By design, Social Cash Transfer programs (SCTP) in Malawi target the poorest section of society. But this does not mean that the “poorest” are a homogenous group. There are differences in access to land and ability to work productively. Development players must take this into account by designing interventions that provide different capacity-based packages to households based on their present endowments and resilience-building needs.
T. Arthur Chibwana, Program Manager MEAL at Christian Aid Malawi presented such an intervention in an IFPRI Malawi seminar on January 30, 2019. Covering four districts, the Christian Aid led MLUMIKIZI consortium aims to increase the resilience towards climate change among the poorest households receiving social cash transfers. The project is part of the EU funded Pro-Resilience Action (Pro-ACT) program.
Chibwana presented the consortium’s approach to categorize SCTP beneficiaries based on their potential to step out, step up, or remain in need of continuous safety nets. Consistent with the Malawi National Social Support Program 2, the consortium conducted a census that covered 26,095 SCTP beneficiaries in Mzimba North and South, Mwanza, Neno, and Chikwawa. Women formed the majority of SCTP beneficiaries with 64 percent. Also, the census found that 96 percent have some kind of access to arable land. Based on the results two groups were identified: PG-1 with those that are productive resources constrained (no land and/or no labour potential); and PG-2 covering those with land and/or labour potential. Up to 36 percent of beneficiaries fell under PG-1 and 64 percent under PG-2. Following the study, the project targeted groups with different interventions. PG-1 received village savings and loans, small non-labour demanding livestock (poultry and rabbits), crisis modifiers, and nutrition behavior change education. PG-2 interventions included village savings and loans, nutrition education/backyard garden, climate smart agriculture activities, small scale livestock (goats), adult literacy /reflect cycles, energy saving stoves, cash transfer top ups during lean periods (for labour preservation), and agriculture production input support.
As a next step the consortium will assess the impact of the capacity-based intervention packages as well as the effectiveness of the approach. The assessment will help to answer the following questions: (1) Who steps up and out after the interventions and what are the main contributors for that? (2) What kind of interventions work or do not work? (3) Can we move SCT people out of ultra-poverty?
The seminar concluded with a group discussion. Questions centered around targeting process and impact measurement.
The presentation can be viewed below:
