Makulata Filimoni, 62, from Mutu Village in Lilongwe, is haunted by the same question every morning: what will she feed her five orphaned grandchildren?
Makulata was among the first beneficiaries of Farm Input Subsidy Programme (Fisp) initiated during the reign of Bingu wa Mutharika two decades ago.
She also participated in the rebranded Affordable Inputs Programme (AIP) for the 2024/25 farming season, yet only managed to secure one bag of Urea as the complementary fertiliser was unavailable.
“I harvested three bags of maize which were finished by September. I don’t know where I am going to get food for the next few months,” Makulata lamented.
“I have been a subsidy beneficiary four times in the last five years. It was only in 2023 that I harvested enough to last me to the next season. Otherwise, I remain food-insecure.”
Jeneyo Filimoni, who supports six children, shares this predicament: “I have struggled with hunger every year. We harvested only four bags and they are already finished. We need help.”
Over the last five years, taxpayers have footed a staggering K873 billion bill for emergency food aid, targeted at feeding millions food-insecure people.
During that same period, government poured approximately K690 billion into the AIP, the very programme designed to achieve food security and eliminate the need for aid.
This means the cost of responding to hunger has surpassed the investment in preventing it by over K180 billion.
Cumulatively, subsidies benefited 13 million smallholder farmers, many of whom are still among the population requiring humanitarian food response.
Our analysis shows that in the 2020/21 financial year, AIP received K160 billion, targeting 4.2 million households. That year 2.6 million Malawians faced hunger and needed 56 544 tonnes of maize worth K14 billion.
In the 2021/22 fiscal year, K142 billion was allocated to AIP to cater for 3.5 million farming families. Meanwhile 1.5 million people were food-insecure, requiring K27 billion in lean‑season assistance.
Parliament in the 2022/23 fiscal year, approved K109.5 billion for the AIP, aimed at 2.5 million beneficiaries. Despite this, 4.4 million Malawians faced hunger and the government committed K167 billion to emergency food response.
By 2023/24 financial year, AIP allocation rose to K117 billion, targeting 1.5 million farming households. But food insecurity worsened as 5.7 million people required 574 000 tonnes of maize estimated at K278 billion.
In the current fiscal year at least K161 billion was allocated to AIP in the National Budget meant for 1.5 million beneficiaries.
Humanitarian needs were estimated at 200 000 tonnes of maize with an approximate cash value of K387.2 billion.
These figures show a persistent mismatch between input allocations and the scale of food‑security needs, with large emergency food bills accruing even as AIP coverage and funding fluctuate
The agricultural think tank Mwapata Institute argues that the core of the problem is that the subsidy investment model has a low benefit-cost ratio, making it financially unsustainable.
In an interview, the institute’s executive director William Chadza recommended a strategic reallocation of resources within the agricultural sector.
“Fertiliser alone has not solved the fundamental question of food insecurity. We need to improve identification and targeting of beneficiaries, enhance fertiliser use efficiency, and promote dietary diversification,” Chadza stated.
Horace Phiri, an agricultural economist from the Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, pointed out that the programme’s success is overly dependent on external factors.
“For AIP to be effective at the household level, you need good rainfall conditions,” Phiri explained, noting that groups living in harsh climate zones prone to drought and floods remain perpetually at risk, regardless of the subsidized inputs.
Agriculture policy expert Lonjezo Masikini said the current model is not sustainable; hence, Malawi must urgently adopt successful international frameworks.
“Sticking to the current model will not help anything, and taxpayers’ money will continue to be wasted,” he warned.
Masikini said Malawi should learn from countries that have successfully implemented subsidy programmes.
“In Ethiopia, for example, they operate a dual system combining the Productive Safety Net Programme [PSNP] for food-insecure households and complementary agricultural input support. It integrates cash or food transfers with public works and links beneficiaries to extension services and input markets.
“In Kenya, they implement targeted subsidies for maize and fertiliser while promoting drought-tolerant crops and farmer cooperatives. And just across the border in Zambia, they used input vouchers targeted at smallholders, which are redeemable for seeds and fertilizers at agro-dealer outlets. We can learn from them and develop our model which is suitable,” he said.
An Afrobarometer survey released in February confirmed public disillusionment, showing that a majority of Malawians believe the AIP primarily benefits agro-related businesses or public officials, rather than the intended smallholder farmers.
The report concluded that Malawians favour fundamental alternatives to the subsidy programme.
Minister of Finance Joseph Mwanamvekha confirmed last week that the government is discussing with funders regarding this year’s subsidy programme, prioritising the restoration of food security alongside tackling the fuel and foreign exchange crises. A clear policy direction is expected soon.
The original Fisp, introduced in 2005/06, was initially hailed as a success, but with the passage of time and evidence of continued hunger, experts now agree that without drastic structural reform, the AIP will continue to be a costly burden that fails to fulfill its promise.
