1. 1
FISP 2012/13
Evaluation
Workshop
Wednesday, 11th September 2013
Andrew Dorward, Ephraim Chirwa,
Mirriam Matita, Wezi Mhango,
Peter Mvula
School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London
Wadonda Consult

2. Outline
 What are the impacts of FISP?
 Is FISP worth the investment?
 How much of the subsidy goes to the intended
beneficiaries?
 How can the implementation of FISP be improved?
2September 2013

3. What are the impacts of FISP?
 Incremental production
 National food security
 Maize prices
 Beneficiary production
 Beneficiary food security (hanging in)
 Beneficiary income growth (stepping up)
 Beneficiary welfare, education, nutrition, health
 Cash injection
 Ganyu wages
 Maize prices
 Non-beneficiary income growth & welfare (stepping up)
 Diversification (stepping out)
 Knowledge
 Input supply system
 Resilience 3September 2013
Maize exports
Population growth
Poor rainfall
Economic crises

4. Incremental production
 Depends on Information?
 Incremental input use
Input disbursement R
Leakage/ theft (0-30%) ?
Displacement (3, 15, 22%) ?
Targeting, prices
 Incremental yields per unit input ?
Rainfall ?
Soils ?
Crop management ?
Crop variety ?
4September 2013

5. Incremental maize production
 Difficult to obtain reliable information on smallholder
yields and yield responses
 Data sources
 Input response
On farm trials, 92 kg N/ha 5 bags fertiliser/ha
Hybrid: 13 to 22 kg/kg N, mean 17
Survey analysis (IHS3) ?
Yield measurement ?
Crop simulation – varies with crop management
 Crop management
Survey analysis (AISS2, IHS3,AISS3)
5September 2013

6. Crop simulation
 New information from commissioned maize simulation study
under smallholder conditions (Anthony Whitbread et al,
Goettingen University)
 Realistic results
 Average yields a little bit higher than IHS3 under similar
management
 Identifies critical yield factors
6September 2013

7. Illustrative N Response, hybrid
without & with P
7September 2013

8. Illustrative N Response, local
without & with P
8September 2013

9. Simulated yield response
 Importance of
 hybrid seed
 early planting
 good agronomy
 potential for lower N rates
 variable returns to N
 Good potential returns to N and impact
 Nutrient responses with average smallholder
management
 Local 18 kg grain/kg N (@37 kg N/ha)
 Hybrid 22 kg grain/kg N (@47 kg N/ha)
 Hybrid without fertiliser + 600kg/ha
9September 2013

10. Total incremental maize production (MT)
10September 2013
Seed
displace-
ment
NUE
Fertiliser displacement &
leakage
Reduced Hybrid Local 10% 30% 45%
40%
-10% 22.1 17.5 1,161,772 933,559 762,400
-20% 19.6 15.5 1,032,686 829,830 677,689
-30% 17.2 13.6 903,600 726,102 592,978
50%
-10% 22.1 17.5 1,139,302 911,090 739,931
-20% 19.6 15.5 1,012,713 809,858 657,716
-30% 17.2 13.6 886,124 708,625 575,502
60%
-10% 22.1 17.5 1,116,833 888,621 717,461
-20% 19.6 15.5 992,740 789,885 637,743
-30% 17.2 13.6 868,648 691,149 558,025

11. National food security: consumption,
production & surplus/deficit with subsidy
11
-1300
-300
700
1700
2700
3700
'000MT
Total consumption

12. National food security: consumption,
production & surplus/deficit with subsidy
12
-1300
-300
700
1700
2700
3700
'000MT
Total consumption Production (MT)

13. National food security: consumption,
production & surplus/deficit with subsidy
13
-1300
-300
700
1700
2700
3700
'000MT
Total consumption
Production (MT)
Domestic surplus (deficit) with subsidy (MT)

14. National food security: consumption,
production & surplus/deficit with subsidy
14
-1300
-300
700
1700
2700
3700
'000MT
Total consumption
Production (MT)
Domestic surplus (deficit) with subsidy (MT)
Incremental production from subsidy (MT)

15. 15
National food security: consumption,
production & surplus/deficit without subsidy
-1300
-300
700
1700
2700
3700
'000MT
Total consumption
Production without subsidy
Domestic surplus (deficit) without subsidy (MT)

16. National food security
 Value of saved imports from 2007/8 to 2013/14 market
seasons between 33% and 43% of FISP programme
costs depending on the use of domestic or SAFEX import
prices for valuing maize imports.
 Analysis does not allow for
 benefits of more local access to maize
 dangers of reliance on often late imports
 long term social, economic and health costs of
periods of widespread food shortages and high
prices.
 Analysis also ignores
 wider economic benefits from FISP
 seasonal regional export market challenges to FISPs
role in supporting national food security (but this
threatens national food security with or without FISP)
16September 2013

17. Maize markets & prices: Malawi
17September 2013
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2000Aug
2001Apr
2001Dec
2002Aug
2003Apr
2003Dec
2004Aug
2005Apr
2005Dec
2006Aug
2007Apr
2007Dec
2008Aug
2009Apr
2009Dec
2010Aug
2011Apr
2011Dec
2012Aug
2013Apr
Current MK/kg
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2000Aug
2001Apr
2001Dec
2002Aug
2003Apr
2003Dec
2004Aug
2005Apr
2005Dec
2006Aug
2007Apr
2007Dec
2008Aug
2009Apr
2009Dec
2010Aug
2011Apr
2011Dec
2012Aug
2013Apr
Current US$/kg
Monthly Malawi domestic prices in Malawi Kwacha & in US$ equivalents

18. Regional maize markets & prices
18September 2013
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2000Aug
2001Apr
2001Dec
2002Aug
2003Apr
2003Dec
2004Aug
2005Apr
2005Dec
2006Aug
2007Apr
2007Dec
2008Aug
2009Apr
2009Dec
2010Aug
2011Apr
2011Dec
2012Aug
2013Apr
Current US$/kg) Malawi
SAFEX-0.1

19. 0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2008Apr
2008Jul
2008Oct
2009Jan
2009Apr
2009Jul
2009Oct
2010Jan
2010Apr
2010Jul
2010Oct
2011Jan
2011Apr
2011Jul
2011Oct
2012Jan
2012Apr
2012Jul
2012Oct
2013Jan
2013Apr
Current US$/kg Malawi Nampula
Lusaka Tete
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2000Aug
2001Apr
2001Dec
2002Aug
2003Apr
2003Dec
2004Aug
2005Apr
2005Dec
2006Aug
2007Apr
2007Dec
2008Aug
2009Apr
2009Dec
2010Aug
2011Apr
2011Dec
2012Aug
2013Apr
Current US$/kg)
Malawi
SAFEX
SAFEX-0.1
Regional maize markets & prices
19September 2013

20. Regional maize exports
 Early season regional maize exports pose a serious
challenge
 to national & household food security
 to FISP food security benefits
 Options?
 Export ban
 Consistent ‘rules’
 Better crop estimates
 Encourage private sector storage
Options?
Relieve credit costs/ constraints
20September 2013

21. Beneficiary food security
Food production
 Maize (incremental production)
 500 to 600kg maize from 2 fertiliser coupons & 1 seed
coupon
 200 to 300kg maize from 1 fertiliser coupons (without
or with seed)
 Legumes seed coupon (total production)
 20 kg beans & gnuts
 30 kg soya
 100 kg cowpeas
 200kg pigeon pea
 Focus group discussions
 No gain
 Removing it will be like murdering us
 Hanging in despite population growth & shocks?
21September 2013

22. Beneficiary income growth
 Maize (incremental production)
High value to cost ratios for subsidised inputs (70+ for
fertiliser, 150 for hybrid seed
Full maize pack MK55,000 to 75,000
One fertiliser coupon (without or with seed) MK20,000 to
25,000
 Focus group discussions
Mentioned income benefits & asset accumulation for better
off hh with more land & more coupons (stepping up)
22

23. Indirect benefits
 Cash injections
 Incremental maize - sales or savings
 Coupon sales (limited)
 Savings from coupons displacing commercial purchases
 Increases in real ganyu wages & decreases in real maize
prices relative to counter-factual
 Multiplier effects in the national & rural economies
 Resilience (direct & indirect)
23September 2013

24. Input supply impacts
 Expect
 Increase in business supplying subsidised inputs
 Decrease in commercial sales due to displacement
 Increase in commercial sales from stimulus
 Fertiliser procurement from private companies
 Initially 50%, 80% last two years
 Initially 50-70,000MT, >100,000Mt last two years
 Seed displacement estimated at 50%
 Fertiliser displacement estimates from 3 to 15 to 22 to 25%
24September 2013

25. Input supply impacts
 Substantially more suppliers report expansion than
contraction in number of sales outlets in the last two years
 28% suppliers report an increase in commercial
(unsubsidised) seed sales in the last 5 years, 44% a
decrease
 36% suppliers report an increase in commercial
(unsubsidised) fertiliser sales in the last 5 years, 43% a
decrease (more agrodealers & ‘others’ reported an
increase, more parastatals & distributors reported a
decrease
 Major reasons for increase were FISP creating
business & farmers having more money or income
 Major reasons for decrease were FISP discouraging
sales and high input prices (especially fertilisers)
25September 2013

26. Input supply system:
farmer seed purchases
26September 2013
-
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Hybrid& OPV
-Commercial
Hybrid& OPV
-Subsidy
HybridMaize
-Commercial
HybridMaize
-Subsidy
OPVMaize -
Commercial
OPVMaize -
Subsidy
2008/9
2010/11
2012/13
Kilograms
-
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
2008/9
State
(a) (b)
Kilograms
Mean Seed Purchases by Farmers, 2008/9 - 2012/13

27. Input supply system: farmer
commercial fertiliser purchases
27September 2013
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2006/07
2008/09
2010/11
2012/13
Kilograms
MeanCommercialPurchases
Mean Commercial Fertilizer Purchases by Farmers, 2006/07 - 2012/13

28. Is FISP worth the investment?
28September 2013
Before
displacement
& leakage
After
displacement &
leakage (30%)
With
multipliers
Incremental production (MT) 1,214,004 809,857 809,857
Net value inc. maize (mill US$) 438.6 292.6 392.5
Net gain legumes (mill US$) 23.5 23.5 30.6
Total Producer & Consumer gains
(mill US$)
462.1 316.1 423.1
Programme costs (mill US$) 139.8 99.8 119.8
Total farmer costs (mill US$) 83.3 56.1 72.9
Total costs (mill US$) 223.1 155.9 192.7
NPV (mill US$) 239.0 160.2 230.4
BCR
FE
2.07 2.03 2.20
1.71 1.15 1.65

29. Returns to FISP: fertiliser price effects
29September 2013
-
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
-
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
350,000,000
- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
US$mill
Fetiliser price US$/mtTitle
Fertiliser price
NPV (US$) TOTAL FISCAL Costs
BCR Fiscal Efficiency
3.00250,000,000
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
0%
US$mill
450
US$mill

30. Returns to FISP: Displacement &
leakage effects
30September 2013
-
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
1,400
sts
2.50
3.00
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
US$mill
Fertiliser leakage / displaement
Displacement/
leakage
NPV
BCR
Fiscal Efficiency
3.00
400
450
US$mill
NPV (US$)

31. Returns to FISP: yield response effects
31September 2013
-
1.00
1,400
sts
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
60%
ts
-
0.50
-
50
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Fertiliser leakage / displaement
Fiscal Efficiency
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
US$mill
% of Simulation NUE
Yield response
NPV (US$)
BCR
Fiscal Efficiency

32. Returns to FISP:
farmer contribution effects
32September 2013
-
1.00
-
50,000,000
- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Fetiliser price US$/mtTitle
NPV (US$) TOTAL FISCAL Costs
BCR Fiscal Efficiency
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
-
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
US$mill
Farmer fertiliser contribution
Farmer contribution
NPV (US$) TOTAL FISCAL Costs
BCR Fiscal Efficiency
-
50
0% 1
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0%
US$mill

33. How much of the subsidy goes to
the intended beneficiaries?
 How much of the inputs goes to smallholder farmers?
 Leakages?
 Who are the intended beneficiaries?
 Targeting?
33September 2013

34. Leakages
34September 2013
Fertiliser
Maize
seed
Legume
seed
Fertiliser coupons
2010/11 2008/9 2006/7
Estimate as % redemptions/ sales, NSO hh
North 77% 77% 82% 105% 73% 52%
Centre 58% 52% 29% 74% 72% 67%
South 65% 83% 68% 88% 71% 88%
Total 63% 68% 52% 86% 71% 72%
Estimate as % redemptions/ sales, MoAFS ff
North 126% 126% 134% 171% 114% 80%
Centre 99% 89% 49% 132% 111% 82%
South 103% 132% 109% 132% 98% 121%
Total 104% 113% 87% 139% 105% 95%

35. Numbers of farm families?
35September 2013
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Farm famillies (millions)North
Centre
South
1 2011-12
rth
ntre
uth

36. Numbers of farm families?
36September 2013
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Annual growth rate
North
Centre
South

37. Targeting
37September 2013
2012/13 2010/11 2008/9 2006/7
Zero
>0
&<1
1
Mean
/
recipi
ent
Zero
Mean/
recipi
ent
Zero
Mean
/
recipi
ent
Zero
Mean
/
recipi
ent
North 48% 0% 9% 1.82 24% 1.81 28% 2.03 38% 1.9
Centre 40% 17% 31% 1.08 31% 1.34 35% 1.42 45% 1.7
South 38% 8% 37% 1.21 11% 1.46 33% 1.49 49% 1.7
National 40% 11% 31% 1.21 21% 1.44 33% 1.52 46% 1.7
Fertiliser
Maize
seed
Legume
seed
Fertiliser coupons
Average coupons received per hh 2010/11 2008/9 2006/7
North 0.94 0.46 0.42 1.38 1.46 1.21
Centre 0.65 0.29 0.15 0.92 0.93 0.96
South 0.75 0.48 0.37 1.29 1 0.84
Total 0.73 0.39 0.28 1.13 1.02 0.93

38. Targeting
 Stated targeting criteria
 resource poor Malawians owning land
 explicit emphasis on more vulnerable households
child or female headed households,
people living with HIV/AIDS,
vulnerable people and their guardians or carers,
38September 2013

39. Targeting
39September 2013
2012/13 2010/11 2008/9 2006/7
Zero
>0
&<1
1
Mean
/
recipi
ent
Zero
Mean/
recipi
ent
Zero
Mean/
recipi
ent
Zero
Mean
/
recipi
ent
National 40% 11% 31% 1.21 21% 1.44 33% 1.52 46% 1.7
Male
headed
41% 11% 30% 1.22 20% 1.45 34% 1.55 43% 1.8
Female
headed
37% 13% 35% 1.18 25% 1.41 32% 1.45 54% 1.6
Youth
head
60% 12% 23% 0.93 na na na na
N.A.
Working
age head
42% 11% 31% 1.15 21% 1.43 35% 1.53
Elderly
head
27% 12% 34% 1.29 21% 1.53 28% 1.49

40. Targeting
40September 2013
2012/13 2010/11 2008/9
Zero
>0
&<1
1
Mean/
recipie
nt
Zero
Mean/
recipie
nt
Zero
Mean/
recipie
nt
Maize for 4-7
months
41% 13% 35% 1.10 21% 1.41 30% 1.4
Maize for 8-10
months
36% 13% 36% 1.14 25% 1.34 27% 1.6
Maize for >10
months
33% 14% 29% 1.30 17% 1.3 36% 1.77
Poorest
(Ovutikitsitsa)
41% 11% 33% 1.15 29% 1.29 40% 1.31
Ovutika 38% 12% 31% 1.23 19% 1.42 30% 1.5
Ovutikilako 37% 10% 33% 1.25 21% 1.42 30% 1.56
>=
wapakatikati
46% 11% 28% 1.22 17% 1.69 36% 1.8

41. Targeting – respondent views
41September 2013
 Poor people, female headed hh, more productive
farmers, households with orphans, better off farmers all
roughly no difference in targeting
 VDC members a bit more likely to get coupons, civil
servants & teachers less likely
 FGDs – mixed reports

42. How can the implementation of FISP be
improved?
 Key determinants of impacts and return to investment?
 Leakages & displacement
 Targeting
 Yield response
 Programme costs
 For each determinant
 Challenges
 Changes made
 Potential options/ further changes
42September 2013

43. Leakages & displacement
 Further changes?
Sort out the number of farm families & rural households
Transporter vetting & monitoring
E vouchers
Raise farmer contributions
Universal allocation but smaller amount per beneficiary
Further & earlier transparency/ information &
participation
 Genuine participatory allocations
 Fuller & earlier information on numbers
 Fuller implementation of public lists
43September 2013

44. Leakages & displacement
 FGD proposals
More participation
Sealed coupon packages opened at village meetings?
Marked fertiliser bags?
More/ less involvement of VHs, FAs?
Elected committees?
Mixed views on universal but smaller ration versus
targeting the poor
44September 2013
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
2008/9 2010/11 2012/13
targeting ‘the poor ‘ (100kg)
targeting ‘the productive ‘ (100kg)
for all hh, with ½ the amount (50kg)
Scores:
4 = very good; 3= good;
2 = not good not bad; 1= bad;
0 = very bad

45. Targeting: allocations, distribution &
access
 Good targeting should promote:
 Low diversion / losses
 Low displacement
 Effective input use
 Reaching the poor & vulnerable
low
exclusion errors (the right people don’t get it)
inclusion errors (the wrong people get it)
 Issues: processes & outcomes
 Scale of programme & disbursements
 Area targeting:
 regional & district distribution
 Household targeting:
 beneficiary characteristics
 coupon access & redemption
45September 2013

46. 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/102010/112011/122012/13
North Centre South All
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
North Centre South All
Area targeting: fertiliser vouchers
redeemed per farm family
46September 2013
MoAFS farm
families
NSO rural
households

47. Area targeting: beneficiaries per farm
family by district
47September 2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60% Chikhwawa
Nsanje
Lilongwe
Dedza
Mangochi
Machinga
Kasungu
NkhotaKota
Karonga
Ntchisi
Mulanje
Salima
Mchinji
NkhataBay
Dowa
Mzimba
Balaka
Ntcheu
Zomba
Chiradzulu
Chitipa
Neno
Blantyre
Mwanza
Thyolo
Likoma
Phalombe
Rumphi

48. Targeting
 Further changes?
E vouchers
Universal allocation but smaller amount per beneficiary
Further & earlier transparency / information &
participation
 Genuine participatory allocations
 Fuller & earlier information on numbers
 FGD proposals
 More participation
 Sealed coupon packages opened at public village
meetings?
 Marked fertiliser bags?
 More/ less involvement of VHs, FAs?
 Elected committees?
48September 2013

49. Yield responses
 Further potential changes to improve yield responses
 Improving data on yield responses?
 Improving timing of coupon and input delivery &
access?
Tender processes
More private sector involvement in fertiliser sales
Earlier & more transparent/ participative coupon
allocation & distribution
Eliminate annual farm family register
 Improving extension reach
 Increasing use of organic fertilisers, legume rotations,
etc
49September 2013

50. Programme costs
50September 2013
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
US$ millions
Total estimated other costs
Other
Transport Costs
Net fertiliser
Seeds – maize
Seeds - flexi / legumes

51. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
US$ millions
Total estimated other costs
Other
Transport Costs
Net fertiliser
Seeds – maize
Seeds - flexi / legumes
Annual budget
Programme costs
51September 2013

52. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
US$ millions
Total estimated other costs
Other
Transport Costs
Net fertiliser
Seeds – maize
Seeds - flexi / legumes
Annual budget
Malawi Government
Direct Donor Support
Programme costs
52September 2013

53. Farmer contributions
 Farmer contributions have fallen since establishment of
FISP from around 35% to 3% of fertiliser cost
53September 2013
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

54. Programme costs
 Changes implemented to date
 Physical budget control
 Financial budget control
 Supplementary coupon control
 Invoice payments …
 Tender procedures …
 Further potential improvements
 Increase farmer contributions
 Reduce beneficiary numbers
 Reduce subsidised inputs per beneficiary
 Reduction in leakages
 Improved targeting to reduce displacement
 FDG views
 Mixed on reducing beneficiaries or subsidy/ beneficiary
54September 2013

55. 55
Thank you
This material has been funded by UKaid from the Department for International
Development; however the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the
organisations’ official policies.

56. Leakages & displacement
 Challenges
 High value of inputs & of subsidy
 Fake coupons
 Supplementary coupons & diversion
 Transport losses
 Adulteration of inputs (eg sand in fertiliser)
 Late deliveries, stockouts & queues
 Seed claims
 Local level diversion (TAs, Agric. staff, market staff)
 Coupon sales, input sales, vendors
56September 2013

57. Leakages & displacement
 Changes implemented to reduce leakages &
displacement
 No supplementary coupons
 Better coupon security
 Transport monitoring
 Open meetings
 Public beneficiary lists
 Better market systems (eg rotation, committees)
 Police & ACB involvement
57September 2013

58. Household targeting
 Challenges (see earlier slides)
 Little evidence of targeting reaching the poor &
vulnerable – but they are not excluded…?
 Redistribution & sharing very important for the poor
 Interactions with leakages
 Allocation & access both important
 ‘We are all poor’, growing population, static coupons
 Very difficult to improve it
Participation & transparency?
External involvement?
 Changes implemented to improve area & hh targeting
 See under leakages
 Regional reallocations
 Increased emphasis on poor & vulnerable
 Actions to improve access (eg market systems)
 Low farmer contributions? 58September 2013

59. Yield responses
 Challenges
 Data on actual yield responses
 Improving timing of coupon and input delivery &
access
Tender processes
Fertiliser storage capacity
Delivery access to markets
Matching market supply & demand
Beneficiary identification & coupon distribution
processes
 Improving farmer crop management
Farmer knowledge
Farmer resource (food/cash/labour) constraints
59September 2013

60. Yield responses
 Changes implemented to improve yield responses
 Improving data on yield responses
 Improving timing of coupon and input delivery &
access
Tender processes
Delivery access to markets
Beneficiary identification & coupon distribution
processes
 Some FGDs mentioned extension/ training &
knowledge benefits
60September 2013

61. Programme costs
 Challenges
 Very large scale of programme, national budget &
fiscal macroeconomic impacts
 Multiple stakeholders & political importance
 Physical & financial budgeting & control
 Controlling leakages
 Determining appropriate farmer contributions
 World prices for fertiliser costs
 Forex demands for fertiliser
 Speedy payments to reduce supplier costs
 Tendering procedures – time, quality, price
61September 2013

62. 62
Coordination
& control
Payments &
control
Stakeholders
FARMERS
MoAFS: HQ, LU, ADDs,
DADOs, ASs, FAs
DCs, TAs, VDCs, Police,
CSOs
Fertiliser importers,
retailers
Seed suppliers, retailers
ADMARC: HQ, districts,
markets
SFFRFM: HQ, depots,
markets
Transporters
Donors
Planning & budgeting
Secure
coupon
printing
Coupon
distribution
to areas.
Beneficiary
identification
Area
allocations
Farmer
registration
Coupon redemption
Input
distribution
(transport
& storage)
Input
purchase
Coupon issue
to farmers
Market
opening

63. 7
8
9
10
11
12
Fertiliser
tenders
Voucher
allocations
Transport
tenders
Voucher
printing
Voucher &
lists to
districts
Seed
supply
contracts
Month
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Completion of contracts &
voucher processes
63September 2013

64. Depot receipts timing,
% parastatal fertiliser sales
64September 2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
End Sept % End Oct % End Nov % End Dec %
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13

65. Uplifts timing, % total by month
65September 2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
End Sept % End Oct % End Nov % End Dec %
Uplifts % total
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13

66. Diversion?
 Transport losses?
 No of companies commissioned
2008/09 23
2009/10 26
2010/11 25
2011/12 23
2012/13 43
 Logistics Unit reported 608MTS lost (0.4%) & MK108
mill (0.2%)
 Logistics Unit also reported 4,902MT stock balance
expected (3.2% of voucher redemptions)
 Tampered vouchers: 13,083 (0.4%)
66September 2013

67. Outstanding invoice payments
by season
67September 2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
MK billion
End Nov (MK bill)
End Dec (MK bill)
End Jan (MK bill)
End Nov %
End Dec %
End Jan %

68. Tendering
 Initial tender call March 2012 opened in May
 Second call July 2012 awarded mid September
68July 2013
740
760
780
800
820
840
860
880
900
Yafuka
Price NPK,
$/mt
Suppliers
Chirimba Kanengo Luwinga
740
760
780
800
820
840
860
880
900
Yafuka
Price Urea,
$/mt
Suppliers
Chirimba Kanengo Luwinga
Optichem
Paramount
RAE
Options
Mzati
ADMARC
I Investment
SFFRFM
SFFRFM
ADMARC

69. 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
2009 2010 2011 2012
Price US$/MT
NPK, landed in depots Urea, landed in depots
DAP, international Urea, E. Europe, Bulk
FISP cost in markets US$/MT FAM prices US$/MT
Fertiliser cost & price comparisons
69July 2013
2012/13 exchange rate: 365MK/US$

70. Total fertiliser voucher redemptions
(millions)
70July 2013
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
North Centre South All

71. 71September 2013
Targeting: scale of fertiliser sales
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/102010/112011/122012/13
Fertiliser sales
('000 MT)
Actual tobacco
fertiliser
Actual maize
fertiliser
Fertiliser
budgeted

72. 72September 2013
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
50
100
150
200
250
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/102010/112011/122012/13
Seed sales
('000MT)
Fertiliser sales
('000 MT)
Axis Title
Actual tobacco
fertiliser
Actual maize
fertiliser
Fertiliser
budgeted
Maize seed
Hybrid seed
Legume seed
Targeting: scale of fertiliser & seed sales

73. Malawi maize trade information
73September 2013
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013
'000MT
Export
Import
0
5
10
15
20
25
2008Apr
2008Jul
2008Oct
2009Jan
2009Apr
2009Jul
2009Oct
2010Jan
2010Apr
2010Jul
2010Oct
2011Jan
2011Apr
2011Jul
2011Oct
2012Jan
2012Apr
2012Jul
2012Oct
2013Jan
2013Apr
'000MT
Imports Exports
Monthly informal imports & exportsAnnual formal imports & exports
????

74. Beneficiary welfare, education, nutrition,
health
 Improved school attendance, diet, health mentioned in
some FGDs
 Past studies: U5 health, school attendance
 Holden perceived health
 Rickert Gilbert satisfaction with life
 Ward TIPS reduced stunting
74September 2013

75. Input supply impacts: fertiliser
procurement from private co. & parastatals
75September 2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
50
100
150
200
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/102010/112011/122012/13
'000 metric
tons
Brought forward MTS Parastatal tenders MTS
Private sector tenders MTS Private sector % new supplies

76. Input supply system
76September 2013
42.6
31.6
39.8
62.5
20.4
24.2
18.6
12.5
37.0
44.2
41.5
25.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Distributors ADMARC/SFFRFM Agro-Dealers OtherSuppliers
Expand Contract No Change
Percent
Growth of Business: Number of Sales Outlets, 2010/11 - 2012/13

77. Input supply system
77September 2013
Distribut
or /
Importe
r
ADMAR
C /
SFFRFM
Independ
ent Agro-
Dealers
Other
Supplier
s
All
Seeds Sales
Increase
Decrease
No Change
N
38
56
6
50
8
72
20
25
28
38
35
199
38
44
19
16
28
44
28
290
Fertiliser Sales
Increase
Decrease
No Change
N
38
56
6
50
26
49
26
35
41
31
28
61
40
20
40
5
36
43
21
151
MAKE A BAR CHART OF THIS?
Changes in Commercial Sales in past 5 agricultural seasons

78. 78September 2013
Indicators Seed sales Fertiliser Sales
Reasons for Increase
Higher farmer income, can procure more
supplies
Able to obtain credit from suppliers
Subsidy programme has created more
business
Farmers had more money to purchase
Improved farm produce prices
Other
N
19.5
2.4
53.7
14.6
4.9
4.9
82
16.4
-
20.0
40.0
14.6
9.1
55
Reasons for Decrease
Lack of credit/cash to purchase supplies
Subsidy programme has discouraged sale
High input prices
Farmers have no money for purchases
Unable to participate in the subsidy pr
Other
N
2.3
61.7
14.8
11.7
2.3
7.0
128
3.1
52.3
30.8
6.2
1.5
6.2
65
Input supply system
MAKE A BAR CHART OF THIS?
Reasons for Changes in Commercial Sales in past seasons

79. Targeting
79September 2013
Fertiliser Coupon numbers
per hh
Zero
>0
&<1
1
More
than 1
Owned Area in ha 0.90 0.88 0.94 1.16
Value durable assets (‘000MK) 34,4 23,2 25,8 55,2
Value Livestock assets (‘000MK) 53,1 26,8 45,7 178.0
Total Value livestock & durable assets
(‘000MK) 87,5 50,1 71,5 235,2
Subjective score of hh food
consumption over past 12 months
1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6
Subjective score on welfare 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3
Month after harvest that maize ran
out
6.9 7.3 7.2 7.5

80. Information sources
 Implementation reports (predominantly Logistics Units
weekly reports and annual report),
 Coupon access, redemption, crop management & other
data from household survey, sample of 2000 households
across 14 districts in the 3 regions
 Input supplier data from survey in 10 districts 446 outlets
 Focus group discussions, key informant interviews with
different stakeholders (Ministry of Agriculture & local
government staff, retailers, and different categories of
rural people)
 ‘community survey’ with key informant groups in sampled
villages
 Economy wide & maize crop simulation modelling
 Other reports
80July 2013