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