The allocation of coupons across Malawi during the 2009/10 agricultural season was conducted in three stages. At the first stage, the MoAFS was supposed to distribute coupon allocations across districts in accordance with relative farm family population estimates based on an update of an existing farm household registry that took place from May to August 2009.<sup>9</sup> At the second stage, each district assembly, led by the District Commissioner (DC), with inputs from the Traditional Authorities (TAs), the District Agricultural Development Officer (DADO), non-governmental organizations, and religious leaders, decided on the allocation across villages within each Extension Planning Area (EPA) in the district. The dynamics of the coupon allocation process across villages in each district have not been documented systematically for any of the agricultural seasons in which the FISP was operational.

At the third stage, upon communication of coupon allocation to a given village, beneficiaries were identified through CBT, i.e. an open forum in which village residents in theory decided on the beneficiaries in a collective fashion. The selected beneficiaries were then pre-registered with their 2009 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections Voter Registration Cards. The organization of open forums for beneficiary identification was facilitated by the DC or his/her representative, DADO, Agriculture Extension Development Coordinator, the Agriculture Extension District Officer, TA, Group Village Chief, Village Chief, Village Development Committee (VDC) members, Malawi Police Services representatives, Community Policing members, and Temporary Enumerators hired by the MoAFS.<sup>10</sup> The specific dates and places for the open forums were announced in advance through the media and local leaders. Once they were completed and verified, the beneficiary registers were submitted to the MoAFS Headquarters Logistics Unit through the relevant MoAFS District Office. The distribution of coupons was carried out in a separate open forum.

The target FISP beneficiaries were supposed to be “resource-poor” households that were residents of a given village and that owned and cultivated land during the 2009/10 agricultural season. The communities were also instructed to prioritize resource-poor households whose heads of household were elderly, HIV-positive, female, child, orphan, physically-challenged or caretakers of elderly or physically-challenged individuals. Although the question of who defines program eligibility criteria can become more pertinent in CBT-based targeting programs (Mansuri and Rao, 2012), the MoAFS, whose officers are supposed to be involved in the

> 9 Dorward and Chirwa (2013) report that the average annual growth in the MoAFS farm family registrations from 2005/06 to 2009/10 in the Central and Southern regions were 9.1 and 2.2 percent, respectively, which were significantly higher than the 1 percent average annual growth in rural household population estimates published by the National Statistical Office (NSO). The discrepancy at the regional- and national-levels between the MoAFS farm family estimates and the NSO rural household population estimates continue to be controversial in the country.

> 10 The 2008/09 agricultural season was the first in which the practice of open forum was introduced for the purpose of identifying beneficiaries at the village-level. Prior to that season, village chiefs and VDC members were responsible for beneficiary identification. For more information on the changing FISP targeting processes since the 2005/06 agricultural season, see Dorward and Chirwa (2013).

9