221
18.3.3 Shea Derived Incomes
Table 18.2 shows a breakdown of incomes derived from shea and firewood, as well
as proportions of the populations engaged in each activity. The project achieved a
statistically significant increase of income from sales of shea at the whole population level. The increased income was due to sales of shea butter, and not shea nuts
or fruits. Furthermore, the beneficiary population derived less income from sale of
fuelwood compared to the control. The total number of households using shea was
also higher in the beneficiary population (p < 0.1), the total number selling shea
butter was higher, and the total number selling fuelwood was lower.
When considering households of different poverty classes, those below the calorie line showed the most marked changes: average income from shea butter was
almost ten times higher among the beneficiary population, and more than twice the
proportion of households took part in shea butter selling. A similar pattern was
observed amongst the households below the poverty line, although effects were at
the p < 0.1 level, perhaps reflecting the greater variation in income sources among
households in that poverty class. An unexpected observation was that the beneficiary households above the poverty line showed less income and engagement with
shea than non-beneficiary households, although there were so few households in
that class that the finding cannot be considered robust.
18.4 What Factors Led to the Success of This Project?
The reasons for the beneficiaries’ higher incomes from shea are multiple. The survey data shows that the quantity of shea fruit gathered per household did not significantly differ between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries (mean 130 kg/year), but
the amount converted into shea butter did. Beneficiary households yielded on average 37 kg/year of shea butter compared to 13 kg/year for non-beneficiaries
(p < 0.01). The high difference in average shea butter production may be in part due
to the higher number of beneficiaries who produced shea butter compared to nonbeneficiaries, as well as more efficient production techniques, including access to
tools and machines that reduced the drudgery of the process. Also, the ability to
store shea nuts or butter may have reduced wastage. There was no significant evidence that beneficiaries sold more nuts or fruits compared to non-beneficiaries, nor
was there significant evidence that the project achieved higher sale prices for shea
butter for beneficiaries (median price 1.5 $/kg). It therefore appears that the project
created a greater “market pull” by facilitating easier and more efficient processing,
and by establishing sales groups.
The different usage of fuelwood may be an important clue as to the production of
shea butter. Non-beneficiaries collected the same amount of fuelwood as beneficiaries
but sold more of it as fuelwood. It may be, therefore, that beneficiaries burned the
fuelwood they gathered in their production of shea butter. This is strongly implied
18 Shea Butter: A Pro-Poor, Pro-Female Route to Increased Income
18.3.3 Shea Derived Incomes
Table 18.2 shows a breakdown of incomes derived from shea and firewood, as well
as proportions of the populations engaged in each activity. The project achieved a
statistically significant increase of income from sales of shea at the whole population level. The increased income was due to sales of shea butter, and not shea nuts
or fruits. Furthermore, the beneficiary population derived less income from sale of
fuelwood compared to the control. The total number of households using shea was
also higher in the beneficiary population (p < 0.1), the total number selling shea
butter was higher, and the total number selling fuelwood was lower.
When considering households of different poverty classes, those below the calorie line showed the most marked changes: average income from shea butter was
almost ten times higher among the beneficiary population, and more than twice the
proportion of households took part in shea butter selling. A similar pattern was
observed amongst the households below the poverty line, although effects were at
the p < 0.1 level, perhaps reflecting the greater variation in income sources among
households in that poverty class. An unexpected observation was that the beneficiary households above the poverty line showed less income and engagement with
shea than non-beneficiary households, although there were so few households in
that class that the finding cannot be considered robust.
18.4 What Factors Led to the Success of This Project?
The reasons for the beneficiaries’ higher incomes from shea are multiple. The survey data shows that the quantity of shea fruit gathered per household did not significantly differ between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries (mean 130 kg/year), but
the amount converted into shea butter did. Beneficiary households yielded on average 37 kg/year of shea butter compared to 13 kg/year for non-beneficiaries
(p < 0.01). The high difference in average shea butter production may be in part due
to the higher number of beneficiaries who produced shea butter compared to nonbeneficiaries, as well as more efficient production techniques, including access to
tools and machines that reduced the drudgery of the process. Also, the ability to
store shea nuts or butter may have reduced wastage. There was no significant evidence that beneficiaries sold more nuts or fruits compared to non-beneficiaries, nor
was there significant evidence that the project achieved higher sale prices for shea
butter for beneficiaries (median price 1.5 $/kg). It therefore appears that the project
created a greater “market pull” by facilitating easier and more efficient processing,
and by establishing sales groups.
The different usage of fuelwood may be an important clue as to the production of
shea butter. Non-beneficiaries collected the same amount of fuelwood as beneficiaries
but sold more of it as fuelwood. It may be, therefore, that beneficiaries burned the
fuelwood they gathered in their production of shea butter. This is strongly implied
18 Shea Butter: A Pro-Poor, Pro-Female Route to Increased Income