For the second consecutive farming season, Central Region districts have benefited more from the taxpayer-funded Affordable Inputs Programme (AIP) than those in the Southern and Northern regions combined.
Weekend Nation’s findings, based on analysis of AIP beneficiary data for the current and last fiscal year that we benchmarked against National Statistical Office (NSO) data show that the Central Region, the perceived stronghold of the ruling Malawi Congress Party (MCP), had 58 percent of the beneficiaries.
This striking imbalance in the subsidy distribution defies the key determinants of resource allocation in Malawi—poverty and population levels—as espoused in the intergovernmental fiscal transfer formula in line with decentraliation policy frameworks.
Social protection experts and agriculture gurus have bemoaned the discrepancy, arguing it reinforces existing inequalities that are counterproductive to growth.
For instance, while NSO data show that the Southern Region has the highest population at 7.7 million, it has 736 852 beneficiaries, which is less than half the 1 501 851 beneficiaries for the Central Region with a population of 7.5 million.
The Northern Region, with a population of 2.2 million, had 311 387 beneficiaries.
In the current fiscal year, the subsidy programme is benefiting a total of 1 050 000 farming households, down from 1 500 000.
This brings the number of beneficiaries in the two-year period to 2 550 000 meaning 58.89 percent were in the Central Region while Southern Region had 28.89 percent and the Northern Region had 12.21 percent.
The disparities are even more pronounced in the top 10 districts affected by hunger, based on NSO data.
These are Mchinji, Kasungu, Dowa, Lilongwe (Rural) and Salima in the Centre and Phalombe, Nsanje, Balaka, Machinga and Mangochi in the South.
Our analysis of AIP data shows that Mchinji had 106 457 beneficiaries, Kasungu 154 187, Dowa 172 819, Salima 66 246 and Lilongwe (West and East) 533 729. This brings the total number of beneficiaries to 1 033 438 million.
On the other hand, Phalombe had 49 218 beneficiaries, Mangochi 65 804, Machinga 102 469, Nsanje 24 523 and Balaka 60 920, bringing the total number of beneficiaries to 302 934.
Beneficiaries in these hunger-affected Southern Region districts are not even half of those in the hunger-affected Central Region districts.
In terms of population, Mchinji has 602 305, Kasungu 842 753, Dowa 772 469, Phalombe 429 450, Lilongwe 1 333 000, Mangochi 1 148 611, Nsanje 299 168, Balaka 438 379, Salima 478 346 and Machinga 735 438.
A comparative analysis of the districts’ population and beneficiaries shows further imbalance, for example, Mangochi whose population is 1.1 million had 65 804 beneficiaries while Lilongwe with a population of 1.3 million had almost half of its population benefiting.
In his ministerial statement on implementation of the 2024/25 AIP delivered in Parliament in September, Minister of Agriculture Sam Kawale said those who are not on the subsidy list would be considered for other social protection programmes.
These include the Social Cash Transfer Programme managed by Ministry of Gender, Community Development and Social Welfare with a budget of K192 billion and estimated to benefit 305 000 households, Climate Smart Enhanced Public Works Programme managed by Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs with a budget of K60 billion and benefiting 520 000 households, and farm input loans under the National Economic Empowerment Fund (Neef) budgeted at K70 billion.
There is also the K500 billion Agriculture Commercialisation 2 (Agcom 2) funding; the K20 billion Mega Farm Support Unit targeting farmers with large landholdings, the K60 billion Youth Entrepreneurship for the Future of Food and Agriculture Programme targeting 251 523 youths, women and those with disabilities; and the K93 billion under the Sustainable Agriculture Production 2.
It is expected that some farming households will also be assisted through grants under the Trade Programme implemented under Ministry of Local Government, Unity and Culture worth K58.1 billion.
At the opening of a Shire Valley Transformation Programme office complex in Blantyre on November 23, Kawale said he would not take any questions relating to AIP.
The minister is yet to respond to our questionnaire sent to him on November 29 2024, and followed up on December 4 2024, on what informs AIP beneficiary distribution, among other issues.
However, in his ministerial statement, he said AIP farming households, identified as productive farmers, were chosen through the National Agriculture Management Information System (Namis)-a digital farmer registry.
He said: “We are aware that this approach may pose a challenge in uneven distribution of beneficiaries. To curb this problem, the ministry is working very closely with the district councils to guide on allocation of beneficiary numbers to gazetted villages to inform central selection”.
AIP is Tonse Alliance’s flagship election campaign promise which succeeded the Farm Inputs Subsidy Programme implemented under the Democratic Progressive Party and its aim is to allow needy farmers to purchase inputs at subsidised prices.
But the uneven distribution of the programme’s resources has sparked debate about its effectiveness in addressing poverty and food insecurity with critics arguing that benefits are being skewed towards certain regions rather thant targeted at the most vulnerable populations.
Mwapata executive director William Chadza in an interview agreed with our analysis, adding that the disparities were also observed in some of the independent think tank’s research on input subsidies.
Chadza said a transparent and accountable distribution system is critical for the efficient utilisation of resources and the maximisation of impact.
He said: “In this regard, targeting mechanisms will prioritise districts with high poverty levels, large populations or productive farmers”.
In a separate interview, Civil Society Network on Agriculture chairperson Herbert Chagona said the imbalance is a significant concern that warrants careful examination from both a policy and practical perspective.
Chagona said one of the primary challenges with the imbalance is the potential reinforcement of existing inequalities.
“This discrepancy can exacerbate existing socio-economic divides, leaving vulnerable communities even further marginalised,” he said.
Similarly, Centre for Social Concern economic governance programme officer Agnes Nyirongo said in a written response that the mismatch between resource allocation and district poverty data raises critical concerns about the subsidy programme’s design and implementation.
She further said the imbalances raise questions about government’s commitment to its own fiscal policies which explicitly prioritise distribution based on population size and poverty levels.
Nyirongo further argued that misallocating inputs from high-need areas diminishes AIP’s overall effectiveness.
“In districts with higher poverty, farmers often lack the means to purchase inputs independently, making subsidies critical for improving crop yield and food security. When these districts are underserved, agricultural productivity remains stagnant, perpetuating hunger and poverty,” she argued.
According to Nyirongo, such skewed allocations risk rendering the AIP unsustainable by failing to deliver measurable impact where it is most needed, which could lead to criticism and donor withdrawal.
On his part, Malawi Local Government Association executive director Hadrod Mkandawire argued that despite government not using the intergovernmental fiscal formula in AIP allocations, certain areas of the programme still need improvement.
“To achieve this, it is important to reform AIP such that one arm should include a universal subsidy and another, a targeted subsidy. Also, some areas should be given farm inputs targeting their climate and soil structures such that the type of farm inputs per district should also be different,” he said.
Mkandawire’s observations were highlighted in a 2021 reform discussion note the Overseas Development Institute prepared on behalf of the National Local Government Finance Committee.
It reads: “The allocations of fiscal transfers are highly inequitable. The allocations of transfers are not made in accordance with objective formulas [as otherwise indicated in the Decentralisation Policy]”.
Development economist Frederick Changaya argued in a separate written response that the subsidy programme has been defying economic laws of demand and supply since its inception.
He argued: “Instead of improving rural livelihoods, farm subsidy in Malawi could be manufacturing rural economy poverty that pulls down the national economy into poorest GDP [Gross Domestic Product] per capita, not only through leveraging, but also through dependency theory.
“One employed family member shares with [the] entire village; that is who we are. This requires critical interrogation. Otherwise, we have renamed this programme several times but we still have one outcome, and that is Malawi still remains among countries with lowest GDP per capita”.
According to the International Monetary Fund, Malawi’s GDP per capita is $463.73.
But in an interview on December 7 in Lilongwe, Minister of Information and Digitalisation Moses Kunkuyu, allayed assertions that the AIP beneficiary distribution favours the Central Region only.
Kunkuyu, who is the chief government spokesperson, said the programme is focused on a national scope, and that all decisions made in regards to distribution do not favour one region, but rather, equally.
He said: “So, one would not say we are favouring a certain region because decisions are made on a national scope”.
In the current fiscal year, AIP was allocated K161.297 billion up from K109 billion in the 2023/24 financial year.
