Evaluation Report for Development Fund of Norway · Security and Climate Change Adaptation 22,500...
50
EVALUATION OF IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT FUND OF NORWAY AND TOTAL LAND CARE’S INTERVENTIONS ON NUTRITIONAL INTAKE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION AREAS IN MALAWI Submitted to: DEVELOPMENT FUND OF NORWAY Prepared by: MERAMO CONSULTING 8 th March, 2018
Transcript of Evaluation Report for Development Fund of Norway · Security and Climate Change Adaptation 22,500...
EVALUATION OF IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT FUND OF NORWAY AND TOTAL LAND
CARE’S INTERVENTIONS ON NUTRITIONAL INTAKE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
IMPLEMENTATION AREAS IN MALAWI
Submitted to:
DEVELOPMENT FUND OF NORWAY
Prepared by:
MERAMO CONSULTING
8th March, 2018
i
Contents
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................... iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... v
1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Development Fund of Norway, its Objective and Approach .................................................. 1
1.2 Background to the Programs under the Evaluation ................................................................ 1
1.2.1 Sustainable Agriculture Lead Farmer Program (SALFP) ..................................................... 1
1.2.2 Total Land Care .................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION .................................................................... 4
2.1 Evaluation Methodology and Approach ................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Data Collection Tools ........................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Sampling Procedures and Survey Design ............................................................................. 5
2.1.3 Quality Control Check .......................................................................................................... 6
2.1.4 Description of the Study Respondents and their Locations .................................................. 7
2.2 Household size and Respondent Status ..................................................................................... 8
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ...................................................................................... 9
3.1 Household Assets; Livestock and Land Ownership ................................................................. 9
3.2 Status of Household Assets ......................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Comparing Livestock Ownership ............................................................................................ 10
3.4. Farmers Participation in Crop Production ............................................................................ 11
3.5 Landholding Size of Respondents ............................................................................................ 13
3.6 The extent of stunting, underweight, wasting and micronutrient deficiency including zinc,
iron, iodine and vitamin A .................................................................................................................... 13
3.6.1 Anaemia among children 0-59 months ............................................................................... 15
3.6.2 Prevalence of anaemia in women: Anaemia status by hemoglobin level ........................... 15
3.7 Contribution of DF and TLC Interventions to increase in food availability ....................... 16
3.7.1 Climate smart agriculture practices ..................................................................................... 16
3.7.2 Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) .............................................................. 18
3.7.3 Promotion of small-scale irrigation farming ....................................................................... 19
3.7.4 Promotion of Agricultural diversification increased ........................................................... 19
ii
3.8 The consumption of different food groups and activities contributing towards the
improvement .......................................................................................................................................... 19
3.9 Comparison of Lead Farmers and other beneficiaries .......................................................... 21
4.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 23
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 24
5.1. For Future DF and TLC Work to Strengthen Nutrition ....................................................... 24
5.1.1 Promote effective food utilization towards food and nutrition security .............................. 24
5.1.2 Invest on reducing post-harvest losses ................................................................................ 24
5.1.3 Address nutrient deficiencies with locally produced food crops ........................................ 24
5.1.4 Utilize existing skills of both men and women to promote food security and nutrition and
integrate nutrition in the value chain ................................................................................................... 25
5.1.5 Promote small-scale value addition initiatives .................................................................... 25
5.1.6 Expanding food sovereignty of the people .......................................................................... 25
5.1.7 Support intake of animal protein through livestock development interventions................. 25
5.2 Proposed Changes to DF’s and TLC work to Improve Nutrition ........................................ 26
5.2.1 Coordination of extension efforts ....................................................................................... 26
5.2.2 Need for improvement in communication and minimization of processing time ............... 26
5.2.3 Expand the coverage of interventions. ................................................................................ 26
5.3 For Possible Areas for Learning in Programs ........................................................................ 26
5.3.1 Facilitating Effective Marketing ......................................................................................... 26
5.3.2 Expanding resilience building interventions ....................................................................... 26
5.3.3. Additional support to the existing interventions ................................................................. 27
5.3.4 Formulation of Clear Policies and Strategies ...................................................................... 27
5.3.5. Other areas to consider ........................................................................................................ 28
6.0 ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................ 29
ANNEX 1: A CASE STUDY IVY MTUTILE, A BENEFICIARY OF THE PROJECT............... 29
ANNEX 2: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ....................................................................................... 32
INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................. 32
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION CHECKLIST .................................................................................. 43
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Implementation Locations of the SALFP Program ........................................................................ 2
Table 2: Methodology for the Collection of Qualitative Data ..................................................................... 5
Table 3: FGD and Household Interview Framework ................................................................................... 6
Table 4: Characteristics of the Respondents for individual interviews. ....................................................... 7
Table 5: Disaggregation based on disability and HIV and AIDS Status ...................................................... 8
Table 6: Number of FGD Participants in the Evaluation ............................................................................. 8
Table 7: Main Occupation of the Household Head ...................................................................................... 8
Table 8: Comparison of Household Assets between Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries ......................... 9
Table 9: Household Assets, people living with HIV and people living with disabilities ........................... 10
Table 10: Livestock Owned at Household Level ....................................................................................... 10
Table 11: Percentage of Farmers Participating in Crop Value Chains ....................................................... 11
Table 12: Participation of People Living with HIV and AIDS in crop value chains ................................. 12
Table 13: Proportion of Respondents involved in Crop Sales ................................................................... 12
Table 14: Volume of Produce Marketed through SALFP.......................................................................... 13
Table 15: Ownership and Use of Land ...................................................................................................... 13
Table 16: Prevalence of malnutrition by district for 0 -59 months old children ........................................ 14
Table 17: Nutritional Status of Women by district using BMI .................................................................. 15
Table 18: Proportion of women age 15-49 with anaemia, by district ........................................................ 15
Table 19: Farmers' Access to Extension through the Lead Farmer Model ................................................ 16
Table 20: Percentage of Farmers Involved in different Sustainable Agricultural Practices ...................... 17
Table 21: Reported Sources of Information ............................................................................................... 18
Table 22: Financial Assets in VSLAs ........................................................................................................ 19
Table 23: Food consumption among beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries ................................................. 20
Table 24: Comparison between Lead Farmers and ordinary beneficiaries ................................................ 22
iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CSA Climate Smart Agriculture
DF Development Fund
EPA Extension Planning Areas
FF Follower Farmers
FNE Food & Nutrition Education
HIM Heifer International Malawi
IDDS Individual Dietary Diversity Score
IGA Income Generating Activities
LF Lead Farmer
M&E Monitoring & Evaluation
MACC Managing Adaption to Climate Change
MoAIWD Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development
NASFAM National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi
NEAL Network for Enhanced Livelihoods
SA Sustainable Agriculture
SALFP Sustainable Agriculture Lead Farmer Program
TLC Total Land Care
VSLA Village Savings and Loan Association
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Development Fund of Norway commissioned an evaluation of its interventions in Malawi to understand
their impact on nutritional intake of the beneficiaries in its implementation areas. Three partner
organisations in Development Fund (DF) of Norway’s Sustainable Agriculture Lead Farmer Program
(SALFP), financially supported by the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Malawi, were carefully selected for
the evaluation to ensure adequate geographical and programmatic representation. The three organisations
were Mzuzu Agricultural Development Division (MZADD) and Find your Feet (FYF) in the Northern
Region and Heifer International Malawi (HIM) selected from the Central Region. In addition, Total Land-
Care (TLC), DF’s collaborating partner through the Network for Enhanced Livelihoods (NEAL), was
selected to participate in this study based on the similarities between TLC’s Managing Adaptation to
Climate Change (MACC) II program and DF’s SALFP. In each area, a non-participating sample of farmers
was drawn in order to understand differences that existed between the two groups. A comparison between
beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries reveals that promoted interventions in both SALFP and MACC II
programs led to increased intake of more food groups as well as bettering their intake of nutritious foods.
Results show a more diversified 24-hour dietary consumption among beneficiaries where proportion of
households eating requirement of at least five food groups was 81%; compared to 54% for non-
beneficiaries. The highly consumed food groups were cereals for both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.
It was noted that food such as flesh meat, milk, eggs, oils and fats are consumed more among beneficiaries
and there was an increase in proportion over the past 3 years compared to non-beneficiaries. Such foods
consumed are rich in minerals, proteins and vitamins. The beneficiaries’ knowledge of food groups and
food functions was also better than the non-beneficiaries. In both MACC and SALFP programs, the
evaluation established that program beneficiaries had an increased intake of food groups, compared to
before they joined the programs, owing to crop diversification and livestock components. The intake of
different food groups has improved mainly because of crop and livestock interventions giving the program
participants more and diversified sources of income and food. The study has revealed that 77% of the
beneficiaries compared to 54% of the non-beneficiaries were aware of the six food groups1.
1 Staples; Fats and oils; Animal foods; Legumes and Nuts; Vegetables and Fruits
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Development Fund of Norway, its Objective and Approach
The Development Fund (DF) of Norway supports a number of organisations in Malawi in addition to being
a member to and secretariat for the Network for Enhanced Livelihoods (NEAL). The network consists of
six organisations implementing development programs in the fields of agriculture, food security,
environment and climate change management with Norwegian funding. DF mainly aims at empowering
small-scale farmers and increasing local capacity in Malawi2. DF believes that small-scale farmers should
be the main actors to change their own lives and communities. The organisation puts emphasis on increasing
small-scale farmers’ capacity through the implementation of the Lead Farmer (LF) Model. The overall goal
of DF’s Malawi program is to achieve sustainable food and nutrition security among smallholder farmers.
DF has in the past years, worked to increase the amount of food produced by the targeted households, as
well as increase the number of crop species and livestock units at household level. DF has mainly worked
through the LF Model to achieve its goal. The LFs are trained in Sustainable or Climate Smart Agriculture
(C/SA) techniques for them to train Follower Farmers (FF). DF has, in collaboration with its implementing
partners, developed a Lead Farmer Extension and Training Guide on Sustainable Agriculture which was
approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development (MoAlWD). Conservation
Agriculture, pit planting, composite manure making, agroforestry, including intercropping and crop
rotations/associations are some of the methods included in the Lead Farmer Guide in a bid to ensure good
soil health, avoiding mono cropping, and also increase diversity in the field.
1.2 Background to the Programs under the Evaluation
1.2.1 Sustainable Agriculture Lead Farmer Program (SALFP)
The Sustainable Agriculture Lead Farmer Program is DF’s biggest CSA program in Malawi. With funding
from the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Lilongwe, the program is being implemented in the districts of
Lilongwe Rural, Ntchisi, Dowa, Nkhata-Bay and Mzimba covering 27 Extension Planning Areas (EPAs).
The purpose of the program is to ensure improved livelihoods of rural communities in targeted areas, and
the main goal of the program is to reduce poverty and vulnerability of 100,000 households to climate change
in Malawi. This target will be reached by training 3,000 Lead Farmers (LFs) and that the LFs will each
train 25 -30 Follower Farmers (FF) translating into a total of 90,000 FFs. 50% of the LF and the FF shall
be women. In addition to the LFs and FFs, the program targets 7,000 HHs affected by HIV and AIDS and
people living with disabilities. A cross all strategic objectives at least 50% of the targeted population is
women.
The Sustainable Agriculture Lead Farmer Program aims at increasing effectiveness, quality and impact of
service delivery under a strategy comprising eight inter-linked strategic objectives as follows:
Increased adaptive capacity of rural communities to the impacts of climate change
Increased household agricultural productivity
Increased market access and entrepreneurial skills among small-holder farmers
Increased empowerment of women, youth, HIV and AIDS affected households and people with
disabilities
Strengthened local institutions and organisations
Strengthened policy framework related to agriculture, climate change, natural resource management
and cross-cutting issues
Increased capacity of DF and its respective partners to effectively implement SALFP
Increased transparency and quality in the governance and monitoring and evaluation of SALFP.
2 Sourced at http://www.utviklingsfondet.no/en/project_countries/malawi
2
The program is implemented through generalist and specialist partners. Partners, districts and respective
EPAs are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Implementation Locations of the SALFP Program
Name of Partner Project Name Target District EPAs
Mzuzu Agricultural
Development
Division (MZADD)
Sustainable Food
Security and Climate
Change Adaptation
22,500 HHs Mzimba North
Zombwe, Mjuyu,
Ensizini, Malidadi and
Bwengu
Mzimba South Manyamula,
Vibangalala, Mjinge,
Bulala and Mbawa
Nkhata Bay (Mpamba and
Chikwina
Find Your Feet
(FYF)
Sustainable Food
Security and Climate
Change Adaptation
24,000 HHs Mzimba North Bwengu, Engutwini
and Zombwe
Mzimba South Kazomba,
Manyamula, Eswazini
and Hora
Nkhata Bay Kavuzi and Nkhata
Bay
Trustees for
Agricultural
Promotion Program
(TAPP)
Sustainable Food
Security and Climate
Change Adaptation
29,500 HHs Dowa Chivala and Mvera
Ntchisi Chipuka
Lilongwe Kanjiwa and
Chiwamba
Heifer International Sustainable Food
Security and Climate
Change Adaptation
24,000 HHs Lilongwe Rural Demela, Ngwangwa
and Mpingu
African Institute of
Corporate
Citizenship (AICC)
and Malawi Union
of Savings and
Credit Cooperatives
Organisation
(MUSCCO)
Market Access and
Entrepreneurship
56,000 men
and women
Across all project sites
Network for Youth
Development
(NFYD)
Youth Lead Organisation 12,000 boys
and girls
Centre for
Environmental
Policy and Advocacy
(CEPA)
Policy Analysis and
Advocacy
3
1.2.2 Total Land Care
Total Land Care (TLC) is a member to the Network for Enhanced Livelihoods (NEAL). NEAL consists of
six organisations implementing development programs in the fields of agriculture, food security,
environment and climate change management with Norwegian funding. TLC received funding from the
Norwegian Embassy to implement a program called Managing Adaption to Climate Change II (MACC II)
in order to reduce poverty and vulnerability to climate change especially to improve livelihoods of rural
communities of 115,000 households.
The following are the main deliverables of the project:
Increase in average household annual real income
Increase of households with energy food reserves in critical months
Percent reduction in malnutrition rate for children
Percent reduction in carbon emissions.
MACC II is implemented in Ntchisi, Dowa, Nkhotakota and Salima districts which have adopted a
catchment model of implementation in which afforestation programs have been intensified in the upstream
communities in Ntchisi and Dowa with the long-term objective of protecting the catchment to minimize
run off, reduce soil erosion and protect downstream communities in Nkhotakota and Salima from flooding.
Both districts were affected by the January 2015 floods. Just like the SALFP, the MACC II program is
implemented through the Lead Farmer approach.
4
2.0 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION
Over 150,000 households have increased their food security as a direct result of DF and local partners’
agriculture projects in the Central and Northern Regions of Malawi since 2004. DF has noted that various
studies suggest a decrease in the level of undernutrition in the country over the last decade, but that it still
remains a persistent challenge. According to the 2015-16 Malawi Demographic Health Survey (MDHS),
37% of the under-five children are stunted and 12% are underweight, wasting was seen in 3%. There is also
micronutrient deficiency. Zink deficiency was in the same study found very common in over 60% for all
subgroups. Other reports indicate deficiencies in iron, iodine and vitamin A. Sixty three percent of the
children aged 6 -59 months and 33% of women are anemic. It is against this background that DF of Norway
sought to know the extent of its and TLC’s promoted interventions on food intake of people in the project
sites; thereby develop recommendations to inform DF’s future programing. Specifically the evaluation
addressed the following:
Assess the extent of the main undernutrition issues in the implementation areas with focus on stunting,
underweight, wasting and micronutrient deficiency including zinc, iron, iodine and vitamin A as the
minimum
Assess the extent DF and TLC promoted interventions have contributed towards intake from more food
groups and bettering the intake of nutritious foods in the areas
If the intake of different food groups has been improved, assess and learn how and which activities
have contributed towards the improvement
Develop recommendations for future DF and TLC programing on nutrition
Recommending concrete and action-oriented measures to guide DF and TLC work as to what needs to
be done more of, less of or propose other changes to DF’s and TLC work;
Identify suggested possible areas for learning that could be explored further in DF’s and TLC programs
besides Malawi
2.1 Evaluation Methodology and Approach
The study was carried out by gathering qualitative data on people’s experienced changes in food intake and
assessing their knowledge around food and nutrition security. The Minimum Dietary Diversity (MDD)
Score food groups was used to compare consumption before the project and at the time of evaluation. Focus
was on program beneficiaries with emphasis on women of reproductive age, mothers with children under
five, and people living with HIV and AIDS and persons living with disabilities. A comparison of farm
production for some years back before the project and current, in terms of types of crops grown and animals
kept and their sources including CSA technologies practiced. The evaluation also sought to understand the
crops or farm products sold, and whether the income was used to buy other foodstuffs that were eaten. It
further inquired about crops grown for individuals to eat or exclusively to sell as well as the animals or
animal products the individuals eat or exclusively sold, how they used income from sale of farm produce
to purchase other food items for consumption or not. The evaluation also found out the use of income from
the village savings and loan Associations (VSLA) to assess whether it was used for buying food or not.
5
2.1.1 Data Collection Tools
The study mainly used qualitative tools to collect data that could answer the questions for this evaluation.
There were also reports from relevant studies which were used to validate data that was collected. Table 2
summarises the methodology for the study:
Table 2: Methodology for the Collection of Qualitative Data
Name of Tool Description
Literature Review Scientific reports on nutrition from credible sources were reviewed in
order to compare with the evaluation findings. Based on these, the
extent of undernutrition issues such as stunting, underweight, wasting
and micronutrient deficiency including zinc, iron, iodine and vitamin
A was established.
Focus Group Discussions
(FGD)
FGDs were conducted for the beneficiaries with the following groups:
(i) Mothers with Under five children; (ii) Women of reproductive age
(15- 49 years) (iii) female smallholder farmers in general (iv) male
smallholder farmers. People with disabilities and those living with
HIV and AIDS also took part in the discussion.
Individual Interviews The evaluation carried out interviews with individual beneficiaries
and non-participating farmers from other villages where
implementation is not taking place to compare the findings.
2.1.2 Sampling Procedures and Survey Design
The study was carried out in the implementation areas of both direct implementing partners of DF and of
TLC which is DF’s collaborating partner in the NEAL network, as shown in Table 3. We noted that DF and
TLC programs are implemented in more than 1 EPA per district; therefore sampling of EPAs was
conducted. We sampled 1 EPA in each of the partners’ implementation area using Research Randomizer
(https://www.randomizer.org/) from organisations mentioned to be implementing SALFP and Total Land
Care (TLC). MERAMO Consulting enquired from the sampled implementing partners to provide the list
of the beneficiaries in the EPAs sampled. Thereafter statistically sound sampling methodology using
Research Randomizer (https://www.randomizer.org/) was utilized to randomly sample households to be
interviewed. This was to ensure there is greater representativeness on a characteristic of interest within the
population. It is important to mention that both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were part of this study.
MERAMO Consulting developed a tool which was shared with all the direct partners to provide information
on the projects implemented and areas of implementation. In each of the sampled EPA there were 2 FGDs
(1 with women only of 8 participants; another with men of 8 participants). The non-beneficiaries were
sampled for individual households from the same villages. The names of the non-beneficiaries were drawn
from the list of village households. The focus was where mothers of the under-fives; people living with
HIV and AIDS and the people with disabilities were of main concern. Table 3 shows the sampling frame
that was used:
6
Table 3: FGD and Household Interview Framework
Area
FGD Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries
Total Men women HIV PWD*
Women
15-49
years
Lactating
/mothers
of under
5
HIV PWD
Women
15-49
years
Lactating
/mothers
of under
5
Heifer 8 8 10
Dep
end
ing
on
avai
labil
ity 10 10 10
Dep
end
ing
on
avai
labil
ity 10 10 76
FYF 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 76
MZADD 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 76
TLC 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 76
32 32 40 40 40 40 40 40 304
*PWD – People with disabilities
2.1.3 Quality Control Check
The following key steps were followed in order to ensure that quality and accurate data was collected:
Research assistants were carefully selected in order to assemble a skilled team whose profession also
matched the assignment. They had necessary experience to collect the field data and to probe for in-
depth understanding of the responses.
The research assistants were given adequate opportunity to understand and effectively use the data
collection tools.
All research assistants participated in pre-test. The research assistants used the pre-test to check on the
ease with which respondents were able to respond to questions, and observe the need to adjust the
questions. This was also used to test field logistics, and make adjustments in the before field work.
7
2.1.4 Description of the Study Respondents and their Locations
Individual interviews: There were 271 respondents who participated in the individual interviews, where
149 were beneficiaries (126 female; 23 male) and 122 non-beneficiaries (108 female; 14 male) as
presented in Table 4. Both Lead Farmers and Follower Farmers were among the beneficiaries
interviewed. The nature of the study necessitated that more women be interviewed more than men.
Table 4: Characteristics of the Respondents for individual interviews.
PARTNER CHARACTERISTICS OF
RESPONDENTS
IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS
Beneficiaries Non Total
FYF People living with HIV 6 5 11
Lactating mother or mother of <5 11 9 20
Man 6 5 11
Women of reproductive age. 10 9 19
Total 33 28 61
Heifer
International
People with disabilities 0 2 2
People living with HIV 16 9 25
Lactating mother or mother <5 9 8 17
Man 2 2 4
Women of reproductive age. 12 10 22
Heifer International Total 39 31 70
MZADD People living with HIV 5 4 9
Lactating mother or mother of <5 6 5 11
Man 3 3 6
Women of reproductive age. 9 8 17
MZADD Total 23 20 43
TLC People with disabilities 6 3 9
People living with HIV 13 8 21
Lactating mother or mother of <5 12 11 23
Man 8 8 16
Women of reproductive age. 15 13 28
TLC Total 54 43 97
Grand Total 149 122 271
8
Further disaggregation was done for the HIV and AIDS and people with disabilities as shown in Table 5
Table 5: Disaggregation based on disability and HIV and AIDS Status
Characteristic Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries
Female Male Female Male
People with disabilities 2 4
2
People living with HIV 41 14 7 4
Total 43 18 7 6
Focus Group Discussions: The FGDs had 87 participants (44 women and 43 men) across all the locations
as summarized in Table 6. The interest of farmer to participate in the FGDs was overwhelming as many
farmers wanted to share their experiences for participating in the interventions.
Table 6: Number of FGD Participants in the Evaluation
Name of Partner Men Women Total
FYF 10 12 22
Heifer International 14 12 26
MZADD 9 10 19
TLC 10 10 20
Total 43 44 87
2.2 Household size and Respondent Status
The mean household size of the sample was 5.1 where 83% of the households were male headed. The
finding was similar for both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. The household headship determines the
nature of decisions that could be made regarding the control and utilization of household resources as well
as nutrition decisions.
Interesting to note was the high percentage of beneficiaries that are self-employed off farm, 16% (15%
male; 17% female), compared to 10% (8% male; 12% female) of the non-beneficiaries. This could be
because of the DF and TLC’s interventions e.g. VSLA and promotion of diversification activities.
Furthermore, more non-beneficiaries were involved in selling their labor as casual laborers compared to the
beneficiaries. This is a good indication of improvement in the general status of the participating households.
Table 7: Main Occupation of the Household Head
Main Occupation Beneficiaries (%) Non Beneficiaries (%)
Farming (crop+ Livestock) Male 78 75
Female 86 87
82 81
Salaried employment Male 1 3 Female 1 1 1 2
Self-employed off-farm Male 22 11
Female 9 9
15.5 10
Casual labourer Male 3 6
9
Female 3 10
3 8
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The analysis was mainly done to compare the situation of the beneficiaries before intervention and at the
time of the study, as well as between the beneficiaries and the non-beneficiaries. The program interventions
are still under implementation. In the data to follow the term “Before” is regarded as prior to 2015, while
“Time of the study” is the very beginning of 2018.
3.1 Household Assets; Livestock and Land Ownership
Ownership and control over assets such as land and housing provide multiple benefits to individuals and
households, including a secure place to live, livelihoods, protection during emergencies, and for use as
collateral. Many studies demonstrate the important relationship between asset ownership, poverty
reduction, and growth.3 The study, therefore, included the assets in a bid to assess the changes in the lives
of the people of the implementation areas.
3.2 Status of Household Assets
The beneficiaries had more assets than the non-beneficiaries. The finding suggests that the beneficiaries
had more opportunities for generating income which they used for buying the assets. Table 8 presents data
that confirms that households with assorted assets greatly increased during the implementation of DF and
TLC interventions. It also implies that the beneficiaries were more resilient to financial and social shocks.
The beneficiaries had a bigger opportunity to convert their assets into cash for buying food or exchange
directly with a food source to improve their food and nutrition security status.
Table 8: Comparison of Household Assets between Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries
Assets Beneficiaries (%) Non Beneficiaries (%)
Before Time of study Before Time of study
Hoe 96 100 96 96
Axe 87 91.5 73 70
Knives 90 90 88 89
Bicycle 65 78.6 70 68
Phones 62 71.2 53 50
Sickle 61 70.3 61 60
Radio 54 57 54 55
Bed 51 58 44 41
Chairs 28 51 34 30
Solar panel 4 15 2 2
Plough 1 5.6 2 4
When the data was further analyzed by gender, it was noted that 86% of the women increased in asset
acquisition against male beneficiaries (78%). Among non-beneficiaries there was no change in the
proportion of male and female farmers in asset acquisition which was 14%. There were 55 beneficiaries
living with HIV and AIDS (41 female and 14 male) and 6 people with disabilities while 13 non-beneficiaries
3 World Bank, (2008). Gender and Asset Digest. Volume 3 (4).
10
were found in this category. Out of the 13 there were 11 people living with HIV and AIDS (7 female; 4
male) while 2 men had disability. Further analysis by HIV and AIDS status of beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries respondents revealed that there were some changes in their assets.
Table 9: Household Assets, people living with HIV and people living with disabilities
Assets
Beneficiaries (%) Non Beneficiaries (%)
People living with HIV People with disabilities People living with HIV
Before Time of study Before Time of study Before Time of study
Hoe 83 100 83 100 84 85
Axe 90 100 66 83 76 77
Knives 90 100 83 100 89 87
Bicycle 64 77 0 0 40 41
Phones 62 76 16 33 61 60
Sickle 62 76 0 0 10 16
Radio 56 59 16 48 46 45
Bed 52 61 16 66 56 59
Chairs 28 48 0 33 23 23
3.3 Comparing Livestock Ownership
Livestock provides protein-rich food to billions of smallholder rural food producers and urban consumers,
generate income and employment, reduce vulnerabilities in pastoral systems, intensify small-scale mixed
crop-livestock systems and sustain livelihood opportunities to millions of livestock keepers.4 Livestock
provides income, creates employment opportunities and provides food and nutrition security across
different production systems and along different value chains. Livestock also plays important roles in
ensuring household food security through sell to purchase other foods such as cereals and legumes; use of
income from regular livestock and livestock product sales is used for food purchases to supplement
household food production and to diversify diets. Consumption of livestock and livestock products provides
protein to the diet for households. Table 10 shows that the general ownership pattern of livestock is higher
among beneficiaries than non-beneficiaries. The results show an increase in keeping of chickens from 63%
to 92% amongst the beneficiaries compared to increase from 64% to 65% among non-beneficiaries. Farmers
were also keeping other types of livestock that included rabbits, pigs, ducks and goats received under pass-
on arrangement. As shown in Table 10, chickens were the most commonly kept livestock across both groups
seconded by goats which had also increased from 30% to 43% among beneficiaries compared to non-
beneficiaries where it has dropped from 23% to 20%.
Table 10: Livestock Owned at Household Level
Livestock Beneficiaries (%) Non Beneficiaries (%)
Before Time of study Before Time of study
Rabbits 7 10 2 3
Pigs 26 33 13 13
Chicken 63 92 64 65
Duck 9 9 4 5
Goats 30 43 23 20
4 ILRI (2012). Livestock Matter(s): Where Livestock Can Make a Difference. ILRI Corporate Report 2010–2011.
Nairobi: ILRI
11
Cattle 2 6 1 1
When the data was disaggregated by gender, there was notable change in proportion of women (46%) who
acquired livestock where the change proportion increased from 57% to 87% for various livestock while for
male beneficiaries was 43% against male and female non beneficiaries who did not change at all.
The sales from livestock were used for paying school fees and /or invested back into farming to increase
production, providing further opportunities for increased nutrition and income. Using their livestock, the
beneficiaries had more opportunities for improving their nutrition status through diversification of diets
because they could also afford buying other foods after selling their livestock.
3.4. Farmers Participation in Crop Production
Malawi relies on rain-fed agriculture whose season runs between October and April followed by a long dry
season from May to September. Often times, there is no hunger during the dry season because it is the
period of the main harvest. The majority of farmers in the area of study wholly depended on agricultural
activities for their livelihood. Agriculture is the most important activity in the study areas with maize being
the universal crop grown by all. Among the beneficiaries, there was a general increase in the proportion of
farmers who diversified into additional value chains, thus growing more types of crops for sale and
consumption. As shown in the table 11 below, there is a slight increase among the non-beneficiaries for
some crops (Sweet potato, Pigeon pea, Cassava and tobacco) and noted also was simultaneously a decrease
in others specially soya beans and beans These are the same crops that beneficiaries have increased more
in production. This could be because of the interventions promoted.
Table 11: Percentage of Farmers Participating in Crop Value Chains
Name of Crop Beneficiaries (%) Non Beneficiaries (%)
Before Time of study Before Time of study
Maize 100 100 100 100
Rice 4 8 5 6
Groundnuts 45 61 39 38
Soya beans 34 56 45 36
Tobacco 20 22 19 24
Tomato 15 22 16 17
Beans 14 22 13 12
Sweet potato 5 12 5 6
Pigeon pea 5 21 6 7
Cassava 4 6 3 4
Potato 14 21 13 12
As shown in Table 11, there was an increase in groundnuts, soya and sweet potato production as noted by
more beneficiaries being involved as compared to non-beneficiaries within the same period. Before the
project the proportion of female beneficiaries growing soya, groundnuts and beans was 33% and this
increased to 44%; while male farmers increased from 35% to 42%. This was not the case among non-
beneficiaries. The proportion of beneficiaries was higher than that of non-beneficiaries giving evidence of
the support provided to the beneficiaries as indicated in the project documents such as reports and the
proposal. Farmers were supported in maize, sweet potatoes, soybeans and pigeon pea value chains. The
support included extension and supply of inputs such as seeds.
12
Table 12: Participation of People Living with HIV and AIDS in crop value chains
Name of Crop Beneficiaries (%) Non Beneficiaries (%)
Before Time of study Before Time of study
Maize 100 100 100 100
Rice 4 10 3 5
Groundnuts 40 62 36 37
Soya beans 38 63 36 34
Pegion peas 6 23 4 6
Tobacco 20 21 33 61
Through the household interviews, all farmers mentioned that maize is the commonest crop produced for
food. Furthermore, 78% (76% male; 82% female) of the respondents grown soya and 82% (82% male; 83%
female) grow groundnuts mainly for sale. These are the crops that have shown much increase in the
proportion of farmers involved in production. The main crop grown for sale to both beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries was tobacco. Comparatively, more beneficiaries than non-beneficiaries were diversifying
from production of tobacco to other cash crops. The table 13 below shows proportion of farmers involved
in crop selling:
Table 13: Proportion of Respondents involved in Crop Sales
Beneficiaries (%) Non Beneficiaries (%)
Before Time of
study
Before Time of study
male 63 93 49 52
female 55 85 55 49 59 89 52 51
Through FGDs, the evaluation established that proceeds from such crop sales are used to pay school fees
(65%), invested back into farming (58%) and also buy food (54%). The most commonly bought relish was
fish and meat which are highly nutritious. Table 14 shows the crops and other products sold by beneficiaries
and sales:
13
Table 14: Volume of Produce Marketed through SALFP
Commodity Beneficiary Category Total Kgs Sold Amount Realised
(MK) Male Female Youths5
Soya 1478 1654 751 3883 597,590 185,252,900
Maize 1201 1612 14 2827 145,048 29,009,600
Vegetable 68 95 35 193 12,500 5,000,000
Red Sorghum 95 132 18 245 3,240 583,200
Sunflower 184 322 87 593 61,995 8,059,350
Ground nuts 200 320 43 563 41,000 16,400,000
Honey 113 48 17 178 2,466 3,699,000
Dairy 18 40 12 70 6,000 (l) 1,200,00
Total 3389 4233 930 8552 869,839 249,204,050
3.5 Landholding Size of Respondents
The amount of land an individual owns can determine their wellbeing. With all things being equal, having
more land can entail more harvests, more income, ability to diversify and ability to feed livestock. The
amount of land cultivated can explain the wellbeing of the landowner. The bigger the land cultivated, the
more likely that the owner has more own or hired labour. The more land cultivated gives an indication that
the owner has capacity to pay casual labourers with money or exchange the labour with food or other assets.
The study revealed that beneficiaries had increased land for cultivation some of it being rented from other
community members as shown in the Table 15 compared to non-beneficiaries within the same period.
Table 15: Ownership and Use of Land
Area
(Hectares)
Beneficiaries (%) Non Beneficiaries (%)
Before Time of study Before Time of study
Less than 1 Male 71 65 73 75 Female 77 65 79 75
74 65 76 75
More than 1 Male 23 33 27 26
Female 29 37 21 24
26 35 24 25
100 100 100 100
3.6 The extent of stunting, underweight, wasting and micronutrient deficiency including zinc,
iron, iodine and vitamin A This section presents findings through literature review about nutrition in the targeted districts. MERAMO
Consulting attempted to collect data at EPA or section level, however data was not readily available. Data
5 Not that this table from DF Annual Report (2017). The youth data was not provided.
14
is only presented at district level. It therefore required MERAMO to write to National Statistics Office to
get an unsummarized data for further analysis. Procedures to be followed could not be achieved within the
specified period. In Malawi, most micronutrient surveys are conducted and presented at national or district
level aggregates hence the presentation in this study. This section presents trends of malnutrition in the
districts of the study focusing on under-five children and women of child bearing age.
For over two decades, Malawi has registered various forms of malnutrition, especially in children under
five years of age, mainly due to poor knowledge and dietary practices among the population. According to
Malawi - Demographic and Health Survey 2015-2016, the nutrition situation is characterized by high levels
of undernutrition among the under-5 children, resulting from micronutrient deficiencies and inadequate
food energy and protein. This is leading to 37% stunting (height for age / too short for their age), 3.8%
wasting (weight for height / too thin for their height) underweight (weight for age / too thin for their age.
Stunting is a sign of chronic undernutrition and wasting is a sign of acute undernutrition. Stunting was
associated with up to 23% of all deaths of under-5, 10.3% annual loss in GDP between 2008 and 2012 as
well as high school dropouts and class repetition in Malawi. Micronutrient disorders, especially Vitamin A
and Iron (58% of primary school children suffer from vitamin A deficiency, 25% from anemia), are of
public health concern. The demographic survey also shows that 5% of the children under the age of five
are overweight, which is a sign of over nutrition.
However, there has been great improvement on nutrition indicators as of 2015-16 compared to previously.
(Malawi- Demographic and Health Survey 2015-2016). Current statistics show that the prevalence of
stunting and underweight has decreased markedly since 1992, with the greatest decrease in stunting between
2010 (47%) and 2015-16 (37%).6 Table 16 shows the extent of malnourished children aged 0-59 months
in the districts the study was conducted. Stunting is height for age Z-score of <-2, wasting is weight for
height Z-score of <-2 and underweight is weight for age Z-score of <-2.
Table 16: Prevalence of malnutrition by district for 0 -59 months old children
District Height for age (Stunting) Weight for height
(Wasting)
Weight for age
(Underweight)
< -3SD <-2SD < -3SD <-2SD < -3SD <-2SD
Lilongwe 7.6 36.6 0.8 0.4 1.6 8.8
Nkhatabay 8.3 32.5 0 0.1 1.1 4.9
Salima 12.5 34.5 0.5 1.4 2.8 12.8
Rumphi 10.5 32.1 0.5 1.5 2 13.6
Dowa 11.4 39 0 0.1 1.5 9.7
Mzimba 11.9 38.9 0.4 2.7 2 11.5
The body mass index (BMI) is expressed as the ratio of weight in kilograms to the square of height in metres
(kg/m2). Current trends show that in Malawi, the percentage of thin women declined slightly (7%) between
2010 and 2015-16. In contrast, the proportion of women who are overweight or obese (over nutrition) has
increased steadily, from 10% in 1992 to 21% in 2015-167. The pattern shows that women who are most
likely to be thin are those in the 15-19 age groups (13%) with BMI below 18.5. The percentage of women
who are overweight and/or obese is much higher among women in urban areas (36%) than those in rural
areas (17%). Overweight/obesity increases with education and wealth. 12% of women in the lowest wealth
quintile are overweight or obese compared with 36% in the highest wealth quintile.
62015-16 Malawi Demographic and Health Survey Key Findings. Zomba, Malawi, 7 2015-16 Malawi Demographic and Health Survey. Key Findings. Zomba, Malawi
15
Table 17: Nutritional Status of Women by district using BMI B
MI
Wo
men
18
.5-2
4.9
Th
in (
<1
8.4
)
Ver
y T
hin
(1
7.0
-18
.4)
sev
erel
y t
hin
(<
17)
To
tal
over
wei
gh
t O
bes
e
To
tal
Ob
esit
y
(25
.5-
29
.9)
Sev
ere
Ob
esit
y (
>3
0.0
)
Dowa 364 76 7.9 6 1.9 16.1 12.3 3.7
Lilongwe 1279 68.5 6.6 5.4 1.1 25 16.8 8.2
Mzimba 495 70.7 5.7 4.9 0.8 23.6 17.8 5.8
Nkhatabay 103 69.1 8.6 7.1 1.5 22.4 17.5 4.9
Rumphi 86 72.1 4.9 4.2 0.6 23.1 18.1 4.9
Salima 226 77 8.6 7.4 1.1 14.4 10.7 3.7
3.6.1 Anaemia among children 0-59 months
The Malawi Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) 2015-2016 (MDHS 2015-2016) tested children age
6-59 months. The DHS showed that 63% of the children suffered from some degree of anaemia. Children
are classified as anaemic if their haemoglobin level is below 11.0 g/dl of blood or as severely anaemic if
their haemoglobin level is below 7.0 g/dl. The DHS also found that 27% of children were classified with
mild anaemia, 34% with moderate anaemia, and 2% with severe anaemia. Anaemia was more prevalent
among children under age 24 months than among older children, with a peak prevalence of 91% observed
among children age 9-11 months8 Anaemia is more common in children from the poorest households and
those whose mothers have no education (both 68%). Anaemia prevalence was also higher among children
in rural areas (64%) than urban areas (56%). Although anaemia is not specific to malaria, trends in anaemia
prevalence can reflect malaria morbidity, and respond to changes in the coverage of malaria interventions
Anaemia in children has decreased since 2004, when 73% of children were anaemic.
3.6.2 Prevalence of anaemia in women: Anaemia status by hemoglobin level
Prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive age refers to the combined prevalence of both non-
pregnant with haemoglobin levels below 12 g/dl and pregnant women with haemoglobin levels below 11
g/dl. The MDHS 2015-2016 showed that the overall prevalence of anemia among women of reproductive
age (% of women ages 15-49) in Malawi was 34.4% as of 2016. 33% of women who were neither pregnant
nor breastfeeding were anaemic, nearly half of the pregnant women in the age group and 29% of
breastfeeding women were anemic. 25% of the women in Malawi are classified as mildly anaemic, 7%
moderately anaemic, and 1% severely anaemic. The highest overall value of anemic women over the past
26 years was 43.6% in 1990, while its lowest value was 32.2% in 2011.9 The prevalence of anaemia
declines as the mother’s education and household wealth increases.
Table 18: Proportion of women age 15-49 with anaemia, by district
District Any (%) Mild (%) Moderate (%) Severe (%)
8 National Statistical Office (NSO) [Malawi] and IC, 2017
9 https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/malawi/prevalence-of-anemia
16
No. of
Women
<11.0 g/dl 10.0-10.9 g/dl 7.0-9.9 g/dl <7.0 g/dl
Mzimba 492 30.3 23.8 6.4 0.2
Nkhatabay 100 44.4 30.4 11.8 2.2
Rumphi 85 25.7 18.7 6.3 0.8
Dowa 362 30 21.8 7.3 0.9
Lilongwe 1,258 29.3 21.9 6.9 0.5
Salima 223 31.4 21.6 8.3 1.4
Source: Malawi DHS 2015-16
3.7 Contribution of DF and TLC Interventions to increase in food availability
3.7.1 Climate smart agriculture practices The link between Sustainable Agriculture, food security and nutrition cannot be overemphasized, and has
been well articulated in both SALFP and MACC II programs that in Malawi the poor smallholder farmer
is the hardest hit by the impact of climate change and variability. The SALFP Program intends to satisfy
household food and nutrition needs throughout the year.10 A good example of the DF interventions on
climate smart agriculture (CSA) presented in the DF SALFP Annual Report revealed that the program
trained 3,743 (1,841 male and 1,902 female) LF and 88,321 (40,742 male and 47,579 female) Follower
Farmers in different CSA practices and technologies. Out of the 92 064 trained farmers, 87,334 (41,088
male and 46,246 female), or around 95%, are practicing different CSA Technologies in their gardens (Table
19).
Table 19: Farmers' Access to Extension through the Lead Farmer Model
Farmer Category Men Women Total % Women
Lead Farmers 1,841 1,902 3,743 51
Follower Farmers 40,742 47,579 88,321 54
Adopters 41,088 46,246 87,334 53
Total 83,671 95,727 179,398 53
In Malawi, male extension workers normally work with male farmers and systematically baring women
from accessing valuable extension advice.11 Further analysis, viewing the % of women Lead Farmers,
Follower Farmers and adopters, suggests that SALFP is successfully addressing the chronic challenge of
agricultural extension service being dominated by men in access and its delivery. It is therefore, highly
anticipated that women will not only access extension but also get the opportunity and the confidence to
facilitate its delivery.
According to the DF Annual Report (2017), 53% of the farmers is practising pure CA and associated
complementary technologies. This was further confirmed by the farmers through FGDs, where they also
mentioned that they had observed an increase in the volume and quality of food produced since the Project
started. The farmers further reported an increase in frequency of food consumption which they attributed
to DF and TLC interventions as a result of CSA practices. Table 20 compares proportion of beneficiaries
and non-beneficiaries involved in various SA practices in both DF and TLC implementation areas.
10 SALFP proposal, 2014 11 Feed the Future, (2014). Assessment of Extension and Advisory Methods and Approaches to Reach Rural
Women.
17
Table 20: Percentage of Farmers Involved in different Sustainable Agricultural Practices
SA Practices Beneficiaries (%) Non Beneficiaries (%)
Before Time of study Befor
e
Time of study
Manure & compost manure Male 56 99 61 65
Female 31 89 59 69 43.5 94 60 67
Soil & water conservation Male 70 87 61 58
Female 59 83 53 53
65 85 57 56
Conservation agriculture Male 46 67 22 28 Female 42 61 14 20
44 64 18 24
Agroforestry Male 25 48 21 22
Female 21 38 21 19
23 43 21 21
Intercropping & crop rotation Male 77 93 56 57
Female 67 79 56 56 72 86 56 57
The FGD participants also acknowledged the significant reduction in their agricultural expenditure
experienced due to reduced buying of chemical fertilizers and paying casual labourers for field management
practices such as weeding. They said manure application and zero tillage practices have helped them reduce
the said costs and that the savings have mostly been used to buy food during lean periods. As noted in Table
20, there is an increase in beneficiaries involved in CSA practices compared to non-beneficiaries. It is
expected that this will help improve the productive capacity of the soils on which the participating farmers
cultivate.
Table 21 shows the main sources of knowledge reported in the evaluation. Fifty nine percent (59%) of the
beneficiaries mentioned their Lead Farmers, trained through DF’s implementing organisations and TLC are
main source of information. While non-beneficiaries mentioned government extension services as their
main source of information. The results also suggest that the projects have a spill over effect to non-
beneficiaries, seeing that some of the non-beneficiaries also mentioned Lead Farmers as their main source
of information. There is further a possibility that some of the non-beneficiaries that mentioned friends and
relations as their main source of information are, through them, indirectly accessing information provided
by Lead Farmers.
18
Table 21: Reported Sources of Information
Source of Information Beneficiaries (%) Non-beneficiaries (%)
Extension Services
Male 25.5 36
Female 17 28
21.25 32
Friends and relations
Male 2 18
Female 6 6
4 12
Radio
Male 3
Female 3
0 3
Lead Farmer
Male 62 8
Female 56 4
59 6
Other NGOs 16 47
Male 19 53
Female 13 41
16 47
Overall 100 100
3.7.2 Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs)
There has been a significant increase in access to financial services though the growth of the microfinance
industry over the last few years. However, these institutions often underserve rural communities. VSLAs,
where groups of people pool their financial savings in order to have a source of lending funds are therefore
coming in to address the challenge. Although the uses of the savings from the VSLAs are numerous,
members mentioned that VSLAs have contributed towards the well-being of the households. Annual reports
for DF 2017 revealed that 28% of the VSLA members have managed to buy livestock such as pigs, goats
and chickens using savings and interest gained from VSLAs. Over 16% of the VSLA members are engaged
in winter production whose farm inputs were bought using dividends realized from VSLAs. Community
members from Chiwamba, Demera and Mpingu EPAs were actively engaged in winter crop production
using savings from VSLAs as a way of averting hunger. Other VSLA members used their savings as start-
up capital for small-scale businesses and preparing for the next farming season in ways such as buying
inputs ahead of the season. The study found that food security, as measured by number of meals per day,
had significantly improved in the areas that were participating in VSLAs. There was also evidence of
improved income generating activities (IGAs) as households held significantly larger savings in VSLAs.
Farmers mentioned that participation in VSLAs had led to households consuming better and adequate food
throughout the agricultural season. During food shortages, farmers mentioned that they allocated over 70%
of the savings from VSLAs to buy food. The most commonly mentioned foods bought with VSLA money
were maize, fish, fresh vegetables and legumes, especially beans. Food secure households used their savings
for expanding their agricultural production.
19
Table 22: Financial Assets in VSLAs
Cycle Number of VSLAs Total Financial Assets (MK)
2014 752 378,901,968
2015 586 414,712,672
2016 991 443,131,313
TOTALS 2,329 1,236,745,953
3.7.3 Promotion of small-scale irrigation farming
Farmers in some groups indicated that they were now involved in small-scale irrigation. They have
increasingly adopted integrated farming system, and do not only rely on rain- fed agriculture. Now they use
small-scale irrigation such as river diversion, treadle pumps and residual moisture. Through DF and TLC
interventions an additional 92 hectares are covered under small-scale irrigation.
3.7.4 Promotion of Agricultural diversification increased
Agriculture diversification is also key in the projects, and this was well explained by the farmers. They
mentioned that they were trained in fish farming (aquaculture and cage culture) and planting of drought
tolerant crops, of which cassava and sweet potatoes were mostly mentioned. They are also encouraged to
produce legumes and other high value crops. The livestock pass-on program was mentioned by Heifer,
FYF, MZADD and TLC beneficiaries. The programs have been promoting access to quality seed; this was
highly mentioned by beneficiaries such as FYF, MZADD and TLC. Farmers have indicated that promotion
of agriculture diversification was central in improving food security and nutrition.
3.8 The consumption of different food groups and activities contributing towards the
improvement
The most immediate causes of undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies are inadequate dietary intake.
These deficiencies have lingered due to widespread poverty; over-dependence on subsistence rain-fed
maize production and consumption coupled with persistent poor harvests, high population density and
growth and climate change. Basic causes across all sectors include poor livelihood assets and choices, socio-
economic issues (including gender, disability and HIV and AIDS). Good nutrition is important for good
health. The body needs different nutrients for its normal functions such as growth, maintenance of body
tissues, protection from diseases and to keep alive. The nutrients are grouped into six major categories,
namely proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, minerals and water.12 It was revealed that 77% of the
beneficiaries compared to 54% of the non-beneficiaries were aware of the six food groups. A quantitative
measurement of food consumption used to evaluate a household’s access to a variety of foods for women
diet (Women Dietary Diversity Score-WDDS) using account of foods consumed over a 24-hour period was
made.13 To identify food groups that could contribute the most to the diet, food items, collected during this
study, were itemized into 16 types of items and grouped into 12 different categories of food products.
Women and subsequently the reference child were asked if they consumed items from the following food
groups: Cereals; Tubers and roots; Legumes, nuts and seeds; Milk and milk products; Organ meat (iron
rich); Flesh meats; Eggs; Fish; Dark green leafy vegetables; Fruits; Oils and fats and Sweets (Table 23).
The table clearly indicates that children and women who are beneficiaries have been eating foods from
more food groups than the non-beneficiaries. This was clearly noted on the following food groups; flesh
12 National Nutrition Guideline, (2007) 13 Swidale, A. and Billinski, P. (2006). Household dietary diversity score (HDDS) for Measurement of Household
Food Access: Indicator Guide, Version 2. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA). Academy for
Educational Development, USAID, Washington, DC.
20
meat; legumes and seeds; fish; sweets; milk and milk products and fruits. It was revealed through FGDs
that food crops produced after the interventions support had superior quality and that the quantity produced
was higher than that produced prior to the interventions. Frequency of consumption for recommended food
groups had also significantly increased.
Table 23: Food consumption among beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries
Malawian
Six Food
Groups
Food groups/Items
and possible
available nutrients
Beneficiaries Consumed (%) Non Beneficiaries Consumed
(%)
Child Woman Child Woman
Before
Time
of
study
Before
Time
of
study
Before
Time
of
study
Before
Time
of
study
Staples
Cereals: vitamins and
dietary minerals;
starch, the smallest part
of the grain;
phosphorus,
magnesium
86 92 100 100 82 81 94 93
Tubers and roots:
Vitamins and minerals
and dietary fibre.
10 15 23 26 5 6 8 9
Legumes
and Nuts
Legumes, nuts and
seeds: Fats, protein and
fibre; vitamin E,
minerals (calcium,
iron, zinc, potassium
and magnesium,
minerals (selenium,
manganese and
copper)
45 66 76 78 52 56 71 68
Animal
foods
Milk and milk
products:Protein,
carbohydrate and fat
content, water,
Vitamins, Minerals.
17 72 28 34 18 21 28 29
Organ meat: (iron
rich):B-vitamins;
minerals (iron,
magnesium, selenium
and zinc) fat-soluble
vitamins (vitamins A,
D, E and K)
33 39 34 46 32 28 35 36
Flesh meat: Protein, B
vitamins (niacin,
thiamin, riboflavin,
and B6), vitamin E,
iron, zinc, and
magnesium.
31 32 32 39 29 31 30 29
Eggs: Calories;
protein, fat, vitamins, 23 33 25 34 23 21 30 29
21
minerals, and
carotenoids.
Fish: Protein, acids;
vitamins; calcium and
phosphorus; minerals
(iron, zinc, iodine,
magnesium, and
potassium)
12 15 14 18 11 12 15 14
Vegetables
Dark green leafy
vegetables: Vitamins,
minerals, and
carotenoids.
73 92 94 99 72 73 93 95
Fruits
Fruits: Potassium,
dietary fiber, vitamin
C, and folate (folic
acid). Diets; potassium
19 27 21 31 21 22 25 24
Fats and
oils
Oils and fats:
Essential Fatty Acids;
vitamins.
42 65 63 70 43 39 56 55
Obtained
from
several
food
groups
Sweets: Sugars 34 48 29 53 33 34 33 30
Further analysis was conducted to establish the Minimum Diet Diversity; whether or not woman and child
consumed at least five out of the 12 food groups the previous day or night. The proportion of women
meeting the requirement was 81% among beneficiaries compared to 54% for non-beneficiaries, thus more
beneficiaries were consuming food groups contributing to better diet quality than non-beneficiaries. The
highly consumed food groups were cereals for both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. It was noted that
food such as flesh meat, milk, eggs, oils and fats are consumed more among beneficiaries, and there had
been an increase in proportion over the past three years compared to non-beneficiaries. As shown in table
23 these food groups are rich in minerals, proteins and vitamins.
The increase in consumption of flesh meat, milk, eggs, as well as oil and fats, could be a result of increase
in income levels and ownership of livestock. According to the annual SALFP report (2017) the average
household annual real income had increased by 125% among program participants and 62% of the
households had energy food reserves during the critical months. The report also states that 13,205 farmers
(6,404 male and 6,801 female) received livestock under the pass-on approach, and 2,355 farmers (1,194
male and 1,161 female) were trained in livestock management practices. In addition, the VSLAs and
promotion of agriculture diversification are other key activities that have contributed to the increased
consumption from these food groups among the beneficiaries. It is further confirmed through this evaluation
that the level of livestock ownership and crop production by farmers is higher among the beneficiaries than
the non-beneficiaries, thereby translating into improved nutrition for the beneficiaries.
3.9 Comparison of Lead Farmers and other beneficiaries
Through the Focus Group Discussions, the evaluation established that the understanding of food security
and nutrition issues are similar among Follower Farmers and the Lead Farmers. This was also the case for
practicing of climate smart agriculture practices. The confidence in explaining and answering the key
questions was noted to be same across all groups. Although Lead Farmers could be given an upper hand in
22
knowledge, this study noted that Lead Farmers and Follower Farmers are at the same level. The analysis
has already shown that 59% of the beneficiaries access knowledge from the Lead farmers as their main
source of information. It is interesting to note that there is no gap in knowledge between the Lead Farmers
and the Follower Farmers. Even in terms of consumption of different food groups, there was no difference
between Follower and Lead Farmers, where 81% were able to consume the minimum diet. The impact of
the interventions on food intake has been the same across all the beneficiaries. The main area that was noted
to be different was on land acquisitions and livestock ownership as shown in the table 24:
Table 24: Comparison between Lead Farmers and ordinary beneficiaries
Area of comparison Beneficiaries (%) Lead Farmers (%)
Main occupation:
Farming (crop+ Livestock) 74 93
Self-employed off-farm 16 10
Casual labourer 3 0
Livestock ownership:
Rabbits 8 8
Pigs 23 29
Chicken 63 92
Duck 7 10
Goats 30 43
Cattle 2 8
Area Under cultivation:
Less than 1 73 53
More than 1 22 43
Comparing main occupation for beneficiaries with non-beneficiaries it was noted that there was a high
percentage of beneficiaries that are self-employed off farm, 16% (15% male; 17% female), compared to
10% (8% male; 12% female) of the non-beneficiaries. This could be because of the DF and TLC’s
interventions e.g. VSLA and promotion of diversification activities. Lead Farmers are just as well part of
diversification activities and VSLA but are less self-employed off farm compared to beneficiaries in general
because one of the criteria for being a Lead Farmer is farming and this is occupation that Lead Farmers
focus on as shown in the table 24 above.
23
4.0 CONCLUSION
The results of the evaluation suggest that the Royal Norwegian Embassy’s financial support to
Development Fund of Norway and Total Land Care is making a significant contribution to the desirable
change in people’s food and nutrition status. Data collected through the individual interviews provide
information that gives evidence of the success of the supported interventions towards addressing farmers’
food and nutritional needs. The farmers’ voices during the FGDs and subsequent in-depth interviews on
selected cases agree with the individual interview findings. It was noted that the beneficiaries were involved
in good agricultural practices through Climate Smart Agriculture, VSLAs and agriculture diversification,
and that their involvement in these has led to more diversified food sources, and thus improved diets,
compared to the diets of the non-beneficiaries. Non-beneficiaries’ diets were to a larger degree,
characterized by an overreliance on starchy staples, which again is a red flag in regards to malnutrition.
Diets which include a variety of foods are considered important for good health. Diets that include nutrient
rich legumes and animal source foods, as well as vitamin rich fruits and vegetables, increase micronutrient
adequacy and reduce chronic undernutrition. Such diets were to a larger degree consumed by the
beneficiaries than the non-beneficiaries. This is a good indicator that diversification in household level
production of food crops and livestock does lead to diversification in the diets of individuals and results in
improvement in nutritional status.
24
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. For Future DF and TLC Work to Strengthen Nutrition
5.1.1 Promote effective food utilization towards food and nutrition security
Supporting food utilization trainings for the farmers is recommended. The evaluation observed that not all
food secure farmers were nutrition secure noted through the consumption of different food groups. Some
farmers have their uptake of nutritious food constrained by lack of diversity of diets. Practical training
sessions on food utilization towards food and nutrition security are highly recommended to help farmers
minimize nutrient losses during food handling and preparation and to help them diversify food intake where
possible. Such sessions increase the opportunity of farmers to understand the importance of food groups,
which foods that belong within the various groups, and the functions the food groups perform in people’s
bodies. The evaluation observed that men and women in Salima (TLC) had more knowledge about food
and feeding practices because they were constantly involved in practical food utilization training sessions.
The linking of food and nutrition security trainings with information of clinical deficiencies is highly
recommended. In all the evaluation areas farmers did not accept that stunting was a nutritional issue; they
said it was an issue of genetics.
5.1.2 Invest on reducing post-harvest losses
Smallholder farmers in Malawi suffer huge annual post-harvest losses. Such losses take away their incomes,
food and lead to nutrient deficiencies. The losses are estimated at 1.0 for rice, 46.7 for pulses, 13.3 for sweet
potato, 35.7 for Irish potato and 20.0 for groundnuts.14 They are most prevalent at harvesting and household
processing activities, especially for groundnuts, maize and soybeans (Ambler et al., 2017).15 Ambler et al.,
2017 further note that much of the support to address post-harvest losses have primarily targeted storage.
Storage facilities were noted as constructed at which trainings in value addition and ways for reducing post-
harvest losses are conducted. However, the farmer users of the facilities reported insufficient storage
capacity due to increase in production. Farmer therefore suggested extending the intervention to warehouses
would be an impactful investment. It is important to consider introducing cost effective household level
storage technologies which farmers can adopt for use in their homes because much of what they harvest
remains in their homes. Financial support will make meaningful impact if channeled towards creatively
addressing the losses at all levels of the value chains it supports. The evaluation further recommends
continuation of the existing interventions such as training on value chain management, storage, marketing
and value addition.
5.1.3 Address nutrient deficiencies with locally produced food crops
DF and TLC should create opportunities for people to access foodstuffs that address specific nutritional
deficiencies affecting farmers, and especially women and children. For example, orange-fleshed sweet
potatoes (OFSP) are known to combat Vitamin A deficiency among all age groups. Lead Farmers and their
constituents could be organised as producers of vines, stakeholders in research and providers of extension
on crop management and effective utilization of tubers. The same could happen for other value chains
depending on ecological crop requirements.
14 Jin, Z.; Liang, Q.; Liang, Y.; Tan, X.; Guan, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Working Conference
on Stored-Product Protection, 14-19 October 1998, Beijing, China. Participatory and rapid rural appraisal for
addressing post-harvest problem: a case study in Malawi – Marsland, N. and Golob P., 1340-1353. 15 Ambler, K., de Brauw, A., and Godlonton, S. (2017). Measuring postharvest losses at the farm level in Malawi.
IFPRI Discussion Paper 1632. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, D.C.
http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/131143
25
5.1.4 Utilize existing skills of both men and women to promote food security and nutrition and
integrate nutrition in the value chain
Women farmers have untapped special skills that are usually underutilized. The expertise of many women
in managing seeds and planting materials is one such example. Since the beginning of agriculture, plant
propagation and seed management has always been associated with women16, but largely for subsistence.
DF and TLC can make a meaningful impact if both men and women are targeted to utilize their ability to
preserve varieties based on desired consumer preferences. Despite all their valuable skills, women have
always been marginalized from participating as commercial seed producers, managers and researchers. It
is therefore recommended that funding should be channeled towards nurturing and effectively utilizing the
expertise of men and women as seed multipliers at the local level. Men and women’s knowledge about
cooking and of food groups can also be explored in order to integrate nutrition into the value chains, as well
as processing and value addition enterprises.
5.1.5 Promote small-scale value addition initiatives
It is recommended that small-scale value addition initiatives be included in the focus in programing.
Interventions that increase the values of diversified foods consumed in a household and add value to
farmers’ produce at the local level will help them make money and reduce crop losses while also improve
their nutritional wellbeing. Preparation of groundnuts paste for selling locally is a good example of
interventions to pursue. Groundnuts are an excellent source of many vitamins and minerals including biotin,
copper, niacin, folate, manganese, vitamin E, thiamin, phosphorus, and magnesium. These nutrients are
important during pregnancy; they improve the heart health, help the body's cells convert carbohydrates into
energy, and are essential for the functioning of the heart, muscles and nervous system. Although mineral
and vitamin deficiencies were not verified or observed in the study areas, the importance of groundnuts in
people’s diets, especially women, cannot be overemphasized. Other interventions include oil extraction
from groundnuts and soybeans, which will also create the opportunity for farmers to sell animal feed.
5.1.6 Expanding food sovereignty of the people
The evaluation observed a deliberate promotion of indigenous crop varieties in FYF implementation areas.
Funding similar interventions must continue because they are the most direct way of facilitating food
sovereignty in the communities. Farmers were happy with the intervention because it helps them eat food
that is safe and culturally accepted. Extended support should be directed towards improving the
performance of such value chains by training farmers on good management practices. Regarding livestock,
farmers’ desire support in local chicken breeds, claiming they are easy to raise and they resist parasite and
disease attacks.
5.1.7 Support intake of animal protein through livestock development interventions
Consumption of plant-based foods alone is insufficient to meet the needs for certain micronutrients and
good nutrition in general. It is a recommended practice that fish, meat, poultry, or eggs should be part of a
balanced daily diet. (World Health Organisation, 1998)17. The evaluation findings confirm the low animal
protein consumption as observed through the dietary food recall. The majority of farmers did not eat meat
or meat products frequently. Even those in Nkhatabay and Salima who are close to the lake did not eat fish
that frequent. It is recommended therefore to expand support for livestock interventions in the implementing
areas of operation. Livestock pass on interventions were reported in many places of the evaluation, but their
16Tsegaye, D., Dessalegn, T., Yimam, A. and Kefale, M. (2012). Extent of Rural Women Participation and Decision
Making in Seed Production Activities. Global Advanced Research Journal of Agricultural Science (ISSN: 2315-
5094) Vol. 1(7) pp. 186-190 17 World Health Organisation (WHO). (1998). Complementary Feeding of Young Children in Developing
Countries: A Review of Current Scientific Knowledge. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
26
outreach was overshadowed by the high demand from farmers as not many organisations implement
livestock development interventions due to high investment, logistical as well as technical requirements.
5.2 Proposed Changes to DF’s and TLC work to Improve Nutrition
5.2.1 Coordination of extension efforts
The Lead Farmer (LF) extension system has improved farmers’ access to information on good agricultural
practices (GAP). Farmers expressed satisfaction about the frequency of visits and accessibility of the LFs.
In two areas however, government agricultural extension development officers (AEDO) expressed
dissatisfaction regarding information sharing between themselves and the LFs, saying that the government
people were left out in most of the activities that the LFs were engaged in, especially training. It appeared
that the LFs had updated and relevant information about GAP, and extension outreach in general, due to
refresher opportunities which the LFs constantly receive. The AEDOs felt the LF model must not be
mistaken as a replacement of the government extension system, but rather its fortification. Improved
collaboration between the LF and the AEDOs would strengthen their knowledge and skills on nutrition
blended between indigenous technical knowledge and that from professional sources.
5.2.2 Need for improvement in communication and minimization of processing time
Farmers bemoaned delayed payment from buyers of crop produce, hence opts to sell their crops to vendors.
In resolving to sell to vendors farmers lose money in low prices which would have otherwise improved
their nutrition status. For this reason it is recommended that farmers should be trained in business practices
that include negotiations and collective marketing to fetch better price.
5.2.3 Expand the coverage of interventions.
There is high demand for soybeans and orange-fleshed sweet potatoes in many areas. These are not
traditional crops to the areas, as such more support is needed in value chain development, marketing and
effective utilization to address specific household nutritional needs.
5.3 For Possible Areas for Learning in Programs
5.3.1 Facilitating Effective Marketing
There is heavy presence of vendor activity in all the locations on all the value chains. The vendor prices
were reportedly so low that producers failed to breakeven. DF and TLC should help farmers by promoting
co-operative membership and co-opt development in all value chains of interest. The cooperatives will
increase the advantages of collectivization and risk-sharing. Lobbying government to release minimum
prices earlier than vendor activity is also an activity that the programs should consider promoting in order
to protect producers from the exploitative vendor behavior. Reduction of selling through vendors will help
farmers get better prices, and hence more money which could be used for accessing nutritious foods on the
market.
5.3.2 Expanding resilience building interventions
Interventions that build farmers’ resilience to climatic, economic and social shocks need to be encouraged.
The evaluation established the huge appreciation from farmers in TLC area about energy saving
interventions, such as energy saving stoves. They said that by using the stoves they were saving time and
labour. However, the stoves were only reported in few places of the evaluation. The participation of farmers
as producers of energy efficient stoves creates a good source of income, which can be used for expanding
their nutrition status. Buyers of such stoves also save valuable time, energy and money, which could all be
invested to improve household nutrition. More importantly, energy efficient cookstoves reduces the amount
of smoke the user inhale thereby reducing their health risk.
27
Supporting the formation and management of VSLA groups would also be a good investment. VSLAs were
found in all the districts. The evaluation results from FGDs suggest that between 40 and 60 of expenditure
from VSLA proceeds is directed towards food and nutrition.
There is growing evidence that the use of gender action learning system (GALS) as a household
methodology (HHM) with farmers does not only nurture their passion to develop, own and pursue
achievable visions, but also increase their confidence to contribute towards decision-making. The
methodology builds the confidence of farmers, especially women, to start seeing leadership as an
opportunity and not a challenge. The strict use of drawings and symbols makes GALS accessible to the
illiterate, not only as passive participants but also as active facilitators of organisational growth and carriers
of technical messages to other players in their chain. The creative use of songs, poems and sketches simply
makes GALS “serious business with fun!” GALS is best known for facilitating sharing of intra-household
decision-making opportunities and efficiency in household resource utilization. These and many others
make GALS a methodology of choice at building farmers resilience to any shocks that face them. DF and
TLC should consider expanding the implementation of GALS in all its partner organisations. A study
conducted in Malawi by Stirling et al., (2017)18 on whether HHM reduce gender inequality and increase
climate resilience reveals that HHM resulted in a significant shift towards more sharing between men and
women across a range of tasks and benefits. It also found that communities that participated in the HHM
had improved food and nutritional security through increased household “jointness”. The study further
indicates that households with high jointness consume more diverse diets.
5.3.3. Additional support to the existing interventions
Financial support must not stop at introducing initiatives to farmers. Usually such interventions need
continued facilitation to make them sustainable. For example, besides provision of pigeon pea seeds,
projects should also consider sustainable pest and disease control measures. In two areas of the evaluation,
farmers mentioned that their pigeon peas were affected by drug resistant pests and diseases, and they did
not know what to do. Pest/parasite and disease infestation cause significant reduction in nutrient content in
crops and animals that would otherwise be needed for human consumption.
5.3.4 Formulation of Clear Policies and Strategies
a) There is no clear well-formulated policies and strategies to accelerate progress in the realization of the
right to good nutrition, it lacks a solid framework to bring together and build synergies between the
multiple policies, strategies and programs;
b) Align support to the defined national sector priorities; and provide proper coordination with other
stakeholders.
c) There is lack of advocacy to mobilize interventions for nutrition and ensure that agriculture, social
protection; water and sanitation systems and programs are designed to support nutrition goals,
considering also that these sectors are vulnerable to climate change impacts.
d) Ensure that implementing partners have a full understanding of the Nutrition Framework and able to
report on them according.
e) Participants’ knowledge in basic food functions is generally adequate. However, there is a knowledge
gap in the management of nutritional problems caused by inadequate food intake. Future programing
might consider bringing awareness of the basic aspects of clinical aspects of malnutrition. Extension
systems are broadly under-resourced in Malawi. There are actually no frontline/extension workers for
nutrition and often nutrition relies on other extension workers who do not have formal training in
nutrition.
18 Stirling, C.M., Farnworth, C.R., Hammond, J., Chinyophiro, A. and Wijk, M.T.. (2017). Household
Methodologies to Reduce Gender Inequality and Increase Climate Resilience: A case study from Malawi.
In Press.
28
f) Food & Nutrition Education (FNE) should be introduced as an intervention. NASFAM and other
organisations have a FNE package alongside the marketing objectives
5.3.5. Other areas to consider
a) Lead Farmers should not be mistaken as a replacement of the trained government extension personnel.
b) Projects should consider introducing processing of soya and groundnuts, and assist with equipment for
scale oil extraction. This would add value and improve fat consumption. Some groups within the area
are well advanced in this venture
c) Besides provision of seeds, the projects should also consider pest and disease control intervention. For
example, pigeon pea production has been affected by pests.
d) Consider introducing other on farm or off farm enterprises to diversify incomes. This will reduce
overdependence on marketing of food crops.
e) There is inadequate capacity to implement a systematic and comprehensive nutrition Monitoring &
Evaluation (M&E) system that feeds into decision-making processes, and weak coordination and
program cohesion due to a lack of joint analysis and planning in regards to nutrition; a clear framework
is therefore recommended.
29
6.0 ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: A CASE STUDY IVY MTUTILE, A BENEFICIARY OF THE PROJECT
Date of interview 25/01/2018
Interview type Oral
Name Ivy Mtutile
Sex Female
Age 32
Village Mowatalika
EPA Mpingu
District Lilongwe
Organisation Heifer International
Background
The Development Fund (DF) of Norway supports ten organisations in Malawi. The overall goal of DF’s
Malawi program is to achieve sustainable food and nutrition security among smallholder farmers. DF
has, in the past years, worked to increase the amount food produced by the targeted households, as well
as increase the number of crop species and livestock units at household level. DF has mainly worked
through the Lead Farmer Model to achieve its goal. Lead Farmers are trained in Sustainable Agriculture
(SA) techniques for them to train Follower Farmers. DF has, in collaboration with its implementing
partners, developed a Lead Farmer Extension and Training Guide on SA, which was approved by the
Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development (MoAlWD). DF evaluated the project
specifically looking at the changes in agricultural production and food intake of the project beneficiaries.
This is a case study of one of the beneficiaries of the project.
Summary of changes in the household Time of study the project
Indicator Before Time of study
Number of Hoes 5 6
Total farm size 3 Acres 3.6 Acres
Sprayers 0 1
Motorcycles 0 1
Solar 0 1
Phones 1 2
Cattle 1 3
Goats 2 10
Climate smart agriculture NO YES
Sell of crop NO YES
Experience of hunger YES NO
30
Figure 1 Part of the goats Ivy owns and a sprayer
“These are the goats which I received
from Heifer International on a pass-on
program through this project. I received
two goats and passed on two. Currently
we have 10 Goats. We are planning to
sell some this year and pay school fees
for our children.”
31
Figure 2 Ivy with her family on crop storage den donated to them
by Heifer
“The project has a component which
wants us to have our lives transformed
through increased production, and
reduction of post-harvest losses. This
is a silo donated to us by heifer
international. We use it to store various
crops which serve us in terms of dry
spells.”
Figure 3 Ivy standing on her Maize field
“Heifer gave us trainings on several SA
practices. One of them is pit planting.
This is the technology which has
performed magic this season. As you
know, there hasn’t been enough
rainfall this year, but due to this
technology the little water was trapped
in the pits making the maize to grow
this way compared to those who did
not adopt the technology. We are
therefore expecting high yields this
year.”
32
ANNEX 2: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS
INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
SITE IDENTIFICATION & DATA QUALITY CONTROL
District___________________ EPA ____________________ Village _______________
Name of the Interview_______________________________________________________________
Date of the Interview:________________________________________________________________
Category of the Respondents: 1=HIV 2=Disabled 3=Lactating mother or mother of under five 5=Women of
productive age.
Respondent name _______________________________________________ Sex of respondent 1=Male
0=Female
Are you a Beneficiary of the Project 1=Yes 0=No
If it’s a Beneficiary please Indicate the Implementing partner: 1=Heifer International 2=Find Your Feet
3=Mzuzu ADD 4=Total Land Care
1. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND RELATED INFORMATION
1a01. Name of
household members
(start with respondent)
Sex: 1=Male
0=Female
Age
(years)
Education level (Years of
schooling completed)
Occupation
(Codes A)
Main Secondary
1. 1.
2. 2.
3. 3.
4. 4.
5. 5.
6. 6.
7. 7.
8. 8.
9. 9.
10. 10.
Codes A: 0=None 1=Farming (crop+ Livestock) 2=Salaried employment 3=Self-employed off-farm
4=Casual laborer on-farm 5=Casual laborer off- farm 6=School/College child 7=Non-school child
8=Herding 9=Household chores 77=Other (specify)………………………… 88=Not applicable
33
2. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PRACTICES
2.1 Are you involved in any of the following?
Sustainable Agriculture Practices Codes If yes, please provide average area in
acres under the practice
Before 2015 At the time of the
study
1=Manure and compost manure 1= Yes 0= No
2=Soil and water conservation 1= Yes 0= No
3=Conservation agriculture 1= Yes 0= No
4=Agroforestry 1= Yes 0= No
5=Intercropping and crop rotation 1= Yes 0= No
6=Weed control 1= Yes 0= No
7=Pest and diseases 1= Yes 0= No
2.2 If yes what are the benefits of practicing the above?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2.3 If yes, who provided the training on Sustainable Agriculture Practices?
1= Implementing Partner (___________________) 2= Department of Agriculture Extension Services 3=
Other NGOs (Specify)_______________________4=Others
(Specify)______________________________________________________
3. FARM AND HOUSEHOLD ASSETS
3a. Historic land and current holding before 2015 and at the time of the study
Category of plot Before 2015 At the time of the study
1. Total farm size
2. Own land
3. Rented land
34
3b. Assets own before 2015 and at the time of the study
Asset Before 2015 At the time of
the study
Asset Before 2015 At the time of
the study
Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity
1. Hoe 2. Solar &
accessory
3. Machete 4. Mobile phone
5. Sprayer 6. Bed
7. Cart 8. Sofa
9. Irrigation pump 10. Other furniture
11. Wheel barrow 12. Cattle
13. Radio 14. Goats
15. Television 16. Chicken
17. Bicycle 18. Rabbits
19. Motorcycle 20. Pigs
21. Car 22. Ducks
23. Pigeons
24. Others
(i)______
35
4. CROP PRODUCTION
Mention the crops that you grow? Or have changed area for production
Crop
Before 2015 At the time of the
study
If a new crop is grown, after being in the project,
please explain why you started the crop? If it’s the
same crop, but there is increase in area allocated
also explain
1=Maize
2=Rice
3=Groundnuts
4=Soya beans
5=Tobacco
6=Tomato
7=Beans
8=Sweet potato
9=Pigeon pea
10=Cassava
11=Potato
12=Chilies
13=Millet
36
5. CROP AND LIVESTOCK SALES
Explain crops or livestock sold by ticking and indicating the quantity. We want to see if there are new crops
sold; or there is increase/decrease in the quantity sold after project.
Crop Before 2015 At the time
of the study
If a new crop/livestock being sold now, after being
in the project, please explain why? If it’s the same
crop/livestock, but there is increase in quantity sold
also explain
1=Maize
2=Rice
3=Groundnuts
4=Soya beans
5=Tobacco
6=Tomato
7=Beans
8=Sweetpotato
9=Pigeon pea
10=Cassava
11=Potato
12=Chilies
13=Millet
14=Other(specify)
Livestock
14=Cattle
15=Goats
16=Chicken
17=Rabbits
18=Pigs
19=Ducks
20=Pigeons
21=Sheep
22=Other(Specify)
Explain how the sales are used in relation to the following
a. Household Nutrition:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
b. Improvement in farming
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
37
6. HOUSE HOLD FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION SITUATION
Before 2015 Time of
Study
Have you experienced food shortages 1=Yes 0=No
If yes, for how many months (Code A)
When household runs out of food what are your coping mechanisms (Code B)
Have there been improvement in the food availability compared? 1=Yes 0=No
If you have experienced improvements what are the reasons (Code C)
Code A: 1= the whole year 2= 9 months 3= 6 months 4= 3 months 5= Less than 3 months 77= Other,
(specify)_________
Code B: 1= Buys food from the market 2=Appeal from relations 3=Government/NGO free handouts
4=Food for work 5=Ganyu for food 6=Food remittances 7=IGAS 8=Sell of other crops 9=Sell of livestock
10= Sell of household belongings 11=Eat wild food 12=Reduce number of meals per day 13=Eating Chitibu
14=Other, specify
Code C: 1= Enough rains 2= Access to inputs 3= Application of good agricultural practices 4=Access to
more land 5=Increased labor 6=Winter farming 7=Access to water 8=Use of improved varieties 9=Crop
diversification 10=Increase income and buy food 11=Work elsewhere 12=Other (Specify)
6f. In times of maize shortage, which crops do you rely on as your main food crop? [Select all that apply]
1=Rice 2=Finger millet (mawere) 3=Sorghum (mapira) 4=Pearl millet (mchewere) 5=Wheat flour
6=Cassava tubers 7= Cassava flour 8=Sweet potato 9=Irish potato 10=Banana
38
7. HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY ACCESS SCALE (HFIAS)19
Kindly complete the Table below regarding food situation in your household, in the last four weeks.
HFIAS Question a. Response
1=Yes; 0=No
b. If Yes, how often?
Codes A
I In the past four weeks, did you worry that your
household would not have enough food?
Ii In the past four weeks, were you or any household
member not able to eat the kinds of foods you
preferred due to lack of resources?
Iii In the past four weeks, did you or any household
member have to eat a limited variety of foods due to
lack of means to buy them?
Iv In the past four weeks, did you or any household
member have to eat some foods that you really did not
want to eat because of a lack of resources to obtain
other types of food?
V In the past four weeks, did you or any household
member have to eat a smaller meal than you felt you
needed because there was not enough food?
Vi In the past four weeks, did you or any other household
member have to eat fewer meals in a day because there
was not enough food?
Vii In the past four weeks, was there ever (a day when
there was) no food to eat of any kind in your
household because of lack of resources to get food?
Vii
i
In the past four weeks, did you or any household
member go to sleep at night hungry because there was
not enough food?
Ix In the past four weeks, did you or any household
member go a whole day and night without eating
anything because there was not enough food?
Codes A: 01=Rarely (1-2 time in past four weeks) 02=Sometimes (3-10 times in past four weeks)
03=Often (>10 times in past four weeks) 04=Never
39
8. DIETARY DIVERSITY – BASED ON 24-HOUR RECALL20
Instructions for collecting data on 24-hour dietary diversity: Please describe the foods (meals and snacks)
that you ate yesterday during the day and night. Start with the first food eaten in the morning after you woke
up.
Question Child Woman
Food
Group
Examples 1=consumed
0=Did not
consume
1=consumed
0=Did not
consume
1. a. Cereals Any starchy foods like bread, noodles,
biscuits, cookies or products made from
millet, sorghum, maize, rice, wheat +
insert local foods e.g. msima porridge
(uji) or pastes or other locally available
grains staple
2. b. Tubers and
roots
Any sweetpotatoes, white yams,
cassava, or foods made from these
3. d. Legumes
nut and
seeds
Any beans or peas, including soybeans
4. e. Any nuts, groundnuts or cashews or seeds
like pumpkins or sunflower
5. f. Milk and
milk
products
Any dairy products like milk, yoghurt or
cheese or other milk products
6. g. Organ
meat (iron
rich)
Any organ meat like liver or heart or
other organ meats or blood based foods.
E.g Matumbo
7. h. Flesh
meats
Any beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, wild
game, chicken, duck, mice, or other
birds
8. i. Eggs Any eggs
9. j. Fish Any other kind of fish, fresh or dried or
shellfish
10. k. Dark green
leafy
vegetables
Any dark green/leafy vegetables,
including wild ones + locally available
vitamin-A rich leaves such as cassava
leaves, Mpiru, Rape etc.
11. l. Other
vegetables
Any other vegetables (e.g. Tomato,
onion, eggplant) , including wild
vegetables
12. m. Vitamin A
rich
vegetables
Any pumpkin, carrots, squash, + other
locally available vitamin-A rich
vegetables
20 The reference child is the youngest child between 6 months and 59 months (< 5 years). The reference woman can be a pregnant /lactating mother. If both women are present, choose pregnant woman. (Both of these women may have a child qualifying as reference child; if so choose the youngest child between 6-59 months of the pregnant woman. If the pregnant woman does not have a child, choose youngest child of lactating woman as reference child)
40
Question Child Woman
13. n. Vitamin A
rich fruits
Any ripe mangoes, cantaloupe, ripe
papaya + other locally available vitamin
A-rich fruit, Masuku
14. o. Other fruits Any other kind of fruits e.g., orange,
banana, guava, including wild fruits, such
as Matowo, Masawo, Ntuza
15. p. Oils and
fats
Any source of fat, lard, like cooking oil,
coconut milk, or butter
16. q. Sweets Any sugary foods or drinks like sugar,
honey, sweetened soda or sugary foods
such as chocolates, cookies, candies
17. r. Spices and
condiments
Like spices(black pepper, salt),
condiments (soy sauce, hot sauce),
coffee, tea, alcoholic beverages OR
local examples
9. INFANT AND YOUNG CHILD FEEDING PRACTICES AND MATERNAL KNOWLEDGE
Question Response code Caregiver / Mother
9.1 Child’s gender : 1=Male; 0=Female
9.2 In what month, day and year was [name] born? [Record as
dd/mm/yyyy]
9.3 Where was [name] born?
1=At home in this village; 2=At home in another village/town
;
3=At a health facility / hospital; 77=Don’t know/ don’t remember
9.4 Was [name] ever breastfed? 1=Yes; 0=No
9.5 How many hours after birth was [name] put to the breast?
1=less than an hour; 2=greater than an hour; 88=never;
77=don’t know
9.6 Has [name] received the first milk (colostrum)? 1=Yes; 0=No
9.7 At what age was [name] introduced to solid or semi-solid foods
9.8 At what age was [name] introduced to water or other liquids
9.9 Is [name] still being breastfed? 1=Yes; 0=No >>> got to 9.12
9.10 Is [name] being breastfed exclusively or received breast milk with
other foods
1= exclusively breastfed (100); 2=mixed feeding (breast milk with
other foods)
9.11 If [name] is exclusively breastfeeding, how many times breast?
9.12 If [name] is not currently being breastfed, at what age did
breastfeeding stop
9.13 When was the last time [name] received a vitamin
A dose?
[Verify if recorded in vaccination card]
01=less than 1
month ago
02=1-3 months
ago
03=4-6 months
ago
9.13 When was the last time he/she received any
fortified lipid supplement? E.g. LNS, Nutributter,
Plumpy’Nut etc...
41
Question Response code Caregiver / Mother
04=6-12
months ago
05=more than 1
year ago
77-don’t know /
don’t remember
88=Never
received
9.14 Was [name] given [local name for oral rehydration solution] in the
last 2 weeks?
01=Yes; 0=No; 77=don’t know
9.15 When a baby is born, is it good or bad to give the first breast milk?
00=Bad; 01=Good ; 77=Don’t know
9.16 How many times should a baby less than 6 months be breastfed in a
day
1=1-2 times; 2=2-4 times; 3=4-6 times; 4=6-9 times; 5=9-10
times; 6= more than10 times
9.17 At what age should a baby be given water for the first time?
9.18 At what age should a baby be given other foods such as porridge for
the first time?
Under normal circumstances, until what age should a mother breast-
feed a child
9.19 How many times should a breastfeeding child 6-9 months old be fed
on porridge or other foods per day.
1=zero or once; 2=two times exactly; 3= 2-3 times; 4=3 times
exactly; 5=3-4 times; 6=4 times exactly; 7=4-5 times;
9=other_________
9.20
How many times should a breastfeeding child aged 9-23 months be
fed on porridge or other foods per day.
1=zero or once; 2=two times exactly; 3= 2-3 times; 4=3
times exactly; 5=3-4 times 6=4 times exactly; 7=4-5 times;
8=other___________
9.21
Where did you learn about child feeding? [Don’t prompt] Record 3
most important responses after confirming
1=Health center/trained staff; 2=Mother; 3=Mother-in-law;
4=Other female relative; 5=Husband; 6=Church/mosque;
7=Radio/TV; 8=mothers’ club/group; 9 =Project
(specify________); 10=NGO (specify_______);
11=Other________; 77=Don’t know
9.22 Do you know what the basic food groups are? 1=Yes; 0=No
42
Question Response code Caregiver / Mother
9.23
If Yes to 9ab. name them [code based on number/combination
provided )
1=Vegetables (green leaf and yellow vegetables such
as bonongwe, chisoso, khwanya, mnkhwani, kholowa, rape, mpiru,
kamganje, carrot, egg plants, pumpkin, tomato and others such as
mushroom
2=Fruits (include citrus fruits (oranges, lemons, tangerines), bananas,
pineapple, pawpaw, mangoes, masau, bwemba, malambe, masuku,
peaches,apples, guava, water melon and many others
3= Legumes & Nuts (ground-nuts, soyabeans, beans, peas, cowpeas,
ground beans (nzama), pigeon peas.They provide mainly protein and
carbohydrate. Soybeans and nuts also contain a lot of fat in addition
to protein and carbohydrate)
4=Animal Foods( meat, eggs, milk products, fish, and Insects
5= Fats (oil seed e.g soybeans and groundnuts, avocado pear, cooking
oil, milk and milk products such as butter, margarine, yourghut, meat,
fish, and poultry
6=Staples (cereal grains such as sorghum, millet, maize, starchy roots
(cassava, potato) and starchy fruits (banana)
9.24 Should a pregnant woman eat less, more, or the same amount of food
during her pregnancy, as she would normally eat?
1=Much less; 2= Somewhat less; 3=The same; 4=More; 5=
A lot more
10. What can you say about the nutrition status in your household since 2015
1=Improved 2=the same 3=gone down
Explain the answer above
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
43
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION CHECKLIST
1. General understanding of food types and food functions
Are you aware of food groups? (If “yes” how many are they?)
List the names of the food groups
Give at least 3 examples of foods from each food group (Use Table to guide probing)
Key Food Functions, Groups and their Examples
Key function Food group Examples
Energy giving
foods
Staples maize, cassava, fresh banana, potatoes, rice, sorghum, bread
Fats and oils cooking oil, meat fat, coconut, avocado, margarine
Body
building and
repair
Animal foods meat, fish, fresh milk
Legumes and nuts soya, beans, groundnuts, pigeon peas, nzama
Protective
foods
Vegetables cabbage, pumpkins, lettuce, chisoso, mpiru
Fruits oranges, ripe bananas, mangoes, guava, tangerines
Are there any foods that are directly supported by the DF partner? (If “yes” clearly explain the form of
support)
Give examples of the support that is given by the organisations
What food groups do people consume the most in your area (Explain your answer - why)?
How does the way children and lactating mothers differ from men in the way they access all food
groups?
Are there any foods that children and lactating mothers were not allowed to consume before but now
they are allowed?
Explain if the majority in this area (including the youth) have knowledge about the food groups
What are the main sources of information about the food groups
In your opinion what is the most important food group(s)?
(a) to people’s bodies?
(b) for environmental protection
(c) for household income?
2. Whether and to what extent, the DF promoted interventions contributed towards intake from
more food groups and bettering the intake of nutritious foods in the areas.
How do you compare the availability of foods before and after the DF project intervention?
Observed change in Low Same High
Quantity produced
Quality produced
Frequency of consumption of food groups
Bettering of nutrition status of the people
44
3. Understanding the extent of the main undernutrition issues in the implementation areas
What health problems can arise as a result of poor diet?
Name of undernutrition
condition
Failure to eat what
foods causes the
condition
Estimate of people in your area with the
condition (tick)
Low Medium High
Stunting
Underweight
Wasting
Micronutrient deficiencies
(Vit A, Zinc, Iron, iodine)
4. Income and food security
What size of people’s income is used for buying food? (probe for actual proportions)
How do members of VSL groups spend their money? (if food is mentioned probe for proportions)
What are other main sources of income that you normally use to buy food?
5. Contribution of seed banks to food and nutrition security
Do you have seedbanks in your area?
Describe how the seedbanks are operated?
Who started the seed banks?
What are the crops involved in the seed banks?
How are farmers involved in the seed banks
In what ways does the seedbank program contribute to food and nutrition security?
6. Crop marketing and food and nutrition security
How do you market the foods promoted by the DF partner? Explain the marketing arrangements
followed (if any?)
What marketing challenges are faced under such arrangements?
Explain the opportunities that exist for improving food and nutrition security in the present marketing
arrangements
From your experience in working with DF/TLC and from elsewhere what nutrition interventions would
you recommend that DF programing should focus on in future?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
