1 / 20

HIGHLIGHTS OF INPUT VOUCHER STUDY IN MALAWI AND ZAMBIA

HIGHLIGHTS OF INPUT VOUCHER STUDY IN MALAWI AND ZAMBIA. BY Julius H. Mangisoni University of Malawi Bunda College of Agriculture. INTRODUCTION. Rural farmers in Mw, Moz & Zam use low purchased-input technologies - low yields & chronic food insecurity.

honey
Download Presentation

HIGHLIGHTS OF INPUT VOUCHER STUDY IN MALAWI AND ZAMBIA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HIGHLIGHTS OF INPUT VOUCHER STUDYIN MALAWI AND ZAMBIA BY Julius H. Mangisoni University of Malawi Bunda College of Agriculture

  2. INTRODUCTION • Rural farmers in Mw, Moz & Zam use low purchased-input technologies - low yields & chronic food insecurity. • Govnt, NGOs & relief agencies distribute relief seed and fertilizer inputs to small farmers - creation of two parallel markets (commercial & non-commercial). • Using voucher system; govnt, relief agencies and NGOs can provide purchasing power to rural comm.

  3. INTRODUCTION cont.. For these reasons, the study seeks answers to the following questions: • What is the feasibility of using a voucher-based system as a means of integrating the commercial and non-commercial input distribution channels? • What would be the mode of implementation of such a system? • Can a full cycle of policy research, analysis and engagement be successfully implemented in Mw, Moz & Zam? • How should the cycle be organized?

  4. Background • Studies on importance & share of relief seeds were implemented by FANRPAN (Kananji and Phiri, 2006; Simfukwe,2006). • Major findings of the studies confirmed the importance of relief seeds in countries like Mw & Zam. • 2 parallel input distrbtn channels (comm. & non comm) identified. • Such parallel markets currently not well integrated.

  5. Necessary to assess whether using an input voucher system would help to integrate the two markets. • Subsidies distort the market & crowd out private sector dvlpmnt. • Vouchers are less distorting, promote free market competition, allow for greater economic diversity. • Properly designed voucher system would reduce state intervention. • We therefore hypothesize that the vouchers can be used to enhance the purchasing power of the poor, and the commercial sector can redeem the vouchers and expand its distribution network.

  6. In Zambia (Simfukwe, 2006) reported that there was lack of information on vouchers. • The Zambia study recommended a study on voucher system to create awareness among govnt officials, relief agencies & NGOs.

  7. OBJECTIVES The specific objectives of the study are: • To test the potential benefits of using voucher systems to integrate the commercial and non-commercial input distribution channels. • To demonstrate the potential impact of implementing a full cycle of policy research, analysis and engagement, using the case of seed and fertilizer input vouchers.

  8. OBJECTIVES cont… • To bring about policy changes for enhancing input supplies to small farmers. • To develop training materials for policy analysts to engage in complete policy analysis cycle. • To conduct training of policy analysts at national level.

  9. APPROACHES The study has two phases: Phase 1 • Each country node carried out literature review and updated country studies on relief seed trade recently conducted in Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa and Zambia. • A training workshop was held in Lilongwe in March this year-devped questionnaires and PRA field guide • Draft synthesis report on first phase developed. Phase 2 • Rapid field research

  10. APPROACHES cont….. (2) Discussions with key stakeholders. (3) Preparation of comprehensive country reports. (4) Preparation of a synthesis report. (5) Preparation of policy briefs. (6) Preparation of journal article.

  11. Research questions-phase 2 This phase focuses on ans to follwing questions: • What commitments, knowledge and skills gaps on voucher systems are present? • What distortions are visible to stakeholders with regard to relief input markets? • What are the stakeholders’ perceptions of an input voucher system? • How should vouchers be issued to small farmers and who should be issuing them?

  12. Phase 2 cont.. • What should be the specific criteria for the voucher holders when he/she buys inputs from the supplier of her/his choice at any point throughout the country? • Who are the key private companies, agro-dealers and NGOs in the input supply chain? • How should registration of competent agro-input suppliers, dealers and small farmers in the relief program be carried out to conform to the tenets of a free marketing system? • Who should be registering the small farmers?

  13. Phase 2 cont.. • Who are the potential rural agro-dealers who can link up with private input (seed and fertilizer) companies? • What anti-fraud measures should be put in place? • Where would the holder of the voucher redeem the voucher (at wholesale, retail, etc?) • What system should be used by the input retailer to en-cash the vouchers to ensure prompt payment and to control irregularities?

  14. Phase 2 cont… • How should such a marketing model be implemented? • What should be the role of government, private companies, agencies, NGOs, farmers, etc. in an input voucher system? • What are their fears and concerns about an input voucher system? • What market-friendly relief seed marketing model would be recommended by stakeholders?

  15. Phase 2 cont.. The study will not address the following questions; • How can agro dealers be persuaded to extend their market network into rural areas? • Which categories of farmers should use flexi-vouchers and for what? • Are percentile coupons or vouchers more feasible? • How should the percentages in the value of the coupon or voucher be determined? • How can the Zambian Government be persuaded to shift to a voucher-based system?

  16. DISCUSSION OF PHASE 1 RESULTS • The flexi-voucher is more preferred to the distribution of prepackaged inputs. • Vouchers and seed/input fairs help to give farmers greater choice and to patronize retailers and companies. • The voucher approach has the potential to promote the growth of the seed and fertilizer sectors. • Prepackaged inputs prone to leakage.

  17. Discussion cont.. • Efficiency in the fertilizer subsidy program in Malawi and Zambia is marred by logistical difficulties. • Vouchers are not a priority of the government programs in Zambia.

  18. CONCLUDING REMARKS • Prepackaged input packs are extremely expensive. • Challenge in Zambia is, how to reprogram the Fertilizer Support Program to a voucher-based program. • Govnt should consider percentile coupons to make coupons/vouchers effective.

  19. Conclusion cont.. • Coupons or vouchers are less costly to govnt • Coupon or voucher system is more likely to contribute to long term development of input markets.

  20. Acknowledgement • Regional Center for Southern Africa, US Agency for International Development • FANRPAN • Dr Douglas Merrey • Mr R. Kachule and Mr T. Chilongo • Dr. T. Kalinda and Mr M. Simfukwe • Zambia and Malawi FANRPAN country nodes

More Related