Since 2015, Malawi has spent more than K1 trillion on fertiliser and maize seed subsidies for smallholder farmers, yet millions of citizens continue to depend on food aid as the country struggles with recurring hunger and poor agricultural productivity.
In fact, an annual food security forecast by the Malawi Vulnerability Assessment Committee (MVAC) – composed of the government, UN agencies and NGOs – predicted that
The massive investment, funded by taxpayers and development partners, was meant to transform food production and guarantee national food security. Instead, Malawi has repeatedly found itself importing maize and appealing for humanitarian assistance, raising serious questions about whether the subsidy programme is delivering value for money.
In the 2024/25 national budget alone, government allocated K161.28 billion to the subsidy programme. But during the 2025 lean season, about 5.7 million Malawians — representing more than 20 percent of the population — required emergency food assistance after widespread crop failure linked to climate shocks and poor farming practices.
The contradiction has exposed the growing gap between billions spent on agriculture and the actual food produced on the ground.
A Ministry of Agriculture report covering the period from 2023 to 2025 paints an even more troubling picture. Despite a combined K367 billion investment by government and development partners in various agricultural activities, Malawi failed to produce even half of its maize production target.
The country had projected yields of four tonnes per hectare, but farmers only managed an average of 1.5 tonnes per hectare, resulting in about 2.8 million metric tonnes of maize.
The report further indicates that although Malawi met the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme target of allocating at least 10 percent of the national budget to agriculture, sector growth continued to decline.
The findings are echoed in the 2026 Malawi Economic Report by the World Bank, which says the agricultural sector continues to underperform despite consuming a significant share of public expenditure.
According to the report, maize yields currently average just 2.1 metric tonnes per hectare — far below the government’s National Adaptation Plan target of four tonnes per hectare and even further from the estimated production potential of 10 tonnes per hectare.
“Spending on fertiliser subsidies is substantial and has risen since 2005, but it has not led to stable gains in national maize harvests,” reads part of the report.
In recent years, government has also promoted mega farms as a solution to food insecurity and low exports. However, the World Bank says these large-scale farming projects have equally failed to significantly increase national output due to weak programme design, inadequate funding, governance challenges, and poor loan recovery systems.
At the centre of the controversy are growing allegations of corruption and politicisation surrounding the subsidy programme.
Critics argue that what started as a lifeline for poor farmers has gradually turned into a political tool used to reward loyalists, win votes, and finance political networks.
Questions are now emerging over whether Malawi should continue with the programme in its current form or completely overhaul it.
Appearing before the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture recently, National Smallholder Farmers’ Association of Malawi (Nasfam) Chief Executive Officer Betty Chinyamunyamu called for urgent reforms to the subsidy system.
She urged government to diversify agricultural investments beyond maize and channel more resources toward irrigation, agricultural research, and extension services.
“The funds that are locked in subsidized maize production and maize purchases for the hungry crowd out irrigation, research and extension spending,” she warned.
“Without reform, productivity stagnation will continue.”
Agriculture expert Tamani Nkhono Mvula, however, defended the principle behind subsidies, arguing that farmers still need support because the cost of production remains too high.
“On the overall, if we look at subsidies in general, I may say they are necessary. The cost of production is very high, and there is a need to subsidize production,” he said.
Mvula argued that the programme’s disappointing performance is largely due to management and design flaws rather than the concept itself.
He also challenged expectations that beneficiaries should automatically graduate into independent commercial farmers.
“If you look at the people that have been targeted, and also the amount of inputs they have been given, it is mainly supporting subsistence farming, and we should not expect people to graduate because what we are doing is just helping them to have something,” he explained.
“If we need graduation, we need to categorize the farmers. They might be in cooperatives and should be given a different type of subsidy, and maybe some might graduate.”
Mvula said the fundamental problem lies in the structure of the programme itself.
“There is a need to look into the design,” he said.
Malawi introduced the fertiliser subsidy programme in 2005 with the aim of improving food security among poor smallholder farmers. Two decades later, however, the country still faces chronic hunger, low productivity, and rising dependence on donor support — despite spending more than K1 trillion trying to feed itself.
