Presented by Addise Amado, Ethiopian Graduate School of Theology (EGST) at the World Food Day 2015 event in Sweden

1. AddiseAmado,
Ethiopian Graduate School ofTheology (EGST).
SwedishWorld Food Day celebrations and the Celebration
FAO 70 years on the theme of “Social Protection and
Agriculture: Breaking the Cycle of Rural Poverty”.
Surviving Shocks and Enhanced Food Security in
Ethiopia: The Role of Social Protection

2. State of food insecurity in Ethiopia
In 2011:
 34% of rural population below national food poverty line
 44% of children under age of five were moderately or severely
stunted, reflecting chronic malnutrition
 The average food gap – the period in the year when households
reported being unable to feed themselves – was 3 months
 Estimates of current annual economic costs of under- nutrition at
55.5 billion birr (£1.85bn), or 16.5% of GDP (UNICEF 2013)
 For many, poor rains or adverse price movements threaten their
ability to grow enough to feed themselves and / or earn income to
buy food (Dorosh and Rashid 2012; Rahmato et al 2013).

3. Household responses to food insecurity
Risk minimization – crop and herd dispersal, non-farm income
diversification, asset and other savings accumulation
Risk absorption – sale of livestock and non-productive assets,
search for new sources of income, collection of debts
Risk taking to survive – reduced consumption, sale of productive
assets, reduced socialization

4. In response to the 2002 drought, the Government of Ethiopia revised its
Food Security Strategy (FSS)
Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) :
Cash transfers and Food for Work (FFW) program
Components and stages of transition:
Emergency RELIEF
Rehabilitation
Development
The evolution of social protection in Ethiopia

5. Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP)
PSNP has three distinctive objectives:
smoothing food consumption in chronically food insecure
smallholder households, by transferring food or cash to buy food during
the ‘hunger gap’ months;
 protecting household assets by avoiding damaging ‘coping
strategies’ such as selling productive assets or taking on high interest‑
loans to buy food;
building community assets by selecting public works activities that
create infrastructure with developmental potential (eg feeder roads).

6. Biggest funders - PSNP
$m % $m %
Indicative commitments
WB 850 35.5% 600 23.0% -29%
USAID 577 24.1% 550 21.0% -5%
DFID 398 16.6% 412 15.8% 4%
GoE - cash contribution 10 0.4% 285 10.9% 2748%
GoE - operational expenditure 213 8.2%
EU 97 4.0% 130 5.0% 35%
DFATD (Canada) 206 8.6% 115 4.4% -44%
WFP 50 2.1% 100 3.8% 100%
IrishAid 92 3.8% 68 2.6% -26%
RNE (Netherlands) 71 3.0% 68 2.6% -5%
Danida 22 0.9% 25 1.0% 13%
UNICEF - 0.0% 25 1.0%
SIDA
Total commitments 2,395 100% 2,614 100% 9%
Total costs
core programme budget 2,443 3,412 40%
GoE operational budget 213
total costs 3,625
Total financing gap
against total costs 1,011 28%
never estimated
increase /
decrease
2010-2015 2015-2020

7. Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP)
PSNP Phases
1st
Phase (2005 – 2006), ‘the transition phase’
2nd
Phase (2007 – 2009), ‘the consolidation phase’
3rd
Phase (2010 – 2014/15) ‘the integration phase’
4th
Phase (2015 – 2020) ‘systems building phase’

8. Outcome of PSNP Phase 3: Highlights
 Coverage: 7.8 m beneficiaries (2009/10) down to 6m (2014/15 plan):
75-80% public works beneficiaries; 15-20% Direct Support. Transfers for six
months p.a.
 Contingency budgets and Federal Risk Financing Mechanisms to provide first
response to seasonal acute need; a bridge to humanitarian
 Form of transfer: in 2013/14, 43% received cash only, 30% food only, and 27% a mix
 Accelerating graduation rates since 2010/11 (unrealistic? politically-driven?)
 Community-based public works planning
 Majority of public works address soil and water conservation; others include rural
roads, school rooms, health posts, small-scale irrigation, etc.
 Some significant achievements, but has not fit together as hoped, and missing (unrealistic)
targets set by Government

9. Challenges and critique of the PSNP
Heavily dependent on external, donor support
Lack of sensitivity to gender and children
requirements
Coordination and capacity problems – MIS
Political elements:Target imposed graduation
Lack of efficiency and effectiveness
Sustainability of public works controversial

10. What’s new in PSNP 4, 2015-2020? Lessons:
1 – Shift from a programme to a system-SP,MIS
2 – Expansion-10m/yr;319/411 woreda;
3 – Increase in government financing-57 to 149m
4 – Redesign of the interface with humanitarian food aid
5 – An increase in transfer levels-6 to 12 months;4kg+pulses
6 – A focus on nutrition-focus on children and women
7 – A new approach to livelihoods support- productivity; off-farm income; links to
waged employment

11. Tack! Thank you!