F A C T CONCERN WORLDWIDE (MALAWI) F OOD A ND C ASH T RANSFER

MALAWI CONTEXT A small landlocked, densely populated country Dependant on small holder agriculture Distance from international markets limiting opportunities for diversification Poor harvests in 2005 resulted in low income and high food prices Over 5 million people at risk Requiring 335,400MT

PROGRAMME 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 & 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 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 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

DESIGN FEATURES (3) Cash transfers linked to market price: Month Cost of Total cost Change in ration (Euros) cost (%) January K 1,383 51,690 February K 1,705 66, % March K 2,185 81, % April K 1,306 48,261 – 41%

TARGETING METHODOLOGY Initial sensitisation with community leaders Input into selection criteria Group village community meeting Sensitisation and selection Selection undertaken with Triangulation methodology 1000 targeted via HIV & HBC groups

TARGETING 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 IMPACTS Food: 80% consumed by the household 20% shared, mostly with relatives Very little food sold Any surplus generally “saved”

DIRECT 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)

INDIRECT 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 EFFECTS Very low impact No sign of inflation Also did not attract traders Need to look more closely at this aspect in future

SOCIAL EFFECTS (1) Intra Community Tensions: Changes the relative wealth/power structure Concern beneficiaries “included” and “excluded” Some ethnic minorities excluded

SOCIAL EFFECTS (2) Intra Household Tensions Some 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 food In FGDs beneficiaries noted the flexibility Food was available for sale Allowed for investment even during time of stress

ADVOCACY 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

UPTAKE 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