The Effect of Income Generating Activities and Household Composition
on Household Food Security in Southern Malawi
Andrea Snyder Anderson
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Abstract
Diversifying household activities is essential to household food security in Southern Malawi. Farms are extremely small; many farms are less than half a hectare. With these small landholdings, food security cannot be achieved by subsistence farming alone. Cash crops and off-farm income are key to these livelihood systems. This research was conducted in 1998 as a part of a study to examine options for improving household food security in Southern Malawi.
Twenty households from three villages near the town of Malosa in the Zomba district of Southern Malawi were interviewed to collect information about household livelihood systems. Twelve male-headed and eight female-headed households were interviewed. The information collected was used to construct linear programming models to model household livelihood systems. These models were used to test different options for improving household food security. Three of the options that were tested were a loan for growing tobacco, increased off-farm work, and a loan to start a small business. All three options were found to improve household food security, although household composition and resources affected which option improved food security the most.
Introduction
Malawi is a small country in Eastern Africa bordered by Tanzania, Mozambique, and Zambia. It has a population of 12 million with much of the population concentrated in the southern part of the country. Agriculture is extremely important to the country, as it provides employment for nearly 90% of all households. Smallholder farmers are also important, as almost 70% of the agricultural produce comes from smallholder farmers. In Malawi, as in other African nations, women do a good deal of the farming (GOM and UNICEF, 1987).
The typical farming system in this study area is a maize-based system, with other food crops, such as cassava, pigeon peas, beans, groundnuts, and pumpkins, intercropped with the maize. The majority of these food crops are eaten, while some households sell small amounts in the market. Some households grow cash crops for sale, such as tobacco or rice.
Food Security in Malawi
Household food security has been defined as “sufficient food consumption by all people at all times for a healthy and productive life” (Thompson and Metz, 1997). Achieving food security in Southern Malawi will require implementing strategies that improve the overall household livelihood system. It will require more than simply improving crop yields (Gladwin et al, 2001). Landholdings in this area of Malawi are very small, and most smallholder farmers are not able to grow enough food to sustain their household, even under ideal situations. Forty-one percent of the rural population is farming less than 0.5 hectares (Gladwin and Thomson, 1997). This is only enough land to produce three to four months of food, and the rest must be purchased.
Low yields are also of concern; yields were extremely low among smallholders interviewed for this research (see Figure 1). Other research from Malawi has recorded much higher yields; however, farmers surveyed in this research all reported extremely low yields. This area may have poorer than average soils or other conditions that cause low yields.
Figure 1
Fertilizer response of local and hybrid maize
Off-farm income is extremely important to the household livelihood systems of this area of Southern Malawi. However, many households in the area lack access to higher-paying types of off-farm work, such as employment in the formal sector (an official job, paid with a salary or wages) and participate in the lower-paying informal sector by running small businesses or doing ganyu labor, informal farm labor that is paid either with cash, maize, or other food (Commonwealth Secretariat, 1989). Ganyu labor, although available to most households, is generally very low paying and is usually only available in the agricultural months when farmers are busy with their own fields. Many chronically food-insecure households are unable to earn enough money to purchase sufficient maize after their own maize stocks are gone, so that starvation is a real threat.
Household Composition
Household composition largely determines the way in which a household is able to respond to changes. Household composition is the number of individuals in a household and their ages and genders. It affects the amount of available farm labor, determines the food and nutritional requirements of the household, and often affects household food security.
Two major household composition categories are Male-headed households (MHHs) and Female-headed households (FHHs). FHHs generally have more constraints to achieving food security. They tend to have smaller farms, lower agricultural yields, less access to inputs, and less available labor (Spring, 1995). FHHs also generally earn less money than MHHs since they generally participate in the informal sector, rather than in the formal sector. In Malawi, FHHs make up 42% of the poorest households, even though they are only 30% of all rural smallholder households (Gladwin and Thompson, 1997).
Another division of household composition deals with the number and ages of children. Households with only small children will not easily be able to participate in activities that require large amounts of labor. Households with many older children have more available labor and will be able to participate in activities requiring a large amount of labor.
Data Collection
In June and July of 1998, in-depth surveys were administered to 20 smallholder farming households in three villages in the area around the town of Malosa in the Zomba district of Southern Malawi. Households of differing composition were surveyed as well as households with and without access to credit. None of the households interviewed from these villages grew tobacco, so in addition to these families, two households (from other villages) growing tobacco were interviewed.
Linear Programming
The results of this study were used to construct linear programming models (LPs) of livelihood systems in order to test options that could improve household food security in the study area. These LPs were developed using Microsoft Excel. An LP is a program created on a computer and used as a planning tool for deciding among a large number of choices. LPs are used in Farming Systems Research and Extension to model farming households’ livelihood systems.
Once an LP model accurately reflects a household’s farming system, it can be used as a framework for testing alternative activities—such as growing a cash crop—before testing them on-farm (Hildebrand, 2001). The simulation can help the researcher to discover whether or not households would have the resources to implement certain activities. In this research, 3 alternatives were tested on 4 different LP models. Each LP was modeled after a different household. Table 1 provides a description of each household.
Table 1
Household Information[1]
Alternatives tested were growing tobacco as a cash crop, working more hours off-farm, and receiving a loan to start a small business. The first option tested allowed households the opportunity to receive a loan for growing tobacco. The model simulated the households repaying the loan at 35% interest by selling the tobacco. Any tobacco left over after repaying the loan was “sold” for cash for the household. Allowing household members to participate in increased hours of off-farm work was the second option tested. This option allowed each household to work 20% more hours each month in whatever off-farm work they already participated in (ganyu labor, etc.). The final option allowed households to take out a loan for a small business, repaid at 35% interest. The business paid $6.50 for every 50 hours worked.
Household LP solutions were required to obtain the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommended level of calories and protein for each household member (WHO, 1985). However, for some households, it was not possible for the model to secure the WHO nutritional requirements for each household member. (The household was too cash-restricted to afford enough maize). In these cases, the calorie and protein levels were lowered to 75%, 50%, or 25% of the WHO requirements, until a feasible solution was reached.
Results and Discussion
Figure 2 shows the percentage of food requirements that were met with each income-earning option. Options produced either 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25% of household food requirements. Results from the original simulations (without any intervention) are included as “original results.” It is important to note that both MHHs start out more food secure than the FHHs.
Figure 2
Increase in food security from each option
Figure 3 is a summary chart of the total amount of improvement each household received from each option, including increases in household food and cash. To make comparisons easier, increases in household food have been converted to dollar amounts. This figure shows that different options are more advantageous for some households than others.
Tobacco can be profitable, but it is labor intensive. MHH2 is a large household with plenty of labor, which is likely the reason tobacco was a good option for this household. Tobacco caused markedly less improvement than the other two options for MHH1 and FHH2, probably because these two households are smaller and have less available labor.
Figure 3
Total amount of gain from each option
Increasing hours of off-farm work improved the situation of all four households. The amount of gain achieved from this option was dependent on the amount of money received for the off-farm work that the household participated in. The husband in MHH2 earned a fairly good wage repairing watches, so increasing his hours spent working increased household income a good deal. Both FHHs earned money by selling firewood. This activity was profitable but the amount of time they were able to spend in this activity was limited by the local demand for firewood. FHH3 earned more money selling firewood than FHH2 and was also able to spend more hours selling it. The husband in MHH1 worked in ganyu labor which did not pay very well.
Credit was the best option tested for MHH1 and FHH2. It allowed these households to replace their lower paying income sources with a higher paying small business. This option did not require a great deal of labor, as households could “choose” how many hours to work each month in the business. This option was also profitable for FHH3, but it was about the same as tobacco or increasing off-farm work. Credit for a business caused the least amount of improvement for MHH2. This is because the husband earned more money in his current business than he would have earned from the business option introduced. Because of this, the wife “chose” to take out a loan to start a business, but worked at it less than 50 hours per month.
Recommendations and Conclusions
There are three main recommendations arising from this research. The first is to continue making credit programs available to the rural poor in Southern Malawi, taking care not to exclude FHHs. The second recommendation is to survey smallholder farmers who currently grow tobacco to determine the amount of gain they are actually receiving from growing tobacco. The third recommendation is to research the possibility of introducing increased opportunities for off-farm work in rural areas in Southern Malawi. Households who participated in ganyu work often remarked that ganyu was scarce, and households selling firewood were only able to do so for about 10 hours each week, because there was a relatively fixed demand for firewood. Households need access to other types of off-farm income opportunities in the rural areas.
Diversification of household activities is a key factor to household food security. In Malawi, farms are not large enough for households to be food secure from subsistence farming alone. Households with more access to income generating activities, or access to higher paying work are more food secure than households who do not have these benefits. Cash cropping and off-farm work are important income sources for these households. Adding such activities to a livelihood system would be likely to improve food security for that household. However, the type of activity which will improve the situation the most for individual households will depend on household composition and resources. Policy makers should complement the research aimed at improving agricultural yields of food and cash crops with programs focused on increasing the off-farm work available to smallholder farming households, taking care to note the resources and composition of individual households.
References
Anderson, A. S. (2002). The Effect of Cash Cropping, Credit, and Household Composition on Household Food Security in Southern Malawi. African Studies Quarterly 6, no. 1&2: [online] URL: http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v6/v6i1a7.htm
Commonwealth Secretariat. (1989). Engendering adjustment for the 1990s: Report of a commonwealth expert group on women and structural adjustment. London: Author.
Gladwin, C.H. & Thompson, A.M. (1997). Food vs. cash crops: Which is the key to food security for African women farmers? Paper presented at the meetings of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, and the International Association of Agricultural Economists, Sacramento, CA.
Gladwin, C.H., Thomson, A.M., Peterson, J., & Anderson, A.S. (2001). Addressing food security in Africa via multiple livelihood strategies of women farmers. Food Policy 26 , 177-207.
Government of Malawi (GOM) and UNICEF. (1987). The situation of women and children in Malawi.. Lilongwe, Malawi: GOM and UNICEF.
Hildebrand, P.E. (2001). The challenge of diversity: Modeling smallholder livelihood systems with ethnographic linear programming. Boulder: Lynne Reinner Press.
Spring, A. (1995). Agricultural development and gender issues in Malawi. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Thomson, A., & Metz, A. (1997). Implications of economic policy for food security: A training manual. Rome: FAO.
World Heath Organization (WHO). (1985). Energy and protein requirements. (Report of a joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation). World Health Organization Technical Report Series 724. Geneva: Author.
Andrea Anderson, University of Florida, 908 SW 16th Ave., Gainesville, FL 32601, USA, phone: 352-373-5945, fax: 352-392-7248, , Poster, Small Farm Diversification & Competitiveness
8
[1] These households are the same as those used in the paper, The Effect of Cash Cropping, Credit, and Household Composition on Household Food Security in Southern Malawi (Anderson, 2002). The household designated FHH1 in that paper is not used in this paper.