The World’s Largest Open Access Agricultural & Applied Economics Digital Library

This document is discoverable and free to researchers across the

globe due to the work of AgEcon Search.

Help ensure our sustainability.

Give to AgEcon Search

AgEcon Search
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu
[email protected]

Papers downloaded from AgEcon Search may be used for non-commercial purposes and personal study only.
No other use, including posting to another Internet site, is permitted without permission from the copyright
owner (not AgEcon Search), or as allowed under the provisions of Fair Use, U.S. Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C.
 EPTD DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 118

NEW CHALLENGES IN THE CASSAVA TRANSFORMATION

IN NIGERIA AND GHANA
Felix Nweke

Environment and Production Technology Division

International Food Policy Research Institute
2033 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006 USA
www.ifpri.org

June 2004

Copyright © 2004 International Food Policy Research Institute

EPTD Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results and are circulated prior to a full peer
review in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment. It is expected that most Discussion Papers will
eventually be published in some other form and that their contents may also be revised
.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The foundation for this discussion paper was field studies supported by the Rockefeller
Foundation, the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI). The Chairman, Felix Oresegun and the Managing Director, Sunday Folayan of GDES
(General Data Engineering Services) PLC, Ibadan, Nigeria, provided the logistics support.
In Nigeria and Ghana, some agricultural policy makers, cassava scientists, and private
entrepreneurs provided valuable information. Special thanks are due to O. A. Edache, Michael
Ejemba, Ernest Okadigbo (late), Jonathan Akorhe, Alfred Dixon, Adeyinka Onabolu, Uche
Iwuamadi, Francis Ofori, E. V. Doku, John Otoo, Samuel Asuming-Brempong, Ramatu Al-
Hassan, Chikelu Mba, Martin Fregene, and S. K. Hahn. Thanks are also due to Afuekwe Nweke,
Anthony Ezekwesili, Uche Achebe, Rapheal Akude, Godwin Asumugha, Chuma Ezedinma, and
Linley Chiwona-Karltun who assisted in the fieldwork. In 2002 during one of the field studies in
Nigeria, the author spent three weeks with Prof. and Mrs. F. S. Idachaba at their home in Ibadan,
Nigeria. The regular dinner table discussions during that period provided insights that enriched
this paper.
The preparation of the discussion paper was supported by the IFPRI. The paper was
prepared while the author was a Visiting Professor at the African Studies Center at Michigan
State University. Dr David Wiley, the Director of the Center and other colleagues in the Center
and in the Department of Agricultural Economics offered valuable administrative and technical
support and encouragement. Steve Haggblade and Carl K. Eicher provided incisive comments on
the various drafts of the paper.

i
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cassava is Africa’s second most important food staple, after maize, in terms of calories
consumed. In the early 1960s, Africa accounted for 42 percent of world cassava production.
Thirty years later, in the early 1990s, Africa produced half of world cassava output, primarily
because Nigeria and Ghana increased their production four fold. In the process, Nigeria replaced
Brazil as the world’s leading cassava producer.
The cassava transformation involves a shift from production as a low-yielding, famine-
reserve crop to a high-yielding cash crop increasingly prepared and consumed as gari, a dry
cereal. This discussion paper aims to document the key factors which are driving the cassava
transformation in Nigeria and Ghana, two of the three largest cassava producing countries in
Africa: Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Ghana.

In Nigeria and Ghana, four key factors are driving the cassava transformation. First, the
IITA’s new high-yielding Tropical Manioc Selection (TMS) varieties boosted cassava yield by
40 percent without fertilizer application. Second, high consumer demand for cassava by rural and
urban households fueled the producer incentive to plant more land to cassava. Third, the use of
the mechanical grater to prepare gari released labor, especially female labor, from processing for
planting more cassava. Fourth, the Africa-wide biological control program averted the
devastating cassava mealybug epidemic.

In the mid 1980s, the Nigerian government invested in measures to diffuse the TMS
varieties that were released to farmers in 1977. By the late 1980s, the TMS diffusion in Nigeria
had become an Africa’s agricultural success story par excellence! In 1989 in Nigeria, IITA
researchers conducting the Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa (COSCA) study found that
farmers in 60 percent of the surveyed villages planted the TMS varieties. The COSCA study
farmers in Nigeria praised the TMS varieties as being ideal for gari preparation but complained
that harvesting and peeling the TMS varieties by hand proved laborious.

From the mid 1980s to the early 1990s in Nigeria, during the rapid diffusion of the TMS
varieties, cassava production per capita increased significantly and cassava prices to consumers
fell dramatically. The dramatic reduction in the cassava prices to consumers represents a
significant increase in the real income of the millions of the rural and urban households who
consume cassava as the most important staple. Similarly, from the mid 1980s to the early 1990s
in Nigeria, cassava served as the main source of cash income for cassava-producing households.
From the mid 1980s to the early 1990s, the diffusion of the TMS varieties, by benefiting both
consumers and farmers, proved to be a powerful poverty fighter in Nigeria!

But from the early 1990s in Nigeria, the increasing per capita cassava production leveled
off and the price of cassava to consumers rose relative to other staples. In the early 1990s in
Nigeria, farmers were facing a serious problem in recruiting sufficient labor for harvesting and
processing the high-yielding TMS varieties because the planting of the TMS varieties shifted the
cassava labor constraint from weeding to harvesting. Developing a labor-saving technology for
the smallholder cassava harvesting is now the most critical challenge in the cassava
transformation in Nigeria. This challenge is more urgent than further increase in cassava yield.

ii
 In Ghana, the cassava transformation has lagged behind Nigeria by about a decade. For
example, the dramatic increase in cassava production occurred in Nigeria from 1984 to 1992 and
in Ghana from 1990 to 2001. In Ghana, until the drought which occurred in the early 1980s and
resulted in the failure of food crops except cassava, government agricultural policies emphasized
large scale production of grains by the public sector and neglected cassava as an inferior food
whose consumption was destined to decline as incomes increased.

To summarize, the key lesson from the 40 years, form the early 1960s to early 2000s, of
the cassava transformation in Nigeria and Ghana is that cassava is a powerful poverty fighter in
Africa. Enhancing the value of cassava as a powerful poverty fighter in Africa poses the
following challenges to the African political leaders and policy makers and to cassava
researchers and donors:

! The resumption of long-term core research funding for cassava research in Africa is
critical and urgent.
! If any cassava harvesting or peeling machine designed for smallholders can be
identified anywhere in the world it should be urgently put to on-farm test in Africa with
a view to adapt, fabricate, and diffuse it to farmers if confirmed suitable in the on-farm
testing.
! If available machines cannot be confirmed suitable for the smallholder use, cassava
breeding and engineering research should be initiated with engineers and breeders
working hand in hand to develop cassava varieties that can be harvested and processed
mechanically and the harvesting and the processing machines for the smallholders.
! African governments need to encourage their private sectors, for example with
intellectual property rights protection, to make the necessary investments in developing
technologies for expanded use of cassava as raw material in the livestock feed, food,
and non-food industries within Africa.

Keywords: Cassava, Nigeria, Ghana, Successes in Africa, agriculture, transformation

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1

2. Cassava in Africa ..................................................................................................................... 10

3. The Cassava Transformation in Nigeria .................................................................................. 24

4. Contrasting Experiences in Ghana........................................................................................... 57

5. Accelerating the Cassava Transformation: A Research Agenda ............................................. 68

6. Synthesis: Lessons for African Political Leaders, Policy Makers, and Donors....................... 82

Appendix 1—Cassava Yield Measurement in the COSCA study ................................................ 90

References..................................................................................................................................... 93

iv
 NEW CHALLENGES IN THE CASSAVA TRANSFORMATION
IN NIGERIA AND GHANA
Felix Nweke

1. INTRODUCTION

Cassava is Africa’s second most important food staple, after maize, in terms of calories
consumed. Cassava is a major source of calories for roughly two out of every five Africans. In
some countries, cassava is consumed daily and sometimes more than once a day. In the
Democratic Republic of Congo (hereafter the Congo), cassava contributes more than 1000
calories per person per day to the diet and many families eat cassava for breakfast, lunch, and
dinner. Cassava is consumed with a sauce made with ingredients rich in protein, vitamins, and
minerals. In the Congo, Madagascar, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Zambia, cassava leaves are
consumed as a vegetable (Jones 1959; Fresco 1986; Dostie et al. 1999; Haggblade and Zulu
2003). Cassava leaves are rich in protein, vitamins, and minerals (Latham 1979).
Nevertheless, in Africa, cassava is a marginalized crop in food policy debates because it
is burdened with the stigma of being an inferior, low-protein food that is uncompetitive with the
glamour crops such as imported rice and wheat. Many food policy analysts consider cassava an
inferior food because it is assumed that its per capita consumption will decline with increasing
per capita incomes. In some East and Southern African countries, such as Malawi, Tanzania,
and Zambia, British colonial policies forced indigenous farmers to plant cassava as a famine-
reserve measure and subsidized maize grown by settler farmers (Jones 1959). That policy has
stigmatized cassava in the minds of many African farmers as a “colonial” crop (Marter 1978).

THE CASSAVA TRANSFORMATION IN AFRICA

The dramatic cassava transformation1 that is under way in Nigeria and Ghana is Africa’s
best kept secret. The cassava transformation describes how the new TMS varieties have
transformed cassava from a low-yielding, famine-reserve crop to a high-yielding cash crop that is

1
This does not mean transformation in the processing sense from fresh root to processed forms.
 2

prepared and consumed as gari, a dry cereal 2. With the aid of mechanical graters to prepare gari,
cassava is increasingly being produced and processed as a cash crop for urban consumption in
Nigeria and Ghana.
In Africa, traditionally, cassava is produced on small-scale family farms. The roots are
processed and prepared as a subsistence crop for home consumption and for sale in village
markets and shipment to urban centers.
Over the past 50 years, smallholders in Nigeria and Ghana have increased the production
of cassava as a cash crop, primarily for urban markets. This shift to commercial production for
urban consumers, livestock feed, and industrial uses can be described as the cassava
transformation. During the cassava transformation, high-yielding cassava varieties increase
yields while labor-saving and improved processing technologies reduce the cost of producing
and processing cassava food products to the point where they are competitive with food grains
such as wheat, rice, maize, and sorghum for urban consumers. Looking ahead, as the costs of
cassava production, harvesting, processing, and marketing are reduced, one can expect cassava to
play an expanded role as a source of livestock feed and industrial raw material in Africa as well
as a source of foreign exchange earnings through the export of cassava pellets for livestock feed.
The cassava transformation, as described in detail by Nweke et al. (2002), encompasses
four stages: Famine Reserve, Rural Food Staple, Urban Food Staple, and Industrial Uses and
Livestock Feed (Table 1.1):

Stage I: Famine Reserve

Today in many countries in Eastern and Southern Africa -- Malawi, Tanzania, and
Zambia -- maize is the preferred food and cassava is planted as a famine-reserve crop. In the
famine reserve stage, cassava is usually harvested late and often on a meal to meal basis. In fact,
farmers in southern Madagascar plant tracts of cassava specifically as a hedge against drought.
In normal rainfall years, farmers harvest only part of their cassava crop. But in drought years,
when the main rice crop falters, they harvest their entire cassava crop, dry it and ship it
throughout the country via a large network of private traders (Dostie et al. 1999).

2
Gari is a granulated and toasted cereal-like cassava food product that is convenient for consumption in urban
environments because it is in a ready to eat form and it has an extended shelf life.

2
 3

Table 1.1--Stages of the cassava

gg transformation
I. Famine Reserve Crop II. Rural Food Staple III. Cash Crop for Urban IV. Livestock Feed &
Consumption Industrial Raw Material

Tanzania Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, & Nigeria and Ghana _________

COSCA
Uganda
COUNTRIES

CASSAVA * Mostly for home * Mostly for sale as guri in

PRODUCTION * Mostly for home consumption urban centers * Industrial starch and pellets
OBJECTIVE consumption * Cassava is the primary food for export
* Cassava is the secondary staple in the Congo
food staple * Cassava is a secondary food
staple in Cote d’Ivoire &
Uganda
• Cassava is a family food
• staple in households
* Policy of substitution of
* Increasing urban demand for
POLITICAL * In areas with uncertain * The governments of the cassava starch for imported
convenient foods
AND rainfall: Congo and Cote d’Ivoire starch
* Improved rural roads for easy
ECONOMIC --Colonial gov’ts. encourage the importation of farmer access to market * Export promotion
ENVIRON- encouraged cassava rice and wheat centers
MENT production as a famine- * Government policies
reserve crop starting in encourage the replacement of
the 1920s imported wheat and rice with
--Since independence, cassava food products
Tanzanian gov’t.
encouraged cassava
production during
periods of drought

3
 4

Table 1.1--Stages of the cassava transformation

gg (continued)
I. Famine Reserve Crop II. Rural Food Staple III. Cash Crop for Urban IV. Livestock Feed &
Consumption Industrial Raw Material
TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
1. Genetic Improvement
* Colonial governments Established research * IITA developed high-yielding * Early (under 12 months)
stations in Tanzania, Nigeria, the Congo, etc. TMS varieties bulking varieties
• Research priorities focused on controlling * IITA organized training * Cassava roots suitable for
cassava mosaic virus & brown streak virus programs for national cassava mechanical harvesting and
• scientists peeling
2. Seed * Farmer to farmer exchange of planting materials * National research and
extension programs and * Private seed companies
private-sector agencies
multiply and distribute
planting materials of improved
varieties
3. Agronomic Practices * Farmers planted at will, compatible with labor * Timely planting * Timely planting
demand schedule for cash crop * High stand density * Optimum stand density
* Low Frequency of inter- * Mono-cropping
cropping
4. Weeding * Occasional weeding using hand-hoe by family * Regular weeding with hand * Regular weeding
labor hoe by hired labor * Mechanized weeding
* Complete harvesting
5. Harvesting * Partial harvesting with hand hoe, using family * Harvesting at 12 months or * Harvesting in 12 months or
labor less less
* Harvesting with hand hoe * Mechanized harvesting
* Use of hired labor
6. Processing * Manual processing with hand tools * Partly manual, partly * Fully mechanized
mechanized
7. Food Products * Roots eaten in fresh form, or as pastes, as well as * Convenient food products _________
dried roots
* Leaves for food

Source: Nweke et al. (2002).

4
 5

In countries where the cassava transformation remains at the famine-reserve stage,

government investment in the cassava sector Research and Development (R and D) is in the form
of crash programs. In Tanzania, for example, the Ministry of Agriculture usually organizes crash
cassava production programs when the maize crop is threatened by drought. But after the
drought is over, government curtails these special extension programs. As a result, there is little
continuity in research and extension and cassava farmers are typically forced to rely on a farmer-
to-farmer exchange of varieties, especially varieties that extend the storage life of cassava in the
ground.

Stage II: Rural Food Staple

In the rural food staple stage, cassava becomes the main source of calories in the diets of
rural consumers. Farmers plant local varieties with low genetic potential and achieve low yields.
In the rural food staple stage, cassava yields are low, around 10 tons per ha. Production,
harvesting, and processing tasks are carried out manually and farm households consume most of
the output. The Congo is currently in the rural food staple stage because poor roads, grinding
poverty, and political chaos have kept the rural people locked into a virtual subsistence
agriculture. Cassava is consumed mostly as dried roots and cassava leaves are the main
vegetables in rural diets.
In most of Cote d’Ivoire and Uganda, where tree crops such as cocoa and coffee are
grown, farmers grow cassava as their main food staple because tree crop production requires
peak labor inputs. Cassava roots are boiled and eaten because sun drying of cassava roots is an
inefficient way to dry cassava roots in the forest zone.

Stage III: Urban Food Staple

In the urban food staple stage, cassava is primarily produced and processed as a cash crop
for sale in urban markets. The technological requirements for a nation to move to the urban food
staple stage include high-yielding and early-bulking cassava varieties that can be harvested at 12
months and mechanization of some processing tasks to improve labor productivity3. For
example, in Nigeria and Ghana, commercial production and processing of cassava products for

3
Cassava does not have a period of maturity. As the plant grows the root continues to bulk (swell) until after a stage
of three or four years when deterioration begins. Cassava does not have a period of maturity. As the plant grows the
root continues to bulk (swell) until after a stage of three or four years when deterioration begins.
 6

urban markets is driven by high-yielding cassava varieties, use of mechanized grater to prepare
gari, increasing urban demand for food, improved rural roads and by government policies which
encourage the substitution of cassava products for imported rice and wheat. During the urban
food staple stage, cassava is produced and processed into a variety of low cost convenient food
products for sale in urban centers and foreign markets. Because of this, private traders assume a
greater role in providing mechanized services for the processing tasks and marketing services.

Stage IV: Livestock Feed and Industrial Raw Material

The cassava industry will advance to the livestock feed and industrial raw material stage
when the production, processing, and marketing costs are reduced to enable African cassava to
compete in global starch markets for industries and cassava pellets for livestock feed. Several
preconditions must be met for a country to advance to the livestock feed and industrial raw
material stage of the cassava transformation. The development of the labor-saving production
and processing technologies which call for breeding research to restructure the cassava plant and
roots in order to develop varieties suitable for mechanized harvesting and peeling. The
development of early-bulking varieties that can be harvested in less than 12 months without loss
in yield is an important precondition for farmers to respond to increase in demand for cassava
products in a timely fashion and so that they can plant cassava continuously in the same field
under intensive commercial production. An efficient and well integrated production and
marketing system is likewise necessary to assure a steady supply of cassava products to domestic
industries and European markets. Public and private investments in R and D are required to
develop cassava products for industrial uses. Private sector initiative is required to supply
planting materials and processing and marketing services.
The fuels that drive this four-stage cassava transformation include:
# development and dissemination of high-yielding TMS varieties,
# the control of the cassava mealy bug,
# use of mechanized grater to prepare gari,
# high market demand for cassava, and
# favorable government policies.

The technologies that drive the cassava transformation, namely TMS varieties, mealybug
control, and the mechanized grater have introduced new bottlenecks that need to be broken in
 7

order to transform cassava from a cash crop for rural and urban consumption to play an
additional role as a livestock feed and industrial raw material. For example, the use of the new
high-yielding TMS varieties to increase yield introduced labor bottlenecks in cassava harvesting
and processing. The use of a mechanical grater to prepare gari has shifted the processing labor
bottleneck to the peeling and toasting stages. Likewise, mealybug control shifted attention
subsequently to the problem of the cassava green mite.
These new bottlenecks constitute a challenge to African political leaders, policy makers,
and cassava scientists and also to the international donors and Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs). The challenge is to break the new bottlenecks by investing in R and D to develop
cassava varieties suitable for mechanized production, harvesting, and processing and to develop
labor-saving mechanical technologies suitable for use by small farmers and processors. The goal
is to drive down the cassava production cost to enable African cassava to compete in global
starch markets for manufacturing and cassava pellets for livestock feed.
Nigeria and Ghana have been chosen to demonstrate this challenge because in both
countries, cassava is the most important staple in terms of calories consumed. Nigeria and Ghana
are two of the three most important cassava producers in Africa, the other being the Congo. But
in Nigeria and Ghana, the cassava transformation has advanced most rapidly and the cassava
transformation in other countries can benefit from their experiences.

OBJECTIVES

This discussion paper aims to document the key factors that drive the cassava
transformation in Nigeria and Ghana, two of the three largest cassava producing countries in
Africa. The paper highlights lessons for other African countries for promoting the cassava
transformation, for improving food security and reducing poverty. Differences between Nigeria
and Ghana in timing, promotional efforts, and performance over time provide an instructive
contrast which help to illuminate the key factors necessary for stimulating significant growth in
cassava production elsewhere.
This paper addresses three audiences. First, the paper calls on the Nigerian and Ghanaian
political leaders, policy makers, and private entrepreneurs to face up to the challenge of
implementing R and D to break the new bottlenecks in order to promote the cassava
transformation. Second, this paper calls on Nigerian and Ghanaian cassava scientists including
 8

breeders, e7ngineers, and biochemists to develop cassava varieties that can be harvested in less
than 12 months without loss in yield and can be mechanically harvested and peeled; develop
mechanical technologies for cassava harvesting and peeling; develop an array of new convenient
cassava food products; and develop technologies for using cassava as a raw material in various
food, beverage, fuel, etc. industries. Third, this paper appeals to the international donor
organizations to invest in research and action programs in order to exploit the potential of
cassava as a powerful poverty fighter in Africa.

DATA SOURCES

This paper draws on three main sources of data. First are the published results of an
eight-year, six-country study of cassava in Africa, the Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa
(COSCA). The COSCA studies were carried out from 1989 to 1997 under the aegis of the IITA
(International Institute of Tropical Agriculture) in Ibadan, Nigeria. Over the 1989 to 1992 period,
COSCA researchers collected primary data from 281 villages in six countries where roughly 70
percent of the total cassava in Africa is produced: the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria,
Tanzania, and Uganda (hereafter the six COSCA study countries) (Figure 1.1).
This information included cassava production systems, processing and food preparation
methods, market prospects, and consumption patterns. From 1993 to 1997, COSCA researchers
analyzed the field data and prepared a series of written reports on cassava production,
processing, and consumption in the six COSCA study countries, culminating in a synthesis book,
The Cassava Transformation: Africa’s Best Kept Secret (Nweke, Spencer and Lynam 2002).
Secondly, this paper has required fresh analysis of the raw COSCA data pertaining to Nigeria
and Ghana. These analyses are reported in a series of tables and graphs in Sections 3 and 4 of
this paper. Finally, the author has conducted a series of subsequent field studies in Nigeria and
Ghana. In early 2001, he and colleagues from the COSCA team conducted a survey of industrial
uses of cassava in Nigeria, financed by the Food an Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO). In early to mid 2002, 10 years after the original COSCA field studies, the author
and his COSCA team conducted a follow-up survey of the COSCA farmers in Nigeria, financed
by the IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute).
 9

Figure 1.1--Locations of the COSCA study villages

Source: Nweke et al. (2002).

PLAN OF THE DISCUSSION PAPER

This discussion paper is divided into six sections. Section 1 introduces the paper while
Section 2 pulls together data from Africa, Asia, and South America to highlight the dramatic
increase in cassava production in the past 40 to 50 years and the important role of cassava as
food in Africa. Section 3 focuses on the cassava transformation in Nigeria, discussing the stages,
driving forces and impacts on production, prices and poverty. Section 4 unravels the puzzle of
why Ghana’s cassava transformation has lagged behind that in Nigeria. Section 5 presents a
research agenda which needs to be implemented in Nigeria and Ghana in order to accelerate the
cassava transformation while Section 6 synthesizes the highlights of the discussion paper and
serves as a wakeup call to the African political leaders, policy makers, and donors identifying
ways they can accelerate the cassava transformation and bring to bear more broadly cassava’s
considerable power as a poverty fighter in Africa.
 10

2. CASSAVA IN AFRICA

4
CASSAVA: A CONTROVERSIAL CROP

W. O. Jones (1959) reported that advocates of cassava praised it because it produced the
largest number of calories per ha of any crop and for its ability to be grown on poor soils and
withstand severe attacks of drought, pests, and diseases. These attributes explain why many
colonial governments encouraged and, in some cases, forced smallholders to grow the crop. But
many critics point out that cassava is a subsistence crop that depletes soil nutrients, a women’s
crop produced and consumed by impoverished households, and a lethal and nutritionally
deficient food. These criticisms explain why some colonial government administrators
discouraged cassava cultivation and, in some cases forbade it (White 1990).
Many African policy specialists since independence have been preoccupied with
increasing the production of maize, wheat, and rice to feed Africa’s urban population. In fact, the
historical bias in favor of rice, wheat and maize in food policy circles is palpable and
disconcerting. In 1958, for example, Johnston described rice as the ‘glamour crop’ of West
Africa (1958, p. 226). Later, Jones reported that African consumers described wheat flour as a
‘delicacy’ (Jones 1972, p. 28). In eastern and southern Africa, for the last 50 years maize has
held the preferred place in the hearts, minds and pocketbooks of policy makers (Jayne and Smale
2002).
But these stigmas are myths or half-truths (Nweke et al. 2002). The stigma that cassava
is primarily a subsistence crop was valid in the past when 90 to 95 percent of the people of
Africa were in farming. But in the 1990s in Ghana, roughly 60 percent of the cassava planted
was being sold as a cash crop (Nweke et al. 2002). The stigma that cassava depletes soil nutrient
because of the cassava’s high yield of carbohydrate is a myth. The COSCA soil studies show that
cassava fields, some of which have been under continuous cultivation for at least ten years, are as
fertile as soils of other crops. The strongly held stigma by many donor agencies and NGO
representatives that cassava is a ‘women’s crop’ is an important half-truth. Equally important is
the other half-truth that cassava is also a ‘men’s crop’. The COSCA studies have shown that both

4
Much of this section summarizes material presented in Nweke, Spencer and Lynam (2002). For a more in-depth
treatment of this material, the reader may wish to consult the book.
 11

men and women produce cassava. Men are increasingly involved in cassava production,
processing, and marketing as the cassava transformation unfolds in Africa.
The common stigma that some cassava varieties contain cyanogens that are lethal is also
a half-truth. Today, the cases of cyanide poisoning from cassava consumption are rare; the fear
of it should not discourage public or private investment in the cassava food economy. The
cyanogens can be eliminated during processing by using well-known traditional processing
methods. Several other crops, such as Irish potato and yams, can also be lethal if eaten without
proper preparation. The level of carbohydrate in cassava is an advantage in Africa because it
makes cassava the cheapest source of food calories. Without question, the challenge ahead is to
increase the productivity of cassava production, harvesting, and processing in order to drive
down the cost of cassava to consumers, especially the poor. This is an important but a neglected
issue in food policy debates. For these reasons, I reject the myth that cassava is a nutritionally
inferior food.
These five myths and half-truths constitute a great deal of misinformation. Up to the mid
1980s in Nigeria and Ghana, cassava was marginalized and neglected in development policies
because of the five myths and half-truths.
Cassava plays different but important roles in African development depending on the
stage of the cassava transformation in a particular country: famine reserve, rural food staple, cash
crop and urban food staple, industrial raw material, and livestock feed. The first three roles
currently account for 95 percent of Africa’s cassava production while the last two account for
only 5 percent.
Africa’s token use of cassava in its industries and as a foreign exchange earner in
European livestock feed markets is basically one of economics. African cassava pellets are not
competitive with Asian pellets in the livestock feed industry in Europe. Also, African cassava
starch is not competitive with imported corn starch. High cost, irregular supply, and low quality
stemming from inefficient traditional production and processing methods limit the ability of
African cassava to compete with cassava from Asia or with American and European corn starch
in global markets. In Africa, investment is needed in R and D to drive down the cassava
production, harvesting and processing costs so that cassava can play an expanded role as a
livestock feed and industrial raw material.
 12

CASSAVA PRODUCTION

The diffusion of cassava can be described as a success story par excellence in African
agriculture. In Africa, cassava was first introduced in the Congo from South America about 400
years ago. Currently, cassava is cultivated in around 40 African countries, stretching through a
wide belt from Madagascar in the Southeast to Senegal and to Cape Verde in the Northwest.
Throughout the forest and transition zones of Africa, cassava is either a primary staple or a
secondary food staple. Cassava is adapted to the zone within latitudes 30ºnorth and south of the
equator, at elevations up to 2,000 m above sea level, in temperatures ranging from 18ºC to 25ºC,
to rainfall of 50 to 5,000 mm annually, and to poor soils with a pH from 4 to 9 (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1 – Africa: Areas of Cassava Production

Source: Okibgo (1980).

 13

In the early 1960s, African farmers planted 5.6 million ha per year to cassava. Forty-five
years later, in the early 2000s, they nearly doubled that figure, planting 10 million ha in cassava.
The six countries which currently account for most of the cassava include Nigeria, the Congo,
Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Tanzania, and Uganda. The area planted to cassava increased almost four
fold in Nigeria and Ghana from the early 1960s to the early 2000s (Figure 2.2).
Marketing of cassava as a cash crop has played a key role in the expansion of cassava
production. In fact, farmers in most of the COSCA villages in Ghana and Nigeria cited market
access as the principal reason for their expansion of cassava area. In contrast, farmers in most of
the villages in the Congo cited difficult road access to market centers as the reason for reducing
the area planted to cassava.

Figure 2.2--Ten largest cassava producing countries in Africa: Percentage change in

cassava area between 1961-1963 and 2000-2002.
400

382

300
293
% Change in Area

200
209

100

79

46 41
29 36 36
23
0
ire
a

ia
a
o

ue

ia

a
in
ol

nd
oo

ng

er

an
n

ha

q
vo
ng

Be

bi

ga
er

ig
Co

nz
G
d'I
A

am
m

U
Ta
Ca

te

oz
Co

Country

Source: FAOSTAT
 14

A closely related critical variable in the expansion of the cassava area in Nigeria and
Ghana is the availability of improved processing equipment to remove water from the roots (the
roots are 70 percent water) and thereby reduce the cost of transportation. Improved processing
and food preparation methods reduce bulk and make it possible for cassava products to be
transported at reduced costs over poor roads to distant urban market centers. One example is the
steady shipment of dried cassava roots (cossettes) from Bandundu region of the Congo to the
capital city, Kinshasa, by boat along the Congo River or by trucks over extremely poor road
conditions.
Looking ahead, the future expansion of cassava production will require breaking
harvesting and processing labor bottlenecks. In Ghana and Nigeria, all the COSCA study villages
where farmers had access to mechanized cassava graters reported an increase in the area planted
to cassava. By contrast, only 60 percent of the COSCA study villages where farmers did not have
access to a mechanized cassava grater in the two countries reported an increase in the area
planted to cassava.
In 1954, the average cassava yield in Africa was between 5 and 10 tons per ha (Jones
1959). In early 1991, the COSCA yield measurements revealed that the average on-farm cassava
fresh root yield (hereafter yield) for the six COSCA study countries was 11.9 tons per ha5.
Therefore, one can safely say that the cassava yield is increasing in Africa in the early 1990s
because of the planting of high yielding varieties and the adoption of better agronomic practices.
The average farm-level yield was highest in Nigeria where the mean was 14.7 tons per ha
followed by Ghana where the mean was 13.1 tons per ha (Figure 2.3). The mean yield was
around 10.0 tons per ha in the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Tanzania, and Uganda respectively6.
In the early 1960s, Africa accounted for 42 percent of world production. Thirty years
later, in the early 1990s, Africa produced half of world cassava output spearheaded by Nigeria’s
four-fold increase in production and replacement of Brazil as the world’s leading cassava
producer (Figure 2.4).

5
Root yield as distinct from leaf yield; in the Congo and Tanzania cassava leaves are harvested and eaten as a
vegetable.
6
Cassava yield is notoriously difficult to measure because of widely staggered harvesting dates, yield curves that
rise appreciably over time, and sequential, partial harvesting that pervades many cassava-growing regions.
Appendix 1 discusses these problems and describes methods used by the COSCA study to determine cassava yields.
 15

Figure 2.3--COSCA countries: Cassava yield in 1991.

15
14.7

13.1

10.8 10.6
10 10.5
9.7

0
C on go C ote d 'Ivoi re Gha na N ige ria Tan za nia U ga nd a
Country

Source: Nweke et al. (2002)

Figure 2.4--Africa, Asia and South America: Percentage shares of global cassava
production, 1961-1965 and 1991-1995

1991-1995
1961-1965 S. America
18%
S.Am erica
32%
Africa
42%
Africa
51%

Asia
31%

Asia
26%

Source: FAOSTAT.
 16

The changes in production shares have proven dramatic. While Brazil produced nearly
three times as much cassava as Nigeria in the early 1960s, 21.9 million tons compared to only
7.8 million tons in Nigeria, the standings had reversed thirty years later. In the early 1990s,
Nigeria produced 31.4 million tons per year compared with 25.4 million tons per year in Brazil
(Figure 2.5).
Ghana, only the seventh largest producer in Africa in the early 1960s, with an annual
production of only 1.2 million tons, increased its output six-fold over that same period. By the
late 1990s, Ghana produced 7.2 million tons annually and advanced to the position of the third
largest producer in Africa after Nigeria and the Congo.
Cassava’s low input requirements, a trait that is compatible with Africa’s resource
endowments (weak rural credit markets, relatively abundant land and seasonal labor scarcity),
and the cassava’s resistance to pests and diseases explain the expansion in cassava production
since the 1960s. Moreover, as the average farm size shrinks under population pressure, farmers
are searching for crops with a higher output of energy per ha as a strategy for overcoming
hunger. Food shortages precipitated by a combination of political and civil unrest, economic
stagnation, erratic rainfall patterns, and rapid population growth have had a much greater
influence on cassava production in Africa than anywhere else in the world (Scott et al. 2000).

Figure 2.5--Nigeria and Brazil: Cassava production, 1961-1965 and 1991-1995

31.4
32 1961-1965 1991-1995

25.4
24 21.9
Million Tons/Year

16

7.8
8

0
Nigeria Brazil

Source: FAOSTAT
 17

CASSAVA FOOD PREPARATION AND PROCESSING

In Africa, farmers and food processors market five common groups of cassava products:
fresh root, dried roots (called kokonte in Ghana and lafun in Nigeria), pasty products (called
agblima in Ghana and akpu in Nigeria), a granulated product (called gari in both Ghana and
Nigeria), and cassava leaves.7
The roots of sweet cassava varieties are eaten raw, roasted in an open fire, or boiled in
water or oil.8 Boiled cassava roots may be pounded alone or in combination with other starchy
staples such as banana (or plantain), yam, cocoyam, or sweet potato. The preparation of pounded
cassava is elaborate and cumbersome because the boiled cassava roots get sticky during
pounding.
Dried cassava roots are stored or marketed as chips, balls, and flour. Chips and balls are
milled into flour at home by pounding with a pestle and mortar in preparation for a meal. There
are two broad types of dried cassava roots: fermented and unfermented. Fermentation is
accomplished in one of two ways: stacking in heaps or soaking in water. In Nigeria and Ghana,
fermentation by soaking in water for two to five days is the most common method of preparing
dried cassava roots. The roots are then peeled (if not peeled prior to soaking) and sun- or smoke-
dried directly as whole roots. Alternatively, they can be crushed and pressed to remove the water
and molded into balls and dried.
The recent introduction of a mechanized grater in preparing dried cassava root flour has
eliminated fermentation and therefore saves time and labor. The roots are simply peeled, washed,
and grated.9 The pulp is placed in a perforated container, covered, and a weight put on it for
about three hours. The half-dried pulp is then dried in the sun (Alyanak 1997). Dried cassava
roots are common in Tanzania because cassava is used as a famine-reserve crop (Table 2.1).

7
It is difficult to separate cassava processing from cassava food preparation because some combinations of the
cassava processing and food preparation activities lead to final cassava food products which are in ready to eat
forms. Other combinations of the cassava processing and food preparation activities lead to intermediate products
which are stored until the need arises for conversion into ready to eat forms.
8
The customary ‘sweet’ and ‘bitter’ cassava varieties depend upon the amount of cyanogens (prussic acid) in the
edible parts of the roots (Jones 1959, p. 12). The roots of sweet cassava are low in cyanogens, mealy after cooking,
and usually eaten as a raw vegetable, boiled, or roasted in an open fire. Bitter cassava varieties are high in
cyanogens, waxy after cooking and are harmful to humans and animals unless they are peeled, grated, and toasted or
soaked in water for a few days and boiled or sun-dried.
9
This method was recently developed at the IITA and it is now widely used by farmers in the major cassava
producing countries.
 18

Table 2.1--COSCA countries: Type of cassava food products

CASSAVA FOOD CONGO COTE GHANA NIGERIA TANZANIA UGANDA
PRODUCT D’IVOIRE
Dried roots 70 8 27 48 91 21
Gari 0 45 43 39 0 0
Pasty product 25 8 7 13 0 0
Fresh root 5 37 23 0 6 76
Others 0 2 0 0 3 3
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Nweke et al. (2002).

To prepare the pasty product, the roots are soaked in water for three to five days, during
which time the roots soften and ferment. The soaked roots are manually crushed and sieved in
water using a basket or a perforated metal bowl in a sack submerged in water. Preparing cassava
as a pasty product extends the shelf-life of the cassava and reduces its volume in comparison
with fresh roots. But the pasty product is not a convenient food product because it needs to be
cooked and pounded, sometimes twice, before it is ready for a meal. However, it is commonly
used to feed hired labor employed in cassava production because the pasty product is less
expensive than other cassava products while at the same time it gives a feeling of satiety because
it is heavy. In some parts of Nigeria, the cassava pasty product is transported over long distances
in truckloads and retailed in urban markets in small plastic or polypropylene bags.
Cooked cassava pasty products have been recently introduced in Nigerian urban markets.
Every evening in major cities in Nigeria, it is common to find women selling cooked cassava
paste wrapped in plastic bags by the road side leading to market places. Although more research
is needed on preparation methods, cooked cassava paste is a promising food for busy urban
consumers.
To make gari, a dry cereal, cassava roots are peeled, grated, fermented and drained of
effluent, then toasted in a pan over an open fire. Gari is prepared in Nigeria and Ghana where
cassava is produced as a cash crop for urban consumption. In Nigeria and Ghana, gari is the
most common form in which cassava is marketed (Doku 1969 and Ngoddy 1977).10 Gari is a
convenient product because it is stored and marketed in a form in which it is ready to eat. It can
10
But of late in Nigeria, cassava pasty product is increasing in importance as an urban convenient food because of a
new development in its preparation method.
 19

be soaked in hot or cold water depending on the type of meal being prepared. Gari has a long
shelf-life, a year or more as long as it is not exposed to moisture, it is therefore attractive to
urban consumers.
Cassava leaves are edible and highly nutritious. Like other dark green leaves, they are an
extremely valuable source of vitamins A (carotene) and C, iron, calcium, and protein (Latham
1979). Cassava leaves are prepared by leaching them in hot water, pounding them into pulp with
a pestle and mortar before boiling in water along with groundnuts, fish, and oil. This process
eliminates cyanogens from the leaves, making them safe for human consumption. Cassava leaves
are an important vegetable in the Congo, Madagascar, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Zambia. In
countries where cassava leaves are eaten as vegetables, producers earn additional income by
selling cassava leaves. Truckloads of cassava leaves, locally called pondu in the Congo, are a
common sight plying the roads from the provinces to Kinshasa.
Cassava leaves are not eaten in Uganda because their consumption indicates a low
economic status (Otim-Nape 1995). Cassava leaves are not eaten in West Africa, except in Sierra
Leone, because several indigenous plants supply vegetables traditionally consumed with yam
(Okigbo 1980). Most of these vegetables are however, available only during the rainy season.
Therefore, in West Africa, there is a seasonal gap in the availability of vegetables which cassava
leaves could fill. In West Africa, the consumption of cassava leaves as a vegetable will make
cassava production more profitable and increase the food security and nutritional status of
African families. Cassava leaf harvesting, if properly scheduled, does not adversely affect
cassava root yield (Dahniya 1983 and Lutaladio and Ezumah undated).

CASSAVA CONSUMPTION

In Africa, cassava is used almost exclusively as food. In fact, 95 percent of the total
cassava production, after accounting for waste, was used as food in Africa in the early 2000s.11
By contrast, 55 percent of total production in Asia and 40 percent in South America are used as
food (Figure 2.6).
Many international agencies and bi-lateral donors are hesitant to extend loans and grants
to African nations to help them increase the production of root crops such as cassava because of
11
Waste was estimated to be 28 percent of the total cassava production in Africa from 1994 to 1998 (FAOSTAT).
 20

the longstanding wrongly held belief that cassava is “inferior good,” i.e. the per capita
consumption of cassava declines as per capita income increases. For example, soon after the
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) was established in 1975, it reported that
since these root crops require much larger bulk to provide calories than do cereals, and are low in
protein, in Africa demand may shift towards cereals as has occurred in other countries” (IFPRI
1976, p. 35). Today, the low status accorded cassava by the international organizations and donor
agencies flows from two misleading myths: that cassava is an inferior food produced by and for
rural households and that because of its low protein content cassava is a nutritionally inferior
food crop. However, IFPRI recently concluded that the root crops such as cassava are important
for smallholders in the marginal areas of Africa, Asia, and South America and that special steps
should be taken to boost cassava production, especially in Africa (Pinstrup-Anderson et al.
1999).

Figure 2.6--Africa, Asia, and South America: Percentage of cassava utilization

Africa Food Feed Export Other

91
1
8

Asia S. America

50 43

8 5
10 1

32 51

Figure 2.6. Africa, Asia, and South America: Percentage cassava utilization

Source:FAOSTAT
 21

In Africa, total cassava consumption more than doubled from 24 million tons per year in
the early 1960s to 58 million tons per year in the early 2000s, after accounting for waste
(FAOSTAT). The large increase in the total cassava consumption in Africa is due to a significant
increase in per capita consumption in countries such as Nigeria and Ghana where cassava is
produced as a cash crop for urban consumption. For example, in Ghana, per capita cassava
consumption increased by nearly 100 percent from 130 kg per person per year in the early 1960s
to 255 kg per person per year in the early 2000s (Figure 2.7).
In Nigeria, per capita consumption increased by 40 percent from 88 kg per person per
year in the early 1960s to 120 kg per person per year in the early 2000s. The availability of
cassava in a convenient food form, such as gari, played a major role in the increase in the per
capita cassava consumption in Nigeria and Ghana. Future increases in cassava consumption in
other African countries will depend on how well cassava is prepared into food forms which make
it an alternative to wheat, rice, maize and sorghum for urban consumers.

Figure 2.7--COSCA countries: Percentage change in per capita consumption of cassava

from 1961 to 2000

100 97

80

60

39
40

20

4
0

-20
-21 -22

-40 -37
Congo Cote d'Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Tanzania Uganda
Country

Source: FAOSTAT
 22

Table 2.2--Africa: Countries where cassava is the most important or second most important staple in terms of
calories consumed; total population and calorie per capita per day in 2001

Most Important Staple Second Most Important Staple

Country Population Cals/Cap/Day Country Population Cals/Cap/Day
(million) (million)
Angola 13.5 595 Benin 6.4 502
Central African Republic 5.8 417 Cameroon 15.2 268
Congo, Democratic Republic 52.4 1043 Cote d'Ivoire 16.2 303
Congo, People’s Republic 3.1 785 Guinea 7.6 207
Ghana 19.7 662 Liberia 3.2 335
Mozambique 18.6 603 Madagascar 16.0 332
Nigeria 129.9 396 Sierra Leone 5.1 139
Tanzania 34.5 409
Togo 4.7 365
Uganda 22.8 237
Zambia 10.3 193
Total/Ave* 241.0 591 Total/Ave 142.1 311

*Note: Ave is average calories per capita per day weighted with population.
Sources: Population from The Word Bank 2003 and calorie per capita per day from FAOSTAT

FAO data show that cassava roots constitute the single largest source of calories in seven
countries with a total population of 240 million or 40 percent of the population of Africa in the
late 1990s (Table 2.2). In these seven countries, cassava contributed an average of 590 calories
per person per day. The COSCA study shows that 87 percent of the study households in Ghana
and 80 percent in Nigeria prepared and ate a cassava meal at least once in a week before the
households were interviewed. In another 11 countries with 23 percent of Africa’s population,
cassava was the second largest source of calories. In those countries, cassava provided an
average of 311 calories per person per day in the late 1990s. But these averages underestimate
the importance of cassava in specific countries.
For example, in the Congo, cassava contributed over 1000 calories per person per day or
about 55 percent of the average daily calorie intake in the late 1990s (FAOSTAT). While the
FAO data do not account for the consumption of cassava leaves, the COSCA study shows that
cassava leaves are widely consumed as a vegetable in the Congo. Since cassava leaves are rich in
protein, vitamins A and C, and some minerals (iron and calcium) they partially compensate for
the shortage of these nutrients in the roots (Latham 1979, p. 172).
 23

Table 2.3--Nigeria and Ghana: Retail price of 1000 calories from fresh roots of sweet
cassava, dried roots, and maize in rural market centers, 1992
Nigeria (Naira/1000 calories) Ghana (Cedis/1000 calories)
Rural Market Fresh Cassava Maize Rural Market Fresh Cassava Maize
Center Roots Center Roots
Donga 0.36 0.95 Sagboi 34 49
Garbabi 0.38 0.85 Tafiano 35 53
Suwabarki 1.09 1.37 Nkurakan 44 71
Guyuki 0.85 1.60 Koluedor 32 83
Namtaringure 0.80 1.20
Yaburawa 0.63 1.11
Wuse 0.81 1.07
Busanfung 0.71 3.20
Ofabe 0.24 0.60

Source: Nweke et al. (2002).

Cassava appeals to low income households because it offers the cheapest source of food
calories. Compared with grains, fresh and dried cassava roots are very cheap sources of calories.
Calories are significantly cheaper from fresh roots of sweet cassava varieties than from maize in
various rural village market centers in Nigeria (Table 2.3). Similarly, calories derived from dried
cassava roots are significantly cheaper than when they are derived from maize in various rural
market centers in Ghana.
Processed cassava food products are eaten as pasty dough balls with a seasoned sauce.
Bits of the dough balls are dipped into the sauce and eaten, sometimes swallowed without
chewing. Ingredients of the sauce vary greatly depending on the availability of vegetables, meat,
fish, melon seeds, peas, peppers, and other spices (Johnston 1958; Jones 1959; Grace 1977). In
places where cassava is consumed every day, variation in the diet is achieved by varying the
ingredients of the sauce.
 24

3. THE CASSAVA TRANSFORMATION IN NIGERIA

This section traces the evolution of Nigeria’s cassava transformation and shows how the
various technologies and policies helped transform cassava from a famine-reserve crop through
rural food staple to the stage of cash crop for urban consumption at different time periods.
Discussion highlights emerging bottlenecks that to date have prevented the cassava
transformation from advancing to play the additional roles of livestock feed and industrial raw
material in Nigeria. The section concludes with an assessment of the impact of the cassava
transformation on production, prices and incomes in Nigeria.

PHASES OF THE CASSAVA TRANSFORMATION

Early Diffusion as a Famine-Reserve Crop

In the late sixteenth century, Portuguese traders introduced cassava into the West Coast
of Africa from South America. By 1700, cassava had become an important food crop in Sao
Tome, a small island Portuguese colony off the Coast of Guinea, in Principe or Fernando Po, and
at Warri (Jones 1959). But cassava did not spread much further until early in the twentieth
century because the people of West Africa enjoyed a comfortable food security based on yam,
cocoyam, and plantain in the forest zone and on millet and sorghum in the savanna zone. Early in
the twentieth century, several factors spurred a rapid diffusion of cassava in different places.
In the Lagos area, market demand was the fuel that drove the diffusion of cassava. After
the arrival of the emancipated slaves in 1840 in Western Nigeria12, cassava and its products
began to appear in the Lagos market. In 1849, missionaries traveling into Western Nigerian
purchased cassava in the Lagos market before heading out into the hinterland (Agboola 1968).
Elsewhere in Western Nigeria, cassava was spreading as a famine-reserve crop. Between
1930 and 1939 in Oyo and Ondo Provinces north of Lagos, an invasion of locusts caused
considerable damage to the yam crop. Cassava was used to replace yams because farmers found
it difficult to replace yam losses with other yam sets. In 1945 and 1946 in the Ondo Province,

12
The emancipated slaves arrived in large numbers to make a considerable impact on the spread of cassava in
Western Nigeria. For example, between 1840s an 1880s, more than 4,000 emancipated slaves settled within the 40
years in Lagos. The emancipated slaves arrived in large numbers to make a considerable impact on the spread of
cassava in Western Nigeria. For example, between 1840s an 1880s, more than 4,000 emancipated slaves settled
within the 40 years in Lagos.
 25

farmers planted cassava in heaps in which yams failed to sprout because of the long dry season
(Agboola 1968)13.
In the Lower Niger (the Niger basin from just above the Niger Delta on the coast to
Lokoja), a series of three tragedies which befell the people of the area -- a war of resistance
against the imposition of the British rule (1899 to 1914), the First World War (1914 to 1918),
and the influenza epidemic (1918) -- fueled the early diffusion of the cassava in the area. It was
difficult for the people of the Lower Niger to sustain their food security by producing yam. Yam
production that requires a great deal of manual labor was adversely affected by the withdrawal of
men from the villages. Consequently, the people of the Lower Niger embraced cassava that was
hitherto unacceptable as inferior to yam. By the late 1920s, cassava had spread to most parts of
the Lower Niger (Ohadike 1981 and Chiwona-Karltun 2001).14

Rural Food Staple

In 1927 in the Ngwa area of the Lower Niger Delta, tax officials noted that cassava was a
minor crop compared to the dominant staple, namely yams. But by 1954, cassava had become a
joint staple with yams, and from 1959 to 1964, the Federal Office of Statistics agricultural census
revealed that cassava had become the main food in the area (Martin 1988). In about 1930, the
cassava mosaic disease reached West Africa. Farmers believed that yield was affected minimally
unless the infection was extraordinarily severe (Jones 1959).
In the early to mid twentieth century when cassava was at the rural food staple stage in
Nigeria, farmers relied on farmer-to-farmer transfer of varieties. Until 1940 in Nigeria, the
number of cassava varieties (cultivars) introduced in the 65 COSCA study villages was low, one
or two per ten year interval (Figure 3.1). The varieties were not improved because the farmers
obtained them from other villages and towns and in some cases from other countries through
migrant farmers, development agencies, and churches groups.

13
Yam is grown in heap seed bed.
14
In a war situation, cassava has several advantages over yam production. For examples, the establishment cost of
cassava production for home consumption is generally low because stem cuttings and family labor are the main
inputs. Cassava generates a high yield of carbohydrate per ha and it requires labor only at planting and harvesting.
Since the roots can be stored in the ground for several months and even up to four years without deterioration, there
is a possibility that a displaced population can find their cassava fields unharvested upon their return home.
 26

Figure 3.1--Nigeria: Number of cassava varieties introduced in the COSCA villages from
1901 to 1980
35

32
30

25

20

15 16

10 11

7
5

2 2
0 1 1

1901-10 1911-20 1921-30 1931-40 1941-50 1951-60 1961-70 1971-80

Year Introduced

Source: COSCA data analysis

In the early to mid twentieth century in Nigeria, cassava varieties planted by the farmers
were mostly the sweet type that could be eaten without processing but gave low yield and were
susceptible to pests and diseases. But as the cassava transformation progressed from the famine-
reserve through the rural food staple to a cash crop for rural and urban consumption stages in
Nigeria, farmers replaced several of the sweet cassava varieties with the bitter varieties (Nweke
et al. 1994). In 1952 in Nigeria, the national average cassava yield was about 10 tons of fresh
root per ha and 40 years later in 1992 in the COSCA villages, about 15 tons per ha (FAOSTAT).
During the first half of the twentieth century in Nigeria, cassava area remained small
because of labor bottlenecks at the cassava processing stage which constrained expansion of
planted area. Cassava processing was labor intensive because it was carried out by hand
especially by the women. In 1946 to 1949, the Federal Government set up five Pioneer mills for
processing palm oil. In the Ngwa area of the Lower Niger Delta, the introduction of the Pioneer
oil mills released female labor from palm oil processing for cassava production, processing, and
marketing (Martin 1988). Cassava area in Nigeria increased from 382,000 ha per year from 1946
to 1949 to 635,000 ha per year from 1956 to 1958 (FAOSTAT).
 27

Cash Crop for Rural and Urban Consumption

In 1914, the world price of palm oil began to collapse and cassava became an attractive
alternative source of cash income to oil palm producers in Eastern Nigeria. In 1916, the NDP
(Niger Delta Pastorate) brought Christianity to Ngwa land in Eastern Nigeria. The pastors of the
NDP were mostly emancipated slaves from Sierra Leone and Yorubaland in Western Nigeria.
Along with Christianity, the NDP pastors brought gari processing technology. This new
processing technology proved vital to the development of cassava as a cash crop for urban
consumption.
A trade in gari began growing in urban centers such as Aba and Umuahia (Martin 1988).
By the eve of the World War II (1939 to 1945), the people of Eastern Nigeria were exchanging
gari for cattle produced in northern Nigeria. The emerging gari trade initially transited via
growing road networks, particularly following the opening of the Benue River bridge in 1931.
By 1944, the railway had also become an important means of transporting gari from Eastern
Nigeria to Northern Nigeria. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, Nigerian cassava production
expanded because of growing urban demand for gari.
From 1941 to 1950, the number of cassava varieties introduced in the COSCA study
villages began to accelerate (Figure 3.1). Production nearly doubled within a decade. In 1946 to
1948 in Nigeria, cassava area was 382,000 ha per year compared with 635,000 ha per year 10
years later in 1956 to 1958 (FAOSTAT). The accelerated pace of the farmer-to-farmer transfer of
cassava varieties from the 1940's onward testifies to growing interest in cassava as a cash crop.
Strong and growing urban demand over many decades has eroded the common
perception of cassava as an inferior food. In Nigeria, consumption data reveal that the income
elasticity of demand for cassava products among rural households are all greater than zero and in
some cases they were greater than one (Table 3.1)15. Surprisingly, the cassava estimates were

15
The income elasticity of demand provides an insight into the level of market demand for a commodity. The
income elasticity of demand measures the percent of change in the quantity of a commodity purchased (consumed)
by consumers in response to one percent change in their incomes. A negative income elasticity of demand means
that the quantity of the commodity purchased by consumers will decline with rising incomes. A zero income
elasticity of demand means that the amount of the commodity demanded will be unchanged with rising incomes. An
income elasticity of demand between zero and one implies that a one percent increase in incomes will cause
consumers to increase the amount of the commodity they are willing to purchase, although by less than one percent.
Finally, an income elasticity of demand of more than one implies that market demand is very high for the
commodity. Scholars and policy makers who dismiss cassava as an inferior good assume that the income elasticity
of demand for cassava is negative or zero.
 28

about the same as estimates for maize. The estimate for gari was significantly higher than that of
maize, even among high income rural households.
In Ghana, the income elasticity of demand estimates based on the World Bank Living
Standards Surveys data are equally surprising: the estimate for cassava was significantly greater
among the urban households (1.46) than among rural households (0.73). Among the urban
households, the estimate for cassava was about the same as the estimate for rice (1.50) but
significantly greater than the estimate for maize (0.83) (Alderman 1990)16. These estimates show
that cassava has as much market demand potential as maize and provide convincing evidence
that demand for cassava will continue to rise as income increases.

Table 3.1--Nigeria and Ghana: Income elasticity of demand for cassava and other food
staples
STAPLE NIGERIA GHANA
All Sample Low Income High Income Rural Urban
House-holds House-holds Households Households Households
All Cassava 0.78 0.84 0.76 0.73 1.46
Fresh Roots 1.24 1.28 1.21 -- --
Gari 0.85 0.85 0.77 -- --
Dried Roots 0.55 0.57 0.53 -- --
Maize 0.71 0.74 0.65 0.84 0.83
Rice 1.12 1.13 1.13 1.00 1.50
Pulses 1.02 1.01 1.02 -- --
Plantain 2.06 1.97 1.69 1.13 1.10
Yam 0.91 0.90 0.92 -- --

Source: Nweke et al. (2002).

MOTORS OF THE CASSAVA TRANSFORMATION

From 1961 to 2001, growth in Nigerian cassava production can be divided into four
distinct periods (Figure 3.2). Turning points and trends within each period can be explained by
several driving forces -- the introduction and diffusion of the cassava mechanized grater, the
development and diffusion of the new high-yielding TMS cassava varieties, the biological
control of the cassava mealybug, and favorable government agricultural development policies
(Table 3.2).

16
The COSCA study did not measure the cassava consumption among the urban households in Nigeria.
 29

Figure 3.2--Nigeria and Ghana: Cassava production, 1961 to 2001 in 000 tons

40000
Nigeria
30000

20000 Ghana
10000

0
1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

Source: FAOSTAT

Table 3.2--Nigeria: Technologies and policies in place during the cassava transformation
from 1961 to 2001
Year Technology Agricultural Development Policy and Macro-Economic
Environment
1961 to 1971 Mechanization of the -emphasis on industrial crop production for export
cassava grater -ethnic tension, secession of Biafra, and civil War (1967 to
1970)

1972 to 1983 Development and release -subsidization of food grains importation

of the TMS varieties -exclusion of cassava in major government funded agricultural
extension programs

1984 to 1992 Diffusion of the TMS - ban of the subsidization of food grains importation
varieties -inclusion of cassava in major government funded agricultural
extension programs
-government invested in measures to diffuse the new TMS
varieties

1993 to 2001 Hand harvesting of the -ethnic tension following the annulment of 1993 Presidential
high-yielding TMS election
varieties -government secured IFAD loan for root and tuber crops
expansion
 30

Grater Mechanization
Traditionally, cassava was pounded in a mortar with a pestle to make gari. Later, artisans
developed a manual grater in the form of a sheet of perforated metal mounted on a flat piece of
wood. But the efficiency of the hand grater was low because of its high labor input. In the 1930s,
the French introduced mechanical graters in the Republic of Benin (formally Dahomey) to teach
farmers how to prepare gari and tapioca for export markets (Jones 1959, p. 209). During that
same decade in Nigeria, local artisans introduced and modified the mechanized grater (Adegboye
and Akinwumi 1990 and Adjebeng-Asem 1990). Initially, the mechanized grater spread slowly.
By 1969, for example, the mechanized grater was available in 16 of the 65 COSCA villages
(Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3--Nigeria and Ghana: Number of the COSCA study villages with mechanical
grater

12 12
Nigeria 9
9
No. of Villages

Ghana
6 6
6
3
3
1 1 1
0 0
0
1940-49 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89
Year of Introduction

Source: COSCA data analysis.

 31

From 1961 to 1971 in Nigeria, government agricultural development policy focused on

industrial crop (cocoa, cotton, ground nut, oil palm, and rubber) production for export as a source
of government revenue and foreign exchange. Consequently, they did not invest in the R and D
(Research and Development) necessary to adapt, fabricate, and diffuse the mechanical grater.
Regional governments in Nigeria established farm settlements to promote export crop
production--in the Eastern Region, oil palm; in the Northern Region, ground nut and cotton; and
in the Western Region, cocoa and rubber and grains for the subsistence of the settler families
(Table 3.2). Between 1961 and 1971, serious political tension led to the secession of the Eastern
Nigeria as the state of Biafra in 1967 culminating in the Nigerian Civil (Biafra) War from 1967
to 1970. The political tension and the civil war created a situation of insecurity that prevented
farmers from investing in private R and D to adapt, fabricate, and diffuse the mechanical graters.
Since the early 1970s in Nigeria, village smiths, welders, and mechanics have over time
refined the mechanized grater originally introduced via the Benin Republic. They make these
mechanized graters with old engines and scrap metals at costs ranging from US$200 to US$500.
Most of the graters are owned by village entrepreneurs and operated by young men who provide
grating services to smallholders for a fee based on the quantity grated. The quantity processed for
a customer can be as small as one kilogram or as large as several tons. The processors remain at
the beck and call of farmers at any hour of the day. In some villages, the graters are located in the
market. In other villages, a grater is mounted on wheels and moved to the fields or the homes of
farmers who request the services. Roadside mechanics and welders provide maintenance services
for the graters at any hour of the day.
Likewise, in the 1970s in Nigeria, several government R and D agencies were established
to undertake research into the chemical, biochemical, and engineering/processing of crops
including cassava. The agencies include the Fabrication Engineering and Production Company
(FABRICO), established in 1971; the Products Development Agency (PRODA), 1971; the
Federal Institute of Industrial Research, Oshodi (FIIRO), 197517; the Rural Agro Industrial
Development Scheme (RAIDS), 1981; and the African Regional Centre for Engineering Designs
and Manufacturing (ARCEDEM), 1983 (Idachaba 1998 and Idowu 1998). The cassava graters
developed by government agencies achieved limited adoption because they were more expensive

17
In 1955, the Nigerian colonial government established the Institute of Applied Industrial Research to
institute was re-designated as the Federal Institute of Technical Research in 1958 and the name was changed to the
Federal Institute of Industrial Research, Oshodi (FIIRO), 1975 (Idachaba 1998).
 32

and not as efficient, reliable, or convenient as graters developed by the village artisans. Also, the
graters developed by engineers in the government agencies have capacities far in excess of the
processing needs of the smallholders. As a result, many entrepreneurs who bought the
government machines have either had them modified by local artisans or abandoned them
(Adegboye and Akinwumi 1990).

Development of the High-Yielding TMS Varieties

In 1891, Warburg reported that the mosaic (cassava mosaic virus) disease was prevalent
in East Africa and adjacent islands. Soon after, the mosaic disease was reported in most countries
in Central and West Africa (Storey and Nichols 1938). The widespread occurrence of the mosaic
disease motivated the British colonial government to launch a cassava breeding program at the
Amani research station in Tanzania in the mid-1930s. The goal of research was to develop
varieties that were tolerant to the mosaic disease.
Research on varieties resistant to the mosaic disease was also carried out by the British
colonial government researchers in the Coast Experiment Station Kibarani in Kenya, the
Morogoro Experiment Station in Tanzania, the Agricultural Department in Zanzibar, and the
Serere Experiment Station in Uganda (Nichols 1947). Similar research was also carried out in the
Kumasi research station in Ghana, at Njala in Sierra Leone, and at the Moor Plantation research
station in Ibadan, Nigeria (Jones 1959).
The French colonial research on cassava was carried out by scientists at IRAT (Institut
De Recherches Agronomiques Tropicales) (Fresco 1986). In 1913, the French established a
research station at Bambey in Senegal for peanuts primarily for export. In 1950, the scope of
research at the station was expanded to include food crops and the research designed cassava
variety selection programs with the goal of finding varieties that were high yielding and suitable
for processing as gari (Jones 1959).
In 1933, the Belgian Government established INEAC (the Institut National pour l’Etude
Agronomique du Congo Belge) at Yangambi in the Congo to pursue research on agricultural
development, including the genetic improvement of cassava in Central Africa. Nearly 40
research stations were established by INEAC in Central Africa (Fresco 1986). Initially, the
cassava genetic improvement objective of INEAC was to select local varieties that were best
suited for small-scale processing for home consumption. But since 1950, as the urban demand
increased for cassava products such as chickwangue and dried root flour, the goal of research
 33

was extended to include selection of varieties suitable for intensive mechanized production
(Drachoussoff et al. 1993).
Among these disparate research efforts, the program at the Amani research station
ultimately proved to be the most successful colonial cassava breeding program in Africa. In
1935, H. H. Storey conducted a worldwide search for cassava varieties that were resistant to the
mosaic disease. Yet he failed to find varieties with sufficient resistance to the mosaic disease.
Continuing the search, Storey and his assistant, R. F. W. Nichols, discovered that sugar cane
varieties immune to sugar cane mosaic disease were developed by crossing the sugar cane plant
with its wild non-sugar producing relative. So Storey and Nichols crossed cassava with tree
species which are related to cassava genetically, namely Ceara rubber, Manicoba rubber, and
“tree” cassava18 (Nichols 1947). These species conferred mosaic virus resistance to their hybrids,
namely Ceara rubber x cassava, Manicoba rubber x cassava, and “tree” cassava x cassava
hybrids (Jennings 1976). Although the various rubber species x cassava hybrids proved resistant
to the mosaic disease, they produced a low root yield of poor food quality and they had poor
agronomic characteristics such as lodging.
During World War II (1939 to 1945), the breeding work at the Amani research station
was scaled back (Nichols 1947). In 1951, Nichols died in an automobile accident and was
replaced by D. L. Jennings. Jennings intercrossed the Storey/Nichol’ s various mosaic- and
brown streak-resistant rubber species x cassava hybrids to release recessive genes for resistance
and to combine genes that had been dispersed during the process of backcrossing by Storey and
Nichols. This led to segregates, e.g. 5318/34, that showed higher and more stable resistance over
a wide area than the hybrids created by Storey and Nichols. Jennings distributed pollinated seeds
of these segregates to several African countries in 1956, one year before the Amani research
station program was terminated in 195719 (Jennings 1976).
In 1958, at Moor Plantation research station, in Ibadan Nigeria, B. D. A. Beck and M. J.
Ekandem selected the Ceara rubber x cassava hybrid, 58308, from the seed derived from the
Jennings’ series 5318/34. The Ceara rubber x cassava hybrid, 58308, though resistant to the
mosaic disease gave low yield and poor root quality. So Beck and Ekandem crossed the Ceara

18
Tree cassava is believed to be a natural hybrid of Ceara rubber and cassava (Jennings 1976).
19
Cours et al. (1997) reported that a parallel research activity in the 1930s following the same approach was carried
out independently by the French at Alatroa agricultural research station in Madagascar and achieved similar results
as at the Amani research station.
 34

rubber x cassava hybrid, 58308, with high-yielding West Africa selections to combine the
mosaic disease-resistance genes of the Ceara rubber x cassava hybrid, 58308, with the genes for
high yield from West African varieties (Jennings 1976).
At Nigeria’s independence in 1960 the cassava breeding program at the Moor Plantation
research station, Ibadan was moved to the Federal Root Crops Research (now National Root
Crops Research) Institute, Umudike in Eastern Nigeria and breeding work was continued by
Ekandem. Unfortunately, almost all the progenies developed from the Ceara rubber x cassava
hybrid, 58308, and the records of the research program at Umudike along with records
transferred from the Moor Plantation research station in 1960 were lost during the Nigerian Civil
(Biafran) War (1967-1970). The original Ceara rubber x cassava hybrid, 58308, however
remained at the Moor Plantation research station (Beck 1980).
Cassava breeding at the IITA’ s Ibadan headquarters commenced in 1971 when S. K.
Hahn was appointed as the leader of the Institute's root and tuber program. Hahn’s strategy for
developing the TMS varieties was a collaborative undertaking involving national cassava
research programs, training national scientists, developing partnerships with private companies,
and investing in germ plasm exploration and conservation. The IITA’s cassava breeding program
was carried out by a multi-disciplinary team including a plant pathologist, entomologist,
nematologist, virologist, agronomist, tissue culture specialist, biochemist, and food technologist
(Dixon et al. 1992). Hahn invited two of Storey’ s former colleagues to join his research team at
IITA: A. K. Howland, 1972 to 1976 and D. L. Jennings 197520.
Hahn and his team members set about developing new cassava varieties with two key
characteristics: mosaic resistance and high yield. Drawing on the earlier work of Storey, Hahn
and his team members combined the mosaic-resistance genes of the Ceara rubber x cassava
hybrid, 58308, with genes for high yield, good root quality, low cyanogens, and resistance to
lodging. Hahn utilized the Ceara rubber x cassava hybrid, 58308, as a source of resistance to the
mosaic virus and bacterial blight21.

20
Hahn (2000) reported that Ms Howland was especially helpful in providing information on Storey’s research
program on the mosaic disease.
21
At the time of the commencement of the IITA’s cassava breeding program, a new and serious disease of cassava,
the bacterial blight, was reported in Nigeria in 1972. The disease spread to the Congo, Cameroon, Togo, Benin,
Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, Burundi, Rwanda, and the Central African Republic.
 35

Over a two year period (1971 to 1973), Hahn and his team members drew on the genes
from the Ceara rubber x cassava hybrid, 58308, and developed varieties which were resistant to
the mosaic virus22. Hahn then set about developing mosaic-resistant, high-yielding varieties by
crossing mosaic-resistant varieties with many other high-yielding varieties from West Africa and
Brazil and selecting and testing clones at the farm level in different agro-ecological zones (Hahn
et al. 1980; Otoo et al. 1994; Mba and Dixon 1998).
From 1973 to 1977, the IITA cassava program established a partnership with the Shell
BP Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (Shell-BP) in a high rainforest village
in the delta area in Nigeria where the Shell-BP was producing oil. Shell-BP hired an agronomist
and launched a development program to assist cassava farmers in the area. In 1974, IITA
scientists conducted a diagnostic survey and found that severe bacterial blight infection and low
yield were the main cassava production problems in the area. In collaboration with the Shell-BP,
IITA conducted on-farm testing of the IITA’s clones to select varieties for the mosaic disease
and bacterial blight resistance, high yield, and root quality.
After six years (1971 to 1977) of research, Hahn and his staff achieved the goal of
developing high-yielding, mosaic-resistant TMS (Tropical Manioc Selection) varieties. These
new high-yielding-mosaic-resistant varieties included TMS 50395, 63397, 30555, 4(2)1425, and
30572 (hereafter cited as TMS varieties). The COSCA researchers discovered that the farm-level
yield of the TMS varieties in Nigeria was 40 percent higher than that of the local varieties, even
when grown without fertilizer. The IITA released these new varieties to farmers in Nigeria in
1977.

Control of the Cassava Mealybug

The mealybug is an exotic pest introduced into Africa from South America in the early
1970s. First reported in 1973 in the Congo (formally Zaire), the mealybug spread rapidly
throughout the cassava growing areas of Africa. In some areas, it destroyed so much of cassava
fields and local sources of the planting materials that production practically came to a halt (IITA
1992). It spreads by wind and the exchange of infested planting materials. The mealybug feeds

22
The Ceara rubber x cassava hybrids were not real cassava because they did not stand erect and they produced low
root yields that were of poor food quality. Hahn crossed the Ceara rubber x cassava hybrid, 58308, with West
African and South American cassava varieties that were susceptible to mosaic but stood erect and gave high root
yields that were of good food quality. The result was the mosaic-resistant and high-yielding TMS varieties.
 36

on the cassava stem, petiole, and leaf near the growing point of the cassava plant. During
feeding, the mealybug injects a toxin that causes leaf curling, slowing of shoot growth, and
eventual leaf withering. Yield loss in infested plants is estimated to be up to 60 percent of root
and 100 percent of the leaves (Herren 1981).23 The mealybug epidemic contributed to the
unstable growth in cassava production in Nigeria in 1971 to 1986.
Starting in 1979, the IITA led a large scale biological control campaign in collaboration
with numerous national and international organizations to attack the mealybug. The team
identified a natural predator wasp that feeds on the mealybug in its home habitat in South
America, then transferred specimens to the IITA and reared them at an IITA research station. But
in order to decentralize and speed up the multiplication of the wasp, IITA scientists developed a
new and simpler system that was employed by most national programs in Africa (IITA 1992).
The wasp was first released by airplanes over cassava growing areas in Nigeria in 1981 and later
in other countries (Herren et al. 1987). The control of the mealybug contributed to the high rate
of growth in cassava production in Nigeria from 1987 to 2001. Without question, the biological
control of the mealybug with the aid of the wasp is one of the important scientific success stories
of the past two decades in Africa.
The mealybug remains present in Nigeria and sometimes damages cassava fields even
where the wasp has been well established (IITA 1992). In 1991, the presence of the mealybug
was reported in Nigeria in 57 percent of the COSCA villages. However, because of the new
lower-level equilibrium established by the presence of its natural predator, the percentages of
plants per field infested remain low and the mealybug does not seriously affect cassava yields.
Even so, the persistence of the mealybug suggests a continued need to monitor the impact of the
biological control program.

Government Policies
The dramatic expansion of Nigeria’s oil exports in the 1970s increased the real rate of
growth of per capita GNP by 5.3 percent and sparked massive rural to urban migration together
with high urban demand for food (Akande 2000). During the 1970s, government used foreign

23
The yield losses presented here for the pests and diseases are guesstimates. The interactions among the various
pests and diseases, the influences of soil fertility, seasonal factors, the cassava varietal factors, and cropping
practices complicate the assessment of yield loss due to specific pests and diseases (Thresh 1997).
 37

exchange earnings from petroleum exports to help pay for food imports (Table 3.2). From 1976
to 1985, the annual per capita rice imports increased by more than 1,500 percent of its 1961 to
1965 level. The substantially overvalued Naira effectively subsidized the consumer price of
imported rice. In addition, the Nigerian National Supply Company Limited, a money-losing
government agency, further subsidized rice consumers by selling rice at a uniform price
nationwide and absorbing transportation costs.24 The resulting quantum jump in subsidized rice
and wheat imports artificially depressed the price of gari and acted as a constraint on the spread
of the TMS varieties from the late 1970s to 1985. Without doubt, the Nigerian government’s
policy of subsidized grain imports contributed to unstable growth in cassava production from
1971 to 1986.
Likewise during the early 1980’s, government subsidy on fertilizer ranged from 72
percent to 85 percent of the farm delivered price. Not surprisingly, use quintupled, increasing
from 100,000 tons in 1980 to 518,120 tons in 1990 (Akande 2000, p.5). Cassava, however, did
not benefit from the fertilizer subsidy. In Nigeria, the COSCA study found that chemical
fertilizer was used in only 15 percent of cassava fields compared to 52 percent of maize fields.25
By the early 1980s, rapid petroleum-led economic growth had slowed down significantly.
The declining petroleum revenue in the mid 1980s spurred renewed interest in cassava by the
Nigerian government. Owing to declining petroleum revenue, the Nigerian government was no
longer able to finance large-scale subsidized grain imports to feed the country’s large urban
population.
In 1985, the Nigerian government banned the import of wheat, rice, and maize and the
export of yam and cassava products. The following year, the government adopted a SAP
(structural adjustment program) which consisted of a number of policy reforms, including the
devaluation of the Naira (Akande 2000, p.11).26 The ban on food import, the SAP, and the
currency devaluation contributed immensely to the rapid diffusion of the TMS varieties.

24
During the foreign exchange bidding in September 1986, the value of the Naira dropped from US$1.12 to about
$0.30.
25
Cassava has been widely reported to display a selective yield response to chemical fertilizer application (Ndibaza
1994 and IITA 1989).
26
From 1.0 Naira per US$1.0 in 1986 to 4.0 Naira per US$1.0 in 1987. The Naira has continued to slide. In
February 2001, the value was 124 Naira per US$1.0.
 38

Diffusion of TMS Varieties

In the 1970s and early 1980s, the petroleum revenue enabled the Nigerian government to
experiment with alternative extension programs. But these extension programs did not include
cassava. For example, the NAFPP (National Accelerated Food Production Program) was set up
in 1972 to design, test, and transfer technological packages for five crops: rice, maize, sorghum,
millet, and wheat. It was after two years, in 1974, that cassava was added to the list. In 1974, the
World Bank financed the establishment of three ADPs (Agricultural Development Projects) in
Funtua, Gombe, and Guzau--all in northern Nigeria outside the major cassava producing zone.
Thus, in the 1970s, cassava did not benefit from the large-scale public investment in the ADPs
(Table 3.2).
Following the radical reorientation of agricultural policy during the SAP years, beginning
in the mid-1980’s, cassava emerged as an important crop in the national effort to replace
imported foods with domestic production. In 1984, the NCRCP (National Coordinated Research
on Cassava Project) was set up to coordinate the on-farm adaptive research on cassava by the
NAFPP, ADPs, research institutes, and universities. In 1985, the ADPs were established in
cassava producing states to carry out on-farm evaluation of new technologies including the TMS
varieties, construct roads for input delivery and output evacuation, provide extension service to
farmers, and multiply and distribute the TMS stem cuttings and seeds of other crops. In 1986, for
example, the Oyo State ADP distributed the planting cuttings of the TMS 30572 varieties to
55,000 farmers in the state. The ADPs in the other cassava producing states also distributed the
planting cuttings to farmers in their states. Thus, the ADP played a significant role in the
diffusion of the TMS varieties in Nigeria27 (Table 3.2).
By 1985, the NAFPP was working with 704,000 farmers in the 12 major cassava
producing states of Nigeria28. Under the NAFPP, extension agents helped farmers prepare 7 x 39
square meter-demonstration plots planted with the TMS varieties side by side with local
varieties. At harvest time, a panel of local farmers compared the plots and if TMS varieties were
found to be superior, the TMS demonstration advanced to a second phase which involved fewer
plots of a larger size. Farmers are expected to adopt the package of the TMS varieties if they

27
The World Bank admits that the ADP (Agricultural Development Project) was a big failure in Nigeria (World
Bank 1993).
28
Nigeria was divided into 19 states at the time.
 39

continued to be superior to the local varieties in the second phase of the demonstration. The
NAFPP introduced the TMS varieties to all the cassava producing areas of Nigeria, making it
easy for further diffusion by the farmer-to-farmer method of technology transfer.
In 1986, the cassava program of the National Seed Service was established with a
US$120 million grant from the IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) to
multiply and distribute the stem cuttings of the TMS varieties free to farmers. The free
distribution of TMS stem cuttings was critical to the rapid diffusion of the TMS varieties because
the multiplication rate is low, about 5 cuttings from a plant, compared with maize, about 100
seeds from a plant. The cassava planting cuttings are bulky and perishable. They dry up within a
few days after harvest. But farmers who plant the IITA’s high-yielding TMS varieties do not
need to collect new planting materials each season from research or specialized seed companies
in order to maintain planting material quality. The COSCA study found that the farmers' most
common source of cassava planting material is their own fields. Each cassava plant represents its
own clone because cassava is vegetatively propagated. Hybrid vigor is easier to fix and lasts
longer in cassava than in other crops such as maize that are propagated by seed. In addition,
cassava is a genetically complex crop since it is an allotetraploid, that is, each trait -- such as pest
resistance -- is determined by more than one gene. These attributes mean that a pest-resistant
cassava variety does not easily succumb to a pressure of new races of pests and disease.
The rapid diffusion of the TMS varieties in Nigeria was facilitated by the collaboration of
NRCRI (National Root Crops Research Institute), the World Bank, IFAD, churches, the Nigerian
Cassava Growers’ Association; by government revenue from the oil sector; and by availability of
low cost gasoline. From 1988 to 1991, Texagric, a private agro-business organization jointly
owned by a Nigerian businessman and Texaco Oil Company, distributed free planting materials
to local farmers. The Nigerian Agip Oil Company also multiplied and supplied TMS planting
materials to a large number of farmers, cooperative societies, women's associations, and schools.
Other non-governmental organizations involved in the production, promotion, and distribution of
planting materials of the improved varieties included church groups, schools, universities,
Nigeria Cassava Growers Association, and the mass media.
Dr S. K. Hahn, the head of the IITA’s cassava research program, encouraged cassava
farmers to launch the Nigerian Cassava Growers’ Association with membership drawn from all
the cassava producing states of Nigeria. Hahn also prepared news releases about the TMS
 40

varieties and distributed them to Nigerian newspapers and radio and television stations. Hahn
distributed the planting materials of improved varieties through churches and schools (Hahn
1998). Hahn, a Catholic, went to different churches each Sunday dressed in his Yoruba tribal
chieftaincy regalia.29 At the end of the mass, he stood at the church’s main door with small
bundles of the cuttings of the improved varieties, encouraging members of the congregation,
especially women, to take the cuttings and test-plant in their fields. Hahn also visited numerous
schools and encouraged children to take the materials to their parents to plant along side local
varieties.
What are the lessons from the story of the rapid diffusion of the TMS varieties in
Nigeria? First, government policy was an important factor in the rapid diffusion of the TMS
varieties. The TMS varieties were released to farmers in 1977 but diffusion did not take place
until government invested in measures to multiply and distribute the TMS varieties to farmers.
The second lesson is that Dr Hahn, the scientist responsible for the development of the
TMS varieties at the IITA, played a critical role in eliciting the collaboration of the national
programs, the private sector, the donors, and the media in the diffusion program. Hahn himself
directly distributed the TMS varieties to farmers throughout Nigeria. In my opinion, the mandate
of the IARCs (International Agricultural Research Centers) should be broadened to include
extension so that cassava breeders can play a leading role in the diffusion of their varieties. Dr
Hahn spent six years (1971 to 1977) on the development of the TMS varieties and 17 years
(1977 to 1994) on the diffusion of the TMS varieties. In an innovative discussion of the role of
policy analysts in agricultural policy process in Africa, Professor Francis Idachaba (2000)
advocated that agricultural scientists should lead in the diffusion effort for their technologies.
The third lesson is that the rapid diffusion was possible because the mechanized grater
was available in most of the cassava producing villages in Nigeria. The replacement of hand
grating with the mechanized grater has reduced the cost of making gari and dramatically
increased the profitability of gari production with the TMS varieties.
By the late 1980s, the TMS diffusion in Nigeria had become an African success story par
excellence! In 1989, COSCA researchers found that the TMS varieties were grown by many
farmers in 60 percent of the surveyed villages in the cassava growing areas of Nigeria (Table

29
Hahn was honored with the chieftaincy title of Ba-ale Agbe (King of Farmers) by the members of a town in
Western Nigeria in recognition of his work in developing the TMS varieties.
 41

3.3). The TMS varieties were grown in both the forest and the savanna zones of Nigeria. The
TMS 30572 variety was the most popular, especially among farmers who process it as gari for
sale in urban markets. In Nigeria, the TMS varieties have contributed to the rapid expansion in
cassava production that has occurred from 1987 to 1993.

Table 3.3--COSCA countries: Percentage of villages by relative number of farmers who

planted the TMS varieties in 1989
RELATIVE CONGO COTE GHANA NIGERIA TANZANIA UGANDA
NO. OF d’IVOIRE
FARMERS
No Farmers 97 100 100 11 50 85
Few Farmers 3 0 0 30 50 5
Many Farmers 0 0 0 36 0 5
Most Farmers 0 0 0 23 0 5
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Nweke et al. (2002)

EMERGING HARVESTING AND PROCESSING LABOR BOTTLENECKS

Cassava production, which expanded at an increasing rate from 1987 to 1993 in Nigeria,
saw momentum fall as production continued to grow but at a decreasing rate from 1994 to 2001
(Figure 3.2). In the 1980s in Nigeria, the cassava transformation as a cash crop for urban
consumption was speeded up by the use of the mechanized grater for preparing gari after the
Nigerian government invested in measures to promote the cassava transformation.30 In 1990, the
mechanical grater was available in 52 percent of the COSCA villages in Nigeria. Since the
grating task is mechanized, peeling is now the most labor-intensive task followed by the toasting
stage in gari preparation. Yet during the 1990s, progressive farmers who achieve high yields by
growing the TMS varieties face new labor bottlenecks at the harvesting and processing stages.
They are no longer able to secure sufficient seasonal hired labor because of rising wages. This
second-generation labor constraint increasingly hampers cassava expansion in Nigeria.
The high yields obtained using the TMS varieties created labor bottlenecks that are
dampening cassava production growth in Nigeria. Table 3.4 shows that harvesting cassava is the
most labor-intensive field task in Nigeria where the TMS varieties have boosted yields by 40
percent and shifted labor constraint from cassava weeding to cassava harvesting. Labor is the

30
See “Government policies and Diffusion of the TMS Varieties in Nigeria” below.
 42

main item in the cost of cassava production. Conventional wisdom holds that cassava requires
relatively low labor inputs for production (Hendershott 1972). However, COSCA research
confirms that this conventional wisdom is valid only where cassava is produced as a famine-
reserve crop or as a rural food staple. The conventional wisdom is not valid where cassava is
produced as a cash crop for urban consumption such as in Nigeria.

Table 3.4--COSCA countries: Cassava production labor by task

TASK CONGO COTE D’IVOIRE GHANA NIGERIA TANZANIA UGANDA

DAYS PER HA
Land Clearing 66 53 44 409 54 45
Seed Bed Prep. 21 29 31 41 27 31
Field Planting 39 22 28 32 27 28
Weeding 27 28 34 38 28 32
Harvesting 48 44 53 62 46 52
TOTAL DAYS 201 173 191 222 182 187

Source: Nweke et al. (2002).

The COSCA study reveals that farmers in Nigeria use more labor in cassava production
and processing than any other country because farmers must harvest and process such large
volumes of increasingly high yielding cassava. Harvesting and processing labor is now proving
to be a serious constraint to the expansion of cassava production in Nigeria because labor for
cassava harvesting and processing increases in direct proportion to yield. It is not surprising that
farmers who plant TMS varieties in Nigeria have sometimes had to suspend planting because
they were unable to hire sufficient labor to harvest previously planted cassava fields. Addressing
the problem of labor constraints will improve the productivity of the cassava system, raise farm
incomes, and reduce cassava prices to consumers.
In Nigeria, the harvesting constraint for cassava is reminiscent of the state of grain
harvesting in the United States at the beginning of the nineteenth century when grain was still
harvested by hand, by the same method that had been used since the fourteenth century (Johnson
2000, p.6). The invention of the reaper in America in the second quarter of the nineteenth
century sharply reduced labor inputs in grain harvesting. The combine then replaced the reaper
and the direct labor inputs used to produce a ton of grain declined by 70 percent in the nineteenth
 43

century (Johnson 2000). Without question, a mechanical revolution is now needed to break the
labor bottleneck in cassava harvesting among farmers in Nigeria who are planting the TMS
varieties.
In Nigeria, progressive farmers who produce cassava as a cash crop for urban
consumption secure labor in two ways. First, they use hired labor for cassava production and
harvesting in most of their cassava fields because cassava is grown mostly as a cash crop for
urban consumption (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4—COSCA countries: Cassava fields using hired labor

80 77
71
70 63
Percentage of Villages

60
50
40
30 22
20
10 4
0
0
na

a
go

re

ia

nd
i
er

an
oi
on

ha

ga
Iv

ig

nz
C

N
d'

U
Ta
e

Country
ot
C

Source: Nweke et al. (2002)

 44

However, as wage rates increase in Nigeria, it is becoming difficult for farmers to

continue to produce and harvest cassava at prices competitive with grain. In Nigeria, the COSCA
study found that within an interval of 10 years (1991 to 2001), the real farm wage rate more than
doubled. In 1991, the COSCA farmers in Nigeria who planted the TMS varieties and sold gari to
urban consumers paid on the average, the equivalent of US$1.24 per man day. Ten years later,
in 2001, they paid the equivalent of US$3.50 per man day. Over the same period, the price of
gari increased by less than 40 percent, from an average of US$185 per ton in 1991 to an
equivalent of US$255 per ton in 1998.31
But the wage rates were not high enough to attract sufficient labor for hire on the farm
during the peak farm labor demand period. At the same time, the farmers found the wage rates
too high to pay because of the low productivity in the cassava sector and because the wage rate
was increasing faster than the price of gari. Farmers who planted the TMS varieties as a cash
crop for urban consumption sometimes suspended cassava planting because they could not find
sufficient hired labor to harvest and process earlier planted fields (Nweke et al. 2002).
Second, progressive farmers in Nigeria marry many wives to secure labor supply for their
cassava production. In Nigeria, the COSCA researchers found a positive and significant
correlation between cassava farm size and number of wives per farmer (Figures 3.5).
But the practice of marrying wives for farm power is not cost effective in the long run
because wives bear children. The children go to school and do not contribute to farm work.
Instead, farm income is used to pay school expenses for the children. The practice of marrying
wives for farm power instead of buying tractors or oxen proves costly to human life and welfare.
The COSCA researchers found that most of the women married as a source of farm power do not
live long because of hard labor, especially in cassava processing.

31
Source: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Benin City, Nigeria.
 45

Figure 3.5--Nigeria: Number of surviving wives per farmer by farm size.

6
No. of Wives/Farmer

4
y=0.7666Ln(x) +1.0684
3

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FarmSize(Ha/Farmer)

Source: COSCA study

For example, by 2002 Mr Onoriemu Akpozobo (Onoriemu for short) 59, the most
progressive of the COSCA study farmers in Nigeria in terms of farm size, had married a total of
10 wives who bore 46 children. By 2002, only four of the wives, including a young one he
married in 2001, and 21 of the children were still alive. In 1955, W. Arthur Lewis described
women in under-developed countries as beasts of burden because they were used to execute tasks
which in more advanced societies are done by mechanical power (Lewis 1955, p. 422). There is
urgent need to develop labor-saving technologies for cassava production, harvesting, and
processing to replace the practice of using women as beasts of burden.
New mechanical technologies for cassava harvesting and processing are required to
generate the rate of growth in cassava production realized in Nigeria from 1987 to 1992. Further
improvement in yield-increasing technologies alone will not generate the same level of cassava
production growth because genetic technologies which increase yield will only add to the
existing labor bottlenecks at the harvesting and processing stages. Yield-increasing genetic
 46

technologies are important but insufficient engine of growth of the cassava sector. The challenge
is to augment the yield-increasing genetic technologies with mechanical technologies in order to
break the new labor bottlenecks at the harvesting and processing stages and transform cassava to
play an additional role as a livestock feed and industrial raw material.

IMPACT ON PRODUCTION AND PRICES

What is the impact of the mechanical grater, the new TMS varieties, and radically altered
government policies on cassava output, prices, and poverty in Nigeria? The analysis of the
impact of the cassava transformation on output is based on per capita output. The impact of the
cassava transformation on food prices is assessed by comparing the price of gari, the most
common form in which cassava is marketed in Nigeria, with the prices of alternative staples,
namely yam and rice.32 During the past 40 years the impact of the cassava transformation on
output per capita and prices in Nigeria is mixed depending on the technologies and government
policies at play during different time periods.

Impact of the Mechanized Grater

From 1961 to 1971in Nigeria, the mechanized grater was the major cassava technology
available. But from 1961 to 1971 in Nigeria, the cassava transformation did not produce a
significant impact on cassava output per capita or on driving down the price of cassava to
consumers. From 1961 to 1971 in Nigeria, national cassava output per capita declined and the
price of gari increased relative to yam and to rice (Figures 3.6a, 3.7a, and 3.8a).33 From 1961 to
1971, the Nigerian government did not invest in extension to diffuse the mechanical grater which
would have released labor from processing for production of cassava. In the 1960s, the Nigerian
government’s agricultural policy emphasis was focused on export crops such as cocoa, cotton,
oil palm, and rubber as the main sources of government revenue and foreign exchange.

32
In Nigeria, yam and rice are the second and third mot important staples after cassava in terms of calories
consumed in the cassava producing areas. In Ghana, maize and yam are the second and third most important staples
after cassava in terms of calories consumed.
33
In Nigeria, price data was available from 1966 to 1998.
 47

Figure 3.6--Nigeria: The impact of the cassava transformation on per capita output, 1961
to 2001

y = -5340.6Ln(x) + 40714
350
350
y = 786.37Ln(x) - 5769.4

Kg/Cap.
250
250
Kg/Cap.

150
150

50
50 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982
1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971
Year
Year b. 1972 to 1983, development and release of
a. 1961 to 1971, mechanization of the grater. TMS varieties.

y = 38724Ln(x) - 293890
350
y = -8221.1Ln(x) + 62781
350
Kg/Cap.

250
Kg/Cap.

250

150 150

50
50 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 Year
Year d. 1993 to 2001,hand harvesting and
processing of high-yielding TMS varieties.
c. 1984 to 1992, diffusion of TMS varieties.

Source: FAOSTAT.
 48

Figure 3.7--Nigeria: The impact of the cassava transformation on the gari –to-yam price
ratio, 1966-1998

180
180
160 y = 124.16Ln(x) - 419.74
y = 467.65Ln(x) - 1857.7 160
140
140
Price Ratio

Price Ratio
120
120
100
100
80 80
60 60
40 40
66 67 68 69 70 71 72 74 76 78 80 82
Year Year
a. 1966 to 1971, mechanization of the b. 1972 to 1983, development and release of
grater. TMS varieties.

180
180
y = -946.52Ln(x) + 4349.8
160
160
140 140
Price Ratio

Price Ration

120 120 y = 274.41Ln(x) - 1166.4

100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Year Year
c. 1984 to 1992, diffusion of the TMS d. 1993 to 1998, hand harvesting and
varieties. processing of high-yielding TMS varieties.

Source: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Benin City.

 49

Figure 3.8--Nigeria: The impact of the cassava transformation on the gari-to-rice price
ratio, 1966 to 1998

100

80 100
Price Ratio

60 y = 58.476Ln(x) - 206.82
80
y = 179.2Ln(x) - 726.31

Price Ratio
40
60

20
40
66 67 68 69 70 71
Year
20
a. 1966 to 1971, mechanization of the grater. 72 74 76 78 80 82
Year
b. 1972 to 1983, development and release of
TMS varieties.a.

100
100

80
80
y = -34.909Ln(x) + 200.98
Price Ratio

y = -129.09Ln(x) + 614.93
Price Ratio

60
60

40
40

20
20
84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
93 94 95 96 97 98
Year
Year
c. 1984 to 1992, diffusion of the TMS
varieties. d. 1993 to 1998, hand harvesting and
processing of TMS varieties.

Source: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Benin City.

 50

Impact of TMS Varieties

From 1972 to 1977 in Nigeria, the TMS varieties were developed and released to farmers.
But the diffusion of the TMS varieties was slow because the government through grain import
subsidy policy and exclusion of cassava from major government extension programs discouraged
cassava production. Meanwhile, government subsidized fertilizer for cereals and expanded
investments in the ADPs (Agricultural Development Projects) for grain production outside the
cassava producing zones. From 1972 to 1983, cassava output per capita declined in Nigeria and
the gari price increased relative to the prices of yam and maize (Figures 3.6b, 3.7b, and 3.8b).

Combined Impact of TMS Varieties, Mechanical Graters and a Favorable Policy Environment
Production. From 1984 to 1992, the Nigerian government banned the import of grain,
removed subsidies on fertilizer and cereals, established the ADPs in the cassava producing states,
and invested in diffusing the high-yielding TMS varieties, including free distribution of the TMS
varieties to farmers. As a result, the planting of TMS varieties spread rapidly and cassava
production soared (Figures 3.6c).

The dramatic increase in the cassava output per capita from 1984 to 1992 arose from a
combination of increased yield and area expansion. The farm-level yield of the TMS varieties in
Nigeria was 40 percent higher than that of the local varieties, even when grown without
fertilizer.34 The yield performance of the TMS varieties is comparable to that of the green
revolution wheat and rice varieties in Asia in the 1960s and 1970s (Ruttan 2001). The IITA has
used data from the COSCA study (1989 to 1992) to calculate that the TMS varieties have
contributed an extra 1.4 million tons of gari per year than would have been available from local
varieties. The incremental output of 1.4 million tons is enough to feed 29 million people (CGIAR
1996).

34
The farm-level yield of the high-yielding TMS varieties was not significantly different from the yield in
researcher-managed on-farm trials conducted by Hahn. For example, the yields of the TMS varieties in researcher-
managed on-farm trials were 21.0 tons per ha in 1983, 23.5 tons per ha in 1984, and 16.0 tons per ha in 1985 in
different locations in the forest zone of Nigeria (IITA 1986).
 51

Farm income. The profitability of the TMS varieties critically depends on the type of
available cassava grating technology.35 By reducing the cassava processing labor by as much as
50 percent, from 51 to 24 person-days in the preparation of gari, the mechanized grater has
released labor, especially female labor, from cassava processing for cassava production. The
replacement of hand grating with the mechanized grater has reduced the cost of making gari and
dramatically increased the profitability of gari production with the TMS varieties.
Drawing on COSCA data and the classification by Camara (2000) and Johnson and
Masters (2002), COSCA farmers in Nigeria can be divided into four categories based on the
variety (local or TMS) planted and the grating method (manual versus mechanized grating).
Table 3.5 presents a financial analysis of four combinations of cassava production and gari
preparation technology. This financial analysis shows that farmers who plant local varieties and
grate manually earn a modest net profit of 42 Naira (about US$2.50) per ton of gari. Farmers
who plant local varieties and use mechanized grating earn 478 Naira (about US$28.00) net profit
per ton of gari as compared with a net profit of 339 Naira (about US20.00) per ton of gari by
farmers using TMS varieties and manual grating. Cassava farmers benefit more from using
labor-saving grating technology than planting TMS varieties. TMS varieties are significantly
more profitable when grating is mechanized. For example, farmers planting the TMS varieties
and using mechanized grating earned a net profit of 776 Naira (about US$46.00) per ton of gari.

In summary, the net profit per ton of gari is as follows:

US$
-local varieties with manual grating---------------2.50
-local varieties with mechanized grating--------28.00
-TMS varieties with manual grating-------------20.00
-TMS varieties with mechanized grating------- 46.00

35
Gari preparation is divided into three main steps: (1) peeling and washing; (2) grating, pressing, and sieving; and
(3) toasting. Only the grating, pressing, and sieving step is mechanized.
 52

Table 3.5--Nigeria: Financial budget for gari preparation by alternative cassava production
and processing technologies, 1991
BUDGET ITEM PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
local local tms tms
varieties varieties varieties varieties
manual mechanized manual mechanized
processing processing processing processing
INPUTS/LABOR
Production (man-days/ha)
Bush clearing 49 49 49 49
Tillage 41 41 41 41
Planting 28 28 28 28
Weeding 34 34 34 34
Subtotal 152 152 152 152

Harvesting (man-days/ha) 56 56 82 82
Total male labor (man-days/ha) 208 208 234 234
Processing (woman-days/ha)
Peeling (3.6 woman-days/ton of root) 39 39 56 56
Grating (9.9 woman-days/ton of root) 106 0 154 0
Toasting (3.3 woman-days/ton of root) 35 35 51 51
Total female labor (woman-days/ha) 180 74 61 107

OUTPUTS
Root yield (tons/ha) 13.41 13.41 19.44 19.44
Usable root yield (80%of root yield 10.73 10.73 15.55 15.55
Root-to-gari conversion ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
Gari yield (tons/ha) 3.54 3.54 5.13 5.13
Village market price of gari (Naira/ton of 3140 3140 3140 3140
gari)

COSTS (Naira/ha)
Male labor (21 Naira/man-day) 4368 4368 4914 4914
Female labor (10 Naira/woman day) 2700 1110 3916 1605
Farm transportation (92 Naira/ton of root) 123 1233 1790 1790
Grating fee (15 Naira/ton of root) 0 161 0 233
Bagging (82 Naira/ton of gari) 290 290 420 420
Fire wood (207 Naira/ton of gari) 733 733 1062 1062
Transportation to market (235Naira/ton of 832 832 1205 1205
gari)
Sub total 10156 8727 13306 11229
Interest on capital (8% of subtotal) 812 698 1064 898

PERFORMANCE MEASURES (Naira)

Total cost/ha 10968 9426 14370 12127
Cost/ton of gari 3098 2662 2801 2364
Total revenue/ha 11116 11116 16108 16108
Revenue/ton of gari 140 3140 3140 3140
Net profit/ha 148 1690 1738 3981
Net profit/ton of gari 42 478 339 776

Source: Nweke et al. (2002).

 53

The financial analysis shows that the use of a labor-saving grating technology is essential
for the rapid adoption of TMS varieties. But the growing availability of the mechanized grater
has shifted the cassava labor bottleneck to harvesting, peeling, and toasting. The COSCA study
found that several farmers in Nigeria who were growing the TMS varieties frequently reduced
the area planted because, owing to labor shortage, they are not able to harvest and process the
crop from the previous season’s plantings.
The mechanization of any of the harvesting, peeling, and toasting operations will reduce
processing cost and raise cassava income to farmers and drive down the price of cassava to
consumers. The mechanization of any of the harvesting, peeling, and toasting operations will
encourage diffusion of the TMS varieties and encourage farmers who are already planting them
to expand the area under cassava cultivation. There is urgent need to develop labor-saving
technologies for cassava production, harvesting, and processing to replace the costly practice of
marrying many wives to supply farm power.
Prices. During the rapid diffusion of the TMS varieties in Nigeria, from 1984 to 1992,
cassava prices fell sharply as did gari-to-yam and gari-to-rice price ratios (Figures 3.7c and
3.8c). The average inflation-adjusted gari price (18,000 Naira per ton) was 40 percent lower than
from 1971 to 1983 before the diffusion (29,000 Naira per ton) (Figure 3.9). This dramatic
reduction in cassava price represents a significant increase in the real income of the millions of
the rural and urban households who consume cassava as their most important staple food.
In Nigeria, the impact of the cassava transformation on driving down cassava prices is
less dramatically reflected in terms of gari-rice than gari-yam price ratio (Figure 3.10)36. But in
Nigeria, the price of rice is often influenced by the government rice import policy which changed
dramatically during the structural adjustment period. Prior to 1984, the artificially low price of
rice discouraged private investment in cassava production and delayed the cassava
transformation.

36
More research that has been carried out on rice than on yam means that production cost has been reduced more for
rice than for yam (IITA 1992).
 54

Figure 3.9--Nigeria: Inflation adjusted (1995 level) price of gari in Edo state, 1971 to 1998

60000

50000

40000
Ave.=23492
Price (Naira/ton)

30000

20000

10000

0
1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998
Year

Source: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Benin City.

Figure 3.10--Nigeria: Gari-to-yam and to-rice price ratios, 1966 to 1998.

200

150
Price Ratio (%)

Gari -Yam = -0.1926x2 + 762.89x - 755158

100

Gari -Rice = -0.0619x2 + 245.31x - 242795

50

0
1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998
Year

Source: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Benin City.

 55

From 1993 to 2001, after the diffusion of the TMS varieties decelerated in Nigeria, the
production gains softened, stemming the downward fall in cassava prices. From 1993 to 2001 in
Nigeria, cassava output per capita decreased (Figure 3.6d). As a result, consumer cassava prices
increased as did gari-to-yam and gari-to-rice price ratios (Figures 3.7d and 3.8d).
Equity. In Nigeria, cassava is the main source of cash income for the COSCA households
producing cassava and other crops. For example, during the rapid diffusion of the TMS varieties
in 1992, the mean cash income at current prices was 33,980 Naira per study household in
Nigeria.37 Food crops contributed 55 percent of the COSCA study household cash income;
industrial crops, 20 percent; livestock, 7 percent; and non-farm activities, 18 percent. Therefore,
in Nigeria, food crop production was the main source of cash income in the COSCA study
households and cassava generated 11.6 percent of the total cash income per farm household;
yam, 8.3 percent; maize, 7.7 percent; rice, 6.1 percent; etc. (Table 3.6).

Table 3.6--Nigeria and Ghana: Percentage of cash income by source

Staple Ghana Nigeria
Cassava 12.6 11.6
Yam 5.5 8.5
Maize 12.6 7.7
Rice 3.3 6.6
Sweet potato -- 0.6
Banana 3.9 0.6
Other food crops 17.1 19.4
Industrial crops 21.0 20.0
Livestock 3.0 7.0
Non-farm activities 21.0 18.0

Total 100.0 100.0

Source: Nweke et al. (2002).

37
At the average monthly exchange rate of 17 Naira to US$1.00 and the average of 11 persons per COSCA
household, the mean cash income per person in the COSCA households was equivalent to US$177 which amounted
to 120 percent of agricultural GDP per capita in the same year. That the cash income of the COSCA households is
greater than the agricultural GDP per capita can be a paradox. But the chaos that exists in Nigeria’s agricultural
production statistics is exceptional (Berry 1993).
 56

In Nigeria, cassava production was more egalitarian, in terms of cash income distribution,
than the production of the alternative staples such as yam and maize. Cassava cash income
accrued to more households than that of these other major staple: 40 percent of the COSCA
households earned cash income from cassava; maize, 35 percent; and yam, 24 percent. Unlike
the other staples, cassava income does not accrue primarily to the better off farm households.
The COSCA studies indicate that 50 percent of cassava cash income; 60 percent of yam; and 70
percent of maize accrued to the top 10 percent (in terms of cash income earning) of households
(Nweke et al. 2002).
In Nigeria, the cassava cash income was more evenly distributed in COSCA villages
where farmers used the mechanical grater to prepare gari than where they processed dried
cassava roots. For example, in COSCA villages where farmers used the mechanical grater to
prepare gari, 45 percent of the cassava cash income accrued to 10 percent of the households and
55 percent of the cash income accrued to 90 percent of the households. But where farmers
prepared dried cassava roots, 65 percent of the cassava cash income accrued to 10 percent of the
households and only 35 percent of the cash income accrued to 90 percent of the households.
Cassava can be a powerful poverty fighter in Africa! The cash income from cassava
proves more egalitarian than the other major staples because of cassava’s low cash input cost.
Compared with other major staples, cassava performs well across a wide ecological spectrum. It
therefore benefits farmers across broader swath of ecological zones. Cassava is likewise less
expensive to produce. It tolerates poor soil, adverse weather and pests and diseases more than
other major staples. Carbohydrate yield from cassava per unit of resource is higher than from
other major staples. Measures that will drive down cassava production cost and transform
cassava to play additional roles as a livestock feed and industrial raw material will generate
income for millions of farmers and industrialists. At the same time, low and falling cassava
prices benefit poor and urban consumers by driving down food prices, a critical determinant of
real incomes in urban areas.
 57

4. CONTRASTING EXPERIENCES IN GHANA

In Ghana, the cassava transformation has lagged behind Nigeria by about a decade. This
is a puzzle because cassava is an important food crop in both countries which also have similar
political history. Nigeria and Ghana are the two largest cassava producers in West Africa and in
both countries, cassava is the most important food in terms of calories consumed (FAOSTAT).
Both countries were British colonies and they regained independence at about the same time,
Ghana in 1957 and Nigeria three years later in 1960. Since the independence, the two countries
have gone through many years of military rule.
But for many years, the government of Ghana maintained a socialist policy and aimed at
rapid industrialization. They favored grain production by public farms as a food import
substitution crop. In the early 1980s in Ghana, a severe drought occurred during which cassava
emerged as the crop that helped Ghana feed its population. That experience caused the
government to review its policy emphasis on grain production and to invest in measures to
accelerate the cassava transformation. They began to import TMS varieties from Nigeria and
initiate on-farm testing.
This section explains the role of the government socialist policy in delaying the cassava
transformation from independence in 1957 to the early 1980s in Ghana. The section also explains
how, from the early 1980s in Ghana, the cassava transformation accelerated during government
investments in R and D to develop the cassava sector following the important role of cassava in
maintaining food supply during the drought of the early 1980s. Finally, the section assesses the
impact of the cassava transformation on cassava production and prices and poverty in Ghana.

KEY PHASES AND MOTORS OF CHANGE

Introduction and Early Diffusion

In the mid 18th century in Ghana, cassava was the most widely grown crop of the people
of the coastal plains (Adams 1957). But the spread of cassava from the coast into the hinterland
was very slow. The forest people had plantain and cocoyam and the people of the north had
sorghum and millet. Cassava reached Ashanti and Tamale in 1930 (Ofori et al. 1997). In 1935 in
 58

Ghana, cassava area was less than 500 ha and twenty years later in 1955, cassava area was still
only 66,000 ha (FAOSTAT).

Socialist Policy and Cassava Marginalization

After independence from the British in 1957, the government of Ghana adopted a
socialist policy that recognized that “the need for the most rapid growth of the public and
cooperative sectors in productive enterprise (agriculture and industry) must be kept in the fore
front of government policy” (Planning Commission 1964, p.2). In 1962, the government
established the SFC (State Farms Corporation) “to do those things which, in the opinion of
government officials, the private farmers could not be relied upon to do, namely to use modern
methods to expand the production of food crops and raw materials on commercial scales”
(Agricultural Committee of the National Liberation Council 1966a, p.203). The SFC absorbed
proportionately more resources than it farmed land. Employment opportunities offered by the
SFC with government-set minimum wages attracted many farm workers off private farms
(Nweke 1978).
At the same time, in 1962, the Scientific Services Division of the MOA (Ministry of
Agriculture), which was responsible for agricultural research, was closed. The SFC converted the
MOA research stations into production units. The SFC declared agricultural research as a waste
of time and money, an irrelevant and unproductive activity (La-Anyane 1971p.29).
For nearly the first 25 years of independence (1957 to 1980) in Ghana, agricultural policy
for food crops marginalized root crops in favor of grains (Table 4.1). Government encouraged
production of grains with a price support program through the Grains Marketing Board and the
Food Distribution Corporation and subsidized irrigation water, farm mechanization, and
agricultural credit. From 1960 to 1966, 20 percent of total government capital expenditure on
agriculture was invested on farm mechanization. From 1963 to 1975, 29 percent of government
agricultural capital expenditure was used for irrigation development (Nweke 1979 and Nweke
1978a). Cassava is not produced under irrigation and available tractor mechanization technology
is not suitable for cassava production.38 Most agricultural bank credit for food crops was for

38
Available mechanical technologies for seedbed preparation are designed for plowing, harrowing and ridging.
They are not relevant for no-till seedbeds and are not designed for mound making. The COSCA study found that the
frequency of no-till seedbed was higher in cassava fields than any other staple. In Africa, in well drained soils
cassava is grown on flat no-till seedbed; in poorly drained soils, cassava is grown on ridges and mounds (Hahn
 59

maize and rice, each of which received three times as much loan as all root crops combined
(Nweke 1978b).
For nearly 20 years, from 1962 to 1975 in Ghana, the development strategy had no role
for cassava (Ofori et al. 1997). From 1960 to 1975 in Ghana, the rate of growth for grains
production was 5.4 percent, compared with the root crops, 1.2 percent which was well below the
population growth rate of approximately 3.0 percent (Nweke 1979a).
In Ghana, the first government expression of interest in cassava is found in the First Five-
Year Development Plan (1975 to 1980). The plan’s primary goal was to reduce food and raw
material imports, unemployment, and high inflation. The plan made agriculture the priority
sector. In 1975 in Ghana, cassava area was 285,000 ha. The First Five-Year Development Plan
provided for an increase of 93,600 ha to be attained in 1980. The increase would come through
small farmer expansion, but the state farms would contribute 2,400 ha.

Table 4.1--Ghana: Technologies and policies in place from 1961 to 2001

Year Technology Agricultural Development Policy and Macro-Economic
Environment
1961 to 1989 Mechanization of the grater -state production of agricultural-based industrial raw
Development of the TMS material with the aim of rapid industrialization
varieties -policy emphases on grains production as import substitution
crop

1990 to 2001 Release and diffusion of the -government invested in measures to on-farm test of the
TMS varieties TMS varieties official release of the TMS varieties to
farmers

1984). In Africa, available technologies for seedbed preparation would not normally be relevant for cassava
production because in poor drainage soils where cassava needs ridges, mechanical tillage is not efficient (Pingali et
al. 1987). In well drained soils mechanical tillage is efficient, but cassava does not need ridges. Available
mechanical technologies for seedbed preparation are designed for plowing, harrowing and ridging. They are not
relevant for no-till seedbeds and are not designed for mound making. The COSCA study found that the frequency of
no-till seedbed was higher in cassava fields than any other staple. In Africa, in well drained soils cassava is grown
on flat no-till seedbed; in poorly drained soils, cassava is grown on ridges and mounds (Hahn 1984). In Africa,
available technologies for seedbed preparation would not normally be relevant for cassava production because in
poor drainage soils where cassava needs ridges, mechanical tillage is not efficient (Pingali et al. 1987). In well
drained soils mechanical tillage is efficient, but cassava does not need ridges.
 60

In spite of the expression of policy interest in cassava in the form of allocation of

additional area to be cultivated by the private and public sectors, “policy still favored the cereals,
namely rice and maize, the long time favorites” (Ofori et al. 1997, p. 22). For example, the
government of Ghana did not display an interest in the TMS varieties released in Nigeria in
1977. Therefore, Dr. Hahn hired a Ghanaian agronomist to help introduce the TMS varieties in
Ghana. Hahn reports that the Ghanaian agronomist, the Ghana River Basin Development
Authority funded by the World Bank, and Texaco of Nigeria informally moved truckloads of the
planting materials of the TMS varieties to farmers in Ghana during the early 1980s39. But the
government lacked interest in multiplying and distributing the TMS cuttings to farmers.

Government Investment in the Development of the Cassava Sector

The severe drought that occurred in 1982 to 1983 acted as a wake up call to the Ghanaian
agricultural policy makers highlighting the important role of cassava in the Ghana’s food
security agenda. The drought brought severe consequences to the economy: crop failure, sky-
rocketing food prices, and mass exodus of Ghanaians to escape famine in other countries of West
Africa (Figure 4.1). Cassava, the only crop that did not fail, helped Ghana survive the drought.
The drought experience and the key role played by cassava in preventing famine led Ghanaian
agricultural policy circles to question the wisdom of reliance on maize for food security. It
awakened government interest in development of the cassava sector.
In 1983, the government initiated the ERP (Economic Recovery Program) under which
they liberalized trade and lifted foreign exchange controls. Around 1984, Ghana’s
Commissioner (Minister) for Agriculture visited the IITA in Ibadan and met with Hahn. During
their discussion, the Commissioner used the expression “Monkey de work Baboon de chop” to
describe the emphasis given to cassava and maize in food policy circles in Ghana. The
expression means “cassava is feeding Ghana but maize is consuming the research resources in
Ghana.”40 In 1985, Ghana hosted the Central and Western African Root Crops Network

39
Personal telephone conversation with Dr S. K. Hahn, March 20, 2001.
40
The literal translation of “Monkey de work Baboon de chop” means “monkey works for baboon to eat” This is in
West African pigeon English saying.
 61

workshop in Accra. The workshop helped government officials to grasp the importance of
cassava in Ghana.
In 1988, eleven years after the TMS varieties were released to farmers in Nigeria in 1977,
the Government of Ghana finally displayed interest in the TMS varieties by importing the stem
cuttings from the IITA and turning them over to Ghanaian researchers for field testing. Dr S. K.
Hahn then helped the government of Ghana to obtain IFAD funding for on-farm testing and
evaluation of the TMS varieties in Ghana. From 1988 to 1992, the Ghanaian researchers, with
backstopping of an IITA cassava breeder, Dr O. O. Okoli, evaluated the TMS varieties in
farmers’ fields.41

Figure 4.1--Ghana: Inflation adjusted price of gari (1995 price level), 1970 to 1999

900

800

700

600
Price (Cedis/KG)

500

400

300

200

100

0
1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998
Year

Source: Statistics and Information Directorate, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Accra, Ghana

41
Dr O. O. Okoli helped introduce the IITA’s high-yielding TMS varieties in Ghana under the IITA’s technical
assistance program to the cassava project of the Ghana’s Small-Holder Rehabilitation and Development Program
(SRDP).
 62

IMPACT ON PRODUCTION AND PRICES

From 1961 to 2001 in Ghana, the cassava transformation proceeded in fits and starts.
Performance varied, as in Nigeria, depending on the technologies and government policies at
play in different periods. In Ghana, the big production surge was delayed because for the first 28
years after independence, from 1957 to 1985, the government of Ghana neglected cassava in the
national agricultural development programs. In a second phase, from 1986 onwards, performance
improved dramatically as government recognized the importance of cassava and began to
support basic research, technology transfer and testing.
During the first phase, from 1961 to 1985 in Ghana, the complete omission of cassava in
and the national agricultural development programs led to a declining cassava production per
capita and as a result, gari-to-maize price ratio increased (Figures 4.2 and 4.3a).42

Figure 4.2--Ghana: The impact of the cassava transformation on per capita output, 1961 to
2001

y = 34680Ln(x) - 263157
400
400
Kg/Cap.

300
Kgg/Cap.

300
y = 261.29Ln(x) - 1809.8

200
200

100
1961 1964 1967 1970 Year
1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 100
1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001
a. policy marginalization of cassava. Year
b. 1986 to 2001, policy recorgnition of role of cassava in food
security.

Source: FAOSTAT

42
In Ghana, price data was available for 1970 to 2001.
 63

Figure 4.3--Ghana: The impact of the cassava transformation on gari-to-maize price ratio,
1971 to 2000

150
150
y = -4265.5Ln(x) + 32510
y = 684.88Ln(x) - 5093.2 120
120

Price Ratio
Price Ratio

90 90

60
60
1971 1974 1977 1980 1983
1986 1989 1992 1995 1998
Year
Year
a. 1971 to 1985, policy marginalization of
cassava (note: data not available for 1961 to b. 1986 to to 2000, Government
1970). investment in R and D to diffuse the TMS
varieties.

Source: Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Accra.

During the second phase, from 1986 to 2001, the spread of the mechanized grater, the
TMS varieties and the mealybug control had a significant impact on increasing cassava
production. During this period, output per capita increased significantly (Figure 4.2b). In fact, in
an interval of one year (1990 to 1991) Ghana moved from being the sixth largest cassava
producer in Africa to the fourth largest producer. In 1990, Ghana produced 2.88 million tons of
cassava and it was the sixth largest producer in Africa after Nigeria, 19.04 million; the Congo,
18.72; Tanzania, 7.79 million tons; Mozambique, 4.59 million tons; and Uganda, 3.42 million
tons. But in 1991, Ghana produced 5.99 million tons and became the fourth largest producer in
Africa after Nigeria, 29.55 million tons; the Congo, 18.80 million tons; and Tanzania, 6.92
million tons displacing Mozambique and Uganda (FAOSTAT).
From 1991 to 2001 in Ghana, per capita cassava output exceeded Nigeria because the
impact of the TMS varieties in terms of per capita output decreased in Nigeria owing to the
harvesting and processing labor bottlenecks created by the planting of the high-yielding TMS
varieties in Nigeria (Figure 4.4). In Ghana, the diffusion of the TMS varieties is now well under
 64

way. After the TMS diffusion in Ghana, one will expect a decline of the impact of the cassava
transformation in terms of per capita output unless laborsaving mechanical technologies for
cassava harvesting and processing are developed and diffused to farmers.
During the rapid growth phase, from 1986 to 2001 in Ghana, the spread of grater
mechanization, TMS varieties and mealybug control had a significant impact on driving down
cassava prices to consumers. During these years, the gari-to-maize price ratio declined
dramatically in Ghana (Figure 4.3b).

Figure 4.4--Nigeria and Ghana: Per capita cassava production, 1961 to 2001.

Ghana
500

375
Nigeria
Kg/Cap.

250

125

0
1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001
Year

The impact of the cassava surge on driving down the price of cassava was more dramatic
in the case of gari-to-maize than gari-to-yam price ratio (Figure 4.5). This difference emerged
because, in the first 23 years of independence from 1957 to 1980 in Ghana, government food
policy favored grains namely, maize and rice, and marginalized all root crops including cassava,
yam, and cocoyam. As a result, in 1971 to 1985 in Ghana when the price of cassava increased,
the price of yam also rose. Similarly, from 1986 to 2001 in Ghana, the new policy emphasis on
cassava was extended to all root crops because many development projects were funded for root
 65

crops as a group as they are produced in the same moist agro-ecologies. As a result of these
general promotion efforts, from 1986 to 2001 when the price of cassava declined, the price of
yam also declined.
The important lesson emerging from this analysis of the gari-to-maize price ratio in
Ghana is that cassava can compete with maize as an urban food staple once the bias in
government support in favor of maize is removed, thus providing a level playing field. Cassava
is a cheaper source of calorie than maize and gari is an urban convenience food. In Ghana, the
income elasticity of demand for cassava is significantly greater than one among urban
households (1.46). Among the urban households, the income elasticity of demand for cassava is
about the same as that of rice (1.50) but significantly greater than that of maize (0.83) (Alderman
1990). The challenge is to sustain policy interest so that government will finance R and D
projects to drive down the cassava production and processing costs still further and transform the
cassava to play an expanded role as livestock feed and industrial raw material.

Figure 4.5--Ghana: The impact of the cassava transformation on gari-to-maize and gari-to-
yam price ratios, 1971 to 2001

170

140
Gar -to-Maize = -0.0644x2 + 255.33x - 253069

110
Price Ration

80

2
Gar -to-Yam = -0.0287x + 113.81x - 112869
50

20
1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
Year
Source: Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Accra.
 66

In Ghana, the real gari price declined by 20 percent from an average of 366 Cedis per ton
during 1971 to 1985 period to 290 Cedis per ton during 1986 to 2000 period (Figure 4.1). This
reduction in cassava price represents a significant increase in the income of the millions of the
rural and urban households who consume cassava as the most important staple, in terms of
calories consumed.
But in Ghana, the fall in the price of cassava was not as dramatic as in Nigeria. During
the period of the rapid diffusion of the TMS varieties, the average inflation-adjusted gari price
was 40 percent lower than before the diffusion in Nigeria compared with 20 percent in Ghana.
The graph of the gari-to-yam price ratio was less steep in Ghana than Nigeria because in Ghana,
the price of gari did not decline relative to yam as fast as in Nigeria (Figure 4.6). 43 In Ghana,
the cassava transformation has exerted less downward pressure on cassava prices than in Nigeria
because of the lag in production surge. In Ghana, the challenge is to promote the diffusion of
TMS varieties and grater mechanization so that Ghana can catch up with Nigeria in the cassava
transformation as a cash crop for urban consumption.

Figure 4.6--Nigeria and Ghana: The impact of the cassava transformation on the gari-to-
yam price ratio, 1971 to 1998

200

150
Price Ratio

100
2
Nigeria = -0.1079x + 16.259x - 484.83

50

2
Ghana = -0.0412x + 6.7578x - 238.77
0
71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98
Year
Sources: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Benin City and Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Accra

43
Yam is a common staple to both Nigeria and Ghana.
 67

In Ghana, as in Nigeria, cassava is the main source of cash income for the COSCA
households producing cassava and other crops (Table 3.6). In 1992 in Ghana, the mean cash
income was 400,000 Cedis per COSCA study household.44 Food crops contributed 55 percent,
industrial crops, 21 percent; livestock, 3 percent; and non-farm activities, 21 percent. Therefore,
in Ghana, food crop production was the main source of cash income in the COSCA study
households and cassava was tied with maize as the most important food crops in terms of cash
income
In Ghana, cassava is widely consumed in various forms and in many parts of Ghana, even
outside the producing areas. Compared with other major staples, cassava thrives across a wider
range of ecological zones. Cassava tolerates poor soil, adverse weather and pests and diseases
more than other major staples. The carbohydrate yield from cassava per unit of land is higher
than from other major staples. Measures that will drive down cassava production cost and
transform cassava from a cash crop produced for urban consumptionto one produced to play
additional roles as a livestock feed and industrial raw material will generate income for farmers
and industrialists.

44
At the average monthly exchange rate of 430 Cedis to US$1.00 and the average of 9 persons per COSCA
household, the mean cash income per person in the COSCA households was equivalent to US$108 which amounted
to 25 percent of agricultural GDP per capita in the same year.
 68

5. ACCELERATING THE CASSAVA TRANSFORMATION: A RESEARCH AGENDA

This section highlights the need for investments in R and D on the genetic, mechanical,
and industrial technologies necessary to enhance the impact of the cassava transformation. This
section emphasizes needed investment in R and D measures to drive down the cost of cassava
production and develop new uses for cassava in food, non-food, and livestock feed industries.

GENETIC IMPROVEMENT

Restructuring the Cassava Plant Canopy and Roots for Mechanized Harvesting and Processing
The improvement of cassava genetic resource pool represents an unfinished agenda. The
TMS varieties attain their peak yield around 13 to 15 months after planting as compared with 22
to 24 months for local varieties. But the COSCA researchers discovered that Nigerian farmers
desired TMS varieties that could be harvested in less than 12 months after planting without yield
loss in order to be able to plant cassava on the same field every year because of growing market
demand for gari and population pressure on land. The fact that the TMS varieties attain
maximum yield from 15 months after planting means that farmers wait for 15 months to respond
to increased demand for cassava.
In 2001, the manager of the Nigerian Starch Mill (NSM), Ihiala revealed to the COSCA
researchers that the most critical constraint in his industry was irregular supply of cassava. The
irregular supply of cassava for industrial uses in Nigeria and Ghana is explained by two factors,
namely the cassava bulking period and the high production cost. In Nigeria and Ghana, cassava
production for import substitution as an industrial raw material requires the development of early
bulking varieties which will allow the farmers to respond to industrial demand in a timely
fashion.
The dramatic increases in cassava production from 1984 to 1992 in Nigeria and from
1990 to 2001 in Ghana was driven by the yield-increasing genetic and agronomic technologies
alone. Other than the mechanical grater, the cassava producers relied on human power for
cassava production, harvesting, and processing. Very little research has focused on developing
machines to harvest cassava. Mechanized machines have not been developed for cassava
harvesting and peeling because cassava roots vary in size and shape. In the mid 1970s to early
 69

1980s, attempts were made at IITA to adapt mechanized potato harvesters for cassava
harvesting. But the variable cassava plant canopy and root shapes and sizes hampered the
research. This suggests that breeding to restructure the cassava plant to standardize its canopy
and root sizes and shapes is a prerequisite to a successful development of mechanical harvesters
and peelers for the cassava. The mechanization research at the IITA was also thwarted by the
premature termination in the early 1980s (Garman and Navasero 1982). Mechanization of the
harvesting operation is more urgent than mechanization of any of the pre-harvesting tasks
because it will facilitate the adoption of genetic and agronomic technologies that can raise
cassava yields.
Section 3 above explained the R and D that culminated in the development and release to
farmers of the TMS varieties in Nigeria in 1977. The section therefore provides an insight into
the R and D measures required to develop early bulking TMS varieties restructured with regular
canopy and root shapes and sizes that can be harvested and peeled mechanically. For example, S.
K. Hahn’s strategy for developing the TMS varieties was a collaborative undertaking involving
a multi-disciplinary team of scientists and training of national scientists. The IITA’s cassava
breeding program was carried out by a critical mass of multi-disciplinary team members
including a plant pathologist, entomologist, nematologist, virologist, agronomist, tissue culture
specialist, biochemist, and food technologist (Dixon et al. 1992). Hahn realized that IITA needed
to help develop strong national cassava research programs in cassava producing countries in
Africa in order for IITA’s cassava varieties and agronomic practices to be evaluated over a wide
range of African agro-ecologies.
The long time period required to develop scientific capacity within Africa is one of the
major lessons that emerges from the analyses of the development and release of the TMS
varieties. It took more than 40 years (1935 to 1977) of hard work by different research teams to
develop the TMS varieties. The evolution of cassava breeding in Africa can be described as a
human ladder. Starting in the 1930s, one generation of breeders climbed on the shoulders of the
past generations until they hit the jackpot with the release of the TMS varieties in the mid 1970s.
The long term growth cycle of the cassava plant relative to maize, for example,
introduces another element of risk. Some cassava plants are ready for crossing in at least five
months after planting, but several varieties do not flower regularly because they are sensitive to
 70

weather. This means that a conventional breeding program can lose a year or more when a
breeding stock fails to flower in a particular year because of unfavorable weather conditions.
The lesson of the multi-disciplinary team of scientists and long time period required in
cassava breeding is a need for commitment to sustained long term investment in R and D to
restructure the cassava plant and develop mechanical harvesters and processors. Unfortunately
many policy makers expect breeders to develop new varieties in an unrealistically short period of
time.

Pest and Disease Control

Since the control of the mealybug, attention has shifted to the cassava green mite. The
green mite was first observed in Africa in 1971 in a suburb of Kampala, the Ugandan capital.
The Ugandan researchers hypothesized that the green mite attached itself to cassava cuttings that
Uganda imported from Colombia. After it became established in Uganda, the green mite spread
by wind throughout the Africa’s cassava belt, reaching West Africa in 1979 (IITA 1992). The
green mite attacks cassava leaves, sucking out the fluid content of individual cells on the leaves
and the leaves become mottled and deformed. Eventually, the leaves dry out and die, although
the plant usually survives. But with less leaf area for photosynthesis, plant growth is retarded and
energy from the stems and edible storage roots is consumed, resulting in drastically reduced
yields (IITA 1996).
In 1983, research began at IITA on the biological control of the green mite by selecting
the insects that feed on the green mite in their original environments in Colombia. This approach
duplicates the model that the IITA used to gain control of the mealybug. In 1991, the IITA
scientists imported three predator mites from South America and multiplied them at the IITA’s
Biological Control Center for Africa in the Republic of Benin in 1992. The predator mites were
released in farmers’ fields in the Republic of Benin in 1993. In 1994, they were reported to have
spread over an area totaling 1,500 square kms in the Republic of Benin and later to eight cassava
producing countries (IITA 1994). However, the degree to which the predator mites have
controlled the green mite has not been determined.
In 1991, COSCA researchers found the incidence of the mosaic disease in a large
percentage of villages: in Ghana, 100 percent, and in Nigeria, 89 percent. The numbers of
 71

infected cassava plants per field and the severity of the disease were also high.45 The mosaic
disease is transmitted by a white fly, Bemisia tabaci, and by the planting of cuttings derived from
the mosaic disease-infected plants. In a resistant cassava variety, the mosaic disease is usually
confined to a few branches only. Shoots derived from cuttings obtained from symptomless
branches segregate in varying proportions of incidence of the mosaic disease (Rossel et al. 1994).
The mosaic disease causes chlorotic blotches and distortion of the leaves and a reduction of the
leaf area. Infected plants are estimated to sustain yield losses of 30 to 40 percent (Thresh et
al.1997).
The latest effort to control the mosaic disease was through the Cassava Biotechnology
Network (CBN) that was established jointly by CIAT and the IITA in 1988 and sponsored by the
Dutch Government beginning from 1992. The network involved scientists from national and
international organizations in several developed and developing countries (Thro 1998).
Unfortunately, the CBN in Africa was terminated in 1998 when the Dutch government funding
was withdrawn. IITA planned to coordinate the African CBN, but donor financing was not
available (Bokanga 2000 and Mba 2000). However, the South American CBN continues to be
funded by the Dutch and it is coordinated by the CIAT. Dr Martin Fregene and Dr Chikelu Mba
at CIAT are using biotechnology breeding tools to address the problem of cassava yield loss due
to the pest and diseases. The future control of the mosaic disease will also depend on extension
efforts to diffuse the IITA’s resistant varieties in several cassava producing countries and on the
development of private sector supply market for healthy cassava planting materials.
New forms of the mosaic disease have been reported. For example, in Uganda, an
unusually high incidence and severity of a rare form of the mosaic disease was reported in 1988
(Harrison et al. 1997). In September 2002 in Nigeria, the IITA warned farmers that the one time
destructive cassava mosaic disease which almost wiped out cassava plant in Nigeria in the early
1970s is back in a more devastating form. The new cassava mosaic disease has been identified
by the IITA as a novel type and a recombinant of the African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV)
and the East African Cassava Mosaic Virus, more devastating to cassava than the old form of the
African Cassava Mosaic Virus known to Nigeria (This Day 2002).

45
In the early 1990s, an epidemic of an extremely severe form of the mosaic disease spread through most of
Uganda. Researchers discovered that the virus epidemic was caused by a new form of cassava gemini virus. The
Uganda variant of the Gemini virus is now widely distributed in Uganda (Harrison et al. 1997).
 72

In 2003, the IITA secured funding to fight this new form of the cassava mosaic disease in
Nigeria. Beginning in early 2004, the IITA cassava team began work to control the mosaic
disease by diffusing new varieties of cassava which are reported to be resistant to the new form
of the mosaic disease and which were developed by the IITA cassava team under the leadership
of Dr. Alfred Dixon. The high-yielding TMS varieties which were developed by the IITA in the
1970s under the leadership of S.K. Hahn and diffused to the farmers in Nigeria in the mid 1980s
are resistant to the old form of the mosaic disease.
What is the lesson from the experience of the control of cassava pests and diseases in
Africa? The control effort against the mosaic disease beginning with the work of H.H. Storey in
the mid 1930s and the international campaign against the cassava mealybug beginning in the late
1970s in Africa point to the fact that the pests and disease control efforts must remain a
continuous process because the mosaic disease and the mealybug problems have not been solved
with definitive finality. Besides, in Africa new pests have emerged and the mosaic disease has
mutated. The important implication of this lesson is that long term genetic research to develop
cassava varieties that can be harvested and processed mechanically must go on at the same time
with the effort to control the new form of the mosaic disease in Nigeria.

The Role of Biotechnology Research

Breeding research to develop pest-resistant and early cassava varieties that have uniform
canopy and root shapes and sizes that can be mechanically harvested and processed is critical for
cassava to play the expanded roles as a livestock feed and industrial raw material in Africa.
Conventional breeding programs are bulky and lengthy, requiring screening of 20,000 to 100,000
seedlings in the first sexual generation and eight to ten years for an improved variety to reach the
farmer. Biotechnology technique offers tools that circumvent many limitations of the
conventional breeding to cassava improvement (Mba 2002 and Fregene 2002). Similarly,
biotechnology research has an important role to play in the development of cassava food
products, use of dried cassava roots in making beer malt, soft drink syrup concentrate for soft
drink, alcohol/ethanol, and in improving the quality of cassava starch to make it as attractive as
imported corn starch.
 73

Rebuilding Africa’s National Cassava Research Programs

The implication of these insights for the genetic, pest and disease control, and mechanical
research agenda is a need for long-term core research funding to promote the cassava
transformation in Nigeria and Ghana. In 1986, during the hey-days of the development and
diffusion of the TMS varieties in Nigeria, IITA’s cassava program had 15 core scientists (IITA
1987). In 2000, the IITA’s cassava program had just one full time core scientist, a breeder (IITA
2001).
What is the likelihood that the Nigerian and the Ghanaian national cassava research
programs will pick up and continue the aggressive cassava research which was going on at the
IITA? The research, which culminated in the development and diffusion of the high-yielding
TMS varieties in Nigeria, was achieved with an annual budget between US$0.5 million and
US$4.6 million from 1972 to 1993. The annual economic rate of return from that investment in
cassava research in Nigeria was 55 percent over a 31-year period (Afolami and Falusi 1999). The
research was paid for mostly by international donor organizations. Until recently, several donors
have funded cassava research in Africa to increase food security. But donor funding to help
Nigerian or Ghanaian cassava starch to compete with European and North American corn in the
global market is unlikely to be a priority of the European and the North American governments.
Therefore, Nigerian and Ghanaian governments should make the affordable investment in
cassava research to accelerate the cassava transformation.
Based on the past experience and funding levels in the development and diffusion of the
TMS varieties, with an annual budget between US$0.5 million and US$4.6 million from 1972 to
1993, Nigerian and Ghanaian governments can fund cassava research by providing the core
funding of about US$5 million per year for the next 10 to 15 years for the IITA to work in
collaboration with the Nigerian and Ghanaian cassava scientists. Guaranteed core funding over a
10 to 15-year period is necessary because genetic research on cassava is a long-tem effort and it
requires endurance in terms of donor and researcher efforts.
Funding cassava research by the Nigerian and the Ghanaian governments through a
regional center such as IITA offers many advantages at this time because of the economies of
scale and scope in regional research and because the Nigerian and the Ghanaian national cassava
research programs are plagued by an array of problems. For example, the Nigerian and the
 74

Ghanaian national research programs do not have a critical mass of scientists, such as Dr Hahn
had at the IITA, to constitute effective cassava breeding programs. In Ghana in the year 2000,
there was only three full-time and a few part-time scientists in the cassava research program of
the Crops Research Institute, Kumasi, the national institute responsible for cassava research
(Otoo 2000).
The issue of incentives poses another vexing problem. Scientists in most national
programs in Africa are poorly motivated to engage in scientific research. In fact, they are often
treated like second class clerks. In 2001, Dr John Otoo, the leader of Ghana’s cassava program
reported that the salaries of his staff were “too low to quote” (Otoo 2000).46 Ghana’s Crop
Research Institute had only four computers with sporadic connections to the Internet. In 2001, it
took an average of two weeks to get an email response from John Otoo because he did not have
regular access to a functional email facility. By contrast, in 2001, every scientist at Brazil’s
Embarapa Cassava and Fruit Crop Research Institute had a computer on his/her desk and
connected to the Internet.
Another implication of the past four decades of experience is that the new cassava
research agenda for Nigeria and Ghana should give a serious consideration to the application of
the biotechnology research tool. The conventional breeding program that has been in place at the
IITA since 1971 has resulted in the development and release to the farmers of the high-yielding
TMS varieties with elevated resistance to some major pests and diseases. But cassava’s irregular
flowering habit and wide segregation of desired characteristics when intercrossed make
conventional cassava breeding programs elaborate and time consuming (Mba 2002 and Fregene
2002).

LIVESTOCK FEED AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Expanding the Use of Cassava in Livestock Feed

In 2000, 10 percent of Nigeria’s cassava production and 4 percent of Ghana’s were used
as livestock feed. Both are significantly lower than Brazil where 56 percent of cassava is used as
livestock feed. The poultry industry in Nigeria only has 125 million birds and in Ghana, only 21

46
In 2000, the monthly salary of a Nigerian University Professor was equivalent of US$100. Even then, the
monthly salary was usually paid three months late.
 75

million compared with 867 million in Brazil (FAOSTAT).47 The global outlook for Nigerian
and Ghanaian cassava exports to Europe for livestock feed is pessimistic because of the high
cassava production cost in Nigeria and Ghana and the declining world market price of cassava
pellets. Thailand has dominated the export of cassava pellets for livestock feed for more than
three decades. In Thailand, only 3 percent of national cassava production is consumed as food,
the most important uses for cassava are for livestock feed and starch (Ratanawaraha et al. 1999).
Beginning in 1960s, the government of Thailand encouraged private firms to set up
private pellet factories and produce cassava pellets for export to the EU (European Union). The
private sector responded and pellet exports literally ‘took off’. In fact, exports increased from
100,000 tons in 1966 to a peak of nine million tons in 1989. But because of competition with U.
S. grain exports to the EU market, the price of cassava pellets has declined, making it
unattractive for Thailand to produce cassava for export. In fact, Thai pellet exports have declined
from nine million tons in 1989 to three million in 1998 (Ratanawaraha et al. 1999, p. 18). In
1999, there were 200 palletizing factories in Thailand with a total capacity of 10 million tons per
year. But because of depressed prices, they were operating at less than 50 percent of capacity.
What is the outlook for Nigerian and Ghanaian pellet exports? Faced with over-capacity
in pellet factories in Thailand and depressed world prices of cassava pellets, the answer is clear:
Nigeria and Ghana should concentrate on expanding the use of cassava in livestock feed at home
rather than trying to break into the EU market at this time. What can be done to increase the use
of cassava in livestock feed in Nigeria and Ghana? A poultry feed trial has shown that if cassava
roots and leaves were combined in a ratio of four to one, the mixture could replace maize in
poultry feed and reduce feed cost without a loss in weight gain or egg production (Tewe and
Bokanga 2001). This type of research needs to be expanded to identify other technologies that
can lead to expanded use of cassava in livestock feed in Nigeria and Ghana.

Food Manufacturing Industry

The potential use of cassava as an industrial raw material is highest in the food industry
because cassava is primarily a food crop in Nigeria and Ghana. Investment in measures that will

47
In 1996 to 1998, there were 19.3 million cattle and 4.5 million pigs in Nigeria compared with 156 million cattle
and 28 million pigs in Brazil (FAOSTAT). In Nigeria, nomadic herdsmen move their cattle to wherever grass is
available and tsetse is not a problem. The nomads neither respect boundaries not do they pay for grazing rights.
Frequently, they are halted by crop farmers, including cassava farmers, when cattle graze on fields with crops.
 76

increase the use of dried cassava roots and cassava starch in food industries will accelerate the
cassava transformation by extending the demand for cassava thereby increase farm income of
cassava producing households.
Technologies exist for the use of cassava as a partial substitute for wheat in bread-making
(Satin 1988; Eggleston and Omoaka 1994; Defloor 1995; Onabolu et al. 1998). But in Nigeria
and Ghana, the amount of cassava used for food manufacture by the food industries is
insignificant. For example, in Nigeria in the late 1990s, only three tons of cassava was used per
year for food manufacture compared with 133,000 tons of maize (FAOSTAT). Use of cassava as
a partial substitute for wheat in food manufacture will increase if the practice can result in a
reduction in the prices of the manufactured composite cassava and wheat flour food products
compared with the prices of the same products made with 100 percent wheat flour.
But in Nigeria and Ghana, because of an array of reasons, the composite cassava and
wheat flour food products are more expensive than all wheat flour food products. For example, a
partial substitution of cassava for wheat in bread flour requires expensive supplementary
viscosity enhancers such as eggs, milk, and gums to compensate for the lack of gluten in cassava
(Eggleston and Omoaka 1994, Defloor 1995, and Onabolu et al. 1998). Other important factors
such as the cassava variety, age of the cassava root, and the cassava growing environment also
influence the quality of the food products in which cassava flour substitutes partially for wheat
flour (Eggleston and Omoaka 1994; Defloor 1995). Measures to standardize cassava varieties,
age of cassava roots, and the cassava growing environments will further increase the costs of the
food products in which the cassava flour is used to substitute partially for wheat flour.
In Nigeria and Ghana, an increase in the use of cassava in food manufacturing industries
critically depends on the development of technologies for industrial manufacture and packaging
of traditional African cassava food products that have a snack value such as gari, attieke, and
chickwangue. In the 1970s in Nigeria, the increasing demand for food spurred the investment in
cassava food manufacturing industrial schemes by Texagric, a private sector and the Root Crop
Production Company a public sector organization.48 The schemes ceased operation because they
faced the problem of an irregular supply of cassava roots and they lacked the technology to
prepare cassava products that meet the color, taste, and texture requirements of consumers. For

48
The company engaged in production and industrial processing of cassava as food.
 77

example, the schemes had difficulty producing fermented cassava with a uniform taste (Bokanga
1992). The schemes also failed because of the difficulty of hiring and managing a large number
of women to hand-peel cassava.
But in Brazil, recent development in the use of cassava in food industries shows that
sustained investment in R and D can make industrial manufacture of 100 percent cassava starch
traditional food products profitable. For example, the main cassava-based fast food in Brazil is
pao de queijo, a type of bread made with sour cassava starch, which has been fermented and
dried (Vilpoux and Ospina 1999). In Brazil, industrial preparation of pao de queijo by traditional
methods has similar problems as industrial preparation of gari, attieke, and chickwangue in
Africa (Vilpoux and Ospina 1999). But through sustained investment in research and
development, pao de queijo was transformed from a small-scale home-made product to a large-
scale factory-manufactured product.
In Brazil, the R and D in the improvement of pao de queijo were carried out mostly by
the private sector. But the expansion in the consumption of the pao de queijo was facilitated by
political support. For example, the consumption was endorsed by a former Brazilian president,
Itamar Franco. He required that pao de queijo be present at all official government meetings.
Since the mid-1990s, Brazilian consumption of pao de queijo has increased dramatically,
changing from a regional to a nation-wide fast food. It is also possible to find pao de queijo in
other South American countries such as Argentina and Peru (Vilpoux and Ospina 1999).
In Nigeria and Ghana, high potential exists for use of cassava in biscuit manufacture.
Changes in cassava production are not required to make dried cassava root flour suitable for
biscuit baking since the rising property required in bread is not essential in biscuits. But in
Nigeria and Ghana, biscuits, particularly a brand labeled “Cabin Biscuit”, is as popular as bread,
in terms of snack value. The feasibility study of industrial manufacture of “Cassava Cabin
Biscuit” with dried cassava root flour needs to be undertaken. In April 2002 in Ghana, the
COSCA survey revealed that home made “Cassava Cabin Biscuit” with 100 percent dried
cassava root flour is sold to travelers by women at the Aflao boarder with Togo. The home made
“Cassava Cabin Biscuit” displays the density of the wheat flour “Cabin Biscuit”. But the acid
taste of fermented dried cassava root flour differentiates the “Cassava Cabin Biscuit” from the
wheat flour “Cabin Biscuit”. The acid taste of fermented cassava food products is appreciated by
 78

consumers in Nigeria and Ghana who are accustomed to eating dried cassava root flour, pasty
cassava, and gari which are fermented food products.
The challenge is to carry out R and D for industrial manufacture of indigenous cassava
food products which cannot be manufactured with wheat or maize. This challenge calls for
identification of local cassava food products such as the home-made 100 percent “Cassava Cabin
Biscuit” and for conducting studies to ascertain the technical, economic, and social feasibility of
industrial production by the small-scale African industrialists.

Non-Food Industries
Turning to non-food industries, in Nigeria in the early 2000s, only about 700 tons of
cassava starch were produced per year. In 2001 in Nigeria, the COSCA survey revealed that
cassava starch was only 3 percent of total starch used as industrial raw material. FAOSTAT
show that the use of dried cassava roots as industrial raw material is insignificant in Nigeria
because of the high cost of cassava production, harvesting, and processing. The reason also
includes lack of R and D to improve the quality of Nigerian cassava starch. Nigerian cassava
starch is not a good substitute for imported corn starch in the textile, pharmaceutical, petroleum
drilling, soft drink, alcohol, and other industries because of low quality.
Nigerian cassava starch is considered to be of low quality by Nigerian industries and
none is exported. In Nigeria, the textile mills use mostly imported corn starch. In 2001, the
director of the NCM (Nigerian Cotton Mill) in Onitsha reported that the NCM discontinued the
use of Nigerian cassava starch because it was of low quality.49 In January 2001, the director of
the Nigerian Starch Mill (NSM) reported that he did not consider improving the quality of his
product necessary because if he invested in R and D necessary to improve starch production
technology, he would not have any patent protection.
In 2001, the COSCA study found that in Nigeria, imported starch was being used in
water-based drilling mud for petroleum but other types of starch could be used if they gelatinize
in cold water. The director of the NSM reported to the COSCA researchers that he was reluctant
to invest in research to make cassava starch gelatinize in cold water because of the lack of patent
protection.50 Since the oil sector supplies 95 percent of Nigeria’s foreign exchange earnings,

49
Personal interview, Onitsha, January 13, 2001.
50
Personal interview, Port Harcourt, January 11, 2001.
 79

investment in research to make cassava starch acceptable to the petroleum drilling industry could
lead to a large increase in the demand for cassava. Nigeria has oil reserves of 22.5 billion barrels
and it is currently producing two million barrels a day (MBendi 2000, pp. 1 and 2).
But Nigeria has a policy of not enforcing the intellectual property law. In fact, Nigeria
has a government agency, NOTAP (National Organization for Technology Acquisition and
Promotion), which was set up by the Federal Government to, as the name implies, acquire
technologies from anywhere in the world and promote their adoption in Nigeria without respect
for intellectual property rights. In March 2002 in Abuja, the director of NOTAP explained to the
COSCA researchers that Nigeria adopted the policy of not enforcing the intellectual property
rights because the country did not have the resources to police intellectual property laws since
the Nigerian judiciary and police force are weak.
The potential for use of cassava starch in preparing syrup concentrate for the manufacture
of soft drinks is high in Nigeria and Ghana. For example, in Nigeria in the late 1990s, 174,000
tons of syrup concentrates were used in the soft drink industry to produce 33 million hectoliters
of soft drinks per year (RMRD.C. 2000, p.23). The soft drink industry is dominated by Coca
Cola which imports the syrup concentrates and keeps them as a trade secret. Nigeria’s soft drink
industry imports all of its syrup concentrate because cassava starch is not currently hydrolyzed
into syrup in Nigeria. But in the early 1990s, the IITA post-harvest technologists made syrup
concentrate from cassava starch by treating it with sorghum enzyme. A pilot project is needed to
test the suitability of cassava starch syrup concentrate in the preparation of soft drinks. If locally
produced cassava starch could be converted into syrup concentrate and replace imported syrup, it
would open up a market for almost one million turns of cassava per year.
The potential for use of dried cassava roots in preparing beer malt is also high in Nigeria.
Beer has been brewed in Nigeria with imported barley malt for many decades. However, in
1985/86, Nigeria banned grain imports and the brewery industry began to produce beer malt with
sorghum produced in northern Nigeria. The initial concern that sorghum beer would not be
acceptable to consumers proved to be without basis as beer consumption did not decline after
sorghum malt was used to replace barley malt. In the late 1990s, around 11 million hectoliters of
beer was being produced per year in Nigeria (RMRD.C. 2000, p. 23).
Although cassava is produced in southern Nigeria where all of the beer breweries are
located, no attempt has been made to produce beer malt with dried cassava roots even though
 80

dried roots are cheaper (US$79 per ton) than sorghum (US$139 per ton) (Ogazi et al. 1997, pp.
31 and 77).51 A biochemist of the NRCRI (National Root Crops Research Institute) at Umudike
reported in early 2001 that beer malt can be made with any starch provided the right type of
enzymes are available.52 But research is needed to determine the type and quantity of enzymes
suitable for making beer malt from dried cassava roots. However, the NRCRI is unable to carry
out the needed research because the operational budget for its research unit is only a few hundred
dollars per year.
In 2001 in Nigeria, the manager of the Golden Guinea Brewery, Umuahia, near Umudike
explained that consumers would accept cassava malt beer judging from their ready acceptance of
sorghum beer in the mid 1980s.53 However, the manager reported that the Golden Guinea
Brewery would be reluctant to invest in research on making beer malt from cassava roots
because patent law is not enforced in Nigeria.
In 2001 in Nigeria, the manager of the Life Beer Brewery in Onitsha reported that the
Life Beer is made directly from sorghum without malting at the rate of nine tons of sorghum per
500 hectoliters of beer.54 Using this ratio, the beer industry in Nigeria consumed about 200,000
tons of sorghum per year in the late 1990s. If dried cassava roots had replaced sorghum, the beer
industry would have consumed 220,000 tons of dried cassava roots which is more than two
percent of current annual cassava production. Research is needed on how to make beer malt from
dried cassava roots because, even a partial substitution of dried cassava roots for sorghum in the
beer malt will expand market for cassava and raise the income of cassava farmers.
In 1963, the Nigerian government set up a sugar plant, the Nigerian Sugar Company
(NISUCO) to produce sugar from sugar cane. Ten years later, the government set up the
Nigerian Yeast and Alcohol Manufacturing Company (NIYAMCO) as an annex to NISUCO
with a goal of producing ethanol with molasses. Although NIYAMCO had an installed capacity
for four million liters of ethanol per year, the supply of molasses began to decline in the early
1990s because of the collapse of the government-owned sugar plantation that supplied sugar
cane to NISUCO. In 1994, NIYAMCO began looking for an alternative source of raw material.

51
Northern Nigerians are mostly Moslems and forbid alcohol consumption.
52
Personal interview, Umudike, January 12, 2001.
53
Personal interview, Umuahia, January 12, 2001.
54
Personal interview, Onitsha, January 12, 2001.
 81

With IITA’s technical support, dried cassava root was selected as a raw material for the
manufacture of ethanol by the NIYAMCO because cassava is abundant in Nigeria, has a high
starch content, and low gelatinization temperature (Bamikole and Bokanga 2000). NIYAMCO
requires only about 30 tons of dried cassava roots per day but because of problems in organizing
the collection of dried cassava roots from scattered smallholders, NIYAMCO closed its ethanol
plant (Bamikole and Bokanga 2000). If the 88 million liters of alcohol currently imported each
year for the liquor industry were produced with cassava roots in Nigeria, it would open up a
market for about 600,000 tons of cassava roots, or about two percent of national cassava
production during this period.55

DATA REQUIREMENTS

Until the COSCA study was implemented in Africa in the late 1980s and early 1990s,
basic information was lacking on cassava’s growing conditions and on the economics of
production, processing, and marketing. There was also a dearth of information on market
opportunities for expanding the use of cassava in industrial markets and for livestock feed in
Africa and in Europe. The COSCA information has been used to guide the development of
improved food policies and research and extension programs to accelerate the cassava
transformation and ultimately increase food security and incomes of the people of Africa. But the
COSCA information is now about fifteen years old and it needs to be updated to provide current
information on cassava production and processing methods and constraints and consumption
patterns.
The COSCA field studies in Ghana were completed in 1992 before the TMS varieties
were released to farmers in 1993. There is need in Ghana to determine the level of adoption of
the TMS varieties and their performance in terms of yield, pest resistance, and food quality
attributes. There is need in Nigeria and Ghana to assess the potential for use of cassava as an
industrial raw material by conducting a survey of industries that use (and can use) dried cassava
roots, cassava starch, and cassava starch derivatives as raw materials. This information is critical
for research and policy interventions aimed at accelerating the cassava transformation in both
Nigeria and Ghana.
55
One ton of fresh cassava roots yields 150 liters of alcohol (Balagopalan et al. 1988, p.182)
 82

6. SYNTHESIS: LESSONS FOR AFRICAN POLITICAL LEADERS, POLICY

MAKERS, AND DONORS

Over a period of 35 years from the early 1960s to the late 1990s in Africa, per capita
cassava production increased by about 5 percent. This increase was due to dramatic increases in
cassava production in Nigeria and Ghana where production gains outstripped population growth
and where cassava is now produced primarily as a cash crop for urban consumption. The
dramatic increase in cassava production in both Nigeria and Ghana was achieved through an
increase in both area and yield. The availability of cassava graters to farmers in both countries
released labor, especially female labor, from cassava processing to plant more cassava. The
widespread adoption of improved agronomic practices and the new high-yielding TMS varieties
were responsible for increased cassava yields in Nigeria and Ghana.
In Nigeria and Ghana, cassava is primarily a food crop. In the year 2000, 90 percent of
total production in Nigeria and 96 percent in Ghana were used as food and the balance as
livestock feed (FAOSTAT). This section provides a synthesis of this discussion paper. The aim
of the synthesis is to highlight the measures that can be implemented to accelerate the cassava
transformation.

THE CASSAVA TRANSFORMATION

A dramatic cassava transformation is underway in Nigeria and Ghana. Driving this

transformation have been the use the mechanized grater to prepare gari, the planting of the new
high-yielding TMS varieties to raise yield, and the use of a predator wasp to control the
otherwise devastating cassava mealybug. With the aid of mechanical graters to prepare gari,
cassava is increasingly being produced and processed as a cash crop for urban consumption in
Nigeria and Ghana. The use of the new TMS varieties transformed cassava from a low-yielding
famine-reserve crop to a high-yielding cash crop that is prepared and consumed as a dry cereal
(gari). The use of the wasp to control the cassava mealybug in the 1980s throughout the cassava
producing areas of Africa reduced cassava yield loss due to the bug which were estimated as 60
percent for roots and 100 percent for leaves.
 83

The cassava transformation encompasses four stages: Famine Reserve, Rural Food
Staple, Urban Food Staple, and Industrial and Livestock Feed Uses. In Nigeria and Ghana,
cassava remains primarily a food crop. Consequently, the first three stages account for 90
percent of total production in Nigeria and 96 percent in Ghana.
Looking ahead, the challenge is to implement measures that can accelerate the cassava
transformation by reducing the cost of production, harvesting, and processing in order to drive
down cassava prices to rural and urban consumers and increase the industrial and livestock feed
uses. In Nigeria and Ghana, cassava can be a powerful poverty fighter by driving down the price
to rural and urban consumers and increasing the uses in the industry and livestock feed.

IMPACT ON CASSAVA OUTPUT AND PRICES

In Nigeria and Ghana, cassava is the most important food staple in terms of calories
consumed and it offers consumers their cheapest source of calories. New technologies that can
drive down cassava prices to consumers by reducing the production, harvesting, and processing
costs will increase the incomes and reduce the poverty among cassava consuming households.
From 1984 to 1992 in Nigeria and 1986 to 2001 in Ghana, cassava output per capita
increased and gari price declined because the governments in Nigeria and Ghana invested in R
and D to diffuse the TMS varieties. In the late 1980s, the TMS diffusion in Nigeria had become
an African success story par excellence! Dr S. K. Hahn, the head of the IITA’s cassava program,
played a critical role in the diffusion program by personally eliciting the collaboration of the
national researchers, the private sector, the donors, and the media. Hahn himself directly
distributed the TMS varieties to farmers throughout Nigeria.
Without doubt, the decline in cassava price from 1984 to 1992 in Nigeria and 1986 to
2001 in Ghana has increased the real income of the cassava consuming households. In fact,
during the period of the rapid diffusion of the TMS varieties from 1984 to 1992 in Nigeria, the
average inflation-adjusted gari price (18,000 Naira per ton) was 40 percent lower than from 1971
to 1983 before the diffusion (29,000 Naira per ton). This dramatic reduction in cassava price
represents a significant increase in the income of the millions of cassava consuming households
because cassava is primarily a food crop and it is the most important staple in terms of calories
consumed.
 84

From 1993 to 2001 in Nigeria, the impact of the TMS varieties on output per capita and
consumer price of cassava declined as the TMS varieties and improved agronomic practices
created labor bottlenecks which slowed cassava production growth. Harvesting cassava is the
most labor-intensive field task in Nigeria where the TMS varieties and improved agronomic
practices have boosted yields by 40 percent and shifted the labor constraint from weeding to
cassava harvesting. Harvesting is now proving to be a serious constraint on the expansion of
cassava production in Nigeria because labor for harvesting increases in direct proportion to yield.
Without question, new mechanical technology is required to supplement yield-increasing
genetic and agronomic technologies. Yield-increasing genetic and agronomic technologies are
important but insufficient as engines of growth in the cassava sector. The challenge is to augment
the yield-increasing genetic and agronomic technologies with labor-saving mechanical
technologies in order to break the new labor bottlenecks at the harvesting and processing stages
and reduce production cost, drive down the price of cassava to consumers and reduce rural and
urban poverty.

LESSONS AND CHALLENGES

In Nigeria and Ghana, the high income elasticity of demand for gari in rural and urban
centers means that there is a strong market demand for gari. The first lesson is that continued
strong market demand for gari depends on driving down the cost of production to keep the gari
produced in Nigeria and Ghana competitive should a low-cost cassava producing country such as
Benin Republic decides to produce gari for the Nigerian market. A recent occurrence in gari
trade illustrates that foreign gari can easily undercut Nigerian gari. During the first quarter of
2001, the price of gari rose sharply as a result of the increased demand for dried cassava roots
for livestock feed in Europe following the outbreak of mad cow disease and the subsequent need
to reconstitute herds.56 In May 2002, the bulk of gari consumed in the Lagos area of Nigeria was
imported from the neighboring Benin Republic. The same quantity of gari was selling at 1,900
Naira in Nigeria but only at the equivalent of 1,700 Naira across the boarder in Benin Republic

56
The COSCA survey reveals that civil disturbances that displaced farmers in important producing states such as
Nasarawa and Benue are additional factors.
 85

(Guardian 2002). The Guardian also reported that the imported gari was not only cheaper, it was
also of superior quality and more readily available57.
In Nigeria, this story of gari imports illustrates how vulnerable the Nigerian gari market
is to foreign gari. A strong market demand for Nigerian gari depends on driving down the
production and processing costs to make Nigerian gari competitive with other food staples in
Nigeria and other countries. The vulnerability of the Nigerian gari market to foreign competition
is a new challenge in the cassava transformation.
Presently, in both Nigeria and Ghana, there is an expressed political interest in cassava.
For example, in 2000, Nigerian government signed a loan agreement with the IFAD
(International Fund for Agricultural Development) for the root and tuber crops expansion for
US$16 million (Federal Republic of Nigeria 2000). On August 8, 2002 in Nigeria, President
Obasanjo, inspired by The Cassava Transformation: Africa's Best Kept Secret, constituted a
National Committee on Cassava Production and Export “to address issues relating to an increase
in yield and production, post harvest management, promotion of local and industrial utilization
of cassava products, promotion of exports as well as market to industries. President Obasanjo
wants to increase food security and also export US$1 billion worth of cassava products in the
next three years” (Bello 2002). On August 16, 2001 in Ghana, President Kufuor launched the
President’s Special Initiative to promote an aggressive export of garments, textile, and cassava
starch to earn Ghana US$4.4 billion over a four-year period (Daily Graphic 2001). The second
lesson is that Presidents Obasanjo and Kufuor’s goals of exporting billions of US dollars worth
of cassava in the next three to four years is not attainable because of high cost of cassava
production in Nigeria and Ghana and declining price of cassava products in the global market
owing to low cost of American corn.
In Nigeria and Ghana, more than 90 percent of cassava production is consumed as food.
The past experience in Nigeria and Ghana is that when dried cassava roots were exported to
Europe, the local price of gari skyrocketed because of the shortage that was created at home.
Ghana’s recent attempt to export dried cassava roots to Europe illustrates this point. The EU

57
The Guardian reported that the invasion of Nigerian market by imported gari was an embarrassing development
for the Nigerian government because only a year earlier in April 2001, President Obasanjo announced that his
government committed 19.7 billion Naira to the agricultural sector since May 1999. The embarrassment was serious
enough because on July 18, 2002 the Guardian reported that on July 17, 2002, President Obasanjo ordered a strict
implementation of a ban on importation of cassava and cassava products (Guardian 2002a).
 86

(European Union) has allocated a quota of 145,000 tons of cassava pellets to the WTO (World
Trade Organization) member countries excluding Thailand, Indonesia, and China. In Ghana, the
private entrepreneurs sought to exploit the opportunity offered by the WTO quota by exporting
dried cassava roots to Europe. In Ghana, 18,322 tons was exported in 1996 and 17,449 tons in
1997. In 1997, the price of gari skyrocketed and in 1998, the export of dried cassava roots
dropped significantly (Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1).

Figure 6.1--Ghana: Price of gari from January 1996 to December 1998.

80

60
000 Cedis/ 68 Kg

40

20
Jan. 96 April July Oct. Jan. 97 April July Oct. Jan. 98 April July Oct.
Month and Year

Source: Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Accra.

Table 6.1--Ghana: Dried cassava roots export

for livestock feed in Europe, 1996 to 2001
YEAR Tons VALUE ( US $)

1996 18,322 1,832,079

1997 17,449 1,357,545

1998 -- --

1999 7,230 630,020

2000 35 10,495

2001 15 3,558
Source: Francis Ofori.
 87

Nigeria has witnessed similar price movements. In January 2001, Mr O. A. Edache, the
Director of the Federal Department of Agriculture, lamented that cassava producers were losing
money because of cassava glut in the market and declining cassava prices.58 Later in 2001, after
Mr Edache’s comment, the price of cassava rose sharply in Nigeria because of the increased
demand for dried cassava roots for livestock feed in Europe following the herd rebuilding
required after the outbreak of the mad cow disease (Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.2--Nigeria: Price of gari from September 2000 to December 2001.

65

55
Naira/Kg

45

35

25

15
ov

ov
pt

ct

pt

ct
ec

ne
b

ay

ug
il
n

ch

ly
Fe
Ja

pr
O

O
Ju
Se

Se
N

N
Ju
M
ar

A
A
M

Months
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Abuja.

There are two explanations for the skyrocketing of price of gari following attempts to
export dried cassava roots as livestock feed to Europe from Nigeria and Ghana. The first
explanation is that cassava is a long term crop. The fact that the TMS varieties attain maximum
yield from 15 months and local varieties from 24 months after planting means that farmers wait
for 15 to 24 months to respond to an export demand during which time period the demand has
shifted to alternative sources of supply such as maize. The second explanation is that farmers
find difficulties in recruiting sufficient migrant hired labor to plant more cassava because of high
labor required to harvest and process cassava and because of the increasing wage rates.
In Nigeria, the story of a high level of use of imported corn starch as raw material by
industry illustrates the point that Nigerian cassava starch is not competitive with European corn

58
Personal interview, Abuja, January 17, 2001.
 88

starch because of the high production cost. In 2002 in Lagos, the price of corn starch imported
from Europe was significantly lower than the price of Nigerian cassava starch. Moreover, the
price of the imported corn starch was declining while the price of the Nigerian cassava starch
was increasing (Figure 6.3).

Figure 6.3--Nigeria: Prices of Nigerian cassava starch and imported corn starch in Lagos,
1993 to 2002.
150
Nigerian Cassava Starch
1.5795x2 - 6296.1x + 6E+06
115
000 Naira/Ton

Imported Corn Starch

80
-0.0795x2 + 316.46x - 314691

45

10
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Year

Sources: Nigerian Starch Mill, Ihiala (NSM) and Uche Iwuamadi, a Lagos-based corn starch importer.

The third lesson is that in Nigeria and Ghana the scope for increasing the use of dried
cassava roots and starch as industrial raw material is highest in food manufacturing industries.
But the potential is also high in the non-food industries such as the soft drink, beer malt, and
ethanol/alcohol industries. Syrup concentrate has been successfully made from cassava starch by
the IITA post-harvest technologists. A pilot project is needed to determine its acceptability and
potential profitability in making soft drinks. No attempt has yet been made to prepare beer malt
from dried cassava roots. However, biochemists at the National Root Crops Research Institute
(NRCRI) believe that given the right enzyme, it is possible to prepare beer malt from dried
cassava roots. Research is needed to develop the technology for making beer malt from dried
cassava roots.
Turning to use of cassava to prepare alcohol/ethanol, Nigeria and Ghana may be able to
produce ethanol or alcohol with small-scale cassava-based production units. Nigeria could
theoretically benefit by using cassava to produce alcohol and replace alcohol imports for
alcoholic beverages. Public enterprises such as the NIYAMCO and NISUCO have floundered in
 89

Nigeria because of mismanagement of public resources and the inability of the government to
provide R and D support to assist new industrial enterprises. However, a cost-benefit study of
ethanol production should be completed in petroleum importing Ghana because a cassava-based
ethanol industry could reduce the country’s petroleum import bill.
In Nigeria and Ghana, a successful transformation of cassava to play the additional roles
as a raw material for the food and non-food industries poses two critical challenges to the
political leaders, policy makers, scientists, and donors. The first challenge is to invest in
measures to drive down the cost of cassava in order that cassava products will become
competitive with American corn products in the global market. In Nigeria and Ghana, driving
down the cost of cassava can be done by restructuring the cassava plant to standardize the
canopy and root shapes and sizes and developing labor-saving mechanical technologies for
production, harvesting, and processing. Another critical challenge is to provide incentives,
especially patent protection, to private entrepreneurs to invest in developing technologies for
using cassava as a raw material for the preparation of snack foods, soft drink, beer malt, and
ethanol/alcohol.
 90

APPENDIX 1—CASSAVA YIELD MEASUREMENT IN THE COSCA STUDY

METHOD OF THE YIELD MEASUREMENT

Cassava yield measurement poses unique problems because it depends on a wide range of
factors which are peculiar to cassava such as variable root sizes, flexible age for harvesting, and
piecemeal harvesting by some farmers (Fresco 1986). Most cassava varieties form edible roots
at six months after planting and they may be harvested at that age. But if not harvested, the roots
continue to grow for up to four years after which they begin to deteriorate (Jones 1959).
Therefore, cassava yield varies with age, increasing up to a point, after which it declines. Yield
measurement was taken from all cassava fields of each COSCA study farmer which were nine
months or older.
Most farmers spread the harvesting of a cassava field over a period of months and they
often target the harvesting to specific cassava plants depending on size, variety, or location in the
field. Also, some farmers who plant cassava as a famine-reserve crop milk their cassava plants,
i.e. the farmers harvest some roots of a plant at a time. Cassava fields where harvesting was
targeted to specific plants or where cassava plants were milked were excluded from the COSCA
yield samples.
Inter-cropping also affects the cassava yield because in the COSCA study mono-cropped
cassava fields produced higher yields than inter-cropped fields. Yield measurements were taken
from all cassava fields, mono-cropped and inter-cropped, of each COSCA study farmer. But
cassava yield is not prone to year to year variation due to weather because cassava has more than
one year growth period.
Size of the root can affect processing cost because smaller roots are more difficult to peel
by hand. Therefore some farmers discard small roots and discount them from yield. But the size
of a cassava root a farmer will discard depends on processing method, peeling before or after
soaking in water; the farmer’s food needs; and alternative uses for cassava which the farmer has,
such as livestock feed. The COSCA study counted all edible cassava roots irrespective of size.
Since cassava has a flexible harvesting schedule, a farmer usually has cassava fields at
different stages of maturity. Therefore, it was possible to obtain a representative cassava yield
sample at any time of the year. In the COSCA (Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa)
 91

studies, yield measurement was based on one or two representative sample plots of 40 m2 or 20
m2 per field depending on the size, variability in the soil, and toposequence of the field.

YIELD MEASUREMENT RESULTS

In 1991 and 1992, the COSCA studies revealed that the average cassava yield in the
Congo was 9.9 tons per ha; Cote d'Ivoire, 10.8 tons per ha; Ghana, 12.4 tons per ha; Nigeria,
14.7 tons per ha; Tanzania, 10.5 tons per ha; and Uganda, 10.6 tons per ha. In the same years,
1991 and 1992, the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) reported
national average cassava yields for the Congo, 8.00 tons per ha; Cote d'Ivoire, 5.1 tons per ha;
Ghana, 10.5 tons per ha; Nigeria, 10.4 tons per ha; Tanzania, 11.4 tons per ha; and Uganda, 8.2
tons per ha. which are significantly lower than those of the COSCA studies (FAOSTAT).
The FAO cassava yield data for each country was based on the national agricultural
census. But the COSCA information was based on a sample representing major cassava
producing areas which was at least 90 percent of the cassava producing areas of each of the
countries (Carter and Jones 1989). The FAO derives its yield data from detailed area and
production reports prepared by the various national governments and does not state the method
of measurement used (FAOSTAT). But official production data on cassava in Africa are
inconsistent and unreliable because cassava yield is difficult to measure and most African
governments do not have sufficient resources to conduct agricultural census efficiently (Fresco
1986 and Berry 1993).
In Africa, few farm surveys have included cassava yield measurement because it poses
several problems. In Nigeria, Ezedinma (1989) reported cassava yield at 15 months after
planting, 12.0 tons per ha and at 18 months, 13.1 tons per ha. In Zambia, Bangwe (1990) found
average yield at 30 months or less after planting, 10.4 tons per ha; 31 to 36 months, 11.3 tons per
ha; and above 36 months, 16.8 tons per ha. In the Cameroon, Almy and Besong (1988) reported
average yield 11.6 tons at 12 months and 14.8 tons, 18 months. These farm survey yield
measurements are similar to those obtained by the COSCA studies in other African countries.
Given variable methods used by national reporting systems and subsequently compiled
by the FAO, the inconsistencies in these official data make cross-country comparisons tenuous at
 92

best. Therefore, where available, this report has cited COSCA yield data, since these offer a
consistent methodology for measurement and comparison across countries.
 93

REFERENCES

Adam, I. 1994. Welcome address. Pages xiv to xv in Tropical root crops in a developing
economy, ed. F. Ofori and S. K. Hahn. Proceedings of the 9th Symposium of the ISTRC
(International Society for Tropical Root Crops) in Accra Ghana, October 20-26, 1991.
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria.

Adams, C. D. 1957. Activities of Danish botanists in Guinea 1738 to 1850. Transactions of the
Historical Society of Ghana III. Part 1.

Adegboye, R. O. and J. A. Akinwumi. 1990. Cassava processing innovations in Nigeria. In

Tinker, tiller and technical change, ed. H.Appleton and N. Carter. New York, NY, USA:
Intermediate Technology Publications, London and Bootstrap Press.

Adjebeng-Asem, S. 1990. The Nigerian cassava grater. In Tinker, tiller and technical change ed.
H.Appleton and N. Cartered.. New York, NY, USA: Intermediate Technology
Publications, London and Bootstrap Press.

Afolami, C. A. and A. O. Falusi. 1999. Effect of technology change and commercialization on

income equity in Nigeria: The case of improved cassava. International workshop on
Assessing the impact of agricultural research on poverty alleviation in San Jose, Costa
Rica, September 14-16.

Agboola, S. A. 1968. The introduction and spread of cassava in Western Nigeria. Nigerian
Journal of Economics and Social Studies, 10(13): 369-85.

Agricultural Committee of the National Liberation Council. 1966. Report of the Agricultural
Committee of the National Liberation Council, Accra.

Agricultural Committee of the National Liberation Council. 1966a. Report of the Agricultural
Committee of the National Liberation Council, Accra.

Akande, S. O. 2000. Price and trade policy. In Nigeria: Agricultural trade review. Washington,
D.C.: World Bank. Draft.

Alderman, H. 1990. Nutritional status in Ghana and its determinants. Social Dimensions of
Adjustment in sub-Saharan Africa, Working paper No. 3 Policy Analysis. Washington,
D.C.: World Bank.

Almy, S. W. and M. T. Besong. 1988. Cassava in the farming systems of Cameroon’s high
rainfall coast. In Contributions from the Second Annual Meeting of the Collaborative
Group in Cassava-Based Cropping Systems Research. Cassava-Based Cropping systems
Research I. Resource and Crop Management Program, International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.
 94

Alyanak, L. 1997. A modest grater means safer and quicker cassava. Uganda. News Highlights.
News/1997/970508-e.htm. Rome: FAO.

Anojulu, I.E., O. Adenola, and R. Ogunbiade. 1982. Review of NAFPP activities and its future
role in Nigeria agricultural development. In Proceedings of the National Agricultural
Development Committee and 4th Joint National Accelerated Food Production Project
Workshop atMoore Plantation, Ibadan. Federal Department of Agriculture,
Lagos/National Cereals Research Institute, Ibadan, Nigeria, February 17-20.

Balagopalan, C., G. Padmaja, S. K. Nanda, and S. N. Moorthy, 1988. Cassava in food, feed, and
industry. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Bamikole, O. T. and M. Bokanga. 2000. The ethanol industry in Nigeria growing on a new crop.
Paper presented at the International Fuel Ethanol Workshop in Windsor, Ontario, Canada,
June 20-23.

Bangwe, Lewis M. 1990. Traditional cassava cultivators of northwestern Zambia: Production,

utilization and factors determining productivity. Paper presented at the fourth East and
Southern Africa’s Root Crops Research Network (ESARRN) workshop held October 29
– November 2, 1990 in Mansa, Zambia.

Beck, B. D. A. 1980. Historical perspectives of cassava breeding in Africa. In Root crops in

eastern Africa. Proceedings of a Workshop held November 23-27 in Kigali, Rwanda.
Ottawa: International Development Research Center (IDRC).

Bello, Adamu. 2002. Inaugural Meeting of Cassava Production and Export Committee. Letter of
invitation.

Berry, S. S. 1993. Socio-economic aspects of cassava cultivation and use in Africa: Implication
for the development of appropriate technology. COSCA Working Paper No. 8.
Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA.

Bokanga, M. 1992. Cassava fermentation and industrialization of cassava food production. In

Tropical root crops: promotion of root crop-based industries, ed. M. O. Akoroda and
D.B. Arene. Proceedings of the Fourth Triennial Symposium of the International Society
for Tropical Root Crops-African Branch (ISTRC-AB), held in Kinshasa, Zaire,
December 5-8, 1989. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Bokanga, M. 2000. E-mail message. 22 September.

Camara, Youssouf. 2000. Profitability of cassava production systems in West Africa: A

comparative analysis (Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria). Unpublished Ph D dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, U S A.

Carter, S. E., and P. G. Jones. 1989. COSCA site selection procedure. COSCA Working Paper
No 2. Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa, IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria.
 95

CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics). 1979. Summary report on household economic survey: 1974-
1975. Central Bureau of Statistics, Accra, Ghana.

CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research). 1996. Report of the Fourth
External Program and Management Review of the IITA (International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture ). Rome, Italy: TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) and FAO.

Chiwona-Karltun, Linley. 2001. A reason to be bitter: Cassava classification from the farmers’
perspective. Ph D thesis, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.

Cours, G., D. Forgette, G. W. Otim-Nape, and J. M. Thresh 1997. The epidemics of cassava
mosaic virus disease in Madagascar in the 1930s-1940s: Lessons for the current situation
in Uganda. Tropical Science, 37: 238-248.

Dahniya, M. T. 1983. Evaluation of cassava leaf and root production in Sierra Leone. In
Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium of the International Society for Tropical Root
Crops, February 21-26 at the International Potato Center, Lima, Peru.

Dahniya, M. T. and A. Jalloh. 1998. Relative effectiveness of sweet potato, melon and pumpkin
as live-mulch in cassava. In In Root crops and poverty alleviation. Proceedings of the
Sixth Triennial Symposium of the International Society of Tropical Root Crops-African
Branch (ISTRC-AB), October 22-28, 1995 in Lilongwe, Malawi.

Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

Daily Graphic. 2001. President launches export initiative. Daily Graphic. August 17. Accra.

Davesne, A. 1950. Manual d’agriculture (Paris).

Delfoor, Isabelle. 1995. Factors governing the bread-making potential of cassava flour in
wheatless bread recipes. Ph D dissertation, Katholieke University, Leuven.

Dixon, A. G. O. 2000. E-mail message. October 10.

Dixon, A. G. O., R. Asiedu, and S. K. Hahn. 1992. Cassava germplasm enhancement at the
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). In Tropical root crops: Promotion
of root crop-based industries. Proceedings of the Fourth Triennial Symposium of the
International Society for Tropical Root Crops-African Branch (ISTRC-AB), ed. M. O.
Akoroda and O. B. Arene. Ibadan, Nigeria: ISTRC-AB. IITA.

Doku, E. V. 1966. Cultivated varieties of cassava in Ghana. Ghana Journal of Science.6, 74-86.

Doku, E. V. 1969. Cassava in Ghana. Ghana University Press, Accra, Ghana.

Dostie, B., L. Rabenasola, and J. Randriamamonjy. 1999. “La filière manioc: amortisseur oublié
de vulnérables.” Antananarivo: Institut National de la Statistique.
 96

Drachoussoff, V., A.Focan, and J. Hecq. 1993. Rural development in Central Africa: 1908 to
1960/1962. King Baudouin Foundation, Brussels.

Eggleston, G. and P. Omoaka. 1994. Alternative breads from cassava flour. In Tropical root
crops in a developing economy ed. F. Ofori and S. K. Hahn. Proceedings of the Ninth
Symposium of the International Society for Tropical Root Crops, October 20-26, 1991 in
Accra Ghana. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

Ezedinma, C. I. 1989. Impact of some improved varieties on cassava in Anambra State, Nigeria.
In Contributions from the second annual meeting of the collaborative group in cassava-
based cropping systems research. cassava-based cropping systems research II. Resource
and Crop Management Program. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture.

Ezemenari, K., F. I. Nweke, and J. Strauss. 1998. Consumption patterns and expenditure
elasticity of demand for food staples in rural Africa: Focus on cassava growing area.
Draft COSCA Working Paper, Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa. Ibadan, Nigeria:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

Federal Republic of Nigeria. 2000. Loan agreement (root and tuber Programme) between the
Federal Republic of Nigeria and the International Fund for Agricultural Development.
Loan No. 525-NG. Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Abuja. Unpublished.

Fregene, Martin. 2002. E-mail message, November 20.

Fresco, L. 1986. Cassava in shifting cultivation: a systems approach to agricultural technology

development in Africa. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Royal Tropical Institute.

Garman, C. and Navasero N. C, 1982. Evaluation of harvesting machines and tools. In the
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Annual Report for 1981, Ibadan.

Grace, M. R. 1977. Cassava processing. FAO Plant Production and Protection Series No. 3.
Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Guardian. 2002. Nigeria imports gari from Benin Republic. Nigerian Guardiannews, May 12.
Lagos. Guardian. 2002. Nigeria imports gari from Benin Republic. Nigerian
Guardiannews, May 12. Lagos.

Guardian. 2002a. Government orders enforcement of ban in cassava importation. 2002. Nigeria
imports gari from Benin Republic. Nigerian Guardiannews, July 18 in Lagos.

Haggblade, Steven and Zulu, Ballard. 2003. Conservation Farming in Zambia. EPTD
Discussion Paper No. 108. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research
Institute.

Hahn, S. K. 1998. Text of seminar presented at the African Studies Center, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, U. S. A.
 97

Hahn, S. K. 2000. Personal communication, October 17.

Hahn, S. K., A. K. Howland, and E. R. Terry. 1980. Correlated resistance of cassava to mosaic
and bacterial blight diseases. Euphytica 29, 305-311.

Harrison, B. D., Y. L. Liu, X. Zhou, D. J. Robinson, L. Calvert, C. Munoz and G. W. Otem-

Nape. 1997. Properties, differentiation and geographical distribution of geminiviruses
that cause cassava mosaic disease. African Journal of Root and Tuber Crops 2 (1 and 2):
19-22. International Society for Tropical Root Crops - African Branch (ISTRC-AB).
Ibadan, Nigeria.

Hendershott, C. H., et al. (eds.) 1972. A literature review and research recommendations on
cassava, Manihot esculenta, Crantz, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.

Herren, Hans R. 1981. Biological control of the cassava mealybug. In Tropical root crops
research strategies for the 1980s, ed. E. R. Terry, K. O. Oduro, and F. Caveness.
Proceedings of the First Triennial Symposium of the International Society for Tropical
Root Crops Africa BranchSeptember 8-12, 1980 Ottawa, Canada: International
Development Research Center.

Herren, H. R., P. Neuenschwander, R. D. Hennessey, and W. N. O. Hammond. 1987.

Introduction and dispersal of Epidinocarisi lopezi (Hym. Encytidae), an exotic parasitoid
of cassava mealybug, Phenococcus manihoti (Hom. Pseudococcidae) in Africa.
Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environments. 19: 131-144.

Idachaba, F. S. 1998. Instability of national agricultural research systems in sub-Saharan Africa:

Lessons from Nigeria. Research Report No. 13. the Hague: International Service for
National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

Idachaba, Francis S. 2000. Agricultural policy process in Africa: Role of policy analysts.
ECAPAPA Monograph Series 2. Entebbe, Uganda: Eastern and Central Africa
Programme for Agricultural Policy Analysis.

Idowu, I. A. 1998. Private sector participation in agricultural research and technology transfer
linkages: Lessons from cassava gari processing technology in Southern Nigeria. In Post-
harvest technology and commodity marketing ed. R.S.B. Ferris. Proceedings of a Post-
Harvest Conference, November 2-December 1, 1995 in Accra, Ghana. Ibadan, Nigeria:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 1976. Meeting food needs in the developing
world: The location and magnitude of the task in the next decade. Research Report No.
1. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). 1986. Root and Tuber Improvement
Program annual report for 1985. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture.
 98

IITA. 1987. List of principal staff. Pages 142 to 144 in Annual report 1986. Ibadan, Nigeria:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

IITA. 1989. Biological control program. In IITA Annual report 1988/89. Ibadan, Nigeria.
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

IITA. 1992. Plant health management. In Sustainable food production in sub-Saharan Africa: 1.
IITA s contributions. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

IITA. 1994. Cassava s expanding prospects. In IITA Annual report 1994. Ibadan, Nigeria:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

IITA. 1996. Biocontrol of cassava green mite gives African farmers a bonanza. In Annual report
1996. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

IITA. 1998. Restoring nutrients to sub-Saharan soils. In Annual report 1997. Ibadan, Nigeria:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

IITA. 2001. Professional staff. In Annual report 2000. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture.

Irvine, F. R. 1953. A text book of West Africa agriculture, soils, and crops. London: Oxford
University Press.

Jennings, D. L. 1976. Breeding for resistance to African cassava mosaic disease: Progress and
prospects. In African cassava mosaic, ed. B.L. Nestel. Report of an interdisciplinary
workshop held February 19-22 at Muguga, Kenya. Ottawa, Canada: International
Development Research Center.

Johnson, D. Gale. 2000. Population, food, and knowledge. The American Economic Review. 90
(1): 1-14.

Johnson , M. E. and W.A. Masters. 2002. Complementarity and sequencing of innovations: New
varieties and mechanized processing for cassava in West Africa. Econ. Innov. New
Techn., 00: 1–13

Johnston, Bruce F. 1958. The staple food economies of western tropical Africa. Stanford, CA,
USA: University Press, Stanford.

Jones, W. O. 1959. Manioc in Africa. Food Research Institute. Stanford, CA, USA: Stanford
University Press.

Kapinga, R. 1995. Personal communication.

La-Anyane, S. 1971. Research in agriculture in relation to national economic development.

Scientific Research in Ghana. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

Latham, M. C. 1979. Human Nutrition in Tropical Africa. Rome, Italy: FAO.

 99

Lewis, W. Arthur. 1955. The theory of economic growth. Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Homewood,
Illinois.

Lutaladio, N. B. and H. C. Ezumah, undated. Cassava leaf harvesting in Zaire (Congo). Mvuazi.

Marter, A. 1978. Cassava or maize: A comparative study of the economics of production and
market potential of cassava and maize in Zambia. Lusaka: University of Zambia.

Martin, S. M. 1988. Palm oil and protest. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

de Matos, Peres Aristoteles. 2001. Email message. January 16.

Mba, C. 2000. E-mail message. 21 September.

Mba, C. 2002. E-mail message. November 20.

Mba, R. E. C. and A. G. O. Dixon. 1998. Genotype x environment interaction, phenotipic

stability of cassava yields and heritability estimates for production and pests resistance
traits in Nigeria. In Root crops and poverty alleviation ed. M. O. Akoroda and I. J.
Ekanayake. Proceedings of the Sixth Triennial Symposium of the International Society
for Tropical Root Crops-African Branch (ISTRC-AB) on October 22-28, 1995
inLilongwe, Malawi. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Mbendi. 2000. Nigeria: Oil and gas industry. mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/ng

Ndibaza, Ernesti Regina. 1994. Intercropping of cassava and sweet potato in the semi-arid zone
of Tanzania. Ph. D. thesis, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Ng, N. Q. 1992. Unpublished data.

Ngoddy, P. O. 1977. Determinants of the development of technology for processing of roots and
tubers in Nigeria. Proceedings of the First National Seminar on Root and Tuber Crops.
National Root Crops Research Institute, Umudike, Umuahia, Nigeria.

Nichols, R. F. W. 1947. Breeding cassava for virus resistance. East African Agricultural Journal.
12: 184-194.

Nigerian Economic Summit Group. 1998. Report on the fifth Nigerian economic summit. Ibadan,
Nigeria: Spectrum Books.

Norgaard, R. B. 1988. The biological control of the cassava mealybug in Africa. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 70: 366-371.

Nweke, Felix I. 1978. Direct governmental production in agriculture in Ghana: Consequences

for food production and consumption: 1960 - 66 and 1967 - 75. Food Policy 3: 202 –
208. Surrey, England.

Nweke, Felix I. 1978a. Irrigation development in Ghana. Oxford Agrarian Studies VII: 38-53.
Oxford.
 100

Nweke, Felix I. 1978b. Agricultural credit in Ghana: Priorities and needs for domestic food
production. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 26 (3): 37-46. Guelph.

Nweke, Felix I. 1979. Farm mechanization and farm labor in Ghana: An analysis of efficiency
and policy issues. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 2 (18): 171-184.
Western Germany.

Nweke, Felix I. 1979a. The organization of agricultural research in Ghana: Priorities, problems,
implications for domestic food production, and policy issues. Agricultural Administration
6 (1): 19-29. England.

Nweke, Felix I., A. G. O. Dixon, R. Asiedu, and S. A. Folayan. 1994. Cassava varietal needs of
farmers and potentials for production growth in Africa. COSCA Working Paper No. 10.
The Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa, Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute for
Tropical Agriculture.

Nweke, Felix I., Dunstan S. C. Spencer and John K. Lynam. 2002. The cassava transformation:
Africa’s best kept secret. Lansing, Mich., USA: Michigan State University Press.

Obimpeh, S. G. 1994. Opening address. Pages xvii to xix in Tropical root crops in a developing
economy, ed. F. Ofori and S. K. Hahn. Proceedings of the 9th Symposium of the ISTRC
(International Society for Tropical Root Crops), October 20-26, 1991, Accra Ghana.
Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

Ofori, F., R. Al-Hassan, J. J. Afuakwa, and R. K. Noamesi 1997. A case study of cassava
development in Ghana. The Global Cassava Development Strategy Validation Forum.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and International Fund
for Agricultural Development.

Ogazi, P., O., Usman, A. Hassan, and A. A. Ogunwusi. 1997. Boosting the supply of agricultural
raw materials for industrial use: The RMRDC experience. Abuja: Raw Materials
Research and Development Council.

Ohadike, D. C. 1981. The influenza pandemic of 1918-19 and the spread of cassava cultivation
on the Lower Niger: A study in historical linkages. Journal of African History 22: 379-
391.

Okai, E., A. F. K. Kissiedu, J. A. Otoo, J. J. Afuakwa, A. Asare-Bediako, A. Missah, R. Sagoe,

O. O. Okoli, and A. G. O. Dixon. 1998. Yield evaluation of cassava clones using additive
main effects and multiplicative interaction effects (AMMI) model. In Root xrops and
poverty alleviation. Proceedings of the Sixth Triennial Symposium of the International
Society of Tropical Root Crops-African Branch (ISTRC-AB), October 22-28, 1995,
Lilongwe, Malawi.

Okigbo, Bede N. 1980. Nutritional implications of projects giving high priority to the production
of staples of low nutritive quality. The case of cassava in the humid tropics of West
Africa. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 2(4). Tokyo: United Nations University.
 101

Okoli, Obinani O. 2000. E-mail message. 29 March.

Onabolu, A., A. Abass, and M. Bokanga. 1998. New food products from cassava. Ibadan,
Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

Onwueme, I. C. 1978. The tropical tuber crops. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons.

Otim-Nape, G. W. 1995. Personal communication.

Otoo, John. 2000. Email message. 1 November.

Otoo, John and J. J. Afuakwa. 2001. Email message, February 27.

Otoo, J. A., A. G. O. Dixon, R. Asiedu, J. E. Okeke, G. N. Maroya, K. Tougnon, O. O. Okoli, J.

P. Tette, and S. K. Hahn. 1994. Genotype x environment interaction studies with cassava.
In Tropical root crops in developing countries, ed. F. Ofori and S. K. Hahn. Proceedings
of the International Society for Tropical Root Crops, October 20-26, 1991, Accra Ghana.

Pinstrup-Anderson, Per, Paul Pandya-Lorch, and Mark W. Rosegrant. 1999. World food
prospects: Critical issues for the early twenty-first century. 2020 Vision, Food Policy
Report. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Planning Commission. 1964. Seven year development plan 1963-64 to 1969-70. Accra, Ghana.

Ratanawaraha, C., N. Senanarong, and P. Suriyapan. 1999. Status of cassava in Thailand:

Implications for future research and development. The Global Cassava Development
Strategy Validation Forum. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

RMRDC. (Raw Materials Research and Development Council). 1997. Raw materials sourcing
for manufacturing in Nigeria. Abuja: RMRDC. 3rd edition.

RMRDC. 2000. Food, beverage, and tobacco sector. Multi-disciplinary task force report of
techno-economic survey. Abuja: RMRDC. 3rd update.

RMRDC. (Raw Materials research and development Council). 2000a. Chemicals and
pharmaceuticals sector. Multi-disciplinary task force report of techno-economic survey.
Abuja: RMRDC. 3rd update.

Rossel, H. W., C.M. Changa, and G. I. Atiri. 1994. Quantification of resistance to African
cassava mosaic virus (ACMV) in IITA improved mosaic-resistant cassava breeding
materials. In Food crops for food security in Africa, ed. M. O. Akoroda. Proceedings of
the Fifth Triennial Symposium of the International Society of Tropical Root
Crops Africa Branch (ISTRC-AB), November 22-24, 1992, ISTRC/CTA/IITA. Ibadan,
Nigeria.

Ruttan, Vernon. 2001. Technology, growth, and development: An induced innovation

perspective. New York: Oxford.
 102

Satin, M. 1988. Bread without wheat. New Scientist (April 28): 56-59.

Satin, Morton. Undated. Functional properties of starches. Rome: FAO.

SADCC (Southern African Development Coordination Conference). 1984. Drought. Proceedings

of conference held February 2-4, Lusaka, Republic of Zambia.

Schaab, R. P., J. Zeddies, P. Neuenschwander, and H. Herren. 1998. Economics of biological

control of the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti (Matt.-Ferr.) (Hom.,
Pseudococcidae) in Africa. In Root crops and poverty alleviation. Proceedings of the
Sixth Triennial Symposium of the International Society of Tropical Root Crops-African
Branch (ISTRC-AB), October 22-28, 1995 in Lilongwe, Malawi.

Scott, G. J., M. W. Rosegrant, and C. Ringler. 2000. Roots and tubers for the 21st century:
Trends, projections, and policy options. Food, Agriculture, and Environment Discussion
Paper No. 31. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Storey, H. H. and R. F. W. Nichols. 1938. Studies of the mosaic diseases of cassava. The Annals
of Applied Biology. 23 (4): 790-806.

Tewe, O. O. and M. Bokanga. 2001. Unpublished data.

This Day. 2002. IITA raises alarm over new cassava disease. Lagos, September 15.

Thresh, J. M., G. W. Otim-Nape, J. P. Legg, and D. Fargette. 1997. African cassava mosaic virus
disease: The magnitude of the problem. African Journal of Root and Tuber Crops, 2 (1
and 2): pp.13-19. Ibadan, Nigeria: The International Society of Tropical Root Crops-
African Branch (ISTRC-AB), IITA.

Thro, A. M. Cassava biotec network, update to the ISTRC-AB: Network activities and scientific
progress. In Root crops and poverty alleviatio, ed. M. O. Akoroda and I. J. Ekanayake.
Proceedings of the Sixth Triennial Symposium of the International Society for Tropical
Root Crops - African Branch (ISTRC-AB), held October 22-28, 1995, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture.

UNDP (United Nations Development Program). 1998. Ghana human development report. Accra,
Ghana: United Nations Development Program.

USAID (United States Aid for International Development) 1997. Women: An untapped resource
for agricultural growth. Genderaction (a newsletter of the USAID office of women in
development). 1 (3). Washington, D.C..: USAID.

Vilpoux, O. and M.T. Ospina, ed. 1999. Cassava foods, global opportunities, case study: Brazil.
In Global cassava market study: Business opportunities for the use of cassava (dTp
Studies Inc.). The global Development Cassava Strategy Validation Forum, April 28,
Rome, Italy. FAO.
 103

Wigg, David. 1993. The quiet revolutionaries: A look at the campaign by agricultural scientists
to fight hunger. World Bank Development Essays No. 2. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

White, Landeg. 1990. Magomero: Portrait of an African village. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, England.

World Bank, ed. 1993. Performance audit report: Nigeria: Bauchi State Agricultural
Development Project; Kano State Agricultural Development Project; Sokoto State
Agricultural Development Project; Ilorin Agricultural Development Project; Oyo North
Agricultural Development Project; Agricultural Technical Assistance Project, Operations
Evaluation Department. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

World Bank. 2003. Sustainable development in a dynamic world transforming institutions,

growth, and quality of life. World Development Report 2003. Washington, D.C.: World
Bank.
LIST OF EPTD DISCUSSION PAPERS

1. Sustainable Agricultural Development Strategies in Fragile Lands, by Sara

J. Scherr and Peter B.R. Hazell, June 1994.

2. Confronting the Environmental Consequences of the Green Revolution in

Asia, by Prabhu L. Pingali and Mark W. Rosegrant, August 1994.

3. Infrastructure and Technology Constraints to Agricultural Development in

the Humid and Subhumid Tropics of Africa, by Dunstan S.C. Spencer,
August 1994.

4. Water Markets in Pakistan: Participation and Productivity, by Ruth

Meinzen-Dick and Martha Sullins, September 1994.

5. The Impact of Technical Change in Agriculture on Human Fertility:

District-level Evidence From India, by Stephen A. Vosti, Julie Witcover,
and Michael Lipton, October 1994.

6. Reforming Water Allocation Policy Through Markets in Tradable Water

Rights: Lessons from Chile, Mexico, and California, by Mark W.
Rosegrant and Renato Gazri S, October 1994.

7. Total Factor Productivity and Sources of Long-Term Growth in Indian

Agriculture, by Mark W. Rosegrant and Robert E. Evenson, April 1995.

8. Farm-Nonfarm Growth Linkages in Zambia, by Peter B.R. Hazell and

Behjat Hoijati, April 1995.

9. Livestock and Deforestation in Central America in the 1980s and 1990s: A

Policy Perspective, by David Kaimowitz (Interamerican Institute for
Cooperation on Agriculture. June 1995.

10. Effects of the Structural Adjustment Program on Agricultural Production

and Resource Use in Egypt, by Peter B.R. Hazell, Nicostrato Perez, Gamal
Siam, and Ibrahim Soliman, August 1995.

11. Local Organizations for Natural Resource Management: Lessons from

Theoretical and Empirical Literature, by Lise Nordvig Rasmussen and
Ruth Meinzen-Dick, August 1995.

12. Quality-Equivalent and Cost-Adjusted Measurement of International

Competitiveness in Japanese Rice Markets, by Shoichi Ito, Mark W.
Rosegrant, and Mercedita C. Agcaoili-Sombilla, August 1995.

13. Role of Inputs, Institutions, and Technical Innovations in Stimulating

Growth in Chinese Agriculture, by Shenggen Fan and Philip G. Pardey,
September 1995.
14. Investments in African Agricultural Research, by Philip G. Pardey,
Johannes Roseboom, and Nienke Beintema, October 1995.

15. Role of Terms of Trade in Indian Agricultural Growth: A National and

State Level Analysis, by Peter B.R. Hazell, V.N. Misra, and Behjat
Hoijati, December 1995.

16. Policies and Markets for Non-Timber Tree Products, by Peter A. Dewees
and Sara J. Scherr, March 1996.

17. Determinants of Farmers’ Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation

Investments in India’s Semi-Arid Tropics, by John Pender and John Kerr,
August 1996.

18. Summary of a Productive Partnership: The Benefits from U.S.

Participation in the CGIAR, by Philip G. Pardey, Julian M. Alston, Jason
E. Christian, and Shenggen Fan, October 1996.

19. Crop Genetic Resource Policy: Towards a Research Agenda, by Brian D.

Wright, October 1996.

20. Sustainable Development of Rainfed Agriculture in India, by John M.

Kerr, November 1996.

21. Impact of Market and Population Pressure on Production, Incomes and

Natural Resources in the Dryland Savannas of West Africa: Bioeconomic
Modeling at the Village Level, by Bruno Barbier, November 1996.

22. Why Do Projections on China’s Future Food Supply and Demand Differ?
by Shenggen Fan and Mercedita Agcaoili-Sombilla, March 1997.

23. Agroecological Aspects of Evaluating Agricultural R&D, by Stanley

Wood and Philip G. Pardey, March 1997.

24. Population Pressure, Land Tenure, and Tree Resource Management in

Uganda, by Frank Place and Keijiro Otsuka, March 1997.

25. Should India Invest More in Less-favored Areas? by Shenggen Fan and
Peter Hazell, April 1997.

26. Population Pressure and the Microeconomy of Land Management in Hills

and Mountains of Developing Countries, by Scott R. Templeton and Sara
J. Scherr, April 1997.

27. Population Land Tenure and Natural Resource Management: The Case of
Customary Land Area in Malawi, by Frank Place and Keijiro Otsuka,
April 1997.
28. Water Resources Development in Africa: A Review and Synthesis of
Issues, Potentials, and Strategies for the Future, by Mark W. Rosegrant
and Nicostrato D. Perez, September 1997.

29. Financing Agricultural R&D in Rich Countries: What’s Happening and

Why? by Julian M. Alston, Philip G. Pardey, and Vincent H. Smith,
September 1997.

30. How Fast Have China’s Agricultural Production and Productivity Really
Been Growing? by Shenggen Fan, September 1997.

31. Does Land Tenure Insecurity Discourage Tree Planting? Evolution of

Customary Land Tenure and Agroforestry Management in Sumatra, by
Keijiro Otsuka, S. Suyanto, and Thomas P. Tomich, December 1997.

32. Natural Resource Management in the Hillsides of Honduras: Bioeconomic

Modeling at the Micro-Watershed Level, by Bruno Barbier and Gilles
Bergeron, January 1998.

33. Government Spending, Growth, and Poverty: An Analysis of Interlinkages

in Rural India, by Shenggen Fan, Peter Hazell, and Sukhadeo Thorat,
March 1998. Revised December 1998.

34. Coalitions and the Organization of Multiple-Stakeholder Action: A Case

Study of Agricultural Research and Extension in Rajasthan, India, by Ruth
Alsop, April 1998.

35. Dynamics in the Creation and Depreciation of Knowledge and the Returns
to Research, by Julian Alston, Barbara Craig, and Philip Pardey, July,
1998.

36. Educating Agricultural Researchers: A Review of the Role of African

Universities, by Nienke M. Beintema, Philip G. Pardey, and Johannes
Roseboom, August 1998.

37. The Changing Organizational Basis of African Agricultural Research, by

Johannes Roseboom, Philip G. Pardey, and Nienke M. Beintema,
November 1998.

38. Research Returns Redux: A Meta-Analysis of the Returns to Agricultural

R&D, by Julian M. Alston, Michele C. Marra, Philip G. Pardey, and T.J.
Wyatt, November 1998.

39. Technological Change, Technical and Allocative Efficiency in Chinese

Agriculture: The Case of Rice Production in Jiangsu, by Shenggen Fan,
January 1999.
40. The Substance of Interaction: Design and Policy Implications of NGO-
Government Projects in India, by Ruth Alsop with Ved Arya, January
1999.

41. Strategies for Sustainable Agricultural Development in the East African

Highlands, by John Pender, Frank Place, and Simeon Ehui, April 1999.

42. Cost Aspects of African Agricultural Research, by Philip G. Pardey,

Johannes Roseboom, Nienke M. Beintema, and Connie Chan-Kang, April
1999.

43. Are Returns to Public Investment Lower in Less-favored Rural Areas? An

Empirical Analysis of India, by Shenggen Fan and Peter Hazell, May
1999.

44. Spatial Aspects of the Design and Targeting of Agricultural Development

Strategies, by Stanley Wood, Kate Sebastian, Freddy Nachtergaele, Daniel
Nielsen, and Aiguo Dai, May 1999.

45. Pathways of Development in the Hillsides of Honduras: Causes and

Implications for Agricultural Production, Poverty, and Sustainable
Resource Use, by John Pender, Sara J. Scherr, and Guadalupe Durón, May
1999.

46. Determinants of Land Use Change: Evidence from a Community Study in

Honduras, by Gilles Bergeron and John Pender, July 1999.

47. Impact on Food Security and Rural Development of Reallocating Water

from Agriculture, by Mark W. Rosegrant and Claudia Ringler, August
1999.

48. Rural Population Growth, Agricultural Change and Natural Resource

Management in Developing Countries: A Review of Hypotheses and
Some Evidence from Honduras, by John Pender, August 1999.

49. Organizational Development and Natural Resource Management:

Evidence from Central Honduras, by John Pender and Sara J. Scherr,
November 1999.

50. Estimating Crop-Specific Production Technologies in Chinese

Agriculture: A Generalized Maximum Entropy Approach, by Xiaobo
Zhang and Shenggen Fan, September 1999.

51. Dynamic Implications of Patenting for Crop Genetic Resources, by

Bonwoo Koo and Brian D. Wright, October 1999.
52. Costing the Ex Situ Conservation of Genetic Resources: Maize and Wheat
at CIMMYT, by Philip G. Pardey, Bonwoo Koo, Brian D. Wright, M. Eric
van Dusen, Bent Skovmand, and Suketoshi Taba, October 1999.

53. Past and Future Sources of Growth for China, by Shenggen Fan, Xiaobo
Zhang, and Sherman Robinson, October 1999.

54. The Timing of Evaluation of Genebank Accessions and the Effects of

Biotechnology, by Bonwoo Koo and Brian D. Wright, October 1999.

55. New Approaches to Crop Yield Insurance in Developing Countries, by

Jerry Skees, Peter Hazell, and Mario Miranda, November 1999.

56. Impact of Agricultural Research on Poverty Alleviation: Conceptual

Framework with Illustrations from the Literature, by John Kerr and Shashi
Kolavalli, December 1999.

57. Could Futures Markets Help Growers Better Manage Coffee Price Risks
in Costa Rica? by Peter Hazell, January 2000.

58. Industrialization, Urbanization, and Land Use in China, by Xiaobo Zhang,

Tim Mount, and Richard Boisvert, January 2000.

59. Water Rights and Multiple Water Uses: Framework and Application to
Kirindi Oya Irrigation System, Sri Lanka, by Ruth Meinzen-Dick and
Margaretha Bakker, March 2000.

60. Community natural Resource Management: The Case of Woodlots in

Northern Ethiopia, by Berhanu Gebremedhin, John Pender and Girmay
Tesfaye, April 2000.

61. What Affects Organization and Collective Action for Managing

Resources? Evidence from Canal Irrigation Systems in India, by Ruth
Meinzen-Dick, K.V. Raju, and Ashok Gulati, June 2000.

62. The Effects of the U.S. Plant Variety Protection Act on Wheat Genetic
Improvement, by Julian M. Alston and Raymond J. Venner, May 2000.

63. Integrated Economic-Hydrologic Water Modeling at the Basin Scale: The

Maipo River Basin, by M. W. Rosegrant, C. Ringler, D.C. McKinney, X.
Cai, A. Keller, and G. Donoso, May 2000.

64. Irrigation and Water Resources in Latin America and he Caribbean:

Challenges and Strategies, by Claudia Ringler, Mark W. Rosegrant, and
Michael S. Paisner, June 2000.
65. The Role of Trees for Sustainable Management of Less-favored Lands:
The Case of Eucalyptus in Ethiopia, by Pamela Jagger & John Pender,
June 2000.

66. Growth and Poverty in Rural China: The Role of Public Investments, by
Shenggen Fan, Linxiu Zhang, and Xiaobo Zhang, June 2000.

67. Small-Scale Farms in the Western Brazilian Amazon: Can They Benefit
from Carbon Trade? by Chantal Carpentier, Steve Vosti, and Julie
Witcover, September 2000.

68. An Evaluation of Dryland Watershed Development Projects in India, by

John Kerr, Ganesh Pangare, Vasudha Lokur Pangare, and P.J. George,
October 2000.

69. Consumption Effects of Genetic Modification: What If Consumers Are

Right? by Konstantinos Giannakas and Murray Fulton, November 2000.

70. South-North Trade, Intellectual Property Jurisdictions, and Freedom to

Operate in Agricultural Research on Staple Crops, by Eran Binenbaum,
Carol Nottenburg, Philip G. Pardey, Brian D. Wright, and Patricia
Zambrano, December 2000.

71. Public Investment and Regional Inequality in Rural China, by Xiaobo

Zhang and Shenggen Fan, December 2000.

72. Does Efficient Water Management Matter? Physical and Economic

Efficiency of Water Use in the River Basin, by Ximing Cai, Claudia
Ringler, and Mark W. Rosegrant, March 2001.

73. Monitoring Systems for Managing Natural Resources: Economics,

Indicators and Environmental Externalities in a Costa Rican Watershed,
by Peter Hazell, Ujjayant Chakravorty, John Dixon, and Rafael Celis,
March 2001.

74. Does Quanxi Matter to NonFarm Employment? by Xiaobo Zhang and

Guo Li, June 2001.

75. The Effect of Environmental Variability on Livestock and Land-Use

Management: The Borana Plateau, Southern Ethiopia, by Nancy
McCarthy, Abdul Kamara, and Michael Kirk, June 2001.

76. Market Imperfections and Land Productivity in the Ethiopian Highlands,

by Stein Holden, Bekele Shiferaw, and John Pender, August 2001.

77. Strategies for Sustainable Agricultural Development in the Ethiopian

Highlands, by John Pender, Berhanu Gebremedhin, Samuel Benin, and
Simeon Ehui, August 2001.
78. Managing Droughts in the Low-Rainfall Areas of the Middle East and
North Africa: Policy Issues, by Peter Hazell, Peter Oram, Nabil Chaherli,
September 2001.

79. Accessing Other People’s Technology: Do Non-Profit Agencies Need It?

How To Obtain It, by Carol Nottenburg, Philip G. Pardey, and Brian D.
Wright, September 2001.

80. The Economics of Intellectual Property Rights Under Imperfect

Enforcement: Developing Countries, Biotechnology, and the TRIPS
Agreement, by Konstantinos Giannakas, September 2001.

81. Land Lease Markets and Agricultural Efficiency: Theory and Evidence
from Ethiopia, by John Pender and Marcel Fafchamps, October 2001.

82. The Demand for Crop Genetic Resources: International Use of the U.S.
National Plant Germplasm System, by M. Smale, K. Day-Rubenstein, A.
Zohrabian, and T. Hodgkin, October 2001.

83. How Agricultural Research Affects Urban Poverty in Developing

Countries: The Case of China, by Shenggen Fan, Cheng Fang, and Xiaobo
Zhang, October 2001.

84. How Productive is Infrastructure? New Approach and Evidence From

Rural India, by Xiaobo Zhang and Shenggen Fan, October 2001.

85. Development Pathways and Land Management in Uganda: Causes and

Implications, by John Pender, Pamela Jagger, Ephraim Nkonya, and Dick
Sserunkuuma, December 2001.

86. Sustainability Analysis for Irrigation Water Management: Concepts,

Methodology, and Application to the Aral Sea Region, by Ximing Cai,
Daene C. McKinney, and Mark W. Rosegrant, December 2001.

87. The Payoffs to Agricultural Biotechnology: An Assessment of the

Evidence, by Michele C. Marra, Philip G. Pardey, and Julian M. Alston,
January 2002.

88. Economics of Patenting a Research Tool, by Bonwoo Koo and Brian D.

Wright, January 2002.

89. Assessing the Impact of Agricultural Research On Poverty Using the

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, by Michelle Adato and Ruth
Meinzen-Dick, March 2002.

90. The Role of Rainfed Agriculture in the Future of Global Food Production,
by Mark Rosegrant, Ximing Cai, Sarah Cline, and Naoko Nakagawa,
March 2002.
91. Why TVEs Have Contributed to Interregional Imbalances in China, by
Junichi Ito, March 2002.

92. Strategies for Stimulating Poverty Alleviating Growth in the Rural

Nonfarm Economy in Developing Countries, by Steven Haggblade, Peter
Hazell, and Thomas Reardon, July 2002.

93. Local Governance and Public Goods Provisions in Rural China, by

Xiaobo Zhang, Shenggen Fan, Linxiu Zhang, and Jikun Huang, July 2002.

94. Agricultural Research and Urban Poverty in India, by Shenggen Fan,

September 2002.

95. Assessing and Attributing the Benefits from Varietal Improvement

Research: Evidence from Embrapa, Brazil, by Philip G. Pardey, Julian M.
Alston, Connie Chan-Kang, Eduardo C. Magalhães, and Stephen A. Vosti,
August 2002.

96. India’s Plant Variety and Farmers’ Rights Legislation: Potential Impact on
Stakeholders Access to Genetic Resources, by Anitha Ramanna, January
2003.

97. Maize in Eastern and Southern Africa: Seeds of Success in Retrospect, by

Melinda Smale and Thom Jayne, January 2003.

98. Alternative Growth Scenarios for Ugandan Coffee to 2020, by Liangzhi

You and Simon Bolwig, February 2003.

99. Public Spending in Developing Countries: Trends, Determination, and

Impact, by Shenggen Fan and Neetha Rao, March 2003.

100. The Economics of Generating and Maintaining Plant Variety Rights in

China, by Bonwoo Koo, Philip G. Pardey, Keming Qian, and Yi Zhang,
February 2003.

101. Impacts of Programs and Organizations on the Adoption of Sustainable

Land Management Technologies in Uganda, Pamela Jagger and John
Pender, March 2003.

102. Productivity and Land Enhancing Technologies in Northern Ethiopia:

Health, Public Investments, and Sequential Adoption, Lire Ersado,
Gregory Amacher, and Jeffrey Alwang, April 2003.

103. Animal Health and the Role of Communities: An Example of

Trypanasomosis Control Options in Uganda, by Nancy McCarthy, John
McDermott, and Paul Coleman, May 2003.
104. Determinantes de Estrategias Comunitarias de Subsistencia y el uso de
Prácticas Conservacionistas de Producción Agrícola en las Zonas de
Ladera en Honduras, Hans G.P. Jansen, Angel Rodríguez, Amy Damon, y
John Pender, Juno 2003.

105. Determinants of Cereal Diversity in Communities and on Household

Farms of the Northern Ethiopian Highlands, by Samuel Benin, Berhanu
Gebremedhin, Melinda Smale, John Pender, and Simeon Ehui, June 2003.

106. Demand for Rainfall-Based Index Insurance: A Case Study from

Morocco, by Nancy McCarthy, July 2003.

107. Woodlot Devolution in Northern Ethiopia: Opportunities for

Empowerment, Smallholder Income Diversification, and Sustainable Land
Management, by Pamela Jagger, John Pender, and Berhanu Gebremedhin,
September 2003.

108. Conservation Farming in Zambia, by Steven Haggblade and Gelsom

Tembo, October 2003.

109. National and International Agricultural Research and Rural Poverty: The
Case of Rice Research in India and China, by Shenggen Fan, Connie
Chan-Kang, Keming Qian, and K. Krishnaiah, September 2003.

110. Rice Research, Technological Progress, and Impacts on the Poor: The
Bangladesh Case (Summary Report), by Mahabub Hossain, David Lewis,
Manik L. Bose, and Alamgir Chowdhury, October 2003.

111. Impacts of Agricultural Research on Poverty: Findings of an Integrated

Economic and Social Analysis, by Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Michelle Adato,
Lawrence Haddad, and Peter Hazell, October 2003.

112. An Integrated Economic and Social Analysis to Assess the Impact of

Vegetable and Fishpond Technologies on Poverty in Rural Bangladesh, by
Kelly Hallman, David Lewis, and Suraiya Begum, October 2003.

113. Public-Private Partnerships in Agricultural Research: An Analysis of

Challenges Facing Industry and the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research, by David J. Spielman and Klaus von Grebmer,
January 2004.

114. The Emergence and Spreading of an Improved Traditional Soil and Water
Conservation Practice in Burkina Faso, by Daniel Kaboré and Chris Reij,
February 2004.

115. Improved Fallows in Kenya: History, Farmer Practice, and Impacts, by

Frank Place, Steve Franzel, Qureish Noordin, Bashir Jama, February 2004.
116. To Reach the Poor – Results from the ISNAR-IFPRI Next Harvest Study
on Genetically Modified Crops, Public Research, and Policy Implications,
by Authors in alphabetical order: Atanas Atanassov, Ahmed Bahieldin,
Johan Brink, Moises Burachik, Joel I. Cohen, Vibha Dhawan, Reynaldo
V. Ebora, José Falck-Zepeda, Luis Herrera-Estrella, John Komen, Fee
Chon Low, Emeka Omaliko, Benjamin Odhiambo, Hector Quemada, Yufa
Peng, Maria Jose Sampaio, Idah Sithole-Niang, Ana Sittenfeld, Melinda
Smale, Sutrisno, Ruud Valyasevi, Yusuf Zafar, and Patricia Zambrano,
March 2004.

117. Agri-Environmental Policies in a Transitional Economy: The Value of

Agricultural Biodiversity in Hungarian Home Gardens, Ekin Birol,
Melinda Smale, and Ágnes Gyovai, April 2004