Church of God in Ntcheu - Part 1

Introduction

The Church of God in Ntcheu was planted in 2003. It is situated in Solomoni village in Ntcheu district in the west of Malawi.

There are about 45 people in the assembly including the chief of Solomoni village. There are 15-20 families in the church. All those who are in the assembly are subsistence farmers. There is one deacon in the assembly, Musa.

General Overview

Location

The Church of God meets in Solomoni Village, a village of approx. 2000 people. It is in a very rural part of Ntcheu district and is approx. 12km (7.5 miles) off the tarmac road. It is reached by dirt tracks and by driving across a stream (with no bridge).

People

The people who make up the church are all subsistence farmers. They are all poor (the average income of a subsistence farmer in Malawi is estimated to be £12/year) and generally have a poor level of education (2/3rds of the women are illiterate in Chichewa).

Health

Health in the area is generally poor with a high incidence of malaria and health problems associated with chronic malnutrition and poverty.

The nearest health facility is the government clinic at Bilira which is 16km (10 miles) away over dirt tracks. This is a 6 hour walk away with no option to use public transport as there is no bus service in the area. No-one in the village has private transport other than a few bicycles. When people are seriously unwell, a stretcher is made and people carry them (running in a relay of teams) to the clinic. This takes about 5 hours and we were told that often the patient dies on the way.

Child immunisations and growth monitoring is carried out once a month in the village by a mobile team from the government clinic at Bilira. This is popular and uptake is high.

The clinic at Bilira has 1 medical officer and 2 nurses/midwives covering a catchment area of 59,000 people. It provides a delivery ward and antenatal waiting rooms for expectant mothers to come and live in close to their delivery dates. In common with government health services in Malawi generally, there are problems with lack of available drugs.

There is no health care available in the village. There is a volunteer who was selected by the community as their community health worker (CHW). She has been given some basic training by the government (for about 4 weeks) on health promotion and treatment of a few conditions including malaria. She was dispensing a few drugs in the community (selling them at cost price) and seeing about 8 patients a day on a voluntary basis up until a few years ago. Then the government programme changed and the clinic stopped supplying CHWs with drugs. She has not been working since because of lack of medicines.

Education

About 12 children in the assembly attend primary school. There are three primary schools in the area. One is a 40 minutes’ walk away but only goes up to standard 6 (primary school in Malawi has 8 standards or years). The other two primary schools go up to standard 8, but are two hours’ walk away. Because children have to walk there, often in weather they consider cold or over burning hot ground with no shoes, this can discourage attendance. Once they get there, they can be too tired to learn effectively. There is a lack of resources at school with large class sizes and not enough books and writing materials. It is compulsory to wear uniform and parents need to provide this. No food is provided at school and this both discourages attendance and affects learning capacity.

The nearest secondary school is 8 hours walk away. It is not possible to commute there from Solomoni village. If pupils do go there, they need to live near the school at their own expense. Three children of assembly families do this.

Adult literacy

The men are mostly all literate in Chichewa, however 2/3rds of the women in the assembly are unable to read and write. This obviously has implications for their ability to read their Bibles, to support their children’s education and to participate in society. In the community, adult illiteracy is high among both men and women.

Agriculture and Nutrition

Everyone in the assembly is a subsistence farmer. Families tend to own their own land, which they cultivate by hand. The staple food is nsima, a type of ‘porridge’ made out of maize (although the consistency is more like mashed potato). It is high in carbohydrates. Some families keep chickens and eat the eggs and ground nuts and cassava are also grown in the area. A number of families are keeping goats (following a successful goat project). This is purely for income generation as they do not produce enough milk to drink. Meat is eaten only at weddings – 2 or 3 times a year. The people reported there are often times of the year when they have no food to eat. They never have surplus to sell and did not feel there were ever times of plenty. There was famine here most recently in 2005 because of drought.

Water

There is a borehole in the village that supplies water for free. This is used by those who live in the area around it. At the other side of the village is a well which is used by those who live there. This does not have water for 3 months of the year. Then they need to walk over an hour to the borehole. A few families who are about a 2 hour walk away from the hall get their water from another borehole which is owned by a school. A yearly fee of about 20p is paid to use this. Women are the ones that collect water for the family. Depending on the size of their families they can make up to 10 trips a day to get water.

Church of God in Ntcheu - Part 2

Firstly we visited the Church of God in Ntcheu and asked a broad range of questions covering health, education, housing, nutrition, land, sanitation, water and employment (see Appendix 1 for full list of questions). This was done with the men and with the women separately.

A project team meeting was held to discuss the findings and determine areas of focus for the next visit.

We then asked more focused questions to clarify areas of discrepancy and to further investigate the information given. This was again carried out with a male and a female focus group.

Village mapping was carried out with a mixed group to get a clearer idea of the surrounding area and amenities.

A semi-structured interview was held with the Community Health Worker to find out more about her role and health in the community.

A list of all the needs identified in the Church and community was drawn up by the project team (see Appendix 2). Opportunities to meet these needs particular to this area were noted alongside them. Ideas of mini-projects that may help to meet these needs were produced.

Research was done into a number of these ideas to look at the practicalities of carrying out these mini-projects in this area. This looked at what other organisations are doing, existing research on best development practice and potential costs of each mini-project.

These mini-project ideas were discussed at the Malawi Project Team meeting. The ideas were reduced to those which were felt to be potentially achievable over the next few years and cost-effective.

Preliminary meetings were held with various government departments to find out about the various regulations and procedures and also what things they might be able to offer to help.

We then went back to the Church and discussed the list of all the needs they had told us about. They then carried out a ranking exercise for each need based on how serious a problem it was, how widespread a problem it was and how suitable for joint action. This ranking exercise formed the basis for deciding the area of need that was the priority to be addressed in the first project in this location.

Further discussion was then carried out with the relevant government department to discuss practicalities and try and determine more exact costings.

The proposed project was then discussed at length at a Malawi Project Team Meeting and a detailed proposal including approximate costings was drawn up. Outline proposals for possible future projects have also been included in this document. These address significant needs but were not identified as the first priority. As the first project succeeds and more confidence in the community is generated, we can follow up the next one based on this information.

Church of God in Ntcheu - Part 3

Revised List of Needs

The list of needs was reduced to nine categories which summarised the other main ones and omitted ones we felt were entirely outside our remit such as electricity.

These needs are grouped under 4 headings – Health, Agriculture and Nutrition, Water and Education.

· Difficult to get to clinic
· Lot of malaria in area
· Not enough food
· No variety of food (for good nutrition)
· Water too far away
· Water not available all year round
· School too far away
· Lack of resources at school
· Adults cannot read and write

These were presented to the assembly and they felt this summarised their main needs.

Each need was then given a score from 0 -3 for how serious it was, how widespread a problem and how suitable for joint action. This was done pictorially using 0-3 skulls and crossbones for seriousness, 0-3 sad faces for widespread and 0-3 ticks for how suitable for joint action. The suitability for joint action was determined based on what ideas they had of things that could be done and by discussing some of the possible solutions the research had shown to have been effective elsewhere. The church was able to give feedback on whether they thought these would work in their local area.

Water
This was not perceived as an urgent priority for them as they mostly had access to water during the year, even if they had to walk further for it. It was, moreover, only a problem for some. They have already tried to deepen the existing well and hit rock. The same problem occurred when they attempted to dig other wells. Given the distance that would have to be drilled to reach a reliable supply, they felt able to do little about this situation. Stored rainwater would not last long and they had nowhere to keep it. One person suggested an oxcart for transportation of water from source to point of use in groups, but others pointed out that those with large families would still need to go more often and that the ox would have to be kept in food and drink. Other things were felt to be more urgent.

Health
Although malaria was the most common disease and had a significant effect each year upon the number of men available for work, it was felt that it was seasonal, treatable and not generally fatal. By comparison, the distance to the health clinic affected everybody at some point and was felt to be more serious as there were quite often cases when people died on the way. They themselves suggested that the community could be organised to improve environmental prevention by draining stagnant water, etc. and that this would make some impact on the problem of malaria. They also suggested the distribution of bed nets. If doctors and drugs were available, they were prepared to construct a clinic building. A vehicle ambulance was mentioned. They had not heard of bicycle ambulances. When this concept was explained to them, they felt that this would reduce the journey time from that taken by walking with stretchers, but that it would still take a long time. They would be prepared to undertake road improvements on the difficult stretch belonging to the village.

Education
Although the local primary school only extended to Standard six and some children had to walk two hours to attend Standards seven and eight, they seemed to feel that at least the children had access to some education. There did not seem much that could be done about it. Again, they were prepared to construct the buildings for a full primary school but recognised this was a long and complicated project. The problem that affected every family, however near to the school they lived, was that there was not access to the basic materials required by each child to learn at school once they got there. These include exercise books and textbooks, stationery, etc. School uniforms and shoes and clothing were also needed by most. They said that this affects everybody because what affects children affects the whole family. Children came home late, tired and hungry as there was not food available at school. However, they suggested that if food production in the village were to be improved, then children would be sent to school with food and this particular problem would be solved. It was recognised that lack of literacy amongst adults was an equally serious problem because of restricted access to the Bible, community information and potential misunderstandings . It was felt that there were realistic things that could be done about it in terms of those who could already read being trained to teach others and the project could assist with the purchase of teaching materials. Discussion tended to focus on the education of children as this affected every family and not just those women who could not read. Nevertheless, these women, however, attached importance to it. It was commented that people would be too busy with farming during the peak agricultural seasons, but that a class running from March to September would be best.

Agriculture
The problem that was felt to be the most serious was that insufficient food was grown in the area. This not only made them hungry, but had serious health implications. Solving this problem would also help children with their educational difficulties in that they would have strength for their journey to school and would not be too hungry to learn when they got there. They felt that this was also the problem that affected the greatest number of people since they had all been affected by it regularly. Finally, it emerged as the problem with the greatest potential for effective joint action. They were farmers, clearly prepared to work hard. Given the right resources and increased knowledge of more efficient practice, yields could increase as they had land to cultivate. There was enthusiasm for training . It was also recognised that the little teaching four of the farmers had already undertaken had increased their yield. All saw the value in this. Whilst they did not attach as much importance as we did to increasing the variety of the foodstuffs grown in the area from a nutritional point of view, they were clear that it was an extremely widespread problem and that the proposed agricultural training and financial support could improve the situation dramatically.

Priority
The ranking exercise formed the basis for deciding the area of need that was the priority to be addressed in the first project in Ntcheu (subject to FRF approval).

From this it was decided that the initial project ideally would tackle the problem of not enough food. This would deal with their biggest need and ideally also tackle one of the other big needs of lack of variety of food. This would be a good project for joint action as everyone is a farmer and has some existing knowledge and skills to build on as well as owning land.

Church of God in Ntcheu - Part 4

Project proposal – improving food security and diversity

Needs
During some parts of the year, people reported not having anything to eat at all. Often women have only one or two meals a day. Children go to school hungry and are frequently malnourished.

The land in Solomoni village proper yields only maize and ground nut. The fields around the well at the far end grew cassava. This had been attempted in the village fields too, but had not grown there. The diet is carbohydrate-rich but poor in other food groups. People only grow enough for subsistence. There has been famine in the area a few years ago due to drought and some seeds and fertiliser were provided at this time.

Outline

1. Initial assessment of existing agricultural practices and potential development needs by District Agricultural Department. They have a process they follow for this called Participatory Rural Appraisal which takes 4 days of research in the village both talking with the farmers and assessing their land and 2 in-office days to process the findings. This is essential as they have the local knowledge about soil types, etc.
2. Joint decision made with the District Agricultural department on which areas to focus on based on the needs they have identified and the available resources of the project.
3. Training provided by District Agricultural department trainers on methods of improving farming practices and on how to grow any new crops that may be introduced.
4. Seeds provided for selected crops and possibly some fertiliser.
5. Regular monitoring visits carried out by Agricultural Extension Officer to give further advice and information throughout the growing season.

The seed that is widely used in Malawi is ‘improved’ hybrid seed. This has been introduced by commercial companies and matures more quickly and is more resistant to drought thereby giving greater yields than local seed. Unfortunately, the ‘improved’ seed has been designed so that new seed needs to be purchased every 2 years for it be beneficial. The seed can be used for subsequent years, but because they are hybrids the quality declines markedly each year. It also needs more fertiliser than traditional seed does.

Much discussion took place about this at the Malawi Project Team meeting. Unfortunately, there is hardly any availability of local seed in Malawi as farmers over the years have been encouraged to change over to the ‘improved’ varieties. The farmers in Ntcheu are buying second and third generation poor quality improved seed at present which gives them poor yields.

This has implications for the sustainability of the project. It would be vital that the farmers were able to sell some surplus crops and save money to buy the improved seeds in subsequent years. Unfortunately there does not seem to be any other options available with traditional seed being so scarce in Malawi and there are no improved varieties that do not require new seed to be purchased every couple of years.

A potential way of tackling this problem in the future might be to train a couple of farmers in seed multiplication so that they have the skills and knowledge to produce the improved seed themselves. However, this would be quite an expensive and complicated process as it has to be carefully monitored by the govt. research stations and there are none of these close to Ntcheu.

The necessary fertiliser is expensive, so it is envisaged that the training would include instruction on compost production and methods of crop rotation to improve yields. For example maize yields can be substantially increased by growing (without fertiliser) on a field where soya or groundnuts had previously been grown due to their nitrogen-fixing qualities. The Agricultural Office felt that with good compost production and crop rotation, fertiliser would only be needed for the first two years.

For the project to have a greater chance of success, it would ideally run for two years with a much reduced package provided in the second year. It would be likely that some further training would be useful, less frequent monitoring visits and a reduced amount of fertiliser and seed. However, it was felt at the Malawi project team meeting that the project should be presented to both the community and the district agricultural office as a one year project, but FRF should be aware that some funds are likely to be required for the second year. This would give the farmers a better opportunity to get established and save up the money they would require for further seed in the third year. It also would make the project somewhat less dependant on a favourable climate during one growing season.

Project costs have been given by the District Agricultural Development Office for them to carry out the initial assessment process, training and monitoring. Costings for seeds and fertiliser have been estimated based on data given by them. Total project costings have been given for the training of 50 farmers. There are 15-20 families in the assembly – if one member was sent from each, this would allow 30 places to be available for the community. The community members would be selected based on assessment of need with priorities given to child-headed families and those caring for orphans. The chief of the village (who is in the assembly) would be well placed to identify these families in a way that seemed fair to the community. Costings are also given for running the project with 25 farmers – this would help all assembly families and a few community ones, but does not reduce costs substantially as the training costs would remain the same.

Strengths

• There is fertile land around
• Experienced farmers in the area
• Uses local ability
• Knowledge will remain in the community
• Benefits assembly people
• Allows them to show love to vulnerable families in community
• Reduces hunger
• Improves health
• Improves variety of diet
• Helps with children’s capacity to learn
• Utilises agricultural departments specialist local knowledge
• Everyone sees the benefit

Weaknesses

• New crops introduced may not do well in area
• Weather variations may affect success of harvest
• Risk of dependence on outside provided improved seeds and fertiliser outwith their normal budget
• May not be sustainable after one growing season and may require further input of funds
• Planting season is next month so need to move quickly to obtain seeds etc
• Transportation of seeds/fertiliser to village will be expensive because of its remote location
• Initial training quality is dependant on the skill and enthusiasm of the govt. agricultural officers
• Some families may be less motivated than others

Ways to overcome weaknesses

• Take advice from govt. experts on what crops can be expected to thrive
• Use improved varieties which are more resistant to drought
• Ensure that everyone is aware the project will run only for 1-2 years and the farmers are aware of the need to save money for seed
• Ensure that the training encompasses compost/manure production and crop rotation and that this is stressed to reduce dependence on outside fertiliser
• Motivation could be provided by community motivators within the assembly periodically visiting fields and awarding outstanding performance

Church of God in Ntcheu - Part 5

Project Costings For Year One

Basis of costings

Prices for the Participatory Rural Appraisal, initial training and monitoring were provided by the District Agricultural Development Officer (DADO). The actual costs of seeds and fertiliser are based on estimates of the number of kg/hectare required and costs per kg given by the DADO. Some of these are based on last year’s prices and may not be entirely accurate for this year. These are our calculations based on the per unit costs given to us by the DADO. They are also going to produce an estimate of costings for the project for comparison. We are currently awaiting this and it may factor in other costs that we are not aware of.

The costings are divided into two sections – the fixed costs for the Participatory Rural Appraisal, training and monitoring visits and the variable costs for seeds and fertiliser.

The five projects given are only examples of the types of things that may emerge from the Participatory Appraisal to give an idea of how the costs may vary. It may be that different crops at different prices requiring different amounts of fertiliser will be more suitable for the soil type. Out of the five examples given probably the project we would be most keen on would be project five as it would allow good crop rotation allowing fertiliser use to be phased out. It was estimated that each family on average has 0.7 hectare of which varying amounts could be used for the project-introduced crops. The rest of their land could be left fallow or planted with local varieties at their own expense as at present.

N.B. Costings for running the project with 25 farmers are given in square brackets. As you will see, this does not simply halve the costs as the overheads remain almost constant.

For 50 families...

Participatory Rural Appraisal

• Refreshments for villagers – estimate 50 farmers x 40K = 2000K/day x 4 days = 8,000K
• Facilitator Allowance – 5 facilitators – 2800K/facilitator/day =14,000/day x 6 days = 84,000K
• Fuel costs – 4000K/day x 6 days = 24,000K
• Stationary costs – estimate 5,000K
• Total = 121,000K = ~£430 [for 25 farmers = 117,000K = ~£415]

Training

• Refreshments for villagers –2,000K/day x 6 days = 12,000K
• Trainers- 2800K/trainer/day = 2 trainers at 5,600K/day x 6 days = 33,600K
• Fuel costs – 4000K/day x 6 days = 24,000K
• Stationary costs – estimate 5000K
• Total = 74,600K = ~£265 [for 25 farmers = 68,600K=~£243]

Monitoring

• Fuel costs - 2000K/visit – 24 visits/year = 48,000K + 6000K for extra 3 vehicle visits = 54,000K
• Total = 54,000K =~£192 [for 25 farmers = 54,000K=£192]

Transport of seeds and fertiliser

Estimate 50,000K =~£177 (this is a wild estimate based on the fact it costs us about 10,000 to take a minibus or 2 pick-up trucks to Solomoni village from Ntcheu. It is likely that 2 of these trips may be enough to transport all the stuff, however, it would depend very much on the amount of seed and fertiliser being transported. It also may not be possible to obtain all the materials from Ntcheu and it may need to be transported from a further away location which is why a higher costing is given).
Total of overheads (excluding actual seed and fertiliser) = 299,600K = ~£1063

[for 25 farmers =289,600K=~£1027]

Examples of potential Seeds and Fertiliser costs

N.B. – the cost of fertiliser may be reduced as we shall try and ensure the training focuses more on locally produced manure for sustainability, however, full costs are given here.

Project One

0.2 ha of improved maize – 5kg/0.2ha – 200K/kg = 1000K

0.1 ha of cassava (interplanted with maize) – 10 bundles/0.1ha = 500K/bundle = 5000K

Total Seed Cost = 6000K

Fertiliser

Urea – 30kg/0.2ha – 80K/kg =2,400K

23-21 – 20kg/0.2ha – 80K/kg = 1,600K

Total fertiliser cost = 4,000K

Seed and fertiliser cost = 10,000K/family x 50 families = 500,000K = ~£1773 (~£36/family)

Total cost – 299,600K + 500,000K = 799,600K = ~£2835 = (~£57/family)

[for 25 families - 289,600K + 250,000K = 539,600K = ~£1913 = ~£76/family]

Project Two

0.2 ha of improved maize – 1000K as above

0.1 ha of soya – 8kg/0.1 ha – 200K/kg – 1600K

Total Seed cost – 2600K

Fertiliser

For maize – 4000K as above for 0.2ha

For soya – half needed therefore 1000K for 0.1ha

Total fertiliser cost – 5000K

Seed and fertiliser cost = 7,600K/family x 50 families = 380,000K = ~£1348 (~£27/family)

Total cost – 299,600K + 380,000K = 679,600K = ~£2410 = ~£48/family

[for 25 families - 289,600K + 190,000K = 479,600K = ~£1701 = ~£68/family]

Project Three

0.1 ha of improved maize = 500K

0.1 ha of QPM maize (good for nutrition as has vit A added)=2.5kg/0.1ha = 100K/kg = 250K

0.1 ha of cassava (interplanted with maize) = 5000K

Total seed cost =5750K/family

Fertiliser 4000K/family (as project 1)

Seeds and fertiliser cost =9750K/family x 50 families= 487,500K = ~£1729 (~£35/family)

Total cost – 299,600K + 487,500K = 787,100K = ~£2791 = ~£56/family

[for 25 families 289,600K + 243,750K = 533,350K = ~£1891 = ~£76/family]

Project Four

0.1 ha improved maize – 500K

0.1 ha cassava (interplanted with maize) – 5000K

0.1 ha soya -1600K

Total seed cost =7100K

Fertiliser

2000K for maize 0.1 ha

1000K for soya 0.1 ha

Total fertiliser cost = 3000K

Seed and fertiliser cost = 10,100K/family = 505,000 for 50 families = ~£1791 = £36/family

Total cost – 299,600K + 505,500K = 805,100 = ~£2855 = £57/family

[for 25 families – 289,600K + 250,500K = 540,100 = ~£1915 = £77/farmer]

Project Five

As project four – 10,100K/farmer

except also having 0.1 ha of groundnuts – need costing, assume costs same as soya (probably less as seed multiplication successful in this area – 1600K for seed +?1000K for fertiliser (ideally none but factor in higher costing)

Seed and fertiliser cost -12,700K/family x 50 families = 635,000 = ~£2252 =£45/family

Total cost - 299,600K +635,000K = 934,600 = £3314 = £66/family

[For 25 farmers – 289,600K + 317,500 = 607,100 = £2153 =£86/family]

Obviously there will be some variation in these costs. Some of these figures are based on last years seed prices which will be somewhat higher this year due to a recent fuel increase. The exact crops to be grown and in which proportions will be decided following the Participatory Rural Appraisal. This will identify areas of need and then we will be able to discuss with the DADO which of these can be met based on available resources.

[IT WAS AGREED TO PROCEED WITH PROJECT FIVE]

Project Costings for year 2

This is harder to estimate and the figures are based much more on guesswork than for year one. As stated above, for the project to have a greater chance of success, it would ideally run for two years with a much reduced package provided in the second year. It would be likely that some further training would be useful, less frequent monitoring visits and a reduced amount of fertiliser. A conservative estimate would be:

No PRA required

3 days of training required to refresh and reinforce knowledge so half of above costs = 37,300K = ~£132

Monitoring costs – 2/3rd of above = 36,000K =~£128

Transport costs – estimate 25,000K as less to be transported (less seed and half as much fertiliser)

Seed – ideally none required as varieties used can be used for two years, however estimate ¼ of seed required based on some climatic problems in year one so (based on project 5’s figures) 108,750K = £386

Fertiliser – estimated as half of that required in year one as there will have been some nitrogen fixation from crop rotation and the farmers will be using compost that they will have produced. Therefore approx (using project 5’s figures) 100,000K = £355

So total for second year 307,050K = £1089 = £22/family

Summary of recommendations

• Farming project as above for initial Ntcheu Project
• Project to include Participatory Rural Appraisal, Training of farmers, provision of starter packs of seeds and fertiliser and regular monitoring visits
• Funding to be budgeted internally for year 2 of project although this would not be emphasised to the community and District Agricultural Office
• If project is successful, project addressing next priority of need proposed

Therefore a very rough and conservative estimate of costs over the two years would be in the region of £5000.