The Affordable Inputs Programme (AIP) was designed to enhance crop productivity and food security by subsidising fertiliser and seed.
Despite its early success, persistent challenges in its implementation and escalating fiscal pressures raise important questions about its long-term viability.
Between 2020 and 2025, AIP allocations jumped from K109.4 billion to K161 billion, with coverage falling from 3.7 million to just over one million households.
Meanwhile, food insecurity increased. According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification reports, the count of food-insecure Malawians rose from 4.2 million in 2022 to 5.7 million in 2023 and 6.8 million last year.
These trends underscore the widening gap between public spending and food security outcomes.
AIP also suffers from operational inefficiencies, including delayed input distribution, climate shocks and inadequate market access.
Even with favourable weather and bumper harvests, farmers often face depressed maize prices due to market oversupply and lack of structured buyers. Many farmers get discouraged and post-harvest losses increase.
In 2021, I produced 3 700 bags of maize on a 20-hectare farm at Chimwankango in Mchinji District.
However, a bumper harvest does not always translate into high income as market access and storage remains challenging.
Admarc purchases were delayed, private buyers were few and paid less than approved minimum prices and storage space was exhausted. Massive post-harvest losses ate into our thin profit margin.
This mirrors the difficulties faced by many maize farmers in our fragmented value chain.
A shift to output-based subsidies offers a more pragmatic alternative.
Under this model, the government could sign contracts with commercial farmers to supply the strategic grain reserves (SGRs), specifying prices, quantities, quality and farm minimum infrastructure and equipment requirements.
The farmers would make their own financing arrangements, with the government monitoring the progress.
Government would only spend its resources after verified deliveries to SGRs . For example, maize could be procured at K1 200/kg and sold to consumers at a subsidised price.
This approach not only ensures transparency but also reduces the risk of wastage. It provides budget predictability, encourages production and supports price stability for both producers and consumers.
With guaranteed contracts and stable prices, banks are more likely to extend credit to farmers, unlocking investments in irrigation, storage and mechanisation under Megafarms’ initiative.
Redirecting current AIP funds toward strategic grain procurement and infrastructure development would ease fiscal pressure while strengthening food systems.
Furthermore, smallholder farmers could be encouraged to diversify into high-value, less fertiliser-dependent crops such as soya beans, groundnuts and sunflower. Malawi has consistently failed to meet the local and foreign demand for these commodities to boost foreign exchange and tax revenue.
Mauritius offers a relevant example. Its State Trading Corporation runs a successful output-based rice subsidy which is well-managed to ensure price stability while maintaining consumer access.
This reform, like any policy shift, must be handled with care. Maize is a staple crop and cultural symbol in Malawi.
Any transition that reduces smallholder farmers’ role is likely to encounter strong resistance and will require extensive, inclusive civic education.
A phased approach, beginning with pilot programmes, is advisable to demonstrate feasibility and build stakeholder confidence.
Most importantly, sustained commitment and clear direction from the highest levels of leadership will be essential to drive the reform forward, manage change effectively and ensure successful implementation.
As Malawi looks to the future, there is a critical opportunity to reform its agricultural subsidy framework in a manner that balances fiscal discipline with the goal of sustainable food production.
Incremental adjustments and partial reforms have proven insufficient to address the persistent inefficiencies of the current system. What is required is a fundamental rethink, comprehensive policy overhaul and transitioning to a measurable output-based subsidy model that offers a credible and practical way out of hunger and poverty.
