بيانات العضو
أسهم هذا العضو في:
-
-
-
This is an important topic and regretfully undervalued to date, in understanding actual socioeconomic dyanamics at community level and how these can promote and foster improved household resilience, food security and nutrition, and overall livelihoods. Social scientists among the range of experts working in rural development-food security sectors have typically appreciated the power and vitality of social relations in rural communities (I am particularly thinking about Africa based on my own experiences), including how they are often (overlooked) determining factors in reaching (and also inhibiting) targeted, envisaged outcomes and impacts of supporting policies/programmes/projects. Building on those positive existing social, usually customary and traditional-based practices to contribute to and reinforce development objectives is advised and we should advocate for greater analysis, understanding and incorporation of these sometimes complex inter-relations into our policy and programme design and implementation work. This analysis is particularly relevant to promoting inclusion and equitable access to resources and assets provided to households/communities, for example through government programmes, as it propvides greater understanding of "how" households actually use, allocate, share or retain benefits.
I wish to provide as one example among others which we are working on in FAO under the from Protection to Production (PtoP) project, which is an impact evaluation using a mixed methods approach to understanding impacts, and economic impacts more specifically, of cash transfer programmes in SSA at the household, community levels, and on social networks in particular. I believe our qualitative findings from analysis of the Ghana Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) cash transfer demonstrate best the role of social networks in rural communities (italics my own):
"Despite high poverty levels and livelihood insecurity, the fieldwork confirmed a reasonably high level of contribution-based social networking in poor rural areas. These networks were often fragile, however. A lack of trust to pay fees and the necessary dues for these groups was one reason why groups might dissolve and then reform. For the potentially vulnerable in general, and for the LEAP beneficiaries in particular, it was very important to spread risk by trying to maintain links with social networks, with the most important risk-sharing network being the extended family. Beyond its impact on beneficiary self esteem and hope, the LEAP transfer enabled beneficiaries to enter, or ‘re-enter’, existing contribution-based social and socio-economic networks."
And further,
"Crucially, the introduction of LEAP had enabled many beneficiary households to ‘re-enter’ their extended family network, helping them to move from isolation and vulnerability to inclusion and risk sharing. In some instances beneficiaries had even been able to turn provider, loaning to other family members in trouble. In the Fante society of the Central Region, the LEAP transfer enabled beneficiaries to contribute to extended family networks through the ‘family levy’ (abusua to). This contribution is mainly for risk sharing around burial and funeral party costs. This is an ad hoc contribution so the LEAP transfer enabled beneficiaries to keep money aside for this expenditure. One beneficiary in Agona Abrim, Central Region, explained how even before LEAP she would still pay her family levy using family remittances. If you stopped contributing then, ‘if you die you will be buried without a coffin’. The importance of a decent burial in Fante society cannot be overstated: ‘People pay more respect to your coffin than when you are alive’. Extended family members, knowing that the LEAP contribution eases the burden of their support, were now more likely to provide support to beneficiaries. Beneficiaries in Agona Abrim ironically noted this change of position that financial contribution brings: ‘Now when someone dies, they say "come come"!"
As demonstrated, social networks in rural communities in Ghana serve as a safety net in themselves (e.g. food, cash) and an avenue towards increasing inclusion, participation, voice and engaments among all members of the community, including the most vulnerable. Ghana and other completed studies from countries covered under the project can be found on the PtoP website: http://www.fao.org/economic/PtoP/en/.
Please find a link to the Ghana research brief and to the full report.
-
Pamela Pozarny
>> VERSION FRANÇAISE CI-DESSOUS <<
Implementation considerations, including roles and linkages:
I agree with many of the comments of previous interventions and would like to further highlight a few points concerning implementation considerations particularly in the design of social protection programmes that seem relevant to West Africa. It seems a great deal of decentralization is well underway in a number of countries in West Africa, where varying degrees of genuine local empowerment, transfer of responsibility and decision-making have evolved. Therein, relevant operating structures are in place with people assuming their appropriate roles and mandates.
It seems important that the national overall social protection framework in these countries should build on, be designed with and work through these structures as much as possible, from targeting procedures, to implementation, grievances and monitoring etc. The benefits are many - not only do many of these local institutions represent local populations, they also work in these zones and are well informed of the socio-economic contexts, wealth categories, and causes of acute poverty and shocks, as well as measures to strengthen household resilience to shocks and risk. These structures also aim to ensure synergies and complementarities among programmes, which would include social protection programmes, and these with other development-oriented interventions.
This may sound simple and common knowledge, but implementation presents challenges. Prevailing gaps continue. Limited coordination at local levels among and within sectors actually pose considerable problems limiting outcomes - target groups may be poorly defined, programmes may not reach intended beneficiaries or may not be well tailored to real constraints or priorities, etc. Findings from impact evaluations of social protection programmes, such as the cash transfer have shown that impacts can be vast, assisting households in immediate and even longer-term resilience and growth, and also spill over into the local economy, boosting economic activity for the wider community.
It seems important therefore that social protection design takes into account existing local structures (inclusive of government, non-government, formal and informal institutions and services) to build linkages, ensure complementarities and achieve wide and sustainable impacts.
Considérations de mise en œuvre, y compris les rôles et liens :
Je suis d'accord avec la plupart des commentaires des interventions précédentes et tiens à souligner plus précisément quelques points concernant les considérations de mise en œuvre, notamment dans la conception des programmes de protection sociale, qui semblent pertinents pour l'Afrique occidentale. Il semble que des processus de décentralisation sont en cours dans un certain nombre de pays d'Afrique de l'Ouest, où l’appropriation au niveau local, le transfert de la responsabilité et de prise de décision ont évolué à des degrés variés. Les structures d'exploitation nécessaires sont en place avec des personnes assumant leur rôle et leur mandat.
Il semble important que le cadre de protection sociale national de ces pays se construise sur cette base, et être conçu en liaison avec ces structures autant que possible, depuis les procédures de ciblage des bénéficiaires à la mise en œuvre et au suivi des griefs, de l’évaluation, etc. Les avantages sont nombreux : beaucoup de ces institutions locales représentent les populations locales, elles travaillent également dans ces zones et sont bien informés des contextes socio –économiques et des catégories de richesse, des causes de la pauvreté et de crises aiguës, ainsi que des mesures nécessaires pour renforcer la résilience des ménages aux chocs et aux risques. Ces structures visent également à assurer des synergies et des complémentarités entre les programmes, qui incluraient les programmes de protection sociale, et les interventions axées sur le développement.
Cela peut sembler simple et de connaissance commune, mais la mise en œuvre présente des difficultés. De nombreuses Lacunes continuent d’exister. La coordination limitée au niveau local entre secteurs et en leur sein même, pose effectivement des problèmes considérables qui limitent les résultats - Les groupes cibles peuvent être mal définis, les programmes peuvent ne pas atteindre les bénéficiaires prévus ou alors ne pas être bien adaptés aux contraintes et priorités réelles, etc. Les résultats des évaluations d'impact des programmes de protection sociale, tels que les transferts monétaires, ont montré que les impacts peuvent être importants. Ces programmes participent à soutenir les ménages à court et à plus long terme pour être plus résilients et même soutenir la croissance des revenus. Ainsi, ces programmes se répercutent également sur l'économie locale, en stimulant l'activité économique de la communauté.
Il semble donc fondamental que la conception de programmes de protection sociale prenne en compte les structures locales existantes (y compris les gouvernements, les institutions non gouvernementales, formelles et informelles et les services) afin de nouer des liens, assurer leurs complémentarités pour un impact large et durable.