1. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS.
Donald Makoka.
Centre for Agricultural Research and Development.
Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources
July 14, 2014
SMALLHOLDER FARMERS’
PERCEPTIONS AND IMPACT OF THE
FARM INPUT SUBSIDY PROGRAM

2. 2
Background
 Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) is
implementing Action for Social Change (ASC) Program since
2011 in Mzimba, Lilongwe, Machinga and Mulanje.
 Its purpose is to enable local communities continuously
make an own analysis of what affects them, generate
possible solutions, and be able to speak for themselves.
 Under ASC, ADRA under CISANET, commissioned study in
2013 to understand the perceptions of smallholder farmers
and the household impacts of the FISP in Malawi.

3. 3
Objectives and Methodology
 Study was conducted between October and November 2013
covering 6 districts (Mzimba, Mchinji, Lilongwe, Machinga,
Mulanje and Chikwawa).
 The objectives of the study were:
• To analyze the perceptions of resource-poor farmers on the
current status and future of FISP; and
• To assess their perceived impact of the FISP on household
and community welfare.
 Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used:
 Quantitative – Beneficiary Household Survey
 Qualitative – Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews.

4. 4
Data
 Overall, 898 individuals were consulted through
 Quantitative Beneficiary Household Survey - 370
 Key informant interviews - 33
 FGDs with beneficiaries (225); FGDs with non-beneficiaries (270)
 Distribution of the Quantitative Sample

5. 5
Background Characteristics
 Number of Times Sampled Households Had Received Subsidized
Fertilizer between 2005/06 and 2012/13

6. 6
Perceptions on Community-based Targeting
 Whether the process of selecting FISP beneficiaries is easily understood by
everyone and whether it is fair (Percentage of Respondents).
 For the non-beneficiaries, they reported that the system is understood
but it is not fair, due to manipulation of beneficiary register by chiefs.

7. 7
Perceptions on Community-based Targeting
 Inclusion and Exclusion Errors
Proportion of Sampled Households Who Reported Errors of Inclusion and
Errors of Exclusion under the FISP

8. 8
Perceptions on Community-based Targeting
 Poverty Status of Sampled FISP Beneficiaries
 The majority were ultra-poor - high degree of targeting effectiveness.

9. 9
Sale of Coupons
 Proportion of the Sampled Beneficiary Household Who Knew Someone
from the Village Who Ever Sold Coupons
 FGDs – sale of coupons is well organized.

10. 10
Graduation from FISP
 Graduation is the removal of access to the programme that does not leave current
beneficiaries supported by the programme unable to pursue sustainable
independent livelihoods (Chirwa et al. 2011)
 47% of the sampled beneficiaries want the programme to have a
graduation component
 The majority of the non-beneficiaries want the programme to have a
graduation component.

11. 11
Perceptions on the Future of FISP
 In all the districts, except Chikwawa the majority want the programme to
phase out and commercial price of fertilizer reduced.

12. 12
Perceptions on the Future of FISP
 Regardless of the poverty status of the beneficiaries, the majority still want
the programme to end but price of fertilizer reduced.

13. 13
Perceptions on the Future of FISP
The Price of Fertilizer (MWK) that Beneficiaries Would Be Willing to Pay for a 50
Kg/Bag (by Percentage of Beneficiaries Who Would Want FISP Phased Out but
Fertilizer Prices Reduced).
 The majority are willing to pay a bag of fertilizer at MWK 5,000.
 Ultra-poor – K4,732/Bag; Poor – K 5,602/Bag; Non-poor – K6,484

14. 14
Perceived Impact of FISP on Food Security
 Sharing of coupons is common – Beneficiaries received 61Kg instead of 100 Kg.
 The Impact of the Quantity of Fertilizer Received (2012/2013) on Household Food
Security (% of Respondents)
 The impact on food security is being compromised by sharing of coupons

15. 15
Perceived Impact of FISP on Food Security
 Whether 2012/13 FISP Significantly Reduced Household Food Insecurity (% by
Poverty Status)
The majority of non-poor, poor and ultra-poor reported some positive impact on
household food security.

16. 16
Perceived Effects of FISP on Community Relationships
 How has the FISP Affected Community Relationships (% of Respondents by
District)
 “Why should we participate in development activities, as if the government
knows our names. It only knows the names of the FISP beneficiaries. Let them
participate. We are not counted by government. Why should we bother.” GVH
Balala, T/A Kawinga, Machinga.
District Change in Community Relationships
Much worse Slightly
worse
No change Slightly
improved
Improved a
lot
Mzimba 44.4 47.2 2.8 2.8 2.8
Mchinji 62.8 30.2 0.0 7.0 0.0
Lilongwe 72.3 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Machinga 58.0 32.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Mulanje 51.1 22.2 2.2 20.0 4.4
Chikhwawa 13.0 52.2 0.0 30.4 4.3
ALL 54.1 33.2 1.2 9.0 2.5

17. 17
Key Findings and Conclusions
• 1. Community-based targeting has been effective in identifying programme
beneficiaries, although some cases of the influence of traditional leaders and
other powerful people in the community were reported. The fact that the
majority of the FISP beneficiaries are poor or ultra-poor suggests that the
targeting effectiveness is quite high.
• 2. There is a minimum impact of FISP on household food security and this is
directly influenced by the quantity of fertilizer received since there is a lot of
sharing that takes place, coordinated by village leaders.
• 3. The majority of the FISP beneficiaries themselves would want the
programme discontinued but the commercial price of fertilizer reduced to an
average price of MWK 5,000 per 50 Kg bag.

18. 18
Recommendations
• 1. Sharing of coupons needs to be addressed if the programme is to make
significant impact in the future. Authorities should promote the awareness of
the negative effects of sharing, targeting traditional leaders and community
members.
• 2. The programme should consider introducing the component of
graduation to free up some resources that can be invested in other productive
sectors, even within the agricultural sector.
• 3. The strong calls for the programme to phase out and the commercial price of
fertilizer to be reduced need to be considered seriously and a comprehensive
analysis is required.
• 4. A larger and more comprehensive study is required to ascertain the
perceptions of smallholder farmers and other key stakeholders on the future of
FISP. This would be important in shaping up the future of the FISP.

19. 19
Study Limitations
• There was a feeling among the researchers that respondents in Chikwawa were
not providing accurate information.
• This study considers a very small sample of the FISP beneficiaries nationally.
Since the programme targets around 1.5 million beneficiary households, the
size of the sample is too small to be representative enough of the population of
FISP beneficiaries.
• Nevertheless, the results provide useful pointers on the perceptions of the
farmers on the impact and the future of FISP.

20. 20
End of Presentation
Thank You for Your
Attention
CARD Bunda College