3. Information sources
Preliminary report
implementation reports (predominantly Logistics Units
weekly reports and annual report),
Preliminary analysis of key implementation data from
household survey, sample of 2000 households across
14 districts in the 3 regions, in all livelihood zones
Full report (end August)
All the above, with full analysis of relevant household
survey data
focus group discussions, key informant interviews
with different stakeholders (Ministry of Agriculture &
local government staff, retailers, and different
categories of rural people)
‘community survey’ with key informant groups in
sampled villages
reports by other organisations
3July 2013
6. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
US$ millions
Total estimated other costs
Other
Transport Costs
Net fertiliser
Seeds – maize
Seeds - flexi / legumes
Annual budget
Programme costs
6July 2013
7. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
US$ millions
Total estimated other costs
Other
Transport Costs
Net fertiliser
Seeds – maize
Seeds - flexi / legumes
Annual budget
Malawi Government
Direct Donor Support
Programme costs
7July 2013
8. Tendering
Initial tender call March 2012 opened in May
Second call July 2012 awarded mid September
8July 2013
740
760
780
800
820
840
860
880
900
Yafuka
Price NPK,
$/mt
Suppliers
Chirimba Kanengo Luwinga
740
760
780
800
820
840
860
880
900
Yafuka
Price Urea,
$/mt
Suppliers
Chirimba Kanengo Luwinga
Optichem
Paramount
RAE
Options
Mzati
ADMARC
I Investment
SFFRFM
SFFRFM
ADMARC
12. Yield responses
Difficulties in obtaining reliable information on smallholder
yields and yield responses
New information from commissioned maize simulation
study under smallholder conditions (Anthony Whitbread
et al, Goettingen University)
Historical weather records (1928 -2004)
Different soils
Smallholder crop management (planting times,
weeding regimes, fertiliser rates and timing, plant
densities, varieties)
Realistic results
Average yields
Critical yield factors
Nutrient (nitrogen and phosphate responses)
12July 2013
15. Simulated yield response
Good potential returns to N and impact
Importance of
hybrid seed
early planting
good agronomy
potential for lower N rates
variable returns to N
Planned further work
Further analysis of simulation results
Analysis of On Farm Trial results
Analysis of IHS3 crop data
Analysis of Crop Cutting data
Incremental legume production?
15July 2013
18. Depot receipts timing,
% parastatal fertiliser sales
18July 2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
End Sept % End Oct % End Nov % End Dec %
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
19. Uplifts timing, % total by month
19July 2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
End Sept % End Oct % End Nov % End Dec %
Uplifts % total
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
20. Targeting: allocations, distribution
& access
Good targeting should promote:
Low diversion / losses
Low displacement
Effective input use
Poor & vulnerable
1. Scale of programme & disbursements
2. Area targeting:
regional & district distribution
1. Household targeting:
beneficiary characteristics
coupon access & redemption
20July 2013
23. Total fertiliser voucher redemptions
(millions)
23July 2013
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
North Centre South All
24. 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/102010/112011/122012/13
North Centre South All
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
North Centre South All
Fertiliser vouchers redeemed
per farm family
24July 2013
MoAFS
farm
families
NSO rural
household
s
25. Beneficiaries per farm family
by district
25July 2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60% Chikhwawa
Nsanje
Lilongwe
Dedza
Mangochi
Machinga
Kasungu
NkhotaKota
Karonga
Ntchisi
Mulanje
Salima
Mchinji
NkhataBay
Dowa
Mzimba
Balaka
Ntcheu
Zomba
Chiradzulu
Chitipa
Neno
Blantyre
Mwanza
Thyolo
Likoma
Phalombe
Rumphi
26. How many coupons received by
how many households?
26July 2013
2.7 million (NSO) or 4.4 million (MoAFS) rural/ farm households?
Note: Receipts by urban households are omitted (about 5% of rural receipts)
2012/13 2010/11 2008/9
Fert. Maize Legume Ferti. Maize Legume Fert. Flex
Coupons received per hhold
0.78 0.39 0.28 1.13 0.68 0.41 1.12 0.57
Estimated total coupons, NSO hh ('000)
2,131 1,078 776 2,733 1,613 968 2,794 1,419
Estimated total coupons , MoAFS hh ('000)
3,427 1,733 1,247 4,420 2,649 1,600 4,108 2,087
MoAFS Total Voucher redemptions ('000)
2,979 1,529 1,427 3,183 1,988 1,363 4,046 2,758
28. Perceptions of likelihood of different
types of people getting coupons
28July 2013
Scores: 1 = more likely; 2= no difference; 3 = less likely
Total
Poor people 1.97
Female headed hh 2.07
More productive farmers 2.09
Hh with orphans 2.04
Better off hh 2.12
Civil servants & teachers 2.48
VDC members 1.79
Average scores mostly around 2: no difference – no
apparent clear targeting
29. 29July 2013
Open meetings in
Redistr-
ibution?
Suppl-
ementary? Allocation Distribution
North 97% 98% 37% 1%
Centre 65% 77% 64% 2%
South 70% 77% 66% 17%
Total 71% 79% 62% 9%
Fertiliser voucher allocation
& distribution: open meetings?
Village
head/TA
VDC Agric.
staff
Villagers in
open meeting
North 67% 21% 0% 6%
Centre 79% 8% 4% 4%
South 69% 8% 4% 5%
Total 73% 9% 4% 5%
But who actually decides on allocations?
30. Fertiliser voucher allocation
& distribution: beneficiary List
30July 2013
List? Public?
Place published
Village
head
house
School/Health
Centre
Agric.
Office
ADMARC/
Input
Market
North 95% 7% 75% 0% 11% 7%
Centre 73% 40% 66% 27% 0% 3%
South 76% 46% 59% 22% 3% 9%
National 77% 38% 63% 23% 2% 7%
When published?
Seen by
hh?
HH
member
included?<=Oct Nov Dec Jan
North 38% 45% 10% 7% 31% 87%
Centre 46% 39% 14% 1% 36% 80%
South 51% 42% 4% 2% 33% 81%
National 49% 41% 8% 2% 34% 82%
31. Beneficiary List – perceived receipts
by listed households
Among those who saw the list… % who think nearly all
those listed received
31July 2013
at least part
of a fertiliser
coupon
two or
more
fertiliser
coupons
North 61% 22%
Centre 34% 6%
South 75% 23%
National 56% 16%
32. Perceptions of quality of allocation &
distribution processes
32July 2013
Scores:
4 = very good; 3= good; 2 = not good not bad; 1= bad; 0 = very bad
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
Number of coupons Timing of distribution
Distribution methods Allocation criteria
33. Preferences for targeting criteria
33July 2013
Scores:
4 = very good; 3= good; 2 = not good not bad; 1= bad; 0 = very bad
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
2008/9 2010/11 2012/13
targeting ‘the poor ‘ (100kg)
targeting ‘the productive ‘ (100kg)
for all hh, with ½ the amount (50kg)
34. Coupon payments
Just over 1% of fertiliser coupons were reported as
obtained with some payment (2% in 2010/11, 5% in
2008/9 and 2006/7)
Reported sources included traders, TAs and headmen,
and agricultural staff, with traders about twice as common
as each of the others
Reported prices varied from MK200 to MK6,500 (with a
mean of around MK1750 and median of around MK750
34
35. Coupon use and redemption
95% fertiliser coupons & 97% maize seed coupons and
91% legume seed coupons used to buy inputs
Limited coupon sales (5% fertiliser coupons, v few seed
coupons)
9% of households paid a ‘tip’ to redeem their fertiliser
coupon (same as in 2010/11, 14% in 2008/9, 20% in
2006/7), most commonly paid between MK750 and
MK1,000 extra. Mean redemption payment was around
MK1,300
35
36. Coupon redemption
36July 2013
Hours travel &
waiting
Transport &
misc expenses
(MK)
Distance to
nearest
ADMARC /
SFFRFM (km)
Distance to
nearest private
selling point
(km)
Median Median Median Median
2012/13 8 250 5 6
2010/11 12 200 4 6
2008/8 9 200 5 8
2006/7 7 150 5 5
37. Coupon redemption
Most beneficiaries got the fertiliser they wanted (99%)
Maize seed beneficiaries: 84% got the variety they
wanted,
13% wanted a different hybrid variety, very few (around
1%) wanted but could not have an OPV.
Legume seed beneficiaries: 94% of beneficiaries got
what they wanted
37July 2013
42. Subsidised input use
42
Almost all coupon fertiliser was used in people’s own garden or shared
with others (3%), and almost all was applied to different maize varieties
Local 26%
OPV 11%
Hybrid 63%
Burley 0%
Almost all coupon seed was used in people’s own gardens.
Hybrid
maize
OPV
maize
Soya
seed
G/Nuts
seed
Beans
seed
Other
specify
Pigeon
pea
Own garden 96% 92% 88% 87% 80% 100% 92%
Shared 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Sold 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Kept 2% 6% 5% 2% 1% 0% 0%
Other 1% 0% 5% 9% 17% 0% 8%
43. Diversion?
Transport losses?
No of companies commissioned
2008/09 23
2009/10 26
2010/11 25
2011/12 23
2012/13 43
Logistics Unit reported 608MTS lost (0.4%) & MK108
mill (0.2%)
Logistics Unit also reported 4,902MT stock balance
expected (3.2% of voucher redemptions)
Tampered vouchers: 13,083 (0.4%)
43July 2013
45. Outstanding invoice payments
by season
45July 2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
MK billion
End Nov (MK bill)
End Dec (MK bill)
End Jan (MK bill)
End Nov %
End Dec %
End Jan %
46. Summary / conclusions
Cost control – good as regards budgeted costs, potential for
reducing costs & diversion with larger farmer contributions
Timing of tender processes is critical (but if earlier then other
processes & transport /storage may become limiting)
Preliminary simulation yield response information is
promising, & suggests positive returns to FISP and
importance of early input access
Targeting – there are declining fertiliser coupons per hh, a
more even regional balance, & no clear household targeting.
Open meetings & beneficiary lists are being implemented,
but more enforcement of their proper use is needed
Redemption problems reported are much as expected &
need on-going attention
Difficult to estimate scale of diversion – needs careful
attention & constant innovation (coupon security is better but
transport security a concern…)
46July 2013
47. 47
Thank you
This material has been funded by UKaid from the Department for International
Development; however the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the
organisations’ official policies.