1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIES FOR LINKI NG FARMERS TO MARKET: DISCOURSE ON GENDER EQUITY, COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT IN MALAWI By KIBIBY JABIR MTENGA A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007
2 Kibiby Jabir Mtenga
3 To my beloved children Opulukwa Jr. and Vanessa
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research could not be po ssible without the financial su pport from the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), the Co mpton Foundation, University of Florida Studies in Tropical Conservation, the Normal Borla ug Leadership Enhancement for Agriculture Programs (LEAP) and from individuals who co mmitted their own personal funds to support the research. I want particularly to acknowledge professors Jean and John Due, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) the PEO Sisterhood, the Department of Agricultural Education and Co mmunication at the University of Florida and the Sokoine University of Agriculture for financial support for my studies at the University of Florida. They provided a strong foundation for this research. My special thanks go to many farm families in Malawi who always struggle and never seem to get too tired to make differences in their livelihoods and food security. Special acknowledgements go to a set of individuals whos e expertise, critical reviews, comments and supervision inspired and spurred me to pursue th is research more clearly and confidently: I thank my chair Dr. Howard Ladewig for his strong support throughout my studies at the University of Florida (even after his retireme nt) and Dr. Susan Kaaria for strong mentorship, financial and moral support. Special thanks go to my committee members drs. Nick Place, Pete Hildebrand, Abe Goldman and Sandra Russo for clos ely supervising my research and for guiding me throughout my studies at the University of Fl orida. My special thanks go to drs. Sarah Workman, Rowland Chirwa, Jemi ma Njuki, Robert Delve, Pa scal Sanginga, Catherine Chibwana, Grace Malindi and Elizabeth Sibale and to Ms. Colletah Chitsike for all the efforts and time you put into this re search. I am extremely gr ateful to all of them. A range of people also helped this dissertati on come to fruition. I want particularly to recognize the following people: Fred Bati noluho, Ella Ngondo, Leman Mawanda, Antony
5 Kauwa, Macford Maseko, Mathew Zamula, Ver onica Jolfan and other kind people who provided me with a pleasant environment a nd made my stay in Malawi very comfortable and enjoyable. Grateful thanks are due to the representative s from the following organizations who had the honesty and energy to support th is research: Noel Sangole, Tennyson and Samson Kazombo of CIAT-Malawi, Stanley Longwe of Initiative for Development and E quity in African Agriculture (IDEAA), Richard Chapweteka of Citizen Ne twork for Foreign Affairs/Rural Market Development Trust (CNFA/RUMARK), Essau-Mw endo Phiri, Levy Muyale, Peter Makunje and Dorika Kusamale of World Vision, Yohannes Ant onyo and Richard of Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Alex and Hannock of CARE Interna tional/Malawi, Albert Mhone and Alex of International Institute of Tropi cal Agriculture /Southern Africa n Root Crops Research Network (IITA/SARRNET), Timothy Shawa and Hesham Pe iris of National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi (NASFAM), Mr Nyam a of Association of Smallholder Seed Multiplication Action Group (ASSMAG), Solomoni of Concern World Wide, Jacob Nyirongo, Thomson Chilanga, Judith Wolf and Dr. Festus Ak innifesi of the World Agroforestry Centre Southern Africa (ICRAF-SA)-Malaw i, Amon Kabuli of Improved Livelihoods through Increased Food Security Development Assistance Progr am (I-LIFE DAP), Maggie Mzungu of Africare, Dr. Moses Siambi and Dr. Emmanuel Monyo of Inte rnational Crops Instit ute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and Prince Ch ilumpa of Concern Universal. I am grateful to the Sokoine University of Agriculture for granting me a study leave to pursue my PhD at the University of Florida. Pa rticularly I wish to acknowledge my colleagues in the Department of Agricultura l Education and Extension who ar e the model of clarity in my professional arena: Prof. Amon Mattee, Prof. Zebedayo Mvena and Dr. Flavianus Magayane. They all are very inspiring.
6 My special thanks go to my beloved childre n: Opulukwa Jr. and Vanessa; to my nephews Karim, Shabani and Mohammed; to Dada Beatrice Mshomi and to my best friends: Ms. Grace Mwenda, Ms. Vicky Kiboko, Dr. Wilson Mboya, Dr. Marta Hartmann, Dr. William Mkanta, Susan Mkanta, Nehemiah Mkanta and Faith Mkan ta for your prayers, encouragements, support, love and patience that made my entire study in Florida and Malawi, and the completion of this dissertation possible. I love th em each day and forever. Finally, but not least, I am ve ry grateful to the almighty God for guidance and protection, and for giving me the strength a nd energy to this very end.
7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ........11 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......15 ACRONYMS....................................................................................................................... ..........18 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............19 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................21 Background to the Problem....................................................................................................21 Study Area Background..........................................................................................................26 Research Objectives............................................................................................................ ....30 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....31 Limitations of the Study....................................................................................................... ..33 Significance of the Study...................................................................................................... ..33 Chapter Summary................................................................................................................ ...34 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................37 The Importance of Agriculture to th e Economic Development of Africa..............................37 Gender and Agriculture in Africa...........................................................................................39 The Research Conceptual Framework.............................................................................40 Gender and Womens Access to Res ources for Agricultural Production.......................42 Gender and Decision-Maki ng in Agriculture.........................................................................43 Trends in Agricultural Marketing...........................................................................................46 The Role of Agricultural Marketing................................................................................46 Structural Adjustment and Changes in the Marketing Systems......................................46 Gender and Access to Markets........................................................................................47 Soil Fertility Management......................................................................................................49 Community Empowerment.....................................................................................................52 Social Capital (SC)..........................................................................................................53 The Importance of Farmers Groups and So cial Capital for Collective Marketing........55 Importance of Indigenous Knowledge in Building Social Capital..................................56 Participatory Technology Development (PTD) Methods and Social Capital.................56 Chapter Summary................................................................................................................ ...60 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................63 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........63
8 Description of the Research Area...........................................................................................63 Research Phase One............................................................................................................. ...64 Identification and Selection of Organizations with Strategies fo r Linking Farmers to Market......................................................................................................................... ........64 Research Phase Two............................................................................................................. ..67 Selection of Groups for Focus Group Discussions.................................................................68 Selection of Farmers for Household Interviews.....................................................................69 The Development of Instruments...........................................................................................69 Reliability and Validity of the Results....................................................................................70 Variables of Interest to this Research.....................................................................................70 Chapter Summary................................................................................................................ ...72 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................................75 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........75 Farmers Characteristics....................................................................................................... ..75 Farmers Sex, Marital Status and Farmers Headship.....................................................75 Land ownership by farmers.............................................................................................76 Levels of education..........................................................................................................78 Ownership of other assets................................................................................................79 Non-Enterprise Crops Produced by Farmers for Home Consumption or Sale...............80 Objective One: Identify and Analyze Strategi es Used by Organizations to Link Farmers to Markets using the Institutional Framework....................................................................80 Description of Organizations and Strate gies used to Link Farmers to Market.......................80 International Center for Tr opical Agriculture (CIAT)....................................................80 The World Agroforestry Centre/ICRAF.........................................................................82 National Smallholder Farmers A ssociation of Malawi (NASFAM)..............................85 World Vision...................................................................................................................88 ASSMAG (Association of Smallholde r Seed Multiplication Action Group).................89 Analysis of Strategies Used by Organizati ons to Link Farmers to Markets using the Institutional Framework......................................................................................................92 Geographical Area Covered and Number of Farmers Reached by each Strategy...........93 Levels of Operation.........................................................................................................94 Diversity of Enterprises Implemented by Farmers..........................................................94 The Extent to Which Gender was Integrated in each Strategy........................................95 Focus on Soil Fertility Management...............................................................................96 Focus on Community Empowerment..............................................................................97 Type of Support Offered.................................................................................................97 The Enabling Rural Innovation: CIAT.....................................................................97 The Demand-Driven Strategy: ICRAF.....................................................................98 The Area Development Program: World Vision....................................................100 The Trader-Led Strategy: NASFAM.....................................................................101 Linkage through Farmer Association: ASSMAG..................................................102 Objective Two: Analyze the Extent to which Women Participate in the Market................103 The Extent to which Women and Men Part icipate in the Production Activities...........103 Production of Crop Enterprises by Farmers..................................................................104 The Extent to Which Farmers Participat e in the Market by Crop Enterprises..............104
9 Open Pollinated Crop (OPV) Maize......................................................................104 Groundnuts (Peanuts).............................................................................................106 Beans......................................................................................................................107 Soybeans.................................................................................................................109 Chilies.....................................................................................................................110 Mushroom..............................................................................................................110 Processed fruit products.........................................................................................111 The Extent to Which Farmers Particip ate in the Marketing of Livestock.....................112 Summary: Objective Two..............................................................................................114 Objective Three: Analyze Benefits Women Farmers Derive from Participating in the Market......................................................................................................................... ......115 Benefits based on Income Ownership...........................................................................115 Benefits based on Income-Investment Patterns.............................................................117 Investments Made by Farmers.......................................................................................117 Other Benefits Women Derived from Participating in the Market.......................................119 Change in Human Capital (Capac ity/Knowledge/Skills Development).......................119 Social Networks and Social Re lationships (Social Capital)..........................................120 Self confidence..............................................................................................................120 Position-status in the community..................................................................................121 Gender-Related Benefits Wo men Derived from Participating in the Market......................121 Change in Wife-Husband Relations..............................................................................121 Change in Roles and Responsibilities between Women and Men at Household Level..........................................................................................................................122 Change in Decision making at the Household Level....................................................122 Benefits based on Farmers Empowerment (Application of Knowledge and Skills Gained).......................................................................................................................123 Chapter Summary................................................................................................................ .124 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...........................................................................................159 Trade off on Soil Fertility Management T echnologies between Food and Cash Crops.......159 Introduction...................................................................................................................159 Soil Fertility Management Technologies used by Farmers across Strategies...............160 Variation in use of Soil Fertility Ma nagement Technologies across Crops /the Trade off.....................................................................................................................161 Sources of Information on Soil Fertility Management Technologies Used by Farmers......................................................................................................................163 Chapter Summary................................................................................................................ .164 6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIOS...........................................175 Summary and Conclusions...................................................................................................175 Summary of Objective One: Identify and an alyze strategies us ed by organizations to link farmers to market using the institutional framework......................................175 Objective One Conclusions...........................................................................................178 Summary of Objective Two: Determine and analyze the extent to which women farmers participate in the market...............................................................................179
10 Objective Two Conclusions..........................................................................................180 Summary of Objective Three: Determine wh at benefits women farmers derive from participating in the market.........................................................................................181 Objective Three Conclusions........................................................................................182 Objective Four: Analyze the trade off on soil fertility management technologies between food and cash crops.....................................................................................182 Objective Four Conclusions..........................................................................................183 Recommendations................................................................................................................ .183 Additional Research............................................................................................................ ..184 APPENDIX A ADDITIONAL TABLES OF RESULTS.............................................................................186 Results on Gender-Disa ggregated Activities........................................................................189 Linkage through Farmer Associations...........................................................................189 The Enabling Rural Innovation (ERI) /CIAT................................................................191 The Area Development Program (ADP)/World Vision................................................192 The Trader-Led Strategy (TL) for Linking Farmers to Market/NASFAM...................195 The Demand-Driven (DD) Strategy/ICRAF.................................................................197 B BENEFITS FARMERS DERIVED FROM PARTICIPATING IN STRATEGIES FOR LINKING FARMERS TO THE MARKET.........................................................................207 C INSTRUMENTS USED.......................................................................................................217 Instrument for Key Informants.............................................................................................217 Instrument for Informal Discussions with Farmers..............................................................218 Instrument for Focus Group Discussions.............................................................................219 Instrument for Household Interviews...................................................................................228 D RESEARCH METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK..............................................................241 E THE INFORMED CONSENT.............................................................................................247 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................249 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................259
11 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Percentage of Farmers who were Marri ed, Owned Land and Head of Households by Sex (n = 170).................................................................................................................. ..132 4-2 Percentage Distribution of Farmer s who Owned Land by Strategy (n = 164)................132 4-3 Percentage Distribution of Farmer s who Owned Land (acres) by Sex across Strategies..................................................................................................................... .....133 4-4 Farmers Level of Education by Sex (n = 170)...............................................................134 4-5 Farmers Level of Educa tion by Strategies (n = 170)......................................................134 4-6 Results Score on Analysis of Strategies for Linking Farmers to Markets1 Using the Institutional Framework...................................................................................................134 4-7 Percent Distribution of Farmers w ho Produced Crop Enterprises (n = 170)...................135 4-8 Number of Farmers wh o Produced Crop Enterprises across Strategy (n = 170).............135 4-9 Average Area Planted with OPV Maize, Amount of Seed Used, Harvested, Sold and Consumed, Average Price per kg OPV Maize Sold and Total Income Obtained...........136 4-10 Average Area planted with Groundnuts, Amount of Seed Used, Harvested, Sold and Consumed and Total Average Income Obtained (n = 78)...............................................137 4-11 Average Area planted with Beans, Amount of Seed Used, Amount Harvested, Consumed and Sold and Total Income Obtained (n = 44)...............................................138 4-12 Average Area planted with Soybeans, Amount of Seed used, Amount Harvested, Sold and Total Income Obtained (n = 35).......................................................................139 4-13 Average Area planted with Chilies, Am ount of Seed Used, Amount Harvested, Sold and Total Income Obtained..............................................................................................140 4-14 Average Area planted with Mushroom, Amount of Seed Used, Amount Harvested, Sold and Total Income Obtained.....................................................................................140 4-15 Amount of Juice Produced (liters), Price per Liter Sold and Total Income Obtained.....141 4-16 Percentage Distribution of Farmers who Managed Livestock by Strategy (n = 170).....141 4-17 Number of Livestock Farmers Starte d with, Have had and Lost (n = 43).......................142 4-18 Number of Livestock Sold, Average Income Obtained and Amount of Income Owned by Men and Women (n = 22)..............................................................................143
12 4-19 Average Total Income (MK) obtained by Farmers across Strategies..............................144 4-20 Average Total Income Contro lled by Women across Strategies.....................................144 4-21 Percentage of Total Income C ontrolled by Women across Strategies.............................144 4-22 Percent Response on Investment Patterns Made by Farmers (n =170)...........................145 4-23 Percent of Yes Response on Investment Patterns by Farmers across Strategies.............146 4-24 Other Benefits Farmers Derive from Part icipating in Strategies for Linking Farmers to Market...................................................................................................................... ....147 4-25 Farmers Response on Changes on Sp ecific Gender Issues: Wife-Husband Relationships, Roles and Responsibili ties and Decision-Making among Married Farmers across Strategies.................................................................................................148 4-26 Farmers Responses on whether they can Produce and Manage the New Crop and/or Livestock Enterprises with Limited Support fr om the Market-Linkage Strategies (n = 141)........................................................................................................................... .......149 5-1 Percentage Distribution of Farmers by Type of Soil Fertility Management Technologies Used...........................................................................................................166 5-2 Percentage Distribution of Male Farmers by Type of Soil Fertility Management Technologies Used (n = 33).............................................................................................166 5-3 Percentage Distribution of Female Farmers by Type of Soil Fertility Management Technologies Used (n = 137)...........................................................................................166 5-4 Percentage Distribution of Farmers by Soil Fertility Management Technologies Used by Strategy.................................................................................................................... ...167 5-5 Distribution of Farmers by the Most-Use d Soil Fertility Management Technologies by Strategies.................................................................................................................. ...167 5-6 Percentage Distribution of Farmers by Soil Fertility Management Technologies Used on different Crops (N = 170)...........................................................................................168 5-7 Percentage Distribution of Farmers who Used Chemical Fertilizer on Different Crops across Strategies.............................................................................................................. .168 5-8 Percentage Distribution of Farmers who Used Animal Manure on Different Crops across Strategies.............................................................................................................. .169 5-9 Percentage Distribution of Farmers who Used Compost Manure on Different Crops across Strategies.............................................................................................................. .169
13 5-10 Percentage Response of Farmers on S ources of Information for Soil Fertility Management Technologies Used.....................................................................................169 5-11 Percentage Response of Farmers on Suppor t Offered by their Strategies on Sources of Information for Soil Fertility Management Technologies Used.................................170 A-1 Mean Acreage of Land (acres) Owned by Female-and Male-Headed Households (n = 164)........................................................................................................................... .......186 A-2 Percent Ownership of Household Asse t by Farmers across Strategies (n = 170)............187 A-3 Percent Ownership of Hard Asset by Farmers across Strategies (n = 170).....................187 A-4 Percent Ownership of Livestock Asset by Farmers (n = 170).........................................188 A-5 Non-Enterprise Crops Produced by Farmers (n = 170)...................................................188 A-6 Farmers Major Reasons to Work in Groups...................................................................189 A-7 Production and Marketing Activities of LF-Farmers by Gender by Group (n = 34).......190 A-8 Production and Marketing Activities of ADP Farmers by Gender (n = 50).................193 A-9 Production and Marketing Activities of TL-Farmers by Gender Group (n = 43)...........196 A-10 Percent Distribution of Farmers by Differe nt Markets they Sold OPV Maize (n = 43)..199 A-11 Percent Distribution of Farmers by who Tr ansported OPV Maize to the Market (n = 43)............................................................................................................................ ........200 A-12 Percent Distribution of Farmers by Mark ets to which they Sold Groundnuts (n = 78)...200 A-13 Percent Response by Who Sold Groundnuts to the Market by Sex (n = 78)...................200 A-14 Percent Response by Who Transported Gr oundnuts to the Market Centers by Sex (n = 78).......................................................................................................................... .......201 A-15 Percent Response by Different Markets to Which Farmers Sold Beans (n = 44)...........202 A-16 Percent Response by Who Sold B eans to the Market (n = 44).......................................202 A-17 Percent Response by Who Transporte d Beans to the Market (n = 44)............................202 A-18 Percent Response by Markets to which Farmers Sold Soybeans (n = 35)......................203 A-19 Percent Response by Who Sold Soybean s to the Market Centers (n = 35).....................203 A-20 Percent Response to Who Transported Soybeans to the Market (n =35)........................203
14 A-21 Percent Response on Ownership of Inco me from Different Crops by Women and Men Farmers....................................................................................................................204 A-22 Chiseu Farmers perceived benefits from participating in the ERI project.....................205 A-23 How farmers in Bokosi perceived to have benefited from participating in the ERI project........................................................................................................................ ......206 D-1 The Research Methodology Framework..........................................................................241
15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Map of Malawi indicating its major ci ties and surrounding countries (Free Online Download: geography.about.com).....................................................................................36 2-1 Resource toConsumption Conceptual Framework. Adapted from Kaaria and Ashby, 2000.................................................................................................................... ...62 2-2 Masuku (left) and Baobab (right) propagat ed fruit trees at I CRAF Makoka nursery.......62 3-1 Map of Malawi indicating location of central and southern regions (Free Online Download: geography.about.com).....................................................................................73 3-2 The resource-to-consumption fram ework. (Internet source: CIAT 2006).........................74 4-1 Percentage Distribution of Farmers by type of Livestock Owned (n = 170)...................150 4-2 Percentage Distribution of Farmers by Non-enterprise Crops they Produced (n = 170).150 4-3 Crop Enterprises Implem ented by Farmers (n = 170).....................................................151 4-4 Percentage of OPV Mai ze Sold and Consumed by Farmers (LF, n=18; ADP, n=25)....151 4-5 Percentage of Total Income Controll ed by Women and Men Farmers after Selling OPV Maize (LF, n= 18; ADP, n=25)...............................................................................152 4-6 Average Price (MK) that Farmers Sold Groundnuts across Strategies (LF, n=18; TL, n=35; ADP, n=25)............................................................................................................152 4-7 Percentage of Total Amount of Inco me from Groundnuts Cont rolled by Women and Men farmers (LF, n=18; TL, n=35; ADP, n=25).............................................................153 4-8 Average Total Income (MK) Obtained from Beans (LF, n= 4; ERI, n=18; ADP, n=22).......................................................................................................................... ......153 4-9 Percentage of Total Amount of Income from Beans Controlled by Women and Men (LF, n= 4; ERI, n=18; ADP, n=22)..................................................................................154 4-10 Percentage of Total Amount Income from Soybeans Controlled by Men and Women (LF, n=3; TL, n=26; ADP, n=6)......................................................................................154 4-11 Some of the Vegetables Pro cessed by Farmers in Jali Group.........................................155 4-12 Average Total Income (MK) obtained by Farmers by Crops (n = 170)..........................155 4-13 Average amount of Income (MK) Cont rolled by Women across Crops (n = 137).........156
16 4-14 Investment in Food by Farmers across Stra tegies (ERI: n = 29; DD: n = 14; LF: n = 34; TL: n = 43; ADP: n = 50)..........................................................................................156 4-15 Investment in Chemical Fertilizer Farm ers across Strategies (ERI: n = 29; DD: n = 14; LF: n = 34; TL: n = 43; ADP: n = 50).......................................................................157 4-16 Investment in Livestock by Farmers acro ss Strategies (ERI: n = 29; DD: n = 14; LF: n = 34; TL: n = 43; ADP: n = 50)....................................................................................157 4-17 Investment in Children Education by Farm ers across Strategies (ERI: n = 29; DD: n = 14; LF: n = 34; TL: n = 43; ADP: n = 50)....................................................................158 4-18 Farmers Response on Changes on Sp ecific Gender Issues: Wife-Husband Relationships, Roles and Responsibili ties and Decision-Making among Married Farmers (n = 116)............................................................................................................158 5-1 Percentage Distribution of Farmers by Type of Soil Fertility Management Technologies Used (n = 170)...........................................................................................171 5-2 Percentage Distribution of Farmers who Used Chemical Fertilizer across Strategies (LF: n = 34, ERI: n = 29, DD: n = 14, TL: n = 43 and ADP: n = 50).............................171 5-3 Percentage Distribution of Farmers who Used Intercropping with Legumes and Crop Rotation Technologies across Strategies (L F: n = 34, ERI: n = 29, DD: n = 14, TL: n = 43 and ADP: n = 50).....................................................................................................172 5-4 Percentage Distribution of Farmers who Used Crop Residues, Animal and Compost Manure Technologies across Strategies (L F: n = 34, ERI: n = 29, DD: n = 14, TL: n = 43 and ADP: n = 50).....................................................................................................172 5-5 Percentage Distribution of Farmers who Used Soil Erosion Control Measures Technologies across Strategies (LF: n = 34, ERI: n = 29, DD: n = 14, TL: n = 43 and ADP: n = 50)................................................................................................................... .173 5-6 Percentage Distribution of Farmers who Used IPM and Agroforestry Technologies across Strategies (LF: n = 34, ERI: n = 29, DD: n = 14, TL: n = 43 and ADP: n = 50)..173 5-7. Percentage Distribution of Farmers who Used Crop Rotation across Strategies (LF: n = 34, ERI: n = 29, DD: n = 14, TL: n = 43 and ADP: n = 50)............................................174 B-1 Benefits derived by DD-Magomero farmers (n = 5).......................................................207 B-2 Benefits derived by DDChitukuko farmers (n = 10)......................................................208 B-3 Benefits derived by ERI fa rmers who managed dairy cow.............................................209 B-4. Benefits derived by ERI farmers who produced beans....................................................210 B-5. Benefits derived by ADP Chakhonje male farmers who managed improved goats...........211
17 B-6 Benefits derived by ADP Chakhonje fema le farmers who managed improved goats.....212 B-7 Benefits derived by ERI ma le farmers who managed pigs..............................................213 B-8 Benefits derived by ERI fema le farmers who managed pigs...........................................214 B-9 Benefits derived by ADP Chabvuwu ma le farmers who managed improved goats........215 B-10 Benefits ADP women farm ers derived from beans.........................................................216
18 ACRONYMS ACDI-CIDA Canadian Interna tional Development Agency ADD Agricultural Development Division ADMARC Agricultural Development and Marketing Corporation ASSMAG Association of Smallholde r Seed Multiplication Action Group CIAT International Centre for Tropical Agriculture FAO Food and Agricultural Organi zation of the United Nations GDP Gross Domestic Product ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre ICRISAT International Centre for Re search in Semi Arid Tropics IFAD International Fund fo r Agricultural Development IFM International Monetary Fund IITA International Institut e of Tropical Agriculture MAI Ministry of Agri culture and Irrigation MK Malawi Kwacha NAC National Aids Commission NASFAM National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi NDP National Development Policy NSO National Statistic Office of Malawi SARPN Southern African Regional Network SDNP Sustainable Deve lopment Network Program SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists SSA Sub Saharan Africa UF University of Florida UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women USAID United States Agency for International Development WRI World Resources Institute WHO World Health Organization
19 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIES FOR LINKI NG FARMERS TO MARKET: DISCOURSE ON GENDER EQUITY, COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT IN MALAWI By Kibiby Jabir Mtenga December 2007 Chair: Howard Ladewig Major: Agricultural Edu cation and Communication My research compared and analyzed strategies for linking farmers to market and impacts on women in Malawi. I identified 14 organizations with strategies for linking farmers to markets in Malawi. These strategies vari ed in terms of gender integration and their focus on soil fertility management and community empowerment. However, the research attempts to portray potential lessons from a few selected strategies for linking farmers to markets in Malawi, with a view to determining and analyzing the extent to which wo men participate and benefit from each strategy. In addition, I analyzed the trade-offs on soil fert ility management between food and cash crops. I used qualitative and quantitative research me thods to collect data from farmers both in groups and individually. A checklist was used to guide informal discussions with farmers and key informants, while formal questionnaires were used to collect information from farmers in groups and in a household survey. I conducted 17 farmers groups and interviewed 170 farmer households. I used institutional frameworks to compare qualitative data on specific themes predetermined to be of interest to this study. Th en, the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) was used to analyze data from household interviews.
20 My research found that the extent to which wo men farmers participated in the market and benefit from participating in th e market varied by enterprise and by strategy. Women derived more benefits from crop enterprises than from liv estock enterprises. On the other hand, I found that farmers invested more on soil fertility management technologies on food and cash crops. But, the data also show that farmers involved in these strategies are well above average in wealth and education than the ru ral poor Malawian farmers.
21 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background to the Problem Africa faces significant challenges that must be addressed if the agricultural sector is to make a significant contribution to increased f ood productivity and improved food security (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)1, 1999). Some of these challenges including a decline in soil fertility, the HIV/ AIDS crisis and gender inequality are causing significant demographic changes among the fa rming population (Barre tt et al., 2002; WRI, 2003). These changes also are affecting and lo wering returns from agricultural production. In Africa, the vital role women play in agricultural production is well-documented (UNIFEM, 1999; ACDI-CIDA, 2006). Women co mprise 70-80% of the full-time farmers responsible for the daily food supply (SARPN, 2 005; ACDI-CIDA, 2006). This important role of women in agricultural production implies that the success of agricultural production to improve food security and rural livelihoods will depend on womens access to productive resources and the assistance and training that women receive. Yet, studies consistently show that womens access to productive resources is le ss than that of men (USAID, 2004). Gender inequalities affect women in terms of less access to major resources and inputs such as fertilizers, manure, land, income, agricultural extens ion, training and education that could assist them in agricultural production acti vities (UNIFEM, 1999; Ba rrett et al., 2002; and Gladwin, 2003). Women also lack power to make decisions and/or to have access, control and benefit from these resources at household, co mmunity and national le vels (Sachs, 1996; Budelman and Defoer, 2002). 1 Full name of organizations can be found in the abbreviations section beginning on page 14
22 Equally, gender inequalities and limited access to socio-economic support services including health services, educat ion and infrastructure continue to make women the poorest of the poor (Green and Baden, 1994; Ngwira and Mkandawire, 2003; SDNP, 2007). Consequently, a high rate of poverty and food ins ecurity still exists to the majo rity of women and poor farmers in many African countries. The path out of th is poverty for most women requires appropriate frameworks that address their exclusion from social and economic mainstreams. Malawi is a drought-prone country that depends precariously on rain-fed agriculture for its economic development (ACDI-CIDA, 2006). Agri culture accounts for 38.6 % of the Malawi Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and it is still primarily for subsistence (ACDI-CIDA, 2006). Malawi typifies the experience of other Sub-Saharan African ( SSA) countries, where agriculture is predominantly carried out by women (ACDI-CIDA, 2006). However, with deterioration of its natural resource base, farmers--particularly women --in Malawi face major constraints that inhibit overall agricultural growth of the country. Women farmers in Malawi, much like other women elsewhere in Sub Saharan Africa (SSA), have faced serious challenges in impr oving agricultural production. These challenges include but are not limited to pe rsistent drought conditions, dec line in soil fert ility and less access to resources such as income, credit, land and labor; less educati on; less training through agricultural extension; and less access to market s and information on markets and prices (ACDICIDA, 2006). Generally, access to markets is crucial for small-scale women farmers who constitute much of the agricultural labor force in Malawi. Access to markets may increase income that women could use to sustain thei r household needs--parti cularly purchasing of agricultural inputs such as seed s, fertilizers and pesticides; food, clothing and other household assets; and investing in childrens education.
23 Studies conducted by ACDI-CIDA (2006) conclude d that the gender imbalance that exists in Malawi is one of the major contributing fact ors that perpetuates poverty and prevents women from improving their own well-being, their chil drens education, and their voice in decisions affecting their lives. As a result of this gender imbalance and many other factors, women continue to remain among the poorest of Malawians. Market reforms also have substantially aff ected women farmers in Malawi. Since 1971, marketing activities have been a sole respons ibility of the Agricu ltural Development and Marketing Corporation (ADMARC). ADMARC is a Malawian parastatal organization mandated to market agricultural produce and inputs (Kutengule et al., 20 07). Kutengule et al. (2007) assert that ADMARC was given a food security role in maize markets by acting as a buyer and seller in remote rura l areas providing grain storage across seasons and supporting a large marketing structure with distribution or mark et centers located in ur ban and rural areas. Over the years, ADMARC has deviated from its core mandate of agricultural development and food security to engage in other business activ ities such as investment in industrial activities in various sectors of the economy (Kydd and Christiansen, 1982; Harrigan, 1991). The importance of ADMARC in the marketing of agricultural commodities has declined since the late 1980s (Kutengule et al., 2007). Equally, ADM ARCs supply of inputs has been reduced to 10 percent of the countrys tota l input supply (Kherallah et al., 2001). Many reforms have liberalized agricultural markets over the last 20 years, a strate gy supported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank programs. In Malawi, market reforms were initiated in the 1980s and early 1990s with intention to increase farmers access to markets and to enable farmers to sell their produce to customers at reasonable prices (Gabre-Madhin, 2002). As part of the market reforms, the government of
24 Malawi also began allowing the private sector to operate freely and without price controls. However, a study by Gabre-Madhin (2002) indicates that market reforms have created more constraints and new challenges in agricultural marketing to the ma jority of farmers in Malawi. According to Gabre-Madhin (2002), some of th e challenges of the market reforms include changes in prices for agricultural produce and poor infrastructure (deterioration of rural roads), which have increased transport cost to the majori ty of farmers. Due to failure of ADMARC and impacts of market reforms, small-scale farmers ha ve had difficulty in selling their agricultural produce. Underlying the challenges from market reforms, smallholder farmers in Malawi must also deal with severe environm ental changes, population pressure reduced land av ailability and the impacts of HIV/AIDS. Each of these challenges has contribut ed to poverty and widespread food insecurity among the majority of Malawians. The government of Malawi has recognized the need to impr ove agricultural production for the countrys economic growth and poverty redu ction. Over the years, the government has instituted different policy reforms and devel opment strategies. According to ACDI-CIDA (2006), the government recently announced its longterm objectives for Malawi in its strategy document entitled Malawi Vision 2020 These objectives address: Food security, Fair and equitable distribution of wealth, A sustainable managed environment, Development of smallholder agriculture, and Reliance on private sector and competitive ma rkets to provide incentives for growth. Many strategic plans to redress problems that women face in Malawi have been developed and implemented. The government of Malawi itse lf had to re-orient its structures and reexamine the national development policies (NDP) to reflect on the different needs of women and
25 men, and for the purpose of promoting gender equity and empowering rural communities to take a proactive role in ag ricultural production. Nonetheless, the national and international organizations in Malawi put much emphasis on the promotion of crops and livestock (agroenterpr ises) through market li nks that could benefit farmers in terms of both food security and inco me generation. Dorward and Kydd (2005) point out that promoting access of poor farmers to ava ilable markets could have a direct impact on increased income of the rural poor who derive si gnificant parts of their income as farmers or farm laborers. Promoting access to available ma rkets could also improve the agricultural and economic growth of Malawi. Generally, linking farmers to markets has now become an important strategy for many organizations that work at the grassroots level wi th rural communities. For instance, one of the strategies of the United States Agency for International Developmen t (USAID) for supporting agricultural development focuse s on linking producers to markets. The overall goal of the USAID strategy is to improve small-scale produc ers competitiveness and efficiency in the marketing activities. The Citizen Network for Foreign Affairs (CNFA) is a Washington, DCbased, non-partisan, not-for-profit organization dedicated to stimulating economic growth around the world by nurturing entrepreneurship, private enterprise, and market linkages CNFA is implementing the Agrodealer program in Ma lawi, Kenya and Tanzania that aims at strengthening the agricultural input supply and out put markets for improved food security and income of small holder farmers. FAO also ha s a program on agricultura l marketing specifying different models and case studies to which farmers have been li nked to markets worldwide. Overall, linking farmers to markets is viewed as one of the pragmatic strategies for promoting gender equity, involving mo re women as beneficiaries and in sustainable utilization of
26 natural resources. For the last five years, many organizations in Malawi have linked farmers to different markets. In fact, or ganizations such as the National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi (NASFAM) and the Association of Smallholder Seed Mu ltiplication Action Group (ASSMAG) have more than five years experience in linking farmers to different markets. On the other hand, each organization that links farmers to markets in Malawi is unique in terms of the strategies they have used to link farmers to market. To-date, there are very few studies documenting the impacts of these varied strategies on rural co mmunities and how women have been involved and derived benefit from each strategy. This study attempts to portray useful lessons from a few selected strategies for linking farmers to markets in Malawi, with a view to determining the extent to which women pa rticipate and benefit from each strategy. Study Area Background Malawi is a small country covering an area of 118,484 square kilome ters or 45,747 square miles (Economic Intelligence Unit, 1995). It is located in southeas t Africa and bordered by Mozambique, Zambia, and Tanzania (Figure 1-1). The country is divided into three regions (central, northern and southe rn) and eight Agricultural Deve lopment Divisions (ADDs) which include Karonga, Mzuzu, Kasungu, Salima, Lilongw e, Machinga, Blantyre and Shire Valley. This study was conducted in two regions: the ce ntral and southern regions (covering Kasungu, Lilongwe and Blantyre ADDs) and eight districts (Mchinji, L ilongwe, Dowa, Kasungu, Ntcheu, Zomba, Chiradzulu and Balaka). According to the 2004 estimates (FAO, 2004; NSO, 2007), the country has a population of about 12.3 million people with an annual growth rate of 2.6%. The population density is 105 persons per square kilometer. At a regional level, the Northern Region is the least densely populated with 46 persons per square kilometer. The Southern Region is the most densely
27 populated with 146 persons per square kilome ter followed by the Central Region with 113 persons per square kilometer. Malawi's climate is generally subtropical with a diverse agroecology. A single rainy season runs from November through April. On average, the c ountry receives annual precipitation ranging from 600 to 2000mm (Gilbert et al., 2002). Average rainfall varies by month, however, there is little to no rainfall throughout most of the country--particularly from May through October. According to G ough et al. (2002), in 1991, 1993 and 2003-2006 Malawi faced severe drought conditions that resulted in severe food shortages and chronic food insecurity among the majority of rural smallholders However, food insecurity has also resulted from other factors such as too much depende ncy on maize as major staple food and production on small farm sizes. Malawians depend mainly on maize as a stap le food. A study by Gilbert et al. (2002) documented that over 90 % of the total cultivated land area in Malawi is planted with maize-mostly by resource-poor farmers. For the past four years Malawi has faced persistent drought conditions that affected the majo rity of smallholder farmers who cultivated large land area with maize. The drought, in turn, has resulted in chro nic food insecurity for the majority of people who depend on maize as staple food. In addition, farms are extremely small with ma ny farms less than a half hectare (Anderson, 2002). Nevertheless, some farmers produce a vari ety of crops including maize (corn), beans, rice, soybeans, cassava, tobacco, and groundnuts (p eanuts). Smallholder farmers produce these crops primarily for food and sell their surplus fo r income. According to FAO (2004), the country exports tobacco, sugar and tea as its three major cash crops.
28 According to Anderson (2002), the typical farm ing system in Malawi is a maize-based system, often intercropped or rotated with a legume crop such as beans, soybeans, groundnuts, cowpeas and pigeon peas. The legumes are used as relish in the diet, but farmers sell their surplus for income. Farmers also use mixed /intercropping and crop rotation systems as a means to enrich soil fertility. A sole cropping system is mostly practiced on la rge farms for crops such as tobacco, cotton, pulses, tea and rice. Some households also part icipate in off-farm activities such as working in grocery stores, selling food in restaurants, selling used clothes, purchase and sale of agricultural commodities, and cas ual labor, which is commonly known as Ganyu Livestock, on the other hand, constitute a relativ ely small sub-sector wi thin agriculture in Malawi and contribute about seven percent of the total countrys GDP. According to Matanya et al. (1998), the major constraint to the growth of livesto ck sub-sector has been lack of land for grazing or feed production. However, farmers also face other constraints that contribute to the poor growth of the livestock sub-sector incl uding lack of money to invest in livestock management, lack of knowledge on feed formula tion, poor management, high cost of artificial insemination and lack of markets. In general, some of the challenges to the im provement in agricultura l production in Malawi are viewed as unreliable rainfa ll, poor extension services, limi ted access to credit and input, impact of HIV/AIDS, low prices for farm produ ce and poor marketing channels (Estrada et al. 2005). The dependency on rain-fed agriculture, ofte n with unreliable rain fall, and production on small land sizes have contributed to the poor grow th of the agricultural s ector of the country. Deeply entrenched poverty is a major obstacle to Malawis development and overall economic growth (IFAD, 2007). Being one of the poorest c ountries in Africa, poverty is widespread in rural areas, where agriculture is the major source of livelihood.
29 On the other hand, agricultural extension systems aim to inform farmers about new technologies and opportunities (including access to markets, inputs and credit). New technologies and access to markets, inputs and cred it could help farmers attain better returns from agricultural production activit ies. But, the agricultural extension systems in Africa have been criticized as being very in effective in reaching the majority of poor farmers (Mtenga, 1997). In Malawi, women, when compared to men, are found to have much poorer access to extension services such as training meeti ngs and research activities (SARPN 2007). Hence, there is a need to fully understand relevant gender issues in or der to help both men and women understand the importance of their participation in the extensio n services if they are to improve agricultural production, food security and income. Lack of access to credit and inputs is a key constraint to the adoption of many useful agricultural technologies in Mala wi. With a deteriorating natu ral resource base, farmers cannot attain better crop yields without using soil fertil ity management technolo gies (Thangata et al., 2002). With increases in price for the chemical fertilizer, farmers cannot afford to buy the amount of fertilizer r ecommended by extension workers. The Malawi government has been offering subsidies on chemical fertilizer to en able farmers to purchas e enough to apply on their farms. Even with a subsidized price at 900 Malawi Kwacha (MK) (equivalent to US$ 6.872) per bag of fertilizer, the majority of farmers--par ticularly women--cannot afford to buy chemical fertilizer. With the need to replenish soil fertility and th e high cost of chemical fertilizer in Malawi, some researchers believe that agroforestry te chnologies have the potential to improve soil fertility through the incr ease of soil organic matter and biological N2 fixing from nitrogen fixing 2 1 US $ = 131MK in 2006
30 tree species (Thangata et al., 2002) The World Agroforestry Ce ntre (ICRAF) has tested and disseminated different agroforestry technologies in Malawi to help farmers improve soil fertility (ICRAF, 2003, 2004). Some of these technolo gies include improved fallows, relay cropping, intercropping/mixed cropping and bi omass transfer. However, when gender comes into play, the success of agroforestry technol ogies is likely to depend on it s adoption by rural women--the major food producers in Malawi. Chapter Five of this study examines the adoption of agroforestry technologies by women farmers participating in the st rategies for linking farmers to market. With regard to pandemic diseases, Malawi is one of the countries in the southern Africa region that has the highest HIV in fection rates (NAC, 2003). The epidemic has severely affected the agricultural sector, with the highest prev alence rate found between ages 15-49. Women and girls become more vulnerable to HIV infection wh ich seems to increase in times of food crisis and poverty (NAC, 2003). Genera lly, the HIV/AIDS tragedy ha s increased the workload on women. In spite of the important role that women play in agricultural acti vities, they also have to bear much responsibility for taking care of th e sick and orphans and participating in funeral ceremonies. All these have st rong impacts on the time availabl e for agricultural production activities, area planted, crop yields and overall food security for the affected households. Research Objectives The overall objective of this study was to compare and analyze strategies for linking farmers to market in order to share lessons and experiences on how to involve and empower women to participate in the ma rketing activities, and how to benefit women involved while improving the soil natural resource base. The specific objectives were as follows: 1. To identify and analyze strategi es used by organizations to link farmers to market using the institutional framework.
31 2. To determine and analyze the extent to whic h women farmers participate in the market. 3. To determine what benefits women farmers de rive from participating in the market. 4. To analyze the trade off on soil fertility ma nagement technologies between food and cash crops. Research Questions a) What types of market linkage strategi es/models are implemented in Malawi? b) What are the benefits, if any, for womens participation in different market linkage strategies? c) Which strategies most benefit women? d) What enterprises are implemented by farm ers across market-linkage strategies? e) What enterprises most benefit women? f) To which markets do women sell their produce? g) On which crops did farmers mostly use soil fertility management technologies? Operational Definitions of Terms Gender. Gender is used to describe the charact eristics, roles and responsibilities of women and men, boys and girls, which are socially constructed. Often, gender relates to how we are perceived and expected to think and act as women and men because of the way our societies are organized and not because of our biological differences (WHO, 1998). Gender-disaggregated activity calendar. A gender-disaggregated activity calendar is a calendar that allows tasks (pr oductive, reproductive, maintenan ce and community activities) to be identified by sex. The activity calendar may al so be used to show the age group involved in the activities for instance, boys and/ or girls (R ao et al. 1991). This research focused on a seasonal calendar for production and ma rketing activities by farmers by sex. Gender analysis. Gender analysis refers to the variety of methods used to understand the relationships between men and women, their acce ss to resources, their activities, and the
32 constraints they face relative to each other. Gend er analysis provides information that recognizes that gender and its relationship w ith race, ethnicity, culture, class, age, disability, and/or other status is important in understan ding the different patterns of invol vement, behavior and activities that women and men have in economic, soci al and legal structur es (ACDI-CIDA, 2007). Community empowerment. Community empowerment is a multi-dimensional social process that helps to foster th e capacity of people to implement different activities that are of importance in their own lives and their communities (Page and Czuba, 1999). Social capital. Social capital is a resource, a propens ity for mutual beneficial collective action. Enterprise/Agroenterprise. An agricultural activity ca rried out for food and income generation with support from organizational strate gies for linking farmers to market. In this study agroenterprise and enterpri se are used interchangeably. Non-enterprise. An agricultural activity carrie d out for food and income generation without support from organizational stra tegies for linking farmers to market. Participation in the market This study defines participation in the markets, which is often socially constructed/has gender implicatio ns, based on the following variables that would be measured individually: Who sells to the market In which markets farmers sell Who transports produce to markets Who owns income at the household level Who decides on the use of income
33 Limitations of the Study Several constraints may have limited the st udy. Factors such as environment (drought) may have affected the production, management and marketing activities for different agroenterprises in which farmers--particularly women--were involved. Language also may have imposed some resear ch biases and complicated the research findings. To reduce this bias, the researcher used the following research methods: Use of trained enumerators and translators. Triangulation of research methods such as fo cus group discussions, household interviews and participant observation. Peer reviewing involving the res earcher, CIAT and University of Florida (UF) mentors, field assistants and representatives from different organizations. Significance of the Study Women play an important role in agricultu re in Africa. They produce between 60 and 80 percent of the food in most developing countries and are responsible for half of the world's food production. However, gender disp arities, which are very common and widespread in African countries, undermine recognition of women and their contributions in agricultural production. Gender disparities affect African women and poor farmers in term s of access to and control of livelihood resources (natural, human, social, financ ial and physical resources), benefits accrued from these resources and their active partic ipation in the decision-making. Soils are a significant part of the agricultu ral environment and should be used in a sustainable manner to improve the livelihoods and f ood security of the majority of the rural poor. Malawi, like many countries in SSA, faces severe declines in soil fertility. Sustainable management of soils is very important for improved food security and income of rural smallholder farmers.
34 Access to market may increase farmers incentive s to invest in soil fertility management. If small-scale farmers have the resources, they are likely to adopt and invest in soil fertility management technologies for crops that lead to an improvement in food security and increase in income. Moreover, access to markets by farmers ma y ensure security of resource/assets (labor, land and capital, technol ogy management and entrepreneurial sk ills) for sustainability of rural livelihoods. In sum, the research is significant because it recognizes the critical role that women play in agricultural production, and attempts to draw potential lessons and experiences on how strategies for linking farmers to market benefit women fa rmers. Lessons and experiences from the research would be crucial and useful not only to organizations involved in this research, but to other organizations in Malawi and elsewhere in Africa that struggle to support farmers inititiatives to ending hunger and poverty. Rese arch recommendations will focus on how best the strategies for linking farmers to market c ould be implemented and coordinated to have a wider reach and impacts upon farmer s livelihood in Malawi. Chapter Summary Although Malawi women play an important role in agricultural pr oduction they face many constraints in trying to improve agricultural production and overall economic growth. One solution to overcoming such constraints is to link women farmers in ways that could involve and empower women farmers as beneficiaries, a nd improve access to markets by farmers as an economic incentive for them to invest better in soil fertility management. Chapter One briefly described the study area in terms of its loca tion, population density, climate and major crops produced by farmers. It also described the major farming systems used by farmers in Malawi and major challenges that farmers face for improved agricultural production.
35 Chapter One provided research objectives, majo r questions of interest to this research, operational definitions of specific terms, lim itations of the study, and the significance of conducting the study.
36 Figure 1-1. Map of Malawi indicating its majo r cities and surrounding countries (Free Online Download: geography.about.com)
37 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The Importance of Agriculture to th e Economic Development of Africa Although the critical role of agriculture in Africas development is well documented and acknowledged universally, its development is still very challenging. The performance of agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has been poor as its growth has averaged less than two percent for more than the 40 pa st years (Cleaver, 1997). The lim ited agricultural growth has not kept pace with population growth, which is more th an three percent per year (Cleaver, 1997). In addition, food production per capita is declining even with a rapid increase in food imports (up to 10 percent per year). Many researchers now agree that agricultural systems in SSA face challenges in environmental issues (including soils, water, forests and pasture), limited access to new agricultural technologies, weak markets and inadequate use of agricultural inputs (Cleaver, 1997; IFDC, 2006). The International Ce nter for Soil Fertility and Ag ricultural Development (IFDC) (2006) emphasized that there are best agricultural technologies that have been developed to increase productivity in Africa, but farmers have not adopted them widely because they have not had access to inputs such as improved seed and fertilizer. In addition, the HIV/AIDS crisis and ge nder inequality are causing significant demographic changes among the farming populati on (Barrett et al., 2002 ; WRI, 2003). Women now comprise between 70-80% of the full-time farmers responsible for the daily food supply (SARPN, 2005; ACDI-CIDA, 2006). This important role of women in agricultural production implies that the success of agri cultural production to improve f ood security and rural livelihoods will depend on womens access to productive resources and the assistance and training that women receive.
38 The implications of these and other challenges are that agriculture--w hich is critical to Africas food sufficiency, economic, social and ru ral development--has not yet achieved these intended objectives in many Afri can countries. That is why ma ny organizations now put much emphasis on the development and implementation of agricultural input-output market strategies for the purpose of not only increasing market a ccess by farmers for income earning, but also to improve the soil resource base and overall f ood production and livelihood security of rural communities. The agricultural sector of Malawi has faced major setbacks over the 40 past years (Kherallah and Govindan, 1997; Dorward a nd Kydd, 2004). Changes in macro-economic stabilization programs and the role government play ed in marketing have c ontributed to farmers limited access to market and change in prices for agricultural commodities (MAI, 2000; Dorward and Kydd, 2004). To deal with these and many ot her challenges, the government of Malawi has structured its agricultural policies for the purpos e not only of improving the agricultural growth of the country but also to benefit majorities of rural people, who constitute the large percentage of smallholder farmers. Different institutional arrangements have been made by both government and non governmental organizations ( NGOs) to address many of the challenges that farmers are still facing in agri cultural production and marketing. Over the years, agricultural research a nd developmental organizations have made significant contributions to agricu ltural productivity for small-scal e farmers in Malawi (Sanginga et al., 2004; IITA, 2004; ICRAF, 200 3; 2004). However, more recent experiences indicate that agricultural growth depe nds on expansion of mark et opportunities that in corporate profitability and competitiveness (Sanginga et al., 2004; Diao and Hazell, 2004). It is increasingly evident
39 that small-scale farmers key concerns would not only be to improve ag ricultural production for household food security, but also increas e their access to better markets. Gender and Agriculture in Africa Gender refers to the social differences in roles and responsibi lities between men and women that are changeable over time and have wide variations within and between cultures (Feldstein and Poats, 1989; Spring, 1995; WHO, 1998; Russo et al., 1989; Mukhopadhyay et al., 1999; Spring, 2003) According to Rao et al (1991), gender inequalities exist in many developing countries and have c ontributed to the growing trend of widening disparities between men and women from the access to resources to the distribution of benefits such as income, assets and delivery of services. Traditionally, women in Malawi exemplify th e characteristics of women in many other African countries, where their major role ha s been perceived to be both reproductive and productive. According to Green and Baden (1994), women in Ma lawi hold res ponsibilities for the activities related to social reproduction such as childcare, family health care, fetching water and firewood, and food preparations. They are also responsible for produc tive activities such as production of crops and management of livestock for food and income, processing and marketing of agricultural produce and particip ation in wage/casual employment ( Ganyu ) for additional income. According to FAO (2007b) mens participati on in agricultural produc tion is declining, often due to male migration from rural areas to ur ban towns and cities in search of paid formal employment. As mens participation in agricult ural production declines, the role of women in agricultural production has become even more significant. According to UNIFEM (1999) women produce up to 80% of the food in most deve loping countries and are responsible for half of the world's food production.
40 Like elsewhere in SSA, women in Malawi play a critical role in ag ricultural pr oduction in that they constitute 70% of full-time farmers and are seen to dominate the agricultural sector, which is the basis of Malawis economy (ACDI-CIDA, 2007; SARPN, 2007). Currently, women farmers in Malawi perform 87% of agri cultural labor and produc e 75% of the nations food supply (SARPN, 2007). Even with the vital role they play as food producers and providers, women farmers are seen to have more difficulties than men in gaining access to resources such as land, credit, education and ag ricultural extension services. In order for women and poor farmers--who are major producers and laborers--to make significant improvements in agricultural productivity and food security, they need to have better access to productive resources, markets and benef its accrued from agricultural activities. Emphasizing gender issues in agricultural and development activities could ensure equitable distribution of labor and benefits Social and entrepreneurial or ganization are key to strengthen and empower women and poor farmers to take a proactive role in the production, management and marketing activities and in the decisionmaking at household and community levels. The following section presents the resear ch conceptual framework describing the interrelationships between res ources, production, consumption a nd marketing that are required for women and poor farmers to improve food secur ity and income. Subsequent sections provide a review of literature on gender and access to resources and markets, gender and decision making, the need for soil fertility management and community empowerment--all as important elements of the research conceptual framewor k. The last section describes the activities implemented by the organizations and strategi es used to link farmers to markets. The Research Conceptual Framework The researcher adapted and modified the CIAT resource-to-consumption framework (Figure 2-1) to guide this research project. CIAT, through the Enabling Rural Innovation
41 approach, enhances the capacity of the ru ral poor to improve th eir livelihoods, while implementing sustainable management of natu ral and other resources (Kaaria, 2005). The resource-to-consumption (R-to-C) framework e xpands conventional prod uction to consumption and natural resource management based on community assets to meet the needs of food production and income generation of the farm families (Kaaria and Ashby, 2000; Kaaria, 2005), thus interconnecting the links between Res ources, Production, Consumption and Marketing paradigms. The R-to-C framework aims to explain potential resources that farmers require to establish crop and livestock enterprises and the extent to which wome n participate in production and marketing activities. Organizing farmers into groups and building their capacity in production and marketing skills is considered very significan t if farmers are to exploit existing potential markets and have stronger negotiation power. Gende r is an important crosscutting issue as well as an empowering strategy for women. The resear ch and development services are very crucial in the R-to-C process particularly in identify ing potential enterprises that farmers could get involved in for food secur ity and income generation. There are several categories of resources that are listed within the R-to-C framework. This study builds on the importance and av ailability of these resources for effective establishment and sustained management of different enterprises and also in addressing issues related to soil fertility management technologies. The framewor k also indicates the li nks between sustainable natural resource management, in creased production for food securi ty and income. Sustainable utilization of natural resources could help impr ove the soil natural resource base and overall, increased food security and income (Kaaria and Ashby, 2000). Thus, for more sustainability and
42 wider impacts, soil fertility management should be an integral part of all strategies for linking farmers to market. Processing and packaging could ensure that the quantity pr oduced lasts longer and could be sold at a higher market price compared to wh en farmers sold right after harvest at much a lower price. But, due to limited resources, th e majority of farmers cannot afford the costs associated with the processing and packaging ac tivities. Generally, increase in income by farmers could also increase th e asset base, improve household we lfare (education, nutrition and clothing), enhance farmers ability to meet production and market ing costs and overall increase farmers incentives to re-invest in soil fertil ity management for both food and cash enterprises. The R-to-C framework is CIATs approach wh ich aims to meet food security needs while focusing on the production of crops and/or prod ucts that have a well-identified market opportunity (Kaaria and Ashby, 2000). Mutual lear ning among all participa ting stakeholders is crucial to empower rural communities and to create a sustained, collective capacity for innovation focusing on improving livelihoods and the ma nagement of natural resources. CIATs R-to-C framework could complement other organi zational approaches--which implement slightly different approaches--for improved soil quality, food security and income of rural communities. Gender and Womens Access to Resources for Agricultural Production Worldwide research experiences suggest that farmers incentives to participate in agricultural production activities depend on the amount and level of access and control they have over major resources for agricultural production a nd/or benefits accrued from consumption and marketing (Place and Hazell, 1993; Besley, 1995; Sachs, 1995; Gavian and Fafchamps, 1996; Reij et al., 1996; Sjaastad and Bromley, 1997; Fe rnandez, 1998; Templeton and Scher, 1999; Reij and Waters-Bayer, 2001). Major resources in clude natural, human, social, financial and physical resources and support systems. Examples of these resources may include but are not
43 limited to agricultural inputs, agricultural exte nsion and market infrastructure for improved access to internal local a nd central markets. In many African countries, re search experiences show that women and poor farmers have limited access to productive resources and support services (Amoloza, 1998). According to de Haan (2001) and Njuguna and Valdivia (2005), la ck of access to and control over productive resources constrains women and poor farmers from participating in agricu ltural activities. In Malawi, womens limited access to essential agri cultural productive resources such as land, labor, and agricultural services is viewed as one of the factors constraining women and poor farmers from participating in many agricultural technologies (G reen and Baden, 1994), which in turn, reduces womens vital cont ribution to improved agricultur al production for food security and income. The last two decades, however, have seen a growing consensus on the need for new ways to work with local communities--particularly women--to improve the management of natural resources for improved agricultural production (Sch mink, 2003; FAO, 2004). Major attention is now being placed on the integration of gender fo r the purpose of involving the majority of women as beneficiaries of agri cultural technologies and for imp roved livelihoods of rural poor farmers. Gender and Decision-Making in Agriculture Social and economic developments have always been linked to the active participation of women in decision-making processes (IDRC, 2007). A study by Wakefield (2004) in the Afghanistan Panjao Islamic community found that local level gender roles, responsibilities and norms determine the type of decisions that differe nt men and women are entitled to participate in and have influence and control over.
44 To date, however, the majority of women in general play a marginal role in the decision making process in rural communities in many parts of Africa. In fact, Tiruneh et al. (2001) contend that female-headed households may be more affected in terms of resources (land, labor and capital) when compared to their fellow married women. They also point out that the success of any agricultural technologies is affected by who owns productive reso urces, who decides what to produce, and how much to produce and sell. Many writers worldwide have documented that an explicit integrat ion of gender into research and development activities could help to address gender inequalities that exist in many societies. Spring (1995, 2003) points out that the integration of gender could provide a critical analysis and an understanding of th e roles that women and men play within a given context. The analysis on gender also needs to reflect the adoption and re-inves tment patterns that women and men choose to make. For example, research conducted by Kaaria and Ashby (2000) indicates that some agricultural technologies previously introduced to farmers have had considerable impacts on increasing labor demand on women farmer s, or shifting the a ccess and control over benefits from those technologi es to men. Women are unlikely to participate actively in agricultural technologie s that add more to their workload. Lilja and Ashby (1999) believe that gender anal ysis could help in the identification of potential links between and among different stakeholders in ag ricultural production. For this reason, the emphasis on gender must go beyond what can be done to better involve only men and women and include all other stak eholder groups that are involved in agricultural production. Lilja and Ashby (1999) suggest that gender analys is could be helpful in the following ways: Predicting how different members of the soci ety or the household would be affected by different development efforts, and to what extent these members would be able to participate and reap benefits from development efforts,
45 Forecasting whether or not the policy, program or project would be as efficient, effective, or equitable as possible for appr opriate planning and policy dialogue. According to Lilja and Ashby (1999), gender analys is could be integrated in the research and development in the following three ways: Diagnostic Gender Analysis: Diagnose stakeh olders different problems and preferences by gender that may not be perceived as obsta cles to the adoption and re-investment in technological solutions. Design-oriented Gender Analysis: Describe stakeholders cons traints, needs and differences by gender. Research and development paths are th en designed to take into account gender-based constraints, needs and pr eferences. This type of analysis may necessitate development of different technol ogies and dissemination methods for men and women farmers. Transfer-oriented Gender Analysis: Describe stakeholders gender differences in their problems and preferences. Different adop tion and dissemination pa ths are designed to overcome access to and adoption of a particular technology of similar importance to men and women. This analysis results in the sa me technologies being disseminated to men and women in different ways. Gender assessment tools often are used to re veal what activities different types of stakeholders carry out and what type of resources, benefits an d incentives different types of stakeholders have access to and control over (R ao et al., 1991; Spring, 1995). Rao et al (1991) emphasized the importance of using gender-disaggr egated activity calend ars to determine the roles and responsibilities of women and men in different development activities. This present research used gender-disaggregated activity cale ndars to understand the role of both women and men farmers in the production, management and marketing activities of different crops and livestock enterprises. The researcher also used benefits diagrams to document types of benefit that farmers derived from those enterprises. An example of gender-d isaggregated activity calendar would be livestock management activi ties such as feeding, watering, construction of animal houses and selling of livestock to the ma rkets. Activities are carried out by women and
46 men farmers separately or jointly as married couples and provide clues towards appropriate intervention points. Trends in Agricultural Marketing The Role of Agricultural Marketing For many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa ( SSA), agriculture is central to economic growth as well as poverty reduction. The urgency for increased farm pro duction is not unique to Africa or to the factors that are inhibiting its agricultural development. For many years researchers have been examining the factors dete rring the growth of the agricultural sector in developing nations. Bates (2005) reports some of these factors are related to the farmers physical environment as well as the socio-economic conditions. Recently, a consensus has emerged that the most important of these factor s is the economic incentiv es offered to producers (Townsend, 1999; Bates, 2005). The role of ag ricultural marketing is to improve economic incentives for smallholder farmers to invest in so il fertility management and overall agricultural growth in many countries in SSA. Structural Adjustment and Chan ges in the Marketing Systems The World Bank first applied the term structur al adjustment to describe its program of policy-based lending which began in the early 1980s. The objectives of the structural adjustment program were not confined to restoring macroeconomic balance but were intended to stimulate economic growth by removing distortions in the economy resulting from government intervention and central control over markets and labor (Crawfor d, 1997). Structural adjustments brought many dilemmas to the African governments --particularly as relates to markets because most of them did not know what to do w ith government marketing institutions. In the case of Malawi prior to 1981, the gove rnment through the Agricultural Development and Marketing Corporation (ADMARC) impact ed smallholder agricultural production and
47 marketing. ADMARC had a major responsibility for distributing inputs to and purchasing outputs from smallholder farmers at guaranteed but very low fixe d prices and sold produce at higher prices on the world market to earn larger profits (Kherallah and Govindan, 1997; Uttaro, 2002). ADMARC also sold subsidized inputs to farmers. Malawi, like many other countries in SSA, face d severe economic imbalances that forced it to embark on a series of structural adjust ments and macro-stabilization programs supported by donor organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) (Kherallah and Govindan, 1997). Pressured by th e structural adjustment programs, Malawi liberalized the marketing of both its exporta ble and food crops. The role of ADMARC in agricultural marketing gradually decreased as the private sector slowly took over responsibilities in marketing of agricultural produce (Uttaro, 2002 ). As a result of all these adjustments smallholder farmers in many rural communities have less access to markets. The impacts of structural adjustments in Africa in general, and Malawi in particular, have been widely documented (Gladwin, 1991). Howeve r, looking at the posi tive and negative sides of structural adjustment programs, Africa ha s experienced more negative impacts than the positive contributions these adjustments have had on the livelihoods of the majorities of smallholder farmers (Gladwin, 1991, 2002; Khera llah and Govindan, 1997). The effects of structural adjustment programs have b een extensive on women and poor farmers. Gender and Access to Markets Many writers continue to recognize that farmer s participation in agricultural production activities depends largely on access and control they have over major resources (natural, human, social, financial and physical resources). Of major importance to farmers is the access to local and central markets (Place and Hazell, 1993; Besl ey, 1995; Sachs, 1995; Gavian and Fafchamps, 1996; Reij et al. 1996; Sjaastad and Bromley, 1997; Fernandez, 1998; Templeton and Scher,
48 1999; Reij and Waters-Bayer, 2001). According to Amoloza (1998) and Mtenga et al. (2005b), the majority of women and poor farmers in so me of the African countries have had limited access to markets particularly thos e located at regional (central) le vels. In this research I found that constraints to womens access to central mark ets in Malawi were distance to the market, lack of marketing skills and household responsibilit ies--all aggravated by gender inequalities. In general, access to markets provides inco me to farmers that could increase their incentives to improve soil fertil ity and agricultural pr oductivity (Barrett et al. 2002; IFDC, 2006). An IFDC (International Center for Soil Fertility and Agricultural Development) research has linked more than 100,000 farmers to different ma rkets in West African countries (IFDC, 2006). IFDC experiences in West African countries sh ow that improved technologies can work when both inputs and markets are available. Equally, the Citizen Network for Foreign Affairs (CNFA) has linked farmers to input-output markets in ea stern and southern African countries including Malawi through the established Agrodealer networks (CNFA, 2005). Agrodealers are rural entrepreneurs/farmers who sell inputs such as fer tilizer, pesticides, seeds, tools, and provide valuable technical and market in formation to farm communities. Research on gender dynamics elsewhere in Afri ca have shown that when a crop enters the market economy, men are likely to take over pr ofitable crops from women (Quisumbing et al., 1995; Quisumbing, 1996; Kaaria and Ashby, 2000; Cornwall, 2003). However, many researchers believe that integrat ing gender into agricultural produc tion activities could help break the gender divide on income benefits between men and women. Based on these assertions, strategies for linking farmers to market that e xplicitly integrate gender are likely to benefit women more than men.
49 In view of the critical role of agriculture in the economi c development of many countries in Africa, many organizations (nat ional and international) have initiated market interventions with the purpose of linking farmer s to markets. Strategies for linking farmers to markets aim to support farmers access to better markets for im proved agricultural production, food security and income. However, as Henao and Baanante (1999) pointed out, increase d production particularly of cereals crops would continue to deplete the nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium nutrients from the soil if no appropriate measures are taken to replenish th e lost nutrients. In order for different organiza tions to come up with appropria te market interventions, they also must engage in continuous on-farm experi mentation for selecting appropriate crops and livestock and in conducting market research for market improvement based on consumer preferences and needs. These activities, how ever, require the support of many key players (national research institutes, agri cultural institutes, agricultural extension and the private sector) in terms of conducting appropria te collaborative research on crops, livestock and potential markets, and also in terms of providing fa rmers with the necessary technical support and monitoring and evaluation, whic h are critical elements of research for development. Soil Fertility Management Soil fertility is the number one natural resource in Africa; yet its depletion on smallholder farms has led to stagnant or decreasing per cap ita food production all over Africa during the last two decades (Gladwin, 2002). A decrease in per capita food production directly affects economic growth, social improvement, and tr ade in Africa (Henao and Baanante, 1999). According to Henao and Baanante (1999), in 1993 the difference betw een nutrient inputs and nutrient losses in the con tinent ranged from kilogram s of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium (NPK) per hectare per year in South Africa to kilograms in Rwanda. Malawi, in particular, has experienced rates of nutrient depletion above 100 kilograms of NPK per hectare
50 per year (IFDC, 2006). As reported by IFDC (2006) nutrient mining in Africa has increased in cereals such as rice and maize and in tuber cr ops such as potatoes, cassava and yams. This suggests that any effort to increase production --particularly cereals a nd tuber crops--and reduce hunger in Africa must address the severely depleted soils. In Malawi, continuous soil fertil ity degradation is the most cr itical problem constraining food production and overall agricultural develo pment (ICRISAT, 2001; Uttaro, 2002; Tchale, 2003). Malawi is one of the African countries w ith the highest estimated losses for NPK, which are very important soil nutrients (Henao a nd Baanante, 1999). Continuous cropping of cereals and tubers, limited use of crop rotation system s with legumes, inapprop riate soil conservation practices, deforestation and inad equate use of fertilizer are ma jor contributing factors to the decline in soil fertility in Africa (Henao and Baanante, 1999; Tchale, 2003). Underlying these are weak input and output marketing systems that could reduce farmers economic incentives to improve soil fertility (IFDC, 2006). IFDC (2006) emphasized building rural input markets to improve farmer access to affordable fertilizer for improving the heath of the soil and for increased production and income. Nutrient depletion and land degradation continue at even much higher rates, which is one of the major factors that has c onstrained farmers in Malawi from growing enough food to sustain an ever-increasing population in the country (Henao and Baanante, 1999). This implies that national and international orga nizations and donors should addr ess the threat of nutrient depletion and land degradation. Moreover, stra tegies for linking farmers to market are among the potential programs that aim to improve access to output market by farmers as an incentive to improve soil fertility and increase in pr oductivity. As emphasized by IFDC (2006):
51 unless markets are available, farmers have no incentive to increas e productivity. No farmer will invest in better seed s or fertilizer if there is a risk he/she can not sell his/her product. Over the years, Malawi has made many effo rts in disseminating different soil fertility management technologies including agroforestr y, chemical fertilizer, livestock and compost manure, and the use of terraces and vertiver grasses. A study by Uttaro (2002), however, found that farmers prefer to use chemical fertilizer fo r higher crop yields over su ch organic alternatives as intercropping with grain legumes, agroforest ry innovations, compost and animal manures. The government of Malawi continues to em phasize the importance of using chemical fertilizer to obtain better crop yields. But, the cost per fertiliz er bag has been significantly higher than farmers can afford to provide enough fertilizer Realizing the need fo r fertilizer use and the economic conditions of the smallholder farmers, the government of Malawi has been offering fertilizer subsidies to smallholder farmers to improve agricultural productivity and food crop production. Also, it implemented a starter pack program in the 1998/1999, 1999/2000 growing seasons to smallholder farmers (Gough et al. 2002). According to Gough et al. (2002), the starter pa ck program was initiated by the Ministry of Agriculture in collaboration with nu merous international donor agencies The program aimed to distribute small packs of hybrid maize seed, fe rtilizer, and either groundnuts or soybeans to smallholders. Unfortunately, starter pack pr ograms have been found to be very expensive programs that require ex tensive amounts of labor, planning a nd cooperation to reach the targeted audiences (Gough et al. 2002). With regard to fertilizer subsidies in general, IFDC (2006) cautioned that unlimited fertilizer subsidies without substantial resources for the basics of infrastructure, technology and training w ill not solve the food cr isis in Africa. The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), c onversely, has played a critical role in educating farmers on agroforestry innovations as an alternative to chemical fertilizer that farmers
52 could use to conserve and enrich their soils in order to obtain better crop yields (ICRAF, 2003). The following is a list of organic alternatives to chemical fertilizer that ICRAF tested and experimented with farmers in Malawi: Improved fallows: Experimental trials using Sesbania and Tephrosia had indicated higher crop yields. Maize, for instance, yields more than three times the unfertilized control trial. Relay cropping: Relay cropping of maize with Sesbania Sesbania was planted two weeks after the maize germinates. The trees were le ft to grow after the maize was harvested and were cut down when they were ten months old. When growing, Sesbania fixes nitrogen in the soil and when cut, the leaves and twigs ar e incorporated in the soil as green manure. Relay cropping was more practiced in the Southern Malawi, whic h has a highly dense populated area. Intercropping or mixed cropping: In this practi ce, agroforestry tree sp ecies are intercropped with maize. Soil nutrients are added to the soil through nitrog en fixation and/or incorporation of pruning as green manure to the soil. An example is maize intercropped with Gliricidia Biomass transfer: This practice involves the cultivation of tree species whose leaf biomass is used as mulch for higher value crops such as vegetables. Potential tree species identified include Gliricidia sepium and several Leucaenas and Sesbanias Rotational woodlots: Acacia species had been identified an d found to show remarkable growth and wood production capacity. An exam ple of this practice includes rotation of maize and woodlots. Generally, several measures have been put in place to better improve soil fertility in Malawi (Gough et al. 2002). Recent efforts, how ever, on the management of soil fertility have focused on the involvement of more women in soil fertility management (Gladwin, 2002; Barret et al., 2002; Cornwall, 2003). According to Gl adwin (2002), women produce more than 70% of food in Africa. Hence, soil fertility management programs should be targeted and aim to reach women farmers who are major producers and labo rers of food in many countries in Africa. Community Empowerment Strengthening mutual support among farmers is perceived to be an important strategy for empowering rural communities. Ka beer (1999) argues that it is important to define what
53 empowerment means to avoid much confusion that exists. Empowerment could be defined as an analysis of power; however, empowerment is about gaining power. Therefore, community empowerment is about farmers gaining the power to undertake and sustain activities with limited support from external organizations. This presen t research also consid ers empowerment as the ability of both men and women farmers to appl y the knowledge and skills obtained from their participation in different enterp rises to other similar or newly related enterprises on their own with limited support from the organizations in which they were involved. When gender comes into play, women are se en to rely on mutual support and social interactions as a collective st rategy for their empowerment. Ther efore, integrating gender into food and market enterprises repr esents an opportunity for women who are working in groups to build strong social capital for their empowerment. Simultaneously, this st rengthens their social relationships and interactions. Social Capital (SC) Social capital has recently gained acceptance in the eyes of a wide range of social science disciplines (Adler and Kwon, 2002). According to the World Bank (2007), a narrow view of social capital regards it as a set of horizontal associations between peopl e, consisting of social networks and associated norms that have an e ffect on community productivity and well being. A broader understanding of social capital accounts for both the positive and negative aspects by including vertical as well as horizontal associations between pe ople and includes be havior within and among organizations. The broadest and most encompassing view of social capital includes the social and political environm ent that shapes social structur e and enables norms to develop. The broadest view of social capital extends the importance of social capital to the most formalized institutional relationships and structures such as government, the political regime, the rule of law, the court system, as well as civil and political liberties. Regardless of the theoretical
54 view of social capital, Portes (1998) highlights some positive and negative consequences of social capital. On the positive side, social capit al is a major source of social and family support and benefits through extra familial networks. The World Bank (2007) places great emphasis on st rengthening social capital as a critical element in poverty alleviation and sustainable human and economic development. The World Bank (2007) defines social capital as norms and networks that enab le collective act ion. Krishna (2003) defines social capital as a resource, a prop ensity for mutual beneficial collective action that communities possess to different extents. Portes (1998) defines it as the aggregate of the actual or potential resources that are linked to possession of a durab le network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition. More broadly, Schiff (1992) defines the term as the set of elements of the social structure th at affects relations among people. In this research social capital is a network of farmers within communities that enable collective marketing. Social capital stands for the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or social struct ures. Portes (1998) asserts that where economic capital is in peoples bank accounts and human cap ital is inside their heads, social capital is based on the structure of their relationships. In addition, Portes (1998) points out that to possess social capital, a person must relate to others and it is those others, no t himself/herself, who are the actual source of his or her advantage. In Africa, social capital as a form of colle ctive action is still c onsidered important among farmers (Davis, 2004). Historically, in many A frican countries particip ation in agricultural production activities (for either food or income) has so far been dependent on the strength of existing social capital in different communities (Moser, 2001; Peters, 2002, Barrett et al., 2002;
55 Rogers, 2003). Strong social cap ital and organizational capabili ties act as means of sharing available resources and knowledge on different agricultural activities (Johnson et al., 2002; World Bank, 2007). Experiences from CIATEnabling Rural Innovation (ERI) and ICRAF projects in Malawi have shown that strengthen ing social capital is an important strategy for enhancing and sustaining small-scale farmer s capacity to identify their potential and opportunities for collective production and marketi ng of different crops and livestock (ICRAF, 2004; Mtenga et al. 2005a). It is now becoming more evident that strategies for linking farmers to markets must build on or strengthen the exis ting social capital for farmers to benefit from different enterprises. The Importance of Farmers Groups and Social Capital for Collective Marketing Many organizations have used farmers group s as mechanisms for delivering information and other agricultural services as well as for scaling up agricult ural technologies (Davis, 2004). Farmers groups are widely used by national and in ternational organizations as useful proxies for measuring social capital (Davis 2004; World Bank, 2007). Farmers groups are viewed as one way to strengthen social networks and reduce th e transaction costs involved in the marketing process. According to the World Bank (2007), so cial capital also faci litates coordination and cooperation among farmers in groups. Farmers groups also are regarded as a valuab le form of collective action that could give farmers opportunities for easy access to credit, inputs, and market s (Davis, 2004). However, the effectiveness with which groups and networks fulfill their roles depends on many aspects of these groups reflecting their st ructure, membership and the way they function (World Bank, 2007). Furthermore, the World Bank (2007) sugges ts that the key charac teristics of formal groups that need to be measured include densit y of membership, diversity of membership and extent of connections to other groups. This researcher conducted focus group discussions
56 (FGDs) to obtain general information from farm ers on group structure, membership, activities implemented by farmers, and how farmers organized collective marketing of different crops and livestock. Importance of Indigenous Knowledge in Building Social Capital Management of natural resources is characte rized by social learning. Local inter-personal networks or groups are viewed as potential learning oppor tunities for women and poor farmers to experiment, adopt or participate in a partic ular agricultural tec hnology (Rogers, 2003; Udry, 2003). Sharing indigenous knowledge among farmer s instills power and confidence, creates strong social capital and provides greater incentives to participate and adopt different enterprises (Ashby, 2003; Rogers, 2003). Accord ing to Gorjestan (2000: pg 1-8): Indigenous knowledge is a critical element of global knowledge, a foundation of human, social capital and organizational capabilities, a gateway to empowerment and a key factor to sustainable technology development In many African countries, the majority of women farmers have a long-term experience of working in social networks to fulfill their soci al, agricultural and/or household needs (Fernandez, 1998; World Bank, 2007). In those countries, st rengthening social capit al and organizational capabilities could enhance womens access and cont rol to major resources (Rouse, 1996; Barrett, et al., 2002). Strong social and organizational capabilities could theref ore be a key incentive even for women and poor farmers to particip ate in crop and livestock enterprises. Participatory Technology Development (PTD) Methods and Social Capital In the late 1960s and early 1970s, researchers in many parts of the world did not involve farmers in the development of agricultural t echnologies (Horne and Stur, 1999; Collinson, 2000). During the 1970s and 1980s, however, there was grow ing dissatisfaction with the poor rates of adoption of agricultural technolog ies in resource-poor farming systems (Horne and Stur, 1999; Conroy and Sutherland, 2004). This poor adoption re sulted partly because of the poor research-
57 farmer-extension linkage. According to Collinson (2000), Farming System Research (FSR) was developed and promoted to improve the relevance of agricultural research to the majority of small holder farmers in the developing world and to improve the linkage between researchers, extension workers and farmers. Farming Systems Research (FSR) is defined as a diagnostic process, a basket of methods for researchers to elicit a better understanding of farm households, family decisions and decisionmaking processes (Collinson, 2000). FSR was an innovation in the research and development process, and emerged from field practitioners as an early effort to bridge the gap between the needs and capacities of small, resource-poor fa rmers and publicly funde d agricultural research establishments. FSRs applicati on to development has four stag es: Diagnosis, Design, Testing and Dissemination. According to Hildebrand and Russell (1996), on -farm research is central to FSR, ensuring close collaboration between researchers and farm ers and allowing evalua tions of technologies under the environment and socioecono mic conditions in which they wi ll be used. They point out also that Farming Systems Research and Extens ion (FSRE) is designed to extend the linkages across research and extension a nd across boundaries of biological and socioeconomic research. In sum, FSRE was an approach to the gene ration, evaluation and diffusion of agricultural technologies particularly for small sc ale limited resource farming systems. Collinson (2000) believes that the search for cost effective methods of gaining understanding to rural farming systems has led to the emergence, develo pment and evolution of variant approaches and methods. Many of these approaches and methods are still incorporating major FSRE principles, which include: farmer and systems-orientation, problem solving and interdisciplinarity. The most popular a pproach is the Partic ipatory Technology and
58 Development (PTD) in which representative farm families and farmer groups are engaged in technology development with researchers that are allowed to flow, often guided by the farmers. PTD is an approach that actively involves farmers and researcher s in every stage of technology development to identify, test and evaluate agricult ural technologies that are appropriate to farmers partic ular situation (van Veldhuizen et al., 1997; Conroy and Sutherland, 2004). Thus, PTD--much like FSRE--puts much weight on the heterogeneity and diverse environments of farming systems that requir es different recommendation domains. According to Horne and Stur (1999) and Ka ihura (2001), the PTD pr ocess involves three major stages: assessment or diagnosis, experi mentation or testing and evaluation, which are similar stages indicated in the FSRE process. Th e assessment stage, which is sometimes referred to as Sondeo or Participatory Needs Assessment (PNA) or Participatory Situation Analysis (PSA), involves an analysis of community cons traints and opportunities. The experimentation stage involves on-farm testing of different tech nologies by farmers on their farms using their own agricultural practices. At the evaluation stage farmers describe the most preferred technologies tested. Different methods may be appropriate for diffe rent situations and/ or goals. However, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) sometimes re ferred to as Participat ory Learning and Action (PLA) (or Sondeo ) is the most common PTD method used by many organizations, researchers and practitioners. According to Chambers (1997), PRA is a growing family of approaches and methods to enable local people to share, e nhance and analyze thei r knowledge of life and conditions, and to plan, act, monitor and evalua te. Other methods are Beneficiary Assessment (BA) and Self-Esteem, Associative Stre ngth, Resourcefulness, Action Planning and Responsibility for Follow-through (SARAR) (R ietbergen-McCracken and Narayan, 1998).
59 These methods are relatively similar and comple mentary. They only differ in how they have been developed or evolved (by whom and for what purposes). As such, this present research focuses on PRA techniques. PRA offers several techniques fr om which those most appropri ate for a particular context could be selected. The most commonly used techniques are semi-structured interviews or discussions (individuals households, FGDs and community meetings); mapping (community, personal and institutional maps); ranking (problem, preference and wealth ranking) and trend analysis using historical diagramming, seasonal calendars and daily activity charts (Chambers, 1997; Rietbergen-McCracken and Narayan, 1998; Ashby, 2003). This present research used techniques such as informal interviews and focus group discussions (FGD) to obtain general information on farmers participation in different market-linka ge strategies. Generally, PTD methods and tech niques are potential methods for identifying farmers opportunities and designing appropr iate agricultural technologies. When gender comes into play, PTD methods could act as a vehicle for gender equity and an important tool for strengthening social capital and community em powerment (Kabeer, 1999; Ashby, 2003). In fact, Paris et al. (2001) believes that gender-sensitive pa rticipatory approaches have potential for developing appropriate technologies for women that could assure the acceptability of these technologies by women, likelihood of success for and ability to empower women as actual users and beneficiaries. In view of their importance, PTD methods s hould aim at providing li felong social learning that builds and enhances farmers social capit al and organizational ca pabilities and enables sharing of agricultural technologies among farmer s. The PTD methods and tools should be a potential means for analyzing gender and othe r production constraints facing women and men
60 farmers. These methods and tools could be used to increase awareness of the opportunities that women and poor farmers may have and/or they could use to improve household food security and income. It is believed that this study will bring greater understanding of how the use of PTD methods have contributed to or facilitate d participation of women in the market. Chapter Summary Malawi is highly reliant on agriculture for its economic development. Although women constitute over 70% of small farmers and provide over 87% of agricultural labor, they have faced tremendous challenges in improving agricultural production and the overall agricultural growth of the nation. Chapter Two described some of these challenges, for instance, changes in macroeconomic stabilizing programs and environmental i ssues (drought and declin e in soil fertility), all aggravated by gender inequalities. Chapter Two described the conceptual framework used by this researcher. The research conceptual framework explained the inter-rel ationships between resources, production, consumption and marketing paradigms. This re search builds on the inte r-relationships between these paradigms to determine and explain the extent to which farmers particularly women participated in the market. This chapter also reviewed relevant lite rature on how gender in equalities constrain womens access to the resources they need for agricultural production and benefit accrued from different crops and livestock they produce and manage respectively. In addition, this chapter pointed out impacts of gender inequalities on decision-making and access to market by women farmers. The importance of social capital and farmers groups to empower farmers--particularly women--to take a pro-active role in agricu ltural production and marketing and in decisionmaking at household levels was discussed. A review also was provided on advantages of
61 indigenous knowledge, farming systems research and extension and participatory technology development methods in building and strength ening social capital and empowering rural communities.
62 Adapted from Kaaria and Ashby, 2000 and Lundy et al., 2002 Consumption Farm level processing & consumption Handling, processing & marketing for saleA Resource to Consumption Framework Social and entrepreneurial organisation Research and development services Production Food Income Shelter Energy Natural Social Physical Financial Human Resources Gender and Equity Adapted from Kaaria and Ashby, 2000 and Lundy et al., 2002 Consumption Farm level processing & consumption Handling, processing & marketing for saleA Resource to Consumption Framework Social and entrepreneurial organisation Research and development services Production Food Income Shelter Energy Natural Social Physical Financial Human Resources Gender and EquityAdapted from Kaaria and Ashby, 2000 and Lundy et al., 2002 Consumption Farm level processing & consumption Handling, processing & marketing for saleA Resource to Consumption Framework Social and entrepreneurial organisation Social and entrepreneurial organisation Research and development services Research and development services Production Food Income Shelter Energy Production Food Income Shelter Energy Food Income Shelter Energy Natural Social Physical Financial Human Resources Gender and Equity Figure 2-1. Resource toConsumption Concep tual Framework. Adapted from Kaaria and Ashby, 2000. Figure 2-2. Masuku (left) and Ba obab (right) propagated fruit tr ees at ICRAF Makoka nursery.
63 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction This chapter describes the geographical ar ea where this research was conducted, the population and the sampling procedures followed. It presents measurement techniques and statistical procedures used to collect and analyze information from key informants and farmers. Overall, this research intends to achieve the following specific objectives: 1. To identify and analyze strategi es used by organizations to link farmers to market using the institutional framework. 2. To determine and analyze the extent to whic h women farmers participate in the market. 3. To determine what benefits women farmers de rive from participating in the market. 4. To analyze the trade off on soil fertility ma nagement technologies between food and cash crops. Description of the Research Area This research was conducted in Malawi (See Figu re 3-1), a land-locked country that lies at the southern tip of the Eastern Rift Valley, covering an area of 118,000 Sq. km. Malawi is bordered to the north and northeast by Tan zania, to the east, south and southwest by Mozambique, and to the west by Zambia (Gove rnment of Malawi, 2001; Tchale, 2003). Malawis economy is heavily influenced by ag riculture. Over 80 percent of the Malawian people live in a rural setting, growing their own food as well as crops for selling. Women constitute 70% of full-time farmers and perfor m 87% of agricultural la bor (ACDI-CIDA, 2006). Malawi experiences a tropical continental climate that is favorable for the production of crops such as maize, groundnuts (peanuts), fruits and vegetables, tobacco, sugar cane, and tea. However, farmers are faced with frequent a nd persistent drought conditions, hunger and poverty that make it difficult for them to improve produc tion of these crops (Economic Intelligence Unit,
64 1995). These conditions, along with a high incidence of HIV/AIDS and land degradation, have contributed to a slowdown in agricultural growth in Malawi and, consequently, have increased food insecurity, hunger and povert y among majorities of rural communities. Nevertheless, various national and internationa l organizations have initiated agricultural programs to redress the impact of these conditions and many other co nstraining factors to food security and income of the rural poor in Malawi. This research was conducted in two major re gions of Malawi--the central and southern regions. Eight districts were visited: three di stricts (Balaka, Zomba and Chiradzulu) in the southern region and five dist ricts (Mchinji, Dowa, Kasungu, Lilongwe, and Ntcheu) in the central region. Data collecti on was divided into two phases, each used different research methodologies. The following sections describe the different research methods used for conducting research in each phase. Research Phase One Research Phase One (RPO) aimed to identify organizations with strategies for linking farmers to market. The following were research sub-objectives: 1. To compare and analyze strategies used by some of these organizations to link farmers to market using the institutional framework, and 2. To select strategies for a detailed study of the overall objectives 2-4, using focus group discussions and household interviews. Identification and Selection of Or ganizations with Strategies for Linking Farmers to Market Identification and selection of strategies for linking farmers to markets began with identification of organizations that implemented market interventions with farmers. This process built on the information obtained from organizati ons that were identified during preliminary dissertation work by the researcher in June 2004. At that time such organizations as the
65 Association of Smallholder Seed Multip lication Action Group (ASSMAG), National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi (NASFAM), Internationa l Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and International Institute of Tropical Agriculture/Southern African Root Crops Research Network (IITA/SARRNET) were iden tified as having potential strategies for linking farmers to market. Informal interviews were then conducted with key informants from each of these organizations to obtain information on strategies they used to link farmers to market. The informal interviews with key informants also served as a means of identifying other organizations with strategies for linking farmers to market. Key informants were asked whether they knew of other organizations with strategies for linking farmers to market. Through informal interviews, the researcher identifie d the following 14 organizations: 1. International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) 2. Initiative for Development and Equi ty in African Agriculture (IDEAA) 3. International Institute of Tr opical Agriculture/ Southern Af rican Root Crops Research Network (IITA/SARRNET) 4. National Smallholder Farmers A ssociation of Malawi (NASFAM) 5. Association of Smallholder Seed Multiplication Action Group (ASSMAG) 6. Improved Livelihoods through Increased F ood Security Development Assistance Program (I-LIFE DAP). This is a consortium including organizations such as Catholic Relief Services (CRS), CARE International/Malawi, the Salvation Army, Africare, Emmanuel International, Save the Children and World Vision. 7. World Vision 8. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) 9. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) 10. Concern World Wide (CWW) 11. Concern Universal (CU)
66 12. International Crops Institute for the SemiArid Tropics (ICRISAT) 13. CARE International 14. Citizen Network for Foreign Affairs (CNF A)/Rural Marketing Development Trust (RUMARK) A checklist of questions (see A ppendix C) was used to collect information from key informants. This checklist of questions was pretested with a key informant working with CIAT and later modified to capture the necessary inform ation required at this re search stage. A followup was done with key informants through emails phone calls and/or setting up additional appointment meetings with them to address sp ecific questions or gaps that needed more information and clarification. The institutional framework (IF) methodology wa s used to compare and analyze these 14 organizations. According to Lusthaus et al ( 1995) the institutional framew ork (IF) is a means of assessing the organizational capacity and a wa y to yield a comprehensive approach for diagnosing and documenting the st rengths and weaknesses of di fferent organizations. The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the World Bank have used IF to redress performance gaps in their funded programs (Lus thaus et al., 1995; Lusthaus et al., 2002). The IF is descriptive rather than prescrip tive and analytic, incorporating elements of historical time series analys is, case study methodology, and freque ntly comparative analysis (Lusthaus et al., 1995). The relative importance gi ven to the various factors in the framework, and the way they are assessed ( qualitatively, quantitatively or a co mbination of these), depends on the particular contexts in which it is used or on the issues being explored. The IF used in this research was adapted and adjusted from the IDRCs framework for assessing performance of different organizations The aim of adjusti ng the IDRCs framework was to make it more meaningful to this research in assessing strategies for linking farmers to
67 market using specific pre-determined criteria. The following is a list of pre-determined criteria that the researcher used to compare a nd analyze organizations with strategies3 for linking farmers to market: Area of coverage Level of operation (individual farmers/ groups or associations/communities) Number of farmers (men and women) reached Type of marketable enterprises (agroenterprises) Type of support offered Integration of gender an d community empowerment Focus on soil fertility management (SFM) Type of strategy (model) used by each organization to link farmers to market Using these pre-determined criteria, the resear cher selected five organizational strategies for further analysis. These organizations are CIAT, ICRAF, NASFAM, World Vision and ASSMAG. Informal discussions using a check list of questions (See Appendix C) were conducted with farmers working with these orga nizations as a follow-up to see whether these organizations met the pre-determined criteria for comparative analysis at farmers levels. Research Phase Two Research Phase Two (RPT) consisted of a more detailed analysis of the five selected strategies for linking farmers to market using focus group discussions, household interviews and participant observation. A focus group discussi on (FGD) is a group discussion of approximately 6-12 persons guided by a facilitato r, during which members talk freely and spontaneously about a certain topic (Morgan, 1993; Krue ger and Casey, 2000). This researcher used FGDs to obtain specific information from farmers on group structur e, activities carried out, type of crops and livestock enterprises farmers produced and manage d and marketing of these crops and livestock. Lindlof and Taylor (2002) desc ribe participant observation as a professional craft of experiencing and recording events in a social setting. This resear cher used participant 3 See Chapter Four for detailed comparison and analysis of these strategies using the pre-determined criteria.
68 observation to understand the soci al setting and activities that farmers carried out in each community. The researcher used household inte rviews to quantify specific information from farmers--particularly on the extent to which wo men farmers participated in the market, the benefit women farmers derived from each strategy and the trade off on soil fertility management technologies between food and cash crops. Formal questionnaires (see Appendix C) were us ed to collect information from farmers in groups and individual household inte rviews. In this phase, the re searcher aimed to achieve the following objectives: 1. To determine and analyze the extent to which women farmers participate in the market. 2. To determine what benefits women farmers de rive from participating in the market. 3. To analyze the trade off on soil fertility management technologies between food and cash crops. Selection of Groups for Focus Group Discussions Before conducting focus group discussions (FGDs ), the researcher obt ained a list of all active groups/associations and members work ing with each strategy. The groups were characterized in terms of the following criteria: a) Type of groups or associations (women only or mixed) b) Number of years the groups/a ssociations have operated c) Formed vs. existing groups d) Type of agroenterprises implemented by farmers Based on the characterization process, the resear cher aimed to select four groups (mixed or women only) from each strategy, making a total of 24 FGDs. The number of participants in each FGD was 10-12 (75:25 female to male ratio for the mixed groups). However, depending on the actual number of active groups in each strategy, the re searcher conducted 17 FGDs indicated as follows:
69 Demand Driven (DD)/ICRAF: Two groups Enabling Rural Innovation (ERI)/CIAT: Three groups Linkage through Farmers Association (LF) /ASSMAG, Trader-Led (TL)/NASFAM and Area Development Program (ADP)/World Vision: Each, four groups Selection of Farmers for Household Interviews Individual farmers were systematically and randomly selected for household interviews from the list of active groups that worked with each strategy. The researcher aimed to interview 50 farmers (40 women and 10 men) from each st rategy, making a total sample size of 250. The focus of this research was to obtain more info rmation from women; hence, it was decided to select and interview more women than men. However, based on the characterization and composition of the active groups in each strate gy, the researcher interviewed 170 respondents (137 women, 33 men). The difference between exp ected and actual sample size was due to the minimum number of active farmers groups worki ng with CIAT (three groups) and ICRAF (two groups). In addition, ICRAF had the least number of farmers in the groups. For example, the Magomero fruit-processing group had only five women farmers out of ten farmers. The Development of Instruments The study used both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The researcher used informal and formal interviews, and participant observation to collect data from key informants and farmers. This researcher bui lt on the expert panel within CIAT and University of Florida, and a pilot study (pre-dissertati on field work) to develop informal and formal questionnaires (Appendix C). Appendix D presents the methodology framework that this researcher developed with an expert panel from CIAT and used as a guide in collecting specific information required by this research to identify variables of intere st and methods for data collection and analysis.
70 Reliability and Validity of the Results Validity means the closeness of a research finding to physical reality (Chambers, 1997; Davis, 2004)). On the other hand, re liability is the extent to which an instrument is consistent in measuring, or to which a particular technique wi ll always yield the same results (Lindlof and Taylor, 2002; Davis, 2004). The validity and reliability of participant observation and FGDs qualitative research methods used were achieved by evaluating multiple forms of evidence. Hence, triangulation and multiple observers were used to overcome the style and any biases or shortcomings of the principal researcher. According to Ary et al (2002) and Lindlof and Ta ylor (2002), triangulation requires that multiple sources of information be brought to bear on the interpretation of a particular indicator thereby guarding the interpretative bias of the analyst. This research used multiple sources of information (key informants, observa tions, FGDs and household interviews) to dispel doubts about the reality of the research findings and to reach a mutual agreement of emerged themes between the researcher and other observers. In addition, this researcher pre-tested the instrument used for FGDs and household interviews to ensure validity and reliability of data collected from farmers. Variables of Interest to this Research The variables for this research are cate gorized based on the following three main objectives: Objective Two: To determine and analyze the extent to which women farmers participate in the market using the following indicators. Research Variables: Quantity sold Enterprise produced Whether women are selling in central markets (who sells) Which markets women sell in
71 Price per kg sold Total income obtained Who owns income Who decides on the use of income Objective Three: To determine what benefits women farm ers derive from participating in the market. Research Variables: Amount controlled by women vs. amount controlled by men How income was spent? (investment patterns) -Food and nutrition -Soil fertility management -Childrens education -Asset building (new houses, restaurant s, grocery stores, livestock etc.) Capacity development (knowledge and skills obtained) Empowerment (applicati on of knowledge gained) Gender-related benefit: decision-making, roles and responsibilities, wife-husband relationships, self-confidence, social networks/relations hips and womens workload. Objective Four: To analyze the trade off on soil fertility management technologies between food and cash crops. Research Variables: Percentage of farmers who used soil fe rtility management technologies (SFMTs) Which were the most used SFMTs (which technologies were most used by women) Variation in use across different crops (trade off between food and cash crops) These variables would be analyzed by th e SPSS computer program using descriptive statistics such as means, counts, cross tabul ations, frequency and percentages. Advanced analyses using correlations would be used as found necessary. The following are major assumptions for this research.
72 a. Linking farmers to markets improves participati on of women farmers in the central markets. b. Women farmers derive benefits from participating in the strategies for linking farmers to markets. c. Enhanced market opportunities impr ove food security among farmers. d. Enhanced market opportunities increases invest ments in soil fertility management for food and cash crops. Chapter Summary Chapter Three describes the ge ographical area in which this research was conducted and methods used to collect and anal yze data from key informants and farmers. Since the research was divided into three phases, th e researcher described methods fo r data collection and analysis by research phase. Chapter Three also covers th e methods used to select groups for focus group discussions and farmers for household interviews. In addition, the researcher explained how instruments for informal and formal interviews were developed, measures taken to ensure the validity and reliability of the results and the informed consent procedures followed. Chapter Three briefly describes the organizations involved in this rese arch and highlighted strategies used by each of these organizations to link farmers to the markets. A more detailed description and analysis of these strategies will be covered in Chapter Four.
73 Figure 3-1. Map of Malawi indi cating location of central a nd southern regions (Free Online Download: geography.about.com)
74 Figure 3-2. The resource-to-consu mption framework. (Internet source: CIAT 2006)
75 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Introduction Chapter Four presents results and discu ssion of the research beginning with the characteristics of the sample. Then, results for the four research objectives will be presented covering analyses of strategies for linking farmers to market usi ng pre-determined criteria set forward by the researcher, the extent to whic h women farmers participated in the market, benefits that women farmers derived from part icipating in the market and trade-off on soil fertility management between food and cash crops. Farmers Characteristics This section presents the gene ral characteristics of farmers in terviewed under the research, and compares these characteristics across strategi es. The discussion in this section focuses on farmers sex, marital status, farmers headshi p, levels of education and land ownership. In addition, this section presents characteristics of farmers based on ownership of other assets such as livestock; household assets such as foam mattress, chairs and bicycles; hard assets such as houses and automobiles and type of non-ente rprise crops that farmers produced. Farmers Sex, Marital Status and Farmers Headship In many parts of the world today there is an increasing trend toward s the feminization of agriculture (FAO, 2007b). As men' s participation in agriculture de clines, the role of women in agricultural production beco mes ever more dominant. Different factors have reduced the rural male population including, but not limited to, migration of men fr om rural areas to towns and cities in search of paid em ployment and sickness and death from HIV/AIDS. In Malawi, the rural male population dropped by 21.8 percen t between 1970 and 1990 (FAO, 2007b). During the same 20-year period, the rural female population declined by only 5.4 percent.
76 This trend has resulted in an increase in th e proportion of households headed by women (both de Jure and de facto) in many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Studies have shown that women heads of household tend to be less educated than their ma le counterparts (FAO, 2007b). They also generally have less land to work and even less capital and farm labor to help them improve agricultural produc tivity (Ngwira, 2007). Recognizi ng the very important role played by women in household food production in Af rica overall, and in Ma lawi in particular, this research chose to target more women than men, but still recognizing the need to obtain perceptions of men toward the benefits that wo men farmers derived from participation in the market. This researcher interviewed 170 farmers, 137 (80.6 %) were women and 33 (19.4 %) were men. Table 4-1 reports the percen tage distribution of farmers fo r marital status, land ownership and farmers headship by sex. The results indica te that 116 (68.2%) of the farmers were married. Of the 54 non-married farmers, one farmer wa s a man and 53 were women. Hence, this researcher interviewed 117 (68.8 %) male-head ed households and 53 (31.2%) female-headed households. When comparing charac teristics of respondents by strate gies, the result s show that women regardless of their marital status were more represented than men, which is expected because the focus of this research was to inte rview more women than men. There was, however, about equal representati on of farmers who were married and those who were not married across strategies. Land ownership by farmers Malawi is on the verge of a land reform pro cess that was initiated in 1995 when the World Bank took a leading role in provi ding support for a Policy Planning Unit in the Ministry of Lands and Valuation to guide the land policy reform pr ocess and strategic action plan (Enemark and Ahene, 2002). The goal of the Malawi National Land Policy is to ensure tenure security and
77 equitable access to land and to help people improve their socio-economic conditions through sustainable utilization of land base d resources. Despite the potenti al for the land reform process, property ownership and inheritance rights are still socially constructed an d continue to create social and economic insecurity among women a nd disadvantaged people in Malawi (Ngwira, 2007). Nevertheless, using the new National La nd Policy (NLP), the Malawi government has achieved the following: a) Promoted the decentralization of Land Re gistry Offices to local government areas b) Initiated programs to empower communities through the establishment of Village Land Committees (VLC) to directly negotiate their own demarcation and registration c) Institutionalized the role of Traditional Au thorities (TAs) to oversee land management issues including the formalization of propert y rights and specifications of land ownership d) Improved customary tenure systems and provi ded more opportunities for individuals and family land ownership The general results in Table 4-1 show that 164 (96.5%) farmers owned land and six (3.5%) did not own land for agricultural activities. The same Table 4-1 shows that all 33 male farmers owned land, implying that the six farmers who did not own land were female farmers. Out of six female farmers who did not own land, four were female headed-households. This researcher, however, noted that married females co-shared land with their husbands. Moreover, farmers who owned land and those who did not own land al so rented land for agricultural activities. Table 4-2 reports land ownership by farmers acro ss strategies. On average the majority of farmers across strategies owned land. Very few farmers--particu larly those who worked with LF, ERI and TL--did not own land for agricultural activities. Table 4-3 presents percentage distribution of farmers who owned land by sex acro ss strategies. This research found that a majority of farmers--particularly women--own ed an average of be tween 2.1-10 acres. In addition, LF and TL women farmers owned an aver age of land above 25 acres. This finding is
78 not a typical example of land ownership by the ma jority of smallholder farmers in Malawi as documented by Anderson (2002). Anderson (2002) f ound that the majority of farmers in Malawi owned small land holdings between 1-2 acres. Table A-1 of Appendix A reports the results on land ownership by farmers headship. The results show that female-headed households within LF and DD strategies owned more land than male-headed households. Otherwise, male-head ed households within ERI, TL and ADP owned more land compared to female-headed households. Levels of education Education in Malawi has experienced majo r changes since the advent of Multiparty Democracy and the introduction of free primary e ducation in 1994. As a result of free primary education, school enrollment almost doubled from 1.8 million to 3.2 million between 1994 and 1997 (Commonwealth education, 2003). Despite th e increase in enroll ment, the education system in Malawi is facing serious challenges including the impact of HIV/AIDS on teachers, shortage of classrooms and gende r disparities which often has re sulted in high dropout rates for girls (Commonwealth education, 2003). This situation led to a major shift in Civil Society/NGOs activities from service/relief delivery to educational interv entions such as school construction and the provision of school material s, policy and advocacy to improve the quality of education in Malawi. Table 4-4 indicates farmers le vels of education by sex. The general results indicate that 11.8% of all farmers interviewed had no formal education, 64% had primary education (28.8% had standard 14 primary education and 35.9% had a standard 5-8 primary education), 19.4% had secondary education and 4.1% had tertiary e ducation (college certific ates and diplomas). Women represent the highest percentage of re sponses for those farmers who had less than 8th
79 grade education. Over 81 percent did not go past 8th grade compared to 57 percent for men farmers. Table 4-5 reports the levels of education of farmers across strategies. LF farmers were fairly distributed across all leve ls of education. In fact, LF was the only strategy having more than one farmer who went to the tertiary (college) leve l of education. With the exception of the ERI strategy, other strategies represented a fairly large number of farmers who went through secondary level of education. Ownership of other assets In addition to land ownership and levels of education of farmers, this section reports characteristics of farmers based on ownership of other assets such as livestock, television, radio, mats, foam mattress, bicycle, houses, and vehicles According to the farmers interviewed, they considered themselves wealthy if they owned th ese assets and poor if they did not own them. The researcher categorized these assets into household, livestock and hard assets. For the household assets, the majority of fa rmers studied owned ra dios locally known as wireless and bicycles. This researcher observed that the majority of people in rural areas in Malawi used radios as major means of commun ication to learn what was happening in the outside world. Farmers also received radio ne ws from agriculturally designated programs on prices for agricultural commodities, markets wher e farmers could sell agricultural produce and sources of agricultural inputs incl uding fertilizer and seed. Farm ers used bicycles as a major means of transportation. Farmers reported they purchased these assets with income obtained from selling crops and livestock they produced a nd managed with market-linkage strategies. Detailed information on the ownership of livesto ck and other assets by farmers can be found in Figure 4-1 and in Appendix A respectively.
80 Non-Enterprise Crops Produced by Fa rmers for Home Consumption or Sale Apart from implementing crops and livestock enterprises with strategies for linking farmers to market, farmers also produced and marketed non-enterprise crops and livestock at household levels. However, this researcher did not go into the detail of amount of these crops and livestock that farmers produced and sold. Fi gure 4-2 presents percenta ge distribution of all farmers studied by non-enterprise crops they prod uced. Results show that the majority of farmers produced hybrid maize, groundnuts, sweet potatoes, soybeans, local maize and tobacco. Very few farmers produced cassava and paprika. Farmers produced these crops either for food only, income generation only or for both food a nd income. Additional information on percent distribution of non-enterprise cr ops produced by farmers across strategies can be found in Table A-5 of Appendix A. Objective One: Identify and An alyze Strategies Used by Organ izations to Link Farmers to Markets using the Institutional Framework This section begins by describi ng the organizations and strategi es they used to link farmers to market. Then, it analyzes strategies used by organization to link farmers to markets using the institutional framework (IF). The IF is a mean s of assessing the organizational capacity and a way to yield a comprehensive approach for diagnosing and documenting the strengths and weaknesses of different organizatio ns using specific criteria. Description of Organizations and Strategi es used to Link Farmers to Market International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) The International Center for Tropical Agricult ure (CIAT) is one of the centers of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), which is a strategic partnership of countries, intern ational and regional organizati ons and private foundations. It fosters sustainable agricultural growth through high-quality science aimed at benefiting the poor
81 through stronger food security, better human nutri tion and health, higher incomes and improved management of natural resources. CIAT, as a not-for-profit research and devel opment organization, is dedicated to reducing poverty and hunger while protecting natural resources in developi ng countries. According to CIAT (2006), the tropical world is facing trem endous challenges in poverty, malnutrition and environmental degradation. CIAT believes that with the right kind of support, rural people across the tropics, who account for most of the world's poor, are capable of improving and sustaining rural livelihoods. Hence, CIATs core mission is to reduce hu nger and poverty in the tropics through collabora tive research that improves agri cultural productivity and natural resource management. CIAT operates in Latin America, Africa and Asia, with headquarter in Colombia. CIATs research program in Africa aims to he lp rural communities in the region to build sustainable livelihoods. In Af rica, CIAT has engaged with national and international organizations to form wide ranging partners hips around three core areas: enabling rural innovation, managing natural resour ces and developing and accessi ng agro-biodiversity (CIAT, 2005). CIAT used the Enabling Rural Innovation (ER I) strategy to enhance the capacity of the rural poor to improve their livelihoods and to li nk farmers to markets (Kaaria, 2005). Through ERI, CIAT also implements sustainable management of natural and other resources. ERI is an integrated approach for research and commun ity development that focuses on building local capacities and strengthening social organization and entrepreneuria l skills of farmers, using a mutual, collective learning process for empower ing rural communities to better manage their resources (Kaaria, 2005). ERI organized and strengthened farmers groups. Moreover, ERI
82 identified and developed potenti al agroenterprises with farmer s for improved food security and income. The ERI approach used the resource-to-consum ption framework (Figure 2-1) that expands conventional production to consumption and natu ral resource management based on community assets to meet the needs of food production and income generation of the farm families (Kaaria and Ashby, 2000; Kaaria, 2005). In the ERI project the major assumption was that increased income from markets could lead to improvement in food security and provide farmers with stronger incentives to adopt and invest in natu ral resource management (NRM) (Kaaria, 2005). According to Kaaria (2005), ERI key prin ciples included such aspects as farmer participatory research approaches, market orientation and competitiveness, effective partnerships between communities and research and developm ent service providers. ERI also focused on equity and gender considerations, investment in NRM, community empowerment, agroenterprise development, building capacities of communities and partners, and building on farmers assets and opportunities for income generation (K aaria, 2005). The ERI program has been implemented in Uganda, Tanzania and Malawi. In Malawi, ERI worked in collaboration with the Malawi government, Plan Intern ational-Malawi and the private sector (Mtenga et al., 2005a). ERI operated in the central region of Malawi co vering Lilongwe, Dedza a nd Kasungu districts. However, in 2006 initiatives were underway to expand the projects activ ities to the northern region covering the Mzuzu district. The World Agroforestry Centre/ICRAF The International Council for Research in Agro forestry (ICRAF) was created in response to a visionary study in the mid-1970s led by fore ster John Bene of Canadas International Development Research Centre (IDRC) (ICRAF, 2007). The st udy called for global recognition
83 of the key role trees play on farms. This led to the establishment of ICRAF in 1978 to promote agroforestry research in developing countries. During the 1980s ICRAF operated as an inform ation council focused on Africa. It joined the Consultative Group on Intern ational Agricultural Resear ch (CGIAR) in 1991 to conduct strategic research on agroforestry at a global scale, changing its name from Council to Centre. The Centers goal is to reduce poverty, increase food security and improve the environment-through two means--overcoming land depletion in smallholder farms of sub-humid and semi-arid Africa, and searching for alternatives to slashand-burn agriculture at the margins of the humid tropical forests. ICRAF operates in Latin Amer ica, South and Southeast Asia and Africa. The World Agroforestry Centre/ICRAF Sout hern Africa (ICRAF-SA) program covered Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Tanzania. The program aimed to address problems such as low agricultural productivity du e to loss of soil fertil ity, decreasing access to fuel wood, fodder, gender imbalances and the adverse impact of HIV/AIDS in agriculture (ICRAF, 2003, 2004). The global re search and development themes of ICRAF were broad and covered land and people, environmental servi ces, strengthening institutions, and trees and markets. However, this research was on one of the ICRAFs projects that focused on domestication of indigenous fr uit trees for instance, masuku (uapaca kirkiana ) and Masau ( Ziziphus mauritiana ); processing and commercialization of tree-based products such as jams, juice, wine and pulp and raw fruits. ICRAF used the demand driven (DD) strategy to build the capacity of farmers in the production, processing and marketing of indigenous and exotic frui ts and to link farmers to the markets. According to ICRAF (2004), the demand driven strategy aimed to restore and sustained local trees and their products for improved food security and quality of soil. Hence, this strategy
84 engaged in research on local trees and market s that involved the process of fruit tree domestication, processing and commercializat ion. The following are major reasons for the implementation of fruit tree domestication, proces sing and commercialization project in Malawi: Wild sources decline due to genetic erosi on, over exploitation and/or difficult access, In forest reserve areas, for instance, Zomba in Malawi, agroforestry and domestication and commercialization of indigenous fruit trees we re important strategies for sustainable utilization and management of natural resources and biodiversity conservation, To meet the growing demand for tree produc ts from higher population increases for new and/or external markets, To make local people appreciate th e value of fruit trees such as masuku (Uapaca kirkiana ) (See Figure 2-2) and Masau ( Ziziphus mauritiana ) for increased food s ecurity and income generation. The project on domestication, processing and commercialization of fruit trees focused more on women and children. Women and children were the major sellers of fruits alongside roads during fruit seasons in Malawi (ICRAF, 2004; Mtenga personal observation, 2005-2006). School children participated in training events in nursery mana gement. Informal discussions with key informants showed that six women s groups were trained in the processing and marketing of indigenous fruit tree (IFT) products. However, this researcher found that only two womens groups actively involved in the proc essing and marketing of by-products from indigenous fruits in Zomba a nd Chiradzulu districts. Generally, the IFT processing and marketing pr oject was a potential source of livelihood to small-holder women farmers. Many of the indi genous fruits and their oils have potential for market and home consumption. They have st rong sweet flavors and are rich in minerals, vitamins and essential amino acids (ICRAF, 200 4). The products from indigenous fruit trees were also used for carving masks and medicinal purposes. For instance, some of the fruit tree extracts were used as substitutes for anti-retrovi ral drugs for people living with HIV and AIDS.
85 ICRAF was actively involved in soil fertility management through sustainable utilization of natural resources (land/soil, water and wildlife), protection of endangered species, protection of water and soil resources including soil micr oorganisms, and in reducing water and soil erosion. ICRAF aimed to involve and reach more women in its project areas; hence, beginning in the year 2003, ICRAFs policy started to explicitly integrate gender and HIV/AIDS dimensions in each plan of work. Although the project on domestication and commercialization of indigenous fruit trees operated only in the southern region, ICRAF worked on a number of other projects across all three re gions. In partnership with NGOs, the Malawi government and farmers groups, ICRAF operate d in the following areas: a. Southern region: Zomba, Chiradzulu, Blan tyre, Thyolo, Mulanje, Chikwawa, Machinga, Phalombe and Balaka b. Central region: Lilongwe, Salima, Ka sungu, Mchinji, Dedza, and Ntcheu c. Northern region: Rumphi and Mzimba National Smallholder Farmers Asso ciation of Malawi (NASFAM) NASFAM is a member-owned organization provi ding business services to its smallholder farm members. Founded on the principles of collective action and self-reliance, NASFAM empowered farmers at the grass-roots level as they formed cohesive village-base d clubs and financially independent business associations in order to impr ove incomes and contribute to overall economic development of Malawi (NASFAM, 2005). NASFAM used the trader-led ( TL) strategy to promote farmin g as a business and to link farmers to potential markets at national and inte rnational levels. According to FAO (2007c), this category of linkage shows the importance of both farmers and traders to develop markets together and the critical role that external organi zations could play to faci litate the linkages. In the present research, NASFAM TL strategy is sligh tly different from that identified by FAO in
86 Bangladesh and El Salvador, where traders and farmers developed markets together. NASFAM TL strategy organized farmers to produce qual ity groundnuts and made co ntractual and price agreement for marketing of crops. NASFAM purc hased crops from farmers, owned the crops and sold to the identified markets. Farm ers were paid cash at the time of sale. The trader-led strategy was a four year co llaborative strategy between NASFAM and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) that began in 2003. ICRISAT is another CGAIR center that serves th e poorest of the poor in the semi-arid areas of the developing world. The collaborative TL st rategy was initiated by ICRISAT and aimed at improving smallholder farmers livelihoods th rough technology development and market improvement. This strategy mainly focused on groundnuts (Estrada-Valle and Siambi, 2003). ICRISAT also implemented the trad er-led strategies with Plan International, World Vision and IDEAA. The NASFAM-ICRISAT trader-led strategy wa s supported by a USAID project entitled Promoting Growth in Malawis Groundnuts and Pigeonpea Trade through Technology and Market Improvement NASFAM was supported by ICRISAT in areas of crop production and marketing. The TL strategy was built on the su pply and demand-side interventions by: o Identifying high-value market opportunities, o Identifying grades and standards required by final markets and developing quality management systems, o Developing and disseminating market-specifi c natural resource and crop management strategies, o Structuring sustainable private-sector driven seed supply systems, and o Engineering partnerships between sma llholder organizations NGOs and private sectors agents.
87 NASFAM offered training and communicati on programs to individual members, association leaders and staffs to build their capacity on crop production and supply of quality crops (NASFAM, 2005). The training progr ams focused on agricultural and business development and management skills. More over, NASFAM focused on improvement of marketing systems and rural infrastructure and adu lt literacy training that gave farmers increased power to conduct farm business. NASFAM collaborated with a number of orga nizations (NGOs, government and private) and operated in all three regions focusing prim arily on only a few major crops: tobacco, rice, chilies, groundnuts, and cotton. Crops such as soybeans, sorghum, pigeon peas, paprika and sunflower were given secondary importance by NAS FAM. The association management centers were located in Karonga, Rum phi, South Mzimba, Kasungu, Mchinj i, Lilongwe, Ntcheu, Balaka, Namwera, Zomba and Mulanje. NASFA M involved 86,312 members (57,008 men and 29,304 women). An informal discussion with key informan ts showed that NASFAM considered soil fertility management as one of its priority activi ties. Through partnerships with ICRAF, Natural Resource College (NRC) and Bunda College, NASFAM trained member associations in different soil management technologies including chemi cal fertilizer, water and conservation farming practices such as contour banding, organic manur e, crop rotation, irrigation farming and tree planting activities. Similarly, gender integration was considered very important in order to involve more women and empower them to derive more be nefits from agricultural production. NASFAM strengthened the activit ies of Association Gender Offices (AGOs) and sub-committees to carry out gender awareness campaigns and sensitizatio n programs at the local association level.
88 Gender training programs covered aspects of intr a-household relationships womens leadership, womens participation in agricultura l production and res ource ownership. World Vision World Vision is a Christian relief, devel opment and advocacy organisation dedicated to working with children, families and communities to overcome poverty and injustice (World Vision, 2007). Inspired by Christ ian values, World Vision is de dicated to working with the worlds most vulnerable people. World Vision operates in 96 countries world wide and has reached more than 100 million people. The World Vision-Malawi (WV) project was initiated 1982 with the aim to improve infrastructure for education that involved build ing school structures particularly for primary education. But, due to problems of food shortages, children fa iled to go to schools to use the structures that were built by th e project. Due to this real ization, World Vision added a food security program in order to improve food s ecurity among the rural farmers. World Vision implemented both developmental and relief progra ms. However, this research focused only on developmental activities --particularly the production and marke ting of crops and management of livestock for improved food securi ty and increased income by farm ers. Activities under the developmental program included seed multiplica tion for maize, groundnuts, beans, sorghum, sweet potatoes, cassava and soybeans; general fa rming; small-scale and large-scale irrigation; community grain banks and soil and water conservation. World Vision used an Area Development Progr am (ADP) strategy to improve agriculture and food security to facilita te marketing of crops and livestock produced and managed by farmers. According to Mandere et al. (2004), the ADP is a mu lti-sectoral integrated strategy that aimed at bringing about transformational de velopment in social, economic, environmental and spiritual aspects for marginalized groups of people in rural communities. Mandere et al.
89 (2004) defined transformational development as a process and action through which children, families and communities move towards wholeness of life with dignity, peace, justice and hope. The ADP strategy is child-focused, community-bas ed, sustainable and holistic. World Vision collaborated with the University of Malawi, Bunda College, CIAT, ICRISAT, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMY T), ICRAF and World Fish. World VisionADP strategy covered 25 districts in Malawi. Informal discussions with key informants re vealed that World Vision integrated gender components to all its activities (Kusamale and Phiri, 2005). Besides, World Vision involved more women in the following: Capacity building training programs in areas of production, marketing, group work, leadership and gender issues. Training in gender covered aspects of equal opportunities, gender relationships, sharing roles and decisi on making, and benefits at household levels. Moreover, World Vision traine d farmers to conduct gender anal ysis at household levels. Selection of women farmers that participated in the project. World Vision aimed at ensuring gender equity in terms of equal representation and benefits derived from different activities. In different committ ees, about 40 percent of women farmers were represented in various decision-making roles. Financial management and how both women and men should differentiate money and wealth (assets)/asset building. World Vision put much emphasis on environmen tal conservation--particularly soil fertility management--in order to bolster food security and income of the farmers in Malawi. Apart from using chemical fertilizer, farmers collaborati ng with World Vision also used improved fallow technologies including Tephr osia and intercropping ma ize with Gliricidia. ASSMAG (Association of Smallholder S eed Multiplication Action Group) The Association of Smallholder Seed Mu ltiplication Action Group (ASSMAG) is an umbrella organization for variou s Seed Marketing Groups (SMAGs ) of smallholder farmers in Malawi (ASSMAG, 2005). ASSMAG operated at SMAG levels for easy procurement of inputs
90 and loans. Two to three SMAGs joined to form affiliate associations at the Agricultural Development Division (ADD) level. From each affiliate association, le aders were elected to represent smallholder farmers. These leaders joined and formed ASSMAG as a national association. ASSMAG operat ed at the national level and had 2,400 farmers. Funded by the European Union (EU), ASSMAG was launched in November 2001 with an overall objective of making available to farmers re liable, affordable and sustainable high quality seed. The association produces various seed cr ops through smallholder farmers and market seed as a group to various organizations and individual farmers. Popular seed crops produced by members in different groups included: open pol linated maize (OPV) vari eties, groundnuts (CG7 and jL24 varieties), beans, cassava sweet potatoes, sorghum, soybean s, rice, fruit-tree seedlings for mangoes, oranges and banana. Specifically, ASSMAG aimed at empoweri ng smallholder farmers through capacity building training programs in areas of production and marketing of high quality seed focusing on: farm management, group dynamics, leadersh ip skills and record keeping. ASSMAG was managed by farmers themselves with technical support from EU in areas of financial management, governance and law. In additi on, ASSMAG performed an extension role through farmers demonstration plots, and made cont ractual agreement with lenders on behalf of individual associations. Generally, ASSMAG organized mark eting activities of all seed crops produced by farmers. Through ASSMAG, member affiliate associations have been linked to different buyers. FAO (2007c) identified this type of market-linkage as linkage-t hrough-farmers (LF) strategy. This researcher found that LF strategy for linking fa rmers to market organized farmers to produce seed of different crops, identified markets for seed crops produced by farmers and made price
91 and contractual agreements with buyers. This strategy also organized transportation of seed crops to warehouses for processing and then to buye rs and sold seed crops on behalf of farmers. Farmers were paid later after A SSMAG sold seed crops to buyers. The Malawi government was one of the buyers of seed produced by ASSMAG farmers. The Malawi government bought seed from ASSMAG and distributed th e seed as starter packs in different communities. In 2005, the Malawi gov ernment bought more than 5,000 metric tons of seed from ASSMAG. Other potential buyers included the Association for Promotion of Sustainable Agriculture in Mala wi (APSAM), World Vision, Con cern Universal, World relief, Action Aid and church organiza tions. Some of these organi zations bought raw seed, while others purchased processed seed. The Agricultural Productivity Investment Pr ogram (APIP)--European Union program, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Chitedze resear ch station were major partners of ASSMAG. The Chitedze research station served as a major seed source and also trained farmers as seed and para-inspectors for seed qua lity assurance. APIP played a facilitation role in the procurement of cash loans by ASSMAG and the EU provided financial suppor t to cover most of the training programs, inspection and office costs. The association did not explicitly integrate gende r into its seed multiplication activities, but encouraged equal participation of both men a nd women in seed multiplication activities. According to informal discussion with A SSMAG leaders, about 40 percent of women participated in farming and leadership roles at SMAGs levels. However, this research found that very few women participated in l eadership roles at the ASSMAG level. ASSMAG put considerable emphasis on soil fe rtility management--particularly using crop rotations. All ASSMAG members were required to practice crop rotations. If a farmer did not
92 employ crop rotations he or she could be dis qualified from being a member of ASSMAG. Farmers also used a number of land conservatio n methods such as ridging, contour bands and vertiver grass. In sum, this research found that the organi zations implemented distinct strategies for linking farmers to market. However, these st rategies shared a co mmon understanding and recognition of the following: The crucial role women play in the agricultu ral production activities and that efforts to improve agricultural production and overall food security and income must focus on women as major stakeholders a nd of agricultura l technologies. Womens empowerment is an important considerat ion for them to take a pro-active role in household as well as community decision-making processes. The need to involve farmers-particularly women--in different enterprises for improved food security and income and overall reduce hunger and poverty among rural communities. Improved market access is very important to help farmers increase their income as an economic incentive to reinvest in soil fertility management. Analysis of Strategies Used by Organizatio ns to Link Farmers to Markets using the Institutional Framework This researcher set forward comparable crite ria as guides for analyzing strategies for linking farmers to markets using the institutional framework. The following is a list of predetermined criteria that the researcher used to compare and analyze strategies for linking farmers to market: a) Area of coverage b) Number of farmers (men and women) reached c) Level of operation (individual farmer s/groups or associations/communities d) Type/diversity of crops and/or livestock enterprises implemented by farmers e) Integration of gender an d community empowerment f) Focus on soil fertility management g) Type of support offered
93 Table 4-6 presents a summary of this analysis using an index score of x for low, xx for moderate and xxx for highest. This analysis wa s performed based on the information collected from key informants and farmers during informal interviews and focus group discussions. In terms of analyzing quantitative information--area of coverage, number of farmers reached and enterprises implemented--the lowest index score represents the lo west area covered, number of farmers reached and enterprises implemented. The analysis of qualitative information such as the integration of gender focused on whether strategies have a gender unit and on gender training offered to farmers. The analysis on soil fertility management focused on whether the strategies implemented soil fertility management technologies and type and number of soil fertility management technologies implemented by farmers. There was a variety of support offered by each strategy, which include training, inputs, capital or credit a nd market linkages. This res earcher, however, focused on how each strategy sustained market linkages. Geographical Area Covered and Number of Farmers Reached by each Strategy The geographical area is the scale at which th e strategies for linking farmers to market operated. LF and TL are national farmers organi zational strategies, ADP is an international church organizational strategy op erated in different countries world-wide. ERI and DD are international organizational strategies. TL, LF and ADP strategies covered a larger geographical area and reached more farmers than did ERI and DD strategies. They operated in all eight Agricultura l Development Divisions (ADDs) of the country. Hence, they received higher scores (xxx) than did ERI and DD strategies that received lowest scores (x) on scales of operation.
94 TL has reached 86,312 farmers (29,304 women) and LF has reached 2,400 farmers (960 women). ERI strategy worked in the central and northern region cove ring 13 farmers groups, while DD strategy operated only in the southern region covering six farmer s groups. However, the actual total number of farmers that ERI, ADP and DD worked with was not available. Levels of Operation There are two tiers (levels) through which each strategy could operate with farmers-individual farmers and farmers in groups. This research found that a ll strategies for linking farmers to the market worked with farmers in groups. During the focus group discussions (FGDs), farmers mentioned different reasons fo r them to work in groups. Table A-6 of Appendix A provides a summary of the major reasons for farmers to work in groups rather than individually. Increase in income, easy marketi ng and training were the major reasons listed by farmers across groups. In sum, this researcher found that while farmers worked in groups as a form of collective action in marketing and as a strategy to increase access to resources and services, they also produced and managed their cr ops and livestock enterp rises individually at household levels. Diversity of Enterprises Implemented by Farmers Type of enterprises (agroenterprises) mean s crops and livestock produced and managed by farmers in each strategy. Diversity of enterp rises means a variety of enterprises produced and managed by farmers in each strategy. Figure 4-3 displays the genera l results on types of enterprises implemented by all farmers studie d, where the majority of farmers produced groundnuts. About one third produced Open Po llinated Variety (OPV ) maize, beans and soybeans. A few farmers processed fr uit products, mushroom or chilies. In the case of livestock enterprises, only ADP and ERI strategies focused on the management of livestock enterprises. LF fa rmers managed improved pi gs and dairy cows and
95 LF farmers managed improved and local goats and chickens. The following is a summary of type of enterprises implemente d by farmers in each strategy: LF Maize, groundnuts, soybeans and beans, ADP Maize, groundnuts, soybeans, beans, mushroom and improved goats, TL Soybeans, groundnuts and chilies, ERI Beans, pigs and dairy cows, and DD Indigenous and exotic fru its, fruits and food products The Extent to Which Gender was Integrated in each Strategy This researcher found that all strategies for linking farmers to the market involved women in production and management of crops and livesto ck enterprises. However, ERI, DD, TL and ADP explicitly integrated gender in implementing these enterprises. Table 4-6, indicates highest scores (xxx) for ERI, TL and ADP that covered a wide range of issues on gender, a moderate score (xx) for the DD strategy that covered lim ited issues on gender and a low score (x) for LF because it did not explic itly integrate gender. Gender issues addressed varied by the strategy where the ma in gender issue addressed by LF was an equal representation of women and men into different interventions--particularly at Seed Multiplication Action Groups (SMAGs) le vels. The DD strategy focused on womens enterprises and also focused on shared roles and responsibilities. ERI, ADP and TL strategies included aspects of equal opport unities and representations, l eadership, household roles and responsibilities, decision-making, group work, c onflict and conflict resolutions, group and intrahousehold relationships as major compone nts to address issues of gender. Informal discussions with women farmers revealed that gender awareness training programs in terms of equal representations and opportunities, leadershi p, household roles and responsibilities and decision-making have increased their freedom and conf idence to participate in different interventions and in leadership roles. Overall, some of the women reported improvement in intra-household relationships and decision-making at the household level.
96 Examples were seen in ERI communities where women commented on improved intrahousehold relationships, increased confidence levels in public speak ing, negotiation power, decision-making, shared roles and responsibil ities and womens freedom to use household income accrued from different enterprises. Here is one farmers story from a focus group discussion with regard to effect of gender training: in the past, women here could kneel 3-5m away from the man if they were asking for money to purchase something, but this has changed. I can now take maize to the mill and pay without asking money from my husband by ERI-female farmer. Focus on Soil Fertility Management Soil fertility management was an integral co mponent of almost all strategies as each involved farmers in conservation farming methods to improve soil fertility. Major soil fertility management technologies that farmers used includ e crop rotations, contours and ridges, vertiver grass, agroforestry, chemical fertilizer, compost and animal manure. As presented in Table 4-6, the DD strategy ma inly focused on soil fertility management and hence received the highest score (xxx) comp ared to other strategies. The TL and ADP strategies partnered with the DD strategy or us ed most of DDs recomm ended technologies to improve soil fertility in the co mmunities they worked with. The TL and ADP strategies received moderate scores (xx) on the focu s on soil fertility management. The ERI strategy emphasized the importance of integrating natural resource management (NRM) in its activities, but, ER I farmers showed limited particip ation in the soil fertility management technologies. Likewise, LF farmers reported participating in crop rotation rather than other soil fertility manage ment technologies. The ERI a nd LF strategies received low scores (x) because they did not explicitly focus on soil fertility management at farmers levels.
97 Focus on Community Empowerment Community empowerment aims to point out wh ether strategies for linking farmers to market had any specific programs to empower th e communities they worked with. The ERI, ADP and TL are community-based strategies reported having specific units with the role to empower communities to take a pro-active role in production and marketing of crops and livestock. Table 4-6 shows that the ERI, ADP and TL strategies received a higher score (xxx) on community empowerment than did the LF and DD strategies. Type of Support Offered Strategies for linking farmers to the market offered different types of support to help farmers establish crops and/or live stock enterprises. However, th e type of support offered varied across these strategies. Some of the supports offe red were provided free, while others were inkind support where the strategies asked farmers to pass on to other farmers in the community the same amount of support given to them. This researcher, however, focused on sustained market linkages or services as one of the support offered by each strategy. ADP and TL had strong and sustained market linkages that farmers became aware of even before they produced their crops. ERI, DD and LF had weak and unsustainable market linkages that made it diffi cult for farmers to sell their crops and or livestock. Nonetheless, the following sections provide more understanding of various support actions offered by each strategy and contributio ns made by farmers to establish crops and livestock enterprises. The Enabling Rural Innovation: CIAT ERI farmers were involved in the producti on of crops and management of livestock enterprises. For crop enterprises, farmers main ly focused on beans as their potential enterprise crops. For livestock enterprises, farmers focuse d on dairy cows and improved pigs. To establish
98 bean multiplication enterprises, farmers contributed land and labor for the management of beans. When individual farmers wanted to produce more seed crops, farmers also contributed cash to purchase the additional amount of seed needed. The ERI strategy supported farmers with the following: Initial free seed in the amount of 10 kg per community that was distributed to the first 10 households Initial free fertilizer Technical support in the produc tion and management of crop s and livestock enterprises Training programs that covered production and management of crops and livestock enterprises, diseases and pests control, ma rketing, leadership, HIV/AIDS and gender Linking farmers to potential buyers and to othe r agricultural service providers such as agricultural extension and research institutes. For livestock enterprises, 10 initial households were selected to esta blish dairy cow and pig enterprises. For dairy cows, each initial household contributed 15,000MK for medicine/vaccines. The initial hous eholds involved in livestock enterprises contributed grasses for thatching, bricks for construc ting animal houses (kola), nails and labor for the management of livestock (cleaning animal houses, feeding and wa tering). ERI, in collaboration with Plan Malawi for implementation of dairy cows, and with Lilongwe ADD for implementation of pigs, supported farmers with the following: Dairy cows that farmers purchased for a price of 15,000MK per cow, Free Improved pigs, Training programs in the following areas: Enterprise development and management Construction of animal houses Preparation of animal feed/feed formulations Marketing skills (how to identify markets, ma ke contract with buyers and record keeping) How to identify an animal in heat How to identify an animal when sick The Demand-Driven Strategy: ICRAF The DD strategy worked in partnership with other organizations to support two womens groups--the Magomero and Chitukuko. The Magome ro group initially worked with Community
99 Partnerships for Sustainable Resource Ma nagement (COMPASS) and Chitukuko group worked with the Malawi Hunger Project. The difference in collaborative initiatives was also a major cause of difference in support that farmers in these two groups rece ived for initial investment in fruit processing enterprises. Farmers in both gr oups contributed labor for the daily management of their fruit processing enterprises. In the case of the Chitukuko group, the DD strategy supported farmers with fruit processing machines (mango pulp) and training in fruit processing. The Malawi Hunger Project supported farmers with the initial capital to purchase processing e quipment and utensils, and also offered training programs in food processing, gender equality, HIV/AIDS, group work and interactions among group members. The Magomero fruit processing group was init iated by COMPASS, an organization that provided the group with the initi al capital to purchase processing machines and other fruit processing utensils. COMPASS also paid rent on behalf of the group for the processing facility that the group was using. In a ddition, farmers were trained on how to process indigenous fruits, business management and HIV/AIDS. COMPASS supported farmers for one year, and then DD strategy took over and provided the following additional support to the group: Training in the production and processing of fruit products Supported group members training tours in areas such as Mzimba and NkhataBay to meet and learn from other farmers who were involved in processing activities Provided the group with a free proc essing machine (mango presser) Provided cash for farmers to pay rent for the processing facility they were using Organized contract training of other groups by farmers Introduce group members to nationa l and international visitors Linked the group to potential market s, for instance, Annies Lodge.
100 The Area Development Program: World Vision This is a unique strategy in that one household could implement multiple seed crop enterprises, or a combination of crops a nd improved goat enterprises. To support the establishment of seed multiplic ation activities farmers cont ributed land, labor, manure and capital to hire additional labor, purchase additional seed and fertili zer, and they paid registration and annual fees (1,000 MK in total). The ADP st rategy supported farmers with the following to help them establish the seed crop multiplication enterprises: Free seed of all crops, but only for the first year Free other materials such as treadle pumps, fertilizer, pesticides and sprayers Training in the following areas: Seed multiplication Crop management Agroforestry Leadership Conflict resolutions Gender shared role s and responsibilities Marketing skills (how to identify markets and how to keep records) Linkage to potential buyers and other organizations such as Chitedze research station for seed and land veri fication/certification. Market information In addition to crop enterprises, two LF farm ers groups managed improved goats. Farmers preferred to manage meat rather than dairy goats because dairy goats did not acclimatize to their local farm conditions, hence, many of the dairy goats died. Farmers c ontributed animal feed, labor for the management of goats, material fo r the construction of animal houses and capital (15,000MK) to purchase animal drugs. The ADP st rategy offered support to farmers in terms of the following: Free improved goats, but farmers had to contribut e the initial capital to purchase animal drugs Linkage to buyers
101 Training in the construction of animal houses vaccination and identification of signs and symptoms of animal diseases Regular supervision and monitoring The Trader-Led Strategy: NASFAM TL farmers engaged in the production of groundnut s, soybeans and chilies, as enterprise crops. Among the four farmers groups visite d, three produced groundnuts and soybeans and one group produced chilies. Despite the differences in crops that farmers produced, this study found that TL farmers contributed land a nd their own labor to support th e initial estab lishment of the crop enterprises. For the production of gr oundnuts and soybeans, the TL strategy supported farmers with the following: Seed loans Purchase (buy back) crops from farmers Training in the following areas: Production and management of crop enterprises Grading and packaging Market research (how to identify markets, negotiate with buyers, and how to conduct cost and benefit analysis) Gender shared role s and responsibilities Leadership Conflict resolution HIV/AIDS Agroforestry technologies, and Adult literacy The chilies group had a differe nt experience working with th e TL strategy. Before they registered with the TL strategy, individual farmer s informally sold chilies to the TL strategy. However, when they sold individually to TL, fa rmers complained that TL offered a much lower price for chilies when compared to the regist ered farmers. The TL strategy encouraged nonregistered farmers to form this group in order fo r them to receive higher pr ices. After they were registered, farmers paid a membership fee and al so contributed labor to support the establishment
102 of chilies enterprises. Farmers reported that th e TL strategy contributed onl y the initial seed and did not offer other support such as training pr ograms as it promised/or did to other groups. Linkage through Farmer Association: ASSMAG The LF strategy engaged in seed multiplication activities for different crops. Open Pollinated Maize (OPV) was the major seed cr op produced by the majority of farmers. However, a few farmers also produced other seed crops such as groundnuts, beans and soybeans. LF offered training programs in land selection an d ensured that farmers met the requirements for seed multiplication such as isolation distance pa rticularly for maize, agronomic practices and grading. Other training programs that farmer s received were leader ship, para-inspection4, conflict resolution and marketing skills. For marketing skills, this researcher noted that the training programs in marketing skills such as the identification of market (market research), negotiation, contractual arrangements, record-keeping and how to conduct cost and benefit analysis were offered only to the marketing committee at the association level, but not to th e majority of farmers at lower group levels. Gender training was very limited and only offered to treasurers at each extension planning area (EPAs)--who were supposed to train fellow farmers on gender issues. Other supports offered by the LF strategy included the following: Free initial seed or in itial capital for farmers to buy the initial seed par ticularly in 1999/2000 when multiplication of seed crops by farmers was established Identification of potential buyers fo r seed crops produced by farmers Market information and marketing of seed crops produced by farmers Linking farmers to other potential organiza tions and /donors, for instance, APIP. 4 Pre-inspection before the actual inspectio n done by seed certification agents
103 Farmers contributed land and their own la bor to support the esta blishment of seed multiplication enterprises. When individual farmers wanted to produce more seed crops, they contributed cash to purchase the ad ditional amount of seed needed. Objective Two: Analyze the Extent to which Women Participate in the Market This section compares and analyzes strategies for linking farmers to markets in terms of the extent to which women participate in the ma rket. The analysis begins with a summary of gender-disaggregated production ac tivities that women and men carried out in each strategy, followed by results on specific marketing informati on from individual farmers interviews. In this research, participation to market--which is so cially constructed-is an index that involves the following variables that would be measured individually: Average amount of crop harvested and consumed Average amount of crop sold Average price per kg sold Total average income obtained Average amount of income controlled by women vs. amount controlled by men Who sells produce to the market? To which markets farmers sell their produce? To which markets women sell produced? Who transports produce to the market? The Extent to which Women and Men Partic ipate in the Production Activities This researcher conducted a gender-disaggregated activity calendar with farmers groups to understand more about various pr oduction and marketing activities that women and men carried out across enterprises across strate gies. Gender-disaggregated activ ities varied across farmers groups hence, the detailed results ar e reported by group in Appendix A. In most cases, all household members were i nvolved in production, pesticide application and harvesting activities. Howe ver, men performed primary role s in marketing and control of income. Exceptions to this were the Kasiya a nd Chinseu groups of the LF and ERI strategies
104 respectively. For the Kasiya group, women contro lled the income but men still made decisions on use of that income. For the Chinseu group, wo men controlled most of the income, but they shared decisions with men on use of that income One of the men responded as follows when asked why women controlled much of the income: ...we prefer our wives to own money from bean s because many of us are mobile, and some of us drink too much beer that may lead to inadequate income to women when they need money to sustain household need s. By ERI male farmer. Production of Crop Enterprises by Farmers The results presented in this section focu s on the data collected during 2004/05 production and marketing season. Table 4-7 shows the pe rcent distribution of farmers who produced different crops in the 2004/05 season. The results show that 45.9% of farmers produced groundnuts, 25.9% of farmers produced beans, 25.3% produced OPV maize and 20.6% produced soybeans. Very few farmers processed fruit pr oducts or produced chilies or mushrooms. Table 4-8 presents the number of farmers w ho produced different types of crops across strategies. In summary, groundnuts were produc ed by LF, TL and ADP farmers while beans were a favorite of ERI and ADP farmers. OPV maize was produced by the majority of LF and ADP farmers. The majority of TL farmers al so produced soybeans. LF and ADP farmers produced crops enterprises as se ed, but also consumed part of while ERI, DD and TL farmers produced crops as grains (food). The Extent to Which Farmers Participat e in the Market by Crop Enterprises Open Pollinated Crop (OPV) Maize As reported in Table 4-9, only farmers who wo rked with LF and ADP strategies produced and sold OPV maize. On average, LF farmer s cultivated more land for OPV maize than ADP farmers, which is also reflected in the higher amount of seed used by farmers and amount of seed they harvested. Based on results in Table 4-9, this researcher calculated the percentage of OPV
105 maize consumed and sold by farmers. The results in Figure 4-4 show that LF farmers sold 84.1% and consumed only 15.9% of the harvested OPV maize. ADP farmers consumed nearly as much OPV maize as they sold, which was 47.8% and 52.6% respectively. This particular result may reflect the different emphasis that ADP and LF have placed on production of these crops by farmers. For example, it is well known that ADP strategy emphasizes both--food security and income generation. Hence, the majority of farmers were found to consume a substantial amount of OPV maize they produced, but, also sold su rplus for income earning. LF farmers considered production of OPV maize as a s eed business; thats why they sold the largest amount of OPV maize produced, al though some of the farmers also consumed part of it. As reported in Table 4-9, the average price that farmers sold OPV maize varied between LF and ADP strategies. On av erage, LF farmers sold OPV maize at a lower price of 46.17 MK per kg than ADP farmers who sold maize seed at an average price of 56.74 MK per kg. The variation in price might have b een caused by factors such as th e quality of OPV maize produced and the different markets to which farmers sold their OPV maize. Nonetheless, because of the higher amount of land planted with OPV maize th at relates to the highe r amount of OPV maize harvested by LF farmers, the lower price these farmers received did not lower the total average amount of income they obtained. On average, LF farmers obtained higher total income of 268,346.67 MK than the average total income of 46,562.50 MK obtained by ADP farmers. Table A-10 of Appendix A shows percentage of farmers by different markets where they sold OPV Maize. The results indicate that th e majority of LF and ADP farmers sold OPV maize to the LF strategy and to the Ka fulu association respectively. In addition, LF farmers also sold OPV maize to vendors. Usually, ADP farmer s sold OPV maize to vendors, but for 2005 marketing season, none of the ADP farmers interv iewed sold OPV maize to any vendors. The
106 detailed information on the different market s to which farmers sold OPV maize and who transported OPV maize to the market s are found in the Appendix A. Table 4-9 also reports income controlled by men and by women. Over 55% of maize income was controlled by women in the LF strategy while about 41% by women in the ADP strategy. Figure 4-5 clarifies more on the c ontrol of income from OPV maize by women and men. In sum, LF women controlled more inco me from OPV maize than men. But, for ADP, men controlled more income from OPV maize than women. Groundnuts (Peanuts) As reported in Table 4-10, groundnuts were pr oduced and sold by farmers who worked with the LF, ADP and TL strategies. LF a nd ADP farmers produced and sold groundnuts as seed, while TL farmers produced groundnuts as high quality grains (food). On average, LF farmers planted 3.03 acre of land with groundnut s, followed by TL-farmers (2.2 acre) and ADP farmers (1.9 acre). The higher average amount of land planted with groun dnuts also reflects the higher average amount of seed farmers planted. But the average amount of groundnuts harvested varied between ADP and TL strategies. Althou gh farmers who worked with TL planted more land with groundnuts, they harvested less (365.41 kg) when compared to ADP farmers whose harvests averaged 758.40 kg. In view of this, ADP farmers sold more groundnuts (434.35 kg) than TL farmers who sold an average of 268.65 kg of groundnuts. LF and ADP farmers produced groundnut as seed hence, the extra effort in the management of the seed for quality assurance could be a better reason to explain an increase in average amount of groundnuts harvested by ADP farmers compared to TL farm ers whose major focus was to produce and sell groundnuts as grains. In the same Table 4-10, results indicate that the average price that farmers sold groundnuts varied across the three strategi es. As demonstrated by Figure 4-6, ADP farmers sold groundnuts
107 at a much higher price of 43.63 MK per kg than LF and TL farmers who sold their groundnuts at 36.24 MK and 38.50 MK per kg respectively. The pric e difference was due to different markets to which these strategies sold groundnuts produced by farmers. Nonetheless, because of the large farm size planted with LF farmers, they also received higher av erage total income of 180,841.18 MK, followed by ADP and TL farmers w hose total income averaged 20,496.36 MK and 12,380.30 MK respectively. Table A-12 of Appendix A shows the percent di stribution of farmers by markets to which they sold groundnuts. The majority of LF fa rmers sold groundnuts to vendors while a few LF farmers also sold groundnuts to LF and World Vision. TL farmers sold groundnuts to the TL strategy and none of them sold groundnuts to any vendors. For ADP, the majority of farmers sold groundnuts through the Kafulu association, although a few farmers also sold groundnuts to ADP and vendors. In sum, this researcher found that women sold groundnuts to markets-particularly when farmers sold to vendors. See Appendix A for the detailed information on markets to which farmers sold groundnuts and for the results on who transported groundnuts to the market centers. Figure 4-7 shows results on the control of income from groundnuts by women and men. The percentage of income controlled by women varied by strategy with women controlling over 80% income in LF followed by 45.5% in TL an d about 37% in ADP. In sum, LF women controlled much more income from groundnut s than women in TL and ADP strategies. Beans LF, ERI and ADP are three strategies that en gaged in production and marketing of beans. While LF and ADP farmers produced and sold b eans as seed, ERI farmers produced and sold beans as food grains. Table 4-11 reports the average amount of acreage planted with beans, amount of beans harvested, consumed and sold, price per kg of beans sold and total income
108 obtained after selling beans. The results show that LF farmers planted an average of 1.4 acre while ADP and ERI farmers planted 1.32 and 0.93 acr es respectively. The amount of beans that farmers harvested was higher for LF farmers, 650 kg, than for ADP and ERI farmers, which were 282.05 kg and 128.4 kg respectively. Table 4-11 also reports that ADP and LF farmer s sold beans at average prices of 95.9 MK and 81.7 MK respectively, much higher compared to ERI farmers who sold their beans at 65.1 MK per kg. This difference in pr ice could be attributed to the difference in seed grade produced by farmers across the strategies. ADP and LF fa rmers produced beans as seed, thus they also sold beans at seed market price. ERI farmers pr oduced beans as grains, thus farmers sold beans at a lower price compare to ADP and LF farmers. Beans are important relish for the majorities of farmers in Malawi; hence, farmers who produ ced beans generally sold at a higher price compared to other legumes such as groundnuts and soybeans. Table A-15 of Appendix A shows the percent response by markets to which farmers sold beans. LF farmers sold beans to the LF st rategy while ADP farmers sold beans to the ADP strategy and through the Kafulu farm er association. The majority of ERI farmers sold beans to vendors, but a few farmers sold beans to the markets outside their communities. ERI women represent the majority of farmers who sold b eans to vendors. Additional information on the markets to which farmers sold beans and who transported beans to th e markets is found in Appendix A. Figure 4-8 shows the distribution of total av erage income obtained from beans by farmers across the three strategies, which is highe r for LF (38,750.0 MK) than for ADP (17,447.73 MK) and ERI (6,747.1 MK). Figure 4-9 di splays the control of an aver age total income from beans by
109 women and men, which varied by strategy. Women controlled 100% of income in LF followed by 90.6% in ERI and about 30% in ADP. Soybeans As reported in Table 4-12, only farmers who worked with the LF, ADP and TL strategies produced and sold soybeans. For the LF and ADP strategies, farmer s produced and sold soybeans as seed while for TL, farmers produced and sold soybeans as grains. Table 4-12 also presents the average amount of acreage planted with soybeans, amount of soybeans harvested, consumed and sold and total income obtained afte r selling soybeans. The results show that LF farmers planted an average amount of 1.2 acres while ADP and TL farmers planted 0.9 and 0.8 acres respectively. Generally, th e amount of land planted with s oybeans, the average amount of seed used, harvested and sold by farmers were higher for LF than for ADP and TL strategies. As indicated in Table 4-12, ADP farmers so ld at much higher price than LF and TL farmers. LF farmers sold at 30 MK while TL and ADP farmers sold at 16.8 MK and 34.0 MK respectively. This researcher found that the difference in pric es was contributed by the quality of soybeans farmers produced and on the type of markets to which farmers sold soybeans. Nevertheless, LF farmers obtained much hi gher income from soybeans, which was 11,416.67 MK, than for ADP and TL farmers who obt ained 7,460.00 MK and 3,368.70 MK respectively. Table A-18 of Appendix A presents percent response by markets to which farmers sold soybeans. The results show that the majority of LF and TL farmers sold soybeans through their strategies. For ADP, the majority of farmers sold through Kafulu association and a few farmers sold soybeans to ADP. Additional information on market to which farmers sold soybeans and who transported soybeans to the markets can be found in Appendix A.
110 Figure 4-10 displays the control of an av erage total income from soybeans. The percentage of income controlled by men and women varied by strategy with men controlling 100% income in LF while women controlled over 50% income in TL and ADP. Chilies Table 4-13 reports results on pr oduction and marketing of chilies by farmers. Only one group that worked with TL produced and sold chilies On average less than an acre was planted with chilies, which also indicat es the limited amount of chilies sold by farmers to the market. Significantly, few chilies were consumed by farm ers as farmers mainly produced chilies for income generation. As indicated in Table 4-13, farmers sold ch ilies to TL at 76.1 MK per kg and obtained an average total income of 1,747. Some of the chilie s also were sold to vendors, who purchased chilies from farmers houses. While women we re more involved in selling chilies to vendors, TL was more responsible for selling chilies to ot her identified markets. With regard to who controlled income, this research er found that women controlled the total income obtained from chilies. Mushroom As in the case of chilies, only one group of farmers who worked with the ADP strategy produced and sold mushrooms. As reported in Table 4-14, farmers averaged 5.8 bottles of mushroom seed (spawn), from which they harves ted an average of 7.4 kg of mushrooms. Apart from producing mushrooms for income generation, farmers also consumed mushrooms, mostly as a relish with Nsima --a favorite Malawian staple food c onsisting of maize flour. Mushrooms were sold at the highest price compared to al l crops produced and marketed by farmers under this study. The major reason that mushrooms were a high value crop is because farmers sold it to such potential markets in Malawi as the Ital ian restaurant-Mama Mia and shopping centers such
111 as Shopprite and Peoples Trading Ce nters (PTCs). Some of the farmers also sold mushrooms to local village markets. Mushrooms were mostly managed by women who also participated in selling mushrooms to the central as well as to the local village mark ets. When selling to central markets, the market committee, in which most women participated, wa s more responsible for transporting and selling mushrooms to Shopprite, PTCs and Mama Mia restaurant. Farmers have used public transport ( Matoola ) to deliver mushrooms to these markets. This study found that women controlled income from mushrooms. Processed fruit products The DD strategy worked with farmers (Jal i and Magomero groups) that engaged in processing and marketing of indi genous and exotic fruits and products. Apart from processing fruit products--mainly juices--Figures 4-11 provide an example of other products processed by farmers in the Jali group, which include wines, vegetables, sweet potatoes, cassava starch, refined oil from groundnuts and soybeans powder that was used to add broth to vegetables or meat stews. Farmers in the Magomero group mainly processed different types of juice. Table 4-15 reports results on quantity (liters) of juices sold by farmers, price per liter sold and total income obtained. In 2005, the Magomero group sold 841 liters of juice at a price of 150 MK per liter and obtained a total am ount of 126,150 MK, which they shared among themselves. The Jali group sold 41 liters of juice at a price of 75 MK per liter and 22 bottles of banana wine each at a price of 160 MK. The Ja li group obtained a total income of 6,595 MK, in which farmers kept the money in a joint gr oup bank account. Women in both groups controlled most of the income from fruit products. As far as selling of processed fruits is concerned, farmers in Jali group shared the marketing activities. Generally, farmers did not ha ve a specific market in which they could sell
112 juices. Each member carried the same quantity of juice and other products to sell either to local markets, to neighbors in the same village, to neighboring villages as th ey walked back home from the processing unit, or to school children. Apart from these markets, farmers also sold centrally from the processing unit, where each member took a turn se lling juice and other products. All members determined the price to se ll their products; hence, customers did not have an opportunity to negotiate for discounted prices. Similarly, farmers in Magomero group also shar ed marketing activities. This group had a contractual agreement to deliver fruit juices to Annies Lodge, a market link that was facilitated by the DD strategy. However, through their own initiatives, farmers also identified other markets such as Peter and Lions Lodge and supe rmarkets such as Shopprite and PTCs. Farmers in this group also sold fruit juices to children in different schools and to other people in local communities. The Extent to Which Farmers Particip ate in the Marketing of Livestock As described earlier, only ADP and ERI farmer s engaged in the management of livestock enterprises. In the case of livestock manage ment activities, this re searcher found that all household members were involved in the mana gement of improved pi gs and dairy cows. However, for ADP, men were more involved in the management of improved pigs than women. Table 4-16 reports the number of farmers who managed livestock enterprises. The results show that 43 farmers out of 170 farmers studie d, managed livestock enterprises. ERI farmers managed dairy cows and improved pigs, wh ile ADP farmers managed improved goats. Table 4-17 shows growth of livestock enterprises by farmers among ERI and ADP farmers. The results show that ERI farmers star ted with one livestock un it--either a dairy cow or an improved pig. ERI farmers who managed dair y cows continued to have one dairy cow per household, but for those who managed improved pigs the number increased up to seven units.
113 In the case of ADP, farmers were free to purchase improved goats from fellow farmers or wait for a goat to be passed on to them by fellow farmers. As re ported in Table 4-18, on average, farmers started with two improved goats, with ADP providing one goat through a pass on mechanism. Farmers purchased additional number s of goats from fellow farmers. In this way, farmers were able to manage up to 27 units of improved goats. As reported in Table 4-17, ERI farmers lost more livestock--mostly improved pigs--than ADP farmers. ERI farmers lost more piglets at the outset of the livestoc k enterprises because of lack of feed and water due to drought condi tions, diseases and poor knowledge in proper management of pigs and feeding. Informal discus sions with ADP farmers also revealed the same major reasons for animal loss. In addition, some of the improved goats--particularly dairy goats-died because these goats did not acclimatize to the farmers local conditions. Table 4-18 shows that out of 43 farmers w ho managed livestock, only 22 farmers sold livestock in 2005. Farmers who managed dairy cows did not sell any of their animals. Only three households started milking the dairy cows where women controlled all the income from milk. This researcher observed that ADP farm ers preferred not to sell improved goats unless in desperate need of cash for household requirements. For these farmers, improved goats were kept as assets and also for paying dowry during mar ital ceremonies. Since farmers engaged in dairy cows did not sell their animals, subsequent analysis of livestock enterprises will be based only on improved pigs and goats. As reported in Table 4-18, farmers sold pigs an d goats at different pr ices with ERI farmers selling pigs at higher prices (more than twice) than ADP farmers. The average amount of income obtained by ERI farmers was also much more than the average amount obtained by ADP farmers. This difference might be attributed by the high demand of pigs meat compared to
114 improved goats. Nonetheless, ERI men controlled over 90% of income from pigs while for the ADP strategy, men and women shared about 88 % of the income from improved goats. In the case of marketing, ERI farmers sold pigs to vendors and to farmers within and outside the community. By the time this research was carried out, farmer s did not have specific markets to sell pigs. However, ERI was working w ith farmers to re-identify potential markets to which farmers could sell pigs. On the othe r hand, ADP farmers sold improved goats through Kafulu association, to fellow farmers in the communities or to the ADP strategy. Because farmers preferred to keep improved goats rather than selling them, ADP farmers did not have much difficulty selling improved goats. Regardle ss to which market farmer sold livestock, men were more involved in selling livestock to buyers than women in both strategies. Summary: Objective Two In sum, this researcher found that the majo rity of participating farmers--particularly women--across strategies owned between 2.1 to 10 acres of land. This finding does not represent a typical example of land ownership by small holder farmers in Malawi, in which other researchers found that the majority of farmers owned small land holdings between 1-2 acres. In terms of levels of education, LF farmers were fa irly distributed across a ll levels of education. Nonetheless, other strategies represent a fa irly large number of farmers who went through secondary education. Based on farm ers characteristics, this rese arch concludes that strategies for linking farmers to market--particularly LF, ADP and TL--worked with higher resource farmers than did ERI and DD strategies. In addition, LF, ADP and TL supported farmers more in terms of market links th an did ERI and DD strategies. The researcher looked at the ex tent to which women farmers pa rticipated in the production and marketing of various crops, which varied acro ss crops enterprises across strategies. In most cases, all household members were involved in production, pesticide applic ation and harvesting
115 activities. However, men performed primary ro les in marketing and co ntrol of income from crop enterprises. Exceptions to this were LF DD and ERI strategies where women controlled most of the income from their enterprises. For the livestock enterprises, this research er found that all household members in the LF strategy were involved in the management of improved pigs and dairy cows. For ADP, men were more involved than women in the manageme nt of livestock. Mark eting of livestock was done by men in both the ERI and ADP strategies. Nonetheless, ERI men controlled much more income from livestock than women while in th e ADP strategy, men controlled only a slightly higher income from livestock than women. Objective Three: Analyze Benefits Women Fa rmers Derive from Participating in the Market The third objective of this study was to dete rmine what benefits women farmers derived from participating in the market. This research er considers both quantitative benefits (income obtained vs. income owned by women farmers) and qualitative benefits th at often tend to be overlooked. The qualitative benefits of interest to this study in clude investments that farmers have made from the total income obtained (speci fically childrens educat ion, food security and asset building), capacity devel opment, empowerment (applicati on of knowledge gained) and gender-related benefits (wife-hus band relationships, change in roles and responsibilities of women and men, and decision-mak ing at the household level). Benefits based on Income Ownership This study found that income was the major bene fit mentioned by the majority of farmers. However, the average income obtained by farm ers varied by crop enterprises as well as by strategies. As illustrated in Figure 4-12, farmers who produced ma ize seed obtained the highest
116 amount of income, followed by farmers who pr ocessed fruits, groundnuts, beans, soybeans, mushrooms and chilies. Table 4-19 presents average income obtained by farmers across strategies. The results show that LF farmers obtained the highest income across all crops when compared to farmers in other strategies. This research found that the difference in aver age income was impacted by the amount of land holdings, type and quantity of crop s that farmers produced and sold and the price in which these crops were sold. Figure 4-13 and Table 4-20 present the genera l results on the average amount of income controlled by women across crop enterprises. Table 4-21 presents pe rcentage of income controlled by women across strategies. In fact, women controlled income from all crops they produced. LF women controlled 55.6% of in come from maize, 89.8% of income from groundnuts and 100% of income from beans wh ile DD women farmers controlled 100% of income from fruit products. ADP women controll ed about 41% of income from maize, 36.9% of income from groundnuts, 30% of income from b eans, 65% of income from soybeans and 100% of income from mushroom. TL women contro lled 45.5% of income fr om groundnuts, 56.9% of income from soybeans and 100% of income from chilies. ERI women controlled 90.6% of income from beans. With regard to gender and c ontrol of income by women, this researcher found that women across all strategies have benefited from the contro l of income across different crop enterprises. Specifically, LF women benef ited more from maize, groundnuts and beans while TL women benefited more from soybeans and chilies. ER I women benefited more from beans, DD women benefited more from fruit products and ADP women benefited more from groundnuts and soybeans. Moreover, ADP men benefited more from maize and beans than women.
117 Several reasons could explain the differen ce in control of income by women across strategies. LF men commented that because the majority of men worked outside their communities, women had more opportunity to contro l income from differen t enterprises. The DD strategy involved only women as the fruit processing enterp rise is considered womens enterprise. Hence, women had more control of the enterprise and income accrued from fruit products. For the ERI strategy, the gender training offered to farmers, which was much more extensive compared to the ge nder training offered by TL, DD a nd ADP strategies could be a major reason for an increase in control of income by women farmers. Benefits based on Income-Investment Patterns This study developed benefits diagrams to s how how farmers used income from different enterprises. Figures B 1-10 of Appendix B demons trate some of the farmers benefits diagrams. In addition to the diverse benefits that farmers de rived from their participat ion in the market, this research provides detailed analysis of such bene fits as investment in food and nutrition, children education, soil fertility management and asset build ing. For better analysis this researcher has categorized all farmers investments into food security, childrens ed ucation, soil fertility management, household and hard assets. Investments Made by Farmers Table 4-22 presents general results on per cent response by type of investments made by farmers. The results show that over 55% of farm ers studied invested more in clothing, chemical fertilizer, kitchen items and food. A few farmers also invested in childrens education, livestock, new houses, bicycles, mattresses, grocery stor es, televisions, chairs and automobiles (garimoto ). The grocery stores were small stores that farmers stocked wi th food and other household items such as laundry and bath soap to sell to other farmers in the communities.
118 This researcher assumed that participation in the market could increase food security among farmers. However, 44.7% of the farmers in terviewed did not use th eir total income to purchase food for their households. Because partic ipating farmers had more resources and were better educated than the average Malawian farm ers, they had less need to purchase food and could use their discretionary cash for other things. Table 4-23 provides detailed resu lts of farmers investment patterns, which varied across strategies. The investment pa tterns are divided in to household items, agricultural inputs, livestock, education and hard asse ts. Hard assets are permanent assets or permanent structures; for instance, houses and automobiles. As Table 4-23 reports, for the household item s, the majority of LF, ERI, TL and ADP farmers invested in clothing while for DD, the majo rity of farmers invested in kitchen items. For livestock, the majority of LF, DD, TL and ADP farmers purchased livestock but, for ERI, the majority of farmers purchased livestock feed. Fa rmers across all strategies invested in animal housing, chemical fertilizer and childrens educ ation. Moreover, the majority of LF farmers invested in grocery stores, new houses and automob iles compared to farmers in other strategies. Figure 4-14 displays results on farmers investment in f ood with TL farmers investing more in food than farmers in other strategies Figure 4-15 shows that LF and ADP farmers invested more in chemical fertilizer for soil fertilit y management than farmers in other strategies. In addition, farmers who managed livestock were able to obtain enough manure for soil fertility management. As one of the farmers commented: ...we now get enough manure from the pigs we raise, which is enough to supplement the inorganic fertilizer we buy from the market By ERI woman. As indicated in Figure 4-16, TL farmers invested more in livestock than farmers in other strategies. In the case of child rens education, results in Figure 4-17 indicate that LF farmers
119 invested more in childrens educa tion than farmers in other strategies. In sum, participating in the market has increased farmers income that helped farmers to solve a variety of household needs. As one of the married couple emphasized: ...we sold four pigs and used the money to buy maize bran, fish meal, lime and salt ingredients for feed formulations. From the pig money, I also bought household items such as cooking oil, soaps, body oil and chitenge. My husband and I plan to use the money remaining to purchase fertilizer for th is upcoming crop production season. By ERI married couple. ...the number of houses constructed and electrif ied, assets purchased and farmers income has increased as a result of our participating in the market. By ADP farmer. Other Benefits Women Derived from Participating in the Market Change in Human Capital (Capacity/Knowledge/Skills Development) This research found that each strategy built fa rmers capacity for improved production and marketing of different crops and livestock enterprises. Table 424 presents results of farmers responses on whether their knowledge and skills improved as a result of their participation in different marketing strategies. Overall, 94.3% of all farmers responded that their knowledge and skills improved as a result of participating in the marketing strategies. When farmers were asked why their knowledge and skills have imp roved, some of the farmers responded: Through training, I have acquired knowledge and skills in seed multiplication and livestock management that have improved food production and income. With additional training in gender, I can even now afford to manage my family. By ADP female farmer. Being a member of the group I have an access to processing machines, which have increased my knowledge in operating the machines I use the skills acq uired to train other farmers with similar interest. By DD female farmer. I feel more empowered to manage our pi gs more confidently. The training programs offered through ERI approach has increased my sk ills in crop management practices, market research and enterprise ma nagement. By ERI female farmer. Within strategies however, 74% of TL farmers responded that there was no change in knowledge and skills since they star ted collaborating with TL strategy. The main reason for this
120 was that there were a lot of new members who were not trained on the production and management of crop enterprises. Another r eason--particularly for the chilies group--was inadequate training offered to farmers as one out of seven farmers emphasized: The knowledge acquired from chilies was not adequate because I still need to be supervised to increase chilies pr oduction. By TL chilies farmer. Social Networks and Social Relationships (Social Capital) The majority of farmers also mentioned that their social networks and relationships have changed as a result of their participation in the market-linkage strategy. As Table 4-24 indicates, 91.4 % of all farmers mentioned improvement in social networks and relationships. Similar responses also were seen for the majority of fa rmers across strategies. When farmers were asked why their social networks and social re lationships have improved, some responded: Social networks and relationships among pe ople have improved and increased by working together in groups. We also meet more often now than we used to be, which has increased sharing knowledge among ourselves. The numbe r of visitors has increased and we have more opportunities to exchange ideas with visito rs and also to build social relations with them. By ERI farmer. The group work helped us to learn from others new things that we never knew before. By ERI female farmer. Our relationships with fellow farmers and othe r people across regions have increased. Our social understanding of what is going on in ot her parts of the worl d has increased through watching TVs that we purchased from the crops we produce and sell with the World Vision. By ADP farmer. Self confidence This study also looked at farmers responses to the changes in self c onfidence as a result of participating in the market-linkage strategy. Self confidence here means the ability of farmers to communicate in public. As indica ted in Table 4-24, 94.8% of farmer s mentioned that that their self confidence has improved. Farmers commen ted, generally that womens confidence has
121 increased because they no longer feel shy to talk in front of public meetings or openly engaging in a dialogue with men. As some of the farmers put forward: Womens confidence has now increased compared to the way women used to be in the past. Women can now talk even in front of their in-laws. By ERI male farmer. I can now make jam from my house, and my fa mily is now healthy because we are using natural fruits that I make my self. By DD farmer. Position-status in the community Table 4-24 presents results of farmers respons es with regard to ch anges in their positionstatus in the community. Change in the pos ition-status means that farmers become more recognized because of what they do in the co mmunities. The results show that 92.5% of all farmers studied responded that they became more recognized in their communities as a result of participating in the market strategies. Farmers pe rceived that increase in income--particularly for those who used to do casual labor ( Ganyu ) to earn addition income--has improved their status and recognition in their communities. Gender-Related Benefits Women Derived from Participating in the Market One of this researchers interests was to bring more understanding of the gender-related benefits that farmers derived from their particip ation in the market-linkage strategy. Table 4-25 and Figure 4-18 show results on farmers respons es by changes in wife-husband relationships, roles and responsibilities and decision-making among married farmers. The results indicate improvement in wife-husband relationships, roles and responsibilities and decision making at the household level. Change in Wife-Husband Relations Table 4-25 indicates that 90.7 % of married farmers commented improvement in wifehusband relationships a result of participating in a market-linkage strategy. One of the ADP women asserted that due to the benefits she and her husband obtained from participating in seed
122 multiplication activities, they were finally living in peace and loving each other more than in the past. As reported in Table 4-25, a few LF, DD and ADP farmers commented that wife-husband relationships remained the same. This research er found that most of the farmers who responded that their wife-husband relations hips remained the same were either widow, widower, divorced or separated before they started working with strategies for linking farmers to market. Also, one farmer each from LF, ERI and TL commented that the wife-husband relationship became worse after they started participating in the marketing strategies. Change in Roles and Responsibilities be tween Women and Men at Household Level Table 4-25 indicates improvement in the role s and responsibilities that both women and men played at household level acro ss all the strategies. One of the ERI farmers, for instance, commented that participation in the market has increased sharing of responsibilities between men and women for both reproductive and productive ac tivities. As reporte d in Table 4-25, the majority of farmers across strategies indicated that womens work load had been reduced while some of the farmers across strategies also commented that womens work load worsened. In general, this research found that change in womens work load varied by strategy and by income that farmers obtained from different ente rprises. An informal discussion with farmers indicates that the increase in income enab led them to hire addition casual labor ( Ganyu ). Hence, even if there was an increase in work load, th e increase in income helped these women reduce the work load by hiring additional labor. On the other hand, if the household has limited income, it implies that women had to perform most of th e activities without suppor t from casual laborers. Change in Decision making at the Household Level Table 4-25 presents results of farmers res ponses to changes in th e decision making among married farmers across strategies. The results show that the majority of farmers across strategies
123 commented improvement in decision making among married farmers. One of the women interviewed commented: I am now involved more in the household deci sion-making than before. I can now make decisions even in the absence of my husband and give him feedback later when he comes back home. This researcher concludes that women farmers have directly and indi rectly benefited from different enterprises across strategies. Through ac cess to income from di fferent enterprises, women are seen to use that income to improve th e quality of their lives and to solve different problems that they faced at household levels. Benefits based on Farmers Empowerment (Application of Knowledge and Skills Gained) One of this researchers interests was farmers benefits based on whether they could apply the knowledge gained into other new but similar types of enterprises w ith limited support from the market-linkage strategy. This section anal yzes empowerment based on two aspects: with limited support from market-linkage strategy can farmers produce and sell new crop enterprises? As presented in Table 4-26, the results indicate that 50% of LF farmers responded that they could produce the new crop without help from th e LF strategy. Similarly, 48.8% of TL and 36.0% of ADP farmers respectively responded that they could produce the new crop without help from their strategies. Conversely, 56.0% of ADP farmers reported that they could not produce the new crop without some help from AD P. LF and TL also represent higher percentages of farmers that res ponded that they could only produ ce the new crop with some help from LF and TL strategies. This implies that ADP, LF and TL farmers were not yet empowered enough to be confident to produce new but rela ted seed crops without support from their strategies. Also, Table 4-26 shows responses to whether farmers could go outside their village to identify best markets for the new crop. The results show that 53.5% of TL farmers responded
124 that they could not at all go outsi de their villages to identify best markets for the new crop, while 13.8%, 50.0% and 56.0% of ERI, LF and ADP farmer s respectively responded that they could go outside their village to identify be st markets for the new crop with some help from their marketlinkage strategy. About 71% of the DD farmer s responded that they could go outside their village to identify best markets for the new crop without any help from their market-linkage strategy. These responses clearly show that ERI and DD farmers could go outside their villages to identify best markets for the new crop. This could be because they were highly involved in identifying markets for the enterprises they managed. Only a few LF, TL and ADP farmers were involved in identifying a market for the crops that farmers produced. Hence, it was only these few farmers that confidently answered that they could go outside the villages to identify market for new crop. Chapter Summary This chapter first presented characteristics of farmers studied under this research. This present research found that character istics of farmers varied by strate gies. In terms of levels of education, ADP and TL strategies represent the lo wer percentages of farm ers who attended either primary, secondary or tertiary levels of edu cation than other strategies. ERI, DD and LF strategies represent the highest percentages of farmers who attended primary and secondary levels of education respectively. LF strategy re presents the highest per centage of farmers who attended tertiary levels of educa tion. With regard to levels of e ducation, this researcher realized that some improvements in the educational sy stem in Malawi might have motivated and encouraged more parents to send their children to school to enroll for primary education who subsequently joined secondary and tertiary levels of education.
125 Ownership of assets by farmers also varied across strategies. In the case of land ownership, LF represents the hi ghest percentage of farmers who owned large amounts of land and hard assets. One of the reasons for this re sult could be that LF farmers had more income than farmers who worked with ot her strategies. In addition, this researcher observed that LF farmers were more entrepreneurial and business focused and generally were more educated at college diploma levels than farmers in other strate gies. Some of the LF farmers used the income obtained from crops and livestock enterprises to purchase and invest more in, for instance, additional land, open restaurants a nd grocery stores, and some fa rmers purchased trucks that were then hired to other farmers for transpor tation purposes, hence bringing in more money. This researcher also found that the type of non-enterprise crops pr oduced by farmers varied by strategy. Malawi depends on maize traditionally known as chimanga as its major staple food. This researcher consistently found that the major ity of farmers across stra tegies produced either local or hybrid maize, which was to a large ex tent cultivated for food, although farmers sold surplus for income. Farmers produced other crops such as beans, groundnuts, soybeans that they used as relish with Nsima but, sold surplus for income earning. Farmers produced tobacco for income earning. Based on the results on land ownership, levels of education and ownership of other assets by farmers, this researcher concludes that the LF strategy worked with more endowed farmers in terms of land resource, income, education levels pa rticularly at secondary and tertiary levels. The ownership of other assets varied by strategies in which the LF strategy shows a higher distribution of farmers who owne d household and hard assets than other strategies. Following LF are the ADP and TL strategies that had more re presentation of farmers with formal education,
126 household and hard assets. DD and ERI strategies had the lowest percentage of farmers who owned household and hard assets. Objective one analyzed strategies used by orga nizations to link farmers to market using the pre-determined criteria set fo rward by the researcher. These criteria included (a) area of coverage (b) number of farmers--women and men reached (c) levels of ope ration (d) diversity of crops and livestock enterprises implemented by fa rmers (e) integration of gender and community empowerment (f) focus on soil fertility management and (g) type of support offered to farmers. Based on geographical coverage, this research er found that the LF, TL and ADP strategies covered a larger geographical area and involved more farmers th an the ERI and DD strategies. Similarly, these strategies also focused on a wider variety of crops than did ERI and DD strategies. Diversificat ion of crops by farmers involved in LF, TL and ADP strategies could be an opportunity for them to improve food security and income than for farmers that worked with ERI and DD strategies. Based on the gender integration, this rese archer found that ERI, DD, ADP and TL strategies explicitly integrated gender more th an did LF strategy. For ERI, DD, ADP and TL strategies, gender training covered aspects of eq ual representation, leadership, shared roles and responsibilities, groups and in tra-household relationships. However, LF ensured equal representation of women and men in the producti on of seed crops at the SMAG levels. This research found that soil fertility management was an integral component in all strategies for linking farmers to the market. Farmers in each strategy were involved in different conservational farming methods to improve soil fer tility. A more detailed discussion on the type of soil fertility management technologies used by farmers will be discussed in the subsequent sections.
127 From the results on support services offered to farmers, this researcher found that all strategies for linking farmers to market offered pot ential support that farmers needed to establish both crop and livestock enterprises. However, in terms of sustained marketing services, ADP and TL strategies offered more support to farmer s than did the ERI, LF and DD strategies. Marketing services involved such services as providing market information to farmers, linking farmers to actual buyers or purchasing of crops and livestock from farmers. Objective Two analyzed the extent to which women participated in the market. This researcher found that the extent to which farmers, particular ly women, participated in the production and marketing activit ies varied by the crop and by strategies. For production activities, all members of the households were involved in land preparation, planting, and weeding and in harvesting. Women across all st rategies were found to be involved more in processing activities. However, men also engage d in processing activities for OPV maize. Men were more involved in transporti ng crops from fields to the h ouseholds, packaging and selling the crops. This researcher found that the markets to which farmers sold different crops varied by strategies. The majority of LF farmers sold OPV maize, beans and soybeans to the LF strategy while the majority of LF farmers who produced groundnuts sold to vendors. When farmers sold to LF, the market committee was mostly involved in transporting and selling seed crops. But when farmers sold to vendors, farmers did not ha ve to transport their produce to the marketing centers as vendors purchased from farmers hous eholds. Thus, LF women were more involved than men farmers in selling seed crops--par ticularly groundnuts, beans, and soybeans--to vendors.
128 The majority of TL farmers sold to the TL st rategy that, in turn, was much more involved in transporting crops to the storage warehouses. This researcher found that men were more involved in selling crops to th e TL strategy than women. The ma jority of ADP farmers sold through farmers associations, and sometimes to the ADP strategy. The marketing committee was more involved in transporti ng and selling crops to the mark et. Although ADP farmers did not sell to vendors, women farmer s also participated in selling seed crops either to Kafulu association or to ADP strategy. For the ERI strategy, the major ity of farmers sold beans to vendors, but some of the farmers also sold beans to centr al markets such as Jenda Tradi ng Center and Plan Grain Bank. When farmers sold to central markets, the ma rket committee was more involved in transporting and selling beans to these markets. However, when farmers sold to vendors, women were found to be more involved in selling beans to ve ndors than men. Since the DD strategy involved women farmers, marketing activities were mainly done by women. Generally, this researcher found that the aver age prices at which farmers sold different crops varied by strategies. This researcher consid ers the difference in price to be contributed to the quality of seed produced by farmers and the market to which farmers sold their crops. Overall, farmers sold at higher prices when they sold through their strategies compared to when they sold to vendors. The amount of income that farmers obtained also varied by crops and by strategies. Farmers who produced maize seed obtained the highest income compared to farmers who produced other crops. Fruit products represen t the second highest in come to all farmers interviewed. Groundnuts and beans were other type of crops from which farmers obtained much more income. The extent to which women contro lled income accrued from different crops also
129 varied by crops and by strategy. Moreover, wome n were found to own income across all crops and to a greater extent across strategies. In terms of livestock enterprises, both women and men participated in the management of livestock enterprises. However, men were more involved in the marketing of livestock than women. For ERI strategy, men were more i nvolved in selling improved pigs and controlled much more income from improved pigs than wo men. Although men were more involved in the selling of livestock in the ADP strategy this researcher observed more sharing of income between men and women from improved goats. Objective Three analyzed benefits women farmers derived from participating in the market. This researcher found that farmers derive d benefits from participating in the markets. However, benefits derived varied by strategies and by enterprises. Farmers, in general, mentioned income as the major benefit they derive d from different enterpri ses. For this income benefit, LF farmers benefited most, followed by farmers involved in DD, ADP, TL and ERI strategies respectively. As pointed out earlier, the income benefit varied by enterprises. Farmers who produced maize seed, groundnuts and beans and those who processed fruit products obtained higher income than farmers who produ ced soybeans, chilies and mushroom or those farmers who engaged in livestock management. However, farmers who engaged in livestock management--particularly improved goats and dairy cows--preferred not to sell these animals. Thus, there was limited information on income obta ined and control of income from livestock enterprises. Moreover, women farmers controlled more income across crops than from livestock enterprises. Farmers reported a wide range of benefits deri ved from crops and livestock enterprises. Using income from crops or lives tock enterprises, farmers were able to invest in one or a
130 combination of items that included food, child rens education, agricu ltural inputs (seed and fertilizer), new houses, health car e services, clothing and automobile s. In sum, farmers invested more in food, clothing, cooking and dining utensils. A few farmers also invested in new houses, livestock and automobiles. This researcher also presented and discusse d results on other and specific gender-related benefits that farmers derived from participating in the market. These benefits were improvement in knowledge and skills, self conf idence, social networks, farmers positions in the communities, wife-husband relations, decision-ma king and roles and responsibili ties--particularly for married farmers. The researcher found improvement in knowledge and skills, self confidence, social relationships and farmers position in the commun ities. The findings also show improvement in gender-related benefits--wife-husband relations hips, roles and responsibilities and decision making at the household level. Farmers who engaged in LF and TL strategies sold crops through these two strategies. LF and TL farmers had limited marketing skills to enab le them to sell existing or new crops on their own. In fact, the majority of TL farmers co mmented that they could not go outside their community to identify or sell crops on their own without any support from the TL strategy. On the other hand, DD and ERI farmers were found to have adequate marketi ng skills, but lacked the necessary support to link thes e farmers to appropriate markets. ADP farmers were found to be more skilled in marketing and also involved the majority of farmers in the marketing process for different crops and livestock, but still requi red the support from ADP strategy. In fact, the majority of ADP farmers commented that they c ould go outside to identify and sell to markets with some help from ADP strategy.
131 In sum, the results of this research varied by strategies. This va riation among strategies was being contributed by the following factors: Type of enterprises implemented by farm ers and amount of land planted with crop enterprises varied among strategies. Farmer s who produced OPV maiz e--particularly those who worked with the LF strategy--planted mo re land with OPV maize, they sold more OPV maize and earned the more income than did farmers who processed fruit juice and produced such types of crops as groundnuts, beans, soybeans, mushrooms and chilies. The price at which crops were sold to the markets varied among enterprises and among strategies. This researcher found that farmer s who planted more land; for instance, those who planted more land with OPV maize, also earned more income even if they sold OPV maize at a much lower price compared, for instance, to beans. Farmers who produced beans earned much lower income than farm ers who produced maize, because beans were produced only on less than 1.5 acres of land. Results also vari ed with high value products such as fruit juice and mushroom. DD farmers sold fruit juices at much higher prices and they also earned more income while ADP fa rmers who produced mushrooms sold it at the highest price compared to all enterprises st udied, but earned lower total income because farmers produced only a limited amount of mushrooms. The markets where farmers sold their enterpri ses varied by strategy. The price at which farmers sold their enterprises varied by the ma rkets where farmers sold their enterprises. Nonetheless, the total average income accrued was determined by the amount of enterprises sold by farmers. For instance, LF farmers sold more OPV maize at a much lower price and earned more income than did ADP farmers who produced a small amount of mushrooms but sold it at the highest pr ice and overall earned lower total average income. The characteristics of farmers studied vari ed by strategy. Although farmers studied were generally better off--particula rly in terms of education, land and asset resources--the wealthiest farmers benefited most from improved income.
132 Table 4-1. Percentage of Farmers who were Ma rried, Owned Land and Head of Households by Sex (n = 170) Married Owned Land Farmers Headship Sex Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Male 32 97.6 33 100 117 68.8 Female 84 61.3 131 95.6 53 31.2 Total 116 68.2 164 96.5 170 100 Table 4-2. Percentage Dist ribution of Farmers who Owned Land by Strategy (n = 164) Strategy Frequency Percent LF (n = 34) 31 91.2 ERI (n = 29) 28 96.6 DD (n = 14) 14 100.0 TL (n = 43) 41 95.3 ADP (n = 50) 50 100.0 *Six farmers did not own land
133Table 4-3 Percentage Distributi on of Farmers who Owned Land (acr es) by Sex across Strategies Strategy Sex N 1-2 Acres 2.1-5 Acre s 5.1-10 Acres 10.1-25 Acres >25 Acres Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent LF (n=34) M 7 3 8.8 3 8.8 1 2.9 F 24 2 8.3 12 50.0 3 12.5 2 8.3 5 20.8 ERI (n=29) M 6 3 10.3 2 6.8 1 3.4 F 22 3 13.6 7 31.8 8 36.3 4 18.8 DD (n=14) M F 14 5 35.7 4 28.6 5 35.7 TL (n=43) M 10 2 4.6 5 11.6 3 6.9 F 31 4 12.9 11 35.5 10 32.3 3 9.6 3 9.6 ADP (n=50) M 10 4 8.0 1 2.0 4 8.0 1 2.0 F 40 3 6.0 17 34.0 13 26.0 7 14 Total 164 19 11.2 63 37.05 51 30.0 26 15.3 11 6.4
134Table 4-4. Farmers Level of Education by Sex (n = 170) Sex No formal education Primary education (1-4) Primary education (5-8) Secondary education Tertiary education Total Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Participating Male 1 3.0 6 18.2 12 36.4 13 39.4 1 3.0 33 100.0 Average Rural Male 45.9 9.3 3.9 0.3 Participating Female 19 13.9 43 31.4 49 35.8 20 14.6 6 4.4 137 100.0 Average Rural Female 22.5 2.4 0.8 0.1 Total Participating Farmers 20 11.8 49 28.8 61 35.9 33 19.4 7 4.1 170 100.0 *Participating farmers had hi gher levels of education than average poor farmers Table 4-5. Farmers Level of E ducation by Strategies (n = 170) Strategy No formal education Primary education (1-4) Primary education (5-8) Secondary education Tertiary education Total Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent LF 3 8.8 7 20.6 9 26.5 9 26.5 6 17.6 34 100.0 ERI 5 17.2 8 27.6 15 51.7 1 3.4 29 100.0 DD 3 21.4 5 35.7 6 42.9 14 100.0 TL 9 20.9 18 41.9 9 20.9 7 16.3 43 100.0 ADP 3 6.0 13 26.0 23 46.0 10 20.0 1 2.0 50 100.0 Table 4-6: Results Score on Analysis of Strategies fo r Linking Farmers to Markets1 Using the Institutional Framework Organization Strategy Scale of Operation (No. & Area covered) Diversity of Enterprises Extent to Which Gender is Integrated Focus on Soil Fertility Management Focus on Community Empowerment Level of Support: Production /marketing CIAT ERI x x xxx x xxx xx ICRAF DD x x xx xxx xx xx World Vision ADP xxx xxx xxx xx xxx xxx NASFAM TL xxx xx xxx xx xxx xxx ASSMAG LF xxx xx x x xx xx 1 Index: x = low, xx = moderate, xxx = highest.
135 Table 4-7. Percent Distribution of Farmers who Produced Crop Enterprises (n = 170) Crop Percent groundnuts 78 45.9 Beans 44 25.9 Maize 43 25.3 Soybeans 35 20.6 Fruit processing 14 8.2 Chilies 7 4.1 Mushroom 6 3.5 *Percentage do not count to 100 percent because farmers had multiple responses Table 4-8. Number of Farmers who Produced Cr op Enterprises across Strategy (n = 170) Crop LF (n=34) ERI (n=29) DD (n=14) TL (n=43) ADP (n=50) Groundnuts 18 35 25 Beans 4 18 22 Maize 18 25 Soybeans 3 26 6 Fruit processing 14 Chilies 7 Mushroom 6 T/Y = Total Farmers/Yes, Produced the Crop; Blank = did not Produce
136Table 4-9. Average Area Planted with OPV Maize, Amount of Seed Used, Harvested, So ld and Consumed, Average Price per kg OPV Maize Sold and Total Income Obtained Strategy Statistic Area (acre) Planted with maize Amount of Maize Seed (kg) Used Quantity of Maize seed (kg) Harvested Quantity of Maize seed (kg) Sold Quantity of Maize (kg) Consumed Price (MK)per kg Maize Sold Total Income (MK) Obtained Amount of Income (MK) from Maize kept by Husband Amount of Income (MK) from Maize kept by Wife LF (n = 18) Mean 6.4167 168.33 5872.22 4938.89 933.33 46.17 268346.67 118996.67 149350.00 Maximu m 29.00 2000 23750 23750 3900 75 950000 950000 533500 Minimu m 1.00 10 500 0 0 25 12000 0 0 Std. Deviatio n 6.80019 461.430 6248.605 6150.575 1134.616 14.215 294493.86 5 293887.704 196032.382 Range 28.00 1990 23250 23750 3900 50 938000 950000 533500 ADP (n = 25) Mean 2.3200 23.20 1675.60 882.00 801.67 56.74 46562.50 33416.67 13145.83 Maximu m 8.00 60 4500 3000 3750 100 157500 157500 157500 Minimu m 1.00 10 600 0 0 40 9750 0 0 Std. Deviatio n 1.86154 15.152 1020.362 679.611 897.937 16.328 30880.483 34912.230 37213.236 Range 7.00 50 3900 3000 3750 60 147750 157500 157500 Total (N = 43) Mean 2.8357 41.47 2203.85 1392.66 818.84 55.52 71205.19 42925.56 33557.41 Maximu m 29.00 2000 23750 23750 3900 100 950000 950000 533500 Minimu m 1.00 10 500 0 0 25 9750 0 0 Std. Deviatio n 3.22827 167.405 2745.000 2599.207 928.483 16.402 121664.28 9 104090.841 83266.100 Range 28.00 1990 23250 23750 3900 75 940250 950000 533500 MK Malawi Kwacha: 1 US $ 131 MK
137Table 4-10. Average Area planted with Groundn uts, Amount of Seed Used, Harvested, Sold and Consumed and Total Average Income Obtained (n = 78) Strategy Statistic Area (acre) Planted with Groundnuts Amount (kg) of Groundnut seed used Quantity (kg) of Groundnut Harvested Quantity (kg) of Groundnut sold Quantity (kg)of Groundnut Consumed Price (MK) per kg Groundnu t sold Total Income (MK) O btained from Groundnut Sold Amount of Total Income (MK) from Groundnut kept by Husband Amount of Total Income (MK) from Groundnut kept by Wife LF (n = 18) Mean 3.0278 101.39 3046.11 2523.33 522.78 36.24 180841.18 18382.35 162458.82 Minimum 1.00 15 200 0 0 0 3000 0 0 Maximum 12.50 450 28750 28750 5800 85 2443750 172000 2443750 Range 11.50 435 28550 28750 5800 85 2440750 172000 2443750 TL (n = 35) Mean 2.2000 42.68 365.41 268.65 108.47 38.50 12380.30 6482.55 5633.83 Minimum .50 10 75 0 0 20 1000 0 0 Maximum 5.00 100 1938 1788 500 43 67944 58444 24000 Range 4.50 90 1863 1788 500 23 66944 58444 24000 ADP (n = 25) Mean 1.9100 36.71 758.40 434.35 361.20 43.63 20496.36 12919.09 7577.30 Minimum 1.00 15 90 60 30 25 2400 0 0 Maximum 7.50 100 4050 1650 3240 90 66000 66000 58500 Range 6.50 85 3960 1590 3210 65 63600 66000 58500 Total (n = 78) Mean 2.2981 54.70 1119.66 860.59 289.73 39.58 56472.88 11539.91 45739.35 Minimum .50 10 75 0 0 0 1000 0 0 Maximum 12.50 450 28750 28750 5800 90 2443750 172000 2443750 Range 12.00 440 28675 28750 5800 90 2442750 172000 2443750
138Table 4-11. Average Area planted with Bean s, Amount of Seed Used, Amount Harvested, Consumed and Sold and Total Income Obtained (n = 44) Strategy Statistic Area (acre) Planted with Beans Amount (kg) of Beans Seed Planted Quantity (kg) of Beans Harvested Quantity (kg) of Beans Sold Quantity (kg) of Beans Consumed Price (MK) per kg of Beans Sold Total Income (MK) Obtained from Beans Amount of Total Income (MK) from Beans kept by Husband Amount of Total Income (MK) from Beans kept by Wife LF (n = 4) Mean 1.4375 40.00 650.00 450.00 200.00 81.67 38750.00 .00 38750.00 Minimum .75 10 50 0 0 60 5000 0 5000 Maximum 3.00 50 2000 1500 500 100 90000 0 90000 Range 2.25 40 1950 1500 500 40 85000 0 85000 ERI (n = 18) Mean .9250 19.67 128.44 73.72 39.17 65.14 6747.14 632.86 6114.29 Minimum .25 4 0 0 0 30 300 0 0 Maximum 3.00 60 520 480 180 75 36000 3250 36000 Range 2.75 56 520 480 180 45 35700 3250 36000 ADP (n = 22) Mean 1.3182 31.14 282.05 197.32 84.73 95.91 17447.73 12152.27 5295.46 Minimum .50 5 20 16 0 35 1600 0 0 Maximum 3.00 80 1200 750 450 150 50000 50000 50000 Range 2.50 75 1180 734 450 115 48400 50000 50000 Total (n = 44) Mean 1.1682 27.25 252.66 169.73 76.57 83.77 15245.13 7082.31 10117.95 Minimum .25 4 0 0 0 30 300 0 0 Maximum 3.00 80 2000 1500 500 150 90000 50000 90000 Range 2.75 76 2000 1500 500 120 89700 50000 90000
139Table 4-12. Average Area planted w ith Soybeans, Amount of Seed used, Amount Harves ted, Sold and Total Income Obtained (n = 35) Strategy Statistic Area (acre) Planted with Soybeans Amount (kg) of Soybeans Seed used Quantity (kg) of Soybeans Harvested Quantity (kg) of Soybeans Sold Quantity (kg) of Soybeans Consumed Price (MK) per kg Soybeans Sold Total Income (MK) Obtained from Soybeans Amount of Total Income (MK) from Soybeans kept by Husband Amount of Total Income from Soybeans kept by Wife LF (n = 3 ) Mean 1.1667 41.6667 450.00 383.33 66.67 30.0000 11416.67 11416.67 .00 Minimum 1.00 25.00 150 100 50 25.00 3000 3000 0 Maximum 1.50 50.00 600 550 100 35.00 17500 17500 0 Range .50 25.00 450 450 50 10.00 14500 14500 0 TL (n = 26 ) Mean .7788 14.3200 161.46 134.23 26.15 16.8174 3368.70 1450.00 1918.70 Minimum .25 5.00 30 0 0 15.00 680 0 0 Maximum 2.50 30.00 430 380 50 33.00 9500 6000 9500 Range 2.25 25.00 400 380 50 18.00 8820 6000 9500 ADP (n = 6 ) Mean .8750 20.3333 348.33 287.00 109.17 34.0000 7460.00 4510.00 2950.00 Minimum .25 2.00 50 20 15 25.00 1200 0 0 Maximum 2.50 80.00 1150 1000 240 60.00 25000 20000 6750 Range 2.25 78.00 1100 980 225 35.00 23800 20000 6750 Total (n = 35 ) Mean .8286 17.7941 218.23 178.68 43.86 133.1613 4807.42 2908.06 1899.35 Minimum .25 2.00 30 0 0 15.00 680 0 0 Maximum 2.50 80.00 1150 1000 240 3300.00 25000 20000 9500 Range 2.25 78.00 1120 1000 240 3285.00 24320 20000 9500
140Table 4-13. Average Area planted with Chil ies, Amount of Seed Used, Amount Harves ted, Sold and Total Income Obtained Strategy Statistic Area (acre) Planted with Chilies Amount (kg) of Chilies Seed used Quantity (kg) of Chilies Harvested Quantity (kg) of Chilies Sold Quantity (kg) of Chilies Consumed Price (MK) per kg Chilies Sold Total Income (MK) Obtained from Chilies Amount of Total Income (MK) from Chilies kept by Husband Amount of Total Income (MK) from Chilies kept by Wife TL (n = 7) Mean .6250 .1250 22.7857 21.5000 .5714 76.0714 1747.8571 .0000 1747.8571 Minimum .25 .05 7.00 7.00 .00 50.00 630.00 .00 630.00 Maximum 1.00 .20 38.00 38.00 4.00 90.00 3420.00 .00 3420.00 Range .75 .15 31.00 31.00 4.00 40.00 2790.00 .00 2790.00 Total (n = 7) Mean .6250 .1250 22.7857 21.5000 .5714 76.0714 1747.8571 .0000 1747.8571 Minimum .25 .05 7.00 7.00 .00 50.00 630.00 .00 630.00 Maximum 1.00 .20 38.00 38.00 4.00 90.00 3420.00 .00 3420.00 Range .75 .15 31.00 31.00 4.00 40.00 2790.00 .00 2790.00 Table 4-14. Average Area planted with Mush room, Amount of Seed Used, Amount Harves ted, Sold and Total Income Obtained Strategy Statistic Amount of Mushroom Seed (bottles) used Quantity (kg) of Mushroom Harvested Quantity (kg) of Mushroom Sold Quantity (kg) of Mushroom Consumed Price (MK) per kg Mushroom Sold Total Income (MK) Obtained from Mushroom Amount of Total Income (MK) from Mushroom kept by Husband Amount of Total Income (MK) from Mushroom kept by Wife ADP (n = 6) Mean 5.8333 7.3783 5.7533 1.6667 375.0000 2085.8333 .0000 2085.8333 Minimum 3.00 1.50 1.50 .00 300.00 500.00 .00 500.00 Maximum 10.00 19.30 13.30 6.00 450.00 4400.00 .00 4400.00 Range 7.00 17.80 11.80 6.00 150.00 3900.00 .00 3900.00 Total (n = 6) Mean 5.8333 7.3783 5.7533 1.6667 375.0000 2085.8333 .0000 2085.8333 Minimum 3.00 1.50 1.50 .00 300.00 500.00 .00 500.00 Maximum 10.00 19.30 13.30 6.00 450.00 4400.00 .00 4400.00 Range 7.00 17.80 11.80 6.00 150.00 3900.00 .00 3900.00
141Table 4-15. Amount of Juice Produced (liters), Price per Liter Sold and Total Income Obtained Farmers Group Quantity Sold Price per Liter/bottle Total Income Magomero 841 150 126,150 Jali 63 (22 bottles of banana wine, 41 juice) 160 and 75 6,595 Total 904 132,645 Table 4-16. Percentage Distribu tion of Farmers who Managed Li vestock by Strategy (n = 170) Response ERI T/Y ADP T/Y Total Dairy cow 29/9 170/9 Improved Pigs 29/8 170/8 Improved Goats 50/26 170/26 Total 29/17 50/26 170/43 T/Y = Total farmers, Yes = Managed lives tock; Blank = did not manage livestock
142 Table 4-17. Number of Livest ock Farmers Started with, Have had and Lost (n = 43) Strategy Statistic Number started with Number farmers have had Number lost ERI Mean 1.00 2.00 4.00 Minimum 1 0 0 Maximum 1 7 34 Range 0 7 34 N 17 17 17 ADP Mean 2.00 5.00 1.00 Minimum 1 1 0 Maximum 5 27 4 Range 4 26 4 N 26 26 26 Total Mean 2.00 4.00 2.00 Minimum 1 0 0 Maximum 5 27 34 Range 4 27 34 N 43 43 43
143Table 4-18. Number of Livest ock Sold, Average Income Obtained and Amount of Income Owned by Men and Women (n = 22) Strategy Statistic Number Sold in 2005 Price (MK) per Livestock Sold in 2005 Total Income (MK) Obtained in 2005 Amount of Money (MK) Controlled by Men in 2005 Amount of Money (MK) Controlled by Women in 2005 ERI Mean 1 9,450.00 11,450.00 10,500.00 950.00 Minimum 0 3800 3,800 3,800 0 Maximum 2 13000 16,000 16,000 3,800 Range 2 9200 12,200 12,200 3,800 N 13 4 4 4 4 ADP Mean 3 3,977.78 8,177.78 8,177.78 7,177.78 Minimum 1 2800 4,000 0 0 Maximum 8 5000 20,000 38,000 38,000 Range 7 2200 16,000 38,000 38,000 N 9 9 9 9 9 Total Mean 1 5,661.54 9,184.62 8,523.08 5,261.54 Minimum 0 2,800 3,800 0 0 Maximum 8 13,000 20,000 38,000 38,000 Range 8 10,200 16,200 38,000 38,000 N 22 13 13 13 13
144Table 4-19. Average Total Income (MK) obtained by Farmers across Strategies Strategy Maize Groundnut Beans Soybeans Mushroom Fruit Juice Chilies LF 268, 346.67 180,841.18 38,750.00 11,416.67 DD 132,645.00 ADP 46,562.50 20,496.36 17,447.73 4,510.00 2,085.83 TL 12,380.30 3,368.70 1747.85 ERI 6,747.14 Table 4-20. Average Total Income Cont rolled by Women across Strategies Strategy Maize Groundnuts Beans Soybeans Mushroom Fruit Juice Chilies LF 149,350.00 162,458.82 38,750.00 X DD 132,645.00 ADP 19,083.33 7,577.30 5,295.46 2,950.00 2,085.83 TL 5,633.83 1,918.70 1,747.86 ERI 6,747.14 X means women did not control income from soybeans Table 4-21. Percentage of Total Income Controlled by Women across Strategies Strategy Maize Groundnuts Beans Soybeans Mushroom Fruit Juice Chilies LF 55.6 89.8 100.0 X DD 100.0 ADP 40.9 36.9 30.3 65.4 100.0 TL 45.5 56.9 100.0 ERI 90.6 X means women did not control income from soybeans
145Table 4-22. Percent Response on Investment Patterns Made by Farmers (n =170) Investment Frequency Percent Clothes 125 73.5 Chemical Fertilizer 114 67.1 Kitchen Items 99 58.2 Food 94 55.3 Children Education 81 47.6 Livestock 77 45.3 New house 76 44.7 Bicycle 59 34.7 Mattress 38 22.4 New grocery stores 12 7.1 Television 12 7.1 Chairs 6 3.5 Vehicles 2 1.2 *Total frequencies and percentages do not account for 100 because farmers had multiple answers
146Table 4-23. Percent of Yes Response on Investme nt Patterns by Farmers across Strategies LF (n = 34 ) ERI (n = 29 ) DD (n = 14) TL (n = 43 ) ADP (n = 50 ) Item invested in Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Household Item Clothes 27 79.4 16 55.2 4 28.6 39 90.7 39 78.0 Kitchen utensils 22 64.7 6 20.7 5 35.7 34 79.1 32 64.0 Food 20 58.8 9 31.0 4 28.6 33 76.7 28 56.0 Bicycle 19 55.9 5 17.2 17 39.5 18 36 Mattress 14 41.2 1 3.4 4 28.6 8 18.6 11 22.0 Television 11 32.4 1 2.3 Chairs 2 5.9 1 2.3 3 6.0 Agricultural Inputs Chemical fertilizer 30 88.4 15 51.7 5 35.7 25 58.1 39 78.0 Seed 28 82.4 2 6.9 2 14.3 13 30.2 28 56.0 Livestock Livestock 16 47.1 3 10.3 4 28.6 28 65.1 26 52.0 Built Livestock house 6 17.6 1 3.4 1 7.1 2 4.7 18 36 Livestock feed 4 11.8 7 24.1 13 26.0 Education Children school fees 27 79.4 7 24.1 3 21.4 20 46.5 24 48.0 Hard Assets New house 15 41.2 1 3.4 1 7.1 10 23.2 15 30.0 Grocery stores 5 14.7 1 3.4 1 7.1 2 47.0 3 6.0 Vehicle 2 5.9
147Table 4-24. Other Benefits Farmers De rive from Participating in Strate gies for Linking Farmers to Market Improved The Same Worse Variable Strategy N Frequen cy Percent FrequencyPercent FrequencyPercent Change in Knowledge and Skills DD 14 14 100.0 ERI 29 27 96.4 1 3.6 ADP 50 48 96.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 LF 34 29 85.3 5 14.7 TL 43 10 23.2 32 74.4 1 0.02 Total 170 160 94.3 7 4.4 2 1.3 Social Network and Relationships DD 14 14 100.0 4 15.4 LF 34 32 94.1 1 2.9 1 2.9 ERI 29 26 92.9 2 7.1 ADP 50 44 89.8 3 6.1 2 4.1 TL 43 22 84.6 Total 170 138 91.4 6 4.0 7 4.6 Self Confidence DD 14 14 100.0 ADP 50 49 98.0 1 2.0 ERI 29 26 96.3 1 3.7 LF 34 32 94.1 1 2.9 1 2.9 TL 43 25 86.2 1 3.4 3 10.3 Total 170 146 94.8 4 2.6 4 2.6 Position-Status LF 34 32 94.1 2 5.9 ADP 50 47 94.0 3 6.0 ERI 29 25 92.6 2 7.4 TL 43 19 90.5 1 4.8 1 4.8 DD 14 12 85.7 2 14.3 Total 170 135 92.5 10 6.8 1 .7
148Table 4-25. Farmers Response on Changes on Specific Gender Issues: Wife-Husband Rela tionships, Roles and Responsibilities and Decision-Making among Married Farmers across Strategies Improved The Same Worse Variable Strategy N FrequencyPercent FrequencyPercent FrequencyPercent Wife-husband relationships LF 16 88.9 1 5.6 1 5.6 ERI 16 94.1 1 5.9 DD 7 87.5 1 12.5 TL 15 93.8 1 6.3 ADP 34 89.5 4 10.5 Household roles and responsibilities LF 14 77.8 1 5.6 ERI 17 94.4 DD 8 100.0 TL 18 85.7 3 14.3 ADP 30 78.0 4 10.5 4 10.4 Household decision-making LF 15 83.5 3 16.3 ERI 14 82.4 3 17.6 DD 5 62.5 3 37.5 TL 15 88.2 1 5.9 1 5.9 ADP 33 86.8 5 13.2 Womens work load LF 34 20 60.6 3 9.1 10 30.3 ERI 29 11 39.3 1 3.6 16 57.1 DD 14 1 11.1 4 44.4 4 44.4 TL 43 16 80.0 2 10.0 2 10.0 ADP 50 24 48.0 8 16.0 18 36.0
149Table 4-26. Farmers Responses on whether they can Produce and Manage the New Crop a nd/or Livestock Enterprises with Limited Support from the Market-Linka ge Strategies (n = 141) Variable Response LF (n =34) DD (n = 14) TL (n = 43) ADP (n = 50) ERI (n=29) Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Production of new crop I cannot do it at all 3 8.8 6 14 4 8.0 I can do with some help 14 41.2 16 37.2 28 56.0 I can do without help 17 50 14 100 21 48.8 18 36.0 Identifying markets for the new crop I cannot do it at all 4 11.8 1 7.1 23 53.5 11 22.0 5 17.2 I can do with some help 17 50.0 3 21.4 8 18.6 28 56.0 4 13.8 I can do without help 13 38.2 10 71.4 12 27.9 11 22.0 3 10.3
150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100c o w pig goat chick e n she e p r a bb it d uc k g uine a fo wl Livestock % Figure 4-1. Percentage Distri bution of Farmers by type of Livestock Owned (n = 170) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70gr oundnu ts hybrid maiz e sw eet potatoe s local mai ze tobacc o soybeans be a ns c assava paprikaNon-enterprise crops % Figure 4-2. Percentage Distributi on of Farmers by Non-enterprise Crops they Produced (n = 170)
151 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50groundnut s Bean s M a i ze Soya beans F r uit s C h i li e s Mus h r o o m Crops % Figure 4-3. Crop Enterprises Impl emented by Farmers (n = 170) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 % LFADPStrategy maize sold maize consumed Figure 4-4. Percentage of OPV Maize Sold and Consumed by Farmers (LF, n=18; ADP, n=25)
152 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 % LFADP Strategy women men Figure 4-5. Percentage of Tota l Income Controlled by Women and Men Farmers after Selling OPV Maize (LF, n= 18; ADP, n=25) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 A.price LFTLADP Strategy Figure 4-6. Average Price (MK) that Farmers So ld Groundnuts across Strategies (LF, n=18; TL, n=35; ADP, n=25)
153 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 % LFADPTL Strategy women men Figure 4-7. Percentage of Total Amount of In come from Groundnuts Cont rolled by Women and Men farmers (LF, n=18; TL, n=35; ADP, n=25) 0.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00 35,000.00 40,000.00 A.income LFERIADP Strategies Figure 4-8. Average Total Income (MK) Obtained from Beans (LF, n= 4; ERI, n=18; ADP, n=22)
154 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % LFADPERI Strategy women men Figure 4-9. Percentage of Total Amount of In come from Beans Controlled by Women and Men (LF, n= 4; ERI, n=18; ADP, n=22) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % LFADPTL Strategy women men Figure 4-10. Percentage of Total Amount In come from Soybeans Controlled by Men and Women (LF, n=3; TL, n=26; ADP, n=6)
155 Figure 4-11. Some of the Vegetables Processed by Farmers in Jali Group 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000ma i ze fr u i t juice gro u ndnu t beans soy a b ea n s mu sh r o o m c hili e sCropsIncome Figure 4-12. Average Total Income (MK) obtained by Farmers by Crops (n = 170)
156 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000ma i ze fr u i t juice groundnut s beans mush r o o m s oy a b ea n s c hili e sCrops Income Figure 4-13. Average amount of Income (MK) Controlled by Women acr oss Crops (n = 137) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 % Food LF ERI DD TL ADP Figure 4-14. Investment in Food by Farmers across Strategies (ERI: n = 29; DD: n = 14; LF: n = 34; TL: n = 43; ADP: n = 50)
157 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Fertilizer LF ERI DD TL ADP Figure 4-15. Investment in Chemical Fertilizer Farmers across Strategies (ERI: n = 29; DD: n = 14; LF: n = 34; TL: n = 43; ADP: n = 50) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70% Livestock LF ERI DD TL ADP Figure 4-16. Investment in Livestock by Farmers across Strategies (ERI: n = 29; DD: n = 14; LF: n = 34; TL: n = 43; ADP: n = 50)
158 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80% Children Education LF ERI DD TL ADP Figure 4-17. Investment in Child ren Education by Farmers across Strategies (ERI: n = 29; DD: n = 14; LF: n = 34; TL: n = 43; ADP: n = 50) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % wife-husband relationship roles and responsibilities decision-making Gender issue Improved The same Made worse Figure 4-18. Farmers Response on Change s on Specific Gender Issues: Wife-Husband Relationships, Roles and Responsibili ties and Decision-Making among Married Farmers (n = 116)
159 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Trade off on Soil Fertility Management T echnologies between Food and Cash Crops Introduction This chapter analyzes the trade off on soil fertility management technologies (SFMTs) between food and cash crops. Subsequent sectio ns provide general results on types of SFMTs used by all farmers studied, and by farmers across strategies across crop enterprises. The final sections present farmers major sources of in formation on SFMTs and type of support on SFMTs offered to farmers by each strategy. The follo wing variables will guide the discussions on SFMTs that farmers used on di fferent crops, and by strategy. Percentage of farmers that us ed different types of SFMTs The most-used SFMTs by both women and men Variation in use of SFMTs across different crops (the trade off) Generally, soil fertility management was an inte gral component of all strategies for linking farmers to market. Each of th e strategies involved farmers in one or a combination of the following SFMTs: a) Animal manure b) Compost manure c) Crop residues d) Chemical fertilizer e) Soil erosion control measures such as contour bands, terraces and the use of vertiver grasses f) Crop rotation g) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) h) Agroforestry Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1 present percentage dist ribution of farmers by type of soil fertility management technologies used. The results show th at the majority of farmers used crop rotation, chemical fertilizer, crop residues, animal manur e, erosion control measures and compost manure to improve soil fertility. A few farmers used in tercropping with legumes, agroforestry or IPM. Tables 5-2 and 5-3 indicate type of SFMTs us ed by male and female farmers respectively.
160 Regardless of farmers sex, the results further show that crop rotation, chem ical fertilizer, animal and compost manure and soil erosion control me asures were the most-used SFMTs. Soil Fertility Management Technologies used by Farmers across Strategies Table 5-4 reports percentage distribution of farmers by SFMTs used by strategy. The results show that SFMTs used by farmers vari ed by strategy. Also, crop rotation, chemical fertilizer, crop residues, animal manure, er osion control measures, compost manure and intercropping with legumes were SFMTs used by more than fifty percent of farmers across strategies. Agroforestry technologies and IPM were SFMTs used by less than fifty percent of farmers across strategies. Figures 5-(2-6) show percentage distributi on of farmers by type of SFMTs used across strategies. For chemical fertilizer, Figure 52 shows that DD strategy represents the highest percentage of farmers who used chemical fertilizer, followed by LF, ERI, ADP and TL respectively. Figure 5-3 shows that very few LF, ERI, TL and ADP farmers used intercropping with legumes compared to crop rotation. The exception was DD strategy that represents the majority of farmers who used intercropping with legumes. As reported in Figure 5-3, the ERI strategy represents the hi ghest percentage of farmers who used crop rotation. Figure 5-4 shows percentage di stribution of farmers who inco rporated crop residues and used animal and compost manure on their farm s. Generally, LF represents the lowest percentages of farmers who used all these thr ee technologies. For crop residues, the ADP and DD strategies represent the highe st percentages of farmers who used this technology on their farms. The DD strategy represen ts the highest percentage of farmers who used animal manure while the TL strategy represents the highest percen tage of farmers who used compost manure. Figure 5-5 shows percent distri bution of farmers who used so il erosion control measures. The DD strategy represents the highest percenta ge of farmers who used soil erosion control
161 measures. As reported in Figure 5-6, generally, less than one third of the farmers across all strategies used IPM and agrofore stry technologies. ERI represen ts the highest percentage of farmers who used IPM technology while the TL stra tegy represents the highest percentage of farmers who used agroforestry technologies. Table 5-5 summarizes the most used SFMTs by farmers across strategies. The categorization of the most-to-less used techno logies is based on the highest and lowest percentages of farmers responses indicated in Table 5-4. In Table 55, numbers 1-5 represent the most-used technologies and numbers 6-9 repr esent the less-used technologies. Chemical fertilizer, animal and compost manure, crop rota tion and crop residues represent the most-used technologies across strategies. Agroforestry a nd IPM represent the less -used technologies by farmers across strategies. The following secti on explains the trade off/decision making on the most-used SFMTs by farmers across different crops. Variation in use of Soil Fertility Management Technologies across Crops /the Trade off Table 5-6 presents general results that s upport the trade off on SFMTs between cash and food crops. In Malawi, farmers produced maize as a major food and income earning crop. Maize flour is used to prepare the traditional staple food ( Nsima ) often taken with soybeans, beans, groundnuts and green vegetables or meat relish if a farmer has enough income to purchase meat relish. Hence, farmers studied produced so ybeans, beans, groundnuts and green vegetables as relishes and also sold these crops for inco me earning. Farmers in Malawi produced tobacco mainly for income earning. They also produ ced green vegetables, tomatoes and onions-particularly on dambos--for food and income earning. As reported in Table 5-6, a majority of fa rmers used SFMTs on maize, tobacco, soybeans, beans, groundnuts and green vegetables. Ve ry few farmers used SFMTs on pigeon peas, cowpeas, Irish potatoes, fruits, mushroom, toma toes and onions--very few farmers produced
162 these crops for food and/or income. Moreover, farmers used leguminous crops such as groundnuts, beans, soybeans, cowpeas and pigeon peas in intercropping or crop rotational systems to replenish the soil fertility. Across strategies, the results show similar ities on the trade off for the SFMTs between food and cash crops. For instance, results in Ta ble 5-7 show that the majorities of farmers across all strategies used chemical fertilizer--p articularly on maize and tobacco while very few farmers used chemical fertilizer on soybeans, bean s, green vegetables, onions, tomatoes and Irish potatoes. As reported in Figure 5-7, ERI, LF and ADP strategies represents the highest percentages of farmers who used crop rotation on maize. In a ddition, ADP and LF represent the highest percentage of farmers who used crop rotation on tobacco. Through information discussions with farmers, this researcher f ound that maize or tobacco was often rotated or intercropped with groundnuts, beans, soybeans, pigeon peas and cow peas. Farmers further commented that groundnut was the most used legu me in crop rotation and intercropping systems when compared to soybeans, beans and pigeon peas. Results in Tables 5-8 and 5-9 show that the majority of farmers used animal and compost manure--particularly on maize. The DD, ERI and ADP strategies represent the highest percentage of farmers who used animal manur e. The ADP strategy represents the highest percentage of farmers who used animal ma nure on tobacco. In addition, the ADP strategy represents the highest percen tage of farmers who used compost manure on both maize and tobacco. In general, few farmers across strate gies used animal and compost manure on green vegetables, soybeans, beans and groundnuts.
163 In sum, the significance of maize, groundnuts, beans and green vegetables for food and tobacco for income indicates that farmers used SFMTs on crops with high value attached either for food, income or soil fertility management. Sources of Information on Soil Fertility Ma nagement Technologies Used by Farmers One of the research interests was to br ing more understanding to the sources of information on SFMTs that farmers used on diffe rent crops. Table 510 reports percentage response of farmers on sources of information fo r SFMTs they used. The majority of farmers mentioned the government extension worker and th eir strategies as major source of information for the SFMTs they used. As reported in Table 5-10, LF, ERI and DD farmers responded that the government extension worker ( Alangisye ) was their major source of in formation on SFMTs while TL and ADP farmers mentioned that TL and ADP strategies were their major sources of information on SFMTs. Farmers mentioned fellow farmers, fa mily members and their own experiences as additional sources of information on SFMTs. Through informal discussion with farmers, this researcher found that each strategy supported farmers on SFMTs--particularly informa tion on different SFMTs th at they could use; training on how farmers could use SFMTs; or providi ng farmers with fertilizer loans or seed for leguminous crops such as beans, soybeans and groundnuts. Table 5-11 reports type of support offered to farmers by each strategy. Nearly 48% of all farmers responded that strategies for linking farmers to market provided them with info rmation on how to use different SFMTs. Also, farmers mentioned that they received--from thei r strategies--training on how they could apply chemical fertilizer, animal and compost manure on different crops. In addition, strategies such as LF, DD, TL and ADP provided fertilizer loans to farmers --particularly at the outset of their market enterprises.
164 Chapter Summary Farmers used chemical fertilizer, animal a nd compost manure, crop rotation, intercropping, soil erosion control measures, IPM and agrofore stry technologies to improve soil fertility. However, the most-used technologies by farmers were chemical fertilizer, animal and compost manure, crop residues and crop rotation. The less-use d technologies were IPM and agroforestry. The application of different SFMTs by farmers varied by crops and by strategies. Farmers used the different SFMTs mostly on maize and tobacco. Farmers produced maize for food and income earning, and they produced tobacco mainly for income generation. In addition to maize and tobacco, farmers across strategies used SFMTs on green vegetables that were produced for both food and income generation. DD farmers processed fruits for income ear ning while LF, ERI, TL and ADP farmers produced either soybeans, beans, groundnuts or a combination of these as market enterprises, although farmers consumed part of each of th ese crops. In addition, LF and ADP farmers produced maize for income earning, but farmers cons umed part of it. Based on the variation in use of SFMTs across crops, this researcher concl udes that farmers invested more in SFMTs for major food and cash crops, which were maize and tobacco respectively. Few farmers invested in SFMTs on groundnuts, soybeans and beans because these crops were not only the major legumes that farmers used as relish with Nsima but farmers also used them in crop rotation and intercropping systems. This study found that the major sources of in formation on SFMTs used by farmers varied by strategies. However, the government extension workers played an important role in providing information on SFMTs to farmers across all stra tegies. Farmers mentioned other sources of information on SFMTs, which were the strategies they worked with, fellow farmers, family members and farmers own experience. Each st rategy supported farmers in terms of providing
165 them with more information on SFMTs and training programs on how farmers could apply SFMTs on different crops. Some of the stra tegies provided farmers with fertilizer loans particularly at the outset of market enterprises.
166 Table 5-1. Percentage Distribution of Farm ers by Type of Soil Fertility Management Technologies Used Soil Fertility Management Technologies Percent Crop Rotation 134 78.8 Chemical Fertilizer 132 77.6 Crop Residues 103 60.6 Animal Manure 97 57.1 Soil Erosion Control Measures 96 56.5 Compost Manure 92 54.1 Intercropping with Legumes 51 30.0 Agroforestry 48 28.2 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 14 8.2 *Percent do not account for 100 percent b ecause respondents had multiple answers Table 5-2. Percentage Distribu tion of Male Farmers by Type of Soil Fertility Management Technologies Used (n = 33) SFMTs Percent Crop Rotation 27 81.8 Chemical Fertilizer 26 78.8 Animal Manure 22 66.7 Crop Residues 20 60.6 Compost Manure 21 63.6 Soil Erosion Control Measures 19 57.6 Agroforestry 16 48.5 Intercropping with Legumes 9 27.3 IPM 2 6.1 *Percent do not account for 100 percent b ecause respondents had multiple answers Table 5-3. Percentage Distribu tion of Female Farmers by Type of Soil Fertility Management Technologies Used (n = 137) SFMTs Percent Crop Rotation 107 78.1 Chemical Fertilizer 106 77.4 Crop Residues 83 60.6 Soil Erosion Control Measures 77 56.2 Animal Manure 75 54.7 Compost Manure 71 51.8 Intercropping with Legumes 42 30.7 Agroforestry 32 23.4 IPM 12 8.8 *Percent do not account for 100 percent b ecause respondents had multiple answers
167Table 5-4. Percentage Dist ribution of Farmers by Soil Fertility Mana gement Technologies Used by Strategy SFMTs LF (n = 34) ERI (n = 29) DD (n = 14) TL (n = 43) ADP (n = 50) Total Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Crop rotation 32 94.1 28 96.6 6 42.9 30 69. 8 38 76.0 134 78.8 Chemical fertilizer 32 94.1 26 89.7 14 100.0 23 53.5 37 74.0 132 77.6 Crop residues 13 38.2 18 62.1 11 78.6 21 48.8 40 80.0 103 60.6 Animal manure 13 38.2 23 79.3 13 92.9 18 41.9 30 60.0 97 57.1 Erosion control measures 23 67.6 15 51.7 10 71.4 15 34.9 33 66.0 96 56.5 Compost manure 13 38.2 14 48.3 8 57.1 27 62.8 30 60.0 92 54.1 Intercropping with legumes 9 26.5 8 27.6 11 78.6 15 34.9 8 16.0 51 30.0 Agroforestry 7 20.6 7 24.1 4 28.6 14 32.6 16 32.0 48 28.2 IPM 1 2.9 10 34.5 1 7.1 1 2.3 1 2.0 14 8.2 Table 5-5. Distribution of Farmers by the Most-Used So il Fertility Management Technologies by Strategies Strategy/ Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LF (n = 34) Chemical Fertilizer Crop Rotation ECM5 Animal Manure, Compost Manure, Crop Residue Intercropping with Legume Agroforestry IPM ERI (n = 29) Crop Rotation Chemical Fertilizer Animal Manure Crop Residue ECM Compost Manure IPM Intercropping with Legume Agroforestry DD (n = 14) Chemical Fertilizer Animal Manure Crop Residue, Intercropping with legume ECM Compost Manure Crop Rotation Agroforestry IPM TL (n = 43) Crop Rotation Compost Manure Chemical Fertilizer Crop Residue Animal Manure ECM, Intercropping with legume Agroforestry IPM ADP (n = 50) Crop Residue Crop Rotation Chemical Fertilizer ECM Animal Manure Compost Manure Agroforestry Intercropping with Legume IPM 5 Erosion Control Measures
168Table 5-6. Percentage Distribu tion of Farmers by Soil Fertility Management T echnologies Used on diffe rent Crops (N = 170) NRM Technology Maize Tobacco Soybeans Beans Groundnut Mushroom Fruits Pigeon peas Cowpeas Irish potatoes Green vegetables Fertilizer 77.1 36.5 2.4 2.9 2. 4 2.4 Crop Rotation 71.2 32.4 23.5 21. 2 58.8 6 Animal Manure 52.9 21.2 3.5 1.8 2.4 1.8 6.5 Soil Erosion Control Measures 52.4 22.4 15.3 17.1 33.5 .6 5.3 2.9 2.4 Crop Residues 49. 4 12.9 8.2 13.5 21.2 5.3 3.5 6 Compost Manure 46.5 25.3 3.2 1.2 2.4 4.1 Intercropping with Legumes 30.0 .6 10.0 21.0 6.5 4.1 2.4 Agroforestry 26.5 8.8 5.9 9.4 6 IPM 2.4 1.2 6.5 .6 Table 5-7. Percentage Distri bution of Farmers who Used Chemical Fertili zer on Different Crops across Strategies Crop LF (n = 34) ERI (n = 29) DD (n = 14) TL (n = 43) ADP (n = 50) Total Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Maize 32 94.1 26 89.7 14 100 22 51.2 37 74.0 131 77.1 Tobacco 12 35.3 15 51.7 2 14.3 10 23.3 23 46.0 62 36.5 Beans 1 2.9 3 10.3 1 2.0 5 2.9 Irish potatoes 2 4.6 2 4.0 4 2.4 Green Vegetables 1 2.9 2 6.8 1 2.0 4 2.4 Soybeans 1 2.9 1 3.4 2 4.6 4 2.4 Tomatoes 1 7.1 1 2.0 2 1.2 Onions 1 3.4 1 .6
169Table 5-8. Percentage Dist ribution of Farmers who Used Animal Manur e on Different Crops across Strategies Crop LF (n = 34) ERI (n = 29) DD (n = 14) TL (n = 43) ADP (n = 50) Total Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Maize 12 35.3 20 68.9 13 92.5 15 34.8 30 60.0 90 92.8 Tobacco 4 11.7 8 27.5 1 7.1 5 11.6 18 36.0 36 37.1 Green Vegetables 1 2.9 3 10.3 2 14.3 4 9.3 1 2.0 11 11.3 Soybeans 1 7.1 3 6.9 2 4.0 6 6.2 Groundnut 4 9.3 4 4.1 Fruits 3 .2 3 3.1 Beans 2 6.8 1 2.0 3 3.1 Table 5-9. Percentage Dist ribution of Farmers who Used Compost Ma nure on Different Crops across Strategies Crop LF (n = 34) ERI (n = 29) DD (n = 14) TL (n = 43) ADP (n = 50) Total Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Maize 12 35.3 13 44.8 7 50 20 46.5 27 54.0 79 84.9 Tobacco 7 20.5 7 24.1 10 23.3 19 38.0 43 46.2 Soybeans 5 11.6 1 2.0 6 6.5 Green Vegetables 1 3.4 2 14.3 3 6.9 1 2.0 6 6.5 Groundnut 3 6.9 1 2.0 4 4.3 Beans 1 2.9 1 2.0 2 2.2 Table 5-10. Percentage Respons e of Farmers on Sources of Information for So il Fertility Management Technologies Used Source of Information LF (n = 34) ERI (n = 29) DD (n = 14) TL (n = 43) ADP (n = 50) Total Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Government Extension Worker 25 73.5 29 100.0 10 71.4 17 39.5 29 58.0 110 64.7 The Organization-Strategy 4 11.8 9 31.0 6 42.9 23 53.5 30 60.0 72 42.4 Fellow Farmers 5 14.7 5 17.2 3 21.4 10 23.3 10 20.0 33 19.4 Family members 1 2.9 4 13.8 2 14.3 3 7.0 4 8.0 14 8.2 Farmers own experience 4 11.8 4 13.8 2 4.7 10 5.9
170Table 5-11. Percentage Response of Farmer s on Support Offered by their Strategies on Sources of Information for Soil Fertility Management Technologies Used Support Offered LF (n = 34) ERI (n = 29) DD (n = 14) TL (n = 43) ADP (n = 50) Total Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Information on SFMTs 12 35.3 24 82.8 4 28.6 14 32.6 27 54.0 81 47.6 Materials for soil fe rtility management 2 5.9 25 86.2 7 50.0 7 16.3 5 10.0 46 27.1 Training 2 5.9 13 44.8 5 35.7 8 18.6 16 32.0 44 25.9 Input loans 11 32.4 12 85.7 4 9.3 11 22.0 39 22.9
171 77.6 30 78.8 57.1 54.1 56.5 8.2 28.2 60.6 chemical fertilizer intercropping crop rotation crop residues animal manure compost manure s. e. control measures IPM Agroforesty Figure 5-1. Percentage Distribution of Farm ers by Type of Soil Fertility Management Technologies Used (n = 170) chemical fertilizer 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 LFERIDDTLADP Strategy % Figure 5-2. Percentage Distributi on of Farmers who Used Chemical Fertilizer across Strategies (LF: n = 34, ERI: n = 29, DD: n = 14, TL: n = 43 and ADP: n = 50)
172 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 LFERIDDTLADP Strategy % intercropping cro p rotatio n Figure 5-3. Percentage Distribu tion of Farmers who Used Inte rcropping with Legumes and Crop Rotation Technologies across Strategies (L F: n = 34, ERI: n = 29, DD: n = 14, TL: n = 43 and ADP: n = 50) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LFERIDDTLADPStrategy % crop residues animal manure com p ost manure Figure 5-4. Percentage Distribu tion of Farmers who Used Crop Residues, Animal and Compost Manure Technologies across Strategies (LF: n = 34, ERI: n = 29, DD: n = 14, TL: n = 43 and ADP: n = 50)
173 soil erosion control measures 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 LFERIDDTLADP Strategy % Figure 5-5. Percentage Distribu tion of Farmers who Used So il Erosion Control Measures Technologies across Strategies (LF: n = 34, ERI: n = 29, DD: n = 14, TL: n = 43 and ADP: n = 50) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35% LFERIDDTLADPStrategy IPM A groforestr y Figure 5-6. Percentage Distribu tion of Farmers who Used IPM and Agroforestry Technologies across Strategies (LF: n = 34, ERI: n = 29, DD: n = 14, TL: n = 43 and ADP: n = 50)
174 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % LFERIDDTLADP Strategy maize tobacc o Figure 5-7. Percentage Distributi on of Farmers who Used Crop Rotation across Strategies (LF: n = 34, ERI: n = 29, DD: n = 14, TL: n = 43 and ADP: n = 50)
175 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIOS Summary and Conclusions In chapters four and five the researcher pres ented detailed findings from the study. This chapter provides a summary of the research findings, conclusions and recommendations by objective. Summary of Objective One: Iden tify and analyze strategies used by organizations to link farmers to market using the institutional framework. This researcher identified 14 organizations with strategies for linking farmers to market. The following is a list of identified organizatio ns, which were compared and analyzed using specific criteria to finally select the five organizational strategi es for detailed analysis on the extent to which women participated in the marke t; the benefits women derived from participating in the market and the trade off on soil fertilit y management technologies between food and cash crops: 1. International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) 2. Initiative for Development and Equi ty in African Agriculture (IDEAA) 3. International Institute of Tr opical Agriculture/ Southern Af rican Root Crops Research Network (IITA/SARRNET) 4. National Smallholder Farmers A ssociation of Malawi (NASFAM) 5. Association of Smallholder Seed Multiplication Action Group (ASSMAG) 6. Improved Livelihoods through Increased Food S ecurity Development Assistance Program (I-LIFE DAP). This is a consortium including or ganizations such as Catholic Relief Services (CRS), CARE International/Malawi, the Salva tion Army, Africare, Emmanuel International, Save the Children and World Vision. 7. World Vision 8. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) 9. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
176 10. Concern World Wide (CWW) 11. Concern Universal (CU) 12. International Crops Institute for the SemiArid Tropics (ICRISAT) 13. CARE International 14. Citizen Network for Foreign Affairs (CNF A)/Rural Marketing Development Trust (RUMARK) This researcher selected five organizations for detailed an alysis of overall research objectives 2-4. The following is a lis t of five selected organizations: 1. International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) 2. National Smallholder Farmers A ssociation of Malawi (NASFAM) 3. Association of Smallholder Seed Multiplication Action Group (ASSMAG) 4. World Vision 5. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) The strategies of five selected organizatio ns were examined using the institutional framework (IF). The IF analysis was based on su ch criteria as scale of operation, diversity of enterprises implemented, the extent to which gender was integrated, focus on soil fertility management, community empowerment and level of support offered to farmers. This researcher found that the institutional framew ork was an important descriptiv e procedure in analyzing and comparing organizational strategies--particularly for the qualitative information collected from farmers during focus group discussions. As indi cated in the following sections, IF provided a more thorough understanding of the st rategies for linking farmers to market for specific criteria used. The geographical area covered and number of farmers reached varied by strategies. The TL, LF and ADP strategies covered a larger geographical area and reached more farmers-particularly women--than did th e ERI and DD strategies. Moreover, farmers in each strategy preferred to work in a group in order to m eet the volume required by buyers, access potential
177 markets and other opportunities such as traini ng and inputs, for a str onger negotiation power on better price and to sh are marketing cost. The majority of farmers studied produced groundnuts, maize, beans, soybeans, fruit products, chilies and/or mushroom as market en terprises. ADP farmers produced diverse seed crops (maize, groundnuts, soybeans, beans and mu shrooms) and also managed improved goats. LF farmers produced maize, groundnuts, soybeans and beans as seed while TL farmers produced soybeans, groundnuts and chilies. ERI and DD farm ers managed very limited enterprises. In view of the type of enterprises implemented by fa rmers, the ADP and TL strategies believed that diversification of enterp rises could give farmers more opport unity to improve food security and to obtain surplus for sale. The ERI, TL, DD and ADP strategies paid more attention to gender issues than did the LF strategy. These strategies had specific people whose role was to sensitize communities they worked with on a variety of gender issues su ch as equal opportunities and representations, leadership, shared roles, res ponsibilities and decision making, group work, conflict and conflict resolution, and group and in tra-household relationships. LF paid attention only to a limited number of gender issues--which was equal opport unities and representa tions--but reached and benefited more farmers--particularly women-th an did ERI and DD strate gies that paid more attention to gender issues. From these findings, it is clear that paying more attention to gender issues and an explicit integration of gender was not an important consideration for involving the majority of women to participate in the market. Paying attention to gend er issues, however, was important to womens empowerment and to ensuring that women e qually derived benefits from participating in the market.
178 Strategies and programs for linking farmers to market offered the necessary support for farmers to establish crops and liv estock enterprises. The type of support offered varied across strategies. The ADP and TL strate gies had stronger and more sust ained market linkages than did the ERI, DD and LF strategies. Moreover, the ma jority of farmers across LF, ERI, TL and ADP were not confident in identifying markets for their enterprises w ithout support from strategies they worked with. The majority of DD farmers were confident in identifying markets for their products without support from strategies they worked with. Farmers studied were also characterized in terms of sex, marital status, headship, land ownership, levels of education a nd ownership of household assets such as radios, bicycles and kitchen items; livestock and hard assets such as automobiles and houses. This researcher found that the majority of farmers studied were bett er off--in terms of land ownership, education and income--than most rural farmers in Malawi. In particular, LF farmers had more resources (land, income, hard assets and education) and they be nefited most from improved income than other farmers studied. Objective One Conclusions 1. Each organization involved in th is research used distinct st rategies for linking farmers to markets. In sum, the strategies for linking farmers to market have potential for improving access to markets, income and food security of farmers. Moreover, with the exception of TL who also sold produce to intern ational markets, the strategies focused more on local markets (community, regional and national) than international markets. 2. LF did not emphasize gender issues, yet it reac hed the majority of farmers--particularly women--than did other strategies that paid mo re attention to gender issues. Moreover, LF women derived more benefits from the income accrued from different crop enterprises than did women involved in other strategies. Pa ying attention to gender issues, however, was important to womens empowerment and to en suring that women equally derived benefits from participating in the market. 3. Farmers across all strategies worked in groups-particularly for marke ting activities. By working with groups, strategies for linking fa rmers to market successfully implemented market interventions with farmers and also improved benefits that farmers--particularly women--derived from participating in the ma rket. Working in groups improved farmers
179 access to markets, agricultural inputs, opportuni ties for training in production, management and marketing of crops and livestock enterp rises and other support services such as government extension and agricu ltural inputs (mostly seed and fertilizer). Groups helped farmers to negotiate better prices and sharing of transportation cost to the designated markets. 4. The majority of farmers studied were better off--in terms of land ownership, education and income--than most rural farmers in Malawi. In particular, LF farmers had more resources (land, income, hard assets and education) a nd they benefited most from improved income than other farmers studied. These results probab ly cannot be repeated with the more average and poorer farmers. Summary of Objective Two: Determine and analyze the extent to which women farmers participate in the market. This researcher found that the extent to whic h farmers--particularly women--participated in production activities varied by farmers group, enterprise and strategy. However, women farmers participated more in pr oduction activities th an in marketing activities for crops as well as livestock enterprises. For LF and TL farmer s, women were involved in all production and processing activities while men were mostly involv ed in marketing of crops. For ADP farmers, men were more involved in produc tion of maize seed and in the marketing of all seed crops. Women carried out most of the production and pro cessing of all seed crops. The exception was the mushroom group in which women participated more in production and ma rketing activities. For ERI, both women and men were involved in production and marke ting activities. Womens participation in market activities was limited to local markets particularly when farmers sold individually to ve ndors compared to when farmers as groups sold to central or designated markets. An informal discussion wi th women farmers revealed that distance to markets where farmers sold their produce was the most constraining factor to womens participation in the central markets. However, women mentioned other constraining factors to their participation in central markets, which in cluded high transportation cost, lack of marketing skills and household responsibilities.
180 Generally, farmers who produced and sold ma ize earned more income than farmers who engaged in other enterprises. LF women contro lled more income from maize than ADP women. LF farmers also obtained higher income from groundnuts than TL and ADP farmers. LF women controlled more income from groundnuts followe d by women in the ADP and TL strategies respectively. For beans, LF farmers earned mo re income from beans followed by ADP and ERI farmers. Only LF women controlled income from beans. For the ERI strategy, women controlled more income from beans than men while for the ADP strategy, there was more sharing ownership of income from beans. LF farmers obtained more income from soybeans than ADP and TL farmers. Only TL women controlled income from soybeans than women in the ADP strategy. LF women did not control in come from soybeans. Nevertheless, women benefited to a greater extent from income accrued across strategies. Objective Two Conclusions 5. The extent to which women farmers participat ed in the production and in marketing of various crops varied across crop enterprises across strategies. In most cases, all household members were involved in production, pesticid e application and harves ting activities. However, men performed primary roles in ma rketing and control of income from crop enterprises. Exceptions to this were the LF DD and ERI strategies where women controlled most of the income from their enterprises. 6. For the livestock enterprises, this research er found that all household members in the LF strategy were involved in the management of improved pigs and dairy cows. For ADP, men were more involved than women in the manage ment of livestock. Ma rketing of livestock was done by men in both the ERI and ADP strate gies. Nonetheless, ERI men controlled much more income from livestock than wome n while in the ADP strategy, men controlled only a slightly higher income from livestock than women. 7. Womens participation in market activities was limited to local markets particularly when farmers sold individually to ve ndors compared to when farmers as groups sold to central or designated markets.
181 Summary of Objective Three: Determine what benefits women farmers derive from participating in the market This study found that income was the major be nefit mentioned by the majority of farmers across strategies. However, the average income obtained by farmers varied by crop enterprise as well as by strategy. Farmers who produced maize seed obtained the highest amount of income, followed by farmers who processed fruits, or grew groundnuts, beans, soybeans, mushrooms and chilies. In fact, LF farmers obtained the highe st income across all crops when compared to farmers in other strategies. This researcher found that the difference in average income was impacted by the type and quantity of crops that farmers produced and sold and the price in which these crops were sold. Moreover, LF farmers we re better endowed than the other farmers, and overall sold more and benefited more than farmers in the other strategies. With regard to gender and c ontrol of income by women, this research found that women across all strategies have benefited from the contro l of income across different crop enterprises. Specifically, LF women benef ited more from maize, groundnuts and beans while TL women benefited more from soybeans and chilies. ER I women benefited more from beans, DD women benefited more from fruit products and ADP women benefited more from groundnuts and soybeans. Women used the income accrued from diffe rent enterprises to build or invest in their asset base, for instance, purchase of household ite ms, childrens education, food, seed, fertilizer, livestock, construction of be tter houses and automobiles. Farmers who participated in the market also de rived other benefits such as improvement in knowledge and skills (capacity development), em powerment (application of knowledge gained) and gender-related benefits (wife-husband relatio nships, change in role s and responsibilities of women and men, and decision-mak ing at the household level).
182 Despite the benefits farmers derived from pa rticipating in the market, they also faced different challenges in marketing such as lack of timely and sustained markets, low prices and delay in payments after sale. In particular, women were constrained from selling in central markets because of the distance between the local communities, their roles and responsibilities at the household level, and some did not have enough marketing skills for price negotiation. Objective Three Conclusions 8. Benefits women derived from participating in the market varied by enterprise and by strategy. In terms of income, women benefited to a greater extent in the control of income accrued from different crop enterprises than men. The increase in control of income by women across all strategies may have been supp orted by cultural values in the central and southern regions where the majority of farm ers are more matriarchal. Moreover, the extensive gender training conducted by the ER I, TL, DD and ADP strategies may have contributed to the increase in control of income by women. 9. Women also derived other benefits such as improvement in farmers knowledge and skills, social networks, self confidence, position/st atus, wife-husband relati onships, decision making and roles and responsibilities at household levels. For some of the women, their work load was also reduced as they used income from different enterprises to hire additional casual laborer to help them with agricultural activities. 10. Farmers involved in different strategies have faced different challenges in marketing; for instance, lack of timely and sustained markets, low prices and delay in payments after sale. In particular, women were constrained in selling to central markets because of the distance between the local communities, their roles and responsibilities at th e household level, and some did not have enough marke ting skills for price negotiation. 11. Involving farmers in the production and marketin g process increased farmers capacity to produce and manage market enterprises and iden tify better markets fo r their produce. The majority of farmers studied commented that they could go outside their communities to identify markets for new, but similar, enterprise s only with some help fr om their strategies. In terms of marketing activities, this researcher concludes that farmers across all strategies were not empowered enough to market crops and livestock on their own. Objective Four: Analyze the trad e off on soil fertility man agement technologies between food and cash crops. The management of soil fertility was an integr al component of all st rategies for linking farmers to markets. Farmers used chemical fertilizer, animal and compost manure, crop rotation, intercropping, soil erosion contro l measures, IPM and agroforestry technologies to improve soil
183 fertility. However, the most-use d technologies by farmers were ch emical fertilizer, animal and compost manure, crop residues and crop rotation. The less-used techno logies were IPM and agroforestry. Women used almost all the list ed soil fertility management technologies. The application of different SFMTs by farmers varied by crop and by strategy. In fact, farmers used the different SFMTs mostly on maize and toba cco and less on other crops such as green vegetables and onions. This researcher found that th e sources of information on SFMTs used by farmers varied by strategy. However, the government extension wo rkers played an important role in providing information on SFMTs to farmers across all strategi es. Farmers also mentioned other sources of information on SFMTs including the strategies they worked with, fellow farmers, family members and farmers own experience. Strategy for linking farmers to market also supported farmers in terms of providing them with more information on SFMTs and training programs on how farmers could apply SFMTs on different crops. Some of th e strategies provided farmers with fertilizer loans particularly at the outset of market enterprises Objective Four Conclusions 12. The management of soil fertility was an integr al component of all st rategies for linking farmers to markets. The majority of farmers used crop rotations, chemical fertilizer, crop residues and animal and compost manure to im prove soil fertility. A few farmers used intercropping/mixed cropping of maize with a legume, IPM, ag roforestry and soil erosion control measures such as contours and ridges an d vertiver grass. Women were found to use almost all the listed soil fertility management practices. 13. Sources of information on SFMTs used by fa rmers varied by strategy. However, the government extension workers played an impor tant role in providing information on SFMTs to farmers across all strategies. Farmers men tioned other sources of information on SFMTs; the strategies they worked with, fellow fa rmers, family members and farmers own experience. Recommendations 1. Strategies for linking farmers to market shoul d take an active role in involving farmers-particularly women--in the whole marketing pr ocess. Currently, wome ns participation in
184 selling activities is limited to vendors who collect produce from farmers households. Strategies for linking farmers to market should enhance farmers capac ity to identify and sell to the potential markets (local and central). This will ensure sustainability of market interventions even after the strategies phase out. 2. Although this researcher found that paying more attention to gender issues was not an important consideration for encouraging more women to participate in the market-particularly in the LF strategies--the research er recommends that gender issues should be specifically tailored to empow er women in decision making, improve sharing of roles and responsibilities in ag ricultural activ ities and ensure that women equally benefit from participating in the market. 3. Strategies for linking farmers to market th at focused on livestock management should consider identifying livestock en terprises that would directly benefit women. For the ERI group that focused on improved pigs, women request ed chicken enterprise s as they perceived that they could benefit more fr om chickens in terms of relish and income than from pigs. 4. Strategies for linking farmers to market--par ticularly, ERI, TL and DD--should encourage farmers to diversify crops as well as livestock enterprises. With regard to challenges in climate that Malawi farmers are continuing to face, limited implementation of enterprises may place farmers at risk in case of losses. Di versification of enterprises would ensure that farmers have a variety of products to sell to meet the diverse needs of consumers. 5. This researcher found a greater participation of women in the management of soil using different technologies. However, strategies for linking farmers to market should emphasize agroforestry, intercropping a nd IPM because they were used by a very limited number of farmers in general. Specific training should be given to farmers to help them use these technologies. Due to the high cost of chemi cal fertilizer in Mala wi, the use of diverse organic soil fertility management practices such as agroforestry could reduce the cost that farmers have to incur every season to buy chemi cal fertilizer. There is also a need to strengthen collaboration between strategies--particularly the DD strategy with the other strategies--that could benefit the other stra tegies in terms of types of soil fertility management practices that the DD strategy ha d tested and implemented with farmers in Malawi. Currently, such collabo ration is still very weak. Additional Research This research focused more on women farmer s, hence interviewed more women than men who participated in the market strategies. Since only a few men were interviewed, the researcher could not generalize results into specific gender issues. The gene ral characteristics of farmers studied also indicated that stra tegies for linking farmers to mark et did not focus on resource-poor farmers. Additional research involving equal numbers of men and women and non-participating
185 farmers could provide more understanding--particul arly of the benefits accrued--between men and women in the participati ng and non-participating groups. A comprehensive sampling may be required to provide an understanding of the results on diverse categories of farmers. The resources to consumption framework may well be the guide for the additional research-particularly with women--because it contributes to gender equity and building of human capacity through networking and community building efforts.
186APPENDIX A ADDITIONAL TABLES OF RESULTS Table A-1. Mean Acreage of Land (acres) Owned by Female-and Male-Headed Households (n = 164) Farmer headship Strategy N Mean Minimum Maximum Range Female LF 13 31.019 1.0 224.0 223.0 ERI 11 4.955 2.0 9.0 7.0 DD 6 4.917 1.5 9.0 7.5 TL 7 3.429 1.0 6.0 5.0 ADP 12 4.250 1.0 7.0 6.0 Total 49 11.474 1.0 224.0 223.0 Male LF 18 10.944 2.0 26.0 24.0 ERI 17 9.515 2.5 24.0 21.5 DD 8 3.938 1.5 10.0 8.5 TL 34 8.441 2.0 37.5 35.5 ADP 38 9.247 2.0 33.0 31.0 Total 115 8.945 1.5 37.5 36.0 Total LF 31 19.363 1.0 224.0 223.0 ERI 28 7.723 2.0 24.0 22.0 DD 14 4.357 1.5 10.0 8.5 TL 41 7.585 1.0 37.5 36.5 ADP 50 8.048 1.0 33.0 32.0 Total 164 9.700 1.0 224.0 223.0 *Six farmers did not own land
187Table A-2. Percent Ownership of Household As set by Farmers across Strategies (n = 170) LF (n = 34) ERI (n = 29) DD (n = 14) TL (n = 43) ADP (n = 50) Asset Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Bicycle 29 85.3 29 100.0 13 92.9 33 76.7 37 74.0 Foam mattress 29 85.3 14 48.2 10 71.4 19 44.2 23 46.0 Mats 32 94.1 15 51.7 12 85.7 40 93.0 43 86.0 Radio 34 100.0 29 100.0 13 92.9 35 81.4 40 80.0 Chairs 28 82.4 17 58.63.4 12 85.7 30 69.8 28 56.0 Wardrobes 2 5.9 1 2.0 Refrigerator 5 14.7 1 7.1 Sofa set 12 35.3 1 3.4 5 35.7 1 2.3 4 8.0 Television 14 55.9 1 3.4 3 21.4 3 7.0 1 2.0 Cell phone 3 8.8 1 3.4 2 4.0 Table A-3. Percent Ownership of Hard Asse t by Farmers across Strategies (n = 170) LF (n = 34) ERI (n = 29) DD (n = 14) TL (n = 43) ADP (n = 50) Asset Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent House-Thatched 9 26.5 9 31.0 6 42.9 27 62.8 23 46.0 Brick House- Malata 25 73.5 9 64.3 15 34.9 21 42.0 Saloon car 4 11.8 Truck car 4 11.8 1 7.1 Motorbike 5 14.7 1 7.1 1 2.3 1 2.0 Ox cart 5 14.7 5 17.2 3 7.0 6 12.0 Treadle pump 1 2.9 2 6.0
188Table A-4. Percent Ownership of Livestock Asset by Farmers (n = 170) LF (n = 34) ERI (n = 29) DD (n = 14) TL (n = 43) ADP (n = 50) Livestock Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Cow 8 23.5 13 44.8 1 7.1 5 11.6 5 10.0 Pigs 4 11.8 8 27.6 6 42.9 8 18.6 16 32.0 Goats 21 61.8 18 62.1 11 78.6 23 53.5 38 76.0 Chicken 31 91.2 24 82.8 14 100.0 32 74.4 45 90.0 Sheep 1 2.9 2 6.9 Rabbits 3 8.8 1 7.1 3 7.0 2 4.0 Ducks 5 14.7 1 3.4 4 28.6 3 6 12.0 Guinea fowl 3 8.8 2 6.9 7.0 3 6.0 Table A-5. Non-Enterprise Crops Produced by Farmers (n = 170) Crops LF (n = 34) ERI (n = 29) DD (n = 14) TL (n = 43) ADP (n = 50) Local Maize 8 23.5 26 89.7 10 71.4 23 53.5 23 46.0 Hybrid Maize 16 47.1 9 31.0 11 78.6 29 67.4 33 66.0 Beans 12 35.3 16 55.2 5 35.7 16 37.2 18 36.0 Groundnuts 9 26.5 27 93.1 9 64.3 20 46.5 33 66.0 Soybeans 14 41.2 23 79.3 4 28.6 4 27.9 12 54.0 Tobacco 17 50.0 15 51.7 2 14.3 21 48.8 30 60.0 Sweet potatoes 18 52.9 10 34.5 9 64.3 22 51.2 33 66.0 Cassava 1 3.0 6 42.9 9 20.9 4 8.0 Paprika 1 2.9 2 2.0
189 Table A-6. Farmers Major Reasons to Work in Groups Reasons LF (n = 34) ERI (n = 29) DD (n = 14) TL (n = 43) ADP (n = 50) Easy training Easy management of enterprises Easy experimentation/on-farm Easy to identify market Easy to sell (market) Better price Increase income Improve food security To meet production volume To have stronger negotiation power To access seed Improve social relationships Easy management of the group Promote community development Encourage each other Conflict resolution To share farming knowledge To access agricultural extension services To get better meas urements (weighing scale) Improve and protect natural resources = yes, Blank = no Results on Gender-Dis aggregated Activities Linkage through Farmer Associations Formal discussions were conducted with four groups: Mpingu, Kasiya, Mponela and Ntcheu. Mpingu and Kasiya gr oups are located in Lilongwe di strict, Mponela group in Kasungu district and Ntcheu group is locate d in Ntcheu district (all four gr oups are in the central region). Table A-7 reports results on gende r disaggregated activities of fa rmers in the four groups. Mpingu (Seed Marketing Groups) SMAG invol ved 19 (seven women, 12 men) active members. Farmers produced beans, groundnuts, OPV maize, soybeans and cowpeas. All members of the households were involved in production activities such as land preparation, planting, weeding and fertilizer application for al l seed crops while women processed all the seed crops. Women and men applied pesticides on bean s and cowpeas. Also, they carried out other
190 activities such as harves ting, transportation of seed crops from fields to households, grading and packaging of all seed crops for marketing. Wh en farmers sold individually, only men traveled outside the communities to identify best markets fo r all seed crops. After selling the seed crops, men also controlled income and made decisions on the use of income from sale of all seed crops. Table A-7. Production and Market ing Activities of LF-Farmers by Gender by Group (n = 34) Activity Mpingu Kasiya Mponela Ntcheu Production All All All All Process Seed Crop Women Women Women All Pesticide Application All All All All Harvesting All All All All Transportation of Seed from Field to Households All All Men & Children All Grading/Packaging Seed for Market All All All All Marketing Men & MC6 Men & MC Men & MC Men & MC Own Income from Sale of Seed Men Women Men Men Make Decisions on use of Income from Seed Sale Men Men Men Men Kasiya SMAG involved 25 active members (ei ght women, 17 men). Farmers in Kasiya SMAG produced OPV maize, groundnuts and soybeans. For this particular group, all members of the household were involved in land preparation, planting, weedi ng and harvesting. They also transported seed crops after harvest to househol ds and involved in grading and packaging for marketing. Processing of all seed crops wa s mainly done by women. Women and men made decisions on which markets to sell their seed crops. Although a majority of women controlled income from all seed crops, the decision on how to use this income was made by men. Mponela SMAG involved 46 (21 women, 25 men) active members. Farmers in Mponela SMAG produced beans, groundnuts, OPV maize and soybeans. Fo r this group, all members of the household were involved in land preparati on, planting, weeding, harv esting, processing and packaging activities. Men and children (girls and boys) transported a ll seed crops af ter harvest to 6 Market Committee
191 households. Men and women applied storage pestic ides on seed crops and also shared decisions on which markets to sell their seed crops. Neve rtheless, men controlled income from all seed crops and they made decisions on how to use income. Ntcheu SMAG involved 15 (3 women, 12 men) ac tive farmers. Farmers in Ntcheu SMAG produced only OPV maize. The results from fo cus group discussions (FGDs) indicate that all members in the households were involved in land preparation, planting, weeding, harvesting and transportation of OPV mai ze after harvest to households. They were also involved in processing, application of storage pesticide and packaging activities. Howeve r, men controlled income from maize and also made decisions on the use of income. The Enabling Rural Innovation (ERI) /CIAT This researcher visited three farmers groups in Katundulu, Bokosi and Chinseu communities. Katundulu ( Tiguridzane ) group is located in Lilongwe district while Bokosi ( Gunguruwe ) and Chinseu ( Tikolane ) groups are located in Kasungu district (all are located in the central region). The Ka tundulu community involved 32 households that focused on management of pigs. However, farmers were al so experimenting with potential crop enterprises for food and as feed for pigs. In Bokosi co mmunity, there were 32 households that produced beans and ten of these households managed dairy cows. The Chinseu community involved 65 households that engaged in production of beans, but they also identified lo cal goats as potential livestock enterprise. Starting with beans, the results from focus group discussions indicat e that both women and men were involved in the producti on and marketing of beans. Women were mostly responsible for processing activities and for c ontrolling income from beans. Men, on the other hand, shared with women other activities such as land prepar ation, planting, weeding, pesticide application, harvesting and transportation of beans after harves t from fields to households. Men were also
192 involved in packaging, applicati on of storage pesticide and deci sion making on the use of income from bean sales. When men were asked why wome n controlled much of the income from beans, one of the men responded: ...we prefer our wives to own money from bean s because many of us are mobile, and some of us drink too much beer that may lead to inadequate income to women when they need money to sustain household needs. In the case of livestock management ac tivities, this study fo und that all household members were involved in the management activ ities such as feeding and watering (both pigs and dairy cows) and in milking a nd transportation of milk to buyers (dairy cows only). Men and women consulted each other --partic ularly for the initial capital -required to acquire the animals (pigs and dairy cows). Generally, for all groups that worked with ERI, the market committee was responsible for identifying pot ential markets and selling crops and livestock to identified buyers. However, when collective marketi ng failed, farmers sold crops and livestock individually at househol d levels. This researcher found that women controlled income from beans and men controlled income from livestock. The Area Development Program (ADP)/World Vision This researcher conducted focus group discussion s with four farmers groups: Chakhonje, Tiamike, Chabvuwu and Nyongweni (Table A-8 ). Chakhonje, Tiamike and Chabvuwu are located in Dowa distri ct and Nyongweni is located in Mchinji district (all four groups are in the central region). Chakhonje group involved 33 active members (17 women, 16 men). As repor ted in Table A-8, farmers in Chakhonje group produced beans, groundnuts, OPV maize and soybean s and also managed livestock enterprises. The results indicate that all members of th e household were involve d in land preparation, planting, weeding and pesticide application for al l seed crops. They were also involved in harvesting OPV maize while wome n and girls harvested other s eed crops--groundnuts, beans and
193 soybeans. Men and boys transported all seed crops from fields to households. Women and children (girls and boys) proce ssed all seed crops, but, men processed only OPV maize. Men packaged all seed crops for storage and marketing. Table A-8. Production and Mark eting Activities of ADP Farmers by Gender (n = 50) Activity/group Chakhonje Tiamike Chabvuwu Nyongweni Production All All All Women & men Pesticide Application All Men Men Women & men Harvesting Sb, B, and Gt: Women & girls M: All Sb, B, M, Rice, Gt, Sp & Cp: Women, girls & boys B: Women Sb: Women and men Gt and M: All Women & men Transportation of Seed Crop from Field to Households Men & male children Sb, B, M, Rice, Gt, Sp & Cp: Women, girls and boys M: Men All Women & men Process Seed Crop SB, B, and Gt: Women, girls & boys M: All Sb, B, M, Rice, Gt, Sp & Cp: Women, girls & boys Sb, B, Gt & M: Women and girls Women & men Packaging Men Men Men Women & men Marketing MC MC MC MC *All all household members: Sb soybeans; B beans; Gt groundnuts; M OPV maize; Sp sweet potatoes; Cp cowpeas Farmers in Chakhonje group also managed improve d goats. The results revealed that men were more involved in the livestock manageme nt activities than wo men. Women performed watering and treatment activities while male ch ildren fed the goats. Men did a variety of activities--purchasing of animal feed, identifica tion of markets and transp ortation of animals to the market. They also decided on which markets to sell livestock and controlled income from livestock.
194 Tiamike group involved 54 active members ( 20 women, 34 men). Farmers in Tiamike group produced and sold beans, groundnuts, OPV ma ize, soybeans, sweet potatoes, cowpeas and rice. The majority of farmers in this group how ever, for a long time have been producing beans, groundnuts and OPV maize. In 200 5, a few farmers started produci ng soybeans, sweet potatoes, cowpeas and rice. The results indicate that a ll members of the household were involved in land preparation, planting and weeding for all seed cr ops. Pesticide appli cation was done by men -when it was necessary and particularly on OPV maize and beans. Women and children harvested and transported all seed crops while men, transported only OPV maize from the field to the households. Men also transported OPV ma ize seed from the field to the households. Women and children processed all seed crops while men packaged all the seed crops for marketing. Men also controlled income and deci ded on the use of income after the sale of all seed crops. There were 25 farmers in Chabvuwu group who produced and sold beans, groundnuts, OPV maize and soybeans and also managed livestock enterprises. For the seed crops, results indicate that all members of the households were involved in land preparation, planting, weeding, harvesting and transportation of these crops from the field to the households. Men applied pesticides on OPV maize and packaged all seed crops for marketing. They also controlled income from seed crops and livestock enterprises. In the case of livestock, this group shared similar results like the Chakhonje group --where men were found to be more involved in the mana gement of livestock activities than women. Women only carried out watering ac tivities while male children were responsible for feeding the goats. Men performed a variety of activities such as the construction of animal houses, animal
195 treatment, identification of markets and decisi on making on which markets to sell the improved goats. Men also controlled income from livestock. The Nyongweni group involved 32 active memb ers (23 women, 9 men) who mainly produced and sold mushrooms. Mushroom ente rprises involved such activities as shed construction, chopping of maize stalks, cleaning of maize stalks, boiling of cleaned maize stalks, sowing (packing) the boiled maize stalks and mush room seed (spawns) in small plastic bags, covering the packed seed and maize stalks with black plastic for fermentation process, which usually takes about 21 days. Other activities ca rried out were the removal of black plastic, watering, opening up tubes for mushroom emergence, harvesting, grading, packing mushrooms for sale and selling of mushrooms. The results on gender-disaggregated activities indicate that women and men were involved in mushroom production activitie s. For non-married women farmers, other members in the group usually helped them on shed construction and sowing. Otherwise, female-or male-headed households hired additional labor ( Ganyu ) to help them carry out di fferent production activities. Women farmers controlled income from mushroom and also decided on how to use income from mushroom. The Trader-Led Strategy (TL) for Li nking Farmers to Market/NASFAM This researcher visited and in terviewed four farmers groups (chapters): Kalulu, Matutu, Navikali and Karoga (Table A-9). Kalulu, Matutu and Navikali are located in Mchinji district in the central region. Farmers in these chapters produced and sold groundnuts and soybeans. Karoga chapter is in Balaka dist rict in the southern region. Fa rmers in Karoga chapter produced and sold chilies. Kalulu chapter involved 26 active members ( 14 women, 12 men) who produced and sold groundnuts and soybeans. As reported in Table A-9, men and women were involved in land
196 preparation, planting, weeding, ha rvesting and transportation of crops from the field to the households. Women processed groundnuts and soyb eans. Men sold groundnuts and soybeans to the identified buyers, they contro lled the income obtained made decisions on how to use income from groundnuts and soybeans. Table A-9. Production and Mark eting Activities of TL-Farmer s by Gender Group (n = 43) Activity Kalulu Matutu Navikali Karoga Production Women & Men All All All Process Seed Crop Women All Women & Girls Women Harvesting Women & Men All All All Transportation of Seed from Field to Households All All All Women & Men Grading/Packaging Seed for Market All All All Men Marketing Men & MC7Men & MC Men & MC Men & MC In the case of Matutu chapter, there were 64 active members who produced and sold groundnuts and soybeans. As reported in Table A9, all members of the households engaged in production activities. However, women and me n made decision on wh ich markets to sell groundnuts and soybeans. Men sold soybeans and groundnuts to diffe rent markets, but, women controlled the income and also made d ecisions on how to use that income. For Navikali chapter, 16 active members (ei ght women, eight men) were involved in production and marketing of groundnuts and soybeans. The results in Table A-9 show that all members of the households were involved in land preparation, planting, weeding and harvesting activities. They were also involved in transpor ting and packaging activities. Women and girls processed groundnuts and soybeans. Men sold the crops to the market, controlled the income obtained and also made decisions on how they could use that income at household levels. 7 Market Committee
197 There were 27 farmers (eight women, 19 men) who engaged in production and marketing of chilies. The nursery management activit ies were done by men. All members of the households engaged in land prep aration. Men and women were involved in transplanting, watering, weeding and transportation of crops from the fields to the households. Women processed the chilies while men packaged chilies, identified markets for chilies and also sold chilies to the identified markets. Although men controlled income from chilies, both women and men shared decisions on how to use income from chilies. The Demand-Driven (DD) Strategy/ICRAF The DD strategic project on domestication and commercialization of indigenous fruits and products focused only on women farmers. Ho wever, men were also involved in other DD projects activities, for example, the soil fertil ity management (conserva tion) projects. This researcher visited two women groups (Magom ero that involved five members and Chitukuko that involved 10 members) in th e southern region. In both groups, women were responsible for all processing and marketing activities. Women farmers in Chitukuko group decided to keep their income in a bank-joint ac count until they obtain enough capit al to expand their business. Women farmers in the Magomero group commented th at they controlled in come and made most of the decisions on the use of income from fruit products. Table A-10 presents percent distribution of farmers by different markets they sold OPV maize. Generally for LF, the marketing officer was responsible for iden tifying markets and also for selling OPV maize to identified buyers. Af ter markets were identified, farmers collected OPV maize to the central points (normally locat ed in each village) to be picked up by the marketing officer. The results indicate that 83.3% of LF farmers sold OPV maize to LF strategy while 16.7% of LF farmers sold OPV maize to individual vendors--who norma lly purchased at the farmers
198 houses. On the other hand, about 76 % of ADP farmers sold OPV maize to Kafulu association. Kafulu association is an associ ation consisting of different farm ers groups in Dowa district. ADP strategy implemented different agricultural ac tivities with several of these associations at national levels. Usually, ADP farmers sold OPV maize to vendors, but for 2005 marketing season, none of the ADP farmers interviewe d sold OPV maize to any vendors. Although the majority of LF fa rmers mentioned that they so ld OPV maize to LF strategy, this study, noted that LF farmers did not know to which markets LF strategy sold their OPV maize. An informal discussion with the LFs ke y informants revealed that there were different markets to which LF strategy sold OPV maize, some of which were the Association for Promotion of Sustainable Agriculture in Malawi (APSAM), Malawi Government, PANAR, Chinese Teaching Mission, CADECOME-Balak a, CARE-Malawi, Concern Universal, Participatory Rural Development Organizati on (PRDO), World Vision, OXFARM, SeedCo and Chitedze Research Station. LF farmers also sold little amounts of OPV mai ze to vendors. This study found that through LF strategy, farmers acce ssed a potential market niche which was not only sundry, but involved other organizations th at focused on community development activities in rural areas. Hence, OPV maize produced by LF farmers also served as seed for many other farmers collaborating wi th other organizations. As indicated in Table A-10, about 76% of ADP farmers sold OPV maize through Kafulu Farmers Association while a sm all percentage (4.0%) of ADP fa rmers responded that they did not know to which markets Kafulu association sold their OPV maize. But, from the focus group discussions (FGDs), this researcher learned th at majorities of ADP farmers did not know to which markets Kafulu association sold OPV mai ze. It was through informal discussions with ADPs key informants that this researcher identified some of the markets to which Kafulu
199 association sold OPV maize. Some of these markets included Adventist Relief Agency (ADRA), World Vision and European Union (EU). ADP strategy was mentioned as one of the buyers because sometimes ADP purchased OPV maize produ ced by farmers to re-distribute the seed to other farmers in the same and/or new areas of interventions. Table A-10. Percent Distribution of Farmers by Different Markets they Sold OPV Maize (n = 43) Markets LF (n = 18) ADP (n = 25) Percent Percent Vendors 3 16.7 LF 15 83.3 ADP 4 16.0 Kafulu association 19 76.0 Did not sell 1 4.0 Did not know 1 4.0 Table A-11 indicates percentage of farmers by who transported OPV maize to the markets. The results show that LF strategy and the ADP farmers marketing committee were more involved in transporting OPV maize to the mark ets. When ADP purchased OPV maize from farmers, they also became responsible for trans porting it to the markets or to any other intended users. Table A-12 shows percent distribution of farmers by markets to which they sold groundnuts. Within LF, 55.6% of farmers sold groundnuts to vendors, 38.9% to LF and 5.5% to World Vision. Potential buyers for groundnut s produced by LF farmers included Liwonde CADECOME, Malawi Government, APIP, CARE, World Vision, Concern Universal and other NGOs, all of whom were focusing on agricultu ral production with ru ral communities. TLfarmers sold groundnuts to TL strate gy and none of them sold groundnuts to any vendors. For ADP, 56.0% of farmers sold groundnuts through Ka fulu association, 32.0% sold groundnuts to ADP and 4.0% sold to vendors.
200 Table A-11. Percent Distribution of Farmers by who Transported OPV Maize to the Market (n = 43) Strategy women men wife and husband strategy market committee Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent LF (n = 18) 2 11.1 6 33.3 10 55.5 ADP (n = 25) 5 20.0 2 8.0 4 16.0 13 52.0 Table A-12. Percent Distribution of Farmers by Ma rkets to which they Sold Groundnuts (n = 78) Strategy vendors LF TL ADP Kafulu Association Did not sell Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent LF (n = 18) 10 55.6 7 38.9 1 5.5 TL (n = 35) 100.0 ADP (n = 25) 1 4.0 8 32.0 14 56.0 2 8.0 Table A-13. Percent Response by Who Sold Gr oundnuts to the Market by Sex (n = 78) Sex Organization Women Husband Wife and husband Organization /Strategy Market Committee Male LF (n = 18) 33.3 33.3 33.3 TL (n = 35) 90.0 10.0 ADP (n = 25) 25.0 25.0 50.0 Female LF (n = 18) 28.6 14.3 21.4 35.7 TL (n = 35) 70.0 25.0 5.0 ADP (n = 25) 21.1 5.3 5.3 26.3 42.1
201 LF, TL and ADP farmers collected their crops to centralized centers where farmers stored crops temporarily before they transported it to actual buyers. For TL and ADP strategies, these collection centers were also act ual selling points. Table A14 shows percent response by who transported groundnuts to the market centers. Across LF, TL and ADP strategies, womens responses show that they were also involved in transporting groundnut s to the market centers. As reported in Table A-14, responses by LF female responses indicate that they about twice the percentage of men who sold gr oundnuts to vendors. Women were also involved in transporting groundnuts to the market centers. Table A-14. Percent Response by Who Transported Groundnuts to the Market Centers by Sex (n = 78) Table A-15 shows percent response by markets to which farmers sold beans. The results indicate that LF farmers sold beans to LF strate gy who, in turn, sold beans to a private company known as Rab processors and to th e Lutheran Church. In the case of ERI, 61.5% of farmers sold beans to vendors, 23.1% sold beans to the grai n bank (initiated and supported by Plan Malawi), and 15.4% sold beans to Jenda, which is one of the trading centers in Kasungu district. ADP farmers sold beans to ADP strategy a nd through Kafulu farmer association. As reported in Table A-15, for ERI, in whic h the majority of farmers sold to vendors, 30.8% of women and 7.7% of men responded that th ey sold beans to vendors. The farmers market committee only sold beans to organized markets such as Jenda trading center and to the Sex Strategy wife husband wife and husband organization market committee Male LF (n = 18) 100.0 TL (n = 35) 100.0 ADP (n = 25) 25.0 50.0 25.0 Female LF (n = 18) 14.3 85.7 TL (n = 35) 52.6 26.3 10.5 10.5 ADP (n = 25) 16.7 16.7 16.7 11.1 38.9
202 grain bank. For ADP, 56.5% of farmers show that the market committee sold beans to different markets. Table A-15. Percent Response by Different Markets to Which Farmers Sold Beans (n = 44) Strategy Vendors ADP Kafulu Association Plan Malawi Grain Bank LF JENDA Trading Center LF (n = 4) 100.0 ERI (n = 18) 61.5 23.1 15.4 ADP (n = 22) 43.5 56.5 Table A-16. Percent Response by Who Sold Beans to the Market (n = 44) Strategy Women Men wife and husband organization market committee LF (n = 4) 100.0 ERI (n = 18) 30.8 7.7 7.7 53.8 ADP (n = 22) 8.7 13.0 8.7 13.0 56.5 Table A-17. Percent Response by Who Trans ported Beans to the Market (n = 44) Strategy Women Men wife and husband organization market committee LF (n = 4) 100.0 ERI (n = 18) 100.0 ADP (n = 22) 8.7 21.7 17.4 4.3 47.8 Table A-18 presents percent response by market s to which farmers sold soybeans. The results show that 66.7% and 96.0 % of LF and TL farmers respectively sold soybeans through their strategies. For ADP farmers, 50.0% so ld through Kafulu association, and 33.3% sold soybeans to ADP. LF and TL farmers also sold soybeans to vendors. As reported in the Table A-18, when LF farmers sold to vendors, women became more involved, but when farmers sold to other markets, LF was more involved. For TL, the results indicate an equal percentage of women and men who sold soybeans to TL. For ADP, the market committee was more responsible in selling soybeans to different ma rkets. As reported in Table A-19, women--
203 particularly those working with LF and TL--were also involved in transporting soybeans to the markets centers. Table A-18. Percent Response by Markets to which Farmers Sold Soybeans (n = 35) Strategy Vendors LF TL ADP Kafulu Association Did not sell LF (n = 3 ) 33.3 66.7 TL (n = 26 ) 4.0 96.0 ADP (n = 6 ) 33.3 50.0 16.7 Table A-19. Percent Response by Who Sold S oybeans to the Market Centers (n = 35) Strategy Women Men Wife and Husband Organization/ Strategy Market Committee LF (n = 3 ) 33.3 66.7 TL (n = 26 ) 48.0 48.0 4.0 ADP (n = 6 ) 40.0 60.0 Table A-20. Percent Response to Who Trans ported Soybeans to the Market (n =35) Strategy Wife Husband Wife and Husband Organization /Strategy Market Committee LF (n = 3 ) 33.3 33.3 33.3 TL (n = 26 ) 48.0 44.0 4.0 4.0 ADP (n = 6 ) 20.0 20.0 60.0
204Table A-21. Percent Response on Ownership of Income from Different Crops by Women and Men Farmers Crop Response category LF ADP ERI TL DD Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Maize Women 8 53.3 5 20.8 Men 6 40.0 15 62.5 Wife and husband 1 6.7 4 16.7 Groundnuts Women 10 58.8 14 50.0 11 46.7 Men 6 35.3 10 27.3 6 33.3 Women and Men 1 5.9 6 22.7 5 20.0 Beans Women 3 100.0 7 30.4 11 78.6 Men 9 39.2 3 21.4 Women and Men 7 30.4 Soybeans Women 2 40.0 11 45.8 Men 2 40.0 10 41.7 Women and Men 1 20.0 3 12.5
205Table A-22. Chiseu Farmers perceived benef its from participating in the ERI project Perceived benefits by farmers in Chiseu Perceived benefits by farmers in Chiseu 1. Agro-enterprise Potential enterprises in placebean and local goat enterprises. 2. Farming Systems Beans are now grown in the area More land for bean production Opportunities for more cropping systems e.g. crop rotations Crop diversification beans were not grow n at all. Farmers used to depend on Maize only. Now they also consider Irish potatoes as a potential crop 3. Social capital Social relations among people has im proved and increased by working together in groups Knowledge sharing has increased through these social relations People are meeting more often now than used to be Working in groups has helped farmers reap benefits they got from bean multiplication enterprise Number of visitors has increased and this is an opportunity for farmers to exchange ideas with visitors and also to build social relations with them. 4. Gender relations Women and men have started working together Women confidence has increased Women freedom to buy what they need has increased 5. Capacity development Knowledge in farming has increased Capacity to analyze costs-benefits in farming not only for bean production, has increased Women confidence has increased. They can now talk even in front of their in laws Increase in farmers independence mindthe river code has helped farmers to become independent Farmers are able to put into use the knowledge learned from bean enterprise to other agricultural enterprises. e.g cost-benefit analysis of their individual enterprises, or consider focusing on crops that they can sell General public speaking particularly among women farmers has improved and increased Farmers capacity to do market research has increased. The ITK knowledge has increased and trickled to members in the community particularly on the traditiona l pest management practices Farmers are able to open bank accounts from bean sales 6. Nutrition, health and hygiene Beans serve as major relish food which was difficult to have. Bean relish is in forms of leaves and grains. Leaves also dried for re lish next season. Farmers utilize both green and dry beans. Farmers and children look healthy. Though it might be difficult to document impact of beans on farmers health, beans have nutritional value to farmers particularly women and children Some farmers are able to take tea every morning now as result of increased income from bean sales Some farmers are now able to feed their children more frequent than it used to be Dress code particularly among wo men has improved significantly Some farmers are now able to use soaps and bod y glycerin than the grease they used to apply on their skin. Skin outlook among farmers is much better Some farmers have built beautiful toilets Used money from bean sales to buy food such as maize, chicken and pigeon peas Using money from bean sales women are ab le to go at the ma ize milling than pound maize Some farmers are able to go to hospitals as a result of increase in income from bean sales 7. Increase in amount and levels of income Amount of income has increased as a result of bean enterprise. One farmer has received on average about 6,400MK as a result of bean sales Marrying additional wives as a sign of we alth and statusthough there was a strong discussion on the fact that men get married to mo re wives to increase labor, or if the first wife is lazy Some farmers were able to contribute their share of 6,000MK for goat enterprise Some farmers have built goat kolas and beautiful toilets from increased in income from bean sales Some farmers have opened up their firs t bank accounts from bean enterprises Purchases of assets has increased, for inst ance farmers bought camera, bicycles, cloths, cooking pots and plates Levels of income by farmers have increase. Opening up of grocery stores for income earning Purchasing of maize for family food Purchasing of fertilizer, a better indicator for farmers investment in NRM after they have increased their income from bean enterprises 8. Community services Grocery stores have increased access to hous ehold services among farmers particularly women More interventions that are facilitated by different actors: Plan, CIAT, Malawi government
206Table A-23. How farmers in Bokosi pe rceived to have benefited from participating in the ERI project Farmers perceived benefits Farmers perceived benefits 1. Cropping systems and cropping patterns Beans are now grown in the village. More beans are grown in the area Change in cropping systems crop rotations Farmers have opened up new land for bean pr oduction, in addition to tobacco production Increased access and availability of bean seed varieties with in the community and to the neighboring communities 2. Food, nutrition and health Increased availability of relish. Relish is no longer a problem because beans are now grown in the village. Farmers have a variety fr om which to choose e.g. use green beans, grains, fresh and dry leaves as relish Availability and accessibility of milk from fa rmers having diary cow. The price of milk ranges between 7MK per 300ml 30MK per Lite r. Farmers used to get little milk from local cows, which was even not enough and unav ailable when needed by for instance sick children Healthy skin observed among children Availability of other food items such as bread s children were observed to be eating bread Increase in number of farmers taking breakfasts with milk 3. Increased income from both bean and milk sales More farmers purchasing maize for food and confectioneries such as bread Asset building. Increase in purchase of househ old items such as mattress, purchase of bicycles by a woman, construction of brick houses with iron roofs and establishment of grocery stores Increased number of women who now go to the milling machine instead of pounding maize for Nsima Farmers purchasing animal drugs 4. Increased in physical assets and wealth Farming knowledge (crop a nd livestock) has improved Dairy cows are viewed as major farmers assets Purchase of household items like mattress Building of modern houses with red bricks and iron roofing Increase in marriages among young men. 2 men got married after they sold their beans. In this village a man would not be able to marry if he does not have money. And if he failed to pay the dowry a wife could be taken back to her home, or a man could even get jailed 5. Increased access to serv ices in the community Increase in grocery stores af ter bean sales has allowed fa rmers particularly women and children to buy household items wi thin the village using less time which took them more time before. There are now three grocery stores as a result of bean sales Veterinary and extension services have increased 6. Social capital Social relation and sharing knowledge within the community and between farmers in Bokosi and neighboring communities have increased particularly during the field days. Farmers are now able to work in groups Social relations have increased beyond Bokosi s ection. Farmers from Bokosi are able to train other farmers in neighboring communities Increase in social relations with visitors even from outside Malawi, which enables exchange of knowledge, for instance the suggestion provide d by research scientists from Uganda collaborating partners on how to collect and us e urine-liquid manure something that farmers in Bokosi were not aware of. These types of soci al relationships are also viewed as symbols of community status. 7. Capacity development Different training programs have increased fa rmers knowledge on bean production and in the management of diary cows. Farmers were of th e opinion that these training opportunities used not to be there before Gender training has increased women confidence in public speaking, Gender training has also increased womens capacity to negotiate with their husband, something which was not used before. A woman was to kneel down about 3-5M to request her husband about what she needed. Using knowledge from market research, farmers ha ve become more aware of the costs-benefit analysis that they us e in analyzing different potential enterprises Farmers in Bokosi are now training farmers in neighboring communities in bean production Farmers are now able to keep records pa rticularly with the dairy enterprise Increase in knowledge on how to conduct market research, crops and livestock management practices diseases and pest control on beans. 8. Increased gender awareness and gender equity Men perceive that gender is working in the community Increase in decision making among women particular ly on how to use money from milk sales. Generally, men distribute the milk to customer s and collect the money and discuss with their wives on how to use the money Increase in women bargaining power in the household. Increase in sharing of roles and responsibilities among men and women in both beans and dairy cow enterprises. However, women commente d that they are still providing most of the labor required in the dairy cow enterprise. Me n now help women fetching water from dambos Gender training has improved male -female caring relationships. For instance, men giving their wives money to go to milling machine to grind maize. 9. Increase in employment opportunities Dairy cow enterprise has open up employment for people who had no job before. Some farmers do piece work for instance in cutting the sila ge, animal feed to get cash to sustain their lives
207 APPENDIX B BENEFITS FARMERS DERIVED FROM PARTICIPATING IN STRATEGIES FOR LINKING FARMERS TO THE MARKET Figure B-1. Benefits derived by DD-Magomero farmers (n = 5)
208 Figure B-2. Benefits derived by DD-Chitukuko farmers (n = 10)
209 Figure B-3. Benefits derived by ERI farmers who managed dairy cow
210 Figure B-4. Benefits derived by ERI farmers who produced beans
211 Figure B-5. Benefits derived by ADP Chakhonj e male farmers who managed improved goats
212 Figure B-6. Benefits derived by ADP Chakhonje female farmers who managed improved goats
213 Figure B-7. Benefits derived by ERI male farmers who managed pigs
214 Figure B-8. Benefits derived by ER I female farmers who managed pigs
215 Figure B-9. Benefits derived by ADP Chabvuw u male farmers who managed improved goats
216 Figure B-10. Benefits ADP wome n farmers derived from beans
217 APPENDIX C INSTRUMENTS USED Instrument for Key Informants A. General information Name of the contact person: Name of the organization: B. Specific questions 1. How long have you been working with this organization? 2. How long has this organization been working with farmers in Malawi? 3. What activities/interventions are be ing carried out by the organization? 4. In which areas / Districts are you operating? 5. At what levels are you operating? Strategies for linking farmers to the market 6. Is your organization linking farmers to the markets? 7. How is your organization linking farmers to the markets? 8. What types of agroenterprises are farm ers involved with in this organization? 9. What type of support do you provi de farmers participating in different agroenterprises 10. Are women farmers involved in these different types of agroenterprises? 11. How many women farmers/women groups are involved in each intervention? 12. How are women involved in different agroenterprise s/interventions? 13. Where/how are farmers selling produc ts from different agroenterprises? 14. Who determines the selling price of the products produced by farmers? Partnership with other organizations 15. Who are your collaborating partners in the process of linking farmers to the market? 16. How do you involve these part ners in the process of li nking farmers to the market? Natural Resource Management 17. Is the organization involving fa rmers in any type of NRM? 18. If yes, what type of NRM does the organization focus? 19. How is this organizatio n involving farmers in di fferent types of NRM? Is there any thing that you would like to share with me that would contribu te to the analysis of strategies for linking farmers to the market? Thanks for your time and cooperation
218 Instrument for Informal Discussions with Farmers A) Basic information 1. Name of the farmer/group: 2. Number of farmers attending: Female_____, Male_______ 3. Name of the organization: 4. Name of the village/section: 5. Name of the District: B) General information on Agricultural activities 6. What types of livestock and crops do you grow for cash? Type of livestock Type of crops 7. Where do you current sell your crops/livestock? Where do you sell crops Where do you sell livestock 8. What problems do you face in marketi ng these crops and/or livestock? Marketing problems for crops Ma rketing problems for livestock D) Information on specific activities with organi zation(s) that link farmers to the market 9. What other organizations are you working w ith in Marketing crops and /or livestock? Name of the organization How long have you been working with the organization? What market interventions are you involved with this organization Who decided on the type of market interventions that you are implementing? How are these organizations linking you to the market? 10. Are you marketing crops /livestock individually or in groups? 11. If marketing in groups, how marketing of crops /livestock is being conducted? Number of women in groups_____. Number of men in groups_____. 12. What services do you get from the organization to support marketing of crops and livestock? 13. How successful are you from the market linkage s, knowledge and skills and other services provided by the organization? 14. Are there any specific interventions by the orga nization on women to ensure that women are participating in the project activities? (if yes, specify them) 15. What benefits do you derive from participa ting in activities unde r this organization?
219 Instrument for Focus Group Discussions General Information SECTION 1: Group Characteristics 1. Is your group registered or not? 1 = registered 0 = not registered _____ 2. If it is a registered group when was it registered? ________ 3. Which year was the group formed? ______ 4. What were the reasons for forming the group? Easy training on the production of enterprise Easy management of the enterprise .2 Easy marketing .. Meet the production volume ..4 Negotiation for better prices ..5 Inputs procurement (SPECIFY INPUTS BELOW) Seed ..6 Fertilizer Pesticide Easy management of the smaller group ....9 Shorten distance for travel to meeting with larger groups Other reasons (SPECIFY) .11 5. What activities are you involved in as a group? Production and management of crop enterprise ....1 Management of livestock enterprise ..2 Experimentation of food security crops .3 Experimentation on soil fertility management options ...4 Experimentation on integrated pest management using botanicals.5 Other activities (SPECIFY) .6 Name of the Group/Association: _______________ Type of group: ________________1= women only, 2 = mixed If mixed: Number of wome n: _____Number of men ________ Organization: ________________1= CIAT, 2=ASSMAG, 3=NASFAM, 4=ICRAF, 5=World Vision Region: _________________1=Northern, 2=Central, 3=Southern District: ________________ Village: ________________ Interviewer:________________________ Date: ________________
220 6. Which committees do you have that members can wo rk together? What are the roles of these committees? Committee Tick appropriate Role of committee Main committee Production committee Market research committee Participatory monitoring and evaluation committee Discipline committee Executive committee Other categories (SPECIFY) 7. How does each member participate in activ ities that the group is involved in? a. _____________________________ b. _____________________________ c. _____________________________ d. _____________________________ e. _____________________________ 8. How many times a month do you meet as a group? _______ 9. What was the number of farmers (men a nd women) in the group initially? _____ 10. How many active members (women and men) are there in the group now? Number of active women: _______ Number of active men: _________ 11. How many farmers dropped from the group? ________ 12. Why did they drop from the group? Did not have time to participate......1 Moved to another village .2 Lack of markets not profitable Project fund ended lack of fund to continue with the group activities .........4 Did not produce enough to comp ete with other farmers .5 Lack of land to grow the crop ..6 Did not make profit ..7 Poor prices ...8 Expulsion did not adhere to rules and re gulations Other reasons (SPECIFY) ....................................................................................
221 SECTION 2: Specific inform ation on crop enterprises 13. Which crop enterprises do you have? Beans ..1 Pigeon peas ..2 Groundnut Maize Soybeans ..5 Sweet potatoes .....6 Paprika .7 Chilies ..8 Fruits (SPECIFY) ....9 Others (SPECIFY) ________________________ 14. Why did your group select these crop enterprises? Crop E 1 Crop E 2 Crop E 3 Crop E 4 Crop E 5 Reason Food security Nutrition Income generation Experimentation Soil fertility Require less fertilizer Others (SPECIFY) 15. Are there crop enterprises that are for women only? 1 = yes, 0 = no 16. If yes, why are these consider ed women only enterprises? a. _____________________________ b. _____________________________ c. _____________________________ d. _____________________________ e. _____________________________ 17. What did you contribute as a group to establish crop enterprises? a. Labor b. Seed c. Land d. Capital e. Other (SPECIFY) ___________
222 18. What did the organization contribute to support the group to establish crop enterprises? Planting material/seed (SPECIFY CROPS) ...................1 Capital to buy seed (SPECIFY CROPS) ....2 Training skills (SPECIFY BELOW) Crop production ..3 Management of enterprise ..4 How to identify markets .5 How to negotiate with buyers How to make contract ....7 How to keep records ..8 How to do cost and benefit analysis .9 Grading ...10 Gender (SPECIFY training components) Shared roles and responsibilities ....11 Household decision making Household relationships ..13 Leadership ..14 Conflict resolutions Provision of market information Linkage to buyers (SPECIFY BUYERS..17 HIV/AIDS training ..18 Linkage to other organizations..19 Other contributions/support (SPECIFY) ....................................................... 19. Which crop enterprises are you producin g and managing individually? Which crop enterprises are you producing and ma naging collectively in a group? Crop E 1 Crop E 2 Crop E 3 Crop E 4 Crop E 5 Level Individually Collectively in a group 20. If producing in a group, who is providing land fo r crop enterprise? Who is preparing the land for planting? Who is planting the crop? Who is weeding? Who is harves ting the crop? Who is storing the crop? Enterprise Who provides land Who prepares land Who plants the crop Who is weeding Who harvests Who stores the crop 1. 2. 3. 21. Are you selling products from crop enterprises individually or collectively in a group? 1 = individually, 2 = collectively in a group
223 22. If selling in a group, when did you st art selling togeth er as a group? Enterprise Year started selling together 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 23. What were the reasons to start selling in a group? To obtain the volume required by buyers To obtain better price from buyers ...2 Contractual agreement become easier in group More bargaining /negotiation power .4 Sharing marketing cost (SPECIFY) ..5 Others (SPECIFY) _____________________________________________________ 24. Which markets have you sold products from cr op enterprises as a group for last season? Which markets have you sold products the fi rst season you started pr oducing crop enterprise? What quantity (volume) have you sold? Who go to these markets to sell crop enterprises? Enterprise: Season Markets sold Quantity sold (kg) Number of times sold Who sold 2005 First season (SPECIFY Year) 25. Are you as a group facing any problems in selling products from crop enterprises? 1 = yes, 0 = no 26. If yes, which problems do you face as a group in selling products from enterprises? Inadequate knowledge on how to identify markets Lack of knowledge on how to identify markets .2 Lack of reliable market s to sell products Low price of products .4 Theft while transporting produce to markets ..5 Corruption by buyers ..6 Manipulation of weighi ng scale by buyers .7 Others (SPECIFY) .................................................................................... 27. What can be done to remove problems and encourage marketing ac tivities by the group? a. _____________________________ b. _____________________________ c. _____________________________ d. _____________________________ e. _____________________________
224 Livestock enterprise 28. Does the group have any livestock enterprise? 1 = yes, 0 = no 29. Which livestock enterprise do you have? Pigs Diary cow ..2 Local goats Others (SPECIFY) ________________________________________ 30. Why did you choose to manage livestock enterprise? Income earning .1 Food security .2 Asset building Manure Skill development ..5 Others (SPECIFY) ________________________________________ 31. What did you contribute as a group to establish livest ock enterprise? a. Animal housing b. Labor for managing the enterprise Others (SPECIFY) c. ____________________________ d. _____________________________ e. _____________________________ f. ______________________________ 32. What did the organization contribute to support the group to establish livestock enterprise? Training in the management of enterprise (SPECIFY) ....1 Construction of animal house.2 Animal feed Capital for animal vaccines Capital for regular animal feed ..5 The animal .6 Paraffin ..7 Charcoal Feeding trash .9 Vaccines ..10 Market information .11 Linkage to buyers Training in marketing (SPECIFY) How to identify markets .13 How to negotiate with buyers .14 How to make contract .15 How to keep records How to do cost and benefit analysis Linkage to other orga nizations (SPECIFY) .18 Others (SPECIFY) _____________________________________ If yes ANSWER questions 29-45. If no, SKIP to question 45
225 33. How many livestock did you start with? _______ 34. How many households did they rece ive livestock initially? ______ 35. How many livestock are th ere in the group now? _______ 36. How many households have they received livestock now? _______ 37. Are you selling livestock individually or collectively in a group? 1 = individually, 2 = collectively in a group 38. If selling in a group, which year did you start selling togeth er as a group? Livestock enterprise Year started selling together 1. 2. 39. What were the reasons to start selling livestock in a group? To obtain the number of lives tock required by buyers .1 To obtain better price from buyers Contractual agreement become easier in group More bargaining /negotiation power .4 Help orphans from HIV/AIDS ..5 Others (SPECIFY) 40. Which markets have you sold livestock as a group for last season? Which markets have you sold livestock first season? How many lives tock have you sold to these markets? Livestock enterprise: Season Markets sold Number of livestock sold 2005 Last season (SPECIFY) 41. Which problems have you faced in the management of livestock enterprise? Lack of feed ..1 Lack of knowledge on feed formulation ...............................................................2 Diseases Animal deaths while small .4 Animal deaths adult Poor quality feed ...6 Untimely delivery of resources e.g. Vitamins paraffin, charcoal by the organization.7 Others (SPECIFY) ......................................................................................................... 42. Are you as a group facing any problems in selling livestock? 1 = yes, 0 = no 43. If yes, which problems do you face as a group in selling livestock? Inadequate knowledge on how to identify markets .1 Lack of knowledge on how to identify markets ..2 Lack of reliable market s to sell products .3 Low price of products ..4 High competition .5 Others (SPECIFY) ....................................................................................
226 44. What can be done to remove problems and encourage marketing ac tivities by the group? a. Ensure quality Others (SPECIFY) b. _____________________________ SEPARATE THE GROUP INTO TWO SUB-GROUPS: MEN AND WOMEN ONLY GROUPS FOR GENDER DIFFERENTIATED CALENDARS AND BENEFITS THAT FARMERS HAVE DERIVED FROM THE ENTERPRISES SECTION 4: Gender dynamics: Gender-labor differentiated calendar on crop enterprises 45. Who does the following activities in the crop enterprises? Codes: 1 = Wife only 2 = Husband only 3 = Wife and husband 4 = Male child 5 = Female child 6 = Wife and female child 7 = Husband and male child 8 = All household members 9 = Outside labor Who does it Activity/Task Crop E 1 Crop E 2 Crop E 3 Crop E 4 Crop E 5 Selection of crop enterprise Land preparation Planting Weeding Fertilizer application Pesticide application Harvesting Transporting after harvesting Processing (winnowing, etc.) Packaging Storage pest application Going to town to identify markets Decision on which markets to sell Going to markets to sell Keeping the money after sales Decision on the use of money Indicate type of subgroup: _________ 1 = women only; 0 = men only If farmers are involved in crop enterprise only ask part (a), if are involved in livestock enterprise only ask part (b), if are involved in both crop and livestock enterprises ask parts ( a and b )
227 Gender dynamics: Gender-labor differentiat ed calendar on lives tock enterprises 46. Who does the following activities in the livestock enterprises? Codes: 1 = Wife only 2 = Husband only 3 = Wife and husband 4 = Male child 5 = Female child 6 = Wife and female child 7 = Husband and male child 8 = All household members 9 = Outside labor Who does what Activity/Task Livestock E 1 Livestock E 2 Construction of the animal house Purchase of Livestock Purchase of feed Feeding Watering Treatment Transporting to market Going to town to identify markets Decision on which markets to sell Going to markets to sell Keeping the money after sales Decision on the use of money Other tasks (SPECIFY) SECTION 5: Benefits/Impact diagrams to be drawn by farmers 47. What direct and indirect benefits have you as a group derive d from crop/livestock enterprises? What are the negative and positiv e affect of these benefits to the group members? ZIKOMO KWAMBIRI
228 Instrument for Household Interviews General Information SECTION 1: Farmer characteristics 1. Farmers Name: __________________________ 2. Farmers Sex: _______ 1 = female, 0 = male 3. Household member who is the group me mber: ________1 = wife, 2 = husband, 3 = both 4. How many years have you been a member? ________ 5. What were the reasons for you to join the group? a) Easy management of enterprises b) Easy marketing c) To obtain better prices d) To strengthen social relations with other members in the group Other reasons (SPECIFY) _________________ SECTION 2: CHARACTERIZING THE ENTERPRISE Crop enterprise 6. Which crop enterprises do you have? Beans ..1 Pigeon peas ..2 Groundnut Maize Soybeans ..5 Sweet potatoes .....6 Paprika .7 Chilies ..8 Fruits (SPECIFY) ....9 Others (SPECIFY) _________________ Name of the Organization: ________________ 1= CIAT, 2=ASSMAG, 3=NASFAM, 4=ICRAF, 5=World Vision Name of Farmers Group: ______________________ Region: _________________1=Northern, 2=Central, 3=Southern District: ________________ Village: ________________ Interviewer: _____________________________ Date: ________________
229Production, growth and marketing of crop ente rprises for last fi ve seasons (2001-2005) 7. How much did you plant? How much did you ha rvest? How much total did you sell? What was the price per unit sold? What was the total income obtained? How much did the hus band keep? How much did the wife keep? Crop Enterprise: Year started producing: How much planted Amount harvested, sold and consumed Seasons Area (acre) Quantity of seed used (kg) How much harvested (kg) Total quantity sold (kg) Total quantity consumed (kg) Price per unit sold Total income obtained Amount of money kept by husband Amount of money kept by wife 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001
230 8. To which markets do you sell your crop pr oducts? How do you go to these markets? Who transports crop products to these markets? Who actual sells crop products to buyers in these markets? What is the distance from the village where you live to the markets? Crop Enterprise: Season Which markets did you sell Price to the market sold How did you go to the markets Who carried/ transported products to markets 1 = husband 2 = wife 3 = wife and husband 4 = organization (SPECIFY ) 5 = Did not transportcollected from the house 6 = Others (SPECIFY ) Who Sold 1 = husband 2 = wife 3 = wife and husband 4 = organization (SPECIFY ) 5 = Others (SPECIFY ) Distance to the market 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 9. Did you sell your produce individually or in collectively in a group? 1=Individually, 2=Collectively Other crops produced by farmers 10. Which other major crops do you grow? 1 = yes, 0 = no; Purposes of growing them: 1 = Food only 2 = Sell only 3 = both food and sale 4 = hire labor Do you grow? For what purpose do you grow the crop? Local maize Hybrid maize Sweet potato Beans Groundnuts Pigeon pea Soybeans Tobacco Other crops (SPECIFY) 11. What are your sources of income in the household? Prioritize/Rank them Source Rank a) _________________________ b) _________________________
231 Investment in soil fertility management techno logies (SFMTs) (trade-off) on crop enterprises 12. Do you use SFMTs in any of your crop enterprises? 1 = yes, 0 = no 13. If yes, when did you start using SFMTs on your crop enterprises? Which SFMTs do you use? On which crops do you use SFMTs? Soil fertility measure/season Do you use? 1=yes 0=no When did you start using On which crops do you use Chemical fertilizer Intercropping with legumes Crop rotation Incorporate crop residues Animal manure Compost manure Soil erosion control measures e.g. grass strips, terraces, cont our bands, vertiver grass etc. Integrated Pest Management e.g. use of botanicals Plant agroforestry trees Others (SPECIFY) 14. Who helped you the most to obtain information on SFMTs that you use? Fellow farmers within the group .1 Fellow farmers within the village 2 Farmers from the neighboring villages The organization (SPECIFY)...................................4 Others (SPECIFY) ______________________________ 15. Who helped you the most to obtain ma terials (SPECIFY.) for soil fertility management? Fellow farmers within the group .1 Fellow farmers within the village 2 Farmers from the neighboring villages ...3 The organization (SPECIFY).......................................4 Others (SPECIFY) ________________________________ 16. Which support does the organization provide on the use of SFMTs? None Information on SFMTs Material for soil fertility management (SPECIFY) .2 Training on how make a nd apply animal manure ..3 Training on how to make a nd apply compost manure Training on how to apply chemical fertilizer .5 Linkage to organizations that provide input loans .6 Others (SPECIFY) _____________________________________
232 17. Do you face any problems in using SFMTs? 1 = yes, 0 = no. If yes, which problems do you face in using SFMTs? Transport 1 Access to technologies/materials ...2 High cost .3 Lack of knowledge on how to use SFMTs .4 Labor intensive (SPECIFY SFMT) Others (SPECIFY) __________________________ 18. What can be done to remove these problems and encourage you to use SFMTs? a) _____________________________ b) _____________________________ c) _____________________________ d) _____________________________ e) _____________________________ Livestock enterprise 19. Do you have any livestock enterprise? 1 = yes, 0 = no 20. Which livestock enterprise do you have? Pigs Diary cow ..2 Local goats Dairy goat ..4 Broiler chicken ..5 Others (SPECIFY) ________________________________________ Production and growth of livestock enterprise 21. When did you start managing livestock ente rprise? How many livestock did you start with? How many livestock do you have now? Di d you loose any livestock? If yes, how many did you loose them? What we re the reasons for their loss? Livestock enterprise: When did you start How many did you start with How many do you have now Have you lost any livestock 1=yes 0=no How many did you loose What were the reasons for their loss 1. Diseases 2. Poor management 3. Lack of enough feed 4. 5. 6. 7. If yes ANSWER questions 20 25. If no SKIP to question 26
233 Marketing of livestock enterprise fo r the last five seasons (2001-2005) 22. How many livestock did you sell? What was the unit price for each livestock you sold? What was the total income you obtained from lives tock sales? How much did the husband keep? How much did the wife keep? Livestock Enterprise: season Number of livestock sold Price per livestock Total income Amount of money kept by husband Amount of money kept by wife 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 23. Which markets did you sell your liv estock? What was the distance from your village to the markets? How did you go to these markets? Who transported livestock to the markets? Who actually sold lives tock to buyers at these markets? Livestock enterprise: Season Markets sold Price to each market sold Distance from the village How did you go to the markets Who transported livestock to markets 1 = husband 2 = wife 3 = wife and husband 4 = organization (SPECIFY ) 5 = Did not transportcollected from the house 6 = Others (SPECIFY ) Who Sold 1 = husband 2 = wife 3 = wife and husband 4 = organization (SPECIFY ) 5 = Others (SPECIFY ) 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 24. Did you sell your livestock/pr oducts individually or in collectively in a group? Individually ..1 Collectively ..2 25. Have you faced any problems in the management of livestock enterprise? 1 = yes, 0 = no. If yes, which problems have you faced in the management of livestock production? Lack of animal feed ..1 Inadequate skills in feed formulation .2 Animal deaths Lack of markets for livestock ..5 High cost of livestock vaccines ..6 High cost of artificial insemination .7 Others (SPECIFY) ____________________________________________
234 SECTION 3: Advantages and Disadvantages of selling crops and or li vestock enterprises individually or co llectively in a group 26. What do you see as advantages and disadvantages of sell ing crops and or livestock enterprises individually or collectively? Marketing strategy Advantages Disadvantages Individual 1. Easy to control money 1. You do a lot of work alone 2. You become more responsible 2. You sell at low prices 3. 3. Difficult to get transport 4. 4. 5. 5. Collective 1. Higher prices 1. Income becomes inaccessible when you need it 2. Easy to meet buyers demand/volume 2. Lazy members discourages fellow members 3. Share marketing costs 3. Top leaders can use money without members permission 4. Skills development / enhancement 4.
235 SECTION 4: Factors that are facilitating or cons training farmers participation in the market 27. Who is involved in the fo llowing marketing activities? Who is involved 1 = husband 2 = wife 3 = others (SPECIFY) Activity Enterprise1 Enterprise2 Enterprise3 Enterprise4 Making decision to get involved in the enterprise Processing Grading Packaging Market committee Going to markets outside the community to sell products from enterprise Going to markets within the village to sell products from enterprise Negotiating with buyers for better prices of the products from enterprise Making contract Making decision on amount of crop produce to sell Making decision on the number of livestock to sell Other marketing activities (SPECIFY 28. Are there any problems constraining you to go to markets outside th e community to sell products from enterprises? 1 = yes 0 = no If yes, which problems constrain you to go to markets outside the comm unity to sell products from enterprise? Distance to markets ..1 Household responsibilities Not allowed by their husbands .3 Women are not allowed by culture ..4 Lack of marketing skills .5 Lack of confidence .....6 Lack of selling ID Other problems (SPECIFY) _________________
236 29. What is the organization doing to remove problems or encourage you to go to markets outside their community to sell products from enterprises? a. Gender training b. Encourage women leadership Other (SPECIFY) c. _____________________________ d. _____________________________ e. _____________________________ f. _____________________________ g. _____________________________ SECTION 4: Benefits from farmers participation in the marketing activities 30. Who decides on the use of money after sale s of products from enterprise that your household is involved in? Enterprise Who decides on the use of money af ter sales of products from enterprise you are involved in? Husband wife others (SPECIFY) Enterprise 1 Enterprise 2 Enterprise 3 Enterprise 4 31. How did you use the money you obtained from sa les of the enterprises your involved in? How the money was used Tick appropriate Indicate how much purchased where appropriate Who bought? 1=husband 2 =wife 3= wife and husband Purchased food for the household Purchased seed Purchased fertilizer Purchased livestock (SPECIFY) Built new structure for livestock Purchased livestock feed Paid school fees for the children Purchased mattress Purchased bicycle Purchased kitchen utensils (plates, cups, pots) Purchased iron roofs Constructed new house Opened a grocery store Purchased cloths (chitenge, shirts) Purchased TV Other uses (SPECIFY)
237 32. How your participation in the marketi ng activities has changed the following? Improved Made worse Stayed the same Change 1= yes 0=no Why 1= yes 0=no Why 1= yes 0=no Why Self-confidence Position / status in the community Social networks and social relationships Knowledge/skillscapacity development Workload for women Roles and responsibilities between husband and wife Husband-wife relations Decision making capacity within the household Other changes (SPECIFY
238 SECTION 5: Farmers Empowerment Crop enterprise 33. Suppose you hear from your neighbor that there is a new crop enterprise called velvet beans in Zomba district that farmers are maki ng a lot of money out of it. Which of the following can you do on your own without support from the organization? Statement I can do it without help I can do it with some help I cannot do it at all I can produce and manage the new crop I can test different ways to produce and manage the new crop I can ask the organization to come and train us on the production and management of the new crop I can go outside the village to identify the best markets for the new crop I can go to markets outside the village to sell the new crop on my own I can negotiate with buyers on a good price for new crop I can make contract with buyers I can keep all records for production and marketing of the new crop Livestock enterprise 34. Suppose you hear from your neighbor that ther e is a new livestock enterprise called diary goat in Karonga district and farmers are maki ng a lot of money out of it. Which of the following are you confident to do on your own? Statement I can do it without help I can do it with some help I cannot do it at all I can produce and manage the new livestock I can ask the organization to come and train us on the production and management of the livestock I can go outside the villag e to identify the best markets for the new livestock I can go to markets outside the village to sell the new livestock on my own I can negotiate with bu yers on a good price for new livestock I can make contract with buyers I can keep all records for production and marketing of the new livestock
239 SECTION 6: How to increase benefits to women from enterprise that you are involved in? 35. In your opinion, are women benefiting from the enterprise that you are involved in? 1 = yes 0 = no 36. How are women benefiting from the en terprise that you are involved in? a) ___________________________ b) ___________________________ c) ___________________________ d) ___________________________ e) ___________________________ 37. How could the organization (SPECIFY.) increase benefits to women from the enterprise that you are involved in? a) ___________________________ b) ___________________________ c) ___________________________ d) ___________________________ e) ___________________________ SECTION 7: HOUSEHOLD ASSETS 38. What is the educational le vel of you and your spouses? Educational level Man ______________ Woman _______________ Codes for educational level: No formal education .0 Primary education (Standard 1-4) ..1 Primary education (Standard 5-8) ..2 Secondary education Tertiary education Other (SPECIFY) .. 39. How many children do you have? ______, how many boys? ______, how many girls? ____ 40. How many school age girls and boys in this household attend school? How many children are not attending school? What is the reason for not attending school? Attend school School age not atte nding school Reason for not attending Girls: ______ _________ ___________________ Boys: ______ _________ ___________________
240 41. Which of the following assets do you have? 1 = yes, 0 = no Assets Owns? (1 = yes, 0 = no) Number Bicycle Foam mattress Mats Radio Chair Brick house House with iron roofing House with more two rooms Other assets (SPECIFY) 42. Do you own any livestock? 1 = yes, 0 = no. If yes, which animals do you own? How many animals of each type do you own? Livestock Owns? (1 = yes, 0 = no) Number of improved Number of local Cows Cattle Pigs Donkeys Goats Sheep Chickens Ducks Rabbits Others (SPECIFY) 43. How much land (acres) does the household own? ________ 44. Type of household: Does your spouse lives with you (married)?____ 1 = yes, 0 = no 45. If not married, specify type of household: _________ Male headed, never married Male headed, separated ...2 Male headed, divorced ....3 Male headed, widower Female headed, absentee husband .....5 Female headed, never married Female headed, separated ..7 Female headed, divorced ..8 Female headed, widow .9
241APPENDIX D RESEARCH METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK Table D-1. The Research Methodology Framework Objectives What information do we need to know Variables Data collection Methods Analysis 1. To identify and compare strategies used by organizations to link farmers to markets. Research Question: Which strategies explicitly integrate gender? 1. Which organizations are linking farmers to markets? 2. Which strategies are being applied to link farmers to market 3. At what level are they working? 4. How is each strategy linking farmers to markets? Community led (ERI) Trader led Other methods Areas of operation Level group vs. associations Number of groups Number of women Enterprises Training skills, Organize groups/work with existing groups, Inputs/support Market information; Training in business skills, Negotiation & financial management Access to credit Production aspects Interviews with Key informants in each organization using a checklist of Questions Interviews with Key informants in each organization Interviews with Key informants in each organization Household survey Focus group discussion Participant observation Literature reviews Institutional Framework for comparison to compare strategies for linking farmers to markets: Integration of gender Level and area of operation Strategies/models for linking farmers to markets Types of enterprise Support mechanisms
242Table D-1: Continued Objectives What information do we need to know Variables Data collection Methods Analysis 1.To identify and compare strategies used by organizations to link farmers to markets. Research Question: Which strategies explicitly integrate gender? 5. How is each strategy explicitly integrate gender 6. What type of enterprises that each strategy is focusing on? 7. How does each strategy involve groups/ work with groups? Type of groups they work with, Type and level of gender training programs/gender components, Specific activities for women A gender policy to support women farmers participation in the market? Elements of each organizational strategy for increased women farmers participation in the market Types of enterprises (high value / cereals/ livestock/ others Volumes/quantities produced and sold Perishable vs. nonperishable Group formation/working with already existing groups, Criteria for selecting farmers groups to work with, Group representation, Facilitation, Training, Support mechanisms Interviews with Key informants in each organization Household survey Focus group discussion Participant observation Literature reviews Interviews with Key informants in each organization Household survey Focus group discussion Interviews with Key informants in each organization Focus group discussion
243Table D-1: Continued Objectives What information do we need to know Variables Data collection Methods Analysis 2. To determine and analyze the extent to which women farmers participate in the market Research questions: a) To what extent are women participating in the market? At what level are women farmers participating in the market? What market opportunities are available to women farmers? How are women involved in the production and marketing of crops and livestock enterprises? For main enterprise identified what are gender implications of the enterprises to women livelihoods/welfare? Number of women farmers Levelindividual/group/associati ons Type of markets where women farmers sell Distance to the market / access to market / transportation/ Price in the markets Marketing strategy Types of Agroenterprises(high value / cereals/ livestock/ others Type of products produced and marketed Volume sold Who sells? Who owns income Key informants Group discussion Household survey Seasonal and activity calendars Focus group discussion Household survey Institutional Framework to compare extent to which women farmers participate in the market by enterprise by strategy, and Descriptive statistics: Level of participation Access to central markets Marketing strategy
244Table D-1: Continued--Objectives What information do we need to know Variables Data collection Methods Analysis 2. To determine and analyze the extent to which women farmers participate in the market Research questions: b) Which household, community and institutional factors are facilitating and/or constraining womens participation in market Which household factors are facilitating /constraining womens participation in the market? Which community factors are constraining /facilitating womens participation in the market? Which institutional factor is constraining /facilitating womens participation in the market? Access to income/ Income sharing Reduced labor Shared roles and responsibilities Decision making abilities-over resources, benefits and income Womens roles and responsibilities Decision-making, Distance to the markets Education/training, Freedom to sell to the markets outside the village Gender relations /culture/norms, Community leadership Location of the market, Level of social capital/ organization Networking Promoting group vs. individual marketing Strategy used: Is it sustainable and empowering? Support mechanisms Training: Is it adequate for marketing activities by women? Promoting group vs. individual marketing Seasonal-activity calendars/diagramming Focus group discussions Household interviews Informal discussions Focus group discussions Household interviews Focus group discussion Informal discussions
245Table D-1: Continued Objectives What information do we need to know Variables Data collection Methods Analysis 2. To determine and analyze the extent to which women farmers participate in the market Research questions: c) What are other opportunities for different agro enterprises that women farmers can get involved in? 3. To determine what benefit women farmers derive from participating in the market Research question: What are women benefiting from participating in the market? What are other opportunities for income generation that more women farmers can get involved in? What are the benefits from womens participation in the market? Social networks/networking Access to credit Freedom to go outside the community Implementation of women-preferred enterprises Diversification of income earning activities (including non-farm activities) Household income Family wellbeing (food, income, health and education) Income ownership Decision-making Self-confidence Position / status in household, group, and community, Social relationships/networks Roles and responsibilities Women work load Application of knowledge and skills Focus group discussion Informal discussions Panel data for specific case studies Benefit diagrams Household interviews Institutional Framework to compare benefits by enterprise by strategy, and Descriptive statistics
246Table D-1: Continued --Objectives What information do we need to know Variables Data collection Methods Analysis 4. To analyze the trade off on soil fertility management technologies between food and cash crops Research questions: What is trade-offs on soil fertility management technologies between food and cash crops? What soil fertility management technologies are used by farmers? (Which technologies are mostly used by women? Which soil fertility management technologies are mostly used by women? To which crops farmers are mostly using soil fertility management technologies? Type of soil fertility management technologies used by farmers/women Number and percentage of women Number and percentage of farmers Income Focus group discussion Household survey Key informants Focus group discussion Household interviews Household survey Institutional Framework to compare trade-offs between food and cash crops by crop by strategy and Descriptive statistics
247 APPENDIX E THE INFORMED CONSENT Protocol Title: Linking Women Farmers in the Market: Discourse on Community Empowerment and Gender Equity in Malawi Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to determine the degree to which women farmers participate in the market in five organizations: International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), The World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi ( NASFAM), Association of Smallholder Seed Multiplication Action Group (ASSMAG) and World Vision. What you will be asked to do in the study: Following a normal African greeting you will be asked to volu nteer to answer questions fo r this study. The questions would focus on different types of crops and livestock activ ities that you perform in your daily life. These activities relate to the type of crops you grow, type of livestock that you manage and marketing of crop and livestock products. Specifically, the studys interest is to unders tand the benefits you get from working with CIAT, ICRAF, World Vision, ASSMAG and NASFAM. Time required: 1 hour Risks and Benefits: Your answers and suggestions are very important to organizations working with you and would help improve the performances of these organizations through development and delivery of appropriate technologies to many farmers in the Region including yourself. We th erefore anticipate that you will benefit directly by pa rticipating in this study. There are no risks to you for participating in this study. Compensation: There would be no payment for your participation in this research. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent prov ided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number. The list connecting your name to this number will be kept in a locked file in my faculty supervisor's office. When the study is completed and the data have been analyzed, the list will be destroyed. Your name will not be used in any report. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from th e study at anytime without consequence. Contact information for any questions about the study: 1. Kibiby Jabir Mtenga (Ph. D Candidate) Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, University of Florida, 310 Rolfs Hall. P.O. Box 110540. Gainesville, Florida. 32611. Telephone numbers: 1-352-392-0502/ 265-1-707-387/396 E-mail: Kibiby@yahoo.com 2. Supervisor Name and contact information Dr. Ladewig Howard Department of Agricultural Education and Communication University of Florida, 411 Rolfs Hall, P.O. Box 110540 Gainesville, Florida. 32611 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
248 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Ga inesville, FL 32611-2250. Telephone: 1-352-392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described abov e. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _____________________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _______________________________
249 LIST OF REFERENCES ACDI-CIDA (2007). Equity between women a nd men. On line resources accessed March, 2007: http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDA WEB/acdicida.nsf/En/JUD-32071913-GG4 ACDI-CIDA (2006). Malawi country program delivery strategy. Canadian International Development Agency. CIDA/ACDI. Canada Adler, P.S. and S-W. Kwon (2002). Social capital : prospects for a new concept. Academic of Management Review. 27(1): 17-40. Amoloza, T.O (1998). An impact analysis of the women in rice farming systems program. Journal of Developing Societies. 14(2): 205-232. Anderson Andrea (2002). Effect of cash croppi ng, credit and household composition on food security in southern Malawi African Studies Quarterly. Th e Online Journal for African Studies (6): 1&2. Ary, D., L.C. Jacobs and A. Razavieh (2002). Introduction to research in education. Sixth edition. Wadsworth Group. USA. Ashby, J (2003). Managing innovations. Course materi als. Summer A. University of Florida, Gainesville, Fl. Association of Smallholder Seed Mu ltiplication Action Group (ASSMAG) (2005). Smallholder seed multiplication group in Malawi. Lilongwe 4, Malawi. Barrett, C. B., F. Place, and A.A. Aboud (eds) (2 002). Natural resources management in African agriculture: understand ing and improving current practic e. ICRAF, CABI Publishing. Bates, R.H (2005). Markets and states in tropical Africa: the political basis of agricultural policies. University of California Press, USA. Besley, T (1995). Property rights and investments incentives. J ournal of Political Economy. 103, 913-937. Budelman, A. and T. Defoer (2002). Managing soil fertility in the tropics: PLAR and resource flow analysis in practice. Case studies fr om Benin, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali and Tanzania. Royal Topical Institute (KIT) Amsterdam. ISBN 90 6832 128 5. Catholic Relief Services ( CRS) (2004). Annual summary of pub lic activities. CRS, Lilongwe, Malawi Chambers, R (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Put ting the First Last. Intermediate Technology Publications. London, UK. CIAT (2005). International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in Africa: Applying Modern Science to Improve Traditional Livelihoods. CIAT. Colombia..
250 Citizen Network for Foreign Affairs (CNFA) ( 2005). CNFA links farmers to market: success stories from Malawi. Online resource Retrieved on June 27th 2007. http://www.cnfa.org/page.cfm?pageID=143#Successes_in_Malawi Cleaver, K. M (1997). Rural development strate gies for poverty reduction and environmental protection in Sub Saha ran Africa. World Bank. Washington, D.C. Cleaver, K. M. and Donovan, W.G (1995). Agri culture, poverty and policy reforms in Sub Saharan Africa. World Bank Discussion Papers African Technical Department Series. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Commonwealth Education (2003). Commonwealth Education Stra tegic Plan for Malawi 20032005. Online resource accessed February 2007: http://www.commonwealth.com Conroy, C. and A. Sutherland (2004). Participat ory development with resource-poor-farmers: maximizing impact through the use of recomme ndation domains. Agricultural research and extension network (AgREN) Paper No. 133. Overseas Development Institute (ODI). London, UK. Cornwall, A (2003). Whose voices? Whose choices ? Reflections on gender and participatory development. World Development 31(8): 1325-1342. Crawford, I.M (1997). Agricultural and food ma rketing management. FAO. Rome, Italy. Davis, K (2004). Technology dissemination among sma ll-scale farmers in Meru central district of Kenya: impact of group participation. PhD Dissertation. University of Florida. De Haan, N (2001). Of goats and groups: A study on social capital in development projects. Agriculture and human Values. 18 (Spring): 71-84. Diao, X and P. Hazell (2004). Exploring market opportunities for African smallholders. Paper prepared for the 2020 Africa conference a ssuring food security in Africa by 2020: prioritizing actions, strengthening actors, and facilitating partnerships. Kampala Uganda April 1-3, 2004 Dorward, A and J. Kydd (2004). The Malawi 2002 f ood crisis: the rural de velopment challenge. J. of Modern African Studies. 42 (3): 343-361. Dorward, A. and J. Kydd (2005). Making agricultural market systems work for the poor: promoting effective, efficient and acce ssible coordination and exchange. The UK Department for International Development (DFID) and ODI. London. Economic Intelligence Unit (1995). Malawi: A c ountry profile. The economic intelligence unit limited. ISSN 0269-4522. Enermark, Stig and Ahene Rexford (2002). Capac ity building in land management-implementing land policy reforms in Malawi. FIG XXII Inte rnational Congress, Washington, D.C. USA. April 19-26.
251 Estrada, J., M. Chawinga and A. Mtembezeka ( 2005). I-LIFE market analysis. Report of Phase 1. Market Praxis and USAID. Lilongwe, Ma lawi. August 2005. FAO, 1999. The state of food insecurity in the World. Rome, Italy. Food and Agricultural Organiza tion of the United Nations (FAO) (2004). Research and Extension: a gender perspective. Intern et Source. Retrieved in September 2004: http://fao.org/focus/e/women/Extens-e.html Food and Agricultural Organiza tion of the United Nations (FAO) (2007a). Gender and food security in agriculture. On lin e resource accessed in March 2007: http://www.fao.org/GENDER/en/agr-e.htm Food and Agricultural Organizatio n of the United Nations (FAO) (2007b). The feminization of agriculture. Gender and food secu rity in agriculture. Internet Source accessed in April 2007: http://www.fao.org/gende r/en/agrib2-e.htm Food and Agricultural Organiza tion of the United Nations (FAO) (2007c). Agricultural marketing. Online resource retrieved May 2007. http://www.fao.org/ag/ags/subjec ts/en/agmarket/agmarket.html Feldstein, H.S and S.V. Poats (eds) (1989). Work ing together: gender analysis in agriculture. West Hartford.C.T: Kumarian Press. Fernandez, E.C.M (1998). Integrated farming sy stems to increase and sustain food production in the tropics. In Fairclough, A.J (ed). Sustainable Agriculture Solutions. Novello Press, London. Gabre-Madhin, E (2002). Making ma rkets work in Malawi: reduci ng poverty and getting food to people who need it. IFPRI. Washington, DC Gabre-Madhin, E.Z. and S. Haggblade (2001). Su ccess in African agriculture: results of an expert survey. Intern ational Food Policy Research In stitute (IFPRI). Washington, D.C. Gavian, S. and M. Fafchamps (1996). Land tenure a nd allocative efficiency in Niger. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 78(2): 460-471. Gilbert, Robert A, Webster D. Sakala and T odd D. Benson (2002). Gender analysis of a national wide cropping system trial survey in Mala wi. African Studies Quarterly. The Online Journal for African Studies 6(1) (online). Gladwin, C.H (2002). Gender and soil fertility in Africa. African Studies Quarterly. The Online Journal for African Studies. University of Florida. Gladwin, C.H (1991). Structural Adjustments and African Women Farmers. University Press of Florida. University of Flor ida, Gainesville, Florida.
252 Gorjestan, N (2000). Indigenous/Local knowledge fo r development. Power point presentation to action summit, 2000. Internet Source. Retrieved in October 8th 2003: http:www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/gk2/308.ppt. Gough, E.E, C. Gladwin and P. Hildebrand (2002). Vouchers versus grants of inputs: evidence from Malawis starter pack program. African Studies Quarterly. The Online Journal for African Studies. (6): 1 & 2. Government of Malawi (2001). Review of agri cultural policies. Mala wi agricultural sector investment program (MASIP). Ministry of agriculture and irrigation development, Lilongwe, Malawi. Green, C. and S. Baden (1994). Women and development in Malawi. BRIDGE (Development Gender) Report No. 23. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK. Harrigan, J (1991). Malawi In aid and power: The World Bank and Policy Based Lending Ed. P. Mosley, J. Harrigan, and J. Toye. (2): Case Studies: 201-67, London: Routledge. Henao, J., and C. Baanante (1999). Nutrient deplet ion in the agricu ltural soils of Africa. IFPRI. 2020 Brief NO. 62. IFPRI (online).URL. http://www.ifpri.org/2020/briefs/number62.htm Horne, P. and W. Stur (1999). Developing agri cultural technology with farmers. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center (FFTC). Taiwan, R.O.C. International Center for Research in Agrofore stry-World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) (2004). Domestication of indigenous fruits and trees Living with trees Magazine. Issue 8, p.5-11. ICRAFSouthern Program. Harare, Zimbabwe. International Center for Research in Agrofore stry-World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) (2003). Southern Africa programme. Research a nd development foci. ICRAF. Zimbabwe. International Centre for Research in Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) (2001). Improving soil management options for women farmers in Malawi and Zimbabwe. ICRISAT. International Fund for Agricultu ral Development (IFAD) (2007). Enabling the rural poor to overcome poverty in Malawi. Rural poverty portal. IFAD, Rome, Italy. International Center for Soil Fe rtility and Agricultural Develo pment (IFDC) (2006). Nourish the Soil Feed the Continent. IFDC Corporate Re port. IFDC, Muscle Shoals, Alabama, USA. International Institute of Tropica l Agriculture (IITA) (2004). Sout hern Africa Regional Research Network: Cassava Industry Promotion Proj ect. Second Quarterly Report Submitted to USAID, Washington. Johnson, N, R. Suarez and M. Lundy (2002). The impor tance of social capita l in Colombian rural agroenterprises. CAPRi Working Pa per No. 26. IFPRI, Washington, DC.
253 Kaaria, S. K and J.A. Ashby (2000). An approach to technological innova tion that benefit rural women: The resource-to-consumption systems. CGIAR Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Devel opment and Institutional Innovation. Working document No. 13. Kaaria, S (2005). Enabling rural innovation in Af rica: a program that empowers communities to improve livelihoods. Training brochure. CIAT. Uganda. Kabeer, N (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: reflections on the m easurement of womens Empowerment. Journal of Development and Ch ange. (30): 435-464. Institute of Social Studies. Kaihura, F.B.S (2001). Particip atory technology development a nd dissemination: a methodology for PLEC-Tanzania. Online res ource retrieved in April 2007: http://www.unu.edu/env/plec/clust ers/Eastafrica/nov2001/Kaihura.pdf Kherallah, M., N. Minot, R. Kachule, B.G. Soule, and P. Berry (2001). Im pact of agricultural market reforms on smallholder farmers in Benin and Malawi: Final Report, 2 vols. Washington, DC: IFPRI. Kherallah, M. and K. Govindan (1997). The se quencing of agricultural market reforms in Malawi. International Food Po licy Research Institute Discussion Paper No. 13, IFPRI, Washington, D.C. Krishna, A (2003). Understanding, measuring and utilizing social capital: clarifying concepts and presenting a field application from I ndia. CAPRi Working Paper No. 28. IFPRI, Washington, DC. Krueger, R.A. and M.A. Casey (2000). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage Publications, Inc. Kusamale, D. and M. Phiri (2005). Gender integration in World Vision. Personal Communication. Lilongwe, Malawi Kutengule, M, A. Nucifora and H. Zaman ( 2007). Malawi agricultural development and marketing corporation reform. Poverty and So cial Impact Analysis (PSIA). World Bank. Kydd, J., and R. Christiansen (1982). Structur al changes in Malawi since independence: consequences of a development stra tegy based on large-scale Agriculture. World Development 10 (5): 355-75. Lilja, N. and J. A. Ashby (1999). Types of gender analysis in natural resource management and plant breeding. A Working Document CGIAR System Wide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. CGIAR. Lindlof, T.R. and B.C. Taylor (2002). Qu alitative communication research methods. 2nd Ed. Sage Publications.
254 Lusthaus, C., G. Anderson, and E. Murphy (1995 ). Institutional assessment: a framework for strengthening organizational capac ity for IDRCs research partners Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Lusthaus, C., M-H, Adrien, G. Anderson, F. Ca rden and G.P. Montalva n (2002). Organizational assessment: a framework for improving perf ormance. International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada and Inte r-American Developm ent Bank, Washington, D.C. Mandere, J., R. Tolani, B. Chiyamwaka, B. Ml owoka, W. Kasinge, H. Ma kala and B. Kachale (2004). World Vision Malawi: an area development program (ADP) Concept. World Vision. Malawi. Matanya, C., O. Chulu, S. Khaila, I. Kumwenda C. Machinjiri and G. Mthindi (1998). 2020 vision network for East Africa: country note for Malawi. Inte rnational Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Kampala, Uganda. Online access retrieved in June 2007. http://www.ifpri.org/2020/nw/Malawi.pdf Mtenga, K.J (1997). Knowledge of extension worker s: a case study of maiz e improved practices in Mbeya Region, Tanzania. A. B.Sc. Research Project Submitted on Partial Fulfillment of the Bachelors Degree in Genera l Agriculture at Sokoine Univ ersity of Agriculture (SUA), Morogoro, Tanzania. Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (MAI) (2000). Agricu ltural extension in the new millennium: towards pluralistic and demand-driv en services in Malawi. Policy Document. Ministry of Agricultur e and Irrigation. Malawi. Mtenga, K.J., A. Abenakyo, W. Alum, G. Na lukwago, L. Rusinamhodzi, N. Sangole, S. Kazombo and H. Kidaya (2005a). Enabling rura l innovation in Malawi. Lessons and future plans. Field Report. CIAT, Lilongwe, Malawi. Mtenga, K.J., Mattee, A.Z.; Mvena, Z.S.K.(eds ) (2005b). Promoting sustainable agriculture and natural resource management (SANREM) for livelihood security. Proc. SANREM Planning Workshop, 1-2 Aug., Institute for Continuing Education, SUA, Morogoro, TZ Morgan, D.L (1993). Successful focus groups: advanc ing the state of the art. California: Sage Publications Inc. Moser, C.M (2001). Technology adoption decisi ons of farmers facing seasonal liquidity constraints: a case study of the systems of ri ce intensification in Madagascar. MS Thesis. Department of Applied Economics and Mana gement. Cornell University. ITHACA, New York. Mukhopadhyay, M., C. March and I. Smythe (1999) A guide to gender analysis frameworks. London: Oxfam.
255 Napier, T.I (1991). Factors affecting acceptance a nd continued use of soil conservation practices in developing countries: a diffusion pers pective. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. (36): 127-140. National Aids Commission (NAC) ( 2003). HIV/AIDS in Malawi: estimates of the prevalence of infection and the implications. NAC. Malawi. National Smallholder Farmers Association of Ma lawi (NASFAM) (2005). The future belongs to the organized. NASFAM, Lilongwe 3. Malawi. National Statistic Office of Malawi (NSO) ( 2007). 1998 Malawi Population and Housing Census final results. Online resources. Accessed March. 2007 Ngwira, Naomi (2007). Women Property and Inhe ritance Rights and Land Reform Process in Malawi. On line resource accessed February 2007: http://www.sarpn.org Ngwira, N and E. Mkandawire (2003). Cost of Gender Disparities in Access to Socio-economic Services in Malawi. Research Report No. 0302. Institute for Policy Research and Analysis for Dialogues (IPRAD). Blantyre, Malawi. Njuguna, J. and C. Valdivia (2005). Motivation fo r collective action: a case study of western Kenya. International Research Works hop on Gender and Collective Action, 17-21 October, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Page, N and C. Czuba (1999). Empowerment: what is it? Online Journal of Extension. 37(5). http://www.joe.org Paris, T. R., H.S. Feldstein and G. Duron (2001). Empowering women to achieve food security. Policy Focus 6: Brief 5 of 12. IFPRI. Peters, P.E (2002). The Limits of knowledge: securi ng rural livelihoods in a situation of resource scarcity. Eds. C.B. Barrett, F. Place, and A. A. Aboud in Natural Resource Management in African Agriculture: Understanding and Improving Current Practice. ICRAF/CABI Publishing. Place, F. and P. Hazell (1993). Productivity eff ects of indigenous land tenure system in SubSaharan Africa. American Journal of Agriculture Economics. 75: 10-19. Plan Malawi (2007). Diversifica tion of crops can help improve food security in Malawi. Online resources, accessed in June 2007. http://www.planinternational.org/wherewework/easta fricaeurope/malawi/diversification Portes, A (1998). Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual reviews. Princeton, New Jersey. Quisumbing, A.R., L.R. Brown, S. H. Feldstein, L. Haddad and C. Pena (1995). Women: the key to food security. IFPRI. Food Policy Stat. No. 21.
256 Quisumbing, A (1996). Male-female differences in agricultural productivity: methodological issues and empirical evidence. World Development 24 (10): 1579-1595. Rao, A., M. Anderson, and C. Overholt (eds) (19 91). Gender analysis in development planning: a case book. Connecticut: Kumarian Press. Reij, C., J. Scones and C. Toulmin (eds) (1996). Sustaining the soil: indigenous soil and water conservation in Africa. Earthscan, London. Reij, C and A. Waters-Bayer (2001). Farmer i nnovation in Africa. A sour ce of inspiration for agricultural development. Earthscan. ISBN 1 85383 816 0. Rietbergen-McCracken, J. and D. Narayan (1998). Participation and social assessment: tools and techniques. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Washington, D.C. U.S.A. Rogers, E.M (2003). Diffusion of innovation. 5th edition. The Free Press. New York. Rouse, J (1996). Empowering Zambian rural women through small farmer groups. FAO Rural Development Division. Internet Source. Retrieved August 2004: http://www.fao.org Russo, S., J. Bremer-Fox, S. Poats and L. Graig (1989). Gender issues in agriculture and natural resource management. Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc. Ruttan, V.W and Y, Hayami (1991). Rapid population growth and technical institutional change. In United Nations expert group meeting: c onsequences of rapid population growth in developing countries. Taylor and Francis, New York. Sachs, C (1996). Gendered fields: rural women, agriculture and environment. Boulder. CO: Westview Press. Sanginga, P.C, R. Best, C. Chitsike, R. Delve, S. Kaaria and R. Kirkby (2004). Enabling rural innovation in Africa: an approach for integrating farmer partic ipatory research and market orientation for building the assets of rura l people. Unpublished. CIAT. Kampala, Uganda. Southern African Regional Network (SAR PN) (2005). Gender, health and nutrition: opportunities for Norwegian support to agricu ltural development in Malawi. Online resource retrieved May 2007. http://www,sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001768/ 9_Noragric_Malawi_June2005_Chapter5.p df Schiff M (1992). Social capital, labo r mobility, and welfare. Ration. Soc 4:157 Schmink, M (2003). Gender and intra-household impacts of community based conservation and development initiatives in Peru and Brazil. Gender and Intra-household Aspects of Food Policy. IFPRI.
257 Sustainable Development Network Program (SDN P) (2007). Malawi national gender policy and environment. Online resource retrieved May 2007. http://www.sdnp.org.mw/gender/mlw_gender_policy_env.html. Sjaastad, E. and D.W. Bromley (1997). Indi genous land rights in sub-Saharan Africa: appropriation, security and investment demand. World Development. 25 (4), 549-706. Spring, A (1995). Agricultural deve lopment and gender issues in Malawi. University Press of America. U.S.A. Spring, A (2003). Gender and international deve lopment: readers copy. Course Material. ANG 6303. Spring, 2003. Customs Copes and Text books. Gainesville, Florida. USA. Tchale, H (2003). Economic policies, soil fertility management and sust ainable agricultural growth in Malawi: A Bio-economic Analysis. Draft Research Proposal. Department of Economics and Technical Change. Center for Development Research. University of Bonn. Templeton, S. and S.J. Scherr (1999). Effects of demographic and related microeconomic change on land quality in hills and mountains of developing Countries. World Development. 27(6), 903-918. Thangata, P.H., P.E. Hildebrand and C.H. Glad win (2002). Modeling agroforestry adoption and household decision-making in Malawi. African Studies Quarterly. The Online Journal for African Studies. University of Florida. Townsend, R.F (1999). Agricultural incentives in Sub Saharan Africa: policy challenges. World Bank Technical Papers. Worl d Bank. Washington, D.C. Udry, C (2003). Agricultural i nnovation and resource management in Ghana. Gender And Intrahousehold Aspects of Food Policy. IFPRI. United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) (1999). Empo wer tools, technology for womens empowerment. United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), New York, USA. United States Agency for International Deve lopment (USAID) (2004). Linking producers to market. The USAID Agriculture Structure. USAID. U.S.A. Uttaro, Robert (2002). Diminish ing choices: gender, small bags of fertilizer and household food security decisions in Malawi. African St udies Quarterly 6, no.1: [online] URL: http://web.africa.ufl. edu/asq/v5/v6i1a4.htm Van Veldhuizen, L., A. Waters-Bayer and H. de Zeeuw (1997). Developing technology with farmers: a trainers guide for part icipatory learning. ZED Books. London, UK. Wakefield, S (2005). Decision-making: themes and implications from Panjao. The Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit. AREU.
258 World Bank (2004). Social capital and developmen t. Internet source: Accessed in September 2004: http://www.iris.umd.edu.so cat/topics/gender.htm World Health Organization (WHO) (1998). Gender and health: technical paper. Online resource Retrieved in May 2007:http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/WHO_98_16_gender_and_h ealth_technical_paper/WHO_98_16.introd uction.en.html World Resources Institute (WRI). 2003. Inte rnet Source. Accesse d in December 2003. http://www.wri.org
259 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kibiby Jabir Mtenga was born February 3, 1969, in Morogoro Region, Tanzania. Ms. Mtenga was raised in Morogoro Municipality where she attended her primary, ordinary and high level secondary school educati on. She graduated from Kilaka la Girls High School in 1991. While attending Kilakala girls high school, Ms. Mtenga was very active in sports activities and she ranked number one in all classes. Her late parents were farmers from whom she learned different farming methods. Her farming background motivated her to pursue an ag ricultural degree at So koine University of Agriculture. Ms Mtenga received her Bachelor of Science degree program in agriculture general from Sokoine University of Agri culture in Morogoro, Tanzania in 1997. As part of this degree program, she investigated the potential and expe riences of the extension workers knowledge on maize in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania, und er the supervision of Professor Amon Mattee. Ms Mtenga received her Master of Science in agricultural educati on and extension from Sokoine University of Agriculture in Morogor o, Tanzania in 1999. As part of her degree program, she investigated the potential and lim itation of community seed supply systems, under the supervision of Professor Amon Mattee and Dr. Flavianus Magayane. Following her successful completion of Mast er of Science degree program, Ms Mtenga was appointed to a faculty position at Sokoine Un iversity of Agriculture in the Department of Agricultural Education and Extension. Ms Mten ga taught undergraduate students in areas of agricultural administration and management, agri cultural extension and adult education. In addition to her teaching responsibilities, Ms Mten ga also supervised students research and conducted outreach research and extension project activities in line with the national agricultural policy objectives and in collaboration with nation al and international scie ntists. Ms Mtenga also
260 worked as an independent resear ch consultant with several international organizations including GTZ, ICRISAT and CIAT/SABRN. Participating in agricultural activities at the family and professional level at Sokoine University of Agriculture inspired her to a dvance her knowledge and skills in international agricultural extension to better help the majority of farmers in Tanzania and in the world. In 2002, Ms Mtenga began her Ph.D. program in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida, specializing in inte rnational extension with minors in gender and international deve lopment, and farming systems research and extension. While pursuing her PhD, Ms Mtenga was a graduate re search assistant in her department, under the supervision of Drs. Howard, Ladewig, Edward Osborne, Nick Place and Marta Hartmann. Ms Mtenga assisted in various research and ex tension activities and also in designing an e -course on managing agricultural innovation. Ms Mtenga has two children, Opulukwa (Jr), bo rn in April of 2002, and Vanessa, born in January of 2004.