Constraints to smallholders participation in Cassava value ... - aaacp

Table 5 Types of intervention receivedIntervention type # %Individual on-farm visits by MACO extension agents 64 55Group training 44 38Contacts through nucleus farmers 29 25Dissemination of information by radio 23 20Dissemination of information by printed leaflets and posters 22 19Distribution of new planting materials 21 18Visits to demonstration plots 19 16Grants/credit 18 15Commercial outgrower schemes 10 9Visits by private sector agents 4 3Planting materials from community nurseries 3 33.7 AttributionA form of ‘weak’ attribution was tested by asking respondents the extent to which they consideredthat livelihood changes were attributable to engagement in the cassava sector. Positive effects wereexploitation of new income sources, and higher product prices from IVs. Negative effects wereexposure to weather extremes (although less acute than for maize), higher costs and other shocks,such as livestock damage. Apart from weather effects, these adverse effects were at most onlyslightly important.Other sources of positive changes in livelihoods were considered to be unimportant overall,although there was higher variation among respondents about the part played by new incomesources and market conditions for inputs and products. In addition to those causes listed below,good health and food security were cited by 7 respondents (6%) as the only other change factoraffecting livelihoods. In ranking these sources of positive change, ‘new income sources’ wereimportant for 70% and higher market prices were important for 78% of grower/suppliers (Table 6).15