The impact of use of climate information services on smallholder welfare: Evidence from the hub of cashew production in Ghana

• Radio is the main source of CIS due to affordability and accessibility in local languages. • Education, farm size, and extension access increased farmers’ likelihood of using CIS. • Use of climate information services reduces cashew farmers’ assets, income, and yield. • Users of CIS face high food insecurity despite better dietary diversity. • Without adequate support and complementary resources, CIS use may not be sufficient to improve welfare. This study examined the sources of climate information services (CIS), nature of CIS as well as impact of use of CIS on the welfare of smallholder cashew farmers. Using descriptive statistics for the sources, types and the nature of CIS, the study employed a combination of endogenous switching regression (ESR) and inverse probability weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA) in the impact analysis. From the results, we find that the main source of CIS used by farmers was radio. The farmers also responded that they received the climate information on time. In addition, we find that education, household size, climate disaster, farmer association, farm size, access to extension services, climate, and radio ownership had positive effects on the likelihood of using CIS. The results from the ESR model showed that use of CIS decreased assets, net farm income and yield even though it increased household dietary diversity (HDD). From the IPWRA model, we also find that users of CIS are more food insecure vis-à-vis non-users, a result which contradicts the aforementioned HDD results. The study highlights critical implications for agricultural economics, particularly in how smallholder cashew farmers access and use climate information services (CIS). Although CIS is meant to assist farmers in adapting to climate variability, this study reveals paradoxical outcomes, with users of CIS exhibiting lower asset values, net farm income, and yield, alongside greater food insecurity than non-users. These findings suggest that use of CIS alone, without adequate support and complementary resources, may not be sufficient to improve welfare.