Cash and vouchers in emergencies:a resource guide

This was prepared for a January 2006 conference on Cash and Emergecy Relief.

An up-to-date resource guide is now availabe on the ODI website

The first output of this HPG research project has been a Discussion Paper, which pointed to a need for investing further the growing bodyof practice in using cash and vouchers by documenting the history, evaluation and lessons learned.

This guide is an initial step in promoting the development of such a body of documentation, but it is not exhaustive. It gives a broad rangeof examples of cash- and voucher-based responses and the documents they have generated, so that humanitarian practitioners presentlyconsidering their assessments and programming may be able to learn from these past experiences.

The present guide was launched at a workshop held jointly with Save the Children (‘Getting the Point’: Improving Food SecurityInterventions in Emergencies'). Discussion at this meeting included possible ‘criteria of appropriateness’ to help in deciding when food-based or cash-based interventions are most appropriate, and when relief should be provided for free or for work. By facilitating suchdiscussion, and through the ongoing cash research project, it is hoped that further documentation will be shared, and the guide updatedover the coming year.

Cash and voucher guidelines:

Pantaleo Creti and Susanne Jaspars (eds), Cash-Transfer Programming in Emergencies, Oxfam

Cash and voucher evaluations:

Joint SDC-IFRC External Review on In-kind and Cash Distribution Projects in Zavkhan Aimag, Mongolia, 2003

Robert H. Brandstetter, Evaluation of OFDA Cash for Relief Intervention in Ethiopia, USAID/OFDA, 2004

Cash and voucher reports:

Yuve Guluma, Cash for work projects: a case study in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Save the Children UK

David Peppiatt, John Mitchell and Penny Allen (British Red Cross), Buying power: the use of cash transfers in emergencies, November2000

Cash in Afghanistan

Cash for work (2001 - 2002)In response to drought and conflict, huge volumes of food aid were delivered in Afghanistanduring 2001–2002. Large-scale food aid programming continued into 2002–2003, but there wasan increasing shift towards cash for work rather than food for work. In part, this seems to havebeen prompted by a study arguing for greater use of cash-based responses, and in part bygovernment calls for a shift towards cash as part of a longer-term social protection strategy.

Assisted return to Afghanistan (1990-92 & 2002-03)During 2002 an estimated 2 million refugees returned to Afghanistan from Pakistan, Iran andTajikistan (Turton & Marsden 2002). For those returning from Pakistan, a cash grant intended tocover transport costs was provided, which was originally set at $100 per family. There were largeproblems with what is called ‘recycling’: collecting the cash grant, returning by an alternative routeto the country of asylum and then repeating the process. This was less of a problem in the returnfrom Iran where the cash grant component was smaller, at $10 per person, and provided once therefugees had arrived in Afghanistan. In 2002, UNHCR introduced iris recognition technology, andthe agency has concluded that ‘has undoubtedly been a deterrent to the “recycling” attemptsobserved’ (UNHCR 2003). UNHCR notes that the transport grant ‘remained one of the largest directinjections of cash into the economy’ (UNHCR 2004): 318).

A review of a repatriation grant provided during an earlier period of return from Pakistan toAfghanistan, between 1990 and 1992, found that cash served as an effective means of supportingrefugee choices and facilitating spontaneous return, and that it was extremely cost-effective. Agrant of $100 was provided to refugees deciding to return, along with 300kg of wheat, and theirrefugee passbook was cancelled. The grant was provided in rupees through local banks; anevaluation found that it boosted local economies in Pakistan, where refugees purchased basicrequirements before leaving for Afghanistan. The evaluation acknowledged that it was not possibleto link encashment to observed border crossings, and that some families may have opted forclandestine local settlement. It also found that the durability of the system was ‘seriouslyjeopardised by its susceptibility to abuse’, with the resale value of passbooks doubling in the firstfew months of the scheme (UNHCR 1994): 17).

Resources:

UNHCR Global Report 2004

UNHCR Afghan Operation Overview 2003

Taking Refugees for a Ride? The Politics of Refugee Return in Afghanistan

Sue Lautze, Food insecurity in Afghanistan 1999 - 2002

Ministry for rural rehabilitation and development, More cash, less kind: towards a nationalstrategy for social protection, 2002

Development Researchers' Network, Assistance to the transitional authority of the Islamic Stateof Afghanistan to elaborate policy guidance regarding food aid utilisation in Afghanistan, October2003

Cash in Bangladesh

Both cash grants and cash for work were used in response to the 1998 floods in Bangladesh.Oxfam, for example, provided cash grants as part of a food distribution, in order to revive thestagnant local economy (DEC 2000). Oxfam also implemented cash for work projects in WestBangladesh in 2001 (Khogali 2003;Khogali & Takhar 2001a;Oxfam 2003). This programme targeted10,000 beneficiaries with 30 days’ employment each. The government minimum wage was used toset the level of payment, and over 80% of the participants were women. The Oxfam project wasdesigned as a recovery programme, following an initial emergency response focusing on food,shelter, water and sanitation and healthcare. As markets were closed by the flooding for the firstthree weeks, a review found that the use of cash at an earlier stage of the crisis may have beeninappropriate (Khogali & Takhar 2001a) In response to the floods in Bangladesh in 2004, Save theChildren provided roofing materials and a small amount of cash to 10,000 families for housingreconstruction (Save the Children UK. 2004b).

Resources:

Khogali,H. , Takhar,P. 2001a, Empowering women through cash relief in humanitarian contexts,Gender and Development Vol 9 No 3

Shafiqul Islam, Dr. Selina Amin, and Enayet U.S. Islam, Flood response program of FIVDB: areview of approach, 2005

Save the Children (UK), Flood relief and rehabilitation: addressing the needs of the poorest

Cash for work in DRC

Household economy assessments carried out by Save the Children in 2002 suggested that, insome parts of eastern DRC, households were cash-poor not food-poor, and that there were areascalm enough for cash for work projects to be implemented (Guluma 2004) The intervention wason a small scale, targeting 345 households in Bwito and 490 in Masisi Plateau for road and schoolrehabilitation, with a total cash component of around $100,000. Save the Children saw the use ofcash as both more cost-effective than food aid, and as having beneficial knock-on effects on thelocal economy.

Resources:

Save the Children (UK), The Rehabilitation of Basic Services and Restoration of Livelihoods Of the War-Affected Population in the District of Bwito (Rutshuru Territory) and on the Nyakariba –Muheto Route (Masisi Territory), DRC, May 2004

Cash and vouchers in Ethiopia

The continuing cycle of famine in Ethiopia and the large annual volumes of food aid that continueto be delivered have prompted a growing interest in alternative interventions, including cash andvouchers. Save the Children has implemented a series of cash relief projects over the past fewyears, which will be reviewed in a separate case study as part of this research project. Thefindings of a series of reports and evaluations of these projects have been broadly positive,concluding that cash is appropriate and can be safely implemented, that inflation has not been amajor problem and that cash is more cost-effective than food aid (Gebre-Selassie & Beshah2003;Knox-Peebles 2001;Save the Children UK. 2004a). USAID provided $4.4 million in 2003 tofund four cash pilot projects which, as well as Save the Children, also included cash for reliefinitiatives by CARE, World Vision and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, as well as a cash-for-seedsproject implemented by the Comitato Internazionale per lo Sviluppo dei Popoli and the ReliefSociety of Tigray (CISP/REST) (USAID 2004). These are currently being evaluated.

CRS, World Vision, CARE and FAO have all implemented voucher-based seed programmes(UNOCHA 2003). In 2004, CRS introduced a livestock voucher scheme, where vouchers can beexchanged for small ruminants at livestock fairs, complemented by support to veterinary services(Catholic Relief Services / Ethiopia Program 2004). In Tigray, the World Bank has financed anEmergency Recovery Programme for the State Council which has provided cash grants to war-affected IDPs and people deported from Eritrea to Tigray (Global IDP Database 2003). There areundoubtedly additional examples not covered in this review.

Resources:

Catholic Relief Services/USAID, Evaluation of the “Emergency Response through Increased Accessto Seed, Water and Sanitation” Project, 2003

Save the Children UK, Cash–for-Relief Piloting Review Report, May 2001

Save the Children, Cash Based Public Works Piloting Study Somali Region Ethiopia, October2005

Assessment and evaluation of the impact of cash for relief (CFR) project in Sayint and Debre-Sinaworedas of South Wollo, May 2004

Cash payments by the Red Cross in Guatemala and Nicaragua following Hurricane Mitch

Cash payments were provided as part of an agricultural inputs package. An evaluation found thatcash had supported immediate subsistence and reinforced investment in production; that it wasresponsibly spent; and that there was no evidence of arguments within households over thecontrol of the money. The evaluation also found that the combination of assistance wasparticularly effective, with cash complementing agricultural inputs and food (British Red Cross1999).

Resources:

British Red Cross, Hurricane Mitch Agricultural Support Programme: Rebuilding Rural Livelihoods,A comparative analysis of the effects of cash assistance on the recovery of rural livelihoods,September 1999

Cash in Haiti

Oxfam has been implementing a cash for work programme in Cap Haitien, a town in the north ofHaiti, in response to unrest early in 2004. Two thousand beneficiaries are receiving a combinationof cash and rice, as well as taking part in public works programmes including canal cleaning andwaste removal. Food for work programmes have been highly unpopular in the past in Haiti, andthe programme was temporarily interrupted following complaints by recipients that they wouldrather receive full cash payments than vouchers for food (Alvarez 2004).

Resources:

Maite Alvarez, Cash & food for work project in Cap Haitien

Oxfam report on cash-for-work and grants in urban and insecure contexts

Cash in India

Many donators believe that the quickest and most effective approach to rebuild houses andreestablish normality after a disaster is the employment of professional construction companies.Nowadays, however, there is a growing awareness among experts and humanitarian agencies thatthis is not necessarily the case. The drawbacks of a contractor-driven approach towards post-disaster housing reconstruction have led humanitarian agencies to look for alternatives. Anappreciated alternative among some NGOs consists of the so-called participatory housingapproach. Under this approach the agency keeps a leading role in construction but the communityis involved in variable degrees and roles in the construction process. A step forward inempowering the house owners that is increasingly advocated by leading international agenciesincluding SDC and the World Bank consists in the so-called owner-driven approach. Under thisapproach people are enabled toreconstruct their houses themselves and the role of external agencies is limited to theprovision of financial technical assistance.

The owner-driven approach was applied the first time on a large scale by the Government ofGujarat (India) after the devastating earthquake in 2001. It was used again in Tamil Nadu inresponse to the 2005 tsunami.

Resources:

Housing reconstruction in Tamil Nadu one year after the Tsunami, Duyne Barenstein, 2005

Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority, Gujarat Emergency Earthquake ReconstructionProject, December 2002

Jennifer Duyne Barenstein, Housing reconstruction in post-earthquake Gujarat: A comparativeanalysis, Network Paper 54, March 2006.

SUPSI, A Comparative Analysis of Six Housing Reconstruction Approaches in Post-EarthquakeGujarat, July 2005

Cash in Indonesia

Cash for work programs were a prominent component of the immediate response to the tsunamiin Aceh. Mercy Corps' CFW program employed nearly 18,000 participants and disbursed over USD4.5 million in direct payments during the seven-month program lifespan. The program wasevaluated using monitoring data and an exit survey of 1,428 randomly selected participants.

The World Food Programme (WFP) and its cooperating partners have been providing amonthly food ration to persons displaced or otherwise affected by the December 26, 2004earthquake and tsunami. CARE is distributing food in parts of Banda Aceh, Aceh Besar andSimeulue Island. As of June 2005, approximately 75,000 households in these areas continuedto be food insecure. For many, however, the source of this insecurity was no longer foodavailability. In certain areas, food was readily available in local shops and markets, priceswere stable and reasonable, and a supply chain was functioning to keep shops stocked. Inthese areas, the most efficient way to assure food security of affected households would be toincrease their buying power for food purchase. CARE proposed a pilot project, in the subdistrict ofUlee Kareng, Banda Aceh, to test a model for providing food assistance byimproving economic access of households.

Resources:

Shannon Doocy, Michael Gabriel, Sean Collins, Courtland Robinson and Peter Stevenson, TheMercy Corps Cash for Work Program in Post-Tsunami Aceh, December 2005

CARE International, The story in pictures and words of CARE’s market based food assistance pilotproject in Banda Aceh, Indonesia

CARE International, A Market-based System for Food Assistance: A Pilot Project Designed andImplemented by CARE International in Indonesia

Sri Lanka and Aceh emergency responses (focus on Aceh), Could cash have been used more inpost-tsunami recovery?

Cash in Bam, Iran

There has been significant use of cash in the response to the Bam earthquake; Table 6summarises the different types of cash assistance that have been available. A Red Crossassessment found that this cash assistance had made a clear difference to Bam, as evidenced bya renaissance of small trade and a growing number of small shops and stalls. Much of thisassistance has been provided by the state and through previously-existing channels, such as thelocal Welfare Organisation, which registered vulnerable groups (female-headed households,orphans, the elderly and the disabled) immediately after the earthquake. The Iranian Red Crescenthas also conducted cash distributions (IFRC 2004). All payments have been made into bankaccounts opened for those registered, showing what is possible given a functioning bankingsystem. There has still been a need to publicise when payments are put into bank accounts sothat people are aware that the funds are there.

Resources:

IFRC Operations Update, July 2004

Cash in Jamaica

The Jamaican government distributed a sum of $51 million to 10,200 persons in Clarendon whowere affected by Hurricane Ivan, which devastated the island in September last year.

Resources:

Government of Jamaica, Jamaica: Hurricane Victims in Clarendon receive final payment, July 2005

Cash in Malawi

In response to crop failure in 2004-5 that was projected to cause acute food insecurity in 2005-06, Oxfam and Concern Worldwide have between them been providing emergency cash transfersto 8,500 households in Malawi.

Resources:

Oxfam Project Report, Emergency Cash Transfer in Malawi and Zambia, 2005

Emergency Cash Transfers for Livelihood Protection in Lilongwe, Dowa and Nkhotakota Districts,Malawi, Concern Worldwide, Project Proposal

Vouchers and cash in Montserrat

Following a volcanic eruption in 1995, food aid and shelter assistance was initially provided. FromJune 1996 the government of Montserrat introduced a food voucher scheme, later broadened toinclude all foods and basic toiletries, exchangeable in local shops. Vouchers were replaced inDecember 1997 by cheques to the same value, which could be cashed at banks andsupermarkets. This change appears to have been both a response to pressure from participants,who wanted to be able to use assistance more flexibly, including for rent payments, and aresponse to the heavy administrative burden of the voucher programme. It also followed criticismof the voucher scheme from the UK parliament’s International Development Committee. Supportfor shelter also moved from a policy where the government built houses to one called ‘self-build’,where grants were provided to enable people to build homes themselves (Clay 1999).

Resources:

Edward Clay, An evaluation of HMG’s response to the Montserrat volcanic emergency, December1999

Cash grants in Mozambique

Following the floods in Mozambique in early 2000, USAID funded a project that provided cashgrants of about $92 to 106,280 flood-affected rural families. A private consultancy firm wasappointed to implement the project. Recipients were issued with cheques at distribution sites,where a commercial bank provided tellers who could cash the cheques, protected by a localsecurity firm. The money was used in diverse ways, but most was spent on basic consumption.Most spending took place locally, and an impact evaluation concluded that the grants stimulatedthe local and national economy (Abt Associaties Inc. & Agricultural Policy Development Project2002;Christie & Hanlon 2001;Hanlon 2004;Miller 2002).

Resources:

Gaurav Datt, Ellen Payongayong, James L. Garrett, and Marie Ruel, The GAPVU cashtransfer program in Mozambique: an assessment, October 1997

US Agency for International Development (USAID), Impact evaluation: resettlement grantactivity (Mozambique 1999-2000 Floods), July 2002

Cash in Pakistan

After the earthquake in Pakistan in October 2005, payments were disbursed among the next of kinof the deceased, the injured and among those owners of houses which lost their houses.

Resources:

Pakistan: relief, rehabilitation activities continue unhindered despite inclement weather in quakehit areas, Government of Pakistan, 2 December 2005

Pakistan: Tenant quake survivors angry at lack of compensation, OCHA, 12 December 2005

Cash in the Sahel region

Between 2004 and 2005, the food security situation in the Sahel region was seriously affectedby a combination of acute factors that worsened the already chronic existing problems associatedwith extreme poverty, natural resources impoverishment, desertification and uncontrolleddemographic growth. It resulted in a regional food crisis that hit several countries, such as Mali,Mauritania, Burkina Faso, and Niger. Oxfam GB decided to avoid importing food, due to the factthat this country was mainly facing a problem of food access, and markets were functioning andtraders well organised. In Gao, Oxfam GB ensured access to food tovulnerable population through a voucher for work programme that involved 10,098 households.

Resources:

Oxfam Project Report, Sahel Food Crisis, An experience of integrating cash vouchers in localmarkets, 2005

Save the Children voucher scheme in northern Iraq

Following the 1991 Gulf war, Save the Children distributed vouchers in northern Iraq to help newsettlers survive the first difficult winters back in their village, and to assist others to settlepermanently. Families could choose what they liked from a catalogue of resources, to the value of£140. The catalogue was developed from a discussion with communities about their needs andpriorities, and included food, livestock, fertiliser, seeds and building materials. Once selection hadbeen made Save the Children purchased the items locally, and delivered them to the villages.Livestock was the most popular item and food the second, but a wide range of goods wasselected. According to Save the Children, the voucher programme was a successful and innovativeresponse since it addressed the diversity of people’s needs and enabled villagers to determinetheir own requirements (Jaspars & Young 1995).

Resources:

Jaspars & Young, Humanitarian Practice Network Good Practice Review 3 General FoodDistribution in Emergencies, December 1995

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) cash projects

The Swiss development and relief agency SDC implemented 13 cash projects in eight countriesbetween 1999 and 2004. SDC has an advisory unit called ‘Project Cash’ in its headquarters thatfocuses solely on cash-based responses and knowledge-sharing. Projects have been implementedin Ingushetia in the Russian Federation, Moldova, Georgia, Kosovo, Serbia, Mongolia andMacedonia (Rauch & Scheurer 2003;SDC 2004a).

Between 1999 and 2001 in Serbia, some 11,000 families hosting approximately 52,000 Serbs whohad fled from Kosovo were supported with a grant of CHF50 per month (SDC 2003a). In Kosovoduring 1999, SDC implemented what it called a ‘cash for housing’ programme. This providedfinancial and technical support to people rebuilding their homes in 13 villages in Kosovo. Inexchange, the owner of the house had to host displaced people during the following winter. Fourstaggered payments were made: the first for roofing, a second for masonry, doors, windows andthe completion of one room per family, a third for water and power supply installation and a final10% for finishing the work. Between September and December 1999, 380 houses were rebuilt atan average cost of $5,700 per house. The costs per person were about one-third of the averagecost of collective re-housing. SDC also argues that the project helped to consolidate social ties inthe villages covered, boosted the local economy and empowered local institutions. Evaluationsfound that the project was completed more quickly than other shelter programmes, constructionwas of equal quality and beneficiaries appreciated the greater choice that cash provided (SDC2003a). Cash grants were also a major part of Swiss returnee programmes to Bosnia in 1996, forapproximately 80,000 people, and Kosovo in 1999, for about 52,000 people.

Between 2000 and 2002, SDC and UNHCR implemented a programme in Ingushetia in Russia,providing cash to about 11,000 families hosting people displaced from Chechnya. Each familyreceived a one-off grant of $100. The funds were directly transferred from Switzerland to theIngush postal bank system, and the post offices told verified host families when to collect themoney. In the second year of the project, there were major problems with fraudulent attempts tobe placed on beneficiary lists, and these disrupted project implementation by several weeks(Rickli 2002;SDC & UNHCR 2002). Between December 2003 and May 2004, SDC provided smallgrants to over 8,500 families in 196 villages in southern Moldova which had been affected bydrought. The total budget for the project was $650,000 (SDC 2004b). In response to a successionof exceptionally harsh winters (‘Dzuds’) in Mongolia, SDC implemented a programme to providesmall cash grants to vulnerable herders in 2002 and 2003 (Dietz 2005;SDC 2002;SDC 2003b).

Evaluations of these SDC cash projects have been largely positive, concluding that cash projectsare fast and efficient, reduce overheads and increase the purchasing power of beneficiaries (SDC2003a).

Resources:

Joint SDC-IFRC, External Review on In-kind and Cash Distribution Projects in 2003 in ZavkhanAimag, Mongolia

Cash grants in Somalia

In October 2003, an inter-agency assessment in the Sool and Sanaag regions of Somaliarecommended cash grants as one of a range of possible responses to acute food insecurity. HornRelief and Norwegian People’s Aid subsequently distributed cash grants of $50 to 13,830households. The NGOs registered vulnerable families, then provided the lists to remittancecompanies, who gave each household its $50. Once it was verified that the payments had beenmade the NGO could transfer the cash to the remittance company. A post-distribution surveyfound no evidence of misappropriation, or of cash fuelling the region’s war economy. However,this one-off $50 distribution was unable to provide more than short-lived relief, and debt levelsand distress were again starting to rise not long after the distribution (HORN RELIEF 2004;Narbeth2004).

Resources:

Degan Ali, Fanta Toure and Tilleke Kiewied, Cash relief in a contested area: lessons fromSomalia, HPN Network Paper 50, March 2005

Simon Narbeth (OCHA), Emergency cash relief to drought affected families of Sool Plateau, June2004

Horn of Africa Relief and Development Organization (HORN RELIEF), Emergency cash reliefprogram (ECRP), May 2004

Oxfam report on cash relief interventions in Somaliland, 2005

Cash in Sri Lanka

Ever since the tsunami struck the coast of Sri Lanka in December 2004, a range of NGOs havebeen implementing cash transfer activities as part of their emergency response programme tosecure the food security and restore the livelihoods of disaster affected coastal communities. Asthe majority of tsunami-affected areas had well functioning and integrated markets where adiverse range of food and non-food items were available, a cash transfer programmeconsisting of cash for work activities and cash grants for livelihood rehabilitation has been themost appropriate response. This has allowed them to ensure household food security andtimely restore the livelihoods of a large number of households.

Resources:

Oxfam Project Report, Sri Lanka Tsunami Response, 2004

World Food Programme, Sri Lanka Cash Transfer Pilot Project, January 2006

HELVETAS, Cash for Host Families (CfHF), May 2005

Repatriation from Thailand to Cambodia, 1992–93

Between March 1992 and April 1993, about 370,000 refugees from border camps in Thailandreturned to Cambodia. A combination of assistance was provided, including transport, food aid fora 400-day period and the option of a cash grant. The cash grant on offer was a generous $50 peradult returnee and $25 for each child, meaning that a large family could receive over $400.Around 85% of the returnees selected the cash grant option.

The cash grant expanded the range of options open to returnees, providing them with the meansto move around the country and find lost relatives, and enabling new arrivals to establish an initialbase with family members. It also meant that UNHCR no longer had to provide all the returneeswith housing kits, an objective that they had been struggling to meet. The grants were mostcommonly used to buy building materials, land or housing plots, establish small businesses,assist relatives in income-generating activities and find family members. A UNHCR reviewconcluded that ‘the cash grant has played a very positive role in the initial settlement process’(Crisp & Mayne 1993).

Kitgum, Uganda, 2001

This programme was implemented by Oxfam in response to ethnic violence in Kitgum; it targeted8,000 households. A review found that cash met a diverse range of needs and was preferred tofood aid, partly because previous food aid distributions had lacked transparency and been subjectto substantial leakages. Some beneficiaries were concerned about the security risks associatedwith keeping cash and so spent the money as quickly as possible, often on livestock which wereseen as a lower-risk form of saving (Khogali & Takhar 2001b).

Cash in the United States

The American Red Cross provided more than 1.4 million families (over four million people)emergency financial assistance in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. Thisassistance helped hurricane survivors purchase items that were urgently needed such as food, achange of clothes, diapers and other essentials.

Resources:

Red Cross Responses to Hurricanes Katrina / Rita – Donor Dollars At Work, American Red Cross,December 2005

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), USA: $4 billion in the hands of disaster victims,4 January 2006

ICRC urban voucher programmes in the West Bank,2002–2003

This programme aimed to provide 20,000 of the most vulnerable families in urban centres of theWest Bank with monthly vouchers in order to purchase a range of essential goods from localsuppliers. The vouchers were worth $90, and had to be spent through selected contractedmerchants, who then redeemed them with ICRC. Long periods of curfew made it difficult for ICRCto distribute the vouchers, and for beneficiaries to redeem them. The programme ended in 2003,when ICRC decided to stop support on the grounds that it was acting as a substitute for theresponsibilities of the occupying power, Israel.

Resources:

U P D A T E: ICRC activities in Israel, the occupied territories and the autonomous territories,December 2002

Cash in Zambia

Oxfam emergency cash transfersIn response to crop failure in 2004-5 that was projected to cause acute food insecurity in 2005-06, Oxfam has been providing emergency cash transfers to 11,000 households in Zambia.

Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation report on cash transfers This publication discusses the rationale behind establishing social cash transfer programs. Itpresents the costs and benefits arising from existing programs – in particular, the pilot cashtransfer scheme in Kalomo District, Zambia – and identifies preconditions for successfulimplementation.

Resources:

Oxfam Project Report, Emergency Cash Transfer in Malawi and Zambia, 2005

Social Cash Transfers – Reaching the Poorest, GTZ, Schubert (2005)