Report prepared by:

Jerome Chimg’onda-Nkhoma, Noel Limbani, and Anderson Chikomola Department of Agricultural Extension Services

Paul McNamara, Clodina Chowa, Austen Moore, Stacia Nordin, and Vickie Sigman Strengthening Agricultural and Nutrition Extension Project

October 2018

SANE Strengthening Agricultural and Nutrition Extension Old Manobec Complex (next to Dept. of Mines) Lilongwe Area 4, Malawi

DAES Department of Agricultural Extension Services Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Water Development Paul Kagame Road (next to Roads Authority) P.O. Box 30145 Lilongwe Area 4, Malawi

Systems Strengthening to Improve Agricultural and Nutrition Extension Services: An Assessment of SANE and DAES Efforts in Malawi

i

Table of Contents

ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................ ii

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

Context ........................................................................................................................................... 1

Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 4

PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 6

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 8

Quantitative Evaluation of DAESS using SCAT Data ....................................................................... 8

Comparison of District Development Plans ................................................................................... 8

Qualitative Review of Stakeholder Perspectives ............................................................................ 8

Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 9

FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 11

DAESS Structures .......................................................................................................................... 11 • Platform Functionality ...................................................................................................................... 11 • Participation in the Platforms ........................................................................................................... 12 • Platform Sustainability ..................................................................................................................... 14

Capacity Development ................................................................................................................. 16 • DAESS System Training ..................................................................................................................... 16 • Integrated Homestead Farming and the Household Approach Training ......................................... 17 • Other Capacity Development Activities ........................................................................................... 18

Policy ............................................................................................................................................. 18

Coordination and Collaboration ................................................................................................... 22

Farmer Voice ................................................................................................................................. 24 • Demand Side ..................................................................................................................................... 24 • Supply Side ....................................................................................................................................... 25

Extension Service Access .............................................................................................................. 26

Extension Service Quality ............................................................................................................. 28 • Improvements .................................................................................................................................. 28 • Challenges ......................................................................................................................................... 29

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .................................................................. 30

ANNEXES.......................................................................................................... 35

Annex 1: Semi-Structured Interview Guide .................................................................................. 35

ii

ACRONYMS

ADC Area Development Committee

ADD Agricultural Development Division

AEDC Agricultural Extension Development Coordinator

AEDO Agricultural Extension Development Officer

ASFNS Agricultural Sector Food and Nutrition Strategy

ASP Area Stakeholder Panel

CBO Community-Based Organization

CDCS Country Development Coordination Strategy

CRS Catholic Relief Services

DAC District Agricultural Committee

DADO District Agricultural Development Officer

DAECC District Agricultural Extension Coordination Committee

DAES Department of Agricultural Extension Services

DAESS District Agricultural Extension Services System

DAO District Agricultural Office

DDP District Development Plan

DEC District Executive Committee

DNCC District Nutrition Coordinating Committee

DPD Director of Planning and Development

DSP District Stakeholder Platform

E-ZOI Expanded Zone of Influence

EMO Extension Methodologies Officer

EPA Extension Planning Area

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FTF Feed the Future

GoM Government of Malawi

GVH Group Village Headman

HHA Household Approach

IHF Integrated Homestead Farming

KII Key Informant Interview

LGAP Local Government Accountability Performance project

MoAIWD Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Water Development

MoLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development

NAEP National Agricultural Extension Policy

iii

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

SANE Strengthening Agricultural and Nutrition Extension project

SCAT System Capacity Assessment Tool

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

TA Traditional Authority

USAID United States Agency for International Development

VAC Village Agricultural Committee

VDC Village Development Committee

1

INTRODUCTION

Context Malawi is a highly agrarian country where a large percentage of the economy and livelihoods are tied to the agricultural sector. As such, the Government of Malawi (GoM) has emphasized agricultural development to promote economic growth, provide food security, and enhance rural livelihoods. Agricultural extension is a key component of this strategy. According to Christoplos (2010), agricultural extension: (1) enables farmers to access beneficial information and technologies; (2) allows interaction with service providers and partners in research, the private sector, and governments; and (3) assists farmers to develop technical and management skills and capacities1.

The GoM’s Department of Agricultural Extension Services (DAES) facilitates the provision of extension services and the functioning of the broader extension system in the country. In 2000, the GoM adopted a formal National Agricultural Extension Policy (NAEP), with the following guiding principles:

1) Demand-driven extension services 2) Accountability 3) “Those who benefit pay” (service at cost) 4) Resource sustainability

5) Equalization 6) Promotion of pluralism 7) Decentralized coordination

The policy’s overall aim is to improve access to and quality of agricultural extension service delivery. The Department of Agricultural Extension Services of the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Water Development (MoAIWD) is charged with leading implementation of the policy. The policy advocates for pluralistic, demand-driven, and decentralized extension.

Ministry of Agriculture offices oversee service delivery. Eight Agricultural Development Divisions (ADDs) are responsible for overseeing multiple districts. Within a district, agricultural services are managed by the District Agricultural Development Officer (DADO) who heads the District Agricultural Office (DAO). Each district is composed of Extension Planning Areas (EPAs), where the Agricultural Extension Development Coordinator (AEDC) manages a team of Agricultural Extension Development Officers (AEDOs), functionally the frontline extension worker. AEDOs provide extension services to households, mostly through farmer-based organizations such as groups, clubs, clusters, cooperatives, and associations. Lead Farmers at the village level work with AEDOs to share extension messages with fellow farmers.

To further operationalize the policy, the District Agricultural Extension Services System (DAESS) was created to improve coordination of services, increase farmers’ voice, and strengthen access and quality of services (see Figure 1). The DAESS has structures – also referred to as platforms – for agricultural stakeholder engagement at village, area, and district levels that are linked to structures established by the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MoLGRD). Local Government platforms, namely the Village and Area Development Committees, District Executive Committee, and the District Council, have the responsibility to oversee overall development within

1 Christoplos, I. (2010). Mobilizing the potential of rural and agricultural extension. Rome: Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1444e/i1444e.pdf

2

their respective levels, and have sector-specific sub-committees that are answerable to them. The District Council is the highest-level decision-making body that considers development issues, including agricultural and nutrition-related development, at the district level.

Within the DAESS, the key platforms are as follows:

• Village Agricultural Committees (VACs) are established at the Group Village Headman (GVH) level and report to the Village Development Committee (VDC). They are comprised of individual farmers elected to represent an entire village. The role of VACs is to organize farmer demand through identifying their prioritized agricultural needs, which are to be addressed either by themselves or sent to the VDC for endorsement and to solicit support from the next DAESS level, the Area Stakeholder Panels (ASPs).

• ASPs are established at the Traditional Authority (TA) level and report to Area Development Committees (ADCs). ASPs are comprised of representatives elected from VACs and service providers working in the geographic area. These commonly include public, private, and civil society agricultural actors, including extension, research, agribusiness, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and community-based organizations (CBOs). ASPs aggregate prioritized needs from VACs and engage service providers to respond to the needs identified. Issues that can’t be addressed at ASP level are referred to the ADC for endorsement and reported to the next level of DAESS, the District Stakeholder Panel (DSP), for attention.

• DSPs are formed at district level to discuss issues from the ASPs. DSPs comprise farmer representatives from each ASP and elected service providers at the district level. DSPs report to District Agricultural Extension Coordinating Committees (DAECCs) about issues that have been addressed and those that need higher-level discussion and feedback.

• DAECCs are established at the district level and report to the District Executive Committee (DEC). DAECCs contain representatives of all agricultural stakeholders in the district, such as public, private, and civil society sectors, including extension, research, agribusiness, NGOs, CBOs, etc. The DAECC coordinates and promotes collaboration among agricultural stakeholders in order to respond effectively to farmers’ demands. The DAECC links with the District Agricultural Committee (DAC) to provide updates on agricultural development issues and agree on matters to raise at District Council meetings.

• The DAC is a service committee that also operates at the district level and comprises representatives of Ward Councilors and Members of Parliament. The DAC lobbies for inclusion of agricultural issues on the District Council meeting agenda and also mobilizes support for agricultural projects to receive funding available to and managed by District Councils. The DAC also supports other resource mobilization initiatives to fund agricultural activities.

3

Figure 1: Overview of DAESS platforms and linkages

4

Project Description While the National Agricultural Extension Policy and the DAESS system provide defined objectives and a clear structure for extension in Malawi, implementation has been difficult. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services project conducted two studies on extension in Malawi – in 20122 and in 20143 – and found that agricultural extension services and indeed the DAESS system itself required improvements in service coverage, quality of service delivery, coordination/collaboration between service providers, and linkages between extension and up-to-date research and technologies. Moreover, targeted efforts could support and build from the strengths of the policy and DAESS system to address these gaps. The Strengthening Agricultural and Nutrition Extension (SANE) project was developed partially in response to these findings.

SANE is a five-year project – November 2015 to November 2020 – implemented on the basis of a cooperative agreement between USAID/Malawi and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as prime awardee, together with Catholic Relief Services (CRS) as sub-awardee. SANE operates in Malawi’s 10 Feed the Future (FTF) Expanded Zone of Influence (E-ZOI) districts4, as seen in Figure 2. The project partners directly with DAES.

The project is designed to strengthen the capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture (through DAES) to mobilize and work with service providers to deliver agricultural extension and advisory services in a coordinated manner. Enhanced coordination, collaboration, and co-location of extension service providers in Malawi’s pluralistic extension system will contribute to better access to and quality of agricultural and nutrition extension services. To achieve these goals, SANE utilizes the Theory of Change depicted in Figure 3 to deliver impact:

Figure 3: SANE Theory of Change

2 Simpson, B., Heinrich, G., & Malindi, G. (2012). Strengthening pluralistic agricultural extension in Malawi.

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services (MEAS). 3 Sigman, V., Rhoe, V., Peters, J., Banda, T., & Malindi, G. (2014). Assessment of agricultural extension, nutrition

education, and integrated agriculture-nutrition extension services in the Feed the Future focus districts in Malawi. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: MEAS.

4 Mchinji, Lilongwe, Dedza, Ntcheu, Balaka, Mangochi, Machinga, Blantyre, Chikwawa, and Nsanje.

Figure 2: FTF Zone of Influence

If...•DAESS structures are strengthened,

•Capacity is built around DAESS and extension service delivery skills, and

•Policy is clarified, disseminated, and better understood,

then...•Coordination and

collaboration, and

•Farmers' voice will improve,

leading to improved...

•Access to and

•Quality of extension services in Malawi.

5

In support of the GoM’s National Agricultural Extension Policy and the USAID/Malawi 2013-19 Country Development Coordination Strategy (CDCS), the project has three objectives:

1) Improve the policy environment, focused on government, donor, and NGO working relationships and how agriculture and nutrition gaps can be addressed by improved extension services through knowledge sharing;

2) Strengthen the coordination and capacities of extension service providers, through building networks of decision-makers, implementers, and experts committed to addressing agriculture and nutrition through extension services while also increasing the knowledge and skills of field-level extensionists through appropriate training;

3) Increase connections between research institutions and extension service providers, through addressing communication and knowledge gaps and facilitating networks across both entities.

6

PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT

As the DAES-SANE partnership progressed through its third year, an assessment was conducted to gauge impacts along the guiding principles of the National Agricultural Extension Policy and USAID/Malawi’s CDCS Development Objectives.

Data was compiled to focus on seven key (and inter-related) themes that linked GoM and USAID/Malawi objectives around extension, whereas sustainability was a cross-cutting element, as shown in the following table:

Table 1: Extension related themes that link GoM and USAID/Malawi objectives

Assessment Theme Guiding principles of the NAEP USAID/Malawi CDCS Equivalent

1) DAESS structures 7) Decentralized coordination

SIR 1) Capacity of institutions improved

SIR 3) Policy and systems strengthened

2) Capacity development 2) Accountability

IR 2.1) Resiliency to climate change strengthened

IR 2.2) Production of target commodities increased

IR 2.3) Nutrition for targeted communities improved

IR 2.4) Agricultural trade improved SIR 1) Capacity of institutions

improved

3) Policy Overall NAEP SIR 3) Policy and systems

strengthened

4) Coordination and collaboration 6) Promotion of pluralism SIR 3) Policy and systems

strengthened

5) Farmer voice 1) Demand-driven services IR 3.2) Citizens’ participation in

decision-making strengthened

6) Extension service access 5) Equalization IR 1.1) Availability of essential

social services improved

7) Extension service quality 2) Accountability IR 1.2) Quality of essential social

services improved

8) Sustainability of platforms, services, and funding

3) “Those who benefit pay” 4) Resource sustainability

SIR 4) Positive behaviors adopted

7

Figure 4 shows visually how SANE’s work also pertains to key areas of the USAID/Malawi CDCS Results Framework:

Figure 4: SANE links to the USAID/Malawi Results Framework 2013-2019

8

METHODOLOGY

The assessment methodology was mixed-methods and utilized three distinct data streams: 1) A quantitative evaluation of changes in DAESS within project districts, building from data

collected through the project-designed System Capacity Assessment Tool (SCAT);

2) A comparison of agricultural prioritization between project and non-project districts, as evidenced through District Development Plans (DDPs);

3) A qualitative review of stakeholder perspectives on project activities and changes to extension services and systems.

Quantitative Evaluation of DAESS using SCAT Data SANE conducts an annual survey of the 150+ DAESS platforms in its 10 districts. Five members of each platform – including leadership and regular members – are interviewed using the SCATs, a project-developed metric that measures each platform’s capacity and functionality across a number of indicators. A small portion of the much larger dataset is used in this report. Using statistical analyses, the SANE project calculated how platforms’ capacity and functionality changes over time, in response to SANE interventions and support.

Comparison of District Development Plans The DAESS system and the NAEP focus on enabling farmers’ demands to be reflected in development and funding decisions made at district level. One mechanism is evaluating whether strengthening the DAESS platforms – the mechanism to articulate and prioritize farmers’ needs – increases the priority of agriculture in formal District Development Plans where the project actively works to support DAESS platforms, as compared to districts where SANE had not worked actively to support DAESS platforms.

Lilongwe rural, Blantyre, and Balaka were among the districts that underwent a participatory process to develop District Development Plans with support of the USAID- and DFID-funded Local Government Accountability Program (LGAP). These were selected for comparison purposes due to early completion of draft DDPs. Other districts also completed DDPs following this initial engagement by LGAP.

Priorities in the DDPs were ranked and compared side-by-side to see if project districts showed any differences from non-project districts. DDPs from four project districts and four non-project districts were gathered to facilitate this comparison.

Qualitative Review of Stakeholder Perspectives DAES and SANE jointly conducted a series of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) to generate feedback and gauge changes to extension services and system functionality. A semi-structured interview guide around themes related to the National Agricultural Extension Policy and USAID/Malawi CDCS was developed to facilitate the FGDs and KIIs. The guide (see Annex 1) was designed to be flexible and to be adapted for different categories of interviewees and to probe for responses. Lilongwe rural, Dedza, Balaka, and Salima districts were purposively selected for the study, based on logistical convenience and upcoming engagement planned with the districts selected. Respondents were selected using a stratified approach to ensure the inclusion of

9

various categories of extension stakeholders and different levels of the DAESS platforms. An international consultant was hired to provide leadership and to assure development of quality assessment instruments, in collaboration with DAES and SANE.

Data collection was conducted by two teams: • Team 1 was comprised of 1 senior-level DAES administrator, 1 SANE staff member, and the

international consultant. Team 1 carried out FGDs and KIIs in 2 of the 10 FTF E-ZOI districts (Lilongwe and Dedza) and KIIs at the national level. A total of 121 participants5, in 8 FGDs and 9 KIIs, were interviewed over a period of seven days in March 2018.

• Team 2 was comprised of 1 senior-level DAES administrator and 2 SANE staff members. FGDs and KIIs were conducted in 1 of the 10 FTF E-ZOI districts (Balaka) and 1 non-FTF E-ZOI district (Salima). A total of 47 participants6, in 6 FGDs and 6 KIIs, were interviewed over a period of four days in March 2018.

Some interviews were conducted in English and others in Chichewa with English translation. Interviews were held at the national, district, and EPA offices. Various categories of stakeholders participated in FGDs and KIIs, including:

• VAC, ASP, and DAECC members (i.e., farmers; NGO, private sector, and government staff); • DAES and NGO extension workers at field and district levels; • Representatives of the DEC; • DAES staff at national level; and • SANE partner staff.

Audio recordings and field notes taken during interviews were analyzed using open coding and a content analysis process. This resulted in isolating central themes and identifying key issues and discussions around the themes. Member checking ensured data validity and reliability.

Limitations As with any research, this assessment had some limitations both in design and in interpretation of the results. First, the timing of the assessment required the project to utilize preliminary SCAT data from the current project year, namely that collected in Sept/Oct 2018. While this is still insightful into the changes occurring in the DAESS platforms, the fully analyzed Sept/Oct 2018 data – which is forthcoming – will provide a more compelling point of comparison to show project progress over time.

Second, the comparison of District Development Plans was limited in scope to those districts that had completed the DDPs by the time of the assessment. The sample size is therefore small and statistical correlations difficult to draw. Nonetheless, trends appear between SANE and non-SANE districts that are noteworthy.

5 57% males and 43% females 6 77% males and 23% females

10

Finally, stakeholders expressed confusion about the sampling methods and generalizability of the results for the qualitative review. To clarify, sampling in qualitative research is about gathering diverse perspectives – which was accomplished through the aforementioned interviews and focus groups – and does not require the largest possible sample size, as data are not tied to power calculations or statistical analysis. Also, qualitative research does not seek to establish correlation or causality, so any comparison of perspectives starts and stops with the data (e.g., quotes) themselves. While a non-project district was selected to provide a point of comparison, findings from that district cannot be generalized to all non-SANE districts. Thematic analysis instead illustrates a situation through trends in responses, but is limited to the respondents themselves.

11

FINDINGS

Findings around seven key interrelated themes represent the focus of this report. These are: 1) DAESS structures; 2) Capacity development; 3) Policy-related activities; 4) Coordination and collaboration; 5) Farmer voice; 6) Extension service access; 7) Extension service quality.

In addition, the related benefits and sustainability – from the perspective of respondents in the different categories – was a recurring motif and is treated as a cross-cutting issue discussed in the context of each of the seven themes. Findings are based on numerous SCAT data, District Development Plan comparisons, and statements made by assessment respondents. Every effort was made to ensure the integrity of these data.

DAESS Structures The DAESS system has been around for more than 10 years, with the DAESS Guidelines for implementation released by the GoM in 2006. However, effective implementation of the DAESS has been difficult, despite several attempts to strengthen the system in the past. In districts jointly supported by SANE and DAES, respondents representing DAESS platforms (DAECCs, DSPs, ASPs, and VACs) indicated that DAESS structures now fully exist and are being strengthened. Responses fell into three categories: (1) platform functionality; (2) participation in the platforms; and (3) platform sustainability.

Platform Functionality A key area of focus was on platform functionality, or the actual processes that platforms took to run meetings, elect leadership, prioritize needs, record minutes, etc. In 2016, SANE assessed all stakeholder platforms and determined that functionality required improvements for the benefits of the DAESS system to best manifest themselves, and that moribund platforms needed revitalization. Efforts to improve platform functionality followed in 2017 and 2018.

Perspectives from project districts provided considerable evidence of positive changes in platform functionality before and after SANE and DAES support. In regards to inactive or barely active platforms, responses in project districts were consistent regardless of level of the DAESS system. At the district and national levels, a female DAECC member commented: ‘In the past, these DAESS structures didn’t really exist. Now these structures, ASPs and VACs, function. SANE has introduced specific roles’. A DADO agreed, stating: ‘What we did through SANE is to revamp all the ASPs so that they could form the DSP, because this is a system. Wherever there is blockage in the system, the system is not complete. Now we can say it is complete because all the structures are active’. A male, national-level DAES official concurred: ‘Our problem has been to make the (DAESS) system function. With SANE we have realized this. VACs, ASPs, and some DSPs in some districts are there’.

‘The village committee was a waste of time before. Now (since SANE) we see the benefit.’ – VAC Member

12

The change was also referenced at the farmer level, where a male VAC farmer stated: ‘The VAC was there two years ago but it was dormant’. A quick, cogent follow-on response was given by a female VAC farmer, that ‘The village committee was a waste of time before. Now (since SANE) we see the benefit’. Benefits to her were about obtaining improved services because they are being better coordinated through the structures. A male ASP farmer further asserted: ‘SANE has strengthened our ASP and the VACs because in the past the establishment of VACs and ASPS was not done properly. SANE has helped to re-establish (them) using proper procedures’. At all levels, simply revitalizing the platforms was noted as a significant accomplishment.

Where SANE has not worked, platform functionality does not appear to have changed. An ASP member in Salima reported: ‘Some years back, this committee was established by the then Agricultural Officer and when they left, it stopped functioning’. The Salima Director of Planning and Development (DPD) also reported: ‘The DAECC, agricultural coordinating committee, is not very active. I cannot remember a time when I have seen a report from the [DAECC]’.

Participation in the Platforms The findings as a whole – both through the SCAT assessments and the qualitative review – indicate that there is greater participation in platforms now than before SANE interventions. This is largely due to SANE’s capacity development efforts, further discussed later in the report. Moreover, functionality and participation are mutually reinforcing, as strengthened structures encourage more people to participate while increased involvement helps the structures function more effectively.

The findings also suggest some differences in the effectiveness of and participation in the different levels of platforms and among different types of stakeholders. Based on responses, there may be some differences over time in the level of participation in structures by category of participants. Farmer member participation has likely increased the most over time; less so for NGOs, other civil society, and private-sector actors. Nonetheless, these groups have also increased participation, which results in better collaboration as discussed in a later section.

Table 2: Frequency of smallholder farmers and semi-commercial/commercial farmers participating in ASP and DSP discussions7

Almost all the Time

Approximately 3/4 of the Time

Approximately 1/2 of the Time

Approximately 1/4 of the Time

Almost Never

Male Farmers

ASPs (135) 88.15% 8.15% 3.70% 0.00% 0.00%

DSPs (8 active) 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Female Farmers

ASPs (135) 57.78% 17.04% 18.52% 5.84% 0.74%

DSPs (8 active) 87.50% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

7 Data captures the share of ASPs/DSPs that consider that smallholder farmers and semi- or commercial

farmers participate in the discussion ‘almost all the time’, ‘approx. half of the time’, etc. The reported frequency is based on the majority of responses by the members of each ASP/DSP/DAECC.

13

According to the SCAT data, farmers remain consistent participants in the two platforms designed for their involvement – the ASPs and the DSPs – as evidenced by the data presented in Table 2.

Respondents in SANE districts corroborated these results on farmer participation. At the district level, a high-level district official reported that ‘We see more and more of this (farmers participating in structures)’. Similar sentiments were shared at the field level. A government field-level extension worker described that ‘I go to VAC meetings because I am Secretary. Farmer participation has increased over the years because now members know how to conduct meetings, do demonstrations, carry-out field days’. A male ASP member agreed: ‘At my EPA there is a change. At first the structure was not well known, but at this time farmers’ participation is very active’. Respondents in the non-SANE district did not provide substantial evidence for comparison, although the Salima Extension Methodologies Officer (EMO) reported: ‘I don’t see a change [in farmer participation’.

Table 3: Share of ASPs, DSPs, and DAECCs where all types of stakeholders attend8

Platform Type Types of Actors Considered Attendance by Different

Stakeholders

DSPs (10) State, Non-State, Private Sector, and Farmers 70.00%

DAECCs (10) State, Non-State, and Private Sector 100.00%

ASPs (135) State, Non-State, Private Sector, and Farmers 76.29%

Data also suggests non-farmer actors are participating in the platforms, and improvements have occurred, but challenges remain (Table 3). In SANE districts, respondents described non-farmer participation increasing, and that this involvement cut across different categories of stakeholders. The DADO in one district stated that, in connection with the help of SANE: ‘We are now able to bring all the stakeholders together and connect all agricultural interventions in the district’. For specific stakeholder groups, an ASP member reported: ‘There has been an improvement in the sense that, whenever there is a meeting [NGOs] come and share information’. In relation to researchers in his district, the DADO also cited: ‘I can now confidently say that they are part of the DAECC’. For farmers’ organizations, a female ASP member stated: ‘NASFAM members, they come regularly (to meetings)’. One ASP member also confirmed private sector actors were more involved, stating ‘The ASP has diverse membership, including agro-dealers’.

Challenges to engage non-farmer participants in meetings were evident in the non-SANE district. The DAECC chair in Salima stated: ‘We have some challenges in the running of the DAECC itself. When we invite NGO partners to meet, participation is very low’. Another DAECC member complained: ‘Some NGOs are creating their own parallel structures,’ suggesting buy-in to the DAESS was/is problematic. Per the Salima EMO, even when NGOs engaged the impact was minimal because: ‘Partner

8 Attendance by different stakeholders is an estimation. It is based on the self-reported number of attendants

(for each type of actor) that the members of each ASP/DSP/DAECC reported during the SCATs data collection 2017.

‘We are now able to bring all the stakeholders together and connect all agricultural interventions in the district.’ – DADO in SANE District

14

organizations are sending junior staff who will not make decisions in the meetings (on behalf of their organizations)’. As for researchers, at the ASP level: ‘(Researchers) are not active participants in our meetings’. The EMO for the district confirmed: ‘Researchers just go straight to the AEDC. They don’t go through the structures, like the DAECC’.

Platform Sustainability Sustainability of the platforms was also a key area of inquiry. The majority of respondents indicated that DAESS structures examined in the assessment would continue into the future, even when the SANE project closed. Responses generally broke down into discussions of: (1) empowerment and ownership effects, and (2) financial sustainability.

Statements that addressed sustainability focused heavily on perceived benefits, and how communities are increasingly ‘owning’ the platforms and ‘empowered’ through their use. A female, high-level DAES official stated: ‘They (farmers) feel like this is our activity. Initially farmers were

waiting for support. Now they are empowered (through the DAESS structures)’. Another senior government extensionist reinforced this assertion saying that the platforms would continue: ‘Because of the capacity that has been built in the system. Extension agents know, NGOs know, farmers are empowered’.

SANE district-level respondents also showed strong evidence of empowerment and ownership, towards sustainability of improvements in the DAESS systems. One ASP member described his platform’s transformation: ‘SANE is giving us a fishing rod and training us how to fish… We are empowered to do activities without relying on external help’. A DPD described this empowerment with continuance beyond the SANE project, noting: ‘The communities, they know the importance of having these structures. We feel like there will be sustainability’.

Financing was also considered a key factor in the sustainability of the DAESS platforms. Contrasts between districts where SANE had and had not worked illustrate the changes brought about in terms of resource leveraging and financial sustainability. In some cases (especially non-SANE districts), respondents reported that meetings regularly fail due to lack of funding. They felt the financial responsibility for holding meetings should fall to projects and donors, and meetings needed travel funds, refreshments, and allowances. An EMO in Salima district reported that meetings could not be sustained because: ‘We have a simple problem of financing the meetings’ and ‘We lack resources to run the meetings, especially refreshments’. A Salima ASP member also noted: ‘Some members were mocking us since we work as volunteers’.

This was contrasted by SANE district respondents’ take on funding, where a majority view development as an internally-supported process driven by communities. Per one ASP: ‘The main purpose of the ASP is to develop our areas. We do not expect someone to give us money that would help us hold our monthly meetings. Rather, development is our responsibility, hence we need to do our part’. Another ASP member noted: ‘ASP members contribute; the same happens at the VAC. We meet

‘ASP members contribute; the same happens at the VAC. We meet monthly and we contribute then. The amount is manageable and does not deter people from attending.’ – ASP Member in SANE District

‘SANE is giving us a fishing rod and training us how to fish… We are empowered to do activities without relying on external help.’ – ASP Member in SANE District

15

monthly and we contribute then. The amount is manageable and does not deter people from attending’. This is a significant difference from responses found in other districts.

In fact, a key factor underlying the prospect of sustainability is that several groups advise that they have mobilized funds or goods to support their group. Some platforms (primarily VACs and ASPs) have mobilized their own funds to provide refreshments for meetings, contribute to Lead Farmer training, and in some cases, to support transportation for their members to attend higher-level meetings. The efforts of DAESS platforms to address financial sustainability are captured in Table 4.

Table 4: Share of ASPs/DSPs/DAECCs that have different sources of funding

Platform Type Membership Fee9

Emergency Fund10

One Funding Source to Cover Costs

Two Funding Sources to Cover Costs11

Members Contributions12

DSPs (8) 25.00% 12.50% 25.00% 25.00% 50.00%

DAECCs (10) 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 80.00% 10.00%

ASPs (135) 31.85% 49.62% 20.00% 1.48% 77.03%

At the DAECC level, one member explained how the platform was raising its own funds: ‘The DAECC members are contributing (500 Kwacha monthly) as well for sustainability’s sake’, with money saved in a DAECC-specific savings account. Other platforms have mobilized funds from other stakeholders. ‘The DAECC would continue because we have means and ways of financing our meetings, through the District Agriculture Development Officer and contributions from NGOs’, reported another DAECC member.

9 Membership Fee – based on ‘yes/no’ answers and on whether the majority of the respondents of each ASP/

DSP/DAECC answered ‘yes’ to the following question: “Does this ASP/DSP/DAECC have a membership fee?” 10 Emergency Fund – based on ‘yes/no’ answers and on whether the majority of the respondents of each

ASP/DSP/DAECC answered ‘yes’ to the following question: “Does this ASP/DSP/DAECC have an emergency fund?”

11 One and Two funding source to cover costs – based on the number of funding sources that contributed toward covering the costs associated with running the ASP/DSP/DAECC. A mean for the number of sources is calculated based on the responses of ASP/DSP/DAECC members. Potential sources of funding include: 1) locally generated revenue (e.g., property rates, ground rents, fees and licenses), 2) money transferred by the Central Government, 3) money transferred by the Local Government, 4) resources provided by donors/NGOs, 5) loan and overdrafts from within Malawi, and 6) members’ personal contributions.

12 Members’ Contributions – based on whether or not “members’ personal contributions” was mentioned by the majority of the respondents of each ASP/DSP/DAECC as a source of funding to cover the costs associated with running the ASP/DSP/DAECC. Members’ personal contributions as a source of funding is a sign of commitment towards the running of the ASP/DSP/DAECC and therefore a sign of sustainability.

16

Capacity Development Capacity development is a central component of the SANE project and key to influencing change in the DAESS system and overall access to and quality of extension services. Some respondents (particularly farmers but also sometimes field-level extension workers), while able to identify and discuss the type of capacity development activities they or others had been involved in, did not necessarily identify these activities with the SANE project. When senior officials of DAES were asked about this issue of attribution to SANE, their responses indicated this lack of crediting the project was a good thing. To reiterate the response of a senior DAES official: ‘The role of SANE is to support DAES and DAESS. SANE makes a concerted effort to associate capacity development activities they support with DAES and DAESS rather than with SANE’. SANE project staff confirmed this assertion, thus explaining the limited attribution of efforts and activities to SANE. For the purpose of this report, capacity development activities unmistakably known to be supported by SANE are discussed within the framework of SANE and attributed to SANE.

SANE provided capacity development training either (1) directly, (2) through a cascading training-of-trainers approach, or (3) co-taught with members of DAES, District Agricultural Offices, or EPA offices. The two most frequently mentioned trainings delivered by SANE were related to: (1) the DAESS system itself, and (2) Integrated Homestead Farming and the Household Approach, an approach to link agriculture, nutrition, and family decision-making.

DAESS System Training The DAESS system training was largely designed to enable farmers and extension workers to better understand (1) the DAESS system itself, (2) how to reorganize or revamp moribund committees and panels, and (3) about the roles and responsibilities of members in the different structures. These trainings were based on the improved use of two sets of documents.

On the first, SANE worked directly with government extension staff to review and clarify the implementation guidelines for the DAESS system. These DAESS Guidelines had previously been developed by the GoM in 2006 but required clarification by SANE and DAES to be more useful to platforms. Hard copies of revised guidelines were distributed to platforms among extension staff. On the second, SANE worked to develop a set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) which covered subjects such as how to conduct a meeting, the standards for reorganizing or organizing a committee or panel, how to mobilize resources (financial and otherwise) needed to maintain and grow platforms, etc. SOP documents were also distributed to platforms for trialing. Platforms then tested the clarified DAESS Guidelines and SOPs for six months before providing feedback and contributing to the final refinement of the documents. Two sets of informational materials – booklets and posters in local languages – were later developed and shared again with the platforms, in combination with training.

Since these trainings were provided in SANE districts and not in the non-project district visited, responses diverged noticeably. In SANE districts, respondents considered the training key to strengthening DAESS platforms and effectively ensuring that they functioned to articulate needs and engage with service providers. This started with fully understanding the platforms’ (and platform leaderships’) roles and responsibilities. One ASP member stated: ‘I know the roles and responsibilities of each committee because of SANE’s efforts’. On a broader scale, a local government official at the district level also recognized training contributions, saying: ‘The structures have been trained. They

17

know their roles and responsibilities, and they have the capacity to implement and evaluate activities’. This led to some non-functional platforms being re-done entirely. Per one male ASP farmer: ‘We dissolved the old ASP and based on the SOPs and implementation guidelines, we revamped the ASP’.

Respondents in the non-project district were less confident in these areas. An ASP member in Salima reported: ‘We are not very knowledgeable or equipped in carrying out the ASP functions’, while a VAC member stated: ‘We were not enlightened on what we were supposed to do’. The Salima DAECC chair himself acknowledged, ‘I don’t know much about DAESS’ and ‘I can’t really say how many (DAECC members) know much about DAESS’. Without training on DAESS, these responses were to be expected, but do highlight the differences between project and non-project areas.

Integrated Homestead Farming and the Household Approach Training The Integrated Homestead Farming (IHF) and the Household Approach (HHA) Training are government-introduced approaches designed to improve agricultural and nutritional outcomes in Malawi. IHF promotes agricultural and dietary diversification through integrated homestead gardens, orchards, and small animal production in the often-underutilized areas around the home, as well as planning, processing, and consumption of homegrown produce. IHF is carried out in and around the home. HHA is an approach that involves the entire household (women, men, girls, and boys) to promote equity in power relations and equitable access to and control over resources, assets, and benefits for the household. Household members work together to analyze their situation, visualize ways to improve it, and develop action plans to achieve improvements.

SANE added value to these approaches in three ways. First, SANE integrated the IHF and HHA approaches, which were previously implemented in isolation, and strengthened gender and environmental issues in the approach to create a holistic teaching/learning package. Second, SANE supported the delivery of training based on the package to various stakeholders in the DAESS system and to members of District Nutrition Coordinating Committees (DNCCs). The intention was for trainees to first implement the approach in their own homes and subsequently train others. Third, SANE collected, assisted in analysis, and then provided teaching/learning resource materials to trainees for future reference. In some cases, these resource materials were deposited at EPA-level resource libraries.

Respondents indicated the IHF-HHA training promoted harmonization between the approaches and led to increased knowledge and ability to introduce changes in production and consumption of healthy foods. ‘These days we know more about nutrition and we know now because of SANE training’, reported a female VAC farmer. A field-level extension worker concurred, adding ‘Before SANE, the six food groups were practiced by few people, but now people have a better understanding and they have adopted this. The food in the groups are available; we use local foods that are in the six groups’.

In several cases, extension staff involved in delivering IHF and HHA training said they themselves had adopted some of the technologies promoted in the training they received. One mentioned planting banana trees at his home and using waste water from his home for irrigation. Another mentioned

‘The structures have been trained. They know their roles and responsibilities, and they have the capacity to implement and evaluate activities’ – Government Official in SANE district

18

starting her own backyard garden. This type of modeling is a powerful example of the perceived value of the integrated approach by those who are teaching it.

Other Capacity Development Activities Other capacity development activities were mentioned by the various categories of respondents, although to a lesser degree than those discussed above. Among them were: training in extension methodologies, farmer learning events, Farmer Field Schools, Farmer Business Schools, Climate-Smart Agriculture (some of which is integrated into IHF), demonstrations, research-extension linkages, Fall Armyworm training, and stakeholder mapping (further discussed below under Coordination and Collaboration). On the value of training, a respondent commented that SANE trainings were ‘serious’, with material well-covered and sessions ‘starting and ending on time’. Others appreciated the reference material received during trainings, which is being used for their own knowledge and in teaching others.

Policy SANE supports policy development at the national level – specifically on the new National Agricultural Extension Strategy and the Agricultural Sector Food and Nutrition Strategy (ASFNS) – and works to improve implementation of the existing National Agricultural Extension Policy, which includes the DAESS.

Stakeholders at the national level were the most aware of SANE’s involvement in supporting the two high-level policies under development. A few respondents mentioned SANE was in-line with Malawi’s Decentralization Policy via its work in strengthening the DAESS platforms, but many more failed to draw this connection. The ASFNS was brought up several times, specifically SANE’s vital role in providing financial and technical support and leading/coordinating various stakeholder meetings to finalize the document. The lack of standards – for example, the lack qualifications for extension staff and a code of conduct for district-level entities – was mentioned at the national level, which was linked to SANE’s influence in the development and promotion of Environmental Minimum Standards for DAESS.

However, few respondents at the district level were able to identify SANE’s influence on policy in general, and on the National Agricultural Extension Strategy or the Food and Nutrition Strategy in specific. Findings were more mixed than those at lower VAC and ASP levels, where very few people responded to questions regarding policy. One farmer mentioned he had heard about the NAEP on the radio. He said: ‘We heard of the collaboration between government, NGOs, and VACs and we understand this as a government policy to guide extension work’. SANE was not considered to have a role in this by respondents, which was not surprising given the attribution issues discussed in the previous section.

Some field-level extensionists were more able than VAC and ASP farmers to offer a response to policy-related queries. Several extensionists were able to describe a policy as ‘a guideline of what is to be done’ and that it had value ‘because it guides you on how to undertake your activities’. However, the same respondents did not

‘SANE has strengthened structures which have resulted in inclusion of agricultural projects in the District Development Plans’ – District-level extensionist

19

understand that their work with platforms constituted implementing the DAESS or the NAEP. One field-level extensionist did say, ‘I know the agriculture policy should be demand-driven and pluralistic’, but again, none of the field-level extension workers associated SANE with supporting policy-related activities.

Other respondents mentioned that because of a strengthened DAESS, local government was noticeably more supportive of agricultural projects than in the past, when projects supported by local government were primarily public works. Indeed, one local government official cited that ‘(Because) of what is coming from the ASP, agriculture is ranking number one’ in the districts’ list of development priorities. Another district-level extensionist advised: ‘SANE has strengthened structures which have resulted in inclusion of agricultural projects in the District Development Plans’. To confirm these assertions, DAES and SANE collected draft District Development Plans to compare the placement of agricultural topics in several SANE and non-SANE districts (Table 5).

Similarly, advocacy was mentioned by one senior agricultural extension official as an important benefit of strengthened structures. He suggested: ‘Structures can advocate for and now have more influence on what should be done at their level’ (i.e., which agricultural and nutrition problems should be addressed). This sense of evolving collective agency, a benefit, was referred to in various ways during interviews. The strengthened DAESS increased advocacy towards agricultural interventions, and increases in farmer voice (see later sections) contribute to this outcome.

20

Table 5: Priorities from the District Development Plans Ra

nk SANE Districts Non-SANE Districts

Lilongwe Dedza Mangochi Blantyre Salima Zomba Ntchisi Mulanje

1 Lack of potable water

High malnutrition rate

High population growth

Food insecurity

Poor sanitation and access to safe water

Food and nutrition insecurity at household level

Low access to improved health services

High levels of poverty at household level

2 Poor road network

Low literacy levels

Low literacy levels

Low household income

Low Primary School pass rate

Loss of biodiversity and environmental degradation

Low access to potable water

High prevalence of HIV/ AIDS and stunting among <5 children

3 Environmental degradation and food insecurity

Low community economic empowerment

Food and nutrition insecurity at household level

High population growth

Poor infrastructure development

High illiteracy rate Poor communication

Inadequate access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene services

4 Inadequate health facilities, <5 clinics, village clinics, health centers

Theft and low security

High maternal deaths, infant morbidity and mortality

Poor standard of education

High morbidity and mortality rates

High maternal and infant mortality rates

Low income levels High morbidity and mortality rates

5 Inadequate extension workers’ houses (PEAs, Head Teachers, Teachers, HSAs, CDAs, AEDCs/ AEDOs, F.Os)

Low access to health services

Loss of biodiversity and environmental degradation

Poor road network

Inadequate access to child- and youth-friendly services and child labor

Limited access to potable water and improved sanitation

Food insecurity High rates of illiteracy

6 Inadequate school blocks in Primary and Secondary schools

Limited transport and communication infrastructure

High levels of environmental degradation

Food and income insecurity

Poor transport and communication infrastructure

Low literacy levels Food insecurity

21

Rank

SANE Districts Non-SANE Districts

Lilongwe Dedza Mangochi Blantyre Salima Zomba Ntchisi Mulanje

7 Lack of reliable markets

Low access to safe water and sanitation

Early marriages

Lack of resilience on climate change and environmental degradation, risks, and its impacts

High poverty levels

Climate change and environmental degradation

Weak Council capacity

8 Illiteracy Low urban development

Increased crime rates

Poor livelihoods at household level

High incidences of gender-based violence

Children, elderly, and women’s vulnerability

Inadequate access to quality transport, communication, and other public infrastructure

9 Low income at household level (poverty)

Low coordination of development efforts

High HIV prevalence and poor quality of life for people living with HIV and affected individuals, families, and communities

High crime rates High crime rates and limited access to justice

Environmental degradation

10 Climate change Weak institutional capacity for effective decentralized service delivery

Poor housing and urban development

Note: Cells highlighted are agricultural/nutrition priorities

22

Coordination and Collaboration A strategic aim of the DAESS system is to enhance coordination of the various extension service providers (i.e., public, NGOs/projects, private, and civil society), engaging all relevant stakeholders such as input suppliers, researchers, and staff from other Ministries (e.g., Health Surveillance Workers and Community Development Assistants). These stakeholders are primarily involved at the area and district levels. While there are few private sector extension service providers (except for the commodity specific providers), the NGO landscape in Malawi is very dense. An abundance of national and international NGOs are providing some type of extension services in Malawi. Coordination of their services has been a longstanding challenge. The DAESS system provides the mechanism for all extension service providers to come together at the district level and through the ASP to engage directly with farmer representatives, for purposes of learning their priorities and needs, sharing solutions, coordinating service delivery, being responsive and accountable to farmers and communities, collaborating across interventions for resource maximization, and avoiding redundancies.

Generally, respondents say coordination and collaboration is improving in SANE districts, although findings suggest there may be differences in the degree of coordination by category of participant and by platform level. A high-level DAES official suggested that: ‘Different stakeholders are working together. A sense of coordination and organization has been installed’. Another senior DAES official advised: ‘DAESS is all about coordination and collaboration. Before, no coordination. Now because of SANE and DAESS implementation, extension is moving’. Similarly, a district-level government extensionist noted that: ‘Previously at district level it (NGO and government extension collaboration) was working, but at lower levels they (NGOs) dance their own way. But now ASPs are making NGOs accountable’.

While most respondents say coordination and collaboration is improving, there were also some vigorously dissenting opinions, especially about the involvement of NGOs. A senior DAES official felt that: ‘It still hasn’t changed. NGOs are hiding and they are not transparent and they don’t go through the districts’. Similarly, a DAECC member in a SANE district stated that: ‘Coordination (with NGOs) is not there’, but in later discussion did nonetheless mention some examples of coordination.

Most respondents, however, say more NGOs attend DAECC and other platform meetings now than before SANE, mentioning there is a rotation among government and NGOs as to who hosts a meeting, providing refreshments and sometimes transportation. Some NGOs advise they have a coordination line in their budget which allows them to be more involved with DAESS structures.

Interviewees in all locations were very clear about one important point: all NGOs are to register with the district. Buoyed by stronger DAESS platforms, the DAECC becomes the entry point for all extension providers in the district. The DAECC then is said to have the authority to coordinate activities, meaning the DAECC reportedly has the authority to tell NGOs in which geographic area they should work and what type of services they should provide. The DAECC authority comes from the DAECC constitution,

‘DAESS is all about coordination and collaboration. Before, no coordination. Now because of SANE and DAESS implementation, extension is moving.’ – Senior DAES Official

23

recognized by government, and from the District Council who is said to be able to intervene if there is a problem.

When asked if NGOs cooperate, the general response was that yes, most do. Explained one high-level DAES official: ‘The system isn’t about the MoAIWD. We are trying to promote pluralism, so the DAESS is about players. The NGOs used to say DAESS is for the Ministry; it is not our (NGOs’) baby. But now NGO players understand that DAESS is for all of us’. This suggests some service providers – public and NGO – may have experienced a mindset transformation, a benefit to all those involved with the DAESS system.

SANE has contributed to this mindset shift, especially with its key partners. SANE’s coordination and collaboration with partners is guided by joint work planning on synergistic activities (e.g., trainings, field demonstrations, learning activities around nutrition, review and production of technical learning materials). The entry point for joint collaboration is routinely through the DAESS platforms. A researcher working jointly with SANE said: ‘We engage with SANE because of SANE’s involvement with DAECCs and ASPs. We have used them (DAECCs and ASPs) to promote our technologies. We have done the training; SANE has helped coordinate with the structures’. Partners mention contacting DAESS for entry into a community even for activities in which SANE does not necessarily participate. This is another example of SANE creating leverage. Strengthened DAESS structures are also being utilized by other stakeholders to facilitate achieving their goals.

Furthermore, when a DAECC member was asked if an NGO had ever been asked to change location within a district or the type of extension services provided, the answer was circumspect: ‘In my experiences, only once have we asked them to review, because (actually) donor funding is already set’. This is an area that requires further examination to clarify the actual authority of DAECCs and the extent and challenges of coordination among service providers.

To support this process, SANE introduced a service provider mapping exercise in some districts whereby the location and activity of service providers in the area were identified. This was mentioned by several government extensionists, farmers, and other members of DAESS structures, and SANE partners. Collectively they suggested the benefit of the map was actionable knowledge. Now they know who is where, doing what, and they can contact those providers for help, coordination, and collaboration as needed. One ASP chair noted: ‘It was helpful to know the number (of stakeholders) working in our EPA, and to know if there is a need for collaboration’.

This is another example of leveraging. SANE introduced an activity that is utilized by others resulting in a multiplication of outcomes of SANE efforts without a corresponding increase in use of resources. A male VAC member explained his view of the benefit of coordination and collaboration as: ‘The government extension workers and NGOs have different capabilities. Now they work together and help each other.’ An example of this given by a VAC farmer focused on government extension staff having the technical knowledge while NGOs have resources to support the delivery of that knowledge.

24

Farmer Voice The essence of demand-driven extension services is the explicit focus on needs and priorities of farmers, as articulated by farmers themselves. As stated in the National Agricultural Extension Policy, demand-driven is a means to an end of ensuring extension services, and also research services, are relevant and endeavor to address farmers’ needs and priorities. Demand-driven extension requires a process through which farmers can voice their needs and priorities and it requires farmers to be empowered to make their voices heard. The DAESS platforms are meant to enhance farmer voice so that farmers have more input into extension programming and decision-making. The assessment therefore investigated if and how farmers communicate their needs to extension providers and the local government (demand side) and whether they received responses to their needs (supply side).

Demand Side From the interviews, it became apparent that the issue of farmer voice is closely linked with strengthened platforms and to collaboration and coordination of service providers. Farmers in VACs and ASPs were very clear about how their needs/demands were communicated. A female farmer explained the process: ‘We meet as a VAC to discuss problems, then these are brought to the ASP’. The discussion continued to identify how these problems are channeled up the system to local government bodies, government extension, and/or other service providers. VACs were also mentioned as the first line attempts to resolve farmers’ problems, before channeling them onward if they are unable to resolve them locally. A VAC member described that: ‘Because we are now coordinated, we share problems and discuss the means through which we can address the problems. In unity there is power, such that we are able to see opportunities existing in our community’. This suggests a degree of independence is being cultivated.

Furthermore, farmers are recognizing the power of their voice and exercising it. A VAC member stated: ‘Yes, we have a voice. We communicate with service providers on various issues that are of concern’. Another VAC member explained that: ‘Previously (NGOs) would bring activities to us without our input. Currently, they depend on the reports that we as farmers present’. While similar sentiments were found in all SANE districts, an ASP member in Salima complained: ‘It’s a top-down approach. We are receiving the projects that have been planned at a higher level, not what the community is in need’.

Farmer voice acts to identify and ‘pull’ from extension and research the technologies and improved practices they need, meaning that services are available, better quality, and more appropriate to local needs (discussed further in the Extension Service Quality section). Field-level extension workers (public and private) were clear that changes in farmers’ voice were occurring. One respondent clarified that: ‘The demand now is different. Farmers are demanding more because they have channels with some problems solved at the VAC level. This is the change’. A senior agricultural extension officer added: ‘Now farmers know where to take their problems. (Before SANE), if they had a problem, they’d just live with it. Now they know they have a system, even to be more vocal’.

‘Now farmers know where to take their problems. (Before SANE), if they had a problem, they’d just live with it. Now they know they have a system, even to be more vocal.’ – Extension Worker in SANE District

25

National-level officials at DAES referenced the same change. One senior administrator commented: ‘Now farmers know they have a system to be even more vocal. Sometimes they are even confrontational; they have a confidence. They (know they) have a right to demand’. Another high-level DAES official, while prefacing his comments by suggesting more data would be needed to more fully understand issues of farmer voice, discussed how the overall extension system has changed. He advised that previously

farmers worked with the ‘old extension system that was top-down but SANE has brought change. Farmers now ask for things. Farmers voice demands through VACs, ASPs, and DSPs, also through the Farmers Union and other associations’. He maintained that capacity development of farmers by SANE has enabled farmers ‘to be able to speak for themselves’.

Discussion on gender perspectives from the demand side appears to suggest that more women are openly voicing needs through the DAESS platforms than before. This was attributed to regular gender trainings being conducted in communities by DAES, the GoM, and non-state organizations. When queried about differences in male and female farmers’ voices, a senior DAES extensionist responded: ‘In most cases, more women than men are voicing… Women (are) very vocal. Maybe it is changing with gender sensitization. The women are coming up’.

Potential challenges were also raised related to increased farmer voice and demand. A senior district extensionist noted that: ‘Farmers say what their problems are and they actually have demands. It is not business as usual. Now extension is required to find solutions’. A DAES extension official agreed, noting that: ‘Farmer demands are diverse, which is a big challenge’. Extension capacity to respond to demands may become more of an issue as farmer demands increase. In addition, one respondent explained that: ‘Farmers can’t demand what they don’t know’, suggesting there is room for extension and research to also ‘push’ new improved technologies and practices.

Supply Side The majority of those asked if their problems were ever resolved said they were, although not always and not always entirely. Several examples were provided. A VAC farmer explained how when they wanted to farm fish: ‘We dug the ponds but didn’t have fingerlings’. The problem went up to the ASP and onward and ‘in a short-time the government brought fingerlings’. Other ASP members mentioned channeling problems related to the prolonged dry spell up to higher levels. They received sweet potato vines to mitigate the negative effects. ASP farmers also gave an example of a problem related to land degradation in a meeting. They communicated their problem and were able to access local government funds to construct various types of land rehabilitation structures. ‘Compare the before and after situation that SANE has existed,’ stated an ASP member. ‘In the past, it was usually top down. For example, the manifestation of Fall Armyworm, we would have waited from the top to provide solutions, while now since the ASP has diverse membership, responses are provided timely’.

‘Farmers say what their problems are and they actually have demands. It is not business as usual. Now extension is required to find solutions.’ – Extension Worker in SANE District

26

From the service provider side, field-level extension workers said that they were better able to meet needs through improved farmer voice, that by ‘knowing demands, we are able to do training and meet them [farmers’ needs]’. A district-level government official said that this makes their job easier because: ‘When (interventions) are coming from the top, there is a lot of resistance… When it comes from their issues, it is easier to implement those interventions and own it’. An extension worker at the EPA level confirmed: ‘There is a farmers’ demand, and also there is ownership… If you give what they have demanded, they will respect it and take full ownership of (implementing) it’.

For example, extensionists described relaying soil fertility concerns from the ASPs/DSPs to researchers at Chitedze Research Station, and how researchers are now conducting field trials to mitigate the problem. This is a real-life example of how farmers, extensionists, and researchers can and should collaborate in a functional and pluralistic system.

Extension Service Access Improved access to extension services is conceptualized as the first step – coupled with improved quality of services (covered in the following section) – that leads to positive agricultural and nutritional outcomes. But more simply, the benefit of improved access is succinctly described in the response of a male district-level extensionist who advised: ‘Access means that when you demand, you are able to get it’. Access to extension services remains a challenge in Malawi, a country characterized by high farmer-to-extension worker ratios, rampant vacancies, and low numbers of frontline workers among both NGO and private sector companies. In Salima district, the EMO clearly articulated this concern: ‘We feel we are not reaching farmers… We have very few frontline staff. We have about 45 out of the required 80 AEDOs, so farmer contact is very low’.

Nonetheless, respondents from SANE districts and at all levels suggested access to extension services has improved. Reasons given for improved access focused on organization of farmers in DAESS structures, prominence of Lead Farmers, better dissemination of messages, and gender-related improvements. These reasons were linked to and intertwined with SANE’s influence both in strengthening DAESS structures and in improving coordination and collaboration of service providers. Many of these comments also equate expanded reach of extension with improved access.

Numerous comments centered on the value of organizing farmers through the DAESS structures. The gist of these comments is that by improving the functionality of platforms, farmers are better able to access services. Many VAC members indicated that strengthened structures have contributed to easier access to extension services by farmers, because they (farmers) are getting more organized in groups and hence more readily reached by the extension workers. Field-level extension workers corroborated comments made by farmers that improved coordination of the service providers facilitated by DAESS platforms is contributing to reaching different groups of farmers. ‘SANE has helped organize and now we can reach out to more farmers with messages of improved farming methods,’ reported one extension worker.

Changes in access are also linked to the Lead Farmer approach adopted by DAES, whereby selected farmers in communities are trained by extension service providers to extend their reach. These farmers

27

subsequently train other farmers in their communities. Many VAC and ASP members are Lead Farmers and are able to influence the adoption of technologies and practices by other farmers. A female VAC Lead Farmer explained that: ‘We are also extension workers in our community, so we are easily accessible’. Lead Farmers were also frequently mentioned in relation to enhanced access to extension services and linked implicitly to SANE efforts to strengthen DAESS structures. A female VAC farmer noted: ‘We have more access. Now we say we can access to extension is easy. We have government extension workers who help us and we have Lead Farmers who help them’.

Extension workers also cited the contributions of Lead Farmers to improved extension access: ‘Access has changed. Farmers have more services because VACs have made a change; VAC leaders reach more farmers. As an AEDO (extension worker), VAC leaders make a multiplication of my efforts. We had this in the past but now they (platforms) are more organized’. A senior DAES extensionist also noted that: ‘Structures have become a major source for identifying Lead Farmers, which benefits other farmers and has helped to relieve (the workload) of government extension workers’.

Another major component of improved access comes through better message dissemination using the DAESS structures. ASP members appreciated how DAESS platforms have enhanced communication and transmission of messages to farmers through the VACs. ‘The change is there. With the strengthening of the DAESS structures, the transmission and communication is easier to reach the farmers, via the VAC and the clusters’, stated one ASP member. Improvements to the DAESS was cited as a reason: ‘SANE has helped us organize and now we can reach out to more farmers with messages of improved farming methods,’ explained a Lead Farmer and ASP member. Local extension workers also noted the benefits of ASPs and VACs as channels for reaching communities with agricultural messages. ‘It makes it easier for us (to do our job) to reach communities (through the VACs), now there is more community participation and the community itself extends information’, reported an extension worker.

Access to extension also showed improvements in gender equity. Although not attributed to SANE, farmers and extension workers reported to have attended gender-related trainings implemented by other service providers. A female VAC farmer said: ‘Now extension has changed because previously I could not sit by a married man. But now since we learned about gender, we can share’. The comment implied that the gender training appears to affect female participation in DAESS platforms, which is core to SANE efforts. In a focus group with field-level extension workers, the response to whether more females participated in VACs now than previously was clear: ‘Yes, you will see at the VAC gathering today’. Indeed, 22 of the 30 participants at the next meeting were female and 8 were male. While this may have been an anomaly, given its importance, the issue merits further study.

‘It makes it easier for us (to do our job) to reach communities (through the VACs), now there is more community participation and the community itself extends information’ - Extension Worker in SANE District

“Access has changed. Farmers have more services because VACs have made a change; VAC leaders reach more farmers. As an AEDO (i.e., extension worker), VAC leaders make a multiplication of my efforts. We had this in the past but now they are more organized (through DAESS).” – Extension Worker in SANE District

28

Extension Service Quality While improved access to extension means more farmers and rural people are able to engage with trainings and messaging, those services must also be of high quality for benefits to be felt. Efforts to improve service quality are therefore crucial. Findings regarding service quality showed that, while most respondents in SANE districts felt quality had improved, challenges remain.

Improvements The quality of extension services is inherently related to the quality of the information, technologies, and practices with which extension is involved. Respondents reported SANE was involved in facilitating the sharing of up-to-date technical information and research in two main ways. First, government extensionists linked researchers to farmers through VACs and ASPs for purposes of field trials, demonstrations, and data collection. Second, SANE supported extension-farmer-research linkage workshops. Both activities were acknowledged as pathways to better quality services.

Other improvements discussed by respondents related to the appropriateness of services and the provision of requested training and resource materials. The comment of a field-level extension worker reflected this: ‘Quality is very good because the extension workers are implementing programs like IHF’, which was determined to better match community needs. Other types of trainings and resource material distribution were also considered by respondents to affect quality of services. A female VAC farmer explained that previously only extension workers were ‘knowing’ but now because of training, VAC members and Lead Farmers ‘also know’ and they are thus better prepared to provide better training to others. A field-level extension worker stated: ‘SANE has helped by providing reference materials and trainings to VACs’.

Implicit in these statements is the fact that, as the quality of information has improved, so too has its ability to influence adoption of beneficial technologies and approaches. Respondents did indicate that adoption had improved through strengthening the DAESS structures. A field-level extension worker, focusing on the adoption of technology, said: ‘The adoption of technology is higher because of VACs. If I want to deliver a technology, I involve the VAC, then the VAC identifies where to do the technology (demonstration), and the VAC invites people to go the demonstration. The community is there; it is more efficient’. Similarly, an ASP member noted: ‘Most have already done the trials and after seeing the benefits, (farmers) have now adopted the technologies’.

As service quality has increased, farmers in particular are realizing tangible agricultural and nutritional benefits. At the highest level of impact, the benefit of quality extension services for extension clients is food and nutrition security and improved livelihoods. Indeed, respondents stated clearly that SANE interventions did produce the last-mile benefits indicative of better quality extension. A high-level district official said of better quality extension: ‘It’s for the common man (or woman). It’s the farmer down there. It’s the household. It is all for the benefit of the farm families, so we can better serve them’. More

‘The adoption of technologies is higher because of (stronger) VACs.’ - Extension Worker in SANE District

29

specifically, respondents indicated quality benefits in the following areas: (1) production and yields; (2) links to markets; (3) nutritional outcomes; (4) resilience; and (5) gender.

In relation to production benefits, respondents in SANE districts noted that better service quality had contributed to increased production. According to a male VAC farmer, ‘It (quality of services) has changed because now I get more production on a small piece of land. Before I got less’. Other

farmers supported these comments, citing that ‘The modern type of extension provision is beneficial to us looking at the crops we are growing and the yield that is realized. After registering all of these benefits, I doubt if a farmer would want to go back to his/her old ways of farming just because SANE has left’.

Other respondents discussed how service quality improvements had resulted in better links to markets. An ASP member explained how, through platform-led advocacy, farmers were getting better market prices: ‘Poor prices is indeed an issue but as an ASP, we tried to address it by forming an association. The association is expected to look into markets and marketing opportunities for ASP members’. One DAECC member, representing an NGO, described how the project had contributed to this change: ‘SANE was at the forefront of encouraging farmers to get links to markets’. Further efforts to utilize the DAESS platforms to link farmers to markets could pay similar dividends.

Respondents indicated several nutritional benefits were resulting from better quality services. An ASP member stated that ‘The children in this area, they are wasting. So due to this project, it has supported the children to grow healthy’. Some attribution was given to SANE-supported interventions, specifically the IHF-HHA trainings. Per a female DAECC member: ‘You can see when you go to the field, the extension agents are really implementing what they are trained on. You can see backyard gardens and when you ask them (farmers) they say the SANE project trained the extension workers who trained us’. A field-level extensionist added: ‘SANE promotes backyard gardens, which helps farmers become healthier’.

Although not heavily referenced, better quality services were also linked to resilience. VAC farmers reported that: ‘Climate change has also been a big problem. Due to the coordinated extension provision, it has helped farmers to best prepare for extreme events’.

Finally, service quality had implications for gender equity. Training conducted by different service providers ensure gender consideration is given attention in all activities. Extension workers referred to the HHA training by DAES and SANE as assisting to promote a culture of inclusivity in activities starting at the household level. ‘HHA benefits women because the emphasis is on the family,’ explained a female extension worker. ‘The benefit is they now discuss what they’re going to do as a family, not just men making decisions. The family makes a plan’. Similar efforts are being taken to ensure quality services are received across all gender groups.

Challenges Although many challenges in improving service quality were found to remain, respondents focused heavily on the need for service providers – and especially the extension workers interacting with farmers

‘It (quality of services) has changed because now I get more production on a small piece of land. Before I got less.’ – Farmer in SANE District

30

– to have the basic skills and qualifications to do the job well. Absent minimum requirements or quality check mechanisms, organizations often recruit whoever they see fit. Inadequate qualifications of extension workers – especially ones employed by NGOs – were brought up by respondents at the national and district levels with regularity. A high-level DAES official described the importance of having qualified extension workers, suggesting well-trained extensionists would improve quality: ‘NGOs hire people who are not really extension people. We need standards, we need to enforce them, and we need (supporting) policies’. Another clarified the issue, reporting: ‘DAECCs are interested in standards. They are requesting profiles of NGO extension workers. One (NGO extension worker) was actually a dentist’. In regards to qualification standards for extension workers, ‘We’re not there yet,’ explained a DAECC member, implying this could be an area for future consideration. Other respondents suggested that strengthening the DAESS platforms can assist in mitigating the problem of poorly-qualified extension workers, as District Councils could take up the responsibility as advised by the DAECC.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Through analysis of SANE and non-SANE districts, findings clearly show that partnership between the project and DAES has resulted in activities that contribute to positive changes that are leading to agricultural and nutrition-related impacts. Agriculture and nutrition are also being prioritized higher by districts in planning how to address their development gaps. In its work, SANE has built on and strengthened government extension structures (the DAESS) primarily through capacity development, which in turn has positively influenced the coordination and collaboration of extension service providers and increased the extent to which farmers are able to effectively demand and receive quality extension services. A conceptual diagram (Figure 5) is provided to illustrate these impact pathways.

Figure 5: Conceptual diagram of extension system change and its effects

Note: Dark shade and black font indicate strongest input, output, and outcomes

‘DAECCs are interested in standards. They are requesting profiles of NGO extension workers. One (NGO extension worker) was actually a dentist.’ – Senior DAES Official

31

Moreover, the strategic focus and strength of the project is that SANE works directly and collaboratively with DAES and government extension systems and staff, leveraging and adding value to government-driven efforts and policies, and not implementing parallel project activities. It thereby contributes significantly to the guiding principles of the GoM’s National Agricultural Extension Policy and supports the MoAIWD in its implementation (Table 6). Similar influences are clear between SANE activities and USAID/Malawi’s Country Development and Communication Strategy.

Table 6: SANE Influences on the GoM National Agricultural Extension Policy

GoM Policy Equivalent SANE Influences

1) Demand-driven services Efforts to strengthen farmer voice, through a stronger DAESS, contribute to the ability to demand services

2) Accountability Farmer voice also contributes to holding service providers – both state and non-state actors – accountable for access and quality of services

3) “Those who benefit pay” Platform efforts to sustainably finance themselves enable mechanisms for paying for services

4) Resource sustainability Sustainable financing of platforms and advocacy efforts that promote agriculture towards the top of districts’ development agendas help move farmers towards a sense of ownership of extension services, and away from reliance on external funding

5) Equalization Improvements to access and quality of services, especially with regards to rural people representing diverse types of farmers, helps make extension more equitable

6) Promotion of pluralism Strengthening DAESS structures, promoting and encouraging participation from diverse stakeholders and efforts to enhance coordination as well as collaboration contribute to more effective pluralism in extension provision.

7) Decentralized coordination Utilizing DAESS platforms from the village level on up, and strengthening links to local government structures, helps promote decentralized resource allocation and empowerment to solve local problems.

Specific linkages between the seven thematic areas of the assessment – and the National Agricultural Extension Policy and USAID/Malawi Country Development Cooperation Strategy – are discussed as follows.

Capacity building and an enabling policy environment are prerequisites to functional DAESS structures. Despite outlining the importance of the DAESS structures in the NAEP, many of these platforms required revitalization and training to function effectively. Efforts to do so – through capacity building of the platforms using the clarified DAESS Implementation Guide and SANE-developed Standard Operating Procedures – are improving not only functionality but leading to greater farmer voice and more diverse

32

participation by stakeholders. These changes are also motivating farmers and platform members to invest their time and own resources in sustaining the platforms.

The assessment showed that by building platform capacities, farmer voice was indeed strengthened. In fact, the discussion of farmer voice generated the most definite and frequently mentioned set of responses from both farmers and extensionists, who noted that (1) farmers now know they have a system (DAESS) through which they can make their needs heard; (2) they now know how to use the system to make their needs heard; and (3) they are now using the DAESS to do so. The key benefits of amplifying farmers’ voice are that service providers are now expected to engage with platforms and services are based on and more closely aligned with farmers’ needs and priorities. Along these lines, members of DAESS platforms are beginning to show confidence in taking leadership positions, engaging with service providers, and demanding feedback from the providers to hold them accountable. This contributes to the well-articulated role of demand-driven services in both the NAEP and USAID/Malawi’s CDCS (DO3, IR3.2). Although not explicitly mentioned during interviews, this in turn positively influences farmer adoption of improved technologies and practices and will ultimately positively impact farmers’ livelihoods and lives.

With functional capacity built and farmer voice enhanced, the platforms are positioned to better fulfill their role in supporting the decentralized coordination and pluralism advocated for in the NAEP and USAID/Malawi’s CDCS (SIR 3). The assessment showed that a greater diversity of actors is participating in DAESS platforms as they collaborate to respond to farmers’ demands. Strengthened DAESS platforms offer other opportunities for enhanced coordination and collaboration as farmers and service providers engage in mutual discussions to identify priorities and clarify roles to undertake activities. This represents a shift from the ‘top-down’ approaches cited in the non-SANE district, and aligns with the CDCS objective of strengthening citizen’s participation in decision making (IR 3.2). In addition, participation of private sector actors in the platforms is critical to being able to offer services that add market-focused benefits that have been missing. Through DAESS farmers are being exposed to an array of technologies, approaches, and messages from service providers, a crucial characteristic of effective pluralistic extension.

While improving the functionality of the platforms helps lead to stronger demand and coordination/ collaboration by service providers, further capacity development efforts – especially those directed at extension personnel – are also essential for ensuring that service access and quality are adequate and impactful. Respondents cited trainings in IHF-HHA, extension methodologies, Fall Armyworm monitoring, and research-extension joint farmer learning events as activities that responded to needs voiced by the DAESS. By using training-of-trainers approaches and providing reference materials during trainings, project efforts have built the capacity of facilitators in the districts to provide quality trainings to farmers in the future. Inclusion of extension workers from the public sector, NGOs, and the private sector in trainings also eased coordination and collaboration when rolling out the training to farmers, especially as agricultural extension and nutrition coordination platforms members worked together in support of these efforts. This contributed to greater access to services.

33

Indeed, respondents strongly and overall consistently supported the assertion that, as strengthened DAESS platforms have enhanced coordination of and collaboration with service providers, access to and quality of services are improving. This was due to providers more consistently (1) working with rather than bypassing the DAESS platforms when conducting agricultural work in districts, and (2) utilizing the cadres of Lead Farmers engaged in DAESS platforms to disseminate messages or technologies at scale.

Moreover, DAESS platforms provide an accountability mechanism to push for greater equity in accessing extension services, as the DAESS is inclusive to both male and female farmers and youth. The National Agricultural Extension Policy and USAID/Malawi’s CDCS IR 1.1 both advocate for improved availability of essential services, so SANE’s contributions are helping to advance this objective. Trainings on gender conducted by other providers appear to have also contributed to changing power relations between men and women farmers regarding their participation in agricultural activities, and this was helping all groups access agricultural and nutrition services through DAESS platforms.

Influences on extension service quality also appear positive and sustainable, with room for improvement. SANE influences quality largely through improvements to the DAESS platforms that result in stronger farmer voice to demand high-quality services and hold providers accountable to delivering programs that benefit farmers. While efforts to address shortcomings in extension worker qualifications and message validation and harmonization are still required, SANE’s efforts to strengthen DAESS platforms, capacitate extension workers, and increase linkages between extension and research actors are steps in the right direction. These efforts are leading to benefits in production, livelihoods, nutrition, resilience, and gender, all objectives of the NAEP and the USAID/Malawi CDCS.

Most importantly, there is a sense that improvements in service quality are likely to persist. This stems from changes in farmer voice to demand appropriate and high-quality services, and changes in access to services. Inherent in this is a move away from dependency towards empowerment and ownership of services by farmers. Again, a dichotomy existed between the non-SANE district (Salima) and SANE districts. Whereas farmers and extension workers in SANE districts noted that the practice of being ‘lazy, relying on handouts’ had changed to ‘full ownership’ of implementing services, respondents in the non-SANE district consistently discussed the persistent challenges of the dependence mentality. The changes from focusing on handouts and the dependence mentality exemplifies empowerment and ownership of extension services. This suggests a transformation that should help farmers demand better services and hold service providers accountable for delivering them.

In the spirit of empowerment, willingness to pay for services that are deemed beneficial is slowly emerging among farmers. Again, the willingness to contribute resources to undertake activities signals ownership and attitudes of self-reliance. These attributes are visible in strengthened DAESS platforms where members are seeing the benefits of working as teams. The NAEP highlights the importance of ownership to ensure continuity of the platforms under the principle of ‘those who benefit pay’, and resource sustainability. The two principles link to CDCS SIR 4: Positive Behaviors Adopted. This means that communities begin to see themselves as champions of change and start to take action to ensure sustainable development.

34

In summary, progress made by the project so far show that investments in strengthening systems, especially systems that are locally developed and owned, indeed have multiplier effects in other areas of development. However, improving extension systems is not a quick fix. Changes require effort at all levels, which takes time and investments of real resources, but it can work.

In Malawi, the influences of SANE’s approach have far-reaching and potentially transformative results. The project engages with 150 DAESS platforms in its 10 districts. These platforms are the mechanisms by which 5.4 million rural people – making up over 2 million farming households – demand better quality and more accessible services that lead to tangible agricultural and nutritional outcomes that improve their quality of life.

Efforts made by the project in partnership with the DAES also have the potential for scaling up to other districts. Moreover, DAES is capable of leading and backstopping these efforts for the foreseeable future, with or without support by SANE. Tools, training guides, and capacity development approaches that are implemented using an empowerment model – such that those who learn can readily share information with others – will help move this process along. Already strong DAESS platforms are seeking opportunities to support and empower less well-performing platforms within their districts and across borders. Extension champions are also emerging who are bringing SANE-style interventions to other districts through movement of staff from SANE districts to non-SANE districts, taking with them materials such as revised DAESS Guide and the SOPs and trying them out in their new duty stations. Overall, work conducted by SANE and DAES is helping to move agricultural and nutrition extension services towards a state where they maximize impacts to rural communities.

35

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Semi-Structured Interview Guide

Interviewer notes: This consolidated SIG is for all Focus Groups (FGs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). Not all questions need be asked of all participants/groups. Ask questions relevant to those you are interviewing. Adapt the guiding questions to the context. Some questions can be framed as two years ago (before SANE) and now. Remember to document Case #, participant list, and location data.

Introductions of interviewers: Introduce yourself and those with you: Good morning/afternoon. We represent the Strengthening Agricultural and Nutrition (SANE) project. We are conducting a rapid assessment of the USAID-funded SANE project. The primary purpose of the assessment is to examine the results of SANE and determine its effectiveness. We are very interested in your ideas and opinions about SANE. While we will appreciate talking with you today we want you to know your participation today is based solely on your willingness to talk with us. You may stop or leave at any time (but we would like you to stay!). Your name will not be linked to this discussion and the information we receive from you will be confidential and used only in assessing the SANE project. The discussion will take about 1.5 hours or so. We would like to write down notes today and record our conversation and ask if that is OK with you? Yes__ No__. Is it alright if we begin now? Yes_ No_. Thank you!

Preliminary Questions 1) What is your role in agricultural and/or nutrition extension? 2) What is your involvement with SANE? 3) In which ways, if any, has SANE helped you achieve the responsibilities of your position/goals of

your organization? 4) What are the three priority agricultural needs in your district/EPA/community?

• What has SANE done about them? 5) What are the three priority nutrition needs in your district/EPA/community?

What has SANE done about them?

Farmer Voice 1) Has participation of farmers in DAESS platforms changed over the past two years?

• If so, how? • How has SANE influenced those changes? • How does this benefit your district/EPA/community/yourself?

2) Do you think your involvement in the DAESS platform has improved agricultural and nutrition extension and how?

36

3) How do you (farmers) communicate agricultural needs to extension workers and local government – OR – how do farmers communicate their needs to those of you in extension and to local government?

4) What has SANE done if anything to help this communication? 5) How has this benefitted your district/EPA/community?

Coordination and Collaboration

1) Which extension service providers are working in your area? 2) Are they working together and if so, how? Give examples. 3) Do they attend platform meetings? How often? 4) Are they working with SANE and if so, how? Give examples. 5) Do you think interaction among service providers has improved over the past two years?

• How? SANE influence? 6) What are some of the benefits of this interaction?

Capacity Building/Capacities of Institutions Improved

1) What, if any, learning activities has SANE conducted in your area? 2) What, if anything, has changed as a result of these activities? 3) Do you know if SANE has conducted any trainings for extension workers in your area?

• Which ones? • What difference has this made?

Service Access and Quality

1) Please describe the availability of agricultural/nutrition extension services in your area. • Has the availability of services changed over the past several years and if so, how? • What role has SANE played in these changes?

2) Please describe the quality of agricultural/nutrition extension services in your area. • Has the availability of services changed over the past several years and if so, how? • What role has SANE played in these changes?

3) To what extent is SANE increasing the effectiveness of DAESS platforms? • How have improvements benefitted your District/EPA/community/you?

4) Are researchers engaging with farmers in your area and if so how? • Has this involvement been of benefit and if so how? • What role has SANE played in this?

Sustainability of Platforms, Services, and Funding

1) Do you think SANE-related activities would continue after the project closes? Why? 2) How could positive changes be sustained? By MoAIWD and DAES, SANE, USAID, other donors? 3) Have local resources been mobilized to support SANE-related DAESS activities (platforms, etc.)?

• How? 4) What steps have you or your ASP/VAC/community taken to ensure sustainability of these efforts? Policy Strengthening

1) Has SANE affected the understanding of agriculture and nutrition policies in your area? How? • The National Agricultural Extension Policy? The Food and Agriculture Policy?

37

2) What are the benefits to those in your area/you to better understanding of policies? 3) How well is SANE integrated with Malawi’s Decentralization Policy? Gender and Nutrition Dimensions of Extension

• Address through documenting M/F responses. • Probe for involvement in the Household Approach and Integrated Homestead Farming, training

specifically in gender, in nutrition. • Mapping, IHF, HHA, Extension Field Notebook