1

Assessing and Strengthening Malawi’s Pluralistic Agricultural Extension System

Evidence and Lessons from a Three-Year Research Study

Catherine Ragasa, Catherine Mthinda, Clodina Chowa, Diston Mzungu, Kenan

Kalagho and Cynthia Kazembe

In July 2016, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and partners launched a

three-year evidence-based policy support project to analyze demand for and supply of agricul-

tural extension services in Malawi and help design activities to strengthen service providers’ ca-

pacity to address farmers’ demands for information. For this project, IFPRI partnered with

Wadonda Consult and the Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR)

to conduct the household survey and qualitative interviews. Funding came from the Government

of Flanders, the U.S. Agency for International Development through the Strengthening Agricul-

tural and Nutrition Extension (SANE), the German Agency for International Cooperation [GIZ]),

and the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM). The project col-

lected two rounds of nationally representative panel data of 2,880 households (2016 and 2018),

two rounds of focus group discussions (FGDs), census of extension service providers in 15 dis-

tricts, and a series of in-depth interviews. This note summarizes the main findings from 10 re-

ports completed to analyze and draw conclusions from the stories behind these datasets.1

Main findings from the two survey rounds

Positive trends: Compared with Uganda and Ethiopia, two countries that have made significant

investments in national agricultural extension system reforms, agricultural extension coverage in

Malawi is much higher than in Uganda and is comparable to that in Ethiopia. In the past two

years, 77% of households in Malawi received agricultural information (Figure 1). In the past 12

months, 54% of Malawi households received agricultural information, compared to 71% in Ethio-

pia (2013/14) and 12% in Uganda (2015/2016).2 Moreover, from 2016 to 2018, the following as-

pects saw positive changes: (1) more men and women farmers, and young and older farmers,

1 The accompanying mid-project synthesis note can be found in C. Ragasa, “Supply of and Demand for Agricultural Extension Ser-vices in Malawi – A Synthesis,” Project Note, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), February 2018.

2 K. Davis, S. Babu, and C. Ragasa, eds., Agricultural Extension: Global Status and Performance in Selected Countries (Washing-ton, DC: forthcoming).

PROJECT NOTE NOVEMBER 13, 2019

2

accessing extension services (Figure 2); (2) consistently high ratings in the farmers’ perceived

usefulness of extension services; (3) greater diversity in extension messages, including more

information regarding market access and nutrition; (4) improved use of cost-effective tools, such

as radio programming and group meetings; and (5) greater crop diversification, although diversi-

fication outside of agriculture remains low.3

Figure 1: Percentage of households receiving agriculture or nutrition advice from any source, 2016 and 2018

Source: IFPRI household and community surveys (2016 and 2018). Note: HH = household. Survey question: “In the last 2 years [In the last 12 months], did you receive any information or advice on any of these topics?” Agriculture (the first item) combines all non-nutrition-related advice, including on crop production, market/agroprocessing, environment/climate change, livestock, aquacul-ture, fisheries, and nonfarm livelihoods. The dotted red bar (fisheries) means only 2018 data were collected on this subject.

3 For the full report, see C. Ragasa and A. Comstock, “Dynamics in Agricultural Extension Services Provision in Malawi: Insights from Two Rounds of Household and Community Panel Surveys,” IFPRI Discussion Paper 1853 (Washington, DC: IFPRI, 2019), https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133343.

76

39

53

39

48

32

9

0

25

77

48

58

48

58

35

8 5

16

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f sam

ple

household

s

a. In the last 2 years

2016 2018

53

3631

21 2214

2 0

11

5442

34

27 2317

1 15

0

20

40

60

80

100

b. In the last 12 months

2016 2018

3

Figure 2. Percentage of individuals by access to agricultural advice, by gender and age group

Source: IFPRI household surveys (2016 and 2018).

Areas for improvement: Four areas need further improvements. First, the coverage of those

officially trained as “lead farmers” (those trained to help disseminate improved technologies to

fellow farmers) remains low, with only 7% of households reporting receiving relevant advice

from them in the past 12 months. Second, while there are more communities starting the “model

village approach” (participatory extension methods to design integrated and multisectoral inter-

ventions and partnerships), almost all are still in the early stages of the implementation process.

Similarly, although more village agricultural committees have been formed, reaching 62% of

sample villages, farmers’ participation in their activities and overall ratings for them have de-

creased. Third, although farmers reported high ratings on the usefulness of extension services,

use of these services has not necessarily translated to greater adoption of improved techniques.

Fourth, even though data show greater crop diversification, farm productivity and commerciali-

zation remain low.4 Further research is needed to gain a deeper understanding of the contribu-

tions of extension services and approaches on these development outcomes.

Main lessons from the effectiveness analysis studies

Effectiveness of extension services provision on technology adoption

Three research papers under this project looked at the impact of extension services on develop-

ment outcomes, using data from the Malawi Integrated Household Panel Survey (MIHPS)

(2010, 2013, 2016) and IFPRI own household panel data (2016, 2018). The first paper aimed at

contributing to understanding the low adoption of agricultural technologies being promoted

4 For the full report, see Ragasa and Comstock, “Dynamics in Agricultural Extension Services Provision in Malawi.”

57 57

68

76

60 59

71

78

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Youngwomen

Old women Young men Old men% o

f in

div

idual re

spondents

by g

roup

a. Access to agricultural advice in last 2 years

2016 2018

34 34

44

55

3835

47

57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Youngwomen

Old women Young men Old men% o

f in

div

idual re

spondents

by g

roup

b. Access to agricultural advice in last 12 months

2016 2018

4

among smallholder farmers and stagnant farm productivity.5 The literature often has cited finan-

cial and credit constraints as major bottlenecks; however, the question of why low-cost agricul-

tural management practices are not well adopted remains a puzzle. Technologies analyzed in

the paper were those commonly promoted as low-cost climate-smart practices, namely, soil

cover or mulching, minimum tillage or minimum disturbance of the soil, intercropping, crop rota-

tion, crop diversification, pit planting, composting pits, manure or fertilizer making, and crop resi-

due incorporation, bunds, and water management. The results showed that receipt of extension

services contributed to improved awareness and knowledge of agricultural practices being pro-

moted. However, the receipt of extension services from any source did not contribute to greater

technology adoption of most technologies—a finding consistent across all models estimated.

The only technologies that presented some positive effect of extension advice were crop resi-

due incorporation and organic fertilizer use.

The second paper focused on exploiting the panel data from the MIHPS to show if receipt of ex-

tension services affected farm productivity and food security over time.6 The results showed that

the receipt of extension services did not affect farm productivity and food security at the national

level on average. However, when “extension services” were unpacked and disaggregated into

those perceived as “very useful,” “useful,” and “not useful,” the results were more nuanced. For

each crop studied, households receiving “very useful” agricultural advice saw the largest boost

to computed plot-level crop productivity and household food security; those reporting “not use-

ful” advice were strongly associated with lower levels of productivity and food security. It is not

enough to provide generalized outreach: the relevance and quality of extension advice and the

ways in which the advice is communicated to farmers both matter.

The third paper also exploited the three-round MIHPS panel data to determine if there was an

information barrier to extension services and if these services contribute to crop and income di-

versification.7 Results show that extension services show no effect on crop diversification and

some effect on income diversification, particularly in livestock production and nonfarm liveli-

hoods. Further analysis reveals that the effect of receipt of information on income and labor di-

versification is driven by information receipt from government extension, from private sector and

nongovernmental organization (NGO) extension, and from other farmers. Private/NGO exten-

sion, especially when combined with marketing extension, has a positive impact on improving

crop diversification.

Effectiveness of different delivery approaches and modalities

The main source of agricultural advice was government extension agents [agricultural extension

development officer (AEDO) or agricultural extension development coordinator (AEDC)], fol-

lowed by radio, nongovernmental organizations and other farmers (Figure 3).

5 C. Ragasa, D. Mzungu, K. Kalagho, and C. Kazembe, “Role and Limits of Extension Services in Promoting Climate-Smart Agricul-ture: Nationally Representative Panel Data Analysis in Malawi,” IFPRI Discussion Paper (forthcoming).

6 C. Ragasa and J. Mazunda, “The Impact of Agricultural Extension Services in the Context of a Heavily Subsidized Input System: The Case of Malawi,” World Development 105 (2018): 25–47.

7 T. Andarge and C. Ragasa, “Information Barriers to Household Livelihood Diversification: Evidence from Malawi,” draft paper pre-sented at the 2019 Sustainability and Development Conference, Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 14–16, 2019.

5

Figure 3: Percentage of households receiving agriculture advice from a specific source, 2016 and 2018

Source: IFPRI household survey (2016 and 2018)

Note: AEDO/AEDC = agricultural extension development officer/agricultural extension development coordinator; FBO =farmer-

based organizations; HH = household; NGO = nongovernmental organization. Survey question: “From which sources did you re-

ceive information or advice about agriculture or nutrition in the last 2 years (in the past 12 months)?”

Four papers looked at specific extension modalities that are heavily promoted and used in Ma-

lawi, and a fifth paper compared different extension modalities.

Lead farmer approach: The current farmer-to-lead farmer ratio is 23:1.8 This proportion is com-

mendable; however, it does not necessarily indicate whether lead farmers are performing well

and whether their work is leading to greater adoption of technologies they are expected to pro-

mote. Both aspects need to be evaluated rigorously. Using household panel data analysis and

FGDs, the study results offered three major findings. First, lead farmers support and assist agri-

cultural extension development officers (AEDOs) in their work, especially in organizing commu-

nity meetings and farm demonstrations. Lead farmers complement AEDOs’ work, rather than

substitute for it, and their performance is largely based on the activeness of their AEDO and

other community leaders. In communities without active AEDOs and community leaders to work

with and monitor them, lead farmers were not active or performed at a substandard level. Sec-

ond, results also showed limited coverage and weak implementation and effectiveness of the

lead farmer approach at the national level. Only 13% of farmers reported receiving agricultural

8 Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, Water Development. 2019. Agricultural Sector Performance Report: July 2017 – June 2018. Draft report.

56

40

2924

13

5 2 2 2 0 1 0 1

0

20

40

60

80

Perc

enta

ge o

f household

s

a. Agriculture advice, in the last 2 years

2016 2018

35

27

1711

72 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

0

20

40

60

80

b. Agriculture advice, in the last 12 months

2016 2018

6

advice from a lead farmer in the past two years, 7% had received advice in the past 12 months

(Figure 3), and 20% had interacted with a lead farmer. FGDs confirmed that in many communi-

ties, lead farmers are not recognized. Third, modeling consistently showed that neither farmers’

interaction with lead farmers nor farmers’ access to lead farmers’ advice had an effect on

awareness of and adoption of major agricultural management practices. Indeed, most lead

farmers are not themselves adopting the technologies they are meant to disseminate. When the

types of lead farmers are evaluated, results showed that three factors have a strong and con-

sistent effect on the awareness and adoption of most of the promoted agricultural practices: (1)

“quality” of lead farmers, based on ratings and farmers’ perception of them, (2) adoption behav-

ior of lead farmers in the community, and (3) regular training of lead farmers.9 For the lead

farmer approach to work effectively, there is need for regular training of lead farmers, support

from AEDOs and the community leaders; transparent and participatory selection process; and

greater community sensitization and recognition of the value of lead farmers.

Interactive radio programming: Using household panel data analysis and FGDs, results

showed strong positive impact of radio programming on technology awareness but limited im-

pact on actual adoption. For farmers, listening to radio programming had a strong positive effect

on the awareness and knowledge of most climate-smart agricultural practices being promoted.

There were consistently strong effects of receiving agriculture and nutrition information from ra-

dio programming on dietary diversity and crop residue incorporation adoption. However, agricul-

ture and nutrition information from radio programming had little to no effect on legume acreage,

crop diversification, and other climate-smart agricultural technologies being promoted. The re-

sults also showed strong association between access to interactive radio programming and

women’s and men’s empowerment scores. Mechanisms for this gendered outcome came from

the lower time burden—that is, women simultaneously could listen to radio and learn while do-

ing their other work, rather than having to attend outside training or meetings—and from aware-

ness campaigns and messaging on gender equality, leading to changes in attitude and behav-

ior.10

Farmer business schools: A case study analysis in Dedza District showed limited impact of

the farmer business school program (averaging US$20 per year per farmer on average) and

many challenges in its implementation in that district. The paper noted that 37% of participants

dropped out of the program before its end. Of those who completed it, only 13% experienced a

small positive effect on income. This poor showing mainly stems from the limited financial re-

sources that farmers have to implement the agricultural management practices and business

skills taught in these schools. The paper provided lessons on scaling up innovations and the

need to match expectations and capacities.11

9 For the full report, see C. Ragasa, “Modeling the Effectiveness of the Lead Farmer Approach in Agricultural Extension Service Pro-vision: Nationally Representative Panel Data Analysis in Malawi,” IFPRI Discussion Paper 1848 (Washington, DC: IFPRI, 2019), https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133285.

10 C. Ragasa, “Knowledge Is Power: Impact of Interactive Radio Programming on Women’s Empowerment, Crop Diversification and Dietary Diversity in Malawi,” IFPRI Discussion Paper (forthcoming).

11 For the full paper, see J. Chilemba and C. Ragasa, “The Impact on Farmer Incomes of a Nationwide Scaling Up of the Farmer Business School Program: Lessons and Insights from Central Malawi,” The European Journal of Development Research, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-019-00246-y.

7

Decentralized extension structures: Results showed diverse experiences and functionality of

these structures. Contrary to earlier reports, most of these structures are active, except for dis-

trict stakeholder panels, of which only about a quarter are active. Similarly, most structures pro-

vide a platform for discussion and feedback on service providers and the quality of their advice,

except for the panels. However, the structures often received poor ratings in terms of their re-

sponsiveness to the concerns and issues raised. Household participation in village development

or agriculture committees was strongly associated with better household outcome indicators.

These village committees, if they are active and responsive to farmers’ expressed concerns and

needs, can contribute to better community-level outcomes. Results showed that these village-

level structures matter and that strengthening them is key to their long-term functionality.12

Relative effectiveness of extension modalities: By looking at various data, it is possible to

summarize the effectiveness of extension modalities based on a set of criteria, including na-

tional coverage, farmers’ perception of their usefulness and relevance, and the effects on tech-

nology awareness and adoption from the various econometric models. In terms of technology

awareness, government and NGO extension services and radio messaging to farmers have the

most coverage, are considered most useful and relevant, and have the strongest contribution to

greater awareness of most technologies being promoted (Table 1). Ideally, combining these

three would yield the greater effect on technology awareness, but in areas where government

and NGO extension workers are not available, radio programming can be a cost-effective tool

for wider promotion of climate-smart agricultural practices.13

In terms of adoption, the current state of extension service provision has had no effect on the

adoption of most agricultural technologies being promoted. The only exception is radio program-

ming, which seems to help improve the intensity of adoption of crop residue incorporation only.

Across the different technologies and relative to other modalities, interactions with other farmers

(though not necessarily lead farmers) seem to affect the adoption of a few technologies, alt-

hough this is not consistent in most models. Farm demonstrations, farmer field days, print mate-

rials, and community/group meetings help in the intensity of adoption, as they appear significant

and positive in a few models, though not in all (Table 2). Overall, current extension services pro-

vision has had little to no effect, regardless of the source and delivery method, on the adoption

of most technologies being promoted. This indicates the need to look seriously at how infor-

mation is being delivered to induce behavioral change among farmers. FGDs reveal lack of

deep understanding of these agricultural technologies being promoted.14

12 C. Ragasa, C. Alvarez-Mingote, and P. McNamara, “Is there a Role for Agricultural Committees and Stakeholder Panels in Im-proving Information and Accountability in Extension Service Provision: Evidence from Malawi,” IFPRI Discussion Paper 01726 (2018)

13 For the full report, see Ragasa et al., “Role and Limits of Extension Services in Promoting Climate-Smart Agriculture.”

14 Ibid.

1

Table 1. Indications and comparison of effectiveness of different extension sources,

based on various indicators of “effectiveness”

Source of raw data: IFPRI household and community surveys (2016, 2018). HH=household; FGD=focus group discussions;

HDDS=household dietary diversity; SMS=short messaging service; Note: More stars means more effective and greater statistical effect on

agricultural and development outcomes. See C. Ragasa, “Knowledge Is Power: Impact of Interactive Radio Programming on Women’s Em-

powerment, Crop Diversification and Dietary Diversity in Malawi,” IFPRI Discussion Paper (forthcoming).

Table 2. Indications and comparison of effectiveness of different extension sources,

based on various indicators of “effectiveness”

Source of raw data: IFPRI household and community surveys (2016, 2018). Note: More stars means more effective and greater statistical

effect on awareness or adoption of technologies. HH=household; FGD=focus group discussions; HDDS=household dietary diversity;

VDC/VAC=village agricultural or development committees; SMS=short messaging service. Other delivery methods were collected but their

coverage is less than 2%. See Ragasa, “Knowledge Is Power.”

Source

Coverage

(HH survey)

Useful-

ness (HH

survey)

Useful-

ness

(FGD)

Technol-

ogy

awareness

(HH sur-

vey mod-

els)

Technol-

ogy adop-

tion (HH

survey

models)

Crop di-

versifi-

cation

(HH sur-

vey

models)

Legume

acreage

(HH sur-

vey

models)

HDDS

(HH survey

models)

Radio ***** **** **** **** * *

***

Government extension

***** **** ****** **** *

***

NGO extension *** **** *** ******

***

Other farmers ** *** ** ***

Lead farmers * **** ** * *

Mobile/SMS * **** *

Private sector * ***

Source

Coverage

(HH survey)

Useful-

ness (HH

survey)

Useful-

ness

(FGD)

Technol-

ogy

awareness

(HH sur-

vey mod-

els)

Technol-

ogy adop-

tion (HH

survey

models)

Crop di-

versifi-

cation

(HH sur-

vey

models)

Legume

acreage

(HH sur-

vey

models)

HDDS

(HH survey

models)

Radio ****** **** ***** ** ** **

***

Group meetings ****** **** *** ** *

***

Face-to-face vis-

its

**** **** ***** *** *

Demonstrations *** **** ***** * *

***

Lead farmer *** **** *

VAC/VDC ** **** * *

Farm field day ** **** * *

*

Printed materials * **** *** *

***

2

It remains unclear how much of the non-adoption is attributable to farmers’ perceptions or mispercep-

tions about climate-smart agricultural practices and how much comes from the nature of the technology

itself and when and where it is profitable and relevant. This area deserves careful examination. In the

meantime, these unknowns can be managed through regular communication and engagement between

farmers and service providers and researchers to sort out misperceptions, learn together from experi-

ences with these technologies, and motivate each other in terms of making full use of the technology.

Quality of engagement—intensive, iterative processes of engagement with central role of the farmers—

is crucial.

The papers provide some evidence on the information transmission and quality of the training and en-

gagement. One paper focusing on pit planting tested the knowledge score of lead farmers and other

farmers on six dimensions of the technique.15 Results showed substantial information loss along the

knowledge chain, with the majority of this loss at the researcher-to-extension agent link and the exten-

sion agent–to–lead farmer link, indicating weak training and learning among extension agents and lead

farmers. There was no difference in knowledge scores between lead farmers and other farmers, indi-

cating limitations and gaps in the effectiveness of the lead farmer approach. Results also showed that

higher knowledge scores in certain technologies influenced adoption, indicating problems with incom-

plete information on these technologies and highlighting the need for greater emphasis during training

and learning on key dimensions of technology packages. FGDs conducted in central and remote com-

munities also pointed to varied perceptions and misperceptions about conservation agriculture, even if

no community members had adopted it.16 Technology adoption involves behavior change for the farm-

ers, and therefore requires more intensive and iterative training and engagement between farmer and

service providers.

In most instances, the extension concept, model, or approach often was not the problem; rather, imple-

mentation, follow-up, and monitoring were the real concerns. Coordination, implementation, scaling and

monitoring capacity is critically needed for extension services to make significant impacts on develop-

ment outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of interventions and the sustainability of outcomes after pro-

jects end should be examined. Project-based advisory service provision works well if it is well funded

and provides “artificial incentives” to participants, but sustainability remains a major challenge in most

agricultural and extension programs. Interventions should be rigorously evaluated to know under what

conditions they work, for whom, and at what cost.

15 C. Niu and C. Ragasa, “Selective Attention and Information Loss in the Lab-to-Farm Knowledge Chain: The Case of Malawian Agricultural Extension Programs,” Agricultural Systems 165 (2018): 147–63.

16 Ragasa et al., “Role and Limits of Extension Services in Promoting Climate-Smart Agriculture.”

1

Recommendations

1. Go beyond farmer-to-agent and farmer–to–lead farmer ratios. Monitoring and performance tar-

gets for extension services must go beyond farmer-to-agent and farmer–to–lead farmer ratios and

look at the effectiveness and impact of service provision. Monitoring should also go beyond meas-

uring just access to extension services and should go to the level of adoption of improved technolo-

gies and practices and changes in productivity and incomes. The government and non-governmen-

tal organizations should focus on its monitoring, evaluation, and learning role in extension, demon-

strating how extension services are or are not contributing to achieving development objectives and

championing the process of identifying and scaling up key extension approaches for broad-based

development impacts. We strive to harness the potential of information technology and data analyt-

ics to collect data and provide relevant and frequent updates to different stakeholders at various

levels on climate and soil conditions; status of extension services, input use and technology adop-

tion; and how all these drive development outcome indicators.

2. Improve the content of extension messaging. To create better content, policymakers will need to

get more feedback from farmers as consumers of agricultural outreach products, and then use

those findings to create timely, reliable, relevant outreach materials that go beyond the current fo-

cus on crop production (mainly chemical fertilizer and modern seed varieties) to include markets,

agroprocessing, other livelihoods, nutrition, and climate resilience. All of these projects must be tai-

lored to local conditions. Content improvements will require a deeper understanding of why technol-

ogies are not adopted and an intensive iterative process of farmers’, community leaders’, and ser-

vice providers’ engagement. This will also require thorough review of the technologies and practices

being promoted.

3. Focus on coordination of messages. Given the growing pluralism of the agricultural service provi-

sion system, coordination and harmonization of messages has never been more important and ur-

gent. Rather than viewing other service providers as competitors, the government should focus on

building its capacity as an extension coordinator and facilitator. For instance, the National Agricul-

ture Content Development Committee instituted by MoAIWD in 2014 should continue to be funded

and strengthened. Mobile apps and videos on extension advice are increasingly available and their

growth can be further supported by accelerating the process of harmonizing messages and certifi-

cation. Partnerships with farmers’ organizations, NGOs, and private sector entities in promoting in-

come diversification and commercialization should be encouraged and promoted as integrated ap-

proaches in extension.

4. Consider the most effective information delivery methods. Low-cost information and communi-

cation technologies (ICT) methods, especially radio, are effective in many contexts in conveying

knowledge of improved agricultural practices. These methods should be part of the diverse exten-

sion approaches. However, based on the national surveys, only a few households are member of

listening clubs or ICT hubs (2%) or have used call-in services (1%). Nonetheless, in the FGDs, lis-

tening clubs or ICT hubs were seen as useful platforms that strengthened social capital and cooper-

ation among listeners. Moreover, call centers and mobile apps, in which anyone can call or text for

free, also helped those who used these services. Farmers reported high ratings on the usefulness

of extension services, but the percentage of farmers requesting or demanding information was very

low and decreased over time from 12% in 2016 to 4% in 2018. Greater community awareness and

2

sensitization of these demand-side services will be crucial so that more people can benefit from

them. At the same time, capacity of the system to collect and analyze these demands and requests

from farmers will need be strengthened.

5. Target both women and men. Better gender balance in agricultural and nutrition education has

positive effects on the adoption of some technologies and on food security.17 Doing so not only

helps to change behavior, but also challenges gender norms.18 Most development and food security

projects base their targeting on poverty and vulnerability, but other important considerations can ad-

dress gender-based constraints. For women-adult-only households, gender-based discrimination in

accessing opportunities should be addressed in project designs. Men-adult-only households should

be included in targeting for nutrition education. Strategies that ensure both men and women have

joint access to information can help to close existing gender gaps in agriculture and nutrition

knowledge, participation in community committees and processes, and plot management.

6. Plan for regular training and grassroots capacity strengthening. Both state and nonstate ex-

tension workers will need regular training to upgrade their technical and facilitation skills. At present,

nonstate projects have several capacity-strengthening efforts that largely are uncoordinated. By co-

ordinating these capacity-strengthening efforts and feedback system to and from the agricultural

colleges and training institutions, policymakers can help ensure that skill and expertise supply and

demand are in harmony. Specific extension and advisory services also can intensify awareness of

proven technologies and various options to guide farmers’ choices and decisions through cost-ef-

fective mass media. Farmers, their organizations and groups, and the village agricultural commit-

tees all may need guidance and capacity strengthening efforts to articulate and advocate for their

needs. Rather than pushing a predetermined list of technologies, the extension system could be re-

juvenated to one that focuses on addressing farmers’ information needs. In the medium term, it may

be worthwhile to focus on a few themes and programs to align efforts with national agriculture and

nutrition policy initiatives. Key efforts could include addressing rural producers’ information needs

on income diversification and commercialization in priority value chains, integrating nutrition into the

agricultural extension system, and providing information on climate-resilient agriculture.

17 For full report, see Ragasa (forthcoming)

18 For details, see C. Ragasa, N. L. Aberman, and C. Alvarez-Mingote, “Does Providing Agricultural and Nutrition Information to Both Men and Women Improve Household Food Security? Evidence from Malawi,” Global Food Security 20 (2019): 45–59.

3

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Catherine Ragasa is Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI, Washington, D.C.; Catherine Mthinda is Senior

Lecturer at LUANAR; Clodina Chowa is the Chief of Party, SANE Project; Diston Mzungu is a graduate

student at LUANAR; Kenan Kalagho is Principal agricultural gender roles extension support services

officer, MoAIWD; and Cynthia Kazembe is research officer at the IFPRI, Malawi Strategy Support Pro-

gram, Lilongwe.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the financial support for the research and publication of this paper: the Gov-

ernment of Flanders, the Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ, the development

agency of the German government); Strengthening Agricultural and Nutrition Extension (SANE) project,

funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) mission in Malawi as an

activity of Feed the Future; and by the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets

(PIM), led by the International Food Policy Research Institute. Most importantly, we are grateful to all

the people who have shared their precious time with us during the surveys and interviews: the women

and men farmers, community and group leaders, extension agents, extension organizations’ officers

and heads, development agencies’ representatives and government officials. This Project Note is espe-

cially dedicated to the late Dr. Ephraim Chirwa, for his dedication and legacy for quality teaching, re-

search, and data collection for research-based policy solutions to development.

This Project Note is an output of “Assessing and Enhancing the Capacity, Performance and Impact of the Pluralistic Agricultural Extension System,” a three-year project in Malawi with financial support from the Government of Flanders and the German agency for international development (GIZ), and survey support from the USAID-funded Strengthening Agricultural and Nutrition Extension (SANE) project. This Note synthesizes the main findings from various papers and reports from this project; it has been prepared to promote discussion and has not been formally peer reviewed. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by the International Food Policy Research Institute.

For more details about the project and specific studies, visit: http://www.ifpri.org/project/pluralistic-extension-system-malawi

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE A world free of hunger and malnutrition

1201 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005 USA | T. +1-202-862-5600 | F. +1-202-862-5606 | Email: ifpri@cgiar.org | www.ifpri.org | www.ifpri.info

© 2019 International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). This publication is licensed for use under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

License (CC BY 4.0). To view this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.