Presentation on theme: "TIP 2001-02 Evaluation Presentation of results 22 July 2002 Sarah Levy Calibre Consultants, UK Carlos Barahona Statistical Services Centre, University."— Presentation transcript:
TIP Evaluation Presentation of results 22 July 2002 Sarah Levy Calibre Consultants, UK Carlos Barahona Statistical Services Centre, University of Reading, UK
Production and food security survey All districts in Malawi 5 villages per district selected at random from the TIP register A total of 135 villages A total of 2,952 households 1,541 TIP recipients and 1,411 non-recipients
How reliable are these results? The sample is representative. Random selection of villages and households. The sample is large enough to provide results at national level, regional level or in clusters of districts. A careful process of quality control was set in place at every stage of the study: from design to report writing. The team of Malawian professionals responsible for carrying out the work have proven capacity to do the job.
Are they smallholders? Land holding size (acres) 1 acre = ha
How much do they cultivate? Cultivated area (acres) 1 acre = ha
What crops do they grow?
Where do they get their income from?
How much did they make from crops? MK average per household
Inputs constraint 1.5 acres = 0.6 ha – appropriate amount of fertiliser is around 60-90kg But only 1/3 of smallholder farmers that did not receive free inputs in and seasons used ANY fertiliser on their crops And ¾ of those that used fertiliser, used less than 10kg
Targeting the poor? SP targeted poor smallholder farmers (not to medium-sized farmers or estates) TIP tried to narrow down the targeting to the poorest of the poor –Unsuccessful in –Unsuccessful in
Poverty profiles of recipients and non-recipients
Why did targeting fail for TIP? Reason Criteria are not strongly associated with poverty Village authorities target themselves and their relatives first – inclusion errors Even if they got it right, there would be a large number of the poorest of the poor left out because the quota is too small – ½ or does not relate to any poverty line – the poverty line is around 65%
Maize production in the household Reduction in the smallholder maize harvest: 10%
Is this the full extent of the decrease in output? Early harvesting –64% of the 326 visited in field visits harvested early in –66% of the 2,913 farmers visited in the main survey ate nsima from green maize (chitibu) Storage problems associated with harvesting maize before it matures