The consequences of mismanaging beneficiary expectations in the 2022/2023 Affordable Inputs Program (AIP)

Malawi: The Affordable Inputs Program (AIP) introduced by the Malawi government in 2020 is causing major irreparable costs for its beneficiaries as a result of manipulation by the Ministry of Agriculture, writes Pharrison Chiphinga Mwale.

The AIP, which was initially budgeted at over four times the amount of its predecessor, the Farm Input Subsidy Program (FISP), was designed to allow subsistence farmers in Malawi to purchase farm inputs at a subsidized cost in order to reduce poverty and ensure food security at the household and national levels.

The Ministry of Agriculture and District Councils identified and registered 2,500,000 farming households ahead of the 2022/2023 program, which was officially launched by President Dr. Lazarus Chakwera in Dedza on November 19, 2022.

However, the program has been plagued by inconsistencies, including a lack of clear eligibility criteria and the failure to properly manage the expectations of stakeholders, particularly the beneficiaries.

Most of the registered individuals are smallholder farmers, who are the intended target group according to the AIP blueprint, but they have been lumped together without further categorization.

The resulting costs and hunger crisis will not only affect the beneficiaries, but also the government. It is essential for a program of this magnitude to be managed effectively, rather than relying on a firefighting approach.

After addressing initial bottlenecks, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Information provided updates to assure the nation and the beneficiaries that the Affordable Inputs Program (AIP) was progressing according to plan and there was no need to panic.

They shared information about the process, timing, and opportunities for stakeholders to influence decisions, and made an effort to ensure that everyone understood the expectations of the program. It was clear that the government had a roadmap in place and was regularly sharing updates and explaining any deviations from it.

However, there was a lack of meaningful stakeholder participation in the process due to a lack of two-way communication and a lack of willingness by authorities to listen to and consider feedback.

Instead, stakeholders were reliant on a variety of perspectives and information sources outside the control of authorities, and authorities were often unable to effectively counter myths or clearly present facts from reliable sources when confronted with allegations.

The government ignored many perspectives and failed to timely adjust plans in response to valid points made by stakeholders.

Additionally, not all information about the progress of the Affordable Inputs Program (AIP) was communicated to the public. Smallholder farmers who were registered for the program had hoped to purchase fertilizer at the subsidized price of MK15, 000 per 50 kilogram bag, but the irregular distribution of inputs and sudden implementation of shortlisting criteria for beneficiaries has caused disappointment and a sense of betrayal.

Some registered beneficiaries have expressed frustration with the way the program has been managed and feel that they were deceived into budgeting for the subsidized price rather than the commercial price.

As a result, they are struggling to come up with the additional funds needed at the last minute and may be forced to remove their maize crops and replace them with cassava or potatoes. On the other hand, those who have been shortlisted are also struggling to come up with the K30, 000 required to participate in the program.

The Affordable Inputs Program (AIP) was intended to allow Malawian subsistence farmers to purchase farm inputs at a subsidized cost, but the implementation has resulted in a Targeted Fertilizer and Seed Subsidy Program that only reaches poor rural households.

This failure to manage stakeholder expectations will undermine the government's goal of reducing poverty and ensuring food security at the household and national levels, and could instead lead to increased hunger and poverty.