Cash transfer programming in emergencies

1
Cash transfer programming in emergencies
2

• For the last five years Oxfam GB has been
  implementing cash transfer programmes to ensure
  food security and protect livelihoods in America,
  Asia and Africa.
• E.g. India, Bangla Desh, Afghanistan, Indonesia,
  Uganda, Kenya, Haiti

3
Depending on the circumstances cash transfer may
have the following advantages

• Choice and flexibility
• Cost-effectiveness
• Dignity
• Economic recovery (for local markets)
• Empowerment (women and marginalized groups)
• Infrastructure rehabilitation (cash-for-work)

4
Tsunami response Cash Transfer programme of Oxfam
GB in Sri Lanka
5
In the aftermath of the tsunami disaster why
Oxfam considered a cash transfer programme as the
most appropriate response to ensure food security
and restore livelihoods?
6

• Sri Lanka is a middle income country where
  people are used to cash
• Markets were well functioning and had not been
  badly affected by the disaster
• Food was available in these markets

7
Activities of the cash transfer programme

• Cash for work
• Cash grants

8
OBJECTIVE

• To increase the purchasing power of
  disaster-affected people so that they are able to
  meet their minimum food and non-food needs or to
  assist in the recovery of peoples livelihoods.

9
When cash for work?

• Food and income insecurity are a result of loss
  of employment.
• Rebuilding assets/community infrastructure is an
  essential part of the emergency operations and is
  needed to rebuild livelihoods.
• Suitable work projects exist that are relevant to
  the community.
• It is difficult to register the population in
  need.

10
When cash grants?

• When households can soon restart income
  generating activities if provided with the cash
• When households are engaged in other
  livelihood activities (e.g. at peaks of
  agricultural activities).
• All needs for livelihood recovery can be supplied
  through the market.

11
Cash for work organized by OXFAM Rehabilitation
of irrigation canals
12
Monitoring results of Household expenditure in
the South of CFW beneficiaries in May 2005

• Main expense Second expense Third expense

13
Points to consider during implementation

• Need for good contextual analysis
• Close monitoring of the labour market as well as
  the market prices for food and other basic items
• Ensure that women and other vulnerable groups are
  not marginalized

14
Phasing out CFW

• When households are able to meet their basic
  needs, preferentially via livelihood activity
  regeneration
• When there are no-longer communally beneficial
  activities that can be included under a cash for
  work (Phase in cash grants)

15
Cash Grants provided by Oxfam
16
Methodology

• Oxfam has been providing cash grants for
  livelihoods restoration to tsunami-affected
  households.
• Most grants were between 5,000 and 15,000 Rupees.
• Beneficiaries had to fill an application form
  with a detailed business plan for the activity
  they wanted to undertake
• Beneficiary households had previous experience in
  the activity that the cash grant supported

17
Analysis of applications form

• Before approval each application form needed to
  include a business plan so that the viability of
  the activity could be analyzed.
• Oxfam staff also conducted a market assessment so
  as to check how many households in the community
  usually do the activity proposed in the grant

18
Most common types of cash grants provided

• For small income generating activities (shops,
  sewing, etc)
• Trades (masonry, carpentry, etc)
• For agriculture
• For fishing

19
Monitoring results of Household weekly income in
Batticaloa of cash grant beneficiaries in May
2005

• 2,000 Rup 1-2 thousand -1,000 Rup

20
Lessons learnt

• The business plan needs to consider the whole
  household economy and its seasonality. Not only
  the viability of the IG activity that the grant
  is going to finance.
• Timing Approval of the application form takes a
  long time and for some grants (e.g. agriculture)
  good timing is essential.
• Procedures need to be simplified and faster.

21
Points for reflexion

• Equity Most of the time men require cash grants
  of much higher amounts than women
• Better off households usually require higher
  amounts of money than poor households to restore
  their livelihoods
• Community grants may strengthen ownership and
  acceptance of the project

22
Phasing out Cash Grants

• When main household livelihood activities have
  been rehabilitated their pre-tsunami level and
  households are able to meet their basic food and
  non-food needs from the income generated

23
Thank you
Thank you

• Any questions?