Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:07:25.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of fertilizer subsidy programs and ecosystem services in Malawi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2011

Jarret Mhango  and
Jan Dick
Jarret Mhango*
Affiliation:
Mzuzu University, Private bag 201, Luwinga, Mzuzu, Malawi
Jan Dick
Affiliation:
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh EH26 0QB, UK
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper evaluates the delivery of ecosystem services under different regimes of agricultural input subsidy in post-independent Malawi using (1) the protocol of the Millennium Ecosystem Service to characterize the services; and (2) the panarchy framework to describe the relationships among the political regimes, economic growth [gross domestic product (GDP)] and food security. Ecosystem services are the benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems that support, directly or indirectly, human survival and quality of life. Panarchy is a nested set of adaptive cycles that provides a tool to explore the conductivity of ecological and social-cultural systems. The Malawian temporal political landscape has experienced several reorganizations since independence, in which the governments of Malawi have initiated socio-economic growth of the economy through implementation of different farmer input subsidy programs with variable success. The most recent agricultural subsidy program (2005–2009) appears to have shown an improvement in food security for the people of Malawi. However, this may be at the expense of an increased rate of decline in other ecosystem services, especially arable land resources and forestry. If agricultural subsidies continue to be implemented without a holistic understanding of all ecosystem services delivered to the whole country, then the system will be unsustainable. We recommend the ecosystem service approach and the panarchy framework as potentially useful tools for policy makers.

Keywords

human well-beingagricultural economic growthsocio-ecological systemspanarchy
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 200 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Fisher, B., Turner, K., Zylstra, M., Brouwer, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Ferraro, P., Green, R., Hadley, D., Harlow, J., Jefferiss, P., Kirkby, C., Morling, P., Mowatt, S., Naidoo, R., Paavola, J., Strassburg, B., Yu, D., and Balmford, A. 2008. Ecosystem services and economic theory integration for policy relevant research. Ecological Applications 18:2050–2067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Norgaard, R.B. 2008. Finding hope in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Conservation Biology 22(4):862–869.Google Scholar
3Ehrlich, P.R. and Mooney, H.A. 1983. Extinction, substitution, and ecosystem services. Bioscience 33(4):248–254.Google Scholar
4Carpenter, S.R., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Mooney, H.A., Polasky, S., Reid, W.V., and Scholes, R.J. 2006. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: research needs. Science 314:257–258.Google Scholar
5Costanza, R., dArge, R., deGroot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., Oneill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., and vandenBelt, M. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260.Google Scholar
6Daily, G.C. 1997. What are ecosystem services? AAAS Annual Meeting and Science Innovation Exposition 163:A6.Google Scholar
7Layke, C. 2009. Measuring Nature's Benefits: A Preliminary Roadmap for Improving Ecosystem Service Indicators. WRI Working Paper. World Resources Institute, Washington DC.Google Scholar
8Dorward, A., Chirwa, E., Boughton, D., Crawford, E., Jayne, T., Slater, R., Kelly, V., and Tsoka, M. 2008. Towards ‘smart’ subsidies in agriculture? Lessons from recent experience in Malawi. ODI Natural Resource Perspectives 116. London: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
9Dano, E.C. 2007. Unmasking the Green Revolution in Africa: Motives, Players and Dynamics. Third World Networks (TWN), Jalan Macalister, Penang, Malaysia.Google Scholar
10MA. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: General Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
11MA. 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
12Gunderson, L. and Holling, C.S. 2002. Panarchy, Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington.Google Scholar
13Denning, G., Kabambe, P., Sanchez, P.Malik, A., Flor, R., Harawa, R., Nkhoma, P., Zamba, C., Banda, C., Magombo, C., Keating, M., Wangila, J., and Sachs, J. 2009. Input subsidies to improve smallholder maize productivity in Malawi: toward an African Green Revolution. PLoS Biology 7, 1. Available at Web site http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi (accessed January 15, 2010).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14IFAD. 2002. Assessment of rural poverty. Eastern and Southern Africa. International Fund for Agricultural Development. p. 45. Available at Web site http://www.ifad.org/poverty/region/pf/PFeng_part1.pdf (accessed May 21, 2010).Google Scholar
15USDS. 2009. Background note: Malawi. Available at web site http://www.state.gov/r/pa//ei/bgn/7231.htm (verified 15 January 2010; accessed June 23, 2010).Google Scholar
16Flora, C.B. 2010. Food security in the context of energy and resource depletion: Sustainable agriculture in developing countries. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25(2):118–128.Google Scholar
17Fisher, M. and Shively, G.E. 2007. Agricultural subsidies and forest pressure in Malawi's Miombo woodlands. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 32(2):349–362.Google Scholar
18Chirwa, E.W. 2004. Access to land, growth and poverty reduction in Malawi: Paper is based on a research project titled ‘Macroeconomic Policy Choices for Growth and Poverty Reduction’ funded by the North-South Institute (NSI), Canada.Google Scholar
19Gotts, N.M. 2007. Resilience, panarchy, and world-systems analysis. Ecology and Society 12(1):24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Shongwe, M.E., van Oldenborgh, G.J., van den Hurk, B.J.J.M., de Boer, B., Coelho, C.A.S., and van Aalst, M.K. 2009. Projected changes in mean and extreme precipitation in Africa under global warming. Part I: Southern Africa. Journal of Climate 22:3819–3837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar