Opm report Template version 5

4.4Development partner coordination to support INAS and MGCAS

Despite some areas of collaboration, partners still face significant challenges in relation to aligning and coordinating their support, a problem identified by Ashley and Hill (2014) and which is still pertinent. There seems to be a lack of clear partner vision for the social protection sector and limited coordination of activities. This lack of coordination undermines the effectiveness of the support provided by partners, resulting in duplication and inefficiencies, and creates tensions within the donor community as well as with government, while also making coordination highly dependent on individual personalities and competencies.

MGCAS has now invested in its capacity to promote coordination with development partners, and there is now an opportunity for the donor community to reciprocate in response to this.

4.4.1Human resource to increase development partner coordination and effectiveness

Donor partner coordination in relation to PASP is somewhat fragmented, not systematic and is personalised, resulting in duplication and missed opportunities for collaboration and coordination. There may be opportunities to increase communication, planning and investment as well as explore the potential for basket funding, which would offer efficiency gains and reduce the opportunity costs faced by donors and government.

A dedicated coordination post within DFID, servicing the Social Protection Working Group and acting as the DFID co-chair, is an option for promoting this given the limited human resources that individual development partners are able to allocate to PASP. The donor coordination group supporting the PSNP in Ethiopia follows a similar approach, with a dedicated and cofounded coordination post. DFID may like to explore this option to promote continuity, consistency and efficiency in donor partner support to INAS in general and the PASP in particular.

4.4.2 Enhanced DFID management and support capacity

Achievement of the activities outlined above in policy development, reframing the discourse, rescheduling implementation and undertaking the necessary research will require an enhanced level of DFID engagement. This will involve increased management and support capacity and a strengthened relationship with INAS/MGCAS. To this end, DFID needs to increase its in-house capacity in social protection and increase the SDA resources that are allocated to engagement with INAS and MGCAS.

5Conclusions

5.1PASP and climate change resilience

The primary question raised for this consultancy by the Terms of Reference was:

What is the appropriate programming approach to support the implementation of an effective, climate-sensitive approach to social protection in Mozambique?

It can be concluded on the basis of the findings of the research carried out to inform this study that PASP is not yet a vehicle for effective, climate-sensitive approach to social protection in Mozambique or for the promotion of resilience linked to climate change on any significant scale. Moreover, any further significant DFID budget support to INAS for programming (either PWP or cash transfer-related) should be conditional on the prior resolution of the key design and operational challenges outlined above, with the achievement of milestones linked to the recommendations above acting as triggers for the release of funding.

While the research question goes beyond the PASP, we have focused on exploring the potential of the PASP to perform this role, and we refer the reader to two other complementary pieces of work being carried out simultaneously – i.e. Kardan et al. (2016) and Irish Aid and IIED (2016) – which explore further options for addressing climate-related resilience through social protection provision in Mozambique. We note that the findings and recommendations of this report are consistent with the recommendations of both Kardan et al and Irish Aid and IIED (see Annexe 2 for a summary of the findings of Irish Aid and IIED, op cit.

The core systems prerequisites for further budgetary support to INAS overall are set out above, and for PASP in particular the additional prerequisites are addressing asset quality, reframing the debate, and rephasing (slowing) the implementation schedule. Unless these prerequisites are met, the expansion of social protection provision through PASP and cash transfer programme expansion as anticipated in the ENSSB will not be feasible, and the potential contribution of these interventions to resilience will remain limited.

If the prerequisites are met, however, expanding the provision of the cash transfer and PASP wage under INAS programmes are both viable options for increasing basic resilience in the form of coping capacity. That said, neither are likely to promote adaptive capacity due to the transfer level, with the impact of the PASP being limited by the four month duration of support.

5.2Options for DFID

This report recommends a set of preconditions that should be achieved prior to DFID providing budget support to INAS. Without major programme design and implementation improvements, further investment in PASP is high risk. Given the current level of PASP performance, investment in the PSSB instead would provide lower-cost resilience outcomes, although DFID engagement in the PSSB would also require confidence that issues with the basic systems that currently constrain the potential for programme expansion can be addressed. Currently, the estimated cost-efficiency ratio (alpha ratio) of both the cash transfers delivered under PSSB and the PASP are close, at 0.70 and 0.67 respectively, with a total budget of $1.40 required to transfer $1 to each beneficiary in 2016 under each scheme.⁴ This is unusual given that there is typically a significantly greater cost associated with PWPs than cash transfers, and this estimate reflects the inadequate budget for administrative and capital inputs in the PASP mentioned throughout this report. An increased budget allocation would imply a lower alpha ratio for PASP than the PSSB and a greater cost per $1 delivered. If appropriately budgeted, therefore, the PASP would have a lower cost-efficiency ratio than the PSSB.

5.2.1Budget support

DFID investment in PASP would require inputs to support programme improvement and the achievement of intermediate performance goals before significant investment, particularly given the current concerns regarding fiscal probity and the ‘new environment’ within which donors are currently operating.

If the basic systems prerequisites are met, then DFID may choose to fund either PASP or PSSB, or both, with the key resilience impact accruing through the provision of the PASP wage. However, available evidence suggests that the resources transferred under the programmes are unlikely to have an impact beyond basic consumption smoothing. For a significant impact on resilience to occur, the value of the wage transfer should be increased. In terms of the assets created and associated adaptive capacity impacts, an investment in improved asset quality is needed.

5.2.2Reframing the PASP discourse

In order to improve programme performance and ensure sustainability DFID will need to reset the agenda and the PASP discourse, something which implies an increased intensity of DFID engagement. A ‘break point/moment of critical reflection’ needs to be created. This can build on the current INAS programme review, which offers an opportunity to highlight issues of concern and potentially present a shared donor agenda for programme enhancement. Such an approach would have a significantly greater impact that a single agency engagement on key issues of concern.

To achieve this there is a need to create joint ownership of problem analysis and resolution. Opportunities to build this include the development of a joint donor position and strategy on programme support and priority issues for intervention, a joint World Bank/DFID/INAS evaluation focusing on the key challenges, and DFID engagement in the next set of World Bank DPO indicators.