TIP 2000-2001 Targeted Inputs Programme

An evaluation study commissioned for the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation of the Government of Malawi by the U.K. Department for International Development

Consultations with the Poor on Safety Nets

Module 4

Blessings Chinsinga (team leader)

Christopher Dzimadzi, Regson Chaweza, Patrick Kambewa, Prince

Kapondamgaga, Overtoun Mgemezulu

EDUC CONSULT (Education and Development Consultants)

2000-01 TARGETED INPUTS PROGRAMME (TIP)

EVALUATION MODULE 4:

CONSULTATIONS WITH THE POOR ON SAFETY NETS

for

The Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Malawi

and

The Department of International Development (DFID), UK

Blessings Chinsinga (Team Leader) Christopher Dzimadzi Regson Chaweza Patrick Kambewa Prince Kapondamgaga Overtoun Mgemezulu

September 2001

TEAM PROFILE Blessings Chinsinga, BA(PA), M.Phil Blessings Chinsinga, the Team Leader, is a Lecturer in Policy Analysis and Development Management with the Department of Political and Administrative Studies, Chancellor College, University of Malawi. His areas of interest and specialisation include Poverty alleviation and Rural Development, Institutional Analysis, Globalisation and Regional Intergration and Environmental Issues. Contact details: Political and Administrative Studies Department

Chancellor College P.O. Box 280

Zomba Malawi

Tel: (265) 524 222 Ext 303 (Office) (265) 525 481 (Home) (265) 836 680 (Cell) Fax: (265) 524 046 Email: bchinsinga@chirunga.sdnp.org.mw

Chris Dzimadzi, B.Ed, MSc Chris Dzimadzi, is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Educational Research and Training (CERT), Chancellor College, University of Malawi. His areas of interest and specialisation include Education and Development, Programme Evaluation, Information, Education and Communication (IEC), Management Information Systems (MIS), Management Development Programmes and Decentralisation Issues. Contact details: Centre for Educational Research and Training (CERT) Chancellor College, Box 280 Zomba Malawi Tel: (265) 526 622 (Office) (265) 526 690 (Home) (265) 837 456 (Cell) Fax: (265) 524 297 Email: cdzimadzi@chirunga.sdnp.org.mw, cdzimadzi@hotmail.com Regson Chaweza, Bsoc. Sc, MA Regson Chaweza is a Lecturer in Economics and Consultant at Chancellor College, University of Malawi. His fields of specialisation are Environmental Economics and Microeconomics. Contact Details: Economics Department

Chancellor College Box 280 Zomba Malawi Tel: (265) 525 021 (Office) (265) 873 831 Fax: (265) 525 021 Email: rchaweza@yahoo.com

2

Patrick Kambewa, BSc, MSc, PhD Patrick Kambewa is a Lecturer in Agricultural Economics in the Department of Economics, Chancellor College of the University of Malawi. His areas of specialisation are farming system research, resource management research and institutional analysis of agricultural programmes. Contact details: Economics Department Chancellor College Box 280 Zomba Malawi Tel: (265) 525 021 Fax: (265) 525 021 Email: kambewap@hotmail.com Prince Kapondamgaga, BSc, MSc(Agriculture) Prince Kapondamgaga is a freelance consultant. His areas of interest include Agricultural Economics, Rural Development and Crop Science. Contact details: c/o EDUC CONSULT Box 1404

Zomba Tel: (265) 915 848 Email: vicmhoni@sdnp.org.mw Overtoun Mgemezulu B.Ed Overtoun Mgemezulu is a freelance consultant. His areas of interest include Education, Poverty, Rural Development, Sustainable Livelihoods and Environmental Issues. Contact details: c/o Mr C. Chirwa

P.O.Box 30369 Chichiri Blantyre 3 Tel: (265) 941 608/821 905 Email: overtounm@yahoo.co.uk

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We take this opportunity to thank all the people who have in many different ways made this study possible. We realize that without their support, commitment and determination, this piece of work would not have been completed, especially in view of the tight deadlines. The people who have made this work possible are too numerous to mention. However, the following deserve special thanks: Sarah Levy of Calibre Consultants (UK) and Carlos Barahona of the Statistical Service Centre of the University of Reading (UK) for their support and particularly for their insightful guidance and comments at the design stage of the study. Similar thanks go to Dr Jan Kees Van Donge (The Netherlands) for his technical and moral support during the report writing stage. His vast research experience in Africa in general and in Malawi in particular was very enlightening and will always be cherished. Last but not least, we acknowledge with thanks the good work done by our research assistants. Any error of interpretation remains entirely the responsibility of the authors.

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................1

LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................................4

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...............................................................................................5

GLOSSARY OF TERMS ......................................................................................................................6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................9

CHAPTER 1: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................12 1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY..................................................................................................12

1.1.1 Overall Objectives ..........................................................................................................12 1.1.2 Specific Objectives..........................................................................................................12

1.2 SAMPLING ............................................................................................................................12 1.3 INFORMATION COLLECTION METHODS ................................................................................13

1.3.1 Preliminary Phase ..........................................................................................................13 1.3.2 Main Phase.....................................................................................................................14

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND INFORMATION........................................................................16 2.1 DEFINITIONS OF POVERTY/VULNERABILITY .........................................................................16 2.2 POVERTY/WEALTH CATEGORIES...........................................................................................16

2.2.1 The rich...........................................................................................................................17 2.2.2 Those who are relatively well off ....................................................................................17 2.2.3 Those who struggle (the poor) ........................................................................................18 2.2.4 The very poor..................................................................................................................19

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF VILLAGES..................................................................................................19 CHAPTER 3: TRADITIONAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS................................................................23

3.1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................23 3.2 THE MOST COMMON TRADITIONAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS .........................................................23

3.2.1 Funeral support ..............................................................................................................23 3.2.2 Support in case of illness ................................................................................................24

3.3 DECLINE IN TRADITIONAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS OVER TIME ....................................................26 3.4 COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIPS EMERGE AS ‘SUPPORT SYSTEMS’ ..........................................27 3.5 THE ROLE OF TRADITIONAL STRUCTURES.............................................................................28 3.6 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................30

CHAPTER 4: DIRECT WELFARE TRANSFERS – BENEFICIARY SELECTION ..............31 4.1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................31 4.2 CRITERIA FOR BENEFICIARY SELECTION...............................................................................31 4.3 FEASIBILITY OF TARGETING .................................................................................................35 4.4 FAIRNESS AND SELF SELECTION ...........................................................................................38 4.5 TARGETING INDIVIDUALS OR THE HOUSEHOLD ....................................................................39 4.6 SIZE OF VILLAGES ................................................................................................................40 4.7 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................40

CHAPTER 5: DIRECT WELFARE TRANSFERS – MANAGEMENT ....................................42 5.1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................42 5.2 WHO SHOULD MANAGE THE TRANSFERS?.............................................................................42 5.3 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................45 5.4 OPTIMAL TIMINGS FOR DELIVERY OF TRANSFERS.................................................................46

5.4.1 Timing of cash transfers .................................................................................................46 5.4.2 Timing of in-kind transfers .............................................................................................49

5.5 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................50

2

CHAPTER 6: COMPARING CASH AND IN-KIND TRANSFERS...........................................51 6.1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................51 6.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CASH AND IN-KIND TRANSFERS .............................51 6.3 SCORING CASH AND IN-KIND TRANSFERS .............................................................................55 6.4 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................56

CHAPTER 7: TIP 2000-01 REGISTRATION AND DISTRIBUTION.......................................57 7.1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................57 7.2 COMMUNITIES AND THE SELECTION CRITERIA......................................................................57 7.3 REGISTRATION .....................................................................................................................58 7.4 THE VOUCHER SYSTEM.........................................................................................................60 7.5 DISTRIBUTION ......................................................................................................................61 7.6 SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................62

CHAPTER 8: TIP 2001-02 – SELECTION OF BENEFICIARIES ............................................63 8.1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................63 8.2 REASONS FOR INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION ..........................................................................63 8.3 FEASIBILITY OF TARGETING .................................................................................................66 8.4 SCORING DISTRIBUTION OPTIONS .........................................................................................68 8.5 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................69

CHAPTER 9: MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................71 9.1 EFFECTIVENESS OF TRADITIONAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS...........................................................71 9.2 SAFETY NET BENEFICIARIES AND TYPES OF TRANSFER .........................................................71 9.3 FEASIBILITY OF COMMUNITY TARGETING.............................................................................71 9.4 FAIR MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................72 9.5 TARGETING HOUSEHOLDS OR INDIVIDUALS..........................................................................72 9.6 OPTIMAL TIMINGS FOR DIRECT WELFARE TRANSFERS ..........................................................72 9.7 RECOMMENDATIONS ON TIP DISTRIBUTION.........................................................................72

APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................73 APPENDIX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE..................................................................................73 APPENDIX 2: LIST OF VILLAGES VISITED ..........................................................................77 APPENDIX 3: CHECK LIST FOR THE MAIN FIELD WORK .................................................81 APPENDIX 4: FIELD MANUAL................................................................................................91 APPENDIX 5: DEBRIEFING DOCUMENT ...............................................................................99 APPENDIX 6: POVERTY/VULNERABILITY CATEGORIES - VILLAGE TABLES...........113 APPENDIX 7: SELECTED BENEFICIARIES (CASH) - VILLAGE TABLES........................117 APPENDIX 8: SELECTED BENEFICIARIES (IN-KIND) - VILLAGE TABLES...................121 APPENDIX 9: SELECTED BENEFICIARIES (TIP WITH VILLAGE HEAD) .......................125 APPENDIX 10: SELECTED BENEFICIARIES (TIP WITHOUT VILLAGE HEAD) ..........129

3

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Villages visited during the preliminary phase of the study................................ 13 Table 2: Scoring of management options ........................................................................ 42 Table 3: Advantages and disadvantages of cash transfers ............................................... 52 Table 4: Advantages and disadvantages of in-kind transfers........................................... 53 Table 5: Scoring of cash vs. in-kind transfers.................................................................. 55 Table 6: Scoring of options for TIP distribution.............................................................. 69

4

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADD Agricultural Development Division ADMARC Agricultural Development and Marketing Corporation CCAP Church of Central Africa Presbyterian DC District Commissioner EPA Extension Planning Area FG Focus Group FGD Focus Group Discussion HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immuno

Deficiency Syndrome MASAF Malawi Social Action Fund MoAI Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation PAP Poverty Alleviation Programme RDP Rural Development Programme TIP Targeted Inputs Programme TIPLU TIP Logistics Unit

5

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Adzukulu gravediggers Akazi amasiye widows Akhungu the blind Amisala mentally disturbed people Amphawi poor Ana amasiye orphans Balaza practice of pooling food resources together Bungwe la zaumoyo drug revolving fund (a fund set up by a community

to facilitate the procurement of medicines) Bwalo open ground Bwalo la akamwini where men sit to work or eat Chengo the practice of eating together for women Chidyawo food prepared from different houses but taken at a

single spot Chifundo mercy Chidyerano communal eating Chigwirizano community working together for a specific goal Chikumu reciprocal assistance Chilimizga rotational farming Chilingo widow Chinamwali initiation ceremonies Chimbazo usury Chimera yeasted millet/sorghum/maize Chingowe boiled dry maize Chinyamata families from the same cluster gathering to share a

meal Chipepeso assistance offered after a funeral function Chipondamthengo a small token paid for the provision of traditional

medicine Chiputu initiation ceremony for girls Chithandizo chapamaliro assistance at funerals Chisachi delivery room Chisamaliro care for the vulnerable Chisangano communal eating Chithandizo any form of help given to other people Chithangato help/assistance Chitukuko development work for the village Chiwira pooling labour resources together Chokolo wife inheritance Dima food for work Ganyu casual labour Imfumu village councillor Induna village councillor Jando initiation ceremony for boys Kalimalima group ganyu Katapila a loan given with interest Kulaga poor Kulimisha/Kulimiska/Kulimitsa food for work Kumanga chiliza tombstone construction Kupamba food for work

6

Kupembuzga maliro assistance rendered during the time of bereavement Kuphikizga food for work Kupwerera taking care of the vulnerable Kusichira extremely rich Kusungirira taking care the vulnerables particularly widows Kusoka mphasa mat making Kusuma work in return for goods such as food, clothes, seeds Kusunga ana amasiye caring for orphans Litiwo initiation ceremony for women Lobola bride price Machila locally made stretchers Matemberero locally made stretchers Matuwa gravediggers Matenda illness Mchango assistance during the time of bereavement Mipama tubers Mituka gifts given to a friend on a wedding or initiation

ceremony Mkavu struggling Mkavu chomene needy Mkavu pachoko not very poor Mkawi rich Mkawi panandi relatively better off Mowa olima beer offered to people after working in the field Mowa beer Mowa wamatako beer that is free of charge (literally ‘buttocks beer’) Mphala communal eating Mphawi poorest of the poor Mpina poor Mpinangani very poor Msambazi relatively well to do/rich Msauchi needy Msonkha sonkha contributions Mtibi sweet beer Mufwirwe orphan Mukangale the elderly Mulemale the disabled Muwine the sickly Muwone the elderly Mwalafyale village head Mwana alirenji people with plenty (“What can a child cry for?”) Nagoshi emergency support Nankungwi advisor for girls during initiation ceremony Nduvyo money collected from village heads as condolence Ngaliba advisor to boys during initiation ceremony Ngongole a loan given without interest Nkhomalizga collective farming support Nkhwichi tombstone construction Nsondo initiation ceremony for girls Nyitila reciprocal farming support Odya bwino those who eat well Olemera the rich Opata the rich Opeza bwino the rich Opeza bwino pang’ono better off

7

Opeza ndithu well to do Osamva the deaf Ovutika the poor Sadaka memorial feasts for the departed Sangweni practice of pooling food resources together Siwa deceased’s home Thandizo help/assistance Thobwa sweet beer Ufa maize flour Vale reciprocal farming support Vamashoshi/vyamasozi condolences Vawezi gifts Vilima the disabled Viwaya divorced women Viwaya mbeta young divorced women Vyamasozi condolences Vyokolo widows Wachekulu elderly Wakavu the poor Wakavu chomene very poor Wakavu padoko not very poor Wakukhupuka rich Wakulaga the poor Wakupata people who are better off Wakusanga makola chomene those very doing well economically Wakusanga makola those doing well economically Wakusangako relatively better off Wakusaniya rich Wakusichira the rich Wakusuzgika vulnerable Walwali the sickly Wana walanda orphans Wanakazi walanda widows Waroma relatively rich Wazibwana irresponsible person Wazukulu gravediggers Wodwaladwala the sickly Wolumala people with disabilities Wonyanyira poor of the poor Wonyanyiritsa very poor of the poor Wopata better off Wosauka the poor Wosaukitsitsa very poor Wosowa the needy Wovwiri help Wovwiri wamabuchibuchi emergency support Woyingayinga without a permanent home Zoma initiation ceremonies

8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Module 4 of the 2000-01 TIP M&E programme sought to document how poverty is perceived in rural communities, what the rural poor think about direct welfare transfers and TIP and especially their opinions about the targeting of such transfers.

2. The researchers used participatory methods in order to let the communities speak as

much as possible for themselves. A key element of the research were games in which focus groups were asked to target poor people in their community for support. In the first instance, social maps were made in each of the selected villages. Each household was allocated a card and described in terms of poverty status. These cards were then used in the games which were played to simulate targeting (Chapter 1).

3. Social mapping resulted in clear categories of poverty. These had various dimensions.

The small, wealthier categories were distinguished with much more detail and variation than the large category of ‘struggling’ (poor), to which most people belonged. The characteristics of the very poor were more detailed. This category included the vulnerable, those who cannot escape poverty however hard they try, and those who are poor out of their own fault due to laziness or beer drinking (Chapter 2).

4. We asked the communities about the existence of ‘traditional’ social safety nets.

People distinguished a large number of practices , but few qualified as social safety nets. We found that the strongest support systems were reciprocal in nature rather than redistributive. They were also transitory – triggered by a particular event such as sickness or death. Care for the vulnerable was seen primarily as a matter for relatives rather than the whole community. People reported the end of communal eating in the open, seated at ground level, as a major change in recent times. It was replaced by what can be called a ‘table culture’: eating inside, out of view of other people, seated at tables. Shortage of food was the prime reason given for this change: the less there is, the more difficult it is to share. Practices like ngongole (lending) and ganyu were said to have replaced older sharing mechanisms. These practices are commercial in nature, but are seen as embedded in patron-client relationships of support (Chapter 3).

5. The initial exercise in targeting asked focus groups to select 10% of households in the

village that would be eligible for receiving a direct welfare transfer. In each site, two focus groups were formed: one discussing a transfer in cash and the other discussing a transfer in-kind (goods and food). There was great resistance against targeting, which was in virtually all sites overcome by explaining that it was merely a game. There were important regional differences in accepting targeting: in the north it was easier than in the centre and south, probably due to better education and less extreme poverty. The ease/difficulty of targeting was reflected in the number of rounds needed to select only 10% of households in the village (Chapter 4).

6. It appeared that communities could target when they set their minds to it. Initially,

people distinguished broad categories for support. Mostly they identified the vulnerable, for example the old, the disabled and orphans. When people proceeded with the targeting, these categories became much more refined (Chapter 4).

7. The research results were less conclusive with respect to other aspects of targeting

direct welfare transfers. There were tendencies for focus group members to include themselves among the beneficiaries (self-selection). However, sometimes this was

9

warranted. As the study’s methodology deliberately required the inclusion of people from all poverty categories in the focus groups, it was expected that some beneficiaries would be amongst the participants. Similarly, there was no clear outcome on whether to give the transfers to individuals or households (Chapter 4).

8. The question of who should target and manage the transfers was a vexed one. At the

end of the debate, people were asked to score their preferred options, choosing between the village head, a committee led by the village head, a democratically elected committee, a committee of beneficiaries and outsiders. People generally preferred a system of checks and balances rather than only one of these options – for instance, an elected committee on which the village head was represented, on which beneficiaries were co-opted and in which outsiders were in charge of the distribution. A strong distrust of village heads was recorded and this was often based on the experiences with TIP. The suspicion was not against the institution of headship but against the practices of the incumbents. In separate interviews, village heads themselves saw the major role for themselves in the targeting (Chapter 5).

9. Timing of the transfers aroused far less controversy than other aspects. Opinions

were, however, divided. Some stressed that poor people are continuously in need of money and food or that their guardians have a continuous drain on their resources and therefore benefits should be given monthly. However, it was everywhere noted that the need is greatest in the months of December-April, the lean period when the stocks of the previous harvest are depleted. Another key period of need is August-October (land preparation). Some participants saw the poor and those who care for them as more enterprising. They suggested that the transfers should be given at the beginning of the farming season, so that inputs can be bought and that they can concentrate on their gardens in case of getting trapped in the vicious circle of ganyu (Chapter 5)

10. A large majority of participants in the focus groups preferred in-kind transfers to cash

transfers. The arguments for cash stressed the freedom of the individual. Those favouring goods and food stressed the durable value of the in-kind distribution compared with cash, which ‘blows away like the wind’. Many also pointed out that the in-kind package was worth more than the proposed cash transfer. This was because of a sharp rise in the price of maize between the time when Module 4 was planned (May) and when the fieldwork took place (July-August); it highlighted the problem of inflation which can quickly erode the value of cash transfers (Chapter 6).

11. Two focus groups were formed to discuss the experience with TIP – one with the

village head present and the other without the village head. They were first asked to evaluate the experience of TIP with respect to selection, registration and distribution. This generated a host of complaints, but also significant suggestions for reform (Chapter 7): − Selection of beneficiaries should not be done by the village head alone, but by a

broader group, preferably a democratically elected village committee. − The selected names should be announced at an open meeting of the whole village. − The vouchers giving the right to a pack of free inputs should not only carry a

number but also the name of the selected beneficiary (the names could be written on the vouchers by the village head or village committee).

− The village head should be present when packs are distributed to confirm the identity of the people receiving the packs.

12. The two focus groups (with and without village heads) played the card game to

simulate targeting of TIP in 2001-02. The results suggest that this year’s TIP

10

community targeting effort will be problematic. Targeting of TIP is an emotional exercise, and this was further complicated by the fact that the participants were asked to target one-third of households – fewer than in TIP 2000-01, but more than enough to provide packs for the vulnerable. A tendency to self-target or to include relatives emerged, since there were no obvious criteria for choosing among the large group of ‘struggling’ (poor) once the vulnerable had been exhausted (Chapter 8).

13. People were reluctant to take the initiative on beneficiary selection while the village

head was present. Even if village heads set up broad-based committees to participate in beneficiary selection in the 2001-02 TIP, ordinary members of the committees may not be able to challenge the choices of the village heads (Chapter 8).

14. There is general resistance to any form of targeting for TIP. It is clear that for

targeting to succeed, it will be necessary to sensitise the communities and devise a means of making a more transparent and accountable selection process. Facilitators will be required for this task, implying considerable organisation and resources (Chapter 8).

15. A scoring exercise on different options for distribution of TIP underlined people’s

preference for egalitarian options over community targeting. If there are not enough resources for a programme like SP1 or SP2, people prefer the option of outsiders splitting the packs before they reach the village, so that each person in the village receives a smaller pack. The villagers have less confidence in the village mechanisms for dividing TIP fairly than in outsiders. The focus groups without village heads preferred options with minimal village head involvement, reflecting the perception in most cases that the village heads had failed to manage TIP fairly when acting on their own in 2000-01 (Chapter 8).

11

CHAPTER 1: METHODOLOGY

1.1 Objectives of the Study

1.1.1 Overall Objectives The overall objectives of the study were to learn lessons about what the rural poor themselves think would be (i) the desirable forms of safety net provision (ii) fair methods for beneficiary selection and (iii) effective and fair ways of managing the benefits. The lessons learnt were intended to contribute to the development of the Government of Malawi’s National Safety Net Strategy. Comprehensive details of the scope of the study can be found in the Terms of Reference (see Appendix 1).

1.1.2 Specific Objectives The specific objectives of the study included the following:

• To explore the views of communities – in particular poor and vulnerable households – on traditional support systems and on planned interventions such as direct welfare transfers to the work-constrained poor and existing interventions (Starter Pack/TIP).

• To explore the issues of fair distribution of limited benefits and of practical

mechanisms for managing the benefits, including selecting the beneficiaries.

• To identify the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed management mechanisms for the direct welfare transfers and suggest which would be least inequitable and least damaging to the social fabric.

• To critically explore the procedure used for selecting TIP beneficiaries with a view to

understanding why the community targeting mechanism used in TIP was perceived as unfair.

• To solicit the views of the rural communities on whether the community targeting

mechanism used in TIP could be improved by introducing mechanisms for ensuring greater transparency and accountability.

1.2 Sampling The study team visited three sites in the preliminary phase of the study and twenty sites in the main phase. In order to select three villages for the preliminary study, a random sample of villages was taken from the list of villages extracted from the register of beneficiaries for the 1999-2000 Starter Pack held by the TIP Logistics Unit (TIPLU). This list excluded all villages visited by other modules of the 2000-01 TIP Monitoring and Evaluation Programme to make sure that the villages had not been visited by any other study team1. In addition villages in Chitipa, Nsanje and Likoma districts were excluded to avoid travelling long distances during the preliminary phase. The design of the study indicated that 20 villages were to be visited in the main phase. This was the maximum number of sites which the study team could visit in the time available. 1 This was done to avoid making excessive demands on the time of members of a community by asking them to participate in more than one research exercise.

12

Sampling was done as follows: in each district, one village was selected using simple random sampling. In order to reduce the number of districts from which villages would be selected from 27 to 20, the following procedure was followed: Nkhata Bay, Nkhotakota and Mangochi were excluded from the sampling frame as they were visited during the preliminary phase. Likoma was excluded because of its special characteristics and difficulties of getting there. Another three districts, one in each region, were randomly selected for exclusion from the sampling frame; the randomly excluded districts were Mzuzu, Ntchisi and Mwanza. The TIP evaluation managers provided the study team with a list of ‘priority villages’ and a list of ‘replacement villages’, which could be used in case it was impossible to reach a priority village (see Appendix 2). During the field work, the team had to make two replacements:

• Chisuse (Machinga) was an alternative to Chiyembekezo village. Chiyembekezo was previously known as Nkhwingwiyo. Since the name had just been changed, it was difficult for the staff at Liwonde ADD to direct the team to Chiyembekezo village.

• Yalero (Rumphi) was an alternative to Pheti village which had a funeral on the day the first visit was made.

1.3 Information Collection Methods

1.3.1 Preliminary Phase The design process of the study began with a meeting on 21st May 2001 during which the study team was constituted. The study team for Module 4 drew members from Module 2 Part 2 and Module 3 of the 2000-01 TIP evaluation. The meeting, convened by the managers of the evaluation from the Statistical Services Centre of the University of Reading (UK) aimed at introducing the study team to the broad objectives of the study particularly as it relates to the efforts to develop the National Safety Net Strategy. A one-day preparatory workshop for the preliminary phase of the study was held on 12th July. The study team together with the managers designed a checklist (see Appendix 3) and identified participatory research techniques that would be tested through preliminary field work in three selected sites. For the purposes of the preliminary phase, the study team was divided into three teams. One went to Mangochi in the South, another went to Nkhotakota in the Centre and a third visited Nkhata Bay in the North. The details of the sites visited during the preliminary phase of the study are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Villages visited during the preliminary phase of the study

District Village EPA RDP Nkhata Bay Chideru Mpama Nkhata Bay Nkhotakota Chipanjira Mwansambo Nkhotakota Mangochi Kapyepye Nthiramanja Mangochi

The findings of the preliminary phase of the study were presented to the TIP evaluation managers at a meeting on 20th July 2001. This workshop played a critical role in fine-tuning the checklist and various participatory techniques that were to be used during the main study. The results were used to develop a field manual and a debriefing document (see Appendices 4 and 5). The former was a systematic step-by-step guideline on how the daily field activities were to be carried out in each site. The latter functioned as a field data storage facility in which the outcomes of the participatory exercises for each site were recorded. The main objective of using the debriefing document was to ensure that data across the sampled sites were collected in a systematic fashion and ensure comparability between sites.

13

1.3.2 Main Phase The study used Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) to explore the topics of interest. FGDs were held on traditional support systems, management of direct welfare transfers, TIP registration, distribution and management. The study also sought the views of the village heads on how the transfers could be managed to ensure fairness, transparency and accountability through individual interviews with each village head. In addition, the study made use of discussions accompanied by specially designed participatory techniques to make sure that the data of particular interest to the study were systematically captured. The techniques used were:

• Social mapping; • Card games; • Seasonal calendars; and • Scoring.

The results of the participatory exercises are relevant not only for the design of future Safety Net programmes but also for the forthcoming 2001-02 TIP. This study offered an opportunity for community targeting to be thoroughly explored and tested in the field. In the study process, important lessons regarding possibilities, problems, challenges and prospects for community targeting have been learnt. The results – presented in the remainder of the report – clearly offer food for thought for those intending to implement such initiatives. The following sections describe the participatory techniques used in the study. 1.3.2.1 Social Mapping The field teams organised a social mapping exercise in each village. The idea of the exercise was to get the community members to identify all households within the village including where they are physically located. In addition, the exercise was used to place the households in each village into well-being categories defined by the communities (see Chapter 2). A card was prepared for each household and was labelled with a symbol denoting the well-being category to which it belonged. The symbols used were kept secret from the FGD participants to avoid prejudicing their subsequent activities, particularly the exercise of targeting. This particular exercise was the linchpin for the rest of the participatory activities that were undertaken in each village during the three to four days that the study teams spent in each site. The purpose of the study was to hear the views of the rural communities, particularly the poor and the vulnerable, regarding direct welfare transfers and TIP. The social mapping exercise allowed the study teams to ensure that the FGDs convened later on to consider the proposed direct welfare transfers and TIP had representation not only from all corners of the village but also from all well-being categories (particularly the poor and vulnerable) distinguished during the social mapping exercises. 1.3.2.2 Card Games The cards prepared for each household during the social mapping exercise were used to simulate the selection of beneficiaries for direct welfare transfers (cash and in-kind) and TIP. On the third day spent in the village, the team convened two separate FGs, one for cash and one for in-kind transfers. It was explained to the FG members that the government was considering the possibility of providing cash/in-kind benefits for a certain number of people in the village (the number was calculated by the study team to be 10% of the households in the village). The in-kind transfers would be likely to include a package of goods (4 plates, 2 cooking utensils, 1 pail, 1 blanket, 10 tablets washing soap, 10 tablets bathing soap) in August followed by one 50-kg bag of maize every month between December and July. The cash transfers would be worth K550 per month and would be given all year round. The FG

14

members were then asked to decide what criteria they would use to select the beneficiaries, and to show how they would do the selection by playing a game of choosing households (or individuals within households) who would benefit, using the cards produced during the social mapping exercise. The same cards were used on the fourth day with a different group of FG participants to simulate the selection of beneficiaries for the 2001-02 TIP. This exercise was left until last owning to the expectation – which proved justified – that the mention of TIP would provoke heated debate. For the TIP beneficiary selection exercise, a number equivalent to one-third of households in the village was given as the target number, in anticipation that this year’s TIP would be reduced to 1 million beneficiaries (roughly one-third of smallholder farm households in rural Malawi). Wherever possible, one FG on TIP beneficiary selection included the village head while another ran simultaneously without the village head. The decision to run two FGs – one with and one without the village head – was taken because of the controversial role played by village heads in 2000-01 TIP beneficiary selection. The card games allowed FG participants to carry out a screening process of eligible beneficiaries until the 10% quota or the one-third quota was satisfied. The aim of the exercise was to find out whether it was feasible to target – i.e. whether communities could select 10% or one-third of households/individuals in the village fairly, on the basis of agreed criteria. 1.3.2.3 Seasonal Calendars The FG participants considering in-kind and cash transfers were also asked to develop seasonal calendars on the basis of the agricultural activities in their areas. The aim of the exercise was to use the calendars to determine the appropriate times at which transfers should be made to the selected beneficiaries. 1.3.2.4 Scoring Scoring exercises were carried out to compare:

• alternatives for the management of cash and in-kind transfers; • whether the FG participants preferred in-kind or cash transfers; and • alternative ways of distributing TIP.

Scoring was done by asking each FG participant to vote with grains of maize for the option of his/her own preference. A minimum of zero and a maximum of five grains could be assigned to each alternative. Each FG participant voted for each alternative independently and by secret ballot. For the purposes of analysis, the total number of grains given to each alternative was divided by the maximum possible number of grains in each case. For example, if in a FDG there were eight participants and one alternative received 24 grains, the score for this alternative is calculated as 24/40. These scores were analysed by averaging over all FGs. The result is an aggregate score for our sample of FG members of between 0 and 1, with 0 indicating no preference and 1 indicating highest possible preference.

15

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 Definitions of poverty/vulnerability As the focus of our study was safety nets for the poor and vulnerable, at the outset we tried to define categories of wealth/poverty and vulnerability in terms of the concepts used by the communities themselves. Communities often distinguished many categories, with characteristics being a mixture of poverty and vulnerability (see Appendix 6). However, the initial categories were often refined in the context of the subsequent exercises, particularly in relation to:

1. the selection of beneficiaries for direct welfare transfers (inclusion of some and exclusion of others);

2. whether welfare benefits should be given in cash or in-kind; and 3. the criteria for targeting TIP.

Poverty/vulnerability was a theme running through all our exercises and it is essential to realise that the ideas on poverty are refined when confronted with social practices. The communities appeared not to have clear conceptions of who were the poor at the onset of our exercises. The ideas developed in relation to the discussions. There was an initial resistance to categorising at all, as everybody is considered poor in the villages: “Komatu aliyense mmuzi muno ndiosauka, chomwe tikugawirana chonchi sindikuchiona” (Mwandama, Thyolo), meaning that there is no reason why we have to characterise each other as poverty is everywhere, or “Tose ndise wakavu,” meaning “all of us are poor”. However, people easily volunteered opinions on those who are considered well off or rich. Those who were rich usually denied this, for example in the north: those classified as rich were “watakwitika kuti ndi mkawi” meaning “they refuse to accept that they are rich”. People did not like to be called rich, and tended to place themselves in a broad middle category, which was usually ill defined. The dividing line between this middle category and the poor was not clear in the minds of most FG participants. Common criteria of vulnerability such as age, disability, widows and orphans turned up, but it was not clear whether these people deserved assistance simply because they belonged to the vulnerable categories. The very poor were clearly distinguished, but communities saw sharp distinctions among them. Some of them were thought to be unable to help their situation, but many were considered to be poor through their own fault: laziness, drunkenness and sheer irresponsibility.

2.2 Poverty/wealth categories The criteria used for categorisation were usually of three types:

1. access to consumer goods like clothes, cooking oil or soap; 2. food security; and 3. possessions or economic activities.

The first type was particularly important while describing those who are well off, while the last type was most important in discussing the very poor. The reported responses can be divided into four poverty/wealth categories: the rich, those who are well off, those who struggle (the poor), and the very poor.

16

2.2.1 The rich Terms in local languages: Olemera, Opata, Wokatamuka, Wakusichira (southern region); Wopeza (southern part of central region); Olemera/Opata, Opeza bwino kwambiri/Wakusanga Makola Chomene (northern part of central region); Wakusaniya (north, Nkhata Bay); Mkawi (north, Chitipa); Msambazi (north, Karonga); Waroma (north, Rumphi); and Wakukhupuka (north, Mzimba). The rich or very well to do have capital: “ndi ndalama zawo zomwe zimagwira ntchito” which means “it is their money that works and not themselves”. Employment of other people and especially (ganyu) labourers in their household or on their farms is a sign of wealth. They also have possessions that can generate wealth, for example livestock, an ox-cart, a butchery, a carpentry shop or even a car. In rural Malawi, items like cars and fridges are not primarily seen as consumer goods, but as capital goods to make money with. Farming is not prominently mentioned as important for the rich, but business is. There are important regional variations with respect to the livelihoods of the rich. In the valley of the Lower Shire, the ability to lend a garden to others was seen as a distinguishing characteristic of the rich. The Mkawi category in Chitipa referred specifically to those who had been in regular employment, had retired from a job in the formal sector or had educated children working elsewhere. In the southern region, marriage was seen as a way to get into this category: if a person gets married to somebody who has a good job, he/she is considered well off: “Mbwana ndi bwana, anakatwira mphunzitsi”, meaning “Mr Mbwana is a boss, he married a teacher”. This was said in Mangochi, where Mr Mbwana was categorised as rich. Food is no problem for the rich and they can use their resources beyond being well fed for other consumer goods. That may imply durable consumer goods – especially a good house with corrugated iron sheets – but it also covers items that are seen as luxuries for the poor, although they would be labelled as necessities outside rural Malawi. Primary among those is clothing. Adequate and decent clothes or a lot of decent clothes was often mentioned. The feeling of opulence is perhaps best expressed in the following statement “They change clothes whenever they want. They do not have to wait for the clothes to dry in order to wear them again if they are washed”. Vegetable oil is in many parts of Malawi essential for a nutritious diet and it is seen as a privilege of the rich to have easy access to it: “Wangarya Covo na Kazinga panyengo ili yonse iyo wankhumbira”, meaning “They can use Covo or Kazinga any time they want”. Soap is another essential item that is a luxury in rural Malawi: “Awa mbakuti kakopala kakuwapo, chakurya nachoso ndi December mpaka December. Kugezeka sopo nakoso mmazuwa ghana ndiko”, meaning: “These households have money, food from December to December and they use soap most of the time”.

2.2.2 Those who are relatively well off Terms in local languages: Achikati-chikati; Apatikati-kati; Wopeza bwino pang’ono; Wakupata; Wopata (southern region); Wopezako (southern part of central region); Odya bwino, Opeza ndithu/Wopeza, Opezako, Mwanaalirenji; Wakusanga makola (northern part of central region); Wakusaniya (north, Nkhata Bay); Mkawi panandi (north, Chitipa); wakusangako (north, Mzimba). The rich are food secure, but that is only one aspect of their wealth. In the category of the relatively well off, on the other hand, food security or eating is the main dimension of their well-being. That shows itself especially in the names to designate such households, for example ‘Odya bwino’ (Those who are eating well). Food is considered a major determinant of an individual’s well-being, as in the statement “kulemera nkudya”, meaning “food is wealth”. Those who can afford decent meals on a daily basis are therefore considered well

17

off. Mwanaalirenji (‘What can a child cry for?’) is a special category distinguished in the central region among those who are better off. The availability of food is much broader than decent meals throughout the year. Indeed, the granaries of the relatively well off are normally full, but on top of that they have a wide range of foodstuffs such as fruits, sugar cane, cassava, sweet potatoes, a variety of vegetables, etc. They have nearly every locally available food that one can think of. Although adequate food is considered the major factor distinguishing the better off, they are also seen as having access to more consumer goods than the population at large. Clothes are indeed singled out first, but other items were mentioned as well. In Mzimba, the wakusangako could drink tea, but not as often as the rich could. In southern Malawi, this category was distinguished by their ability to buy soap, oil, salt and sugar. In the Shire Valley people talked abut those who have some food in their granaries. Food security did not necessarily come from their own production only – they could complement their food resources through market purchases in times of shortages. In Chitipa, the mkawi panandi represent those who possess few livestock and/or rely on a cash crop such as coffee to support their families and buy food. Livestock assets were frequently mentioned as a hedge against food insecurity. Food has a meaning here that surpasses the cash equivalent. For example: “kodi nyumba kungongala nyumbabe ulibe chakudya nde ungatani, udya nyumbayayo” (What is the point of having a house, if you have no food? Are you going to eat the house?). These households do not as a rule employ ganyu. However, they do so when they have of surplus food to offer ganyu labourers. As FG participants in the central region said, “kumeneko nkomwe timakalimitsa”, meaning “that is where we do ganyu. It is not cash but food that creates the employment”. These households may sometimes also go for ganyu themselves. They are considered better off, but their wealth is seen as vulnerable. Specific threats mentioned include drought and sudden price increases for farm inputs. A quite different, but strongly felt threat to their wealth is expenditure for education and health. However, these threats are not absolute and they may overcome such crises. A comment from southern Malawi, “wozilimbikira wokha”, indicates that they try to help themselves.

2.2.3 Those who struggle (the poor) Terms in local languages: Wosauka, Ovutika (southern region); Wovutika; Wosauka pang’ono/ Wakavu padoko (northern part of central region); Wakusuzgika (north, Nkhata Bay); Mpina (north, Chitipa); Wakavu (north, Karonga and Rumphi). This is the category where most FG participants would situate themselves: it is the normal state of affairs and does not have to be singled out. The distinguishing characteristic is that life is a struggle, a continuous effort to survive. This implies in the first place a worry about food: the people in this category are not normally food secure. In order to stave off hunger, they have to generate income by selling fruits or sweet potatoes, brewing beer, mat making, manufacturing axes, etc. If people in this category do not have a source of income from skills or dimba gardens, then ganyu is a necessity. This category was less mentioned and the profile was much less specific than other categories. One exceptional comment which gave sharp insight in the plight of those in this situation came from the central region: “Chovala amakachapa ndikukhala buno bwa muswe pa mwala kuti chiume nthawi zina chinaumila mthupi mmene”, meaning “They wash their clothes in streams and rivers and sit naked on the rocks waiting for them to dry. Sometimes the clothes finish drying when they are wearing them”.

18

The example of the clothes illustrates that in these households there are no money reserves or assets to fall back upon. It was several times stressed that these people tend to be young, energetic and healthy. The abyss of extreme poverty is always threatening them: they survive as long as they are not old, sick or disabled. At Mkoche in Salima and Mutcheza in Chikwawa the category of ‘those who struggle’ did not come up in the discussions. While participants distinguished the upper two categories, they defined the rest of the households as belonging to the very poor category.

2.2.4 The very poor Terms in local languages: Wosowa, Wosaukitsitsa, Wonyanyiritsa, Mphawi, Wonyanyira (southern region); Wosowa, Wovutika, Wazibwana (Balaka and the southern part of central region); Amphawi, Wosauka, Wakavu (northern part of central region); Wakusuzgika (north, Rumphi, Karonga and Mzimba); Vilima (north, Nkhata Bay). Discussions on the very poor tended to dwell on three different categories: the vulnerable, those who cannot escape poverty however hard they try, and those who are poor out of their own fault – due to laziness or beer drinking. A fourth category of people was mentioned in southern Malawi: the ‘overloaded’ – those who are poor because they have too many other people to look after. Older people, orphans, widows, disabled, etc. were mentioned as vulnerable. However, although they came up when discussing the very poor, that does not imply that they were considered to be automatically in this category. However, they deserve assistance, as they would otherwise be very poor. Some vulnerable people are seen as beyond help and these were often cases of mental illness. The distinction between the mass of poor people and the very poor (those who cannot escape poverty) is expressed well in the description: “Those who cannot help themselves however hard they try”. They can get into such situations through shock events, for example, if floods in the lower Shire destroy assets. Life in rural Malawi is full of risks, and the people who cannot recover economically after illness, bad harvests etc. are the very poor. Their dwellings are described as more of nests than houses. They have no assets whatsoever. In Mangochi, it was said of one person in the category: “Kusauka kwa ameneyo ndiye ngakhale galu a khoza kuthawa pakhomo pake” – “He is so poor that even a dog will run away from his house”. Description of their life arouses expressions as “they survive by the grace of God”, or they do not know how to make ends meet. They do not know where their next meal is coming from and therefore eat merely by chance. They do not even know what a chicken’s egg looks like. In the view of the FG participants, some of the very poor deserved to be in this state, especially those whose poverty is deemed to have been caused by irresponsible behaviour, for example selling goats and spending the proceeds on beer. Alcohol is seen as a major reason for people’s downfall, even if it is admitted that problems may lead to alcohol abuse. Laziness is another accusation that annihilates any sympathy with the very poor within the rural communities. Rural Malawi tends to be hard on people who have the ability and health to work hard, but are nevertheless very poor.

2.3 Description of Villages This section presents a brief overview of the villages that were visited in the main phase of the study. The descriptions are predominantly in terms of size, languages, systems of inheritance and whether they received the 2000-01 TIP. Wherever necessary, some particularities of the villages of special interest to the study are highlighted.

19

• Nkunga Village, Nsanje, Southern Region Nkunga has 64 households. It is dominated by the Lomwe/Khokhola people who practice a matrilineal type of inheritance pattern except for a few who marry the Sena and practice patrilineal inheritance pattern. People in the village received TIP.

• Mwandama Village, Thyolo, Southern Region

The team was expecting to find 241 households according to the TIPLU register for Starter Pack recipients in 1999-2000, but they registered only 101 households. It was therefore not surprising to find that almost every household received TIP and that there were surplus vouchers. These vouchers were given to households keeping more orphans. This is a Lomwe speaking village. The village practices matrilineal type of inheritance pattern.

• Luwayo Village, Blantyre, Southern Region

There is a mixture of Yaos and Senas in the village. The Senas practice patrilineal pattern of inheritance while the Yaos are matrilineal. The social mapping exercise came up with 142 households. The village received TIP, which caused a lot of problems in the village. The non-recipients refuse to take part in any development work. The TIP FG in which the village head was present refused to play the card game.

• Chikadza Village, Chikwawa, Southern Region Chikadza village has 131 households. The majority of the people are Mang’anja with a few Lomwe. These people practice matrilineal type of inheritance. The area is frequently affected by floods. People have developed the practice of accepting cash for almost everything they want, including the use of their land on loan. Most of them are engaged in some type of income generating activity. Some received TIP. Participants’ views were that not all who received TIP were deserving.

• Mutcheza Village, Phalombe, Southern Region Mutcheza has 53 households. The village is on a flat dambo land in the Phalombe plain and usually gets flooded with heavy rains. It is predominantly inhabited by Mozambican immigrants who regard themselves as Lomwe and practice matrilineal pattern of inheritance. The people regularly cross the border into Mozambique for ganyu to supplement their meagre harvest from maize and rice. People received TIP.

• Tambala Village, Mulanje, Southern Region

Tambala has 122 households. Tambala, like Mutcheza is inhabited by Mozambican immigrants who practice a matrilineal inheritance pattern.

• Mapota Village, Zomba, Southern Region The village registered 110 households. The majority members of the village were Yao although the village is predominantly Catholic. The village received TIP. Due to the lack of transparency and fairness in the registration and distribution, the non-recipients were hostile towards the village head.

• Chisuse Village, Machinga, Southern Region This village registered 186 households during the social mapping exercise. The village is exclusively Yao and practices a matrilineal pattern of inheritance. TIP was distributed in the village. It was a contentious issue because most of the villagers suspected there was no transparency in the selection of beneficiaries.

20

• Dula Village, Balaka, Southern Region The Yao people dominate the village and people speak both Chiyao and Chichewa languages. The village had 61 households. The inheritance pattern being practised is matrilineal type. People in this area received TIP

• Ng’omba Village, Ntcheu, Central Region The village is predominantly a Ngoni community has 56 households. The people in this village speak Chinyanja/Chichewa language and they practice matrilineal system of inheritance. People in the area received TIP.

• Makalani Village, Dedza, Central Region

Makalani village has 46 households and is a Chewa community practising matrilineal inheritance pattern. However, in recent years there has been an increase in the practicing of patrilocal residence. In the 2000-01 agricultural seasons, it was reported that no one in the village received the TIP. The villagers suspect that the distributors deliberately left the village so that they could sell the portion meant for the village. However, further probing showed that people in this village were mainly supporters of the MCP, an opposition political party. Some believed that the village was sidelined because of its party affiliation.

• Kasalika Village, Lilongwe, Central Region

This village is predominantly Chewa and the people practice a matrilineal inheritance pattern. This village has two village headmen and 50 households. This is so because since the death of the former village head in 1998, people have failed to agree who should take over the headship. Consequently, there have been the two people acting as village headmen, a Kasalika a kuntunda ndi a Kasalika a kumusi (the Kasalika for the upper part of the village and the Kasalika for the lower section). The two headmen do not have a good relationship as there is divided loyalty among their subjects. This has serious implications for programmes such as TIP since only one village head is usually recognized to take charge of the distribution.

• Nyalubwe Village, Dowa, Central Region Nyalubwe has 117 households and the majority of its inhabitants are Chewa speakers. They practice a matrilineal system of inheritance. They did not receive TIP not because registration was not done but because they were dissatisfied with the final list for 2000-01 beneficiaries. They strongly felt that the final list did not reflect the reality of the socio-economic profile for the village.

• Kachilili Village, Mchinji, Central Region

The village has 77 households. The people of the village are predominantly Senga by tribe with Chewas as a minority tribe. The major languages are therefore Chisenga and Chichewa in that order. The village enjoys a Ngoni cultural heritage and therefore practices a patrilineal system of inheritance. They received the 2000-01 TIP. The people refused to play the card game for the in-kind transfers FG.

• Mkoche Village, Salima, Central Region

Mkoche also has 77 households. It is an exclusively Chewa speaking village which practices the matrilineal pattern of inheritance. They received 2000-01 TIP. Most men in the village have special skills in mat making, cane chair making and quite a good number are tinsmiths.

21

• Kajikhomere Village, Kasungu, Central Region

Kajikhomere is the smallest village that the study team visited. It has only 27 households and is an exclusively Tumbuka speaking village. It practices a patrilineal system of inheritance. They received the 2000-01 TIP and their village head is highly respected by all as a trustworthy custodian of the village’s interests.

• Loti Chirwa Village, Mzimba, Northern Region

Loti Chirwa has 73 households. Originally, this area was dominated by the Tongas who practice a patrilineal inheritance pattern. The village is characterized by informal marriages with the resultant effect of a large number of divorcees, widows, orphans and fatherless children2. This has increased the pressure on the few and depleted resources in the area, thereby heightening the problem of poverty.

• Yalero Village, Rumphi, Northern Region The village has 91 households. Yalero is a Tumbuka society with high respect for their cultural values and norms. Like other Tumbuka societies it follows a patrilineal inheritance system. The village benefited from TIP.

• Chakuwereka Village, Karonga, Northern Region

Chakuwereka village has 147 households. The village is very diverse with several tribes. Apart from the Fulirwas who are the Nkhonde the village is composed of Tumbuka, Tonga, Chewa, Sukwa and Nyakyusa. Each tribe has tried to maintain its language identity as a result there are several languages being spoken in the village with Chitumbuka and Chinkhonde as the main language for communication. Although the discussions were delayed for a day due to a funeral that took place, the ceremony provided a rich forum to observe and experience support systems in action.

• Yolamu Kanjeri Mondo Village, Chitipa, Northern Region

The village has 85 households and it follows a patrilineal system of inheritance. The predominant tribe found in the village is the Sukwa. However, other ethnic groups include the Mbisas, Mushanis, Kanjeris, Mwiwas, Kayanges, Swiras, Kamweras, Ndimbwas, Masebos, Chomosa and Chanyas. The people are able to communicate through Chindali and Nyika despite being of different tribes. The village is a beneficiary of TIP.

The study team encountered a communication problem here because very few people understand Chitumbuka or Chichewa. Also, being a mountainous area, it is difficult to reach the village. There are no roads or bridges over the numerous streams.

2 The break up rate of informal marriages is high because there is nobody to broker disagreements within the families. Such marriages can break up even in an event of minor misunderstandings which would have been easily dealt with in formal marriages. People move in and out of such marriages more frequently than is the case with formal marriages, which increases their chances of getting sexually transmitted diseases. This increases the mortality rate and the incidence of widower and widow hood.

22

CHAPTER 3: TRADITIONAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS

3.1 Introduction People in rural Malawi are aware of big changes in their culture. Some talk of the emergence of a “table culture”: whereas people would in the past eat communally under an open shelter, nowadays people eat inside their houses seated at a table. The extent of such changes is highly relevant to issues of poverty alleviation: the more that ‘traditional’ support systems break down, the more there is a need for publicly supported social safety nets. This chapter deals with the following:

• the ‘traditional’ support systems which people distinguish; • variations that exist between communities or regions; • whether the support systems are changing or have changed

over time; • whether the support provided is situational, temporary or

sustainable; • how the support systems are organised; • the role of ‘traditional’ social structures in administering

such support systems; and • whether there is a relationship between the support systems

and poverty/vulnerability categories. When we asked about ‘traditional support systems’, people tended to give a host of different examples, giving the impression that life in rural Malawi as characterised by mutual solidarity. However, this is misleading. People referred, for example, to any developmental activity carried out within the village, including construction of school blocks, roads and bridges. Sometimes relationships such as ganyu labour, or lending money – even usury like katapila – were mentioned as traditional support systems. Only in very few cases, the practices mentioned denoted help or assistance rendered to people in need without much expectation of something in return. It is the latter definition that has relevance and meaning in the context of traditional support systems and safety nets. Examples of such support systems are few. The ones we encountered during the study are explored in Section 3.2.

3.2 The most common traditional support systems

3.2.1 Funeral support Funeral support is the commonest form of support system. It was found in all sampled villages irrespective of cultural differences. In the north, it is commonly referred to as vyamasozi or vyamashoshi, while in the centre and south it is known by various names which include chipepeso, mchango, nduvyo and chithandizo cha pamaliro. These different names, however, do not denote different practices. They involve moral, financial and material support. It is a cultural obligation that whenever there is a funeral one has to attend and carry something for the bereaved family. It is shameful to go empty handed to a funeral. Women carry foodstuffs such as maize or maize flour, cassava, sweet potatoes, vegetables and other forms of relish. They also assist in drawing water, fetching firewood, cooking food and other household chores. Men bring money to buy coffins and other necessities. In case the money collected is not adequate, the men buy planks and construct local coffins. It is also the duty of men to prepare the final resting place of the dead. Funeral support is thus to a larger extent gender defined. Women have distinctive roles to play from those of men.

23

Apart from it being a shameful act not to attend and support during funerals, people generally consider assistance in this case as an investment as expressed in the following sentiments:

“Timathandizana kwambiri kuopera mawa”, meaning “We help because you do not know what tomorrow will bring”. (FG participant, Nyalubwe, Dowa). “Timathandizana kuti nanenso zikandionekera adzandithandize”, meaning “We help so that people also help us in times of our need”. (FG participant, Dula, Balaka). “Mavuto saona nkhope”, meaning “Problems do not see faces”. (FG participants, Kachilili, Mchinji). “Kupatsa nkuikiza”, meaning “Giving is investing”. (FG participants, Mwandama, Thyolo).

The major driving force, as seen from the above expressions, lies in the reciprocal nature of the support system. It is argued that during bereavement one is faced with a multiplicity of problems, as such it is only numbers that count. Refusal of people to attend and assist during a funeral is considered as the harshest form of treatment one can get in the village. People are afraid that if they do not assist, other people will ignore their funeral. The support for funerals is given irrespective of a person’s well-being status. The support is situational with little relevance to poverty relief. Anybody qualifies for this support whether rich or poor.

3.2.2 Support in case of illness Due to either the terrain or poor infrastructure development, the majority of the rural populace live long distances away from health facilities. If the situation is critical and it demands that the patient be taken to the hospital people either construct makeshift stretchers locally known as machila or matemberero or borrow bicycles and ox-carts to facilitate the transportation. The case study below illustrates the process. Case study: Village support during illness The requirement in the village is that whenever a member of any household falls sick, it should be reported to the village head. The roles of the village head involve advising members of the family of those who are sick to take them to hospitals and organising transport. Those who have either bicycles or ox-carts offer them free of charge. If transport becomes a problem, they improvise a stretcher on which they take patients to hospitals. The practice is reportedly well established to an extent that villagers in the neighbouring villages voluntarily assist when they are passing with the patients through their villages. Traditional support system FG participants, Chipanjira village, Nkhotakota When an individual falls sick people readily come to assist. Women in particular assist in performing household chores such as cleaning, cooking, fetching water and firewood. It is generally argued that caring for the sick is mainly the responsibility of the immediate relatives. For instance, it is the relatives who look after the sick at the hospital and at the same time assist in cultivating his or her fields. However, it was reported that the whole village sometimes (but not often) participates in caring for the sick if the illness becomes prolonged. The extent of help varies. For example, in Loti Chirwa village the support includes members of the village contributing money to assist the sick in paying the hospital bills.

24

Poverty was not mentioned as a factor here. Like support during funerals, support during illness is situational, and rich and poor alike qualify. Unlike funeral support, however, support during illness is the responsibility of close relatives with little involvement from the wider community. In most cases, the whole village is involved only if transport is required. 3.2.3 Other examples of mutual support Other mutual support systems identified by FG participants include rotating labour support in farming (chiwira or chikumu), support during cultural ceremonies such as weddings, initiation ceremonies (sadaka/chinamwali/jando/zoma) or the unveiling of tombstones and support during emergencies, for example when a house of one of the village members catches fire. Like support during funerals and illness, these are not targeted at the poor or vulnerable. 3.2.4 Support systems aimed at the vulnerable It is argued that the responsibility for caring for the elderly, disabled and widows (chisamaliro, kusungirira or kupwerera) lies mainly in the hands of their immediate relatives. When people are very old or inactive, their relatives provide them with all their requirements and keep them. However, in most sites it is not uncommon to find some such people living on their own. There are some exceptions, like Yalero village in Rumphi, where it was argued that the land is mostly in the hands of the elderly, and relatives can only inherit it if they keep their elders well. Occasionally, the community offers chithangato or thandizo (assistance) to the vulnerable. In this case the village head may summon the villagers to help constructing, maintaining or thatching houses for the aged. Sometimes individuals or church groups assist the elderly through the provision of foodstuffs, clothes and in cultivating their fields. However, this church assistance is not universal. While some churches offer the help irrespective of religious denominations, most of them only help their faithful. Unlike chisamaliro, the distinctive feature about thandizo is that it is short term and is not guaranteed. It depends on the good will of the giver. Although the problem of orphans has been there from time immemorial, its enormity has been greatly accelerated with the HIV/AIDS endemic. Like other vulnerable groups, the practice is that orphans are taken care of within their extended family structure or other well wishers if none of their relatives are still alive or have simply abandoned them. The help to orphans is often not adequate because since the hosts are also faced with a many problems. The community, on the other hand, tries its best to prevent the orphans from becoming woyingayinga – street kids. In most cases help is solicited during the funeral ceremonies of their parents. In Kanjeri Mondo village in Chitipa, for example, one person is assigned to take care of the orphans; but with limited resources, the help is not adequate.

Case study: Assistance to orphans and widows Mrs Chikopa of Mwandama village in Thyolo has been a widow for more than 10 years. She had 7 children, but all of them passed away leaving 3 orphans. At the age of 60, she is the sole provider of this family and her only occupation is banana farming. She has one of the biggest fields in the village, but the problem is that she is too old to look after the field properly thereby harvesting poorly always. The major problems she encounters are lack of food, clothes and almost all basic necessities. Most of the time she goes without food and her house is in a very bad state as she cannot manage to renovate it. Mrs. Chikopa indicated that the village has no orphan support system. After all, almost every family has some orphans and no one cares how orphans in the next house are looked after.

25

The case of Mrs Chikopa is not unique among the villagers. Yet, without orphans she might have been worse off. Now she has some support in the fields. She has large fields and when they grow up she may live in a sheltered environment. Care for the elderly may be less altruistic than it seems, especially in southern Malawi. Most land is in the hands of the elderly and when they can no longer cultivate, their guardians can slowly take over.

3.3 Decline in traditional support systems over time Generally, people felt that there has been a decline in traditional support systems. This may be illustrated with the emergence of the above mentioned “table culture”, as the decline in communal eating ( mphala, chidyerano, bwalo or chengo for women) was often mentioned:

“Kale timadyera pa bwalo, masiku ano tili patebulo komanso timawelenga mitanda”, meaning “We used to eat from the bwalo but today we use tables with already counted lumps of nsima”. (FG participant, Chipanjira, Nkhotakota). “Mathebulu na ndalama ndivyo vyatimbanizga mphala chifukwa pathebulu mungakwanapo mose yayi ndiponso shuga ungamwa na muzi onse yayi”, meaning “Tables and money have led to the destruction of the mphala support system. A table cannot accommodate the whole village for purposes of eating food together. Moreover, it would be difficult to share a packet of sugar with the whole village”. (FG participants, Loti Chirwa, Mzimba). “Kubwera kwa matebulo kunasokoza balaza chifukwa chotitebulo amagula mwamuna ndi mkazi wake. Chiyembekezo chake ndichakuti mwamuna azidyera limodzi ndi mkazi wake pamodzi ndi banja lake”, meaning “The advent of the table has led to the fall of the traditional practice of food sharing. The expectation is that the husband should take meals together with his wife since they bought the table as a family”. (FG participants, Ng’omba, Ntcheu).

In case where communal eating has not vanished, then it is under stress, as the following case illustrates: Case study: Mphala/Sangweni The mphala system is still practiced in Kajikhomere at the level of clusters of households within the village. This means that a number of mphalas have emerged as it has become increasingly difficult to maintain village-wide mphala. Each cluster head has his own mphala referred to, for example, as mphala ya kwa Mbenje (Mbenje’s mphala). It was said that the reason for maintaining the mphala support system even in these difficult times has been to take care of the helpless. Traditional Support Systems FGD participants, Kajikhomere village, Kasungu

At the peak of this support system, even passers-by were invited to share the food, but nowadays that cannot happen. These days, it was said that people do not even care whether members of their extended families are starving while they are having good time:

26

“Anthu akudyera patebulo kuopa ntchentche panja. Ntchentchezo ndianthu amene angafune kudyanawo kachakudya komwe akudyako”, meaning “People use tables for fear of ‘flies’ outside. The ‘flies’ refer to those people who may wish to get a share from the limited food that a family has prepared for itself”. (Chipanjira FG participants).

Shortage of food is the main reason for this decline: if there is not enough food to go around, people try to protect themselves by guarding what they have. The increase in use of money is another reason that people gave for the decline in communal eating. It is uncommon these days to find people giving free things because “umoyo wasono nindalama” meaning “life these days is money”. With the rise in costs of agricultural inputs, particularly fertiliser, it those who produce more have to invest more. Hence they opt to sell rather than distribute freely because they would like to recover their expenditure. The perceived impact of monetisation on the decline of communal eating is shown below:

Case study: The role of money in the fall of mphala The participants observed that the individualistic lifestyles have emerged because of the love for money. The feeling was that in the past people did not have as much money as now: thus there is a bigger gap between the rich and poor than before to an extent that the rich are not ready to mix with the poor. Their view was that those who are rich can no longer condone the mphala system for fear of free riders. The rich want to mix with the rich. As a result, the poor can only socialise with the fellow poor. They observed that “ndalama yachotsa system” meaning, “money has destroyed the support system.” Traditional Support Systems FGD participants, Kasalika village, Lilongwe.

3.4 Commercial relationships emerge as ‘support systems’ With the decline in support systems, there is a tendency to equate commercial relationships to support systems. For example, due to economic hardships a system parallel to thandizo has evolved. This system is called ngongole. Unlike in the past when people could be given free goods, nowadays there is a tendency to quote everything as a loan which one is expected to pay back. Those who have a pressing need borrow something to meet the need. If money is involved it takes a different twist. Interest is charged based on the agreement between the parties involved. This is called katapila or chimbazo. Sometimes if the borrower fails to repay the money the creditor may write it off. Ngongole in this case is converted to chifundo. Sometimes the borrower may pay back the money through ganyu. Similarly, there perceived to be an increase in the number of people working in return for money, food or other goods. Different names are used in different communities, for example kulimitsa, kusuma or ganyu. These terms imply a direct purchase of either foodstuffs or clothes in exchange for labour. It is important to point out that these forms of ‘support’ were observed to be prevalent only in the central and southern regions. In the north, ganyu or ngongole was not considered as a form of support but kulimizga. People involved in ngongole and ganyu were sometimes embedded in patron-client relationships. The rich would purposefully create ganyu as away of dispensing help.

27

Furthermore, it was noted that although many people go for ganyu, the system has become more exploitative than in the past.

3.5 The role of traditional structures There is ambivalence in the way people speak about village head. There is on the one hand agreement on how chieftainship should function: the village head is regarded as the hub of the village such that all socio-political activities including the support systems should revolve around him. The role of the village head is considered to be critical not only in the effectiveness but also the sustainability of the support systems. For instance, all sicknesses and deaths should be reported to the village head. In some cases, people follow a well-defined modus operandi to inform the village head. In Kanjeri Mondo, the message is first sent to the councillor who in turn informs the village head. Later the village head tells the entire village through the councillor. In case the sick are reluctant to go to the hospital or traditional healers, it is the responsibility of the village head to urge the people to seek medical assistance. Moreover, it is the village head who organizes strong men to assist in transporting the sick to the hospital using locally made stretchers. Case study: The positive impact of traditional structures The FG participants said that they have much respect for their village head because of his benevolence. They pointed out that although there are no formal orphanage structures, the village head is regarded as guardian number one of all orphans, widows and widowers in the village. He takes a leading role in taking care of them. He is very good and always has plenty of surplus food every year, which makes it easier for him to fulfil this role. For example, at the time the research team visited the village, his granaries were still full with maize harvests of the 1999-2000 growing season. He had yet to harvest for the 2000-01 growing season. They also observed that the village head passed on his share for Starter Pack 1 and 2 to the poorest members of the village who are not related to him in anyway. His proposal, therefore, to have a village fund supported by proceeds from a communal field was highly welcome. The primary purpose of the fund is to complement his efforts in taking care of the orphans, although village members experiencing other problems also benefit from the fund. In fact, the management of the fund was entirely entrusted to him because they have complete confidence in his integrity. Traditional Support System FGD participants, Kajikhomere village, Kasungu Case study: The positive role of traditional structures When there is a funeral in the village, the village head assists with dengu la chimanga (a basket of maize). Sometimes with money or even a chicken, depending on the social status of the deceased in the community. In times of floods, the village head assists in registration and reporting of problems to the government. FGD participants, Mutcheza village, Phalombe There was widespread agreement about the importance of the role of the village head in organizing funerals. Village heads in various sites had formed committees for this purpose. For example, a committee of gravediggers commonly referred to as adzukulu or matuwa was

28

found in almost all the villages visited. They have their own rules and regulations and if anyone violates the rules he is punished. In some cases village heads and trusted advisors oversee all the committees. However, the question of whether the role is positive or not depends on attitude of the incumbent village head, as illustrated in the case studies below: Case study: Problems with traditional structures The FG participants pointed out that sometimes traditional structures have a negative impact on the support systems, especially where power is concerned. Examples of the Village Development Committee and the Drug Revolving Fund were given. Their leadership structures are dominated by those who are very close to the village head. The chairperson for the Village Development Committee is the village head’s brother while the one for the Drug Revolving Fund is his brother-in-law who also happens to be one of his very influential advisors. The major complaint of the FG participants in this regard was that the manner in which those in leadership positions are appointed is not transparent enough. Instead of all eligible individuals within the village contesting for the leadership positions, they are simply informed about the new leaders. It was for this reason that when the village head proposed that they should have a nkhokwe ya siwa (food storage for funerals), people shot down the idea. They said they doubted whether the food storage facility would be fairly administered. Traditional Support System FGD participants, Nyalubwe village, Dowa Out of the 20 villages visited in the main phase, only four village heads commanded total respect from their subjects. The experiences with TIP played a very significant role. In most FGDs, the participants pointed out that the village head had lost the respect of the village because of their corrupt tendencies during the process of registration of the TIP beneficiaries. Case Study: Impact of TIP on traditional structures

The people of Mutcheza pointed out that their village head had always enjoyed unquestionable respect since he was installed three years ago. But he had shown his true colours during the registration exercise for TIP. He registered only his relatives and close friends. They emphasized that the situation was really bad as in some cases some households received three packs whilst others did not receive at all. The views of the FGD participants was that “Ndi starter pack yomwe ya wononga a mfumu, anali munthu wabwino kwambiri” meaning “it is starter pack (TIP) which has discredited the village head – otherwise he was a very good person”. Traditional Support System FGD participants, Mutcheza village, Phalombe Although individual village heads might not be respected, the study found that there is universal respect for the institution of chieftainship. It is against this background that the role of the village head has survived the tides of democracy. Of course, there are some individuals who disrespect and demean the authority of the village head, but the FG participants argued that such problems are not new but inherent.

29

3.6 Conclusions From the findings discussed above, we can conclude that:

• Traditional support systems that have a short time span, and are situational and reciprocal in nature, have survive better than others: support for funerals and in case of sickness are the prime examples.

• Most of the support systems found in the sites visited have no direct relevance to poverty relief or safety nets.

• The vulnerable are dependent upon relatives. Except for rare cases, there are no village institutions to take care of them.

• Communal eating is most often mentioned as an example of a support system that has disappeared in recent years. Shortage of food is the main reason mentioned for this change. The individualism which has grown up with the money economy is cited as another reason for the decline.

• More commercially oriented social practices like ngongole and ganyu are said to have taken the place of the disappearing support systems.

The institution of chieftainship is respected and is expected to take a leading role in social support systems, but there is no universal respect for the actual incumbents of the office.

30

CHAPTER 4: DIRECT WELFARE TRANSFERS – BENEFICIARY SELECTION

4.1 Introduction This chapter discusses whether rural communities themselves can successfully and fairly select beneficiaries for cash and in-kind direct welfare transfers. In order to simulate the selection process, two FGs – one for cash transfers and one for in-kind transfers – were asked to play card games to select a number of households, equivalent to 10% of the total number of households in the village, that would be eligible for welfare transfers (see Section 1.3.2.2). The purpose was to see whether communities could first develop criteria for targeting beneficiaries and then take the decision on who to include and who to exclude based on these criteria. The idea behind the use of a card game was to simulate as closely as possible the real situation where villages would be asked to chose 10% of households for receipt of benefits3. The results highlighted the problems of asking communities to target:

• There was a general resistance to targeting. Although in most sampled sites the selection exercises were carried out, the FG participants were generally not keen to be involved in the processes of selecting beneficiaries. Almost all FG participants argued that the majority of people in the sampled villages were poor and hence deserved to receive the benefits.

• From the perspective that ‘we are all poor’, many members of the FGs were also

eligible for benefits. It is thus not surprising that there was a tendency for FG participants to select themselves or their relatives, particularly in the southern region.

• The feeling was that the process of selecting some households and leaving out others

would engender unprecedented conflicts and create enmity in the communities or that those who were excluded and yet perceived themselves as qualifying for the benefits would not easily accept the outcome.

• In most cases, with the exception of sites in the northern region (see Section 4.3),

several ‘rounds’ were required in order to trim the number of potential beneficiaries to the required number that would constitute 10% of households in the village.

4.2 Criteria for beneficiary selection The methodology of the study required that the FG participants outlined selection criteria for inclusion and exclusion of beneficiaries prior to playing the card game. After initial resistance had been overcome, we found that communities could develop criteria for allocating benefits. The criteria that emerged were similar in all sites. During the different rounds taken to select potential beneficiaries, the criteria were refined and became more detailed. Although the initial criteria were generic in nature, there were no substantial differences between the initial criteria and those that came later. The broad initial criteria were disaggregated and refined as

3 The proposal for direct welfare transfers as part of the National Safety Net Strategy is still at the design stage. It is not clear what percentage of the population would receive the benefit, but figures of 5-10% have been mentioned. Transfers in the form of cash, vouchers, and in-kind (goods and food) are currently being distributed in a small-scale pilot. For the purposes of this study, vouchers were not included because they are similar in nature to cash in terms of use by the recipient.

31

the FG participants strove to come up with the 10% of households that would qualify as beneficiaries of either in cash or in-kind transfers. The initial criteria for inclusion (i.e. people who would qualify for the benefit) that were suggested before the card game was played could be distinguished into three broad categories, namely:

• general indicators of vulnerability, • specific types of vulnerability; and • the hard-core poor.

The criteria for inclusion of households for both cash and in-kind transfers were generally much less specific than the criteria for exclusion. The categories for excluding households – with the exception of the rather vague ‘business’ category – tended to be not only more specific but also much more varied. The main criteria for exclusion were on the basis of:

• property owned; • regular income; • children or relatives who can support; • business; • skills; • consumption patterns; • household composition; and • own fault.

The criteria for inclusion and exclusion of beneficiaries developed by the FGs during the study are listed below. Inclusion on the basis of general vulnerability

• Orphans • The elderly • Those households which looks after orphans • Custodians of infants whose mothers die immediately after delivery • The sickly • The sickly and disabled • The blind • Single mothers • The epileptic • The mentally disturbed • The landless • The poor • The very poor • Widows • The divorced • Those with no shelter and cannot afford to get one • The unemployed • Divorced or never married

32

Inclusion on the basis of specific types of vulnerability

• The elderly who cannot work • The very old who are weak and lonely • The very old • The elderly without any source of support • The elderly without any source of support who also take care of orphans • Orphans who cannot manage to provide for themselves. • Orphans who have no source of help • Widows with many orphans to look after • The divorced women who cannot afford to buy food • People with disabilities who are totally work-constrained • Very old people above 70 years who cannot cultivate their own fields due to lack of

energy and are without external support • Very old who cannot farm or struggle to get food • Orphans particularly those that are staying alone • Disabled people especially those who cannot walk or engage in economic activities • Widows who keep many orphans and do not have real means for support • Widows who are very poor without anyone to support them • Widowed and old

Inclusion on the basis of being hard-core poor

• The poor who cannot get support from anyone • Those who are completely helpless • The very very poor: “makomanda a umphawi” meaning “commanders of poverty” • Those whose gardens are so infertile that they have perennial low yields • Those who do not have enough land of their own and move from place to place

looking for work (‘those who live like snakes’) • Those who work as casual labourers on estates • The very poor: “kapolo weniweni wa m’mudzi” meaning “the village slave” • No land to cultivate but having large families

Exclusion on the basis of property owned • Owners of ox-carts • Have ox-carts which are hired out • Have freehold land title deeds • Own large tracts of land • Farmers with livestock • Have cattle • Those that have bicycles • Have livestock and good houses

33

Exclusion on the basis of a regular income earned • Are working (teachers and reverends) • Those who are employed in the formal sector • Works as a cleaner at the hospital • Pensioners • Pensioners having working children in town although very old Exclusion on the basis of children or relatives who can support • Have children or relatives working in town • Those who have reasonable sources of support from elsewhere • Having relatives who are better off • Old people having children who are working or doing business Exclusion on the basis of business • Those involved in business of some kind • Have a business of some kind • Businessman/woman • Running a business or commercial farming Exclusion on the basis of skills

• Being a witch doctor • Involved in mat-making • Are skilled (mat makers, tinsmith) • Disabled people with skills who are in a position to generate money

Exclusion on the basis of consumption patterns • Those who can afford basic needs • Those who can change clothes • Have food at least for the better part of the year • Have good houses

34

Exclusion on the basis of household composition

• Those with strong and energetic members • Those who can get married and hence get support from their spouses • Have very small families • Are energetic to work • Strong enough to work • Old but still strong • Young and married • Young and able to work in the fields • Another name already selected from the same family • A close relative already included • A wife being one of the beneficiaries • Head of the household able to work in the field or elsewhere • Have the strength to support a family

Exclusion on the basis of own fault • Drunkards who would not use the assistance wisely • Those who are poor by choice • Those who are lazy • Those who deliberately feign illness Exclusion on the basis of being a beneficiary elsewhere • Those working with MASAF or being involved in other income generating activities

4.3 Feasibility of targeting The card games were played in almost all sites. However, in most cases the FG participants played the card games only after repeated explanations that the purpose of the exercise was research, so they were only being asked to play a game and not do the selection for real. It was difficult for them to see the selection as mere game. The reluctance was motivated by the fear that the selection process would create enmity within their villages. It was this fear that put people on the defensive, saying “tonse ndife osauka, ofunika chithandizo” meaning “we all are poor and we all need assistance”. Indignation on the part of fellow villagers was seen as logical since most of them are poor and therefore equally qualify to be beneficiaries of the proposed transfers. The FG participants felt that selecting 10% of households as beneficiaries was too restrictive since the majority of the people in their villages are poor:

“Mulungu amangokhala ngati tonse kuno anatilenga ofanana, tose ndiwovutika kuno”, meaning “It is as if God here created us in the very same way. We are essentially the same in that we are all poor”. (FG participants, Mapota, Zomba).

35

The targeting process was quite tense and difficult in the central and southern regions, because the numbers of households given by the 10% target were felt to be too restrictive, given the extent of poverty and vulnerability in the villages. There was no village in the central and southern regions in which it took only a single round to select the required 10% of households who would qualify as beneficiaries. In most sites, it took more than three rounds in order to trim the required number of potential beneficiary households to the stipulated 10%. The general resistance to the targeting exercise is well illustrated by the statement below depicting the research as a mockery of the participants’ poverty:

“Imwe mwa wanthu wakusambira ndalama mukusola waka mungayezgera uli vinthu vyanthena ivi pa munthu mkavu ndiponso walipo mkamvu wangasankha munyake kuti wapokele vinthu”, meaning “You educated people just get money without really struggling. How can you experiment such things on poor people? After all, is there any poor soul who can choose another poor soul as a beneficiary of such things?” (In-kind FG participants, Kajikhomere, Kasungu).

It is important to note that the participants in the northern region reacted differently from those in the rest of the country. The targeting process was not difficult in the north. In none of the sampled sites did it take more than two rounds of the card games in order to come up with 10% of households who would qualify as beneficiaries. This may be because of the combination of higher education levels and less extreme poverty in the north than is found in the south and centre4, making the process of targeting easier to understand and the outcome less crucial in terms of participants’ prospects for survival. In some parts of the central and southern regions, however, we believe that it would have been virtually impossible to conduct the selection exercises if they were ‘for real’ rather than merely a game. It usually took lengthy and repeated explanations to get people to do the exercises and in many cases more than three rounds of the card game had to be played in order to get to the required number of beneficiaries. Most people outside the northern region did not understand or appreciate the rationale for targeting. Three sites in the central region proved particularly problematic.

• At Kachilili in Mchinji, the FG participants totally refused to undertake the selection process of beneficiaries for in-kind transfers.

• At Nyalubwe in Dowa, the FG participants refused to observe the 10% quota for the number of beneficiaries to be selected, arguing that a greater number of households genuinely needed assistance.

• At Kasilika in Dedza, one participant walked out in protest and the others said they would go through the motions of targeting but later share the benefits equally among all villagers.

The experiences of these villages with the beneficiary selection procedure are reported in the case studies below.

4 The quantitative modules of the 1999-2000 Starter Pack Evaluation Programme and the 2000-01 TIP Monitoring and Evaluation Programme collected data which show that the northern region is better educated and poverty is less severe than in the southern and central regions.

36

Case Study: Refusal to select beneficiaries at Kachilili The FG participants pointed out that community targeting in their context is a non-starter because those households that would be excluded would not take it gladly. It is virtually impossible and if you insist, then “mukhoza kungotisiyira nkhondo”, meaning “the exercise may lead to fights in the village”. Nobody among the FG participants was ready and willing to give a household name that would not qualify to receive the benefits. As a compromise, they singled out 6 of the 77 households in the village as those which could be excluded as potential beneficiaries. They claimed that all the households classified as poor should qualify as beneficiaries. They could not be persuaded to take the exercise further, arguing that “ngati mukufuna, kachotseni kuboma komweko, ife sitingathe chifukwa zingabweretse ufiti” meaning that “the government should be the one to effect further screening. We cannot manage as this would only promote witchcraft”. The participants also argued that community targeting would be marred by favouritism. It would therefore be better if the selection of would be beneficiaries could be done by government. “Kuti tisankhane tekhatekha anthu oti adzalandire mapeto ake tidzangongengetsanapo chabe” meaning “If we are to do the selection of possible beneficiaries of these schemes ourselves, we shall just end up in bitter quarrels”. One of the FG participants concluded the discussion by saying “Bwana pano kuti tisankhane zitheke liri. Choti mukanene ndi choti anthu onse a kwa Kachiliri ni ovutika ndiye sangathe kusankha” meaning “Sir, further selection is not possible. Just report that all the people of Kachilili village are poor so they cannot do the selection exercise”. In-kind FG participants, Kachilili village, Mchinji Case Study: Problems in selecting beneficiaries at Nyalubwe The FG participants undertook the exercise but only after lengthy debates and discussions of the relevance and purpose of the exercise. They played two rounds of the card game in order to get close to the required 10% of households. When they were asked to trim the number further to satisfy the stipulated 10% requirement, they refused. They contended that all the households that they had chosen equally deserved to be beneficiaries of the proposed schemes. Further reductions would not be objective and meaningful at all. They argued that they would do great injustice to the households that would be excluded at that stage: “Kuti tipitirize apo, ndiye kuti ochotsedwawo achotsedwa tinatsizina” meaning “if we are to effect further exclusions, then we will have to do so with our eyes closed”. In-kind FG Participants, Nyalubwe village, Dowa

37

Case Study: Perceptions of community targeting at Kasalika The FG participants were reluctant to engage themselves in the selection of the potential beneficiaries of the proposed transfers. Nobody amongst the FG participants was willing to give it a first shot. When one of the participants started giving out reasons why other households should be excluded, his colleagues accused him of being hard hearted. As a result, he just walked out in protest. The group eventually selected potential beneficiaries, but they emphasized that the selected beneficiaries would just act as channels for the entire village to receive the benefits. At the end of the day, the villagers would share the benefits. In-kind FG participants, Kasalika village, Dedza Some communities accepted the idea of targeting, but suggested modifying the rules of the game. This happened in Nkhata Bay during the preliminary phase of the study. The FG came up with 16 names of potential beneficiaries of the in-kind transfers. The 16 names satisfied the 10% quota of households. They suggested that although the quota was exhausted, two households should be put on reserve, arguing that these two households equally deserved to be beneficiaries of the proposed direct welfare transfers and that the 10% quota was too restrictive. They argued that these two households on reserve would be given priority in an event of the other households falling out of the list of beneficiaries.

4.4 Fairness and self selection The card game allowed us to document which poverty/vulnerability group the selected beneficiaries belonged to (i.e. whether they were selected according to the agreed criteria) and whether any of those selected were members of the FG or their relatives (self selection). This was done in order to determine whether the communities were able and willing to carry out beneficiary selection fairly. The results for the cash transfers FGs are shown in Appendix 7, while those for the in-kind transfers FGs are shown in Appendix 8. In most of the sites, the FG participants were keen to be part of the group. They, were, however, not keen at all to get involved in the process of selecting beneficiaries. They were afraid of shouldering the ‘tricky’ responsibility of selecting and excluding their fellow villagers. It is our view, therefore, the keenness to be involved in the FG was not motivated by interest in self-selection. The tendency for the FGD participants to select themselves as beneficiaries varied from site to site (see Appendices 7 and 8). The findings of the study suggest that the problem of self selection or selection of relatives was virtually non-existent in the northern region, prevalent in some parts of the central region and quite pronounced in the southern region5. The in-kind FG participants at Kajikhomere were very keen to be involved in the selection exercise. They argued that their involvement would ensure that only deserving households

5 The village head at Chipanjira was a special case. He was included as one of the beneficiaries in both the in-kind and cash transfer schemes despite being conspicuously better off than the majority of the people in the village. They argued that he should be amongst the beneficiaries of both transfers because he spends most of his time working for the village and not on his own farm plots and other equally important income generating activities.

38

would be selected as beneficiaries. They felt that others within the village would simply seize this opportunity to select themselves and their relatives as beneficiaries. In some cases self selection or selection of relatives was justified, as the study’s methodology required inclusion of FG participants who qualified according to the criteria. The following remarks illustrate the challenges of self-selection especially in the southern region:

“Mukundisiyilanji? Ine mmesa ndimasunga mwana wamasiye uja? Glory amamusunga ndani? Amatithandiza ndani? Tsono enewa mukuwasankha bwanji”, meaning: “Why are you excluding my card? I also look after an orphan, Glory. Who helps us? Why are they then selecting others excluding me?” (FG participant, Mwandama, Thyolo). “Basi tikubwezeretsa makadiwa kuti musankhe inuyo a zimayi. Nanga ife tikati tisankhe mwachilungamo. Inu mufuna muzizisankha nokha. Basi musankhane inuyo”. Meaning: “Alright, we are putting back the cards so that you women do the selection. We are trying to be as objective as possible in our selection but all you want is to select your own cards”. (Men FG participants, Zomba). “Nanunso simungachite manyazi, tasiyani chanucho, mutenge anthu ovutika”, meaning “Can’t you be ashamed of selecting yourself? Leave that card and select those who are genuinely poor”. (FG participant, Blantyre). “Iya mungosankhana nokhanokha, ine anganga anga atotani?” Meaning: “You are just selecting yourselves. What about my grandmother?” (FG participant, Thyolo).

4.5 Targeting individuals or the household Potential beneficiaries were excluded in almost all sites if a relative was already selected. This meant that if a household had two deserving cases for the proposed direct welfare transfers, only one would be eligible for selection. This relates to the question of whether households or individuals should be targeted. If individuals are targeted, benefits can concentrate in particular households. On the other hand, there is an argument to target the people looking after the vulnerable, which implies targeting a household. Here there was a clear difference of opinion between FGs discussing cash transfers and those discussing transfers in-kind. The feeling for targeting the individual beneficiary was stronger in cash transfer FGs. The argument was that the individual beneficiaries should be given the freedom to decide on how the cash transfers could be used in order to best serve their interests. In the FGs discussing in-kind transfers, it was said that the beneficiaries of the in-kind transfers are most likely to be orphans and the elderly who cannot stand on their own. It is, however, difficult to generalise about the preferences of the communities as to whether to target households or individuals, as there were mixed views across the sampled sites:

• At Chipanjira, the FG participants emphasized that the target should be individuals and not households except when the selected individual is too young to manage the transfers. Even in this case, the names of the individuals should be the ones that actually appear in the beneficiaries register.

39

• At Kajikhomere, Makalani, Kasalika and Ng’omba and Nyalubwe, the FG

participants argued that vulnerable people are attached to households and these should get the in-kind benefits (in the name of the individual beneficiary within the household).

• Similar views were strongly echoed at Dula. The FG participants argued that the

transfers should be entrusted to the head of the household since he is the one who looks after the welfare of the household.

• The argument at Kajikhomere for targeting households instead of individual

beneficiaries was that young people hardly know their basic needs and therefore need a benevolent guardian to guide them to ensure proper use of the transfers.

Case Study: Should the individual or the household be targeted? The participants strongly felt that it is better to consider the household rather than the individual beneficiary within the household. They argued that it would be easier to assess the well-being of a household than an individual because there are fewer households compared to the individuals. “Kuganizira munthu payekhapayekha kutha kupangitsa kuti anthu a banja limodzi angapo alandire chithandizo pomwe mabanja ena sangalandire”, meaning: “Considering individuals instead of households would end up concentrating the available help on a few families”. Traditional Support Systems FGD Participants, Mkoche village, Salima

4.6 Size of villages The process of community targeting was equally difficult regardless of the size of the village. The study was operating on the assumption that the bigger the village, the more difficult the process of community targeting would be. This was not necessarily the case, as illustrated by Mutcheza village: with only 53 households, one would have expected the selection to be straight forward. The participants had to select only five households representing the 10% requirement, but to do so they had to play the card game five times. The study’s assumption was that in smaller villages people would know each other very well and therefore the selection of the beneficiaries would not be a problem. It would appear that while in small villages the people know each other very well, they may be related to each other in one way or another which makes the task of targeting very difficult and challenging. There was no obvious relation between the size of the village and the feasibility of community targeting.

4.7 Conclusion Our major findings on community targeting are:

• There is great resistance to community targeting. • If facilitators are present to overcome this resistance by explaining the purpose of

targeting, then communities are able to come up with clear criteria for selection. • Criteria become more detailed and specific in the course of selection (card games). • Exclusion criteria are easier to define than inclusion criteria, since the image of the

rich is much clearer than the image of the poor. However, it is very difficult to exclude some of those who should qualify on the basis of the inclusion criteria, in order to meet a specified target number of beneficiaries.

40

• There was considerable variation between communities and regions with the respect to the willingness and ability to target.

• It is likely that communities will in name accept targeting and adapt the process to their own way of doing things, for instance by re-distributing the benefits.

• There was some evidence of self selection. However, there are no grounds to believe that unjustified self selection will automatically result from community targeting, if the process of beneficiary selection is properly facilitated.

• There was no clear overall preference for targeting households or individuals. The communities came up with arguments in favour of both approaches.

• The size of the community is not a significant variable influencing targeting. There is no doubt that the concept of targeting is alien to most communities in rural Malawi. The major consideration among the FG participants across the sampled sites was the implications of community targeting for the social harmony within their villages. The fear was that the targeting would strain relations among themselves because everyone would like to benefit from such schemes since the majority members of their villages are generally poor. They felt that the targeting exercise might engender enmity within their communities as demonstrated by the fact that such discussions often evoked fears of witchcraft and bitter quarrels if some members of the village who perceive themselves as qualifying for the transfers and are left out during the selection process. With usually lengthy and repeated explanations, most FG participants were able to appreciate the rationale of targeting and willingly participated in the selection processes. Although cases of self-selection were reported, the disproportionate share of beneficiaries selected for both direct welfare transfer schemes were deserving households. The beneficiaries were mainly the poorest of the poor and the vulnerable (the work-constrained poor). It is hard to know whether the process of beneficiary selection would be feasible if done ‘for real’ rather than as a game. In our view, community targeting is possible, but communities would need to be adequately sensitised about the proposed programmes in terms of their rationale and benefits. The sensitisation programmes would need to be as comprehensive and as open as possible, requiring a considerable injection of resources. If this were done, we believe that most communities could and would carry out the selection processes fairly.

41

CHAPTER 5: DIRECT WELFARE TRANSFERS – MANAGEMENT

5.1 Introduction This chapter examines the various ways and means in which people in the FGs would like the proposed direct welfare transfers to be managed in order to ensure transparency, fairness and accountability. It also highlights their views about ensuring that the benefits of direct welfare transfers get to the right people including individuals within households. These perceptions are compared with those of the village heads, who were interviewed separately. The chapter concludes by discussing people’s preferred optimal timings for disbursing the transfers.

5.2 Who should manage the transfers? As a point of departure, the study team suggested five management options for the direct welfare transfers. These were: the village head; a committee led by the village head; a democratically elected committees; a committee of beneficiaries; and outsiders. Other options, such as a Treasury Cashier, the Village Development Committee, a full time manager, a rich person and religious leaders emerged during the participatory workshops. The discussions concluded by asking the FGs to express their preferences by scoring the five main options. Scoring involved giving participants a maximum of five scores or ‘votes’ for each of the five management options. A score of five represented the participant’s highest preference, whereas a score of zero represented the lowest preference (see Section 1.3.2.4). To avoid group influence, the scoring exercise involved the participants scoring each option independently by secret ballot. Table 2 presents the results of the scoring for the cash and in-kind transfer FGs aggregated from all the study sites.

Table 2: Scoring of management options

Village Head

alone Committee led by

village head1 Democratic committee

Committee of beneficiaries

Outsiders or government2

Cash FGs 0.45 0.52 0.64 0.41 0.54 In-kind FGs 0.51 0.70 0.65 0.39 0.48 Notes: 1 Scored in only 12 of the cash transfer management FGs and 11 of the in-kind transfer management FGs. 2 Scored in only 18 of the cash and in-kind transfer management FGs. The question of who should manage the transfers generated heated debates in the participatory workshops, and this is reflected in the fact that Table 2 shows no clear preference for one option. However, a democratically elected committee emerged with the highest score (0.64) from the cash transfer management FGs. This was followed by outsiders (0.54) and the village head alone (0.52). For the in-kind transfers, a committee led by the village head was given a slightly higher score (0.70) than the democratic committee (0.65), although voting on this option took place in only 11 villages. What is particularly notable is that none of the villages wanted the transfers to be managed by a committee of beneficiaries. They were also hesitant about letting the village head manage the transfers on his/her own. The position of the village head was a major contentious issue. There was widespread distrust of the traditional authorities. Those that did not like the idea of the village head managing the transfers argued that he/she would not be in a position to act impartially if, for example, his/her name was not included on the list of beneficiaries. Concerns were also expressed that the village head would not be transparent enough. In some sites, participants even feared that the village heads would capitalise on the transfers to achieve exploitative ends. In one site, it

42

was alleged that the village head was in the habit of asking for sexual favours before assisting female members of the community. The TIP experiences of participants played a role in these sentiments (see Section 3.5). Participants asserted that in such circumstances it would be unsafe to entrust the village head with the management of the transfers. For example:

“Amfumu akhoza kudyapo zina kapena kubisa kumene” meaning: “The village head may attempt to keep some of the transfers for himself”. (Male FG participant, Nkunga, Nsanje).

Some people were of the view that the village head should be the overall manager assisted by an elected committee. Others thought that the village head should be on the periphery and the management task should be the mandate of a democratically elected committee. In sites where an elected committee was the preferred management option, participants emphasized the need for the committee to work in liaison with the village head. Distrust resurfaced when the role of the village head in a democratically elected committee came up. In cases where the elected committee was the preferred management option, it was emphasised that under no circumstances should the village head be elected chairperson. Case Study: Management by democratically elected committee The participants felt that the most appropriate management option for the proposed direct welfare transfers was a democratically elected committee. They were, however, quick to add that the committee should have its own chairperson and not the village head. He should be involved but largely as an ex-officio. While the committee would manage to ensure transparency and fairness in the registration process, the presence of outsiders at the time of distribution of the transfers would make the process more transparent and fair. “Pogawapo patakhala kuti pali anthu oti siam’mudzi momuno mpovuta kuti a komiti apange zachinyengo”, meaning: “It would be difficult for the committee to indulge in corrupt practices at the time of distributing the transfers if outsiders were present”. In-kind transfers FG participants, Nyalubwe, Dowa. The study also sought the views of village headmen on how the transfers could be managed. Their position was contrary to the views of the FG participants in the majority of the study sites. The majority of the village headmen wanted to play a dominant role and in some cases be the sole managers of the transfers. However, two village heads felt that delegating the task of management to a committee would absolve them from a sensitive and thankless task. They were of the view that the village heads would not be in a position to assume the management role until transfers had been tried out and the grey areas ironed out. Village headmen Mkoche in Salima and Yolamu Kanjeri Mondo in Chitipa were the two village heads advocating this view. They preferred the democratically elected committee as a management strategy. In support for his choice, village head Mkoche argued that a committee chosen and riding on the good will of the villagers, especially in these days of democracy, is bound to be fair, transparent and accountable.

43

Case Study: Management with checks and balances In addition to the management options put forward by the study team, FG participants in Mwandama added ‘the employment of a full-time direct welfare transfers manager.’ However, they emphasized that a democratically elected committee would be the most appropriate management strategy. The committee should incorporate the village head as an observer since he is the custodian of the village at large. To ensure fairness, transparency and accountability in the management of the direct welfare transfers, there would be the need for a sub-committee set up by the village head whose brief would be to monitor the activities of the main committee. The rationale was that this management structure would provide checks and balances, which ensures fairness, transparency and accountability. It would also ensure that benefits get to the right people and eventually to the targeted individual within a particular household. They emphasized the need for discipline and a sense of responsibility among the households which look after the disadvantaged. They felt that a democratically elected committee would help instil discipline and a sense of responsibility as reflected in the following remarks: “Ngati mphamvu yosankha olandira yitadzakhala ndi ife, ndiye kuti tidzakhalanso ndi mphamvu yokhaulitsa amene akulakwitsa kagwiritsidwe ntchito ka chithandizocho” meaning: “If we shall indeed be given the mandate of selecting beneficiaries, it also means that we shall have the mandate to discipline whoever would abuse the help in whatever way”. Cash transfer FG participants, Mwandama, Thyolo. In Nyalubwe, Mutcheza and Chipanjira, people argued that all the internal structures, the village head inclusive, had proved untrustworthy. Their TIP experience had shown this. It is therefore not surprising that they argued that outsiders should be vested with the task of managing the direct welfare transfers. People who had these opinions thought that outsiders tend to be impartial in most cases. As one FG participant in Phalombe put it:

“Akunjira alibe lumila kapena khama kapena litima popeza alibe wachibale”, meaning: “Outsiders are impartial as they are not related to any of the villagers”. (Cash transfer FG participant, Mutcheza, Phalombe).

Although it was raised in several participatory workshops, the idea of entrusting outsiders with the management of transfers was not universally popular. In Nkunga, Nsanje, for example, aside from endorsing the election of a management committee, they were against the idea of the transfers being managed by outsiders, especially government officers. They contended that most of government-managed programmes are characterised by corrupt practices and tendencies. The government officials should only liaise with the democratically elected committee which would ably do the rest in terms of logistics and administration. The committee of beneficiaries was not a preferred management option. The general view was that beneficiaries could be co-opted on the democratically elected committees, but the power to allocate should be elsewhere. The interests of the beneficiaries should also be guarded by follow-up visits by the committee members on how the transfers are being used, to ensure that the benefits get to the right people within households.

44

This discussion was closely tied up with the question of whether benefits should go to the individuals selected or their guardians. In Chakuwereka, Kachilili, Chisuse and Chikadza, participants unanimously agreed that the benefits should go directly to the individual selected except in cases where the beneficiary was not in a position to manage the benefits by him/herself. For example, if the beneficiary were a very young orphan, the one hosting the beneficiary – the guardian – should manage the benefits. However, if the child were old and mature enough to manage the benefits, then the benefits should be given direct to him/her. In cases where the hosting guardian handles the benefits, the elected committee should ensure that the intended beneficiaries enjoy the benefits. The participants were quick to point out, however, that heavy monitoring of guardians would sow seeds of discord. However, it was agreed, in the final analysis, that considering the magnitude of the problem of cheating, this would be worthwhile. Here, particular concern was expressed on behalf of orphans, who in many cases are cheated by their unscrupulous guardians. Case study: Involvement of outsiders To ensure that the benefits go to the right people, the participants at Makalani agreed that the committee would work in unison with the village in selecting the beneficiaries. The list of beneficiaries would then be handed over to the outsiders (donors) for distribution. This was designed to ensure that once satisfaction had been achieved at the village level as to the rightful beneficiaries, an independent entity would do the actual distribution. In this way there would be no chance for foul play, for instance by altering the list. Participants emphasized that individual beneficiaries should be given the mandate to report anything irregular to any member of the committee or to the village head directly. In-kind transfer FG participants, Makalani, Dedza. Case Study: An integrated approach to management of transfers The FG participants at Kajikhomere opted for an integrated management approach. They envisaged that this would function in the following manner. A committee of democratically elected individuals would be responsible for follow-ups to ensure that the targeted individuals were benefiting within their households. The village head would play an advisory role in his capacity as chair for the ‘village committee’ (a council of elders). The involvement of the beneficiaries was felt to be very crucial. As the recipients of the direct welfare transfers, they ought to be aware of every procedure and the justification for all actions. Outsiders would be particularly important for the purpose of checks and balances in order to ensure fairness, transparency and accountability. Cash transfer FGD participants, Kajikhomere, Kasungu.

5.3 Conclusion Distrust pervaded the discussions on the way in which benefits should be managed. This distrust was especially strong with respect to the traditional authorities. The general tendency was to favour democratically elected committees. However, people added to this option elements from the other options, such as the ex-officio presence of village heads, representation of beneficiaries and involvement of outsiders in distribution or in checking that

45

the committee was operating fairly. Thus, while FG participants were presented with a simple set of alternatives for scoring, it became clear that their preferred options were not so clear-cut. Rather, they wanted combined or integrated approach, with checks and balances in place to ensure fair management.

5.4 Optimal timings for delivery of transfers In order to determine the appropriate times at which the proposed direct welfare transfers should be disbursed to the selected communities, seasonal calendars were developed on the basis of agricultural activities carried out in the villages. Technically, seasonal calendars as participatory research technique indicate annual variations or variations during other relevant periods for vital factors such as rain, labour availability, food availability, or prices. The idea in this study was that in discussing the times at which the transfers could be made, the FG participants should take into account activities that take place at each time of the year. The seasonal calendars varied from one area to another, depending on the types of crops cultivated and weather patterns. In the discussions, it was emphasized that the appropriate times for the disbursement of the transfers that were going to be agreed upon should be from the point of view of the beneficiaries of the proposed direct welfare transfers. Thus, deliberate attempts were made to include potential beneficiaries of the transfers in both FGs (cash and in-kind transfers). This section discusses the optimal delivery times for the cash and in-kind transfers as preferred by the study communities.

5.4.1 Timing of cash transfers 5.4.1.1 Monthly disbursements of cash Timing preference for cash transfers varied from community to community. There were arguments in favour of receiving the transfers on a monthly, quarterly and yearly basis, but the majority felt that the transfers should be made on monthly basis. The FG participants who favoured the monthly disbursements were motivated by three considerations: the day-to-day survival needs of the work-constrained poor; the non-existent capacity among the poor to engage in investment activities; and the inevitable tensions that a large lump-sum disbursement of cash amount would cause in the families. These issues are explored below.

The day-to-day survival needs of the poor. In practically all sites, the work-constrained poor such as the elderly, the sickly and orphans – were identified as eligible beneficiaries for cash transfers (see Section 4.2). By virtue of their being work-constrained, this category of people are in constant need of basic necessities which they cannot afford such as soap, salt, relish, medication and general groceries. Monthly transfer advocates argued that since most of them have little or no means of support, monthly cash transfers would suit them very well. Regular support either in terms of food or cash would be guaranteed because, as one participant put it:

•

“Anthu amenewa amakhala m’mavuto tsiku lonse la moyo wawo”, meaning: “These people are in problems each and every day of their lives”. (Female FGD participant, Makalani, Dedza).

The monthly disbursement of the transfers would make their lives fairly predictable. They would know where their next meal was coming from. Furthermore, they would be able to afford basic necessities like soap, salt, sugar on a daily basis. At Chipanjira, to emphasise the desirability of effecting the transfers on a monthly basis, they likened the work-constrained poor to the pensioners who get a little something at the end of each month. They argued that the little they get cushions them against

46

possible shocks and makes them live more confidently, knowing that they will get something at the end of the month. Concerns were also expressed about waiting. Participants in Dula and Kachilili said that to be waiting for the transfers to arrive at long intervals such as four months or a year would be psychological torture for the beneficiaries. These beneficiaries are simply too poor to afford daily basic needs. Therefore undue delay presupposes that they are better off some months, which in reality is not the case at all. Limited/non-existent capacity to engage in investment activities. Participants in Tambala and Nkunga emphasized the problem of giving lump sum cash transfers to beneficiaries who would not be able to use large sums productively. They argued that considering that the cash transfer would not solve their long-term needs, ideally the it should be given as a lump sum to be invested in some income generating activity that would guarantee them assistance on a more sustainable basis. However, since they would be elderly, disabled, etc, the beneficiaries would not be in a position to use the money productively to alleviate their poverty on a longer-term basis. Ultimately, giving a lump sum to these people would be doing them a disservice, as they would not be in a position to use it wisely. This view was echoed elsewhere:

•

“Ndalama imavuta kusunga. Munthu ukakhala nayo yambiri umayiwala umphawi wako wonse ndikusakaza ndalama ija pakugula zosadziwika bwino”, meaning: “Money is difficult to keep. Once you have the money, you tend to forget about all your problems and spend the money on useless things”. (Male FG participant, Kachilili, Mchinji).

“Ndalama imanyenga komanso sichedwa kutha”, meaning: “Money tempts, and besides, it runs out so quickly”. (Female FG participant, Chikadza, Chikwawa).

Advocates of monthly cash disbursements further argued against lump sum receipt of the cash on a quarterly or yearly basis on the grounds that it was likely to be abused. In addition, the receipt of the cash transfers in bulk is risky because the cash might be stolen. Even more, beneficiaries might be wasteful:

“Ndalama sizitupa”, meaning: “Money, by its very nature does not stay long”. (Male FG participant, Nkunga, Nsanje). “Munthu wosauka akhoza kuzungulira mutu ndidzindalama dzamimbiri”, meaning: “A poor person would literally go mad if given a huge lump sum”. (Female FG participant, Chisuse, Machinga).

The likelihood of tensions in the family. Most FG participants who were guardians of potential beneficiaries also expressed fears on the likely tensions that large sums would cause in the family. Most of the work-constrained poor in the communities that we visited depend on able-bodied and active family members for their survival. An implicit goal of the cash transfers is to somewhat relieve these able-bodied guardians, who are also poor, of their responsibility for caring for the vulnerable so they can concentrate on other activities. However, the beneficiaries would need their guardians to manage the funds, and this would give rise to the possibility of temptation. Ultimately, the noble intentions of the cash transfer would be counter-productive as lump sums would generate tension in the family, for example, on how

•

47

best to invest the money. One man expressed this fear in a hypothetical case where his mother-in-law was the beneficiary:

“Ndalamazo zitasongonekera zili m’manja mwanga, ingakhale milandu yayikulu kwaine”, meaning: “If this money were entrusted to me, I would be the inevitable villain if something went wrong”. (Male FGD participant, Chikadza, Chikwawa).

5.4.1.2 Quarterly/yearly disbursements of cash There was, however, some support for making the timing of cash transfers either yearly or at least three times a year, i.e. once every four months. This was particularly emphasized in Chikadza and Kapyepye (Mangochi). The FG participants who favoured this approach were largely motivated by the utility value of a lump sum in terms of planning and investment; they also referred to farming considerations:

The utility value of a lump sum. The FG participants who opted for the disbursement of the cash transfers on a yearly basis argued that the monthly basis would make planning difficult. They pointed out that the lump sum disbursement of the cash would make it easier to purchase such things as fertilizer, especially considering that K550 was not enough to buy fertilizer. In Chikadza, participants specifically stated preference for quarterly disbursements, arguing that beneficiaries could at least do something tangible with K2,220 (K550 x 4), especially considering that “the money of today has lost value”. They argued against the contention that transfers, if disbursed in lump sum, would be abused. They felt that it is not the receipt of transfers in bulk that would make beneficiaries wasteful, but rather the beneficiaries’ nature. They argued that a poor person who genuinely appreciates his/her poverty would not dare to be wasteful: “Fumbi ndiwe mwini -kusamala ndiwe wekha”, meaning: “It doesn’t really matter, thriftiness is a function of the nature of an individual”. This observation was made in Nyalubwe.

•

• Farming considerations. Farming considerations played a big role in participants’

preferences for lump sum disbursement of cash transfers. There were variations regarding the times of year at which the transfers would be most needed by the beneficiaries. In some sites, for example, Kachilili, Kajikhomere and Mapota, FG participants pointed out that the assistance would be most needed between August and October. This is the time of land preparation for the next agricultural season, when people are hard at work in their fields. Receipt of transfers during this time would enable them to work effectively. For those receiving in-kind transfers, if these were in the form of bags of maize, they would be able to select seeds from the bags to plant, since they can hardly afford seed from the market. Moreover, at this time vulnerable people are given less attention than normal because able-bodied people are busy in the fields. The transfers would, therefore, be very helpful at this time.

In Luwayo, Chakuwereka and Chikadza, preference was given to January and February because these are the months when people have the least food. Moreover, the kulimitsa support system is no longer operational at this time as all farming activities are completed:

•

“Nthawi imeneyo ndi yimene anthu amagona ndi njala”, meaning: “This is the time people sleep hungry”. (Cash transfer FG participant, Chikadza, Chikwawa).

48

“Pakati pa February ndi March, timasowa mtengo wogwira”, meaning: “Between February and March, we have nowhere to fall back on”. (Cash transfer FG participants, Ng’omba, Ntcheu) “Iyi ndiyo nyengo yakuti njala yikufika paheni. Wanthu wakugonera waka mphangwe izi zikuwa mminda kwambura nsima”, meaning: “This is the time when food is most difficult to get and most people survive on vegetables only which by this time are in abundance in the fields”. (Cash transfer FG participants, Kajikhomere, Kasungu).

5.4.1.3 After a crisis Some participants felt that giving the cash transfer after a crisis, as was the case of floods in the 2000/01 season, would assist the beneficiaries to buffer the effects of the crisis. This was recurrently mentioned in Lower Shire, where communities have been suffering devastating floods in recent years.

5.4.2 Timing of in-kind transfers 5.4.2.1 Seasonal disbursements of in-kind transfers As with cash transfers, there were variations between communities in timing preferences for in-kind transfers. The proposal for in-kind transfers indicated that it would involve a package of goods and several months of food packages (see Section 1.3.2.2). FG participants indicated some critical months as deserving special attention for the food packages. Participants in Kapyepye, Dula and Makalani, for instance, indicated a preference for September to October (land preparation). Those in Chikadza said that the ideal months for the transfers would be December to February (weeding/lean period), whereas those in further north in Loti Chirwa, Kajikhomere and Yalero said they would like the transfers in January to April. These preferences were based on the farming calendar and considerations of the opportunity costs of having to do ganyu. In the land preparation and weeding periods, able-bodied people who are the guardians of the vulnerable are busy in the fields, and are left with very little time to attend to the needs of their dependents. The poor also have to do ganyu for food at these times, and so neglect their own fields. Case study: Seasonal in-kind transfers and the opportunity costs of doing ganyu Participants argued that since the beneficiaries were the poor, then the most ideal time for the transfers would be between September and October. They said that these are critical months because the people are engaged in land preparation which makes the availability of food supplies quite imperative. They argued that the poor in their village are perpetually food insecure because at the critical times when they are supposed to work in their fields they are involved in ganyu in order to find money for food. Their gardens, therefore, get less than desired attention so that they do not harvest enough to make them food secure throughout the year. In- kind FG participants, Dula, Balaka. In further justification of seasonal in-kind transfers, participants also reasoned that the piecemeal receipt of transfers would be quite taxing on the part of the beneficiaries if they were not going to be disbursed right in their villages. This particular argument was apparently drawn from their experiences with TIP: “Kodi munthu amene ali wokalamba komanso

49

wodwaladwala kapena kulumala kumene angayende bwanji kukatenga thumba lachimanga kuchokera ku boma monga m’mene zimakhalira ndi Starter Pack?”, meaning “How can somebody who is very old and sickly including those with disabilities manage to walk as far as to the district headquarters (boma) to collect their shares as is the case with Starter Pack?” 5.4.2.2 Monthly disbursements of in-kind transfers

FG participants at Kachilili, Chipanjira and Mutcheza, totally objected to seasonal disbursements. They argued that the able-bodied guardians of the vulnerable are always struggling to survive. This leaves them with very little time and energy to provide assistance to their dependents at any time in the year. Monthly transfers would therefore be ideal, as these would take care of the beneficiaries and relieve them to attend to other “survival” activities such as cultivating the fields. They added that taking into account the fact that the beneficiaries were the work-constrained poor, the transfers would be needed almost on a daily basis. These views were shared by participants from Tambala, Nyalubwe and Loti Chirwa, who felt that monthly transfers would more appropriate than seasonal transfers principally because of the food component which the elderly and the sickly require on a regular basis. Except in one site6, the proposal of providing the transfers only after crises have occurred was not favoured at all. The argument was that if the assistance is directed at those who are very poor, then the question of crises does not arise. For them, each and every day is a crisis for which they require assistance: “Anthu awa amakhala ndi njala tsiku lililonse” meaning: “These people are hungry each and every day of their lives”. It would appear that participants’ disinclination to tie the transfers to crises was, in essence, fuelled by the fear that in the event of no crises the communities would be denied the proposed transfers.

5.5 Conclusion With regard to the timing of the direct welfare transfers, communities argued that there were some months when the disbursement of cash or food would be particularly welcome. These were August to October (the time of land preparation) and December to April (weeding/lean period). However, since beneficiaries are the poorest members of the communities and are in constant need of assistance, and taking into account the possible problems which lump sum disbursements were thought likely to cause, small monthly transfers were generally seen as preferable for cash transfers. Opinion was more divided about in-kind transfers (food), with strong arguments in favour of both monthly transfers and less frequent, seasonal transfers.

6 The exception was Chikadza village, Chikwawa. Here, specific reference was to the floods which washed away the fields and left people without food.

50

CHAPTER 6: COMPARING CASH AND IN-KIND TRANSFERS

6.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to present the preferences of the villagers for cash versus in-kind transfers. The information presented is based on records of the FG debates on the advantages and disadvantages of both kinds of transfer. We also present the results of an exercise in which FG participants were asked to score cash and in-kind transfers. The methodology of the study required that the participants of the cash transfer FGs should be unaware of the issues that were discussed in the in-kind transfer FGs, and vice versa. As a result, both FGs were held concurrently at different venues. At the end, the two FGs were brought together to form one big FG for three reasons:

• to ensure that the groups briefed each other about what had been discussed;

• to facilitating a debate comparing the two forms of direct welfare transfer; and

• to conduct a scoring exercise. This was one of the most interesting components of the study. The discussions at this stage often produced heated debates in which the advantages and disadvantages of each form of welfare transfers were brought forth. Participants tended to defend what they were considering in their respective groups. However, the scoring exercised allowed participants to express personal preferences and not necessarily the sentiments of the group to which they belonged. The results of the scoring exercise show that FG participants preferred in-kind to cash transfers. Women and the work-constrained tended to strongly favour the in-kind transfers most strongly.

6.2 Advantages and disadvantages of cash and in-kind transfers The advantages and disadvantages of cash and in-kind transfer are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The most recurrent and emphasized advantage of cash transfers across sites was the autonomy that cash transfers would confer on the beneficiaries. The FG participants at Kachilili village in Mchinji, for example, pointed out that money gives people the freedom to purchase what they really want. They emphasized that the freedom that cash transfers would offer is particularly important because people value things differently. It is, therefore, very reasonable to let the prospective beneficiaries decide on how they would use their money. Moreover “aliyense mavuto ake amawadziwa yekha”, meaning “Each person knows his or her problems better than anyone else”. Similar sentiments were also echoed at Kajikhomere, as reflected in the remark: “Uyo mutu wake ukwenda makora wangaphindula nayo ndalama pakuti ndalama nia nthowa zinandi”, meaning “He who is prudent enough can profit from money because the money can be used in various ways”. The feeling among those FG participants who pointed out this advantage was that maize as part of the proposed in-kind transfers scheme is incomplete. The beneficiaries would need money to process it into maize flour. Thus, there is a need for money for maize milling7.

7 This is one of the most essential items of expenditure for rural Malawians, according to data collected by Module 2 Part 1 of the 2000/01 TIP evaluation (see Chapter 8 of the Module 2 Part 1 report).

51

Table 3: Advantages and disadvantages of cash transfers

ADVANTAGES OF CASH TRANSFERS DISADVANTAGES OF CASH TRANSFERS

• Cash would give the prospective beneficiaries freedom of use. They will be free to decide on what they want or think is essential for their livelihood

• Cash has multiple uses – e.g. medication

which is particularly important for the elderly. Some also said that cash can be used to buy food, clothes, sugar, salt and other necessities. ‘If the beneficiary is a young orphan, money can be used to buy milk for the baby’, remarked one female participant in Loti Chirwa. On the same, a participant from Kachilili indicated that money is everything including food: ‘ In cash you can get food and other essentials’. Some also argued that cash would be used to pay school fees for the orphans, as this is one of their key needs.

• Cash may also be used for farming

activities such as hiring ganyu for those that cannot work on their own in their gardens. It can also be used to purchase inputs.

• Cash is easily available for immediate

use. This may be important in times of emergences such as sicknesses.

• With cash, the beneficiaries would have a

regular income (as if they were employed).

• Cash may also be multiplied through

income generating activities. It can be used as capital to start business.

• Cash has a short-time span for use.

• Cash can easily be mismanaged ‘ ndalama ndi zokoma kuzidya’ – ‘it is very easy to squander money’, said one participant from Ng’omba. Another participant from Chidelu indicated that ‘ndalama iswelacha kuthawa’- ‘money evaporates easily and quickly’.

• In most sites people expressed concern that

beneficiaries may abuse the money by buying unnecessary commodities such as beer.

• Cash is difficult to keep in the house as it can

easily be spent or stolen.

• The prescribed value of cash allocated per month (MK550) is low, to such an extent that it cannot buy some commodities prescribed in the in-kind transfer package. This amount cannot even buy a bag of maize.

• Cash can be more easily borrowed than goods

since people are more reluctant to release their goods than money. Members of the family and even the whole village may be pestering the beneficiaries for informal credits since they will be pretty sure that they have some money.

• In peak periods of food insecurity one can

have cash but it is not a guarantee that he will get maize at the market.

• Cash generates strife within households.

• Monthly cash transfers would give the

beneficiaries a regular income so they may get things on credit. The transfers may therefore be blown out before they are received and quite often the debts would be in excess of their monthly entitlement.

• In cases where the beneficiary of the cash

transfers are either minors or very old, the cash transfer might be abused by their guardians hence may not benefit in the manner as envisaged by the programme.

• Money is never enough to cater for all needs.

52

Table 4: Advantages and disadvantages of in-kind transfers

ADVANTAGES OF IN-KIND TRANSFERS DISADVANTAGES OF IN-KIND TRANSFERS • The initial package of goods would last a

long time. Long-life span for use.

• In-kind transfers cannot easily be mismanaged or abused as cash can.

• Not vulnerable to theft or robbery.

• In-kind transfers are wealthier than cash.

‘Munthu ukakhala ndi chimanga ndiye kuti uli ndi chuma’ - ‘If one has maize it means one is rich’.

• It is easier to keep in the house than cash.

• The prescribed constituents of in-kind

transfers are of a higher value than the cash value.

• The in-kind package cannot easily be

borrowed.

• The prospective beneficiaries would be guaranteed a healthy nutritional status as food (maize) may be readily available.

• In kind transfers cannot create tension

within families as much as cash transfers would if beneficiaries were to use the transfers without their guardians benefiting at all. (The reasoning underpinning this observation is that it is easier to personalize the consumption of cash transfers than in-kind transfers).

• In-kind transfers hedge against the risk of

food scarcity at the market. A person can have cash but that does not necessarily mean he will have food.

• The in-kind transfers have a variety of

goods that would provide one with stability so one would not move around borrowing.

• All people in the household can benefit

in-kind items, which is not necessarily the case with cash transfers.

• In-kind transfers offer no freedom of choice for beneficiaries. Some complained that there might be a problem with this transfer in that the beneficiaries may be given commodities they already have, especially in terms of cooking utensils.

• If the utensils are ‘Chinaware’ or plastic, they

may not be as durable as metal products.

• It is limited to some extent, as it does not provide for some of the basic needs such paraffin, salt and sugar.

• It cannot be readily used for emergency

purposes e.g. to seek medical care when one suddenly becomes ill.

• The in-kind transfers cannot easily be shared

amongst fellow villagers if one is in need. Examples were mentioned of a blanket.

• There is no room for budgeting or planning

for use of the in-kind transfers.

53

Cash transfers were felt to have many disadvantages. It was argued emphatically in some sites that money brings conflict in the family, as the man and wife have different and often divergent views on how to use the money:

“Eee sikungolandira ndalamazo pano, kutengana ndi abambo, pofika panjirapo amvekere ndigawire pang’ono ndikalawe. Ukakaniza, ndiyetu mabvutowotu” meaning: “Assuming you are given money here with the husband around, before you reach home you will be asked to give him some for a bottle or two. Once you refuse, then you are in for trouble”. (Woman FG participant, Chisuse, Machinga).

This is not far from the perception prevailing amongst many people that in most cases men in Malawi have been blamed for abusing money at the expense of the family’s welfare. A concern about lack of markets from which to purchase foodstuffs came up almost in all sites as one of the disadvantages of cash transfers. The FG participants emphasized that lack of markets would be a big problem, especially following ADMARC’s withdrawal from remote rural areas8. This would pose a serious constraint to the proposed direct welfare cash transfer programme, as observed by the FG participants at Kajikhomere: “Munthu wakurya ndalama yayi kweni sima”, meaning: “A person does not eat money but sima (food)”. People could go hungry with money in their pockets. Similar sentiments were expressed by the participants at Chakuwereka in Karonga, who remarked “Para wapokera makopala ufwenge ndalama ili mthumba panyake wasanga kuti vingoma kulije kumsika”, meaning: “One can die with money in the pocket when there is no food at the market”. Another equally important problem with cash transfers was that there might be irresponsibility on the part of some beneficiaries. This would likely be the case because the impression is that the beneficiaries would be seen as having a regular income, as if they were employed. They might spend the transfers even before they received them and perhaps overshoot their monthly entitlements. Many FG participants argued that the programme would put beneficiaries in more trouble instead of helping them:

“Munthu amati popeza ndimalandira ndalama pamwezi ndiye amayamba kukwereta ndalama mopitiliza ‘salary’ yake ndiye kenako amagwa mmavuto”, meaning: “Those who are employed are confident to go into debts but quite often their debt commitments by far exceed their monthly salaries which only pushes them into further poverty”. (FG participant, Kachilili, Mchinji).

“Ndalama niipa chikwa mapulani akhala anyinji ngako ndiye ndalama yakana”, meaning: “Money is bad because once you have it, you have many plans regarding how to spend it. Therefore money is never enough”. (FG participant, Chipanjira, Nkhotakhota).

There were some advantages of in-kind transfers that were stressed on almost all the sites. FG participants emphasized that the initial package of goods was more valuable than its four months cash equivalent. In addition, all the items in the initial package are durable, so their benefits could be enjoyed over a longer time period than the benefits of their cash equivalents. FG participants at Nyalubwe in Dowa contended that “ndalama imatha ngati mphepo”, meaning “money blows away like wind”. Similar sentiments were also expressed in Chidelu 8 ADMARC has been forced to streamline its operations as part of a restructuring process under the Structural Adjustment Programme policy reforms.

54

in Nkhata Bay: ‘‘Ndalama iswelacha kuthawa”, meaning that money evaporates easily and quickly. One participant at Mwandama village in Thyolo remarked, “Ayise apa ndalama apo chimanga iwe nkusankhapo ndalama si fotseki imeneyo”, meaning: “If you are given a choice between money and maize and you choose money, aren’t you forsaken?” The fact that in-kind transfers would guarantee a healthy nutritional status was also emphasized. The argument was that ‘food is life’, as reflected in the following remarks at Chidelu:

“Apa pali munthu chomene ni sima chifukwa pala walije wakuzgoka mzeleza chifukwa chakuwenkha mmakhomo mwamene”, meaning: “A person is food more than anything else because if you don’t have food you are seen as stupid because of eating in other people’s homes and being a nuisance”. (FG participant, Chidelu, Nkhata Bay).

The disadvantages of the in-kind transfers that came up most frequently included limitation of the freedom of choice and lack of supporting money. The major concern in the former was that beneficiaries are not given a freedom of choice since the packages are predetermined. Beneficiaries might have other needs that they cannot satisfy with the in-kind transfers menu. In terms of the problem of lack of supporting money, the concern was that beneficiaries could find themselves unable to pay for maize milling so that the maize is usable.

6.3 Scoring cash and in-kind transfers When given the chance to ‘vote’ for their preferred type of transfer, villagers across all the sites had a strong preference for in-kind transfers, with the exception of Dula (Balaka), where people indicated a slight preference for cash.

Table 5: Scoring of cash vs. in-kind transfers

Village Cash In-kind Kanjeremondo 0.47 0.60 Chakuweleka 0.06 0.97 Loti Chirwa 0.10 1.00 Yalero 0.40 0.82 Kajikhomere 0.43 0.85 Kasalika 0.48 0.88 Nyalubwe 0.31 0.77 Kachilili 0.26 0.86 Mkoche 0.36 0.92 Makalani 0.40 0.72 Ngomba 0.09 0.94 Dula 0.63 0.61 Chisuse 0.24 0.96 Mapota 0.11 0.99 Luwayo 0.13 0.89 Tambala 0.23 1.00 Mutcheza 0.08 0.97 Chikadza 1 0.25 0.92 Mwandama 0.17 0.95 Nkunga 0.20 0.94 All villages 0.27 0.88

55

There was one problem with the scoring which we did not foresee when we first planned the study in May. The value of the cash and in-kind transfers was intended to be the same, but by the time the fieldwork was carried out in July-August, the price of maize had risen sharply and MK550 was no longer equivalent to one 50-kg bag of maize. This meant that people’s preference for in-kind transfers might have partly reflected their perception that the in-kind transfer was more valuable than the cash transfer. This highlights an interesting aspect of cash transfers: in highly inflationary economies, such as that of Malawi, cash transfers are prone to a loss of real value. The ‘problem’ caused by inflation in our scoring exercise is probably a closer simulation of the comparison between cash and in-kind transfers under real-life conditions than we had originally intended. Thus, we believe that the scores given – with in-kind transfers scoring more than three times as much as cash – are a good measure of people’s preferences for the two types of transfer after a full discussion of the merits and demerits of each type of transfer.

6.4 Conclusion It is evident that people value freedom in whatever transfers are provided. This is reflected in how people viewed compared the freedom of choice given by cash with the lack of freedom of the in-kind transfers. However, they still voted overwhelmingly for the in-kind transfers. The discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of cash and in-kind transfers provided a good insight into poverty. Food is not only the basic need of poor and vulnerable people. This is reflected in how FG participants valued cash transfers for buying medication and other basic needs as well as the inclusion of plates, blankets, pails and soap in the in-kind transfers. However, food remains the most crucial and sensitive issue – and lack of food the clearest sign of poverty. Thus the emphasis on the food component of the in-kind transfers.

56

CHAPTER 7: TIP 2000-01 REGISTRATION AND DISTRIBUTION

7.1 Introduction This chapter presents the experiences of the 2000-01 TIP in the communities selected for this study. It focuses on the administration of the programme: the government’s criteria for targeting, registration, the voucher system and distribution. The purpose is to draw lessons to facilitate better implementation in the future. The findings presented in this chapter are taken from the records of two FGDs in each village – one with the village head, and one without.

7.2 Communities and the selection criteria The general criteria of vulnerability for receipt of TIP as outlined by the government9 were widely, but not universally known. If they were not known, then similar criteria played a role in the selection procedure for the 2000-01 TIP. They were often also accepted for future use (see Section 8.2). This is understandable as it sounds hard hearted to be against support for the vulnerable. However, deeper sentiments came up in some FDGs, which queried the validity of selecting vulnerable groups like the aged, the handicapped and orphans. The following three cases show that people questioned the effectiveness of free inputs for those defined as vulnerable. This, however, does not mean that support for the vulnerable was rejected, but that they felt that TIP could better be targeted at people who are active farmers. Case Study: TIP should go to the economically active Mr Makungwa felt that TIP is missing the point by targeting children and old people. He said that these people are kept by others. It is those that are active that ought to be targeted so that the benefits trickle down to the vulnerable. He questioned the sense in giving an old man of 80 years free inputs. While he appreciated that the vulnerable could do with cash and in-kind transfers (hand outs) he proposed that TIP has to be distributed to the economically active. Mr Makungwa also said that from the experience of last growing season, people have become less cooperative to undertake development programmes managed by the village headmen due to TIP. He therefore said that further reduction of TIP beneficiaries would mean that people are more likely to become less and less cooperative. He feared that village headmen may have to work with old and sick people and children as they are likely to be the only beneficiaries of TIP, should the number be further trimmed. James Makungwa, Luwayo, Blantyre.

9 According to the leaflet ‘An Outline of the Starter Pack Scheme - Targeted Inputs Programme’, distributed by the MoAI in October 2000, the criteria for beneficiary selection “widows/widowers with no source of income, the aged without any support, and families keeping orphans without any support”.

57

Case Study: TIP should given to the hard-working, resource-constrained poor The FGD participants at Chipanjira reported that they were aware of the government’s stipulated criteria for selecting TIP beneficiaries. But they argued that the government’s criteria was ill-construed and proposed that the primary beneficiaries should be those taking care of orphans and the able-bodied poor who work very hard but are simply failing to make it because they face problems in getting the inputs they need. They wondered how those people with disabilities – for example, the blind and the mentally disturbed – could make productive use of the inputs. These people should instead be beneficiaries of the proposed direct welfare transfers. To support their argument, they gave the mbewa or ‘mice’ analogy. They observed that the proposed in-kind and cash transfers are like already hunted-down mice, which are quite appropriate for the work-constrained poor. TIP on the other hand was likened to giving the ‘trying but not making it group’ tools with which to hunt down the mice. They used this analogy to emphasize the fact that targeting those who are economically active and have a healthy work attitude would be quite useful for TIP if the programme is to maximum strategic impact. However, the lazy poor should not be targeted at all unless there are sure indications that they have reoriented their work attitudes. These people are in the habit of selling inputs, so targeting them would simply be a waste of resources. FGD participants without village headman, Chipanjira, Nkhotakota. Case study: The vulnerable do not farm and depend on others People at Yalero found the official criteria to be weak, as they do not provide for the host of economically active beneficiaries. One member of the FG said that some of the economically inactive people who received TIP were not willing to release their packs to their hosts but instead insisted on selling them and the money be used on other necessities such as sugar. FGD participants Yalero, Rumphi. We found that headmen had also developed their own criteria, including the following:

• Very poor families. • Families that would have nothing to plant that year (seeds). • Household with nothing to eat. • Those households whose maize plants were destroyed in the last season. • Those keeping many orphans.

The consultants believe that although the familiar list of vulnerable people may turn up again in 2001-02, a longer, more thorough and more democratic process of targeting might give different results, especially if other safety net programmes were in place to assist the vulnerable and work-constrained.

7.3 Registration People strongly felt that the selection and registration process was in most cases not fair or transparent. Distrust pervaded the process as is illustrated in the case below:

58

Case study: Distrust about TIP registration The FGD participants at Chipanjira characterized the registration process as being unfair and lacking transparency. They pointed out that the registration process entailed ‘kuona nkhope’ meaning ‘seeing faces’ (i.e. it was corrupt – based on peoples’ faces and not on their needs). They observed that attempts were made to make the process as fair and transparent as possible, but that corruption – bribery and favouritism – took place behind the scenes. They strongly believed that this was the case because those who actually received TIP were not those that were identified during the registration process. The official explanation for a totally different list of beneficiaries was that the government had arbitrarily trimmed the number of recipients by half. Some members of the FGD were sceptical about the explanation. They felt that the explanation was meant to cover up for any malpractice that might have taken place in the registration process for TIP in the village. FGD participants without village headman, Chipanjira village, Nkhotakota. The way in which registration and selection processes were perceived by the FGD participants can be summed up as: • First and foremost, a careful process of selection was impossible in the short period

available. The village head was instructed by ‘government’ to come up with the names of beneficiaries at short notice and had therefore to pick potential beneficiaries at random.

• Where the complaint was about random selection it was claimed that whoever did the selection exercise must have simply taken the previous year’s register (1999-2000 Starter Pack) and trimmed the list of beneficiaries arbitrarily.

• When the criteria were used, some well-off individuals also got the packs, which made

the criteria less legitimate. Other deserving individuals or households were left out.

• The short period made it impossible to consult the people in the villages sufficiently. In some cases, the village head alone (with few councillors) masterminded the whole exercise. In a few cases, such as Nkhata Bay, local politicians were said to be involved.

It was common to hear that all the relatives of the village head were on the list. People maintained that there was clear favouritism (kukondera) depending on how close one was either to the village head or any of the councillors or members of the selecting committee. Case study: A village head defends himself Village Headman Chikadza confirmed that he knew the criteria but did not feel like consulting his constituents for a number of reasons. Firstly, he knew that the subject was so contentious that it would have sparked fights or disagreements. Secondly, he felt that as a fatherly figure, he possessed the necessary credentials and ability to select beneficiaries impartially. Lastly, much as he would have liked to turn to his subjects, the practical realities of the situation were that there was no time to call for a meeting to select recipients. Village headman, Chikadza, Chikwawa.

59

Case study: False accusations of favouritism Some of us, though related to the village head, never received the inputs. However, everybody has been against me in many ways. My close friend told me that whenever I needed help I should go to the village head. My wife experienced the same treatment from her friends. Things cooled downed when people noticed that I did not go to the distribution centre. The government has to be careful with this programme. People in this village no longer participate in development projects as they used to. They say TIP is a payment to those who work: “Poti analandira kale tsono ayenera kugwira ntchito” meaning: “since they already got paid, this is the time for them to work”. Medson Masala, chairman of UDF, village headman’s nephew, Chisuse, Machinga. People’s accounts were pervaded by a general atmosphere of distrust. The process was easily manipulated in their view. The case of Nyalubwe village shows another reaction. There, the registration process was seen as so arbitrary that the people decided to forego the 2000-01 TIP altogether, as reported in the case study below: Case Study: Refusal to receive TIP at Nyalubwe The people of Nyalubwe did not receive TIP last year. They refused to receive TIP because they were not satisfied with the way potential beneficiaries of TIP were chosen. They claimed that no registration was conducted within the village and that they were simply given an already prepared list of beneficiaries for the 2000-01 TIP. That list was described as consisting of “mayina ongochokera m’malere” meaning: “the list of beneficiaries included names that came from the air” – that is, names that they had never heard of before. The list of beneficiaries was prepared without them being consulted. The list was dominated by households, which in a fair and transparent registration process, should not have qualified as beneficiaries. They said their problem was not that the number of would-be TIP recipients had been trimmed, but that they were not consulted, so that the village ended up with a list of beneficiaries that did not reflect the socio-economic profile of the members of the village. “Amayenera kubwera kudzafufuza kuti amene akuwalembawo ndiwotani”, meaning that, “Government need to first find out the socio-economic attributes of those being registered”. FGD participants with the village headman, Nyalubwe, Dowa.

7.4 The voucher system People endorsed the voucher system, because without the vouchers, the distribution exercises would have been quite disorderly. Vouchers made it more difficult to impersonate others whom people knew were registered but for one reason or another were unable to make it to the distribution centre on the day. However, the system was not foolproof. The shared view across almost all sites was that the voucher system needs the presence of the village headman or the committees responsible for TIP during the distribution exercise. They should physically check that those who get the packs are indeed the owners of the names called out and actually belong to their villages.

60

7.5 Distribution The test for good distribution was when every recipient of a voucher got his or her TIP pack. This only happened in a few cases. There were many sites in which not everybody with a voucher received a pack and in others people without vouchers received packs. Some of the complaints were as follows: • In Makalani, Chisuse, Ng’omba, Kajikhomere and Nkunga distributors gave packs to

people they knew regardless of whether they had vouchers or not.

• The people of Kasalika village complained about the distributors calling names too fast so that some people should not receive the packs. At the end, the remaining packs were sold to other people.

• Distributors in Dula village were seen selling some inputs to unregistered people.

“Madilu amachuluka” meaning: “there were a lot of deals made”. • Some people with vouchers did not get their names called out. For example, in Chisuse

village in Machinga, some five voucher recipients did not get their packs. • Where the packs got finished before the beneficiaries were fully served, the beneficiaries

kept the vouchers. Many people are still safely keeping their vouchers to date. In Kapyepye, Mangochi, the vouchers are still being kept by the UDF party chairman.

• People suspected foul play on the part of the distributors since many packs were already

open when they were received. In Mwandama, Chisuse, Kapyepye and Chikadza every TIP recipient in the FG claimed that their packs had been delivered open and with some items missing. Foul play was suspected.

Case Study: Open packs and suspected foul play The people collected their packs at Mbwazi ADMARC, about a two-hour walking distance from Nkunga village. Participants felt that the distributors did not do a fair job. They reported that when the people went to collect their packs, it was found that most were already opened. Not all the contents were found in the packs. Some had the fertilizer or the maize seed pack missing. If the recipients tried to complain, they were harshly told: “Katunduyu iweyo watogula? Ngati sukufuna siya ndimagawa mumatumbamu siine”, meaning: “Did you buy the packs? If you do not want them you can just leave because I was not the one preparing the packs”. When some people wanted to thoroughly check the contents of the pack they were told “Tiyeni zipitani musamasulire pano”, meaning: “Just go. Do not check the contents whilst you are still here”. The participants said: “Zachilungamo panalibe, anatiyendapo chambali” meaning: “we were cheated in broad day light. Fairness was not there and there was no transparency”. FGD Participants, Nkunga, Nsanje.

61

Rudeness among distributors was a common phenomenon across the study sites. In most sites, the FGD participants alleged that the distributors were very harsh in the way in which they treated the people who had come to receive TIP. The distributors treated old people like little children. In particular, distributors had no kind words for individuals who asked questions about already opened packs, as this example from Mwandama illustrates:

“Ukafunsa kuti thumbali ndilomasula bwanji, amangokulanda ndikuponya mu bogi basi. Ine langa linapita”, meaning: “If you dared asked why your pack was already opened, they just snatched the TIP pack from you and put it back onto the lorry. I lost my pack in that way”. (FGD participant, Mwandama, Thyolo).

In most sites the FGD participants also complained that they were informed at a very short notice about the date of distribution. In Yalero, beneficiaries were informed early in the morning on the day of distribution to go and collect their packs at 10.00 am. This was a serious constraint because the distribution centre was located far away. It was the wish of the majority of FGD participants that distribution centres should be located within reasonable distances and that they should be informed about distribution in good time.

7.6 Suggested improvements

Recommendations for improving the management of TIP • If donors or government intend to reduce the number of beneficiaries of a programme, it

should be done on an objective basis. • Communities strongly believe that they ought to be consulted so that the programmes

benefit those households really deserving assistance. • The selection of beneficiaries should involve a committee that comprises members from

all branches in a village. • The selected individuals ought to be announced at a village meeting before vouchers are

distributed. • To minimise cases of impersonation, the vouchers should bear names of the beneficiaries

and not simply numbers (which are complicated). The names could be written on the vouchers by the TIP beneficiary selection committee.

• Every attempt should be made to distribute vouchers to the beneficiaries prior to the date of distribution of the packs.

• Village headman or committee members entrusted with the management of TIP should always be present at the time of distribution to physically verify the owners of the names appearing on the beneficiary list.

• A representative committee should be formed to be responsible for the distribution of the inputs, with supervision by the outsiders who have brought the inputs.

• Distributors at any level ought to be friendly as this is the job they applied for and they are dealing with human beings.

• The packs sent for distribution should not stay at a distribution point for more than 1 week to minimise the risk of distributors tampering with the packs.

• The police should be at the distribution centres to monitor the process. • Distribution centres should be within reasonable distances of the beneficiaries, especially

since those that are targeted are the predominantly the elderly, disabled, etc.

62

CHAPTER 8: TIP 2001-02 – SELECTION OF BENEFICIARIES

8.1 Introduction This chapter presents our findings about TIP beneficiary selection. The main aims were to learn the criteria that FG participants would use in the selection of beneficiaries for 2001-02 if they were to do the targeting, and to determine the feasibility and cultural acceptability of community targeting. A major difference between TIP and its predecessors, SP1 and SP2, was that while SP1 and SP2 were intended to reach all rural smallholders, the 2000-01 TIP was given to only half the number of SP2 recipients (1.5 million households). In our card game, the participants were asked to select one-third of the households in the village for TIP, simulating the process which would take place if they were asked to do the selection in 2001-02, when only one-third of rural households would be targeted to receive TIP. At each site, two FGs were conducted, one with the village head present and the other without the village head. As with the selection of beneficiaries for the cash and in-kind direct welfare transfers (see Chapter 4), it was emphasised that the selection of beneficiaries for TIP on the basis of the card games was only a game and not ‘for real’. It was clearly stated that the future distribution was not going to be based on the results of the game, but rather that the lessons might be applied in formulation of future safety net programmes. The participants were asked to give the reasons for including or excluding a particular household as they conducted the selection process using the cards. This chapter sets out the reasons that the FG participants gave for including and excluding households. We found that the official criteria used for the 2000-01 TIP (see Section 7.2) were generally known; in most cases the FG participants listed these criteria before developing new criteria. On the basis of our field experience, we also assess the feasibility of community targeting. In addition, we present the results of an exercise in which FG participants were asked to score a set of alternatives for TIP distribution. Finally, we look at the results of the FG discussions about ways of improving the management of TIP.

8.2 Reasons for inclusion and exclusion Across the villages that we visited, the participants came up with the following characteristics of households and individuals as criteria for inclusion as TIP beneficiaries: Inclusion on the basis of general vulnerability

• Those looking after orphans • Young and married but still at school • Taking care of disabled persons • Those who are responsible and can make use of the seed • Work hard but things do not work out • Those with lots of responsibilities

63

Inclusion on the basis of specific types of vulnerability

• The divorced • The mentally retarded • Lack land to cultivate or have small landholdings • Old people who are weak and hence it is difficult for them to find money to

buy seeds and fertiliser • Those with large families but have no capacity to produce more for their

survival • Widows and orphans as they also find problems in getting money with which

to buy seed and fertiliser • The sickly are unable to generate money on their own because of their

physical condition • The poor who keep orphans • Disabled people who can hardly work to find money to buy seeds and

fertilizer – including the deaf, the blind, the crippled and the insane • Disabled people who have problems getting funds to buy farm inputs

(wakusuzgika wakuto ndeka zedi) Inclusion on the basis of being hard-core poor

• The helpless • The landless • The hard-working poor with no other means of support • The very poor ‘a Lazaro opanda kalikonse’ meaning the Biblical Lazarus

type, with nothing

In all FG discussions, initially the participants argued that everyone in the village should be given TIP inputs, as with the direct welfare transfers (see Chapter 4), arguing that they were all poor. After being convinced that the TIP would not be enough for everybody, they agreed to exclude people from receiving TIP inputs for the following reasons: Exclusion on the basis of children or other relatives who can offer support

• Those who have their spouses working or doing business of some kind • The married women who have husbands to support them in times of need • Those with well-to-do relatives (mostly children working in town) • Get support from elsewhere • Those whose relatives were already included as beneficiaries (to give a chance to

other households from other clusters not well represented in the beneficiary group)

Exclusion on the basis of property owned

• Households that have livestock such as cattle, pigs, and goats • Those that are well-off in terms of food security (have granaries) • Those owning a car

64

Exclusion on the basis of off-farm income (non-remittance)

• Those who are employed with a salary (e.g. teachers) • Those who have businesses like being a grocer, a hawker, mat maker or butcher • Those on pension • Those who got compensation money • Carpenters • Those who make charcoal

Excluded because of the economic/physical/behavioural state of the persons

• The young and the strong should be excluded because they can source basic needs by doing casual labour. (However, some groups argued that some young men and women are genuinely poor).

• Lazy people, because it was felt that such people can improve their lives on their own without assistance. In any case they misuse the resources.

• Those who are deliberately poor because of excessive beer drinking • The rich • Those that can afford to buy cooking oil • Those who are slightly better-off • The old who have a tendency to sell everything they receive for free • Those who keep orphans but can afford to do so • Have enough land and have food all year round • Those who live in town and only come to the village to work in the field • Those with a decent house because as one participant put it, “you cannot have a

decent house without drinking tea” The simulation of targeting for the 2001-02 TIP suggests that most communities will target the vulnerable groups first and foremost if the targeting process is carried out in an open meeting of representatives of different sectors of the community. However, the criteria for inclusion were more sophisticated than simply ‘the vulnerable’. Those who qualified for inclusion were often the able-bodied people who care for the vulnerable or work-constrained, and were frequently defined by a combination of willingness to work and constraints faced in obtaining inputs. Irrespective of the specific characteristics, the ability of a household to productively use the inputs mattered a great deal in qualifying for selection. In some sites, for example, Chipanjira and Nyalubwe, the eligible households were those that were considered responsible and could use the free inputs productively. In some cases the inclusion criteria that the participants agreed initially were too rigid to be practical. For instance, after agreeing that the old should be targeted, during the actual selection process, it transpired that some who were in the vulnerable groups such as the old or those keeping orphans were actually better off than those had been were left out.

65

An interesting category which qualified for inclusion was that of ‘young and married but still at school’. This category is also identified as particularly vulnerable (and often forgotten) in the report of Module 2 Part 2 of the 2000-01 TIP Evaluation10. Those who were excluded tended to have a source of off-farm income (remittances from relatives, employment or business) with which they would be able to purchase inputs. Or they might have assets, food or purchasing power. In addition, there was a category of those who do not deserve support owing to their laziness or bad habits. The young and strong who can do ganyu were also frequently considered to be in less need of support than others because they could fend for themselves.

8.3 Feasibility of targeting Targeting TIP is a very sensitive issue as well as an emotional subject. Our experience in conducting the FGs showed the difficulties that lie ahead for efforts to implement community targeting in the 2001-02 TIP. The immediate reaction of most FG participants to the idea of targeting was that it was not possible as nearly everybody was poor and in need of assistance. In most villages, the participants agreed to do the selection process on the understanding that it was ‘just a game’, but it usually took more than one round of selecting to come up with the required one-third of the beneficiaries. There was one extreme case in Nyalubwe where it took six rounds of choosing. This village refused to receive TIP last year because they were not in agreement with the targeting that was done. The difficulty mainly came about because of the bitter experiences that most communities had had with the 2000-01 TIP selection of beneficiaries. They argued that the government oftentimes ignores the lists made at the village level and changes them without any consultation. In Luwayo, the game could not be played with the village head present as the participants reported that selecting less people than last year was unacceptable. A village head representative in the group said:

“Kuli bwino mbewuyo abwerere nayo ngati akudziwa kuti ndiyochepa”, meaning: “It is better that they go back with their seeds if they know it is not enough”. (Village head representative, Luwayo, Blantyre).

Some said that implementing community targeting would undermine the traditional structures. For example, one participant had the following comment:

“Masewera amene mukupangawa ndi oipa. Chomwe chilipo ndi choti chimangacho chidzakhale cha mudzi wonse, apondi bii amenewo ndiye timati mafaiti. Kapenatu chidzabwere ndi a polisi a mfuti”, meaning: “This game you are playing is dangerous. To succeed the maize seed should be for the whole village. Otherwise people will exchange blows. To avoid chaos, armed police should bring the seed”. (FG participant, Luwayo, Blantyre).

10 Van Donge, J.K., M. Chivwaile, W. Kasapila, P. Kapondamgaga, O. Mgemezulu, N. Sangore and E. Thawani: A qualitative study of markets and livelihood security in rural Malawi (August 2001), Module 2 Part 2 of the TIP Evaluation.

66

The selection process was heavily influenced by whether or not the village head was present in the FG. His/her presence affected the speed with which the selection process was done. Selection processes were slower when the village heads were present. The FG participants were reluctant to get involved, arguing that the village heads as custodians of their villages should be entrusted with the selection of the beneficiaries. It took skilful facilitation to get the participants to involve themselves fully in the selection process. The case of Kachilili is illustrative of the dynamics of FGs that included village heads: Case Study: Selection of beneficiaries in FG with village head present The selection process at Kachilili could not begin because every member of the group was reluctant to give it a first shot. They said that the village head was the one who should perform the selection process in his capacity as father of the village. The village head started the selection process. After choosing three names, the rest of the group members joined in by objecting to the inclusion of the first two names. At this point the village head left the group temporarily to attend to some visitors. When he rejoined the group later on, the selection process had gathered an irreversible momentum. It took four rounds to come up with the required number of households. TIP FGD participants with village Head, Kachilili village, Mchinji. The above example suggests that in 20001-02, even if democratically elected village task forces are formed in each village to select TIP beneficiaries, the relations between members of such committees and the village heads could still pose problems for achieving fair, transparent beneficiary selection. Another problem is likely to be created by the decision to distribute packs to one-third of households. In our experience, playing the targeting game for TIP proved to be more problematic (in terms of achieving a fair outcome) than for direct welfare transfers, despite the fact that the quota allocated for TIP was one-third of households – higher than the 10% for direct welfare transfers. Most sites in the central and southern regions had problems in selecting TIP beneficiaries because the number of households that met the agreed criteria for inclusion was in most villages very small. Once the quota of the very poor and very vulnerable households was exhausted, and the FG participants were faced with choosing among members of the ‘struggling’ (poor) group, it was much more difficult to decide who should be a beneficiary. Here, nobody appeared to qualify much more than anybody else, so the tendency of some FG participants was to self-select or to select their relations. While not all cases of self-selecting or selecting of a relation are unjustifiable, it was observed in some cases they were unfounded. For instance, participants in Chipanjira said they were not sure whether the card game was indeed just a game arguing that maybe the people they were selecting might indeed be the people who might be getting the TIP inputs in 2001-02. On this case, the participants said they had better think about themselves first. This again raises the question of whether the outcomes will be different when the game is played ‘for real’. In another FG at Kachilili, the participants said as a reward to the important job they were conducting, they would slot themselves into the list of beneficiaries.

67

Case Study: The tendency to self-target When the card game began, the participants were keen enough to select the beneficiaries. However, as the game progressed, they tended to be more keen to include themselves, notwithstanding that they did not satisfy the agreed criteria. For example, among the ten FG participants, seven were chosen as beneficiaries, and four individuals also indicated that they had a relative on the list. Tambala came out with 127 households from the mapping exercise. Two rounds had to be played to come up with the required number of beneficiaries. In the first round, 44 people were selected. In the second round, the number was trimmed to 41. As the selection process intensified, the few individuals that were on the FG but were not selected wanted to quit participating, saying, “Ife amene sitinasankhidwefe ndiye tisingopitatu. Nanga pali chathu apa ngati?”, meaning “Those of us who have not been selected should better be going, for clearly there is nothing for us here”. FG participants, Tambala village, Mulanje. Generally, it was felt that excluding some households from receiving the TIP inputs would engender unnecessary conflict and enmity within the village. In some cases, the FG participants were reluctant of being involved in the selection process for fear of being bewitched:

“Anthu ena angakhale kuti ndiwopezako bwino sangasiyidwe chifukwa ndi akuluakulu. Ndiye chilungamo chake sichingakhale 100%”, meaning: “Some people even if they are clearly better off cannot be left out because they are big people. The selection process can not be 100% objective”, (FG participant, Mkoche, Salima).

The word ‘big’ has a connotation of witchcraft. These fears were expressed at Kachilili also, and various versions of the same were echoed in other sites. The results of our research suggest that in most communities targeting was an alien concept. However, the consultants are of the view that community targeting would be possible if the idea could be properly explained to the communities, allowing them to prepare themselves to make the exercise as fair and as transparent as possible. Facilitators would certainly be required to make the community members fully appreciate the rationale and spirit behind targeting. These facilitators could conduct open village meetings in each village to brainstorm the criteria for inclusion and exclusion. A process of this nature would require considerable organisation and resources in order to instil a sense of confidence in the village members that the selection processes would be fair and transparent. The institutional infrastructure through which this sensitisation process would be carried out needs to be given careful thought. The process should give each member of the village the right to hold accountable whoever is entrusted with the management of TIP should they flout the procedures.

8.4 Scoring distribution options Each FG participant was given five grains of maize to cast ‘votes’ for seven modalities of TIP distribution. A score of five meant complete agreement with an option while zero meant

68

complete opposition. The idea was to find out which modalities of distribution would be more acceptable to the communities. The options were:

1. To split the packs before the reach the beneficiaries (everybody would receive a smaller pack);

2. To split the packs in the village, after they have been delivered (everybody would receive a smaller pack);

3. To distribute TIP to the whole village, but only in alternate years; 4. To distribute TIP to one half of the village each year (through community targeting); 5. To put all the inputs together and ask the village head to share them out using a cup; 6. Not to have TIP at all; and 7. For less than half the village to receive TIP.

The first five options involve the same amount of inputs, while the last two involve less inputs. The results of the scoring exercise are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Scoring of options for TIP distribution

Packs split

before Packs split

after Jump a

year 1/2 village receives

VH uses a cup

No TIP

Less than 1/2 receive

Including VH 0.66 0.36 0.45 0.48 0.46 0.24 0.33 Excluding VH 0.67 0.47 0.39 0.36 0.34 0.13 0.19 Notes: Ngomba had no FG with VH. In Yolamu Kanjeri Mondo, the FG refused to do the scoring. The most preferred distribution option was to split the packs before the inputs are delivered to the village (i.e. have it done by outsiders). Everybody would get a smaller TIP pack – an egalitarian option. The fact that people wanted the division of packs to be done before delivery to the village suggests that they have less confidence in the village mechanisms for dividing TIP fairly than in outsiders, who may be considered impartial. The least preferred options, as might be expected, were that fewer or no beneficiaries should receive TIP. In the middle, opinion was divided between the FGs with and without village heads. The FGs that included village heads opted as second choices for community targeting (half of the village receiving), alternate years or distribution by the village head using a cup. The FGs without a village head preferred the ideas of splitting the packs within the village after distribution, alternate years, community targeting and village head using a cup (in that order). Generally, scores were lower in the FGs without village heads, except for the egalitarian options with minimal village head involvement (Options 1 and 2). The presence of village head clearly influenced the results towards giving the village head a more active role. For example in Yalero, the group that had the village head wanted the village head to share using a cup while the other group wanted the packs to be split and shared after distribution.

8.5 Conclusion The results of our simulation of community targeting of TIP suggest that the 2001-02 TIP community targeting effort will be fraught with problems. In general, the targeting of TIP appeared to be a more emotional exercise than the targeting for cash or in-kind transfers. This was possibly because the participants were more aware of the benefits of TIP since they have had experience of it during the past three years. It is further complicated by the fact that the participants were asked to target one-third of households – fewer than in TIP 2000-01, but more than enough to provide packs for the vulnerable. A tendency to self-target or to include relatives emerged, since there were no obvious criteria for choosing among the large group of ‘struggling’ (poor) once the vulnerable had been exhausted.

69

The relationship between the village head and other members of the FG also proved problematic, as people were reluctant to take the initiative while the village head was present. It remains to be seen whether village heads will set up broad-based committees to participate in beneficiary selection in the 2001-02 TIP, and, if so, whether ordinary members of the committees will be able to challenge the choices of the village heads. There is general resistance to any form of targeting for TIP. It is clear that for targeting to succeed, it will be necessary to sensitise the communities and devise a means of making a more transparent and accountable selection process. Facilitators will be required for this task, implying considerable organisation and resources. The results from the scoring exercise suggest that if there are not enough resources for a programme like SP1 or SP2, people prefer the option of outsiders splitting the packs before they reach the village, so that each person in the village receives a smaller pack. This is an egalitarian solution. It also suggests that villagers have less confidence in the village mechanisms for dividing TIP fairly than in outsiders. The FGs without village heads preferred options with minimal village head involvement, reflecting the perception in most cases that the village heads had failed to manage TIP fairly when acting on their own in 2000-01.

70

CHAPTER 9: MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The study reaches the following conclusions:

9.1 Effectiveness of traditional support systems Despite the fact that people responded with many examples to our questions about traditional support systems within the community, there were few mechanisms mentioned that implied a transfer of resources from rich to poor households. Vulnerable people were usually cared for by immediate relatives, and only very rarely by the community. People reported a definite decline in mechanisms of social support for the poor. The most notable decline in traditional support systems identified concerns communal eating, a practice which used to protect those who had less food. Now, households eat individually inside the house at tables instead of communally in open ground. Increasing shortages of food as well as monetisation of social relations were mentioned as causes of this. Commercially oriented practices like ngongole and ganyu embedded in patron-client relationships were said to be increasingly common, and may be replacing some of the old social support mechanisms.

9.2 Safety net beneficiaries and types of transfer The opinions expressed considered everybody in the villages we visited – except for a small minority of rich and well-to-do – to be poor. Therefore villagers felt that they all deserved support. The suggestion of supporting the vulnerable, such as the old, the disabled and orphans was generally voiced, but the categories became more specific as discussions on beneficiary selection developed: some people may get support from elsewhere and may be more capable of generating their own income than a blanket designation would suggest. There were also strong feelings about the deserving and undeserving poor. Generally, the opinion was that everybody who is relatively young and healthy should be able to provide for themselves; if not, they are either lazy or drunkards who do not deserve assistance. However, there were also opinions that those who cannot afford inputs should be supported and that active, young and energetic poor people deserve free inputs more than the vulnerable. Transfers of money or in-kind items (goods and food) were seen as appropriate for people who cannot work, e.g. young orphans or very old people. In-kind transfers were strongly preferred to cash. This was indicated both by the balance between advantages and disadvantages listed by the FGs and by the scoring exercise, in which in-kind transfers were given a score of 0.88, compared with a score for cash of only 0.27.

9.3 Feasibility of community targeting First and foremost, it was clear from our research that people prefer not to target. Targeting goes against the egalitarian values of village society. However, if they have the choice between either no benefits or targeted benefits, they will choose the latter. If communities take on the task of targeting after it has been explained by a facilitator, they appear equal to the task. In the case of direct welfare transfers, they were able to select the most vulnerable and poor members of their communities (with minimal unjustified self-selection). However, when asked to select one-third of the households in the village for TIP self-selection or selection of relatives became common once all the vulnerable people had been included.

71

The experience with the 2000-01 TIP has left a great distrust of the role of village heads in targeting. In the consultants’ view, communities could carry out a fair process of beneficiary selection (targeting) if asked to do so. However, facilitators would be needed to make the process a success, and this would imply considerable organisational capacity and resources.

9.4 Fair management The debates on who should manage the selection of beneficiaries and distribution of the benefits were often inconclusive, except for a widespread desire not to give overriding powers to village heads. A system of checks and balances was usually preferred. Discussions on the TIP experience produced two clear recommendations:

1. Selection should be in the hands of a broader group than village heads and their advisors – a village committee; and

2. The names selected should be announced at an open village meeting.

9.5 Targeting households or individuals The opinions expressed by communities on whether households or individuals should be targeted to receive benefits highlight the complexity of the issue. If the individuals selected look after themselves then targeting to the individual was favoured. If, however, they are looked after by members of their households, then targeting to households was preferred. But there were arguments that once somebody has been selected, their relatives should not also qualify, to prevent nepotism and spread the benefit as widely as possible. Cash benefits were often seen as more appropriate for individuals (and might be a source of conflict between individuals), while in-kind benefits would be shared within the household. There were arguments that guardians, especially in the case of orphans, often unscrupulously appropriate transfers for those in their care. On the other hand, it was pointed out that the households in which vulnerable people are accepted bear the costs of looking after them and therefore merit support.

9.6 Optimal timings for direct welfare transfers The prevailing view among FG participants was that small monthly transfers were the best option for cash transfers, as the vulnerable need assistance on a regular basis and large sums of cash might cause problems. On in-kind transfers (goods and food), opinion was more divided, with strong arguments in favour of both monthly transfers and less frequent, seasonal transfers. Those who favoured less frequent transfers highlighted some months when the disbursement of cash or food would be particularly welcome. These were August to October (the time of land preparation) and December to April (weeding/lean period).

9.7 Recommendations on TIP distribution On distribution for the 2001-02 TIP, the communities we consulted recommended that: 1. The vouchers should not only have a number, but also the name of the beneficiary (this

could be written by the village head or member of the village committee); and 2. The village head or a member of the committee should be present at the distribution

centre to check that the person receiving the pack is the person whose name is on the voucher.

72

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE

CONTRACT NAME: 2000-01 TIP Evaluation Module 4: Consulting the Poor on Safety Nets.

CONTRACT NUMBER: MAL/ /2001

APPENDIX 1: The Services

Under the Contract for Module 4 the Consultants shall provide the Services outlined in the following Terms of Reference to the Lilongwe office of the Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom:

Basic Information

1.1 Module 4: Consulting the Poor on Safety Nets is part of the Evaluation Programme for the 2000-01 Targeted Inputs Programme (TIP). The Statistical Services Centre (SSC) of the University of Reading, United Kingdom, is managing the 2000-01 TIP Evaluation for DFID-Lilongwe.

Background

2.1 The 2000-01 TIP, a component of Malawi’s National Safety Net Strategy, provided rural smallholder households with one Starter Pack containing 0.1 ha-worth of fertiliser, open pollinated variety maize seed and legume seed. The TIP campaign followed on from the Starter Pack (SP) campaigns in 1998-99 and 1999-2000.

2.2 A key objective of the TIP campaign was to increase household food security amongst rural smallholders in Malawi. The 1998-99 and 1999-2000 SP campaigns (SP1 and SP2) were designed to cover all rural smallholder households, providing 2.86 million packs. This year’s TIP was enough for roughly half this number of beneficiaries (1.5 million). It was envisaged as a programme for targeting the poorest smallholder households.

2.3 TIP 2000-01 was an important test of community targeting mechanisms using Village Task Forces (VTFs). The District Village head Executives were provided with guidelines for targeting beneficiaries, which they are expected to pass on to the VTFs in charge of beneficiary selection. The Monitoring Report for TIP 2000-0111 shows that there was some – limited – success in targeting those caring for orphans, the elderly and widows/widowers, but the programme failed to target the poor. The Monitoring report found that: “The poverty targeting message did reach most VTFs, but they still failed to target the poor. This could be because of:

11 Targeted Inputs Programme (TIP) : Findings of the Monitoring Component, for TIP 2000- 2001, March 2001. By Max Lawson, Anthony Cullen, Bright Sibale, Stuart Ligomeka and Francis Lwanda.

73

• difficulty in correctly identifying the poorest families (there is no simple proxy for poverty in Malawi);

• unwillingness to single out the poorest families because differentiation among the poor is culturally unacceptable (‘we are all poor here’);

• it is much simpler and less stigmatising to use categories like orphan-carers, the elderly, widows/widowers, since such categories are recognised as vulnerable;

• attempts to target certain categories, such as orphans, undermined efforts to poverty target, since such categories are not correlated with poverty; and

• VTF members favouring family, relatives and friends – for which there is considerable evidence from monitors’ village level interviews”.

• Anecdotal evidence from the TIP Evaluation, for which full reports are due in July, confirms the impression of TIP Monitors that villagers generally perceived the work of the VTFs as biased and unfair, and frequently blamed Village Headmen.

2.4 With the development of Malawi’s National Safety Net Strategy, several different interventions are under consideration for the future in addition to the provision of free agricultural inputs (TIP). Another key component is likely to be direct welfare transfers for the work-constrained poor in the form of cash, vouchers exchangeable for goods or transfers in-kind (goods and/or food). If such a system were to evolve, the issues of who should qualify, beneficiary selection and management of the transfers would be complex.

Overall Objectives

3.1 The broad aim of this evaluation module is to learn lessons about what the rural poor themselves think would be (i) desirable forms of safety net provision, (ii) fair methods beneficiary selection, and iii) effective and fair ways of managing the benefits. The purpose of researching this theme is to contribute to the development of the National Safety Net Strategy.

Scope of Work

4.1 The Consultants will undertake community-level consultations to explore the views of communities – in particular poor and vulnerable households – on traditional support systems, and on planned and existing interventions such as direct welfare transfers to the work-constrained poor and Starter Pack/TIP.

4.2 The Module 4 team will explore with community groups the issues of fair distribution of limited benefits and of practical mechanisms for managing the benefits, including selecting the beneficiaries. Opinions will be elicited as to what are the advantages and disadvantages of each option, including which would be least inequitable and least damaging to the social fabric. Issues of dignity and the rights of the weakest should be discussed.

4.3 The module will explore critically the procedures used for selecting TIP beneficiaries, with a view to understanding why the community targeting mechanism used in TIP was perceived as unfair. It will examine the views of TIP recipients and non-recipients about the role of vouchers in the registration and distribution process for TIP 2000-01. And it will elicit the views of communities on whether the system could be improved by introducing mechanisms for ensuring greater transparency and accountability.

74

Methodology/Approach

5.1 The Module 4 work will be carried out as stipulated in the Schedule of Activities agreed with the SSC (see Appendix 2) and according to the Budget (see Appendix 3). Previous work carried out by the Statistical Services Centre (SSC), University of Reading, UK (“the Managers”) with another team of consultants has already developed a proposed methodology for the fieldwork. This is based on a structured set of participatory research exercises. The work to be carried out by the consultants will therefore consist of two phases:

• Phase 1 will begin with preliminary field work in 3 sites to test the proposed methodology, which will be presented by the Managers at a planning meeting on 11 July 2001. On their return from the field, the Consultants will discuss with the Managers at a one-day methodology meeting on 18 July suggestions for modifying the methodology to improve its effectiveness. The Consultants will then implement the approach agreed with the Managers in 20 sites (25 July-10 August). During the fieldwork in these 20 sites, the Consultants’ team will use debriefing documents to ensure comparability of results between sites. All 23 sites for the study will be selected at random by the SSC.

• Phase 2 will comprise analysis of results and writing up of the final report (“the Report”), as well as presentation of results at the final workshop of the 2000-01 TIP Evaluation, to be held shortly after the end of the project. During the analysis and write-up phase, the Consultants will send drafts of initial results by e-mail to Jan Kees van Donge (“the Adviser”). Mr van Donge will comment and make suggestions for the write-up of the report.

5.2 The Consultants will play a leading role in carrying out the study and presenting the results, but should accept reasonable advice and guidance from the SSC on methodological issues.

Personnel

6.1 The Consultants are: Blessings Chinsinga (“the Team Leader”), Christopher Dzimadzi, Regson Chaweza, Patrick Kambewa, Prince Kapondamgaga and Overtoun Mgemezulu. Jan Kees van Donge will act as Adviser to the Consultants. The Consultants will recruit fourteen Research Assistants and will train them to a high standard.

6.2 During the main fieldwork in 20 sites, the four Field Team Leaders (Blessings

Chinsinga, Christopher Dzimadzi, Regson Chaweza and Patrick Kambewa) and the two Co-Field Team Leaders (Prince Kapondamgaga and Overtoun Mgemezulu) will personally lead their teams in the field. Each Field Team Leader will head a team of three Research Assistants and will work in four sites during the main fieldwork phase. The Co-Field Team Leaders will work together in four sites, and will be accompanied by two Research Assistants during the main fieldwork phase.

Expected Outcome and Deliverables

7.1 This module will present the views of local communities - in particular poor people within them - on the following questions:

• The effectiveness of traditional support systems within the community

• Which types of safety net provision are most needed and for whom?

• How should beneficiaries be selected for TIP and direct welfare transfers?

75

• Should individuals or households be targeted?

• Are there effective and fair ways of managing the benefits within communities?

• How could the problems encountered in the TIP targeting effort (e.g. unfair selection processes, lack of transparency, voucher problems) be overcome?

• Optimal timings for direct welfare transfers

7.2 This module should provide evidence and recommendations which will help to design future interventions for the National Safety Net Strategy. Implementation of a such a strategy is likely to involve local bodies such as District Assemblies. Module 4 should generate guidance to these bodies on local procedures for beneficiary identification and service delivery, including evidence about the effectiveness of community targeting mechanisms.

7.3 The main outcome of the work will be the Report. This should be around 20,000 words long and must be submitted to Dr H Potter, DFID, British High Commission, PO Box 30042, Lilongwe 3, Malawi on diskette and hard copy by 10 September 2001, with copies to the SSC. In the Report, the Consultants will analyse and interpret the information collected and suggest possible conclusions, setting out clearly their assumptions and arguing whether the evidence collected can be used to confirm or reject these assumptions.

7.4 Full copies of data collection tools, including records of participatory workshops, must be delivered to the SSC on diskette by 12 September 2001.

7.5 The final instalment of payment under the Contract will be payable on acceptance by the SSC of the Report. Should the SSC require any reasonable amendments or additions to the Report in order that the Report shall meet the required professional standards for acceptance, the Consultants will carry out such work at no extra charge by 30 September 2001.

7.6 The Consultants will incur financial penalties for late delivery of the Report: 5% of the Consultants’ fee will be deducted if the Report is received by DFID after 10 September 2001, rising to 15% if the Report is received by DFID after 17 September 2001 and 30% if the Report is received by DFID after 24 September 2001.

7.7 The Team Leader will submit a brief progress report and accounts of expenditure to the SSC (c/o DFID) on 15 August 2001, and will present final accounts on 12 September 2001. The accounts of expenditure should be presented according to the layout stipulated in Appendix 4.

76

APP

EN

DIX

2:

LIS

T O

F V

ILL

AG

ES

VIS

ITE

D

A)

PRIO

RIT

Y V

ILL

AG

ES

VIL

LAG

E

SEC

TIO

NEP

AD

ISTR

ICT

RD

PR

EGFA

RM

ERS

Yol

am

u K

anje

li M

ondo

Mis

uku

Chit

ipa

Chit

ipa

1.0

08

6.0

0

Loti

Chir

wa

Mse

se

Khos

olo

Mzi

mba

Sout

h M

zim

ba

1.0

05

0.0

0

Phet

i M

zoko

to

Muh

uju

Rum

phi

Rum

phi N

orth

Mzi

mba

1.0

05

8.0

0

Chaku

wer

eka

Nyu

ngw

e 1

Karo

nga S

outh

K

aro

nga

Karo

nga

1.0

0116.0

0

Maka

lani

Tso

yoK

aphuk

aD

edza

Ded

za H

ills

2.0

04

6.0

0

Nya

lubw

e M

tengow

anth

enga C

hib

vala

D

owa

Dow

a E

ast

2.0

01

01

.00

Kajikh

omer

e

M

phom

wa

Chul

uK

asu

ngu

Kasu

ngu

2.0

043.0

0

Kasa

lika

C

how

oC

hit

ekw

ere

Lilo

ngw

e Li

longw

eEa

st2

.00

72

.00

Kach

ilili

K

azy

ozyo

Mka

nda

Mch

inji

Mch

inji

2.0

01

57

.00

Ng’o

mba

Bon

ongw

eM

anja

wir

a

Ntc

heu

N

tcheu

2.0

06

6.0

0

Mko

che

Thon

jeSo

uth

Chin

gul

uwe

Salim

a

Salim

a2

.00

16

4.0

0

Dul

a

Py

oli

Baza

leBala

ka

Bala

ka3

.00

80

.00

77

Luw

ayo

M

pem

ba C

entr

e N

tonda

Bla

nty

re

Shir

e H

ighla

nds

3.0

02

24

.00

Chik

adza

1

Lim

phangw

i Li

vunzu

C

hik

waw

a

Chik

waw

a

3.0

01

70

.00

Chiy

embek

ezo

Ntu

lira

Mbon

echer

a

Mach

inga

Kaw

inga

3.0

05

8.0

0

Tam

bala

Nsa

nja

ma

Nor

th

Thuc

hila

Mul

anje

M

ulanje

3.0

02

24

.00

Nku

nga

Ph

ala

manga

Makh

anga

Nsa

nje

N

sanje

3.0

0138.0

0

Mut

chez

a

D

indi

Mpin

da

Phalo

mbe

Phalo

mbe

3.0

01

11

.00

Mw

andam

a(c

hip

hw

anya

) C

hip

hw

anya

M

asa

mbanja

ti

Thyo

lo

Thyo

lo3

.00

24

1.0

0

Mapot

a

Jigi

Thon

dw

e Zo

mba

Zom

ba

3.0

09

9.0

0

78

b)

RE

PLA

CE

ME

NT

VIL

LA

GE

S V

ILLA

GE

SE

CTIO

NEP

AD

ISTR

ICT

RD

PR

EGFA

RM

ERS

Chila

rika

2

Mon

do

Mis

uku

Chit

ipa

Chit

ipa

1.0

064.0

0

Chaku

yunda

Mse

seK

hos

olo

Mzi

mba

Sout

h M

zim

ba

1.0

05

5.0

0

Yale

ro

Mzo

koto

M

uhuj

u R

umphi

Rum

phi N

orth

Mzi

mba

1.0

06

6.0

0

Maxw

ell

Nyu

ngw

e 1

K

aro

nga S

outh

K

aro

nga

Karo

nga

1.0

04

9.0

0

Chaw

ala

Tso

yoK

aphuk

a

Ded

za

Ded

zaH

ills

2.0

0116.0

0

Lila

mbw

e

Mte

ngow

anth

enga

Chib

vala

D

owa

Dow

aEa

st2

.00

10

0.0

0

Chit

ota

M

phom

wa

Chul

uK

asu

ngu

Kasu

ngu

2.0

056.0

0

Nam

ilaza

Chow

oC

hit

ekw

ere

Lilo

ngw

e Li

longw

eEa

st2

.00

75

.00

Chili

ra

Kazy

ozyo

Mka

nda

Mch

inji

Mch

inji

2.0

06

1.0

0

Mw

enye

Bon

ongw

eM

anja

wir

a

Ntc

heu

N

tcheu

2.0

01

26

.00

Mnes

ha

Thon

jeSo

uth

Chin

gul

uwe

Salim

a

Salim

a2

.00

13

7.0

0

Chaim

a

Py

oli

Baza

leBa

laka

Bala

ka3

.00

62

.00

Kum

wam

be

Mpem

ba C

entr

e N

tonda

Blanty

re

Shir

e H

ighla

nds

3.0

064.0

0

Kub

ala

lika

Li

mphangw

iLi

vunzu

Chik

waw

a

Chik

waw

a3.0

0169.0

0

79

Mbais

a

Mom

bez

i Ea

st

Mom

bez

i C

hir

adzu

lu

Shir

e H

ighla

nds

3.0

01

11

.00

Chis

use

Ntu

lira

Mbon

echer

a

Mach

inga

Kaw

inga

3.0

01

92

.00

Pondes

i

N

sanja

ma

Nor

th

Thuc

hila

M

ulanje

M

ulanje

3.0

01

73

.00

Mla

ram

a

Ph

ala

manga

Makh

anga

Nsa

nje

N

sanje

3.0

0119.0

0

Muh

olo

Din

di

Mpin

da

Phalo

mbe

Phalo

mbe

3.0

04

4.0

0

Nam

aun

di

C

hip

hw

anya

Masa

mbanja

ti

Thyo

loThyo

lo3

.00

23

7.0

0

Galu

Ji

gi

Thon

dw

e Zo

mba

Zom

ba

3.0

04

4.0

0

80

APPENDIX 3: CHECK LIST FOR THE MAIN FIELD WORK

CONSULTING THE POOR ON SAFETY NETS An Introduction Poverty is a very serious problem in the country as it affects about 60% and 65% of urban and rural residents respectively. Although concerted efforts have been made to fight poverty, very little has been achieved in terms of welfare improvement for the majority of the people. Poverty remains deeply entrenched and widespread almost at all levels of society. Its pervasiveness has made policy makers to continuously rethink and redesign strategies that would help solve the problem of poverty in the country. The major policy innovation in the country geared at fighting the problem of poverty has been the Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP). This has been the United Democratic Front’s (UDF) central operative development philosophy since it took power in the historic May 1994 first ever multiparty general election since independence. Recent assessments indicate that the interventions that have been made under this programme have not made any significant impact on the poverty levels in the country. The evidence indicates that the magnitude of the problem of poverty has in fact increased. This has, among other things, led to the dramatic shift in the policy discourse on safety nets in the country. This began with Starter Pack I and II in 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 growing seasons respectively. The Starter Pack programme phased into the Targeted Input Programme (TIP) during the last growing season. The programme was renamed TIP because only half of the farming families received the free agricultural inputs. This year the it is expected that only half of last TIP recipients will be eligible for free inputs. The policy discourse on Safety Nets can be fully understood in the context of social policy. Social policy is referred to as state provisioning of basic needs to its people. This mans that the state has the responsibility of ensuring that the welfare of its people is well taken care of at all times. The concept of social policy gave rise to the notion of the welfare state and social security system in Europe and America. These systems of state provisioning have not been fully experimented in most developing countries. In fact, social policy discourse has been on the decline because of the dominance of Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) economic framework supported and sponsored by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. The underlying policy intent of SAPs is to contract the stakes of the state in the productive in realm. The impact of SAPs on the welfare of the people, especially those who were already poor has been extremely negative not only in Malawi but also elsewhere on the continent. The worsening of the poverty situation has certainly led to rise of the policy discourse on safety nets within both government and donor circles at two levels. Safety nets being discussed include those targeting the work-constrained poor and the vulnerable and those focusing on the poor of the poor. Safety nets are thus programmes or interventions that are designed to cushion the poor from descending further into poverty targeted at those who can either do little or nothing at all to improve their life chances. The envisaged safety nets programmes being considered within both donor and government circles are as follows: Safety Nets Interventions The target -Cash transfers -Work-constrained poor

81

-In-kind transfers -Work-constrained poor -TIP - The poor of the poor The main objective of this study, therefore, is to learn lessons about what the rural poor themselves think would be: desirable forms of safety net provision fair methods of beneficiary selection effective and fair ways of managing the benefits. The major question that the study would like to investigate in relation with safety net interventions is whether the rural communities themselves could objectively and successfully select beneficiaries for cash and in-kind transfers and TIP. The questions to be asked include the following: Is community targeting possible? Is it culturally acceptable? Can it be done? Could it have any effect (s) on the social fabric of the communities? Preliminary evidence from the Monitoring Report about TIP suggests that the process of community targeting can be problematic. The major finding of the Monitoring Report is that people who actually got TIP packs were predominantly not those deserving as stipulated in the guidelines for selecting beneficiaries. The Monitoring Report further found out that TIP targeting was fairy successful in the North, Centre and South in that order. This means that although TIP targeting was generally a failure, the situation was relatively worse off in the Southern region. The study will have to find about the following questions: Will the results uphold the findings of the Monitoring Report in so far as TIP is concerned? What will the study find out about community targeting in relation to in-kind and cash transfers? Meeting with the village head and community meeting Introduction: Once the team has managed to locate a site, the first thing that will have be to done is to seek permission from the village head. It is important to always remember that you cannot start working in a village without being sanctioned by the village head. It is during this time of entry into the village that the objectives of the study have to be accurately and prudently presented. For the purposes of this study, we have to present ourselves as teams of researchers from the University of Malawi who have been asked by (government) to research on the day to day livelihoods of the people in the country whose results will feed into the design of various government programmes (the National Safety Net Strategy) in the near future. It will thus be important to allude to the objectives of the study during the meeting with the village head. The general objective of the study is to learn lessons about what the rural poor themselves would think about the following: Desirable forms of safety net provision; Fair methods of beneficiary selection; and Effective ways of managing benefits.

82

The same introductory remarks made to village head when seeking entry into a village will have to be repeated during a village meeting during the next day. It is extremely important to always remember not to raise expectations among the villages that something as a result of the exercise will take place in the near future. The purposes of the meeting with the village head and the village meeting are to explain the scope of the work, what are we trying to research about, what we would like to find out and how the process will be carried out during the time you are going to spend in the village. Although the exercise will touch on Targeted Input Programme (TIP), remember not introduce it until we have reached it. This is because of its sensitive nature which often makes FGD participants to be emotionally charged. Leave it until its appropriate time comes. (A) Traditional Support Systems 1. What kind of support do you offer each other? The expectation is that the following words below would come out if this question is put to the Focus Group (FGD) participants. If they do not come out, then you will have to use them as prompters to set the discussion on course. • Chithandizo/ Kovya/kutovya (help/assistance) • Chisamaliro/ Kupwere/kupwerera (taking care) Chipepeso /(help at funeral)-Kupembuzya 2. Whether the words come out spontaneously or not, we are required to ask about examples of each of the possible support mechanism as implied by the words above, for example, bereavement, crop failure, etc 3. Who gets this support (categories of poverty: wovotika, wosauka, wosowa wopsyinjika, kusachedwa ku..., sangathe, zopinga). It is important to note that the categories of poverty identified above are not exhaustive. They are simply meant to provide guidelines for discussion in each chosen site. The categories of poverty are likely to vary from one place to another depending on how people perceive poverty in their respective areas. These categories should not be imposed on the people. However, when new categories emerge, a glossary of terms us to describe the categories should always be kept. Try to establish concrete examples and characteristics for each poverty category identified. The initial categories identified should be used as props in a manner that would ensure that the FGD participants strike a balance between vulnerability and poverty categories. The aim is to track how people distinguish themselves either in terms of richness or poverty. 4. What happens (triggers) for people to get each kind of support identified? 5. When (at what times or what happens) for people get to get each kind of support identified? 6. Who provides the support (individual, family, community, outside players) 7. Why do they provide the support? Do they expect anything in return? (respect, authority, assistance when they find themselves in a similar situation). Changes over time of traditional support mechanisms 1. Try to establish whether they remember any significant events or eventualities in the near or remote past, for example the 1949 and 1981 drought, floods, crop failure due to pests and diseases (kodikodi cassava disease, 1986) etc. The aim is to use the significant event as a point of departure for comparison of the changes, if any, that have taken place in the support systems. The teams ought to give as much freedom a as possible to the FGD participants in determining timelines that may be applicable to

83

situation so as to generate rich discussions. 2. Find out the systems of support that existed prior to the significant event(s). 3. Did the current systems of support exist then? Have they changed? Have they declined or strengthen? Why? It is important to note that the main objective here is to find out if the systems of support are in decline or not. In either case, the reasons must be clearly stated in relation to each support system in identified the target communities. Effectiveness of traditional support systems 1. Which support systems do you think work better than others? (effectiveness) 2. Why? (Try to solicit reasons why the participants think that the singled out support systems work much better than the others as well as why the other systems are considered less effective). The role of traditional structures 1. Are there any systems where the village head/village head/counsellors play a role? 2. Do you think the role is appropriate or not? (Find out if the FGD participants think of the role of the traditional structures have positive or negative impact or any effect on village power relations) 3. Do you think they are effective? Have the roles of traditional structures in the support systems changed or not? 4. Find out what they perceive to be the appropriate role of traditional structures in their everyday lives. By the end of the participatory workshop on traditional support mechanisms, we ought to establish what communities are doing to help their vulnerable members or each other in times of either a crisis or need (that is how communities respond to the needs of the their members), who assists and those assisted and at what times or occasions and the role of traditional structures in support systems identified. The social mapping exercise This exercise will have to be facilitated with considerable diligence, care and caution. The reason is that it is the key to the research processes that will be conducted in the target villages during the rest of the time in the village. Participatory social mapping is used for providing distribution information relating to limited physical space and information on population distribution data, infrastructure, natural resources and social services distribution. In the present case, we are particularly interested in the distribution of households in villages although the other things will have to be also noted. The maps are drawn collectively on the sand or paper. In our case, the maps will have to be drawn on paper since they will be needed for future reference. Procedures to be followed

84

Ideally, the map should be drawn on the flip charts but if circumstances are such that you encounter a village with hardly literate members then the map could be drawn on the ground and later on transferred onto a clean sheet of paper (the teams are given the liberty to use their best judgement as to which strategy would work). It is, therefore, advisable to work with a purposefully selected group of volunteers from the morning session who are literate and knowledgeable about the village (that is people who know the whole village including households) to facilitate the social mapping exercise. Each household should be numbered. Make a card for each household in the map. Write the name of the head of household in the card and the number. Classify the household into well-being categories. Put symbols on the cards representing different categories. This categorisation should be used throughout the research process in the villages, however making sure that new categories that emerge in the process are captured and thoroughly discussed and documented. New symbols may have to be added to the existing categories. This means that it is possible for a household to have two or more symbols describing. Keep a key of the symbols used (these symbols need not be uniform across teams but what is important is to ensure that the key of symbols used should always be kept). However, initial symbols that were used in the preliminary phase of the study will be provided to the teams. This means that the teams will have the freedom to devise symbols for well-being categories that might emerge in the course of the discussions. The preliminary study demonstrated the challenge for facilitating the social mapping exercise for big villages. It was, therefore, decided that a two stage strategy should be used in an event that the size of the target village turn out to be very big. The threshold of household size that this strategy could be used has been agreed at 150. The strategy involves firstly recording clusters and the enumerate households for each cluster. The idea is that the social mapping exercise should be done in full. If it becomes necessary, the social mapping exercise could be split into several groups (maximum of 4 groups). The maps could later be integrated into one by the members of the researchers right at the village or at their base. After categorising the households using the cards and symbols, make sure to purposefully select some individuals to attend the FGD I and FGD II the following day to ensure representation from the various categories identified and clusters from the villages. Remember to produce a second set of cards to facilitate the FGDs the next day. NB. If the maps are developed by volunteers on the sand they should be transferred onto the flip charts by the team of researchers. Clean versions of the maps regardless of whether they are drawn on paper or sand should be prepared. ( C ) Focus groups for transfers in-kind and cash (Card Game) The FGDs will be conducted on the basis of the social mapping exercise. The participants should be between 5-8. The reason is that large groups are difficult to handle. The participants should be purposefully selected on the basis of the categories identified during the mapping exercise. For the purposes of the study, the cash transfer FGD will be referred to as FGD I and in-kind transfers FGD will be referred to as FGD II. Thus explain cash transfers to FGD I and in-kind transfers to FGD II. Procedures to be followed The participants to these FGDs should be different from participants from the previous day before. The participants should not include the village head (VH).

85

Record the number of participants and their gender, vulnerability/poverty. Remember that there are going to be two FGDs, one focusing on cash transfers and the other one focusing on in-kind transfers. It is important to make sure that the two groups should not know what the other group is discussing up until at the comparison stage in so as to minimise the demonstration effect as much as possible. To facilitate the discussion, disclose to each group what the intervention will actually entail once it is adopted for implementation (those in cash FGD transfers should only be told about the cash while those in the in-kind transfers FGD should only be told about the in-kind package). The in-kind transfer is likely to include: 4 plates 2 cooking utensils 1 pail 1 blanket 10 tablets washing soap 10 tablets bathing soap On the other hand cash transfers will involve monthly cash disbursements of about K550 to selected beneficiaries. It is thus important to note that the initial package of in-kind transfers is equivalent to about 4 months of cash transfers. The idea is that the initial package of in-kind transfers will be made in August. This means that the selected beneficiaries falling in this category will only start getting a 50 kg bag of maize after December. The beneficiaries of the cash transfers will be getting K550 all year round. Make it clear to the participants that it is only 10% of members of their communities that would be eligible as beneficiaries of either programme. Remember to emphasise that the proposals are not likely to take place for real in the next couple of years. Check list for card game: selecting beneficiaries Although flexibility is allowed, it is important to always remember that the FGDs should revolve around the card game. It is therefore important to observe the conditions under which the game is played. Here, it is extremely vital to find out if the discussion group is composed predominantly by illiterate members. The priority strategy otherwise should be to display cards so that the group plays the game independently while the team watches and intervenes only where it is necessary in order to enrich the discussions. Procedures to be followed Before the card game starts, the teams should emphasise the criteria to be used as identified in the social mapping exercise and the representation of different sections of the target villages. The FGDs should discuss the initial criteria and refine them in the process of playing the card game. It is also necessary to impress on the participants the desirability of objectivity in the selection process. Note down criteria for selection -What are the reasons for inclusion? -What are the reasons for exclusion? Note down the rounds that were needed to arrive at the final conclusion (that is to select 10% of the beneficiaries.

86

Discuss whether it should be the individual or the household who qualifies for the benefit. Conclude the exercise by triangulating (checking) the selection done in order to check why other people (households) have been excluded. Also check how many of the people taking part in the FGD have been selected as beneficiaries. Keep a record of the cards that have been selected if possible including the names. The ultimate objective is to find out if community targeting would be feasible in the administration of safety net interventions. It is therefore very important to note down any reactions that are made in the course of playing the card game. While noting the reasons for inclusion or exclusion, it is also important to record their perceptions to the idea of targeting. Is it possible or culturally acceptable? Also keep record of how targeting is difficult in large villages. Check list for discussion on management of transfers Who should manage it? (VH, democratically elected, beneficiaries themselves, any other they suggest) All the alternatives listed above will have to be scored including those that will come out in the course of the discussions (Remember to score all alternatives). The scoring that will be done in this regard is based purely on the preference of the stated alternatives or those that might emerge in the course of participatory workshops with the sampled target communities. The aim of the scoring is to assign scores to each alternative identified. Each member of the group will have to assign a score to each alternative identified independently. Always remember that 0 is the lowest and 5 is the highest possible score. Below is an illustration of the exercise. Democratically elected 1+3+4+5+0=13/25 Beneficiaries 2+3+5+5+4=19/25 Village head 0+1+1+2+5=9/25 Outsiders 1+1+3+0+5=10/25 NB: This hypothetical example assumes that there were 5 participants at the point where the scoring exercise was being conducted. It is, therefore, very important to always note the number of participants at the times when the scoring exercise is being administered. Always remember to score all alternatives. How do we ensure that the process is fair? How do we ensure that the process is transparent? How can we make sure that the benefits get to the right people? How do we ensure that the benefit gets to the individual that needs it, within the household? Seasonal calendar A seasonal calendar is a participatory research technique that is used to chart out the activities of the target village. There are based on various activities but the one that will be developed here will be based on agricultural activities throughout the year. Furthermore, always remember that the seasonal calendar should be based on the activities of the selected

87

beneficiaries from the card game. The idea of developing a seasonal calendar is find out what would be the appropriate times for effecting both the in-kind and cash transfers. Timing of cash transfers (FGD I) Timing of in-kind transfers (FGD II) Should it be monthly? Should it be yearly? Are there times in the year when they particularly need that help? Should it be at a particular time after a crisis? Note that the timing being discussed should be from the point of the selected beneficiaries and not necessarily from those participating in the discussion. The chosen times or periods should be recorded and reasons for their choice stated accordingly. Comparison of cash vs. in-kind transfers The main objective in this FGD is to compare the advantages and disadvantages of in-kind and cash transfers. The experience during the preliminary phase of the study was that there was a tendency for FGD participants to take sides on the basis of the groups to which they initially belonged (that is members of cash FGD tended to take positions that favoured cash so too with those that belonged to the in-kind FGD). Thus teams will be required to ensure that FGD participants at this stage will have to ensure that personal preferences and not necessarily the sentiments of the groups that initially belonged to. Remember to conduct preference scoring for cash and in-kind transfers by following the same procedure as already stated above. The scoring here is not on either the advantages or disadvantages of each but rather on cash or in-kind transfers. Interview with village head The interview with the village heads should be based on the questions asked under the management of transfers as restated below: Who should manage it? (VH, democratically elected, beneficiaries themselves, any other they suggest) How do we ensure that the process is fair? How do we ensure that the process is transparent? How can we make sure that the benefits get to the right people? How do we ensure that the benefit gets to the individual that needs it, within the household? NB: The interview with the village head should be done at any time the teams feel is appropriate. This is to say that the teams here have been given the liberty to exercise their judgement as to what is the best time. (D) Discussion on Targeted Input Programme (TIP) The experience in the preliminary phase of the study has shown that any discussion on TIP is bound to be emotionally charged and explosive. These discussions will have to be prudently handled to ensure that they capture issues of particular interest to the study. The primary focus in this study is on TIP’s registration and distribution processes although other issue of concern should be not ignored. Procedures to be followed The participants should be different from those people that participated in the in-kind and cash transfer FGDs.

88

Remember to hold two FGDs both with at least balanced involvement of TIP recipients and non-recipients. Include the village head (or advisor) in one group if possible. Remember that at each stage of the discussion we are interested in problems and suggested solutions that the FGD participants might bring forward. Remember that we should ask about SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS at each stage. TIP registration Did the right people get the packs i.e. were the recipients deserving? -If yes, why? -If no, why not? Do you know why those people were chosen (awareness of criteria used)? If yes, do you agree with those criteria? If no, what should the criteria be? Was the process of registration fair (zachilungamo?) Was it transparent (mosabisa) Were vouchers good or is there a better way? The research teams are advised to look for such words as chinyengo, ziphuphu, kantangale, kukondela. Once they come out, they should be probed accordingly with an idea of tracking the underhand tactics that marred the TIP registration process. TIP distribution Did people think the distributors were doing a good job? If not, why not? Did everybody with a voucher get a pack? If not, what happened to the vouchers? Were they confiscated? Or what? TIP Selection of beneficiaries and management of TIP The FGD participants should be told about the purpose of the exercise, that is, the card game. The aim is to find out if communities can select beneficiaries of TIP on their own since unlike in SP1 and SP2, the number of beneficiaries in TIP was reduced by half. The prospects of this year are that the number of households which received TIP last year will be further reduced. This means that only a third of the households in the village will this year be targeted. Check list for card game (selecting beneficiaries) Play card game with 1/3of the total number of households in the village and remember to mark the cards that have been selected for purposes of analysis of the categories selected. While the game is being played, the teams should do the following: Note down criteria for selection -What are the reasons for inclusion? -What are the reasons for exclusion? Note down their reaction to the idea of targeting. Is it possible? The idea here as already been reported above is to find out if communities are accepting the idea targeting. Is it culturally

89

acceptable? Can it be done? All reactions and problems that are observed in the course of the discussion should be noted down. The next step is to score proposed alternatives for targeting. If during the course of the discussion, new alternatives come up, they should also be scored. Remember that all alternatives should be scored. • Packs split in half before distribution • Packs split in half after distribution • Pack delivered only every other year (one year yes, one year no) – explain that maize can be recycled in second year, but they would not get fertiliser • Half the village receives • VH shares (using a cup) • No TIP (village prefers not to receive at all) Check list for discussion on management of TIP Who should manage the registration (that is, the selection of beneficiaries)? (VH and advisors, democratically elected task force, field assistant, any other they suggest). Can the registration be done within the village, or does it need to be done by outsider? ( the reasons for either case should be clearly stated). How do we ensure that the process is fair? How do we ensure that the process is transparent? How can we make sure that the benefits get to the right people? Community wrap up meeting The objective of the meeting will be to officially take leave of the community thanking them for having allowed the team into their village. The teams should also take opportunity of the meeting to summarise their activities within the village during their 4 day visit to the village and at least hint on the findings. The teams could also emphasise that the research process was merely a game intended to give insights into what would possibly happen if the envisaged programmes are to be implemented. Those households that have been selected should not be seen as having qualified as beneficiaries for the programmes. The actual beneficiaries will be selected once the programmes have become fully operational. The exercises that they have done will help them perform similar tasks when the time comes.

90

APPENDIX 4: FIELD MANUAL

TIP EVALUATION MODULE 4

MAIN STUDY

FIELD FACILITATORS MANUAL

July 2001

NAME : ___________________________________________

91

Acknowledgements This Manual has been developed by a team of consultants given the responsibility to conduct an evaluation of the TIP module for; Consulting the Poor. The manual is based on a preliminary study in 3 villages namely Kapyepye in Mangochi, Chipalanjirain Nkhotakota and Chideya in Nkhata Bay. The consultants acknowledge the support provided by the Malawi Government and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) through Dr Harry Potter at the British High Commission, Carlos Barahona and Sarah Levy of University of Reading Statistical Services Centre. Acknowledgement is also due to the village headmen and their subjects for the co-operation they rendered without which the Manual could not have taken the current shape. INTRODUCTION Purpose of study The broad aim of this evaluation module is to learn lessons about what the rural poor themselves think would be: Desirable forms of safety net provision Fair methods of selecting beneficiaries Effective and fair ways of managing the benefits. The purpose of researching this theme is to contribute to the National safety Net Strategy. Village visits Since the study is interested in the rural poor, emphasis has been made, using statistically acceptable method to randomly select villages all over Malawi. Therefore five teams that will be led by consultants will conduct the study. The main survey will cover 20 villages; each team will visit four villages. It is estimated that four days will be spent per village. Equipment These are the documents you will be given to help you do the study. Take them with you on the village visits and keep them in a safe place all the time: Field Facilitators Manual Guidance Notes on Debriefing Document List of codes for the well-being categories The following are the equipment you will be given to carry out the Field Exercises in each village: flip chart for transcribing maps, and marker pens notebooks for making additional notes about Field Exercises, and ballpoints small cards for social mapping One Debriefing Documents for each village, for recording results of Field Exercises sheets of A3 paper for transcribing maps to pin to Debriefing Documents Your team leader is one of the consultants: Blessings Chinsinga (Overall team leader), Chris Dzimadzi, Regson Chaweza, Patrick Kambewa, Prince Kapondamgaga and Overtoun Mgomezulu. You must hand over the Debriefing Documents to the consultant as soon as you have filled them in. You must hand over your Field Notebooks to consultant at the end of the study. Please write the EPA number clearly on all Debriefing Documents and A3 papers. Please write your name clearly on all your Field Notebooks.

92

WHAT TO DO GUIDANCE DAY ONE ENTERING THE VILLAGE 1.1 MEETING VILLAGE LEADERS Objective To clarify the purpose of the team’s visit and the Field Exercises they are to carry out in the village. It is advisable to limit the amount of information to be given to the village head so as to avoid pre-empting some answers. Avoid mention TIP on this day until the fourth day. Who Village leaders All Field Facilitators Time 20-30 minutes Materials Field notebooks Process Do not mention that you are working for the Government and that you are researching on TIP. The main focus of the study is to look at the safety nets that are available in the village without going into details of the other sections. Indicate to the village head the following: A need for two focus group discussion groups for the following day. The groups should be representative of the various parts of the village as well as well-being groups. The research process will take four days involving different groups each day. Request two groups for a FGD on the following day (Remember that the afternoon session will have to involve a group of volunteers to facilitate the social mapping exercise. These will have to be people who are at least literate and knowledgeable about the village.

Avoid having all “best” on the first day.

DAY TWO (am) 2.1 VILLAGE MEETING Objective To introduce the team to the rest of the village and discuss expectations to the village. Process Introduce the team to all village members. Take this opportunity to discuss peoples’ expectations of your visit. Introduce the objective and purpose of the visit to village members as done in 1.0 above, mentioning working logistics and approach. Relate the objectives and the peoples’ expectations and clarify which ones of the expectations will be addressed and which ones not and why?

93

94

2.2 GETTING TO KNOW THE KINDS OF SUPPORT PEOPLE IN THE VILLAGE RENDER TO EACH OTHER To get the village to tell you more about the kinds of support available in the village. Take note of the effectiveness of the support systems, a comparative analysis. Conduct a trend analysis of the various kinds of support in order to identify which kinds are common these days unlike those in the past, which ones are more effective and why. Discuss the various wealth categories of households in the village. Closing Day Two: request for another two teams for FGD the following morning.

During the discussion, look for the words that the participants will be using to describe the various kinds of support. For instants the note taker should take note of words such as chithandizo, chipepeso, kuthangata, etc. Specifically ask the respondents to indicate how they helped one another during the 1981 famine or any other recent famine in their area. Check for village structures that ensure that those in need get helped Also take note of the people who are likely to get he various kinds of help and those who are likely to offer the help, why they help (to get recognition, a feeling of duty bound?). It is advisable to target the elderly members of the society.

DAY THREE (am) Make sure that for the morning sessions the village head or any other influential members of the society do not participate. 3.1 Distributing the in-kind and cash transfers in the village. Divide the participants into two groups who will participate in cash transfer and in-kind transfer separately. In-kind transfers The annual in-kind transfer package consists of an initial package of 1 blanket, 1 pail, 2 cooking pots, 4 plates, 10 tablets of laundry soap, and 10 tablets of toilet soap. Then the households would also receive one bag of maize for the six months. The program would start in August such that the households would start receiving the maize in December. After the participants understand the package display the cards on the ground and ask them to select the deserving households. Tell them that only ten percent of the households can get the transfer therefore they must be critical in their choice. 1.1.2 Cash transfers The cash transfers would involve ten percent of the households receiving K550 per month for a period of one year. The selection process is similar to the in-kind transfers Management of the transfers Discuss who should manage each one of the transfers. Some possible alternatives include village head, democratically elected officials within the village, the beneficiaries etc. Discuss the merits of each alternative. Conduct a scoring exercise on each management. Management in this case refers to who should manage the resources once they get to the village Seasonal Calendar For both in-kind and cash transfers develop a seasonal calendar which will identify the month during which the households should get the transfers. Probe for reasons for their answers. For the in-kind transfers, ask the participants to indicate their preference for the individual items in the package. Who (Participants) Mixed group of men and women from different well-being groups and different parts of the village. Two groups of Field Facilitators: in each group there should be one facilitator and one note-taker. Time 3 hours Materials Index cards and field notebooks. Make notes in your field notebook. Transfer the map to flip chart paper

Do not tell one group what the other group is discussing at this point In order to facilitate this process, ask the participants to develop a list of criteria that would make a household to be eligible for the transfer. After developing the criteria, make a selection. After the ten percent of the households are selected, record well-being categories to which the households belong. Both the cash and the in-kind transfers would get equivalent Kwacha amounts. After the selection is made, ask the participants how many of them are part of the beneficiaries selected (self-selection). Also ask if the village head is selected. If the team observes that some obviously deserving groups have been left out some who were supposed to be left

95

out have been included, probe why (continue developing or adding on reasons for eliminating households). Give the participants five grains of maize or beans and ask them to give their vote (o where they are totally against an alternative and 5 where they are for the alternative and any figure in between depending on their liking the alternative. Make the scoring exercise as secretive as possible.

DAY THREE (p.m.) Combined Focus Group Discussion Bring both the in-kind and cash transfer groups together. Discuss the merits of each transfer and then conduct a scoring exercise between the two transfer types. 1.5 Interview with the Village head Brief the village head what had transpired during the day and seek his views how he thinks the transfers should be managed in the village (structures and procedures). Closing the day Thank the village head and make a request for the next day, i.e. two groups for a focus group discussion with similar composition as the day’s groups. Priority should be on people that have not participated in any FGD thus far. Objective Who Same group in the morning above One facilitator leads the group. DAY FOUR (am)

At this point, tell both groups what the other group was discussing in the morning. Discuss both groups the merits of both kinds of transfers. Watch out for a tendency for groups to protect what they discussed at any cost. Therefore give enough cooling off period before conducting a scoring exercise on the two Might want to interview the village head with his counsellors,

96

TIP transfers Form two groups for the FGDs and include the village head in one group. First ask the group to discuss how last year’s TIP was conducted in the village taking into account the registration process, selection of beneficiaries, the convenience of the voucher system, any problems they came across etc. Ask what suggestions do they make that will improve the system. Indicate how the distributor faired. Select beneficiaries for TIP in the village Develop criteria that should be used when selecting TIP beneficiaries. Using the criteria, select one-third of the households using the index cards that were developed in Day Two. Process: Display the cards on the ground and ask the participants to select the deserving households using the developed criteria. Take note of any reasons they give for one household to receive or not. DAY FOUR (pm) TIP Distribution Alternatives (Scoring Exercise) Present to the participants several alternatives for distributing TIP as possible options for the future. These include 1) Before distribution the packs are reduced to half the current size and distributed to every household in the village 2) After distribution the packs are split into one half so that everybody in the village receives 3) Distribute TIP every other year to every household in the village 4) Only one half of the households should receive TIP 5) The village head uses a cup distribute the inputs to all households in the village and 6) No TI 7) Less that half the village receives. Closing Meeting Open meeting to thank the village head and the village for their cooperation.

political leaders etc. Try to establish how fair, transparent the system was, what criteria were used to select the beneficiaries and the extent to which these were followed. Look for words such as kukondera, ziphuphu, which indicate the fairness of the process. Make as much detailed notes as possible. After a selection is made, ask the participants to indicate who among them have been selected as beneficiaries. Take notes of the various well-being categories of the beneficiaries. Inquire on why

97

some who should be excluded have included and vice versa. (augmenting the reasons for inclusion or exclusion criteria) Use the same procedure of scoring as above. Remember in your closing remarks to indicate that you were in the village to learn how people in the village assist each other. Your presence does not mean that the village will receive anything this year or next year but sometime in future some programs might want to use the lessons learnt from this process. The names you recorded was merely to facilitate your work, you will not report those names to any organization for transfer programs. Invite questions

98

APPENDIX 5: DEBRIEFING DOCUMENT

99

1

MODULE 4 CONSULTING THE POOR ON SAFETY NETS

DEBRIEFING DOCUMENT & INSTRUCTIONS FOR RECORDING INFORMATION

Day 2: Traditional Support Systems Take notes in notebooks – under Checklist headings if possible. Mapping Exercise 1. Produce a map. For big villages, you may decide to do a general map of the village and then divide the FG into smaller groups to draw the ‘clusters’ of houses in detail. Make a clean copy on a flip chart. 2. Produce cards with names, household numbers and symbols for poverty/vulnerability. 3. Words used and definitions. 4. Interesting quotations.

2

5. Problems encountered during mapping exercise. 6. Numbers of people in each category of poverty/vulnerability as defined by villagers

Category Vernacular Chichewa (if not

original language) English Number

Day 3 Cash Transfers: Selection Exercise – Card Game 1. Description of FG members: sex; poverty/vulnerability category; notes/comments. Name Sex Poverty/Vulnerability

category Notes/Comments

3

2. Comments on whether villagers seem over-keen to be involved and why. 3. Initial criteria for selection (before playing card game). After playing the game: 4. Reasons for INclusion of individuals as the game is played

4

5. Reasons for EXclusion of individuals as the game is played 6. SUMMARY: Any amendments to initial criteria. 7. Consultants’ observations about villagers’ reaction to being asked to target, including how difficult the process was and how many ‘rounds’ were involved.

5

8. Numbers of beneficiaries selected per poverty/vulnerability category, including numbers of beneficiaries who are the people in the FG doing the selection or their family/friends.

Category Vernacular English Number of

beneficiaries Number of beneficiaries from

the FG or their families

Cash Transfers: FGD on Management 1. Take notes in notebooks – under Checklist headings if possible. 2. Scoring of alternatives

Alternative Score Village Head alone

Committee led by Village Head

Committee democratically elected

Committee of Beneficiaries

Cash Transfers: Seasonal Calendar 1. Keep the flip chart, making a clean copy if necessary. 2. Take notes in notebooks about reasons for preference of particular timings.

6

In-kind Transfers: Selection Exercise – Card Game 1. Description of FG members: sex; poverty/vulnerability category; notes/comments. Name Sex Poverty/Vulnerability

category Notes/Comments

2. Comments on whether villagers seem over-keen to be involved and why. 3. Initial criteria for selection (before playing card game).

7

After playing the game: 4. Reasons for INclusion of individuals as the game is played 5. Reasons for EXclusion of individuals as the game is played

8

6. SUMMARY: Any amendments to initial criteria. 7. Consultants’ observations about villagers’ reaction to being asked to target, including how difficult the process was and how many ‘rounds’ were involved. 8. Numbers of beneficiaries selected per poverty/vulnerability category, including numbers of beneficiaries who are the people in the FG doing the selection or their family/friends.

Category Vernacular English Number of

beneficiaries Number of beneficiaries from

the FG or their families

9

In-kind Transfers: FGD on Management 1. Take notes in notebooks – under Checklist headings if possible. 2. Scoring of alternatives

Alternative Score Village Head alone

Committee led by Village Head

Committee democratically elected

Committee of Beneficiaries

In-kind Transfers: Seasonal Calendar 1. Keep the flip chart, making a clean copy if necessary. 2. Take notes in notebooks about reasons for preference of particular timings. Comparison of Cash and In-kind Transfers 1. List of advantages

Cash In-kind

10

2. List of disadvantages

Cash In-kind

3. Scoring of preferences (totals only). Score Cash

In-kind

4. Comments, including whether gender or being work-constrained affects the outcome. Interview with Village Head Take notes in notebooks.

11

Day 4 TIP: FGD on Registration and Distribution 1. Take notes in notebooks – under Checklist headings if possible. Focus on suggested improvements. TIP: Selection Exercise – Card Game 1. Description of FG members: sex; poverty/vulnerability category; TIP recipient?; Village Head? notes/comments. Name Sex Poverty/Vulnerability

category Notes/Comments

2. Comments on whether villagers seem over-keen to be involved and why.

12

3. Initial criteria for selection (before playing card game). After playing the game: 4. Reasons for INclusion of individuals as the game is played 5. Reasons for EXclusion of individuals as the game is played

13

6. SUMMARY: Any amendments to initial criteria. 7. Consultants’ observations about villagers’ reaction to being asked to target, including how difficult the process was and how many ‘rounds’ were involved. 8. Numbers of beneficiaries selected per poverty/vulnerability category (P/O), with column for numbers of beneficiaries who are the people in the FG doing the selection or their family/friends.

Category Vernacular English Number of

beneficiaries Number of beneficiaries from

the FG or their families

14

TIP: Scoring of Alternatives 1. Full list of alternatives and scores.

Alternative Score Packs split in half before distribution

Packs split in half after the distribution

Jump a year (receive this year but not next)

Half the village receives

Village head shares (using a cup)

No TIP

TIP: FGD on Management 1. Take notes in notebooks – under Checklist headings if possible.

APPENDIX 6: POVERTY/VULNERABILITY CATEGORIES - VILLAGE TABLES

Category of poverty/vulnerability as defined by FGD participants Village/Vernacular Chichewa English

Number of people in this category

Nkunga, Nsanje Ochakachika Osauka Poor 69 Amisampha yao Oyesera Middle/Medium 17 Wopeza bwino Anamadyabwino Rich/Well to do 4 Mwandama, Thyolo Wosaukitsitsa Poorest of the poor 45 Wosauka Poor 48 Wopeza bwino Pang’ono Better off 6 Opeza bwino Rich 2 Luwayo, Blantyre Wonyanyiritsitsa Poorest of the poor 4 Wonyanyirira Poor of the poor 112 Ovutika Poor 14 Opeza bwino pang’ono Better off 3 Opeza bwino Rich 9 Chikadza, Chikwawa Obonera Osowa thandizo Poor 139 Opatako Medium 15 Wopata Wolemera The rich 27 Mutcheza, Phalombe Wosauka/Osowa Poor 70 Wopezako bwino Middle class/medium 10 Opata/Wolemera Rich/Well to do 0 Tambala, Mulanje Osowa The poor 134 Alikatikati The middle/Medium 33 Opata Well to do/Rich 3 Mapota, Zomba Wopata pang’ono Better off 3 Wosauka Poor 47 Wosaukitsitsa Poor of the poor 60 Chisuse, Machinga Wakusichira Wopeza bwino

kwambiri Very rich 3

Wakupata Opeza bwino pang’ono

Better off 9

Wakulaga Wosauka Poor 137 Mbawi (Mphawi) Wosaukitsitsa Poor of the poor 42

113

Dula, Balaka Wovutika Struggling 34 Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 15 Wosauka poor Wopezako Average 7 Wokalamba

ndiponso osauka Old and poor 4

Ng’omba, Ntcheu Wovutika Struggling 24 Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 8 Wosauka poor Wolumala Disabled 5 Wokalamba ndi

osauka Old and poor 5

Amasiye Orphans 6 Wopezako Average 8 Makalani, Dedza Wovutika Struggling 18 Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor Wosauka poor Wopezako Average 14 Wokalamba Old 5 Wokalamba ndi

wosowa Old and poor 9

Kasalika, Lilongwe Wovutika Struggling 25 Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 6 Wosauka poor 5 Wokalamba Old 5 Amasiye Orphans 4 Wopezako Average 5 Nyalubwe, Dowa Wovutika The poor 30 Wovutika pang’ono Mild poor 8 Wovutikitsitsa Very very poor 10 Wopeza Has at least something 7 Wopeza bwino Has at least something 18 Wopezako Has a start 13 Wolemera Rich 2 Wokalamba Aged 10 Wolumala Disabled 6 Kachilili, Mchinji Ovutika The poor 26 Ovutika pang’ono Mildly Poor 14 Olumara Disabled 2 Ovutika kwambiri Very poor 15

114

Okalamba Elderly 13 Mkoche, Salima Wovutikitsitsa Poor of the poor 6 Odya bwino Mild rich 4 Osauka Poor 8 Opezako Mild poor 6 Mwana alirenji Abundant food 1 Ovutika mopepela Poor but capable 1 Ovutika/mphawi Very poor 51 Kajikhomere, Kasungu Wakavu Wosauka The poor 3 Wakavu padoko Wosauka

pang’ono Mild poor 2

Wakavu Chomene Wosauka kwambiri

Very poor 9

Wakusanga makola Wopeza bwino The rich 6 Wakusanga makola chomene

Wopeza bwino kwabiri

Well to do 5

Wanakazi walanda kweniso wakavu chomene

Amayi amasiye komanso wosauka kwambiri

Very poor widows 2

Loti Chirwa, Mzimba Wakusuzgika Wovutika Needy 17 Wasiwa/chokolo wamasiye Orphan/widow 2 Chekulu Wokalamba Elderly 3 Vilima Wopunduka Disabled 2 Suzgika+siwa Wovutika ndi

wamasiye Needy + orphan 2

Siwa + Chekulu Wamasiye/wokalamba

Widow+ Elderly 1

Wokhupuka Wopeza bwino Well-to-do 15 Wakusangako Wopeza bwino

pang’ono Relatively Better 31

Yalero, Rumphi Waroma Wopeza bwino Relatively rich 13 Mkavu Wovutika Struggling 49 Mkavuchomene Wosowa Needy 2 Mkavu pachoko Wovutika

pang’ono Fairly struggling 18

Wakusuzgika walanda Wozuzika wa masiye

orphans 1

Wakusuzgika, chokolo chekulu

Wozunzika, umasiye wabanja

Vulnerable widowed and very old

2

Wakusuzgina, chokolo Wozunzika, wamasiye wa banja

Vulnerable widow 2

Wakusuzgika walwali Wozunziika Vulnerable sick 2

115

wodwaladwala Wakusuzgika + walwali, wachekulu, wavilema

Wozunzika, wodwaladwala, wokalamba, wolumala

Vulnerable, sickly, very old

2

Wakusuzgika, walwali, chekulu

Wozunzika, wodwala wokalamba

Vulnerable, very old, disabled

1

Wakusuzgika, wachekulu, Wavilema

Wozunzika, wokalamba, wolumala

1

Chakuwereka, Karonga Msambazi Wopeza bwino Relatively well-to-do 14 Mkavu Wovutika Struggling 88 Mkavu chomene Wosauka Very poor 17 Wakusuzgika Wopsinjika Vulnerable 28 Kanjeri Mondo, Chitipa Mpinangani, mukangale + mulumale

Wosowa wokalamba, wolumala

Needy old and disabled 1

Mpinangani, chilingo, mukangale

Wosowa, umasiye, okalamba

Needy, widowed, old 5

Mkawi Wopeza bwino Rich 6 Mkawi + mulumale Wopeza bwino,

wolumala Rich and disabled 1

Mpinangami + mulumale Wosowa wolumala

Needy disabled 2

Mpina, mulemale, mukangale

Wovutika wolumala okalamba

Poor and disabled, very old

2

Mpina, + mukangale, chilingo

Wovutika, wokalamba, umasiye wa banja

Poor, very old, widowed

8

Mkawi panandi Wopeza bwino Relatively better 14 Mpinangani + mukangale Wosowa

wokalamba Needy and very old 1

Mpina mukangale Wovutika wokalamba

Poor and very old 5

Mkawi panandi na mulemale Wopeza bwino wolumala

Relatively better and disabled

1

Mpina na chichingo Wovutika, umasiye wa banja

Poor and widowed 2

Mkawi panandi na mukangale

Wopeza bwino wokalamba

Relatively better and very old

3

Mpinangani Wosowa Needy 3 Mpina Wovutika Poor 28 Mpina na mulemale Wovutuka

wlumala Poor and disabled 3

116

APPENDIX 7: SELECTED BENEFICIARIES (CASH) - VILLAGE TABLES Poverty/vulnerable category

Village Vernacular English

Number selected

Number of self/family selections

Nkunga, Nsanje Wokalamba Elderly 5 2 Wosowa misampha Helpless 2 Ofedwa Widows 2 Olumala Disabled 4 1 Osunga ana amasiye Keeps orphans 2 Mwandama, Thyolo Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 7 3 Wosauka Poor 3 2 Luwayo, Blantyre Wonyanyira Poor of the poor 4 1 Wovutika Poor 10 3 Chikadza, Chikwawa Wokalamba Elderly 7 2 Wopenga Mad 1 0 Amayi Amasiye Widows 3 1 Wodwaladwala Sickly 4 3 Alibe Chilichonse Has nothing 1 0 Udindo wambiri Many

responsibilities 3 2

Amasunga ana masiye

Keeps orphans 1 1

Mutcheza, Phalombe Wokalamba Elderly 2 Oyang’anira

Amasiye Looks after orphans

2

Amisala Mentally ill 2 Ochulukidwa Overloaded 1 Odwalika Sickly 4 Antchito zambiri A lot of work 1

4

Tambala, Mulanje Agogo Elderly 2 1 Wodwaladwala Sickly 2 1 Kusunga ana

Amasiye Keeps orphans 2

Amayi amasiye Widows 3 2 Alibe chilichonse Has nothing 2 Alibe ndalama No means of

finding money or food

2 1

Olumala Disabled 1 Udindo wambiri A lot of

responsibilities 1

Mapota, Zomba Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 6 3 Wosauka Poor 6 1

117

Chisuse, Machinga Wakulaga Poor 14 12 Mphawi Poor of the poor 6 4 Dula, Balaka Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 3 4 Wosauka poor 2 2 Wopezako bwino Rich 1 1 Ng’omba, Ntcheu Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 3 6 Wosauka poor 3 5 Makalani, Dedza Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 1 1 Wosauka poor 2 4 Wopezako bwino Rich 1 1 Kasalika, Lilongwe Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 3 2 Wosauka poor 1 1 Wopeza bwino Rich 1 1 Nyalubwe, Dowa Wokalamba/

wovutikitsitsa Very poor and aged

5 5

Olumala ovutikitsitsa

Very very poor and disabled

2 2

Ovutikitsitsa Very very poor 1 1 Wovutikitsitsa/

olumala/ wokalamab Very very poor, aged, disabled

2 2

Kachilili, Mchinji Okalamba and

Mphawi Poor and elderly 3

Mphawi zedi Very very poor 3 Mphawi pang’ono Mild poor 1 Olumala Disabled 1 Mkoche, Salima Amphawi &

amasiye Very poor and widowed

4 2

Wosaukitsitsa Poor of the poor 2 1 Amphawi Very poor 1 Mphawi olumala Very poor and

disabled 1

Kajikhomere, Kasungu Wakavu chomene Very poor 2 2 Wakavu chomene

kweniso chimya Very poor and divorced

1 1

Loti Chirwa, Mzimba Wakusuzgika Needy 1 1 Wasiwa Orphans+widows 2 1 Chekulu Elderly 1 Vilima Disabled 2 Chekulu+siwa Elderly+Widow 1 1 Yalero, Rumphi Mkavu Struggling 1 1 Wakusuzgika Orphans 1

118

walanda Wakusuzgika

walwali, chekulu Sickly and old 1

Wakusuzgika, chekulu, vilema

Very old disabled 2

Wakusuzika walwali Sickly 2 1 Wakusuzika vilema,

walwali Disabled, sickly 1

Wakusuzgika vyokolo

Widow (er) 1

Chakuwereka, Karonga Msambadzi Relatively well to

do 0

Mkavu Struggling 1 Mkavuchomene Needy (very poor) 2 1 wakusuzgika vulnerable 12 4 Kanjeri Mondo, Chitipa Mpinangani,

mulumale, mukangale

Very poor, disabled

1

Mpinangani, chilingo mukangale

Very poor widowed

1

Mpina, chilingo Poor and widowed 1 1 Mpina chilingo

mukankale Poor, widowed, very old

4 1

Mpina, mukangale Poor, very old 2

119

120

APPENDIX 8: SELECTED BENEFICIARIES (IN-KIND) - VILLAGE TABLES Poverty/vulnerable category

Village Vernacular English

Number selected

Number of self/family selections

Nkunga, Nsanje Nkhalamba Elderly 6 3 Amayi Amasiye Widows 3 2 Wolumala Disabled 4 1 Udindo Wambiri Too many

responsibilities 1

Mwandama, Thyolo Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 8 4 Wosauka Poor 1 Opeza bwino

pang’ono Better off 1

Opeza bwino Rich 1 Luwayo, Blantyre Wovutika Poor 8 11 Wonyanyira Poor of the poor 5 1 Wonyanyiritsitsa Very very poor 1 Chikadza, Chikwawa Wokalamba Elderly 2 Amayi Amasiye Widow 4 Wopuwala Disabled 1 Wamisala Mentally disturbed 1 Wodwalika Sickly 4 Woyang’anira anan

amasiye Looks after orphans

4 1

Wopanda Malo Olima

Landless 4 1

Mutcheza, Phalombe Amasiye Widows 3

Nkhalamba Elderly 3 Wosunga Amasiye Keep orphans 1 Wodwala Sickly 1

Note: total number of beneficiaries selected was 5; some fell into more than one category. Amisala Mentally ill 1

4

Tambala, Mulanje Wodwalika Sickly 6 Wokalamba Elderly 6 1 Oyang’anira ana

amasiye Look after orphans 3

Mapota, Zomba Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 11 Chisuse, Machinga Wakulaga Poor 7 3 Mbawi Very poor 13 5 Dula, Balaka Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 4 5

121

Wosauka poor 2 4 Wopezako Average 0 0 Ng’omba, Ntcheu Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 3 3 Wosauka poor 2 3 Wopezako Average 1 1 Makalani, Dedza Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 2 2 Wosauka Poor 2 3 Wopezako Average 0 0 Kasalika, Lilongwe Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 4 6 Wosauka poor 2 2 Wopezako Average 0 0 Nyalubwe, Dowa Wokalamba/

wovutika Poor and aged 3

Olumala ovutikitsitsa

Very very poor and disabled

3

Ovutikitsitsa Very very poor 3 Wovutika/ olumala/

wokalamba Poor, aged, disabled

2

Kachilili, Mchinji Refused to select beneficiaries Mkoche, Salima Mphawi ndi amasiye Very poor and

widowed 3 1

Amphawi ndi olumala

Very poor and disabled

1

Wosakitsitsa Poor of the poor 2 1 Mphawi okalamba Very poor and

aged 1

mphawi Very very poor 1 Kajikhomere, Kasungu Wakavu chomene Very poor 3 2 Loti Chirwa, Mzimba Wakavu+vilima Poor + Disabled 2 Wakusuzgika Very poor 1 Chokolo+ Mkavu Widowed + poor 2 Mkavu + Mchekulu Poor and very old 2 Yalero, Rumphi Mkavu Struggling 4 Wakusuzizgika na

wa landa Vulnerable orphans

1

Wkusuzgika walwali na chekulu

Vulnerable very old disabled

2

Wakusuzgika wachekulu

Very old 2

Msambadzi Relatively well to

do 0

Mkavu Struggling 3

Chakuwereka, Karonga

122

Mkavuchomene Needy (very poor) 1 wakusuzgika Vulnerable 11 2 Kanjeri Mondo, Chitipa Mpinangani,

mulumale, mukangale

Very poor, disabled + very old

1

Mpinangani, chilingo mukangale

Very poor widowed + very old

2

Mpina, chilingo Poor and widowed 1 Mpina chilingo

mukankale Poor, widowed, very old

2

Mpina, mukangale mulumale

Poor disabled, old 1

Mpinangani, mulunde

Poor, disabled 1

Very poor and disabled

Very poor, disabled

1

123

APPENDIX 9: SELECTED BENEFICIARIES (TIP WITH VILLAGE HEAD) Poverty/vulnerable category

Village Vernacular English

Number selected

Number of self/family selections

Nkunga, Nsanje Wodwala Sickly 3 Wopuwala Disabled 7 Wokalamba Elderly 10 1 Woyang’anira ana

amasiye Looks after Orphans

5 1

Amayi Amasiye Widows 2 Udindo wambiri Over loaded 2 Bambo amasiye Widowers 1 1 Mwandama, Thyolo Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 25 Wosauka Poor 8 Wopeza bwino

pang’ono Better off 1

Luwayo, Blantyre Refused to select beneficiaries Chikadza, Chikwawa Wodwalika The sickly 8 Wopuwala Disabled 7 Anjala chifukwa cha

ulesi Lazy 5

Wopanikizika Over loaded 5 Amayi amasiye Widow 13 Wokalamba Elderly 9 1 Wosowa malo landless 19 1 Mutcheza, Phalombe Wokalamba Elderly 11 4 Amayi amasiye Widows 2 Ochulukidwa Too many

responsibilities 1 1

Wamisala Mentally ill 2 1 Amasunga ana

Amasiye Keeps Orphans 4 2

Katikati Medium 1 1 Tambala, Mulanje Odwala Sickly 11 1 Okalamba Elderly 23 11 Azimayi amasiye widow 2 1 Audindo wambiri Overloaded 5 11 Osamala amasiye Keeps orphan 6 1 Osowa njira

yopezera zinthu Helpless 2

Opunduka Disabled 1 Mapota, Zomba Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 24 Wosauka Poor 12

125

Chisuse, Machinga Mbawi/Mphawi Very very poor 27 14 Wakulaga Poor 35 Wakupata Better off 2 Dula, Balaka Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 7 4 Wosauka poor 7 3 Wopezako Average 3 4 Wopezako bwino Rich 1 1 Ng’omba, Ntcheu There was no FG with Village Head Makalani, Dedza Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 2 3 Wosauka poor 4 2 Wopezako Average 6 1 Kasalika, Lilongwe Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 8 5 Wosauka poor 6 6 Wopezako Average 6 4 Nyalubwe, Dowa Wovutikitsitsa Very very poor 9 Wovutika Poor 6 Wolumala Disabled 3 Wopeza Have a start 2 Wokalamba

wovutika Aged and poor 4

Wovutika pang’ono Mild poor 2 Wovutika wolumala Disabled and poor 1 Ovutikitsitsa /

wolumala/okalamba Aged/disabled/ very very poor

1

Wovutikitsitsa/ okalamba

Aged and very very poor

6

Kachilili, Mchinji Mphawi The poor 5 2 Olumala Disabled 2 1 Okalamba Elderly 8 3 Osauka pang’ono Mild poor 4 4 Osauka kwambiri Very poor 4 Opeza bwino Well to do 1 Mkoche, Salima Mphawi ndi olumala Very poor and

disabled 1

Mphawi Very very poor 7 3 Mphawi ndi amasiye Very poor and

widowed 7 3

Wosaukitsitsa Poor of the poor 6 2 Osauka Poor 2 1 Opezako /Okalamba Mild poor but old 1 Mphawi okalamba Very poor and

aged 2

Kajikhomere, Kasungu Missing data

126

Loti Chirwa, Mzimba Wakukhupuka Relatively well to

do 2 2

Wakusangako Relatively Better 6 3 Wakusuzgika

chokolo Very poor widow 4 1

Wakavu + wakusuzgika

Very poor 13 6

Wakavu + Mchekulu

Poor and old 1

Wakavu + vilima Poor and disabled 2 2 Yalero, Rumphi Waroma Relatively rich 2 Mkavupachoko Fairly struggling 5 Mkavu Struggling 15 2 Mkavuchomene Needy 1 Walwali, chekulu Very old sickly 1 Wakusuzgika

walwali Sickly 2

Wakusuzgika walanda

Orphans 1

Wakusuzgika chekulu disabled

Old disable 1

Wakusuzgika vyolelo

Widows 1

Wakusuzgika, chekulu, Walwali, vilema

Very old, sickly, disabled

1

Chakuwereka, Karonga Msambadzi Relatively well to

do 2 1

Mkavu Struggling 17 5 Mkavuchomene Needy (very poor) 9 wakusuzgika vulnerable 21 1 Kanjeri Mondo, Chitipa Mpinangani,

mulumale Very poor and disabled

3 1

Mpinangani, chilingo, mukangale

Needy, widowed, old

4

Mpina Poor 1 Mpinangani Relatively better 1 1 Mpina, +

mukangale, chilingo Poor, very old, widowed

13 3

Mpinangani + mukangale

Needy and very old

1

Mpina namukangale Poor and very old 2 Mpina namulemale Poor and disabled 2 Mpina chiligo Poor and widow 2 Mpinangani

mulemale mukangale

Very poor disabled very old

1

127

128

APPENDIX 10: SELECTED BENEFICIARIES (TIP WITHOUT VILLAGE HEAD) Poverty/vulnerable category

Village Vernacular English

Number selected

Number of self/family selections

Nkunga, Nsanje Wodwala Sickly 2 1 Wopuwala Disabled 7 Wokalamba Elderly 8 1 Woyang’anira ana

amasiye Looks after Orphans

5

Amayi Amasiye Widows 8 1 Udindo wambiri Over loaded 2 Osawa njira

yopezera dinyero Helpless 4 1

Mwandama, Thyolo Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 20 15 Wosauka Poor 13 5 Ulesi Lazy 1 Luwayo, Blantyre Opeza bwino Rich 1 Osauka Poor 31 6 Onyanyira Very poor 7 Chikadza, Chikwawa Wodwalika The sickly 4 Wopuwala Disabled 7 Wokalamba Old 6 Woyang’anira ana

amasiye Looks after orphans

2

Wopanikizika Over loaded 3 Amayi amasiye Widow 3

Wokalamba Elderly 5 2 Amayi amasiye Widows 8 2 Ochulukidwa Too many

responsibilities 4

Osawa njira yopezera dinyero

Helpless 2

Amasunga ana Amasiye

Keeps Orphans 4 1

Osiyidwa Ukwati 4 Odwalika Sickly 3

Tambala, Mulanje Osowa Poor 7 38 Katikati Medium 3 3

Mapota, Zomba Wosauka Poor 5 2 Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 32

Chisuse, Machinga Wakupa Better 2 off 2

Wakulaga 35 31

Mutcheza, Phalombe

Divorced

Poor

129

Mphawi Very very poor 27 7

Wosaukitsitsa 8 3

Wopezako Average 5 4 Ng’omba, Ntcheu Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 7 5 Wosauka poor 6 8 Wopezako Average 4 3 Makalani, Dedza Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 6 1 Wosauka poor 3 0 Wopezako Average 3 0

Wosaukitsitsa Very very poor 11 8 Wosauka poor 5 3 Wopezako 4 Average 2

Nyalubwe, Dowa Wovutikitsitsa Very very poor 11

Wovutika Poor 5 Wolumala Disabled 2 Wopeza Have a start 2 Wokalamba

wovutika Aged and poor 8

Wovutika pang’ono Mild poor 4 Wovutika wolumala 3 Disabled and poor Kachilili, Mchinji Mphawi The poor 2 1 Olumala Disabled 2 1 Okalamba Elderly 9 3 Osauka pang’ono Mild poor 4 4 Osauka kwambiri Very poor 5 3 Opeza bwino Well to do 2 1 Mkoche, Salima Mphawi ndi olumala Very poor and

disabled 7 1

Mphawi Very very poor 6 2 Mphawi ndi amasiye 1 Very poor and

widowed 2

Wosaukitsitsa 4 2 Osauka Poor 7 3

Wakavu Poor 2 1 Wakavu Chomene 6 Very poor 5 Wakavu chomene

ndiposo chiuya Very poor and divorced

1

Loti Chirwa, Mzimba Wakusuzgika

chokolo Very poor widow 4 2

+ wakusuzgika

Very poor 11 3

Wakavu + Poor and old 2

Dula, Balaka Very very poor 5 Wosauka poor 6

Kasalika, Lilongwe

Poor of the poor

Kajikhomere, Kasungu

Wakavu

130

Mchekulu Wakavu + vilima Poor and disabled 2 1 Wakusangako Relatively better 5 1 Yalero, Rumphi Waroma Relatively rich 1 Mkavupachoko Fairly struggling 4 Mkavu Struggling 16 Mkavuchomene Needy 1 1 Walwali, chekulu Very old sickly 2

walwali Sickly 2 1

walanda

chekulu disabled Old disable 1

vyolelo

Wakusuzgika, chekulu, Walwali, vilema

Very old, sickly, disabled

0

Msambadzi Relatively well to

do 18 3

Struggling 8 1 Mkavuchomene Needy (very poor) 23 2 wakusuzgika vulnerable 0 0 Kanjeri Mondo, Chitipa Mpinangani,

mulumale Very poor and disabled

3

Mpinangani, chilingo, mukangale

Needy, widowed, old

3

Mkawi panani Relatively rich 2 1 Mpinangani Very better 6 2 Mpina, +

mukangale, chilingo Poor, very old, widowed

6 4

Mkawi panandi Relatively better 2 Mpina namukangale Poor and very old 3 1 Mkawi panandi

mukangale Relatively better and disabled, old

1

Mpina namulemale Poor and disabled 2 Mpina chiligo Poor and widow 1 Mpinangani

mulemale mukangale

Very poor disabled very old

1

Wakusuzgika

Wakusuzgika Orphans 1

Wakusuzgika

Wakusuzgika Widows 2

Chakuwereka, Karonga

Mkavu

131