Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
WFP Oxfam Gaza Cash Voucher Programme Review
Enviado por
Jeffrey MarzilliDireitos autorais
Formatos disponíveis
Compartilhar este documento
Compartilhar ou incorporar documento
Você considera este documento útil?
Este conteúdo é inapropriado?
Denunciar este documentoDireitos autorais:
Formatos disponíveis
WFP Oxfam Gaza Cash Voucher Programme Review
Enviado por
Jeffrey MarzilliDireitos autorais:
Formatos disponíveis
Cash Voucher Programme
Review of voucher assistance as a safety-net transfer modality in the Gaza Strip
commissioned by
Oxfam GB and UN World Food Programme
Ben Mountfield
16 September 2012
relief recovery risk reduction
benmountfield@gmail.com skype: benmountfield mobile: +49 151 45678 493 www.benmountfield.net
Ben Mountfield
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Executive Summary
The
cash
voucher
programme
is
a
high
quality
intervention
that
meets
its
objectives
and
the
needs
and
expectations
of
the
beneficiaries.
From
the
perspective
of
the
beneficiaries,
it
represents
a
significant
improvement
over
in-kind
distributions,
particularly
with
respect
to
the
quality
of
diet
and
aspects
of
choice
and
dignity.
In
terms
of
its
broader
objectives,
the
programme
has
had
a
significant
and
positive
impact
on
the
productive
capacity
of
the
dairy
processing
industry
in
Gaza,
and
there
remains
significant
potential
for
further
growth
in
this
sector.
There
is
also
evidence
of
other
knock- on
and
multiplier
effects
associated
with
the
programme.
A
households
score
on
the
Proxy
Means
Test
[Formula]
(PMTF)
is
used
as
the
main
targeting
criteria
for
WFP
in-kind
and
voucher
assistance.
The
application
of
the
PMT
formula
has
some
shortcomings,
which
result
in
errors
of
inclusion
and
exclusion:
this
report
considers
the
cause
of
these
errors
and
presents
some
recommendations
to
reduce
or
mitigate
them
as
far
as
possible.
There
should
be
a
single
PMTF
for
the
whole
of
Gaza,
used
by
all
the
actors
in
a
common
manner:
it
should
be
distinct
from
that
used
in
the
West
Bank
but
follow
the
same
logic
and
methodology;
their
results
should
be
comparable.
Enumerators
from
all
organisations
should
be
better
trained
to
ensure
that
questions
are
asked
and
results
gained
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent,
objective
and
fair.
It
would
be
helpful
for
the
project
implementation
team
to
develop
a
detailed
profile
of
the
target
groups
for
the
various
packages,
disaggregated
by
household
size,
based
on
existing
data
and
supported
by
targeted
field
research.
This
would
support
in
the
identification
of
errors
of
allocation
from
a
range
of
sources,
and
also
add
to
the
growing
understanding
of
poverty,
sharing
and
support
systems
in
Gaza.
The
programme
monitoring
is
heavier
than
the
parallel
in-kind
distributions,
in
terms
of
depth
and
proportion
of
caseload.
The
trend
of
change
is
in
the
right
direction,
but
opportunities
still
exist
to
bring
the
two
monitoring
frameworks
closer
together
and
make
results
comparable.
The
modalities
of
the
voucher
distribution
are
modelled
on
the
in-kind
distributions
rather
than
having
been
designed
from
scratch:
improvements
are
possible.
For
example,
transfer
values
can
be
denominated
according
to
actual
household
size
rather
than
being
clustered
into
groups,
and
the
distributions
can
be
run
on
a
true
weekly
basis
rather
than
four
times
a
month;
increasing
predictability
for
beneficiaries
and
normalising
working
hours
for
field
staff.
Assistance
for
the
very
poorest
needs
to
reflect
their
greater
consumption
gap,
and
should
seek
as
a
minimum
to
meet
their
entire
food
consumption
so
as
to
free
up
household
finances
for
other
essentials.
The
value
of
the
assistance
for
this
group
should
therefore
be
increased
so
as
to
make
a
consistent
impact
on
the
consumption
gap
across
the
range
of
poverty,
and
the
impact
of
this
additional
assistance
should
be
monitored.
Since
the
very
poorest
households
struggle
to
access
wheat
flour
unless
it
is
provided
in-kind,
an
enhanced
voucher
package
is
proposed
for
this
group,
with
guaranteed
access
to
wheat
flour.
Various
options
are
presented
to
achieve
this:
the
basic
choice
is
between
an
extension
of
the
voucher
package
to
include
wheat
flour,
or
a
combined
voucher
and
in-kind
system.
In
order
to
allow
the
economical
purchase
of
wheat
flour
in
bulk,
the
voucher
management
arrangements
should
be
altered
to
allow
the
voucher
to
accumulate
through
one
calendar
month.
To
achieve
this
it
would
be
helpful
to
allow
each
voucher
to
be
exchanged
in
two
locations:
one
standard
shop
and
one
wholesaler
but
this
depends
on
the
final
implementation
model
adopted.
The
list
of
approved
items
for
voucher
redemption
should
be
revisited
and
if
possible
expanded
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
beneficiaries
and
further
support
the
broader
aims
of
the
project.
Tomato
paste,
fresh
milk
and
olive
oil
are
all
commodities
worth
a
second
look
at
this
time.
The
existing
arrangements
within
WFP
for
a
10%
contingency
against
price
inflation
have
been
reviewed
and
found
to
be
appropriate
although
the
contingency
has
not
been
necessary
during
the
current
cycle.
Triggers
for
review
of
the
value
of
the
voucher
top-ups
have
been
identified:
a
sustained
5%
increase
in
CPI
is
seen
as
an
appropriate
level
for
review.
Ben Mountfield
Page 2 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Contents
Executive
Summary
..................................................................................................................................
2
Contents
...................................................................................................................................................
3
List
of
figures
..........................................................................................................................................................
4
List
of
tables
...........................................................................................................................................................
4
Acronyms
and
abbreviations
used
.........................................................................................................................
5
Acknowledgements
................................................................................................................................................
5
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Socio-economic context ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Programmatic context ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Targeting beneficiaries and the monitoring framework ........................................................................................ 8 Two linked reviews ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Oxfam and WFP complementarity ......................................................................................................................... 9 Growing awareness of nutrition ............................................................................................................................ 9 Social dimensions ................................................................................................................................................... 9 The development of a stronger food-processing sector ...................................................................................... 10 Monitoring processes .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Monitoring the shops ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Monitoring the voucher exchange ....................................................................................................................... 12 Monitoring the households ................................................................................................................................. 12 Which transfer modality do people prefer? ........................................................................................................ 14 How big are the households? .............................................................................................................................. 15 Weekly top-ups .................................................................................................................................................... 17 The value of the cash voucher in 2013 ................................................................................................................ 17 New modalities for 2013 ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Profiling these groups .......................................................................................................................................... 19 What are people actually eating? ........................................................................................................................ 20 Consumption gap ................................................................................................................................................. 20 A combined approach .......................................................................................................................................... 25 An alternative to distributions: an enhanced voucher ........................................................................................ 27 Options for adding wheat flour to the voucher items ......................................................................................... 27 Summarising the three options for the combined approach ............................................................................... 29 Introduction to the Proxy Means Test ................................................................................................................. 30 Reflections on the MoSA PMTF ........................................................................................................................... 31 PMTF better guidance for enumerators ........................................................................................................... 32 PMTF thresholds: inclusion and exclusion ........................................................................................................... 33 A human over-ride or a second tool? .................................................................................................................. 34 PMTF as a criterion for targeting and transition .................................................................................................. 36 Alpha values ......................................................................................................................................................... 37 Quantitative and qualitative multiplier effects .................................................................................................... 38 Trends in the consumption of Palestinian products ............................................................................................ 39 Job creation .......................................................................................................................................................... 39 What additional products should be on the CVP menu? ..................................................................................... 40 The 10% contingency ........................................................................................................................................... 41 Trends in exchange rates and CPI ........................................................................................................................ 41 Modelling the combined effects .......................................................................................................................... 42 Scenarios for contingency planning ..................................................................................................................... 43 Setting thresholds for review and for action ....................................................................................................... 43
Programme Quality .................................................................................................................................. 9
CVP Processes ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Safety net transfer modalities and transfer values ................................................................................ 14
Targeting and the PMTF ......................................................................................................................... 30
Cost effectiveness and efficiency of the vouchers ................................................................................. 37
Managing the contingency ..................................................................................................................... 41
Ben Mountfield
Page 3 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza What happens when in-kind prices change? ....................................................................................................... 44 Process map for decision making ........................................................................................................................ 44
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 46 Annex 1: Terms of Reference ................................................................................................................. 48 Annex 2: the questions used to generate the PMTF .............................................................................. 52 Annex 3: key informants to the review process ..................................................................................... 53 Annex 4: alternative HH size categories for in-kind distributions .......................................................... 54
List of figures
Figure
1:
households,
families
and
extended
families
...........................................................................
13
Figure
2:
a
journey
through
modalities?
................................................................................................
15
Figure
3:
distribution
of
household
size
within
the
CVP
project
............................................................
16
Figure
4:
WFP
proposed
modalities
for
2013
.........................................................................................
19
Figure
5:
a
wealth
of
poverty
lines
.........................................................................................................
31
Figure
6:
the
balance
of
PMTF
questions
by
category
............................................................................
32
Figure
7:
do
you
have
a
computer?
........................................................................................................
33
Figure
8:
when
will
PMTF
provide
misleading
answers?
........................................................................
33
Figure
9:
trends
in
the
proportion
of
Palestinian
dairy
products
carried
by
CVP
shops
.........................
39
Figure
10:
exchange
rates
and
CPI
over
30
months
...............................................................................
41
Figure
11:
scenarios
for
contingency
planning
.......................................................................................
43
List of tables
Table
1:
perspectives
of
beneficiaries:
when
is
it
appropriate
to
use
which
modality?
.........................
14
Table
2:
calculating
value
of
the
cash
voucher
.......................................................................................
17
Table
3:
three
proposed
modalities
for
WFP
assistance
in
2013
...........................................................
18
Table
4:
PMTF
and
HH
size
for
154
non-refugee
families
below
the
DPL.
Source
SEFSec
......................
19
Table
5:
proportional
piling
in
focus
groups
...........................................................................................
22
Table
6:
calculating
the
value
of
the
voucher
component
of
the
combined
package
............................
24
Table
7:
standard
and
enhanced
assistance
packages
as
%
of
consumption
gap
..................................
24
Table
8:
proposed
standard
and
enhanced
assistance
packages
...........................................................
25
Table
9:
comparison
of
wheat
flour
and
bread
prices
............................................................................
25
Table
10:
CVP
purchases
of
staples,
January
April
2012
......................................................................
26
Table
11:
calculating
the
value
of
the
voucher
component
of
the
combined
package
..........................
26
Table
12:
summarising
the
three
options
for
the
combined
approach
..................................................
29
Table
13:
pre-CVP,
current
and
planned
milk
consumption
...................................................................
38
Table
14:
jobs
created
in
CVP
shops
.......................................................................................................
40
Table
15:
the
cost
of
a
100
NIS
voucher
.................................................................................................
42
Table
16:
the
buying
power
of
a
USD
27.25
worth
of
NIS
voucher
in
a
range
of
conditions
.................
42
Ben Mountfield
Page 4 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Acronyms and abbreviations used
CFW CSI CVP ECHO EMOP GFD HDDS HFIAS MoSA MTR NIS oPt PECS PCBS PMT (PMTF) SEFSec TOR UNRWA WFP Cash for Work Coping Strategy Index Cash Voucher Project (previous Urban Voucher Project) of WFP / Oxfam / Maan European Commission, Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Emergency Operation General Food Distribution Household Dietary Diversity Score Household Food Insecurity Access Scale Ministry of Social Affairs, Gaza (also MoSA group: beneficiaries referred by MoSA) Mid Term Review Israeli New Shekel currency common to Israel and oPt. (also ILS) occupied Palestinian territory Palestinian Expenditure and Consumption Survey Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics Proxy Means Targeting (Formula) Socio-Economic and Food Security Survey Terms of Reference (for this review) United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East World Food Programme
Acknowledgements
This
review
would
not
have
been
possible
without
the
constructive
support
of
the
programme
teams
in
East
Jerusalem
and
in
Gaza,
of
WFP,
Oxfam
and
the
Maan
Development
Centre.
They
each
bring
their
own
philosophy
and
expertise
to
this
jointly
implemented
programme,
and
the
result
is
considerably
greater
than
the
sum
of
its
parts.
Such
collaboration
is
not
without
its
challenges
and
the
review
process
has
been
no
exception.
Some
aspects
of
the
final
product
this
report
are
the
product
of
a
process
of
dialogue
and
compromise.
Some
are
not:
the
report
strives
to
recognise
different
perspectives
while
in
line
with
the
expectations
of
the
TOR
maintaining
an
independent
viewpoint.
It
is
quite
possible
that
this
report
still
contains
errors
of
accuracy
or
omission.
It
certainly
includes
content
and
commentary
that
has
been
challenged
by
the
stakeholders
and
yet
retained
after
careful
consideration.
The
reports
contents
should
not
be
considered
to
reflect
the
opinions
or
position
of
the
programmes
implementing
agencies
they
are
the
opinion
and
the
responsibility
of
the
author.
It
should
be
noted
that
prompt
action
was
taken
to
address
many
of
the
findings
and
recommendations
while
the
report
was
still
in
a
draft
form,
and
the
collaboration
continues
to
be
dynamic
and
engaged
as
the
programme
moves
forward
and
grows.
A
good
programme
is
becoming
an
even
better
programme.
Differences
of
perspective
and
priority
have
in
no
way
eclipsed
the
shared
commitment
of
the
programme
partners
to
make
a
positive
and
meaningful
difference
to
the
lives
of
the
most
food
insecure
residents
of
the
Gaza
Strip.
Ben Mountfield
Page 5 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Methodology
A
balance
of
quantitative
and
qualitative
methods
was
used
to
gain
a
thorough
understanding
of
the
project,
its
impact,
and
the
context
in
which
it
operates.
Participatory
tools
were
used
to
explore
the
condition
and
opinions
of
programme
beneficiaries
and
non-beneficiaries,
and
a
range
of
proposals,
issues
and
ideas
were
presented
to
debriefing
meetings
at
Oxfam
in
Gaza
and
WFP
in
Jerusalem
to
seek
preliminary
feedback.
Secondary data A
range
of
secondary
data
were
reviewed,
including:
Project
specific
documents
such
as
the
WFP
EMOP
and
the
Operational
Guidelines,
Previous
reviews
and
evaluations
of
this
and
associated
projects,
Work
done
on
cost
effectiveness
and
cost
efficiency
of
voucher
projects
in
the
West
Bank,
and
the
income
elasticity
of
food
demand
in
oPt,
Reports
and
raw
data
from
PECS,
SEFSec,
and
other
PCBS
data,
PMTF
data
collection
tools,
weightings
and
thresholds,
and
a
World
Bank
report
considered
the
effectiveness
of
the
targeting
for
the
social
assistance
programme
of
the
West
Bank
and
Gaza,
which
uses
the
PMTF
as
a
targeting
tool.
Broader
reports
on
the
current
socio-political-economic
situation
in
oPt.
Quantitative analysis of monitoring data A range of project-specific monitoring data was reviewed in Excel and SPSS: Beneficiary lists and demographic data Post Distribution Monitoring of voucher programme, at household level Shop monitoring data Data on the commodities exchanged through the voucher programme
Qualitative analysis through participatory methods The main approaches used were semi-structured interviews with key informants and stakeholders to the project, and with focus groups of project beneficiaries and field staff. Focus groups were primarily used to triangulate and validate hypotheses suggested by the data analysis, place findings in context, and explore weaknesses and gaps in the data. Focus groups of male and female beneficiaries were generally interviewed separately, and focus groups were organised to gain feedback from those who had recently transitioned into the programme from an in-kind modality and could therefore offer comparisons between the two approaches. In all focus groups, ranking and other exercises were undertaken to clarify findings and ensure consensus. Visits were undertaken to shops participating in the programme and others, as well as to two of the market areas within Gaza city. Three local producers of dairy products were interviewed. A list of key informants and focus groups arranged is included as Annex 3
Ben Mountfield
Page 6 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Introduction
Socio-economic context
It
is
not
necessary
here
to
rehearse
at
length
the
complex
context
of
the
Gaza
situation,
nor
its
severe
and
growing
effects
on
the
poorest
segments
of
society.
The
following
summary
is
incomplete,
but
relevant
to
the
analysis
below.
Three
interconnected
groups
of
factors
inform
the
socio-economic
context,
and
critically,
all
are
underpinned
by
the
blockade:
Restrictions
on
movement:
subsequent
loss
of
human,
financial
and
social
capital;
limited
imports,
no
exports.
At
the
moment
this
is
most
strongly
felt
in
the
fuel
crisis;
at
other
times
it
is
expressed
in
liquidity
shortages
of
shekels
or
dollars,
or
in
other
ways.
The
shortage
of
employment
opportunities
is
a
constant
result
of
the
closure.
Large
families
and
rapid
population
growth,
reduced
land
and
property
holdings
with
each
generation.
Put
bluntly,
despite
the
current
building
boom,
the
next
generation
of
poor
urban
Gaza
residents
has
nowhere
to
live.
Fixed
or
reducing
natural
asset
base,
with
increasing
environmental
contamination
this
is
particularly
obvious
in
the
water
sector,
but
also
true
in
farming
and
fisheries.
With
land
being
shared
out
at
each
generation,
household
level
productive
units
are
getting
smaller
and
will
eventually
become
non-viable,
pushing
people
off
the
land.
The combined impact of these three sets of factors is a reduction in resilience: an increase in vulnerability as the resource and asset base of many households and businesses is inexorably depleted. No convincing scenario mapping exists that might explain how this situation will develop if the blockade continues: at what point the growing demands will completely outstrip the dwindling supply, and what the resulting crisis will look like. The network that provides support to vulnerable households in Gaza is intricate, and humanitarian actors are only one part of it. The absence of tools to understand this support network or indicators to measure its health is a weakness implicit in the humanitarian system.
Programmatic context
Six
decades
of
political
instability,
five
years
of
economic
and
social
blockade,
and
the
destruction
of
private
and
public
infrastructure
during
military
confrontations
have
led
to
the
decimation
of
much
the
Gaza
Strips
productive
economy.
Over
50%
of
the
people
in
Gaza
are
currently
unable
to
meet
their
daily
food
requirements
without
support,
due
to
an
economy
dependent
on
external
support,
few
employment
opportunities,
low
incomes
for
those
with
employment,
and
subsequent
limited
economic
access
to
food.
WFP
provides
large-scale
food
assistance
to
the
non-refugee
population,
and
currently
provides
support
through
four
main
modalities:
General
food
distribution
(GFD)
targeting
around
200,000
beneficiaries
through
the
Ministry
of
Social
Affairs
(MoSA)
and
international
NGO
CHF;
School
feeding
as
an
emergency
safety
net
for
80,000
schoolchildren
in
public
basic
schools;
Electronic
cash
voucher
transfers
for
30,000
food-insecure
people,
mostly
with
poor
dietary
diversity,
in
partnership
with
Oxfam
GB
the
subject
of
this
review
and
Provision
of
food
rations
to
7,000
individuals
in
orphanages
and
special-care
institutions
in
partnership
with
MoSA.
The voucher programme was subject to a mid-term review in early 2011, the findings of which were used to develop and improve the programme. The current evaluation builds on and develops these findings. Programme implementation is undertaken by a partnership of WFP, Oxfam and the Maan Development Centre.
Ben Mountfield
Page 7 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Targeting beneficiaries and the monitoring framework
Two of WFPs programming modalities concern this review: one directly and one indirectly. In addition to electronic voucher programme, this review must also consider the general in-kind food distributions, since the voucher modality aims to provide an equivalent level of support to a similar target group. Both interventions are targeted at non-refugee households below the Deep Poverty Line described on page 31, measured using the Proxy Means Test Formula of the Ministry of Social Affairs. For 2013, new beneficiaries receiving the e-vouchers will be identified on the basis of their having poor or borderline scores for dietary diversity, measured using WFPs standard Food Consumption Score tool. The combination of a poverty indicator and a dietary diversity indicator provides a strong and appropriate basis for targeting the voucher programme.
Two linked reviews
This review overlaps with a review by the same author recently conducted for Oxfam, which examined a complementary piece of work. The two reports share some analysis of the context and the tools and systems. Inevitably, there is some duplication of content between the two, where this is necessary for each report to be complete and independently comprehensible. The prior review is titled: Unconditional cash transfers in Gaza: an external review, and has been 1 published by Oxfam on the CaLP website. It looks specifically at the condition of the poorest households in Gaza and considers the mechanisms of sharing within extended families, and it looks at what impact unconditional cash transfers have on such households. There is also some overlap between the beneficiary groups. Around 60% of the beneficiaries of the unconditional cash transfers are also receiving the CVP, and were chosen from the CVP beneficiaries on the grounds of their low dietary diversity scores, low household incomes, and a range of other indicators. In this way they present an interesting precursor of the combined modality discussed in this report. The TOR for this review include a short section on Social Dynamics. This was explored in some detail in the previous review, and the interviews and focus groups undertaken as part of the current process did not throw any additional light on these issues. For this reason, there is no section directly addressing these issues in this report: interested readers are referred to the previous document.
http://www.cashlearning.org/downloads/Unconditional%20cash%20transfers%20in%20Gaza.pdf
Ben Mountfield
Page 8 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Programme Quality
The
TOR
do
not
ask
for
an
opinion
on
the
quality
of
the
programme,
focusing
instead
on
specific
aspects
for
improvement
and
development
and
looking
forward
to
the
inclusion
of
a
new
modality
for
2013.
Before
attempting
to
meet
these
expectations,
however,
it
is
worth
making
a
few
observations
on
the
quality
and
impact
of
the
programme.
The
EMOP
200298
emphasises
much
more
than
the
provision
of
food,
intending
to
improve
the
quality
of
peoples
diet,
specifically
its
diversity,
and
to
strengthen
the
food
production
sector
in
Gaza.
Given
the
economic
impact
of
the
blockade
and
the
entrenched
nature
of
food
aid
in
Gaza,
these
are
quite
challenging
objectives.
From
the
perspective
of
the
beneficiaries,
who
were
interviewed
through
six
focus
groups
for
this
review
and
in
household
interviews
previously,
the
programme
is
of
high
quality,
and
represents
a
significant
improvement
on
in-kind
distributions
of
food
aid.
They
consistently
reported
that
they
appreciate
the
choice
they
have
in
selecting
the
foodstuffs
most
appropriate
to
their
family,
the
quality
of
the
produce
available
through
the
voucher,
and
above
all
they
appreciate
the
normality
and
dignity
of
going
discretely
to
a
local
supermarket
or
shop
instead
of
queuing
for
a
hand-out.
Oxfam and WFP complementarity
The complementarity between Oxfam and WFP who are not, perhaps, natural partners in the normal scheme of things adds value to the programme. There is a real synergy between them and their differences in approach and in expertise are used to advantage. The resulting programme is greater than the sum of its parts.
Growing awareness of nutrition
The programme has improved beneficiaries awareness of nutrition, and there are reports that this has translated into improved diets through different approaches to ingredients and cooking. For example, several beneficiaries reported using far less cooking oil as a result of the programme, and specifically because of the work of a linked activity with local partner Ard El Insan which looks at nutrition and gender empowerment. This activity was not specifically evaluated, but it appears to be highly complementary. Efforts will be needed to ensure that raised awareness translates into sustained behaviour change.
Social dimensions
The
programme
has
positive
impact
on
both
men
and
women
achieving
an
elusive
double
benefit:
restoring
to
some
degree
the
mans
role
as
provider,
while
allowing
women
the
opportunity
to
increase
their
mobility
and
social
engagement
outside
the
family.
As
noted
elsewhere,
a
reliable
and
sufficient
source
of
food
or
income
is
a
major
factor
in
reducing
stress
in
the
home.
Both
male
and
female
beneficiaries
report
that
with
reduced
stress
comes
a
reduced
risk
of
domestic
and
gender
based
violence.
Beneficiaries
make
frequent
comments
in
support
of
the
choice
that
the
voucher
programme
offers,
and
the
increased
dignity
associated
with
shopping
as
opposed
to
collecting
rations.
The
impact
of
these
aspects
cannot
be
calculated
but
should
not
be
under-estimated.
Positive
impacts
extend
to
the
children
also,
with
different
aspects
highlighted
by
male
and
female
focus
groups.
As
one
parent
said:
The
voucher
makes
a
party
of
every
supermarket
day.
Ben Mountfield
Page 9 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
The development of a stronger food-processing sector
This area is specifically looked at in the report but is worth mentioning here in addition. The food sector in Gaza is highly dominated by imports, mostly from Israel with some commodities also coming through the tunnel trade via Egypt. Local products have not had much success and have to overcome perceptions of being of lower quality. Local production is often dependent on imported inputs and is vulnerable to changes in levels of supply. In this context the programmes success in the dairy sector, in terms of improvements both in quality and scale, is a real achievement. It would be good to see this approach extended to other sectors and products that have been traditionally produced in Gaza, as the potential is now proven. The level of success which appears to be considerably more than that achieved in the West Bank is a function of the very different political and economic climate, and there is some optimism that the ceiling for such development has not yet been reached.
Ben Mountfield
Page 10 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
CVP Processes
Monitoring processes
Regular
monitoring
includes
the
following:
Electronic
monitoring
of
the
value
and
quantity
of
the
sales,
backed
up
with
a
paper
record
and
a
fortnightly
reconciliation
Visits
to
the
shops
to
check
on
the
physical
space,
quality
of
products,
packaging
and
expiry
dates,
storage
conditions,
the
functioning
of
the
electronic
terminal,
the
display
of
the
list
of
commodities
and
ceiling
prices,
and
the
suggestions/complaints
box.
Post
Distribution
Monitoring
through
household
visits
to
beneficiaries
based
on
a
random
sample
The monitoring load of the programme is heavy, and this is in part appropriate: the programme was (of course) a pilot in the early days, but this seems to be also influenced by the nature of the transfer: it has been noted elsewhere that cash and vouchers tend to attract heavier monitoring loads than in- kind distributions, and the monitoring tends to extend further beyond the point of transfer to beneficiaries and probe more into the use of the resources. This is also true for this programme. As the programme is becoming more established, the monitoring load is becoming lighter: Household monitoring for the CVP has reduced from 5% to 2.5% and now 1% per month. Household monitoring for the in-kind distribution has increased from less than 0.5% to around 0.5% per month
The monitoring load should reflect the purpose of the monitoring, rather than being influenced by the modality. For example, the monitoring at household level includes a question on how the household uses the income saved through the voucher provision: the parallel monitoring of the GFD has no such question. The CVP monitoring also probes more deeply into food sharing, although the question (see below) does not generate useful data. The frequent changes of monitoring templates makes data analysis very difficult, although this is in part associated with the natural growth and development of a pilot project.
Monitoring the shops
The shop monitoring appears to be at a broadly appropriate depth, but some of the questions could be improved to ensure that the identified indicators are actually accessible. The MTR of the CVP identified the need to be able to estimate the shop turnover due to CVP as a proportion of the total shop turnover. This was recommended in the narrative of the report but was not one of the formal recommendations. The current monitoring in CVP shops estimates the numbers of CVP beneficiaries and the total number of customers, but this presents a very distorted picture as the CVP beneficiaries tend to spend their entire voucher in one go (average value 54 NIS) while the many regular customers appear to spend just a few NIS at a time. So while the CVP customers are a minority and are presented as such, they punch above their economic weight. In order to gain a better understanding of the multiplier effects of the CVP within the local economy this information should be collected. A range of shops should be consulted to determine the most effective ways of asking the question. Recommendation 1 The regular shop monitoring should include the shopkeepers estimation of the CVP spend as a proportion of total shop turnover, and other more specific indicators should also be explored.
Ben Mountfield
Page 11 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
The shop monitoring already includes information on the estimated proportion of Palestinian dairy produce, which is reported in the section on multiplier effects below.
Monitoring the voucher exchange
The process of voucher redemption is controlled by the electronic terminal. After having their ID confirmed, beneficiaries swipe their card and the shopkeeper enters the products they have purchased, the value of the products and the quantities using a menu on the terminal. The data entry of the value tends to be accurate; that of the quantities can be less so. If the terminal is not working for any reason, the beneficiary cannot redeem the voucher at that time (although the shopkeeper can and probably does offer them credit until the terminal is functional again). The terminal produces a receipt for the beneficiary and one for the shopkeeper. A second level of monitoring involves a bi-weekly printed sheet for each shop, which includes the names of all the beneficiaries, the value of their voucher and a space to sign. It remains unclear and untested whether beneficiaries can split the value of their voucher between two visits. The current universal practice is for beneficiaries to spend the entire amount in a single transaction. The form has only a single space per household and may encourage the common idea that the voucher should be spent in one visit. Recommendations later in the report require that the beneficiaries be able to split the voucher value into several transactions. The full set of printed and signed forms and associated receipts are reconciled against the e-voucher receipts on a bi-weekly basis, in order to validate the payments to shopkeepers. While the paper system is valuable as a cross-check for validation, it no longer needs to be monitored at 100% basis prior to payment as the e-system has been shown to be effective. A proportion of the shops could be manually verified each month. Removing this process would potentially allow the overall system to be altered so that the beneficiaries could split their expenditure between two outlets. This will be shown to be of value in the section on modalities. Recommendation 2 The CVP paper-based monitoring system at the shop level should be reduced from a secondary system of control to a system of validation, and payments to shops be made purely on the basis of the electronic system.
Monitoring at household level
The proportion of households selected for Post Distribution Monitoring for the CVP is reducing as is appropriate. Now that the impact of the programme is proven at the household level, the trend should continue until it is equal to the proportion monitored for the in-kind distributions. As part of the same process, the depth of the investigation should also be equal, but in this case the change should probably come from asking the in-kind recipients additional questions around the level of sharing of the food outside the household/family, and about the use of cash freed up by the provision of assistance. It would be very useful to be able to compare the two modalities in these aspects. Before expanding the use of these questions to new groups, however, both questions would benefit from a little reworking. The question on food sharing needs to be explicit about sharing within the family (but outside the household), both those under the same roof and those living elsewhere (see Figure 1) below. The format of this question should be reviewed and tested with households. Within the CVP, the current question generates no valuable data at all: in 829 monitoring visits, there was only a single reported case of sharing outside the family and that may well be a data entry error.
Ben Mountfield
Page 12 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
The
question
on
the
use
of
cash
freed-up
by
the
provision
of
the
assistance
appears
at
least
in
its
English
version
to
be
a
little
vague.
But
the
intent
of
the
question
is
useful
and
it
could
be
applied
to
both
modalities
in
a
similar
format.
Recommendation
3
The
depth,
nature
and
frequency
of
household
monitoring
for
the
CVP
and
the
in-kind
distributions
should
be
equivalent.
Questions
about
the
use
of
the
food
obtained,
and
the
impact
on
other
aspects
of
household
economy
should
appear
in
both
forms
in
the
same
format.
Households and families There
is
an
important
distinction
to
be
made
between
households
and
families.
A
household
is
defined
as
the
group
of
family
members
living
under
one
roof
and
eating
from
the
same
cooking
pot.
However,
several
households
from
the
same
family
often
live
in
the
same
property,
eating
separately
as
a
norm
but
sharing
resources
often.
When
this
report
refers
to
family
it
will
normally
refer
to
this
situation.
The
extended
family
is
also
an
important
concept:
in
this
report
this
will
normally
mean
related
households
living
in
separate
properties.
Food
and
assets
are
also
shared
within
extended
families,
but
to
a
lesser
degree.
Figure
1:
households,
families
and
extended
families
The
figure
above
shows
part
of
an
extended
family:
four
brothers
(shown
in
green)
who
have
each
married
and
have
their
own
families.
Three
of
the
brothers
still
live
in
the
family
home;
one
has
moved
out
and
lives
nearby.
Each
of
the
household
units
is
distinct,
cooking
separately
from
the
others
most
of
the
time .
The
distinction
is
critical
when
it
comes
to
assessing
the
situation
of
a
household
(or
family),
when
deciding
the
value
of
any
transfer,
and
when
trying
to
understand
sharing
between
family
members.
The
terms
must
be
used
consistently,
and
the
tools
must
be
applied
consistently,
in
order
to
ensure
meaningful
data
and
equitable
allocations.
There
is
evidence
that
this
is
not
always
the
case.
The
previous
study
suggested
that
it
would
be
valuable
to
include
data
on
the
true
size
of
the
family
(living
together
in
one
property)
as
well
as
the
household
when
collecting
monitoring
data
even
if
targeting
and
assistance
are
both
predicated
on
household
sizes.
This
report
proposes
a
hypothesis
that
while
assistance
is
predicated
on
household
size,
levels
of
sharing
are
dependent
on
total
family
size
and
total
family
resources.
If
this
is
shown
to
be
true,
monitoring
family
size
as
well
as
household
size
may
help
to
identify
households
that
are
especially
vulnerable.
2
2
Household
refers
to
one
person
or
groups
(with
or
without
a
family
relationship)
who
live
in
the
same
dwelling
unit
or
part
of
it,
who
share
meals
and
make
joint
provisions
for
food
and
other
essentials
of
living.
Source
MoSA
,PCBS
Ben Mountfield
Page 13 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Safety net transfer modalities and transfer values
Which transfer modality do people prefer?
Many studies and focus groups in Gaza have addressed the question of beneficiaries preference of modality: in-kind food aid, conditional transfers such as cash for work and cash vouchers, or unconditional cash transfers. The results are oddly inconsistent. Bias, current experience, and asking a better question It has been suggested that the outcome of the question depends on the way the question is phrased, and the discussion that preceded it, and thus reflects the bias of the questioner. Sadly, this is certainly true in some cases. It has also been suggested that the answer reflects that current modality that people experience, perhaps reflecting a degree of confidence in that option, and uncertainty that changing modality could lead to a loss of entitlement. This is certainly reflected in the responses. The linked review of unconditional cash grants for Oxfam suggested a new way of asking the question to reduce the influence of interviewer bias. Rather than asking about preferences, it asks about the situations in which each modality would be appropriate. This was done in seven focus groups during this review and the answers, below, are very consistent (and also consistent between men and women):
Table 1: perspectives of beneficiaries: when is it appropriate to use which modality? When is this modality appropriate? in-kind food ration During times of war and turmoil when movement is not possible For families who have no children For extended families e-voucher Applicable at all times For all Can be used for three meals Good for divorced women and widows For families who have children where it rectifies some of the lack to vitamins and minerals It spares families a great deal of embarrassment Restores the image of father as breadwinner / provider unconditional cash Non-food items Medications School needs Other commodities from shop For mobile phone credit and cigarettes
Other issues
Heavy transport costs
Good in combination
While this is interesting it could be still be seen to promote the idea that people vote for what they know: all but one of these focus groups were of cash voucher beneficiaries, many of whom had quite recently transferred from an in-kind distribution modality. This transition provides the likely explanation for this phenomenon. A journey through modalities However, this idea can be expanded a little. We know from other contexts that unconditional cash is usually the preferred option because it offers the highest levels of flexibility and dignity. In Gaza we have generally interviewed people with an experience of just food aid, or experiences of food aid and voucher but who are now on a voucher modality. To gain a better perspective, we could seek out people who used to receive vouchers but now receive rations in-kind. The problem is, very few of these people exist. Neither have we in this study interviewed those receiving unconditional cash. There is a group of people who receive unconditional cash, some of whom have received food aid in the past and some who still do. This group were the focus of the previous study mentioned above, which asked about modality preferences in the traditional manner. They expressed a strong preference for
Ben Mountfield
Page 14 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
unconditional
cash
again,
the
modality
of
their
experience.
This
group
of
people
is
made
up
of
the
very
poor
on
the
whole,
people
with
even
fewer
resources
than
the
majority
of
in-kind
and
voucher
assistance
groups,
and
this
may
also
have
influenced
their
stated
preference,
as
cash
allows
them
to
access
things
a
food
voucher
cannot.
If
we
see
the
trend
for
assistance
in
Gaza
to
be
a
journey
from
food
aid,
perhaps
through
a
voucher
modality,
to
an
unconditional
cash-based
safety
net,
then
preferences
may
be
expressed
in
relation
to
how
much
of
that
journey
has
been
experienced
by
a
particular
group
of
beneficiaries.
If
people
vote
for
what
they
know,
that
may
just
be
expressing
that
the
journey,
for
individual
beneficiaries,
is
going
in
a
particular
direction
but
also
that
that
direction
is
one
that
that
they
appreciate.
Figure
2:
a
journey
through
modalities?
This could be tested quite easily by asking the improved question in focus groups of people receiving unconditional cash support either from MoSA or from Oxfam / ECHO. This hypothesis is not suggesting that all assistance in Gaza will soon be delivered in the form of unconditional cash grants, only that the trend at the moment has been in this direction. Is unconditional cash appropriate for WFP in Gaza? The answer to this question depends on the objectives of the WFP assistance. It is worth noting that the broader safety net remains the responsibility of the authorities, and the Ministry of Social Affairs are developing their cash-based safety net in this regard. The responsibility of WFP is to provide (for non-refugees) a food-based safety net to the limit to which it is required; meeting the gap in assistance for the poorest households. In the light of this, and recognising both the political and donor constraints and the fact that food assistance does free up other household income for other items, the pragmatic answer to this question at the current time is probably no.
How big are the households?
For traditional in-kind food aid, households are gathered together into categories based on the number of members of a household, and each category receives a standard package, as this simplifies the logistics of distributions. At the current time, this is true of both the in-kind distributions and the CVP. There are four categories used in each modality, as shown in the chart below. Households with 1 or 2 members only are placed in Category 1; households with 3 to 5 members are placed in Category 2, and so on.
Ben Mountfield
Page 15 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza Figure 3: distribution of household size within the CVP project
This chart shows the actual household sizes of the 5554 households that receive the CVP voucher at the time of the review. It shows a roughly normal distribution of household sizes around an average value close to 5.5. It also shows the categories used both by the CVP and the in-kind distributions to cluster households together, which were developed to simplify the logistics of the in-kind distribution. The implications of this chart are twofold. The smaller effect relates to the actual average household size, which is closer to the mode than the value used for the calculations. Across all four categories, the net impact of this is that the total amount of assistance distributed is less than it should be, based on the actual total number of household members. The larger effect occurs within groups: it is most pronounced in category 1, and affects the largest number of people in category 3, but the largest combined impact is in category 2. Within this category, 8.1% of recipients of the CVP (in HH of 3: 451 households; 1353 people) receive an additional contribution equivalent to 33% of the standard for a HH of 4. And 16.5% of recipients of the CVP (in HH of 5: 937 households; 4685 people) receive 20% less than the standard. While these inequalities are inevitable for food aid delivered at scale, they can be corrected within the CVP by providing a voucher that is calculated on the basis of actual household size rather than by clusters. In terms of the e-voucher system, this can be implemented within the database by increasing the number of categories to match the range of household sizes: it may have been rather harder to implement in the old, paper-based voucher system. The ceiling on HH size could be maintained at ten to protect against the temptation to combine households together, in an effort to increase the total amount of support provide to the family network. But as will be seen below, a higher limit may be wise, and will be needed only for a very few families. A third factor influencing the equity of the different packages has already been noted: that the effective food-ration size decreases as we move up through the categories. This is outside the scope of the TOR of this review, but could be addressed by modifying the in-kind ration sizes: a proposal to reduce this inequity is included as an annex. The overall effect of the current categorisation is that on average, fewer resources are transferred than planned, so putting it right for the voucher programme will slightly increase the average cost per HH; but it will also increase equity. It can be argued that this would increase the disparity between the in-kind modality and the voucher, but it is better overall to have more people receiving an equitable amount than fewer. Recommendation 4 Cash voucher transfer values should be denominated according to actual household size rather than being clustered into groups.
Ben Mountfield
Page 16 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Weekly top-ups
The
cash
voucher
has
been
created
as
an
alternative
to
an
in-kind
distribution
and
appears
to
have
adopted
many
of
the
characteristics
of
that
modality,
rather
than
being
designed
from
scratch.
The
issue
of
the
categories
of
households
is
one
example
of
this.
Another
is
the
monthly
pattern
for
distribution
top-ups.
Given
the
perishable
nature
of
the
foods
on
the
list
of
voucher
items,
the
e-voucher
is
topped
up
on
a
weekly
basis.
But
the
planning
and
monitoring
cycles
are
monthly,
and
the
shops
payment
cycles
are
bi-monthly,
reflecting
their
need
to
maintain
cash
flow.
For
this
reason,
the
top-up
period,
which
is
referred
to
as
weekly,
is
actually
quarter-monthly.
From
the
perspective
of
WFP,
these
cycles
clearly
make
sense.
But
from
the
perspective
of
the
beneficiaries
and
the
staff
of
the
programme,
a
simple
weekly
cycle
would
make
more
sense.
At
the
moment,
the
top-up
day
is
rather
unpredictable
to
beneficiaries,
staff
frequently
have
to
work
at
weekends,
and
at
the
end
of
some
months
the
week
becomes
10
days
long.
Recommendation
5
The
voucher
top-up
should
be
done
on
a
calendar
week,
every
week
on
a
Sunday,
changing
the
total
annual
number
of
top-ups
from
48
to
52,
and
revising
the
voucher
amount
accordingly.
This
means
that
some
calendar
months
will
include
5
top-up
days.
The value of the cash voucher in 2013
The simplest way to calculate an appropriate value for the cash voucher is to apply the same transfer value as the GFD, and therefore take the daily allowances for the in-kind ration and cost them on the local market. If Recommendation 5 is adopted, the daily value should be multiplied by 7 to get the weekly value. If it is not, then it should be multiplied by 30/4 to get a value appropriate for 4 top-ups per month. The following table illustrates the calculation, using prices provided by WFP for May 2012.
Table 2: calculating value of the cash voucher from the theoretical market value of the in-kind ration Item Daily per capita allowance Cost / kg (NIS) Daily total Weekly total 4 times a month Wheat flour 422 g 2.445 1.032 Vegetable oil 30 g 9 0.270 Pulses (chick peas) 23 g 2.33 0.146 Sugar 25g 4 0.100 Salt 6g 1 0.006 Total 1.574 11.02 11.80
Recommendation
6
The
redemption
value
of
the
cash
voucher
should
be
11
NIS
per
person
per
calendar
week.
Note
that
if
Recommendation
5
is
not
adopted,
the
voucher
value
should
be
12
NIS,
four
times
a
month.
New modalities for 2013
In addition to the current modalities in kind distributions and the e-voucher - WFP plan to add an additional combined modality in Gaza in 2013, and to use two indicators to allocate new households to the most appropriate modality. The revised modalities will not be applied immediately across the board, but will be used for new caseload and for re-allocations.
Ben Mountfield
Page 17 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Indicators The
only
indicator
that
selects
households
for
inclusion
in
WFPs
in-kind
and
voucher
programmes
is
that
households
fall
below
the
Deep
Poverty
Line,
which
is
determined
by
considering
the
cost
of
essential
food
and
household
expenditure.
The
Deep
Poverty
Line
takes
into
account
household
consumption
in
three
categories
of
goods
and
services:
food,
clothing
and
housing.
A
second
indicator
will
be
used
in
combination
to
allocate
households
to
the
most
appropriate
modality.
The
Food
Consumption
Score
(FCS)
is
a
standard
WFP
tool
for
measuring
the
diversity
of
the
household
diet.
The
information
needed
to
calculate
the
FCS
is
collected
as
a
standard
in
all
large
surveys
undertaken
by
PCBS
and
the
UN.
It
is
important
to
recognise
that
the
indicators
for
a
household
to
be
included
onto
a
support
package
should
not
be
the
same
as
the
indicators
for
transition
or
graduation
off
it.
If
an
intervention
aims
to
improve
dietary
diversity
in
a
group
of
households,
and
it
succeeds,
removing
the
intervention
will
simply
return
the
households
to
their
initial
state.
The
PMTF
indicator
(see
below)
is
largely
independent
of
food
or
cash
assistance
packages:
a
substantial
improvement
in
PMT
score
would
normally
indicate
a
substantial
improvement
in
the
situation
of
the
household:
PMT
is
an
appropriate
indicator
for
graduation.
Modalities Three
different
modalities
are
proposed
for
distributions
from
2013,
as
shown
in
Table
3.
This
table
assumes
the
adoption
of
the
recommendations
found
later
in
this
chapter.
Table
3:
three
proposed
modalities
for
WFP
assistance
in
2013
In-kind
general
ration
A
dry
ration
of
non-perishable
goods
is
distributed
every
2
months
Households
come
to
a
distribution
point
to
collect
their
ration
Households
are
separated
into
categories
by
size
to
maximise
the
efficiency
of
the
distributions.
Cash
voucher
A
weekly
electronic
voucher
is
topped
up
every
week
and
can
be
spent
on
products
from
a
selected
range
The
size
of
the
voucher
will
be
directly
determined
by
the
number
of
people
in
the
household
(a
change
from
2012)
Target
group:
those
low
FCS
scores
falling
below
the
deep
poverty
line,
but
with
sufficient
resources
to
purchase
their
own
wheat
flour.
Aims
contribute
to
calorific
needs
and
improve
dietary
diversity.
Aims
to
support
the
development
of
the
food
production
sector
then
the
per
capita
value
of
the
electronic
voucher
is
also
V
Households
typically
complement
the
voucher
with
an
equal
amount
from
their
own
resources
Micronutrients
through
dairy
produce
and
diversified
diet
Very
low
levels
of
trading
and
sharing
Increased
choice,
more
dignity;
invisible
distribution
Combined
assistance
A
ration
of
wheat
flour
based
on
the
quantity
in
the
in-kind
modality,
according
to
a
HH
size
category,
and
An
electronic
voucher,
of
lower
value
than
the
Cash
Voucher
group,
the
size
determined
by
the
actual
HH
size.
This
will
be
a
new
category
in
2013
Target
group:
very
poor
households
(higher
consumption
gap)
with
poor
FCS
scores.
Aims
to
meet
both
calorific,
dietary
diversity,
and
food
production
sector
development
objectives.
and
the
value
of
the
combined
assistance
is
greater
than
V.
Household
resources
are
too
limited
to
complement
the
ration
effectively.
Will
depend
on
the
selected
modality
for
the
wheat
flour
component
Target group: those with acceptable or borderline dietary diversity (FCS) scores, falling below the deep poverty line Aims to meet 70-90% of the household food needs in terms of calories If the per capita value of this ration on the local market is V Households typically complement the ration with an equal amount from their own resources Micronutrients through fortified flour Limited choice leads to trading and selling Queuing at distribution points Large loads to carry, transport costs
Ben Mountfield
Page 18 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza Figure 4: WFP proposed modalities for 2013
The diagram on the left presents these three modalities in terms of household income (represented by the Proxy Means Test (PMT) score) and food consumption score, and illustrates the different consumption gaps for different target groups. Although the boxes in the diagram are the same size, this does not imply that the different beneficiary groups are of equal size. The concept of consumption gap is explored in more detail below.
Profiling these groups
There would be value in developing a narrative profile of typical member households in these three groups, identifying their characteristics. This profile could include typical household expenditure across a range of categories as well as mean answers to the questions in the PMTF questionnaire. This would help in the identification of households that fall outside of the norms, which would be useful in the identification of inclusion and exclusion errors. A preliminary exercise using data from the recent SEFSec survey looked at the correlation between household size and consumption gap for families below the DPL: the correlation is extremely strong. The families with the lowest PMTF scores had significantly larger families, as the table below starkly illustrates:
Table 4: PMTF and HH size for 154 non-refugee families below the DPL. Source SEFSec
PMTF Range Number of HH % of HH Average HH size
88-144 2 1% 18.0
144-199 8 5% 11.1
199-255 22 14% 12.3
255-310 43 28% 9.3
310-366 79 51% 7.8
This table provides support to the idea that very large households should be considered as special cases. If the limit for HH support remains capped at 10 members, these few very large (and very poor) households might be best considered as two entities to ensure that they are receiving adequate support. Recommendation 7 In order to have a better understanding of the caseload and support in the identification of errors of allocation, develop a detailed profile of the target groups, disaggregated by household size and consumption gap, based on existing data and supported by targeted field research.
Ben Mountfield
Page 19 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
What are people actually eating?
It is difficult to gain accurate data on how many kCal people actually consume in Gaza. The PECS studies of 2006 and 2009 contain data but there appear to be issues with the methodology. The previous MTR found that the voucher (which at that time was being piloted for a single category and was therefore for a small range of HH sizes) was providing between 34% and 40% of the food eaten in the household: focus groups of CVP beneficiaries in this study using the same participatory tools consistently found the ratio was almost exactly 50%. A proportional piling technique was used to explore this. Each sub-group of participants was provided with 100 large beans, and the group was asked to discuss and asked to distribute them into two piles: one representing the food the household consumes that comes from the in-kind or voucher assistance, and the other the food from their own resources. Variations from the norm Several of the focus groups held in this review were comprised of people who had recently transferred to the voucher modality from a general ration. They consistently reported that the contribution of the assistance package to their household food consumption was the same in both cases. Looking back at the time before they were transferred onto the voucher programme, one enterprising group insisted on having three categories rather than two. The third grouping representing some 20% of the total food consumed in the household was the food bought with the money raised from trading the in-kind assistance. In both cases, groups comprised of people with larger family sizes found that the ration made up a smaller contribution, down to around 45%. This finding is coherent with an analysis of the food ration (and by implication, the voucher value, as they are directly linked) across the four categories of HH size identified above. The size of the ration does not scale in a linear manner with HH size, and larger families get less per capita than smaller ones. This trend is true within each category, but also across the four categories. By adding a fifth category of HH sizes, some of the inequities could be reduced, although there would be a consequent increase in actual costs (though not in budget, which is calculated on the theoretical ration). (See Annex 4) The previous MTR also identifies a range of health problems associated with the diet in Gaza including high levels of anaemia, overweight, micronutrient deficiencies, and a trend of stunting in children under 5. While no attempt has been made to measure direct health benefits amongst beneficiaries, beneficiaries in several focus groups told stories of improvements that they attributed to the voucher programme.
Consumption gap
A
consumption
gap
is
the
difference
between
what
a
household
needs
to
consume
and
what
it
actually
consumes.
It
can
refer
to
the
broader
essential
needs
of
a
household
or
to
food
needs
alone;
and
it
can
refer
to
the
expectations
of
the
household,
or
to
the
minimum
requirements
needed
to
stay
healthy.
For
the
purposes
of
this
report,
the
consumption
gap
is
the
difference
between
the
households
actual
consumption
and
the
PCBS
2011
Relative
Poverty
Line,
below
which
people
are
officially
considered
poor.
If
Gaza
cannot
accurately
be
described
as
a
middle-income
environment
(as
income
opportunities
are
low)
it
certainly
has
middle-income
expectations
around
food
consumption,
and
displays
a
number
of
typical
middle-income
problems
associated
with
diet.
Consumption gap for typical WFP beneficiaries The
WFP
ration
is
said
to
provide
between
70-90%
of
the
households
food
energy
needs,
measured
against
the
internationally
agreed
minimum
of
2100
kCal
per
capita
per
day.
It
is
based
on
a
theoretical
individual
ration
that
would
meet
92%
of
adult
food
needs.
The
actual
range
is
rather
Ben Mountfield
Page 20 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
wider than this, particularly at the extremes of household size. Typical food consumption in Gaza is higher than this, and this is reflected in the finding from the participatory exercises that around half the households food needs came from the ration (or the voucher). Even if the assistance provides the majority of the household calories, and the own expenditure provides other components of the diet, this would suggest that typical households in Gaza are eating well over 2100 kCal per day per capita. UNRWA use a figure of 2355 kCal per capita per day as their measure of typical food consumption, but this is probably an under-estimate for many households. Put another way, the food consumption gap for these households would be the cost of providing an additional 11-43% of food on top of the provided assistance (if we are talking about standard amounts) or rather more than this (if we are talking about expectations). On the whole, most households that participated in the CVP had the resources to pay for this additional food themselves: but it came at the expense of other items. And according to the monitoring of coping strategies, most households in the CVP also cut back on food provision (either the number of meals or the size of those meals) at some point during most months. Consumption gap for poorer households Poorer households will have fewer resources to close the consumption gap, as will households that have additional or unusual demands on their expenditure. Households with higher than average medical expenditures due to chronic conditions are a case in point here, and they may be over- represented in the very poor group. Specific focus groups were set up with households from this category to explore food expenditure in this group further. What are households spending on food? Focus groups were specifically held to explore a number of issues, including the types of food that are purchased with the households own resources. As far as possible, these groups of people were homogenous to allow different profiles to be investigated. Time did not allow a comprehensive level of disaggregation. For example, it was not possible to included a geographic split, despite this having been found to be relevant in the previous MTR; neither was it possible to conduct three or four focus groups for each sub-category to ensure consistent findings. Proportional piling was used again: 100 beans are used to represent the household food consumption and the beans are distributed amongst different food categories. In the first focus group the beneficiaries selected the categories, but after this standard categories were imposed to make comparison between the data easier (this in part explains the absence of olive oil in the first FG). In most focus groups it was possible to do the exercise four times: separating into larger households and smaller (or men and women) and each sub-group looking at expenditure during the current voucher modality and the previous in-kind modality. When looking at the in-kind distributions, the focus groups identified the need for a category for dairy products. When looking at the voucher, they needed a category for flour purchase. The results of these focus group exercises are as follows:
Ben Mountfield
Page 21 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
% Flour and baking
Table 5: proportional piling in focus groups
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
FG 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6
Location type Rural Rural Rural Rural Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban
Gender M F M F F F F F F F M M M - - - -
HH Size L S L S S L S L S L
PMTF score < DPL < DPL < DPL < DPL < DPL < DPL < DPL < DPL < DPL < DPL < DPL < DPL < DPL <<DPL <<DPL <<DPL <<DPL
modality voucher voucher in-kind in-kind voucher voucher voucher voucher in-kind in-kind in-kind voucher voucher in-kind in-kind voucher voucher
23 23 16 30 20 20 8 20 20 20
19 20 10 11 21 11 20
15 17 19 12 16 24 10 15 30 16 20 13 34 9 6 10 10
25 28 25 35 21 24 22 25 20 26 27 27 16 23 18 38 34
16 18 6 14 10 14 9 7 16 6 13 10 8 8
25 25 9 23 16 10 17 20 16 20 9 18 15 29 28 12 18
Notes.
1. 2. 3. Most
focus
groups
consisted
of
12
or
more
people
so
were
split
into
two
for
the
purposes
of
this
exercise.
The
split
was
either
along
gender
lines
or
on
HH
size.
The
rural
location
was
in
Dayr
al
Balah,
and
could
perhaps
better
be
described
as
peri-urban
or
mixed.
The
appellation
<<DPL
relates
to
focus
groups
that
were
specifically
pulled
together
from
households
from
both
voucher
and
in-kind
beneficiaries,
who
might
be
eligible
for
the
proposed
combined
in-kind
/
voucher
approach,
and
whose
PMTF
scores
are
amongst
the
lowest.
What are the very poor households spending on food? Table 5 shows that the pattern of expenditure of the very poor is similar to the poor, with significantly lower expenditure on meat, and slightly higher on vegetables. For very poor households receiving in-kind assistance, [# 14 and 15] reported that it contributed just 25%-30% of the total. For the CVP recipients, the large family subgroup said the same, [#17] although the small family subgroup [# 16] reported the same 50-50 split as before. At first sight this is counter-intuitive: should the very poor households not be spending less from their own pockets? But given that food is a necessity, we should in fact expect the amount of own contributions to be the same in order to make up the amount seen as necessary. What seems likely is that other important household expenditure is being sacrificed instead, and the perceived expenditure on food is greater. It would be helpful to pursue this with more groups to see if the answers are consistent. It would also be interesting to extend the exercise to look not only at the breakdown of the food expenditure in these households, but also at the breakdown of all household expenditure. This would probably also provide more consistent results.
Ben Mountfield
Page 22 of 54
16 September 2012
% Canned goods and pulses 12 7 12 10 13 6 17 10 10 18 16 18 9 15 18 12 10
% Chicken meat and fish, fresh or frozen
% Dairy products
% Tea, sugar and macaroni
% Fruit and vegetables
% Olive oil
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Looking at other datasets Oxfam have some data that considers broader household expenditure, which is collected as part of the monitoring of an unconditional cash transfer, provided to highly vulnerable households as a complementary intervention. Some of these households are also recipients of the CVP, so in this case the unconditional cash acts as a model of sorts for the proposed combined modality (see below). The detailed expenditure data is available in the review of that project. While it only looks at the reported expenditure of the cash transfer rather than the whole household income, it seems reasonable to assume that the proportions are similar. Overall, it suggests that for this group of very poor households, 47% of their cash expenditure went on food. Combining this with the previous findings we can suggest that the household economy of very poor households receiving assistance can be split into three roughly equal parts: Food provided through the assistance Expenditure on food Expenditure on non-food, health, education etc.
If there were no assistance, and food remained the priority, food expenditure would consume the whole of the household income of these very poor households, leaving nothing for other essentials. In a very real way, food assistance frees up household income to spend on other essentials: health care, education, travel, clothing and so on. The current WFP assistance packages (both in-kind and cash voucher) aim to meet 70-90% of the nutritional needs of the beneficiaries. For the very poorest of these, a larger total contribution would clearly be appropriate, freeing up limited household income for other needs.
Considering an enhanced package for the poorest
It seems clear from the data and the focus groups that the assistance provided to the very poorest is currently insufficient to have a significant impact. On what basis might an enhanced assistance package for these households be derived? This question actually conceals a range of other questions, and they do not all have readily accessible or convenient answers. So before tackling them, let us ask: what characteristics would we like to see in such as system? The following list is offered in answer to that question: It should take as its start point the concept of a food-based safety net It should target households based on objective criteria The value of the assistance should reflect the situation and needs of the household
Issues with targeting The current WFP proposal considers a package of enhanced support that is made available to a fixed number of households, starting with the poorest and working upwards. While this approach is needs- based, the upper boundary of support is not: it is arbitrary unless the number of households is identified on the basis of some other objective criterion. An alternative is to identify a new threshold, below which enhanced assistance would be offered. There are challenges and risks associated with this: on what basis should such a threshold be identified? Having been set, could it displace the DPL as the threshold for all assistance and exclude less-poor households that clearly need help? There is an understandable reluctance to adopt an additional, lower threshold. Issues with the value There are two broad approaches that can be considered in terms of setting the value of the enhanced assistance. The first used for the GFD and the main voucher assistance looks at food needs in the household, and can be extended to consider typical food use in the household. That is: the current WFP assistance is provided on the basis of an individual monthly ration that would provide 70-90% of theoretical food needs. This could be increased to 100% of food needs, or further increased to 100% of typical food use.
Ben Mountfield
Page 23 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
The
second
approach
is
to
look
at
the
consumption
gaps
of
a
range
of
households,
and
consider
the
assistance
provided
in
this
light.
We
can
look
at
the
resultant
consumption
gap
after
the
assistance,
or
the
size
of
the
assistance
as
a
proportion
of
the
consumption
gap.
This
is
an
attractive
idea:
it
potentially
allows
the
assistance
to
be
made
more
specific
to
the
households
situation.
But
it
brings
challenges:
should
WFP
assistance
be
aligned
to
the
whole
consumption
gap
or
focused
on
the
food
component?
And
if
the
assistance
is
set
at,
say,
50%
of
the
consumption
gap,
is
this
not
just
another
arbitrary
target?
What
logic
supports
it?
Using food needs and food use to set the value of the enhanced assistance package. We
can
expand
the
information
laid
out
in
Table
2
to
increase
the
value
of
the
assistance
from
92%
of
theoretical
food
needs
to
100%
of
typical
food
use.
Typical
food
use
in
Gaza
is
considered
to
be
2355cKal
per
capita
per
day,
as
opposed
to
food
needs
of
2100kCal
-
although
the
focus
groups
conducted
in
this
review
suggest
the
real
figure
is
higher.
Table
6:
calculating
the
value
of
the
voucher
component
of
the
combined
package
based
on
typical
food
use
Item
Daily
per
capita
allowance
Unit
Cost
/
unit
(NIS)
Daily
total
Increase
from
92%
of
food
needs
to
100%
of
food
use
Weekly
total
4
times
a
month
Wheat
flour
422
g
kg
2.445
1.032
1.294
Vegetable
oil
30
g
kg
9
0.270
0.339
Pulses
(chick
peas)
23
g
kg
2.33
0.146
0.183
Sugar
25g
kg
4
0.100
0.125
Salt
6g
Kg
1
0.006
0.008
Total
1.553
1.948
13.63
14.61
This
would
suggest
an
enhanced
assistance
package
of
60
NIS
per
capita
month,
compared
to
a
standard
package
of
48
NIS:
an
increase
of
25%.
Impact on consumption gaps for different households Table
4
above
set
out
five
ranges
of
PMTF
score.
The
table
below
considers
the
impact
of
the
standard
and
the
enhanced
package
on
five
imaginary
non-refugee
households,
situated
in
the
middle
of
each
range:
all
below
the
Deep
Poverty
Line
and
qualifying
for
WFP
assistance.
Table
7:
standard
and
enhanced
assistance
packages
as
%
of
consumption
gap
(NIS
/
capita
/month)
Household
income
Relative
Poverty
Line
Consumption
gap
Standard
assistance
package
Revised
consumption
gap
Assistance
as
%
of
initial
consumption
gap
Enhanced
assistance
package
Revised
consumption
gap
Assistance
as
%
of
initial
consumption
gap
HH
A
116
459
343
48
295
14%
60
283
17%
HH
B
171
459
288
48
240
17%
60
228
21%
HH
C
227
459
232
48
184
21%
60
172
26%
HH
D
283
459
176
48
128
27%
60
116
34%
HH
E
338
459
121
48
73
40%
60
61
50%
Ben Mountfield
Page 24 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
These
calculations
suggest
two
findings.
The
first
is
that
the
enhanced
assistance
would
be
appropriate
for
the
first
three
imaginary
households,
A,
B
and
C.
The
second
is
that
the
amount
of
the
enhanced
assistance
is
probably
too
low
in
relation
to
the
observed
consumption
gaps
even
after
the
assistance
is
provided.
This
concurs
with
the
findings
of
the
focus
groups
and
the
previous
evaluation.
If
we
accept,
then,
that
safety
net
provided
to
these
households
must
look
a
little
beyond
the
pure
food
needs
(or
that
typical
food
needs
have
been
under-estimated),
let
us
increase
the
value
of
the
enhanced
assistance
to
50%
more
than
the
standard
assistance,
and
apply
this
to
households
A,
B
and
C
the
poorest
20%
of
those
qualifying
for
WFP
assistance.
Table
8:
proposed
standard
and
enhanced
assistance
packages
Household
income
Relative
Poverty
Line
Consumption
gap
Assistance
package
Revised
consumption
gap
Assistance
as
%
of
initial
consumption
gap
HH
A
116
459
343
72
271
21%
HH
B
171
459
288
72
216
25%
HH
C
227
459
232
72
160
31%
HH
D
283
459
176
48
128
27%
HH
E
338
459
121
48
73
40%
If
there
is
no
ceiling
to
household
size,
including
the
enhanced
assistance
for
these
groups
represents
a
budgetary
increase
of
14%
over
providing
all
households
with
the
standard
assistance
package.
Recommendation
8
Assistance
for
the
very
poorest
needs
to
reflect
their
greater
consumption
gap,
and
should
seek
to
close
the
gap
by
around
the
same
degree
as
the
standard
assistance,
to
free
up
household
finances
for
other
essentials.
The
value
of
the
enhanced
assistance
should
be
150%
of
the
standard
assistance:
17
NIS
per
person
per
calendar
week.
Note
that
if
Recommendation
5
is
not
adopted,
the
assistance
value
should
be
18
NIS,
four
times
a
month.
A combined approach
The
targeting
for
the
voucher
approach
initially
steered
away
from
the
very
poor,
recognising
that
the
main
food
expenditure
of
voucher
recipients
would
be
wheat
flour
bought
in
bulk
in
the
marketplace,
as
is
clearly
demonstrated
by
the
data
in
Table
5.
It
was
assumed
correctly
that
the
very
poor
would
not
have
the
resources
to
do
this.
The
table
below
uses
the
fact
that
1
kg
of
flour
makes
around
30
small
pita
breads,
of
the
sort
sold
in
the
CVP
programme.
It
demonstrates
that
buying
bread
at
the
supermarket
is
slightly
more
expensive
than
buying
flour
for
home
baking,
and
that
buying
flour
in
bulk
is
much
cheaper
than
either.
(It
does
not
include
the
cost
of
fuel
for
baking).
Table
9:
comparison
of
wheat
flour
and
bread
prices
Sold
as
Price
Amount
of
flour
needed
Cost
/
kg
flour
Wheat
flour
(wholesaler)
50
kg
120
NIS
2.4
NIS
Wheat
flour
(supermarket)
1
kg
4
NIS
4
NIS
Bread
(supermarket)
~50
pieces
(3
kg)
7.5
NIS
1.67
kg
4.5
NIS
Ben Mountfield
Page 25 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Putting
this
another
way:
how
much
bread
can
I
have
for
each
10
NIS?
If
I
buy
the
bread
I
get
67
pieces.
If
I
buy
flour
in
1kg
bags
and
make
my
own,
I
get
75
pieces.
I
buy
flour
in
50kg
bags
I
get
125
pieces
for
each
10
NIS.
There
is
a
clear
benefit
to
all
households
to
be
able
to
access
flour
in
bulk.
There
is
considerable
variation
in
flour
prices
depending
on
source
and
quality:
WFP
flour,
imported
legally
and
fortified,
is
at
the
expensive
end
of
the
range.
There
is
a
risk
that
beneficiaries
of
the
voucher
programme,
especially
those
with
limited
means
of
their
own,
currently
struggle
to
access
wheat
flour.
They
are
able
to
buy
rice,
bread
and
wheat
flour
in
1kg
bags
using
their
voucher,
of
course,
and
the
following
table
shows
the
amounts
of
money
redeemed
for
these
three
commodities
in
the
first
4
months
of
2012.
Table
10:
CVP
purchases
of
staples,
January
April
2012
Commodity
NIS
Calculated
kg
Wheat
flour
25,152
6,288
Bread
253,156
9,262
Rice
627,829
83,710
Beneficiaries
were
asked
about
preferences
around
the
provision
of
bread
and
flour
and
the
results
were
mixed:
some
preferred
to
have
flour
and
make
their
own
bread,
others
said
that
it
was
a
lot
of
work
and
not
possible
during
power
cuts.
The proposal The
value
of
a
combined
approach,
then,
would
be
to
allow
the
very
poor
to
access
high
quality
flour
at
good
prices,
while
WFP
maintain
the
cost
efficiencies
associated
with
bulk
purchase
and
supply,
all
the
while
maintaining
the
benefits
of
the
programme
in
terms
of
beneficiary
dietary
diversity
and
the
promotion
of
the
local
food
sector.
This
approach
would
be
used
for
the
poorest
households
with
poor
and
borderline
FCS
scores,
and
is
shown
in
Figure
4
above.
It
maintains
the
flexibility
and
choice
of
the
voucher,
maintains
the
positive
contribution
to
dietary
diversity,
but
ensures
cost-effective
access
to
fortified
wheat
flour.
The
approach
is
to
provide
wheat
flour
in
the
amounts
of
the
standard
ration,
and
provide
a
top-up
voucher
to
ensure
dietary
diversity.
In
line
with
Recommendation
8,
the
value
of
the
total
assistance
would
be
larger
than
mainstream
voucher,
but
the
value
of
the
voucher
component
would
be
smaller.
The
table
below
outlines
the
calculations
used
to
determine
the
proposed
value
of
the
cash
transfer
component
of
the
combined
approach.
Table
11:
calculating
the
value
of
the
voucher
component
of
the
combined
package
Item
Daily
per
capita
allowance
Cost
/
kg
(NIS)
Daily
total
50%
increase
for
the
poorest
HH
Subtract
the
wheat
flour
given
in-kind
Weekly
total
4
times
a
month
Wheat
flour
422
g
2.445
1.032
-1.032
Vegetable
oil
30
g
9
0.270
Pulses
(chick
peas)
23
g
2.33
0.146
Sugar
25g
4
0.100
Salt
6g
1
0.006
Total
1.574
2.361
1.329
9.303
9.968
Recommendation
9
Option
A.
The
combined
voucher
for
the
beneficiaries
with
the
largest
consumption
gap
should
have
two
parts.
The
wheat
flour
component
should
be
of
the
same
size
as
the
in-kind
distribution.
The
voucher
component
should
be
9
NIS
per
capita
per
week.
Note
that
if
Recommendation
5
is
not
adopted,
the
voucher
value
should
be
10
NIS,
four
times
a
month.
Ben Mountfield
Page 26 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
An alternative to distributions: an enhanced voucher
The simplest way to provide the wheat component is for the beneficiaries to attend the regular in- kind distributions. This is effective, but it reduces the elements of choice and dignity that are the hallmark of the successful voucher programme. An alternative would be to provide a larger voucher as per Recommendation 4 and allow the voucher beneficiaries (all of them) to access high quality wheat flour at wholesale prices as an item on the standard menu of items. It is understood that WFP cannot monetise the food aid, but there are alternatives that would allow increased flexibility and savings for all the voucher beneficiaries. These are explored below. The value of this voucher would be 17 NIS per week, based on the calculations in Table 8 above. If the top-up remained at 4 times per month the value should be 18 NIS. The additional cost to WFP would be modest, as the price from miller to wholesaler would reflect the WFP purchasing price, and the wholesalers mark-up would be passed on to the beneficiaries as it is with other products. The beneficiaries would still be able to access wheat flour far more cheaply than they can at the moment. When WFP is able to buy cheaper flour on the international markets, as it can some of the time, the cost increase for this component remains justified in terms of access within the framework of the voucher modality and the support to the Gaza food-processing sector. Recommendation 10 Option B - preferred. The value of the enhanced voucher should be 17 NIS per capita per week. Fortified wheat flour from WFP millers is placed on the list of items for which the voucher can be exchanged, at 25kg and 50kg sizes. The flour is not a compulsory item.
Note that if Recommendation 5 is not adopted, the voucher value should be 18 NIS, four times a month.
Options for adding wheat flour to the voucher items
Recommendation 10 could be implemented in two ways, both of which would require changes to the current management of the assistance, but both of which would restore the aspects of choice and dignity to the beneficiaries, which would be lost if Recommendation 9 were implemented. In both approaches, existing WFP millers in Gaza would be contracted to produce flour to the same standards with the same controls. The controls are important as they reflect constraints placed upon WFP over the source of commodities. The amount of flour contracted will be set within a range initially, and refined over a period of time as the demand becomes clearer. The initial demand range should be between 50% and 100% of the in-kind ration. Wheat flour is not typically sold in small supermarkets. It takes up large amounts of shelf space for the likely turnover and profit margin, and it requires substantial storage or rapid turnover. Some CVP shops, but not all, have additional storage space close to the premises. The cost of a bag of wheat flour is more than the cost of all current and most proposed vouchers. This can be addressed by requiring the millers to produce flour in 25kg bags (at a small premium) and simultaneously by allowing the voucher to accumulate over several weeks, rather than requiring it to be redeemed in full in the week of issue. In both options, the traders would be able to sell the wheat flour to all customers at or below the agreed price ceiling, but would be monitored to ensure that stock levels are adequate, as they are for shops. The wholesaler option Wholesalers (including market traders, bakers) are identified in the same manner as shops, against set criteria, and agree to work within similar rules to the shops. The rules of the voucher are changed so that beneficiaries can redeem the voucher value between two locations, one shop and one wholesaler, spending the whole amount in either location or spreading it between both.
Ben Mountfield
Page 27 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
The supermarket option Shops are given the option to add larger (25kg and/or 50kg) bags of fortified wheat flour to their stocks, and beneficiaries are given the option to move between shops if their shop does not join the scheme. Shops are encouraged to work together to arrange joint purchase and distribution from wholesalers, allowing high turnover of relatively small amounts of wheat flour in 25kg bags.
Selecting the best option The choice between these three options (Option A in Recommendation 9, Option B in Recommendation 10 through wholesalers and Option B through the existing shops) would need to be made in an informed manner after consultation with the existing shopkeepers, the millers and some potential wholesalers. The two shopkeepers consulted as part of this review stated that they would be interested in this approach. The options are not exclusive, but as both require additional work to be done in preparation, they should be compared and one should be selected and perhaps piloted. Neither option would represent any loss of trade to existing suppliers, and both would serve to increase and support local markets. In both cases concerted efforts would be needed to communicate the revised options clearly with beneficiaries, and monitoring would be necessary to observe changes in behaviour as a result. Paper controls The current monitoring system has a paper-based second layer of control at the shop level: shopkeepers receive a printed list of their beneficiaries and their entitlements, and this is signed off when the voucher is exchanged for goods. It is the electronic system that authorises the exchange: if this system is down for any reason the beneficiary cannot redeem the voucher. In the wholesaler option above, where the voucher could be exchanged in two locations, this secondary paper system could be maintained, but only as a record, not as a control. Risks There is a risk that the price of maintaining choice is that households but large amount of wheat flour, perhaps for trade, and the impact of improved dietary diversity is lost. It will be easy to build flags into the monitoring system to identify households exhibiting such behaviour and then to follow up. It seems unlikely to be a major problem for two reasons. The first relates to the high levels of enthusiasm that beneficiaries display for the dairy produce accessed through the voucher. The second relates to the likely and reported reasons for the trade in in-kind wheat flour: to gain preferred commodities. If such commodities are available through the voucher already, the motivation to trade will be reduced. Recommendation 11 In order to allow the economical purchase of wheat flour in bulk, the voucher management arrangements be altered to allow the voucher to accumulate through one calendar month. By the end of the month the entire voucher must be redeemed. Beneficiaries could be sent an SMS with their balance periodically.
Ben Mountfield
Page 28 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Summarising the three options for the combined approach
Table 12: summarising the three options for the combined approach Standard voucher 11 NIS per capita week Recommendation 6 Reduced voucher plus in- kind 9 NIS per capita week plus in-kind flour Recommendation 8 Easiest to manage 50kg bags Loss of choice and dignity Enhanced voucher with wholesaler option 17 NIS per capita week Recommendation 9 Requires split location for voucher redemption Requires wholesalers to join scheme New 25kg bags Maintain choice and dignity Requires additional monitoring of the origin of the flour Enhanced voucher with shop option 17 NIS per capita week Recommendation 10 Requires organisation of shops New 25kg bags Maintain choice and dignity Requires additional monitoring of the origin of the flour
A bonus for the current voucher beneficiaries On average, the current voucher beneficiaries only bought a little more than one 1kg bag of flour each over the last 4 months. This presumably reflects the high price of flour in the shops. Ten times as much money was spent on bread. Let us imagine that a 25kg bag of flour was sold at 65 NIS (compare around 100-120 for 50kg). This amount of money would buy only 16 bags of 1kg each: a 36% loss. For those beneficiaries who wish to buy flour in bulk (and our focus groups tell us that those who can afford to, do) this represents a huge saving.
Ben Mountfield
Page 29 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Targeting and the PMTF
Introduction to the Proxy Means Test
The tool is based on demonstrated statistical correlations between actual household income and a large number of other indicators that are much easier and more objective to measure. Many such indicators are compared, and the strength of the correlation (if any) determines the weighting placed on that variable in the final calculation. Once household data is collected through a questionnaire, an algorithm generates a result which is a proxy for household income: this is then compared to identified income thresholds and used to determine the households entitlement to assistance, normally placing the household into one of three categories, two of which qualify for assistance. While the selected indicators can be inferred from the questions asked, not all these questions carry a weighting, and the weightings remain internal. Benefits of the PMTF The PMTF is relatively cheap to run and reasonably accurate. The scale of food aid and social safety net assistance in the oPt makes these essential characteristics for a targeting methodology. It is not used for all types of assistance, nor would this be appropriate. A wide range of organisations provide assistance at a variety of scales. Much of this assistance is provided on the basis of other types of targeting, some based on specific characteristics (female headed households, farmers in the border area), some through institutions (old peoples homes, schools) and some on community-based approaches. While the PMT is common to most of the large-scale assistance and embedded within the larger surveys undertaken by PCBS, there is not a common approach to identifying those to be tested. All refugee households, for example, are tested and re-tested by UNRWA on a rolling cycle, although this is a slow process. For other groups, the process of preliminary selection can be quite varied. Variations on a theme It has been suggested that it is appropriate for there to be a single PMT formula for the whole of the oPt, and the harmonisation of the various approaches is a stated goal. However, the reality is that at the current time, there are a range of formulas and weightings under the PMT methodology, and a diversity of thresholds used to differentiate sub-groups of the population. WFP and MoSA have a single PMTF for the whole of the resident population of oPt. UNRWA have a PMTF for Gaza and a separate calculation for the West Bank. MoSA and the PCBS identified a poverty line based on the food and essential household items for a standard Palestinian household of 2 adults and 3 children. MoSA use a deep poverty line based on the cost of food, clothing and shelter for a household of 2 adults and 3 children: this is used by WFP as their main targeting criterion. UNRWA recognise two additional poverty lines that they describe as abject and absolute poverty, reported as being based on per capita income of approximately 6.1 NIS and 15.7 NIS respectively. These thresholds are all measured in different units, which adds to the potential for confusion. In the diagram below, they have been converted to a common unit: income per capita month, in NIS. This common unit is used throughout this review.
Ben Mountfield
Page 30 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza Figure 5: a wealth of poverty lines
Towards harmonisation The idea of a common PMTF seems sensible, but it is not entirely feasible. For reasons that will be explored below, a common PMTF for Gaza and the West Bank is unrealistic and will generate higher errors of inclusion and exclusion than two independent variants. The situation in Gaza and the West Bank are sufficiently different that not only will the weightings of the questions be different; the actual questions may well be different also. There is no need for a different PMT formula for refugees and for residents. The external conditions in which they live, their opportunities for employment, their asset base and so on depend not on their refugee status but on their location.
Reflections on the MoSA PMTF
The PMTF has been the subject of some debate, which is driven by reports of inconsistent results, and fuelled by the slightly odd reluctance to widely share the formula by which the result is generated from the questions. The usual challenge raised against the PMTF is that it is strongly asset-based, and thus discriminates against the new poor: those who had jobs and assets before the closure, and now have a good house and a TV set but no income and little food. The challenge to the PMTF is worth considering. The chart below (reproduced from the linked review of Oxfams unconditional cash transfers) groups the PMT questions into types, and combines their individual weightings to provide a score for the group. The allocation of questions into groups is shown within Annex 2. Although generated statistically based on observed correlations across the oPt, the balance of questions seems intuitively wrong for the Gaza context.
Ben Mountfield
Page 31 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza Figure 6: the balance of PMTF questions by category
Most of the questions used to collect the data relate to a range of typical household assets or to household demographics. The questions examine the existence of assets, but not changes or asset sales, and the only question about productive assets relates to a car. There are many more common productive assets in Gaza that might reward observation. Over a third of the scoring relates to household and fixed assets, which supports the common charge made against the weighting of the tool; less than 20% relates to income, expenditure and production, and then only indirectly. Human capital might be under-represented in the context of the West Bank, but it appears to have too high a weighting for the Gaza situation, where masters degrees are so common, and jobs so rare. These observations strongly support the UNRWA solution of having a different set of weightings and very possibly a slightly different set of questions in the West Bank and in Gaza. Recommendation 12 WFP should work towards harmonisation of the PMT between refugee and non-refugee populations, and the development of separate indicators and weightings for Gaza and the West Bank.
PMTF better guidance for enumerators
The nature of the questions The nature of the PMTF requires that it uses yes/no questions to investigate the situation of the households. The reasons for this appear to be due to the nature of the algorithm and that the answers are completely objective: a household either owns a television or it does not; and that generating any sort of scale would be inevitably subjective. However, there is a significant difference between owning an old black-and-white portable, and having a modern flat-screen plasma TV. Indeed, the field workers interviewed would report a household as having a television or a computer even if it was not functioning. Creating a meaningful scale for each of these questions would be challenging, and the answers would be subjective: this would not be a solution., even if the PMT formula could allow it. If the question must be asked in a yes/no format, at least there should be clarity on what constitutes a no. A non- functioning asset is not an asset. Households and families Assistance is provided at the level of the household. A household is defined as the group of people who normally cook and eat together (see Figure 1). Where several households from the same family live together in a single property, each household is assessed separately. In such situations, levels of sharing are significantly higher than when close relatives live in separate properties. This is true of food, of course, but also of household assets. It is very possible that questions such as does the household have a computer could generate false positive responses in this context. It is clearly not appropriate to use access to assets shared at a family level as a proxy for income at a household level, if those assets actually belong to another household within the family.
Ben Mountfield
Page 32 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Guidance PMTF
questions
used
very
widely
be
a
range
of
actors
within
Gaza.
It
is
clearly
important
to
ensure
that
they
are
used
in
a
standard
manner.
Better
guidance
could
be
provided
to
data
collectors
and
enumerators
to
ensure
that
they
do
not
include
non-functioning
assets,
and
the
source
and
ownership
of
all
assets
should
be
checked
before
they
are
included.
Where
an
asset
has
been
gifted
or
provided
on
a
long-term
loan
to
the
household,
then
it
should
be
included;
if
it
is
owned
by
another
household
within
the
same
family
in
the
same
property,
it
should
not.
Figure
7:
Do
you
have
a
computer?
Recommendation 13 The training provided to all data collectors should be reviewed to ensure that assets are only recorded if (a) they are functional and (b) they are owned by the actual household under assessment and not shared within the family while being owned by another household.
PMTF thresholds: inclusion and exclusion
Figure 8: when will PMTF provide misleading answers?
PMTF is known to provide a reasonable correlation with actual household income (or expenditure: for poor households with stable debt and no savings the two are equivalent). Where there is a variance between the PMT score and the actual, this will only be important for households that are close to an assistance threshold, and when the variance is in the direction of that threshold. This is illustrated in Figure 8. In the current situation, a householder who is unhappy with the outcome of the scoring can apply to complete the PMT interview again and have the results recalculated. This is helpful when the error results from data collection or data entry, but does not provide any benefits in cases
Ben Mountfield
Page 33 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
where the PMT formula generates an erroneous result on the basis of the actual household circumstances. To properly assess such households an additional mechanism is needed. While it seems likely that only a relatively small proportion of households would need to be re- checked by this mechanism, the actual proportion is not known at this time. An analysis of the SEFSec data for non-refugees in Gaza, which includes both actual household expenditure and PMTF questions, suggests that the PMTF process produces errors as follows when measured against actual household expenditure: a net inclusion error from people above the deep poverty line into the category below the deep poverty line a net exclusion error from the category of the very poor into the category immediately below the deep poverty line.
A human over-ride or a second tool?
The change in job title from Social Worker to Field Monitor is indicative of a change in approach with the adoption of the PMTF. Yet the field staff have significant experience of poor Gaza households and this knowledge and experience is lost to the current system. The previous, linked report makes a recommendation that the PMTF should include some form of human over-ride, and this recommendation informed the development of the TOR for this study. The term human over-ride suggests a loss of the objective nature of the PMTF and this is not what was intended. What is needed is a secondary process, to be used in a small, prioritised number of cases, that provides a more accurate measure of household means, although this is likely to come at a higher cost. The UNRWA PMT format asks a question of the enumerator: to which category do you feel this household belongs? This question is not weighted, but when the answer disagrees with the formula, it could be used as a trigger for further investigation even before a complaint is made, and would be especially helpful to identify errors of inclusion. Recommendation 14 The PMTF form should include a question at the end in which the enumerator is asked their opinion as to which category the household belongs. Discrepancy between this and the calculated result should be a trigger for review. Characteristics of a post-PMTF review mechanism What are the characteristics would we like the review mechanism to demonstrate? The following are suggested: It should be triggered by human wisdom; it should remain objective nonetheless; It should be as cost-effective as possible, and It should protect the staff whose role it is to administer.
Reviewing PMTF queries requires an investment of time and energy. The first stage is to revisit the questionnaire and re-enter the data to ensure accuracy. But the second stage is more time consuming, and some means for prioritisation would be helpful. To do this, the current archive of reviewed cases can be explored. Documenting disputed results In every case where there is a dispute, a report should be produced. Many such cases have already been documented. A qualitative analysis of these documented cases will identify the key elements that should be recorded as standard.
Ben Mountfield
Page 34 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
One element of this will be the type of dispute: the most common will be a householder who feels that they have been wrongly excluded from assistance, but there will be others. Once a consistent reporting framework is in place with standard fields, this will generate a dataset that will be amenable to quantitative analysis, which can then inform the process of reducing errors in the future. Looking at data based alternatives If a sufficient dataset is available (and the PECS survey and the SEFSec survey together probably suffice) that includes both actual household income/expenditure and PMTF scores, then it could be analysed in the following manner: An arbitrary range of thresholds could be set, against which to test Actual means and PMTF can be compared in the region close to the threshold For cases where the allocation would be wrong, a range of other variables and proxies could be examined including HFIAS, FCS and the Gaza CSI. If strong correlations are found, these can be included in the standard fields for analysis mentioned above. Prioritising reviews Being able to rate cases against the standard variables that cause concern, and against the opinion of the Social Worker will provide a means to prioritise cases for review. The proposed review process is set out below. PMTF review: measuring actual household means If the PMT provides a proxy for household means, the most accurate alternative for cases in which it may have failed would simply be to measure actual income, expenditure and consumption. This is entirely possible and effective formats exist, although such interviews take longer than the 10-15 minutes typically used for PMTF. In the Gaza context, these would need to look carefully at all sources of income, as well as loans, debt and borrowing, and gifts of food, clothing and money within the family. Wider sources of gifts should also be examined. To provide a cross-check, a parallel exercise should be undertaken to look at expenditure, gifts to others, and the repayment of debt. This should again be cross-checked against consumption levels. If done on a form, the form should be very carefully designed to allow an immediate cross check of the totals and follow up any anomalies. However, rather than being done as a paper exercise, this could perhaps be done through a specialised application on a laptop, tablet or even a smartphone, to ensure that the various reported components do actually correlate, and to prompt the questioner to follow up apparent inconsistencies. The cost of the hardware will quickly be recovered in saved time and avoided repeat interviews when the data does not add up. The software can be developed locally at low cost a well-designed Excel spreadsheet or similar would suffice. While the interview itself takes longer than a PMT interview, this should be seen in the context of the overall time for the household visit including travel and introductions, and the fact that this will only be done for a reduced sub-set of the whole. This exercise should not take place during Ramadan or close to major festivals.
Ben Mountfield
Page 35 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
PMTF score validation review: who should do it? The PMTF score validation review should be undertaken by two people: a senior field monitor from each of WFP and Maan. They should endeavour to interview the head of the household and a senior female household member together if possible. Where aspects of the responses are inconsistent, they should be revisited in situ until the discrepancies can be resolved. Recommendation 15 When it is required, the PMTF score validation review process should be undertaken jointly by WFP and Maan senior field officers to spread the responsibility. A standard format for measuring household economy will be used, ideally in a portable electronic format that allows for immediate cross-referencing of the various components.
PMTF as a criterion for targeting and transition
The voucher programme has a real and measurable impact on household dietary diversity, but that impact is sustained only as long as the programme lasts. Given the nature of the questions used to generate the PMT Score, this indicator is fairly immune from the influence of the programme. This suggests that PMTF Score can be a helpful indicator for both entry to the programme and for transition off it. Food Consumption Scores should only be used for targeting, not graduation.
Ben Mountfield
Page 36 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Cost effectiveness and efficiency of the vouchers
The 2010 review of the cost-effectiveness of voucher-based interventions in the West Bank in May 2010 presents the following definition, based on the WFP Programme Guidance Manual. cost effectiveness is defined as a comparison of all costs and benefits, not all of which can be measured in monetary terms, and where cost efficiency is one key element. Cost efficiency measures input costs against outputs in monetary terms. In other words, cost effectiveness is a broader concept than cost efficiency, and includes cost efficiency as one element in its analytical framework. This review uses a range of tools to explore the concept of cost effectiveness, and these were followed to some degree in the MTR of the voucher project in Gaza dated March 2011. The same tools are considered below.
Alpha values
To
quote
again
from
the
West
Bank
review
of
2010:
WFP
has
traditionally
been
using
the
alpha
analysis
to
compare
relative
cost
efficiency
between
in-kind
assistance
and
cash/voucher-based
interventions.
This
is
a
simple
and
effective
way
of
arriving
at
a
reliable
indicator
of
cost
efficiency
which
is
determined
by
dividing
the
cost
of
a
given
commodity
at
a
retail
outlet
close
to
the
beneficiary
by
the
cost
of
WFP
procuring,
shipping
and
delivering
that
same
commodity
to
the
beneficiary.
In
essence,
the
ratio
of
cost
of
the
commodity
on
the
local
market
and
the
cost
of
the
same
commodity
to
WFP.
The
review
goes
on
to
demonstrate
comprehensively
that
it
is
significantly
cheaper
for
WFP
to
provide
goods
in
kind
than
it
is
for
the
same
commodities
to
be
provided
through
a
voucher
redeemed
on
the
local
market.
The
review
presents
a
range
of
possible
values
for
alpha
from
1.3
to
2.33,
calculated
in
different
ways
against
different
approaches.
For
those
beneficiaries
with
acceptable
food
consumption
scores,
the
in-kind
distribution
is
a
cost
effective
way
to
meet
their
consumption
gap.
WFP objectives If
the
sole
purpose
of
the
WFP
programme
was
to
put
calories
on
the
table,
this
analysis
would
be
appropriate.
However,
the
goals
of
the
EMOP
200298
are
stated
as
follows:
1.
Meet
immediate
food
needs
and
enhance
food
consumption
and
dietary
diversity
of
the
most
vulnerable
and
food-insecure
non-refugee
population
through
in-kind
and
voucher
assistance.
2.
Support
the
PA
safety
net
through
tools
aimed
at
predicting
and
reducing
hunger,
and
using
WFP
purchasing
power
to
expand
the
domestic
production
of
the
Palestinian
economy.
The
logframe
goes
on
to
set
targets
for
improved
food
consumption
scores,
the
proportion
of
food
purchased
locally,
and
an
increase
in
sales
volume
in
local
shops.
The
items
available
for
exchange
with
the
voucher
are
chosen
to
support
these
objectives.
Apples and oranges The
description
of
the
alpha
analysis
makes
explicit
reference
to
comparing
the
same
commodity.
If
two
different
commodities
or
food
baskets
are
compared,
the
analysis
makes
little
sense
especially
if
the
different
baskets
exist
to
meet
different
objectives.
This
begs
the
idea
of
a
reverse
alpha
taking
the
voucher
as
the
standard
and
asking:
what
would
it
cost
for
WFP
to
provide
the
in-kind
equivalent?
That
is,
a
weekly
distribution
of
mixed
commodities
including
trays
of
eggs,
cheese
and
yoghurt,
with
an
intact
cold
chain.
The
calculation
has
not
been
attempted,
but
the
answer
will
certainly
be
considerably
less
than
1.
Ben Mountfield
Page 37 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Quantitative and qualitative multiplier effects
The May 2010 review goes on to explore some other more appropriate ways to consider of cost effectiveness, and considers the knock-on and multiplier effects of the voucher approach on the basis of considerable field work in the West Bank context. It generally finds the impacts to be positive. The Mid-Term Review of the CVP builds on this analysis and extends it to the Gaza context. This review has not had the time to replicate these findings in detail and the field visits to manufacturers were not comprehensive: only three producers were visited, and no dairy farms. But in the absence of any contrary evidence it can endorse them, and add some additional qualitative perspectives as follows. Calculation of M One way to calculate the multiplier effect is to measure the increase in turnover at each point in the value chain, as a result of the project. For example, CVP shops reported increased sales as a result of the programme. The multiplier effect provides the means to quantify the increase in turnover in the shops, generated by the additional business brought through the vouchers. The multiplier effect is calculated using the formula M=1/(1-S) where S is the percentage increase in turnover as a result of the intervention. Unfortunately the data to measure this for the CVP shops is not available see Recommendation 1. M for producers of dairy products Three producers of dairy products were visited, of the six that provide goods to the CVP project shops. They were asked about their levels of production now and before the CVP, and the proportion of any increase that they could attribute to CVP sales. Turnover is measured in litres of milk, and the CVP was consistently reported to have increased daily milk consumption by around 100% or slightly more:
Table 13: pre-CVP, current and planned milk consumption Milk consumption pre CVP # 1 2 3 (litres per day) 300-400 800 350 Increase in consumption attributed to the CVP (litres per day) 1050 700 400 Current milk consumption (litres per day) 3000-4000 1500 750 Number of dairy farmers supplying (households) 8 (including 2 large ones) 5 4-5
Planned expansion (litres per day) 10,000? 2000-3000 -
Note: Producer 2 is currently stalled from CVP as he has no municipal permit a requirement only recently introduced (He has permits relating to the quality of his product). He will be back online in around 2 months working from an expanded premises. These figures in the second column relate to the time when he was providing commodities to CVP shops. The nature of the indicator M is that it works quite well for modest increases in production, but as the increase approaches 100% of the original value, M tends to infinity. For large increases such as these, a different indicator would be needed. Case Study: manufacturer 1 and an additional multiplier effect Dairy manufacturer 1 took full advantage of the opportunity and kept prices low and quality high. Increase in volume presumably made up for the lower profits: the producer moved to a larger site close to the milk producers and set up a temporary factory in a small building. Volumes increased again, and a much larger building is under construction on the same site.
Ben Mountfield
Page 38 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
He is confident that the market can absorb the additional production, and has moved into new products, some of which are not associated with the CVP project. Some of the increased production is directly associated with the beneficiaries but much is additional. This is attributed to a growing confidence in Palestinian products. The CVP was specifically associated with this trend: having my product on a WFP list of approved products is like a stamp of quality. This is an additional and unanticipated multiplier effect.
Trends in the consumption of Palestinian products
The shop monitoring data asks shopkeepers to estimate the proportion of Palestinian dairy products they stock. The question is fairly vague and no guidance is given but we can presume that it is asked in a fairly consistent manner: the trend information it produces should be relevant. The question is asked of all shop owners each month. The answers can be seen on the chart below.
Figure 9: trends in the proportion of Palestinian dairy products carried by CVP shops
Since the introduction of a revised data capture system in January 2010, it is also possible to monitor the specific amounts of Palestinian goods bought using the vouchers, also separating produce from the West Bank and Gaza separately. Wheat flour is milled locally and bread made locally so these are both included in the list of local produce. However the data is from too short a period to convincingly demonstrate a trend.
Job creation
The
shop
monitoring
form
also
asks
questions
about
employment
creation.
The
questions
asked
are
not
very
specific
in
terms
of
the
reporting
period
and
may
not
be
asked
in
a
consistent
manner.
The
baseline
for
the
question
is
not
explicit:
it
is
possible
that
staff
recruited
in
one
month
are
being
re- reported
in
subsequent
months.
Even
if
the
total
number
is
suspect
the
trend
is
again
clear:
the
shops
have
taken
on
new
staff
members.
Interviews
with
shopkeepers
confirm
this,
and
the
fact
that
such
staff
are
not
family
members:
these
are
paid
roles.
The
sudden
increase
in
temporary
jobs
in
January
2012
is
consistent
with
the
introduction
of
23
new
shops
into
the
CVP
at
the
time
of
an
expansion
in
the
caseload.
Ben Mountfield
Page 39 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza Table 14: jobs created in CVP shops month permanent temporary Jun 11 12 1 Jul 11 16 2 Aug 11 21 0 Sep 11 20 2 Oct 11 22 0 Nov 11 5 0 Dec 11 2 0 Jan 12 3 35 Feb 12 3 21 Mar 12 0 13 Apr 12 0 14 May 12 0 13 total 104 101
Jobs have also been created elsewhere, especially in the dairy processing sector and probably in dairy farming and distribution. However, these seem to have been mainly an expansion of existing family capacity rather than new paid roles for people outside the family.
What additional products should be on the CVP menu?
The CVP programme includes locally made produce wherever possible and promotes the development of food processing in the Gaza strip. Various commodities have been considered and rejected in the past for a range of reasons including quality control and low confidence in the source of the inputs. This review presents an opportunity to consider them again. Tomato paste, salsa Many beneficiaries have requested that tomato salsa be added to the list of items: it is a widely used and healthy commodity. It is locally produced but there have been issues with the local canning company that have prevented its inclusion. There is a case for adding imported salsa to the list, and using this as leverage to solve the local issues. Fresh Milk Fresh milk is on the list of approved items but no Gaza production has yet been approved. Several of the milk producers have the equipment needed for pasteurisation: this seems like a logical extension of the existing list. Olive Oil Olive oil is an expensive product, which is locally made. Although households buy vegetable oil for frying, they also buy olive oil for consumption: see Table 5. However, olive oil is bought in bulk (around 5 litres at a time) and would be too expensive for most voucher recipients unless they were able to accumulate the vouchers over several weeks, as per Recommendation 11. This would support local production and provide savings to beneficiaries over shop prices. Recommendation 16 The list of approved items for voucher redemption should be revisited and if possible expanded to meet the needs of the beneficiaries and support the broader aims of the project. Tomato paste, fresh milk and olive oil are proposed as a starting point for this review.
Ben Mountfield
Page 40 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Managing the contingency
The 10% contingency
The project includes a 10% allocation for contingencies but it is not explicit how it would be used or indeed if it is designed to protect WFP or the beneficiaries although the implication is that it could be used either way. In-kind budgets do not include such a contingency. The use of the contingency would be triggered by the need to increase the voucher value, which would be in response to a price inflation that has reduced the buying power of the voucher. At this point the actual exchange rate also becomes influential. To understand how the contingency might be used, we need to consider three variables: The exchange rate the cost of food on the local market The cost of food on the international market as WFP holds funds in USD and vouchers are denominated in NIS; which can be followed through the consumer price index; which has fluctuated quite dramatically in recent years.
The first two of these are important in considering how and when to modify the voucher value. The third is important when considering if and when to switch back to an in-kind approach, although other factors such as food already committed and in the pipeline may also be a factor.
Trends in exchange rates and CPI
When presented at the appropriate scales it is possible to see that CPI has tracked the exchange rate to a modest degree over the last 30 months, with the variances perhaps driven by changes in the access regime for imports and shortages of currency. In the medium term, we can expect the exchange rates to fluctuate within a range and the CPI to show a gradual trend of increase.
Figure 10: exchange rates and CPI over 30 months
In Figure 10: exchange rates and CPI over 30 months, both axes have a common zero point and are therefore comparable.
Ben Mountfield
Page 41 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
The impact of exchange rates on voucher values Consider
a
situation
in
which
WFP
wishes
to
make
a
transfer
of
a
voucher
worth
100
NIS
at
current
purchasing
power,
and
intends
to
maintain
the
value
of
this
voucher
against
fluctuations
in
exchange
rates.
At
the
current
exchange
rate
in
June
2012,
a
100
NIS
voucher
would
cost
WFP
$27.25.
As
the
exchange
rate
increases,
WFP
needs
to
pay
less
for
the
100
NIS
voucher.
If
the
rate
continues
to
increase
towards
4,
the
voucher
will
cost
only
$25.
However,
if
the
exchange
rate
fell
back
to
its
July
2011
value
of
3.39,
a
100
NIS
voucher
would
cost
$29.50.
The
following
table
shows
the
cost
to
WFP
of
a
100
NIS
voucher
at
a
range
of
exchange
rates.
Table
15:
the
cost
of
a
100
NIS
voucher
Exchange
rate
Cost
of
100
NIS
voucher
in
USD
3.32
30.2
3.39
29.5
3.47
28.9
3.54
28.2
3.62
27.7
3.69
27.1
3.77
26.6
3.84
26.0
3.92
25.5
3.99
25.1
The impact of CPI on voucher values In order to maintain the purchasing power, we need to consider the Consumer Price Index. Since our interest is specifically in food, we use the CPI for food and soft drinks. Using a reference year of 2004 (when the value of a standard food basket is set to 100), the most recent CPI value is 151.6. If the CPI increases by 10% to 166.8, we would need to increase the value of the voucher to NIS 110 to maintain the purchasing power of the beneficiaries. If it falls, we could in principle reduce the value of the voucher. However, reductions in CPI tend to be short-lived as the general trend is towards modest inflation, and reductions in the voucher value would be very unwelcome, so it is not proposed to reduce the value of the voucher in normal circumstances.
Modelling the combined effects
We can combine the impacts of changes in CPI and exchange rate. We expect the exchange rate to fluctuate around a norm, and for this exercise we use the 30-month mean value, 3.67, as a standard. We expect the CPI to gradually increase, so we use the current value (around 152) as a baseline. In the current situation, WFP sets a voucher value in NIS. As long as the value of the voucher is unchanged, the risk of inflationary costs is borne by the beneficiaries, while the risk of exchange rate fluctuation is accepted by WFP. To consider the combined impact of the two factors more easily, we need to imagine a situation where the voucher is designated in USD and paid in NIS at the current rate, and both sets of risk are effectively take by the beneficiary. We can now select a range of values of CPI and of exchange rate and calculate what impact these changes might have on the buying power of the voucher, if the USD cost of the voucher was held steady. The USD value of the voucher is fixed at 27.25, and the buying power now varies with both the exchange rate and the CPI.
Table 16: the buying power of a USD 27.25 worth of NIS voucher in a range of conditions
Ben Mountfield
Page 42 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
This table shows that at lower exchange rates and higher levels of inflation, the fixed value voucher becomes less valuable for the beneficiary, and more expensive for WFP.
Scenarios for contingency planning
Separating out the risks for WFP and the beneficiary again, we can consider six likely scenarios and identify appropriate actions in each case.
Figure 11: scenarios for contingency planning
Setting thresholds for review and for action
Two separate thresholds for action are required: one relating to a loss of buying power for beneficiaries and the other to a potential overspend for WFP. If an indicator passes a defined threshold, both indicators should be reviewed. Considering possible thresholds for the CPI The CPI has been more stable than exchange rates in terms of percentage change. A 5% increase in the average CPI value from its average value would raise it to 155.8, a value to which it has not yet climbed. The highest value in the 30 months of data is approximately 7% higher than the lowest value in the period. If we set the threshold at 5% above the lowest level this gives a value of 151.2. This has been exceeded during three periods, September 10, Feb and March 2011, and since January of this year. This suggests that short-term increases in CPI should probably be weathered, especially if there appear to be temporary triggers for them. Increases over a 3-4 month period should prompt an increase in the voucher value. Considering possible thresholds for the exchange rate A 5% reduction in the average exchange rate from the average value is 3.49. The exchange rate fell below this level for four months in the last 30, between May and August 2011.
Ben Mountfield
Page 43 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
A 10% reduction in the exchange rate is 3.3. The exchange rate has not dropped below this level in the last 30 months. In this case a 5% threshold seems an appropriate level for a review of the situation see the threshold lines included in Figure 10. The impact of a sustained reduction in exchange rate would be to increase the cost of the existing vouchers, and may cause an overspend and require the use of the contingency. Recommendation 17 The Consumer Price Index (food only), and the cost of an average basket of voucher commodities should be monitored and included in the monthly reporting, with variances from the reference (planning) value also recorded. Variances of 5% or more should trigger a review: such variances sustained over three months should trigger a revision in voucher value. The combined impact Over the last 30 months the actual changes in these indicators have each stayed within a +/- 5% range. This suggests that the project should be able to manage a simultaneous decrease in exchange rates by 5% and an increase in CPI by 5% which generates a parallel increase in the voucher value a net effect of 10.3%. Unless the changes take place at the very start of the year, the effective contingency (in terms of the amount of fluctuation the project can absorb) will increase with each passing month. Recommendation 18 The contingency budget should be maintained at its current level for the next iteration of the planning cycle. If it has not been used during this time it can be reduced to 5% and then subsequently removed from the budget.
What happens when in-kind prices change?
It is worth making a comparison between the relative stability of prices in the Gaza Strip and the high levels of volatility in world food prices. For the same period (from Jan 2010 until now) the FAOs Cereals Price Index has fluctuated from a low of 113.8 in June 2010 to a high of 179.6 in April 2011. The current value (May 2012) of 147.7 is close to the average over the period of 151.8. This represents a high value 18% above the average and a low value 25% below a very wide range by comparison. Thus the appropriate response to local inflationary pressures on the voucher beneficiaries (above the level the contingency can manage) may not be an automatic switch to an in-kind modality, especially if local prices have risen in response to changes in global food prices.
Process map for decision making
The following process is proposed. During the budgeting cycle, use an anticipated exchange rate and CPI for initial calculations of the value. Maintain these values as the reference point for monitoring. Monitor exchange rates on a monthly basis and calculate variances in voucher cost to WFP. Add or subtract these from the overall contingency. If exchange rates fall below planning rates by 5%, undertake scenario planning against both indicators and costing for the remainder of the year.
Ben Mountfield
Page 44 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Monitor CPI on a monthly basis. If CPI increases by 5% from the planning figure, undertake scenario planning for both indicators for the remainder of year If CPI remains over 5% for 2 months, cross check with real time data in the marketplace. If the prediction is for a third month of elevated CPI, increase the value of the voucher. If the situation is less clear, wait for a third elevated CPI before raising the value. Note that the change must be sufficient that the lowest denominated voucher increases by at least 1 NIS.
Ben Mountfield
Page 45 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Recommendations
1
The
regular
shop
monitoring
should
include
the
shopkeepers
estimation
of
the
CVP
spend
as
a
proportion
of
total
shop
turnover,
and
other
more
specific
indicators
should
also
be
explored.
The
CVP
paper-based
monitoring
system
at
the
shop
level
should
be
reduced
from
a
system
of
control
to
a
system
of
validation,
and
payments
to
shops
be
made
purely
on
the
basis
of
the
electronic
system.
The
depth,
nature
and
frequency
of
household
monitoring
for
the
CVP
and
the
in-kind
distributions
should
be
equivalent.
Questions
about
the
use
of
the
food
obtained,
and
the
impact
on
other
aspects
of
household
economy
should
appear
in
both
forms
in
the
same
format.
Cash
voucher
transfer
values
should
be
denominated
according
to
actual
household
size
rather
than
being
clustered
into
groups.
The
voucher
top-up
should
be
done
on
a
calendar
week,
every
week
on
a
Sunday,
changing
the
total
annual
number
of
top-ups
from
48
to
52,
and
revising
the
voucher
amount
accordingly.
This
means
that
some
calendar
months
will
include
5
top-up
days.
The
redemption
value
of
the
cash
voucher
should
be
11
NIS
per
person
per
calendar
week.
See
note
below
In
order
to
have
a
better
understanding
of
the
caseload
and
support
in
the
identification
of
errors
of
allocation,
develop
a
detailed
profile
of
the
target
groups,
disaggregated
by
household
size
and
consumption
gap,
based
on
existing
data
and
supported
by
targeted
field
research.
Assistance
for
the
very
poorest
needs
to
reflect
their
greater
consumption
gap,
and
should
seek
to
close
the
gap
by
around
the
same
degree
as
the
standard
assistance,
to
free
up
household
finances
for
other
essentials.
The
value
of
the
assistance
should
be
twice
the
value
of
the
standard
assistance:
22
NIS
per
person
per
calendar
week.
Option
A.
The
combined
voucher
for
the
beneficiaries
with
the
largest
consumption
gap
should
have
two
parts.
The
wheat
flour
component
should
be
of
the
same
size
as
the
in-kind
distribution.
The
voucher
component
should
be
6.5
NIS
per
capita
per
week.
See
note
below
10 Option B - preferred. The value of the enhanced voucher should be 14 NIS per capita per week. Fortified wheat flour from WFP millers is placed on the list of items for which the voucher can be exchanged, at 25kg and 50kg sizes. The flour is not a compulsory item. See note below 11 In order to allow the economical purchase of wheat flour in bulk, the voucher management arrangements be altered to allow the voucher to accumulate through one calendar month. By the end of the month the entire voucher must be redeemed. Beneficiaries could be sent an SMS with their balance periodically. 12 WFP should work towards harmonisation of the PMT between refugee and non-refugee populations, and the development of separate indicators and weightings for Gaza and the West Bank. 13 The training provided to all data collectors should be reviewed to ensure that assets are only recorded if (a) they are functional and (b) they are owned by the actual household under assessment and not shared within the family while being owned by another household.
Ben Mountfield
Page 46 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
14 The PMTF form should include a question at the end in which the enumerator is asked their opinion as to which category the household belongs. Discrepancy between this and the calculated result should be a trigger for review. 15 When it is required, the PMTF score validation review process should be undertaken jointly by WFP and Maan senior field officers to spread the responsibility. A standard format for measuring household economy will be used, ideally in a portable electronic format that allows for immediate cross-referencing of the various components. 16 The list of approved items for voucher redemption should be revisited and if possible expanded to meet the needs of the beneficiaries and support the broader aims of the project. Tomato paste, fresh milk and olive oil are proposed as a starting point for this review. 17 The Consumer Price Index (food only), and the cost of an average basket of voucher commodities should be monitored and included in the monthly reporting, with variances from the reference (planning) value also recorded. Variances of 5% or more should trigger a review: such variances sustained over three months should trigger a revision in voucher value. 18 The contingency budget should be maintained at its current level for the next iteration of the planning cycle. If it has not been used during this time it can be reduced to 5% and then subsequently removed from the budget. NOTE The recommended voucher transfer values in recommendations 6, 9 and 10 relate to a top-up undertaken each on a seven-day cycle each calendar week, as per recommendation 5. If the top-up is undertaken four times a month, the amount will need to be adjusted upwards proportionally.
Ben Mountfield
Page 47 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Annex 1: Terms of Reference
Review of the Voucher assistance as a safety net transfer modality in the Gaza Strip
(Follow up of the Voucher Mid-term review carried out in February 2011) Version 8 June 2012
Background
Since
2007,
when
WFP
formally
introduced
the
use
of
cash
and
vouchers
as
alternative
transfer
modalities
in
its
food
assistance
programmes,
there
has
been
a
rapid
increase
in
the
number
of
cash
and
voucher
based
interventions.
As
WFP
gains
greater
exposure
to
cash
and
voucher
based
interventions
a
number
of
issues
around
the
relative
impact
and
cost
efficiency
/
effectiveness
of
cash
and
vouchers,
as
compared
to
in-kind
food,
have
arisen.
Whereas
cost
efficiency
refers
to
an
evaluation
of
alternatives
in
which
comparisons
of
costs
and
benefits
are
measured
only
in
monetary
terms,
cost
effectiveness
is
seen
as
a
comparison
of
all
costs
and
benefits,
not
all
of
which
can
be
measured
in
monetary
terms,
and
where
cost
efficiency
is
one
key
element.
The
appropriateness
of
using
different
transfer
modalities
in
terms
of
meeting
programme
objectives
should
depend
largely
on
their
relative
cost
effectiveness
and
a
comparison
of
all
the
main
costs
and
benefits
relevant
to
each
intervention.
Moreover,
recognising
the
exceptional
political
environment
of
oPt,
donors
restrictions,
and
the
measures
imposed
by
the
occupying
power
on
restriction
of
movement,
imports,
and
access
to
livelihoods,
the
specific
local
context
will
be
taken
into
account
in
the
review
of
the
transfer
modalities.
WFP Emergency Operation in the Gaza Strip
WFP is implementing an emergency operation in the Gaza Strip. The Gaza EMOP 200298 started in January 2012 for one year. A budget revision is being prepared to extend it until December 2013. The EMOP 200298 aims to support the Palestinian Authoritys social safety net with tools aimed at predicting and reducing hunger; support government capacity at the technical level to ensure successful implementation of the activities; and promote the Palestinian economy through the support to the local production and prioritization of local purchases where cost-effective. The EMOP includes the following components: - - - - - General food distribution (GFD) targeting 200,000 food-insecure people in partnership with MoSA and with the international NGO Cooperative Housing Foundation International. School feeding as an emergency safety net for 80,000 schoolchildren in public basic schools managed by MoEHE. Cash-voucher transfers for 30,000 food-insecure people in partnership with Oxfam GB Provision of food rations to 7,000 individuals in orphanages and other special care institutions in partnership with Ministry of Social Affairs (MoSA). Technical capacity development activities, including food security assessments, school health and nutrition policy formulation, support to the social safety net reform process, and local purchases.
As recommended by the Gaza Voucher project Mid-term review conducted in February 2011, the shift from in-kind food to voucher assistance is gradual. The Gaza Voucher project Mid-term review also included a recommendation to provide a combined intervention of the UVP voucher and in-kind food aid or UVP Voucher and unconditional cash transfer for certain groups of beneficiaries. In-kind food assistance and voucher beneficiaries are selected through the proxy means test formula (PMTF), which takes into consideration vulnerability factors (household employment patterns, household size, availability of assets, household members with special needs, household indebtedness etc.), and determines the depth of the consumption gap for each household. WFP is targeting those households with the biggest consumption gap i.e. below the deep poverty line, taking into consideration the Palestinian national poverty lines. The food consumption score (FCS) allows to
Ben Mountfield
Page 48 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
determine the quality of the diet among the beneficiaries selected through the PMTF approach, and consequently their eligibility for the voucher activity. Households with a poor or borderline FCS are given priority for the voucher modality. WFP will continue its gradual shift from in-kind food assistance to voucher between 2012 and 2013. WFP is also planning to introduce a combined transfer modality composed of in-kind food commodities and voucher from January 2013; this modality aims to address two concerns: i) access to wheat flour and ii) dietary diversity. The present mission was planned by WFP and Oxfam GB as a follow up to the mid-term review.
Oxfam
GB
partnership
with
WFP
and
Food
Security
and
Livelihoods
Operations
in
the
Gaza
Strip
Oxfam
GB
has
been
working
with
WFP
since
early
2009,
following
the
Gaza
War,
initially
carrying
out
emergency
in
kind
general
food
distribution
and,
since
October
2009,
Oxfam
GB
has
been
implementing
the
Urban
Voucher
Project
(UVP),
initially
as
a
pilot
project.
The
pilot
UVP
involved
distribution
of
cash
vouchers
(for
food
commodities)
as
a
substitution
for
in-kind
food
distributions
for
some
of
the
targeted
beneficiaries
(2,335
households,
approximately
15,000
beneficiaries),
which
have
enabled
them
to
access
food
directly
from
small
and
medium-sized
traders
in
Gaza.
In
addition
to
improving
the
food
security
of
the
targeted
households,
cash
vouchers
are
expected
to
provide
an
opportunity
to
make
an
investment
in
local
communities,
stimulating
economic
activity
and
employment
at
the
micro
level,
promoting
the
trade
of
related
businesses
such
as
bakeries,
farmers
for
eggs,
and
dairy
factories.
Following
the
success
of
the
pilot
project,
the
UVP
is
now
an
integral
part
of
WFP
programming
in
Gaza
with
the
cash
voucher
now
provided
as
an
electronic
swipe
card,
3 Sahtein .
The
project
has
also
scaled
up
in
early
2012
with
around
30,000
beneficiaries
and
an
updated
name,
Cash
Voucher
Project
(CVP).
In
parallel
to
the
UVP/CVP
programme,
CHF
is
WFPs
implementing
partner
for
general
food
distributions,
which
in
2012
is
serving
125,000
people.
In
addition
to
the
CVP
project,
Oxfam
GB
has
been
implementing
a
range
of
activities
to
address
the
chronic
food
insecurity
situation
for
different
groups
of
beneficiaries
in
Gaza
including:
Short-term
employment
opportunities
through
Cash
for
Work
with
the
provision
of
50
days
of
employment
(GBP10/12.70
per
day)
for
both
women
and
men
in
a
range
of
public
service
activities
including,
for
example,
sewing
workshops,
cooking
meals
for
kindergartens,
maintenance
of
public
communal
areas
and
cleaning
of
storm
water
drainage
channels.
Short-term
un-conditional
cash
transfers
provided
to
the
most
vulnerable
people
who
dont
have
family
members
who
are
able
to
work
with
the
provision
of
6
monthly
instalments
of
250ILS
(GBP
42)
per
month.
Income
generation
opportunities
for
the
households
to
increase
their
income
but
also
to
directly
improve
their
intake
of
protein
/
vegetables
through
direct
consumption
including
animal
production
units
(broilers,
egg-laying
hens,
rabbits,
sheep)
and
Backyard
and
Rooftop
Gardens
including
provision
of
inputs
and
training
in
vegetable
production
and
marketing
of
the
end
product.
Income
generation
opportunities
linked
to
provision
of
small
scale
cash
grants
for
development
of
a
business
idea
with
training
provided
on
business
skills
including
business
plan
development,
sales,
marketing,
financial
management
etc.
Purpose and Objective of the mission
The mission should: i) review the current voucher project as a safety net transfer modality implemented by WFP in partnership with OXFAM GB, in comparison of other safety net transfer modalities such as in- kind food assistance implemented by WFP in partnership with CHF and MoSA, or combined voucher/in-kind modality (not implemented yet); assess how they are meeting project objectives;
ii)
iii) propose
short-
and
medium/long-terms
improvements
in
terms
of
project
objectives
and
operational
modalities.
3
Loosely translated as enjoy your meal.
Ben Mountfield
Page 49 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Methodology
In
order
to
answer
the
key
analytical
questions
listed
below
the
following
methodological
steps
are
suggested:
i) ii) Review
of
the
Gaza
Voucher
project
mid-term
review
carried
out
in
February
2011;
Review
of
secondary
data,
published
guidance,
reports
on
oPt
safety
net
studies
and
reports,
etc.;
iii) Review monitoring and evaluation information, baseline data, case studies, financial reporting (projected and realized), food security analysis (including Food Consumption Scores and Food Security Surveys) for in-kind food assistance and voucher assistance beneficiaries; iv) Collect and analyse primary data where necessary. It is envisioned that some additional focus group analysis may be necessary with beneficiaries as well as meetings with key informants involved in safety net programmes; v) The methodology and analysis should take gender and protection into consideration.
Main questions to be addressed by the mission
Targeting Targeting complaints mechanisms: How to deal with inclusion/exclusion errors due to the PMTF formula itself (i.e. not those due to the data collection/data entry errors)? Review the verification/complaint mechanism currently tested. Human override on PMTF: Possible role of social workers/field staff in overriding the PMTF findings for inclusion/exclusion? Use of additional set of questions to be raised by Social Workers (FCS/CSI/Key productive asset questions?) to complement the PMTF, potential other criteria?
Safety
net
transfer
modalities
and
transfer
values
Currently,
WFP
aims
to
assist
all
the
non-refugee
people
living
below
the
Deep
Poverty
Line
through
in-kind
food
assistance
or
voucher
assistance
implemented
in
partnership
with
MoSA
(in-kind
food
assistance),
CHF
(in-kind
food
assistance)
and
Oxfam
GB
(voucher
assistance).
Define
the
pros
and
cons
for
the
different
transfer
modalities,
taking
into
account
the
scale
of
the
required
assistance
and
the
Gaza
context,
and
determine
the
rationale
for
the
preferred
option
(which
could
include
several
transfer
modalities).
Review
and
refine
the
criteria
aiming
to
select
the
right
safety
net
food
assistance
modality
for
the
people
living
below
the
deep
poverty
line
i.e.
in-kind
food
assistance
or
voucher
assistance
or
combined
in-kind/voucher
assistance.
Must
consider
i)
food
consumption
score,
ii)
access
to
main
staple
food
commodity
i.e.
wheat
flour,
iii)
consumption
gap,
iv)
size
of
family
unit
using
the
transfer,
v)
etc.
Currently
the
value
transfer
provided
through
WFP
in-kind
food
or
voucher
assistances
in
Gaza
is
the
same
for
all
the
people
living
below
the
deep
poverty
line,
whatever
their
respective
poverty
gap.
The
voucher
value
and
the
value
of
the
in-kind
food
ration
on
the
local
market
are
equivalent
i.e.
the
voucher
and
in-kind
ration
have
the
same
transfer
value.
Moreover,
household
size
is
understood
as
nuclear
family
size,
whatever
number
of
extended
family
members
that
use
the
transfer.
Based
on
the
criteria
established
for
the
different
transfer
modalities,
which
transfer
values
should
be
planned
by
transfer
modality?
Do
we
recommend
two
different
transfer
values
below
the
Deep
poverty
line
depending
of
the
consumption
gap
and
size
of
family
unit
using
the
transfer,
compared
to
another
line
to
be
established
below
the
Deep
poverty
line?
Stratification
of
those
below
the
deep
poverty
line
could
support
a
better
profiling
of
those
assisted
and
the
type
of
assistance
needed.
Explore
the
Household
size
categories
in
particular
Cat#1
(HH
of
1-2
members)
and
#4
(HH
with
9
members
and
above)
and
scope
out
potential
to
move
from
HH
category
size
to
actual
family
size
for
the
Voucher
ration.
Needs
to
consider
the
fairness
against
in-kind
food
Page
50
of
54
16
September
2012
Ben Mountfield
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
assistance (i.e. packaging and other distribution constraints require that HH size categories be applied for in-kind assistance) and what implications it would have. For Voucher rations, the frequency of top-up could be adjusted in certain cases e.g. validity for one month instead of one week. Seek the implication of such modification in terms of the goods that would be selected at HH level.
Means of evaluation/research: Data to use includes PMTF, Food Consumption Score (FCS), Coping Strategy Index (CSI), raw data from the Socio-Economic and Food Security Survey (i.e. type of livelihood; family structure), gender considerations, protection considerations, etc., and explore combinations and cross-tabulation. Market inflation Currently in the Voucher budget WFP has a buffer for 10% inflation, what do we do if the inflation is above 10%? Rationale for this threshold or another one? Define thresholds against existing trends which would compromise the value of the voucher or the modality of assistance (i.e. back to in-kind food assistance). This question could be addressed through a flow chart of action. Social Dynamics Further explore the social impact of the voucher assistance and positive or negative effects on beneficiary dignity and choice and household dynamics, including domestic violence. Areas of further analysis to be flagged with potential future drafting of 2 Terms of References: WFP protection piece and a broader FS piece, under a separate agreement.
Specific
Outputs
A
progress
update
to
WFP
and
Oxfam
GB
teams
after
the
first
week
of
the
mission.
A
debriefing
presentation
to
WFP
and
Oxfam
GB
senior
management
in
Jerusalem
before
departure,
organised
by
WFP,
possibly
including
some
other
partners
by
invitation
(e.g.
CHF,
etc.).
An
advanced
draft
report
should
be
submitted
within
two
weeks
after
the
mission
departure
from
oPt.
The
structure
of
the
report
will
be
discussed
and
finalised
during
the
course
of
the
mission.
Recommendations
for
future
programme
design
should
be
practical
and
take
into
account
the
existing
constraints.
The
final
report
will
be
finalised
within
one
week
after
receiving
the
consolidated
comments.
Location
of
Assignment
The
mission
will
be
based
in
Gaza/oPt
with
a
debriefing
session
in
Jerusalem.
The
consultant
will
be
hosted
by
Oxfam
GB
and
fall
under
the
administrative
rules
and
security
protocol
of
Oxfam
GB.
Dates and Duration of the assignment
The mission should take place in June 2012 at the latest. The planned duration is 3 weeks, including 2 weeks in Gaza/oPt and 1 week to finalise the report. Total consultancy duration is 21 days including preparatory work, travel days, field work, debriefing session in Jerusalem and finalization of the report. A detailed activity schedule for the assignment in Gaza/oPt will be developed by Oxfam GB in coordination with WFP and fine tuned with the consultant upon arrival.
Composition of the mission
The mission will be composed of 1 International consultant specialised in C&V modalities, with proven experience in oPt and knowledge of the Gaza context, and with a strong safety net, relief and recovery background. The consultant will be assisted by WFP and Oxfam GB teams in oPt. The consultant will be recruited by Oxfam GB. The mission will be supervised by both WFP and Oxfam GB. The WFP focal points for the mission are Jean Noel Gentile (Head of Gaza Operations and Head of Gaza Office) and Antoine Renard (Head of Programme Support Unit); and the Oxfam GB focal points are Elena Qleibo (Deputy Food Security and Livelihoods Coordinator, Oxfam GB Gaza) and Julie Campbell (Programme Manager Oxfam GB Gaza).
Ben Mountfield
Page 51 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Annex 2: the questions used to generate the PMTF
These questions are a subset of the questions used in the PMTF questionnaire but the list below includes all the weighted questions. The distribution of questions between headings is by the author. Demographic questions Square value of the age of the household What is the age of the head of the household? Is the head of the household a refugee? Number of children aged 12 to 15 in the household Density of members per bedroom Number of children aged 5 or under in the household Number of adults aged 18 to 64 in the household Number of children aged 16 to 17 in the household Does the household have at least one member with disability? Number of children aged 6 to 11 in the household Is this household located in urban areas? Is this household located in West Bank? Number of elderly people aged 65 or more in the household Number of unemployed adults age 18 or more Is this a household headed by a man and that had received social assistance? Is this a household headed by a woman and that had received social assistance? Human capital questions What is the highest educational level of the head of the household: secondary? What is the highest educational level of the head of the household: elementary or preparatory or vocational diploma? What is the highest educational level of the head of the household: illiterate - read or write? Income and expenditure questions Is the household's head an employer? Does the head of the household work for foreign institutions? What is the type of Energy used for heating: wood, and other? What is the type of Energy used for heating: gas, kerosene, electricity and solar? Fixed asset questions Does the household have a solar boiler? What is the material of the walls of the household: stone? Does the household have central heating? Does it have bathroom? Household assets questions Does the household have a satellite? Does the household have a telephone line? Does the household have a computer? Does the household have a video? Does the household have a Israeli mobile? Does the household have a dryer? Productive assets questions Does the household have a private car?
Ben Mountfield
Page 52 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Annex 3: key informants to the review process
WFP Jerusalem and Gaza Pablo Recalde WFP Country Director Tahir Nour WFP Deputy Country Director Jean-Noel Gentile WFP Head of Gaza Operations and Head of Gaza Office Antoine Renard WFP Head of Programme Support Unit, Jerusalem Salah Lahham WFP National Programme Officer (VAM) Ahmad Zeitawi National Finance & Admin Officer (HoU) Sahar Natsheh National Programme Officer, Urban Voucher Programme (West Bank) Mike Smeir Programme, Pipeline Officer Key Oxfam staff, Jerusalem and Gaza Sara Almer Deputy Country Director Julie Campbell Programme Manager Elena Qleibo Oxfam Deputy Food Security Coordinator Maan Development Centre staff Luay Alwuhaidi Programme Manager Wasem Mushtaha Programme Officer, CVP component Maan Field Monitors Other project stakeholders Esmee De-Jong Technical Expert for Food Security, ECHO Jerusalem/West Bank/Gaza Maureen Philippon ECHO Food Assistance Expert Roger Shelton ICRC Economic Security Coordinator Loek Peeters Care Damien Vaquier UNWRA Emergency Support Officer Mohammed J. Sabe CHF, WFP Programme Manager List of focus groups Mixed semi-urban group of men and women; joined CVP in January 2012 from GFD Urban group of female beneficiaries who have been with the CVP since the start Urban group of female beneficiaries who joined CVP in January 2012 from GFD Urban group of male beneficiaries, mixed in terms of CVP duration Group of Maan Field Monitors for CVP beneficiaries Mixed group of very poor urban in-kind beneficiaries Mixed group of very poor urban CVP beneficiaries
Ben Mountfield
Page 53 of 54
16 September 2012
Oxfam / WFP Cash Voucher Project in Gaza
Annex 4: alternative HH size categories for in-kind distributions
The table below shows the actual kCal values per capita per day of the in-kind rations provided, assuming a complete distribution every 60 days. These numbers are generated using WFPs NutVal tool. The category number is equivalent to the number of 50kg bags of flour provided every two months. The theoretical ration provides 92% of per capita energy needs.
HH size Category kCal % kCal 1 1 3710 177% 2 1 1855 88% 3 2 2515 120% 4 2 1886 90% 5 2 1509 72% 6 3 1897 90% 7 3 1626 77% 8 3 1423 68% 9 4 1705 81% 10 4 1534 73%
A
single
bag
of
flour
provides
exactly
the
WFP
theoretical
ration
(422g
per
person
per
day)
for
2
people
for
2
months.
Considering
this
fact
and
the
distribution
of
household
sizes
(see
Figure
3),
the
most
equitable
arrangement
of
household
sizes
into
categories
requires
five
categories,
where
the
category
number
is
again
equivalent
to
the
number
of
50kg
bags
of
wheat
four
provided
every
two
months
as
follows:
HH
size
Category
kCal
%
kCal
1
1
3710
177%
2
1
1855
88%
3
2
2515
120%
4
2
1886
90%
5
3
1701
81%
6
3
1897
90%
7
3
1626
77%
8
4
1558
74%
9
4
1705
81%
10
5
1643
78%
Highlighted
cells
show
the
household
sizes
where
significant
improvements
can
be
made,
bringing
the
ration
closer
to
the
theoretical
level
of
92%
of
food
needs.
Ben Mountfield
Page 54 of 54
16 September 2012
Você também pode gostar
- WFP Vouchers and Cash Transfers As Food Assistance Instruments - Opportunities and ChallengesDocumento28 páginasWFP Vouchers and Cash Transfers As Food Assistance Instruments - Opportunities and ChallengesJeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Enhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceDocumento9 páginasEnhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Enhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceDocumento9 páginasEnhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Enhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceDocumento9 páginasEnhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Enhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceDocumento9 páginasEnhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Enhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceDocumento9 páginasEnhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Enhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceDocumento9 páginasEnhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Enhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceDocumento9 páginasEnhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Enhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceDocumento9 páginasEnhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Enhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceDocumento9 páginasEnhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Enhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceDocumento9 páginasEnhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Enhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceDocumento9 páginasEnhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Enhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceDocumento9 páginasEnhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Enhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceDocumento9 páginasEnhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- 1569574142.WV - Impact of CVP On Nutrition Outcomes - Case Studies - Guidance Note - July 2019Documento6 páginas1569574142.WV - Impact of CVP On Nutrition Outcomes - Case Studies - Guidance Note - July 2019ahmed hiamedAinda não há avaliações
- 5 Health Scenario Analysis - Nutrition at Scale Somalia (1) - 0Documento10 páginas5 Health Scenario Analysis - Nutrition at Scale Somalia (1) - 0Kemal MahmoudAinda não há avaliações
- NextGenRenewal_Proposal Narrative_2017 copyDocumento25 páginasNextGenRenewal_Proposal Narrative_2017 copyFrank KyeAinda não há avaliações
- Enhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceDocumento9 páginasEnhancing Market-Oriented Urban Agriculture in The Gaza Strip: Networking For Policy Change and ResilienceOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Guidelines for Developing a National Strategy for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and AgricultureNo EverandGuidelines for Developing a National Strategy for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and AgricultureAinda não há avaliações
- Machine Learning Methodologies To Manage Food Waste and Their Current and Future Approaches: A Uetians PerspectiveDocumento16 páginasMachine Learning Methodologies To Manage Food Waste and Their Current and Future Approaches: A Uetians PerspectivetHe tecHniquEsAinda não há avaliações
- Oxfam Strategic Plan Evaluation: Sustainable Food (CG4) Outcome AreaDocumento32 páginasOxfam Strategic Plan Evaluation: Sustainable Food (CG4) Outcome AreaOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Agricultural Finance for Smallholder Farmers: Rethinking Traditional Microfinance Risk and Cost Management ApproachesNo EverandAgricultural Finance for Smallholder Farmers: Rethinking Traditional Microfinance Risk and Cost Management ApproachesAinda não há avaliações
- The COVID-19 Food Relief Program in Nepal: Assessment and Lessons for the FutureNo EverandThe COVID-19 Food Relief Program in Nepal: Assessment and Lessons for the FutureAinda não há avaliações
- Briefing Paper Series 1 FactDocumento7 páginasBriefing Paper Series 1 FactJony ChandraAinda não há avaliações
- Do Agric Policy Recommendations enDocumento12 páginasDo Agric Policy Recommendations enCde Melusi LusabaAinda não há avaliações
- WFP 0000050972Documento20 páginasWFP 0000050972Hassan HaydAinda não há avaliações
- PA00TMX4Documento26 páginasPA00TMX4AbdouAinda não há avaliações
- Effectiveness of Public Spending: The Case of Rice Subsidies in The PhilippinesDocumento2 páginasEffectiveness of Public Spending: The Case of Rice Subsidies in The PhilippinesMarion San JoseAinda não há avaliações
- Strengthening Local Governance for Crisis ResponseDocumento7 páginasStrengthening Local Governance for Crisis ResponseGrichen TudlasAinda não há avaliações
- Commodity Value Chains Mapping For Tea: Final ReportDocumento14 páginasCommodity Value Chains Mapping For Tea: Final ReportSandipan DawnAinda não há avaliações
- Line of Sight: How Improved Information, Transparency, and Accountability Would Promote the Adequate Resourcing of Health Facilities Across Papua New GuineaNo EverandLine of Sight: How Improved Information, Transparency, and Accountability Would Promote the Adequate Resourcing of Health Facilities Across Papua New GuineaAinda não há avaliações
- Non Profit OrganizationDocumento10 páginasNon Profit OrganizationDrogAinda não há avaliações
- Youth-Sensitive Value Chain Analysis and Development: Guidelines for PractitionersNo EverandYouth-Sensitive Value Chain Analysis and Development: Guidelines for PractitionersAinda não há avaliações
- Conclusion EcoDocumento2 páginasConclusion EcoTanishq KambojAinda não há avaliações
- Development: Small-Scale AgricultureDocumento18 páginasDevelopment: Small-Scale AgricultureSafrian Adam FariziAinda não há avaliações
- TOR Qual-FINALDocumento24 páginasTOR Qual-FINALAHMEDAinda não há avaliações
- FSP - Research - Paper - 1 CESSDocumento54 páginasFSP - Research - Paper - 1 CESSAlpha ShilaAinda não há avaliações
- Evaluation of The Response To Hurricane Dean in Jamaica, St. Lucia and DominicaDocumento30 páginasEvaluation of The Response To Hurricane Dean in Jamaica, St. Lucia and DominicaOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Overall Lessons LearnedDocumento4 páginasOverall Lessons LearnedGayanAinda não há avaliações
- Meeting The Need Nov 2012 tcm80-121054 PDFDocumento5 páginasMeeting The Need Nov 2012 tcm80-121054 PDFPaulosergiovsAinda não há avaliações
- Cooperative Commissioning Dec 10Documento3 páginasCooperative Commissioning Dec 10Brian FisherAinda não há avaliações
- Somaliland CMAM Program Reaches Many but Fails to Cover AllDocumento36 páginasSomaliland CMAM Program Reaches Many but Fails to Cover AllMohamed AliAinda não há avaliações
- Raising Agricultural Productivity in Africa - FORWEBDocumento20 páginasRaising Agricultural Productivity in Africa - FORWEBZaini RisaAinda não há avaliações
- REVIEW of AGRICULTURE - Efficient Agricultural MarketingDocumento8 páginasREVIEW of AGRICULTURE - Efficient Agricultural MarketingkarankhatiAinda não há avaliações
- Ilu Eisa Indicators For A Asustainable Development in AgricultureDocumento22 páginasIlu Eisa Indicators For A Asustainable Development in AgriculturepumpboygrAinda não há avaliações
- Chapter 4 - Forecasting Demand: BackgroundDocumento5 páginasChapter 4 - Forecasting Demand: BackgroundJeetender MishraAinda não há avaliações
- "New Users" Are Confusing Our Counting: Reaching Consensus On How To Measure "Additional Users" of Family PlanningDocumento9 páginas"New Users" Are Confusing Our Counting: Reaching Consensus On How To Measure "Additional Users" of Family PlanningPrawina TesyaAinda não há avaliações
- Targeting of Malawi S Farm Input Subsidy Programme Based On EfficiencyDocumento37 páginasTargeting of Malawi S Farm Input Subsidy Programme Based On EfficiencyNaanAinda não há avaliações
- Evaluation of The Vulnerable Group Feeding Programme in ZimbabweDocumento44 páginasEvaluation of The Vulnerable Group Feeding Programme in ZimbabweOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- Domestic MarketingDocumento2 páginasDomestic MarketingAishwarya ValliAinda não há avaliações
- Resilience in Mali: Evaluation of Increasing Food SecurityDocumento2 páginasResilience in Mali: Evaluation of Increasing Food SecurityOxfamAinda não há avaliações
- SPIRAL Marketing-Communication-Manager SeptDocumento4 páginasSPIRAL Marketing-Communication-Manager Septnfatihahazmi203Ainda não há avaliações
- 2SCALE - Note To Inform Intake Process 07-07-2018Documento10 páginas2SCALE - Note To Inform Intake Process 07-07-2018Getachew HussenAinda não há avaliações
- Formulating and Implementing Sector-Wide Approaches in Agriculture and Rural Development: TanzaniaDocumento34 páginasFormulating and Implementing Sector-Wide Approaches in Agriculture and Rural Development: TanzaniaGlobal Donor Platform for Rural DevelopmentAinda não há avaliações
- The Role of Small and Medium Agrifood Enterprises in Food Systems Transformation: The Case of Rice Processors in Senegal: FAO Agricultural Development Economics Technical Study 10No EverandThe Role of Small and Medium Agrifood Enterprises in Food Systems Transformation: The Case of Rice Processors in Senegal: FAO Agricultural Development Economics Technical Study 10Ainda não há avaliações
- Arnold Ventures Comment On Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) RequirementsDocumento12 páginasArnold Ventures Comment On Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) RequirementsArnold VenturesAinda não há avaliações
- Assessing the Quality of Agricultural Market Information Systems: A Self-Assessment GuideNo EverandAssessing the Quality of Agricultural Market Information Systems: A Self-Assessment GuideAinda não há avaliações
- Lourdes S. Adriano - The Impact of The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Programa On The Local Economy A Three-Staged Case Analysis PDFDocumento5 páginasLourdes S. Adriano - The Impact of The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Programa On The Local Economy A Three-Staged Case Analysis PDFImee Jane Manalili100% (1)
- Gavi Health System and Immunisation Strengthening Support FrameworkpdfDocumento10 páginasGavi Health System and Immunisation Strengthening Support Frameworkpdftiyas ekaAinda não há avaliações
- Assessment of Potential WFP G2P Partner Programs in IndonesiaDocumento34 páginasAssessment of Potential WFP G2P Partner Programs in IndonesiaJeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Gender Equality and Food Security: Women's Empowerment As A Tool Against HungerDocumento114 páginasGender Equality and Food Security: Women's Empowerment As A Tool Against HungerJeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- OCHA Myanmar: Myanmar Rainfall and River Level Forecast OCHA 04 Aug 2015Documento1 páginaOCHA Myanmar: Myanmar Rainfall and River Level Forecast OCHA 04 Aug 2015Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- MIMU Hazard Map Mandalay-Magway Flood Area No. 3 29 Jul 2015Documento1 páginaMIMU Hazard Map Mandalay-Magway Flood Area No. 3 29 Jul 2015Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- FES Country Gender Profile - MYANMARDocumento18 páginasFES Country Gender Profile - MYANMARJeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- WFP Myanmar External SitRep Flood Emergency Response 3 Aug 15Documento2 páginasWFP Myanmar External SitRep Flood Emergency Response 3 Aug 15Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- ACAPS Briefing Note Myanmar Floods 6 Aug 2015Documento6 páginasACAPS Briefing Note Myanmar Floods 6 Aug 2015Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- State Food Provisioning As Social ProtectionDocumento80 páginasState Food Provisioning As Social ProtectionJeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- ACAPS Report Southeast Asia Rohingya 07 Aug 2015Documento9 páginasACAPS Report Southeast Asia Rohingya 07 Aug 2015Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Myanmar Flood Inundated Area in Kale Townships Sagaing Region 29 Jul 2015Documento1 páginaMyanmar Flood Inundated Area in Kale Townships Sagaing Region 29 Jul 2015Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Hazard Map Myebon Kyaukphyu Ramrees Flood Area 03 Aug 2015 JPJXDocumento1 páginaHazard Map Myebon Kyaukphyu Ramrees Flood Area 03 Aug 2015 JPJXJeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Myanmar Flood Inundated Area in Kale Townships Sagaing Region 29 Jul 2015Documento1 páginaMyanmar Flood Inundated Area in Kale Townships Sagaing Region 29 Jul 2015Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Key Lessons From The Agriculture Response To Severe Tropical Cyclone PamDocumento9 páginasKey Lessons From The Agriculture Response To Severe Tropical Cyclone PamJeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- WFP Uganda and Burkina Faso's Trial To Reduce Post-Harvest Losses For Smallholder FarmersDocumento4 páginasWFP Uganda and Burkina Faso's Trial To Reduce Post-Harvest Losses For Smallholder FarmersJeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Vanuatu Tropical Cyclone Pam Situation Report #5 23 Mar 2015Documento2 páginasVanuatu Tropical Cyclone Pam Situation Report #5 23 Mar 2015Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Myanmar Flood Inundated Area in Kale Townships Sagaing Region 29 Jul 2015Documento1 páginaMyanmar Flood Inundated Area in Kale Townships Sagaing Region 29 Jul 2015Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Why Gender?Documento5 páginasWhy Gender?Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- IFRC Strategic Framework On Gender and Diversity 2013-2020Documento8 páginasIFRC Strategic Framework On Gender and Diversity 2013-2020Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Panay Island Rapid Market Assessment Report, World Vision, Nov 29, 2013Documento16 páginasPanay Island Rapid Market Assessment Report, World Vision, Nov 29, 2013Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- UN SWAP Technical Notes Dec 2013Documento69 páginasUN SWAP Technical Notes Dec 2013Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- WFP 2012 Update of Safety Nets Policy - The Role of Food Assistance in Social ProtectionDocumento29 páginasWFP 2012 Update of Safety Nets Policy - The Role of Food Assistance in Social ProtectionJeffrey Marzilli100% (1)
- WFP Kenya's Transitional Cash Transfers To Schools (TCTS) : A Cash-Based Home Grown School Meals ProgrammeDocumento4 páginasWFP Kenya's Transitional Cash Transfers To Schools (TCTS) : A Cash-Based Home Grown School Meals ProgrammeJeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Panay Island Rapid Market Assessment Report, World Vision, Nov 29, 2013Documento16 páginasPanay Island Rapid Market Assessment Report, World Vision, Nov 29, 2013Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- UNHCR 2009 Policy On Refugee Protection and Solutions in Urban AreasDocumento30 páginasUNHCR 2009 Policy On Refugee Protection and Solutions in Urban AreasJeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Typhoon Haiyan Damage Summary Manila Philippines, Global Agriculture Information Netowrk (GAIN), USDA/FAS, Dec 4, 2013Documento3 páginasTyphoon Haiyan Damage Summary Manila Philippines, Global Agriculture Information Netowrk (GAIN), USDA/FAS, Dec 4, 2013Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Philippines Dept of Agriculture Preliminary Estimates of Losses From Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) Nov 27, 2013Documento12 páginasPhilippines Dept of Agriculture Preliminary Estimates of Losses From Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) Nov 27, 2013Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- WFP Nutrition Policy 2012Documento23 páginasWFP Nutrition Policy 2012Jeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- WFP 2004 Nutrition in Emergencies WFP Experiences and ChallengesDocumento17 páginasWFP 2004 Nutrition in Emergencies WFP Experiences and ChallengesJeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Targeting Israeli Apartheid A Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Handbook.Documento383 páginasTargeting Israeli Apartheid A Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Handbook.john_edmonstoneAinda não há avaliações
- Behavioral Economics and Psychology of IncentivesDocumento27 páginasBehavioral Economics and Psychology of IncentivesRain PanAinda não há avaliações
- Beyou: International SchoolDocumento31 páginasBeyou: International SchoolMartin SeltsamAinda não há avaliações
- Jewish News 962Documento36 páginasJewish News 962Jewish NewsAinda não há avaliações
- Short Commitment RevisedDocumento2 páginasShort Commitment RevisedJoshua HzAinda não há avaliações
- Brief Intro of IsraelDocumento28 páginasBrief Intro of Israel王郁妘Ainda não há avaliações
- WFP Oxfam Gaza Cash Voucher Programme ReviewDocumento54 páginasWFP Oxfam Gaza Cash Voucher Programme ReviewJeffrey MarzilliAinda não há avaliações
- Jewish Standard, February 17, 2017Documento60 páginasJewish Standard, February 17, 2017New Jersey Jewish Standard50% (2)
- Palestinian Authority Payments To PrisonersDocumento2 páginasPalestinian Authority Payments To PrisonersGlennKesslerWPAinda não há avaliações
- A Final Project For The Course Title "Monetary Policy and Central Banking"Documento11 páginasA Final Project For The Course Title "Monetary Policy and Central Banking"Elle SanchezAinda não há avaliações
- The World of Work Amal HessaDocumento12 páginasThe World of Work Amal HessadreamsaroAinda não há avaliações
- Economics Midterm Assignment Submitted To: Madam Sadaf Alam MBA 2 - 3C (Evening) Muhammad Umair 01-222191-013Documento11 páginasEconomics Midterm Assignment Submitted To: Madam Sadaf Alam MBA 2 - 3C (Evening) Muhammad Umair 01-222191-013Muhammad Umair RajputAinda não há avaliações
- BMO Research Highlights Mar 25Documento27 páginasBMO Research Highlights Mar 25smutgremlinAinda não há avaliações
- December 10, 2019 A Detailed Lesson Plan in Music 8 I.: Ma'am MilesDocumento3 páginasDecember 10, 2019 A Detailed Lesson Plan in Music 8 I.: Ma'am MilesMaila PaguyanAinda não há avaliações
- Generation X vs. Generation Y - A Decade of Online ShoppingDocumento39 páginasGeneration X vs. Generation Y - A Decade of Online ShoppingNno T SimamoraAinda não há avaliações
- Asian CurrencyDocumento62 páginasAsian CurrencyDemar DalisayAinda não há avaliações
- Travel Facts for Israel - US State Dept Advisory, Passport RequirementsDocumento2 páginasTravel Facts for Israel - US State Dept Advisory, Passport RequirementsMasK MaNAinda não há avaliações
- Israel SettlementDocumento58 páginasIsrael SettlementRaf BendenounAinda não há avaliações
- Hare Urchase Greement: I G - G L L - BC LDocumento3 páginasHare Urchase Greement: I G - G L L - BC LAnonymous uNBfFUjLCuAinda não há avaliações
- Master Tfe Transcriber AgreementDocumento4 páginasMaster Tfe Transcriber AgreementdsagemaverickAinda não há avaliações
- Product Manager & Entrepreneur with Over 10 Years of ExperienceDocumento1 páginaProduct Manager & Entrepreneur with Over 10 Years of Experiencemalik_saleem_akbarAinda não há avaliações
- Israel Travel Guide PDFDocumento66 páginasIsrael Travel Guide PDFAnonymous dU1EWdyLYuAinda não há avaliações
- Israel Travel GuideDocumento59 páginasIsrael Travel GuideConnie Dale100% (1)
- Clalit Mushlam BrochureDocumento8 páginasClalit Mushlam BrochureEnglishAccessibilityAinda não há avaliações
- Aliyah Programs For Youth 2020 PDFDocumento7 páginasAliyah Programs For Youth 2020 PDFAyelen FlintAinda não há avaliações
- Israel Facts: Trivia on Geography, Economy, PeopleDocumento11 páginasIsrael Facts: Trivia on Geography, Economy, PeopleAnonymous NKKi3Oi1Ainda não há avaliações
- Money: Noun, Often AttributiveDocumento5 páginasMoney: Noun, Often AttributiveMuhammad FadilAinda não há avaliações
- Transaction Details: 1 20pcs DIP Diode Zener ON 1N5378B 100V 5W New Item # 190918805706 $10.99 USD $10.99 USDDocumento2 páginasTransaction Details: 1 20pcs DIP Diode Zener ON 1N5378B 100V 5W New Item # 190918805706 $10.99 USD $10.99 USDOsama YaseenAinda não há avaliações
- Generation X vs Generation Y Online Shopping Over a DecadeDocumento9 páginasGeneration X vs Generation Y Online Shopping Over a DecadeClaudiaAinda não há avaliações
