Key findings from FSAC gender study for consideration
Cash and Voucher Working Group
1. At policy and capacity level
1.1.
As per gender study findings, most agencies mentioned that they have to work over a period of time with a
development and rights based approach for empowering women and other excluded groups in the
community to neutralize the social and power dynamics in the true sense of the term. The question naturally
arises; how practical it is to expect to achieve gender equality in short term humanitarian projects?
Consider setting realistic expectations on whether cash/voucher system will achieve Practical Gender Needs
or Strategic Gender Needs. Whether it will aim for Do No Harm or Do Some Good? On occasions when it is
implemented by an agency with solid rapport with communities, gender equality can be aimed. You can find
more information, details on these approaches in the gender study report.
1.2 Age and disability have mostly been limited to targeting older people and people with disabilities as
“vulnerable groups” for unconditional transfer. This reinforces the misconception that age and disability are
only about vulnerable “groups” and are not about ensuring equitable aid, decision making, participation,
capacity building and self-sufficiency.
Consider involving men and women of various ages and abilities in an equitable way in your cash and
voucher interventions. For instance, ask if an older man (head of households) with lesser physical abilities
receiving equitable wage from cash for work programmes.
1.3.
Many agencies also expressed the concern that gender trainings have the risk of becoming an isolated
activity and are not always closely linked with agencies work plan.
Consider, holding specific training sessions with project team on gender and cash/voucher. This should be
especially placed at the beginning of project cycle, during planning phase and should reflection/refresh should
be held throughout the project cycle. The contents of the trainings should be on gender analysis, FAQ
session, indicators across food security pillars etc.
2. At programme level
2.1. During consultations with various FSAC agencies it was noted that there is inconsistency, misunderstanding
and constraints on the timing, process and benefits of collecting SADD. The timing of collecting SADD varies
across agencies, while a few of them collect during baseline survey; a few maintain records of SADD only of
the selected beneficiaries. SADD of the overall community provides an overall picture and SADD of project
beneficiaries provide information on what percentage of the overall populations, broken down by sex and age,
have received assistance. In the absence of this correlation, it is difficult to get a grasp of what assistance
was provided to whom in a given community.
Consider, getting approximate idea on SADD of the community by “indicative measures” such as asking
CDCs and other CBOs on number and breakdown of households. In your sample collect SADD and the
present findings in correlation to that SADD. More information on SADD is available as a HelpAge resource.
2.2. Protection, within the context of food security, has a wide range of issues but the risk assessments are mostly
focused on security situation. While the security situation is critical it is not always linked with impact on
gender; besides other aspects of protection, especially relating to Do No Harm, and identification and
referring to protection risks, are not being systematically or consistently addressed.
Consider, integrating protection related questions in your risk assessment.
2.3. Most FSAC agencies are of the view that there is more scope for making space for the different needs of
various population groups in smaller targeted approach, rather than in larger projects. They further said that
the sheer scale of General Food Distribution or the larger Cash or Food for Work projects make it very
challenging to adjust to the various needs of relatively smaller groups of populations.
Consider, scaling up of number of women and men who cannot participate in regular Cash for Work activities
by introducing innovative projects suitable for women (like weaving, handicrafts, making quilts, gabion
weaving) and men as well (older men and men with disabilities) as a parallel activity.
2.4. Generally women are more inclined to participate in project when the CDC introduces the project as a
“women centric project.” Many times cash transfer projects (cash for work for instance) are perceived as
“male centric project” and so CDCs tend to dismiss women’s role in it. Also male CDCs oftentimes override
female CDCs proposals.
Consider, introduction of CFW for both men and women, and let them decide how men and women of
various ages will participate in it.
2.5. In Badakshan, Food for Education activities are based on MoWA courses for functional literacy which last 9
months. Oftentimes, the course period coincides with Ramadan period and/or harsh seasons where
attending courses over and above household chores become a burden for many women. Thus, seasonal
dynamics are not always integrated with Food for Education/training plans. According to a staff member from
MoWA gender unit, their research indicates that oftentimes women attend those courses just to get the food
ration “Moofatkhor”, their families also give their consent to get additional food rations and not necessarily to
improve the woman’s status. Furthermore, there is some evidence of in drop in enrolment rates during
Ramadan and/or winter. There have also been instances when women failed to collect their food rations for
months due to responsibilities at home and thus even raise question on whether food assistance is required
and if the selection was correct.
Consider innovative approaches for Cash for Trainings such as making fuel efficient stoves or other hand
made soaps. These activities will not only upgrade the participants’ skills but will also lessen household work
on them (especially from fuel efficient stoves).
2.6. For cash transfer, various modalities such as direct face to face cash transfer, Hawala (a traditional Islamic
cash transfer mechanism) and M-PAISA (mobile phone transfer) are in use. However, many agencies are
of the opinion that despite foreseeable logistic and security constraints, the best way to deliver cash to
typically disempowered beneficiaries, especially for unconditional cash transfer, is through direct face to
face distribution. A few agencies reported that attempts were made in some of the distributions to have the
CDCs’ representatives coming to the office to collect the cash but it was discovered that the full amount did
not reach the beneficiaries. Therefore, for most cash transfers, cash is delivered directly within a village to
each beneficiary by the agency with support from CDCs and other community representatives. In 2012,
ACTED, ActionAid and AfghanAid transferred cash to over 5000 food insecure households headed by
vulnerable members of the community in Frayab province using Roshan Telephone Company’s MPAISA
system. To address some of the specific gender needs, ActionAid reported their project provided 450
NOKIA mobile sets to the poorest beneficiaries who did not have the mobile phones, most of which were
women. Furthermore, “although collections points were set up for converting e money to cash, Roshan
agents accompanied by agency staffs visited sick and old beneficiaries in their houses and changed their emoney to cash.”
Consider, doing a gender analysis on preference of men and women on the modality of transfer in your
needs assessments.
2.7. In Cash and Food for Work interventions, most agencies mentioned that able bodied men are targeted as
the work requires hard labour. Nonetheless, as a good practice a few agencies either provide unconditional
cash transfer to those who are not able participate in labour intensive activities or direct such beneficiaries
to other interventions such as Cash/Food for Training/Education. In Cash or Food for Work, men of different
ages and abilities work. There are also divisions in skills (skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled) among
labourers and generally those male beneficiaries who are unable to engage in intensive labour jobs are
hired for lighter jobs such as transporting drinking water. Nonetheless, older men, or men with limited
physical abilities, who work on lighter or unskilled job are paid less than those who are engaged in skilled
and semi-skilled jobs. Thus, in situatiosn when households are headed by older men or men with
disabilities, the less they earn from Cash or Food for Work interventions which means they get less benefits
and this raises the question of equitable interventions. Furthermore, in cash transfer schemes, family size is
not always considered to determine the amount of cash provided to each household.
Consider, equitable distribution of cash by linking those men or women who cannot participate in regular
Cash for Work activities to other innovative approaches.
2.8. On many occasions, community members were heard mentioning rice as a more appropriate food item for
some of them, especially for the older people and children. With a fixed food ration in most of the food
assistance modalities, the choice of food items is not available, so voucher system can be effective way of
providing greater choice to meet various needs. Nonetheless, there are some arguments about the
effectiveness of voucher over food for improving women’s access and control over resources. Even if
women, older people and/or people with disabilities receive vouchers travelling to market remains an issue,
and so the dependence on able bodied men to access food remains. In various meetings with the
communities visited in Badakshan and Hirat, women brought up the fact that culturally it is the practice for
men to bring food home, after which women take over as they are the ones who cook and allocate food to
various members of the family. However, in conclusion, many men and women across all age categories,
who have the advantage of mobility, prefer voucher over food ration because it provides a greater choice of
items.
Consider, adequate understanding of the preference of the community and make adjustment as per that.
Add questions on preferences in needs assessments and then do a gender analysis to see the trend of
preference across ages and sex.
2.9. Many FSAC members, even after capturing or identifying protection issues from cash and voucher
projects from their monitoring process do not know how to take these cases forward for further action. As
one agency staff mentioned, while there are instances of agencies supporting the families of child
laborers through unconditional cash transfer, there are no guidelines known on how children at risk are
provided with adequate child protection support. Similarly in cases of abuse and neglect of individuals
(especially in the case of GBV, abandoning of older family members, or those who are sick and disabled),
there is not enough knowledge on how to address these issues.
Consider, linking with network of paralegals or other such resources that are available within your project
area. For instance ActionAid and NRC have community based protection mechanisms which can be
tapped for referrals.
Samantha Chattaraj
Programme Advisor, gFSC
22 January 2013