Introduction and Objectives

The main purpose of the present study is to examine the process of targeting, selection, and benefit distribution associated with the FFW, TR and VGF programs. The goal is to enhance the contribution of these programs to improving food security and reducing poverty. The specific objectives of the study are to: 

•    Review the targeting, selection and disbursement process of FFW, TR and VGF programs.

•    Provide a comprehensive analysis on different aspects of the program design and implementation process of the selected programs including beneficiary selection, targeting efficiency and leakage in distribution.

•    Identify the extent of leakage and other weaknesses in the programs with a view to drawing necessary policy implications. 

The present study has examined the efficiency of three major safety net programs, e.g. FFW, TR and VGF. The study focus was directed toward assessing the appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of the activities implemented under the three programs.

Methodology

The present research has been carried out based on a survey of 815 wage employment beneficiaries of FFW, and 1085 beneficiaries of TR. Similarly, 820 VGF beneficiaries and 410 non-beneficiaries (control group) have been covered. The survey was conducted in 7 divisions of the country- covering 54 districts, 134 Upazilas and 336 unions

Primary data was collected through a set of structured questionnaire schedules canvassed among wage employment beneficiaries (WBs) of FFW and TR programmes and individual beneficiaries/food grain recipients under the VGF programme. In addition, information was collected through in-depth interviews of key informants (KII) of District, Upazila and Union level officials-DRRO, UNO, PIO, Upazila/Union parishad Chairman, and PIC-Chairman. The findings of the quantitative data has been supplemented by qualitative data including observations of the study team during field visits. 

Key Findings

The FFW and TR programmes started with the twin objectives of providing wage employment and food security along with creating durable community assets. The present evaluation study carried out in different regions of the country reveals a mixed picture of outcomes. The FFW and TR programmes have succeeded in creating several lakh man days of employment (temporary) every year in the country (even after discounting for possible leakages). 

Substantial proportions of the wage employment beneficiary respondents belong to the below poverty level (BPL) income category. Being a self-targeted programme, all FFW and TR wage employment beneficiaries need not necessarily belong to the BPL category. However, if we consider US$1.25 per head per day as the cut-off point, then almost all households belong to this category. However, if we compare against the benchmark of US$ 1 per capita per day, then about 95 per cent of the wage employment beneficiary respondents turn out to be poor. Thus, one might say the self-targeting nature of the programme has by and large covered the poor. Our survey was, of course, not intended to investigate whether all the poor households have been able to benefit from FFW/TR, that is, about the so-called exclusion error. Informal discussions also reveal that people who are willing to do such works, most of them got an opportunity to work and benefit. 

According to the FGDs with community leaders, the FFW/TR programme has been successful in creating seasonal employment for large numbers of people. The programme also generates indirect benefits for the people living in areas in which the FFW/TR schemes are undertaken. Indirect benefits under FFW include: improved production in the agriculture sector, which benefits both producers and consumers; enhanced marketing opportunities, as a result of road construction and rehabilitation; improved transportation making it easier to go to markets, health centres and educational institutions; and reduced physical damage of crops and loss of property and human lives as a result of structures that hold back floods. The direct and indirect benefits are significant. Over the long term, these accomplishments represent faster rate of economic growth, contributing to food security at both the household and national levels.

However, there are considerable leakages and weaknesses in the current FFW/TR programme. The primary cause seems to be inadequate transparency and accountability at various levels. The rigorous guidelines issued by the MDMR/DDM apply equally to all Upazilas while ground realities differ substantially. Besides, local governments have no autonomy in decision making primarily due to the influence of the MPs. All this contributes to the uncertainty of transparency and accountability.

The VGF programme is supposed to target the rural poorest, landless and disaster affected households. The study explored that most of the recipients are below the poverty line, without land or regular source of income, but some of the excluded non-beneficiaries are more deserving. Landlessness and insufficient income due to no or irregular earning source are the main characteristics of the general beneficiaries. 

It emerged during FGD that some of the selection criteria appear to be ambiguous and not clearly defined –‘those with low and irregular income’ are difficult to assess because these are not well defined. Along with landownership and occupational status, other socio-economic characteristics, i.e. income, housing condition, food availability, gender of the household head etc. are also important to indentify the poorest households.

Greater clarity about the eligibility criteria is likely to help improve the chances of the poor being selected, through wider access to unbiased public information about eligibly and entitlement. Transparency in the selection process is likely to improve targeting of the eligible poor and vulnerable, and may also minimize the shortfall/leakage in the distribution.

Inadequacy of the number of recipients and insufficient amount of benefits/food grain provided under this programme is the main weakness. Sometimes the disbursement procedure does not follow the proper time schedule. Another weakness of the VGF programme is the weighing system at distribution sites, traditional weighing technique is used instead of using standard weighing equipment. 

Although it has been observed that in terms of all the indicators considered–landholding, food security, housing condition, monthly income–the VGF beneficiaries appear to be relatively better off compared with the non-beneficiary households; the general record of VGF targeting is quite good. On the whole, it can be said that VGF beneficiaries belong to households with no land, low levels of income and consumption; most of whom live in unsuitable housing conditions.  

Sponsor: Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief (MoDMR), GoB.

Team Members:

1.    Dr. Mustafa K. Mujeri

2.    Dr. M. A. Mannan

3.    Dr. Abdul Hye Mondal

4.    Ms. Badrunessa Ahmed

5.    Mr. Iqbal Hossain

6.    Ms. Siban Shahana

7.    Ms. Mitali Parvin