The following contribution is a translation of the article 'Sociale protectie maakt Afrikaanse boeren niet lui, maar juist productiever' published in Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant on 25 March 2018:
No protection without production
Both in Africa and in the West, policy makers are aware that the focus in the coming years must lie on the African agricultural sector. Investment in agriculture must help millions of unemployed young people find a job, export and generate economic growth and meet the high demand for food, especially in areas hit hard by climate change. Billions are therefore being allocated to increase the productivity of African agriculture.
This is a good objective, but the preconditions for such investments are not always adequate. For the same reason that a child will not automatically improve its learning from building a school alone, the African farmer will not simply produce more. One of the important preconditions for improved productivity is having social protection: in order to be able to invest in a successful business, a farmer must not only receive the support to build this business, but also have a social safety net in hard times.
The neglected child
Unfortunately, at the moment, little attention is paid to the importance of social protection in Dutch foreign policy. It is no coincidence that this happens at a time when skepticism about our own social security system has also increased in the Netherlands. It would cause too much dependency, make people lazy and distract attention from what someone would actually help: a job.
In the African countryside, however, the opposite is true. Families receive cash transfers in many countries. These are regular payments from governments or NGOs that can take place in different forms. They can be unconditional and universal (this is what we call a 'basic income' in the Netherlands), but also targeted to certain groups (women, refugees, etc.) or under conditions that they are spent in a certain way (on health care for example).
Contrary to what Dutch cynicism suggests, cash transfers seem to lead to more productivity among farmers. A publication by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and UNICEF in 2016 about the impact of cash transfers in 7 African countries gave many skeptics reason to optimism: instead of laziness, cash transfers ensure increased production and investments in other seeds, manure and staff on the farm. The money is not spent on the wrong things at all: instead of an increased consumption of alcohol and tobacco, cash transfers appear to lead to more registrations in schools and increased spending on clothing and shoes.
Moreover, it turned out that the work, in particular among small farmers, was on average 36 percent more productive. The fact that social protection has become a neglected child is therefore undesirable from the perspective of food security, because cash transfers can provide the much needed boost that farmers need to increase their productivity.
What we can learn from Ethiopia
One of the social protection programs that still receives Dutch support is the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) in Ethiopia, part of the World Food Program of the United Nations and the national Food Security Program of Ethiopia. Approximately 8 million Ethiopians in vulnerable areas regularly receive money and food, during which the aid can be increased in periods of food shortages. As part of this, participants participate in agricultural, water and infrastructure projects, intended not only to provide households with the protection mentioned above, but also to give participants the opportunity to build something themselves. The supplies of food and water that are provided in times of need are built up by the participants throughout the year. This program therefore works simultaneously as a trampoline and safety net. Thanks to the trampoline, a farmer gets the opportunity to invest and increase his or her productivity, and thanks to the safety net he will receive support as soon as, for example, harvests fail thanks to El Niño in recent years.
Since the introduction of the PSNP in 2005, good results have generally been achieved. For example, in 2011 the World Bank evaluation showed that participating families have an average of 29 percent fewer food shortages and half a million people have climbed out of poverty in the long term. The combination of giving money and protection therefore appears to be effective, although the results are very different. For example, in areas with a relatively high drought and / or serious poverty, the impact of the program is smaller.
Through the INCLUDE knowledge platform, research is being conducted on how groups and areas requiring additional attention can be included in the PSNP. In general, INCLUDE also pays attention to two main questions about social protection programs in Africa: how can they be designed and implemented as effectively and affordably as possible, and how can the poorest people be best targeted?
Tailor-made policies
On this last question, the research into the PSNP offers an important, often forgotten, conclusion: that the poorest, most vulnerable people need a tailor-made program to escape poverty. Investment fund or cash transfers alone have little value for them. A disease case in the family, a lack of skills to start a productive business, or simply the fear of losing everything in a climate disaster; these are just some possible explanations why such a sum of money will not be used to invest, but only for survival.
In recent years, therefore, more and more attention has been paid to the many-sided programs that are needed to lift poor families out of poverty: the so-called 'graduation programs'. These programs integrate cash transfers, education, support to go to work and personal guidance in one package, to ensure that participants not only get out of poverty, but also do not fall back into it. In 2015, a group of leading development economists led by Abhijit Banerjee published an evaluation of programs in six countries that left no room for doubt: an integrated program requires substantial financial investments and a lot of patience, but is by far the most effective method for sustainably alleviating poverty.
Fortunately, this realization is taking place in Africa itself: in recent decades, in many African countries, with the support of international donors, social protection systems have been developed by national governments. Following success in Ethiopia, productive safety net programs have now also been introduced in countries such as Kenya and Tanzania. And many countries invest in, among other things, national pension systems, maternity care coverage and also small cash transfers to households.
Usually, however, these systems still have limited resources and scope. It is therefore important to take up the gauntlet and, in addition to direct investments in agricultural projects, also ensure that social protection mechanisms are in place to achieve agricultural development. The billions spent on African agriculture in the coming years will receive the highest return as soon as they are accompanied by investments in social protection programs. At international institutions such as the World Bank, the FAO and UNICEF, this awareness has begun to subside. It is now up to the Netherlands to abandon its skepticism and follow this policy trend. No production without protection.
先生 Frank van Kesteren
The following contribution is a translation of the article 'Sociale protectie maakt Afrikaanse boeren niet lui, maar juist productiever' published in Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant on 25 March 2018:
No protection without production
Both in Africa and in the West, policy makers are aware that the focus in the coming years must lie on the African agricultural sector. Investment in agriculture must help millions of unemployed young people find a job, export and generate economic growth and meet the high demand for food, especially in areas hit hard by climate change. Billions are therefore being allocated to increase the productivity of African agriculture.
This is a good objective, but the preconditions for such investments are not always adequate. For the same reason that a child will not automatically improve its learning from building a school alone, the African farmer will not simply produce more. One of the important preconditions for improved productivity is having social protection: in order to be able to invest in a successful business, a farmer must not only receive the support to build this business, but also have a social safety net in hard times.
The neglected child
Unfortunately, at the moment, little attention is paid to the importance of social protection in Dutch foreign policy. It is no coincidence that this happens at a time when skepticism about our own social security system has also increased in the Netherlands. It would cause too much dependency, make people lazy and distract attention from what someone would actually help: a job.
In the African countryside, however, the opposite is true. Families receive cash transfers in many countries. These are regular payments from governments or NGOs that can take place in different forms. They can be unconditional and universal (this is what we call a 'basic income' in the Netherlands), but also targeted to certain groups (women, refugees, etc.) or under conditions that they are spent in a certain way (on health care for example).
Contrary to what Dutch cynicism suggests, cash transfers seem to lead to more productivity among farmers. A publication by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and UNICEF in 2016 about the impact of cash transfers in 7 African countries gave many skeptics reason to optimism: instead of laziness, cash transfers ensure increased production and investments in other seeds, manure and staff on the farm. The money is not spent on the wrong things at all: instead of an increased consumption of alcohol and tobacco, cash transfers appear to lead to more registrations in schools and increased spending on clothing and shoes.
Moreover, it turned out that the work, in particular among small farmers, was on average 36 percent more productive. The fact that social protection has become a neglected child is therefore undesirable from the perspective of food security, because cash transfers can provide the much needed boost that farmers need to increase their productivity.
What we can learn from Ethiopia
One of the social protection programs that still receives Dutch support is the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) in Ethiopia, part of the World Food Program of the United Nations and the national Food Security Program of Ethiopia. Approximately 8 million Ethiopians in vulnerable areas regularly receive money and food, during which the aid can be increased in periods of food shortages. As part of this, participants participate in agricultural, water and infrastructure projects, intended not only to provide households with the protection mentioned above, but also to give participants the opportunity to build something themselves. The supplies of food and water that are provided in times of need are built up by the participants throughout the year. This program therefore works simultaneously as a trampoline and safety net. Thanks to the trampoline, a farmer gets the opportunity to invest and increase his or her productivity, and thanks to the safety net he will receive support as soon as, for example, harvests fail thanks to El Niño in recent years.
Since the introduction of the PSNP in 2005, good results have generally been achieved. For example, in 2011 the World Bank evaluation showed that participating families have an average of 29 percent fewer food shortages and half a million people have climbed out of poverty in the long term. The combination of giving money and protection therefore appears to be effective, although the results are very different. For example, in areas with a relatively high drought and / or serious poverty, the impact of the program is smaller.
Through the INCLUDE knowledge platform, research is being conducted on how groups and areas requiring additional attention can be included in the PSNP. In general, INCLUDE also pays attention to two main questions about social protection programs in Africa: how can they be designed and implemented as effectively and affordably as possible, and how can the poorest people be best targeted?
Tailor-made policies
On this last question, the research into the PSNP offers an important, often forgotten, conclusion: that the poorest, most vulnerable people need a tailor-made program to escape poverty. Investment fund or cash transfers alone have little value for them. A disease case in the family, a lack of skills to start a productive business, or simply the fear of losing everything in a climate disaster; these are just some possible explanations why such a sum of money will not be used to invest, but only for survival.
In recent years, therefore, more and more attention has been paid to the many-sided programs that are needed to lift poor families out of poverty: the so-called 'graduation programs'. These programs integrate cash transfers, education, support to go to work and personal guidance in one package, to ensure that participants not only get out of poverty, but also do not fall back into it. In 2015, a group of leading development economists led by Abhijit Banerjee published an evaluation of programs in six countries that left no room for doubt: an integrated program requires substantial financial investments and a lot of patience, but is by far the most effective method for sustainably alleviating poverty.
Fortunately, this realization is taking place in Africa itself: in recent decades, in many African countries, with the support of international donors, social protection systems have been developed by national governments. Following success in Ethiopia, productive safety net programs have now also been introduced in countries such as Kenya and Tanzania. And many countries invest in, among other things, national pension systems, maternity care coverage and also small cash transfers to households.
Usually, however, these systems still have limited resources and scope. It is therefore important to take up the gauntlet and, in addition to direct investments in agricultural projects, also ensure that social protection mechanisms are in place to achieve agricultural development. The billions spent on African agriculture in the coming years will receive the highest return as soon as they are accompanied by investments in social protection programs. At international institutions such as the World Bank, the FAO and UNICEF, this awareness has begun to subside. It is now up to the Netherlands to abandon its skepticism and follow this policy trend. No production without protection.