Smallholder Information Sources and Communication Pathways for Cashew Production and Marketing in Tanzania: An Ex-post Study in Tandahimba and Lindi Rural Districts, Southern Tanzania

This article was downloaded by: [74.96.72.201]On: 23 December 2012, At: 05:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Agricultural Educationand ExtensionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20

Smallholder Information Sources andCommunication Pathways for CashewProduction and Marketing in Tanzania:An Ex-post Study in Tandahimba andLindi Rural Districts, Southern TanzaniaBrigitte Nyambo a & Elly Ligate ba Head Technology Transfer Unit, International Centre of InsectPhysiology and Ecology (ICIPE), P.O. Box 30772-00100, Nairobi,Kenyab University of Dar-es-Salaam, Institute of Resource Assessment(IRA), P.O. Box 36508, Dar es Salaam-TanzaniaVersion of record first published: 13 Dec 2012.

To cite this article: Brigitte Nyambo & Elly Ligate (2012): Smallholder Information Sources andCommunication Pathways for Cashew Production and Marketing in Tanzania: An Ex-post Study inTandahimba and Lindi Rural Districts, Southern Tanzania, The Journal of Agricultural Education andExtension, DOI:10.1080/1389224X.2012.746004

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.746004

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.746004

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

Smallholder Information Sources andCommunication Pathways for CashewProduction and Marketing in Tanzania:An Ex-post Study in Tandahimba and LindiRural Districts, Southern Tanzania

BRIGITTE NYAMBO* and ELLY LIGATE$

*Head Technology Transfer Unit, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), P.O.Box 30772-00100, Nairobi, Kenya, $University of Dar-es-Salaam, Institute of Resource Assessment (IRA),P.O. Box 36508, Dar es Salaam-Tanzania

ABSTRACT Purpose: To identify and review production and marketing information sources andflows for smallholder cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) growers in Tanzania and recommendsystems improvements for better technology uptake.Design/methodology/approach: Two-stage purposive samples were drawn. First, two districts inthe main cashew producing areas, one with significant research investment and good marketinginfrastructure and the other a counterfactual. Second, two villages were purposively selected fromeach district to provide the maximum contrast of variables pertinent to the study. Field data werecollected using a semi-structured, open-ended questionnaire complimented by field verificationand a wrap-up stakeholders’ workshop. The data were analysed using chi-square test and theorderly probit model.Findings: Sources of information and flows varied between districts and villages. For production,the most reliable sources were role model farmers (RMFs), extensionists, radio, on-farmdemonstrations, researchers, cashew development centres (CDCs), print media and mobile phonesin order of popularity. RMFs, radio programmes, extensionists, interactions with researchers,CDCs and print were the main pathways. For marketing, primary society notice boards, radioannouncements, RMFs, extensionists, mobile phones and print were listed in order of popularity.Print media was the least popular due to a low level of literacy among growers. RMFs werepopular actors in the information systems irrespective of social-economic background.Practical implications: Policy change and additional resources are required for improvement ofexisting information systems. Additionally, incentive structures that will enhance and sustaincontinued investment in cashew production should be emphasized.Originality and value: This is the first attempt in the Tanzanian cashew sector to analyse and linksocial economics of growers with information sources, communication channels and technologyuptake.

KEY WORDS: Cashew production, Marketing, Information systems, Tanzania

Correspondence address: Brigitte Nyambo, Head Technology Transfer Unit, International Centre of InsectPhysiology and Ecology (ICIPE), P.O. Box 30772-00100 Nairobi, Kenya. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension2012, 1!20, iFirst

1389-224X Print/1750-8622 Online/12/000001-20 # 2012 Wageningen Universityhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.746004

Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.746004

Introduction

Cashew, Anacardium occidentale L., production in Tanzania is a smallholderenterprise, involving about 500,000 households (UNIDO, 2011), situated along thecoastal belt. The crop is especially important in the southern coastal regions ofMtwara and Lindi which produce 70!80% of Tanzania’s share in the global market(Ngatunga et al., 2003; UNIDO, 2011). It is an important export crop, earning about8!10% of the country’s annual foreign exchange, amounting to US$40 million in2006 (Kilama, 2010). However, production is low and unstable. Production peaked inthe 1973!1974 season at 145,000 tons but rapidly declined to 9261 tons in the 1986!1987 season and has never bounced back (Anon., 2010; UNIDO, 2011). The quantityand quality are affected by a complex of biological factors, principally, insect pests,diseases, poor planting material, inadequate agronomic practices, and social-economic factors, principally inefficient marketing system and low producer prices(Martin et al., 1997; Sijaona, 2002; Mitchell, 2004; UNIDO, 2011).

Integrated pest management (IPM) options for cashew orchards have beendeveloped in order to minimize losses caused by powdery mildew (Oidium anacardiiNoack), the key disease of cashew in Tanzania (Martin et al., 1997). Attack bypowdery mildew can cause yield losses of 70!100% (Sijaona and Shomari, 1987). Therecommended IPM components include orchard sanitation (selective thinning of oldand crowded trees), regular monitoring for levels of diseases and insect pests, use ofgenetically improved planting material for yield and quality (top-working, grafting oruse of polyclonal seeds), timely and proper pesticide spraying, improved harvestingand storage practices.

Cashew quality, a function of pre- and post-harvest management of orchards andnut handling, is an important aspect that determines the farm gate and internationalmarket prices. Currently there are two recognized quality grades: standard andunder-grade. During the 2009!2010 marketing season, the farm gate price for thestandard grade was 0.538 US$/kg (1 US$: 1300 TSH) compared to 0.431 US$/kg forthe under-grade.

Beginning from the 1987!1988 marketing season, the government of Tanzaniaallocated resources for research and development in order to revive the cashew sector(Sijaona, 2002). Between 1987 and 1989, a pilot project to address cashew productionconstraints was launched with assistance from the Overseas Development Admin-istration, UK. This was followed by the National Cashew Nut ImprovementProgramme (NCNIP) of 1990!1996 whose main objective was to ensure theavailability of new cashew production technologies to farmers (Sijaona, 2002). In1994, farmer participatory methods of technology dissemination through cashewIPM farmer field schools were piloted in some villages (Nathaniels et al., 2003a).

Cashew nut production has not returned to the 1972!1973 production level,notwithstanding efforts made by NCNIP based on an ex-ante study of farmers’ cropprotection practices, perceptions and sources of information conducted in 2000 byNathaniels et al., (2003a, 2003b) in some of the major cashew producing districts, andmarket liberalization in the 1990s (Anon., 2010; Kilama, 2011). Although there hasbeen some improvement in overall output (UNIDO, 2011), the yield per tree rangesfrom 4.5 kg to 20 kg at farmer level compared to 40 kg/tree under optimum

2 B. Nyambo and E. Ligate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

management (Kapinga Fortunatus, researcher, ARI-Naliendele, personal commu-nication 2009), a situation that can be due to various factors.

The objectives of this ex-post study were to (1) identify and review currentinformation flows to smallholder cashew producers, and especially the sources andpathways of production and marketing; and (2) based on the findings, recommendhow existing information sources and pathways could be strengthened.

Conceptual Framework

The study is based on an understanding of communication articulated as an exchangeof information in which data are ‘raw facts’; information is data that are givenmeaning by someone, and knowledge is the cognitive understanding created by eachperson through experience (Roling, 1988; Garforth and Usher, 1997). Researchers,extension agents and farmers in this study are identified as major actors in theinformation system (Garforth and Usher, 1997; Dietric and Jurgen, 2008;Demıryurek, 2010). Farmers, particularly innovators, are the key actors, representingthe most efficient pathway for technology diffusion and themselves contributing toinformation generation and flow (Garforth and Usher, 1997; Campbell et al., 2006;Dietric and Jurgen, 2008). A farmer innovator (referred to as role model farmer inthis study), is someone who develops or tries out and uses new ideas or technologies,e.g. new cashew varieties, without having been requested to by outsiders (FAO 2001;Swanson, 2008). Such farmers are important sources of information and channels ofinformation flow in their communities. Farmer!farmer information diffusion takesplace along a variety of pathways using local networks and institutions (Campbellet al., 2006; Dietric and Jurgen, 2008; Amudavi et al., 2009). No single informationsource or communication pathway can be used to deliver new technologies wherethere are diverse targets because of differences in social-cultural relationships andinstitutional arrangements. An information system is regarded as a social systemwhose behaviour, in relation to sources and channels of information, is largelyinfluenced by the goal, values and beliefs of individuals, target groups, and theperformance of the technology in time and space. In the case of cashew, markets andmarket access plus price incentives are likely to be other additional drivers that willdetermine a change in farmers’ behaviour in favour of allocating additional resourcesto new technologies. It is also possible that weaknesses associated with informationflows in a system are likely to inhibit uptake and wide use of validated technologieseven where good incentive structures are in place. It is also envisaged that the sub-sector is open to new ideas and constructive criticisms and therefore action wouldhave been taken for the feedback from the ex-ante study conducted in early 2000, anissue that was investigated by the current study.

Methodology

Study Area

The study was conducted in two districts: Tandahimba district, Mtwara Region andLindi rural district, Lindi Region, both located in the south-eastern part of Tanzania(Figure 1). A two-stage purposive sample was drawn. First, two rural districts in themain cashew growing area were selected for the study in consultation with the cashew

Smallholder Information Sources and Communication Pathways 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

improvement programme at Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) Naliendele. Theaim was to identify a district with good market infrastructure and significant cashewresearch investment, compared to a district lacking both. Two villages from eachdistrict were then purposively selected from each district council’s village list, again toprovide maximum contrasts with respect to variables pertinent to this study. Thesampling procedure is described further below.

The Tandahimba district contributes 40% of the total cashew production insouthern Tanzania (S. Shomari, Director, ARI-Naliendele, personal communication2009) and has been the focus for all national cashew improvement programmes,beginning with the 1987!1989, 1990!1996 and the 2002!2006 Cashew Nut SectorDevelopment Plans, and the pioneer district for the warehouse receipt system(WHRS) of marketing.1 The district is well-endowed with research and investment inthe development and promotion of cashew production technologies and marketinginfrastructure.

The Lindi Rural district contributes about 18% of the total cashew production forsouthern Tanzania. It has attracted limited attention from researchers and marketinginfrastructural investment.

Study Villages

The villages selected for the study differed in production potential, level of interactionwith ARI-Naliendele NCNIP and agricultural extension advisory service providers,distance from cashew development centres (CDCs) and the presence or absence ofcashew primary societies at village level (Table 1). A list of farmers producing cashew

Figure 1. Location of study area.Source: GIS Unit-ARI-Naliendele.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

nuts in each village constituted a sampling frame from which 10% of the growers wererandomly selected and interviewed.

CDCs were established under NCNIP in the 1990s as cashew informationdissemination centres, mandated to (1) multiply and distribute improved cashewplanting materials, and (2) train farmers and cashew extension workers in newtechnologies developed by NCNIP. Two CDCs were included in the study: Nanyangain Tandahimba district and Nyangao in Lindi Rural district.

Field Survey

The study was conducted in November!December 2009. A semi-structured, open-ended questionnaire was used to interview 110 cashew nut producers (60 inTandahimba and 50 in Lindi, of whom nine and seven respectively were femalefarmers), five researchers, two agricultural extension officers, two officials at theCashew Board of Tanzania (CBT*the cashew industry regulator and promoter),three primary society leaders, four spray operators, three cooperative union officials(Mtwara/Masasi, Tandahimba/Newala and Lindi), two CDC managers, one smalland one large cashew processor and one trainer at the Ministry of AgricultureTraining Institute (MATI) Naliendele, Mtwara. Rankings and preferences ofcommunity members for different sources of information and pathways were used.Focus group discussions on cashew production and marketing information sourcesand pathways for homogenous group members were organized for the otherstakeholders. Data were collected by the aid of developed checklists and ques-tionnaires for various stakeholders. The farmer interviews were complemented byfield verification of the practices. A wrap-up stakeholders’ workshop that broughttogether 22 participants who had been interviewed during the field survey wasconducted in May 2010 to discuss and verify the research findings and to fine-tunethe recommendations. Farmers’ representatives (women and men of mixed ages) forthe stakeholders’ workshop were purposively handpicked and provided with logisticalsupport to ensure participation. Institutions and companies were invited to send arepresentative. All discussions and interviews were conducted in Kiswahili, thecommon language in Tanzania. The channels of communication on how informationwas delivered from different sources to farmers and how these could be improvedwere the focus of the workshop. This involved group assignments, plenary discussionsand recording on flip charts.

Table 1. Relative location of selected study villages to CDCs, primary societies, agriculturalextension offices and level of interaction with research.

District VillageServiceCDC

DistancefromserviceCDC

Distance fromagriculturalextensionoffices

Villageprimarysociety

Interactionlevel withresearch

Tandahimba Malamba Nanyang’a 13 km 5 km established HighMadaba 20 km 10 km established

Lindi Rural Pangatena Nyang’ao 50 km Duty station established LowSudi 90 km 40 km nil


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

The data were analysed using the chi-square test and the orderly probit model toidentify social-economic factors influencing farmers’ ranking of information sourcesand pathways.

Results

The outcomes of the farmer interviews are presented, informed by the otherstakeholder interviews. Since the roles of the stakeholders overlap in some cases, ithas been difficult to segregate different stakeholders’ views and the views are notpresented separately.

Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics of Interviewed Farmers

Table 2 depicts demographic and socio-economic characteristics of interviewedfarmers.

Young cashew growers (18!36 years old) ranged from 4!13% in sampled growersin Malamba, Madaba and Lindi, whereas the older age group of 74"years wasnotably high in Lindi, reaching 44% in Sudi village. The middle-aged, 37!55 yearsold, were proportionally fewer in Lindi Rural compared to Tandahimba district.Cashew nut orchard ownership is male dominated, arising from the prevailing

Table 2. Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of farmers (N#110).

Tandahimba District-Mtwara (%)

Lindi Rural District-Lindi (%)

Villages Malamba Madaba Sudi PangatenaVariables measured n#30 n#30 n#25 n#25

Age (years)Below 18 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.018!36 13.3 10.0 04.0 04.037!55 36.7 53.3 12.0 36.056!73 43.3 36.7 40.0 36.074" 06.7 00.0 44.0 24.0GenderMale 86.7 83.3 92.0 80.0Female 13.3 16.7 08.0 20.0Marital statusMarried 90.0 86.7 80.0 92.0Single 03.3 03.3 16.0 04.0Widowed 06.7 03.3 04.0 04.0Divorced 00.0 06.7 00.0 00.0Education levelsNo formal education 50.0 33.3 40.0 56.0Primary education 43.3 63.3 56.0 44.0Secondary 06.7 03.3 04.0 00.0Post secondary 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0OccupationFarming 90.0 100 68.0 84.0Business 10.0 00.0 12.0 16.0Farming and business 00.0 00.0 20.0 00.0Employed 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

traditional land tenure system which is biased against women. Only a few women, 8%Pangatena, 13% Malamba, 17% Madaba and 20% in Sudi were found to own andmanage cashew orchards (Table 2). These women were either widowed or divorced.

Almost all the farmer respondents were married (Table 2). Marriage was found toincrease a household’s labour pool because unpaid children and women are the mainsources of labour in cashew orchards at weeding and harvesting. Larger families wereassociated with bigger orchards.

The level of education (formal education to secondary) varied greatly between andwithin the study districts. Madaba had the highest literacy level compared with Sudi,Pangatena and Malamba (Table 2).

Crop production was found to be the primary source of income for 87% of therespondents (Table 2). Cashew, the key commercial crop, was often grown inassociation with food crops, with the intention to provide self-sufficient householdfood security. Small businesses were ranked as the second income-generating activityin both districts. In Sudi, most respondents drew most of their income from fishing.This village also had the highest proportion of neglected orchards.

Adoption of Cashew Orchard Management Practices

The results of the assessment of current orchard management practices (excludingspraying) are summarized in Figure 2. Generally, orchards in Tandahimba werebetter managed and showed higher cashew yield potential than in Lindi Ruraldistrict. A higher proportion of respondents in Malamba village had adoptedrecommended practices compared to Madaba, Pangatena and Sudi, presumablybecause of Malamba’s close proximity to the CDC and the agricultural extension

Figure 2. Orchard management practices in selected study villages in Tandahimba and LindiRural districts (November!December 2010) (N#110).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

offices, making access to information and advice easier for the farmers in Malambavillage.

Sources of Information and Communication Pathways

A range of sources of information and communication pathways were identified andranked by the farmer respondents (Table 3). These varied among farmers, villagesand districts (Table 3 and Figure 3) but the differences were not statisticallysignificant as determined by the chi-square test and the orderly probit model.

The three most important sources of information for the majority of growers inorder of popularity were role model farmers (RMFs), agricultural extension workersand radio programmes (Table 3).

RMFs were held in high esteem by over 50% of the respondents in Malamba,Madaba and Pangatena (Figure 3), although this varied with the technology. RMFswere easily pointed out in their villages by 43!63% of the respondents whocommented that they were very reliable, with 25.5% ranking them as number oneirrespective of age, gender, education and experience in farming of the respondent.The majority of the farmer respondents further commented that the other membersof the community observed their practices and learned new technologies from them.This was particularly evident with regard to how farmers accessed improved plantingmaterial (Figure 4). For instance, although the use of improved cashew cultivars,largely selected for high yields, better nut quality and tolerance to powdery mildeware recommended by research to boost national cashew production, the studyrevealed that 59% of the respondents sourced improved planting materials fromRMFs, 50% used selections from their own farms, 27% sourced from CDCs, 18%from extension services and 15% from ARI-Naliendele. The proportion of farmersthat make selections from their own orchards was lowest in Malamba (40%),compared to 60% in Madaba, 51% in Pangatena and 49% in Sudi village (Figure 4).

The role and significance of agricultural extensionists varied between villages,districts, farmer’s age, gender, level of education, farming experience and size oforchard. Only 23% of all respondents irrespective of their social-economic differencesinformed that these service providers were reliable. At village level, only 30% of thegrowers in Madaba mentioned extensionists as important sources of cashewproduction information compared to 55% in Malamba (located very close to thedistrict extension office) (Table 1, Figures 3 and 4). More respondents in Malamba(35%) informed that they source improved planting material from the districtagricultural programmes as compared to only 10% in Madaba. Similarly, morerespondents in Pangatena (62%) mentioned the agricultural extensionist as animportant source of information, whereas only 29% of the Sudi respondentsmentioned the services of extensionists as important. Overall, services of extensio-nists and their reliability were ranked very low, the highest being 10% by the 56!73age group.

The radio was ranked highly, particularly in Sudi and Pangatena villages (Table 3and Figure 3). The majority of the respondents had access to a radio, either their ownor they listened to their neighbours. Respondents stated that they particularly tunedin to the Tanzania Broadcasting Corporation (TBC), a state-owned channel thathas been active for many years. We also learned that the popular cashew-focused,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

Table 3. Respondents’ ranking of information sources for selected villages in Tandahimba and Lindi (R) districts, November!December 2009(N#110).

Tandahimba district Lindi Rural district

Malamba Rank Madaba Rank Pangatena Rank Sudi Rank

RMFs 1 RMFs 1 Radio 1 Radio 1Extension officer 2 Radio 2 Extension officer 1 RMFs 2Radio 3 Extension officer 3 RMFs 2 Extension officer 3CDCs 4 Mobile phones 4 Research demonstrations 3 Research officers 3Research officers 5 Research officers 5 Research officers 4 Mobile phones 3Mobile phones 6 CDCs 6 Leaflets 5 Leaflets 4Research demonstrations 7 Leaflets 7 Mobile phones 5 Research demonstrations 5Leaflets 8 Research demonstrations 7 CDCs 6 CDCs 5Posters 9 Posters 8 Posters 7 Posters 6Television 10 Television 8 Television 8 Newspapers 7

Smallholder

Information

Sources

andCom

munication

Pathw

ays9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

peer-reviewed radio programme sponsored by the CBT (that used to be aired once aweek) had been discontinued in recent years because of lack of resources. However,most of the respondents expressed their desire for it to be aired again, with apreference for a twice a week schedule.

The services and popularity of the CDCs were ranked very low across all thevillages, and lowest in Lindi irrespective of gender, age, education, farming experienceand size of orchard (Table 3 and Figure 3). Forty six percent of the respondentsindicated that CDCs were not useful compared to 24% and 30% who informed thatthey are useful and very useful respectively in terms of provision of improved plantingmaterials and training, a service currently better provided by RMFs.

The preliminary analysis of these results led the research team to seek furtherinformation to identify some of the underlying factors for the CDCs’ lack ofpopularity. During the study period, officials regarded Nanyanga CDC as a showcasecentre that offered services to several districts, including Tandahimba, Newala,Masasi and Mtwara, in contrast to Nyangao CDC that was inactive. The mainfindings were that farmers’ awareness of the existence and roles of the CDCs variedfrom one village to another and by their distance from the centres. In Tandahimbadistrict, 83.3% of the Malamba respondents recognized the existence of NanyangaCDC compared to 66.7% of the Madaba respondents who lived 20 km away from thecentre (Figure 3). In Lindi Rural district, 43% of the Pangatena respondents weremore informed about the Nyangao CDC compared to 37% in Sudi located 40 kmaway. The usefulness of the centres to cashew growers was evaluated by therespondents in the context of their mandate. Overall, the CDCs were ranked low(Table 3). In Tandahimba district, only 53% of the respondents in Malamba (13 kmfrom the centre) felt that Nanyanga was a useful institution compared to 30% in

Figure 3. Distribution of cashew production information sources for selected villages ofTandahimba and Lindi Rural districts (November!December 2009) (N#110).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

Madaba village. Similarly, only 38% of the Pangatena respondents thought theNyangao centre was useful compared to 4% in Sudi village. The study establishedthat 50% of the Malamba respondents sourced planting material from the nearestCDC compared to 20% in the other villages (Figure 4).

Farmers’ willingness to pay for training courses and other extension services wasassessed. The willingness to pay for IPM training was less than 10%, 30%, 35% and49% for Malamba, Pangatena, Madaba, and Sudi farmers, respectively. We assessedthe type and nature of the training courses (subjects, duration, beneficiaries, etc.)offered. It was noted that (1) the courses were for a period of up to five working daysand combined lectures and practical sessions; (2) most courses focused on cashewimprovement; (3) no fees were paid to attend but participation was controlled bydistricts because fees are covered by district agricultural offices; (4) the centres werenot equipped with library facilities and did not have copies of leaflets/posters ofcashew production information for distribution; and (5) the centres were open tofarmers to visit at any time to observe, select and purchase planting materials.

The print media (posters and leaflets) were the least popular, mentioned by 10% ofrespondents in all four villages (Table 3 and Figure 3), despite the fact that they arethe most popular means of communication employed by ARI-Naliendele. These werenot valued as good sources of information in Madaba and Sudi villages, which haverelatively higher levels of literacy (Table 3 and Figure 3). Regarding agriculturalcertificate training, MATI-Naliendele pointed out that the curriculum is not specificto any one crop. Cashew is included as one of the crops since the mandate of theInstitute is to give a course in general crop production and course graduates could beposted anywhere in Tanzania.

Figure 4. Sources of cashew planting material for farmers in surveyed villages (November!December 2010) (N#110).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

Various communication channels were found to be used by the actors regardedas key information sources to pass messages to target audiences (Figure 5). ARI-Naliendele mentioned a number of pathways they use to communicate newtechnologies to farmers (Figure 5), but these differed from farmers’ perceptions.The pathways mentioned and rated by farmers in order of popularity were RMFs,radio programmes, face-to-face interactions with researchers, CDCs, demonstrationplots and print media. The radio programmes were popular in all four villages, beingmore valued in Sudi (60% of the respondents) and Pangatena (65% of therespondents), compared to 50% and 55% in Malamba and Madaba, respectively.Agricultural extensionists stated that they use a combination of various commu-nication channels, namely contact farmers, open field days, farmer field schools andtrainings jointly organised with CDCs, but these were not mentioned by farmers. Atthe RMFs level and CDCs, information was conveyed by means of visualobservations of practices and informal discussions. The CDCs maintain orchardsas sources of planting materials for farmers. The orchards maintain a collection ofthe best varieties validated by research in large demonstration plots accessible tofarmers throughout the year. The CDCs are managed by ARI-Naliendele, and,therefore, are considered by researchers to be an important research communicationtool. A few farmers: 25% in Madaba, 29% in Pangatena and Sudi, 30% in Malamba,stated that mobile telephones are used for making enquiries and/or appointmentswith extension workers, and occasionally with researchers, whenever unfamiliar pestsare noticed in their orchards.

Assessment of knowledge, practices and attitude of cashew growers regardingmarketing system focussed on: (1) what farmers know about general the raw nutmarketing system: the start of the market season, the farm gate price and how it isnormally set, who is involved in price setting; (2) raw nut quality control; and (3) howinformation is communicated to farmers.

The majority of the respondents were informed about official marketing seasonsand farm gate prices. Farmers in Tandahimba district were also well-informed about

Research (primary information source)

Leaflet & posters CDCsTrain extension agents Radio On-farm demonstrations Agricultural shows Open farmer field days

Target (farmers & extension agents)

Extensionists (secondarysource)

Visit & train Farmer field days Group training at CDCs Contact farmers

RMFs (secondary information sources)

Experimentation

Farmer–farmer informal networks

Other farmers (secondary information source)

Experimentation Farmer–farmer informal networks

CDCs (secondary information source)Established improved clones Group trainings Informal individual farmer visits

Figure 5. Cashew production communication pathways identified in surveyed villages(November!December 2010).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

the WHRS and how it functions and were happy with the system. In contrast, theWHRS was being introduced for the first time to Lindi Rural farmers during the2009!2010 season when the survey was conducted and was not well understood bymany of the respondents. Overall, there was widespread ignorance across all villagesabout how producer prices are set and by whom, although we were informed by CBTand ARI-Naliendele that farmer representatives (selected by CBT) always attend theannual price-setting meetings organized by CBT. Additionally, respondents wereunhappy with the current raw nut pricing, arguing that it should be doubled for afarmer to make a profit. Farmers also complained that the WHRS was not flexible,and this is why some farmers sells raw nuts at a throwaway price to the ‘kangomba’(informal middle-man system) outlets to get quick cash.

Seventy-five percent of the respondents admitted not grading nuts as required.On-farm nut grading was unpopular in all the villages covered during the survey: only25% of the respondents in Malamba and Pagantena and 30% in Madaba and Sudistated that they regularly grade their produce before delivery to primary societies. Therespondents that do not grade the nuts argued that the difference in the current farmgate price for the two grades was not a sufficient incentive for a farmer to invest ingrading. This issue was followed up with the primary societies, Cooperative Unions,the CBTofficials and local processors. We were informed that the two grades are soldat the following prices: during the 2009!2010 marketing season, the price of thestandard grade was 0.538 US$/kg while the under-grade was sold at 0.431 US$/kg. Inaddition, a bonus payment, based on quality of the nuts (among other factors), can bepaid. For example, the bonus payment during the 2009!2010 was 0.153!0.277 US$/kgfor primary societies in Tandahimba compared to 0!0.123 US$/kg in Lindi Ruraldistrict, largely due to differences in the quality of nuts sold.

The stakeholder workshop observed that laxity of primary society officials coupledwith nepotism had opened up a window of abuse where farmers sell all their produceas standard grade irrespective of quality. Furthermore, many young farmers are notinformed about and experienced in nut grading. Also, some extensionists were notwell-informed about cashew production as they were new recruits for the crop andthe area and therefore not able to sensitize farmers on the significance of on-farm rawnut grading. District agricultural development officers’ (DADO) skills in extensionmethodologies were reported to be wanting, while many experienced extensionistsand trained spray operators have retired or were about to retire, thus creating skillvacuum in some areas. Processors insist on the two grades because these affect out-turn and product prices. Processors and researchers stated that, under researchconditions, 10 kg of raw nuts give an out-turn of 4!5 kg of processed nuts. Incontrast, the same quantity from farmer fields will give an out-turn of only 3 kg andhence the concern of the processors.

Additionally, not all growers have proper cashew stores or use appropriate storagematerial as recommended (59%, 43%, 42% and 40% in Malamba, Madaba,Pangatena and Sudi, respectively). Sixty-five percent of farmers in Sudi and 45%in Madaba and Pangatena and 35% in Malamba admitted that they store the nuts byheaping them up in the living area of the house. We observed signs of moulding inmany of the heaps we examined but the owners were unconcerned since they weresure to sell the produce as standard grade. This was largely due to inadequacies in theenforcement of the current market policies.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

The four most important sources of information on marketing across all fourvillages in order of popularity were the primary society, radio, RMFs and agriculturalextensionists (Figure 6). All respondents indicated the fact that they have a lot of trustin radio announcements and value the broadcast information regarding cashewpricing and marketing seasons. The ranking of the communication pathways used formarketing information varied between farmers and villages although CBT and otherstakeholders stated that a combination of pathways are used (Figure 7).

Analysis and Discussion

In the current study, both formal and informal extension service providers areconsidered to be actors in information transmission, but we also note that theinformal sector is not officially recognized and that there are no sufficient incentives(drivers) that would fast-track widespread uptake of new technologies. RMFs andfarmers’ own selections of planting material of improved new varieties for furtherpropagation at farm level were mentioned by 59% and 50% of respondentsrespectively compared to those who mentioned CDCs (27%), agricultural extension(18%) and ARI-Naliendele (15%). This applied also to other production technolo-gies. This is evidence that uptake of a new technology depends on its performanceunder a farmer’s management*learning through own experience and observingneighbours (Moussa et al., 2011; Kiptot et al., 2011; Amudavi et al., 2009; Adolwaet al., 2012). This informal sector is an important source of information andcommunication pathway as it contributes to area-specific validation and fine-tuningof new technologies, a role that cannot be effectively implemented by ARI-Naliendeledue to the vastness of the area to be covered. However, it is also clear from the study

Figure 6. Marketing information sources for selected villages of Tandahimba and Lindi Ruraldistricts (November!December 2009) (N#110).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

that farmers were not happy with current farm gate prices, this being a disincentivefor uptake of new technologies. Availability of new technologies should beaccompanied with incentive schemes that will motivate farmers to continue investingin cashew production. In the case study, production of new technologies is not intandem with farmer-focused incentive structures, a factor contributing to currentpoor uptake and stagnation of production. Cash income from cashew production is apertinent issue that needs to be considered more carefully as one of the key drivers toimprove production at the smallholder level.

In the early 2000s village extension workers were highly valued as reliable sourcesof advice on cashew production and marketing (Nathaniels et al., 2003b) (Table 4),but according to our survey their role and significance has dwindled in many areasbecause (1) the majority are not adequately knowledgeable about cashew productionand (2) new graduates are insufficiently aware of extension service methodologies.Extension workers are popular only in Malamba and Pangatena villages, most likelybecause the officers are resident in the village and therefore relatively easily available.In the other villages sampled randomly, extension workers were few and thinly spreadout; had to cover large areas, with many other assignments; and were not easilyaccessible to cashew farmers.

The usefulness of CDCs was observed to be very minimal, largely because thecentres are too few, too far away from target clients and the services offered do notmeet farmers’ expectations. They are under-resourced and poorly equipped toaddress emerging issues and farmer information needs. Only a few are functional andoperational. Centres that are operational are being used largely as sources ofimproved planting material by farmers and for occasional short training courses oncashew management. The distance from avillage to a CDC was found to be the primefactor in accessibility and frequency of use. Farmers who attend a centre for shorttraining, e.g. on grafting and top-working, are unable to follow training on thepropagation process to final product. The experiments are left under the care of CDCmanager who is supposed to communicate the results to course participants througha third party. While theory lessons on plant grafting may require a day, the process

CBT (information primary source)

Radio Newspapers TVLeafletsPostersPrice setting meetings

TARGET (information beneficiaries/secondary source)

Cooperatives Primary societies Farmers Raw nut buyers Extension agents

Extension agents & primary

societies

Notice boards Mobile phones

Farmer–farmer informal networks Mobile phones

Figure 7. Cashew marketing communication pathways identified in surveyed villages(November!December 2010).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

involved in preparing a seedling for transplanting takes a minimum of one!threemonths. Currently the grafting courses last up to five days only.

The willingness to pay for IPM training in most areas was very low, except in Sudiwhere 49% of the respondents were positive. This is partly because farmers’ trainingin the study area is perceived by cashew growers as the role of CBT and the Ministryof Agriculture (MOA) and partly due to deficiencies of the current course modulesand how they are delivered. Despite the observed trends, it may be possible to enticegrowers to pay for IPM training if they can see the value for their money and resourceallocation by improving course contents and responding to farmer demands, alsoreported elsewhere (Davis et al., 2008, Charatsari et al., 2011).

RMFs and farmers’ own experiences were found to be important actors in theinformation system, as also observed from other parts of the world (Amudavi et al.,2009; Swanson, 2008; Uwagboe et al., 2010; Kiptot et al., 2006). In our study, RMFswere highly appreciated by all respondents across all the four study villages. However,the potential of this informal extension system is yet to be exploited because it is notrecognized and supported by the formal extension service innovation policies. Iftechnology diffusion is a process that is greatly influenced by the goal, value andbeliefs of individuals and the performance of a particular technology in time andspace (Demıryurek, 2010), it is essential that there is capacity to organize experientiallearning among the farmers, and in this the RMFs could play a leading role as farmertrainers, also reported during the ex-ante study in 2000 (Nathaniels et al., 2003a) andelsewhere (Amudavi et al., 2009). This is why we argue that RMFs are the single mostimportant key to area-wide uptake and use of new cashew production technologies inTanzania.

Table 4. Rankings of the sources of cashew management information and skills mentioned byfarmers in Newala, Nachingewa and Mkuranga Districts, Tanzania in 2000 (data analysed)

N#175.

Districts rankings

Information sourceNewala.N#54

NachingweaN#74

MkurangaN#47 Mean Ranking

Own experience 2 3 4 3 2Neighbour 5 4 3 4 3Spray operator 6 11 5 7 4Stockists 8 12 10 10 7Primary societies 9 6 10 8 5Village extension 1 1 1 1 1Village meetings 8 10 9 9 6ICM group member 5 12 10 9 6On-farm research demo 8 12 10 10 7NARI 3 5 10 6 3District extension worker 7 7 7 7 4GOVT 8 8 6 7 4Cooperative societies 8 12 10 10 7Traders 9 11 10 10 7Radio 4 2 2 3 2Print media 8 9 7 8 5

Source: Nathaniels et al. (2003a).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

Although radio and radio programmes were favourably rated by respondentsduring the current and also the ex-ante study, in this era of FM stations there may bea need to identify, select and support the media that is most easily accessible tocommunities, credible and available. However, since behaviour change is a processthat involves more than just hearing a message over the radio, it is important to linkthe use of the radio to opportunities for recipients to discuss what they have heardwith other experienced farmers and practice through on-farm experimentation. Amessage presented in a slightly different form and through different channels is theone likely to have the highest impact (FAO, 2002). Additionally, radio programmeswill reinforce the other tools and pathways and therefore cannot be used alone(Moussa et al., 2011).

Some of the communication pathways, including print and on-farm demonstra-tions, which have been used by researchers since 2000 during the ex-ante study, haveremained unchanged even though they are not popular with farmers. According toNathaniels et al. (2003a), many farmers find it difficult to understand messages inleaflets and posters. The ex-ante study (Nathaniels et al., 2003b) recommended (1)information harmonization by ARI-Naliendele and other cashew developmentpartners to avoid confusing targeted users; (2) careful study and pre-testing ofdesign and content targeting both print media, radio programmes and verbalpresentations; (3) enlisting the cooperation of primary societies in the distribution ofprint media instead of relying solely on extension workers. On-farm researcher-leddemonstrations are resource intensive, hence their unpopularity among resource poorfarmers. From our current research, none of the recommendations by Nathanielset al., 2003b have been addressed. The low level of literacy among orchard ownersobserved in this survey is a major obstacle to the use of print media as a commu-nication tool and a good reason to invest in alternative tools and networks.

It is evident from our study and that of Nathaniels et al., (2003a, 2003b), thatfarmers get their information on cashew production and marketing from varioussources and pathways. In the current study, RMFs were a popular source ofinformation, an indication that farmers learn by doing and from observing thosewhom they trust. The popularity of the current farmer!farmer information sharingsystem seems likely to be related to the informal nature of the communicationpathways (not studied in the current survey) that allows farmers to freely exchangeinformation in time and space from and between neighbours (Amudavi et al., 2009;Adolwa et al., 2012). As both innovators and neighbours gain experience, ideas andpractices diffuse through natural communication networks and relational pathways(Spielman et al., 2008a, Amudavi et al., 2009, Kiptot, et al., 2006; Adolwa et al.,2012). In the framework of innovation systems, i.e. successful introduction and use ofnew knowledge and information for improved social-economic aspects, the process ofcollating, sieving, validation and use of knowledge and information pertaining toimprovement of the Tanzanian cashew productivity and market access would requirean integrated holistic approach strongly imbedded in public!private sector partner-ships (Watts et al., 2007, Davis et al., 2008, Spielman et al., 2008b). The sector mustappreciate that its future will increasingly be influenced by external factors such asurbanization, globalization and new market demands. In this scenario, the roles ofinnovation agents, capabilities and networks in knowledge processing will continu-ously evolve and hence the need for public!private partnerships (Rajalahti, 2009).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

We envisage the role of the public sector to be promotion of institutional innovationsin the framework of participatory R&D with more investment in RMFs in thepromotion of cashew technologies in response to market demands (Spielman et al.,2008a). In addition, sustainability of the sub-sector will depend on its ability topositively respond rapidly and timely to global market demands where the role ofthe private sector in knowledge and information processing cannot be under-estimated. The fact that less than 15% of the growers are in the age group of 18!36 years could be a combination of urbanization and poor returns frominvestments in cashew production, a situation that could exacerbate an increasein the number and acreage of abandoned old orchards and further productiondecline, an issue that requires redress through appropriate innovation policies(Spielman et al., 2008b).

Conclusions

The study identified a combination of formal and informal crop production andmarketing sources of information and communication pathways available tosmallholder cashew growers in southern Tanzania. While the traditional sourcesof information and communication channels need improvement to make them moreefficient, the non-formal sources and channels are underexploited by the formalextension service. Existing social-economic differences among the target populationmeans no single extension tool is sufficient to promote adoption and diffusion ofnew research-validated cashew production technologies/marketing information.Each kind of information may be sourced differently by individuals throughvarious pathways. It is therefore suggested that the weaknesses identified in thecurrent sources and flows be addressed and, in particular: (1) although RMFs arenot the ultimate means to fast-track widespread uptake of new technologies, thisplatform should be officially recognized and offered extra refresher courses in IPMand other relevant new practices. Further, to optimize RMFs in scaling-up newtechnologies, more research is needed to evaluate their efficiency in time and space;(2) due to a low level of literacy in the study area, and the fact that radio was apopular source of information, resources should be allocated to revive the defunctcashew radio programme; (3) existing CDCs should be upgraded to fully fledgedinformation resource nodes and resources should be allocated to establishadditional ones to bring the service closer to clients. There is also a need toreview and improve farmer training programmes offered by the CDCs. The courseduration should be driven by content and be flexible enough to accommodatefarmer needs and other calls on their time. This calls for more decentralizedtraining based in farmers’ fields rather than in residential centres. To improve theformal extension service, the stakeholder’s workshop suggested a three-monthtraining in cashew production and management to impart knowledge and skills tocashew extensionists. This should be a must for all extensionists already stationedin the area and a prerequisite for newly recruited officers. In addition, all DADOsbased in cashew-producing areas should undergo short training courses inagricultural extension methodologies.

We also envisage that the future of the sub-sector requires strong public!privatepartnerships to be able to improve cashew productivity and market access.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

For the above to be realized, a policy change and more resource allocation isimperative, although much may depend on the incentive structures that makeinvesting in cashew production attractive.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Dr Janice Jiggins’ comments on the draft. The research is supported by the GIZ/BMZ

Germany.

Note

1 WHRS is the marketing of raw cashew nuts based on the Tanzania Warehouse Receipt Act 2005, Act No.

10 of 2005 operationalized in 2007 to eliminate or minimize the number of middle players, and limits

marketing to be operated only by the receipt system (UNIDO, 2011).

References

Adolwa, I.S., Okoth, P.F., Mulwa, R.M., Esilaba, A.O., Mairura, F.S. & Nambiro, E. (2012) Analysis ofCommunication and Dissemination Channels Influencing the Adoption of Integrated SoilFertility Management in Western Kenya. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension,18(1), pp. 71!86.

Amudavi, D.M., Khan, Z.A., Wanyama, J.M., Midega, C.A.O., Pittchar, J., Nyangau, I.M., Hassanali, A.& Pickett, J. (2009) Assessment of Technical Efficiency of Farmer Teachers in the Uptake andDissemination of Push-Pull Technology in Western Kenya. Crop Protection, 28, pp. 987!996.

Anon. (2010) Annual Report 2008/09. Bank of Tanzania Economic and Operations, Director of EconomicPolicy, pp. 4!5, Bhttp://www.bot.go.tz!, accessed 1 September 2010.

Campbell, K.L.I., Garforth, C., Heffernan, C., Morton, J., Paterson, R., Rymer, C. & Upton, M. (2006)Smallstocks in Development. DFID Livestock Production Programme. Kent: Natural ResourcesInternational Ltd.

Charatsari, C., Papadaki-Klavdianou, A. & Michailidis, A. (2011) Farmers as Consumers of AgriculturalEducation Services: Willingness to Pay and Spend Time. The Journal of Agricultural Education and

Extension, 17(3), pp. 253!266.Davis, K.E., Ekboir, J.E. & Spielman, D.J. (2008) Strengthening Agricultural Education and Training in

Sub-Saharan Africa from an Innovation Systems Perspective: A Case Study of Mozambique. TheJournal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 14(1), pp. 35!51.

Demıryurek, K. (2010) Information Systems and Communication Networks for Agriculture and RuralPeople. Agricultural Economics-Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 56(5), pp. 209!214.

Dietrich, D. & Jurgen, P. (2008) Mechanisms of Innovation Diffusion under Information Abundance andInformation Scarcity*On the Contributions of Social Networks in Groups vs Individual ExtensionApproaches in Semi Arid Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 14(3), pp. 231!248.

FAO. (2001) The Inter-group Resource Book: A Guide to Building Small Scale Farmer Group Associations

and Networks. Rome: FAO.FAO. (2002) Communication for Development Manual 2. Methodological Guide for Designing and

Implementing a Multimedia Communication Strategy. Rome: FAO.Garforth, C. & Usher, R. (1997) Promotion and Uptake Pathways for Research Outputs: A Review of

Analytical Framework and Communication Channels. Agricultural Systems, 55(2), pp. 301!322.Kilama, B. (2010) Crisis Responses in the Cashew Industry: A Comparative Study of Tanzania and

Vietnam. Paper presented at DIIS conference ‘Impacts, Responses, and Initial Lessons of theFinancial Crises for low income Countries’, Copenhagen, Denmark, 14!15 October, Bhttp://www.dis.dk/graphics/_staff/sjo/Kilama.Blandina2.pdf!, accessed 1 July 2011.

Kiptot, E., Franzel, S., Hebinck, P. & Richard, P. (2006) Sharing Seeds and Knowledge: Farmer to FarmerDissemination of Agroforestry Technologies in Western Kenya. Agroforestry Systems. Doi: 10.1007/s10457-006-9007-08.

Martin, P.J., Topper, C.P., Boma, B.F., De Waal, D., Harries, H.C., Kasuga, L.J., Katinila, N., Kikoka,L.P., Lamboll, R., Maddison, A.C., Majule, A.E., Massawe, P.A., Milanzi, K.J., Nathaniels, N.Q.,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

http://www.bot.go.tz

http://www.dis.dk/graphics/_staff/sjo/Kilama.Blandina2.pdf

http://www.dis.dk/graphics/_staff/sjo/Kilama.Blandina2.pdf

Shomari, S.H., Sijaona, M.E.R. & Stathers, T. (1997) Cashew Nut Production in Tanzania:Constraints and Progress Through Integrated Crop Management. Crop Protection, 15, pp. 5!14.

Mitchell, D. (2004) Tanzania’s Cashew Sector: Constraints and Challenges in a Global Environment.World Bank Africa Region Working Paper Series No. 70, June 2004.

Moussa, B., Otoo M., Fulton, J. & Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. (2011) Effectiveness of Alternative ExtensionMethods through Radio Broadcasting in West Africa. The Journal of Agricultural Education andExtension, 17(4), pp. 355!369.

Nathaniels, Q.R.N., Sijaona, M.E.R., Shoo, J.A.E. & Katinila, N. (2003a) IPM for Control of CashewPowdery Mildew in Tanzania I: Farmers’ Crop Protection Practices, Perceptions and Sources ofInformation. International Journal of Pest Management, 49(1), pp. 25!36.

Nathaniels, Q.R.N., Sijaona, M.E.R., Shoo, J.A.E., Katinila, N. & Mwijage, A. (2003b) IPM for Controlof Cashew Powdery Mildew in Tanzania II. Networks of Knowledge and Influence. InternationalJournal of Pest Management, 49(1), pp. 37!48.

Ngatunga, E.L., Dondeyne, S. & Deckers, J.A. (2003) Is Sulphur Acidifying Cashew Soils of South EasternTanzania? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 95, pp. 179!184.

Rajalahti, R. (2009) Promoting Agricultural Innovation Systems Approach: The Way Forward. CTAKnowledge for Development, Bhttp://knowledge.cta.int/en/layout/set/print/content/view/full/9564!,accessed 18 June 2012.

Rolings, N. (1988) Extension Science: Information Systems in Agricultural Development. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Sijaona, M.E.R. (2002) Assessment of the Situation and Development Prospects for the Cashew Nut Sector.ARI Naliendele Mtwara Tanzania (unpublished).

Sijaona, M.E.R. & Shomari, S.H. (1987) The Powdery Mildew Disease of Cashew in Tanzania. TARONewsletter, 11(30), pp. 4!6.

Spielman, D.J., Davis, K.E., Negashi, M. & Gezahegn, A. (2008a) Rural Innovation Systems andNetworks. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00759, March 2008.

Spielman, D.J., Ekboir, J., Davis, K. & Ochieng, C.M.O. (2008b) An Innovation System Perspective onStrengthening Agricultural Education and Training in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems, 98,pp. 1!9.

Swanson, B.E. (2008) Global Review of Good Extension and Advisory Service Practices. Rome: FAO,pp. 33!36.

UNIDO (2011) Tanzania’s Cashew Value Chain: A Diagnostic. Vienna, Austria: United Nations IndustrialDevelopment Organization (UNIDO).

Uwagboe, E.O., Obatolu, B.O. & Adeogun, S.O. (2010) Information Delivery and its Effect on Productionof Cashews in Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 11(4), pp. 301!306.

Watts, J., Mackay,R., Horton, D., Hall, A., Douthwaite, B., Chambers, R. & Acosta, A. (2007)Institutional Learning and Change: An Introduction. ILACWorking Paper 3, 2nd edition, November2007.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [7

4.96

.72.

201]

at 0

5:23

23

Dec

embe

r 201

2

http://knowledge.cta.int/en/layout/set/print/content/view/full/9564

Documents

Smallholder Information Sources and Communication Pathways for Cashew Production and Marketing in Tanzania: An Ex-post Study in Tandahimba and Lindi Rural Districts, Southern Tanzania