PROGRAM BRIEF 1 Food for Work, Work for Money & Test Relief Bangladesh In the lean periods ahead of harvest, twice a year, when food shortages are most significant, the rural labor force has fewer employment and income generating opportunities. Many agricultural workers find it extremely hard to survive these seasonal lean periods and until recent years, were affected by seasonal famine called ‘monga’. The Government of Bangladesh has been operating two public works schemes, Food for Work (FFW) and Test Relief (TR), to address shortage of both food and work opportunities. As food security of the country improves and transaction costs associated with food payment lower the program efficiency, the food to cash transitions are taking place for wages with the introduction of a complementary program: Work for Money (WFM). 1 The Program Brief series discusses major safety net programs that the Government of Bangladesh implements. The series includes notes on the Old Age Allowance; Allowances for the Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women; and Allowances for the Financially Insolvent Disabled by the Ministry of Social Welfare; Employment Generation Program for the Poorest; Food for Work; Work for Money; Test Relief; and Vulnerable Group Feeding by the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief; and the Child Benefit Scheme. Many of these programs are supported by the World Bank. 1 Food for Work, Work for Money & Test Relief PROGRAM BRIEF BACKGROUND Bangladesh has a predominantly agriculture-based economy Non-governmental Organization (NGO) also administered the with over 40 percent of its labor force employed in agriculture.i public works using wheat aid received from the United States Given seasonality in agriculture, those depending on it for Agency for International Development (USAID). livelihoods are at significant risk of low or lack of income during FFW’s objectives are to: lean seasons. At the same time, extreme weather conditions are also a key geographic attribute of Bangladesh. While the country • Generate seasonal employment for the rural poor; has managed to significantly reduce the loss of lives to climatic • Help build, repair or strengthen rural infrastructure to adversities, agro-based and rural livelihoods and assets continue improve the performance of agriculture; and reduce physical to be highly vulnerable to natural disasters. As a result, the risk damage and loss of human life due to natural disasters; of crop failure or loss of agricultural assets to adverse weather • Maintain equilibrium in food supply; and intensifies the risk of seasonal poverty. • Alleviate rural poverty. Many agricultural workers find it extremely hard to survive these TR’s main objectives are to: seasonal lean periods and until recent years, were affected by seasonal famine called ‘monga’. Though this phenomenon • Develop and maintain rural infrastructure to reduce disaster affects the entire country, the northern region which grows most risk and meet the demand for electricity and renewable of the country’s agricultural supplies, is particularly vulnerable. energy; However, agriculture itself does not yield sufficient income while • Reduce the disaster and climate change related risk and the region has limited options of alternative employment. More food insecurity of the rural poor by: than one third of the households in the north face food shortage throughout the year while two-thirds face seasonal poverty.ii - Generating seasonal employment for the rural poor; - Ensuring food supply and food security in rural areas; Food for Work (FFW) and Test Relief (TR) are public works programs which are two of the oldest social safety net programs - Helping reduce poverty; and of Bangladesh. They began primarily as relief programs in 1975 - Meeting the demand for electricity and renewable energy as a response to the famine of 1974 with the immediate objective to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, create employment of providing food to the severely food insecure poor. While FFW and improve the quality of life. and TR are similar, the main difference is the type of projects Meanwhile, the Government of Bangladesh introduced undertaken: FFW is more concerned with developing rural another large public workfare program under the same roads and infrastructure, while TR projects are mainly focused agency, called 100 Day Employment Generation Program on maintaining and developing local educational and religious (EGP), in response to the food, fuel, and financial crisis in 2008. institutions, including schools, madrasas, orphanages, mosques, The EGP program later became the Employment Generation temples, among others. Program for the Poorest (EGPP). While the objectives and Women’s role in these public works was not prominent to begin basic functions are similar, EGPP differs from FFW/TR with with until separate ‘women’s projects’ were undertaken and a cash payments directly transferred to bank accounts, more gender differential wage system established.iii For a long period robust targeting mechanisms, and quota for women. since the beginning, FFW/TR projects were administered by the World Food Program (WFP), and as of 1995, implemented by the Water Development Board, the Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation (currently the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, MoDMR) and the Local Government and Engineering Department.iv Major donors included Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. CARE Bangladesh, a THE WORLD BANK 2 PROGRAM BRIEF With the recognition of the inefficiency associated with the food-based payment programs, since 2009, a cash payment TR-Food TR-Cash method has partially been adopted in an effort to reduce 20 leakage of allocated funds and improve the program’s 17.44 Budget in BDT Billion efficiency, by converting the food allocations to cash at the 15 13.90 12.82 12.81 local level for both FFW and TR. As cash payments became 13.00 more prominent than food payments, the FFW program has 10 10.20 12.60 10.40 been complemented by Work for Money (WFM) since FY14; 8.98 allocations are made in the form of cash or in-kind under the 5 7.68 5.84 same program using these two channels, as decided by the 0 Government (figure 1). Similarly, TR food allocations were complemented by a cash allocation in FY16 and since FY17, TR FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19* has received cash allocations only (figure 2). At present, the Safety Net Systems for the Poorest (SNSP) Project, supported by the World Bank and implemented by the Department Figure 2: Budget allocation to TR Source: Budget, Finance Division, Ministry of Finance of Disaster Management (DDM) under the MoDMR, is extending support for improved administration of DDM’s major safety net programs -- which include public works programs (EGPP, FFW/ Parameters of public works under FFW/WFM WFM, TR) and humanitarian relief programs (Vulnerable Group FFW/WFM guidelines stipulate parameters which public works Feeding [VGF], Gratuitous Relief [GR]). undertaken under FFW/WFM must comply with: • Pond/canal excavation and re-excavation; • Road construction/repair including brick roads: up to 60 FFW WFM percent of allocated food grains can be sold to finance such 20 projects; Budget in BDT Billion 14.39 14.35 15 • Concrete walls of low height on road sides to minimize soil 12.94 10.34 10.84 9.88 erosion through run-off. Up to 60 percent of the allocated 10 food grains can be sold to finance such projects; 9.28 8.17 8.17 6.15 5.98 7.20 • Enhancing disaster preparedness for communities through: 5 4.29 - Embankment construction/reconstruction; 1.68 0 - Construction of drains to prevent waterlogging and also FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19* for irrigation; • Land filling for social institutions; • Construction and maintenance of agriculture-supporting Figure 1: Budget allocation to FFW/WFM Source: Budget, Finance Division, Ministry of Finance infrastructure during the slack season; • Solar panel installation by selling the entire allocation of food grains; and Key Features of FFW/WFM and TR • Biogas plant installation in registered orphanages and In the 1970s, allocation to FFW ranged between 4 and 5 percent dormitories if required inputs are available by selling the of annual national expenditures. As of FY19, the combined entire allocation of food grains. budget allocation to FFW and WFM represents 2.7 percent of the safety net budget and 0.07 percent of the GDP. Fo o d f o r W o r k , W o r k f o r M o n e y & Te s t R e l i e f 3 Food for Work, Work for Money & Test Relief PROGRAM BRIEF Parameters of public works under TR • Supply of laptop and multimedia projectors to educational institutions to support modern education techniques; Maintenance of previously constructed FFW/WFM • infrastructure and other embankments and roads; and • Installation of solar panel and biogas projects in educational construction of bamboo/wood bridges for improved rural and religious institutions, rural marketplaces as well as connectivity; administrative buildings which host large numbers of people; and • Construction and maintenance of drainage canals sanitary latrines and other public health and environmental • Spending at least 50 percent of the allocation on the development related schemes; installation of solar panel and biogas projects in ultra-poor households. • Installation of deep tube wells; • Maintenance and development of religious, educational or Table 1: Key features of FFW/WFM and TR public welfare related institutions; Amount of daily 8kg for 7 hours of work or cash equivalent • Construction of walls on roadsides to minimize soil erosion allowance through run-off; construction of boundary pillars around roads and ponds to prevent encroachment; Eligibility Means tested; casual labor by occupation and owns less than 0.5 acre of land • Participation in Public-private-partnership (PPP) projects for public welfare; Agency Department of Disaster Management, Ministry of Disaster Management & Relief • Construction of disaster resilient houses for the ultra-poor; PROGRAM DETAILS 1) Outreach The program guidelines for FFW/WFM and TR do not specify the of FFW (while still in-kind) that payment in wheat (as opposed to need for outreach to find workers. However, significant emphasis rice) serves as a means for targeting as it is an ‘inferior good’ and has been placed on the identification and selection of subprojects. invites those in a more desperate situation in rural Bangladesh. The Project Implementation Committees (PICs) consisting of five Eligibility criteria for a household to participate in WFM/FFW and members including Union Chairmen, Ward Members, Female TR are: Members and community members, carefully select the projects based on the community needs. At the same time, once a project • Landless due to natural disaster; and has been identified, a signboard with the details of the project is • Ownership of less than 0.5 acre of land. required to be installed at the project site. In general, PIC members identify beneficiaries i.e. workers, based on their assessment of household poverty, and also use the 2) Targeting implicit criterion that the selected worker must be able bodied to FFW/WFW and TF use geographical targeting in the sense that the carry out arduous earthwork. Due to this physically demanding budget allocation depends on the size of population and area, as nature of the projects, male applicants tend to get preferred. well as the poverty rate of each Upazila (figure 3). In addition, the programs use self-targeting given the physically demanding nature Since the guidelines do not layout specific beneficiary selection of the work: better off households are discouraged while only the criteria and emphasize the community benefit and quality of the poorest households participate. Moreover, it was arguedv in favor resulting infrastructure, recent surveys fielded by DDM and the THE WORLD BANK 4 PROGRAM BRIEF World Bank reveal that significant proportions of FFW/WFM and to the price of 8 metric ton rice. This translates into individual TR projects are implemented by contractors. Moreover, many are beneficiary daily payments of 8kg of rice or cash equivalent for 7 solar panel installation projects which do not employ safety net hours of work. beneficiaries. In spite of the specific guidelines on entitlements and self- targeting characteristics, FFW/WFM and TR have been criticized 3) Enrolment & Payment for leakages and inefficiency. One estimate suggested that The guidelines do not specify enrolment requirements. As a result, total leakage from FFW in mid-1990s was 30-35 percent of total the documentation requirements for beneficiary enrolment, apart allocation.vi Some major areas of shortcomings include: from a muster roll at the Union Parishad, are not clear. • Projects selection by local elites and influential people, not According to the guidelines, minimum allotment per project of based on the objective needs; FFW was 8 metric ton rice or 9 metric ton wheat or cash equivalent MoDMR allocates to DDM DDM allocates to District Commissioner (DC) (30%), size of area Based on population size (30%), and poverty rates (40%) DC allocates to Upazila Upazila allocates to Union; weightage: Based on population size (50%) and size of area (50%) Figure 3: Budget allocation process of FFW, WFM and TR 5 Food for Work, Work for Money & Test Relief PROGRAM BRIEF • Over reporting of work done; incurred for food-based transfers under FFW. Moreover, a shift • Practice of leaving the earth uncompacted, which makes it from construction to maintenance activities that is relatively difficult to ascertain the actual volume of earthwork completed; easier to monitor, can further lower the scope for leakage. and In their long periods of implementation, the FFW/WFM and TR • Underpayment to workers. programs are believed to have brought the following positive Recognizing the vulnerability to leakages and the high outcomes although only few rigorous evaluations conducted: management costs of food transfers, the Government introduced • Significant concentration among the poorest; and the WFM, a cash-based program through a policy decision in FY14. Since FY16, cash allocations to TR were also introduced. This • Stabilization of food grain prices in the market. decision was also based on the premise that cash would ensure In addition, many more were indirectly benefited through better availability of workers and help build rural infrastructure. the rural infrastructure FFW/WFM helped build: However, these newly introduced cash transfers under WFM and TR-cash reach beneficiaries through very rudimentary, hand- • Improved production in the agriculture sector benefiting to-hand channels through the Union Parishad, leaving a broad producers and consumers; scope for leakage and issues of transparency and efficiency. • Enhanced connectivity and market linkage through improved roads; and 4) Grievance • Enhanced protection from natural disasters like floods. According to the program guidelines, the official grievance desk is at the upazila level with the Upazila Executive Officer (UNO). However, the guidelines also state that complaints can be filed CHALLENGES anywhere in the chain. Eventually, if unresolved, the grievance gets escalated to the national level. Monitoring and supervision: FFW/WFM and TR have • inadequate access to specialized planning, design, and Evaluations suggest that complaints are few and those filed are supervision services. The capacity within the government to usually lodged with Ward Members or Union Chairmen. There ensure compliance with program standards is weak. Moreover, is little evidence of their resolution. People are often afraid local government officials are preoccupied with other of complaining against local representatives in fear of being administrative functions and even Project implementation excluded from the program and perhaps stronger consequences. Officers (PIOs) whose primary task is monitoring public At the same time, poor people often lack confidence and have works are not able to make monthly visits to every project in limited access to the UNO or other government bodies to voice their jurisdiction. At the same time, a reviewviii notes that the grievances; in many cases, the aggrieved are apprehensive of presence of a strong Union Parishad is a key predictor of well overstepping the Ward Members or Union Chairmen to lodge a performing FFW. The review defines the performance of FFW by complaint at a higher level of the administration. the following criteria: generating seasonal employment for a large number of people, improved agricultural production, rural infrastructure development and low leakage. PROGRAM ACHIEVEMENTS • Objective of the program: FFW and TR are old programs and over time, seem to have shifted to becoming rural infrastructure It was estimated in 1995 that the FFW/WFM program generates development programs than a safety net. There are other BDT 1 as income to a participating household at a cost of BDT 1.8- public works safety net programs under DDM such as the EGPP. 2.4.vii In the case of WFM, program costs have been presumably Since the major difference with other programs, based on food reduced by avoiding commodity-handling costs which are THE WORLD BANK 6 PROGRAM BRIEF transfer, is no longer the case, there WORLD BANK SUPPORT is a strong need to reconsider the programs’ objectives and value added. The World Bank has been providing financial and technical support to the DDM of the • If the programs were to remain as Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief from 2009 to present. Initially the design and safety nets, the beneficiary selection implementation of the EGPP program was supported, and later, the program coverage process needs to improve to be more was expanded to other safety net programs under DDM as part of the SNSP Project. objective and pro-poor. The SNSP Project aims to enhance efficiency and transparency of FFW/WFM, TR and other • The hand-to-hand payment process major public works and humanitarian relief programs under DDM with modernization need to be modernized. of systems and business processes. More emphasis has been placed on converting food to cash transfers through WFM with the Project’s efforts to improve efficiency and The grievance process can be • transparency. However, compared to the newer EGPP, FFW/WFM and TR have more strengthened to be more accountable challenges that have accumulated over a long period of time. There is a need to review and provide reassurance to potential the programs’ objectives and business processes as well as impacts to identify reform complainants about timely resolution solutions. and minimal chances of backlash. i Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 2015-16, Labor Force Survey ii Ahamad, Mazbahul Golam; Khondker, Rezai Karim; Ahmed, Zahir Uddin; Tanin, Fahian; 2011, Seasonal Unemployment and Voluntary Out-Migration from Northern Bangladesh i.e. 70 cubic feet of earth needed to be moved by men while only 50 cubic feet of earth needed to be moved by women to be able to claim the same payment i.e. about 750g of wheat per day in the iii 1977-78 FFW season; Marum, M. Elizabeth, Women at Work in Bangladesh, A Study of Women’s Food for Work Programs, USAID, 1981 iv Ahmed, Akhter U; Zohir, Sajjad; Kumar, Shubh K.; Haider, Omar Chowdhury; Bangladesh’s Food-For-Work Program and Alternatives to Improve Food Security v Ahmed, 1993a vi Ahmed, Akhter U; Zohir, Sajjad; Kumar, Shubh K.; Haider, Omar Chowdhury; Bangladesh’s Food-For-Work Program and Alternatives to Improve Food Security, National Social Security Strategy (NSSS), 2015 vii Ahmed, Akhter U; Zohir, Sajjad; Kumar, Shubh K.; Haider, Omar Chowdhury; Bangladesh’s Food-For-Work Program and Alternatives to Improve Food Security. 1995. viii Khuda, Barkat-e, Social Safety Net Programmes in Bangladesh: A Review, Bangladesh Development Studies, Vol. XXXIV, June 2011, No. 2 For more information: Overview on Bangladesh’s safety net program: This Program Brief has been prepared by Rubaba Anwar, Yoonyoung Cho https://bit.ly/2TOa2Vb World Bank. 2016. Bangladesh Social Protection and Ashiq Aziz, Social Protection & and Labor Review: Towards Smart Social Jobs Global Practice, World Bank, with Protection and Jobs for the Poor. Bangladesh kind support of the Korea-World Bank Development Series,no. 33;. World Bank, Dhaka, Partnership Facility (KWPF). Bangladesh. © World Bank. https://bit.ly/2TWVVx9 World Bank Office Dhaka Plot- E-32, Agargaon, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar Dhaka-1207, Bangladesh Tel: 880-2-5566-7777, Fax: 880-2-5566-7778 www.worldbank.org/bangladesh 7