Silcio Daidone's (FAO) presentation at the Transfer Project Workshop in Arusha, Tanzania on 2nd April 2019.

1. Impact evaluation of the Child Grants Programme and the Sustainable Poverty
Reduction through Income, Nutrition and access to Government Services
Transfer Project workshop – Arusha
April 2, 2019

2. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Background
• The Child Grants Programme (CGP) is the country’s flagship social
assistance programme (unconditional cash transfer), covering 26,800
households by end of 2017
• Mixed evidence from the impact evaluation (IE) of the CGP (2011-
2014)
• During the CGP IE, FAO-Lesotho began the “Linking Food Security to
Social Protection Programme” (LFSSP), a one year a pilot initiative
providing homestead gardening support to vulnerable households in
areas covered by CGP

3. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
The Sustainable Poverty Reduction through Income,
Nutrition and access to Government Services (SPRINGS)
• SPRINGS was piloted between 2015 and 2018 to increase impact on
poor households’ livelihoods (UNICEF, MoSD and MoLG, EU):
• Rural finance. Community based savings and internal lending groups, with
financial education, known as Savings and Internal Lending Communities
(SILC);
• Homestead gardening. Keyhole/trench gardens, vegetable seeds distribution;
• Access to markets. Market clubs and training on marketing principles;
• Nutrition training. Community-led Complementary Feeding and Learning
Sessions (CCFLS));
• Access to services. One Stop Shop / Citizen Services Outreach Days.
• SPRINGS coverage by end of 2017: 6445 individuals in 3983
households

4. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Impact evaluation objectives and approach
• Mixed method, with three streams of analysis: quantitative,
qualitative and field-lab experiment
• Study design sought to compare receipt of the CGP alone with
participation in CGP + SPRINGS across three areas of inquiry:
• Household welfare, economic security and market engagement
• Financial inclusion, risk management and risk attitudes
• Nutritional knowledge and dietary practices
• The field-lab aimed at analysing risk attitudes:
• Does the receipt of cash transfers and additional services reduce risk aversion,
making individuals more willing to take risk?
• Individual risk preferences represent the channel driving this shift from low-
return/low risk activities towards high-return/high risk activities

5. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
CONTEXT

6. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
CGP target population: poor and vulnerable households
with children, in the context of HIV pandemic
• 42% households are female
headed (FHH)
• FHH are much more likely to
have orphans (52% vs. 19% in
male headed ones)
0 to 5
6 to 12
13 to 17
18 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 to 69
70 to 79
80+
12 9 6 3 0 3 6 9 12
Population (%)
males females
Unusual high levels of adolescents and elderly in CGP eligible households

7. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Subsistence agriculture is the predominant
livelihood in comparison households
35.7
3.16
17.5
5.5
20.8
16.7
23.7
0
10203040
%households
Households source of cash income
Crop income Sales Fru&Veg
Livestock income Non-farm business revenues
Wage labor Casual labor
Public transfers
55.8
69.5
51.7
5.87
21.3
17.8
0
20406080
Households engagement in labor activities
Crop production Vegetable production
Livestock herding Non-farm business
Wage labor Casual labor

8. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Food is two thirds of total household consumption
in comparison households
• Consumption includes:
- Expenditures
- Own production
- In-kind transfers
1.3%5.1%
5.5%
8.4%
13%
67%
1.3%
health fuel clothing
other non-food education food
Consumption items:
Household consumption

9. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Women’s diets in comparison households mostly
characterized by intake of starchy staples
• On average, 5.2 food groups
consumed by interviewed
women
• High variability of food intake:
one quarter of the women
consume only 1 or 2 food
types, while one quarter
consume 8 or 9 food types
91.7
49
53.1
68.3
35.2
61.8
54.4
60
48.9
0
20406080
100
Note: Food intake refers to 24 hrs prior to the survey
Women dietary diversity
Starchy staples Leafy veg
Vitamin A Fru&Veg Other Fru&Veg
Organ meat Meat
Eggs Legumes
Dairy

10. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Comparison households have low saving capacity and are risk-
averse
• Informal loans include loans from microlenders/sharks
and from family members, friends, neighbours
• Formal loans include loans from banks and other formal
financial institutions, stockvels, burial societies and
other “merry-go-round” groups
3.29
24
14.4
6.81
05
10152025
Households financial position
Saving Purchasing on credit
Informal loan Formal loan
3.01
5.24
3.73
123456789
10
Riskscore
Households risk attitudes
General Investment in agriculture
Non-farm investment and borrowing
Risk score goes from 1= absolutely unwilling
to take risk to 10=willing to assume all the
risk

11. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
MAIN FINDINGS

12. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Household welfare, economic security and
market engagement
• CGP only:
• No significant impact on income
• Transfer was used for child welfare needs
• Reduction of child labour
• Increased sense of household income
security
• However, the impact of CGP alone was
reduced by the inadequacy of the transfer
amount and the irregularity of payments
Regarding children’s
needs, “you’ll have to
buy shoes in January and
then something else only
in the next quarter”
(female beneficiary, Ha
Teketsi village)

13. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Household welfare, economic security and
market engagement (2)
• CGP and SPRINGS
• Reduction of poverty (12 percent in the
poverty gap).
• Increase of non-food consumption (24 percent
increase)
“I used to struggle a lot
with four children. I was
only able to buy them
clothes once a year, but
now after CGP and
SPRINGS I am able to
buy them clothes a few
times a year and then
provide them adequate
food” (male beneficiary,
Mahlabatheng village)

14. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Household welfare, economic security and
market engagement (3)
• CGP and SPRINGS
• Strong increase in sales of fruits and vegetables (due
to keyhole gardening) helped increase household
incomes
• Positive impact on agricultural inputs expenses and
use
• However, promoting household production and supply
of vegetables was perceived to create risks of
saturation in local markets, thereby depressing prices
and incomes
• Perception of stronger household income security -
even if not reflected in an actual real increase of
household income
“We also didn't really
know how to grow
vegetables and SPRINGS
gave us training on how
to construct and how to
grow a variety of
vegetables – before
SPRINGS we would only
plant one vegetable at a
time” (female beneficiary,
Letlapeng village)

15. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Financial inclusion
• CGP only:
- Heavy reliance on indebtedness to cope with delays in
CGP payment- particularly from high-interest loans from
moneylenders
• CGP + SPRINGS:
- Large increase in the share of households that save
(100+%) and borrow (82%) money– largely driven by SILC
groups
- Increase in the amount of money saved and borrowed
(100+ and 70%, respectively)
- Some investments now directed to production and
productive assets
- financial awareness, as evidenced in basic planning and
budgeting of household expenses and income streams –
due to SILC
“We were never aware we
could save and borrow this
easily” (female beneficiary,
Top village, Menkhoaneng
Community Council)
“People now have capital to
start producing home brewed
beer and sell to others. From
IGAs such as home brewing
and spaza shops, people then
use the profits made to
contribute money to SILC”
(SILC Field Agent,
Mahlabatheng village)

16. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Risk management and attitudes (1)
• CGP only:
- Need to continue piece work
- Greater risk-taking, dampened by late
and irregular CGP payments, combined
with the fear of being removed from
the programme
“People were still afraid to
take risks such as making
small investments to set up
IGAs especially with CGP
transfers as it was meant for
children needs” (Opinion
Leaders, Maisa Phoka
Community Council)

17. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Risk management and attitudes (2)
• CGP + SPRINGS:
- Reduction of negative coping
strategies, such as cutting meals or
engaging in daily piece work
- Greater willingness to take risk and
greater risk-taking, especially in the
early cohort of CGP and SPRINGS
combined where beneficiaries are
accessing loans and saving more
through SILC – duration in programme
seems to matter
“Beneficiaries are able to
work together in the
community by building
keyhole gardens and
contributing money in SILC”
(male beneficiary,
Mahlabatheng village)

18. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Nutritional knowledge and dietary practices (1)
- CGP only:
• Improvements in diet, but mostly
only in the two weeks following
payment
• Infants increased daily food intake
including of more nutritious food
(porridge with milk) although this did
not translate into improved
anthropometric outcomes

19. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Nutritional knowledge and dietary practices (2)
• CGP+SPRINGS had strong impact on
dietary diversity and child nutrition
• Increased consumption of green
vegetables, fruits, organ meat, dairy and
legumes
• Nutritious food available all year round
• Greater diet diversity was prompted by
keyhole garden production combined
with increased purchases of different
foods (milk, meat, eggs)
• Perceptions that more food is available
in community, due to spillover effects of
keyhole production practiced by many
“you’ll see them from town with
many plastics – rice, milk, eggs
included in the plastics. They
didn’t eat rice and meat
regularly, but now they eat a
variety”
(SILC field agent in Tenesolo
Community Council)

20. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Nutritional knowledge and dietary practices (3)
• CGP+SPRINGS
• Improved nutritional knowledge and
consumption patterns, combined with
increased hygiene and sanitation due
to the CCFLS component of SPRINGS
• Improvement of knowledge and
practice on food processing
• Strong improvements in
anthropometric measures
• Increased access to health clinics,
immunization and growth monitoring
“Children are able to play when
they are at school because they
are eating well and they are no
longer getting sick easily”
(beneficiary in Menkhoaneng
Community Council)
“People are also equipped with skills
on food preservation involving drying
of vegetables, such as beetroot and
preserving in bottles - through
training provided by SPRINGS”
(Field monitor, Tenesolo Community
Council)

21. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Conclusions
• Positive story from combining cash with rural livelihood interventions
• But impacts on gardening and financial inclusion have not translated
into large income gains:
a. Lack of access to markets?
b. Or should we expect larger increases in income only few years after
new businesses have started and consolidated?
• Important protective function of cash transfer alone (reduction of
child work and improvements in the diets)

22. Social Protection: From Protection to Production
Recommendations
• Strengthen engagement of social assistance beneficiaries in groups like
SILC
• Foster investments in farm and non-farm income generating activities to
increase the probability of having medium and long term impacts
• Establish and support greater linkages to markets
• Provide support for prolonged periods of time

23. Thank you !!!
Kea leboha !!!
Shukrani !!!