earlyrecovery.globalearlyrecovery.global/...based_interventions_final_draft_o… · web viewin...

Guidance Note Cash Based Intervention- Helene Juillard Sixth version- October 14th, 2015

CASH BASED INTERVENTIONS

IN EARLY RECOVERY SETTINGS

GUIDANCE NOTE

(FINAL DRAFT)

OCTOBER 2015

UNDP


ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This document was written by Helene Juillard under the overall coordination of Charu Bist and Owen Shumba. This document is the product of consultation with different units. It has benefited from the extensive comments received from Country Offices, Regional Centre and Headquarters based staff in UNDP.

The author would like to specifically thank the members of the reference group who provided insights on specific technical areas at different stages of this document's development.

© UNDP, October 2015

The publication is copyrighted, but the text and graphics may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy, campaigning, education, and research, provided that the source is acknowledged in full. The copyright holder requests that all such use be registered with UNDP for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances or for re-use in other publications, or for translation or adaption, permission must be secured and a fee may be charged. Email [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


TABLE OF CONTENTSAcknowledgment...................................................................................................................................2List of acronyms.....................................................................................................................................5Key terminologies and concepts.............................................................................................................61. Introduction....................................................................................................................................8

a. Purpose of the Guidance Note....................................................................................................8b. Scope..........................................................................................................................................9c. Target audience..........................................................................................................................9d. How to use this Guidance Note..................................................................................................9e. CBI in UNDP programme cycle management............................................................................10f. CBI roles and responsibilities.....................................................................................................12

2. Preparedness and contingency planning......................................................................................13a. Situation analysis......................................................................................................................13b. Power analysis..........................................................................................................................16c. Implementing partner capacity assessment.............................................................................17d. Framework agreement with service providers.........................................................................18e. Capacity building.......................................................................................................................19

3. Programme design........................................................................................................................20a. Programme strategy.................................................................................................................20b. Appropriateness of CBI.............................................................................................................24c. Decision on CBI modality..........................................................................................................26d. Decision on the grant amount and payment frequency...........................................................29e. Decision on the cash payment agent and instrument..............................................................31f. Cash Based Interventions and new technologies......................................................................39g. Communication strategy...........................................................................................................42h. Resources mobilisation.............................................................................................................43

4. Programme implementation.........................................................................................................45a. Management arrangements.....................................................................................................46b. Targeting and beneficiary registration......................................................................................47c. Cash and vouchers distribution.................................................................................................52d. Working in unsecure areas.......................................................................................................53

5. Monitoring and evaluation...........................................................................................................54a. Monitoring Cash Based Interventions: process and impact......................................................54b. Market monitoring...................................................................................................................56c. Beneficiary accountability mechanisms....................................................................................57d. Final evaluation........................................................................................................................57e. Documenting evidence.............................................................................................................58

6. CBI sustainability & Exit strategy...................................................................................................587. Coordination of CBI.......................................................................................................................62

a. What is CBI coordination?.........................................................................................................62b. What does CBI coordination look like?.....................................................................................63c. What should be UNDP role in CBI coordination?......................................................................64

Annexe 1 Ready to use templates........................................................................................................66Annexe 2 References............................................................................................................................67Annexe 3 List of interviewees...............................................................................................................68


Table 1 Key questions for market analysis...........................................................................................14Table 2 Comparative table of different market analysis tools..............................................................15Table 3 Capacity assessment checklist.................................................................................................17Table 4 Service provider checklist........................................................................................................18Table 5 Risk mitigation measures.........................................................................................................22Table 6 CBI modality decision tree.......................................................................................................25Table 7 Comparative table of different CBI modalities.........................................................................27Table 8 Health and safety in CFW scheme............................................................................................29Table 9 Cost efficiency and cost effectiveness of CBI modalities..........................................................33Table 10 Comparative analysis of payment mechanism and instrument.............................................38Table 11 Potential advantages and disadvantages of E-transfer..........................................................42Table 12 Key messages for CBI.............................................................................................................43Table 13 Targeting methods for CBI.....................................................................................................48Table 14 CaLP principles and Operational standards for the secure use of personal data...................51Table 15 Cash and voucher distribution key principles........................................................................53Table 16 The 3x6 approach..................................................................................................................60Table 17 The CaLP Coordination toolkit...............................................................................................65


LIST OF ACRONYMS ATM Automated Teller MachineCaLP Cash Learning PartnershipCAP Consolidated Appeals ProcessCBI Cash Based InterventionCFW Cash for WorkCO Country OfficeCSO Civil Society OrganisationCSR Corporate Social ResponsibilityCTP Cash Transfer ProgrammeDFID Department For International DevelopmentER Early RecoveryFAO Food and Agriculture OrganisationFEWSNET Famine Early Warning Systems NetworkGN Guidance NoteMFI Micro Finance InstitutionMEAL Monitoring Evaluation Accountability and LearningM&E Monitoring and EvaluationNGO Non-governmental OrganisationPCM Programme Cycle ManagementPDM Post Distribution MonitoringPIN Personal Information NumberPOPP Programme and Operations Policies and ProceduresRFP Request For ProposalRC Regional CentreSOP Standard Operating ProceduresToR Terms of ReferenceUN United NationsUNCT United Nations Country TeamUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNHCR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesUNICEF United Nations Children’s FundUNOCHA United Nation Office for Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsWASH Water, Sanitation and HygieneWFP World Food Programme


KEY TERMINOLOGIES AND CONCEPTS

Cash Based Interventions The use of cash grants or vouchers as economic assistance to enable households or individuals meet an identified need (e.g. - food and non-food items, shelter, services, or assets). CBI is not a sector in itself; it is a means to an end and can be used to deliver components of broader early recovery or development responses. A primary difference between CBI and in-kind programming is that the beneficiaries are able to obtain goods and/or services directly from the local market and service providers. Within other UNCT agencies, CBIs are also sometimes referred to as Cash Transfer Programming (CTP).

Restricted Cash grants are restricted when UNDP or its implementing partners limit the way the cash should be used by the beneficiaries. Common restrictions include requiring the money to be partially or totally used on savings, food, educational expenses (e.g. school fees, school uniforms, etc.), shelter materials or works. Vouchers are always conditional.

Conditional Cash grants or vouchers are conditional when UNDP or its implementing partners are implementing the transfer only after recipients have performed some task or activity as a condition of receiving the transfer. Common conditions include taking part in emergency employment (e.g. public works or other cash for work projects that focus on community infrastructure rehabilitation, debris and/or solid waste management etc.), taking part in some form of training, enrolling children in school, or having them vaccinated.

Cash For Work Refers to a form of conditional cash grant that requires beneficiaries to work before receiving the transfer. Cash for work is different from employment generation because the primary purpose of cash for work is to transfer income/resources to people.

Cash grant The provision of money to beneficiaries (individuals or households) to cover one or several of their identified needs, including starting up a small business. Cash grants can be conditional or unconditional and/or restricted or non-restricted.

Cash transfer modalities Refers to the different types of cash based interventions, i.e. cash grants (conditional as well as unconditional and restricted as well as not restricted) and value, service and commodity vouchers (conditional as well as not conditional).

Cash payment mechanism/agent Refers to the financial system utilised for making payment to beneficiaries, e.g. bank, post office, microfinance institution, remittance company, etc.

Cash delivery instruments Refers to the instrument used for making the actual payment to the beneficiaries, e.g. bank cheque/draft, postal order, direct cash, smart card, mobile phone, etc.

E-transfers are digital transfers of cash or vouchers from the implementing agency to a program participant. E-transfers include the distribution of cash grants through mobile phone or SMART card (ATM card, pre-paid card) and access to goods and/or services through electronic vouchers.

E-vouchers1 A card or code that is electronically redeemed at a participating distribution point. E-vouchers can represent cash or commodity value and are redeemed using a range of electronic devices.

Early recovery Early recovery is a multidimensional approach to recovery that begins in a humanitarian setting. It is guided by development principles that seek to build on humanitarian

1 ELAN glossary


programmes and to catalyse sustainable development opportunities. It aims to generate self- sustaining, nationally owned, resilient processes for post-crisis recovery. It encompasses the restoration of basic services, livelihoods recovery, restoration of state authority, security and rule of law, environment, and social cohesion. Specific target groups include vulnerable community members, woman-headed households, youth, displaced population groups, and host communities (i.e. IDPs, refugees, ex-combatants).

Multi-purpose Multi-purpose cash based interventions address needs that cut across the sectors and clusters into which relief operations are traditionally organised. Choice is placed wholly in the hands of crisis-affected households, who are able to use funds provided to meet a range of needs as required.

Multi-sector Multi-sector cash based interventions have a similar function to the multi-purpose CBI, but with sectorial objectives set by humanitarian actors. In multi-sector programmes, M&E and expenditure are monitored by sector to ensure sectorial impacts are met.

Market Any formal or informal structure (not necessarily a physical space) in which buyers and sellers exchange goods, labour or services for cash or other goods. The word ‘market’ can simply mean the place in which good or services are exchanged. Markets are sometimes defined by forces of supply and demand, rather than geographical location, e.g. ‘imported cereals make up 40% of the market’.

Market analysis The process of assessing and understanding the key features and characteristics of a market system or marketplace, to inform the response analysis on what modality to use to implement a programme and/or what actions to implement to strengthen the market.

Voucher A paper, token or electronic card that can be exchanged for a set quantity or value of goods, denominated either as a value (e.g. $15) or predetermined commodities or services (e.g. 5 kg maize; milling of 5kg of maize). They are redeemable with preselected vendors or in ‘fairs’ created by the agency. The vendors are paid by the contracting agency upon production of these vouchers or evidence of exchange between the trader and beneficiaries.


1. INTRODUCTION UNDP helps countries to simultaneously reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development that leads to transformational change, bringing about real improvements in people’s lives.We promote an integrated approach to achieve sustainable development that tackles the connected issues of multidimensional poverty, inequality and exclusion, and sustainability, while enhancing knowledge, skills and production technologies to reduce risks and sustain development gains.

“

Within UNDP’s Sustainable development mandate, cash based interventions are tools targeted to reduce poverty and inequality, stabilize post-conflict/disaster regions, and protect people from risk. These can be conditional or unconditional and/or restricted and unrestricted transfers, depending on targeted beneficiaries and scope of the programme. In UNDP, cash transfers and vouchers have been used for the following “typology” of responses:

social protection transfers; salaries/pensions; emergency cash transfers for cash for work, livelihoods cash grants; early recovery cash transfers; development cash transfers for microfinance transfers, long term loans.

Most recent examples of UNDP’s demonstrated capacity and leadership in successfully handling large scale transfers include the Payments Programme for Ebola Response Workers (PPERW) and, in the Philippines, the successful embarking of more than 50,000 beneficiaries in CBI.

A. PURPOSE OF THE GUIDANCE NOTE

The purpose of this Guidance Note (GN) is to provide UNDP specialists from different units, country offices and regional centres with a structured and harmonised overview of CBI schemes. It also aims to equip UNDP teams to support the Government in using such mechanisms. This Guidance Note supports UNDP and its implementing partners to determine if and when CBIs are appropriate to meet the needs of affected communities. It aids the design and implementation of timely Cash Based Interventions at scale that meet agreed minimum standards. The GN provides decision-making guidance for the design, implementation and M&E of programmes using CBI. It aims to improve the efficiency of CBI by giving directions on key roles, responsibilities, and which steps and processes to follow, to ensure timely and quality CBI across the programme cycle. It also intends to equip UNDP and its partners with greater confidence while implementing CBI, through improved risk management, including security risk, risk of fraud, risk of adverse economic impact, etc.

This GN does not replace any of the existing UNDP policies or procedures, which must still be observed. It builds on UNDP’s Knowledge Products as one of the UNDP Signature Products displaying the specific key steps required to design and implement CBI in early recovery settings across the sectors. It complements the existing sectorial guidance document, which should be primarily referred to when UNDP response looks at delivering outcomes in its covered sector. It goes along the other Signature Products2 by focusing on CBI as a tool that can be used in different UNDP niche areas of programming. This GN is complemented by the programme tools section of UNDP's Crisis Response Package on Livelihoods and Economic Recovery3.2 Guidance Note Debris Management, Guidance Note Emergency Employment and enterprise recovery, Guidance Note Community infrastructure rehabilitation. http://www.earlyrecovery.info/signature-products/ 3 Add the link

http://www.earlyrecovery.info/signature-products/


The GN has been developed in consultation with all the different units involved in Early Recovery response4. It builds on existing UNDP’s experiences with CBIs, and the review of existing documents on CBI design and implementation that have been developed in different country offices5.

B. SCOPE

CBIs are mechanisms to achieve desired goals and not outcomes in themselves. Hence this GN can be used within every UNDP service line: livelihoods recovery, basic services and social cohesion. This GN is applicable in early recovery settings, as well as in emergency settings following a rapid- or slow-onset humanitarian crisis, either man made (conflict) or disaster. As CBI is a tool, it can be used within the livelihoods and economic recovery sector across any of UNDP's three Tracks6;however, this GN focuses on early recovery.

This GN covers the whole range of CBIs: a) conditional or unconditional and restricted or non-restricted cash grants and b) conditional or non-conditional vouchers. It covers CBI as a means to achieve a programme for affected communities, not payment schemes for UNDP staff, Government or health personnel. The GN looks only at the aspects specific to CBI, with references to the expected steps of UNDP Early Recovery programme design and implementation, as described in UNDP intranet.

The GN covers the whole programme cycle management with a specific section on sustainability and exit strategy that highlights linking up with medium- and longer-term recovery programmes, including social safety nets. A specific chapter on cluster coordination for CBIs is also included at the end of the GN. It indicates the steps to be followed for the design and implementation of CBIs , whether implemented directly by UNDP or by an implementing partner.

C. TARGET AUDIENCE

The Guidance Note is intended for multi-functional teams (management, programme, procurement, finance, HR, etc.) in field operations, who are responsible for determining if and when cash-based interventions are appropriate to meet UNDP objectives and ensuring the effective design, implementation and monitoring of CBIs.

More specifically, it targets local Government counterparts, UNDP practitioners, advisors and cluster coordinators, SURGE and ExpRes roster members. It is also intended to be shared with UNDP implementation partners and clusters’ members.

D. HOW TO USE THIS GUIDANCE NOTE

This GN follows the programme cycle management: Preparedness and contingency planning; Programme design; Programme implementation; Monitoring and evaluation and Exit strategy.

It comprises:

Flow charts with key steps and division of responsibilities between UNDP units; Detailed Guidance Notes on each of the specific steps; Annexes with links to ready-to-use templates from existing UNDP programmes.

E. CBI IN UNDP PROGRAMME CYCLE MANAGEMENT

4 Between September and December 2014, 31 persons from technical units, procurement, treasury, partnership and UNCDF have interviewed.5 Haiti, DRC, Pacific Islands, Lebanon and Syria.6 UNDP Livelihoods and Recovery Guide


Flow chart for each step of the programme cycle with key activities to implement and UNDP tools available.


11

Preparedness key steps1. Complete a CBI feasibility and risk assessment2. Complete the situation analysis3. Complete the power analysis4. Assess implementing partner capacity to design and implement CBI5. Sign framework agreement with financial service providers6. Plan and implement capacity building effortsAvailable tools: Risk and Feasibility assessment methodology and form Service Provider contract template List of available training material

Design key steps7. Conduct a need assessment 8. Update the situation analysis and the

Feasibility and Risk Assessment 9. Set up a Risk Mitigation plan10. Define your objective or theory of

change11. Define your target group12. Decide on the appropriateness of CBI13. Select the implementing partner14. Decide on the CBI modality to use15. Decide the grant amount and payment

frequency16. Communicate your decision with

programme stakeholders17. Mobilise resources for the programme

Available tools: Household survey Service provider assessment form Trader questionnaire Decision tree Minimum Expenditure Basket

Implementation key steps18. Contract the payment agent19. Target the beneficiaries 20. Set up beneficiaries’ registration and

identification systems 21. Distribute the cash and voucherAvailable tools: Sample contract with the service provider Voucher template Sample JD and key skills for CBI team

member Daily sign in sheet for CfW activities

Monitoring and Evaluation key steps22. Define a monitoring framework 23. Ensure market monitoring is in place24. Ensure a complaint mechanism is in place 25. Undertake a final evaluation26. Document and share lessons learnedAvailable tools: Monitoring and Evaluating CBI 2 pagers PDM questions for process monitoring Market monitoring form PDM and market monitoring report template

Exit and sustainability key steps27. Communicate your exit plan

with all stakeholders 28. Actively seek linkages with

long term programmes29. Document your programme30. Prepare the final narrative

and financial reports


F. CBI ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The flow chart below captures the key actions and the party responsible for undertaking them.

12


2. PREPAREDNESS AND CONTINGENCY PLANNING

A.SITUATION

ANALYSIS

A situation analysis is an important link in the programme cycle to formulate an intervention or organisational strategy irrespective of CBI. The situation analysis can be set up during the preparedness stage to inform the preparedness and contingency planning. It will allow for a deep contextual understanding of the situation, and will inform the programme design when a crisis hits. When CBIs are being considered at a national level, the situation analysis should include:

A mapping of the existing social protection schemes:

This should include a review of targeting mechanisms already in place, payment systems, grievances reporting, administrative structures, existing evaluations, graduation mechanisms and Government capacity. These are all things UNDP can build on when implementing a CBI in Early Recovery settings.

Market analysis:

Market analysis represents an integral part of the situation analysis and should therefore be carried out prior to designing any programme, not just potential cash-based interventions. Unless responses are designed with a good understanding of key markets, there is a risk that they may damage livelihoods, jobs, and businesses, increase inflation, and undermine livelihood rehabilitation, which can in turn prolong dependence on outside assistance.

As part of preparedness, it is recommended to carry out pre-crisis market analysis for key goods and services corresponding to the needs that UNDP programme will seek to address in case of crisis. This will inform the contingency plan and the CBI risk assessment (see below), and provide answers to the key questions below. Considering UNDP mandate and expertise, it is recommended to systematically undertake unskilled and skilled labour markets analysis.

KEY QUESTIONS FOR MARKET ANALYSIS

What are the trends in the markets and how are they likely to change following a crisis?

What are the policies, institutions, norms, infrastructures and general market services that impact the overall functionality? And how are they likely to be impacted by the crisis?

Who are the key market actors? Are they willing to collaborate with UNDP for

13

Key activities for preparedness and contingency planning: Complete a CBI feasibility and risk assessment Complete the situation analysis Complete the power analysis Assess implementing partner capacity to design and implement

CBI Sign framework agreement with financial service providers Plan and implement capacity building efforts


a future CBI? And how are they likely to be impacted by the crisis?

Can markets cover the volume and diversity of needs of the population during an Early Recovery response at an acceptable and stable price? Can the response rely on market actors?

How will the response impact markets and people’s access to markets for essential commodities and labour?

What other interventions being implemented also rely on the local market? How will these affect markets and people’s access to markets when combined?

How should the response be designed to avoid and/or mitigate risks of negative impact?

What modality should be used to deliver Early Recovery responses?

Table 1 Key questions for market analysis

These key questions will be further broken down during the market analysis exercise, looking at market functionality, elasticity and integration. The depth and scope of the market analysis should be defined on a case-by-case basis based on:

The objective of the market analysis (i.e. the key questions you want an answer to) The size of the intended response compared to the local market. A more rigorous assessment

should be undertaken when an intervention is expected to target more than 25% of the population in urban areas and more than 10% in rural areas.

The quality of existing secondary information (e.g. with WFP, FAO, the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET), relevant national ministries and bodies (e.g. the Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Trade, and Bureau of Commerce), private consulting companies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The tools to implement the market analysis should be picked accordingly, using the below table. The first four lines indicate different moments in a crisis timeline, different types of crisis, and which tool is appropriate for which context.

EMMA PCMMA RAM MAG 48h tool

Slow onset crisis X X X X

Rapid onset crisis X X X X

Recovery phase X X X

Preparedness phase X X X

Situation analysis X X X X X

Response analysis X X X X X

Monitoring X X

Multi sector X X X X X

14


By non market expert X X X X X

Table 2 Comparative table of different market analysis tools

All those tools are accessible through the following links:

EMMA: Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis: http://emma-toolkit.org/get/download/ PCMMA: Pre-Crisis Market Mapping and Analysis: http://emma-toolkit.org/practice/pre-

crisis-market-mapping-and-analysis/ RAM: Rapid Assessment of Market- https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-

002-4199.pdf MAG: Market Analysis- https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4200.pdf Oxfam 48h tool: http://foodsecuritycluster.net/document/oxfam-48-hour-assessment-tool

Every market analysis should abide to the following five minimum requirements7:

The scope and depth of the market assessment are decided based on identified information needs to enable appropriate programme decisions.

The data coming out of the market analysis informs key programme-related decisions and contributes to the selection of appropriate modalities to achieve programme objectives whilst doing no harm.

Collection of data is undertaken by competent and knowledgeable teams. Data collection systems, procedures and information sources utilised in the market

assessment are context sensitive and of sufficient quality to allow for the capturing of the dynamic nature of markets.

Monitoring activities provides a check against initial assessment findings and enables decision-making for potential adaptation of interventions.

Other agencies' responses

Mapping other agencies' responses and filling the UNOCHA regular 5W8 matrix is a general good practice for coordination and avoiding overlap. When using CBI this is all the more critical, as the impact of the combined responses on local markets and people's access to markets should be monitored. Having a baseline mapping of the other agencies responses at preparedness stage will allow for better coordination at design and implementation stage. For more information on Coordination, refer to Section 7. Coordination of CBI.

Feasibility and Risk assessment

Receiving support carries risks for recipient populations, and cash-based interventions are no exception. It is important to determine what the potential risks are, who is at risk, the seriousness of the impact and likelihood of occurrence, and whether risks can be mitigated through programme design features such as the choice of transfer modality, delivery mechanism, or complementary activities. Finally, it is necessary to weigh these risks against the potential benefits or against the risks of alternative interventions, including in-kind assistance or, when there is no alternative, what would happen if UNDP provided no assistance at all.

The Feasibility and Risk Assessment helps determine whether CBI is an appropriate methodology that can be used by UNDP to deliver its Early Recovery Programme. It should ideally be done by each 7 CaLP Minimum requirements for market analysis. Refer to this document for tips on how to implement quality market analysis.8 Who does What, Where, When and to Whom

15

http://foodsecuritycluster.net/document/oxfam-48-hour-assessment-tool

http://emma-toolkit.org/practice/pre-crisis-market-mapping-and-analysis/

http://emma-toolkit.org/practice/pre-crisis-market-mapping-and-analysis/

http://emma-toolkit.org/get/download/


Country Office as part of its contingency planning and updated on a regular basis. Depending on how volatile the context is, it can be updated on a yearly or on a six-month basis. The assessment is undertaken either by an external consultant or by relevant CO programme staff and must be signed off by the Deputy Resident Representative or the Deputy Country Director. The feasibility and risk assessment is designed around five risks, commonly associated with CBI and in-kind delivery:

Risk to the safety and security of implementing partners and beneficiaries Risk of fraud and diversion Risk of leakage of confidential information Risk related to market systems and their disruption Risk of misinformation or political capture

The feasibility and risk assessment is relevant whatever the context (i.e. during both conflict and disaster). This assessment should be done as part of preparedness stage, so that:

COs are in a position to design and operate or monitor a timely and accountable CBI which could be rapidly scaled up.

COs have adequate time to raise the awareness of stakeholders at all levels in the country (NGO, Government departments, local leadership, non-beneficiaries, small businesses, etc.)

Key country programme staff have the training, skills and tools to assess the appropriateness of CBI, to implement CBI, and ensure rapid operational scale-up if relevant, with any gaps identified and addressed (staff capacity, systems & processes).

A link to the assessment form can be found in Annexe 1.

B. POWER ANALYSIS

The use of CBI can be a powerful agent of change. At a community level, it can reinforce or change power relations, which is why it is so important to understand the pre-existing power dynamics at household and community levels in country to ensure that the use of CBI will do no harm m to the targeted beneficiaries. The power analysis will inform the programme design and should be used whether in-kind or CBI are considered to implement UNDP Early Recovery Response.

A gender analysis should pre-exist in country and be accessible either with UNWOMEN or with UNICEF; a protection analysis should also be available with UNHCR. When those documents do not exist, it is the responsibility of the project officer to collect this information, either with the above-mentioned UN agencies or with the active NGO in the area (OXFAM, the IRC, etc.) These documents should provide information on:

Whether and why women are (or are not) especially vulnerable to poverty and shocks and what exacerbates the risks for women during a shock.

The role of women and men in relation to, control over decision making about and access to basic needs and cash.

The way cash is divided, controlled and used within households. The differences in coping capacities of men and women, including male and female-

headed households. Polygamous households and division of resources and assets between different wives. Access to and disruptions/blocks faced by men and women to financial services (both

formal and informal).

16


Access to and disruptions/blocks faced by men and women to market places.

C. IMPLEMENTING PARTNER CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

In consultation with the Government Coordinating Agency, UNDP selects implementing partners for its Early Recovery programme. The selection is based on an assessment of the partner’s capacity to effectively manage the project and deliver the intended outputs. The implementing partner may be a government entity (“national implementation”), UNDP (“direct implementation”), a United Nations agency, a local or international NGO9 or an approved inter-governmental organization that is not part of the UN system.

The selection of implementing partner will consider various issues, including the scale of the response and the partner's capacity. Regular UNDP procedures should be used in that regard (e.g. NGO Capacity Assessment Form10). When CBIs are being considered to implement a response, partnership selection should include an assessment of their capacity to design and deliver CBI. The areas below should be covered during this assessment.

CBI CAPACITY ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST

Previous experiences with the design and implementation of CBI.

Previous experiences with distribution (including in-kind).

Existing activity reports of these experiences.

Existing financial reporting of these experiences.

Existence of financial systems that enable CBI.

Existence of procurement systems that enable CBI.

Existence of Standard Operating Procedures on CBI.

Clear division of roles and responsibilities by the partner's team members for the implementation of CBI.

Experience in analysing and monitoring market trends.

Technical and operational capacity of partner staff to implement and monitor CBI.

Table 3 Capacity assessment checklist

This checklist can also be used to assess UNDP Country Office CBI readiness, especially in case of direct implementation.

As part of the regular UNDP process, agreements with both implementing partners and responsible parties should be developed with well-defined roles and responsibilities, including those of UNDP. When the use of CBI is considered, it should be mentioned in the agreement, and process indicators developed to ensure the proper implementation of CBI (see Section 5: Monitoring and Evaluation). In case the implementing partner has pre-existing Standard Operating Procedures on CBI, the relevant programme officer of the CO should make sure these are not in conflict with the present GN. In case

9 When the implementing partner is an NGO, UNDP NGO policy should be used whether CBI is being considered or not. 10 Add the link

17


the implementing partner and UNDP guidelines do not match, UNDP's GN will take precedence. This should be specifically mentioned in the agreement.

D. FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT WITH SERVICE PROVIDERS

When discussing CBI, 'service providers' mostly refers to financial service providers: a bank, a mobile phone company, an MFI, etc. To ensure swift implementation of the programme, it is important to identify service providers prior to the crisis, even if the final decision on the payment mechanism will be taken on a case-by-case basis during programme design stage (See Section 3.b Decision on the cash payment mechanism). This final decision will also consider the impact the crisis had on the service providers.

At global level, UNDP has a corporate agreement with City Bank that could be used in countries for the implementation of CBI. A copy of this agreement is available with Treasury Unit in New York. UNCDF or other UN agencies can also have standing agreements with Financial Service Providers at country or regional levels.

At country level, the UNDP Operations and Treasurer conduct, as part of their normal operations, a payment agents mapping. This mapping, valid for five years, is not done specifically for CBI and results in the selection of a UNDP bank for its overall operations. During this mapping exercise, it is important to collect information about CBI, so that service providers can be identified, at national level, as part of preparedness phase.

CBI FINANCIAL SERVICE PROVIDER CHECKLIST

Previous experience in CBI (in Early recovery settings, social protection, humanitarian response, etc.)

Scale of those previous CBI

Interest in collaborating with UNDP for CBI

Country coverage (# counter, # staff)

Capacity to make payment (# pax/day, maximum amount/day)

Enrolment process for beneficiary HH to benefit from FSP service

Money transfer and disbursement process

Service cost (both for recipient and sender)

Access to service by beneficiaries (physical access (distance & cost), document needed, existence of a bank account, etc.)

Time for the whole transfer process UNDP>agent>HH

Monitoring and reconciliation mechanisms of the disbursed money

Mistake management

Table 4 Service provider checklist

If there is no regular on-going or existing mapping in country, a procurement of service process can be launched for the identification of such financial providers. The process to follow will be either the

18


regular procurement process or UNDP Fast Track Procedures11, depending on the context. The Terms of Reference will be prepared by the programme and finance teams with the inputs from logistics that will then integrate the ToR in a Request For Proposal12. The RFP is published through the usual channel and the selection made as with any other procurement. It is important, however, to note that procurement procedures apply only to the service charges and not to the overall amount that will be transferred.

Example from the field: contracting a mobile money provider in Haiti

Due to UNDP financial regulations it is difficult for a CO to open a dedicated bank account in country, whereas this was one of the prerequisites for all the mobile operators in Haiti. In order to tackle this important issue, the service provider worked in partnership with a local company that could open a local bank account. As the proposal in the tender process was presented by this partnership (Digicel-Transveral), the arrangement could be made; however it is critical to plan such arrangements long in advance, as they can be very time consuming.

UNDP is developing crisis response packages that will contain ready-to-use ToRs and is looking at global and regional Long Term Agreements with financial providers at global and regional levels. Hence before embarking on a new RFP, refer to what might already exist.

Once the service provider is identified, a framework contract will be signed. The contract template and content will depend on the context and will be determined by Procurement. See CBI Crisis Response Package for a sample. It should however contain as a minimum:

Duration of the agreement Cost and type/quality of the financial services Clear division of roles and responsibilities between UNDP and the provider Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting system Reconciliation process

E. CAPACITY BUILDING

The design and implementation phases of an Early Recovery response are not the appropriate time for capacity building on CBI. The teams are under high pressure at those stages, which is why capacity building efforts are critical during preparedness phase. Cash literacy of team members will have a key impact on the programme quality and effectiveness.

Several training options are available:

The e-Training modules on CaLP website: http://www.cashlearning.org/docebo/ Registering for one of the CaLP or other agencies trainings – calendar is on CaLP

website CaLP level 1 and 2 training material is freely available and can be used to train the

team: http://www.cashlearning.org/resources/training-level-1 UNDP SURGE training also includes a CBI component

Sharing training opportunities with the team and supporting the organisation of training is the overall responsibility of the Human Resources Manager. As a starting point, all newly recruited staff working on CBI should be asked to go through CaLP E-learning.11 Add the link 12 Add the link to UNDP LTA with FSP

19


Training efforts could target UNDP staff for the Programme, and also the Support department; UNDP partners, including stand-by partners for immediate crisis response: MSB, NRC, DRC, among others; and Early Recovery cluster members.

3. PROGRAMME DESIGN

A. PROGRAMME STRATEGY

Need assessment

All Early Recovery programmes must be based on a sound need assessment and situation analysis. The basic issues covered in needs assessments are no different when cash-based interventions are being considered as a response option and will therefore not be covered in detail here. For more guidance, refer to the specific tool to be used by each sector, such as the Livelihoods and Economic Recovery assessment, which provides information on the social and economic context of a crisis or post-crisis situation.

Situation analysis & Feasibility and Risk assessment update

If the preparedness phase is well implemented, then rapid assessments are often sufficient to update the situation analysis and the risk and feasibility assessment update.

Risk mitigation

Once the risks have been identified, it is important to identify measures to mitigate them. Risk mitigation should be an integral part of UNDP's overarching quality assurance approach. When projects are implemented according to principles of quality assurance (such as community participation, respect for humanitarian principles, tight internal management controls, etc.), acceptance of the project by the local community is likely to increase, thereby reducing some of the risks identified above.

Risk mitigation measures should be contextualised, however: participatory programming to increase acceptance by local communities and authorities; clear operating standards; internal financial controls and regular external financial reviews; strict contractual arrangements with financial service

20

Key activities for programme design: Conduct a need assessment Update the situation analysis and the Feasibility and Risk

Assessment Set up a Risk Mitigation plan Define your objective or theory of change Define your target group Decide on the appropriateness of CBI Select the implementing partner Decide on the CBI modality to use Decide the grant amount and payment frequency Communicate your decision with programme stakeholders Mobilise resources for the programme


providers; complaint mechanisms accessible to all beneficiaries; strong and transparent monitoring and evaluation; and clear communication with all programme stakeholders, are generic measures that will mitigate risks. Below is a table with some of the mitigation measures per each of the five risks categories. For more information, see the Risk Management Unit in UNDP and the document: Cash Consortium, S. (2013). Cash Consortium for South Central Somalia Approach to Risk Mitigation.

RISKS MITIGATION

Safety and security of staff and beneficiaries

UNDP staff: - UNDP or implementing partner does not handle large amounts of cash. Instead, financial service providers are contracted to assume risks and liability up until the distribution point. - Team is composed of local staff who knows the context well and is well accepted within the community.- Complaints mechanisms in place which increase accountability directly to communities and can help staff to deflect pressure from local power holders.Beneficiaries: - Provide protection-related information on anticipated risks resulting from CBI and, if possible, mitigation strategies.- Create sufficient awareness with all stakeholders so that the grants cannot be subjected to any taxation.- Strong Monitoring, Evaluation and Accountability system in place.

Risk of fraud and diversion by non-beneficiaries.

- Strong vulnerability-based targeting involving the community- Clear communication with authorities- Zero tolerance policy to fraud- Payment agents have been verified against UN sanctions lists and have signed UN Supplier code of conduct.- Strong identification and reconciliation methods.- Grants are paid out to registered beneficiaries and not through proxies.

Risk of leakage of confidential information

- Management of and access to the database is clearly defined and restricted.- Contract with the payment agent includes a clause on confidentiality.- Plan/system in place to safely dispose of beneficiaries’ information at the end of the project.

Risk related to market systems and their disruption

- Traders' involvement in the planning phase so they can anticipate the increase in demand.- Market monitoring (price, availability)- Risks around price inflation can be mitigated through the choice of transfer modality (cash, vouchers or in-kind), other aspects of programme design (attaching restrictions) and supply-side interventions (collaboration with traders, etc).

21


Risk of misinformation or political capture

- Regular qualitative monitoring and evaluation can detect misinformation or political capture. If it occurs, the project can be stopped until situation improves. - Direct community involvement in the project. - Accessible and effective complaint mechanisms- Clear communication with all stakeholders- Signature of a Memorandum of Understanding between the local authorities and the implementing partner.

Table 5 Risk mitigation measures

Link with the response analysis

UNDP views its involvement in early recovery as an integral part of its support for poverty reduction, sustainable human development and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals13 in crisis affected countries. Each objective of UNDP programme is a solution to a problem identified during a context-specific assessment.

Implementing CBI is not an objective in and of itself but a tool that can be used to meet UNDP programme objectives. Within UNDP’s programme, CBIs have most frequently been used to meet basic needs and restore livelihoods.

Example from the field- using CBI to cover different types of outcomes

Using CBI for enterprise recovery--DRC: since 2014, UNDP has been using conditional and restricted cash grants targeting around 500 individuals to help them recover their livelihoods. The grants are being disbursed as business grants and are being supplemented by skills development.

Using CBI to cover basic needs--Syria crisis: since 2014, in Lebanon, members of the Cash Working Group are covering basic needs of 86,000 households through monthly multi-purpose unconditional cash grants. Also in Syria itself, in 2014, UNDP created cash for work opportunities for approximately 3,700 persons for four months on solid waste removal so that they could cover their basic needs.

Using CBI to cover shelter outcomes--Haiti: in the aftermath of the 2011 earthquake, UNDP has used vouchers to rehabilitate shelters damaged by the disaster.

The following UNDP guiding principles for early recovery activities should be used during the design of CBI schemes:

(a) National ownership National ownership is very important for early recovery efforts to stabilise the situation following a crisis. It is indispensable for the achievement of a more sustainable full recovery. International actors will come and go, while national actors remain. In terms of CBI it could mean working through existing social protection schemes. For more information on that topic, see Lucy Pearson, E. J. (2013). Government uptake of Cash Transfer Programming. CaLP.

(b) National capacity utilisation and support National ownership cannot fully materialise if national actors and institutions do not have the required capacities to lead, manage and implement the process. There is always a danger that, in the urgent drive to save lives, humanitarian programmes will replace or substitute their own capacities for existing national capacities. Early recovery programmes should develop the capacities of the state and other duty-bearers to fulfil their main 13 The Sustainable Development Goals are the Post 2015- Millenium Development Goal: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

22

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/


obligations and responsibilities towards the population. Additionally, affected populations should be seen as fundamental actors requiring capacities to drive the process of recovery and claim their rights. This could mean building national actors' and institutions' capacity in terms of CBI. In a crisis setting, UNDP is also committed to involving and ensuring participation of national actors and institutions and of the affected populations, although the capacity building component may come at a later stage.

(c) Community-centred approach National ownership and capacity development extend beyond the central government to include actors at all levels, especially that of the local community. This is the level at which some of the most meaningful early recovery activities are undertaken. Participation of communities in decision-making (including specific needs groups such as woman-headed households, youth, displaced groups, ex-combatants etc.), implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of local programmes will increase the appropriateness of the early recovery interventions. CBIs, and especially unconditional unrestricted cash grants, are an empowering tool that give the targeted community the possibility to make its own decisions and prioritisations.

(d) Conflict prevention and risk reduction A crisis can precipitate opportunities for improvements in conditions that may have caused the losses and instability in the first place. Building back better aims to promote the restoration of services, systems and institutions to a more advanced state than before the crisis through the application of improved standards and policies. In terms of CBI, the use of CFW can mean that some community infrastructures are rebuilt; saving scheme can increase the building back better aspect too. CFW can also have a social cohesion component, as working together may encourage better cohesion. This requires, however, that the targeting gets the buy-in from the community and that the population is in appropriate physical condition to work.

(e) Promoting gender equality The promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment should be integrated as a cross-cutting issue in all early recovery activities and addressed from the initial assessment and planning stages of early recovery. Crises are sometimes powerful agent of change and it can be an opportunity for people to push their normal cultural boundaries, if they so choose ; this shouldn’t be avoided due to assumed cultural negativity. Power dynamics should be understood and used for the design of the response strategy. Specific attention should be paid to whom the transfer is given; in that regards refer to Section 4.b Targeting.

CBI should be designed in such a way that it is inclusive and promotes gender equality. This could mean ensuring equitable access to the payment agent by all the beneficiaries and paying a specific attention to CFW scheme. Depending on the context not all tasks may be perceived as “appropriate” for both men and women. In addition, in conservative communities, mixing men and women in public spaces may be considered inappropriate. Women generally express preference for home-based type of works. While aiming at a balanced participation of men and women in CfW projects, ad hoc projects should be conceived for women to suit their work preferences and to allow for a fair time allocation between productive activities and house chores. When CFW is considered, the aid provided should also be accessible to those who cannot work (people living with disabilities, older people).

(f) Transparency and accountability This comprises full accountability to beneficiaries, as well as to governments and donors. It includes a transparent recovery planning process, the sharing of good practices, rigorous monitoring and evaluation and accessible complaint mechanism. This also means

23


putting beneficiaries at the centre of the CBI activity, through information, participation and empowerment.

Target group

Once the needs have been assessed and the programme objectives defined, the target group should be identified. Defining the target group is a key step in every Early Recovery programme; therefore the process when CBI is considered should not be any different. The definition of the target group is based on vulnerabilities, on the crisis and on UNDP mandate. It will not be covered in this document, but guidance can be found in UNDP Guide to Livelihoods and Economic recovery in crisis situations14. However, CBI being of high value and attractive, the targeting may be seen as more challenging than in-kind support. See Section 4.b for Targeting protocol and beneficiary registration.

B. APPROPRIATENESS OF CBI

Regardless of operating context, the possibility of using cash-based interventions to deliver the project should be considered. Whether or not CBIs are appropriate will depend on the response analysis. The response analysis is a process to determine whether cash-based interventions – either alone or in combination with other types of assistance – are an appropriate tool to deliver the UNDP Early Recovery programme. A full package of support linking the immediate recovery to longer-term policy options should be planned.

The response analysis will be based on the situation analysis and a comparison of the relative risks and benefits of different transfer modalities (in-kind and cash based), cost-efficiency, and potential effectiveness. The latter includes timeliness, the skills and capacity necessary to implement cash-based interventions, and their coherence with other aid programmes.

Based on the situation analysis, UNDP's relevant Programme Officer and the Government Coordinating Agency representative have the information to decide on the appropriateness of CBI. Before making the decision, UNDP team members may need to raise Government Coordinating Agency awareness on CBI, for key advocacy and talking points see Section 3.e Communication strategy. The decision tree below can be used to support the process.

14 http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/crisis-prevention-and-recovery/guide--livelihoods---economic-recovery-in-crisis-situations.html

24


Table 6 CBI modality decision tree

25


C. DECISION ON CBI MODALITY

Once the choice has been made to use CBI to deliver UNDP Early Recovery Programme, one must decide, about which modality or combination of modalities to use. The decision will be made by the implementing partner with the support of UNDP Programme Officer and should be based on the results of the situation analysis. Below is a table showing the advantages and disadvantages of the different modalities. The table below does not repeat the potential generic advantages and disadvantages of CBI. The continued appropriateness of the chosen modality should be reviewed during the project implementation by the implementing partner and UNDP should be informed about the outcomes of this review process.

MODALITY POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES

TYPE OF ACTIVITY &

APPROPRIATE CONTEXT

Cash grant- unconditional unrestricted

- Minimal administrative burden- Generally more cost efficient than voucher- Quick to implement and deliver- Increased liberty of choice and dignity for beneficiaries

- Recipients may spend money in ways not linked to project objective

Multi purpose cash grantEmergency contextOnly based on targeting to qualify for the CBI assistance.

Cash grant unconditional restricted

- Implementing partner can influence recipient expenditures to promote project objectives

Requires implementing partners to verify that the restriction has been respected

Cash grant for shelter material

Cash grant conditional restricted

- Implementing partner can influence recipient expenditures to promote project objectives- May encourage a specific practice (through attending a training, awareness session, etc.)

- Requires implementing partners to verify that the restriction has been respected- Takes away time from other activities- May exclude those who are not able to fulfil the condition

CFW/cash for training project where the use of the grant is then limited to some specific expenses.

Cash grant conditional unrestricted

- May encourage a specific practice (through attending a training, awareness session, etc.)

- Takes away time from other activities- May exclude those who are not able to fulfil the condition

CFW/cash for training project.

CFW - Contributes to the rehabilitation and restoration of basic social, economic and productive community infrastructure- Platform for skills development and social inclusion/ cohesion- Potentially self targeted

- Disruption of local labour market - Takes away time from other activities- May exclude those without capacity to work- Potential health and safety risks for

CFW is just a form of conditional cash grant that can be either restricted or not.When planning for CFW scheme always plan for a small accompanying budget for non-conditional cash

26


beneficiaries transfers for the one not able to work.CFW can also be suitable for livelihood emergency activity

Voucher unconditional

- Recipients do not directly handle cash - Quality of goods and prices can be monitored by the implementing partners- Implementing partners can easily influence recipient choice and promote certain practices

- Limits recipient choice- Recipients may have other priorities not covered by the voucher- Requires more planning and preparation- Traders not involved in the project may be disadvantaged - Traders may manipulate prices

- Security concerns about cash flow- Lack of financial provider in the area- To ensure adequate quantity and quality of products are bought by beneficiaries

Voucher conditional Ibid- May encourage a specific practice

Ibid- Takes away time from other activities- May exclude those who are not able to fulfil the condition

IbidWhen the condition is to work, always plan for a small accompanying budget for non-conditional cash transfers for the one not able to work.

Table 7 Comparative table of different CBI modalities15

All delivery mechanisms can be relevant. Final choice should be made based on an assessment of what is appropriate to the context.

Restriction may be embedded in the modality itself, such as the use of vouchers which is always restricted. Another means of restricting the use of the transfer can be through a penalty system, either hard (penalty system, possible exclusion from the program if cash is not used as per intended objectives) or soft (for example an incentive or bonus system whereby positive behaviour is reinforced through an increment on a cash grant). No restriction is one hundred per cent effective, whether in CBI response or when in-kind is proposed. The potential for use of money or resell of in-kind exists for non-intended use, even if very much limited by adequate targeting and M&E (refer to Section 4. b on targeting and 5. on M&E).

Examples from the field

Unrestricted cash grant in Liberia

In Liberia, with the prohibition to sell dried bush meat out of fear that the commodity could represent a path for the spread of Ebola, bush meat merchants lost their livelihoods overnight. UNDP is therefore targeting 450 meat sellers with a one off unconditional cash transfer of 450 USD. It is expected that this grant could support debt repayment, increased food consumption and start-up capital for a new livelihood activity.

15 Adapted from ODI, Cash transfer programming in emergencies, GPR, Issue 11

27


Restricted cash grant in Yemen

In Yemen, UNDP is targeting 8,000 beneficiaries using the 3x6 methodology16. The first phase of the project includes a daily grant of 9 USD, out of which 7 USD is saved through compulsory savings. In this example, saving 2/3 of the grant is restricting how to spend the grant to continue receiving it.

Conditional cash grant in the Philippines

Following Typhoon Haiyan that hit the country in November 2013, UNDP implemented a large-scale cash grant project to allow people to cover their basic needs. 45,000 people were enrolled into the cash grant scheme. The condition beneficiaries had to fulfil before they could receive their grants was that they work for 15 days. This programme was directly implemented by UNDP. It had a positive impact on other programmes by allowing an increased access to some programme intervention areas through debris cleaning.

When opting for a CFW scheme, the implementing agency will need to take health and safety considerations into account in order to protect beneficiaries from injuries and health-related consequences associated with the work schemes. These risks are the result of the physical nature of most of the work and the tools that are used to carry them out. If risk mitigation measures are not incorporated in the programme, any injury or health issue suffered during beneficiaries’ participation in CFW activities is likely to generate an unintended economic burden on the household, thus nullifying the benefits that the assistance intended to produce.

HEALTH AND SAFETY IN CFW SCHEME

Insurance coverage to CFW participants

When beneficiaries have difficulties in accessing basic health care, it may be appropriate to cover a basic temporary insurance for the duration of their involvement in the CFW scheme. Selecting the insurance company requires a previous mapping. The insurance policy can be individual or collective.

Providing protective equipment

There are two kinds of protective equipment: basic personal equipment/clothing and specialised working equipment.

The personal equipment is aimed at protecting CFW participants from basic health and safety risks of the activity. Providing this kind of equipment has the additional added value of preventing the participants from using and ruining their own clothes, thus having to incur in additional expenditure to purchase new ones. Examples of personal equipment provided to participants in urban solid waste collection would be: gloves, boots, overalls and mask, depending on the working area.

The need for specialised working equipment needs to be assessed at the onset of the project by mapping all potential risks

16 UNDP 3x6 toolkit

28


across the workflow. Examples of risky tasks include those that are carried out in the construction sector at high heights. Implementing agencies may opt for rejecting high-risk activities in an initial stage, especially when they require considerable investments in safety and security equipment and if sustainability through either the municipality or a local committee is not guaranteed.

First aid First aid kits should be provided to the CFW teams and participants should be trained on the basics of first aid. Lists and contact details of the closest primary health providers should be readily available with the CFW participants (and/or their supervisors). Ideally, the executing agency should alert the identified healthcare providers about the on-going CFW and assess their capacity to respond in case of emergency.

Basic training on safety and health at work

CFW participants could be provided with basic information on the main areas of concern across many workplaces. By raising their awareness about hazards in the workplace such as use of dangerous tools, noise at work, and contagion of communicable diseases, CFW participants may be enabled to protect their health and lives. ILO could advise on this matter.

Table 8 Health and safety in CFW scheme17

Examples of ToR and LTA to procure these goods and services are made available through the Emergency Livelihoods package18.

D. DECISION ON THE GRANT AMOUNT AND PAYMENT FREQUENCY

When using CBI, determining the appropriate grant amount and the appropriate frequency is critical to the projects’ success. As general principle, the grant calculation should be made based on the following criteria: project objective, available resources at HH level, cost of the goods and services to be covered by the grant, cost of the transaction and of transport to access to goods/services, price variation and seasonality, coordination and coherence with other operations, financial capacity. Although not often used during short-term projects, the possibility to adjust the grant amount to the household size could also be considered.

In areas with large Cash operations, there is very often a Cash Working Group at country level; the grant amount can be calculated jointly within this Group. See section 7: Coordination of CBI for more information about cash coordination.

Deciding the amount of commodity voucher

The decision will follow a similar process to the one for in-kind interventions.

Deciding the amount of value voucher and cash grant

17 Adapted from UNDP, Standard Operating Procedures for Cash for Work Projects in Lebanon, 201418 Add the link

29


There are several existing tools19 to decide on the amount of a transfer. They all work around the same logic:

a) Quantifying the needs: either through a Minimum Expenditure Basket20, the use of Sphere indicators, the survival line, the poverty line.

b) Factor in the household capacity to cover the identified needs, either through their own resources or with external aid.

c) Defining the grant amount: the need minus the household capacity.

When deciding the amount of the grant for enterprise recovery the same logic can be chosen: the needs can be quantified through a business plan that the beneficiaries will put together, with their capacities to provide some of the assets (e.g. if they already have them) factored in. This approach will result in having a grant amount different for each type of business considered. If the enterprise recovery project is targeting a large number of beneficiaries, this tailored approach may not be feasible. A standard amount per type of business can be decided based on an average amount coming from the business plan (e.g 450 USD for skilled livelihoods like carpentry, mechanic; 350 USD for restaurants; 150 USD for tea shops; etc.) Another approach could also consist in assessing the average amount of loans given in the area by the micro credit institutions for businesses and to use this amount as the grant amount to be distributed.

The reality is that agency resources and political feasibility will often be a prime determinant of the size, frequency and duration of the scheme. The decision on the grant amount is often a sensitive one and UNDP may also decide to align the amount with the existing social protection schemes.

Deciding the wage amount for CFW project

Wage rates vary between skilled and unskilled workers but should not vary based on participants’ gender. They are usually set at 10-20 percent below market rates. Such a rate helps to ensure that the employment opportunities created by the project do not entice people away from their regular livelihood activities and that they do not distort the labour market by creating wage competition that discourages local businesses from hiring. In cases in which the majority of employment activities are interrupted in the immediate aftermath of a large-scale disaster or conflict, however, adopting wage rates that are comparable to or even higher than those previously in existence may be considered21. The wage can also be fixed by the Government or be standardised across the different agencies through the coordination mechanisms.

The appropriate choice for the wage basis depends on the nature of the work, the level of effort required of workers, and their capacity to perform the work in question. The output from physical labour is likely to vary, depending on gender and physical ability, and these factors should be taken into account so as to ensure equity. The options for the wage basis and their pros and cons are as follows:

Payment per unit is based on a clearly measurable output, such as the number of acres cleared, houses built, volume of debris removed or kilometres of road rehabilitated. This approach provides a clear pay unit, but because wages are output-based, it may require

19 Household Economy Approach, Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket20 Refer to the Livelihoods crisis package for an example of a Minimal Expenditure Basket21 http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/crisis-prevention-and-recovery/signature-product--guidance-note-on-emergency-employment-.html

30


substantial oversight and supervision to ensure that each worker receives the correct compensation.

Lump sum payment provides a fixed payment for a pre-determined timeframe. It is based on an estimate of the amount of time that will be required to complete a particular job. A bill of quantities is used to estimate the labour and material requirements, and the related costs, for achieving an intended output. The lump sum approach avoids the possibility that workers will deliberately prolong the work. It is output-based, however, and may require substantial oversight and supervision so as to ensure that the work is completed on schedule.

Daily wage payment provides flexibility and is therefore often used when the activity is of uncertain duration. The downside of daily wage payments is that they can stretch out for longer time periods than initially envisioned and they do not necessarily lead to achievement of the intended outputs (e.g., the intended extent of infrastructure rehabilitation).

At design stage the working hours and working days should also be decided upon.

Decision on the payment frequency

To decide upon payment frequency, the urgency of the need, the protection risks for beneficiaries when receiving large payment, the capacity of the payment agent and the project objectives should be taken into account. When beneficiaries and their households have an immediate need for cash, the payment may be done on a weekly or even daily basis at first and slowly transitioned to a less frequent basis (e.g., weekly, bi-monthly, or monthly). When the project objective is to support community for livelihood assets replacement, the payment can be made once the amount to pay for such assets has been reached.

E. DECISION ON THE CASH PAYMENT AGENT AND INSTRUMENT

Once the CBI modality has been chosen, the implementing partner will choose the cash payment mechanism and contract a third party to do so (unless the chosen payment mechanism is direct cash delivery). At preparedness stage, UNDP CO should already have identified reliable cash payment mechanisms and have framework agreement with payment agents. In this case and if the targeted group have access to it, those agents will be favoured. Also, in countries where there is a social protection scheme, with an established and reasonably well functioning distribution system, it might be possible to use that system for the Early Recovery response.

Criteria for the selection of cash payment agent and instrument

The cash payment mechanism will be selected through a regular service procurement process. In emergency settings, it is possible to request authority from UNDP Headquarters to use “Fast Track 22” operational procedures for recruitment, disbursements, and procurement. There is no set rule that dictates that one mechanism is better suited to one type of programme. The decision for selecting the cash payment mechanism should be context-specific and consider the following criteria.

Urgency of the needs to be covered Depending on how urgent the needs are, speed and reliability of the payment mechanism can be the key deciding factors. If looking at longer-term activities, then the costs and sustainability of the payment mechanism can become more preeminent criteria.

Speed Consider funding flows, proximity of delivery points, training and registration time, payment processing times, system breakdowns (mobile networks, internet etc).

22 For more on UNDP Fast Track Procedures : https://info.undp.org/global/popp/ft/Pages/Fast-Track.aspx

31

https://info.undp.org/global/popp/ft/Pages/Fast-Track.aspx


Existence of a framework agreement with UNDP/ Experience of the cash delivery agents The selection process should assess whether cash delivery agents have previous experience of implementing CBI and at what scale (e.g. for social protection or previous emergency response) and seek feedback from other agencies that may have worked through these agents.

Security and safety The level of physical safety for staff, partner and women and men beneficiaries;

Controls and risks Beneficiary verification; donor and government regulations; transparency and control risks; ability to monitor and correct, and to report and provide reconciliations should be considered during the selection process.

Acceptability and reach to vulnerable groups Convenience and acceptance at a community and individual level.

Scale Effectiveness of different options operating at the scale of the programme and geographical access to affected areas.

Flexibility Ease with which the chosen option can be adjusted to vary the size and frequency of payment.

Cost of the services Costs in terms of set-up charges (especially if new technologies are considered) and transaction costs, as well as additional charges such as staff time, transport, security, education and training costs should be considered. Costs incurred by the beneficiaries (cost of transport, opportunity cost of time spent to access the cash, financial cost to withdraw the cash/transaction) should also be included in the cost analysis.

COST EFFICIENCY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CBI MODALITIES

Cost is an important parameter when deciding between modalities. For example, when applying for CHF and CAP, agencies are required to fill in the ‘Quick Calculation Tool’ to demonstrate that these costs have been considered in the transfer modality selection.

Cost-efficiency looks at the comparable cost of delivery between in-kind, cash and vouchers, measuring outputs against inputs in monetary terms. It looks at the costs of the in-kind commodity or service and supply chain as well as the operational and administrative costs. This calculation can be done during the programme design phase and mapped out in the log frame at input/output level.

Cost-efficiency is calculated by dividing the costs of one transfer modality by the costs of the transfer modality that it is being compared to23. For example, to identify the cost-efficiency of cash transfers as compared to in-kind transfers, the calculation is:

1. Divide the cash transfer value (in the currency of operation), plus the costs of delivering the cash transfer by

2. The costs to the agency to buy the commodity in-kind and deliver it.

Cost-efficiency calculation results vary considerably depending on the situation of the country concerned. When comparing for example the cost-efficiency of cash versus in-kind as above, the result 1.0 means that both are the same cost-efficiency. If the figure is below 1.0 then cash is cheaper than in-kind. If the figure is above 1.0 then in-kind is cheaper than cash. The same

23 Adapted from the Somalia Food Security Cluster

32


approach can be taken to compare the costs between two different service providers.

It is important to keep in mind that cost-effectiveness is what UNDP should aim for rather than just cost efficiency. Cost effectiveness goes a step further to look at how much it costs to effectively meet the objectives of the programme, mapping out all costs and benefits. Drivers of cost effectiveness when it comes to CBI can be:

The cost efficiency Objectives of the project: the potential for Value for Money gains of cash are particularly

evident when cash is considered as a multi-sector tool24. Also vouchers can be more cost-effective at improving food consumption indicators, whereas cash could be the preferred approach at improving general household welfare.

Multiplier effect on local economy; Beneficiaries' preference, increased flexibility, dignity and social cohesion; Beneficiaries' increased financial inclusion; Risks, including protection risks; Children's and women's well-being.

Those criteria are difficult to measure in monetary terms and it is quite a complex calculation to measure the costs of achieving programme outcomes such as improved food consumption and increased nutritional intake. Those criteria can however be ranked, to demonstrate that cost-effectiveness has been taken into account. There are few tools existing to measure the cost effectiveness of CBI; DFID is currently preparing one, as part of its work on Value for Money for CBI25.

Low cost-efficiency does not always mean low cost-effectiveness, since sometimes, higher delivery costs can be justified in order to achieve even higher outcomes and objectives.

Table 9 Cost efficiency and cost effectiveness of CBI modalities

The most common delivery mechanism

The bank: Banks have been used at scale for CBI by Government agencies in Sri Lanka after the tsunami or in Pakistan after the floods. They can represent a simple option for transferring money providing the bank network is well developed in the intervention area and the beneficiaries can have access to those branches (i.e. transportation means, safe access, having the necessary documents to operate a bank account or make financial transaction). Banks usually have a good control and reconciliation system that makes finance due diligence easier and reduces risk of fraud and theft. Using a bank also reduces the risk of distributing large amount of cash at once: beneficiaries can access their transfer at any time within the bank opening hour and choose to withdraw the whole grant or only a portion of it, hence encouraging savings. Operating a bank account and making financial transactions may also have additional longer-term benefit for the targeted group in terms of financial inclusion. In some countries however, operating a bank account can induce relatively high monthly running costs, which will need to be considered in the design of the programme and potentially included in the transfer amount. In some countries, post offices have banking services which may be closer for people to reach.

24 Courtenay Cabot Venton, Sarah Bailey, Sophie Pongracz, (Feb 2015) Value for Money of Cash Transfers in Emergencies, DFID25 Generic information on DFID value for money approach is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49551/DFID-approach-value-money.pdf

33

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49551/DFID-approach-value-money.pdf


Micro Finance Institutions/ Transfer Company: In some contexts (e.g. in Somalia), private sector companies have specialised in transferring money and have played the role of substitute for a failing banking system. Recipients have no bank account, but they go to the company counter at each distribution to withdraw the money. Beneficiaries can access their transfer at any time within the company opening hours, but they cannot choose to withdraw the whole grant or only a portion of it. Transfer companies usually have a wider network than bank, especially in rural areas although the capacity of each counter is usually low and can hardly be used for large-scale transfer.

Direct distribution: This GN does not encourage this option, but if all the other options fail, there are cases where the CO and its implementing partner have had to resort to it. Direct distributions are heavy in terms of human resources but can be quick to set up in the first phase of an emergency. The logistics of such an operation need careful planning, beginning with a system of getting money to a field office. It is essential to think about security and risk management during the distribution. Refer to Section 4.c Cash and voucher distribution for more information on this topic.

Traders: In some cases, traders can also play the same role as the transfer company. They can be closer to beneficiaries, but usually their record keeping is poor, which can increase the risk of fraud and diversion. Traders are also the privileged payment agent of vouchers, especially commodity voucher.

Mobile phone company: see below Section 3.f Cash Based Intervention and new technologies

The table below summarises the comparison of the most common cash delivery agents and instruments to support the decision making process. This table is there to provide guidance but should of course be adjusted to each specific context.

34


PAYMENT AGENT PAYMENT INSTRUMENT

POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES APPROPRIATE CONTEXT

Implementing partner

Direct cash - Quick to initiate- Rapid access to cash for beneficiaries- Variable and flexible distribution points- No transaction fees

- High safety risk for staff and beneficiaries- Higher risk of fraud and corruption (or suspicion)- Labour intensive and time consuming in terms of planning for the partner- Long waiting line for beneficiaries unless several small distribution points are set up.

Failing banking system and absence of other reliable payment agents.Small scale pilotsOne off paymentWhile the GN does not encourage this option, still there are cases where the CO has had to resort to it.

Bank Direct cash - Safer than payment through implementing partner- Transfer risk of loss to a third party- Flexible time to redeem the cash for the beneficiaries- Quick if existing relationship with the bank- Not labour intensive for the implementing partner- Solid audit and reconciliation process

- Lack of branches in remote rural areas

Functioning banking system Repeated payment

Cheque - Safer than payment through implementing partner- Transfer risk of loss to a third party- Flexible time to redeem the cash for the beneficiaries- Solid audit and reconciliation process

- Lack of branches in remote rural areas- Long writing time of the cheques- Fastidious signature process for the cheques- Beneficiaries unfamiliarity with cheque increases the risk of diversion.

Functioning banking system Repeated paymentSmall scale projectWhen complemented with training on cheque use

35


Bank account - Safer than payment through implementing partner- Transfer risk of loss to a third party- Flexible time to redeem the cash for the beneficiaries- Quick if existing relationship with the bank- Increased financial inclusion of beneficiaries- Not labour intensive for the implementing partner- Solid audit and reconciliation process- Possibility of saving in the bank account

- Lack of branches in remote rural areas- Bank account opening and operating fees- Lack of ID documents by beneficiaries to open a bank account

Functioning banking system Repeated paymentWhen complemented with training on financial inclusion

ATM Card - Safer than payment through implementing partner- Transfer risk of loss to a third party- Flexible time to redeem the cash for the beneficiaries- Quick if existing relationship with the bank- Increased financial inclusion of beneficiaries and usually high acceptance from beneficiaries - Not labour intensive for the implementing partner- Solid audit and reconciliation process- Possibility of saving on the card

- Lack of ATM and network in remote rural areas or in crisis affected settings- Long and expensive set up cost (ATM Card cost)- Loss/theft of the ATM Card

Urban area with pre existing ATM systemWhen complemented with training on financial inclusion and use of the ATM card

Mobile phone Cie Mobile phone - Safe and usually discrete way of - Lack of access to mobile phone Repeated payment

36


transferring cash- Transfer risk of loss to a third party- Not labour intensive for the implementing partner- Flexible time to redeem the cash for the beneficiaries- Possibility of saving in e-wallet

by beneficiaries (or extra costs of mobile phone distribution)- Lack of stable mobile network- Long and expensive set up costs (SIM card cost, etc.)- Loss/theft of phone or change in mobile number- Possible error (sending to the wrong number)- No donor visibility

Failing banking system or when bank services are more expensiveArea with reliable mobile coveragePre existing mobile money systemWhen complemented with training on mobile money use

Transfer company/IMF

Direct cash - Transfer risk of loss to a third party- Flexible time to redeem the cash for the beneficiaries- Not labour intensive for the implementing partner- Can already be familiar to beneficiaries (e.g. remittance)

- Lack of branches in remote rural areas- Expensive commissions- Rapid set up but then low capacity to deliver the cash to a high number of beneficiaries

Repeated payment Failing banking system or when bank services are more expensiveWhere transfer company are regularly used by beneficiaries

Post office Direct cash - Transfer risk of loss to a third party- Flexible time to redeem the cash for the beneficiaries- Not labour intensive for the implementing partner- Often aligned with government policy- Often seen as a public sector service provider rather than private sector provider

- Lack of post office in remote rural areas- Lack of cash flow - Delays due to internal bureaucracy

Repeated payments Areas with good post office coverage

Trader Direct cash - Transfer risk of loss to a third party- Flexible time to redeem the cash for the beneficiaries

- Poor record keeping: + increased risk of fraud + additional finance team member from implementing

No banking system, post office, transfer company or mobile coverage.

37


- Low set up and transaction costs- Higher multiplier effect on the local market

partner for prompt reconciliation- Initial lack of interest of the traders

Voucher - Transfer risk of loss to a third party- Flexible time to redeem the cash for the beneficiaries- Low set up and transaction costs- Higher multiplier effect on the local market- Implementing partners can easily influence recipient choice and promote certain practices

- Limit beneficiaries choice on where to spend the money- Poor record keeping: + increased risk of fraud +additional finance team member from implementing partner for prompt reconciliation- Initial lack of interest of the traders

No banking system, post office, transfer company or mobile coverage.

Table 10 Comparative analysis of payment mechanism and instrument

38


F. CASH BASED INTERVENTIONS AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES

Increased access to technologies is quickly changing the way humanitarian interventions are being designed and implemented.

“The network age, with its increased reach of communications networks and the growing groups of people willing and able to help those in need, is here today. The ways in which people interact will change, with or without the sanction of international humanitarian organisations. Either those organisations adapt to the network age, or they grow increasingly out of touch with the people they were established to serve.26”

Four primary adaptations are suggested in the previously cited report:

1. To recognize information as a basic need in humanitarian response.

2. To ensure information relevant to humanitarian action is shared freely.

3. To build capacity within aid organizations and Governments to understand and use new information sources.

4. To develop guidelines to ensure information is used in an ethical and secure manner.

UNDP has already embarked on an ambitious move towards a better and at scale use of new technologies. This evolution is not specific to Cash Based Interventions but is logically applied here as well as through the use of e-transfers27. E-transfers are digital transfers of cash or vouchers from the implementing agency to a program participant. E-transfers cover cash grants through mobile phone or SMART card (ATM card, pre-paid card) and access to goods and/or services through electronic vouchers.

Digital cash transfers28 generally consist of UNDP or its implementing partner converting cash into e-money (digital currency), via bank transfer into the disbursement account created by the e-transfer service provider. There is a constant one-to-one exchange value between the “hard cash” and the e-money in the system. From this disbursement account, often accessible online, UNDP can transfer cash to its beneficiaries so that they can conduct a variety of e-transactions such as withdrawal, purchases, transfers, bill payment etc., depending on how comprehensive the service is. The e-money typically resides either in a SIM card in the phone, in the chip or in the magnetic stripe on a plastic card. The transactions themselves take place at an ATM or an authorised agent/merchant equipped with a Point of Sale terminal or mobile handset. Every time a transaction is conducted, a settlement occurs between two independent accounts – that of the beneficiary and that of the merchant or the ATM. It is important to distinguish these types of transactions from “online banking”, which refers to a set of authorised transactions (balance check, bill payment, money transfer) that only existing bank account holders can initiate over the internet (via a personal computer or a smartphone).

Within E-voucher systems29, merchants can be reimbursed after the sale of goods and there is therefore no direct e-commerce transaction at the point of sale. Rather, the funds are held by the aid agency and transferred to the merchant directly in an agreed timeframe, after authentication of the

26 UNOCHA (2013), Humanitarianism in the network age27 Topics not specific to CBI such as the use of mobile data collection will not be treated in this guidance note that focuses solely on the CBI aspects of programming.28 K.Sossouvi (Nov 2013) E-Transfers in Emergencies : Implementation support guidelines, CaLP29 Ibid

39


e-voucher, following beneficiary purchase and verification of the related e-voucher redemption reports.

Example from the field:

Improved accountability and information management through the use of mobile money and e-vouchers in Haiti

E-vouchers and mobile money systems provide real time information about the financial situation of the programme. Thanks to the e-voucher system, the CARMEN project could tell UNDP, in real time, how much money had been used by every single beneficiary, what has s/he bought, where, how much, or the price of the items. This has a huge impact in terms of information management, risk management, and accountability. In addition to that, all this information is used to support private sector initiatives and promote inclusive markets, as the project is investing money in the earthquake affected areas where a number of micro- and small enterprises are operating. In this case, mobile money and e-vouchers systems have been a very useful paperless tool to deliver UNDP response.

The Haiti office has now taken to using the private sector mobile tool in much of their new programming, from use in elections-related payments to facilitating a government conditional cash transfer using mobile. They form a key part of UNDP’s innovation within this sphere.

Using mobile money at scale to transfer money to beneficiaries in the Philippines

In the aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda that hit the Philippines in November 2013, UNDP implemented a large-scale Cash for Work scheme. To ensure the payment of the 50,000 people involved in the CfW scheme, UNDP signed an agreement with SMART, a local mobile phone company. SMART provided the mobile phone sets to the beneficiaries and assigned them their phone numbers. These were distributed at a Launch event, in the presence of all the workers, the local representative and UNDP staff. This type of programming ensured that beneficiaries, who were poor and disadvantaged and primarily from rural areas, had access to mobile money and eventually became part of the “banked” sector.

The question of e-transfer feasibility arises when deciding on the payment agent and instrument, as some of the payment agents available in country can offer e-transfer as a payment option. All the steps mentioned in this Guidance Note to design and implement CBI are applicable to e-transfers. When considering the feasibility of E-transfers, consider in addition:

Access to infrastructures E-transfers require access by the target group to a stable electricity network, a reliable communication network and cash-out counters to redeem the cash or the voucher.

Beneficiaries capacity Depending on the context, the capacity of the target group to use new technology can vary broadly. For example, in DRC mobile phone penetration is 17% as opposed to more than 80% in Kenya; it is therefore likely that Kenyan target groups will feel more at ease than groups in DRC with using mobile money. When e-transfers are considered, training for beneficiaries should always be planned for, sufficient time and resources allocated. The key considerations for beneficiaries training on E-transfer are as follows30:

30 Adapted from Mercy Corps, E-transfer implementation guide

40


Training materials should be developed in the local language and accessible to the illiterate group.

Consider several training sessions: the first to target a large group, followed by more individualised sessions.

Encourage trainees to practice Encourage peer learning but clarify the role of “helper”. When using e-transfers is it

common for the beneficiaries less comfortable with technology to rely on a helper to cash out the transfer. Peer learning can be very successful, but the role of these helpers should be clear, specifically the fact that they are not entitled to a portion of the beneficiary grant in exchange for their support.

Payment agent capacity As for any other CBI mechanism, payment agents are instrumental to the success of the CBI scheme. In the case of E-transfers, the payment agents can, in addition to their traditional role (see Section 3.e Decision on the cash payment agent and instrument), be in charge of SIM card or SMART card distribution, training the users and offering a customer service. The capacity of the payment agent to undertake these additional tasks will need to be assessed and the contract should specify the roles and responsibilities in that regards.

E-transfers have been globally recognised as having the potential to provide more efficient and reliable delivery of CBI, and there is a broad perception that e-transfers are the cheapest and fastest way to deliver aid. Evidence shows, however, that the value for money of e-transfer is highly context-specific, and E-transfers can sometimes be the slowest, most expensive and least accessible CBI modalities, especially in remote contexts31. E-transfers, as a CBI instrument, have specific potential advantages and disadvantages that can be captured as follows:

Potential advantages Potential disadvantages

Time Reduce beneficiaries waiting time at distribution points.

Setup time can be longer than for other CBIs, especially if e-transfers have not been used before in the area.

Security Transfer distribution and disbursement is discrete, which enhances beneficiaries' security and decreases the social pressure from the extended family to share the grant.

Better security for beneficiaries, UNDP and implementing partner teams and service provider.

Cost Costs decrease for repeated transfers. Setup costs are often higher than for other CBIs.

Access Give beneficiaries access to financial services that can be used after the end of the project.

Very often SIM card and SMART card can be used as E-wallet.

Use of new technology can be challenging for beneficiaries with low literacy.

Stable electricity and/or mobile

31 See Mercy Corps (Nov. 2014) Cheaper, faster, better ? a case study of new technologies in cash transfers from the Democratic Republic of Congo

41


network is necessary.

Data management

Give faster access to reliable M&E data. Increased risks for data protection.

Table 11 Potential advantages and disadvantages of E-transfer

These considerations will be captured in the Risk and Feasibility assessment and in the assessment of the payment agent, and should be weighed when the cash payment agent and instrument are being decided upon.

G. COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

Once UNDP, the Government Coordinating Agency, and the implementing partner have designed the CBI, the decision should be communicated to:

UNDP team members

Internal UNDP stakeholders include the units within the country office that are responsible for the effective implementation of cash-based interventions (i.e. management, programme, finance, procurement, human resources and communication). It is essential that the staff be aware of their roles and responsibilities, as they must work closely together to ensure effective implementation. It is the responsibility of the relevant Programme Officer in consultation with Deputy RR or Deputy CD to make sure the decision-making process on the design of CBI is clearly communicated with UNDP units and to disseminate this Guidance Note.

With the Government and National Authorities

Communicating with stakeholders from the beginning is essential to programme success, particularly where political feasibility may be an obstacle to implementing cash-based interventions. Where there is reluctance to implement CBI, the results of the response analysis or feasibility study can be used to advocate for the most appropriate response.

With local and international NGO partners

See the Section 7 Coordination of CBI

With media

Country Offices should follow the usual practices in issuing media advisories, however due recognition should be given to national stakeholders and also international stakeholders including the donors. The objectives of the CBI should also be clearly reflected in such advisories to avoid any gaps in understanding.

At the beginning of the implementation phase, it will also be critical to have a clear communication strategy with beneficiaries and non beneficiaries. See Section 4 Implementation in that regard.

KEY MESSAGES FOR CBI32

The following are some points that can be used to support the choice for CBI. During your communication around CBI, it will also be important that you communicate, as usual, about the response objectives, targeting process etc. All of the benefits listed below will, however, need to be contextualised.

32 Adapted from CaLP, Making the case for cash: A quick guide to field advocacy for cash transfer programming

42


Flexibility and choice One size does not fit all. Using cash or vouchers recognises that beneficiaries are in the best position to decide what their households need, and gives them the flexibility to choose according to their own diverse needs and priorities.

Dignity In allowing beneficiaries to control what goods and services their households need, cash transfers are considered by many as more dignified than receiving goods in kind, and recognise beneficiaries as active participants in providing for the welfare of their families after a crisis.

Empowerment The availability of cash gives households a sense of restored power over their immediate situation. There is no evidence that CBIs create or perpetuate a sense of entitlement to benefits more than other modalities. In addition, there is evidence that receiving cash can, at least temporarily, empower women within the household. Access to financial structures such as bank accounts may empower beneficiaries, in particular women, in the longer-term as well.

Boosting the local economy Injections of cash or the use of vouchers with local traders benefits the recovery of trade and the local economy. Cash-based support for livelihood rehabilitation can potentially also provide a link between relief and longer-term economic recovery, and may offer the opportunity for beneficiaries to increase income and create savings.

Reduces negative coping strategies In the modern world, most households depend on cash to some extent. When aid is given in-kind, households are often forced to seek cash in ways that may be detrimental to longer-term livelihoods, for example selling productive assets, or giving children to the care of relatives. Evidence shows that cash transfers reduce the use of negative coping strategies by beneficiaries.

Multiplier effects By stimulating local markets, cash-based interventions may benefit more than the direct recipients of cash. Local traders and service providers, transport workers and suppliers and transporters of goods may all benefit from households having money to spend.

Equality of payments Grant amounts have been determined based on needs and are no different based on individual gender, origin, political views or ethnicity, etc.

For a CFW scheme, additional benefits could be:

Skills development and social inclusion/cohesion of its beneficiaries who are in the position to acquire skills (possibly through training) while working (for instance basic masonry, land preparation for agricultural production etc), including specific skills and/or awareness related to sustainable use of natural resources and disaster preparedness.

Rehabilitation and restoration of basic social, economic and productive community infrastructure including markets, health centres, schools, feeder roads, irrigation canals, drainage systems, river embankment to prevent flooding, debris clearance, and waste collection, amongst others.

Table 12 Key messages for CBI

H. RESOURCES MOBILISATION

The CBI “hidden” costs

CBI will typically be less resource heavy in relation to warehousing and transport, but there are costs specific to CBI that need to be factored into a project budget. Always consider budgeting for:

43


Transfer costs The cost will vary depending on the selected payment agent and instrument. It could typically amount to a fee of between 2 and 7% per transfer, and the chosen instrument may induce extra costs that will need to be factored in (mobile phone, SIM Card, ATM Card). It may be possible to negotiate a low or free transfer fee directly with the financial institution or via the Cash Working Group in country. It may also be more cost effective to negotiate a flat rate charge per beneficiary. As the scale of the CBI increases, costs are reduced, which should be reflected in the transfer fees. There has in recent years been greater focus on corporate social responsibly of the private sector. This could also be explored for cost saving and sharing of technological innovations. The partnership unit can be contacted in that regard.

Voucher printing costs Although not high for a basic voucher, costs may increase for more secured vouchers (with ideogram, or for electronic vouchers). Also, the use of vouchers in some contexts may require organising fairs, which could involve additional costs and time.

Set up costs They can be particularly heavy if CBIs have not previously been run in country. This could be due to use of technology for registration of beneficiaries, setup of a database, etc.

Human resources costs CBIs require different skill sets compared to other in-kind distribution. It is therefore important for each of the unit heads to have a clear overview of his/her team responsibilities. Potential costs for staff training should be included as well as costs for external experts to help set up the project.

Inflation Especially significant if the project will be continuing over a longer period of time and if households are expected to receive monthly transfers. It is difficult to predict and interpret the cause of price inflation – that is, whether or not price inflation is due to external factors (e.g. global price trends, changes in government policy) or to the cash-based intervention; it is also difficult to predict how long inflation will last. It may be worth setting an inflation limit (e.g. 10% P/A in donor currency), beyond which the appropriateness of cash will be reconsidered. Remember, many risks around price inflation can be mitigated through the choice of transfer modality (cash, vouchers or in-kind), other aspects of programme design (attaching restrictions) and supply-side interventions (collaboration with traders, etc).

Monitoring and evaluation costs M&E costs should be similar whether CBIs are being used or not, however consider the potential cost implication of market monitoring. As CBIs can still be considered reasonably new in some CO, it may also be relevant to include resources to document the use of CBI. Finally, most of UNDP donors are strong CBI advocates, although some of the compliance rules may still be unclear and some of the CBI-related expenses may be deemed ineligible following an audit. Ensuring donor compliance is the responsibility of the Relevant Programme Officer along with the Reporting Officer at the CO; with most of the Donors, the respect of UNDP procedures will be sufficient to ensure compliance with their requirements.

HR mobilisation

The implementing partner recruits personnel for the project. If UNDP is not the implementing partner, UNDP can still support this process as a responsible party. The Cash Learning Partnership provides a CBI platform33 that can be used to share job offers for highly skilled CBI team members.

The following is an example of the staffing structure for an emergency employment project:

33 https://dgroups.org/groups/calp/employment-english

44


Project Manager. The Project Manager takes overall responsibility for the project's results.

Site Supervisors. A Site Supervisor may be assigned to each site, with responsibility for supervising up to five Team Leaders, reviewing work activity, and monitoring attendance and timesheet preparation. The United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme provides a useful pool for recruiting Site Supervisors.

Team Leaders. A Team Leader may be assigned responsibility for supervising up to about 30 workers. Team Leaders are responsible for day-to-day management of the work activity, maintaining attendance records, and facilitating the disbursement of payments to workers.

Accountant. The Accountant is responsible for the financial functions of the project, including reporting.

Paymasters. Some projects have Paymasters to administer the distribution of payment to workers. Paymasters report directly to the Accountant.

Communications Officer. A Communications Officer is valuable for large projects with substantial visibility.

Donors

All major donors such as ECHO, DFID and FFP/OFDA have expressed strong commitment to fund Cash Based Intervention. More and more, CBI is seen as the staple implementing modality and the use of in-kind should be justified.

Cash Based Interventions are also eligible for the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF). The Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) is a standby fund designed to enable more predictable, timely, and equitable responses to humanitarian emergencies (both natural disasters and armed conflicts). There are two main funding scenarios: a) for projects to be implemented within three months, in case of sudden onset emergency or rapid deterioration within an existing crisis, where the aim is rapid response to core emergency humanitarian needs to reduce loss of life; b) chronically under-funded emergencies, where the aim is to strengthen core elements of humanitarian response. The emergency relief coordinator approves fund allocations and disbursements based on the objectives defined and approved by the UN General Assembly. Typically the CERF does not fund longer-term reconstruction and rehabilitation. However, packaging potential early recovery proposals in the contexts of ‘time-critical’ and/or ‘protection’ may help to improve their prospects of approval, as occurred with the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2006. Loans can also be obtained to access funds rapidly when waiting for existing donor pledges to be transferred. The conditions to establish such loans are broader and more flexible than those stipulated for the grant component. The loans can be used to re-establish operations, implement preparedness measures, and implement humanitarian programmes that are key but not time-sensitive.

4. PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION

45

Key activities for programme implementation Contract the payment agent Target the beneficiaries Set up beneficiaries’ registration and identification systems Distribute the cash and voucher


A. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

Management arrangements for a project include project roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities. The implementing partner, responsible parties and project personnel are central to the management arrangements. When requested and deemed appropriate, UNDP Headquarters authorises the use of “Fast Track” operational procedures for recruitment, disbursements, and procurement.

Contracting UNDP partners

The selection of UNDP Implementing partners will be done as per UNDP regular Programme and Operations Policies and Procedures. When CBI is being considered, the selection of the implementing partner should include an assessment of their capacity to implement such modalities (refer to 2.c Implementing partner capacity assessment). The Project Cooperation Agreement should include a clear share of roles and responsibilities. The Implementing Partner is the entity responsible and accountable for managing the project, including the monitoring and evaluation of Cash Based Interventions, achieving CBI outputs, and for the effective use of UNDP resources.

UNDP is responsible for deciding on the programme strategy and the appropriateness of CBI, while the implementing partner is responsible for choosing the CBI modality and payment agent.

Once the implementing partner for the project (as per the corporate project management structure) is selected, it may enter into agreements with other organisations, including financial service providers, known as responsible parties, who provide goods and services to the project, carry out the project activities, and /or produce project outputs.

Responsible parties are accountable directly to the implementing partner. If UNDP is not the Implementing Partner, it still can support recruitment and procurement as a responsible party. Responsible parties may also include government entities, private sector, UN agencies, or CSOs. For all possible configuration of Implementing Partners and Responsible parties, please see POPP.

Contracting the payment agent

For the implementation, the contract used will either be one of the framework agreement or an ad-hoc contract for this particular project. Depending on the context and on the implementing partner capacity, the payment agent can either be contracted directly by UNDP or by the implementing partner.

The contract template and content will depend on the context and will be determined by Procurement. It should however contain as a minimum:

Duration of the agreement Cost and type/quality of the financial services Clear division of roles and responsibilities between UNDP/the implementing partner and the

provider Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting system Reconciliation process Provisional calendar for critical dates (distribution, reconciliation) Payment terms

When it comes to payment, UNDP favours pre-financing by the payment agent (i.e. both the service charges and the money transferred to beneficiaries are reimbursed by UNDP once the payments have been received by beneficiaries). Pre-financing may not be feasible, depending on the size of the

46


project and the capacity of the payment agent, in which case the contract should pla n for performance bonds payment of service charges. In all cases, the loss of funds due to fraud or diversion should be covered by the payment agent.

Working with traders for vouchers payment

When the payment agent is a trader, some confusions may arise. The Procurement team may be looking to select the most efficient trader (who will often be a large trader), while the Programme is looking to select traders that could deliver the service but also benefit from the intervention (often small traders). The status of the trader can then become unclear: is it a service provider or a beneficiary? A simple way forward is for Logistics and Programme to set the selection criteria together. If one of the project objectives is to select small traders so they can be supported and in the meantime deliver service, then the selection criteria should ensure that is the case. Selection criteria that could be used can then be a maximum revenue, proximity with the distribution sites, etc.

Internal clearance process (with UNDP treasury, with operations of the CO): to be completed

B. TARGETING AND BENEFICIARY REGISTRATION

Targeting protocol

Targeting is a step of every Early Recovery project. Who is targeted depends on the objective of the programme and not on the usage or non-usage of CBI. Targeting methods are the same for CBI as for other implementing modalities. Many of the agencies using CBI rely on community-based targeting, which use local criteria of wealth ranking and village committees to select the most vulnerable households within a community. Fears that cash would be more difficult to target than in-kind resources because it is more attractive to non-recipients have not been borne out in practice 34. CFW is often deemed self-targeting; however this may not always be the case in areas with few employment opportunities.

At the beginning of the targeting process, the definition of household will need to be agreed upon. A household is usually defined as a group of individuals who are usually, but not necessarily, related, economically interdependent, and who eat out of a common pot (i.e., who cook and share food together). At the same time, the definition of a household needs to be culturally sensitive. For example, in countries where polygamy is practiced or where men typically have children with multiple partners, decisions would need to be made about how to treat the different wives/partners and their children. One approach could be to define each woman and her children as a separate household.

MODALITY POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES

KEY FEATURES

Geographical targeting

Easy to implement and monitor

- Exclusion of very poor living outside of the selected area - Inclusion of better off HH

Eligibility based on residence. Used by UNDP for area-based development approach35.

34 “A review of UNICEF’s role in cash transfers to emergency affected populations” Susanne Jaspars and Paul Harvey, with Claudia Hudspeth and Lauren Rumble, EMOPS working paper, 2007 35 p.16 http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/crisis-prevention-and-recovery/guide--livelihoods---economic-recovery-in-crisis-situations.html

47

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/crisis-prevention-and-recovery/guide--livelihoods---economic-recovery-in-crisis-situations.html

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/crisis-prevention-and-recovery/guide--livelihoods---economic-recovery-in-crisis-situations.html


- Risk of pull factor in the targeted area

Community targeting

- Easy to set up quickly- Good knowledge of the community

- Can reinforce existing tensions- Can leave out some marginalised groups if the committee is not representative enough

Appointed community representative to decide on the targeting criteria and/or the beneficiaries

Categorical targeting

Relatively simple, quick and cheap method

- Exclusion of very poor not meeting this criteria- Risk of stigma depending on the criteria chosen

Blanket coverage of a specific group (people living with HIV, lactating women, loss of house, etc.)

Verified mean test

- Reliable method if secondary data is reliable and implementing partner has the capacity to administer the process

- Time consuming and costly - Heavy data management - Requires skills to triangulate the data

Collection of HH level information on income which is then compared with secondary data (average income in the area, etc.) More appropriate for long term support.

Proxy Mean test

Reliable alternative when income data is not available.

- Time consuming and costly - Heavy data management - Requires skills to triangulate the data

Using a set of criteria and a scoring system based on easily observable criteria.

Self targeting Easy to administer Cash being attractive to all, most people will apply.

All who apply are eligible.

Table 13 Targeting methods for CBI36

None of the above-mentioned methods will result in error-free targeting. Using a combination of more than one of these targeting mechanisms can help reduce errors of inclusion and/or exclusion. For example, a two-stage targeting methodology could be employed, in which Stage 1 involves geographic targeting of the areas most affected, and Stage 2 involves either universal provision to all households in the target area or targeting to the most vulnerable households (through community, means or categorical targeting).

If there is an existing social protection scheme in country it is also possible to use their list as a starting point for the targeting.

Inclusion- women, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, people living with HIV/AIDS

As with any other programme, it is key to ensure all the different groups have access to the targeting mechanism and are being considered on the basis of their specific needs.

When considering CFW schemes, it is important to ensure they do not de facto exclude the households who are not able to work, by always planning for a portion to be non-conditional.

36 Adapted from UNICEF Technical note : Cash Grant to Emergency affected household

48


When considering child-headed households, CfW schemes have to be closely monitored to ensure that is not putting children in danger. Also, the access to the selected payment mechanism can be restricted for children, so one must ensure there is an accessible payment mechanism for the child-headed households (e.g. give them a small portion of direct cash distribution if they are not permitted to have a bank account when under 18).

A common concern about distributing cash is that women might be vulnerable within the household, and have less control over cash than over food or other commodities. Another fear is that if women receive the cash transfers this could cause family disputes or domestic violence, and the money may not be spent on basic household needs. However, cash transfers can also empower women by enhancing their decision-making position in the household and strengthening their bargaining position.

Many CBIs enrol women under the assumption that women are more likely to spend on items for the home and items that directly benefit children, and that giving the benefit to women empowers them within the household. However, this is not an absolute. Evidence from a number of countries suggests that, no matter who collects the benefit, the men and women in a family make spending decisions jointly. In most cases, UNDP would want to designate women as the persons to collect the benefit; however, if it is not safe or culturally appropriate for women to collect the benefits, then programmes should enrol an adult male part of the household. The best way to decide is in consultation with potential beneficiaries and other stakeholders. It is important to ensure that feedback from the women is provided.

Mitigation of inclusion & exclusion errors

All targeting mechanisms present problems of inclusion (providing benefits to those who are not eligible) and exclusion (leaving out those who are eligible). The objective is to select a targeting mechanism that reduces both these sources of error as much as possible and that is feasible and cost-effective in the specific context. If resources allow, it may be best to quickly reach those more affected through universal targeting, rather than spending time (and money) developing and implementing a targeting mechanism based on household vulnerability, especially given the errors of inclusion and exclusion inherent in vulnerability-based targeting measures. It is expected that in any cash benefit programme there will be targeting errors.

Using a combination of targeting mechanisms can help to reduce errors of inclusion and/or exclusion. Also the setup of an accessible and effective complaint mechanism (See Section 5. Monitoring and Evaluation) will help to reduce those errors all along the project time span.

Beneficiary registration and database creation

Once the households have been targeted, they will be registered to receive the cash transfers.

The registration of the targeted beneficiaries is the responsibility of the implementing partner, but the process and system could be designed with the support and consultation of UNDP's relevant programme officer. It is recommended that a programme uses the same process across its different projects and implementing partners.

To set up a registration system:Create a database, with an eye towards which information will be needed to implement the distribution, reconcile information and identify the targeted beneficiaries. This will vary based on the modality and payment mechanism chosen. The team in charge of the targeting should know why

49


each piece of information is needed, so they can explain it properly to the communities (for example: If payments are to be made via mobile phone, staff should explain why they are collecting the beneficiary's phone number, to avoid being given the number of a relative or neighbour). This database will be the source of the information included in the beneficiary register used during distributions.

Agree on identification documents Identification methods can rely on national ID cards, biometric details, identity confirmation by a community leader, or a combination of the above. The legal system in country will be favoured, but with the limitation that in many places women or marginalised groups may not have formal identification, or that IDs could have been lost in the crisis. In such cases, the relevant programme officer or officer of the project concerned is responsible for developing identification mechanisms (e.g. a UNDP Beneficiary Card) so that all the targeted groups can access the CBI. Identification methods should also be in line with the payment agent's requirements. Finally, documentation requirements for eligibility should be commensurate with the available, verifiable information that can be provided by applicants without incurring undo costs.

Select method of authentication When selecting the identification documents to be used, it is also worth selecting the authentication method, i.e. the method by which the implementing partner and the payment agent will confirm the beneficiary's identity. Methods include signature, biometrics, PIN number, password and/or visual authentication.

Example from the field: verifying beneficiary identity in Haiti

In the aftermath of the earthquake, few targeted beneficiaries had official government identification, with photo ID, either because the IDs got lost in the disaster, or because they did not own one beforehand, as the process of obtaining an identification card is very onerous. As a result, UNDP implementing partners had to deliver their own ID cards. Those without government IDs also used this ID as a tool for accessing other services.

Data protection

The right to privacy through the protection of personal data is not only an important right in itself, but also a key element of individual autonomy and dignity. All programmes present data protection risks associated with the collection, storage, use and disclosure of the data of beneficiaries. This personal data is, however, often more extensive than that gathered in in-kind aid distribution, and is usually shared with payment agents.

The database may contain signatures, biometrics, ID numbers, addresses etc. that are considered sensitive personal information. It is the responsibility of the relevant programme officer or project officer of the project concerned to ensure classification, safe storage and safe disposal of this information. It is important to be aware that banks and other financial institutions are exposed to US regulations on terrorism. Thus any bank wishing to deal in US currency will have to work through a US bank, which is likely to be very risk averse in its dealings in high-risk areas. In conflict affected countries, it is possible that all financial institutions involved in a cash transfer programme will want to check recipients of funds against sanctions and terrorist lists. It should be clear in the banks ' Terms and Conditions whether or not they retain the right to undertake such a check and whether they expect UNDP or its implementing partner to conduct this check. It is the responsibility of the relevant programme officer or project officer of the project concerned to assess the risk of misuse of

50


information by the payment agents in cases where they are privy to beneficiaries' sensitive personal information.

UNDP recognises the CaLP Principles and Operational Standards37 for the secure use of personal data in cash and e-transfer programmes.

CALP PRINCIPLES AND OPERATIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE SECURE USE OF PERSONAL DATA IN CASH AND E-TRANSFER PROGRAMMES

1 Respect Organisations should respect the privacy of beneficiaries and recognise that obtaining and processing their personal data represents a potential threat to that privacy

2 Protect by design Organisations should “protect by design” the personal data they obtain from beneficiaries either for their own use or for use by third parties for each cash or e-transfer programme they initiate or implement.

3 Understand data flows and risks Organisations should analyse, document and understand the flow of beneficiary data for each cash or e-transfer programme they initiate or implemen, either within their own organisation or between their organisation and others, and develop risk mitigation strategies to address any risks arising from these flows.

4 Quality and accuracy Organisations should ensure the accuracy of the personal data they collect, store and use, including by keeping information up to date, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose for which it is processed, and by not keeping data for longer than is necessary.

5 Obtain consent or inform beneficiaries as to the use of their data At the point of data capture, beneficiaries should be informed as to the nature of the data being collected, with whom it will be shared, and who is responsible for the secure use of their data. They should also be provided with the opportunity to question the use made of the data and withdraw from the programme should they not wish their personal data to be used for the purposes described.

6 Security Organisations should implement appropriate technical and operational security standards for each stage of the collection, use and transfer of beneficiary data to prevent unauthorised access, disclosure or loss. In particular, any external threats should be identified and actions taken to mitigate any risks arising.

7 Disposal Organisations should not hold beneficiary data for longer than is required unless they have clear, justifiable and documented reasons for doing so. Otherwise, data held by the organisation and any relevant third parties should be destroyed

8 Accountability Organisations should establish a mechanism whereby a beneficiary can request information about which of their personal data an organisation holds, and mechanisms to receive and respond to any complaints or concerns beneficiaries may have about the use of their personal data.

Table 14 CaLP principles and Operational standards for the secure use of personal data

Communication with communities

37 http://www.cashlearning.org/resources/library/389-protecting-beneficiary-privacy-principles-and-operational-standards-for-the-secure-use-of-personal-data-in-cash-and-e-transfer-programmes

51


It is important that potential beneficiaries as well as persons who are not likely to benefit from the programme are aware of and understand all aspects of the CBI and the programme in general before it begins. It helps to manage expectations of beneficiaries, supports transparency, and helps to generate understanding, acceptance, and cooperation among the potential beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Information should include:

The intervention’s objective and rationale; Targeting criteria and methods; Definition of a household as per the programme; Information about the benefit, including how benefits are calculated, the amount to be

given, frequency, method of distribution, duration and the amount to expect at each payment, conditionality and restrictions of the transfers if applicable;

Circumstances that could result in the loss of benefits; Complaints mechanisms.

Communication channels should pass through existing social protection programmes, which can enhance “take-up” for all of the programmes.

C. CASH AND VOUCHERS DISTRIBUTION

Distribution of Cash and vouchers is no different than distribution of in-kind materials. However, because of the high attractivity and visibility of cash, it is important to follow the core principles of distribution. The rules below should be followed:

DIRECT CASH DISTRIBUTION BY THE IMPLEMENTING PARTNER

CASH/VOUCHER DISTRIBUTION BY A THIRD PARTY

Roles and responsibilities

Cash handling aspects should be extremely clear within the implementing partner team and roles shared to minimise frauds.

e.g. The technical team who registered the beneficiaries do not handle cash. They make sure the beneficiaries are aware of the distribution process, know their entitlements and recount the cash they receive; they also ensure beneficiaries' authentication and signature following the distribution. The Finance team handles the cash and makes the reconciliation. The logistics team sets up the distribution site (including water and shade), manages the crowd.

Roles and responsibilities

Only the third party is handling the cash. The implementing partner team is involved in all the other steps.

e.g. The technical team makes sure the beneficiaries are aware of the distribution process, know their entitlements and recount the cash they receive; they also ensure beneficiaries' authentication and signature following the distribution. The finance team is involved following the distribution to sign off on the third party reconciliation. The logistics team sets up the distribution site (including water and shade), manages the crowd.

Loss

The implementing partner is responsible for any loss that is incurred up till the beneficiary has signed the distribution list and re-counted the money received. The beneficiary is

Loss

The third party is responsible for any loss incurred up till the beneficiary has signed the distribution list and re-counted the money received. The beneficiary is responsible for any

52


responsible for any loss following his/her exit of the distribution site.

loss following his/her exit of the distribution site.

Security

The distribution supervisor is in charge of the overall security and is the only one who can decide of the site evacuation.

For each distribution site there should be an evacuation plan, with identified evacuation routes. All team members should know about the plan and the evacuation routes.

Security

The implementing partner’s distribution supervisor is in charge of the security of its team and of the beneficiary. He, only, can decide of the site evacuation and inform the third party agent of his/her decision.

For each distribution site there should be an evacuation plan, with identified evacuation routes. All implementing partner team members should know about the plan and the evacuation routes.

Use of armed guard

Refer to UNDSS in that regard.

Use of armed guard

Refer to UNDSS in that regard.

Table 15 Cash and voucher distribution key principles

D. WORKING IN UNSECURE AREAS

Cash Based Interventions have been used by UNDP and its partners in security challenged environments such as Syria or Somalia which demonstrate the feasibility of CBI in every type of context. In every country UNDP is operating there should be in place a country level security management plan and specific risks linked to CBI should be captured in the Feasibility and Risk assessment. Security risks will not necessarily rule out the use of CBI if there is a reliable payment system available which is safely accessible to the beneficiaries and the implementing partner staff.

Depending on security and access, remote management38 is one option for an implementation strategy. CBI may be appropriate when access is constrained as financial service providers (remittance companies, transfer agents, banks etc) and markets may continue to operate even in insecure area. However, given lack of access, risk assessment of the potential for diversion of the cash is essential.

Partners play a very crucial role in these contexts and must therefore be adequately equipped to design and implement CBI in such locations with little or remote assistance from UNDP staff. The partner capacity assessment should capture those features.

While identification of beneficiaries and registration processes would be similar to those used for in-kind transfers, the distribution of CBI can be safer in those contexts. They can offer a discrete way of distribution, reducing the risks on beneficiaries. The advancement in money transfer technologies such as smart/pre paid cards, online money transfer through banks or mobile money can also be useful for UNDP and its implementing partner to deliver cash to beneficiaries when access is constrained.

38 For more on remote management in general, refer to : Humanitarian Outcomes (Feb 2010), Once Removed, Lessons and challenges in remote management of humanitarian operations for insecure areas

53


The choice of third party is even more crucial in such contexts and it should be selected on a case by case basis by the implementing partner with the support of UNDP Programme Officer, who will consult with the Designated Official for UN Security.

When access is limited or when operating remotely, the monitoring of the process and impact is especially challenging. In dealing with third parties in insecure areas, the contract must include additional features to reduce the risk of fraud at the delivery end. This could be done by working with partners to agree on a ways of working with the third party and could include features such as beneficiary identification mechanism to ensure that the intended beneficiaries receive the cash, spot checks by partner or UNDP staff (when possible), photo/video documentation of distribution process etc. Establish clear procedures and instructions for monitoring and reporting on activities and progress. These can include, for instance, daily or weekly debriefings, regular written reports, and date-stamped digital photographs of project activities and sites that are uploaded during monitoring visits.

Maintain regular telephone and email communication between field staff and external managers and bring local personnel out of the area on a regular basis for management, coordination, monitoring reviews, technical discussions, and forward planning. Also ensure that the intended recipients expect the aid, so that any large diversions are noticed.

In addition, it is important to develop an accountability mechanism that empowers beneficiaries with information and allows for easy registration of feedbacks and complaints such as direct phone access to key implementing partner or UNDP staff for feedbacks/complaints and/or identification of independent monitors (unrelated to beneficiaries, partners or payment agent). For more useful tips on remote management, refers to Humanitarian Outcomes study: Once Removed, Lessons and challenges in remote management of humanitarian operations for insecure areas.

5. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

A.MONITORING CASH BASED INTERVENTIONS: PROCESS AND IMPACT

Cash Based Intervention being a tool to deliver outcomes, the project that uses CBI should be measured against the same indicators that UNDP and its implementing partner will normally use. The objective of a CBI will never just be to deliver cash, but it will be to improve outcomes relating to livelihood, food security, shelter, etc. Programme objectives and expected outputs should therefore dictate the specifics of the monitoring plan. As for any other projects, monitoring consists in a partnership between the implementing partner and UNDP. Project monitoring includes all regular UNDP monitoring visits, audits and financial spot checks and all UNDP procedures for project monitoring apply.

54

Key activities for monitoring and evaluation Define a monitoring framework Ensure market monitoring is in place Ensure a complaint mechanism is in place Undertake a final evaluation Document and share lessons learned


Monitoring agreements (including the monitoring indicators, source of data and schedule for reporting) would depend on programme design and data availability and would need to be negotiated with partners. Reporting requirements and formats should form part of the agreement with the partner. It is recommended that a short monitoring and evaluation framework is developed with the implementing partner at the beginning of the project. This framework content should be informed by the project logical framework. And should tend to collect the adequate quantity of data to allow sound operational decision making and effective measurement of the project achievement. Relevant programme officer or project officer of the concerned project is responsible for determining the balance between process and outcome monitoring and planning timely post distribution monitoring activities. As a minimum requirement it should include a baseline and an end-line, post distribution monitoring following each cash and voucher distribution and a monitoring of the process on the distribution site.

Progress towards the project objective should be monitored as usual by collecting both qualitative and quantitative data. When using a third party for the payment, its data collection system should be incorporated as much as possible into the project monitoring.

In addition to the sector and output based indicators that form a key part of every project logical framework, when CBI is used as the delivery modality, the following indicators could be added:

Process related information:

Community satisfaction towards the targeting system: the right beneficiaries receive the right amount of money

Beneficiary satisfaction towards the chosen modality (cash/vouchers compared to in-kind aid);

Beneficiary satisfaction towards the payment agent and distribution process; Beneficiary perception on their safety during the CBI.

Impact related information:

No. of women and men reached; Spending pattern within the beneficiaries household (e.g. through a prioritisation of types of

expenditure in volume or numerical value);

Tips from the field: Monitoring the spending pattern versus monitoring the use of the grant

CBI project indicators very often include indicator on how the grant distributed has been spent (e.g. 80% of the grant has been spent on livelihood activities). It is however extremely difficult to have a proper monitoring of this, as the household does not allocate money depending on where it comes from but depending on the needs and the resources available. The grant distributed by UNDP or its implementing partner will fall into the family resources “pot” and will be used coming from that pot.

It is therefore recommended to monitor the spending pattern (how the overall pot is being used) rather than the use of the grant per se. To do so, proportional pilling can be a useful technique.

Tracking of market prices and availability of essential commodities (terms of trade, food, water, NFIs and labour) for the duration of the CBI;

CBI effect on filling the gap in needs;

55


Impacts of CBI on community relations; Impact of CBI on household relations.

Tips from the field: Monitoring the impact of CBI on community and household relations

This information can be collected through focus group discussions, as any other qualitative information you would want to collect. As this can be sensitive, it can also be interesting to cross check the collected information with the programme complaint database and with protection agencies.

Transformation in market systems, livelihood systems, ownership and management of assets as a result of a CBI.

Cash Based Intervention, because they are often perceived as more risky, have often tended to be more rigorously monitored and evaluated than other forms of assistance. Rigorous monitoring and evaluation can be important both in building up the evidence base for deciding when cash is appropriate and how it can be effectively delivered, and in overcoming the reservations of staff and Governments around the likelihood of misuse or abuse of cash.

B. MARKET MONITORING

When the project entails repeated payments, the market should be monitored to ensure that the grant amount is still adequate, the quality and availability of goods is at least as good as at the beginning of the project and ultimately to assess the appropriateness of the chosen delivery modality. Market monitoring will also allow ensuring the CBI is not doing harm to market and creating inflation. It is also a way to assess the wider multiplier effect of the project on the local economy.

The market monitoring should be part of the monitoring framework, its frequency should be determined and will vary depending on the context: if the context is volatile, market monitoring can be implemented once a month. In more stable environment, it may be done every three months. Simple tool for market monitoring are available in Annexe. Market monitoring is the responsibility of the implementing partner logistics team. It does not necessarily imply going out in the market places to collect information, and could be done through secondary review.

Very often market monitoring is limited to price monitoring of the key commodities, which is a minimum requirement.

PRICE MONITORING39

Below are some guiding principles for price monitoring:

Ensure consistency. When collecting prices make sure they refer to the same units of measurement.

Check for irregularities. If one single price is much higher or lower than the others, it is likely that there has been an error. In this case:

Double-check if the price has been correctly converted to the unit of measurement. If the price has been correctly converted, check if the reported price is correct, possibly by

39 Adapted from the Pre Crisis Market Mapping and Analysis, the IRC and Oxfam, 2014

56


asking a key informant from the market. If the price is correct, it is recommended speaking with traders to understand the reason.

Plot the average price of each commodity across markets over time.

Be aware of seasonality in prices – prices change along seasonal patterns, so when monitoring prices it is critical to use the seasonal calendar you have drawn and compare any price changes to the prices in a reference year to understand if the price fluctuations are normal for that time of year, or if the fluctuations are greater/less than would normally be expected at this time of year.

Combine price monitoring with volume (in trends) monitoring as it is difficult to analyse market prices trends without volume trends.

For more information on price monitoring, refers to the MarKit: Monitoring, Analysis and Response Kit developed by CRS and CARE.

C. BENEFICIARY ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS

Accountability is the obligation to (i) demonstrate that work has been conducted in accordance with agreed rules and standards and (ii) report fairly and accurately on performance results vis-à-vis mandated roles and/or plans40.

As for any other projects, UNDP Accountability framework will apply to projects using CBI. Considering the potential higher attractivity of CBI, it is key to ensure the implementing partner set up a confidential feedback and complaint mechanism and offer a variety of channels for feedback and complaint. It is not enough to ensure that beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries are aware of the existence of such mechanisms, they should know how to access it. It is also good practice to set up a complaint desk at the distribution site, isolated from the main site so people can be referred there.

Access and user friendliness of the feedback and complaint mechanism for both women and men should be considered, as for example a woman beneficiary may not feel comfortable talking to a man at the complaint desk.

The feedback and complaints should all be logged in a secure and centralised database, as well as information on how they were resolved. UNDP Accountability Framework should be referred to for guidance on the different types of complaint mechanisms.

The set-up of an appropriate feedback and complaint mechanism and the communication of complaints is the responsibility of the implementing partner, but should be mentioned in the partner agreement. During UNDP monitoring visits its effectiveness and efficiency should be measured as well as beneficiaries understanding of it. UNDP should also make sure that appropriate answers are given to the beneficiaries’ complaints.

D. FINAL EVALUATION

A final evaluation, carried out by an independent third party, is a requirement for all Early Recovery response and is important to determine the overall effectiveness and to identify lessons learned. It is critical for programme accountability; i.e., to determine whether the programme achieved its objectives, and as part of the accountability framework for donors. The use of CBI intervention will never be the topic of a separate evaluation, but it should be included in the overall evaluation of the

40 UNDP Accountability framework

57


response or of a specific project. For more information on how to plan, design and manage an evaluation refer to the Evaluation of Humanitarian Action-An ALNAP guide41.

As for any project the impact, effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, connectedness, etc. can be measured when it comes to the use of CBI. To build the body of evidence, UNDP CO may decide for an evaluation to look at how the decision on the modality was taken and the appropriateness of this choice at the time, and how that choice influenced the effectiveness, cost and impact of the intervention.

QUESTIONS TO EVALUATE THE CBI DECISION MAKING PROCESS42

Choice of transfer- Decision making What criteria were considered in choosing the transfer? How reasonable was the decisions?

Impact of the choice of transfer Effectiveness: How was the effectiveness of the intervention influenced by the type of

transfer used? Impact: How were wider effects of the intervention influenced by the type of transfer

used? Efficiency and cost: How did the costs incurred by providing this type of transfer compare

with the costs of other transfers? Protection and gender: How has the choice of transfer affected protection risks and the

intervention’s support to protection? Risk: How were other risks related to the choice of transfer identified and managed? Management: Were appropriate systems (including monitoring) in place to manage an

intervention with the chosen transfer? Was monitoring information used to adapt the project as necessary in the light of changes in circumstances, or where assumptions were incorrect?

Conclusion on choice/impact of choice Was the choice of transfer appropriate? Would another form of transfer potentially have been more appropriate and/or should

another form of transfer be considered in the future?

E. DOCUMENTING EVIDENCE

As the use of CBI for Early Recovery Response is still an evolving response tool within UNDP, it is important for the CBI to be documented, budgeted for and shared. Documenting the success and challenges faced during the programme can be useful to the country and regional teams for advocacy on CBI, updating country contingency plans and so on. In addition to the local and national sharing platform, it may be worth sharing a copy with the CaLP for further dissemination to other practitioners.

Documenting evidence is the responsibility of the CO programme officer level whereas the dissemination can be facilitated by the DRR or DCD.

6. CBI SUSTAINABILITY & EXIT STRATEGY

41 Available in English, French and Spanish at : http://www.alnap.org/what-we-do/evaluation/eha 42 Simon Levine & Sarah Bailey (2015). Guidance on evaluating how transfers are made in emergency programming. ODI-HPG.

58

http://www.alnap.org/what-we-do/evaluation/eha


Exit strategies are rules that specify when a beneficiary will no longer be eligible for benefits. In any Early Recovery response, the exit strategy should be thought through right from the start of the programme. This is no different for CBI. However, given the attractiveness of cash to many, it is important to ensure that the communities and the potential third party are involved in the designing of the exit strategy and know about it long in advance and are regularly communicated the plans to exit.

As CBI is just a tool, it can be used across UNDP different tracks, but the transfer objective will be adjusted depending on the track:

Track A programming responds to the urgent needs of crisis-affected groups with interventions to help stabilize livelihoods.

Track B programming focuses on medium to long-term local economic recovery, including interventions to boost sustainable employment, income generation, and reintegration (where required).

Track C programming focuses on long-term employment creation and inclusive economic growth. Interventions in Track C help to strengthen the national systems and policies that are needed in order to sustain the progress achieved in Tracks A and B.

Wherever possible, linking emergency response interventions to the social protection system can both increase the efficiency and efficacy of the CBI, and smooth the transition from emergency early and sustainable recovery. First, by embedding emergency interventions within social protection systems already in place, these can benefit from pre-established targeting mechanisms and implementation and monitoring procedures, which can improve response time and effectiveness. They can also benefit from the existing local capacity and know how on what works and what doesn’t in a particular country context. It is thus key to involve the national and local government sectors that are already involved in social protection schemes, whose capacity and know how can make the design and implementation of emergency CBI more effective. Depending on the type of programmes in existence in the country, this includes national- and/or local-level ministries of social welfare, labour, agriculture, gender and children. It is also key to understand what programmes exists, what targeting mechanisms are used, how are benefits set and delivered.

Using countries capacity to monitor and reach beneficiaries, for example through social workers, can also provide a mechanisms to assess the impact of the transfers, and the extent to which they are successful in providing immediate relief from hardship. Follow up visits by trains social workers, can help determine if the transfers where invested in regaining livelihoods opportunities, or used for smoothing consumption. It can help determine the needs of the targeted population moving forward.

Linking short term CBI to social protection systems in place also can help improve the capacity of implementing Ministries or government institutions to manage and lead cash based interventions in the longer term. If successful, it can help advocacy effort to set up broader social protection in the longer term. Efforts to reach and account for households affected by an specific emergency can help populate databases of beneficiaries, which can lead to improve targeting.

Early Recovery interventions have by nature a limited sustainability. However CBI being a flexible tool conditionality or restriction can be applied to enhance the project sustainability. The following options can be considered:

59


Encourage links with saving schemes A savings component can be introduced in the CBI either as a condition or as a restriction. The saving can be deposited in a bank account or an e-wallet and can be used for example as a start-up capital for a micro or small enterprise.

Combine temporary CBI with skills and business development skills as a way to reinforce smooth transition to local economic recovery and longer-term development. This requires a rapid market analysis or an emergency market assessment and/or value chain analysis to ensure that skills training addresses labour market needs and opportunities. Particular attention should be given to female-headed households who may engage in paid work for the first time and youth. Vocational training such as farming, nursery establishment, sustainable/floods-resilient agricultural practice and/or financial literacy can be organised in close coordination with NGO and specialized agencies e.g. Department of Agriculture. Training on business and funds management can also be organised to increase beneficiary financial inclusion.

UNDP 3X6 APPROACH- ENHANCED RESILIENCE THROUGH LIVELIHOODS RECOVERY IN (POST) CRISIS AND TRANSITION CONTEXTS

The 3x6 approach was developed by UNDP to support early recovery efforts and a rapid return to sustainable development pathways. In particular, the approach supports the transition from emergency employment to more sustainable forms of livelihoods for vulnerable population groups during transition or in (post) crisis contexts using a combination of CBI and in-kind support through three different phases and six steps:

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3Inclusion Ownership Sustainability

Step 1: Engagement

Step 2: Income generation

Step 3: Savings

Step 4: Joint ventures

Step 5: Investment

Step 6: Accessing markets

The 3x6 approach is an example of how CBI can be used to deliver outcomes across UNDP tracks. Throughout the different phases, the approach uses different types of conditional restricted cash grants: a) a CFW (condition) scheme for which a portion of the wage is saved and b) a grant to be used as a business start-up capital following the design of a business plan (condition). For more information on the 3x6 refer to the UNDP Global Toolkit on the 3x6 approach43. The 3x6 approach has so far been used in amongst others Yemen, Jordan, DRC and Burundi.

Table 16 The 3x6 approach

Link CBI to microfinance this refers to the integration of recovery grants within the local provision of financial services to the crisis affected groups, households and key entrepreneurs, during or immediately after the crisis.

Example from the field: the MEDEP approach in Nepal

In partnership with UNDP, the Government of Nepal (GoN) initiated Micro-Enterprise Development Programme (MEDEP) in 1998 aiming to diversify the livelihoods and to increase the incomes of poor families through the creation and development of micro-enterprises and entrepreneurship skills. The programme targets people below the nationally defined poverty level with special focus on Women, Socially Excluded such as Dalits, Indigenous Nationalities, Religious Minorities, and Unemployed Youths. MEDEP has successfully completed first, second, third phases

43 Add the link

60


and it is now in phase IV (August 2013 to July 2018). Starting from 10 districts in the first phase, MEDEP has outreached now in 38 districts creating about 75,000 entrepreneurs by the end of December 2014. The MEDEP uses a combination of in-kind and CBI to reach this objective. It distributed conditional restricted cash grants to micro-entrepreneur combined with skills development and increased linkages with the financial system. The condition consists in developing a business plan and the restriction in using the grant to develop a small enterprise.

Foster Private Public Partnerships Engage private sector early on to support green jobs creation (ecosystem management for example), debris and solid waste management and/or recycling in the aftermath of a crisis (especially following flood, earthquake or hurricane).

Women’s economic empowerment44 by strengthening women’s access to diversified livelihoods opportunities, credit and financial inclusion. Women empowerment is a long-term process but CBI can contribute to it. State of evidence shows that CBI informed by an appropriate power analysis (see Section 2.b Power Analysis) lighten the burden of women’s poverty and has impact on women’s and their families’ nutrition status. They can make daughters’ education more feasible and attractive. They may provide women with improved access to health care. If properly designed, transfers could contribute to longer-term women’s empowerment. Many women report greater knowledge, optimism, self-esteem, and activism in addressing problems. Some women gain leverage in household bargaining and were able to save, obtain credit, and invest following a CBI.

A specific attention should be given not to stigmatised women by their participation in a CBI scheme, not to reinforce social expectations that family caregiving is the sole or primary role of women and not to encourage men to share less of their own earnings with their spouses and partners.

Link the CFW with Government-led public works programmes at national or regional/provincial level.

Select impactful work for the CFW scheme Cash For Work is a temporary income-generating opportunity and not offered on a full-time basis; the community work undertaken through the CFW can however have long lasting effect if the projects are chosen carefully and ensure some form of community benefit (e.g. a road to gain access to a market place can have long lasting effect on the livelihood of an area).

Transfer equipment ownership At the end of the project, ownership of any remaining equipment used during CFW scheme may be transferred to community committees, and ownership of the tools used by workers may be transferred to them for their use in future livelihood activities.

As CBI is applicable across sectors it has to the potential to be scaled up to meet social protection objectives. In this case, the tool will not change (i.e. cash or voucher), but the programme objectives will. The design and implementation of social protection programmes in early recovery settings imply considering the most appropriate modalities to address, on the one hand, the immediate requirements of an emergency response (mitigation of impacts), while at the same time, elements to create a solid base for recovery (resilience and prevention).

In this context, particular attention should be placed on (i) developing accurate vulnerability and needs assessments to ensure the effective design of interventions; (ii) acknowledge increased insecurity and weakened administrative systems for delivery and monitoring; (iii) flexibility of design in order to adapt to changes in situation; (iv) how to link emergency interventions with medium and

44 ILO (2013), Cash transfer programmes, poverty reduction and empowerment of women: A comparative analysis

61


long-term systems. In its transformative capacity, social protection can play a role addressing core issues associated with the relationship between government and its citizens, going beyond addressing risk and vulnerabilities and transforming key structures and relationships within states. Specifically social protection interventions have the potential to contribute to strengthening state-citizen relations, laying the basic groundwork for recovery and legitimacy.

In its transformative capacity, social protection can play a role addressing core issues associated with the relationship between government and its citizens, going beyond addressing risk and vulnerabilities and transforming key structures and relationships within states. Specifically social protection interventions have the potential to contribute to strengthening state-citizen relations, laying the basic groundwork for recovery and legitimacy.

As UNDP helps developing countries to work towards full employment as a way to achieve macroeconomic stability, it enhances countries’ capacity to ensure that labour markets and social protection policies are more interlinked – and more effective for poor people.

7. COORDINATION OF CBIWhatever the context and the implementing modality, it is affected states that have ultimate responsibility for initiating, organising, coordinating and implementing a recovery response within their own territories45. The coordination mechanism can, however, either relies on the cluster system, on the Refugee Coordination Model or on another Government led system, but it is almost always organised around the different sectors. Those sectors often include an Early Recovery one, the Early Recovery cluster is activated if requested by the respective Resident Coordinator and agreed upon by the IASC. The ER Cluster covers ER related areas that are not covered under other clusters of the IASC system and takes the name of the areas it covers (i.e. Early recovery/ livelihoods cluster or Early Recovery/ livelihoods and community security cluster). UNDP is the Global Cluster Lead on Early Recovery.

A. WHAT IS CBI COORDINATION?

CBI coordination is critical as uncoordinated approaches (in terms of modality, transfer amounts, frequency and targeting criteria) between and within agencies can cause tension within communities (i.e. as a result of different levels of payment for comparable work across groups), reduce programme effectiveness, and may even create security risks for beneficiaries and agency staff or partners. Also, cash injections may have significant impact on the local economy and risk market disruptions if not managed well across partners. In addition to that, cash can be seen as more politically sensitive and higher-risk than in-kind assistance. Coordination provides a platform for negotiation and advocacy to ensure equality of payments as much as possible, address (perceived or real) risks and negotiate better rates on transfer costs and other services, and enables shared learning, all of which can have positive impacts on programme effectiveness.

Cash coordination includes operational processes and strategic functions that focus on results and impact. Some functions may have both operational and strategic values. Cash coordination mostly happens at country level. Coordination platform is a place where the community of practice gather to share good practice, technical and process innovations, agreements with local authorities and difficulties experienced in implementing CBI, as well as to negotiate better terms with service providers.

45 UN General Assembly Resolution 46/182

62


Strategic coordination usually covers:

Influencing standards and transfer values; Joint analysis and decision-making on appropriate type of response to ensure

complementarity between CBI and other modalities; Coordination of the response and a way to identify gaps and avoid duplications. Ideally,

actors would like an overview, not just of what has been done (output) but of the impact (outcome) and, most importantly, the extent to which needs are being met in different geographical areas;

Advocacy for appropriate CBI with host governments, HCT, donors but also local authorities and affected populations;

Identification of funding opportunities; Identification of potential implementing partners; Linkages between emergency, development and crisis preparedness.

On the other hand, operational coordination covers:

Implementation of joint needs/ markets assessments; Provision of CBI to cover multiple objectives; Harmonisation of cash delivery instruments ; Definition of a common monitoring framework and indicators and joint data analysis; Development and use of common guidelines such as Standard Operating Procedures and

tools46.

Example from the field: Using Cash Working Group to develop joint SOP for Cash for Work in Lebanon

In Lebanon, CfW SOPs have been developed in a joint effort of the Cash Transfer WG and the Livelihoods WG. A Drafting Committee was formed to produce the text of the SOPs on behalf of the two WGs; the Committee was formed by representatives from the Ministry of Social Affairs (MoSA) of Lebanon, Save the Children International (SCI), Action Contre la Faim (ACF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and was led by the International Rescue Committee (IRC).

A group of Peer Reviewers with members from the two WGs volunteered to review the draft of the SOPs and to provide feedback. They included designated representatives of: Action Aid, Caritas, Concern, the Danish Refugee Council (DRC), the International Labour Organization (ILO), Intersos, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), Oxfam, Premiere Urgence -– Aide Médicale Internationale (PU-AMI), Terres des Hommes (TdH), UNDP, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and World Vision International (WVI).

The final draft has been circulated to both Working Groups in their plenary for final endorsement and a presentation has been delivered.

B. WHAT DOES CBI COORDINATION LOOK LIKE?

46 CaLP

63


“The greatest advantage of cash is that it can be used to meet a variety of needs that span different sectors. However … sector-based coordination through the cluster system hinders efforts to coordinate cash transfer responses across different sectors.47

To date the coordination of CBI has mostly consisted in the set-up of Cash Working Group, focusing mostly on operational coordination, acting as a forum for sharing of best practice and discussing the 'how' of cash delivery.

There does not seem to be a clearly defined or consistent space for cash coordination, even within similar types of crises (i.e. refugee/ non-refugee crises) or within specific overarching coordination models. Previous CaLP studies have examined several cash coordination set-ups in Pakistan, Haiti, the Horn of Africa and the Philippines. In each context, there has been a different cash coordination architecture, suggesting that this architecture has little connection to whom is leading the coordination and/ or delivery of the response. Key determining factors are rather the available resources, the cash literacy of the individuals involved in the definition of the architecture and the current thinking on cash within the overall humanitarian community. Cash coordination has in the past either sit under one cluster (including the ER cluster if activated), under one sectorial working group or under the Inter Sector Coordination.

The Cash Learning Partnership48 can be contacted to know more about the existing cash working groups in the different countries UNDP is operating.

C. WHAT SHOULD BE UNDP ROLE IN CBI COORDINATION?

At country level, when UNDP is considering the use of CBI to delivery its Early Recovery response it should as a minimum play an active role in the existing Cash Coordination. That would include attending the CWG meeting to share information about operational and strategic implementation (UNDP programmes using CBI, including CFW scheme: scope, objectives, transfer rate; financial service providers contracted by UNDP; tools used to design and implement the response; etc.)

At the time of the definition of the cash coordination set up, in country, UNDP can also offer to host the cash-working group under the Early Recovery Cluster umbrella or under Debris Management working group. Early recovery being a cross-sectorial domain, UNDP taking a lead role in CBI coordination may help overcome the challenge of coordinating a multi-sectorial modality within a sectorial system.

Example from the field: UNDP leading a cash payment working group to coordinate and harmonize payment systems.

In Central African Republic, a Cash payment working group was established as part of the response to the escalation of the conflict in December 2013. The working group is led by UNDP and has been tasked to coordinate various cash based interventions across partners, including equal payments across cash for work projects.

Should UNDP CO decide to take a leadership role in CBI coordination, the CaLP tool box on cash coordination is a useful resource. It is available at: http://www.cashlearning.org/resources/coordination-toolkit 47 S.Bailey (2014), Coordination of Cash Transfer Programming, Is Emergency Cash Transfer Programming ‘fit for the future’?, CaLP48 http://www.cashlearning.org

64

http://www.cashlearning.org/resources/coordination-toolkit


THE CALP COORDINATION TOOLKIT

The CaLP team has developed a ‘Cash Coordination Toolkit’ with input from current and previous cash coordinators, to be used as a ‘pick-up and go’ toolkit to support cash coordination efforts. The Cash Coordination Toolkit includes hints and tips from past coordinators alongside practical tools, guidance documents and templates. It provides orientation around:

Advocacy for cash coordination, and guidance on the role of the coordinator Advice and tips for facilitating a cash coordination group Communication towards agencies implementing CBI and communities Awareness-raising tools and basic training Tools to use in the coordination group (3W matrix and Joint monitoring and evaluation

systems)Table 17 The CaLP Coordination toolkit

65


ANNEXE 1 READY TO USE TEMPLATES

Add the link here to all Crisis response package documents rather than putting them all here:

General: CBI 2 pagers – making the case for cash

Preparedness and programme design: Risk and Feasibility assessment methodology and form Household survey Service provider assessment form Trader questionnaire Market analysis: 1 page on the different existing tools and when to use which tools when. Cash feasibility assessment report template Minimum Expenditure basket example

Programme implementation: ToR for CBI training ToR for market analysis ToR for CBI design and delivery ToR for CBI evaluation Sample contract with the service provider Voucher template Sample JD of a project assistant for a CfW scheme Sample JD of a project assistant for a CBI scheme Key skills for team members when CBI is being used Daily sign in sheet for CfW activities

Monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring and Evaluating CBI PDM questions for process monitoring Market monitoring form PDM and market monitoring report template

66


ANNEXE 2 REFERENCES

CaLP. Making the case for cash: A quick guide to field advocacy for cash transfer programming . CaLP. (2013). Minimum requirements for market analysis in emergencies . CaLP. (2013). Protecting beneficiary privacy, Principles and operational standards for the secure use of personal data in cash and e-transfer programmes. Cash Consortium, S. (2013). Cash Consortium for South Central Somalia Approach to Risk Mitigation. Cluster, S. F. (2013). Guidance Note for Transfer Modality Comparative Cost Analysis . Juillard, H. (2014). Pre Crisis Market Mapping and Analysis. The IRC and Oxfam.Lucy Pearson, E. J. (2013). Government uptake of Cash Transfer Programming. CaLP.ODI. Cash transfer programming in emergencie. GPR, Issue 11 .ODI. Cash transfer programming in emergencies,. GPR, Issue 11.Oxfam GB . (2013). Working with Cash and Market SOP and Guidance Notes. Simon Levine, S. B. (2015). Guidance on evaluating how transfers are made in emergency programming. ODI-HPG.Susanne Jaspars, P. H. (2007). A review of UNICEF’s role in cash transfers to emergency affected populations. EMOPS working paper.Susanne Jaspars, P. H. (2007). A review of UNICEF's role in cash transfers to emergency affected populations. EMOPS.UNDP. (2012). Cash Transfers in Haiti . UNDP. Livelihoods & Economic Recovery in Crisis Situations. UNDP, A. f. (2014). Standard Operating Procedures for Cash for Work Projects in Lebanon. UNHCR. (2015). Operational Guidelines for Cash Based Interventions in Displacement settings. UNICEF. (2011). Gender Tip Sheet for UNICEF’s Cash Transfer Programme in the Horn of Africa Crisis .

67


ANNEXE 3 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

Name Position Country Mail1 Hyewon Jung Livelihoods and recovery

specialistJordan [email protected]

2 Fabrizio Andreuzzi

Programme Specialist on rapid response and preparedness

UNDP CRU [email protected]

3 Almudena Fernandez

Policy specialist for social protection

NYC [email protected]

4 Jean-Francois Dubuisson

Project Coordination Specialist DRC [email protected]

5 Francisco Santos-Padron

Programme Advisor Thailand [email protected]

6 Leontine Specker

Livelihood and reintegration, displacement and host community support


7 Nabina Shresta Programme Analyst Nepal [email protected] 8 Caroline

Lensing-HebbenProject Manager Yemen [email protected]

9 Jitendra Jaiswal Project Manager Myanmar [email protected]

Minako Manome

Programme Specialist Jordan [email protected]

11

Nils Christensen Head of UXO Unit Laos [email protected]

12

Diana Gutierrez Project Manager for Inclusive Economic Development

Colombia [email protected]

13

Sanjeeb Bhattarai

Chief, Treasury Operations NYC [email protected]

14

Laura Sheridan Programme Analyst Pakistan [email protected]

15

Afke Bootsman Coordination and Programme Specialist

Lebanon [email protected]

16

Farah Abdessamad

Programme Specialist Jordan [email protected]

17

Michelle Krogh Programme Officer Lebanon [email protected]

18

Hana Hamadeh Livelihood and Local Economic Development National Expert

Lebanon [email protected]

19

Gozde Avci Livelihood development expert Irak [email protected]

20

Rima Al Hassani Livelihoods Team Leader Syria [email protected]

21

Ugo Blanco Regional Advisor –Crisis Prevention and Recovery

RBLAC, UNDP, New York

[email protected]

22

Karen Bernard Deputy Resident Representative Equatorial Guinea

[email protected]

23

Mettelena Herring

Crisis Prevention and Recovery Procurement Team

Danemark [email protected]

24

Mio Kato Crisis Prevention Recovery Programme Analyst

Fidji [email protected]

25

Vital Goumou Conseiller en réintégration Burundi [email protected]

26

Tiina Turunen Consultant Turkey [email protected]

27

Stuart Kefford Livelihood officer Liberia [email protected]

2 Chris Dooley UNDP Regional Technical Advisor NYC [email protected]

68


8 for Payments and UNMEER Liaison

29

Adenike Akoh Procurement Specialist, Strategy and Policy


30

Ethel Capuno Procurement Focal Point Philippines [email protected]

31

Clément San Sébastien

Senior Advisor Dakar [email protected]

69

earlyrecovery.globalearlyrecovery.global/...based_interventions_final_draft_o… · web viewin...

Documents