100 likes | 230 Views
Findings of the Starter Pack and TIP M&E Programmes. Implications for Policy in 2002-03 and Beyond Sarah Levy & Carlos Barahona May 2002. The evidence. Findings are based on 2 ½ years of research Consultants from University of Reading (UK) working with Malawian teams
E N D
Findings of the Starter Pack and TIP M&E Programmes Implications for Policy in 2002-03 and Beyond Sarah Levy & Carlos Barahona May 2002
The evidence • Findings are based on 2 ½ years of research • Consultants from University of Reading (UK) working with Malawian teams • The 2000-01 study had 6 teams, employed 25 researchers & around 180 field staff, etc. • The 2000-01 study visited 329 villages in 27 districts; interviewed some 8,000 households
Production Of total smallholder maize production: • 1998-99: SP1 contributed around ¼; • 1999-2000: SP2 contributed 15-30%; • 2000-01: TIP contributed only 5% • Total smallholder maize output fell by 40% in 2001 compared with 2000 • Prices rose sharply after the 2001 harvest
Food security impact • SP contributes 300,000-500,000 tonnes • Key to success of SP1 & SP2 = scale • Output… Prices • Smallholder farmers are net purchasers of maize – especially in January-April • A small-scale, Safety Net-type SP (TIP) will not output and prices • Only a universal SP will food security
But is it SP or the weather? • SP1 and SP2 = A • TIP = D
Inputs – a key constraint • 2/3 farmers that did not receive TIP used NO fertiliser or improved seed in 2000-01 • SP has BIG production impact, although the pack is tiny • Demand for inputs is weak because of high prices & low purchasing power, NOT SP • Need to boost farmers’ income: • cash crops; sale of livestock; trade; small business and crafts; employment opportunties • Higher demand for inputs, benefits for private traders
Medium-term Strategy • Supply-side • Universal SP to combat under-production and food insecurity • Demand-side • Marketing channels for cash crops • Credit for small business development • Infrastructure, esp. roads (+ employment) • … a balanced approach
Value for money (2) • If we accept less than optimal production and food insecurity as ‘the norm’, we can cut costs – no SP and fewer maize imports • But this leads to: • High prices of food • Malnourished people, hunger crises • Slow growth and development
Content of the pack OPV vs. hybrid maize Other things (medium term), to diversify food sources The technology (intercropping) Extension system Written messages Timing of procurement Co-ordination with food aid effort, including radio campaign Update register of recipients Looking ahead