The Akosombo and Kpong Dams spillage by the Volta River Authority (VRA), according to the National Disaster Management Organization (NADMO), is said to have affected about nine districts in Ghana.
About 26,000 people in Mepe and other parts of North Tongu District alone are said to have been displaced.
Over the past month, the media, NADMO, corporate Ghana, religious bodies, international organizations, NGOs and individuals have shown commitment to providing food supplies and relief items to most affected communities to protect the victims from the life shocks they’ve had to deal with.
The damages caused by disaster cut across the multidimensional well-being of the victims, stemming from the loss of homes, land and properties as well as livelihoods, including agricultural losses, business interruptions, infrastructure damage, environmental and health hazards, disruption of education, emotional distress, trauma and many others.
However, as the water is receding with effort from engineers and planners, the military and NADMO personnel, policymakers must consider a more sustainable approach to revamping the local economies of the affected communities through social protection measures such as unconditional cash transfers and other essential complementary services.
The Government of Ghana has pledged a significant commitment of GHS220 million in the 2024 Budget to address the immediate relief phase.
The finance minister has also pledged support in Parliament, earmarking additional resources for the Ministry of Agriculture to aid in livelihood support. Furthermore, a formal request to the World Bank under the IDA Crisis Response Window has been made, showcasing the government’s commitment to securing international assistance for comprehensive recovery efforts.
The disbursement of these funds needs the deliberate inclusion of social protection strategies, inclusive of cash transfers and essential services that guarantee a decent life for all the victims.
Why Cash Transfer?
Globally, when there are humanitarian disasters leading to people’s displacement and loss of livelihoods and properties, the immediate response is normally food and in-kind transfer of relief items, including temporary shelter, clothing, primary healthcare and sanitation needs.
Internally displaced persons (IDPs) cease to have access to local markets; thus, no meaningful financial transaction could happen even if they were given cash transfers at the onset of the crisis. The generosity of Ghanaians to the victims of the Akosombo and Kpong Dam spillages through the donation of food and other relief items can, therefore, not be underestimated or downplayed.
Evidence from many studies, including a literature review entitled Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Humanitarian Settings by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Food Programme (WFP) has shown that, in humanitarian contexts, cash transfers, vouchers, and food distribution all tend to improve household food security by about the same amount.
However, unconditional cash transfers (giving beneficiaries money without terms and conditions) improve dietary diversity as beneficiaries can eat what they need because they have the purchasing power to do so.
Even among the poor, it is noted that when given money, they know exactly what to do with it. The first market to pick up will be food and basic necessities. Considering that many dam spillage victims had livelihoods before the unfortunate incident, they will know exactly how to turn a GHC1 around to maximize its benefits.
Research also shows that giving a beneficiary of a humanitarian crisis US$1 will generate more than US$2 indirect market benefits. But in the case of food, the person eats, and it ends there—no real multiplier effect.
When the beneficiaries have access to cash, some will use it to buy fast-moving consumer goods to sell, others will buy and the local economy among the beneficiary communities will gradually be stimulated.
With reported receding waters across the affected communities and the expected gradual return of some residents, an immediate, unconditional cash transfer program must be rolled out to the victims, leveraging the existing administrative structures of the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection—Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP).
Cash transfers have proven to be more cost-efficient than direct food transfers or vouchers due to the logistics requirements of transporting volumes of goods across communities as well as the administrative work involved.
Currently, there are few reports in the news about challenges in the distribution of relief items to victims of the flood attributed to transportation and distribution. In addition, where there is high corruption, such as hoarding and misappropriation of funds to be used to purchase relief items, a better option will be the use of fintech.
With mobile money coverage of about 60 percent and mobile phone access of over 90 percent in Ghana, the human interface that fuels corruption can be curtailed.
Using digital methods of delivering cash has proven to be cost-effective and efficient. Where beneficiary households do not have a working mobile phone, the Ministry can purchase a simple phone for each and work with telcos to ensure that each household in these communities has access to an active mobile money account.
The LEAP secretariat could use its existing structures to embark on rapid household registration, complementing it with disaggregated data from the 2021 Population and Housing Census for targeting, which is likely to be universal. The targeting should consider the socially excluded at the lowest quintile of wealth to be fully enrolled on LEAP immediately, as the bigger issues of resettlement and full compensation for all victims are given the utmost attention they deserve. To avoid future health challenges, community members who have not subscribed or have an inactive subscription to the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) should be rolled on as a social protection floor measure.
Bearing in mind that the victims are all not a homogenous group of people with similar capabilities (some were economically vibrant before the disaster), but with varying levels of resilience that can be positively channelled into an economic recovery journey, a lump-sum cash transfer will be ideal as research has shown its contribution to asset acquisition, hence translating into economic activities.
For example, a trader can use the lump sum to buy goods for retail; a farmer may buy farm tools to cultivate farmland, which can yield enough harvest to feed the family or generate income from the sales of crops.
The lump sum transfer can be followed by smaller, periodic cash transfers for sustenance over a period of time as measures are put in place to properly compensate victims for the actual losses they have incurred because of this disaster.
The media, civil society organizations, religious bodies, NGOs and individuals can continue to make in-kind donations, but the government of Ghana should consider a shift to unconditional cash transfers and other complementary services such as healthcare, agricultural interventions, education, etc. If non-governmental bodies could also consider cash transfers to the victims using electronic means in addition to the government, the multiplier effect would be greater.
Contrary to the popular opinion that giving people cash will make them use it anyhow, several studies continue to show that the “poor and vulnerable” know what is best for themselves and it is very important not to dictate to them what to do with money or attach any form of condition.
A cash transfer and the provision of essential services to the victims of the Akosombo Dam spillage will, therefore, translate into improving food security and expenditure, positive coping mechanisms, keeping children in school, accumulation of household assets (as evident in lump sum transfers), labour market participation, improvement in household nutrition (child nutrition), empowerment and social cohesion.
Taking these baby steps will contribute to the government’s effort to gradually revamp the local economies in these communities as discussions and efforts are being made to resettle and compensate victims accordingly.
The author is a Social Protection and Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist.
