les cases. Un chiffre par case
| | |
A.4 Niveau d’instruction 1. Primaire
2. Secondaire
3. Supérieure
4. Alphabétisé
5. Coranique
6. Aucun
7. Autre A preciser
| |
A.5 Etes-vous chef 
de ménage.
1. Oui
2. Non | |
A.6 Avez-vous
d’autres personnes de 
votre ménage qui
sont membres de 
groupement de 
producteurs de sésame 
dans le village
1. Oui
2. Non
A.6.1 Quelles autre 
personnes
1. père/ mère
2. enfant
3. époux
4. épouse
5. cousin
6. oncle/tante
7. autre a preciser
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
A.6.2 Est-ce que les 
groupements auxquels 
appartiennent les 
autres personnes du 
ménage sont
aussi membres de 
l’Union des 
producteurs de sésame
1. oui
2. non | |
A.6.3 S’ils ne sont 
pas membres de
l’inion quelles sont les 
raisons
A7 Equipement de 
labour/sarclage
1. Charrue
2. Houe manga
3. Tracteur
4. autres
a spécifier | |
| |
| |
A8 Equipement de 
transport
1. charrette
2. Tricycle
3. autres
a préciser | |
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 47 of 70
| |
| |
A.9 Equipement de post 
récolte
1. souffleuse
2. tamis
3. Autre
A preciser
| |
| |
A10 Infrastructure de 
conservation/stockage
1. oui
2. non
Si non passer a B
| |
A.11 L’infrastructure/equip 
ement/materiel est –
elle utilisée 
uniquement pour le 
stockage du sésame ?
1. oui
2. non
| |
A12 Nature et nombre des 
infrastructures/equipe 
ment/materiel de 
conservation/stockage
Indiquer l’infrastructure/équipement/matériel ici | |
| |
A13 Quelle est la capacité 
de stockage de chaque 
type
Indiquer l’infrastructure ici et sa capacité dans la case 
correspondante(en tonne)
|__|__|__|__|
N° B. SUPERFICIE ET PRODUCTION
Question Code Reponse
B.1 Type de culture 1. en pure
2. en association
3. en pure et en association
Si 2 passer a B3 
Si 1 passer a B2 | |
B2 Superficie (Ha) La superficie sera levée a l’aide d’un GPS et indiquer en ha | | | |
B.3 Comment appréciez￾vous la disponibilité 
de la terre si vous 
voulez accroitre votre 
superficie pour le 
sésame
1. faible
2. moyen
3. élevé
| |
B.4 Production La production concerne la production en pure et en 
association. Cette production est pesée et convertie en 
tonne
| |
B.5 Avez-vous des besoins 
spécifiques pour 
augmenter la quantité 
et la qualité du sésame 
que vous produisez
1. oui
2. non
Si oui repondez à B.6
B.6 Quels sont vos besoins 
spécifiques pour 
augmenter la quantité 
et la qualité du sésame 
produit
Lister ici les besoins
N° C. COMMERCIALISATION DE LA PRODUCTION
Question Code réponse
C.1 Auprès de qui 
vendez-vous votre 
sésame
1. Union
2. Collecteur
3. Marche du village
4. Autres
A préciser | |
| |
| |
| |
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 48 of 70
c.1.1 Vendez-vous vous￾même votre sésame 
ou quelqu’un d’autre 
de votre ménage est￾il chargé de cette 
activité
1. Moi-même
2. Quelqu’un d’autre
Si réponse 2 
Repondez à C.1.2
| |
C.1.2 Si ce n’est pas vous￾même, qui est chargé 
de la vente de votre 
sésame dans le 
ménage
I1. Epoux 
2.épouse
3. fils
4. fille
Autre
A préciser
| |
C.1.3 Pendant quelles 
périodes avez-vous 
vendu votre sésame
indiquer la période de vente ici
C.1.4 Quelle quantité avez￾vous vendu à chaque 
période et au près de 
qui
Période Quantité prix acheteur
C.2 Quantité totale 
vendu(tonne) 
(calcul fait par 
l’enquêteur)
La quantité est indiquée en tonne. Le producteur donne son 
unite de mesure. Cette unité est pesée et multipliée par le 
nombre d’unités vendues
| |
C.3 Prix moyen de vente 
du sesame(F 
CFA/kg)
(calcul fait par 
l’enquêteur)
Le prix moyen est indiqué pour l’unité de mesure du 
producteur. Cette unité est convertie en Kg pour estimer le 
prix correspondant
| |
N° D. PRATIQUES AGRICOLES
Question Code Réponse
D.1 Labour 1. Oui
2. non | |
D.2 Semis 1. ligne
2. vole | |
D.3 Utilisation de la 
semence améliorée
1. oui
2. non
si non passer à D.3.2
| |
D.3.1 Nom de la variété 
utilisée
1. S42
2. Cross n°3
3. La 32-14
4. La Genaev
5. La S38-1-7
6. Autre
A preciser
| |
D.3.2 Date de semis Sans précision, indiquer seulement le mois ou les mois |_|_|/|_||_|/|_||_|
|_|_|/|_||_|/|_||_|
D.4 Utilisation de 
l’engrais minéral
1. Oui
2. Non
Si non passer a D.6 | |
D.5 Quantité d’engrais 
utilise
La quantité est indiquée dans l’unité de mesure du producteur 
et estimée en kg par l’enquêteur
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 49 of 70
D.6 Utilisation de la 
fumure organique
1. Oui
2. Non
Si non passer a 
D8
| |
D.7 Quantité de fumure 
organique
La quantité est indiquée dans l’unité de mesure du producteur 
et estimée en kg par l’enquêteur
D.8 Traitement 
phytosanitaire
1. Oui
2. Non
| |
D.9 Sarclage 1. Oui
2. Non
| |
D.10 Utilisation des 
techniques de 
CES/DRS
1. cordons pierreux
2. demi-lune
3. agroforesterie
4. brise vent
5. zai
6. paillage
7. autres a
preciser
| |
D.11 Pratique de la 
rotation
1. Oui
2. Non | |
N° E. EMPLOIS CREES
Question Code reponse
E.1 Avez-vous employé 
des ouvriers
1. Oui
2. Non
Si non passez a E.6
E.2 Pour quel travail 
avez-vous employé 
des ouvriers ?
1. Labour
2. semis
3. sarclage
4. traitement phyto
5. récolte
6. transport
7. battage
8. triage
9. autre
a préciser
| |
| |
| |
E.3 Quelle est la durée 
moyenne 
d’emploi des 
1. semaine
2. mois
3. 1 an
4. Autres 
A préciser
| |
E.4 Combien d’ouvriers 
avez-vous employés | |
E.5 A combien en 
moyenne payez vous 
vos ouvriers
Jour |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| 
Semaine|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| 
Mois |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| 
Autre | _|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
E.6 Si vous n’avez pas 
employé des 
ouvriers, avez-vous 
quand même besoin 
d’ouvrier pour votre 
travail
1. Oui
2. Non
| |
E.7 Pour quel poste de 
travail avez besoin 
d’ouvrier ?
1. Labour
2. semis
3. sarclage
4. traitement phyto
5. récolte
6. transport
7. battage
8. triage
9. autre a préciser
| |
F. REVENU ISSU DU SESAME
F.1 Quantité Cout
Semence(kg) | | | | | |_|_ | | | | | | | |
Engrais(kg) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Fumure organique(kg) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 50 of 70
Pesticide | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Petits équipements | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
TOTAL A | | | | | | | |
Main d’œuvre salarié
Préparation de la terre | | | | | | | | |
Semis | | | | | | | | |
Entretien des plans au champ 
(buttage, démariage, épandage 
de produit si nécessaire)
| | | | | | | | |
Sarclage | | | | | | | | |
Récolte et mise en bottes | | | | | | | | |
Séchage et nettoyage | | | | | | | | |
Transport | | | | | | | | |
AUTRES DEPENSES
TOTAL B
F.2 Revenus totaux des ventes
Quantite recoltee | | | | | | |
Prix de vente | | | | | | |
F.2.1 Revenus des ventes = Quantitex prix de vente | | | | | | | | |
F.3 Revenu net = F.2.1-(Total A+Total B) | | | | | | | |
N°
ordre
G. APPRECIATION DE LA SITUATION ACTUELLE
Question Code reponses
G.1 Comment 
appréciez-vous 
actuellement 
l’apport du sésame 
que vous produisez 
dans l’amélioration 
de votre condition 
de vie
1. Faible
2. Moyen
3. Eleve
4. Sans changement
| |
G.2 Pourquoi
G.3 Comment percevez 
vous la place 
qu’occupera le 
sésame dans 
l’amélioration de 
vos conditions de 
vie d’ici cinq ans
1. Faible
2. Moyen
3. Eleve
4. Sans changement
| |
G.4 Pourquoi
G.5 Avez-vous des 
difficultés en lien 
avec votre 
participation à la 
vie de l’union ou du 
groupement
1. Oui
2. Non
Si oui repondez a G.6
| |
G.6 Quelles sont ces 
difficultés
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 51 of 70
G.7 Selon vous quelles 
sont les principales 
difficultés de la 
filière sésame ? 
(citez au plus cinq 
difficultés)
G8 Quelles solutions 
envisagez-vous ?
Questionnaire adressé aux responsables des unions
CONSENTEMENT APRÈS INFORMATION
Bonjour. Mon nom est , et je travaille pour l’ONG LWR. Nous conduisons une
étude et apprécierons ta participation. Les échanges que nous allons avoir porteront sur sésame. Cette information va 
aider LWR à planifier les services adaptés à la filière sésame. Cet échange dure environ 30 à 45 minutes.
L’information que tu vas partager avec nous sera gardée strictement confidentielle.
La participation à cette étude est volontaire et tu peux choisir de ne pas répondre à certaines questions ou toutes les 
questions. Cependant, nous espérons que tu participeras dans cette étude puisque ton point de vue est important.
Est-ce que vous souhaiterez avoir d’autres clarifications sur l’étude ?
RÉPONDANT EST D’ACCORD POUR ÊTRE
INTERVIEWÉ.............................................1
RÉPONDANT N'’EST PAS D’ACCORD POUR ÊTRE
INTERVIEWÉ.......................................................2
IDENTIFICATION
REGION Est....................................................1
Boucle du Mouhoum……………….2 Code
| |
Province Banwa .........................1
Gourma .....................4
Mouhoun..................... 2
Tapoa .........................5
Kossi ............................3
Konmpienga............. 6
Code
| |
Nom et prénoms du responsable ou des responsables
Poste(s) occupé(s) dans l’union
Contacts par responsible
A. Vente des productions par l’Union
Question Code Réponse
A. 1 L’Union vent-elle 
la production de ses 
membres
1. Oui
2. Non
Si non passe a 
A.12
| |
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 52 of 70
A.1.1 Quelle est la quantité de sésame qui a été collectée par l’union auprès de ses membres | | | |_
| | |
A.1.2 Est-ce que la 
quantité collectée 
auprès des membres 
est toujours vendue 
en totalité
1. Oui
2. Non
Si non répondez a A.2.1
| |
A.2 Quelle est la quantité de sésame qui a été vendue par l’Union en 2015/2016 |__|__|__|__|_
_| |
A.2.1 Quelle est la quantité de sésame qui est reste en stock
|__|__|__|__|_
_| |
A.3 La quantité de 
sésame qui pourrait 
être vendue par 
l’union pour la 
campagne 
2016/2017 etait-elle 
connue à 
l’avance?(productio 
n des membres)
1. Oui
2. Non | |
A.4 Quel était l’objectif de vente de sésame de la campagne 2016/2017(tonne)(membres et non 
membres) |_|_|_|_|_|_|__|
 | |
A.5 Auprès de qui 
l’union vent-elle la 
production de
ses membres
Liste des acheteurs
1. OLAM
2. SAGROCOM
3. ELIM
4. ETG
5. ONE PRIVATE ACTOR
6. OLVEA
7. Autres à preciser
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
A.6 L’union 
contractualise-t-elle 
la vente avec ces 
acheteurs
1. oui
2. non
Si non passer a A.9
| |
A.7 Est-ce des contrats 
formels ou 
informels
1. formel
2. informel
| |
A.7.1 Combien de contrats formels ont été signés pour la campagne 2015/2016 
Et en 2016/2017
|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|
A.7.2 Combien de contrats informels ont été passés avec des acheteurs en 2015/2016 
En 2016/2017
| | | |_
 |
| | | |
|
A.7.3 Combien de contrats formels ont pu être honorés en 2015/2016
En 2016/2017
|__|__|__|__|_
 | |
| | | |
| |
A.7.4 Combien de contrats informels ont pu être honorés en 2015/2016 | | | |
| |
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 53 of 70
En 2016/2017 | | | |
| |
A.8 Comment l’union procède-t-elle pour 
vendre le sésame sur le marché
A. 9 Quelles sont les 
difficultés 
rencontrées par 
l’union pour honorer 
les contrats
Citer au plus 5 difficultés
A.10 Quelles sont vos 
suggestions pour 
lever ces difficultés
Reprendre les difficultés ici Formuler les suggestions ici
B. Emplois créés par l’Union
B.1 Avez-vous recrute 
du personnel dans le 
cadre des activites 
de l’union
1. oui
2. Non si non passer a C | |
B.2 Combien de 
personnes avez-vous 
recrute, pour quel 
poste et pendant 
combien de temps
Poste Nombre duree
C. Inventaire des Infrastructures de stockage
C.1 Y a-t-il des 
infrastructures de 
stockage dans la 
province
1. Oui
2. Non | |
C.2 Nombre des 
infrastructures de 
stockage et capacité 
de stockage
Nombre|__|__|__|__| Capacité de stockage
| | | | | | | |
C.3 Qui a réalisé ces 
infrastructures
Lister les partenaires ici Année de réalisation
C.4 Comment sont 
gérées ces 
infrastructures
Décrire le mode de gestion ici
C.5 De façon générale 
comment appréciez￾vous l’état actuel de 
ces infrastructures
1. mauvais
2. Passable
3. Bon
| |
D. Forces et Faiblesses de l’union
D.1 Quelles sont les 
principales 
faiblesses de votre 
union
Citer les 3 principales faiblesses
D.2 Quelles sont les 
principales forces de 
votre union
Citer les 3 principales forces
E. Goulots d’étranglement de la filière
E1 Quelles sont les 
principales 
difficultés 
rencontrées par la 
filière sésame (citez 
au plus cinq)
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 54 of 70
E2 Quelles sont vos 
suggestions pour 
lever ces difficultés
Localité ……………………………… Structure………………………………..
PROFIL DES PARTICIPANTS
N° Nom et prénoms Sexe
0=M
1=F
Age Niveau d’instruction
0= aucun 
1=primaire 
2=secondaire 
3=alphabétisé 
4=autres
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
PLACE DU SESAME DANS LE SYSTEME DE PRODUCTION
1. Motivations pour le choix de la production du sésame
2. Appuis reçus dans le passé ou en cours
3. Appréciation faites sur les appuis reçus dans le cadre de la production du sésame(en terme de qualité, 
durée, utilité, coût, .,…)
4. Principaux résultats obtenus grâce à ces appuis ?
5. Quelles leçons que vous retenez de plus pertinent grâce a ces appuis ?
6. Quels sont/étaient les difficultés rencontrées avec cesappuis ?
7. Besoins spécifiques pour augmenter la qualité et la quantité dusésame
8. Que faudra-t-il faire pour augmenter la production du sésame dans votre zone?
9. Que faudra-t-il faire pour améliorer la qualité du sésame que vous produisez ?
ROLE DU SESAME DANS LES MOYENS DE SUBSISTANCE
1. Comment appréciez-vous la place du sésame parmi vos différents moyens de subsistance actuelle et 
expliquez-nous pourquoi ?
2. Comment voyez-vous la place du sésame dans les années à venir parmi vos différents vos moyens de 
subsistance et quelles explications donnez-vous a cette appréciation?
3. Qu’est-ce que la production du sésame vous a apporté comme changement majeur dans vos vies ?
4. Qu’est ce que la production du sésame a apporté comme changement majeur/perceptible dans votre 
village ?
PERSPECTIVES ET SUGGESTIONS
1. Pour des appuis à venir que faudra t-il prendre en compte pour s’assurer que la production du sesame 
contribue a ameliorer vos conditions de vie et vos moyens de subsistace ?
ETUDE DE BASE DU PROJET SESAME
GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN ADRESSE AUX HOMMES, FEMMES ET JEUNES
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 55 of 70
2. Parmi tous ces appuis citez lesquels vous estimez etre les plus utiles pour vous dans le court et moyen 
terme ?
I. ACTIVITES DE COMMERCIALISATION
1. Depuis quelle année est vous engagé dans l’achat et l’exportation du sésame ?
2. Auprès de qui achetez-vous le sésame ?
3. En moyenne quelle quantité achetez-vous chaque an au Burkina ?
4. Connaissiez-vous la quantité que vous achetez chaque année par région ? Si oui, quelles sont les quantités 
que vous achetez en moyenne dans la région de la Boucle du Mouhoun et de l’Est ?
5. Quelle est la quantité que vous avez achetée au cours de la campagne 2015/2016 et 2016/2017 dans ces deux 
régions ?
6. A quel prix moyen avez-vous acheté le sésame au cours de cette période?
7. Avez-vous établi des contrats pour l’achat du sésame auBurkina ?
8. Si oui combien de contrats avez-vous signés pour la campagne 2015/2016 et pour la campagne 2016/2017 ? 
quel est le nombre de contrats signés pour les deux régions citées?
9. A combien estimez-vous le taux d’impureté du sésame que vous achetez ?
10. Pour les deux régions citées quel est le taux d’impureté du sésame acheté au cours de la même 
période 2015/2016 et 2016/2017 ?
11. Selon vous quelles sont les principales sources des matières étrangères dans le sésame que vous achetez ?
12. Selon vous à combien estimez-vous la quantité de sésame acheté selon les taux d’impureté suivant en 
2015/2016 et en 2016/2017 ?
• Inférieure à 5%
• Supérieure à 5%
13. Y a-t-il des opérations de nettoyage que vous faites avant d’exporter le sésame ?
14. A combien estimer vous le taux d’impureté du sésame exporté après nettoyage ?
15. Ou rendez-vous le sésame acheté ?
16. Avez-vous établi des contrats pour la vente du sésame?
17. Si oui combien de contrat avez-vous signe dans ce sens pour la campagne 2015/2016 et2016/2017
18. Avez-vous rencontre des difficultés avec les contrats établis pour l’achat et la vente du sésame ?
19. Quels sont les principales difficultés avec ces contrats?
• Pour l’achat
• Pour la vente
II. EQUIPEMENT DE NETTOYAGE ET INFRASTRUCTURE DE CONSERVATION
1. Disposez-vous d’équipement de nettoyage du sésame ou des infrastructures de conservation ? si oui combien 
et où sont-ils installés ?
2. Avez-vous planifié la réalisation d’infrastructure de conservation/stockage et l’acquisition d’unités de 
nettoyage ? Si oui combien et où prévoyez-vous les installer ?
III. RAPPORT QUALITE PRIX
1. Pensez-vous que la qualité du sésame que vous achetez influe beaucoup, peu ou pas sur son prix ?
ETUDE DE BASE DU PROJECT SESAME
Guide d’entretien approfondi adressé aux commercants/exportateurs du sesame
IDENTIFICATION
REGION…………………………………………………………………………………………...……. 
PROVINCE…………………………………………………………………………………………...…. 
NOM DE LA STRUCTURE……………………………………………………………………….…… 
NOM DU REPONDANT…………………………………………………………………………..…… 
FONCTION DU REPONDANT………………………………………………………………….…….. 
DATE DE L’ENTRETIEN / / // / // / /
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 56 of 70
2. Etes-vous prêt à mettre le prix qu’il faut pour acquérir du sésame de qualité c’est-à-dire avec moins 
d’impureté et à quelles conditions?
3. Sur une échelle de 0 à 10% d’impureté, quel prix êtes-vous prêt à consentir pour acquérir les qualités de 
sésame ci-après
• 0% d’impureté
• 0 à 2% d’impureté
• 2à 3% d’impureté
• 3 à 5% d’impureté
• à 7% d’impureté
• à 10% d’impureté
4. Quelles peuvent être les principales contraintes pour vous à augmenter les prix d’achat au producteur pour 
un sésame de qualité ?
5. Dans quelles conditions êtes-vous prêts à augmenter le prix d’achat pour un sésame de qualité ?
IV. EMPLOIS CREES
1. Avez-vous recruté du personnel dans le cadre de vos activités de commercialisation du sésame ? si oui, 
combien d’employés avez recrutes ?
2. A quel(s) poste(s) ont-ils été recrutés et pour quelle durée?
V. De façon générale quelles sont les principales difficultés rencontrées dans la commercialisation du 
sésame Burkina ?
I. ACTIONS PREVUES OU EN COURS EN APPUI AU SESAME
1. Existe-t-il des appuis en cours ou à venir que votre structure met ou mettra au profit de la filière sésame
2. Avez-vous connaissances d’autres appuis prévus par des structures et quelle est la nature de ces appuis
3. Quelles sont les zones ou régions qui bénéficient ou bénéficieront de vos actions actuelles ou futures
4. Comment se fait l’identification des bénéficiaires
II. INFRASTRUCTURE DE CONSERVATION/STOCKAGE
1. Avez-vous prévu de réaliser ou avez-vous réalisé des infrastructures de conservation/stockage ?
2. Quelle est le nombre et la capacité de stockage de ces infrastructures ?
3. Avez-vous reçu des appuis et de qui pour réaliser ces infrastructures?
4. Dans quelles zones avez-vous ou allez-vous réaliser cette infrastructure et dans quel délai?
5. Comment sont gérés ou seront gérés ces infrastructures?
6. Qu’est ce qui justifie la démarche préconisée pour la gestion de ces infrastructures ?
7. Comment s’est fait le choix du site de construction des infrastructures ?
8. Avez-vous des informations sur le nombre et la capacité des infrastructures qui sont réalisées ou prévues pour 
être réalisés par d’autres partenaires ?
9. Qui sont ces partenaires?
III- PARTENARIAT AVEC LE PROJET SESAME DE LWR
ETUDE DE BASE DU PROJET SESAME
Guide d’entretien approfondi adressé aux directions centrales et déconcentrées
IDENTIFICATION
REGION…………………………………………………………………………………………...……. 
PROVINCE…………………………………………………………………………………………...…
. 
COMMUNE………………………………………………………………………………………….….. 
NOM DE LA STRUCTURE……………………………………………………………………….…… 
NOM DU REPONDANT…………………………………………………………………………..…… 
FONCTION DU REPONDANT………………………………………………………………….…….. 
DATE DE L’ENQUETE / / // / // / /
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 57 of 70
1. Le projet SESAME de LWR prévoit accompagner les producteurs de sésame à améliorer la productivité et 
la qualité marchande du sésame- quels sont les axes de collaboration que vous percevez
2. S’il y a des divergences d’approches dans la mise en œuvre des actions qui sont destinées aux mêmes 
bénéficiaires, pensez-vous qu’il est possible d’avoir des cadres pour harmoniser les approches et éviter une 
superposition des actions sur le terrain
3. Selon vous comment ces cadres pourrontfonctionner
4. Quelles sont les suggestions a prendre au regard de votre expérience pour que les actions prévues par le projet 
sésame de LWR produisent les impacts attendus
I. ACTIONS D’APPUI A LA FILIERE SESAME
1. En quoi consiste vos appuis a la filière sésame
2. Quelles sont vos zones d’interventions
3. Quels sont les bénéficiaires directes de vos appuis
4. Comment se fait le choix de ces bénéficiaires
5. Selon vous quel est l’appui qui est le plus significatif pour la filière sésame dans votre zone d’intervention et 
pourquoi
II. INFRASTRUCTURES DE CONSERVATIONS /STOCKAGE
1. Combien d’infrastructures de conservations avez-vous prévu ou avez-vous réalisé dans votre zone 
d’intervention ;
2. Quelle est la capacité de ces infrastructures et leurcout
3. Quel partenaire vous a accompagné dans la réalisation de ces infrastructures
4. Dans quelles zones avez-vous réalisé cesinfrastructures
5. Comment se fait la gestion de cesinfrastructures
6. Quelle est l’état actuel des infrastructures qui ont déjàréalisés
7. Comment s’est fait le choix du site de réalisation de cesinfrastructures
8. Si vous avez prévu de réaliser d’autres infrastructures de conservation/stockage, combien et ou allez-vous 
les réalisés
III. PERSPECTIVES DE COLLABORATION
1. Le projet SESAME de LWR va accompagner les producteurs à améliorer la productivité et la qualité 
marchande du sésame- au regard de ce que vous faites, pensez-vous qu’il y a des possibilités de collaboration 
avec votre structure et si oui dans queldomaine
2. Le projet sésame de LWR pourrait avoir les mêmes bénéficiaires que votre structure, pense vous qu’il est 
possible d’avoir des cadres pour harmoniser les approches sur le terrain?
3. Comment pensez-vous que ces cadres devrontfonctionner
4. Quellessont vossuggestions au regard de votre expérience, que vous pourrez faire au projet sésame de LWR 
afin que ces actions puissent atteindre les résultatsescomptes
ETUDE DE BASE DU PROJET SESAME
Guide d’entretien adressé aux ONG, ASSOCIATIONS ET PROJETS
QUESTIONNAIRE APPRENANTS CEBNF
IDENTIFICATION
REGION…………………………………………………………………………………………...……. 
PROVINCE…………………………………………………………………………………………...…
. 
COMMUNE………………………………………………………………………………………….….. 
NOM DE LA STRUCTURE……………………………………………………………………….…… 
ZONE D’INTERVENTION…………………………………………………………………………..… 
NOM DU REPONDANT…………………………………………………………………………..…… 
FONCTION DU REPONDANT………………………………………………………………….…….. 
DATE DE L’ENQUETE/ / // / // / /
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 58 of 70
5. Annex E: Tabulated raw data
Table of variables, baseline figures by sex, confidence levels/margins of error as appropriate, and details 
of note that may inform project implementation (such as geographic or gender differences in findings).
Table 18.1: Plowing practice by gender and location (percent)
Region/Province
Male Female
Tilling No-till Tilling No-till
Est
Gourma 100% (90/90) 97% (59/62) 3% (2/62)
Tapoa 61% (31/51) 39% (20/51) 36% (8/22) 64% (14/22)
Kompienga 100% (27/27) 89% (16/18) 11% (2/18)
Total 88% (148/168) 12% (20/168) 82% (83/101) 18% (18/101)
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 97% (68/70) 3% (2/70) 100% (26/26)
Mouhoun 97% (70/72) 3% (2/72) 100% (13/13)
Kossi 99% (93/94) 1% (1/94 100% (19/19)
Total 98% (231/236) 2% (5/236) 100% (58/68)
Total 94% (379/404) 6% (25/404) 89% (141/159) 11% (18/159)
Table 18.2 Plowing practice by location
Region/Province
Both Men and Women Both Men and Women
% plowed % without plowing
Est
Gourma 99% (149/151) 1% (2/151)
Tapoa 53% (39/73) 47% (34/73)
Kompienga 96% (43/45) 4% (2/45)
Total 86% (231/269) 14% (38/269)
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 98% (94/96) 2% (2/96)
Mouhoun 98% (83/85) 2% (2/85)
Kossi 99% (111/112) 1% (1/112)
Total 98% (288/293) 2% (5/293)
Total 92% (519/562) 8% (43/562)
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 59 of 70
Table 18.3: Percentage of producers who plant in line and broadcast sowing
Region/Province
Men Women
Plant in line Broadcast sowing Plant in line Broadcast sowing
Est
Gourma 100% (90/90) 100% (61/61)
Tapoa 94% (48/51) 6% (3/51) 45% (10/22) 55% (12/22)
Kompienga 100% (27/27) 100% (18/18)
Total 98% (165/168) 2% (3/168) 88% (89/101) 12% (12)
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 35% (25/71) 65% (46/71) 19% (5/26) 81% (21/26)
Mouhoun 76% (55/72) 24% (17/72) 100% (13/13)
Kossi 26% (24/44) 74% (20/44) 21% (4/19) 79% (15/19)
Total 44% (104/237) 100% (133/237) 38% (22/58) 62% (36/58
Total 66% (269/405) 34% (136/405) 70% (111/159) 30% (48/149)
Table 18.4: Seeding practice in line by location
Region/Province
Both Male and Female Both Male and Female
% in lines % broadcast Total
Est
Gourma 100% (151/151) 0% 100%
Tapoa 79% (58/73) 21% (1573) 100%
Kompienga 100% (45/45) 100%
Total 94% (254/269) 6% (15/269) 100%
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 31% (30/90 69% (60/90) 100%
Mouhoun 80% (68/85) 20% (17/85) 100%
Kossi 25% (28/112) 75% (84/112) 100%
Total 43% (126/294) 57% (168/294) 100%
Total 67% (380/563) 33% (183/563) 100%
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 60 of 70
Table 18.5: Percentage of producers using improved seed
Region/Province
Male Female
Use improved 
Seed Use local seed
Use improved 
seed Use local seed
Est
Gourma 86% (77/90) 14% (13/90) 29% (44/61) 11% (17/61)
Tapoa 80% (41/51) 20% (10/51) 43% (9/21) 17% (12/21)
Kompienga 19% (5/27) 81% (22/27) 33% (6/18) 27% (12/18)
Total 73% (123/168) 27% (45/168) 59% (59/100) 41% (41/100)
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 66% (46/70) 34% (24/70) 84% (21/25) 4% (4/25)
Mouhoun 97% (70/72) 3% (2/72) 100% (13/13)
Kossi 50% (46/92) 50% (46/92) 21% (4/19) 100% (15/19)
Total 69% (162/264) 31% (72/264) 84% (38/57) 7% (19/57)
Total 71% (285/402) 29% (117/402) 62% (97/157) 38% (60/157)
Table 18.6: Percentage of combined producers using improved seed
Region/Province % Use improved seed use 
(Male and female)
% Use local seed (male 
and female)
Est
Gourma 80% (121/151) 20% (30/151)
Tapoa 69% (50/72) 31% (22/72)
Kompienga 24% (11/45) 76% (34/45)
Total 68% (182/268) 32% (86/268)
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 71% (67/95) 29% (28/95)
Mouhoun 98% (83/85) 2% (2/85)
Kossi 45% (50/110) 55% (60/110)
Total 69% (200/290) 31% (90/290)
Total 68% (382/558) 32% (176/558)
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 61 of 70
Table 18.7: Percentage of men and women applying fertilizer on their field
Region/Province
Male Female
Use of fertilizer No use of fertilizer Use of fertilizer No use of fertilizer
Est
Gourma 22% (13/60) 78% (47/60) 17% (9/52) 38% (43/52)
Tapoa 2% (1/50) 98% (50/51) 9% (2/22) 91% (20/22)
Kompienga 31% (8/26) 69% (18/26) 17% (3/18) 83% (15/18)
Total 16% (22/137) 84% (115/137) 15% (14/92) 85% (78/92)
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 44% (21/48) 56% (27/48) 35% (8/23) 65% (15/23)
Mouhoun 39% (28/72) 61% (44/72) 69% (9/13) 31% (4/13)
Kossi 22% (21/94) 78% (73/94) 21% (4/19) 79% (15/19)
Total 33% (70/214) 67% (144/214) 38% (21/55) 62% (34/55)
Total 26% (92/351) 74% (259/351) 24% (35/147) 76% (112/147)
Tableau 18.8 Rate of fertilizer use
Region/Province % Fertilizer use 
(Male and female)
% No fertilizer use (male 
and female) Total
Est
Gourma 20% (22/112) 80% (90/112) 100%
Tapoa 4% (3/73) 96% (70/73) 100%
Kompienga 25% (11/44) 75% (33/44) 100%
Total 16% (36/229) 84% (193/229) 100%
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 41% (29/71) 59% (42/71) 100%
Mouhoun 44% (37/85) 56% (48/85) 100%
Kossi 22% (25/112) 78% (87/112) 100%
Total 34% (91/268) 66% (177/268) 100%
Total 26% (127/497) 74% (370/497) 100%
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 62 of 70
Table 19: Average plowed and not plowed area and corresponding total area
Region/Province Plowed Not plowed Average
Estimated total plowed 
area (ha)
Est
Gourma 2.04 0.27 2.01 3663
Tapoa 1.56 1.33 1.45 1031
Kompienga 2.20 9.08 2.51 1068
Average/Total 1.99 1.68 1.94 5761
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 1.63 0.37 1.60 2226
Mouhoun 1.59 1.46 1.58 1801
Kossi 2.77 1.02 2.76 4312
Average/Total 2.07 0.93 2.05 8339
Total 2.03 1.59 2.00 14100
Table 20: Average area in hectares planted in line and broadcast sowing and total area planted in 
line
Region/Province In-line planting
Broadcast 
planting Average
Total area of in￾line planting
Est
Gourma 2.01 2.01 3656
Tapoa 1.59 0.91 1.45 1564
Kompienga 2.51 2.51 1273
Total 2.00 0.91 1.94 6493
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 1.84 1.51 1.62 783
Mouhoun 1.71 1.07 1.58 1594
Kossi 2.65 2.79 2.76 1060
Total 1.96 2.13 2.05 3437
Average 1.99 2.02 2.00 9930
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 63 of 70
Table 21: Average and total area in hectares sown with improved seed and local seed
Region/Province
Average 
improved 
seeded area
Average 
local 
seeded 
area
Common 
average
Total area 
improved Seed
Total area 
with local in 
line planting
Est
Gourma 2.14 1.49 2.01 3132 539
Tapoa 1.51 1.34 1.46 1298 507
Kompienga 2.20 2.61 2.51 273 1000
Total 1.97 1.89 1.95 4703 2046
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 1.73 1.32 1.60 1694 542
Mouhoun 1.57 2.00 1.58 1785 55
Kossi 2.60 2.90 2.76 1857 2475
Total 1.89 2.39 2.05 5337 3071
Moyenne 1.93 2.15 2.00 10040 5117
Table 22: Average area in hectares with fertilizer application
Region/Province Average area with fertilizer application
Est
Gourma 1.51
Tapoa 1.52
Kompienga 3.96
Total 2.26
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 1.29
Mouhoun 1.59
Kossi 2.48
Total 1.74
Total 1.89
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 64 of 70
Table 23: Fertilizer use
Region/Province Kg of fertilizer used Area applied (ha) Dose of fertilizer (Kg/ha)
Est
Gourma 14 000 541 26
Tapoa 1695 77 22
Kompienga 15 443 504 31
Total 31 138 1122 28
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 27 904 732 38
Mouhoun 31 935 807 40
Kossi 47 519 870 55
Total 107 358 2409 45
Total 138 496 3532 39
Table 24: Total area in hectares with organic manure application
Region/Province Area with application of organic fertilize
Est
Gourma 2599
Tapoa 1795
Kompienga 1040
Total 5434
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 1164
Mouhoun 727
Kossi 599
Total 2490
Total 7924
Table 25: Total area in hectares treated with at least one soil and water conservation technique 
application
Region/Province Treated area (ha)
Est
Gourma 1741
Tapoa 806
Kompienga 678
Total 3226
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 143
Mouhoun 1439
Kossi 2765
Total 4347
Total 7573
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 65 of 70
Table 26: Total area treated in hectareswith at least one phytosanitary product applied
Region/Province Area (ha)
Est
Gourma 507
Tapoa 325
Kompienga 3085
Total 3917
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 1273
Mouhoun 1748
Kossi 4659
Total 7680
Total 11597
Table 27: Type of sesame storage by farmers (% of respondents)
Region/Province
Packed in 
bags and 
stored in 
the dwelling 
house
Attic Warehouse
Open air, 
covered 
space
Placed in a 
shop Total
Est
Gourma 62% 38% 100%
Tapoa 93% 3% 5% 100%
Kompienga 33% 67% 100%
Total 69% 29% 1% 2% 101%
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 22% 78% 100%
Mouhoun
Kossi 8% 8% 85% 100%
Total 17% 3% 81% 100%
Total 43% 1% 55% 0% 1% 100%
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 66 of 70
Table 28: Percentage of producers who employed farm laborers at different stages of farming
Region/Province Plowing Planting Weeding Harvest Others Total
Est
Gourma
15% 
(23/151)
40% 
(61/151)
1% 
(1/151)
56% 
(85/151)
Tapoa 12% (9/73) 3% (2/73) 5% (4/73) 21% (15/45)
Kompienga 22% (10/45) 4% (2/45) 9% (4/45) 2% (1/45) 38% (17/45)
Total
16% 
(42/269)
24% 
(65/269)
3% 
(8/269)
1% 
(2/269)
43% 
(117/269)
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 30% (29/98) 10% (10/98) 5% (5/98) 2% (2/98) 47% (46/98)
Mouhoun 13% (11/85) 15% (13/85) 14% (12/85) 15% (13/85) 58% (49/85)
Kossi
31% 
(35/113) 3% (3/113)
26% 
(29/113) 6% (7/113)
65% 
(74/113)
Total
32% 
(75/296)
5% 
(16/296)
17% 
(51/296)
8% 
(25/296)
1% 
(2/296)
57% 
(169/296)
Total
21% 
(117/565)
14% 
(81/565)
10% 
(59/565)
4% 
(25/565)
1% 
(4/565)
51% 
(286/565)
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 67 of 70
Table 29: Summary of focus group responses related to major needs
Province Elderly Women Young Women Ederly Men Young Men
Kompienga - improved seed
- agricultural material
- fertilizer
- space to produce
- capacity building
- follow-up support for producers
- improved seed
- inputs
- post harvest equipment (blower, 
sieve, tarpaulins)
- fixing of the price as for cotton
- access to more production space
- warehouse
- improved seed
- agricultural material
- agricultural inputs
- fertilizers and organic fertilizers
- quality seed
- agricultural material
- good quality seed
- agricultural equipment (plow, 
cart)
- work animals
Gourma - improved seed
- inputs
- post harvest equipment (blower, 
sieve, tarpaulins)
- fixing of the price as for cotton
- training on technical itineraries
- agricultural equipment (plow, 
cart, rack) and draft animals
- fertilizer
- improved seed
- if possible, tractor for groups
- access to affordable inputs
- contracting the sale of sesame 
through a price fixing mechanism
- training on production 
techniques
- post harvest equipment (blower, 
sieve, tarpaulin)
-quality seed and adapted to the 
zone
- access to affordable inputs
- contracting the sale of sesame 
through a price fixing mechanism;
- training on production 
techniques
- post-harvest equipment 
(snowblower, sieve, tarpaulin)
- seed of quality and adapted to 
the zone
Banwa - fertilizer
- pesticides adapted to sesame
- lower cost access to improved 
seed
- production equipment (plows)
- access to credit for local 
processing of sesame
- support to live during the 
production period
- post-harvest equipment 
(tarpaulins, sieves, cisterns)
- access to semen and pesticides
- post-harvest equipment
- harvest (bache, sieve)
- food support during the 
production period
- work animals
- access to affordable inputs 
(fertilizers, seeds)
- access to agricultural equipment 
(plows)
- water management
- harvesting equipment (cows)
- access to agricultural inputs
- access to quality pesticides
- draft animals
- agricultural machinery (tractor 
plows)
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 68 of 70
Kossi - agricultural equipment (plows, 
carts, manga hoes, sickles, 
sprayers, wheelbarrows);
- improved seeds of sesame S42);
- fertilizers (NPK fertilizer);
- pesticides;
- draft animals
- capacity building on sesame 
production techniques
- Sesame Price Information 
System
- access to financing;
- agricultural equipment (plows, 
donkey carts, tarpaulins, sickles, 
wheelbarrows)
- work animals
- improved seeds
- fertilizer
- pesticides
- membership training
- agricultural equipment (plows, 
carts, tarpaulins, radiators, 
sprayers)
- improved seeds of sesame
- fertilizers (NPK and Urea 
fertilizers)
- pesticides
- training on production routes
- training of members
- increase in cultivated areas
- manpower
- cow carts, carts, manga hoes, 
sprayers, rakes, wheelbarrows, 
tarpaulins, rays
- improved seed, but not variety 
S42 because this variety does not 
succeed well and causes a lot of 
expenses and interviews
- access to fertilizers and 
pesticides
- strengthening the capacity of 
groups and producers of sesame;
- access to finance
- information on the sesame 
sector and its price at the national 
level
- technical advice and support
Mouhoun - production equipment
- pesticides
- improved seed
- harvesting equipment
- plow
- improved seed
- pesticides and fertilizers
- quality seed
- technical training
- fertilizers and organic fertilizers
- harvesting equipment (blowers, 
tarpaulins)
- fertilizers, seeds, trainings on 
the technical routes of production 
of the sesame
- draft animals to increase the 
area.
- harvesting equipment (blowers, 
tarpaulins)
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 69 of 70
Table 30: Perception of sesame’s contribution to current livelihoods (frequency of response)
Region/ Province
Male Female
Minimal Adequate Significant No 
change
Total 
Male Minimal Adequate Significant No 
change
Total 
Female
Est
Gourma 26 13 50 89 25 9 26 1 61
Tapoa 5 9 35 1 50 4 4 14 22
Kompienga 1 14 12 27 5 13 18
Total 32 36 97 1 168 29 18 53 1 101
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 8 50 8 3 69 5 11 6 4 27
Mouhoun 7 15 50 72 7 5 1 13
Kossi 5 37 50 1 93 8 9 19
Total 20 102 108 4 234 5 26 20 5 59
Total responses 52 138 205 5 402 34 44 73 6 160
% based on total 
responses 13% 34% 51% 1% 100% 21% 28% 46% 4% 98%
LWR SESAME Project Baseline Study Report Page 70 of 70
Table 31: Perception of sesame’s contribution to livelihoods over the medium-term
Region/Province
Male Female
Minimal Adequate Significant No 
change
Total 
Male Minimal Adequate Significant No 
change
Total 
Female
Est
Gourma 6 4 78 2 90 5 4 49 3 61
Tapoa 2 10 37 1 50 5 16 1 22
Kompienga 27 27 18 18
Total 8 14 142 3 167 5 9 83 4 101
Boucle du Mouhoun
Banwa 1 12 58 71 1 5 20 26
Mouhoun 6 66 72 2 11 13
Kossi 1 26 63 3 93 2 3 14 19
Total 2 44 187 3 236 3 10 45 58
Total 10 58 329 6 403 8 19 128 4 159
% percentage 
based on totals 2% 14% 82% 1% 100% 5% 12% 81% 3% 100%