Civil society support for Government-led Social Cash Transfer Scheme in Malawi

1. Civil society support for Government-led Social Cash Transfer Scheme in Malawi Presented to The CSDA International Symposium on Social Protection University of Johannesburg, RSA By Kondwani Farai Chikadza STOP AIDS NOW! Partnership in Malawi Institute for Policy research & Social Empowerment, Lilongwe, Malawi Email: ise@malawi.net or kchikadza@yahoo.com 24th MAY 2011

2. Organization of the Presentation • Setting the Context • The Road to Social Protection in Malawi • Salient features of the Malawi Social Cash Transfer Scheme • Strengthening the MSCTS through Linking and Learning • Actors ,Key Findings & Actions • Concluding remarks and reflections

3. Setting the Context • Presentation limited to Stop AIDS NOW! Initiative (NOVOC, IPRSE, CEYCA, YONECO) within the MSCTS framework • There are other civil society initiatives outside this framework ( CISOPO, ACTION AID, OXFAM)

4. The Road to Social Protection Malawi • Social Protection discourse not entirely new it has existed in different guises and instruments since 1964 • The term “Social Protection” ; a recent addition to policy vocabulary in Malawi • 1960s-80 price controls and subsidies (Slatter and Tsoka 2007: 27) • From early 80s social dimensions adjustment initiatives (Chinsinga 2003:13) • Adjustment “with a human face” Social Safety Instruments

5. Policy Regimes with Social Safety Nets • Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP) (1994) • The Vision 2020 (1998) • The Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (MPRSP) (2001) • The One Village One Product (OVOP) (2003) • More recently The Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (2005-11).

6. The Malawi Social Cash Transfer Scheme • Malawi Growth Development Strategy National Social Protection Policy (Draft Form) • SCTs a recent intervention in Malawi • Other SP Instruments Farm Inputs Subsidy Programme, Inputs transfers, Cash for Work, Food for work, School feeding, Food transfers, Bursaries, Inputs for work, Targeted nutrition, Food cash, Relief items

7. Key Parameters of the MSCTS • Methodology for a pilot MSCT Scheme was designed by UNICEF and GoM in 2006 • Tested through operational research (Mchinji, Chitipa, Likoma, Salima, Machinga, Mangochi and Phalombe) • The objectives of the scheme are to: • Reduce poverty, hunger and starvation • Increase school enrolment and attendance and invest in their health and nutrition status; • Generate information on the feasibility and impact of a Social Cash Transfer Scheme

8. Key Parameters; Contd • The Scheme targets households that are both ultra-poor and labour constrained (10% of the population as per IHS2 : 2005) • Level of Cash Transfers “per Month” • Primary school going children MK200 bonus MK400 Secondary school

9. Funding Arrangements • Global Fund through National AIDS Commission • UNICEF been very supportive in building capacity of implementing systems at national and local government levels • GoM allocated MK50 million (US$ 330,000) for the first time in 2010/11 fiscal year

10. Implementation Arrangements • Within Malawi’s Decentralised System • Ministry of Gender and Child Welfare • District Social Welfare Office • Distreci Training Team • Community Social Protection Committee

11. The CSO Intervention • Two year project inspired by a number of studies • Positive Impacts of the MSCTS • Improved health with fewer reported sicknesses among adults and children • Greater demand for healthcare • Increased expenditure on children’s schooling • Reduction in child labour • Significant accumulation of household and productive assets, basic necessities and livestock • Increased agricultural production with greater food stores • Improved food security including higher food expenditures, fewer missed meals, fewer days without adequate food, and greater food diversity,

12. Findings of Previous Studies • Challenges • Lack of accountability • Skill and management deficits at the district level • Delays in transferring funds from National District to Communities • Targeting misunderstandings • Inclusion and exclusion errors • These findings inspired the design of the project aimed at strengthening the MSCT as was way of mitigating the negative effects of HIV/AIDS with particular focus on OVCs

13. Objectives of the Project • The overall objective is to ease the economic and psychosocial impact of HIV and AIDS related illness and death on OVC and their caretakers through strengthening the Social Cash Transfer Programme. • Improve institutional capacity of the District Council • Improve support for the implementation and scale up of the Social Protection Policy and Social Cash Transfers by 2010. • Improved linkages between SCTS beneficiaries and other social protection instruments

14. Impact on OVC • 70 % of MSCTS are children below 18 years of age • Raising policy debate on OVC outside the conventional household • Project putting in place a monitoring tool seeking to uncover linkages with other social services • OVC access to medication, • OVC access to education, • OVC access to food

15. Action Research Process and Actors • Learning through doing • Started with a baseline • Bringing together, beneficiaries and implementing partners • Identify problem, carry out action to resolve it, monitor and evaluate impact, if not satisfied try again • Through quartery search conferences- Government (national and district), beneficiaries (randomly selected), and NGOs

16. Key Findings and corresponding Actions • Inadequate human resource capacity • Training of district and community level implementers; • Organizing exchange visits within and outside Malawi • Challenge of continuity & sustainability of financial resources • Advocating for Government support and development of a basket funding arrangement (US$330,000) • Challenge of lower targeting percentage and cut-off point • Advocating for proportional targeting

17. Key findings contd • Limited institutionalized linkages • Advocacy with Government and other servicer providers • Exclusion of homeless orphans and other vulnerable children • Advocating for reintegration programme • Still an advocacy challenge • Lack of an internal M & E System vis-à-vis household progress and impact on children and women

18. Concluding Remarks & Reflections • Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) acting alone; impact is limited in scope, scale and sustainability; • Thus more effective CSO engagement in broader public policy and programme processes. • In the Absence of a formally institutionalized NSPP • Piloting forever? • How accountable is the MSCTS and enforceable are Social & Economic Rights

19. ZIKOMO KWAMBIRI THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION