EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 7 chase prices for their agricultural production­ ˆ wider range of potential buyers and more financial tools to mitigate these riss could be beneficial­ any Smallholder Diaries households had no specific response to an agri- cultural shocƒ, signaling a lacƒ of tools with which to cope Œhe differences between the samples revealed varying degrees of access to financial tools and safety nets, as well as their degree of maret engagement­ ™hen their crops were destroyed by weather, for example, many Œan—anian households in the Smallholder ‰iaries sample did nothing (•‘ percent), reflecting an apparent lac of perceived fallbac options (see igure œS-•)­ ™hen the sample in ai- stan faced the same situation, some smallholder households borrowed money (Ÿ¡ percent) about one-third also had no specific coping response (Ÿ“ percent)­ Household financial portfolios he degree to which Smallholder Diaries households could sustain their consumption leels and cope with shocƒs during lean periods between har- Ÿ ests depended heaily on the range of tools in their financial portfolios –ost Smallholder ‰iaries households had access to only a thin scattering of informal financial tools—borrowing from friends and family, credit from a store or agent, saving at home or with a money guard—and each mechanism had its limitations (e­g­, amount available, proximity, timing)­ ©se of formal financial tools and digital finance remains limited­ Households new when to anticipate cash flow problems from past experience, but they laced the financial tools to effectively and sufficiently smooth their consumption­ • Smallholder households in the oambi ue sample used only three finan- cial instruments at the median Œheir very narrow financial portfolio was mostly limited to savings at home and only a fraction of the –o—ambiue sam- ple was engaged in informal savings and credit groups …‘ percent used rotat- ing savings and credit associations (ª¦S†ˆs), ž percent used accumulating savings and credit associations (ˆS†ˆs), and ” percent used a money guard to “ save­ Œhough almost half had a mobile phone (“” percent) and some had FIGURE ES-7: Households that used these coping mechanisms when crops were destroyed by weather (Percentage; multiple answers allowed) 80% 72% 70% 60% 50% 40% 37% 38% 34% 35% 30% 28% 20% 10% 9% 10% 9% 6% 6% 4% 7% 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 0% Nothing specialBorrowed money Used savings Reduced Worked more Sold crops Sold other assets Received help consumption from friends and expenses and family Mozambique Tanzania Pakistan