A large proportion of global natural rubber production takes place in Southeast Asia. The majority of this rubber is produced by smallholders. Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia are the three principal countries involved. In Malaysia and Indonesia the smallholder sector accounts for 72% and 84% of total rubber production respectively. In other countries rubber plays a significant role on a more local basis, lmperata is a serious problem for the smallholder rubber farmer in most of Southeast Asia in three respects: the high cost (labour and/or capital) of opening lmperata-infested land, its competitive effect on rubber and annual intercrops, and the fire hazard that it poses during the dry season as a major source of combustible material. The costs of lmperata to smallholders are substantial in terms of a direct loss through fire and revenue foregone or delayed as a result of competition. Most smallholders intercrop their rubber during the first 1-3 years after planting it, and during this period lmperata is reasonably well controlled.Intercropping is only feasible for a limited period because of limited soil fertility and/or the shading effect of the rubber trees. After intercropping, lmperata tends to establish itself for a few years until it too is shaded out by the rubber. This is the problem period, during which farmers practise only limited weed management, if any.A large amount of research has been done on methods of controlling lmperata, but the recommended methods have been generally spurned by smallholders unless they have been given subsidies to apply them. This paper describes the precise nature of the Imperata problem, with reference to some of the smallholder rubber-based farming systems within Southeast Asia; the different lmperata control strategies currently practised in these farming systems; and some of the constraints on the adoption of currently and recently recommended practices. It then proposes a ten-point agenda for research on lmperata control, including two ways in which current research programmes could be usefully reoriented: first, they need to take greater account of smallholder farming systems and constraints; and second they should shift their emphasis from single-method to integrated control systems. 84

Malawi has strong policies and frameworks for nutrition but insufficient funding to implement them. Analyses of government budgets at national level and in 10 districts from financial years 2016/17 to 2022/23, found that domestic budget allocations for nutrition are still well below the 5% of national budget target set by the government. National budget allocations ranged between 0.5% to 3.7% depending on the year. At district level, they ranged from 0.2% to 1.6%, with only one district, in one financial year, exceeding the 1.5% target for district level nutrition budget allocations. Over 95% of nutrition activities in Malawi are currently funded by external donors. The absence of sufficient, consistent and dedicated domestic budget for nutrition at national and district level, means nutrition policies and plans will continue to be driven by, and dependent on, externally funded pilot-scale projects without national reach or ownership. Budget tracking is essential, as it provides data, which all actors can use to hold government to account on their commitments and funding targets.