Opm report Template version 5

Assessment of PASP and its impact

With an emphasis on these three causal pathways by which a PWP such as PASP can affect resilience we assessed PASP’s potential impact on resilience. In addition, we also considered other key design and implementation issues affecting its performance and impact.

Impact through wages

We found that PASP is not likely to have an effective impact on resilience through the wages it pays beneficiaries, because the level of wages paid is too low. The wage level under PASP is inadequate to meet consumption needs, and it is fixed – in a context of increasing prices (inflation has decreased the value of the transfer by a third since 2011). Importantly, the programme’s manual of operations does not indicate when and how the wage value should be updated. The fact that beneficiaries work on a part-time basis seems to suggest that the programme’s intention is only to supplement livelihoods and income earned through other sources, but alternative economic activities for beneficiaries are very scarce, particularly during lean seasons, and when they are affected by shocks. This therefore calls into question the extent to which the programme can successfully increase coping capacities.

The effects of wages on adaptive capacities are also unlikely to be significant, for the same reasons: the wage level is inadequate for investment in inputs and labour diversification, which would need to come on top of meeting immediate household needs (consumption, health education, etc.).

Impact through creation of assets

We found that the effect of PASP assets on resilience is likely to be negligible because the assets themselves are of a very poor quality. The processes of selection, design and monitoring of the infrastructure produced by the programme are inadequate, as are the capital inputs, materials and equipment. Importantly, PASP’s infrastructure does not correspond to the priorities of local authorities, which undermines their ownership – something that is essential to ensure proper implementation and maintenance of the assets created. Also, communities do not receive significant support in relation to the design of the works, and thus the design is carried out using their own very limited experience and skills. Finally, group leaders are in charge of worksite management but they have no experience of, or significant training in, proper site management. For all of these reasons the resulting assets are of a low quality and are not durable.

In regard to adaptive capacities, it was beyond the scope of the present study to assess the degree to which there are functioning local markets in PASP areas, which are a key requirement in order for households to capitalise on asset-related benefits. Thus, we were unable to assess the impact on adaptive capacities.

Impact through skills training

The complementary services component of PASP, which includes interventions aimed at increasing beneficiaries’ skills, has not been implemented yet and since the programme does not provide any significant training we assessed that skills are unlikely to be enhanced in any meaningful way through PASP. Thus, there is not expected to be any impact on resilience due to skills training.

Other key design and implementation issues affecting impact

In regard to capacity, this currently seems far too limited. The number of INAS staff at district level is scarce, and the same is the case with the local administrations. Delegating duties to local leaders, one possible alternative, has the disadvantage of potentially reinforcing unequal community power relationships and, without proper training, it is unlikely that such leaders could perform all the activities to the standard required. These serious capacity constraints are challenged further by the fact that key processes, like payment outsourcing or the management information system (MIS), are still not developed/implemented.

In regard to budget, the fact that wages account for 70% of the programme costs puts a huge pressure on the other components (administration, materials, etc.). At present it is clear that 5% for administration and 15% for capital inputs is not sufficient, leading to inadequate management oversight and poor quality assets. Partly as a result of these budgetary issues certain provisions that are essential for PWPs, like insurance, safety gear and worksite facilities, are absent in the case of PASP.

In regard to targeting, the PASP beneficiary targeting process is still very incipient and is not conducted as described in the manual of operations. In this manual the stated approach to targeting combines geographical, community-based targeting (CBT) and the administration of a proxy means test (PMT). We note that the latter would create a significant additional administrative burden and may not represent good value for money. In practice, however, the PMT is still not operational in most districts and it has been reported that instead of CBT local leaders are usually in charge of selecting beneficiaries based on their own judgement.

In regard to monitoring and evaluation, PASP’s MIS will not be operational until 2017 at the earliest (although INAS is planning to launch a basic MIS for PASP only, in a few months’ time). PASP’s activities are therefore currently conducted without any electronic system that allows for timely and reliable data for monitoring purposes and thus PASP monitoring is currently negligible. This is likely to reduce programme impact. In relation to evaluations of the programme, a planned evaluation involving the World Bank has been delayed, but baseline data will start to be collected in August 2016.

Finally, we noted that a number of new initiatives that are currently envisaged, including a new ‘inclusive’ scheme and the planned roll-out of PMT, may put even more pressure on a programme that is not currently performing as expected or meeting basic requirements, and may increase the burden placed on staff that are already overloaded.

Key findings

Design and implementation challenges are significantly limiting the effectiveness of PASP The PASP is currently having only a limited impact in terms of social protection The asset creation component of the PASP is of low effectiveness PASP is not adequately resourced and it is negatively affecting the implementation of other INAS programmes by drawing on staff time and resources to deliver  There is a need to shift PASP asset selection and implementation to district authorities PASP is currently not a suitable vehicle for climate change programming The priority input to support PASP is the consolidation of basic implementation and systems.