2013年-世界发展银行全球_Lesotho___A_Safety_Net_to_End_Extreme_Poverty_175页_3mb

Summary of "Lesotho: A Safety Net to End Extreme Poverty"

Core Content

This document is a discussion paper analyzing the current state of social protection and safety net programs in Lesotho and their potential to reduce extreme poverty. It is part of the World Bank's Africa Social Safety Net and Social Protection Assessment Series, which aims to help governments improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their safety net systems.

Main Messages

• More inclusive growth is the ultimate solution to poverty in Lesotho, but selective social transfers can play a critical role in reducing extreme poverty more rapidly.
• Lesotho is already spending US$197 million annually (about 9% of GDP) on transfer programs, primarily the Old Age Pension, school feeding, and tertiary bursaries.
• These programs benefit non-poor households more than the extreme poor, suggesting opportunities for improving targeting.
• A national safety net should focus on the extreme poor, estimated to be 40,000 to 80,000 households (10–20% of the population).
• The safety net should be both promotive and productive, helping the poor build human capital and improve productivity.
• A consolidated safety net could include regular cash transfers to the destitute and public employment opportunities for the able-bodied poor.
• The proposed National Information System for Social Assistance (NISSA) would help coordinate programs and avoid overlaps.

Key Findings

Poverty Profile

• 57% of households lived below the basic needs poverty line in 2010, with 34% below the food poverty line.
• Inequality is extremely high, with a Gini coefficient of 0.53 in 2010, one of the worst globally.
• Poverty is concentrated in rural areas, where extreme poverty rates are more than double those in urban areas.
• Seasonal food shortages are a major contributor to extreme poverty, especially due to a short growing season and limited land and labor.

Existing Transfer Programs

• Child Grants Program (CGP): Targets poor households with children, covers about one-sixth of the country, and is expanding. It is non-conditional and donor-funded, with 50% of benefits going to the extreme poor.
• Public Assistance: Provides cash or in-kind support to 9,500 destitute people annually, with limited coverage due to budget constraints.
• Old Age Pension (OAP): A universal program for those over 70, costing US$49 million annually, but only 6% of poor households fall into this category.
• School Feeding Program (SFP): The largest transfer program, covering 389,000 students, with 60% of benefits going to non-poor households.
• OVC Bursary Program: Covers 20,000 students, providing tuition and boarding fees for orphans and vulnerable children, but poverty targeting is unclear.
• Nutrition Support Program: Targets vulnerable groups in four districts, new and donor-funded, but impact is not yet evident.
• Agricultural Input Fairs (AIFs): Provide input vouchers to poor farmers, with positive impacts on food security.
• Integrated Watershed Management Program: A public works program that employs villagers, not specifically targeting the poor, but can be a basis for a cash-for-work initiative.
• National Fertilizer and Input Subsidy: A non-targeted subsidy, costing US$5.9 million annually, but does not benefit the poorest.
• Tertiary Bursary Scheme: The largest single transfer program, with 1% of benefits going to the extreme poor.

Program Efficiency and Effectiveness

• Most programs are not effectively targeted to the extreme poor.
• There is room for improvement by:
  • Consolidating overlapping programs.
  • Improving program design and implementation.
  • Phasing out programs that do not contribute to the safety net objective.
• Programs like the Child Grants Program have positive outcomes and strong support, but targeting needs improvement.

Recommendations

1. Move towards a unified national safety net that includes:
   • Regular monthly cash transfers to the destitute and vulnerable groups.
   • Public employment opportunities for the able-bodied extreme poor.
2. Strengthen existing programs such as the Child Grants Program and the Watershed Management Program.
3. Improve targeting to ensure that the extreme poor receive a larger share of benefits.
4. Implement the National Information System for Social Assistance (NISSA) to enhance coordination and data collection.
5. Use existing public spending to fund the safety net, such as road maintenance and reducing untargeted subsidies.

Fiscal and Institutional Challenges

• Lesotho faces serious fiscal challenges, with public expenditure reaching 67% of GDP in 2009/10.
• The government relies heavily on SACU receipts, which are volatile and unsustainable.
• Institutional capacity is limited, and program delivery is often inefficient.
• There is no overarching framework for coordinating transfers, leading to overlaps and duplication.

Conclusion

A more effective and targeted safety net is essential to address extreme poverty in Lesotho. While current programs have some positive outcomes, they are not reaching the most vulnerable. A consolidated, unified program with strong targeting and coordination is needed to ensure maximum impact and efficient use of resources.