# Understanding the Ivorian market vegetables production: Is the agroecological transition the right strategy?

Moussa Dosso, Jacob Nandjui, Angel Avadí

► To cite this version:

Moussa Dosso, Jacob Nandjui, Angel Avadí. Understanding the Ivorian market vegetables production: Is the agroecological transition the right strategy?. Agricultural Systems, 2024, 218, pp.103971. 10.1016/j.agsy.2024.103971. hal-05078726

HAL Id: hal-05078726

https://hal.science/hal-05078726v1

Submitted on 22 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Understanding the Ivorian market vegetables production: Is the agroecological transition the right strategy?

Moussa Dosso<sup>a, b, *</sup>, Jacob Nandjui<sup>b</sup>, Angel Avadí<sup>a, c</sup>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## HIGHLIGHTS

* Surveys were carried out among vegetable producers in four cities and their influence areas.

* The value chain of vegetable production in Côte d'Ivoire is thoroughly described.

* Chemical-intensive systems perform well in the off-season.

* The agro-ecological transition in Côte d'Ivoire is recent and its performance unclear.

## GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

## ARTICLE INFO

Editor: Paul Crosson

**Keywords:**

Constraints

Economic performance of agroecology

Farm typologies

Functional analysis

Market vegetables

## ABSTRACT

**CONTEXT:** African agriculture, and especially market vegetables production, which is dominated by smallholder systems, generally faces many challenges. There is growing interest in agroecology as a means to move towards more sustainable food and farming systems. The West African region is considered by FAO to feature the conditions to become “a global frontrunner in agroecology”, and ongoing efforts in Côte d’Ivoire attempts to understand and promote agroecology in vegetable production.

**OBJECTIVE:** The objective of this study is to present a functional analysis of the Ivorian suburban market vegetables value chain, and discuss the suitability of and agroecological transition of the agricultural production link, towards more sustainable vegetables production in the country.

**METHODS:** A thorough functional analysis of the Ivorian market vegetables value chain was conducted, including the construction of typologies to identify the links between agroecological practices and overall technical and socio-economic efficiencies.

**RESULT AND CONCLUSION:** The available data (primary, secondary) allows but only a superficial understanding of the Ivorian market vegetables value chain. The analysis of economic returns as a function of their adoption of agroecological practices suggests that “formal” agroecological farms struggle economically, more so than the rest of producers. Observed relations between yields and certain agroecological practices practiced by most Ivorian

<footnote><sup>a</sup> CIRAD, UPR Recyclage et risque, Yamoussoukro, Côte d'Ivoire</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Laboratoire de Biotechnologie Végétale et Microbienne (LBVM), Ecole Supérieure d'Agronomie (ESA), Institut National Polytechnique Houphouët-Boigny (INP-HB), BP 1313 Yamoussoukro, Côte d'Ivoire</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Recyclage et risque, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author at: CIRAD, UPR Recyclage et risque, Yamoussoukro, Côte d'Ivoire.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: moussa.dosso@cirad.fr (M. Dosso).</footnote>
producers, in combination with the functional analysis of the value chain, suggest that an intensification of these practices, coupled with improvements of the enabling environment (necessary to palliate the inputs cost and product price variability, as well as improve and secure access to land), may overall contribute to improved yields and higher gross margins. More and more detailed studies are necessary to determine the agroecological practices and their level of adoption that would minimise negative environmental and maximise positive socio-economic impacts. In Côte d'Ivoire, agroecology must prove its worth, through action-research initiatives, in order to further develop in terms of breadth and depth of application.

**SIGNIFICANCE:** this article includes a national functional analysis of vegetable production systems. This is useful for understanding value chains and facilitating agroecological transition.

# 1. Introduction

## 1.1. The agroecological transition of vegetables production in Africa

African agriculture, and especially market vegetables production, which is dominated by smallholder systems, generally faces many challenges (Gollin, 2014; Levasseur et al., 2007; Schader et al., 2021). These challenges include yield gaps (Knapp and van der Heijden, 2018; van Ittersum et al., 2016), climate change pressure (IPES-Food, 2020a; Thompson et al., 2010), land and water access limitations (Byamugisha and Ansu, 2017; IPES-Food, 2020a), as well as access to, quality of, and environmentally sound use of agricultural inputs (Avadí et al., 2021; Chianu et al., 2012; Pretty et al., 2003; Sanabria et al., 2013; Yarou et al., 2017), among others. Indigenous crops, including vegetables, are often neglected in Africa (Chivenge et al., 2015; Okigbo and Ugwu, 2021). Market vegetables, unless they substantially contribute to national exports, are also neglected (COLEACP, 2020; Dubois et al., 2019), in the sense that they belong to an agricultural subsector lacking regulation and efficiency in contrast to key staple or cash crops.

There is growing interest in agroecology (or agroecological intensification, as opposed to conventional intensification (Wezel et al., 2015)) as a means to move towards more sustainable food and farming production (Debray et al., 2019; Mottet et al., 2020), as a strategy of "active" organic management (i.e. as opposite to "passive" organic management, which consists of avoiding the use of chemical inputs forbidden in organic agriculture (Schader et al., 2021)). Agroecological approaches explicitly aim to transform food and agricultural systems to address the root causes of problems and to provide holistic and long-term solutions that take into account the complexity of agricultural systems in their social, economic and ecological contexts. Agroecological approaches are increasingly perceived as possible alternative to the industrial, Green Revolution-style model of agricultural improvement (Bendjebbar and Fouilleux, 2022; HLPE, 2019). Today, "agroecology" refers, simultaneously, to a science, a set of transformative (Anderson and Anderson, 2020) practices and a social movement (HLPE, 2019). The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) identifies 10 elements of agroecology, which are interrelated (FAO, 2018a): Synergies, Diversity, Efficiency, Resilience, Recycling, Co-creation and Knowledge Sharing (describing common characteristics of agroecological systems, founding practices and innovation approaches), Human and Social Values, Culture and Food Traditions (contextual characteristics) and Responsible Governance, Circular and Inclusive Economy (enabling environment). The High Level Panel on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security (HLPE) lists 13 core principles of agroecology, partly aligned with the elements listed by FAO (Wezel et al., 2020), which add soil health, animal health, economic equity, and social participation (HLPE, 2019). In addition, its principles disaggregate the 'diversity' element into biodiversity and economic diversification.

In West Africa, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has developed an Agroecology Transition Support Program (IPES-Food, 2020a), as the region is considered by FAO to feature the conditions to become "a global frontrunner in agroecology". The Transformative Partnership Platform on Agroecology (Agroecology

TPP) project "Viability of Agroecological Practices across Africa"<fnref n="1" /> aims at determining the viability of agroecology under contrasting situations, with a strong focus on socio-economic viability towards improving livelihoods.

## 1.2. Approaches to assess the sustainability of vegetable systems and justify their need for an agroecological transition

The implementation and performance of organic and agroecological agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa remain poorly understood (Schader et al., 2021). Evidence on the contribution of agroecology in particular to sustainability remains fragmented due to heterogeneity of methods and data, different scales and timeframes, and knowledge gaps (Mottet et al., 2020). A wide variety of frameworks and methods have been constructed to assess the sustainability and/or agroecological transition (i.e. the state of progress towards the fulfilment of agroecological principles) and/or sustainable intensification of farming systems at different scales. Among the most comprehensive methods and most adapted to the conditions in Africa, and to the objectives and resources of this study, are VCA4D (Fabre et al., 2021) and FAO TAPE (Mottet et al., 2020).

The Value Chain Analysis for Development (VCA4D) methodology (applied to >30 case studies in the global South<fnref n="2" />) aims to generate evidence, supported by a list of indicators measured quantitatively or based on expert assessments, which together provide answers to four framework questions regarding the contribution of a value chain to economic growth, its inclusiveness, its social sustainability, and its environmental sustainability (Dabat et al., 2018a, 2018b). The starting point of VCA4D is a Functional Analysis, which provides a general mapping and description of the main actors, activities and operations in the value chain, an overview of products and product flows, the main production systems, comparisons between comparable sub-chains, a description of the main governance mechanisms in the chain and a brief description of (known) constraints. The functional analysis is the basis for the analyses of the other three sustainability dimensions: economic, social and environmental analyses. The functional analysis is mainly based on secondary data supplemented by interviews with key informants and the processing of structured questionnaires applied to value chain actors and key experts.

The FAO Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE) is designed to generate and consolidate evidence of the multidimensional performance of agroecological systems. It has been already applied to multiple case studies (Lucantoni et al., 2022). It includes, i) a Characterization of Agroecological Transitions (CAET), based on the 10 elements of agroecology adopted by FAO and its member countries, using descriptive scales to score and assess the degree of transition, with information at farm/household and community/territory levels and ii) the assessment of core performance criteria listing the key dimensions considered relevant to address the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), namely environment, health and nutrition, society and culture,

<footnote n="1">¹ https://glfx.globallandscapesforum.org/topics/21467/page/Viability
y-project</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/value-chain-analysis-for-development-vca4d-</footnote>
economy, and governance.

The combination of these approaches is hypothesised to allow the determination of agrifood value chains contribution to sustainable development (Acosta-Alba et al., 2022) and ecosystems protection, in relation with their adoption of improved management practices, including agroecological ones (FAO, 2018b; Palomo-Campesino et al., 2018; Schwarz et al., 2022).

These approaches have been used in Africa in several value chains such as cassava and cashew in Côte d'Ivoire (VCA4D), as well as on farming in general in Mali and Senegal (FAO TAPE).

### 1.3. The Ivorian market vegetables value chain

In the context of the 2021–2025 Market gardening and agroecological transition – MARIGO project,<fnref n="3" /> focused on promoting the agroecological transition of “periurban” (i.e. suburban) market vegetables production in Côte d’Ivoire, elements from VCA4D and TAPE were adapted to describe the current situation and ongoing dynamics of that value chain. The objective of such endeavour is to set a baseline allowing to assess, in the near future, the impacts of the agroecological practices and strategies promoted by the project. Moreover, the underlying question to be answered, and to which the functional analysis presented here contributes, is whether the farms committed adopting agroecological practices are more sustainable than conventional ones.

Land use in Côte d'Ivoire is dominated by agriculture, especially cash crops. Vegetables are considered as marginal crops, despite ~190 kha being currently devoted to vegetables production, according to FAOSTAT data (FAO, 2022). Limited knowledge has been produced on the intensity of input use (phytosanitary and fertiliser intensity), statistic typology, characterization of the agroecological transition, material and economic flows between stakeholders.

The objective of this study is to present a functional analysis of the Ivorian suburban market vegetables value chain, and discuss the suitability of and agroecological transition of the agricultural production link, towards more sustainable vegetables production in the country.

## 2. Material and methods

### 2.1. Data sources

The market gardening sector in Côte d'Ivoire is increasingly studied, but most statistical sources, including FAO, tend to combine all agricultural food production (e.g. fruit and vegetables, food crops, etc.). Recent studies focusing on or including the vegetable sector (Bancal and Tano, 2019; De Bon et al., 2019; Ducroquet et al., 2017; FAO/MINADER, 2019) were used as the main secondary data sources. The functional analysis, in extended form, is available in French (Dosso et al., 2023).

Field surveys on operational, social and economic aspects were carried out by our team over the period 2021–2022, representing ~800 individual technical itineraries and 487 producers. The data obtained were used to inform a typology of farming systems and initial economic and environmental analyses. For our study, the technical itinerary (ITK) is a plot or group of plots that have received the same inputs (crop variety, plant protection, fertilisers and stimulants, water) and that have been managed following the same strategy (tools, tasks and management by the same market gardener). Regarding primary data, two non-probability sampling methods were used to identify the market gardeners. Accidental sampling was applied to a list of market gardeners in order to circumscribe the field of investigation and facilitate the choice of areas accessible to our team. Purposive sampling was used to represent the diversity of market gardeners in terms of their practices, production methods and access to resources. On the basis of a questionnaire administered through three campaigns, the market gardeners were

questioned about the management of their farms, technical itineraries and working conditions. Interviews with research and development organisations provided information on the management of the vegetable sub-sector in Côte d'Ivoire. Secondary data on market price trends in the four zones were obtained from interviews with the food marketing support office (OCPV). The choice of cities is based on the areas covered by the MARIGO project and is based on the country's agropedoclimatic zones. The data obtained is both qualitative and quantitative.

To select the literature review, we used a comprehensive approach. This approach consists of selecting all the articles, dissertations and reports in the field of research of interest.

The main keywords used in the literature search were horticulture, market gardening, typology and agroecology.

The data obtained were used to inform a typology of farming systems and initial economic and environmental analyses. In Côte d'Ivoire, there is no official typology of vegetable production systems.

Areas of the market gardeners varied, so the quantitative data from the measurement of pesticide inputs, fertilisers, fuel, yield and gross margin were reported per hectare.

### 2.2. Data treatment

A thorough literature review was conducted on the Ivorian vegetables sector. Conflicting statistical data was harmonised. Published improvement recommendations from the literature were compiled and contrasted with the findings from secondary data, and only those solidly based on data were retained.

From the field surveys, a “score of agroecological practices” was computed, and included as a variable for all analyses. This score represents the level of adoption by producers of practices considered as agroecological: associated animal husbandry, mixed farming, crop association, crop rotation, concentrated vs. dispersed crop installation, service plants, insect nets or shelters, biopesticides, organic fertiliser, mulching, and fallow land (Diouf and Dieng, 2015; Vermeire et al., 2024). The score for the level of adoption of agroecological practices is based on the Likert satisfaction scale; A scale of 0–3 has been defined, where 0 is “no adoption and 3 is “strong adoption”. This list is not exhaustive, as it excluded, for instance, the use of N-fixing cover crops.

Two approaches were used to construct a typology of farms, using the operational data on the sample of farms collected through surveys. First, a statistical approach based on primary data using Principal Component Analysis and Hierarchical Principal Component Classification (PCA + HCPC) techniques was applied. On the basis of potentially explanatory variables, PCA + HCPC are often used to classify statistically homogeneous clusters of individuals. Variables used for the statistical typology: city, crop, crop cycle, type of system, location (urban, suburban, rural), production season, area, yield, water use, fuel use, fertiliser use, phytosanitary use, and gross margin. These classification techniques have been applied before to agrifood systems (Abdou et al., 2017; Avadí et al., 2018; Avadí et al., 2016). The underlying hypothesis is that farms could be classified into differentiable clusters according to its input intensity (kg/ha) and basic productivity indicators (e.g. yield/area, costs/yield, etc.). Second, a qualitative approach based on TAPE/CAET, excluding eventual elements common to all types, was applied. The two resulting typologies were contrasted to identify the links between agroecological practices and overall technical and socio-economic efficiencies. The TAPE methodology suggests that a CAET score < 50/100% represents non-agroecological systems (Lucantoni et al., 2022).

Differences among key output variables (e.g. gross margin, CAET score) were tested for significance using standard techniques (i.e. ANOVA).

### 2.3. Working definitions

To study the Ivorian suburban market vegetables value chain, a

<footnote n="3">³ https://www.projet-marigo.org/</footnote>
poorly documented and highly neglected economic sector, work defi-
nitions of some key terminology become necessary. Following the
example of the Agroecology TPP, in the absence of standards deter-
mining the set of practices that can be consensually considered as ag-
roecological, the following definition of agroecological practice is
retained in this study: actions deliberately undertaken in order to
implement or advance one or more of the principles of agroecology, as
defined by FAO and HLPE. Agroecological production, in this context, is
understood as a strategy towards building more sustainable crop sys-
tems, similar to but distinctively different from other strategies such as
organic production, biodynamic farming, permaculture, or conservation
agriculture, as defined in Vermeire et al. (2024). Agroecology transition
refers to the range of transformation from conventional inputs use to
sustainable cropping systems based on the principles of agroecology
(AFD, Cirad, 2018).

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) defined: “Organic agriculture as a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems, and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic Agriculture combines tradition, innovation, and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and good quality of life for all involved” (Lampkin and Pearce, 2021). Organic agriculture and

agroecology have common values, principles, practices and objectives like heath (soil, plant, animal, human and planet), ecology, fairness and care. In addition, agroecology includes the co-creation of knowledge, governance of land and natural resources, connectivity and economic diversification (GIZ, 2020).

Vegetable farms located in cities are described as urban and those
located beyond the physical boundary of urban areas yet within their
areas of influence constitute suburban production systems.

A value chain is here understood as a network of stakeholders (supply, production, storage, transport, processing, marketing and consumption) who work together to produce and process a particular agricultural commodity or product. In each section, value is added as the product is moved and/or modified and marketed in response to consumer demand (BAD, 2018).

3. Results and discussion

The functional analysis, as detailed in (Dosso et al., 2023), relies entirely on secondary data. Primary data was used to create a typology of producers and to inform economic and environmental indicators.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Land use map of Côte d'Ivoire, 2016–2017 (BNETD, 2022).</figcaption></figure>
# 3.1. Mapping of the Ivorian market vegetables value chain

## 3.1.1. Production and practices

According to the Côte d'Ivoire Horticulture Master Plan 2005–2020 (MINAGRI/CTB, 2006), 49,140 ha were dedicated to vegetable production in 2005, of which 63% were African (i.e. traditional, indigenous) vegetables. Today, >190 kha are dedicated to vegetable production. The vast majority of vegetable production takes place on small areas (<1 ha).

The main vegetable production zones in Côte d'Ivoire are (Fig. 1) the southern zone (Abidjan, Bingerville, Grand-ponts, Agnéby Tiassa, Mé), the central zone surrounding Yamoussoukro (N'zi, Bélier, Gbèkè, Marahoué, Haut Sassandra), the eastern zone (Gontougou, Indénié, Djuablin and Sud Comoé) and the northern zone (Poro, Tchologo) (Bancal and Tano, 2019; De Bon et al., 2019). These vegetable production zones operate in a context of very different agricultural dynamics (Ducroquet et al., 2017).

The national production of vegetables in Côte d'Ivoire is unknown. In recent years, it has been estimated at around 816,000 t, dominated by chilli peppers, eggplant, okra, tomato and cabbage (SEMMARIS/RONGEAD, 2015). Another source mentioned >850,000 t, including composed by 400,000 t of "European" type vegetables (cabbage, carrot, lettuce, cucumber, etc.) and 450,000 t of "traditional" vegetables (African eggplant, tomato, chilli pepper, etc.). Among these productions, only a few species are the subject of official statistics (Bancal and Tano, 2019), namely okra, chilli peppers and eggplant.

These estimates are higher than those of FAOSTAT. In contrast, the latest data for the year 2021 from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MINADER, June 2022, pers. comm.), available for only a few crops, are almost identical to those reported by FAO. A trend towards a substantial increase in vegetable production has been identified in West Africa—despite the fact that today, the existence of a gap between production and consumption makes the region a net importer of vegetables— reaching 25% in Côte d'Ivoire (AGRA, 2021). Onions, one of the most consumed vegetables, account for 90% of official vegetable imports into the country (COLEACP, 2020; De Bon et al., 2019).

In addition to the traditional market gardening system, substantially based in villages, there are more and more urban and suburban market gardeners who practice conventional vegetable growing as their main activity. They very often use selected varieties, fertilisation, phytosanitary inputs, and exploit water sources for irrigation, during the dry season. The traditional system, on the other hand, is an ancestral system, organic and low-input by default, in which vegetable crops (local/African/traditional) are grown during the rainy season in association with staple food crops such as yams, rice, maize, or with the growing orchards of cashew, coffee, cocoa, etc.

There are two main growing seasons, referred to in this work as “dry” and “wet” seasons, which roughly correspond, respectively, to the less and more rainy seasons. The number and duration of these growing seasons are variable across regions within the country (Latapie, 2022). In the north (Korhogo), the dry season spans from November to Mars, while the rainy season from May to September. In the south (Abidjan), there are two wet seasons, from Avril to July and from September to November. In the centre, the wet season is considered to take place during the periods July–October for Bouaké and Avril-June plus August–September for Yamoussoukro. The months limiting the dry and wet seasons constitute a “transitional” season. The total area devoted to vegetable gardening fluctuates with seasonality, when water availability is a limiting factor or to give way to other crops such as rice.

The most commonly used fertilisers include NPK (especially a 15–15–15 mixture), urea, poultry bedding and cattle manure. See section 3.2.5 for details on fertiliser use intensity in the context of environmental impacts.

Phytosanitary practices in market gardening in the suburban areas of the large cities of Côte d'Ivoire have been the subject of several studies, often focused on the consequences on the environment and on

producers' health. Chemical protection remains the main method of controlling pests of vegetable crops in Côte d'Ivoire. The rate of inappropriate use of phytosanitary products by producers —i.e. excessive doses, non-respect of the pre-harvest interval, and non-respect of treatment frequencies (Kpan Kpan et al., 2019)— reached 97% and affects the quality of vegetables (Mambe-Ani et al., 2019). Unregistered products and misuse are prevalent. Land ownership is an important determinant of the proper use of plant protection products. The age of the producers and their experience in market gardening are decisive factors for a good management of phytosanitary products (Oula et al., 2021). Producers do not generally wear any particular protection for the different phytosanitary treatments on their plots (Doumbia and Kwadjo, 2009). Empty pesticide containers are usually abandoned next to the fields.

## 3.1.2. Typology of producers

A preliminary, literature-based typology of producers (Fig. 2) highlights the degree of commitment to the agroecological transition. The vast majority of systems in the country correspond to the Modern unstructured type, while a minority of them are either committed to the agroecological transition or have managed to transform their conventional systems into organic or agroecological ones. The structured/unstructured distinction refers to the level of professionalization (administrative, accounting/financial, technical, etc.) practised by the producers.

Survey data showed that all producers apply, to varying levels of intensity, at least some of the practices considered as agroecological, namely, animal husbandry in association with farming, mixed farming (as opposite to monocrops), crop associations, crop rotations, concentrated vs. dispersed crop installation, service plants, insect nets or shelters, biopesticides, organic fertiliser, mulching, and fallows.

The PCA + HCPC classification based on technical itinerary or on farm level discriminated three clusters defined as detailed in Table 1, Table 2 (CLUSTERS_ITK) and Table 3 (CLUSTERS_FARM), the most important variables determining the clustering (i.e. the top variables contributing to all dimensions) were those representing the fertiliser inputs, followed by the type of location of the vegetable system (urban, suburban or rural). The first two dimensions explained 43% of variance, while the first five dimensions (retained) explained 64%.

The seasonality of production influenced both yields and margins (Table 4). It is noticeable that during the dry season, at lower yields the producers achieve higher gross margins for the most important (in terms of demand (Angbo-Kouakou et al., 2023)) crops, including tomatoes, okra, eggplants and onions. Some leafy vegetables have a negative margin because they are grown in association with other crops or on very small areas. It is difficult to estimate the quantity sold because most of them are for self-consumption, and they are not among the main

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Preliminary typology of Ivorian vegetable producers. Source: Own elaboration inspired by (De Bon et al., 2019; Silue, 2016).</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1**

Resulting clusters of a PCA + HCPC classification of Ivorian market vegetable systems, per technical itinerary and per farm (2021–2022).</caption><thead><tr><th>Cluster</th><th>Common features</th><th>Differentiating features per ITK (CLUSTERS_ITK)</th><th>Differentiating features per farm (CLUSTERS_FARM)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cluster 1<br>“Conventional/ dry season”</td><td><ul><li>mostly systems defined by the producers as “conventional”</li><li>producing during the dry season</li><li>mainly in urban settings</li><li>lowest-average fuel use intensity</li><li>below intensity of fertiliser inputs</li><li>below-average intensity of phytosanitary inputs</li><li>highest economic returns (in terms of gross margin)</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>slightly above-average yields</li><li>mostly itineraries in dry season</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>slightly above-average yields</li><li>mostly farm defined transition</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 2<br>“conventional/ both in wet and dry season”</td><td><ul><li>mostly systems defined by the producers as “conventional”</li><li>producing during the wet season</li><li>mainly in urban settings</li><li>above-average fuel use intensity</li><li>average intensity of fertiliser inputs (dominated by mineral fertilisation)</li><li>above average intensity of phytosanitary inputs</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>below-average yields</li><li>above-average intensity of phytosanitary inputs</li><li>lowest economic returns (in terms of gross margin)</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>slightly above-average yields</li><li>above-average intensity of phytosanitary inputs (dominated by fungicides)</li><li>below-average economic returns (in terms of gross margin)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 3<br>“In transition/ wet season”</td><td><ul><li>mostly systems defined by the producers as “in transition” or “agroecological”</li><li>producing during the wet season</li><li>mainly in urban settings (Yamoussoukro)</li><li>the lowest intensity of fertiliser inputs (dominated by organic fertilisation)</li><li>above average intensity of phytosanitary inputs (dominated by fungicides)</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>slightly above-average yields (marginally lower than Cluster 1)</li><li>above-average fuel use intensity (Yamoussoukro)</li><li>below-average economic returns (in terms of gross margin, higher than Cluster 2)</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>below-average yields (considerably lower than Cluster 1 and 2)</li><li>above-average fuel use intensity (lower than cluster 2)</li><li>lowest economic returns (in terms of gross margin)</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

For CLUSTERS_ITK, the differences among gross margins per cluster were statistically significant, as well as those (one-way ANOVA, *p*-value = 0.001).

commercial vegetables (Sanogo, 2018). Moreover, the period during which large amounts of vegetables (mainly onions, but also carrots, tomatoes, *Alliaceae*, etc.) are imported into the country takes place during the dry season, and may distort market prices and thus gross margins. In general, the prices of imported vegetables are lower (or similar for certain products such as onions, see 3.1.4) than those of the same vegetables produced in Côte d'Ivoire, as dedicated production and distribution chains have been established in the region (COLEACP, 2020).

The CAET scores confirm that the Ivorian market vegetable production is as a whole far away from agroecological practices (Table 2), scoring in average 38/100%. Even the producers who identify their systems as in transition or fully agroecological scored only 41/100%. The differences across CAET scores are now always statistically or practically significant. For instance, no significant difference (one-way ANOVA, *p*-value = 0.07) was found among CAET scores per CLUSTERS_ITK cluster, despite significant differences (one-way ANOVA, *p*-value = 0.001) being found per system type (conventional, in transition, agroecological), yet the latter range between 37% and 41%, both below-average scores.

CAET scores do not seem to be good predictors of gross margin, as shown by a two-way ANOVA test taking CLUSTERS_ITK clusters as row groups, CAET as columns, and gross margin as dependent variable (p-value of columns = 0.50, p-value of interactions = 0.13). This test was limited by the paucity of CAET data for clusters 2 and 3, and thus limited to two columns (CAET <40%, CAET ≥40%) and four lines per cluster.

The CAET framework does not seem to be completely adapted to Ivorian market gardening conditions, as the fact of most producers adopting several agroecological practices is outweighed by other elements of the analysis, such as those criteria that seem to be transversal to the overall market vegetables sub-sector (Culture & Food Tradition, Co-creation & Sharing of Knowledge, Human & Social Values, Circular & Solidarity Economy and Responsible Governance).

### 3.1.3. The other actors

The main actors in the market gardening sector are producers,

commercial operators (cooperatives, wholesale traders, retail traders at markets), technical structures such as the Office for the Marketing of Food Products (OCPV), the National Agency for Rural Development Support (ANADER) and the Interprofessional Fund for Agricultural Research and Advice (FIRCA), and lastly, transporters and consumers. Other actors involved in market gardening are NGOs, traders of inputs and phytosanitary products, labour and other buyers of agricultural products (Assué et al., 2019). Thus, micro processing enterprises play an important role in the valorisation of vegetable products in some regions such as Bouaké (Diarrassouba et al., 2018).

The vegetable processing sector in Côte d'Ivoire is extremely weak with only ~1% of production processed and losses associated with lack of processing estimated at 15% of production. The industrial units are multi-purpose and range from domestic to artisanal scale. The equipment encountered is progressively purchased by the processors but remains rudimentary: grinders, solar or gas dryers, scales, packaging machines (Bancal and Tano, 2019). The level of associativity is low, but functioning networks (such as the National Network of Agro-Processors of Côte d'Ivoire, RET-PACI<fnref n="4" />) promote partnerships, technical support, capacity building and financing for processing actors. Eating habits of Ivoirians imply that the range of processed vegetables used regularly is very limited: dried okra, dried chilli powder, and dried okra slices (Bancal and Tano, 2019).

A large proportion of the wholesalers are women, the vast majority of whom are unschooled, and belonging dominantly to the Gouro ethnic group. In Abidjan, the wholesalers are associated in marketing cooperatives and manage the food markets. On these wholesale markets, quality efforts are not visible, as the products are not labelled (Bancal and Tano, 2019).

The retailers are almost exclusively women with a slight dominance of those under 30 years of age. The vast majority are unschooled and of diverse national origins, with 85% being Ivorian. They buy directly from suburban producers or from wholesalers and other bulkers (Bancal and

<footnote n="4">⁴ http://www.retpaci.org/</footnote>
<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Typology of Ivorian market vegetable systems, per technical itinerary and per season, based on PCA + HCPC and CAET (2021–2022).

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Criteria<sup>a</sup></th><th colspan="4">Classification</th><th colspan="4">Means</th></tr><tr><th>Cluster 1 (481)</th><th>Cluster 2 (155)</th><th>Cluster 3 (163)</th><th>Sample (799)</th><th>Yield (kg/ha)</th><th>Gross margin (XOF/ha)</th><th>Input intensity<sup>b</sup> (kg/ha)</th><th>CAET<sup>c</sup></th><th>Sample (107)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="10"><strong>Cluster partitioning by producer-declared type of system</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Conventional</td><td>467</td><td>132</td><td>121</td><td>720</td><td>15,551</td><td>3,534,707</td><td>460</td><td>38%</td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td>In transition</td><td>13</td><td>19</td><td>36</td><td>68</td><td>14,993</td><td>3,893,015</td><td>618</td><td>41%</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Agroecological</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>6</td><td>11</td><td>11,241</td><td>-873,686</td><td>69</td><td>41%</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="10"><strong>Cluster partitioning by seasonality</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Dry season</td><td>265</td><td>74</td><td>64</td><td>403</td><td>14,954</td><td>4,627,897</td><td>566</td><td>39%</td><td>68</td></tr><tr><td>Transitional season</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>17,107</td><td>2,240,334</td><td>391</td><td>32%</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Wet season</td><td>212</td><td>79</td><td>98</td><td>389</td><td>15,922</td><td>2,331,220</td><td>368</td><td>38%</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td colspan="10"><strong>Cluster partitioning by type of location</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Suburban</td><td>102</td><td>55</td><td>66</td><td>223</td><td>14,585</td><td>2,654,716</td><td>426</td><td>40%</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td>315</td><td>100</td><td>97</td><td>512</td><td>16,018</td><td>3,713,568</td><td>384</td><td>38%</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td>64</td><td></td><td></td><td>64</td><td>13,846</td><td>4,669,114</td><td>474</td><td>35%</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="10"><strong>Cluster partitioning by geography</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Abidjan</td><td>184</td><td></td><td></td><td>184</td><td>20,058</td><td>6,102,111</td><td>363</td><td>34%</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Bouaké</td><td>175</td><td>1</td><td></td><td>176</td><td>10,862</td><td>3,720,120</td><td>377</td><td>38%</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Korhogo</td><td>122</td><td>94</td><td>81</td><td>297</td><td>15,852</td><td>2,123,108</td><td>520</td><td>40%</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Yamoussoukro</td><td></td><td>60</td><td>82</td><td>142</td><td>14,293</td><td>2,704,784</td><td>525</td><td>39%</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td colspan="10"><strong>Cluster features (means)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Yield</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>15,597</td><td>15,023</td><td>15,394</td><td>15,338</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fuel</td><td>l/ha</td><td>2</td><td>75</td><td>112</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N, total</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>219</td><td>255</td><td>222</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N, organic</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>102</td><td>94</td><td>85</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N, mineral</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>116</td><td>161</td><td>136</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P, total</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>77</td><td>105</td><td>89</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>K, total</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>91</td><td>120</td><td>104</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Insecticide</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>0.8</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.0</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Herbicide</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fungicide</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.8</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Acaricide</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gross margin</td><td>XOF/ha</td><td>4,263,182</td><td>2,096,373</td><td>2,556,093</td><td></td><td>2,971,883</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Input intensity</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>392</td><td>561</td><td>532</td><td></td><td></td><td>495</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CAET</td><td></td><td>38%</td><td>38%</td><td>40%</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>38%</td></tr><tr><td>Sample (95)</td><td></td><td>59</td><td>20</td><td>28</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Tano, 2019).

Several actors are involved in the supply of inputs: producers, cooperative societies, and commercial input suppliers (Koné et al., 2020). Seeds, for instance, are sold by commercial suppliers, according to the period, and the choice of variety is made on the basis of quality. Most producers buy seeds that are resistant to diseases and that will be able to generate income for them during marketing.

### 3.1.4. Material and economic flows

The flow chart presented in Fig. 3 represents the quantified flows, in terms of quantities and prices, between the actors in the chain.

Market garden products experience the greatest price variations during the year and among years. The seasonality of production is dependent on rainfall cycles, the lack of investment to improve water management, and the weakness of extension services. There is a notable increase in prices during the dry season (roughly from November to March, with important variations on the north-south axis). Price variations are attenuated for products such as onions —in 2029–2020, the country imported 160 kt of vegetables, 65% of which were onions (Dosso et al., 2023). The price of imported onion lots remains fairly close to that of locally-produced (MINAGRI, 2014). Average annual national

wholesale prices for the main products in 2021 are presented in Fig. 4, while mean monthly margins (difference between detail and wholesale prices) are shown in Fig. 5.

### 3.1.5. Exploited ecosystems

Vegetable production spans all four Ivorian climatic zones: Abidjan is located in the Guinean zone, Yamoussoukro and Bouaké in the northern Sudanese-Guinean zone (although there are significant climatic differences between the two cities) and Korhogo in the Sudanese zone (Ducroquet et al., 2017).

Across climatic zones, biodiversity is highly threatened by many factors, the most important of which are deforestation (partly due to agricultural expansion), unsustainable agriculture, poaching, pollution and climate change (Konaté and Kampmann, 2010). Agricultural expansion is responsible for 62% of deforestation (of which 38% is due to cocoa), the spread of bush fires for 3%, and logging for 18%. In contrast, forest degradation is predominantly caused by economic (36%) and demographic (24%) factors (BNETD, 2016). The extended practice of land clearing by slash and burn, and of burning fields between cycles (less common for vegetables), is destructive for the top layer of soils.

<footnote><sup>a</sup> The classification criteria were applied to the total sample (799 technical itineraries).</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> The input intensity includes all fertiliser (expressed as kg N, P or K) and phytosanitary inputs, as well as energy carriers (fuel).</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> The Characterization of Agroecological Transition (CAET) (FAO, 2019) was carried out using a subset of 107 samples. Each of the 799 samples represents a crop cycle, where several cycles may take place in the same parcel each year. Yields and gross margins represent means of all types of market vegetables.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 3**

Typology of Ivorian market vegetable systems, per farm and per season, based on PCA + HCPC and CAET (2021–2022).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Criteria <sup>a</sup></th><th colspan="4">Classification</th><th colspan="5">Means</th><th rowspan="2">CAET <sup>e</sup></th><th rowspan="2">Sample (58)</th></tr><tr><th>Cluster 1 (278)</th><th>Cluster 2 (178)</th><th>Cluster 3 (31)</th><th>Sample (487)</th><th>Yield (kg/ha)</th><th>Gross margin (XOF/ha)</th><th>Input intensity <sup>b</sup> (kg/ha)</th><th>Number of ITKs <sup>c</sup></th><th>Score of agroecological practices <sup>d</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="12"><strong>Cluster partitioning by producer-declared type of system</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Conventional</td><td>130</td><td>72</td><td>9</td><td>211</td><td>28,447</td><td>8,909,637</td><td>1114</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>37%</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>In transition</td><td>144</td><td>105</td><td>21</td><td>270</td><td>22,146</td><td>3,174,031</td><td>457</td><td>1</td><td>8</td><td>38%</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Agroecological</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>19,958</td><td>3,380,773</td><td>478</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>32%</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td colspan="12"><strong>Cluster partitioning by seasonality</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Dry season</td><td>130</td><td>72</td><td>9</td><td>211</td><td>28,447</td><td>8,909,637</td><td>1114</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>37%</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Transitional season</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>19,958</td><td>3,380,773</td><td>494</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>32%</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Wet season</td><td>144</td><td>105</td><td>21</td><td>270</td><td>22,146</td><td>3,174,031</td><td>478</td><td>1</td><td>8</td><td>38%</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td colspan="12"><strong>Cluster partitioning by type of location</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Suburban</td><td>63</td><td>61</td><td>23</td><td>147</td><td>21,445</td><td>3,945,075</td><td>657</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>38%</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td>183</td><td>111</td><td>8</td><td>302</td><td>26,721</td><td>6,231,296</td><td>814</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>36%</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td>32</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>38</td><td>23,139</td><td>7,774,447</td><td>654</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>36%</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td colspan="12"><strong>Cluster partitioning by geography</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Abidjan</td><td>112</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>112</td><td>31,432</td><td>9,594,168</td><td>592</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>34%</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Bouaké</td><td>113</td><td>21</td><td>0</td><td>134</td><td>142,532</td><td>5,007,704</td><td>536</td><td>1</td><td>9</td><td>35%</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Korhogo</td><td>52</td><td>75</td><td>0</td><td>127</td><td>36,550</td><td>4,941,322</td><td>1212</td><td>2</td><td>11</td><td>39%</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Yamoussoukro</td><td>1</td><td>82</td><td>31</td><td>114</td><td>17,803</td><td>3,369,116</td><td>657</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>39%</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td colspan="12"><strong>Cluster features (means)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Yield</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>25,226</td><td>25,355</td><td>18,572</td><td colspan="5">23,051</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fuel</td><td>l/ha</td><td>4.37</td><td>147.46</td><td>108.52</td><td colspan="5"></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N, total</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>349</td><td>421</td><td>182</td><td colspan="5"></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N, organic</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>153</td><td>165</td><td>101</td><td colspan="5"></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>N, mineral</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>197</td><td>256</td><td>80</td><td colspan="5"></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P, total</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>130</td><td>186</td><td>93</td><td colspan="5"></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>K, total</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>150</td><td>212</td><td>102</td><td colspan="5"></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Insecticide</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>0.92</td><td>1.60</td><td>0.22</td><td colspan="5"></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Herbicide</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.70</td><td>1.90</td><td colspan="5"></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fungicide</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>5.10</td><td>5.79</td><td>3.99</td><td colspan="5"></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Acaricide</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>0.24</td><td>1.20</td><td>0.19</td><td colspan="5"></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gross margin</td><td>XOF/ha</td><td>6,804,634</td><td>4,297,118</td><td>3,246,166</td><td colspan="5">4,782,639</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Input intensity</td><td>kg/ha</td><td>641</td><td>976</td><td>492</td><td colspan="5">703</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Number of ITKs</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td colspan="5"></td><td>2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Score of agroecological practices</td><td></td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>7</td><td colspan="5">10</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CAET</td><td></td><td>36%</td><td>38%</td><td>38%</td><td colspan="5"></td><td></td><td>37%</td></tr><tr><td>Sample (58)</td><td></td><td>30</td><td>25</td><td>3</td><td colspan="5"></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: <sup>a</sup> The classification criteria were applied to the total sample (487 farms). <sup>b</sup> The input intensity includes all fertiliser (expressed as kg N, P or K) and phytosanitary inputs, as well as energy carriers (fuel). <sup>c</sup> “ITK” stands for technical itinerary. <sup>d</sup> The score of agroecological practices represents the level of adoption of practices considered as agroecological (associated animal husbandry, mixed farming, crop association, crop rotation, concentrated vs. dispersed crop installation, service plants, insect nets or shelters, biopesticides, organic fertiliser, mulching, fallow land), on a scale of 0 (no adoption) to 3 (strong adoption). <sup>e</sup> The Characterization of Agro-ecological Transition (CAET) (FAO, 2019) was carried out using a subset of 58 farms. Yields and gross margins represent means of all types of market vegetables.

## 3.2. Technical diagnosis

### 3.2.1. Yields

Ivorian yields are lower than the West African average for aubergine and okra, and near average (but towards the low end) for chilli pepper and tomato (Fig. 6). The main constraints to production are pests pressure, diminishing soil fertility, poor extension services and land

insecurity (Bosso et al., 2020; Ettien et al., 2022). Market gardening yields are not “linear”, in the sense that what is achievable on small areas (e.g. 100–200 m²), thanks to the mastery of conditions, is not necessarily possible on larger scales (i.e. >1 ha). In the other hand, the relationship between inputs and yields is also not linear, and resource use inefficiencies are recognised to take place on West African small-scale systems (AGRA, 2021).
<table><caption>**Table 4**
Effect of seasonality on Ivorian market vegetables producers' mean yields and gross margins (2021–2022), per crop.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Crops</th><th rowspan="2">Sample (799)</th><th colspan="2">Dry season</th><th colspan="2">Wet season</th><th colspan="2">Differences between seasons (dry/wet)</th></tr><tr><th>Yield (kg/ha)</th><th>Gross margin (XOF/ha)</th><th>Yield (kg/ha)</th><th>Gross margin (XOF/ha)</th><th>Yield</th><th>Gross margin</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bell peppers</td><td>2</td><td>6329</td><td>- 932,220</td><td>3000</td><td>1,750,467</td><td>211%</td><td>-53%</td></tr><tr><td>Cabbage</td><td>109</td><td>16,942</td><td>3,362,798</td><td>17,053</td><td>2,209,274</td><td>99%</td><td>152%</td></tr><tr><td>Carrots</td><td>41</td><td>20,924</td><td>5,717,827</td><td>13,849</td><td>1,771,448</td><td>151%</td><td>323%</td></tr><tr><td>Celery</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td>10,000</td><td>- 4,619,444</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chilli peppers</td><td>32</td><td>12,664</td><td>3,484,847</td><td>5673</td><td>2,201,551</td><td>223%</td><td>158%</td></tr><tr><td>Chives</td><td>51</td><td>18,277</td><td>13,438,820</td><td>12,953</td><td>4,338,320</td><td>141%</td><td>310%</td></tr><tr><td>Cucumber</td><td>50</td><td>16,192</td><td>1,933,224</td><td>18,606</td><td>1,148,132</td><td>87%</td><td>168%</td></tr><tr><td>Eggplant (African)</td><td>35</td><td>15,197</td><td>6,119,457</td><td>16,034</td><td>2,394,975</td><td>95%</td><td>256%</td></tr><tr><td>Eggplant (European)</td><td>51</td><td>15,260</td><td>1,899,212</td><td>25,167</td><td>791,587</td><td>61%</td><td>240%</td></tr><tr><td>Gourds/pumpkins</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td>21,856</td><td>313,041</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Green beans</td><td>22</td><td>7535</td><td>3,211,716</td><td>3701</td><td>4,259,914</td><td>204%</td><td>75%</td></tr><tr><td>Leeks</td><td>1</td><td>6255</td><td>4,470,454</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lettuce</td><td>151</td><td>16,473</td><td>7,084,875</td><td>21,812</td><td>3,052,996</td><td>76%</td><td>232%</td></tr><tr><td>Morelle (Solanum spp.)</td><td>13</td><td>15,029</td><td>- 879,473</td><td>6539</td><td>- 4,524,855</td><td>230%</td><td>19%</td></tr><tr><td>Morelle noire (Solanum nigrum)</td><td>1</td><td>10,000</td><td>- 153,841</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Onions</td><td>27</td><td>14,475</td><td>5,423,713</td><td>17,883</td><td>2,776,109</td><td>81%</td><td>195%</td></tr><tr><td>Okra</td><td>46</td><td>9096</td><td>3,270,391</td><td>10,367</td><td>957,436</td><td>88%</td><td>342%</td></tr><tr><td>Parsley</td><td>8</td><td></td><td></td><td>6793</td><td>- 232,454</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sorrel</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td>5171</td><td>1,549,430</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Spinach</td><td>2</td><td>11,602</td><td>- 743,723</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Spring onions</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td>2000</td><td>2,389,899</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tomatoes</td><td>91</td><td>11,550</td><td>3,953,020</td><td>15,062</td><td>3,091,778</td><td>77%</td><td>128%</td></tr><tr><td>Turnips</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td>11,000</td><td>269,500</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Zucchini</td><td>55</td><td>14,239</td><td>3,649,593</td><td>20,475</td><td>1,378,584</td><td>70%</td><td>265%</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Mapping the vegetable value chain in Côte d'Ivoire (2021–2022, thicker lines represent dominant pathways). Source: Own elaboration inspired by (AGRA, 2021; Bancal and Tano, 2019; MINAGRI, 2014; Nugteren, 2018; Shackleton et al., 2009).</figcaption></figure>

Based on the sample of technical itineraries, there is a weak to very weak correlation between yields and producers' gross margins (correlation coefficients of 0.47 for all crops confounded during the dry season, and of 0.11 during the wet season). A correlation analysis per farm shows weak correlation between gross margins and yields (0.45), total P input intensity (0.25), organic N input intensity (0.39), total K input intensity (0.28), number of crops (0.34) and seasonality (0.10, implying

higher margins during the dry season). This implies that factors other than yield or practices, such as varying levels of inputs costs or market prices, may contribute to varying levels of gross margins. Moreover, medium (i.e. >0.50) correlations were found between yields and fertilising inputs, as well as with the number of crops in the farm (strong: 0.73) and the score of agroecological practices (0.25) (see Table 3). These two latter suggest that there is a relationship (not necessarily
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Average annual wholesale prices and margins of Ivorian main vegetable products (2021), per city and national. Source: Own elaboration based on OCPV data (pers. comm.)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Average monthly margins [(detail – wholesale)/wholesale prices)] of Ivorian main vegetable products (2021). Source: Own elaboration based on OCPV data (pers. comm.)</figcaption></figure>

causal) between yields and agroecological practices such as crop diversification and the use of service plants.

Losses in the vegetable crop value chain vary according to the crop and the actors. In tomatoes, for instance, harvest losses vary between 5 and 50%. Processors in general consider losses minimal at their level, the main quality defects being the presence of foreign bodies in the raw material. For this reason, processors require products to be dried on racks and sorted on arrival. Losses during post-harvest and after

processing are due to handling and can represent up to 40–50% of the production (Bancal and Tano, 2019).

### 3.2.2. Commerce

Distribution networks are organised according to different circuits depending on the place of production, the type of farm and the type of product. Whatever the channel, it passes through an interlocutor at market level, who facilitates transactions or authorises direct sales.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6. Comparative yields of tomatoes grown in West Africa, per country, in kg/ha (2010–2020). Source: FAOSTAT.</figcaption></figure>

However, urban producers sell themselves or negotiate their products with a retailer, or sell directly to restaurant owners (MINAGRI, 2014).

Small-scale producers prefer to sell their vegetables at the field to traders who then transport them to Abidjan and the country's secondary markets. This saves them the organisation and cost of transport (De Bon et al., 2019).

Large-scale retailers and their intermediaries (central purchasing agencies) are not among the markets targeted by producers, despite being markets with low demand but highly remunerative. However, these buyers are more demanding in terms of quality and the goods must be sorted before being delivered to them (hence a loss of income because downgraded vegetables will be sold at a very low price). Moreover, the volumes purchased by these trade actors are now very limited, as the vast majority of urban dwellers still buy their vegetables in traditional retail markets (De Bon et al., 2019). The most common commercialisation pathways, by city, are shown in Fig. 7.

The other producers (individuals or small associations) work with a complex network of producers/collectors, wholesale collectors, retail collectors, etc., who collect the produce, process it and sell it on the markets or central buying offices (MINAGRI, 2014).

### 3.2.3. Consumption

Availability of vegetable products in the country is around 25 kg/capita/year (MINADER 2018), while consumption — estimated at 36 kg/capita/year in 2005–2009 (Hollinger and Staatz, 2015)— is likely to be lower. In addition, around 69% of the Ivorian population is considered unable to afford a healthy diet (FAO, 2021). Annual per capita consumption of vegetables is not reported per city.

### 3.2.4. Economic performance

According to several studies, market gardening is therefore a source of empowerment and improved living conditions for market gardeners (Koné et al., 2018; Kouakou, 2019). Crops such as tomato generally appear to be profitable, but for all products, a dominant part of the profitability is obtained by the commerce link.

Producers rationalise their crop diversification strategies according to two main logics:

* Monoculture, which can return a lot of money at harvest time (or nothing, in case of plague, drought or flood).

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7. Vegetable marketing routes in Ivorian cities (thicker lines represent dominant pathways). Source: Own elaboration based on MARIGO surveys.</figcaption></figure>
* Combined crops/diversification, which yields less money per harvest, but more following and with more resilience to plagues and weather events.

From the sample of technical itineraries, it was found that the mean national gross margin is in the order of 3.4 million XOF/ha, 4.6 in the dry season, 2.3 in the wet season, with Yamoussoukro producers achieving the lowest gross margins and Abidjan producers the highest —2.8 and 8.9 million XOF/ha in the dry season, respectively. Nonetheless, gross margins per technical itinerary on small areas (<1 ha) range, all growing seasons confounded, between ~19,000 XOF and 1.6 million XOF, according to the sample of technical itineraries (Table 5).

At Korhogo, in particular, market vegetables are often produced by women in very small areas (Traoré, 2022). Tradition does not favour women's access to land. In urban areas, women use various strategies to acquire land, but the most common method of acquisition is leasing. Moreover, field work is difficult for them because most the dominant age is over 40 years old (Akpa, 2022; Traoré, 2022). In the rainy season, flooding of the lowlands is a limiting factor for production and market gardening begins at the start of the dry season (Sanogo, 2018). These elements explain, at least partially, the difference in average surface area and gross margin between Korhogo and the other locations.

### 3.2.5. Environmental impacts

Based on the sample of technical itineraries, rough estimations of the intensity of use of fertilising and phytosanitary inputs were determined. These items represent both resource consumption and direct field emissions, which are among the main contributors to environmental impacts, understood as the potential damage exerted on ecosystems and human health, as well as on the availability of resources (typically via eutrophication, ecotoxicity and acidification) (Basset-Mens et al., 2021; Perrin et al., 2014).

It was found that the input intensity is relatively high across Ivorian market vegetable systems, and that systems the producers identified as in transition towards agroecological practices, feature the highest input intensities (Fig. 8). For instance, the N intensity of the three crops represented the most in the sample of 800 technical itineraries (cabbage: 109 instances, lettuce: 151 instances, and tomato: 91 instances) was between 273 and 333 kg N/ha for cabbage, between 151 and 285 kg N/ha for lettuce and between 133 and 206 kg N/ha for tomato, according with the growing season (dry, wet). In contrast, French fertilising recommendations suggest 216 kg N/ha for cabbage, 52 kg N/ha for lettuce, and 157 kg N/ha for tomato (COMIFER, 2013). Ivorian fertiliser vendors' guidelines suggest doses of 250 kg/ha for tomato, while the Ivorian National Agricultural Research Centre recommends 82 to 196 kg N/ha (including basic dressing with NPK or organic fertilisers and fertilisation with urea) (CNRA, 2019). The Ivorian National Rural Development Agency, recommends 152 to 167 kg N/ha for cabbage and 128 to 137 kg

N/ha for tomatoes (De Bon et al., 2019; Diarra et al., 2017).

These findings challenge higher-level statistics showing that, in relative and absolute terms, African (and even West African) agriculture (all products confounded, dominated by cereals) is the least input-intensive among continents (https://ourworldindata.org/fertilizers). Contributing factor to such fertiliser use intensity include, among others, the general state of nutrient imbalance, degradation and low fertility of Sub-Saharan African soils (Chianu et al., 2012), and the inefficiencies associated with small-scale vegetable systems (AGRA, 2021).

### 3.3. Enabling environment, governance and main constraints

Advisory support (i.e. extension services) is provided by both state-created supervisory structures (ANADER, OCPV) and private ones (NGOs, firms). These organisations generally support actors in the following areas: coordination of activities, elaboration of campaign plans, supervision of development work, agricultural advice (seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, agricultural equipment, etc.) and technology transfer on market gardening sites, training and monitoring of actors on good agricultural practices and group management (administration, financing, equipment of common interest, input and harvest stocks), intermediation for the marketing of products and the acquisition of inputs (Bancal and Tano, 2019). The National Farm Advisory System (NFAS) has not undergone any major reform since the early 2000s (ACOTAF, 2022). In general, agricultural support is much more available for organised / staple / export value chains.

In Côte d'Ivoire, food policy is marked by a recurrent ambition to regulate and modernise, which was formulated at independence times by proposing to transfer the instruments of governance of the major export sectors to the food sectors' actors. This ambition was initially constrained by the sequence of structural adjustment policies and the recent decade of conflicts (Lemeilleur et al., 2019).

Several initiatives have been launched, historically and until today, for the development of the market gardening activity, but it remains highly disorganised. The many initiatives and activities of international cooperation remain mostly disconnected from each other and lack a common thread.

Certain informal rules prevail. For instance, the organisation of wholesale flows is entirely managed by wholesale networks that have established unloading platforms on the outskirts of the main retail markets, notably "Adjamé" in central Abidjan. In a context of severe transport constraints, urban unloading platforms are more efficient than outlying wholesale markets, but they suffer from poor layout, congestion and health risks (Lemeilleur et al., 2019).

Financing structures are among the actors that support the implementation of vegetable production micro-projects. They are of two types: traditional financing structures (microfinance, donors) and structures that capture financing for the benefit of potential

<table><caption>**Table 5**
Actual gross margins for Ivorian market vegetables technical itineraries (2021–2022), per city and per cluster.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">City</th><th rowspan="2">Cluster</th><th colspan="2">Annual</th><th colspan="2">Dry season</th><th colspan="2">Wet season</th></tr><tr><th>Area (m²)</th><th>Gross margin (XOF)</th><th>Area (m²)</th><th>Gross margin (XOF)</th><th>Area (m²)</th><th>Gross margin (XOF)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Abidjan</td><td rowspan="2">1</td><td>2322</td><td>6,102,111</td><td>1904</td><td>9,011,649</td><td>2626</td><td>3,692,041</td></tr><tr><td>2322</td><td>6,102,111</td><td>1904</td><td>9,011,649</td><td>2626</td><td>3,692,041</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Bouaké</td><td rowspan="2">1</td><td>1916</td><td>3,720,120</td><td>1796</td><td>4,446,944</td><td>2174</td><td>2,162,640</td></tr><tr><td>1913</td><td>3,739,320</td><td>1796</td><td>4,446,944</td><td>2168</td><td>2,195,413</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Korhogo</td><td rowspan="2">2</td><td>2500</td><td>360,100</td><td></td><td></td><td>2500</td><td>360,100</td></tr><tr><td>208</td><td>2,123,108</td><td>222</td><td>2,989,694</td><td>194</td><td>1,200,526</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Yamoussoukro</td><td>1</td><td>210</td><td>2,241,159</td><td>241</td><td>3,208,724</td><td>177</td><td>1,235,492</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>210</td><td>2,206,199</td><td>226</td><td>3,064,064</td><td>188</td><td>1,042,579</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>204</td><td>1,848,877</td><td>185</td><td>2,508,213</td><td>221</td><td>1,294,435</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">National average</td><td>2</td><td>1753</td><td>2,704,784</td><td>1335</td><td>2,809,387</td><td>1959</td><td>2,698,392</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>1778</td><td>1,953,251</td><td>1507</td><td>1,255,857</td><td>1924</td><td>2,364,204</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>1735</td><td>3,254,685</td><td>1208</td><td>3,960,151</td><td>1984</td><td>2,939,750</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>1346</td><td>3,494,583</td><td>1163</td><td>4,627,897</td><td>1520</td><td>2,331,220</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 8. Fertiliser and phytosanitary input intensity of Ivorian market vegetable systems (2021–2022), per CLUSTERS_ITK cluster.</figcaption></figure>

beneficiaries (FIRCA, NGOs, etc.). The role of traditional financing structures is to help market gardening groups manage the funds made available for vegetable production and marketing activities and to grant loans.

The main constraints to a more robust and better performing vege-
tables value chain in Côte d'Ivoire include, but are not limited to, the
following (De Bon et al., 2019; Nugteren, 2018):

* Most vegetable crops are essentially subsistence and dependent on rainfall or time-consuming manual irrigation, as affordable irrigation systems for small-scale farms are not widely available.

* Susceptibility to natural hazards such as drought, pests and epidemics.

* Lack of farmer access to high quality seeds of improved vegetable cultivars.

* Lack of appropriate mechanisation and use of unproductive traditional methods for vegetable production.

* Lack of understanding of the use of production inputs such as pesticides leads to safety problems.

* Poor knowledge of preservation techniques and insufficient storage facilities to preserve produce during peak periods.

* Lack of access to finance, to lands and to quality inputs.

* Non-functional interprofession.

The government reports that, despite the existence of legal and
institutional frameworks, there is a low level of land security as well as a
low level of adherence of the population to the security process, which
exacerbates land conflicts (MINADER, 2017). Urbanisation plays a key
role in displacing vegetable producers who do not own the land, which is
the vast majority of them.

3.4. Preliminary analysis of socio-economic and environmental dynamics: *Is an agroecological transition justified?*

The emergence of new challenges is leading vegetable producers all over the world to adapt their practices in order to ensure their production. These challenges, which include pressure on land access, soil depletion and growing pressure by pests, are increasing the

unpredictability of agricultural production, food insecurity and socio-economic instability (IPES-Food, 2020). Agroecology is one of the viable solutions for overcoming these obstacles.

According to our analysis, despite relatively low yields coupled with high input intensity (an environmental pressure factor), and partially thanks to the widespread adoption of certain practices included in the roster of agroecology, Ivorian market vegetable producers make a living from their activities. The analysis of economic returns as a function of their adoption of agroecological practices suggests that “formally” agroecological farms struggle economically, more so than the rest of producers. Such an analysis, despite being informative, is partial, because key sustainability element such as environmental impacts, human health impacts, household food security, system resilience, diversity of income sources over time, among others, are not included.

The agroecology programme initiated by the Economic Community of West African States aims to support family farms in making the transition to agroecology in order to reconcile economic performance, food security, greater resilience and the preservation of the environment and human health (CEDEAO, 2022). In Côte d'Ivoire, this was the starting point for the "Agroecological Transition of Producers in Côte d'Ivoire - TAMCI" project, which carried out a diagnostic study and then provided training for producers in the Yamoussoukro district (Belmin, 2020; IECD, 2020). Unlike other countries in the sub-region, such as Burkina Faso, the dissemination of ecological principles in Côte d'Ivoire is rather recent. For example, the introduction of certain innovations to Yamoussoukro producers has improved not only the quality and safety of the vegetables, but also the health of the farmers and biodiversity. Other producers have been able to extend the innovations to their entire cropping system (De Troij et al., 2022). This initiative has reduced pesticide residues in vegetables and soils, which is positive for the environment and biodiversity. Producers have been able to secure their income while reducing risks through crop diversification (De Troij et al., 2022; IPES-Food, 2016). By increasing the local production of organic inputs, producers are also reducing their production-related expenses (Inter-réseaux, 2014).

Very few studies have compared the productivity of agroecological and conventional systems (IPES-Food, 2016). Agro-ecology needs to prove its worth on each specific case, as there are many obstacles to its
implementation in a given area (IPES-Food, 2020). In West Africa, land acquisition for non-agricultural uses is in full swing while agricultural areas are shrinking. This pressure can be addressed by applying agro-ecological practices that do not require parcels to be enlarged. This is suitable for the small plots available to most farmers (IPES-Food, 2020, 2016). Agroecology has been attempted at several West African countries, and some of the results seem satisfactory, leading for instance to the creation of networks such as the CNABIO in Burkina Faso (Intéréseaux, 2018). In Côte d'Ivoire, agroecology must prove its worth, through action-research initiatives, in order to further develop in terms of breadth and depth of application. For instance, a number of questions need to be answered to better understand the motivations and strategies of market vegetable producers regarding the adoption of agroecological practices:

* Are agroecological practices valued on the Ivorian market?

* Are gross margins impacted by the price dynamics of the agricultural inputs and vegetable markets?

* Are the use of organic matter, the substitution of chemical pesticides and crop diversification the fundamental pillars of agroecology?

* Can agroecology reduce the risk of producers' losses (due to low purchase prices, climatic events, pest infestations) over the long term?

* Do producers have the flexibility to choose their buyers (for instance, in periods of low prices, or have they acquired compromises with lenders such as the trading Gouro women?

* Do yields mostly depend on input intensity or on the adoption of agroecological practices?

* Does the adoption of agroecological practices, especially those associated with diversification of crops, improve the availability of sellable products throughout the year?

* Is the increase in labour requirements associated with the lack of irrigation systems a constraint to the adoption of agroecological techniques such as substitution of chemical phytosanitary products?

* Is the number of agroecological producers in the country changing? Is it increasing?

* What are the positive effects of agroecology on health and household food security? How to quantify them?

* Why do producers invest in the agroecological transition? What are their motivations? What are they gaining?

All these questions demand further study, and a larger sample of agroecological producers seems necessary to refine our findings. Our team is carrying out additional, more thorough environmental and socio-economic analyses, as of the moment of publication of this work (see https://www.projet-marigo.org/).

## 4. Conclusions

The available data (primary, secondary) allows but only a superficial understanding of the Ivorian market vegetables value chain. More and more detailed studies are necessary to determine the agroecological practices and their level of adoption that would minimise negative environmental and maximise positive socio-economic impacts. Nonetheless, certain elements suggest that agroecology may well be the way forward.

Economic performance, expressed through gross margin, is poorly correlated with the classification of market vegetable systems as closer to conventional or closer to agroecological, when established by means of the CAET approach. This seems due to the overall low CAET scores across the sample of 800 technical itineraries. In the other hand, gross margin correlates significantly both with producer-declared system type (conventional, in transition, agroecological) and PCA-based clusters. These two latter classification systems are proxies for a number of practices by Ivorian producers, some of which are considered as agroecological. Producer-declared system types and PCA-based clusters,

moreover, show that under the current conditions and practices, conventional market vegetable production yields higher gross margins than systems self-identified as "agroecological", probably due to the facts that all producers adopt these practices to varying levels of intensity. The low number of systems (i.e. technical itineraries) formally engaged and/or self-identifying as engaged in agroecological transition limited this analysis (only 42 out of 800 technical itineraries).

Observed relations between yields and certain agroecological practices practiced by most Ivorian producers, in combination with the functional analysis of the value chain, suggest that an intensification of these practices, coupled with improvements of the enabling environment (necessary to palliate the inputs cost and product price variability, as well as improve and secure access to land), may overall contribute to improved yields and higher gross margins.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Moussa Dosso:** Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Software. **Jacob Nandjui:** Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Methodology. **Angel Avadí:** Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition.

### Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

### Data availability

Our data is published in dataverse, this is the link : https://doi.org/10.18167/DVN1/FFV3W6

### Acknowledgements

This work has been financed by the MARAÏCHAGE AGRO-ÉCOLOGIQUE PÉRI-URBAIN – DeSIRA MARIGO project (https://www.projet-marigo.org/), 2021-2025, grant number FOOD/2020/419-988. The authors acknowledge the following collaborators: MARIGO WP leaders, PhD students, interns and other students participating in field surveys and project deliverables.

## Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.103971.

## References

Abdou, K., Ben Rais Lasram, F., Romdhane, M.S., Le Loc'H, F., Aubin, J., 2017. Rearing performances and environmental assessment of sea cage farming in Tunisia using life cycle assessment (LCA) combined with PCA and HCPC. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1-14 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1339-2.

Acosta-Alba, I., Nicolay, G., Mbaye, A., Dème, M., Andres, L., Oswald, M., Zerbo, H., Ndenn, J., Avadí, A., 2022. Mapping fisheries value chains to facilitate their sustainability assessment: case studies in the Gambia and Mali. Mar. Policy 135, 104854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104854.

ACOTAF, 2022. Le conseil Agricole et l'accompagnement des transitions agroécologiques : une analyse transnationale des dynamiques, défis et perspectives dans cinq pays d'Afrique de l'Ouest. Ouagadougou : Réseau des services de conseil agricole et rural d'Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre.

AFD, Cirad, 2018. Supporting the agro-ecological transition in the global south, p. 8.

AGRA, 2021. Food Market Demand & Competitiveness. West Africa Region Report, Analyzing Food Demand Trends, Competitiveness of Domestic Supply Chains to Develop Strategies in Enhancing Trade Flows of Key Food Crops in Southern. East, and West Africa.

Akpa, L.G., 2022. Dynamiques d'accès à la terre des femmes maraîchères en milieux urbains et périurbains de Korrhogo au nord de la Côte d'Ivoire.

Anderson, C.R., Anderson, M.D., 2020. Resources to inspire a transformative agroecology: A curated guide. In: Transformation of our Food Systems: The Making
of a Paradigm Shift. Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft (Foundation on Future Farming), pp. 169-180.

Angbo-Kouakou, P., Bamba, Y., Kadio, G.A.B., Opokou, M.-S.M.A., Yao, D.F.G., Tizie, E. A., Dosso, A.B.A., Wane, A., 2023. Enquêtes de demande-consommation de produits maraîchers en Côte d'Ivoire, en 2021. CIRAD Dataverse V1. https://doi.org/10.18167/DVN1/P69NUK.

Assué, Y.J.A., Kouakou, P., Konaté, T., 2019. *L'agriculture périurbaine à Bouaké: entre recomposition des acteurs et gestion de la terre* 1-15.

Avadí, A., Nitschelm, L., Corson, M., Vertès, F., 2016. Data strategy for environmental assessment of agricultural regions via LCA: case study of a French catchment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 476-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1036-6.

Avadí, A., Corson, M.S., van der Werf, H.M.G., 2018. Modelling regional effects of selected agricultural management strategies with regional statistically based screening LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23, 12-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1300-4.

Avadí, A., Hodomihou, N.R., Amadji, G.L., Feder, F., 2021. LCA and nutritional assessment of southern Benin market vegetable gardening across the production continuum. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 26, 1977-1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01977-z.

BAD, 2018. Renforcer les chaînes de valeur agricole pour nourrir l'Afrique.

Bancal, V., Tano, K., 2019. Etude des Modalités de Réduction des Pertes Après Récolte dans les Cultures Marayaîchères en Côte d'Ivoire.

Basset-Mens, C., Avadí, A., Acosta-Alba, I., Bessou, C., Biard, Y., Payen, S., 2021. Life Cycle Assessment of Agri-Food Systems. An operational guide dedicated to developing and emerging economies. Quae. https://doi.org/10.35690/978-2-7592-3467-7.

Belmin, R., 2020. Diagnostic technico-économique des systèmes de production maraîchers de la zone de Yamoussoukro (Côte d'Ivoire).

Bendjebjar, P., Fouilleux, E., 2022. Exploring national trajectories of organic agriculture in Africa. Comparing Benin and Uganda. J. Rural. Stud. 89, 110-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.11.012.

BNETD, 2016. Analyse qualitative des facteurs de déforestation et de dégradation des forêts en Côte d'Ivoire. In: Ministère de l'Environnement et du Développement Durable. REDD+, BNETD, RONGEAD.

Bosso, A., Sika, N., Kwadjo, K., Pokou, K., 2020. Caractérisation des systèmes des cultures maraîchères dans deux localités du district d'Abidjan (Anyama et Port-Bouët) au sud de la Côte d'Ivoire. REB-PASRES 5, 41-50.

Byamugisha, F.F., Ansu, Y., 2017. Securing land tenure and access for the youth to modernize African agriculture. In: 14-17 2017 Land Policy in Africa Conference in Addis Ababa, p. 14.

CEDEAO, 2022. La newsletter de l'agroécologie. Numéro spécial COP 27.

Chianu, Jonas N., Chianu, Justina N., Mairura, F., 2012. Mineral fertilizers in the farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 32, 545-566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0050-0.

Chivenge, P., Mabhaudhi, T., Modi, A.T., Mafongoya, P., 2015. The potential role of neglected and underutilised crop species as future crops under water scarce conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12, 5685-5711. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120605685.

CNRA, 2019. Bien cultiver la tomate en Côte d'Ivoire.

COLEACP, 2020. Market Study of the Fruit and Vegetable Industry in Sub-Saharan Africa.

COMIFER, 2013. Calcul de la fertilisation azotée - Cultures annuelles et prairies. COMIFER- Comité Français d'Étude et de Développement de la Fertilisation Raisonée, Groupe Azote.

Dabat, M.-H., Orlandoni, O., Fabre, P., 2018a. An innovative integrated frame to deliver knowledge to policy-makers on inclusiveness and sustainability of agricultural value chains, in: 12èmes Journées de Recherches En Sciences Sociales (JRSS) SFER-INRA-CIRAD, Nantes – 13 et 14 Décembre 2018, p. 19.

Dabat, M.-H., Orlandoni, O., Fabre, P., 2018b. Bridging research and policy : Evidence based indicators on agricultural value chains to inform decision-makers on inclusiveness and sustainability. In: 166th EAAE Seminar Sustainability in the Agri-Food Sector, August 30-31, 2018. National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland, pp. 1-15.

De Bon, H., Fondio, L., Dugué, P., Coulibali, Z., Biard, Y., 2019. Etude d'identification et d'analyse des contraintes à la production maraîchère selon les grandes zones agro-climatiques de la Côte d'Ivoire. In: PS N°009/FIRCA/DCARA/PRO2M/2018.

De Troij, A., Belmin, R., Kan, K., Diabate, S., Kouadio, M.M.F., Laloge, R., Fernandes, P., Miche, T., Darras, A., Martin, T., 2022. First steps in the agroecological transition for market gardeners in Yamoussoukro: brakes and levers. Acta Hortic. 241-250 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2022.1355.31.

Debray, V., Wezel, A., Lambert-Derkimba, A., Roesch, K., Lieblein, G., Francis, C.A., 2019. Agroecological practices for climate change adaptation in semiarid and subhumid Africa. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 43, 429-456. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1509166.

Diarra, I., Dizio, D.F., Sarka, C.G.L., N'da, L., 2017. PRO-PLANTEURS : Étude des Opportunités de Marché des cultures vivrières. Projet PRO-PLANTEURS.

Diarrassouba, B., Yao, K.A.S., Tohouri, G.A., 2018. Micro-entreprises de transformation des produits vivriers locaux et dégradation de l'environnement urbain à Bouaké (Côte d'Ivoire).

Diouf, L.-E., Dieng, O., 2015. Guide des pratiques agroécologiques Département de Mbour, Sénégal. AGRISUD Int. CFSI, Fond. Fr. Fond. Ensemble. AFD, JAPPO. 40.

Dosso, M., Koffi, A., Glou Bi, I., Traoré, A., Avadí, A., 2023. Analyse fonctionnelle de la filière maraîchère périurbaine en Côte d'Ivoire (2021-2022), Rapport du WP2 – Diagnostique et évaluation du projet MARIGO. European Union - Cirad, Yamoussoukro.

Doumbia, M., Kwadjo, K.E., 2009. Pratiques d'utilisation et de gestion des pesticides par les maraîchers en Côte d'Ivoire : Cas de la ville d'Abidjan et deux de ses banlieues (Dabou et Anyama). J. Appl. Biosci. 18, 992-1002 https://doi.org/10.997-5902.

Dubois, T., Nordey, T., Opara, U.L., 2019. Unleashing the Power of Vegetables and Fruits in Southern Africa, in: Transforming Agriculture in Southern Africa: Constraints, Technologies, Policies and Processes, pp. 170-178. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429401701-23.

Ducroquet, H., Tillie, P., Louhichi, K., Gomez-Y-Paloma, S., 2017. L'agriculture de la Côte d'Ivoire à la loupe. Etat des lieux des filières de production végétales et animales et revue des politiques agricoles. EUR 28754 FR. In: Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2760/126254. ISBN 978-92-79-73180-8, doi:10.2760/126254, JRC107214.

Ettien, D.J.B., Akotto, O.F., Bouadou, O.B.F., 2022. Potentialités agronomiques des sols en zone de pression foncière dans la localité d'Azaguiè, sud-est de la Côte d'Ivoire. Agron. Africaine 34, 81-89.

Fabre, P., Dabat, M.-H., Orlandoni, O., 2021. Note Méthodologique Pour l'Analyse des Chaînes de Valeur Agricoles. Cadre et Outils - Elements Clés, Agrinatura EEIG.

FAO, 2018a. The 10 Elements of Agroecology Guiding the Transition to Sustainable Food and Agricultural Systems. FAO. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO, 2018b. Transition towards sustainable food and agriculture. An analysis of FAO'S 2018-2019 work plan, AN ANALYSIS OF FAO'S 2018-2019 Work Plan. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO, 2019. TAPE Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation 2019- Process of Development and Tape. Test version. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO, 2021. The state of food and agriculture 2021. In: Making agrifood systems more resilient to shocks and stresses, the State of Agriculture Food.

FAO, 2022. FAOSTAT Statistical Database [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data.

FAO/MINADER, 2019. Volume 7. Tableaux statistiques du recensement des exploitants et exploitations agricoles, Recensement des exploitants et exploitations agricoles (REEA) 2015-2016. Abidjan, Ministère de l'agriculture et du développement rural.

GIZ, 2020. Agroecology and Organic Agriculture.

Gollin, D., 2014. Smallholder Agriculture in Africa: An Overview and Implications for Policy. IIED Work. Pap. IIED, London, pp. 1-20.

HLPF, 2019. Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A Rep. by High Lev. Panel Expert. Food Secur. Nutr. Comm. World Food Secur. 1-162.

Hollinger, F., Staatz, J.M., 2015. Agricultural Growth in West Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

IECD, 2020. Rapport annuel 2019, Projet de transition maraîchère de Côte d'Ivoire.

Inter-reéseaux, 2014. Agroécologie en Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre : réalités et perspectives. Grain sel. 1-44.

Inter-reéseaux, 2018. Journée de partage d'expériences sur les dynamiques d'accompagnement des organisations paysannes (OP) pour le changement d'échelle en agroécologie. In: Leviers Et Obstacles Aux changements d'échelle Au Burkina Faso. Quelles Evolutions ?

IPES-Food, 2016. From Uniformity to Diversity.

IPES-Food, 2020. Valeur(s) ajoutée(s) de l'agroécologie: Déverrouiller le potentiel de transition en Afrique de l'Ouest. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems.

IPES-Food, 2020a. The added value(s) of Agroecology: Unlocking the potential for transition in West Africa. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food).

Knapp, S., van der Heijden, M.G.A., 2018. A global meta-analysis of yield stability in organic and conservation agriculture. Nat. Commun. 9, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05956-1.

Konaté, S., Kammampé, D., 2010. Atlas de la Biodiversité de l'Afrique de l'Ouest Volume III: Côte d'Ivoire. Abidjan & Frankfurt/Main.

Koné, M., Anoh, M.L., Beda, E.E.L., Coulibali, M.N., Berthe, M.J., 2018. Etude sur les filières et chaînes de valeur prometteuses dans les regions du Gbeke, Poro, Tonkpi et du district d'Abidjan, Projet « FEMMES EN ENTREPRISE».

Koné, M., Douffi, K.-C., Kouadio, Y., Koffi, I., 2020. Impact de l'étalement de l'agglomération urbaine d'Abobo sur les espaces vegetales: apport des images Landsat. Rev. l'environnement la biodiversité-PASRES 5, 1-16.

Kouakou, P.-A.K., 2019. Determinants Economiques et Impact Social du secteur maraîcher dans la Comune de Boundali. Agron. Africaine N° Spécial, pp. 103-113.

Kpan Kpan, K.G., Yao, B.L., Diemeleou, A.C., N'guettia, K.R., Traoré, K.S., Demélé, A., 2019. Pratiques phytosanitaires en agriculture périurbaine et contamination des denrées par les pesticides : cas des maraîchers de Port-Bouët (Abidjan). J. Anim. Plant Sci. 41, 6847-6863. https://doi.org/10.35759/janmplsci.v41.i1.11.

Lampkin, N.H., Pearce, B.D., 2021. Organic Farming and Biodiversity 1-67.

Latapie, C., 2022. Diversité et abondance des principaux acariens ravageurs sur solanaceae et de leurs ennemis naturels. Mise en avant de l'influence de l'usage des pesticides et de l'enherbement sur ces variables Etude exploratoire dans quatre grandes agglomération de C.

Lemeilleur, S., Angelo, L.D., Rousseau, M., Brisson, E., Boyet, A., Lançon, F., 2019. Les systèmes de distribution alimentaire dans les pays d'Afrique mé diterranéenne et Repenser le rôle des marchés dans.

Levasseur, V., Kouamé, C., Pasquini, M.W., Temple, L., 2007. A review of urban and peri-urban vegetable production in West Africa. Acta Hortic. 762, 245-252. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.762.23.

Lucantoni, D., Thulo, M., Makhoebe, L.M., Mottet, A., Bicksler, A., Sy, M.R., 2022. Report on the Use of the Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE) in Lesotho in the Context of the Restoration of Landscape and Livelihoods Project (ROLL). Results
and Analysis. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429489914-4.

Mambe-Ani, P., Ouattara, K.N., Elleingand, F.E., Kadjo, V., 2019. Assessment of the impact of pesticide use in urban and periurban agriculture in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 13, 2824. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v13i6.32.

MINADER, 2017. Déclaration de Politique Foncière Rurale de la Côte d'Ivoire.

MINAGRI, 2014. Stratégie nationale de développement des cultures vivrières autres que le riz (sndcv).

MINAGRI/CTB, 2006. Plan Directeur de l'Horticulture (2005-2020). MInistère de l'Agriculture et Coopération Technique Belge, Abidjan.

Mottet, A., Bicksler, A., Lucantoni, D., De Rosa, F., Scherf, B., Scopel, E., López-Ridaura, S., Gemmil-Herren, B., Bezner Kerr, R., Sourisseau, J.M., Petersen, P., Chotte, J.L., Loconto, A., Tittonell, P., 2020. Assessing transitions to sustainable agricultural and food systems: a tool for agroecology performance evaluation (TAPE). Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.579154.

Nugteren, J.A., 2018. Horticulture in Côte d'Ivoire: Opportunites for Dutch Business.

Okigbo, R.N., Ugwu, C.S., 2021. Neglected crops of Africa. Int. J. Agric. Technol. 17, 2197-2210.

Oula, P.Q., Martin, T., Fondio, L., Koné, D., Djézou, W.B., Parrot, L., 2021. Les déterminants de l'usage inadapté des produits phytophamarceutiques en maraîchage de contre saison en Côte d'Ivoire, in: 14 Emé Journées de Recherches En Sciences Sociales. INRAE, SFER, CIRAD. Clermond-Ferrand : SFER, Pp. 1-15. Journées de Recherches En Sciences Sociales (JRSS). 14, Clermond-Ferrand, France, 7 April 2021/8 April 2021.

Palomo-Campesino, S., González, J.A., García-Llorente, M., 2018. Exploring the connections between agroecological practices and ecosystem services: a systematic literature review. Sustain 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124339.

Perrin, A., Basset-Mens, C., Gabrielle, B., 2014. Life cycle assessment of vegetable products: a review focusing on cropping systems diversity and the estimation of field emissions. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19, 1247-1263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0724-3.

Pretty, J.N., Morison, J.I.L., Hine, R.E., 2003. Reducción de la pobreza alimentaria mediante el aumento de la sostenibilidad agrícola en los países en desarrollo. Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 95, 217-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00087-7.

Sanabria, J., Dimithe, G., Alognikou, E.K.M., Allgood, J., 2013. La qualité des engrais commercialisés en Afrique de l'Ouest : Evidence pour un contrôle renforcé. Rapport de la Côte d'Ivoire, Rapport conjoint de la CEDEAO, de l'UEMOA et de l'IFDC. International Fertilizer Development Center.

Sanogo, S., 2018. Caractérisation des cultures maraîchères en zone de urbaine : cas de la ville de Korhogo. Université Péléforo Gon Coulibaly de Korhogo.

Schader, C., Heidenreich, A., Kadzere, I., Egyir, I., Muriuki, A., Bandanaa, J., Clottey, J., Ndungu, J., Grovermann, C., Lazzarini, G., Blockeel, J., Borgemeister, C., Muller, A., Kabi, F., Fiaboe, K., Adamtey, N., Huber, B., Niggli, U., Stolze, M., 2021. How is organic farming performing agronomically and economically in sub-Saharan Africa? Glob. Environ. Chang. 70, 102325 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102325.

Schwarz, G., Vanni, F., Miller, D., Helin, J., Pražan, J., Albanito, F., Fratila, M., Galioto, F., Gava, O., Irvine, K., Landert, J., Quero, A.L., Mayer, A., Monteleone, D., Muller, A., Röös, E., Smyrniotopoulou, A., Vincent, A., Vlahos, G., Zilans, A., 2022. Exploring sustainability implications of transitions to agroecology: a transdisciplinary perspective. EuroChoices 21, 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12377.

SEMMARIS/RONGEAD, 2015. Marchés d'intérêt national et international en Côte d'Ivoire. In: Analyse Diagnostic. Etude de pré faisabilité, Analyse Diagnostic. Etude de pré faisabilité.

Shackleton, C.M., Pasquini, M.W., Drescher, A.W., 2009. African indigenous vegetables in urban agriculture. In: African Indigenous Vegetables in Urban Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849770019.

Silue, N.L., 2016. La monographie des cultures maraîchères de la zone urbaine de Korhogo. PhD thesis. Université Péléforo Gon Coulibaly.

Thompson, H.E., Berrang-Ford, L., Ford, J.D., 2010. Climate change and food security in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 2, 2719-2733. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2082719.

Traoré, A.J.-F., 2022. Analyse socioéconomique de la chaîne de valeur des cultures maraîchères dans la zone de Korhogo. Rapp. stage. Université Péléforo Gon Coulibaly.

van Ittersum, M.K., van Bussel, L.G.J., Wolf, J., Grassini, P., van Wart, J., Guilpart, N., Claessens, L., Groot, H., Wiebe, K., Mason-D'Croz, D., Yang, H., Boogaard, H., Oort, P.A.J., Loon, M.P., Cassman, K.G., 2016. Can sub-Saharan Africa feed itself? PNAS Early Ed. 1-6 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610359113.

Vermeire, M.-L., Thiour-Mauprize, C., De Clerck, C., 2024. Agroecological transition: towards a better understanding of the impact of ecology-based farming practices on soil microbial ecotoxicology. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiae031.

Wezel, A., Soboksa, G., McClelland, S., Delespesse, F., Boissau, A., 2015. The blurred boundaries of ecological, sustainable, and agroecological intensification: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 1283-1295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0333-y.

Wezel, A., Herren, B.G., Kerr, R.B., Barrios, E., Gonçalves, A.L.R., Sinclair, F., 2020. Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 40 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00646-z.

Yarou, B.B., Silvie, P., Komlan, F.A., Mensah, A., Alabi, T., Verheggen, F., Francis, F., 2017. Plantes pesticides and protection des cultures maraîchères en Afrique de l'Ouest (Synthèse bibliographique). Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 21, 288-304.