REPORT ON MANIOC VALUE

ADDING SME SURVEY

 1

Contents
1.1.1. Geographical characteristics..........................................................................................1
1.1.2. Production.....................................................................................................................6
1.1.3. Marketing.....................................................................................................................15
1.1.4. Standards and quality..................................................................................................17
1.1.5. Capability and skills......................................................................................................18

List of tables
1 Personal information of the Manioc SMEs in the Santo, Malekula and Efate.....................................2
2 Table 2: Data on the producers’ access to raw manioc materials.......................................................7
3 Table 3 Data on the number of producers that use machines and the different types of machines
being used.............................................................................................................................................8
4 Table 4 data on the type of Manioc products produced and the quantities produced......................9
5 Table 5 Data on the type of packaging material and the labelling of Manioc products....................11
6 Table 6 type of labour used by the producers..................................................................................14
7 Table 7 the different types of markets that the producers sell their products.................................16
8 Table 8 shows the amount of income earned by the producers in the last 6 months......................17
9 Table 9 shows data on number of producers that follow a standards to maintain the quality of their
products..............................................................................................................................................18
10 Table 10 shows data on the trainings that the producers received................................................20
11 Table 11 shows data on the number of producers that require training to improve aspects of their
product................................................................................................................................................21

List of graphs
Figure 1 Graph 1: Location of Manioc value-adding producers by area councils...................................3
Figure 2 Graph 2: Location of Manioc value-adding producers by village on Santo and Efate..............4
Figure 3 Graph 3: Gender of Manioc value-adding producers...............................................................4
Figure 4 Graph 4: Age group of Manioc value-adding producers..........................................................5
Figure 5: Graph 5: Percentage of education level of manioc producers in provinces surveyed............5
Figure 6 Graph 7: Education level per number of Manioc producers from provinces surveyed............6
Figure 7: Graph 8: Manioc value-adding producers with access to telecommunication networks........6
Figure 8: Graph 9: Where manioc producers get their raw materials from...........................................7
Figure 9 Graph 10: Manioc value-adding producers using machine to produce their products............9
Figure 10: Graph 11: Manioc value-adding products...........................................................................10
Figure 11: Graph 12: Quantity of Manioc products produced in the last 1 month during production
.............................................................................................................................................................11
Figure 12: Graph 13: number of producers per island per manioc product produced........................11
Figure 13: Graph 14: Packaging type used for Manioc value-adding products....................................13
Figure 14: Graph 15: Packaging sealing type used for manioc value-adding products........................14
Figure 15: Graph 16: Producers who labelled their products..............................................................14
Figure 16: Graph 17: The costs incurred by the producers to produce their products........................16
Figure 17: Graph 18: markets of manioc value-added products..........................................................17
 2

Figure 18: Graph 19: Earnings of manioc value-adding products in the last 6 months of production (in
VT).......................................................................................................................................................18
Figure 19: Graph 19: percentage of Manioc value-adding producers who follow standard or quality
when producing their products in Santo.............................................................................................19
Figure 20: Graph 20: Manioc value-adding producers in Santo and Efate who had trainings on value-
adding production...............................................................................................................................20
Figure 21: Graph 21: Manioc producers who were trained by an authority to produce their products
.............................................................................................................................................................21
Figure 22 : Graph 22: Manioc value adding producers who indicated they still need more training...22
Figure 23: Graph 23: Type of trainings manioc value adding producers need for their productions...22
 3

1.1.1. Geographical characteristics

Introduced in the 1850s, Cassava (Manihot esculenta) has become one of the most often
farmed root crops in Vanuatu. It provides the rural population with food, income, and feed for
small livestock. With more than 10 different varieties of cassava in Vanuatu due to the
suitable tropical climate and soil type in the different islands of Vanuatu.
The social and economic advantages of cassava farming could not be more linked with the
people of Vanuatu, according to data from the 2007 Agriculture Census, which showed that
cassava cultivation accounted for more than 25% of all activities in the subsistence farming
community. Cassava in Vanuatu did not start to develop into a semi-industrial product
connected with export to Australia and New Zealand until relatively recently. In the domestic
market manioc valued added products include, semi processed frozen manioc chunks, cooked
food made using manioc starch as the main ingredient such as Simboro, tuluk, laplap and
Manioc chips and lastly manioc flour.
From the 3 islands that were surveyed, we got a total of 54 producers that indicated to be
producing value added manioc products. Of which 39 of them are based on Efate and the rest
are on Santo. Unfortunately there was no producer on Malekula who was producing value
added manioc products. This data is shown in the table below.

1 Personal information of the Manioc SMEs in the Santo, Malekula and Efate

Malekul
Field Santo a Efate Malo Total Male Female Total
Total
Respondents 15 0 38 0 53 5 48 53
Personal
Information                
By 10-year age Malekul
group Santo a Efate Malo Total Male Female Total
21-30 1   8   9 1 8 9
31-40 5   8   13   13 13
41-50 7   9   16 3 13 16
51-60 2   8   10 1 9 10
61-70     5   5   5 5
71-80     1   1   1 1
Education
attainment                
Primary 13       13 2 11 13
completed Primary 2   21   23 1 22 23
Secondary     11   11   11 11
Completed
Secondary     3   3   3 3
Tertiary     3   3 2 1 3
Mobile Network                
Vodafone     18   18 1 17 18
Digicel 15   16   31 4 27 31
 4

No Phone     4   4     0

Figure 1 Graph 1: Location of Manioc value-adding producers by area councils

Number of producer per area council per island

Pango 4

North Efate 2

Nguna 3

Mele 4
Efate

Malorua 4

Eton 3

Eratap 1

Port Vila 17
Santo

East Malo area council 15

The distribution of Manioc value-adding producers among the two islands' area councils is
depicted in the column graph above. On the island of Santo, all of the producers came from
one of the ten area councils, the east Malo Area Council, whereas on Efate Island, producers
came from eight of the island's eighteen area councils, with 45% of them being in Port Vila,
11% being Pango, Mele, and Malorua, and 9% being Nguna-Pele and Eton area council.
Figure 2 Graph 2: Location of Manioc value-adding producers by village on Santo and Efate

Number of producers per village on Efate and

Santo
12
7

4
3

3
2

2
1

1
Mel e

Em u a
Nekap a

P ango
G en esi s

Man p l es

Ti ki l aso a
W ai si si
Tan m i al

Mal afau
Am ap el ao

East Mal o

R en t ab ao
Bl ac ksan d s

L e l ago o n

Sn ak eh i l l

P ao n agi su
Man gal i l i u
Teo u m a-v al l ey
Nal i v u h aev an u a

Nu m b er t w o ar ea
G r een c o r n er b u sh

Mal ap o a w h i te wo o d

San t o Efat e

The bar graph above shows that 28% of the producers are based in Santo and are spread out
among 6 settlements, with 47% of them based in the village of Nalivuhaevanua, 11% in
 5

Bethel, 20% in Amapelao, and 1% in the villages of Tanmial. The others are located in the
remaining 4 communities. On Efate Island, the eight area councils' producers are dispersed
throughout 17 Settlements. Out of the 17 communities, there are 12 producers in the Blacks
Sand area, 4 in Pango, and 3 each in Rentabao and Mele. The remaining 16 producers are
split among the remaining 13 communities.
Figure 3 Graph 3: Gender of Manioc value-adding producers

Males to female producers

48

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Female Male

There are 48 female producers overall and 5 male producers across the two islands, as shown
in the bar graph above that shows the number of answers by gender. While two of the male
producers and 75% of the female producers are headquartered in Efate, Santo Island's
producers are made up primarily of females (12), with three male producers.
Figure 4 Graph 4: Age group of Manioc value-adding producers

Response per age group in both santo and

Efate

9
8 8 8
7

5 5

2
1 1
21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80

Santo Malekula Efate

According to the demographic breakdown of these producers from the two provinces, the
majority of them are between the ages of 21 to 60, with a large percentage being between the
 6

ages of 20 and 40 (on both islands) and 40 to 60. Most of the producers on Efate and Santo
are between the ages of 41 and 50.
Figure 5: Graph 5: Percentage of education level of manioc producers in provinces surveyed

Percentage of producers' level of education

6%
6%
25%
Primary
completed Primary
21% Secondary
Completed Secondary
Tertiary

43%

According to the donut chart above, which displays the literacy rates of these producers, 67
percent only had a primary level of education, with 43 percent finishing it. Only 21 percent
had a secondary level of education, with 6 percent finishing secondary school, and only 6
percent had a tertiary level of education.
Figure 6 Graph 7: Education level per number of Manioc producers from provinces surveyed

Education level of producers on Efate and

Santo

No School

Tertiary 3

Completed Secondary 3

Secondary 11

completed Primary 21
2

Primary 13
0 5 10 15 20 25

Efate Santo
 7

A detailed breakdown of each province's literacy rate is shown in the bar graph above. All of
Santo's manufacturers have, it is evident, only completed their primary schooling. A large
number of Efate producers have finished their primary and secondary educations, but very
few have been able to complete their tertiary degrees.
Figure 7: Graph 8: Manioc value-adding producers with access to telecommunication networks

Number of respondents with access to mobile

phones

31

18 18
15 16

4 4
Santo Efate Total

Vodafone Digicel No Phone

By examining the access that each producer has to telecommunication, the column graph
compares the degree of connectedness and telecommunication among the producers on each
island. Only 8% of the manufacturers use both networks, compared to 34% who use
Vodafone and 58% who use Digicel.
While farmers on Efate primarily use Vodafone in comparison to those on Santo, who only
use the Digicel network, four of them use both telecommunications networks.

1.1.2. Production
Beginning with the location of the raw materials the producers use, the number of producers
who utilise machinery, the type of machinery used, and the quantity and type of each product
produced by the producers, this part gives information on the numerous phases involved in
creating the product.

1.1.2.1. Access to raw materials

To provide a broad picture of the raw material sources for the Manioc value-adding
producers, the questionnaire highlighted two (2) of the key sources—having a personal
garden and obtaining it from another source. However, a third option was presented, which
was "sourced from both the garden and buying it from elsewhere," because it is most likely
that companies will use both of these sources for their raw materials.
 8

Producers from the two islands in this case only used one of the two sources for their raw
materials but not both. The majority of the producers admitted that their own gardens served
as their primary source of raw materials, with 16 others stating that they bought it from a
local supplier, and 8 others that they used both. According to the data, most of the raw
materials used by producers on Efate come from their own gardens, and the same is true for
those on Santo.

Figure 8: Graph 9: Where manioc producers get their raw materials from

Access to Manioc raw materials

40

25

15 16 16

Own Garden Buy from Seller From both Garden and Seller
0

Santo Efate Total

The graph above demonstrates how, when comparing the three categories, the majority of
manufacturers on both islands obtain their raw materials from their own gardens. Only the
producers from Efate bought their raw materials from regional suppliers; however, none of
the producers bought their raw materials from both sources.

2 Table 2: Data on the producers’ access to raw manioc materials

Access to Raw Materials Santo Malekula Efate Total Male Female Total
Own Garden 15   25 40 4 36 40
Buy from Seller     16 16 1 15 16
From both Garden and
Seller       0     0

1.1.2.2. Machines and implements

The use of machines and tools in the processing and value-adding stages of these products
has increased as more producers seek for more efficient ways to produce their commodities.
This information was gathered by classifying the main machine kinds according to their
 9

power sources. They are propelled, in that order, by solar energy, electricity, and generators.
The poll also included a second section labelled "other" that allowed respondents to list any
extra machinery that they use for production but cannot be categorized under the main
categories.
The root crops sector has grown dramatically in recent years, resulting in an expansion in
both the domestic and international markets. However, according to the data below, 47 of the
53 manioc value adding producers do not employ machinery to prepare their raw material,
whereas only 6 do.
3 Table 3 Data on the number of producers that use machines and the different types of machines being used

Use Of Machine for

production Santo Malekula Efate Total Male Female Total
Using machine     6 6 1 5 6
Not using machine 15   32 47 5 42 47
Type of machine used       0      
Manual(bush knife &hand
grater)     4 4   4 4
Solar dryer     1 1   1 1
Electrical slicer     2 2 1 1 2
Aside from the manual usage of Bush knives and hand graters, the electrical slicer is the
machine of choice for the two producers. The majority of the producers that use machines are
female with only 1 male producer from Efate also using a machine. The graph below
compares machine utilization by producers on the three islands.
Figure 9 Graph 10: Manioc value-adding producers using machine to produce their products

Number of producers using a machine and not

using machine to produce their products
35

30 32

25

20

15
15
10

5 6

0
Using machine Not using machine

Santo Efate

According to the graph, while a major portion of producers do not use machines, those who
do are concentrated on the island of Efate (6 producers), as compared to Santo, where none
did.
 10

1.1.2.3. Quantity produced

Manioc value-added items are classified into five categories: manioc chips, manioc flour,
sweetener/starch, peeled manioc, and other (readymade kava juice). Manioc chips have the
most manufacturers of the five categories given in the table, followed by peeled manioc,
while sweetener/starch has the fewest. Only 4% of manioc goods produced were less than
500kg, with 38% producing 100kg to 500g and 16% producing more than 1000g.
4 Table 4 data on the type of Manioc products produced and the quantities produced

Type of Product Santo Malekula Efate Malo Total Male Female

Manioc chips 15   10 25 4 21 25
Manioc Flour 14   5 19 3 16 19
Sweetner/starch 14   2 16 3 13 16
Peeled manioc     23 23 1 22 23
other       0     0
Quantity of Manioc
Produced Santo Malekula Efate Malo Total Male Female
Manioc Chips              
More 6   3 9 1 8 9
600kg-1000kg 9   2 11 3 8 11
100kg-500kg     5 5   5 5
less       0     0
Manioc flour              
More     1 1   3 3
600g-1000g 9     9 2 7 9
100g-500g 2   4 6 1 5 6
less       0   2 2
Sweetener/starch              
More       0     0
600g-1000g 3     3 1 2 3
100g-500g 9   2 11 1 10 11
less 3     3 1 2 3
Peeled Manioc              
More     3 3   3 3
600g-1000g 1   5 6 1 5 6
100g-500g     11 11   11 11
less       0     0
 11

Figure 10: Graph 11: Manioc value-adding products

Cassava products and number of producers in

Santo and Efate

23
Peeled manioc

2
Sweetner/starch
14

5
Manioc Flour
14

10
Manioc chips
15

0 5 10 15 20 25

Efate Santo

The bar graph compares the number of manufacturers in the two islands who produce various
manioc value-added commodities (Efate and Santo). As can be observed, there are numerous
producers of peeled manioc in Efate. However, there are more producers in Santo for
sweetener/starch, manioc flour, and manioc chips.
Figure 11: Graph 12: Quantity of Manioc products produced in the last 1 month during production

Quantities of manioc product produced

35
33
30
29
25

20 22 22

15

10 12
11

5 7
6 6
3 3
0
More 600g-1000g 100g-500g less

Santo Efate Total

The column graph contrasts the volume of manioc-based items produced by each producer in
the previous month. Manufacturers in Santo produce manioc products in all weight ranges
included in the survey, with the majority producing goods weighing between 600g and
1000g. Only three weight categories are supplied by Efate manufacturers: more than 1000g,
 12

600g to 1000g, and 100g to 500g. Between 100g and 500g were produced by the bulk of
Efate manufacturers.
Figure 12: Graph 13: number of producers per island per manioc product produced

Number of producers that produced each

product in the past month
20
Peeled manioc 19
1
17
Sweetner/starch 2
15
16
Manioc flour 5
11
25
Manioc chips 10
15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Total Efate Santo

The manioc chips, peeled manioc, and manioc flour were the most and least manufactured
products, respectively, over the course of the previous month, as seen in the above bar graph.
The graph for these goods shows that whereas producers on Efate were primarily focused on
manufacturing peeled manioc, those on Santo were able to generate three different types of
value-added manioc products.
1.1.2.4. Packaging and labelling

Good indicators of the product quality and accessibility include the type of packing material,
the type of information on the product label, and the amount of labour utilized in the
manufacturing process. Given the variety of Manioc products produced and mode of
transportation used to get the products to market puts big importance on packing material.
Due to this, all producers utilize form of packaging material for their goods.
53% utilize clear plastic bags, while 47% use alternative packaging such as banana leaves,
coconut baskets, and plastic containers. This promotes product accessibility since they can
carry it to market locations. Furthermore, 67% of them get their packaging from local
retailers, 31% use resources from their own gardens, and 2% get their packaging materials
from an NGO. However, only six of them labelled their product, while the remaining 47 did
not. The majority of individuals that label their products did so on their own and limited their
labelling to a description of the item.

5 Table 5 Data on the type of packaging material and the labelling of Manioc products

Marketing              
Packaging Material Santo Malekula Efate Total Male Female Total
 13

Clear plastic bag 15   13 28 4 24 28

Other ( banana
Leaves/ coconut
basket/plastic
container)     25 25   25 25
Packaging Seal              
Sew bag with twine     1 1 1   1
Chinese rope       0     0
Zipped seal 15   8 23 4 19 23
Candle Seal     1 1   1 1
Electric Seal     2 2 1 1 2
Plastic Lid       0     0
Tinned Lid       0     0
Other     17 17   17 17
Packaging Supplier              
Recycled package       0     0
Local shop 15   20 35 4 31 35
Ordered online       0     0
NGO     1 1 1   1
Other     16 16   16 16
Labelled packaging              
Labelled product     6 6 1 5 6
No label on product 15   32 47 4 43 47
Suppliers of labels              
Printery 1 1 1 1
No label 0 0
Did it on your own 5 5 1 4 4
Other
Label description              
Picture & Description     1 1   1 1
No label     15 15   15 15
Description only     7 7 1 6 7
 14

Figure 13: Graph 14: Packaging type used for Manioc value-adding products

Producers with different type of Packaging

25
Efate
13

Santo
15

Other ( banana Leaves/ coconut basket/plastic container)

Clear plastic bag

The bar graph above shows that although producers on Santo only used one type of
packaging—clear plastic bags—producers on Efate used two different types—clear plastic
bags and alternative packaging materials. On both islands, clear plastic bags are the most
often used packaging material.
Figure 14: Graph 15: Packaging sealing type used for manioc value-adding products

Sealing methods used per producer per island

17

15

2
1 1
Sew bag with Chinese rope Zipped seal Candle Seal Electric Seal Other
twine

Santo Efate

The producers only used five of the six available methods for sealing the packages, as can be
seen in the column graph above. Banana leaves, foil, and plastic container lids were diverse
ways that producers on Efate mostly used to sealed their goods. The items of Santo's
producers are all zipped sealed.
Figure 15: Graph 16: Producers who labelled their products
 15

Producer with and without labels

Efate 6 32

Santo 15

Labelled product No label on product

The bar graph shows that just six producers labelled their product, in contrast to 32 producers
from Efate and manufacturers from Santo who did not.
In terms of labour, 64% of producers don't employ any additional workers, 21% employ just
one person to help them make their products, and 11% employ two or more. The majority of
Efate producers work alone, whereas Santo producers employ a second individual.
6 Table 6 type of labour used by the producers

Labour Used Santo Malekula Efate Total Male Female Total

Do it Yourself 7   27 34 2 32 34
Hire 1 person 8   3 11 2 9 11
Hire more than 2
people     6 6   6 6
Other      2 2   2  2

Cost of raw material, processing, packaging material, labels and Labour;

Cost of raw material

Value-added producers of manioc on the two islands reported spending 72% more on raw
materials than did 28% of them. 34% of the funds were used for less than 1000 VT, 66% for
purchases between 1000 and 10,000 VT, and only 3% went above 100,000 VT. On Santo,
however, all producers received their raw materials for free. All are based on Efate
Processing
When asked if they had spent money on processing their products, 58% of the 53
manufacturers who responded claimed they had, while 42% indicated they had not. 68% of
those who spent money were from Efate, and 32% were from Santo. In terms of processing
costs, 68% of them paid between 1000 and 10,000 VT, 43% spent less than 1000 VT, while
 16

6% spent between 60,030 and 70,030 VT. For processing on Santo, a producer normally pays
between 1000 and 10,000 VT, and between 60,030 and 70,030 VT for Efate.
Packaging material
52 responses were gathered about this cost, of which 79% reported spending money on
packaging materials and 19% said they did not. 70% of the money spent was by Efate
producers, and 30% by producers on Santo. 60% spent less than 1000 VT on packing
supplies, 37% between 1000 and 10,000 VT, and 3% over 100,000 VT. On Santo, producers
paid between 1000 and 10,000 VT on packaging, while on Efate, one producer spent more
than 100,000 VT on packaging.
Labelling
In the 52 producers that responded to this area, 42 said they had not spent any money on
labelling, while 9 said they had. The 9 producers are based on Efate. All of them spent less
than 1000VT.
Labour
This part had 52 responses, with 10 saying they had spent money on labour and 42 saying
they had not. Everyone who spent money did so in Efate. 30% spent between 1000 and
10,000VT on labour, while 70% spent less than 1000VT.
Figure 16: Graph 17: The costs incurred by the producers to produce their products

Costs incured
None (no money
spent)
100,000VT+
60,030 - 70,030VT
50,025 - 60,025VT
40,020 - 50,020VT
30,015 - 40,015VT
20,010 - 30,010VT
10,005 - 20,005VT
1000 - 10,000VT
<1000VT
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Labour Label Packaging Processing Raw materials

According to the bar graph, the majority of the producers (15+) did not spend any money on
all aspects of producing their product, with the majority of them indicating that labelling and
labour were the areas in which they did not spend any money. More than 20 manufacturers,
however, reported spending between 1000 and 10,000 vatu, with raw materials and
processing costs being the two areas they admitted costing them that much money. Fewer
than 5 manufacturers reported spending more than 60,030VT on processing, packaging
supplies, and raw materials for these product areas.
 17

1.1.3. Marketing

The purpose of this section is to identify the most prevalent markets to which these producers
sell their products. Given that a producer may sell to many markets, the total number of
producers per market will be more than the number of respondents.
According to the table below, 42% of the producers sold their products in the local market,
41% from their homes, 17% from schools and Kava bars, 16% to Port Vila and local retailers,
and only 3% to the export market. Only two producers on Efate supply both the domestic and
export markets, whereas the bulk of producers on Santo supply both the domestic and export
markets.
7 Table 7 the different types of markets that the producers sell their products

Market Santo Malekula Efate Total Male Female Total

Home 15   15 30 4 26 30
Local Buyer       0     0
Mobile sales       0      
Local shop 1   4 5 1 4 5
More than one
Buyer/market       0     0
Port Vila     7 7 1 6 7
Export Market     2 2 2   2
Local Market 12   19 31 3 28 31
Other (school and
kava bars) 5   8 13 1 12 13

Figure 17: Graph 18: markets of manioc value-added products

Pr oducer s per m ar k et
Santo Efate Total

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Home Local shop Port Vila Export Market Local Market Other (school
and kava bars)

The column graph at the top shows that the Home and Local markets are the most popular
marketing channels for producers on both islands. However, Efate producers sell their
 18

products in all markets, whereas Santo producers only sell in their home market, the local
market, and other market sectors such as schools and kava bars.
According to the income earned by the producers in the previous six months, 49 of the
producers from the two islands claimed that they had generated income, with only two
producers not earning anything. The largest earnings were from 19 producers in the range of
more 40,000vt - 800,000vt, all of whom were from Efate. The lowest range earned was
between 1,000vt and 10,000vt, and there were 19 producers who earned that amount, 13 of
whom were based in Santo.
8 Table 8 shows the amount of income earned by the producers in the last 6 months

Income earned in
the last 6 months Santo Malekula Efate Total Male Female Total
1000 vt - 5,000vt 13   6 19 1 18 19
6,000vt - 10,000vt     1 1   1 1
11,000-20,000vt     4 4   4 4
21,000-25,000vt     6 6   6 6
more (40,000vt -
800,000vt)     19 19 1 18 19
None (no money
earned) 2     2 2   2

Figure 18: Graph 19: Earnings of manioc value-adding products in the last 6 months of production (in VT)

Income earned by producers in the last six months

20 19 19 19
18
16
14 13
12
10
8
6 6 6
6
4 4
4
2 2
2 1 1
0
1000 vt - 5,000vt 6,000vt - 10,000vt 11,000-20,000vt 21,000-25,000vt more (40,000vt - None (no money
800,000vt) earned)

Santo Efate Total

According to the column graph above, Efate's producers received a variety of income levels
throughout the preceding six months. While farmers in Santo have only been able to make
between 1,000 and 10,000 VT in the last six months.
 19

1.1.4. Standards and quality

This portion of the questionnaire received 53 responses. Eighteen of these stated that a
standard was followed, all of them are based on Efate. A list of government and non-
governmental organisations was used to assess the extent of certification accessibility for
producers. Seven of them who followed a standard are not certified, while nine are certified
by a Vanuatu authority, another by VBS, and one by an Authority from overseas.

9 Table 9 shows data on number of producers that follow a standards to maintain the quality of their products

Standards, Quality
and Training              
Santo Malekul Efate Total Male Female Total
a
Standard or Quality
Follow a standard or
quality     18 18 2 16 18
Did not follow a
standard or Quality 15   20 35 3 32 35
Authority
Certification              
Authority in vanuatu     9 9 1 8 9
Vanuatu Bureau of
Standards     1 1   1 1
Authority Overseas     1 1 1   1
Biosecurity       0     0
Other       0     0
None     7 7   7 7
 20

Figure 19: Graph 19: percentage of Manioc value-adding producers who follow standard or quality when producing their
products in Santo

Percentage of producers that followed a

standard

34%

66%

Follow a standard or quality Did not follow a standard or Quality

1.1.5. Capability and skills.

Only 42 people answered the question on training received; 18 of them received training
specifically related to producing their products, while 23 did not. Producers from Efate made
up the bulk of those who received training; nevertheless, 24 producers from Efate and 1
producer from Santo were among the producers who did not. Only 17% (3 producers) of
those who received training had their training administered by the Department of Industry;
78% of the training was administered by their area secretary, 44% by providers other than
those listed (such as food processing, NGO, and family teachings), and 74% by other
providers. VBS and Un for Women both had an equal number of producers. On Santo, the
Area Secretary mostly trains producers, whereas on Efate, producers are typically trained by
“other” training providers but also producers have received training from three of the
providers listed.
 21

10 Table 10 shows data on the trainings that the producers received

Training Santo Malekula Efate Total Male Female Total

Received Training 3   15 18 4 14 18
Did not receive
training 1   23 24   24 24
Training providers Santo Malekula Efate Total Male Female Total
Department of
Industry     3 3   3 3
Vanuatu Bureau of
Standards     2 2   2 2
Area secretary 14     14 3 11 14
Un women     2 2   2 2
Other (food
processing
training/NGO/family
teachings)     8 8 8 9

Figure 20: Graph 20: Manioc value-adding producers in Santo and Efate who had trainings on value-adding production

Comparison of trained to untrained producers

per island

24
23

18
15

3
1
Santo Efate Total

Received Training Did not receive training

On the column graph above, it is evident from comparing the data that the majority of the
producers had not received training. The majority of the untrained producers are concentrated
on Efate Island, with just one farmer lacking training in santo.
 22

Figure 21: Graph 21: Manioc producers who were trained by an authority to produce their products

Number of Producers who had training with an

Authority
1
No Training
1
8
Other (food processing training/NGO/family teachings) 8

2
Un women 2

14
Area secretary
14
2
Vanuatu Bureau of Standards 2

3
Department of Industry 3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Total Efate Santo

This graph shows that the majority of the producers were trained by two of the training
providers namely “Other” and the Area secretary. It also shows producers on Efate having
access to multiple training providers for this commodity as compared to producers on Santo.
Only two of the producers claim that training is not necessary for further progress, while 48
of them are prepared to improve certain aspects of their manioc value-added product. Only
one Efate producer is actively working to enhance every aspect of his product. When it came
to the specifics of each product, however, just 12 producers wanted to improve their labelling
while only 37 producers wanted to improve their packaging, 26 producers wanted to increase
their marketability, and 43 producers wanted training to improve the quality of their products.
11 Table 11 shows data on the number of producers that require training to improve aspects of their product

Training for the Santo Malekula Efate Total Male Female Total
improvement of product
Yes 15   33 48 5 43 48
No     5 5   5 5
Area in need of training Santo Malekula Efate Total Male Female Total
to improve
Improve product quality 15   28 43 3 40 43
Improve packaging 15   22 37 4 33 37
How to Find market 15   11 26 3 23 26
Improve Labelling     12 12   12 12
All of the Above     1 1 1   1
None       0     0
 23

Figure 22 : Graph 22: Manioc value adding producers who indicated they still need more training

Number of producers who still need training to

improve product
33 33

15

5 5

Santo Efate Total

Yes No

Figure 23: Graph 23: Type of trainings manioc value adding producers need for their productions

Number of producers per island per product

area
1
All of the Above 1

12
Improve Labeling 12

26
How to Find market 11
15
37
Improve packaging 22
15
43
Improve product quality 28
15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Total Efate Santo

The training that the majority of the producers claimed they required is depicted in the bar
graph above. According to the various factors, the majority of them were most concerned
with improving product quality, with improving packaging coming in second. However, as
the graph above plainly shows, the Santo based producers are all interested in improving 3
product aspects but producers on Efate want improvement in training in all areas of their
product.
 24

Appendices
1. Survey questionnaire:

2.
 25

3.
26
27