|
Where
|
Mulanje District, Malawi
|
|
Who
|
Target group: Highly vulnerable families constrained in terms of labour, skills and inputs, scattered across the district (eg elderly- and youth or child-headed households; families nursing chronically ill members; orphans and vulnerable children; care-givers). Example of Mrs Mamba, grandmother of 65 years caring for 5 orphans between 2 – 14 years
|
|
Why
|
Objective: to improve household food security and nutritional status of highly affected households
|
|
What
|
Intervention: combination of food, agric packs and technical support
-
seed packs: emphasis on combination of highly nutritious, short-season, labour-saving crops (eg seed for tomatoes, spinach, cole; 16 x 1m short season cassava cuttings; 50kg quick maturing sweet potato)
-
food packs to ensure recipients have time to participate in agric work
|
|
With whom
|
Partnerships: Community orphan and food security committees, home-based care (HBC) made lists of vulnerable HHs; agric staff used these as basis for planning
|
|
How
|
Methodology:
-
Initial research: district AIDS committee coordinated multi-agency training and research on impacts of AIDS on different families in community
-
Identification of beneficiaries: participatory exercises, with home-based care, community AIDS, orphans and food security committees; agreed criteria
-
Delivery: free distributions or ‘seeds for work’ including caring activities
-
Technical support: HBC and agric extension staff collaborate to ensure basic technical support get directly to targeted families and individuals
|
|
How much
|
Benefits and Impact: in first month of harvest, compared to previous year
-
Sweet potato: +/- 150 kg tuber (none previous year); consumed sweet potato leaves for at least 10 meals for family of 6 during month
-
Cassava: no harvest yet; consumed leaves for at least 10 meals during month
-
Tomato, spinach and cole: sufficient for at least 3 meals/week during 1st month for family of 6; this roughly doubled intake of fresh veg
-
Food pack enabled family to work in field/garden, instead of doing piecework
-
Short season varieties reduced wait for harvest by 6 weeks; veg in year-round kitchen garden
|
|
Time line
|
Participatory design planning begun July 2002, distribution of material Sept/Oct 2002, planting and technical support Oct 2002 – Feb 2003, harvest began May 2003
|
|
|
|
Gaps in evidence
|
-
Monitoring done 5 months after planting; only initial harvest info is available
-
Need more info on impacts for families with different situations
|
|
How is this different from standard interventions?
|
-
link to humanitarian work: food to ‘protect’ seeds, enabled work in own fields
-
specific targeting and involvement of highly vulnerable individuals and HHs in programme design, identification of intervention, selection of crops / varieties
-
new partnership among agric, HBC, and community orphan committee
-
‘seeds / food for work’ recognizes home caring activities
|
|
Enabling factors
|
-
HH level: even in most highly vulnerable families, there was at least one HH member willing and able to participate once limits to time and labour were factored into programme design
-
Community level: builds on local knowledge of / support to vulnerable families
-
Organisational / Institutional level: agencies agreed to mix development and relief approaches (eg agric staff didn’t demand repayment for seeds); district AIDS committee improved cross-sector coordination; focus on vulnerable HHs
-
Policy level: national HIV policy gives space: supports ‘mainstreaming’ in all sectors including agriculture, tho has no details; encourages district-based collaboration among sectors
|
|
Constraining factors
|
-
HH level: some HHs were simply unable to participate in agric due to poor health and daily caring activities, and depended on food packs
-
Community level: some divisions within community, efforts to pad lists of vulnerable HHs
-
Organisational / institutional level: time-consuming planning process; some territoriality and wariness to collaborate by some staff
-
Policy level: while policy provides space, it doesn’t give clear guidance; national agric research ignores impacts of AIDS
|
|
Additional ideas or potential improvements
|
-
Add in nutrition information: eg some people don’t use cassava or sweet potato leaves, yet these are nutritious, easy to prepare
-
Add on link to youth in school:
-
school feeding programme to keep vulnerable children in school, improving nutrition
-
agric information on the crops and animals used in community extension, to ensure school-going youth in vulnerable HHs are reached
|
|
Scaling up / scaling out: implications
|
-
District AIDS Committee, participating agencies should document successes / difficulties in approach, share widely
-
Set up training team to discuss multi-sectoral approach in other districts
-
cost per person higher - additional effort to find highly vulnerable families
-
help HBC staff develop basic technical skills in the simple agric aspects, thus reducing burden on agric staff (though increasing burden on HBC staff)
|
