Lessons Learnt: Promises, Achievements, Shortcomings and Pitfalls of Malawian Input Subsidies

• Input subsidy programs (ISPs) in Malawi have aimed at improving farmersʼ access to quality farm inputs. • Subsidies have, at times, increased legume production and intercropping, which can improve household incomes and nutrition. • Maize productivity and production have increased, somewhat improving food security and national food self-sufficiency, but many households remain poor and vulnerable. • The incidence of poverty has not changed much since the introduction of the Farm Inputs Subsidy Program (FISP) in 2004/05. • Maize imports, real maize prices, and persistent food insecurity continue to rise, requiring distribution of food aid. • Early enthusiasm has begun to wane in the face of underwhelming improvement in several key areas. • The rate of maize productivity increase from ISPs is smaller than many expected, primarily attributable to low maize response rates to fertilizers. • The primary contributors to low maize yield response vary by location but can include soil biology (e.g., soil carbon), soil chemistry (e.g., pH), soil physics (e.g., sandy soils), and farm management. • Integrated soil fertility management practices and improved on-farm agronomic practices (e.g., application timing and weeding) could improve yield responses to fertilizers. • Policy reforms to improve the contribution of ISPs to farm-level productivity could include integrating complementary soil fertility management practices, such as organic fertilizers, improved targeting, and improving the efficiency of inputs supply chain systems.