Malawi Government

1.

THE FIFTH INTEGRATED HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

(IHS5) 2020 REPORT
`

November 2020
Published by National Statistical Office
For More Information, please contact:

The Commissioner of Statistics National Statistical Office Chimbiya Road,

P.O. Box 333, Zomba. Malawi

Tel: +265(0)1524 377/111

Fax: +265(0)1525 130

email: enquiries@[Link]

website: [Link]

i
KEY SUMMARY FINDINGS

Indicators IHS3 IHS4 IHS5

Education
Literacy Rates 65.4 72.8 75.5
Never Attended School 21.1 14.2 13.2
Enrolment Rates
Gross enrolment rate (Primary School) 120.0 121.8 123.8
Net enrolment rate (Primary School) 85.8 87.8 88.0
Gross enrolment rate (Secondary School) 30.1 42.2 39.8
Net enrolment rate (Secondary School) 13.0 14.3 14.5
Dropout rate
Primary School 1.3 2.0 1.6
Secondary School 11.9 10.4 8.4
Credits and Loans
Interaction with credit market
Households applied for a loan 14.2 18.4 24.6
Households that obtained a loan 8.3 12.5 17.7
Household Enterprises
Household non-farm enterprises
Wholesale, Retail trade, Restaurant and Hotels 58.1 72.4 63.1
Manufacturing 30.5 16.3 15.6
Transportation, Storage and Communication 3.9 4.2 9.0
Construction 1.4 1.1 1.4
Mining and Quarrying 0.4 0.2 0.6
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services 0.2 0.8 3.8
Housing Infrastructure and Environment
Households by type of housing tenure
Owner Occupied 81.0 72.9 74.3
Rented 10.6 12.3 12.4
Households by type of construction materials
Permanent 28.7 26.7 45.9
Semi-Permanent 24.7 35.9 25.0
Traditional 46.6 37.5 29.1
Access to improved water source 78.7 87.1 88.3
Use of solid fuel for cooking 97.4 98.0 98.8
Agriculture
Households engaged in Agriculture activities
Agriculture Households 85.1 82.7 84.7
Livestock 44.4 36.9 43.4
Cropping patterns
Intercropped 30.8 53.4 83.4
Welfare
Households reporting inadequate consumption of food, Housing and Health
care
Inadequate Food 38.3 63.8 63.5
Inadequate Housing 40.5 55.6 52.1
Inadequate Health care 32.7 54.8 52.3
Food Security Status
High food Secure 57.6 24.0 23.8
Marginal Food Secure 2.1 2.6 3.4
Low Food Secure 7.9 12.0 9.9
Very low Food Secure 32.5 61.4 62.9
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

i
FOREWORD

The Integrated Household Survey (IHS5) was conducted by the National

Statistical Office (NSO) over a period April 2019 to March 2020. The
survey is a multi-topic data collection instrument that is conducted once
in every three years.

The main objective of the survey is to provide timely and reliable

information on welfare and socio-economic indicators. The survey highlights an understanding of
the living conditions of the population, while at the same time serving the needs of planning and
monitoring progress towards attainment of development goals as stipulated in the Malawi Growth
and Development Strategy (MGDS III) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Among other crucial indicators, the information includes consumption and expenditure,
demographic characteristics, health, education, labour force participation, credit and loan,
household enterprises, agriculture, housing infrastructure and asset ownership and food security
indicators.

The survey also provides researchers with dataset that would allow further analysis to inform policy
making process.

Finally, I would like to thank the World Bank for their financial and technical support over the
implementation of the fifth Integrated Household Survey.

Right Honourable Dr Saulos Klaus Chilima

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MALAWI

ii
PREFACE This is the fifth report of a series of the integrated household surveys which
was conducted by the National Statistical Office. Through the Integrated
Household Survey Program, the NSO conducts Integrated Household Survey
every three years. The first such survey was conducted in 1990 and was
referred to as the Household Expenditure and Small Scale Economic
Activities (HESSEA). This was followed by the 1997/98 Integrated

Household Survey which is commonly referred to as IHS1. The second was conducted in 2004/05
and is referred to as IHS2. The Third Integrated Household Survey was conducted in 2010/11 and
is referred to as IHS3. The fourth Integrated Household Survey was conducted in 2016/17 and is
referred to as IHS4. The current survey was conducted over the period April 2019 to March 2020
and is being referred to as IHS5.

The main objective of the survey is to provide and update information on various aspects of welfare
and socio-economic status of the population of Malawi and are presented at various levels such as
national; urban-rural; region and districts as well as disaggregated by sex.

This is a detailed survey that collects information on consumption patterns of households both in
terms of food and non-food over a period of one year. It enables further analysis of the survey results
to produce poverty profile of the country which feeds into the programming and evaluation of the
country’s medium development framework, the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy
(MGDS III). Specifically, the survey collected information on expenditure, consumption
demographic characteristics, health, education, labour force participation, credit and loan,
household enterprises, agriculture, housing infrastructure and asset ownership, food security and
mortality indicators.

I recognize the important role that members of staff from the National Statistical Office played in
making this survey a success. My gratitude also goes to the field teams, community leaders for their
effort and support towards the successful implementation of the survey. Special mention should go
to the respondents for taking their time in answering the questions.
Finally, I would like to thank the World Bank for financial and technical support for the
implementation of the Fifth Integrated Household Survey.

Mercy Kanyuka
COMMISSIONER OF STATISTICS

iii
ABBREVIATIONS

CAPI Computer Assisted Personal Interviews

CHAM Christian Hospital Association of Malawi
CPI Consumer Price Index
EA Enumeration Area
GER Gross Enrolment Rate
GPS Geographical Positioning System
HESSEA Household Expenditure and Small Scale Economic Activities
ISA Integrated Surveys on Agriculture
IHS1 First Integrated Household Survey, 1998
IHS2 Second Integrated Household Survey, 2005
IHS3 Third Integrated Household Survey, 2011
IHS4 Fourth Integrated Household Survey, 2016
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
LSMS Living Standards Measurement Surveys
LSMS-ISA Living Standards Measurement Surveys–Integrated Surveys on Agriculture
MCA Millennium Challenge Account
MFEPD Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning and Development
MGDS Malawi Growth and Development Strategy
NER Net Enrolment Rate
NSO National Statistical Office
PSU Primary Sampling Unit
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
WB World Bank

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
KEY SUMMARY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. i
FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................................ ii
PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................ iii
ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ xv
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.0: Background .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1: Objectives of the survey................................................................................................................. 2
2. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 3
2.0: Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1: Age and Sex Distribution ............................................................................................................... 3
2.2: Household Size .............................................................................................................................. 6
2.3: Households by Sex of Household Head......................................................................................... 9
2.4: Dependency Ratio ........................................................................................................................ 11
2.5: Orphan Hood ................................................................................................................................ 13
2.6: Migration...................................................................................................................................... 17
3. EDUCATION 22
3.0: Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 22
3.1: Literacy Rates .............................................................................................................................. 22
3.2: School Attendance ....................................................................................................................... 24
3.3: Reasons for Never Attending School ........................................................................................... 25
3.4: Enrolment Rates in Primary and Secondary Schools .................................................................. 27
3.5: School Attendance by Type of School ......................................................................................... 30
3.5.1: School Attendance-Primary School Education ................................................................... 30
3.5.2: School Attendance-Secondary School Education ............................................................... 30
3.6: Highest Education Qualification Attainment ............................................................................... 31
3.7: Dropout Rate and Reasons for Dropout ....................................................................................... 33
3.7.1: Dropout Rate-Primary Education ........................................................................................ 33
3.7.2: Dropout Rate-Secondary Education .................................................................................... 33
4. HEALTH 36

v
 4.0: Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 36
4.1: Incidence of Sickness in the Last Two weeks ............................................................................. 36
4.1.1: Major Types of Illnesses ..................................................................................................... 37
4.1.2: Action Taken in the Face of Illness or Injury ..................................................................... 38
4.2: Incidence of Chronic Illnesses ..................................................................................................... 39
4.2.1: Major Types of Chronic Illnesses ....................................................................................... 40
4.2.2: Diagnosis of Chronic Illnesses ............................................................................................ 40
4.3: Reproductive Health .................................................................................................................... 42
4.3.1: Place of Delivery ................................................................................................................. 42
4.3.2: Type of Assistance during Delivery .................................................................................... 43
4.4: Use of Bed Nets ........................................................................................................................... 44
5. CREDIT AND LOANS 46
5.0: Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 46
5.1: Households and the Credit Market ............................................................................................... 46
5.2: Proportion of Households that Obtained Credit or Loans ............................................................ 47
5.3: Purpose of Obtaining Credit or Loans .......................................................................................... 47
5.4: Sources of Credit and Loans......................................................................................................... 49
5.5: Reasons for Not Applying for a Loan .......................................................................................... 51
6. HOUSEHOLD NON FARM ENTERPRISES 53
6.0: Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 53
6.1: Households Operating Non-Farm Enterprises and Type of Industry ........................................... 53
6.1.1: Household Operating Non-farm Enterprises ....................................................................... 53
6.1.2: Activities of Household Non-Farm Enterprises .................................................................. 54
6.2: Ownership of Enterprises ............................................................................................................. 55
6.3: Source of Start-Up Capital for Non-farm Enterprises ................................................................. 57
6.4: Business Operating Premises ..................................................................................................... 121
6.5: Principal Market for Products and Services ............................................................................... 122
6.6: Registration of Non-farm Enterprises ........................................................................................ 124
6.6.1: Formal Registration of Non-farm enterprises ................................................................... 124
6.6.2: Formal Registration Agencies ........................................................................................... 124
6.6.3: Business Associations ....................................................................................................... 124
6.7: Enterprises Engaged in Sales of Forest-Based Products and Source of Forest Based Products 126
6.7.1: Enterprises Engaged in Sales of Forest-Based Products ................................................... 126
6.7.1: Sources of Forest Based Products ..................................................................................... 126
vi
 6.8: Persons Engaged in Non-Farm Household Enterprise............................................................... 127
6.9: Non-Household Members Engaged in Enterprises .................................................................... 128
6.10: Costs of Operating Household Non-Farm Enterprises ............................................................ 129
6.11 Income Generating Activities ................................................................................................... 131
6.12 Average Weekly Hours Worked ............................................................................................... 132
6.13 Domestic Activities ................................................................................................................... 133
7. HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE AND OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS 136
7.0: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 136
7.1: Type of Housing Tenure ............................................................................................................ 136
7.2: Types of Dwelling Structure ...................................................................................................... 137
7.3: Room Occupancy ....................................................................................................................... 139
7.4: Main Fuels Used for Lighting .................................................................................................... 140
7.5: Main Fuels Used for Cooking .................................................................................................... 141
7.6: Water and Sanitation .................................................................................................................. 142
7.6.1: Access to Improved Water Sources .................................................................................. 142
7.6.2: Access to Improved Toilet Facility ................................................................................... 144
7.6.3: Use of Rubbish Disposal Facility...................................................................................... 146
7.7: Household Assets ....................................................................................................................... 147
7.7.1: Proportion of Households Owning Durable Goods and Appliances ................................ 147
7.7.2: Proportion of Households Owning Agricultural Tools and Equipment............................ 149
8. AGRICULTURE 151
8.0: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 151
8.1: Households Engaged in Agricultural Activities ........................................................................ 151
8.2: Garden acquisition ..................................................................................................................... 152
8.3: Average Size of Cultivated Garden ........................................................................................... 154
8.4: Use of Labour Inputs ................................................................................................................. 154
8.5: Household Farming practices .................................................................................................... 155
8.5.1: Land Preparation Methods ................................................................................................ 156
8.5.2: Farm Implements Used in Land Preparations ................................................................... 157
8.5.3: Non Labour Input Use ....................................................................................................... 157
8.5.4 Cropping systems ............................................................................................................... 158
8.5.5: Intercropping ..................................................................................................................... 159
8.6: Farm Input Subsidy Programme ................................................................................................ 160
8.7: Plots by Type of Maize Seed ..................................................................................................... 162
vii
 8.8: Harvested Maize Storage ........................................................................................................... 163
8.8.1: Storage Methods................................................................................................................ 164
8.8.2: Treatment Methods for Maize under Storage ................................................................... 164
8.9: Cultivation of Tree Crops .......................................................................................................... 165
8.10: Livestock production ............................................................................................................... 166
8.11: Extension Services ................................................................................................................... 167
9. WELFARE 169
9.0: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 169
9.1: Food Adequacy .......................................................................................................................... 169
9.2: Housing Adequacy ..................................................................................................................... 169
9.3: Health Care Adequacy ............................................................................................................... 170
9.4: Assessment on Current Economic Well-Being.......................................................................... 171
9.4.1: Self-Assessment on Current Economic Well-Being ......................................................... 172
9.4.2: Assessment of Own Welfare against Neighbours ............................................................. 172
9.4.3: Assessment against Friends............................................................................................... 173
9.5: Adequacy of Households’ Current Income ................................................................................ 174
9.6: Welfare in terms of Changes of Clothing and Types of Sleeping Materials ............................. 175
9.6.1: Adequacy of Clothing ....................................................................................................... 176
9.6.2: Adequacy of Sleeping on Materials .................................................................................. 176
9.6.3: Sleeping Materials Used in Cold Season .......................................................................... 177
9.6.4: Sleeping Materials used in Hot Season ............................................................................. 179
9.7. Shocks and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 180
9.7.1: Households Affected by Shocks ....................................................................................... 180
9.7.2: Number Shocks Experienced by Households ................................................................... 181
9.7.3: Mitigation Measures for Overcoming Shocks by Households ......................................... 183
9.8: Social Safety Nets ...................................................................................................................... 184
9.8.1: Benefits from Food Related Programmes ......................................................................... 184
9.8.2: Benefits from Education Related Programmes ................................................................. 186
9.8.3: Benefits from Cash Transfer and Other Programmes ....................................................... 188
10. FOOD SECURITY 190
10.0: Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 190
10.1: Definitions of Categories of Food Severity ............................................................................. 190
10.2: Food Security Assessment ....................................................................................................... 191
10.3: Food Security and Coping Strategies ....................................................................................... 192
viii
 10.3.1: Relying on Less Preferred or Less Expensive Foods ...................................................... 193
10.3.2: Limiting Portions of Food ............................................................................................... 193
10.3.3: Reduced Number of Meals Taken in a Day .................................................................... 193
10.3.4: Restricting Consumption of Food by Adults .................................................................. 194
10.3.5: Borrowed Food or Relied on Assistance from Others .................................................... 194
10.4: Household Food Consumption Profile..................................................................................... 196
10.4.1: Number of Meals Taken by Adults ................................................................................. 196
10.4.2: Number of Meals Taken by Children Under Five Years of Age .................................... 196
10.5: Food Shortages......................................................................................................................... 198
10.5.1: Households that Experience Food Shortages .................................................................. 198
10.5.2: Causes of Food Shortages ............................................................................................... 198
10.5.3: Number of Months Households experienced Food Shortages ........................................ 200
11. ANTHROPOMETRY 202
11.0: Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 202
11.1: Extent and Distribution of Malnutrition .................................................................................. 202
11.1.1: Incidence of Underweight among Children Aged 0-59 Months ..................................... 202
11.1.2: Incidence of Stunting Among Children Aged 0-59 Months ........................................... 203
11.1.3: Incidence of Wasting Among Children Aged 0-59 Months ........................................... 203
11.2: Nutritional and Under Five Clinic Programmes ...................................................................... 205
11.2.1: Nutritional Programmes .................................................................................................. 205
11.2.2: Under-Five Clinic Participation ...................................................................................... 206
11.2.3: Measles Immunization Coverage .................................................................................... 207
11.2.4: Prevalence of Oedema..................................................................................................... 208
ANNEX 1: SURVEY DESIGN AND ORGANISATION ............................................................... 209
Annex 1.1: Sampling Design ............................................................................................................ 209
Annex 1.2: Questionnaires ................................................................................................................ 209
Annex 1.3: Organization of the survey ............................................................................................. 210
Annex 1.3.1: Training ................................................................................................................. 210
Annex 1.3.2: Fieldwork ............................................................................................................... 210
Annex 1.4: Data Processing .............................................................................................................. 211
Annex 1.5: Sample results ................................................................................................................ 211
ANNEX 2: DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................... 212
ANNEX 3: EDUCATION ................................................................................................................ 219
ANNEX 4: HEALTH........................................................................................................................ 228
ix
ANNEX 5: CREDIT AND LOANS ................................................................................................. 235
ANNEX 6: NON-FARM ENTERPRISES ....................................................................................... 237
ANNEX 7: HOUSING...................................................................................................................... 246
ANNEX 8: AGRICULTURE ........................................................................................................... 255
ANNEX 9: WELFARE ..................................................................................................................... 272
ANNEX 10: FOOD SECURITY ...................................................................................................... 283
ANNEX 11: ANTHROPOMETRY .................................................................................................. 288
REPORT AUTHORS ....................................................................................................................... 291

x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Percentage Distribution of Population by Five-Year Age Groups and Place of Residence,
IHS5 2019-2020 ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2-2: Mean Household Sizes by Place of Residence, Region and Sex, Education Level, Marital
Status of the Household Head, IHS5 2019-2020 .................................................................................... 7
Table 2-3: Percentage Distribution of Usual Household Members by Place of Residence, Region and
Sex, Education Level, Marital Status of the Household Head, IHS5 2019-2020................................... 9
Table 2-4: Percentage Distribution of Households by Sex of Household Head and Place of Residence,
Age, Education Level and Marital Status of the Household Head, IHS5 2019-2020 .......................... 11
Table 2-5: Dependency ratio by background characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ................................... 13
Table 2-6: Proportion of Orphans by Place of Residence, Sex, Education Level and Marital Status of
Household Head, IHS5 2019-2020 ....................................................................................................... 15
Table 2-7: Orphan Hood Status by Place of Residence and Sex, Education Level and Marital Status of
Household Head, IHS5 2019-2020 ....................................................................................................... 17
Table 2-8: Proportion of In-migrants by Place of Residence, and Sex, Education level and Marital
Status of Household Head, IHS5 2019-2020........................................................................................ 19
Table 2-9: Proportion of Migrants by Movement Pattern by Place of Residence, Sex, Age, Marital
Status and Reasons for Migrating, IHS5 2019-2020 ............................................................................ 21
Table 3-1: Literacy Rate for Population Aged 5 Years and Above by Background Characteristics,
IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 3-2: Literacy Rates for Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Background Characteristics,
IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................................................................... 24
Table 3-3: Proportion of Individuals that Never Attended School and Reasons for Not Attending
School for Population Aged 5 Years and Above by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020... 26
Table 3-4: Proportion Never Attended School and Reasons for Not Attending School for Population
Aged 15 Years and Above by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ..................................... 27
Table 3-5: Enrolment Rates at Primary School by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ..... 28
Table 3-6: Enrolment Rates at Secondary School by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 . 30
Table 3-7: Type of School Attended by Pupils According to Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-
2020 ...................................................................................................................................................... 31
Table 3-8: Proportion of Population Aged 5 Years and Above by Highest Education Qualification
Acquired and Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020............................................................. 32
Table 3-9: Proportion of Highest Education Qualification Acquired by Population Aged 15 years and
above according to Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ...................................................... 33
Table 3-10: Dropout and Reasons for Dropout at Primary School, IHS5 2019-2020.......................... 34
Table 3-11: Dropout and Reasons for Dropout at Secondary School, IHS5 2019-2020...................... 35
Table 4-1: Proportion of Persons Reporting Illness/Injury and Percentage Distribution of Top Most
Reported Diseases in Malawi by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ................................ 37
Table 4-2: Actions Taken in Face of Illness/Injury by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 39
Table 4-3: Proportion of Reported Chronic Illness and its Distribution by Background Characteristics,
IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 4-4: Percentage Distribution of those who Diagnosed Chronic Illnesses by Background
Characteristics, IHS52019-2020 ........................................................................................................... 41
Table 4-5: Proportion of Women by Place of Delivery for Women Aged 12-49 years by Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 .......................................................................................................... 43
xi
Table 4-6: Proportion of Births Assisted by Skilled Health Personnel by Background Characteristics,
IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................................................................... 44
Table 4-7: Proportion of Households with Members Sleeping under a Bed Net, IHS5 2019-2020 .... 45
Table 5-1: Proportion of Households where at least One Member Obtained a Loan and Reasons for
Obtaining the Loan by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................ 48
Table 5-2: Percentage Distribution of Sources of Loans by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-
2020 ...................................................................................................................................................... 50
Table 5-3: Proportion of Households that Never Applied for a Loan by Reasons for and Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 .......................................................................................................... 52
Table 6-1: Proportion of Households that Operated Non- farm Enterprises by Industry, IHS5 2019-
2020 ...................................................................................................................................................... 55
Table 6-2: Percentage Distribution of Sources of Start-Up Capital of Non-Farm Enterprises, IHS5
2019-2020 ............................................................................................................................................. 58
Table 6-3: Percentage Distribution of Non-farm Enterprises by Place of Operation and Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ........................................................................................................ 122
Table 6-4: Percentage Distribution of Market for Products and services of Non-Farm Enterprises,
IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................................................................. 123
Table 6-5:Proportion of Registered Enterprises and Owners by Registration Agencies, IHS5 2019-
2020 .................................................................................................................................................... 125
Table 6-6: Proportion of Enterprises Engaged in Sales of Forest-based Products and Sources, IHS5
2019-2020 ........................................................................................................................................... 127
Table 6-7: Percentage Distribution of Non-Household Members Engaged in the Enterprise by
Number of Employees, IHS5 2019-2020 ........................................................................................... 129
Table 6-8: Percentage Distribution of Enterprise Total Expenditure by Item, IHS5 2019-2020 ....... 130
Table 6-9: Proportion of Individuals Aged between 15 and 64 Years Engaged in Income Generating
Activities by Type of Tasks and Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ............................... 132
Table 6-10: Proportion of Persons Aged between 15 and 64 Years by Tasks and Average Weekly
Hours Worked by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ..................................................... 133
Table 6-11: Proportion of Persons Aged between 15 and 64 Years who Collected Water and Firewood
and Average Daily Hours Worked by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ...................... 135
Table 7-1: Percentage Distribution of Dwelling Units by Type of Housing Tenure and Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ........................................................................................................ 137
Table 7-2: Percentage Distribution of Dwelling Units by Type of Dwelling Structure, IHS5 2019-
2020 .................................................................................................................................................... 139
Table 7-3: Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Persons per Room and Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ........................................................................................................ 140
Table 7-4: Proportion of Households by Main Fuels Used for Lighting and Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ........................................................................................................ 141
Table 7-5: Proportion of Households by Main Fuels Used for Cooking and Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ........................................................................................................ 142
Table 7-6: Proportion of Households with Access to Improved Water Source of Drinking Water and
Percentage Distribution of Households by Main Source and Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-
2020 .................................................................................................................................................... 144
Table 7-7: Proportion of Households with Access to Toilet facility and Percentage Distribution of
Households by Type of Toilet Facilities by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ............. 146

xii
Table 7-8: Percentage Distribution of Households by Kind of Rubbish Disposal Facility Used by
Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................... 147
Table 7-9: Proportion of Household which own Durable Goods by Background Characteristics, IHS5
2019-2020 ........................................................................................................................................... 149
Table 7-10: Proportion of households which own agricultural tools and equipment by background
characteristics, Malawi2019/2020 ...................................................................................................... 150
Table 8-1: Proportion of Households Engaged in Agricultural Activities by Type, IHS5 2019-2020
............................................................................................................................................................ 152
Table 8-2: Percentage Distribution of Gardens by Means of Acquiring them, IHS5 2019-2020 ........ 153
Table 8-3: Average Cultivated Plot Size (Acres) and Percentage Distribution of Plots by Size (Acres),
IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................................................................. 154
Table 8-4: Proportion of Plots by Type of Labour Input Used in Various Non-harvest Agricultural
Activities, IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................................................ 155
Table 8-5: Percentage Distribution of Plots by Method of Land Preparation for Planting on [Plot]
during the 2018/2019 Rainy Season, IHS5 2019-2020 ...................................................................... 156
Table 8-6: Percent of Plots by Equipment Used for Land Preparation, IHS5 2019-2020 ................. 157
Table 8-7: Proportion of Plots by Various Non Labour Input Use, IHS5 2019-2020 ......................... 158
Table 8-8: Percentage Distribution of Cultivated Plots by Type of Crop Stand, IHS5 2019-2020 ...... 159
Table 8-9: Proportion of Plots Intercropped during the 2018/2019 Rainy Season and Number of Crops
Intercropped, IHS5 2019-2020 .............................................................................................................. 160
Table 8-10: Proportion of Households which Received any Input Coupon and Use Status of the
Coupon, IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................................................... 162
Table 8-11: Percentage Distribution of Cultivated Plots by Maize Seed Variety, IHS5 2019-2020 . 163
Table 8-12: Proportion of Households that had the Harvested Maize Crop in Storage by Storage
Method Used, IHS5 2019-2020 .......................................................................................................... 164
Table 8-13: Percentage Distribution of Households by Treatment Methods Used to Protect the
Harvested Maize Crop under Storage ................................................................................................. 165
Table 8-14: Percentage Distribution of Plots Planted with Trees by Type, IHS5 2019-2020 ........... 166
Table 8-15: Percentage Distribution of Households by Types of Livestock, IHS5 2019-2020 ......... 167
Table 8-16: Proportion of Households by Various Extension Services Received, IHS5 2019-2020 168
Table 9-1: Proportion of Households by Adequacy of Food, Housing and Health Care by Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ........................................................................................................ 171
Table 9-2: Percentage Distribution of Households Perceived Current Economic Well-being by
Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................... 174
Table 9-3: Percentage Distribution of Perceived Adequacy of Households’ Current Income by
Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................... 175
Table 9-4: Proportion of Household Heads with At Least Three Changes of Clothes and Sleeping
Materials Used by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ..................................................... 177
Table 9-5: Percentage Distribution of Households by Sleeping Materials for the Head of Household
during Cold Season and Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ............................................ 178
Table 9-6: Proportion of Households by Sleeping Materials for the Head of Household during Hot
Season and Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................ 180
Table 9-7: Proportion of Households Affected by Shocks during the Last 12 Months by Location,
Sex and Region, IHS5 2019-2020 ...................................................................................................... 181
Table 9-8: Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Shock Experienced in the Last 12
Months, IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................................................... 182
xiii
Table 9-9: Percentage Distribution of Households by Mitigation Measures for Overcoming Shocks by
Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................... 184
Table 9-10: Proportion of Households by Food Programmes and Background Characteristics, IHS5
2019-2020 ........................................................................................................................................... 186
Table 9-11: Proportion of Households by Education Programmes and Background Characteristics,
IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................................................................. 188
Table 9-12: Proportion of Households by Cash Transfer and Other Programmes and Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ........................................................................................................ 189
Table 10-1: Percentage Distribution of Households by Food Security Status and Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ........................................................................................................ 192
Table 10-2: Proportion of Households that was Food Insecure by Coping Mechanisms and
Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 ................................................................................... 195
Table 10-3: Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Meals Taken per Day by Adults
and Children Under 5 Years of Age and Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 .................. 197
Table 10-4: Proportion of the Households that Experienced Food Shortage and Distribution of causes
of Food Shortages by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020. ............................................... 199
Table 10-5: Percentage Distribution of Households by Months they Experienced Food Shortage, IHS5
2019-2020 ........................................................................................................................................... 201
Table 11-1: Nutritional Status of Children Aged 0-59 Months by Background Characteristics, IHS5
2019-2020 ........................................................................................................................................... 204
Table 11-2: Proportion of Children Aged 0-59 months who participated in Nutrition and Under-Five
Clinic Programmes by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 .............................................. 207
Table 11-3: Proportion of Children aged 0-59 Months who were Oedematic and Children who
Received Measles Vaccine by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020 .................................. 208

xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Percentage Distribution of Population by Sex, IHS5 2019-2020 ........................................ 3
Figure 2-2: Percentage Distribution of Population by Place of Residence, IHS5 2019-2020................ 4
Figure 2-3: Population Pyramid for Malawi, IHS5 2019-2020 .............................................................. 6
Figure 2-4: Percentage Distribution of In-migrants by Sex and Reasons for Migrating, IHS5 2019-
2020 ...................................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 5-1: Proportion of Households that had Interaction with the Credit Market, IHS5 2019-2020 46
Figure 6-1: Proportion of Non- farm Enterprises Owned by Sole Proprietors by Place of Residence
and Region, IHS5 2019-2020 ............................................................................................................... 56
Figure 6-2: Proportion of Non- farm Enterprises Owned by Pole Proprietors by Sex and Education of
Household Head, IHS5 2019-2020 ....................................................................................................... 57
Figure 6-3: Percentage Distribution of Persons Engaged in Non-Farm Enterprises, IHS5 2019-2020
............................................................................................................................................................ 128

xv
 CHAPTER 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.0: Background
The Integrated Household Survey (IHS) is one of the surveys implemented by the Government of
Malawi through the National Statistical Office to monitor and evaluate the changing conditions of
Malawian households. The data have, among other insights, provided benchmark poverty and
vulnerability indicators to foster evidence-based policy formulation and monitor the progress of
meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the goals listed as part of the Malawi
Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS III).

The First Integrated Household Survey (IHS1) was conducted in Malawi from November 1997
through October 1998 with support from the World Bank and IFPRI. The Second Integrated
Household Survey (IHS2) was conducted from March 2004 to February 2005 and was implemented
with technical assistance from the World Bank to compare the situation with that of 1997-1998. The
IHS3 was conducted from March 2010 to March 2011 and it expanded on the agricultural content
of the IHS2 and was implemented under the umbrella of the World Bank Living Standards
Measurement Study–Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) initiative, whose primary
objective is to provide financial and technical support to governments in sub-Saharan Africa
in the design and implementation of nationally- representative multi-topic panel household surveys
with a strong focus on agriculture.

The Fourth Integrated Household Survey (IHS4) was implemented from April 2016 to April 2017
and was conducted with financial support from the World Bank and the Millennium Challenge
Account (MCA).

The Fifth Integrated Household Survey (IHS5) was conducted from April 2019 to March 2020
1
with financial and technical support from the World Bank.

1.1: Objectives of the survey

The data from the IHS, among other insights, provides benchmark poverty, vulnerability, and
socio-economic indicators to foster evidence-based policy formulation and monitor the progress
of meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as well as the goals listed as part of the
Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS III).

The data from the IHS5 will be used to update the poverty profile for Malawi (poverty incidence,
poverty gap, severity of poverty) and, as outlined in this report, gives an understanding of the
people of Malawi’s living conditions. It allows for the estimation of total household expenditure;
household consumption patterns with the aim of updating the weights in the Malawi Consumer
Price Index (CPI); and detailed agricultural activities. The data on household consumption and
production will be used for National Accounts purposes and will support the goal to continue to
provide up-to-date socio-economic indicators to enhance evidence-based policy formulation.

The frequency of the data collection effort is in conformity with the envisioned policy of
conducting such surveys every 3 years at the national level as well as the international level as
the global development focus turns to the improved monitoring of the SDGs.

2
 CHAPTER 2

2. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

2.0: Introduction
This chapter describes demographic characteristics of the population. A household consists of
one or more persons, related or unrelated, who live together and make common provisions for
food and recognise one member as head. They regularly take their food from the same pot and
/or share the same grain store (Nkhokwe) and pool their incomes for the purchases of food. A
household head is the person who makes economic decisions in the household. The demographic
characteristics examined in this chapter include age and sex distribution, household size,
dependency ratio, orphan hood and migration.

2.1: Age and Sex Distribution

The age and sex distribution of the population are shown in Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2 and Table
2.1. Forty-eight percent were males and 52 percent were females (Figure 2.1). The population
for urban areas was at 15.6 percent while that of rural areas was at 84.4 percent (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2-1: Percentage Distribution of Population by Sex, IHS5 2019-2020

Female 52%
Male 48%

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

3
Figure 2-2: Percentage Distribution of Population by Place of Residence, IHS5 2019-2020

84.4

15.6

Rural Urban

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

Nearly 14 percent of the population are aged 0-4, 15.5 percent and 15.1 percent are in the age
groups of 5-9 and 10-14 respectively. The population aged 15-64 constitutes 51 percent of the
population and those aged 65 and over constitute 4.2 percent of the population (Table 2.1).

In urban areas, 39.4 percent of the population was aged between 0 to 14 years while in rural
areas the population aged between 0 to 14 years was at 45.3 percent. The population between
15 to 64 years constituted half the total population in urban areas while the same population was
at 62.1 percent of the population in rural areas. The population of older persons (aged 65+) in
rural areas was at 4.7 percent while in urban areas the same population of older persons was at
1.7 percent (Table 2.1).

4
Table 2-1: Percentage Distribution of Population by Five-Year Age Groups and Place of
Residence, IHS5 2019-2020
Place of Residence

Age group Urban Rural Total

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

0-4 13.2 13.9 13.8
5-9 13.7 15.8 15.5
10-14 12.5 15.5 15.1
15-19 11.0 12.1 11.9
20-24 10.2 8.1 8.5
25-29 9.8 6.4 6.9
30-34 8.3 5.1 5.6
35-39 6.6 5.1 5.3
40-44 5.0 4.0 4.2
45-49 3.1 3.3 3.3
50-54 1.8 2.4 2.3
55-59 1.8 2.1 2.1
60-64 1.1 1.5 1.4
65-69 0.8 1.5 1.4
70-74 0.5 1.3 1.2
75-79 0.2 0.8 0.7
80+ 0.2 1.1 0.9
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

Figure 2.3 displays the population pyramid showing population structure for Malawi by sex and
age groups and it reveals that Malawi has a larger population in the younger age groups. For
example, almost 64.7 percent of the population is 24 years or less.

5
Figure 2-3: Population Pyramid for Malawi, IHS5 2019-2020

80+
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49 Males Females
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4

18 15 12 9 6 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Population (Percent)
Source: IHS5 2019/20

2.2: Household Size

The average household size for Malawi was 4.4 persons per household during IHS5 period while
during IHS4 and IHS3, the average household size was 4.3 persons and 4.6 persons respectively.
The average household size decreased from 4.5 persons per household to 4.4 persons between
IHS2 and IHS5.

In urban areas, average household size decreased from 4.4 persons to 4.2 persons between IHS3
and IHS5 while in rural areas, the average household size decreased from 4.6 persons to 4.4
persons between the same period.

Across regions, the household size for Southern Region was lower than other regions (4.3
persons and 4.2 persons during IHS5 and IHS4). Northern region had the highest household size
during IHS4 and IH5 (4.5 persons).

Male-headed households had a higher average household size (4.5 persons in IHS4 and 4.6
persons in IHS5) than female-headed households (3.7 persons in IHS4 and 3.9 persons in IHS5).

6
Households whose heads have either primary or no education had higher household size (4.5
persons for those with no education and 4.1 persons for those with primary education during
IHS5) compared to the households whose heads have secondary (4.1 persons) or tertiary
education (3.6 persons) during IHS5.

Households whose heads were married had higher household size (4.7 persons in IHS4 and 4.8
person in IHS5) compared to the households whose heads were never married (1.9 persons in
during IHS4 and IHS5) (Table 2.2).

Table 2-2: Mean Household Sizes by Place of Residence, Region and Sex, Education Level,
Marital Status of the Household Head, IHS5 2019-2020

Background Characteristics IHS2 IHS3 IHS4 IHS5

Malawi 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.4
Place of Residence

Rural 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.4

Urban 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.2

Region

Northern 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.5

Central 4.7 4.8 4.4 4.5

Southern 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.3

Sex of household head

Female 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.9

Male 4.7 4.8 4.5 4.6

Education level of household head

None 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.5

Primary 4.8 4.5 4.0 4.1

Secondary 4.4 4.5 3.9 4.1

Tertiary 0.0 4.5 3.8 3.6

Marital Status of household head

Never married 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9

Married 5.0 5.0 4.7 4.8
Divorced/Separated 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.5
Widowed/Widower 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.6
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

7
The average household size for Likoma (5.2 person persons), Nkhotakota (5.1 persons), Mchinji
(5.0 persons) and Nkhata Bay (5.0 persons) districts had the highest house sizes while Blantyre
rural, Blantyre City and Mzuzu City had the lowest household sizes (4 persons per household).

The distribution of households by the number of members is presented in table 2.4. At national
level, 37.6 percent of the households had 4-5 members and 1.5 percent had 1 member in the
household. In urban areas, 20.4 percent of households had less than or equal to 3 members while
in rural areas, 18.8 percent of the households had less than or equal to 3 members.

Central Region had 38.7 percent of households with 4-5 members compared to Southern Region
(37.7 percent) and Northern Region (34.0 percent).

Almost 41 percent of female-headed households had 4-5 members compared to 36.5 percent of
male-headed households. In addition, 47.5 percent of male-headed households had 6 or more
members compared to 32.4 percent of female-headed households with 6 or more members.

In terms of education level of the household head, 45.2 percent of households whose heads had
no education had 6 or more members in the household compared to 30.3 percent of households
whose heads had a tertiary education with 6 or more members in the household. In contrast, 3.1
percent of single headed households had heads with tertiary education compared to 1.4 percent
of single headed households whose head had no education (Table 2.3).

Top five districts with the highest percentage of households with 4-5 members include: Thyolo
(46.3 percent), Chikwawa (46.1 percent), Dedza (43.6 percent), Lilongwe City (43.0 percent)
and Phalombe district (41.7 percent). The bottom five districts with the lowest percentage of
households with 4-5 members include: Nkhotakota (26.5 percent), Nkhata Bay (29.5 percent),
Rumphi (31.6 percent), Likoma (32.1 percent) and Mangochi district (32.4 percent).

Top five districts with the highest percentage of single headed households: Mzuzu City (3.5
percent), Blantyre (2.6 percent), Nsanje and Blantyre city (2.5 percent), Rumphi (2.4 percent),
and Neno and Karonga district (2.0 percent). The bottom five districts with the lowest percentage
of single headed households include: Mchinji (0.5 percent), Salima (0.7 percent), Kasungu,

8
Phalombe, Nkhotakota and Ntchisi (0.8 percent), Thyolo (0.9 percent) and Chikwawa and
Zomba (1.1 percent) (Annex Table 2.1).

Table 2-3: Percentage Distribution of Usual Household Members by Place of Residence,

Region and Sex, Education Level, Marital Status of the Household Head, IHS5 2019-2020
Usual Members

Background
Characteristics 1 Person 2-3 Persons 4-5 Persons 6 Persons or Total
more

Malawi 1.5 17.6 37.6 43.4 100.0

Place of Residence

Rural 1.3 17.4 37.0 44.3 100.0

Urban 2.1 18.2 41.2 38.4 100.0

Region

Northern 1.9 16.7 34.0 47.5 100.0

Central 1.3 16.0 38.7 44.1 100.0

Southern 1.5 19.3 37.7 41.4 100.0

Sex of household head

Female 2.2 24.7 40.6 32.4 100.0

Male 1.2 14.8 36.5 47.5 100.0

Education level of household head

None 1.4 16.6 36.8 45.2 100.0

Primary 1.9 21.1 40.9 36.1 100.0

Secondary 1.9 20.6 43.3 34.2 100.0

Tertiary 3.1 31.1 35.5 30.3 100.0

Marital Status of Household Head

Never married 26.2 45.8 16.4 11.6 100.0

Married 0.2 14.5 37.5 47.8 100.0

Divorced/Separated 4.6 26.9 40.0 28.5 100.0

Widowed/Widower 4.1 25.8 38.5 31.5 100.0

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

2.3: Households by Sex of Household Head

Overall, there were less female-headed households constituting 27.5 percent of all households.
In urban areas, 80.6 percent of the households were headed by males and 19.4 percent were
9
headed by females. Across rural areas, 71 percent of the households were headed by males and
29 percent were headed by females.

In the Southern Region, female-headed households were more than those in the Northern and
Central region. For instance, Southern Region had 33.9 percent which was higher than in Central
and Northern Region (22.6 percent and 22.5 percent respectively).

For households whose heads were widowed/widowers, 91.5 percent were headed by females
and for the households whose heads were married, 91.2 percent were headed by males (Table
2.4).

Analysis by districts, Mangochi district had the highest proportion of households headed by
females (43.3 percent) and Lilongwe city had the lowest proportion of households headed by
females (14.0 percent). (Annex Table 2.2).

10
Table 2-4: Percentage Distribution of Households by Sex of Household Head and Place of
Residence, Age, Education Level and Marital Status of the Household Head, IHS5 2019-2020

Sex of Household Head

Background Characteristics Male Female Total

Malawi 72.5 27.5 100.0

Place of residence
Rural 71.0 29.0 100.0
Urban 80.6 19.4 100.0
Region
Northern 77.5 22.5 100.0
Central 77.4 22.6 100.0
Southern 66.1 33.9 100.0
Age of household head
15-24 70.1 29.9 100.0
25-34 75.7 24.3 100.0
35-44 74.0 26.0 100.0
45-54 75.4 24.6 100.0
55-64 69.9 30.1 100.0
65+ 60.0 40.0 100.0
Education level of household head
None 72.6 27.4 100.0
Primary 76.0 24.0 100.0
Secondary 73.8 26.2 100.0
Tertiary 70.7 29.3 100.0

Marital status of household head

Never married 52.3 47.7 100.0
Married 91.2 8.8 100.0
Divorced/Separated 8.8 91.2 100.0
Widowed 8.5 91.5 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

2.4: Dependency Ratio

The dependency ratio relates the number of children (0-14 years old) and older persons (65 years
or over) to the working-age population (15-64 years old). It indicates the potential effects of
changes in population age structures for social and economic development, pointing out broad
trends in social support needs.

The dependency ratio for Malawi was at 1.2 during the periods hinting that there were 0.2 more
economically inactive persons for every economically active person.

11
The dependency ratio was high in the rural areas at 1.3 compared to urban areas at 0.9. Across
regions, the ratio was higher in Southern region (1.3) as compared to Central region and
Northern region (1.1).

Female-headed households had a higher dependency ratio (1.6) than male-headed households
(1.1) during the periods. The dependency ratio decreased with the education level of the
household head. Households whose heads had no education had a dependency ratio of 1.2 in
IHS5 and 1.3 in IHS4 which was higher than households whose heads had primary education,
secondary education and tertiary education (1.0 in IHS5) (Table 2.5).

In households whose heads were divorced/separated, the dependency ratio was 1.7 which was
higher than in households whose heads were never married (0.7), married (1.1) and
widowed/widower (1.3).

During IHS5, Mangochi district had the highest dependency ratio (1.7) and Blantyre city and
Mzuzu city had the lowest dependency ratio (0.8). Further, In the Northern Region, Chitipa,
Nkhata Bay and Mzimba had the highest dependency ratio (1.2). In the Central Region,
Lilongwe city had the lowest dependency ratio (0.9) while in the Southern Region, Mangochi
had the highest dependency ratio (1.7) and Blantyre city had the lowest dependency ratio (0.8)
(Annex Table 2.3).

12
Table 2-5: Dependency ratio by background characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Background Characteristics IHS4 IHS5

Malawi 1.2 1.2
Place of residence
Rural 1.3 1.3
Urban 0.9 0.9
Region
Northern 1.1 1.1
Central 1.2 1.1
Southern 1.3 1.3
Sex of household head
Male 1.1 1.1
Female 1.6 1.6
Education level of household head
None 1.3 1.2
Primary 1.1 1
Secondary 0.9 1
Tertiary 0.7 1
Marital status of household head
Never married 0.5 0.7
Married 1.1 1.1
Divorced/Separated 1.8 1.7
Widow/Widower 1.3 1.3
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

2.5: Orphan Hood

In the IHS4, an “orphan” was defined as a person aged less than 18 years who had lost at least
one of the parents.

The results indicate that 9.1 percent of the children less than 18 years lost one or both parents
and in IHS4, the proportion was 10.1 percent.

With respect to place of residence, rural areas had a higher proportion of orphans (9.3 percent
in IHS5 and 10.0 percent in IHS4) while in urban areas the proportion of orphans was 7.9 percent
in IHS5 and was 10.4 percent during IHS4.

13
In terms of sex of the household head, the proportion of orphans was higher in female-headed
households (18.6 percent in IHS5 and 21.5 in IHS4) than in male headed households (4.9 percent
in IHS5 and 5.7 percent in IHS4).

In terms of education, in households whose heads had primary education, 8.9 percent of children
were orphans during IHS5 and 10.1 percent during IHS4 while for heads who had tertiary
education, 9.0 percent of children were orphans during IHS5 and 9.7 percent during IHS4.

In terms of sex of the orphan, there were more males who were orphans (9.3 percent) compared
to females (8.9 percent) during IHS5 while during IHS4, the proportion was 10.1 percent and
10.0 percent for males and females respectively.

A relationship was also observed between age and orphan hood. In general, the proportion of
orphans was higher among older children (18.4 percent in 16-17 years age group) than in
younger children (2.5 percent in 0-4 age group (Table 2.6).

Across districts, Salima had the highest proportion of orphans (16.1 percent in IHS5 and 10.1 in
IHS4) compared to other districts and Mchinji had the lowest proportion (4.7 percent in IHS5
and 9.6 percent in IHS4) (Annex Table 2.4).

14
Table 2-6: Proportion of Orphans by Place of Residence, Sex, Education Level and Marital
Status of Household Head, IHS5 2019-2020

Background Characteristics IHS4 IHS5

Malawi 10.1 9.1

Place of Residence

Rural 10.0 9.3

Urban 10.4 7.9

Region

Northern 9.2 8.9

Central 8.6 8.4

Southern 11.8 9.7

Sex of the household head

Female 21.5 18.6

Male 5.7 4.9

Education level of household head

None 10.1 8.9

Primary 8.4 8.0

Secondary 11.5 9.5

Tertiary 9.7 9.0

Marital status of household head

Never married 17.4 19.6

Married 5.3 4.7

Divorced/Separated 8.9 7.5

Widow/Widower 51.5 45.0

Sex of the orphan

Female 10.0 8.9

Male 10.1 9.3

Age group of orphans

0-4 2.5 2.5

5-9 7.6 7.3

10-15 15.3 13.4

16-17 22.2 18.4

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

15
About 67 percent of orphans lost their father during IHS5 while their mother was alive and 11.3
percent lost both parents.

With respect to place of residence, urban areas had a higher proportion of orphans who lost their
father (71.7 percent in IHS5) compared to rural areas (66.0 percent). In rural areas, the
proportion of orphans who lost both parents was higher (11.7 percent) compared to urban areas
(8.3 percent).

The proportion of orphans who lost both parents was higher among male-headed households
(15.0 percent) than in female headed households (9.1 percent).

For households whose heads had a tertiary education, 37.5 percent of the orphans has lost both
of their parents compared to orphans in households whose heads had no education (10.3
percent).

For orphans who are males, 11.6 percent had lost both parents while for orphans who are
females, 11.0 percent had lost both parents (Table 2.7).

Among orphans, the highest proportion of those who lost only a father (88.1 percent) were found
in Dedza and the lowest proportion who lost only a father (51.4 percent) were found in Nkhata
Bay. The highest proportion of those who lost only a mother was reported in Nkhotakota (39.0
percent) and the lowest was reported in Dedza (6.3 percent) and Likoma (0.0 percent). For the
orphans who lost both parents, Likoma district reported the highest proportion (43.6 percent)
and Dowa district recorded the lowest proportion (1.6 percent) (Annex Table 2.5).

16
Table 2-7: Orphan Hood Status by Place of Residence and Sex, Education Level and Marital
Status of Household Head, IHS5 2019-2020
Status of Orphan Hood

Father died Mother died Both parents died

Background Characteristics IHS4 IHS5 IHS4 IHS5 IHS4 IHS5

Malawi 63.1 66.7 22.4 22.0 14.5 11.3

Place of residence
Rural 63.3 66.0 22.3 22.3 14.5 11.7
Urban 62.5 71.7 22.7 20.1 14.7 8.3
Region
Northern 67.5 64.1 16.8 25.3 15.7 10.6
Central 64.5 68.8 22.2 20.5 13.3 10.7
Southern 61.4 65.7 23.4 22.4 15.2 12.0
Sex of the household head
Female 76.2 76.7 12.9 14.2 10.9 9.1
Male 44.5 50.1 35.8 34.9 19.7 15.0
Education level of household head
None 62.9 66.9 22.7 22.8 14.3 10.3
Primary 66.2 65.8 6.2 19.1 27.6 15.1
Secondary 63.5 77.9 26.9 16.5 9.5 5.6
Tertiary 67.4 40.8 15.9 21.7 16.7 37.5
Marital status of household head
Never married 39.5 67.3 29.3 13.8 20.1 18.9
Married 50.9 54.6 29.3 32.1 19.8 13.3
Divorced/Separated 60.6 60.6 19.2 24.0 20.1 15.4
Widow/Widower 74.8 78.2 17.0 13.5 8.2 8.3
Sex of the orphan
Female 63.8 66.8 22.0 22.3 14.3 11.0
Male 62.5 66.7 22.8 21.7 14.8 11.6
Age group of orphans
0-4 77.0 69.5 19.1 28.5 3.9 2.0
5-9 62.4 67.2 25.1 23.3 12.5 9.4
10-15 61.7 66.9 22.5 21.4 15.8 11.7
16-17 63.0 64.2 19.8 19.1 17.2 16.7
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

2.6: Migration

Migration is the geographic movement of people across a specified boundary to establish a new
residence. The terms "immigration" and "emigration" are used to refer to movements between

17
countries, that is, international migration. Corresponding terms to immigration and emigration
for movement between areas within a country, that is internal migration are; in-migration and
out-migration respectively. In the IHS5, household members were asked to state whether they
had always lived in their current location or they had moved from elsewhere. They specified
where they moved from, the time since they moved and reasons for their action. For this analysis,
we have restricted migration to include only movements within the last 5 years. The
geographical units used in this survey are rural and urban, districts and abroad (outside Malawi).

The results show that 8.3 percent of the population moved from one area to another in the last 5
years. In urban areas, 17.0 percent were migrants while in rural areas 6.7 percent were migrants.

Across regions, Northern Region had the highest proportion of migrants (13.0 percent)
compared to Central Region (8.4 percent) and Southern Region (6.8 percent).

In male-headed households, 9.2 percent were migrants and in female-headed households, 6.0
percent were migrants.

Across education level of household head, it was observed that the higher the education level of
the head, the higher the proportion of migrants (23.0 percent with tertiary education compared
to 6.8 percent with no education).

In terms of marital status of the head, households whose heads were never married had a higher
proportion of migrants (19.8 percent) compared to households whose heads were either married
(8.9 percent), divorced/separated (5.8 percent) and widowed (5.3 percent).

Mzuzu city had the highest proportion of migrants (28 percent) while Zomba rural had the lowest
proportion of migrants (3 percent).

Across districts, Mzuzu city had the highest proportion of migrants (26.6 percent in IHS5 and
27.8 in IHS4) compared to other districts and Phalombe district had the lowest proportion of
migrants (1.5 percent in IHS5 and 8.3 percent in IHS4) (Annex Table 2.6).

18
Table 2-8: Proportion of In-migrants by Place of Residence, and Sex, Education level and
Marital Status of Household Head, IHS5 2019-2020

Background Characteristics IHS4 IHS5

Malawi 9.5 8.3

Place of residence

Rural 7.0 6.7

Urban 20.2 17.0

Region
Northern 15.2 13.0

Central 9.6 8.4

Southern 8.2 6.8

Sex of the household head

Female 7.0 6.0

Male 10.4 9.2

Education level of household head

None 8.3 6.8

Primary 14.7 12.3

Secondary 20.8 15.5

Tertiary 25.4 23.0

Marital status of household head

Never married 28.1 19.8

Married 10.2 8.9

Divorced/Separated 6.1 5.8

Widow/Widower 5.7 5.3

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

The majority migrated because the parents/family moved (51.4 percent for males and 46.8
percent for females) while the minority migrated due to returning from work/job transfers (7.1
percent for males and 2.3 percent for females). Almost 22 percent of the male migrants moved
to start a business/work compared to 6.8 percent of females who moved for the same reason.
For migrants who migrated due to marriage, the majority were females (38.6 percent) compared
to their male counterparts (15.0 percent) (Figure 2.4).

19
Figure 2-4: Percentage Distribution of In-migrants by Sex and Reasons for Migrating, IHS5
2019-2020

Live with Family/Friend 46.8

51.4

Marriage 38.6
15.0

Start Work, Business, Farming 6.8

22.0

Return from Work, Job Transfer 2.3

7.1

Other 5.5
4.5

Female Male

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

Looking at the movement patterns of migrants, the majority of the migrants moved from rural
areas to other rural areas (59.0 percent), followed by those who moved from rural areas to urban
areas (24.0 percent) and those who moved from urban areas to rural areas (6.1 percent). In
addition, less than 1 percent of migrants moved from outside Malawi to urban areas.

Across place of residence, three-quarters of the migrants who moved from rural areas to urban
areas and the rest moved from another urban area or from outside the country into the urban
area. In rural areas, however, only 8.9 percent of the migrants moved from urban areas into the
rural areas.

In terms of reasons to migrate, 39.1 percent of the movers migrated in order to start work or
business from rural areas to urban areas.

For migrants who attained tertiary education, 40.3 percent moved from rural areas to urban areas
compared to 20.1 percent of those without education who moved from rural areas to urban areas.

Among migrants who moved from rural areas to urban areas, 27.4 percent of the migrants were
aged between 55 to 34 years (Table 2.9).

20
Table 2-9: Proportion of Migrants by Movement Pattern by Place of Residence, Sex, Age,
Marital Status and Reasons for Migrating, IHS5 2019-2020
Movement pattern of migrants
Background Characteristics Outside Outside
Rural to Rural to Urban to Urban to
Malawi to Malawi to Total
rural urban urban rural
rural urban
Malawi 59.0 24.0 7.6 6.1 2.8 0.5 100
Place of Residence
Rural 86.9 0.0 0.0 8.9 4.1 0.0 100
Urban 0.0 74.8 23.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 100
Region
Northern 56.9 23.0 6.4 9.2 4.1 0.6 100
Central 63.6 23.9 5.0 4.0 2.8 0.7 100
Southern 54.7 24.8 11.3 6.8 2.2 0.2 100
Sex of migrant
Female 59.2 24.1 7.8 5.7 2.7 0.6 100
Male 58.8 23.9 7.4 6.5 2.9 0.4 100
Age group of migrant
15-24 61.7 25.7 5.2 6.0 1.1 0.3 100
25-34 55.3 27.4 9.2 4.8 2.7 0.6 100
35-44 62.9 18.1 9.4 6.1 3.5 0.0 100
45-54 61.7 14.1 8.8 7.2 6.4 1.8 100
55-64 69.2 21.6 1.6 6.6 0.0 1.1 100
65+ 78.6 11.4 3.4 1.3 5.3 0.0 100
Education level of the migrant
None 65.4 20.1 5.1 5.9 3.2 0.3 100
Primary 52.3 29.9 8.0 7.9 1.6 0.2 100
Secondary and above 45.5 34.3 13.5 5.7 0.6 0.4 100
Tertiary 22.5 40.3 28.8 4.6 0.9 3.0 100
Marital status of migrant
Never married 53.8 26.3 8.8 7.5 2.9 0.6 100
Married 65.8 21.0 6.4 4.2 2.3 0.3 100
Divorced/Separated 50.2 26.8 6.4 9.4 6.1 1.2 100
Widowed/Widower 54.5 31.1 5.5 4.7 4.2 0.0 100
Reasons for migrating
Live with family/relatives 55.7 23.9 8.2 8.1 3.4 0.7 100
Marriage 74.7 16.7 4.6 2.5 1.3 0.2 100
Start business/work 45.3 39.1 9.2 4.4 1.5 0.6 100
Return from work/Job Transfer 43.1 19.3 15.6 12.3 8.9 0.8 100
Other 57.0 27.9 6.0 4.8 3.7 0.5 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

21
 CHAPTER 3

3. EDUCATION
3.0: Introduction
Education is a building block for human, political and socioeconomic development, particularly
important for poverty reduction because it empowers the poor, the weak and the voiceless by
providing them with better opportunities to participate in national development. The IHS5
collected data on education for household members aged 5 years and above. This chapter
presents information on literacy, highest education attainment, school attendance and school
dropout.

3.1: Literacy Rates

Literacy is defined as the ability to read and write a simple sentence in any language (2018
PHC).

3.1.1: Literacy Rates for Population Aged Five Years and Above

The literacy rate for the population aged 5 years and above was 65.4 percent. A higher proportion
(68.5 percent) of males aged 5 years and above was literate compared to 62.6 percent of females.

Regarding place of residence, urban areas registered a higher literacy rate (84.4 percent)
compared to rural areas (61.9 percent).

At regional level, Northern region had the highest literacy rate (73.5 percent) followed by the
Central region (65.1 percent) and then the Southern region (63.3 percent) (Table 3.1).

At district level, Mzuzu city had the highest literacy rate (87.1 percent) while Mangochi
registered the lowest literacy rate (46.3 percent) (Annex Table 3.1).

22
Table 3-1: Literacy Rate for Population Aged 5 Years and Above by Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Literacy
Background Characteristics Total Female Male
Malawi 65.4 62.6 68.5
Place of residence
Rural 61.9 58.9 65.2
Urban 84.4 83.5 85.3
Region
Northern 73.5 72.2 74.9
Central 65.1 61.8 68.6
Southern 63.3 60.7 66.3
Sex of Household Head
Female 58.7 58.6 58.8
Male 68.0 64.7 71.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

3.1.2: Literacy Rates for Population Aged Fifteen Years and Above
The literacy rate for the population aged 15 years and above in Malawi was 75.5 percent. The
rate was higher for males at 83.0 percent than females at 68.8 percent.
Analysis by place of residence shows that 98.1 percent of individuals in urban areas were literate
compared to 72.1 percent in rural areas.
By sex of head of household, 78.0 percent of individuals in male headed households were literate
compared to 68.0 percent in female headed households (Table 3.2).

23
Table 3-2: Literacy Rates for Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Literacy
Background Characteristics Total Female Male
Malawi 75.5 68.8 83.0
Place of residence
Rural 72.1 64.8 80.6
Urban 91.8 89.2 94.4
Region
Northern 84.5 79.5 89.9
Central 75.2 68.0 83.0
Southern 72.8 66.3 80.8
Sex of Household Head
Female 68.0 63.2 80.7
Male 78.0 71.8 83.5
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

3.2: School Attendance

3.2.1: School Attendance by Population Aged Five Years and Above
At national level the results show that 13.5 percent of the population aged 5 years and above
reported to have never attended school. A higher proportion of females (15.7 percent) had never
been to school compared to 11.1 percent of males.

Analysis by place of residence shows that 15.0 percent of people in rural areas had never been
to school compared to 5.8 percent in urban areas.

Across regions, the Southern region had the highest proportion (14.7 percent) of people who
never attended school followed by Central region (13.9 percent) and Northern region (8.5
percent) (Table 3.3).

At district level, Mangochi had the highest proportion (24.9 percent) of the population who never
attended school while Mzuzu city and Lilongwe city had the lowest proportions (4.4 percent)
(Annex Table 3.3).

3.2.2: School Attendance by Population Aged Fifteen Years and Above

24
Overall, 13.2 percent of the population aged 15 years and above in Malawi reported to have
never attended school. About 18 percent of females had never attended school compared to 8.3
percent of males.

Analysis by place of residence shows that 14.9 percent of individuals in rural areas had never
attended school compared to 4.6 percent in urban areas.

Across regions, the Southern region had the highest proportion (14.8 percent) of population who
never attended school followed by Central region (13.9 percent) and Northern region (5.7
percent) (Table 3.4).

At district level, Mangochi had the highest proportion (26.1 percent) of the population who never
attended school while Lilongwe city had the lowest proportions (3.1 percent) (Annex Table 3.4).

3.3: Reasons for Never Attending School

3.3.1: Reasons for Never Attending School for Population Aged Five Years and Above

The results show that 34.0 percent of the population aged 5 years and above that never attended
school reported lack of money as the main reason followed by 28.1 percent who reported that
they were still too young to attend school.

By place of residence, 34.3 percent of individuals in rural area reported lack of money as the
reason for never attending school compared to 29.6 percent in urban areas.

25
Table 3-3: Proportion of Individuals that Never Attended School and Reasons for Not
Attending School for Population Aged 5 Years and Above by Background Characteristics,
IHS5 2019-2020
Reasons for not attending school
Still too School
No money young to Parents Not too far
Background Never Attended for fees, attend did not let interested, Illness or from
characteristic School uniform school me lazy Disability home Other Total
Malawi 13.5 34.0 28.15 14.22 13.27 4.05 3.66 2.67 100.0
Place of Residence -
Rural 15.0 34.3 27.6 14.4 13.2 4.1 3.8 2.7 100.0
Urban 5.8 29.6 36.2 12.2 13.9 3.9 1.4 2.7 100.0
Region -
Northern 8.5 14.6 47.8 8.0 10.2 5.2 9.2 5.1 100.0
Central 13.9 37.9 25.9 11.9 14.0 4.4 2.9 3.0 100.0
Southern 14.7 33.7 26.9 17.5 13.1 3.5 3.5 2.0 100.0
Sex -
Female 15.7 38.9 21.4 17.8 11.4 3.4 4.2 2.9 100.0
Male 11.1 26.3 38.6 8.7 16.1 5.1 2.9 2.3 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

3.3.2: Reasons for Never Attending School for Population Aged 15 Years and Above

The results show that 50.4 percent of the population aged 15 years and above that never attended
school reported lack of money as the main reason followed by 22.2 percent who reported that
their parents did not allow them to attend school.

Across the regions, lack of money was reported as the main reason for never attending school.
This was highest in the Central region at 53.7 percent, followed by 49.7 percent in the Southern
region and 30.0 percent in the Northern region (Table 3.4).

At district level, Ntcheu had the highest proportion (65.0 percent) of the population aged 15
years and above who did not attend school because of lack of money while Chitipa had the
lowest proportion (19.9 percent) (Annex Table 3.4).

26
Table 3-4: Proportion Never Attended School and Reasons for Not Attending School for
Population Aged 15 Years and Above by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Reasons for not attending school
Had to
Never No money Parents Not School too work or
Background Attended for fees, did not interested, Illness or far from help at
Characteristics School uniform let me lazy Disability home home Other Total
Malawi 13.2 50.4 22.2 15.0 4.4 3.7 2.4 1.8 100.0
Place of Residence
Rural 14.9 50.4 22.2 14.9 4.4 3.8 2.5 1.7 100.0
Urban 4.6 49.5 21.5 17.4 4.5 2.6 0.9 3.5 100.0
Region
Northern 5.7 30.0 17.8 21.2 6.7 14.4 7.2 2.6 100.0
Central 13.9 53.7 17.9 16.9 4.7 2.2 2.9 1.7 100.0
Southern 14.8 49.7 26.7 12.5 3.9 4.0 1.4 1.8 100.0
Sex
Female 17.5 51.4 24.1 12.5 3.5 4.3 2.3 1.8 100.0
Male 8.3 47.9 17.5 21.2 6.6 2.4 2.7 1.7 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

3.4: Enrolment Rates in Primary and Secondary Schools

Gross enrolment rate (GER) is the ratio between pupils in a level of education, regardless of
age, and the corresponding eligible official age-group population to that level of education.
Net enrolment rate (NER) is defined as the number of pupils in the official school-age group
expressed as a percentage of the total population in that age group. The official entry age for
primary education in Malawi is six and thirteen is the expected exit age. On the other hand, the
official entry age in Malawi secondary schools is 14 and 17 is the expected exit age.

A high ratio of GER does not necessarily indicate a successful education system but could
reflect class repetition, over- age, under-age and late starting of school.

3.4.1: Primary School Enrolment Rates

Primary school gross enrolment rate for Malawi was 123.8 percent. About 24 percent of pupils
enrolled in primary schools were either under or over aged.
Across regions, the Northern region had the highest GER (128.3 percent), followed by the
Central region (126.6 percent) and Southern region (120.5 percent).
27
Primary school net enrolment rate for Malawi was 88.0 percent. The NER was higher among
girls (89.3 percent) than among boys (86.6 percent).

Net enrolment rate for urban areas was 92.5 percent compared to 87.3 percent in rural area.
NER was higher amongst those pupils from male-headed households (88.7 percent) compared
to female-headed households (86.5 percent).

Across regions, the Northern region recorded the highest net enrolment rate (91.0 percent)
followed by Central region (88.0 percent) and the Southern region (87.2 percent) (Table 3.5)

At district level, Karonga reported the highest NER at 95.2 percent while Mangochi registered
the lowest NER at 78.1 percent (Annex Table 3.5).

Table 3-5: Enrolment Rates at Primary School by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-
2020
Gross enrolment rate Net enrolment rate

Background characteristics Girls Boys Total Girls Boys Total

Malawi 122.3 125.4 123.8 89.3 86.6 88.0

Place of residence
Rural 122.3 125.4 123.8 88.8 85.8 87.3
Urban 122.2 125.5 123.8 92.8 92.1 92.5

Region
Northern 123.1 133.7 128.3 90.9 91.1 91.0
Central 125.4 126.6 126.0 89.4 86.7 88.0
Southern 119.7 121.4 120.5 88.9 85.3 87.2

Sex of household head

Female 122.5 124.0 123.2 88.8 84.0 86.5
Male 122.2 126.1 124.1 89.6 87.8 88.7
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

3.4.2 Secondary School Enrolment Rates

Gross enrolment rate for secondary schools in Malawi was 39.8 percent. The GER for urban
areas was 78.8 percent compared to 32.7 percent in rural areas. Across the regions, the Northern
region had the highest GER (57.1 percent) followed by Southern region (38.6 percent) and

28
Central region (31.7 percent). Across districts, Mzuzu city registered the highest secondary
school GER at 94.8 percent while Mangochi had the lowest GER at 17.2 percent.

Net enrolment rate for secondary schools in Malawi was 14.5 percent. Analysis by place of
residence, the NER was higher (36.7 percent) in urban areas than rural areas (11.2 percent).
Across regions, the results show that Northern region had the higher proportion (22.8 percent)
followed by Southern region (14.9 percent) and Central region (11.5 percent).

The NER was higher among females (17.5 percent) compared to males (11.7 percent).
Furthermore, NER was lower amongst pupils from female-headed households (12.9 percent)
than pupils from male-headed households (15.3 percent) (Table 3.6).

At district level, Blantyre city registered the highest secondary school net enrolment rate (45.4
percent) while Lilongwe rural had the lowest proportion (5.7 percent) (Annex Table 3.6).

29
Table 3-6: Enrolment Rates at Secondary School by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-
2020
Gross enrolment rate Net enrolment rate

Background characteristics Female Male Total Female Male Total

Malawi 39.5 40.1 39.8 17.5 11.7 14.5

Place of residence
Rural 31.7 33.6 32.7 13.5 9.0 11.2
Urban 79.5 78.0 78.8 41.2 31.2 36.7

Region
Northern 58.7 55.6 57.1 28.6 17.5 22.8
Central 32.1 31.4 31.7 13.0 10.1 11.5
Southern 37.1 40.1 38.6 18.4 11.3 14.9

Sex of household head

Female 37.8 36.3 37.0 16.7 9.3 12.9
Male 40.4 41.9 41.1 18.0 12.8 15.3
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

3.5: School Attendance by Type of School

3.5.1: School Attendance-Primary School Education

The results show that 89.0 percent of pupils attended government primary schools in Malawi,
8.0 percent attended religious schools and 3.0 percent attended private schools.

Analysis by place of residence shows that 90.7 percent of pupils in rural areas attended
government schools compared to 78.0 percent in urban areas. About 14 percent of pupils in
urban areas attended private schools compared to 1.3 percent of pupils in rural areas.

Across regions, 92.4 percent of pupils in Central region attended government primary schools
followed by 88.4 percent and 85.9 percent in the Northern and Southern regions respectively.

3.5.2: School Attendance-Secondary School Education

The main provider of education at secondary school level was government at 74.9 percent.
Analysis by place of residence shows that 80.4 percent of pupils in rural areas went to
government secondary schools compared to 57.2 percent in urban areas. The results also show

30
that 2 9 . 8 percent of pupils in urban areas went to private secondary schools compared to 12.1
percent in rural areas.
Across regions, 79.3 percent of pupils went to government secondary schools in the Central
region followed by the Northern region (72.9 percent) and Southern region (69.8 percent).

Table 3-7: Type of School Attended by Pupils According to Background Characteristics,

IHS5 2019-2020
Primary school Secondary school

Background Characteristics Public Private/Other Religious Total Public Private/Other Religious Total
Malawi 89.0 3.0 8.0 100.0 73.9 17.1 9.0 100.0

Place of residence
Rural 90.7 1.3 8.0 100.0 80.4 12.1 7.5 100.0
Urban 78.0 14.2 7.8 100.0 57.2 29.8 13.0 100.0

Region
Northern 88.4 1.7 9.8 100.0 72.9 19.9 7.2 100.0
Central 92.4 2.9 4.6 100.0 79.3 12.6 8.1 100.0
Southern 85.9 3.5 10.6 100.0 69.8 19.7 10.5 100.0

Sex of pupils
Female 89.0 3.2 7.8 100.0 73.2 17.2 9.5 100.0
Male 89.0 2.9 8.2 100.0 74.5 17.0 8.5 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

3.6: Highest Education Qualification Attainment

3.6.1: Highest Education Qualification a Acquired (Population Aged 5 Years and Above)

The results at national level show that 80.7 percent of the population aged 5 years and above
did not have any qualification.

By place of residence 85.2 percent of individuals in rural areas did not have any qualification
compared to 56.7 percent of individuals in urban areas.

31
Table 3-8: Proportion of Population Aged 5 Years and Above by Highest Education
Qualification Acquired and Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Background Characteristics None PSLC JCE MSCE Tertiary Total

Malawi 80.7 8.8 4.8 4.5 1.2 100.0
Place of residence
Rural 85.2 7.8 3.8 2.7 0.5 100.0
Urban 56.7 13.8 10.4 13.7 5.4 100.0
Region
Northern 70.7 14.2 7.1 6.3 1.7 100.0
Central 82.0 7.9 4.7 4.2 1.2 100.0
Southern 82.5 8.0 4.2 4.1 1.1 100.0
Sex
Female 83.2 8.6 4.2 3.1 0.8 100.0
Male 78.0 8.9 5.4 5.9 1.7 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

3.6.2: Highest Education Qualification Acquired by Population Aged 15 Years and Above
At the national level, 70.7 percent of the population aged 15 years and above did not have any
qualification. Analysis by place of residence shows that 77.1 percent of the population aged 15
years and above in rural areas had no qualification compared to 39.3 percent in urban areas.

At regional level, Southern region had a higher proportion (73.0 percent) of the population aged
15 years and above who did not have any qualification followed by Central region (72.7
percent) and Northern region (57.0 percent) (Table 3.9).

Across districts, Mangochi had the highest proportion (88.2 percent) of population of those with
no qualification while Mzuzu city had the lowest proportion (30.2 percent) (Annex Table 3.9).

32
Table 3-9: Proportion of Highest Education Qualification Acquired by Population Aged 15
years and above according to Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Background Characteristics None PSLC JCE MSCE Tertiary Total

Malawi 70.7 13.1 7.4 6.9 1.9 100.0
Place of residence
Rural 77.1 12.0 5.9 4.3 0.7 100.0
Urban 39.3 18.5 14.9 19.6 7.7 100.0
Region
Northern 57.0 20.6 10.5 9.3 2.6 100.0
Central 72.7 11.7 7.3 6.5 1.8 100.0
Southern 73.0 12.1 6.6 6.5 1.8 100.0
Sex
Female 75.2 12.5 6.4 4.7 1.2 100.0
Male 65.6 13.8 8.6 9.4 2.7 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

3.7: Dropout Rate and Reasons for Dropout

School dropout rate is defined as the percentage of pupils who enrolled but did not complete
the academic year.

3.7.1: Dropout Rate-Primary Education

Dropout rate in primary schools in Malawi was 1.6 percent. The same proportion (1.6 percent)
was reported by males and females.

The results further show that 37.9 percent of the pupils who dropped out of school at primary
school cited lack of money as the reason for dropping out while 35.6 percent of the pupils
dropped out due to lack of interest in school (Table 3.10).

3.7.2: Dropout Rate-Secondary Education

Dropout rate in secondary schools in Malawi was 8.4 percent. Dropout rate was higher among
male pupils (8.9 percent) compared to females pupils (7.9 percent).

The dropout rate for pupils in rural areas was 8.9 percent compared to 7.2 percent in urban areas.

33
At regional level, the Southern region had the highest percentage of pupils (9.1 percent)
dropping out of school followed by the Central (8.7 percent) and Northern region (6.0 percent).

The results further show that 66.3 percent of males dropped out of school due to lack of money
while (32.2 percent) of the females dropped out of school because they got married (Table 3.11).

Table 3-10: Dropout and Reasons for Dropout at Primary School, IHS5 2019-2020

Reasons for dropout at Primary school

Acquired
Dropout All
Background rate Not Found education
Characteristics Primary No money Interested Married Illness Work wanted Others Total
Malawi 1.6 37.9 35.6 12.4 4.7 1.2 0.5 7.7 100.0
Place of Residence
Rural 1.8 37.0 35.7 12.9 4.8 1.2 0.5 7.8 100.0
Urban 0.4 59.9 32.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 5.8 100.0
Region
Northern 1.4 29.7 36.4 26.5 6.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 100.0
Central 1.5 44.0 35.5 10.0 1.7 2.0 1.0 5.8 100.0
Southern 1.8 34.4 35.6 11.3 6.9 0.7 0.2 10.8 100.0
Sex of pupils 0.0
Female 1.6 39.1 26.1 18.2 4.7 0.6 0.2 11.1 100.0
Male 1.6 36.6 45.6 6.4 4.7 1.7 0.9 4.1 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

34
Table 3-11: Dropout and Reasons for Dropout at Secondary School, IHS5 2019-2020
Reasons for dropout at Secondary school
Dropout Acquired All
Background rate Education Not Found
Characteristics Secondary No money Married Wanted interested Work Illness Others Total
Malawi 8.4 59.1 16.1 10.2 8.5 3.3 0.6 2.1 100.0

Place of residence
Rural 8.9 63.6 19.1 10.9 3.8 0.0 0.9 1.7 100.0
Urban 7.2 46.1 7.7 8.2 22.1 12.6 0.0 3.3 100.0
Region
Northern 6.0 51.5 25.2 9.2 9.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 100.0
Central 8.7 63.5 16.9 4.6 5.9 7.0 0.0 2.1 100.0
Southern 9.1 57.4 13.0 15.4 10.6 1.0 0.0 2.6 100.0

Sex of Pupils
Female 7.9 50.7 32.2 7.7 6.0 2.8 0.0 0.6 100.0
Male 8.9 66.3 2.3 12.4 10.7 3.7 1.2 3.4 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

35
 CHAPTER 4

4. HEALTH
4.0: Introduction
The survey collected information on the health of all members of the households.

Three reference periods were used for this module; the last 2 weeks, the last 4 weeks, and the
last 12 months.

Information was collected on

 Incidence of sickness or injury.
 Action taken in the face of sickness or injury.
 Prevalence of chronic illnesses.
 Those who diagnosed chronic illnesses.
 Births that occurred 12 months prior to the survey.
 Type of assistance given by health personnel to individual members of the households.
 Use of bed nets by household members and under five children.

4.1: Incidence of Sickness in the Last Two weeks

The results show that 26.9 percent of the individuals suffered from an illness or injury in the
last 2 weeks preceding the interview. By place of residence, 27.9 percent suffered from an
illness or injury in rural areas compared to 21.3 percent in urban areas.

At regional level, Central region had the highest proportion (27.4 percent) of individuals who
suffered from an illness/injury and the lowest was Northern region (24.3 percent).

36
At district level, Ntchisi had the highest proportion of individuals (39.6 percent) who suffered
from an illness or injury the last 2 weeks and Chitipa had the lowest proportion of individuals
(17.9 percent) who suffered from an illness or injury.

4.1.1: Major Types of Illnesses

The survey also looked at the major illnesses that people suffered from. Among those who
suffered, 34.1 percent suffered from fever and malaria followed by Cough at 11.8 percent and
Sore throat and flue at 9.5 percent.

At regional level, Southern region had highest percentage of individuals who suffered from
fever and malaria at 36.7 and Northern Region had the lowest proportion at 31.4 percent.

In terms of districts, the highest percentage of individuals who suffered from fever and malaria
was Chikwawa at 46.6 percent and the lowest was Rumphi 19.0 percent (Annex Table 4.1).

Table 4-1: Proportion of Persons Reporting Illness/Injury and Percentage Distribution of

Most Commonly Reported Diseases in Malawi by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-
2020
Top most diseases suffered from

Sore
Background Proportion Fever and throat Stomach Body and
Characteristics who suffered Malaria Cough and Flu Headache Ache Joint Pains Diarrhoea Other Total

Malawi 26.9 34.1 11.8 9.5 9.0 8.2 4.8 3.3 19.3 100
Place of Residence
Rural 27.9 35.2 11.6 8.8 9.0 8.1 4.9 3.0 19.3 100
Urban 21.3 26.0 13.0 14.0 9.1 9.1 4.2 5.3 19.4 100
Region
Northern 24.3 31.4 18.9 8.1 8.7 9.3 4.2 2.0 17.4 100
Central 27.4 36.7 12.8 7.5 7.9 7.6 4.6 3.5 19.4 100
Southern 27.1 32.2 8.9 11.9 10.2 8.5 5.2 3.5 19.7 100
Sex
Female 28.6 33.1 11.3 9.2 10.0 8.4 5.3 3.0 19.7 100
Male 25 35.3 12.4 9.9 7.9 7.9 4.2 3.7 18.8 100
Education
None 26.1 33.6 10.2 8.5 10.7 9.0 5.7 1.7 20.6 100
Primary 23.4 28.9 13.6 9.3 11.4 9.4 6.6 1.8 19.1 100
Secondary 22.2 29.1 12.7 8.6 10.9 8.4 5.5 2.4 22.3 100
Tertiary 17.7 24.4 7.1 16.6 7.7 11.4 5.6 1.5 25.6 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020
37
4.1.2: Action Taken in the Face of Illness or Injury

The survey collected data on the actions taken by individuals who suffered illness or injured in
the last 2 weeks preceding the survey.

About 51 percent of the individuals sought treatment at a government health facility, 23.1
percent bought medicine from local pharmacy or grocery, 5.8 percent sought treatment from
private health facility, 3.2 percent sought treatment at church/mission facility and 0.2 percent
sought treatment at traditional healer. However, there were 6.6 percent of individuals who
did nothing because they felt that the illness or injury was not serious and 3.6 percent did
nothing because they had no money for the treatment at the health facility.

In terms of place of residence, 51.4 percent of the individuals sought treatment from
government health facilities in the rural areas compared to 44.1 percent in the urban areas.

Analysing data by sex, 52.2 percent of females sought treatment at a government health facility
compared to 48.5 percent of males (Table 4.2).

38
 Table 4-2: Actions Taken in Face of Illness/Injury by Background Characteristics, IHS5
2019-2020
Sought
Sought Sought treatment Sought Sought
treatment Local Did treatment Had Did at treatment treatment
at govt pharmacy Nothing, at private medicine, Nothing, Mission at village with
Background health or not health known no health health traditiona
Characteristics facility grocery serious facility remedies money facility facility l healer Other
Malawi 50.5 23.1 6.6 5.8 4.6 3.6 3.2 0.9 0.2 1.4
Place of Residence
Rural 51.4 22.5 6.6 5.0 4.4 3.8 3.5 0.9 0.3 1.6
Urban 44.1 27.3 6.8 11.6 6.6 2.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3
Region
Northern 56.8 18.7 5.9 4.5 4.6 2.0 4.8 1.5 0.1 1.2
Central 47.1 23.7 6.7 6.9 5.6 4.7 2.9 0.8 0.3 1.2
Southern 52.2 23.7 6.8 5.1 3.7 2.9 2.9 0.7 0.2 1.7
Sex
Female 52.2 22.2 6.8 5.3 4.1 3.8 2.9 0.9 0.4 1.4
Male 48.5 24.2 6.4 6.4 5.3 3.4 3.4 0.8 0.1 1.4
Education
None 49.4 24.3 7.2 4.7 4.8 4.4 2.7 0.6 0.3 1.7
Primary 49.7 24.8 7.9 6.8 4.2 1.2 3.1 1.0 0.2 1.1
Secondary 47.6 25.2 6.2 9.4 6.0 1.6 2.9 0.4 0.1 0.6
Tertiary 29.6 25.8 11.6 18.4 12.6 0.0 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

4.2: Incidence of Chronic Illnesses

Chronic illnesses are of relatively long duration, usually with a slow onset, with long-term
negative effects on health.
This survey aimed at getting an insight on the overall prevalence of chronic illnesses,
proportion of those chronically ill and diagnosed with chronic illnesses.

The overall prevalence of reported chronic illnesses in Malawi was 8.7 percent. There was
higher proportion of individuals (10.8 percent) who suffered from chronic illnesses in female-
headed households compared to 7.9 percent in male-headed households.

At regional level, 9.7 percent of individuals in the Southern region suffered from chronic
illnesses followed by 8.4 in Central region and 6.0 percent in Northern Region.

Across the districts, 12.7 percent of individuals in Ntcheu suffered from chronic illnesses
followed by 12.5 percent in Blantyre City. Chitipa had the lowest proportion of individuals
that suffered from chronic illnesses (4.7 percent) (Annex Table 4.3).

4.2.1: Major Types of Chronic Illnesses

The survey established various types of chronic illnesses that individuals suffered from. The
main chronic illnesses which individuals suffered from during IHS 5 were: HIV and AIDS at
23.8 percent, Asthma at 20.9 percent, Stomach disorder at 8.0 percent, Epilepsy at 7.3 percent
and Malaria at 4.1 percent (Table 4.3).

Table 4-3: Proportion of Reported Chronic Illness and its Distribution by Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Type of Chronic Illness reported
Chronic Arthritis/
Background Proportion HIV/ Stomach Malaria Rheumatis Mental
Characteristics chronically ill AIDS Asthma Disorder Epilepsy / Fever m Illness Diabetes TB Other Total
Malawi 8.7 23.8 20.9 8.0 7.3 4.1 3.4 2.9 2.3 1.9 25.2 100
Residence
Rural 8.7 23.0 20.5 8.0 8.2 4.3 3.7 3.1 1.8 2.0 25.2 100
Urban 8.7 27.9 23.5 8.1 2.5 3.0 1.7 1.6 4.8 1.5 25.3 100
Region
Northern 6.0 16.8 21.7 7.1 10.9 1.7 2.0 3.2 3.4 2.1 31.1 100
Central 8.4 13.9 21.9 12.0 8.1 3.9 4.5 2.7 2.0 2.2 28.8 100
Southern 9.7 33.3 20.0 4.9 6.0 4.8 2.8 3.0 2.4 1.7 21.2 100
Sex of household head
Female 10.8 27.5 19.0 6.3 8.0 4.6 3.1 3.9 1.6 2.0 23.8 100
Male 7.9 21.9 21.9 9.0 7.0 3.8 3.6 2.3 2.7 1.9 26.0 100
Education
None 9.4 25.8 17.5 8.1 8.3 4.1 4.0 3.4 1.7 2.0 25.1 100
Primary 9.2 23.8 20.0 8.3 3.8 4.1 1.0 1.4 4.1 2.7 30.8 100
Secondary 9.8 22.4 23.0 10.5 1.6 1.2 3.1 1.8 5.6 0.9 29.8 100
Tertiary 10.7 14.6 22.7 10.2 1.7 0.0 4.9 0.0 9.0 2.8 34.1 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

4.2.2: Diagnosis of Chronic Illnesses

The survey collected information on usage of health personnel in the diagnosis of chronic
illnesses. The results indicate that 65.3 percent of the individuals were diagnosed by a medical
worker at the hospital followed by 17.8 percent whose illnesses were diagnosed by a medical
worker at other health facilities and 8.5 percent of individuals diagnosed themselves.

In terms of place of residence, there was higher proportion of individuals (79.7 percent)
who were diagnosed by a medical worker at a hospital in urban areas compared to 62.6 percent
in rural areas. The proportion of individuals who were diagnosed by a medical worker at other
health facilities in rural areas was higher (19.7 percent) than 7.7 percent in urban areas.
The Northern and Southern regions had higher percentage of individuals whose illness were
diagnosed by a medical worker at the hospital (71.1 percent and 70.8 percent) respectively
compared to Central region at 57.4 percent.

Analysis by level of education, a higher proportion (80.9 percent) of individuals with tertiary
education sought the services of a health personnel at the hospital compared to 63.4 percent of
individuals with no education (Table 4.4).

Across the districts, 93.8 percent of individuals in Zomba City were diagnosed by health
personnel at the hospital while the lowest (43.0 percent) was reported in Dowa (Annex
Table 4.4).

Table 4-4: Percentage Distribution of those who Diagnosed Chronic Illnesses by

Background Characteristics, IHS52019-2020

Medical Medical Health

Background Worker at Worker at Traditional Surveillance
Characteristics hospital health Self Healer Assistant Other Total
facility
Malawi 65.3 17.8 8.5 1.7 0.2 6.5 100.0
Place of Residence
Rural 62.6 19.7 8.6 2.0 0.2 6.9 100.0
Urban 79.7 7.7 7.6 0.3 0.0 4.6 100.0
Region
Northern 71.1 18.7 4.3 2.4 0.7 2.8 100.0
Central 57.4 22.6 11.1 1.2 0.3 7.4 100.0
Southern 70.8 13.6 7.0 2.0 0.1 6.5 100.0
Sex
Female 66.3 18.7 6.8 1.1 0.3 6.8 100.0
Male 64.7 17.4 9.3 2.0 0.2 6.4 100.0
Education
None 63.4 19.0 8.4 2.0 0.1 7.0 100.0
Primary 70.8 15.4 9.5 1.0 0.1 3.2 100.0
Secondary 73.5 11.5 10.8 1.0 0.3 2.9 100.0
Tertiary 80.9 8.5 8.4 0.0 0.0 2.2 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020
4.3: Reproductive Health

The survey collected information from women aged between 12 and 49 years concerning the
place of delivery and the type of assistance that they received during delivery. The information
collected was for 12 months preceding the survey.

4.3.1: Place of Delivery

A high proportion of women (95.8 percent) gave birth at the hospital, followed by 3.9 percent
at home and 0.3 percent at other places.

Analysing the data by place of residence, a higher proportion of women (98.5 percent) in urban
areas gave birth at the hospital compared to 95.3 percent in rural areas. A higher proportion
(4.3 percent) of women gave birth at home in rural areas compared to 1.5 percent in the urban
areas.

Across regions, 97.0 percent of the women in the Northern region gave birth at the hospital at
followed by 95.7 percent in Central region and 95.5 percent Southern region (Table 4.5).
At district level, all women (100.0 percent) gave birth at the hospital in Likoma and Blantyre
City. The lowest proportion of women (90.2 percent) that delivered at the hospital was in
Nsanje (Annex Table 4.5).
Table 4-5: Proportion of Women by Place of Delivery for Women Aged 12-49 years by
Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Place of delivery for the child born in the last 24 months
Background Characteristics
Hospital Home Other Total
Malawi 95.8 3.9 0.3 100
Place of Residence
Rural 95.3 4.3 0.4 100
Urban 98.5 1.5 0.1 100
Region
Northern 97.0 2.6 0.4 100
Central 95.7 4.0 0.4 100
Southern 95.5 4.2 0.3 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 94.3 5.4 0.4 100
Male 96.3 3.4 0.3 100
Education of Household Head
None 95.3 4.4 0.3 100
Primary 97.8 2.1 0.1 100
Secondary 98.7 1.2 0.2 100
Tertiary 99.3 0.7 0.0 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

4.3.2: Type of Assistance during Delivery

During the survey, information on the type of assistance given to women during delivery was
collected. About 68 percent of women were assisted by nurses or midwives while 28.2 percent
were assisted by the doctors or clinical officers.

By place of residence, 71.4 percent of women in urban areas were assisted by nurses or
midwives compared to 66.9 percent in the rural areas.

Across regions, 81.3 percent of women in Northern region were assisted by nurses and
midwives followed by 67.2 percent in Central region and 63.8 percent in Southern region. The
proportion of women who were assisted by doctors or clinicians in Southern region was 31.4
percent followed by 28.6 percent in Central region and 16.1 percent in the Northern region.
Analysis by education shows that 72.5 percent of women with tertiary education were assisted
by nurses or midwives compared to 67.3 percent for those with no education (Table 4.6).

Across districts, 89.0 percent of women in Mzimba were assisted by nurses or midwives during
delivery followed by 86.4 percent in Mzuzu City and 84.4 percent in Lilongwe City. Likoma
had the lowest proportion of women (47.1 percent) who were assisted by nurses or midwives
(Annex Table 4.6).

Table 4-6: Proportion of Births Assisted by Skilled Health Personnel by Background

Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Friend or Traditional
Nurse/ Doctor/ relative birth Patient
Background Characteristics Midwife Clinician Attendant Self Attendant Other Total
Malawi 67.5 28.2 2.2 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.1 100.0
Place of Residence
Rural 66.9 28.4 2.5 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 100.0
Urban 71.4 27.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0
Region
Northern 81.3 16.1 1.3 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.0 100.0
Central 67.2 28.6 1.9 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 100.0
Southern 63.8 31.4 2.8 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 100.0
Sex of Household Head
Male 67.4 29.0 1.8 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.1 100.0
Female 68.1 25.8 3.5 1.4 0.5 0.6 0.1 100.0
Education of Woman
None 67.3 28.0 2.5 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.1 100.0
Primary 67.6 30.4 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 100.0
Secondary 69.1 29.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 100.0
Tertiary 72.5 27.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

4.4: Use of Bed Nets

During the survey, information on whether members of households used bed nets was
collected. The idea was to check on whether at some point in the year people are able to use
bed nets to protect themselves and especially the children under the age of five from
mosquitoes.

About 85 percent of households had at least a member who slept under a bed net to protect
against mosquito bites at some time during the year.
In terms of place of residence, the proportion of households who had at least a member who
slept under a bed net was 86.3 percent in urban areas compared 84.4 percent in rural areas.

By education levels of household head, 90.0 percent of the households with household
heads with secondary education had at least one member sleeping under mosquito net
compared to 83.3 percent of those with no education.
Among households with children under the age of five years, 96.9 percent reported the children
slept under a bed net. In terms of place of residence, the proportion was higher at 97.5 percent
in urban areas than 96.8 percent in rural areas.

Across regions, Southern region had higher proportion (97.7 percent) of households where
children under the age of five slept under a mosquito net compared to 96.6 percent in the
Northern region and 96.2 percent in the Central region (Table 4.7).

Across districts, all households (100.0 percent) in Likoma and Thyolo reported that children
under the age of five slept under a mosquito net while Ntcheu had the lowest proportion of
children under the age of five who slept under a mosquito net at 91.7 percent (Annex Table
4.7).

Table 4-7: Proportion of Households with Members Sleeping under a Bed Net, IHS5 2019-
2020

Background Characteristics Bed Net Under 5 Years

Malawi 84.7 96.9
Place of Residence
Rural 84.4 96.8
Urban 86.3 97.5
Region
Northern 87.4 96.6
Central 81.1 96.2
Southern 87.3 97.7
Sex of Household Head
Female 84.7 96.9
Male 84.6 97.0
Education of Woman
None 83.3 96.5
Primary 86.5 97.4
Secondary 90.0 98.2
Tertiary 89.6 98.7
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020
 CHAPTER 5

5. CREDIT AND LOANS

5.0: Introduction
The chapter provides information on access to credit and loans from either formal or
informal sources and on the constraints faced in accessing credit during the 12 months
preceding the interview. Formal loans include money borrowed from financial institutions
with interest, security and conditions for payment well-laid down while informal loans refer
to borrowing from friends, relatives, private money-lenders and communal groups without
any formal agreement describing the terms of payment.

5.1: Households and the Credit Market

The results show that 2 3 . 1 percent of the households had interaction with the credit
market. Out of these 17.7 percent of households successfully obtained a loan, 5.7 percent
of all households tried to get a loan in the last 12 months but were turned down and 1.2
percent were still waiting for a response on their loan applications (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5-1: Proportion of Households that had Interaction with the Credit Market, IHS5
2019-2020

Interacted with credit market 24.6

Obtained a loan 17.7

Were turned down 5.7

Waiting for loans 1.2

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

5.2: Proportion of Households that Obtained Credit or Loans

The results show that 17.7 percent of the households had at least one member who obtained
credit or loans for business or farming purposes in the 12 months prior to the interview.

Analysis by sex of household head shows that 18.4 percent of male-headed households
obtained credit or loans compared to 16.0 percent of female-headed households.

At regional level, 22.1 percent of the households in the Northern region accessed credit or
loans followed by Central region (17.6 percent) and 16.4 percent in Southern region.

Analysis by district, Ntcheu reported the highest proportion (33.4 percent) of households
which obtained credit or loans while Chitipa reported the lowest at 9.1 percent (Annex Table
5.1)

5.3: Purpose of Obtaining Credit or Loans

The results show that the most common reason for obtaining credit or loans is to finance
start-up costs of enterprises (52.6 percent) and 29.8 percent of households obtained loans
to purchase agricultural inputs for food crops. The proportion of households reporting land
purchase as the main reason for obtaining a loan was 1.4 percent.

A higher percentage of loan beneficiaries in urban areas (81.4 percent) reported to have
accessed loans to set up businesses compared to 47.6 percent in rural areas. A higher
proportion of households (32.4 percent) in rural areas obtained loans to purchase
agricultural inputs for cash crops compared to 14.5 percent of the households in urban areas.

Higher proportion (60.1 percent) of female headed households borrowed for business start-
up capital than 50.1 percent of male headed households.

The Central region had the highest proportion of households that obtained credit to finance
business startup (54.1 percent) followed by the Southern region (52.6 percent) and the
Northern region (48.2 percent). About 35 percent of loan beneficiaries in the Northern
region used the loan to purchase farm inputs for food crops compared to 33.4 percent in the
Southern region and 24.3 percent in the Central region.
In terms of education level of the household head, the highest proportion of households
(77.5 percent) with the household head having tertiary education accessed credit to start up
business and the lowest proportion of households (45.3 percent) were those with a
household head who had no education (Table 5.1).

At district level, Likoma reported the highest proportion of loan recipients who accessed
credit to startup businesses (100.0 percent) while Karonga reported the lowest proportion
at 31.9 percent (Annex Table 5.1).

Table 5-1: Proportion of Households where at least One Member Obtained a Loan and
Reasons for Obtaining the Loan by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Reasons for Obtaining a Loan
Purchased
Agricultural Inputs
for Purchased

Proportion Business
that Start-Up Food Cash non-farm
Background characteristics borrowed Capital crops crops Tobacco inputs Land Other Total
Malawi 17.7 52.4 30.2 7.3 4.3 4.2 1.4 0.2 100.0
Place of Residence
Rural 17.6 47.5 32.9 8.4 5.0 4.6 1.4 0.3 100.0
Urban 17.9 81.2 14.4 0.7 0.3 1.5 1.8 0.1 100.0
Region
Northern 22.1 48.2 35.2 2.4 11.2 1.8 0.8 0.4 100.0
Central 17.6 53.9 25.1 10.0 5.7 3.4 1.9 0.0 100.0
Southern 16.4 52.4 33.5 6.3 0.5 5.8 1.1 0.4 100.0
Sex of Household Head
Female 16.0 59.9 31.8 3.1 0.3 4.0 0.7 0.3 100.0
Male 18.4 49.9 29.6 8.7 5.6 4.2 1.7 0.2 100.0
Age of the Household Head
15-24 13.8 53.3 27.8 10.3 1.8 6.8 0.0 0.0 100.0
25-34 20.7 50.9 29.5 8.8 5.2 4.6 0.9 0.1 100.0
35-44 21.4 56.0 27.4 6.4 5.0 4.0 0.9 0.4 100.0
45-54 18.8 53.1 32.7 6.7 1.1 3.2 3.0 0.0 100.0
55-64 15.5 41.8 36.9 7.4 6.1 5.5 1.5 0.9 100.0
65 and over 7.6 49.4 34.7 4.0 6.3 2.3 3.3 0.0 100.0
Education Status Of the Household Head
None 17.2 51.4 30.9 8.4 4.0 3.5 1.5 0.2 100.0
Primary 26.6 45.2 34.9 5.6 7.9 5.4 0.4 0.7 100.0
Secondary 22.1 71.3 12.0 2.4 8.9 3.5 1.9 0.0 100.0
Tertiary 13.5 77.5 20.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.0 100.0
Marital status of head
Never married 10.2 72.8 3.6 15.3 0.5 3.5 4.2 0.0 100.0
Married 19.1 49.9 30.8 8.1 5.1 4.3 1.6 0.2 100.0
Divorced/Separated 16.1 65.1 26.7 4.4 0.5 2.0 0.8 0.5 100.0
Widow/Widower 12.9 58.7 30.4 2.2 1.7 5.9 0.7 0.4 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020
5.4: Sources of Credit and Loans
Households which reported to have obtained a loan were further asked about where they sought
the loan. The results show that the highest proportion of loan recipients (42.1 percent) sought
credit from village banks followed by relatives (15.1 percent) and neighbors (13.7 percent).
The lowest proportion (0.4 percent) of households reported that they borrowed from
MARDEF.

By place of residence, loans obtained from village banks were higher in rural areas (42.9
percent) compared to urban areas (37.9 percent). Relatives were a source of credit for 16.3
percent of households in rural areas compared to 8.9 percent in urban areas. Neighbors as a
source of credit was higher in urban areas (19.8 percent) compared to rural areas (12.5 percent).
The proportion of households that borrowed from commercial banks was higher in urban areas
(3.7 percent) than 1.0 percent of rural areas.

Higher proportion of female headed households (42.7 percent) borrowed from village banks
compared to 41.5 percent of male headed households.

In terms of regions, Southern region had the highest proportion of households ( 4 9 . 3 percent)
that got loans from village banks followed by 40.7 percent of households in Northern region
and 35.9 percent in Central region (Table 5.2).

At district level, Balaka had the highest proportion of households that borrowed from village
banks (77.3 percent) followed by Likoma (76.2 percent) and Neno (63.3 percent). Zomba
City reported the lowest proportion of households that sought credits from village banks at
17.7 percent (Annex Table 5.2).
Table 5-2: Percentage Distribution of Sources of Loans by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Money Grocery/
Background Village Lender Local Religious
characteristics Bank Relative Neighbour (Katapila) NGO SACCO MRFC Bank Employer Merchant Institutions Mardef Other

Malawi 42.1 15.1 13.7 9.0 6.1 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.4 6.1

Place of Residence

Rural 42.9 16.3 12.5 9.6 6.0 1.5 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.2 6.2
Urban 37.9 8.9 19.8 5.8 6.4 3.7 3.1 3.7 2.8 0.2 0.8 1.3 5.6

Region

Northern 40.7 8.2 10.6 11.4 9.0 2.9 0.1 2.1 2.1 0.9 1.3 0.6 10.1
Central 35.9 17.5 15.1 8.6 6.5 2.5 2.7 1.9 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.4 7.3
Southern 49.3 15.4 13.4 8.4 4.4 0.7 1.2 0.8 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.3 3.3
Sex of Household
Head

Female 42.7 15.1 13.4 8.6 6.2 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.5 5.9
Male 41.5 15.2 14.0 9.4 6.0 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.4 6.3
Age of the
Household Head
15-24 42.1 30.3 11.6 11.2 6.1 1.8 1.7 1.5 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 6.1
25-34 34.2 17.9 14.3 12.7 5.4 1.9 1.8 0.8 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 7.0
35-44 43.9 16.4 13.6 7.6 6.0 1.9 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.3 6.9
45-54 47.6 9.6 12.6 7.2 7.9 1.8 1.8 3.7 2.7 0.7 0.4 0.1 3.9
55-64 40.8 10.4 14.4 7.6 6.2 2.5 4.2 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.4 0.9 7.6
65 and over 60.4 9.5 15.5 5.8 3.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 3.4
Education Status Of the
Household Head

None 42.1 15.9 13.9 8.8 6.1 1.8 1.7 1.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.4 6.1
Primary 32.8 15.3 14.9 9.2 8.4 3.5 0.0 1.2 4.6 1.9 0.2 0.4 7.6
Secondary 43.3 9.7 10.7 10.5 11.8 2.2 4.0 2.0 1.3 0.7 0.0 1.1 2.5
Tertiary 37.3 1.6 10.8 5.6 4.3 10.7 0.0 10.5 3.4 0.0 8.6 0.8 6.4
Marital Status of
Household Head

Never married 42.1 13.7 28.7 22.4 6.1 1.8 1.7 1.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1
Married 41.3 14.5 13.3 9.4 6.2 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 6.8
Divorced/Separated 43.4 19.1 16.2 6.5 5.8 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 2.2 0.4 3.8
Widow/Widower 50.0 15.8 12.1 6.7 4.8 0.2 0.5 3.7 0.2 1.1 1.5 0.1 3.2
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020
5.5: Reasons for Not Applying for a Loan

In addition to the detailed information collected on loan recipients, the survey also investigated the
reasons for not attempting to get a loan. Results show that the highest proportion of households (25.1
percent) cited that there was no need for obtaining a loan while 21.8 percent felt that the trouble they
could go through to get a loan was not worth it.

By place of residence, the results show that 41.3 percent of the households in urban areas had
no need for obtaining a loan compared to 21.7 percent in rural areas.

By sex of the household head, 26.8 percent of the male headed households reported that they
did not need a loan as the main reason for not obtaining a loan compared to 21.7 percent for
female headed households.

Across regions, Southern region had the highest proportion (29.6 percent) of households that
reported that they did not need a loan followed by 28.0 percent for Northern region and 19.9
percent for Central region (Table 5.3).

Across districts, Zomba city had the highest proportion (54.3 percent) of households that
reported that they did not need a loan followed by 50.6 percent of Blantyre City and 40.8 percent
households of Lilongwe City (Annex Table 5.3).

51
Table 5-3: Proportion of Households that Never Applied for a Loan by Reasons for and
Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Reasons for not Obtaining a loan

Proportion Too much Do not Do not

that never trouble for like to Believed know
Background applied for No what’s its be in would be Too Inadequate any
characteristics a loan need worth debt refused expensive collateral lender Other
Malawi 76.9 25.1 21.8 16.9 12.2 8.5 7.7 7.3 0.5
Place of Residence
Rural 75.8 21.7 22.2 17.4 12.9 9.2 8.3 7.7 0.5
Urban 82.7 41.3 19.8 14.2 9.3 4.8 4.9 5.2 0.4
Region
North 83.6 28.0 28.1 10.3 14.5 3.6 9.7 4.6 1.1
Centre 80.0 19.9 24.3 20.2 12.1 9.1 5.4 8.5 0.5
South 72.4 29.6 17.3 15.5 11.7 9.4 9.5 6.8 0.3
Sex of Household Head
Female 79.0 21.7 22.6 17.5 14.0 8.5 9.8 5.3 0.6
Male 76.0 26.8 21.4 16.6 11.4 8.5 6.8 8.1 0.5
Age of the Household Head
15-24 72.1 25.8 22.8 16.0 12.4 9.9 7.4 5.1 0.6
25-34 75.0 27.5 23.1 16.2 10.6 7.9 6.9 7.4 0.4
35-44 74.1 26.3 20.6 16.8 12.6 7.1 7.9 8.2 0.4
45-54 76.6 21.5 20.7 16.7 13.2 10.3 8.1 9.1 0.3
55-64 79.2 25.4 22.1 16.6 12.3 7.0 7.1 8.7 0.6
65 and over 86.8 22.8 21.6 18.7 13.2 9.7 9.0 4.1 0.8
Education of the Household Head
None 77.5 23.1 23.3 16.2 12.8 9.9 7.0 7.3 0.6
Primary 69.4 25.4 23.7 16.5 13.3 3.9 10.3 6.8 0.1
Secondary 76.9 38.8 17.9 16.5 8.8 3.9 6.9 6.6 0.6
Tertiary 85.7 55.3 9.1 18.6 3.7 8.3 1.2 2.5 1.2
Marital status of head
Never married 80.4 39.1 20.3 12.7 12.9 5.8 5.5 3.7 0.0
Married 75.3 25.9 21.0 16.8 11.4 8.7 7.4 8.2 0.5
Divorced/Separated 77.7 21.0 23.9 16.2 15.1 7.7 8.7 6.8 0.7
Widow/Widower 83.7 22.7 23.5 19.2 12.9 8.7 8.7 3.9 0.4
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

52
 CHAPTER 6

6. HOUSEHOLD NON FARM ENTERPRISES

6.0: Introduction

This chapter details information on the ownership and operation of any income–generating
non-farm enterprises of households that were in operation the past 12 months. Household
business or enterprise is defined as an organized commercial activity or a commercial
establishment, owned and managed by household members. It can be formal or informal, with
or without hired labour.

6.1: Households Operating Non-Farm Enterprises and Type of Industry

6.1.1: Household Operating Non-farm Enterprises

The proportion of households operating a non-farm enterprise was 39.0 percent. The
proportion of households engaged in business operations in urban areas was 58.8 percent
compared to 35.0 percent in rural areas.

The proportion of households operating non-farm enterprises was 40.0 percent in the Central
region, 38.7 percent in the Southern region and 36.9 percent in the Northern region. Looking
at the sex of household heads, the proportion of households that operated non-farm enterprise
was higher in male-headed households at 42.3 percent than female-headed households at 31.3
percent.

By education level of household heads, the proportion of households operating a non-farm

enterprise was higher (58.5 percent) among those with tertiary education than among those
with no education at 36.9 percent.

In terms of marital status of the household head, the proportion of households operating a non-
farm enterprise was highest for married household heads at 43.0 percent and lowest for
widowed at 25.7 percent (Table 6.1).

53
At district level, Zomba city had the highest proportion of non-farm enterprises at 59.7 percent
while Kasungu had lowest proportion at 22.3 percent (Annex Table 6.1)

6.1.2: Activities of Household Non-Farm Enterprises

For the IHS5, Non-farm enterprise activities include: Mining and quarrying, Manufacturing,
Electricity gas and air conditioning supply, Construction, Wholesale and retail trade,
Transportation and storage, Accommodation and food services activities, Information and
communication, Financial and insurance activities, Real estate activities, Professional,
scientific and technical activities, Administrative and support service activities, Public
administration, Education, Human health and social activities and all Other service activities.

Nationally, 63.1 percent of the non-farm enterprises are engaged in Wholesale, retail trade,
Accommodation and food services followed by manufacturing at 15.6 percent. Transport,
Information and Communication accounted for 9.0 percent and other service activities were at
6.5 percent. Mining and quarrying had the lowest share at 0.6 percent.

The percentage of Wholesale and retail trade activities was higher in urban areas at 67.9 percent
than in rural areas at 59.6 percent, but manufacturing was more common in rural areas (17.3
percent) than in urban areas (10.5 percent). Other service activities were more common in
urban areas (7.6 percent) than in rural areas (6.8 percent). The difference between urban and
rural areas with regards to mining and quarrying activities was less than 1 percent.

In terms of sex of the household head, a greater proportion of wholesale, retail, accommodation
and food services were operated by female-headed households (71.0 percent) as opposed to
58.9 percent in male-headed households. Female-headed households also dominated the
manufacturing sector, recording 16.8 percent compared to male-headed households (15.1
percent).

Among households whose heads had no education, 16.6 percent ran a manufacturing business
while among households whose heads had tertiary education, 13.1 percent operated a
manufacturing business (Table 6.1).

54
Table 6-1: Proportion of Households that Operated Non- farm Enterprises by Industry,
IHS5 2019-2020

Industry
Wholesale and Real estate,
Proportion retail trade; Transportation Professional
that Operated Mining Accommodation and storage; activities,
Background a Non-farm and Manu- Const- and food service Information and Education Other service
Characteristics Enterprise quarrying facturing ruction activities communication and Health activities
Malawi 39.0 0.6 15.6 1.4 63.1 9.0 3.8 6.5
Place of residence
Rural 35.0 0.6 17.3 1.3 59.6 9.5 4.9 6.8
Urban 58.8 1.2 10.5 1.3 67.9 8.8 2.7 7.6
Region
Northern 36.9 0.4 15.3 2.2 64.7 7.1 4.6 5.8
Central 40.0 0.8 15.6 0.8 54.5 14.4 3.8 10.1
Southern 38.7 0.8 15.6 1.4 68.0 5.0 4.9 4.3
Sex of Household
Head
Female 31.3 0.3 16.8 0.7 71.0 4.5 2.8 4.0
Male 42.3 0.9 15.1 1.5 58.9 10.8 4.8 8.0
Education level of
Household Head
None 36.9 0.8 16.6 1.2 60.6 9.5 4.0 7.3
Primary 43.3 1.3 15.0 1.0 64.9 10.4 4.3 3.1
Secondary 48.9 0.5 13.2 1.4 61.9 8.8 4.0 10.2
Tertiary 58.5 0.0 13.1 3.4 66.4 3.8 6.1 7.2
Marital Status of
Household Head
Never married 31.5 0.0 10.7 1.0 68.5 9.3 0.7 9.9
Married 43.0 0.9 15.5 1.5 59.7 10.3 4.6 7.6
Divorced/Separated 32.0 0.5 16.3 0.3 68.0 6.3 3.3 5.4
Widow/Widower 25.7 0.2 16.3 0.2 71.1 4.4 4.9 3.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

6.2: Ownership of Enterprises

The survey results show that 92.2 percent of the enterprises were owned by a sole proprietor
and 7.8 percent were partnerships. Sole proprietorship was higher in urban areas (94.8 percent)
than in rural areas (91.3 percent).

Across regions, Southern Region had the highest proportion at 94.7 percent of sole
proprietorship compared to Northern region at 91.5 percent and Central region at 89.8 percent
(Figure 6.1).

55
Figure 6-1: Proportion of Non- farm Enterprises Owned by Sole Proprietors by Place of
Residence and Region, IHS5 2019-2020

94.8 94.7
92.2 91.3 91.5 89.8

Malawi Rural Urban Northern Central Southern

Place of Residence Region

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

Approximately 98 percent of the household non-farm enterprises in female-headed households

were sole proprietorship compared to 90.5 percent in male headed households.

The proportion of household non-farm enterprises owned by sole proprietors was highest in
households whose head had either secondary or tertiary education at 93.6 percent and lowest
in households whose heads had either primary at 86.3 percent (Figure 6.2).

56
Figure 6-2: Proportion of Non- farm Enterprises Owned by Pole Proprietors by Sex and
Education of Household Head, IHS5 2019-2020

Sex of Household Female 97.6

Head

Male 90.5
Education of Household Head

None 92.7

Primary 86.3

Secondary 93.6

Tertiary 93.6

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

6.3: Source of Start-Up Capital for Non-farm Enterprises

Savings from non-agricultural activities was the main financial source for starting an enterprise
(32.4 percent), followed by own savings from agricultural activities (26.5 percent). Nearly 16
percent got start-up capital as a gift from family or friends, 6.6 percent got loans from
family/friends, 4.9 percent got loans from money lenders, while 3.9 percent used proceeds
from other businesses.

By place of residence, 32.8 percent of the non-farm enterprises in rural areas sourced their
start-up capital mainly from own savings from agricultural activities compared to 10.9 percent
in urban areas. About 49 percent of the enterprises mainly sourced their start-up capital from
own savings from non-agricultural activities compared to 25.7 percent in rural areas.

In Northern region, the highest source of start-up capital was own savings from agricultural
activities (32.0 percent) while in Central and Southern regions, the highest source was own
savings from non-agricultural activities at 35.6 percent and 32.2 percent respectively.

Among male-headed households, the main source of start-up capital came from own savings
from non-agricultural activities at 33.6 percent compared to female-headed households at 28.8
percent. The results show that 10.3 percent of the female headed households sourced their start-
57
up capital was from a loan from a family/friend compared to 5.4 percent in male-headed
households (Table 6.2).
Sources of start-up capital at district level are available in the Annex (Annex Table 6.2).

Table 6-2: Percentage Distribution of Sources of Start-Up Capital of Non-Farm

Enterprises, IHS5 2019-2020
Source of start-up capital

Own- Own- Loan Loan Credit Gift

savings savings Proceeds from from Sale of Agric from bank from
Background from from non from other money family/ assets input or other Savings family/ Other
Characteristics agric agric businesses lender friends owned credit institution club friends sources Total
Malawi 26.5 32.4 3.9 4.9 6.6 1.8 0.1 0.7 2.6 15.7 4.9 100.0
Place of
Residence
Rural 32.8 25.7 4.3 5.2 7.1 1.9 0.2 0.8 3.3 12.8 5.9 100.0
Urban 10.9 49.2 2.8 4.0 5.5 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.7 22.8 2.3 100.0
Region
Northern 32.0 21.7 4.4 4.0 5.5 2.9 0.1 0.1 3.8 20.1 5.4 100.0
Central 29.7 35.6 3.8 4.6 6.2 1.7 0.1 0.5 2.6 10.9 4.4 100.0
Southern 22.0 32.2 3.8 5.4 7.3 1.6 0.2 1.0 2.1 19.1 5.2 100.0
Sex of Household
Head
Female 22.1 28.8 2.5 6.4 10.3 2.0 0.1 1.3 3.8 17.4 5.3 100.0
Male 28.0 33.6 4.3 4.4 5.4 1.7 0.1 0.5 2.2 15.1 4.8 100.0
Age of Household
Head
15-24 17.7 34.0 3.5 3.8 9.8 1.5 0.0 0.4 2.7 21.5 5.2 100.0
25-34 24.4 33.6 4.9 4.9 6.5 1.8 0.1 0.3 3.8 15.7 3.9 100.0
35-44 26.2 33.1 3.5 5.1 6.1 2.6 0.1 0.8 1.8 15.2 5.3 100.0
45-54 29.7 31.6 3.8 5.4 6.7 1.0 0.2 1.5 1.4 15.1 3.5 100.0
55-64 32.3 30.6 2.7 3.7 5.5 1.1 0.0 0.9 3.3 13.2 6.7 100.0
65 and over 33.5 25.9 2.7 5.0 7.3 1.0 0.6 0.0 1.4 15.2 7.5 100.0
Education level of
Household Head
None 29.1 31.1 3.7 5.0 6.3 1.9 0.2 0.7 2.7 14.1 5.2 100.0
Primary 21.4 31.7 4.4 4.9 8.3 1.3 0.0 0.3 2.7 19.7 5.4 100.0
Secondary 16.9 38.4 8.0 5.2 5.8 2.2 0.0 1.1 1.4 18.2 2.8 100.0
Tertiary 14.5 54.5 0.3 1.8 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 22.1 1.5 100.0
Marital Status of
Household Head
Never married 14.9 48.9 0.2 1.6 4.8 2.1 0.0 0.8 0.6 20.9 5.2 100.0
Married 27.7 32.4 4.3 4.8 5.4 1.8 0.2 0.6 2.3 16.0 4.5 100.0
Divorced/S 22.1 30.6 2.5 6.3 12.3 2.7 0.0 1.2 4.8 12.9 4.7 100.0
eparated
Widowed 25.0 29.8 2.7 4.7 10.4 0.1 0.0 1.1 2.3 14.6 9.2 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

58
6.4: Business Operating Premises
Households with enterprises provided information on the place of operation. Overall, 30.3
percent of the non-farm enterprises were being operated in traditional markets followed by 25.0
percent at home (outside residence) and 13.9 percent operated through mobile vending.

In rural areas, those who operated inside residences were 12.0 percent compared to 6.9 percent
in urban areas.

At regional level, the proportion of non-farm enterprises operating at traditional market place
was highest in the Southern region at 35.8 percent followed by the Central region at 27.6 percent
and Northern region at 19.4 percent.

By sex of head of household, 14.8 percent of male-headed households operated their enterprises
through mobile vending compared to 11.2 percent of female-headed households (Table 6.3).
Among the districts, Karonga and Nkhata Bay recorded the highest proportion of roadside based
enterprises at 18.1 percent each (Annex Table 6.3).

121
Table 6-3: Percentage Distribution of Non-farm Enterprises by Place of Operation and
Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Place of operation
Home Home Other
(inside (outside Industrial Traditional Commercial Road fixed
Background Characteristics
residence) residence) site market place area shop side places Mobile Total
Malawi 10.7 25.0 0.6 30.3 2.1 11.9 5.4 13.9 100.0
Place of residence
Rural 12.0 26.0 0.4 29.8 1.2 11.8 4.9 13.8 100.0
Urban 6.9 21.9 1.1 31.6 4.8 12.2 7.0 14.4 100.0
Region
Northern 16.2 23.8 0.5 19.4 3.7 14.0 6.4 16.1 100.0
Central 8.9 28.2 1.1 27.6 1.4 12.4 4.5 15.9 100.0
Southern 11.0 22.2 0.1 35.8 2.4 10.9 6.0 11.5 100.0
Sex of head
Female 12.4 27.2 0.3 32.1 1.5 10.7 4.6 11.2 100.0
Male 10.2 24.3 0.7 29.7 2.3 12.3 5.7 14.8 100.0
Age of household head
15-24 9.0 22.2 0.0 26.6 1.3 19.4 7.6 13.9 100.0
25-34 9.4 22.1 0.9 32.2 2.1 12.1 5.2 16.1 100.0
35-44 8.8 22.2 0.5 32.8 2.8 11.5 6.0 15.3 100.0
45-54 11.9 28.5 0.3 29.2 2.4 12.0 4.6 11.1 100.0
55-64 12.9 28.3 0.3 30.4 1.7 9.9 5.4 11.1 100.0
65 and over 20.0 38.3 1.2 19.2 0.7 7.3 3.5 9.7 100.0
Education level of household head
None 10.5 26.2 0.4 29.7 1.6 11.4 5.6 14.6 100.0
Primary 9.8 21.4 2.0 25.6 4.6 18.0 4.2 14.4 100.0
Secondary 11.1 19.7 0.7 30.2 3.3 13.9 7.4 13.7 100.0
Tertiary 14.9 24.4 1.2 22.1 4.0 11.5 4.8 16.9 100.0
Marital status of head
Never married 14.8 18.5 0.4 28.1 2.9 12.4 3.7 19.2 100.0
Married 10.3 24.8 0.6 29.6 2.2 12.3 5.5 14.6 100.0
Divorced/Separated 11.7 21.0 0.6 36.6 2.3 11.1 6.2 10.5 100.0
Widow/Widower 12.5 34.4 0.3 28.4 0.7 9.4 3.6 10.6 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

6.5: Principal Market for Products and Services

About 84 percent of the products and services of households’ non-farm enterprises were sold to
final consumers followed by traders at 9.1 percent and other small businesses at 4.8 percent.

The proportion of enterprises selling to final consumers was higher in rural areas (84.5 percent)
than in urban areas (80.5 percent).

122
At the regional level, 86.4 percent of the enterprises in the Northern region were selling their
products and services to final consumers followed by Central region at 83.9 percent and then
Southern region at 82.3 percent.

Results by sex of household head show that 87.2 percent of female-headed households with non-
farm enterprises sold their products to final consumers compared to male-headed households at
82.3 percent (Table 6.4).

At district level, Likoma registered the highest proportion (100.0 percent) of household
enterprises that were selling products and services to final consumers seconded by Ntchisi at 95.1
percent. Blantyre recorded the lowest proportion (68.6 percent) of household enterprises that sold
their products and services final consumers (Annex Table 6.4).

Table 6-4: Percentage Distribution of Market for Products and services of Non-Farm
Enterprises, IHS5 2019-2020
Market for product or service

Large
Other established
Final small businesses/ Marketing
Background characteristics consumers Traders businesses institutions Manufacturer board Other Total
Malawi 83.5 9.1 4.8 0.6 0.1 0.0 1.8 100.0
Place of residence
Rural 84.5 9.0 4.2 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.8 100.0
Urban 80.5 9.6 6.5 1.3 0.1 0.0 2.1 100.0
Region
Northern 86.4 8.2 2.6 0.8 0.1 0.0 1.8 100.0
Central 83.9 9.1 4.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.8 100.0
Southern 82.3 9.4 5.5 0.7 0.1 0.1 1.9 100.0
Sex of household head
Female 87.2 7.5 3.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.8 100.0
Male 82.3 9.7 5.2 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.9 100.0
Education level of household head
None 84.5 8.8 4.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.9 100.0
Primary 87.5 7.1 4.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 100.0
Secondary 78.1 10.8 6.8 1.9 0.1 0.0 2.3 100.0
Tertiary 78.5 8.0 7.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 100.0
Marital status of head
Never married 86.0 8.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 100.0
Married 83.0 9.3 5.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.8 100.0
Divorced/Separated 83.8 8.4 4.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.6 100.0
Widow/Widower 87.3 8.2 2.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 1.4 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

123
6.6: Registration of Non-farm Enterprises
6.6.1: Formal Registration of Non-farm enterprises
At national level, 7.4 percent of non-farm enterprises reported to have registered with official
registration bodies.

The proportion of registered non-farm enterprises in urban areas was higher at 11.0 percent
compared to 6.2 percent in rural areas.

Northern region had the highest proportion of formally registered non-farm enterprises at 10.6
percent seconded by Southern Region at 8.0 percent and then Central region at 6.0 percent.

Male-headed households had a higher proportion of registered non-farm enterprises (8.7 percent)
than female-headed households (3.5 percent).

Among districts, Karonga district had the highest proportion of registered businesses (17.7
percent) followed by Mzuzu City and Chitipa at 17.3 percent (Annex Table 6.5).

6.6.2: Formal Registration Agencies

The results show that 6.2 percent of the enterprises were registered with local assemblies, 2.7
percent with Malawi Revenue Authority and 2.1 percent with the Registrar of Companies.

By place of residence, 9.3 percent of enterprises in urban area were registered with the Local
Assembly compared to 5.2 percent in rural areas (Table 6.5).

6.6.3: Business Associations

Household non-farm enterprise owners or managers were also asked if they belonged to any
registered business association. Across the nation, 2.4 percent of business owners/managers
registered with business association.

Urban areas had a higher proportion (4.0 percent) of enterprise owners who belonged to business
association compared to rural areas (1.8 percent).

As regards to education level of household heads, 6.3 percent of enterprise owners/managers in

households whose heads had tertiary education belonged to a registered business association
compared to 2.1 percent for those with no education (Table 6.5).

124
Phalombe district had the highest proportion of owners who belonged to a registered business
association (7.8 percent) followed by Mzuzu City at 5.8 percent (Annex Table 6.5).

Table 6-5:Proportion of Registered Enterprises and Owners by Registration Agencies,

IHS5 2019-2020
Registration agencies
Proportion of enterprise
Proportion of Malawi owners or managers who
registered Registrar of Revenue Local belong to registered
Background characteristics enterprises Companies Authority Assembly business association
Malawi 7.4 2.1 2.7 6.2 2.4

Place of residence
Rural 6.2 1.2 1.8 5.2 1.8
Urban 11.0 4.6 5.1 9.3 4.0
Region
Northern 10.6 2.2 3.0 8.8 2.0
Central 6.0 1.2 1.8 5.0 2.0
Southern 8.0 2.9 3.4 6.7 2.8

Sex of head
Female 3.5 1.1 0.8 2.6 1.1
Male 8.7 2.4 3.2 7.4 2.8
Age of household head
15-24 2.3 0.5 0.8 2.3 0.5
25-34 7.8 1.5 2.9 6.2 2.4
35-44 8.7 3.0 3.2 7.3 2.9
45-54 7.0 2.2 2.2 5.7 2.3
55-64 8.2 2.4 2.5 7.2 2.2
65 and over 6.5 1.2 2.6 6.4 2.4

Education level of household head

None 6.4 1.5 1.8 5.5 2.1
Primary 5.5 2.4 1.6 4.2 2.5
Secondary 15.0 4.8 7.2 11.9 3.9
Tertiary 18.3 8.9 10.8 17.8 6.3
Marital status of head
Never married 2.6 1.4 1.1 2.4 1.3
Married 8.3 2.3 3.0 7.0 2.7
Divorced/Separated 4.8 1.7 1.7 4.3 0.8
Widow/Widower 3.9 0.9 1.0 2.7 1.4
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

125
6.7: Enterprises Engaged in Sales of Forest-Based Products and Source of Forest Based
Products
6.7.1: Enterprises Engaged in Sales of Forest-Based Products

Overall, 11.2 percent of non-farm enterprises were engaged in sales of forest-based products.
The proportion was higher in rural areas (13.0 percent) compared to urban areas (6.2 percent).

By region, Central region had the highest proportion of non-farm enterprises that were engaged
in sales of forest-based products (12.1 percent) followed by Southern Region (10.8 percent) and
Northern Region (9.9 percent).

The proportion of enterprises selling forest-based products was higher in male-headed

households (12.0 percent) than in female-headed households (8.9 percent).

In terms of education level of the household head, the proportion of enterprises selling forest-
based products was highest for those with no education at 12.6 percent compared to 0.7 percent
with tertiary education (Table 6.6).

6.7.1: Sources of Forest Based Products

The survey results further show that the highest source of forest-based products at the national
level was from purchases from someone (43.7 percent) followed by forest/wild park reserve at
36.2 percent and then communal land at 14.1 percent.
In terms of place of residence, most of the non-farm enterprise households in urban areas
purchased forest products from someone (82.0 percent) compared to 37.4 percent in rural areas.
The most important source of forest-based products in rural areas is the forest or park reserve
at 39.8 percent.

Northern Region had the highest proportion of enterprises that purchased forest products from
someone at 58.2.0 percent, followed by Central Region at 43.3 percent and Southern region at
42.0 percent.

By sex of the household head, the proportion of enterprises that purchased forest based
products from someone was higher in male-headed households (45.7 percent) than in female-
headed households (35.3 percent) (Table 6.6).

126
Table 6-6: Proportion of Enterprises Engaged in Sales of Forest-based Products and Sources,
IHS5 2019-2020

Proportion of Source of forest-based products

enterprises Forest/wild Purchased
that sell forest- park Communal from
Background characteristics based products Own land reserve land someone Other Total
Malawi 11.2 3.9 36.2 14.1 43.7 2.1 100
Place of Residence
Rural 13.0 4.2 39.8 16.4 37.4 2.2 100
Urban 6.2 1.9 14.2 0.4 82.0 1.5 100
Region
Northern 9.9 6.9 20.4 18.0 52.8 1.9 100
Central 12.1 5.6 34.4 14.8 43.3 1.9 100
Southern 10.8 1.2 42.0 12.5 42.0 2.4 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 8.9 5.7 42.9 12.7 35.3 3.4 100
Male 12.0 3.4 34.6 14.5 45.7 1.8 100
Age of Household Head
15-24 10.0 0.0 72.5 0.6 27.0 0.0 100
25-34 9.9 1.5 36.1 13.1 46.9 2.5 100
35-44 10.1 3.3 34.7 8.8 53.0 0.2 100
45-54 14.1 7.7 36.9 10.7 42.7 2.0 100
55-64 9.9 3.2 14.4 23.4 49.2 9.8 100
65 and over 17.9 6.7 32.0 35.3 24.4 1.6 100
Education level of household head
None 12.6 3.6 36.2 15.3 42.5 2.4 100
Primary 9.0 4.2 26.8 9.9 59.2 0.0 100
Secondary 7.0 0.0 31.0 10.9 58.1 0.0 100
Tertiary 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100
Marital status of head
Never married 8.9 0.0 40.2 0.0 59.8 0.0 100
Married 11.9 4.0 34.5 12.9 46.7 1.9 100
Divorced/Separated 8.0 2.2 46.4 18.6 30.6 2.2 100
Widow/Widower 10.6 4.7 42.4 26.9 20.9 5.1 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

6.8: Persons Engaged in Non-Farm Household Enterprise

The typical non-farm enterprise is a one person operation with about 78.6 percent of all
enterprises consisting of only the proprietor, 14.1 percent having two persons and 3.6 percent
employing 4 or more persons (Figure 6.3).

127
Figure 6-3: Percentage Distribution of Persons Engaged in Non-Farm Enterprises, IHS5
2019-2020

78.6

14.1

3.6 3.6

One Employee Two Employees Three Employees Four or More Employees

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

6.9: Non-Household Members Engaged in Enterprises

Most enterprises did not employ non-household members in their operations (90.4 percent).
Almost 5 percent of enterprises had only one employee, 2.5 percent had two employees, 1.2
percent had three employees and 1.5 percent had four or more employees.

By place of residence, 92.3 percent of enterprises in rural areas had no non-household members
engaged in the enterprises compared to 85.1 percent in urban areas. The proportion of enterprises
with one employee was higher in urban areas at 7.6 percent than in rural areas at 3.3 percent.
Across regions, Southern region had a higher proportion (90.8 percent) of enterprises which did
not engage non-household members in their operations, followed by Central region at 90.3
percent and Northern Region at 89.2 percent.

Female-headed households had a higher proportion (94.1 percent) of enterprises with no

employees than in male-headed households (89.3 percent) (Table 6.7).

128
Table 6-7: Percentage Distribution of Non-Household Members Engaged in the Enterprise
by Number of Employees, IHS5 2019-2020
Non- Household Members Engaged in Enterprise

4
Background characteristics
None 1 2 3 or more Total
Malawi 90.4 4.5 2.5 1.2 1.5 100.0
Place of Residence
Rural 92.3 3.3 2.2 1.0 1.1 100.0
Urban 85.1 7.6 3.3 1.6 2.4 100.0
Region
Northern 89.2 5.3 2.6 1.0 1.9 100.0
Central 90.3 4.4 2.5 1.2 1.6 100.0
Southern 90.8 4.3 2.5 1.1 1.2 100.0
Sex of head
Female 94.1 2.5 1.7 1.4 0.3 100.0
Male 89.3 5.0 2.7 1.1 1.8 100.0
Age of household head
15-24 94.0 2.7 1.7 1.0 0.7 100.0
25-34 90.1 4.7 3.1 0.7 1.5 100.0
35-44 88.5 5.5 2.6 1.6 1.9 100.0
45-54 89.7 4.9 2.3 1.8 1.3 100.0
55-64 91.7 3.4 3.2 0.7 0.9 100.0
65 and over 95.6 1.8 0.5 0.8 1.4 100.0
Education level of household head
None 92.3 3.5 2.2 0.9 1.1 100.0
Primary 86.8 6.9 3.6 0.6 2.0 100.0
Secondary 81.7 8.5 5.0 2.2 2.7 100.0
Tertiary 69.2 12.0 6.0 8.5 4.4 100.0
Marital status of head
Never married 89.7 5.2 3.7 0.4 1.0 100.0
Married 89.8 4.7 2.6 1.2 1.6 100.0
Divorced/Separated 92.8 2.9 2.1 1.4 0.9 100.0
Widow/Widower 93.0 3.7 1.6 0.9 0.8 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

6.10: Costs of Operating Household Non-Farm Enterprises

The survey collected data on costs of operating non-farm household enterprises. The two largest
categories of costs were the purchasing of goods that are resold (inventories) and raw materials.
Raw materials and inventories accounted for 42.0 percent and 31.7 percent of the total expenses
respectively. Transport costs, accounted for 11.3 percent of the enterprises’ total expenses.

129
Results for urban areas show that 33.8 percent of the expenses were on inventories and 32.4
percent were on raw materials. In rural areas, 45.6 percent of the expenses were for raw materials
and 30.8 percent were for inventories.

Across regions, expenditure on raw materials was 43.3 percent in the Southern region, 42.3
percent in the Central region and 35.7 percent in the Northern region.

Almost 51 percent of the total expense in female-headed households was spent on raw materials
whereas 39.0 percent of the business expenses in male headed households were spent on raw
materials. About 32 percent of business expenditure by male headed households was on
inventories compared to 29.9 percent for the female headed households (Table 6.8).

Table 6-8: Percentage Distribution of Enterprise Total Expenditure by Item, IHS5 2019-2020

Background Raw Freight/

characteristics materials Inventory Transport Fuel/Oil Electricity Water Insurance Other Total

Malawi 42.0 31.7 11.3 3.4 1.6 0.7 1.0 8.3 100.0
Place of Residence
Rural 45.6 30.8 10.6 3.3 1.3 0.5 0.9 7.0 100.0
Urban 32.4 33.8 13.1 3.8 2.5 1.2 1.2 11.8 100.0
Region
Northern 35.7 34.1 15.3 3.5 2.3 0.6 0.3 8.3 100.0
Central 42.3 32.1 13.0 3.9 1.2 0.7 0.6 6.2 100.0
Southern 43.3 30.6 8.8 3.0 1.9 0.8 1.5 10.1 100.0
Sex of head
Female 50.8 29.9 9.1 1.7 0.7 1.1 0.4 6.2 100.0
Male 39.0 32.2 12.0 4.0 1.9 0.6 1.2 9.0 100.0
Education level of household head
None 44.6 31.7 10.4 3.2 1.2 0.6 1.0 7.2 100.0
Primary 40.0 28.8 13.7 4.8 1.6 0.6 0.3 10.2 100.0
Secondary 31.5 34.3 13.8 3.8 3.6 1.5 1.1 10.4 100.0
Tertiary 29.4 29.7 17.8 5.7 3.7 1.4 2.9 9.4 100.0
Marital status of head
Never married 25.1 40.7 20.0 2.1 2.1 0.6 0.4 9.0 100.0
Married 40.6 32.1 11.3 3.9 1.9 0.6 1.1 8.6 100.0
Divorced/Separated 50.1 28.5 9.6 1.9 0.4 0.9 0.9 7.8 100.0
Widow/Widower 48.1 30.0 11.5 2.0 0.6 1.7 0.6 5.6 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

130
6.11 Income Generating Activities
All persons 5 years of age and above were asked if they had worked for any household income
generating activities. This section focuses on the working age population between 15 and 64
years old.

Overall, 91.0 percent of individuals were engaged in some income generating activities. A higher
proportion of individuals in rural areas (94.8 percent) participated in income generating activities
compared to 73.5 percent in urban areas.
Analysis by sex of individuals shows a higher proportion of females (91.8 percent) who
participated in income generating tasks than males at 90.7 percent.

In terms of age groups, the highest proportion (96.7 percent) of individuals who were engaged
in some income generating activities were in the age group 35-49 years while the lowest
proportion of individuals (84.4 percent) was in the age group 15-24 years.

The highest proportion of individuals ( 78.1 percent) was engaged in household agricultural or
fishing activities, 50.0 percent were engaged in casual, part-time or ganyu labour, and 16.4
percent were engaged in non-agricultural and non-fishing business. The lowest proportion of
individuals (9.6 percent) was engaged in wage, salary and commission activities.

Analysis by place of residence shows that 88.3 percent of individuals in rural areas participated
in agricultural or fishing activities compared to 31.2 percent of individuals in urban areas.
By level of education, 84.7 percent of individuals with no education participated in agricultural
or fishing activities compared to 28.9 percent of individuals with tertiary education.

A higher proportion (63.3 percent) of individuals with tertiary education was engaged in
wage, salary and commission activities compared to 5.6 percent for those with no education
(Table 6.9).

131
Table 6-9: Proportion of Individuals Aged between 15 and 64 Years Engaged in Income
Generating Activities by Type of Tasks and Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Various tasks
Wage, salary
Income Household Non-agricultural
commission or
generating agricultural or and non-fishing Casual, part time or
Background Characteristics any payment in
tasks fishing activities business ganyu labour
kind
Malawi 91.0 78.1 16.4 50.0 9.6
Place of Residence
Rural 94.8 88.3 14.7 55.7 6.7
Urban 73.5 31.2 24.3 24.0 22.8
Region
Northern 90.7 80.1 14.3 39.6 11.0
Central 90.9 76.8 16.0 53.2 8.9
Southern 91.2 78.8 17.5 50.1 9.9
Sex
Female 91.8 81.7 15.5 58.2 6.6
Male 90.7 76.9 16.7 47.4 10.6
Age group
15-24 84.4 75.6 6.3 47.2 3.6
25-34 93.5 74.1 22.8 53.2 14.0
35-49 96.7 81.2 24.9 53.2 14.6
50-64 96.1 88.4 19.3 46.2 10.1
Education
None 93.5 84.7 14.7 57.3 5.6
Primary 85.9 73.2 16.9 41.2 7.9
Secondary 85 59.2 23.1 30.5 21.8
Tertiary 86.3 28.9 18.2 11.0 63.3
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

6.12 Average Weekly Hours Worked

On average, 35.2 hours per week were spent on wage, salary and commission (not including
ganyu) activities, 24.4 hours on non-agricultural and non-fishing household business, 14.8 hours
on casual or part time or ganyu labour and 14.4 hours on household agricultural activities

Analysis by place of residence, individuals in urban areas spent 39.8 hours per week on wage,
salary and commission compared to 31.5 hours in rural areas. Individuals in rural areas spent
14.6 hours per week on household agricultural or fishing activities compared to 10.9 hours in
urban areas.

In terms of sex, males spent 35.4 hours per week on wage, salary and commission activities
compared to 34.4 hours for females (Table 6.10).

132
Across districts, individuals from Zomba City spent 45.5 hours per week on wage, salary and
commission activities followed by individuals from Lilongwe City (44.7 hours). Individuals in
Dowa spent 22.6 hours on wage, salary and commission activities followed by Nkhotakota (23.6
hours) (Annex Table 6.7)

Table 6-10: Proportion of Persons Aged between 15 and 64 Years by Tasks and Average
Weekly Hours Worked by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Average Weekly Hours
by Tasks
Household Wage, salary
agricultural or Non-agricultural and Casual, part time or commission or any
Background characteristics fishing activities non fishing business ganyu labour payment
Malawi 14.4 24.4 14.8 35.2
Place of Residence
Rural 14.6 21.3 14.2 31.5
Urban 10.9 31.5 20.1 39.8
Region
Northern 12.8 21.6 13.2 34.8
Central 15.2 25.1 14.1 36.3
Southern 14.1 24.6 16 34.4
Sex
Female 13.3 21.6 14.3 34.4
Male 14.8 25.2 15 35.4
Age Group
15-24 11.5 21.7 13.1 33.7
25-34 15 26.6 16.7 36.1
35-49 16.3 24.9 15.5 35.4
50-64 16.8 20.1 13.9 34
Education
None 14.7 22.5 14.5 32.1
Primary 13.7 24.6 14 37
Secondary 13.3 28.5 18.8 38.1
Tertiary 13.7 29.7 14.7 35
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

6.13 Domestic Activities

Individuals were asked if they collected water or firewood during the past 24 hours. They were
further asked to indicate the total time spent in collecting water and firewood. About 41 percent
of the population aged between 15 and 64 years collected water and 14.5 percent collected
firewood.

By place of residence, 43.9 percent of individuals collected water in rural areas compared to
27.5 percent in urban areas. The proportion of individuals that collected firewood in rural areas
was 17.1 percent compared to 2.5 percent in urban areas.
133
Among females, 49.5 percent collected water compared to 38.2 percent among males. The
proportion of females that collected firewood was 16.8 percent compared to 13.7 percent of
males.
Analysis by education shows that 44.9 percent of individuals with no education collected water
compared to 12.4 percent of those with tertiary education. The proportion of individuals with no
education that collected firewood was 17.2 percent compared to 2.1 percent of those with tertiary
education.

Across regions, Northern region had the highest proportion of persons (46.6 percent) that
collected water followed by 43.1 percent in Central region and 36.9 percent in Southern region.

The survey results show that among persons collecting water and firewood, 27 minutes were spent
on collecting water and 12 minutes collecting firewood. Analysis by place of residence, individuals
in rural areas spent 30 minutes on collecting water compared to15 minutes in urban areas. The
amount of time spent collecting firewood was 14 minutes in rural areas and 2 minutes in urban
areas.

Analysis by level of education shows that 30 minutes were spent to collect water among persons
with no education while 7 minutes were spent to collect water among persons with tertiary
education. The amount of time spent collecting firewood among those with no education was 14
minutes and among those with tertiary education was 1 minute (Table 6.11).

Across districts, household members in Kasungu spent 38 minutes to collect water followed by
Chitipa (35 minutes). Individual household members from Phalombe spent 21 minutes to collect
firewood while individuals from Blantyre City spent 1 minute to collect firewood (Annex Table
6.8).

134
Table 6-11: Proportion of Persons Aged between 15 and 64 Years who Collected Water and
Firewood and Average Daily Hours Worked by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Average hours spent on

Background Proportion that Proportion that Collecting
characteristics collected water collected firewood Collecting water firewood Total
Malawi 40.9 14.5 26.9 11.6 38.5
Residence
Rural 43.9 17.1 29.6 13.7 43.3
Urban 27.5 2.5 14.6 1.9 16.5
Region
Northern 46.6 14.7 27.7 10 37.7
Central 43.1 14.8 29.6 11.9 41.5
Southern 36.9 14.1 24 11.7 35.7
Sex
Female 49.5 16.8 31.5 13.4 44.9
Male 38.2 13.7 25.5 11 36.4
Age group
15-24 44.3 13.6 28.3 10.9 39.2
25-34 42.1 15.2 28.4 12 40.5
35-49 37.7 15.2 25.6 12.4 37.9
50-64 33.6 14.5 21.9 11.1 32.9
Education
None 44.9 17.2 30.2 14 44.2
Primary 38.9 11.4 24.2 8.2 32.5
Secondary 28.5 6.6 17.2 4.8 22
Tertiary 12.4 2.1 6.9 1.4 8.3
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

135
 CHAPTER 7

7. HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE AND OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS

7.0: Introduction
The survey collected data on housing characteristics such as the type of dwelling occupied by
the households, tenure status and the main construction materials of the roof, wall, and floor. The
survey further gathered data on sources of drinking water, type of toilet facilities, the type of fuel
used for lighting and cooking, means of disposal of garbage and ownership of household assets.

7.1: Type of Housing Tenure

The results show that 74.3 percent of the dwelling units were owned, 12.4 percent were rented,
10.4 percent were free authorized, and 0.8 percent were in the process of being purchased.

By place of residence, 81.8 percent of the dwelling units in rural areas were owned compared to
36.1 percent in urban areas. In urban areas 52.8 percent of the dwelling units were rented
compared to 4.5 percent in rural areas.

At regional level, 75.7 percent of the dwelling units in the Northern region were owned followed
by 74.6 percent in the Central region and 73.7 percent in Southern region.

Analysis by age of head of household shows that 89.8 percent of the dwelling units were owned
by households with household heads aged 65 years and above compared to 57.8 percent in the
age group 15-24 years (Table 7.1).

At district level, 90.9 percent of the dwelling units in Ntchisi were owned followed by Likoma
(90.3 percent) and Dowa (90.2 percent). Lilongwe City recorded the lowest proportion (29.7
percent) of households which owned a dwelling unit (Annex Table 7.1).

136
Table 7-1: Percentage Distribution of Dwelling Units by Type of Housing Tenure and
Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Being Employer Free, Free, not

Background Characteristics Owned Purchased provides authorized authorized Rented Total
Malawi 74.3 0.8 1.5 10.4 0.6 12.4 100
Place of Residence
Rural 81.8 0.6 1.5 11.0 0.6 4.5 100
Urban 36.1 1.8 1.5 7.3 0.5 52.8 100
Region
Northern 75.7 0.3 3.9 8.0 0.2 11.9 100
Central 74.6 0.4 1.4 9.1 0.7 13.7 100
Southern 73.7 1.4 0.9 12.2 0.6 11.2 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 77.5 0.7 0.3 13.6 0.7 7.3 100
Male 72.9 0.9 2.0 8.9 0.5 14.6 100
Age of Household Head
15-24 57.8 0.4 0.3 27.7 1.5 12.4 100
25-34 63.4 0.5 1.8 12.4 0.3 21.6 100
35-44 73.4 1.0 2.1 7.2 0.7 15.5 100
45-54 82.3 1.0 1.9 6.8 0.4 7.6 100
55-64 87.2 1.2 1.2 6.6 0.6 3.2 100
65+ 89.8 0.8 0.4 7.3 0.6 1.2 100
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 36.7 0.5 4.3 22.3 - 36.2 100
Married 74.8 0.9 1.7 8.9 0.5 13.2 100
Divorced/Separated 70.5 0.5 0.9 15.6 1.2 11.2 100
Widow/Widower 85.6 0.7 0.2 9.5 0.6 3.3 100
Education Level of Household Head
None 81.6 0.6 0.7 10.6 0.6 5.9 100
Primary 70.9 1.1 1.3 11.4 0.3 15.0 100
Secondary 53.8 1.3 3.8 9.5 0.6 31.0 100
Tertiary 31.4 3.4 7.8 5.4 0.8 51.3 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

7.2: Types of Dwelling Structure

Dwelling structures are classified into three major groups based on construction materials of the
roof and wall; permanent, semi-permanent and traditional.

A permanent structure is made of durable roofing materials such as iron sheets and strong walling
materials such as burned bricks.

A semi-permanent structure lacks one of the materials of the permanent structure such as having
a roof made of iron sheets with the wall made up of unburned bricks.

A traditional structure lacks both materials of the permanent structure. For example, a grass
thatched house having its walls made of unburned bricks is regarded as a traditional structure.
137
The survey results show that 45.9 percent of the main dwelling units in Malawi were permanent
structures followed by traditional structures (29.1 percent) and semi-permanent structures (25.0
percent).

Analysis by place of residence indicates that 67.3 percent of main dwelling units in urban areas
were permanent structures compared to 41.7 percent in rural areas. In rural areas, 33.8 percent
of dwelling units were traditional structures compared to 5.2 percent in urban areas.

Northern region had the highest proportion (61.0 percent) of permanent structures followed by
Southern region at 50.6 percent and Central region at 36.2 percent.

Analysis by education level of the head of households shows that 87.6 percent of permanent
dwelling units were owned by households with household heads having tertiary education
compared to 38.3 percent with no education (Table 7.2)

At district level, Mzuzu city recorded the highest proportion (83.2 percent) of permanent
structures followed by Zomba city at 81.1 percent and Karonga at 66.3 percent. Dowa recorded
the lowest proportion (28.7 percent) of permanent structures (Annex Table 7.2).

138
Table 7-2: Percentage Distribution of Dwelling Units by Type of Dwelling Structure, IHS5
2019-2020

Background Characteristics Permanent Semi-Permanent Traditional Total

Malawi 45.9 25.0 29.1 100
Place of residence
Rural 41.7 24.5 33.8 100
Urban 67.3 27.5 5.2 100
Region
Northern 61.0 26.2 12.8 100
Central 36.2 26.7 37.1 100
Southern 50.6 23.1 26.4 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 43.6 24.2 32.2 100
Male 46.9 25.3 27.8 100
Age of Household Head
15-24 26.9 24.4 48.8 100
25-34 40.5 26.1 33.3 100
35-44 50.5 24.5 25.0 100
45-54 49.7 25.7 24.6 100
55-64 53.8 23.8 22.5 100
65+ 50.3 24.2 25.5 100
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 56.4 22.6 20.9 100
Married 46.7 25.1 28.2 100
Divorced/Separated 37.8 25.7 36.4 100
Widow/Widower 48.5 23.7 27.8 100
Education Level of Household Head
None 38.3 26.3 35.4 100
Primary 51.8 25.6 22.6 100
Secondary 66.4 21.7 12.0 100
Tertiary 87.6 10.3 2.0 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

7.3: Room Occupancy

Overall, 46.0 percent of the households had two persons sharing one room followed by 28.2
percent of the households with only one person per room.

At regional level, the highest proportion (48.0 percent) of households with two persons sharing
one room was reported in the Northern region followed by Central region at 47.6 percent and
Southern region at 43.9 percent (Table 7.3).

139
At district level, Likoma recorded the highest proportion (60.2 percent) of households with two
people sharing a room followed by Kasungu at 51.4 percent and Nkhata Bay at 50.3 percent
(Annex Table 7.3).

Table 7-3: Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Persons per Room and
Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Number of persons per room
Background characteristics 1 2 3 4 and Over Total
Malawi 28.2 46.0 16.9 8.9 100
Place of Residence
Rural 27.7 46.0 17.2 9.1 100
Urban 31.0 46.0 15.3 7.7 100
Region
Northern 34.5 48.0 13.0 4.5 100
Central 22.5 47.6 18.9 11.0 100
Southern 31.8 43.9 16.2 8.1 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 36.6 41.4 15.3 6.6 100
Male 24.5 48.0 17.6 9.9 100
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 77.8 18.6 2.1 1.6 100
Married 20.1 50.7 18.8 10.4 100
Divorced/Separated 40.8 37.6 15.2 6.4 100
Widow/Widower 47.9 35.4 11.9 4.9 100
Education Level of Household Head
None 26.7 44.4 18.6 10.3 100
Primary 29.1 49.2 13.9 7.8 100

Secondary 31.1 50.9 13.3 4.7 100

Tertiary 44.7 43.5 8.9 3.0 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

7.4: Main Fuels Used for Lighting

A higher proportion (79.7 percent) of households was using dry cell battery/torches for lighting
followed by 11.2 percent that were using electricity and 3.9 percent candles.

By place of residence, a higher proportion (87.9 percent) of households in the rural areas was
using torches for lighting compared to 37.6 percent of the households in the urban areas. About
446 percent of the households in the urban areas were using electricity for lighting compared to
4.5 percent of the households in the rural areas.

140
Analysis by level of education of the head of household shows that 77.4 percent of the households
with household head having tertiary education were using electricity for lighting compared to
4.1 percent with no education (Table 7.4).

Analysing by district shows that Phalombe registered the highest proportion (93.4 percent) of
households that were using battery/dry cell torches for lighting followed by Machinga (92.6
percent) and Mangochi (90.9 percent) (Annex Table 7.4).

Table 7-4: Proportion of Households by Main Fuels Used for Lighting and Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Battery
Background Dry Cell
Characteristics Firewood Paraffin Electricity (Torch) Candles Solar Other Total
Malawi 3.1 0.4 11.2 79.7 3.9 1.2 0.6 100
Place of Residence
Rural 3.7 0.4 4.5 87.9 1.6 1.2 0.7 100
Urban 0.1 0.4 45.5 37.6 15.4 0.9 0.2 100
Region
Northern 3.5 0.0 14.9 73.3 2.8 5.1 0.4 100
Central 4.2 0.0 8.9 82.1 3.2 0.7 0.9 100
Southern 2.0 0.8 12.3 79.2 4.7 0.4 0.4 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 5.1 0.7 7.5 80.8 4.2 0.7 1.0 100
Male 2.2 0.3 12.9 79.2 3.7 1.3 0.4 100
Marital Status of household head
Never married 5.3 1.0 25.7 57.0 8.2 1.9 0.9 100
Married 2.1 0.3 12.3 80.2 3.3 1.3 0.4 100
Divorced/Separated 4.1 0.5 6.2 82.5 5.4 0.5 0.7 100
Widow/Widower 7.2 0.5 7.9 78.4 3.8 0.7 1.4 100
Education Level of household head
None 4.1 0.4 4.1 87.0 3.1 0.7 0.7 100
Primary 1.6 0.2 10.9 78.6 5.8 2.6 0.3 100
Secondary 0.6 0.5 29.5 60.7 6.2 2.2 0.3 100
Tertiary 0.2 0.0 77.4 19.1 2.6 0.9 0.0 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

7.5: Main Fuels Used for Cooking

Overall, 98.8 percent of the households were using solid fuels as the main fuel used for cooking.
A higher proportion (79.1 percent) of households was using firewood followed by 18.5 percent
that were using charcoal and 1.2 percent electricity.

By place of residence, a higher proportion (90.9 percent) of households in the rural areas was
using firewood as a fuel for cooking as compared to 18.9 percent of the households in the urban
areas. About 75 percent of the households in the urban areas were using charcoal as their main
fuel for cooking compared to 7.5 percent of the households in the rural areas.
141
Analysis by level of education, a higher proportion (88.6 percent) of the households with
household heads having no education were using firewood compared to 16.5 percent with tertiary
education (Table 7.5).

Analysis by district, Mulanje registered the highest proportion (96.1 percent) of households
which used firewood for cooking followed by Mzimba and Mchinji both at 95.1 percent (Annex
Table 7.5).

Table 7-5: Proportion of Households by Main Fuels Used for Cooking and Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Crop
residue/Saw
Background Characteristics Solid fuel Firewood Electricity Charcoal dust Other Total
Malawi 98.8 79.1 1.2 18.5 1.2 0.0 100
Place of Residence
Rural 99.8 90.9 0.2 7.5 1.3 0.0 100
Urban 93.7 18.9 6.1 74.5 0.3 0.2 100
Region
Northern 98.4 82.5 1.5 15.9 0.0 0.1 100
Central 98.9 77.9 1.1 19.7 1.2 0.0 100
Southern 98.7 79.3 1.2 18.0 1.4 0.0 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 99.3 84.7 0.7 12.9 1.8 0.0 100
Male 98.5 76.7 1.4 20.9 0.9 0.1 100
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 93.3 50.9 6.7 41.7 0.7 0.0 100
Married 98.8 78.2 1.1 19.6 1.0 0.1 100
Divorced/Separated 99.1 82.8 0.8 14.9 1.4 0.0 100
Widow/Widower 99.3 86.9 0.7 10.6 1.9 0.0 100
Education Level of Household Head
None 99.9 88.6 0.1 9.8 1.5 0.0 100
Primary 99.8 75.7 0.2 23.1 1.0 0.0 100
Secondary 97.8 52.9 2.2 44.7 0.2 0.0 100
Tertiary 74.9 16.5 24.2 58.4 0.0 0.9 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

7.6: Water and Sanitation

7.6.1: Access to Improved Water Sources
A household is considered to have access to improved drinking water source if it’s piped into the
dwelling, piped into the yard or plot, collected from a communal standpipe, a protected well in
yard or plot, protected public well, borehole, tanker truck or bowser and bottled water.
142
Overall, 88.3 percent of the households had access to improved water sources with 64.5 percent
of the households using boreholes as their main source of drinking water followed by 17.8
percent with stand pipes.

The proportion of households with access to improved water sources was higher (97.1 percent)
in urban areas than in rural areas at 86.5 percent. Stand pipes were the main source of drinking
water for the households in urban areas (64.9 percent) while boreholes were the main source of
drinking water for the rural areas (73.9 percent).

Analysis by region, 90.8 percent of households in Southern region had access to improved water
sources followed by Northern region (86.9 percent) and Southern region (86.0 percent) (Table
7.6).

At district level, Phalombe recorded the highest proportion (95.6 percent) of households with
access to improved water sources followed by Balaka (95.3 percent) and Nsanje (95.1 percent).
Likoma recorded the lowest proportion (70.1 percent) of households with access to improved
water sources (Annex Table 7.6).

143
Table 7-6: Proportion of Households with Access to Improved Water Source of Drinking
Water and Percentage Distribution of Households by Main Source and Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Water Sources
Protected
Access to Piped into well in Open well in Spring/River/
improved yard/plot/co yard/plot/ yard/plot/op Stream/Dam/
Background water Piped into mmunal public en public Pond/Lake/R
characteristics source dwelling standpipe Borehole well well ain water Other Total
Malawi 88.3 2.4 17.8 64.5 3.6 6.8 4.9 0.1 100
Place of residence
Rural 86.5 0.6 8.6 73.9 3.5 7.7 5.7 0.1 100
Urban 97.1 12.0 64.9 16.0 4.2 2.1 0.7 0.1 100
Region
Northern 86.9 3.3 21.6 58.9 3.1 4.6 8.5 0.0 100
Central 86.0 2.0 16.3 62.5 5.2 9.4 4.5 0.1 100
Southern 90.8 2.6 18.1 67.8 2.3 4.9 4.2 0.1 100
Sex of Household
Head
Female 89.3 1.7 14.9 68.9 3.8 5.7 4.9 0.0 100
Male 87.8 2.8 19.0 62.5 3.5 7.2 4.9 0.1 100
Marital Status of
Household Head
Never married 93.0 6.4 34.9 49.3 2.5 3.6 3.4 0.0 100
Married 87.8 2.4 18.0 63.6 3.8 7.2 4.9 0.1 100
Divorced/Separated 87.3 1.9 15.7 66.0 3.7 6.9 5.7 0.1 100
Widow/Widower 90.9 2.2 14.6 71.2 2.9 4.8 4.2 0.0 100
Education Level of Household
Head
None 86.6 0.4 12.0 70.7 3.6 7.7 5.6 0.1 100
Primary 88.3 1.3 21.2 60.8 5.0 6.5 5.2 0.0 100
Secondary 93.4 5.0 36.4 48.7 3.3 4.1 2.4 0.1 100
Tertiary 98.0 40.0 37.8 19.8 0.4 1.6 0.4 0.0 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

7.6.2: Access to Improved Toilet Facility

Improved sanitation (toilet) facility is defined as one that hygienically separates human excreta
from human contact. They include flush or pour flush (to piped sewer system, septic tank, and
pit latrine) ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine, pit latrine with slab and compost toilet.

Overall, 35.2 percent of the households had access to improved toilet facility. About 55 percent
of the households were using pit latrine without slab, 31.7 percent were using latrine with a slab
and 8.9 percent had no toilet facility.

144
Analysis by place of residence shows that 65.5 percent of the households in urban areas had
access to improved toilet facility compared to 29.3 percent of the households in rural areas. About
12 percent of the households in urban areas were using flush toilets compared to 0.4 percent of
the households in rural areas. The proportion of households which were using pit latrine with
slab was 52.5 percent in urban areas compared to 27.7 percent of the households in rural areas.

At regional level, 40.4 percent of the households in the Northern region were using pit latrine
with slab followed by Central region at 35.2 percent and Southern region at 26.0 percent (Table
7.7).

At district level, Lilongwe City registered the highest proportion (78.6 percent) of households
with access to improved toilet facility followed by Zomba City at 64.7 percent and Mzuzu City
at 64.0 percent. Ntchisi registered the lowest proportion of households with improved sanitation
at 7.7 percent (Annex Table 7.7).

145
Table 7-7: Proportion of Households with Access to Toilet facility and Percentage
Distribution of Households by Type of Toilet Facilities by Background Characteristics, IHS5
2019-2020
Type of toilet facility

Access to improved Flush VIP Pit latrine Pit latrine

Background characteristics toilet facility Toilet latrine with slab without slab None Other Total
Malawi 35.2 2.3 1.2 31.7 54.7 8.9 1.3 100
Place of residence
Rural 29.3 0.4 1.2 27.7 59.1 10.2 1.4 100
Urban 65.5 11.7 1.3 52.5 32.0 1.9 0.6 100
Region
Northern 43.7 2.7 0.6 40.4 46.6 9.3 0.4 100
Central 38.0 2.3 0.5 35.2 52.7 8.6 0.8 100
Southern 30.2 2.1 2.0 26.0 58.8 9.0 2.0 100
Sex of household head
Female 30.8 1.3 0.9 28.6 54.9 12.8 1.5 100
Male 37.2 2.7 1.3 33.1 54.6 7.1 1.2 100
Marital Status of household
head
Never married 46.5 7.4 0.3 38.8 47.9 5.0 0.6 100
Married 36.7 2.3 1.3 33.1 54.9 7.2 1.2 100
Divorced/Separated 30.4 1.5 0.8 28.1 53.4 14.8 1.4 100
Widow/Widower 29.5 1.8 1.1 26.5 56.4 12.4 1.7 100
Education Level of household head
None 28.5 0.3 0.9 27.3 59.2 11.0 1.3 100
Primary 38.6 1.5 1.1 35.9 53.3 6.7 1.4 100
Secondary 52.3 4.2 2.1 45.9 43.6 2.9 1.2 100
Tertiary 83.8 38.6 3.5 41.7 14.4 0.8 1.0 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

7.6.3: Use of Rubbish Disposal Facility

The results show that 59.2 percent of the households used rubbish pits as a kind of disposal
facility, 8.5 percent used public rubbish heap and 4.4 percent were burning the garbage.
However, 22.3 percent of the households did not have any rubbish disposal facility.

By place of residence, 62.2 percent of households in urban areas used rubbish pit compared to
58.6 percent in rural areas. In rural areas, 24.6 percent of the households did not have a rubbish
disposal facility compared to 10.4 percent in urban areas.

At regional level, 63.9 percent of households in the Northern region used a rubbish pit followed
by Central region at 59.5 percent and Southern regions at 57.6 percent (Table 7.8).

146
Analysing by districts, 77.7 percent) of the households in Mzuzu City used a rubbish pit followed
by Karonga at 70.4 percent and Chikwawa at 68.1 percent (Annex Table 7.8).

Table 7-8: Percentage Distribution of Households by Kind of Rubbish Disposal Facility Used
by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Type of rubbish disposal
Public rubbish
Background characteristics Rubbish bin Rubbish pit Burning heap Other None Total
Malawi 3.8 59.2 4.9 8.5 1.4 22.3 100
Place of residence
Rural 2.1 58.6 4.9 8.6 1.3 24.6 100
Urban 12.4 62.2 5.2 7.8 1.9 10.4 100
Region
Northern 8.1 63.9 0.7 2.1 1.7 23.4 100
Central 3.1 59.5 5.7 10.7 1.1 19.9 100
Southern 3.2 57.6 5.4 8.2 1.6 24.1 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 2.6 54.8 5.8 8.7 1.6 26.5 100
Male 4.3 61.1 4.5 8.4 1.3 20.4 100
Marital Status of Household Head -
Never married 8.9 55.6 6.5 7.4 0.4 21.2 100
Married 3.9 61.3 4.6 8.3 1.5 20.3 100
Divorced/Separated 3.0 53.7 6.1 9.1 1.1 27.1 100
Widow/Widower 2.4 54.6 4.8 8.8 1.6 27.8 100
Education Level of Household Head
None 2.2 56.8 4.9 9.1 1.4 25.6 100
Primary 3.7 60.5 5.6 8.1 1.6 20.4 100
Secondary 7.4 67.6 4.4 6.8 0.9 12.8 100
Tertiary 20.3 64.2 4.6 4.8 2.3 3.7 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

7.7: Household Assets

The survey collected data on ownership of durable goods and farm implements.

7.7.1: Proportion of Households Owning Durable Goods and Appliances

The results show that 37.4 percent of households owned chairs, 37.1 percent households owned
mortars, 34.6 percent owned bicycles, 31.6 percent owned beds, 26.5 percent owned tables and
24.0 percent owned radios.

By place of residence, 51.2 percent of urban households owned beds compared to 34.7 percent
of rural households. About 25 percent of urban households owned radios compared to 23.8
147
percent of rural households. Almost 39 percent of rural households owned mortars compared to
27.5 percent of urban households. The proportion of households that owned bicycles was 36.6
percent in urban areas compared to 24.6 percent in rural areas.

At regional level, 49.8 percent of households in the Northern region owned motors compared
to 39.5 percent in Southern region and 30.5 percent in the Central region. Northern region
had 57.8 percent of households that owned beds compared to 30.7 percent in Southern region
and 24.7 percent in the Central region.

Analysis by sex of household head shows that 34.9 percent of male-headed households owned
beds compared to 24.2 percent of female-headed households. The proportion of male-
headed households who owned tables was 29.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent for female-
headed households.

About 44 percent of female-headed households owned mortars compared to 34.2 percent for
male-headed households (Table 7.9).

148
Table 7-9: Proportion of Household which own Durable Goods by Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Background Air CD
Characteristics Mortar Bed Table Chair Conditioner Radio Player TV Bicycle Clock Iron Computer
Malawi 37.1 31.6 26.5 37.4 0.1 24.0 7.0 11.0 34.6 5.5 13.9 2.2
Place of
Residence
Rural 38.9 25.3 22.7 34.7 0.0 23.8 3.7 5.9 36.6 3.4 9.4 0.7
Urban 27.5 64.4 45.8 51.2 0.6 25.1 24.1 37.3 24.6 16.1 36.6 10.2
Region
Northern 49.8 57.8 35.9 51.4 0.0 25.1 12.0 18.4 33.2 8.7 17.5 2.8
Central 30.5 24.7 24.3 31.5 0.3 25.4 4.6 8.9 34.3 4 11.3 2
Southern 39.5 30.7 25.8 38.9 0.0 22.4 7.8 10.9 35.3 6 15.2 2.3
Sex of Household
Head
Female 43.5 24.2 18.6 28.8 0.0 11.9 3.6 5.9 14.6 3.1 8.5 1
Male 34.2 34.9 29.9 41.2 0.1 29.3 8.5 13.3 43.4 6.5 16.2 2.8
Education of
Household Head
None 37.0 26.4 23.9 35.7 0.1 24.0 4.5 7.3 36.1 3.6 10.6 0.9
Primary 38.5 42.8 32.5 43.9 0.0 25.9 8.7 15.1 31.7 7.7 16.8 2.7
Secondary 34.6 60.8 42.8 48.1 0.5 28.0 22.6 33.2 31.7 16.2 33.2 8.9
Tertiary 37.1 78.3 44.1 63.3 0.9 23.1 35.0 53.7 27.7 31.6 58.6 29.8

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

7.7.2: Proportion of Households Owning Agricultural Tools and Equipment

Results show that 86.9 percent of households owned hoes, 49.2 percent owned pangas and 15.6 percent
owned watering cans.
By place of residence, results show that a higher proportion of rural households ( 93.2 percent) owned
hoes compared to 54.6 percent of urban households. Rural areas had a higher proportion (50.9 percent) of
households who owned pangas compared to 40.1 percent of urban households.

At regional level, Northern region had the highest proportion of households ( 88.4 percent) who
owned hoes followed by 87.3 percent in Southern region and 85.9 percent in Central region.
Southern r egion had the highest proportion of households (52.8 percent) who owned pangas
followed by 48.0 percent in Central region and 40.1 percent in Northern region. For the kraal,
Central region had the highest proportion (10.9 percent) of households that owned a kraal
followed by 9.8 percent in Northern region and 7.4 percent in Southern region.

149
A higher proportion (88.0 percent) of female-headed households owned hoes than 86.4 percent of
male-headed households. About 55 percent of male-headed households owned pangas compared
to 36.1 percent of female-headed households (Table 7.10).

Table 7-10: Proportion of households which own agricultural tools and equipment by
background characteristics, Malawi2019/2020

Background Water
Characteristics Hoe Slasher Axe Panga Sickle Pump Can Oxcart Kraal Granary
Malawi 86.9 15.4 41.4 49.2 34.7 0.5 15.6 1.5 9.2 2.8
Place of Residence
Rural 93.2 14.8 43.7 50.9 40.0 0.5 17.4 1.7 10.7 3.3
Urban 54.6 18.1 29.5 40.1 7.5 0.3 6.3 0.3 1.8 0.3
Region
Northern 88.4 31.8 69.3 40.1 45.2 0.5 18.5 2.4 9.8 3.1
Central 85.9 14.3 38.0 48.0 31.4 0.4 18.7 2.5 10.9 4.7
Southern 87.3 11.7 36.6 52.8 34.7 0.5 11.9 0.3 7.4 0.9
Sex of Household
Head
Female 88.0 8.3 32.0 36.1 32.1 0.3 7.3 0.4 5.1 2.4
Male 86.4 18.5 45.5 54.9 35.8 0.5 19.3 2.0 11.0 3.0
Education of
Household Head
None 89.9 14.3 41.3 49.9 36.3 0.4 15.5 1.7 9.7 3.3
Primary 85.4 20.6 51.4 50.6 36.4 0.3 21.4 0.9 11.8 2.2
Secondary 72.5 23.5 41.0 46.7 23.2 1.1 14.8 2.0 6.8 1.3
Tertiary 62.5 28.6 32.7 44.0 16.7 1.8 15.8 0.6 4.3 0.7

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

150
 CHAPTER 8

8. AGRICULTURE

8.0: Introduction
The Agriculture questionnaire collected data from households which were involved in any
agricultural activity during the 2018/2019 rainy or dry seasons (Dimba) and the 2019/2020
rainy or dry seasons. This chapter presents information on households’ participation in crop
and animal husbandly and information on extension services.

In this survey, a garden is defined as a continuous piece of land that is not split by a river or
a path wide enough to fit an ox-cart or vehicle. A garden can be made up of one or more
plots.

A plot is defined as a continuous piece of land on which a unique crop or a mixture of crops
is grown under a uniform, consistent crop management system. It must have to be a
continuous piece of land and must not be split by a path of more than one metre in width.
Plot boundaries are defined according to the crops grown and the operator.

Livestock refers to all animals, birds and insects kept or reared by the agricultural holdings
mainly for agricultural purposes.

8.1: Households Engaged in Agricultural Activities

Results show that 84.7 percent of households in Malawi were engaged in agricultural
activities during IHS5 (2018/2019).

The proportion of households that owned or cultivated a plot during the rainy season was
78.7 percent, 18.4 percent owned or cultivated a plot during the dimba season, 35.2 percent
cultivated tree crops while 43.4 percent owned or kept livestock.

By place of residence, 92.8 percent of households in rural areas were engaged in agricultural
activities compared to 43.7 percent in urban areas. The proportion of households which
cultivated rainy season crops was 88.0 percent in rural areas compared to 31.2 percent in
urban areas.
151
Across regions, 58.4 percent of households in the Northern region owned livestock, 41.5
percent in the Central region and 40.9 percent in the Southern region.

By sex of household head, 88.6 percent of female-headed households were engaged in

agricultural activities compared to 82.7 percent of male-headed households. The proportion
of those who owned livestock was higher among male-headed households (45.6 percent)
than female-headed households (38.3 percent) (Table 8.1)

Table 8-1: Proportion of Households Engaged in Agricultural Activities by Type, IHS5

2019-2020
Agricultural Activities

Cultivation of
Agricultural Rain Season Cultivation of Dry Cultivation of Livestock
Background Characteristics Households Crops Season Crops Tree Crops production
Malawi 84.7 78.7 18.4 35.2 43.4
Place of Residence
Rural 92.8 88.0 21.2 39.6 48.1
Urban 43.7 31.2 3.7 12.8 19.2
Region
Northern 86.2 74.4 16.5 42.9 58.4
Central 83.5 78.8 22.6 29.9 41.5
Southern 85.5 79.9 14.9 37.9 40.9
Sex of Household Head
Female 88.6 83.6 14.3 37.5 38.3
Male 83.0 76.6 20.2 34.2 45.6
Marital Status of Household Head
Never Married 52.0 45.3 5.5 19.0 21.4
Married 83.0 76.6 20.2 34.2 45.6
Divorced/Separated 82.9 78.0 13.6 33.5 32.1
Widowed 91.9 85.7 14.5 44.1 42.2
Education of Household Head
None 87.8 82.6 19.6 36.3 44.7
Primary 83.3 76.8 20.8 36.0 48.3
Secondary 66.7 56.0 9.2 24.7 37.9
Tertiary 47.2 33.4 6.1 24.1 26.6
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS52019-2020

8.2: Garden acquisition

The survey collected information from agricultural households on how they acquired their
gardens.

152
About 56 percent of the gardens were allocated by a family member, 13.6 percent were
inherited from a family member, 9.2 percent were granted by local leaders, 8.4 percent were
rented for a short term, 5.3 percent were given by a non- household member and 3.7 percent
were purchased.

Renting a garden for a short term was a common means of acquiring a garden among
households in urban areas (15.7 percent) compared to 8.0 percent in rural areas.

Across regions, the proportion of gardens allocated through family member was 64.0
percent in the Central region, 50.1 percent in the Northern region and 49.6 percent in the
Southern region (Table 8.2).

Table 8-2: Percentage Distribution of Gardens by Means of Acquiring them, IHS5 2019-
2020

Gift from
Rent Granted by Non-
Background Allocated by a short Local Household
Characteristics family member Inherited term Leaders member Purchased Borrowed Other
Malawi 56.1 13.6 8.4 9.2 5.3 3.7 2.5 1.1
Place of Residence
Rural 57.0 13.3 8.0 9.4 5.4 3.3 2.4 1.1
Urban 40.5 19.1 15.7 5.5 2.3 10.9 4.4 1.8
Region
Northern 50.1 10.6 7.8 18.3 5.1 1.8 5.2 0.9
Central 64.0 8.4 10.0 6.0 4.5 4.2 1.8 1.0
Southern 49.6 19.9 6.9 10.0 6.1 3.6 2.6 1.3
Sex of Household Head
Female 56.7 16.5 5.8 9.9 5.3 2.3 2.5 0.9
Male 55.9 12.4 9.5 8.9 5.3 4.2 2.6 1.2
Marital Status of Household Head
Never Married 44.6 11.8 9.6 9.1 12.1 3.8 5.5 3.5
Married 57.3 11.7 9.3 8.7 5.1 3.9 2.6 1.3
Divorced/Separate 58.7 15.4 6.0 7.6 6.2 2.7 2.7 0.8
Widowed 47.2 23.8 5.2 14.1 4.3 3.1 1.8 0.5
Education of Household Head
None 56.0 13.6 8.2 9.5 6.0 3.4 2.4 1.0
Primary 54.5 16.7 9.2 7.3 4.1 3.0 3.4 1.7
Secondary 51.6 13.0 14.2 7.3 3.0 4.4 3.3 3.2
Tertiary 32.6 27.7 8.8 3.7 4.1 16.3 5.1 1.6
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

153
8.3: Average Size of Cultivated Garden
During the survey, information on plot size was collected using a hand held GPS device.
Overall, the average plot size for the cultivated plots was 1.3 acres. About 48 percent of the
plots measured 1 acre and 31.2 percent measured 1-2 acres (Table 8.3).

Table 8-3: Average Cultivated Plot Size (Acres) and Percentage Distribution of Plots by
Size (Acres), IHS5 2019-2020
Plot sizes in Acres

Background Characteristics Plot size

(Acres) 6 and above
0-1 1-2 2-4 4-6
Malawi 1.3 47.9 31.2 16.4 3.0 1.5
Place of Residence
Rural 1.3 47.4 31.6 16.4 3.1 1.5
Urban 1.3 55.5 25.1 16.0 1.9 1.6
Region
Northern 1.6 45.0 26.0 20.7 5.7 2.5
Central 1.8 39.7 33.8 20.2 3.9 2.4
Southern 0.8 56.1 30.3 11.8 1.4 0.4
Sex of household head
Female 0.9 55.7 30.4 11.9 1.3 0.8
Male 1.5 45.0 31.5 18.1 3.6 1.8
Education household head
None 1.4 46.9 31.7 16.9 3.0 1.5
Primary 1.5 44.6 33.4 16.4 2.5 3.1
Secondary 1.2 44.2 33.1 17.8 4.1 0.8
Tertiary 1.4 47.2 33.3 10.6 2.6 6.4
Marital Status of household head
Never Married 0.9 51.5 36.8 9.9 1.7 0.1
Married 1.5 45.0 45.0 31.5 18.1 3.6
Divorced/Separated 0.7 59.4 29.0 10.3 1.1 0.1
Widowed 1.0 50.3 34.5 12.3 1.5 1.5

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

8.4: Use of Labour Inputs

This section provides information on the type of labour force used in various non-harvest
agricultural activities at plot level. The labour force type included labour from household
members, hired labour and other exchanged labour that worked on a particular plot for any
non-harvest activity during the 2018/19 agriculture season.

154
Overall, 95.4 percent of the plots were worked on by female members of the households for
any non-harvest activity compared to 83.4 percent of the male members. About 32 percent
of the plots were worked on by children, 14.7 percent used exchange labour and 11.6 percent
used hired labour (Table 8.4).

Table 8-4: Proportion of Plots by Type of Labour Input Used in Various Non-harvest
Agricultural Activities, IHS5 2019-2020

Male household Female Child household Exchanged

Background Characteristics labour household labour labour Hired labour labour

Malawi 83.4 95.4 32.1 11.6 14.7

Place of Residence
Rural 83.9 95.8 32.8 10.4 14.5
Urban 72.2 88.0 18.3 35.1 18.7
Region
Northern 88.0 94.4 29.4 14.3 17.0
Central 86.4 95.2 30.2 11.1 14.7
Southern 78.8 96.1 34.7 11.2 14.1
Sex of Household Head
Female 52.5 99.6 38.4 9.1 19.3
Male 96.5 93.7 29.4 12.6 12.8
Age of Household Head
15-24 76.8 89.6 5.9 7.6 19.1
25-34 81.8 95.6 19.6 11.1 16.5
35-44 88.3 96.7 45.5 12.6 11.5
45-54 87.3 97.4 40.5 10.7 12.0
55-64 83.7 95.5 33.7 11.1 14.2
65and above 75.0 93.1 27.4 13.5 19.5
Education of Household Head
None 84.2 95.8 33.3 10.4 14.2
Primary 80.6 95.3 22.3 16.3 16.4
Secondary 83.4 89.3 26.5 22.6 17.1
Tertiary 84.7 84.0 26.7 38.1 9.7
Marital Status of Household Head
Never Married 93.2 97.3 31.1 12.2 13.2
Married 93.2 97.3 31.1 12.2 13.2
Divorced/Separated 53.8 90.1 37.0 7.8 17.0
Widowed 56.7 94.8 34.9 10.9 20.3
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

8.5: Household Farming practices

This section presents plot level information on land preparation methods used for planting,
use of farm implements, use of organic and inorganic fertilizers, use of chemicals for disease
and pest control, irrigation, cropping and intercropping systems.

155
8.5.1: Land Preparation Methods
About 90 percent of the plots were prepared using traditional ridges followed by 4.1 percent
using tied or box ridges. Minimum tillage was the least land preparation method used (0.9
percent).

Across regions, 4.8 of the plots in the Southern region were prepared using tied or box
ridges, 4.0 in the Northern region and 3.5 in the Central region (Table 8.5).

At district level, use of box ridging was high in Ntcheu (18.4 percent) and Mulanje (12.9
percent) (Annex Table 8.5).

Table 8-5: Percentage Distribution of Plots by Method of Land Preparation for Planting
on [Plot] during the 2018/2019 Rainy Season, IHS5 2019-2020

Traditional Tied or Box Planting Zero Minimum

Background Characteristics Ridging Ridging Pits Tillage Ripping Tillage Other

Malawi 90.1 4.1 2.2 1.6 0.5 0.9 0.5

Place of Residence
Rural 90.0 4.1 2.3 1.6 0.5 0.9 0.5
Urban 92.4 3.3 1.2 2.1 0.2 0.4 0.5
Region
Northern 92.8 4.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.1
Central 94.8 3.5 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0
Southern 84.5 4.8 4.1 3.0 0.7 1.9 1.1
Sex of Household Head
Female 89.2 4.2 2.4 2.1 0.6 1.0 0.5
Male 90.4 4.1 2.2 1.4 0.5 0.9 0.5
Education of Household Head

None 90.3 4.0 2.1 1.6 0.5 0.8 0.6

Primary 89.0 4.7 2.8 2.1 0.7 0.6 0.1
Secondary 89.2 4.8 2.8 2.0 0.3 0.7 0.3
Tertiary 92.5 3.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.3 0.6
Marital Status of Household Head

Never Married 94.9 2.4 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.6

Married 90.2 4.0 2.3 1.4 0.6 1.0 0.6
Divorced/Separated 89.9 4.1 2.2 2.1 0.5 0.7 0.3
Widowed 89.1 5.0 2.0 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.4
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

156
8.5.2: Farm Implements Used in Land Preparations
In terms of the implements used for preparing plots, results show that 98 percent of the plots
were prepared using a hand hoe while 1.2 percent of the plots were prepared using animal
power e.g. Animal Mould board plough, Animal Disc plough and Animal ripper.

Table 8-6: Percent of Plots by Equipment Used for Land Preparation, IHS5 2019-2020

Background Characteristics Hand Hoe Animal power Mechanical power Total

Malawi 98.8 1.2 0.0 100.0

Place of Residence
Rural 98.7 1.3 0.0 100.0
Urban 99.5 0.5 0.0 100.0

Region
Northern 92.4 7.6 0.0 100.0
Central 99.6 0.4 0.0 100.0
Southern 99.9 0.1 0.0 100.0
Sex of Household Head
Female 99.4 0.6 0.0 100.0
Male 98.5 1.5 0.0 100.0
Education of Household Head
None 99.0 0.9 0.0 100.0
Primary 97.2 2.8 0.0 100.0
Secondary 95.6 4.4 0.0 100.0
Tertiary 99.2 0.8 0.0 100.0
Marital Status of Household Head
Never Married 99.3 0.7 0.0 100.0
Married 98.5 1.5 0.0 100.0
Divorced/Separated 99.7 0.3 0.0 100.0
Widowed 99.3 0.7 0.0 100.0

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS52019-2020

8.5.3: Non Labour Input Use

Respondents were asked if they used any of the following non labour inputs on their plot
during the 2018/2019 agricultural rainy season: organic and inorganic fertilizers,
insecticides/herbicides and any irrigation system.

Results show that inorganic fertilizers were applied to 49.7 percent of the cultivated plots
while organic fertilizers were applied to 21.3 percent of the cultivated plots. Pesticides or
herbicides were applied in 5.0 percent of the cultivated plots.
157
The survey findings show that 0.8 percent of the cultivated plots were irrigated during the
2018/2019 agricultural rainy season.

Across regions, use of organic fertilizers was 27.7 percent in the Southern region, 18.2
percent in the Central region and 10.5 percent in the Northern region (Table 8.7).

Table 8-7: Proportion of Plots by Various Non Labour Input Use, IHS5 2019-2020

Background Characteristics Organic fertilizers Inorganic Fertilizers No Fertilizers Pesticides Irrigation

Malawi 21.3 49.7 42.6 5.0 0.8
Place of Residence
Rural 21.3 49.0 43.2 5.0 0.8
Urban 20.6 62.9 30.8 5.0 0.3
Region
Northern 10.5 53.9 43.3 6.4 0.7
Central 18.2 48.1 45.9 4.7 0.4
Southern 27.7 50.2 39.0 4.9 1.1
Sex of Household Head
Female 23.4 46.2 44.1 3.1 1.0
Male 20.4 51.2 41.9 5.8 0.7
Education of Household Head
None 21.4 48.5 43.7 4.7 0.6
Primary 19.8 54.1 39.1 8.1 0.9
Secondary 17.7 57.8 36.8 7.8 0.8
Tertiary 15.8 55.1 41.4 14.0 0.4
Marital Status of Household Head
Never Married 15.7 41.9 50.8 2.9 0.5
Married 20.9 51.2 41.8 5.7 0.7
Divorced/Separated 25.0 46.5 42.5 3.0 0.7
Widowed 20.4 45.4 46.1 2.8 1.5

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS52019-2020

8.5.4 Cropping systems

The survey also collected information on the type of cropping systems practiced by the
household farmers during the reference rainy season.

Results indicate that 64.8 percent of the cultivated plots had a mixed cropping system and
21.2 percent had a pure stand cropping system. The least practiced cropping system was
relay intercropping which recorded 1.6 percent of the plots.

158
About 71 percent of plots in the Southern region were under mixed intercropping system,
59.5 percent in the Central region and 52.2 percent in the Northern region.

By sex of household head, female headed households had more plots under mixed
intercropping system (70.5 percent) than male-headed households (61.9 percent) (Table
8.8).

Table 8-8: Percentage Distribution of Cultivated Plots by Type of Crop Stand, IHS5 2019-
2020
Strip Row Relay
Background Characteristics Mixed intercrop Pure stand intercrop intercrop intercrop Total

Malawi 64.8 21.2 5.7 6.8 1.6 100.0

Residence
Rural 64.8 21.0 5.7 6.8 1.7 100.0
Urban 64.0 24.6 5.4 5.5 0.6 100.0
Region
Northern 52.9 38.1 0.4 7.6 1.1 100.0
Central 59.5 32.4 4.3 1.9 1.9 100.0
Southern 70.7 10.2 7.6 10.0 1.5 100.0
Sex of Household head
Female 70.5 14.7 5.5 7.3 2.0 100.0
Male 61.9 24.4 5.7 6.5 1.4 100.0
Education of Household head
None 63.5 21.9 6.4 6.9 1.4 100.0
Primary 63.6 24.1 5.2 5.7 1.4 100.0
Secondary 61.5 25.5 5.2 6.5 1.4 100.0
Tertiary 57.9 30.8 9.3 2.0 - 100.0
Marital Status Household head
Never Married 63.4 24.0 5.3 5.8 1.5 100.0
Married 61.9 24.4 5.7 6.5 1.4 100.0
Divorced/Separated 70.4 13.5 6.1 7.9 2.1 100.0
Widowed 65.4 17.3 7.6 7.7 2.0 100.0

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

8.5.5: Intercropping
The results show that 83.4 percent of plots were intercropped, 38.2 Percent were
intercropped with 3 crops and 33.5 percent were intercropped with two or four crops.

159
Across regions, the Southern region registered the highest proportion of plots that were
intercropped (91.6 percent) compared to the Northern and Central regions at 63.5 percent
and 72.6 percent respectively (Table 8.9).

Table 8-9: Proportion of Plots Intercropped during the 2018/2019 Rainy Season and Number
of Crops Intercropped, IHS5 2019-2020
Number of crops

Background Characteristics Intercropped plots Second Crop Third Crop Fourth Crop Fifth Crop
Malawi 83.4 33.5 38.2 19.0 8.0
Residence
Rural 83.5 33.5 38.1 19.0 7.9
Urban 79.6 30.9 38.5 19.1 10.0
Region
Northern 63.5 70.7 20.5 4.8 1.0
Central 72.6 46.9 36.4 9.4 4.3
Southern 91.6 24.5 40.5 24.3 10.2
Sex of Household head
Female 88.6 29.0 37.3 22.2 10.4
Male 80.7 36.0 38.6 17.3 6.6
Education of Household Head
None 82.6 33.9 38.5 18.4 7.9
Primary 80.3 40.4 35.0 15.1 6.9
Secondary 78.2 35.4 35.1 22.3 5.5
Tertiary 79.7 20.0 40.1 23.7 14.8
Marital Status of Household Head
Never Married 83.6 38.1 35.6 17.4 6.0
Married 80.7 36.0 38.6 17.3 6.6
Divorced/Separated 89.9 30.1 35.6 23.2 9.6
Widowed 87.4 27.5 36.0 24.3 11.3

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS52019-2020

8.6: Farm Input Subsidy Programme

The survey also collected information on whether agricultural households received coupons
and how they were used.

Overall, 50.6 percent of agricultural households received input coupons.

By sex of household head, 53.9 percent of female headed households received input coupons
compared to 48.9 percent of male headed households.

In terms of marital status of household head, results show that 54.6 percent of widowed
household heads received input coupons whilst married and unmarried household heads
recorded 49.2 percent and 36.5 percent respectively.

160
Respondents who received a coupon were further asked if they redeemed a coupon for an
agricultural input. Results show that 81.2 percent of households redeemed a coupon for an
agricultural input.

By place of residence, 81.8 percent of households in rural areas redeemed a coupon

compared to 72.1 percent in urban areas.

About 28 percent of the households shared the input purchased using a coupon with a fellow
farmer.

Across regions, 34.7 percent of households in the Southern region shared an input purchased
with a coupon with a fellow farmer followed by the Central region (18.5 percent) and the
Northern region (10.6 percent).

By marital status of the household head, 37.0 percent of the heads of the households who
were divorced or separated shared an input purchased with a coupon, followed by the
widowed household heads (34.8 percent), never married (28.4 percent) and the married
household heads (23.6 percent) (Table 8.10).

161
Table 8-10: Proportion of Households which Received any Input Coupon and Use Status
of the Coupon, IHS5 2019-2020

Shared input purchased with a fellow

Background Characteristics Received coupon Redeemed coupon farmer
Malawi 50.6 81.2 27.5
Place of Residence
Rural 50.8 81.8 27.0
Urban 47.3 72.1 37.3
Region
Northern 54.5 80.8 10.6
Central 33.8 87.4 18.5
Southern 59.5 79.2 34.7
Sex of Household Head
Female 53.9 80.7 35.0
Male 48.9 81.5 23.3
Education of Household Head
None 49.6 82.1 25.2
Primary 50.1 87.8 20.6
Secondary 46.9 74.6 34.9
Tertiary 55.8 100.0 39.7
Marital Status of Household Head
Never Married 36.5 96.1 28.4
Married 49.2 81.6 23.6
Divorced/Separated 54.3 79.8 37.0

Widowed 54.6 80.1 34.8

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

8.7: Plots by Type of Maize Seed

The survey collected information from household farmers on the type of maize seed planted
during the 2018/2019 rainy season.

Results show that 53.2 percent of the plots were planted with local maize seed, 36.5 percent
with hybrid seed, 8.3 percent with recycled seed and 1.4 percent with Open Pollinated
Variety (OPV) seed.

By place of residence, 53.9 percent of the plots in rural areas were planted with local maize
compared to 42.7 percent in urban areas. Results also show that 47.9 percent of plots in
urban areas were planted with hybrid maize compared to 36.3 percent in rural areas.

162
Across regions, 62.0 percent of plots in the Southern region were planted with local maize
seed, 46.1 percent in the Central region and 43.8 percent in the Northern region.

By sex of household head, 62.8 percent of the plots cultivated by female headed households
were planted with local maize seed compared to 49.4 percent of male-headed households
(Figure 8.11).

Table 8-11: Percentage Distribution of Cultivated Plots by Maize Seed Variety, IHS5
2019-2020

Background Characteristics Local Hybrid OPV Recycled Total

Malawi 53.2 37.0 1.3 8.5 100.0
Place of Residence
Rural 53.9 36.3 1.3 8.5 100.0
Urban 42.7 47.9 1.2 8.2 100.0
Region
Northern 44.7 47.9 1.6 5.7 100.0
Central 46.9 41.7 0.8 10.6 100.0
Southern 60.8 30.2 1.7 7.3 100.0
Sex of Household Head
Female 61.4 28.8 1.5 8.3 100.0
Male 49.2 41.0 1.3 8.5 100.0
Education of Household Head
None 53.8 36.1 1.1 9.0 100.0
Primary 46.1 44.1 3.1 6.7 100.0
Secondary 44.2 46.1 1.2 8.5 100.0
Tertiary 36.1 52.0 0.4 11.4 100.0
Marital Status
Never Married 57.2 31.6 0.6 10.6 100.0
Married 49.2 41.0 1.3 8.5 100.0
Divorced/Separated 58.0 31.2 1.5 9.4 100.0
Widowed 65.8 27.4 1.1 5.7 100.0

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

8.8: Harvested Maize Storage

Respondents were asked if they had the harvested maize crop in storage at the time of the
interview. Respondents who had the harvested maize crop in storage were further asked the
main method they used to store the maize.

163
Overall, 16.2 percent of the households had the maize crop in storage. About 18 percent of
male headed households had the maize crop in storage compared to 13.3 percent of female
headed households.

About 21 percent of never married heads of households had the harvested maize crop in
storage compared to 12.5 percent for the divorced or separated (Table 8.12).

8.8.1: Storage Methods

About 96 percent of the households stored harvested maize crop in bags kept inside the
house while 0.3 percent used Chitandala inside the house (Table 8.12)

Table 8-12: Proportion of Households that had the Harvested Maize Crop in Storage by
Storage Method Used, IHS5 2019-2020
Storage methods
Harvested Heaped Un
crop in Bags in in protected Chitandala Traditional
Background Characteristics storage house house pile in house Nkhokwe Other Total
Malawi 16.2 96.2 1.8 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.1 100.0
Place of Residence
Urban 17.1 96.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 100.0
Rural 16.2 96.2 1.7 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.1 100.0
Region
Northern 21.1 97.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.2 100.0
Central 18.4 96.8 1.7 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.0 100.0
Southern 13.1 94.9 2.3 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.1 100.0
Sex of Household Head
Male 17.7 96.4 1.9 0.6 0.1 0.9 0.0 100.0
Female 13.3 95.8 1.5 0.3 0.9 1.2 0.3 100.0
Education of Household Head
None 15.3 96.7 1.3 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.1 100.0
Primary 21.9 97.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 100.0
Secondary 33.3 96.4 2.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Tertiary 33.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Marital Status of Household Head -

Never Married 21.1 95.4 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Married 17.2 96.3 1.8 0.6 0.2 1.1 0.0 100.0
Divorced/Separated 12.5 94.8 1.7 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.0 100.0
Widowed 14.7 97.0 1.5 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.7 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

8.8.2: Treatment Methods for Maize under Storage

Respondents who had the harvested maize crop in storage were asked about treatment
methods used to protect the crop from damage.

164
Results indicate that dusting was the mostly used treatment method to protect maize crop
under storage (58.6 percent) followed by use of liquid pesticides (33.9 percent). Use of
granules was the least treatment method used at 2.6 percent.

Across regions, 70.4 percent of households in the Northern region used dust to treat maize,
60.3 percent in the Central region and 52.1 percent in the Southern region (Table 8.13).

Table 8-13: Percentage Distribution of Households by Treatment Methods Used to

Protect the Harvested Maize Crop under Storage
Treatment methods

Liquid
Background Characteristics Dust Pesticides Fumigants Granules Other Total
Malawi 58.6 33.9 3.9 2.6 1.0 100.0
Place of Residence
Rural 59.2 33.9 3.2 2.6 1.1 100.0
Urban 50.7 33.9 12.2 3.2 0.0 100.0
Region
Northern 70.4 24.7 2.6 1.9 0.4 100.0
Central 60.3 29.7 3.8 4.2 2.0 100.0
Southern 52.1 41.7 4.5 1.4 0.3 100.0
Sex of Household Head
Female 59.5 36.1 2.9 0.9 0.6 100.0
Male 58.3 33.3 4.2 3.2 1.1 100.0
Education of Household Head
None 58.6 35.6 3.0 1.8 1.0 100.0
Primary 70.4 26.5 0.0 2.4 0.7 100.0
Secondary 71.6 15.8 8.3 4.2 0.0 100.0
Tertiary 24.3 25.1 0.0 50.6 0.0 100.0
Marital Status of Household Head
Never Married 42.4 40.8 8.3 8.5 0.0 100.0
Married 58.3 33.3 4.2 3.2 1.1 100.0
Divorced/Separated 58.1 37.0 3.9 0.0 1.0 100.0
Widowed 54.2 40.8 0.6 1.9 2.5 100.0

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

8.9: Cultivation of Tree Crops

Results indicate that 37.3 percent of the plots were planted with mango trees, 11.4 percent
with cassava and 11.6 percent with bananas (Table 8.14).

165
Table 8-14: Percentage Distribution of Plots Planted with Trees by Type, IHS5 2019-
2020

Other Folder/Fertilizer Tea& Other

Background Characteristics Mango Fruits Cassava Banana and fuel wood Coffee trees Total
Malawi 37.3 25.6 18.4 11.6 2.0 0.4 4.7 100.0
Residence
Rural 37.6 24.2 19.2 11.9 2.0 0.4 4.6 100.0
Urban 32.7 45.6 7.0 6.2 1.9 0.1 6.6 100.0
Region
Northern 26.1 21.1 29.8 18.9 0.4 1.3 2.3 100.0
Central 45.0 18.9 7.3 15.3 2.6 0.0 10.9 100.0
Southern 36.0 30.8 21.6 7.2 2.2 0.4 1.8 100.0
Sex of Household Head
Female 38.8 26.6 20.0 9.4 1.8 0.2 3.2 100.0
Male 36.6 25.1 17.6 12.6 2.1 0.5 5.4 100.0
Education of Household Head
None 38.5 24.2 17.9 12.3 1.9 0.4 4.7 100.0
Primary 33.5 24.8 18.6 15.7 3.6 1.3 2.5 100.0
Secondary 33.9 29.6 15.1 9.3 2.4 0.2 9.5 100.0
Tertiary 42.3 36.9 9.2 6.5 0.0 0.0 5.1 100.0
Marital Status of Household Head
Never Married 43.7 20.3 23.4 4.9 2.6 0.9 4.3 100.0
Married 36.9 24.3 18.3 12.5 2.3 0.4 5.2 100.0
Divorced/Separated 38.5 29.0 18.0 9.2 1.4 0.3 3.7 100.0
Widowed 37.6 28.3 18.8 10.4 1.2 0.4 3.3 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS52019-2020

8.10: Livestock production

The survey collected data from agricultural households on livestock owned or raised by the
households during a 12-month period preceding the interview.

This section presents findings on the core livestock types: cattle, goats, pigs, sheep and
chickens.

Results indicate that 55.1 percent of the households had chickens, 21.4 percent had goats,
8.5 percent had pigs and 7.3 percent kept cattle.

By place of residence, 63.6 percent of households in urban areas raised chickens compared
to 54.8 percent in rural areas.

About 62 percent of female headed households kept chickens compared to 52.9 percent of
male headed households (Table 8.15).

166
Table 8-15: Percentage Distribution of Households by Types of Livestock, IHS5 2019-
2020

Other
Background Characteristics Cattle Goats Sheep Pigs Chickens poultry Total
Malawi 7.3 21.4 0.3 8.5 55.1 7.3 100.0
Place of Residence
Rural 7.3 21.7 0.3 8.6 54.8 7.3 100.0
Urban 7.1 13.5 0.1 7.5 63.6 8.2 100.0
Region
Northern 14.3 13.8 0.1 12.6 54.1 5.1 100.0
Central 7.1 24.2 0.6 10.3 52.1 5.8 100.0

Southern 5.3 21.6 0.1 5.9 57.8 9.2 100.0

Sex of Household Head
Female 4.4 21.5 0.1 5.9 61.6 6.6 100.0
Male 8.3 21.4 0.4 9.4 52.9 7.6 100.0
Education of Household Head
None 7.4 22.3 0.3 8.4 53.9 7.7 100.0
Primary 8.1 14.7 0.5 13.6 55.1 8.0 100.0
Secondary 5.8 18.3 0.0 10.6 60.4 4.8 100.0
Tertiary 14.6 12.2 0.1 4.5 62.5 6.0 100.0
Marital Status of Household Head
Never Married 6.0 29.2 0.0 8.1 44.2 12.4 100.0
Married 8.3 21.4 0.4 9.3 52.8 7.8 100.0
Divorced/Separated 3.2 20.0 0.1 4.9 67.7 4.1 100.0
Widowed 3.6 22.7 0.1 6.1 61.2 6.3 100.0

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS52019-2020

8.11: Extension Services

Extension services are a means of transferring agricultural knowledge to people through
informal education processes. This section presents information on households’ access to
extension services during the 2018/2019 rainy season.

Results show that 13.9 percent of the households received advice on composting, 11.5 on
new seed varieties, 9.3 percent on fertiliser use, 7.8 percent on irrigation and 7.5 percent on
pest control (Table 8.10A).

167
Table 8-16: Proportion of Households by Various Extension Services Received, IHS5
2019-2020
General Animal
New Seed Fertilizer Pest Animal Diseases/ Pit
Background Characteristics Composting Varieties use Irrigation Control Care Vaccination Planting
Malawi 13.9 11.5 9.3 7.8 7.5 6.4 5.8 5.6
Place of Residence
Rural 14.2 11.3 9.3 7.6 7.5 6.4 5.7 5.7
Urban 11.0 14.0 9.3 10.2 7.6 6.5 7.1 4.1
Region
Northern 9.6 13.0 9.9 8.0 8.9 7.2 7.5 5.7
Central 13.5 8.2 8.2 7.5 6.7 6.2 5.7 5.5
Southern 16.3 15.4 10.4 8.2 8.0 6.4 5.3 5.6
Sex of Household head
Female 15.6 12.6 9.2 7.8 7.2 5.9 5.2 5.3
Male 13.4 11.1 9.3 7.8 7.6 6.6 6.0 5.7
Education of Household head
None 14.8 11.8 9.1 7.6 7.4 6.2 5.6 5.6
Primary 10.3 11.9 10.7 8.4 9.0 7.1 6.4 5.4
Secondary 11.3 12.4 10.6 8.6 7.6 8.2 6.8 5.3
Tertiary 11.2 13.0 9.9 7.5 8.1 6.0 7.1 5.4
Marital Status of Household head
Never Married 16.4 12.1 10.0 9.9 8.8 6.2 5.0 4.9
Married 13.4 11.1 9.3 7.8 7.6 6.6 6.0 5.7
Divorced/Separated 15.8 11.1 9.2 7.9 6.8 5.7 5.1 5.8
Widowed 16.0 13.2 9.5 7.4 7.3 5.8 5.3 5.3
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS52019-2020

Table 8.16: Proportion of Households by Various Extension Services Received, IHS5

2019-2020 Continued
Growing/ Marketing
Agro- Selling Access to /Crop Fishery Contract
Background Characteristics forestry Forestry Tobacco Credit Sales Producti on Farming Other
Malawi 5.5 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.4 3.1 2.9 2.2
Place of Residence
Rural 5.5 4.8 4.8 4.5 4.4 3.1 3 2.3
Urban 5.1 5.1 4 4.2 4.6 3.3 2.3 1.5
Region
Northern 6.3 3.3 5.5 3.9 3.5 3 2.5 2.3
Central 6 5.2 6 5.5 5.4 3.9 3.8 2.7
Southern 4.6 5 2.7 3.3 3.4 2.1 1.9 1.5
Sex of Household head
Female 7.8 4.7 3.8 4.4 4.3 2.9 5.3 2.6
Male 7.8 4.9 5.0 4.5 4.4 3.2 5.7 2.1
None 5.4 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.4 3.1 3 2.1
Primary 5.7 4.9 4.4 4.4 4.3 2.8 2.1 2.2
Secondary 5.2 4.7 5.0 4.2 3.7 2.4 2.3 1.6
Tertiary 4.1 4.6 4.9 5.2 5 4 3 1.1
Marital Status of Household head
Never Married 4.9 4.2 4.5 3.4 3.6 2.5 2 1.6
Married 5.5 4.9 5.0 4.5 4.4 3.2 2.9 2.1
Divorced/Separated 5.5 4.8 4.0 4.9 4.5 3.2 3.1 2.5
Widowed 5.3 5.1 3.9 4.2 4.3 2.6 2.7 2.1
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS52019-2020
168
 CHAPTER 9

9. WELFARE
9.0: Introduction
Welfare is defined as availability of resources and presence of conditions required for
reasonably comfortable, healthy, and secure living. This chapter highlights the general
welfare indicators of the household, measured by the household’s subjective assessment of
well-being.

9.1: Food Adequacy

Overall, 63.5 percent of the households felt they had inadequate food in the last 30 days
prior to the survey, 36.5 percent felt they had adequate food.

By place of residence, 67.8 of households in rural areas reported to have inadequate food
compared to 41.4 percent in urban areas.

Across regions, 66.6 percent in the Southern region reported to have inadequate food
followed by the Central region (65.1 percent) and the Northern region (47.7 percent).

At district level, 77.7 percent of households in Machinga felt they had inadequate food
followed by Chikwawa at 77.6 percent and Phalombe at 75.6 percent (Table 9.1).

9.2: Housing Adequacy

Overall, 52.1 percent of the households felt they had inadequate housing and 47.9 percent
felt they had adequate housing.

In rural areas, 54.8 percent of the households felt they had inadequate housing compared to
38.3 percent in urban areas.

169
At regional level, 53.8 percent of households in the Central region felt they had inadequate
housing followed by the Southern and the Northern regions at 52.9 percent and 43.8 percent,
respectively.

At district level, 64.7 percent of households in Mwanza felt they had inadequate housing
followed by Machinga at 63.9 percent and Neno at 60.2 percent (Table 9.1).

9.3: Health Care Adequacy

Nationally, 52.3 percent of the households felt that they had inadequate health care.

By place of residence, 55.9 percent of households in rural areas felt they had inadequate
health care compared to 34.4 percent in urban areas.

Across regions, 55.8 percent of households in the Central region felt they had inadequate
health care followed by the Southern region (51.0 percent) and the Northern region at (45.9
percent) (Table 9.1).

At district level, 64.6 percent of households in Chikwawa felt they had inadequate health
care, Nsanje at 62.1 percent and Nkhata Bay at 61.3 percent (Annex Table 9.1).

170
Table 9-1: Proportion of Households by Adequacy of Food, Housing and Health Care by
Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Food Security Housing Health Care
Background characteristics Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate
Malawi 63.5 36.5 52.1 47.9 52.3 47.7
Place of residence
Rural 67.8 32.2 54.8 45.2 55.9 44.1
Urban 41.4 58.6 38.3 61.7 34.4 65.6
Region
Northern 47.7 52.3 43.8 56.2 45.9 54.1
Central 65.1 34.9 53.8 46.2 55.8 44.2
Southern 66.6 33.4 52.9 47.1 51.0 49.0
Sex of Household Head
Female 71.1 28.9 54.8 45.2 57.2 42.8
Male 60.1 39.9 50.9 49.1 50.2 49.8
Age of Household Head
15-24 64.3 35.7 53.7 46.3 52.8 47.2
25-34 60.0 40.0 51.6 48.4 49.1 50.9
35-44 63.1 36.9 51.0 49.0 50.1 49.9
45-54 65.5 34.5 56.1 43.9 54.2 45.8
55-64 62.8 37.2 50.1 49.9 53.1 46.9
65+ 69.1 30.9 50.1 49.1 59.9 40.1
Marital Status of Household
Head
Never married 43.8 56.2 35.3 64.7 41.8 58.2
Married 61.6 38.4 51.6 48.4 50.6 49.4
Divorced/Separated 71.2 28.8 56.5 43.5 57.3 42.7
Widow/Widower 69.8 30.2 53.7 46.3 58.8 41.2
Education Level of Household
Head
None 70.7 29.3 57.5 42.5 57.0 43.0
Primary 58.1 41.9 46.7 53.3 48.9 51.1
Secondary 45.1 54.9 38.3 61.7 40.9 59.1
Tertiary 17.5 82.5 22.9 77.1 20.3 79.7
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

9.4: Assessment on Current Economic Well-Being

The examination of perceived economic wellbeing of households employed three methods
(personal, friends and neighbours) of assessment each having six categories. Respondents
were asked to consider a photo of a ladder with six steps. The first step stood for the extremely
poor and the sixth and highest represented the richest. In the analysis of data for personal
assessment, the categories were reduced to four categories with the lowest category being
very poor (step 1), followed by poor (step 2), average (steps 3 and 4) and rich (steps 5 and 6).
171
On assessment of the household against their neighbours and friends, the categories were
broken down into three. The categories are whether the household placed themselves on the
same, lower or higher level against their neighbours or friends.

9.4.1: Self-Assessment on Current Economic Well-Being

About 77 percent of the households perceived themselves to be poor, 36.6 percent very poor
and 5.7 rich.

In rural areas, 40.7 percent of the households in rural areas perceived themselves to be very
poor compared to 15.9 percent of the households in urban areas.

In terms of regions, 37.9 percent of households in the Southern region perceived themselves
to be very poor followed by 35.8 percent in the Central and 34.6 percent in the Northern
regions.

About 47 percent of female headed households perceived themselves to be very poor

compared to 32.1 percent of male headed households.

At district level, 53.0 percent of households in Phalombe perceived themselves to be very

poor followed by 52.7 percent in Mchinji and 48.6 percent in Karonga (Annex Table 9.2).

9.4.2: Assessment of Own Welfare against Neighbours

In comparison with their neighbours, 43.9 percent of households perceived themselves to be

on the same level while 41.4 percent perceived themselves to be on a higher level compared
to their neighbours.

By place of residence, 43.4 percent of the households in urban areas felt to be on a higher
level than their neighbours compared to 40.9 percent in rural areas.

In terms of regions, 46.6 percent of households in the Northern region felt to be on the higher
level than their neighbours followed by the Southern and the Central regions at 43.9 percent
and 37.0 percent, respectively.

Analysis by sex of household heads shows that 48.5 percent of female headed households felt
to be on a higher level than their neighbours compared to 38.2 percent of male headed
172
households.

At district level, 61.9 percent of the households in Likoma felt to be on a higher level than
their neighbours followed by 60.3 percent in Karonga and 51.1 percent in Mzuzu City
(Annex Table 9.2).

9.4.3: Assessment against Friends

In comparison with friends, 49.4 percent of the households in Malawi felt they were just on
the same level as their friends with 38.2 percent feeling that they were on a higher level
compared to their friends.

About 51 percent of households in the Central region felt they were on the same level as their
friends followed by the Southern region (48.4 percent) and the Northern region (46.8 percent).

The proportion of male headed households that felt to be on the same level as their friends
was higher at 50.0 percent than 48.1 percent of their female counterparts.

At district level, 61.0 percent of the households in Neno felt to be on the same level as their
friends followed by Salima (57.6 percent) and Phalombe (55.8 percent) (Annex Table 9.2).

173
Table 9-2: Percentage Distribution of Households Perceived Current Economic Well-
being by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Self-Assessment Against Neighbours Against Friends
Background Characteristics Very Poor Poor Average Rich Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher
Malawi 36.6 39.9 17.8 5.7 14.7 43.9 41.4 12.4 49.4 38.2
Place of Residence
Rural 40.7 40.1 15.3 3.9 14.8 44.2 40.9 12.2 49.5 38.3
Urban 15.9 38.5 31.0 14.6 14.3 42.1 43.6 13.3 49.3 37.4
Region
Northern 34.6 41.1 19.5 4.8 12.7 40.7 46.6 11.8 46.8 41.4
Central 35.8 40.8 18.0 5.4 14.6 48.4 37.0 12.2 51.4 36.5
Southern 37.9 38.6 17.3 6.2 15.4 40.6 43.9 12.8 48.4 38.8
Sex of Household Head
Female 46.8 36.2 13.4 3.6 11.0 40.5 48.5 10.3 48.1 41.6
Male 32.1 41.5 19.8 6.6 16.4 45.4 38.2 13.3 50.0 36.6
Age of Household
Head
15-24 44.0 38.9 14.9 2.2 9.7 45.1 45.2 9.1 49.8 41.2
25-34 32.3 43.3 18.3 6.1 14.4 45.7 39.9 12.4 51.8 35.9
35-44 31.3 41.2 20.7 6.7 15.8 42.9 41.3 12.9 48.7 38.4
45-54 37.1 37.4 19.0 6.5 16.5 42.7 40.8 13.5 46.9 39.6
55-64 36.0 42.4 15.3 6.2 17.3 45.4 37.3 13.9 49.3 36.8
65+ 50.2 31.9 14.0 3.9 12.8 41.6 45.6 11.4 49.1 39.5
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 29.1 39.0 23.8 8.2 12.0 45.9 42.1 10.3 52.7 37.1
Married 32.4 41.7 19.5 6.5 16.7 45.3 38.0 13.8 49.9 36.4
Divorced/Separated 46.2 37.3 13.2 3.3 10.1 39.4 50.4 9.4 48.8 41.8
Widow/Widower 51.1 32.8 12.7 3.3 9.8 40.8 49.3 8.8 46.8 44.4
Education Level of Household Head
None 44.5 39.5 13.0 2.9 12.3 43.4 44.3 10.4 49.3 40.3
Primary 27.8 47.1 18.9 6.2 17.0 43.2 39.7 14.2 46.9 38.9

Secondary 15.0 40.9 32.8 11.3 21.6 44.0 34.4 18.4 50.3 31.4
Tertiary 4.0 16.0 43.4 36.6 24.9 56.7 18.4 19.6 57.8 22.6
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

9.5: Adequacy of Households’ Current Income

Overall, 41.5 percent of the households reported that their current income only met their
expenses and 19.2 percent reported that their income was not sufficient so they needed to
use savings. About 6 percent of the households reported that their current income allowed
them to build savings.

174
By place of residence, 42.0 percent of the households in rural areas reported that their
current income only met their expenses compared to 38.5 percent in urban areas.

At regional level, 42.5 percent of households in the Southern region reported that their
current income only met their expenses followed by40.9 percent in the Central region and
39.6 percent in the Northern region (Table 9.3).

At district level, Thyolo registered the highest proportion (56.9 percent) of households
which reported that their current income only met their expenses followed by Zomba rural
and Blantyre rural at 56.1 percent and 55.7 percent, respectively (Annex Table 9.3).

Table 9-3: Percentage Distribution of Perceived Adequacy of Households’ Current

Income by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Income allows Income only Income not Income really

Income allows to save just a just meets sufficient so need not sufficient so
Background Characteristics to build savings little the expenses to use savings need to borrow Total
Malawi 5.8 14.8 41.5 19.2 18.7 100
Place of Residence
Rural 4.2 13.0 42.0 20.8 20.0 100
Urban 14.2 24.5 38.5 11.1 11.8 100
Region
Northern 6.2 19.1 39.6 18.1 17.1 100
Central 5.6 13.6 40.9 17.2 22.6 100
Southern 5.9 14.8 42.5 21.3 15.5 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 3.7 12.4 41.3 20.9 21.7 100
Male 6.8 15.9 41.5 18.4 17.4 100
Marital Status of Household
Head
Never married 8.2 22.3 39.3 15.1 15.1 100
Married 6.4 15.7 41.6 18.6 17.7 100
Divorced/Separated 3.8 12.7 41.4 20.3 21.9 100
Widow/Widower 4.2 10.7 41.3 22.5 21.3 100
Education Level of Household Head
None 3.5 12.0 42.2 21.3 20.9 100
Primary 5.5 17.6 42.9 17.8 16.2 100
Secondary 11.4 22.2 40.1 13.0 13.3 100
Tertiary 29.6 29.5 26.0 9.4 5.5 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

9.6: Welfare in terms of Changes of Clothing and Types of Sleeping Materials

The survey collected data on the number of clothing owned by household heads. Men were
175
asked about the number of trousers owned and for women number of dresses or skirts.

9.6.1: Adequacy of Clothing

At national level, 89.3 percent of the heads of households had at least three changes of
clothes.
By place of residence, 97.9 percent of the heads of households in urban areas had at least
three changes of clothes compared to 87.6 percent in rural areas.
At regional level, 89.9 percent of heads of households in the Southern region had at least
three changes of clothes followed by 89.3 percent in the Central region and 87.2 percent in
the Northern region.
Analysis by sex of heads of households shows that 90.6 percent of male heads of households
had at least three changes of clothes compared to 86.2 percent of the female heads of
households.
At district level, 99.0 percent of heads of households in Blantyre City had at least three
changes of clothes followed by 98.0 percent in Lilongwe City. Phalombe district registered
the lowest proportion (79.2 percent) of heads of households with at least three changes of
clothes (Annex Table 9.4).

9.6.2: Adequacy of Sleeping on Materials

Overall, 58.3 percent of the heads of households slept on mats on the floor, followed by
23.0 percent that slept on mattresses on a bed.

By place of residence, 64.8 percent of the heads of households in rural areas slept on mats
on the floor compared to 25.2 percent in urban areas. About 58 percent of the heads of
households in the urban areas slept on mattresses on a bed compared to 16.2 percent in rural
areas.

Across regions, the Central region reported the highest proportion (64.4 percent) of heads
of households that slept on mats on the floor followed by 59.9 percent in the Southern region
and 33.2 percent in the Northern region (Table 9.4).

About 77 percent of the households in Dowa, Phalombe and Chikwawa reported that their
heads of households that slept on mats on the floor (Annex Table 9.4).

176
Table 9-4: Proportion of Household Heads with At Least Three Changes of Clothes and
Sleeping Materials Used by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Head had at Sleeping materials
least three
changes of Mat on Mattress Mattress Cloth/sack
Background Characteristics Clothes floor on bed on floor Mat on bed Bed only on floor Other Total
Malawi 89.3 58.3 23.0 7.7 6.7 0.9 3.0 0.4 100
Place of residence
Rural 87.6 64.8 16.2 7.2 7.2 0.8 3.5 0.5 100
Urban 97.9 25.2 57.8 10.4 4.6 1.4 0.6 0.0 100
Region
Northern 87.2 33.2 42.0 8.7 12.6 1.0 1.7 0.8 100
Central 89.3 64.4 18.9 8.2 4.2 0.9 3.1 0.4 100
Southern 89.9 59.9 21.4 7.0 7.5 0.8 3.3 0.2 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 86.2 63.2 16.4 7.6 5.9 0.9 5.6 0.4 100
Male 90.6 56.2 26.0 7.7 7.1 0.9 1.8 0.3 100
Age of Household Head
15-24 90.4 70.7 10.4 9.6 5.1 0.7 2.7 0.8 100
25-34 91.9 61.2 20.4 9.4 5.7 0.8 2.2 0.3 100
35-44 91.8 53.6 28.6 7.6 6.7 0.9 2.5 0.2 100
45-54 88.3 55.5 25.9 6.5 7.6 0.7 3.3 0.4 100
55-64 86.9 55.9 26.7 5.7 7.3 1.1 3.1 0.3 100
65+ 81.5 58.1 20.1 6.2 8.5 1.2 5.3 0.4 100
Marital Status of Household
Head
Never married 93.8 48.2 35.5 8.2 4.0 1.6 2.5 0.0 100
Married 90.4 56.8 25.1 7.8 7.3 0.8 1.8 0.3 100
Divorced/Separated 88.8 64.9 13.9 9.0 4.8 1.1 5.7 0.7 100
Widow/Widower 82.3 61.4 18.8 5.3 6.2 1.0 6.6 0.6 100
Education Level of Household
Head -
None 88.4 68.2 12.9 6.8 6.9 0.9 4.0 0.4 100
Primary 92.5 51.1 27.0 10.1 9.2 1.1 1.5 0.0 100
Secondary 94.8 31.5 51.3 10.6 5.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 100
Tertiary 97.8 4.6 88.2 4.8 1.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

9.6.3: Sleeping Materials Used in Cold Season

Overall, 64.3 percent of heads of households slept under blankets only during cold season
while 20.5 percent slept under blankets and bed sheets.

In rural areas 67.9 percent of heads of households slept under blankets only during cold
season compared to 46.0 percent in urban areas. About 47 percent heads of households in

177
urban slept under blankets and bed sheets during cold season compared to 15.3 percent in
rural areas.

By region, Southern region registered the highest proportion (66.3 percent) of heads of
households that slept under blankets only during cold season followed by 63.7 percent in the
Central region and 59.7 percent in the Northern region (Table 9.5).

By sex, 22.9 percent of male heads of households slept under blankets and bed sheets
compared to 14.9 percent of female heads of households.

At district level, Machinga registered the highest proportion (77.9 percent) of heads of
households slept under blankets only during cold season (Annex Table 9.5).

Table 9-5: Percentage Distribution of Households by Sleeping Materials for the Head of
Household during Cold Season and Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Blankets & Blankets Chitenje

Background characteristics sheets only Sheets only cloth Nothing Other Total
Malawi 20.5 64.3 9.7 5.1 0.1 0.4 100
Place of residence
Rural 15.3 67.9 10.4 6.0 0.1 0.3 100
Urban 46.7 46.0 6.2 0.4 0.0 0.7 100
Region
Northern 31.4 59.7 7.2 1.2 0.1 0.4 100
Central 20.4 63.7 10.1 5.4 0.1 0.4 100
Southern 17.4 66.3 10.0 5.8 0.1 0.4 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 14.9 63.3 11.9 9.2 0.2 0.5 100
Male 22.9 64.8 8.7 3.2 0.0 0.4 100
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 34.4 51.0 8.0 5.6 0.2 0.8 100
Married 22.0 65.5 8.7 3.4 0.0 0.3 100
Divorced/Separated 14.3 63.5 14.4 7.3 0.1 0.5 100
Widow/Widower 15.7 61.7 9.9 11.5 0.4 0.7 100
Education Level of Household Head
None 13.2 68.6 11.0 6.7 0.1 0.4 100
Primary 24.9 61.8 10.3 2.6 0.0 0.4 100
Secondary 39.5 54.1 5.4 0.5 0.0 0.4 100
Tertiary 66.6 31.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

178
9.6.4: Sleeping Materials used in Hot Season
At National level, 42.9 percent of heads of households slept under sheets only during hot
season followed by 21.4 percent that slept under blankets only.

About 69 percent of the heads of households in urban areas slept under sheets only during
hot season compared to 37.8 percent in rural areas.

Across regions, Northern region registered the highest proportion (50.6 percent) of heads of
households that slept under sheets only during hot season followed by 42.4 percent in the
Central region and 41.2 percent in the Southern region (Table 9.6).

Analysis by district level, Karonga registered the highest proportion (73.8 percent) of heads
of households that slept under sheets only during hot season followed by 73.3 percent in
Blantyre City and 70.6 percent in Zomba City (Annex Table 9.6).

179
Table 9-6: Proportion of Households by Sleeping Materials for the Head of Household
during Hot Season and Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Blankets & Blankets Chitenje

Background Characteristics sheets only Sheets only cloth Nothing Other Total
Malawi 3.2 21.4 42.9 23.5 8.3 0.8 100
Place of Residence
Rural 3.0 22.4 37.8 27.0 9.1 0.7 100
Urban 3.8 15.9 69.4 5.3 4.3 1.3 100
Region
Northern 9.4 26.2 50.6 10.0 2.8 1.0 100
Central 3.7 24.7 42.4 24.4 4.1 0.6 100
Southern 0.9 16.9 41.2 26.5 13.7 0.9 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 2.0 20.2 35.6 32.8 8.5 0.9 100
Male 3.7 21.9 46.2 19.3 8.2 0.8 100
Age of Household Head
15-24 2.3 27.1 37.5 20.9 11.0 1.2 100
25-34 3.4 23.1 44.7 19.1 9.0 0.8 100
35-44 3.2 19.9 47.2 21.6 7.4 0.7 100
45-54 3.0 17.9 45.0 25.4 7.8 1.0 100
55-64 3.4 19.7 43.3 26.7 6.4 0.5 100
65+ 3.2 21.9 32.4 33.0 8.6 1.0 100
Marital Status of Household
Head
Never married 4.8 23.5 49.6 12.2 8.7 1.2 100
Married 3.5 21.2 45.5 20.6 8.5 0.7 100
Divorced/Separated 1.8 22.2 36.8 29.8 8.1 1.2 100
Widow/Widower 2.3 20.7 34.0 35.4 6.9 0.8 100
Education Level of Household Head
None 2.4 22.5 35.7 29.1 9.5 0.7 100
Primary 3.5 22.4 49.1 16.6 7.4 0.9 100
Secondary 5.6 17.9 62.5 8.5 4.6 0.9 100
Tertiary 5.7 9.3 79.8 0.6 3.0 1.5 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

9.7. Shocks and Mitigation Measures

9.7.1: Households Affected by Shocks
Nationally, 58.9 percent of the households were affected by unusual high prices of food in
the markets, 46.5 percent by unusual high cost of agricultural inputs and 45.6 percent by
irregular rains.
By place of residence, 60.9 percent of the households in rural areas were affected by unusual
high prices of food in the markets compared to 48.7 percent in urban areas. About 52 percent
180
of the households in rural areas were affected by unusual high cost of agricultural inputs
compared to 17.8 percent in urban areas.
At regional level, 63.3 percent of the households in the Southern region were affected by
unusual high prices of food in the markets followed by 60.7 percent in the Central region and
37.4 percent in the Northern region.
Sixty percent of the female headed households were affected by unusual high prices of food
compared to 58.4 percent of the male headed households (Table 9.7).

Table 9-7: Proportion of Households Affected by Shocks during the Last 12 Months by
Location, Sex and Region, IHS5 2019-2020
Place of Residence Region Sex
SHOCKS Malawi Urban Rural Northern Central Southern Male Female
Unusually High Prices for Food 58.9 48.7 60.9 37.4 60.7 63.3 58.4 60.0
Unusually High Costs of Agricultural Input 46.5 17.8 52.1 32.5 52.0 45.4 45.4 49.1
Irregular Rains 45.6 22.3 50.1 23.7 42.8 54.4 44.0 49.3
Unusually High Level of Crop Pests or Diseases 42.9 14.4 48.4 22.3 40.2 51.2 41.4 46.2
Drought 31.1 14.4 34.3 14.0 25.2 41.4 29.9 33.7
Floods 27.6 10.0 31.0 12.7 16.4 42.1 26.2 30.6
Unusually Low Prices for Agricultural Output 23.5 6.0 26.9 10.5 32.3 18.9 25.0 19.9
Unusually High Level of Livestock Diseases 17.3 6.0 19.5 16.8 16.8 17.9 18.1 15.6
Serious Illness or Accident of Household 15.7 14.1 16.0 18.1 16.8 14.0 15.5 16.1
Theft of Money/Valuables/Assets/Agriculture 11.0 11.6 10.9 9.9 13.2 9.3 11.4 10.1
Death of Other Household Member(s) 8.4 10.4 8.0 7.7 9.9 7.1 7.7 9.8
Break-Up of Household 8.0 6.5 8.2 3.3 9.7 7.7 5.1 14.5
Reduction in the Earnings from Household 7.1 8.9 6.7 3.8 7.5 7.6 7.3 6.5
Household (Non-Agricultural) Business 6.9 8.6 6.5 5.6 7.7 6.5 7.0 6.5
End of Regular Assistance/Aid/Remittance 6.8 5.2 7.1 2.8 6.5 8.2 6.2 8.2
Conflict/Violence 6.5 6.2 6.6 5.7 8.2 5.1 6.1 7.4
Death of Income Earner(s) 6.3 3.8 6.8 3.4 6.1 7.3 4.6 10.3
Birth in the Household 6.3 5.4 6.5 3.2 7.2 6.3 6.4 6.2
Landslides 5.3 3.2 5.8 1.3 4.1 7.7 5.1 5.9
Loss of Employment of Previously Salaries 4.5 6.2 4.1 2.3 5.8 3.8 4.7 4.0
Earthquakes 3.9 2.8 4.1 1.4 3.5 4.9 3.4 4.8
Reduction in the Earnings of Currently Salary 3.4 3.8 3.4 1.2 4.7 2.9 3.4 3.4
Other 4.1 3.1 4.3 3.0 5.3 3.2 3.9 4.5
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

9.7.2: Number Shocks Experienced by Households

The results show that the highest proportion (46.9 percent) of the households experienced
more than three shocks in the last 12 months preceding the interviews, 14.8 percent
181
experienced three shocks and 14.0 percent experienced one shock. Nearly 11 percent of the
households experienced no shock in the 12 months preceding the interviews.

By place of residence, 51.7 percent of the households in the rural areas experienced more
than three shocks compared to 22.0 percent in urban areas.

Southern region reported the highest proportion (54.3 percent) of households that
experienced more than three shocks followed by 45.6 percent in the Central region and 24.7
percent in the Northern region (Table 9.8).

At district level, Phalombe reported the highest proportion (83.2 percent) of households that
experienced more than three shocks followed by 71.2 percent in Mulanje and 65.8 percent
in Salima (Annex Table 9.7).

Table 9-8: Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Shock Experienced in

the Last 12 Months, IHS5 2019-2020
Number of Shocks Experienced
Background characteristics None One Two Three >Three Total

Malawi 10.7 14.0 13.7 14.8 46.9 100

Place of Residence
Rural 8.1 12.2 12.7 15.4 51.7 100
Urban 24.0 23.3 19.0 11.7 22.0 100
Region
Northern 19.6 20.8 19.2 15.6 24.7 100
Central 9.5 17.1 14.8 13.0 45.6 100
Southern 9.2 9.1 11.2 16.2 54.3 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 9.0 11.9 13.1 15.9 50.1 100
Male 11.4 14.9 14.0 14.2 45.4 100
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 19.5 20.0 18.2 12.3 29.9 100
Married 11.1 14.2 13.7 14.3 46.7 100
Divorced/Separated 9.9 12.3 11.7 16.6 49.5 100
Widow/Widower 7.2 13.1 15.6 15.5 48.6 100
Education Level of Household Head
None 8.2 12.1 13.2 15.6 50.8 100
Primary 11.0 14.7 15.2 14.2 44.9 100
Secondary 17.4 19.4 15.1 12.5 35.6 100
Tertiary 28.6 24.5 13.8 9.5 23.6 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

182
9.7.3: Mitigation Measures for Overcoming Shocks by Households

Overall, 36.0 percent of households reported that they used their own savings to overcome
various shocks, 25.6 percent did nothing and 12.3 percent received assistance from their
relatives and friends.

By place of residence, 48.1 percent of households in urban areas used their own savings to
overcome various shocks compared to 34.6 percent in rural areas.

About 43 percent of households in the Northern region used their own savings to overcome
various shocks followed by 36.5 percent in the Central region and 34.3 percent in the
Southern region.

The proportion of male headed households that reported to have used their own savings to
mitigate various shocks was higher at 38.8 percent compared to 30.5 percent of the female
headed households (Table 9.9).

At district level, Chitipa reported the highest proportion (67.0 percent) of households that
used their own savings to mitigate various shocks with the lowest proportion (7.4 percent)
of households reported for Salima (Annex Table 9.8).

183
Table 9-9: Percentage Distribution of Households by Mitigation Measures for
Overcoming Shocks by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Help from Changed Help from

Own- relatives/frie dietary govt, More Got Sold Spiritual Did
Background Characteristics savings nds patterns NGOs, etc. work credit assets efforts nothing Other
Malawi 36.0 12.3 5.9 4.6 3.1 2.5 3.0 0.8 25.6 6.2
Place of Residence
Rural 34.6 12.3 5.9 4.9 2.5 2.3 3.2 0.8 26.9 6.6
Urban 48.1 12.7 5.8 1.6 7.5 4.2 1.9 1.0 14.4 2.7
Region
Northern 42.6 9.8 12.8 1.3 2.4 2.9 4.4 1.5 17.7 4.6
Central 36.5 12.8 5.0 2.3 4.4 2.7 4.4 0.4 24.3 7.0
Southern 34.3 12.4 5.3 7.1 2.1 2.3 1.6 1.0 28.1 5.9
Sex of Household Head
Female 30.5 17.0 5.9 6.2 2.7 2.4 2.2 0.9 26.9 5.3
Male 38.8 9.9 5.9 3.8 3.2 2.6 3.5 0.8 24.9 6.7
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 42.2 18.6 6.9 2.8 2.8 0.5 1.4 0.4 21.8 2.7
Married 38.0 10.0 5.7 4.0 3.4 2.7 3.4 0.8 25.3 6.6
Divorced/Separated 33.5 13.6 6.5 4.4 2.7 2.6 2.2 0.8 26.5 7.0
Widow/Widower 27.7 21.3 6.0 8.3 1.7 1.7 2.1 1.0 26.4 3.8
Education Level of Household Head
None 33.8 12.8 5.9 5.2 2.8 2.3 2.8 0.8 27.2 6.6
Primary 37.6 11.4 6.2 3.8 4.7 3.1 3.7 1.2 22.0 6.3
Secondary 45.4 10.8 6.1 2.2 3.4 3.1 3.7 0.8 19.9 4.5
Tertiary 53.5 7.7 4.0 0.9 2.2 2.7 4.3 1.1 21.0 2.5
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

9.8: Social Safety Nets

Social safety nets are programs that are implemented by government, donors or private
sector organizations to move the poorest and most vulnerable people out of extreme poverty.
These social safety nets come in many forms but not limited to; food aid, cash transfers,
education bursaries and scholarships and healthcare assistance.

9.8.1: Benefits from Food Related Programmes

Food-based safety net programs support adequate consumption and contribute to improving
nutrition.
Overall, 30.0 percent of the households benefited from free maize distribution programme,
26.4 percent benefited from supplementary feeding for malnourished children programme
and 10.4 percent from MASAF public works programme.

184
In rural areas, 31.6 percent of the households benefited from free maize distribution
compared to 13.7 percent in the urban areas. Nearly 55 percent of the households in urban
areas benefited from supplementary feeding for malnourished children programme
compared to 23.6 percent in rural areas.

At regional level, a higher proportion (33.1 percent) of the households in the Central region
benefited from free maize distribution followed by 30.7 percent in the Southern region and
16.4 percent in the Northern region. Northern region reported the highest proportion (35.3
percent) of households that benefited from supplementary feeding for malnourished
children programme followed by the Central region (25.7) percent and the Southern region
(25.3 percent). .

The proportion of male headed households that benefited from free maize distribution
programme was higher (38.0 percent) than the female headed households (21.5 percent)
(Table 9.10).

At district level, Ntchisi recorded the highest proportion (44.1 percent) of households that
benefited from free maize distribution while Chitipa registered the lowest proportion at 10.9
percent (Annex Table 9.9).

185
Table 9-10: Proportion of Households by Food Programmes and Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Supplementary Free
Feeding for MASAF - Free Food Distribution
Malnourished Public Inputs other than Inputs For School of Likuni
Background Characteristics Free Maize Children Works For Work maize Work Feeding Phala
Malawi 30.0 26.4 10.4 7.9 7.0 7.9 3.5 0.7
Place of Residence
Rural 31.6 23.6 11.2 7.9 7.2 7.9 3.7 0.8
Urban 13.7 54.5 2.4 8.3 5.2 8.3 2.1 0.0
Region
Northern 16.4 35.3 12.4 14.6 1.5 14.6 3.0 0.1
Central 33.1 25.7 14.1 7.9 6.4 7.9 1.5 0.7
Southern 30.7 25.3 8.4 6.9 8.2 6.9 4.6 0.8
Sex of Household Head
Female 21.5 27.2 11.4 8.2 11.7 8.2 4.2 0.6
Male 38.0 25.6 9.4 7.7 2.6 7.7 2.9 0.7
Age of Household Head
15-24 32.2 19.0 4.2 8.0 10.3 8.0 6.2 0.0
25-34 29.4 32.2 4.1 6.9 7.6 6.9 4.0 0.7
35-44 26.6 31.0 6.8 9.9 6.0 9.9 3.8 0.6
45-54 30.0 26.7 9.7 8.4 8.1 8.4 2.8 1.0
55-64 31.7 24.2 12.3 8.2 5.9 8.2 3.7 1.0
65+ 33.5 16.5 23.6 5.5 6.7 5.5 2.5 0.5
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 25.9 23.4 14.6 7.3 9.1 7.3 3.7 0.0
Married 30.3 29.2 5.8 9.0 7.1 9.0 4.1 0.7
Divorced/Separated 29.0 24.7 14.2 6.6 6.8 6.6 2.4 0.6
Widow/Widower 29.8 16.6 25.5 4.8 6.6 4.8 2.3 0.8
Education Level of Household Head
None 33.9 29.0 10.5 5.8 8.1 5.8 2.2 0.7
Primary 47.7 18.9 2.6 6.2 12.2 6.2 1.1 1.2
Secondary 60.7 13.2 3.7 3.1 7.5 3.1 2.8 0.4
Tertiary 70.9 9.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

9.8.2: Benefits from Education Related Programmes

Overall, 4.2 percent of the households benefited from scholarship for tertiary education
compared to 1.7 percent that benefited from scholarships for secondary education.

186
In rural areas, 4.3 percent of the households benefited from tertiary education compared to
3.3 percent in urban areas. In urban areas, 2.4 percent of the households benefited from the
scholarship for secondary education compared to 1.6 percent from the rural areas.

About 2 percent of households in the Central region benefited from scholarships for
secondary education followed by the Southern region at 1.7 percent and the Northern region
at 1.1 percent.

The proportion of households that reported to have benefited from scholarships for
secondary education was higher (2.1 percent) for female headed households than 1.3 percent
for male headed households. Female headed households reported a higher proportion (4.5
percent) of households that benefited from scholarships for tertiary education than 3.3
percent among male headed households (Table 9.11).

At district level, Chitipa reported the highest proportion (4.0 percent) of households which
benefited from scholarships for secondary education followed by Salima at 3.3 percent and
Blantyre City at 2.7 percent. About 25 percent of the households in Chitipa benefited from
scholarship for tertiary education followed by Karonga at 21.3 percent and Lilongwe City
at 10.2 percent (Annex Table 9.10).

187
Table 9-11: Proportion of Households by Education Programmes and Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Scholarship/Bursaries for Secondary

Background characteristics Education Scholarship for Tertiary Education
Malawi 1.7 4.2
Place of Residence
Rural 1.6 4.3
Urban 2.4 3.3
Region
Northern 1.1 9.5
Central 1.9 3.4
Southern 1.7 3.8
Sex of Household Head
Female 2.1 4.5
Male 1.3 3.9
Age of Household Head
15-24 3.8 4.8
25-34 2.8 5.2
35-44 2.1 5.1
45-54 1.4 2.9
55-64 0.6 4.1
65+ 0.5 3.3
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 0.0 3.8
Married 2.0 4.1
Divorced/Separated 1.4 4.7
Widow/Widower 0.7 4.3
Education Level of Household Head
None 1.1 2.7
Primary 0.3 2.1
Secondary 0.2 3.3
Tertiary 2.9 0.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

9.8.3: Benefits from Cash Transfer and Other Programmes

Overall, 1.6 percent of the households benefited from direct cash transfers from non-
governmental agencies, 0.7 percent that benefited from direct cash transfers from the
government and 0.5 percent that benefited from other programmes (Table 9.12).

188
Table 9-12: Proportion of Households by Cash Transfer and Other Programmes and
Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Direct Cash Transfers Direct Cash Transfers

Background characteristics from Non-Govt Agencies from Govt Other Programmes
Malawi 1.6 0.7 0.5
Place of residence
Rural 1.5 0.7 0.3
Urban 2.6 0.3 2.5
Region
Northern 2.2 1.5 1.6
Central 1.6 1.0 0.7
Southern 1.5 0.5 0.2
Sex of Household Head
Female 1.9 0.7 0.5
Male 1.2 0.7 0.4
Age of Household Head
15-24 1.1 1.0 0.1
25-34 0.3 1.3 0.4
35-44 1.8 1.1 0.4
45-54 2.8 0.4 0.8
55-64 1.7 0.0 0.7
65+ 1.3 0.3 0.2
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 4.1 0.0 1.5
Married 1.6 0.6 0.4
Divorced/Separated 1.4 1.3 0.3
Widow/Widower 1.5 0.5 0.6
Education Level of Household Head
None 1.3 0.3 0.3
Primary 3.7 0.3 1.3
Secondary 2.2 0.0 2.8
Tertiary 0.0 0.0 4.7
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

189
 CHAPTER 10

10. FOOD SECURITY

10.0: Introduction
This chapter provides comprehensive information and a descriptive analysis about food
security at the household level. Food Security is defined as: when all people, at all times,
have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets
their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO, 2014).

The survey collected data on a variety of specific conditions, experiences, and behavioral
characteristic of a wide range of severity of household food insecurity including its
intermediate and underlying causes. Availability of food is of paramount importance in the
country.

The survey questions followed a progressive scale of severity ranging from high to very low
food security. Placement on this scale was determined by the extent of food deprivation
perceived, experienced and described by the respondents. The implemented scale classifies
households into four categories, each representing a different degree of food severity: high
food security, marginal food security, low food security and very low food security.

10.1: Definitions of Categories of Food Severity

High Food Security-Households that did not experience any concern about accessing
enough food and did not alter the quality, variety, and quantity or eating patterns.

Marginal Food Security- Households have concerns about adequacy of the food supply but
the quantity, the quality, the variety and the eating patterns were not disrupted.

Low food security— Households might have been concerned about not having access to
enough food, they reduced the quality and the variety of the food consumed but quantity of
food intake and normal eating patterns were not disrupted.

190
Very low food security— Households experience multiple indications of disrupted eating
patterns and reduced food intake. They report reduction in food quality, variety, quantity
and frequency of food consumed. Consumption by adults could have been restricted in order
for small children to eat and could also depend on food assistance from relatives and friends.

10.2: Food Security Assessment

Overall, 62.6 percent of the households reported that they experienced very low food
security a week prior to the survey, 23.8 percent experienced high food security and 9.9
percent experienced low food security.

By place of residence, 67.9 percent of the households in rural areas reported that they
experienced very low food security compared to 40.7 percent in urban areas.

At regional level, 68.4 percent of households in the Southern region experienced very low
food security, 60.8 percent in the Central region and 50.3 percent in the Northern region.

By sex of household head, 72.2 percent of female headed households experienced very low
food security compared to 58.7 percent of male headed households (Table 10.1).

At district level, Zomba registered the highest proportion (78.6 percent) of households that
experienced very low food security followed by Machinga at 74.8 percent and Chikwawa
at 74.4 percent (Annex Table 10.1).

191
Table 10-1: Percentage Distribution of Households by Food Security Status and
Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Food Security Status

Background characteristics High Marginal Low Very low Total
Malawi 23.8 3.4 9.9 62.9 100
Place of Residence
Rural 20.3 2.9 9.6 67.2 100
Urban 42.1 5.8 11.4 40.7 100
Region
Northern 35.9 3.8 10.0 50.3 100
Central 26.2 2.5 10.5 60.8 100
Southern 18.2 4.2 9.2 68.4 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 15.6 3.5 8.7 72.2 100
Male 27.5 3.3 10.4 58.7 100
Age of Household Head
15-24 19.9 2.6 9.2 68.3 100
25-34 26.0 3.4 10.0 60.6 100
35-44 25.2 3.7 9.3 61.8 100
45-54 23.7 3.3 9.7 63.4 100
55-64 24.5 4.1 9.6 61.8 100
65+ 19.1 3.1 11.5 66.2 100
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 34.8 4.9 9.3 51.0 100
Married 25.7 3.4 10.3 60.7 100
Divorced/Separated 18.1 3.2 8.2 70.5 100
Widow/Widower 17.5 3.6 9.5 69.4 100
Education Level of Household Head
None 17.9 3.3 9.1 69.7 100
Primary 26.6 2.9 11.1 59.3 100
Secondary 39.1 3.8 12.5 44.7 100
Tertiary 66.0 4.6 9.7 19.7 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

10.3: Food Security and Coping Strategies

Households vulnerable to food insecurity employ a variety of coping and adaptive
mechanisms intended to mitigate or scale down food hardships. This section highlights
some of the coping strategies employed by households when faced with scarcity of food
(Table 10.2).

192
10.3.1: Relying on Less Preferred or Less Expensive Foods

Overall, 62.6 percent of households reported that they relied on less preferred or less
expensive foods as a coping mechanism for food insecurity.

By place of residence, 65.7 percent of households in the rural areas relied on less preferred
or less expensive foods compared to 45.7 percent in the urban areas.

At regional level, 65.1 percent of households in the Southern region relied on less preferred
or less expensive foods followed by Central region at 63.4 percent and Northern region at
51.8 percent (Table 10.2).

At district level, Ntchisi reported the highest proportion (78.0 percent) of the households
that relied on less preferred or less expensive foods followed by Mangochi at 75.6 percent
and Balaka at 73.2 percent (Annex Table 10.2).

10.3.2: Limiting Portions of Food

Nationally, 50.0 percent of the households reported that they reduced portions of food as a
coping mechanism for food insecurity.

By place of residence, 53.4 percent of the households in rural areas reduced portions of food
compared to 31.7 percent in urban areas.

At regional level, 55.0 percent of households in the Southern region reduced portions of
food, 48.4 percent in the Central region and 38.4 percent in the Northern region (Table 10.2).

At district level, Phalombe registered the highest proportion (69.1 percent) of households
that reduced portions of food followed by Zomba at 63.0 percent and Chiradzulu at 62.2
percent (Annex Table 10.2).

10.3.3: Reduced Number of Meals Taken in a Day

About 46 percent of households reported that they reduced number of meals taken in a day
as a coping mechanism for food insecurity.

By place of residence, 50.1 percent of households in rural areas reported that they reduced
number of meals taken in a day compared to 26.7 percent in urban areas.

193
Analysis by region shows that 51.9 percent of households in the Southern region reduced
number of meals taken in a day followed by the Central region (44.6 percent) and the
Northern region (33.8 percent) (Table 10.2).

At district level, Phalombe registered the highest proportion (62.5 percent) of households
that reduced number of meals followed by Chiradzulu at 60.4 percent and Zomba 60.2
percent (Annex Table 10.2).

10.3.4: Restricting Consumption of Food by Adults

Overall, 24.4 percent of households reported that they restricted consumption of food by
adults in order for small children to eat as a coping mechanism for food insecurity.

By place of residence, 26.1 percent of the households in rural areas restricted consumption
of food by adults compared to 15.3 percent in urban areas.

Across regions, 27.5 percent of households in the Southern region restricted consumption
of food by adults followed by 23.1 percent in the Central region and 18.3 percent in the
Northern region (Table 10.2).

At district level, Chiradzulu registered the highest proportion (38.6 percent) of households
that restricted consumption of food by adults followed by Zomba at 37.4 percent and
Chikwawa at 35.6 percent (Annex Table 10.2).

10.3.5: Borrowed Food or Relied on Assistance from Others

In times of food hardship households may seek assistance or increase reliance on borrowed
food from relatives or friends to offset the shortfall.

About 30 percent of households reported that they borrowed food or depended on assistance
from relatives or friends as a coping mechanism for food insecurity.

By place of residence, 31.8 percent of the households in rural areas reported that they
borrowed food or depended on assistance from relatives or friends compared to 17.4 percent
in urban areas.

194
At regional level, 31.9 percent of households in the Southern region borrowed food or
depended on assistance from relatives or friends followed by the Central region (29.7
percent) and Northern region (21.3 percent) (Table 10.2).

At district level, Ntchisi reported the highest proportion (78.0 percent) of households that
borrowed food, or relied on help from a friend or relative followed by Mangochi at 75.6
percent and Balaka at 73.2 percent (Annex Table 10.2).

Table 10-2: Proportion of Households that was Food Insecure by Coping Mechanisms
and Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Coping mechanisms

Relied on less Reduced number Restrict consumption Borrow food, or rely on

preferred or less Limit of meals taken in a by adults in order for help from a friend or
Background characteristics expensive foods portions day small children to eat relative
Malawi 62.6 50.0 46.4 24.4 29.6
Place of residence
Rural 65.7 53.4 50.1 26.1 31.8
Urban 45.7 31.7 26.7 15.3 17.4
Region
Northern 51.8 38.4 33.8 18.3 21.3
Central 63.4 48.4 44.6 23.1 29.7
Southern 65.1 55.0 51.9 27.5 31.9
Sex of Household Head
Female 70.3 57.7 56.2 28.9 37.1
Male 59.7 47.1 42.8 22.8 26.8
Age of Household Head
15-24 67.6 51.4 49.3 18.0 38.4
25-34 61.0 48.6 44.1 24.1 31.5
35-44 61.0 49.2 46.2 25.4 28.7
45-54 64.1 52.8 47.7 28.1 28.6
55-64 61.6 47.7 45.0 22.7 23.7
65+ 66.2 51.7 49.7 21.1 30.9
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 51.8 40.4 40.1 24.4 29.6
Married 60.7 48.3 43.8 23.3 27.6
Divorced/Separated 70.9 58.1 58.4 31.4 36.7
Widow/Widower 68.9 54.7 53.2 26.5 35.7
Education Level of Household Head
None 64.4 51.2 48.1 24.5 30.3
Primary 60.5 44.9 40.6 23.7 26.8
Secondary 44.7 35.6 28.2 18.0 19.0

Tertiary 37.8 26.6 20.0 13.9 10.8

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020
195
10.4: Household Food Consumption Profile
The survey collected data on the number of meals consumed in a typical day by adult
household members and children under-five years of age. In a country where consumption
of three or more meals in a day is customary, household food rationing in the face of food
shortages include reduction in the number of meals consumed by both adults and children.

10.4.1: Number of Meals Taken by Adults

About 55 percent of the households reported that adult members of the households were
taking two meals per day followed by 41.0 percent of them taking three or more meals per
day.

Analysis by place of residence shows that 77.4 percent of urban households reported that
adults were taking three or more meals a day compared to 33.9 percent of households in
rural areas.

At regional level, Northern region recorded the highest proportion (56.8 percent) of the
households that reported that adults were taking three or more meals a day followed by
Central region at 39.6 percent and Southern region at 37.7 percent (Table 10.3).

At district level, Likoma reported the highest proportion (82.0 percent) of households that
were taking three or more meals a day followed by Lilongwe city at 81.8 percent and Mzuzu
City at 78.4 percent. Phalombe registered the lowest proportion (20.5 percent) of households
reporting that adults were taking three or more meals a day (Annex Table 10.3).

10.4.2: Number of Meals Taken by Children Under Five Years of Age

Overall, 48.7 percent of the households reported that children aged 6-59 months were taking
two meals per day followed by 48.2 percent of them taking three or more meals per day.

By place of residence, 83.0 percent of households in urban areas reported that children aged
6-59 months were taking three or more meals a day compared to 42.0 percent of households
in rural areas.

Analysis by region shows that 63.7 percent of households in the Northern region reported
that children aged 6-59 months were taking three or more meals a day followed by the
Central region (46.6 percent) and the Southern region =(45.7 percent) (Table 10.3).
196
At district level, Mzuzu City recorded the highest proportion (84.3 percent) of households
reporting that children aged 6-59 months were taking three or more meals a day followed
by Lilongwe City at 86.2 percent and Likoma at 82.7 percent. Phalombe registered the
lowest proportion (24.3 percent) of households that reported that children aged 6-59 months
were taking three or more meals a day (Annex Table 10.3).

Table 10-3: Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Meals Taken per Day
by Adults and Children Under 5 Years of Age and Background Characteristics, IHS5
2019-2020

Number of meals (adults) Number of meals (children aged 6-59 months)

Background
characteristics 1 2 3 or more Total 1 2 3 or more Total
Malawi 4.2 54.8 41.0 100 3.1 48.7 48.2 100
Place of Residence
Rural 4.8 61.3 33.9 100 3.5 54.5 42.0 100
Urban 1.1 21.5 77.4 100 0.4 16.6 83.0 100
Region
Northern 2.4 40.8 56.8 100 1.4 35.0 63.7 100
Central 4.7 55.7 39.6 100 3.7 49.7 46.6 100
Southern 4.3 58.0 37.7 100 2.9 51.4 45.7 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 5.7 62.3 32.0 100 4.0 57.8 38.2 100
Male 3.6 51.5 45.0 100 2.6 44.4 53.0 100
Age of Household Head
15-24 4.1 60.4 35.5 100 3.4 50.6 46.0 100
25-34 2.6 51.2 46.3 100 1.4 46.5 52.1 100
35-44 3.8 50.8 45.5 100 2.4 44.5 53.1 100
45-54 5.0 54.5 40.6 100 3.6 49.3 47.1 100
55-64 5.1 57.7 37.2 100 5.1 51 43.9 100
65+ 6.8 63.9 29.3 100 5.4 60.2 34.4 100
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 6.2 43.7 50.0 100 5.0 56.2 38.9 100
Married 3.3 52.3 44.4 100 2.4 44.8 52.7 100
Divorced/Separated 6.0 63.3 30.7 100 4.7 60.4 34.9 100
Widow/Widower 6.7 61.8 31.6 100 4.8 57.5 37.8 100
Education Level of Household Head
None 5.3 64.0 30.7 100 3.9 56.9 39.2 100
Primary 2.6 46.5 50.9 100 1.5 41.3 57.2 100
Secondary 1.6 29.8 68.6 100 0.7 23.8 75.5 100
Tertiary 0.1 8.4 91.5 100 0.0 5.4 94.6 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

197
10.5: Food Shortages
The section provides information on the proportion of the population that did not have
enough food throughout the past twelve months preceding the interviews and the underlying
causes of households not to have enough food.

10.5.1: Households that Experience Food Shortages

Overall, 70.2 percent of the households reported that they did not have enough food 12
months prior to the interviews.

By place of residence, 75.0 percent of the households in rural areas reported that they did
not have enough food 12 months prior to the interviews compared to 44.6 percent in urban
areas.

Across regions, 73.3 percent of households in the Southern region reported that they did not
have enough food 12 months prior to the interviews followed by the Central region (69.8
percent) and the Northern region (61.3 percent).

Analysis by district, Machinga reported the highest proportion (86.1 percent) of households
which reported not to have enough food 12 months prior to the interviews followed by
Chikwawa at 81.9 percent and Phalombe at 81.7 percent (Table 10.4).

10.5.2: Causes of Food Shortages

About 29 percent of the households experienced food shortage because of lack of farm
inputs, 28.2 percent due to high prices of food and 20.1 percent due to drought, poor rains,
floods and water logging.

About 56 percent of households in urban areas reported that high prices of food in the market
as the main cause of their food shortage compared to 25.5 percent in rural areas. A higher
proportion (31.1 percent) of households in the rural areas reported lack of farm inputs as the
underlying cause of food shortage compared to 8.3 percent in urban areas.

Across regions, 38.8 percent of the households in the Northern region experienced food
shortages due to lack of farm implements followed by 35.9 percent in the Central region
and 21.6 percent in the Southern region (Table 10.4).

198
At district level, 54.2 percent of the households in Mzimba reported that they experienced
food shortages due to lack of farm implements followed by 49.6 percent of the households
in Chitipa and 42.7 percent of the households in Ntchisi. (Annex Table 10.4)

Table 10-4: Proportion of the Households that Experienced Food Shortage and
Distribution of causes of Food Shortages by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-
2020.
Causes of food shortage
Drought, Food in the
poor rains, Lack of market was
No enough floods, water Crop pest Small farm very
Background characteristics food logging damage land size inputs expensive Other Total
Malawi 70.2 21.1 3.6 10.4 29.1 28.2 7.5 100
Place of Residence
Rural 75.0 22.4 3.8 10.9 31.1 25.5 6.3 100
Urban 44.6 7.6 2.2 5.4 8.3 56.1 20.5 100
Region
Northern 61.3 11.6 2.9 11.2 38.8 21.6 13.9 100
Central 69.8 11.7 4.4 14.0 35.9 28.5 5.6 100
Southern 73.3 30.9 3.1 7.2 21.6 29.2 7.9 100
Sex of Household Head
Female 78.3 22.1 3.6 9.8 30.3 27.5 6.7 100
Male 67.3 20.6 3.6 10.7 28.5 28.6 7.9 100
Age of Household Head
15-24 70.6 17.0 3.2 11.8 24.6 34.7 8.8 100
25-34 69.4 18.4 3.2 10.8 28.8 29.6 9.1 100
35-44 69.2 21.1 3.7 9.9 28.3 29.5 7.4 100
45-54 71.8 23.6 4.3 9.8 30.9 25.2 6.3 100
55-64 69.3 23.4 3.3 10.9 30.6 26.0 5.8 100
65+ 73.0 24.0 3.9 9.8 30.7 7.0 7.0 82
Marital Status of Household
Head
Never married 58.8 15.4 1.2 10.8 26.8 34.9 10.9 100
Married 68.1 21.2 3.6 10.6 28.9 28.0 7.6 100
Divorced/Separated 80.3 20.7 3.5 9.4 29.6 30.1 6.7 100
Widow/Widower 76.4 22.2 4.0 10.3 29.9 25.7 7.8 100
Education Level of Household Head
None 73.4 21.8 3.6 10.8 30.2 27.1 6.5 100
Primary 62.5 17.8 3.6 9.6 29.7 30.0 9.3 100
Secondary 50.5 20.0 3.8 8.3 22.2 33.6 12.1 100
Tertiary 38.7 8.8 1.8 4.5 15.3 46.7 22.9 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

199
10.5.3: Number of Months Households experienced Food Shortages
The survey collected data on the number of months that households experienced food
insufficiency twelve months prior to the survey.

At national level, the highest proportion (26.7 percent) of the households experienced food
shortages for two months followed by 24.0 percent for one month and 19.9 percent for three
months. The lowest proportion (5.0 percent) of households experienced food shortages for
6 months.

By place of residence, 35.5 percent of the households in urban areas reported that they
experienced food shortages for one month compared to 22.7 percent of the households in
rural areas.

At regional level, Northern region reported the highest proportion (31.0 percent) of
households that reported that they experienced food shortages for one month followed by
Central region at 28.2 percent and Southern region at 18.7 percent (Table 10.5).

At district level, Likoma reported the highest proportion (57.8 percent) of households that
experienced food shortages for one month followed by Mzuzu City at 48.1 percent and
Nkhata Bay at 47.3 percent (Annex Table 10.5).

200
Table 10-5: Percentage Distribution of Households by Months they Experienced Food
Shortage, IHS5 2019-2020
Number of months

Seven Average
and number of
Background Characteristics One Two Three Four Five Six more Total months
Malawi 24.0 26.7 19.9 11.5 7.4 5.0 5.6 100 3
Place of Residence
Rural 22.7 26.8 20.1 12.0 7.8 5.2 5.5 100 3
Urban 35.5 25.8 18.2 6.8 4.4 3.0 6.3 100 3
Region
Northern 30.0 36.4 15.5 10.8 3.3 1.4 2.6 100 2
Central 28.2 24.5 21.2 10.4 6.2 3.8 5.7 100 3
Southern 18.7 26.3 19.8 12.6 9.5 6.9 6.3 100 3
Sex of Household Head
Female 20.3 25.9 19.6 12.8 9.2 5.5 6.7 100 3
Male 25.9 27.1 20.1 10.7 6.5 4.7 5.0 100 3
Age of Household Head
15-24 25.8 24.4 20.1 12.9 5.5 4.4 6.8 100 3
25-34 27.7 27.0 18.6 10.3 7.1 3.9 5.6 100 3
35-44 22.1 28.2 21.4 11.2 7.2 5.4 4.5 100 3
45-54 22.1 25.2 21.0 12.0 9.0 5.3 5.4 100 3
55-64 22.7 25.9 18.9 13.6 7.9 5.4 5.5 100 3
65+ 22.4 27.2 19.1 10.8 7.6 5.9 7.0 100 3
Marital Status of Household Head
Never married 30.1 27.7 17.3 13.2 5.3 2.4 4.0 100 3
Married 25.1 27.1 20.3 11.0 6.9 4.6 5.1 100 3
Divorced/Separated 20.8 24.6 19.5 13.3 8.5 6.2 7.1 100 3
Widow/Widower 21.1 26.8 19.0 11.4 9.4 5.7 6.6 100 3
Education Level of Household Head
None 22.8 26.1 20.0 12.2 7.8 5.2 5.9 100 3
Primary 26.3 28.7 20.0 8.5 6.9 4.9 4.7 100 3
Secondary 29.1 27.6 19.7 9.7 6.1 3.6 4.1 100 3
Tertiary 30.8 37.1 18.7 4.4 0.0 2.2 6.7 100 3
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

201
 CHAPTER 11

11. ANTHROPOMETRY

11.0: Introduction

The survey collected data on age, weight and height for children aged 0 to 59 months to
evaluate their nutritional status.

The children were assessed by comparing the height, weight and age of each child to
reference standard distributions of height-for-age, height–for-weight and weight–for-age
developed in 2006 by the World Health Organization Multicenter Growth Reference Study
Group (WHO Child Growth Standards Methods and Development).

A child is considered stunted (height for age) if the child is too short for his/her age, which
indicates chronic malnutrition. A child is considered wasted (height for weight) if he/she is
too thin, i.e. weighs too little for his/her height. Wasting is an indicator of acute or recent
nutritional deficits. Finally, a child is considered underweight (weight for age) if he/she
weighs too little for his/her age either because of acute or chronic malnutrition.

11.1: Extent and Distribution of Malnutrition

11.1.1: Incidence of Underweight among Children Aged 0-59 Months
Results from the survey show that 12.4 percent of children aged 0-59 months were
underweight. Among these 3.2 percent were severely underweight and 9.2 percent
moderately underweight (Table 11.1).

The incidence of severely underweight children was 3.5 percent in rural areas compared to
1.7 percent in urban areas.

202
The incidence of severely underweight children was highest (6.7 percent) in age group 48-
59 months and lowest in the age group 0-11 months (1.3 percent). Children whose mothers
had no formal education registered high proportion (3.9 percent) of severely underweight
children than those whose mothers had secondary or higher education (1.4 percent).

At regional level, 3.4 percent of the children aged 0-59 months in the Central and Southern
regions were severely underweight compared to the Northern region at 1.7 percent (Table
11.1).

At district level, Likoma reported the highest proportion of severely underweight children
at 10.0 percent followed by Chikwawa at 7.0 percent. Chitipa, Nkhata Bay and Chiradzulu
recorded less than 1 percent in incidences of severely underweight children (Annex Table
11.1).

11.1.2: Incidence of Stunting Among Children Aged 0-59 Months

Results show that 33.7 percent of children aged 0-59 months were stunted. Among these
14.2 percent severely stunted and 19.5 percent were moderately stunted.

The incidence of severe stunting amongst children aged 0-59 months was high in rural areas
at 15.0 percent compared to 10.3 percent in urban areas

About 15 percent of the children in the Central region were severely stunted compared to
the Southern region at 13.7 percent and the Northern region at 11.8 percent.
About 16 percent among children of uneducated mothers were severely stunted compared
to 11.0 percent among children of mothers with a secondary or more education (Table 11.1).

At district level, Zomba reported the lowest proportion of severely stunted children at 6.7
percent, followed by Zomba City at 6.9 percent while Likoma registered the highest
proportion at 40.1 percent. (Annex Table 11.1).

11.1.3: Incidence of Wasting Among Children Aged 0-59 Months

Wasting, affected 3.7 percent of children aged 0 to 59 months. The results indicate that
among these children, 2.5 percent were moderately wasted and 1.2 percent had severe

203
wasted. Severe wasting was higher in rural areas (1.3 percent) compared to urban areas (0.7
percent).
Across regions, the incidence of severe wasting was 1.5 percent in the Southern region
followed by the Northern region (1.2 percent) and Central region was at 0.9 percent (Table
11.1).
Analysis by district shows that severe wasting is highest among children aged 0-59 months
in Mulanje (3.8 percent) Phalombe and Mwanza (3.9 percent each) (Annex Table 11.1).

Table 11-1: Nutritional Status of Children Aged 0-59 Months by Background

Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Underweight Stunted Wasted

Background Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate
Characteristics (z<-3) (z<-2) Total (z<-3) (z<-2) Total (z<-3) (z<-2) Total
Malawi 3.2 9.2 12.4 14.2 19.5 33.7 1.2 2.5 3.7
Place of Residence
Urban 1.7 7.5 9.2 10.3 17.8 28.1 0.7 2.2 2.9
Rural 3.5 9.5 13.0 15.0 19.7 34.7 1.3 2.5 3.8
Region
Northern 1.7 7.6 9.3 11.8 18.3 30.1 1.2 1.4 2.6
Central 3.4 9.4 12.8 15.4 19.5 34.9 0.9 2.3 3.2
Southern 3.4 9.3 12.7 13.7 19.7 33.4 1.5 3.0 4.5
Sex of Child
Female 3.2 8.2 11.4 12.9 17.2 30.1 1.3 1.9 3.2
Male 3.2 10.2 13.4 15.7 21.7 37.4 1.1 3.1 4.2
Age of Child (months)
0-11 1.3 3.6 4.9 8.0 8.0 16.0 1.6 2.6 4.2
12-23 1.6 9.0 10.6 12.7 18.1 30.8 1.1 4.3 5.4
24-35 3.5 8.5 12.0 15.9 23.5 39.4 0.9 1.6 2.5
36-47 3.1 12.4 15.5 15.9 24.2 40.1 1.0 1.5 2.5
48-59 6.7 11.8 18.5 17.8 20.8 38.6 1.5 2.3 3.8
Mothers/Guardian Education
None 3.9 10.2 14.1 15.6 20.3 35.9 1.2 2.8 4.0
Primary 2.3 8.5 10.8 12.2 20.6 32.8 0.9 1.6 2.5
Secondary+ 1.4 6.4 7.8 11.0 16.3 27.3 1.2 1.9 3.1
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

204
11.2: Nutritional and Under Five Clinic Programmes
11.2.1: Nutritional Programmes
Nutritional programmes were introduced in the country to among other things address
problems of morbidity and mortality among malnourished children aged less than 5 years,
by improving their nutritional status through an appropriate and sustainable nutritional
rehabilitation programme.

The survey collected information on participation of children aged 0-59 months in these
nutritional programmes to determine the extent of utilization of these facilities in the
country.
The results indicate that 3.8 percent of children aged 0-59 months participated in the
nutritional programmes. Analysis by place of residence shows that 3.8 percent of children
in rural areas and 3.6 percent in urban areas were beneficiaries of the programmes.
By level of education of the mother, 3.9 percent among children of mothers with no
education participated in the nutritional programmes compared to 4.2 percent among
children whose mothers had primary education.

Across regions, 4.6 percent of children aged 0-59 months in the Northern region
participated in nutritional programmes followed by the Central region (4.0 percent) and the
Southern region 3.4 percent.

The results further show that the levels of participation in the programme were 3.0 percent
in children aged 0-11 months and 3.2 percent for children aged 36-47 months and 48-59
months (Table 11.2).

Analysis by district shows that Chitipa and Karonga districts recorded highest rates in the
number of children enrolled in the Nutritional programme (9.9 percent) (Annex Table
11.2).

205
11.2.2: Under-Five Clinic Participation

Under-five clinics are an important part of comprehensive health care programs and were
established to monitor growth and development of children up to 5 years of age and to
identify factors that may hinder their growth potential.

The results show that 71.7 percent of children aged 0-59 months attended under-five clinics.
The proportion of children who participated in under-five clinic programmes was 73.8
percent in rural areas compared to 60.2 percent in urban areas.

A higher proportion of children participating under-five the programmes at the age of 0-11
months (78.4 percent) compared to the age group of 48-59 months (55.4 percent).

Northern region reported the highest proportion of children who participated in under-five
clinic programmes (80.3 percent) compared to Central (71.8 percent) and Southern regions
(69.4 percent) (Table 11.2).

Mwanza district registered high proportion of participation in under five clinics at about
89.9 percent followed by Rumphi at 88.1 percent. Blantyre city had the lowest proportion
at 49.1 percent (Annex Table 11.2).

206
Table 11-2: Proportion of Children Aged 0-59 months who participated in Nutrition and
Under-Five Clinic Programmes by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Background Characteristics Nutritional programme Under-five Clinic programme

Malawi 3.8 71.7
Place of Residence
Rural 3.8 71.3
Urban 3.6 72.1
Region
Northern 4.6 80.3
Central 4.0 71.8
Southern 3.4 69.4
Sex of Child
Female 3.6 71.3
Male 4.0 72.1
Age of Child (Months)
0-11 3.0 78.4
12-23 4.4 81.3
24-35 4.9 77.3
36-47 3.2 63.8
48-59 3.2 55.4
Mother's/Guardian Education
None 3.9 72.9
Primary 4.2 70.4
Secondary+ 3.1 68.6
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

11.2.3: Measles Immunization Coverage

Measles is one of the most contagious diseases with the potential to be extremely severe.
The disease is preventable through vaccine. The survey collected information on coverage
of the immunisation on children aged 9 months and older.

Results show that 93.0 percent of the children were immunized against the disease. In urban
areas, coverage was at 94.8 percent compared to 92.7 percent in rural areas (Table 11.3).
Among the districts, 98.5 percent of the children 9 months and older in Rumphi were
immunised. Nkhotakota district recorded the lowest proportion (67.9 percent) of children
aged 9 months and above who were immunised (Annex Table 11.3).

207
11.2.4: Prevalence of Oedema
Information of prevalence of oedema was analysed for children aged 0-59 months. Oedema
was reported in 2.5 percent of the children. Highest prevalence was recorded among children
aged 12-23 months at 2.8 percent and lowest prevalence was registered among children aged
0-11 months and 48-59 months at 2.3 percent each (Table 11.3).

The proportion of oedema was highest in Mulanje district (10.6 percent) followed by Thyolo
(9.8 percent) and Phalombe (9.7 percent) (Annex Table 11.3).

Table 11-3: Proportion of Children aged 0-59 Months who were Oedematic and
Children who Received Measles Vaccine by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-
2020

Measles Vaccine
Background Characteristics (Aged 9 Years or Older Oedematic
Malawi 9.3.0 2.5
Place of Residence
Rural 92.7 2.7
Urban 94.8 1.5
Region
Northern 94.4 2.2
Central 90.0 2.0
Southern 94.7 3.1
Sex of Child
Female 93.3 2.7
Male 92.7 2.4
Age of a Child (Months)
00-11 2.3
12-23 2.8
24-35 2.7
36-47 2.5
40-59 2.3
Mother/Guardian Education
None 93.0 2.7
Primary 90.5 2.3
Secondary and above 94.6 2.1
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

208
ANNEXES: SURVEY DESIGN AND RESULTS BY DISTRICT
ANNEX 1: SURVEY DESIGN AND ORGANISATION

Annex 1.1: Sampling Design

A stratified two-stage sample design was used for the IHS5. The primary sampling units
(PSUs) selected at the first sampling stage were the census enumerations areas (EAs)
defined for the 2018 Malawi Population and Housing Census.. An EA is the smallest
operational area established for the census with well-defined boundaries, corresponding to
the workload of one census enumerator. The EAs have an average of about 235 households
each.

Annex 1.2: Questionnaires

There were four types of questionnaires used during the IHS5. The Household Questionnaire
is a multi-topic survey instrument and is near-identical to the content and organization of
the IHS4. It encompasses economic activities, demographics, welfare and other sectoral
information of households. It covers a wide range of topics, dealing with the dynamics of
poverty (consumption, cash and non-cash income, savings, assets, food security, health and
education, vulnerability and social protection). Although the IHS5 household questionnaire
covers a wide variety of topics in detail, it intentionally excludes in-depth information on
topics covered in other surveys that are part of the NSO’s statistical plan (such as maternal
and child health issues covered at length in the Malawi Demographic and Health Survey).

The second type was an agricultural questionnaire. All IHS5 households that are identified
as being involved in agricultural or livestock activities were administered the agriculture
questionnaire. The agriculture questionnaire allows, among other things, for extensive
agricultural productivity analysis through the diligent estimation of land areas, owned and
cultivated, labour and non-labour input use and expenditures, and production figures in
crops, and livestock. Although one of the major foci of the agriculture data collection effort
was to produce smallholder production estimates for major crops, it is also possible to
disaggregate the data by gender and main geographical regions.

The third type was a fisheries questionnaire. This questionnaire was also developed to cover
209
in detail fish farming for those households engaged in fish farming.

The fourth type of questionnaire was the community questionnaire which was administered
to a group of representatives at the community level. A community was defined as the
village or urban location surrounding the enumeration area selected for inclusion in the
sample and which most residents recognize as being their community. The IHS5 community
questionnaire was administered in each of the sample EAs to a group of several
knowledgeable residents such as the village headman, the headmaster of the local school,
the agricultural field assistant, religious leaders, local merchants, health workers and long-
term knowledgeable residents. The instrument gathers information on a range of community
characteristics, including religious and ethnic background, physical infrastructure, access to
public services, economic activities, communal resource management, organization and
governance, investment projects, and local retail price information for essential goods and
services.

Annex 1.3: Organization of the survey

Annex 1.3.1: Training

Training of enumerators was conducted from 21st February 2019 through 25th March2019.
The training took place at The Village @ Mandevu in Machinga, Malawi. A total of one
hundred and ten people were trained. Out of these, eighteen were earmarked for team leaders
and ninety two were earmarked for data collection. Out of the ninety two enumerators,
twenty were to be kept on reserve to replace those who would leave in the process of the
fieldwork.

Annex 1.3.2: Fieldwork

There were eighteen mobile teams each covering approximately two districts. Each team
th
had a team leader, four enumerators, and a driver. Fieldwork commenced on the 15 April
2019 although there was slight variation in the actual commencement dates due to traveling
by teams.

210
Annex 1.4: Data Processing

To ensure data quality and timely availability of data, IHS5 was implemented using the
World Bank’s Survey Solutions CAPI software. To carryout IHS5, 1 laptop computer and a
wireless router were assigned to each team supervisor and each enumerator had an 8-inch
GPS- enabled Lenovo tablet computer. Headquarters (NSO management) assigned work to
supervisors based on the regions of coverage. Supervisors then made assignments to the
enumerators linked to their Supervisor account. The work assignments and syncing of
completed interviews took place through a Wi-Fi connection to the IHS5 server. Because
the data was available in real time it was monitored closely throughout the entire data
collection period and upon receipt of the data at headquarters, data was exported to STATA
for further consistency checks, data cleaning and analysis.

Annex 1.5: Sample results

The total sample size for the IHS5 was 12, 000 households sampled from a total of 750 EAs.
At the end of the survey, a total of 11, 434 households were interviewed due to COVID19
pandemic representing a response rate of 94.5 percent. However, it is important to note that
the survey allowed replacement of households. Of the 11, 434 interviewed households, 583
were replacements (5.0 percent) for various reasons.

211
ANNEX 2: DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Annex Table 2.1: Mean Household Size and Percentage Distribution of Usual
Household Members by District, IHS5 2019-2020
Usual members
Mean Household 6 or more
District Size 1 Person 2-3 Persons 4-5 Persons Total
Persons
Chitipa 4.5 1.7 17.1 34.9 46.3 100
Karonga 4.7 2.0 13.3 32.8 52.0 100
Nkhata Bay 5.0 1.6 11.7 29.5 57.2 100
Rumphi 4.5 2.4 15.0 31.6 50.9 100
Mzimba 4.3 1.5 18.9 36.2 43.4 100
Likoma 5.2 1.3 6.8 32.1 59.8 100
Mzuzu City 4.0 3.5 21.0 33.9 41.6 100
Kasungu 4.6 0.8 15.7 40.2 43.3 100
Nkhotakota 5.1 0.8 13.3 26.5 59.5 100
Ntchisi 4.6 0.8 13.7 37.7 47.8 100
Dowa 4.4 1.6 16.6 40.5 41.3 100
Salima 4.8 0.7 14.6 34.0 50.7 100
Lilongwe 4.3 1.6 18.2 37.1 43.2 100
Mchinji 5.0 0.5 10.8 36.0 52.7 100
Dedza 4.4 1.2 17.2 43.6 38.1 100
Ntcheu 4.3 1.7 16.9 39.5 41.9 100
Lilongwe City 4.4 1.6 16.1 43.0 39.2 100
Mangochi 4.5 1.3 17.1 32.4 49.3 100
Machinga 4.3 1.2 20.0 33.5 45.2 100
Zomba 4.5 1.1 17.4 37.0 44.6 100
Chiradzulu 4.2 1.6 24.4 35.1 38.9 100
Blantyre 3.9 2.6 25.2 35.3 36.9 100
Mwanza 4.4 1.2 20.9 33.8 44.1 100
Thyolo 4.2 0.9 20.9 46.3 31.8 100
Mulanje 4.3 1.8 19.2 37.5 41.5 100
Phalombe 4.5 0.8 17.1 41.7 40.4 100
Chikwawa 4.4 1.1 16.0 46.1 36.9 100
Nsanje 4.2 2.5 19.0 32.9 45.6 100
Balaka 4.3 1.6 20.1 35.3 42.9 100
Neno 4.2 2.0 18.4 34.1 45.6 100
Zomba City 4.4 1.6 18.6 37.8 42.1 100
Blantyre City 4.0 2.5 20.3 41.2 36.1 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

212
Annex Table 2.2: Percentage Distribution of Households by Sex of Household Head
and District, IHS5 2019-2020

Sex of Household Head

Male Female Total
District
Chitipa 80.9 19.1 100.0

Karonga 81.9 18.1 100.0

Nkhata Bay 71.1 28.9 100.0

Rumphi 81.4 18.6 100.0

Mzimba 75.4 24.6 100.0

Likoma 68.6 31.4 100.0

Mzuzu City 80.5 19.5 100.0

Kasungu 82.2 17.8 100.0

Nkhotakota 79.5 20.5 100.0

Ntchisi 84.7 15.3 100.0

Dowa 77.2 22.8 100.0

Salima 72.5 27.5 100.0

Lilongwe 73.1 26.9 100.0

Mchinji 83.8 16.2 100.0

Dedza 74.0 26.0 100.0

Ntcheu 66.7 33.3 100.0

Lilongwe City 86.0 14.0 100.0

Mangochi 56.7 43.3 100.0

Machinga 58.0 42.0 100.0

Zomba 67.8 32.2 100.0

Chiradzulu 59.6 40.4 100.0

Blantyre 66.6 33.4 100.0

Mwanza 70.1 29.9 100.0

Thyolo 60.1 39.9 100.0

Mulanje 66.5 33.5 100.0

Phalombe 72.2 27.8 100.0

Chikwawa 74.9 25.1 100.0

Nsanje 74.7 25.3 100.0

Balaka 66.4 33.6 100.0

Neno 71.8 28.2 100.0

Zomba City 69.5 30.5 100.0

Blantyre City 78.9 21.1 100.0

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

213
Annex Table 2.3: Dependency Ratio by District, IHS5 2019-2020

District IHS4 IHS5

Chitipa 1.2 1.2

Karonga 1.1 1.0

Nkhata Bay 1.2 1.2

Rumphi 1.1 1.0

Mzimba 1.3 1.2

Likoma 1.0 1.0

Mzuzu City 0.8 0.8

Kasungu 1.4 1.1

Nkhotakota 1.3 1.2

Ntchisi 1.2 1.1

Dowa 1.3 1.1

Salima 1.4 1.2

Lilongwe 1.2 1.2

Mchinji 1.3 1.2

Dedza 1.3 1.2

Ntcheu 1.2 1.2

Lilongwe City 1.0 0.9

Mangochi 1.5 1.7

Machinga 1.6 1.5

Zomba 1.3 1.3

Chiradzulu 1.2 1.1

Blantyre 1.1 1.0

Mwanza 1.2 1.1

Thyolo 1.3 1.2

Mulanje 1.2 1.3

Phalombe 1.3 1.4

Chikwawa 1.3 1.2

Nsanje 1.3 1.2

Balaka 1.3 1.4

Neno 1.3 1.2

Zomba City 1.0 1.0

Blantyre City 0.8 0.8

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

214
Annex Table 2.4: Proportion of Orphans by District, IHS5 2019-2020

District IHS4 IHS5

Chitipa 7.6 7.6

Karonga 7.6 9.9

Nkhata Bay 15.2 10.0

Rumphi 7.8 8.4

Mzimba 7.7 8.8

Likoma 9.7 7.5

Mzuzu City 8.0 8.3

Kasungu 8.1 7.9

Nkhotakota 8.2 8.8

Ntchisi 7.6 5.5

Dowa 6.3 7.4

Salima 10.1 16.1

Lilongwe 7.8 8.3

Mchinji 9.6 4.7

Dedza 10.9 7.6

Ntcheu 11.1 11.2

Lilongwe City 8.2 7.7

Mangochi 10.8 9.4

Machinga 8.6 9.6

Zomba 10.5 9.8

Chiradzulu 13.9 9.8

Blantyre 11.5 9.8

Mwanza 8.2 12.6

Thyolo 10.1 8.7

Mulanje 16.5 12.7

Phalombe 13.4 8.1

Chikwawa 15.8 10.5

Nsanje 15.5 10.3

Balaka 6.0 10.8

Neno 6.2 9.0

Zomba City 12.4 14.5

Blantyre City 12.4 6.9

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

215
Annex Table 2.5: Orphan Hood Status by District, IHS5 2019-2020
Father died Mother died Both parents died

District IHS4 IHS5 IHS4 IHS5 IHS4 IHS5

Chitipa 66.6 76.8 28.1 16.7 5.3 6.5

Karonga 64.1 64.2 12.4 23.2 23.5 12.6

Nkhata Bay 66.8 51.4 16.7 36.0 16.5 12.7

Rumphi 75.1 71.9 13.0 22.2 11.8 6.0

Mzimba 61.0 62.0 22.3 27.5 16.7 10.5

Likoma 59.1 56.4 14.2 0.0 26.7 43.6

Mzuzu City 74.3 76.0 10.6 13.8 15.1 10.2

Kasungu 58.1 70.9 29.9 20.7 12.0 8.4

Nkhotakota 75.2 56.8 18.2 39.0 6.6 4.2

Ntchisi 71.1 79.9 26.2 13.9 2.7 6.2

Dowa 54.1 79.1 34.8 19.2 11.2 1.6

Salima 58.5 63.4 23.6 14.5 17.9 22.1

Lilongwe 76.2 65.9 9.1 22.9 14.7 11.2

Mchinji 51.1 66.8 26.4 21.3 22.5 11.9

Dedza 83.5 88.1 8.6 6.3 7.9 5.6

Ntcheu 56.1 59.3 26.8 25.3 17.1 15.4

Lilongwe City 55.2 67.9 32.3 22.9 12.5 9.2

Mangochi 62.2 62.1 16.0 22.0 21.7 16.0

Machinga 68.0 62.9 23.0 32.4 9.0 4.7

Zomba 57.0 62.2 33.5 25.5 9.6 12.3

Chiradzulu 61.3 53.3 26.6 33.4 12.1 13.2

Blantyre 64.3 61.2 23.7 21.4 12.0 17.4

Mwanza 74.5 69.5 12.0 23.4 13.5 7.1

Thyolo 43.6 70.5 43.3 24.3 13.1 5.2

Mulanje 56.3 63.0 21.9 17.4 21.8 19.6

Phalombe 61.8 61.7 25.4 15.2 12.8 23.1

Chikwawa 67.7 74.6 20.5 16.8 11.8 8.6

Nsanje 69.6 84.6 12.3 8.6 18.1 6.8

Balaka 58.1 71.4 23.4 18.1 18.5 10.5

Neno 73.7 77.0 11.6 21.0 14.7 2.0

Zomba City 64.3 72.4 25.3 16.0 10.4 11.6

Blantyre City 63.4 63.4 20.8 29.5 15.8 7.0

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

216
Annex Table 2.6: Proportion of In-migrants by District, IHS5 2019-2020

District IHS4 IHS5

Chitipa 11.6 7.5

Karonga 16.2 9.6

Nkhata Bay 8.6 15.5

Rumphi 8.8 15.7

Mzimba 18.8 11.1

Likoma 8.6 3.5

Mzuzu City 27.8 26.6

Kasungu 10.6 8.9

Nkhotakota 17.7 8.7

Ntchisi 12.5 6.8

Dowa 7.8 7.2

Salima 7.3 8.5

Lilongwe 6.4 8.4

Mchinji 5.8 5.3

Dedza 4.7 5.6

Ntcheu 3.9 5.1

Lilongwe City 20.4 15.4

Mangochi 5.0 7.5

Machinga 3.1 6.1

Zomba 2.8 7.5

Chiradzulu 7.8 9.9

Blantyre 9.9 5.6

Mwanza 4.3 3.9

Thyolo 7.6 3.8

Mulanje 11.1 2.1

Phalombe 8.3 1.5

Chikwawa 4.3 3.1

Nsanje 6.6 4.1

Balaka 4.7 8.9

Neno 3.7 5.4

Zomba City 14.0 23.6

Blantyre City 20.6 15.9

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

217
Annex Table 2.7: Proportion of In-migrants by Movement Pattern by District, IHS5
2019-2020
Movement pattern of migrants
Rural Rural Urban Urban Outside Outside
to to to to Malawi to Malawi to
rural urban urban rural rural urban Total
District
Chitipa 66.2 14.4 3.5 8.9 5.5 1.6 100.0

Karonga 48.9 38.0 9.2 2.5 0.6 0.7 100.0

Nkhata Bay 80.4 5.9 0.7 6.6 6.4 0.0 100.0

Rumphi 72.8 11.9 2.5 12.4 0.0 0.3 100.0

Mzimba 75.5 0.0 0.0 16.8 7.7 0.0 100.0

Likoma 84.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 0.0 100.0

Mzuzu City 0.0 75.3 22.9 0.0 0.0 1.7 100.0

Kasungu 79.3 10.6 1.2 8.3 0.6 0.0 100.0

Nkhotakota 89.2 7.6 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 100.0

Ntchisi 91.1 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Dowa 84.9 5.1 0.6 4.4 5.0 0.0 100.0

Salima 81.8 8.0 5.9 2.9 1.5 0.0 100.0

Lilongwe 90.6 0.0 0.0 5.6 3.9 0.0 100.0

Mchinji 74.4 10.8 0.0 1.2 13.7 0.0 100.0

Dedza 82.5 5.9 3.4 2.2 5.0 0.8 100.0

Ntcheu 71.8 6.2 0.9 15.2 5.1 0.9 100.0

Lilongwe City 0.0 80.4 17.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 100.0

Mangochi 70.6 17.4 1.2 3.9 6.2 0.9 100.0

Machinga 83.9 13.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.8 100.0

Zomba 84.4 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 0.0 100.0

Chiradzulu 77.0 0.0 0.0 22.1 0.9 0.0 100.0

Blantyre 69.4 0.0 0.0 28.4 2.2 0.0 100.0

Mwanza 76.2 17.6 0.4 5.7 0.0 0.0 100.0

Thyolo 68.0 21.3 0.0 5.9 4.8 0.0 100.0

Mulanje 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Phalombe 82.1 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 0.0 100.0

Chikwawa 77.8 5.9 0.0 8.8 7.5 0.0 100.0

Nsanje 63.4 5.5 0.0 16.5 14.5 0.0 100.0

Balaka 75.0 13.5 9.9 1.7 0.0 0.0 100.0

Neno 76.2 0.0 0.0 23.8 0.0 0.0 100.0

Zomba City 0.0 65.3 34.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 100.0
Blantyre City 0.0 63.4 36.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

218
ANNEX 3: EDUCATION

Annex Table 3.1: Literacy Rate for Population Aged 5 Years and Above by District,
IHS5 2019-2020

District Total Female Male

Chitipa 76.8 74.6 79.0
Karonga 79.3 77.9 80.6
Nkhata Bay 69.0 67.8 70.4
Rumphi 78.6 75.9 81.1
Mzimba 67.1 66.2 67.9
Likoma 79.9 76.6 83.4
Mzuzu City 87.1 86.3 88.0
Kasungu 69.3 68.4 70.3
Nkhotakota 64.6 61.2 68.0
Ntchisi 61.5 60.1 63.0
Dowa 62.7 56.4 69.1
Salima 58.8 53.6 64.2
Lilongwe 56.9 54.2 59.7
Mchinji 61.4 58.0 64.7
Dedza 58.5 53.0 65.0
Ntcheu 71.1 69.5 73.0
Lilongwe City 85.2 83.3 87.1
Mangochi 46.3 44.4 48.5
Machinga 51.1 46.2 56.7
Zomba 65.8 63.6 68.8
Chiradzulu 71.9 68.3 75.8
Blantyre 74.6 74.1 75.2
Mwanza 64.3 62.3 66.6
Thyolo 63.7 61.6 66.2
Mulanje 63.5 61.2 66.2
Phalombe 55.1 52.2 58.6
Chikwawa 60.8 55.2 66.5
Nsanje 59.3 52.0 67.3
Balaka 65.6 64.8 66.4
Neno 71.1 70.5 71.7
Zomba City 85.3 85.0 85.6
Blantyre City 86.7 86.5 87.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

219
Annex Table 3.2: Literacy Rate for Population Aged 15 Years and Above by District,
IHS5 2019-2020
Literacy
Districts Total Female Male
Chitipa 86.5 80.9 92.1
Karonga 87.6 83.4 91.8
Nkhata Bay 80.4 76.5 84.7
Rumphi 89.6 85.8 93.1
Mzimba 80.0 73.8 87.2
Likoma 82.6 77.0 88.4
Mzuzu City 94.7 92.9 96.4
Kasungu 80.8 76.1 85.9
Nkhotakota 77.8 70.4 85.6
Ntchisi 73.3 66.5 81.0
Dowa 73.7 66.6 80.7
Salima 69.0 59.6 79.1
Lilongwe 67.2 59.2 76.1
Mchinji 71.4 64.0 78.7
Dedza 65.8 56.8 77.1
Ntcheu 80.6 75.1 87.4
Lilongwe City 92.6 88.0 96.8
Mangochi 57.8 49.5 69.1
Machinga 61.7 53.1 72.2
Zomba 74.5 69.0 81.6
Chiradzulu 79.5 73.4 86.7
Blantyre 81.3 79.2 84.0
Mwanza 73.3 65.8 82.1
Thyolo 74.0 67.1 82.9
Mulanje 71.7 65.3 79.6
Phalombe 66.8 61.4 73.4
Chikwawa 66.9 55.7 79.3
Nsanje 65.5 52.8 80.7
Balaka 76.8 71.3 83.7
Neno 84.7 79.5 90.6
Zomba City 91.6 88.7 94.9
Blantyre City 92.1 91.6 92.7
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

220
Annex Table 3.3: Proportion of Individuals that Never Attended School and Reasons
for Not Attending School for Population Aged 5 Years and Above by District, IHS5
2019-2020
Reasons for not attending school
Still too School
No money young to Parents Not too far
Never Attended for fees, attend did not let interested Illness or from
District School uniform school me , lazy Disability home Other Total
Chitipa 7.3 10.2 43.7 10.4 4.7 8.6 16.2 6.2 100.0
Karonga 6.4 11.0 53.2 11.4 9.8 8.5 2.4 3.7 100.0
Nkhata Bay 9.3 12.9 51.9 8.1 11.5 6.6 6.1 2.9 100.0
Rumphi 6.8 8.0 65.3 7.1 4.6 4.6 3.7 6.8 100.0
Mzimba 10.9 17.0 43.6 7.3 11.6 3.1 11.8 5.6 100.0
Likoma 5.3 34.2 40.1 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 14.4 100.0
Mzuzu City 4.4 19.2 46.8 4.5 13.1 8.8 3.6 4.0 100.0
Kasungu 11.3 29.5 24.2 16.0 17.0 4.3 6.4 2.6 100.0
Nkhotakota 12.0 31.0 31.3 4.6 21.9 2.8 4.6 3.9 100.0
Ntchisi 14.4 36.3 25.9 5.2 18.3 5.6 4.5 4.2 100.0
Dowa 12.4 41.0 17.7 14.7 9.3 5.6 6.8 4.8 100.0
Salima 18.8 45.1 29.4 5.8 12.3 3.7 1.3 2.5 100.0
Lilongwe 16.6 42.5 26.1 9.6 13.6 4.6 0.9 2.8 100.0
Mchinji 17.9 28.8 20.1 26.1 15.4 3.9 2.5 3.1 100.0
Dedza 19.7 40.6 22.3 10.7 16.3 4.4 3.0 2.7 100.0
Ntcheu 13.1 38.9 36.2 10.0 7.8 4.8 1.9 0.5 100.0
Lilongwe City 4.4 25.9 41.7 11.1 12.7 3.6 0.0 5.0 100.0
Mangochi 24.9 23.7 26.2 25.4 15.3 3.5 4.1 1.8 100.0
Machinga 18.7 38.4 28.9 16.9 6.5 2.2 6.5 0.6 100.0
Zomba 12.1 36.8 23.8 12.5 21.3 2.9 0.7 2.0 100.0
Chiradzulu 12.8 35.8 25.1 10.8 18.6 4.4 3.3 2.0 100.0
Blantyre 10.4 39.1 23.1 22.8 4.7 6.0 1.9 2.3 100.0
Mwanza 13.8 33.0 24.1 19.1 8.6 5.2 8.0 2.0 100.0
Thyolo 10.9 43.1 22.3 11.6 8.5 7.6 1.4 5.6 100.0
Mulanje 10.0 38.7 28.6 15.9 11.4 3.3 1.4 0.7 100.0
Phalombe 11.4 38.6 28.0 15.6 9.4 3.5 3.0 1.9 100.0
Chikwawa 21.4 36.0 27.4 15.7 13.3 2.0 3.2 2.5 100.0
Nsanje 22.8 32.4 23.3 15.0 19.6 2.2 5.2 2.2 100.0
Balaka 14.1 37.1 32.0 13.0 10.0 4.2 2.6 1.2 100.0
Neno 9.0 27.2 41.9 11.0 5.8 7.3 5.3 1.6 100.0
Zomba City 6.6 37.2 22.6 10.6 22.7 2.7 0.0 4.3 100.0
Blantyre City 6.5 30.3 33.8 13.7 16.4 2.3 2.5 1.1 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

221
Annex Table 3.4: Proportion of Individuals who Never Attended School and Reasons
for Not Attending School for Population Aged 15 Years and Above by District, IHS5
2019-2020
Reasons for not attending school
No Had to
Never money Parents Not work or
Attended for fees, did not let interested, Illness or School too far help at
District School uniform me lazy Disability from home home Other Total
Chitipa 5.8 19.7 19.9 9.1 9.1 30.3 11.9 - 100.0
Karonga 4.0 26.2 27.3 17.8 11.6 5.6 6.7 4.7 100.0
Nkhata Bay 6.0 29.0 18.9 23.9 9.6 13.5 3.8 1.4 100.0
Rumphi 3.3 24.9 22.1 14.4 11.8 9.0 17.7 0.0 100.0
Mzimba 7.7 33.1 15.6 23.5 4.0 14.6 6.4 2.8 100.0
Likoma 4.2 57.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 100.0
Mzuzu City 2.4 31.8 11.0 32.3 6.2 8.9 4.6 5.2 100.0
Kasungu 11.7 43.5 23.4 19.1 4.7 5.2 1.6 2.5 100.0
Nkhotakota 10.7 53.2 8.2 24.1 - 6.3 5.4 2.8 100.0
Ntchisi 13.5 53.9 8.7 21.7 5.7 2.9 7.0 0.0 100.0
Dowa 13.6 53.6 19.5 12.1 7.1 2.5 4.8 0.4 100.0
Salima 19.0 63.7 8.9 16.2 5.6 1.4 3.8 0.3 100.0
Lilongwe 16.8 57.9 14.7 18.4 3.0 1.4 3.8 0.7 100.0
Mchinji 20.5 37.2 35.7 15.8 4.8 1.5 0.5 4.6 100.0
Dedza 21.1 55.5 15.4 17.7 5.0 2.1 1.8 2.4 100.0
Ntcheu 11.4 65.0 17.7 9.3 6.2 0.9 0.0 1.0 100.0
Lilongwe City 3.1 46.9 22.4 17.8 5.6 0.0 2.2 5.1 100.0
Mangochi 26.1 35.1 41.4 12.0 3.7 4.7 2.1 1.1 100.0
Machinga 20.4 56.3 26.3 4.7 2.7 9.1 1.0 0.0 100.0
Zomba 13.2 48.4 18.8 24.4 4.4 1.0 0.6 2.4 100.0
Chiradzulu 11.7 54.5 14.2 20.8 7.2 2.3 1.0 0.0 100.0
Blantyre 10.5 56.5 27.3 6.7 3.4 2.8 1.8 1.5 100.0
Mwanza 15.5 45.2 25.2 10.9 6.6 10.3 1.2 0.7 100.0
Thyolo 11.1 61.5 16.5 6.0 7.7 0.9 2.9 4.6 100.0
Mulanje 10.5 53.6 24.2 14.2 4.1 0.9 0.0 3.0 100.0
Phalombe 12.1 59.2 23.2 7.8 2.2 4.6 1.4 1.6 100.0
Chikwawa 22.3 52.5 22.9 14.7 2.4 2.8 1.8 2.9 100.0
Nsanje 23.1 47.8 22.6 17.9 2.5 5.2 1.7 2.3 100.0
Balaka 13.3 61.9 21.4 8.5 5.0 1.1 0.5 1.5 100.0
Neno 7.3 53.0 21.6 7.4 7.8 7.0 3.1 - 100.0
Zomba City 5.7 54.1 17.6 19.1 2.1 0.0 2.0 5.2 100.0
Blantyre City 5.3 48.9 22.0 18.8 4.0 4.3 0.0 2.0 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

222
Annex Table 3.5: Enrolment Rates at Primary School by District, IHS5 2019-2020
Gross Enrolment Rate Net Enrolment Rate

Districts Girls Boys Total Girls Boys Total

Chitipa 117.9 130.8 124.2 93.8 93.9 93.8
Karonga 136.2 146.4 141.4 95.5 94.8 95.2
Nkhata Bay 120.6 125.6 122.9 90.5 86.9 88.8
Rumphi 125.1 139.8 132.4 90.5 94.0 92.3
Mzimba 117.5 133.9 125.8 87.9 89.6 88.8
Likoma 140.0 150.0 144.8 94.3 84.1 89.5
Mzuzu City 119.0 120.8 119.9 93.6 91.3 92.5
Kasungu 128.6 130.7 129.6 94.2 90.9 92.5
Nkhotakota 127.6 124.5 126.0 89.2 82.8 85.9
Ntchisi 129.7 121.3 125.4 92.4 84.2 88.2
Dowa 126.2 134.2 129.9 89.6 90.6 90.1
Salima 122.4 123.3 122.8 83.1 83.9 83.5
Lilongwe 121.9 120.7 121.3 87.0 82.4 84.6
Mchinji 127.5 131.4 129.5 91.8 86.7 89.3
Dedza 129.8 122.7 126.3 87.5 82.9 85.2
Ntcheu 118.0 131.5 124.3 86.8 88.1 87.4
Lilongwe City 123.4 130.2 126.5 92.8 95.0 93.8
Mangochi 107.4 104.6 106.0 81.4 74.7 78.1
Machinga 115.6 115.9 115.8 86.4 85.5 85.9
Zomba 117.1 125.8 120.8 90.7 89.6 90.2
Chiradzulu 126.2 126.0 126.1 87.2 84.1 85.6
Blantyre 126.9 125.6 126.3 93.1 93.1 93.1
Mwanza 130.8 127.6 129.2 92.8 91.2 92.0
Thyolo 122.2 132.2 127.3 93.5 89.6 91.6
Mulanje 120.1 139.0 129.1 91.4 91.4 91.4
Phalombe 127.8 110.2 119.2 91.4 83.8 87.8
Chikwawa 117.8 114.1 115.9 87.1 81.5 84.2
Nsanje 109.1 108.1 108.6 84.6 78.7 81.5
Balaka 117.0 125.5 121.0 92.2 86.1 89.2
Neno 124.6 134.1 129.4 94.5 94.3 94.4
Zomba City 121.3 119.5 120.4 89.0 86.8 87.9
Blantyre City 117.4 120.0 118.6 91.9 90.6 91.3
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

223
Annex Table 3.6: Enrolment Rates at Secondary School by District, IHS5 2019-2020
Gross enrolment rate Net enrolment rate

Districts Female Male Total Female Male Total

Chitipa 55.6 59.3 57.7 25.2 20.7 22.7
Karonga 57.3 41.6 49.1 28.1 18.3 22.9
Nkhata Bay 27.0 49.3 37.0 17.2 16.0 16.7
Rumphi 68.6 61.9 65.3 35.1 24.5 30.0
Mzimba 47.5 29.3 37.5 27.8 9.6 17.7
Likoma 87.5 70.0 77.8 36.8 21.8 28.6
Mzuzu City 94.8 94.8 94.8 45.5 44.1 44.8
Kasungu 38.5 40.2 39.3 16.5 7.9 12.4
Nkhotakota 35.4 27.3 31.3 16.1 7.4 11.7
Ntchisi 30.2 32.8 31.3 14.7 3.4 10.0
Dowa 19.7 23.7 22.2 6.2 9.8 8.6
Salima 27.8 21.9 24.7 15.3 10.2 12.4
Lilongwe 18.6 26.3 22.7 5.2 6.2 5.7
Mchinji 23.5 23.8 23.7 8.1 7.4 7.7
Dedza 32.1 21.9 27.2 10.5 9.0 9.8
Ntcheu 27.0 30.5 28.7 17.3 9.2 13.5
Lilongwe City 65.6 68.5 67.0 28.1 30.3 29.2
Mangochi 17.7 16.7 17.2 10.8 4.2 7.5
Machinga 27.5 22.7 25.0 10.1 3.7 6.8
Zomba 40.2 28.4 34.4 17.3 7.0 12.2
Chiradzulu 27.0 44.7 36.5 11.8 17.4 14.8
Blantyre 52.9 61.3 56.4 23.3 20.5 22.2
Mwanza 36.2 59.3 46.9 11.2 17.4 14.1
Thyolo 30.8 33.7 32.4 18.2 6.3 11.9
Mulanje 33.7 27.0 30.1 13.5 13.5 13.5
Phalombe 14.8 35.2 23.9 9.2 9.1 9.1
Chikwawa 20.7 49.4 35.2 8.5 13.9 11.2
Nsanje 33.8 41.8 37.4 15.5 11.9 13.8
Balaka 33.3 22.7 27.8 11.8 10.5 11.1
Neno 39.0 42.5 40.8 25.8 8.7 16.0
Zomba City 74.0 63.6 69.2 27.3 32.6 29.7
Blantyre City 75.0 93.6 81.9 53.2 31.5 45.4
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

224
Annex Table 3.7: Type of School Attended by Pupils According to District, IHS5 2019-
2020
Primary Secondary

Districts Public Private /Other Religious Total Public Private /Other Religious Total
Chitipa 84.4 3.8 11.8 100.0 73.0 15.7 11.3 100.0
Karonga 84.5 0.8 14.7 100.0 84.5 11.8 3.7 100.0
Nkhata Bay 90.3 0.6 9.0 100.0 82.1 16.4 1.5 100.0
Rumphi 90.0 1.7 8.4 100.0 82.6 11.5 5.9 100.0
Mzimba 90.8 0.7 8.6 100.0 69.0 22.0 9.0 100.0
Likoma 85.3 2.1 12.6 100.0 72.6 0.0 27.4 100.0
Mzuzu City 85.4 8.4 6.2 100.0 52.3 38.9 8.8 100.0
Kasungu 99.7 0.3 0.0 100.0 85.9 4.5 9.5 100.0
Nkhotakota 97.3 1.0 1.7 100.0 88.2 4.6 7.2 100.0
Ntchisi 95.7 0.8 3.5 100.0 90.7 3.8 5.4 100.0
Dowa 97.9 0.8 1.3 100.0 85.7 4.8 9.5 100.0
Salima 94.4 2.3 3.3 100.0 75.7 19.4 4.9 100.0
Lilongwe 93.8 1.6 4.6 100.0 79.6 12.2 8.2 100.0
Mchinji 95.5 1.5 3.0 100.0 83.8 3.0 13.2 100.0
Dedza 88.5 1.0 10.5 100.0 87.2 1.5 11.3 100.0
Ntcheu 85.3 1.5 13.2 100.0 72.7 25.4 1.9 100.0
Lilongwe City 78.9 16.2 4.9 100.0 66.7 25.3 8.0 100.0
Mangochi 90.6 1.6 7.9 100.0 90.4 7.2 2.4 100.0
Machinga 92.5 0.9 6.7 100.0 82.1 8.5 9.3 100.0
Zomba 87.7 3.2 9.1 100.0 62.5 20.3 17.2 100.0
Chiradzulu 83.7 3.0 13.3 100.0 79.3 17.1 3.6 100.0
Blantyre 89.8 2.2 7.9 100.0 78.1 18.7 3.1 100.0
Mwanza 85.3 4.5 10.1 100.0 69.3 18.0 12.6 100.0
Thyolo 86.8 1.0 12.2 100.0 78.3 20.4 1.3 100.0
Mulanje 74.7 1.4 23.9 100.0 84.3 5.9 9.8 100.0
Phalombe 81.1 0.7 18.2 100.0 78.1 18.8 3.1 100.0
Chikwawa 97.4 1.0 1.6 100.0 88.9 5.5 5.6 100.0
Nsanje 95.5 0.9 3.6 100.0 65.5 27.1 7.4 100.0
Balaka 81.6 1.2 17.2 100.0 56.4 11.8 31.8 100.0
Neno 90.8 3.5 5.6 100.0 68.8 23.8 7.4 100.0
Zomba City 87.8 6.7 5.5 100.0 73.4 20.2 6.4 100.0
Blantyre City 69.8 22.5 7.7 100.0 42.5 38.6 19.0 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

225
Annex Table 3.8: Proportion of Individuals Aged 5 years and Above by Highest
Education Qualification Acquired and District, IHS5 2019-2020
Districts None PSLC JCE MSCE Tertiary Total
Chitipa 73.2 13.0 7.3 5.5 0.9 100.0
Karonga 72.9 13.7 6.1 6.5 0.8 100.0
Nkhata Bay 77.0 10.1 6.6 5.4 0.9 100.0
Rumphi 65.5 16.6 9.8 6.6 1.5 100.0
Mzimba 74.4 15.0 5.9 4.0 0.7 100.0
Likoma 69.4 10.8 9.3 9.3 1.2 100.0
Mzuzu City 48.1 15.7 10.9 16.0 9.3 100.0
Kasungu 82.7 8.8 5.6 2.6 0.3 100.0
Nkhotakota 79.8 10.1 4.7 5.1 0.4 100.0
Ntchisi 85.4 7.4 3.9 2.8 0.4 100.0
Dowa 87.1 6.9 3.9 2.0 0.2 100.0
Salima 87.2 4.9 3.0 3.0 1.9 100.0
Lilongwe 87.4 6.1 3.2 2.8 0.4 100.0
Mchinji 87.8 6.8 3.1 2.0 0.3 100.0
Dedza 88.0 6.3 3.0 2.4 0.3 100.0
Ntcheu 83.2 9.7 4.1 2.8 0.2 100.0
Lilongwe City 55.9 12.4 11.2 14.3 6.1 100.0
Mangochi 93.0 3.3 1.4 2.0 0.3 100.0
Machinga 90.3 5.4 2.1 2.0 0.1 100.0
Zomba 84.6 7.3 3.6 3.9 0.6 100.0
Chiradzulu 80.7 9.8 4.7 4.0 0.7 100.0
Blantyre 73.6 13.8 5.6 4.7 2.3 100.0
Mwanza 83.6 9.6 2.5 3.6 0.7 100.0
Thyolo 86.1 7.7 2.9 2.9 0.4 100.0
Mulanje 87.8 6.7 3.6 1.4 0.5 100.0
Phalombe 90.7 4.3 2.7 2.2 0.1 100.0
Chikwawa 85.3 6.9 4.9 2.6 0.3 100.0
Nsanje 84.2 7.2 4.3 3.6 0.6 100.0
Balaka 84.2 8.4 3.0 3.4 1.0 100.0
Neno 82.3 10.1 3.8 3.3 0.5 100.0
Zomba City 59.3 11.7 8.2 14.0 6.8 100.0
Blantyre City 52.4 16.6 11.9 14.0 5.1 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

226
Annex Table 3.9: Proportion of Highest Education Qualification Acquired by
Population Aged 15 Years and Above and District, IHS5 2019-2020
Districts None PSLC JCE MSCE Tertiary Total
Chitipa 59.7 19.2 11.1 8.5 1.4 100.0
Karonga 59.8 20.1 9.2 9.7 1.3 100.0
Nkhata Bay 65.5 14.8 10.1 8.3 1.4 100.0
Rumphi 49.8 23.5 14.5 9.8 2.3 100.0
Mzimba 61.9 22.2 8.8 6.1 1.1 100.0
Likoma 60.3 13.4 12.3 12.4 1.6 100.0
Mzuzu City 30.2 20.6 14.7 21.8 12.7 100.0
Kasungu 73.6 13.2 8.8 4.0 0.4 100.0
Nkhotakota 68.4 15.6 7.3 8.0 0.7 100.0
Ntchisi 77.4 11.5 6.0 4.4 0.7 100.0
Dowa 80.5 10.2 6.0 3.0 0.3 100.0
Salima 80.4 7.3 4.6 4.7 2.9 100.0
Lilongwe 80.8 9.3 4.9 4.4 0.6 100.0
Mchinji 81.0 10.4 5.0 3.1 0.5 100.0
Dedza 81.7 9.6 4.6 3.7 0.5 100.0
Ntcheu 74.3 14.6 6.3 4.4 0.3 100.0
Lilongwe City 38.2 16.5 16.0 20.5 8.8 100.0
Mangochi 88.2 5.5 2.3 3.4 0.5 100.0
Machinga 84.4 8.6 3.5 3.3 0.2 100.0
Zomba 75.3 11.4 6.0 6.3 1.0 100.0
Chiradzulu 71.1 14.8 7.1 6.1 0.9 100.0
Blantyre 62.1 19.5 8.2 6.9 3.4 100.0
Mwanza 75.2 14.4 3.8 5.5 1.1 100.0
Thyolo 78.6 11.7 4.6 4.5 0.6 100.0
Mulanje 81.5 9.8 5.7 2.3 0.8 100.0
Phalombe 84.8 7.0 4.4 3.7 0.2 100.0
Chikwawa 77.3 10.5 7.6 4.1 0.5 100.0
Nsanje 76.2 10.7 6.7 5.5 0.9 100.0
Balaka 74.6 13.4 4.8 5.6 1.6 100.0
Neno 72.2 15.8 6.0 5.2 0.8 100.0
Zomba City 42.6 15.6 11.9 20.1 9.8 100.0
Blantyre City 34.0 21.9 16.8 20.0 7.3 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

227
ANNEX 4: HEALTH

Annex Table 4.1: Proportion of Persons Reporting Illness/Injury and Percentage

Distribution of Top Most Reported Diseases in Malawi by Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Top most diseases suffered from

Sore
Proportion Fever and throat Stomach Body and
District who suffered Malaria Cough and Flu Headache Ache Joint Pains Diarrhoea Other Total
Chitipa 17.9 23.7 28.5 1.0 12.5 13.5 4.9 1.4 14.5 100
Karonga 19.0 22.2 32.1 1.9 10.0 5.9 6.6 1.8 19.5 100
Nkhata Bay 29.6 38.2 19.5 2.2 5.1 11.9 4.6 1.2 17.4 100
Rumphi 21.9 19.0 35.3 1.2 9.2 9.8 3.8 2.9 18.9 100
Mzimba 27.8 36.8 11.1 12.3 8.7 8.9 3.6 2.4 16.2 100
Likoma 37.5 27.0 15.3 1.4 10.0 7.1 12.8 1.4 24.9 100
Mzuzu City 20.4 23.7 15.2 18.6 9.0 8.5 2.7 1.3 20.9 100
Kasungu 24.5 40.3 20.1 2.0 6.6 6.7 2.5 5.4 16.4 100
Nkhotakota 36.3 31.2 16.9 4.8 8.6 8.0 6.6 3.0 20.9 100
Ntchisi 39.6 21.3 26.3 6.7 6.6 6.5 9.7 4.2 18.7 100
Dowa 27.1 37.1 20.1 4.5 6.4 5.9 4.3 2.3 19.3 100
Salima 18.2 41.3 2.6 11.9 7.9 7.9 2.4 2.3 23.7 100
Lilongwe 25.7 43.1 5.2 9.6 6.8 6.6 4.4 3.7 20.6 100
Mchinji 27.9 37.2 14.7 2.8 10.1 9.4 5.6 1.8 18.4 100
Dedza 32.2 33.1 10.0 10.3 11.3 9.2 4.5 4.0 17.7 100
Ntcheu 32.7 43.9 10.2 6.0 7.1 8.3 3.5 1.9 18.9 100
Lilongwe
21.9 27.7 12.2 13.0 8.1 8.2 3.9 5.4 21.4 100
City
Mangochi 30.4 28.3 11.6 11.2 11.1 11.3 4.5 3.8 18.2 100
Machinga 27.0 27.7 12.9 14.0 9.6 9.3 4.9 1.8 19.9 100
Zomba 24.9 37.2 12.7 9.3 6.6 6.5 3.7 1.4 22.5 100
Chiradzulu 24.8 31.2 14.9 3.9 10.1 7.4 6.0 4.8 21.7 100
Blantyre 27.8 40.2 7.4 7.7 12.4 7.8 6.9 3.3 14.3 100
Mwanza 24.0 32.8 9.8 9.2 13.7 9.5 6.3 2.6 16.1 100
Thyolo 27.3 27.6 7.7 13.5 10.8 8.5 4.2 5.2 22.6 100
Mulanje 29.3 33.8 0.8 20.1 7.9 5.7 4.9 3.6 23.1 100
Phalombe 31.6 24.2 0.5 23.6 11.9 7.0 7.6 3.8 21.3 100
Chikwawa 28.3 46.6 6.3 2.5 13.6 4.3 7.9 3.3 15.6 100
Nsanje 23.3 32.6 3.8 5.1 12.5 12.2 7.1 4.2 22.5 100
Balaka 31.3 43.7 10.7 6.6 6.6 7.3 3.3 3.5 18.3 100
Neno 25.6 38.8 15.0 5.3 9.9 8.9 6.9 1.5 13.7 100
Zomba City 19.0 30.8 14.9 5.9 7.8 4.8 2.6 5.8 27.3 100
Blantyre
20.5 20.0 10.4 18.2 11.2 12.8 4.6 4.1 18.6 100
City
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

228
Annex Table 4.2: Actions Taken in Face of Illness/Injury by District IHS5 2019-2020
Sought Sought
treatment treatment Had
at gvt Local at other Did medicine, Did
health pharmacy health Nothing, known Nothing,
District facility or grocery facility not serious remedies no money Other Total
Chitipa 65.0 11.3 9.3 5.6 6.9 1.6 0.4 100
Karonga 64.5 17.2 6.8 4.8 4.4 1.6 0.8 100
Nkhata Bay 59.7 17.9 8.7 6.4 2.9 3.8 0.5 100
Rumphi 61.3 12.6 10.3 7.8 5.3 2.4 0.3 100
Mzimba 53.4 20.5 12.9 4.7 4.8 1.5 2.2 100
Likoma 65.8 3.2 10.0 13.2 7.8 0.0 0.0 100
Mzuzu City 45.5 27.0 11.0 10.4 3.6 2.0 0.5 100
Kasungu 56.3 25.6 7.2 5.6 1.6 2.9 0.8 100
Nkhotakota 46.5 20.5 10.2 7.8 11.3 2.3 1.4 100
Ntchisi 59.2 13.9 3.3 7.4 11.6 3.2 1.3 100
Dowa 48.5 23.0 10.5 5.8 6.3 3.5 2.3 100
Salima 43.1 30.0 14.8 4.5 3.0 3.3 1.4 100
Lilongwe 44.8 22.1 9.0 7.0 4.9 10.0 2.0 100
Mchinji 60.5 15.4 6.1 7.2 5.9 3.8 1.1 100
Dedza 39.3 28.1 14.8 7.0 4.4 4.4 2.1 100
Ntcheu 48.2 24.5 13.9 5.9 4.1 2.8 0.6 100
Lilongwe City 34.5 31.2 15.7 7.2 7.0 3.6 0.7 100
Mangochi 39.8 37.2 10.3 2.5 3.1 4.5 2.6 100
Machinga 46.5 36.6 6.0 4.5 2.3 1.1 3.0 100
Zomba 52.0 21.5 11.5 4.2 5.3 2.5 2.9 100
Chiradzulu 54.4 19.5 13.4 4.5 4.5 2.0 1.7 100
Blantyre 58.8 19.0 6.0 6.5 4.9 3.8 1.0 100
Mwanza 60.4 23.9 6.8 5.0 2.1 0.3 1.4 100
Thyolo 59.3 13.0 8.4 11.0 2.5 4.6 1.3 100
Mulanje 66.4 11.4 4.0 12.7 1.5 2.6 1.3 100
Phalombe 53.3 11.7 8.5 19.1 1.3 4.4 1.7 100
Chikwawa 61.6 18.5 5.9 4.3 4.4 2.7 2.5 100
Nsanje 57.6 21.6 6.7 5.1 2.6 4.6 1.8 100
Balaka 49.5 27.5 11.4 4.3 2.9 2.4 2.0 100
Neno 72.1 14.5 3.4 4.8 3.9 0.7 0.5 100
Zomba City 58.0 14.0 12.2 6.5 7.0 0.3 2.0 100
Blantyre City 37.8 31.0 14.2 6.7 9.8 0.4 0.0 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

229
Annex Table 4.3: Proportion of Reported Chronic Illness and its Distribution by
District, IHS5 2019-2020
Type of Chronic Illness reported
Proportion Chronic
chronically HIV/ Stomach Malaria/ Arthritis/ Mental
District ill AIDS Asthma Disorder Epilepsy Fever Rheumatism Illness Diabetes TB Other Total
Chitipa 4.7 14.5 33.5 7.5 17.6 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.0 0.0 22.5 100
Karonga 5.3 13.6 37.7 1.3 15.4 2.5 0.0 3.0 7.4 3.8 15.3 100
Nkhata Bay 7.0 13.4 21.9 10.5 9.7 1.7 8.7 2.7 4.4 2.5 24.5 100
Rumphi 5.9 14.3 41.4 4.3 0.9 4.3 3.2 4.9 2.3 0.0 24.5 100
Mzimba 6.1 20.9 11.7 8.0 14.0 1.6 0.0 2.8 1.2 2.5 37.4 100
Likoma 8.9 5.9 20.9 0.0 5.9 7.5 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 52.2 100
Mzuzu City 7.4 15.3 13.1 8.8 0.9 0.0 3.5 4.1 7.3 1.8 45.2 100
Kasungu 5.0 22.6 22.5 15.3 9.1 1.8 0.0 1.9 4.3 2.1 20.4 100
Nkhotakota 7.7 16.1 31.3 8.3 5.9 3.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.4 31.4 100
Ntchisi 7.7 9.1 12.6 3.8 16.1 2.3 3.2 1.5 3.4 2.5 45.6 100
Dowa 8.3 14.8 31.2 5.7 11.0 2.3 0.0 2.7 3.6 3.1 25.5 100
Salima 9.5 12.7 26.2 6.4 9.3 4.8 16.5 2.3 0.9 0.0 20.8 100
Lilongwe 9.3 10.4 14.9 11.9 10.5 1.8 10.1 3.2 1.2 2.9 33.1 100
Mchinji 6.8 22.9 19.0 7.6 13.6 0.5 1.6 2.1 0.0 2.5 30.3 100
Dedza 10.3 8.4 16.5 21.5 6.6 5.3 1.8 6.8 0.0 2.8 30.4 100
Ntcheu 12.7 18.4 25.7 12.4 2.5 10.3 1.4 1.9 1.9 1.6 24.2 100
Lilongwe City 6.4 13.1 29.2 15.0 2.1 3.5 2.0 0.0 5.9 0.6 28.6 100
Mangochi 9.0 40.8 16.7 4.3 7.3 4.7 3.2 6.9 0.0 1.4 14.9 100
Machinga 9.2 26.4 19.8 7.4 4.4 7.7 6.8 4.2 2.4 0.5 20.4 100
Zomba 8.0 28.4 12.9 7.8 7.6 9.1 8.0 0.0 2.7 0.5 23.0 100
Chiradzulu 9.0 45.3 13.5 3.2 8.1 1.3 0.0 6.7 1.0 1.2 19.7 100
Blantyre 12.2 25.2 16.8 5.6 8.7 3.7 4.1 1.1 4.2 1.1 29.5 100
Mwanza 8.0 11.5 36.3 5.6 15.4 0.7 0.0 4.7 0.7 3.8 21.3 100
Thyolo 9.7 41.8 18.2 2.7 10.0 1.6 0.7 2.2 2.4 3.6 17.0 100
Mulanje 10.2 44.0 14.4 2.7 4.4 0.6 0.6 2.3 1.6 1.5 27.9 100
Phalombe 10.4 28.0 19.1 3.5 3.9 3.4 0.5 5.0 2.4 2.6 31.5 100
Chikwawa 8.4 25.8 35.9 2.3 6.4 13.5 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.3 11.1 100
Nsanje 8.3 29.4 28.0 1.6 4.5 5.6 1.0 0.0 2.1 7.4 20.5 100
Balaka 11.1 25.9 30.1 8.5 2.8 6.4 5.8 3.2 1.1 0.3 15.9 100
Neno 9.4 34.7 21.9 4.3 5.4 0.9 0.0 1.2 3.1 1.6 27.0 100
Zomba City 7.5 19.8 35.3 6.6 1.0 0.9 1.7 1.0 2.6 2.7 28.5 100
Blantyre City 12.5 34.2 19.6 6.2 3.2 3.9 1.3 1.2 5.8 1.6 22.9 100

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

230
Annex Table 4.4: Percentage Distribution of those who Diagnosed Chronic Illnesses
by District, IHS5 2019-2020
Health
Medical worker Medical worker at Traditional Surveillance
District at hospital health facility Self healer Assistant Other Total
Chitipa 83.7 13.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.3 100.0
Karonga 73.6 18.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 2.6 100.0
Nkhata Bay 70.9 15.8 11.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 100.0
Rumphi 78.2 11.7 6.3 1.2 0.8 1.8 100.0
Mzimba 61.7 25.7 3.8 3.4 0.8 4.5 100.0
Likoma 43.4 44.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 100.0
Mzuzu City 88.5 6.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 100.0
Kasungu 62.2 18.7 15.8 0.0 0.0 3.3 100.0
Nkhotakota 61.0 26.6 5.7 0.0 0.5 6.2 100.0
Ntchisi 60.6 26.4 5.4 3.5 0.0 4.1 100.0
Dowa 43.0 42.2 6.1 0.0 0.0 8.7 100.0
Salima 59.0 28.9 6.7 3.2 1.5 0.6 100.0
Lilongwe 48.7 24.1 15.1 1.7 0.0 10.5 100.0
Mchinji 56.6 21.0 14.7 0.5 0.0 7.2 100.0
Dedza 58.2 16.4 12.1 1.6 0.0 11.7 100.0
Ntcheu 72.6 14.5 7.0 1.4 1.0 3.5 100.0
Lilongwe City 64.7 14.5 13.6 0.0 0.0 7.2 100.0
Mangochi 71.5 12.0 7.7 4.9 0.0 3.9 100.0
Machinga 76.1 2.7 11.9 2.1 0.0 7.1 100.0
Zomba 65.7 9.0 10.2 3.1 0.0 12.0 100.0
Chiradzulu 77.3 14.3 2.5 0.7 0.0 5.1 100.0
Blantyre 79.9 5.8 6.3 1.2 0.5 6.3 100.0
Mwanza 61.4 23.9 7.7 1.7 0.0 5.3 100.0
Thyolo 68.3 20.6 2.6 1.3 0.0 7.3 100.0
Mulanje 58.3 25.1 3.8 3.1 0.0 9.7 100.0
Phalombe 56.2 26.2 6.2 2.3 0.0 9.1 100.0
Chikwawa 68.5 21.9 4.7 0.6 0.0 4.3 100.0
Nsanje 62.1 26.7 5.0 2.0 0.0 4.3 100.0
Balaka 66.5 11.3 13.5 2.2 0.2 6.2 100.0
Neno 69.0 20.8 6.3 0.3 0.0 3.6 100.0
Zomba City 93.8 3.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 100.0
Blantyre City 84.2 3.9 7.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 100.0

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

231
Annex Table 4.5: Proportion by Place of Delivery for Women Aged 12-49 by District,
IHS5 2019-2020
Place of delivery for the child born in the last 24 months
District
Hospital Home Other Total
Chitipa 97.6 1.6 0.8 100
Karonga 96.9 3.1 0.0 100
Nkhata Bay 97.0 3.0 0.0 100
Rumphi 99.1 0.9 0.0 100
Mzimba 96.4 2.8 0.8 100
Likoma 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Mzuzu City 97.4 2.6 0.0 100
Kasungu 97.1 2.9 0.0 100
Nkhotakota 94.0 5.8 0.2 100
Ntchisi 94.2 3.0 2.8 100
Dowa 96.4 3.6 0.0 100
Salima 96.5 3.5 0.0 100
Lilongwe 92.3 6.8 0.9 100
Mchinji 96.8 3.2 0.0 100
Dedza 97.3 2.2 0.5 100
Ntcheu 96.9 3.1 0.0 100
Lilongwe City 97.1 2.9 0.0 100
Mangochi 93.2 6.5 0.3 100
Machinga 93.5 6.2 0.3 100
Zomba 96.6 3.4 0.0 100
Chiradzulu 98.1 1.9 0.0 100
Blantyre 97.7 1.2 1.1 100
Mwanza 98.7 0.9 0.4 100
Thyolo 98.2 1.8 0.0 100
Mulanje 96.6 3.1 0.3 100
Phalombe 91.2 8.1 0.6 100
Chikwawa 94.9 4.8 0.3 100
Nsanje 90.2 9.8 0.0 100
Balaka 95.6 4.4 0.0 100
Neno 98.3 1.3 0.4 100
Zomba City 98.1 0.0 1.9 100
Blantyre City 100.0 0.0 0.0 100

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

232
Annex Table 4.6: Proportion of Births Assisted by Skilled Health Personnel by
District, IHS5 2019-2020

Traditional
Nurse/ Doctor/ Friend or birth Patient
District Midwife Clinician relative Attendant Self Attendant Other Total
Chitipa 72.7 25.3 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0
Karonga 80.3 16.9 1.5 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
Nkhata Bay 73.2 24.3 0.5 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
Rumphi 69.1 30.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mzimba 89.0 7.4 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 100.0
Likoma 47.1 52.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mzuzu City 86.4 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Kasungu 55.5 41.9 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 100.0
Nkhotakota 76.1 18.9 2.6 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
Ntchisi 72.5 22.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 100.0
Dowa 78.5 16.9 4.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Salima 55.4 41.0 2.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 100.0
Lilongwe 65.9 27.7 1.7 3.2 0.8 0.6 0.0 100.0
Mchinji 60.2 34.1 1.3 0.0 4.3 0.2 0.0 100.0
Dedza 64.6 31.6 1.3 1.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 100.0
Ntcheu 60.2 36.5 2.6 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0
Lilongwe City 84.4 14.1 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mangochi 67.7 25.1 5.0 1.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Machinga 70.3 23.8 3.0 1.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 100.0
Zomba 55.9 38.7 1.7 0.7 1.7 1.4 0.0 100.0
Chiradzulu 64.5 33.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 100.0
Blantyre 57.0 40.7 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mwanza 76.1 23.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Thyolo 62.6 35.9 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mulanje 71.7 25.5 1.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Phalombe 57.4 35.7 4.8 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Chikwawa 50.4 42.3 4.3 1.4 1.0 0.5 0.0 100.0
Nsanje 54.6 35.8 6.9 2.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 100.0
Balaka 72.4 23.0 2.5 1.0 0.0 1.1 0.2 100.0
Neno 82.9 15.2 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 100.0
Zomba City 54.3 43.4 1.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0
Blantyre City 62.6 37.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

233
Annex Table 4.7: Proportion of Households with Members Sleeping under a Bed Net,
IHS5 2019-2020
District Bed Net Under 5 Years
Chitipa 89.7 97.7
Karonga 95.1 97.9
Nkhata Bay 83.4 99.1
Rumphi 92.3 98.1
Mzimba 83.1 93.9
Likoma 90.0 100.0
Mzuzu City 90.6 98.2
Kasungu 81.3 94.9
Nkhotakota 64.3 92.2
Ntchisi 79.9 94.2
Dowa 80.3 96.0
Salima 81.5 98.6
Lilongwe 80.7 97.6
Mchinji 90.3 97.8
Dedza 74.9 96.5
Ntcheu 87.7 91.7
Lilongwe City 84.5 97.5
Mangochi 85.7 95.7
Machinga 92.6 97.9
Zomba 92.0 96.7
Chiradzulu 90.6 99.4
Blantyre 84.4 99.6
Mwanza 84.7 98.3
Thyolo 86.6 100.0
Mulanje 84.0 96.7
Phalombe 89.5 99.7
Chikwawa 85.4 98.4
Nsanje 85.3 97.3
Balaka 86.8 98.0
Neno 75.0 98.8
Zomba City 91.0 98.8
Blantyre City 87.1 96.9

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

234
ANNEX 5: CREDIT AND LOANS

Annex Table 5.1: Proportion of Households where at least One Member Obtained a
Loan and Reasons for Obtaining the Loan by Districts IHS5 2019-2020
Reasons for Obtaining a Loan
Purchased Agricultural
Inputs for Purchased

Business
Proportion that Start-Up Food Cash non-farm
Districts borrowed Capital crops crops Tobacco inputs Land Other Total
Chitipa 9.1 32.1 53.7 4.2 2.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 100.0
Karonga 10.6 31.9 62.9 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.8 0.0 100.0
Nkhata Bay 17.5 87.3 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 100.0
Rumphi 11.4 53.1 17.0 11.8 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mzimba 33.0 38.7 39.4 2.3 17.3 2.0 0.0 0.3 100.0
Likoma 25.6 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mzuzu City 22.6 69.7 23.6 0.3 0.0 4.7 1.7 0.0 100.0
Kasungu 16.3 34.0 18.3 14.0 25.2 5.4 3.0 0.0 100.0
Nkhotakota 21.4 51.9 36.6 4.3 1.7 1.8 3.7 0.0 100.0
Ntchisi 22.0 39.2 31.1 14.5 6.7 8.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
Dowa 15.5 47.7 32.7 9.1 8.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Salima 15.7 65.7 26.1 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Lilongwe 14.0 63.3 21.9 1.3 7.2 2.0 4.4 0.0 100.0
Mchinji 14.3 50.5 22.0 14.3 3.1 6.5 3.5 0.0 100.0
Dedza 19.9 41.3 28.4 23.1 0.0 6.0 1.1 0.0 100.0
Ntcheu 33.4 49.2 31.7 16.2 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 100.0
Lilongwe City 14.0 90.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.9 0.0 100.0
Mangochi 11.6 56.4 38.3 2.7 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
Machinga 16.8 39.7 45.3 5.0 2.9 7.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Zomba 16.2 50.1 27.7 9.7 0.0 10.4 2.1 0.0 100.0
Chiradzulu 19.9 39.0 46.3 7.7 0.0 5.6 1.4 0.0 100.0
Blantyre 16.9 73.7 21.2 1.3 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mwanza 22.1 39.9 52.2 3.0 0.0 2.6 2.4 0.0 100.0
Thyolo 16.1 37.5 48.8 6.2 0.0 5.3 2.1 0.0 100.0
Mulanje 14.5 63.0 19.7 0.0 0.0 13.8 3.6 0.0 100.0
Phalombe 14.9 62.4 20.2 4.0 2.7 10.7 0.0 0.0 100.0
Chikwawa 22.5 52.5 13.3 28.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 100.0
Nsanje 13.9 54.7 38.3 4.7 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Balaka 14.7 36.6 45.1 11.6 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
Neno 26.6 49.1 40.4 4.6 0.0 4.6 1.4 0.0 100.0
Zomba City 14.1 75.4 15.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 6.5 2.5 100.0
Blantyre City 18.6 76.6 19.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.9 0.0 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

235
Annex Table 5. 2: Percentage Distribution of Sources of Loans by District, IHS5 2019-
2020
Money Grocery/
Village Lender Local Religious
District Bank Relative Neighbour (Katapila) NGO SACCO MRFC Bank Employer Merchant Institutions MARDEF Other
Chitipa 39.8 2.0 12.4 10.1 0.0 12.5 2.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 12.0
Karonga 56.7 10.6 10.8 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.4 1.7 0.0 0.0
Nkhata Bay 36.0 11.4 3.1 12.7 15.2 1.4 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.5
Rumphi 32.6 6.0 5.7 8.9 8.9 10.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.6 0.0 0.0 23.8
Mzimba 40.6 8.3 11.2 12.5 8.7 2.7 0.0 1.2 3.0 0.9 1.5 0.4 8.9
Likoma 76.2 16.4 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mzuzu City 37.0 5.4 16.7 4.6 15.5 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.8 2.5 10.1
Kasungu 26.8 11.8 12.4 5.4 11.2 7.8 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6
Nkhotakota 45.3 18.5 17.3 7.4 0.0 1.8 4.6 1.0 0.1 0.0 1.4 1.6 1.0
Ntchisi 37.5 15.7 11.6 13.5 7.6 0.9 3.7 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1
Dowa 32.4 13.1 16.7 17.9 2.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 8.1
Salima 33.9 9.7 13.2 8.2 0.0 3.1 7.7 5.4 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 8.9
Lilongwe 41.1 10.0 11.4 8.6 12.4 0.0 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7
Mchinji 38.3 15.6 16.5 7.7 7.7 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 7.7
Dedza 20.9 37.8 18.6 5.2 7.2 0.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.5 2.2
Ntcheu 49.2 27.6 10.2 5.0 4.4 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0
Lilongwe City 30.1 5.2 26.5 12.1 4.6 7.1 1.0 6.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9
Mangochi 40.7 16.1 25.3 7.1 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Machinga 32.0 29.1 21.6 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.8 0.0 4.3
Zomba 49.0 11.9 13.0 7.4 4.7 1.8 0.0 0.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8
Chiradzulu 51.0 12.3 12.0 10.1 7.3 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6
Blantyre 59.2 17.4 10.9 3.7 4.4 1.1 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.4
Mwanza 46.9 25.7 13.8 3.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.2
Thyolo 51.8 10.6 5.2 11.5 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.4 1.7
Mulanje 46.7 14.8 7.2 17.4 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 4.9
Phalombe 39.3 10.1 2.8 35.6 2.9 2.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6
Chikwawa 57.1 15.9 9.1 9.3 1.9 0.6 0.1 0.0 3.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.5
Nsanje 56.8 12.3 17.6 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.4
Balaka 77.3 5.8 10.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.8
Neno 63.3 21.4 2.7 1.9 5.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
Zomba City 17.7 1.3 16.0 3.9 18.3 6.2 1.7 9.7 1.4 0.0 9.8 1.7 12.2
Blantyre City 47.2 16.5 18.5 1.7 3.2 1.4 0.0 2.9 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

236
 ANNEX 6: NON-FARM ENTERPRISES

Annex Table 6.1: Proportion of Households that Operated Non-Farm Enterprises and
Percentage Distribution of Household Non- Farm Enterprises by Industry by District,
IHS5 2019-2020
Industry
Wholesale
and retail
trade;
Proportion of Accom- Transportation Real estate,
households modation and storage; Professional
that operated Mining and food Information activities, Other
nonagricultur and Manufa- Cons- service and Education service
District al enterprises quarrying cturing truction activities communication and Health activities Total
Chitipa 39.5 0.0 23.3 4.1 55.8 7.8 2.4 6.7 100
Karonga 30.0 0.0 19.4 4.1 53.9 12.6 5.1 4.8 100
Nkhata Bay 34.1 0.0 6.1 0.0 75.1 9.7 0.7 8.4 100
Rumphi 34.6 0.0 17.3 0.0 60.5 16.0 0.6 5.6 100
Mzimba 34.7 0.9 16.8 1.9 66.6 1.9 7.2 4.7 100
Likoma 41.6 0.0 13.9 0.0 86.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Mzuzu City 56.0 0.0 8.2 2.9 69.3 8.4 4.3 6.9 100
Kasungu 22.3 0.0 35.9 0.9 50.2 8.8 0.0 4.1 100
Nkhotakota 46.1 3.3 12.7 0.0 68.9 8.3 1.5 5.3 100
Ntchisi 43.0 1.8 23.4 2.0 63.7 4.8 1.5 2.8 100
Dowa 34.4 2.1 21.6 2.9 49.6 8.5 3.8 11.6 100
Salima 46.5 2.2 15.9 0.0 43.2 10.6 2.6 25.4 100
Lilongwe 40.4 0.0 14.1 0.9 54.4 7.0 7.3 16.4 100
Mchinji 32.5 2.0 38.0 1.3 45.1 7.7 0.0 5.9 100
Dedza 39.1 0.0 7.6 0.0 42.2 33.1 8.3 8.8 100
Ntcheu 35.9 0.0 2.3 1.3 34.6 53.2 4.5 4.1 100
Lilongwe City 58.4 0.3 11.1 0.3 72.9 8.4 0.8 6.4 100
Mangochi 30.9 0.0 34.4 0.9 56.2 5.0 0.7 2.7 100
Machinga 27.6 0.0 22.8 0.0 64.3 6.0 2.2 4.8 100
Zomba 36.9 0.0 12.0 0.0 75.0 10.4 0.0 2.6 100
Chiradzulu 35.2 0.0 25.8 1.6 65.4 0.8 3.2 3.3 100
Blantyre 37.8 1.4 13.8 4.5 74.2 1.8 2.3 2.0 100
Mwanza 42.6 0.0 34.3 4.1 51.2 5.2 1.3 4.0 100
Thyolo 38.0 0.0 18.8 1.2 63.6 2.8 8.8 4.9 100
Mulanje 43.1 0.5 3.0 0.0 70.8 2.4 19.4 3.9 100
Phalombe 35.7 0.0 4.9 0.0 74.2 2.1 12.4 6.4 100
Chikwawa 39.5 0.0 6.6 2.5 86.1 3.8 0.0 1.0 100
Nsanje 40.2 1.6 9.9 1.8 78.6 1.9 1.1 5.2 100
Balaka 30.3 0.0 21.5 2.0 49.0 16.2 4.1 7.2 100
Neno 46.1 0.0 44.1 0.2 45.8 2.3 2.0 5.5 100
Zomba City 59.7 0.7 9.6 0.0 70.5 11.7 2.4 5.1 100
Blantyre City 58.1 3.7 7.5 2.6 70.1 5.2 4.0 6.9 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

237
Annex Table 6.2: Percentage Distribution of Sources of Start-Up Capital of Non-Farm
Enterprises, IHS5 2019-2020
Other sources-
Sale of assets,
Own- Own- Proceeds Loan
savings club,
savings savings from from
credit from
from from non another money Loan from Gift from
bank/institution,
District agriculture agriculture business lender family/friends family/friends Total
inherited
Chitipa 49.2 18.0 2.7 6.1 2.7 13.4 7.9 100
Karonga 37.6 19.3 4.1 2.8 5.3 16.1 14.9 100
Nkhatabay 25.8 17.5 6.9 2.6 10.3 30.4 6.4 100
Rumphi 44.6 14.5 4.0 5.7 5.6 15.1 10.4 100
Mzimba 33.9 19.8 2.4 3.7 6.1 17.2 16.9 100
Likoma 0.0 52.6 0.0 0.0 8.8 38.6 0.0 100
Mzuzu City 12.8 34.5 8.5 4.3 3.0 28.4 8.4 100
Kasungu 44.4 22.8 3.2 5.8 7.4 4.0 12.4 100
Nkhotakota 33.3 31.5 1.5 8.3 7.8 11.5 6.1 100
Ntchisi 49.2 22.2 3.1 6.7 5.9 7.4 5.7 100
Dowa 45.2 23.5 3.8 7.7 4.9 5.3 9.7 100
Salima 28.3 29.1 4.2 6.6 7.7 8.1 16.0 100
Lilongwe 29.8 26.4 5.0 4.8 7.9 10.2 15.8 100
Mchinji 44.1 29.2 0.9 7.7 2.7 7.8 7.6 100
Dedza 31.5 36.6 5.1 3.7 7.4 6.7 9.1 100
Ntcheu 35.2 32.0 9.5 2.9 7.4 8.0 5.1 100
Lilongwe City 10.3 59.8 1.7 1.3 4.1 20.0 2.8 100
Mangochi 23.9 23.9 6.8 9.0 5.5 25.5 5.5 100
Machinga 35.4 19.3 1.7 4.6 13.3 10.8 15.0 100
Zomba 19.2 31.7 4.5 4.4 9.9 22.7 7.7 100
Chiradzulu 15.1 31.1 5.0 6.9 11.5 23.7 6.5 100
Blantyre 11.5 47.1 1.7 3.2 4.2 25.9 6.4 100
Mwanza 25.3 28.7 6.1 2.4 9.1 16.5 11.9 100
Thyolo 36.5 22.4 4.4 5.9 7.6 13.0 10.3 100
Mulanje 34.3 18.2 5.4 4.2 4.2 12.2 21.5 100
Phalombe 43.2 17.4 0.9 3.8 7.2 14.3 13.1 100
Chikwawa 22.1 29.3 3.2 6.1 6.8 13.4 19.1 100
Nsanje 13.9 32.7 8.4 6.2 5.4 20.6 12.7 100
Balaka 21.2 23.9 5.5 6.9 8.2 19.1 15.1 100
Neno 30.4 23.8 4.0 2.2 14.1 16.9 8.5 100
Zomba City 5.7 38.8 9.2 3.7 4.7 29.7 8.2 100
Blantyre City 6.4 55.7 0.8 5.7 6.1 22.3 2.9 100

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

238
Annex Table 6.3: Percentage Distribution of Place of Operation of Non-Farm
Enterprises by District, IHS5 2019-2020
Place of operation

Home Home Traditional Other

(inside (outside Industrial market Commercial Road fixed
District residence) residence) site place area shop side places Mobile Total
Chitipa 7.5 19.7 0.0 37.2 3.8 11.8 2.3 17.6 100.0
Karonga 10.9 25.4 0.0 18.9 3.3 18.1 4.6 18.8 100.0
Nkhata Bay 17.6 18.7 0.7 17.5 1.7 18.1 7.5 18.1 100.0
Rumphi 11.7 21.2 0.0 22.1 4.3 15.8 9.2 15.7 100.0
Mzimba 23.9 29.0 0.0 14.9 1.3 12.0 5.9 13.0 100.0
Likoma 33.9 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 12.3 100.0
Mzuzu City 9.2 17.3 2.7 18.5 10.4 13.5 9.4 19.1 100.0
Kasungu 12.5 38.5 0.0 18.7 1.1 5.2 9.7 14.3 100.0
Nkhotakota 17.5 25.8 0.0 29.0 1.9 16.0 3.6 6.3 100.0
Ntchisi 17.6 27.5 0.0 23.7 3.4 11.4 1.2 15.1 100.0
Dowa 16.0 27.1 0.0 28.8 1.4 16.6 1.9 8.2 100.0
Salima 3.4 26.6 0.6 19.3 0.0 16.3 8.2 25.7 100.0
Lilongwe 6.9 24.2 2.4 29.8 0.0 12.0 4.9 19.8 100.0
Mchinji 19.6 23.4 0.0 20.9 0.0 12.6 3.4 20.1 100.0
Dedza 5.9 38.5 0.0 24.2 2.7 12.7 5.8 10.2 100.0
Ntcheu 8.2 20.7 0.0 32.3 0.0 13.8 7.3 17.7 100.0
Lilongwe City 3.6 30.1 2.3 32.3 3.0 10.5 2.0 16.2 100.0
Mangochi 9.1 26.5 0.6 38.9 1.6 9.3 1.1 12.9 100.0
Machinga 17.8 25.7 0.0 25.3 4.4 12.2 5.2 9.4 100.0
Zomba 5.7 23.6 0.0 39.5 0.0 13.9 3.1 14.2 100.0
Chiradzulu 8.4 24.2 0.0 42.7 1.6 11.7 3.3 8.0 100.0
Blantyre 12.0 21.8 0.7 30.1 1.8 16.3 5.6 11.8 100.0
Mwanza 13.5 24.7 0.6 30.5 1.3 9.7 6.4 13.3 100.0
Thyolo 11.7 18.0 0.0 45.9 1.2 9.0 6.3 7.8 100.0
Mulanje 12.6 26.6 0.0 36.0 0.6 11.4 7.1 5.7 100.0
Phalombe 16.2 25.4 0.0 30.0 1.6 10.8 8.0 8.1 100.0
Chikwawa 5.6 23.6 0.0 35.4 1.6 9.2 2.1 22.5 100.0
Nsanje 9.7 21.6 0.0 46.3 0.7 7.7 3.9 10.0 100.0
Balaka 23.0 13.9 0.0 29.5 5.3 8.7 3.4 16.1 100.0
Neno 8.7 25.4 0.0 37.3 2.4 2.1 8.0 16.2 100.0
Zomba City 8.7 27.0 0.0 25.3 2.7 8.8 8.7 18.7 100.0
Blantyre City 9.6 16.3 0.0 33.6 6.1 12.1 12.6 9.7 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

239
Annex Table 6.4: Percentage distribution of Market for Products and Services of Non-
Farm Enterprises by District, IHS5 2019-2020
Market for product or service

Large
established
Final Other small businesses/ Marketing
District consumers Traders businesses institutions Manufacturer board Other Total
Chitipa 85.4 8.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 100.0

Karonga 90.3 4.5 4.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0

Nkhata Bay 86.1 7.3 4.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Rumphi 84.1 9.9 4.5 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.7 100.0
Mzimba 88.3 7.8 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 100.0
Likoma 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mzuzu City 81.4 11.6 2.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.4 100.0
Kasungu 75.4 7.3 17.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Nkhotakota 84.6 7.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 100.0
Ntchisi 95.1 2.9 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 100.0
Dowa 90.0 2.8 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 100.0
Salima 89.7 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.3 100.0
Lilongwe 85.9 8.0 4.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.4 100.0
Mchinji 71.0 15.8 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 100.0
Dedza 77.1 17.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 100.0
Ntcheu 83.6 16.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Lilongwe City 84.3 7.0 4.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.8 100.0
Mangochi 90.2 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 100.0
Machinga 89.4 9.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 100.0
Zomba 81.8 7.0 7.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.8 100.0
Chiradzulu 86.8 6.3 6.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Blantyre 68.6 15.9 10.5 2.2 0.6 0.0 2.2 100.0
Mwanza 80.6 18.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Thyolo 87.7 4.5 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mulanje 89.1 2.9 3.5 0.8 0.5 0.6 2.7 100.0
Phalombe 81.0 11.2 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.7 100.0
Chikwawa 89.3 8.0 1.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Nsanje 79.7 13.5 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 100.0
Balaka 85.8 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 100.0
Neno 69.9 21.6 5.1 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.7 100.0
Zomba City 84.7 4.2 4.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 4.5 100.0
Blantyre City 71.8 13.5 11.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

240
Annex Table 6.5: Proportion of Registered Enterprises and Owners by Registration
Agencies by District, IHS5 2019-2020
Registration agencies
Owners or managers
Proportion of who belong to
registered registered business
Registrar of Malawi Revenue
District enterprises association
Companies Authority Local Assembly
Chitipa 17.3 2.5 2.4 16.4 0.9
Karonga 17.7 2.1 9.1 13.6 0.0
Nkhata Bay 9.1 2.6 0.7 7.2 1.2
Rumphi 13.8 1.7 3.5 11.8 0.9
Mzimba 3.2 0.0 0.0 3.2 1.9
Likoma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mzuzu City 17.3 7.3 6.8 13.0 5.8
Kasungu 7.7 1.0 1.0 5.7 1.4
Nkhotakota 9.6 0.7 1.2 9.6 1.9
Ntchisi 5.9 0.5 0.7 5.4 1.3
Dowa 6.3 1.3 0.0 5.8 2.1
Salima 6.9 0.6 1.1 6.4 1.3
Lilongwe 3.5 0.3 2.0 3.1 0.8
Mchinji 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.1
Dedza 4.7 0.6 0.8 3.3 1.6
Ntcheu 4.3 0.5 2.6 2.5 0.3
Lilongwe City 9.2 3.7 4.1 7.6 4.8
Mangochi 5.6 0.9 0.9 4.7 2.0
Machinga 4.9 0.8 3.3 4.9 1.8
Zomba 4.3 1.4 1.2 3.0 2.9
Chiradzulu 3.5 0.5 0.0 2.9 1.7
Blantyre 2.1 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.7
Mwanza 8.4 0.6 3.8 7.1 1.3
Thyolo 13.0 4.0 4.1 10.7 4.6
Mulanje 14.1 3.9 3.9 10.9 4.6
Phalombe 16.0 6.1 7.5 14.6 7.8
Chikwawa 3.4 1.0 1.7 2.7 0.0
Nsanje 3.8 0.0 1.9 3.1 0.7
Balaka 10.2 3.5 4.6 9.7 3.7
Neno 4.3 2.1 3.3 3.7 0.9
Zomba City 9.1 6.1 4.0 6.8 3.7
Blantyre City 10.0 6.0 6.6 9.0 3.1

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

241
Annex Table 6.6: Percentage Distribution of Non-Household Members Engaged in the
Enterprise by Number of Employees at District Level, IHS5 2019-2020
Non-Household Members Engaged in Enterprise

District None 1 2 3 4 or more Total

Chitipa 94.1 3.7 2.2 0.0 0.0 100.0
Karonga 90.2 3.9 3.0 2.0 0.9 100.0
Nkhata Bay 86.8 5.5 6.1 0.0 1.6 100.0
Rumphi 94.9 3.3 0.9 0.0 1.0 100.0
Mzimba 91.9 4.6 1.6 0.9 1.1 100.0
Likoma 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mzuzu City 77.9 9.6 3.5 2.5 6.4 100.0
Kasungu 95.4 3.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 100.0
Nkhotakota 91.9 4.7 1.8 0.4 1.2 100.0
Ntchisi 98.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Dowa 91.4 3.8 1.1 0.0 3.7 100.0
Salima 90.2 3.3 1.9 3.4 1.2 100.0
Lilongwe 88.9 3.9 1.8 3.1 2.3 100.0
Mchinji 91.5 4.4 3.3 0.8 0.0 100.0
Dedza 91.1 2.0 6.4 0.0 0.5 100.0
Ntcheu 87.1 8.0 1.5 0.0 3.4 100.0
Lilongwe City 88.2 6.2 3.0 1.1 1.6 100.0
Mangochi 93.2 1.4 2.8 0.8 1.7 100.0
Machinga 92.0 0.8 4.8 0.8 1.6 100.0
Zomba 93.7 3.6 1.9 0.0 0.7 100.0
Chiradzulu 96.1 1.2 2.7 0.0 0.0 100.0
Blantyre 96.5 2.1 0.0 0.7 0.7 100.0
Mwanza 84.9 8.0 3.1 1.5 2.6 100.0
Thyolo 94.5 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mulanje 89.5 6.5 2.1 1.9 0.0 100.0
Phalombe 96.8 2.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 100.0
Chikwawa 90.9 4.1 2.7 2.3 0.0 100.0
Nsanje 93.8 3.7 1.3 1.2 0.0 100.0
Balaka 98.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.7 100.0
Neno 93.4 2.4 2.5 0.2 1.5 100.0
Zomba City 87.3 8.0 2.1 1.1 1.5 100.0
Blantyre City 79.8 10.4 3.8 2.5 3.5 100.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

242
Annex Table 6.7: Proportion of Individuals Aged between 15 and 64 Years doing
different Income Generating Tasks and Types of Tasks done in the Past7 Days by
District, IHS5 2019-2020
. Various tasks

Casual, part Wage, salary

Household agricultural or Non-agricultural and
District Income generating time or ganyu commission or any
fishing activities non-fishing business
tasks labour payment in kind

Chitipa 94.4 89.7 13.9 37.8 5.6

Karonga 89.8 80.7 10.3 34.8 7.2
Nkhata Bay 92.4 83.9 12.4 41.0 9.2
Rumphi 90.7 79.2 13.7 33.5 15.9
Mzimba 95.5 91.0 14.8 47.7 9.5
Likoma 83.8 67.4 15.5 29.4 7.3
Mzuzu City 71.3 31.5 21.2 24.7 23.7
Kasungu 95.8 85.6 9.9 58.0 8.3
Nkhotakota 91.6 83.8 16.7 54.4 7.8
Ntchisi 96.2 92.2 14.7 60.8 4.5
Dowa 95.1 85.0 16.0 61.5 5.8
Salima 91.8 83.8 17.0 53.1 9.4
Lilongwe 92.7 80.8 16.7 64.6 6.1
Mchinji 94.5 86.2 12.1 53.9 6.3
Dedza 94.2 89.2 15.4 55.4 3.6
Ntcheu 95.8 92.1 11.9 51.9 4.9
Lilongwe City 72.5 26.4 23.8 24 24.4
Mangochi 96.2 90.5 12.7 57.6 3.3
Machinga 95.5 91.7 13.8 66.3 2.1
Zomba 96.2 89.8 17.0 60.8 8.7
Chiradzulu 96.4 91.5 15.1 50.0 10.1
Blantyre 87.3 71.5 18.6 46.6 12.6
Mwanza 95.9 91.0 22.8 50.2 7.7
Thyolo 95.5 89.8 16.6 47.4 15.1
Mulanje 96.0 90.5 19.2 50.2 7.4
Phalombe 96.2 92.2 15.0 60.0 5.0
Chikwawa 92.3 85.6 18.6 47.7 7.7
Nsanje 90 78.5 17.8 50.4 6.5
Balaka 93.5 86.0 13.2 60.7 5.2
Neno 95.6 87.0 24.0 50.5 7.9
Zomba City 78.6 43.3 25.2 27.0 28.3
Blantyre City 69.1 19.5 25.0 21.2 24.5
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

243
Annex Table 6.8: Proportion of Persons Aged between 15 and 64 Years doing different
Types of Tasks past 7 days by Average Weekly Hours by District, IHS5 2019-2020
Average Weekly Hours

Household agricultural or Non-agricultural and Casual, part time or Wage, salary commission
Background characteristics fishing activities non fishing business ganyu labour or any payment

Chitipa 13.5 16.9 12.3 26.3

Karonga 11.7 23.8 13.1 29.8
Nkhata Bay 12.3 21.4 13.2 37.7
Rumphi 12.2 24.6 14.9 35.6
Mzimba 13.6 17.8 11.3 35.0
Likoma 15.3 17.7 22.3 34.4
Mzuzu City 8.5 27.9 21.9 37.2
Kasungu 14.3 15.1 13.1 26.4
Nkhotakota 10.6 14.4 10.5 23.6
Ntchisi 12.5 12.2 10.0 26.1
Dowa 14.0 19.6 12.8 22.6
Salima 19.4 25.0 15.6 36.4
Lilongwe 18.0 24.8 14.9 33.8
Mchinji 16.1 21.1 11.6 29.5
Dedza 16.0 21.4 15.0 31.1
Ntcheu 14.3 22.0 13.4 34.2
Lilongwe City 9.4 36.2 21.5 44.7
Mangochi 13.6 23.1 14.6 25.5
Machinga 12.6 25.2 15.3 30.3
Zomba 17.7 26.9 21.5 41.2
Chiradzulu 13.3 25.3 16.7 36.6
Blantyre 17.5 20.9 14.9 33.2
Mwanza 17.6 20.4 15.5 37.0
Thyolo 12.4 20.6 13.3 35.8
Mulanje 13.0 25.6 14.7 29.9
Phalombe 13.9 26.6 16.6 27.8
Chikwawa 13.4 19.2 14.7 30.5
Nsanje 15.0 19.3 14.1 38.0
Balaka 13.9 21.0 15.0 34.8
Neno 16.0 18.5 15.0 37.7
Zomba City 14.5 36.2 30.1 45.4
Blantyre City 12.8 28.8 19.5 34.4
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

244
Annex Table 6.9: Proportion of Persons Aged between 15 and 64 Years who Collected
Water and Firewood and Average Daily Hours Worked by District, IHS5 2019-2020

Average hours spent on

Proportion that Proportion that

Collecting water Collecting firewood
District collected water collected firewood
Total
Chitipa 60.5 18.4 34.7 10.0 44.7
Karonga 57.2 13.0 28.2 6.2 34.4
Nkhata Bay 51.3 25.3 27.4 17.0 44.4
Rumphi 53.4 18.8 25.1 10.1 35.3
Mzimba 41.1 13.0 30.1 11.6 41.7
Likoma 42.7 12.4 17.7 5.0 22.7
Mzuzu City 27.3 4.8 15.9 3.1 19.1
Kasungu 49.9 20.8 38.4 16.0 54.4
Nkhotakota 47.4 20.2 30.3 15.6 45.9
Ntchisi 44.6 20.3 27.0 16.5 43.6
Dowa 43.7 20.3 33.1 16.6 49.7
Salima 43.3 16.7 30.1 13.2 43.3
Lilongwe 45.5 15.0 32.5 11.5 44.0
Mchinji 48.3 21.4 33.1 16.1 49.2
Dedza 43.9 13.0 29.7 11.2 41.0
Ntcheu 42.6 12.7 27.8 12.4 40.2
Lilongwe City 29.1 0.9 15.8 0.8 16.6
Mangochi 31.4 9.1 22.3 9.5 31.8
Machinga 42.0 12.1 30.3 11.2 41.5
Zomba 43.6 20.1 27.3 16.5 43.9
Chiradzulu 45.1 20.2 25.1 11.6 36.7
Blantyre 33.5 12.2 18.2 7.8 26.0
Mwanza 42.1 13.8 24.2 12.9 37.1
Thyolo 44.6 19.8 32.0 16.1 48.1
Mulanje 43.0 21.4 29.2 16.8 46.0
Phalombe 44.2 25.9 32.2 21.0 53.2
Chikwawa 36.6 15.8 24.4 14.7 39.1
Nsanje 38.8 17.7 24.4 16.6 41.0
Balaka 40.4 10.5 28.1 9.5 37.5
Neno 36.0 10.0 20.4 8.7 29.2
Zomba City 25.3 3.2 12.1 2.4 14.5
Blantyre City 18.1 1.8 7.6 1.2 8.8

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

245
 ANNEX 7: HOUSING

Annex Table 7.1: Percentage Distribution of Dwelling Units by Type of Housing

Tenure and District, IHS5 2019-2020
Being Employer Free, Free, not
District Owned Purchased provides authorized authorized Rented Total
Chitipa 83.2 0.4 2.8 4.6 0.2 8.8 100
Karonga 73.7 0.8 1.8 11.8 0.4 11.5 100
Nkhata Bay 71.3 0.0 4.0 12.6 0.3 11.9 100
Rumphi 71.7 0.0 7.2 7.7 0.3 13.2 100
Mzimba 86.2 0.3 3.7 6.0 0.0 3.8 100
Likoma 90.3 0.0 2.8 7.0 0.0 0.0 100
Mzuzu City 38.8 0.5 5.8 8.7 0.3 45.9 100
Kasungu 79.2 0.2 3.6 9.3 0.0 7.7 100
Nkhotakota 73.5 0.0 6.6 8.6 0.9 10.3 100
Ntchisi 90.9 0.3 1.3 3.8 1.7 2.1 100
Dowa 90.2 0.2 0.6 5.7 0.0 3.3 100
Salima 79.5 0.6 1.4 8.6 0.2 9.8 100
Lilongwe 77.7 0.5 0.9 12.2 1.0 7.7 100
Mchinji 81.5 0.0 2.2 10.5 0.9 4.9 100
Dedza 83.4 0.9 0.5 9.6 1.0 4.6 100
Ntcheu 84.2 0.2 0.0 11.7 0.9 3.0 100
Lilongwe City 29.7 0.6 0.6 5.6 0.8 62.6 100
Mangochi 73.6 0.0 1.1 19.4 0.0 5.8 100
Machinga 79.9 0.0 0.4 15.5 0.3 3.8 100
Zomba 74.1 1.0 0.4 14.9 0.3 9.3 100
Chiradzulu 80.3 0.5 0.7 12.4 0.9 5.2 100
Blantyre 73.0 1.4 0.5 12.5 0.6 12.1 100
Mwanza 83.7 0.8 1.6 5.0 0.0 8.9 100
Thyolo 83.3 2.2 0.3 10.1 0.2 3.9 100
Mulanje 79.3 3.2 1.8 10.9 2.7 2.0 100
Phalombe 85.3 0.7 0.2 10.1 0.9 2.7 100
Chikwawa 86.8 1.1 0.9 6.0 0.0 5.2 100
Nsanje 75.9 1.1 0.6 10.1 0.3 12.0 100
Balaka 76.6 0.3 0.9 11.7 0.9 9.5 100
Neno 78.5 0.6 1.2 11.2 0.0 8.5 100
Zomba City 32.5 1.9 0.7 9.2 0.8 54.8 100
Blantyre City 38.7 4.1 1.9 8.1 0.3 46.9 100

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

246
Annex Table 7.2: Percentage Distribution of Dwelling Units by Type of Dwelling
Structure and District, IHS5 2019-2020

District Permanent Semi-Permanent Traditional Total

Chitipa 66.0 22.5 11.5 100
Karonga 66.3 14.4 19.3 100
Nkhata Bay 57.0 30.0 13.0 100
Rumphi 53.3 22.3 24.5 100
Mzimba 55.3 34.3 10.4 100
Likoma 30.5 49.3 20.2 100
Mzuzu City 83.2 13.5 3.3 100
Kasungu 30.6 33.8 35.6 100
Nkhotakota 38.8 38.1 23.0 100
Ntchisi 31.5 14.4 54.1 100
Dowa 28.7 18.7 52.7 100
Salima 37.9 24.9 37.2 100
Lilongwe 29.2 24.8 46.0 100
Mchinji 38.9 32.4 28.7 100
Dedza 29.5 14.1 56.4 100
Ntcheu 44.7 25.0 30.2 100
Lilongwe City 56.1 39.5 4.4 100
Mangochi 35.3 21.5 43.3 100
Machinga 35.2 31.6 33.2 100
Zomba 46.8 27.3 25.9 100
Chiradzulu 59.8 14.0 26.2 100
Blantyre 55.6 23.8 20.6 100
Mwanza 47.1 25.8 27.1 100
Thyolo 62.2 19.9 17.8 100
Mulanje 65.9 14.2 19.8 100
Phalombe 42.7 22.2 35.0 100
Chikwawa 42.8 16.6 40.6 100
Nsanje 54.5 15.3 30.2 100
Balaka 49.1 29.8 21.1 100
Neno 49.8 18.1 32.2 100
Zomba City 81.1 13.9 5.0 100
Blantyre City 62.7 33.0 4.3 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

247
Annex Table 7.3: Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Persons per
Room and District, IHS5 2019-2020
Number of persons per room
District 1 2 3 4 and Over Total
Chitipa 37.5 47.1 12.2 3.3 100
Karonga 34.4 50.1 12.8 2.7 100
Nkhata Bay 25.1 50.3 16.3 8.3 100
Rumphi 41.3 44.4 10.5 3.8 100
Mzimba 33.8 48.6 12.9 4.6 100
Likoma 27.0 60.5 6.3 6.3 100
Mzuzu City 38.0 43.6 14.0 4.4 100
Kasungu 23.9 51.4 18.4 6.3 100
Nkhotakota 23.3 45.7 20.3 10.8 100
Ntchisi 21.0 46.1 21.9 11.0 100
Dowa 24.8 48.2 18.7 8.4 100
Salima 20.2 46.9 17.3 15.7 100
Lilongwe 25.2 46.4 19.5 8.9 100
Mchinji 15.0 46.2 20.9 17.9 100
Dedza 19.1 46.9 19.8 14.1 100
Ntcheu 22.2 47.2 16.1 14.5 100
Lilongwe City 23.4 49.2 18.0 9.4 100
Mangochi 25.0 40.3 19.5 15.2 100
Machinga 24.6 46.1 19.4 10.0 100
Zomba 29.3 40.3 21.6 8.7 100
Chiradzulu 38.8 44.3 11.5 5.4 100
Blantyre 38.0 42.3 14.9 4.8 100
Mwanza 30.9 48.4 12.1 8.6 100
Thyolo 43.8 44.9 7.1 4.2 100
Mulanje 40.6 40.8 15.6 3.1 100
Phalombe 32.9 48.6 10.7 7.8 100
Chikwawa 23.4 48.0 20.3 8.4 100
Nsanje 27.1 43.1 20.9 8.9 100
Balaka 29.4 47.8 17.6 5.2 100
Neno 30.7 38.4 18.5 12.4 100
Zomba City 31.7 47.1 15.1 6.1 100
Blantyre City 33.0 44.7 13.9 8.4 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

248
Annex Table 7.4: Proportion of Households by Main Fuels Used for Lighting and
District, IHS5 2019-2020
Battery
Dry Cell
Background Characteristics Firewood Paraffin Electricity (Torch) Candles Solar Other Total
Chitipa 4.3 0.0 12.3 72.5 1.0 9.1 0.9 100
Karonga 2.6 0.0 11.4 81.2 1.3 3.3 0.2 100
Nkhata Bay 2.0 0.0 9.4 85.7 0.3 2.2 0.4 100
Rumphi 3.5 0.0 14.2 76.8 2.0 2.6 0.8 100
Mzimba 4.8 0.0 7.0 78.4 2.3 7.4 0.2 100
Likoma 0.0 0.0 50.0 47.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 100
Mzuzu City 0.3 0.0 57.2 29.8 11.7 0.3 0.8 100
Kasungu 5.4 0.0 2.6 88.6 1.2 1.5 0.7 100
Nkhotakota 6.1 0.0 10.0 82.1 0.8 0.3 0.6 100
Ntchisi 13.3 0.0 2.1 80.8 1.3 0.9 1.6 100
Dowa 5.4 0.0 2.8 88.9 1.9 0.2 0.8 100
Salima 2.5 0.0 9.1 87.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 100
Lilongwe 4.2 0.0 2.5 89.6 2.1 0.5 1.2 100
Mchinji 3.5 0.0 1.7 90.5 2.2 1.5 0.6 100
Dedza 3.4 0.3 4.8 88.5 0.7 0.3 1.8 100
Ntcheu 5.2 0.0 6.5 85.0 1.2 1.6 0.5 100
Lilongwe City 0.0 0.0 39.4 45.3 14.4 0.5 0.3 100
Mangochi 2.9 0.5 4.4 90.9 0.7 0.3 0.3 100
Machinga 2.6 0.4 2.5 92.6 1.3 0.0 0.5 100
Zomba 0.4 0.0 8.7 89.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 100
Chiradzulu 0.4 3.4 7.5 81.1 5.5 1.3 0.9 100
Blantyre 1.0 2.0 14.0 70.5 9.9 1.3 1.3 100
Mwanza 0.4 0.0 9.6 82.5 1.5 3.7 2.2 100
Thyolo 1.5 1.2 6.1 88.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 100
Mulanje 2.4 2.6 5.6 86.5 2.3 0.0 0.6 100
Phalombe 2.5 0.0 2.8 93.4 0.3 0.0 1.1 100
Chikwawa 5.4 0.0 3.3 89.0 2.0 0.3 0.0 100
Nsanje 4.1 0.0 8.8 84.1 2.1 0.7 0.2 100
Balaka 2.4 0.0 9.6 85.8 1.4 0.6 0.1 100
Neno 1.4 0.0 8.5 83.9 1.0 2.1 3.1 100
Zomba City 0.5 0.0 59.0 29.9 10.6 0.0 0.0 100
Blantyre City 0.0 0.9 54.9 20.2 23.3 0.7 0.0 100

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

249
Annex Table 7.5: Proportion of Households by Main Fuels Used for Cooking and
District, IHS5 2019-2020
Crop
residue/Saw
District Solid fuel Firewood Electricity Charcoal dust Other Total
Chitipa 98.9 89.0 0.6 9.9 0.0 0.4 100
Karonga 98.4 80.9 1.6 17.4 0.0 0.0 100
Nkhata Bay 99.5 88.7 0.5 10.9 0.0 0.0 100
Rumphi 98.1 82.6 1.9 15.4 0.0 0.0 100
Mzimba 100.0 95.1 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 100
Likoma 100.0 67.4 0.0 32.6 0.0 0.0 100
Mzuzu City 90.7 24.9 8.6 65.8 0.0 0.7 100
Kasungu 99.5 93.5 0.5 6.0 0.0 0.0 100
Nkhotakota 99.0 79.9 1.0 19.1 0.0 0.0 100
Ntchisi 100.0 94.6 0.0 5.1 0.2 0.0 100
Dowa 99.8 94.6 0.2 5.0 0.2 0.0 100
Salima 99.0 80.6 1.0 16.1 2.2 0.0 100
Lilongwe 100.0 83.3 0.0 12.8 3.9 0.0 100
Mchinji 99.7 95.1 0.3 4.2 0.5 0.0 100
Dedza 100.0 89.1 0.0 10.1 0.8 0.0 100
Ntcheu 100.0 92.2 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 100
Lilongwe City 93.4 8.9 6.4 83.8 0.6 0.2 100
Mangochi 99.8 89.5 0.2 10.3 0.0 0.0 100
Machinga 100.0 89.4 0.0 10.3 0.3 0.0 100
Zomba 100.0 84.3 0.0 14.7 1.0 0.0 100
Chiradzulu 98.8 79.0 1.2 8.7 11.1 0.0 100
Blantyre 98.4 78.5 1.6 17.7 2.2 0.0 100
Mwanza 99.5 85.1 0.5 14.4 0.0 0.0 100
Thyolo 98.7 88.4 1.3 4.8 5.6 0.0 100
Mulanje 100.0 96.1 0.0 3.3 0.6 0.0 100
Phalombe 99.5 94.4 0.3 4.5 0.6 0.2 100
Chikwawa 100.0 91.2 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 100
Nsanje 99.7 86.9 0.3 12.8 0.0 0.0 100
Balaka 99.6 82.4 0.4 16.8 0.4 0.0 100
Neno 99.7 84.0 0.3 15.7 0.0 0.0 100
Zomba City 93.4 20.9 6.6 72.5 0.0 0.0 100
Blantyre City 92.8 17.8 7.1 74.8 0.2 0.2 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

250
Annex Table 7.6: Proportion of Households with Access to Improved Water Source
and Percentage Distribution of Households by Main Source of Drinking Water and
District, IHS5 2019-2020
Water Sources
Open well
Proportion Piped into Protected in Spring
with access yard/plot/com well in yard/plot/o /River/Stream/
to improved Piped into munal yard/plot/pu pen public Dam/Pond/La
District water source dwelling standpipe Borehole blic well well ke/Rain water Other Total
Chitipa 82.7 2.5 18.3 61.9 3.9 3.7 9.7 0.0 100
Karonga 81.1 6.0 17.4 57.7 4.2 4.5 10.2 0.0 100
Nkhata Bay 75.3 1.0 13.9 60.4 0.9 11.9 11.9 0.0 100
Rumphi 77.9 2.5 36.4 39.0 2.0 4.2 15.9 0.0 100
Mzimba 86.0 0.0 11.6 74.5 3.9 3.7 6.4 0.0 100
Likoma 70.1 2.8 67.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.9 0.0 100
Mzuzu City 94.0 15.5 60.8 17.6 1.6 2.2 2.0 0.2 100
Kasungu 67.9 0.5 4.1 63.4 4.9 19.9 7.2 0.0 100
Nkhotakota 76.5 1.8 13.5 61.2 6.1 11.5 5.9 0.0 100
Ntchisi 82.2 0.0 12.9 69.3 4.0 10.9 3.0 0.0 100
Dowa 80.2 0.5 6.7 72.9 5.9 7.9 5.3 0.8 100
Salima 90.6 3.5 7.6 79.6 2.1 2.8 4.5 0.0 100
Lilongwe 77.9 0.1 4.4 73.4 6.8 11.0 4.2 0.0 100
Mchinji 78.2 0.3 8.0 69.9 7.5 14.3 0.0 0.0 100
Dedza 75.7 0.2 6.0 69.5 5.9 9.5 8.9 0.0 100
Ntcheu 88.0 0.7 10.6 76.7 1.4 4.4 5.9 0.2 100
Lilongwe City 94.0 10.9 75.4 7.6 4.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 100
Mangochi 84.8 0.0 7.8 77.0 0.9 5.9 8.3 0.0 100
Machinga 85.1 0.5 10.4 74.2 5.1 4.8 5.1 0.0 100
Zomba 91.4 0.0 15.7 75.7 2.3 5.2 1.1 0.0 100
Chiradzulu 92.4 0.5 1.8 90.1 0.9 2.8 4.0 0.0 100
Blantyre 90.5 1.6 17.1 71.9 3.4 3.3 2.8 0.0 100
Mwanza 91.1 1.4 12.1 77.6 1.1 4.4 3.4 0.0 100
Thyolo 73.3 0.3 4.0 69.1 1.5 17.0 8.2 0.0 100
Mulanje 91.3 2.4 30.6 58.4 2.3 3.4 3.0 0.0 100
Phalombe 95.6 0.8 22.5 72.4 1.5 2.0 0.9 0.0 100
Chikwawa 94.2 0.3 11.9 82.1 0.0 2.3 3.5 0.0 100
Nsanje 95.1 1.3 10.4 83.5 0.7 1.5 2.5 0.1 100
Balaka 95.3 1.4 8.3 85.7 0.9 0.5 3.3 0.0 100
Neno 66.4 0.0 1.6 64.8 4.3 8.9 19.8 0.6 100
Zomba City 93.9 17.1 70.9 5.9 1.0 4.8 0.3 0.0 100
Blantyre City 90.9 15.9 56.7 18.2 5.6 2.6 0.7 0.3 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

251
Annex Table 7.7: Proportion of Households with Access to Improved Sanitation and
Percentage Distribution of Households by Type of Toilet Facilities by District, IHS5
2019-2020
Type of toilet facility
Access
improved to
improved Flush VIP Pit latrine Pit latrine
District sanitation Toilet latrine with slab without slab None Other Total
Chitipa 37.7 1.5 1.3 34.8 60.5 1.8 - 100
Karonga 41.4 1.3 0.9 39.2 48.4 10.0 0.2 100
Nkhata Bay 22.8 0.9 1.4 20.5 69.1 7.1 1.0 100
Rumphi 26.6 2.1 0.5 24.1 68.3 4.6 0.5 100
Mzimba 50.4 - - 50.4 34.9 14.5 0.2 100
Likoma 26.4 - - 26.4 51.3 22.2 - 100
Mzuzu City 64.0 18.6 1.4 44.0 33.8 1.4 0.9 100
Kasungu 12.5 0.5 - 12.0 80.6 7.0 - 100
Nkhotakota 14.2 2.7 0.6 10.9 68.3 16.7 0.7 100
Ntchisi 7.7 1.0 - 6.6 78.7 13.2 0.4 100
Dowa 17.7 0.5 - 17.2 74.4 7.6 0.3 100
Salima 32.6 3.5 1.0 28.1 55.7 7.9 3.8 100
Lilongwe 38.1 0.1 0.9 37.1 51.4 9.4 1.1 100
Mchinji 10.5 0.3 0.6 9.6 69.4 19.8 0.3 100
Dedza 56.2 0.5 0.5 55.2 34.7 8.9 0.2 100
Ntcheu 59.0 - 0.5 58.5 33.0 7.2 0.8 100
Lilongwe City 78.6 12.2 0.7 65.7 20.1 0.2 1.0 100
Mangochi 54.8 0.6 - 54.2 39.7 5.5 - 100
Machinga 29.4 0.4 0.2 28.8 54.6 15.4 0.5 100
Zomba 21.9 0.4 0.9 20.6 64.5 10.3 3.3 100
Chiradzulu 27.0 1.6 0.7 24.7 62.1 9.5 1.4 100
Blantyre 22.4 1.1 1.8 19.5 67.8 8.1 1.7 100
Mwanza 27.0 1.4 0.5 25.1 57.4 4.7 10.9 100
Thyolo 10.6 0.3 0.9 9.5 79.3 7.8 2.3 100
Mulanje 11.4 - 1.5 9.9 72.2 10.8 5.7 100
Phalombe 8.7 - 1.2 7.6 74.0 11.2 6.1 100
Chikwawa 20.6 0.3 11.3 9.1 68.5 10.6 0.3 100
Nsanje 18.5 1.2 8.2 9.1 60.5 20.1 0.9 100
Balaka 41.4 1.4 1.7 38.3 48.5 10.1 - 100
Neno 27.2 - 2.1 25.2 58.7 6.1 8.0 100
Zomba City 64.7 19.0 4.5 41.2 32.5 0.6 2.2 100
Blantyre City 56.2 12.6 1.4 42.1 41.4 2.4 - 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

252
Annex Table 7.8: Percentage Distribution of Households by Kind of Rubbish Disposal
Facility Used by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Type of rubbish disposal
Public rubbish
District Rubbish bin Rubbish pit Burning heap Other None Total
Chitipa 23.8 69.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 6.9 100
Karonga 22.1 70.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 100
Nkhata Bay 3.3 62.5 0.6 0.9 1.6 31.1 100
Rumphi 11.1 67.9 1.3 0.2 0.7 18.7 100
Mzimba 0.8 56.1 0.9 4.5 3.0 34.7 100
Likoma 0.0 66.6 3.5 0.0 0.0 29.9 100
Mzuzu City 4.4 77.7 1.3 1.1 1.4 14.0 100
Kasungu 0.5 53.7 4.5 5.6 4.3 31.4 100
Nkhotakota 1.7 59.8 0.8 16.6 1.0 20.1 100
Ntchisi 0.2 60.3 2.2 15.2 0.3 21.8 100
Dowa 0.8 54.5 3.8 5.6 1.8 33.5 100
Salima 0.5 52.7 2.4 15.8 0.4 28.2 100
Lilongwe 1.0 61.7 5.8 12.8 0.5 18.2 100
Mchinji 0.0 62.7 3.6 9.4 0.0 24.4 100
Dedza 0.5 64.4 10.8 10.9 0.0 13.4 100
Ntcheu 0.9 64.3 11.5 8.9 0.2 14.2 100
Lilongwe City 17.9 58.2 4.9 11.8 1.7 5.5 100
Mangochi 0.6 58.3 4.5 16.3 0.6 19.6 100
Machinga 1.2 63.7 6.1 6.7 0.5 21.8 100
Zomba 0.5 63.7 5.2 2.9 0.9 26.8 100
Chiradzulu 0.5 52.9 5.6 4.6 3.8 32.5 100
Blantyre 3.6 57.0 12.8 3.5 1.3 21.9 100
Mwanza 20.4 47.5 2.9 14.2 0.7 14.3 100
Thyolo 0.4 47.1 4.3 5.3 5.5 37.3 100
Mulanje 0.0 53.4 1.0 8.7 0.0 36.8 100
Phalombe 0.7 47.5 1.4 9.5 0.0 40.9 100
Chikwawa 3.3 68.1 6.2 9.2 0.0 13.2 100
Nsanje 2.9 65.4 7.3 8.6 0.5 15.4 100
Balaka 1.3 65.7 3.1 8.1 1.6 20.2 100
Neno 19.5 42.1 3.6 17.9 1.3 15.7 100
Zomba City 10.1 64.8 5.1 6.3 4.2 9.4 100
Blantyre City 12.4 55.2 8.9 5.9 3.4 14.0 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

253
Annex Table 7.9: Proportion of Households which Own Durable Goods by District,
IHS5 2019-2020

Air
Bckground Maortar Bed Table Chair Conditioner Radio CD Player TV Bicycle Clock Iron Computer
characteristics
Chitipa 56.4 63.9 40.3 53.3 0.0 19.8 6.6 12.1 36.0 3.5 11.9 1.3
Karonga 54.4 58.4 30.2 42.8 0.0 18.0 7.8 12.1 33.6 4.2 11.9 2.3
Nkhata Bay 64.8 67.5 39.0 52.6 0.0 24.2 14.1 18.9 21.8 7.8 20.8 2.3
Rumphi 48.7 64.0 43.7 46.9 0.0 28.1 9.3 15.1 34.1 10.3 19.4 1.7
Mzimba 47.2 46.0 31.3 51.9 0.0 28.4 9.6 16.1 35.9 8.3 14.1 0.6
Likoma 57.6 84.0 45.8 59.7 0.0 22.2 9.0 24.3 11.8 20.8 11.1 0.0
Mzuzu City 33.2 79.9 46.3 62.2 0.0 25.7 32.4 44.4 31.3 20.1 39.0 14.5
Kasungu 30.6 19.8 28.1 36.5 0.0 38.4 0.4 4.5 33.3 1.9 8.0 0.2
Nkhotakota 48.2 41.3 25.4 31.5 0.3 26.0 5.9 11.4 39.6 4.2 12.6 1.2
Ntchisi 34.1 18.1 26.4 33.0 0.0 25.5 1.4 3.2 20.3 1.1 9.5 0.0
Dowa 31.0 14.9 22.5 29.6 0.0 31.2 1.6 3.5 31.8 2.8 11.1 0.0
Salima 36.8 27.2 19.5 27.0 0.0 28.6 7.1 9.4 44.3 3.3 10.7 3.0
Lilongwe 28.8 16.0 15.5 23.6 0.1 18.9 1.8 3.4 37.3 1.3 4.6 0.6
Mchinji 26.8 15.3 16.0 23.3 0.0 23.0 3.1 5.5 36.6 3.3 5.5 0.3
Dedza 37.3 19.4 27.7 35.5 0.0 27.0 0.7 3.3 48.1 2.1 4.0 0.0
Ntcheu 38.1 19.7 24.3 33.4 0.0 23.6 3.1 4.5 25.6 3.7 12.2 0.6
Lilongwe City 17.4 59.8 42.9 46.6 1.6 21.9 18.7 35.2 26.9 13.6 33.5 11.0
Mangochi 37.8 36.3 14.1 23.5 0.0 19.1 3.2 5.1 34.8 3.4 11.2 1.0
Machinga 44.1 23.6 15.4 21.8 0.0 22.6 1.6 3.4 40.0 2.3 12.0 0.0
Zomba 34.4 24.1 20.3 26.5 0.0 27.2 7.2 7.9 37.0 6.5 14.1 2.0
Chiradzulu 32.1 26.2 27.4 28.5 0.0 26.6 4.8 7.7 36.4 6.5 13.9 1.4
Blantyre 35.9 33.4 33.2 41.3 0.0 27.4 9.6 13.5 23.2 8.2 17.4 2.6
Mwanza 43.4 23.2 30.2 44.2 0.2 24.0 8.4 9.4 27.1 3.1 11.9 0.7
Thyolo 42.3 23.8 31.9 48.5 0.0 21.7 4.3 6.1 24.2 3.0 9.2 0.9
Mulanje 48.0 22.8 35.4 56.3 0.0 18.5 2.8 5.9 49.7 2.4 7.4 0.9
Phalombe 43.6 14.1 21.2 35.7 0.0 20.4 1.4 3.1 61.6 0.4 7.6 0.7
Chikwawa 37.6 14.8 15.0 55.6 0.0 18.1 3.3 3.5 49.3 2.5 6.9 0.0
Nsanje 43.9 17.8 18.2 60.3 0.0 17.8 5.5 5.9 31.7 0.8 7.9 1.2
Balaka 39.6 24.8 17.9 27.7 0.0 23.6 3.9 7.8 40.6 2.9 11.5 0.7
Neno 43.7 25.8 29.9 35.9 0.0 20.2 4.8 6.5 35.1 5.7 14.8 1.8
Zomba City 38.1 78.2 34.8 42.0 0.0 23.0 33.0 43.0 29.7 25.7 49.4 14.5
Blantyre City 34.7 70.1 50.6 53.5 0.0 26.1 33.8 44.5 13.0 22.7 45.0 11.5

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

254
Annex Table 7.10: Proportion of Household which own Agricultural Tools and
Equipment by District, IHS5 2019-2020

District Hoe Slasher Axe Panga Sickle Pump Water can Oxcart Kraal Granary
Chitipa 91.0 39.9 73.0 18.3 41.4 0.0 13.6 2.2 9.8 3.2
Karonga 79.1 23.2 54.5 20.0 41.2 0.5 4.9 2.4 3.9 0.2
Nkhata Bay 92.0 31.8 76.1 41.8 48.3 0.0 10.6 0.0 6.6 1.1
Rumphi 91.3 41.4 75.8 47.8 43.9 1.4 25.3 0.5 10.8 0.8
Mzimba 95.4 29.4 75.6 51.3 55.7 0.3 27.2 4.3 14.3 5.9
Likoma 76.3 15.3 40.3 63.2 19.5 0.0 6.3 0.0 9.8 0.0
Mzuzu City 66.9 37.7 51.4 35.4 13.5 0.8 10.7 0.0 3.6 0.2
Kasungu 93.4 12.2 46.3 44.3 37.6 0.0 22.1 2.0 10.7 0.0
Nkhotakota 88.0 34.8 41.5 48.7 45.6 0.8 12.5 0.3 18.3 3.7
Ntchisi 95.9 19.7 45.3 50.2 35.1 0.4 23.2 2.4 23.3 12.7
Dowa 92.3 19.7 46.1 48.6 37.0 0.9 35.0 4.6 17.9 3.0
Salima 92.5 19.2 44.7 58.8 38.3 0.5 9.6 0.7 12.9 8.8
Lilongwe 89.3 10.8 33.3 44.4 26.6 0.6 18.1 2.0 8.0 5.6
Mchinji 95.7 11.7 36.1 52.3 32.4 0.5 13.7 2.5 9.6 7.3
Dedza 94.8 8.4 42.7 47.1 40.0 0.1 27.1 9.2 13.8 8.7
Ntcheu 93.9 10.8 40.6 60.9 47.4 0.0 20.4 2.5 13.8 4.5
Lilongwe City 44.9 14.1 24.0 39.2 4.8 0.1 7.3 0.4 1.0 0.5
Mangochi 91.8 8.2 35.6 56.2 45.5 0.5 6.0 0.0 7.0 4.0
Machinga 94.3 12.1 32.5 45.1 49.4 0.3 8.6 0.0 6.8 0.3
Zomba 93.3 17.7 28.8 52.7 39.5 0.8 22.6 1.1 7.6 0.3
Chiradzulu 92.7 9.9 36.7 53.4 38.5 0.0 19.3 0.0 12.2 0.5
Blantyre 85.0 14.2 31.2 56.0 31.6 0.2 12.9 0.0 7.1 0.8
Mwanza 93.0 10.3 58.7 49.0 41.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 19.6 0.0
Thyolo 90.3 11.5 44.6 54.1 33.3 0.4 23.5 0.0 8.9 0.5
Mulanje 92.9 8.2 43.4 53.9 37.4 0.6 10.3 0.2 6.5 0.0
Phalombe 97.0 3.4 43.6 53.8 46.1 1.1 18.7 0.4 8.4 0.0
Chikwawa 92.3 11.9 39.4 59.7 28.2 0.7 5.7 1.9 10.2 0.4
Nsanje 86.9 7.8 33.8 53.4 21.6 2.2 2.7 0.2 8.8 0.0
Balaka 89.2 12.2 38.2 54.5 40.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 6.0 1.7
Neno 93.2 11.4 54.2 67.4 46.4 2.5 15.1 0.2 17.9 0.4
Zomba City 70.4 28.8 33.3 49.6 11.0 0.9 11.9 0.0 2.0 1.0
Blantyre City 53.0 16.5 27.6 43.8 3.6 0.0 6.0 0.0 1.2 0.0

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

ANNEX 8: AGRICULTURE

Annex Table 8.1: Proportion of Households Engaged in Agricultural Activities, IHS5

2019-2020
District Agricultural activity

255
 Agricultural Cultivation of
households Cultivation of Rainy Dimba season Cultivation of Livestock
season crops crops Tree Crops production
Chitipa 92.3 86.7 9.3 28.7 69.0
Karonga 81.6 60.0 2.6 45.9 55.5
Nkhata Bay 90.8 59.1 15.8 79.3 55.6
Rumphi 84.2 77.5 12.6 38.7 61.4
Mzimba 96.4 92.3 26.6 43.4 66.4
Likoma 89.5 61.7 2.8 80.5 61.8
Mzuzu City 44.9 28.0 9.0 15.0 21.9
Kasungu 89.8 86.5 13.9 47.5 46.9
Nkhotakota 89.0 78.1 16.4 53.9 55.6
Ntchisi 97.3 96.1 29.0 42.9 66.8
Dowa 91.7 86.3 23.4 30.1 58.1
Salima 86.2 82.6 10.6 9.4 39.2
Lilongwe 84.8 81.2 25.7 18.0 34.6
Mchinji 94.0 91.3 55.4 76.9 47.6
Dedza 94.9 93.0 31.4 22.7 38.8
Ntcheu 96.3 94.8 24.7 42.4 45.7
Lilongwe City 39.2 27.1 3.8 5.3 20.3
Mangochi 89.5 87.7 9.5 30.9 39.1
Machinga 93.0 90.6 4.2 38.2 38.5
Zomba 93.9 91.4 26.5 35.4 43.3
Chiradzulu 92.9 90.7 11.6 40.4 41.5
Blantyre 83.8 77.4 12.5 43.2 43.0
Mwanza 92.8 90.4 19.4 48.6 57.0
Thyolo 97.0 94.2 24.2 76.8 44.0
Mulanje 98.0 95.2 22.7 69.3 50.6
Phalombe 99.0 97.0 25.4 36.7 53.8
Chikwawa 89.2 75.8 19.0 10.4 48.3
Nsanje 83.5 64.0 25.0 10.1 45.6
Balaka 87.6 85.2 11.2 28.7 40.8
Neno 91.6 87.5 18.3 45.1 63.9
Zomba City 61.0 48.2 5.3 24.3 26.6
Blantyre City 35.2 21.0 0.6 17.2 13.4

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

256
 Annex Table 8.2: Percentage Distribution of Gardens by Means of Acquiring them,
IHS5 2019-2020
Allocated Gift from
by a Granted non
family by local household Borrowed
District member Inherited leaders Rested member Purchased for Free Other Total
Chitipa 39.0 17.0 27.9 8.0 0.7 1.6 5.2 0.6 100
Karonga 41.2 10.7 24.2 13.8 0.6 3.5 5.3 0.6 100
Nkhata Bay 40.5 14.6 32.6 4.2 0.6 2.8 4.3 0.4 100
Rumphi 35.5 18.3 30.4 10.5 1.0 0.9 3.1 0.2 100
Mzimba 61.5 6.8 9.1 6.6 9.1 0.5 5.5 1.0 100
Likoma 24.8 31.3 18.4 0.0 0.0 21.6 0.0 4.0 100
Mzuzu City 28.4 8.3 14.3 13.2 5.7 15.1 11.1 4.0 100
Kasungu 65.5 2.5 12.4 10.5 0.8 4.3 1.9 2.2 100
Nkhotakota 52.1 10.2 8.3 11.1 0.3 11.7 4.1 2.3 100
Ntchisi 62.0 12.6 7.8 11.9 0.2 2.4 1.7 1.3 100
Dowa 66.5 5.9 10.8 12.1 0.0 2.3 1.3 1.0 100
Salima 57.7 16.2 3.1 11.2 2.0 7.3 2.4 0.2 100
Lilongwe 65.8 13.8 5.2 7.8 1.1 4.0 1.4 0.8 100
Mchinji 75.3 1.1 1.3 12.7 3.4 3.1 1.6 1.4 100
Dedza 62.6 5.5 4.0 9.7 13.6 3.2 0.9 0.5 100
Ntcheu 62.5 5.7 4.3 5.8 17.0 1.7 2.6 0.5 100
Lilongwe City 43.6 19.5 2.5 16.7 0.0 13.6 2.6 1.5 100
Mangochi 51.3 16.6 18.4 6.2 1.8 0.8 4.0 1.0 100
Machinga 61.0 15.3 11.6 4.9 1.3 2.0 1.8 2.2 100
Zomba 58.1 11.6 12.6 7.2 3.2 4.9 2.5 0.0 100
Chiradzulu 56.2 13.2 12.8 6.6 5.3 2.4 3.4 0.2 100
Blantyre 51.7 29.4 5.1 6.5 3.0 1.5 1.7 1.1 100
Mwanza 62.6 13.5 9.7 6.3 0.8 3.4 2.0 1.6 100
Thyolo 49.2 23.6 3.2 4.9 11.3 4.5 2.0 1.3 100
Mulanje 35.4 35.3 2.8 3.7 16.6 2.6 2.6 1.1 100
Phalombe 34.4 31.3 3.4 5.6 17.4 5.4 1.6 0.9 100
Chikwawa 47.9 13.3 14.7 14.1 1.1 3.3 2.2 3.4 100
Nsanje 34.5 12.4 17.0 21.7 1.5 4.6 3.9 4.4 100
Balaka 57.1 15.0 10.3 5.5 5.3 4.6 1.4 0.8 100
Neno 65.6 9.7 11.2 5.8 0.3 3.6 2.1 1.6 100
Zomba City 48.2 7.8 11.8 13.8 6.0 4.4 4.6 3.4 100
Blantyre City 18.6 40.6 3.5 7.1 2.8 19.0 5.5 2.8 100

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

257
 Annex Table 8.3: Average Cultivated Plot Size (Acres) and Percentage Distribution of
Plots by Size (Acres) by District, IHS5 2019-2020

Plot Size (Acres)

Average Plot
District size (acres) 0-1 1-2 2-4 4-6 6 and above
Chitipa 1.5 37.0 23.7 31.4 7.0 0.8
Karonga 0.8 62.7 21.3 12.3 3.6 0.0
Nkhata Bay 0.7 66.1 23.6 7.9 1.6 0.8
Rumphi 1.7 36.3 32.7 21.0 5.6 4.3
Mzimba 2.0 39.7 26.1 23.7 7.0 3.4
Likoma 0.1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mzuzu City 1.2 47.5 35.3 11.1 2.1 3.9
Kasungu 3.4 22.8 36.9 26.7 6.0 7.7
Nkhotakota 2.0 61.3 22.2 15.4 1.0 0.0
Ntchisi 2.2 31.6 30.2 26.4 6.2 5.7
Dowa 2.0 29.8 31.5 30.3 7.1 1.4
Salima 1.3 29.6 45.0 21.9 2.9 0.6
Lilongwe 1.4 44.1 33.8 17.1 3.8 1.2
Mchinji 2.9 30.6 28.0 31.9 4.1 5.4
Dedza 1.1 49.6 36.9 10.1 1.9 1.6
Ntcheu 1.2 46.0 29.6 18.3 5.5 0.6
Lilongwe City 2.2 46.8 37.9 12.1 0.0 3.2
Mangochi 0.8 36.0 44.5 18.7 0.8 0.0
Machinga 0.7 63.4 27.4 7.4 1.2 0.7
Zomba 1.1 51.0 34.6 11.6 1.8 1.1
Chiradzulu 0.6 64.9 29.6 3.7 1.4 0.3
Blantyre 0.6 69.9 26.0 3.4 0.5 0.3
Mwanza 1.7 35.9 37.5 19.3 6.4 0.9
Thyolo 0.4 85.3 12.1 2.6 0.0 0.0
Mulanje 0.6 75.1 16.4 8.1 0.4 0.0
Phalombe 1.1 55.6 29.3 14.6 0.5 0.0
Chikwawa 1.1 45.0 34.5 16.0 3.4 1.0
Nsanje 0.6 58.8 32.8 8.0 0.0 0.4
Balaka 1.1 42.6 32.6 21.3 2.7 0.9
Neno 0.9 42.8 36.2 17.7 3.0 0.3
Zomba City 0.7 61.9 26.7 9.6 1.6 0.2
Blantyre City 0.6 79.0 7.2 8.7 5.1 0.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

258
 Annex Table 8.4: Proportion of Plots by Type of Labour Input Used in Various Non-
harvest Agricultural Activities by District, IHS5 2019-2020

Male household Female Child household Exchanged

District labour household labour labour Hired labour labour
Chitipa 90.3 96.1 34.4 12.2 17.5
Karonga 89.8 92.1 35.8 12.6 15.3
Nkhata Bay 92.7 95.3 33.2 12.5 16.9
Rumphi 90.8 92.7 33.6 11.8 18.9
Mzimba 86.9 94.8 27.2 14.8 17.0
Likoma 63.5 96.3 21.6 7.5 7.5
Mzuzu City 81.4 89.6 18.4 28.1 13.7
Kasungu 90.4 96.3 27.0 5.4 14.2
Nkhotakota 89.8 95.0 29.0 11.9 13.7
Ntchisi 93.4 96.4 32.4 12.1 10.5
Dowa 89.6 95.4 32.2 11.1 14.7
Salima 88.6 96.9 39.0 11.3 16.0
Lilongwe 86.2 94.6 31.2 8.0 14.2
Mchinji 89.9 96.4 39.6 8.4 7.0
Dedza 82.3 96.4 24.2 14.2 17.5
Ntcheu 77.5 95.3 28.9 10.4 22.5
Lilongwe City 75.1 81.2 14.0 47.9 13.3
Mangochi 78.9 95.0 44.0 9.3 18.0
Machinga 76.4 96.9 44.2 7.7 14.0
Zomba 81.5 97.5 38.4 11.9 13.9
Chiradzulu 80.3 97.1 29.9 13.8 17.4
Blantyre 68.6 95.2 21.1 13.2 11.5
Mwanza 80.2 97.9 34.0 20.5 15.7
Thyolo 75.3 96.9 31.8 12.5 15.1
Mulanje 79.1 95.0 31.7 6.2 7.8
Phalombe 84.0 95.7 35.5 9.2 9.1
Chikwawa 85.1 96.9 22.2 13.6 17.4
Nsanje 77.5 96.9 19.9 9.2 15.8
Balaka 82.0 95.0 40.3 5.9 11.7
Neno 85.9 95.1 40.7 24.3 20.0
Zomba City 75.4 95.3 21.3 39.8 31.4
Blantyre City 59.3 89.5 22.5 35.4 27.4
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

259
 Annex Table 8.5: Percentage Distribution of Plots by Method of Land Preparation for
Planting on [Plot] during the 2018/2019 Rainy Season and District, IHS5 2019-2020

Tied or Minimum
Traditional Box Planting Zero Tillage (only
District Ridging Ridging Pits Tillage Ripping part of field till Other
Chitipa 99.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
Karonga 91.8 1.3 2.4 1.2 3.4 0.0 0.0
Nkhata Bay 84.3 3.3 4.1 2.9 3.0 0.8 1.6
Rumphi 99.0 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2
Mzimba 91.8 5.6 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.0
Likoma 82.2 3.7 0.0 4.7 0.0 9.4 0.0
Mzuzu City 96.5 2.6 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kasungu 99.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Nkhotakota 85.0 2.1 4.8 1.4 5.9 0.8 0.0
Ntchisi 99.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dowa 99.4 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Salima 92.8 0.0 3.6 3.2 0.0 0.3 0.0
Lilongwe 99.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mchinji 99.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3
Dedza 87.9 9.8 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ntcheu 80.0 18.4 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lilongwe City 95.3 2.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mangochi 91.4 0.4 2.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 4.1
Machinga 90.6 0.7 0.7 1.8 2.5 1.8 1.9
Zomba 86.5 3.8 1.3 0.4 1.0 5.1 1.7
Chiradzulu 96.7 1.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.2
Blantyre 85.5 7.1 4.2 2.6 0.0 0.5 0.2
Mwanza 82.8 3.0 8.3 3.8 0.0 1.9 0.2
Thyolo 86.3 7.9 1.6 3.1 0.0 0.8 0.3
Mulanje 83.0 12.9 0.3 2.2 0.0 1.6 0.0
Phalombe 80.1 9.3 0.5 6.4 0.0 3.6 0.0
Chikwawa 52.2 1.2 27.5 13.3 3.7 1.4 0.7
Nsanje 42.2 0.8 38.2 13.3 1.3 3.7 0.6
Balaka 93.0 1.9 3.3 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.0
Neno 75.8 3.2 12.4 7.3 0.0 1.3 0.0
Zomba City 92.3 3.9 1.5 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.4
Blantyre City 94.3 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

260
 Annex Table 8.6: Percent of Plots by Equipment Used for Land Preparation and
District, IHS5 2019-2020

District Hand hoe Animal power Mechanical power Total

Chitipa 98.7 1.3 0.0 100
Karonga 84.8 15.2 0.0 100
Nkhata Bay 97.6 2.4 0.0 100
Rumphi 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Mzimba 90.4 9.6 0.0 100
Likoma 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Mzuzu City 97.2 2.8 0.0 100
Kasungu 99.0 1.0 0.0 100
Nkhotakota 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Ntchisi 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Dowa 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Salima 99.9 0.1 0.0 100
Lilongwe 99.9 0.0 0.1 100
Mchinji 98.1 1.9 0.0 100
Dedza 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Ntcheu 99.4 0.4 0.2 100
Lilongwe City 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Mangochi 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Machinga 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Zomba 99.3 0.7 0.0 100
Chiradzulu 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Blantyre 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Mwanza 99.8 0.2 0.0 100
Thyolo 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Mulanje 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Phalombe 99.9 0.1 0.0 100
Chikwawa 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Nsanje 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Balaka 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Neno 99.7 0.3 0.0 100
Zomba City 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Blantyre City 100.0 0.0 0.0 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

261
 Annex Table 8.7: Proportion of Plots by Various Non Labour Input Use and District,
IHS5 2019-2020

District Organic fertilizers Inorganic fertilizers No fertilizers used Pesticides Irrigation

Chitipa 8.3 55.9 40.4 2.3 0.0
Karonga 5.0 36.9 59.8 14.2 1.2
Nkhata Bay 8.0 42.3 52.4 4.4 0.4
Rumphi 19.2 61.4 33.0 5.3 0.5
Mzimba 10.4 54.9 43.2 6.5 0.7
Likoma 3.7 82.2 17.8 3.7 0.0
Mzuzu City 13.3 73.8 22.0 2.9 0.7
Kasungu 18.3 45.4 50.4 2.6 0.0
Nkhotakota 8.5 47.0 48.3 6.4 0.1
Ntchisi 12.1 44.0 51.6 9.2 0.0
Dowa 20.2 48.3 45.5 6.2 0.0
Salima 24.2 38.7 52.1 11.2 0.6
Lilongwe 16.5 43.7 49.8 3.4 1.7
Mchinji 15.1 40.0 56.1 1.9 0.2
Dedza 18.7 54.3 37.8 3.7 0.1
Ntcheu 24.9 62.7 30.3 5.9 0.0
Lilongwe City 20.4 63.4 30.5 4.0 0.3
Mangochi 34.2 39.2 43.3 2.9 0.0
Machinga 36.6 52.1 34.1 1.8 0.5
Zomba 30.3 47.0 42.1 6.1 1.2
Chiradzulu 26.8 68.9 24.6 8.1 0.4
Blantyre 27.8 70.4 22.5 3.6 0.1
Mwanza 25.4 65.1 28.8 1.7 0.1
Thyolo 25.0 72.6 22.9 4.0 3.5
Mulanje 26.3 48.5 40.6 3.6 1.8
Phalombe 24.8 51.0 37.0 3.9 0.9
Chikwawa 3.6 6.4 90.6 16.2 0.0
Nsanje 5.7 7.0 88.2 7.1 0.2
Balaka 42.3 42.8 34.7 4.3 0.0
Neno 23.5 60.2 30.0 4.7 0.0
Zomba City 25.1 70.6 24.0 3.7 1.4
Blantyre City 20.7 66.5 24.4 3.8 0.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

262
 Annex Table 8.8: Percentage Distribution of Cultivated Plots by Type of Crop Stand and
District, IHS5 2019-2020

District Mixed intercrop Pure stand Strip intercrop Row intercrop Relay intercrop Total
Chitipa 44.7 26.7 0.7 26.6 1.3 100
Karonga 33.0 43.8 0.0 21.0 2.2 100
Nkhata Bay 59.8 34.4 0.1 4.4 1.3 100
Rumphi 48.1 37.1 0.9 13.9 0.1 100
Mzimba 58.3 37.9 0.5 2.0 1.3 100
Likoma 76.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Mzuzu City 74.3 22.8 0.0 2.1 0.9 100
Kasungu 58.8 38.0 0.3 0.3 2.7 100
Nkhotakota 36.1 59.0 0.6 2.4 1.9 100
Ntchisi 38.8 60.4 0.2 0.0 0.6 100
Dowa 57.9 37.1 0.2 1.4 3.4 100
Salima 68.1 29.9 0.4 0.6 1.1 100
Lilongwe 69.8 22.2 3.1 3.8 1.1 100
Mchinji 57.3 39.9 0.1 0.4 2.4 100
Dedza 72.1 13.0 9.4 3.3 2.1 100
Ntcheu 70.7 14.5 9.5 1.5 3.7 100
Lilongwe City 45.0 41.4 10.8 2.5 0.3 100
Mangochi 83.0 10.1 0.8 4.0 2.0 100
Machinga 83.8 11.2 0.0 1.4 3.7 100
Zomba 69.1 13.0 1.2 13.6 3.1 100
Chiradzulu 84.0 4.9 0.9 10.1 0.1 100
Blantyre 79.6 4.8 8.1 6.8 0.7 100
Mwanza 72.4 6.5 8.3 11.8 1.0 100
Thyolo 69.0 3.8 12.4 14.4 0.5 100
Mulanje 55.3 5.2 23.5 15.1 0.9 100
Phalombe 58.4 8.6 19.2 13.2 0.5 100
Chikwawa 57.6 20.7 2.3 19.1 0.3 100
Nsanje 68.7 14.2 2.6 14.0 0.5 100
Balaka 80.2 13.2 3.4 1.7 1.5 100
Neno 59.9 9.6 13.1 17.1 0.4 100
Zomba City 67.4 11.4 1.1 20.0 0.2 100
Blantyre City 92.5 4.2 0.0 2.9 0.5 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

263
 Annex Table 8.9: Proportion of Plots Intercropped during the 2018/2019 Rainy Season
and Number of Crops Intercropped, IHS5 2019-2020
Number of crops

District Intercropped second crop Third crop Fourth crop Fifth crop
Chitipa 73.3 57.4 27.1 11.5 3.0
Karonga 56.2 69.9 19.8 2.8 0.0
Nkhata Bay 65.6 70.6 15.4 4.2 0.4
Rumphi 62.9 59.0 28.6 2.5 2.4
Mzimba 62.1 76.2 18.1 3.4 0.7
Likoma 76.0 24.4 73.0 0.0 0.0
Mzuzu City 77.2 45.1 30.3 20.9 0.0
Kasungu 62.0 64.5 27.4 5.4 1.3
Nkhotakota 41.0 55.7 31.4 2.2 3.6
Ntchisi 39.6 73.3 23.3 3.2 0.0
Dowa 62.9 63.8 26.7 6.7 2.1
Salima 70.1 64.7 24.8 2.2 1.2
Lilongwe 77.8 40.5 35.1 7.2 11.2
Mchinji 60.1 51.9 31.9 12.2 1.3
Dedza 87.0 39.9 43.3 11.8 2.8
Ntcheu 85.5 34.7 46.8 14.7 2.3
Lilongwe City 58.6 61.0 24.0 10.6 0.0
Mangochi 89.9 30.5 46.6 17.6 5.0
Machinga 88.8 29.1 49.1 19.2 1.8
Zomba 87.0 28.7 38.6 21.6 10.1
Chiradzulu 95.1 18.1 32.5 25.6 22.6
Blantyre 95.2 17.9 37.0 38.3 6.2
Mwanza 93.5 19.2 38.6 34.2 6.7
Thyolo 96.2 21.6 42.9 24.9 10.9
Mulanje 94.8 21.1 37.8 29.8 10.9
Phalombe 91.4 23.1 43.1 20.9 11.5
Chikwawa 79.3 47.2 36.8 9.5 9.7
Nsanje 85.8 51.4 17.3 28.6 4.7
Balaka 86.8 30.0 40.2 23.5 5.5
Neno 90.4 26.7 43.4 23.3 4.8
Zomba City 88.6 24.3 51.8 20.7 2.5
Blantyre City 95.8 7.8 45.7 21.3 25.2
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

264
 Annex Table 8.10: Proportion of Households which Received any Input Coupon and
Use Status of the Coupon by District, IHS5 2019-2020

Shared purchased input with fellow

District Received any coupon Redeemed coupon farmer
Chitipa 58.2 93.9 13.2
Karonga 24.5 87.3 1.7
Nkhata Bay 46.3 87.4 24.3
Rumphi 64.2 93.8 8.0
Mzimba 57.9 74.2 9.5
Likoma 73.9 39.7 27.8
Mzuzu City 32.9 62.8 0.0
Kasungu 51.6 88.6 5.5
Nkhotakota 16.5 74.0 0.0
Ntchisi 53.9 87.2 2.4
Dowa 29.5 97.6 7.0
Salima 34.1 81.5 19.0
Lilongwe 30.2 91.3 36.3
Mchinji 27.6 91.5 10.4
Dedza 21.0 78.3 22.1
Ntcheu 36.0 77.3 50.1
Lilongwe City 13.9 100.0 30.4
Mangochi 38.0 71.4 28.3
Machinga 48.5 74.0 42.4
Zomba 59.7 87.1 26.1
Chiradzulu 60.2 81.8 32.8
Blantyre 74.3 92.4 49.1
Mwanza 74.4 89.0 42.9
Thyolo 73.8 68.5 21.4
Mulanje 66.2 81.2 35.0
Phalombe 74.0 75.7 28.7
Chikwawa 12.5 39.8 0.0
Nsanje 17.5 72.2 9.2
Balaka 48.7 86.0 57.8
Neno 65.0 88.2 33.7
Zomba City 64.9 79.9 43.1
Blantyre City 61.2 87.3 59.5
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

265
 Annex Table 8.11: Percentage Distribution of Cultivated Plots by Maize Seed Variety,
IHS5 2019-2020

District Local Hybrid OPV Recycled Total

Chitipa 47.2 45.6 0.2 7.0 100
Karonga 38.5 54.7 0.0 6.8 100
Nkhata Bay 38.7 59.7 1.1 0.5 100
Rumphi 43.7 50.6 0.0 5.7 100
Mzimba 46.6 45.1 2.2 6.1 100
Likoma 22.4 72.9 4.7 0.0 100
Mzuzu City 39.6 49.7 5.8 4.9 100
Kasungu 49.9 46.3 0.0 3.8 100
Nkhotakota 36.8 53.9 0.0 9.3 100
Ntchisi 39.6 49.9 1.0 9.5 100
Dowa 49.3 45.0 0.0 5.7 100
Salima 46.9 43.3 1.9 7.9 100
Lilongwe 40.0 39.7 2.1 18.2 100
Mchinji 42.3 51.8 0.0 5.8 100
Dedza 63.3 25.9 0.5 10.4 100
Ntcheu 49.9 35.9 0.6 13.6 100
Lilongwe City 36.0 54.6 0.7 8.7 100
Mangochi 64.4 23.3 0.3 12.0 100
Machinga 53.0 41.0 0.0 6.0 100
Zomba 49.4 40.8 6.6 3.2 100
Chiradzulu 67.1 24.6 4.7 3.6 100
Blantyre 54.6 34.8 0.6 10.0 100
Mwanza 64.4 22.7 0.2 12.6 100
Thyolo 77.8 19.3 1.4 1.4 100
Mulanje 71.2 23.2 0.0 5.6 100
Phalombe 62.9 32.0 0.0 5.1 100
Chikwawa 47.0 35.4 6.9 10.8 100
Nsanje 40.5 40.2 4.9 14.4 100
Balaka 56.2 35.8 0.2 7.8 100
Neno 47.0 23.4 1.1 28.5 100
Zomba City 53.1 34.5 8.9 3.6 100
Blantyre City 58.1 30.1 0.0 11.7 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

266
 Annex Table 8.12: Proportion of Households that had the Harvested Maize Crop in
Storage by Storage Method Used and District, IHS5 2019-2020
Harvested Storage facilities
crop in Bags in Heaped in Unprotected Chitandala Traditional
District storage house house pile in house Nkhokwe Other Total
Chitipa 25.4 97.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Karonga 5.1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Nkhata Bay 8.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Rumphi 14.7 95.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Mzimba 24.8 98.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 100
Mzuzu City 30.8 94.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.2 100
Kasungu 19.4 98.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Nkhotakota 20.2 97.7 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.9 0.0 100
Ntchisi 26.5 97.4 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Dowa 21.3 93.4 2.8 1.4 0.0 2.3 0.0 100
Salima 13.7 98.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 100
Lilongwe 9.5 98.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Mchinji 17.4 98.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 100
Dedza 18.7 98.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Ntcheu 30.2 93.4 4.5 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 100
Lilongwe City 19.4 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Mangochi 10.4 83.6 2.1 2.7 2.7 9.0 0.0 100
Machinga 6.6 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Zomba 14.1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Chiradzulu 17.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Blantyre 17.4 89.7 8.5 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 100
Mwanza 25.6 96.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 100
Thyolo 16.0 98.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 100
Mulanje 14.4 98.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Phalombe 10.5 95.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 100
Chikwawa 11.4 86.0 9.2 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Nsanje 14.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Balaka 6.9 94.7 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Neno 24.2 98.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 100
Zomba City 31.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Blantyre City 13.3 79.2 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

267
 Annex Table 8.13: Percentage Distribution of Households by Treatment Methods Used
to Protect the Harvested Maize Crop under Storage and District, IHS5 2019-2020
Treatment methods

District Dust Liquid Pesticides Fumigants Granules Other Total

Chitipa 52.9 45.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 100
Karonga 40.0 38.6 0.0 0.0 21.5 100
Nkhata Bay 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Rumphi 54.0 38.1 0.0 7.9 0.0 100
Mzimba 77.6 17.3 3.4 1.7 0.0 100
Mzuzu City 60.2 35.4 4.3 0.0 0.0 100
Kasungu 82.5 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Nkhotakota 73.4 21.2 5.4 0.0 0.0 100
Ntchisi 94.1 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Dowa 48.5 44.1 0.0 3.1 4.2 100
Salima 47.0 12.7 5.8 22.8 11.7 100
Lilongwe 92.5 3.7 0.0 3.8 0.0 100
Mchinji 88.8 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Dedza 50.8 36.7 1.6 11.0 0.0 100
Ntcheu 37.7 53.3 3.7 1.4 3.8 100
Lilongwe City 42.5 31.4 26.1 0.0 0.0 100
Mangochi 64.1 12.3 8.0 12.4 3.1 100
Machinga 49.8 36.6 0.0 10.9 2.7 100
Zomba 66.4 33.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Chiradzulu 33.6 66.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Blantyre 65.7 34.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Mwanza 83.0 7.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 100
Thyolo 22.6 69.6 7.8 0.0 0.0 100
Mulanje 52.6 37.5 9.9 0.0 0.0 100
Phalombe 40.7 50.5 8.8 0.0 0.0 100
Chikwawa 87.9 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 100
Nsanje 58.6 41.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Balaka 69.3 30.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Neno 92.0 7.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 100
Zomba City 51.8 48.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Blantyre City 42.6 57.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

268
 Annex Table 8.14: Percentage Distribution of Plots Planted with Trees by Type and
District, IHS5 2019-2020

Other Folder/Fertilizer Tea & Other

District Mango Cassava Banana fruits and fuel wood Coffee trees Total
Chitipa 19.5 19.6 37.7 14.8 0.0 8.0 0.5 100
Karonga 16.8 58.2 14.2 8.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 100
Nkhata Bay 20.2 46.3 11.9 18.4 0.0 0.0 3.3 100
Rumphi 26.5 14.3 24.7 24.2 0.8 8.0 1.6 100
Mzimba 36.8 12.8 22.7 26.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 100
Likoma 17.7 53.2 15.3 9.4 0.0 0.0 4.4 100
Mzuzu City 20.1 3.8 14.5 43.7 7.4 1.1 9.5 100
Kasungu 54.9 3.9 18.5 10.8 2.7 0.0 9.2 100
Nkhotakota 28.0 47.0 9.9 14.3 0.3 0.0 0.6 100
Ntchisi 51.6 2.9 17.8 26.2 1.1 0.0 0.5 100
Dowa 49.8 0.2 21.2 19.9 0.6 0.0 8.2 100
Salima 25.5 7.0 12.0 25.8 14.7 0.0 15.0 100
Lilongwe 32.7 6.2 13.1 8.3 9.7 0.0 30.1 100
Mchinji 53.2 1.4 13.7 11.9 2.1 0.0 17.7 100
Dedza 46.0 2.1 22.7 27.9 0.7 0.0 0.6 100
Ntcheu 43.5 4.4 13.9 34.9 0.0 0.0 3.3 100
Lilongwe City 36.8 11.5 4.2 38.5 0.0 0.0 9.0 100
Mangochi 41.7 15.5 11.7 29.5 0.0 0.0 1.7 100
Machinga 50.4 18.7 12.9 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Zomba 37.4 10.7 10.3 38.0 1.6 0.0 2.0 100
Chiradzulu 28.3 25.6 6.6 25.3 12.0 0.0 2.2 100
Blantyre 41.8 5.5 4.3 36.9 9.4 0.0 2.1 100
Mwanza 36.8 7.9 13.9 39.7 0.2 0.0 1.6 100
Thyolo 31.9 33.4 3.0 28.3 1.7 0.3 1.4 100
Mulanje 30.0 38.4 5.5 23.8 0.0 1.5 0.8 100
Phalombe 58.3 6.2 11.4 22.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 100
Chikwawa 36.9 6.8 5.2 32.0 14.1 2.3 2.7 100
Nsanje 20.6 15.8 2.8 37.3 20.5 0.0 3.0 100
Balaka 45.8 11.0 8.0 35.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Neno 32.9 3.8 13.5 47.4 1.1 0.0 1.3 100
Zomba City 31.7 10.8 4.8 49.5 0.0 0.0 3.2 100
Blantyre City 30.4 1.6 7.0 52.0 0.8 0.0 8.3 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

269
 Annex Table 8.15: Percentage Distribution of Households by Types of Livestock and
District, IHS5 2019-2020

District Cattle Goats Sheep Pigs Chickens Other poultry Total

Chitipa 20.5 14.8 0.2 7.4 54.3 2.9 100
Karonga 23.3 13.0 0.1 13.4 41.2 9.0 100
Nkhata Bay 7.2 9.4 0.0 9.6 67.0 6.8 100
Rumphi 4.7 19.8 0.2 10.6 58.4 6.4 100
Mzimba 13.7 13.4 0.1 14.4 53.8 4.5 100
Likoma 15.7 31.0 0.0 0.0 35.9 17.4 100
Mzuzu City 13.1 3.4 0.3 4.6 73.4 5.1 100
Kasungu 4.9 18.6 0.0 13.0 55.6 8.0 100
Nkhotakota 1.8 22.0 1.7 4.6 64.2 5.6 100
Ntchisi 2.2 23.6 0.9 13.7 50.5 9.1 100
Dowa 4.3 26.2 1.2 10.7 49.6 8.0 100
Salima 5.4 30.1 0.0 11.0 40.6 12.9 100
Lilongwe 10.1 24.6 1.2 10.1 50.5 3.4 100
Mchinji 18.6 23.9 0.0 10.8 45.1 1.6 100
Dedza 5.9 26.1 0.0 9.1 54.2 4.7 100
Ntcheu 7.6 26.0 0.5 8.3 53.1 4.4 100
Lilongwe City 4.3 17.4 0.0 7.5 66.4 4.4 100
Mangochi 1.3 25.6 0.0 0.0 60.7 12.5 100
Machinga 0.9 16.3 0.0 0.9 69.3 12.7 100
Zomba 5.0 20.4 0.5 2.9 63.0 8.2 100
Chiradzulu 15.1 20.7 0.0 5.4 49.4 9.4 100
Blantyre 3.2 24.6 0.0 8.3 58.6 5.3 100
Mwanza 1.7 24.7 0.0 11.7 54.0 8.0 100
Thyolo 12.2 18.4 0.0 14.8 49.2 5.4 100
Mulanje 2.8 25.7 0.5 6.9 55.8 8.3 100
Phalombe 3.9 22.0 0.0 10.0 53.4 10.7 100
Chikwawa 12.8 18.7 0.0 4.2 53.9 10.4 100
Nsanje 7.0 18.1 0.4 1.7 55.6 17.2 100
Balaka 0.9 23.3 0.0 1.2 63.7 10.9 100
Neno 2.1 20.6 0.2 11.1 57.6 8.4 100
Zomba City 0.0 6.1 0.0 3.9 85.0 5.0 100
Blantyre City 0.0 9.4 0.0 1.0 88.4 1.2 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

270
 Annex Table 8.16: Proportion of Households by Various Extension Services Received
and District, IHS5 2019-2020
Animal
New Seed Fertilizer Pest Diseases / Marketing/Crop Fishery
District Varieties Use Control Vaccination Agroforestry Sales Production Other
Chitipa 26.7 13.2 8.5 5.7 2.2 5.0 12.8 1.0
Karonga 24.7 13.1 11.8 4.7 0.9 2.3 11.4 0.7
Nkhata Bay 14.1 9.0 9.4 10.3 4.7 5.3 8.1 4.3
Rumphi 13.6 9.5 7.5 8.4 4.7 5.8 10.5 6.6
Mzimba 10.8 9.7 8.9 7.4 3.1 6.1 9.6 6.4
Likoma 6.2 11.9 9.0 6.5 4.1 4.1 12.2 2.7
Mzuzu City 11.4 10.0 8.3 10.8 4.1 6.3 7.6 5.1
Kasungu 8.9 9.5 8.0 6.0 6.2 6.1 13.7 8.3
Nkhotakota 10.9 10.7 8.7 7.3 4.8 7.1 15.6 3.4
Ntchisi 12.9 12.0 8.1 6.9 5.4 4.5 18.0 5.4
Dowa 8.8 8.7 7.9 7.6 6.3 4.8 16.4 8.3
Salima 5.1 5.5 5.0 8.2 5.7 5.1 11.0 5.0
Lilongwe 5.7 6.3 4.7 7.5 5.0 5.5 13.3 5.2
Mchinji 9.8 8.2 6.8 7.0 5.6 7.7 11.0 6.0
Dedza 9.3 7.0 8.6 8.2 4.7 4.6 12.5 3.2
Ntcheu 8.5 11.4 7.5 6.0 4.5 5.5 10.2 3.9
Lilongwe City 14.0 11.0 5.6 13.5 3.2 3.8 11.5 4.6
Mangochi 22.5 15.5 8.1 5.9 3.2 2.8 17.7 2.2
Machinga 17.9 8.4 8.7 7.5 1.7 5.7 22.1 1.3
Zomba 7.9 12.2 9.5 10.3 3.3 6.8 12.0 3.3
Chiradzulu 9.1 10.2 9.4 7.7 4.1 6.3 11.0 4.4
Blantyre 15.1 10.8 8.8 7.9 4.3 6.0 15.2 1.0
Mwanza 14.6 13.4 9.6 6.9 3.1 7.6 18.7 1.6
Thyolo 13.1 10.4 7.2 8.6 2.3 7.1 18.2 2.1
Mulanje 10.8 7.8 4.4 7.1 4.4 5.4 19.5 4.2
Phalombe 11.3 6.1 5.3 9.6 2.9 6.7 20.6 5.0
Chikwawa 22.6 8.9 13.3 11.7 1.7 8.4 11.2 0.5
Nsanje 21.8 6.8 8.9 8.5 3.1 8.1 10.2 1.0
Balaka 17.5 11.0 4.9 7.4 3.6 4.4 19.4 2.6
Neno 13.2 13.5 8.7 6.5 2.2 7.3 18.3 1.4
Zomba City 10.2 9.2 11.5 8.4 2.8 5.1 14.1 3.2
Blantyre City 14.6 7.3 9.5 10.7 6.2 3.5 10.4 3.6
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

271
 ANNEX 9: WELFARE

Annex Table 9.1: Proportion of Households by Adequacy of Food, Housing and Health
Care by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020
Food Security Housing Health Care
District Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate
Chitipa 30.4 69.6 32.0 68.0 29.5 70.5
Karonga 47.3 52.7 40.1 59.9 32.5 67.5
Nkhata Bay 48.7 51.3 47.1 52.9 61.3 38.7
Rumphi 37.5 62.5 37.8 62.2 46.0 54.0
Mzimba 57.7 42.3 49.9 50.1 51.4 48.6
Likoma 45.9 54.1 40.4 59.6 44.6 55.4
Mzuzu City 34.6 65.4 38.5 61.5 42.7 57.3
Kasungu 66.1 33.9 59.2 40.8 59.4 40.6
Nkhotakota 53.9 46.1 43.3 56.7 46.2 53.8
Ntchisi 63.0 37.0 46.4 53.6 55.5 44.5
Dowa 63.5 36.5 55.1 44.9 59.1 40.9
Salima 63.7 36.3 51.4 48.6 54.8 45.2
Lilongwe 74.2 25.8 56.1 43.9 59.0 41.0
Mchinji 72.8 27.2 60.4 39.6 56.1 43.9
Dedza 71.8 28.2 58.9 41.1 64.9 35.1
Ntcheu 67.0 33.0 57.5 42.5 54.6 45.4
Lilongwe City 44.5 55.5 41.4 58.6 41.7 58.3
Mangochi 72.8 27.2 56.1 43.9 56.3 43.7
Machinga 77.7 22.3 63.9 36.1 51.2 48.8
Zomba 73.1 26.9 59.1 40.9 54.6 45.4
Chiradzulu 69.9 30.1 56.7 43.3 57.4 42.6
Blantyre 58.5 41.5 42.8 57.2 45.2 54.8
Mwanza 75.0 25.0 64.7 35.3 53.0 47.0
Thyolo 68.0 32.0 54.1 45.9 54.9 45.1
Mulanje 61.7 38.3 44.3 55.7 50.3 49.7
Phalombe 75.6 24.4 55.3 44.7 56.0 44.0
Chikwawa 77.6 22.4 59.4 40.6 64.6 35.4
Nsanje 71.0 29.0 53.5 46.5 62.1 37.9
Balaka 71.5 28.5 54.2 45.8 48.9 51.1
Neno 66.4 33.6 60.2 39.8 49.6 50.4
Zomba City 41.7 58.3 37.7 62.3 36.4 63.6
Blantyre City 35.4 64.6 36.8 63.2 26.2 73.8
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

272
 Annex Table 9.2: Percentage Distribution of Households Perceived Current Economic
Well-being by District, IHS5 2019-2020
Self Assessment Against Neighbours Against Friends
District Very Poor Poor Average Rich Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher
Chitipa 39.3 37.8 16.2 6.6 12.4 42.5 45.0 10.2 39.3 50.6
Karonga 48.6 34.5 11.6 5.4 9.3 30.4 60.3 6.2 35.9 58.0
Nkhata Bay 37.8 43.6 14.9 3.7 11.4 38.0 50.6 8.1 47.2 44.7
Rumphi 34.3 36.6 25.4 3.7 10.9 41.4 47.7 8.9 46.1 45.0
Mzimba 32.1 44.5 20.4 3.1 14.9 45.8 39.2 16.0 50.7 33.3
Likoma 27.2 41.0 20.1 11.8 6.3 31.9 61.9 3.5 38.8 57.7
Mzuzu City 18.4 41.5 29.2 10.8 12.7 36.2 51.1 11.7 55.0 33.3
Kasungu 40.5 40.9 14.4 4.2 17.1 50.3 32.6 12.4 54.4 33.2
Nkhotakota 32.0 44.8 15.9 7.3 15.2 39.5 45.3 6.2 47.0 46.8
Ntchisi 39.0 40.2 15.5 5.3 13.9 43.0 43.0 8.6 44.7 46.7
Dowa 29.2 48.4 19.4 3.1 12.9 53.0 34.1 12.0 49.4 38.6
Salima 30.8 46.1 18.5 4.6 13.4 56.9 29.7 12.2 57.6 30.2
Lilongwe 46.5 39.1 11.5 3.0 13.2 49.4 37.3 10.9 52.4 36.7
Mchinji 52.7 31.0 12.9 3.4 17.2 50.0 32.9 14.2 53.0 32.8
Dedza 44.5 35.6 15.0 4.8 15.0 42.3 42.7 12.4 47.3 40.4
Ntcheu 28.7 47.4 20.8 3.1 17.7 45.8 36.5 16.2 51.7 32.1
Lilongwe City 11.1 39.3 34.8 14.8 13.1 48.3 38.6 13.2 51.9 34.8
Mangochi 36.9 42.6 16.4 4.2 19.4 26.8 53.8 11.3 52.0 36.7
Machinga 43.5 39.4 12.9 4.2 16.3 35.9 47.8 11.1 52.4 36.5
Zomba 38.2 47.7 11.4 2.6 13.4 49.3 37.3 11.6 50.0 38.5
Chiradzulu 45.0 35.4 15.9 3.7 15.3 39.3 45.4 12.9 45.1 41.9
Blantyre 30.3 43.9 19.3 6.4 16.9 41.0 42.1 12.4 43.6 44.0
Mwanza 37.4 41.0 14.6 7.1 17.4 40.8 41.8 14.7 53.0 32.3
Thyolo 41.4 32.9 21.6 4.0 17.2 43.0 39.8 16.8 41.9 41.3
Mulanje 46.7 26.7 20.0 6.6 13.1 43.3 43.6 14.9 43.2 41.9
Phalombe 53.0 25.9 17.5 3.6 14.6 52.1 33.2 13.5 55.8 30.8
Chikwawa 44.5 44.3 7.9 3.3 12.9 44.6 42.5 9.6 49.5 40.9
Nsanje 44.2 40.5 10.8 4.5 8.6 44.4 47.0 6.5 51.4 42.1
Balaka 38.3 40.7 12.5 8.4 17.4 40.3 42.3 15.1 47.1 37.9
Neno 26.6 44.6 14.3 14.4 14.9 52.5 32.6 13.1 61.0 25.9
Zomba City 17.7 40.3 28.3 13.6 13.2 50.9 35.9 12.5 53.5 34.0
Blantyre City 15.7 37.3 30.9 16.1 14.4 38.8 46.8 14.9 44.5 40.7
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

273
 Annex Table 9.3: Percentage Distribution of Perceived Adequacy of Households’
Current Income by District, IHS5 2019-2020
Income allows Income only Income not Income really not
Income allows to to save just a just meets sufficient so need sufficient so need
District build savings little the expenses to use savings to borrow Total
Chitipa 8.2 16.0 35.9 29.2 10.8 100
Karonga 11.0 10.2 39.0 29.5 10.3 100
Nkhata Bay 2.7 12.1 36.8 23.7 24.6 100
Rumphi 6.7 14.6 33.9 27.1 17.7 100
Mzimba 3.3 23.9 42.1 10.6 20.0 100
Likoma 2.8 16.6 31.3 25.7 23.7 100
Mzuzu City 11.5 26.9 42.3 6.8 12.5 100
Kasungu 6.3 7.9 46.8 13.4 25.6 100
Nkhotakota 3.9 13.0 50.7 18.9 13.5 100
Ntchisi 3.7 10.9 43.4 20.3 21.6 100
Dowa 2.5 11.5 50.8 16.3 18.9 100
Salima 4.9 23.8 40.9 15.0 15.4 100
Lilongwe 4.0 13.1 41.7 17.1 24.2 100
Mchinji 8.3 8.4 51.8 8.9 22.6 100
Dedza 2.7 12.6 27.8 24.8 32.1 100
Ntcheu 1.4 13.2 32.0 22.6 30.8 100
Lilongwe City 15.6 21.0 34.4 15.0 14.0 100
Mangochi 2.7 10.8 22.7 34.9 28.9 100
Machinga 5.7 15.4 33.0 30.0 16.0 100
Zomba 6.3 9.0 56.1 10.4 18.2 100
Chiradzulu 7.6 5.6 51.3 11.7 23.7 100
Blantyre 7.5 16.6 55.7 10.9 9.3 100
Mwanza 3.0 6.5 29.9 42.9 17.7 100
Thyolo 1.8 11.5 56.9 19.9 9.9 100
Mulanje 4.4 15.7 47.3 21.6 10.9 100
Phalombe 4.6 14.9 41.9 26.9 11.8 100
Chikwawa 4.5 16.0 40.2 24.8 14.5 100
Nsanje 6.4 13.7 48.6 19.7 11.6 100
Balaka 5.9 15.8 31.3 29.0 18.0 100
Neno 0.2 14.5 31.1 41.5 12.6 100
Zomba City 13.2 18.2 47.7 7.3 13.6 100
Blantyre City 15.1 29.2 45.4 3.4 6.8 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

274
Annex Table 9.4: Proportion of Households Where the Head Had At Least Three
Changes of Clothes, Sleeps On What and Under What by District, IHS5 2019-2020
Head had at Sleeping materials
least three Matress on Cloth/sack on
District changes Matress on bed Mat on bed Bed only floor Mat on floor floor Other Total
Chitipa 80.2 33.5 29.0 0.2 3.2 33.7 0.3 0.0 100

Karonga 80.5 42.3 15.6 0.9 6.1 35.1 0.0 0.0 100

Nkhata Bay 95.0 54.0 9.4 1.0 8.3 26.8 0.5 0.0 100

Rumphi 90.3 52.2 9.7 0.0 8.0 28.0 1.9 0.3 100

Mzimba 86.1 30.0 10.7 1.4 11.4 41.4 3.2 1.9 100

Likoma 96.5 67.3 13.9 2.8 7.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 100

Mzuzu City 96.5 73.0 6.3 1.1 8.0 11.1 0.4 0.0 100

Kasungu 90.6 14.1 3.3 1.0 6.4 72.7 2.5 0.0 100

Nkhotakota 84.0 27.7 13.1 2.3 5.2 51.3 0.3 0.0 100

Ntchisi 82.1 11.9 4.6 1.5 6.2 74.5 1.2 0.0 100

Dowa 89.4 10.4 3.0 0.3 5.2 77.2 3.6 0.4 100

Salima 90.9 17.4 7.0 1.7 10.7 61.0 1.8 0.3 100

Lilongwe 87.3 11.3 3.0 0.6 8.5 68.9 6.1 1.6 100

Mchinji 90.8 14.3 4.7 0.4 4.7 74.5 1.3 0.0 100

Dedza 83.9 10.7 4.0 0.7 7.8 72.5 4.3 0.0 100

Ntcheu 89.4 14.1 4.1 1.1 9.2 69.5 2.1 0.0 100

Lilongwe City 98.0 54.3 3.2 0.9 13.3 27.6 0.8 0.0 100

Mangochi 88.7 16.3 20.1 0.2 3.0 56.7 3.7 0.0 100

Machinga 86.1 14.1 7.2 0.2 6.7 66.6 5.3 0.0 100

Zomba 85.4 14.4 7.1 1.3 10.7 62.3 4.2 0.0 100

Chiradzulu 91.5 21.2 4.6 0.0 8.1 60.2 5.3 0.6 100

Blantyre 97.3 28.9 3.3 1.3 10.0 53.3 3.2 0.0 100

Mwanza 93.7 17.2 6.3 0.5 6.7 68.8 0.7 0.0 100

Thyolo 89.3 15.3 5.6 1.0 7.1 69.0 1.2 0.8 100

Mulanje 85.2 12.9 6.5 0.6 3.8 68.6 7.3 0.2 100

Phalombe 79.2 8.0 4.0 0.7 4.6 77.1 5.6 0.0 100

Chikwawa 90.7 8.2 3.5 0.6 8.6 76.7 1.6 0.9 100

Nsanje 93.4 12.3 5.0 0.3 6.0 73.8 2.2 0.3 100

Balaka 89.9 17.8 5.7 0.3 7.4 67.3 1.4 0.0 100

Neno 95.0 19.5 6.0 1.0 18.5 53.3 1.7 0.0 100

Zomba City 96.2 71.2 3.3 1.3 9.3 12.8 2.1 0.0 100
Blantyre City 99.0 63.4 4.7 2.6 7.2 21.9 0.2 0.0 100

275
 Annex Table 9.5: Percentage Distribution of Households by Sleeping Materials for the
Head of Household during Cold Season and District, IHS5 2019-2020

District Blankets & sheets Blankets only Sheets only Chitenje cloth Nothing Other Total
Chitipa 31.0 62.8 4.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 100
Karonga 33.6 43.7 21.6 0.8 0.0 0.3 100
Nkhata Bay 23.9 69.9 5.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 100
Rumphi 42.7 50.4 5.9 0.8 0.0 0.3 100
Mzimba 25.9 67.3 4.6 1.6 0.3 0.3 100
Likoma 31.3 59.0 6.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 100
Mzuzu City 46.6 48.8 2.4 0.5 0.0 1.7 100
Kasungu 21.5 63.8 12.5 2.2 0.0 0.0 100
Nkhotakota 7.4 73.6 12.0 6.8 0.0 0.3 100
Ntchisi 5.7 77.4 5.3 10.8 0.0 0.8 100
Dowa 19.8 68.5 7.4 3.9 0.4 0.0 100
Salima 13.0 66.7 12.5 7.2 0.3 0.4 100
Lilongwe 12.9 67.5 12.3 6.6 0.0 0.6 100
Mchinji 13.2 69.2 13.8 3.7 0.0 0.0 100
Dedza 14.3 67.1 7.8 10.6 0.0 0.3 100
Ntcheu 18.2 63.3 12.2 5.7 0.0 0.6 100
Lilongwe City 54.4 39.2 5.1 0.7 0.0 0.7 100
Mangochi 9.7 77.3 9.9 3.2 0.0 0.0 100
Machinga 3.1 79.3 11.2 6.0 0.5 0.0 100
Zomba 12.5 67.1 12.4 6.8 0.0 1.3 100
Chiradzulu 20.3 63.4 9.0 6.2 0.4 0.7 100
Blantyre 22.8 57.9 14.2 4.3 0.0 0.9 100
Mwanza 20.8 67.0 7.1 4.8 0.0 0.3 100
Thyolo 23.6 62.1 8.4 5.6 0.0 0.2 100
Mulanje 17.6 68.8 5.9 7.4 0.3 0.0 100
Phalombe 15.5 68.2 8.6 7.7 0.0 0.0 100
Chikwawa 5.2 63.5 14.6 16.4 0.0 0.3 100
Nsanje 10.0 65.0 14.6 10.5 0.0 0.0 100
Balaka 7.7 74.7 12.4 5.0 0.0 0.2 100
Neno 17.7 67.8 10.7 2.9 0.0 0.8 100
Zomba City 42.4 44.8 7.2 0.0 0.0 5.6 100
Blantyre City 47.4 46.8 5.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 100

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

276
 Annex Table 9.6: Percentage Distribution of Households by Sleeping Materials for the
Head of Household during Hot Season and District, IHS5 2019-2020

District Blankets & sheets Blankets only Sheets only Chitenje Cloth Nothing Other Total
Chitipa 8.8 24.2 53.8 10.1 2.4 0.6 100
Karonga 7.9 6.0 73.5 5.3 7.2 0.2 100
Nkhata Bay 4.3 32.5 47.7 11.8 2.8 0.9 100
Rumphi 8.3 23.1 58.5 7.5 2.3 0.3 100
Mzimba 10.5 32.7 40.4 13.4 1.7 1.3 100
Likoma 0.0 28.5 59.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 100
Mzuzu City 14.4 27.6 50.0 3.8 2.0 2.2 100
Kasungu 8.8 33.5 40.5 15.6 1.7 0.0 100
Nkhotakota 0.7 19.1 49.8 22.6 7.9 0.0 100
Ntchisi 0.0 30.6 27.3 38.6 2.4 1.0 100
Dowa 14.2 43.0 28.7 12.7 1.3 0.0 100
Salima 2.1 9.4 41.2 33.4 13.6 0.3 100
Lilongwe 1.4 22.5 37.0 33.8 4.0 1.3 100
Mchinji 0.3 25.7 48.9 23.5 1.6 0.0 100
Dedza 1.2 23.1 32.7 35.3 6.8 0.9 100
Ntcheu 0.0 21.9 43.6 28.2 5.8 0.6 100
Lilongwe City 4.3 16.4 70.0 6.5 1.6 1.1 100
Mangochi 0.0 13.2 37.8 23.3 25.7 0.0 100
Machinga 0.0 18.3 35.3 30.1 14.8 1.5 100
Zomba 0.2 14.9 42.0 30.0 12.2 0.6 100
Chiradzulu 1.0 10.4 42.5 33.4 11.4 1.3 100
Blantyre 1.0 12.1 48.7 26.6 10.0 1.5 100
Mwanza 2.1 10.7 38.7 38.2 9.2 1.0 100
Thyolo 0.6 24.8 39.6 28.5 6.2 0.2 100
Mulanje 2.3 25.7 32.7 35.7 3.4 0.3 100
Phalombe 3.7 25.9 24.8 39.8 5.6 0.3 100
Chikwawa 0.5 13.4 24.2 26.4 34.9 0.5 100
Nsanje 0.0 12.4 26.4 31.3 26.8 2.9 100
Balaka 0.0 15.7 45.3 27.1 10.0 1.9 100
Neno 2.9 18.9 36.6 30.1 11.3 0.2 100
Zomba City 2.2 8.2 70.6 5.8 9.9 3.3 100
Blantyre City 1.3 15.3 73.3 3.2 5.3 1.6 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

277
 Annex Table 9.7: Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Shock
Experienced in the Last 12 Months by District, IHS5 2019-2020
Number of Shocks Experienced
District None One Two Three >Three Total

Chitipa 24.4 28.4 21.6 12.1 13.5 100

Karonga 22.4 25.2 22.9 13.8 15.8 100
Nkhata Bay 6.1 15.4 20.0 20.6 37.9 100
Rumphi 17.1 25.3 17.7 16.5 23.4 100
Mzimba 21.7 16.7 16.5 16.2 28.8 100
Likoma 8.3 32.0 19.5 12.5 27.8 100
Mzuzu City 19.4 24.3 22.9 13.8 19.6 100
Kasungu 4.8 16.1 17.3 12.0 49.8 100
Nkhotakota 2.0 13.6 17.5 16.7 50.2 100
Ntchisi 1.9 8.3 18.4 20.2 51.3 100
Dowa 10.1 18.3 13.8 12.5 45.3 100
Salima 13.4 11.9 4.7 4.2 65.8 100
Lilongwe 10.1 16.8 13.2 13.9 46.0 100
Mchinji 0.9 9.2 17.6 13.1 59.2 100
Dedza 10.5 16.3 13.0 14.6 45.6 100
Ntcheu 10.8 9.2 7.0 15.1 58.0 100
Lilongwe City 17.9 34.0 24.1 10.2 13.8 100
Mangochi 3.6 6.8 8.4 19.5 61.7 100
Machinga 3.7 9.4 13.9 25.9 47.1 100
Zomba 2.0 3.3 15.8 23.7 55.2 100
Chiradzulu 7.2 10.5 14.6 13.2 54.5 100
Blantyre 23.3 15.7 9.5 6.4 45.1 100
Mwanza 5.5 10.4 10.1 15.4 58.5 100
Thyolo 6.5 11.8 14.5 12.1 55.1 100
Mulanje 0.8 3.9 6.8 17.2 71.2 100
Phalombe - 0.7 4.0 12.2 83.2 100
Chikwawa 4.3 12.0 9.4 12.4 61.8 100
Nsanje 6.6 16.0 12.9 11.5 53.1 100
Balaka 5.7 6.9 11.6 23.9 52.0 100
Neno 1.9 10.7 14.0 19.8 53.5 100
Zomba City 13.9 19.8 21.0 14.6 30.7 100
Blantyre City 41.0 13.4 11.1 8.3 26.2 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

278
 Annex Table 9.8: Percentage Distribution of Households by Mitigation Measures for
Overcoming Shocks by District, IHS5 2019-2020
Own- Help from Changed Help from
savings relatives/ dietary govt, NGOs, Sold Spiritual Did
District friends patterns etc. More work Got credit assets efforts nothing Other
Chitipa 67.0 11.1 6.5 0.9 0.6 0.9 6.7 0.0 4.2 2.1
Karonga 61.2 13.3 10.3 2.4 2.2 1.0 6.1 0.0 1.5 2.0
Nkhata Bay 32.7 9.1 23.4 1.3 2.9 2.4 2.9 0.9 20.2 4.0
Rumphi 44.1 11.9 16.9 1.4 0.3 2.0 6.7 0.0 10.4 6.2
Mzimba 33.2 7.7 10.9 1.2 3.5 4.2 3.6 2.9 27.6 5.3
Likoma 43.2 22.6 13.3 1.3 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 4.3 11.9
Mzuzu City 40.7 9.9 12.9 0.1 1.4 4.0 2.2 2.4 19.8 6.5
Kasungu 56.0 15.9 4.6 1.6 0.5 2.8 3.1 0.0 13.1 2.3
Nkhotakota 34.0 8.7 0.4 3.1 2.0 3.8 3.5 0.4 21.4 22.8
Ntchisi 28.1 12.9 0.6 2.6 1.9 3.7 8.0 0.2 24.4 17.7
Dowa 44.1 15.5 4.9 1.6 1.3 1.3 2.5 0.2 19.5 9.1
Salima 7.4 10.0 8.4 3.1 0.2 0.4 2.4 1.2 62.8 4.2
Lilongwe 24.5 12.0 7.9 1.6 3.9 2.4 3.9 0.7 37.9 5.3
Mchinji 48.9 13.2 0.0 1.0 8.4 1.1 1.8 0.0 18.6 6.9
Dedza 37.1 10.9 7.4 1.2 3.7 3.8 7.6 0.2 21.1 7.0
Ntcheu 27.1 12.5 3.4 8.4 8.6 4.8 9.5 0.7 17.5 7.3
Lilongwe City 50.9 13.1 5.7 0.4 12.0 2.9 2.1 0.9 10.8 1.4
Mangochi 32.0 17.5 3.4 8.3 0.3 2.1 0.8 0.5 27.5 7.6
Machinga 22.7 7.7 9.4 6.0 0.5 2.5 1.7 0.5 41.1 8.0
Zomba 18.3 9.4 14.8 7.4 2.1 0.3 1.6 0.4 41.0 4.9
Chiradzulu 22.1 15.1 2.7 9.2 2.5 2.9 3.7 1.4 34.4 6.0
Blantyre 33.2 14.7 5.7 9.5 7.8 5.7 2.1 0.9 16.4 4.1
Mwanza 36.1 8.4 3.2 10.5 0.4 1.9 1.9 0.6 33.3 3.6
Thyolo 51.1 13.3 0.6 4.1 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.9 22.2 3.0
Mulanje 49.4 13.4 0.4 5.0 0.3 0.6 0.6 2.4 25.0 2.9
Phalombe 43.4 10.4 0.5 9.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 3.1 28.3 2.9
Chikwawa 35.2 10.9 6.2 9.0 4.8 3.7 3.0 0.0 16.0 11.1
Nsanje 25.7 14.3 9.4 9.0 5.0 3.8 3.2 0.1 17.5 11.9
Balaka 31.6 9.5 6.8 5.8 0.3 1.3 2.6 0.6 35.0 6.6
Neno 36.4 8.5 3.5 8.7 1.1 2.2 1.9 0.9 31.1 5.7
Zomba City 20.8 18.3 5.8 9.9 3.1 2.5 2.1 0.9 32.8 3.9
Blantyre City 46.7 12.6 5.5 1.5 11.7 8.4 1.4 0.3 11.1 0.9
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

279
 Annex Table 9.9: Proportion of Households by Food Programmes and Background
Characteristics, IHS5 2019-2020

Supplementary
Feeding for MASAF - Free Food Inputs Free
Malnourished Public Inputs For other than For School Distribution of
District Free Maize Children Works Work maize Work Feeding Likuni Phala
Chitipa 10.9 24.7 12.6 3.7 3.3 3.7 11.3 0.4
Karonga 18.9 35.6 9.3 2.6 0.0 2.6 7.9 0.0
Nkhata Bay 17.6 24.7 11.6 33.8 0.9 33.8 0.1 0.0
Rumphi 20.8 28.7 11.8 18.9 0.0 18.9 5.0 1.1
Mzimba 18.0 35.5 16.8 15.2 2.2 15.2 0.0 0.0
Likoma 35.1 36.6 5.7 8.2 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0
Mzuzu City 3.3 61.3 3.9 18.5 2.1 18.5 0.0 0.0
Kasungu 25.7 44.1 13.4 4.5 2.0 4.5 1.2 0.6
Nkhotakota 30.3 20.0 8.0 7.4 12.8 7.4 1.4 0.0
Ntchisi 44.1 6.3 22.1 9.3 10.3 9.3 0.0 0.0
Dowa 30.1 32.1 22.5 5.5 1.0 5.5 0.0 0.2
Salima 43.0 21.9 11.5 10.0 0.8 10.0 0.0 0.7
Lilongwe 36.3 21.1 14.8 6.0 6.1 6.0 0.6 1.4
Mchinji 33.6 38.3 15.1 4.0 2.1 4.0 2.1 0.0
Dedza 25.5 26.1 11.7 13.1 9.6 13.1 3.4 1.2
Ntcheu 39.6 13.5 14.0 7.3 15.1 7.3 3.1 0.4
Lilongwe City 18.5 19.4 1.9 22.5 8.8 22.5 4.3 0.0
Mangochi 37.8 17.1 9.8 5.1 5.6 5.1 10.3 1.9
Machinga 40.3 9.8 17.4 9.4 4.5 9.4 6.4 0.0
Zomba 21.0 32.0 8.7 5.6 7.3 5.6 10.1 0.6
Chiradzulu 37.3 28.8 7.6 6.1 9.1 6.1 1.5 0.3
Blantyre 23.6 38.9 4.1 6.0 7.6 6.0 4.2 0.8
Mwanza 25.1 34.7 6.1 4.0 7.5 4.0 4.2 1.6
Thyolo 38.2 20.3 11.9 4.0 9.4 4.0 0.8 0.0
Mulanje 43.0 8.3 14.0 9.1 12.2 9.1 0.9 0.4
Phalombe 32.6 7.5 5.4 3.5 14.2 3.5 2.9 0.2
Chikwawa 25.9 27.0 7.9 9.2 7.1 9.2 5.5 1.3
Nsanje 24.6 27.8 5.7 14.7 9.1 14.7 4.2 1.8
Balaka 37.2 15.7 9.9 10.4 6.1 10.4 5.8 1.9
Neno 23.6 38.2 3.2 5.1 7.4 5.1 2.7 0.8
Zomba City 12.4 54.7 4.2 17.0 2.0 17.0 0.0 0.0
Blantyre City 11.6 67.0 0.0 4.4 7.1 4.4 0.7 0.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

280
 Annex Table 9.10: Proportion of Households by Education Programmes and District,
IHS5 2019-2020

Scholarship/Bursaries for Secondary

District Education Scholarship for Tertiary Education
Chitipa 4.0 24.5
Karonga 0.9 21.3
Nkhata Bay 0.0 1.1
Rumphi 2.2 8.4
Mzimba 0.9 5.6
Likoma 0.0 0.0
Mzuzu City 0.5 1.7
Kasungu 2.6 3.4
Nkhotakota 1.2 5.4
Ntchisi 1.8 2.3
Dowa 2.1 2.5
Salima 3.3 2.5
Lilongwe 1.5 5.1
Mchinji 1.0 0.9
Dedza 1.2 2.7
Ntcheu 1.6 2.3
Lilongwe City 1.3 10.2
Mangochi 1.0 0.8
Machinga 0.7 4.1
Zomba 0.9 8.9
Chiradzulu 1.5 1.8
Blantyre 2.5 2.0
Mwanza 0.5 5.6
Thyolo 2.2 2.8
Mulanje 2.4 4.0
Phalombe 2.0 9.3
Chikwawa 2.1 2.9
Nsanje 2.0 0.9
Balaka 1.1 3.5
Neno 1.1 7.2
Zomba City 1.3 2.1
Blantyre City 2.7 0.4
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

281
 Annex Table 9.11: Proportion of Households by Cash Transfers and Other
Programmes and District, IHS5 2019-2020

Direct Cash Transfers from Direct Cash Transfers

District Non-Govt Agencies from Govt Other Programmes
Chitipa 1.7 0.0 1.8
Karonga 2.0 0.0 0.5
Nkhata Bay 5.8 0.1 3.6
Rumphi 3.3 0.0 0.0
Mzimba 1.4 3.5 0.0
Likoma 5.7 6.3 0.0
Mzuzu City 0.6 0.0 8.0
Kasungu 1.2 0.0 0.8
Nkhotakota 10.9 0.0 1.7
Ntchisi 1.9 0.0 0.0
Dowa 1.2 0.7 0.0
Salima 1.2 0.5 0.5
Lilongwe 0.0 2.4 0.0
Mchinji 1.0 1.0 0.0
Dedza 2.3 0.9 1.4
Ntcheu 1.3 0.9 0.0
Lilongwe City 2.4 2.2 8.4
Mangochi 0.5 1.5 0.0
Machinga 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zomba 1.4 0.3 0.0
Chiradzulu 1.3 0.3 0.3
Blantyre 0.8 0.0 0.0
Mwanza 1.2 0.0 0.2
Thyolo 4.7 0.9 0.0
Mulanje 1.1 0.9 0.6
Phalombe 0.0 0.2 0.2
Chikwawa 2.0 0.3 0.4
Nsanje 1.0 0.9 0.0
Balaka 0.5 0.0 0.4
Neno 1.6 0.0 0.0
Zomba City 5.5 0.0 0.7
Blantyre City 3.3 0.0 0.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

282
 ANNEX 10: FOOD SECURITY

Annex Table 10.1: Percentage Distribution of Households by Food Security Status and
District, IHS5 2019-2020
District High Marginal Low Very low Total
Chitipa 53.8 3.9 11.9 30.4 100
Karonga 41.3 8.4 5.2 45.1 100
Nkhata Bay 33.7 2.7 12.0 51.5 100
Rumphi 53.3 2.9 7.7 36.1 100
Mzimba 23.3 2.9 11.6 62.3 100
Likoma 27.0 6.3 8.3 58.4 100
Mzuzu City 46.7 2.7 9.3 41.4 100
Kasungu 23.6 2.6 12.1 61.7 100
Nkhotakota 21.3 1.9 20.2 56.7 100
Ntchisi 15.3 - 19.3 65.4 100
Dowa 27.4 2.3 12.0 58.2 100
Salima 25.0 2.2 13.3 59.5 100

Lilongwe 21.5 2.1 10.6 65.7 100

Mchinji 24.6 0.6 7.1 67.6 100

Dedza 19.6 2.9 3.8 73.7 100
Ntcheu 18.3 3.8 9.1 68.8 100
Lilongwe City 52.4 3.7 8.9 35.0 100
Mangochi 14.9 4.4 13.7 66.9 100
Machinga 14.1 3.4 7.7 74.8 100
Zomba 9.5 3.9 8.0 78.6 100
Chiradzulu 19.0 1.5 5.5 74.1 100
Blantyre 20.7 5.9 8.7 64.8 100
Mwanza 23.4 1.7 8.1 66.8 100
Thyolo 18.7 2.6 7.6 71.1 100
Mulanje 18.7 3.4 5.1 72.8 100
Phalombe 10.7 2.4 5.0 82.0 100
Chikwawa 10.8 4.6 10.2 74.4 100
Nsanje 19.9 3.3 7.5 69.3 100
Balaka 14.9 1.5 9.5 74.1 100
Neno 26.4 0.8 7.6 65.2 100
Zomba City 34.6 2.8 13.3 49.2 100
Blantyre City 36.1 10.3 14.5 39.1 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

283
 Annex Table 10.2: Proportion of households that was Food Insecure by Coping
Mechanisms and District, IHS5 2019-2020
Coping mechanisms

Restrict Borrow food, or

Relied on less consumption by rely on help from
preferred or less Reduced number of adults in order for a friend or
District expensive foods Limit portions meals taken in a day small children to eat relative
Chitipa 35.5 23.4 22.2 11.7 10.6
Karonga 45.2 38.6 35.7 24.8 22.2
Nkhata Bay 55.5 40.6 31.3 17.9 23.5
Rumphi 39.5 31.0 24.1 15.6 13.8
Mzimba 62.5 45.4 40.9 19.9 25.4
Likoma 51.7 34.1 22.7 19.4 20.8
Mzuzu City 42.8 29.7 27.6 11.1 19.7
Kasungu 66.8 46.8 45.2 21.8 29.2
Nkhotakota 69.4 47.1 40.3 26.4 22.0
Ntchisi 78.0 53.9 49.3 26.7 21.7
Dowa 62.9 44.7 39.6 19.1 24.1
Salima 68.2 46.4 37.6 21.2 25.8
Lilongwe 71.4 54.8 49.6 28.9 33.5
Mchinji 69.0 56.7 59.1 28.1 27.8
Dedza 65.2 60.9 56.7 25.4 47.6
Ntcheu 61.0 51.1 50.6 22.7 40.2
Lilongwe City 35.0 24.8 21.0 11.5 14.7
Mangochi 75.6 54.4 53.6 25.7 38.0
Machinga 71.3 60.8 53.2 30.9 34.3
Zomba 72.1 63.0 60.2 37.4 38.3
Chiradzulu 64.4 62.2 60.4 38.6 45.4
Blantyre 60.6 49.6 52.3 27.6 36.0
Mwanza 69.4 49.3 55.1 18.7 25.4
Thyolo 57.4 54.5 54.2 27.5 34.3
Mulanje 56.9 58.1 55.2 21.2 23.3
Phalombe 58.6 69.1 62.5 27.9 27.0
Chikwawa 68.6 59.4 52.6 35.6 32.0
Nsanje 64.1 57.0 50.2 29.7 36.1
Balaka 73.2 55.6 57.3 29.0 34.4
Neno 65.2 44.4 51.0 15.6 24.6
Zomba City 54.8 36.8 39.3 21.0 23.5
Blantyre City 51.5 33.4 24.3 15.0 15.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

284
 Annex Table 10.3: Percentage Distribution of Households by Number of Meals Taken
per Day by Adults and Children Under 5 years of Age and District, IHS5 2019-2020
Number of meals (adults) Number of meals (children aged 6-59 months)
District 1 2 3 or more Total 1 2 3 or more Total
Chitipa 1.2 33.2 65.6 100 0.4 28.7 70.9 100
Karonga 0.5 44.2 55.3 100 0.0 37.3 62.7 100
Nkhata Bay 0.9 39.1 60.0 100 0.9 30.8 68.3 100
Rumphi 2.1 31.3 66.5 100 1.2 25.3 73.5 100
Mzimba 4.1 49.9 46.0 100 2.6 44.1 53.3 100
Likoma 2.8 15.3 82.0 100 0.0 17.3 82.7 100
Mzuzu City 1.3 20.3 78.4 100 0.5 15.3 84.3 100
Kasungu 5.6 61.3 33.1 100 4.1 56.7 39.2 100
Nkhotakota 1.6 39.9 58.5 100 0.5 27.9 71.6 100
Ntchisi 3.9 53.0 43.2 100 3.0 42.8 54.2 100
Dowa 4.9 62.1 33.0 100 5.3 52.4 42.4 100
Salima 4.3 54.9 40.8 100 2.9 53.4 43.7 100
Lilongwe 5.8 65.8 28.5 100 4.1 61.4 34.5 100
Mchinji 8.5 63.7 27.7 100 8.0 48.5 43.5 100
Dedza 7.2 68.0 24.7 100 6.0 64.4 29.6 100
Ntcheu 2.0 62.5 35.5 100 1.0 56.6 42.3 100
Lilongwe City 1.2 17.1 81.8 100 0.6 13.2 86.2 100
Mangochi 2.8 62.7 34.5 100 0.5 49.5 50.0 100
Machinga 2.4 70.2 27.3 100 1.6 57.0 41.4 100
Zomba 7.3 67.1 25.7 100 5.6 60.3 34.2 100
Chiradzulu 10.0 60.2 29.8 100 7.1 54.7 38.3 100
Blantyre 4.4 55.7 39.9 100 2.8 52.8 44.4 100
Mwanza 1.1 47.2 51.8 100 0.0 39.5 60.5 100
Thyolo 3.2 68.5 28.3 100 1.4 61.1 37.5 100
Mulanje 5.6 64.0 30.3 100 3.7 60.3 36.0 100
Phalombe 8.3 71.1 20.5 100 8.2 67.5 24.3 100
Chikwawa 6.4 57.0 36.6 100 4.7 49.8 45.5 100
Nsanje 3.6 50.9 45.5 100 1.9 45.8 52.2 100
Balaka 3.2 62.8 34.0 100 2.4 55.8 41.9 100
Neno 1.6 38.1 60.3 100 1.7 31.3 67.0 100
Zomba City 1.8 26.5 71.7 100 0.0 22.2 77.8 100
Blantyre City 1.4 22.4 76.2 100 0.4 20.3 79.3 100
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

285
 Annex Table 10.4: Proportion of the Households that Experienced Food Shortage and
Distribution of causes of Food Shortages by District, IHS5 2019-2020.
Causes of food shortage

Drought, poor Food in the

No enough rains, floods, Crop pest Small land Lack of market was very
District food water logging damage size farm inputs expensive Other Total
Chitipa 39.2 10.6 0.8 11.2 49.6 17.4 10.3 100
Karonga 64.0 23.9 8.2 19.3 16.5 22.8 9.2 100
Nkhata Bay 62.0 14.8 2.0 16.9 20.5 22.8 23.0 100
Rumphi 48.3 11.5 0.8 12.3 40.9 22.1 12.4 100
Mzimba 72.4 8.0 2.1 6.9 54.2 18.1 10.8 100
Likoma 65.1 0.0 0.0 32.3 0.0 35.2 32.5 100
Mzuzu City 46.0 1.5 0.9 6.0 12.6 42.9 36.0 100
Kasungu 70.8 13.5 7.6 12.3 41.3 23.4 2.0 100
Nkhotakota 71.3 16.4 9.5 13.6 30.0 26.4 4.2 100
Ntchisi 81.2 8.8 3.6 16.2 42.7 26.1 2.6 100
Dowa 73.3 15.9 7.2 17.2 41.3 15.5 2.8 100
Salima 74.1 11.9 1.9 15.4 40.4 24.3 6.1 100
Lilongwe 79.0 6.1 3.3 15.4 35.7 33.4 6.0 100
Mchinji 74.9 5.7 1.6 17.4 39.0 32.5 3.8 100
Dedza 70.7 19.6 6.5 16.5 38.4 15.6 3.3 100
Ntcheu 69.8 24.2 3.0 8.6 38.4 19.8 6.0 100
Lilongwe City 41.1 3.6 - 1.5 3.3 69.6 21.9 100
Mangochi 81.0 20.5 0.8 6.8 35.1 32.1 4.7 100
Machinga 86.1 26.0 3.0 7.3 25.2 34.6 3.9 100
Zomba 81.5 40.3 3.4 6.6 21.6 20.0 8.1 100
Chiradzulu 71.8 35.6 3.9 10.5 35.0 6.0 9.0 100
Blantyre 58.3 28.1 5.7 8.7 21.7 23.6 12.2 100
Mwanza 78.8 27.8 1.6 4.5 29.8 26.3 10.0 100
Thyolo 68.1 26.7 1.8 10.1 27.8 26.1 7.4 100
Mulanje 72.6 35.9 2.6 8.3 15.2 27.9 10.2 100
Phalombe 81.7 45.3 2.2 6.4 10.0 26.3 9.8 100
Chikwawa 81.9 47.8 6.4 5.0 6.4 30.9 3.5 100
Nsanje 74.9 37.8 7.1 9.4 5.1 35.3 5.4 100
Balaka 80.9 30.2 3.7 6.1 22.3 33.5 4.3 100
Neno 72.1 29.0 2.4 5.0 29.2 26.8 7.5 100
Zomba City 45.8 13.7 1.6 4.3 15.1 23.8 41.5 100
Blantyre City 44.7 8.8 4.1 3.6 5.8 52.9 24.8 100

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

286
 Annex Table 10.5: Percentage Distribution of Households by Months they
Experienced Food Shortage, IHS5 2019-2020
Number of months

Average
Seven and number of
District One Two Three Four Five Six more Total months
Chitipa 24.9 17.7 34.2 12.2 5.8 2.7 2.5 100 3
Karonga 15.2 29.7 23.5 13.0 8.9 3.6 6.2 100 3
Nkhata Bay 47.3 31.9 12.9 5.4 1.0 1.1 0.5 100 2
Rumphi 32.6 27.4 21.6 13.6 2.3 1.9 0.6 100 2
Mzimba 27.6 45.6 10.4 11.4 2.2 0.3 2.6 100 2
Likoma 57.8 19.6 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 2
Mzuzu City 48.1 25.1 13.6 8.0 2.1 2.6 0.4 100 2
Kasungu 23.5 19.8 27.9 14.1 4.9 3.9 6.0 100 3
Nkhotakota 41.6 31.2 15.9 7.6 1.9 1.5 0.3 100 2
Ntchisi 41.6 28.0 18.0 4.0 6.1 1.4 0.9 100 2
Dowa 17.2 29.9 27.6 10.3 5.8 2.6 6.6 100 3
Salima 16.1 24.4 20.8 9.0 12.6 8.6 8.4 100 3
Lilongwe 23.8 20.1 24.7 11.3 7.4 4.6 8.1 100 3
Mchinji 47.0 18.1 15.8 4.9 3.3 3.4 7.6 100 2
Dedza 26.5 26.7 13.6 16.8 7.3 4.6 4.4 100 3
Ntcheu 24.5 28.8 18.5 12.0 6.6 4.7 4.9 100 3
Lilongwe City 45.6 29.2 15.9 3.4 4.0 0.8 1.2 100 2
Mangochi 13.6 30.2 17.6 15.3 10.0 7.2 6.2 100 3
Machinga 16.2 23.2 19.2 15.6 11.8 9.9 4.1 100 3
Zomba 12.2 23.4 17.0 16.8 14.7 5.7 10.2 100 4
Chiradzulu 16.1 27.4 22.0 11.9 10.4 5.3 6.9 100 3
Blantyre 23.5 20.1 14.5 14.9 8.7 8.2 10.3 100 3
Mwanza 18.0 21.2 24.6 14.9 7.6 7.5 6.2 100 3
Thyolo 21.5 29.2 23.4 12.5 5.8 6.5 1.2 100 3
Mulanje 24.0 23.2 21.5 7.4 10.0 9.3 4.6 100 3
Phalombe 22.1 24.8 22.3 9.6 9.1 5.1 6.8 100 3
Chikwawa 21.3 29.5 23.0 10.5 6.6 4.6 4.4 100 3
Nsanje 21.3 32.0 20.1 9.8 9.1 3.6 4.2 100 3
Balaka 16.2 26.7 16.9 13.3 10.9 9.5 6.5 100 3
Neno 16.3 22.2 23.0 12.3 13.9 9.3 3.1 100 3
Zomba City 24.9 34.2 21.6 4.4 6.8 3.0 5.1 100 3
Blantyre City 26.8 26.0 20.3 6.9 3.2 3.5 13.4 100 3

Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

287
 ANNEX 11: ANTHROPOMETRY

Annex Table 11.1: Nutritional Status of Children Aged 0-59 Months by District, IHS5
2019-2020

Underweight Stunted Wasted

District Severe (z<-3) Moderate (z<-2) Severe (z<-3) Moderate (z<-2) Severe (z<-3) Moderate (z<-2)
Chitipa 0.5 6.7 10.7 16.0 1.0 0.6
Karonga 3.0 4.4 10.3 12.0 0.0 3.1
Nkhatabay 0.6 10.1 15.7 13.4 0.0 2.7
Rumphi 1.3 5.8 10.0 20.6 0.0 0.7
Mzimba 1.7 9.1 12.5 22.7 2.1 0.6
Likoma 10.0 28.0 40.1 10.0 0.0 8.0
Mzuzu City 2.9 5.9 8.4 20.2 2.9 0.6
Kasungu 2.5 7.4 14.3 14.2 0.8 0.7
Nkhotakota 3.6 10.4 11.0 23.2 1.6 4.3
Ntchisi 2.7 6.6 8.1 22.7 0.3 2.1
Dowa 2.9 7.6 11.7 18.4 2.5 1.8
Salima 6.2 11.9 22.7 13.5 0.0 2.6
Lilongwe 3.8 10.0 18.6 17.5 1.1 3.0
Mchinji 4.3 8.7 17.2 18.1 0.2 1.9
Dedza 3.7 7.9 16.1 24.6 0.0 2.9
Ntcheu 3.2 13.8 18.6 26.2 0.6 0.6
Lilongwe City 2.0 9.7 10.7 20.0 1.1 2.7
Mangochi 4.4 13.0 17.8 18.2 1.1 3.7
Machinga 3.7 10.2 19.1 18.4 0.5 1.3
Zomba Non-City 1.6 6.4 6.7 24.7 0.4 1.7
Chiradzulu 0.7 6.8 8.4 20.0 0.7 4.9
Blantyre 2.5 6.9 13.8 19.2 0.6 3.2
Mwanza 6.0 6.1 9.5 20.4 3.9 1.8
Thyolo 3.2 7.5 10.0 20.3 2.9 3.9
Mulanje 2.5 11.8 11.5 26.8 3.8 2.6
Phalombe 4.2 12.9 12.6 19.5 3.9 3.5
Chikwawa 7.0 9.5 18.0 16.8 2.7 6.0
Nsanje 3.5 10.9 15.7 17.4 3.3 2.0
Balaka 2.4 6.4 15.9 20.0 0.6 3.6
Neno 3.1 8.5 7.8 14.8 0.6 0.8
Zomba City 1.3 6.5 6.9 18.8 0.0 0.5
Blantyre City 2.2 6.7 12.5 16.1 0.0 1.7
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

288
 Annex Table 11.2: Proportion of Children Aged 0-59 months who participated in
Nutrition and Under-Five Clinic Programmes by Background Characteristics, IHS5
2019-2020

Nutritional programme Under-five Clinic programme

District
Chitipa 9.9 87.5
Karonga 9.5 80.8
Nkhatabay 3.2 83.5
Rumphi 1.1 88.1
Mzimba 2.6 75.3
Likoma 0.0 72.6
Mzuzu City 3.7 80.4
Kasungu 4.9 84.3
Nkhotakota 3.9 64.6
Ntchisi 2.3 81.8
Dowa 5.4 84.0
Salima 3.3 60.1
Lilongwe 4.7 64.8
Mchinji 3.2 82.8
Dedza 4.5 78.7
Ntcheu 2.5 73.4
Lilongwe City 3.0 57.8
Mangochi 4.4 71.2
Machinga 2.8 74.8
Zomba 1.8 78.3
Chiradzulu 2.2 65.2
Blantyre 3.4 49.4
Mwanza 0.0 89.9
Thyolo 0.6 71.5
Mulanje 7.9 74.1
Phalombe 4.4 64.8
Chikwawa 4.6 70.3
Nsanje 2.9 71.1
Balaka 2.6 80.3
Neno 3.4 79.4
Zomba City 1.8 70.5
Blantyre City 3.3 49.1
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

289
 Annex Table 11.3. Proportion of Children aged 0-59 Months who were Oedematic and
Children who Received Measles Vaccine by Background Characteristics, IHS5 2019-
2020

District Measles Vaccine (Aged 9 Years or Older Oedematic

Chitipa 95.6 1.3
Karonga 96.9 2.6
Nkhata Bay 94.7 1.9
Rumphi 98.5 1.9
Mzimba 91.9 2.5
Likoma 88.6 0.0
Mzuzu City 95.8 2.3
Kasungu 94.2 1.2
Nkhotakota 67.9 1.2
Ntchisi 73.1 3.0
Dowa 95.9 4.6
Salima 96.0 2.7
Lilongwe 93.3 0.9
Mchinji 91.3 1.1
Dedza 88.8 4.2
Ntcheu 93.3 0.8
Lilongwe City 93.9 1.7
Mangochi 96.6 1.8
Machinga 96.6 1.9
Zomba 92.3 0.0
Chiradzulu 91.6 2.8
Blantyre 92.6 1.0
Mwanza 94.0 0.0
Thyolo 96.6 9.8
Mulanje 97.2 10.6
Phalombe 94.6 9.7
Chikwawa 90.6 2.8
Nsanje 91.1 1.3
Balaka 96.4 0.0
Neno 93.8 1.0
Zomba City 87.3 1.2
Blantyre City 95.2 0.0
Source: National Statistical Office, IHS5 2019-2020

290
REPORT AUTHORS

Mr. Jameson Ndawala Director of Demography and Social Statistics NSO

Ms. Tiope Mleme Director of Agriculture and Economic Statistics NSO
Mrs. Lizzie Chikoti Survey Coordinator NSO
Mr. Bright Mvula Senior Supervisor NSO
Mr. Timothy M’manga Senior Supervisor NSO
Mr. Lameck Million Tracking Manager NSO
Mr. Masautso Wachepa Agriculture Expert NSO
Mr. Imran Chiosa Fieldwork Coordinator-Market Survey NSO
Mr. Twikaleghe Mwalwanda Fieldwork Coordinator-IHS5 NSO
Mr. Charles Chakanza Listing Expert NSO
Mr. Charles Mbewe Data Manager NSO
Mr. Steven Pakundikana Data Manager NSO
Ms. Heather Moylan World Bank
Mr. Wilbert Vundru World Bank

291