Bacha Khan Poverty Alleviation Programme

188,096 had been accepted, about 400,000 were being investigated and the rest had been dismissed. The number of appeals indicates that it has been relatively easy to access griev- ance redressal mechanisms. High.

g) Extent of self/progressive financing and sus- tainability: PDMA schemes are dependent on

both government and donor funding. Given the government’s fiscal constraints and the do- nors’ limitations, the current level of funding

cannot be expected to continue in the medi- um- to long-term. This is, however, typical for disaster management-oriented organisations that tend to raise funds when a disaster strikes. Medium.

h) Exit mechanisms: Exit mechanisms were built

into PDMA schemes in that livelihood support was only meant to be paid for six months, while the CDCP grants are one-off. High.

i) Degree of impact on the MDGs: The PDMA in-

directly contributes to achieving MDG 1.

j) Programme potential to be extended to the RAHA target group: The programme was ac-

cessed by the disaster-affectees in the RAHA target districts.

4.5.2 Bacha Khan Poverty Alleviation Programme

The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa imple- mented the BKPAP in 40 union councils of Battagram, Karak, Mardan and Upper Dir districts from 2010-12. A grant of Rs1 billion was made to the Sarhad Rural Sup- port Programme (SRSP) to implement the programme, which had three components of social mobilisation, livelihoods strengthening and social protection. As a first step, target communities were surveyed using a poverty scorecard and each household was assigned a score ranging from 0-100. The households with scores from 0-11 were rated as the poorest of the poor, the households with scores from 12-18 as vulnerable, and the households with scores of 19 and above as finan- cially secure. The components of the BKPAP that relate to social protection have been detailed in the following:

4.5.2.1 Rural Financial Services

Under this component, village-level women’s organi- sations were asked to identify a member household that would be eligible for a one-off income generation grant of Rs5,000. The household had to be chosen from among the poorest households in the community (ones with a poverty score of 0-11). Members of the women’s organisations were asked to pass a resolution to nomi- nate the beneficiary. The second category of benefits under this component was accrued through the Com- munity Investment Fund, a revolving fund managed by the local women’s organisations that were asked to nominate possible beneficiaries of loans who were to receive an amount of up to Rs10,000 repayable without interest, normally within a period of six months. The women belonging to households with poverty scores

ranging from 12-18 were eligible for this facility. Again, identifying the beneficiaries was solely the responsibil- ity of the women’s organisations. The households with scores of 19 and above were eligible to avail of a micro- credit facility of Rs15,000. Of the three schemes, the first two (the one-off grant and the interest-free cash grant) qualified as social protection mechanisms.

Table 4.5 Rural Financial Services – Beneficiaries and Disbursement (in Million Rs) Income Generation Grants Community Investment Fund Loans District Beneficiary Households Amount Disbursed Beneficiary Households Amount Disbursed Battagram 318 1.59 590 5.90 Karak 417 2.10 526 5.26 Mardan 1,261 6.08 1,798 17.98 Upper Dir 273 1.37 439 4.39 Total 2,269 11.14 3,353 33.53

Source: Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa/SRSP.2011. Uplifting Lives: BKPAP.

4.5.2.2 Micro Health Insurance

The micro health insurance initiative, undertaken in col- laboration with Adamjee Insurance, was the BKPAP’s prime social protection project. In Phase-I of the initia- tive, household heads were enrolled on payment of a premium of Rs300 per annum. A total of 27,400 people (4,110 each in Battagram and Karak, 13,700 in Mardan and 5,480 in Upper Dir) were enrolled in this phase and they received a maximum pay-out of Rs25,000.28 _{As the} idea took root, the SRSP was petitioned to include other family members in the insurance scheme. In Phase-II, the premium was increased to Rs825 per annum and the whole household was included in the insurance cov- er. The medical facilities due under the scheme could be availed at selected private hospitals in the four BKPAP districts and there was no age limit for those covered. The households with scores of up to 18 on the poverty scorecard were eligible for the scheme.

4.5.2.3 Analysis

a) Targeting efficiency: The BKPAP used com-

munity targeting mechanisms and it relies on its community organisations, which generally include representatives from the bulk of house- holds in the community, to identify the benefi-

ciaries. Since the identification is discussed and carried out in a public forum, and resolutions are voted upon in a general assembly, the tar- geting appears to be efficient. High.

b) Extent of programme coverage: The pro-

gramme extended to only 40 union councils in four districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and thus had a limited coverage. Low.

c) Degree of ease of access: The beneficiaries

were not required to go through official pro- cesses such as filling out forms, visiting centres, etc.; they only had to be members of the SRSP’s community organisations. As such, ease of ac- cess was not an issue. High.

d) Percentage of programme expenditure dedi- cated to benefits: Other than its head office in

Peshawar, the SRSP has four regional offices and seven district offices for a total of 520 em- ployees. Though details on programme costs are not available, these are estimated to be rela- tively high given the substantial number of em- ployees. Low.

e) Adequacy of support: Support under the rural

financial services component was generally ad- equate; though the income support grant was limited to Rs5,000, it was typically accessed by those looking for short-term relief before the harvest season or during a family crisis. The micro health insurance also provided a sub- stantial benefit. Medium.

f) Grievance redressal: The community organi-

sations provided a forum to discuss grievances and were used by the people who had problems with the rural financial services. For micro in- surance, grievances were taken up by the SRSP with the insurance company. High.

g) Extent of self/progressive financing and sus- tainability: The programme was funded out of

the budget of the provincial government and was run as a pilot for two years. The govern- ment had committed to funding the programme to the extent of Rs1 billion over two years, but funds released only amounted to Rs742 million over two-and-a-half years.29 _{Without further} donor or government support, the programme is unlikely to be revived. Low.

h) Exit mechanisms: The rural financial services

were one-off grants and did not require the in- stitution of exit mechanisms. The micro health insurance scheme was supposed to cover peo-

ple as long as they continued paying the pre- mium; as such, only those who opted out were removed from the list of potential beneficiaries. Not applicable.

i) Degree of impact on the MDGs: The rural fi-

nancial services contributed to achieving MDGs 1 and 3 since they provided income support and were targeted at women.

j) Programme potential to be extended to the RAHA target group: The pilot phase of the

programme was not implemented in any of the RAHA union councils, though it could be ex- tended to them if funding was made available.

4.5.3 Department of Social Welfare and Women’s