About the project
The intersections between environmental/carbon footprint reduction and CVA is a largely unexplored theme and there is currently a mix of hypotheses, perspectives and practices underpinning this issue. While some argue that CVA interventions are a way for organisations to reach their decarbonisation targets (therefore excluding them in their calculations), others consider that including CVA in the carbon footprint of their analysis is key but are faced with methodological barriers for the estimation. Faced with these barriers, various organisations have developed methodologies to estimate CVA emissions using different approaches.
With support from the French Centre de Crise et de Soutien (CDCS) and the Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC), the Climate Action Accelerator is working on a common methodology and approach to estimate the carbon footprint of cash and voucher assistance. The project also aims to identify if and where decarbonisation levers exist for humanitarian organisations to act upon on the different types of CVA and assess potential emissions reduction opportunities.
The intention of this work is not in any way to take a position on the desirability or relevance of developing cash transfer and voucher activities, which, in line with Grand Bargain commitments, are encouraged to be the default modality for aid programmes, but rather to better understand the carbon profiling of CVA and the potential decarbonisation levers once a decision has been made to privilege such modality of assistance to population groups in need.
An advisory committee composed of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), Action contre la Faim (ACF), WREC, the World Food Programme (WFP) and CALP Network, among others, is supporting this process.
Key findings of the project
1. CVA-related emissions should be reported on
The project concluded that CVA emissions should be calculated and reported in humanitarian organisations’ carbon footprints using a comparable methodology. With CVA representing around 20% of humanitarian funding on average, excluding it would fail to provide an accurate picture of an organisation’s total emissions.
2. CVA-related emissions should be reported separately
CVA emissions should be reported separately from other emissions and excluded from organisations’ baselines, decarbonisation trajectories, and progress reports. This reflects both the inherent limitations of CVA emissions measurement and the near-absence of actionable decarbonisation levers — particularly for unconditional cash transfers. Reporting them separately ensures that organisations’ decarbonization efforts on emissions with actionable levers are not diluted. It also reflects the conceptual similarity between CVA and income transfers such as welfare allowances, which further supports a distinct reporting treatment.
3. Vouchers and multipurpose cash should be treated similarly, with the exception of fuel vouchers
Despite conditionality associated with voucher programmes, vouchers should be reported in the same category as cash distributions. Evidence suggests vouchers are not always used for their intended purpose — they may for example be exchanged for cash — introducing significant uncertainty into emissions measurement. The principles of simplicity and consistency further support a unified approach, given that the two modalities are functionally equivalent. Emission factors adapted to the goods and services intended for purchase should nonetheless be applied. Fuel vouchers are an exception: their emissions are direct, measurable, and covered by established emission factors, making them comparable to other energy-related expenditures already captured in the baseline.
4. Decarbonisation levers are limited and their impact is hard to quantify
Unlike in-kind assistance, organisations have limited direct control over how CVA is spent once it reaches recipients. Four categories of levers were identified — programme design, environmental screening, CVA delivery, and beneficiary access — but their overall impact is marginal, particularly for unconditional cash transfers. Their impact is also complex to quantify. The potential is greater for specific voucher programmes (e.g. food, energy), and in longer-term programmes where there is more room to influence outcomes. Any lever activated must respect two non-negotiable principles: it must not question the relevance of CVA as a modality and must not place any additional burden on beneficiaries.
5. Going forward, a simplified, sector-wide calculation methodology should be adopted
The humanitarian sector should agree on and consistently apply a single, simplified methodology to estimate CVA emissions. Costly approaches such as post-distribution monitoring (PDM) are accessible only to a limited number of organisations, and the Advisory Committee concluded that the cost of extensive surveys is not justified given the limited decarbonisation levers available. In line with the principles of simplicity10 , the methodology currently integrated in the Humanitarian Carbon Calculator +(HCC)11 — which applies an emission factor12 to the total amount of CVA distributed — is proposed as the basis for a sector-wide standard. Further work is underway to refine the underlying emission factors and expenditure basket.
Going forward, and pending available funding, additional work would be undertaken by Climate Action Accelerator to finalise the calculation methodology used in the HCC+.
Read the report
Elaborating a common reference methodology for monitoring carbon emissions associated with cash and voucher assistance (CVA) in the humanitarian sector
Final report
Explore it here
Featured
Technical projects in the aid sector
Credits
Cover photo: Ahmed Akacha/Pexels