Download RTEP_Processing_en

Regional Cassava Processing and Marketing Initiative
AGRO-PROCESSING PERSPECTIVE OF THE NIGERIA ROOT AND TUBER
EXPANSION PROGRAMME (RTEP)
BY
FEDERAL AGRO PROCESSING AND MARKET EXPANSION GROUP (FAMEG)
NATIONAL CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION, ILORIN
FIRST REGIONAL MEETING OF IFAD ROOTS & TUBERS PROJECTS
14-16 November 2007
Hotel Somatel - Douala, Cameroon
Cassava processing and marketing

Introduction
The Root and Tuber Expansion Programme (RTEP) was
designed to address the major pit-falls of the Cassava
Multiplication Programme (CMP):
• Post-harvest losses
• Inappropriate processing technologies
• Lack of product utilization
• Marketing opportunities
Cassava processing and marketing

Introduction
The major objective of Processing component was to
widen market options by :
– Developing new derivatives for consumption
and industrial uses;
– Upgrading traditional products.
Cassava processing and marketing

FAMEG/SAMEG – RTEP implementing partners
Major implementing RTEP partners in the area of
processing:
 Federal Agro-Processing and Market Expansion
Group (FAMEG)
 State Agro-Processing
Groups (SAMEGs)
and
Market
Expansion
– Day to day leadership in activities implemented at the state level
– Assistance to processing groups:
• to link-up with industrial end users;
• to promote marketing activities.
Cassava processing and marketing

1st TRI-TERM (ENDED 2003): PROJECT ACTIVITIES &
ACHIEVEMENTS
• Inventory of: processors, marketers, fabricators, end-users,
private and public sector financial institutions;
• Training of processing groups, processors and WIA on:
– Improved technologies and processes;
– Product diversification and utilization;
– Group dynamics;
• Capacity-building of equipment makers through:
– Training in construction of relevant prototype machines;
– Equipment demonstrations.
Cassava processing and marketing

1st TRI-TERM (ENDED 2003):
PROJECT ACTIVITIES & ACHIEVEMENTS
• Training of SAMEGs/ groups on:
– feasibility report preparation;
– group dynamics.
• Chain integration: Development of links between:
– Processors and equipment makers;
– Processors and end-users.
Results:
• Significant increase in processing activities at states level;
• Significant increase in the income of RTEP beneficiaries.
Cassava processing and marketing

1st TRI-TERM (ENDED 2003): CONSTRAINTS
• Processing and marketing were the weakest elements in project’s
implementation;
• Access to Processing equipment:
 Poor quality and high cost of available equipments;
 Poor access to credit for purchasing equipments;
 Demonstrations not focused on economic profitability.
• Processing activities: high costs for energy and labour lead to
•
•
•
uncompetitive cost and quality of final products and low financial returns;
Lack of industrial end users
SAMEG’s strategy difficult to understand;
Disposal of wastages and effluents still a major problem .
Cassava processing and marketing

Lessons learnt from the 1st Tri-term
 The major lesson learnt:
Upstream sector was not sufficiently developed, which led to
serious gluts, income losses and disincentive to sustained
production.
 Consequences on the 2. Tri-term:
• A paradigm shift from upstream to downstream activities:
– Increased funds allocation on processing and marketing;
– More emphasis on private sector and agribusiness.
• Increase in linkages: processors and marketers with industrial end
users, financial institutions, equipment makers, etc.
• Increased institutional linkages with other projects:
– Rural Micro Finance Project, CBNRMP, USAID-funded PRISMS,
SPFS, NFDP II etc.
Cassava processing and marketing

2nd Tri-Term: Priority Areas of Work for RTEP
• Organization of groups of growers, processors, marketers,
service providers, equipment makers and end-users to facilitate
linkages and access to finance/capital, technology,
extension and inputs.
• Organization of clusters of commercial processing groups and
establishment of linkages to flash-drying enterprises.
• Higher focus on equipment:
– Development and/or importation of prototypes of peeling,
washing, drying machines, etc;
– Identification of technologies and processes for yam, cocoyam
and potato.
• Increased attention on quality management systems.
Cassava processing and marketing

2ND TRI-TERM OBJECTIVES
• Increase of production and productivity to bridge the
competitiveness gaps
• Promotion of further product diversification
• Change from state to community-based approach;
• Adoption of group dynamics as the focus of extension activities;
• Incorporation of rural enterprise management (REM) into all
production and processing activities.
Cassava processing and marketing

Processing and marketing enterprises
Guiding principles
• Enterprise establishment will be community-based and demand
driven
• Enterprises owned by groups
• Selection criteria: track record of achieved results
• The group will:
• Play active role in enterprise development.
• Take direct control of the day-to-day running of their business.
• Receive technical and managerial assistance
• Promotion of product diversification: gari, chips, HQCF and
odorless fufu combinations)
• Limit the processing capacity per enterprise to 0.5 tonnes per day
Cassava processing and marketing

2ND TRI-TERM Activities Implemented & Results
• Training workshops on:
– Rural Enterprise Management (REM) and Community Driven
Development (CDD);
– Cassava quality standards;
– Market linkage and technology development (for National
stakeholders).
• Fabricators exhibitions of cassava processing equipment.
• Thematic studies of the SAMEGs
• Equipments:
– Cassava peeling machine: efficiency 85% to 95%, loss
below 10%, capacity of 800kg/hr, developed by NCAMassisted fabricator.
– Drying system: bridges the output between the small
capacity inefficient dryers and the high capacity flash dryers,
developed by NCAM.
Cassava processing and marketing

Challenges
•
Groups
– Financial constraints of groups unlikely to provide their 20%
share to the project’s funding;
– Skepticism towards group ownership: preference for individual
ownership of processing facilities.
•
The market of High Quality Cassava Flour (HQCF): The flour millers
are not interested to buy cassava flour and thus ignore the National
Policy on integrating cassava flour into bread flour.
Cassava processing and marketing

Expected Outputs
from the 2nd Tri-Term Implementation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Establishment of 575 processing centres.
Production of 86,250 metric tons of high quality roots and
tubers derivates requiring 345,000 metric tons of fresh roots
and tubers annually.
Empowerment of 17,250 processing families
Empowerment of 3,450 marketing families
Empowerment of 28,750 farming families
Training of:
–
–
–
–
–
–
17,250 group beneficiaries
6,000 farmers
5,000 youths
390 artisans
104 equipment makers
130 SAMEG members
Cassava processing and marketing

Cassava processing and marketing