1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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?

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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%)

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. Soil and Water Management

15. 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.

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

17. 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.

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. THANK YOU MERCI BEAUCOUP