The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami is considered as the first humanitarian
situation where cash transfers were used as an alternative to food aid. Since then,
cash transfers have been used as a standalone response tool to disasters, or used in
combination with food aid. Malawi piloted the use of cash transfer as a response tool
to food insecurity between 2005 and 2008. The first national response that used
cash to respond to food insecurity at a large scale was carried out in 2012/2013, and
then in 2013/2014. The purpose of this study was to assess how effective the use of
cash transfers was as a response tool to the humanitarian situation in Malawi. The
study was carried out through household interviews, focus group discussions, key
informant interviews as well as review of previous evaluations and studies on cash
transfers in Malawi and other countries.
Malawi has used cash transfers as a response tool on a large scale for 2
consecutive years. Ideally, the expectation would be that lessons learnt during the
first year and those gathered from previous pilot programmes would assist in
improving future programmes. However, most of the challenges noted in 2012/2013
response, some of which were highlighted in external programme evaluations, were
repeated in the 2013/2014 programme. This challenge cannot be attributed to the
cash transfer response programme alone. Even in provision of food aid, similar
challenges have been observed and continue to appear in almost every other
response. In some cases, vulnerable households, who are supposed to be benefiting
from the response programmes, have been the victims.
Findings of this study do not show that cash should substitute food as a
response tool; neither does it find that cash is always the best option. Just like food
aid, cash transfers too have their own shortfalls. Although cash transfers, on a larger
scale, offer more benefits than food aid, it should not be considered as a panacea,
and its implementation should be considered carefully and be promoted if backed by
reliable market assessments and other considerations, and should also include closer
monitoring of market behaviours during programme implementation.
Coordination systems, with appropriate checks and balances and strong
government’s monitoring, ought to be improved. For effective use of cash transfers,
appropriate systems need to be in place that would support such a response.
Challenges being experienced should be used to improve programme design and
implementation. The trend at the global level clearly shows that cash transfers are
here to stay as a response tool to disasters. Efforts should be made to capitalize on
this and develop clear guidelines for the implementation of cash transfers in
humanitarian situations in the country.
The study, however, does find that when planned and implemented properly,
cash would, overall, be a better devil than food aid.