562
reforms have resulted in reduction in FISP budget (Centre for Development
Management 2017), the savings have not been reallocated to other agricultural programs such as extension services because the government has pressing needs in
sectors other than agriculture. Making adoption of CSA technologies a prerequisite
to accessing FISP would harmonize the operations of FISP and agricultural research
and extension, thereby enhancing integration.
Another challenge to the integration of organic and inorganic fertilizer is that the
problem of declining soil fertility receives less attention than the problem of low
fertilizer use (Jayne and Rashid 2013). There has been great emphasis on low fertilizer use as a reason for low maize production and hence implementation of FISP,
but little emphasis has been put on declining soil fertility. Policy discussions have
been dominated by the problem of market failures of inputs and credit but how soil
fertility is declining due to high population densities, continuous cropping, and
mono-cropping is given little attention. The issues of declining soil fertility and low
fertilizer use need equal policy attention.
Furthermore, while subsidized inorganic fertilizer has immediate production
benefits, technologies that address declining soil fertility concerns such as organic
fertilizer have lagged but long-term benefits (Snapp et al. 1998; Thierfelder et al.
2017). Unfortunately, many smallholder farmers are impatient as they give more
weight to immediate gains over future benefits. As a result, they tend to dis-adopt
technologies with delayed benefits after one or two seasons. This inconsistent use
affects the impact and threatens potential integration of inorganic and organic technologies. Overcoming the risk of delayed production benefits can improve by consistent use of these technologies, thereby achieving the long-term integration
process of organic and inorganic technologies. Following the emphasis in the NAP
on the need to increase efficient and timely access to organic and inorganic fertilizer
(Government of Malawi 2016b), policy tools should reflect the same to allow farmers to adopt integration.
One option as proposed by Snapp et al. (2014) is that FISP should be redesigned
in such a way that it is conditioned on the adoption of soil fertility-enhancing and
climate-smart technologies. The authors propose conditional universal subsidy
where farmers will only access subsidized inorganic fertilizer upon the adoption of
such complementary technologies. Conditioning access to subsidized inorganic fertilizer on adoption of organic fertilizer could efficiently increase the adoption of
both. Agricultural extension officers would concentrate on core services of training
and advising farmers on appropriate agronomic activities such as use of organic
fertilizer and identify FISP beneficiaries from adopters of such CSA technologies.
While these technologies have delayed production benefits, the potential access to
input subsidies after adoption could be an incentive for the farmers to use the technologies consistently. The result will be high nutrient buildup, an increase in soil
organic matter, as well as high water and nutrient retention, thereby increasing
maize–fertilizer response. Potentially, this can provide the government with a sustainable exit strategy from FISP without compromising on sustainable maize production and productivity.
S. P. Katengeza
reforms have resulted in reduction in FISP budget (Centre for Development
Management 2017), the savings have not been reallocated to other agricultural programs such as extension services because the government has pressing needs in
sectors other than agriculture. Making adoption of CSA technologies a prerequisite
to accessing FISP would harmonize the operations of FISP and agricultural research
and extension, thereby enhancing integration.
Another challenge to the integration of organic and inorganic fertilizer is that the
problem of declining soil fertility receives less attention than the problem of low
fertilizer use (Jayne and Rashid 2013). There has been great emphasis on low fertilizer use as a reason for low maize production and hence implementation of FISP,
but little emphasis has been put on declining soil fertility. Policy discussions have
been dominated by the problem of market failures of inputs and credit but how soil
fertility is declining due to high population densities, continuous cropping, and
mono-cropping is given little attention. The issues of declining soil fertility and low
fertilizer use need equal policy attention.
Furthermore, while subsidized inorganic fertilizer has immediate production
benefits, technologies that address declining soil fertility concerns such as organic
fertilizer have lagged but long-term benefits (Snapp et al. 1998; Thierfelder et al.
2017). Unfortunately, many smallholder farmers are impatient as they give more
weight to immediate gains over future benefits. As a result, they tend to dis-adopt
technologies with delayed benefits after one or two seasons. This inconsistent use
affects the impact and threatens potential integration of inorganic and organic technologies. Overcoming the risk of delayed production benefits can improve by consistent use of these technologies, thereby achieving the long-term integration
process of organic and inorganic technologies. Following the emphasis in the NAP
on the need to increase efficient and timely access to organic and inorganic fertilizer
(Government of Malawi 2016b), policy tools should reflect the same to allow farmers to adopt integration.
One option as proposed by Snapp et al. (2014) is that FISP should be redesigned
in such a way that it is conditioned on the adoption of soil fertility-enhancing and
climate-smart technologies. The authors propose conditional universal subsidy
where farmers will only access subsidized inorganic fertilizer upon the adoption of
such complementary technologies. Conditioning access to subsidized inorganic fertilizer on adoption of organic fertilizer could efficiently increase the adoption of
both. Agricultural extension officers would concentrate on core services of training
and advising farmers on appropriate agronomic activities such as use of organic
fertilizer and identify FISP beneficiaries from adopters of such CSA technologies.
While these technologies have delayed production benefits, the potential access to
input subsidies after adoption could be an incentive for the farmers to use the technologies consistently. The result will be high nutrient buildup, an increase in soil
organic matter, as well as high water and nutrient retention, thereby increasing
maize–fertilizer response. Potentially, this can provide the government with a sustainable exit strategy from FISP without compromising on sustainable maize production and productivity.
S. P. Katengeza