Produced by Catherine Ragasa and IFPRI team

1. Strengthening producer
groups as impact ICT hubs:
Baseline Report
Catherine Ragasa and IFPRI team
October 12, 2021
Virtual meeting with the Farm Radio Trust-Malawi and IFPRI teams

2. Scaling up Radio and ICTs for Enhanced Extension Delivery
(SRIEED) II (2020-2025)
• SRIEED II aims to promote and scale agricultural innovations through
ICTs, including radio programming and digital platforms, in order to
improve incomes, food security, and resilience of 1 million smallholder
farmers in 5 districts (Kasungu, Lilongwe (East and West), Mzimba
(North and South), Nkhota-kota, and Mangochi) by 2025.
• SRIEED II project target to reach approximately 3,500,000 adults or 70%
of the adult population with ICT-based agricultural, market, and
nutrition information by 2025.
• Through inclusive and low-cost ICT tools and working with producer
groups as impact ICT hubs, the project aims targets: (1) increased
awareness, knowledge, and skills among smallholder farmers; (2)
increased application and adoption of technologies; (3) enabled
conducive policy environment for digital extension; and (4) higher use of
market linkage platforms.

3. SRIEED II Project’s Theory of Change
Challenges:
• Lack of up-to-date knowledge of
new and improved agricultural
technologies
• High risk due to rainfed
agriculture, limited irrigation,
and weather-related shocks
• Low crop productivity
• Limited access to markets
• Lack of financial resources
• Limited employment and
livelihood opportunities,
including for youth and women
• Gender inequity in access to
resources, opportunities, and
decisionmaking
• High prevalence of stunting
• Poor diet quality and high
micronutrient deficiency
Approaches:
• Technology transfer (crops, livestock,
climate-smart agriculture, markets,
nutrition)
• High-impact and low-cost ICT tools
• Collective action through producer groups
• Market platforms via public-private
partnership models
Features:
• Gender-specific and youth-inclusive
targeting
• Technology audit and prioritization
• Mass awareness campaigns through radio
programming and phone SMS push
• Targeted extension services and market
support based on demand (through mobile
platforms, call centers, producer groups,
VAC/ASP/DSP)
Intermediate outcomes:
• More smallholder women, men and
youth accessing digitally enabled,
market-oriented advice
• More W,M,Y aware of the existence
of the disseminated technologies
• More W,M,Y adopting disseminated
technologies
Development impacts:
• More households resilient to climate
change and weather-related shocks
• More households with higher
improved income from agriculture
• More households meeting 6 food
groups minimum dietary
diversification requirements
• Fewer households in moderate or
severe food insecurity or hunger

4. Evaluation strategy
(1) Impact evaluation of the overall SRIEED II project
• Project and comparison districts
• Indicators will be compared before and after the interventions (via baseline and
follow-up surveys)
• Difference-in-difference estimation
(2) Impact evaluation of the ICT hub component
• 118 groups: 59 randomly-assigned as treatment (to receive comprehensive
support package) and the rest as control group
Complemented by project and process monitoring activities, cohort
studies, and qualitative research to be done by FRT-Malawi

5. Map of Malawi, and the project and
comparison districts for the overall SRIEED II
project impact evaluation
Districts (5 districts, and 2 administrative
offices for Lilongwe and Mzimba)
Project
districts
Comparison
districts
Total
Kasungu 246 246
Lilongwe East 244 244
Lilongwe West 312 312
Mangochi 353 353
Mzimba North 189 189
Mzimba South 246 246
Nkhota-Kota 177 177
Chitipa 27 27
Dedza 223 223
Dowa 101 101
Karonga 30 30
Machinga 232 232
Nkhata- Bay 28 28
Ntcheu 137 137
Ntchisi 20 20
Rumphi 16 16
Salima 39 39
Total 1,767 853 2,620

6. Map of Malawi, and the
treatment and control ICT hubs
within project districts
Districts Total Treatment Control
Kasungu 169 82 87
Lilongwe 192 96 97
Mangochi 176 88 88
Mzimba North 152 82 70
Mzimba South 179 90 89
Nkhota-Kota 143 73 70
Total 1,012 511 501

7. 118 sample producers’ groups | impacts ICT hubs
72
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Club/cluster/group (general)
Cooperative (produce and marketing
cooperative, horticulture…
Youth club
Farmer field school
Radio listening club
Irrigation scheme/water user
association block
Women's group
Legume production group
Support group
% of sample groups
a. Type of groups
85
30
20
18
17
9
7
4
2
1
1
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
To learn and teach each other about farming
and agricultural technologies
To improve income and livelihoods
To improve food security and reduce stunting
and mualnutrition
To teach and learn from each other about
health and nutrition
To help each other to save and access loans
To collectively access markets
To access services, such as extension services
and support from NGOs
To support the needy, orphan, and those
vulnerable, esp in areas with high HIV…
To improve livestock production
To start fish farming
To improve livelihoods for youth and influence
youth behavioural change
To promote afforestation and prevent soil
erosion
% of sample groups
b. Functions of the groups

8. Characteristics of the producer groups | ICT hubs
4
6
11
51
28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
late 1990s 2000-2005 2006-2011 2012-2017 2018-2021
%
of
sample
groups
a. Year of formation
17
6
51
26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Government
program or
extension workers
Local organization,
FRT, or community
radio
International
NGOs, incuding
FAO and CARE
None
b. Organizations supporting group's formation

9. Characteristics of the sample groups | ICT hubs
40
27
17
15
4 2 2 1
37
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
%
of
sample
groups
a. Support received during formation
18
21
6 5
2 1
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
%
of
sample
groups
b. Support received in the last 2 years

10. Characteristics of sample groups | ICT hubs
24
21
17
1
11
6
5 5
2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
%
of
sample
groups
a. Activities of the groups
40
28
21 20 18
4 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
b. Challenges faced by the groups

11. Characteristics of the sample households in the project and
comparison districts
Household head Project district Comparison districts
% male 34 33
Age (mean) 45 44
% married 79 79
% who has ever been a lead farmer 12 12
% who is an active farmer 7 7
% who reads/writes Chichewa 72 77
% who reads/writes English 35 36
Education level (% of household heads)
No formal schooling 13 11
Some years in elementary school 50 47
Elementary school graduate 15 18
At least some years in high school 23 24
Household size 5.4 5.1
N 1,738 826

12. Main occupation of head and decisionmakers
in the household (% of rural households)
Main occupation Head Decisionmakers
Project
districts
Comparison
districts
Project
districts
Comparison
districts
Farmer 80.6 71.1 87.0 81.1
Employee 4.6 4.1 5.9 5.0
Family business worker 5.0 7.9 6.8 12.3
Self-employed 6.2 8.9 8.0 11.1
Employer 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3
Unemployed-worked before or seeking work 1.2 0.8 2.1 1.1
Non-worker, not seeking for work 0.2 0.3 1.2 1.7
Homemaker 2.4 5.8 9.8 17.5
Student 0.2 0.2 1.3 1.4
Other 0.1 1.3 0.3 2.1
N 1744 832 1766 853

13. Summary of baseline outcome indicators
Indicators Measurement Total HH By gender of head By age group of head
Female-headed Male-headed Youth-headed Non-youth-headed
Indicator 1: % of households with food in the
last month (July)
% of rural households with "little or no hunger" based on Household
Hunger Scale (HHS)
91 88 92 88 92
Indicator 2: % households in moderate or severe
family food insecurity in targeted regions in the
last month (July)
% of rural households with "moderate or severe food insecurity" based
on Household Food Insecurity Access Score (HFIAS)
60 60 60 60 60
Indicator 3: % of households meeting 6 food
groups minimum dietary diversification
requirements in the past 7-days
Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) (0-10) 7.4 7.2 7.6 7.4 7.5
Food Consumption Score (0-126) 50.4 47.9 52.0 49.7 51.0
% with acceptable FCS (>35) 76 70 80 74 78
% of household achieving all required 6 food groups promoted 36 32 39 35 37
Women's Dietary Diversity Score (WDDS) (0-10) 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2
% of rural women achieving <5 of 10 food groups adapted from WDDS 38 38 38 37 39
% of rural women achieving all required 6 food groups promoted 12 13 11 12 11
Indicator 4: % of households with higher
improved income from agriculture enterprise in
past 12 months
Value of crop production (MWK/year) (median) 153,000 118,500 183,000 126,250 172,000
% of rural households selling crops 60 59 61 59 61
% of maize harvest sold (average) 4 4 5 4 4
% of total crop harvest sold (average) 24 22 24 25 21
Value of crop sales (MWK/year) (median) 13,500 10,000 15,000 12,500 15,000
Number of livestock units (average) 10 7 11 8 11
% of rural households with income from other agricultural activities 65 64 66 66 64

14. Summary of baseline outcome indicators
Indicators Measurement Total HH By gender of head By age group of head
Indicator 5: % of households
resilient to climate change and
weather-related shocks in past 12
months
Simpson index for crop diversification (average) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
% of acreage planted with nonmaize crops (average) 37 35 38 37 37
Total land owned or cultivated (average acre) 2.6 2.2 2.8 2.3 2.8
Livelihood diversification, count of livelihood activities rural
households were engaged in the last 12 months (0-11)
3.2 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.2
Income diversification, count of sales or income generating
activities rural households were engaged in the last 12 months
(0-11)
2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.2
Number of climate-smart technologies adopted (1-15)
(average)
8.3 7.7 8.6 8.0 8.5
% of rural households receiving extension services in the last 12
months
68 61 72 66 70
% of rural households receiving extension services on
environment or climate change in the last 12 months
31 25 32 28 32
% of rural household resorting to negative coping strategy (e.g.,
reduced food or nonfood expenditures or selling assets) as a
result of shock/crisis (e.g., COVID-19)
6 4 8 9 5

15. Summary of baseline outcome indicators
Indicators Measurement Total
HH
By gender of
head
By age group of
head
Indicator 6: % of households being
aware of the existence of the
disseminated subjects and technologies
Number of promoted technologies rural
households were aware of (0-47)
28 27 29 27 29
Indicator 7: % of households are
adopting disseminated subjects and
technologies
Number of promoted technologies the
rural households were adopting in
2020/2021 (0-44)
17 17 18 16 18
Indicator 8: % of households accessing
digitally enabled, market oriented
advice in past 12 months
% of rural households receiving
extension services through radio and
digital platforms in the last 12 months
52 47 55 55 51
% of rural households receiving
extension services on marketing or
agroprocessing in the last 12 months
26 33 35 34 34

16. Livelihood diversification
Activity Project
districts
Comparison
districts
% of rural households engaged in …
1 Crop farming 98.6 99.7
2 Crop sales 59.9 54.2
3 Tree crop production or harvesting 43.3 28.7
4 Tree crops sales 0.4 1.4
5 Livestock raising 74.5 77.2
6 Livestock sales 64.7 65.2
7 Aquaculture or capture fisheries 0.6 1.3
8 Fish sales 0.6 1.3
9 Trading 21.3 22.6
10 Processing (buying raw materials and processing) 6.2 5.4
11 Other own enterprises or businesses 22.4 22.9
12 Farm employment 28.3 34.2
13 Nonfarm salary/wage employment 8.3 11.3
14 Remittances/gifts from relatives or friends 14.4 8.1
15 Pension 0.7 0.3
Livelihood Diversification Index (count: 1,3,5,7, 9-15) 3.2 3.1
Income Diversification Index (count: 2,4,6,8,9-15) 2.3 2.3
Number of Livestock units 9.7 11.7
N 1767 853

17. Access to extension services, by topic
68
56
34
30 28
2 1
59
8
72
57
26
31
22
2 3
64
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
a. Project and comparison districts
Project districts Comparison districts
55
45
24
19 18
1 0
52
7
67
54
33 31
27
2 1
52
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
of
female
and
male
respondents
b. Female and male
Female Male

18. Access to extension services, by source
53
3
17
7
21
24
3
53
52
1.1 0.4
3.4
0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2
43
2
11
3
15
25
2
52 51
0.9
0.1
3.7 0.2
0.2 0.3
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
b. In the last 12 months
Project district Comparison districts

19. Potential channels of information/advice
77
15
85
24
85
60
8
72
12
73
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Listens to radio at least
once a week
Watches television at
least once a week
Uses phone at least
once a week
Goes to nearest town at
least once a week
Goes to nearest market
at least once a week
%
of
female
and
male
respondents
Male Female

20. Technology tracking
• 47 agricultural technologies selected from the technology audit and
prioritization report and in discussion with FRT-Malawi
• 31 crop production technologies
• 4 livestock-related technologies
• 5 post-harvest and marketing practices
• 7 nutrition and health–related practices
• Survey questions asked:
• Are you aware or have you heard of [technology 1]?
• Did you ever practice or adopt it?
• Why did you not practice or adopt it?
• Are you still adopting it?
• Why did you stop adopting it?

21. % of households who were aware of crop production technologies,
and further disaggregated by those who did not adopt, are still
adopting, and disadopted
27
10
19 15 14
32
20 14 16 21 18 18
46 43 41
51
7 10
26 23 21
37
27 25
12
21
13 8 14
6
57
80
69
68 72
52
62
67 60 50 56 53
24
17 19
11
55 51
26 28
19
3
8 8
19 7
16
17 3
8
11 3 3
5 1 2 1 1
1 5 1 2 2
9 9 5 0 0 4 2
3 1
3 1
0
1
0 1
1
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
of
households
Did not adopt Adopted Disadopted

22. Technology awareness, by gender
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
of
female
and
male
respondents
Male Female

23. Technology adoption, by gender
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Male Female

24. 20
40
23
12
67 25
8
2
7
3
0
1
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
of
rural
households
a. % of households aware of improved
livestock production practices
Did not adopt Still adopting Disadopted
Livestock production practices
92
69
29
14
90
62
21
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
of
female
and
male
respondents
b. Awareness between female and male
Male
Female
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
c. Adoption between female and male
Male
Female

25. Post-harvest and marketing practices
3
35
65
13
0
20
40
60
80
100
Grading or sorting out produce Use of hermetic bags for
storage
b. % of households aware of improved
marketing practices
Did not adopt Still adopting Disadopted
70
57
45
36
23
26
64
43
34 32
14
18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
%
of
female
and
male
respondents
a. Male and female
Male Female

26. Nutrition-related practices
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
of
female
and
male
respondents
a. Awareness
Male Female
0
20
40
60
80
100
b. Adoption
Male Female

27. Reasons for not adopting some technologies
Reasons Zero or minimum tillage Pit planting Water harvesting in
pits or swales
Planting Vetivar grass Double up legume
intercropping
Did not
adopt
Disadopt Did not
adopt
Disadopt Did not
adopt
Disadopt Did not
adopt
Disadopt Did not
adopt
Disadopt
We do not know much about the technology ******** ******** ******* *** ******
Lack of materials/seeds/soil cover/mulch/manure ** * * ****** ** ****** **
Lack of funds or resources to implement ** * * * * *
Time-consuming to implement *** ** *** *** ** **
We are lazy *** ** * * * **
We are used to/prefer old/other practice (e.g., traditional
ridging, animal or compost pit manure, or inorganic
fertilizer, dimba gardens)
*** * *
We are not interested (e.g., have rented land, believe that
it will destroy soil fertility in the case of herbicide,
consider composting toilet disgusting)
** * * * * * *
We do not see benefit (e.g., more pests/termites, crops do
not grow well, livestock destroy garden, etc.)
* * *
Not applicable or appropriate (e.g., waterlogging area,
land not for legumes, area is free from erosion, not
growing soya, not raising livestock, etc.)
* **** * *
Not enough land
Theft
It requires more fertilizer or other inputs
Lack of water

28. Reasons for not adopting some technologies
Reasons Double row soybean
planting
Fodder trees in crop
plots
Backyard gardening One-one planting
(Sasakawa)
Fallow
Did not
adopt
Disadopt Did not
adopt
Disadopt Did not
adopt
Disadopt Did not
adopt
Disadopt Did not
adopt
Disadopt
We do not know much about the technology ****** **** ** *** **
Lack of materials/seeds/soil cover/mulch/manure **** ** **** ** *** ** **** **
Lack of funds or resources to implement * ** ** ** **** **** *****
Time-consuming to implement ** * *
We are lazy ** * *
We are used to/prefer old/other practice (e.g., traditional ridging, animal
or compost pit manure, or inorganic fertilizer, dimba gardens)
** *
We are not interested (e.g., have rented land, believe that it will destroy
soil fertility in the case of herbicide, consider composting toilet
disgusting)
* * * *
We do not see benefit (e.g., more pests/termites, crops do not grow well,
livestock destroy garden, etc.)
** * ** **
Not applicable or appropriate (e.g., waterlogging area, land not for
legumes, area is free from erosion, not growing soya, not raising
livestock, etc.)
* *** *
Not enough land ** ***** **
Theft
It requires more fertilizer or other inputs **** ****
Lack of water * *

29. Reasons for not adopting some technologies
Reasons Herbicide Inoculant Hermetic bags for
storage
Dietary diversity Food budgeting or
food calendar
Did not
adopt
Disadopt Did not
adopt
Disadopt Did not
adopt
Disadopt Did not
adopt
Disadopt Did not
adopt
Disadopt
We do not know much about the technology *** ***** ** ** ***
Lack of materials/seeds/soil cover/mulch/manure *** * ** ** ** *
Lack of funds or resources to implement ******** *** ***** ** ******* *** ****** **** ****** ***
Time-consuming to implement
We are lazy
We are used to/prefer old/other practice (e.g.,
traditional ridging, animal or compost pit
manure, or inorganic fertilizer, dimba gardens)
We are not interested (e.g., have rented land,
believe that it will destroy soil fertility in the case
of herbicide, consider "composting toilet"
disgusting)
*
We do not see benefit (e.g., more pests/termites,
crops do not grow well, livestock destroy garden,
etc.)
Not applicable or appropriate (e.g., waterlogging
area, land not for legumes, area is free from
erosion, not growing soya, not raising livestock,
etc.)
*
Not enough land
Theft
It requires more fertilizer or other inputs
Lack of water

30. Key messages from the baseline data
(1) Very low incidence of severe hunger and scored high in terms of household food access, and energy and calorie adequacy,
however, very low in terms of dietary quality measured in terms of minimum food groups consumed to achieve dietary
diversity and micronutrient adequacy.
✓ There is a huge opportunity of the SRIEED II project to help improve this.
(2) Low extension services provision on awareness and adoption of improved marketing practices.
✓ There is also a huge opportunity for greater awareness and promotion of improved marketing practices
(3) Advice on livestock production and on environment or climate change remain low with roughly a third of the rural
households accessing them
✓ This is another area needing greater promotion by the project.
(4) Lack of knowledge and information is the primary reason that farmers do not adopt many technologies, despite
being aware of those technologies.
✓ This indicates the need for more intensive and frequent promotion of the technologies, including the use of farm
demonstrations, for farmers to gain better understanding, appreciation, and adequate knowledge of improved technologies
(5) In terms of extension methods
✓ Continue radio programming - >50% using it to access agriculture and nutrition information
✓ Expand usage of phone/mobile platforms for extension (currently at <5% usage but >60% uses phone everyday and 79% uses phone at
least once a week
✓ Explore extension services and technology promotion around market days or through traders (85% of men and 73% of women goes to
nearest market at least once a week)
(6) While more non-maize crops are being planted, the level of commercialization remains low, with rural households
selling only 20% of their crop produce on average.
✓ Improving maize productivity to increase maize surplus available for sale, venturing into high-value cash crops, and supporting
farmers with market linkages are some strategies that the project can further invest on.

31. Key messages from the baseline data
• Project and comparison districts are similar, on average, in almost all of
demographic and outcome indicators used.
• Indicators between female- and male-headed households, between youth-
and non-youth-headed households, and across the gendered household
types (dual-headed, women-only, and men-only) are similar in most
indicators, although slightly different in some.
• Some differences between female and male respondents.
• Treatment and control producer groups|ICT hubs are very similar, so good
balance of baseline characteristics, good comparison groups for the causal
impact evaluation

32. THANK YOU

35. Priorities for
increasing
awareness
Some awareness (25–49% aware)
Mbeya manure
Composting toilets
Collective marketing
Pelletized tobacco waste/manure
Mandela cock drying for aflatoxin mgt
Water harvesting in pits or swales
Biological control for pests
Fodder trees in crop plots
Inoculant
Reduced use of pesticide
Soil cover
Low awareness (<25% aware)
Warehouse receipt system
Commodity aggregation
Soil testing
Hay/silage making
Consulted a plant clinic or plant doctor
Some adoption (25–49% adopted)
Consuming iron-rich foods
Food budgeting/food calendar
Double up legume intercropping
Double row soybean planting
Improved livestock housing
Fallow
Low adoption (<25% adopted)
Biological control
Zero or minimum tillage
Mbeya manure
Soil cover
Pit planting
Reduced use of pesticide
Use of hermetic bags for storage
Herbicide
Water harvesting in pits or swales
Consulted a plant clinic or plant doctor
Fodder trees in crop plots
Pelletized tobacco waste/manure
Inoculant
Soil testing
Composting toilets
Hay/silage making
Collective marketing
Mandela cock drying for aflatoxin mgt
Warehouse receipt system
Commodity aggregation
High gap (40–60%)
Herbicide
Pit planting
Zero or minimum tillage
Fallow
Improved livestock housing
Composting toilets
One-one maize planting
Use of hermetic bags for storage
Medium gap (20–39%)
Planting Vetivar grass
Backyard gardening
Pelletized tobacco waste/manure
Double row soybean planting
Dietary diversity
Livestock/animal manure
Compost manure
Water harvesting in pits or swales
Double up legume intercropping
Mbeya manure
Fodder trees in crop plots
Inoculant
Agroforestry
Crop rotation
Mixed cropping
Box ridges
Manure from domestic rubbish pits
Food budgeting/food calendar
Priorities for inducing
adoption
Priorities for
reducing awareness-
adoption gap