The Carbon Footprint of Cash Transfers at ACF

As part of its growing commitment to the ecological transition and environmental responsibility, Action Contre la Faim France has undertaken an in-depth analysis of the carbon footprint of its Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA) interventions. This initiative follows the 2021 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (GHG Emissions Assessment), which revealed that cash transfer activities accounted for nearly 38% of the organization’s total emissions (using a method based on countries’ GDP); and a second study conducted by the CITEPA for ACF and published in January 2024, “Calculating the GHG Footprint of Minimum Expenditure Baskets,” which estimated this footprint at +/- 25% (using the so-called Minimum Expenditure Basket method). These methods rely on theoretical approaches that may differ from the actual practices of beneficiary households. 

This finding raised a crucial question: how can we accurately assess the environmental impact of a program whose very essence lies in the autonomy and freedom of choice granted to beneficiary households? What solutions can be proposed without restricting or penalizing beneficiaries? 

What the study did 

To answer this question, the teams analyzed several projects conducted by Action Contre la Faim France in 2023 in eight countries with very different contexts, from Afghanistan to Ukraine. The study’s originality lies in one key point: it does not rely solely on theoretical models, but is based on the actual spending of recipient households. By comparing these concrete practices with the traditional methods used in the sector—based on “standard” consumption baskets (“Minimum Expenditure Baskets”)—the study provides a better understanding of the gaps between what we imagine… and what actually happens on the ground. This  

Key findings 

First key finding: Cash and Voucher Assistance primarily serves to meet basic needs. In the vast majority of cases, the money is used to buy food, which represents approximately 67% of spending. The remainder is allocated to housing (such as rent, utilities, energy) and healthcare (such as doctor’s visits, medication), each accounting for 10% and 9% respectively. The remaining 14% covers a variety of other needs (such as education, clothing, productive investment, etc.), demonstrating that this type of assistance effectively covers a range of essential needs. 

However, spending patterns vary considerably depending on the context. In rural areas or during acute crises, families dedicate the majority of their budget to food. In urban areas or countries with a higher cost of living (such as Jordan or Ukraine for instance), spending is more diversified and includes a greater proportion of housing and healthcare. 

Another key finding is that the carbon footprint of Cash and Voucher Assistance is often overestimated. Traditional methods, based on theoretical consumption patterns, do not reflect actual purchasing habits or seasonal variations. For example, in Nigeria, data shows that households consume fewer high-emission products like meat, thus reducing the actual carbon impact. The result: standard carbon footprint estimates based on Minimum Expenditure Baskets can overestimate emissions by 20 to 30%. 

A key point: “subsistence emissions” 

The study highlights a crucial idea: emissions related to cash and vouchers assistance are what are known as “subsistence emissions.” In other words, they are directly linked to meeting basic needs—food, shelter, healthcare—in contexts of extreme vulnerability. 

These emissions remain very low on a global scale, especially compared to those of wealthy countries. In this context, attempting to reduce them by influencing the choices of beneficiaries would pose a significant ethical problem. It would amount to limiting their freedom or dignity for a marginal environmental impact. 

How can the impact be reduced without penalizing the beneficiaries? 

Rather than placing the burden on the families themselves, the study proposes a different approach. Simple improvements can already be made to people’s habits, for example by facilitating access to more energy-efficient cooking solutions or reducing food waste (improved storage). 

But the real lever also lies with local markets. By supporting short supply chains, working with committed retailers, or bringing sales outlets closer to where people live, it is possible to significantly reduce the carbon footprint of purchases. 

More broadly, the study calls on the humanitarian sector to evolve by developing calculation methods that are closer to local realities and by integrating environmental considerations more fully from the program design stage. 

Key takeaway: 

Ultimately, this study changes our perspective on cash transfers. It shows that they are primarily an effective tool for enabling vulnerable populations to meet their basic needs, with an environmental impact that is often overestimated. 

Rather than restricting beneficiaries’ choices, the challenge lies elsewhere: transforming the systems around them—markets, logistics, practices—to build humanitarian aid that is both fairer and more sustainable. 

Note :  

This document presents an external summary of the work carried out by Action Contre la Faim France on the carbon footprint of Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA) in its 2023 activities.This version is intended for NGOs, technical partners, and stakeholders committed to improving the quality and environmental impact of humanitarian interventions.