Email 
Print 
Cash or food? The debate continues...
Written by: Aisling Irwin
The prospect of thousands of Mozambicans dealing with their devastated homes and crops after the current floods subside has highlighted the debate in the aid community about whether to give help with food handouts or cash aid. The agency Save the Children today urged everyone involved in the flood crisis to opt for cash: "Cash is the best way to encourage self-sufficiency, to stimulate local markets and to give people the dignity of choice," said Chris McIvor, Save the Children's country director in Mozambique. Save the Children's views are similar to those aired in Britain's The Guardian newspaper over the past week. In an article entitled "Britain Backs revolutionary aid experiment" the paper highlights a "growing divide over how western nations spend hundreds of millions of dollars pledged to the continent". It describes the British Department for International Development's £750,000 experiment to "provide cash payments instead of food to tens of thousands of hungry people in northern Malawi via a sophisticated system of bank cards and electronic identification". The Guardian contrasts this approach with those of the World Food Programme and the U.S.: "Almost no US aid goes direct to African governments. Washington also insists on shipping surplus food grown by its own farmers instead of providing money to buy from local markets." The British Red Cross and HelpAge International back the principle of cash aid. Mark Gorman, Director of Policy Development for the latter, says in a letter to The Guardian: "These programmes share one common trait - they trust poor people to make prudent use of money to alleviate their own poverty. How revolutionary is that?" But the WFP says the debate has been oversimplified. "WFP considers cash transfers an appropriate option when food markets function properly, prices are stable, and the needed capacity is in place to deliver and monitor," it says in another letter to the Guardian. "However, where such capacities are weak, and when food markets do not function properly - which is the case in most emergencies - evidence shows that food aid remains the most appropriate, life-saving response. "The bottom line is that there is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution." That view resonates somewhat with the message of the Humanitarian Policy Group, which considers the issue in an excellent briefing paper (number 25). It explores all the pros and cons, including fears of rampant corruption, security problems, and the prospect of cash misused to fund drinking sprees rather than sensible dinners. It concludes that cash-based responses are likely to grow. Given some fairly compelling reasons for using cash approaches more often than they are currently used, it asks why there is such reluctance to take that giddy step and release the purse strings to the locals? One answer is, of course, that it's a threatening idea for aid practitioners, says HPG. It adds that: "The widespread assumption that people will misuse cash hints at the feelings of superiority which sometimes underpin relations with 'beneficiaries', a term which itself suggests the passive receipt of assistance." More prosaically, it goes on, there just isn't enough skill around at the moment to implement such projects successfully.
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
We welcome argument but AlertNet will not publish comments that are racist, abusive or libellous.
8 responses to “Cash or food? The debate continues...”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
Unlike some other content on this website, the written content in this article may be republished or redistributed by any means free of charge. Any use of photographs and graphics on this website is expressly prohibited. You must check whether written content contained in other articles on this website may be republished or redistributed without the express permission of Reuters or the relevant third party provider.
22 Feb 2007 09:45:52 GMT
Are we talking about aid to a "climatic" disaster area (drought or floods) or aid to war stricken area? The reply is that the same solution would not fit both cases.
There could be a way to maximise the effectiveness of the aid given, whether money or Food. Give the aid to the women, not the men. Normally, women have more practical and short term aims, that they are more likely to carry out. Unfortunately this solution would not necessarily be a "one-for-all" and would depend on an exsting village social structure, (and the absence of a "macho" culture). It might be worth a try in some circumstances.22 Feb 2007 19:54:44 GMT
The WFP are right when they say that "The bottom line is that there is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution." The debate should not be a choice of either cash or food, but what is the appropriate combination in the context of disaster. The issue of food aid is not about whether it is right or wrong response, but whether the analysis of the impact of the disaster is non-bias enough to include other non-food options to save lives and protect livelihoods.
There is now enough documented cases that demostrate the positive impact of cash on vulnerable households during emergencies. However the scale of cash based programming in emergencies is still tiny compared to food aid programmes and the challenge in the future will be to see if assessments can truly identify the balance between cash and food, so that aid agencies can provide the quickest and most appropriate response in disasters to both save lives and protect the livelihoods of vulnerable populations.25 Feb 2007 12:58:49 GMT
The cash versus food debate is an important one, and one that all donors should be engaging in. Save the Children agrees absolutely that there is no âone-size-fits-allâ solution. Every crisis is different, and the decision to provide food, cash, or a combination of the two must be made only after careful assessment of the situation on the ground.
Where there are functioning markets, local food is available and there is capacity to deliver cash safely, it makes no sense to hand out food to affected communities. Much better to give them choice over how they spend their money, and keep the local economy functioning by providing cash transfers. Food is not the only necessity. Those in Mozambique, for example, starting to think about returning home after the recent flooding, need clothes, cooking utensils, sugar and salts. In Kenya, families are selling the food aid they receive for these basic provisions. Yet for some in Mozambique, donated food is still an essential addition to their lives. In Zimbabwe, where inflation rates soar by the day, food aid is the only appropriate option. There is no fixed answer to the food-cash question, and itâs certainly never a black-and-white decision. Debate must continue to ensure donors, NGOs and the UN find the best and most efficient way to help save the lives and livelihoods of families and children in times of crisis.25 Feb 2007 13:00:06 GMT
great point jonathan.
however, when it comes to the widespread drought in africa that will be much worse due to global warming in the very immediate future (while the areas prone to flooding get hit by worse and worse floods), it would be criminal for countries like the unites states (with tons of surplus crops left to rot) not to give food aid. but there also needs to be culturally-relevant educational aid. many countries struck with political/cultural/natural disasters are suffering a "brain drain," with most of those rich enough to leave going off to college abroad and never coming back. more aid should be given to ensure that people can keep earning, to relieve core social problems that lead to aid recipients not spending it on the "right" things. also, the "right" things need to be available to buy.28 Feb 2007 08:11:29 GMT
It seems faily obvious to me there should be both money AND food. By providing just enough aid for people to scrape by, we are ensuring their need for additional aid. Wouldn't it be better to provide enough aid to lift people out of poverty, and then cross them off the aid list forever?
30 Aug 2007 08:26:34 GMT
An interesting article Ms Aisling Mosambique has to use its vast and huge areas potential for producing food. Unfortunately nothing been done in this cnotext. It can feed the whole east Africa. During the last three years. there has been only and destruction see my site www.geneconserve.pro.br on cassava, a crop , that if cultivated, would give food to all habitants with less effort
23 May 2008 08:22:20 GMT
Great article!Thank you!
24 Oct 2008 02:34:20 GMT
If managed well then Cash is better option provided enough food and NFIs available in market. A lot has been discussed on Cash and food aid in recent days. Providing cash or food should not be treated in isolation, other interventions are needed for sustained rehabilitation.