6 | SMALLHOLDER DIARIES but they were able to maintain a consistent level of expenditures thans to their greater access to credit options­ Risk mitigation and coping strategies ‰ess commercialied smallholders e‡perienced more production-related shocƒs, such as bad weather, drought, and pests, while more commercial- ied households faced greater marƒet-related ones, such as fluctuations in input and crop prices Œhese challenges came on top of the shocs commonly experienced by households (e­g­, sicness, death of a family member, „ob loss)­ • Šn the largely noncommercial oambi ue sample, production risƒs were paramount, largely because the sample was not engaged in marƒets Households in the –o—ambiue sample needed to store their harvest for many months to cover their own food consumption and relied on bags ept in the house for crop storage­ £ut their stored crops were vulnerable nearly two-thirds of sample households had lost crops while in storage (see igure œS-¢)­ €mprovements in post-harvest handling and crop storage would bet- ter preserve their agricultural production and maintain its value as both food and a form of savings­ • he sample in anania, largely commercial smallholders in loose alue chains, e‡perienced the full spectrum of agricultural shocƒs, both pro- duction and marƒet related, though at somewhat lower levels than the other two samples­ ¦ver one-third of the sample had experienced significant crop loss due to weather shocs (Ÿ¢ percent) and pests (“’ percent) and decreases in the prices for their own agricultural production (Ÿž percent)­ Œhis range of riss calls for a variety of mitigating mechanisms, involving both agricultural techniues and financial tools­ • For commercial smallholders in ‚aƒistan embedded in tight alue chains, marƒet risƒ was more pressing than production risƒ §irtually every house- hold was affected by increases in the price of inputs and decreases in the pur- FIGURE ES-6: Households that experienced selected agricultural shocks at least once in the past five years, JULY 2015 (Percentage) 100% 96% 99% 90% 80% 72% 70% 61% 61% 60% 51% 50% 43% 38% 40% 41% 40% 36% 32% 30% 26% 23% 26% 21% 18% 20% 10% 8% 7% 10% 5% 2% 0% Lost land Crops destroyed Crops destroyed Crops destroyed Crops stolen Price of own Price of inputs Could not Could not rent by weather by pests in by pests in crops decreased increased rent enough enough land the field storage significantly significantly land due to due to price increase availability Mozambique Tanzania Pakistan