concern worldwide (malawi) f ood a nd c ash t ransfer
DESCRIPTION
CONCERN WORLDWIDE (MALAWI) F OOD A ND C ASH T RANSFER. MALAWI CONTEXT 2005-06. A small landlocked, densely populated country Dependant on small holder agriculture Distance from international markets limiting opportunities for diversification - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
CONCERN WORLDWIDE (MALAWI)
FFOOD AAND CCASH TTRANSFER
MALAWI CONTEXT 2005-06MALAWI CONTEXT 2005-06
A small landlocked, densely populated country
Dependant on small holder agriculture Distance from international markets
limiting opportunities for diversificationPoor harvests in 2005 resulted in low
income and high food pricesOver 5 million people at riskRequiring 335,400MT
PROGRAMME CONTEXTPROGRAMME CONTEXT
A large food aid programme was planned and implemented
Concern undertook a rapid food security assessment Destructive copping strategies Rapidly escalating food prices Low coverage of food aid Urgent need for an intervention Approximately 50% MFE
CONCEPTUALISATION & DESIGNCONCEPTUALISATION & DESIGN
FACT Conceptualisation
• Complemented emergency relief programme
• Supported those not reached by other agencies
• Covered “missing food entitlements” (50%) FACT Design
• Beneficiaries = 5,050 households
• Duration = 4 months: January–April
• Strict financial controls: Zero leakages
• Low–key cash handling: Low security risk.
DESIGN FEATURESDESIGN FEATURES
(1) Food + Cash:Why food? 20kg maize + 4kg beans + 1 litre oil = 560 kcal = 25% of
need Sphere guidelines: 2,100 kcal; 10–12% protein; 17%
fat Protected food consumption against market failure
Why cash? Empowering: gives beneficiaries choices Allows non–food needs to be met More cost-effective than food Potential catalyst effect on markets
DESIGN FEATURESDESIGN FEATURES
(2) Banding by household size:
Band B (4–6 members): Average K 1,400
Band A (1–3 members): –75% K 350
Band C (7+ members): +75% K2,450
Band Household Size (number of household members)
Adjustment from MK 1,400
Cash Transfer (MK)
Percentage of MFE attainable, combined food and cash
1 – small 1 2 3
-75% 350 1 = 313% 2 = 156% 3 = 104%
2 – medium
4 5 6
No adjustment
1,400 4 = 125% 5 = 100% 6 = 83%
3 – large 7 8
9+
+75% 2,450 7 = 98% 8 = 86% 9 = 76%
DESIGN FEATURESDESIGN FEATURES
(3) Cash transfers linked to market price:
Month Cost of Total cost Change in ration (Euros) cost (%)
January K 1,383 51,690February K 1,705 66,459 + 29%March K 2,185 81,228 + 22%April K 1,306 48,261 – 41%
TARGETING METHODOLOGYTARGETING METHODOLOGY
Initial sensitisation with community leadersInput into selection criteriaGroup village community meetingSensitisation and selectionSelection undertaken with Triangulation
methodology1000 targeted via HIV & HBC groups
TARGETING CHALLENGES & ISSUESTARGETING CHALLENGES & ISSUES
Time constraint led to sub-contracting and non-application of triangulation
Multiple criteria led to some confusion and changes
Elite Capture by (71% headmen included)Exclusion error of some of the most
vulnerable
DIRECT IMPACTSDIRECT IMPACTS
Food:80% consumed by the household20% shared, mostly with relatives Very little food soldAny surplus generally “saved”
DIRECT IMPACTSDIRECT IMPACTS
Cash: Consumption
Food purchases (maize, sometimes cassava) Groceries (relish, salt, soap, paraffin) Health care (hospital bills, medicines) Food processing (maize milling) Transport (hospital, market)
Investment Agriculture (fertiliser, seeds) Asset accumulation (goats, chickens) Education (notebooks, pens, fees) Access to land (rented or bought land)
COPING STRATEGY INDEX (FHH)COPING STRATEGY INDEX (FHH)
60
65
70
75
80
Beneficiaries Non-beneficiaries
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
INDIRECT IMPACTSINDIRECT IMPACTS
Agriculture: FACT beneficiaries did less ganyu so were able to work their own land
Asset Protection: No need to sell assets
Labour markets: Less ganyu by beneficiaries = more work opportunities for non–beneficiaries
HIV: Reduced labour requirement = more time supporting the sick, also reduced risk of transmission
MARKET EFFECTSMARKET EFFECTS
Very low impactNo sign of inflationAlso did not attract tradersNeed to look more closely at this
aspect in future
SOCIAL EFFECTS (1)SOCIAL EFFECTS (1)
Intra Community Tensions:Changes the relative wealth/power
structureConcern beneficiaries “included” and
“excluded”Some ethnic minorities excluded
SOCIAL EFFECTS (2)SOCIAL EFFECTS (2)
Intra Household TensionsSome men misused the cash;
To go drinking Womanising
Women involved community leaders to be given position of the ration This could lead to conflict and even violence
77% of MHH discussed cash use with family
APPROPRIATE?
81 TO 83% of respondents preferred the food and cash mix.
60 to 70% of the cash was spent on foodIn FGDs beneficiaries noted the flexibilityFood was available for saleAllowed for investment even during time of
stress
ADVOCACYADVOCACY
Demonstrated that can be achieved in an emergency i.e. rapid implementation
Modalities used applicable for social protection projects
Initially government sceptical; now involved in their own cash transfer
Has been used in to advocate for cash rather than food for current response
UPTAKEUPTAKE
Great interest from donors, civil soc. And government
Impediments:
1. Action and reaction of the market
2. Scaling up the modality
3. Lack of good info re: the demographic and social structures of villages