Social Protection and Rural Development Synergies in Africa

Social Protection - From Protection to Production
Evaluating synergies between social protection and
rural development interventions: lessons from Africa
Silvio Daidone
Food and Agriculture Organization

Background projects
• Universidad de los Andes (UNIANDES):
Conditional Cash Transfers and Rural Development in
Latin America
www.sinergiasrurales.info
• Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
From Protection to Production: The Role of Social
Cash Transfers in Fostering Broad-Based Economic
Development
www.fao.org/economic/ptop

Description of the project
• Objective:
- To explore and document the benefits of articulating
social protection (SP) and rural development (RD)
interventions
- To inform national policymakers and international
organizations on the performance and potential of
effective articulations between SP & RD components /
interventions
• Implemented by FAO and UNIANDES in conjunction with
partner governments and other international institutions
• Impact evaluation studies in Africa funded by an IFAD
grant, FAO Regular Programme, FAO Multipartner
Programme Support Mechanism (FMM)

Why is this important?
• Prioritizing coherence between RD and SP policies is
needed to enhance the productive capacity of poor and
vulnerable small-scale farmers:
- SP provides a minimum income level, enhancing
farmers' ability to manage risk and invest in income
generating activities
- RD interventions reaching the poorest can address
structural constraints to poverty reduction (access to
inputs, technologies, markets, etc.)
• In Africa, the importance of this specific intersectoral
coordination is reflected in several policy initiatives and
declaration (Malabo declaration; CAADP)

Country Architecture Programme(s) name Years
Ethiopia Unique SP programme with
multiple components, nested
within the Productive Safety Nets
Programme (PSNP)
Improved Nutrition through
Integrated Basic Social Services
with Social Cash Transfer (IN-SCT)
2015-
2018
Lesotho SP and RD programmes designed
in a complementary way,
managed by the same institution
(Ministry of Social Development)
SP: Child Grants Programme (CGP)
RD: Sustainable Poverty Reduction
through Income, Nutrition and
access to Government Services
(SPRINGS)
2015-
2018
Mali Unique SP programme with
multiple components (fragile
setting)
Productive safety nets as a tool to
reinforce the resilience in the
Sahel (Cash+)
2016-
2017
Zambia SP programme with multiple
components + agricultural
programme, designed by two
different institutions in a
somewhat coordinated way
SP: Home Grown School Feeding
(HGSF) Programme
RD: Conservation Agriculture Scale
Up (CASU)
2010-
Country case-studies in Africa

Country
Design of
quantitative
analysis
Data collection
Institutional
analysis
Qualitative
assessment
Ethiopia
Non-experimental
(Longitudinal PSM
and IPW)
Baseline: Apr 2016
Follow-up: Apr 2018
Yes Yes
Lesotho
Non-experimental
(PSM and IPW)
Dec 2017- Jan 2018 Yes Yes
Mali
Non-experimental
(PSM and IPW)
Oct 2017 Yes No
Zambia
Non-experimental
(PSM and IPW)
Oct 2017- Jan 2018 No Yes
Evaluation methods
• Lesotho & Zambia finalized
• Ethiopia case study under revision, Mali case study currently on-going
• Another round table will discuss the institutional assessments

ETHIOPIA

Improved Nutrition through Integrated Basic
Social Services with Social Cash Transfer (IN-
SCT) Pilot Program
• Programme fully integrated into the Productive Safety
Nets (PSNP)
• Pilot in SNNP and Oromia regions
• Three types of cash transfers:
1. Permanent Direct Support (PDS) clients: 12 months
of unconditional cash transfers (no adult labour
available)
2. Public works (PW) clients: 6 months
3. Temporary Direct Support (TDS) clients: 6 months

Nutrition-sensitive SP and RD interventions
• Multi-sectoral collaboration and coordination
platforms to support a systems approach
• Strengthened linkages between IN-SCT clients and
social services
• Strengthened gender equity and special provisions for
women during pregnancy
• In SNNP, nutrition sensitive agricultural interventions
such as the rehabilitation of existing Farmer Training
Centres (FCTs) and school gardens.

Example: increased access to social services
through co-responsibilities for TDS clients
• Different co-responsibilities, depending on the reason for
seeking support:
a) pregnant women to attend four antenatal care visits and
attend behavioural change communication (BCC) sessions
as informed by the Health Extension Worker (HEW)
b) lactating women with child <1 year old to attend one
post-partum health facility visit, attend growth-
monitoring-promotion or BCC sessions and provide
uptake of routine immunisation on behalf the child as
informed by the HEW
c) caregivers of malnourished children to attend BCC
sessions provided by HEWs or the health development
army as informed by the HEW, bring their child at closest
health facility for a monthly check-up and participate in
treatment as advised

Description of sample and evaluation objectives
Sample Selection criteria Treatment group
Comparison
group
Type of impact
Mother-
child
Households with
PLW and children
under 2 years of
age
TDS clients
Non IN-SCT in
same kebeles
Cash +
services
TDS clients
TDS in non IN-
SCT woredas
Services over
and above cash
TDS in non IN-
SCT woredas
Non IN-SCT in
same kebeles
Cash
Under 5
Households with
at least one child
under 5 years of
age
PW & PDS clients
Non IN-SCT in
same kebeles
Cash +
services
PW & PDS clients
PW & PDS in non
IN-SCT woredas
Services over
and above cash
PW & PDS in non
IN-SCT woredas
Non IN-SCT in
same kebele
Cash

Impacts on the combined group (IN-SCT)
Mother-child Under 5
Assets ++ 0
Crop production + -
Livestock ++ 0
Non-farm business ++ 0
Wage labour - 0
Legend:
++ Majority of impacts are positive
- - Majority of impacts are negative
0 No Impacts

Impacts on productive activities of IN-SCT

LESOTHO

The programmes
• CGP is the country’s flagship social assistance programme
(unconditional cash transfer), covering 26,800 households
by end of 2017.
• SPRINGS was piloted between 2015 and 2018 to increase
impact on poor households’ livelihoods:
• Rural finance. Community based savings and internal lending
groups, with financial education, known as Savings and Internal
Lending Communities (SILC);
• Homestead gardening. Keyhole/trench gardens, vegetable seeds
distribution;
• Access to markets. Market clubs and training on marketing
principles;
• Nutrition training. Community-led Complementary Feeding and
Learning Sessions (CCFLS));
• Access to services. One Stop Shop / Citizen Services Outreach Days.
• SPRINGS coverage by end of 2017: 6445 individuals in 3983
households

Targeting
• CGP: poor and vulnerable households with
children (context of HIV pandemia)
• SPRINGS: communities where social
assistance is offered
• Identification of CGP beneficiaries through
Proxy Means Testing, with community
validation, and recorded in social assistance
registry (NISSA)

Study design & research questions
Compare receipt of the CGP alone with participation
in CGP + SPRINGS across three areas of inquiry:
• Household welfare, economic security and market
engagement
• Financial inclusion, risk management and risk attitudes
• Nutritional knowledge and dietary practices
Comparison group extracted from the NISSA registry
via propensity score matching approach

MAIN FINDINGS

CGP+SPRINGS: Household welfare, economic
security and market engagement
• Reduction of poverty (12 percent in
the poverty gap).
• Increase of non-food consumption
(24 percent increase)
• Strong increase in sales of fruits and
vegetables (due to keyhole
gardening) helped increase
household incomes
• Positive impact on fertilizers
expenses and tractor use
“I used to struggle a
lot with four
children. I was only
able to buy them
clothes once a year,
but now after CGP
and SPRINGS I am
able to buy them
clothes a few times a
year and then
provide them
adequate food” (male
beneficiary, Mahlabatheng
village)

CGP+SPRINGS: Financial inclusion
- Large increase in the share of
households that save (100+%) and
borrow (82%) money– largely driven by
SILC groups
- Increase in the amount of money saved
and borrowed (100+ and 70%,
respectively)
- Some investments now directed to
production and productive assets
- financial awareness, as evidenced in
basic planning and budgeting of
household expenses and income streams
– due to SILC
“We were never aware we
could save and borrow
this easily” (female
beneficiary, Top village,
Menkhoaneng
Community Council)
“People now have capital
to start producing home
brewed beer and sell to
others. From IGAs such as
home brewing and spaza
shops, people then use the
profits made to contribute
money to SILC” (SILC Field
Agent, Mahlabatheng
village)

CGP+SPRINGS: Risk management and
attitudes
- Reduction of negative coping
strategies, such as cutting meals or
engaging in daily piece work
- Greater willingness to take risk and
greater risk-taking, especially in the
early cohort of CGP and SPRINGS
combined where beneficiaries are
accessing loans and saving more
through SILC – duration in
programme seems to matter
“Beneficiaries are
able to work
together in the
community by
building keyhole
gardens and
contributing money
in SILC” (male
beneficiary,
Mahlabatheng
village)

CGP+SPRINGS: Nutritional knowledge
and dietary practices
• Increased consumption of green
vegetables, fruits, organ meat,
dairy and legumes
• Nutritious food available all year
round
• Greater diet diversity was
prompted by keyhole garden
production combined with
increased purchases of different
foods (milk, meat, eggs)
• Strong improvements in
anthropometric measures
“you’ll see them from
town with many plastics –
rice, milk, eggs included in
the plastics. They didn’t
eat rice and meat
regularly, but now they eat
a variety”
(SILC field agent in Tenesolo
Community Council)

ZAMBIA

Home Grown School Feeding (HGSF)
• Objective: Increased school attendance, cognition,
and educational achievement while stimulating
farm production.
• How it achieves it:
• School feeding (SF)
• One meal per day to children in pre-primary and primary
(grades 1-7) public and community schools
• Coverage: 38 districts and 1 m children
• Market access (MA) through the P4P
• Purchases of beans and peas
• Selects coops with storage capacity and sets purchasing price in
advance
• Coverage: 23 districts, hundreds of farmers in each district

Conservation Agriculture Scale Up (CASU)
• Objective: scale up conservation agriculture in
order to increase productivity and production of
crops for food security and income generation
• How it achieves it:
• Productive support to farmers through conservation
agriculture training and input vouchers
• Coverage: more than 10 thousand lead farmers and 220
thousand follower farmers across 31 districts.

Targeting
• HGSF:
1. Children in schools where meals are offered
2. Farmers organized in cooperatives
• CASU: farmers with labour and land capacity (at
least 0.5 hectares)
• Identification of CASU beneficiaries from
available registry. HGSF from cooperatives lists
• To trigger complementarities:
- Coordinate and target same areas
- Establish partnership between CASU farmers
and aggregators such as WFP

Study design
Treatment group Control group
CASU HGSF HGSF + CASU
Treatment groupTreatment group
Households
exposed only
to CASU
Households exposed
to MA through WFP
purchasing program
and who send kids to
schools under SF
Households exposed
to CASU and to MA
through WFP
purchasing program
who also send kids to
schools under SF
Households
exposed to
none of these
programs
• Comparison group from districts with similar agro-ecological conditions and where
farmers are organized in cooperatives
• Research questions: How the programs –alone or in combination – affect selected
outcomes:
1. Schooling
2. Food security
3. Farm production

Impact evaluation results in a nutshell
CASU
Meals per
se HGSF Both
Farm production ++ +/- ++
Crop production +/- +/- +/-
Crop sales +/- ++ +/-
Livst. production ++ - - ++
Tot. gross income 0 - - ++
CA adoption +++ 0 +++
FNS +++ ++ - - - ++
Schooling 0 ++ 0 - - -
Legend:
+++ Majority of impacts are positive
- - - Majority of impacts are negative
0 No Impacts

HGSF+CASU: Farm production
• Some increase in a diversified production of
cowpeas, groundnuts, maize (both at the
extensive and intensive margin), though
surprisingly smaller beans production
• Greater engagement in markets and higher
volume of crop sales
• Investment in livestock (animals owned and
engagement in by-products production)
• Greater farm income (50% increase)

HGSF+CASU : Schooling
• Unintended detrimental effects of combining HGSF
with CASU on most schooling indicators:
1. Children in primary school age:
- Reduced enrolment (11 percentage points)
- Reduced attendance (4 days in 2 weeks prior to the
survey)
- Reduced grade passing (12 percentage points)
2. Children in primary school age:
- Reduced attendance (4.5 days in 2 weeks prior to
the survey)

HGSF+CASU: Food and Nutrition Security
• Increase in both women’s and children’s
dietary diversity

CONCLUSIONS
• Synergies between SP & RD interventions seem to occur
in all countries
• Greater productive inclusion, but effects on income
generation are still small in magnitude.
• The RD/agricultural component seems to be the key
driver of results
• Combining programmes can lead to unintended results
• Evaluating synergies between SP&RD programmes /
components is challenging:
1. Technically complex (multiple arms design)
2. Difficult to find a good counterfactual…
3. … especially when IE is not planned since programme
inception

Thank you
Gracias
Obrigado
Grazie

Social Protection and Rural Development Synergies in Africa

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (19)

Semelhante a Social Protection and Rural Development Synergies in Africa

Semelhante a Social Protection and Rural Development Synergies in Africa (20)

Mais de The Transfer Project

Mais de The Transfer Project (20)

Último

Último (20)

Social Protection and Rural Development Synergies in Africa