BREAKING THE POVERTY CYCLE? Cash Distribution and Safety Nets in Ethiopia

Transcription

1 Three Asosa Metekel Kemash Bebig West Wellega Two One Siekicho Four Bench Illubabor Maji Keficho West North Gondar Agew South Gondar W.Gojjam E.Gojjam North West East Wellega Shewa Jima North Omo West Shewa South Omo Buji Konso Eas t Central Guraghe Yem Hadiya East Shewa Kat Sidama Gedio South North Wollo South Wollo North Shewa Borena Arsi Four Oromiya West Hararghe Bale Two Three One Liben Shenile East Hararghe Fik Afder Jijiga Degahabur Gode Warder BREAKING THE POVERTY CYCLE? Cash Distribution and Safety Nets in Ethiopia Emebet Kebede SAVE THE CHILDREN-UK ETHIOPIA May 11, 2005 Nairobi, Kenya TIGRAY Wag Hamra AMHARA AFAR GAMBELA BENSHANGUL S.N.N.P.R.S Amaro Derashi Addis Ababa OROMIYA Dire Dawa Harar SOMALI Kebri Dehar

2 Save the children s Cash Interventions in Ethiopia Year Type of intervention /donor 2001 Cash for relief pilot in N/S Wollo; DfID 2002 Cash for relief pilot in N/S Wollo; GoNLS 2003 Cash for relief pilot in S Wollo; OFDA 2003/4 Livelihood Development (MLDP); GoNLS 2004 Cash for Relief;DfID funding Operational Areas 4 districts Coverage 6 kebele out of 128 (5%) 4 districts 30 kebele out of 187 (16%) 2 districts 67 kebele out of 97 (69%) 1 district 37 kebele out of 37 (100%) 3 districts 97 kebele out of 97 (100%) Cash distribution Total cash in Birr 4 months 1,382,780 4 months 5,259,603 5 months 7,876,035 7months 7,000,000 4 months 14,350,000

3 MEKET MEKET LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT PILOT PROJECT (MLDP)

4 CASH IS LESS EXPENSIVE Cost (ETB) 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Comparison of cost efficiency of delivering different types of relief assistance 0 Gebrie Selassie & Bershah (2003) Imported grain Local purchase Cash SCUK Emergency Team, Addis Ababa, 2005 Aklu & Haile Kiros 2005 Transfer option

5 GREATER IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLDS 1. ASSET CREATION 51% of households purchased livestock, 13% purchased only ox, 50% sheep, 13% goat, 8% chickens. households renting out land went down from 50% before the project to 34% after the project

6 2. DECISION MAKING AND CHOICE Buy cheaper grain Higher crop prices Keep harvest for longer Pay off loans Continue crop sharing; but with better contracts Buy ox/seed Buy sheep or goats Work locally Use savings in a equb (group savings scheme) Higher incomes

7 3. PURCHASING POWER Sources of Cash Income Birr birr Intervention Year 700 birr Typical Year CfR Others Sale of Eggs Grass/Euc. Tree Firewood Sales Migratory Labour Crop Sales

8 4. FOOD TRANSACTION COSTS AVOIDED BY CASH Amount allocated A 15kg per month x 5 people: 75kg Amount lost through sharing B X kg Exchange C X kg lost through exchanging cereal for other items (e.g. coffee) Cost of loading and transport D Transport: x kg paid to transport household ration. Cost incurred (waiting for distribution) Net grain E x birr for y days (food distribution usually takes several days) Retained (A-B) (C+D+E)

9 IMPACT ON CHILDREN positive impact of cash on caring practices Because of the yerebee termination, children were able to stay with the own families Risk of children being withdrawn from school.

10 MULTIPLE PARTNERS TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY AT ALL STAGES Head of Agriculture and Rural Development Office (WARDO) Agriculture Desk of WARDO Woreda DPP Committee WARDO Finance Head and the Finance Office DPP Desk Police Development Agents (DAs) PA Leaderships Community Leaders SC-UK (Woldiya and Meket Office)

11 PRODUCTIVE SAFETY NET PROGRAMME (PSNP) Distinction between chronic and acute food needs PSNP targets chronically food insecure areas (5 million people) 5 year programme leading to graduation out of chronic food insecurity Monthly distribution of cash or food: both public works and direct transfers Implemented by Government Start of PSNP delayed up to present

12 SC-UK LESSONS for PSNP Appropriateness of cash in relation to infrastructure Timing of distribution in relation to harvest period Efficient cash administration system needed to prevent delays Effective market monitoring system needed Need to support traders and improvements in rural infrastructure, e.g. rural banks Need for range of contingency options and effective mechanisms Need to monitor impact on non-target groups Local government capacity insufficient: role of NGOs needs to be considered