SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS-INNOCENT RAISAE PHIRI-P.O. BOX 31307, LILONGWE 4, MALAWI

SAMA International is an organization that aim at strategizing actions that will help the agricultural industry manage its both natural and artificial reourses without harmful impacations to the future generations' agricultural productivity.
 

NGO (Concern Universal) role in mitigating HIV/AIDS and food insecurity impacts among vulnerable households in Nsipe EPA, Ntcheu District. By -Innocent Raisae Phiri- BSc.in Agricultural Economics +265999338441/0888714389 raisae14@yahoo.com Research project report submitted to Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics under Faculty of Development Studies in Partial fulfillment of the Bachelor Science Degree in Agricultural Economics University of Malawi Bunda College of Agriculture Dept of Agricultural and Applied Economics -++ Lilongwe Malawi April, 2009 Project Report Approval Project Supervisor Name : Professor A.K. Edriss Signature: Date : Head of Agricultural and Applied Economics Name : Professor A.K. Edriss Signature: Date : Dean of Faculty of Development Studies Name : Dr. Charles Masangano Signature: Date : Declaration I declare that the work of this research paper is a result of my own research effort. This research work has not been submitted elsewhere for another degree. Other sources of information used in this paper have been acknowledged accordingly. Signature Date Phiri Innocent Raisae Dedication Eliness and Henry Christopher and Yakonda, Eliza and Aaron Mkwala Beautiful girlfriend: Lucy Lucino Tembo To be children Table of Content Project Appraisal......................................................................................-i- Declaration...............................................................................................-ii- Dedication................................................................................................-iii- Acknowledgement....................................................................................-vi- Acronym..................................................................................................-vii- Executive Summary............ ..................................................................-viii- 1.1 Introduction - 1 - 1.2 Problem Statement and Justification - 2 - 1.3.1 Underlying Objective: - 3 - 1.3.2 Specific Objectives: - 3 - 1.40 Hypotheses - 3 - 1.50 Research questions - 3 - 2.0 Literature Review - 3 - 3.0 Methodology - 5 - 3.7.0 Econometric Analytical Techniques - 7 - 3.7.1 Tobit regression model - 7 - 3.7.2 Logit regression model - 7 - 4.10 Results and Discussion . - 8 - 4.11 Sex categories of the household head - 8 - 4.13 Age categories of the household head - 8 - 4.14 Marital status of the household head - 8 - 4.15 Educational Levels of the household head - 9 - 4.16. Household size - 9 - 4.17 Sources of Household Income - 11 - 4.18 Labour availability and shortages analysis - 11 - 4.18.1 Hours spent by the household during farming activities - 11 - 4.18.2 Factors why household faces labour shortage - 12 - 4.19. Food entitlements at household level - 12 - 4.19.1 Maize production - 13 - 4.19.3 Main strategies to food during food shortages periods - 13 - 4.20 Food security situation at household level - 14 - 4.20.1 Household food availability - 14 - 4.21. Concern Universal contributions on food security - 15 - 4.21.1. Credits accessibility by the Household - 15 - 4.21.2 Sources of Farm inputs in particular improved maize seeds - 16 - 4.22.0 HIV/AIDS situation analysis - 16 - 4.22.1 HIV and AIDS Status of the household - 16 - 4.22.2 Practices that promote HIV and AIDS spread - 17 - 4.23 Concern Universal contributions on HIV/AIDS status - 18 - 4.23.1 HIV/AIDS related Interventions benefited by the household - 18 - 4.24.0 Interpretation of the Logit regression model results - 19 - 4.24.1 Sex of the household head - 19 - 4.24.1 Age of the household head - 19 - 4.24.2 Education of the household head - 20 - 4.24.3 Institutional affiliation by the household - 20 - 4.24.4 Food availability of the household. - 20 - 4.25.0 Interpretations of Tobit regression model results - 21 - 4.25.1 Age of the household head - 21 - 4.25.2 Labour availability - 21 - 4.25.3 Credit Accessibility - 22 - 4.25.4 Hours spent farming by the household - 22 - 5.0 Conclusions - 22 - 6.0 Recommendation - 23 - 7.0 Reference: - 23 - 8.0 Appendix.............................................................................................- 25- 8.1 Semi-structured questionnaire..............................................................-25- Acknowledgement Raisaeizm: On eagles’ wing, I plot my course, guided by what lies within God’s plans over me. Onward, farther a kilometer, I sow, gain wisdom and knowledge more and more. Into my future, I slowly pass, leaving my memories in my past world with trust in God and Jesus Christ. Rising, failing, twisting and turning side by side was a rule of game for reaching and always learning for my God destined world. Rising as the earth winds lift me up, plotting my course as I go unknown. But prayer has always healed my soul when even trusted friends thought I was not for God. But I know and believe is that I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengthens me and the heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouth of the fool feeds on foolishness. Innocentizm: God, You have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise. You perceive my thought from afar. You discern my going out and lying down. You are familiar with all my ways. Such knowledge is too wonderful and too lofty for me to attain. God, You are my rock, refuge, fortress, deliverer, strength, shelter and horn of my salvation and in You, Oh Lord Jesus Christ, I will trust and love You as You keep on preparing a green pastured table before my enemies. Exceptional gratitude is bestowed to Professor A.K. Edriss for his tiresome effort to advise me through out my Research Project. Unmentioned appreciations go to Lucy Lucino Tembo, Christopher Abbolf, relatives, friends-Kussein, who were at a certain time, strangers, and enemies who were behind my success at Bunda College. Their contributions are highly appreciated and I wish them all the best in this subjectively defined world. Above all, God will supply all my needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus- Philip 4 v19 Phiriizm: At the very end, I do the best I know, the very best I can do and I mean to keep on doing it justly till the end. If the end brings me out right, then all things said against me will not mount to something. However, if the end brings me out wrong, then ten thousand angels swearing that I was right will make no difference. -Phiri Innocent Raisae- University of Malawi Bunda College February, 2009 Acronym AIDS : Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ARV : Antiretroviral CBO : Community Based Organization CUM : Concern Universal Malawi EPA : Extension Planning Area FAO : Food and Agriculture Organization HIV : Human Immunodeficiency Virus HH : Household GoM : Government of Malawi MGDS : Malawi Growth and Development Strategy MoAFS : Ministry of Agriculture Food Security MOFI : Ministry of Food Security and Irrigation MPRS : Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers NAC : National AIDS Commission NGO : Non Government Organization NSO : National Statistical Office PLWHA : People Living with HIV and AIDS SPSS : Statistical Package of Social Scientists UNAIDS : United Nation AIDS VEH : Vulnerable and Excluded households Executive Summary The study was conducted in Nsipe Extension Planning Area in Ntcheu District Agricultural Office. The EPA was chosen because Concern Universal was implementing its HIV/AIDS and food security projects in alleviating HIV/AIDS and food insecurity impacts among vulnerable households. A multi-stage sampling method was used, involving clustering, stratifying and simple random sampling. Fifty six beneficiaries and 40 non beneficiaries were selected from the sampled area. The overall objective of the study was to assess the role of Concern Universal in mitigating HIV/AIDS and food insecurity among vulnerable and excluded households. Specifically, this was achieved by identifying and assessing factors affecting CUM interventions among the vulnerable households. The data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive tools involved Chi-square and t- statistics. Conversely, inferential tools such as Logit and Tobit regression models were applied to assess factors affecting HIV/AIDS and food security status at household level respectively. Household food security was found to be affected by factors such as household head age, household members aged 15 years and above, credit accessibility, HIV/AIDS status and hours spent on farming activities. Factors such as sex, age, education, membership and food availability were found significantly affecting household HIV/AIDS status. Concern Universal did not significantly achieve food security at household level regardless of the credit facility intervention. On the other hand, Concern Universal implemented ABC-prevention, ARV treatment and Behaviour change interventions in mitigating HIV/AIDS negative impacts at household level. It was recommended that HIV/AIDS activities should be mainstreamed in food security projects from planning to implementation stage. Food security improvement should be approached through an integrated farming approach. 1.1 Introduction In Malawi, food security issues dated back to independence where the Dr. Kamuzu Banda Regime, from 1964 to 1994, focused on self food sufficiency through domestic production approach with diminutive supplement from importations (Peggy, 1997). By 1994 multiparty era, food security component had been a critical factor in most political parties’ manifestoes to allure voters’ attentions. This, therefore, denoted the importance of food security in Malawi social, political and economic development. Food security is, however, achieved when all people, at all times have physical or economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Ellis (1992) indicated that food security depends on food availability and accessibility. Argumentatively, food security could be assured absolutely if food requirement is equated to food entitlement at household level. It is further, argued that the problem of food insecurity is rampart among vulnerable households because of food entitlement inappropriateness. FAO (2006) reported that food insecurity is a major quandary of most vulnerable and excluded households because of a number of factors such as access to land, agricultural inputs, low income and shrinkage labour force. These factors have overwhelmed food productivity and accessibility capacity at household level leading to food insecurity. In addition, Malawi Government (2002) reported that food security among vulnerable households is affected by HIV/AIDS impacts. FAO (2006) argumentatively indicated that HIV/AIDS has a significant impact on food availability and accessibility because of shrinkage of labour force, diversion of productive assets, loss of time on care and sharing anguish. HIV/AIDS impacts cause most households being headed by children and women. Since most of these groups have limited access to land, credits, extension services and farm inputs, food insecurity has become a pitch ground whereby it can play in/out at all times it wishes to do so. This, therefore, deepens the vulnerabilities and excludabilities of the households to food security. Phiri (2003) indicated that HIV/AIDS is now another major cause of food insecurity. He emphasized that HIV/AIDS has magnified the problem of food insecurity into chronic and transitory phenomena. Not only did this study assess the contributions that Concern Universal played at household level but also analyzed factors that significantly affected Concern Universal food security and HIV/AIDS based interventions among vulnerable and excluded household. Concern Universal is an international Non government organization operating in different districts, such as Ntcheu and Dedza, in the country. Concern Universal voluntarily provides funds for mitigating impacts of HIV/AIDS and food insecurity at household level through different food security and HIV/AIDS based interventions in three regions of the country (Ngwira, et. al, 2000). UNAIDS (2004) reported that these funds cover direct support to interventions such as farm inputs starter pack, credit facilities, social-biomedical prevention, counseling and other agricultural health extensional services. UNAIDS (2004) further reported that insurance of adequate funds to amount an effective community response to HIV/AIDS impacts and food insecurity has proven difficult. This intricacy have been due to tail backed factors such as lack of understanding the causal effect relationship between HIV/AIDS and food insecurity impacts at the household level. In addition, NSF (2000) established that most donors have not been instrumental in providing financial support as such that the financial support has always been under coverage. This under-coverage has led to worsening of the HIV/AIDS and food insecurity impacts at the household level. 1.2 Problem Statement and Justification Regardless of the HIV/AIDS and food security based interventions that Concern Universal implements at the household level, HIV/AIDS and food availability still reinforce each other on household food security. Argumentatively, these two twin evils have resulted into an accelerated low food availability and accessibility among vulnerable households (MGDS, 2006). HIV/AIDS and food insecurity detrimental impacts on household food security have prompted non government organizations such as Concern Universal to provide financial resource support to projects which mitigate the HIV/AIDS and food insecurity impacts. The intervention has financially been purposed to help vulnerable and excluded households to strategize on mechanisms which can cope with and recover from their vulnerabilities towards HIV/AIDS and food security while still sustaining their limited disposable resources. Since most implementations solely depend on external resource support to efficiently mitigate the pandemic and food insecurity vulnerabilities, there is a need to efficiently use the financial resource support in order to effectively achieve the understated objectives. Failing which, more financial resources will be pulled in without reaching their intended purpose. Substantially, the study would provide information, on how to mitigate HIV/AIDS and food insecurity impacts through an impact analysis of Concern Universal projects, at the disposal of decision and policy makers. This would, thereafter, aid on how to implement food security and HIV/AIDS based intervention to meet their specified objectives among vulnerable households. 1.30 Objective 1.3.1 Underlying Objective: To assess Concern Universal contribution in mitigating HIV/AIDS and food insecurity impacts. 1.3.2 Specific Objectives: 1. To identify contribution of Concern Universal in mitigating food insecurity impacts 2. To identify contribution of Concern Universal in mitigating HIV/AIDS impacts 3. To analyze factors which affect Concern Universal food availability based intervention. 4. To analyze factors that affect Concern Universal HIV/AIDS based intervention 1.40 Hypotheses 1. There is no sig. difference between credit facility benefited by Concern Universal beneficiaries & non beneficiaries 2. There is no sig. difference between HA related interventions benefited by Concern Universal beneficiaries and non beneficiaries 3. Vulnerable household HIV/AIDS status is not affected by sex, maize food availability and Concern Universal affiliation 4. HIV/AIDS and Concern Universal credit facility do not affect household food availability 1.50 Research questions 1. Does Concern Universal play any role related to HIV/AIDS & food security at household level? 2. Has Concern Universal achieved any significant impact on household food availability? 3. Do food availability & HIV/AIDS reinforce each other at household level? 4. Is HH HIV/AIDS status affected by HHH sex and Concern Universal affiliation? 5. Is HH food availability affected by HIV/AIDS & Concern Universal credit facility? 2.0 Literature Review Malawi Government (2001) reported that there are attempts and efforts towards developing a sector-wide policy on HIV/AIDS by the Ministry on Agriculture and Food Security. This need arose from other efforts that the Ministry has undertaken to mainstream HIV/AIDS into its plans and operations. Such efforts started way back in 1998 with participatory development process to integrate food Insecurity, HIV/AIDS and land pressures issues. All these efforts prompted the Ministry to develop a policy that would guide decisions and implementation of HIV/AIDS prevention and mitigation interventions. Ngwira, et. Al (2000) indicated that care for the sick and dying is primarily a household and family responsibility and the burden falls heaviest on women. Traditionally, men do not care for the sick, so that a woman afflicted with AIDS will rely on female relatives. Because of this, if a married or adult woman falls ill then another household is likely to be affected because an adult woman may be withdrawn to provide nursing care. This, further, divert labour away from farming activities. World Bank (1999) indicated that most vulnerable household have fewer adult males, which means less labour for farm work and generating off-farm cash income. These household are unlikely to have resources for hiring extra labour. As a result, during peak agricultural periods, many women are likely to indulge in casual labour and unsafe sex so that they can supplement depleted household food stocks. FAO (2002) reported that cumulative scale of morbidity and mortality due to HIV/AIDS causes increasing labour losses in affected households, whilst there is an increasing need to divert time and labour to care for the ill, attending funerals and observing mourning customs. Consequently, rural households affected by AIDS suffer labour stresses that affect farm, off-farm, and domestic work. Labour loss disrupts agricultural practices and, hence, aggravates livelihood vulnerability and food insecurity. OXFARM (2004) indicated that NGOs which give agricultural loans or credits to people with AIDS with terms that are different from the non affected, experience a lot of problems as the turn up may not be good due to social stigma and discrimination. This agricultural credit facility has been used as a capital for farming inputs and other income generating activities. This approach has been helpful as it has facilitated the spread of prevention and mitigation massages during gathering times. In addition, the approach has created an economic food based entitlement asset. NAC (2005) established that NGOs play a critical role in implementing the strategic framework which emphasized on capacity building for individuals, families and communities. The report also indicated that the non governmental organizations were filling the gap by mitigating the socioeconomic and psychological impact at household level with regards to food security which is a critical factor to HIV/AIDS sector policy. However, NGOs have been faced with severe limitations of funding. Malawi government (2000) indicated that funding goals do not reach the affected people due to lack of harmonization between donors and implementers at a country level. At community level, funding is delayed due to improper way of writing and presenting proposals. In order to mitigate HIV/AIDS and food insecurity impacts, implementation funding blockages have to be understood. Additionally, substantial delays of implementing the programme can result if there are no clear plans for AIDS activities or financial mechanisms in place. Malawi government (2007) indicated that the government has allocated a total of MK7.67 billion towards development programs that contribute prevention and management of food security and HIV/AIDS disorders. One part of the funding has been going through the National AIDS Commission which sponsors CBOs to mitigate the HIV/AIDS impacts. However, the funding has met several challenges such as loss of qualified human resources. World Bank (1999) pointed out that other actors in economic development like non governmental organizations have provided both leadership and major funding for HIV/AIDS national prevention and mitigating programs especially in developing countries like Malawi. Sadly, these NGOs can not be compelled to finance in areas they have little interest regardless of the national need and they also have some preference and technical strengths and weaknesses. 3.0 Methodology 3.1 Study Area The study was conducted in Concern Universal catchment area in Nsipe EPA in Ntcheu District. The area was discernibly chosen because it was where Concern Universal had been implementing its HIV/AIDS and food security projects. 3.4 Sample Size The sample size could be determined by using the sample size formula which includes parameters such as the prevalence rate (p), sample size (n), desired degree of confidence (Z) which will be 95% and desired level of error (e) (Edriss, 2004). The prevalence rate of HIV/AIDS in Ntcheu was 6 percent’, therefore the sample can be calculated as: Z = 1.96, P = 6.72% and e = 5% (NSO, 2004). n = [Z2 (1-p) (p)] e2 = [1.962 (1 – 0.0672) (0.0672)] 0.05 2 = 96.32 approximately to 96 Therefore, there were approximately 96 vulnerable households in the calculated sample. Out of ninety six (96) sample size, 56 respondents were Concern Universal beneficiaries and 40 non beneficiaries. 3.5 Sampling Design A multi-stage sampling method was used to select 96 vulnerable households from the sampling framework list of the vulnerable and excluded households. Sample frame list was provided by Concern Universal and Village headmen. Firstly the EPA was clustered into sections. Secondly, a simple random sample was used to select one section. Stratification was thereafter applied where a sampled section was divided into groups of beneficiaries and non beneficiaries. Thirdly, simple random sampling was used to select the 56 beneficiaries and 40 non beneficiaries. 3.6 Descriptive Analysis Descriptive statistics was used to analyze data on the contribution of Concern Universal on mitigating HIV/AIDS and food security whereby percentages, graphs, frequencies were used. Statistic package for Social Science (SPSS) and LIMDEP were econometric computer packages used to analyze data. However, LIMDEP was the main econometric analytical tool used when analyzing data. 3.7 Econometric Analytical Techniques 3.7.1 The Tobit regression model Tobit regression model was used to analyze factors that significantly affected Concern Universal support in mitigating food insecurity i.e. food availability at household level with a threshold of 275 kg per year per person (Malawi Government, 2002). The model was used to analyze objective of food availability because it is a truncated or censored model where some information on food availability could not be available. Y٭i = β0 + β1X1j + β2X2j + β3X3j + β4X4j + β5X5j + β6X6j + εi Yi = if the left hand side ≥275 kg then the actual number was used and there was food security Yi = if the left side < 275 kg then the 0 was put down and the household was food insecure Where: Y = Food availability (food secured if food available ≥275 kg then actual # was written; Food insecure if food available < 275 kg then zero was written down instead) X1= HIV/AIDS status (infected=1; non infected = 0) X2= Hours spent faming X3= Age of the household head (# of years) X4= Household size (number of hh members above 15 years) X5= Concern Universal credits facility (inaccessible =0; accessible = 1) ε is the sampling error term and βi are explain elasticities 3.7.2 Logit regression model Logit regression model was used to predict factors that significantly affected Concern Universal support in mitigating HIV/AIDS impacts. Therefore, the model attained objective number 3. The model was used because it is a binary model taking into account the dichotomous status of the dependent variable-HIV/AIDS status. Logit (Pi) = Log [Pi / 1-Pi] Yi = β0 + ΣβiXij= β0 + β1X1j+β2X2j+β3X3j+ β4X4j+ β5X5j + β6X6j + εi Where Yi= HIV/AID status (affected =1; non affected = 0) X1= Household sex (Female=1; Male = 0) X2 =Age of the household head (Number of years) X3= Household size (# of household members of more than 15 years) X4= Food availability (weighed in Kilograms) X5= Education level (# of years in school) X6= Concern Universal Affiliation (a member=1; non member=0) ε is a disturbance stochastic term, βi are explain elasticities. 4.00. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.10 Socioeconomic characteristics of the household This section provided a discussion of some socioeconomic characteristics environmentalizing vulnerable and excluded households. Two groups of households, beneficiaries and non beneficiaries were included. These socioeconomic characteristics discussed included sex of the household head, age of the household head, marital status of the household head, level education of the household head, source of household income and others 4.11 Sex categories of the household head Table 1 illustrated that 64% of the beneficiaries were females while only 50% non beneficiaries were female. The p-values (p<0.10) shown that there were significant differences between beneficiaries and non beneficiaries. However, the Chi-Square indicated that sex did not determine who should benefit from the projects implemented at 10% level. Table 1: Sex Categories of the household head Categories Beneficiaries Non beneficiaries P-value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Male 20 35.7 20 50 0.0823 Female 36 64.3 20 50 0.0808 Total 56 35.7 40 100 2c=1.3333 < 2 t (0.10,1)= 2.706 4.13 Age categories of the household head Chibambo (2008) indicated that age influenced amount of labour to be allocated for production of a particular crop, knowledge uptake and decision making. On average, the mean age values were 42 and 37 for beneficiaries and non beneficiaries respectively. This illustrated that most of the people in the area were in their active-productive age group (NSO, 2004). The p value shown that there was no significant difference between mean age of beneficiaries and non beneficiaries at 10% level. 4.14 Marital status of the household head Fifty five percent (55%) of the beneficiaries and 65% of the non beneficiaries were married. However, there was large percentage of approximately 32 % beneficiaries and 22.5% non beneficiaries who were windows. Basing on the p-value (p>0.10), there was no significant difference between the marital status of the beneficiaries and non beneficiaries. However, the Chi-square indicated that the marital status of the household head determined who to benefit from the project at 1% significant level. Table 3: Marital Status of the household head Categories Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries P-value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Married 31 55.35714 26 65 0.1711 Divorced 5 8.928571 5 12.5 0.2877 Single 2 3.571429 0 0 0.1762 Window 18 32.14286 9 22.5 0.1515 Total 56 100 40 100 2c=45.375 > 2 t (0.01, 3) = 11.345 4.15 Educational Levels of the household head Education played an evident role in technical skills in which an individual was able to absorb and apply the right technical recommendations. Chibambo (2008) further argued that education was an essential element for understanding instruction very easily and taking advantage of innovation and opportunities. Eighty nine percent of the beneficiaries and 75% of the non beneficiaries had attended primary school. On the other hand, only 2% of the beneficiaries and 5% non beneficiaries did not attend any school at all. The p-value (p>0.10) indicated that there was no significant difference between beneficiaries and non beneficiaries. The Chi-square indicated that years of schooling did not determine who should benefit from the project. Table 4: Education Categories of the household head Categories Beneficiaries Non beneficiaries P-value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent None 1 1.7857143 2 5 0.2148 Std 1-8 50 89.285714 30 75 0.1788 Form 1-2 1 1.7857143 3 7.5 0.1230 Form 3-4 4 7.1428571 3 7.5 0.4300 Above Form 4 0 0.00 1 2.5 0.2177 Total 56 100 40 100 2c= 8.37053571<2 t(0.10,5)= 9.236 4.16. Household size Chibambo (2008) argued that household size influenced labour availability at the household level for agricultural activities. This was due to that most rural smallholder farmers use family labour as a source of labour. On average, beneficiary and non beneficiary household had an approximate mean household size value of 5.49 and 4.77, members, respectively. According to NSO (2004), these household size means were approximately in accordance with on average Malawian household size of 4.5 members. Table 5 showed that 18% of the beneficiaries and 3% of the non beneficiaries had household size of above 8 members. The p-value (p<0.05) illustrated that there was a significant difference between beneficiaries and non beneficiaries. This was due to that most households had been left with a lot of caring responsibilities over orphans (NAC, 2005). The Chi-Square indicated by household size determined who should benefit from the project interventions at 1% level. Table 5: Household size categories Categories Beneficiaries Non beneficiaries P-value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1 to 2 2 3.57 4 10 0.1251 3 to 5 31 55.36 16 40 0.0694 6 to 8 13 23.21 19 47.5 0.0078 Above 8 10 17.86 1 2.5 0.0228 Total 56 100 40 100 2c= 13.5> 2 t(0.01,3)= 11.345 4.17 Land holding size Land was one of the most important and scarce resources in agricultural production (Edriss, 2003). Edriss further argued that land availability at the household determined the type of crops to grow as well as the cropping pattern. Chibambo (2008) indicated land as a social capital indicator and principal asset of rural households was acquired through traditional leaders and marriage systems. Table 6 showed that 77% of the beneficiaries had land holding size ranging from 0.01 to 0.99 hectare. On the other hand, 60% of the non beneficiaries had land holding sizes larger than 1.00 hectare. The p-value (p<0.05) shown that there was a significant difference between the land holding size of the beneficiaries and non beneficiaries for land sizes ranging from 0.01 to 0.99 hectare. The difference was due to that most of the beneficiaries were vulnerable people such as female headed households and PLWH who did not access to land to farm on (FAO, 2006). The Chi-Square illustrated that land holding size determined who should be a beneficiary of the project. Table 6: Land holding size of the household Hectares Beneficiaries Non beneficiaries P-value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 0.01-0.99 43 76.75 16 40 0.0256 1.00-1.99 9 16.07 13 33 0.0322 Above 2.0 4 7.15 11 27 0.0089 Total 56 100 40 100 2c= 5.04166667 > 2 t(0.10,2)= 4.61 4.20 Sources of Household Income Phiri (2003) reported that the income of the household determined what kind of inputs and investments to venture into. Income also determined the proportion that a household could use to purchase food. Table 14 showed that a large proportion of the beneficiaries (55%) and 8% of the non beneficiaries earned their income through income generating activities such as bear brewing, pot making and kanyenya. Contrarily, only 9% of the beneficiaries and 50% of the non beneficiaries earned their household income through farming. The p-value showed a significant different between income sources of the beneficiaries and non beneficiaries at 1% level of significance. The Chi-Square implied that household income did not have a significant impact on household food security as household’s income and credit accessed had multiple goals at 10% significant level (Bokosi, 2001). Table 14: Household Income sources Categories Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries P-value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Farming 5 9 20 50 0.0003 IGA 31 55 3 7.5 0.0003 Employment 11 20 6 15 0.2810 Remittance 2 4 3 7.5 0.2119 Casual labor 7 12 8 20 0.1660 Total 56 100 40 100 2c=3.16875 < 2 t (0.10, 4) = 7.779 4.18 LABOUR AVAILABILITY AND SHORTAGES ANALYSIS This section expounded the labour that was available among the vulnerable and excluded households and the effect that the labour availability had on the household food production and vulnerability to HIV/AIDS and related infections. 4.18.1 Hours spent by the household during farming activities On average, the beneficiaries spent 33 hours while non beneficiaries spent 38 hours per week on agricultural activities. Table 7 showed that approximately 20% of the non beneficiaries and 5.36% of the beneficiaries spent above 50 hours per week on farming activities. The p-value (p<0.05) showed that there was a substantial difference between the hours spent on farming activities between beneficiaries and non beneficiaries spending 40 to 50 hours per week. The Chi square indicated Concern Universal did not have an impact on hours the household spent farming. Table 7: Hours spend by the household on farming activities Hours/week Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries P-value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 6 to 20 7 12.5 7 17.5 0.2482 21 to 39 28 50 22 55 0.3156 40 to 50 18 32.14 3 7.5 0.0043 Above 50 3 5.36 8 20 0.0455 N 56 100 40 100 2c=1.40833 < 2 t (0.10, 3) = 6.25 4.18.2 Factors why household faces labour shortage Table 9 illustrated that 86% of the beneficiaries and 55% of the non beneficiaries faced labour shortage due to funerals, prolonged sickness and sick caring respectively. Oxfam (2004) reported that productive labour time is lost due to funeral attendance, sick caring and mourning custom observing, treatment and burial of household members. Contrarily, a proportion of 14% beneficiaries and 45% non beneficiaries faced labour shortage due to school going children. The p-value (p<0.01) showed that there was a significant difference between beneficiaries and non beneficiaries for facing labour shortage due to funerals and school going children. This was due to that the death caused by HIV/AIDS and related diseases often caused a substantial negative impact to household labour availability (Oxfam, 2004). The Chi-square indicated that Concern Universal did not have a significant impact on factors that affected household labour availability. Table 16: Factors that affect labour shortage among vulnerable households Categories Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries P-value Freq Percent Frequency Percent Prolonged sickness 16 28.57 10 25 0.3483 Sick caring 14 25 8 20 0.2843 Funerals 18 32.14 4 10 0.0087 School children 8 14.29 18 45 0.001 N 56 100 40 100 2c=0.16666667<2 t (0.10,3)= 6.251 4.19. FOOD ENTITLEMENTS AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL This section elucidated about the food entitlements among vulnerable and excluded households. The section further explained the factors associated with food accessibility and availability ranging from economic, social to physical production perspective. 4.19.1 Maize production Phiri (2003) reported that most of the households ensured that they preserve a plot for growing food crops such as maize intercropped with others, however, he pointed out that there were several constraints to maize production such as labour and seed shortages that vulnerable and excluded households faced. The mean maize production was 1605.71 kg for beneficiaries and 1360.57 kg for non beneficiaries. Table 10 showed that a larger proportion (78%) of the beneficiaries and 66% of the non beneficiaries produced maize of 800kg and above. The p-value (p<0.05) showed that there was a significant difference between maize produced by beneficiaries and non beneficiaries for both categories producing 800kg and above. The Chi-square illustrated that Concern Universal had a significant impact on household food production at 5% level. This was probably because of the agricultural credit inputs among beneficiaries. Table 10: Maize production by the household Categories Beneficiaries Non beneficiaries P-value Kilogram Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Below 500 4 7.14 5 12.5 0.1949 500 to 799 8 14.29 8 20 0.2327 800 to 1000 4 7.14 7 17.5 0.0735 Above 1000 40 71.43 20 50 0.0154 N 56 100 40 100 2c= 9.375 > 2 t(0.05,3)= 7.815 4.19.3 Main strategies to food during food shortages periods Khaila (1992) indicated that most households run out of food as soon as May. This was, therefore, important to assess the sources of food that most households used during these periods where they run out of food. Table 13 illustrated that beneficiaries (75%) and non beneficiaries (8%) sourced their food through purchasing from Income generating activities (IGA). The difference between food source of beneficiaries and non beneficiaries was found significant at p<0.05. A credit package, a capital to IGA, probably accessed beneficiaries to purchase food in times of food shortages at household level (Bokosi, 2001). The Chi-square statistic indicated that Concern Universal had a significant impact on copping strategies to food during food depleted periods at 1% significant level due to the IGAs’ capital credit facility accessed by beneficiaries from Concern Universal. Table 11: Main sources of food during food shortages Main strategies Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries P-values Freq Percent Freq Percent IGAs 42 75 3 8 0.015 Remittance 9 16 24 60 0.098 Piece work 5 9 13 32 0.281 N 56 100 40 100 Χ²c=23.029 > χ²t(0.01, 2)=9.21 4.19.4 Periods when the household run out of the Food Table 12 showed that 34% of the beneficiaries and 55% of the non beneficiaries run out of food during the months of December to February. Phiri (2003) reported that this was the critical times for most households because they could not access foods as casual work was not readily available. The p-value (p<0.05) indicated that there was a significant difference between beneficiaries and non beneficiaries during the months of December and February. The Chi-square indicated that Concern Universal had a significant impact on the months when the household faced food shortage at 1% significant level due to the credit facilities investments in IGAs which acted as cushion against food shortage. Table 12: Periods when food depletes Categories Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries P-value Months Frequency Percent Frequency Percent December-February 19 34 22 55 0.020 March-April 11 20 5 12.5 0.181 May-July 15 26 7 17.5 0.146 August-November 11 20 6 15 0.281 Total 56 100 40 100 2c=12.0416667 > 2 t (0.01,3)= 11.345 4.20 FOOD SECURITY SITUATION AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL 4.20.1 Household food availability Malawi government (1989) defined that a household would be food secured if it secured food either through economic or physical access of at least 275 kg per person per year. Table 11 showed that beneficiaries (50%) and 48 % of the non beneficiaries had food available above the national rented food security bench per person per year. The p-value indicated that Concern universal did not achieve a significant food security as there is no statistical difference between beneficiaries and non beneficiaries at 10% significant level. However, the Chi-squared implied that Concern Universal did not have a significant impact on household food availability at 10% level of significance. Table 12: Food availability at household Categories Beneficiaries Non beneficiaries P-value Kilogram Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Below 275 28 50 21 52.5 0.4052 275 to 325 8 14.29 4 10 0.2676 326 to 425 7 12.5 7 17.5 0.2482 Above 426 13 23.21 8 20 0.3557 N 56 100 40 100 Χ²c=0.26041 < χ²t(0.10, 3)=6.25 4.21. CONCERN UNIVERSAL CONTRIBUTIONS ON FOOD SECURITY 4.21.1. Credits accessibility by the Household Chimombo (2008) argued that credit as an important tool for enhancing productivity and technology uptake, access to credits compelled vulnerable people invest in farming or income generating activities. Bokosi (2001) indicated that rural people should be given credits in order to prevent both transitory and chronic food insecurity by enabling households acquire inputs to invest in agriculture and other income generating activities. Table 15: Credit Accessibility by the household Categories Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries P-value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent No access 10 17.86 33 82.5 0.00003 Access 46 82.14 7 17.5 0.00003 Total 56 100 40 100 2c=5.2083333 > 2 t (0.10, 1) = 3.83 Table 15 illustrated that 82.14% of the beneficiaries had access to credit while only 17.5% of the non beneficiaries had access to credits. The p-value (p<0.01) indicated that there was a significant difference between beneficiaries and non beneficiaries access to credits. The difference was probably because Concern Universal provided credit facilities to its beneficiaries. The Chi-square showed that that Concern Universal had a statistical impact on credit accessibility at 5% level. 4.21.2 Sources of Farm inputs in particular improved maize seeds Actionaid (2002) reported that seed access was a major determinant of household food security extent and it influenced production. Peter (1995) further indicated that the utilization of improved seeds produced better harvest hence positive contribution to food security. Table 16 showed that 54% of the beneficiaries and 28% of the non beneficiaries sourced their improved maize seeds from agro based dealers. Contrarily, 36% of these beneficiaries and 65% of the non beneficiaries recycled their seeds from last year production. The p-value (p<0.01) illustrated that there was a statistic difference between sources of improved maize seeds of the beneficiaries and non beneficiaries. Chi-square indicated that Concern Universal had a significant impact on seeds source at household level at 1% level of significance. Table 16: Sources of farm inputs especially seeds Sources Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries P-value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Hybrid from Agro-dealers 30 54.08 11 27.5 0.0091 Recycled 20 35.71 26 65 0.0023 Remittances 6 10.71 3 7.5 0.2981 N 56 40 2c=13.5 > 2 t (0.01, 2)= 9.21 4.22.0 HIV/AIDS situation analysis 4.22.1 HIV and AIDS Status of the household Malawi government (2002) reported that HIV and AIDS is one of the factors that had been affecting food security at the household level. Table 17 showed that a larger proportion of 82% of the beneficiaries and 55% of the non beneficiaries were affected by HIV and AIDS impacts. Table 17: HIV and AIDS Categories Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries P-value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent HIV non affected 10 17.86 18 45 0.0031 HIV affected 46 82.14 22 55 0.0015 Total 56 100 40 100 2c= 8.33333333 > 2 t (0.01,1)= 6.635 4.22.2 Practices that promote HIV and AIDS spread Table 18 illustrated that approximately 91% of the beneficiaries and 93% of non beneficiaries responded that HIV and AIDS spread is promoted by prostitution. P-value (p>0.10) indicated that there was no significant different between beneficiaries and non beneficiaries responses that promoted HIV/AIDS spread. Table 18: Practices that promote HIV and AIDS spread Categories Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries P-value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Prostitution 51 91.07143 37 92.5 0.4013 Initiation 2 3.571429 2 5 0.3669 Unfaithfulness 3 5.357143 1 2.5 0.2546 Total 56 100 40 100 2c=98.00 > 2 t (0.01,2)= 9.210 4.23.1 Sources of Treatment that the household received Sixty six percent of the beneficiaries and 63% of the non beneficiaries received their treatments from government hospital. However, 2% of the beneficiaries and 15% of the non beneficiaries got their medication from the witch doctors. The p-value (p<0.01) suggested that there was a significant difference on the use of private clinic and retailer medication addressed between beneficiaries and non beneficiaries at 1% level of significance. There was also a statistic difference between members and non members on witch doctors’ medications at 5% significant level. This was probably because of lack of awareness on the causes, symptoms and signs of HIV/AIDS and the right medications (NAC, 2004). Table 19: Treatment sources by the household Sources Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries P-value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Private clinic 13 23.21 0 0.00 0.0039 Govt hospital 37 66.07 25 62.5 0.3594 Witch doctors 2 3.57 6 15 0.0455 Retailers 4 7.14 9 22.5 0.0039 N 56 40 2c=5.04166667 < 2 t (0.10,3)= 6.251 Chi square indicated that Concern Universal did not have an impact on sources of treatment that the household opted 10 % significant level. This was probably due to that other non beneficiary households accessed similar treatment from other HIV/AIDS service providers such as government hospital and health centers (NAC, 2004). 4.23 Concern Universal contributions on HIV/AIDS status 4.23.1 HIV/AIDS related Interventions benefited by the household Sixty nine percent of the beneficiaries and 38% of the non beneficiaries responded that prevention/abstinence intervention was beneficial to the household avoidance of HIV and AIDS infections. The Chi-square (2 <0.01) pointed out that Concern Universal had a significant impact on the HIV/AIDS related interventions that the household benefited at 1% level of significance Table 19: Services provided by with HIV and AIDS project. Categories Beneficiaries Non Beneficiaries P-value Interventions Frequency Percent Frequency Percent ARV Treatment 9 16.07 1 2 0.0322 HIV/AIDS awareness 0 0.00 23 58 0.0001 ABC-Prevention 39 70 15 38 0.0012 Behavior change 8 14 1 2 0.0455 N 56 40 2c=44.08333 >2 t (0.01,3) = 11.345 4.24 LOGIT REGRESSION MODEL RESULTS The Logit model was used to assess factors that affected the household HIV/AIDS status. The model helped to achieve objective 3 by identifying factors that affected HIV/AIDS status at household level. The following were the computered results: Variables Coefficient Standard Error t-ratio P-value Sex of the hh head 1.43069 0.608732 2.35028** 0.0187593 Age of the hh head 0.0411747 0.019367 2.12601** 0.0335024 Education -0.257698 0.112246 2.29584** 0.021685 CU Affiliation -1.57903 0.533663 -2.95884*** 0.00308798 Maize available -0.0013 0.00049 -2.33927** 0.0193217 Constant 2.749 2.385 1.328** 0.0249 Log likelihood function (LLF) -45.62296 *** Restricted log likelihood (RLL) -136.13172 Chi squared 18.98248*** McFadden R2 = 0.664861 n 56 Dependent variable HIV/AIDS status (affected=1 and not affected=0) *** i.e. significant at 1% level; ** i.e. significant at 5% level; * i.e. significant at 10% level 4.24.0 Interpretation of the Logit regression model results The constant term in the model has shown to be significantly different from zero at 5% significant level indicating that there are other additional factors that affected household HIV/AIDS status, which had not been modeled in this analysis. This has been revealed in the McFadden R2 which indicated that only 66% of the variation in the household HIV/AIDS status is explained by factors in the model. The Chi square of 18.98 was sufficiently significant at 1% indicating that the model was good i.e. fit enough to explain the relationship existing between food security and aforementioned socioeconomic factors at household level. The Log Likelihood function significance at 1% also shown that when independent variables were taken together they determined HIV/AIDS in the study area. Independent variable’s interpretation 4.24.1 Sex of the household head Sex of the household head had a positive significant impact on the HIV/AIDS status of the households at 5% level. This was due to that most female headed households were prone to disadvantageous socioeconomic status. This, therefore, indicated that there was sufficient evidence that female headed household enhanced the impacts of HIV/AIDS at household level. FAO (2006) reported that most female headed households had low income level hence indulged in risk practices to HIV/AIDS vulnerabilities. 4.24.2 Age of the household head Phiri (2003) argued that age had a role to play on decision making of the household and what household activities to venture in. Age was found to have a positive significant impact on the HIV/AIDS status of the households at 5% level of significance. That is a unit increase in family head age would result into a 0.04117 likelihood increase in the effects caused by HIV/AIDS, ceteris paribus. 4.24.3 Education of the household head UNAIDS (2004) indicated that better educated people were more likely to absorb prevention information and adopt safer behaviors. Relatively, the study found out that education was significant at 5% level. This, therefore, implied that there was sufficient evidence that education lessened HIV/AIDS status at household level of 0.25769 likelihood, ceteris paribus. Phiri (2003) similarly reported that as the household years of education increased, the HIV/AIDS household status got reduced. 4.24.5 Institutional affiliation by the household FAO (2006) reported that membership to food security organization enables access to beneficial extension information. This gave room to access up to date issues about the pandemic. The Concern Universal affiliation of the household was significant at 1% level of significance. Therefore, when a household became affiliated to Concern universal, there would be a 1.579 likelihood reduction in the effects of HIV/AIDS at household, ceteris paribus. 4.24.6 Food availability of the household. Food availability was significant at 5% level of significance with a negative coefficient. Therefore a unit increase in food available at home would result into a 0.0013 likelihood decrease in the effects caused by HIV/AIDS, ceteris paribus. TOBIT REGRESSION MODEL RESULTS The model was used to assess factors that affected household food availability. The following were the computered Tobit regression results: Variables Coefficient. Standard Error. t-ratio P-value Age 7.06797 0.018 1.80394* 0.0712405 Labour 77.6098 0.0781 2.87637*** 0.00402278 Credits 389.761 1.097 2.2517** 0.0243415 HIVAIDS -258.871 0.001 -2.03517** 0.0418339 Hours 15.8225 0.992 3.16947*** 0.00152718 Constant 498.658 0.014 11.8322*** 2.89E-15 Log likelihood function (LLF) -145.0156 *** Restricted log likelihood (RLL) -534.1602 Chi-Square 36.6380*** McFadden R2 = 0.728518 n 56 Dependent variable Food availability (kg/annum/person) *** i.e. significant at 1% level; ** i.e. significant at 5% level; * i.e. significant at 10% level 4.25.0 Interpretations of Tobit regression model results The constant value of 498.65 likelihood increase in food availability points out that food availability is positively affected other factors such as income levels of the house that are not included in this model. The McFadden R2 indicated only 73% of the variation in household food availability is explained by factors such included in the model. The Chi square of 36.64 was sufficiently significant at 1% signifying that the model was good i.e. fit enough to explain the relationship existing between food security and aforementioned socioeconomic factors at household level. Log Likelihood Function also showed that independent variables taken together determined food availability in the study area at 1% significant level Independent variables’ interpretation 4.25.1 Age of the household head Age was positively significant at 1% level. This implied age of the household head determined the indigenous knowledge acquired to decision making over what crops to grow and what planting pattern to follow in order to acquire optimal production through experience (Ellis, 1992). In addition, the indigenous knowledge that the household head had accumulated over years determined the number of alternative coping strategies to food security. Therefore a unit increase in age of the household head would result into 7.0679 likelihood increase in food available at home, ceteris paribus. 4.25.2 Labour availability Household members of more than 15 years determined the amount of labour available to the agricultural activities. Chibambo (2008) argued that household size influenced labour availability at the household level for agricultural activities. Household size was positively significant at 1% level of significance. Therefore, as the household members of 15 years above determined the amount of labour available, hence, it had a role to play on the food security of the household. 4.25.4 Credit Accessibility Researchers had argued that when households were provided with credits, they could positively move out of transitory and chronic food insecurity. Credit was positively significant at p<0.05. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that as the household accessed credit, the household food security status would increase positively. Bokosi (2001) reported that credit offered to rural poor households could be a capital for agricultural investments, labour hiring and income generating activities. Therefore, when a house had access to credit, there would be a 389.7 likelihood increase of food available at home, ceteris paribus. 4.2.5.5 HIV/AIDS status MPRS (2002) reported that HIV/AIDS has adversely affected productivity and food security for most vulnerable Malawian due to labour loss and diversion through death and sick caring HIV/AIDS was negatively significant at 5% alpha level. This coefficient indicated that HIV/AIDS had a negative impact on the household food security. This meant that when the household was affected by HIV/AIDS effects, there would be 258.8 likelihood reductions in food available at home, ceteris paribus. 4.25.6 Hours spent farming by the household Hours that a household spent doing agricultural activities at the farm determined the food security of the household (Malawi Government, 2002). Hours spent on had a positive significant impact on food availability at 1% level. This implied that any addition unit of hours spent on farming would result into 15.82 likelihood increase in food availability at household level, ceteris paribus. 5.0 Conclusions HIV/AIDS status was affected by sex, age, education, Concern Universal affiliation and maize availability. Labour availability, HIV/AIDS status, age, credit access and hours spent on farming activities affected food availability at household level. It was ascertained that HIV/AIDS and food availability were twin evils at household level as they inversely reinforced each other. Concern Universal did not achieve a significant impact on food security regardless of their interventions such as credits facility. On the other hand, Concern Universal implemented ARV treatment, behaviour change and ABC- prevention approaches in mitigating HIV/AIDS negative impacts at household level. 6.0 Recommendation Since HIV/AIDs and food security reinforced each other among vulnerable and excluded households. The following recommendations were made in order to act as intensifiers to achieving food security and manageable HIV and AIDS negative impacts. 1. There was a need to intensively mainstream HIV/AIDS interventions in food security projects among vulnerable and excluded households. Therefore any food security project should incorporate HIV/AIDS impact mitigation messages. 2. There was a need to use an integrated approach in delivering the impact mitigation to food insecurity through growing a variety of food crops and small animals plus homestead vegetables and fruit gardens at household level. This would, therefore, provide enough food at household level through out the year. 7.0 Reference: Actionaid. (2002). Malawi Country Strategy Paper -2005-2010. Llongwe, Malawi. Bokosi, F.F.F. (2001). Deterministics and characteristics of household demand for smallholder credit in Malawi. Bunda, Lilongwe, Malawi. Chibambo, B.(2008). The socio-economic of cob-rot and smut diseases in the maize production systeme of malawi: the case of Chiphe and Makwenda villages. Bunda, LL, Malawi. Edriss, A.K. (2003). The dynamics of food production systems and adoption of technologies in a village economy: a case of Malawi. IPP,Las Vegas, NV, USA. Edriss, A. (2003). Passport to research methods. IPP, Las Vezas, USA. Ellis, F. (1992). Agricultural policies for developing nations. Cambridge University, UK FAO. (2002). Agro biodiversity, food security and HIV/AIDS mitigation in SSA. Rome, Italy. FAO. (2006). Food security and agricultural development in SS. Rome, Italy. Khaila, S.W.(1992). The structure and historical condition of food security in Malawi: a case of Salima ADD. Michingan State Univ, USA. Malawi Government.. (1989). National food security and bulletin. Lilongwe, Malawi. Malawi Government ( 2001). Sexual and Reproductive Health Behaviours in Malawi. Ministry of Health and Population, Lilongwe. Malawi Government. (2000). National Strategic Framework for HIV/AIDS. Lilongwe, Malawi Malawi Government, (2002). Malawi poverty reduction strategies paper. Lilongwe, Malawi. Malawi Government.(2005).Guide to agricultural production and natural resource.LL, Malawi Malawi Government. (2006). Malawi growth and development Strategies. Lilongwe, Malawi. Malawi Government. (2007). Public sector investment programme. Lilongwe, Malawi National AIDS Commision. (2004). HIV and AIDS in Malawi. Lilongwe, Malawi. National AIDS Commision. (2005). Malawi HIV/AIDS national action Plan. Lilongwe, Malawi National Statistic Office. (2004). The population and housing survey. Zomba, Malawi Ng’ong’ola, D.H. (1997). The maize market in Malawi. Bunda College, Lilongwe, Malawi Ngwira, N. and Kamchedzera, E. (2000). A situation analysis of girls, orphans,disabled and working children’s access to basic education in Malaw., UNICEF, Lilongwe, Malawi. OXFARM, (2004), Mainstreaming HIV/AIDS in development & humanitarian programmes. Oxford, UK. Peggy, O. (1997). When Maize and Tobacco are not enough. A Church Study of Malawi Agro-Economy. Edinburg. UK. Peter, P.E. (1995). Persistent drought and food security. ASAP, Washington DC. USA. Phiri, J. (2003).The Impacts of HIV/AIDS related illness on household maize production among smallholder farmers in Malawi. Bunda College, Lilongwe, Malawi. SAT. (2004). The role added value of NGO-based CBO/NGO support providers in response to HIV and AIDS in Southern and Eastern. Harare, Zimbabwe. UNAIDS. (2004). Report on the global AIDS epidemic. Geneva, Switzerland World Bank. (1999). Confronting AIDS: Public priorities in a global epidemic.W. D.C., USA. 8.0. Appendixes 8.10. SEMI-STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE This Semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect data on socio-economic factors that enviromentalize vulnerable and excluded household. It also measured Concern Universal financial support through assessing the contributions that Concern Universal played in mitigating HIV/AIDS and food insecurity impacts at household level in Nsipe EPA in Ntcheu district. This questionnaire was designed and used by Innocent Raisae Phiri, an Agricultural Economics Student of August, 2005 to May, 2009, in the Faculty of Rural Development Studies under Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics at Bunda College, University of Malawi. Ndagha fiyo, Kyala wamaka kangi abasayeghe mwesa-Ndiwo, Lupembe,Kyungu Karonga. 1.0 Identification Information Interviewer’s name Respondent name Community/Village Date Sex Male 0 Female 1 Means of mark Coding 2.0 Socioeconomic characteristics # of years of the h/h head -age- Marital status of the head # of years in school Land allocated to maize in hectares Specify the exact number 1 Married Specify the exact number Specify the exact number 2 Divorced 3 Never married 4 Widow 5 Others How did you acquire this land Where did you get farm input e.g. maize seeds Last year maize crop production in kilograms Food available since last year production in kilograms 1 Marriage 1 ADMARC Specify the exact number Specify the exact number 2 Inheritance 2 Agro dealers 3 Purchase 3 Remittance 4 Traditional leaders 4 Recycled 5 Other 5 Others Source of food during food shortage periods Food shortage period in months Access to credits Source of household income 1 IGAs 1 December-February Yes 1 Farming 2 Piece work 2 March-April No 2 IGA 3 Reminattance 3 May-July 3 Employment 4 Others 4 August-November 4 Remittance 5 December-February 5 Piece work Any intervention introduced by Concern Universal Malawi How many times/wk do you attend these Intervention Do these interventions affect your farming activities Practices that advocate HIV/AIDS spread 1 ARV Treatment Specify the exact number Yes 1 Prostitution 2 HIV/AIDS awareness No 2 Initiation 3 ABC-Prevention 3 Unfaithful partners 4 Behavior Change 4 Others 5 5 When sick where do you get treatment medicine Is there any h/h member who has been sick Has your household been affected by HIV and AIDS How has HIV and AIDS affected your household, if yes 1 Private clinic Yes Yes Explain in brief 2 Government hospital No No 3 Witch doctors 4 Retailers 5 Others Do you tell your neighbor if s/m is sick in the family Hours spent at the farm doing agricultural activities Why do you face labour shortage if applicable Do you employ extra labour, if no, why? Yes Specify the exact number 1 Prolonged sickness 1 No money No 2 Sick caring 2 Small land 3 Funerals 3 Others 4 Schooling 5 other KEY QUESTIONS TO HIV/AIDS AND FOOD SECURITY: 1. What are some of the contributions that the NGOs have introduced in your area? 2. How should these interventions be implemented to mitigate HIV/AIDS impacts? 3. What are some of the factors which you think affect the operations of these NGOs? 4. Why do you experience food insecurity at some point in the year at your h/h? 5. What do you think could be the cause and solutions to food insecurity? 6. How do you think could you on your own solve foo

Lilongwe:


Innocent Raisae Phiri
The Country Manager
Sustainable Agricultural Management Actions
P.O. Box 31307
Lilongwe 4
Malawi
+2659338441
raisae14@yahoo.com
Lucy Tembo
Programe Coordinator
Sustainable Agricultural Management Actions
Lilongwe
Malawi
Barbar Bandah
Partners
Environmental Africa
Lilongwe
Malawi
 
Today, there have been 1 visitors (16 hits) on this page!
=> Do you also want a homepage for free? Then click here! <=
Sustainable agriculture is now! Centuries down the flow, there is no specific model to attain optimal economic growth and development among countries. However, there is one holistic model undiscovered for your country. Therefore, search and watch beyond purpose of intellectuality (Raisae & Lucy, 2008).