Dependence on agricultural export bans is undermining Malawi’s growth, distorting markets and weakening investor confidence, new evidence from a policy dialogue in Lilongwe has shown.
Stakeholders at a Rapid Evidence and Policy Dialogue on Agricultural Trade Restrictions in Lilongwe on Tuesday, which brought together researchers and policymakers, warned that while trade restrictions are often justified as tools to safeguard food security, their long-term economic costs are mounting.
The debate focused on a key structural constraint that Malawi produces too little surplus to sustain both domestic consumption and exports.
Mwapata Institute research fellow Christone Nyondo in an interview said output in key commodities such as maize hovers around national requirements, leaving minimal room for exports or industrial use.
He said in crops such as soya beans, production falls short of demand from processors, reinforcing pressure on government to intervene.
“That gap is what creates pressure on the government to do something about it,” said Nyondo, noting that in an agro-based economy, authorities often resort to restrictions to protect food sufficiency and industrial demand.
But he argued that export bans are ultimately a symptom of this imbalance rather than a solution, observing that they would largely be unnecessary if Malawi produced enough to meet domestic, industrial and export demand.
Nyondo further said for staples such as maize, restrictions are likely to persist in the near term as production struggles to keep pace with rising demand, high input costs and climate-related shocks.
In his presentation, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources Centre for Agricultural Research and Development director Innocent Pangapanga-Phiri said Malawi’s “stop-go” trade regime characterised by adhoc export bans and import restrictions, has increased transaction costs by up to 20 percent and pushed as much as 40 percent of trade into informal channels.
The result is lost revenue, weakened oversight and reduced incentives for private sector investment, entrenching subsistence production while eroding export earnings and foreign exchange generation.
Pangapanga-Phiri said household incomes tend to decline as market distortions deepen, with rural populations bearing the greatest burden.
“They may look effective initially, but over time they reduce incomes and affect overall economic activity,” he said.
The impact extends beyond farm-level production into the broader economy. Malawi’s export base remains narrow, concentrated in commodities such as tobacco, tea and pulses, while imports, particularly fuel, fertiliser and machinery, continue to rise.
According to the policy note, the country imports goods worth about $3 billion (about K5.2 billion) annually, but exports goods worth around $1 billion (about K1.7 trillion), leaving a trade deficit that reached an estimated $2.67 billion (about K4.6 trillion) in 2025.
Frequent policy reversals are compounding the problem by undermining predictability. Pangapanga-Phiri said farmers and agribusiness investors are less likely to expand production when markets are uncertain and policy interventions are inconsistent.
The effects extend beyond Malawi’s borders.
Analysts further observed that these restrictions have not stopped trade, but pushed a significant share into informal cross-border channels, thereby reducing tax revenues and limiting oversight
