TechnoServe Prosper Cashew Project
Baseline Report
Photo credit: TechnoServe Inc. (www.technoserve.org); published March 2021
Presented to TechnoServe Inc.
Submitted by Advisem Services Inc.
August 25, 2021
TechnoServe Prosper Cashew Project
Baseline Report
Program: Food for Progress
Agreement Number: FCC-624-2020.005-00-A 
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Project Duration: 2020 to 2025 (5 years)
Implemented by: TechnoServe Inc.
Evaluation Authored by: Advisem Services Inc.
Louis-Pierre Michaud, Co-Team Leader
Julie Helson, Co-Team Leader and Quantitative Method Specialist
Hussein Faruqye Aly, Qualitative Method Specialist
Ashak Sheriff, African Cashew Processing Expert
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
i
Table of Contents
Abbreviations, Acronyms and Symbols......................................................................................................... v
Executive Summary (English)...................................................................................................................... vii
Executive Summary (French) ....................................................................................................................... xi
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Background and Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Description and Geographic Scope.............................................................................. 2
2.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Study ....................................................................................... 4
3. Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Study Framework and Overall Approach ................................................................................. 4
3.2 Data Collection Methods.......................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Sampling Strategy..................................................................................................................... 8
3.3.1 Quantitative Sampling Strategy ...................................................................................................8
3.3.2 Qualitative Sampling Strategy......................................................................................................9
3.4 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 11
3.5 Challenges, Issues, Limitations, and Potential Sources of Biases...........................................12
3.6 Ethics ...................................................................................................................................... 14
4. Study Findings................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 Key Performance Indicator Results........................................................................................ 17
4.1.1 General Demographics of Processor Survey Respondents........................................................17
4.1.2 Overall Production and Processing Levels.................................................................................19
4.1.3 Sales and Profitability ................................................................................................................21
4.1.4 Jobs and Participation................................................................................................................31
4.1.5 Improved Practices....................................................................................................................34
4.1.6 Export of Cashew Products........................................................................................................38
4.1.7 Trade Conferences/Missions and Purchase Contracts ..............................................................43
4.1.8 Certification ...............................................................................................................................44
4.1.9 Financing....................................................................................................................................47
4.1.10 Public-Private Partnerships........................................................................................................50
4.2 Key Study Questions............................................................................................................... 52
4.2.1 Relevance, Adequacy of Design, and Coherence.......................................................................52
4.2.1.1 Study Question 1.1 ....................................................................................................52
4.2.1.2 Study Question 1.2 ....................................................................................................57
4.2.1.3 Study Question 1.3 ....................................................................................................58
4.2.1.4 Study Question 1.4 ....................................................................................................59
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
Table of Contents (continued)
ii
4.2.1.5 Study Question 1.5 ....................................................................................................61
4.2.1.6 Study Question 1.6 ....................................................................................................63
4.2.1.7 Study Question 1.7 ....................................................................................................65
4.2.1.8 Study Question 1.8 ....................................................................................................67
4.2.1.9 Study Question 1.9 ....................................................................................................68
4.2.2 Effectiveness..............................................................................................................................69
4.2.2.1 Study Question 2.2 ....................................................................................................69
4.2.3 Efficiency and Value for Money .................................................................................................70
4.2.3.1 Study Question 3.2 ....................................................................................................70
4.2.4 Sustainability..............................................................................................................................71
4.2.4.1 Study Question 4.1 ....................................................................................................72
4.2.4.2 Study Question 4.2 ....................................................................................................72
4.2.4.3 Study Question 4.3 ....................................................................................................72
4.3 Learning Questions................................................................................................................. 73
4.3.1 Learning Question 5.1................................................................................................................73
4.3.2 Learning Question 5.2................................................................................................................73
4.3.3 Learning Question 5.3................................................................................................................74
4.3.4 Learning Question 5.4................................................................................................................74
4.3.5 Other Learning Questions..........................................................................................................76
5. Lessons Learned, and Monitoring and Evaluation Considerations .................................................. 78
6. Conclusions (Challenges and Opportunities).................................................................................... 80
7. Suggestions for Consideration to Improve Program Design and Implementation ..........................82
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: 2019 Production and Processing Percentages by Country/Region .............................................16
Figure 2: Percentage of Companies Agreeing that a Lack of Factory Processing Skills is Reducing 
their Competitiveness (n = 22) .................................................................................................... 35
Figure 3: Percentage of Companies Agreeing that a Lack of Business Skills is Reducing their 
Competitiveness (n = 22)............................................................................................................. 36
Figure 4: Average Organizational Capacity Score, by Country, Processor Size, and Type..........................38
Figure 5: Total Number of 2020 Export Countries Mentioned, by Processor Country, Processor Size, 
and Processor Type ..................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 6: Total Number of 2020 Export Clients/Trade Partners Mentioned, by Processor Country, 
Processor Size, and Processor Type............................................................................................. 40
Figure 7: Percentage of Active Processors Reporting to Have One or More Certifications.......................45
Figure 8: Sources of Capital for Processor Start-Up.................................................................................... 48
Figure 9: Average Percentage of Males and Females in Various Employment Types in Cashew 
Processing Companies................................................................................................................. 60
Figure 10: Percentage of Processors Who Believe Child Labor is an Issue in the Cashew Value 
Chain, by Country ........................................................................................................................ 77
List of Tables
Table 1: Indicator List (Outcome and Output), if a Baseline was Required and the Method of 
Data Collection .............................................................................................................................. 4
Table 2: General Sample for Processors....................................................................................................... 8
Table 3: Number of Interviews/Focus Groups Conducted by Country and Stakeholder Type.....................9
Table 4: Interviews Conducted with Processors......................................................................................... 10
Table 5: Roundtable Participants................................................................................................................ 11
Table 6: Estimated Cashew Production in 2019 and 2020, as well as RCN Exports for West African 
Cashew Producing Countries....................................................................................................... 16
Table 7: Cashew By-Products and their Uses.............................................................................................. 17
Table 8: Processor Survey Respondents by Status, Country, Processor Size, Processor Type, 
Sex of proprietor, and Age of Proprietor..................................................................................... 18
Table 9: Cashew Products Company's Reported Processing and Selling.................................................... 18
Table 10: Baseline Values for the Indicator Percentage of Domestic RCN Production Processed.............19
Table 11: Estimated Percentage of Nationally Produced RCN Processed within Prosper Cashew 
Target Countries and Other West African Countries .................................................................. 20
Table 12: Baseline Values for the Indicators Related to Sales (Monetary and Volume) and Profitability .21
Table 13: Overall and Country Multiplication Factors for Volume Extrapolations.....................................22
Table 14: Volume of Commodities Sold, by Type of Commodity, Country, and Processor Type 
(Indicator #3) ............................................................................................................................... 23
Table 15: Volume (Number and Extrapolation) of Kernel Produced (MT), by Country, Processor 
Size, and Type (Indicator #8) ....................................................................................................... 24
Table 16: Overall and Country Multiplication Factors for Extrapolation.................................................... 25
Table 17: Currency Conversion Rates......................................................................................................... 25
Table 18: Sales (Number and Extrapolation) of Kernel and all Products (USD), by Country, Processor 
Size, Processor Type, Age and Sex of Proprietor (Indicator #2) .................................................. 25
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
List of Tables (continued)
iv
Table 19: Sales in USD by Type of Cashew Product.................................................................................... 26
Table 20: Profit (Number and Extrapolation) of Cashew Product Sales (USD), by Country, Processor 
Size, Processor Type, Age and Sex of Proprietor (Indicator #10) ................................................27
Table 21: Sales in USD by Type of Cashew Product into Domestic, Regional, and International 
Markets (Indicator #13)............................................................................................................... 28
Table 22: Sales (Number) of Kernel (USD) into Domestic, Regional, and International Markets, by 
Country, Processor Size, and Processor Type (Indicator #13)..................................................... 28
Table 23: Average Processing Cost of Kernel (USD/kg), by Country, Processor Size and Type (Indicator #7)
..................................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 24: Baseline Values for the Indicators Related to Jobs, Indirect Beneficiaries, and 
Project Participation.................................................................................................................... 31
Table 25: Reported and Extrapolated Number of Employees, by Sex and Type of Employee...................31
Table 26: Average Household Size and Suggested Indirect Beneficiary Multiplier for Each of the 
Three Prosper Cashew Countries................................................................................................ 33
Table 27: Baseline Values for the Indicators Related to Improved Practices.............................................34
Table 28: Factory Skill Areas where Training is Most Required.................................................................. 35
Table 29: Business Skill Areas where Training is Most Required................................................................ 37
Table 30: Baseline Values for the Indicators Related to Export Markets and Clients’ Trade Partners.......38
Table 31: Import Growth between 2019 and 2020 .................................................................................... 41
Table 32: United States Cashew Kernel Imports in 2019 and 2020 and Percentage Change in Imports...41
Table 33: Change in Market Share for Various Regions/Countries between 2019 and 2020 from 
the Kernel Exporting Regions/Countries..................................................................................... 42
Table 34: Baseline Values for Indicators Related to Trade Conferences/Missions and 
Purchase Contracts ..................................................................................................................... 44
Table 35: Baseline Values for the Indicator Related to Certification.......................................................... 44
Table 36: Number and Percentage of Specific Certifications of Active Processors....................................44
Table 37: Priority Certifications Revealed by Active Processors................................................................. 46
Table 38: Average and Median Amount Invested by Capital Processors to Start Up their Company, 
by State and Size.......................................................................................................................... 47
Table 39: Sources of Working and Fixed Capital......................................................................................... 48
Table 40: Baseline Values for Indicators Related to Finance...................................................................... 49
Table 41: Number and Percentage of Processors Accessing Agricultural-Related Financing in the 
Last Year by Processor Size, Sex of Proprietor and Age of Proprietor ........................................49
Table 42: Baseline Values for the Indicator Related to Public-Private Partnerships..................................51
Table 43: African Cashew Sector Policies, both RCN and Processing Focused, as well as More 
General Policies that Could Promote Cashew Processing (2019 or Otherwise Indicated) .........57
Table 44: Processor Social Programs, by Country and Processor Size........................................................ 61
Table 45: Processors Who State Buying RCN from Different Groups......................................................... 65
Table 46: How Processors Tend to Purchase from the Producers or Producer Cooperatives...................66
Table 47: Risks Identified by Active Processors (n = 22)............................................................................. 75
Table 48: Processor’s Understanding of the Need for Controls to Look for Child Labor in the Supply Chain
..................................................................................................................................................... 76
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
v
Abbreviations, Acronyms and Symbols
ACA African Cashew Alliance
AFI Association of Food Industries
BRC British Retail Consortium
CCA Conseil du coton et de l'anacarde
CFAF African Financial Community Franc
CICC Consultative International Cashew Council
CITA Centre d'innovations et de technologies de l'anacarde
CNFA Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture
CNSL Cashew nutshell liquid
FDA United States Food and Drug Administration
FGD Focus group discussion
GIZ German Corporation for International Cooperation
HACCP Hazard analysis and critical control points
INPHB-ESA Higher School of Agronomy of the Polytechnic Institute Felix Houphouët-Boigny
ISO International Organization for Standardization
KII Key informant interview
KOR Kernel out-turn ratio
KPI Key performance indicator
L Litres
M&E Monitoring and evaluation
MFI Microfinance institution
MT Tons
NAFDAC National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control
NGO Non-governmental organization
OCA Organizational capacity assessment
PMP Performance monitoring plan
Prosper Cashew Promoting Opportunities for Cashew Processing in West Africa
RCN Raw cashew nut
SME Small and medium-sized enterprise
TAF Technical Assistance Facility
TNS TechnoServe Inc.
UK United Kingdom
USD United States Dollar
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
Abbreviations, Acronyms and Symbols (continued)
vi
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USG United States Government
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
vii
Executive Summary (English)
Promoting Opportunities for Cashew Processing in West Africa Project (Prosper Cashew) is a five-year,
USD 26 million initiative (2020 to 2025) implemented by TechnoServe Inc. (TNS) and funded by the 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Prosper Cashew project will promote investment 
for the West African cashew processing sector by strengthening cashew processing facilities across Côte 
d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria. The project complements other USDA investments and programs in West 
Africa to address market barriers, through technical assistance and financing solutions to improve 
cashew sector productivity, increase incomes, and create jobs. The overall goal of the project is that 50% 
of raw cashew nut (RCN) production is processed into kernels in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria. The 
specific objectives to achieve this goal include increased investment in local cashew processing, and 
increased processing capacity and capacity utilization. To achieve these objectives, the project has 
identified four main activities. TNS will develop a fund strategy that fills a demonstrated market gap, 
select a fund manager with a strong track record, and subsequently set up a Cashew Catalyst Fund that 
will provide access to long-term working capital. In parallel, a Match-Making Facility will be set up, 
identifying investment-ready companies (both new and existing) in cashew processing and related 
businesses, such as local equipment manufacturers, and connecting them to existing capital providers. 
The project will also strengthen and increase commercially viable cashew processing enterprises
through a Technical Assistance Facility (TAF), which will provide investees and beneficiaries of the 
financial activities with the necessary technical support to become strong industry players. Finally, the 
project will aim to link farmers, farmer groups, and farmer associations capacitated by other donor￾funded projects—including the USDA-funded PRO-Cashew project —directly to processors funded by 
Prosper Cashew, as well as supporting cashew processors to identify and successfully access new 
markets for their products.
The information in this baseline report is meant to guide TNS and its implementing partner, Initiative for 
Smallholder Finance (ISF Advisors), to understand the starting point against which progress achieved 
over time should be measured, using the performance monitoring plan. Out of the 24 indicators (at 
outcome and output levels), 10 require baseline data other than “zero” or “not applicable,” all of which 
used a processor survey tool to collect primary data or relied on secondary data. Additionally, data was 
collected for seven other indicators, to serve as benchmarks for future reporting.
The baseline report is the result of an extensive primary data collection and analysis that began in 
January 2021 and ended with the final data analyses and report writing in June 2021. Overall, a total of 
32 processors undertook the survey and 23 were interviewed, in addition to 48 other stakeholders 
interviewed and three roundtables/focus group discussions (FGDs) conducted. The overall study 
framework consists of an adequacy assessment, which importantly requires no control group as Prosper 
Cashew intends to work with all relevant stakeholders in the three focus countries, and allows 
quantitative results to be compared with set criteria (e.g., indicator targets) over time. The study also 
focused very significantly on qualitative data collection to demonstrate the future link between the 
project’s assistance and its results. Several limitations of the study included: reluctance of processors 
and other stakeholders to participate in the baseline; reluctance of processors to provide processing and 
business data; the necessity of extrapolations as not all processors could be surveyed; no control group 
as TNS plans to work with all processors; and the COVID-19 pandemic that undoubtedly affected all 
processors to some degree or another.
Secondary data (N’Kalo 2021) revealed that for the 2020 season, 8.2% (Côte d’Ivoire: 7.9%, Ghana: 9.5%, 
Nigeria: 8.8%) of domestic RCN production was processed into kernel prior to export. Overall, surveyed
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
Executive Summary (English) (continued)
viii
processors reported processing 6,478 MT of kernel, which when extrapolated leads to 25,110 MT of 
kernel. Subsequently, 5,906 MT of kernel, (extrapolated: 22,893 MT) was reportedly sold. For other 
cashew commodities, 7,798 MT of RCN, 1,161 L of cashew juice, 480 L of CNSL, 185.2 MT of charcoal, 
and 16 MT of waste were reported as sold, although each by five or fewer processors. Côte d’Ivoire sold 
the highest volume of kernel followed by Nigeria, while larger processors sold a greater volume than 
smaller processors. Processors from Nigeria reported selling the highest amount of RCN and CNSL, while 
those from Ghana reported selling the greatest volume of charcoal. Only processors from Côte d’Ivoire 
reported selling cashew juice and waste. In terms of kernel, 11.5% was sold in domestic market, 0.7% in 
the regional market, and the majority, at 87.8%, in the international market.
Survey results found that Côte d’Ivoire sold the greatest monetary amount of kernel, closely followed by 
Nigeria. However, in terms of total product sales, Nigeria sold the greatest amount, driven by one large 
multinational that also sold significant quantities of RCN. In contrast, Ghana sold lower amounts, 
especially in terms of kernel sales. A total of USD 27,172,534 in kernel was reportedly sold by 
processors, while USD 39,992,571 in total products was sold. Extrapolated values are USD 105,319,898 
and USD 155,224,638, respectively. Combined, processors in 2020 experienced negative actual income 
or profit (actual: USD -8,843,552, extrapolation: USD -34,324,803); however, results varied by individual 
processors. In Côte d’Ivoire, of the eight processors that appeared to provide accurate profit data, six 
reported negative actual income. In Ghana, although profit amounts were small, all processors reported 
positive actual income. In Nigeria, four of the five processors reported positive actual income values; 
however, one processor reported a very high negative value. Finally, a total of 13 processors were able 
to comment on the average processing cost of kernels, with the overall average being 3.85 USD per 
kilogram of kernels (768 USD/MT RCN) (Côte d’Ivoire: 3.17 USD/kg, Ghana: 6.79 USD/kg, Nigeria: 3.90 
USD/kg).
Currently, 2,260 (extrapolated: 9,356) part-time and full-time jobs (21+ days) were reported by 
processors, and a total of 3,130 (extrapolated: 12,958) jobs including casual labor. More females were 
employed than males; However, females were most commonly employed in manual labor and were also 
much more commonly reported as casual workers. The overall average organizational capacity score 
was 58.4% with processors in Nigeria (73.7%) having the highest average score, followed by processors 
in Côte d’Ivoire (63.1%), and processors in Ghana who had a significantly lower average score (18.1%).
Of the 22 active processors, a total of 13 exported to various countries in 2020. These processors 
exported kernels to 21 unique countries (34 total country mentions) and CNSL to one country. Fourteen 
processors reported having a total of 65 clients in 2020, with Nigerian processors reporting the greatest 
number of clients followed by Côte d’Ivoire processors. Only five (22.7%1
) active processors reported 
attending or being represented (e.g., by means of collateral marketing material, brochures, samples) at 
one or several international or regional trade fairs or conferences and trade missions in 2019 or 2020. 
Four of these companies were from Côte d’Ivoire and one from Nigeria. Subsequently, only one of the 
five processors that participated in international or regional trade fairs or conferences and trade 
missions in 2019 or 2020 had a purchase contract result from this participation (this was a medium-sized 
processor from Côte d’Ivoire). Notably, three purchase contracts stemmed from their participation in 
three events in 2019.
1 Compared to 50.0% that said no, and 27.3% that chose the “No response” option.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
Executive Summary (English) (continued)
ix
Overall, 30.8% of active processors stated having some certification of industry and/or sustainability 
standards, with medium- and large-sized processors being more likely to report certification than small 
processors. Only seven (25%) of the 28 active and in-project processors reported receiving financing, 
with again large processors receiving financing more often than medium and small processors.
As a result of the data collection, a series of conclusions and recommendations were developed as 
follows:
Sharing of Documentation
There have been considerable efforts by the development sector to engage with the cashew value chain 
in West Africa in recent years, but a sense of limited returns for processors on their time (and often 
financial) investments. The majority of stakeholders consulted demonstrated interest in receiving 
feedback/insights on this study, and it is recommended that a version of the information contained in 
this baseline report is shared with all participating stakeholders.
Institutional Architecture and Regulatory Framework
While Côte d’Ivoire has a comprehensive institutional architecture and regulatory framework for the 
cashew value chain, including fiscal incentives for processors and protectionist measures on exports of 
RCN, Ghana and Nigeria are still in their early stages. The lack of a regulatory framework for processors 
in Ghana and Nigeria is an important challenge that will ultimately influence the project outcome and 
which Prosper Cashew is not directly addressing. We recommend that Prosper Cashew consider the 
feasibility of engaging with authorities and processors in supporting countries to mobilize processors 
and help strengthen their institutional presence to advocate for their interests. There is also an 
opportunity to operationalize this approach by closely working on strategies with PRO-Cashew, but the 
interests of producers, represented by PRO-Cashew, and processors, represented by Prosper Cashew, 
are not necessarily aligned. 
Regional Integration
Working towards harmonized regional policies would influence access to all-year supply, cost of doing 
business, access to financing and technical services, appropriate infrastructure to support growth, and 
capacity to meet quality standards. These are all areas that directly impact competitiveness and 
sustainability. 
Multiple Capacity Building Modalities
There are increasing numbers of modes for the delivery of capacity-building activities. Processor inputs 
received for this study stated that flexible continuous training, and training aligning theory and practice, 
would be the most relevant. In line with this, there are important technological resources available to 
develop good quality training materials for all processors, and even delivering some trainings virtually. 
For equipment/maintenance providers, TNS has developed an innovation hub in Cotonou, Benin, a 
facility where participants can use the physical space and technological resources to design, test and 
build required tools and parts. This could lead to the development of quality regional part suppliers for 
processors.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
Executive Summary (English) (continued)
x
Local Consumption/National market – Food Production
The India and Vietnam experience has shown that the expansion of the cashew sector includes not only 
continuous improvements in production and an increase in regional or domestic processing, but also the 
promotion of domestic consumption (kernels and by-products), as well as the expansion of secondary 
processing (roasting, seasoning, niche markets). For all three countries, there seems to be a growing 
national demand that could prove to be an interesting opportunity. A further interesting avenue is 
selling of cashew by-products for food production. 
Gender
As the employment data show, there is an important gender dimension to cashew processing around 
the world. In most factories, the vast majority of workers are women, and they are therefore the ones 
who are overwhelmingly exposed to health risks. The data also show that management and decision￾making tasks are almost exclusively performed by men. These inequalities highlight an opportunity for 
Prosper Cashew to promote gender transformation policies within processing itself, but also by 
supporting advocacy efforts to strengthen the role of women throughout the value chain.
Processor Eligibility for Participation
It was suggested that processor eligibility for funding/support would be based on processor size (>5,000 
MT), which would essentially exclude small processors that make up a large percentage of the 
processing units in the Prosper Cashew countries. We would recommend further investigation into 
working with not only medium- to large-sized processors, but also small-sized processors
Certification
The global demand for cashew kernels is on a sustained growth path, which creates new opportunities 
for numerous actors to enter the market. Adherence to traceability, sanitary, security, sustainability, and 
transparency standards are also increasingly important for consumers and retailers worldwide. The 
development of certified products in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria that respond to the worldwide 
demand for these, is also an opportunity to capture the premium pricing for these products. 
Ultimate Outcome
Prosper Cashew is targeting a significant increase in domestic processing with a goal of 50% of 2020 
production. Barring some of the additional opportunities highlighted in this report, the project is well 
designed to support processors towards this ambitious goal, but the feasibility of reaching 50% in five 
years is unlikely, given the wide range of challenges faced by West African processors. This includes not 
only the financial and technical challenges addressed by the project, but all the other challenges 
presented in this report that are tied to both the long-term profitability of existing processors, and the 
sustainability of interventions launched by Prosper Cashew. 
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
xi
Executive Summary (French)
Le projet de promotion des opportunités de transformation de la noix de cajou en Afrique de l'Ouest 
(Prosper Cashew) est une initiative sur cinq années de 26 millions de dollars US (2020 à 2025) mise en 
œuvre par TechnoServe Inc. (TNS) et financée par le Ministère de l'Agriculture des États-Unis (USDA). Le 
projet Prosper Cashew favorisera les investissements dans le secteur de la transformation de la noix de 
cajou en Afrique de l'Ouest en renforçant les installations de transformation de la noix de cajou en Côte 
d'Ivoire, au Ghana et au Nigeria. Le projet se veut un complément d'autres investissements et 
programmes de l'USDA en Afrique de l'Ouest pour s'attaquer aux barrières du marché, par le biais d'une 
assistance technique et de solutions de financement visant à améliorer la productivité du secteur de la 
noix de cajou, à augmenter les revenus et à créer des emplois. L'objectif global du projet est que 50% de 
la production de noix de cajou brute (NCB) soit transformée en amandes en Côte d'Ivoire, au Ghana et 
au Nigeria. Les objectifs spécifiques pour atteindre ce but comprennent l'augmentation des 
investissements dans la transformation locale de la noix de cajou, et l'augmentation de la capacité de 
transformation et de l'utilisation des capacités. Pour atteindre ces objectifs, le projet a identifié quatre 
activités principales. TNS développera une stratégie de fonds qui comblera une lacune démontrée du 
marché, sélectionnera un gestionnaire de fonds avec de solides antécédents, et mettra ensuite en place 
un Cashew Catalyst Fund qui donnera accès à des fonds de roulement à long terme. Parallèlement, un 
mécanisme de rapprochement sera mis en place pour identifier les entreprises prêtes à investir 
(nouvelles et existantes) dans la transformation de la noix de cajou et les activités connexes, telles que 
les fabricants d'équipements locaux, et les mettre en relation avec les fournisseurs de capitaux existants. 
Le projet renforcera également et augmentera le nombre d'entreprises de transformation de la noix de 
cajou commercialement viables grâce à un mécanisme d'assistance technique (TAF), qui fournira aux 
entreprises bénéficiaires de Proposer Cashew le soutien technique nécessaire pour devenir des acteurs 
solides du secteur. Enfin, le projet visera à relier les agriculteurs, les groupes d'agriculteurs et les 
associations d'agriculteurs soutenus par d'autres projets financés par des donateurs - y compris le projet 
PRO-Cashew financé par l'USDA - directement aux transformateurs financés par Prosper Cashew, ainsi 
qu'à aider les transformateurs de noix de cajou à identifier et à accéder avec succès à de nouveaux 
marchés pour leurs produits.
Les informations contenues dans ce rapport de ligne de base ont pour but de guider TNS et son 
partenaire d'exécution, Initiative for Smallholder Finance (ISF Advisors), afin de comprendre le point de 
départ par rapport auquel les progrès réalisés au fil du temps devraient être mesurés, en utilisant le 
cadre de mesure du rendement. Sur les 24 indicateurs (au niveau des résultats et des produits), 10 
requièrent des données de base autres que "zéro" ou "non applicable". Tous ces indicateurs ont reposé 
sur un sondage mené auprès des transformateurs pour collecter les données primaires ou se sont 
appuyés sur des données secondaires. En outre, des données ont été collectées pour sept autres 
indicateurs, afin de servir de repères pour les futurs rapports.
Le rapport de ligne de base est le résultat d'une vaste collecte et analyse de données primaires qui a 
commencé en janvier 2021 et s'est terminée par les analyses de données finales et la rédaction du 
rapport en mai 2021. Dans l'ensemble, un total de 32 transformateurs ont pris part au sondage et 23 ont 
été interrogés par entrevue, en plus de 48 autres parties prenantes interrogées et de trois tables 
rondes/discussions de groupe de discussion (FGD) organisées. Le cadre général de l'étude consiste en 
une évaluation non expérimentale, qui, fait important, ne nécessite pas de groupe de contrôle puisque 
Prosper Cashew a l'intention de travailler avec toutes les parties prenantes concernées dans les trois 
pays cibles, et permet de comparer les résultats quantitatifs à des critères définis (par exemple, les 
cibles des indicateurs) au fil du temps. L'étude s'est également concentrée de manière très significative 
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
Executive Summary (French) (continued)
xii
sur la collecte de données qualitatives afin de démontrer le lien futur entre l'assistance du projet et ses 
résultats. Parmi les limites de l'étude, on peut citer : la réticence des transformateurs et des autres 
parties prenantes à participer à l'étude de base ; la réticence des transformateurs à fournir des données 
sur le traitement de la NCB et des données financières ; la nécessité d'extrapolations car tous les 
transformateurs n'ont pas pu être interrogés ; l'absence de groupe de contrôle car TNS prévoit de 
travailler avec tous les transformateurs ; et la pandémie de COVID-19 qui a sans doute affecté tous les 
transformateurs à un degré ou à un autre.
Les données secondaires (N'Kalo 2021) ont révélé que pour la saison 2020, 8,2 % (Côte d'Ivoire : 7,9 %, 
Ghana : 9,5 %, Nigeria : 8,8 %) de la production nationale de NCB a été transformée en amandes avant 
d'être exportée. Dans l'ensemble, les transformateurs interrogés ont déclaré avoir transformé 6,478 MT 
d'amandes, ce qui, par extrapolation, donne 25,110 MT d'amandes. Par la suite, 5,906 MT d'amandes 
(extrapolation : 22,893 MT) ont été vendues. En ce qui concerne les autres produits de la noix de cajou, 
7,798 MT de NCB, 1 161 L de jus de cajou, 480 L de liquide de coques de noix de cajou (LCNC), 185,2 MT 
de charbon de bois et 16 MT de déchets ont été déclarés vendus, bien qu'ils aient été vendus par cinq 
transformateurs ou moins. La Côte d'Ivoire a vendu le plus grand volume d'amandes, suivie du Nigeria, 
tandis que les grandes entreprises de transformation ont vendu un plus grand volume que les petites. 
Les transformateurs du Nigeria ont déclaré avoir vendu la plus grande quantité de NCB et de LCNC, 
tandis que ceux du Ghana ont déclaré avoir vendu le plus grand volume de charbon de bois. Seuls les 
transformateurs de Côte d'Ivoire ont déclaré vendre du jus et des déchets de cajou. En termes 
d’amandes, 11,5% ont été vendus sur le marché intérieur, 0,7% sur le marché régional et la majorité, 
soit 87,8%, sur le marché international.
Les résultats du sondage ont montré que la Côte d'Ivoire a vendu la plus grande quantité monétaire 
d'amandes, suivie de près par le Nigeria. Cependant, en termes de ventes totales de produits, c'est le 
Nigeria qui a vendu la plus grande quantité, sous l'impulsion d'une grande multinationale qui a 
également vendu des quantités importantes de NCB. En revanche, le Ghana a vendu des quantités plus 
faibles, surtout en termes de ventes d’amandes. Au total, les transformateurs auraient vendu pour 27 
172 534 USD d'amandes, tandis que les produits totaux vendus s'élevaient à 39 992 571 USD. Les valeurs 
extrapolées sont respectivement de 105 319 898 USD et 155 224 638 USD. En 2020, les transformateurs 
ont enregistré un revenu ou un bénéfice réel négatif (réel : -8 843 552 USD, extrapolation : -34 324 803 
USD) ; toutefois, les résultats varient selon les transformateurs. En Côte d'Ivoire, sur les huit 
transformateurs qui semblaient fournir des données précises sur les bénéfices, six ont déclaré un revenu 
réel négatif. Au Ghana, bien que les montants des bénéfices soient faibles, tous les transformateurs ont 
déclaré un revenu réel positif. Au Nigeria, quatre des cinq transformateurs ont déclaré des valeurs de 
revenu réel positives ; cependant, un transformateur a déclaré une valeur négative très élevée. Enfin, 13 
transformateurs au total ont pu commenter le coût moyen de transformation des amandes, la moyenne 
générale étant de 3,85 USD par kilo d'amandes (768 USD/MT NCR) (Côte d'Ivoire : 3,17 USD/kg, Ghana : 
6,79 USD/kg, Nigeria : 3,90 USD/kg).
Actuellement, 2 260 (extrapolé : 9 356) emplois à temps partiel et à temps plein (21+ jours/mois) ont été 
déclarés par les transformateurs, et un total de 3 130 (extrapolé : 12 958) emplois incluant du travail 
occasionnel (saisonnier). Les femmes sont plus nombreuses dans l’industrie que les hommes, mais elles 
sont plus souvent employées à des travaux manuels et beaucoup plus souvent déclarées comme 
travailleuses occasionnelles. Le score moyen global de la capacité organisationnelle était de 58,4 %, les 
transformateurs du Nigeria (73,7 %) ayant le score moyen le plus élevé, suivis des transformateurs de 
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
Executive Summary (French) (continued)
xiii
Côte d'Ivoire (63,1 %) et des transformateurs du Ghana qui avaient un score moyen nettement inférieur 
(18,1 %).
Sur les 22 transformateurs actifs, 13 au total ont exporté vers divers pays en 2020. Ces transformateurs 
ont exporté des amandes vers 21 pays uniques (34 mentions de pays au total) et du LCNC vers un pays. 
Quatorze transformateurs ont déclaré avoir un total de 65 clients en 2020, les transformateurs nigérians 
ayant déclaré le plus grand nombre de clients, suivis des transformateurs de Côte d'Ivoire. Seuls cinq 
transformateurs actifs (22,7 %) ont déclaré avoir participé ou avoir été représentés (par exemple, au 
moyen de matériel de marketing, de brochures, d'échantillons) à un ou plusieurs salons ou conférences 
internationaux ou régionaux et à des missions commerciales en 2019 ou 2020. Quatre de ces entreprises 
étaient originaires de Côte d'Ivoire et une du Nigeria. Par la suite, un seul des cinq transformateurs 
ayant participé à des foires ou conférences et missions commerciales internationales ou régionales en 
2019 ou 2020 a vu un contrat d'achat résulter de cette participation (il s'agissait d'un transformateur de 
taille moyenne de Côte d'Ivoire). Notamment, trois contrats d'achat ont découlé de leur participation à 
trois événements en 2019.
Dans l'ensemble, 30,8 % des transformateurs actifs ont déclaré avoir une certaine certification des 
normes de l'industrie et/ou de durabilité, les transformateurs de taille moyenne et grande étant plus 
susceptibles de déclarer une certification que les petits transformateurs. Seuls sept (25 %) des 28 
transformateurs actifs et en projet ont déclaré recevoir un financement, les grands transformateurs 
recevant à nouveau plus souvent des financements que les moyens et les petits transformateurs.
Suite à la collecte de données, une série de conclusions et de recommandations ont été élaborées 
comme suit : 
Partage de la documentation
Le secteur du développement a déployé des efforts considérables pour s'engager dans la chaîne de 
valeur de la noix de cajou en Afrique de l'Ouest au cours des dernières années, mais les transformateurs 
ont le sentiment d'un retour limité sur leurs investissements en temps (et souvent en argent). La 
majorité des parties prenantes consultées ont manifesté leur intérêt à recevoir un retour 
d'information/des idées sur cette étude, et il est recommandé qu'une version des informations 
contenues dans ce rapport de ligne de base soit partagée avec toutes les parties prenantes.
Architecture institutionnelle et cadre réglementaire
Alors que la Côte d'Ivoire dispose d'une architecture institutionnelle et d'un cadre réglementaire 
complets pour la chaîne de valeur de la noix de cajou, y compris des incitations fiscales pour les 
transformateurs et des mesures protectionnistes sur les exportations de NCB, le Ghana et le Nigeria en 
sont encore à leurs débuts. L'absence d'un cadre réglementaire pour les transformateurs au Ghana et au 
Nigeria est un défi important qui influencera en fin de compte les résultats du projet et que Prosper 
Cashew n'aborde pas directement. Nous recommandons à Prosper Cashew d'envisager la possibilité de 
s'engager avec les autorités et les transformateurs afin de soutenir les pays dans la mobilisation des 
transformateurs et aider à renforcer leur présence institutionnelle pour défendre leurs intérêts. Il est 
également possible de rendre cette approche opérationnelle en travaillant étroitement sur les stratégies 
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
Executive Summary (French) (continued)
xiv
avec PRO-Cashew, mais les intérêts des producteurs, représentés par PRO-Cashew, et des 
transformateurs, représentés par Prosper Cashew, ne sont pas nécessairement alignés. 
Intégration régionale
Travailler à l'harmonisation des politiques régionales influencerait l'accès à un approvisionnement tout 
au long de l'année, le coût de revient, l'accès au financement et aux services techniques, une 
infrastructure appropriée pour soutenir la croissance et la capacité à respecter les normes de qualité. 
Tous ces domaines ont un impact direct sur la compétitivité et la durabilité.
Modalités multiples de renforcement des capacités
Il existe un nombre croissant de modes de prestation des activités de renforcement des capacités. Les 
informations transmises par les transformateurs pour cette étude ont indiqué que la formation continue 
flexible et la formation alignant la théorie et la pratique seraient les plus pertinentes. Dans cette 
optique, d'importantes ressources technologiques sont disponibles pour développer du matériel de 
formation de bonne qualité pour tous les transformateurs, et même pour dispenser certaines 
formations de manière virtuelle. Pour les fournisseurs d'équipement/de maintenance, TNS a développé 
un centre d'innovation à Cotonou, au Bénin, une installation où les participants peuvent utiliser l'espace 
physique et les ressources technologiques pour concevoir, tester et construire les outils et pièces 
nécessaires. Cela pourrait conduire au développement de fournisseurs régionaux de pièces de qualité 
pour les transformateurs.
Consommation locale/marché national - Production alimentaire
L'expérience de l'Inde et du Vietnam a montré que l'expansion du secteur de la noix de cajou comprend 
non seulement des améliorations continues de la production et une augmentation de la transformation 
régionale ou nationale, mais aussi la promotion de la consommation locale (amandes et sous-produits), 
ainsi que l'expansion de la transformation secondaire (torréfaction, assaisonnement, marchés de niche). 
Pour les trois pays de Prosper Cashew, il semble y avoir une demande nationale croissante qui pourrait 
s'avérer être une opportunité intéressante. Une autre piste intéressante est la vente des sous-produits 
de la noix de cajou pour la production alimentaire. 
Genre
Comme le montrent les données sur l'emploi, la transformation de la noix de cajou dans le monde 
comporte une importante dimension de genre. Dans la plupart des usines, la grande majorité des 
travailleurs sont des femmes, et ce sont donc elles qui sont majoritairement exposées aux risques 
sanitaires. Les données montrent également que les tâches de gestion et de décision sont presque
exclusivement effectuées par des hommes. Ces inégalités mettent en évidence une opportunité pour 
Prosper Cashew de promouvoir des politiques de transformation de genre au sein même de la 
transformation, mais aussi en soutenant les efforts de plaidoyer pour renforcer le rôle des femmes tout 
au long de la chaîne de valeur.
Admissibilité des transformateurs à la participation au projet
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
Executive Summary (French) (continued)
xv
Il a été suggéré que l'éligibilité des transformateurs au financement/soutien serait basée sur la taille du 
transformateur (>5,000 MT), ce qui exclurait essentiellement les petits transformateurs qui 
représentent un grand pourcentage des unités de transformation dans les pays de Prosper Cashew. 
Advisem recommande une étude plus approfondie pour travailler non seulement avec les 
transformateurs de taille moyenne à grande, mais aussi avec les transformateurs de petite taille.
Certification
La demande mondiale d'amandes de cajou est sur une trajectoire de croissance soutenue, ce qui crée de 
nouvelles opportunités pour de nombreux acteurs d'entrer sur le marché. Le respect des normes de 
traçabilité, d'hygiène, de sécurité, de durabilité et de transparence revêt également une importance 
croissante pour les consommateurs et les détaillants du monde entier. Le développement de produits 
certifiés en Côte d'Ivoire, au Ghana et au Nigeria, qui répondent à la demande mondiale pour ceux-ci,
est également une opportunité de profiter du potentiel de prix plus élevés pour ces produits. 
Résultat final
Prosper Cashew vise une augmentation significative de la transformation domestique avec un objectif 
de 50% de la production de 2020. En considérant certaines des opportunités supplémentaires 
soulignées dans ce rapport, le projet est bien conçu pour soutenir les transformateurs vers cet objectif 
ambitieux, mais la possibilité d'atteindre 50% en cinq ans est peu probable, étant donné les défis 
nombreux auxquels sont confrontés les transformateurs ouest-africains. Cela inclut non seulement les 
défis financiers et techniques abordés par le projet, mais aussi tous les autres défis présentés dans ce 
rapport qui sont liés à la fois à la rentabilité à long terme des transformateurs existants, et à la durabilité 
des interventions lancées par Prosper Cashew.

Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
1
1. Introduction
This report presents the baseline data for the Promoting Opportunities for Cashew Processing in West 
Africa Project, thereafter called “Prosper Cashew.” This five-year initiative (2020 to 2025), carried out by 
TechnoServe Inc. (TNS), will promote investment for the West African cashew processing sector by 
strengthening cashew processing facilities across Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria. The baseline report 
is the result of an extensive primary data collection and analysis that began in January 2021 and ended 
with the final data analyses and report writing in June 2021. Overall, a total of 32 processors undertook 
the survey and 23 were interviewed, in addition to 48 other stakeholders interviewed and three 
roundtables/focus group discussions (FGDs) conducted. TNS commissioned a Canadian consultant 
company, Advisem Services Inc. (Advisem for short) to undertake this task, and provided support 
throughout the process.
The information in this report is meant to guide TNS and its implementing partner, Initiative for 
Smallholder Finance (ISF Advisors), to understand the starting point against which progress should be 
measured, using the performance monitoring plan (PMP). Out of the 24 indicators (at outcome and 
output levels), 10 require baseline data other than “zero” or “not applicable,” all of which have used a 
processor survey tool to collect primary data. Additionally, data was collected for seven other indicators, 
to serve as benchmarks for future reporting, but by definition the indicator baseline is zero.2 All 
indicators are documented in Appendix 1,3 and each is discussed in the results section of the report.
On the whole, the tools administered have yielded a vast quantity of data, which aids in understanding 
the profiles, characteristics, challenges, opportunities, and opinions of processors and other 
stakeholders in the cashew value chain in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria. As such, this report can 
serve as a reference manual to guide TNS in the implementation and monitoring of activities, and to re￾evaluate project strategies and targets ultimately geared towards sustainably strengthening processing 
capacity and well-positioning the cashew sector in the three focus countries, to compete effectively on 
the global market.
The report is structured so that Sections 2 and 3 discuss the background, the purpose of the baseline 
study and the methodologies used. Section 4, the heart of the report, presents the results of the 
baseline—with subsections dealing with each of the different indicators, as well as addressing most of 
the relevant study and learning questions. Section 5 touches on lessons learned and monitoring and 
evaluation (M&E) considerations, and Section 6 on conclusions and recommendations, as well as 
industry challenges and opportunities. The appendices present all the indicator disaggregations, as well 
as all the tools used to collect data.
2 For example, for the indicators ‘Number of loans disbursed as a result of USDA assistance (Standard #7)’ and 
‘Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance (Standard #20)’, currently, at baseline, no loans or jobs can be 
attributed to USDA assistance, meaning that the indicator value is 0. But the study assessed the number of loans 
processors obtained over the last year and the number of jobs in cashew processing plants for comparison 
purposes. 3 Appendices are supplied in a separate document.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
2
2. Background and Purpose of the Study
2.1 Project Description and Geographic Scope
Currently, West Africa is the world’s leader in cashew production, accounting for more than 45%4 of the 
raw cashew nuts (RCN) harvested around the globe each year. The majority of RCN are exported to Asia, 
where they are processed into kernels before being shipped to consumer markets around the world. 
Importantly, less than 10% of RCN produced are processed within West Africa. This low level of domestic 
processing deprives West African countries of higher value-addition and jobs, and can translate into 
reduced and highly fluctuating prices for smallholder farmers and domestic processors.
TNS brings extensive project management capacity in Prosper Cashew’s three focus countries (Côte 
d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria), as well as a history of generating results in the cashew sector across sub￾Saharan Africa. To date, TNS has improved the incomes of more than 137,000 cashew farmers, 
increased the profitability of 45 medium-scale cashew processors, and created over 11,900 new jobs in 
eight countries across Africa.
Prosper Cashew is a five-year, USD 26 million project funded by the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA). TNS commenced the start-up phase of Prosper Cashew in October 2020, promoting 
investment for the West African cashew processing sector across Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria. The 
project complements other USDA investments and programs in West Africa to address market barriers,
through technical assistance and financing solutions to improve cashew sector productivity, increase 
incomes, and create jobs. The overall goal of the project is that 50% of RCN production is processed into 
kernels in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria. The specific objectives to achieve this goal include 
increased investment in local cashew processing, and increased processing capacity and capacity 
utilization. To achieve these objectives, the project has identified the following four main activities.
Activities 1 and 2: Financial Services
These activities will seek to unlock capital flow in the cashew sector. In partnership with ISF Advisors, 
TNS will develop a fund strategy that fills the demonstrated market gap, select a fund manager with a 
strong track record, and subsequently set up a Cashew Catalyst Fund that will provide access to long￾term working capital. The Cashew Catalyst Fund is also envisaged to allow some currently dormant 
processors to become operational and commercially sustainable. In parallel, a Match-Making Facility will 
be set up, identifying investment-ready companies (both new and existing) in cashew processing and 
related businesses, such as local equipment manufacturers, and connecting them to existing capital 
providers. This will be achieved through engaging national/subnational chambers of commerce, export 
promotion agencies, and industry associations to link promising businesses to providers of long-term 
financing in their region. Additionally, the project will coordinate with the African Cashew Alliance (ACA) 
and its investment promotion services to stimulate the creation of new cashew processing facilities, 
strengthen and modernize existing facilities, and support the expansion and professionalization of the 
broader cashew sector. 
Existing and new cashew businesses across the target countries will gain access to public and private 
resources as a result of their improved skills and knowledge gained under Activity 3, below, building 
confidence in their investment worthiness and helping them increase their use of financial services. All 
4 Source: <https://www.technoserve.org/our-work/projects/prosper-cashew-project/>.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
3
in all, financial services delivered by the project will address critical financing gaps that constrain the 
processing sector, while also reducing some of the risks that have to date stopped existing capital 
providers from investing in cashew processing businesses.
Activity 3: Technical Assistance Facility
The project will strengthen and increase commercially viable cashew processing enterprises through a 
Technical Assistance Facility (TAF), which will provide investees and beneficiaries of Activities 1 and 2 
with the necessary technical support to become strong industry players. This technical support will 
include training on aspects such as business planning, financial management, investment facilitation, 
human resource and workforce management, marketing, specific processing aspects, supply chain 
development, food safety management systems, traceability systems, environmental practices, and 
effective waste management. This support will help companies become strong and sustainable industry 
players, thus reducing risk for investor partners engaged through the Cashew Catalyst Fund and the 
Match-Making Facility. The capacity and knowledge gaps of each actor will be assessed and appropriate 
support provided. For example, Prosper Cashew will ensure that technical support explicitly includes 
modules for new processors, including business plan development, site selection, facility design, and 
equipment selection. Additionally, the project will build the capacity of selected training centers—such 
as Côte d’Ivoire's Conseil du coton et de l’anacarde (CCA), and the Centre d’innovations et de 
technologies de l’anacarde (CITA) in Yamoussoukro—to deliver curriculum for cashew processing 
operations and management, strengthen local processing equipment servicers or providers, help set up 
and support by-product processing, and assist the formation of supply chain management companies.
Activity 4: Buyer-Seller Relationships
The project will identify areas for collaboration with cashew farmer cooperatives/producer groups 
receiving support from other initiatives to strengthen local supply chains. In particular, the project will 
aim to link farmers, farmer groups, and farmer associations capacitated by other donor-funded 
projects—including the USDA-funded PRO-Cashew project (discussed later in the report; see description 
of goals in Box 1)—directly to processors funded by Prosper Cashew. The project will also support 
cashew processors to identify and successfully access new markets for their products by facilitating 
trade missions and participation in regional and international trade shows, and through coaching on 
best practices for deal-making and networking.
Box 1. The PRO-Cashew Project
A sister project to Prosper Cashew is PRO-Cashew, implemented by Cultivating New Frontiers in 
Agriculture (CNFA). This initiative is also funded by USDA, and it focuses on the production aspects, and the 
institutional and regulatory strengthening of the value chain.
PRO-Cashew’s main goals are:
• To increase the productivity and efficiency of actors in the cashew value chain through strengthening the 
capacities of cooperatives/producer organizations, nursery systems and input suppliers, and strengthening 
data collection and dissemination systems.
• To improve and expand the trade of cashew and cashew products through improving crop quality; 
rehabilitating and renovating orchards; addressing gaps in data collection, analysis and dissemination; 
strengthening public-private partnerships; and encouraging harmonized regional policies to supply products 
that meet market demands.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
4
2.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Study
This baseline study was commissioned by TNS to document the project’s key performance 
indicators (KPIs) that require baseline data, with a view to providing the means to assess progress 
achieved over time, using baseline data as a reference. Additionally, the study provides key supporting 
information on these KPIs and on learning questions (where possible), and develops study questions 
that follow the criteria outlined in USDA’s M&E documentation. Information gathered has helped to 
identify opportunities that Prosper Cashew can build upon and gaps that need to be addressed.
3. Methodology
3.1 Study Framework and Overall Approach
The overall study framework consists of an adequacy assessment,5 which requires no control group6 and 
allows quantitative results to be compared with set criteria (e.g., indicator targets) over time. The study 
has focused very significantly on qualitative data collection to demonstrate the future link between the 
project’s assistance and its results. Furthermore, sectoral data for all the countries of interest and other 
cashew processing countries, as well as macroeconomic data, has been used to substantiate and provide 
context to results.
The study matrix presented in Appendix 2 has guided and formed the basis of the baseline in terms of 
evaluation criteria and questions that were answered during the study. Indicator mapping revealed that 
all baseline indicators would be answered through a processor survey and through document review, 
using supporting information provided by these two methods. Advisem analyzed all indicators to 
determine which indicators would require the collection of baseline data (i.e., would be informed by 
relevant, non-null baseline information) (see list in Table 1).
Table 1: Indicator List (Outcome and Output), if a Baseline was Required and the Method of 
Data Collection
Level No. Indicators Baseline required (Y/N) Methods/tool
IMPACT/
GOAL
1 Percent of domestic RCN production processed into kernel 
prior to export (based on 2020 production figures)
Yes Document review 
(Survey)
OUTCOME 2 Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA 
assistance (Standard #18)
Yes Survey (document 
review)
3 Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving 
USDA assistance (Standard #19)
Yes Survey (document 
review)
4 Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance (Standard #20) Yes – Baseline jobs will be 
assessed
(0 “attributed” at baseline)
Survey
5 Adequacy assessment can provide attribution to questions of provision and utilization (whether the goals, set by 
program developers, were met) but not for impact. For impact, however, the method can provide an inference on 
whether the change in behavior is of the expected direction or magnitude. A quasi-experimental design (to assess 
impact) could not be used as there is no control group. 6 No control group is available as Prosper Cashew intends to work with all relevant stakeholders in the three focus 
countries.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
5
Level No. Indicators Baseline required (Y/N) Methods/tool
5 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have 
applied improved management practices or technologies with 
USDA assistance (Standard #4)
No – 0 “improved” at baseline Pre-/post-test
6 Number of organizations with increased performance with 
USDA assistance (Standard #12)
Yes Survey (document 
review)
7 Average processing cost per unit (USD/MT) of output for 
selected agricultural commodities as a result of USDA 
assistance
Yes Survey
8 Total volume of additional kernel output processed by USDA￾supported firms
Yes – Baseline kernel output 
needed for future comparison
(0 “additional” at baseline)
Survey
9 Value of new USG commitments and new public and private 
sector investment leveraged by USDA to support food 
security and nutrition (Standard #14)
No – 0 at baseline Project records (loan 
records)
10 Percentage increase in actual income of participating firms as 
a result of USDA support (profitability)
Yes – Baseline actual income 
required for future 
comparison
(0 “increase” at baseline)
Survey
11 Number of distinct markets to which selected agricultural 
products are exported
Yes Survey
12 Number of purchase contracts resulting from processor 
attendance at international trade fairs/conference and trade 
missions [note 1]
Yes – to have an indication of 
a starting point
0 – At baseline because not 
“project supported 
attendance”
Document review 
(records)
13 Value of cashew products sold into domestic, regional and 
international markets
Yes Survey (document 
review)
14 Number of new certifications of industry and/or sustainability 
standards (e.g., HACCP, BRC, SEDEX, organic) received as a 
result of USDA assistance
Yes – to have starting point
(0 “new” at baseline)
Survey
OUTPUTS 15 Number of individuals accessing agriculture-related financing 
as a result of USDA assistance (Standard #5) [note 2]
No – 0 at baseline
Consultants will assess the 
baseline situation to the 
degree possible [note 3]
Project records (loan 
records)
16 Number of loans disbursed as a result of USDA assistance 
(Standard #7)
No – 0 at baseline
Consultants will assess the 
baseline situation to the 
degree possible [note 3]
Project records (loan 
records)
17 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of 
USDA assistance (Standard #8)
No – 0 at baseline
Consultants will assess the 
baseline situation to the 
degree possible [note 3]
Project records (loan 
records)
18 Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of 
USDA assistance (Standard #13)
No – 0 at baseline Document review
19 Number of cashew sector entities that receive technical 
assistance as a result of USDA support
No – 0 at baseline Document review
20 Number of new clients/trade partners obtained as a result of 
USDA assistance
Yes – to have starting point
(0 “new” at baseline)
Survey
21 Number of firms attending or represented at 
international/regional trade shows
No – 0 at baseline
Consultants will provide a 
general assessment of 
participation in such shows at 
baseline.
Document review
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
6
Level No. Indicators Baseline required (Y/N) Methods/tool
22 Number of individuals who have received short-term 
agricultural sector productivity or food security training as a 
result of USDA assistance (Standard #21)
No – 0 at baseline Document review
23 Number of individuals participating in USDA food security 
programs (Standard #22)
No – 0 at baseline Document review
24 Number of individuals benefiting indirectly as a result of 
USDA assistance (Standard #23)
No – 0 at baseline
Consultants will assess via 
national statistics the average 
household size per country
Survey and document 
review
Notes:
1. A question was included in the survey to assess the current situation.
2. Questions were asked to understand the current financing situation of processors.
3. It must be noted that processors were reluctant to provide financial information.
3.2 Data Collection Methods
The methodology featured four lines of inquiry: a document and data review, a processor survey, key 
informant interviews (KIIs), and roundtables/FGDs.
Document and Data Review
An important step for the assignment was to examine thoroughly all documentation supplied by TNS. 
This included project descriptions, project documents and work plans, the evaluation plan, other 
relevant sources of information on Food for Progress interventions, and information from market 
associations. It also included key sectoral and macroeconomic data (e.g., ACA for West Africa; Global 
Cashew Council, N’Kalo) to substantiate and provide context for the data analysis at country, regional 
and international levels. It was also necessary to seek additional material from value-chain operators, 
public sector associations, partner non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and general information 
related to the cashew sector to gather the evidence needed to document indicators requiring data 
based on the desk review, to assess the current state of the cashew sector, and to answer key study 
questions. Additionally, secondary data was utilized to assess the context in Prosper Cashew countries, 
compared to other countries in the same region (e.g., Benin, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea￾Bissau, etc.7
) as the project has ambitious targets that will likely require TNS to work with almost all 
existing processors (with an installed capacity of at least 5,000 MT), equipment manufacturers, and 
other stakeholder businesses in the three target countries. This will help contribute to a clearer 
understanding of the achievements of the project at midterm and endline evaluation levels. Please see 
Appendix 3 for a list of the documents reviewed. 
Processor Survey 
Advisem used a cashew processor survey to gather quantitative data and a limited amount of qualitative 
data (e.g., through open-ended questions) from processors (see Appendix 4). Indicators from the results 
framework and PMP requesting first-hand quantitative information were firstly documented through 
7 It should be noted, however, that other USDA-supported projects are also working (or have worked) with 
processors in most African cashew-producing countries, thus somewhat reducing their ability to serve as 
comparisons. Advisem has looked at RCN production rates and processing rates per country regionally, and some
other countries globally at baseline, and will evaluate at midline and endline to assess progress towards processing 
goals established for Prosper Cashew, as well as examine potential influencing factors.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
7
the survey, and complemented through documentation and the qualitative data collection tools. The 
survey was designed to collect key procurement, processing, business, and management indicators at 
baseline to support performance monitoring.
Processor data was collected electronically using Kobo Toolbox and Enketo.8 Due to the busy schedule 
of processors, we provided them the survey via email and URL link. A short document explaining some 
of the more complicated data to be collected was also provided. When processors did not respond 
electronically, calls and/or onsite visits were made to aid the processors complete the survey. TNS also 
played a significant role in obtaining processor participation. Please see Appendix 5 for information that 
was supplied advising stakeholders of the pending baseline data collection.
The survey was piloted before the collection of baseline data, and data was continuously verified during 
the implementation of data collection (e.g., reviewing all uploaded questionnaires to ensure 
completeness and conduct data validity checks; as well as reviewing against qualitative notes). Further 
verification through follow-ups with processors was done during data analysis.
Key Informant Interviews
Qualitative data gathering was an important line of inquiry of this baseline study, particularly the KIIs. 
Interviews were typically held with a single representative of a stakeholder group, but in some cases 
other individuals from the same organization joined. Stakeholders included government/public 
stakeholders (research institutions, investment promotion services, chambers of commerce, relevant 
ministry representatives), market associations, service providers, finance institutions, capacity building 
providers (e.g., individual consultants and organizations providing technical assistance), cashew 
processors, TNS Prosper Cashew project staff and implementing partners (ISF), donors (e.g., USDA), 
private investors/capital groups, international buyers, and cashew producer, processing and exporting 
cooperatives. Particular attention was given to key stakeholders that have demonstrated innovative 
approaches in the cashew value chain. A total of nine semi-structured interview guides were developed 
for the KIIs (see Appendix 6), specifically for processors, finance institutions/providers,
government/public stakeholders, intermediaries/aggregators/exporters, international buyers, market 
associations, service providers, producer cooperatives, and TNS/ISF/USDA staff. Each interview took 
approximately one hour.
Roundtables/Focus Group Discussions
FGDs were held with representatives of multiple stakeholder groups in the form of roundtables. In all 
three countries, one roundtable conversation/FGD was held where producer cooperatives, processors, 
intermediaries, an international buyer, and a finance institution representative were invited to discuss 
the best ways to optimize relationships between value chain stakeholders. Please see Appendix 6 for the 
roundtable guide. Each roundtable took approximately one hour and thirty minutes and grouped five 
participants in Côte d’Ivoire, four in Ghana, and six in Nigeria.
8 KoBo Toolbox is an open-source tool for mobile data collection. It allows you to collect data in the field using 
mobile devices such as mobile phones or tablets, as well as computers using webforms. Enketo is an open-source 
web application that uses a popular open-source webform format. Surveys were self-administrated by processors
who were sent a URL link to the Enketo webform. Significant follow-up was done by the Advisem consultants (no 
training necessary as main consultants implemented this) when any inconsistency was noted.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
8
3.3 Sampling Strategy
This section includes detailed information on the sampling methodology and the samples ultimately 
selected. Please see Appendix 7 for the fieldwork schedule. Based on the project information examined, 
the overall criteria applicable to the baseline study included the following: 
 Geographic location – In Côte d’Ivoire, most processing facilities are situated close to RCN 
production in Odienné, Korhogo, Bouaké, Kolia, with others based in Abidjan and San Pédro. 
Most of the processors also have offices in Abidjan, where senior management is based. The 
Brong-Ahafo region in Ghana is the largest producer of RCN in the country and home to one of 
two large processors, as well as several small-scale dormant processors, with others based in 
Tema. In Nigeria, Prosper Cashew will target processors in Kwara, Kogi, Oyo, and Osun. The 
sampling ensured that stakeholders were selected in each of the countries and in the majority 
of regions.
 Categories of beneficiaries – The sample provided adequate representation of stakeholders 
that will be influenced through the project, including all processors in the project zone, 
government and other individuals across the value chain, as well as key TNS and ISF personnel. 
These groups of individuals were reached through a combination of quantitative and 
qualitative methods.
The specific methods for determining the sample for each of the quantitative and qualitative methods 
applied are discussed below.
3.3.1 Quantitative Sampling Strategy
Using an online survey platform, attempts were made to undertake a census of the 899 existing 
processors (operational, dormant/defunct, and in-project stage) in Prosper Cashew’s countries (46 in 
Côte d’Ivoire, 16 in Ghana, 27 in Nigeria). The ability to conduct such a census relied heavily on TNS 
having up-to-date contact information for processors, and having engaged with these processors so they 
feel incentivized to undertake the survey. Overall, there were a total of 20 processors for whom valid 
contact information was never obtained. Notably, there were 20 processors that were non-operational 
(dormant or defunct) and 14 processors in the planning stage at the time of the survey, and although 
the survey had sections for these groups of processors, in-person visits were not done to ensure survey 
completion. In contrast, operational processors that did not successfully submit their data via the online 
survey were emailed/called numerous times to secure participation and were, in some cases, visited in 
person.10
Table 2: General Sample for Processors
9 This is based on a mapping TechnoServe conducted during project start-up that included processors of all sizes 
(not only the proposed project target size of at least 5,000 MT) and was based on available information at the 
time. As there is no centralized, public database of processors in the region, the list may not include all processors.
10 A total of 16 in-person visits were conducted, with 14 in Côte d’Ivoire, 2 in Nigeria, and 0 in Ghana.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
9
Description Population Population with valid 
contact information
Population that 
confirmed receipt
Sampled
Côte 
d’Ivoire
Ghana Nigeria Côte 
d’Ivoire
Ghana Nigeria Côte 
d’Ivoire
Ghana Nigeria Côte 
d’Ivoire
Ghana Nigeria
Large firms 
(10,000 MT+)
Operational 14 1 4 14 1 4 13 3 2 2
Dormant
Defunct 1 1
Planned 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 0
Unknown 4 3
Medium firms 
(5,000-
9,999 MT)
Operational 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 1
Dormant
Defunct 1 1
Planned 1 1 1
Unknown 2 1
Small firms 
(<4,999 MT)
Operational 7 8 5 7 8 5 6 6 3 6 4 4
Dormant 4 1 1 4 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1
Defunct 3 3 7 2
Planned 1 1 4 1 4 0 3
Unknown 1
Unknown
Operational 1 1
Dormant
Defunct
Planned 2 1
Unknown
Total 46 16 27 37 12 20 27 9 14 16 5 11
Overall, of the 46 operational processors and 24 non-operational processors for which up-to-date 
contact information was provided, a total of 22 and 10 respectively were surveyed. See Table 2 for the 
distribution by country, processor size, and operational status.
3.3.2 Qualitative Sampling Strategy
Qualitative sampling was purposeful.
11 To canvass the widest range of stakeholders and gather the 
richest of responses, the consulting team gave special attention to identifying, understanding, and 
documenting innovative approaches in the cashew value chain. Advisem conducted a total of 71 KIIs and 
three roundtables (see distribution in Table 3 and list of participants in Appendix 8), including 23 KIIs 
with processors across the three focus countries.
Table 3: Number of Interviews/Focus Groups Conducted by Country and Stakeholder Type
Côte d’Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Interna￾tional
Total 
number
Percentage
Processors 14 4 5 0 23 31.1%
11 Purposeful sampling refers to sampling a diverse range of stakeholders to get differing views. Sampling similar 
stakeholders means that response “saturation” is reached much more quickly in the qualitative work.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
10
Côte d’Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Interna￾tional
Total 
number
Percentage
Cooperatives 3 1 2 0 6 8.1%
Government/public institutions 3 3 4 1 11 14.9%
Market associations 2 2 2 1 7 9.5%
Equipment and service providers 2 1 0 1 4 5.4%
Finance institutions 2 1 2 0 5 6.8%
International buyers 0 0 0 2 2 2.7%
Intermediaries 1 1 1 0 3 4.1%
TNS/USDA/partner 0 0 0 10 10 13.5%
Roundtables 1 1 1 0 3 4.1%
Total 28 14 17 15 74 100.0%
Table 4 below shows the distribution of processors interviewed representing large, medium and small 
firms, operational, dormant, defunct, or planned firms, within all three countries. Although our initial 
sampling strategy was designed to cover the most diverse number of processors possible, due to limited 
availability of certain processors, we were able to conduct a total of 23 KIIs, out of a planned 29 KIIs. We 
are confident, however, that the interviews cover a sufficiently diverse pool of stakeholders.
A total of three roundtables were conducted with producer cooperatives, processors, and 
intermediaries (see Table 5 for details). Roundtable conversations discussed models on how to optimize 
partnerships between the value chain stakeholders. Roundtable participants were selected following the 
KIIs conducted with participants. Informants that seemed to have the most relevant experiences and 
inputs to contribute to a discussion on how to optimize relationships between stakeholders were invited 
to participate.
Table 4: Interviews Conducted with Processors
Description Côte d’Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Total
Large firms 
(10,000 MT+)
Operational 5 0 2 7
Dormant 0 0 0 0
Defunct 0 0 0 0
Planned 1 0 0 1
Total 6 0 2 8
Medium firms 
(5,000-9,999 MT)
Operational 3 0 2 5
Dormant 0 0 0 0
Defunct 0 0 0 0
Planned 0 0 0 0
Total 3 0 2 5
Small firms 
(<5,000 MT)
Operational 3 2 1 6
Dormant 1 1 1 3
Defunct 0 0 0 0
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
11
Description Côte d’Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Total
Planned 0 1 1
Total 4 4 2 10
Total 13 4 6 23
Table 5: Roundtable Participants
Stakeholders represented at roundtables
Nigeria (6 participants) Côte d’Ivoire (5 participants) Ghana (4 participants)
• Processors (3)
• Farmers’ cooperative (1)
• Finance institution (1)
• Cooperative (1)
• Processor (1)
• Equipment provider (1)
• International buyers (2)
• Intermediary (1)
• Processor (1)
• Finance institution (1)
• International buyer (1)
3.4 Data Analysis
Quantitative Analysis
Advisem’s consultants developed databases in Excel to store survey data and conduct analyses. Output 
tables and figures of means and proportions were created, as needed, to answer indicators and 
evaluation questions. Data was disaggregated by the various levels of disaggregation (e.g., country, 
processor size, processor type12, processor gender and age13, etc.), with the caveat that the margin of 
error of results obtained increases with each disaggregation level. The detailed data analysis plan for the 
quantitative indicators is found in Appendix 9.
Qualitative Analysis
The qualitative analysis of KIIs, roundtables/FGDs and documentary data complemented and deepened 
the statistical data of the surveys by explaining and elaborating on the quantitative evidence and 
relationships between variables, thereby enabling more robust answers to the key study and learning 
questions, as well as indicator values. Data generated through the KIIs and roundtables/FGDs was 
analyzed through a variation of the constant comparative triangulation approach, through which the 
analysis of each set of data was considered when reviewing the next. 
Concretely, this meant analyzing the information from the various consultations conducted in a 
systematic manner until information saturation was reached. For example, with regards to processors, 
the initial interviews would offer important new information, new information that would diminish as 
various processors interviews were analyzed. The collated information was than coded and analyzed.
12 Microenterprises employed <10 people in the previous 12 months, small enterprises employed 10-49 people, 
medium enterprises employed 50-249 individuals and large enterprises and corporations employed >250 
individuals.
13 Processor gender = Male (all male owners); Female (all female owners); Mixed (both male and female owners). 
Processor age = Over 30 years (all owners over 30 years); Less than 30 years (all owners under 30 years); Mixed 
(owners both over and under 30 years).
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
12
Information gathered across stakeholders (for instance, information on buying RCN from processors, 
intermediaries, and producers) was triangulated to ensure that the experience and suggestions of the 
various stakeholders was analyzed and featured in this study.
This allowed the evaluation team to identify and confirm patterns and highlight any inconsistencies. An 
analysis matrix was developed for the qualitative data from the KIIs and roundtables/FGDs, focused on 
the study and learning questions. Subsequently, qualitative and quantitative data was analyzed jointly
by the team to identify trends, counterfindings, risks, opportunities, and recommendations.
3.5 Challenges, Issues, Limitations, and Potential Sources of Biases
Advisem has identified the following challenges, issues, limitations, and potential sources of biases for 
this baseline study: 
 Reluctance of processors and other stakeholders to participate in baseline: Processors and 
other stakeholders were not always willing to participate in the survey or the KIIs 
(e.g., because of busy schedules, procuring RCN, survey fatigue as PRO-Cashew interviewed 
individuals at the end of 2020, individuals being approached by other projects in the design 
phase,14 ISF sending out a survey at the same time as the baseline data collection, and an 
overall lack of transparency and caution within this nascent and emerging sector). TNS 
explaining the Prosper Cashew project and the purpose of the baseline survey, introducing 
Advisem, and asking for their participation helped to increase buy-in. Advisem followed up 
with processors and other stakeholders numerous times through both email and phone calls, 
to encourage participation. Also, in April 2021, TNS requested and received approval from 
USDA for an extension of the submission of the baseline study until June 15, 2021 to allow 
processors to have extra time to complete the processor survey. However, in the end, it was 
not possible to take a complete census of processors. Notably, results must be regarded with 
caution because of the relatively small sample sizes, especially when results are disaggregated.
When examining operational processors, a total of 47.8% responded to the survey (Côte
d’Ivoire: 45.8%, Ghana: 40.0%, Nigeria: 58.3%), with 70% (Côte d’Ivoire: 85.7%, Ghana: 50.0%,
Nigeria: 80.0%) of small-sized processors responding to the survey and 32.0% (Côte d’Ivoire: 
29.4%, Ghana: 0.0%, Nigeria: 42.9%) of medium- and large-sized processors responding to the 
survey (see Table 2 for numbers).
 Reluctance of processors to provide processing and business data: Some processors were not 
willing to provide detailed information relating to their processing operations (e.g., sales, 
volumes, employees, etc.) as this can be seen as a competitive risk in the cashew sector. 
Additionally, some processors felt that financial information was too sensitive to provide. 
Large-size processors were especially reluctant to provide data. For example, one large, 
multinational processor stated that they considered 95% of the requested information 
commercially sensitive. Although they did undertake the survey, they refused to answer a large 
majority of the questions. Notably, TNS has not yet worked with these processors, so 
confidence and trust are not yet strong at this point in time.15 Where possible, publicly 
14 Thus, have undertaken surveys, but have not seen results, when projects have not been funded. 15 TNS expects that once they start working intimately with these companies and build mutual trust, they will 
become privy to this type of information. They also anticipate using the processor survey with processors who 
refused or did not have time to complete the survey during the baseline. If processors provide significant 
information specifically for the 2020 season, baseline indicator values could potentially be re-calculated. However, 
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
13
available statistics have been used to augment values. As noted at inception, all financial 
indicators need to be assessed through monitoring by the fund manager.
 Only a high-level Theory of Change:16 Currently, Prosper Cashew is based on a results 
framework that was built upon the standard USDA Food for Progress results framework. It is 
mostly the choice of standard USDA indicators. As a result, it seems that one of the 
components of the Theory of Change – “Stakeholders have incentives to establish and 
maintain local supply chains” – has a limited number of indicators. 
 No control group available: Prosper Cashew’s target population is the entire processing 
industry in each of the three focus countries, thus limiting the availability of any control group 
for comparison. To manage this, Advisem used an adequacy design. Adequacy assessments 
require no control group, and quantitative results are compared with set criteria 
(e.g., indicator targets). 
 Extrapolations: The original plan was to undertake a census of all processors, particularly active 
processors. However, there were processors that did not respond to requests or that chose 
not to partake in the survey. As a result, extrapolations are done for some indicator values, 
involving volume of kernel sold, sales of kernel, and employee numbers. The best method was 
deemed to be utilizing the information obtained from the document review (i.e., N’Kalo) on 
how much RCN processors from each Prosper Cashew country processed during 2020, and 
dividing by the amount of RCN actually processed by processors answering the questions for 
an indicator, thus developing a multiplication factor. Both actual survey values and 
extrapolations are provided in the report. All extrapolated factors must be regarded with 
caution. For the disaggregations by country, differentiated multiplication factors can be used 
for extrapolation, but for other disaggregations the overall or total extrapolation factor must 
be utilized as no overall value or limit is available for these disaggregations (e.g., N’Kalo does 
not have report on the overall RCN processed by size of processors). It must also be noted that 
Prosper Cashew data collected during processor landscaping on installed capacity and utilized 
capacity is often different from that which processors provided in the survey, thus limiting the 
use of this processor landscaping data. Generally, processors provided lower installed capacity 
values in the survey, although some did provide higher values. Additionally, for Côte d’Ivoire
and Nigeria the processor landscaping utilized capacity (assumption 2020 data was provided) 
was respectively around two times and three times higher than the estimated national
processing values provided by N’Kalo.
 COVID-19 pandemic: The COVID-19 pandemic has restricted international and national travel. 
The international team members were only able to travel to Côte d’Ivoire. Restrictions on 
movement and in-person meetings tightened in Ghana the month before fieldwork, and 
Nigeria required a 10-day quarantine. Advisem national consultants helped to mitigate this. 
Furthermore, the pandemic has caused economic stress and shifted policy focus, which are 
issues the consultants actively pursued during data collection and analysis. Both quantitative 
if this occurs slightly later during program implementation these values may be more appropriate for year one of 
monitoring.
16 “IF cashew processing and other agri-enterprises in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Nigeria have better access to 
appropriate investment capital and technical expertise, AND stakeholders have incentives to establish and 
maintain local supply chains, THEN local processing capacity will increase, AND the competitiveness of the West 
African cashew processing industry will improve.”
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
14
and qualitative data collection provided actors an opportunity to comment on how COVID-19 
has affected them, so the Prosper Cashew project can recognize potential constraints and 
tailor its approach.
3.6 Ethics
For this baseline, the following ethical standards were maintained: 
 Data privacy and protection: The Advisem team will follow General Data Protection 
Regulation (GDPR) guidelines17 in the storage of documents and anonymization of any 
identifying information. All notes and data will be protected. No names will be used in data 
analysis or the report. All material will be transferred to TNS post evaluation. For the use of 
quotes in the report, only the country, role (if applicable), type of participant and gender of 
participant will be used. 
 Voluntary participation: Participation in all exercises was voluntary, and participants were
informed that their engagement with the Prosper Cashew project is not related to their 
participation in interviews or surveys. 
 Non-bribery: Advisem will ensure no bribery or unrelated incentives will be given to any 
participants in the study. Refreshments may be provided if necessary. 
 Collection of sensitive information: The information gathered will be used for the purposes of 
this study only. The raw data gathered will be presented to TNS at the end of the baseline. 
 Informed consent: Participants were requested for informed consent to participate at the 
beginning of the exercises and were given the opportunity to end the interview/survey and 
withhold their answers from the study up to two weeks after the conclusion of the exercise.
 Confidentiality/anonymity: The data gathered will be used internally for the purposes of this 
study and given to TNS at the end. For the purposes of this study, confidentiality and 
anonymity will be kept if the participating informant specifically requests for this. 
 Intrusion: Advisem’s role in this baseline is as an external, third-party independent evaluation 
partner, and as such it will not intrude in project design or implementation. Recommendations 
will be proposed and given to the Prosper Cashew project for consideration.
 Conflict of interest: As per the Foreign Agricultural Service M&E policy, all Advisem evaluation 
team members provided a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest, or 
disclosing any real or potential conflicts of interest.
17 Source: <https://gdpr-info.eu/>.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
15
4. Study Findings
General Background
According to the ACA in 2019,18 Africa accounted for 58% of global cashew production, but only 4.4% of 
global kernel processing. In contrast, Vietnam and India accounted for the lion’s share of global 
processed kernel, while interestingly it appears that Brazil is processing all the RCN that it produces (see 
Figure 1, below). However, as estimated at the start of the 2020 season, it appears that West African 
production saw a slight decline in 2020. The West African 2021 harvest is projected to be above that of 
2020; however, the East African harvest that finished in early 2021 was lower than forecasted, especially 
in Tanzania.19
An important part of the RCN produced in West Africa is traded through land borders between the 
producing countries. According to N'Kalo,20 most of this trade is unofficial, and little reliable data is
available about it, thus estimates tend to be made based on local trader's information and monitoring of 
the entire cashew season. This unofficial trade has changed a lot during the last decade, depending on 
political instability, public regulations and competing policies, domestic processing levels, and evolution 
of trader networks. Countries such as Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Mali, Guinea-Bissau, and 
Senegal have a net export RCN, while Benin, Togo, Guinea, Gambia, and especially Ghana have a net 
import of RCN from the previously mentioned countries. The export from Côte d’Ivoire is important 
considering the country has banned land export (see Table 6, below). However, as these land 
restrictions have limited resources to be enforceable, they create incentive for smuggling and informal 
trade. Notable for the 2021 season, with the resurgence of COVID-19, land borders were formally 
tightened. For example, in early 2021, increasing COVID-19 cases in Ghana meant the government 
stepping up measures to curb the spread of disease, and these include tightening of land borders 
limiting the formal import of RCN from Côte d’Ivoire.
21
18 African Cashew Alliance. 2019. Invest in Africa: Cashew. 19 Fitzpatrick, J. February 2021. AfricasheW450 – Cashew Market Outlook. 20 Nitidæ. June 2019. The West African Cashew Sector in 2018 – General Trends and Country Profiles. 21 N’Kalo. February 17, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
16
Figure 1: 2019 Production and Processing Percentages by Country/Region
Source: Derived from African Cashew Alliance. 2019. Invest in Africa: Cashew.
Table 6: Estimated Cashew Production in 2019 and 2020, as well as RCN Exports for West African 
Cashew Producing Countries
Country Estimated production in RCN RCN exports (March 2020 to February 2021)
2019 2020 India Vietnam To others (out 
of Africa)
Through land borders in Africa
Côte d’Ivoire 890,000 887,500 105,000 570,000 2,500 140,000 to Ghana
Nigeria 285,000 273,000 34,000 155,000 60,000 to Benin
Ghana 140,000 131,500 115,000 185,000 5,000 -186,000 from Côte d’Ivoire, Mali 
and Burkina
Benin 160,000 155,000 165,000 40,000 -60,000 from Nigeria
Togo 21,000 19,500 23,000 25,000 5,000 -37,500 from Mali and Burkina
Burkina Faso 115,000 100,500 22,000 30,000 35,000 to Togo/Ghana
Mali 60,000 56,500 3,000 2,000 1,000 50,000 to Togo, Ghana and
Gambia
Guinea 65,000 56,000 32,000 40,000 -16,500 from Côte d’Ivoire and 
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau 220,000 190,000 120,000 45,000 2,000 20,000 to Guinea and Gambia
Senegal 45,000 38,500 8,000 15,000 15,000 to Gambia
Gambia 18,000 11,500 23,000 8,000 -20,000 from Guinea-Bissau, 
Senegal and Mali
Total 2,019,000 1,919,500 650,000 1,115,000 15,500
Source: Data derived from N’Kalo. January 8, 2021.
Large industrial, medium-sized and small processing units should be differentiated, as they each have 
their own dynamics. Some reports suggest that a minimum processing capacity is required to be 
competitive, but this minimum capacity varies among studies from 1,500 MT to 5,000 MT a year or 
more. It should be noted that these larger units may indeed be more efficient, but they will deliver 
fewer jobs per MT of RCN and may have fewer multiplier effects in the local economy. Also, smaller 
44%
4% 5%
4%
9%
21%
13%
Production
West Africa Cambodia Indonesia Brazil
Vietnam India East Africa
49%
4.4%
4.8%
41%
Processing
India Africa Brazil Vietnam
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
17
units may not fully depend on kernel processing, but rather target specific market segments, such as 
local markets, and combine operations with other economic activities.22 Additionally, kernels are not the 
only product (for snack food and making confectioneries) that can be produced, allowing for companies 
to diversify (see Table 7).
Table 7: Cashew By-Products and their Uses
Product Description and uses
Cashew nutshell 
liquid (CNSL)
• Top by-product gotten from cashew nut processing because of its unique chemical 
properties 
• 30-35 % of the raw nut shell is the nut shell liquid 
• Main utilization of the CNSL is in the polymer sector, where it is the raw materials for brake 
production, varnishes and surface coating 
• Also, component in drugs, paper ink, textiles, and cosmetics
Cashew skin extract • Reddish-brown testa that covers the kernel and is rich in hydrolyzable tannis and 
polyphenols (e.g., cardol, anacardic acid and cardanol)
• Natural antioxidant, rich animal feed, useful resource in leather manufacturing industry
Cashew shell 
cake/outer shell
• Derived after the removal of the nutshell liquid
• Utilized as fuel – directly burnt as biomass or is used as feedstock for gasification or is 
converted into briquettes
• Directly used in cashew nut processing factories and in shell liquid extraction or energy can 
be sold 
• Reported that the calorific value is higher than sawdust
Cashew apple • Food production – jam, syrup, chutney, beverage and juice 
• Medicinal uses – treatment of scurvy, diarrhoea, pharyngitis and chronic dysentery
Other minor products • Cashew kernel oil, cashew kernel powder, cashew kernel butter and cashew kernel milk
Sources: Karthickumar, et al. 2014; Kehinde Ademola, A., et al. 2021.
4.1 Key Performance Indicator Results
4.1.1 General Demographics of Processor Survey Respondents
Table 8 below provides the general demographics of the sampled processors. In total 32 processors 
were sampled, 22 of which were active, 4 inactive, and 6 at in-project stage. Generally, quantitative 
results will revolve around information provided by active processors. In the case that inactive or in￾project processors are included in the analysis, these are specifically stated in the text. The largest 
number of processors were sampled in Côte d’Ivoire (16), followed by Nigeria (11) and Ghana (5). Also, 
many processors sampled (21) were small-sized (4,999 MT or less) (22 consider themselves small and 
medium-sized enterprise (SMEs23)), followed by large (7) (10,000 MT or more) and medium (4) (5,000 to 
9,999 MT) processors. Only one in-project processor is solely female-owned, and only one inactive 
processor is owned by individuals less than 30 years of age (see Table 8). Please note that one active 
processor did not provide the sex or age of owners.
22 Ton, et al. December 2018. Cashew Nut Processing in West Africa. Value Chain Analysis. Benin and Côte d’Ivoire. 23 Small enterprises employed 10-49 people, medium enterprises employed 50-249 individual.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
18
Table 8: Processor Survey Respondents by Status, Country, Processor Size, Processor Type, 
Sex of proprietor, and Age of Proprietor
Category Active Inactive In-project Total
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 11 2 3 16
Ghana 4 1 0 5
Nigeria 7 1 3 11
Processor size
Small 14 4 3 21
Medium 4 0 0 4
Large 4 0 3 7
Processor type
Large multinational 3 0 1 4
Large national 4 0 1 5
SME 15 3 4 22
Sex of proprietor
Female 0 0 1 1
Male 10 3 3 16
Mixed 11 1 2 14
Age of proprietor
Less than 30 years 0 1 0 1
More than 30 years 19 2 6 27
Mixed 2 1 0 3
Total 22 4 6 32
All processors are selling cashew kernels, while a limited number also sells cashew juice (2) and cashew 
nutshell liquid (CNSL) (2). Although many processors reported processing and selling RCN in some cases 
this was not being directly sold, but only processed. In the case of waste, companies were not tracking 
sales (see Table 9).
Table 9: Cashew Products Company's Reported Processing and Selling24
Category Reported Total Percentage
RCN 14 22 63.6%
Cashew kernels 22 22 100.0%
Cashew juice 2 22 9.1%
CNSL oil 2 22 9.1%
RCN shells for charcoal 5 22 22.7%
RCN for electricity generation 1 22 4.5%
Cashew waste (animal feed, fertilizer) 7 22 31.8%
Other(s) 3 22 13.6%
The average RCN kernel out-turn ratio (KOR) reported by processors in 2020 was 46.38, with similar 
values across the Prosper Cashew countries (Côte d’Ivoire: 46.11, Nigeria: 46.72, Ghana: 46.00). The 
24 Please note that some companies only processed RCN and did not sell RCN.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
19
average expected RCN KOR for the 2021 harvest is 47.37 (Côte d’Ivoire: 47.16, Nigeria: 47.86, Ghana: 
47.00). The approximate percentage of output kernel in grade WW320 for 2020 was 38.0% (Côte 
d’Ivoire: 33.0%, Nigeria: 45.5%, Ghana: 39.25%; Small-sized: 42.4%, Medium-sized: 34.8%, Large-sized: 
23.3%). A total of 54.5% of active processors (n = 22) expect to see a change in kernel outputs (grade 
WW320) in 2021 (13.6% no; 31.8% do not know). All those that expect to see a change stated that the 
WW320 percentage would be higher, owing to improved sourcing strength to procure greater amounts 
of higher-quality RCN and internal controls for 2021 (reduction in waste, fewer breakages, improved 
grading) being the most commonly reported reasons.
The majority of processors stated that they could provide processing statistics for the period of 
February 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021.
25 Other processors stated that they could respond from January 1, 
2020 to December 31, 2020. All values are used as provided, as processors will likely continue to 
respond using the same period at subsequent survey intervals, and one month’s variation should not 
make a difference. One processor did state that they would respond from January 1, 2019 to 
December 31, 2019, a result of their inactivity in 2020. Generally, this processor’s values have been 
removed from indicator analyses; however, where they are included, this will be indicated.
4.1.2 Overall Production and Processing Levels
Overall, in 2020, the Prosper Cashew countries reported production of 1,292,000 MT of RCN, and local 
processing units were estimated to process 106,600 MT of RCN,
26 resulting in 8.2% of domestic RCN 
production being processed into kernel. Côte d’Ivoire had significantly higher production and processing 
levels than either Ghana or Nigeria, but all processed similar percentages of their countries’ RCN 
production (Côte d’Ivoire: 7.9%, Ghana: 9.5%, and Nigeria: 8.8%) (see Table 10). In comparison to other 
West African cashew producing countries, only Togo (20.5%) and Burkina Faso (13.4%) reported 
processing more of their locally produced RCN (see Table 11). These percentages are best estimates, as 
other factors may influence results. For example, survey results revealed around 91% of kernels 
processed in 2020 were sold; furthermore, although less relevant to the actual indicator definition, 
processors may also sell locally rather than export.
Table 10: Baseline Values for the Indicator Percentage of Domestic RCN Production Processed27
Indicator Baseline value [note]
Indicator #1: Percent of domestic RCN 
production processed into kernel prior to 
export (based on 2020 production figures)
Côte d’Ivoire: 7.9%
Ghana: 9.5%
Nigeria: 8.8%
Total: 8.2%
25 The rationale behind the decision to default to an annual February to January period is to align with the start of 
the RCN harvest season, which does not usually start before February. On the processing side, the previous year’s 
harvest may continue to be processed into January of the new year. The factory usually only starts receiving the 
new year’s harvest as of February and this timeframe therefore allows to best monitor a full year of processing 
levels against a full year’s production (harvest) levels.
26 Based on secondary data from: N’Kalo. January 8, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin. 27 Please note that no other disaggregations except for country can be provided for Indicator 1. This indicator is 
derived from secondary data and secondary sources do not provide information on any other disaggregations. The 
consultants do not view extrapolation to be appropriate for this indicator and would recommend that the only 
disaggregation is country.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
20
Indicator Baseline value [note]
Note: Based on secondary data supplied by N’Kalo. January 8, 2021.
Table 11: Estimated Percentage of Nationally Produced RCN Processed within Prosper Cashew 
Target Countries and Other West African Countries
Country Estimated 
production in 
2020
Local processing Percentage 
processed
in RCN (MT) in RCN (MT) 
(kernel * 5)
Côte d’Ivoire 887,500 70,000 7.9%
Nigeria 273,000 24,000 8.8%
Ghana 131,500 12,500 9.5%
Benin 155,000 10,000 6.5%
Togo 19,500 4,000 20.5%
Burkina Faso 100,500 13,500 13.4%
Mali 56,500 500 0.9%
Guinea 56,000 500 0.9%
Guinea-Bissau 190,000 3,000 1.6%
Senegal 38,500 500 1.3%
Gambia 11,500 500 4.3%
Total (West Africa) 1,919,500 139,000 7.2%
Source: Based on N’Kalo. January 8, 2021.
N’Kalo estimates were similar to 
those from other sources. For 
example, ACA estimated in Côte 
d’Ivoire during the 2020 season that 
715,000 MT of RCN was exported, 
and domestic processors bought 
90,000-100,000 MT, some of which 
may have been exported as RCN 
eventually,
28 whereas Adegbite 
(2020) stated that Nigeria processors 
only processed an estimated 10% of 
the total RCN produced. Compared 
to the 2019 estimates reported by 
Prosper Cashew (Côte d’Ivoire: 6%, 
28 African Cashew Alliance. AfriCashewSplits Market Report. Week 4: January 25-31, 2021. N°1.
Box 2. Brazil – Cashew Season Summary
Brazil may be a prime country to which Prosper Cashew should 
look to gain important insights on improving the percentage of RCN 
processed in its target countries. Cashew Week reported that Brazil 
currently is estimated to process in-country 100% of its RCN 
production. In 2020, there was a small decrease in Brazilian RCN 
production, mainly due to the extension of the rainy season, which 
contributed to a delay in the beginning of the harvest in different 
regions. As a result, the RCN crop was 138,700 MT, which is similar 
to production levels in Ghana. In the last five years, there has been 
an increase in domestic consumption, with an estimated 55% of 
cashew kernels being exported (2020: 15,456 MT), while 45% are 
destined for the domestic market (2020: 14,200 MT). Of great 
importance is the fact that approximately 40% to 45% of the 
cashew kernel produced in Brazil is processed by small and 
medium-sized entrepreneurs.
Source: Vitor Oliveira. Instituto Caju, Brasil.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
21
Ghana: 10%, Nigeria: 16%)29, Côte d’Ivoire has slightly increased the percentage of RCN processed, 
Ghana remains almost the same, and Nigeria has somewhat decreased. 
The Prosper Cashew target of processing 50% of domestic production is based on the collective RCN 
production in 2020 of the three countries. Currently, according to Nitidæ, there is an upward trajectory 
in production: 2017 (965,000 MT), 2019 (1,260,000 MT), and 2020 (1,315,000 MT). However, Kehinde 
Ademola et al. (2021) reported that cashew production in Nigeria is on the decline, therefore, to scale 
up production, revitalization of old plantations and establishment of new plantations are recommended. 
Although the Ghanaian government is focused on increasing cashew production, some experts have 
raised concerns about increasing devotion to RCN production in Ghana’s breadbasket (as often 
agriculture focused on other crops related to food security in Ghana is replaced), seeing that the vast 
majority of RCNs produced in Ghana are destined for export.
4.1.3 Sales and Profitability
Table 12 presents the baseline values for the three indicators related to sales (monetary and volume) 
and profitability. All indicators have baseline values that have been extrapolated to provide an estimate 
of the baseline situation, and each will be discussed in detail below. Please note that indicator tables in 
the text will tend to focus on total values, while values for all disaggregations can be found in 
Appendix 1.
Table 12: Baseline Values for the Indicators Related to Sales (Monetary and Volume) and Profitability
Indicator Baseline value
Indicator #2: Value of annual sales of farms 
and firms receiving USDA assistance 
(Standard #18)
Kernel (actual): USD 27,172,533.71
Kernel (extrapolation): USD 105,319,898.10
All products (actual): USD 39,992,571.32
All products (extrapolation [note 1]): USD 155,224,638.10
Indicator #3: Volume of commodities sold by 
farms and firms receiving USDA assistance 
(Standard #19)
Kernel (actual): 5,906 MT
Kernel (extrapolation): 22,893 MT [note 2]
Indicator #7: Average processing cost per unit 
(USD/MT) of output for selected agricultural 
commodities as a result of USDA assistance
3.84 USD/kg kernel (actual)
768 USD/MT RCN (actual) [note 3]
Indicator #8: Total volume of additional kernel 
output processed by USDA-supported firms
Kernel (actual): 6,478.3 MT
Kernel (extrapolation): 25,110 MT [note 2]
Indicator #10: Percentage increase in actual 
income of participating firms as a result of 
USDA support (profitability)
Actual: USD -8,843,551.79
Extrapolation: USD -34,324,802.84
Indicator #13: Value of cashew products sold 
into domestic, regional and international 
markets
Kernel (actual):
Domestic: USD 3,129,104.70
Regional: USD 194,900.00
International: USD 23,847,560.51
Notes: 
1. This should be regarded with caution, as it includes all commodities, but extrapolation is based on kernel sales.
2. See extrapolation table below.
29 TechnoServe Inc. 2020. Food for Progress – West Africa Regional, Prosper Cashew USDA Proposal.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
22
Indicator Baseline value
3. MT RCN = kg kernels * 200.
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
In 2019, Prosper Cashew identified processing capacity30 to be 195,000 MT, 40,300 MT and 85,500 MT 
and utilized capacity to be 46,105 MT, 11,800 MT and 38,100 MT, in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria, 
respectively. This represents a total processing capacity of 320,800 MT, which would mean a processing 
level of 274,284 MT, assuming each plant has an optimal utilization rate of 85%. The 2019 utilization 
rate was estimated to be approximately 30%. This corresponds with estimates from other studies,31
suggesting that many processing units run at 20% to 30% of their technical processing capacity, some 
even at 10%. For 2020, the average utilization rate of surveyed processors was 37.8%, with results by 
processor size being fairly similar (small-sized: 36.9%, medium-sized: 41.2%, and large-sized: 37.3%). 
Nigerian processors reported having a higher average utilization capacity (48.4%) than either Côte 
d’Ivoire (33.2%) or Ghana (30.6%). The highest individual processor utilization capacity was 78%, while a 
couple of processors reported having utilization capacities of less than 5%. The utilization rate of 
installed processing capacity is often a good parameter for understanding the state of efficiency in an 
industry. In cashew nut processing, however, this may not be the case, as the parameter does not 
explain why low-performing processing units remain operational. Economically, it may be feasible for 
some companies in West Africa to only process part of the year, when they have access to RCN. In 
contrast, some larger units may continue processing to generate maximum revenue to sustain 
investments, generate cash flow, and repay loans, even if they must operate at a deficit.
Volume of Sales
All results of volumes of cashew kernels will have both the actual survey value and the extrapolated 
value. Extrapolations are based on dividing the total reported RCN processed by N’Kalo by the RCN 
processed by processors32 reporting kernels volumes sold. Extrapolations at the country level will be 
unique, but all other disaggregations will utilize the overall multiplication factor (as there are no total 
estimates of RCN processed by processor size or type) (see Table 13). In addition, please note that it is 
not possible to extrapolate other commodities as we do not know overall amounts sold.
Table 13: Overall and Country Multiplication Factors for Volume Extrapolations
Country Multiplication 
factor
Côte d’Ivoire 3.75
Nigeria 2.92
30 As mentioned in the Prosper Cashew project proposal, it is important to note that installed processing capacity 
figures, although widely relied on, are often misleading, with no generally accepted standard of calculation. 
Reasons include the fact that a) factories that are too small—less than 3,000 MT—are unlikely to survive and 
typically cannot be upgraded at a reasonable cost; b) plants are often incentivized to overstate their installed 
capacity, for example to secure project financing; c) factories may lack all of the necessary equipment or physical 
plants to execute at reported capacity; and d) the operational capacity is an estimate by the equipment supplier, 
and is overstated (e.g., assumes operations 24 hours a day, 365 days a year). 31 Ton, et al. December 2018. 32 This may or may not include locally sold nuts. Also, N’Kalo may report processor-processed RCN as a function of 
exported kernel.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
23
Country Multiplication 
factor
Ghana 20.60
Overall 3.88
Overall, survey processors reported selling 5,906 MT of kernel, which when extrapolated leads to 
22,893 MT of kernel. Additionally, values were reported for other cashew commodities, but each by five 
or fewer processors, including 7,798 MT of RCN sold, 1,161 L of cashew juice, 480 L of CNSL, 185.22 MT 
of charcoal, and 16 MT of waste. Côte d’Ivoire sold the highest volume of kernel followed by Nigeria, 
while larger processors sold a greater volume than smaller processors. Processors from Nigeria reported 
selling the highest amount of RCN and CNSL, while those from Ghana reported selling the greatest 
volume of charcoal. Only processors from Côte d’Ivoire reported selling cashew juice and waste (see 
Table 14).
Table 14: Volume of Commodities Sold, by Type of Commodity, Country, and Processor Type 
(Indicator #3)
Commodity Number of 
processors 
providing 
data
Country Processor type Total
Côte d’Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Large 
multinational
Large 
national
SME
Kernel – survey data (MT) 17 3,442 94 2,370 2,100 2,699 1,107 5,906
Kernel – extrapolation 17 12,908 1,945 6,932 8,140 10,461 4,291 22,893
Kernel – N’Kalo (MT) - 14,000 2,500 4,800 21,300
RCN (MT) [note 1] 5 668 0 7,130 7,000 798 7,798
Cashew juice (L) [note 2] 2 1,161 - - - - 1,161 1,161
CNSL (L) [note 2] 1 - - 480 480 - - 480
Charcoal (MT) [note 2] 3 5.22 180 - - - 185.22 185.22
Waste (MT) [note 2] 1 16 - - - - 16 16
Notes:
1. No extrapolation because we do not have an overall value for RCN MT exported by processors.
2. No extrapolation because we do not have overall value produced.
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
RCN sales could overlap with PRO-Cashew values; however, it is not possible to know if Prosper Cashew 
processors bought nuts specifically from PRO-Cashew producers (or those sampled at baseline). For this 
to be calculated or even estimated, PRO-Cashew and Prosper Cashew will need to implement some sort 
of tracking system to see if PRO-Cashew producers are selling to Prosper Cashew processors. This could 
become even more complicated as intermediaries play a large role in the supply chain. We also know 
that traceability is a considerable challenge in the cashew value chain. Please see Section 4.2 for a more 
extensive discussion of the degree of alignment between PRO-Cashew and Prosper Cashew
Following this, Indicator #8 revolves around the total volume of kernel output. Overall, 91.2% of kernels 
produced were sold (reported above through Indicator #3). Survey respondents reported producing 
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
24
6,478.3 MT of kernel, which when extrapolated33 leads to 25,110 MT.34 Côte d’Ivoire produced the 
highest volume of Kernel followed by Nigeria, while larger processors produced a greater volume than 
smaller processors (see Table 15, below).
N’Kalo stated that Côte d’Ivoire continues to experience good growth, with a 20% increase in its exports 
in 2020, but apparently this could be lower than growth in processing due to batches of cashew kernels 
in early February 2021 still being in production.
Table 15: Volume (Number and Extrapolation) of Kernel Produced (MT), by Country, Processor 
Size, and Type (Indicator #8)
Category Number
(MT)
Extrapolation 
(MT)
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 3,857 14,464
Ghana 109.3 2,255
Nigeria 2,512 7,347
Processor size
Small 478.3 1,854
Medium 2,415 9,360
Large 3,585 13,895
Processor type
Large multinational 2,237 8,671
Large national 2,752 10,667
SME 1,489.3 5,772
Total 6,478.3 25,110
[note]
Note: Please note this is slightly higher than N’Kalo, which may or may not include locally sold nutsl.
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Value of Sales
All results of sales of cashew kernels will have both the actual survey value and the extrapolated value. 
Extrapolations are based on dividing the total reported RCN processed by N’Kalo by the RCN processed 
by processors35 reporting kernels sold. Two processors reporting the volume of kernel sold did not 
report their kernel sales, and one processor not reporting their volume sold still reported the sales 
values. The sales of the processor reporting 2019 sales values are included here. Extrapolations at the 
country level will be unique, but all other disaggregations will utilize the overall multiplication factor (as 
there are no estimates of RCN processed by processor size or type) (see Table 16). Also, please note that 
it is not possible to extrapolate other commodities as we do not know overall amounts sold.
33 Multiplication factor: total 3.88, Côte Ivoire 3.75, Nigeria 2.92, Ghana 20.6. Total multiplication factor used for all 
disaggregations apart from country.
34 Note that extrapolated values are less reliable here as N’Kalo-processed estimates are likely based on exported
or sold quantities.
35 This may or may not include locally sold nuts.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
25
Table 16: Overall and Country Multiplication Factors for Extrapolation
Country Multiplication 
factor
Côte d’Ivoire 3.70
Nigeria 2.87
Ghana 59.2
Overall 3.88
Table 17 provides the currency conversion rates used, which are based on the average exchange rate for 
2020.
Table 17: Currency Conversion Rates
Currency Conversion 
rate
West African franc 0.0017
Naira 0.0026
Cedi 0.17632
Overall, kernel sales made up the majority (67.9%) of cashew product sales, with RCN sales making up 
the majority of remaining sales (32.0%). All other products reported very limited amounts of sales (see 
Tables 18 and 19).
Côte d’Ivoire sold the greatest monetary amount of kernel, closely followed by Nigeria. However, in 
terms of total product sales, Nigeria sold the greatest amount, driven by one large multinational that 
also sold significant quantities of RCN. In contrast, Ghana sold lower amounts, especially in terms of 
kernel sales. As expected, large-sized firms sold more than medium-sized and especially small-sized 
firms, with a similar trend being seen between large multinational and national processors compared to 
SMEs. A total of USD 27,172,533.71 in kernel was reportedly sold by processors, while 
USD 39,992,571.32 in total products was sold. Extrapolated values are USD 105,319,898.10 and 
USD 155,224,638.10, respectively.
Table 18: Sales (Number and Extrapolation) of Kernel and all Products (USD), by Country, Processor 
Size, Processor Type, Age and Sex of Proprietor (Indicator #2)
Category Kernel only (USD) All products (USD)
Sales Extrapolation Sales Extrapolation 
[note]
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 14,803,245.11 55,514,151.81 15,326,793.13 56,844,098.71
Ghana 133,320.10 2,750,001.98 138,609.70 8,211,474.88
Nigeria 12,235,968.50 35,790,767.09 24,527,168.50 70,463,495.81
Processor size
Small 1,528,256.40 5923474.00 2,055,819.01 7,979,326.00
Medium 10,579,586.72 41,006,150.00 10,840,861.72 42,077,035.00
Large 15,064,690.59 58,390,274.00 27,095,890.59 105,168,277.00
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
26
Category Kernel only (USD) All products (USD)
Sales Extrapolation Sales Extrapolation 
[note]
Processor type
Large multinational 11,000,968.50 42,639,413.00 23,032,168.50 89,395,603.00
Large national 12,310,486.72 47,715,065.00 12,310,486.72 47,781,145.00
SME 3,861,078.49 14,965,420.00 4,649,916.10 18,047,890.00
Sex of proprietor
Male 19,628,509.81 76,079,495.39 31,675,199.41 122,942,116.60
Female - - - -
Mixed 7,544,023.90 29,240,402.70 8,317,371.913 32,282,521.55
Age of proprietor
Less than 30 years - - - -
More than 30 years 26,996,865.91 104,639,015.10 39,305,090.61 152,556,293.90
Mixed 175,667.80 680882.95 687,480.72 2668,344.20
Total 27,172,533.71 105,319,898.10 39,992,571.32 155,224,638.10
Note: This should be regarded with caution, as it includes all commodities, but extrapolation is based on kernel sales.
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Table 19: Sales in USD by Type of Cashew Product
Commodity Sales (USD)
Kernel – survey data 27,172,533.71
Kernel – extrapolation 105,319,898.10
RCN [note 1] 12,818,992.97
Cashew juice [note 2] 275.40
CNSL [note 2] Values had to be deleted because 
they were unreasonably high
Charcoal [note 2] 19,014.25
Waste [note 2] 28,635.00
Other [note 2] 1,870.00
Notes:
1. No extrapolation because we do not have an overall value for RCN MT 
exported by processors.
2. No extrapolation because we do not have overall value produced.
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
When asked if kernel sales differed significantly between 2020 and 2019, 72.7% of active processors 
(n = 22) said yes, followed by 18.2% that said no, and 9.1% that chose not to respond. Notably, 
processors from Nigeria were less likely to say that their sales had been affected (42.9%). Of the 
16 processors with differing sales, 75% stated that their sales were lower in 2020, with processors from 
Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana being more likely to report lower sales. Primary reasons for lower sales 
included more than 50% stating this was in part because of the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by the 
average selling price of kernels decreasing in 2020 and they were unable to purchase enough RCN to 
process at optimal capacity for a full year (due to lack of funds or other resources). Two of the three 
Nigerian processors that reported changed sales reported higher sales in 2020, with one processor 
noting that a lot of smaller players could not get to the market, so they increased sales. The two other 
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
27
processors reporting increased sales were from Côte d’Ivoire. According to survey results, other 
common reasons for increased sales were investments made by processors in training staff and 
improved productivity levels, investments made by processors in automation/technology which helped 
to process greater amounts of RCN, and increases in the processors’ capacity to buy RCN and process 
higher quantities (due to more funds or other resources). 
“The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted all the activities of our cooperative (raw 
nuts, cashew kernels, juice and even hull charcoal) by impacting the needs of customers;
moreover the lack of financial means to strengthen our processing equipment, procure raw 
material and other small production equipment.” — Côte d’Ivoire processor (translated)
It was found that combined, processors in 2020 experienced negative actual income or profit; however, 
results vary by individual processors. In Côte d’Ivoire, of the eight36 processors that appeared to provide 
accurate profit data, six reported negative actual income. In Ghana, although profit amounts were fairly 
small, all processors reported positive actual income.37 In Nigeria, four of the five processors reported 
positive actual income values; however, one processor reported a very high negative value.
Overall, surveyed processors reported 
USD 8,843,551.79 in lost income, 
which extrapolated leads to losses of 
USD 34,324,802.84. However, these 
extrapolated values need to be 
regarded with extreme caution as they 
are based only on kernel sales, and 
here all commodities are being 
included (see Table 20). 
The fact that many processors are 
reporting losses, but have kept 
persisting for numerous years, 
suggests a volatile situation as well as 
confidence in sector growth.
Overall, based on survey results, 87.8% 
of all kernel sales were in the 
international market, while 11.5% were in the domestic market, and 0.7% in the regional market. One 
hundred percent of CNSL sales were in the international market, while cashew juice, charcoal, other 
cashew products were 100% sold in the domestic market (see Table 21, below).38
Table 20: Profit (Number and Extrapolation) of Cashew Product Sales (USD), by Country, Processor 
Size, Processor Type, Age and Sex of Proprietor (Indicator #10)
Category Profit (USD) Extrapolation 
(USD)
Country Côte d’Ivoire -4,726,577.07 -17,529,956.27
36 One processor provided sales but not profit data, and another provided very low values for both sales and profit. 37 One processor would not provide kernel values. 38 As this indicator measures values for processed products, RCN and waste are not included.
Box 3. Inactive Processors
When inactive processors responding to the survey were asked to 
identify the reasons for their closure, all four stated they could 
not access adequate financing for upgrading operations, while 
three each indicated they could not access adequate financing for 
buying sufficient RCN, RCN buying price was too high to be 
profitable, and kernel selling price was too low to be profitable. 
However, all claimed that they plan to reopen. One processor 
from Côte d’Ivoire stated that changes at the national level, 
specifically the establishment of a guarantee fund with financial 
structures, will improve their chances of profitability. The other 
three processors referred to more intrinsic changes. All stated the 
use of improved technology (i.e., machinery to automate
processing steps); two, processing larger volumes; and one a new 
location with closer proximity to production areas and 
establishing processor-farmer linkages, as well as product value
addition and certification.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
28
Category Profit (USD) Extrapolation 
(USD)
Ghana 11,725.28 694,625.59
Nigeria -4,128,700.00 -11,861,240.12
Processor size
Small -6,061,362.41 -23,526,189.00
Medium -2,824,489.38 -10,962,795.00
Large 42,300.00 164,181.00
Processor type
Large multinational -4,260,000.00 -16,534,495.00
Large national -3,840,369.38 -14,905,767.00
SME -743,182.41 -2,884,541.00
Sex of proprietor
Male -8,432,608.72 -32,729,794.41
Female - -
Mixed -410,943.07 -1,595,008.43
Age of proprietor
Less than 30 years -8,956,820.72 -34,764,437.72
More than 30 years - -
Mixed 113,268.935.00 439,634.88
Total -8,843,551.79 -34,324,802.84
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Table 21: Sales in USD by Type of Cashew Product into Domestic, Regional, and International 
Markets (Indicator #13)
Commodity Domestic sales
(USD)
Regional sales
(USD)
International 
sales (USD)
No response 
sales (USD)
Kernel – survey data 3,129,104.70 194,900.00 23,847,560.51 968.50
Kernel – extrapolation 12,145,109.16 756,472.54 92,560,413.81 -
Cashew juice [note] 275.4 0 0 0
CNSL [note] Values had to be deleted because they were unreasonably high; the one processor 
stated they sold internationally
Charcoal [note] 18,989.60 0 0 24.65
Other [note] 1,870 0 0 0
Note: No extrapolation because we do not have overall value produced.
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Processors in Côte d’Ivoire and Nigeria primarily sold kernel in the international market, whereas 
processors in Ghana sold more kernel in the domestic market. Medium-sized and large-sized processors 
and large multinational and large national processors more commonly sold in the international market, 
while small-sized processors and SMEs more commonly sold in the domestic market. Only a limited 
number of sales were made at a regional level (see Table 22).
Table 22: Sales (Number) of Kernel (USD) into Domestic, Regional, and International Markets, by 
Country, Processor Size, and Processor Type (Indicator #13)
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
29
Category Domestic sales 
(USD)
Regional sales 
(USD)
International sales 
(USD)
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 1,325,547.80 45,900.00 13,431,797.31
Ghana 131,556.90 0.00 1,763.20
Nigeria 1,672,000.00 149,000.00 10,414,000.00
Processor size
Small 1,197,524.70 84,900.00 244,863.20
Medium 326,000.00 0.00 10,253,586.72
Large 1,605,580.00 110,000.00 13,349,110.59
Processor type
Large multinational 1,100,000.00 110,000.00 9,790,000.00
Large national 597,380.00 45,900.00 11,667,206.72
SME 1,431,724.70 39,000.00 2,390,353.79
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
A total of 13 processors were able to comment on the average processing cost of kernels, with the 
overall average being 3.85 USD per kilogram of kernels (768 USD/MT RCN). Côte d’Ivoire processors 
reported the lowest processing costs, followed by Nigerian processors, whereas Ghanaian processors 
reported processing costs almost twice as high as those from Côte d’Ivoire. Large-sized processors 
reported the lowest processing cost, but medium-sized processors reported higher costs than small￾sized. Additionally, there was little difference between the processing costs reported by large national 
processors and SMEs (see Table 23).
Table 23: Average Processing Cost of Kernel (USD/kg), by Country, Processor Size and Type
(Indicator #7)
Category [note 1] Cost (USD/kg) Cost (USD/MT 
RCN) [note 2]
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 3.17 634
Ghana 6.79 1358
Nigeria 3.90 780
Processor size
Small 3.55 710
Medium 4.75 950
Large 2.55 510
Processor type
Large multinational - -
Large national 3.94 787
SME 3.81 762
Total 3.84 768
Notes: 
1. For this table, we removed one unreasonably high value provided by a processor in Nigeria.
2. MT RCN = kg kernels * 200.
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
A total of 81.8% of processors (n = 22) stated that they expect to see a change in the unit cost of 
processing in 2021 compared to 2020. Of those 18 processors that expect to see a change, 66.7% 
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
30
anticipate a decrease and 27.8 an increase.39 Two processors each said the foreseen increase in costs 
will be a result of not being able to purchase enough RCN in 2021 to process at optimal capacity for a full 
year (due to lack of funds), and lacking funds to invest in maintenance, new equipment, or construction. 
Half of all processors foreseeing a decrease in cost stated this was because they expect the buying price 
of RCN to be lower in 2021 and that will allow them to buy more stock and process greater amount, 
while other responses included, they have made investments in automation/technology to help them 
process greater amounts of RCN and they have made investments in training their staff and improving 
productivity levels.
According to the literature, data on competitiveness of the West African cashew nut processing industry 
is difficult to obtain. The competitiveness gap between West Africa and Vietnam is estimated at 
between USD 150 and USD 350 per MT of RCN in favour of Vietnam.40
Competitive advantages of the West African cashew processing industry over its key competitor 
Vietnam include the following: 
 Availability of good quality raw material (RCN).
 Geographical access to markets.
 Traceability resulting from source proximity.
 Low negative environmental impacts.
Competitive disadvantages of the West African cashew processing industry over its key competitor 
Vietnam include the following: 
 Very high costs for energy and water.
 Labor is significantly more expensive.
 Labor productivity is lower (by a factor of approximately 2 or 3).
 Lower efficiency of RCN use.
 Less usage of by-products (processing of cashew nut shells, which is common in Vietnam and 
India, could provide West African processors with an additional income of up to USD 100-125 
per ton of RCN).
 Lower confidence in quality by international buyers.
 Less know-how on best techniques and technology.
According to the CCA, in 2015, the cost of cashew nut processing was USD 704 per MT of RCN in Côte 
d’Ivoire (slightly higher than the finding for this study at USD 634 per MT), but only USD 254 per MT in 
India and USD 217 per MT in Vietnam. Processing was reportedly also much cheaper in other African 
countries such as Tanzania (USD 309 per MT), Mozambique (USD 368 per MT), Nigeria (USD 520 per MT) 
39 One processor supplied no response. 40 Ton, et al. December 2018.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
31
and Ghana (USD 534 per MT).41 However, this baseline’s findings suggest the cost may be higher in 
Nigeria and Ghana, but these results should be regarded with high caution because of the small sample 
sizes.
4.1.4 Jobs and Participation
Table 24, below, provides the baseline values for the three indicators related to jobs, indirect 
beneficiaries, and project participation. All these indicator baseline values are zero as they require 
project implementation to occur. The number of individuals participating directly in the project will be 
reported only through monitoring. Baseline values for the current number of jobs reported by 
processors are provided below and can be used as a benchmark. The number of indirect beneficiaries 
will be subsequently assessed using the number of jobs created, coupled to a multiplication factor based 
on family size.
Extrapolation was based on dividing the total RCN processed reported by N’Kalo by the RCN processed 
by processors reporting employees (multiplication factor: 4.139), based on the assumption that we have 
a fairly representative sample of survey respondents in terms of country and processor size. Overall, 
processors reported their companies having slightly more workers in the full-time category (260+ days), 
than in the part-time (21-259 days) or casual worker categories (20 days or less). In addition, there were 
more than twice as many females employed compared to males, although the majority of casual 
workers were females (see Table 25, below).
Table 24: Baseline Values for the Indicators Related to Jobs, Indirect Beneficiaries, and 
Project Participation
Indicator Baseline value Additional suggested 
measurement method
Indicator #4: Number of jobs attributed to 
USDA assistance
Reported: 2,260
Extrapolated: 9,356 -
0 attributed
Indicator #23: Number of individuals 
participating in USDA food security 
programs
0 -
Indicator #24: Number of individuals 
benefiting indirectly as a result of USDA 
assistance
0 -
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Table 25: Reported and Extrapolated Number of Employees, by Sex and Type of Employee
Category Survey data Extrapolated
Males casual (20 days or less) 128 530
Males part-time (21-259 days) 206 853
Males full-time (260+ days) 466 1,929
Females casual (20 days or less) 742 3,072
41 Ton, et al. December 2018.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
32
Category Survey data Extrapolated
Females part-time (21-259 days) 718 2,972
Females full-time (260+ days) 870 3,602
Casual worker (20 days or less) 870 3,602
Part-time (21-259 days) 924 3,825
Full-time (260+ days) 1,336 5,531
Males (21+ days) 672 2,782
Females (21+ days) 1,588 6,574
Total (21+ days) 2,260 9,356
Total (all) 3,130 12,958
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Some larger processors reported very high levels of annual processed RCN to employee ratio (80-90 MT, 
which greatly exceeds the Prosper Cashew assumption that the ratio is 10 MT RCN per year); thus there 
is a strong likelihood of underreporting in the number of employees in some cases, especially 
considering these processors only reported full-time employees.42 With all entries the yearly average 
was 14.8 MT of RCN per part-time and full-time employee; removing these two large values, the average 
drops to 6.5 MT (this average would drop further if casual workers are included). Two processors also 
had very low values (<1 MT); however, it was noted that these two processors were also involved in 
cashew juice processing.
Fifty percent (36.4% no, 13.6% no response) of processors stated that their number of employees 
fluctuates significantly during the year (e.g., high seasonal employment). The most common reasons for 
high turnover were the inability to purchase/store enough product for a full year and therefore staff 
must find other jobs when the factory is not functioning (45.5%);43 the inability to recruit or retain staff 
due to higher wages paid elsewhere (45.5%); and the inability to pay staff due to lack of sufficient 
cashflow throughout the year (27.3%). This aligns with secondary data suggesting that, in many cashew 
nut processing units in West Africa, work is temporary, providing employment only for a limited number 
of months per year.44
Prosper Cashew is working on the assumption of 600 direct jobs being created per 10,000 MT factory45
(one person can process 6 MT RCN).46 To process 400,000 MT additional volume of RCN (to reach 50%47
of RCN processed), a total of 24,000 additional people would be required.
Prosper Cashew has estimated that most plants developed will be in the range of 5,000-7,000 MT. 
Subsequently, this means that approximately 66 new processing plants must be developed in the three 
focus countries, either directly or indirectly through TNS assistance. The number of known processors 
42 They may have been reluctant or worried to declare part-time and seasonal employees/casual workers. 43 Sample size of 11. 44 Ton, et al. December 2018. 45 Prosper Cashew program implementers and indicator target document. 46 Although, as previously mentioned, smaller processing units tend to have more employees per unit of RCN 
processed compared to larger processing units. This falls in line with other reports that “recently built factories are 
estimated to create about 80-100 jobs per 1,000 tons of RCN” (Ton, et al. December 2018). 47 Because the goal is to process 500,000 Mt. Current volume is about 100,000 MT.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
33
has risen from 52 (operational, dormant/defunct, planned) at the beginning of the baseline48 to 89 when 
the data collection began. Fourteen of these processors are at the in-project stage, suggesting some 
growth in the sector. However, one could also argue that the same number (or more) are defunct or 
slowly heading towards bankruptcy. Also, it is not known if any processors have closed and then opened 
under a different name for reasons such as tax incentives. This baseline study suggests that a few 
operations have merged, and some have moved to new ventures and split from other companies. 
Based on estimates made by the ACA,
49 processing plants in the range of 5,000-7,000 MT would require 
between USD 3.0 million to USD 4.2 million in fixed capital (plant and machinery costs), which would 
subsequently scale up to around USD 231 million USD required for developing 66 plants. This excludes 
working capital, which would be estimated at approximately USD 3.5 million to USD 4.9 million per 
plant. Such capital amounts are generally in line with the target of USD 496,800,000 for Indicator #9 
“Value of new USG commitments and new public and private sector investment leveraged by USDA to 
support food security and nutrition.” There must be a large amount of natural growth in the sector for 
targets to be achieved, as the work plan indicates that only one or two entrepreneurs will be met with in 
Côte d’Ivoire in Year 1 to establish processing units, followed by one or two entrepreneurs in potentially 
each of the three countries in Year 2 (no exact numbers provided in the subsequent years). Thus, it 
would be important for TNS to realistically assess the number of processing units that they can directly 
support and the number that will need to occur through intrinsic growth. For large-scale intrinsic growth 
to occur, it would be necessary for operational units to show profitability. 
The number of individuals benefiting indirectly will be calculated by multiplying the number of new jobs 
as a result of USDA assistance by the average household size minus the individual directly benefiting for 
each of the target countries (see Table 26). These values were derived from the United Nations 
Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division Database on Household Size and 
Composition.
50 They resemble the average household size calculated from the PRO-Cashew baseline 
study of producer households (Côte d’Ivoire: 4.6, Nigeria: 5.2, and Ghana: 3.5). Currently, the Prosper 
Cashew estimate of five indirect jobs for each direct job created may be an overestimate.
Table 26: Average Household Size and Suggested Indirect Beneficiary Multiplier for Each of the 
Three Prosper Cashew Countries
Country Household 
size
Multiplier
Côte d’Ivoire 5.1 4.1
Nigeria 4.9 3.9
Ghana 3.5 2.5
Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 
Population Division Database on Household Size and Composition.
48 Versus 49 listed in the TNS Prosper Cashew project proposal to USDA. Final number will be provided by TNS. 49 African Cashew Alliance. 2019. Invest in Africa: Cashew. 50 Source: <https://population.un.org/Household/index.html#/countries/566>. Côte d’Ivoire DHS 2012; Nigeria 
DHS 2015; Ghana DHS 2014. Estimates are conservative as these are Department of Health statistics from the 
previous decade.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
34
4.1.5 Improved Practices
Table 27 provides the baseline values for the four indicators related to improved practices. All of these 
values are zero as they require project implementation to occur. Two measure the number of individuals 
and companies that directly receive training and will be reported through monitoring. The number of 
individuals applying improved management practices or technologies will be measured through pre- and 
post-tests (please see Appendix 10 for an example of the template that will be used), while processors 
with increased performance will be measured against the baseline organizational capacity 
assessment (OCA).51
Table 27: Baseline Values for the Indicators Related to Improved Practices
Indicator Baseline value Additional suggested 
measurement method
Indicator #5: Number of individuals in the 
agriculture system who have applied 
improved management practices or 
technologies with USDA assistance
0 “Percentage of individuals:”
0.0%
Indicator #6: Number of organizations with 
increased performance with USDA 
assistance
0 Average score: 58.4%
Indicator #19: Number of cashew sector 
entities that receive technical assistance as 
a result of USDA support
0 -
Indicator #22 Number of individuals who 
have received short-term agricultural sector 
productivity or food security training as a 
result of USDA assistance 
0 -
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Processors identified the management practices and technologies where they feel that training would 
provide the greatest benefit. When asked if companies currently lack factory processing skills and if this 
weakens their company’s competitiveness against processors in India or Asia, 50.0% totally agreed and 
22.7% moderately agreed (see Figure 2). Processors from Ghana (75.0%) and Côte d’Ivoire (63.6%) were 
more likely to totally agree than processors from Nigeria (14.3%). In fact, 28.6% of processors from 
Nigeria totally disagreed.
Processors (active, except for those who totally disagreed; inactive; and in-project) were then asked to 
select up to five factory skill areas where they felt that they most needed improvement, with 
maintenance of processing machines, quality control, traceability, certification standards, and operating 
processing machines being most commonly provided (see Table 28). Qualitative interviews provided the 
same findings.
51 If possible, individual processors’ OCA scores at baseline will be compared with their score at other evaluation 
points to assess if their organizational capacity has improved. It would be beneficial to have all targeted processors 
complete the OCA before they can receive project assistance.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
35
Table 28: Factory Skill Areas where Training is Most Required
Area Total number 
of possible 
responses
Number Percentage
Procurement 28 5 17.9%
Drying 28 3 10.7%
Warehouse (RCN) 28 3 10.7%
RCN grading – calibration 28 5 17.9%
Cooking 28 3 10.7%
Shelling 28 7 25.0%
Steaming (oven drying/borma treatment) 28 9 32.1%
Peeling 28 10 35.7%
Kernel grading 28 7 25.0%
Fumigation 28 2 7.1%
Packing 28 1 3.6%
Warehouse (kernels) 28 1 3.6%
Quality control 28 14 50.0%
Traceability (production analytics) 28 13 46.4%
Operating processing machines 28 12 42.9%
Maintenance of processing machines 28 16 57.1%
Supervision (of factory staff) 28 3 10.7%
Certification standards 28 13 46.4%
Figure 2: Percentage of Companies Agreeing that a Lack of Factory Processing Skills is 
Reducing their Competitiveness (n = 22)
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
50.0% 22.7%
9.1%
13.6% 4.5%
Totally agree Moderately agree Moderately disagree
Totally disagree No response
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
36
Area Total number 
of possible 
responses
Number Percentage
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
The issue remains that much of cashew nut processing work is temporary, providing employment only 
for a limited number of months per year,52 and that many processors use performance-based 
compensation, where staff are paid according to production targets53—two issues that affect worker 
loyalty and expertise, and imply frequent and repeated training of both established and new personnel. 
However, this comes at a cost to the processors and means that results from the training must be 
observed. In most processing operations, the bulk of staff are engaged in peeling, a human resource￾intensive activity. Peeling has a direct impact on the income of a processor. Broken kernels command
significantly less value from buyers; therefore, it is of great importance to have dexterous staff assigned 
to peeling duties. Capacity building in this area could have a direct effect on revenue generated by the 
processors. 
Subsequently, when asked if a current lack of business skills weakened their competitiveness against 
processors in India or Asia, 27.3% of companies totally agreed, 31.8% moderately agreed, and 27.3% 
totally disagreed (see Figure 3). Processors from Côte d’Ivoire (45.5%) were more likely to totally agree 
and processors from Nigeria (57.1%) to totally disagree. Interestingly, those processors that totally 
disagreed had both high scores on the OCA or moderate to low scores (thus no obvious relationship).
52 Ton, et al. December 2018. 53 There are suggestions that make a case for fixed compensation, or at least a combination of fixed and variable 
compensation. This would significantly improve staff retention and reduce the cost of training and supervision.
Figure 3: Percentage of Companies Agreeing that a Lack of Business Skills is 
Reducing their Competitiveness (n = 22)
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
27.3%
31.8%
4.5%
27.3%
9.1%
Totally agree Moderately agree Moderately disagree
Totally disagree No response
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
37
Processors (active, except for those who totally disagreed or provided no response; inactive; and in￾project) were then asked to select business skill areas where they felt that they most needed 
improvement, with almost all options being selected more than 50% of the time (see Table 29).
Table 29: Business Skill Areas where Training is Most Required
Area Total number 
of possible 
responses
Number Percentage
Business management 24 15 62.5%
Financial management 24 15 62.5%
Investment facilitation 24 15 62.5%
Human resources 24 11 45.8%
Workforce management 24 14 58.3%
Marketing 24 16 66.7%
Supply chain development 24 13 54.2%
Other(s) 24 1 4.2%
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
The organizational capacity of processors was measured through a series of 47 questions with a 
maximum potential final score of 144 and a minimum score of 0. A score of 100% illustrates extremely 
high organizational capacity (with the highest capacity answer being provided for all questions) and a 
score of 0% illustrates extremely low organizational capacity (most systems and processes are not in 
place). Data suggests that processors likely said “no response” in many cases where the score should 
have been zero (or low). Thus, denominators were not adjusted based on “no response” answers, as this 
may have artificially increased scores. The overall average organizational capacity score was 58.4% with 
processors in Nigeria (73.7%) having the highest average score, followed by processors in Côte d’Ivoire
(63.1%), and processors in Ghana who had a significantly lower average score (18.1%). Small-sized 
processors (44.0%) had a lower average score than medium-sized (85.1%) and large-sized (81.9%) 
processors. Similarly, SMEs (52.0%) had a lower average score than large national (67.7%) and large 
multinational processors (77.5%) (see Figure 4). The highest scores reported were those of a Nigerian, 
large-sized, multinational (96.5%) and a Nigerian, medium-sized, SME (95.1%). The lowest scores were 
less than 10% and were two small-sized SMEs from Ghana. 
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
38
Figure 4: Average Organizational Capacity Score, by 
Country, Processor Size, and Type
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Two of the highest scored questions were “Does your company keep supporting documentation for 
accounting entries (journal vouchers, payment vouchers, receipts, and invoices)?” (95%) and “Does your 
company have a child labor policy?” (94%), indicating that almost all processors have these 
systems/policy in place. In contrast, some of the lowest score questions were “How much of your 
company’s staff would need to substantially improve their capacity to do their jobs well?” (39%); “Does 
your company have a gender policy?” (47%); “Which of the following best describes your company’s 
policies and procedures for personnel recruitment and retention?” (50%); and “What proportion of your 
company’s workforce gets paid overtime or compensatory leave as required by law?” (50%).
4.1.6 Export of Cashew Products
Table 30, below, displays the baseline values for the two indicators related to export markets and 
clients/trade partners. In 2020, processors exported kernels to 21 unique countries (34 total country 
mentions) and CNSL to one country. It will be necessary to consider individual countries as distinct 
markets (there were no occasions where a processor reported exporting to two or more regions within a 
country), as most processors seemed reluctant to provide regions.54 Overall, active processors reported 
exporting to 65 international clients.
Table 30: Baseline Values for the Indicators Related to Export Markets and Clients’ Trade Partners
Indicator Baseline value Additional suggested 
measurement method
Indicator #11: Number of distinct markets 
to which selected agricultural products are 
exported
Kernel – 21 unique countries All country mentions [note]:
Kernel – 34 countries
CNSL – 1 country CNSL – 1 country
Indicator #20: Number of new clients/trade 
partners obtained as a result of USDA 
assistance
65 international clients 
(kernels), 1 international 
client (CNSL) Inclusion of local clients: 30
0 new
54 Only in a limited number of cases was the name of a city provided.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
39
Indicator Baseline value Additional suggested 
measurement method
Note: Advisem suggests that having more processors exporting to the same country would be more important rather than just adding
new unique countries.
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Of the 22 active processors, a total of 13 exported to various countries in 2020. The maximum number 
of export countries per processor55 was eight, the minimum one, and the average 2.6 countries. Overall, 
34 countries were mentioned (see Figure 5), including 21 unique countries.56 The Netherlands and 
Germany were mentioned by four different processors and the United States by three. The Chinese 
market remains mainly supplied by Vietnam (at 99%), but N’Kalo noted a beginning flow of a few 
hundred tons of kernels from West Africa this year;
57 moreover, one Nigeria processor survey reported 
exporting to China. Additionally, processors exported to a significant number (7) of Middle Eastern and 
North African countries.
Figure 5: Total Number of 2020 Export Countries Mentioned, by 
Processor Country, Processor Size, and Processor Type
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Very few processors were willing to provide detailed client data, but many did indicate the number of 
export clients/trade partners they work with. Fourteen processors reported having a total of 65 clients 
in 2020, with Nigerian processors reporting the greatest number of clients followed by Côte d’Ivoire
processors. Large-sized processors and multinationals also had the greatest number of clients (see 
Figure 6).
55 Of the 13 processors reporting to export. 56 Australia 1, Belgium 1, Canada 2, Netherlands 4, France 1, Germany 4, India 1, Japan 1, Portugal 2, Saudi 
Arabia 1, United Arab Emirates 1, United Kingdom 2, United States 3, Vietnam 2, Italy 2, Turkey 1, Jordan 1, Kuwait 
1, Morocco 1, China 1, Lebanon 1. 57 N’Kalo. January 29, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin.
34
24
2
8 11 13 10
15 15
4
0
10
20
30
40
Number of countries
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
40
Figure 6: Total Number of 2020 Export Clients/Trade 
Partners Mentioned, by Processor Country, Processor Size, 
and Processor Type
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
In Nigeria, 75% of exporting processors reported more clients than countries to which they exported, 
while in Ghana processors had the same numbers of clients as countries (one client per country). Of the 
eight exporting processors in Côte d’Ivoire, half had equal numbers of clients and countries, while a 
couple had more clients than countries, and one had more countries than clients. One processor 
reported a client but not an export country; thus, it is assumed this client was local.
If a company did not indicate they had any clients/trade partners for cashew kernel exports in 2020, 
they were asked to whom they sold their cashews. Of the six small-sized companies (i.e., two in each of 
the Prosper Cashew focus countries), two sold to local exporting companies, two to local exporting 
individuals, one to another processor, and five to direct customers locally. For example, in Ghana, one 
processor mentioned selling to 15 direct customers, including several roasters and a supermarket. A 
processor in Côte d’Ivoire reported having eight direct customers, including four supermarkets, an office 
store, and a hotel, while a Nigerian processor reported six local clients.
One small cooperative-run Côte d’Ivoire processor (1,000 MT) reported that they had previously had 
two customers, one in France and one in Switzerland; however, the contract was suspended due to their 
low capacity (could not fulfill orders on time). This suggests that supporting small-size processors could 
help them access international markets.
In 2020, secondary data shows that imports into the major markets of Europe and the United States 
were estimated to be up by 17% and 8% according to ACA,
58 or by 14.6% and 9% according to N’Kalo,
59
respectively (see Table 31). This was in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and teleworking,
and consumers looking for diversified, healthy snack foods. Although this sounds encouraging for overall 
consumption, imports from most African countries were down mainly due to the COVID-19 pandemic 
restrictions and pressures on the global supply chain. In fact, Fitzpatrick (2021) reported only Nigeria, 
58 Fitzpatrick, J. February 2021. AfricasheW450 – Cashew Market Outlook. 59 N’Kalo. February 17, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin.
65
26
2
37
14 13
38
18 16
31
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Number of clients
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
41
Burkina Faso, and Mozambique showed increases in exports compared to 2019,60 while information 
from N’Kalo61 suggested that Côte d’Ivoire also increased its exports. The repeated lockdown episodes 
and continued teleworking may last for a good part of 2021, exerting positive pressure on consumption 
to grow at a solid pace. This could push Western importers and roasters to increase their spot orders to 
complete forward contracts (long-term), to ensure a minimum supply for the coming months.62 All this 
could spell positive news for Prosper Cashew country processors.
Table 31: Import Growth between 2019 and 2020
Region/country Change in % 
2020 vs 2019
North America 7%
United States 9%
European market 14.6%
Oceania (Australia and New Zealand) 8%
Asia (China, Japan, and South Korea) 12.9%
Source: Derived from N’Kalo. February 12, 2021.
With respect to cashew kernel imports into the United States, Table 32, below, shows the countries 
from which the United States buys cashew kernels and the change that occurred between 2019 and 
2020. Vietnam provides the largest imports to the United States, and this proportion increased in 2020. 
In terms of the Prosper Cashew countries, only Nigeria increased its cashew kernel exports to the United 
States between 2019 and 2020.
Survey responses were varied on how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced processors’ 2020 cashew 
kernel exports. In Ghana, neither of the two exporting processors or the two non-exporting processors 
reported COVID-19 influencing their cashew kernel exports (we assume that non-exporting processors 
commented on their local sales). In Nigeria, three of the seven processors reported no influence from 
the COVID-19 pandemic, while the others felt that it had negatively affected their kernel exports, 
identifying issues such as port congestion, limited containers, lockdowns preventing workers from going 
to work (and hence a reduction in productivity), as well as clients stopping orders. Effects of COVID-19 
on kernel export/sales in Côte d’Ivoire were even more pronounced, with only one of 11 processors 
saying that there was no effect. One processor did reveal there was a positive effect, and they were able 
to increase exports; however, all others listed negative effects, such as downsizing or not producing at 
all, loss of funding, falling kernel prices; furthermore, several processors reported the loss of 
contracts/slowing of sales. This might be an indication of Côte d’Ivoire being more regulated, and thus 
being more significantly impacted by market shocks to the global formal sector.
Table 32: United States Cashew Kernel Imports in 2019 and 2020 and Percentage Change in Imports
Country 2019 2020 Change in % 
2019 vs 2020 Tons 000 USD Tons 000 USD
Vietnam 132,559 1,003,875 149,146 962,197 12.5%
60 Fitzpatrick, J. February 2021. AfricasheW450 – Cashew Market Outlook. 61 N’Kalo. January 29, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin. 62 N’Kalo. February 12, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
42
Country 2019 2020 Change in % 
2019 vs 2020 Tons 000 USD Tons 000 USD
Brazil 6,064 48,268 4,513 30,177 -25.6%
India 4,570 37,003 2,470 19,231 -45.9%
Indonesia 3,653 28,324 3,450 21,361 -5.6%
Côte d’Ivoire 2,062 17,004 1,945 11,345 -5.7%
Mozambique 1,601 11,750 1,692 9,518 5.7%
Thailand 1,231 13,252 1,119 11,678 -9.0%
Benin 1,012 7,627 543 3,207 -46.4%
Nigeria 744 5,666 1,015 6,010 36.4%
Ghana 373 2,727 249 1,217 -33.2%
Guinea-Bissau 244 1,682 96 432 -60.8%
Burkina Faso 221 1,944 290 1,835 31.4%
Tanzania 187 1,316 304 1,962 62.1%
Kenya 80 572 88 608 9.9%
Others 186 1,550.1 90.85 716,004 -51.2%
Total 154,787 1,182,560 167,011 1,081,494 7.9%
Source: Derived from Cashew Week. A Weekly Newsletter. Issue 22, Volume 7.
With respect to other cashew processing countries, India saw a slight increase in its imports and a drop 
in exports in 2020. This increase in imports suggests that Indian consumption was not so affected by the 
COVID-19 crisis. India and Brazil continued to lose export market share, each year focusing more on 
their domestic demand. In contrast, Vietnam, which appears to have had a good 2020 production, has 
also been increasing its export market share.
Table 33: Change in Market Share for Various Regions/Countries between 2019 and 2020 from 
the Kernel Exporting Regions/Countries
Market share
Exporting 
country
North America Europe Oceania China Japan South Korea
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019-2020 
(little change)
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Vietnam 84% 88% 69% 76% 97% 100% 99% 26% 41% 63% 77%
Brazil 4.8% 3.3% 4% 4%
West Africa 3.2% 2.8% 5.3% 6.4% <1%
Indonesia 2.4% 1.5% ±1.5% 12% 12%
India 1.9% 1.5% 16% 11% ±1.5% 73% 58% 21% 9%
East Africa 2.9% 1.4% 1.5% 1%
Source: N’Kalo. February 17, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin.
Opportunities
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
43
In view of the current dominance of Vietnam in the international cashew kernel market, the 
diversification of cashew kernel sourcing by buyers represents an opportunity for West Africa. 
Furthermore, as direct sourcing and traceability is increasingly important to customers in Europe and 
the United States, buyers are keen on seeing it implemented in West Africa.
In 2018, the Nigerian Export Promotion Council identified Vietnam, the United States, The Netherlands, 
and Germany as the largest export destinations for Nigerian cashew kernels. Vietnam is currently the 
largest export destination for Nigerian cashew kernels, but also Nigeria’s largest competitor on a global 
scale. Those markets with the largest untapped potential are Germany, the Netherlands, the United 
Kingdom, Poland and France.63
Next Season
Since November 2020, all global sea freight has been affected by the container deficit experienced in 
Asia. This situation has affected trade between Asia and other destinations such as Europe or the Middle 
East, for which the cost of a 20-foot container (generally containing 16 MT of cashew nuts) has 
increased four times. On average, container transport over long distances (Asia-Europe, Asia-Africa) has 
gone from approximately USD 50 per MT of RCN, to more than 200 USD per MT on trade from Asia to 
the rest of the world. Importantly, trade between other destinations (Africa-Europe, Africa-America, 
Europe-America) has been significantly less impacted, and prices have only increased slightly (+5% to 
+10%). Clearly, containerized trade to Asia is not severely affected as sea transport companies seek to 
repatriate as many containers as possible. Thus, the export costs of West African RCN to Vietnam and 
India should be little impacted by this global imbalance, whereas the export costs of cashew kernels 
from these two major processors in Asia towards consumer countries in the West could suffer.
64
Cashew Nutshell Liquid
Of the two processors that reported processing CNSL, only one reported exporting to one client in 
Vietnam.
4.1.7 Trade Conferences/Missions and Purchase Contracts
Table 34, below, provides the baseline values for the two indicators related to trade 
conferences/missions and purchase contracts, with five processors attending such trade conferences, 
and one processor receiving three purchase contracts. Questions were asked for both 2019 and 2020, 
considering that COVID-19 likely affected 2020 activities.
Of the 22 active processors, only five (22.7%65) reported attending or being represented (e.g., by means 
of collateral marketing material, brochures, samples) at one or several international or regional trade 
fairs or conferences and trade missions in 2019 or 2020. Four of these companies were from Côte 
d’Ivoire and one from Nigeria, with one being small-sized, three medium-sized, and one large-sized. All 
five of these processors attended events in 2019 (minimum of one and maximum of three conferences 
per firm), while three from Côte d’Ivoire attended in 2020 (minimum of one and maximum of two 
conferences per firm).
63 Nigerian Export Promotion Council. July 2018. Promising Markets – Cashew Kernels. 64 N’Kalo. January 22, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin. 65 Compared to 50.0% that said no, and 27.3% that chose the “No response” option.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
44
Table 34: Baseline Values for Indicators Related to Trade Conferences/Missions and 
Purchase Contracts ..
Indicator Baseline value Additional suggested 
measurement method
Indicator #21: Number of firms attending or 
represented at international/regional trade 
shows
5 (2019 and 2020) 22.7% of active processors 
attended
Indicator #12: Number of purchase 
contracts resulting from processor 
attendance at international trade 
fairs/conference and trade missions
3 (2019) 20% of processors attending 
fairs/missions
Subsequently, only one of the five processors that participated in international or regional trade fairs or 
conferences and trade missions in 2019 or 2020 had a purchase contract result from this participation
(this was a medium-sized processor from Côte d’Ivoire). Notably, three purchase contracts stemmed 
from participation in three events in 2019.
4.1.8 Certification
Table 35 provides baseline values for the indicator related to certifications of industry and/or 
sustainability standards (e.g., HACCP, BRC, Sedex), with 19 certifications and 30.8% of active processors 
certified.
Table 35: Baseline Values for the Indicator Related to Certification
Indicator Baseline value Additional suggested 
measurement method
Indicator #14: Number of new certifications 
of industry and/or sustainability standards 
(e.g., HACCP, BRC, Sedex) received with 
USDA assistance
20 (19 active + 1 inactive) 
baseline Percentage of active 
processors certified: 30.8%
0 new
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
A total of 19 certifications were held by eight active processors (n = 22), along with one certification 
(e.g., Ghana standards authority certification) by an inactive processor (n = 4). The number of 
certifications by processor are varied; three processors (one small-sized, one medium-sized, and one
large-sized) reported having a single certification, whereas one reported having seven (medium-sized 
processor). Table 36, below, displays the percentage of all active processors holding the various 
certifications. Three processors have the organic/bio certification (13.6%), while all other certifications 
are held by one (4.5%) or two (9.1%) processors.
Table 36: Number and Percentage of Specific Certifications of Active Processors
Certification Total number 
of potential 
responses
Number Percentage
HACCP 22 2 9.1%
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
45
Certification Total number 
of potential 
responses
Number Percentage
ACA 22 1 4.5%
BRC 22 2 9.1%
Sedex 22 1 4.5%
Organic/bio 22 3 13.6%
Fairtrade 22 2 9.1%
ISO 22 1 4.5%
Flocert 22 2 9.1%
Ecocert 22 2 9.1%
FDA 22 2 9.1%
NAFDAC 22 1 4.5%
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Overall, 30.8% of active processors stated having some certification of industry and/or sustainability 
standards, with medium- and large-sized processors being more likely to report certification than small 
processors, and similarly large multinationals66 more commonly having certification (see Figure 7).
Figure 7: Percentage of Active Processors Reporting to Have One or More 
Certifications
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
66 Three multinationals surveyed.
30.8%
23.1%
40.0% 37.5%
22.2%
50.0% 50.0%
27.8% 25.0%
66.7%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Percent of companies certified
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
46
The different types of certifications require various degrees of investment and technical expertise. We 
recognize that there is a continuum or a hierarchy of certification, with nationally and regionally 
available certification, such as the ‘African Cashew Alliance Quality and Sustainability Seal’ (ACA) being 
among the initial steps of a comprehensive sourcing and quality assurance certification, such as the 
British Retail Consortium’ (BRC) certification. This hierarchy includes HACCP, ISO, among other 
certifications. Processors choose to invest in the relevant certification for their target markets. Export 
focused Côte d’Ivoire processors may plan and aim to reach BRC certification, whilst Nigerian internal 
market-focused processors, may be content with ACA certification. Some processors also sought market 
specific certifications, such as Kosher certification.
Similarly, it was found in the literature that product certification (e.g., organic and fair trade) is not yet 
very common in West Africa. Ton et al. (2018) reported that in Benin, the certification of processing 
units is more generalized, and these units are more involved in specialty cashew kernels such as organic 
and fair trade, than in Côte d’Ivoire. 
Nowadays, especially in export trade, the standardization of processes and procedures is fundamental 
for meeting basic food safety requirements and obtaining specific certifications that allow for sale on 
high-value market segments. The process leading to certification may be long and challenging, but it will 
contribute to rationalizing the financial, economic, and administrative parts of the business. This is an 
important area where improvement is possible. For example, in early March 2021, N’Kalo reported that 
kernel prices were stable or down slightly depending on the grade, with sales being at the lower end of 
the range except for processing plants holding BRC certification. Additionally, Ton et al. (2018) 
mentioned that several Dutch importers expressed their interest for organic cashew kernels from West 
Africa. 
Processors were asked to identify the certifications that they believed would result in the greatest 
benefit to their company. Removing those who already have a certain certification, Table 37 shows that 
80.0% of processors believe that HACCP certification will result in the greatest benefit to their company, 
followed by BRC (40.0%) and ACA (38.1%).
Table 37: Priority Certifications Revealed by Active Processors
Certification Want a 
certification
Already have 
the certification
Total potential
responses
Percentage
HACCP 16 2 20 80.0%
ACA 8 1 21 38.1%
BRC 8 2 20 40.0%
Sedex 2 1 21 9.5%
Organic/bio 5 3 19 26.3%
Fairtrade 3 2 20 15.0%
ISO 2 1 21 9.5%
Flocert 2 2 20 10.0%
Ecocert 6 2 20 30.0%
Other (e.g., B Corps, Kosher) 3 0 22 13.6%
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
47
The primary reasons cited by the 15 active processors who do not have certification is they never had 
enough funds to invest into obtaining certification (53.3%), never achieved minimal standards to apply 
for certification (20.0%), and lacked the technical know-how to implement the necessary protocols 
(20.0%). Two Côte d’Ivoire processors also mentioned they are in the process of obtaining 
certification(s).
4.1.9 Financing
Processors were asked how much capital they invested to start up their company,
67 and, as expected,
small processors had invested a lesser average amount than medium and especially large processors. In 
addition, in-project processors—several of which are planning to become very large—stated investing 
even more than active processors (see Table 38). The overall average for startup investment is 
USD 2,446,219.94, which is much higher than the overall median (USD 385,000.00), indicating that 
several very large values are pulling the average up (e.g., two investments of approximately USD 12-13 
million). Generally, processors reported more often that this capital came from domestic sources only 
(59.4%), as opposed to both domestic and foreign sources (21.9%), or foreign sources only (12.5%) (see 
Figure 8).
Table 38: Average and Median Amount Invested by Capital Processors to Start Up their Company, 
by State and Size
Category USD
Active processors 1,988,065.32
Inactive processors 136,152.00
In-project processors 5,852,000.00
Small processors 373,857.40
Medium processors 2,552,500.00
Large processors 7,901,666.67
Overall average 2,446,219.94
Overall median 385,000.00
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
67 Please note that, in almost all cases for the question" What is the amount of working capital and fixed capital 
deployed in your business so far?," the value provided was less than or equal to the amount of capital investments 
reportedly made to start-up the company; thus, these numbers are not reliable and will not be utilized.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
48
Cashew processor units require a minimum of two 
types of financing, namely investment (fixed) 
capital for factory and machinery purchase; and 
working capital for RCN purchase and processing.
In terms of sources of working and fixed capital,
68
processors reported receiving these from finance 
institutions, followed by family members, 
personal/owner/partner funds, and in some cases 
buyers for working capital (see Table 39, below).
Table 40 presents the baseline values for the four 
indicators related to finance. All indicators have a 
baseline value of 0, as they measure the direct 
results of project implementation. The baseline 
situation related to these indicators is discussed 
below; however, the fund manager or project must 
put in place a tracking system so that all investments, grants, and loans (i.e., through banks or other 
entities) resulting from the Prosper Cashew project directly or indirectly can be measured. Some 
processors have and will likely continue to refuse to provide this information as they consider it 
confidential.
Table 39: Sources of Working and Fixed Capital
Source of capital Total number of 
potential 
responses
Working capital Fixed capital
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Finance institutions 28 11 39.3% 6 21.4%
National government loan programs 28 1 3.6% 1 3.6%
Friends 28 3 10.7% 1 3.6%
Family 28 7 25.0% 5 17.9%
Buyers 28 5 17.9% 1 3.6%
Shareholders 28 2 7.1% 5 17.9%
Personal/owner funds 28 3 10.7% 4 14.4%
Partners 28 2 7.1% 3 10.7%
Not relevant 28 5 17.9% 6 21.4%
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
68 No time limit was specified here.
Figure 8: Sources of Capital for Processor 
Start-Up
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
59.4
12.5
21.9
6.3
Domestic only Foreign only
Both No response
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
49
Table 40: Baseline Values for Indicators Related to Finance
Indicator Baseline value Additional suggested 
measurement method
Indicator #9: Value of new USG 
commitments and new public and private 
sector investment leveraged by USDA to 
support food security and nutrition
0 USD -
Indicator #15: Number of individuals 
accessing agriculture-related financing as a 
result of USDA assistance
0 Percentage of active/project 
processors financed: 25.0% 
Indicator #16: Number of loans disbursed as 
a result of USDA assistance 0 -
Indicator #17: Value of agriculture-related 
financing accessed as a result of USDA 
assistance
0 USD -
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Only seven (25%) of the 28 active and in-project processors reported receiving financing, with large 
processors receiving financing more often than medium and small processors. Additionally, male-owned 
companies did report receiving financing more often, but comparisons cannot adequately be made as 
there is only one female-owned company (see Table 41, below). Specifically, three processors reported 
receiving loans, one processor a grant, one processor a loan and a grant, and two processors credit.
Five loans were disbursed to three Côte d’Ivoire processors. This could have been six or more loans to 
four processors, but one processor in Nigeria chose not to provide any details related to their financing. 
Four of the loans reported were provided to large-sized, male-owned processors, and one loan was 
granted to a medium-sized, male- and female-owned processor.
Table 41: Number and Percentage of Processors Accessing Agricultural-Related Financing in the 
Last Year by Processor Size, Sex of Proprietor and Age of Proprietor
Category Number Total sample Percentage
Processor size
Small 2 17 11.8%
Medium 1 4 25.0%
Large 4 7 57.1%
Sex of proprietor
Male 5 13 38.5%
Female 0 1 0.0%
Mixed 2 13 15.4%
Age of proprietor
Less than 30 years 0 0 -
More than 30 years 6 25 24.0%
Mixed 1 2 50.0%
Total 7 28 25.0%
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
50
Overall, the total value of the aforementioned financing was USD 878,124 in grants and USD 20,284,700 
in bank loans, totaling USD 21,162,824. Of the seven processors involved, three each reported using this 
financing to buy new machinery, maintain/replace existing facilities and equipment, and buy raw 
materials; two reported improving processing (productivity, cost reduction), and one each reported 
using financing to start up, purchase a turnkey facility, purchase a warehouse, upgrade to respond to 
certification standards, and increase processing capacity. A majority (57.1%) of the seven processors felt 
that accessing finance was very difficult, while views on the ability to pay financing back were more 
varied, ranging from moderately easy to very difficult.
Of those processors that reported not accessing finance (n = 18), 33.3% stated not needing it and 
therefore not asking for it, 16.7% that banks/microfinance institutions (MFIs) would not lend, 16.7% that 
interest rates were too high and borrowing would have been detrimental, 11.1% that they are not 
involved in any government or foreign non-governmental assistance projects, and 22.2% other 
responses, including pointing out the unpopularity of agricultural loans.
One in-project processor explained the most critical issue for them, at present, is quick access to 
finance, even if on commercial terms. This processor stated that the credit appraisal process took nearly 
three years and in the end yielded little because a commercial bank is now expected to provide a bank 
guarantee; thus, the processor will need to go through the same process once more.
Ultimately, finance institutions tend to go where they can earn money at the lowest risk. Agriculture is 
generally considered risky for several reasons, including the weather dependency of agricultural yields 
and the often highly volatile nature of agricultural prices. Risk further increases in the cases of specialty 
crops with more limited markets. Furthermore, cashew processing units in West Africa are too young 
and have shown limited profitability, thus lacking the necessary multi-year track record that is 
considered pivotal for banks to grant loans. Also, some processing units reportedly still lack adequate 
financial management, or a bankable business plan. In addition, the reluctance of banks in West Africa 
to provide capital for purchasing RCN translates into significant delays in awarding loans, with 
processors missing out on a limited procurement window. During qualitative consultations, we heard 
mentions of a requirement for 120% guarantee in order to access funds. In the case of processing, 
where the value required to access RCN for processing throughout the year is at times higher than the 
value of assets owned by processors, this is a further challenge to secure loans. 
It is clear that financing to support the necessary investment and economic development of domestic 
processing is a key area of difference between West African and Asian processors. In West Africa, the 
industry has not yet managed to whet the appetite of many banks and finance institutions for large￾scale investment and financing at attractive rates. Depending on country and currency, cashew 
processors face average interest rates between 8% and 12% in Côte d’Ivoire and Benin, and up to even 
30% and 35% in Ghana. Similarly, qualitative exercises also found that processors will access capital at 
between 13% and 25% depending on the country, institution, and perceived risk of the borrower. In 
contrast, interest rates in India and Vietnam are reported at 7% or 8%, if not lower. 69
4.1.10 Public-Private Partnerships
A public-private alliance (partnership) is considered formed when there is a clear agreement, usually 
written, to work together to achieve a common objective.70 This indicator’s baseline is zero as these 
69 Ton, et al. December 2018. 70 See https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/publicprivatepartnerships for details on PPPs.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
51
public-private partnerships need to be formed during project implementation and will be reported 
through monitoring (see Table 42). Currently, the Government of Côte d’Ivoire offers fiscal incentives 
and in-kind support. Some processors claimed to have been given land to build a factory on by the 
government. Government is also keen to provide infrastructure improvements to make processing in 
Côte d’Ivoire more competitive. The Nigerian government also appears open to listening to the needs of 
all cashew actors.
Table 42: Baseline Values for the Indicator Related to Public-Private Partnerships
Indicator Baseline value
Indicator #18: Number of public-private 
partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance
0
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
All three Prosper Cashew focus countries recognize the importance of the private sector to generate 
growth and sustainability in the cashew value chain, and to this end they have created incentive 
structures, with a varying degree of support and implementation. In Côte d’Ivoire, this support is most 
felt, creating an added incentive not only to engage in processing, but also engage in processing of 
volumes above 5,000 MT. Ghana has created the policy statement of “one factory, one district.” In 
Nigeria, government officials at state and federal level recognize the importance of the private sector 
and are keen to see the engagement of processors in supporting producers improve their skills.
“Honestly, we cannot do without the private sector. The private sector has the skills, 
expertise, capacity and resources. They need to engage more with the actual producers 
through technology transfer.” — Nigeria state government official
At the regional level, and with regards to international technical and financial partners, governments 
appreciate private sector support but wish it would be aligned with national policies and national 
leadership. Governments want to have the capacity to lead the process, rather than have to follow the 
partners’ guidance. For Prosper Cashew, it will be important to include governments in key decisions 
within the project, and keep them regularly informed of project implementation.
“Technical and financial partners should see themselves as monitors in a vehicle where the 
country’s actors are in the driver’s seat. At any point in the vehicle’s evolution, the monitor 
brings his or her expertise but should be able to step out and let the actor drive on his or her 
own.” — Public body/international government association
The World Bank and its Public Private Partnership Lab have been creating an important deposit of best 
practices on PPPs and providing opportunities for resourcing these accordingly. In Côte d’Ivoire 
specifically, the World Bank has been supporting strategic government investments to improve the 
infrastructure and governance around the cashew value chain, with a specific focus on supporting the 
processing environment. 
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
52
4.2 Key Study Questions
4.2.1 Relevance, Adequacy of Design, and Coherence
4.2.1.1 Study Question 1.1
Are proposed activities appropriately designed to meet the priority needs of processors 
within the cashew sectors? If relevant, how can their design be optimized?
The project’s activities are, to a great 
extent, clearly aligned with the 
priorities identified by processors and 
other stakeholders. The vast majority of 
processors consulted identified access 
to financing as a critical bottleneck to 
their operations. Processors who did 
not express access to capital as a 
priority are associated with much larger 
international groups that provide the 
financing support required to access 
RCN. For all other processors, financing 
is critical to access RCN, for which there 
is a brief period (4 to 5 months) during 
which the RCN for the whole year needs 
to be procured, in direct competition 
with other processors and, perhaps 
more importantly, with exporters. This 
is a sizeable investment in raw material, 
and often at a scale similar or larger 
than the initial capital investment and 
set-up costs. Critically, this is capital 
that is required on a cyclical, yearly 
basis; if not secured, the entire 
processing cycle for the year will be 
below installed capacity. For 2020, the 
average utilization rate of surveyed 
processors was 37.8%.
A further important financing requirement is for capital expenditure. Equipment in cashew processing is 
fast evolving, with a limited life expectancy, and more importantly, improvements in equipment can 
decrease processing costs significantly. With the purchasing price of RCN and the selling price of kernels 
being dictated by national price-fixing mechanisms and international market forces, the only variable on 
which processors can focus is the cost of processing (profit margins). It is generally expected that parts 
of the equipment (shelling) should be, ideally, replaced every three to five years to allow a processor to 
remain competitive, while other elements of the processing cycle (grading, peeling and packing 
equipment) allow for a longer amortization period. These investments represent important capital 
commitments on a cyclical basis.
Box 4. Assistance Priorities
Surveyed processors provided’ the same general areas as top 
priorities to gain from international assistance, with financial 
assistance being at the top of the list, whether through grants or 
loans/debt with reasonable repayment terms and interest rates. 
This finance would then be used to purchase improved 
processing equipment (grants of processing equipment was also 
mentioned), increasing production capacity, working capital, and 
certification. One processor even mentioned the introduction to 
an efficient and effective automatic equipment supplier.
Accessing markets, especially international markets, and 
receiving technical training were also key priorities for many 
processors. One processor mentioned help to increase farmgate 
buying and vertical integration, while another mentioned access 
to a pool of certified cashew bio growers.
One of the main areas of interest that processors mentioned 
they would like to learn from this study (or future studies 
conducted by TNS) was gaining a better understanding of market 
dynamics, trends and players, and understanding international 
market requirements. Additionally, it was commonly mentioned 
they wanted to understand the options for financing in the 
cashew sector. Others mentioned interest in receiving updated, 
best/good management and technical practices that can improve 
their processing operations. A few more specific knowledge 
areas were cost positioning of African processors; global interest 
in sustainable local processing of agricultural produce before 
export; and the total annual percentage of RCN processed 
compared to the total quantity of RCN produced in their country.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
53
Finance institutions are active in the cashew value chain, although they usually struggle with financing 
processors due to a seeming lack of understanding of processing activities, and the existing challenges 
with processing profitability in West Africa. This particularly affects smaller and domestic processing 
companies. Finance institutions generally prefer to finance value chain actors with a greater degree of 
certainty regarding their revenues and track record.
Access to finance activities designed for the Prosper Cashew project align well with the priorities 
identified by processors. The Cashew Catalyst Fund proposes to develop financing mechanisms to 
provide sustainable, long-term capital for processors at rates that will be competitive with capital 
accessed by Vietnamese and Indian processors. The Match-Making Facility will provide equity 
investment and longer-term capital, ideal for investments in equipment, infrastructure, and other 
investments for processors. 
The capacity of staff was also identified as one of the main priorities for the processors’ operations and 
sustainability, across the three countries. With regards to technical capacity, as mentioned above, 50% 
of processors totally agree and 23% or processors moderately agree that there is a lack of factory 
processing skills, which impacts their competitiveness. With regards to business skills, 27% of processors 
totally agree and 32% of processors moderately agree that a lack of business skills is impacting their 
competitiveness.
“Training needs to be a hands-on activity: Factory management has to buy into the capacity 
building of technical staff and ensure that best practices are implemented. Management 
also needs training to understand all processing activities, so that they can understand, 
manage and support the implementation of technical best practices in their factories.”
— Market association
The need for more holistic management practices has been mentioned as an area where the sector is 
struggling. For instance, to achieve a specific sales target that includes exporting to various international 
markets, certification requirements will have to be met, which means the processing plant requirements 
for certification have to be implemented; the factory floor staff must align with the required health and 
safety protocols; and, critically, RCN has to flow within these operations to meet the sales targets. 
Management needs to be able to understand all aspects and ensure these are all operating in a 
synergistic manner. 
With regards to the commercial aspects, management needs to ensure reliability of supply, and quality, 
which we have discussed above. A further aspect in commercial requirements of management is the 
ability to identify new market opportunities, such as new countries to export to or how to identify 
opportunities to increase local consumption, doing further processing to increase sales margins, or 
identifying potential uses of by-products that emerge from cashew processing, such as animal feed 
(cashew waste) or paste (from broken pieces). 
In order to mobilize capital for operations (e.g., access to RCN) or secure other forms of investment, 
management needs to be able to develop comprehensive business plans, forecast revenues, and often 
have an entrepreneurial mindset to be able to develop these. This will be a critical training need to 
promote during the Prosper Cashew project, particularly in light of the activities proposed. Processors 
need to be able to develop the required business plans and ensure financial management procedures 
are in place to access finance or equity investments.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
54
“Capacity building needs to be holistic and tackle a number of priorities. 1) Knowledge: 
Processors need knowledge to understand the dynamics of commodity trends as it relates to 
consumers; 2) Market information: There is a need to understand what is happening in the 
market and why prices are fluctuating. This is the ability to project what farmer production 
capacity might be in the coming years and develop models around it; 3) Technical 
competencies: The processors need business mindsets and business plans, especially on how 
to have access to credit; 4) Project competence/management dynamics: This means that if 
you give the processor financial support and if the points listed above are not there, then
money will be wasted. In addition, processors need to understand where the changing 
trends are in terms of cashew consumption. Also, note that the capacity mentioned cuts 
across all processors, small, medium and large.” – Ghana government/public organization
Equipment operation and maintenance is another important area of capacity building. Equipment is 
generally imported, and there is limited technical support available nationally to processors. To a large
extent, this is an area of capacity in which to invest. 
Access to equipment parts (or lack of their availability) can adversely impact processor activities. As 
equipment suppliers are mostly located internationally, the ordering and transportation of parts can 
take extended periods of time. Additionally, follow-up technical assistance would require international 
travel when required. COVID-related travel restrictions underscored the problematic dependency of 
processors on foreign technology and assistance, further highlighting the need to improve regional 
know-how and production of equipment. Some processors have shared anecdotal feedback of technical 
staff being able to adapt or build parts locally. Such capacity could be promoted within local equipment 
and maintenance providers, as it could reduce costs and stoppage time for processor equipment. A 
national equipment provider consulted stated that their company has the technical capacity to install 
and provide maintenance to equipment from any international provider. However, they have also stated 
that international equipment suppliers are secretive about their equipment.
Prosper Cashew has performed an extensive needs analysis, and the activities proposed for capacity 
building extensively cover the needs of processors and value chain stakeholders. The areas of capacity 
building proposed under management support (general business management, financial management, 
investment facilitation, human resources/workforce management, marketing support, and supply chain 
development) and technical support (food safety management systems/certification, supporting the 
introduction of traceability, environmental practices) comprehensively cover the capacity-building needs 
of processors. This finding is supported by both the qualitative and quantitative evidence supplied by 
the baseline study. 
Delivering support to cashew producers entering into processing and strengthening cashew processing 
ecosystem enterprises (local manufacturing and servicing of processing equipment, training centers, and 
the ecosystem of financial services) has the potential to create a sustainable enabling environment for 
cashew processors in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Nigeria. Reflecting on the processors’ distribution across 
the three countries, Prosper Cashew will have to pay particular attention to developing models of 
delivery of support to ecosystem actors in the three countries to ensure all processors have equitable 
and sustainable access to services offered.
CITA and the Higher School of Agronomy of the Polytechnic Institute Felix Houphouët-Boigny (INPHB￾ESA) are leading institutions in capacity building provision for the cashew value chain. Both are located 
in Côte d’Ivoire. For equipment/maintenance providers, TNS has developed an innovation center in 
Cotonou, Benin—a facility where providers can use the physical space and technological resources to 
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
55
design, test and build required tools and parts. There are a number of other capacity building providers 
in the three focus countries that have previously partnered with TNS and other projects in the region, 
and these providers would be available for Prosper Cashew. International capacity building firms such as 
Away4Africa, consultants associated with the African Cashew Alliance, or other international 
consultants, could perform capacity building/technical assistance services in the Prosper target 
countries. Additionally, local Nigerian resources include national consultants and organizations (e.g., 
Huios Global Alliance Ltd; B-Consulting (Belyta Nigeria Limited), and Rossland Consulting Limited) that 
could provide capacity building services for cashew processors and other actors in the value chain. 
Perhaps supporting the establishment of a network of resource institutions and training providers in the 
region that could leverage the established strengths of CITA, INPHB-ESA and the TNS innovation hub will 
allow for the efficient use of resources to distribute capacity across the region. 
There are an increasing number of ways to deliver capacity building. Inputs gathered for this baseline 
study point out that flexible continuous training, and training aligning theory and practice, would be the 
most relevant ways. In line with this, there are important technological resources available to develop 
good quality training materials for all processors. One such example is TNS’s own high-quality blended 
learning online platform, with some cashew processing materials already developed, and this could be a 
good resource to build upon for future capacity building delivery. Other interesting examples of 
capacity-building initiatives (i.e., extension services and technical assistance) available from other actors 
in the value chain are discussed later in this report. Still, notwithstanding these resources and 
opportunities, unless a critical reflection is made on how to resource the project’s capacity-building 
activities, Prosper Cashew has the potential to distort the technical assistance and capacity-building 
market in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria. The importance of having an element of cost sharing in the 
technical assistance provision has been noted, in order to ensure buy-in from processors, and also to 
ensure that technical assistance is of high quality.
International kernel buyers, when asked what they value most about a processor, stated two things: 
reliability of supply, and quality of product (certification). International buyers recognize that 
relationships with processors take time to build and to get to a desired level of reliability and quality.
Nevertheless, there is an interest in sourcing kernel from as close to the source as possible, and in that 
sense Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Nigeria have a competitive advantage. Furthermore, in our discussions 
with processors and other stakeholders, it became clear that organic, and fair-trade certified products 
command an important premium. It was also interesting to note that there are a range of alternative 
products, such as cashew oil, cashew butter, and even cashew brandy (derived from the cashew apple) 
that processors are willing to explore as secondary, added value revenue generating product lines.
In Nigeria, the national market has proven to be an interesting opportunity for processors who invest in 
secondary processing (roasting), branding and packaging. In Ghana also there seems to be a growing 
national demand, particularly due to the relatively small scale of national processors. In Nigeria, the 
premium received for roasting and packaging for the final consumer varied between 45% and 60%, 
although quantities of product sold were significantly lower, as were the variable costs (lower 
requirement of RCN). In Côte d’Ivoire, the national market and informal market have also been 
interesting, especially because they do not require premium kernel. While export markets prefer more 
marketable grades (WW320 kernels are popular), national markets in middle-class Côte d’Ivoire and the 
region are less discerning. In Nigeria and Côte d’Ivoire, two processors interested in supplying national 
markets stated that their strategy was to explore opportunities to enter into international supermarket 
chains by first becoming local suppliers to their national affiliates. A further interesting avenue is the 
selling of cashew by-products (broken bits and baby bits) for food production. 
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
56
Prosper Cashew’s Activity 4 (Buyer-Seller Relationships), is designed to strengthen buyer-seller 
relationships across the value chain, from producer to processor to international buyer of kernels. There 
are some important challenges identified by various actors across the value chain. Due to the price 
fluctuation of RCN and kernels, there is great reluctance on the part of all actors to enter into binding 
contracts with regards to quantities and prices. This is true both on the part of producers and producer 
cooperatives who in practice sell to the highest price offered, and with international buyers who 
although interested in diversifying and buying kernels close to production origin, are reluctant to do so if 
the price difference with other markets is too high. 
There are activities designed to strengthen the relationship between processors and producers. 
Although we have limited knowledge on how these will play out in practice, they are relevant activities. 
Strengthening the capacity of producers to increase the quantity and quality of RCN will be beneficial for 
processors and will have a direct relation to the quantity and quality of kernels produced. By increasing 
the technical and managerial capacity of processors, including quality assurance mechanisms and 
certification processes, the project is inherently strengthening the relationship between processors and 
international buyers, who see reliability of supply, and quality of kernel (including certification), as the 
main defining factors for a sustainable and successful relationship with processors. Price is also an 
important factor, but international buyers are seemingly willing to accept a small price difference to 
diversify the sources of kernel and procure kernel as close to production as possible. 
“There is a market for kernels, but we cannot supply, we need to be competitive enough to 
supply the market, sometimes we do not have the capacity”. – Ghana processor 
“Quality consistency is an issue in Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana and Nigeria. […] consistency in terms 
of supply and in terms of quality.” – International buyer
Prosper Cashew will collaborate with PRO-Cashew to establish links between processors and producers 
to strengthen local supply chains. We have seen that there is mistrust between the various value chain 
actors, and difficulties in entering contracts and having these contracts adhered to. There are also 
underlying challenges to fulfilling contracts linked to the volatility of RCN prices. Although there are 
opportunities to strengthen the production through extension services, and processors can develop and 
deliver or support cooperatives to deliver extension services, it cannot be assumed these will lead to 
contractual relationships for privileged access to RCN for processors. 
“Because of problems in the past, I don’t believe in taking loans (from processors/local 
buying agents in exchange for RCN). Just buy my product, and leave…” – Nigerian 
Cooperative Representative
Trade fairs are an important vehicle to introduce processors to international buyers, although only a 
limited number (22.7%) of processors partook according to survey results. Of the processors interviewed 
that participate in trade fairs, they stated that it was an important avenue to establish contact with 
international buyers.
Activity 4 is best seen in conjunction with Activities 1, 2 and 3, which also seek to respond to challenges 
identified by processors. There is a great benefit in integrating elements of these activities so that they 
become mutually supporting. 
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
57
4.2.1.2 Study Question 1.2
To what extent does the project design integrate country and regional agricultural 
development plans and sectoral strategies?
The regulatory framework and governance of the cashew value chain is one area of work that is not 
contemplated by the project, but it is of great importance (see Table 43 for background information on 
this topic). While Côte d’Ivoire has a comprehensive regulatory framework for the cashew value chain, 
including fiscal incentives for processors and disincentives for exports of RCN, Ghana and Nigeria are still 
in the early stages of developing a legal framework that recognizes the added value of processors,
protects their access to RCN and motivates investment.
Table 43: African Cashew Sector Policies, both RCN and Processing Focused, as well as More 
General Policies that Could Promote Cashew Processing (2019 or Otherwise Indicated)
Country RCN focused Processing focused
Côte d’Ivoire • Ban on RCN land export
• 0.23 USD/kg tax on RCN export 
(2019); 180 USD/MT (2021) [note 1]
• License required for buying and 
exporting
• Minimum price 0.68 USD/kg (2019); 
0.55 USD/kg (2021)
• No buying before launch of the campaign, farmgate for processors only 
• 15% of exporters volume to linked processors 
• Subsidy of 0.73 USD/kg of kernels to processors
• Guaranteed access to finance 
• Government subsidy of 0.68 USD/kg of locally processed white kernels and 
0.25 USD/kg of locally processed deshelled kernels
• Credit guarantee scheme to facilitate domestic financial lending to processors
• Duty-free importation of processing equipment for 5 years
• Export tax exemption for processors of cashew kernels
• A 4-year total exemption from Value-Added Tax on costs at project 
preparation phase
• Prioritized access to industrial land and serviced agro-industrial parks
Nigeria • Trucking charges in Nigeria range from 
170 to 200 Naira/kg, while sea export 
freight to European and Asian 
destinations range from USD 2,200 to 
USD 3,500 for a 20-foot container load
• Nigeria targets 840,000 MT of RCN production by 2024
• Price reduces from 1,350 Naira, to 1,400 Naira last year, to 1,200 Naira
• High-yielding seeds are given to farmers for free
• The Federal Ministry of Food and Rural Development launched the Cashew 
Expansion Program
• Nigeria lifts ban on Export Expansion Grant to boost non-oil exports
• Cashew nut already been recognized as strategic non-traditional export 
commodity in 2016
• Five-year tax holiday if granted pioneer status, i.e., located in a rural area
• Import tax exemption facilities for agro-industrial equipment
• 0% export tax on cashew kernel export
• Easy Land facilitation – long-term leasing for abandoned locations
Ghana • Transportation of domestic goods to 
Tema Port costs about USD 0.0333, 
while sea export freight to European 
and Asian destinations range from 
USD 850 to USD 1,500 for a 20-foot 
container load
• Corporate tax is set at 25% for all companies
• Income from non-traditional exports is subject to 8% income tax, though no 
export tax is levied on cashew kernels
• Tax holidays (from start if in operation) for a period of 3 years
• Location incentives; Ghana has Free Zones, providing tax and duty reductions 
and exemptions for businesses that invest in the country
• Beginning 2018, all RCN exporters are required to register with the Ghana 
Export Promotion Authority (GEPA) and the Plant Protection and Regulatory 
Services Directorate (PPRSD); the registration process involves payment of 
various fees
• Signed on to the Consultative International Cashew Council (CICC)
• The government has initiated the process to pass a Tree Crop Development 
Bill to set up an authority to regulate the cashew sector; other crops to be 
regulated under this Bill include shea, oil palm and rubber
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
58
Country RCN focused Processing focused
Benin • Ban on RCN land export
• 0.13 USD/kg tax on RCN export
• Minimum price 0.73 USD/kg; 
0.54 USD/kg (2021)
• Processors are allowed to buy before the launch of the campaign
Burkina Faso • 0.045 USD/kg tax on RCN export
• License for exporting required from 
the Ministry of Trade [note 2] 
• Minimum price 0.68 USD/kg
• No points found
Guinea-Bissau • License required for buying and export 
• Minimum price 0.66 USD/kg 
• Intermediary protected direct 
purchase of raw nuts from producers 
by export companies is prohibited 
(2021)
• Taxes on RCN: 15 CFAF/kg for 
producers, 13 CFAF/kg for 
intermediaries; 50 CFAF/kg for 
exporters (2021)
• No points found
Kenya • Ban on RCN land and sea export • Ban on RCN land and sea export
Tanzania • 0.15 USD/kg tax on RCN + 15% if no 
money to processor
• Cooperative buying, license required 
to tender; state controlled 
• Minimum price 1.43 USD/kg
• No points found
Mozambique • 0.75 USD/kg tax on RCN, if not 
supplied to processor
• No buying of RCN for one month, or beyond the point where more than 50% 
of processor stock needs are fulfilled 
Notes:
1. The African Financial Community franc has strengthened against the United States dollar in early 2021.
2. Traders and exporters refused to adhere to the decision of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Handicrafts—through its General Directorate of Trade—to set
up a system of licenses for cashew product marketing activity for 2021. These actors do not consider such a licensing mechanism to be appropriate at a time 
when they are facing many difficulties with the marketing of cashew nuts, given the situation of the COVID 19 pandemic.
Sources: Derived from African Cashew Alliance. 2019; and N’Kalo. February 17, 2021.
With respect to the cashew value chain, the institutional architecture is also nascent. While Côte d’Ivoire 
has CCA, a strong active and well-resourced public body with various representatives of members of the 
cashew value chain, Ghana has just recently created the Ghana Tree Crop Development Authority, and 
Nigeria is still in the planning stages, with the creation of a national inter-ministerial and interagency 
committee charged with developing a 10-year development plan for the value chain.
Both Ghana and Nigeria would benefit greatly from support in the creation of an enabling regulatory 
and institutional framework for the cashew value chain in their respective countries. This would have a 
significant impact on the viability and sustainability of cashew processors. Processors cannot compete 
with exporters, which receive stronger financial support from international buyers and finance 
institutions. In the current context, it is more profitable for producers to sell to exporters in Ghana and 
Nigeria rather than to local processors. This leaves processors in a challenging position with regards to 
accessing RCN. If processors could get support in this area too, notably through pricing and procurement 
policies, it could help establish a better balance between producers and processors. 
4.2.1.3 Study Question 1.3
How do the four sets of activities complement each other in order to achieve the expected 
results? Are there any gaps that need to be considered?
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
59
At this point in time, we have only been able to gather a high-level understanding of the activities, and 
have not seen a granular description of how these will take place. As such, it is difficult to identify how, 
in practice, the planned activities complement each other. 
We would suggest that a certain level of integration in the planning of activities is considered. For 
instance, it would be optimal if technical training on financial management is given within the practical 
exercise of developing business and financial plans to access funds from the Cashew Catalyst Fund or 
preparing documentation for potential investors through the Match-Making Facility. Conversely, there is 
potential for synergies on accessing international markets, if capacity building to assist processors to 
achieve BRC certification is done in parallel with identifying international buyers through participation in 
trade fairs. 
4.2.1.4 Study Question 1.4
Are the proposed activities appropriately designed so that women and other vulnerable 
groups will benefit equally compared to men?
Women are a critical element of the value chain, playing a key role in cashew production and 
processing. However, they often occupy the most vulnerable employment positions. There is increasing 
participation of women in the hierarchy of processing companies, although they are still significantly 
underrepresented in senior management and ownership structures. Survey results found that males 
more often held the positions of director (82.3%), manager (72.5%), and technician (e.g., mechanic, 
electrician, machine operator) (95.1%), whereas females more often were laborers (70.8%) and interns 
(trainees) (70.2%) (see Figure 9). Additionally, of the 32 surveyed processors, only one was completely 
female-owned. Thus, in absolute numbers, women represent most of the workforce engaged in 
processing, although their numbers are substantially higher in factory labor, and lower as one goes up 
the management and ownership structure. Additionally, the survey found that women were most likely 
to undertake casual labor, and having a gender policy was one of the lowest scoring components of the 
OCA.
Due to their higher representation in the manual aspects of processing, women are more likely to be 
adversely impacted by increased automation of processing, although more qualified technical staff will 
likely be required to operate equipment, and more manual work may become available in other sections 
of processing. Thus, greater automation could represent either an opportunity or a threat for women.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
60
Figure 9: Average Percentage of Males and Females in Various Employment 
Types in Cashew Processing Companies
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Women in processing are negatively 
impacted by the current compensation 
structure where, particularly in peeling, 
they are paid according to their 
performance (kilograms of nuts peeled), 
as opposed to most other functions 
where staff receive a fixed remuneration. 
Under this regime, if they are sick or face 
other challenges, women (and men) may 
suffer, as their income is not protected. 
While this is, in essence, a management 
decision of individual processors, and a 
reflection of current practice in the 
industry, perhaps information could be 
shared on the benefits of setting up a 
hybrid model of fixed compensation and 
performance-based compensation, 
namely a potential decrease in staff 
turnover and inherent staff training costs. In interviews with processors, we were told that staff who get 
stable compensation are more loyal to their company and are more likely to take ownership over and 
comply more actively with processes they are asked to perform.
Furthermore, all factories need to ensure adequate infrastructure and gender-supportive strategies are 
in place. Factories should, at minimum, ensure compliance to all regulation regarding infrastructure, 
health and safety, and governance (e.g., including ensuring that harassment policies are enforced). The 
TNS-led BeninCajù project, for instance, supported processors to upgrade facilities to attract women, 
29.8
29.2
45.9
95.1
67.1
55.8
72.5
82.3
70.2
70.8
54.1
4.9
32.9
44.2
27.5
17.7
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Intern (trainee)
Laborer
Quality controller
Technician
Trainer
Supervisor
Manager
Director
Percent males Percent females
Box 5. Female-Led Success
One of the top processors in Côte d’Ivoire is led by a woman 
(Chief Executive Officer), and has over 50% females in senior 
management positions. They have also chosen a different 
compensation method for factory staff—most of them 
women—by choosing to pay them fixed wages, as opposed to 
performance pay, which is the norm. This way, the company
has increased staff retention and productivity, reduced staff 
training costs, and created a strong bond with their staff. This 
is one of the only processors in Côte d’Ivoire to have received 
BRC certification, which is one of the most rigorous food and 
safety certifications. According to the Chief Executive Officer,
all her staff, including factory workers, received training on the 
certification requirements, and took ownership of the 
responsibility to fulfill these. When the staff received the news 
of having passed the certification requirements, the whole 
factory broke into a spontaneous celebration!
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
61
such as creating childcare facilities, so that women could focus on work. Other examples of facility 
improvements could include ensuring proper lighting, toilets, proper ventilation and thermal comfort of 
work areas, and providing transportation where required. All these investments could contribute to a 
reduction in turnover, and in training costs. Finally, processors could be encouraged to make a 
comprehensive review of procedures to ensure sexual harassment/sexual policies that protect women 
in the workplace are in place.
All surveyed processors reported having at least one social program for their workers, with flexible 
working hours (63.6%) and health support (50.0%) being the most common, though daycare for children 
is still limited (13.6%) (see Table 44).
Table 44: Processor Social Programs, by Country and Processor Size
Category Sample 
size
Social program
Daycare for 
children
Free meal Transport Health support Flexible 
working hours
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 11 18.2 0.0 18.2 54.5 54.5
Ghana 4 0.0 50.0 75.0 0.0 75.0
Nigeria 7 14.3 28.6 28.6 71.4 71.4
Processor size
Small 14 7.1 21.4 28.6 35.7 71.4
Medium 4 25.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 50.0
Large 4 25.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 50.0
Total 22 13.6 18.2 31.8 50.0 63.6
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
As women are not proportionally represented in the management and ownership structures of 
processors, they will conversely not benefit equally from these activities in equal measures. It is 
recommended that specific, targeted actions should be designed to ensure this is addressed. Such 
activities could include requests that women be represented in capacity-building initiatives developed, 
and that specific targets be set for access to finance for women-owned processors. 
As per TNS’s gender policy, staffing in the Prosper Cashew project itself should be gender balanced. 
Although we recognize that not all positions have been filled to date, the current staff structure is not 
gender balanced, with only one female in the senior management structure.
4.2.1.5 Study Question 1.5
How can Prosper Cashew adapt its design and implementation model for each particular 
target country?
All three focus countries have context-specific risks and opportunities. Côte d’Ivoire is the largest 
producer of RCN in the world and has a strong regulatory framework to promote processors’ access to 
RCN. Côte d’Ivoire continues to evolve and develop innovative mechanisms for the promotion of the 
value chain, such as a warehousing guarantee system, where traders and producers can deposit RCN 
and use this as a collateral for future investment. Government is also exploring the development of a 
commodity trading board for RCN, after the codification/normalization of RCN done by Côte d’Ivoire
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
62
Normalisation (CODINORM), in addition to continuous investment in infrastructure and support to 
industrialize in the country. 
Nigeria is now beginning to think about developing a regulatory framework. Cashew (both RCN and 
kernel) is seen as a valuable foreign currency mobilizing export, one of 22 that the government is 
actively promoting. Nigeria also has a sizable domestic market, which has proven to be an opportunity 
for a number of national processors. It is often difficult to pinpoint the role of value chain actors in 
Nigeria. There are several processors in Nigeria performing multiple roles within the value chain. They 
operate as intermediaries, exporters, primary (kernel) and secondary (roasting, branding and marketing) 
processing activities. The variety of roles they perform within the value chain allows them to generate 
multiple income streams (e.g., export or RCN and/or kernels, secondary roasting for the national 
markets), which helps them to be resilient and benefit from multiple opportunities. The most successful 
actors in Nigeria are those who are most innovative and versatile. For instance, if these actors identify 
RCN of high quality, but too expensive for export or processing into kernels, they can always buy it to be 
used for secondary processing for the national market, which commands a higher profit margin. One of 
the processors in Nigeria stated that he currently commands 40% of the national consumption market.
The institutional architecture for the cashew value chain in Nigeria is perceived by some stakeholders as 
problematic. It is felt that the National Cashew Association of Nigeria does not accurately represent all 
the actors of the value chain, predominantly representing intermediary interests, and it has had some 
governance challenges in the past. As actors in the cashew value chain in Nigeria play multiple roles at 
any given time, the role of intermediary is the most challenged here, with many stakeholders 
questioning if intermediaries add value or enlarge the market. In our exchanges, we found that 
intermediaries do not appear to play an important aggregator role, not only for cashew but also for 
other agricultural products.
Also, in Nigeria, challenges in infrastructure are reported to cause important delays in the transportation 
of RCN (roads in poor conditions), and exports (very congested ports). Moreover, corruption has been 
flagged as the only way to overcome these challenges.71
Ghana faces a particular set of challenges concerning the development of appropriate fiscal and legal 
incentives to promote processors’ access to RCN. Under the current policy environment, where there 
are no fiscal disincentives for export of RCN (Ghana being one of the only countries in the region without 
fiscal barriers to export), processors have a hard time competing with exporters who can mobilize 
financing at more competitive rates than processors. The government has in the past attempted to tax 
exporters, but these faced vehement opposition from the producers. As producers represent an 
important part of the electorate, the government decided to withdraw the proposed taxes on exports of 
RCN. In the current scenario, it is very difficult for processors to access RCN. In order to successfully 
meet its processing targets, one of the largest processors in the country had to resort to importing RCN 
from Guinea-Bissau. This situation may continue, as the government’s priority in the sector is to 
strengthen production (with nurseries, organizing producer cooperatives, etc.). 
There is currently a ban on export of RCN from Côte d’Ivoire through land borders, but there is an 
important influx of contraband from Côte d’Ivoire to Ghana. It is rumored that as much as 20% of RCN 
reported as produced in Ghana is of Côte d’Ivoire origin (N'Kalo estimated 13.2% in 2020). As Prosper 
71 On the subject of corruption, in our study, there was anecdotal reference to bribing quality assurance staff
(i.e., personnel who assess the quality of RCN), so that they report higher quality than found, and neglect the fact 
that older RCN batches are mixed with newer ones.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
63
Cashew will be financing the acquisition of RCN in Ghana, there is an important risk that it ends up 
funding the unlawful import of RCN. It will be important for TNS to verify the origins of RCN bought with 
project-facilitated funds to mitigate against this risk. As per the Ghana Cashew Industry Association, 
Ghana saw an increase of 35% in RCN production in 2018 alone. The “Cashew 10 Year Development Plan 
For Ghana,” published in 2018 by the Ghana Export Promotion Council and the Ghana Cashew Industry 
Association, forecasts a total RCN production for Ghana at 300,000 MT by 2027. If cashew production 
continues to grow at this rate, and if effective policies are implemented, domestic processors will access 
RCN in sufficient numbers to ensure sustainability.
In Ghana, there are opportunities to support small-scale processing, but at a reduced scale. Processors 
below 500 MT per year seem to thrive in Ghana. Below these processing levels, processors can offer 
product for the national market, and also seem to be able to access RCN throughout the year. They may 
pay higher prices for RCN, but less capital is required and processors can acquire smaller quantities of 
produce, then process, sell, and continue the cycle. In discussions with Ghanaian processors, this model 
of RCN acquisition changes once you reach above 1,000 MT per year, at which scale financing to procure 
RCN for the whole year at the beginning of the season poses a significant challenge. In Ghana, a priority 
is therefore to support processors to establish the right links to producers and financing capacity to 
acquire RCN in a very competitive environment.
Ghana and Nigeria need a great deal of assistance for the development of an appropriate regulatory 
framework and institutional framework to support the sustainability of the value chain in general, and to 
promote processing in particular.
4.2.1.6 Study Question 1.6
What lessons from other cashew promotion projects have been used to improve the design 
of Prosper Cashew? How is Prosper Cashew aligned with and benefiting from the experience 
and current work of other cashew promotion projects elsewhere (regionally and globally)?
Box 6. Innovative methods
In both Nigeria and Ghana, it was mentioned that processors undertake contract processing, or tolling 
processing. This is a model where the processor only provides the processing service for a fee, without being 
responsible for buying RCN nor selling kernels. This is an interesting model that could be replicated, as it 
reduces the exposure to volatility risks for processors. By processing on an agreed price, processors essentially 
become service providers, not responsible for the acquisition of RCN nor the sale of kernels.
In both Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, we have been presented with satellite processing modules, where small partial 
processing units (shelling functions) are set up for a relatively small price (approximately USD 20,000) allowing 
cooperatives and other producer groups to generate and capture additional value. These cooperatives or 
satellite partial production units would then feed into a central factory that would focus on peeling. Some of the 
traditional processors are skeptical about this model. They see the shelling part of the process as the easiest 
one, where there is generally more built capacity, and peeling as the slower, more human-resource intensive 
part of processing. The satellite processing model would require main processors to become centers of 
excellence in peeling. A further benefit of this model is that main processors would need to acquire semi￾processed cashews gradually from cooperatives, throughout the year, without facing such capital-intensive 
requirements as traditional processors do.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
64
The activities proposed by TNS are a reflection of their experience in cashew value chain programming 
in West Africa. TNS have identified the critical aspects, such as access to finance, training, market 
linkages, for the success and sustainability of cashew processors. In many ways, it could be said that 
Prosper Cashew’s activities are based on learning derived from previous programs. Some of the 
resources and value chain actors (e.g., some of the intermediaries, and capacity building providers) have 
been engaged in previous TNS cashew value chain projects in the region.
In concrete terms and with regards to Prosper Cashew, TNS has considered some of the learnings of the 
implementation of the BeninCajù project, particularly the latter’s M&E framework. For BeninCajù, there 
were a total of over 100 indicators in the performance measurement plan, whereas for Prosper Cashew 
this number was substantially reduced. For BeninCajù also, the project had used multiple M&E systems 
across implementation partners, and TNS ensured that for Prosper Cashew only one was used. Finally, 
while in BeninCajù different consulting companies had been selected for the baseline, midterm and 
endline evaluations, for Prosper Cashew the decision was made to engage only one company for all 
evaluations. Finally, TNS has developed a freely available app for BeninCajù that assists in the quality 
assessment of RCN. This app could be disseminated widely to processors and intermediaries, as it may 
support in quality assessment of RCN during the procurement process. 
Turning out to existing projects, we found that Prosper Cashew aligned with them, but little direct 
collaboration was noted. Some of the projects we were exposed to during this study include the 
following:
 The Competitive Cashew initiative (ComCashew), a GIZ-funded program focusing on 
production, processing, market linkages and institutional strengthening of the cashew value 
chain in Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Mozambique and Sierra Leone.
 The Tony Blair Institute’s cashew programme, which supports the ambition of the Government 
of Côte d’Ivoire to increase domestic cashew processing by helping the country attract and 
retain foreign investment in the sector.
 The UK Trade Partnerships Programme, funded by the Foreign, Commonwealth & 
Development Office (FCDO) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 
focusing on the promotion of trade between the UK and Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, among other 
countries. For Côte d’Ivoire, the focus of trade is the agri-business sector, with cashew nuts 
and tropical fruits identified as potential export growth industries. For Ghana, cocoa is the 
main agricultural product identified. 
Another important initiative is PRO-Cashew, a sister project to Prosper Cashew that focuses on 
improvements at the farmer-level, and is also funded by USDA (see Box 1). PRO-Cashew is designed to 
support the increase of production and income generated for producers, which does not entirely match 
with the goal of Prosper Cashew. While both initiatives are the initial stages, it is important to flag this 
potential source of misalignment. PRO-Cashew’s main stakeholders are producers, and for producers, 
selling RCN to exporters is of greater interest than selling to processors, as exporters pay a premium, 
and they have better organized processes, including stronger financing mechanisms and pre-payment 
agreements for intermediaries. Processors are generally more concerned with ensuring the quality of 
RCN and are more risk averse in the assessment of quality of RCN, taking a longer time to decide on 
buying. In addition, processors have less access to financing, and are more vulnerable to fluctuations in 
the price of RCN.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
65
Herein potentially lies an important opportunity to balance interests between PRO-Cashew focusing on 
producers, and Prosper Cashew focusing on processors. As PRO-Cashew is responsible for lobbying and 
regulatory support, it is only natural that they focus on protecting the income security of farmers, and 
restrain from promoting processor supporting legislation, as it is contrary to their interest. These two 
key sets of players often act as competitors, but would gain in strength and shift power dynamics if they 
mobilized. This could be achieved with more regional integration and harmonization of the regulatory 
framework in West Africa—a challenge that, by design, PRO-Cashew is better equipped to take on than 
Prosper Cashew. 
4.2.1.7 Study Question 1.7
If relevant, how can activities and relationships between various value chain stakeholders be 
optimized?
Actors in the cashew value chain engage in constant activity and maintain ongoing relationships at every 
step of the business cycle. For instance, all processors need to develop links to producers, either directly 
or through intermediaries or cooperatives. Usually, processors develop a portfolio of RCN procurement 
strategies, including a mix of direct acquisition from producers, or acquisition from cooperatives and 
intermediaries. It is important to maintain a relationship with producers throughout the year to develop 
trust that can be helpful during the sourcing season. 
“I buy RCN from cooperatives between (10-15%), but mostly I buy with producers, either 
directly from producers, or through local buying agents (pisteurs) and friends – they contact 
us and say how much quantity they have, we visit, bring samples to the factory to analyze 
quality, return to the field, verify the quantity available, and send a buying team 
(transportation). It is not easy to buy. We pay gradually, because of the risk of carrying too 
much money in one trip.” — Côte d’Ivoire processor (translated)
Overall, the survey revealed, the highest percentage of active processors stated buying RCN from 
producer cooperatives/groups (63.6%), followed by intermediaries (59.1%), and from individual 
producers (50%) (see Table 45).
Table 45: Processors Who State Buying RCN from Different Groups
Category Sample 
size
Group
Individual 
producers
Producer 
cooperatives/
associations/
groups
Intermediaries/
traders
Other(s)
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 11 63.6 72.7 36.4 0.0
Ghana 4 75.0 25.0 75.0 0.0
Nigeria 7 14.3 71.4 85.7 0.0
Processor size
Small 14 50.0 50.0 64.3 0.0
Medium 4 75.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Large 4 25.0 75.0 100.0 0.0
Total 22 50.0 63.6 59.1 0.0
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
66
Processors reported to be doing business with a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 2,000 producers 
(average: 450); a minimum of one and a maximum of 50 producer groups (average: 14); and a minimum 
of one and a maximum of 100 intermediaries (average: 15).
Of the 18 processors that purchase RCN from either individual producers or producer cooperatives, a 
total of 72.2% stated that they have linkages with these producers. This includes 100% of the medium￾and large-sized processors and 54.5% of small-sized processors. In Nigeria, 100% of processors said they 
are linked with producers, while 60% in Côte d’Ivoire and 66.7% in Ghana said the same. Overall, 53.8% 
of processors reported using formal contracts, 46.2% doing business without formal contracts, and 
30.8% not distinguishing between the two (see Table 46). Several processors use more than one of these 
means for procurement.
Table 46: How Processors Tend to Purchase from the Producers or Producer Cooperatives
Category Sample 
size
Group
Through 
formal 
contracts
Indirect 
relations 
(no official 
contracts)
Do not 
distinguish 
between the 
two 
No response
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 6 50.0 50.0 16.7 0.0
Ghana 2 0.0 50.0 100.0 0.0
Nigeria 5 80.0 40.0 20.0 0.0
Processor size
Small 6 50.0 66.7 33.3 0.0
Medium 4 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0
Large 3 66.7 0.0 66.7 0.0
Total 13 53.8 46.2 30.8 0.0
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
In Côte d’Ivoire, both cooperatives we spoke with had admitted breaking supply contracts, not because 
the cooperatives found a better price, but because producers that were members of the cooperatives 
chose to sell at a higher price to other buyers. In one such cooperative, members chose to sell to buyers 
from across the border (Ghana), who paid a premium for RCN. Cooperatives themselves tried to 
convince producers to keep contracts by offering their own commission to offset the price difference 
between the contract signed and other offers, and by offering social incentives for families (e.g., school 
bursaries and loans to cover school costs to be offered from the cooperative profits). 
All in all, the entire cashew value chain is very competitive, capital intensive, and price sensitive. In the 
absence of strong regulation and organization of the value chain, there is a high degree of price 
volatility, and a general lack of appetite to commit to fixed-price contracts on the part of all cashew 
value chain stakeholders, from producers who can choose not to sell to intermediaries or processors as 
per agreed contracts; to international buyers, who will refuse to commit to buy a fixed quantity at a pre￾agreed price as prices in a different market may be lower at that given time. There is also a lack of 
regulatory framework to allow for enforcing of commercial contracts. The lack of transparency and 
asymmetry of information, further leads to mistrust among stakeholders. For instance, when a producer 
knows the price an intermediary sells to an exporter, he or she tries to negotiate as close to that price as 
possible, without considering the post-harvest handling, transportation, and pre-financing services 
provided by the intermediary.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
67
In this context, strengthening the processor-producer relationship, and the international buyer￾processor relationship could significantly help to benefit processors and the value chain in general. We 
found evidence of two concrete examples of efforts already pointing in this direction:
 The most important and relevant point of entry for a processor to engage with a producer is 
through the provision of extension services (e.g., processors providing training to producers). 
Although there is a cost associated with extension services, if extension services provided are 
of good quality, then the quality and quantity of RCN produced will be positively impacted by 
the services provided. In the past, some processors have engaged in the provision of extension 
services, but were not able to enforce the associate buying contracts, as producers decided to 
sell for a better price elsewhere. Olam, one of the larger processors in the industry, has been 
offering extension services and post-harvest handling training to farmers, but it does so 
without any expectation in return. This is part of their Corporate Social Responsibility program, 
albeit one that has a positive impact on the quality of RCN available to them for buying. Olam’s 
field staff and partners are reportedly supporting over 100 cashew cooperatives, reaching 
some 50,000 smallholder farmers across rural Africa and Asia, and helping them to increase 
their yields, ensure consistent quality and be more productive.72
 A similar dynamic was identified in the provision of technical assistance to processors by
international buyers. One such buyer has selected a number of processors to whom it provides 
technical assistance in a variety of areas, including certification procedures. In the past, 
technical assistance provided to processors was paid by international buyers, and came 
associated with an obligation of processors to sell to international buyers at a previously 
agreed price. This buyer decided to embark on a different model, one where technical 
assistance was still provided, but there was a cost share between the processor (50%) and 
buyer (50%), and no contractual obligation to sell or buy from either actor. This has led to 
processors reaching certification requirements required by the buyer, which in turn also 
opened processors to accessing other international buyers. 
4.2.1.8 Study Question 1.8
To what extent have initial proposed activities been adapted to take into consideration the 
potential economic and health effects of COVID-19?
To a large extent, we have not observed how the proposed activities will be implemented on the 
ground, and we have not seen the granulated details of how these will be put in place. However, it is 
possible to envisage ways of implementing these activities to a great extent via virtual formats or, if 
face-to-face, ensuring social distancing is kept. 
Although there were no clear indications of how project activities would be implemented, either 
through presential capacity building and technical exchange exercises, online trainings, or managerial in￾person or virtual meetings. The high prevalence of smart devices with internet capability (i.e., 
smartphones, tablets, computers, etc.) held by the various processors, and the general comfort of 
processors and staff to use some of the tools (i.e., WhatsApp, Zoom, etc.) would lead us to believe that 
there are the required infrastructure and skills to conduct basic activities and communication. More 
72 Source: <https://olamnuts.com/types-of-nuts-blog/post/addressing-sustainability-challenges-in￾cashews?utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_medium=Social&utm_cam%E2%80%A6>.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
68
complex activities may require some technical capacity building, but it would be possible to do so with 
limited investment on the part of TNS and partners.
If best practices and health regulations on social distancing, monitoring of temperature, and wearing of 
personal protective equipment, such as masks, is strictly adhered to, the risks of COVID-19 will be 
reduced substantially. The factories visited in Côte d’Ivoire were in general, respecting basic social 
distancing and PPE procedures. It is recommended that national policy on health and safety pertaining 
to COVID-19 be followed and requested of all participating stakeholders. 
The discussions on COVID-19 invariably turned to the commercial impact of COVID-19 on the access to 
RCN (initial movement restrictions) or the selling of kernel (prices dropped sharply).
4.2.1.9 Study Question 1.9
Is Prosper Cashew planning to provide the right combination of training, tools and resources 
to achieve its planned outcomes? If anything, what aspects might need further attention in 
the early stages to ensure the success of the project?
Prosper Cashew aims to increase the percentage of processed RCN in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Nigeria 
from an estimated 4% (at proposal) and 8.2% (at baseline) to 50%; aiming to mobilize USD 422 million in 
foreign exchange currency for the three focus countries. This objective seems difficult to achieve within 
the lifespan of the project. We recognize that the project is well designed, and that eventually, 
processing may reach 50% of the RCN production, although this could be particularly challenging if the 
regulatory framework and fiscal policy do not support processing better in Ghana and Nigeria.
The chamber of commerce and industry in Côte d’Ivoire noted with some frustration that, in spite of a 
well-designed regulatory framework, incentives for investment, and a continuous development of the 
base infrastructure (e.g., roads, electricity, etc.) in Côte d’Ivoire, cashew processing went from 5% in 
2013 to 9.1% in 2019. When the 50% processing goal was discussed with CCA (the Cashew and Cotton 
Council of Côte d’Ivoire), an objective shared by government and the institution, they stated that it was 
a case of “aiming for the stars, so that we can land on the moon” sort of an objective statement.
With regards to Ghana and Nigeria, either there is a change in the regulatory framework, or not only will 
the objective not be met, but there is a risk to see processing diminish in these countries. If the larger 
processor in Ghana, USIBRAS,73 which already has to source RCN from Guinea-Bissau to meet its RCN 
requirements, closes its operations, then Ghana will lose a substantial part (an estimated 80%) of its 
current production capacity.
At the early stage of the project, it is important to staff all the needed positions. This will take a 
significant level of effort. Prosper Cashew has been able to benefit from the support of the TNS regional 
and global teams in the initial stages of work, and this has been a valued support. 
It is also important to design the activities in a way that they are aligned and mutually reinforcing. For 
instance, the access to finance, capacity building and links to international market activities could be 
developed in ways that each of these contributes to the success of the other activities. 
73 Source: KII with market association. It was mentioned that USIBRAS is currently sourcing RCN from Ghana and 
supplementing their needs with RCN from Guinea-Bissau. A “large” processor is defined as having capacity to 
process a minimum of 5,000 MT annually.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
69
We have not seen a concerted effort for the development of a sustainability strategy, and we believe it 
would be important to have one in place soon, so that all activities can contribute towards the 
sustainability of the outcomes and activities. We recognize that, due to their market-driven nature, the 
financial activities (Cashew Catalyst Fund and Match-Making Facility) will achieve sustainability in a 
natural manner. It is less clear that the capacity building and linkage to international markets activities 
will be sustainable in the long run. These issues are further discussed in Section 4.2.4, below.
4.2.2 Effectiveness
4.2.2.1 Study Question 2.2
Have a proper risk analysis and proper mitigation strategies been devised for Prosper
Cashew? If relevant, which strategic options can viably be incorporated in the 
implementation plan to foster the likeliness of achieving expected results?
We have not seen a risk assessment and mitigation plan developed for Prosper Cashew. In the proposal 
document, a risk assessment has been planned to be conducted in Years 1 and 2, although this has not 
been documented in the work plan. For the financial components, ISF has planned to integrate risk 
assessments into their product development, as risk assessment is generally an important operational 
component of financial product development.
In the work plan document, a series of critical assumptions have been identified, which could affect 
project implementation. We have divided these into high risk, moderate risk and low risk, which also 
takes into consideration the probability of these occurring. 
High Risk/High Probability
One of the critical assumptions identified is that “West African cashew processors are able to overcome 
the current competitive advantage of Indian and Vietnamese processors” within the life of the project. 
While we recognize that activities are well designed to support processors in the three countries, it is 
unlikely that processors in Côte d’Ivoire, and even less so in Ghana and Nigeria, will overcome the 
competitive advantage of Vietnamese and Indian processors. Cost of processing inputs such as energy 
and labor is comparatively much higher in West Africa, and domestic consumption of both kernels and 
by-products is higher in both India and Vietnam, and the project has limited influence over this. 
Access to technology, know-how, productivity levels and availability of factory workers, and the ability 
to source RCN globally all year are further competitive advantages for Vietnamese and Indian 
processors. 
In our consultations, we understood that international buyers take a portfolio approach to kernel 
procurement (also as a risk mitigation measure), choosing to purchase at least a portion of their kernel 
from West Africa. Procuring kernel as close as possible to the RCN source is also a competitive 
advantage for West Africa, which has been producing RCN of steady quality in the past years and is 
increasingly able, as in Côte d’Ivoire, to provide a minimum level of traceability in a context where 
consumers are increasingly aware of the environmental and social impact of products consumed. This 
proximity responds well to farm-to-table traceability needs, and has been a factor for buyers turning to 
West Africa. 
Medium Risk/Medium Probability
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
70
USDA has funded activities to strengthen the cashew value chain in West Africa across two 
implementers, Prosper Cashew (TNS/ISF) and PRO-Cashew (CNFA). It is assumed that “Prosper Cashew 
will be able to coordinate with other USDA- and other donor-funded projects focused on production 
such as PRO-Cashew to identify and link farmers, farmer groups, and farmer associations capacitated by 
those projects directly to processors funded by Prosper Cashew.” We have identified a risk here, as for 
producers, selling to processors, particularly in Ghana and Nigeria, may make less commercial sense, 
especially in the short-term, than selling to exporters. Selling to exporters usually commands greater 
economic gain for producers. As PRO-Cashew focuses on production and trade of RCN, there is a 
potential misalignment of project goals (as mentioned earlier in this report). However, given that both 
projects are financed by USDA, there is an important opportunity to mitigate this risk and for both 
implementing partners to bring some balance by also advocating for processor interests, which serves 
the long-term interests of the West African cashew sector as a whole. USDA is keen to see healthy 
collaboration between projects.
A further assumption is that there is no extraordinary political or financial instability in the region that 
may deter investors from providing capital for this region. This is difficult for TNS to manage. We 
recognize that there are potential political and security risks that can destabilize financial performance, 
although we also recognize that these types of potential risks are prevalent in Africa and investors are 
aware of them. 
Low Risk/Low Probability
The project is also operating with the assumption that “The Cashew Catalyst Fund together with the 
Match-Making Facility offer a unique value proposition from past and existing funding options.” Due to 
the lack of competitive financing mechanisms available in the three focus countries, the high capital 
requirements of processors, and Prosper Cashew’s intent to develop competitive financial products and 
services, this seems like a low risk and a low probability. 
One other assumption identified in the work plan is that “macroeconomic conditions in the three 
countries stabilize or recover from COVID-19 and relevant governments continue to ease COVID-19-
related restrictions.” We have identified this as low-risk, as the current official level of new cases in all 
three countries (on the 15th of May there were 44 new confirmed cases in Nigeria, 114 in Ghana and 32 
in Côte d’Ivoire) is low, and the economic risk is also fairly limited. Although we do recognize that the 
impact of the pandemic is very fluid and data is limited in these countries, we also recognize a strong 
sense of resilience to external shocks, due to the multiple layers of health, socio-economic, and political 
risks that populations and businesses in West Africa have been facing for generations.
Prosper Cashew activities have been designed as mutually reinforcing, and this is, in itself, a relevant risk 
mitigation strategy. Access to finance from the Cashew Catalyst Fund or Match-Making Facility will be 
supported by technical assistance to processors, and market linkages to access RCN and international 
kernel buyers.
4.2.3 Efficiency and Value for Money
4.2.3.1 Study Question 3.2
How adequate is the M&E system developed to meet the needs for accountability, results 
demonstration and learning? What current indicators could be used to monitor the program 
and track longer-term change?
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
71
The M&E system, with its KPIs, learning questions, and study/evaluation questions, is well placed to 
meet the needs for accountability, results demonstration, and learning. However, as mentioned in the 
sections above discussing indicator results, many indicators are based on absolute results, which in the 
current environment of processor secretiveness and non-willingness to disclose data they feel is 
sensitive can be difficult to answer. Only some can be answered through extrapolations, and these, of 
course, are estimations. Thus, several suggestions were made on how to measure some indicators using 
percentages, which are better able to display results when the entire population cannot be sampled 
(please note these are based on the same data being collected, so very little additional effort is required 
to report on these). Also, there does not seem to be an indicator to track the progress of Activity 4 (refer 
to Section 2.1 for details) (e.g., supply chain improvement, better access to RCN, farmer-processor 
contracts/commitments, direct farmer linkage programs). Thus, it is suggested to add the indicator,
“Percentage of processors that have formal direct linkages with farmers.” It could also be important to 
consider adding some indicators to measure other important aspects of the project, such as improved 
training facilities (output level) and better access to equipment and technical support (outcome level).
4.2.4 Sustainability
Regarding whether the benefits achieved by Prosper Cashew will last, we anticipate that, once set up, 
the Cashew Catalyst Fund and Match-Making Facility, will likely be self-sustaining if processors are 
competitive, as these activities follow market forces and respond to the business feasibility and 
sustainability needs of the private sector. 
With regards to capacity-building activities, these would be sustainable if an appropriate costing and 
cost-sharing strategy is developed. If the provision of these services is highly subsidized by Prosper 
Cashew, then it is likely that it will distort the market and undermine post-project sustainability. If, 
however, the project sees its role as a facilitator and supporter of capacity-building provision, with 
adequate cost-sharing between processors and other stakeholders, the sustainability of these activities 
will be greatly enhanced. If processors see the value in paying for capacity building services, as they do 
with ACA or private sector actors, and capacity provision remains of good quality and competitive 
pricing, then capacity-building service provision should be sustainable. 
With regards to market linkages, it is considered that links established during the life of the project will 
remain in place, and grow organically, and establish best practices that other processors and 
international buyers can follow.
In terms of sustainability of the overall cashew sector, we do think that viability currently depends on 
the political, economic, social and enabling environment and these vary across the three focus 
countries, although common pathways have been identified. The value chain actors, particularly in 
Nigeria and Ghana which have nascent regulatory frameworks, need to organize by stakeholder 
category; so, then, processors can better lobby the government for an enabling environment that 
encourages domestic and regional processing. In Nigeria and Ghana, processors will need to grow their 
influence through national regulatory bodies (CCA is well advanced in Côte d’Ivoire, but none set up in 
Nigeria yet, and the Ghana Tree Crop Development Authority is in its early stage) to ensure the 
promotion of an enabling regulatory environment. Finally, the sector will achieve greater sustainability 
once it is able to harmonize its policies regionally through the Consultative International Cashew 
Council (CICC), becoming more equitable throughout the value chain and across the region.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
72
4.2.4.1 Study Question 4.1
To what extent does the Prosper Cashew implementation model bring about sustainable 
changes for processors, farmers and rural communities, and other stakeholders?
There are activities that will be regional in nature, such as the Cashew Catalyst Fund and the Match￾Making Facility, and if the risk assessments are calibrated to take into consideration the national risks, 
these should be sustainable as a market-driven initiative.
With regards to the sustainability of the overall cashew sector and the various actors in the value chain, 
this is somewhat outside of the direct sphere of influence of TNS, through the Prosper Cashew project 
will nonetheless be an area of influence as processors end up financially and technically stronger, and 
their leadership will further look at uniting to influence policy making, as we are seeing in Côte d’Ivoire. 
We have noted that there is a substantial governance risk, in that the lack of regulatory frameworks for 
the cashew value chain in Nigeria and Ghana are an exogenous risk to the project. It would be important 
to reflect on ways to support institutional development of the cashew value chain in Nigeria and Ghana, 
and more generally in Côte d’Ivoire as well, to support Prosper Cashew’s ambitious processing targets.
4.2.4.2 Study Question 4.2
How conducive are the political, economic, and social environments in each country and
globally to achieving project results, with a view to having them last over time?
While Côte d’Ivoire has a comprehensive regulatory framework for the cashew value chain, including 
fiscal incentives for processors and disincentives for exports of RCN, Ghana and Nigeria are still in their 
early stages of elaborating a regulatory framework and implementing policies that recognize the added 
value of domestic processing, protect their access to RCN, and incentivize investment. The institutional 
architecture is still nascent too. While Côte d’Ivoire has CCA (its Cashew and Cotton Council, and a 
strong active and well-resourced public body with various representations of members of the cashew 
value chain), Ghana has just recently created the Ghana Tree Crop Development Authority, and Nigeria 
is in the planning stages, with the creation of a national inter-ministerial and interagency committee to 
develop a 10-year development plan for the value chain. 
Developments in the regulatory framework during the lifetime of the project, and accompanying 
regional harmonization, would support domestic processing and be conducive to reaching the project’s 
ambitious targets.
4.2.4.3 Study Question 4.3
How adequate is the exit and sustainability strategy for all the project components?
No sustainability or exit plan has been developed at this stage, and we note sustainability and exit 
strategies are planned to be conducted on Year 5 for the Cashew Catalyst Fund and on Year 3 for the 
Match-Making Facility. We would urge Prosper Cashew to consider the sustainability and exit strategies 
at the onset of project implementation, so that a sustainability strategy is coherently integrated into the 
work plan.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
73
4.3 Learning Questions
4.3.1 Learning Question 5.1
What value do intermediaries bring in expanding markets? What methods of engaging 
intermediaries to expand markets through the services and trade they provide are effective?
One of the intermediaries’ most added-value activity is their capacity to act as aggregators. This, at
minimum, reduces transaction costs for processors and exporters by bringing RCN to one place. Buying 
RCN can be a time-consuming and costly activity, as it requires travelling for extensive periods of time 
across cashew producing regions and buying small quantities of RCN from individual producers.
Some of the activities intermediaries perform are well suited to provide additional added value 
functions—such as the provision of extension services and technical support to producers, and 
facilitating access to finance, although this is a risky proposition as farmers can often default on RCN 
supply contracts without consequence. Intermediaries also have a strong local contextual knowledge 
and linkages that assist them in buying RCN from producers. For instance, local intermediaries will be 
aware of where it rained and other environmental patterns, and this will assist them to identify where 
production is at its best in a given season. If intermediaries keep a constant relationship with producers, 
they will also be able to know which producers have used chemicals in their production processes 
(important for identifying producers for bio certification), and assist with traceability, among other 
tasks. 
It could be argued that the aggregator function of the intermediary will always exist, although 
processors, cooperatives and exporters may choose to integrate it within their own activities to capture 
these profit margins. As with all stakeholders relationships, there are trust issues, and productive 
producer-intermediary-processor relationships take a long time to develop. 
In Nigeria specifically, due to the lack of regulation and controls on the various roles many actors play 
(value chain actors in Nigeria can cumulate the roles of intermediaries, exporters, processors, and 
secondary processors), intermediaries are under a lot of pressure in the country, and this tension was 
felt in our multi-stakeholder conversations. The National Cashew Association of Nigeria is dominated by 
intermediaries that have to constantly protect their role. This puts them at odds with processors who do 
not feel represented in this body. 
4.3.2 Learning Question 5.2
To what extent does increasing horizontal and vertical market linkages among agricultural 
actors at various levels, such as companies, SMEs, smallholders and intermediaries, promote 
economic benefits for actors and market expansion overall?
There are clear benefits to vertical integration within the value chain, particularly between processors 
and producers, and international buyers and processors. 
Strengthening the vertical integration between processors and producers, perhaps introducing 
intermediaries to assist where there are gaps in the supply chain, could be beneficial for all parties 
involved. This relationship model sees processors/intermediaries provide extension services to ensure 
best practices on cashew production; and assistance with post-harvest care and handling, ensuring RCN 
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
74
is sorted and dried appropriately. These tasks would increase the quality of RCN for processors and 
provide more resilient revenue for producers.
With regards to vertical integration between international buyers and processors, both actors could also 
benefit from stronger integration. If international buyers assist processors with technical assistance 
regarding quality assurance and certification processes, this would assist international buyers to have 
access to higher quality, certified nuts, and increase the reliability and quantity of kernels produced. It
would also assist processors to reassure other international buyers about the strength of their improved 
kernel production.
However, in both the extension services provided by processors to producers, and technical assistance 
provided by international buyers to processors, best practices encountered would suggest these should 
be de-linked from purchasing contracts. These types of contracts are difficult to reinforce and create 
challenging power dynamics between actors. 
With regards to horizontal integration, there are some interesting models encountered. In Côte d’Ivoire, 
two small-scale producers (who are open to more processors joining in) have created an economic 
interest group that allows them to benefit from government incentives otherwise inaccessible due to 
the limited scale of their activities. One of the objectives of the interest group is also to be able to pool 
kernels produced to ensure international buyers can have access to a more reliable supply. The interest 
group will also approach finance institutions for credit provision, spreading the risk and responsibility 
across various processors. 
In Ghana and Nigeria, greater vertical cooperation between processors would be an important strategy, 
in order to leverage influence to lobby the government to ensure processor interests are being valued in 
the development of their regulatory frameworks and policies. 
4.3.3 Learning Question 5.3
What are the best linkage models to help small- and medium-sized producers, traders, and 
postharvest market actors, who frequently lack collateral, registration, and credit history to 
access loans or other financial instruments to effectively expand their businesses?
Prosper Cashew could consider offering a partial guarantee, or identify mechanisms that would be able 
to offer a guarantee, to loans accessed by small-scale processors in addition to a commitment to offer 
technical assistance and linkage to markets. Finance institutions would derive significant insight from 
this type of support from a development project. 
4.3.4 Learning Question 5.4
What types of incentives are effective in encouraging the adoption of risk reduction and 
mitigation products and practices (i.e., insurance, loans, crop diversification, new technology) 
among agricultural actors?
When active processors were asked what they view as the most significant primary, secondary, and 
tertiary risk to their processing business, the most common combined response was legislative or 
regulatory changes, followed by staff shortage risk, sales contract default, and quality risk. Staff shortage 
risk was the most cited primary risk (see Table 47).
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
75
Table 47: Risks Identified by Active Processors (n = 22)
Category Risk 1 Risk 2 Risk 3
Sales contract default 18.2 18.2 9.1
Procurement contract default 9.1 13.6 13.6
Quality risk 18.2 9.1 18.2
Currency risk 9.1 4.5 13.6
Security risks (cash-only transactions in procurement) 4.5 4.5 0.0
Staff shortage risk 22.7 13.6 13.6
Health risks (Ebola, COVID-19) 0.0 4.5 9.1
Legislative or regulatory changes (government price
fixing, increase in the minimum wage, increase in the 
cost of electricity, etc.)
9.1 27.3 13.6
No response (no other foreseen risk) 0.0 4.5 9.1
Other(s) 9.1 0.0 0.0
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
Several processors revealed an emphasis on training and coaching to ensure quality staff to mitigate 
against staff shortage risks, while others mentioned increasing wages and providing premiums based on 
performance. Additionally, a number of processors mentioned automating their lines further to require 
less human intervention, increase production levels, and reduce production costs. 
In terms of sales contract default, mitigation measures included having assistance to develop and 
enforce legally binding sales contracts, diversification of the client portfolio, ensuring customer 
satisfaction by meeting delivery deadlines and delivering quality products, and taking advantage of 
branded products. 
To control for quality, areas for improvements were mentioned along the entire processing chain. For 
instance, one processor mentioned improving storage practice and moisture content. Others mentioned 
constant sensitization on hygiene and health management and staff awareness of the risks related to 
poor quality. A couple of processors mentioned they are currently undertaking certification and ensuring 
strict application of quality rules, and one mentioned hiring a quality control technician.
Other more general measures for mitigating risks included planning ahead, anticipation of resource 
requirements related to purchases, and reducing production costs. 
Interestingly, qualitative findings suggested acquisition of RCN and currency volatility to be the most 
important risks. With regards to the acquisition of RCN, processors have developed a portfolio of 
sourcing strategies, varying from direct acquisition from farmers (farmer linkage programs), buying from 
intermediaries, and, in particular cases, importing from other regional markets (particularly true in 
Ghana). Processors have been very dynamic in this regard, and this diversification of sourcing can be 
seen as a risk mitigation measure. Some intermediaries have mentioned reaching out to community and 
village leadership to help settle disputes with producers in regard to the acquisition of RCN and 
elaboration of purchasing contracts. 
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
76
In Nigeria, processors have been able to integrate various supply functions within their operations to 
diversify risks and increase income opportunities. For instance, it is not uncommon to see processors 
who also operate as exporters, and intermediaries, acquiring RCN at farmgate to feed their export and 
processing operations. In Nigeria too we have seen a growing number of processors focusing on 
secondary processing (roasting) for the large internal market, and also engaging in contract (toll) 
processing, therefore also diversifying their risk portfolio.
In terms of currency volatility, one large processor reported having insurance against currency 
fluctuation. A Nigerian survey respondent noted hedging of currency, while one from Côte d’Ivoire
mentioned arranging sales contracts in Euros as much as possible.
In Ghana (Ghana Incentive Based Risk Sharing Mechanism – GIRSAL) and Côte d’Ivoire (CCA) there are 
currently guarantee mechanisms to support processors, with partial first loss guarantees. However, the 
initial risk assessment must be done by the primary lending institutions. 
4.3.5 Other Learning Questions
What are the perspectives of child labor in the cashew value chain?
When active and inactive processors were asked if they believe controls are necessary for looking at 
issues of child labor in their supply chain, only 7.7% said no, but 23.1% provided no response (see 
Table 48). Generally, processors in Côte d’Ivoire and Nigeria were most likely to say that controls are 
necessary and reporting they implement these, while in Ghana processors also believed controls are 
necessary, but stated that they were not implementing these. Almost all active processors pointed out 
that they do have a child labor policy, although it is unclear the degree at which these policies are 
comprehensive and how they are operationalized to safeguard against child labor in the sector.
Table 48: Processor’s Understanding of the Need for Controls to Look for Child Labor in the 
Supply Chain
Controls Côte d’Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Total
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Yes, implement 5 38.5% 0 0.0% 3 37.5% 8 30.8%
Yes, don’t implement 2 15.4% 3 60.0% 1 12.5% 6 23.1%
Yes (inactive) 2 15.4% 1 20.0% 1 12.5% 4 15.4%
No 2 15.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 7.7%
No response 2 15.4% 1 20.0% 3 37.5% 6 23.1%
Total 13 100.0% 5 100.0% 8 100.0% 26 100.0%
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
When enquiring through qualitative discussions about children participating in production activities, it 
was consensual that parents encourage children to be fully engaged in education. Children may spend 
some time in cashew orchards outside of school time in leisure activities or spending time with family, 
but it was generally believed that their active role in cashew production is secondary to their playing and 
education activities. In Côte d’Ivoire, their contribution to cashew production was not perceived to be 
important, although in Nigeria cooperative members thought that children played a role. 
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
77
“When their mothers harvest, these children are given the task of gathering the cashew in 
small quantities. By packing in small quantities, they put the cashew together to make large 
volumes. Also, they help transport the cashew from the farm to where it can be taken away. 
For school and play time, the children usually go to the farm after school hours during the 
week and work for some time on weekends (between 10 am and 1 pm), and also during the 
holidays. You should note that these children usually take harvesting as a way to play 
around because many of us (fathers) have introduced it to them as such. Hence, we allow 
them to play, rest and eat.“ — Nigerian cooperative
Overall, 40.6% (n=32) of processors believe that child labor is an issue in the cashew value chain, with 
Nigerian processors most commonly stating this (45.5%), followed by Ghana (40,0%) and Côte d’Ivoire
(37.5%) (see Figure 10). All these processors stated that child labor occurred at the production level, 
with the exception of one who stated both production and processing.
A total of 40.6% of processors know of a government monitoring system where cases of child labor can 
be reported. In Côte d’Ivoire (43.8%), commonly reported institutions were the Ministère de la Femme 
et de l’enfant and NGOs. In Ghana (40.%), the Ministry for Gender and Child Protection and the Labor 
Commission were mentioned, while in Nigeria (36.4%), the Kaduna State Ministry of Humanitarian 
Service, the National Labor Congress, the Child Right Enforcement and Development Agency (CREDA), 
and the Federal Ministry of Youth and Sports Development were mentioned. Fewer processors (21.9%; 
Côte d’Ivoire 31.3%; Ghana 20.0%; Nigeria 9.1%) could name initiatives (governmental or non￾governmental) that have implemented a code of conduct related to child labor in the cashew value 
chain. Apart from those responses already mentioned above, in Côte d’Ivoire, the NGO Children of Africa 
Managed by the First Lady’s Office and, in Ghana, Comcashew, were identified.
Figure 10: Percentage of Processors Who Believe Child Labor is an 
Issue in the Cashew Value Chain, by Country
Source: Baseline Processor Survey. March-April 2021.
In 2019, Olam Food Ingredient’s cashew team trained 2,500 farmers on child labor awareness. In 
addition to providing training and actions plans, they invested over USD 20,000 in education 
37.5 40.0 45.5 40.6
43.8 40.0 27.3 37.5
18.8 20.0 27.3 21.9
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Côte d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Total
Percentage
Yes No No response
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
78
infrastructure (refurbishing school buildings and canteens, and providing school kits), thereby 
supporting the community’s future generation.74
5. Lessons Learned, and Monitoring and Evaluation 
Considerations
Lessons Learned
At future points in time for data collection utilizing the processor survey, to promote high survey uptake 
the following considerations should be followed: 1) do not send out any other surveys at the time when 
the processor survey will be sent out for either monitoring or evaluation purposes; 2) ensure that 
processors are provided a long enough period of time for survey completion, as it is sent out during the 
cashew procurement season (timelines will need to incorporate this factor); and 3) close collaboration 
and trust building (and perhaps signed agreements) is further necessary for processors to complete the 
survey.
High intensity follow-up needs to be done with processors to ensure that the survey is completed. This 
situation should improve at later stages of evaluation, as contact information will be up-to-date and 
processors will have already been engaged in the project and be more willing to participate in the 
survey.
All data submitted by processors must be examined very closely to follow up on inconsistencies and 
errors in the data submitted.
Monitoring and Evaluation Considerations
To accurately track the financial indicators, it will be important for the fund manager or more generally 
the project to put in place a tracking system so that all investments, grants, and loans (i.e., through 
banks or other entities) resulting from Prosper Cashew directly or indirectly can be counted. Some 
processors have and will likely continue to refuse to provide this information as they consider this 
confidential. Finance institutions will likely also consider this information confidential, but perhaps the 
monetary values of loans can be provided without identifying information (although this would limit 
some disaggregations). Advisem suggests that the fund manager set up linkages with a finance focal 
point at each processor level, to monitor investments that might be attributable to Prosper Cashew. The 
fund manager would also work closely with ISF advisors and the Match-Making Facility to determine if 
any investment, loan, or grant is directly or indirectly attributable to the Prosper Cashew.
For Indicator #6: “Number of organizations with increased performance with USDA assistance,” at mid￾term it can be re-assessed at if some questions can be removed, based on the support that TNS has 
provided or will provide. 
For Indicator #11: “Number of distinct markets to which selected agricultural products are exported,”
Prosper Cashew should assess whether only adding new unique export countries or whether adding the 
74 Source: <https://olamnuts.com/types-of-nuts-blog/post/addressing-sustainability-challenges-in￾cashews?utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_medium=Social&utm_cam%E2%80%A6>.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
79
same export country but through different processors is more important. Advisem would suggest the 
second option. Currently both values are provided.
For Indicator #24: “Number of individuals benefiting indirectly as a result of USDA assistance” the 
number of individuals benefiting indirectly will be calculated by multiplying the number of new jobs as a 
result of USDA assistance by the average household size. Currently, the Prosper Cashew estimate of five 
indirect jobs for each direct job created appears to be an overestimate. The household sizes per focus 
country, according to United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division 
Database on Household Size and Composition,75 also coincide with the average household size 
calculated from the PRO-Cashew baseline study of producer households (see Table 26, earlier in this 
report). The multiplier should not include the individual directly benefiting. The target for Indicator #24 
likely needs to be revised based upon these values and the number of direct jobs estimated to be 
developed per country.
Two potential indicators that have a high likelihood of being answered correctly, and could provide 
interesting insights, are:
 Percentage RCN processed compared to installed capacity.
 Percentage of processors that have formal direct linkages with farmers (this indicator would 
address part of the theory of change, which currently has no indicators).
Additional methods to measure some indicators have been provided throughout the baseline report. 
These tended to be percentages, which are more easily assessed using a survey methodology than 
numbers.
It would be beneficial to have any processors that did not complete the OCA do this before they can 
receive any project assistance. Subsequently, individual processors’ OCA scores at original baseline (or 
their own baseline) can be compared with their score at other evaluation points to assess if their 
organizational capacity has improved.
If Prosper Cashew and PRO-Cashew want to track overlap in RCN sales or volumes, it will be necessary to 
implement some sort of tracking system to see if PRO-Cashew producers are selling to Prosper Cashew 
processors. However, this could become complicated by intermediaries playing a role in value chain 
sales between producers and processors. 
It could also be important to consider adding some indicators to measure other important aspects of the 
project, such as improved training facilities (output level) and better access to equipment and technical 
support (outcome level).
Advisem suggests signing a Memorandum of Understanding with processors who will receive support 
from Prosper Cashew, to clearly define the partnership with processors and responsibilities of each 
party, and address the possible benefits that the company would draw from this partnership, in return 
for the sharing of key information for design, planning, analysis, and monitoring and evaluation 
purposes.
75 Source: <https://population.un.org/Household/index.html#/countries/566>. Côte d’Ivoire DHS 2012; Nigeria 
DHS 2015; Ghana DHS 2014. Estimates are conservative as Department of Health statistics from the previous 
decade.
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
80
6. Conclusions (Challenges and Opportunities) 
Sharing of Documentation
During this study it was clear that stakeholders, in particular processors, had “consultation and survey 
fatigue.” There have been considerable efforts by the development sector to engage with the cashew 
value chain in West Africa in recent years, but a sense of limited returns for processors on their time 
(and often financial) investments. The Prosper Cashew project is the first of its kind to directly address 
the needs of processors. 
Institutional Architecture and Regulatory Framework
While Côte d’Ivoire has a comprehensive regulatory framework for the cashew value chain, including 
fiscal incentives for processors and protectionist measures on exports of RCN, Ghana and Nigeria are still 
in their early stages of elaborating a regulatory framework that formally recognizes the added value of 
processors, protects their access to RCN to capture the added value from domestic processing, and 
incentivizes investment for business development. The institutional architecture is still nascent too.
While Côte d’Ivoire has the Cashew and Cotton Council (CCA), a strong active and well-resourced public 
body with various representations of members of the cashew value chain, Ghana has just recently 
created the Ghana Tree Crop Development Authority, and Nigeria is in the planning stages, with the 
creation of the national inter-ministerial and interagency committee to develop a 10-year development 
plan for the value chain. The lack of a regulatory framework for processors in Ghana and Nigeria is an 
important challenge that will ultimately influence the project outcome and which Prosper Cashew is not 
directly addressing. 
Regional Integration
Most policy measures currently implemented in the sector favor production, and, at a limited level, 
domestic processing. With regards to the international market, processors in West Africa face a range of 
challenges that put them at a combined disadvantage and limit the capacity of the region to capture a 
greater share of the kernel market. Working towards harmonized regional policies would influence 
access to all-year supply, cost of doing business, access to financing and technical services, appropriate 
infrastructure to support growth, and capacity to meet quality standards. These are all areas that 
directly impact competitiveness and sustainability. 
Multiple Capacity Building Modalities
There are increasing numbers of modes for the delivery of capacity-building activities. The pandemic has 
shown the promise of technology and virtual communication to support training and development. 
These should be leveraged and encouraged. For equipment/maintenance providers, TNS has developed 
an innovation hub in Cotonou, Benin, a facility where participants can use the physical space and 
technological resources to design, test and build required tools and parts. This could lead to the 
development of quality regional part suppliers for processors.
Local Consumption/National market – Food Production
The India and Vietnam experience has shown that the expansion of the cashew sector includes not only 
continuous improvements in production and an increase in regional or domestic processing, but also the 
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
81
promotion of domestic consumption (kernels and by-products) as well as the expansion of secondary 
processing (roasting, seasoning, niche markets).
In Nigeria, the national market has proven to be an interesting opportunity for processors who invest in 
secondary processing (roasting), branding and packaging. In Ghana, there also seems to be a growing 
national demand that could prove to be an interesting opportunity particularly, due to the relatively 
small size of many national processors. Roasted and branded cashew nuts for final consumers tend to 
generate higher profit margins, albeit from a smaller amount of sales in domestic markets. In Nigeria, 
the premium received for roasting and packaging for the final consumer varied between 45% and 60%, 
although quantities of product sold were significantly lower, as were the variable costs (lower 
requirement of RCN). In Côte d’Ivoire, the national market and informal market also provide interesting 
opportunities, especially because they do not require premium kernel.
Gender
As the employment data show, there is an important gender dimension to cashew processing around 
the world. In most factories, the vast majority of workers are women, and they are therefore the ones 
who are overwhelmingly exposed to health risks (hands burned by cashew oil, respiratory problems due 
to cashew shell particles, unpaid leave, etc.). The data also show that management and decision-making 
tasks are almost exclusively performed by men. These inequalities highlight an opportunity for Prosper 
Cashew to promote gender transformation policies within processing itself, but also by supporting 
advocacy efforts to strengthen the role of women throughout the value chain.
Processor Eligibility for Participation
It was suggested that processor eligibility for funding/support would be based on processor size (>5,000 
MT), which would essentially exclude small processors that make up a large percentage of the 
processing units in the Prosper Cashew countries. These small processors may have a higher employee 
to unit RCN processed ratio, and it was also revealed that these small units could potentially access the 
international markets. In addition, qualitative work found that processors below 500 MT per year seem 
to thrive in Ghana. Additionally, it is these larger processors that are much less likely to provide 
processing and financial information upon which Prosper Cashew’s tracking of project results depends.
Certification
The global demand for cashew kernels is on a sustained growth path, which creates new opportunities 
for numerous actors to enter the market. Adherence to traceability, sanitary, security, sustainability, and 
transparency standards are also increasingly important for consumers and retailers worldwide. This 
trend greatly benefits West African processors, who can source and trace RCN locally. Of notable 
importance is the growth of the organic, vegan and sustainability markets. Cashew kernels and by￾products can be marketed as such and there is an opportunity for processors in West Africa to respond 
to the worldwide demand for these, and also an opportunity to capture the premium pricing for these 
products. 
Ultimate Outcome
Prosper Cashew is targeting a significant increase in domestic processing with a goal of 50% of 2020 
production. Barring some of the additional opportunities highlighted in this report, the project is well 
June 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report
82
designed to support processors towards this ambitious goal, but the feasibility of reaching 50% in five 
years is unlikely, given the wide range of challenges faced by West African processors. This includes not 
only the financial and technical challenges addressed by the project, but all the other challenges 
presented in this report that are tied to both the long-term profitability of existing processors, and the 
sustainability of interventions launched by Prosper Cashew. 
In 2019, India celebrated the 100th year of its cashew processing industry.76 This puts into perspective 
the cashew processing industry in Côte d’Ivoire where first processors started appearing barely 15 years 
ago. In Nigeria and Ghana, the industry is even younger. In 2013, according to the Côte d’Ivoire’s 
Chamber of Commerce, there was a total processing of 3,000 MT. Today, total processing in that 
country is 70,000 MT,77 which demonstrates a clear development in absolute terms. In 2013, Côte 
d’Ivoire processed 5% of the total production, in 2019, this had grown to 9.1%, and was reported at 
7.9% in 2021. In relative terms, as production is also increasing, the percentage of processing in relation 
to production does not reflect the scale of growth. In Côte d’Ivoire in particular, we can see the 
emergence of higher capacity processors, with greater access to financing and with a clear goal of 
obtaining leading certification standards such as the BRC. Ghana and Nigeria are increasing their 
processing capacity rapidly. It is quite possible that the region becomes a leading cashew processing 
pole globally. Prosper Cashew will certainly contribute towards this.
7. Suggestions for Consideration to Improve Program Design 
and Implementation
Based on the findings of the baseline report, Advisem provides somesuggestions that are left to TNS for 
consideration, if they are deemed useful to improve the design and implementation of the program. It is 
suggested that:
1. A version of the information contained in this baseline report is directly shared with all 
participating stakeholders, as the majority of stakeholders consulted demonstrated interest in 
receiving feedback/insights on this study.
2. Prosper Cashew consider the feasibility of engaging with authorities and processors in 
supporting countries to mobilize processors and help strengthen their institutional presence to 
advocate for their interests. There is also an opportunity to operationalize this approach by 
closely working on strategies with PRO-Cashew, but as discussed, the interests of producers, 
represented by PRO-Cashew, and processors, represented by Prosper Cashew, are not 
necessarily aligned. This involves looking beyond short-term incentives, where exporters 
generally pay higher price for RCN than processors, providing immediate incentives to reject any 
fiscal measures to promote privileged access to RCN by processors. 
3. A harmonized regulatory and institutional framework for the cashew value chain that 
incentivizes cashew processing in their respective countries be supported by TNS for all 
countries in the region, and notably the three project countries.
4. Trainings remain flexible, aligning theory and practice and provided on a continuous basis to 
ensure maximum relevance. In line with this, there are important technological resources 
available to develop good quality training materials for all processors, and even delivering some 
76 Source: KII with a Government Stakeholder. Also <https://english.mathrubhumi.com/features/specials/national￾cashew-day-export-celebrates-100-years-first-export-done-from-kollam-1.4301487>. 77 N’Kalo. January 8, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report June 2021
83
trainings virtually, such as the TNS high-quality blended learning online platform featuring some 
cashew processing materials already developed. This could be a good basis to consider for 
future delivery.
5. Prosper Cashew considers the support of cashew by-products sale for food production. 
Confectionary, biscuits, paste, other processed foods, can all integrate the small but equally 
nutritious cashew pieces as ingredients in their recipes. Some processors are exploring cashew 
oil, cashew butter, and even cashew brandy (derived from the cashew apple) and secondary 
revenue generating product lines.
6. Specific, targeted actions should be designed to ensure gender inequalities are addressed. Such 
activities could include requests that women be represented in capacity-building initiatives 
developed, and that specific targets be set for access to finance for women-owned processors. 
Additionally, the project should avoid making any negative “unintended” impact by increasing 
the gap between men and women or reinforcing gender discriminatory practices.
7. Further investigation is undertaken to assess the possibility of working with not only medium- to 
large-sized processors, but also small-sized processors, as they often have a higher employee to 
unit RCN processed ratio, can potentially access the international markets, and are doing well in 
Ghana and Nigeria. Notably, approximately 40% to 45% of the cashew kernel produced in Brazil 
is processed by small and medium-sized entrepreneurs.
8. Prosper Cashew consider supporting the supply of cashew nuts for organic, vegan and other 
sustainability markets (through certification), which are largely untapped and currently not part 
of the business strategy and product portfolio of most processors in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and 
Nigeria. 
9. Prosper Cashew reassesses the target of 50% in country processing for the ultimate outcome 
indicator.
10. Prosper Cashew take into consideration all points mentioned in Section 5 - Monitoring and 
Evaluation Considerations.
11. Prosper Cashew consider undertaking a study of the cashew sector in Brazil.
12. Prosper Cashew consider undertaking a study of child labor in the cashew sector. This should 
not only be of processors, but of other relevant segments of the value chain (e.g., exporters, 
intermediaries, and producers, etc.). Prosper Cashew could do this in collaboration with PRO￾cashew, as well other NGOs such as UNICEF, the International Labor Organization, or the
Sustainable Trade Initiative, and relevant Government agencies. Subsequently, letters of 
commitment or codes of conduct could be developed and signed by relevant parties.
TechnoServe Prosper Cashew Project
Baseline Report Appendices
Photo credit: TechnoServe Inc. (www.technoserve.org); published March 2021
Presented to TechnoServe Inc.
Submitted by Advisem Services Inc.
August 25, 2021
TechnoServe Prosper Cashew Food for Progress (FFPr) Project
Baseline Report Appendices
Program: Food for Progress
Agreement Number: FCC-624-2020.005-00-A 
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2020-2021
Project Duration: 2020 to 2025 (5 years)
Implemented by: TechnoServe Inc.
Evaluation Authored by: Advisem Services Inc.
Louis-Pierre Michaud, Co-Team Leader
Julie Helson, Co-Team Leader and Quantitative Method Specialist
Hussein Faruqye Aly, Qualitative Method Specialist
Ashak Sheriff, African Cashew Processing Expert
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
i
Table of Contents
Abbreviations, Acronyms and Symbols.......................................................................................................... i
Appendix 1 – Indicators and Disaggregations............................................................................................... 1
Appendix 2 – Baseline Evaluation Matrix ..................................................................................................... 9
Appendix 3 – Documents Reviewed ........................................................................................................... 14
Appendix 4 – Processor Survey................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix 5 – Informing Stakeholders About the Baseline ......................................................................... 18
Appendix 6 – Qualitative Data Collection Tools.......................................................................................... 21
Appendix 7 – Field Work Schedule ............................................................................................................. 22
Appendix 8 – List of Key Informants Interviewed....................................................................................... 23
Appendix 9 – Data Analysis Plan................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix 10 – Pre-/Post-Test Example Template ...................................................................................... 31
Abbreviations, Acronyms and Symbols
ACA African Cashew Alliance
AFI Association of Food Industries
BRC British Retail Consortium
CCA Conseil du coton et de l'anacarde
CFAF African Financial Community Franc
CICC Consultative International Cashew Council
CITA Centre d'innovations et de technologies de l'anacarde
CNFA Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture
CNSL Cashew nutshell liquid
FDA United States Food and Drug Administration
FGD Focus group discussion
GIZ German Corporation for International Cooperation
HACCP Hazard analysis and critical control points
INPHB-ESA Higher School of Agronomy of the Polytechnic Institute Felix Houphouët-Boigny
ISO International Organization for Standardization
KII Key informant interview
KOR Kernel out-turn ratio
KPI Key performance indicator
L Litres
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
Abbreviations, Acronyms and Symbols (continued)
ii
M&E Monitoring and evaluation
MFI Microfinance institution
MT Tons
NAFDAC National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control
NGO Non-governmental organization
OCA Organizational capacity assessment
PMP Performance monitoring plan
Prosper Cashew Promoting Opportunities for Cashew Processing in West Africa
RCN Raw cashew nut
SME Small and medium-sized enterprise
TAF Technical Assistance Facility
TNS TechnoServe Inc.
UK United Kingdom
USD United States Dollar
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USG United States Government
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
1
Appendix 1 – Indicators and Disaggregations
Indicator #1: Percent of domestic RCN production processed into kernel prior to export (based on 2020 production figures)
Total 8.20%
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 7.90%
Nigeria 8.80%
Ghana 9.50%
Indicator #2: Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance
Product In USD Sample size
Type of product
Kernel – survey data (MT) 27,172,533.71 18
Kernel – extrapolation 105,319,898.10 18
RCN (MT) [note 1] 12,818,992.97 5
Cashew juice (L) [note 2] 275.40 2
CNSL (L) [note 2] Values had to be 
deleted because they 
were unreasonably high
n/a
Charcoal (MT) [note 2] 19,014.25 4
Waste (MT) [note 2] 28,635.00 4
Other 1,870.00 2
All products Actual (USD) Extrapolation (USD)
[note 3]
Sample size
Total 39,992,571.32 155,224,638.14 19
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 15,326,793.13 56,844,098.71 10
Nigeria 24,527,168.50 70,463,495.81 5
Ghana 138,609.70 8,211,474.88 4
Processor size
Small 2,055,819.01 7,979,325.96 12
Medium 10,840,861.72 42,077,035.37 4
Large 27,095,890.59 105,168,276.82 3
Sex of proprietor
Male 31,675,199.41 122,942,116.60 10
Female no value no value 0
Mixed 8,317,371.913 32,282,521.55 9
Kernel only Actual (USD) Extrapolation (USD) Sample size
Total 27,172,533.71 105,319,898.09 18
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 14,803,245.11 55,514,151.81 10
Nigeria 12,235,968.50 35,790,767.09 5
Ghana 133,320.10 2,750,001.98 3
Processor size
Small 1,528,256.40 5,923,474.40 11
Medium 10,579,586.72 41,006,150.09 4
Large 15,064,690.59 58,390,273.60 3
Sex of proprietor
Male 19,628,509.81 76,079,495.39 9
Female no value no value 0
Mixed 7,544,023.90 29,240,402.70 9
Indicator #3: Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance
Product Volume Sample size
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
Appendix 1 – Indicators and Disaggregations (continued)
2
Type of product
Kernel – survey data (MT) 5,906 17
Kernel – extrapolation (MT) 22,893 17
Kernel – N’Kalo (MT) 21,300 n/a
RCN (MT) [note 1] 7,798 5
Cashew juice (L) [note 2] 1,161 2
CNSL (L) [note 2] 480 1
Charcoal (MT) [note 2] 185.22 3
Waste (MT) [note 2] 16 1
Kernel (MT) Actual Extrapolated Sample size
Total 5,906.3 22,892.6 19
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 3,442.0 12,908.0 9
Nigeria 2,370.0 6,932.4 4
Ghana 94.3 1,945.1 4
Processor size
Small 420.3 1,629.1 10
Medium 2,279.0 8,833.3 4
Large 3,207.0 12,430.2 3
Sex of proprietor
Male 4,196.0 16,263.6 9
Female 0.0 0.0 0
Mixed 1,710.3 6,629.1 8
RCN (MT) Actual Sample size
Total 7,798 5
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 668 2
Nigeria 7,130 3
Ghana 0 0
Cashew Juice (L) Actual Sample size
Total 1,161 2
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 1,161 2
Nigeria 0 0
Ghana 0 0
CNSL (L) Actual Sample size
Total 480 1
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 0 0
Nigeria 480 1
Ghana 0 0
Charcoal (MT) Actual Sample size
Total 185.22 3
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 5.22 2
Nigeria 0 0
Ghana 180 1
Waste (MT) Actual Sample size
Total 16 1
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
Appendix 1 – Indicators and Disaggregations (continued)
3
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 16 1
Nigeria 0 0
Ghana 0 0
Other (MT) Actual Sample size
Total 100 1
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 100 1
Nigeria 0 0
Ghana 0 0
Indicator #4: Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance
Category Actual (#) Extrapolated (#) Sample size
Total (21+ days) 2,260 9,356 18
Employment type
Part-time (21-259 days) 924 3,825 18
Full-time (260+ days) 1,336 5,531 18
Sex of job holder
Males (21+ days) 672 2,782 18
Females (21+ days) 1,588 6,574 18
Employment type
and Sex of job 
holder
Males Part-time (21-259 
days)
206 853 18
Males Full-time (260+ days) 466 1929 18
Females Part-time (21-259 
days)
718 2972 18
Females Full-time (260+ 
days)
870 3602 18
Indicator #5: Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA 
assistance
No baseline
Indicator #6: Number of organizations with increased performance with USDA assistance
Category OCA average Sample size
Total 58.4 22
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 63.1 11
Nigeria 73.7 7
Ghana 18.6 4
Processor size
Small 44.0 14
Medium 85.1 4
Large 81.9 4
Processor type
Large multinational 52.0 3
Large national 67.7 4
SME 77.5 15
Indicator #7: Average processing cost per unit of output for selected agricultural commodities as a result of USDA assistance
Category USD kg/kernel USD MT/RCN Sample size
Total 3.84 768.10 13
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 3.17 634.44 9
Nigeria 3.90 780.00 2
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
Appendix 1 – Indicators and Disaggregations (continued)
4
Ghana 6.79 1,357.66 2
Processor size
Small 3.55 709.66 8
Medium 4.75 949.50 4
Large removed removed removed
Processor type
Large multinational No value No value 0
Large national 3.94 787.33 3
SME 3.81 762.33 10
Indicator #8: Total volume of additional kernel output processed by USDA-supported firms
Category Actual (MT) Extrapolated (MT) Sample size
Total 6,478.3 25,109.7 18
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 3,857 14,464.3 9
Nigeria 2,512 7,347.7 5
Ghana 109.3 2,254.5 4
Processor size
Small 478.3 1,853.9 11
Medium 2,415 9,360.5 4
Large 3,585 13,895.3 3
Sex of proprietor
Male 4,701 18,220.9 10
Female No value No value 0
Mixed 1,777.3 6,888.8 8
Indicator #9: Value of new USG commitments and new public and private sector investment leveraged by USDA to support food security and 
nutrition
Baseline is 0 USD
Indicator #10: Percentage increase in actual income of participating firms receiving USDA support
Baseline is 0%
2020 profit data will be used as the basis for future calculation for this indicator
Category Profit (USD) Extrapolated (USD) Sample size
Total -8,843,551.79 -34,324,802.84 20
Country
Côte d’Ivoire -4,726,577.07 -17,529,956.27 10
Nigeria -4,128,700.00 -11,861,240.12 6
Ghana 11,725.28 694,625.59 5
Processor size
Small -6,061,362.41 -23,526,188.87 12
Medium -2,824,489.38 -10,962,794.51 4
Large 42,300.00 164,180.55 4
Sex of proprietor
Male -8,432,608.72 -32,729,794.41 10
Female 0.00 0.00 0
Mixed -410,943.07 -1,595,008.43 9
Indicator #11: Number of distinct markets to which selected agricultural products are exported
Kernel categories # of countries Sample size
Total unique 25 22
Total 34 22
Country Côte d’Ivoire 24 11
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
Appendix 1 – Indicators and Disaggregations (continued)
5
Nigeria 8 4
Ghana 2 7
Processor size
Small 11 14
Medium 13 4
Large 10 4
Market
Australia 1 22
Belgium 1 22
Canada 2 22
Netherlands 4 22
France 1 22
Germany 4 22
India 1 22
Japan 1 22
Portugal 2 22
Saudi Arabia 1 22
United Arab Emirates 1 22
United Kingdom 2 22
United States 3 22
Vietnam 2 22
Italy 2 22
Turkey 1 22
Jordan 1 22
Kuwait 1 22
Morocco 1 22
China 1 22
Lebanon 1 22
CNSL categories # of countries Sample size
Country Nigeria 1 22
Indicator #12: Number of purchase contracts resulting from processor attendance at international trade fairs/conference and trade missions
Baseline is 0 (“project-sponsored”)
Categories Purchase contracts 
(#)
Sample size –
Processor (#)
Total 3 22
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 3 11
Nigeria 0 4
Ghana 0 7
Processor size
Small 0 14
Medium 3 4
Large 0 4
% of processors attending fairs/missions that 
receive purchase contracts
20.00% 5
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
Appendix 1 – Indicators and Disaggregations (continued)
6
Indicator #13: Value of cashew products sold into domestic, regional and international markets
Categories Domestic sales (USD) Regional sales (USD) International sales 
(USD)
Sample size
Commodity
Kernel – survey data 3,129,104.70 194,900.00 23,847,560.51 18
Kernel – extrapolation 12,145,109.16 756,472.54 92,560,413.81 18
Cashew juice [note 1] 275.4 0 0 2
CNSL [note 2] Values had to be deleted because they were unreasonably high; the one processor stated 
they sold internationally
Charcoal [note 2] 18,989.60 0 0 4
Other [note 2] 1,870 0 0 2
Kernel Actual domestic sales 
(USD)
Actual regional sales 
(USD)
Actual 
international sales 
(USD)
Sample size
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 1,325,547.80 45,900.00 13,431,797.31 10
Ghana 131,556.90 0.00 1,763.20 3
Nigeria 1,672,000.00 149,000.00 10,414,000.00 5
Processor size
Small 1,197,524.70 84,900.00 244,863.20 11
Medium 326,000.00 0.00 10,253,586.72 4
Large 1,605,580.00 110,000.00 13,349,110.59 3
Indicator #14: Number of new certifications of industry and/or sustainability standards (e.g., HACCP, BRC, Sedex) received with USDA 
assistance
Baseline is 0 (“new”)
Categories Certifications (#) Sample size –
Processor (#)
Total active 19 22
Total active + inactive 20 22
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 12 11
Ghana 1 4
Nigeria 6 7
Processor size
Small 7 14
Medium 8 4
Large 4 4
Additional inactive 1 4
Percentage of active processors certified 30.80% 22
Indicator #15: Number of individuals accessing agriculture-related financing as a result of USDA assistance
Baseline is 0
Categories Number Percentage Sample size
Total 7 25.0 28
Processor size
Small 2 11.8 17
Medium 1 25.0 4
Large 4 57.1 7
Type of financing
Debt 3 10.7 28
Grants 1 3.6 28
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
Appendix 1 – Indicators and Disaggregations (continued)
7
Credit 2 7.1 28
Debt grants 1 3.6 28
Indicator #16: Number of loans disbursed as a result of USDA assistance
Baseline is 0
Categories # of loans Sample size –
Processor (#)
Total 5 28
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 5 14
Ghana 0 4
Nigeria 0 10
Processor size
Small 0 17
Medium 1 4
Large 4 7
Indicator #17: Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USDA assistance
Baseline is 0 USD
Categories Financing (USD) Sample size –
Processor (#)
Total 21,162,824.00 28
Processor size
Small 12,824.00 17
Medium 5,000,000.00 4
Large 16,150,000.00 7
Type of financing
Bank 20,284,700.00 28
Grants 878,124.00 28
Indicator #18: Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance
Baseline is 0
Indicator #19: Number of cashew sector entities that receive technical assistance as a result of USDA support
Baseline is 0
Indicator #20: Number of new clients/trade partners obtained as a result of USDA assistance
Categories # of clients Sample size –
Processor (#)
Total 65 22
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 26 11
Ghana 2 4
Nigeria 37 7
Processor size
Small 14 14
Medium 13 4
Large 38 4
Local clients: 30 4 processors (only 
non-int’l responded)
Indicator #21: Number of firms attending or represented at international/regional trade shows
Categories # of firms Sample size –
Processor (#)
Total 5 22
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
Appendix 1 – Indicators and Disaggregations (continued)
8
Country
Côte d’Ivoire 4 11
Ghana 0 4
Nigeria 1 7
Processor size
Small 1 14
Medium 3 4
Large 1 4
Sex of proprietor
Male 1 10
Female 0 0
Mixed 4 11
Active processors attending fairs/shows 22.7% 22
Indicator #22: Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training as a result of 
USDA assistance
Baseline is 0
Indicator #23: Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs
Baseline is 0
Indicator #24: Number of individuals benefiting indirectly as a result of USDA assistance
Baseline is 0
Notes:
[1] No extrapolation because we do not have an overall value for RCN MT exported by processors.
[2] No extrapolation because we do not have overall value produced.
[3] This should be regarded with caution, as it includes all commodities, but extrapolation is based on kernel sales.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
9
Appendix 2 – Baseline Evaluation Matrix
Questions and sub-questions Indicators Data sources Data collection 
methods
1. Relevance, adequacy of design, and coherence
1.1 Are proposed activities appropriately 
designed to meet the priority needs 
of processors within the cashew 
sectors? If relevant, how can their 
design be optimized?
Evidence that Prosper Cashew’s 
implementation approach is adequate to 
address capacity and market gaps 
observed in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and 
Nigeria
• Needs assessments and market analyses performed by TNS
• TNS staff
• Processors
• Government stakeholders (research institutions, policy￾makers, investment promotion bodies)
• Market/industry associations (Conseil du coton et de 
l’anacarde, African Cashew Alliance, Nitidæ, National 
Cashew Association of Nigeria, etc.)
• Finance institutions (national/international banks, 
investors, impact investors and intermediaries)
• International buyers
• Intermediaries
• USDA
• Desk review
• Key informant 
interviews
• Survey
1.2 To what extent does the project 
design integrate country and regional 
agricultural development plans and 
sectoral strategies?
Number and type of national 
development strategies and plans aligned 
with Prosper Cashew
• Government stakeholders 
• Market/industry associations (CCA and others)
• TNS staff
• Desk review
• Key informant 
interviews
1.3 How do the four sets of activities 
complement each other in order to 
achieve the expected results? Are 
there any gaps that need to be 
considered?
Extent to which the four broad sets of 
Prosper Cashew activities feed into one 
another in order to create value addition 
in the cashew sector
• Needs assessments and market analyses performed by TNS
• TNS staff
• Desk review
• Key informant 
interviews
1.4 Are the proposed activities 
appropriately designed so that 
women and other vulnerable groups 
will benefit equally compared to 
men?
Extent to which gender gaps and other 
gaps faced by other vulnerable groups 
(ethnic minorities, isolated communities, 
etc.) have been addressed by specific 
activities to increase their participation in 
Prosper Cashew
• Needs assessments and market analyses performed by TNS
• TNS staff
• USDA
• Processors
• Desk review
• Key informant 
interviews
• Survey
1.5 How can Prosper Cashew adapt its 
design and implementation model 
for each particular target country? 
Extent to which country-specific 
differences have been recognized to 
improve the project design and 
implementation strategy in each country
• Needs assessments and market analyses performed by TNS
• TNS staff
• Government stakeholders
• USDA
• Desk review
• Key informant 
interviews
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
Appendix 2 – Baseline Evaluation Matrix (continued)
10
Questions and sub-questions Indicators Data sources Data collection 
methods
1.6 What lessons from other cashew 
promotion projects have been used 
to improve the design of Prosper
Cashew? How is Prosper Cashew 
aligned with and benefiting from the 
experience and current work of other 
cashew promotion projects 
elsewhere (regionally and globally)?
• Number and type of lessons learned 
utilized
• Current collaborations with other 
projects
• TNS staff (to comment on lessons learned from BeninCajù, 
ComCashew, World Bank cashew project, and LIFFT￾Cashew)
• Other cashew projects (e.g., PRO-Cashew, World Bank, 
ACA)
• ISF Advisors staff
• USDA
• Desk review
• Key informant 
interviews
1.7 If relevant, how can activities and 
relationships between various value 
chain stakeholders be optimized?
Number and type of gaps observed that 
can be addressed to optimize project 
implementation
• Needs assessments and market analyses performed by TNS
• TNS staff
• Processors 
• Producer associations
• Government stakeholders 
• Market/industry associations
• Finance institutions
• International buyers
• Intermediaries
• USDA
• Key informant 
interviews
1.8 To what extent have the initial 
proposed activities been adapted to 
take into consideration the potential 
economic and health effects of 
COVID-19?
Number and types of proposed mitigation 
measures envisaged
• TNS staff
• ISF Advisors staff 
• Processors
• Desk review
• Key informant 
interviews
• Survey
1.9 Is Prosper Cashew planning to 
provide the right combination of 
training, tools and resources to 
achieve its planned outcomes? If 
anything, what aspects might need 
further attention in the early stages
to ensure the success of the project? 
Evidence supporting the adequacy and 
complementarity of activities to be 
undertaken
• Needs assessments and market analyses performed by TNS
• TNS staff
• Processors 
• Government stakeholders 
• Market/industry associations
• Finance institutions 
• Desk review
• Key informant 
interviews
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
Appendix 2 – Baseline Evaluation Matrix (continued)
11
Questions and sub-questions Indicators Data sources Data collection 
methods
2. Effectiveness
2.1 What are the baseline values for all 
relevant indicators (refer to the 
Performance Measurement 
Framework of Prosper Cashew)? 
What are the data gaps that remain 
after the baseline has been 
conducted?
Performance Measurement Framework of 
Prosper Cashew
Sources of information will depend on each indicator 
assessed
• Survey
• Key informant 
interviews
• Desk review
2.2 Have a proper risk analysis and 
proper mitigation strategies been 
devised for Prosper Cashew? If 
relevant, which strategic options can 
viably be incorporated in the 
implementation plan to foster the 
likeliness of achieving expected 
results?
• Existence of a risk analysis and 
mitigation strategy 
• Level of adequacy of proposed 
measures
• Risk matrix
• TNS staff
• USDA
• Desk review
• Key informant 
interviews
3. Efficiency and value for money
3.1 To what extent have project activities 
been designed in such a way that 
implementation is done in the most 
cost-effective manner? Does the 
input-to-output/outcome ratio 
appear to be reasonable from a 
project design perspective?
Comparison between budget, activities 
and expected results
• Project documents
• Project budget (output-based budget)
• TNS staff
• USDA
• Desk review
• Key informant 
interviews
3.2 How adequate is the monitoring and 
evaluation (M&E) system developed 
to meet the needs for accountability, 
results demonstration and learning? 
What current indicators could be 
used to monitor the program and 
track longer-term change?
• Level of adequacy of the M&E system
• Level of usefulness of data collected for 
decision-making and accountability 
purposes after baseline has been 
conducted
• M&E Plan, including Performance Measurement 
Framework 
• TNS staff
• USDA
• Key informant 
interviews
• Desk review
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
Appendix 2 – Baseline Evaluation Matrix (continued)
12
Questions and sub-questions Indicators Data sources Data collection 
methods
4. Sustainability
4.1 To what extent does the Prosper 
Cashew implementation model bring 
about sustainable changes for 
processors, farmers and rural 
communities, and other 
stakeholders?
Type of lasting economic changes 
envisaged by the project for each 
category of stakeholders
• Project documents
• TNS staff
• Processors 
• Producer associations
• Government stakeholders market/industry associations
• Finance institutions
• International buyers
• Intermediaries
• Key informant 
interviews
• Desk review
4.2 How conducive are the political, 
economic, and social environments in 
each country and globally to 
achieving project results, with a view 
to having them last over time?
• Evidence that the political, economic, 
and social environments in each 
country and globally have the potential 
to support continuity of project results
• Number and type of bottlenecks 
foreseen that could impact the project 
results’ sustainability
• Needs assessments and market analyses performed by TNS
• TNS staff
• Processors 
• Producer associations
• Government stakeholders 
• Market/industry associations
• Finance institutions 
• International buyers
• Key informant 
interviews
• Desk review
4.3 How adequate is the exit and 
sustainability strategy for all the 
project components?
• Existence of an exit/sustainability 
strategy
• Level of adequacy of proposed 
measures
• TNS staff
• USDA
• Key informant 
interviews
• Desk review
5. Learning questions
5.1 What value do intermediaries bring 
in expanding markets? What 
methods of engaging intermediaries 
to expand markets through the 
services and trade they provide are 
effective?
• Evidence indicating the value of 
intermediaries
• Different methods of engaging 
intermediaries and effectiveness of 
these methods
• TNS staff
• Processors 
• Producer associations
• Government stakeholders 
• International buyers
• Intermediaries
• Key informant 
interviews
• Desk review
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
Appendix 2 – Baseline Evaluation Matrix (continued)
13
Questions and sub-questions Indicators Data sources Data collection 
methods
5.2 To what extent does increasing 
horizontal and vertical market 
linkages among agricultural actors at 
various levels, such as companies, 
small and medium-sized 
enterprises (SMEs), smallholders and 
intermediaries, promote economic 
benefits for actors and market 
expansion overall?
Evidence that horizontal and vertical 
market linkages promote benefits for 
various actors and enhance market 
expansion
• Needs assessments and market analyses performed by TNS
• TNS staff
• Processors 
• Producer associations
• Market/industry associations
• Finance institutions
• International buyers
• Intermediaries
• Other projects
• Key informant 
interviews
• Desk review
• Survey
5.3 What are the best linkage models to 
help small- and medium-sized 
producers, traders, and postharvest 
market actors, who frequently lack 
collateral, registration, and credit 
history to access loans or other 
financial instruments to effectively 
expand their businesses?
Different types of linkage models for 
small-medium market actors
• Needs assessments and market analyses performed by TNS
• TNS staff
• Processors 
• Producer associations
• Government stakeholders 
• Finance institutions
• International buyers
• Intermediaries
• Other projects
• Key informant 
interviews
• Desk review
• Survey
5.4 What types of incentives are 
effective in encouraging the adoption 
of risk reduction and mitigation 
products and practices 
(i.e., insurance, loans, crop 
diversification, new technology) 
among agricultural actors?
• Risks identified by processors
• Incentives and their effectiveness for 
reducing risks
• Needs assessments and market analyses performed by TNS
• TNS staff
• Processors 
• Producer associations
• Government stakeholders 
• Finance institutions
• International buyers
• Other projects
• Key informant 
interviews
• Desk review
• Survey
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
14
Appendix 3 – Documents Reviewed
Aboa, A., and Prentice, A. June 12, 2020. Coronavirus Slams West Africa’s Cashew Market, Some Crops 
Left to Rot. <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-africa-cashew￾idUSKBN23J15R>.
Adegbite, T. December 27, 2020. The Cashew Opportunity in Nigeria.
African Cashew Alliance. November 2020. Cashew Farmers Confident in Tree Crops Development 
Authority. <https://www.africancashewalliance.com/en/news-and-info/blog/cashew-farmers￾confident-tree-crops-development-authority>.
African Cashew Alliance. September 29, 2020. An Insight into Why Local Cashew Processors Could not
Take Advantage of Covid, Way Forward. <https://www.africancashewalliance.com/en/news-and￾info/blog/insight-why-local-cashew-processors-could-not-take-advantage-covid-way-forward>.
African Cashew Alliance. AfriCashewSplits Market Report. Week 29: July 13-19, 2020. N°14.
African Cashew Alliance. AfriCashewSplits Market Report. Week 44: October 26-November 1 , 2020.
N°15.
African Cashew Alliance. AfriCashewSplits Market Report. Week 4: January 25-31, 2021. N°1.
African Cashew Alliance. AfriCashewSplits Market Report. Week 6: February 8-14, 2021. N°2.
African Cashew Alliance. 2019. Invest in Africa: Cashew.
African Cashew Alliance. Africashew240 2018 In Focus. Annual Report.
Agramondis. February 22, 2021 (Revised). PRO-Cashew: West Africa Cashew Project Baseline Evaluation 
Report – Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria.
Boafo, J., and Lyons, K. August 14, 2019. Ghana Wants to Grow More Cashews. But what about 
Unintended Consequences? <https://theconversation.com/ghana-wants-to-grow-more-cashews￾but-what-about-unintended-consequences-93162#:~:text=Of>.
Cashew Week. A Weekly Newsletter. Issue 22, Volume 4. 
Cashew Week. A Weekly Newsletter. Issue 22, Volume 5. 
Cashew Week. A Weekly Newsletter. Issue 22, Volume 6. 
Cashew Week. A Weekly Newsletter. Issue 22, Volume 7. 
Cashew Week. A Weekly Newsletter. Issue 22, Volume 8. 
Cashew Week. A Weekly Newsletter. Issue 22, Volume 9. 
Cashew Sector Gets $15 million Boost. November 3, 2020. 
<https://www.modernghana.com/news/1040051/cashew-sector-gets-15million-boost.html>.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
Appendix 3 – Documents Reviewed (continued)
15
Cashew Processing Factories Take Delivery of COVID-19 Reliefs Items. September 25, 2020.
<https://thebftonline.com/25/09/2020/cashew-processing-factories-take-delivery-of-covid-19-
reliefs-items/>.
Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture. July 9, 2020. PRO-Cashew Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP).
Egbe, A. January 14, 2020. Ghanaian Government Aims to Increase Cashew Production in 2020.
<https://www.tridge.com/stories/ghanaian-government-aims-to-increase-cashew-production-in￾2020#:~:text=Increasing>.
En Côte d’Ivoire, le coronavirus plonge la filière de la noix de cajou dans la crise.
<https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/maladie/coronavirus/en-cote-d-ivoire-le-coronavirus-plonge￾la-filiere-de-la-noix-de-cajou-dans-la-crise_3972389.html>.
Fair and Sustainable Consulting. December 2018. Cashew Nuts Processing in West Africa – Value Chain 
Analysis – Benin and Côte d’Ivoire.
Fitzpatrick, J. February 2021. AfricasheW450 – Cashew Market Outlook.
ISF Advisors. ISF Prosper Cashew Original LOP Work Plan.
Julianna F. November 30, 2020. Olam – Addressing Sustainability Challenges in Cashews.
<https://olamnuts.com/types-of-nuts-blog/post/addressing-sustainability-challenges-in￾cashews?utm_source=LinkedIn&utm_medium=Social&utm_cam%E2%80%A6>.
Karthickumar, et al. 2014. "Indian Cashew Processing Industry – An Overview." Journal of Food Research 
and Technology. 
Kehinde Ademola, A., et al. 2021. “Opportunities in Nigerian Cashew Nut Value Chain.” World Journal of 
Advanced Research and Reviews.
N’Kalo Cashew Market Report. 2019
N’Kalo. January 8, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin.
N’Kalo. January 15, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin.
N’Kalo. January 22, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin.
N’Kalo. January 29, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin.
N’Kalo. February 12, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin.
N’Kalo. February 17, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin.
N’Kalo. March 3, 2021. Cashew Market Bulletin.
Nigerian Export Promotion Council. July 2018. Promising Markets – Cashew Kernels.
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
Appendix 3 – Documents Reviewed (continued)
16
Nigeria Loses Billions to Poor Government Attention on Cashew Production. October 2020. 
<https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/10/nigeria-loses-billions-to-poor-govt-attention-on￾cashew-production-%E2%80%95-uzoechi/>.
Nitidæ. June 2019. The West African Cashew Sector in 2018 – General Trends and Country Profiles.
Olubunmi, O. Alawode, and Adesoji V. Adeniranye. 2020. “Competitiveness of Nigerian Cashew Nuts in 
the Global Market (1961-2016): An Application of Vector Error Correction Model (VECM).”
International Journal of Innovative Development and Policy Studies. 8(1):46-57, Jan-Mar 2020.
TechnoServe Inc. January 8, 2021. Prosper Cashew. Work Plan Narrative. FCC-624-2020-005-00.
TechnoServe Inc. Prosper Cashew. Work Plan Excel file. FCC-624-2020-005-00.
TechnoServe Inc. TNS_ProsperCashew_Indicators_AttachmentD_20201014.
TechnoServe Inc. 2020. Food for Progress – West Africa Regional, Prosper Cashew USDA Proposal.
TechnoServe Inc. Cashew Shells: From Waste to Energy and Profit.
The New Markets Lab. December 2020. Framework and Enabling Environment in Benin for the 
Development of the Cashew Industry. PowerPoint presentation. 
The New Markets Lab. December 2020. Framework and Enabling Environment in Benin for the 
Development of the Cashew Industry. Final report. 
Ton, et al. December 2018. Cashew Nut Processing in West Africa. Value Chain Analysis. Benin and Côte 
d’Ivoire.
United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2019. Database on 
Household Size and Composition 2019.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
17
Appendix 4 – Processor Survey
The survey has been removed, as it is not standard practice to publish customized tools.
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
18
Appendix 5 – Informing Stakeholders About the Baseline
Below are the talking points regarding the baseline study TNS used during their verbal conversations 
with processors and other stakeholders. Following these are the introduction letters in both French and 
English used during written communication.
After providing general information about the Prosper Cashew project to stakeholders, the following 
points regarding the baseline were provided by TNS.
What is the purpose of the baseline study?
• Survey (processors only): The purpose of the baseline study survey is to collect key procurement, 
processing, business, and management indicators at baseline to support performance monitoring 
of the Prosper Cashew project over time. Additionally, the survey will assess some of the key 
challenges you are facing as a processor, and what opportunities you see to move forward.
• Interviews (processors and others): The purpose of the baseline study interviews is to gather 
detailed information on key challenges and risks you are facing as a processor, and what 
opportunities you see to move forward.
Who will be undertaking the baseline study?
We have hired Advisem Services Inc., a Canadian consulting firm, to undertake this study.
What will I have to do and when?
• Survey (processors only): You will be sent a survey via email (Subject: “TechnoServe Prosper 
Cashew Baseline Survey”) around mid-February. This will be an online survey accessed through a 
URL link. We ask that you make every effort to answer the questions asked, as this will greatly 
help us design the Prosper Cashew project and track results in the future to ensure we are 
achieving results and holding us accountable to both the donor (USDA) and yourself. The 
consultants will be available for calls to clarify any issues you encounter and may also visit you in 
person to either undertake an interview with you and/or help you complete the survey. Any other 
detailed-supporting information that you can provide to the consultants will be greatly 
appreciated.
• Interviews (processors and others): You will be sent an email (Subject: “TechnoServe Prosper 
Cashew Baseline Interview”) or contacted over the phone by the consultants to arrange a day and 
time for a one-hour interview. Interviews will likely be programmed for the end of February or 
March.
Final point
We look forward to working closely with you and greatly appreciate your willingness and effort to 
partake in the baseline study prior to the Prosper Cashew project inception.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
Appendix 5 – Informing Stakeholders About the 
Baseline (continued)
19
TNS Written Communication Letters
LETTRE D'INTRODUCTION
04 mars 2021
Dans le cadre du projet Prosper Cashew de TechnoServe, financé par l'USDA, lancé en octobre 2020 et 
mis en oeuvre en Côte d'Ivoire, au Nigeria et au Ghana, nous avons chargé Advisem, une société de 
conseil canadienne, de réaliser une étude de base. Il s’agit d’une étude, conçue comme outil de gestion 
interne qui vise à évaluer la situation actuelle dans la chaîne de valeur de la noix de cajou et aider à 
mesurer les progrès du projet à une date ultérieure. L'étude de base permettra également d'informer le 
programme des points d’apprentissage du projet, et aidera à identifier si des changements sont 
nécessaires à notre approche, aux indicateurs et aux objectifs de projet. Cette étude ayant un caractère 
impartial sera par conséquent conduite par une tierce organisation qui est Advisem.
Vous avez été identifié comme un acteur clé dont le point de vue est important dans la chaîne de valeur 
de la noix de cajou. À ce titre, nous vous invitons à participer à un entretien volontaire avec Advisem afin 
d'alimenter l'étude de base de notre projet. Nous savons que vous êtes assez occupés et nous 
apprécions votre temps. N'hésitez pas à nous contacter si vous avez des questions ou des 
préoccupations.
Nous vous prions d'agréer, Monsieur / Madame, l'expression de nos salutations distinguées
Cordialement,
Krishanu Chakravarty
Chief of Party, Prosper Cashew
KChakravarty@tns.org
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION
March 4, 2021
As part of TechnoServe’s USDA-funded Prosper Cashew project launched in October 2020 and
implemented in Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria, and Ghana we have commissioned Advisem, a Canadian
consultancy firm, to conduct the baseline study. The baseline evaluation is intended as an internal 
management tool to assess the current situation in the cashew value chain and assist in the measuring 
of project progress at a later date. The baseline study will also inform the project’s learning agenda and 
will help us to identify if any changes are necessary to our project approach as well as our project 
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
Appendix 4 – Informing Stakeholders About the 
Baseline (continued)
20
indicators and targets. The baseline study is designed to be impartial and, therefore, is being conducted 
by a third party organization, Advisem.
You have been identified as a key stakeholder in the cashew value chain whose point of view is
important. As such, we invite you to participate in a voluntary interview with Advisem to inform our 
project’s baseline study. We know you are very busy, and we appreciate your time. Please do not 
hesitate to reach out should you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Krishanu Chakravarty
Chief of Party, Prosper Cashew
KChakravarty@tns.org
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
21
Appendix 6 – Qualitative Data Collection Tools
The qualitative question guides have been removed, as it is not standard practice to publish customized 
tools.
The introduction section for one guide remains as an example.
Name of organization/company: 
Type of organization/company: 
Role/position in organization/company: 
Length of time in position: 
Male/female:
Village/town/city:
Time started:
Time ended:
Facilitator: Prior to beginning the interview, reconfirm the consent from the respondent. Read out the 
contents of the consent form and ask him/her whether or not they agree to be interviewed. Within the 
questions you will see probing elements. After you ask a question, allow your participant the opportunity 
to answer, and, if necessary, you can probe for further details to gather more information. Probing 
questions are in italics.
Introduction
Hello. Thank you for agreeing to take part in this interview. My name is ____________________ and I 
am here on behalf of Advisem, a consultancy firm contracted by Technoserve to conduct the baseline 
study of the Prosper Cashew project. The baseline evaluation is intended as an internal management 
tool to assess the current situation in the cashew value chain (with a particular focus on processors) and 
assist in the measuring of project progress at a later date. This interview with you has been requested 
because your point of view is important. I know you are very busy, and we appreciate your time. We 
understand that we will at times request from you particular information regarding your business 
operations, and we will protect this information. This information is very important for us to understand 
the progress of the project, and we appreciate your participation. Participation in this interview is 
voluntary, and your participation will in no way affect potential benefits to be received from the project. 
You can choose to end the interview at any point, and have your answers excluded from the study up to 
two weeks after this interview.
This interview will take about one hour.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
22
Appendix 7 – Field Work Schedule
Please note that city/region column has been replaced with country and the organization name column 
has been deleted to ensure no personal identifying information is available.
Date Day Virtual/in 
person
City/region Stakeholder type
2019-03-13 Saturday Travel Côte d'Ivoire Travel
2019-03-14 Sunday In person Côte d'Ivoire Coordination
2019-03-15 Monday In person Côte d'Ivoire Processor
Travel Côte d'Ivoire
2019-03-16 Tuesday In person Côte d'Ivoire Processor
2019-03-17 Wednesday In person Côte d'Ivoire Processor
In person Côte d'Ivoire Processor
In person Côte d'Ivoire Intermediary
In person Côte d'Ivoire Producer's cooperative
Phone Côte d'Ivoire Processor/roaster
2019-03-18 Thursday In person Côte d'Ivoire Processor
Travel Côte d'Ivoire
2019-03-19 Friday Phone Côte d'Ivoire Processor
2019-03-20 Saturday In person Côte d'Ivoire Equipment provider
2019-03-21 Sunday Côte d'Ivoire
2019-03-22 Monday In person Côte d'Ivoire Processor
In person Côte d'Ivoire Processor
Phone Côte d'Ivoire Finance institution
2019-03-23 Tuesday In person Côte d'Ivoire Finance institution
In person Côte d'Ivoire Processor
Phone Côte d'Ivoire Processor
2019-03-24 Wednesday In person Côte d'Ivoire Processor
In person Côte d'Ivoire Processor
In person Côte d'Ivoire Processor
In person Côte d'Ivoire Government/public organization
2019-03-25 Thursday In person Côte d'Ivoire Association
In person Côte d'Ivoire Export Cooperative
2019-03-26 Friday Virtual Côte d'Ivoire Various
Virtual Côte d'Ivoire Implementer
In person Côte d'Ivoire Implementer
2019-03-27 Saturday In person Côte d'Ivoire Coordination
2019-03-28 Sunday Travel Côte d'Ivoire Travel
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
23
Appendix 8 – List of Key Informants Interviewed
Please note that city/region column has been replaced with country and the organization name, 
individual name, and email/telephone columns have been deleted to ensure no personal identifying 
information is available.
City/region In person/
Virtual
Stakeholder type
Nigeria Virtual Association
Nigeria In person Intermediary/market association
Nigeria In person Intermediary
Nigeria Virtual Processor
Nigeria Virtual Processor
Nigeria Virtual Processor
Nigeria Virtual Processor
Nigeria Virtual Processor
Nigeria Virtual Finance institution
Nigeria Virtual Finance institution
Nigeria In person Cooperative
Nigeria Virtual Cooperative
Nigeria Virtual Government/public organization
Nigeria Virtual Government/public organization
Nigeria Virtual Public organization
Nigeria Virtual Public organization
Nigeria Virtual Government/public organization
Ghana Virtual Association
Ghana Virtual (2 interviews) Association
Ghana Virtual Government/public organization
Ghana Virtual Buyer
Ghana Virtual Processor
Ghana Virtual Processor
Holland Virtual Capacity building provider
Ghana Virtual Processor
Ghana Virtual Capacity building provider
Ghana Virtual Processor
Ghana Virtual Cooperative/processor
Ghana Virtual TNS staff – M&E
Ghana Virtual Apex body
Côte d'Ivoire In person Processor
Côte d'Ivoire In person Processor
Côte d'Ivoire In person Processor
Côte d'Ivoire In person Processor
Côte d'Ivoire In person Intermediary
Côte d'Ivoire In person Producer's cooperative
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
Appendix 8 – List of Key Informants Interviewed (continued)
24
City/region In person/
Virtual
Stakeholder type
Côte d'Ivoire Virtual Processor/roaster (national market)
Côte d'Ivoire In person Processor
Côte d'Ivoire Virtual Processor
Côte d'Ivoire In person Equipment provider
Côte d'Ivoire Virtual Association
Côte d'Ivoire In person Processor
Côte d'Ivoire In person Processor
Côte d'Ivoire Virtual Finance institution
Côte d'Ivoire Virtual Capacity building provider
Côte d'Ivoire Virtual Government/public organization; 
association
Côte d'Ivoire In person Finance institution
Côte d'Ivoire In person Processor
Côte d'Ivoire In person Processor
Côte d'Ivoire In person Processor
Côte d'Ivoire In person Processor
Côte d'Ivoire In person Government/public organization
Côte d'Ivoire Virtual Association
Multiple countries Virtual Implementer – financial services and 
investment specialists
Côte d'Ivoire Virtual and in person Partner
Côte d'Ivoire In person Government/public organization
USA Virtual Finance institution
Côte d'Ivoire Virtual Finance institution
USA Virtual Donor
Côte d'Ivoire Virtual Buyer
Abidjan/Mumbai Virtual Implementer
Uganda Virtual Implementer
Benin Virtual Implementer – Processing specialist
USA Virtual Implementer – Technology specialist
Côte d'Ivoire In person Export cooperative
USA Virtual Implementer – Gender specialist
USA Virtual Implementer – Proposal development 
lead
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
25
Appendix 9 – Data Analysis Plan
Linked indicators Definition and/or criteria Calculation Changes suggested/
implemented
Indicator #1: Percent 
of domestic RCN 
production processed 
into kernel prior to 
export (based on 
2020 production 
figures)
• This indicator measures the share of 
focus countries’ total cashew 
production processed into kernel 
locally (in Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and 
Nigeria) as opposed to exported 
internationally as RCN.
• Annual Period: Feb 1st to Jan 31.
• Assumption: the average kernel to 
RCN ratio (or “RCN Equivalent”) is 
20%.
• Unit: %.
• This indicator will also be calculated using 
government statistics.
• Disaggregated by country (A2) [note 1].
Disaggregation is only 
possible at the country 
level; all other 
disaggregations 
removed.
Indicator #2: Value of 
annual sales of farms 
and firms receiving 
USDA assistance
• This indicator measures the value of 
the total amount of sales of products 
and services by USDA-assisted firms.
• Annual Period: Feb 1st to Jan 31.
• To address currency issues, we will 
use an average yearly exchange rate 
for each currency to USD according 
to Oanda.
• Unit: USD.
• USD = Combined total of sales (D7: “Total 
Sales (annual 2020 – Feb 1st 2020 to Jan 31st 
2021) for each cashew product”) for all 
processors.
• Disaggregated by type of product (C8), type 
of firm (C9), sex of proprietor (A11), age of 
proprietor (A12) [note 2].
The custom 
disaggregation was 
removed: “Custom:
currency (local 
currency, USD, and 
Euro), destination 
market.” Currency 
depended on what was 
easiest for the 
processor to report 
and destination market 
is discussed below.
Indicator #3: Volume 
of commodities sold 
by farms and firms 
receiving USDA 
assistance
• This indicator collects the volume of 
sales of targeted commodities by 
firms receiving USDA assistance. This 
includes the volume of all sales of 
targeted commodity(ies). 
• Annual Period: Feb 1st to Jan 31.
• Unit: MT.
• MT = Combined total of volume of sales 
quantities (D26: What were your total annual 
production amounts (quantities/volumes) 
and sales quantities/volumes for 2020? 
Only – specifically amount sold) (e.g., MT, L, 
etc.?) for all processors.
• Products (e.g., nuts versus juice) will be 
reported separately.
• Disaggregated by type of product (C8), type 
of firm (C9), sex of proprietor (A11) and age 
of proprietor (A12).
Each product is 
reported separately. 
Indicator #4: Number 
of jobs attributed to 
USDA assistance
• This indicator collects the total 
number of jobs that have been 
created, owing to USDA assistance. 
• Jobs include all types of employment 
opportunities created during the 
reporting year. Jobs lasting less than 
one month, or less than 20 days 
excluding weekends, are not counted 
in order to emphasize those jobs that 
provide more stability through 
duration. This indicator counts both 
full-time employment and part-time 
employment, including temporary 
and seasonal employment. Full-time 
jobs last at least 260 days (excluding 
weekends) or 12 months. Part-time 
jobs last between 21 days and 259 
days, excluding weekends.
• Unit: number.
• # = Combined total number of jobs 
(F1: “What was your total number of your 
employees from Feb 1, 2020 to January 31, 
2021 by the following categories?”) for the 
categories and had to answer “Individuals 
who worked between 21 and 259 days (part 
time)” or “Individuals who worked 260 or 
more days (full time)” for all processors.
• Disaggregation: employment type (full￾time/part-time) (F1) and sex of job 
holder (F1) [note 3].
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
Appendix 9 – Data Analysis Plan (continued)
26
Linked indicators Definition and/or criteria Calculation Changes suggested/
implemented
Indicator #5: Number 
of individuals in the 
agriculture system 
who have applied 
improved 
management 
practices or 
technologies with 
USDA assistance
This indicator measures the total 
number of processors participating in 
USDA-funded activities who have 
applied improved management 
practices and/or technologies promoted 
by USDA anywhere within the food and 
agriculture system during the reporting 
year. The indicator tracks those 
individuals who are changing their 
behavior while participating in USDA￾funded activities (not solely those that 
attended training).
• Unit: number.
• This indicator will not be directly assessed as 
this will be done through pre-test and post￾test assessment. Assessments will depend on 
who and what is being taught.
• The baseline will assess what areas 
processors feel they need the most 
assistance.
Indicator #6: Number 
of organizations with 
increased 
performance with 
USDA assistance
This indicator measures whether USDA￾funded capacity development efforts 
have led to improved organizational 
performance in organizations receiving 
organizational performance 
improvement support. This indicator 
should only be used when a project 
intentionally allocates resources 
(human, financial, and/or other) 
towards strengthening organizational 
capacity and undergoes a deliberate 
performance improvement process that 
is documented.
• Unit: number.
• This indicator will be measured through the 
Organization Capacity section of the 
processors survey (Section G – 47 questions). 
Questions are graded on a scale of 0 to 2, 0 to 
3 and 0 to 4. Responses will be added 
together to get the score for each processor. 
The highest possible score for a processor is 
144 and the lowest possible score is 0. 
Subsequently, scores will be averaged for all 
processors and then disaggregated.
• Advisem will disaggregated by processor size 
and country.
Removed 
disaggregation “Type 
of organization” as all 
are processors.
Indicator #7: Average 
processing cost per 
unit of output for 
selected agricultural 
commodities as a 
result of USDA 
assistance
• This indicator measures the average 
production cost of participating 
processors. Average production cost 
includes the cost of raw materials, 
labor costs, transportation costs, 
electricity and operational costs, and 
any other costs required to produce 
the final product sold to end buyers. 
• Annual period: Feb 1st to Jan 31.
• Unit: USD/kg per USD 1.00 of cashew product 
sales.
• USD/kg = Total of average cost of processing 
per kernel kg in USD (D28: What was your 
average cost of processing in for 2020 per 
kilogram (kg) of kernels? Added for each 
processors surveyed/number of processors 
surveyed and completing this question 
[note 4].
• 2020 production data will be used as the 
basis for calculation for this indicator.
• Disaggregated by country (A2), firm size (C7),
firm type (C9).
Indicator #8: Total 
volume of additional 
kernel output 
processed by USDA￾supported firms
• This indicator measures the 
incremental change in volume of 
cashews processed, based on 
project-supported processor annual 
output.
• Feb 1st 2020 to Jan 31st 2021 –
annual period.
• Unit: MT.
• MT = Combined total of kernel processed 
(D26: “What were your total annual 
production amounts (quantities/volumes) 
and sales quantities/volumes for 2020? 
Only – specifically amount produced/ 
processed (kernels only)”) for all processors, 
for all countries. 
• Disaggregated by country (A2), firm size (C7),
firm type (C9), sex of proprietor (A11), age of 
proprietor (A12).
• 2020 production data will be used as the 
basis for calculation for this indicator.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
Appendix 9 – Data Analysis Plan (continued)
27
Linked indicators Definition and/or criteria Calculation Changes suggested/
implemented
Indicator #9: Value of 
new USG 
commitments and 
new public and 
private sector 
investment leveraged 
by USDA to support 
food security and 
nutrition.
Investment is defined as any use of 
public or private sector resources 
intended to increase future production 
output or income, to improve the 
sustainable use of agricultural-related 
natural resources (soil, water, etc.), or 
to improve water or land management 
anywhere along the food, feed, and 
fiber system, and natural resources 
management. 
• Unit: USD.
• Baseline is 0 USD.
• Note that this indicator will be answered 
through data provided by the fund manager 
at future periods.
• Disaggregated by type of investment (H6)
[note 1].
Indicator #10: 
Percentage increase 
in actual income of 
participating firms 
receiving USDA 
support
• Measures the total actual income of 
a firm is the total in a given period of 
one year. 
• Participating firms (project supported 
firms) include existing and new firms 
receiving technical assistance or 
other support (such as access to 
finance) from the project. 
• Unit: %.
• Baseline is 0%. 
• 2020 profit data will be used as the basis for 
calculation for this indicator: (QD17: Total net 
profit for 2020 (Feb 1st 2020 to Jan 31st 
2021) for all processors.
• Later periods: Increase = YR2 combined profit 
less baseline combined profit; % increase = 
“Increase” ÷ baseline combined profit * 100.
• Disaggregated by country (A2), processor 
size (C7), sex of proprietor (A11), age of 
proprietor (A12).
Indicator #11: 
Number of distinct 
markets to which 
selected agricultural 
products are 
exported
• This indicator measures the number 
of distinct export markets reached by 
participating processors during the 
reporting period. 
• The key focus will be regional 
markets but distinct markets within a 
single country will be counted where 
possible. Data is to be based upon 
actual purchase agreements/bills of 
sale.
• This is focused on cashew kernels.
• Feb 1st 2020 to Jan 31st 2021.
• Unit: number.
• Number = Unique markets/countries where 
processors are exporting. This will be 
assessed through E3: “Please select the 
countries that you exported kernels to in 
2020 and state the associated client/trade 
partner and if relevant the export region 
(e.g., state, province) within the country?”
Each country/region will be counted once.
• E1: “What was the number of countries your 
company exported kernel to in 2020?” will 
provide supporting data to see the average 
number of export markets by processor.
• Disaggregated by type of market (QE3), firm 
size (C7), firm type (C9), processing 
country (A2).
Suggest each country 
mention used; not 
unique countries. 
Otherwise “Type of 
market” also is 
irrelevant.
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
Appendix 9 – Data Analysis Plan (continued)
28
Linked indicators Definition and/or criteria Calculation Changes suggested/
implemented
Indicator #12: 
Number of purchase 
contracts resulting 
from processor 
attendance at 
international trade 
fairs/conference and 
trade missions
• This indicator measures the number 
of purchase contracts signed as a 
result of processor participation in 
project-sponsored international trade 
fairs. 
• Purchase contracts have to either be 
signed at trade fairs or within six
months of attendance to a 
conference, and must be as a result 
of a relationship or contact 
established at sponsored trade 
fairs/conferences and trade missions.
• Unit: number.
• Baseline is 0 (“project-sponsored”).
• To provide a baseline for assessment, a series 
of questions are asked in the survey to assess 
attendance of processors in 
fairs/conferences –Must answer “Yes” to 
I12: “To the best of your knowledge, did your 
company receive any new purchase 
contract(s) as a direct result of your 
attendance at the fairs, conferences, or trade 
missions (this means that the purchase 
contract was received within 6 months after 
attending the event)?”, and subsequently be 
asked I13: “How many purchase contracts 
were a direct result (within 6 months) of your 
company’s participation or representation in 
these fairs, conferences or trade missions?”
For both 2019 and 2020.
• Disaggregated by country (A2), firm size (C7),
firm type (C9). 
• Disaggregation 
“contract type”
removed as likely all 
contracts will be 
purchase contracts.
• Include: % of 
processors attending 
fairs/missions that 
receive purchase 
contracts.
Indicator #13: Value 
of cashew products 
sold into domestic, 
regional and 
international markets
• This indicator measures the value of 
processed or roasted cashews, 
cashew apple concentrate and juice, 
and cashew byproducts sold by 
participating processors through 
formal domestic, regional, and 
international market channels. 
• Annual period: Feb 1st to Jan 31.
• To address currency issues, we will 
use an average yearly exchange rate 
for each currency to USD according 
to Oanda.
• Unit: USD.
• USD = Combined total of sales (D7: “Total 
sales (annual 2020 – Feb 1st 2020 to Jan 31st 
2021) for all cashew products except RCN and 
other non-processed products”) for all 
processors. Calculation for distinct markets 
will be based on “Please also state the 
approximate percentage of total sales by 
market, specifically domestic, regional 
(export) and international (export) markets”
[note 5].
• Disaggregated by firm type (C9), processing 
country (A2), market (D17).
Indicator #14: 
Number of new 
certifications of 
industry and/or 
sustainability 
standards 
(e.g., HACCP, BRC, 
Sedex) received with 
USDA assistance
This indicator measures the number of 
additional certifications that firms are 
able to obtain by adopting international 
quality and food safety standards with 
project support.
• Unit: number.
• Baseline is 0 (“new”).
• To provide a basis for future comparisons, a 
series of questions (J1: “Does your company 
currently have any certifications of industry 
and/or sustainability standards (e.g., HACCP, 
BRC, Sedex)?”; if yes, J2: “Please select all of 
the certifications your company holds”) are 
asked in the survey to assess the current 
number of certifications.
• Disaggregated by type of certification (J2),
firm size (C7), firm type (C9).
Include: % of active 
processors certified.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
Appendix 9 – Data Analysis Plan (continued)
29
Linked indicators Definition and/or criteria Calculation Changes suggested/
implemented
Indicator #15: 
Number of 
individuals accessing 
agriculture-related 
financing as a result 
of USDA assistance
• This indicator measures the total 
number of processors participating in 
a USDA-funded activity that access 
agriculture-related financing with 
USDA assistance. 
• This indicator counts individuals 
accessing debt (both cash and in-kind 
loans) and non-debt financing. 
• USDA assistance may consist of 
technical assistance, full or partial 
guarantee provision, insurance 
coverage, or other capacity-building 
and market-strengthening activities.
• Unit: number.
• Baseline is 0.
• To provide an idea of the baseline situation, 
the respondent must answer “Yes” to 
H1: “Have you received any external financial 
support in the past year (Feb 1st 2020 to 
Jan 31st 2021)?”
• Note that this indicator will subsequently be 
answered through data provided by the fund 
manager.
• Disaggregated by type of financing (H2),
processor size (C7), sex of proprietor (A11),
age of proprietor (A12).
Include: % of active 
project processors 
financed (by 
disaggregations).
Indicator #16: 
Number of loans 
disbursed as a result 
of USDA assistance
• This indicator captures the number of 
loans made/disbursed during the 
reporting year as a result of USDA.
• The indicator counts loans (cash; in￾kind) disbursed to the recipient not 
loans merely in process (e.g., loan 
applications, loan applications 
approved but not yet available to the 
recipient). For cash loans, it counts 
only loans made by finance 
institutions and not by informal 
groups such as village savings and 
loan groups that are not formally 
registered as a finance institution. 
• The loans counted can be made by 
any size finance institution, from 
microfinance institutions to national 
commercial banks, as well as non￾deposit taking finance institutions 
and other types of financial NGOs.
• Unit: number.
• Baseline is 0.
• To provide an idea of the baseline situation, 
the respondent must answer “Debt” to 
H2: “Was this financial support in the form of 
debt (loans; cash or in-kind), equity or 
grants?” We will then count the number of 
loans specified in H6: “Please specify the 
number of loans and amounts received 
(please include the currency)” and 
disaggregated by “host government,” “other 
public funders (non-profit)” and “formally 
registered finance institutions – banks and 
MFIs” in H5.
• Note that this indicator will subsequently be 
answered through data provided by the fund 
manager.
• Disaggregated by sex of proprietor (A11). 
Advisem will also disaggregate by size of 
processor.
Indicator #17: Value 
of agriculture-related 
financing accessed as 
a result of USDA 
assistance
This indicator sums the total USD value 
of debt (both cash and in-kind loans) 
and non-debt financing, such as equity 
financing, disbursed during the 
reporting year as a result of USDA￾assistance to producers (individual 
farmers, fishers, cooperatives, etc.), 
input suppliers, transporters, 
processors, other SMEs, and larger 
enterprises that are in a targeted 
agricultural value chain. The indicator 
counts the value of non-debt financing 
and both cash and non-cash lending 
[note 6] disbursed to the participant,
not financing merely committed 
(e.g., loans in process, but not yet 
available to the participant).
• Unit: USD.
• Baseline is 0 USD.
• To provide an idea of the baseline situation 
(for processors), add together values for 
equity (H3) and debt financing in the form of 
loans (H6 – all four categories).
• Note that this indicator will subsequently be 
answered through data provided by the fund 
manager.
• Disaggregated by type of financing, processor 
size (C7), recipient category, sex of 
proprietor (A11), age of proprietor (A12).
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
Appendix 9 – Data Analysis Plan (continued)
30
Linked indicators Definition and/or criteria Calculation Changes suggested/
implemented
Indicator #20: 
Number of new 
clients/trade partners 
obtained as a result 
of USDA assistance
This indicator measures the number of 
additional clients that firms are able to 
obtain by improving their marketing 
and access to new markets, for example 
by adopting international quality and 
food safety standards.
• Unit: number.
• Baseline is 0 (“new”).
• To establish the number of clients, E1: “What 
was your company’s number of clients/trade 
partners for kernel exports in 2020?” will be 
used as the basis for future calculation. 
• Supporting evidence will be gathered through 
E3: “Please select the countries that you 
exported kernels to in 2020 and state the 
associated client/trade partner and if 
relevant the export region within the 
country.”
• Later periods: Increase = YR2 combined total 
of clients less baseline number of clients (by 
processors).
• Disaggregated by firm size (C7), firm 
type (C9), country (A2).
• These questions will also be asked for CNSL.
• Very few processors 
were willing to 
provide client data. 
Not possible, so 
disaggregation 
“Type of client 
based on market”
has been removed.
• Should local clients 
be included?
Indicator #21: 
Number of firms 
attending or 
represented at 
international/regional
trade shows
This indicator measures the number of 
project-supported cashew processors 
and other cashew businesses that gain 
visibility at international and regional 
trade shows by physical 
attendance/participation at the trade 
shows or representation through 
collateral marketing material 
(e.g., brochures, samples). Virtual 
attendance will also be measured at 
baseline due to pandemic restrictions in 
2020 [note 7].
• Unit: number.
• Baseline is 0.
• To assess the current situation, the number 
of processors attending or represented at 
trade shows (I10: “Yes” to “To the best of 
your knowledge, has your company attended 
or been represented (e.g., collateral 
marketing material – brochures, samples) at 
any international or regional trade fairs or 
conferences and trade missions in 2019 or 
2020?” will be used as the basis for future 
comparison.
• Disaggregated by country (A2), firm size (C7),
sex of proprietor (A11), age of 
proprietor (A12).
• Removed market 
from 
disaggregations.
• Include: % of active 
processors attending 
fairs/shows
Notes:
1. Available from processor survey only.
2. Available from processor survey general information.
3. Disaggregation by gender of job holders is requested in the survey table for this question.
4. For processors who do not track their processing cost, a follow-up question asks to provide an estimation of your average cost per kg.
5. “Regional” refers to West Africa.
6. In-kind lending in agriculture is the provision of services, inputs, or other goods up front, with payment usually in the form of product (value of service, input, 
or other good provided plus interest) provided at the end of the season. For in-kind lending, USDA may facilitate in-kind loans of inputs (e.g., fertilizer, seeds) or 
equipment usage (e.g., tractor, plow) via implementing partners or partnerships. Note that formal leasing arrangements should be captured in non-debt 
financing section below, or transport with repayment in kind. For Prosper Cashew, this could be buyers lending and being paid back in cashew kernel.
7. Virtual conferences will likely not have the same impact as in person, but perhaps if COVID-19 continues and conferences continue to be virtual, TNS could 
sponsor presentations of processors that may lead to sales contracts.
Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices August 2021
31
Appendix 10 – Pre-/Post-Test Example Template
Instructions for development of tool: As the title states this tool should be applied before individuals 
start training and then at a time after the training to see if the improved practice is being utilized 
(e.g., three to six months).
The questions developed for the tool need to be focused on the training that will be provided and 
should be less on the knowledge side (although you may want to include one or two questions) and 
more on actual practices that are being utilized and that the training seeks to improve. It is likely that 
the questionnaire itself after the introduction section will need no more than between 5 to 
10 questions. 
 Knowledge questions – should be varied in type, e.g., multiple choice, true and false, etc.
 Practice questions – can be more direct.
The questionnaire can be implemented on paper; however, you may want to have an electronic version 
to input data afterwards.
Part A: Training Identification – to be filled by trainer at pretest or participant at post-test
No. Question
Hints
Responses Type
A15. Name of training: ______________ text
A16. Number of days of training: ______________ text
Part B: Participant Identification
The first section of the tool gathers basic identifying information about who is undertaking the survey.
No. Question
Hints
Responses Type
A17. Date: ______________ day/month/year 
(drop down 
menu)
A18. Name of country: Côte d'Ivoire
Ghana
Nigeria
single response
A19. Name of region/province/state: ______________ text
A20. Sector of work Cashew processing
Equipment production and sales
Other, please specify: ______________
single response
A21. Name of the processing unit or 
company with which associated:
______________ text
August 2021 Prosper Cashew – Baseline Report Appendices
Appendix 10 – Pre-/Post-Test Example Template (continued)
32
No. Question
Hints
Responses Type
A22. Position (title): ______________ text
A23. Gender: Male 
Female 
Prefer not to respond
single response
A24. Age: Number of 18-29 years
Number of 30+ years
Prefer not to respond
single response
A25. Do we have your consent to 
undertake the questionnaire?
Yes
No
single response
Part C: Knowledge and Practices
Please answer these questions to the best of your knowledge.
No. Question
Hints
Responses Type
B1.
B2.
B3.
B4.
B5.
B6.
B7.