Thematic Study on Sweet Potato Value Chain

Report On Thematic Study on Sweet Potato Value Chain Prepared for: IFAD & CIP Research design, implementation, data analysis and report preparation by: S.S.R.M. Mahe Alam Sorwar Senior Sector Specialist | Development Activities Seed and Agro Enterprise | BRAC T: 02-9881265 (Ext-3323) M: +8801717449932 BRAC Centre | 75 Mohakhali, Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh. skyp: mahe.sorwar afsp.brac.net | brac.net Md. Tanvir Ahmed Senior Field Coordinator | Product Development Support and Agro Economy Analysis Seed and Agro Enterprise | BRAC T: 02-9881265 (Ext: 3346) M: +8801672842010 BRAC Centre | 75 Mohakhali, Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh. skyp: tanvir4344 Web: brac.net November, 2014 2|Page LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Acronyms Elaborations BARI Bangladesh Agriculture Research Institute BRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee CIP International Potato Centre DAE Department of Agricultural Extension ESRB Environmentally and Socially Responsible Business FGD Focused Group Discussion II Individual Interview INGO International Non Government Organization KII Key Informant Interview MFI Micro Finance Institute NGO Non Government Organization UAO Upazilla Agriculture Officer 3|Page Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 9 1.1. Background of the Study ............................................................................................................... 9 1.2. Objective of the Assessment....................................................................................................... 11 1.4. Sampling of the Assessment ....................................................................................................... 11 1.5. Methods and Tools of the Assessment ....................................................................................... 12 1.5.1 Individual Interview (II) ....................................................................................................... 12 1.5.2 Key Informant Interview (KII) .............................................................................................. 13 1.5.3 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) ............................................................................................. 13 1.6. Data & information collection and analysis ................................................................................ 13 1.7. Limitation & Challenges of the Assessment................................................................................ 13 CHAPTER 2: SWEET POTATO SECTOR OVER VIEW - NATIONAL CONTEXT.................................................. 14 2.1. Supply scenario ........................................................................................................................... 14 2.2. Demand scenario ........................................................................................................................ 15 2.3. Demand-supply gap .................................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER 3: SWEET POTATO IN NORTH EAST AREAS OF BANGLADESH ..................................................... 17 3.1. The core value chain actors ........................................................................................................ 17 3.1.1 Input Sellers ......................................................................................................................... 17 Availability of inputs........................................................................................................................ 17 Quality of inputs.............................................................................................................................. 18 3.1.2 Sweet Potato Producers ...................................................................................................... 18 Area under cultivation .................................................................................................................... 19 Variety used .................................................................................................................................... 19 Seasonality ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Input requirement........................................................................................................................... 20 Cultivation Technique ..................................................................................................................... 23 Tools and machineries used............................................................................................................ 25 3.1.3 Sweet Potato Traders .......................................................................................................... 25 3.1.4 Sweet Potato Retailers ........................................................................................................ 26 4|Page 3.1.5 Sweet Potato Processors ..................................................................................................... 27 3.1.6 Sweet Potato consumers ..................................................................................................... 27 3.2. The supporting function players ................................................................................................. 28 3.2.1 Information service providers ............................................................................................. 28 3.2.2 Financial service providers .................................................................................................. 28 3.2.3 Transport service providers ................................................................................................. 28 Availability and quality of services .................................................................................................. 28 3.3. The Sub-sector map .................................................................................................................... 30 3.3.1 Channels in the sweet potato value chain .......................................................................... 31 3.4. Profitability of sweet potato farmers ......................................................................................... 31 3.5. Cost of different sweet potato value chain actors...................................................................... 32 3.6. The Driving Factors ..................................................................................................................... 33 3.6.1 Consumer preference .......................................................................................................... 33 3.6.2 Prices at different levels & the determinant ....................................................................... 33 3.6.3 Quality preference at different levels.................................................................................. 33 3.7. Critical issues ............................................................................................................................... 33 3.7.1 Risks & challenges of dealing in sweet potato & allied products ........................................ 33 3.7.2 ESRB issues .......................................................................................................................... 33 CHAPTER 4: WOMEN INVOLVEMENT IN SWEET POTATO VALUE CHAIN ................................................... 34 4.1. Vine Multiplication ...................................................................................................................... 34 4.2. Vine Preparation for Plantation .................................................................................................. 34 4.3. Cleaning and Grading .................................................................................................................. 34 4.4. Sales ............................................................................................................................................ 34 CHAPTER 5: CONSTRAINTS IN SWEET POTATO VALUE CHAIN.................................................................... 35 CHAPTER 6: INTERVENTIONS FOR SWEET POTATO VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT ................................... 36 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 38 7.1. Potential direct & indirect beneficiaries ..................................................................................... 38 7.2. Increased income of the beneficiaries ........................................................................................ 38 7.3. Increased empowerment of the women .................................................................................... 38 7.4. Reduced vulnerability of the beneficiaries ................................................................................. 38 5|Page List of Tables Table 1: Sample area for sweet potato value chain study .......................................................................... 12 Table 2: Sampling frame for sweet potato value chain study .................................................................... 12 Table 3: Methods & tools used ................................................................................................................... 13 Table 4: Total cultivable land in the study area .......................................................................................... 19 Table 5: Variety wise Percentage (%) of cultivation in studied area .......................................................... 19 Table 6: Types & Costs of Inputs required by farmers for 100 decimal lands ............................................ 21 Ta le 7: E o o i s of s eet potato at far ers’ e d ................................................................................. 22 Table 8: Average production, cost and profit status .................................................................................. 22 Table 9: Price of sweet potato for 2011-2012 seasons at trader level ....................................................... 26 Table 10: Price of sweet potato for 2011-2012 seasons at retailer level ................................................... 27 Table 11: Choice of consumption in different form.................................................................................... 27 Table 12: Service availability & quality matrix ............................................................................................ 28 Table 13: Channels in the sweet potato value chain in the study areas .................................................... 31 Table 14: Average profit margin for sweet potato farmer in the study area (per acre) ............................ 32 Table 15: Monitory flow of sweet potato in different level ....................................................................... 32 List of Figures Figure 1: Annual production of sweet potato in Bangladesh from 2002 to 2012 ...................................... 15 6|Page Executive Summary The FoodSTART project is a IFAD funded project implemented in five Asian countries namely India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, China and Philippine. The overall goal of this project is to ensure food security through roots and tuber crops. The project has initiated in October 2012 and implemented by international Potato Center (CIP). In Bangladesh BRAC, in partnership with CIP jointly implementing the project. For Bangladesh site the pre selected root crops is Sweetpotato. The focus sites of FoodSTART project in Bangladesh are Jamalpur and Netrokona district which are situated in the northern part of Bangladesh. Compare to the other district of Bangladesh the selected districts produces higher amount of sweetpotato. In the year 2011-12 total land area covered by sweetpotato cultivation was 1043 ha and 709 ha respectively in Jamalpur and Netrokona district. The average yield of sweetpotato in these two district is 13 MT/ha. There are some Upazilas in each of two districts which are intensively sweetpotato growing area. Most of the farmers in focus districts have been cultivating Sweetpotato on commercial basis. On the other hand Jamalpur and Netrokona are most vulnerable districts in terms of poverty and malnutrition. Average family income and per capita food intake of these two districts is below the national average. Sweetpotato production can be a source to secure extra income and nutrition for the people of above mentioned districts as there are huge potential of Sweetpotato cultivation. Both the districts has adequate amount of “Char” land which is suitable for Sweetpotato cultivation. CIP is based in Lima, Peru, with regional offices and project activities in some 60 locations across SSA, Asia, and Latin America. CIP conducts research for development on potatoes, sweet potatoes, and Andean root and tuber crops to make them adaptable to different climates, regions, and users' needs. Through productivity gains and quality improvement, CIP strengthens food and nutrition security, increases incomes, improves gender equity and enhances sustainable development for low-income farming families. IFAD commissioned a value chain analysis study on sweet potato to BRAC in association with CIP to identify the root causes of constraints and opportunities on the chain s development of two different districts of Bangladesh and also assessing potential environmental and policy impacts on the value chain. Total 257 samples were surveyed instead of planned 238 from five unions of two sub-districts of Jamalpur and Netrokona districts. Through Secondary Research, Individual Interview, Key Informant interview, and Focus Group Discussion, data were collected from the mentioned sample. 7|Page The sample type included producers, traders, Government officials (Department of Agricultural Extension officers), input retailers (vine, seed, pesticide and micronutrient) and consumer. It was found that sweet potato value chain has enormous potential to become a very profitable value chain and benefit the producers if some facilitation can be provided. Available statistics show that a smallholder farmer can earn around BDT 36,000 from 1 acre production of sweet potato; whereas a large farmer can earn around BDT 50,000 from the same acreage production. The study portrays core value chain actors i.e. input sellers, sweet potato producers, sweet potato traders, sweet potato retailers, sweet potato processors, and the consumers. At the same time, service functions are active by some skill and capacity development organizations (NGOs), agro machine rental service providers, financial service providers (MFIs), and of course the labors. A number of constraints are found hindering the sector s growth. Farmers low knowledge regarding sweet potato cultivation (usage & dosage of fertilizer, micronutrient & pesticide, disease identification) results in low productivity and additional cost that leads to low income. They lack the knowledge regarding quality/improved vine that restricts them from getting higher yield leading to lower sales value. Lack of awareness & knowledge of farmers (both male & female) regarding loan procedure from FIs, NBFIs or MFIs force them switching to other crops; it results in putting off the practice of sweet potato cultivation in the surveyed regions. The study also indicates that sweet potato farmers do not get fair prices due to market syndication formed by market intermediaries – Faria ( Petty Traders are locally called Faria), Bapari ( Big traders are locally called Bapari) and Retailers. To overcome these constraints and grab the opportunities, several interventions can be designed and implemented. To improve the sweet potato value chain, improved cultivation technique through input supplying companies (vine, pesticides, micronutrients), entrepreneurship development from the producer groups through Entrepreneurship Development Training (the objective is to break the shackle of current marketing system specially to check the market intermediaries to ensure the fair price for other producer groups), and centralized market information system for improved vine production & preservation technique can be undertaken. In addition to these, to ensure timely and adequate supply of OFSP (Orange fleshed sweet potato) vines, a country wide or region specific market campaign to promote sweet potato and vegetables, can be established. Making forum to building trust and cooperation among the market actors, working with producer groups to develop rural processing enterprises, forming strong Producer Groups for better training and extension, collective action for attaining bargaining power etc are also recommended to develop sweet value chain for the target regions. After this study, it has been found that sweet potato value chain has very good potential to benefit the farmers of the area if only some constraints are addressed properly and some opportunities are grabbed in time. These interventions can address a good number of direct & indirect beneficiaries ensuring their increased income as well as ensure proper nutrition. 8|Page CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Chapter one discusses about the background, objectives, scope, sampling, methodology, tools, analysis procedure and limitations of the sweet potato value chain study, which has been commissioned to BRAC by CIP. 1.1. Background of the Study Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas Poir) is an important root crop in the world. It is commonly known as Misti Alu in Bangladesh. Because of its versatility and adaptability, sweet potato ranks as the world s seventh most important food crop after wheat, rice, maize, potato, barley, and cassava, as it constitute a substantial source of carbohydrate and carotene (CIP, 2000; FAO, 2002). According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) statistics, considering top 20 sweet potato producing country in 2011 production was 98 million tones of sweet potatoes majority of which came from China, with a production of 75 million tones. Nearly half of the sweet potato produced in Asia is used for animal feed, with the remainder primarily used for human consumption, either as fresh or processed products. The area and production under sweet potato was 30373 hectare and 297539 M. tons (per hectare production 9.8 tons) in Bangladesh during the year 20011-12 (BBS, 2008). Area and production of sweet potato decreased by about 20% and 14%, respectively between 2011 to 2002.Among various reasons, lack of good varieties, undiversified use, lack of vertical marketing, relatively long crop duration, decreasing selling price, post harvest losses, increasing irrigation facilities turned the growers to grow other crops (rice, wheat, potato etc.) instead of sweet potato are the main causes for the decreasing trend of sweet potato production in Bangladesh ( Jahan et al., 2007) The time of harvest of sweet potato differs with the varieties, which may extend from 120-180 days (Varma and Naskar, 1990). Plant characters and yield of sweet potato varied widely among the varieties (Yadav et al., 1996 and Anonymous, 1992). Keeping all this situations in mind, the present study was undertaken to map and understand the sweet potato value chain linkages mostly in southern part of Bangladesh between actors, processes and activities with the intent to identify the gaps and opportunities of strategic interventions to develop the value chains. CIP Bangladesh has been implementing a project entitled Improving Incomes, Nutrition and Health in Bangladesh through Potato, Sweet potato and Vegetables which promotes building a resilient community to anticipate and combat the risks associated with disaster and climate change adaptation through economic empowerment, securing sustainable livelihood for women and men and developing women economic leadership another task of this project is to ensure nutrition at the door of every household. 9|Page As part of the strengthening the sweet potato value chain in areas, CIP commissioned a value chain analysis study to BRAC to identify the root causes of constraints and opportunities on the chain s development in North East region of Bangladesh. 10 | P a g e 1.2. Objective of the Assessment The present value chain assessment is being carried out as thematic study in FoodSTART project which will identify existing opportunities, gaps, and recommending strategies where the project may intervene for developing value chain of sweetpotato. The specific objectives of this study are as follows:  To examine the scale and characteristics of sweetpotato cultivation and varietal introduction/innovation in focus sites;  To describe existing market chains and market actors for sweetpotato in the focus sites and also in town/city market;  To calculate profit margin for each of market actors and their contribution/role in sweetpotato value chains;  To identify problems, bottlenecks and opportunities in existing market chains and also find the gaps in production and circulation of improved sweetpotato varieties;  To identify potential innovations for piloting in sweetpotato value chains; 1.3. Scope of the Assessment The scope of this assignment is to analyze quantitatively and qualitatively the following factors within the targeted area beneficiaries and some other key value chain actors to explore the sweet potato value chain in different areas of Bangladesh Key value chain activities (process step mapping of the sweet potato value chain; availability of assets and tools for each production step and identify gaps; knowledge need and current availability for each step/actor in the value chain and identify gaps; relationship of key actors in the value chain),  Business development services (existing business development services/ service provision for small scale sweet potato producers; role of the private and public sectors support in the sweet potato value chain; current level capacity of producers, developing business cases),  Gender issues (gender analysis of the value chain while highlighting different positions of men and women across the chain and power relationship reflected in the production and marketing; gendered market mapping), and  Financial aspects (need for working capital at different level; cost and revenue drivers for farmers and processors; monetary flow in value chain). 1.4. Sampling of the Assessment Samples were selected following Quota Sampling method. Quota sampling is a nonprobability sampling technique where the researcher finds and interviews a prescribed number of people in each of several categories. the study team randomly selected some 11 | P a g e samples as input seller retailers (vine, pesticide and micronutrient), producer, traders, retailer Government officials (Department of Agricultural Extension officers, BARI),Below the samples covered under this survey, using different tools are shown in tabular format. Table 1: Sample area for sweet potato value chain study District Jamalpur Sub- District Shorishabari Netrokona Netrokona Sodor Union Kamrabad Bhatara Luxmigon Amtola Kilati Table 2: Sampling frame for sweet potato value chain study Criteria FGD Farmer Small (Bellow 50 decimal land) Farmer Mediam (Bellow 100 decimal land Farmer Large (Above 100 decimal land) Input Seller (Vine, Fertilizer, Pesticide etc) Sweet potato Retailer Sweet potato Trader Sweet potato Consumer Sweet potato Processor Key Informant Total Sample 1.5. Jamalpur 1 11 10 29 4 7 8 50 0 2 122 Netrokona 1 14 22 14 4 14 14 50 0 2 135 Total 2 25 32 43 8 21 22 100 0 4 257 Methods and Tools of the Assessment The methods to conduct this study are:  Secondary data collection o Publications o DAE data  Primary data collection o Individual Interview (II) o Key Informant Interview (KII) o Focus Group Discussion (FGD) 1.5.1 Individual Interview (II) Individual interviews were conducted with the input sellers, producers/farmers, trader, retailer and consumer. 12 | P a g e 1.5.2 Key Informant Interview (KII) Key Informants usually referred to those people who have in-depth knowledge about a particular sector. In all the surveyed unions, the Upazila Agricultural Officers (UAO), and scientists from BARI regional offices were interviewed as Key informant during the study. 1.5.3 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Sweet potato producers were interviewed in a group to get a greater picture of the sweet potato value chain of the area. The producer groups had both female and male sweet potato farmers who gave information about different aspects of the value chain. They gave an insight about the gender specific issues- benefits and problems they face during trade. Table 3: Methods & tools used Methods of the assessment Individual Interview (II) Key Informant Interview (KII) Focus Group Discussion (FGD) 1.6. Tools of the method Questionnaire Questionnaire Checklist Styles of the Tools Structured, open & close ended Structured, open & close ended open ended Data & information collection and analysis For secondary data analysis, production and consumption related (Demand &Supply) data of the selected crops have been collected from Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics , BBS and related government and non government sources. Using above-mentioned tools, quantitative and qualitative data were collected from 102 samples from the eight chosen unions from Rangpur, Gaibandha, Jamalpur and also from Dhaka. After collection, the data has been compiled based on their nature. The quantitative data has been compiled using Microsoft Excel (MS Excel). The qualitative data has been compiled to provide a complete view of the sweet potato farming situation in the northern of Bangladesh. To combine all the findings and facilitate the validation and cleaning process, review meetings were held at the field. All the research assistants shared their findings, figured out any specific issues to be raised in next discussions and interviews, and cleaned the data with supervision from the Supervisor of the team. 1.7. Limitation & Challenges of the Assessment This study had faced several challenges on the field major of which is the study conducted at the end of sweet potato season, so searching traders and retailers were difficult on that time. Another challenge was that farmers were unable to provide with accurate cost benefit analysis of sweet potato and its cultivation practice thereby leads to imprecision of the collected field data. 13 | P a g e CHAPTER 2: SWEET POTATO SECTOR OVER VIEW - NATIONAL CONTEXT 2.1. Supply scenario Sweet potato is one of the most valuable root crops of Bangladesh. It is grown throughout the country. Different varieties are grown for being used as direct consumption purpose. Some varieties of sweet potatoes are famous for orange flesh color. Bangladesh is the country enriched with different soil types suitable for agricultural production. Sweet potato is a much simpler crop to cultivate. It can survive on different soil types and in several climatic conditions but the best output of this crop is obtained when it is grown on deep, loamy, fertile soil with appropriate moisture content. Sweet potato has a short duration period of three to four months. In Bangladesh, sweet potatoes are cultivated from October. The vines are planted in April at nursery and for its multiplication for future production purpose. Harvesting of the crop takes place around March and sweet potatoes start reaching the major markets in March and April. Bangladesh produces different variety of sweet potatoes round the year but some of the varieties are produced more based on national demand and easy cultivation technique as well as vine availability. Its production level is almost 300,000 tonnes annually. It is cultivated more or less in all the districts of the country. The varieties of sweet potatoes produced by Bangladesh are BARI released Orange Flashed Sweetpotato (OFSP), Local (Red skin & white flashed), Local (White skin & white flashed) 14 | P a g e Figure 1: Annual production of sweet potato in Bangladesh from 2002 to 2012 Sources: FAOSTAT | © FAO Statistics Division 2011 From the graph, it can be seen that Bangladesh has been following a usual trend of producing sweet potato and the growth margin of production is almost steady condition whereas area of cultivation is almost constant. 2.2. Demand scenario Sweet potato demand has hit a high this year, whether the vegetable is canned, processed, or fresh-cut. While s eet potato de a d at Tha ksgi i g has ’t ha ged. Day y day there is i reasi g popularity of convinced items in Bangladesh. In jamalpur and netrakona, Most of the farmer said they have satisfied production but demand is higher. Country demand cannot measure till yet due to there is no secondary data regarding demand. But most of the production sold out during harvest. And trader seeks for more purchase which is the indication of demand. But there is no industry to purchase and most of the demand for traditional consumption. These upward shifts make it necessary to explore a high demand scenario that incorporates a more sustained increase in supply and demand for those Bram Bangla or city in Bangladesh. 2.3. Demand-supply gap It becomes tough to identify the real scenario of demand and supply gap from the study area. Whether there is no secondary data regarding the demand of Sweetpotato. Demand for sweetpotato will increase. There is now little or no foreign trade in sweetpotato from Jamalpur and Netrakona in fact from Bangladesh the supply is composed entirely of domestic production. Consequently, domestic production was considered to be supply, after deducting wastage and seed. In this study, the trend value of sweetpotato production was estimated by fitting an exponential function Using sweetpotato production data for the period 1960-1961 to 1981-1982. 15 | P a g e The Government must encourage diversification of the crop production program where potato and sweet potato can be conveniently incorporated. Different private companies are interested to produce starch from sweetpotato but they are in worried to insurance of supply of Sweetpotato in time with proper volume to operate a processing industry in a cost effective manner. 16 | P a g e CHAPTER 3: SWEET POTATO IN NORTH EAST AREAS OF BANGLADESH Chapter three describes the key findings of the study – the people, their functions, their interrelationships, demand & supply of products, services & money, cost –benefit analysis at different level, driving factors, critically important issu es, etc. This chapter, hence, is the most important one with a view to understand the dynamics of the sweet potato value chain in the study areas. 3.1. The core value chain actors The sweet potato value chain actors include input sellers, sweet potato producers, sweet potato traders, sweet potato retailers, sweet potato processors and the consumers. 3.1.1 Input Sellers Input sellers are those who sell sweet potato vine, fertilizer, pesticide, micronutrient and pesticide spray machine to sweet potato farmers. Most of the farmers keep and multiply vine at homestead and cultivate at their own land. On many occasions, they are found purchasing vine from neighbor farmers for production purpose. About 46 percent farmers are practicing collection of sweet potato vine from other farmers. The study found no commercial nursery for vine multiplication. Moreover, there was only one input seller in the study area who used to sell pesticide, fertilizer etc. But not the sweetpotato vine. The transaction between input sellers and sweet potato producers are in cash and rarely on credit. Sometimes they provide different services like instruction of the proper usage of pesticide, dissemination of improved seeds, proper fertilizer usage technique and so on. Availability of inputs Vine: Most of the farmers of the studied area multiply vine by themselves at their homestead. Farmers keep vine from previous year also collect from other farmers Most of them use local variety for vine multiplication purpose on that study area. First time the multiply at 17 | P a g e their homestead then they use more land for multiply in large scale. To all the area no nursery were found for vine. Farmers are also unaware about the hybrid variety. Fertilizer, micronutrient & pesticide: The farmers also buy fertilizer, pesticides (for sweet potato weevil, rootworms, wireworms, white grubs, whitefringed beetles etc.) and micronutrient from the input dealers or retailers, shop located almost 2 to 3 kilometer from village. Micronutrients and pesticides are always available. But most of them don t use the inputs in proper dose and they use very small amount. For that reason the production fall down Labor: Landless and other poor household of the locality are usually available for the sweet potato producers. However, the labors are not in plenty. Therefore, during the peak season of weeding and harvesting farmers face shortage of labor (average daily rate for a casual labor is BDT300.00. Somewhere during harvesting time neighbor farmer give plough the land to collect the leaves for cattle feeding purpose and in this way labor cost come down on that time. Capital: Capital is the scarcest input of all. However, farmers somehow manage it though at a higher price from MFIs, or Local money lenders. Land: Farmer were categorized and interviewed according to land size. Some of them try to get lease of other farmers lands who have a lot of land and fail to maintain by own management. Quality of inputs Most of the farmer use local sweet potato vine which are preserved by themselves and it does not result in very high yield. The fertilizer that they use is always of open sack and it is of low quality. They also say that the pesticide does not work well and it is of very low quality. That is why, their production is low. It is mentionable that they have less idea about the doses and application of pesticide and their cropping pattern is going same for a longtime. 3.1.2 Sweet Potato Producers The sweet potato producers are defined as the commercial cultivators of sweet potato who later consume a little portion of it and sell the rest. They buy different inputs from input sellers both for cash and on credit. Sweet potato is readily sold to the market (to small traders, large traders, and or trader groups) after three to four month of cultivation. In the studied areas, farmers are cultivating sweet potato for more than last 13 years on average. Majority of farmers used on average of 0.41 acre for farming sweet potato in all studied 18 | P a g e areas whether they have average 128 decimal land for their own cultivation purpose. Farmers said that they grow sweet potato mainly for commercial purpose. They sale to trader almost 84% of their production whereas 10 % use for home consumption and 6% use for livestock, production area is decreasing, about 3 percent production area decreased in 2012 than 2011 , although the fresh root price has been increasing over last two years. They said that core problems include high production but poor marketing linkages, and a lack of vertical marketing, a very small market size only in the immediate locality and less diversified use of the sweet potato. Although the production area is decreasing, farmers mostly stated that sweet potato requires few inputs and returns are comparatively high. As a result, some new farmers are showing interest in cultivating sweet potato. However the new farmers are uncertain about poor market linkages, limited varieties and small market size. Area under cultivation The table shows the total cultivable lands from each area: Table 4: Total cultivable land in the study area District Total Cultivatable Land (acre) Jamalpur 3381 Netrokona 4308 Source: Department of Agriculture Extension (DAE) Variety used Farmers in the studied areas, almost 67 % farmers use local variety (white skin & white flashed) for cultivation purpose because of higher market demand as well as vine availability. From the survey, it is also revealed that only one percent farmers choose BARI released Orange Flashed Sweet Potato (OFSP) for cultivation. Table 5: Variety wise Percentage (%) of cultivation in studied area Variety BARI released Orange Flashed Sweet potato (OFSP) Local (Red skin & white fleshed) Local (White skin & white fleshed) Unknown Mixed Percentage (%) of cultivation 1% 4% 67 % 18 % 10 % About 46 percent sweet potato farmers cultivate vine collecting from different sources ( other farmers). At the same time, 38 percent cultivate from own sourced vine where they use to multiply vine at their homestead. The rest 16 percent farmers are used to cultivate vine from collection and self preserved sweet potato vine. 19 | P a g e Seasonality The timings of sweet potato cultivation of the study areas are almost same. Most of the farmer cultivate sweet potato in the month of November but in few area of Jamalpur remain under water where they tend to cultivate in the last of November or first of December. Harvest time mostly depend on planting time. Though the area remain under water for a long time, for that plantation and harvest time delayed and that is mostly based on local cropping pattern. Input requirement Farmers require mainly following type of input for sweet potato production. Following input are considered as an average basis considering the study area. Considering 100 decimal (01 acre) of land the input and its cost are given to show the actual cost and input management of that area. 20 | P a g e Table 6: Types & Costs of Inputs required by farmers for 01 Acre land (Traditional Practice) Item Cost of Vines Land Preparation (cost of Animal power + Power tiller) Irrigation Fertilizer Urea TSP MoP Gypsum Zinc Manure Insecticides/pesticides Labor (Man-days) (this is mostly done by own labor) Land preparation (Timing of Ails,spading,Corner breakings of clods) (No of Labor) Vine planting, fertilizer applying and Weeding (No of Labor) Harvesting, Washing and drying Other costs Total Cost Quantity Price/u Total cost pcs/kg nit (Tk) 16590 0.5 8295 10 360 3600 2.41403508 8 285 688 0 98.5263157 9 19 1872 66 26 1716 16 37.125 594 10 98.2 982 100 0 0 110 12 1320 482 0 10.4958333 240 2519 3 31.3507462 268 8402 7 23.4913043 5 230 5403 105 35,978 21 | P a g e Table 7: Eco o ics of sweet potato at far ers’ end 2012-2013 Production Cost (BDT)/Kg 4 Up to 7 Selling price (BDT)/Kg 7 Up to 8.5 Table 8: Average production, cost and profit status Total cost of production BDT/01 Acre Land Yield (kg) Sales Price BDT/kg Total value BDT Profit/Loss BDT 35,978 9,425 7 65,775 29,797 22 | P a g e Cultivation Technique Land preparation Most of the farmers use power tiller for land preparation. The study found very little use of bull/cow for tilling the land. Later, they use bull/cow and ladder to break down the soil lumps into powder form so that vine can easily be planted there. Land preparation starts from mid September and continues about three months because (1) some land stay under flood water, and (2) cropping pattern. Fertilizer application The farmers start with using organic fertilizer and manure. They also use chemical fertilizers as Urea, TSP, and MP. Application of fertilizers mainly depends on the knowledge level and affordability of the farmers. They tend to apply as much as they can afford because they believe that the more fertilizer, the more production. It is mention worthy here that farmers in the study area do not know appropriate dosage of fertilizers. Irrigation Irrigation is vital for sweet potato production purpose. In some of the studied area, farmers suffer from high crisis of irrigation facilities. Thus, a land needs to be irrigated 3 times throughout the cultivation phase. Irrigation requires more if the land is sandier. Most of the times, irrigation gets delayed because of shortage of shallow machine, as a result, production gets low. Thinning When the seeds are broadcast on the surface, there is no pattern. Therefore, the land becomes full of saplings. Weeding Weeding is another crucial, costly and labor intensive task. After one month of broadcasting, weeding is required. Most of the respondent said that weeding necessary in every month to get good yield. Harvesting Harvesting pattern varies with geographical locations as the cultivation time differ in different region due to cropping pattern and flood water. A typical farmer can produce on an average 9.5 ton on average of sweet potato in 1 acre of land per harvesting season. Cleaning, Grading and Drying: The farmers follow cleaning, grading and drying of sweet potato. From the interviewed sample 36% farmer cleaner sweet potato during sales. Farmer also grade sweet potato according to size. 90% farmers do grading at field after harvest. They graded the potato considering small, medium and large size. Grading almost done by the farmer at field level. Exactly no standard parameter is used for grading purpose, farmer do it as traditional 23 | P a g e practice by eye measurement. Only 7% of studied sample do drying of sweet potato after harvest to remove extra moisture. Drying method is traditional and they follow sun drying. Marketing: Harvested sweetpotato almost sold out from field. Buyer from local and regional market directly come to field and purchase the product by negotiating price based on local market price. 24 | P a g e Storage Only 09 percent farmers stated that they store at home for 1-3 months. They usually spread the potatoes over the floor made of mud. Core problem of this storing is insect and fungus attack. Post harvest loss at this storage is very minimal (less than 3% within 3 months period of time). Farmers and traders stated that they don t usually store as they don t trade sweet potato in the off season. Farmers don t know any such technology to store sweet potato in a cheap and healthy way without any post harvest loss. However survey revealed that about 90 percent farmers and 45 percent traders are interested to store potato in a cheap and healthy way without any post harvest loss. No local technology but they require it as they can store it in the offseason because in the off season no sweet potato has been traded. Tools and machineries used All the farmers of the area use traditional cultivation technique. They only use power tiller for land ploughing, shallow machine for irrigation, and spray machine for pesticide spraying as modern technology. They use bull or cow for land ploughing and land leveling 3.1.3 Sweet Potato Traders There are no specialized local traders for sweet potato trading. These traders basically sell seasonal vegetables and other seasonal horticulture crops. During sweetpotato harvesting season the crop is mostly important for trader and they come from different location to purchase. They sell sweet potato along with other vegetables. In potato trading we have found different tiers among the traders but in sweet potato trading big traders like Wholesaler (locally known as Arotdar) do not sell sweet potato as the sales volume is low. Therefore, sweet potato selling is restricted to some large traders. Some of them purchase in large volume and some of them purchase in small quantity. There is a variation in offering price to farmer which is based on variety of sweet potato. Such as Local (Red Skin & white flashed sold at BDT 9.55/kg, Local (White Skin & white flashed) sold at BDT 7.33/kg and OFSP variety sold at BDT 7.78/kg. Actually variety wise price also depend on local consumer demand. Trader also don t have own storage facility. They collect sweet potato by using bicycle, rickshaw van, small pickup etc. They sell all those to large trader on every Haat day and sometime they sell to retailer. Sometime they do as retailing in door to door. The study found no involvement of female as sweet potato grading purpose. On average every trader purchase 145 ton of sweet potato per year for trading purpose where maximum purchase quantity is 1000 ton and minimum quantity is 4 tons in the studied area. They purchase directly from farmer by cash and some time they purchase by credit due to personal relation. Trading time remains only 3 month in a season mostly from February to April and they sell to big trader and retailer locally. 25 | P a g e 1 Table 9: Price of sweet potato for 2011-2012 seasons at trader level based on average grade medium size measured by comparing the three Variety Local (Red Skin & white flashed) Profit Margin (Percentage) Local (White Skin & white flashed) Profit Margin (Percentage) OFSP Variety Profit Margin (Percentage) Beginning of the season Purchase Selling Price price 10 17 percent 11 21 percent 11 21 percent 12 Pick of the season Purchas Sellin e Price g price 9 10 End of the season Purchas Sellin e Price g price 12 15 14 10 percent 7 8 20 percent 8 11 13 percent 8 11 27 percent 27 percent 9 11 18 percent 14 Average business period of the surveyed traders is 10 years where average net profit margin remains about 19 percent. Buying and selling volume in last year from April to June (Marketing Season) Up to 36 percent traders traded more than 250 ton to 1000 ton (average) Rest 14 percent traders traded 25 ton (maximum) on that cropping year. Basically sweet potato is not the staple food like potato in Bangladesh. Therefore the off season demand (from July to March next year) for sweet potato is not significant. No supply of sweet potato has been made to Dhaka directly from the study areas by the surveyed traders. But the trader have connection with Dhaka market regarding other crops. Mostly they sell to retailers and consumers locally. Among the trader maximum large trader found at Jessore where they averagely purchase & trade 374 ton. Whereas at Netrokona average trade volume is 14 ton per farmer per season, according to the sample covered. 3.1.4 Sweet Potato Retailers Sweet potato retailers are small enterprises who are mainly vegetable retailers. They buy in bulk amount (100-110 kg) from traders and almost all the quantity sell to consumer s daily basis. The retailers of the sweet potato producing areas buy from mainly large traders, sometime they directly buy from field of farmer. Some time farmer play a role of retailer in different hat day. 1 Price in BDT per KG 26 | P a g e 2 Table 10: Price of sweet potato for 2011-2012 seasons at retailer level Variety Local (Red Skin & white flashed) Profit Margin (Percentage) Local (White Skin & white flashed) Profit Margin (Percentage) OFSP Variety Profit Margin (Percentage) Beginning of the season Purchase Selling Price price 15 20 25 percent 11 14 21 percent 12 14 14 percent Peak of the season Purchase Selling Price price 10 13 23 percent 8 10 20 percent 10 13 23 percent End of the season Purchase Selling Price price 15 18 17 percent 9 11 18 percent 8 10 20 percent Most of the retailer sell sweet potato on cash to consumer. Price has been found increasing for last two year, 11% and 18 % respectively in 2011-12 and 2012-13. 3.1.5 Sweet Potato Processors Sweet potato processing industries are still not available in Bangladesh. Some organizations and INGOs are trying to made different food meals for alternate use of sweet potato. 3.1.6 Sweet Potato consumers Basically consumer purchase Local (Red Skin & white flashed) variety because of traditional practice and they don t aware of nutritional value. Daily intake (on an average) from April to June per person was found 299 gm at Jamalpur and 166 gm at Netrokona. Usually they buy sweet potato from local market. All the respondents at Netrokona and Jamalpur mentioned that their family members like to eat sweet potato both. 85 percent of the consumers of Netrokona and 76 percent from Jamalpur know about the nutritional values of sweet potato. 100 percent consumer knows that sweet potato leaves can be eaten as leafy vegetable and they love to eat sweet potato leaves. The leaves are collected (small scale) from farmer's own land for home consumption. In the last year, sweet potato price was BDT 18 on an average. Table 11: Choice of consumption in different form Form of consumption Fresh + baked+ boiled Burned + boiled boiled Burned Boiled + curry 2 Netrokona percentage 14 26 54 6 0 Jamalpur percentage 0 8 60 0 16 Price in BDT per KG 27 | P a g e 3.2. The supporting function players The supporting function players for the sweet potato value chain are those who are not directly related to the sweet potato value chain but provide different supports to the value chain actors. The support functions include different services, research & development, infrastructure, and information. 3.2.1 Information service providers The sweet potato farmers cultivate following what had been done for ages. They do not know the proper dose of pesticide usage, proper timing of spraying pesticide, necessity of micronutrient etc that ultimately leads to less than maximum yield. In order to provide information to the farmer, Government of Bangladesh had established DAE (Department of Agricultural Extension) who communicate with the farmers about cultivation process, pesticide use, seed use, sale of improved quality seed etc. DAE officials like SAAO (Sub Assistant Agricultural Officers) carry on such tasks but they are very limited in number compared to the farmers in need of guidance. Sometimes, input sellers while selling fertilizer, pesticide and seed are informing farmers but still these input sellers do not have that much capacity to provide services demanded by the farmers. 3.2.2 Financial service providers Different financial service providers are active at field level for financial service. But the sweet potato farmers are not receiving sufficient service regarding finance related issue. Farmers are seen borrowing money from neighbours at the time of cultivation. Farmer refund the loan with a minimum interest rate to their neighbour. Microfinance they borrow but for other purpose. 3.2.3 Transport service providers Core findings from the focus group discussions and surveys regarding the transportation have been described as more than 90 percent studied villages are connected by pacca road. Average distance between studied village and nearest market is around 1 to 3 km. Maximum farmer sell the product form field and for retailing purpose they carry those to local market by bicycle. Some time they use van for carrying purpose. Availability and quality of services The services farmers seek and receive are not always readily available and not of standard or expected quality and quantity. Table 12: Service availability & quality matrix Type of services Information on cultivation Service provider Other farmer Input retailer Availability of service Readily available Available Quality of service Moderate Low 28 | P a g e Training on cultivation Finance Transportation Telecommunication Agro-machinery Labor Nursery SAAO NGO MFI Van, bicycle, Nosimon Telecom operators Machine owners Local people (poor) Not available Not available Available Available Available Available available Available Low Low High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High 29 | P a g e 3.3. The Sub-sector map The value chain map is a graphical presentation of the value chain actors and other players. Here the regulators, standard setters, law or policy makers, informal rules & norms setters are shown at the top portion. In the middle are the value chain actors – from left to right, At the bottom are the support function players. FUNCTION Input Supply Production /Farming Sweet Potato Trading Consumer Money Flow Value Chain Actor Input Suppliers % -Vine -Fertilizer -Pesticide -Micronutrients Product Flow ENABLERS Tuber Crop Research Institute (TCRC) Producer/Far mer -Sweet Potato -Vine -Fertilizer -Pesticide 10% Small Trader BDT 4 90% Local Retailer BDT 5 100 % 10% BDT 4 Large Trader 10% Outside Retailer BDT 5 Consumer - Local -National BDT 5 - Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) Local and International NGOs 30 | P a g e 3.3.1 Channels in the sweet potato value chain The study had found very few channels for sweet potato; they are mentioned below both in written and graphical form. It is mention worthy here that consumers are not part of any channel of value chain since they do not add any value. However, they have been shown here only for the sake of clarifying the flow of final product to the ultimate hand. Channel 1: Input Suppliers – Farmers - Traders – Retailers (Local) - Consumers Channel 2: Input Suppliers – Farmers - Traders – Large Trader – Retailers (Outside) Consumers(National) Channel 3: Input Suppliers – Farmers - Retailers (Local) - Consumers Channel 4: Farmers - Retailers (Local) - Consumers Table 13: Channels in the sweet potato value chain in the study areas Channel Input Large Retailer Retailer Consumers Consumers Farmers Traders Numbers Supplier Traders (Local) (outside) (Local) (National) 1 2 3 4 3.4. percentage 40 10 40 10 Profitability of sweet potato farmers Profitability of sweet potato farmers is different from one area to another. However, the deviation in the profit figure is not much. At Jamalpur region, average profitability of large farmers is higher than that of small and medium farmers. The main reasons for that are production cost per acre comes lower than that of small and medium farmer and it indicate that small and medium farmer involve much cost than that of large farmer where as production and sales price is almost same. In case of Netrokona average profitability of large farmers is higher than that of small and medium one. Where production cost of medium farmer lower than that of others but production of large farmer is higher than that of others. Another important issue is that for small farmer it shows loss for them because from survived area it found that most of the field affected by weevil and vine quality was not satisfactory for production. 31 | P a g e Table 14: Average profit margin for sweet potato farmer in the study area (per acre) Small Medium Large 45179 37036 27962 10391 11072 10090 Average Total Sales Sales Price BDT BDT /Kg 8 80950 8 84702 8 78113 Small Netrokona Medium Large 49403 25953 30989 6311 7300 10017 6 7 6 Area Jamalpur 3.5. Farmer category Cost of Production BDT Production (Kg) 40910 48263 63737 Profit/Loss BDT Profitability 35771 47666 50151 79% 129% 179% -8493 22310 32748 -17% 86% 106% Cost of different sweet potato value chain actors Below the cost of farmers, traders, and retailers are shown in tabular format to show the monetary flow in the sweet potato value chain. Main value chain consists of these actors. These calculations are shown in terms of 1 ton (1000 kg) sweet potato production and distribution in a year. Table 15: Monitory flow of sweet potato in different level Sweet potato Actors Amount of Price of Cost of Other Total Cost Amount Price of Total Income Inputs Inputs Purchased cost of of of Outputs Sales (per Purchased Purchased Amount operation Operation Outputs Sold Ton) (ton) (per unit) BDT BDT Sold (per BDT (ton) unit) Farmers 3000 1 7000 7000 4000 Traders 1 7000 7000 0 7000 1 12000 12000 5000 Retailers 1 12000 12000 0 12000 1 17000 17000 5000 Note: The wastage (during caring and transport) in the different level is negligible. *The farmer, large trader and retailer deal with a large amount of product at a time. Thus this profit only indicates a portion of the profit they earn for 1 ton of sweet potato, not for one transaction. 32 | P a g e 3.6. The Driving Factors Some factors drive the value chain actors in doing their functions. The driving factors shape up the behavior of the actors, determine which product to produce, what price to charge, etc. 3.6.1 Consumer preference Consumer preferences are defined as the subjective (individual) tastes and satisfaction. There is high a demand for sweet potato during season in different consumer level. Study findings are that they did not have any choice regarding varietal factor considering nutritional status. Traditionally the purchase Local (Red Skin & white flashed) . 3.6.2 Prices at different levels & the determinant Through individual farmers survey it was found that they face a little bit fluctuation of sweet potato price over the time. Due to very few number of sweet potato traders farmer receive a steady price around the season. Due to absence of processing industries and processors, price is not increase. 3.6.3 Quality preference at different levels Farmers: They prefer high quality seeds (if bought from others), pure fertilizers & micronutrients, effective pesticides, and low interest credit. Traders: Large sweet potato, they prefer unbroken, not-pest-infected (weevil) sweet potato. Processors: Large sweet potato, they prefer unbroken, not-pest-infected (weevil) sweet potato. 3.7. Critical issues 3.7.1 Risks & challenges of dealing in sweet potato & allied products Most of the farmer suffer for quality vine on due time. After plantation plant also attack by pest where it become loss. Major issue is that sweet potato storage facilities is not available and they stored by following traditional. If it can store, that might have chance to expand the land area for cultivation. 3.7.2 ESRB issues Sweet potato production is environment friendly. Usually, it does not deteriorate soil fertility but uncontrolled use of pesticides sometimes hampers the flora and fauna. Although there are few farmers who are aware about pesticide use but most of them are not, found from the study. 33 | P a g e CHAPTER 4: WOMEN INVOLVEMENT IN SWEET POTATO VALUE CHAIN This chapter analyzes the scenario of women involvement in the sweet potato value chain and its different dynamics. From group discussion the following work with percent of involvement are found for different task during sweetpotato production to sales. 4.1. Vine Multiplication 90 percent women are involved for vine multiplication purpose at their homestead in the study area. At initial level when vine are multiplied, they use to do intercultural operation for better management of that vine. Sometime the sell the vine 4.2. Vine Preparation for Plantation 90 % women are also involved for vine preparation for field cultivation. They process the vine in better way for cultivation purpose. 4.3. Cleaning and Grading 80 % women play a vital role for cleaning and grading of sweet potato after harvesting. They do grading according to size, quality, color etc. to get premium price. Cleaning and grading according to size measured by eye vision is very much important for sales purpose. 4.4. Sales In some studied area it is found that women play a vital role for sales of sweet potato in the absence of their husbands. They negotiate with the buyers also handle money. 10 percent women are involved regarding sales. Maximum women handed over the money to their husband. 34 | P a g e CHAPTER 5: CONSTRAINTS IN SWEET POTATO VALUE CHAIN After the series of focus group discussion and interview with market chain actors it has been revealed that there are numbers of constraints have been existed both at upstream and downstream level of sweet potato value chain. Most of the farmers perceive that sweet potato cultivation gives them some additional income along with major crops. In addition it also gives some food source. From the survey it has also been revealed that majority of the farmers are not aware about the food value of sweet potato specially the food values of OFSP varieties. At the grower level roughly 14 percent farmers know about the improved varieties (OFSP) of sweet potato. Though 80 percent farmers use fertilizer specially Urea, TSP and MoP but they use it in small proportionate than the recommended due to their poor economical condition and mostly for careless farming. More than 90 percent farmers do not know about recommended crop management techniques to get optimum production from the field. Getting quality vines is also a big problem for the farmers. The upshot of this activity is highly unstructured market management in the forward part of the value chain. Entire production has been consumed locally (found in the studied areas). Due to unstructured market management it has not been reckoned as lucrative product for investment. In short, following are the identified constraints areas: o The first constraint is farmers lack of knowledge regarding appropriate usage of inputs. o Lack of knowledge regarding improved variety. o Local quality of planting materials(vines) results low yield than the improved varieties specially high nutrition value added orange fleshed sweet potato( OFSP), o Lack of Storage facilities at different level of actor. o Lack of Supply demand synchronization o Limited availability and demand created for value added products from sweet potato and a lack of knowledge of diversified products o Lack of awareness of the nutritional value and the potential of sweet potato as a processed food having large variety of industrial uses. o Unavailability of processing industries. 35 | P a g e CHAPTER 6: INTERVENTIONS FOR SWEET POTATO VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT This chapter discusses about some potential interventions to set the constraints aside and grab the opportunities that lie in the market system. Intervention 1: Increasing capacity of sweet potato farmer for proper input management practice during production Most of the sweet potato farmer followed traditional practice for their cultivation purpose, where the production were not satisfactory and overdose and misuse of input occur. Improved crop management practice (on the right use of agro inputs, post harvest techniques) needs to be introduced for better production and minimize loss of production cost. Intervention 2: Introduce and explore improved and processed variety Farmers are unaware about improved varieties that are released by different research institute. That contains a high nutritional value. Some of the variety can process to made different food item. It needs to aware to farmer regarding that type of variety. Intervention 3: Introduce and explore storage facilities by proper Research and Development. Farmer and other stake holders suffer mostly for storing of sweet potato. To ensure yearlong supply of sweet potato it need to introduce better storage facilities. Proper research required regarding storage otherwise farmer will de-motivate and will not expand production acreage. Intervention 4: Increasing capacity of farmers regarding improved vine production on individual and collective approach Farmers suffer a lot for vine during cultivation time. Some of them arrange by themselves and some arrange from distance place from different farmers field. Individual and collective nursery approach can ensure a timely supply of required vine. Intervention 5: Formation of Producer group and entrepreneurship development from the producer group Collective action by farmers can be easily promoted as a means of reducing transactions costs in assembly for getting to a cost-effective volume (namely a lorry load), and of attaining bargaining power in market transactions and to build entrepreneur among the farmers to ensure the fair price for other producer groups and eventually farmers. Credit support will be provided. 36 | P a g e Entrepreneurship development training for the literate cooperative members in fund utilization and management, net cash income, net profit, risk analysis, and market management knowledge and skills should be provided. Intervention 6: Increasing awareness and popularize the consumption of the sweet potato and processed food Campaign can be done for popularization of sweet potato at different consumers level by making different type food item. Producer group and different stake holders can be involve to made different homemade food item and to ensure sales through the enterprise. Training regarding processing of sweet potato can be ensuring of regular supply of that food. Intervention 7: Ensuring market linkage for processed sweet potato Market linkage with processed food producer will ensure the regular supply of sales of sweet potato. Intervention 8: Creating linkage with processing group to ensure bulk sales Contract farming can be promoted and ensure a linkage creation among the producer group with processing industries to ensure them the regular supply on sweet potato on time. These interventions have been prioritized in terms of outreach, impact, profitability, and women involvement: Interventions Increasing capacity of sweet potato farmer for proper input management practice during production Increasing awareness and popularize the consumption of the sweet potato and processed food Increasing capacity of farmers regarding improved vine production on individual and collective approach Introduce and explore improved and processed variety Introduce and explore storage facilities by proper Research and Development. Formation of Producer group and entrepreneurship development from the producer group Creating linkage with processing group to ensure bulk sales Ensuring market linkage for processed sweet potato Outrea ch Impact Profitabili ty Women involvem ent Total Score Rank 3 3 3 3 12 1 3 3 3 3 12 1 1 3 3 3 10 2 1 3 3 3 10 2 1 3 3 2 9 3 3 3 3 0 9 3 3 3 3 0 9 3 1 3 3 0 7 4 37 | P a g e CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION Sweet potato is a profitable crop which can bring significant change in the life of the farmer. This value chain has the potential to reach many beneficiaries, can increase income, empower women and contribute to reduce vulnerability of the women associated with the value chain as well as to ensure nutrition at consumer level. 7.1. Potential direct & indirect beneficiaries After these interventions, sweet potato farmers would be skilled and aware about modern cultivation technique. They will also ensure about quality input on time as well as storage facilities. Farmer will also receive premium price if market demand create. 7.2. Increased income of the beneficiaries Through applying the modern technique, the production level would be increased in same size of land and the cultivation cost will be reduced consequently the earnings would be increased of direct beneficiaries. Forming producer group and enterprise for efficient sweet potato marketing system will help farmers enhancing their bargaining power and enable them to fetch better prices for their produces. Therefore both direct and indirect beneficiary will get fair price consequently higher revenue and higher income will be added in their pocket. 7.3. Increased empowerment of the women Women can engage at nursery formation, management, post harvest management, homemade food production etc which will ensure and increase empowerment. 7.4. Reduced vulnerability of the beneficiaries Income and vulnerability are inversely related; hence, when farmer income is increased their vulnerability (both environmental and social context) would be decreased. They will have ability to get better treatment, environmental adaptation and mitigation and so on. 38 | P a g e