Africa-Press – Malawi. Malawi has been giving out subsidised agriculture inputs such as seed and fertilisers to vulnerable households. This started during the Kamuzu Banda era and the subsidised inputs were given to farmers using the Agricultural Development and Marketing Corporation (Admarc).
During the Bakili Muluzi era, the name changed to starter-pack. The name was changed again during the Bingu wa Mutharika era before the current administration further decided to call the subsidy initiative Affordable Inputs Programme (AIP).
Though names have changed over time, it is the same concept, giving a chance to poor famers to buy subsidised farm inputs. The programme has previously targeted the ultra-poor. The results have not always been inspiring, but the government seems adamant to continue with the programme.
A lot has been said about the continuity of these subsidies, on whether Malawi is benefiting from the programme. Donors have spoken on the issue and they seem not to be in support of its continuity. Government has promised some reforms for AIP to perform better.
Countries with better economies still offer subsidies to farmers. Why should Malawi completely stop it? Of course, AIP has high administrative costs and sometimes the farm inputs do not reach the farmers in good time.
Further, some of the people who benefit from the programme end up selling the inputs, instead of using them. Others have argued that with the shortage of forex, such programmes are unsustainable because we buy our chemical fertiliser from outside Malawi.
All these arguments make sense. But instead of giving up on this programme, we should try to find solutions to the noted problems. Let us look at the weaknesses and address them instead throwing the dirty water together with the baby.
It is true that some farmers do sell the inputs to meet their immediate food needs. This may be seen as a bad idea, but if the fertiliser is used right here in Malawi, it will still serve its purpose.
If all the fertiliser sold under this programme is used here in Malawi, food security at country level will be achieved because the harvested crops remain in Malawi.
There is a need to relook at the beneficiaries too. If farmer A gets the subsidised inputs and sells them to Farmer B, who will use them, simply because farmer A is too poor to afford the inputs, the programme should be reworked in terms of proper targeting.
Of course, in the current AIP setup, government is targeting productive farmers; those who have some good piece of land and have the capacity to effectively produce used the inputs.
Selection of beneficiaries should be a very serious project for AIP to be effective. If the programme aims at reducing hunger in Malawi, then that is the way to go.
Otherwise, if the programme is done on political basis, then we will look at who will vote and not who will use the farm inputs. If the aim is to target potential voters, then Malawi will continue to be wasteful in this programme.
Yes, subsidies should continue in Malawi with technical objectives and not political ones. Politicians should not fear losing votes from a certain band of people. When things are done right, voters will understand why it has been done like that and will be happy with the outcomes.
It is not easy to figure out all farmers that have no fields. But if village heads were to help in this, most people who do not have a field to plant on would have been dropped from the programme.
The subsidy programme needs to continue but with more reforms. Everything must be technical. We should take politics out of AIP and there will be value for the money that is spent on the subsidy. The rise in input prices means most farmers will not be able to procure them and this may exacerbate food insecurity.
For More News And Analysis About Malawi Follow Africa-Press
