AFSP Baseline Survey Report 1

AAGGRROOFFOORREESSTTRRYY FFOOOODD SSEECCUURRIITTYY PPRROOGGRRAAMMMMEE

((AAFFSSPP))

BBAASSEELLIINNEE SSUURRVVEEYY RREEPPOORRTT

AJAYI OC, AKINNIFESI FK, SILESHI G, MN’GOMBA S, PLACE F, GONDWE FMT,

KAMBAUWA G, GAMA S, MAKUMBA W, CHAULA K

JUNE 2010

With financial assistance provided by: by:

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 2 CORRECT CITATION OF THE REPORT

This report may be cited as follows: Ajayi OC, Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi G; Mn’gomba S, Place F, Gondwe FMT, Kambauwa G, Gama S, Makumba W, Chaula K 2010 Report of the Baseline Survey of Agroforestry Food Security Programme (AFSP) districts of Malawi, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), June 2010. (c) World Agroforestry Centre June, 2010

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors of this report would like to appreciate the generous finance provided by the Irish

Government through Irish Aid to support the development of food security and livelihood of

rural households in Malawi through the Agroforestry Food Security Project (AFSP) under which

this study was carried out. The content and information presented in this report do not and should

not be interpreted as the official stand of Irish AID or Irish Embassy in Malawi.

This study is a product of the efforts and contributions from several individuals and institutions.

We gratefully appreciate the Directors of the various national departments who collaborated in

this study and the Programme Managers of the eight Agricultural Development Divisions

(ADDs) who provided conducive environment to facilitate the implementation of the study in the

fields.

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the field assistance provided by the the following

people who assisted with data collection for the study: M.H. Phiri, Doshanie Kadokera, Z.C.

Chivunga, Cosmas Pelekani, M. P. Nkhoma, D. L. Phiri, Bryan Mkandawire, Andrew Msosa,

Chiwayula, Byton Simwela, Nthamyo Mbeye, G.M Katsonga, E.M. Katsonga, B.O.B.

Chandilanga, Alinafe Kachiguma, B. E. Chindebvu, Wantwa Mwanjabe, Y. Sigareti and Joseph

Gondwe.

We also acknowledge the administrative support provided to the study team by ICRAF staff

including Ms Fannie Gondwe, Ms Lorraine Itaye and Maxwell Ntungama.

The Authors.

Lilongwe, June 2010

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS

Correct citation of the report .......................................................................................................2 Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................3 Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................4 Table of Tables ...........................................................................................................................6 Table of Figures ..........................................................................................................................7 List of abbreviations ....................................................................................................................8 Executive summary .....................................................................................................................9 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 16 2.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE BASELINE .............................................................................. 19 3.0 METHODOLOGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SURVEY .............................. 20

3.1 Sampling technique ..................................................................................................... 20 3.1.1 Selection of district, Extension Planning Areas (EPAs) and villages ..................... 20 3.1.2 Selection farmers ................................................................................................. 20

3.2 Training of Enumerators ............................................................................................. 21 3.3 Data collection method................................................................................................ 21

3.3.1 Community meetings ........................................................................................... 21 3.3.2 Household survey ................................................................................................ 21

3.4 Number, gender and geographical distribution of households interviewed ................... 22 3.5 Type of data collected ................................................................................................. 22

3.5.1 Household asset and wealth indicators ................................................................. 22 3.5.2 Food security & nutrition ..................................................................................... 23 3.5.3 Agricultural systems and farming practices .......................................................... 23 3.5.4 Soil fertility, knowledge and use of agroforestry practices .................................... 23 3.5.5 Technical & financial assistance and social network ............................................ 23

3.6 Data analysis ............................................................................................................... 23 3.7 Partnership collaboration ............................................................................................. 24

4.0 Results............................................................................................................................ 25 4.1 Household asset and wealth......................................................................................... 25

4.1.1 Access to education.............................................................................................. 25 4.1.2 Village of residence ............................................................................................. 26

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 5

4.1.3 Household size and demography .......................................................................... 26 4.1.4 Household assets- ownership of livestock ............................................................ 27 4.1.5 Household assets- ownership of household and agricultural equipment ................ 29 4.1.6 Household assets- type of house and dwelling units ............................................. 31 4.1.7 Energy and cooking methods ............................................................................... 31

4.2 Food security and nutrition .......................................................................................... 31 4.2.1 Number of food (maize) secure months ................................................................ 31 4.2.2 Sources of food .................................................................................................... 33 4.2.3 Onset and end of food shortage ............................................................................ 35 4.2.4 Causes of and coping mechanisms against food shortage ..................................... 37 4.2.5 Nutrition and food patterns-Main meals consumption and other foods.................. 38 4.2.6 Nutrition and food patterns- consumption of milk, meat & fish ............................ 39 4.2.7 Nutrition and food patterns- consumption of fruits ............................................... 40

4.3 Agricultural systems and farming practices ................................................................. 41 4.3.1 Major agricultural challenges facing households .................................................. 41 4.3.2 Cropping systems ................................................................................................. 43 4.3.3 Use of improved seeds ......................................................................................... 44 4.3.4 Sale of crops ........................................................................................................ 46 4.3.5 Type of nurseries and ownership structure ........................................................... 48

4.4 Soil fertility, knowledge and use of agroforestry practices ........................................... 48 4.4.1 Soil fertility status and problems .......................................................................... 48 4.4.2 Current practices on soil fertility .......................................................................... 49 4.4.3 Knowledge and use of agroforestry technologies .................................................. 50 4.4.4 Constraints cited by households for not using various agricultural technologies ... 51

4.5 Access to technical & financial supports ..................................................................... 52 4.6 Participation in social network and cooperative groups ............................................... 54

5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 56 6. References ......................................................................................................................... 57 7. Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 59

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 6 TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of the composition of households interviewed ............................................. 22

Table 2: Level of formal education attained by farmers ............................................................. 25

Table 3: Location of the settlement home of households ............................................................ 26

Table 4: Household demography and occupational status in AFSP districts ............................... 27

Table 5: Proportion (%) of households owning different types of livestock in AFSP districts. ... 28

Table 6: Proportion (%) of households owning different assets in AFSP districts ...................... 30

Table 7: Number of months per year that households have sufficient maize to feed all their members (in %) ................................................................................................................. 32

Table 8: Source of maize and average number of months that households have sufficient food to feed all their members per year .......................................................................................... 34

Table 9: Number of times per month that household members consume different sources of protein-rich foods .............................................................................................................. 40

Table 10: Proportion (%) of households who eat different types of fruits ................................... 41

Table 11: Major constraints facing farming by sex and region ................................................... 42

Table 12: Proportion of households (%) that cultivate different types of crops in UPLAND field . ................................................................................................................................ 44

Table 13: Proportion of households (%) who planted different types of seeds in different crop fields ................................................................................................................................ 45

Table 14: Number of households who sold crops, average amount sold and prices received for farm products* .................................................................................................................. 47

Table 15: Type and ownership structure of nurseries by households aggregated for all districts . 48

Table 16: Proportion (%) of households who know and use the different agroforestry and other farm technologies. ............................................................................................................. 51

Table 17: Top three constraints cited by households for not using certain technologies (aggregated for all distrcts) ................................................................................................ 52

Table 18: Reasons why households take loans (all districts) ...................................................... 53 Table 19: Sources of loans available to households (aggregated for all districts) ........................ 54

Table 20: Key focus of activities of farmers’ cooperatives and clubs (all districts) .................... 55

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 7 TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Proportion of households owning different types of assets in all AFSP districts .......... 29

Figure 2: ONSET and END of seasonal MAIZE shortage in households aggregated for all AFSP districts .............................................................................................................................. 36

Figure 3: Month of onset of maize shortage in households in different regions of Malawi 37

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADD Agricultural Development Division

AEDC Agricultural Extension Development Coordinator

AEDO Agricultural Extension Development Officer

AFSP Agroforestry Food Security Project

DAES Department of Agricultural Extension Services

DAHLD Department of Animal Health and Livestock Development

DARS Department of Agricultural Research and Technical Services

EPA Extension Planning Area

FD Forestry Department

FGD Focused Group Discussion (FGD)

FRIM Forestry Research Institute of Malawi

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HDI Human Development Index

HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agroforestry

LRCD Land Resources and Conservation Development

M & E Monitoring and Evaluation

MZUNI Mzuzu University, Mzuzu, Malawi

NASFAM National Association of Smallholder Association of Malawi

SAS Statistical Analytical Systems

UNIMA University of Malawi

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND OF AFSP PROGRAMME AND BASELINE STUDY

The agricultural sector of Malawi is dominated by subsistence and rain-fed system and, greatly

challenged by land degradation and declining soil fertility which have implications on household

food insecurity. In response to these challenges, long term research efforts have led to the

development of a range of agroforestry-based technologies to assist smallholder farmers

replenish their soils, and meet their needs for fruits, fodder and fuel wood. Given the proven

biophysical performance of these technologies, efforts are being made to scale up the

technologies to benefit more households in rural communities.

In 2007, the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) in partnership with eight government

departments, research institutions, Universities and national farmers’ organisation are

implementing a four-year national Agroforestry Food Security Programme (AFSP) in 11 districts

located in eight Agricultural Development Divisions (ADDs). The goal of the Programme is to

improve food security and livelihood opportunities for rural communities in Malawi through a

combination of proven technological science, effective partnerships and policies. The specific

objectives of the Programme are:

i. disseminate agroforestry technologies that are suitable for a range of smallholder farmers

ii. develop and apply strategies for sustainable supply and delivery systems of quality tree

germplasm for smallholder farmers

iii. improve access to functional and equitable markets to support agroforestry products,

iv. build the capacity of national and local institutions to scale up agroforestry technologies

v. sensitize policy makers to formulate appropriate policies that are conducive for

mainstreaming agroforestry and catalyzing its adoption at different levels

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 10 A baseline study was undertaken by the Programme collaborators to provide a “snap shot” of the

existing situation at the beginning of implementation of activities so that changes may be

monitored and measured in the Programme intervention districts over time. The baseline study

provides information on the initial situation of the households that are involved in the

Programme, their conditions and the characteristics of the households at the point of departure.

The study is also expected to help to create a dataset upon which future evaluations and

assessments of the changes regarding key variables in the Programme districts may be measured

e.g. what has changed in the intervention district, how have they changed, to what extent have

they changed, etc. A total of 1134 households comprising of 556 males and 578 females were

interviewed in districts that were selected from all the eight ADDS of Malawi.

HIGHLIGHTS OF MAIN RESULTS

I. HOUSEHOLD BASIC SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS

Household demography and level of education: Average household seize varied from 4.2 to 5.5

and with slightly more females than males. Only a half of these are available to participate in

farm work. The rest are either schooling (31%) or too young/ old to work on the farm (19%). The

level of formal education attained in most of the households is low. About fifth (18%) of never

had access to formal education, 53% dropped out in primary school, 16% completed primary

school and only 13% had access to secondary school education. There is a clear trend in the level

of access to formal education based on sex and geographical region. The level of education is

higher among males than females.

Ownership of livestock and farm equipment: There is a wide difference in the type, proportion

and number of livestock owned by male and female households and in the various districts. The

range of animals and the number of livestock units owned by female farmers are lower than their

male counterparts. The difference along sex lines is particularly noticeable for the high-value

livestock e.g., 14% and 7% of male farmers own beef cattle and dairy cattle respectively while

only 9% and 7of female farmers own these livestock respectively. Most of the households own

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 11 basic agricultural implements including axe, hoes and cutlasses, while about half of them own

radio and bicycles. An increasing proportion of the farmers own mobile phones (20% of males

and 13% of females). Agricultural production is still at rudimentary stage in most of the districts

as only a few of the households possess items used in “modern” farming practices such as

sprayers, treadle pump, plough and motor pump as less than 6% own these items

Housing units and energy sources: Clay brick is most commonly used for walls (51%) followed

by mud walls (39%). A small proportion of the households (1%) use cement block to build their

houses. For roofs, one of five households (20%) used iron sheets while the rest used thatched

grasses that are commonly available in the villages. Fuelwood is the main source of energy and

for cooking in all homes, and in addition, about a quarter of the households (29%) also use crop

residues or charcoal. The fuelwood is primarily sourced from community forests, woodlots and

own field.

II. FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

Food security: The strategic crop and staple food eaten in households in all the Programme

districts is maize. In addition, low-cyanide (sweet) cassava and plantain/banana are also

commonly eaten in dome districts especially those located in northern Malawi. The level of food

security has increased in Malawi compared with the situation reported in the early 2000s as the

present baseline results show that three out of every four households (73%) reported to be able to

access sufficient quantity of maize to feed all the members of their households throughout the

year. This is a marked improvement and may not be unconnected with the subsidized fertilizer

and modern inputs that the government gave to farmers yearly. Male headed households are

generally more food secure than their female counterparts. The maize is obtained from

production from own field or sourced externally (purchased from market, food aid, etc). Overall,

the maize produced from households’ own fields is sufficient to feed all their members for a

period ranging from 4.3 to 7.9 months per year, i.e. average of 7.37 months in Northern region,

6.46 months in Central region and 4.75 months in Southern region. However, households are less

self sufficient in fruits especially in the Central and Northern regions where they have access to

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 12 fruits in only 5.9 months per year in contrast to the districts in the Southern region where

households have access to sufficient quantity of fruits for an average of 8.4 months per year.

Onset and end of food shortage: Among households who experience food shortage, the reasons

cited are: poor soil fertility (80%), non availability of fertilizer on time (61%), poor rainfall

(44%), lack of labour (25%) and lack improved seeds (16% ), shortage of land (13%), sickness

(11%) and “sheer laziness” (2%). Coping mechanisms during hunger months are engaging in

hiring out household labour or ganyu (43%), skipping meals (11%), and sale of household

livestock (12%). The timing of the onset and end of season maize shortage has a distinct

temporal distribution pattern. Households have the least challenge with maize availability

between March and May. A few households begin to experience shortage of maize after the

harvest period and the proportion increases as time passes by, peaking in October through

January. It then decreases through February to May as early maize harvest and main harvest

season approaches.

Consumption of protein-rich foods: The frequency of consumption of protein-rich foods (milk,

meat and fish) is lower than that of adult members, probably due to cultural beliefs. Baseline

results show that on the average, adult members in all the districts consume milk 2.7 days per

month compared with 2.6 days for children. Meat consumption is lower at a rate of 1.6 days per

month for adults and 1.5 days per month for children. Fish is consumed 6.4 days per month by

adults and 5.8 days per month by children. In general, male farmers do have better access to

these protein-rich foods than their female counterparts. Male households consume milk at about

twice more frequently (3.6 days per month) compared with female-headed households who

consume milk only 1.8 days per month.

III. AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS AND FARMING PRACTICES

Key farming challenges: Low soil fertility (70%), inadequate food (45%) and rainfall/erosion

(33%) top the list of farming constraints that the households in almost all the Programme

districts face. The constraints are inter-related related: low soil fertility and excess/inadequate

rainfall lead to hunger and food insecurity. Almost all the households (98%) own upland fields

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 13 that they also cultivate but access to lowland fields (dambos) is more restricted as only 45% of

the households (41% of females and 49% of males) own or cultivate this type of field. In upland

fields, the five topmost commonly grown crops are: maize, groundnut, pigeon pea, cotton and

cassava in order of frequency, while in lowland fields, vegetables, maize, rice, beans and sweet

potato are most frequently cited.

Use of improved seeds: Households generally plant local recycle seeds for most crops except in

few crops such as cotton, maize and tobacco where close to half of the households plant

improved seeds. The high proportion of farmers who plant improved seeds in maize fields may

be attributed to the inputs subsidy programme by the Malawi Government. There is a sharp

difference in the proportion of male and female farmers who planted improved seeds in maze

fields- 54% among males in contrast to 25% of female farmers.

Sale of crops: Over two-thirds (69%) of the households in all the districts normally sell at least

one type of agricultural produce or the other but this figure varies by crop. Overall, 12% of the

households sold maize, 20% sold groundnut, 15% sold tobacco and 17% sold cotton. Other crops

sold are rice (4%), cassava (3%), pigeon pea (7%), indigenous fruits (4%), sweet potato (5%),

Irish potato (1%) and pumpkin (2%). Among those who sold crops, tobacco fetched the highest

income (MK55,500 per household per annum) followed by cotton (MK16,000). Maize comes in

a distant third position (MK 7,187). The difference in income is mainly due to the producer price

of the different crops rather than the weight or volume of farm products sold.

IV. SOIL FERTILITY, FARMERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF AGROFORESTRY PRACTICES

Soil fertility status and problems: The soils in the Programme districts are generally poor. The

fertility of the soils for most households (77%) has been declining steadily over the years due to

erosion, continuous cultivation, high cost of fertilizer and bad agricultural practices engaged by

farmers. Overall, three quarters (78%) of the households use inorganic fertilizers (courtesy of

Malawi Government’s fertilizer subsidy programme) but the dosage applied is generally less

than those recommended.

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 14 Knowledge and use of agroforestry technologies: Almost all households (about nine out of ten)

are aware of and know about the existence of most of the agricultural, soil and water

improvement technologies, but the current level of use falls far below the level of awareness.

With the exception of fodder trees and (to some extent fertilizer trees), the gap between farmers’

knowledge and actual practice of the technologies cannot be attributed to information gap, but on

other factors such as lack of training on the technologies, lack of seeds in sufficient quantity and

quality, lack of money, too much labour, and inadequate land size. The proportion of households

who know and use the technologies follows is similar for both male and female households

except for mineral fertilizer and treadle pumps where a greater proportion of males use these two

technologies much more than their female counterparts (80% males vs 76% female for fertilizer

and, 11% male vs 7% female for treadle pumps).

V. ACCESS TO TECHNICAL, FINANCIAL & SOCIAL SUPPORTS

More than half of the households have access to technical support for farming activities through

agricultural departments and ngos. In contrast, only 18% of households in the Programme

districts have ever taken a loan before (21% of males and 16% of females). The peak months

when taking of loans occur are October through December just at the beginning and during the

farm season. The loans were taken mainly to support agricultural operations, buy food during

lean period or start small-scale trading. The average amount of loans taken ranges from

MK8,000 to MK16,000 with an average annual interest rate of 200%. The most frequent source

of loans is from informal social networks and families ties (42%), NGOs (24%) and micro-

finance organization (21%). More than half (56%) of the households have members who belong

to farmers’ cooperative societies and clubs which focus on farmer trainings, loans and credits or

sensitizing farmers on HIV/AIDS pandemic. Some households who do not belong to any

farmers’ club cited several reasons: inability to see the need for such clubs (29%), lack of

cooperative attitude in the village (20%), lack of clubs in their locality (28%), failure of previous

farmers’ club (18%) lack of equity and transparency in exiting clubs (11%).

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 15

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 16 1. INTRODUCTION

Malawi is located in southern Africa. It is bordered by Tanzania to the North, Mozambique to the

East, South and Southeast and; Zambia to the West. The total area of the country is 118,000 km2

of which 20% is covered by water, mostly Lake Malawi and Lake Chirwa. The country has a

wide range of relief, which is a major determinant of the climatic, hydrological, and edaphic

conditions prevalent in the country. The country’s population is 13.1 million people and more

than half of these is under the age of 18 (NSO, 2008). At current annual population growth rate

of 2.8 percent, Malawi’s population is estimated to double in the next 25 years. The National

Human Development Report of 2004 ranks Malawi as one of the lowest countries in terms of

Human Development Index (HDI). About half (52%) of the population live below the poverty

line (MPVA, 2006). The country has however recorded one of the highest economic growth rates

in Africa in the past few years.

Malawi is an agricultural economy with agriculture contributing 35% to the GDP, and 90% of

national export earnings comes from the sector (MPRSP, 2002). Agriculture accounts for 65% of

total income of the rural poor, provides 60-70% of the inputs to the manufacturing sector and

dominates the commercial and distribution industry. More than 90% of the people in the rural

area comprise resource-poor communities who predominantly engage in subsistence agriculture.

The sector is dominated by subsistence and rain-fed food production systems that is greatly

challenged by land degradation and declining soil fertility. Until recently, most households in the

rural areas are food insecure during the year. Food insecurity is intrinsically linked to soil

fertility depletion, with nitrogen being the most limiting nutrient. The soils are poor because of a

breakdown of traditional fallow systems, deforestation and long period of continuous cultivation

without external inputs. Due to the landlocked nature of Malawi, access to regional and

international markets is hampered by long distances overland. There is a constraint to access

fertilizers at affordable prices by small holder farmers as the market cost of the input is three to

four times higher than in Europe.

In response to these challenges, an extensive collaborative research efforts of international and

national research institutions in southern Africa region led to the development of a portfolio of

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 17 agroforestry-based technologies as sustainable options to assist smallholder farmers replenish

their soils within a short period of time, meet their nutritional requirements of fruits, respond to

their needs for fodder to feed their livestock and, improve the availability of fuel wood to

contribute to energy requirements in the households. As a result, the technologies seek to address

improvements in food security, livelihood and protect the environment. Given the biophysical

performance of the technologies (Kwesiga and Coe, 1994; Mafongoya et al; 2006; Akinnifesi et

al 2008; Akinnifesi et al 2010), their profitability returns (Place et al, 2002; Franzel, 2004; Ajayi

et al, 2009) and the impact of the technologies on households and the environment (Kwesiga et

al., 2005; Ajayi et al., 2007), studies have been conducted to assess adoption (Ajayi et al., 2007)

and efforts are being made to scale up the technologies to reach many more households who

could benefit from them.

Through funds provided by Irish Aid, the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) in partnership

with government departments, research institutions, Universities and national farmers

organisation namely: DAES, DARS, LRCD, DAHLD, FORESTRY DEPT, MZUNI, UNIMA,

and NASFAM) are implementing a four-year nation-wide Agroforestry Food Security

Programme (AFSP) in 11 districts located in eight Agricultural Development Divisions (ADDs).

The agroforestry technologies being promoted under the Programme include fertilizer trees, fruit

trees, fodder trees and fuel-wood trees. The goal of the Programme is to use a combination of

proven science, effective partnerships and policies to increase food security, income, and

improve livelihood opportunities for rural communities in Malawi. The specific objectives of the

Programme are:

prioritize and disseminate agroforestry technology interventions that are suitable for

biophysical and socio-economic niches of a range of smallholder farmers,

develop and apply strategies for sustainable supply and delivery systems of quality tree

germplasm for smallholder farmers,

sensitize policy makers to formulate appropriate policies that are conducive for

mainstreaming agroforestry and catalyzing its adoption at different levels,

improve access to functional and equitable markets to support agroforestry products,

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 18

build the capacity of national and local institutions to scale up agroforestry technologies

in Malawi,

Mainstream agroforestry into national development and land use plans.

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 19 2.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE BASELINE

A baseline study was undertaken to provide a “snap shot” of the existing situation in the

Programme’s districts of intervention at the beginning of implementation of activities. This is

with the view to monitor and measure programme-related changes that have taken place in the

districts over time. This report contains the results of the survey conducted to achieve this

purpose. It is a first step that is expected to initiate the implementation of a robust monitoring

and evaluation (M&E) activities for the AFSP.

The overall objective of this baseline survey is to document baseline information about the key

variables upon which the Programme seeks to make impacts among households in the targeted

intervention districts. These expected key impact areas are: food security, household income,

seed procurement and usage, knowledge and practices of agriculture and agroforestry, access to

technical information and extension services, access to credit and farm support.

The specific objectives of the baseline survey are as follows:

i. To provide information on the initial situation (“snap shot”) of the above-mentioned key

project impact variables in the Project pilot sites. The information should provide insights

into questions such as the following: Who are the folks we are targeting in the

Programme? What are the present conditions of their household and the characteristics

of their living conditions? What does the situation looks likes in the village presently (at

this point of departure or “baseline”)?

ii. To help monitor some key project variables as the implementation of the Programme

progresses over time.

iii. To create a dataset upon which future evaluations and assessments of the changes

regarding key variables in the Programme districts may be measured e.g. what has

changed with respect to a given key variable in the intervention district? (say in X years

from now)? In what way(s) has the variable changed? To what extent has it changed? To

what extent has the Programme contributed to the observed changes?

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 20 3.0 METHODOLOGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SURVEY

3.1 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

The study used a multi-stage stratified sampling technique in which EPA, villages and

households that participated in the survey were systematically selected in stages.

3.1.1 Selection of district, Extension Planning Areas (EPAs) and villages

The survey took place in the eight agricultural districts where AFSP activities initially began

(i.e., before expanding the Programme intervention to three more districts as the Programme

progressed in the second year of operation). One district was selected per Agricultural

Development Division (ADDs) of the country. In each selected agricultural district, a list of the

EPAs participating in the Programme was obtained. All the EPAs were then dichotomized into

two quasi-homogenous geographical locations based on several socio-economic and biophysical

characteristics to ensure that households are selected from villages that are truly representative of

the agricultural district1. From the two sub-geographical groups, a village (more than one village

where the size of village is small) each was selected. In addition, one village which is outside of

the AFSP project activities (and from which we do not intend to work under the Programme in

the immediate future) was selected as “control” villages.

3.1.2 Selection farmers

After identifying the villages where household questionnaire will be administered, the list of all

households including the sex of the head of the households in the selected villages was compiled

based on the records of the Agricultural Extension Development Officer (AEDO) for the

respective sections. This list constituted the sampling frame from which 25 to 30 households

were selected to participate in the individual interview per village depending on the size of the

village selected. For the “control” village, 20 to 25 farmers were selected depending on the size

of the village. The selection of farmers in the Programme and “control” villages was done using

systematic sampling method. 1 The geographical grouping of villages was based on the expert opinion of the field staff of Land Resources and Conservation Department and, Department of Agricultural Extension (DAES) located in the districts and EPAs.

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 21

3.2 TRAINING OF ENUMERATORS

Twelve enumerators most of whom have bachelor degree education were invited for interview

and hands-on practical field assessment on the draft questionnaire prepared for the survey. Based

on their performance at the end of the assessment, eight enumerators were finally retained as

enumerators to assist with data collection for the survey, i.e. one enumerator per selected

agricultural district.

3.3 DATA COLLECTION METHOD

Data was collected at two levels: household-specific information and broader village-level

information.

3.3.1 Community meetings

The first set of data was broader variables that are the same across villages. These include the

history of previous project implementation in the village, distance to amenities, and condition of

access roads. They were collected through the use of community meetings and focused group

discussions (FGD). The respondents for this questionnaire were all households that are present at

the FGD. Efforts were made to ensure that the views of all the different type of households (men,

women and child-headed households) are well represented during the discussions.

3.3.2 Household survey

The second set of data was collected at the household level using structured questionnaires.

Interviews were held with the head of the household or other appropriate members of the

household who is directly responsible for farming activities. The primary data was collected

from households was supplemented with other information that were obtained from agricultural

departments and field offices. The questionnaires were pre-tested during reconnaissance survey

and administered by a team of a supervisor and trained enumerators.

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 22 3.4 NUMBER, GENDER AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS INTERVIEWED

A total of 1134 households were interviewed. This comprised 556 males (49%) and 578 females

(51%). The distribution of the respondents interviewed during the survey is presented (Table 1).

The number of farers interviewed in each district varied depending on the number of EPAs that

is participating in AFSP in the respective agricultural districts.

Table 1: Summary of the composition of households interviewed

Region District Number of

EPAs

Number of households interviewed

Male Female Total

North Karonga 2 94 56 150

North Mzimba 2 96 54 150

Central Ntchisi 2 69 70 139

Central Salima 3 95 129 224

Central Ntcheu 2 60 80 140

South Machinga 1 18 52 70

South Mulanje 1 34 36 70

South Chikhwawa 3 90 101 191

Total 16 556 578 1,134

3.5 TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED

The baseline survey was designed to capture key variables on which AFSP is expected to make

impact on the short and long run. The five groups of information collected are as follows:

3.5.1 Household asset and wealth indicators

ownership of different types of asset- livestock and household items

type of household dwelling unit

sources and types of energy used in households

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 23 3.5.2 Food security & nutrition

o Number of food secure months (maize, relish, fruits, rice)

o Temporal distribution of the onset and end of food shortage

o Causes of and coping mechanisms against food shortage

o Nutrition and food consumption patterns-Main meals and other foods

o Nutrition and food patterns- consumption of milk, meat, fish & fruits

3.5.3 Agricultural systems and farming practices

Major agricultural challenges facing households

Cropping systems- crops cultivated in upland and lowland fields

Type of nurseries and ownership structure

Extent of use of improved seeds

Sale of crops and diversity of household income

3.5.4 Soil fertility, knowledge and use of agroforestry practices

o Soil fertility status and problems

o Current practices on soil fertility

o Level of farmers knowledge and use of agroforestry, SWC technologies

o Constraints cited by households for not using various agricultural technologies

3.5.5 Technical & financial assistance and social network

extent and frequency of access to technical services

Access to financial support - why, source, frequency, size, interest rate

Participation in cooperative groups and social network

Estimates of rates of group membership- why/why not, focus of groups

3.6 DATA ANALYSIS

The data was entered using EXCEL. They were first queried to assess its quality and level of

consistence. Data analyses were done using Statistical Analytical Systems (SAS) software.

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 24 The data were first summarized to have an overall “snapshot” of the situation across both

genders and all agricultural districts. Thereafter, the data was disaggregated by gender to identify

if there are districts differences between males and female for a given variable. Given the

possibility that some variables of interest may be identical for both male and female but vary

among the different districts base on ecological and geographical lines, the analysis was carried

out by disaggregating the data based on districts and regional (i.e., a group of districts) groups.

Particular efforts were made to highlight gender and geographical trends of the baseline

indicators and to offer explanation for the observed differences.

3.7 PARTNERSHIP COLLABORATION

Due to the partnership model underlining AFSP, collaboration with national institutions and

Programme partners was emphasized in the planning and field implementation of the baseline

survey. A number of institutions participated at one time or the other during the planning and or

implementation of the surveys. The participation of partners was particularly encouraged to

ensure that variables and issues that are of special interests to the partners were included in the

questionnaire. Each partner then added or emphasized in greater depth questions that are of

particular interests to their departments. The partners involved are as follows:

Department of Agricultural Extension Services (DAES)

Department of Agricultural Research and Technical Services (DARTS)

Department of Forestry

Land Resources and Conservation Department (LRCD)

Forest Research Institute of Malawi (FRIM)

Bunda College of Agriculture

Department of Livestock and Animal Health

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 25 4.0 RESULTS

4.1 HOUSEHOLD ASSET AND WEALTH

4.1.1 Access to education

A fifth (18%) of the farming population in the Programme districts never had access to formal

education, while half of all the farmers interviewed (53%) attended primary school and dropped

out before completing it (Table 2).

Table 2: Level of formal education attained by farmers

Gender Region

Level of formal education attained

None

Primary

school-

uncompleted

Primary

school-

completed

Secondary

school

Post

secondary

Adult

education Total

Females

North 21 45 20 13 1 0 100

Centre 20 59 16 5 0 0 100

South 46 43 6 3 1 1 100

All females 28 51 13 6 1 1 100

Males

North 2 44 27 26 1 0 100

Centre 10 61 18 11 0 0 100

South 12 61 12 13 1 1 100

All males 8 55 20 15 1 1 100

Overall 18 53 16 11 1 1 100

There is a clear trend in the level of access to formal education based on sex and geographical

region. Male farmers in general have better access to formal education than their female

counterparts. The data also shows that a greater proportion of the farmers in the northern region

have been to formal schools than farmers in other regions. The historical antecedents of the

advent of education contribute in part to the observed differences in the access to education in

the different districts.

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 26 4.1.2 Village of residence

In the northern region, most of the female farmers (74%) live in the native village of their

husbands whereas in the districts in other regions, women generally live in own native family in

their (women’s) native village. For male farmers, they generally live in their own natal village,

particularly in the northern region where nine out of every ten male farmers live in own natal

village.

Table 3: Location of the settlement home of households

Gender Region

Location of the settlement home

Wife’s original

village

Husband’s

original village

Neutral

village Total

Females

North 20 74 6 100

Centre 68 27 5 100

South 57 31 13 100

All females 55 37 8 100

Males

North 1 91 8 100

Centre 35 64 1 100

South 28 58 14 100

All males 22 71 7 100

Overall 77 100 15 600

The location of village of residence of farmers is influenced by the type of cultural practices

prevalent in the different geographical locations. While the districts in the northern region

practice patrilineal and patrilocal system, in many of the districts in the South and Central

regions, matrilineal and matrilocal system is more prevalent.

4.1.3 Household size and demography

The demographic size and occupational status of household is presented (Table 4). It shows that

there are slightly more females than males.

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 27 Table 4: Household demography and occupational status in AFSP districts

Occupat

ional

status

Sex DISTRICTS

Karonga Mzimba Ntchisi Salima Ntcheu Machinga Mulanje Chikwawa

Farm

workers

Male 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.2

Female 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.3

All 2.3

(49%)

2.0

(57%)

2.1

(48%)

2.1

(50%)

1.9

(51%)

1.9

(50%)

2

(51%)

2.5

(51%)

Schooli

ng

Male 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6 1.1

Female 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8

All 2.3

(36%)

1.4

(25%)

1.8

(31%)

1.8

(31%)

1.7

(32%)

1.3

(24%)

1.5

(28%)

1.9

(29%)

Too

young

or old

Male 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6

Female 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.6

All 0.9

(15%)

0.9

(18%)

1.2

(21%)

1

(19%)

0.9

(11%)

1.3

(26%)

1.1

(21%)

1.2

(20%)

Total

populati

on

Male 2.7 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 2.8

Female 2.8 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7

All 5.5 4.2 5.0 4.9 4.5 4.5 4.6 5.5

The effective size of household members that are available to participate in farm work is about

50%. The rest of the members of the rural households are not available for farm work as they are

either schooling (31%) or they are too young or too old to work on the farm (19%).

4.1.4 Household assets- ownership of livestock

Ownership of livestock is generally considered an asset in rural areas. Livestock may be used as

a risk buffering strategy in cases of financial crisis. There is a wide difference in the type,

proportion and number of livestock owned by male and female households and in the various

districts (Table 5). Cattle (beef) is owned by almost half (43%) of the households in Karonga,

one of five households (20%) in Chikhwawa district, one in ten households (13%) in Mzimba

district and to a lesser percentage in the other districts (Table 5). Chicken and goats are the most

commonly owned livestock in all the districts with a proportion ranging from 19% to 42% of

households owning goats and 57% to 84% of the households own chicken. The widespread

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 28 ownership of goat s and chicken may be due to the low cost of feeding and managing these

animals as they are generally reared on a free-range basis. Dairy cow, sheep and rabbit are less

common in most of the districts.

Table 5: Proportion (%) of households owning different types of livestock in AFSP districts.

Type of

livestock

District

Karonga Mzimba Ntchisi Salima Ntcheu Machinga Mulanje Chikwawa

Beef cattle 43 13 2 3 1 - 4 20

Goat 25 32 38 26 41 19 41 42

Pig 53 16 13 5 20 - 13 8

Dairy 17 3 - 1 - - 9 9

Sheep 3 1 1 1 1 1 - 5

Chick 84 79 69 62 73 57 63 79

Rabbit - 1 1 1 2 1 1 5

Guinea fowl

& Duck 17 7 4 15 20 11 13 16

The range of animals and the number of livestock units owned by female farmers are lower than

their male counterparts. The difference along sex lines is particularly noticeable for the high-

value livestock. For example, 14% of male farmers own beef cattle compared with 9% of female

farmers who do the same. Similarly, 7% of male farmers own dairy cattle while the figure for

female farmers is only 4%. The change in the proportion of households who own animals, type

of animals owned and number of livestock owned can be used as one of the indicators of impact

of AFSP in the long run

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 29 4.1.5 Household assets- ownership of household and agricultural equipment

Most of the households own basic agricultural implements including axe, hoes and cutlasses.

More than half (58%) own radio and about one of every two households (48%) own bicycles. A

special highlight is that many farmers own mobile phones (20% of males and 13% of females).

Once a luxury item, there are strong indications that mobile phones are becoming more

accessible to rural households. This may be due in part to the drastic reduction on the cost of

initial purchase of mobile sets (but not necessarily the cost of maintaining the lines) as a result of

the various promotional offers on the sale of mobile phones by mobile networks companies in

the past few years. The high percentage of households who own mobile phones and radio

provides potential opportunities for the rural communities to improve on their access to

agricultural extension information and other updates on general development.

Figure 1: Proportion of households owning different types of assets in all AFSP districts

Agricultural production is still at rudimentary stage in most of the districts as only a few of the

households possess items used in “modern” farming practices such as sprayers, treadle pump,

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Male Female

% hhs

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 30 plough and motor pump. The proportion of households who possess the latter assets ranges from

just 1% to 6% only. Less than 1% of households own motor cycles or vehicles.

Table 6: Proportion (%) of households owning different assets in AFSP districts

Type of asset District

Karonga Mzimba Ntchisi Salima Ntcheu Machinga Mulanje Chikwawa

Oxcart 6.7 5.3 2.9 2.3 0.7 1.4 - 4.2

Axe 96.0 98.0 75.5 65.0 72.9 50.0 71.4 91.6

Hoe - 99.3 88.5 98.7 95.0 97.1 - 95.8

Sprayer 6.7 6.7 1.4 6.7 2.9 1.4 2.9 12.6

Treadle pump 12.7 3.3 2.2 3.1 4.3 2.9 2.9 3.2

Plough 28.1 4.1 - - 0.7 - - -

Motor pump 2.0 1.3 - 0.9 - - - 0.5

Cutlass 70.0 44.0 66.9 24.6 36.4 12.9 7.1 62.2

Wheelbarrow 4.7 5.3 1.4 2.2 7.1 - 8.6 1.1

Bicycle 44.7 44.7 28.3 51.3 37.9 54.3 55.7 66.0

Radio 64.7 76.7 50.0 44.6 56.4 54.3 57.1 64.9

Motor cycle 0.7 - - - 0.7 1.4 - 1.6

Television set 1.3 7.3 0.7 0.9 5.0 - 1.4 1.6

Mobile phone 21.3 31.3 11.6 7.6 20.7 10.0 11.4 13.8

Vehicle - -

- 0.7 - 1.4 0.5

An important observation is that male farmers are better endowed with all the various range of

household and farm assets compared with females (Figure 3). The distribution of household asset

ownership in the different AFSP districts is presented (Table 6).One of the measurable impact of

AFSP is the extent to which the proportion of households who own assets have changed over

time, the number and diversity of new assets owned by the households and the changes in the

disparity in the ratio of female to male households who own different household assets over time.

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 31 4.1.6 Household assets- type of house and dwelling units

The type of housing units that households dwell is often used as an indicator of the level of

wealth, wellbeing and social status of the household. In this baseline survey, three main

indicators- type of wall, type of roof and painting of the walls- were used to assess the quality of

the households’ dwelling units. Clay brick is most commonly used for walls (51%) followed by

mud walls (39%). A small proportion of the households (1%) use cement block to build their

houses. For roofs, one of five households (20%) used iron sheets while the rest used thatched

grasses that are commonly available in the villages. In all, a small proportion of the houses is

well painted in colours (2%) or whitewashed (2%) while the rest are not painted. One of the

impacts that AFSP can make in the districts is an improvement in the three aspects of quality of

houses that households dwell in. Such impacts are however expected on a long term, likely to be

many years after AFSP has ended.

4.1.7 Energy and cooking methods

Almost all the households (99%) use wood as the main source of energy and for cooking in

homes. In addition to fuelwood, about a quarter of the households (29%) also use crop residues

while a few (7%) also use charcoal. Very negligible proportion of the households use saw dust

(1%) or paraffin (less than 1%). The fuelwood used in the homes comes mainly from community

forests and woodlots (65%), own field (50%) and state forests (13%). Others buy their fuelwood

from local sellers around the village (8%) or source for them from estate farms (2%). Woodlot is

one of the key technologies being promoted by AFSP. One of the measurable impacts of the

Programme is the extent to which it contributes to sustainable fuelwood production on

households’ own plots so that pressure on state forests and estate farms can be minimized.

4.2 FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION

4.2.1 Number of food (maize) secure months

The major foods taken in the households are maize, rice, relish and fruits. In addition to these,

some households also consume (sweet) cassava that is low in cyanide. In the districts located in

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 32 northern Malawi, plantain/banana is also consumed. The level of food security has increased in

Malawi compared with the situation reported in the early 2000s. For instance, more 80% of

households sampled in a survey in southern Malawi had indicated they experienced famine in

2002 (Akinnifesi et al, 2006). The present baseline results show that three out of every four

households (73%) have sufficient quantity of maize to feed all the members of their households

throughout the year. This is a marked improvement and may not be unconnected with the

subsidized fertilizer and modern inputs that the government gave to farmers yearly. The rest can

feed all their members some months but have challenges to do so at other period of the year

(Table 7). Only one out of 25 households (4%) had difficulties to access maize to feed all their

members for five or more months in a year. Households belonging to male farmers are generally

more food secure compared with their female counterparts. The most food-challenged

households have sufficient maize to feed all the members of their households for only six or less

number of months per year. Almost twice the proportion of females (5%) belongs to this food-

challenged group whereas only 2.9% of male farmers do.

Table 7: Number of months per year that households have sufficient maize to feed all their members (in %)

Number of food secure

months per year

SEX OVERALL

Male Female

Six months or less 2.9 5.0 4

Seven 2.0 3.3 2.7

Eight 2.9 4.0 3.4

Nine 5.4 4.8 5.1

Ten 6.3 5.9 6.1

Eleven 7.2 5.2 6.2

Twelve 73.4 71.8 72.6

Total 100 100 100

For rice, a little more than one out of every ten households interviewed (13%) have access to rice

in sufficient quantities to meet the demand for that food type for their household members

throughout the year. The low figure recorded for rice is because it is not a main staple for most

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 33 households in the country. Relish is used by all households and 72% of all households have

sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for all members of their households all the year

round. Only one from four households (23%) mentioned that they have access to fruits in

sufficient quantities to feed all their members throughout the year. Two reasons can be given for

the low figure recorded for household fruit security: (i) fruits are generally seasonal and not

available throughout the year; (ii) fruits are consumed fresh and easily perishable and cannot be

stored for longer period due in part to the lack of refrigeration facilities and electric power in

most of the rural areas.

4.2.2 Sources of food

Maize

Maize is the staple food for most households in Malawi. It is also a strategic crop for food

security as it is generally regarded as the food by most households. We disaggregated the supply

of maize to households based on the source of maize, i.e. produce from own field or sourced

externally (purchased from the market, food aid, etc). The maize produced from households’

own fields is sufficient to feed all their members for a period ranging from 4.3 to 7.9 months per

year for all the AFSP districts. Disaggregated by region, the figure is 7.37 months for the

districts in the North, 6.46 months for districts in Central region and 4.75 months in the South. In

addition to maize produced from household own fields, all the households are able to source for

extra maize from external sources to feed all the members of their households for about three to

seven months per year. The external sources include direct purchase from open markets, gifts

from friends and relatives, and food relief assistance from development organizations. Overall,

households produce food that is sufficient to feed all their members for 6.2 months and

supplement these for another period of 4.9 months with supplies obtained externally. From these

two sources, households have sufficient maize to feed all members of their households for an

average of 11 months per year (Table 8). The corresponding figure aggregated by region is 10.78

months in the North, 11.26 months in the Centre and 11.17 in the South. Male respondents fare

slightly better than women counterparts with 11.22 months and 10.98 months of food security

respectively. On the average, households in AFSP districts suffer from inadequate food (maize)

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 34 for one month per year, but a couple of the districts (Machinga and Ntcheu) face maize crisis for

up to two to three months per year.

Table 8: Source of maize and average number of months that households have sufficient food to feed all their members per year

Food

type Source of food

District

Karonga Mzimba Ntchisi Salima Ntcheu Machinga Mulanje Chikwawa

Maize

Own field 6.8 7.9 5.2 6.6 7.5 4.2 6.5 4.3

Sourced elsewhere 4.0 2.78 6.2 5.3 2.6 5.0 5.1 7.4

Total 10.8 10.7 11.4 11.9 10.1 9.2 11.6 11.7

Rice

Own field 1.0

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 35 districts, households have access to sufficient amounts of condiments for 10.64 months per year.

The greater proportion of the condiments used by households are mainly produced in own fields

(62%) or sourced from elsewhere (38%). The households face a shortage of relish for about 1.5

months per year. There are regional disparities in the level of access to sufficient amount of

relish. Households in the districts in the North have sufficient quantity of relish for 10.9 month

per year, those in the Central region have it for 11 months per year while in the Southern region,

the figure is 8.8 months per year. The figure is similar for male and female households.

Fruits

Both indigenous and exotic fruit are consumed in all AFSP districts. Mulanje district has the

highest level of sufficiency (11.3 months) in fruits, produced from households’ own fields or

sourced elsewhere. Other districts have sufficient amount of fruits for their household members

for shorter months. The districts in the South have greater access to sufficiency in fruits (8.4

months per year) compared with only 5.9 months per year in both the Centre and North regions.

On the average, about a quarter of households (22%) sell different kinds of fruits that they grow

in their fields. The figure ranges from 17% in the North, to 22% in the Central region and 25% in

the Southern region. In terms of frequency of sales of fruits, on the average households sell fruits

once per month.

4.2.3 Onset and end of food shortage

The timing of the onset and end of season maize shortage has a distinct temporal distribution

pattern and follows closely the agricultural harvesting operation in different locations in the

country. Households have the least challenge with maize availability between March and May.

The result is not surprising as these are the peak months when most farmers harvest their maize

fields and price of maize is also generally low during this period of the year. A few households

begin to experience shortage of maize after the harvest period and the proportion increases as

time passes by, peaking in October through January. It then decreases through February to May

as early maize harvest (e.g. from the low-lying wetland areas locally called dambos) and main

harvest season approaches (Figure 1). It is noted that the period of peak period of maize shortage

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 36 coincides with the period when major farm activities such as land preparation, planting of

tobacco take place. With its goal to increase crop yield and food security among households, the

provision of food during period of peak farming activities is expected to be one of the main

highlights of the impacts of AFSP.

Figure 2: ONSET and END of seasonal MAIZE shortage in households aggregated for all AFSP districts

The detail of the commencement and end of maize shortage in various AFSP districts is

presented in the appendix. There is a distinct pattern in the distribution of the period of the year

when maize shortage begins and ends in households in the different regions. In a typical

agricultural year, the rains normally begin earlier in the South and Central regions and

agricultural seasonal activities kick off earlier in these two regions than in the North. Harvesting

of maize and end of seasonal hunger begins also follows this pattern. But this also implies that

harvested maize is accordingly more quickly exhausted in earlier months than in the North

(Figure 2). A greater proportion of households in the South begin to have shortage of maize

much earlier after harvest, from June through August than in the Centre or the North.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Perc

enta

ge o

f hou

seho

lds

Onset of food shortage End of food shortage

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 37

Figure 3: Month of onset of maize shortage in households in different regions of Malawi

One highlight of the results (Figure 2) is that rainfall pattern is a critical determinant of the onset

and end of maize shortages in the different regions. This is not surprising given that agriculture

in Malawi is subsistence and predominantly rain-fed. By increasing the yield of maize for

participating households, AFSP has the potential to delay the onset of maize shortages and also

minimize the exposure of households’ food security to the vagaries of the weather. This is

particularly important given the context of climate change and its potential to increase

unpredictability of in weather patterns.

4.2.4 Causes of and coping mechanisms against food shortage

Households attributed different factors as the underlining reasons for food shortages. Among

these, poor soil fertility was mentioned by four fifths (80% of the households, non availability of

fertilizer on time was mentioned by 61%, poor rainfall by 44%, lack of labour by 25% and non

availability of improved seeds by 16% ) of the households . Other reasons that were less

frequently mentioned are shortage of land (13%), sickness (11%) and “sheer laziness” (2%).

0

5

10

15

20

25

Prop

ortio

n of

hou

seho

lds

(%)

North Central South

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 38 Over the years, households have devised several methods to cope with maize shortages during

lean periods. One of this methods is to engage in hiring themselves as manual labourers to other

more comfortable households, a practice locally called ganyu (43%), skipping meals (11%), and

sale of household assets and livestock (12%). To a lesser extent, some households resort to

selling firewood (5%), embark on seasonal contracts on estate farms where available (4%),

eating fruits2 or selling them to make money (5%). Some of the mechanisms inadvertently tend

to entrench poverty (e.g. sale of household labour “ganyu” which may compromise the ability of

households to prepare own land early for the next farm season; sale of household assets and

livestock), compromises the ability to get out of the conditions that engender crop failure (e.g.,

sale of firewood and charcoal which leads to deforestation) or reinforce dependency on food aid.

With increase food production and income for households, AFSP Programme is expected to

minimize the cause of these mechanisms some of which expose the households in greater

problem. These may be indicators of the measurable impacts of the Programme.

4.2.5 Nutrition and food patterns-Main meals consumption and other foods

Main meals eaten throughout Malawi are essentially based on food items made from maize and

these are consumed all the year round by all households. However, there is a noticeable

difference in the number of time that household members eat main meals (i.e. excluding snacks)

during different periods of the year. During harvest season and in the few months immediately

following harvest, most of the households (55%) eat three main meals per day and the rest eat

two main meals daily. The number however reduces sharply during lean season when the

quantity of maize harvested in the previous season is running low. During lean season, most

households (53%) eat only one main meal, 43% eat two main meals per day and only 4% of the

households maintain the three main meals per day as they did during the harvest period.

Apart from maize, other food crops are consumed by a varying proportion of the households.

Aggregated for all the districts, the most important of these are sweet potato which is eaten as

main meals by 52% of the households and cassava which is consumed as main meals by 47% of

the households. Other foods include pumpkin (26%), rice (20%), banana & plantain (14%),

2 Fruits are not regarded as “food” by most households. They are taken as light meals to cope with the lack of maize (“the food”).

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 39 millet (12%), Sorghum (10%) and Irish potato (3%). There is a geographical pattern in the type

of other foods eaten in the households. Apart from maize, the five most important other crops

consumed as main meals in districts in the North are: cassava, sweet potato, banana & plantain,

pumpkin and rice in order of importance. In the Central districts, the order is sweet potato,

cassava, pumpkin, rice and banana/plantain and in the southern districts, the order is: sweet

potato, cassava, sorghum, millet and rice.

4.2.6 Nutrition and food patterns- consumption of milk, meat & fish

Most of the households consume different sources of protein-rich foods: milk, meat and fish.

Although children should normally eat these types of foods much more often as they do require

more quantities of these protein-rich food, the results of the survey show that children eat less

and generally have lower access to most of these foods compared with adults. On the average,

adult members in all the districts consume milk 2.7 days per month compared with 2.6 days for

children. Meat consumption is lower at a rate of 1.6 days per month for adults and 1.5 days per

month for children. Fish is however much more often consumed in the households, averaging 6.4

days per month by adults and 5.8 days per month by children. In general, male farmers do have

better access to these protein-rich foods than their female counterparts. Male households

consume milk at about twice more frequently (3.6 days s per month by adults and 3.4 days per

month by children) compared with female households where adults consume milk only 1.8 days

per month and children do so for 1.9 days per month (Table 9).

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 40 Table 9: Number of times per month that household members consume different sources

of protein-rich foods

Type of

protein food

Household

member

SEX Overall

Male Female

Milk Adult 3.6 1.8 2.7

Children 3.4 1.9 2.6

Meat Adult 1.9 1.4 1.6

Children 1.7 1.3 1.5

Fish Adult 7.0 5.8 6.4

Children 6.3 5.3 5.8

Fruit Adult 3.1 3.3 3.2

Children 3.1 3.3 3.2

The milk consumed in households is obtained almost exclusively from cow (98%). As regards

source, some households obtained milk from their own animals (16%), others got it within the

village (60%) or bought it in towns (24%). As regards sources of meat, among those households

who eat meat, 63% of them obtained meat from within their village, 47% from the towns, 37%

from their own animals while 9% obtain through hunting of games from the wild (Note: Some

households got meat from more than one source).

4.2.7 Nutrition and food patterns- consumption of fruits

Members of households eat different types of fruits as supplementary snacks to main meal or as a

“stop hunger” food during the year when the quantity of maize is running low. The top four most

frequently consumed fruits are exotic. Most of the households (86%) eat mangoes, half of them

(50%) eat paw-paw, oranges (33%) and guava (24%). Indigenous fruits such as Ziziphus

mauritiana locally called masao is often eaten by 18% of the households and, Uapaca kirkiana

locally known as masuku and often consumed by 9% of all households (Table 10). The dominant

type of fruits consumed vary depending on district and region. There is however no distinct

gender pattern in the type of fruits consumed.

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 41 As regards their source, most of the fruits are obtained mainly from own gardens (76%), bought

from others (50%), obtained free of charge from neighbours and friends garden (49%) or sourced

from the forests (18%).

Table 10: Proportion (%) of households who eat different types of fruits

Type of fruit Region

All districts North Central South

Mango 90.7 82.3 88.8 86.4

Oranges 50.7 21.1 36.0 33.2

Guava 26.7 29.0 13.0 23.7

Pawpaw (papaya) 41.7 42.1 71.0 50.4

Avocado pear 7.0 7.8 8.5 7.8

Uapaca kirkiana (“Masuku”) 4.3 7.2 17.2 9.3

Ziziphus mauritiana (“Masao”) 0.7 15.9 35.3 17.5

Banana 22.3 20.7 10.3 18.1

Others 5.0 7.4 11.5 7.9

Note: Households consumed multiple types of fruits

One of the measurable indicators of AFSP is the extent to which it is able to contribute to

increase consumption of these protein-rich foods in terms of quantity consumed and frequency at

which these are consumed especially by children.

4.3 AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS AND FARMING PRACTICES

4.3.1 Major agricultural challenges facing households

Households face various challenges in the course of carrying out their farming activities (Table

11). Low soil fertility tops the list of constraints in all the districts except Ntchisi where hunger

and inadequate food is most cited as a constraint. The three most important constraints are inter-

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 42 related related as it appears that low soil fertility and weather-related challenges lead to hunger

and food insecurity which is the second most frequently mentioned constraint by households.

Weather –related constraint include occurrence of too much rain, too little rain or incidences of

mid season drought during agricultural season. In specific years, the weather-related challenge

may be poor distribution of annual rainfall where most of the rains recorded during the season

fall within a short period only.

Table 11: Major constraints facing farming by sex and region

Type of constraint Sex Geographical location

Overall Male Female North Central South

Poor soil fertility 69.1 71.6 65.3 69.8 75.8 70.3

Inadequate labour 16.7 17.5 35 11.1 10 17.1

Rainfall/erosion 33.1 31.8 33.7 16.5 55.6 32.5

Lack of food/hunger 43.3 45.8 32 65.8 23.9 44.6

Sickness 7.4 8.3 9.7 6.4 8.5 7.8

Pests & disease damage 3.2 3.6 2.3 2.2 6.3 3.4

Poor access to market 3.2 2.4 4.7 2.2 2.1 2.8

Others 15.8 10.7 14 12.3 13.9 13.2

Note: multiple constraints were cited by some farmers

In addition to the total amount of annual rainfall, the distribution of rainfall during the farming

season is essential. This is due to the predominance of rainfed subsistence agriculture practiced

in most parts of the country. In addition, the country’s rainfall pattern is monomodal, which

effectively limits agricultural operation to only five months in a given year. Other challenges that

farmers mentioned are inadequate labour and sicknesses. These two may be inter-related because

in severe cases where a sick member of the household is not able to go to the farm, there is a

reduction in the effective number of household labour supply that is available to work on the

farm. In moderate cases where a sick person can still go to the farm, illness may cause a

reduction in the productive capacity of farm workers. In both cases, sicknesses results in labour

constraint or inadequate labour. Poor access to market is a constraint but it is less frequently

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 43 cited by farmers most likely because the level of agricultural production is low and there is little

amount of farm produce available for sale. The problem of access to markets is mainly on the

inadequacy of inputs market and or low prices offered to farmers in the output market. Crop

damage by pests and diseases is also mentioned as constraints especially termites and fungal.

The key challenges facing agricultural activities in the districts are similar and are presented in

details in the Appendix to this report.

4.3.2 Cropping systems

Almost all the households (98%) own upland fields that they also cultivate but access to lowland

fields locally called dambos is more restricted as only 45% of the households (41% of females

and 49% of males) own or cultivate this type of field. A wide range of crops are planted in both

upland and lowland fields but there are distinct differences in the dominant type of crops

cultivated in the two types of fields. In the upland ecology, the five topmost commonly grown

crops are: maize, groundnut, pigeon pea, cotton and cassava in that order. In the lowland, the

most widely cultivated crops are: vegetables, maize, rice, beans and sweet potato.

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 44 Table 12: Proportion of households (%) that cultivate different types of crops in UPLAND

field

Crop REGION

All districts North Central South

Maize 100.0 99.0 90.0 96.6

Groundnuts 58.7 81.1 24.5 58.6

Pigeon peas 21.7 16.3 44.1 25.8

Cotton 16.7 29.8 27.8 25.7

Cassava 48.3 4.4 30.8 23.7

Sweet potato 31.7 7.4 26.6 19.4

Beans 18.3 16.1 18.7 17.5

Tobacco 18.7 19.5 3.0 14.5

Vegetables 12.7 6.4 17.8 11.4

Banana 3.0 0.8 1.8 1.7

Rice 3.0 0.6 1.5 1.5

Farmers plant the different crops for different main purposes. Maize, cassava, sunflower and

sweet potato are grown essentially for consumption; cotton and tobacco are grown mainly for

cash income while groundnut and rice are generally cultivated for dual purposes.

4.3.3 Use of improved seeds

Farmers generally use local and recycle maize seeds in most of the crop fields cultivated but the

pattern of the type of seeds planted by farmers vary by crop. Most of the households (90% or

more) who cultivated sunflower and banana planted local or recycled seeds and, the use of

improved germplasm is very minimal in these fields. In groundnut, pigeon pea, sweet potato and

rice fields, local seeds are also used by 70 to 89% of the households who cultivate these crops.

For maize, cassava and tobacco, the use of local or recycled seeds is comparatively lower as only

50% to 70% of the households used them.

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 45 Table 13: Proportion of households (%) who planted different types of seeds in different

crop fields

Type of crop Type of seeds planted by households

All districts Local/recycled Improved Both

Maize 50 47 3 100

Groundnut 81 17 2 100

Rice 82 17 1 100

Cassava 67 31 2 100

Tobacco 59 41 0 100

Sunflower 98 2 0 100

Cotton 5 95 0 100

Pigeon pea 71 26 3 100

Banana/plantain 90 9 1 100

Sweet potato 72 26 2 100

Two out of every five households or more use improved seeds in their maize and tobacco fields.

The high proportion of farmers who use improved seeds in their maize fields may be attributed to

the inputs subsidy on maize that have been implemented consistently in the past couple of years.

There is a phenomenon difference in the proportion of male and female farmers who planted

improved seeds in their maze fields. While more than half (54%) of male farmers use improved

maize seeds, only one quarter (25%) of female farmers have access to and use improved seeds in

their maize fields.

Households plant maize seeds that they obtain from diverse sources. In decreasing order, these

sources are own or recycled seeds, agro-dealers based in towns, agro-dealers located in the

villages, agricultural departments/ADD, and Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs). It is

expected that as farmers advance on farming techniques and become more integrated into

agricultural input markets, the level of use of improved seeds will increase. The level of increase

can be an indicator of the impact of AFSP.

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 46 4.3.4 Sale of crops

Over two-thirds (69%) of the households in all the districts normally sell at least one type of

agricultural produce or the other. Among these, most of them (82%) mentioned that the income

they got from the sale of farm produce is higher than the incomes they got from other non-farm

sources.

The proportions of households who sell produce vary from one type of cultivated crop to

another. From the overall total sample size of 1134 households, 12% of the households sold

maize, 20% sold groundnut, 15% sold tobacco and 17% sold cotton. Other crops sold are rice

(4%), cassava (3%), pigeon pea (7%), indigenous fruits (4%), sweet potato (5%), Irish potato

(1%) and pumpkin (2%).

For households who sold farm produce, tobacco fetched the highest farm income averaging

MK55,500 per household per annum followed by cotton (MK16,000) and maize comes in a

distant third position (Table 14). The difference in income is mainly due to the producer price of

the different crops rather than the weight or volume of farm products sold.

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 47 Table 14: Number of households who sold crops, average amount sold and prices received

for farm products*

Type of farm

produce

# of

households

who sold crop

Average amount of

produce sold per

household (kg)

Average income

got from crop sale

(MK)

MK/kg US $/Kg

Maize 141 237 7,187 30 0.22

Groundnut 223 121 4,419 37 0.26

Rice 41 155 5,214 34 0.24

Cassava 36 263 4,844 18 0.13

Tobacco 171 268 55,499 207 1.49

Pigeon pea 74 53 2,739 52 0.37

Indigenous fruits 46 104 3,042 29 0.21

Exotic fruits 22 113 2,041 18 0.13

Sweet potato 51 156 3,108 20 0.14

Irish potato 8 261 6,512 25 0.18

Pumpkin 19 180 4,751 26 0.19

Cotton 193 268 15,942 59 0.43

*Note: figures are computed as average for households who sold a given agricultural produce only.

Aggregated for all the districts, about a third of the households do not sell any type of farm

produce at all. For these households, the main reason for not selling farm produce is poor

harvest (92%). Other factors mentioned include poor rainfall which negatively affects production

(26%), small size of cultivated farm land and hence low production (21%), large family size and

thus many mouths to feed and leaving little for the market (13%). A small proportion of the

households (5%) do not sell because they are discouraged by the low producer prices that buyers

offer for farm produce.

AFSP Baseline Survey Report 48 4.3.5 Type of nurseries and ownership structure

Nurseries are often established to raise seedlings for certain crops in all the districts. These crops

for which nurseries are established are tree seedlings, tobacco seedlings, rice and vegetables

(Table 15).

Table 15: Type and ownership structure of nurseries by households aggregated for all districts

Type of nursery Type of ownership % of households having the

nursery

Tree nursery Individual 4.9

Group 40.1

Tobacco Individual 11.1

Group 1.4

Rice Individual 5.8

Group 0.3

Vegetables Individual 25.6

Group 1.4

The nurseries are either owned by individual households or several households may pull their

resources together to raise nurseries that are jointly owned. Individual nurseries are much more

commonly established to raise tree seedlings and als