UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAMSCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT & SOCIETY (COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES)

STUDENT NAME: ARSALAN MASOODSTUDENT ID NO: 1605776DEGREE PROGRAMME MSC DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT (AID MANAGEMENT) 2015-16DATE OF SUBMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2016SUPERVISOR: WILLEM VAN EEKELENWORD COUNT 11,817

A RECIPIENT PERSPECTIVE OF CITIZEN’S DAMAGE

COMPENSATION PROGRAMME (CDCP) IN PESHAWAR

CASH TRANSFERS IN EMERGENCIES

UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAMSCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT & SOCIETY (COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES)

CASH TRANSFERS IN EMERGENCIES:

A RECIPIENT PERSPECTIVE OF CITIZEN’S DAMAGE COMPENSATION

PROGRAMME (CDCP) IN PESHAWAR

BY ARSALAN MASOOD

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deep gratitude to my Master’s Thesis supervisor, Mr Willem Van Eekelen forthe useful comments, remarks and engagement throughout the learning process. Without hisenthusiasm and encouragement, it is unlikely that this paper would have been written. I alsoacknowledge and appreciate the Chevening Scholarships, the UK government’s global scholarshipprogramme, funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and partner organisations, forsupporting my degree and providing me with the opportunity to enhance my knowledge and researchskills.

Special thanks are also given to the staff of the International Development Department of the Universityof Birmingham, who helped build up my knowledge and understanding of international developmenttheories upon which this paper is based. I am also grateful for the insight provided by staff worked onthe CDCP in different departments of Government of Pakistan and development agencies in Pakistan,which allowed for a more practical appreciation of emergencies in general and for a betterunderstanding of the floods and process of cash transfers in Pakistan.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, kids, and most importantly my wife, for their patience,understanding and support throughout the entire process and without whom this degree and manyother things in my life would not have been possible.

ii

ABSTRACT

The monsoon floods of 2010 ended up being the most devastating experience in the history of Pakistan.Heavy rainfall and the resulting flash floods created a moving body of water equivalent to the land massof England, that completely inundated everything in its path. The unfolding nature of the emergencyand the sheer expanse of devastation challenged the capacity of the Government of Pakistan (GoP) andof the entire humanitarian community. The complexity of response increased with the diverse andconstantly-changing necessities of the flood-affected people, ranging from evacuation in some areas tophased rehabilitation in other places.

The Government of Pakistan, through its Citizens’ Damage Compensation Programme (CDCP), deliveredhumanitarian assistance to affected households for early recovery and revival of livelihoods. With thechanging nature of humanitarian emergencies, cash-based initiatives are progressively being utilised asassistance and considered to be suitable or at times preferred substitute for in-kind support. This studyexamines the impact of CDCP from recipients’ point of view, on the lives of flood-affected individualsthrough a case study undertaken in the Peshawar District of Pakistan. A cash transfer programme of thisscale in humanitarian context was the first of its kind.

A qualitative research enabled an in-depth examination of recipients’ perspective, validated through areview of published evaluations and other relevant documents. Findings reveal that cash transfers wereuseful and favoured by the recipients; however, the amount disbursed at the individual level provedinsufficient, barely meeting expenditures on necessities. There is hardly any evidence of utilisation forreviving livelihood or productive investments. The use of technology and financial institutions clearlyimproved operations, accountability and monitoring of the programme, in spite of a few reportedincidents of corruption and gaps in public information campaigns and the targeting process.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. i

Abstract............................................................................................................................................... ii

Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ v

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Objectives and Research Questions ...................................................................................... 2

1.2 Structure of The Study.......................................................................................................... 3

2. Cash Transfers in Emergencies ..................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Rationale Behind Cash Transfers........................................................................................... 5

2.2 Cash: A Potted History.......................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Factors to Consider When Deciding on a Response............................................................... 8

3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 13

3.1 Research Philosophy .......................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Research Methods ............................................................................................................. 13

3.3 Ethics and Consent ............................................................................................................. 15

3.4 Limitation of the Study ....................................................................................................... 15

4. Cash Transfer Programming in Pakistan ..................................................................................... 17

4.1 Emergencies in Pakistan ..................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Experiences of Cash-Based Programming in Pakistan.......................................................... 19

4.3 Pakistan Floods Jul – Aug 2010 ........................................................................................... 19

4.4 Citizen’s Damage Compensation Programme (CDCP).......................................................... 21

5. A Recipient Perspective of CDCP in Peshawar............................................................................. 23

5.1 Utilisation of Cash Transfers ............................................................................................... 23

5.2 Impact of Cash Transfers on the Lives of Beneficiaries ........................................................ 25

5.3 Factors that were Enablers or Constraints of Effective CDCP Programme ........................... 29

6. Taking Stock and Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 33

7. Bibliography............................................................................................................................... 35

8. Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 41

Appendix 1. Informed Consent ................................................................................................... 41

Appendix 2. Semi-Structured Interview Guided Questions.......................................................... 42

Appendix 3. List of Research Methods and Respondents ............................................................ 46

Appendix 4. Stakeholders........................................................................................................... 48

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Phases of Emergency Response by WHO and UMCOR ................................................................ 5

Table 2: Types of Cash Transfers in Emergencies ..................................................................................... 6

Table 3: Qualitative Research Methods Used......................................................................................... 14

Table 4: Funding contribution by donors for CDCP................................................................................. 21

Table 5: Cash transfers expenditures ..................................................................................................... 24

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Respondents by Gender .......................................................................................................... 14

Figure 2: Flood victims queue for registration to get flood relief assistance. .......................................... 16

Figure 3: Major natural disasters in Pakistan.......................................................................................... 17

Figure 4: Victims of floods try to reach safe areas after their homes submerged in Pakistan. ................. 18

Figure 5: Map of flood-affected areas after the flood of 2010 in Pakistan .............................................. 20

Figure 6: WATAN Card used for distribution of cash grants after 2010 floods ........................................ 22

Figure 7: Timeline of CDCP Events ......................................................................................................... 22

Figure 8: Graph of sufficiency of Cash Transfers..................................................................................... 23

Figure 9: Selection of CDCP Phase-II beneficiaries.................................................................................. 31

Figure 10: CDCP Institutional Implementation Arrangements ................................................................ 48

v

ACRONYMS

AJK Azad Jammu and Kashmir

ATM Automated Teller Machine

BISP Benazir Income Support Programme

CCI Council of Common Interest

CCT Conditional Cash Transfer

CDCP Citizen’s Damage Compensation Programme

CFF Cash for Food

CFW Cash-for-Work

CNIC Computerised National Identification Card

CTP Cash Transfer Programming

CWG Cash Working Group

DCO District Coordination Offices

DFID Department for International Development

EMMA Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis toolkit

FATA Federally Administrated Tribal Areas

GB Gilgit-Baltistan

GoP Government of Pakistan

KP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

MIFIRA Market Information and Food Security Response Analysis framework

MoF Ministry of Finance

NADRA National Database Registration Authority

NDMA National Disaster Management Authority

NFI Non-Food Items

NODMC National Oversight Disaster Management Council

PDMA Provincial Disaster Management Authorities

PIC Public Information Campaigns

PKR Pakistani Rupees

PoS Point of Sale

SSN Social Safety Net

UCT Unconditional Cash Transfer

vi

UN United Nations

UNICEF United Nations Children's Emergency Fund

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USD United States Dollar

VFM Value for Money

WCFC Watan Card Facilitation Centre

WFP United Nations World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organisation

1

CASH TRANSFERS IN EMERGENCIES: A RECIPIENT PERSPECTIVE

OF CITIZEN’S DAMAGE COMPENSATION PROGRAMME (CDCP)IN PESHAWAR

1. INTRODUCTION

The use of cash grants has increased in the 1990s and 2000s to minimise economic and socialvulnerabilities like disability, poverty, unemployment and old age, and in the event of exposure to crises,to protect livelihood and complement household income. To achieve this, regionally and culturallyappropriate cash-based interventions can be programmed, which also takes into account the specialaccess consideration to vulnerable groups including children and women. With resilient markets andimproving technology, cash transfers have increasingly gained attention and been used as anappropriate alternative or complement to in-kind assistance, such as shelter or food aid, in theaftermath of emergencies. In light of recurring and elongated humanitarian crises, the distinctionbetween cash transfers provided as relief or recovery in emergencies and as social protection andpoverty reduction is sometimes blurred. This study, however, focuses on cash-based interventionstargeted towards humanitarian emergencies only.

For successful cash transfer programming (CTP), there are a number of preconditions, for instance,functional markets, availability of supplies in the market and favourable environment in terms ofsecurity. When contrasted with in-kind assistance, cash offers significantly more advantages such as itpotentially restarts livelihood, stimulates the local economy and can be a trigger for social changeincluding giving women more decision-making power, subject to effective targeting. Also, it isconsidered to be more efficient aid modality with encouraging results on health, education andnutrition.

Instigating cash transfers in humanitarian crises in any country depends on a number of factorsincluding, a review of the cash-based interventions in the country; assessment of markets; existing socialprotection policy of the country; financial institutions, policies and regulations; and consideration of thepotential contribution from private sector.

In Pakistan, the 2010 monsoon floods were the worst and one of the largest humanitarian crises interms of affected population in the history of the country (Deen, 2015, p.1). One tenth of the overallpopulation, more than half of the districts of the country, and every province and administrative regionof Pakistan were affected by the devastating onslaught of water. The floods led to wide scaledisplacement, which ranges from few days to six months, as the flood damaged or destroyed 1.8 million

2

homes throughout the country (IFRC, UN-HABITAT, and UNHCR, 2012, p.70). Nearly twenty percent ofthe country, an area more than England, was under water (Murtaza, 2010, p.3) with 1,980 reporteddeaths, 2,946 injured and almost 20 million people were seriously affected (NDMA, 2011, p.14). Thedamages from floods were immense to agriculture, infrastructure, transportation, health, and educationfacilities with an economic impact of estimated USD 10 billion (Murtaza, 2010, p.3).

To help displaced people cope with the aftermath of the devastating floods, the Government of Pakistan(GOP) launched its Citizen’s Damage Compensation Programme (CDCP), flood relief cash transferprogramme in 2010-12; the aim of the Programme was to expand choices and empower citizens toprioritise their own needs for recovery from the catastrophic aftermath of the floods. The programmewas instituted through the country’s National Registration and Database Authority1 (NADRA) to helppeople rebuild their homes and livelihoods. In the Phase-I, over 1.6 million flood-affected families weresupported by cash grants of USD 2252 per household by August 2011. Whereas, in CDCP Phase-II, GoPwith the contribution of international donors including World Bank, USAID, DFID and Government ofItaly disbursed cash transfers of USD 4503 in two equal tranches.

The CDCP provides an interesting case study as this is the largest GoP cash transfer programme in thehumanitarian sector with the most widely geographical coverage throughout the country. Besides CDCP,Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) has also very wide coverage but the focus of BISP is towardssocial safety net (SSN) and alleviation of poverty, which is out of the scope of this dissertation. CDCP wasa multi-level and multi-agency programme in which not only federal, provincial and local governmentagencies were involved but also international donors, UN agencies, financial institutions andtelecommunication companies were key players at different stages of the programme cycle.

1.1 OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The overall objective of this dissertation is to assess the impact of GoP’s Citizen’s Damage CompensationProgramme (CDCP)4, from beneficiaries’ point of view, on lives of individuals and households affected bythe floods of 2010 in Peshawar. A field research was conducted to gather data and analyse the findingsof the specific objectives, namely,

to identify the utilisation of cash transfers by the recipients;

to analyse the impact of cash transfers on the lives of beneficiaries and households;

1 NADRA is an agency of GoP that works autonomously and is responsible for issuing the CNIC to the citizens of Pakistan.NADRA controls government databases and statistically manages the sensitive enrolment database of all the national citizens ofPakistan.2 The instalment was in local currency PKR 20,000 equalling to USD 225.3 The amount was in local currency PKR 40,000 equalling to USD 4504 The largest humanitarian cast transfer programme in Pakistan.

3

to identify the lessons and factors which worked or hindered the delivery of cash transfersduring the implementation of the programme.

In order to assess the recipients’ point of view, the following research questions were formulated

How have people used cash transfers?

What was the impact of cash transfers on the lives of individuals?

What were the enablers and constraints to effective CDCP cash transfer programme?

1.2 STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY

To address the research objectives, the paper will be structured as follows. It starts with overallintroduction and structure of the study section one. Section two presents an overview of humanitarianemergencies and cash transfer programming (CTP) and highlights the increasing popularity of cashtransfers in humanitarian emergencies. Further, it will discuss the different factors to consider whendeciding about humanitarian response and benefits of CTP over others. Research methodology is part ofsection three. The paper in section four provides an overview of emergencies in Pakistan and presentsthe case of the devastating floods of 2010, its effects on the affected communities and on the country asa whole. The CDCP programme and its operations are thoroughly discussed in the same section. Thepaper, in section five, analyse the utilisation of cash transfers, its impact on the lives of beneficiaries andwill identify lessons and factors which worked or hindered the delivery of cash transfers during theimplementation of the programme. The paper concludes, in section six, by examining the findings andcomparison with different impact evaluations and operational audits of CDCP or similar programmes.

This study draws from the existing academic literature on cash transfers in emergencies and in floods of2010 and in addition the relevant programme documentation relating to the CDCP. It likewise assessesthe donor agencies and implementing organisations view about the CDCP, and interviews programmebeneficiaries. As opposed to undertaking a wide assessment of the CDCP, the study explicitly focused onrecipients’ perspective of the programme. In doing so, the study analysed the three research questionsput forward and presents its findings.

4

2. CASH TRANSFERS IN EMERGENCIES

Between 1994 and 2013, 218 million individuals were affected worldwide by natural disasters with adeath toll of 68,000 lives every year (CRED, 2015, p.7). For decades, humanitarian community5 haveassisted crisis-affected individuals with services and physical commodities including, food, water andnon-food items, temporary shelters and medical care as humanitarian assistance to meet fundamentalnecessities enabling affected people to re-establish livelihoods. In the meantime, however, cash-basedprogramming is progressively acknowledged as an appropriate aid modality whilst in some instancespreferable alternative to in-kind assistance for people reeling from the effects of the humanitarian crises(Doocy & Tappis, 2016). The recently published ‘Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2016’ outlinesthat in 2015, cash-based interventions accounted for 4.4% to 6.9% of total global humanitarianassistance, which is nearly USD 1.3 billion to USD 1.9 billion investment in cash interventions. The reportfurther notes that the increasing pervasiveness of cash based interventions has additionally added tothe expansion of the multi-sector6 funding (Development Initiatives, 2016, pp.39, 75).

The term ‘humanitarian crisis’7, as per Humanitarian Coalition (2016), is characterised as a particularoccasion or a progression of occasions that undermine the well-being, security, health or prosperity of acommunity or huge gathering of individuals and typically covers a wide region. Humanitarian disastersmainly affect vulnerable people who are frequently associated with poverty and have limited capacity toresist and recover from life-threatening hazards. Natural disasters, man-made crises and complexemergencies, sometimes referred to as conflict-related emergencies, are the three main categories ofhumanitarian disasters. Furthermore, Doocy & Tappis (2016, p.1) distinguish emergencies on the basisof ‘slow onset’ like famine, or ‘sudden onset’ for instance flash floods. Based on the way through whichhumanitarian assistance is provided to the affected people is divided into ‘direct assistance’, includingface to face delivery of supplies, services or cash; ‘indirect assistance’, like, transportation of relief goodsor workers; and ‘support’ that enables the relief work to alleviate the sufferings of the affectedpopulation.

Moreover, emergency response by the humanitarian community is delivered in multiple phases and canlast over months or years; however, different organisations use different names for the phases but theircontext and fundamental elements remains more or less the same. In Table 1, phases of WHO andUMCOR have been compared. WHO’s phases are controversial with the last stage of phasing-out whileaccording to UMCOR, after fourth phase of emergency response starts the process of communitydevelopment to improve the normal life of affected individuals.

5 The humanitarian community comprises various national and international organisations and institutions broadlyincluding financial donors including bilateral and private donors, various institutions of UN, internationalgovernmental organizations (IGOs), multilateral financial institutions, NGOs and INGOs, each of which serves adifferent function.6 Multi-sector refers to activities and projects with no one dominant sector and often in connection with UNHCR assistance torefugee populations. Multi-sector is different from sector not specified. (Source: UNOCHA FTS Glossaryhttps://ftsbeta.unocha.org/glossary).7 The terms humanitarian crisis, humanitarian emergencies, and humanitarian disasters are used interchangeably.

5

Table 1: Phases of Emergency Response by WHO and UMCOR

2.1 RATIONALE BEHIND CASH TRANSFERS

Cash transfers8 are neither a cross-cutting thematic area nor a sector; these cover an extensive varietyof interventions over various sectors and are therefore, also referred to as cash transfer programming(CTP). CTPs are a set of instruments that can be useful when applied to any area that utilises resourcetransfer or has the goal to build access to fundamental services. Cash transfers, according to theEuropean Commission is “the provision of money to individuals or households, either as emergencyrelief intended to meet basic needs for food and non-food items or to buy assets essential for therecovery of livelihoods”9 (2013, p.3).

There are various types of cash transfers10 and there exist varieties of ways in which these can be usedin emergencies (see Table 2). The choice to utilise one type or multiple, and which type, is dependent onthe objectives and context of interventions, as observed in Oxfam GB’s post-earthquake market

8 The terms ‘cash transfers’, ‘cash assistance’, ‘cash based approach’, ‘cash transfer programming’, and ‘cash grants’ are usedinterchangeably.9 This paper focus towards the cash transfers to individuals or households for humanitarian purpose and does not coverdevelopmental context where cash transfer is a form of assistance used to support vulnerable and poor households in the formof regular and predictable non-contributory (social) payments made directly to them to smooth the flow, and raise the level, oftheir income (Arnold et al., 2011, p.2; Yablonski & O’Donnell, 2009, p.1)10 The terms ‘cash transfers’ and ‘CTP’ often refer to cash, vouchers and CFW. This paper, however, only focuses oncash transfers (precisely money); where CFW or vouchers are discussed this is clearly indicated.

6

recovery in Haiti 2010 (Smith & Mohiddin, 2015, p.16). The types of cash transfers should not becombined, as these present unique constraints, opportunities and costs.

Table 2: Types of Cash Transfers in Emergencies

e-payment11 unconditional12 conditional13

The rationale for cash transfers stems from Nobel Prize winning economist, Amartya Sen’s description ofcontemporary famines. In Poverty and Famines (1981) and Hunger and Public Action (1989), Sen putforth the hypothetical defence for cash distributions to respond to humanitarian emergencies. Senpresents the view that famines are frequently associated with poor individuals’ inability to access foodbecause of their lack of purchasing power, instead of a general absence of food in the market.Therefore, in case of famine and other emergencies, he suggests using CTP for prolonged periods tokeep individuals from starvation.

The need to address chronic problems and vulnerability in a more comprehensive and predictablemanner, and to overcome the recurring complications and expenditures from other aid modalities, hasled humanitarian agencies to try new ways to build sustainable livelihood. Nonetheless, because of theshift of powers from aid agency to the recipients, there used to be reluctances towards cash transfersfrom donors and implementing agencies. For the humanitarian community, this paradigm shift meantletting go of decision-making power and giving the choice of cash utilisation to beneficiaries (ICRC &IFRC, 2007, p.16). Therefore, for quite long, cash remained controversial and also criticised for being

11 E-payment or electronic payment system is used to transfer cash electronically using financial institutions and/ortelecommunication networks through SIM cards. Pay-points can be bank branches, ATMs and/or network of branchless bankingagents, usually local vendors.12 Unconditional or Unconditional Cash Transfer (UCT).13 Conditional or Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT).

7

misspent or misused by the poor (Blattman et al., 2014, p.697). Moreover, cynics raised concerns thatcash is prone to corruption, security and anti-social use (Bailey et al., 2008, p.6). The evidence, however,shows rapid proliferation of cash transfer because of its safe, accountable and efficient delivery.Proponents support the use of cash because evidence suggests that people spend cash sensibly; it givesmore choices and hence dignity; it has a multiplier effect on markets; and it is less prone to security orcorruption than in-kind assistance especially when delivered digitally (ODI, 2015, p.8).

2.2 CASH: A POTTED HISTORY

Traditionally humanitarian assistance strategies were dominated by the provision of food, non-fooditems and services to the disaster affected population, however, it is important to recognise that cash asa form of assistance is also not new and has a long history. Harvey and Bailey (2011, p.3) tracked it backto the war of Franco-Prussian 1870-71 and in response to Galveston floods in Texas in 1900, when oneof the American Red Cross founders, Clara Barton, helped to organised cash relief for the individualsaffected by these emergencies. Cash was also used in the form of CFW programme in response tofamine in the late 19th century India (Drèze, 1990). In the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1870s cashtransfers were provided to refugees from Bosnia (Harvey, 2007, p.9). According to Drèze and Sen, cashgrants were used by the British colonial administrator in the 1948 famine in Sudan and in the early1970s in Maharashtra, India millions were employed in the project of CFW. Likewise, cash interventionswere an important element of the large-scale assistance provided to the famine affected people in the1980s in Ethiopia, Botswana and Cape Verde. Similarly, people suffering from famine in Rhodesia,colonial China and Tanganyika also received cash-based assistance (Drèze & Sen, 1989). Despite the factthat the list of evidence is not too long, but this serves to make the point that cash-based interventionsis not something new or exceptions but had a long history in emergencies.

The UNICEF cash-for-food (CFF) programme in Ethiopia 1984-85 was one of the initially recordedinstances of cash utilisation in the emergencies (Bessant, 2015, p.13). The landscape shifteddramatically with the 2004 Indian tsunami, which was a tipping point for cash-based responses, as thehuge scale of the crisis prompted a massive response and several aid agencies including Mercy Corps,CARE, Save the Children and WFP piloted cash transfers as an alternative to in-kind assistance (Harvey,2007, p.5; Harvey & Bailey, 2015, p.2). Similarly, CTP played an important role in the response to the2005 earthquake in Pakistan, and within a couple of years, aid organisations have developed a variety oftoolkits and manuals along with the proliferation of research and evaluations in the field of CTP (Baileyet al., 2008). Some of these toolkits14 present comprehensively wider approaches encompassing all CTPtypes while others are specific for one type of transfers. An important contribution, in 2005, was theformalisation of CaLP, the Cash Learning Partnership15, which today, is composed of the British Red

14 Some of the examples of toolkits include the ‘Guidelines to Cash Transfer Programming by the International Red Cross andRed Crescent Movement’, ‘Cash and Voucher Manual of WFP’ and ‘Cash Transfer Programming Toolkit by Mercy Corps’.15 The Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP) is a dynamic and collaborative global network of humanitarian actors engaged in policy,research and practice within cash transfer programming (CTP). For any further information about CaLP, please visithttp://www.cashlearning.org/.

8

Cross, Save the Children, Action Against Hunger|ACF International, the Norwegian Refugee Council andOxfam GB. Around cash-based interventions, the aim of CaLP was to become the key platform in thehumanitarian advancement setting in knowledge sharing, research, networking and capacity building.The CaLP consortium, however, is often criticised of being driven by the interest of the fiveorganisations, for its distracting governance model, and for not trickling-down the global commitment tocollaboration and vision of CaLP at country level (Hutton et al., 2014, pp.23-24).

Currently, whether cash transfers is the instrument of choice for humanitarian emergencies is no more aquestion; rather it is how humanitarian organisations, governments and donors use cash-basedinterventions effectively and efficiently. Despite the fact that cash transfers, in the overall humanitariansector continue to expand, it is a mere six percent of the global humanitarian aid (ODI, 2015, p.16).

2.3 FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN DECIDING ON A RESPONSE

There are a number of advantages as well as drawbacks of CTP in emergencies over other aid modalities.Every emergency is different from other in terms of context, severity, damage and aftermaths.Therefore, at the time of planning for humanitarian assistance, humanitarian organisations shouldconsider a range of factors before deciding a response, as not one type of response will fit in everysituation. In terms of cash initiatives, implementing agencies have to choose where and which type ofcash transfers separately or in conjunction with other type of response will be beneficial for the affectedpopulation.

SPEED AND TIMELINESS2.3.1

Much research has been done on cash transfers and its advantages over other aid modalities in terms ofits speed and time. As a concept, cash transfers has been claimed to be quicker and speedy as comparedto in-kind assistance even in remote areas because of no involvement of procurement, simpler logistics,rapid transportation and distribution (Peppiatt et al., 2001, pp.12-13). Nonetheless, often the evidenceis quite different from theory as it takes longer to establish cash-based interventions compared to in-kind assistance. Practically speaking, the ground reality is that the system and procedures for cashinterventions are not well established and need to be set-up from scratch, moreover, CTP for most ofthe aid agencies are often perceived as new, innovative and uncertain (Harvey, 2007, p.35). Delays ofseveral weeks in cash grants were noted because of strict financial and administrative bottlenecks toavoid mismanagement in Save the Children programme in Ethiopia, nevertheless, cash transfers werefound quicker once the system and cash distribution process and mechanism were established (Adams& Kebede, 2005, pp.19-20). Cash transfers in the case of 2010 floods in Pakistan were comparativelyquicker and effective because of utilisation of technology, financial infrastructure, existence of BISPdatabase and, lesson learned from cash transfers in 2005 earthquake strengthen the ability of the GoP(House of Commons, 2011, p.2).

9

COST-EFFECTIVENESS2.3.2

Cost-effectiveness is an essential component for planning, selection or evaluating any aid modality.Proponents of cash transfers argue that usually, it is more cost-effective to get money to people ascompared to in-kind assistance because of no transportation and storage cost, lower distribution costand having beneficial knock-on effects for local economic activity (ODI, 2007, p.6). This indicates that ifcash as compared to other alternatives is less expensive or more efficient, then cash initiatives canpotentially help a wider range of beneficiaries. Costing analysis of two WFP’s cash and food transferprogrammes in Yemen suggests that without including the transfer cost, delivery of cash with USD 5.22is approximately half as expensive as compared to food costing USD 11.50 (Schwab et al., 2013, pp.42,44). The cost not only varies between aid modalities but also within types of cash transfers, for instance,the comparison between UCT and vouchers programmes of Concern Worldwide in DR Congo shows thatUCT are USD 3 cheaper per recipient and more cost-effective than vouchers (Aker, 2013, pp.2, 30).

Whereas, sceptics of cash argue that the cost comparison between cash and in-kind programme ischallenging. Harvey (2007, p.35) questions the difficulty in comparing distribution and transportation ofin-kind aid with administrative cost of cash transfers, variation in prices and inflation, and fluctuatingexchange rate. Moreover, cost-effectiveness vary according to context, as a report of ODI (2007, p.12)points out that it depends on the source of in-kind assistance, its purchasing price in the local economyas compared to international markets and in comparison to the delivery cost of cash and in-kindassistance. In-kind assistance may enjoy cost advantages in situations where goods can be procured inhigh volumes, or where international prices are significantly low as compared to local market.

Furthermore, it is also important to consider that cost not only includes implementation cost but alsocost borne by beneficiaries to collect the assistance. Therefore, it is essential for aid agencies to considercost-effectiveness, including not only implementation but also beneficiary cost16, at the time of selectionprocess of aid transfer mechanism as different instruments will incur different costs. For humanitarianorganisations, the comparison in terms of cost should not be the only criteria for selection of aidmodality or appropriateness of cash transfers. Evidence proves that in some cases, aid agencies preferin-kind assistance despite being expensive, according to Harvey & Bailey rapid delivery of cash at theearly phase of a disaster is not suitable because of the possibility of damaged infrastructure andexcessively disrupted markets (2011, p.38).

Because of cash transfers, according to Mercy Corps (2014, p.2), beneficiaries do not need to re-selldistributed items to the markets to purchase goods of their choice. From the standpoint of cost-effectiveness, cash transfers offer a unique advantage to the recipients by providing access to a varietyof goods and services of their choice, such as land rental, debt repayments and savings.

16 Beneficiary cost are cost borne by beneficiaries and includes transportation and opportunity cost (Doocy & Tappis, 2016,p.58).

10

IMPACT ON LOCAL MARKETS AND TRADE2.3.3

In humanitarian emergencies, the influx of cash transfers or in-kind assistance as a humanitarianresponse can have an impact on the local markets and trade. Cash on local economy may have a positiveimpact by stimulating trade through creating short-term inflows and increasing the purchasing power ofthe beneficiaries. This impels early recovery by providing better access to products and services, bolsterslocal businesses and trade, and re-establishes market. A recent systematic review of CTP by Doocy &Tappis reports that cash initiatives may have “positive economic multiplier effects” (2016, p.53). Localeconomy gets benefited with cash transfers as cash circulation in the economy is not only quick but for alonger time as compared to in-kind assistance. Also, unlike other humanitarian response, the impact ofcash is not only on primary beneficiaries but also on secondary beneficiaries which include localmerchants and others who benefited from redistribution and spending of cash transfers (Devereux,2000, pp.23-24). The study by Lehmann & Masterson on the impact of a CTP on the economy ofLebanon claims indirect market benefits of USD 2.13 for every dollar provided to the beneficiaries (2014,p.32).

On the contrary, an injection of cash in a market with a limited stock of goods or services may causeprice hike, shortage of key goods or distortion of prices if supply cannot meet the demand of the entireregion rather than the focused community. The guidelines for CTP by ICRC and International Federationof Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2007, p.33) suggests that during or soon after the emergency,in the case of market closure or price inflation, food distribution or commodity voucher is a betteroption as compared to cash until the market get stabilised. Therefore, an assessment of local marketsshould be considered before designing humanitarian response in order to determine theappropriateness of interventions in any specific situation. This assessment is helpful to know the marketsituation in terms of the availability of basic goods in the market, market functionality and time periodof market recovery after the crisis. Harvey & Bailey showed concern over skills of humanitarian workersand time to adequately assess the market. Out of several, the Market Information and Food SecurityResponse Analysis (MIFIRA) framework and the Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis (EMMA)toolkit are two such type of tools used to conduct market assessments (Harvey & Bailey, 2011, pp.22-23).

TARGETING2.3.4

Targeting, the process of deciding who should receive assistance, is argued to be the hardest andproblematic task in all type of humanitarian response (Bailey & Harvey, 2015, p.4). Over the period oftime, assistance has largely moved from universalism to targeting because of scarcity of resources, thedesire not to damage local economy, and to concentrate on worst-affected regions and individuals(Jaspers & Shoham, 1999, p.360). In the case of cash transfers, it is a further contentious problem sincecash is intrinsically of value to everybody and inevitably invites more stakeholders in a way that sacks ofrice or hygiene kits might not be. Recent literature, nonetheless, suggests that targeting in-kind

11

assistance is more difficult in comparison to targeting cash distribution, which as highlighted by Peppiattet al. (2001, p.15) has not appeared to be a fundamental problem in CTP. One of the reasons of difficultyin targeting cash is because of its attractiveness to the beneficiaries and compels aid agencies to putmore energy into targeting. Even the better-off households would use their influence to be included asrecipients and thus further marginalise politically vulnerable or weaker groups from assistance(European Commission, 2013, p.17). Between the inclusion error17 and exclusion errors18, there is adelicate trade-off along with the time and cost of targeting when contrasted with financial and impactlosses acquired through inadequate targeting. Therefore, acceptance of a degree of inclusion error, asper Harvey (2007, p.27), might be a more sensible choice.

Implementing organisations use a variety of targeting techniques depending on the context and thenature of the catastrophe. More elaborative, in-depth targeting techniques will be utilised in the case ofprolonged disasters, whereas in an emergency scenario, promptitude is more important than efficiencyin selection of beneficiaries (European Commission, 2013, p.18). Initial geographical targeting can act asthe first filter before deciding whether to target households using community-based mechanisms,demographic, self-targeting methods, socio-economic criteria or a combination of these approaches(ICRC & IFRC, 2007, p.42). For effective targeting, verification exercise is considered to be crucial whichincludes visits to the homes of affected individuals in the community.

The main difficulty in targeting is the administrative cost and the time delay because of the selectionand verification process. A similar concern was raised by Bastagli (2010, p.4) that the informationaldemands of affected population and complexity of the verification increase the administrative cost anddifficulties in targeting. However, targeting or selection of beneficiaries is one of the crucial factorsconsidered to be enablers or constraints of successful implementation of cash distribution interventions.Recent evidence from the study of Doocy & Tappis suggests that the amount of resources and time forconducting targeting is reliant on understanding and knowledge of implementing organisation with theaffected people and settings, the pressure to initiate execution, and accessibility to updated informationto base targeting decisions. Execution of programme may delay because of resource intensive targeting,particularly where humanitarian agencies are not acquainted with the affected population and disastersetting (Doocy & Tappis, 2016, pp.57-58).

SECURITY AND CORRUPTION2.3.5

On account of emergencies, usually humanitarian assistance happens in the situation withcomparatively frail writ of government and subsequently feeble rule of law, widespread corruption, andenormous sufferings accompanied by massive needs (Bailey, 2008, p.1). Within this context, any type ofhumanitarian response, with no exception to cash-based interventions, is prone to the risks of diversion

17 ‘Inclusion error’ in targeting are people who should not receive the humanitarian assistance but do get it.18 ‘Exclusion error’ in targeting are affected-people who should be eligible to receive the humanitarian assistance but do not getit.

12

to theft, fraud, corruption and armed groups. In terms of cash transfers in emergencies, two concernsfrequently raised, first the ease with which cash can be used for corruption and diverted to illegitimateutilisation, for instance supporting conflicts, and secondly with respect to security both for thebeneficiaries and the deliverers of cash. Studies of cash distribution, however, found that during theimplementation of programmes very few security incidents19 were reported (Doocy & Tappis, 2016,p.61). In most of the effectively executed cash transfer programmes, security of recipients and staff wassafeguarded by implementing agencies through precautionary procedures, such as, outsourcing cashdistribution to financial institutions, employing armed security guards at distribution sites, and vehiclesused for transportation were unmarked (Mattinen & Ogden, 2006, pp.304, 312; CARE International,2011, pp.11, 22-23). This has been echoed by Bailey & Harvey (2015, p.5) that security concern is quitereduced when cash distribution is directly to recipients by secure financial institutions including mobiletransfers, remittance companies, banks and ATMs20, as compared to in-kind assistance which is visibleand mostly bulky.

Similarly, any programme bringing resources to affected communities is also prone to the risk ofcorruption, nevertheless, with no indication of cash-based initiatives being more or less vulnerable thanany other method of humanitarian response (Harvey & Bailey, 2011, p.32). Evaluation shows, forexample, no sign of corruption, diversion or fraud in Sri Lanka’s Shelter Grant programme of UNHCR,because of proper functioning of control systems (Crisp et al., 2010, p.40). Undeniably, the technologicalaspect of CTP by using electronic transfers through mobile, ATMs or directly into banks is moretransparent with traceable transactions and thus has reduced corruption risks to minimum. Whereas, inShelter, food and health programmes, Ewins et al. (2006, p.27) found that the risk of corruption ordiversion is greater at the time of procurement, storage and delivery of in-kind assistance, which is notthe case with cash distribution. During registration and targeting, the risk of corruption is comparativelyhigh in both cash and in-kind assistance as they give the opportunity to powerful elites to manipulatethe registration list through influence or bribe. Therefore, for humanitarian agencies, it is important todo an assessment of risks of security and corruption for all type of aid modality at the time of planningas each context present different risks with varying assistance types.

19 The humanitarian cash transfer programme (2005-06) after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina in the United States is the largestdocumented case of fraud with USD 1 billion of payments were fraudulent from bogus claims and double registration. Similarly,UNICEF evaluation of cash grants (2010-11) in response to famine in Somalia raised the issue of misuse of funds. Source:(Gordon, 2015, p.2) .20 ATM stands for Automated Teller Machine

13

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY

To address the research objectives, the study follows ‘interpretive’ social research philosophy whichroots from the central influence of Max Weber (Chowdhury, 2014, p.433). This study with theinterpretive approach, in contrast to the “one reality” of positivism, has tried to observe the worldthrough the eyes of the flood-affected people being examined, with multiple perspectives of reality anda subjective approach (Greener, 2008, p.17). An interpretive philosophy was considered as it helps toget closer to the research subjects, their real lives and relationships, and allow understanding the socialcontext, subjective experiences and social interactions of flood-affected population.

3.2 RESEARCH METHODS

The methodology of the dissertation is qualitative, based on field investigation of the case study ofCDCP. The primary data was collected over the period of field study in late July 2016 using informalperception interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) through detailed discussions with theprogram’s beneficiaries. A number of secondary sources including, programme and governmentdocuments, and academic papers were consulted for secondary data collection. The focus of the study iswell-defined and prioritises depth as compared to breadth in data gathering (Ritchie et al., 2013, p.135).

Because of in-depth study with a limitation of time and resources, purposive sampling21 of the flood-affected population was used with initial few interviewees were selected through strategic sampling22,to get most useful information. Later on, peer-nominated reputational snowball, a modified form ofsnowball sampling (Waller et al., 2016, p.68), was used to identify similar respondents with the help ofcontacts, community elders and gatekeepers. To collect data, semi-structure interviews (see Appendix 2for list of guided questions23) were preferred to allow respondents to express themselves fully and getrespondents view in detail, and at the same time allowed the researcher to learn as much as possible,probe deeper and ask searching questions. To explore the information in greater depth, FGD were alsoused besides interviews to get more open and honest opinions. This was arranged with the help of agatekeeper from the office of NADRA whereas researcher role was mainly to facilitate the overalldiscussion.

21 ‘Purposive sampling’ also known as ‘subjective sampling’ or ‘non-probability sampling’ targets a specific group within thepopulation of interest.22 ‘Strategic sampling’ involves selecting the individuals who you believe will give the most valuable information.23 During interviews and discussions, no fixed format was followed. The list of guided questions in Appendix 2 helped theresearches to build a conversation around a particular subject area.

14

Table 3: Qualitative Research Methods Used

Initially, an interview with focal person Cash Working Group in Pakistan and interview from employeesof implementing organisations was conducted to get an insight and their perspective about theeffectiveness of CDCP. A total of 30 semi-structured interviews split between non-beneficiaries andbeneficiaries, aged between 34-82 years old, predominantly male with only two female respondents, asshown in Figure 1, were conducted in Peshawar. Keeping the regional and cultural norms in mind, aseparate FGD, out of the two FGDs, was arranged for females so that they are not hesitant and shareinformation during discussions. Four out of the five female participants were cash recipients whilst onewas not able to get the Watan card. After getting beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries perspective, ameeting was conducted with an employee of the audit firm, which has involved in the impact evaluationand another with the employee of an organisation that conducted financial audit of the programme, toget their views on the impact of the CDCP (see Table 3).

Figure 1: Respondents by Gender

15

3.3 ETHICS AND CONSENT

Before starting the field work and contacting flood-affected individuals, a meeting was conducted withthe implementing organisation and local government to share the purpose of the study, seek theirguidance, and get their perspective and consent for conducting field visit. Being a resident of the samearea for a couple of years in the past, the researcher was acquainted with the region, local customs andtraditions and thus there was no restriction in travelling and conducting the research. This not onlyhelped the researcher in getting the trust of the individuals but also one of the reasons of getting theminto confidence. However, conducting an interview with flood-affected households means interactionwith mostly those individuals who were vulnerable to disasters and were amongst low-income groups.Also as the project was already completed, therefore, as a researcher, it was important not to instil anyhope or raise expectations of the interviewees that there will be any on-going instalments or similarprogrammes. Before starting the interviews, it was made sure to share the purpose of the study,procedure of the interview, assurances of their personal data’s privacy, their right to refusal or withdrawat any time in the form of verbal agreement was made through a consent form (see Appendix 1 forinformed consent).

3.4 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

During the course of study and fieldwork, there were a number of challenges of different nature andpriorities. Communication between researcher and interviewees was a limitation in some of the cases,although the researcher is fluent in local dialects of Urdu24 and Hindko25, nevertheless, in almost half ofthe cases, respondents were Pushto26 speakers and the researcher was not very fluent in Phustolanguage. For the sake of proper message delivery and accurate data gathering, this limitation wasmoderated by the help of a local interpreter, who was never a part of CDCP project in past.

Limitation in terms of time and resources were among those key factors around which most of thedesign of the research, and methods used to collect data was dependent. A limited purposive sample,consequently, was the most appropriate or practicable approach with a semi-structured interview as aprimary data collection method, as compared to structured or unstructured interview, to avoid the riskof losing valuable time, or to avoid imposing the topic on the respondents. The semi-structuredinterview was based on some pre-determined themes and open-ended questions followed by probingquestion to let the respondents build up their responses.

Moreover, although a list was arranged with double the planned number of respondents who wereflood-affected from Peshawar through one of the implementing partners but still identification of flood-

24 Urdu is national language of Pakistan.25 Hindko language is a western dialect of Punjabi language spoken in Northern Pakistan and people mostly living within the cityarea of Peshawar.26 Pashto is the provincial language of province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Pathans, also known as Pushtuns or Pakhtuns,mostly living in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

16

affected individuals was another challenge because of two main reasons. First, the list was originallygenerated through the computerised national identification card (CNIC) and it had no contact details.Secondly, the addresses mentioned in the list was found to be either incorrect or people have moved todifferent locations. Therefore, peer-nominated reputational snowball technique was used to conductrequired number of interviews. Additionally, majority of the research respondents were male members,with only 7% females27 turn out in interviews in addition to participants of FDGs, which implies that thefindings might miss an important perception from the female point of view. Therefore, a further studycollecting the female members’ perceptions may be beneficial as well.

There was also an overt concern regarding social desirability bias, when respondent being inclined notto be honest in light of the fact that they perceive the truth to be socially undesirable or unacceptable(Polit & Beck, 2004, p.359). To minimise the risk of social desirability bias, structured interviews wereavoided so that the researcher can probe and ask indirect questions which increased the potential forinteractive opportunity with the respondent and helped to establish a sense of rapport. It additionallypermitted the researcher to clarify significant and fascinating issues raised, enables the interviewer toinvestigate and clarify variations within respondents’ responses, provided opportunity to exploresensitive issues, and helped respondents to express themselves completely. Secondly, before interviews,the participants were assured that there is no right or wrong answer to any question, all answers will bekept confidential with the privacy of respondents and made it as evident as possible. Also, theresearcher explained the objectives of the research and importance of honest responses to therespondents. These techniques were very helpful in reducing the risk of social desirability response bias.With all these constraints, the field visit and data accumulation exercise turned out to be an invigoratingand important part of the experience and became a source of valuable contribution to contemporaryunderstanding the procedure and effects of cash transfers after the floods in Pakistan.

Figure 2: Flood victims queue for registration to get flood relief assistance.28

27 Only, 2 out of 30 interview respondents were females.28 Photo Credits: Carl De Souza. Source: CARL DE SOUZA/AFP/Getty Images.

17

4. CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING IN PAKISTAN

4.1 EMERGENCIES IN PAKISTAN

Geographically Pakistan is exceedingly vulnerable to natural hazards29, predominantly droughts, floodsor cyclones, however, since 1900, earthquakes, albeit comparatively infrequent turned out to be thedeadliest natural disasters30 of all, whereas, flooding has been reported in terms of the high frequency,economic losses and the extent of affected communities. As shown in Figure 3, the country experiencedsome major natural disasters over a period of time.

Source: Created by Author from different source including (DAWN, 2011; PWP, 2011; IRIN, 2010)

29 Natural hazards are events caused by natural phenomena that threat or have the potential for causing harm to life, health,environment or damage to the property (Khan & Khan, 2008, p.3). Some examples of natural hazards are: earthquakes,hurricanes, cyclones, tsunamis, floods and volcanic eruptions.30 Natural disasters are the effect of an event on people. It is an outcome from the combination of vulnerability, natural hazard,and inadequate measures or capacity to minimise the potential chances of risk. A natural disaster happens when a hazard likeearthquake, hurricanes or floods which is a triggering event impacts on the vulnerable population and causes harm, casualtiesand disruption.

Figure 3: Major natural disasters in Pakistan

18

In Pakistan, according to CRED31, floods represent 51 out of 198 disasters, between 1900 to date, withaffecting 63% of the population and 70% of economic damages by natural hazard events (CRED, 2016).Despite the vulnerable profile of the country, there is poor disaster preparedness and disaster riskreduction strategies with comparatively less strategic focus on prevention, preparedness and capacitybuilding, as per Cheema et al. (2016, p.460) the disaster management policies and experiences revealthe existence of short-term approaches to response and relief efforts.

Figure 4: Victims of floods try to reach safe areas after their homes submerged in Pakistan.32

31 The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) is a research unit of the Université catholique de Louvain(UCL) and has been active for more than 40 years in the fields of international disaster and conflict health studies, with activitieslinking relief, rehabilitation and development. For more information please visit the link http://www.cred.be/32 Photo Credits: Anadolu Agency. Source: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

19

4.2 EXPERIENCES OF CASH-BASED PROGRAMMING IN PAKISTAN

Since the Kashmir earthquake of 2005, the Government and international humanitarian agencies havebeen using cash transfers in relief and recovery responses in Pakistan. Following then, there wasproliferation in cash-based interventions using range of new technology by the GoP and otherhumanitarian organisations in recent years by either substituting or complementing various type of in-kind assistance. With upsurge in cash initiatives, a cash working group (CWG) was established in May2012, presently co-led by WFP and FAO along with support from a co-opted co-chair, ACTED (Ahmed,2015, p.9). CWG, with its 41 current members including humanitarian organisations and governmentagencies (Ahmed, 2015, pp.18-19), is a platform and mechanism for collaboration and knowledgesharing, learning and planning for varying modalities of cash based interventions for emergencypreparedness and response in Pakistan (CaLP, 2016). Following are some of large scale cash transfersinitiatives implemented by the GoP.

CDCP is the largest emergency recovery cash transfer programme for households affected in 2010 floodsin Pakistan. Nearly 1.62 million households received USD 22533 in Phase-I and in Phase-II, two equalinstalments of USD 45034 disbursed among 1.12 million affected households across Pakistan (CabinetDivision, 2013, p.5).

The Government has also distributed over USD 186 million so far through electronic cash transfers tonearly, 0.6 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) from North Waziristan35 after the operation Zarb-e-Azb36 led by Pakistan army against terrorist groups. In the same way, the GoP has shifted most of itsin-kind assistance to cash grants in response to people displaced from Federally Administrated TribalAreas (FATA). Nearly 86,000 families so far received approximately USD 30 million and by 2016, the GoPplans to disbursed USD 105 million. Every registered family is entitled to cash grants of USD 25037 and anadditional USD 10038 cash transfers for transportation, besides in-kind assistance in the form of food andnon-food items (NFI) (Javaid, 2015, p.49).

4.3 PAKISTAN FLOODS JUL – AUG 2010

On July 28, 2010, during the monsoon season (June to August), Pakistan experienced the worst floods interms of affected people and economic losses as compared to top ten natural disasters since 1935 (IRIN,

33 The instalment was in local currency PKR 20,000 equalling to approximately USD 225.34 The amount was in local currency PKR 40,000 equalling to USD 450.35 North Waziristan, abbreviated as NWA, forming part of Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) is amountainous region of northwest Pakistan, bordering Afghanistan.36 Operation Zarb-e-Azb was a joint military offensive being conducted by the Pakistan Armed Forces against terrorism inPakistan.37 The instalment was in local currency PKR 25,000 equalling to approximately USD 250.38 The instalment was in local currency PKR 10,000, approximately USD 100.

20

2010). All the four provinces, including Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP)39, Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan, alongwith the autonomous territories of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) wereaffected by flooding. As shown in Figure 5, overall 78 out of 141 districts in Pakistan were affected, outof which 29 were extremely affected. An area of 100,000 square kilometres including over 20,000square kilometres of cultivated land was submerged because of flooding for more than four weeks.More than 1,980 reported deaths and over 20 million were affected, which make 10% of the populationcovering one-third of the country (NDMA, 2011, p.3). Standing crops of 2.4 million hectares wasdamaged and nearly 1.8 million homes were destroyed or damaged (IFRC, UN-HABITAT, and UNHCR,2012, p.70). On Sep 7, 2010, the former UK Secretary of State for International Development, AndrewMitchell40 states that

“it is almost impossible to describe the magnitude of what has happened. Ten years’equivalent of rainfall fell in one week, and subsequently a wall of water has travelled1,200 miles down the country” (DFID, 2010)

The flood also extremely affected the farm and non-farm livelihoods, as the McRAM41 in August 2010reports that 60% of families were without mainsource of livelihood, and 76% to 100% decline infamily incomes were reported by 53% of households(2010, pp.23, 25).

Although, natural hazards are unavoidable, however,the destruction from such disasters can be minimisedthrough formulating an effective and comprehensivedisaster risk management strategy. Despite beinggoing through a major earthquake in 2005 andestablishment of NDMA42, Pakistan is often criticisedfor its poor disaster preparedness, short-term andreactive approaches to disasters (Deen, 2015, p.348).As quoted by UNISDR

“Institutional mindsets [in Pakistan] based onconventional emergency management approaches are the main stumbling block in theimplementation of national policies and strategies under the new DRM paradigm”(UNISDR, 2014, p.5).

39 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, abbreviated as KP, was formerly known as North West Frontier Province (N.W.F.P).40 Andrew Mitchell served as UK Secretary of State for International Development from May 2010 to September 2012.41 McRAM stands for Multi-Cluster Rapid Humanitarian Needs Assessment42 National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) is an autonomous federal authority which was formed in 2007 and dealswith disasters and their management in the Pakistan.

Figure 5: Map of flood-affected areas after theflood of 2010 in Pakistan

21

Whereas, Pakistan had an opportunity to learn from the experiences of Bangladesh which have gonethrough two floods and a cyclone in 2007 and is a global leader in disaster risk management (MoDMR,2012, p.4; UNDP, 2016).

4.4 CITIZEN’S DAMAGE COMPENSATION PROGRAMME (CDCP)

In response to the 2010 floods in Pakistan, the GoP, with support from Provincial Governments,launched CDCP, a cash transfer programme for the early recovery and rehabilitation of the flood-affected population.

Phase-I of CDCP, from Sep 2010 to Jun 2011, delivered one-off cash grants of USD 22543 as a quickassistance to the affected households. It was targeted at all households in designated districts andcommunities by Provincial Governments except in KP44 where recipient households were identified onthe basis of a house-to-house damage assessment survey. In Phase-I, GoP provided cash transfers to1.62 million households throughout Pakistan of worth USD 400 million45 (RSR, 2013, p.2). Some gaps,nevertheless, were highlighted in the evaluation of Phase-I including geographical targeting and publicawareness of the programme among potential beneficiaries (Pearson et al., 2014, p.13), which wereaddressed in next phase of the programme.

Table 4: Funding contribution by donors for CDCP

In view of effective operation of Phase-I, CDCP Phase-II, was launched, from Jun 2011 to Jun 2013, withthe contribution from DFID, World Bank, USAID and Government of Italy and reached out to 1.12 millionflood-affected families (Cabinet Division, 2013, p.4). The GoP contributed USD 100 million out of theaggregated spending of USD 580 million (see Table 4). The main objective of CDCP II was to support the

43 The instalment was in local currency PKR 20,000 equalling to USD 225.44 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province45 Approximately equalling to PKR 33 billion

22

recovery and restart livelihood of flood-affected family units by distributing USD 45046 in twoinstalments of USD 225 with the gap of nearly 90 days.

In Phase-II, to overcome the challenge faced in Phase-I ofmissing households because of geographical targeting, ahouse-to-house damage needs assessment survey wasconducted throughout Pakistan to list down flood-affectedfamily units. Payments to the beneficiaries were madethrough a prepaid debit card, Watan47 card, issued throughany of the three partner commercial banks48 (see Figure 6).Beneficiaries were able to withdraw money from not onlydesignated point of sale machines in Watan Card FacilitationCentre (WCFC) but also from any ATM across Pakistan. Figure7 shows the timeline of CDCP events.

Regarding effectiveness and performance, however, some studies like World Bank (2014, p.17) and Huntet al. (2011) were critical and highlights exclusion error because of the pre-condition for becomingbeneficiaries on the basis of CNIC49, which majority of the vulnerable and poor did not had. Impactevaluation by OPM (2013, p.14) highlights that 39% flood-affected did not received support withcomparatively higher share, nearly 55%, from Baluchistan. But overall, the project according to the GoPand donors evaluations was successful and met the expectations (World Bank, 2014; OPM, 2013).

46 The amount was in local currency PKR 40,000 equalling to USD 450.47 In general public Citizen’s Damage Compensation Programme (CDCP) is more popular with the name of Watan Card Project.48 Partner commercial banks include Habib Bank Limited, United Bank Limited or Bank Al Falah.49 Computerised National Identification Card (CNIC) issued by National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA).

Figure 6: WATAN Card used fordistribution of cash grants after 2010floods

Figure 7: Timeline of CDCP Events

23

5. A RECIPIENT PERSPECTIVE OF CDCP IN PESHAWAR

The research findings are based on qualitative data compiled from the respondents’ perceptionsgathered after discussion with a range of flood-affected individuals and other stakeholders. The threedriving questions are, how have beneficiaries utilised cash transfers disbursed during CDCP to the flood-affected individuals; what was the impact of cash transferred on the lives of individuals; and what werethe enablers and constraints to effective CDCP cash transfer programme?

5.1 UTILISATION OF CASH TRANSFERS

CDCP was initiated by the GoP to support flood-affected households in the early recovery andrehabilitation, and to restart their livelihood strategies. Cash transfers gave a buffer to the vulnerablehouseholds from terrible effects of floods, abrupt income shocks and catastrophic illness. Waters (2010,p.686) categorise use of cash transfers into four broader areas, which includes, expenses for basic needslike home repairs, agriculture and food; saving for emergencies; investments in business; and health andeducation and cost related to it.

Figure 8: Graph of sufficiency of Cash Transfers

Generally, it appears that the UCT in the case of CDCP did not relieve the hardships of flood-affectedindividuals. After discussions with respondents and analysis of the emerging themes, overall 90% ofrespondents, as per Figure 8, claimed that the cash grants were insufficient, including 15 respondents

24

who think the cash is not sufficient while 12 mentioned that cash is not sufficient but they are copingwith it. Only respondent 13, 17 and 24 express that the transfers were sufficient at the time of flood tomeet their basic requirements. This implies that there should be some consideration on possibilities offlexible amount of transfers as losses varies from less affected to severely affected households. A similarpractice with varying transfer from USD 300 to USD 2,000 was observed in 2005 earthquake in Pakistan(Heltberg, 2008).

“In this amount [PKR 60,000/-] nowadays not even a single room can be constructed norwe can invest in livestock, however, something is better than nothing”. (Respondent 4)

About utilisation of cash grants, Table 5 shows that repair of house, debt repayment and householdassets, as per respondents, were the three main expenses where majority proportion of the transferswere spent. Whereas, Hunt et al. (2011), cited in Farooq (2016, pp.24-25) criticise that major portion ofcash was utilised on immediate consumption needs particularly, healthcare, food and clothing.

“It is hard to differentiate where exactly cash grants were used [at that time],nevertheless, I have mainly used it in buying the construction material and fixing thedamaged wall and kitchen [from the floods]”. (Respondent 9)

More than half of beneficiaries interviewed mentioned that they have spent a majority proportion ofcash on material and labour work to fix the damaged house. Similarly, nearly 50% mentioned that theyhave repaid their debt which was borrowed from friends and extended family either before or afterfloods. Cash was also utilised on household stuff including beds, beddings and kitchen stuff by 13respondents while 12 stated the use of cash on purchasing food and cooking stuff.

Table 5: Cash transfers expenditures

Respondents50

50 Respondents mentioned more than one items in most of the cases, where they have utilised the cash transfers. The table isgenerated from only those items which was mentioned by more than once or was used in higher proportion.

25

The use of cash on education was very limited, respondent 13 and 17, reported that they have used cashto buy books and on madrasa51 of their children. There was only a single female, respondent 26, whosaid that she had saved some amount of money from all three tranches of cash transfers in privatesaving schemes ‘committee’52 but hardly on herself. For details please see Table 5 which showsresponses on the basis of major items mentioned by respondents.

5.2 IMPACT OF CASH TRANSFERS ON THE LIVES OF BENEFICIARIES

PERCEPTION ABOUT THE PROGRAMME5.2.1

One of the interesting things about CDCP project is that it is very popular amid the flood-affectedindividuals, but with the name of ‘Watan card’. Generally, the respondents expressed their satisfactionabout the CDCP, including its implantation process and agencies involved in the implementation.However, nearly 74% respondents were not sure about why they were selected for the programme andwhat their entitlements were.

“My name was included into the list by Patwari of our area because our village wasflooded but we were not adversely affected by the destruction as compared to othervillages near River Kabul (…). Our neighbour used to tell me about cash instalments and Iused to accompany him as he is matric53 pass and knows the process of using machine[ATM] at the bank”. (Respondent 18)

There were certain concerns raised by respondents, despite the introduction of third party validationand according to Pearson et al. (2014, p.33) a clear, uniform and systematic process of verificationthrough the NADRA, almost 17% of respondents did not consider selection and targeting to betransparent and fair. This is mainly because of political influence and missing potential and vulnerablehouseholds. Publicity of the programme and its awareness, as per respondents, was initially very weakbut was later on improved with public information campaigns even at community level. The enrolmentprocess and payments, as stated by beneficiaries, was generally fair and transparent except a hurdle oflong queues in some of the cases.

51 ‘Madrasa’ or ‘Madrasah’ literally means a place where learning and studying take place. It is an informal education system forthe education of religious study, especially Islamic studies.52 ‘Committee’ also known as ‘Qisht’ in Pakistan and India is a rotating savings and credit association (ROSCA) privatelymanaged savings between a group of individuals who save several instalments and allowing each member to claim lump sumpayment once during the whole process.53 Matric, a shortened form of “Matriculation” in Pakistan is the final examinations of 10th grades, taken up by students aged15 to 16 years.

26

“It took me three days to enrol myself at centre [WCFC] because of long queues. On thethird day I came early morning and by late afternoon I got the card [Watan card]. Thestaff was entertaining everyone according to their number”. (Respondent 3)

On an enquiry about the overall experience of the programme, Respondent 25, mentioned that

“It is a better approach to deliver the cash assistance through the [pre-paid debit] card.Whereas, distribution of cash via mobile cuts a portion of money in the name of taxwhile the distribution of [physical] cash is prone to fraud and corruption by aid workers”.(Respondent 25)

Although grievance redressal mechanism was introduced by the programme to address people concernsand update missing information, however, out of the total respondents from interview and FGDs, therewere only two, respondent 8 and a participant of FGD, who were aware of grievance redressalmechanism. None of the respondents, nevertheless, ever used grievance redressal mechanism,According to a non-selected flood affected female.

“My house was submerged [in floods] (…). I lost all household assets along with mycattle,” says a 74 years old female while pointing towards still damaged walls of house.She continues “I was not in a list of flood-affected people. Although I paid PKR 200 tothree different persons [within the village] but still I did not receive Watan card”.(Respondent 22)

This raises the question on awareness about the programme among the affected individuals, and wasalso identified as a gap in some of the studies, for instance Farooq (2016) and RSR (2013).

CASH TRANSFERS AS COMPARED TO OTHER ALTERNATIVES5.2.2

In response to UN appeal for USD 2 billion to support Pakistan’s Flood Emergency Response Plan (WorldBank, 2010, p.21), a number of humanitarian agencies and donor organisations provided assistance insectors like food, shelter, sanitation, and agriculture using different aid modalities. Participants of FGDrevealed that soon after the disasters there were a lot of humanitarian organisation started deliveringassistance. Al-Khidmat Foundation54 was the first to distribute clean water bottles, followed by otherswith cash grants and in-kind assistance including predominantly food, non-food items, sheltersprogrammes and health services.

54 Al-Khidmat Foundation is the local, most organised and biggest network providing humanitarian services throughoutPakistan.

27

When participants were enquired about the use of CTP as compared to others alternatives, the generalresponse was in the favour of cash transfers. Some of the participants, however, gave a mix response aswell.

“Different aid agencies visited our village, some of them were distributing food andwater whilst others were providing shelter. I have received cash from TurkishGovernment besides Watan Card (…) every aid modality has its own importance, in-kindfood and clean water was very helpful in initial days, similarly, shelter and agricultureprojects were also required. Cash grants have its own advantages, so I think, one type ofprogramme cannot fulfil all the needs of affected people”. (Participant55 from focusgroup discussion)

Even though cash was the desirable choice of most of the people, however, during a discussion arespondent also stated preference of UCT over CCT.

“One of the local NGO provided us a card which only works with certain shopkeepers andcan be used for specific items. Whereas with Watan card, I was able to utilise the moneywherever was required, I paid the cash to one of my friends as a debt payment. Watancard [unconditional cash transfer] is better as compared to the other one [conditionalcash transfer]”. (Respondent 2)

IMMEDIATE RELIEF5.2.3

Another thought-provoking thing which came up from the interviews was that only 10% respondentswere satisfied with the transfers to meet their needs, but when enquired about the importance of thiscash transfers at the time of crisis, everyone mentioned that it was extremely important and useful. In aFGD with females, participants mentioned that they lost their money and belongings and did not havethe time to carry anything with them. They further said that there were a lot of in-kind assistance fromdifferent NGOs but cash transfers was an immediate relief, as with in-kind assistance we were not ableto solve our entire problems, especially debt repayment.

After our village was submerged under the water, we had to spend three nights underthe open sky on the nearby motorway, which was at height. Everything was lost, ourassets, cattle and houses were damaged. Those were the horrible days as we did nothave any money and was not even able to get a loan from others as almost the wholevillage was in similar condition. The first cash grant was a blessing from God as we werehaving the worst crisis of our life. (Female participant from FGD)

55 This participant remained Councilor of the village, was well educated and worked with some of the humanitarian agencies,mainly voluntarily, in flood relief projects.

28

Although from use of cash transfers mentioned in section 5.1, it was evident that cash was not utilisedon a single item. It was further noticed that Phase-I transfer was mainly used in immediate food, healthneeds and debt repayment, and fulfilled the objective of Phase-I to provide immediate relief and keepaffected people safe and alive (World Bank, 2014, p.16).

RESTORE LIVELIHOOD AND PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENT5.2.4

After the completion of Phase-I, less was spent by the recipients on recapitalizing assets, repairinghousing or rebuilding livelihoods. The GoP, consequently, launched Phase-II with an aim to allow flood-affected households to purchase livestock or harvest their fields, begin to recover their businesses, andthus restore their livelihoods. The information gathered during discussions with flood-affectedindividuals shows that moderate level of proportion was spent on productive investments, for instancepurchase of livestock, and investment in agriculture or non-farm business. Over 13% of the respondents,including respondent 5, 11, 14 and 29 have invested a portion of transfers in livestock primarily in goatsfor domestic purpose, whereas respondent 21, 23 and 24 have spent some cash on agriculture relateditems.

“I have used cash initially on food and medicines and then purchased a goat from one ofthe cash instalment as an investment because in few months it will give good returnbefore Bakra Eid56”. (Respondent 11)

The results were different from expectation and were also reported by DFID in its own programmecompletion report with the outcome “moderately did not meet the target” (DFID, 2014, p.7). Whereas,evidence from impact evaluation suggests that 14% of the combined total value of transfers were spenton non-farm business investment, agriculture, livestock and household assets (OPM, 2013, p.20).

Normally, the first cash grants in initial stages of a crisis is likely to spent on immediate basic needs,while, later cash transfers gives better outcome in terms of productive investment and revivinglivelihood. The result of CDCP, nevertheless, was mix mainly because of the slow start initially and thelag between the shock and receipt of the cash. A large numbers of beneficiaries received the firstinstalment of Phase-II nearly after two years (World Bank, 2014, p.22). At that point the recipients oftransfers had already applied the coping strategies through loan or in exchange of their livestock.Therefore, the use of cash transfers, in section 5.1 shows more responses towards repair of house, debtrepayment and household assets.

56 Bakra Eid "Festival of the Sacrifice", also known as “Eid-ul-Azha” or the "Sacrifice Feast”, is the second of two Muslim festivalscelebrated worldwide each year, and considered the holier of the two.

29

5.3 FACTORS THAT WERE ENABLERS OR CONSTRAINTS OF EFFECTIVE CDCP PROGRAMME

With a vast majority of satisfied beneficiaries, cash transfers were utilised carefully by majority of therecipients, with no evidence of increase in unhealthy consumption choices, for instance, increasedspending on cigarette or gambling, which was also acknowledged by programme evaluation (OPM,2013, pp.19-20). Identification process of beneficiaries was improved after the introduction of thirdparty validation and verification through the NADRA database. In addition, the introduction of a numberof households to banking system has opened additional avenues of economic improvement.

“I work as a day labourer and do not have any savings (…). In my entire life, neither I noranyone in my family has ever opened a bank account, except for Watan Card”.(Respondent 10)

The baseline report for Phase-II impact evaluation looked into the reason of not opening bank accountand found that 56% “do not have enough money left over after dealing with expenses” and 25% “do nothave regular income” (O’Leary et al., 2012, pp.77-78). Moreover, the recipients’ financial and branchlessbanking literacy also improved, despite the fact that there were challenges in some cases in terms ofunfamiliarity with the use of ATM and non-availability of instructions in local languages in some of theATMs. According to (Pasricha & Revzi, 2013), however, 80% recipient withdraw cash through ATMswhile only 20% accessed funds through POS in camp location, and further reduced to 10% use of POS inPhase-II. Beside these, there were few factors and changes which were responsible for effective CDCPprogramme.

CORRUPTION5.3.1

During the implementation of CDCP, use of technology, third party validation process in the selection ofbeneficiaries, the requirement of CNIC for enrolment, and partnership with financial institutions fordisbursement of cash through pre-paid debit card has not only reduced the risk of corruption but alsoincreased the level of transparency and accountability.

For the implementation of the programme, NADRA hired a number of contract-based employees whoused to share the room with verification team and bank employee at WCFC. So according to one of theinterviewees, who was part of evaluation exercise, there were few cases in which these three personswith a mutual understanding withdraw cash of those affected individuals who did not come to collectthe cash on time. To support this, there was no as such evidence found in any of the evaluation oroperational audit reports, however, respondent 8, did mention that he received first two instalmentsbut have not received the last one till date.

There were few cases in which flood-affected individuals mentioned that they had given money to getselected or facilitated in the process of withdrawing cash from banks. The operational audit result shows

30

that 81.6% of beneficiaries were using ATM for the first time (Deloitte, 2013, p.50). Another cashtransfer flood response programme funded by Oxfam also faced a similar challenge of no priorexperience of recipients to use debit card (Nawaz, 2011, p.3) and likewise, inability of beneficiaries touse ATM was also found in BISP, a social security cash transfer programme in Pakistan (DFID, 2015, p.9)Whereas, evidence in the impact evaluation shows that because of less education or limited financialliteracy, overall 9% beneficiaries paid money for enrolment, whilst 8% paid fees during cash withdrawalto the helpers (OPM, 2013, pp.21-22). It was also observed and categorically mentioned in a report ofOxfam’s cash transfer programme that WATAN card recipients were paying a fee for cash withdrawalhelp (Nawaz, 2011, p.3). During one of the interviews, the individual who was involved in the process ofimpact evaluation also shared that in few of the WCFC, neither proper tagging nor process guidanceinformation was available. This made the process for card holders cumbersome and gave opportunity tothose who know the process, most of the time these were the people who were not part of theimplementing organisations but had mutual understanding with them.

As the enrolment process of very hectic with long queues, therefore for the firstinstalment, I went to centre [WCFC] early in the morning but to my surprise, there was along queue before me. Luckily, the security guard was kind enough who helped me inbypassing the queue and I paid him some money. For next instalment, I used to go theHabib Bank ATM because of no queues at all. (Respondent 14)

Furthermore, in one of the interviews with an employee of the firm who conducted the operationalaudit mentioned that in few cases bank staff was involved in getting a portion of cash from beneficiariesin exchange of facilitation in cash withdrawal. However, during the interviews with beneficiaries, therewas no indication that they had to pay anything to the employees of implementing organisations.

TARGETING5.3.2

There were some concerns raised after the targeting in Phase-I which was mainly geographical targetingand without further vulnerability filters, therefore, missed a significant number of deserving households(Pearson et al., 2014, p.33). This results in a more refined multi-stage selection process in Phase-II asshown in Figure 9, with house-to-house damage needs assessment survey followed by ‘third partyvalidation’ by an independent firm and introduction of ‘grievance redressal mechanism’ with a focus onexcluding well-off populations and ensuring outreach to the most affected including vulnerable groups.Although in Phase-II, the improved targeting reduced the exclusion error to 39% nationally (OPM, 2013,p.14), however, this multi-stage selection process is criticised for delayed disbursement of cash andincreasing number of appeals (DFID, 2012, p.9).

31

During the interviews, 74% respondents57 mentioned that the targeting process was transparent andfair. Almost everyone mentioned that Patwari58 visited the affected area and information was collectedin a gathering in either Nazim’s59 Hujra60 or in local mosques. However, there were few who complaintsabout political influence during targeting.

“There were people, in the neighbouring village, who were well-off or not affected byfloods but because of their affiliation with Awami National Party [the ruling party in KP]they received Watan Card". (Respondent 2)

Figure 9: Selection of CDCP Phase-II beneficiaries

Source: Created from the CDCP Operational Manual (NADRA, 2011, pp.17-24)

COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN5.3.3

Evaluation of Phase-I also identified gaps related to public awareness and information sharing throughcoordinated communication, despite the fact that importance of two-ways communication andinformation distribution were identified during cash transfer interventions of 2005 earthquake in

57 22 out of 30 respondents58 Patwari is a land record officer at sub-division or Tehsil level in Pakistan.59 Nazim or Zila Nazim was the representative of Local Government in Pakistan (third tier of government) at district level. Theywere executive head of the District Administration until 2010, when the government gave their powers to the DistrictCoordination Officers also.60 Hujra, also known as Baithak, is a drawing room where people meet their guests. Sometimes it has attached guest rooms aswell. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Hujra is mainly used to meet male guests mainly.

32

Pakistan (GFDRR, 2014, pp.7-8). Therefore, for disseminating information to the public aboutprogrammes and available services, IOM61was tasked to develop process guidelines and organise publicinformation campaigns (PIC) with technical support from NADRA (IOM, 2012, p.1).

A team member from IOM responsible for communication component of CDCP mentioned in aninterview that they have developed process guidelines, translated into seven local languages and useddummy ATM machines for awareness in few of communities, because of limited budget. He furtherrevealed that nearly 100 media campaign were launched through a specialised media agency usingdifferent local newspapers, radio and TV channels for public awareness. However, during the FGDs andinterviews, when asked more than 70% participants mentioned that they came to know about theprogramme through neighbours, people from other village or Patwari. Most of the beneficiaries werenot aware about NADRA helpline or CDCP website, only respondent 12 and 25 knew about SMSverification62 of beneficiaries listing.

“After the floods, we lost almost everything, so we did not have any radio or television athome. I came to know about the Watan card when I visited one of my relative in Mardanand I saw the advertisement on television (…). I also confirmed my name in the list bysending my CNIC number to NADRA through a text message from my mobile.”(Respondent 12)

This has been echoed in operational audit that nearly 83% of beneficiaries received information aboutthe programme through ‘word-of-mouth’ and approximately 22% beneficiaries were aware about SMSverification (Deloitte, 2013, pp.20-23). These figures also depends on the literacy level of the region andmay differ from other districts with high literacy rate as most of the beneficiaries were in rural areas,who were more vulnerable to the disaster.

61 The International Organization for Migration (IOM) Pakistan is an independent organisation with specialisation incommunication is the leading inter-governmental organization in the field of migration and works closely with governmental,intergovernmental and non-governmental partners.62 SMS verification about beneficiaries list through SMS Service by texting CNIC number to 9888.

33

6. TAKING STOCK AND CONCLUSION

With relatively slow onset and sheer scale, the floods of 2010 were the worst in the history of Pakistan.Additionally, with poor disaster preparedness and disaster risk mitigation, the country was barelyprepared to meet the catastrophic floods and its immediate aftermaths but, be that as it may, GoPundertook rescue and relief efforts with the assistance from global humanitarian community.

This paper set out to analyse the recipient perspective of the CDCP, a flood relief cash transferprogramme in response to the 2010 floods in Pakistan. The Phase-II as asserted by the GoP and partnerorganisations to be not only effective but also the best cash transfer programme ever undertaken in theworld in humanitarian settings (Farooq, 2016, p.31; DFID, 2014, p.17; World Bank, 2014, pp.11-14).There were, nevertheless, a number of reported incidents of mismanagement and misuse of funds. Toelucidate the effectiveness of CDCP, three research questions were used to the case of CDCP inPeshawar. The first enquiry tried to determine the utilisation of cash transfers by the recipients. Theexpectation from cash was to be used mainly to restore assets. The result presented in section 5,nonetheless, shows a more nuanced picture with the majority of cash expense related to repair ofhouses, debt repayment, household assets and food63, which suggest that to some extent people evenafter the cash instalments were struggling to meet basic requirements and was not completely out ofrelief mode. Correspondingly, 90% of respondents were not happy with the amount of the cashtransfers, which was not sufficient in comparison with the losses they have suffered.

The second question studies the impact of cash transfers on recipients and found out that overallrespondents were satisfied with the selection, enrolment and payment process with few raised concernabout targeting. About grievance redressal mechanism most of the respondents were not aware of it.Respondents realises the importance of different aid modalities in response to emergencies butconsiders cash grants comparatively more favourable, important and useful, and in few cases preferredUCT over CCT because it provides greater choice and dignity. Moreover, because of the slow start of theprogramme and lag between the disaster and receipt of the transfers, the findings were not strongenough to claim the result of reviving livelihood and productive investment.

Lastly, the paper highlights factors which worked or hindered the delivery of the programme. Althoughgaps were identified and improved in Phase-II through public information campaigns with support fromIOM, nevertheless, 70% of the respondents got information related to programmes through word-of-mouth. The rigorous targeting mechanism reduced the errors of inclusion and addressed exclusionchallenges through grievance redressal mechanism, however, it delayed the smooth roll-out anddisbursements. There were few cases of political and elite inclusion identified by respondents during theinterviews. Moreover, the public-private partnership with financial institutions and telecommunicationcompanies, and use of the NADRA for verification reduced the risk of corruption and diversion of funds

63 See Table 5: Cash transfers expenditures.

34

to a larger extent. But still, it was revealed that in some cases where flood-affected individuals becauseof mainly lack of information and financial literacy had to pay fees to the helpers.

Despite these operational challenges, the programme has achieved its purpose as per the claim of theGoP, DFID, World Bank and other partners, and the findings of this field study of Peshawar supports thisclaim to the large extent. Nonetheless, the GoP need to learn lessons from CDCP and put in place aproper mechanism for disaster preparedness and disaster risk reduction. During the floods, it wasobserved that the southern provinces, mainly Punjab and Sindh were slow in response and recoverybecause of lack of capacity and experience of PDMA (House of Commons, 2011, p.2). Pakistan is a flood-and earthquake-prone country and proper mechanisms at the federal and provincial level would helpthe country to manage these natural hazards and not allow turning them into disasters. Increase incapacity and reduction in the level of vulnerability decreases the risk of disaster, consequently, the moreprepared a country, the less enduring destruction caused and the faster it is to recover (Ashdown, 2011,p.15).

The use of electronic funds transfers was less susceptible to diversion by intermediaries andintroduction of pre-paid debit cards was exceptionally proficient method of cash disbursements.However, operational audit of CDCP reported that 82% of recipients did not accustom to ATM (Deloitte,2013, p.50). Similarly, the same challenge was faced by an Oxfam flood response cash transferprogramme, and BISP, a social security cast transfer programme in Pakistan. For future programmes,therefore, there is a need to consider increase in financial literacy along with the disbursementmechanisms through training or adequate information or guidance on how to withdraw the money.Moreover, it is also important to give more importance toward two-way communication system withclear and consistent information sharing from start till the end. In CDCP Phase-I communication gap wasvisible which was overcome in Phase-II but was not continued until the end of the programme.

This paper has contributed to the utilisation of cash transfers in emergencies by using the case of CDCPin Peshawar through a qualitative approach. It was distinctive from previous studies because of its focuson recipients’ perspective, specific geographical area and comparison of its finding with different impactevaluations and operational audits of cash transfer programme which were at broader level. There wasa clear limitation of this study that it can only focus on specific themes within restricted geographicalareas. In future, notwithstanding, there is a need to study the role of different stakeholders and theircontribution in such a large scale humanitarian cash transfer programme with a lot of coordinationinvolved at the different levels of government and with humanitarian community. Moreover, there isalso a need to study the impact of the use of technology and its effectiveness in cash transferprogramme for alleviating human suffering. With limited number of female respondents, a further studycollecting the females’ perceptions may be beneficial as well.

35

7. Bibliography

Adams, L. & Kebede, E., 2005. Breaking the Poverty Cycle: A Case Study of Cash Interventions in Ethiopia.HPG Background Paper. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Ahmed, R., 2015. Annual Report Cash Working Group Pakistan 2012-2015. Islamabad: FAO,Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection.

Aker, J.C., 2013. Examining Differences in the Effectiveness and Impacts of Vouchers and UnconditionalCash Transfers. Concern Worldwide.

Arnold, C., Conway, T. & Greenslade, M., 2011. DFID Cash Transfers Literature Review. London, UK: DFID.

Ashdown, P., 2011. Humanitarian Emergency Response Review. London: Department for InternationalDevelopment.

Bailey, S., 2008. Need and greed: corruption risks, perceptions and prevention in humanitarianassistance. Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG).

Bailey, S., 2011. What cash transfers tell us about the international humanitarian community.Humanitarian Exchange, Issue 51, July 2011. pp.19-20.

Bailey, S. & Harvey, P., 2015. State of Evidence on Humanitarian Cash Transfers: Background Note for theHigh Level Panel on Humanitarian Cash Transfers. Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

Bailey, S., Savage, K. & O’Callaghan, S., 2008. Cash transfers in emergencies: A synthesis of World Vision’sexperience and learning. London, UK: Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG).

Bastagli, F., 2010. Poverty, inequality and public cash transfers: Lessons from Latin America. In ERDConference on Experiences and Lessons from Social Protection Programmes across the Developing Word.Florence, 2010. European University Institute.

Bessant, J., 2015. Case Study: Cash-Based Programming (CBP) in the Food Assistance Sector. Departmentfor International Development (DFID).

Blattman, C., Fiala, N. & Martinez, S., 2014. Generating Skilled Self-Employment in Developing Countries:Experimental Evidence from Uganda. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(2), pp.697-752.

Cabinet Division, 2013. Best Practices Report for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Citizen's DamageCompensation Programme (CDCP). [Online] Cabinet Division Available at:http://www.cabinet.gov.pk/gop/index.php?q=aHR0cDovLzE5Mi4xNjguNzAuMTM2L2NhYmluZXQvdXNlcmZpbGVzMS9maWxlL2NkY3AucGRm [Accessed 29 June 2016].

CaLP, 2016. Module 1: Session 1: Level 1 training: Introduction to cash transfer programming inhumanitarian interventions. [Online] Available at: http://www.cashlearning.org/capacity-building-and-learning/training-level-1 [Accessed 22 June 2016].

CaLP, 2016. Pakistan Cash Working Group. [Online] Available at:http://www.cashlearning.org/coordination/pakistan-cwg [Accessed 27 July 2016].

36

CARE International, 2011. Assessment of Private Sector Partnerships and the Role of Cash Grants inEmergency Responses: Case Study of Tameer Micro Finance Bank Partnership in Cash Transfer to theFlood 2010 Beneficiaries in Pakistan. CARE Canada.

Cheema, A.R., Mehmood, A. & Imran, M., 2016. Learning from the past: Analysis of disastermanagement structures, policies and institutions in Pakistan. Disaster Prevention and Management,25(4), pp.449 - 463.

Chowdhury, M.F., 2014. Interpretivism in Aiding Our Understanding of the Contemporary Social World.Open Journal of Philosophy, 4, pp.432-38.

CHS, 2014. Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability. CHS Alliance, Group URD and theSphere Project.

CRED, 2015. The Human cost of Natural Disasters: A Global Perspective. Centre for Research on theEpidemiology of Disasters (CRED).

CRED, 2016. EM-DAT: The International Disaster Database. [Online] Available at:http://www.emdat.be/country_profile/index.html [Accessed 28 June 2016].

Crisp, J., Graf, A. & Tennant, V., 2010. A real-time evaluation of UNHCR’s shelter grant programme forreturning displaced people in northern Sri Lanka. Geneva: UNHCR.

Crutchfield, M., 2016. Phases of Disaster Recovery: Emergency Response for the Long Term. [Online]Available at: http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/New-World-Outlook-Magazine/New-World-Outlook-Archives/2013/March-April-2013/0430-Phases-of-Disaster-Recovery-Emergency-Response-for-the-Long-Term [Accessed 22 Augustus 2016].

DAWN, 2011. Ten worst disasters in Pakistan. [Online] Available at:http://www.dawn.com/news/661518/ten-worst-disasters-in-pakistan [Accessed 29 June 2016].

Deen, S., 2015. Pakistan 2010 floods. Policy gaps in disaster preparedness and response. InternationalJournal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 12, pp.341-49.

Deloitte, 2013. Operational Audit Household Survey Report: Citizens’ Damage Compensation Programme(CDCP). Operational Audit. Islamabad: NADRA.

Development Initiatives, 2016. Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2016. Development Initiativesand Global Humanitarian Assisstance.

Devereux, S., 2000. Social Safety Nets for Poverty Alleviation in Southern Africa. A Research Report forthe Department for International Development (DFID): ESCOR Report 7017. The Institute ofDevelopment Studies (IDS) at the University of Sussex.

DFID, 2010. Oral statement to Parliament: Statement to House of Commons on the Pakistan floods fromSecretary of State for International Development Andrew Mitchell. [Online] Available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-to-house-of-commons-on-the-pakistan-floods-from-secretary-of-state-for-international-development-andrew-mitchell [Accessed 28 June 2016].

DFID, 2012. Annual Review of Citizens’ Damage Compensation Programme Phase II “Flood compensationcash transfers”. DFID.

37

DFID, 2014. Project Completion Review: Citizens’ Damage Compensation Programme Phase II “Floodcompensation cash transfers”. Department for International Development.

DFID, 2015. Annual Review - Summary Sheet. Department for International Development (DFID).

Doocy, S. & Tappis, H., 2016. Cash-Based Approaches in Humanitarian Emergencies: A SystematicReview. 3ie Systematic Review Report 28. London: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).

Drèze, J., 1990. Famine Prevention in India. In J. Drèze & A. Sen, eds. The Political Economy of Hunger:Volume 2: Famine Prevention. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp.13-122.

Drèze, J. & Sen, A., 1989. Hunger and Public Action. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

European Commission, 2013. The Use of Cash and Vouchers in Humanitarian Crisis: DG ECHO fundingguidelines. Director General for Humanitarian Aid & Civil Protection - ECHO.

Ewins, P., Harvey, P., Savage, K. & Jacobs, A., 2006. Mapping the Risks of Corruption in HumanitarianAction. Overseas Development Institute and Management Accounting for NGOs (MANGO).

Farooq, S., 2016. Rehabilitation of 2010 Flood Affected People in Pakistan: Role of DevelopmentPartners. S3H Working Paper Series. Islamabad: National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST)School of Social Sciences and Humanities.

GFDRR, 2014. Pakistan Earthquake 2005: The Case of Centralized Recovery Planning and DecentralizedImplementation. Country Case Study Series Disaster Recovery Framework Guide. The World Bank’sGlobal Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR).

GHA, 2016. Global Humanitarian Assitance: Defining humanitarian assistance. [Online] Available at:http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/data-guides/defining-humanitarian-aid [Accessed 20June 2016].

Gordon, L., 2015. Risk and humanitarian cash transfer programming. Background Note for the HighLevel Panel on Humanitarian Cash Transfers. Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

Greener, D.S., 2008. Business Research Methods. London: Ventus Publishing.

Harvey, P., 2007. Cash-Based Responses in Emergencies. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute(ODI) Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG).

Harvey, P. & Bailey, S., 2011. Cash transfer programming in emergencies. Good Practice Review 11.Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN).

Harvey, P. & Bailey, S., 2015. Cash transfer programming and the humanitarian system: BackgroundNote for the High Level Panel on Humanitarian Cash Transfers. ODI.

Heltberg, R., 2008. The World Bank’s experience with cash support in some recent natural disasters.Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN), Issue 40.

House of Commons, 2011. The Humanitarian Response to the Pakistan Floods: Government Response tothe Committee's Seventh Report of Session 2010–12. Sixth Special Report of Session 2010–12. London:The Stationery Office.

38

Humanitarian Coalition, 2016. What Is a Humanitarian Emergency? [Online] Available at:http://humanitariancoalition.ca/media-resources/factsheets/what-is-a-humanitarian-emergency[Accessed 19 June 2016].

Hunt, S., O'Leary, S., Newton-Lewis, T. & Ali, Z., 2011. Evaluating Implementation of Pakistan’s Citizen’sDamage Compensation Programme (Phase I). Oxford: Oxford Policy Management (OPM).

Hutton, J., Boeser, S. & Grootenhuis, F., 2014. A review of cash transfer programming and the CashLearning Partnership (CaLP) 2005–2015 and beyond. Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP).

ICRC & IFRC, 2007. Guidelines for Cash Transfer Programming. ICRC and International Federation of RedCross and Red Crescent Societies.

IFRC, UN-HABITAT, and UNHCR, 2012. Shelter Projects 2010. IFRC, UN-HABITAT and UNHCR.

IOM, 2012. Doing Information for a Cash Scheme: Case Study of Flood Affected Citizens’ DamageCompensation Program. IOM Case Study. International Organisation for Migration (IOM).

IRIN, 2010. Top 10 natural disasters since 1935. [Online] Available at:http://www.irinnews.org/news/2010/08/10 [Accessed 28 June 2016].

Jaspars, S., Harvey, P., Hudspeth, C. & Rumble, L., 2007. A Review of UNICEF’s Role in Cash Transfers toEmergency-Affected Populations. EMOPS Working Paper. UNICEF.

Jaspers, S. & Shoham, J., 1999. Targeting the Vulnerable: A Review of the Necessity and Feasibility ofTargeting Vulnerable Households. Disasters, 23(4), pp.359-72.

Javaid, U., 2015. Operation Zarb-e-Azb: A Successful Initiative to Curtail Terrorism. South Asian Studies,30(2), pp.43-58.

Khan, H. & Khan, A., 2008. Natural hazards and disaster management in Pakistan. Paper No. 11052.Munich Personal RePEc Archive.

Lehmann, C. & Masterson, D., 2014. Emergency Economies: The Impact of Cash Assistance in Lebanon.An Impact Evaluation of the 2013-2014 Winter Cash Assistance Program for Syrian Refugees in Lebanon.Beirut, Lebanon: International Rescue Committee (IRC).

Mattinen, H. & Ogden, K., 2006. Cash-Based Interventions: Lessons from Southern Somalia. Disasters,30(3), pp.297-315.

McRAM, 2010. Multi-Cluster Rapid Humanitarian Needs Assessment (McRAM). Needs Assessment.

Mercy Corps, 2014. Cash Transfer Programming: Toolkit. Methodology Guide. Mercy Corps.

MoDMR, 2012. Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme Phase II. Project Brief. Ministry ofDisaster Management and Relief.

Murtaza, N., 2010. Pakistan Floods 2010: Evaluation of the Relief Phase of the International Federationof Red Cross Red Crescent Societies/Pakistan Red Crescent Society Monsoon Flash Floods Operation.Evaluation. IFRC/PRCS.

NADRA, 2011. Islamic Republic of Pakistan Citizen’s Damage Compensation Program: OperationalManual Version 1.6. Islamabad: NADRA.

39

Nawaz, A., 2011. Pakistan Flood Response: Piloting Cash Transfers through Prepaid Debit Cards. Oxfam.

NDMA, 2011. NDMA Annual Report 2010. Islamabad: National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA).

NDMA, 2011. NDMA Annual Report 2011. Islamabad: National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA).

O’Leary, S. et al., 2012. Citizen's Damage Compensation Programme Evaluation of Phase II: BaselineReport. Oxford Policy Management (OPM).

ODI, 2007. Cash Transfers in Development and Relief Contexts: A Review of the Recent Literature.London, UK: Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

ODI, 2015. Doing cash differently: How cash transfers can transform humanitarian aid. Report of theHigh Level Panel on humanitarian cash transfers. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute (ODI)Center for Global Development.

OPM, 2013. Citizen’s Damage Compensation Programme: Impact evaluation report. Impact Evaluation.Oxford Policy Management.

Pasricha, N. & Revzi, K., 2013. After Watan: The Contributions of a G2P Payments Program to Building aBranchless Banking Industry. Case Study. MEDA, United Bank Limited.

Pearson, L., Jowett, E. & Bayley, S., 2014. Government uptake of cash transfer programming: Trends,characteristics and potential implications for international humanitarian actors in emergency response.London: The Humanitarian Futures Programme, King’s College London The Cash Learning Partnership(CaLP).

Peppiatt, D., Mitchell, J. & Holzmann, P., 2001. Cash transfers in emergencies: evaluating benefits andassessing risks. HPN Paper. London: Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN) Overseas DevelopmentInstitute.

Polit, D.F. & Beck, C.T., 2004. Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. 7th ed. Philadelphia: LippincottWilliams & Wilkins.

PWP, 2011. In Detail: Worst Natural Disasters of Pakistan! [Online] Available at:https://pakistanweatherportal.com/2011/07/16/worst-natural-disasters-of-pakistan/ [Accessed 29 June2016].

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C.M. & Ormston, R., eds., 2013. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide forSocial Science Students and Researchers. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publication Ltd.

RSR, 2013. Pakistan's Citizens Damage Compensation Programme (CDCP). Case Study. Rapid SocialResponse.

Schwab, B., Margolies, A. & Hoddinott, J., 2013. Impact Evaluation of Cash and Food Transfers for theSeasonal Emergency Safety Net in Hajjah and Ibb Governorates, Yemen: Endline Report. Washington, DC:International Food Policy Research Institute.

Sen, A., 1981. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

40

Smith, G. & Mohiddin, L., 2015. A review of evidence of humanitarian cash transfer programming inurban areas. IIED Working papaer. London, UK: International Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED).

UNDP, 2016. Bangladesh: Disaster Risk Reduction as Development. [Online] Available at:http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/crisispreventionandrecovery/projects_initiatives/Bangladesh-drr-casestudy-transformational-change.html [Accessed 26 Augustus 2016].

UNISDR, 2014. Progress and Challenges in Disaster Risk Reduction: A contribution towards thedevelopment of policy indicators for the Post-2015 Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction. UnitedNations International Stretegy or Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).

Waller, V., Farquharson, K. & Dempsey, D., 2016. Qualitative Social Research: Contemporary Methodsfor the Digital Age. SAGE.

Waters, W.F., 2010. Qualitative methods for assessing conditional cash transfer programmes: The caseof Panama. Development in Practice, 20(6), pp.678–89.

WHO, 2008. Managing WHO Humanitarian Response in the Field. Geneva: WHO Publishers WorldHealth Organization.

World Bank, 2010. Pakistan Floods 2010: Preliminary Damage and Needs Assessment. World Bank, ADB,GoP.

World Bank, 2014. Implementation Completion and Results Report: Flood Emergency Cash TransferProject. World Bank.

Yablonski, J. & O’Donnell, M., 2009. Lasting Benefits: The role of cash transfers in tackling child mortality.London, UK: Save the Children UK.

41

8. APPENDICES

Appendix 1. INFORMED CONSENT

As-salāmu ʿalaykum,

I am Arsalan Masood, a student of University of Birmingham, United Kingdom and I am conducting aresearch study on the effects and impact of Watan project, also known as Citizens’ DamageCompensation Programme, in which you have participated in. This study is part of a dissertation coursework, for which I will interview a number of beneficiaries of the project in Peshawar. The informationyou will provide will support me to analyse the findings of the study.

This interview will take about an hour, and this time estimate depends on your interest, relevant andcomprehensive information you provide. All information you provide is confidential and will only beused for the analysis of this study. There is no cost or payment involved to participate in this survey.

You are not waiving any legal rights that you currently have by agreeing to participate in this researchstudy. It is your choice whether or not you take part in this interview. There will be no penalty and youwill not lose any benefits, now or in future, if you decide not to take part in this interview. You are alsofree to withdraw from the study at any time.

There is no good or bad, right or wrong answer to any question and if you have any questions, you canask me before or during the interview. Thank you already for your time and giving me the opportunity tomeet you.

42

Appendix 2. SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDED QUESTIONS

Interview # ______________ Date: ______________________ Time ____________________

Part A. General Information

A1. Gender Male Female Do not want to disclose

A4. Marital status Single Married Divorced Widow Do not want to disclose

A2. Age __________________ A5. Number of children (if any) ________________

Part B. Cash transfer programme

B1. Did you or anyone in your household receive cash transfers under CDCP programme?(To confirm the person was the beneficiary)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

B2. What was the process of selection; could you briefly describe how you were selected as abeneficiary?(Probe transparency, targeting, selection process, information on entitlements, community involvement, feelings ofsome people included yet they do not deserve to be included)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

B3. In your opinion, how transparent was the selection process for beneficiaries? How fair was targetingthrough house assessment?(Probe: exclusion error, if they missed any houses, political influence, households without proper land, staff doingassessment)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

43

B4. How was your overall experience of enrolment process at Watan Card Facilitation Centre (WCFC)?Were there any challenges you faced?(Probe: was their proper guidance)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

B5a. Suppose that if a household is not identified as flood-affected, then what would they do about it?(Probe: Grievance redressal mechanism)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

B5b. Have you ever filed an appeal or update? Was it successful and how was your experience about it?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

B6. Could you briefly describe the process of accessing the cash from the Watan Card Facilitation Centre(WCFC)?(Probe: waiting time at point of sale (PoS), handling by agents, requirements, alternatives approaches of gettingthe cash through partners’ bank ATM)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

B7. What is your view regarding the cash transfer project as implemented by NADRA in yourcommunity?(Probe: Usefulness, relevance, appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

B8. How important was cash transfers for you at the time of floods and why?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

44

B9. What difference has this cash transfers made what could you afford that you would not have beenable to afford without this cash transfers?(Probe: about three most important usages)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

B10. In your opinion, is the CDCP project approach appropriate in the situation of flood or similar type ofhumanitarian disaster?(Probe: view on time, dignity, respect in the community and peers and also about the obvious alternatives such asfood distribution, distribution of non-food items or distribution of construction material)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

B11. Has cash improved your and your household’s access to basic services like water, health carefacilities, school and the market?(Probe how, if the answer is yes)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

B12a. Has the cash transfers helped or improved in the livelihood of the household?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

B12b. What alternatives (if any) to cash transfers do you think people in this community would prefer toaddress their livelihood needs?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

B13. In your opinion, what are some of the important things that cash transfer project has done in yourlife and the life of your households(Probe: perception on nutritional status, stress and duress, expenditure on food, undertaking daily chores, cohesionin the family etc)

45

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

B14. Is there anything else you would like to share which in your opinion can improve the programme?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

46

Appendix 3. LIST OF RESEARCH METHODS AND RESPONDENTS

ResearchMethod Participants Respondents Place Date Time

Semi-structuredinterviews

Interviews with the flood-affectedindividuals (including bothbeneficiaries and non-beneficiaries)

Respondent 1 Chamkani 28-Jul-2016 13:15

Respondent 2 Chamkani 28-Jul-2016 14:45

Respondent 3 Chamkani 28-Jul-2016 18:20

Respondent 4 Tarnab 29-Jul-2016 11:00

Respondent 5 Tarnab 29-Jul-2016 12:30

Respondent 6 Tarnab 29-Jul-2016 13:40

Respondent 7 Tarnab 29-Jul-2016 14:15

Respondent 8 Tarnab 29-Jul-2016 14:50

Respondent 9 Bhana Mari 30-Jul-2016 17:00

Respondent 10 Bhana Mari 30-Jul-2016 17:50

Respondent 11 Bhana Mari 30-Jul-2016 20:35

Respondent 12 Mathra 31-Jul-2016 10:30

Respondent 13 Mathra 31-Jul-2016 11:50

Respondent 14 Mathra 31-Jul-2016 13:45

Respondent 15 Mathra 31-Jul-2016 15:00

Respondent 16 Mathra 31-Jul-2016 14:30

Respondent 17 Mathra 31-Jul-2016 15:30

Respondent 18 Darmangi 3-Aug-2016 11:45

Respondent 19 Darmangi 3-Aug-2016 17:00

Respondent 20 Sarband 4-Aug-2016 19:45

Respondent 21 Dalazak 5-Aug-2016 17:00

Respondent 22 Dalazak 5-Aug-2016 17:45

Respondent 23 Dalazak 5-Aug-2016 18:20

Respondent 24 Dalazak 5-Aug-2016 19:00

Respondent 25 Dalazak 5-Aug-2016 20:30

Respondent 26 Taru Jabba 7-Aug-2016 18:10

47

ResearchMethod Participants Respondents Place Date Time

Respondent 27 Taru Jabba 7-Aug-2016 19:40

Respondent 28 Taru Jabba 7-Aug-2016 20:25

Respondent 29 Chughal Pura 8-Aug-2016 16:00

Respondent 30 Chughal Pura 8-Aug-2016 18:45

Interview with implementingorganisations

Employee of IOM IOM Office inIslamabad 26-Jul-2016 13:20

Former employeeof NADRA Islamabad 27-Jul-2016 12:00

Interview with an organisationconducted operational audit

Employee ofDeloitte

Deloitte Pakistanoffice in Islamabad 15-Jul-2016 16:40

Interview with an organisationinvolved in impact evaluation

Consultant whowas involved inimpact evaluation

Islamabad 16-Aug-2016 11:15

Cluster focal person Cash WorkingGroup (CWG) in Pakistan

Employee of FAOand focal personfor cash transfercluster

FAO Office inIslamabad 18-Jul-2016 11:00

Focus GroupDiscussion

Focus group discussions with flood-affected individuals (including bothbeneficiaries and non-beneficiaries)

Seven maleparticipants Darmangi 3-Aug-2016 12:45

Five femaleparticipants Chughal Pura 8-Aug-2016 10:00

48

Appendix 4. STAKEHOLDERS

Planning and operations of CDCP disaster response involved multi-level and multi-agency coordinationnot only within government agencies but with multiple national and international partners at everystage of assistance. At the policy level, the Council of Common Interest (CCI), the National OversightDisaster Management Council (NODMC), the Cabinet Division, and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) werethe main bodies responsible for policy direction and oversight of CDCP. Implementation of the CDCP wasa coordinated effort at federal, provincial and district level.

At the national level, departments under federal government were main stakeholders includingEmergency Relief Cell of the Cabinet Division, NADRA, and the three partnered commercial banksmentioned above. Similarly, ground implementation at provincial and district level was coordinatedbetween NADRA's provincial/local offices, Provincial Disaster Management Authorities (PDMAs), theState Management Authority (AJK), local banks and the District Coordination Offices (DCOs). Figure 10shows institutional implementation arrangements of CDCP.

Figure 10: CDCP Institutional Implementation Arrangements