1

Overview of CARE’s voucher programme in Northern Syria

Documentation of Process and Lessons Learned

February 2016

Annex F1

2

Contents Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction to voucher modality ................................................................................................................................... 4

Overview of project implementation ............................................................................................................................. 6

1. Location selection ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

2. Beneficiary selection & registration...................................................................................................................... 7

3. Market assessments ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

4. Vendor selection & contracting............................................................................................................................... 8

5. Voucher distribution ................................................................................................................................................... 8

6. Voucher redemption .................................................................................................................................................... 9

7. Vendor payment ......................................................................................................................................................... 10

8. Monitoring & evaluation; Post Distribution Monitoring ........................................................................... 10

Lessons learned .................................................................................................................................................................... 12

i. Beneficiary feedback .................................................................................................................................................. 12

a. Project process .................................................................................................................................................. 12

b. Household impact ............................................................................................................................................ 12

ii. Efficiency and cost effectiveness ......................................................................................................................... 13

iii. Risk mitigation ........................................................................................................................................................... 14

iv. Conflict responsive programming ..................................................................................................................... 15

v. Integration .................................................................................................................................................................... 17

vi. Gender inclusive programming .......................................................................................................................... 18

vii. Programme duration and timing ...................................................................................................................... 18

viii. Organisational development ............................................................................................................................. 19

Conclusions & key recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 20

3

Background

Nearly five years of conflict in Syria has created the world’s largest humanitarian crisis with a

staggering 13.5 million people in the country now dependent on humanitarian aid, 8.7 million

people unable to meet their basic food needs and three out of four Syrians living in poverty1.

These severe and increasing impacts on individuals’ livelihoods and incomes is as a result of a

multitude of factors directly and indirectly linked to the conflict including displacement,

difficulties in accessing basic services such as healthcare and education, the destruction of

infrastructure and assets, and the lack of access to markets and centres of commerce. In addition,

as people’s ability to make a living has depleted so they have turned more and more to selling

their assets, which has depleted their resilience even further and forced increasing numbers of

people to be reliant on humanitarian assistance or negative coping mechanisms.

The Dutch MoFA Livelihood Restoration and Resilience Building Food Security and Livelihoods

(FSL) component aims to address some of these challenges. Under the context of the recently

formed Dutch Relief Alliance (DRA), eleven Dutch INGOs (partners) formed a consortium to

address gaps in the regional response to the Syrian crisis, building on each organization’s

comparative advantage, presence, expertise and capacity in the region, and focusing on displaced

people within Syria as well as refugees in Lebanon and Jordan.

As part of this project CARE designed and implemented a voucher programme in the north of

Syria with the aim of meeting vulnerable individuals’ basic food needs, as well as protecting, and

where possible, strengthening their livelihoods. This programme was designed in partnership

with a Syrian NGO, Shafak2, who was also the implementing partner for the activities. The

programme was undertaken in five villages in rural Idlib governorate, in the north-west of Syria,

an area that CARE and Shafak are both familiar with, having supported and implemented many

other activities in this area. It is also an area that has been acutely affected by the conflict in Syria;

under the control of various armed opposition groups it is the site of active conflict, shifting

frontlines and frequent aerial bombardments. As such there are severe humanitarian needs

amongst the population many of who have lost their homes, possessions and means in making a

living, and are increasingly reliant on the assistance of the various local and international non-

governmental organisations (NGOs) working in the area. The scope of this report is to

document the approach taken to implement this programme; based on a review of available

monitoring reports from CARE and Shafak, and interviews with staff from both organisations

the aim is to analyse the lessons learned from this intervention, and to identify examples of best

practice and opportunities to scale up.

1 https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/2016_hno_syrian_arab_republic.pdf 2 http://www.shafak.org/site/

4

Introduction to voucher modality

“Vouchers are the middle way between in-kind and cash. The voucher is not money but

gives the beneficiary some control like money. When you distribute food kits there are

definite items inside and the beneficiary has no chance to change these no matter what

their specific needs are. When we distribute vouchers the beneficiary has the choice to

select the vendor, and also the type and amount of items he needs.” Interview with Shafak

With the conflict in Syria now entering its sixth year, humanitarian organisations and donors

have been increasingly looking at ways to adapt programming to be more responsive to the

needs of a population facing a severe, protracted crisis. At the core of this is the need to

simultaneously find ways to build communities’ resilience and tackle growing aid dependency,

while also responding to acute emergency needs and frequent ‘crises within a crisis’, all within a

highly fragile and fractious security context. As a result, humanitarian organisations have

increasingly been looking at alternatives to providing in-kind assistance to people in need in Syria.

Although the delivery of in-kind assistance remains the most common form of aid assistance in

the country, with everything from food baskets to medical equipment, school books to tents

frequently being distributed, the delivery of in-kind aid can pose many challenges, including:

- Security: in-kind items are frequently brought cross-border from neighbouring countries or

cross-line from one part of Syria to another. Given the risks associated with the targeting of

aid convoys by parties to the conflict and the possibility of aid diversion, this poses security

concerns for the duration of the time the items are stored in warehouses and when they are

being transported from one location to another, as well as potential risks to beneficiaries

and humanitarian staff during distributions.

- Efficiency: moving goods cross-border or cross-line can be subject to serious delays, as a

result of border closures, active conflict and the requirement to obtain government

permissions. The storage and movement of these items can also be incredibly costly both

financially and in terms of human resources.

- Effectiveness: there are many communities where the delivery of in-kind aid items remains

essential for a variety of reasons. However, for those parts of the country where markets

are operating and populations still have reliable access to them, the provision of voucher or

cash-based support can help support the local economy while also offering beneficiaries more

autonomy and thus, dignity.

Although there is limited research on the implementation of cash or voucher modalities inside

Syria, cash assistance is generally assumed to be the form of support most preferred by

beneficiaries and local communities, offering them the greatest flexibility to determine how best

to meet their needs, while also giving significant benefits to local vendors and markets. However,

the volatile security situation, the difficulties in monitoring the delivery of unconditional cash

transfers and reticence amongst donors to fund cash programmes has led to vouchers emerging

as an alternative option. While not offering beneficiaries as much autonomy of choice as cash,

vouchers do still give more flexibility than in-kind items, and are understood to have benefits for

the wider community beyond those directly receiving them.

5

The use of vouchers is not without its challenges however. In order to pay the vendors taking

part there is still the need, for example, to transfer significant sums of money into Syria that is

logistically challenging and has significant security risks attached. There has also been criticism

that the voucher modality is vulnerable to fraudulent misuse and exploitation by the vendors,

with insufficient impacts for the most local vendors, benefitting instead the largest vendors who

may need the least support. The programme designed by CARE/Shafak has implemented a

number of methodologies that were intended to go some way to address these challenges and

which could be used to strengthen future voucher programmes including; price fixing during the

contracting stage with vendors, continual monitoring of the voucher redemption process and

targeting the level of support each beneficiary receives according to the amount of inputs they

need. There are still though many ways in which the modality could be further improved, which

this report seeks to identify.

The voucher programme implemented by CARE/Shafak was undertaken in five villages in rural

Idlib governorate in north-west Syria. While the two organisations had partnered on other

projects in the same general location, these specific villages were new areas for both

organisations to be working in. The voucher programme – as part of a wider Food Security and

Livelihoods (FSL) programme – had three distinct components that were all structured slightly

differently, and took place at different times. These were:

Food vouchers: Based on the agreed selection criteria, a total of 1,613 people from five villages

in Idleb governorate received vouchers in August 2015 to purchase food items from a pre-

determined list of eligible items.

Agricultural inputs vouchers: to be eligible to take part of the agricultural programme

beneficiaries needed to have between 5 and 30 donums of land (equivalent of between 5,000

square metres and 30,000 square metres.)

Distributions took place in five villages in Idleb governorate, with two rounds of distributions

taking place between October and December 2015. A total of 755 people benefitted from this

distribution with vouchers to be used for seeds, fertiliser and pesticides to allow farmers to plant

and harvest crops such as wheat. The total amount each beneficiary received was dependent on the

size of their land.

Livestock vouchers: 708 people were provided with vouchers allowing them to purchase sheep

($250) and feed ($50) in six villages in Idleb governorate between October and November 2015.

6

Overview of project implementation

1. Location selection

“For the agriculture programme we tried to select stable villages, although the reality is

that there are no completely stable areas in Syria.” Interview with Shafak

To determine the beneficiary caseload, CARE and their implementing partner, Shafak, went

through two-step targeting process at the geographical and household levels. The decision on

where to implement the voucher activities was determined by a number of factors:

- High levels of need, particularly in terms of food security and need for livelihoods support

- Presence of significant IDP populations

- Limited access to aid; some locations in north Syria are receiving substantial support from

NGOs while others have none, and it was determined that the project should attempt to

meet their needs

- Experience of making a living from agriculture and livestock; this meant that the areas should

have access to farm land, and/or local people should have experience of growing crops and/or

animal husbandry

- Access; it was important to balance the humanitarian need with the stability of and access to

the areas. Staff on the ground therefore conducted detailed security analysis to understand

the conflict dynamics in the area, and to choose areas that were relatively stable in this

specific case selecting villages that were subject to a localised truce which meant that the risk

Locations assessed according to levels needs of amongst population, populations’ access to

land and/or experience of livestock rearing and agriculture, and levels of conflict or

vulnerability to affects of the conflict.

7

of airstrikes was lower (although not obsolete) and that the host population was likely to be

stable (although still with the likelihood of influxes of IDPs into the area.)

Based on these criteria five villages in east Idlib countryside, north of Idlib city, were selected.

The intention was that all of the FSL activities under the Dutch MoFA grant would be

implemented in these locations, to ensure that beneficiaries had access to broad range of

integrated support. However, given the need for beneficiaries to have experience of livestock

management and space to keep animals for the livestock voucher activities, an additional location

was selected for this component of the programme.

2. Beneficiary selection & registration

The agreed beneficiary selection criteria were slightly different for each component of the

voucher programme (food, agricultural inputs and livestock) but generally focused on targeting

the most vulnerable individuals in the community; female-headed households, child-headed

households, low income households, households with chronically ill or disabled members, and

large households. CARE/Shafak initially used lists of vulnerable individuals in each location that

were held by the Local Council, and then verified these through household visits to ensure

individuals were eligible according to the specific project criteria in order to determine the final

beneficiary lists for each of the three voucher components.

After the selection of beneficiaries had been made, lists were posted in front of the Local

Councils and community members had three days to raise a complaint with the implementing

partner if they felt they met the eligibility criteria but had not been included in the project. The

implementing partner’s office in Turkey was responsible for monitoring that all complaints were

followed up, and according to Shafak all issues were adequately resolved in the field. At the time

of registration beneficiaries registered for the programme were all asked to sign a Memorandum

of Understanding (MoU) with Shakaf that outlined the rights and responsibilities of each party.

They were also provided with information regarding what items they were eligible to buy under

this project, a list and the locations of each vendor, and the price of each item they were selling.

3. Market assessments

Market assessments were conducted by staff on the ground to first determine whether the items

required for the various component of the voucher programme were available in the local

markets, and whether these markets could cope with an influx of vouchers over a relatively

Beneficiary lists were initially drawn up in partnership with Local Councils and then verified

by staff on the ground to ensure individuals met the vulnerability criteria.

Given the price volatility in Syria, market assessments were undertaken to determine the

most up to date price of required items under the various components of the voucher

8

short amount of time. Once this was determined, staff then assessed the average price for each

item that beneficiaries were permitted to purchase with their vouchers. This information was

used at the contracting stage to determine the price that each vendor would sell applicable goods

for in order to ensure they were receiving a fair price, and to prevent price hikes that would

negatively impact on beneficiaries.

4. Vendor selection & contracting

Prior to contracting, all vendors went through a thorough capacity assessment and due diligence

process. Initially Shafak staff spent time to explain the programme to the vendors outlining what

their responsibilities would be, what capacity they would need and what benefits and support

they could expect to receive. Interested vendors were initially require to undergo a capacity

assessment that considered their staff resources, warehouse capacity, customer base, payment

methods, delivery arrangements and the cost of the items for sale in their shops. Following this

assessment the details of vendors with suitable capacity were sent to CARE in Turkey where

specialist anti-terrorism software was used to check their details to determine whether they

were a suitable partner for the programme.

Following this clearance, Shafak staff in the field then negotiated the terms of the contract with

the individual vendors. It was at this stage that the prices for individual goods were also set. As

a result of the conflict goods in north Syria are subject to massive price rises due to high rates

of inflation and exchange rate fluctuations. Because of this, and to ensure certainty amongst

beneficiaries and prevent price hikes by vendors, prices for all goods eligible under the voucher

programme were set and clearly advertised by all vendors.

After the contracts had been signed vendors were also provided with guidance on the voucher

process, how they should redeem vouchers and prepare invoices, and details on how they would

be paid by Shafak. However, as is noted below the capacity of many vendors to adequately fulfil

this requirement was low and as such Shafak staff were present during the redemption process.

One suggestion from CARE staff for future programming therefore was to ensure that before

the contracting stage more effort is placed on conducting capacity assessments amongst vendors,

and obliging them to have sufficient human resources to fulfil the programme requirements if

they are to become a selected vendor.

5. Voucher distribution

Following a capacity assessment and due diligence process, all vendors signed a contract

with CARE/Shafak outlining roles and responsibilities of each party and setting the price for

each item eligible under the voucher programme.

Vouchers were distributed according to a clear distribution plan, with beneficiaries of the

agriculture programme receiving an amount in proportion to the amount of land they had

(up to a maximum of 30 donums.)

9

The vouchers that were used in this project were paper vouchers that were designed and printed

in Turkey. Wherever possible if a reliable printer (or supplier) can be found in Syria then this is

the preference, however, for the requirements of this programme and because of the locations

where the activities were being undertaken, it was decided that the printing should be done in

Turkey and the vouchers brought across the border. According to interviews with Shafak staff

each voucher was designed to prevent their fraudulent use and included a hologram, unique

serial number, Shafak’s logo, and details such as the amount that each voucher was worth and

the time period for when it could be redeemed.

The distribution of the vouchers took place according to a clear distribution plan. Two days

before the distributions were planned, staff from the implementing partner visited each Local

Council to confirm with them the time, location and beneficiaries of the distribution, enabling

the Local Councils to then communicate this information to the relevant community members.

On the day of the distribution each beneficiary was asked to come to the distribution point with

personal identification so that they could receive their vouchers. Beneficiaries received more

than one voucher as they were provided with vouchers in a variety of denominations, and at the

distribution the unique serial numbers of all the vouchers each beneficiary received were

recorded by Shafak staff alongside signatures from the beneficiaries to note that they had

received these vouchers.

Shafak staff interviewed for this report highlighted that one key difference in the way vouchers

were distributed in this project compared to other voucher programmes in north Syria is that

the value of the vouchers that each individual framer received carried according to the amount

of agricultural land they had. For example, in other programmes beneficiaries would receive

voucher totalling a set amount - $100 for example – no matter whether they had 5 donums or

30 donums. In this project the amount increased according to the amount of land they had, up

to a maximum of 30 donums, to enable each beneficiary to purchase items at the scale they

required for their assets. This was note to be a well-received and important modification

according to staff and beneficiary feedback.

6. Voucher redemption

It was only possible for beneficiaries to begin redeeming their goods at selected vendors once

the distribution of all vouchers had been completed. This was because the staff responsible for

monitoring the distribution were also required to be present in the shops with the vendors

when the vouchers were being redeemed. The decision to have staff with the vendors during

redemption was as a result of the experiences of the first round of the food voucher component

when vendors made several errors during the preparation of invoices. Therefore, staff members

were present in the shop to check the serial numbers of the vouchers against the beneficiary

lists, verify the beneficiaries’ ID information, and record the necessary information regarding

items purchased for invoicing.

Beneficiaries had a set period during which they could redeem their goods from participating

vendors. Staff were present during this process to ensure all necessary information was

accurately recorded.

10

The distribution and redemption of the vouchers for the different components of the programme

occurred at slightly different times. For example, agricultural vouchers were distributed and

could be redeemed in two batches, the first to coincide with the planting season (when farmers

could obtain seeds and fertiliser) and the second part way through the growing season (when

they could obtain fertiliser and pesticide.) But because of the need to have staff present in the

shops, during redemption the vouchers were only valid for a period of 2-3 weeks.

As stated previously, prices for the various items that beneficiaries could purchase had been

fixed at the time of contracting with the vendors. These prices were determined according to

market assessments in each location, resulting in some minor discrepancies from one area to

another. The pricelist covering each eligible item was posted in the window of the show so that

all beneficiaries could be assured of the price of what they were buying ahead of time.

7. Vendor payment

Once the vendors had provided Shafak with the invoices for the vouchers received and goods

provided, steps could be made to arrange for payment. Because of the inherent security risks of

bringing large sums of money from Turkey into Syria, and of transporting this money within Syria,

the decision was taken to make the payments via the hawala system. In this regard the risks

associated with bringing money into Syria and delivering it to each vendor was transferred to

the hawala, as opposed to the implementing partner. However, according to feedback from

CARE and Shafak staff, it is this component of the modality that poses some of the most

significant challenges for the scale up of voucher programming inside Syria.

8. Monitoring & evaluation; Post Distribution Monitoring

Monitoring and evaluation was an on-going throughout the implementation of the entire

programme starting with the verification of beneficiary lists, followed by monitoring of the

distribution process for the vouchers themselves and including the redemption of the vouchers

at the vendors. During these steps Shakak staff were on the ground monitoring various aspects

of the process including the time beneficiaries had to wait for their vouchers/goods, the safety

and security of beneficiaries at the distribution points/shops, the way staff/vendors treated the

beneficiaries, and beneficiaries’ understanding of the process. They were also actively monitoring

the vendors to ensure that there was no change to the agreed prices and that all invoices and

documentation was being correctly filled in.

Following the completion of the voucher redemption process and submission of accurate

records, vendors were paid what they were owed through the use of the hawala system.

Monitoring and evaluation occurred throughout the project cycle, from the verification of

beneficiaries, to monitoring of the voucher distribution process and including Post

Distribution Monitoring.

11

In addition to monitoring the voucher redemption process at all vendors, Shafak also conducted

Post Distribution Monitoring for the food, agriculture and livestock vouchers to gather further

beneficiary and vendor feedback. The response from both parties was largely positive with the

majority of individuals clearly understanding the process, receiving a sufficient amount of

vouchers and having few difficulties in redeeming the vouchers they were given. At the time of

writing this report further evaluation of the impact of the voucher inputs had not been conducted

for the agriculture and livestock activities, largely because the harvest for the crops planted with

support of this project is not due until later on in 2016.

12

Lessons learned

i. Beneficiary feedback

a. Project process Available feedback from beneficiaries has shown that they were largely pleased with the way in

which the activities were managed, with all those surveyed reporting that the distribution

process of the vouchers was ‘good or very good’, and that they were satisfied with the distance

from their home to the vendors as well as the time that they had to wait to receive their items

at the shops.3 The majority of beneficiaries of the agriculture and livestock vouchers reported

being satisfied with the overall project process with 88.8% stating that the project was clear and

they understood what was happening, and 97.3% stating that the voucher redemption process

was easy and made sense4. In addition, the majority of beneficiaries stated that the price of items

they were purchasing was similar to those in non-participating shops5 and that they were satisfied

with the selection of the vendors taking part in the project.6

b. Household impact One of the major benefits of the voucher modality identified by both CARE and Shafak during

interviews conducted for this report was the additional choice it offered beneficiaries in

comparison to the provision of in-kind assistance. Staff were keen to highlight that this allowed

beneficiaries to choose items that most reflected their needs, but that it also offered them more

dignity than standard aid distributions.

Available post distribution monitoring information show that after receiving the vouchers, all the

beneficiaries stated they were able to buy new types of food items that they had not been able

to afford to purchase before, and 35% of the interviewees said that they bought items to store

for use over the next few months. However, the monitoring data available does not reveal if the

items that beneficiaries purchased met their full dietary needs and how long these food items

lasted for in reality. Understanding this would help ensure that future multi-round food voucher

distributions could be more effectively planned.

With regards to the distribution of food vouchers, feedback from beneficiaries was largely

positive with 87.5% of beneficiaries stated that the amount of vouchers they received was

adequate to their family size7. The relatively high proportion of beneficiaries who felt that the

amount was insufficient can be attributed to the fact that value of vouchers received by each

family was not proportionate to the size of the number of family members. However, this was

3 ‘92.5 % of the respondents did not face any difficulties in using the vouchers at the shops, 5 % stated the shops were very crowded, and 2.5 % had to wait for long periods of time to receive their items.’ Shafak Post Distribution Monitoring report – Food Vouchers 4 Shafak Agricultural Beneficiaries and Vendors PDM report 5 ‘The majority of the respondents (95 %) declared that the prices of food items were similar to those in non-participating shops, while 5 % said that they were charged higher prices in participating shops compared to other shops.’ Shafak Post Distribution Monitoring report – Food Vouchers 6 91.3% of respondents said that they were happy with the selection of shops provided and 8.8 % of them were neutral. 7 ‘The majority of the respondents said that the number of vouchers received was similar to the number of members in their families, although 12.5 % said that the number of vouchers was not compatible with the number of members in their families.’ Shafak Post Distribution Monitoring report – Food Vouchers

13

overcome during the agricultural voucher distributions when the amount received by each

farmer was proportionate to the amount of land they had (up to a maximum threshold of 30

donums.) Presumably as a result of price fixing at the contracting stage following market

assessments, the majority also felt that they got a fair market price for the items they purchased,

with only 8.1% of beneficiaries of the agricultural vouchers stating that they did not get a fair

market price8. In terms of how the items were going to be used, 91% of beneficiaries state they

would sell the crops, 13% said they would use the crops to feed their family and 2% of

beneficiaries said they would keep the seeds for next year.

The stated objective of the voucher programme according to CARE staff was to meet

beneficiaries’ immediate need for food assistance and to protect, and strengthen, beneficiaries’

livelihoods. However, at the time of writing this report it had not been possible to conduct

monitoring activities as to the actual impact on household’s food security status or livelihoods

as a result of the voucher support. What feedback from beneficiaries that was available

highlighted that individuals felt that the design of the programme was largely appropriate to the

context with beneficiaries being able to easily and quickly collect and redeem their vouchers,

and most stating that the amount of vouchers that they received was suitable for them to meet

their needs for either food or agricultural support.

Available beneficiary feedback showed that, despite the assumption being that vouchers are

preferable because they offer increased flexibility and autonomy of choice for beneficiaries, there

is surprisingly little difference in the preference of beneficiaries for either vouchers, cash or in-

kind assistance; 25% of beneficiaries state that they preferred to receive cash assistance, 30% of

beneficiaries stated that they preferred to receive assistance in kind, and 36% state they

preferred to receive vouchers9. This feedback reflects what staff mentioned in their interviews,

that it is vital to ensure that time is taken at the design stage of the programme to ensure that

the support that is provided reflects beneficiaries’ actual needs, both in terms of the types and

amount of support they require.

ii. Efficiency and cost effectiveness An identified benefit of the voucher modality for northern Syria, that was highlighted during staff

interviews, is that there is no need for items to be brought cross-line from other parts of the

country or cross-border from neighbouring countries, which can be very slow, subject to access

constraints, highly risky and costly. Not providing items in-kind also means that there are no

additional costs associated with the need to safely store items before distribution.

On the other hand, one of the criticisms that has been levelled at voucher programmes inside

Syria in particular is that they can be costly in terms of the time and effort needed to set up the

programme systems, the resources needed to ensure their smooth running and the financial

costs associated with implementing the modality. CARE staff interviewed for this report also

raised some similar concerns, stating that not only was the set up phase of the voucher

8 Shafak Agricultural Beneficiaries and Vendors PDM report 9 Shafak Post Distribution Monitoring report – Food Vouchers

14

programme resource intensive but the whole approach required significant resources,

particularly in terms of human resource capacity. For example, the identified need to have Shafak

staff present when vouchers were being redeemed and to physically check all the hard copies of

the paperwork before vendors could be paid, meant that there was a significant human resource

burden throughout the duration of the project cycle that would need to be addressed in order

for the model to be scaled up in terms of geographical scope, number of beneficiaries and

vendors, and most importantly the number of rounds (i.e. multi-round voucher distributions as

opposed to one-off distributions.) CARE staff did note however that the burden was

considerably less for the agriculture and livestock voucher inputs where beneficiaries were

purchasing three or four items, than for the food voucher component when they were

purchasing approximately 25 items that exponentially increased the amount of paperwork during

the redemption phase. In this respect certain types of voucher activities could be said to be more

efficient than others, especially when analysed alongside the evidence of the longer-term impact

for beneficiaries.

It is possible that some of the challenges with regards to the capacity of vendors and the need

for hands on support during the redemption process could be addressed by a combination of

more thorough capacity assessments prior to vendor selection and by ensuring future voucher

programmes are multi-round, thus ensuring greater opportunity for individuals to understand

and comply with the process. A potentially more effective solution however has already been

identified by CARE who are planning to pilot the use of e-vouchers in north Syria, an approach

that will significantly reduce the burden on vendors to fill in detailed paper work and thus the

need to have staff present at all shops during the redemption process, while also allowing staff

access to real time monitoring data and improving the process of vendor payments.

iii. Risk mitigation The security situation in north Syria is highly volatile and presents significant challenges for

humanitarian actors. Given the disregard for international humanitarian law by all parties to the

conflict, humanitarian staff, assets and programmes have not been immune from the effects of

the conflict and remain at risk. In this context the provision of vouchers as an alternative to in-

kind assistance negates much of the risk associated with moving goods and staff cross-border

and cross-line in Syria. However, it is not a risk free approach. For example, post-distribution

monitoring following the provision of food vouchers as part of CARE’s voucher programme

showed that 11.3 % of the interviewees perceived that there were risks to the safety of children,

elderly women or people with disabilities during the distribution of vouchers, with the main risks

related to the existence of aircraft and the risk of aerial bombardment.

Thankfully staff noted that there were no significant incidents during the distribution or

redemption of the vouchers, and also highlighted that several mitigating actions were taken in

response to changing conflict dynamics on the ground. These included, postponing the date of

distributions as a result of an increase in active conflict in the area and moving distributions to

the evening time when the perceived risk of aerial shelling was reduced. The lack of tangible

assets to be distributed ensured that these changes to the time and date of the distributions was

feasible, while the fact that beneficiaries had a relatively long time period (approximately two

15

weeks) over which they could redeem their items lowered the risks associated with large groups

of people gathering together at the vendors.

One of the greatest risks identified with the voucher modality used in this programme was the

need to transfer cash into Syria in order to pay the vendors. Because of the lack of a functional

electronic banking system or regulated cash transfer system, at present only two options exist

for getting large sums of cash into Syria; physically carrying cash across the border or transferring

cash via informal hawala networks10. In this case of this voucher programme the decision was

taken by CARE and Shafak to utilise the hawala system to move money into Syria, with the

hawala responsible for paying the individual vendors upon completion of the appropriate

paperwork. This removed the risk associated with moving large sums of cash within Syria from

the two NGOs and their staff but did not however remove the risk associated with the

misappropriation of these funds as a result of the heightened and fragile security situation in the

operational area.

In addition to the security and fiduciary risks associated with the voucher modality, one of the

most common concerns levelled towards this type of programme is that it is susceptible to fraud

or manipulation, particularly in terms of the inflation of prices by vendors. This programme

managed to mitigate this risk by fixing the price of individual items in US dollars at the contracting

stage with vendors, following extensive market assessments. The price of all items was clearly

displayed in USD in all the shop windows, and the vouchers received by beneficiaries were

marked in USD so they could clearly understand their worth. While feedback from staff and

vendors showed that this helped mitigate fraud, CARE staff interviewed for this report

highlighted that this approach would prove more challenging for any future longer-term, multi-

round voucher distributions given the highly volatile exchange rates in north Syria and frequent

prices changes. As a result it would be important for there to be regular and consistent price

monitoring in the local markets to ensure that voucher amounts and the set price of items are

reflective of the local market.

iv. Conflict responsive programming “In the first phase of the agriculture project we distributed to 755 people, but only 754

people redeemed their vouchers. When our team went to the house of the 755th person

we found out that the family had moved, perhaps because of the shelling and airstrikes.

We don’t know.” Interview with Shafak

Syria is widely recognised as the most complex humanitarian operating environment in the world

with high levels of active conflict, frequently shifting frontlines, a lack of protection for

humanitarian personnel and programmes, and high levels of displacement all contributing to a

situation where it is immensely challenging to deliver aid to those who need it. As a result, many

humanitarian organisations have proposed that programmes be funded and established in a way

that is flexible, allowing activities to move with populations or respond to the emergence of

acute emergencies. They have also called for programmes to both address both the immediate

10 Hawala is an alternative remittance channel that exists outside of traditional banking systems. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hawala.asp

16

emergency needs of the most vulnerable conflict-affected populations, and also longer-term

programmes that aim to reduce aid dependency and build resilience, which could include voucher

programming.

Voucher programmes require there to be active markets where suitable items are available to

buy and which can absorb the influx of vouchers. Their use for livelihoods support, particularly

with regards to agricultural inputs, also requires that the beneficiary population is stable and not

prone to frequent displacement. It was therefore crucial at the start of this programme for Shafak

staff on the ground to conduct robust analysis to determine locations that were most suitable

for the proposed activities, including those areas where the likelihood of mass displacement as

a result of the conflict was least likely and where there were still functional markets.

The need to undertake these activities may appear to be reflective of voucher programming’s

inability to be responsive to the changing conflict dynamics on the ground. However, according

to staff interviews this programme did utilise a number of approaches to ensure that it could be

as responsive as possible. As an example, the programme was designed so that beneficiaries had

the choice of which vendor to purchase their items from, having been provided with a list of all

participating shops with their vouchers. This ensured beneficiaries could purchase items from

the vendor that was most convenient and suitable for them, but also meant that if a vendor was

forced to close as a result of the conflict beneficiaries were still able to purchase their items

from elsewhere.

CARE staff interviewed for this report stated that depending on what the vouchers were

intended to support, there was greater or less opportunities to be responsive to conflict

dynamics. For example, because of the need for beneficiaries to have access to land for the

agricultural vouchers it would have been impossible to quickly change locations according to

changing conflict dynamics. However, it was possible for displaced people who had recently

arrived in the target area with their livestock to benefit from the livestock vouchers and support.

CARE staff also highlighted that they believed that shifting from paper vouchers to e-vouchers

in the future would allow the modality to be more conflict responsive as beneficiaries could take

their e-vouchers, which would hold all their details, with them in the event they need to move

and CARE could thus more easily expand or change the participating vendors as a result of

where populations had moved to.

However, even this increased flexibility would not work if no markets are functioning and

vouchers may not be of use to the most vulnerable individuals with no assets and in need of

immediate assistance. A key lesson learned identified by CARE and Shafak staff from this

programme therefore was the provision of in-kind food baskets alongside the distribution of

vouchers. This was an additional activity that had not been originally planned but came about

due to the availability of some surplus funds; the timing was opportune as according to Shafak a

large number of displaced people had recently arrived in the target area from western Aleppo

countryside and were in urgent need of support. The provision of these in-kind baskets therefore

met some of the needs for people who would not have been able to benefit from the voucher

17

programme, which in turn relieved some pressure on the host community – many of them

voucher recipients – who were attempting to support these new arrivals.

v. Integration “Many people were considering selling their land, animals, and agricultural materials

because do not have the financial support to cultivate and raise their animals. If they had

done this, they may have had to leave their home and would have become dependent on

humanitarian aid. This is unnecessary and with a relatively small amount of support we

can help ensure people remain self sufficient despite the challenging circumstances they

are living in.” Interview with Shafak

According to interviews with CARE staff, assessments in the target areas showed that there was

a need for more sustained support beyond the provision of in-kind assistance in order to protect

individuals’ assets and livelihoods, and where possible to strengthen existing income generating

opportunities. As staff explained, the agriculture and livestock vouchers helped support the value

chain at a certain point, however, in order for the full impact of these to be felt there was also

a need to understand what additional resources or support were needed to allow the assets

they provided to be productive. For example, in addition to providing agricultural input vouchers,

activities were also undertaken in the same areas to rehabilitate agricultural roads to give farmers

access to their land even during the winter months and to improve access to markets to sell

their produce, while those farmers who received the livestock vouchers could also benefit from

a mobile vaccination clinic to protect their animals against disease.

CARE staff interviewed for this report identified this intervention as one of the most effective

of the programme; targeting voucher beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries alike it ensured that

individuals’ animals were kept healthy to ensure longer-term benefits. As a CARE staff member

explained, ‘It was important to provide a comprehensive package of support. It is not enough to just

provide agricultural inputs if the farmer cannot have access to their land for example. This programme

is focused on livelihoods protection, there is a limited to what we can do, but we do need to ensure that

we are providing sufficient support to actually realise a benefit for participants.’

While highlighting the importance of these complementary activities to the success of the

voucher programme, staff also identified the need to further integrate the voucher modality with

additional activities designed to strengthen livelihoods, for example, vocational training, the

rehabilitation of damaged infrastructure, and support for small businesses as well as potentially

expanding the scope of the voucher programming to cover support in additional sectors. The

experiences of the voucher programme showed that the success of these vouchers is greatest

when viewed holistically. However, ensuring that all beneficiaries’ needs are met in this way

requires in-depth needs assessments prior to the programme starting to ensure a thorough

understanding of the needs and challenges in each specific context and locality.

18

vi. Gender inclusive programming CARE staff interviewed for this report stated that ensuring greater female-inclusion was one of

the weakest areas of the voucher programme. Partly this was assessed to be as a result of the

cultural context with staff stating that in the area it is highly unusual for women to be living on

their own and heading a household, with women who had lost their husbands or fathers typically

living with extended family members. As such it proved difficult to specifically target female-

headed households or vulnerable women, as most often male relatives would receive the

vouchers on their behalf. Greater efforts to access vulnerable women and to understand their

needs were therefore identified as a key lesson for future programming.

Despite the observations above, staff interviewed for this report also stated that in Syria there

are many income-generating activities that can be conducted by women. While agricultural

activities in the target area of north Syria are typically managed by men, women have traditionally

had responsibility for animal husbandry, as well as running small businesses, teaching, providing

paid child care and many other activities that would benefit from voucher inputs. Staff highlighted

the huge scope to address women’s specific needs when it comes to income generating support,

and emphasised that this programme did not go far enough to tailor its support to meet their

needs. Future voucher programming should therefore invest in better understanding women’s

role in the household and local economies, and what specific activities could best be focused

towards their greater inclusion in voucher programming.

As well as the ability of women to benefit from the voucher activities, staff were also asked to

reflect on whether there were any specific risks posed to women as a result of the way the

voucher programme was designed. With the exception of the post distribution monitoring

feedback from the food voucher programme that identified risks to women (and other vulnerable

groups) during the distribution of vouchers, no specific challenges to women were identified

through post-distribution monitoring or interviews with staff. Staff noted that the distances and

the modality of receiving and redeeming vouchers allowed women to actively participate without

facing heightened risks.

vii. Programme duration and timing Interviews with Shafak staff for this report highlighted both a need to ensure longer project

cycles and also to carefully consider the timing of project activities. In reference to the second

point staff explained, for example, that the main crop that the agricultural inputs voucher

supported was wheat that needs to be planted in October – November, thus farmers needed

their seeds and fertiliser prior to this time. However, not all crops are planted at the same time

and so the timing for voucher distributions must be tailored to be in advance of the planting

season in the specific location where the activities are taking in order to be successful.

Staff noted that the timing for this voucher programme worked well, allowing farmers to plant

their seeds on time, however, challenges with the duration of the programme of the programme

were identified. As the programme was less than a year, finishing in February 2016, farmers who

had received support had not yet harvested their crops by the time of the end of the project.

This presented concerns amongst staff with regards to how they would be able to effectively

19

measure the outcome of the project in terms of crop yield, profit, how the crops were utilised

and other factors such as access to markets. Recommendations from the staff interviewed were

thus to ensure that the timing of future programmes was suitable for the specific activities and

context, and that the duration of further voucher programmes is set at a minimum of 12 months

to allow for support throughout the entire harvest cycle.

viii. Organisational development While for CARE this was not the first time to deliver vouchers inside Syria, this was a new

modality for their implementing partner, Shafak. Interviews with staff from both organisations

stated that the experience presented a sharp learning curve for all parties but that in the long-

term it had also helped strengthen their approach to both voucher programming and livelihoods

support in north Syria. Staff from Shafak explained how the experience of implementing this

programme had helped to position Food Security and Livelihoods (FSL) programming at the core

of the organisation’s programming, and helped leverage internal support to move forward with

expanding their FSL portfolio. The experience also helped to position the organisation as a sector

leader amongst international and national actors implementing voucher programming in north

Syria with one international organisation already keen to replicate certain approaches devised

by Shafak in response to challenges on the ground, most notably the practice of distributing

vouchers at an amount proportionate to the amount of land held by each beneficiary.

However, as with other programmatic approach where Syrian organisations act as implementing

partners for international organisations, the operational risk to staff, assets and projects is

disproportionately held by the Syrian partner. As a result of this, and the shrinking humanitarian

space in north Syria that means even more projects will be implemented by Syrian organisations

going forward, it is important to ensure that international partners are providing sufficient

mentoring support to their Syrian counterparts. Both CARE and Shafak staff acknowledged that

there was more that could have been done to utilise this programme as an opportunity to

provide capacity building support to Shafak, and highlighted the need to prioritise support

particularly in terms of procurement and logistics procedures, donor relations, and reporting as

a larger part of any future programmes.

20

Conclusions & key recommendations Ensure adequate context analysis is conducted prior to the finalization of the programme

design to understand impact of conflict in the target areas, and to design programmatic

approaches to mitigate risks associated with the conflict as far as possible.

Move from one size fits all approach to addressing unique needs of communities and

individuals; this includes for example, providing different voucher amounts depending on the

size of the individuals’ agricultural land as well as analysing the other specific needs and

challenges that might prevent the voucher programme from being successful, such as lack of

year round access by farmers to their land, and seeking to address these through

complementary activities.

Ensure interventions are planned in response to specific income generation / livelihoods

needs on the ground, including planning to integrate vouchers with other activities to ensure

the maximum impact of the voucher inputs, such as, ensuring livestock vouchers are

complemented by a vaccination programme. Using vouchers as an entry point to

communities, look for opportunities to integrate food and livelihood activities with other

sectors, both by utilizing the voucher modality to fund activities in other sectors.

Move to e-voucher programming where possible to allow for a more flexible approach in

order to more effectively respond to changing conflict dynamics and reduce the resource

burden on the implementing partner.

To meet the needs of those unable to participate in the voucher programme including those

with no land, no experience of animal husbandry, displaced people and female headed-

households, complement voucher programming with the distribution of in-kind items to

provide immediate, emergency support to the most vulnerable to meet their needs and

reduce pressure on others in the community to provide them with support.

Expand the activities supported by vouchers to allow support for alternative income

generating activities, specifically focusing on ensuring that support is tailored to meet the

unique livelihoods related needs of women.

Project cycle and duration must take the agricultural season into account, noting that this

may be different in different locations and for different crops, and be of sufficient length to

ensure appropriate monitoring after the harvest period.

Ensure greater focus on capacity building and mentoring activities for Syrian implementing

partner organisations to help strengthen the sustainability of the Syrian humanitarian

response, allowing for Syrian organisations to take the lead in implementing longer-term

resilience programmes as well as the provision of immediate humanitarian assistance.