EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The crisis
More than 5 million FATA inhabitants have been displaced from their homes and areas of origin by the complex emergency that broke out in 2008 in the Northwestern part of Pakistan (including in the KP and FATA), following military operations against the insurgency. Although the Government of Pakistan (GoP) has organized a phased and orderly denotification and return of the majority of IDPs, an estimated 0.43 million Pakistanis remain displaced. In 2014, substantial displacement from the NWA to the neighboring districts of Bannu, Karak, DI Khan and Peshawar put additional burden on already suffering host communities.
Government cash assistance
To IDPs: In view of the situation, the GoP initiated an unconditional cash support programme for the registered IDPs of NWA residing in camps and hosting areas. Each family was initially provided PKR 17,000 (US$170), with PKR 12,000 ($120) of which intended for monthly living subsistence allowance; and PKR 5,000 ($50), for a one-time purchase of immediate NFI needs. Approximately 600,000 displaced Pakistanis received cash transferred electronically each month.
To Returnees: Since 2009, the GoP has been facilitating the return of millions of IDPs through a phased de-notification of the conflict-affected areas. The GoP provided a package of assistance that included monthly food rations for six months, and goods and services to meet their immediate shelter, health, education and livelihood restoration needs. Every returnee household also received a return grant of PKR 25,000 (US$250), plus 10,000 ($100) transportation allowance, and up to PKR 400,000 ($4,000) for house reconstruction based on the level of damage to housing. By the end of 2016, an estimated PKR 10.5 billion ($105 million) will have been disbursed to more than 300,000 returnee families.
Assessment objectives
This study is primarily intended to enhance FDMA’s understanding of the impact of its cash transfer programmes on FATA IDPs and returnees. The assessment’s specific objectives are as follows:
Analyse the expenditure pattern of IDPs/returnees, who received cash assistance;
Evaluate the overall impact of the cash transfer programme on the socio-economic status of affected households; and
Provide recommendations towards the design, scale-up, and delivery of humanitarian cash programmes
Key findings
Overall, FDMA’s cash transfer programme for IDPs and returnees alleviated stress and was used for multiple purposes: it allowed households to eat the food they preferred, address medical concerns, send children to school, pay debt to shopkeepers to regain their trust, cover rent, transportation, and other needs. In addition, some families reported using the cash assistance to access basic assets that improved their living conditions; for example, solar plates, batteries, and fans.
A vast majority of the assisted IDP and returnee groups were reliant on the government’s unconditional cash grant, as they reported receiving far less assistance (cash, inkind, or services) from other sources for needs in the areas of shelter, health, education, WASH, livelihoods.
Beneficiaries had relatively easy access to cash-out points and markets to purchase their immediate needs, with 71 percent of total respondents going to rural markets and 29 percent to urban markets.
Preference for rural markets was due to shorter travel time and lower transportation costs. All groups reported varying degrees and types of physical barrier to accessing markets, foremost of which was the unavailability of transportation. Other constraints reported were destroyed roads and curfew.The FDMA’s cash assistance to IDPs did not appear to have any adverse impact on the market prices of basic commodities in host communities. Majority of assisted IDPs said they were able to use the cash grant to purchase goods at the same price charged to locals.
Overall expenditure patterns demonstrated that the cash assistance was utilized to address immediate needs and was not enough for durable investments. ‘Few households were able to save money for the future.
Despite the majority benefiting from general food distributions by WFP, food remained top priority for assessed households’ expenditure; medical costs came second, followed by clothing and footwear related to children’s school attendance.
The cash grant served as a bit of a cushion to inconsistent income, but it did not stop people from seeking income-generating activities.
Some actively sought wage labour, while others participated in cash-for-work programmes.Returnees reported higher frequencies of negative coping strategies than IDPs.
For example, around 16 percent of assisted returnees reported that they had to stop sending their children to school; 20 percent of non-beneficiary returnees had to do the same.Overall, the government’s cash programme had a positive impact on gender dynamics and familial and social cohesion, resulting in more family consultations/discussions on how to spend the cash. In some cases, particularly amongst assisted IDP HHs which received cash monthly, women were tasked to collect and spend the cash.
One of the more interesting outcomes of the surveys was that both men and women identified “lack of femalefriendly facilities,” as a major issue in the cash collection process—perhaps an early indication that there may be some degree of acceptability of this function as one that women could perform moving forward.
Overall, cash was the preferred assistance modality over in-kind to support households in crisis; respondents recognized that the cash gave them purchasing power, choice and dignity to prioritize their individual household needs.
IDP respondents were the most satisfied with the mode of delivery used for the cash transfer: mobile money. Returnees, who collected their one-time cash package from ATM machines, expressed preference for cash-in-hand delivery, same as women heads of households.
An overwhelming majority of respondents in all groups reported receiving full information about the assistance, prior to receiving the cash. Respondents were able to explain why they were targeted to receive the assistance (and who were excluded), as well as the process of cash delivery and collection.
Key Recommendations
Taking into consideration some of the specific challenges highlighted in the assessment, following are some actionable recommendations:
Keeping in view the positive impacts of cash transfer program on IDPs, a transitional cash transfer programme for returnees should be designed specifically to provide them better opportunities for income generation and livelihood options. Consider collaborating with development partners.
Link cash transfer program with markets rehabilitation inside FATA.
Improve cash transfer programs and delivery mechanism through:
i. women-friendly services and facilities that will be in keeping with cultural norms and practices, but will facilitate their support role to the household in the collection of cash, or in some of the cases reported, in purchasing needed items in the marketplace
ii. basic learning/training module appropriate to the specific context of FATA women on how the cash transfer programme works, the cash delivery and collection process, including basic ATM and mobile phone operation; and separate hotline/ help line for men and women.
This will encourage recipients to report issues and contribute to improving programme design and delivery.