The basis for the profiles is simplified farm budget data, and the models are static, not
behavioral, i.e. they do not allow farmers to change production and consumption patterns in
response to price changes. In effect, a number of typical cropping patterns were identified, and
their changing profitability was traced over a five year period. Only five crops are included and
maize is the only staple food crop. In reality, cropping patterns would be more complex. Data
came from gross margin calculations made by MoALD, the AES data sets put together by FEWS
and information contained in Alwang and Siegel (1996). No allowance was made for the cost of
credit. Producer prices were treated as though they were farmgate prices, whereas there would,
in reality, be transport costs to take into account. To this extent the net cash incomes given for
households 3-5 are overestimates. In spite of the simplification, however, the profiles allow us to
identify losers and gainers.

 The models were run twice, once using actual average smallholder yields over the period
1982/83 1994/95, to give some idea of whether or not households were chronically food
insecure, and once using actual yield variation, to give some insight in to transitory food
insecurity. The other main factor driving the results is variation in prices faced by smallholders,
which can be directly related to the process of market liberalisation.

 Household 1 is a male-headed household, comprising four people in total, with two
working adults. It cultivates 0.4ha of land, 0.35 to local maize and 0.05 to groundnuts. (28
percent of rural smallholder households are male-headed cultivating less than 0.5 has of land). The
family food requirement is equivalent to 800kg of maize a year. In a normal year, the household
will produce 305kg of maize, just under 40 percent of its requirements, and 19kg of groundnuts.
After just over five months, or longer if they stretch consumption, the family will run out of food.
The rest of the year's food supplies has to be made up from off-farm income opportunities, most
probably ganyu. Table C3 shows how the amount of maize this household has access to from its
own production, both directly and through sales, has changed over time. This household almost
certainly does not have access to anything like an adequate food intake. Market liberalisation has
eroded what little purchasing power it had, and unless there has been dramatic improvement in
off-farm employment opportunities, which seems unlikely, this family has definitely been
negatively affected. In years of poor harvest, the situation gets even worse. This is comparable
to the situation of a number of poor families identified in the SCF study on coping mechanisms.

 Household 2 is a female-headed household, comprising 3.5 consumption units. In addition
to the female head of household, there is one elderly person with limited labour capacity. This
household cultivates 0.29 has, with 0.25 under local maize and 0.04 under
groundnuts (13 percent of rural households are female headed, farming less than 0.5ha). The
family food requirement is equivalent to 700 kg of maize a year. In a normal year this family will
produce 217kg of maize, about 20 percent of its requirements, and 15kg of groundnuts.


C 12