Cash for Food Transfers: A Primer
This 34 page paper written by Ugo Gentilini for the World Food Programme, aims to unpack the various aspects of the ‘cash versus food’ debate, to map out where the controversies lie and to demonstrate the need for a more pragmatic, balanced and context-specific approach. A key message is that appropriateness cannot be predetermined since programme objectives, the economics of food consumption, market analysis, cost effectiveness and efficiency, capacity requirements and beneficiary preferences all play a role in determining the most appropriate option or combination of options.
JUST A QUESTION !
Why not considering “TerraCottem for work” instead of “Food for work” or “Cash for work” ? Paying rural workers (partly) with TerraCottem soil conditioner would mean offering them a chance to improve swiftly their field or garden, so that they can produce more food with less water and less fertilizer in the future.
Something to consider ? And, please, do not forget that TerraCottem is active for many years in the soil. It is not consumed immediately and offers return on investment over a longer period. Let’s open the debate on it …
2004 : Toubacouta (Sine Saloum, Senegal) – Community garden project of Philippe BEKAERT and Alain GOETGHEBUER, with assistance of the TC-DIALOGUE Foundation (Belgium). The effect of TerraCottem is registered for many years.
2004 : Toubacouta (Sine Saloum, Senegal) – Projet du Jardin Communautaire de Philippe BEKAERT et Alain GOETGHBUER, avec l’assistence de la Fondation TC-DIALOGUE (Belgique). L’effet du terraCottem reste visible pendant des années.