Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Evaluating Synergies Between Social Protection & Rural Development Interventions: Lessons from Africa

501 views

Published on

Silvio Daidone's presentation from Latin American Studies Association (LASA) 2019 on 26 May 2019 in Boston.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Evaluating Synergies Between Social Protection & Rural Development Interventions: Lessons from Africa

  1. 1. Social Protection - From Protection to Production Evaluating synergies between social protection and rural development interventions: lessons from Africa Silvio Daidone Food and Agriculture Organization
  2. 2. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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
  3. 3. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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)
  4. 4. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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)
  5. 5. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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
  6. 6. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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
  7. 7. Social Protection - From Protection to Production ETHIOPIA
  8. 8. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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
  9. 9. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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.
  10. 10. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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
  11. 11. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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
  12. 12. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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
  13. 13. Impacts on productive activities of IN-SCT
  14. 14. Social Protection - From Protection to Production LESOTHO
  15. 15. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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
  16. 16. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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)
  17. 17. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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
  18. 18. Social Protection - From Protection to Production MAIN FINDINGS
  19. 19. 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)
  20. 20. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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)
  21. 21. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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)
  22. 22. 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)
  23. 23. Social Protection - From Protection to Production ZAMBIA
  24. 24. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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
  25. 25. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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.
  26. 26. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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
  27. 27. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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
  28. 28. Social Protection - From Protection to 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
  29. 29. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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)
  30. 30. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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)
  31. 31. Social Protection - From Protection to Production HGSF+CASU: Food and Nutrition Security • Increase in both women’s and children’s dietary diversity
  32. 32. Social Protection - From Protection to Production 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
  33. 33. Social Protection - From Protection to Production Thank you Gracias Obrigado Grazie

×