Dear Reader,
On 23 May 2026, The Nation Online reported that Malawi continued to be one of the poorest countries. On 19 June 2026, the National Statistics Office (NSO) informed the nation of a reduction in household poverty but highlighted that families are borrowing to meet the daily food and other basic needs. Why should families and households borrow for food and other basic needs when poverty is reducing? While not all of us are economists, we are compelled to examine the simple logic of the differences between the two reports and conclude that there is confusion.
How could improved household poverty lead to increased borrowing for consumption and increased national poverty? These questions need to be answered not only by economists but by all Malawians. We are in a situation where we should not leave these matters to academics but rather begin to start questioning these statistics. The Sixth Malawi Integrated Household Survey (IHS6) notes a reduction in poverty for one social group, followed by a 4% increase in poverty for the ultra-poor, meaning more people have joined the ranks of the ultra-poor. The ultra-poor have been targets for social protection programmes, including social cash transfers and AIP, among others. One wonders if these programmes are bearing fruits as propagated. We, therefore, need to reflect seriously.
These results emerge as we celebrate 62 years of independence. Malawi at 62 is experiencing increasing poverty levels and is still rated as one of the poorest nations. This also comes at a time when we are approximately five years away from MP1 of Malawi 2063. Are we already missing the targets for Vision 2063? We also need to reflect on the country’s loan burden, questioning where the money, which came in the form of aid and loans, went. Does this confirm Dambisa Moyo’s prophecy of “Dead Aid”?
We have all been informed by our learned weather experts about the impending El Niño. We all know that in Malawi, for example, we have a huge volume of water. However, as one government official challenged NGOs in the humanitarian system regarding why we focus on responding rather than preventing, our current emphasis is on the aftermath of El Niño, rather than, for example, producing enough food using irrigation before El Niño strikes. In fact, El Niño presents a good example of “Dead Aid,” where we are stuck with business as usual yet still want to make a difference.
It does seem that many things are going awry in Malawi. One issue is that development in Malawi has become synonymous with projects and funding. The situation has become so confusing that every activity now requires funding. We need to genuinely reflect on this and redefine what funding means for our beneficiaries. Organizations with vehicles and available fuel inform us that there is no funding. Community meetings organized by community volunteers are failing due to a lack of funding. We need to unpack what this “funding” entails. Extension workers living in the community are unable to perform their jobs because there is no funding. Yet, in our beautiful proposals, we write that the sustainability of initiatives is based on the structures we have built. Is it that the language of sustainability is only meant to win projects? While projects are intended to be a means to an end, currently, these projects have become ends in themselves.
Localization continues to be a buzzword at both local and international levels. Malawi has adopted a legal framework for localization, as mentioned in previous editions. However, close monitoring is required as the NGO Regulatory Authority (NGORA) is currently guiding both local and international NGOs on the implementation of this law. It is crucial to dedicate time to understanding the implications of this.
Localization, particularly as outlined in the Charter for Change, emphasizes key principles to which many international NGOs are signatories. Interestingly, Malawi has set a minimum funding partnership level of 30%, whereas a current study by Oxfam indicates that this localization indicator stands at only 9.8%. Consequently, implementing this law will serve as a significant test for localization and the Charter for Change in Malawi. We understand that the law stresses partnership as a core principle, and it is important to ascertain whether these partnerships will be genuine. We should reflect on what this partnership truly entails.
We need to highlight some key pillars of localization:
(a) Direct Financing: This requires committing a larger percentage of global humanitarian funding (often benchmarked at 25%) directly to local and national NGOs to reduce overhead costs and foster sustainability (IASC).
(b) Equitable Leadership and Coordination: This involves moving away from “saviour” mentalities by integrating local and national actors into meaningful decision-making roles within the international humanitarian coordination system (IASC).
(c) Community-Centric Aid: This means utilizing local responders who possess deep cultural knowledge, existing community trust, and the unique ability to remain on the ground long after international aid withdraws.
However, we observe that only 9.8% of funding goes to local actors, while the overhead costs for international NGOs (INGOs) often exceed the budget allocated to local actors. Equitable leadership appears to be superficial, with decisions made in forums inaccessible to local actors. Furthermore, local actors lack direct access to back donors; their voices are reported by INGOs, meaning they can easily be distorted. INGOs also maintain a significant presence at community levels.
A major concern is that local actors and responders lack a voice and have become timid and fearful due to funder-grantee relationships, which hinders their ability to question actions by both funders and INGOs. There have been instances where INGOs have expressed concerns that local actors desire a ‘takeover’. The framers of the Charter for Change (C4C) and Grand Bargain had valid reasons for their development. Does this imply that signatories to the C4C and Grand Bargain at local levels are unaware of these issues?
We conclude our reflections with the man-made disaster resulting from the return of our brothers and sisters from South Africa. Kudos to DoDMA for a job well done. However, we face a long-term challenge in settling these returnees, a responsibility for all of us. We need to develop strategies and actions to build this approach.
