In the last few years, there have been reports of phenomenal growth in the cassava sector, with new investments leading to establishment of high-capacity processing plants to turnaround the fortune of the tuber crop.

But the sector’s reported progress appears to be only on paper, as physical examination of the plant exposes a different picture.

Currently, across the country, cassava processing facilities operate at between 30and 40 per cent of installed capacity, not because demand is lacking or because the technology is wrong, but that cassava does not arrive reliably, the Nigeria Cassava Investment Accelerator (NCIA) engagement reveals.

Investigations show that one important challenge is the question of feedstock reliability, which has remained unsolved, and without it, the returns on processing investment will continue to disappoint.

Reliable feedstock supply, reports say, is not a secondary concern to be addressed post plant set-up; it is the variable that determines whether the plant ever performs as intended, and farmer networks are the infrastructure that either delivers or destroys that reliability.

Insights from NCIA reveal that the consequences of unreliable cassava supply do not stay at the farm gate. “A plant running at 40 per cent capacity carries the fixed costs of a full-capacity operation, while capturing only a fraction of the revenue. Unit economics collapse. Debt service becomes a problem. Operators enter a cycle where poor feedstock supply weakens their financial position, which limits their ability to invest in the farmer relationships that would improve supply.

“The disruption extends downstream. An operator who cannot run consistently cannot serve buyers reliably, which means lost contracts and a diminished commercial standing. At the market level, the effect is volatility: when supply surges, prices fall sharply and farmers lose income; when it tightens, processors face input cost shocks. Neither condition supports planning, and both erode confidence across the value chain.”

NCIA noted that for investors, unreliable feedstock is the primary execution risk that makes cassava projects difficult to back, adding that a well-structured processing asset with credible offtake can still be an unattractive investment if feedstock supply is not demonstrably reliable.

Experts have revealed that the instinct of many operators entering the cassava value chain is to minimise dependence on external farmers; to own land, plant directly, and control supply from the ground up.

However, findings from NCIA reveal a sobering truth: even the most vertically integrated plants still rely on smallholders for 60 per cent to 70 per cent of their supply.

According to the insights by NCIA, a mid-sized plant requires roughly 3,000 farmers delivering consistently to stay viable. “Farmer networks take different structural forms — aggregator-led models, out-grower schemes, agent or cluster-based coordination. The model matters less than how it is managed.

“Managing farmer networks well is genuinely hard: the logistics are complex, the coordination demands are relentless, and the systems required to make networks perform reliably take real investment to build. That operational difficulty is precisely where most farmer supply networks break down.

“Since 2014, IDH (the Sustainable Trade Initiative) has been testing a “Block Farming Model” that treats farmer management as a rigorous science rather than an afterthought.

The centrepiece of IDH’s technical approach is the block farming model. This model structures smallholder into managed production blocks with a focal farm at the centre, supported by defined delivery schedules aligned to processor intake requirements, and access to inputs and finance on credit.”

Offering additional insight into the impact made so far by the IDH Block Farming Model, the IDH’s Director of Programmes, Dr. Dayo Ogundijo, explained, “The IDH Block Farming model works because production is tightly organised, land is contiguous, planting is synchronised, inputs are controlled, and harvesting is supervised.”

Ogundijo noted that scaling nationally introduces pressure in five main areas: Land consolidation at scale: Securing large, contiguous land close to processing facilities becomes more complex across different states with varying tenure systems and community dynamics. Without land clarity, the efficiency that underpins the model weakens.

To check side-selling of feedstock, which remains a major threat to processor stability, Ogundijo, disclosed that beyond faster payments, one innovative loyalty mechanism that could successfully bridge the trust gap between smallholders and industrial off takers is to ensure farmers feel genuinely valued.

He said: “Beyond faster payments, building loyalty requires strengthening trust and making farmers feel genuinely valued in the relationship. To get things right, here are major factors to be considered: Bundled service dependency: Non-financial incentives such as access to inputs, soil testing mechanisation, extension support and credit through the structured model, the relationship becomes more integrated, farmers see the buyer as part of their production system, not just an off-taker.

“Transparent and predictable pricing frameworks: Clearly communicated pricing formulas linked to starch content or market benchmarks reduce suspicion and opportunistic diversion.

End-of-season performance incentives: Volume-based bonuses, quality premiums, or loyalty rewards for consistent delivery over multiple seasons create long-term value that outweighs short-term price spikes elsewhere.

“Input-credit recovery through structured deduction: When service costs are transparently deducted at harvest, it aligns repayment with delivery and reduces default risk without confrontation.

“Group-based accountability models: Organising farmers in blocks or clusters introduces peer accountability. Social cohesion often proves more effective than legal enforcement in reducing side-selling. Stronger communication and farmer engagement builds loyalty. Regular check-ins, community meetings, and feedback loops show the farmer that the buyer is invested in their success.”

While noting that the economics of cassava processing are heavily fixed, NCIA noted that the difference between operating at 40 per cent and 80 per cent of capacity is often the difference between a loss-making operation and a viable one, adding that reliable farmer networks are the most direct path to closing that utilisation gap.

“For investors, a cassava project with demonstrably reliable feedstock supply is a different category of investment. Fixing farmer networks is faster than new processing technology, faster than policy reform, and far more within operators’ own control.

“The infrastructure that makes farmer networks perform does not serve a single use case, it serves every industrial application cassava can support, from garri and starch to high-quality cassava flour, glucose syrup, and bioethanol.”