PROGRAMMING FOOD FOR WORK (FFW) INTERVENTIONS

Transcription

1 PROGRAMMING FOOD FOR WORK (FFW) INTERVENTIONS Definition A food for work (FFW) intervention consists of restoring community projects by the vulnerable members of a population (residents or displaced persons) who receive a food basket as payment for their work. TECHNICAL FORM This form gives the key steps of implementation of a Food for Work (FFW) intervention, but is not exhaustive. Consultation of the food aid methodology and other documentation listed in the bibliography below is strongly advised. The Food Security and Livelihoods (FSL) team is managing the FFW intervention but its set up and implementation depends largely of the capacity of the different departments to work together. FFW programs are part of the Food Aid Interventions (FAIs) 1, and as such are part of the larger ACF-IN FSL strategy. The logistics implication in this type of intervention is crucial, as well as the inputs of other technical departments (especially the WaSH 2 department) are welcome. S. Hayes / ACF Afghanistan ACF Afghanistan 1 See ACF-IN FSL Technical Profile Food Aid Interventions June WaSH: Water and Sanitation and Hygiene Department ACF-IN FSL Programming FFW Interventions Page 1 of 7

2 I. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT An assessment, conducted by the Food Aid (FA)/FSL manager and his/her team in coordination with the other ACF-IN departments, is crucial prior to any intervention, i.e. food aid is always a response to an identified need. The implication of the Nutrition departments is very important at this stage as often food aid is part of the response to a nutritional situation, and is used as a tool to prevent malnutrition. The assessment follows the methodology of a general FS needs assessment and includes: - Context study (social, security, economic, etc.) - Study of food markets (availability of basic food products, functioning of the markets supply, level of prices, evolution of the terms of exchange, etc.) - Identification of the population s needs (rate of malnutrition, causes of malnutrition, food consumption habits, livelihoods losses, food stocks, coping mechanisms, etc.) - Estimation of the population in need of assistance - Identification of the potential for high-level of labor activities possible in the area - Presence of other actors (e.g. NGOs, UN etc.) and their activities - Logistic evaluation (location of existing food supply, availability, costs, mobility and storage - if ACF- IN purchase - ; availability of food at WFP, transportation, supply, storage - if WFP supply -; orders, customs obligations, procedures to follow, quality control, etc.; potential risks - security for both ACF-IN and the beneficiaries, access, quality of foodstuffs-). II. DEFINING A FOOD FOR WORK INTERVENTION II.1. Objectives of a Food for Work (FFW) intervention The main objective of a FFW intervention, is to respond to immediate causes of malnutrition (lack of availability of food), and to restore, rehabilitate or create useful community assets, hence having a positive impact on underlying causes of malnutrition. The selected beneficiaries will receive food in exchange of work on collective infrastructures (e.g. roads, dykes, irrigation networks). Sometimes privately owned work may be considered, if the benefit is collective (e.g. rehabilitation of privately owned irrigated rice fields or salt marsh, if these are also a main source of income for the local population). Note that if the identified problem is access to food, e.g. low purchasing power while food is available in the markets, a cash based intervention ( Cash for Work ) is likely to be a more effective response and have less negative effects on the local context than food aid 3. The specific objectives of a FFW intervention are to improve the household food security, and to improve the economic and/or agricultural development of the zone (village). The desired results of such interventions are to reach food availability and accessibility, in quality and quantity; to prevent short-term or risky coping mechanisms; to create a favorable return context; to improve infrastructures; to reinforce the local organizations when applicable, and to facilitate access to zones (opening). The assessment should not only provide an objective view of the different domains studied but also take the foreseeable or possible effects of food aid into account. 3 Refer to cash or food decision tree.ppt in the attached document package as well as to the technical form about cash based interventions and cash based interventions guidelines in the attached document package. ACF-IN FSL Programming FFW Interventions Page 2 of 7

3 II.2. Initial pre-conditions for a Food for Work intervention Context Food market Population Logistics/security - Chronic or foreseeable - Poor monetization of - Insufficient - Stable situation food crisis - Beginning of the hunger gap / before the period of the local economy - Elevated food prices and/or rapid inflation access to income generating opportunities allowing for mediumterm planning - Easy access to agricultural work - Breakdown of the - Population populations in terms of - Urban or rural context - Lack of or poor condition production or market supply system located close to possible worksites geography and security -Possible distribution of infrastructures: labourintensive - Abnormally low - Population sites are accessible work availability of staple capable of working and of adequate size opportunities foods (able and willing) II.3. Pros and Cons of a Food for Work intervention Advantages + Possibility of inducing selftargeting + Possibility of reinforcing the local capacities by subcontracting the technical components of the work + Possibility of involving the communities for maintaining the finished products + Respect of the dignity of the people: aid in exchange for work which reduces the effect of victimization Disadvantages - Difficult to obtain pertinent targeting because the beneficiaries must be live close to the project infrastructures and have ablebodied members available to work - Exclusion of people not able / allowed (culturally) to perform physical work (women, elderly...) - Difficult to verify the minimum age of the workers - Heavy logistics for food and tool supply with an often intensive distribution schedule (payment of completed tasks) - Technical competence required to ensure a minimum quality of the restorations Heavy to monitor: daily presence sheet must be used - Difficult to keep the finished products well maintained following the closing of the project - Risk of competition with agricultural or other work - Risk of substituting the role of local authorities III. IMPLEMENTING A FFW INTERVENTION: KEY STEPS TO FOLLOW - Identify the most vulnerable zones and villages; select the workers and register the beneficiaries. - Select the restoration projects; determine the number of working days per task; formalize the villagers contract; - Determine the salary rate (daily ration) and the payment plan. - Prepare the logistics (supply, distribution plan, distribution system, tools use after completion); implement the distribution accordingly. - Monitor the program: monitor the worksites, control attendance; verify the food quantities received and their use; evaluate the impact with regard to the fixed objectives; III.1. Identify the beneficiaries, select and register the workers The targeting can be managed by ACF-IN and/or by the population (for a better acceptance of the project, and to have more chances to make it successful). The targeting has to be done on different levels: Geographical level ( zoning ): it identifies which geographical zone is more vulnerable (e.g. landslide affected). Community / village level: targeting at the village level is the crucial step because by its very nature, the work should be communal and will require the participation of people coming from this community. It can also be difficult to get people who are exterior to the beneficiary community to come work on the restoration project. In a later step, zoning is crossed with the selection of a specific population group in the chosen zone. ACF-IN FSL Programming FFW Interventions Page 3 of 7

4 Household level: it identifies which groups of households, within these villages, are most in need. However, in a for work program, by definition, only the families having a work force can participate; consequently, problems of exclusion (under coverage) exist: therefore it is recommended that the distribution is complemented by including a proportion of free aid for the vulnerable families who lack the physical capacity to work (elderly, single-headed families, women-headed families, handicapped ). If no free aid is possible, alternative interventions are possible: planting trees, cooking food for the other workers, etc. Moreover, FFW interventions could be a strategy to reach the neediest who are motivated to obtain rations equivalent to the value of the lowest market salary in exchange for physical work. Generally the FFW programs are not very technical and often laborious, thus inducing even further the selftargeting, beneficiaries balancing the food received with the effort needed to receive it, and thus leading to a self-exclusion form the program. Registration can be done using different methods, but they all result in the establishment of beneficiary lists indexing a certain amount of information about the beneficiaries. The different ways of organising a registration include: - Registration by partners or use of existing lists - Registration by the population itself, most often in close collaboration with their leaders, cross-checked and monitored by ACF-IN. - Registration by ACF-IN through household visits (registration of people at their homes) - Headcount by ACF-IN, where the concerned population is summoned to a predetermined site and registered by ACF-IN In all cases, cross-checking and verification of the lists by ACF-IN is necessary. III. 2. Select the work projects The work projects should be seen above all as contributing to the improvement of food security in the targeted zone, and their identification should be the result of a socioeconomic assessment of the zone, and the beneficiaries preferences. The projects should be the result of a selection process and the expected impact of the work done is just as important as that of the cover of the food need. The project chosen should be the most pertinent one: - It should require a great number of workers to obtain a significant impact on the improvement of the food availability in the targeted village. - It should help improve development conditions within the targeted zone. The project chosen should be feasible: - It should be appropriate to the human, financial, and logistical means. - It should be technically feasible and be long-lasting. These projects should also take into account the severity of the food needs: the pertinence (impact and durability) of the projects could become secondary in order to better favor a rapid implementation of the work, such as cleaning activities. An estimation of the volume of work in manday units (taking into account the number of days per task, and the number of unskilled labor available) is needed. Last, a FFW intervention requires a heavy implication of the beneficiary to ensure that they adopt the program as their own. Thus a pre-established contract has to be signed between the community and ACF-IN to specify the minimum (rules for the selection of workers, number of days and workers necessary, tasks to be performed, pay level for each type of task, frequency of payments and payment procedures, etc.). The program planning should be rigorously studied so as to not present competition with other ongoing activities, especially farming jobs. Pending on the type of work, professional help (e.g. civil engineer) may be required. The types of restoration projects for work may be but are not limited to: - Road restoration (widening, protection, gutters, reinforcement) - Bridge restoration - Restoration of public social buildings: schools, health centres - Restoration of dykes, protection walls - Restoration / cleaning of drainage canals and/or irrigation structures - Digging a water reservoir ACF-IN FSL Programming FFW Interventions Page 4 of 7

5 - Cleaning and evacuating debris (following a natural catastrophe or conflict) - Clearing and cleaning of arable land Transversal activities (with WaSH department) are encouraged: irrigation / drainage channels, dams III.3. Determine the food ration and set up a payment plan The food ration is determined based on three conditions: 1) The food ration value should be maintained at a level which is similar or inferior to that practiced on the work market so as not to deviate the economic actors from their traditional activities and create inflation. 2) The food ration should be sufficient to cover the identified food needs (depending on the price of foodstuffs on the local market). 3) The food ration value should be slightly superior to the revenues obtained by the risky coping mechanisms adopted by the populations, such as collecting firewood, for example, so that the intervention is profitable for the worker. The responsibility and competence level (for the team leaders) could be added as a criterion, which may correspond to a higher amount. Even so, take care to maintain a pay scale of not more than two levels (qualified and non-qualified workers) to keep the system manageable. As is true for the determination of all rations, the salary rate will be determined according to market survey (cost of labour, price of foodstuffs) and semi-structured interviews with the affected households (adopted coping mechanisms) and key informants (economic actors: merchants, craftsmen, farmers, government workers, etc.). It is advised to set up payments based on the completion of tasks, within a deadline. This deadline per task results in the realistic and reasonable estimation (often established with the help of local personnel), which helps determine a predefined hourly / daily rate. For the intervention, this method of payment minimizes the risk of disturbing the project schedule. If the work is finished earlier, the workers have the option of performing a supplemental task to increase their salaries. This approach presents the advantage of maintaining the principle of the opportunity cost of the work, while allowing the workers who have a greater need for cash to be able to earn it. Even so, it sometimes happens that it is preferable to set a maximum working time, after which time the worker should hand over his place to other beneficiaries so as to widen the program cover. In this way, each worker (of the same level) will receive the same ration; this could present a problem in certain situations where large families are most vulnerable. Two options are possible in this case: increase the number of family members eligible to participate for the large families (going from one to two, for example), and/or allow the workers belonging to large families have a longer time limit. III.4. Define the logistics of the intervention (supply, tools distribution, food distribution plan and distribution sites) An important aspect of the distribution preparations is defining the logistics of the distribution itself, in close collaboration with the logistics department. Refer to the GFD/TFD technical form for detailed information. Key points include: To determine foodstuffs and tools possible to purchase; to prepare a procurement plan and a distribution plan in advance. To prepare the sites and the storage facilities To determine the distribution system (direct distribution or through a local implementing partner); to chose between Grouping / Scooping / Prepackaging for food distribution. To determine the distribution method To identify the number of necessary distributions points. To implement the Food Quality Control with the Logistics department. Last, it is crucial to prepare an exit strategy for the tools distributed (are the beneficiaries supposed to keep them, or to give them back to ACF-IN?). ACF-IN FSL Programming FFW Interventions Page 5 of 7

6 III.5. Sensitize and create awareness among beneficiaries The beneficiaries will have to be sensitized and awareness sessions will have to be held, to inform the population on: the distribution process and conditions, the instructions to share the commodities (if the grouping method is chosen); the food basket content and its quality, etc. III.6. Monitor and evaluate the project Monitoring is a key part of a food distribution intervention. It provides information on the quality of the implementation of the program and insights into if the response adequately addresses the needs of the population. Ultimately, monitoring results will allow for change in the intervention implementation and strategy, if problems are detected. Different types of monitoring include: - verifying of the beneficiaries lists and selection criteria (before the program starts and during the intervention: lists updating) - monitoring the worksites and taking notes of attendance/absence (flexibility is required; rules have to be set up to regulate absences) - verifying the food quantities received (food basket monitoring FBM ) and their use (post distribution monitoring PDM ); - market surveys An impact study or external evaluation should be done by external consultants, with regard to the fixed objectives of the program. KEY POINTS TO REMEMBER Organization and internal coordination Close collaboration and transparency with the communities Timing Risk of negative effects Human resources Tools The food distribution is conducted in very close collaboration between the FA team, the nutrition team and the support departments (logistics and finance for the definition of budget). A close coordination is crucial for the technical points with the WaSH department, depending on the works selected (transversal approach). Close coordination is crucial at the early planning stage, in order to take into account the obligations of all departments, and to define a realistic implementation plan. The involvement of the community and their awareness about ACF activities is crucial and a key factor in the acceptance and success of the intervention. The communities should be included at each step of the program: needs assessment, selection of beneficiaries, and selection of the worksite, selection of distribution site. Their participation is required in the selection, preparation, distribution and monitoring activities The timing should be carefully matched with the agricultural and work calendar as well as communities obligations (public events, etc.). Food aid can undermine the existing livelihoods. The FSL manager and the FSL coordinator have to estimate and monitor the consequences of a food distribution at the micro and macro levels, and provide solutions to minimize potential negative impacts, where food aid remains a pertinent response. Plan enough monitors for the distributions in order to ensure good crowd control and respect of the rules as well as to provide answers to beneficiaries queries. Plan also adequate resources and time for any cross-checking of the lists and monitoring. Plan adequate resources for the technical supervision, the worksites supervision and the attendance control. In the framework of a FA/FS intervention, plan in good time the order of the Sphinx software for PDM and other food security analysis. Sphinx is the software chosen by ACF for all the analysis/survey works. Use Nutval (excel file normally already in the mission or ask to the FA advisor in the HQ) or NutCalc for the ration calculation in order to propose a balanced ration. ACF-IN FSL Programming FFW Interventions Page 6 of 7

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY Position Papers ACF-IN - Policy on Food Aid (practical) ACF-IN - Policy on Political Aspects of Food Aid ACF-IN - Policy on Food Product Quality ACF-IN - Policy on Genetically Modified Organisms Technical Guidelines and tools ACF IN - Cash or food decision tree ACF-IN - Descriptive overview of ACF Food aid programmes in 10 countries ACF-IN - Food Aid and alternatives to Food Aid (draft) Care Indonesia - Food for Work Manual Capitalization ACF-IN - Ethiopia Food for Work (FFW) PDM and Final Survey Reports ACF-IN - FFW unit, capitalizing on the experience in Cambodia ACF-IN - Lessons learnt on cash for work, El whak Kenya (internal document) ACF-IN - Road impact evaluation Tukzar- Tarkhoj - Afghanistan (internal document) ACF-IN - Rapport d activités du programme Cash contre Travail, Aceh - Indonésie / Cash for Work program activity report, Aceh Indonesia (internal document) 2005 OXFAM Voucher for Work: an option for emergencies? A programme evaluation in Mali and Niger ACF-IN FSL Programming FFW Interventions Page 7 of 7