Development of E-Skin Sensors and Their Applications

This is a poster presentation. The poster will present the students\u27 research results on E-skin sensor development and application

Preliminary analysis of coupon receipt and use reported in the IHS3

This paper provides a preliminary analysis of coupon receipt in the 2008/9 and 2009/10 seasons as reported by households interviewed in the 2010/11 Malawi Integrated Household Survey (IHS3). Information on the 2008/9 season was obtained from a smaller number of households than for the 2009/10 season, with a longer recall period that may have affected the accuracy of some data. The sampling population included urban and rural households and broadly but not exactly comparable with sample populations for the household surveys conducted in the FISP evaluations in 2006/7, 2008/9 and 2010/11. Estimates of total fertiliser coupon distribution are similar to but lower than estimates from the FISP evaluation surveys but there is consistency in apparent increased reduction in diversion after the 2008/9 season. General patterns of targeting of fertiliser coupons and of ‘sharing’ are similar across the different surveys. Across the surveys there is no evidence of pro-poor targeting and some evidence of bias against poorer households, but not against female headed households. IHS3 respondents reported very few of irregularities in coupon distribution and redemption. Estimates of seed coupon receipts are, however, very low

The Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP) 2009/10: A review of its implementation and impact

This report reviews the 2009/10 implementation of the Farm Input Subsidy Programme 2009/10 in the context of experience from 2005/6 to 2008/9. The 2009/10 programme differed from previous years in restriction of fertiliser subsidies to maize production, reduced fertiliser distribution budgets which were also adhered to, large increases in maize (particularly hybrid) and legume seed distribution, considerable carry forward of fertiliser stocks from previous year purchases, and earlier sales of fertiliser. These changes all have important positive implications for the programme’s effectiveness and efficiency as a result of reduced displacement, improved targeting, reduced programme costs (which also benefited from lower fertiliser prices), improved returns to use of subsidised fertiliser on hybrid maize, and food security, diversification and soil fertility benefits from the increased legume seed sales. Increased maize and legume seed sales through private retailers should also stimulate input market development. The economic benefit cost ratio for the programme is estimated at 1.12, a respectable result (despite the many difficulties with this analysis and its blindness to many longer term and intangible benefits) with considerable potential for further improvement. The macro-economic costs of the programme have also been substantially reduced as compared with the previous year and the year on year rises in costs halted. These are important achievements. There are two main areas where it is proposed that programme implementation could look for substantial improvements in the future: first in achieving greater transparency in beneficiary identification and coupon issues and second in allowing earlier sales of inputs. Greater transparency in beneficiary identification and coupon issues should build on achievements over the last four years (for example in improved targeting and use of open meetings) by (a) resolving inconsistencies both in changing MoAFS farm family numbers across regions and with NSO estimates, (b) improving effective communication about coupon allocation and distribution systems, (c) increasing the transparency and accountability of these processes with, for example, the involvement of different stakeholders representing farmers, and (d) sharing and implementing good practice in particular districts or areas more widely across the country. Earlier input sales are important for reducing the costs and risks faced by farmers in redeeming coupons, promoting higher yield responses from earlier planting and fertiliser application, reducing pressures and costs in fertiliser deliveries to markets, and giving farmers more voice and choice when redeeming coupons. This requires that the 2009/10 improvements in fertiliser deliveries and in seed contracting are sustained and accompanied by earlier finalising of coupon allocations and printing than in 2009/10 – as has already been recognised by strenuous attempts to achieve earlier commencement of sales in 2010

Improving benefit cost analysis for Malawi’s farm input subsidy programme, 2006/7 to 2010/11

This paper develops improved estimates of benefits and costs of the Malawi Farm Input Subsidy from 2005/6 to 2010/11. It sets out principles and purposes for Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) for the programme and applies them to develop a relatively formal partial equilibrium methodology for BCA that distinguishes between real income gains to subsidy recipients, other producers, and consumers. This allows differential multipliers to be applied to these income gains to allow simple analysis of wider equilibrium and dynamic effects of the subsidy programme. Benefit cost analysis faces difficulties due to lack of reliable data on the number of farm households in Malawi and on cropping parameters needed for estimation of the programmes’ impact on production. Nevertheless the modified benefit cost analysis leads to increased estimates of returns to the subsidy programme. The benefit cost ratio averaged across 2005/6 to 2010/11 was previously estimated at 1.22, with an average fiscal efficiency of 0.31, using moderate assumptions regarding prices and yield responses to fertiliser and improved maize seed. Precise estimate of returns to the programme are difficult due to a variety of methodological and data quality difficulties, but with the revised methodology the average benefit cost ratio is estimated at around 1.6, with fiscal efficiency of around 0.45. The analysis provides important pointers to ways in which programme design and implementation can be improved to make the programme more effective and efficient. It also suggests that with good implementation the programme can provide returns that are comparable to and exceed those achievable from alternative and complementary investments in infrastructure, education and agricultural research. The programme therefore has an important role as a critical element in a strategy of balanced government investments promoting poverty reducing growth in Malawi