Haiti Earthquake Reconstruction Knowledge Notes from ... - GFDRR

44 | Haiti Earthquake Reconstruction
rience indicates geographic dispersion of the most
affected and vulnerable populations. Areas deemed
“less affected” often include households who have
experienced extensive damage. If targeting occurs
at the household (not geographic) level, then clear,
simple, and verifiable criteria should guide the eligibility
process. Typically this includes those who have
been displaced and are living in temporary shelters
or relief camps, as well as those headed by an elderly
person or having experienced the death of the
main income earner—the especially vulnerable. Additional
criteria for identifying the most vulnerable
should be developed in close collaboration with
the authorities and informed by a careful Damage
and Needs Assessment. Careful assessments may
be necessary prior to implementation and initially a
combination of geographic, demographic, and selftargeting
methods may be preferable until a good
household targeting system can be built and effectively
reach vulnerable populations over the longer
term. Household-level targeting systems have been
effective in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka, yet it is important
to recognize the challenges of implementing
such a targeting system in emergency situations
like the one Haiti faces.
Targeting Issues: Efficient Implementation. Eligibility
criteria should not be administratively burdensome
to implement. A quick and careful review
of the presence or lack of cash grant programs in
Haiti could help reveal whether communities or local
authorities are well placed to identify beneficiary
households for efficient grant implementation.
However, since communities may have been fractured
and scattered in the aftermath of the earthquake,
efficient targeting could be challenging.
Faced with a situation similar to the Haitian context,
Pakistan’s authorities selected beneficiaries in
affected areas through a simple targeting form. As
information was collected, it was reviewed against
eligibility conditions, and households were selected
for the program. A grievance process was implemented
to ensure that anyone who felt wrongly
excluded could appeal and have the case investigated
by local government officials. This process
did take time, so implementation was phased in
gradually. In contrast, in Sri Lanka, where a well-established
national safety net program existed prior
to the tsunami, community officers who facilitated
the national program were entrusted to identify eligible
households in affected areas. To ensure minimal
exclusion of affected areas and households, a
monitoring survey was conducted at the outset to
reassess the program and make midcourse corrections
to improve targeting.
Ultimately, the success of a cash transfer program
depends on clear implementation arrangements. In
Pakistan, the first step was developing a comprehensive
manual to specify eligibility criteria, rules
for validation and appeals, as well as the accountabilities
of different tiers of government.
Determine the Amount and Duration of Payments.
The amount of cash assistance provided
to each household is always a difficult parameter
to set—balancing between needs, resource availability,
and labor disincentives. In Pakistan, US$50
cash per month per household was granted to eligible
households. The amount was established by
calculating the needs of an average household of
seven. The government decided that the payment
would be uniform for all beneficiary households
and would continue for six months. In Sri Lanka,
US$50 per month per household was granted for
four months. In post disaster settings, at least initially,
needs can be quite high due to significant
asset losses and disrupted or halted income flows.
The cost of the food basket like the poverty line
has been used as past reference points. Paying the
whole cost of living for all affected families, undoubtedly,
is very costly with large-scale disasters.
(The pressure on resources in Haiti will be much
more marked than in Pakistan or Turkey where the
earthquake affected a smaller segment of the population.)
Moreover, such high payments assume
that families are unable to earn any income, an
extreme situation which was true for some initially
but which will be less true as families reestablish
income streams, even if not as high as prior to the