1) Agriculture is central to Malawi's economy but is vulnerable to increasing climate hazards like droughts and floods. 2) Analysis found that conservation agriculture techniques like minimum soil disturbance (MSD) increased yields, profits, and resilience compared to conventional tillage, especially in drier areas. 3) However, higher costs of MSD may limit smallholder adoption without incentives. Policy and institutional support can help address barriers to scaling up climate-smart agricultural practices in Malawi.

1. Scaling-up CSA in
Malawi,
successes,
challenges,
opportunities
George Phiri
Project Technical Coordinator
FAO Malawi
1

2. Recent Climate Trends in Malawi
2
• Malawi particularly prone to adverse climate hazards: frequent and
prolonged dry spells, seasonal droughts, intense rainfall, riverine
floods, and flash floods.
• Droughts and floods increased in frequency, intensity, and
magnitude over the past 20 years.
• Significant increasing trends in the frequency of hot days and
nights in all seasons.
• Mean annual temperature is projected to increase by 1.1 to 3.0°C
by the 2060’s, and by 1.5 to 5.0°C by the 2090s.
• All models consistently project increases in the proportion of
rainfall that falls in heavy events in the annual average of up to 19%
by the 2090s.

3. Agriculture and Climate Change in Malawi
3
• Agriculture (which is mainly rain-fed) is central to Malawi’s
economy and livelihoods and will continue to be
fundamental for sustainable development in the country.
• In the last 5 years, agriculture has accounted for 35% of
GDP, 85% of the labour force and 83% of foreign exchange
earnings.
• Agriculture is the sector that will be most severely
impacted by climate change (NAPA).
• Over 50 percent of the population lives below the poverty
line and one in five people is chronically food insecure.

4. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
4
• Agriculture: key sector to address challenges of food
security under climate change (sink and source)
• Ag growth effective means of poverty reduction
• Projected CC impacts entail an urgent need for the
adaptation of the agriculture sector
• Mitigation can come through synergistic measures and be
an additional source of finance
CSA is an approach aimed at building agricultural development policies,
strategies and investments to increase food security with needed
adaptation, capturing financial benefits from potential mitigation co-
benefits

5. Policies, Efforts, Strategies
5
• Good awareness of the challenges posed
by climate change
 Inclusion of CC within key priority areas of
Malawi Growth Development Strategy
 Aswap
 NAPA
 On going discourse to develop National
Adaptation Plans, especially for the Ag sector
 On going discourse to formulate the National
Agriculture Policy
• CAADP
• NCCP IP

6. The CSA project aims building evidence-based agricultural
development strategies, policies and investment
frameworks to:
1. sustainably increase agricultural productivity and
incomes,
2. build resilience and the capacity of agricultural and food
systems to adapt to climate change, and
3. seek opportunities to reduce and remove GHGs
compatibly with their national food security and
development goals.
CSA PROJECT OVERVIEW

7. Approach of the CSA project in Malawi
7
is NOT about…
• Providing one-size-fits-all solutions for agricultural technology
or practice for the whole world, region, country or sub-national
level;
• Analyzing GHG emissions reductions potentials as a single
driver
It IS about…
• Providing a context-specific approach to agricultural development;
• Based on specific evidences and trends found in Malawi; and
• Based on the project methodology which makes a link between
research findings, policy making and capacity development

8. www.fao.org/climatechange/epic
Develop a policy environment
& agricultural investments to
improve food security and
provide resilience under
climate uncertainty
NEEDS RESEARCH COMPONENT
What are the barriers to adoption of CSA
practices?
Legal & Institutional Appraisal: mapping
institutional relationships and identifying
constraints
What are the synergies and tradeoffs
between food security, adaptation and
mitigation from agricultural practices?
POLICY SUPPORT
COMPONENT
Identifying where policy coordination at
the national level is needed and draw
recommendations on how to do it
Facilitating national participation/inputs
to climate and agriculture international
policy process
Project Framework
Evidence
Base
Strategic Framework
& Policy Advice
OUTPUTS
Investment proposals
Capacity
Building
8
What are the policy levers to facilitate
adoption and what will they cost?

9. What is special about the CSA Project?
Three aspects stand out:
• The approach taken brings together, in a coherent
framework, economics, institutional analysis, and policy
to understand barriers to the adoption of practices;
• Matches spatial climate data and household survey
data to examine how climate affects economic
decisions by households; and
• Analyses are structured to be useful in the development
of country-owned investment proposals, as well as
identifying and building mechanisms to link to
financing sources- both Climate Change and Agriculture
9

10. 1. Evidence: Quantitative and qualitative analyses of primary and
secondary data at household and community level combined
with institutional and geo-referenced climate data to:
a) assess the situation on food security, adaptation and
potential mitigation;
b) Identify the best CSA options: through the CBA in 4 districts
(Balaka, Ntcheu, Kasungu and Mzimba) – 1,433 fields by 524
HH over 11 EPAs;
c) Understand barriers to CSA adoption using World Bank
LSMS-ISA data;
d) Risk management analysis – identification of risk reducing
tools; and
e) Identify enabling factors.
Activities 1/3: Creating a base of evidence

11. 2. Project coordination unit/core team: keeping a dialogue with
members from MoAIWD, and other stakeholders such as NGOs,
university, civil society and FAO
3. Policy and institutional mapping: to better understand policy
formulation, linkages and potential gaps or
conflict/contradictions
4. Institutional data collection: to better understand influence of
institutions (i.e. cooperatives, access to credit, subsidies, land
tenure etc) in adopting CSA vs conventional agriculture.
5. Supporting country’s policy formulation through policy
dialogue and analysis
Activities 2/3: Policy component

12. 6. Coordination between climate change and agricultural policy
(e.g. enhancing climate change and agricultural policy
alignment in support of CSA, Supporting capacity to link
international and national policy issues)
7. Capacity development:
• Supporting MSc students, a PhD student and mentoring
• Implement training activities to agricultural frontline staff
• Support policy makers’ participation to UNFCCC
negotiations
8. Collaboration with CCAFS: using scenarios to improve CSA
planning
9. Developing a strategic framework for investment in CSA in
Malawi
Activities 3/3: Capacity building and overarching

13. 13
Some results

14. Adoption of potential CSA measures on all plots – in %
Adoption of Potential CSA Measures

15. Climatic variables, access to rural institutions and social capital play
an important role in adoption of most practices.
► There is no one strategy for supporting adoption – it depends
on which techniques are the focus.
► Exposures to climate variability and delayed onset increases
use of SLM measures, but reduces the use inorganic fertilizer.
► Collective action and institutions can be key in determining
which practices are selected
► Better tenure security increases the use of SLM strategies and
reduces inorganic fertilizer and improved seed.
Implications for targeting and overcoming barriers to adoption at
the household or systemic levels.
Summary of Findings on Adoption from LSMS

16. FROM CBA: SLM Adoption by AEZ and Technology
• Low diffusion of SLM in the sample (all crops): 84% Tillage systems
(conventional), only 16% MSD systems.
• Within the sample there is no significant difference in terms of SLM
adoption by Agro ecological zone (due to projects & sampling bias);
• Most farmers rely on conventional agriculture but test SLM
technologies on some fields [mainly on Maize: MSD =39%].
• High heterogeneity of SLM technology packages: experimenting
different combinations of SLM principles
02468
Percentage
SLM adoption - overall sample
CA CF
SWC Other
0
20406080
Cool dry Cool moist Cool wet
SLM adoption by AEZ
Till systems MSD systems

17. Maize Unit Till
Yield kg/ha 2,710 *** 1,637
Gross revenue USD/ha 872 *** 534
Gross margin (gross revenue - cash input costs) USD/ha 529 *** 296
Net income (gross margins - labor costs) USD/ha 274 *** 85
Labor productivity (yield/total labor) kg/day 34 *** 23
Total variable costs USD/ha 601 *** 446
T-test on the equality of means: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
MSD
• MSD showed higher yields than conventional soil management.
Difference more significant in dry areas [yield effects disappear in
moist and humid areas once controlling for fertilizer inputs]
• MSD has higher variable costs than conventional soil
management.
• Within conventional soil management, applying agroforestry
and/or swc seems to provide improve yields
Economic Performance: MSD vs. Till

18. Key findings of CBA analysis
• MSD systems are more profitable for food crops (maize) than
conventional tillage systems..
• MSD is more profitable than conventional soil management in dry
areas.
• However, higher production costs of MSD technologies may
hinder diffusion among smallholders’ and impede adoption
• Comparatively, irrigation would allow farmers to grow high value
crops, which would be a much better option. However, irrigation
requires high investments, and is questionable for smallholders
with limited to markets for high value crops .
• SLM would therefore represent a good alternative option as it
requires fewer investments. However incentives to overcome the
obstacles to adoption are needed.

19. • Targeting matters: MSD systems are a profitable CSA
investment in drier areas with greater rainfall variability. In
such areas, farmers implementing MSD systems could have
higher incomes than under conventional systems (food
security and adaptation)
• Barriers to adoption: Higher production costs of MSD in
comparison with conventional systems may require
incentives at smallholders’ level.
• GHG mitigation benefits: In humid areas, with lower
benefits from SLM adoption, SLM can be coupled with
higher carbon sequestration coefficients for financing.
Implications for scaling up

20. Risk analysis: Climate is a determinant of
household vulnerability in Malawi
• Consumption per capita is lower in environments with greater
long term climate variability
• Higher long term mean rainfall is associated with higher per
capita consumption and lower vulnerability to poverty.
• The greater the deviation from long term mean rainfall pattern
experienced in the last season, the more consumption is
reduced and vulnerability to poverty increased.
• Other significant variables for reducing vulnerability are
higher household wealth, and access to institutions such as
extension, credit, fertilizer subsidies and social safety nets.

21. Key findings and implications from risk
► For extreme events: important to have policies & institutions to support
effective coordination and cooperation for adoption of SLM to increase
resilience
► For “Marginal” changes in climate: policy options need to be tailored to
agro-ecological conditions, and better information on changes in
climate variability is crucial in reducing losses through changes in
cropping decisions and SLM practices
► Policies and institutions play an important role in determining levels
diversification, and their outcome & costs depends on information
available to framers
► Income diversification opportunities should be prioritized, since it has
the strongest impacts on reducing vulnerability to poverty
• Among institutions, access to extension and fertilizer subsidies have
the strongest positive impacts on income diversification

22. • Investments into enabling actions to support CSA are needed.
• There are several activities planned under the Agriculture Sector Wide
Approach (ASWAp) that have high CSA potential.
• The second implementation phase of the ASWAp, as well as the launch
of the National Climate Change Investment Plan provides a good basis
for guiding investments. It is important to ensure their coordination.
• Re-orienting existing and planned agricultural finance, as well as
tapping climate financing sources including the GEF and Green Climate
Fund are 3 main strategies for financing up-scaled CSA in Malawi.
• MoAIWD is embarking on reform and refocussing of the main
components of agricultural development activities in Malawi. Linking
these reforms to CSA and climate finance offers an excellent
opportunity for effectively realizing these objectives.
Conclusions

23. Thank
you
www.fao.org/climatechange/epic