Public Works as Public GoodsPublic Works as Public Goods

Ethiopia PSNP Team

South-South Learning Forum 2010

14-18 June 2010

Part I – Introduction to PSNP

by

B h W Mi h l

by

Berhanu W.Michael

Background: Food Insecurity and g yVulnerability in Ethiopia

E h d ll d h • Ethiopia was traditionally associated with drought

• A 1999/2000 Poverty Assessment indicated that 42% of population live below the poverty p p p ylevel;

• Some 75% of population rely on subsistence Some 75% of population rely on subsistence farming on small plots, frequently consisting of environmentally degraded land;of environmentally degraded land;

• Prior to recent upswings, long-term per capita food production has generally been in declinefood production has generally been in decline

Trendsrends

Population growth → Decline in Population growth → Decline in average farm size

Significant environmental degradationdegradation

Increased climatic variability, m y,including floodingH l h i k l i d HIV Health risks esp. malaria and HIV

Population in Ethiopia from 1900 to 2006,

with projections backward to 1600,with projections backward to 1600,

and forward to 2100, respectively

140 0

120.0

140.0

mill

ion

100.0

Popu

latio

n in

60.0

80.0

40.0

0.0

20.0

1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100Year

Land degradation50% f hi hl d id d i ifi tl d d• 50% of highland area considered significantly eroded

• 1.5 billion tons of top soil is lost annually due to soil erosion• 30 000 ha of farmland lost due to land degradation annually30,000 ha of farmland lost due to land degradation annually• 30 kg nitrogen and 20 kg Phosphorus lost per hectare• 62,000 ha/yr of deforestation

Emergency food aid

l h

Emergency food aid

For two decades Government launched frequent national emergency appealsq g y pp

But aid was unpredictable, and often latelate

So households still sold assets to survive

Between 1996 and 2006 the number of people Between 1996 and 2006, the number of people requiring emergency food aid was rising.

As the numbers rose

l l h h l l

As the numbers rose …

Vulnerable households tended to slide deeper into povertyp p y

Rural growth tended to stagnate

FSPFSP The Government of Ethiopia launched a The Government of Ethiopia launched a

large scale consultation process to prepare The New Coalition for Food prepare , The New Coalition for Food Security, in 2003Si 2003 th h b Since 2003 , the program has been under implementation

PSNP was a result of this process

FSP has Four Components…p

1 Productive Safety Net Programme 1. Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP)H h ld B ld P 2. Household Asset Building Programme (HABP)( )

3. ResettlementC l t C it 4. Complementary Community Investment (CCI)

Objective of PSNPj f To provide transfers to the food p

insecure households in chronically food insecure woredas in a way that food insecure woredas in a way that prevents asset depletion at the household level and creates asset at household level and creates asset at the community level.

Two ways of effecting transfers: Labour-intensive Public Works (PWs) Labour intensive Public Works (PWs), Direct Support

PSNP

PSNP i lti d f d d PSNP is a multi-donor funded program designed to address short-term consumption gaps of chronically food insecure households through the nsecure househo ds through the provision of multi year predictable resourcesresources.

Nine donorsN n onors• World BankWorld Bank• CIDA• DFID• DFID• EC

Irish Aid• Irish Aid• USAID

W ld F d P• World Food Programme• SIDA• Royal Netherlands Embassy

The PSNP TimetableThe PSNP Timetable

Phase I: 2005 – 2006Ph II 2007 2009 Phase II: 2007 – 2009

Phase III: 2010 2014 Phase III: 2010 – 2014

“Lessons learned from PSNP”, which will be launched during this event, can be referred furthercan be referred further.

Part II – Public WorksPart II Public Works

Features of Public Works…Features of Publ c Works…

Eli ibl b fi i i id tifi d h • Eligible beneficiaries are identified each year: those who have repeatedly required food aidfood aid

• Public Works develop sustainable community assetsassets

• They improve the natural resource base and the social infrastructurethe social infrastructure

• Ultimately, aimed at developing the watershedswatersheds

• … thereby increasing productivity and improving livelihoodsimproving livelihoods

Typical Public Works Sub-projectsyp p j• Soil & Water Conservation (SWC):

– Bunds, terraces, area closure, gully control,…– Tree plantationp

• Water sub-projects:P d h d d ll i d l t– Ponds, hand-dug wells, spring development, SSI

• Rural Roads• Social infrastructures:• Social infrastructures:

– School, health posts, Farmers Training CentersCenters

Soil and Water Conservation Sub-projects

Pond Construction

School Construction

Health Post Construction

Roads and bridgesg

Th P tt f W t sh d D l tThe Pattern of Watershed Development

Level of Watershed Development

Environmental

Cumulative Impacts -

Environmental transformation

Degraded watershed

6/28/2010 24

Yearwatershed

Moving up the curveMo ng up th cur

d l l Reducing soil loss Reducing sedimentationu g m Increasing woody biomass

I d t k t Improved access to markets Better health, education Cumulative impacts – reaching a “critical

mass“mass

Half-way up the Curvef y p

Watershed Rehabilitation

Recent Achievements Examples in Annual Programil d W C i Soil and Water Conservation

167,150 ha of Area Closure 276 186 kms bunds (Soil + Stone) 276,186 kms bunds (Soil + Stone) 163,310 kms terrace More than 880 million seedling plantation, etcg p ,

Small - scale irrigation 412 rivers diverted

Rural roads constructed 23,736 km of rural roads constructed

Social Infrastructure 2077 school constructed/ rehabilitated

h l h d 232 health post constructed

Public Works Planningg PW planning is carried out by each

community based on Community-community, based on Communitybased Participatory Watershed Development principles (CBPWSD)p p p

Community planning is facilitated by Min of Agriculture’s Development Agents (DAs)

Project technical designs are carried t b DA d di t i t t out by DAs and district government

staffPublic Works plans are integrated Public Works plans are integrated into the overall district planning frameworkframework

Why should the Public Works program succeed where its predecessor failed? There are key differences between the present There are key differences between the present

program and the earlier “Food for Work” program:program:1. Predictable and guaranteed funding for PSNP2. The program operates at scale2. The program operates at scale3. The program promotes Holistic Environmental

Transformation4. Community Ownership5. 20% budget to cover non-labour costs

C ti t i i t ll l l6. Continuous training at all levels7. Monitoring and Evaluation

Early Indicators of Successy f

h Rapid regeneration of both grasses and trees, leading to: , g forage and biomass production, Reduction in soil loss Reduction in soil loss Reduction in flooding

In 2005.. and in 2008

Reforestation

Water harvesting

• Increased recharge in downstream areas• More water for irrigation, livestock and human use

Check dams for water harvestingg

Road and bridges Constructed by PSNP found to be useful

Bridge

Impact mp

Capacity Building% f b f d l d 55% of beneficiaries trained in soil and

water technologies

47% have already applied their knowledge th i l don their own land

Small-scale Irrigationm g

77% f d t 77% of respondents reported imporved income due to irrigationg

3% reported surplus produce for the market

Improved farm practices, skills development and crop diversification andcrop diversification and intensification

Education Impacts

80% f d t 80% of respondents have children attending a PSNP school

23% reported that they Old school

p yhave children attending school who did not attend beforeattend before

New schoolNew school

Farmers’ Training Centers (FTCs)g

P iti i t Positive impacts of FTC training noted in:noted in:

Water harvestingharvesting,

Improved agriculturalagricultural practices

Afforestation Afforestation

Health

83% of respondents reported that there is a PSNP health post in theirpost in their community

Economic Returns on Investment

Watershed Benefit:Cost Econ IRR

Bala, Tigray 1.39 16%

G %Ganga, Amhara 2.6 44%

Debaso Oromia 1 23 11%Debaso, Oromia 1.23 11%

Mofogna Kotico, SNNPR 1.69 24%g

In conclusion:

h “ d f The PW programme is not just “Food for work”, or a government employment scheme.p y

The PW programme is part of the solution t h i f d i it th t th PSNP i to chronic food insecurity that the PSNP is designed to address.

Lesson learned:L sson arnPlacing the responsibility for the PW component under the Natural Resources Management under the Natural Resources Management Directorate achieves: Better management and coordination of the PW Better management and coordination of the PW

program

Improved quality performance impact and Improved quality, performance, impact and sustainability of the PW

Clear responsibility for PW programme Clear responsibility for PW programme

Increased engagement of the Natural Resources sector and increase their scope of its involvement sector and increase their scope of its involvement

Increased focus on the development dimensions of the PSNPthe PSNP

Division of Responsibilities

Food Security Natural ResourcesFood Security

Remains responsible for

Natural Resources Takes overall responsibility

for Public Works planningpmanaging Safety Net resources, including

i i f l b f

for Public Works planning, capacity-building, implementation,

monitoring effectivenessprovision of labour for executing the Public

Works

monitoring, effectiveness and compliance with all necessary proceduresWorks

6/28/2010 46

Lessons learned:

Inter-Sector Coordination can be a challenge

One solution: Regional Technical Coordinating Committees

Established Coordination of

different sectors and other stakeholders such as NGOs in the Public Works

programme

A Typical Technical Coordinating Committee:

Rur l r ds Rural roads Food Security Education Education Health Women affairs Women affairs Water EPA Dept of Agricultural Extension Implementing NGOs

Lesson Learned:

h d d There is a need to ensure coordination with other programmes and projects