The Smokescreen of diversification: Exposing Tobacco Companies’ efforts

By Collins Mtika

Despite years of promises from tobacco companies to help farmers transition to alternative crops, a new investigation reveals these efforts are deliberately failing—keeping farmers dependent on tobacco.

According to the Sustainable Development Initiative (SDI), corporate-led diversification programs in Malawi function more as public relations campaigns than genuine support. As a result, farmers remain trapped in debt and reliant on tobacco cultivation.

This comes at a critical time, as global demand for tobacco is shrinking. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that global cigarette consumption has declined by 23% since 2007, while many countries continue to enforce stricter anti-smoking policies.

For Malawi—where tobacco accounts for more than 50% of export revenue—this decline poses a serious threat. Although tobacco companies claim to support crop diversification, critics argue these programs are designed to fail. This ensures that tobacco remains the backbone of Malawi’s economy while farmers bear the financial risk.

Maynard Nyirenda, Executive Director of SDI, describes the tobacco industry’s diversification programs as a façade meant to maintain the status quo.

“These initiatives often provide inputs for alternative crops that lack a reliable market,” he explains. “Without technology or infrastructure, farmers are set up to fail—and stay dependent on tobacco.”

While tobacco companies publicly advocate for diversification, the investigation reveals a different reality on the ground. Farmers report receiving little more than promises—few resources, no reliable buyers, and minimal technical support.

Without these essentials, most farmers have no choice but to continue growing tobacco. Despite its fluctuating price, tobacco remains the only crop that consistently covers basic needs such as food, shelter, and school fees.

The experience of a farmer from Matchakaza Village in Traditional Authority Ntema, Lilongwe District, reflects this broader struggle. Having grown tobacco since 2003, he says the global drop in demand has worsened his financial hardships. Despite corporate promises to support alternative crops, he has found no viable path out of poverty.

“I tried switching to legumes,” he says, “but there is no stable market for them. The price of tobacco may rise and fall, but it’s still the only crop that pays for my family’s survival.”

His story is not unique. Across Malawi, many farmers face the same challenge. Although tobacco companies promote crops like groundnuts, soya, and legumes, these alternatives lack the necessary market infrastructure to become a sustainable replacement.

As a result, farmers remain stuck in a system where leaving tobacco seems impossible.

The SDI report highlights several systemic barriers to meaningful diversification. At the heart of the issue is the financial burden placed on farmers. Tobacco companies offer loans for both tobacco and alternative crops—but these loans come with high interest rates, keeping farmers trapped in a cycle of debt.

By promoting a system where tobacco remains central, companies ensure that farmers cannot fully transition to other crops. As Nyirenda puts it, “Diversification is impossible when tobacco still dominates the landscape.”

The investigation suggests that corporate diversification programs prioritize protecting profits over empowering farmers. While companies highlight their investments in alternative crops, these initiatives lack the follow-through needed to make diversification successful.

“It’s a smokescreen,” Nyirenda says. “Without independent oversight, farmers stay trapped while companies polish their public image.”

Tobacco companies also exert significant influence over policy decisions in Malawi, ensuring that regulations favor their business interests. Critics argue this influence prevents the government from adopting independent, farmer-centered solutions.

SDI is calling for bold reforms to break the tobacco industry’s grip on Malawian agriculture. Central to their recommendations is the implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which calls for excluding the tobacco industry from shaping public health and agricultural policies.

Nyirenda points to successful examples from other countries. In Kenya, the Tobacco-Free Farms initiative—led by the WHO and the United Nations—has helped over 2,000 farmers transition to high-iron beans by providing guaranteed buyers and technical support.

“If Malawi adopted similar programs,” Nyirenda argues, “farmers would have a real path out of tobacco dependency.”

To drive genuine change, SDI insists that the Malawian government must reclaim control over agricultural diversification. This means reducing the tobacco industry’s influence on policy and investing in infrastructure to support alternative crops.

“The government must take charge—without swift, independent action, farmers will remain trapped,” Nyirenda emphasizes.

Beyond policy reforms, SDI advocates for public investment in critical areas like crop storage, transportation, and market access—essential steps to make alternative crops economically viable.

As global tobacco demand continues to decline, the stakes for Malawi grow higher. Without significant policy changes, Malawian farmers face a future of deepening poverty and no escape from tobacco’s grip.

“We need to stop pretending that corporate-led programs are the answer,” Nyirenda warns. “Until we break tobacco’s grip on our farmers, Malawi’s agricultural future remains in jeopardy.”