mpca & vulnerability assessment: combined 2020 guidelines · 2020. 4. 20. · 1 cash working...
TRANSCRIPT
0
MPCA & VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT: COMBINED 2020
GUIDELINES Cash Working Group guidelines for proposal
development and programme implementation
Mauro Clerici, Cash Working Group coordinator [email protected]
Gabrielle Fox, Cash Working Group co-lead [email protected]
Safwan Khan, Cash Working Group Economist [email protected]
Joe Mekhael [email protected]
Taban Ihsan, Sub-National CWG Coordinator – Kirkuk [email protected]
Abstract This document contains information on the CWG vulnerability assessment and targeting
model, standard operating procedures, and guidelines for implementation of Multi-purpose Cash Assistance within the Iraqi humanitarian response in 2020.
January 2020
1
Cash Working Group Iraq
MPCA & Vulnerability Assessment: Combined 2020 Guidelines
Table of contents
Table of acronyms 3
Summary of tables and figures 4
1. Overview 5
2. Introduction 6
3. Coordination of MPCA and sectorial cash 6
4. The targeting model 7
5. Calculation of the PIN 8
6. MPCA objectives and relationship with the Humanitarian Consequences Framework (HCF) 9
7. Referral to other sectors and linkages with the existing social protection system 11
8. Mapping for referral to other sectors/agencies 12
9. Targets and financial requirements. 12
10. Activity Based Costing (ABC) 12
11. Thresholds for single budget items 14
12. Ratio between direct and indirect costs 14
13. Economy of scale considerations 14
14. Consortia and other multilateral arrangements 15
15. Engagement of national NGOs 15
16. Capacity building 15
17. Research components 15
18. Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket (SMEB) and transfer value 15
19. Transfer Value 16
20. Transfer value, equivalent in IQDs and related transfer costs 16
21. Percentage of population across predicted consumption categories 17
22. Usage of the SEVAT by MPCA partners and other sectors, Capacity Building, Data collection and scoring 18
23. Delivery mechanism 18
24. MPCA monitoring framework 19
25. Assessment modality 19
26. Cash Assistance to recent returnees 19
27. Verification Questionnaire 20
28. Post Distribution Monitoring 20
2
29. Segregation of roles and responsibilities 20
30. Protection mainstreaming 20
31. Child Protection Safeguard in Cash Distribution 20
32. SGBV concerns 21
33. Mitigation measures, PSEA, complain mechanism and anti-fraud policy 21
34. Standard Operating Procedures 21
35. Interference Matrix 21
36. Prioritized geographical areas and partners presence 22
37. JPMI and JRAM 23
38. Recommended elements to be included in the proposals and used as vetting parameters 24
39. HRP partners 26
40. Reporting 27
41. Relevant literature 27
42. Subscription to the CWG mailing list 30
43. Contacts 30
44. List of annexes 31
Appendix I – Basic needs definition and approaches used by the Iraqi CWG to determine the basic needs basket, SMEB and
transfer value 32
Appendix II. What we mean by consumption, expenditure and income? 33
3
Table of acronyms
ABC Activity Based Costing
CCCM Camp Coordination and Camp Management
CVA Cash and Voucher Assistance
CWG Cash Working Group
DTM Displacement Tracking Matrix
FTS Financial Service Provider
GoI Government of Iraq
HCF Humanitarian Consequences Framework
HCT Humanitarian Country Team
HH Household
HNO Humanitarian Needs Overview
HPC Humanitarian Programme Cycle
HRP Humanitarian Response Plan
IASC Inter-agency Standing Committee
ICCG Inter-cluster Coordination Group
IDPs Internal Displaces Population
ILO International Labor Organization
IOM International Organization of Migration
JPMI Join Price Monitoring Initiative
JRAM Join Rapid Assessment of Markets
KRI Kurdistan Region of Iraq
MCNA Multi-cluster Needs Assessment
MoDM Ministry of Migration and Displacement
MoLSA Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs
MoP Ministry of Planning
MPCA Multi-purpose Cash Assistance
NPC National Protection Cluster
PDM Post-distribution Monitoring
PIN People in Need
PLW Pregnant and Lactating Women
PMT Proxy Mean Test
SEVAT Socio-economic Vulnerability Assessment Tool
SMEB Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket
SNFI Shelter and Non-food Items
SOP Standard Operational Procedures
SSN Social Safety Net
UNHCR United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees
WFP World Food Programme
4
Summary of tables and figures
Figure 1. MPCA 2020 pillars
Figure 2. Representation of the PMT functioning
Figure 3. Relation between MPCA 2020 strategy, linkages with the HCF, response modality, PIN and acute PIN
Figure 4. Potential interaction between MPCA and sector-specific assistance
Table 1: Severity of vulnerability – correspondence between HNO severity scale and Predicted Consumption
Table 2: Severity of vulnerability – acute PIN using the correspondence between HNO severity scale and Predicted Consumption
Table 3. MPCA response strategy within the Iraqi Humanitarian Consequences framework
Table 4. Targets across the groups and related financial requirements.
Table 5. MPCA ABC items breakdown
Table 6. Overall financial requirements
Table 7. Composition of the revised 2019 SMEB and correspondent value
Table 8. % of population across predicted consumption categories
Table 9. Financial Service Providers List
Table 10. MPCA monitoring indicators
Table 11. MPCA Standard Operational Procedures table of contents
Table 12. 2020 HRP prioritized districts
Table 13. Recommended proposal elements to be considered in drafting and vetting
Table 14. List of MPCA HRP partners
Table 15. List of selected literature
5
1. Overview
Transfer value
IRAQI 2020 MPCA RESPONSE
Strategic Objective: Provide access to
basic needs for 370,025 in-camp IDPs,
351,026 out-of-camp IDPs and 926,170
returnees
Specific Objective: Assist 370,025 in-camp
IDP’s and 351,026 out-of-camp IDPs and
926,170 returnees to meeting basic needs
and minimize reliance on negative coping
strategies.
CWG Objective 1: Provide MPCA to 61.475
acutely vulnerable households (29.000 out
of camps and 49.000 returnees) affected by
conflict and/or another shock generating
humanitarian needs that cannot be covered
by existing national services.
CWG Objective 2: Facilitate acutely
vulnerable households’ access to
complementary and critical humanitarian
and national assistance services, including
non-contributory government social
protection programs.
36.270 Catastrophic
Vulnerable HH
320 USD per month
3 months assistance
Protection services package
25.205 Extreme
Vulnerable
320 USD per month
2 months assistance
Referral to other sector specific
intervention
Critical Protection service
package:
- access to legal documentation
- PSS
- case management
- social protection schemes
Referral to other sectors:
Adopting a cross-sectorial
application of the SEVAT,
Identification of referral
pathways to livelihood and
sector specific activities with
particular focus on integrated
approach with other sector-
specific CBI
USD 73 ML
61.475 HHs
368.850 individuals
30 Partners
Revised SMEB:
320 USD (IQD 380.000)
The revision of the transfer value from
USD 400 to 320 follows a consultative
process with clusters and partners.
HHs receive a transfer value of 320
USD per month equal to the SMEB
value, for 2 or 3 months according to
the assessed level of vulnerability.
The amount in IQD should be intended as the “cash in hand” to the beneficiaries. Fees and transfer commissions
whether accredited by the implementing partner directly to the Financial Service Provider or retained as commission
by the agent, should be added to the above indicated value and included in the administrative costs. See the section
on activity based costing in this guidelines for more detail.
Activities
Provide 2 rounds of multi-purpose cash assistance to 36.270 catastrophically vulnerable and to households affected by conflict and/
or another shock generating humanitarian needs that cannot be covered by existing national services.
Provide 3 rounds of multi-purpose cash assistance to 25.205 extremely vulnerable households affected by conflict and/ or another
shock generating humanitarian needs that cannot be covered by existing national services.
Facilitate extreme and catastrophically vulnerable households’ referral to sector specific interventions, protection actors and national
social protection schemes.
6
2. Introduction
MPCA response in humanitarian settings finds its fundamentals in the 2018 OCHA message on Cash Coordination1, which
states that “Humanitarian actors should work together to ensure that cash is the preferred and default form of assistance
where markets and operational contexts permit.” The document emphasizes how “it can also serve as an important bridge
between humanitarian and development activities”. On assessment of humanitarian MPCA response, the Inter-Agency
Standing Committee (IASC) strategic note on Cash Transfers in Humanitarian Contexts2 notes that:
“The needs assessment process is largely conducted with a sectoral lens {...} Cash transfers have highlighted the need
to broaden the scope and uptake of such cross-sector approaches”.
Finally, the 2020 Humanitarian Programme Cycle (HPC) guidelines in the context of the above, also underline maintaining a
focus on intersectoral discussions, stating that “response analysis during the preparation of the Humanitarian Response Plan
should enable more systematic inter-sectoral discussions about required multisectoral response approaches, which could
include multipurpose cash, and to identify the potential use of national social protection systems.”3
The MPCA response in Iraq is based on these principles. In doing so, it encompasses the three pillars of the response: relying
on existing function market for goods, . Adopting a cross-sectorial approach in targeting, and identifying referrals to other
sectors and linkages with the existing social protection system.
Figure 1. MPCA 2020 pillars
While the number of people unable to cover their basic needs in 2020 remains almost constant in comparison with 2019 (2,8
Vs 2,9 million people countrywide), the acute PIN (people in need, see calculation rationale in section 5) is 2 ML people, an
increase of 25 percentage points from 2019. This has resulted from protracted displacement and an increased rate of return,
with no significant macro-economic improvement and livelihood opportunities, or a strengthening of national social
protection systems in areas of origin. MPCA continues to be a preferred assistance modality4 that affords vulnerable
households the flexibility to meet their survival basic needs. More significantly, MPCA decreases the incidence of negative
coping strategies, including secondary displacement that are triggered by financial constraints, and plays an essential role in
supporting (re) integration and transition to durable solutions.
3. Coordination of MPCA and sectorial cash MPCA operational and strategic coordination is led by the Cash Working Group (CWG). In 2020, the CWG will continue leading
MPCA coordination at the national and sub-national levels, as well as provide strategic technical coordination of sector-
specific Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA). Coordination of MPCA will mainly, but not exclusively, include: harmonization of
approaches and monitoring tools, technical support to MPCA actors on approach and monitoring tools, coordination of
geographic coverage areas, duplication check processes, partnership with cluster leads for development of referrals pathways
1 OCHA on Message: Cash Coordination, April 2018, link 2 Strategic Note Cash Transfers in Humanitarian Contexts Final draft prepared for the Principals of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee The World Bank Group June 2016, link 3 ENHANCED HPC APPROACH 2020, Stronger focus on Cash, link 4CWG partners consistently find over 99% of assessed households prefer cash over other forms of assistance. The largest volume of calls and requests the Iraq Information Center received consistently pertain to cash.
Funcioning marketCross-sectorial approach in targeting
Referral to other sectors and social protection schemes
7
based on the CWG Socio-economic Vulnerability Assessment Tool (SEVAT), strategic efforts on transition to government-led
social protection assistance, in addition to the development of other workstreams as identified by the CWG secretariat in
consultation with the Inter-cluster Coordination Group (ICCG) and the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT).
4. The targeting model Looking at basic needs “as to the essential goods, utilities, services or resources required on a regular, seasonal, or exceptional
basis by households for ensuring survival and minimum living standards, without resorting to negative coping mechanisms or
compromising their health, dignity and essential livelihood assets” (ILO, 1976) helps to understand the rationale behind the
adoption of a consumption based survey and a Proxy Mean Test (PMT) as a targeting model since 20195. While the use of a
poverty based approach could be confusing as a semantic for humanitarian actors, it remains crucial for strategic thinking on
programme design, specially in the context of transitions to durable solutions. A key objective of the PMT approach in
humanitarian MPCA assessment is to find a systematic mechanism for cross-sectoral referrals, including, very crucially, to
government administered social safety nets.
The PMT based targeting
methodology facilitated by the
CWG represents a strategic
choice, as it aims to prepare the
ground for transitions to durable
solutions, through a potential
conversion of an emergency
response like MPCA into a
national social protection scheme.
The targeting model is based on
the idea of predicted
consumption, computed using a
range of household characteristics
and behaviors (including, for
example, shelter type, negative
coping strategies) , and how these
affect the household’s capacity to consume (see Appedix II and Annex I for details), captured through the CWG assessment
tool called the Socio Economic Vulnerability Assessment Tool (SEVAT).6 Household per capita predicted consumption is
compared with the national poverty line of IQD 110.000 per capita to assess household vulnerability, and, by extension,
eligibility for MPCA. The CWG PMT has three scoring models, to account for geographic heterogeneity in vulnerability across
the country. Predicted consumption is generated based on a composite index of 32 multi-sector indicators (including
characteristics and behaviors), with three scoring models tailored for distinct regions of Iraq. This follows the same PMT
approach used by MPCA actors since 2016, with revisions in 2018 to reflect the evolving nature of vulnerability in Iraq7 (see
Annex I. “Iraq MPCA Vulnerability Model Review”). This is meant to ensure that assistance is delivered based on a rigorous
analysis of vulnerability, rather than based on household status (such as displaced, returnee, host) or categorical targeting.
The coefficients composing the model should not be read as scores but rather as odds, for someone presenting a certain
characteristic or behaviour to be exposed to vulnerability in comparison to someone that does not represents having the
same characteristic/behaviour. For example, in the Northern model, a HH without standard shelter is 23% more likely to be
5 The World Bank published a vast literature on Proxy Mean Tests. For technical information on how a PMT is built, you can refer to the following paper: PMT-based social registries Measuring income and poverty using Proxy Means Tests, World Bank Group, link
6 Please refer to Appendix II for more information on consumption based surveys and Predicted Consumption 7 See MPCA vulnerability assessment and targeting review 2019, link
Figure 2. Representation of the PMT functioning
8
vulnerable than someone with a standard shelter such as a house or a flat. Is important to note that while the PMT approach
is methodologically aligned with that of development actors including the World Bank in the assessment of eligibility for social
safety nets, it is based on humanitarian caseload dataset (the 2018 Multi-cluster Needs Assessment - MCNA - data) and
therefore look specifically at the family characteristics and behaviours that affect consumption (i.e. vulnerability) in the Iraqi
humanitarian context. Nonetheless, having methodological alignment would help in the estimation of humanitarian case load
that could be referred to government social safety nets.
5. Calculation of the PIN MPCA PIN, accounting for the portion of crisis affected population exposed to humanitarian consequence #1 “Critical
problems related to physical and mental well-being” (see section 6. for a brief on the humanitarian consequences
framework), has been calculated applying the CWG PMT to the 2019 Multi-cluster Needs Assessment (MCNA). The 2020
Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO) classifies vulnerability on a scale of 1 to 5 according to the severity. MPCA vulnerability
was elaborated using the same scale. This is shown in Table 1. Following HCT/ICCG guidance for 2020 Humanitarian Response
Plan (HRP) submission, the focus of humanitarian response would be on acute vulnerability, defined as those falling in severity
categories 4 and 5. The threshold for acute vulnerability according to CWG estimations is IQD 92.000 per capita per month.
Hence those household with a predicted per capita consumption of less than IQD 92.000 per capita per month would be
considered eligible for assistance8. The total number of individuals estimated within these categories is 2,0 million people. As
can be noted in table 1, while all those with a predicted consumption below 70.000 IQD/per-capita/per-month are considered
to be catastrophically vulnerable as falling below the International Poverty Line (IPL) of USD 1.90/day9, in order to better
reflect MPCA actors programmatic needs, a further category defined as “catastrophic in protracted vulnerability” has been
introduced by the CWG. The latter are people likely to remain in protracted vulnerability due to being exposed to protection
risks and facing severe difficulties in accessing livelihood opportunities. It is expected that those falling in this category (while
not exclusively as also people falling in other categories might face severe conditions) can be referred for protection services
and social safety nets.
Table 1: Severity of vulnerability – correspondence between HNO severity scale and Predicted Consumption
Severity Category Correspondent Predicted consumption threshold
From To
1 Minimal 147.000* above
2 Stress 110.000 147.000
3 Severe 92.000 110.000
4 Extreme 70.000 92.000
5 Catastrophic 40.000 70.000
5.1 Catastrophic in protracted vulnerability 0 40.000 * 147.000 IQD per capita per month is the average predicted consumption the whole humanitarian caseload according to MCNA 2019
Table 2: Severity of vulnerability – acute PIN using the correspondence between HNO severity scale and Predicted Consumption
Severity category Household predicted consumption (IQD, per capita per month)
Number of individuals
% share within the acutely vulnerable population
Extremely vulnerable Between 70.000 and 92.000 818,070 41%
Catastrophically vulnerable Between 40.000 and 70.000 886,651 44%
Less than IQD 40.000 298,816 15%
2,003,537 NOTE: the percentages indicated in the last column of table 2 represents countrywide CWG estimations based on the application of the SEVAT scoring model
on the MCNA 2019 dataset. For programmatic purposes at governorate and district level, we recommend partners to refer to the sub-district break-down
estimation contained in Annex II. “MCNA VII reference for SEVAT assessments”.
8 Based on recent consultations with the World Bank 9 1.90 USD/per capita/per day is the World Bank IPL as from October 2015 replacing the 2005 1,25 USD/per capita/per day. It corresponds to the Absolute poverty defined as the absence of enough resources to secure basic life necessities.
9
6. MPCA objectives and relationship with the Humanitarian Consequences Framework (HCF) This section discusses MPCA objectives and how they relate with the humanitarian consequences framework (HCF).
The Humanitarian Response Plan for 2020 sets a Humanitarian Consequences Framework composed of 4 potential
consequences:
a. Safeguard physical and mental well-being of 1.65 million conflict-affected people with acute needs by providing services to meet basic needs.
b. Address critical problems related to living standards by expanding access to basic services for 1.54 million conflict-affected people with acute needs.
c. Support 689,000 conflict-affected people in acute need who remain displaced to move toward economic independence and durable solutions by strengthening their resilience.
d. Respond to key protection needs of affected communities in support of the transition to durable solutions in accordance with all applicable legal and policy frameworks.
Figure 1. depicts the linkages between the four humanitarian consequences, the response modality, corresponding
vulnerability thresholds, PIN and acute PIN as well as complementary referrals for each vulnerability category. The
distribution of HHs across a spectrum of socio-economic vulnerability can be reflected into the design of the HPC four
Humanitarian Consequences (HC), where those at the bottom and categorized as catastrophically vulnerable are exposed to
well-being consequences, those in the middle to living standards consequences and those at the top to resilience and
recovery. Protection is an overarching concern to be explored within each category. Within the Humanitarian Consequences
Framework, MPCA response contributes to address humanitarian consequence #1 i.e. “critical problems related to well-
being.” The MPCA scoring tool can be used to activate the referrals shown in figure 3 (see section 7).
Figure 3. Relation between MPCA 2020 strategy, linkages with the HCF, response modality, PIN and acute PIN
Table 3 in the summarizes the strategic and specific objectives from the HCF and how they relate with CWG objectives and
MPCA activities.
10
Table 3. MPCA response strategy within the Iraqi Humanitarian Consequences framework
Strategic
Objectives
Specific Objective CWG Objectives MPCA Activities
1. Safeguarding physical and mental well-being of 1.65 million conflict-affected people with acute needs by providing services.
1.2 Assist 250,000
in-camp IDPs and
351,026 out-of-
camp IDPs and
926,170
returnees to
meeting basic
needs and
minimize reliance
on negative
coping strategies
1.2.1 Provide MPCA to 61.475 acutely vulnerable households (29.000 out of camps and 49.000 returnees) affected by conflict and/or another shock generating humanitarian needs that cannot be covered by existing national services. 1.2.2 Facilitate acutely
vulnerable households’ access
to complementary and critical
humanitarian and national
assistance services, including
non-contributory government
social protection programs.
1.2.1.1 Provide multi-purpose cash assistance
to 36.270 catastrophically vulnerable
households affected by conflict and/ or
another shock generating humanitarian needs
that cannot be covered by existing national
services.
1.2.1.2 Provide multi-purpose cash assistance
to 25.205 extremely vulnerable households
affected by conflict and/ or another shock
generating humanitarian needs that cannot be
covered by existing national services.
1.2.2.1 Facilitate extreme and catastrophically
vulnerable households referral to sector
specific intervention, to protection actors and
national social protection schemes.
Response Approach
- Administration of SEVAT questionnaire in targeted locations.
- Please refer to Annexes A, B, C, D, F and G for the SEVAT package10 and to the guidelines for the support offered by the
CWG.
- Determination of socio-economic vulnerability based on the Proxy Mean Test scoring model
- Enrollment in the MPCA programme.
- Disbursement of 2 months assistance to severely vulnerable HHs
- Disbursement of 3 months assistance to extremely and catastrophically vulnerable HHs.
- Referral of HHs missing legal documentation to legal partners
- Referral of HHs in need of PSS, specialized protection services and case management to protection partners.
- referral to other sector specific activities, mainly cash based intervention trough the identification of sector specific
indicators.
- facilitate access to national non-contributory social protection schemes.
10 Annex A: PDF version of the questionnaire; Annex B: Kobo version of the questionnaire; Annex C: Vulnerability Assessment Tool 2019 Combined Guidelines in English; Annex D: Vulnerability Assessment Tool 2019 Combined Guidelines in Arabic; Annex E: MPCA Vulnerability Scoring Tool; Annex F: a Kobo Demo Link; Annex G: the Verification form
11
7. Referral to other sectors and linkages with the existing social protection system Based on unique household-level need, all MPCA recipients will be considered within a comprehensive referral scheme, to
include an array of complementary interventions by humanitarian actors as well as government-led social protection
assistance, as feasible.
Referral to other sectors
The Socio-Economic Vulnerability Assessment Tool (SEVAT)11 represents a comprehensive and efficient mechanism to trigger
referrals for complementary humanitarian-led sectoral assistance. MPCA actors have been successful in referring assessed
households who are missing civil documentation for legal assistance to secure critically-needed documentation. This work
will continue in 2020. Strategically, the CWG will focus on establishing further referral pathways for Livelihoods and Protection
assistance, with additional potential to enhance linkages with Shelter/ NFI, Health, WASH, Education, etc. There are
operational constraints for effective referrals, such as limitations in geographic presence, budget, timeframe for assistance
by other actors, however, activation of such referrals even at modest scale offers clear value for enhanced outcomes for
affected populations that would reinforce durable solutions and promote a more coherent response overall. However, as the
2019 experience of SNFI shows, the tool can be used, jointly with sector specific indicators, to prioritize socio-economic HHs
among those eligible for sector-specific interventions. In fact, HHs not eligible for MPCA might be eligible for other stream of
assistance which can be preliminary determined using the SEVAT. Partners will enhance the collaboration – but not limiting
to - with the Emergency Livelihood cluster in order to identify key indicators to operationalize the referrals. In the course of
2020, the SEVAT might be amended to accommodate sector specific indicators in collaboration with clusters. Figure 4 depict
the potential referral interactions.
Figure 4. Potential interaction between MPCA and sector-specific assistance
Referral to protection services
As earlier mentioned, those at the bottom of vulnerability pyramid, falling in the “catastrophic category in protracted
vulnerability”, estimated to be about 6% of the humanitarian affected population, should be considered for referral to
protection actors. While critical protection needs might be identified across all the severity categories, this segment of
population, according to CWG estimates, reflect a high degree of reliance on negative coping strategies and therefore are
exposed to increased protection risks. The CWG will work in close collaboration with the National Protection Cluster in order
to set a referral pathway and procedures.
11
The SEVAT is the tool used by the CWG partners to assess HHs socio-economic vulnerability eligibility for MPCA. MPCA partners data are
collected by the CWG on regular basis.
12
Referral to national social protection schemes
This segment of the vulnerable population is also likely to be eligible for non-contributory national social protection schemes
for the poor and for special categories. While those schemes exist and are regulated by the national social protection legal
framework, financial resources are limited and currently many of the available tools are non-operational. In the course of
2020 partners are required to actively collaborate with the CWG and the clusters in order to map the existing functioning
services at district level and facilitate the activation of linkages for transition of the humanitarian caseload to governmental
responsibility.
The SEVAT will facilitate the transition to durable solutions by estimating the likelihood of eligibility for the Cash Transfer
Social Safety Net (SSN) programme implemented by MoLSA. This will allow MPCA actors to geographically map the need for
inclusion of people in need in government led social safety net cash transfer programs. Although registration for the SSN
remains closed, this represents a strategic transition strategy. The CWG will continue to engage with the Government of Iraq
(GoI) and other key social protection stakeholders, such as the World Bank, on these transition efforts.
Reassessment for further assistance of the “catastrophic in protracted vulnerability” category
Given the protracted extreme vulnerability of the bottom 6% of the population which has to rely on continued assistance to
avoid the usage of negative coping strategies, in the absence of functioning social protection schemes, partners will consider
during the course of 2020 the possibility to reassess the caseload for a second round of assistance in addition to the above
mentioned potential protection referral. Detailed guidance will be provided by the CWG during the first quarter of 2020.
8. Mapping for referral to other sectors/agencies In order to facilitate the referral to other agencies, the CWG initiated information collection on partners’ presence in the
following sectors: Emergency Livelihood, Food Security, Shelter NFI, Protection. The initial mapping is available in Annex IX,
the document will be updated and complemented with information from sectors in 2020.
9. Targets and financial requirements. MPCA continues to be a major component of the Iraq HRP for 2020 through its support for 368.850 vulnerable returnees and
displaced individuals outside camps, out of 2.8 million PIN in HRP prioritized locations (see section 34 and Annex VII “MPCA
by pop group and district 2020 for details”). The 2020 target (corresponding to approximately 20% of the acute PIN) has been
set following an analysis of MPCA partners’ operational capacity, 2019 achievements and HRP prioritized areas. As per HCT
indications the original returnee target has been decreased (from approx. 50.000 to approx. 40.000). Table 4 shows the overall
financial requirements under the HRP 2020. The budget has been calculated is based on activity-based costing for MPCA,
discussed in the following section.
Table 4. Targets across population groups and related financial requirements
Cat. Targets Financial allocation
Individuals HHs %
Out-camp IDPs 127,260 21,210 35% $ 25,239,930.54
Returnee 284,042 40,265 65% $ 47,915,650.77
Total 368,850 61,475 --- $ 73,155,581.32
10. Activity Based Costing (ABC) HRP 2020 financial requirements are based on the activity-based costing approach (ABC). The below is an abstract of the
“Activity-Based Costing Coordination Approach in Iraq 2020 Guidance Note for the ICCG” (see attachment VI, “ABC Guidance
Note”).
“Following the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) decision (14 April 2019) to move to activity-based costing (ABC)
for the 2020 Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP), implementation of the coordinated humanitarian response in Iraq
will no longer be based on projects submitted through the HPC Tools Projects Module (former OPS). Development
13
and funding of projects will be between partners and current or potential donors, while clusters, the ICCG and the
HCT will be concentrating on providing coordination, technical and strategic guidance and support to the overall
activities in order to meet the strategic priorities outlined in the HRP. {…} In this approach, clusters identify
humanitarian activities required to improve humanitarian outcomes and estimate a budget for their
implementation. The cluster budgets derived from humanitarian needs form the total HRP budget request. There
will be no central project repository used to vet or “register” projects in an exclusive finite list for the HRP.
{…} As the HRP activities are reflective of joint cluster agreements and commitment {…} all cluster members will be
listed in the HRP document. However, the list is not inclusive and new members can be included in the clusters – or
leave the cluster system throughout the year..”
Following the above instructions, the CWG drafted the below ABC which should be looked at as guidance for partners for
proposal submission and for donors for vetting of proposals received. The different items composing the average cost per
household should be intended as a ceiling for financial requirements. The total cost per HH should not exceed 1.190 USD
where 830 USD (70%) are the direct costs intended as the money disbursed to HHs and 360 the amount dedicated for indirect
costs. Table 5 contains the breakdown of the MPCA ABC items while table 6 provides an overview of the overall financial
requirements.
Table 5. MPCA ABC items breakdown
* These calculations were undertaken for planning and budgeting purposes and reflect the proportional cost per HH. The average reference amount per
HH is 1190 USD.
Table 6. Overall financial requirements
Activity cost estimation for assistance provided to catastrophic and extreme HH.
# of transfers transfer value
($)
portion of the affected
population eligible Total financial req.
Between 70.000 and 92.000 PC (extreme) - 2 payments 640,00 25.205 (41%) $ 29.993.788
Between 40.000 and 70.000 PC (catastrophic) - 3 payments 960,00 27.049 (44%) $ 32.188.456
Below 40.000 PC (catastrophic in protracted vulnerability) - 3
payments 960,00 9.221 (15%) $ 10.973.337
1. estimated average cost of direct transfer to beneficiaries $ 830,00 (70%)
2. Estimated average INDIRECT COST (including support costs, referral, fees, overheads, assessment costs,
HR, hotlines etc) $ 360,00 (30%)
ACTIVITY BASED COST PER HH $ 1190,00
2020 MPCA Activity cost estimation for assistance provided to catastrophic and extreme vulnerable HH.
A # of transfers B transfer value ($)
C portion of eligible population
D Correspondent value* ($)
Between 70.000 and 92.000 PC (extreme) - 2 payments 640,00 25.205 (41%) 262.40
Between 40.000 and 70.000 PC (catastrophic) - 3 payments 960,00 27.049 (44%) 422.40
Below 40.000 PC (catastrophic in protracted vulnerability) - 3 payments 960,00 9.221 (15%) 144.00
1. estimated average cost of direct transfer to beneficiaries 828.80
2. estimated FSPs fees costs calculated with an average of 4% on direct transfer costs 33.15
3. Sub-total cost for the transfers to beneficiaries (1+2) 861.95
4. estimated cost for enhanced referral activities per HH 25.00
5. Total HH cost (3+4) 886.95
6. Support costs, calculated as a 26% of 5 230.61
7. Sub-total project costs (5+6) 1117.56
8. Administrative costs (7% of 7) 78.23
TOTAL (5+6) 1195.79
ROUNDED 1190.00
DIRECT COST (money disbursed to HHs) 830.00 70%
INDIRECT COST (including support costs, referral, fees, overheads, assessment costs, HR, hotlines etc.) 360.00 30%
14
The calculations are based on:
- analysis of the proposals submitted to IHF over the past 2 years
- complemented with a market analysis of the costs related to transfers
- proportionally adjusted to reflect the different allocations per vulnerability level and revised transfer value
- amended to include additional costs per required enhanced referral activities
- the cost per beneficiary is indicative for medium scale projects (up to the value of USD 3 ML). Larger proposals
should present a higher ratio of efficiency. See the economy of scale considerations section for more information.
11. Thresholds for single budget items 1. The estimated average cost of direct transfer to beneficiaries is 830 USD. This value is based on a nationwide
estimation of caseload across the different severity categories as indicated in column C: 41% extremely vulnerable,
44% catastrophically vulnerable, 15% catastrophically vulnerable in protracted displacement. Partners might submit
proposals with a different average value based on the reference given in Annex II. “MCNA VII reference for SEVAT
assessments” (see table 8 of these guidelines for quick reference), complemented with a sound contextual analysis
and need assessment. For example, in a rural district in Anbar, where the share of those classified as catastrophically
vulnerable is likely to be significantly higher than the national average provided by the CWG, the average direct
transfer to beneficiaries will be higher. On the contrary, the average cost in an urban setting in KRI, where the portion
of those at the bottom of the vulnerability pyramid is likely to be lower, will be significantly lower.
2. Estimated Financial Service Providers (FTS) fees costs should not exceed the 4% on direct transfer costs i.e. 33 USD
per HH. The FSP fees might vary significantly according to the disbursement modality used. Partners are required to
provide extensive justification on the preferred modality. 3. The sub-total cost for the transfers to beneficiaries (1+2) should not exceed 862 USD per HHs unless a different
vulnerability breakdown is applied (point 1).
4. Estimated cost for enhanced referral activities per HH should not exceed 25 USD per HH. While this cost has been
added in order to allow partners to operationalize the MPCA referral strategy described in the sections above, clear
reference on implementation modality should be made in the narrative and budget proposals submitted to donors.
CWG is available to provide guidance to donors on the vetting of the proposed actions and related costs.
5. Total HH cost (3+4) should not exceed 887 USD unless differently justified in compliance with the indication in
point 1.
6. The support costs should not exceed the 26% of the above. These include HR, running costs, assessment costs,
facilities, capacity building and any other costs which are not related to direct transfer to beneficiaries (1), FSP
fees (2) and referral activities (4). On average, unless differently justified in compliance with the indication in point
1, should not exceed 230 USD per HH.
7. Sub-total project costs (5+6)
8. The administrative costs intended as general costs sustained by the organization should not exceed the 7% of sub-
total project costs (point 7).
12. Ratio between direct and indirect costs The cost per beneficiary should not exceed the one indicated in the ABC section of these guidelines. Regardless of the actual
average cost per beneficiary, which might vary according to context specific analysis as described in the above ABC section,
support costs should not exceed 30% of the total cost.
13. Economy of scale considerations The above calculation and recommendations are based on analysis of medium scale value projects not exceeding USD 3 ML
grant. Higher value and consortia proposals, for an economy of scale rule, should present a better value for money ratio in
favor of direct costs Vs indirect costs. The CWG is available to provide assistance to donors in assessing the appropriate ratio
according to the grant value.
15
14. Consortia and other multilateral arrangements Consortia and other forms of partnership are encouraged and usually welcomed by donors. In such cases the proposals should
contain a clear indication of the added value of the consortia, for example in terms of geographical coverage, maximization
of technical expertise, monitoring, management and coordination etc. Wherever possible, technical, managerial, middle-
managerial and administrative profiles should be shared positions, providing a significant added value of the consortia
arrangement and clearly increasing the efficiency ratio (decreasing the portion of budget allocated to support costs). The set-
up of parallel managerial and administrate systems, unless strongly justified by operational arguments (geographical
coverage, difficult to access areas etc.) should be avoided.
15. Engagement of national NGOs National NGOs are encouraged to participate in CWG activities and to actively engage in the delivery of MPCA. The CWG is
committed to provide, as much as possible, capacity building support to active national NGOs. International NGOs are
encouraged to engage with national NGOs, whether it is through formal participation in consortia or as implementing
partners, contractors or associates (depending on what is agreed with specific donors).
16. Capacity building Organizations are encouraged to include elements of capacity building within their proposals, especially in relation to national
partners/associates. A capacity building plan, inclusive of objectives, methodology and clear budget breakdown, should be
included in the narrative and budgetary proposal. The CWG can offer its assistance to partners and donors.
17. Research components Research, evaluations, impact studies are highly encouraged. Organizations willing to engage in such activities are advised to
consult with the CWG ahead the submission of proposals. The CWG promotes engagement with national research institutions
and universities as well as the prioritization of studies on transitions to durable solutions, role of cash assistance in transitional
context and linkages with social protection schemes. In addition, research and assessment on Financial Service Providers and
on services mapping will be welcomed. Such activities and their proposed costs should be evaluated separately and are not
included in the ABC described in section 9.
18. Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket (SMEB) and transfer value From a basic needs approach, which views vulnerability as deprivation of consumption, measured as the capacity to consume
a certain amount of goods and service – not limited to the purchase of them - without using negative coping strategies and,
from an household expenditure perspective, which identifies the, the MPCA transfer value in Iraq equals the national SMEB.
From a basic needs approach that is based on the capability of a household to consume and not just earn, without relying on
negative coping strategies, the MPCA transfer value in Iraq is based on the national Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket.12
The calculation of SMEB takes into account both the “survival threshold” and the “livelihood protection threshold”.13
Revised in October 201914, the SMEB has been derived from the contributions of sector-specific baskets (SNFI, WASH, Food
Security) and following a comparative analysis of the trends in prices monitored through the Joint Price Monitoring
Initiative15, the WFP food items price monitoring16, the trends in post-conflict deflation rate17, partners’ programme data on
expenditure (Post-Distribution Monitoring data). Documentation related to the revision of the SMEB is attached with these
12 For details on calculation of the portion of SMEB used as transfer value please refer to the CWG technical note on transfer value calculation. 13 The ‘survival threshold’: access to enough kilocalories to meet their food needs, enough cash to meet their basic survival needs; The ‘livelihoods protection threshold’: survival needs, plus the income necessary to cover basic household expenditures, cash required to meet a locally acceptable standard of living, FAO, Save the Children, 2017 14
For details on the revision of the SMEB, please refer to the CWG technical note SMEB revision October 2019.
15 The REACH initiative Joint Price Monitoring Initiative monitors the prices of most items composing the SMEB basket across the country on
bimonthly basis thanks to the contribution of the CWG partners. 16
WFP food basket price monitoring, July 2019
17 World Bank database, IMF, Trading Economics.
16
guidelines18. The revision was part of a broader strategy discussion, which focused on aligning MPCA in Iraq with the new
strategic parameters for the humanitarian response going forward. The revision resulted in a revised SMEB value of 320 USD.
As the SMEB reflects a survival basket, the full transfer value will be disbursed to those falling below the survival threshold of
predicted consumption of 92.000 IQD per month per capita.
The final value of the SMEB is approximated at 320 USD, as per the break-down below:
Table 7. Composition of the revised 2019 SMEB and correspondent value
Component Value
Food Security $67.79
WASH $14.63
Rent $139.06
Electricity $31.53
Water $14.67
Transportation $32.01
Communication $20.30
TOTAL $319.98
ROUNDED TO $320.00
IQD equivalent IQD 380.000
The amount in IQD should be intended as the “cash in hand” to the beneficiaries. Fees and transfer commissions (whether
accredited by the implementing partner directly to the Financial Service Provider or retained as commission by the agent,
should be added to the above indicated value and included in the indirect costs (see section 11 and section 20).
19. Transfer Value The MPCA transfer values in Iraq, based on the above mentioned national SMEB is $320 (380.000 IQD). MPCA will be
delivered in two lines of response.
● The first line of response will target ‘extremely’ vulnerable households who will receive two months of MPCA.
● The second line of response will target ‘catastrophically’ vulnerable households who will receive three months of MPCA.
As earlier mentioned, given the protracted extreme vulnerability of the bottom 6% of the population which has to rely on
continuous assistance to avoid the usage of negative coping strategies, in the absence of functioning social protection
schemes, partners will consider during the course of 2020 the possibility to reassess the caseload for a second round of
assistance in addition to the above mentioned potential protection referral.
20. Transfer value, equivalent in IQDs and related transfer costs The IQD 380.000 recommended transfer value (using a fix exchange rate of 1:1.200 and rounding up to the nearest decile)
represents the amount to be transferred directly to beneficiaries (cash in hand to beneficiaries) and does not include any fees
or administrative costs. Whether the latter are paid by the organization to the financial service provider or paid as a formal
contractually agreed fee by the beneficiary to the agent during the disbursement, they must be added to the 380.000 transfer
value and budgeted as indirect costs. For example, if the organization contractually agrees that a 3.000 IQD fee must be paid
by the beneficiary when withdrawing the money at the distribution point, the gross amount of money to be disbursed to the
beneficiary is 383.000 IQD. In this way the beneficiary will retain 380.000 IQDs net value. Alternatively, if it is contractually
agreed that the 3.000 fee is to be paid by the organization to the agent directly, the beneficiary will not pay anything to the
18 Annex IV.I: Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket Technical Guidance Note October 2019; Annex IV.II Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket Technical Guidance Note June 2018; 4.3. Annex IV.III SMEB Comparison 2018 – 2019; 4.4. Annex IV.IV WFP Food basket
17
agent during the withdrawal operation and receive a net amount of 380.000 IQDs. In both scenarios the fees and commissions
should be budgeted as indirect costs following the instructions in the Activity Based costing (ABC) section of this guidelines.
21. Percentage of population across predicted consumption categories The below table is intended to provide to MPCA and CWG partners an indication of the share of population falling within
different severity categories across the CWG/HRP prioritized districts. The analysis is based on application of the CWG scoring
model to the 2019 MCNA data. The information provided here should be complemented with ad-hoc field assessments and
is intended to provide partners willing to submit MPCA proposals with useful programmatic information. More information
can be found in Annex II, “MCNA VII reference for SEVAT assessments”
Table 8. % of population across predicted consumption categories
% of population across predicted consumption categories
Governorate
District
Minimal
Stress Extreme Catastrophic
Catastrophic
Moderate in protracted vulnerability
Over 110,000
92,000 - 110,000
70,000 - 92,000
40,000 - 70,000
less than 40,000
Al-Anbar
Al.Falluja 69.30% 16.00% 9.00% 3.80% 1.90%
Al.Kaim 28.20% 8.30% 26.30% 30.10% 9.60%
Al.Ramadi 64.60% 18.50% 13.80% 3.20%
Al.Rutba 3.80% 7.60% 16.50% 44.30% 29.10%
Ana 27.50% 15.90% 26.80% 19.60% 11.60%
Heet 45.10% 16.90% 21.80% 13.40% 2.80%
Al-Sulaymaniyah
Al.Sulaymaniyah
24.00% 21.20% 27.90% 26.90%
Baghdad Al.Kadhmiyah 62.80% 24.20% 7.00% 4.70% 1.40%
Al.Mahmoudiya 43.60% 23.20% 20.50% 11.40% 1.40%
Diyala Al.Muqdadiya 62.10% 19.70% 18.20% 3.00%
Khanaqin 45.30% 14.20% 18.60% 15.40% 7.90%
Duhok
Duhok 8.30% 17.40% 30.30% 41.30% 3.70%
Sumail 12.00% 9.90% 26.40% 40.90% 11.60%
Zakho 16.70% 11.70% 16.70% 40.80% 15.80%
Erbil Erbil 38.70% 24.30% 18.50% 17.30% 1.20%
Makhmour 29.70% 14.30% 24.20% 27.50% 4.40%
Kirkuk Al.Hawiga 7.40% 9.10% 15.70% 38.80% 31.40%
Kirkuk 46.80% 14.70% 18.10% 15.40% 6.80%
Ninewa
Al.Mosul 76.10% 8.10% 6.60% 7.50% 2.10%
Al.Shikhan 15.20% 9.10% 23.60% 35.00% 18.30%
Sinjar 14.40% 7.40% 22.30% 34.90% 22.30%
Telafar 18.60% 11.80% 14.70% 37.70% 19.10%
Tilkaef 32.90% 17.40% 11.90% 30.10% 10.00%
Salah Al-Din
Al.Shirqat 31.10% 15.40% 21.80% 19.90% 13.00%
Balad 9.90% 16.50% 45.10% 28.60% 2.20%
Beygee 31.30% 10.60% 17.30% 24.00% 18.40%
Tikrit 46.30% 14.00% 18.70% 19.60% 2.80%
Tooz.Khurmato 46.70% 16.70% 15.60% 16.00% 6.20%
18
22. Usage of the SEVAT by MPCA partners and other sectors, Capacity Building, Data collection and
scoring All partners (MPCA and non-MPCA) using the SEVAT questionnaire and the CWG PMT scoring model will be assisted by the
CWG with relevant capacity building and technical assistance. Partners who don’t possess in-house capacity to set a data
collection platform can benefit from the Kobo based questionnaire drafted by the CWG (available in Arabic, English and
Kurdish). The CWG will provide relevant trainings to enumerators and officers on the usage of the tool and the scoring model
and offer to partners the possibility to share anonymized data for scoring. Ensuring confidentiality of shared datasets, the
CWG will return the scoring together with a standardized data analysis to support interested partners in their programming.
The anonymized data received will be used, with partners’ consent, to generate district, governorate and nationwide
statistics, and to improve the efficiency of the scoring model.
23. Delivery mechanism The below table contains a non-exhaustive list of available FSPs in Iraq (Annex X Financial Service Providers Mapping). While
partners are free to adopt different money delivery mechanisms, smart cards, money transfer agents and mobile money
transfers continue to be the preferred MPCA delivery mechanisms allowing CWG partners to deliver assistance to vulnerable
families in hard-to-reach areas efficiently. The proposal should contain an indication of the preferred delivery mechanism
and, preliminary market analysis of the available Financial Service Providers (FSP) and justification on the reasons behind the
selection of a given FSP in a certain area.
Table 9. Financial Service Providers List
Company
Type of Delivery
Mechanism
Product Name
Location Website
Governorate (s)
covered District (s)
Iraq Wallet/ ZainCash
(subsidiary of Zain)
Mobile Money
Service Provider
Mobile Money
Transfers
Ninewa, Kirkuk, Erbil,
Dohuk
All districts in the
mentioned governorates.
https://www.zaincas
h.iq/en/
Hassan Office Hawala Money Transfers Ninewa, Kirkuk, Erbil,
Dohuk
All districts in the
mentioned governorates,
aside from Kirkuk where
only Kirkuk City is served.
Asia Cell Mobile Cash Mobile Money
Service Provider
Mobile Money
Transfers
Ninewa, Kirkuk,
Erbil, Dohuk
Qi Card Mobile Money
Service Provider
Mobile Money
Transfers
Ninewa, Kirkuk, Erbil,
Dohuk
Hassan Office, Al-
Munshed ,Alaq Djla and
Takan office
Hawala Direct money
transfer
KRI,Ninewa,SAD,Anbar,
Kirkuk and Diyala,
Baghdad
All districts in the
mentioned governorates.
Iraq Wallet/ ZainCash
(subsidiary of Zain) and
Asia Hawla (subsidiary
of Asia cell)
Mobile Money
Service Provider
Mobile Money
Transfers Iraq wide all
http://asiahawala.iq
and
https://www.zaincas
h.iq/en/about-us/
19
24. MPCA monitoring framework The MPCA monitoring framework includes the following indicators. The below are mandatory for MPCA proposal submission
and partners are required to incorporate them in their monitoring framework. Additionally, in late 2019 the CWG composed
a PDM Task Force in order to draft a common PDM tool. The tool will be finalized in the course of the first quarter of 2020
and provided to partners. PDM data will be compiled on quarterly basis and, subject to partners’ consent, results will be
shared with CWG partners and clusters.
Table 10. MPCA monitoring indicators
Indicator % Target
# of acute vulnerable population benefitting of MPCA NA 61,475.28
# of catastrophically vulnerable HHs in protracted vulnerability receiving 3 transfers of MPCA 15% 9,221.29
# of catastrophically vulnerable HHs receiving 3 transfers of MPCA 44% 27,049.12
# of extremely vulnerable HHs receiving 2 transfers of MPCA 41% 25,204.86
# of female headed HHs receiving MPCA 30% 18,442.58
# of male headed HHs receiving MPCA 70% 43,032.69
# of HHs likely eligible for MoLSA SSN and other governmental Social Protection Schemes 15% 9,221.29
# referrals for legal services (civil, civil status, HLP) services 12% 7,499.15
# referrals for protection services, including case management 7% 4,303.27
# referrals for LIVELIHOOD services 19% 11,526.61
# referrals for sector specific assistance (WASH, Education, Health etc) 30% 18,442.58
25. Assessment modality Assessment for MPCA should be conducted exclusively using the SEVAT and its scoring model and administrated by a gender
balanced team of enumerators. The MPCA assessment modality follows a need-based approach. As per MPCA endorsed SOPs,
partners are recommended to assess entire neighborhoods of a given area in coordination with other actors. This approach,
while ensuring to the affected population equal possibilities to access humanitarian assistance, gives the opportunity to
identify gaps and enable an efficient allocation of resources. If partners assess an area but don’t have enough financial
resources to cover the entire identified caseload, they can contact the CWG for coordination and identification of potential
partners to cover the gaps.
Field visits conducted by the CWG team with implementing partners in 2019 indicate that the average time for the
administration of the complete SEVAT is about 30 minutes. It is important to ensure that the assessments are conducted in
full and not restricted to specific questions, as this may undermine the efficacy of the assessment, as well as humanitarian
coordination, to target the most vulnerable households; in addition it will also limit the scope for cross-sectoral referrals,
even if the household may not be eligible for MPCA.
26. Cash Assistance to recent returnees During the last quarter of 2019 the rate of camp closures increased significantly, triggering returns and secondary
displacement. MPCA partners willing to assist the population affected by sudden closure of camps approached the CWG in
order verify the possibility to use the SEVAT and the same assessment methodology to recently return population. While the
tool can still work with the caveat that ideally 30 days should pass from the date of return/secondary displacement to ensure
efficiency of the scoring model, assessing only the recently returned population does not fully align with the needs based
approach described in the previous section. The CWG, in October 2019 issued a guidance note for partners (please find it
attached to these guidelines (Annex III. Guidance Note on Cash Assistance to Recent Returns). In order to support MPCA
partners in identification of priority locations, the CWG conducts an analysis of the IIC camp consolidation follow-up survey /
out of camp setting survey update on regular basis. The results are published on the following website:
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiY2MxNjIzMzAtYzc0OC00MDI0LWE4ZWUtZmI4ZWExN2RlMGRhIiwidCI6IjA4ZGU4Nj
I4LTU5M2UtNDNmNS05Y2ViLWYzZTVkZDdhZTJjYiIsImMiOjF9
20
27. Verification Questionnaire The CWG MPCA SOPs foresee the usage of a verification questionnaire to be administrated to up to 20% of the caseload
assessed before proceeding with the delivery of the assistance. In case the eligibility results of the 20% of those randomly
selected for verification mismatches with the original results, the whole assessment should be invalidated. For the verification
questionnaire and its Kobo version, see attachments G. “Verification Form” and H. “Verification Form Kobo”
28. Post Distribution Monitoring While the CWG is committed to provide a standardized tool for PDM during the first quarter of 2020, partners are strongly
recommended to indicate in their proposals their PDM procedures and intended indicators.
29. Segregation of roles and responsibilities Clearly indicate how the organization intends to segregate the assessment functions from data collection, data processing
and scoring, verification, distribution and post distribution and which internal audit and control mechanisms are in place.
30. Protection mainstreaming The project design are strongly recommended to articulate how protection is mainstreamed across the various phases of the
project and follow the below minimum criteria set by the Global Protection Cluster and by the Iraqi National Protection
Cluster (NPC):
- Prioritize safety & dignity and avoid causing harm: prevent and minimize as much as possible any unintended
negative effects of your intervention which can increase people's vulnerability to both physical and psychosocial
risks.
- Meaningful access: arrange for people’s access to assistance and services, in proportion to need and without any
barriers (e.g. discrimination). Pay special attention to individuals and groups who may be particularly vulnerable or
have difficulty accessing assistance and services.
- Accountability: set-up appropriate mechanisms through which affected populations can measure the adequacy of
interventions, and address concerns and complaints.
- Confidentiality: ensure all data collected through the project are maintained and treated confidentially.
- Compliance with humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. Sharing of
distribution lists, bio-data of beneficiaries and other sensitive data with civil and/or military authorities is considered
as a breach of the humanitarian principles, the principle of confidentiality and principle of do no harm. Partners
should be able demonstrate they have the necessary capacity to inform all staff on the need to comply with the
above-mentioned principles.
Specific consideration should be paid in articulating how the project will support the prevention and mitigation of GBV from
the assessment to the post-distribution monitoring phase.
31. Child Protection Safeguard in Cash Distribution Put in place a child and adult safeguarding policy. Consider informing beneficiaries of safeguarding policies and reporting
mechanisms. Carry out child protection policy and reference check for all employees, volunteers and partners. In 2019 the
CWG in collaboration with the Child Protection Working Group drafted a guidance note for Child Protection Safeguard in Cash
Distribution, attached with these guidelines19. It is recommended that submitted proposals take into account the content of
the guidance note and indicate relevant operational arrangements should be indicated.
Use the following link to identify location of child protection actors: LINK TO CP 4Ws: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/2/d/1uyUVhPtzuU2ao3co-
M7IPqB29s13GAeMioVI0XRGMgA/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=110912187329057390385
19 Annex V.I: Guidance on Making a Decision to Distribute Cash to Child Headed HH 21082019; Annex V.II Child Safeguard in Cash Distribution - Decision Tree - Cash for Food Distribution; Annex V.III Child Safeguard in Cash Distribution - Decision Tree - MPCA
21
32. SGBV concerns The MPCA is based on a comprehensive vulnerability assessment that does not make any specific group stand out and
therefore exposed to potential risks due to receiving assistance. However, it is highly important to take into consideration
possible SGBV concerns in both the design and implementation of MPCA. A participatory and empathetic approach should
be adopted in assessments to ensure that the voices of those exposed to SBGV concerns, including in relation to receiving
and using possible cash assistance, are adequately captured. While the assessment and scoring tools do take into
consideration if a household has had to rely on early or forced marriages to meet their basic needs, a household exposed to
specific SBGV risks can also be referred to specialized support regardless of it receiving cash assistance. Programme design
should also take into consideration SBGV risks related to access to markets, as well as risks in spending cash once received.
This can be done through participatory assessments, as mentioned above, monitoring (included in the PDM tool), and
situation analysis in a given community where cash assistance is will be implemented. Please also refer to detailed SGBV
guidelines for cash and voucher assistance20.
33. Mitigation measures, PSEA, complain mechanism and anti-fraud policy In drafting their proposals, partners are recommended to indicate their internal SOPs for risk mitigation and anti-fraud policy,
along with the operational arrangements in place. There should also be an accountability mechanism ((community feedback
and complaint mechanism) in place, that involves boys, girls, men, women of different ages and backgrounds. Additionally,
it should be ensured that the employees, interns, volunteers, partners and other affiliated service providers of MPCA have
signed an acknowledgement of understanding the policy and perform their safeguarding responsibilities and obligations.
There It is also recommended to establish complaint mechanisms and referral pathway procedures as per the age,
accessibility and literacy level of boys, girls, women and men - using a combination of channels (IIC, hotlines for child
protection in the area, physical mechanisms such as desks and focal points, CRCs, other community centers).
34. Standard Operating Procedures The above constitute some of the key elements for MPCA SOPs that partners are recommended to follow. These are
summarized in Table 11 below. Donors are strongly encouraged to ensure compliance with these SOPs in the vetting process.
Table 11. MPCA Standard Operational Procedures table of contents
1 Establish safeguarding or PSEA policy and accountability mechanisms
2 Identify locations for implementation / conduct context analysis
3 Conduct Humanitarian Coordination
4 Conduct meetings with local authorities & key informants at governorate/district level
5 Consult communities and create community committees
6 Identify Risks and Create a Mitigation Plan
7 Communicate with beneficiaries and communities
8 Train staff
9 Conduct socio-economic vulnerability assessment
10 Conduct market assessment
11 Data Management / Data cleaning / Scoring / Referrals
12 Conduct verification
13 Conduct duplication cross check
14 Communicate the results and conduct distribution
15 Arrange for distribution with relevant units / FSPs/ community volunteers
16 Humanitarian coordination - reporting
17 Conduct post distribution monitoring
18 Communicate post distribution monitoring results
19 Conduct evaluation
35. Interference Matrix Partners are encouraged to report to the CWG any interference in their activities which prevents from delivering
humanitarian assistance using the interference matrix attached with these guidelines (Annex XII, MPCA implementation
guideline).
20 See, for example, Cash & Voucher Assistance and Gender Based Violence Compendium: Practical Guidance for Humanitarian Practitioners, link
22
36. Prioritized geographical areas and partners presence The HRP has identified 28 priority locations for IDPs out of camps and returnees. The prioritization of out-of-camp IDPs is based on density data for IDPs through
IOM DTM IDPs Master List and on the Camp Coordination and Camp Management Cluster (CCCM) List and Population Flow for returnees. Partners will therefore
be effectively responsible for fundraising with donors on the basis of targets in the prioritized districts.
Table 12. 2020 HRP prioritized districts
Governorate District
Severity 2020 2019 MPCA Partners Presence MPCA targets per population group and activity indicator
IDPs Returnees
HRP
Districts
CWG
Districts
Partners
Presence CWG Partners' Names
Catastrophicall
y vulnerable
Extremely
vulnerable
Catastrophically
vulnerable
Extremely
vulnerable
Al-Anbar
Al-Falluja Yes Yes Yes DRC, NRC, UNHCR 3133 2785 7010 25705
Al-Kaim yes Yes Yes MC, UNHCR 57 459 2815 1630
Al-Ramadi Yes Yes Yes NRC, UNHCR 170 341 3769 33923
Al-Rutba Yes Yes Yes UNHCR 0 0 3805 868
Ana Yes Yes Yes NRC, MC, UNHCR 0 0 1980 1787
Heet Yes Yes Yes UNHCR 72 72 5562 9270
Al-Sulaymaniyah Sulaymaniyah Yes Yes Yes UNHCR 9170 9497 0 0
Baghdad Al-Kadhmiyah Yes Yes Yes UNHCR 2827 3534 802 802
Al-Mahmoudiya Yes Yes Yes UNHCR 845 2458 1621 1317
Diyala
al-khalis Yes no Yes UNHCR 0 0 0 0
Al-Muqdadiya Yes Yes Yes UNHCR 0 0 0 6139
Khanaqin Yes Yes Yes DRC, UNHCR 1117 1018 2264 1630
Duhok
Duhok Yes Yes Yes UNHCR 4150 2853 0 0
Sumail Yes Yes Yes Tearfund, GRC, UNHCR 7178 1861 0 0
Zakho Yes Yes Yes UNHCR 9425 2856 0 0
Erbil Erbil Yes Yes Yes GRC, UNHCR 7840 6720 0 0
Makhmour Yes Yes Yes Polish Humanitarian Fund, UNHCR, GRC 0 0 2798 2123
Kirkuk Al-Hawiga Yes Yes Yes Tearfund, Medair, IRC, UNCHR, SCI 0 0 14397 3336
Kirkuk Yes Yes Yes Tearfund, DRC, IRC, UNHCR 7031 4327 2072 5438
Ninewa
al-hamdaniya Yes no Yes UNHCR 0 0 0 0
Al-Mosul Yes Yes Yes ZOA, REACH, Tearfund, MEDAIR, OXFAM,
NRC, Mercy Corps, IRC, IOM, UNHCR 5026 5026 20477 5119
Al-Shikhan Yes Yes Yes UNHCR 4607 2328 45 15
Sinjar Yes Yes Yes GRC, MEDAIR, IRC, NRC, UNHCR 2349 804 2019 1009
Telafar Yes Yes Yes GRC, DRC, UNHCR 4508 591 16021 6911
Tilkaef Yes Yes Yes Medair, UNHCR 2356 639 4470 1863
Salah Al-Din
Al-Shirqat Yes Yes Yes UNHCR 74 48 4346 2173
Balad Yes Yes Yes OXFAM, UNHCR 351 176 2321 4770
Beygee Yes Yes Yes UNHCR 100 33 8850 4023
Tikrit Yes Yes Yes OXFAM, DRC, UNHCR 2356 988 4064 7837
Tooz-Khurmato Yes Yes Yes Medair, IRC, UNHCR 1926 1177 1199 1199
Total Total 127260 241590
23
Table 12 reports an overview of prioritized CWG and HRP locations, related MPCA targets per population group and activity
together with a mapping of the CWG MPCA partners presence in 2019. While the latter are subject to changes, MPCA actors
willing to implement MPCA in the course of 2020 are encouraged to use the information thereby reported for identification
of gaps in coverage and to contact the CWG for more details and updated information. The below should be used as guiding
principles to propose areas of intervention in proposal submission:
- Demonstrated partner operational capacity
- Actual or potential capacity to initiate the operation in a given area (the proposal should describe how the partner
intent to activate its presence
- Consideration on area accessibility: especially in case of hard to reach areas, the partner should clearly indicate in
the proposal how they intend to cope with accessibility constrains and measure that will be put in place to ensure
operationality
- High target and low geographical coverage: areas with high targets and just few partners working should be
prioritize.
37. JPMI and JRAM Join Price Monitoring Initiative (JPMI) The Joint Price Monitoring Initiative (JPMI) was developed by the Cash Working Group (CWG) and REACH Initiative (REACH) to conduct harmonized price monitoring activities among cash actors in Iraq.
Methodology:
Data collection for the JPMI occurs on a bimonthly basis with the dashboard being updated once the analysis is complete. In
the methodology, markets are defined as permanent areas of commerce diverse enough to provide access to a variety of
food and non-food items (NFIs). Within each districts, markets are selected by partner agency field staff, in order to ensure
that localized knowledge is taken into consideration. Partner staff are instructed to select the primary markets within their
selected districts, to ensure relevant price data is collected. In line with the purpose of the SMEB, only the lowest available
prices are recorded for each item. All data collection is conducted through a KoBo-based mobile data collection tool. Following
data collection, REACH compiles and cleans all partner data, normalizing prices and crosschecking outliers. The cleaned data
is then analyzed by commodity and by district. In addition, REACH calculates and maps the average cost of a SMEB in each
district. All these findings are presented in the dashboard.
Key findings: For key findings please refer to the REACH dashboard: http://reach-info.org/irq/jpmi/
Join Rapid Assessment of Markets (JRAM) The Joint Rapid Assessment of Markets (JRAM) was developed and launched by the Cash Working Group (CWG) in April of 2017 in order to establish a harmonized and collaborative mechanism for conducting market assessments in areas of Iraq newly accessible to humanitarian actors. The CWG serves as the mandating body for the assessment, with REACH Initiative acting as the technical partner and CWG partners carrying out all field-level data collection. Specifically, the JRAM aims to determine the impact of a protracted crisis on a market in terms of infrastructure, security and the supply chain; to gather information on the price and availability of goods; and to gauge the ability of traders to cope with a hypothetical surge in demand to help determine the feasibility of cash and market-based programming within the assessed market.
Methodology The assessment employed a qualitative research method adapted from the Rapid Assessment of Markets (RAM) developed by International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and relied on a Kobo-based mobile data collection tool customized to each of the three respondent groups – retailers, wholesalers and consumers.
24
38. Recommended elements to be included in the proposals and used as vetting parameters Donors are encouraged, in addition or in complementarity to their own vetting process, to consider the below as key
parameters to assess MPCA proposals for funding purposes. Partners are encouraged to include the below elements in their
proposals as they reflect consolidated practices of MPCA actors in Iraq.
Table 13. Recommended proposal elements to be considered in drafting and vetting
Key parameters to be taken into account in proposal development, submission and vetting
Item description Related annexes
CWG MPCA partner eligibility
All MPCA members are listed in the HRP document and reported in this guideline dedicated section. Inclusion in the list is based on 2019 active commitment and participation to CWG meeting at national and sub-national level. However, the list is not inclusive and new members can be included in the CWG– or leave the cluster system throughout the year. While there is no formal criteria to became an MPCA partners, the active engagement with the CWG and abidance to MPCA guidelines, instructions and SOPs should be the main driving principle.
Objectives The proposal clearly describes its linkages with the MPCA objectives and relationship with the Humanitarian Consequences Framework (HCF)
Referral
Details on how the organization intents to operationalize the referral to other sectors and enhance linkages with the existing social protection system (as possible). It has to be recalled that within the suggested average cost per HH there is a dedicated amount for enhancing referral pathways.
Annex IX Mapping per sector for referral
MPCA Standard Operational Procedures
Reference to use of MPCA SOPs in alignment with those promoted by the CWG.
Annex XII, MPCA implementation guideline
Assessment tool, methodology and targeting model
Use of the FULL CWG Socio-Economic Assessment Tool (SEVAT)and blanket assessment approach.
Annex I: Iraq MPCA Vulnerability Model Review Annex II: MCNA VII reference for SEVAT assessments; Annex A: A. 2019_CWG_VA too; Annex B: B. Kobo VA Tool Excel; Annex C: C. Vulnerability Assessment Tool Combined Guidelines; Annex D: D. Vulnerability Assessment Tool Combined Guidelines - Arabic Version; Annex E: E. MPCA Vulnerability Scoring Tool 2019 Iraq Production Annex F. Kobo Demo link Annex G: G. Verification Form
Use of the CWG Proxy Mean Test (PMT) as targeting model to determine eligibility for cash assistance following a needs-based approach.
Indication of capacity for applying the scoring model. In case the organization lacks in-house capacity, the organization should indicate that they will rely on the CWG technical assistance.
The MPCA assessment modality follows a need-based approach. As per MPCA endorsed SOPs, partners are recommended to assess entire neighborhoods of a given area in coordination with other actors.
Assessment and assistance of recently returned population (following the increased rate of camp closure and camp consolidation initiated in late 2019) considers the indications contained in the attached guidance note.
M&E / quality assurance
Detailed description of the monitoring framework, including use of CWG standard indicators, along with detail on procedures and systems the organization will set-up in order to ensure assistance is delivered efficiently and in compliance with humanitarian standards.
Verification Questionnaire. Inclusion of beneficiary verification as a key step between assessment and disbursement. The CWG provides a standardized verification form and assistance on its usage.
Annex G: G. Verification Form
Indication of PDM procedures and intended indicators in alignment with CWG guidance.
Segregation of duties. Indicate how the organization intent to segregate the assessment functions from the data collection, data processing and scoring, verification, distribution and post distribution and which internal audit and control mechanisms are in place.
Budget considerations
The average cost per beneficiary demonstrated within a proposal should not exceed that indicated in the Budget section of these guidelines (USD 1.190 per HH, though the actual cost per beneficiary may vary according to contextual factors).
Annex VI: ABC Guidance Note Annex IV.I: Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket Technical Guidance Note October 2019
25
Key parameters to be taken into account in proposal development, submission and vetting
Item description Related annexes Support costs should not exceed 30% of the total budget cost. Cost efficiency may be improved in case of large scale projects..
Annex IV.II: Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket Technical Guidance Note June 2018 Annex IV.III: SMEB Comparison 2018 – 2019 Annex IV.IV: WFP Food basket
Economy of scale consideration. The above should be considered as a ceiling for medium scale projects (up to a value of USD 3 ML). Large scale and consortia projects are expected to have a higher cost efficiency ratio. The CWG is available to provide advices and recommendations to donors and partners on appropriate ratio according to project scale and operational considerations.
Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket (SMEB) and Transfer value
Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket (SMEB) and transfer value: the proposals should contain reference to the CWG SMEB (320 USD) and the transfers values should comply with the indications contained in this guideline. The transfer value is 320 USD; the equivalent amount in IQDs should be 380.000 (using a fix exchange rate of 1:1.200 and rounding up to the nearest decade). This represent the amount transferred directly to beneficiaries (cash in hand to beneficiaries) and does not include any fees or administrative costs. Whether the latter are payed by the organization to the financial service provider or payed as a formally contractually agreed fee by the beneficiary to the agent at cash disbursement time, they have to be added to the 380.000 transfer value and budgeted as indirect costs. For example, if the organization contractually agree that a 3.000 IQD fee has to be paid by the beneficiary when withdrawing the money at the distribution point, the gross amount of money to be disbursed to the beneficiary has to be 383.000 IQD. In this way the beneficiary will retain 380.000 IQDs net value.
Delivery mechanism
Indication of delivery mechanism used and the rationale Annex X: Financial Service Providers Mapping
Consortium
Consortia and other forms of partnership are strongly encouraged. There should be clear indication of the added value of the consortia (for example in terms of geographical coverage, maximization of technical expertise, monitoring, management, coordination etc).
National NGOs engagement
Engagement with national NGOs is strongly encouraged (whether formally participating in a consortium or committed as implementing partners, contractors or associates).
Capacity building
Elements of capacity building, especially in relation to national partners/associates, are encouraged. A capacity building plan, inclusive of objectives, methodology and clear budget breakdown should be included in the narrative and budgetary proposal.
Protection mainstreaming
Indication of how the organization intends to mainstream protection across the project cycle. Please refer to the dedicated section of this guidelines for the key elements to be considered.
Child protection Safeguard
In 2019 the CWG in collaboration with the Child Protection Working Group drafted a guideline for Child Protection Safeguard in Cash Distribution attached to this guideline: “Iraq Inter-Cluster Guidance Note on Children as Recipients Of Cash Assistance (Child Headed Households)”. Proposals submitted to donors should contain clear reference to it and operational arrangements should be indicated.
Annex V.I: Guidance on Making a Decision to Distribute Cash to Child Headed HH 21082019; Annex V.II Child Safeguard in Cash Distribution - Decision Tree - Cash for Food Distribution; Annex V.III Child Safeguard in Cash Distribution - MPCA
SGBV considerations
Programme design should take into consideration SBGV risks related to access to markets, as well as risks in spending cash once received. This can be done through participatory assessments, monitoring (included in the PDM tool), and situation analysis in a given community where cash assistance is will be implemented.
26
Key parameters to be taken into account in proposal development, submission and vetting
Item description Related annexes
PSEA, complain mechanisms, anti-fraud
Indication of internal policies and procedures related to fraud and corruption mitigation measures, prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse (PSEA), and general complaints and feedback mechanisms.
Standard Operational Procedures
They represent the minimum requirements to implement an efficient MPCA programme in the Iraqi context. Should be looked as reference for elaborating the proposal implementation methodology.
Prioritized geographical areas
Alignment with prioritized districts. Annex VII: MPCA by pop group and district 2020 Annex IX: Mapping per sector for referral
Reporting
Partners are required to report their activities, achievements and funding with the appropriate tools.
Reporting of the activities in the CWG 4W. Please refer to the dedicated section and to the 4W reporting guidelines.
Reporting in ActivityInfo. Please refer to the dedicated section and to the ActivityInfo guidelines.
Financial tracking. Please refer to the dedicated section.
39. HRP partners All MPCA members are listed in the HRP document and listed below. Inclusion in the list is based on 2019 active commitments and participation at CWG meetings at national and sub-national levels. However, the list is not exhaustive and new members can be included or leave the CWG throughout the year. While there is no formal criteria to became an MPCA partner, active engagement with the CWG and abidance with MPCA guidelines, instructions and SOPs should be the main driving principle. In addition, as stated in the “ABC Coordination Approach in Iraq 2020 – Guidance Note for the ICCG, 12th December 2019”, in according with IASC guidance21, “cluster members should adhere to the minimum commitments that set out what all local, national or international organizations undertake to contribute. They include: ✓ A common commitment to humanitarian principles and the Principles of Partnership ✓ Commitment to mainstream protection in programme delivery ✓ Readiness to participate in actions that specifically improve accountability to affected populations ✓ Understand the duties and responsibilities associated with membership of a cluster and commit to consistently engage
in the cluster’s collective work as well as cluster’s plan and activities ✓ Commitment to ensure optimal use of resources, and sharing information on organizational resources ✓ Commitment to mainstream key programmatic cross-cutting issues such as Gender and Age, AAP, Disability ✓ Willingness to take on leadership responsibilities as needed and as capacity and mandates allow ✓ Contribute to developing and disseminating advocacy and messaging for relevant audiences”
Table 14. List of MPCA HRP partners
ACTED ACF ASB CARE CCI CNSF DRC Dorcas German Red
Cross FAO
HEKS HI IRC IOM Medair Mennonite Central
Committee Mercy Corps
Mercy Hands
NRC Oxfam
PHA QANDIL REACH-
Iraq Save the Children
SFORSD
SIF Tearfund UNHCR
World Vision Iraq
ZOA
21 link
27
40. Reporting Reporting of the activities in the CWG 4W
The CWG 4W should be used for regular reporting on assessment conducted and assistance provided. The 4W is accessible
at this link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nl7069EOmd2J-gkRNhosreJS9XlpLfI1uGmLnp0m4Mo/edit?pli=1#gid=490468655
Reporting in ActivityInfo
Reporting protocols in ActivityInfo will not change. Partners will correctly tag activities as HRP or non-HRP. As per usual
practice, CWG verification will be required through ActivityInfo and ahead of the production of monthly dashboards. CWG
IMO will share an updated version of the ActivityInfo reporting guidelines.
Reference to the position in charge within the organization for reporting in 4W and AI should be made in the proposal and,
in case approved the name and position should be communicated to the CWG coordinators. Guidelines for reporting in AI
and 4W can be found in Annex XI, “AI 4Ws Guidelines Combined for partners”. The guidelines will be updated in first quarter
of 2020 to reflect the new programming cycle. Partners are encouraged to subscribe to the CWG mailing list in order to
receive the updated documentation.
Financial tracking
Partners and donors submit reports on funding provided to partners on the Financial Tracking System (FTS), indicating if
funding was provided towards the HRP or not. CWG will review the submissions regularly to ensure that they are clearly
identified as within or outside the HRP and are marked under the MPCA CWG. In addition to FTS, the CWG keeps a project
registry updated on quarterly basis. Partners will be required to provide information on incoming funds or commitments.
Information on how to report in FTS can be found at this link: https://fts.unocha.org/content/faqs-all-funding
41. Relevant literature In the course of 2019, the CWG created a list of selected literature which can be useful for background information, desk
review, theoretical framework for intervention, socio-economic-political analysis (Annex VIII, “Recommended Literature List”.
Table 15. List of selected literature
Topic Title URL
Country profiling United Nations Development Programme (2014), Iraq Human Development Report 2014, UNDP. link
Assessments, country profiling
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (2018), Multidimensional Poverty in
Iraq, ESCWA. link
Assessments, country profiling
United Nations International Children's Fund (2002), Analysis Situation on Iraq, 2002, UNICEF.
Country profiling United Nations International Children's Fund (2017), UNICEF Annual Report 2017: Iraq, UNICEF. link
Assessments, country profiling
UNICEF Multi Indicator Cluster Survey 2018 link
Assessments, country profiling
UNICEF Multi Indicator Cluster Survey 2011 link
Assessments, country profiling
United Nations Population Fund (2012), Analytical Report of the National Youth Survey Towards A
National Strategy for Iraqi Youth, UNFPA Iraq. link
Assessments, country profiling
World Bank (2017), Iraq: 2017 Systematic Country Diagnostic, Washington, D.C., World Bank Group. link
Assessments, country profiling
Multicluster Need Assessment 2018, REACH initiative, AWG link
28
Topic Title URL
Background Hassan A. (1974), Revolutionary Iraq 1968-1973. The Political Report adopted by the Eight Regional
Congress of the Arab Ba'th Socialist Party, Iraq, Arab Ba'th Socialist Party. link
Background International Energy Agency (2012), Iraq Energy Outlook, https://www.iea.org/, World Energy Outlook
Special Report. link
Background International Labour Organization (January 2019), Iraqi contributory social security law no. 39/1971.
ILO Database of national labour, social security and related human rights legislation link
Background Iraq Foundation (2000), Saddam Bans Iraqi Women from Work link
Background Ismael J. (1980), Social Policy and Social Change: The Case of Iraq, Arab Studies Quarterly, Pluto
Journals link
Background Markusen, M. (2018), The Islamic State and the Persistent Threat of Extremism in Iraq, Center for
Strategic and International Studies, CSIS. link
Background Metz, Chapin H. (1988), Iraq: A Country Study, Federal Research Division, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Library of Congress. link
Background Pellett, P. (2000), Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War, South End Press.
Background Zainy M. (1999), The Iraqi Economy Between Saddam Hussain And The Un Sanctions, Iraqi Economic
Forum at Kufa Gallery, London, on 12 November 1999. link
Cash programming CaLP (2017), Cash Consortium of Iraq (CCI): Case Study Fundings, The Cash Learning Partnership,
USAID. link
Cash programming CaLP (2018), Basic Needs Assessment Guidance and Toolbox, The Cash Learning Partnership, Danish
Refugees Council, Mercy Corps, Save the Children, OCHA link
Cash programming Center for Global Development (2015), Doing cash differently. How cash transfers can transform
humanitarian aid, Report of the High Level Panel on Humanitarian Cash Transfers, Overseas
Development Institute.
link
Cash programming Khan S., Westerman O., Jovanic V., (2019) Multipurpose Cash Assistance in Iraq Vulnerability
Assessment and Targeting Review, Iraq Cash Working Group. link
Cash programming Pavanello S., Sagmeister E., Seilern M., Andrawes L., Harvey P., Kondakhchyan A. (2018), Improving
user journeys for humanitarian cash transfers: Iraqi Case Study, Ground Truth Solutions, United
Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID).
link
Economics Iraqi Banking Law link
Economics Central Bank of Iraq Law link
Economics Alnasrawi A. (2001), Iraq: Economic Sanctions and Consequences, 1990-2000, Third World Quarterly,
Vol. 22, No. 2, April 2001. link
Economics Al-Yasiri K. (1965), The agrarian reform law of 1958: a catalyst for economic and social development
in Iraq, Iowa State University. link
Economics Krishnan N., Olivieri S. (2016), Losing the Gains of the Past: The Welfare and Distributional Impacts of
the Twin Crises in Iraq 2014, Policy Research Working Paper 7567, Poverty and Equity Global Practice
Group, World Bank.
link
Economics Krishnan N., Olivieri S., Ramadan R. (2018), Estimating the Welfare Costs of Reforming the Iraq Public
Distribution System: A Mixed Demand Approach, UNICEF Office Research, Innocenti Working Paper. link
Economics Schnep R. (2004), Iraq Agriculture and Food Supply: Background and Issues, Congressional Research
Service, The Library of Congress. link
Health WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (2006), Health System Profile - Iraq, WHO,
Regional Health Systems Observatory, EMRO. link
Human Rights United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, United Nation Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights (2018), Unearthing Atrocities: Mass Graves in territory formerly controlled by ISIL,
UNAMI/OHCHR.
link
Human Rights United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, United Nation Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights (2018), Report on Human Rights in Iraq – July to December 2017, UNAMI/OHCHR. link
Poverty Measurement
United Nations Development Programme (2018), Human Development Indices and Indicators: 2018
Statistical Update, Technical notes Calculating the human development indices: graphical presentation,
UNDP.
link
Poverty Measurement
Alkire S. (2010), Human Development: Definitions, Critiques, and Related Concepts, Human
Development Research Paper 2010/01. link
Poverty Measurement
Alkire S., Foster J. (2011), Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement, Journal of Public
Economics. link
29
Topic Title URL
Poverty Measurement
Alkire S., Roche J., Santos M., Seth S. (2011), Multidimensional Poverty Index 2011: Brief
Methodological Note, Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, Oxford Poverty & Human
Development Initiative (OPHI), Oxford Department of International Development Queen Elizabeth
House (QEH), University of Oxford.
link
Poverty Measurement
Amartya S. (1979), Issues in the measurement of poverty, Nuffield College, Oxford, England, Scan. J. of
Economics. link
Poverty Measurement
Deaton A. (2003), Household Surveys, Consumption and the Measurement of Poverty, Economic
Systems Research, Vol. 15, No. 2. link
Poverty Measurement
Grosh M., Glewwe P. (1995), A Guide to Living Standards Measurement Study Surveys and Their Data
Sets, Living Standards Measurement Study, Working Paper No. 120, World Bank. link
Poverty Measurement
Maxwell D., Caldwell R., (2008), The Coping Strategies Index: A tool for rapid measurement of
household food security and the impact of food aid programs in humanitarian emergencies. Field
Methods Manual Second Edition, USAID, WFP, Feinstein International Center, TANGO International,
CARE.
link
Poverty Measurement
Ministry of Planning (2007), Iraq Household Socio Economic Survey 2007, Republic of Iraq. link
Poverty Measurement
Wong, Shing Yip (2012), Understanding Poverty: Comparing Basic Needs Approach and Capability
Approach, University of Bristol, United Kingdom. link
Poverty Measurement
World Bank (2011), PMT-based social registries Measuring income and poverty using Proxy Means
Tests, World Bank Group. link
Poverty Measurement
World Food Programme (2012), Guidance Note: Calculation of household food security outcome
indicators, Afghanistan WFP Vulnerability Analysis & Mapping Unit. link
Reconstruction, transition
Al-Shami S., Davis R., Donato K., Rossi L., Ferris E. (2019), Access to Durable Solutions Among IDPs
in Iraq: Three Years in Displacement, International Organization for Migration, IOM. link
Reconstruction, transition
Blay C., Crozet S. (2017), Durable Solutions in Practice, Global Cluster for Early Recovery (GCER),
Technical Working Group on Durable Solutions. link
Reconstruction, transition
Celiku, Bledi; Maseeh, Ashwaq Natiq; Sharma, Dhiraj (2018), Iraq Economic Monitor: Toward
Reconstruction, Economic Recovery and Fostering Social Cohesion, Washington, D.C., World Bank
Group.
link
Reconstruction, transition
Central Statistical Organization (2018), National Development Plan 2018 – 2022, Republic of Iraq,
Ministry of Planning. link
Reconstruction, transition
Central Statistical Organization (2018), Strategy for the Reduction of Poverty in Iraq 2018 – 2022,
Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Planning. link
Reconstruction, transition
International Council of Voluntary Agencies (2018), Demystifying the Humanitarian, Development and
Peace Nexus, Humanitarian Learning, ICVA. link
Reconstruction, transition
Ministry of Planning, Iraq (2018), Reconstruction and Investment, Reconstruction and Development
Framework, Republic of Iraq. link
Reconstruction, transition
Smith G., Ward M., Schlunke P., Dahir L., Mansfield S., Carruba H., Neman R, Mitchell A. Guidance
Package on Social Protection across the Humanitarian-Development Nexus. Case Study: Iraq, European
Commission’s Directorate General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations
(ECHO) and Worl Food Programme (WFP).
link
Reconstruction, transition
United Nation General Assembly (2016), New Way of Working. Outcome of the World Humanitarian
Summit: Report of the Secretary General, Agenda for Humanity. link
Reconstruction, transition
World Bank (2015), Iraq: Rebuilding Iraq: economic reform and transition, Washington, D.C., World
Bank Group. link
Social Protection Alkhoja G., Neman R., Hariz S. (2016), Social Safety Nets in Iraq: Reform in a Time of Fragility,
Conflict and Violence, World Bank, MENA Knowledge and Learning Number 161. link
Social Protection Alzobaidee H. (2015), Social Protection and Safety Nets in Iraq, World Food Programme, Center for
Social Protection, Institute of Development Studies 2015. link
Social Protection Machado A., Bilo C., Soares F., Guerreiro O. (2018), Overview of Non-contributory Social Protection
Programmes in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Region Through a Child and Equity Lens,
International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG).
link
Social Protection Robalino D., Bogomolova T., Sluchinsky O. (2014), Pensions in Iraq: Issues, General Guidelines for
Reform and Potential Fiscal Implications, World Bank. link
Social Protection World Bank (2005), Considering the Future of the Iraqi Public Distribution System, Economic Social
Development Unit, Middle East Department, World Bank Group. link
30
Cash Learning Partnership selected literature can be found at:
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1Vw70fiZQZmdilMK1e3AX9SzvhMYs0431
42. Subscription to the CWG mailing list In order to receive regular updates, partners are invited to subscribe to the CWG mailing list using the below link:
Please click here to subscribe to the CWG mailing list
43. Contacts For any questions, contact:
• Cash Working Group Coordinator, Mauro Clerici (UNHCR), [email protected]
• Cash Working Group ad-interim Co-Coordinator, Gabrielle Fox (Mercy Corps), [email protected]
• Safwan Khan, Cash Working Group Economist, [email protected]
• Information Management Officer, Joe Mekhael (Mercy Corps), [email protected]
• Sub-National Cash Working Group Coordinator – Kirkuk, Taban Ihsan (Tearfund), [email protected]
31
44. List of annexes PAPERS, GUIDANCE NOTES, DOCUMENTS, all the below documentation is also available on Humanitarian Response, link and
in this google folder for download: link
1. Annex I. Iraq MPCA Vulnerability Model Review, link
2. Annex II. MCNA VII reference for SEVAT assessments, link
3. Annex III. Guidance Note on Cash Assistance to Recent Returns, link
4. Annex IV.I Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket Technical Guidance Note October 2019, link
5. Annex IV.II Survival Minimum Expenditure Basket Technical Guidance Note June 2018, link
6. Annex IV.III SMEB Comparison 2018 – 2019, link
7. Annex IV.IV WFP Food basket, link
8. Annex V.I Guidance on Making a Decision to Distribute Cash to Child Headed HH, link
9. Annex V.II Child Safeguard in Cash Distribution - Decision Tree - Cash for Food Distribution, link
10. Annex V.III Child Safeguard in Cash Distribution - Decision Tree – MPCA, link
11. Annex VI ABC Guidance Note, link
12. Annex VII MPCA by pop group and district 2020, link
13. Annex VIII Recommended Literature List, link
14. Annex IX Mapping per sector for referral, link
15. Annex X Financial Service Providers Mapping, link
16. Annex XI AI_4Ws_Guidelines_Combined_for_partners, link
17. 12. Annex XII MPCA implementation guideline, link
SEVAT RELATED ANNEXES also available on Humanitarian Response, link and in this google folder for download, link
A. 2019_CWG_VA tool, link
B. Kobo_VA Tool Excel, link
C. Vulnerability Assessment Tool Combined Guidelines, link
D. Vulnerability Assessment Tool Combined Guidelines - Arabic Version, link
E. MPCA Vulnerability Scoring Tool 2019 Iraq Production, to be requested to the CWG
F. Kobo Demo link, link
G. Verification Form, link
H. Verification Form Kobo, link
32
Appendix I – Basic needs definition and approaches used by the Iraqi CWG to determine the basic
needs basket, SMEB and transfer value
The concept of basic needs refers “to the essential goods, utilities, services or resources required on a regular, seasonal, or
exceptional basis by households for ensuring survival and minimum living standards, without resorting to negative coping
mechanisms or compromising their health, dignity and essential livelihood assets” (ILO, 1976).
CONSTRUCTING THE BASIC NEEDS BASKET: approaches used in the Iraqi context
The Basic Needs Approach (BNA) views poverty as deprivation of consumption and is opposed to the capability approach
(CA) where poverty is seen as deprivation of opportunities. Where the BNA fails to appreciate the deprivation, the CA on the
other hand, focus on capacity development of people rather than how much they consume.
The Household Economy Approach (HEA) is a framework that determines how households access food and income, and
whether it is enough for them to survive and prosper. Knowing whether households have “enough” resources to meet their
needs requires establishing quantifiable thresholds against which their access can be compared. HEA defines household
access against two thresholds (Save the Children, 2017):
✓ The ‘survival threshold’: access to enough kilocalories to meet their food needs, enough cash to meet their basic
survival needs;
✓ The ‘livelihoods protection threshold’: survival needs, plus the income necessary to cover basic household
expenditures, cash required to meet a locally acceptable standard of living.
The Right Based Approach (RBA) is defined by UNICEF as “a conceptual framework for the process of human development
that is normatively based on international human rights standards and operationally directed to promoting and protecting
human rights.
Right based approach – table of contents
1. The right of every
child to learning and
personal development
School supplies (uniforms, shoes, stationary, books, etc.)
Education services (transport to school, fees, teachers, canteen, etc.)
2. The right to the
highest attainable
standards of physical
and mental health
Food (staple, fresh vegetables and fruits, meat, etc.)
Health commodities (drugs, devices, etc.)
Healthcare services (doctors, nurses, health centres, vaccination campaigns,
Potable water (treatment, water points, etc.)
Hygiene items (clothing, cleaning products, soap, toothbrush, pads, diapers,
3. The right to decent
living conditions and
to a safe, clean and
healthy space
Energy commodities and utilities for heating, cooking, lightning, and charging (not fuel for vehicles, which is
classified under transport services)
Shelter commodities (furniture, household appliances, etc.)
Shelter and housing (rent, land rent, purchase, building materials, construction services, permissions)
Household items (utensils, mats, blankets, mosquito nets, cooking sets, etc.)
Sanitation facilities and services (toilets, shower, bath, sewage system, repair and construction services)
4. The right to work
and to have a
productive and
socially engaged life
Productive assets and inputs for agricultural and/or non-agricultural activities (seeds, fertilizers, livestock,
fodder, vehicles, machines, devices, stock for a shop, etc.)
Transport services (for all purposes except going to school, i.e. to work, health Centre, markets, etc.; it
includes fuel)
Communication commodities and services (phone devices, phone credit/bills, internet, service providers,
towers, network, repair services etc.)
33
Appendix II. What we mean by consumption, expenditure and income? Income refers to the earnings from income generating activities, wages, employment, transfers and it allows individuals or
households to purchase goods and services. Consumption on the contrary, refers to goods and services actually consumed,
not only those purchased. While many elements of consumption can be captured looking at the expenditures, the two
concepts are different.
Item Income/Expenditure Consumption
Data collection
In developed contexts, majority of people are
working in the formal economy and data gathering
infrastructures are strong. Developed bank systems,
electronic payments, tax systems etc. allow for a
granular monitoring of expenditures. In such
contexts income is a better indicator.
In developing contexts, informal employment and shadow
economy is widespread, people have multiple forms of
employment, which constantly changes, and home production is
common. In those contexts, consumption is a better indicator.
Coverage Only market transactions
Allow to capture the non-market transactions. In developing
contexts, where home production is still important, this makes
the difference
Durable
goods/Services
Only capture the purchase of goods at a given time
and its monetary value.
Goods and services might not be consumed immediately and
could last for a longer period of time. Consumption can capture
the benefits coming from the usage of the goods.
Transactions Only capture the declared income Consumption could be financed trough borrowing, which is not
captured by income.
Home/Self
production
Income cannot capture self production of goods or
community based provided services
Goods and services accessed via non market institutions can be
captured
Regularity Income is received on irregular bases, can be
temporary, seasonal etc.
Consumption is more regular over time, is allows to better
appreciate the capacity of households to maintain a certain level
of consumption regardless of employment situation.
Consumption level captured over the last 30 days time is a
better indicator of consumption level maintained during a year
rather than income.
Inequality Income inequality is more useful for redistributive
policies
Due to the smoother nature of consumption, deviations can
help in the identification of specific groups and therefore allow
better targeting in the context of Social Safety Nets.
In developing/conflict/natural disaster contexts, where is impossible to use income or expenditure as socio-economic
indicator (because of non-structured financial/income/tax tracking system and because in difficult situation people tend to
over-report expenditure and under-report income), consumption is considered a better indicator to appreciate people’
capacity to cover their basic needs and consumptions based surveys are used to collect those information. The CWG Socio-
economic Vulnerability Assessment Tool adopt this methodology to estimate vulnerability.
In order to understand how the model works, we need to clarify the concept of predicted consumption, used as proxy for
vulnerability. The methodology used to measure the “predicted consumption” is the Proxy Mean Test PMT. The latter looks
at family/residential characteristic (such as family size, type of shelter, access to toilets and water, presence of elderly, disable,
Pregnant and Lactating Women, number of children etc) and behaviours – intended as how the family react/cope with a
constrained situation (whether with positive strategies such as livelihood activities or negative ones such as child labour, child
34
marriage, illegal acts, debts etc) which affect Households (HH) capacity to consume. The significant indicators used to
calculate the Predicated Consumption and their coefficients are derived from statistical analysis of available qualitative
datasets (as mentioned in the guidelines, the CWG PMT is based on the 2018 MCNA dataset). Indicators and their coefficients
might vary per region to reflect the heterogeneity of the country as different characteristics and behaviours differently impact
vulnerability according to the specific context. The coefficients should not be read as scores but rather as odds, for someone
presenting a certain characteristic or behaviour to be exposed to vulnerability in comparison to someone that does not
present the same characteristic/behaviour. For example, in the Northern model of the CWG PMT, a HH without standard
dwelling is 23% more likely to be vulnerable than someone with a standard shelter. The Predicted Consumptions than used
as a parameter, which, compared with the country poverty line, set at 110.000 IQD/per-capita/per month, provides an
indication of the per-capita level of vulnerability. The below figure is an exemplification of how the model works. For more
details on PMT you can refer to a vast World Bank Literature (see for example: “Measuring income and poverty using Proxy
Means Tests” link ); for the CWG model please refer to the Annex I of this guidelines.