Market study in Burkina Faso
What did we learn from our journey in Burkina Faso ?
On our journey of 13 days, we spoke with many professionals in Burkina Faso . Professionals, working in different projects, in order to try to improve the situation of the environment and living conditions of the poor.
Our trip to Burkina Faso (Monday 2nd till Saturday 14 th of April 2007) was to find out:
To have a better view on our impressions, we wrote all down in a diary.
Several items are already discussed elsewhere (follow the links):
The familiarity of the current aid-workers with the product TerraCottem in Burkina Faso .
In general, most people (aid-workers, NGO's, …) have heard about the solution of polymers to fight against desertification.
Several point back to a long time ago in the 80's and 90's, mostly from in part of Africa , and the only thing they remember is that was an expensive solution. Most local people, in or outside the different ministries or NGO's, had not heard about this kind of technology.
During various meetings we showed how the polymers work. We used a few grams - much too much for the water we used, but perfect for demonstration purposes - of pure polymers,. The people were surprised and enthusiastic, which directly opened several doors towards some more people, who were even more interested.
On several occasions, people were pointing us towards possible markets: vegetables, flowers and private gardens. Which is in some way proof that there is a potential in this market.
From this perspective, it was a bit strange that for reforestation, we were told that the cost should not be higher then 2 US$/1000m², which is about 10% of the cost of big reforestation projects, with a survival rate of 60%.
Only on 1 occasion (Sophie Pelletier, EEC) did we find somebody who knew a project (AZN – Guiè) which was using TerraCottem in Burkina Faso .
How strong were the barriers and how to overcome them?
We could summarize this in the following barriers:
See in detail: What are the barriers for the TerraCottem market in Burkina Faso?
• Price
• Availability
• Credibility
• Affordability
• Investment mentality
• Cultural reasons
• Competition
• Information and Marketing
Price:
Strongest barrier, and hard to overcome other than with an alternative whose price is much much lower. In this respect we point to the section about a potential low cost alternative .
Availability:
This item should be mainly resolved after installing a distributor. The problem of availability merges with this of a national internal transport problem. In other words, it remains a problem for the individual farmer, or very small farmer organisations without transport.
NGO's or individual farmers could play the role of the retailer, but we did not find a concrete solution for this.
Credibility:
Having a product in hand, coming from Europe , means that it has a very big credibility to the local. It is more the price which provokes extremely high result expectations. Simple price calculations can resolve this problem. For gardens and lawns, no one doubted the result, for vegetables, almost everybody did, because of the pricing problem.
Proof is necessary, everybody wants to see a test, if possible in their own backyard.
Affordability:
Even selling the buckets of 5kg of TerraCottem received some criticism as being too big a quantity. Only after arguing that 5kg is only good for a very small garden of 50 m², and that everybody would need at least this quantity. We decided, anyhow, to also start with the 750g bottles. But again, for the poor farmers who do not have a lot of cash, as everything they are growing is used by their family, this could be a problem.
Investment mentality:
Burkina Faso is a poor country. Burkina Faso counts about 15 000 NGO's, all trying to help in one way or the other the poor families, environment, etc. A lot of these NGO's are used to doing projects where they put in the energy in manpower, and all the rest, or most of it, is given by an organisation from abroad. We could experience ourselves this mentality, from individuals trying to do something for their village. We saw this in local NGO's to leading people in the ministries, explaining that they would do everything in their power to fight against poverty and desertification.
Making themselves the investment, even with the idea that it would be paid back over time, was not an option.
When the alternative is free money for alternative solutions, in the short term or long term, it will be hard to fight against this. It is possible, because most of these alternatives can exist beside others. Learning to save, invest and pay back should be one of the main tasks for those working with individual farmers.
Cultural reasons:
We did not find any cultural reasons why TerraCottem could not be used for vegetables or lawns.
For reforestation, the reason we could find is that it is very difficult to keep the catlle out of the forests, as nature is not considered as belonging to somebody.
Similarly, the use of water nearby the dams, which is also considered as free and unlimited, which in a country with limited water resources, does not really match reality.
Competition:
As mentioned before,t he biggest competion seen in Burkina Faso is not an alternative method, or better solutions, but mostly it is that a lot of people are used to get money or goods and not take the future into their own hands.
Information and marketing:
The biggest problem on this point is organising tests for horticulture, which are acceptable for everybody and at a reasonable price. These kind of tests are needed for several groups, all with their potential buyers behind them. As by bike and by foot are the main means to travel, a system should be set-up to have a number of local test zones, showing the results of the use of TerraCottem. A possible solution could be financing some farmers ourselves, with a payback through the surplus of the crop. But could we count on the honesty of the farmers ? If not, both investment AND show case could become negative.
What about the other criticisms aimed at TerraCottem?
In short:
TerraCottem attracks termites?
We did not find any proof that this was the case. We have been to several places where TerraCottem was used, and could not find any reason to believe that this rumour has an ounce of truth to it. We asked the users, which answered that they have not noticed more termites where TerraCottem was used compared to other places. Personally, we did not see any special termite activity nearby TerraCottem sites.
Why did the tests stop in Burkina Faso ?
We could not find another reason in Burkina Faso then a lack of structured money for reforestation with TerraCottem? In other places where this money was available (AZN, Pierre Kaboré) TerraCottem was still used. The reality that Loek Masthoff left Burkina Faso has certainly not helped the TerraCottem case, as the availability barrier rose very high.
Which other investments are necessary when applying TerraCottem?
fumure de base, conditions de drainage, ...
As far as we know, these investments are not necessary, although certainly not harmful to do. But even without TerraCottem, investments like this are useful to optimise the yield.
And also remember some of them which came from Patrick Van Damme (See Critics on TerraCottem)
There is no money for TerraCottem
Partly Prof. Van Damme has a point here. A lot of money is going to consumables, but I doubt that this is the case for the individual farmers. That there is no money available for buying this kind of product, is just a question of building in a finance system which makes this possible. Indeed, these families are using intensive cultivation techniques with organic fertilizers, but to say that this creates the optimal environment is too optimistic. TerraCottem, in these cases, should be used to widen this field and give better results.
There is no demand for such a product
Certainly not true. The few individual farmers or local NGO's we spoke to were very interested in the product. The biggest problem is the cost and the financial picture of the investment, which is negative in their minds.
TerraCottem would be too expensive, even subsidized
Wrong. Certainly there are solutions which could be implemented using less money and more manpower. But these solutions are only there for micro-solutions. Solutions like TerraCottem, when much cheaper, could bring quick solutions for big areas.
Is TerraCottem a product with only positive effects?
Difficult to answer for us, as we did not see or hear anything negative from the current users, who have been using the system for almost 15 years. We did not examen the area where we found one of the old sites. But this all does not prove there is no negative side to TerraCottem. TerraCottem NV is certainly not going to tell us, if they would be aware of one. On the other hand, this is an easy argument to throw on the table without any hard evidence. Does the rule: “Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise” count here too?