As the convoys of vans taking unwanted clothes to Calais show, drives to deliver second-hand goods are a popular way of showing charity. But research from a high-level panel of experts suggests that simply giving cash directly to those suffering in humanitarian crises could be the most effective form of assistance.
A report from the Overseas Development Institute and the Centre for Global Development argues that cash results in humanitarian aid going further to help more people in need, while boosting local markets. It also finds giving cash to be less wasteful, as those receiving help can decide for themselves exactly what is needed.
It follows growing feeling in the charity sector that cash and vouchers are the most effective way of helping people and boosting the local economy. Yet these direct payments still account for only about 6 per cent of humanitarian aid.
The outpouring of help to Calais has meant, at times, vastly inappropriate clothes and goods being shipped across the Channel. Despite up to 90 per cent of those living in the informal camps being men, many donated items have been for women, babies and children.
In graphics: Refugees in the EU
Paul Harvey, research associate for the Overseas Development Institute, said: “Long experience from many disasters has shown that donating goods is usually an inefficient way of providing assistance. What people give is often not what people actually need and there are considerable costs involved in sorting, storing and transporting goods.
“So whilst the huge donations of goods for people in Calais is a welcome demonstration of solidarity and kindness, giving cash to organisations already helping people is a more effective way to help. It enables them to provide the goods and services people need most, or make payments directly to people who can then buy what they most need.”
Read more: 28 people including babies killed after boat capsizes
Football fans wave banner reading 'Refugees Not Welcome'
Germany to 'reintroduce border controls' with Austria
Major aid agencies already send money directly to those in need, though this research suggests such schemes should become more commonplace. In Lebanon more than a million refugees use smart cards to buy goods at local shops or ATM cards to withdraw money. In the 2011 famine in Somalia, 1.5 million people were given cash transfers.
Direct payments to recipients of aid help transparency, according to the study, since there is a clear record of who the funds go to. Direct payment also saves money, speeds the response and cuts waste – so that blankets aren’t shipped across the world to refugee camps where what’s really needed are cooking pots.
It is estimated that up to 60 million people around the world – equivalent to almost 80 per cent of the population of Britain – have fled their homes because of conflict or disaster. The study found that the scale of the problem means getting help to people quickly and efficiently is increasingly important.
Owen Barder, senior fellow at the Centre for Global Development and chairman of the High Level Panel on Humanitarian Cash Transfers, said: “The nature of humanitarian crises is changing. More people are in need, and for longer. There is compelling evidence that giving cash is often better for those affected by disaster and better value for money for donors. It should be central to crisis response.”
The study was commissioned by the Department for International Development. A spokesman for the department said: “In any humanitarian emergency, it is vital that our response is based on firm evidence. It is clear small cash payments can help people purchase what they need, meaning nothing is wasted and we get maximum value for money.
“Providing cash can stimulate local markets, helping the economy as well as those in immediate need. As we approach the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul next year we need to think hard how to build a more flexible, more innovative humanitarian system that can cope with protracted crises and sudden earthquakes or typhoons.”
