Emma guidance note – an accompanyment to the emma toolkit
Yüklə 2,92 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Emergency-affected situation
- What if the purchasing power of your buyers was restored and you could continue to employ people
- Box 6.8 (EMMATKp125) Showing data about production and trade volumes on market maps
- Box 8.13 (EMMATKp149) Using data to diagnose supply-and-demand problems
- Supply and demand decision tree (Jaspars and Creti, Oxfam GB 2006 “Cash Transfer Programming in Emergencies)
- Table: Characteristics and Indicators
- Needs analysis of target populations for water, Ethiopia (Oxfam GB 2012)
- Section: Step 9 Box 9.3 (EMMATKp164) Response-analysis logic in a supply system Response-options framework. Iron sheet market, Sudan (MercyCorps 2011)
- Box 9.15 (EMMATKp180) Response-options framework Option Advantages Disadvantages
- Response recommendations framework. Wheat market, Pakistan (ACF, ACTED, Oxfam, Save, IRC, CARE, 2010)
52
Emergency-affected situation How has the emergency affected the functioning of the market? 13.
What impacts / changes have there been to your ability to stay in business and employ staff? 14.
15.
How has the emergency affected important services or public infrastructure mentioned above? 16.
How much more costly is it to do business as a result of the emergency? Which business costs have increased (fuel, storage, goods, labour, etc.) and by how much? How are you dealing with the emergency? 17.
How have you adapted your operations to overcome challenges caused the emergency? 18. How have other actors in the market chain adapted? (e.g. input suppliers, transporters, producers) How has the emergency affected competition? 19. Has the emergency changed competition within your sector? (e.g. have some been more severely affected by the disaster than your company?) 20.
Do you think you or your competitors have enough leverage to restrict supply and drive up prices now? How is the market performing now? 21.
Have your sales increased or decreased? If so, why? 22.
year? Specify by how much. 23.
Are certain groups of consumers now effectively unable to purchase these goods / services because of high prices or lack of access to suppliers?
24.
If greater demand for your goods / services in the emergency zone could be guaranteed, to what extent would you be able to increase your supplies / business volumes in the affected area? 25.
Are your employees still available, and are raw materials accessible now? 26.
Box 4.2 (EMMATKp85) ‘Operational’ questions about cash feasibility Needs and preferences
To what extent did women and men depend on cash before the shock? What strategies are households using to cope with food or income insecurity?
Do emergency-affected populations have a preference for cash or in-kind approaches? Social relations (power differences within households and the community)
Do men and women have different priorities? How is control over resources managed within households?
What are the differences within the community in terms of control over resources? What impact will cash distributions have on existing social and political divisions? Policy
What is government policy regarding use of cash-based interventions? Security and delivery mechanisms
What are the options for delivering cash to people? Are banking systems or informal financial transfer mechanisms functioning?
What are the risks of cash benefits being taxed or seized by elites or warring parties? How do these risks compare with the risks posed by in-kind alternatives to cash? 53
Corruption
What are the risks of cash being diverted by local elites or project staff? How do these compare with the risks of providing in-kind alternatives?
What accountability safeguards are available to minimize these risks? Intervention history
Have any cash-based interventions been implemented previously in the area? What was the outcome? Where there any particular problems? Or positive recommendations from the experience? Source: Creti and Jaspars, 2006
Box 6.8 (EMMATKp125) Showing data about production and trade volumes on market maps
54
Section: Step 7 and 8 Summary of gap analysis from Liberia Imported Rice Market System, (Oxfam GB 2011) (Alternatively see Box 7.3 (EMMATKp130))
Prices rising or much higher than baseline Prices stable and similar to baseline Prices falling or much lower than baseline Volumes higher than baseline Demand is very strong. Supply response is good. Indicates market system is performing well. However, high prices suggest that suppliers are still unable to satisfy surge in demand, or there are bottlenecks that raise costs for traders. Demand is strong. Supply response is good. Indicates market system is performing well, compared with baseline: meeting increased needs, without creating price distortions.
Indicates system is being saturated by over-supply. This is most likely where desperation forces people to sell labour, livestock, or assets on poor terms.
Volumes similar to baseline Demand is strong. Supply response is constrained. Indicates trade levels are normal, but insufficient to satisfy increased demand. Alternatively, bottlenecks are raising costs for traders.
Indicates that market system is little affected, compared with the baseline situation. Demand is relatively weak. Supply is normal. Indicates (income) market system is being saturated due to weak demand.
Indicates supply constraints are very severe. Despite high prices, supply is insufficient to satisfy either normal or increased demand.
Indicates that demand is constrained: buyers probably lack spending capacity.
Indicates that demand is highly constrained: buyers lack spending capacity. 55
Supply and demand decision tree (Jaspars and Creti, Oxfam GB 2006 “Cash Transfer Programming in Emergencies) 56
Table: Characteristics and Indicators (E. Henderson, Oxfam GB 2011 EMMA and Cash training Naivasha, Kenya) Characteristics Indicators What does it tell us in terms of market dynamics? Supply
Volumes traded / produced per unit of time
Stocks
Lead time
Number of actors Can supply respond to demand? Demand
Volumes procured per unit of time
Number of consumers Purchasing power Relation between supply and demand
Prices
volumes
Is production or trade change due to supply or demand side problems? Where are the bottlenecks? If demand is supported will market be able to respond? Or would it need support? Market integration or segmentation
Relationship between prices over time for a same good / service in different areas
Restrictions to market (physical access, transport costs…) How can supply respond timely to demand? If there was a change in demand, how long would it take for the market to respond? Market power
Number of actors Volume traded per actor
Margins (per trader category) Who sets the prices? If demand is supported, will it be able to choose between alternative market actors? If market is supported, will market actors be able to choose between different suppliers?. Or will they depend on the conditions of a limited number of suppliers? Environment
Investment capacity Access to credit (formal / informal)
Storage capacity Transport capacity
Regulations (market restrictions – prices fixed) Taxes – import tariffs….
Insurances Which environmental factors will favour the market and which ones would limit it? Which factors would enable increase of market capacity? Which factors to support in order to favour market capacity? Needs analysis of target populations for water, Ethiopia (Oxfam GB 2012) 57
Box 8.15 (EMMATKp153) Comparing ‘gaps’ with baseline volumes Volumes of production and trade Local affected area Provincial market National market Emergency-affected situation (A) 50 1,100
5,000 Emergency gap identified (B) 350 350
350 Required response, A + B = (C) 400 1,450
5,350 Baseline activity (D) 200 1,200
5,000 Required increase over baseline = (C / D - 1) x 100 % + 100 % + 25 % + 8 % Analysis of data in Box 8.15 The emergency response required to meet the gap (400 MT per month) is double the estimate of baseline production and trade in the affected area. The same gap is less challenging when put in the context of provincial markets (a 25% increase) and national markets (+ 8%). Box 0.1 (EMMATKp162) Different response options – example [C]Firewood needs in an IDP camp Households in a rapidly expanding IDP camp are suffering acute shortage of fuel for cooking. Humanitarian concerns include local environmental degradation, risks to children and women scavenging firewood, and the potential for conflict with the host community. Depending on its assessment of the local firewood market system’s capacity to respond to the IDP’s needs, an EMMA study might identify the following response options.
[C]If the market system is expected to perform well (A)
Include a cash allocation for firewood in regular transfers to women householders.
Create a voucher system to enable IDPs to purchase firewood at subsidized prices. [C]If the market system needs to be strengthened or supported (B)
Negotiate official access to forestry reserves for authorized firewood traders.
Guarantee loans and vehicle leases to enable more traders to enter the market quickly. [C]If the market system is not going to be capable of performing well (C)
Distribute fuel- efficient stoves, to reduce households’ firewood needs.
Procure and distribute firewood rations to households in the camp. [C]If further investigation and analysis are needed (D)
Continue to monitor prices of firewood inside the camp a nd in neighbouring towns, to confirm that EMMA’s assessment of market-system capacity is accurate.
58
Section: Step 9 Box 9.3 (EMMATKp164) Response-analysis logic in a supply system
59
Box 9.15 (EMMATKp180) Response-options framework Option Advantages Disadvantages Feasibility and timing Relief distribution of spare supplies from Forest Dept. Immediate impact. Would utilize existing / useless stocks; for the short term, will slow deforestation; simple distribution programme. Requires warehouses, distribution staff. Limits integration with markets in town and camp. Wood may be sold on, not used. Low!
Expect lack of co-operation. 2–3 weeks to begin Distribution involving camp- based retailers and vouchers Inject cash into camp economy. Thus lots of secondary beneficiaries; would create more local vendors
Very few camp retailers with any capacity; no storage or infrastructure inside camps. Open to fraud. Start-up slow – with procurement and beneficiary-identification process Medium.
2 months to implement Refilling of gas canisters; conditional on school attendance Less firewood usage; time- saving. Incentives for sending children to school. Reduces protection issues. Clear exit strategy: reduce distributions Gas is twice the price of firewood; risky to use inside tents; IDPs cannot afford refilling on their own. May increase dependency on aid; makes school attendance linked to reward, instead of intrinsic worth; not sustainable High. Can be started soon Cash distribution to all IDP women household heads Inject money into the camp economy; positive effect on HH economies, but no effect on firewood market; gives women choices Potential for inflation; corruption; no exit strategy; no way to ensure that cash is used for firewood; women might continue to send children to collect firewood instead of buying it Low. Quick response 60
Response recommendations framework. Wheat market, Pakistan (ACF, ACTED, Oxfam, Save, IRC, CARE, 2010) Box 9.16 (EMMATKp181) Response-recommendations framework Response activities or combinations Key risks and assumptions Timing issues Likely effect on market system and target groups Indicators Fuel-efficient stoves and cooking techniques
Stove distribution Cooking techniques
Sensitization on fuel efficiency, de- forestation, child- protection issues Access to camps. People are willing to learn and use stoves. We can find training staff 1–2 months to make an impact
Decrease household firewood expenses. Increase fuel efficiency at household level. Small – but important – positive effect on environment. Improved protection (fewer children collecting wood) # of stoves distributed and used by IDPs. Comparison of wood-fuel consumption, old vs new Yüklə 2,92 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|