ICED CONFERENCE JULY 25, 2017 ISSER, LEGON The Impact of Agro dealer Training on Input Adoption and Farmers Productivity in 3 Regions in Niger: Has the investments in Agro dealer networks worked? Robert Darko Osei, Isaac Osei-Akoto, Ama P. Fenny, Pokuaa Adu, Louis Hodey ICED CONFERENCE JULY 25, 2017 ISSER, LEGON

Background Agriculture contributes about 36% of GDP (Niger) and is the source of main income for 85% of the population. Low agricultural yield due to inefficient agricultural input supply and usage systems and frequent droughts. - 12% of agric land cultivated with improved seeds - fertilizer use is 1.1kg Several interventions to improve farmers access to inputs by both the government and private sector. CEB (Contribution à l’education de Base) implemented the Project ‘Reinforcing Agro-dealers’ Network” program funded by AGRA. The project covers only agro-dealers from three regions in Niger - Maradi, Zinder and Tahoua.

Reinforcing Agro-dealers’ Network Aim - to improve productivity and incomes of smallholder farmers by increasing their access to inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and knowledge) adoption of agricultural inputs The key activities to achieve these outcome are: Training agro-dealers to improve upon inputs ordering and distribution product knowledge, usage, marketing, management of credit and stock Establish demonstration plots to compare technologies in order to create awareness and demand for inputs Credit aspect of the intervention remains a challenge.

Theory of Change Impact: Reduced Crop Losses Strategy: Output: To Strengthen the capacity of agro dealers to supply inputs to smallholder farmers To increase access of agro-dealers to commercial credit through linkages with financial institutions Output: Agro Input Dealers trained in input ordering and distribution Impact: Increased yields Outcome: Increased use of agriculture inputs by small-scale farmer Impact: Reduced Crop Losses Output: Agro Input Dealers trained to offer advice to farmers on best agricultural practices

Research Questions The main evaluation question looked at in this study included: Does strengthening Agro-dealers’ capacity to supply agricultural inputs improve smallholder farmers access to and use of agricultural inputs?

4survey methods Mixed methods - qualitative and quantitative for data collection and analysis Baseline survey (completed – Mar- Apr. 2015) – before start of treatment CEB, starting their actual application of the treatment Qualitative methods - focus group discussions (Sept. – Oct. 2015) End line survey (April- May, 2016)

Design/sampling Study Design Actual study sample: A randomised phase-in approach The approach involves two main steps: We randomise the ADs into three arms We randomise at the AD level, and ensure that we get only one AD per selected community Actual study sample: 144 agro-dealers in 29 communities in three (3) regions: 40 ADs selected for each group Plus 20% to account for treatment fidelity and contamination issues

Summary-Agro dealers Most have operated for 10 years or less (46%) Majority male-owned (99%) Small size- hire 3 employees on average 63% report membership to agro-dealer associations Few seek loans to run business (15.8%) Majority had received training (74%) but mainly in seed handling and production (51%)

Key Results I: Agro-dealers Percentage selling fertilizer Percentage selling other items Percentage of agro-dealers that sell (by item):   Seeds 11.3 Farm implements 4.8 Animal feeds 5.8 Foodstuff Non-farm hardware 1.8 Other household goods 1.2 others 6.7

Identification The Agro Input Dealers assigned to one of the three arms: T(0): Pure Control T(1): Partial Treatment: the selected Agro Input Dealers gets only training T(2): Partial Treatment: The selected Agro Input Dealers gets both training and demonstration plots

Hypotheses The study tests three hypotheses based on the theory of change and the identified treatment groups, namely: H1: Training of Agro Input Dealers will lead to increased impact on input adoption by farmers. H2: Training of Agro Input Dealers will lead to outcomes in the form of increased yields and reduced crop loss due to input adoption by farmers. T(2): The inclusion of demonstration plots to the training of Agro Input Dealers adds value in terms of added impact and improved outcomes.

RESULTS Total of 1,511 households were assigned to 3 treatment arms: WAVE AND TREATMENT COMPARISONS Total of 1,511 households were assigned to 3 treatment arms: Training only, Training plus demonstration, and Control

Input use Variables Wave 2 Wave 1 Training Only Training + Demo Control Improved Seed Use All Crops 22.6 37.8 28.3 20.1 26.4 25.9 Cereals 21 37.1 18.1 24 22.3 Chemical use 46.9 39.2 39.8 59.9 51.2 52.4 Fertilizer Use 44.9 35.2 37 56.9 48 50.6

Soil and Water Management

Key Results; Hypothesis I – Outcome Indicators Key Variable Training Only Training & Demonstration Soil and Water management Technologies No Impact Use of Improved seed Negative Impact Positive Impact Value of Improved seed No Impact Quantity of Improved seed Use of Chemicals Value of Chemicals Use of Fertilizer Value of Fertilizer used Variables Coefficients Training Only Training & Demonstration Equations (1) (2) Improved seed use -0.93*** -0.54** 0.69*** 0.75*** Improved seed use (cereals) -0.025 -0.053 0.35*** 0.32*** ***, ** and * indicate significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively. Equations (2) account for regional and household effects.

Key results; hypothesis II – Impact Indicators Key Variable Training Only Training & Demonstration Crop Yield No Impact Crop Yield (Cereals) Crop Losses Crop Losses (Cereals)

Key results; hypotheis III – T2 vs. T1 Variables Co-efficients Training Only Training & Demonstration Equations (1) (2) Robust Improved seed use -0.025 -0.053 0.35*** 0.32*** Improved seed use (cereals) -0.04 0.06 0.25*** 0.22*** ***, ** and * indicate significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively. Equations (2) account for regional and household effects.

Has the investments in Agro dealer networks worked? Training with demonstration had a positive impact on use of improved seed per household. Using demonstration plots to complement training was found useful for adoption of improved seeds compared to using only training. There is limited evidence of impact on farmer productivity Madarounfa farmers, Sa’a ground nut demonstration field

Policy Implications Building the capacity of agro-dealer networks deserves policy attention as their services would impact positively on farmers’ productivity, which will in turn lead to poverty alleviation. The value of practical demonstration in promoting input adoption cannot be ignored in the planning of agricultural training programs. There is a need to explore further, the binding constraints to input adoption and use, for any scaling up the programme to occur. Though this programme had a credit arm as part of the initial proposal, it remained one of the least successful arms of the programme implementation. Credit should not be neglected in the roll-out of such interventions for both agrodealers and farmers.

Credit Access Access to credit continued to be one the most difficult task tackled by the project. Agro-dealers were either unwilling or unable to seek credit. They were discouraged by: • Religious beliefs, a preference for informal credit sources, distrust of group loan guarantees especially in groups of strangers, collateral or guarantee requirements of formal sources. From the stakeholder workshop are as follows: “Agro-Dealers experience difficulty accessing credit from formal financial institutions. Many do not have collateral to guarantee the loans. Micro-finance institutions are unwilling to loan to agro-dealers or lower their interest rates.” – Maradi Agro-dealer The project sought to develop relationships between agro-dealers and financial institutions to overcome some of the credit constraints.

THANK YOU MERCI BEAUCOUP