Food Production and Security Dr. Pickford K. Sibale (team leader) Dr. A.M. Chirembo, Dr A.R.Saka and Mr. V.O. Lungu

INTRODUCTION Introduction to Module 1 Measures of Success of Targeting Distribution of TIP inputs Usage of TIP inputs Food Production under SP1, SP2 and TIP Food Deficit and Security Take home messages

POVERTY TARGETING % of TIP recipients (42). No success in targeting poverty

POVERTY TARGETING

% of TIP recipients (42) No success in targeting poverty Some measure of success noted in –Widows/Widowers7.5% –Female headed HH9% –The aged19% Coincides with the Monitoring module Negative consequences of targeting –Refusals (4 villages) –Villages not registered (6 villages)

DISTRIBUTION AND CONTENTS OF TIP PACKS Distribution Delay: 2 months. Distance to collection centre Contents of TIP packs –Complete bags 82 % –1 item missing 13 % Over 95 % respondents said quality and condition was good.

USE OF TIP INPUTS MAIZELEGUME Planted all6535 Gave it way2318 Ate it-32 % households

REASONS FOR NOT PLANTING MAIZE % hh LEGUME % hh Too late to plant 7856 No land left 107 Contribution to Household Seed 12% farmers only had TIP Maize 26% farmers only had TIP legume

USE OF FERTILISER BasalTop Applied to TIP Maize61 Applied to Other Maize3031 Stored it44 Sold it34 % households

REASONS FOR NOT APPLYING FERTILISER Received too late36 % Land does not need fertilizer24 % 72 % of households had only TIP fertiliser

FOOD PRODUCTION 50 kg bags of maize SP1SP2TIP forecast Average HH. Production Contribution of free inputs The contribution of SP2 to household maize was between 15% and 30%

FOOD DEFICIT Only 5% farmers produced enough maize. 73 % had food deficit 1 to 6 months 22 % had food deficit of 6-12 months Likoma: 9 months Mzimba: 6 months : Ncheu: 2.4 months

FOOD SECURITY 2/3 of household are food insecure No district has 100% households food security

TAKE HOME MESSAGE Targeting the poor failed Targeting disrupted the social fabric in villages TIP distribution delayed by 2 months TIP contributed 2 (50 kg bags) per household. This had a marginal effect of household food security

TAKE HOME MESSAGE Free inputs programmes make a difference at the household level and should continue. For these programmes to be effective, timely delivery of inputs and fair distribution are absolutely necessary. Rural households repeatedly told us that free inputs should not discriminate.