Read the full report - Danish Refugee Council

CASH PROGRAMME REVIEW FOR IDPs IN KABUL INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS 516. Securing cash distributionCash-based interventions in Afghanistan have mainly carried out distribution through fourmechanisms. This sub-section will provide an overview of the possible distribution mechanisms inthe KIS, weighing their comparative advantages and disadvantages.Hawala: Most of the current cash-transfer programmes in Afghanistan have been donethrough the Hawala system 42 , perceived as efficient and more secure for the staff. Animportant step is to evaluate the capacity of Hawala traders on the field to provide for theamount of money. Whereas this may represent an issue in remote rural areas, the urbanenvironment of Kabul presents favourable conditions to the development of a Hawalasystem of distribution. In the light of evolution of security conditions, if staff security isconsidered a significant factor in transportation of money to the camps, Hawala transferscan therefore represent a practical option in the KIS. In safe contexts, however, itsadvantages are reduced and create unnecessary additional costs as opposed to directdistribution of cash. It must be underlined that transfer through Hawala does not dispenseagency from ensuring the presence of their staff to oversee distribution.ACF’s method for distributing cash through hawala:The distribution is planned in advance, setting the venue, identifying the number of staff to be presentto validate the money distribution. Prior to distribution, a cash distribution plan is elaborated,identifying the role of ACF, that of the hawala dealer, that of the government, the role of beneficiariesand CDCs. Neither the community nor the government representatives are informed of thedistribution before the wake of the planned day for distribution. One day in advance, beneficiaries aregiven tickets mentioning their name, the amount of the transfer, the date and time of distribution.During distribution, the papers are checked for authenticity, in presence of a community leader,signed and divided in two parts: one stays with the beneficiary, and the other is given to thehawaladar, to be counted and identified after distribution by ACF. Staff is present at a distance andgovernment representatives are not allowed inside a determined perimeter.Vouchers: A recent study by Samuel Hall for WFP underlined that “in several respectsvouchers have proven to be a more transparent means of transaction than cash since theyare used within a limited geographical population and only in designated retail outlets.However, as the voucher system expands it could present the same risks of susceptibility todiversions as cash, with counterfeiting becoming an additional threat” 43 . Setting up a vouchersystem requires pre-arrangements, to mitigate risks of misuse including the development ofa black-market or, including printing to avoid replication, and contracts with local tradersafter an initial survey assessing the storage capacity of the shop, the capacity of the trader torespond to the demand, and the location of the shop. Regular monitoring of shopkeepersshould further be considered to ensure beneficiaries are not cheated on the amount of thevoucher- a danger enhanced by high rates of illiteracy. Agreements with banks further can besecured so that traders can redeem the vouchers received from beneficiaries, which is howWFP proceeded in Kabul. Alternatively, ACF’s staff distributed cash directly to theshopkeepers. In the case of the KIS, a food voucher system presents the direct advantage ofallowing people to address their food needs and increase dietary diversity. Lack ofdocumentation would however require the development of specific systems of identification.42 Hawala system is a traditional fund transferring system which widely used in Afghanistan, notably by Oxfam, PIN, UNICEFand ACF. (cf. Annex X)43 SAMUEL HALL CONSULTING (2013 upcoming), Cost of hunger study, Commissioned by WFP Afghanistan.