ACEATL CHITHUMBA MODEL PRODUCTIVITY COMPONENT The Chithumba Model
ACE/ATL CHITHUMBA MODEL PRODUCTIVITY COMPONENT
The Chithumba Model Sustainability • The model is designed to be sustainable • Sustainability requires a relatively high repayment rate of approx 1 to 4 (seed to grain) • Requires thorough farmer sensitization Inputs • Soya – 30 kgs Makwacha seed & 2 sachets Nitrofix Inoculant • Groundnuts – 30 kgs CG 7 seed Extension Services • Productivity training is conducted at three main training days (MISST/IITA/ATL) • ATL field officers Access to Markets • Farmers are trained on ACE services and linked to markets through ACE Farmers based around ACE Warehouse • Ideally framers are based in close proximity to an ACE warehouse where trainings are conducted and repayment volumes are delivered
Farmer Identification Overview • Planned to identify farmer groups around ACE warehouses in Lilongwe & Mchinji • Late start to the project forced us to look further afield • Farmers were distributed over a larger area than planned Observations • Short time frame introduced screening constraints, adequate screening of farmer groups is critical • Requires time to identify willing participants given the relatively high repayment ratio
Lilongwe Operational Areas
Mchinji Operational Areas
Seed Distribution Days Overview • Training on land preparation conducted at distribution days • Lilongwe - Soya (22 nd - 25 th November) • Mchinji – Groundnuts (29 th November - 2 nd December) Observations • Farmer turnover between registration and distribution day was a challenge • Seed packaging needs to be in accordance with distribution volumes
Germination Overview • Variable groundnut germination resulted in revised repayment rate from 150 Kgs to 75 Kgs NIS • Soya germination was good Observations • Germination tests need be conducted before distribution • Careful packaging & handling of groundnut seed is critical
Farmer Training Days Overview • Centralized training days held in each operational area • Productivity Component & ACE Services component • Training Day 1 – Weeding, pest & disease management • Training Day 2 – Harvesting, handling & storage Observations • Attendance is an issue • Can be challenging to keep large groups engaged • Correct timing during season is critical
Repayment Overview • Soya repayment relatively poor despite successful growing season • Overall Repayment 68. 9% (Mitundu – 75%) (Phirilanjuzi – 62. 3%) • Groundnut repayment in contrast has been good and is ongoing • Overall Repayment 84. 6% (Chioshya – 82. 8%) (Mikundi – 86%) • Soya Yield Approx. (600 Kgs/Acre) ; Groundnut Yield Approx. (750 Kgs/Acre) Observations • Geographic spread of farmers resulted in the use of rural aggregation points was logistically challenging and costly Possible reasons for non-repayment among soya farmers • Inadequate farmer screening • Farmers may not have been convinced of the sustainability of the project • Failure of food crops may have influenced repayment decisions • Farmers may have felt they did not benefit enough to justify repayment
Soya Repayment by Group
Groundnut Repayment by Group
Phirilanjuzi Rural Aggregation Points
Mchinji EPA Sections – Farmer Groups
Conclusions Farmer Response • Despite poor repayment rate among Soya farmers, the majority of farmers have responded positively to the Chithumba Model. • Crop diversification may be necessary to mitigate risk of low market prices for particular crops Farmer Selection is Crucial • The model is designed to be sustainable which requires a relatively high repayment rate of approx. 4 to 1 (grain to seed) • Farmers need to be adequately sensitized and screened which takes time Geographic Spread Important • Transportation of repayment volumes can be a challenge • Disaggregated collection can be logistically challenging • Ideally farmers should be located in close proximity to an ACE warehouse .
- Slides: 15