Commodity distributions such as food aid remain the predominant relief response, but they are subject to growing criticism. Are cash-based interventions a viable alternative? This article, by Action Contre la Faim (ACF), attempts to contribute to the debate by describing ACF’s experience of the cash for work project it has run in southern Somalia since 2004. It concludes that cash-based interventions can work in emergencies and insecure environments if their mode of delivery and objectives are tailored to the needs and context. Cash-based interventions allow beneficiaries to control relief themselves and adapt it to their individual requirements in a timely manner.
The ACF cash for work programme paid a salary to workers for improving water catchments. It aimed to diversify income sources, increase access to water, and allow beneficiaries to buy livestock. The project was largely successful in meeting its first two objectives but progress on restocking was more limited. The project also improved beneficiaries’ access to credit and allowed for investment in seeds and tools.
The following factors were crucial to the project’s success: Beneficiaries were able to address their own needs with their increased purchasing power, and the economy was already monetised so people were used to handling money; Beneficiaries identified the public works projects and local methods were used to carry them out; Existing commercial networks such as markets were functional and able to adapt to sudden increases in demand without inflation occurring. Involving the community, using existing community structures, total transparency, robust supervision, effective monitoring tools and strict protocol on the management of security risks also contributed to the programme’s success. ACF’s previous experience in the area led to its acceptance amongst communities and facilitated security management.
The authors concluded that:
- To target cash effectively, firstly use geographical knowledge to identify vulnerable villages. Secondly, use appropriate community structures to aid targeting within villages.
- Cash is no more prone to diversion than other forms of aid.
- Antisocial use of cash is not common, and commodities can just as easily be used for such purposes.
- Cash did not heighten security problems and could be distributed more discreetly than commodities.
- Cash did not cause inflation in the study and although the total value of the cash transfers was small, similar results have occurred in other cash interventions.
Although the cash interventions were largely successful in meeting their objectives and were appreciated by the beneficiaries, future policy should take into account the following:
- Objectives and timing need to be viewed in the context of seasonal calendars, to understand better the likely impact of a cash injection.
- Salaries should be set according to all project goals, which requires an in-depth understanding of households’ socio-economic situation and the dynamics of the environment.
- Food assistance could compliment cash interventions during hunger gaps if food is needed and unavailable.
- Interventions should give more consideration to exchange rate fluctuations and should make their monitoring more participatory and, potentially, more long term.
- Market analysis prior to any intervention is essential to ensure that supply reaches the intended areas. Establishing an advisory body offering technical support in this area should a priority.
- To genuinely empower beneficiaries, agencies and donors should move away from tightly defined objectives and allow beneficiaries to make their own choices.
