Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Farmers’ perception and village-level experiences, Donald Makoka (LUANAR)

520 views

Published on

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Farmers’ perception and village-level experiences, Donald Makoka (LUANAR)

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 5 Background Characteristics  Number of Times Sampled Households Had Received Subsidized Fertilizer between 2005/06 and 2012/13
  6. 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. 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. 8 Perceptions on Community-based Targeting  Poverty Status of Sampled FISP Beneficiaries  The majority were ultra-poor - high degree of targeting effectiveness.
  9. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 20 End of Presentation Thank You for Your Attention CARD Bunda College

×