Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IMPLEMENTING CASH TRANSFERS AT SCALE IN AFGHANISTAN
Learning from the ‘Pace setters’:- Sept 2013
Funded by European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) under the Emergency Response Mechanism (ERM II)
1
Contents
Table of figures ................................................................................................................................... 3
List of tables ........................................................................................................................................ 3
ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................. 4
FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................................. 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 6
CASH AND VOUCHER TERMINOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 9
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 10
SECTION 1:- THE GUIDELINES, HERE IS THE CTP ‘MAP’ ............................................. 11
General Technical Cash Transfer Guidelines: Putting Afghanistan into the Global
context .............................................................................................................................................. 11
GLOBAL CONTEXT OF CTP ................................................................................................................. 11
Cash Feasibility Assessments ........................................................................................................ 14
The decision tree to support Response Analysis: - Cash or in-Kind support? ................................... 16
CTP Risk Assessment: feasibility............................................................................................. 20
Designing a Cash for Work project: - creating temporary employment opportunities for the poor 23
Cash Delivery Mechanisms :- what to Consider in your design ................................... 25
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES: what to do and what not to do ....................................... 27
a. Communicating: ........................................................................................................................ 27
b. Targeting ................................................................................................................................... 29
c. Beneficiary Registration in CTPs ............................................................................................... 31
d. Selecting and contracting CTP partners ................................................................................... 32
Monitoring & Evaluation of CTPs :- Cash is ‘attractive’ keep an eagle’s eye ........... 32
Post Distribution Monitoring :- A crucial piece in the CTP jigsaw puzzle ..................................... 33
COORDINATION ............................................................................................................................ 36
2
SECTION 2 -LEARNING FROM OTHERS :- CASE STUDIES FROM THE
AFGHANISTAN ‘PACE SETTERS’ ........................................................................................... 38
Humanitarian agencies and recent cash transfer experiences in Afghanistan ............................. 38
Where do Afghanistan agencies stand? ........................................................................................ 38
MEDAIR ............................................................................................................................................ 39
NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL ................................................................................................... 52
ACTION CONTRELA FAIM (ACF) ...................................................................................................... 66
References ........................................................................................................................................ 70
3
Table of figures
Figure 1: DG ECHO Check List for Cash and voucher Projects .............................................................. 18
Figure 2: Risks Analysis and Management Steps .................................................................................. 22
Figure 3: Comparison of different types of CTP Modalities .................................................................. 23
Figure 4: Comparison of Different CTP Payments systems................................................................... 26
Figure 5: Minimum set of questions that should be monitored ........................................................... 34
Figure 6: Locations of Cash for work activities in Medair’s operational zones (Google Map) ............. 42
List of tables
Table 1: Examples of risk types and responses ..................................................................................... 20
Table 2: Typical risks in Afghanistan ..................................................................................................... 21
Table 3: Communications in CTP projects ............................................................................................ 28
Table 4: Some of the Poverty (P) and Vulnerability (V) indicators for use when targeting for
cash/vouchers ....................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 5:- Number of days (on average) required to build land-based mitigation structures ............... 45
Table 6 : Beneficiaries breakdown for IRC ............................................................................................ 48
4
ACRONYMS
AFN Afghani (Afghanistan currency)
ACF Action Contre-La Faim
CBI Cash Based Intervention
CBP Cash Based Programmes
CDC Community Development Committees
CfW Cash for Work
CTP Cash Transfer Programmes
CVWG Cash and Voucher Working Group
ECHO European Community Humanitarian Office
EMMA Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis
ERM Emergency Response Mechanism
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FSAC Afghanistan Food security and Agriculture Cluster
GoA Government of Afghanistan
HEA Household Economy Approach
HH Household
IDPs Internally Displaced Populations
MIFIRA Market Information and Food Insecurity Response Analysis
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NRC Norwegian Refugee Council
PDM Post Distribution Monitoring
RBA Results Based Approach
SI Solidarités International
SoP Standard Operating Procedure
USD United States Dollar
WASH Water Health and Sanitation
WFP (UN) World Food Programme
5
FOREWORD
This booklet is a compilation of the Cash Transfer Programmes (CTPs) which have been going on in
Afghanistan. It gathers case studies from several organisations which have been and are
implementing cash transfer programmes in Afghanistan. The first section of this write up ( which has
been authored by the writer) takes the reader through the background, context, basic steps, guiding
principles and frameworks which have been adopted by some of the Afghanistan based
organisations in the implementation of CTPs in this country. The booklet has been developed as a
reference document for use by programme and field staff in implementation of CTPs. The case
stories gathered here are practical examples of how CTP guidelines can be useful during
implementation of CTPs in a context specific environment, especially in fragile contexts like in
Afghanistan. The compiled case studies have tried to include proof of considerable practical CTP
experiences in an Afghanistan context. The reader will also notice that some of the captured issues
can be considered to have a global flavour as best practices from elsewhere within the globe have
defined how and why to do or not to do certain Cash Transfer practices in this part of the world.
Nevertheless, the reader will recognize that specific attitudes, needs, interests, values, cultures and
beliefs in each community were being considered by these Afghanistan based organisations in
implementing CTPs. The case stories in this booklet were edited by the compiler (editor) as they
came in for compilation from the organisations acknowledged in this write up.
6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This booklet, the documentation of the innovative Cash Transfer Programmes 1(CTP) in Afghanistan
was made possible by the immense contributions submitted to Oxfam GB by various organisations,
members of the Cash & Voucher Working Group (CVWG) and those of the Emergency Response
Mechanism (ERM II) programme. Our sincere appreciation goes to the Afghan Food Security and
Agriculture Cluster (FSAC), the secretariat of the CVWG which facilitated the coordination of the
gathering of information from the community of practice. We thank all the organisations which took
time off their busy schedules and documented for sharing their innovative successes which are
presented in this write up. Special mention on this task goes especially to the Emergency Response
Mechanism partners, namely Solidarités International (SI), Action Contre La Faim (AFCF) and Medair.
We also wish to extend the same gratitude to the CVWG members who also submitted their works,
namely; Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), and International Rescue Council (IRC). Some of these
organisations have proved that it is possible to use CTPs as a tool in various sectors of humanitarian
and development programmes to achieve intended goals. We thank you for documenting such
interesting observations. Through the FSAC and the CVBI-WG, Oxfam managed to receive invaluable
support and input during the development of this publication. Our sincere gratitude goes to you. To
our donors, ECHO, we thank you for supporting this coordination exercise (by availing the much
needed funds) in Afghanistan of which this booklet is an output. Lastly, we would like to appreciate
the Oxfam Team which has tirelessly worked during the coordination process of the CVWG. Special
mention goes to the Associate Country Director of OGB, Leo Kortekaas for his mentorship, and to
Abdul Habib for working extra- hours in making the CVWG a reality, Agnes Mungatia, and V.J
Raghavaan- we put your vision on paper today. Thank you.
1 Cash Transfer Programming (CTP) defines all aid or support programmes that includes the use of cash and vouchers in
response to humanitarian needs.
7
About ECHO
The European Union is the world's biggest donor of humanitarian aid, providing more than 50% of humanitarian aid worldwide. Its European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) was created in 1992 as an expression of the European solidarity with people in need all around the world. In 2004 it became the Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid before integrating Civil Protection in 2010 for a better coordination
and disaster response inside and outside Europe. About the ERM
The Emergency Response Mechanism is a consortium formed with the aim of accessing and availing better support to populations in crisis or hit by a shock. The
consortium comprises of Solidarités International, Action Contre la Faim (ACF),
Medair and People in Need (PIN) and has been joined by Mission East for the next
phase of the project. ERM is also funded by ECHO work closely with NRC and Oxfam
GB in emergency responses including Cash Transfers. ACF holds the CTP
coordination budget and works directly with Oxfam GB.
About the FSAC – Cash & Voucher Working Group
The food security and agriculture cluster (FSAC) in Afghanistan was established in
2008, is co-led by FAO and WFP with AfghanAid as co-chair. Apart from regular
coordination meetings at National and regional levels, FSAC has developed Working
Groups (WG) to handle specific deliverables according to cluster members’ needs.
FSAC runs the Early Warning Information WG, the Afghanistan Food Security
Technical Team (IPC), the Response Analysis Technical WG, and just engaged in
the Disaster Risk Reduction WG and Cash and Voucher Interventions WG. FSAC
has membership from the humanitarian community and also advocates for cash in the Inter Cluster.
About Oxfam
Oxfam is a global movement of people who share the belief that, in a world rich in
resources, poverty isn't inevitable. It's an injustice which can, and must be overcome.
Oxfam is dedicated to building a just and safer world focusing on people's basic rights.
Oxfam is passionate about ending poverty and helping to rebuild the lives affected by
it.
About the Editor
George Bete is a Food Security and Livelihoods specialist, who is also a repository of knowledge in
Cash Transfer Programming. Currently He is working for Oxfam GB as a Food Security and
Livelihoods Coordinator for Oxfam (in Afghanistan) and is leading in the coordination of the
Afghanistan Cash and Voucher Working Group. In the past, George has designed; managed and
evaluated cash transfer programmes (as well as food security and livelihoods programmes) in
complex contexts in Zimbabwe, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan and Afghanistan. Prior to joining
Oxfam GB, George managed emergency and development programmes with Mercy Corps,
Veterinaires Sans Frontieres Germany, Care International and Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe.
He is experienced in knowledge transfer, in capacity building and in formulating strategies for
humanitarian programs in complex contexts.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this document are of the organisations which submitted their work to Oxfam for
compilation and don’t necessarily reflect the views of ECHO, Oxfam or the compiler, unless otherwise indicated. ||June
2013.
8
CASH AND VOUCHER TERMINOLOGY
The terms “Cash” and “Voucher” can be used to apply to a wide array of instruments. In the context of this paper the terms are used to refer to a restricted number of tools where the cash or voucher is given to individuals, households or communities, but not to governments or other state actors.
Cash
transfers The provision of money to individuals or households, either as emergency relief intended to meet their basic needs for food and non-food items, or services, or to buy assets essential for the recovery of their livelihoods. If the beneficiaries are required to fulfil a specific obligation or activity (such as attending school, planting seed, building shelter, demobilizing, etc.) to receive the transfer, then this is described as a conditional cash transfer. Examples include: Cash for Work (CfW) where payment is made for work on public or community works programmes, or payments made upon completion of certain pre-defined steps of shelter construction; Cash for Training were payment is made for attending training’’. Grants paid to beneficiaries without the beneficiary having to do anything specific to receive the benefit are described as unconditional cash transfers.
Therefore, conditionality refers to what beneficiaries are required to do to receive the transfer, and sometimes also on the conditions on how they subsequently use the resources. (NB: some organisations define “conditional cash transfer” as those when restrictions are placed on how the transfer is spent.)
Vouchers Vouchers provide access to pre-defined commodities or services. They can be exchanged in designated shops or in fairs and markets. The vouchers may be denominated either in cash, commodity or service value. These are described respectively as value-based, commodity based or service-based vouchers. Combined vouchers also exist.
Commodity vouchers have been used to provide access to food, None Food Items (NFIs), seeds and livestock for example. If the vouchers are not tied to a set of pre-defined commodities or services, then they will be treated as cash payments.
“Cash-based” is used in this document to refer to both cash and voucher transfers.
9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This write up, documents some of the innovative Cash Transfer Programmes which have been
implemented by several agencies in Afghanistan. It also provides the reader, in section one, with
general CTP guidelines which can be followed and or adopted and fine tuned to suit any context to
implement Cash Transfer programmes. Section two carries the reader through cash transfer
programmes which have been implemented in Afghanistan. The reader will take lessons from NRC’s
innovative approaches, where this organisation has proved through its best experiences that CTPs
are a cross cutting tool which can be used to meet objectives in any humanitarian and or
development programmes. IRC has documented a good example of partnership and coordination
with other humanitarian agencies to implement a food voucher programme. Solidarités
International, the lead organisation in ERM II has documented how CTPs can be used to recover
damaged community infrastructures during an emergency through cash for work. This is also a
similar theme which has been highlighted by Medair, one of the ERM II Members. In these case
studies, the reader will gain insight on how CTP minimum standards and guidelines have been used
during the designing process by these organisations. The reader will also have an insight into the
challenges and constraints which can be obstacles in CTP implementation. In some of these case
studies, solutions have also been provided.
10
INTRODUCTION
By George Bete: - Oxfam GB, Emergency Food Security and Livelihoods Coordinator
With funding from the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) channelled through ACF,
Oxfam GB is leading the establishment of a strong coordination mechanism of cash based
interventions across the community of practice in Afghanistan. According to the 3Ws mapping
shared by the FAO-led FSAC, cash programming interventions are increasing in Afghanistan with the
current number of NGOs implementing cash project recorded as sixteen. Cash support was initially
targeted at achieving food security but over the past three years there has been an increased spread
of cash and voucher utilization in other sectors such as; shelter, nutrition, WASH, education,
protection and health.
Currently, ECHO is funding a number of organizations and particularly the Emergency Response
Mechanism (ERM II ) consortium led by Solidarités International with ACF, Medair, People in Need
and Mission East as members. Although Oxfam GB is not a member of this consortium, its role is to
establish a strong coordination mechanism to improve preparedness and strengthen learnings
around Cash Transfer Programs (CTP) in Afghanistan, document CTP learnings from implementing
agencies to inform future programming, build the capacity of the ERM consortium and other CTP
practitioners in Afghanistan to deliver efficient and effective Cash Transfer Programmes, and
improve accountability to donors.
Oxfam was tasked for this coordination role after the realization by donors and other humanitarian
stakeholders that many organizations in Afghanistan implement cash programmes but there has
been no coordination to enhance learnings and increase overall preparedness to respond to
emergencies by use of cash initiatives. Thus, this Oxfam led coordination platform is open to all
ECHO funded partners and members of the Food Security and Agriculture Cluster (FSAC) in
Afghanistan.
The initiative to form this coordination platform comes within the backdrop that over the past years
a broad appreciation and recognition in Afghanistan of Cash Transfer Programmes (CTPs) as an
option to respond to emergencies and in development programmes has been increasing. However,
documentation of the contexts in which these CTPs were implemented was lacking. It is general
knowledge now, that Humanitarian actors in Afghanistan are increasingly using cash and voucher
transfers with the support from many donors including ECHO. Therefore, there is a wide speculation
that this interest will continue to rise as many actors may join, and thus documented lessons and
case studies, such as this booklet may provide the much needed reference in future programmes.
Overall, it is in the interest of ECHO and most likely other donors as well to have all these and many
other CTP interventions across the community of practice coordinated and implemented in
collaborative manner and to draw and consolidate lessons learnt from the previous engagements
such as the Solidarités International (SI) ‘ Cash for Work (CfW) programme’, the International Rescue
Committee’s (IRC) ‘Food Voucher project’, the Norwegian Refugee Council’s (NRC) ‘Cash for Shelter
project’, and many other initiatives presented in this booklet.
With funding from ECHO, Oxfam GB is committed to improve CTPs in the country and region through trainings, lessons sharing, coordination, joint assessments and analysis, design, implementation and fundraising. This document is part of the efforts to enhance experience exchange and cross pollination of ideas by CTP practitioners.
11
SECTION 1:- THE GUIDELINES, HERE IS THE CTP ‘MAP’
General Technical Cash Transfer Guidelines: Putting Afghanistan into the Global context
GLOBAL CONTEXT OF CTP
Cash Transfers (CTs) have been presented during the last decade as a magic bullet for poverty
alleviation, after their success in Latin American countries2. Using cash or vouchers to deliver
humanitarian assistance has increased vastly over the last ten years. There is now a significant and
growing body of experience demonstrating that cash transfer programming (CTP) can be an
alternative or complement to in-kind assistance.
CTP cuts across all sectors, rather than being a sector in their own right and can be used – when
appropriate – to meet particular objectives in differing contexts and sectors of response. CTP is a
flexible multi-sector tool that can be used in seasonal disasters, cyclical or chronic crises, rapid and
slow-onset disasters3.
Because of their successes and tapping lessons from previous
programmes, the use of Cash Based Programmes (CBPs) by
Humanitarian and development organisations is increasing.
Afghanistan is not legging behind in adopting and adapting to
this new technique of delivering aid to the vulnerable
populations who are in need. Despite the fragile and volatile
context in Afghanistan, were security issues sometimes obstruct
effective and efficient aid to the marginalised communities, CBPs
have been and are being implemented by various organisations
in this part of the world. However, due to the volatile nature of
Afghanistan and high levels of insecurity where access problems
are common, a re-think of the traditional ways of delivering aid has been appreciated by the
humanitarian organisations4.
Apart from security concerns, there are almost always cases of emergency situations coming up in
Afghanistan which calls for a quick response in order to save lives and to protect livelihoods. This
compounded by adverse environmental conditions mainly untimely and inadequate rain and snow
seasons which generally increase food insecurity, vulnerability and poverty, have called for
innovative approaches to deliver aid, of which CBP can be one of them. There is need therefore, to
direct efforts towards preparedness and up-scaling of CTP interventions and efforts to ensure that
cash takes pole position in areas where markets are functional both pre- and post-disasters. As such,
guidelines and documents, such as this booklet, have been developed, and can be deemed as crucial
2 Son, H. H. (2008):- Conditional Cash Transfer programs: An effective Tool for Poverty Alleviation? Manila: Asian
Development Bank. 3 Cash and vouchers for food security are already clearly articulated in Sphere with a standard, indicators and guidance notes
for minimum requirements. 4 Cash Transfer Programming is gaining popularity as an efficient tool in delivering aid,
“The most practical
thing is a good
theory.”
12
by ‘’pace setter’’ in giving direction to the new- comers as well as to other CTP practitioners.
13
At a global scale, the genesis of large scale Cash Transfer Programming in an emergency context can
be traced to the 2004 Tsunami (occurred off the coast of western Indonesia in and around
Sumatra)5. Here successes of CBPs were documented as donors and humanitarian agencies realised
how this tool can utilise resources effectively and efficiently. Because of this so many humanitarian
actors have cultivated confidence in CTP as a tool for humanitarian responses. Furthermore, owing
to the successes which are again and again being realised in CTPs, it is now routinely considered as
an option in humanitarian responses. One aspect of this has been demonstrated by the
mainstreaming of cash into parts of the Sphere handbook, specifically the technical chapter on food
aid. It is also very interesting to note how the UN and some of its agencies are also joining in this
discussion. A number of examples where cash has been used as a tool by the UN can be cited below:
The World Food Programme (WFP) has a unit (the Cash for Change team), at the
headquarters to provide oversight technical guidance and corporate capacity-building and
has produced a guidance manual (WFP, 2009). In 2010, an estimated 4.5 million people were
recipients of WFP cash and vouchers (about 30% of their overall case load),
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has used cash in interventions to help, i)
returnees in Afghanistan, Burundi and Cambodia, ii) Iraq refugees in Syria and ,iii)
repatriated refugees from the Central African Republic, Djibouti, El Salvador, Eritrea,
Guatemala, Liberia, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Somalia and Togo,
UNICEF has used cash transfers in emergency recovery programmes in Indonesia and Sri
Lanka, and supports voucher fairs for relief items in the Democratic Republic of Congo,
FAO uses vouchers and fairs to enable people to access agricultural inputs and technical
services. UN agencies are expanding their use of cash and voucher-based approaches.
Donors are also increasingly interested in funding Cash Based Responses
Donor agencies and funders have increased their appetite in knowing more about this innovative
approach to humanitarian assistance, hence their increased interest in funding such programmes. A
few examples can be cited here;
The UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) has supported cash-based
interventions. A recent review suggested partners should explain “why they are not using
cash, rather than the converse”,
The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) has played a leading role in
developing cash-based responses, including spending more than $30m on cash transfer
projects in Europe and the former Soviet Union,
The United States Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) funds projects using cash
grants, cash for work and vouchers,
The European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) explicitly includes cash transfers
in its humanitarian food assistance policy (European Union 2010). ECHO also supports
capacity development in aid agencies, including providing funding for the Cash Learning
5 The bulk of the major devastation of the tsunami 2004 occurred off the coast of western Indonesia in and around Sumatra,
Indonesia. This tsunami was felt by fourteen countries in the region surrounding the Indian Ocean.
14
Partnership (CaLP). ECHO has a 100,000 Euro ceiling for funding of NGO-implemented cash
grants.
This is an exciting realisation of how big and small organisations are interested in CTPs. From this
background, there is high speculation that the use of CTPs will increase even higher over the
coming years. There is a need to design and implement CBPs which utilise donor funds in the
most effective and efficient way.
DESIGNING CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMES: - How to use Assessment results in CTP designing
“Good preparation means half the job is done.”
Cash Feasibility Assessments
Before taking cash as an option to address needs of communities in both humanitarian and long
term development programmes there is a need to do some assessments. One of these is the market
assessment, which is done to understand the behaviour of markets. Markets can be physical or
virtual, but both involve a system of suppliers, traders and consumers and the factors that affect the
system. Therefore, before coming up with a response option, either in-kind or cash (and the
different CTP modalities) there is need to carry out a proper market assessment, in order to avoid
doing harm to the markets. There are a number of market
assessment methods which can be employed.
These days a variety of assessment tools with some market
questions and analysis and guidance are available. These can
be at macro, meso or micro levels. With the term ‘macro
tools’ we refer to tools that analyze the broader economy (at
the national and global level). By ‘meso tools’ we mean tools that analyze value chains, or specific
sectoral issues within markets. With ‘micro tools’ we refer to tools that analyze individual units, such
as households and traders. These tools have all been used in the emergency sector to inform not
only response, but ongoing monitoring. They have also been used in early warning systems. Given
the number of tools, approaches and conceptual frameworks, the task of integrating market analysis
into assessment practices, let alone implementing responses, has been daunting for non-specialist
personnel. The Household Economy Approach, (HEA), the Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis
(EMMA) and the Market and Food Insecurity and Response Analysis (MIFIRA) tools have been the
most commonly used set of tools by humanitarian personnel to date6. Following the market
assessment results, if an agent decides to take CBP as a tool to arrive at intended objectives then
these three broad questions should be reflected upon:
Are the goods and services that people need available locally?
6 HEA Baseline assessments can be found at www.heawebsite.org and used to calculate the food and income gaps of different
livelihood groups affected by a humanitarian disaster. Refer to EMMA Baseline Guidance and EMMA toolkit at www.emma-toolkit.org, MIFIRA: - www.cashlearning.org/...ads/resources/tools/mifira
“Knowing where you want to go is one thing, but getting there is quite another.”
15
To determine the extent to which the market can meet demand for items or
supply of labour now and in the coming months ,
To assess whether traditional in-kind responses may negatively impact on the
market,
To assess the impact of a disaster on the different parts of the market chain and
assess the impact on people’s food security and livelihoods,
As a result of this analysis to identify potential indirect interventions that will
help markets recover and potential responses to meet the needs of the target
group,
To assess whether the market can respond to an increase in demand as a result
of cash programmes and anticipate risks such as price inflation or price
volatility,
To better inform us on whether or not cash or vouchers could be a potential
response option
Are markets able to respond to an increased demand for commodities?
Can cash be delivered and spent safely?
In many instances, these questions are not usually assessed after a disaster. This is often because
assessments tend to be resource-driven and define needs in terms of the goods and services that
they can offer. Sometimes getting this information is considered too difficult and not agreeable for
agencies because it requires specialised staff. However, as we go through the case studies recorded
in this booklet we will notice that some of the humanitarian agencies (e.g. IRC, NRC, and Medair) in
Afghanistan have done some assessments which included a look on the markets’ behaviour, and
have tried to answer in a positive way those broad questions before deciding to respond using CBPs.
Thus, market information is essential if CTP is going to be considered as a modality. Overall, the
objectives of analysing market systems in emergencies can be summarized as follows:
Understanding markets in emergency situations enables humanitarian agencies to consider a
broader range of responses, including cash transfers and vouchers. Cash transfers and other forms
of market support may enable humanitarian programmes to make better use of existing market
actors’ capabilities while reducing the risk of harming markets. Market information is thus a vital
16
piece of information which is needed to analyse response options. This information, together with a
decision tree can be useful tools for this purpose.
The decision tree to support Response Analysis: - Cash or in-Kind support?
After completion of assessments such as the need and market assessments information to decide on
whether an in-kind response or a CTP response or a combination of the two is most appropriate
would have been gathered. That particular information will be useful in response analysis. This
booklet does not advocate for the preferential use of either (i) cash/voucher-based or (ii) in-kind
humanitarian assistance7, although it is an advocacy tool for CTPs. The requirements of several
donors is that all modalities of humanitarian assistance be systematically analysed and compared so
that donors can support agencies to respond to identified needs in the most appropriate way
according to the context. The decision tree below aims to support the process of response analysis.
The questions in the decision tree are intended to promote the use of a consistent logic when
identifying the most appropriate transfer modality, i.e. in kind, cash or vouchers, or a combination
thereof.
Multiple contextual factors are taken into account, including technical feasibility criteria, security of beneficiaries, agency staff and communities, beneficiary preference, needs and risks of specific vulnerable groups (such as pregnant and lactating women, elderly, child headed households etc), mainstreaming of protection (safety and equality in access) , gender (different needs and vulnerabilities of women, men, boys and girls) concerns and cost-effectiveness. Direct and indirect support to the market systems may be associated with a response option where appropriate.
Once the response option has been decided upon the decision tree, will assist your programme team in further analysis the factors which are crucial in coming up with a feasible intervention. We now refer you to the decision tree (Oxfam decision tree) for a quick perusal of the factors to consider in a response analysis. We again emphasise that this document is not intended to provide detailed technical directions on designing and managing cash and voucher projects. Other reference materials are available for this purpose. Guidelines and reference documents are available on www.cashlearning.org8.
Immediately following the decision tree is a checklist (figure 1) adopted from one of the donors (ECHO) that is interested in funding Cash Based Responses (CBPs). Agencies can use both these two tools in coming up with the most effective and efficient response option for effective programming.
7 Oxfam GB is compiling documentations of the Cash Based Programmes which have been successfully implemented in
Afghanistan. The decision to implement any cash based response or in-kind support lies with the various organisations- according to assessments which could have been carried out.
8 For technical guidance, refer to CaLP delivery guides: http://www.cashlearning.org/resources/library, The Sphere Project:
2011 edition website: httl://www.sphereproject.org and EMMA website: http://emma-toolkit.org/
A thorough situation analysis,
including a preliminary market
analysis, and needs
assessment, are necessary pre-
conditions for using this tool.
17
The Oxfam decision tree for deciding whether to distribute cash or food
Good tools that are not
applied correctly are
useless.
18
(Adopted from DG ECHO funding guidelines March 2013:- THE USE OF CASH AND VOUCHERS IN HUMANITARIAN CRISES, page 6)
Figure 1: DG ECHO Check List for Cash and voucher Projects
Description Check Yes No DNK Comments
NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
Problem Statement,
Findings of the
assessment and link
to the action
1. Have the humanitarian needs of the beneficiaries been defined taking into account the different needs of women, girls, boys and men, as well as specific livelihood groups?
2. Is the problem a failure of effective demand (e.g. lack of purchasing power)?
3. Is the problem a failure of supply (e.g. a problem of availability)?
4. Have existing institutional social transfers and other humanitarian assistance been taken into account?
5. Do your assessments indicate whether the local market has the capacity to respond to increased demand with sufficient quantity and quality of goods (for example food or necessary NFIs) without resulting in sustained, excessive inflation i.e. is the market sufficiently elastic and competitive?
6. Is the present rate of inflation and the expected trend (e.g.: price seasonality) compatible with the cash modality i.e. likely to remain stable with the injection of cash?
7. Do the beneficiaries have access (physical, social, cultural, etc.) to the proposed markets and service?
8. Have the traders and service providers been consulted before/while planning the response?
9. Have the safety risks to beneficiaries, staff and communities- including Disaster Risk Reduction, implementation period and relative cost-effectiveness of each modality (cash, coupon, fair, in-kind or a combination) been evaluated, also according to the principles of do no harm, and are they acceptable (if the information is available)?
10. Do the needs require that cash expenditure be controlled through conditionality, coupons or fairs?
11. Do the necessary capacities and skills exist (or can they be brought in/built rapidly) in the implementing agency to carry out the proposed intervention?
19
Stakeholder
Analysis
12. Is the proposed intervention coordinated with or complementary to, existing actions, including longer-term actions carried out by the government, donors and organisations? Is it possible to build synergies?
OPERATIONAL
FRAMEWORK
13. Are the targeting criteria properly identified (most vulnerable, highest humanitarian needs) and the targeting procedures adequate?
Beneficiaries 14. Has meaningful consultation with beneficiaries on the project and modalities taken place and is due consideration given to the particular needs of vulnerable groups such as women, children, elders, disabled, minorities, the poorest (e.g. physical obstacles to collect resource transfers, intra-household resource control, etc.)?
15. In the case of conditional transfers, have the possible negative effects (inclusion and exclusion errors, increased vulnerabilities etc) been considered? Are they negligible or do they require additional action, such as direct cash transfers for beneficiaries unable to participate in CFW?
Activities 16. Is there a contingency plan to mitigate any risks identified (inflation, trader collusion, corruption, insecurity, etc)?
17. If vouchers or fairs are proposed, are there sufficient suppliers willing and able to collaborate?
18. Are the proposed transfer amounts, frequency and timing clearly defined and appropriate to reach the objective and adapted to the specific context and the targeted beneficiaries? Consider: price levels on local markets for desired goods (e.g. food or expenditure basket), potential cash or in-kind transfers by other actors, targeted population (e.g. livelihood needs) , duration and timing of assistance according to seasons, etc
19. Have all possible delivery mechanisms been evaluated and is the proposed delivery mechanism safe, feasible and efficient? Consider: timing, human resources, flexibility, existing infrastructures / arrangements, etc.
20. Does the monitoring system include indicators of sector specific outputs and outcomes?
Monitoring and
Evaluation
21. In case of an innovative action, will the Monitoring & Evaluation system provide evidence on its effectiveness and efficiency, and are systems/ activities in place to share learning (external or internal evaluation, publication etc)?
22. Does the post distribution monitoring and control system provide the minimum information requirements?
MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND OTHER COMMENTS
Summarize findings and recommendations
20
CTP Risk Assessment: feasibility
After making a response analysis using the tools above and a conclusion has
been reached to take cash transfer as a tool to address the needs of the
communities, the other step which is needed in designing programmes is a Risk
assessment. This CTP risk assessment can be part of the market assessment,
security assessment, or other assessments which are carried out to inform the
designing process. The risk assessment will give a clear understanding of the
potential areas of risk for CTP and how the risk can be minimised or avoided.
This risk assessment may not be necessarily a formal form to be filled, but rather
a document that summarises all the questions and risks that should be
considered before deciding whether to opt for CTP or an in-kind response; to
decide on the CTP modality and for the decision on the payment mechanism
and instrument. Organisations can develop their own risk matrix. An example is
in Risk Matrix below outlining potential risks and options available to mitigate these risks and make
an analysis. Good examples of risks which can affect CTPs (is in table 1 below.) As a result of this risk
assessment the feasibility (and conditions of feasibility) of CTP will be concluded.
Table 1: Examples of risk types and responses
Risk Type Example of CTP Risk
Acceptance Accepting a risk means an organisation thinks that the impact of that risk will not have
a great effect, or that there is a great likelihood of it not occurring ,
Control Controlling a risk can be controlled by systems and procedures, for example putting
financial controls ( in a direct cash payment) , e.g. developing an organisational
responsibility matrix- more than one person need to make a payment authorisation,
Avoidance Avoiding a risk could be using currency distribution rather than back accounts if you
have a fear of corruption in the banks,
Transfer Transferring a risk is about getting someone else to take the risk, for example asking a
security company to insure the money,
CTP designers should note that risks are context specific; each context in which a CTP is to be
implemented has its own unique risks and a thorough risk assessment should thrive to have an
understanding of these. For Afghanistan, a few risks which can be associated with CTPs can be given
as below:
Example: Risk matrix
21
Table 2: Typical risks in Afghanistan
Contextual
Programmatic
Institutional
Risks of state failure return to conflict,
development failure and humanitarian
crises. Factors over which humanitarian
actors have no control.
Risk of failure to reach programme
aims and objectives. Risk of causing
harm through intervention.
Risk to the aid provider (security,
fiduciary failure, reputational loss,
domestic political damage, etc.)
Security – beneficiaries, staff, money
Lack of acceptability by donors,
beneficiaries, governments, community
leaders or traders,
Diversion by authorities, community
leaders etc,
Vulnerability, gender or generational bias,
Coordination – with other agencies and
internally,
Anti-social use of cash,
Cash not being used for intended purpose,
Rivalries with communities or individuals
not receiving cash,
Finance – controls, efficiency,
staffing levels and capacity,
Data protection,
Staffing capacity,
Theft,
Inadequate controls,
Lack of SoPs,
Donor compliance,
Long-term market trends – inflation,
integration, recovery post-emergency,
Short-term market trends – availability
of goods, quality and quantity, price,
Conflict leading to insecurity,
Lack of government acceptance
Gender roles,
‘Acts of God’,
Corruption,
Note: Contextual risks are those associated with the context within which the CTP intervention is
implemented; programmatic are technical risks associated with the intervention implementation and
institutional risks are associated with systems and institutions such as market systems.
22
Summary of risk analysis and Management:
The steps in fig 2 below can summarise the whole risk assessment exercise. Agencies can use these
steps in analysing the contexts and environments in which CTPs are to be implemented.
Figure 2: Risks Analysis and Management Steps
Adopted from the CaLP II Training Materials
CTP Modalities and Delivery Mechanisms: choosing the best options
Once the decision to deliver aid through cash based programmes has been arrived at, an agency has
to decide on the best modality which fits into the operational environment. More so, the best
payment (delivery mechanism) system has to be chosen. Currently, humanitarian aid is being
delivered through three modalities, cash, vouchers and in-kind. The response can be a combination
of modalities, either one transitioning into another or implemented in parallel. For example: CfW
should always budget for a portion of the cash as a grant to groups unable or unsuitable to work.
With this knowledge, organisations can decide on the best option to select for the analysed context9.
Figure 3 below provides a comparison of the different CTP modality type to support the decision
making process:
9 Further discussions on this topic can be found on the CaLP website : www.cashlearning.org and or the Afghanistan CTP
website : http://afghanctp.org/en/
23
Figure 3: Comparison of different types of CTP Modalities
Adopted from Oxfam GB’s Cash Transfer Standard Operating Procedure
Due to its uniqueness, we will devote here a brief discussion on how to implement a Cash for work
(CfW) project.
Designing a Cash for Work project: - creating temporary employment opportunities for the poor
Cash for Work (CfW) can be defined as the payment of cash wages in exchange of work that is done either on household level projects, or on public works or community level schemes. The main objective is to increase people’s purchasing power to both enable access to immediate food and non-food needs and/or to recover livelihoods during or immediately after an emergency. The secondary objective is to create community or individual assets and build local capacity by enhancing skill-sets. Various organisations in Afghanistan have been implementing CfW programmes in response to emergencies, especially to floods and landslides. Solidarités International is one such organisation which successfully used CfW programmes to meet the basic food needs of communities as well as to rehabilitate community assets which had been destroyed by floods in 2012.
24
Within the communities, the selection of CfW activities should be done in close consultation with the communities and the assets should ideally aim to improve the livelihoods or public health environment of the community as a whole. Cash for work programmes are designed to provide employment opportunities for largely unskilled labour and be designed around existing skills and capacities of affected communities. Usually these are labour intensive in nature to ensure high rates of participation, but cash for work programmes can be designed to suit the specific capacities of elderly people, pregnant women or physically challenged individuals. Where possible, activities are defined, prioritised and implemented by affected communities themselves and are designed to benefit the wider community.
When to implement CfW Activities
Cash for work programmes can be appropriate to various humanitarian contexts and response phases. In the acute phase, they can be used for quick action and to meet immediate needs (e.g., during post-flood/earthquake clean-up). This approach has been adopted by various organisations funded by ECHO under the ERM component to respond to emergencies in Afghanistan. For example, ACTED and Medair documented interesting observations about the designing and implementation of CfW programmes. During recovery, cash for work can revive the local economy and livelihoods (e.g., road reconstruction). In chronic emergencies, cash for work can be orientated towards preparedness as well as humanitarian response work, but since they try to achieve different objectives, they are also based upon different principles. Cash for work can also be used as a social safety net component (e.g., allocation of x paid working days per month) as a preparedness measure in chronic or slow onset crises. Box 1 summarises the steps which can be followed in implementing a CfW programme.
How long should the CfW projects take If in -put-orientated, the duration of cash for work programmes simply involves the time taken to provide financial support to cover immediate needs and asset recovery. If output orientated, cash for work programmes will last until the lean or critical season is over, the affected people are able to cover their minimum needs, and/or normal livelihoods are stable or recovered.
How do cash for work interventions link to other humanitarian programmes
Cash for work activities can be orientated towards achieving other humanitarian outcomes, such as PHE (public health engineering), PHP (public health promotion) and shelter. For instance:
PHE—cash for clearing of debris after a disaster, establishing and maintaining waste management systems or rehabilitating water and sanitation systems,
PHP—cash for training community mobilisers and educators, and transferring skills,
Shelter—cash for temporary shelter construction.
25
Crucial steps to follow in a Cash for Work Programme
Cash Delivery Mechanisms :- what to Consider in your design
Cash Transfer delivery mechanism choices are based on a number of factors such as the following:
Accessibility: Whatever mechanism is chosen, beneficiaries must be able to get to their cash without
having to travel too far, or waiting too long. The maximum acceptable distance depends on how
frequently disbursements are going to be made, and hence how frequently people need to visit the
disbursement point. For large or one-off cash grants, the distance may be less important. For regular
payments of small amounts, the cash needs to be accessible locally. If people regularly visit a town,
for instance to go shopping, then asking them to make this journey to pick up their cash may be
acceptable, even if the town is a relatively long way away. The number of branches a particular
institution has may be an important consideration here. Some banks may be willing to provide
mobile services. It is also important to consider the mobility of groups such as the elderly and the
disabled, who may need special support. Again, the bank or post office may offer services for these
groups.
Literacy: Literacy and familiarity with modern banking technology also require some thought. For
illiterate people or people who do not understand the language used in the machine this may can be
a barrier. New users may worry about forgetting their PIN number, and may write it down or tell it
to other people, raising security risks. That said, if people are comfortable using ATMs they have
clear advantages in terms of ease of access. Gender issues may also need to be considered with
regard to accessibility. Might women have less access to cash transfers through bank accounts if
they are not the account holders? Religious and cultural norms may influence whether women can
get access to cash outside the home. In Muslim communities, whether an institution operates
Box 1:- General implementation steps (guidelines) to follow in a CfW programme
1. Staffing, 2. Communities sensitized and committees ( relief committees or beneficiaries selection committees)
established, 3. Selection criteria and community-based target set, 4. Communities and work opportunities identified ( jointly with key stakeholders and communities), 5. Working units, wages and total work days calculated ( sometimes with the participation of field
supervisors and or CfW supervisors), 6. Monitoring system with specific, relevant and time-bound indicators developed, 7. Attendance system established and reconciled 8. Cash disbursement frequency and methodology defined, logistics and security system in place, 9. Technical support and supervision for public works ensured, where appropriate, 10. Markets monitored to ensure match between wages and any food price fluctuations, 11. Appropriate programme and partner staff supplied
26
according to Sharia law might be important. A disaster may of course affect the options available;
banks may be closed due to disaster damage, and transport or communications may be disrupted.
The cash transfer mechanism an organization uses may change over time, as the environment or
programme intervention changes.
Security and corruption risks: The first priority has to be choosing a mechanism which allows cash to
be delivered safely by the agency, and spent securely by beneficiaries. Payments through bank
accounts are often seen as minimizing security risks for both agencies and beneficiaries, and where
banks are accessible they are normally the preferred option. Direct disbursement may sometimes
still be necessary in the absence of banks, and this method can be used in response. After the
disaster, many people are living in temporary camps where privacy and security is a problem.
Keeping cash safe may therefore be particularly difficult. Security risks need to be carefully assessed,
and clear procedures and guidelines put in place for managing them. Different delivery mechanisms
will also create different types of corruption risk. For instance, using banks may add another layer of
accountability, but may also introduce an additional point at which corruption can occur.
Speed and timing: The transfer mechanism should be relevant to the needs of beneficiaries at
particular times, and should relate to the purposes for which the cash has been provided. Transfers
for basic needs require quick, regular deliveries of relatively small amounts of cash. Transfers for
livelihood recovery are likely to involve larger amounts of cash, but people are likely to need the
money later in the emergency response and recovery phase, giving agencies more time to plan and
establish effective systems.
Cost-efficiency: Different transfer mechanisms will incur different costs, and assessing the relative
cost-effectiveness of various options should be an important part of the selection process. It is
important when considering costs to include both the costs for the implementing organization and
those potentially borne by the beneficiary. It is also important to consider hidden costs and costs
that may not easily be quantified, such as staff time and the time beneficiaries spend accessing the
cash. Figure 4 below (adopted from the revised CaLP Level II Manual) is a quick comparison of
different payments mechanism.
Figure 4: Comparison of Different CTP Payments systems
Minimum Conditions Advantages Disadvantages
Using Mobile Phones
IT Assessment Reduces paperwork Often Unregulated
Reliable network Reduces workload Expensive
Availability of payment
software Reduces fraud risk High initial investment
Points of Sale (PoS) capacity Large scale No ability to restrict
household purchases
User capability Fast, safe transfers Limited ability to restrict
food purchases Flexibility for Beneficiaries
Using Banks
27
Bank regulation Financial risk managed by
banks Slow contracting
Robust software Systems Financial inclusion and
literacy Financial literacy required
Meet finance criteria Existing networks Lack of accessibility of
services
Existing contracts Large scale
Requires accurate data
Community acceptance Formal identification
Direct Cash Distribution
Secure context required for
transportation and
distribution
No formal identification
required
Security Risk for
organisation and
beneficiaries
Sufficient cash flow Facilitates limited literacy
and numeracy Corruption risk
Sufficient staff, logistics and
other resources Fast set-up Labour intensive
Political acceptances Large scale Significant monitoring
required at payment
Community acceptance Often low cost Limited ability to restrict
food purchases
Using Retailers (Electronic and Paper Vouchers)
Trader Acceptance and
Capability Low cost Time to set up
Large number of traders
required
Limited literacy and
numeracy
Sensitisation and
acceptance of traders
Easy, familiar access for
beneficiaries
Large scale operations
possible
Scale is limited by trading
capacity
Diverse range of stock Transfer values can be
adjusted
Distribution costs can be
high
Secure way of paying traders Ideal for conditional
programmes
Forgery and
misappropriation
Adopted from the Revised CaLP II Training Module
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES: what to do and what not to do
As noted above, the designing of CTPs and other in-kind responses is closely linked to assessments
which are carried out on market behaviours & systems, risk and security assessments. In addition to
these, for cash transfers, (as in in-kind programmes as well) the following steps have to be
considered during the implementation phase:
a. Communicating: - the objectives of the programme, its aims and objectives including its
duration has to be communicated to all relevant interested parties as tabulated Table 3.
Communication is also part of the accountability and complains mechanisms where facilities
such, hotline feedback forms, focus group discussions, and suggestion boxes and help desks
can be utilised throughout the project cycle. You will notice from the case studies in section
28
2 ,that in the field, implementing agencies are also using coordination committees, displays
on bill boards ,etc, at project sites such as cash for work schemes to communicate their aims
and objectives.
Table 3: Communications in CTP projects
Who? What? How?
Beneficiaries Project objectives; Selection criteria; Value of transfer;
Programme duration and timings of transfers; Other
assistance available; Requirements (i.e. what documentation
to bring), conditions or restrictions; How it works, How to
get help.
Focus groups; Local media;
Leaflets; Posters; Community
meetings; Mobile telephones,
Community
members
(Non-
recipients)
Selection process; Programme duration; Other options for
assistance,
Community meetings, Etc.
National and
local
authorities
Programme duration and geographical location; Number of
recipients; Recipient selection process; Their involvement in
the programme,
Meetings, Etc.
Traders Programme duration and location; Number of recipients and
amounts distributed; Role and responsibilities (in the case of
vouchers); How technology works (when appropriate);
Reimbursement process,
Meetings; Leaflets;
Workshops, Etc.
Other NGOs Programme duration and location; Number of recipients and
amounts distributed,
Coordination meetings etc.
Media Media pack including above
Donors As per individual donor requirements Advocacy messages
Humanitarian programmes are also using modern technologies such as frontline SMS in
communications and it is important for the Afghanistan CTP to adopt such new ways of relaying
messages. For example Oxfam GB and partners in Afghanistan are using the Frontline SMS to report
water points breakdown or the number of households accessing them.
Communicating the CBP aims and objectives to key stakeholders in Afghanistan
In fragile environments such as that which is prevalent in Afghanistan, communication on
programmes intended to benefit the vulnerable communities must not be over-emphasised
especially discussions around cash based programmes which are so attractive. Lessons can be taken
from the International Rescue Committee (IRC) in Afghanistan. IRC during its implementation phase
29
came up with community based structures to involve all key stakeholders (beneficiaries, local
leaders, government representatives, religious leaders, etc) in the designing, implementation and
tracking of progress on how the CTP was being carried out. This, system, according to the IRC ( see
IRC case study, page 45) cleared any speculation or suspicions within the communities concerning
their CTP aims and objectives including their day to day activities and their programmes.
b. Targeting
Targeting is the process of identifying geographical
locations or beneficiaries to benefit from an
intervention. It is a step of each emergency
programme; the process for CTP should not be any
different. However, cash is of high value and
interest to everyone, so the targeting may be more
challenging than traditional food and non-food
items, especially when the CTP modality are cash
grants. Cash for Work is considered in many instances as self targeting, as people interested to work
for a relatively low wage are most probably the ones that are in the most difficult socio-economic
position. Even so, each modality should be given the same high attention to prevent those in
authority exploiting their position and/or other for personal gains. Generally, CTP targeting is based
on the overall goals of the humanitarian response. The following principles can be followed:
Criteria need to be clearly defined and articulated to men and women in the target areas, Staff, partners, third parties and donors,
Community involvement is key to increase acceptance and transparency of the targeting process,
Cash being of high interest, consider the implication of specifically targeting women with cash distributions and always use the findings of a gender analysis to inform your decision for targeting10,
In addition to the above, with CTP considerations are made to target individuals- there is usually no
blanket targeting in CTPs. Although cash transfers are often targeted to ‘households’, in practice this
requires an individual to collect the money, particularly if it is through a financial institution where
an identity card or a similar document will be needed to authenticate the identity of the individual.
For CTPs just like in in-kind programmes, targeting is based on poverty and vulnerability indicators as
defined by communities. Some of the generic indicators are shown in the table 4 below.
10
A gender analysis should already pre-exist - when delivering a humanitarian programme using CTP, it is paramount for the
success of the project to understand the gender and social dynamics of the particular area. Cash is highly valued in all societies and a cash distribution may negatively exacerbate the social dynamics, if the context is not clearly understood. Not understanding social dynamics may cause the failure of the project or increase the risk for women and further magnify the inequalities between men and women. At the same time, a well designed CTP can release (albeit temporarily) stress within households and contribute towards supporting women through longer term efforts to changing gender power relations at the household and community levels.
Cash is of high value and interest to
everyone, so the targeting may be
more challenging than traditional food
and non-food items.
30
Table 4: Some of the Poverty (P) and Vulnerability (V) indicators for use when targeting for cash/vouchers
Origin of variable Indicator Challenges
Household headship (V) Widow,
Elderly, Child/Orphan
Some households may be relying on remittances for economically
active members.
Productive Assets (P) Land ownership, Land size Access to arable land can change rapidly in cases where women
have no land entitlement after death of spouse. Internally displaced
people and returnees may face challenges to access land.
Livelihood Assets (P) Livestock – Cattle, donkeys,
Sheep/goats, poultry
Some assets are acquired as gifts or inherited and does not
necessarily reflect the financial position of a household
Wealth (P) Hoe, plough, wheelbarrow,
bicycle
Some assets might have been acquired during good times and might
not necessarily reflect the well being of the HH post disaster
Health (P,V) Chronic illness (V),
physical/mental disability (V),
Ability to pay for health
services (P)
Health information may be regarded as sensitive information in some
communities.
Family composition (V) No of people, dependency
ratios
Some spouses in polygamous unions may not be necessarily
vulnerable
Housing/Shelter (P) Ownership, State of
damage/repair
Varies with communities and what the define as a structure that
defines poverty levels
Income (P) Sources of income – formal
and informal
Difficult to obtain unless done through a detailed household survey.
Reliable data can be obtained through a longitudinal study
Education (P) Proportion of school going
aged children out of school
Not very useful in communities where education is not valued and at
times used as cultural/religious issue for example against the girl-child
Food Security (P) Sources of food, # and type of
meals per day, Food reserves
Difficult to establish if ranking is done by community representatives
e.g. Shurah Leader, CDCs etc. Need to establish if consumption
status is related to market availability than lack of means.
Clothing and Blankets (P) Condition and # of: blankets,
clothes, shoes
Some assets might have been acquired during good times and might
not necessarily reflect the well being of the HH post disaster
Social Capital (V) Active membership in clubs or
community groups
Conflicts, insecurity and restricted movement may undermine the
functionality of social structures.
In the case studies presented in this write up, for Medair, IRC and Solidarités International (SI),
targeting of geographical locations (villages, etc) was done based on the magnitude of the effects of
disasters on the communities in the areas where each of these organisations was working.
Beneficiaries targeting is also an issue that calls for transparency which can be done through several
ways. Solidarités International pro-actively engaged the communities in the selection of both the
geographical areas and the beneficiaries who would benefit from its Cash Based Programmes.
31
Lessons on the involvement of the Shurahs/Murahs (religious leaders), the local leaders in the
community, the community development committees (and other Community Based Organisations)
as well as other relevant stakeholders within the areas of operation can be drawn from the case
studies presented in this booklet, especially the write ups presented by IRC and Medair (pages 45
and 38 respectively). A detailed presentation on how to involve communities and key community
based structures in beneficiaries targeting and selection has been documented clearly by these
organisations.
c. Beneficiary Registration in CTPs
Beneficiary Registration is the process of collecting and recording relevant information about
recipients. This information serves as baseline data for monitoring, enables recipients to identify
themselves so as to receive the transfer and can also be used to calculate the transfer amount (e.g. if
done by household size). For a voucher based response, IRC’s food assistance programme which was
funded by the World Food Programme of the United Nations (WFP) is a good reference where the
beneficiaries registration process has been clearly articulated (page 46). In principle, cash
interventions face the same issues as in any other registration processes, unless different
information is required for the cash distribution process, for instance bank account numbers.
For an Afghanistan context specific registration process lessons can been drawn from those which
are shared in various case studies which have been compiled in this write up. On a global scope the
following usual steps of the registration system consist in:
Create a database- think first at which information you will need to implement the response, reconcile information and identify the targeted beneficiaries. Think also about the payment mechanism since it also has a bearing in the information which should be collected. This will vary based on the modality and payment mechanism chosen. The team collecting the information has to know why this information is needed, so they can explain it properly to the communities (e.g. when payment will be made via mobile phone, when collecting phone number, staff should explain why the number is being collected, to avoid being given the number of a relative or neighbour). This database will be the source of the information included in the beneficiary register used during distributions.
Agree on Beneficiary Identification methods- this could be by ID card or biometric details; or through identity confirmation by a community leader; or a combination. Organisations may also consider the requirement of the service providers, measures to reduce risk of inclusion errors and the time needed to create beneficiary ID cards if required for the delivery mechanism. In a conflict environment, beneficiaries can lose their identification documents this is most likely for some of the Internally Displaced Populations (IDPs) and Refugees. In instances like these, an implementing organisation can provide the beneficiaries with identification cards (for example, IRC & WFP and NRC have been doing this is Afghanistan).
Select method of authentication- methods include by signature, biometrics, PIN number, password and/or visual authentication
32
d. Selecting and contracting CTP partners
Partnerships can be inter agency, as in an international NGO which
can identify a local partner with the capacity to implement a CTP of
a given size and scale. The advantage of using local partners is that
some of them have roots in the affected communities and can
easily mobilize communities, are accepted in some areas that are
insecure such as the hard to reach in fragile areas of a country, and
may be used to target beneficiaries and distribute aid faster. In
Afghanistan, Oxfam GB has been implementing programmes for as
from 2008 through partners in Daikundi and Badakshan provinces
(Partners in Revitalising and Building (PRB) & Organisation of
Human Welfare (OHW) and Badakshan Voluntary Women Organisation (BVWO), respectively).
However, if partners are weak they may fall prey to such negatives such as corruption, bribery and
nepotism. Therefore, it is usually important to carry out partner capacity assessments before
implementation and also develop remote monitoring systems which are effective and efficient. The
other type of partnership which is critical in humanitarian and development aid is the NGO-Public-
Private sector partnership (PPP) which entails working with private sector companies such as banks,
mobile phone companies and also government line ministries. Oxfam GB in Afghanistan Partnered
with the Ministry of Labour Social Affairs Martyrs and Disabled (MOLSAMD) in the year 2012 in
Daikundi to deliver a social protection programme through the cash transfer. This type of
partnership is very difficult to forge as it calls for a lot of compromises and negotiation, and at times
entering into complex memorandum of understanding or contracts. However, the fruits of such joint
efforts out-weigh the demerits as programme sustainability and multiple benefits sometimes (but
not always) come out of these ways of working.
Monitoring & Evaluation of CTPs :- Cash is ‘attractive’ keep an eagle’s eye
Monitoring and Evaluation of CTPs is not any different from that of any type of humanitarian projects (objectives of this exercise can be summarised as in box 2, below). Implementation and the market environment need to be monitored to identify and mitigate potential risk factors and the project outcomes. Monitoring must help to verify the original response analysis made, and fine tune on-going response analysis (in this case, the CBP) to enable adjustments to the operational strategy. Monitoring systems established for cash and voucher transfer schemes will collect and analyze realistic amounts of data and provide products which are directly usable by the programme managers for an appropriate implementation, including a quick response to changing circumstances and erroneous assumptions in the project design. Markets and contexts may change over the course of an action, and as such monitoring systems and projects need to identify criteria where a change in transfer modality may have to be considered. Of much importance in CTPs is the need to do a Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) exercise.
Partnerships which are
based on principles of
equal partnership are
crucial in achieving
implementation of
effective and efficient
programming.
33
Post Distribution Monitoring :- A crucial piece in the CTP jigsaw puzzle
Post distribution monitoring should always be done at the end of a cash/ voucher payment, with the primary objective to check whether individuals/households/groups have received the cash and been able to spend the cash according to their needs. It may also help to detect early signals of negative impact and address some of the complaints that may emerge from the programme. It should be done routinely for all transfers. Monitoring and control mechanism should be quick and efficient, and provide an early indication of any problems which can be corrected during implementation. It also provides information which can be used to judge outcomes and results. The discussion following below outlines the questions that post-distribution monitoring should address the methods that can be used and possible solutions to problems commonly encountered.
Key Questions and data for post
distribution Monitoring
When thinking about what data
should be collected and how,
remember to keep your monitoring
simple and practical. Don’t be
tempted to collect more
information than you can analyse
and use.
It is better to tackle a limited set of
questions and collect a small
amount of data that you can trust
and make sense of, than to be
over-ambitious and gather a large
volume of unused data.
When deciding what data should
be collected, take into account
who will be doing the monitoring,
their skills and training and the
time they have available.
Figure 5 below shows the
minimum set of questions that you
should address in post-distribution
monitoring and the methods that
can be used to collect data for
them.
Box 2: Objectives of the monitoring exercise
1. to monitor the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the cash and voucher distribution systems:
• To determine the cost, speed and management efficiency with which inputs and activities are converted into results (i.e. whether the project is accountable to donors, etc,).
• To determine whether your organisation adhered to the agreed targeting criteria and the level of beneficiary participation in the targeting process (i.e. whether your agency is accountable to themselves and to beneficiaries).
• To assess the effectiveness of the community feed-back mechanism and how your organisation responded to comments received (i.e. whether project is accountable to beneficiaries).
• To substantiate as far as possible any reported claims of diversion of cash or food vouchers due to taxation, targeting inclusion, re-distribution of aid, etc.
2. To monitor the impacts of the cash and voucher distribution on local markets and participating trader;
3. To monitor beneficiary spending patterns (for cash) and the impacts of the cash and or voucher distribution on food security, livelihoods, etc;
4. to provide regular feedback to the coordination mechanisms, to the donors, etc on the M&E/PDM findings;
5. to document and make publicly accessible the lessons emerging from the cash and voucher distribution project, particularly lessons regarding the scaling up of such interventions.
Adopted from Cash and Voucher Monitoring Group Final monitoring
report of the Somalia Phase I: September 2011–March 2012
34
Figure 5: Minimum set of questions that should be monitored
[Extracted and adapted from Harvey (2007)].
Questions
Methods
Did people get the right amount of cash? Were payments made on time?
Questionnaire surveys.
What are people spending the cash transfer on?
Does this meet the programme’s specific objective (e.g., enabling people to meet their basic needs for food or other items/services or to invest in livelihoods)?
Semi-structured interviews with beneficiaries (individuals or groups),
Interviews with retailers and/or traders,
Questionnaire surveys, Case study interviews with individual
beneficiaries,
Are the items that people want to buy available in the market?
Where and how far do people have to go to buy what they want?
Semi-structured interviews with beneficiaries (individuals or groups),
Observation of goods being sold in the market,
Interviews with retailers and/or traders, Questionnaire surveys,
How have prices changed?
Has the cash distribution had an effect on prices?
Market price monitoring,
Semi-structured interviews with traders, Comparison of total cash distributed with trade
volumes (if it is relatively small, it is unlikely to have had an inflationary effect).
What to look for when analysing and interpreting the data
What are people spending their cash on? This can be reported in a fairly straightforward way provided you feel your results are reasonably representative of the beneficiary population. Assess whether the programme’s specific objectives (if there are any, such as meeting needs for food and other basic items/services or shelter) were or are being met according to these results. In an emergency, did cash prevent the use of harmful coping strategies? In a recovery programme, what assets did people buy and has it helped them earn sufficient income? Ask beneficiaries for feedback on the positive and negative impacts of the cash distribution.
Price monitoring and contingency planning
It is essential to check for inflation, to see whether rising prices are caused or exacerbated by the cash transfer, and to see what people are able to buy with the money provided. Inflation is a particular problem with cash transfers for basic needs assistance as it may mean that some families will not be able to meet their essential needs. If inflation of key commodities or services, particularly those that beneficiaries are expected to purchase, is an identified risk then the prices of these items will need to be monitored over the course of the project, taking into account usual seasonal price fluctuations. Price increases above an acceptable threshold may be used to trigger remedial actions – including those identified at the planning stage. It is important that the cost of living is monitored and that contingency plans are prepared, to be implemented should the cost of living rise beyond a
35
certain threshold. Scenarios should be developed for both likely price increases and maximum acceptable price increases. Use these scenarios as a basis against which to judge monitoring price data. If prices exceed the likely price and move towards the maximum acceptable price, start implementing the contingency plan.
What impact did the cash have?
With baseline data (either for a ‘normal’ year or at the start of the project), you can:
Compare the additional cash with overall income to see what proportion of income it represented. This will give you an idea of its importance to the household economy,
See if sources of income have changed (this may be important for a cash project aimed at supporting livelihood recovery),
Are people now able to get income from any productive assets they may have invested in? Or (for example) do poor people still have to work for others?
See if expenditure patterns have changed. Do people now spend more on items they couldn’t before?
Compare asset levels such as livestock holdings or the amount of land households are able to cultivate.
What impact did the cash have on the wider economy?
Comparing the size of the total cash transfer with overall trade flows will give you some idea as to whether the cash transfer has caused or contributed to inflation. This is easily measurable for large cash transfer programmes than for small CBPs.
The important things to monitor in CfW programmes are the casual labour rate of local enterprises and whether they are able to take on enough workers. If the CfW wage rate is found to be much higher than the prevailing market rate, it should be adjusted to avoid an adverse effect on local business.
Is corruption a problem?
Monitoring how people spent the cash can reveal the presence and extent of corruption (for example, if cash is being given to local leaders in charge of recipient lists). This may be a reflection of corruption which has its roots in the beneficiaries selection process. Therefore, it may be necessary to investigate further (especially the vulnerability levels of the beneficiaries involved in this type of corruption). Elsewhere in the globe, in one case where this happened, an independent organization was then made responsible for beneficiaries registration.
Investigate re-distribution of aid (cash). Ask questions like who is involved? Why? etc, Depending on context (culture, customs and beliefs, societal dynamics and ethics), again this may be a reflection of poor targeting or of corruption.
36
COORDINATION
“The time to compete on your own is over: the winners of today are team players with strong
relationships built on trust.” Thomas Bernet
Coordination promotes the harmonization and integration of activities, responsibilities, and sharing
of best practices by organisations with the same mandate to ensure that the resources of
organizations are used most effectively and efficiently in pursuit of specified objectives. In this case
coordination is inter-agency, meaning that organisations will be working together. However,
coordination can be taken further to include government
ministries, local community based organisations (CBO),
community leadership structures and also with the
beneficiaries. In relation to CTP, coordination refers to both
technical coordination (how to deliver cash, harmonizing
approaches) and more strategic or operational coordination
(results and impacts, or the extent to which needs are met,
identification of gaps, duplications, etc). Inter-agency coordination is good, however, field based
coordination is also crucial. Through coordination structures, especially those which involve key
stakeholders of a programme at grassroots level, transparency and accountability during
implementation is greatly enhanced. IRC in Afghanistan developed such a community based steering
committee which coordinated CfW activities in the field. This assisted in reviewing implementation
progress, handling of queries and also assisted in advocacy and lobbying at district levels for CTPs11.
Moreover, during implementation, various organisations (including the ERM consortium members)
have developed coordination mechanisms which have seen the smooth implementation of programs
in the field as humanitarian players compliment each other’s efforts, thus avoiding issues of double
dipping (where beneficiaries (in the same area) tend to benefit from the same intervention with the
same objective sometimes selected under similar criteria by different organisations).
Generally, in order for organisations to be part of a coordinated process, the Cash and Voucher
Working Group (CVWG) encourages that any cash transfer project needs to be coordinated with
other forms of assistance (including by other aid agencies), and consideration of how cash will relate
to other planned assistance. For instance, if food aid is going to be provided to the same recipients,
this might change the objectives of a cash programme as it is less likely that the cash will be spent on
food. It is also important to assess government views on cash transfers, whether and how cash fits
with government policies and indeed whether the government will allow cash transfers to take
place.
11
In all project sites, IRC worked to form coordination mechanisms at grassroots level, i.e. in the field to encourage the participation of local leadership in the whole process of the food assistance programme implementation. This way, all stakeholders were always on the loop on the progress of the implementation process as reports and issues arising in the field were always discussed in periodic meetings. Thus, there was no room for speculation or suspicion by the stakeholders on the issues around programme implementation. Moreover, problems coming out in the field during the implementation phase could be detected early. To oversee this field based coordination platform, a steering committee was selected in each location.
Coordination facilitates
cross pollination of ideas
and promotes sharing of
lessons learnt.
37
On a different note, coordinating cash-based responses can be problematic because cash cuts across
sectors and programmes and can have multiple objectives. This makes it difficult to fit cash neatly
within existing coordination structures such as clusters. One of the options available is forming a
standalone cluster to deal with CTPs. While this would seem to undermine the view that cash
transfers are a tool and not a sector, these specific bodies appear to have been very useful in
improving coordination on key issues like transfer systems and amounts.
Coming back to the issue of coordination in the designing process, the CTP community of practice
should consider coordinating on a number of issues. Wage levels ( in case of CfW programmes) and
transfer amounts should be coordinated to prevent inequities between project
areas or between different agency projects, though differences in agency
objectives will often lead to different grant amounts. Differences between
payment levels for Cash for Work projects and livelihood grants have been a
problem in recent disasters. Coordination is also called for between agencies
to avoid one agency insisting on conditional transfers where another is
providing unconditional transfers to respond to the same problem. Cash and
in-kind projects should be coordinated to ensure complementarities and to
prevent cash being provided for items that people are also receiving in-kind.
International aid agencies also need to coordinate cash-based responses with
governments, particularly where the authorities are implementing their own cash programmes.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Cash and in-kind projects
should be coordinated to
ensure complementarities
and to prevent cash being
provided for items that
people are also receiving
in-kind.
38
SECTION 2 -LEARNING FROM OTHERS :- CASE STUDIES FROM
THE AFGHANISTAN ‘PACE SETTERS’
“Learn from others what you need to learn.”
Humanitarian agencies and recent cash transfer experiences in Afghanistan
The recent focus on cash transfer programming in the humanitarian world has motivated some
agencies in Afghanistan to examine how cash fits into their own policies and strategies. Several
agencies have not only implemented pilots and occasionally larger-scale projects, but have now also
published guidelines and handbooks on the use of cash transfers in emergencies. In this booklet, we
will present to you five case studies from the organisations which documented their CTP innovative
approaches.
Where do Afghanistan agencies stand?
Detailed case stories on how CTPs were used to respond to community needs are presented
later in this chapter. Below are summaries of how some of the organisations have been
using cash based responses in addressing the needs.
International Rescue Committee: - IRC has been using cash as a tool in implementing food
assistance programmes in Afghanistan. This organisation used a food voucher programme with
funds channelled from WFP to address basic food needs to drought affected communities in rural
Afghanistan.
Medair: - Medair implemented a CfW programme in Afghanistan with a dual motive of providing
food assistance to the vulnerable communities as well as re-habilitating community asserts,
especially opening road networks which enhanced communities’ movements to the markets and to
access basic services such as health and education facilities. Medair managed to document
interesting beneficiaries’ targeting and selection processes. The facts of how Medair coordinated
with other agencies to come up with CfW daily wage rates are something of interest.
Solidarités International: - SI implemented a CfW programme in response to the, 2012 flush floods
in Afghanistan. SI’s case study is a testimony that CBPs are efficient in delivering the much needed
aid to the neediest population after an emergency. There is evidence of market sensitiveness during
programme designs immediately after disasters. Local markets were revived as a result of SI’s cash
based responses.
39
Norwegian Refugee Council: - NRC’s work has proved that cash for work can be used not only in Food aid programmes but also in Shelter, WASH, protection and in other sectors. This is reflected by the NRC case study
which has documented successes in the above sectors. Most interestingly, but not undermining the integration of CBP and other sectors, is their cash for shelter programme which is summarised
in this case study. Below we present you the detailed case studies.MEDAIR
Project Title : Food assistance (CFW) for vulnerable communities in Markazi Behsud
District, Wardak Province, Afghanistan
Project : Five months Project (1st September 2012 – 31st January 2013)
Background
Cash for Work (CfW) project was implemented by Medair in Wardak province in central highland provinces of Afghanistan. The area has seen a slow deterioration of livelihoods over recent decades. Food insecurity in this region has been exacerbated by recurring droughts that have resulted in increasing food gaps. Observations made by Medair in Bamyan and Wardak provinces, through a risk assessment in 2012 showed that a number of districts were severely affected by drought. A trend of cyclic droughts causing a decrease in harvests and in livestock herds, increased debts at household level, and also migration of family members and whole families to work in neighbouring cities or countries . Damaging copying mechanisms have put pressure on natural resources such as wood, food, livestock and water. From this background, Medair responded with a food assistance project through Cash Based Programming- the Cash for Work programme (CfW).
Project Goal and Outputs The goal Medair’s food assistance project was to reduce the household hunger gap through a Cash Based Programme (CBP) in sixteen (16) communities in Markazi Bihsud communities, with an objective of promoting food security of the affected groups. The project responded to the slow onset crisis through Cash for Work (CfW). It targeted vulnerable labour endowed households that had been affected severely by drought. Apart from addressing the food needs of the communities, the secondary aim of the cash-for-work scheme was to reduce the risk of both flash floods and droughts to local communities. This was achieved through the construction of land-based mitigation structures, such as terraces and soil bunds.
Beneficiary selection: - Coordination with community based structures to promote transparency
Communities were consulted throughout the implementation of this project. They were involved
even during the beneficiaries selection process. Local community based leadership structures were
included in this process. Community Development Committees (CDCs) and district leaders were
consulted in a group meeting to highlight and discuss problems in the area. During the meetings, the
Cash for Work (CfW) can be
used as a tool to address
immediate pressing needs as
well as in rehabilitating or
creating community asserts.
40
community leaders emphasised to the agency, the impact that drought has had in the district. The
outcome of the meetings helped to open access of Medair to the affected districts and in identifying
the geographical areas that had been seriously affected by drought. CDCs were also consulted for
the selection of vulnerable households (VHHs).
Overall, beneficiaries were selected in coordination with Community Development Committees
(CDC) and local leaders, such as Mullahs (local religious leaders) and teachers. A criteria list for
beneficiary selection was given to each CDC, a summary is presented below
Using the above criteria, each CDC was asked to create a list of names of heads of HHs who have
been most affected by the drought. These household heads were divided into those that could work
under the CfW activities and those, more vulnerable HHs, who did not have an able-bodied male12 to
provide for the HH. The latter category was put on direct cash grants.
Media’s CFW Beneficiary Selection criteria
Due to the physical and manual nature of the CfW activities, male able bodied people (aged
over 16), were identified by CDCs to participate in CFW activities,
Community Development Committees (CDCs) were given a target number of beneficiaries
per CDC, which they often exceeded, and during beneficiary verification it became clear that
more eligible beneficiaries were listed than the targeted number, and they were included in
the selection (which was possible while remaining within the budget).
Cash for work activities were for a total of 30 days- beneficiaries were requested to work for
a maximum of 6 hours per day.
During the registration process, each beneficiary was given an identification (ID) card by
Medair senior staff, which they were required to produce each day before work. A register
was marked against the name of each participant for each day of work.
12
Due to cultural constraints, women are not allowed to participate in public works which are outside their houses,
Drought-affected families who had lost at least 50 ser of wheat (both rain fed and irrigated) of their 2011 harvest ,
Drought-affected families having lost at least 50 ser of wheat (both rain fed and irrigated) of their 2012 harvest,
Owning a maximum of 3 jerib of land, and if landless working on the land of other people,
A family with a maximum of 25 animals (cows, sheep and goat)
Extremely vulnerable families (families with handicapped members, female headed households ) suffering from economic problems( community based criteria were used in the identification)
41
CfW supervisors were selected by the CDCs in consultation with Medair Staff.
Direct Cash grant: - Vulnerable Household Beneficiary Selection
Most of the Vulnerable Households(VHHs) which were selected were those headed by
women, the elderly and/or disabled, i.e. HHs without someone able to work in the CfW
activities and therefore unable to support their families financially. CDCs were asked to
select the VHHs, according to the criteria given to them (as above).
To ensure that payments were made to the most vulnerable, all the selected HHs were
visited by senior Medair staff. A Vulnerable Household Questionnaire was the primary tool
used to for this verification process. This was supplemented by additional questions and
observations of physical assets and household’s leaving standard,
Selection of the CfW activities: - Beneficiaries involvement is crucial
There was regular dialogue with CDCs and CfW teams to decide where best to locate the flood and
drought risk reduction structures. There were also some adjustments of targets for structures in
each CDC to represent the differing geophysical conditions. For example, in villages that were more
steep and rocky, check dams and catch dams were more appropriate than contour trenches and
bunds. These targets were revised in consultation with the communities and the Medair field
engineer and project manager.
CFW beneficiaries were able to take the initiative and proposed the building of terraces in addition
to the other structures which were approved in the proposal. During this project, focus groups were
also conducted with 9 CDCs to begin the process of exploring future interventions in the area
associated with water management and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), with the aim of
implementing a longer project that would continue to build the capacities of communities to reduce
their risk to future hazards.
Based on the local topographical and geological terrain (soil depth, slope, amount of stones
available, U-shaped or V-shaped valley etc.), appropriate structures were suggested. Medair field
foremen carried out visits to all sites to discuss with communities what would be the most
appropriate structures for their context and the best location to build them. From this information
targets were set to construct the following types of mitigation structures: contour trenches, catch
dams, check dams and bunds. These were intended to reduce water run-off and soil erosion while
increasing ground infiltration, providing more water for agriculture. The following types and number
of land-based mitigation structures were constructed:
Bunds 233
Check Dams 1,301
Catch Dams 269
Contour Trenches (metres) 6,629
Terraces (square metres) 4,212
42
Below is a map of the Locations of all the communities structures which were built or rehabilitated
by Medair under the CfW projects.
Cash for Work Payments: - Why Cash for work?
The beneficiaries of the CfW project received a direct cash payment in order to allow
freedom flexibility of beneficiaries on how they would decide to spend the money. Each CfW
beneficiary was paid AFA 25013 per day, this was AFA 50 less than the average daily waged
labour rate. A rate lower than the market rate was deliberately chosen for the following
reasons:
- A lower rate is less likely to spoil the local economy. Paying the average market rate
or higher, could result in local businesses or farmers having to pay a higher rate for
casual labour,
13
As of 06 June 2013, USD1 = AFN 55
Figure 6: Locations of Cash for work activities in Medair’s operational zones (Google Map)
43
- by paying below the market rate, it is implicitly promoting self targeting- where it is
more likely to target people who really need assistance, i.e. those who participate in
the CfW project are those who are not able to find other work paid at the higher
normal rates,
It was unrealistic to pay beneficiaries via mobile money because the targeted areas lacked
comprehensive mobile network coverage. Furthermore, in those villages many people do
not own a mobile phone due to the remoteness. Furthermore, this approach would require
beneficiaries to travel long distances to collect payments from the outlets which are located
in distant well established markets. There was also insufficient capacity in the local bazaars
(markets) to administer such a system, i.e. there were no mobile money redemption outlets
in those areas.
Cross-Cutting Themes
Gender: - Exploring opportunities of involving women in Cash Based Programmes
Women and children are often the first to suffer from food shortages. Vulnerable female-
headed HHs (along with other groups such as HHs headed by the elderly or disabled) were
assisted through cash grants. PDMs carried reflected that female headed households used
82% of their cash payments on food related expenses.
Due to the short nature of the project, and because CfW activities had to finish before
winter, Medair selected a male from each HH to participate in CfW, benefitting the whole
family with improved food availability and cash flow. In addition, the majority of payments
made to vulnerable households were made to female headed households
Environment
The structures built for the CfW activities were specifically chosen to have a positive impact
on the local environment. The structures were chosen because of their ability to increase
water filtration, and reduce erosion and loss of top soil. The slowed downstream impact of
run-off resulted in a reduction of flash-floods, thereby reducing damage to crops, fields,
houses, roads and bridges. The added advantage is that ground water storage through these
structures increased water availability for agricultural purposes. Moreover, the retention of
top soil will also help to return soil fertility.
Capacity Building
Medair is committed to training and supporting national staff members, with the long term
aim of building up the expertise and management skills of Afghan staff. In total 10 national
staff were recruited for this project, 7 of whom had not worked for Medair before. Training
appropriate to the positions was provided to all staff. One was training in Basic Cash Transfer
Programming with the idea of transferring the same knowledge to the other members in
Medair through internal structures.
44
Field Foremen received training in land & water management and flood & drought risk
reduction structures. With this knowledge, and with the support of the Field Engineer, the
Field Foremen were able to build the capacity of communities involved in the construction
of the structures.
Sustainability: - CfW, ‘a hands on’ training activity for the unskilled participants
The sustainability of a project increases when communities have a stake in the output and
can see the benefits. The long term impact of this project will become clearer in years to
come. However, during the Impact Survey, CfW beneficiaries were asked, ‘What they learnt
from the project and how it could be used in the future?’ In response, 59% of recipients said
that they learnt how to build the check/catch dams and other structures and 16% that they
would be able to replicate what they learnt. Furthermore, when asked ‘What they liked
about the project?’ 92% said that they most valued the structures themselves.
Apart from bunds, it was encouraging to see CfW beneficiaries build significantly more
structures than they were tasked to construct, plus the 4,212 m² of terracing. The reduced
bund construction was because the communities felt terraces would be more beneficial to
them. These two facts together indicate that the beneficiaries not only valued and could see
the benefit of the structures, but also felt a strong sense of ownership of the work they were
doing. Feedback received from the field foremen at the end of the project included, “Some
communities had replicated structures already”, adding that, “... those who are more
vulnerable to risks are more likely to build these structures”.
In this project it was possible to build the structures without the physical inputs often
associated with this type of project (i.e. cement and gabion wire); as a result CDCs will be
more likely to build more of these structures because external inputs are not required.
Challenges during the CfW implementation:
i. Physical access limited due to unexpected incidents
Snow came two weeks earlier than expected. This made travel harder in the field, resulting
in delays. In addition, some villages only became accessible on foot after the first significant
snowfall (about 3 hours walk away). The snow also meant that the team had to leave the
field one week earlier than anticipated.
For future programmes, it would be noble for programme teams to include during planning
sufficient time margin to allow the adequate completion of project activities should poor
weather combine with other disrupting circumstances.
ii. Conducting Vulnerable Household Selection
This element of the project was more time consuming than anticipated. The VHH questionnaire was
useful; however it was necessary to consider other factors when selecting the most vulnerable HHs
such as visual observation of living conditions. The following points refer to what was learned during
this process:
45
a. Physical verification of selected households to benefit under cash based programmes is
crucial if errors of inclusion and exclusion are to be minimised. Where time is a limitation to
verify all, a sample of households can be selected,
Lessons Learned
i. Cooperate with communities to select the most appropriate and correct number of tools
Tools were selected based upon experience gained from similar construction projects implemented
by Medair previously. All tools were distributed to the communities in coordination with CDC
leaders. During the final field team meeting, Medair field foremen provided valuable feedback from
the communities concerning the appropriateness, quantity and quality of the tools and system for
distributing.
Medair’s personnel prioritised as vital the procurement of quality relevant tools for use by the CfW
beneficiaries during the micro-activities. In line with this, Medair realised the importance for
programme teams to have a better understanding of the numbers of tools required for the
construction works. Furthermore, there is need to try equipment before purchasing large quantities,
if different tools of different quality are available, or the need to purchase adequate spare tools, in
anticipation of breakages, if high quality tools are not available.
ii. Gained a greater understanding of how many structures can be built in various context
For the land-rehabilitation structures, Medair recruited a Field Engineer to oversee the construction
processes, such as advising, in cooperation with CDCs, the location and appropriateness of
structures as well as overseeing their construction. The field engineer also calculated the average
number of days of work to build each structure. Results varied between different sites because, for
example, catch dams varied in size, or men had to walk further to collect stones and rocks. However,
by calculating the average number of man days per structure across all sites, it was possible to
calculate the average number of ‘man days’ it took to build each structure. On average a total of
thirty (30) days were needed to complete the tasks (Table 5 below). This data will help in future
projects when similar projections are required.
Table 5:- Number of days (on average) required to build land-based mitigation structures
Contour
Trench
(m)
Catch
Dam
(No.)
Check
Dam
(No.)
Bund
(No.)
Terrace (m²)
Mean 0.4 22.7 7.3 2.6 0.3
46
INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE
Sharing voucher experiences from the Field. The Food voucher Programme to Drought Affected
Households Programme in Badghis Province of Afghanistan,
Objective of the programme: To ensure that vulnerable drought-affected households in Badghis
Province had access to adequate food.
Background During the period January to December 2012, the International Rescue Committee (IRC)
implemented a food voucher programme in Badghis Province (the northern part of Afghanistan) in
partnership with World Food Programme of the United Nations (WFP). The project entitled ‘Assisting
Drought –Affected Households in Badghis Province’ with a total budget of AFN 57,505,01314 was
aimed at assisting drought affected communities. Operating under a Results Based Approach (RBA)
to achieve the main objective of ensuring that vulnerable drought affected households in Badghis
Province (Qala-e-Naw City, Qala-e-Naw District ) ,have access to adequate food to uphold their
survival while mitigating negative coping mechanisms, IRC used CBP as a tool. A total of 3,000
vulnerable households (1,000 female-headed; 2,000 male-headed) were supported in meeting their
basic monthly food needs for 12 months.
Rationale of the programme: - What influenced the decisions for cash transfer This food assistance programme to drought affected households was implemented after a joint food
security assessment which was carried by IRC and WFP. The data for the food security situation was
sampled from 400 households, this was done as a rapid assessment in order to minimise time during
the analysis.
Although no independent market analysis was carried out by either WFP or IRC to access the market
situation in the targeted districts of Badghis Province, preliminary food security assessments
recognized that the local markets had sufficient food to meet the needs of the communities, and
that cash based programme was appropriate. After considering a variety of factors, WFP and IRC
realised that a commodities (food) voucher was appropriate in meeting the intended objective of
food assistance, whilst stimulating the markets as well Chief on these factors was the objective of
providing food aid assistance to beneficiaries and therefore, a commodities voucher was the best
option to direct beneficiaries into using the cash for the intended objective.
14
1 USD = AFN 55,
47
Designing of Cash transfer programme in Afghanistan: - Taking attention on efficient and effective
programming in insecure environments
The objective of this WFP funded food assistance programme was to meet basic food needs of
drought affected communities. Therefore, IRC designed a commodities (food) voucher programme
to implement as a tool to achieve the desired outcome of providing food commodities required for
survival by the beneficiaries in targeted locations. In line with this objective, WFP and IRC designed a
food voucher worthy 1250 AFN per household per month for twelve months. The calculations for
this amount were arrived at after WFP and IRC’s market assessments, especially on what constituted
the food basket (for a good diet) of the communities in Badghis. During the designing process, IRC
made use of the sphere and CaLP guidelines for cash and voucher programming.
Promoting Beneficiaries Participation and enhancing Accountability and Transparency Stakeholders and Community Orientations:- IRC made the participation of key stakeholders integral during the implementation of their voucher programme. Both beneficiaries and other key stakeholders within the local communities were made aware of the aims and objectives of the drought response programme. Orientations on the project’s objectives, timelines, targeted populations, the value of the voucher, payment modalities , the selected traders who were partnering with them and the duration of the whole programme were clearly stated from the onset ( during entry into the communities). Details of some of the orientations held are below: Beneficiary and Vendor (Traders) Orientation:
Vendors and beneficiary head of households received an introductory training from IRC
project staff on their roles; responsibilities and the nature of the benefits during the project
start-up period,
A special orientation for vendors included a training on the descriptions of their roles and
responsibilities, namely to provide food items, how to exchange the true market value of the
voucher and to record commodity data on the reverse of the voucher,
Beneficiary household heads were informed of their entitlements under the project, in
particular their freedom to choose the vendors where they would redeem the vouchers in
exchange for food items (within the allowed range and not to include non-food items).
TARGETING: - Making sure Aid goes to the deserving population- minimizing inclusion and exclusion errors Beneficiary Selection Criterion
Participatory Beneficiary Identification/Selection/Registration – Community Participation in the targeting and selection process In order to promote transparency, beneficiaries’ participation and accountability, IRC staff worked closely with the Shuras (community elders), Community Development Committees (CDCs), religious
48
leaders (Murahs) and beneficiaries representatives. The objectives of the programme were clearly narrated to the representatives of these groups. Furthermore, the targeting criterion was jointly set up by IRC staff and the key stakeholders in the local areas, who then later provided lists of beneficiaries for the drought response from their areas. The Selection criteria Beneficiary households were selected according to vulnerability with priority given to the disabled, widows, the elderly, orphans and large families with small incomes as well as those extremely affected by the drought- families that had borne the brunt of the drought, for example families who had lost all their livestock. Within these targeted groups, there were also thirty two (32) Internally Displaced People (IDPs) households. After receiving the beneficiaries list, IRC staff together with a beneficiary’s selection team verified the eligibility of the selected households. The community verification committee consisted of representatives of local authorities, village elders, community representatives, as well as WFP and IRC staff. After verification, beneficiary heads of households were issued with “beneficiary Identification (ID) cards (ration cards) which they would use when collecting the vouchers. All in all, for this drought response programme, IRC selected three thousand households (2,000 male headed, 1,000 female headed) from different districts in Badghis. Gender mainstreaming and women’s involvement in the CTPs IRC made efforts to involve women as much as possible in the targeting and selection of the
beneficiaries. Communities were made aware that they should deliberately target women. To
reinforce this message, female IRC staffs were involved in beneficiary selection including in the
verification of households. Moreover, during periodic progress and process monitoring, the IRC team
took time to observe women’s participation and involvement in the project (it is envisaged that in
some locations in Afghanistan women don’t have freedom to spend to money). Thus, during periodic
monitoring of the project, focus was on taking lessons on the impact of targeting women in this food
assistance programme. Anecdotal information on widows and on women-headed households
receiving assistance reviewed that these women would make decisions on when to redeem the
vouchers- showing aspects of women empowerment.
Table 6 : Beneficiaries breakdown for IRC
IRC Household selection statistics ( Badghis Province)
No. of names
received as initial list
No. of houses
verified
No. of HHs
selected
No. of ration
cards issued
No. of beneficiary
household heads
by gender
Male HHs
Female
HHs
4,441 4,441 3,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
49
Total Aid distributed:
During the implementation period, IRC issued a voucher with a monthly value of AFN1250 (USD 22) to 3000 households for nine months. The vouchers which were distributed during the whole project period had a total value of 33,750,000 AFN. A condition was attached on the vouchers- it was supposed to be redeemed for pre-meditated food items.
Secure Payments: - Ensuring safe delivery of aid and promoting beneficiaries’ safety
Ensuring Secure Payment Modalities: - Selection of the Payment Modalities IRC’s traders’ selection criteria
To deliver aid to the intended beneficiaries, IRC selected twelve (12) vendors to act as redemption
points for food items. The vendors would then redeem the vouchers for cash from IRC. Some of the
factors which IRC considered in the selection of the traders were the following:
accessibility of the shop by the beneficiaries- this included distance, customer and public
relations,
Business capacity- ability to provide the required items in good quality and in the intended
quantities at reasonable prices,
A memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed between IRC and the traders. Either part was supposed to follow the terms of reference in that MoU.
Delivering the aid to the beneficiaries There is a lot of fear associated with Cash Based Programmes (CBPs) especially issues to do with corruption, or fraud and other leakages. To this end, IRC carefully designed and implemented a payment modality which could not allow leakages. IRC chose a commodities voucher as the payment modality which could be used in delivering Aid to the beneficiaries of this food aid programme. Even this, is also prone to fraud and corruption. Therefore, in order to avoid the forging of the vouchers by fraudsters, a colour coding of the vouchers and water marks, were used on the vouchers. Moreover, the beneficiaries of this programme were issued with beneficiaries’ ID cards which they would produce upfront (for identification) when redeeming the vouchers at the selected traders’ outlets. On receiving the vouchers from the IRC field staff, the beneficiaries thumb printed on the tracking sheets to ensure that each household received their one allotted voucher per month. Monitoring and Evaluations: - Post Distributions and Monitoring During the whole process of implementation, the IRC carefully monitored the program. Field staff made follow up visits directly to beneficiaries and vendors on a regular basis, and closely tracked the number of vouchers distributed, the number of vouchers redeemed, and also taking note of the vouchers which were submitted from vendors to the IRC for payment- to detect any issues around submission of fake vouchers. A summary of the crucial monitoring information which was collected by IRC is below:
key information collected as part of regular monitoring (usage of cash by households),
impact on markets,
50
change in diets,
gender relations, etc Coordination Mechanisms
Field based Steering Committees: - Ensuring Stakeholders’ participation throughout the Programme Cycle In all project sites, IRC worked to form coordination mechanisms at grassroots level, i.e. in the field
to encourage the participation of local leadership in the whole process of the food assistance
programme implementation. This way, all stakeholders were always on the loop about the progress
of the implementation process as reports and issues arising in the field were always shared and
discussed in periodic meetings. Thus, there was no room for speculation or suspicion by the
stakeholders on the issues around programme implementation. Moreover, problems coming out in
the field during the implementation phase could be detected early. To oversee this field based
coordination platform, a steering committee was selected in each location. This was also a platform
to share lessons and to discuss issues coming out in the field. A brief discussion on the duties of this
steering committee is below:
Steering Committee – A steering committee was formed to serve as a forum for information sharing and project monitoring. The committee was composed of representatives of the Governor, Afghanistan National Disaster Management Authority (ANDMA), the Provincial Council and the Department of Women’s Affairs. The steering committee was chaired by the IRC. Its main role was “to ensure transparency and effectiveness during project implementation.” Other responsibilities included the following:
attend scheduled or ad-hoc meetings as convened by the IRC;
support the participation of registered beneficiary household heads in the program;
support oversight of the shops accepting the vouchers;
ensure coordination among the project stakeholders;
work together to solve challenges and obstacles; and
Engage in consultations for ensuring effectiveness of the program.
Advocacy, Lobbying and Influencing: - what is being done to promote the implementation of Cash
Based Responses at Scale in Afghanistan
During community meetings beneficiaries and none beneficiaries of this programme were made
aware of the cash transfer modalities. Similarly, during the periodic meetings with stakeholders in
the field, such as government ministries and representatives of other Non Governmental
Organisations (NGOs), cash transfer programmes were marketed. The topic which was given much
focus was on the issues of gender mainstreaming and women’s involvement in food aid programmes
51
and especially in CTPs. Lessons learnt during the field discussions by IRC revealed that there is a need
for an intensified participation by organisations in the inter-agency coordination meetings which is
lacking at field level. IRC feels that more discussions around Cash Transfer Programming should be
promoted at field level and that inter-agency sharing of reports and findings, including guidelines
should be promoted.
Preliminary Impact
i. Beneficiaries of this food assistance ( commodities voucher programme ), expressed interest in this CTP, modality. Most of them were happy on the targeting and selection criteria which were used to select the recipients of the aid,
ii. The objective of assisting beneficiaries with monthly allocations of food was met- and the beneficiaries shared that they were happy to redeem the vouchers at the selected outlets.
iii. In the baseline, IRC envisaged that some households were giving in young girls into marriage as a copying strategy to bring food on the table. However, during programme monitoring, it was hard to measure the “amount of girls who would not have been sold into marriage” because it is a counter-factual question that wasn’t practically built into the baseline/end line surveys. What IRC is believes is that the this copying mechanism could have not been used- since families had enough food on their tables due to this food assistance programme,
Lessons learnt
i. For smooth implementation and coordination of activities in the field it is important to
involve key stakeholders and local communities to participate throughout the
implementation phase. Coordination between Agencies (in the field) in sharing lessons
learnt is crucial. There was also strong coordination between key actors in Badghis and
between Badghis and Kabul. Out puts (guidelines etc) from these coordination meetings
assisted in giving support to the implementation team.
ii. Graduated projects such as this provide immediate life-saving support, rather than feed into
aid dependency, equip vulnerable households/individuals with skills and materials/tools
linked to market needs,
Contact Person: -
Nigel Jenkins, IRC-Afghanistan Country Director (c/o):- [email protected]
52
NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL
Project title(s) : Emergency Responses for conflict and natural
disaster-affected populations in Afghanistan
Aims and Objectives : Improved housing for displaced populations and
returnees in Afghanistan “Community Driven Cash for Shelter Programme”; Commodity Vouchers in
Youth Education Program (YEP) centres in Herat
Duration of the programme : One Year
Programme Sectors : Shelter, Vouchers, Non Food Items (WASH)
Location of the programme
a. ER -Faryab, Hirat, Kabul, Kunduz, Laghman, Nangarhar, Sari Pul and Parwan;
b. Shelter - Hirat, Kabul, Kunduz, Laghman, Nangarhar and Parwan;
c. Vouchers in YEP – Herat (pilot project)
Strategic Objectives 2011-13
NRC will improve ability to operate and increase access for the most vulnerable groups,
ensuring timely response to new and ongoing crisis ,
advocating to respect and promote humanitarian principles and actions;
Beneficiaries Selection
For its cash transfer programmes, NRC targeted the Internally Displaced Populations (IDPs) and
returnees. It also targeted the conflict and natural disaster affected populations for its emergency
programmes. In selecting the actual target areas as well as the benefiting households, NRC used the
criteria which are below:-
Criteria for defining NRC’s Target Groups:
NRC prioritised the needs of vulnerable groups or individuals such as women and children, the elderly, disabled, minorities and others, Extremely Vulnerable Individuals (EVI) within the host communities i.e., communities hosting conflict related IDPs,
The population affected by the crisis has less than 50% of basic household items required according to the number of people being supported by that household,
NRC is consistent in the beneficiary groups, such as female headed households, elderly headed household, child headed households, physically disabled, chronically ill, Gender Based Violence survivors, large families and very low income.
53
The majority of NRC’s operations are focused on conflict induced displaced populations ,
NRC will support natural disaster induced displaced populations,
NRC will target host communities affected by displacement where vulnerability criteria is met and for reasons such as: the prevention of displacement,
NRC field staff primarily checks target beneficiary documentation to verify if s/he is a refugee or returnee by asking for a Voluntary Return Form (VRF) or a Forced Return Form (FRF) issued by UNHCR, IOM or any other government or non-governmental agency or host country.
National Afghanistan Identification (Tazkera) will be matched with the VRF or FRF form details, and land ownership documents will be requested (usually all the time shelter projects are being planned)
For further detailed information on NRC’s beneficiaries selection criteria refer to the attached PDF
document.
NRC selection criteria 2013
According to the NRC principles, all assistance should be coordinated with relevant agencies (OCHA, FAO, WFP, IOM, Local Authorities, and NGOS),
Designing of Cash Based Responses: - The NRC Approach
At NRC response analysis is key in coming up with effective and efficient programmes. Response
analysis involves analysing the likely impact of alternative
responses, such as in-kind aid, cash and vouchers, and
deciding on the type of intervention to be pursued in a given
context. However, deciding whether to choose cash or
provide in-kind assistance is only one step in the response
analysis process, which must examine a broad range of
factors. One assessment which is crucial in informing
responses is the needs assessments which must explicitly
take into account markets and socio-economic factors. From
this and other assessments, response options must be designed to meet the needs of the
community and households in a way which works with or supports the functioning of the local
markets.
In programme designs, NRC considers aspects to do with gender and protection concerns and
household preferences. This information is generated from analysis of data collected during rapid or
detailed market assessments or through an HEA or EMMA studies. Since Afghanistan is prone to
many disasters and hazards, NRC believes that effective and efficient systems in delivering aid
should be employed as response options. This organisation believes that the best way to respond to
emergencies is through the best response option which is informed by assessments. In most of its
NRC has been
implementing Shelter,
WASH and EFSL
programmes using
Cash Transfer as a
Tool.
54
programmes (Shelter, Food, Vocational training, and Water Health and Sanitation) in Afghanistan,
NRC has been implementing programmes through cash based responses.
In the designing of its CBPs, NRC noted, through market assessments that Afghanistan market is an
integrated market system with connections from Pakistan, Tajikistan and Iran. Other goods are from
the Asian region with some items coming in from China, and Dubai. Therefore, both basic food items
and Non Food items are always available in Afghanistan markets including in markets which are in
the rural areas.
In line with the above, an assessment which was carried out by the NRC team reflected that most of
the materials needed to support its integrated programmes were available in the markets. For
example, NRC responds to the Water Sanitation and Health (WASH) needs of communities through
CBPs as the cash for shelter support always includes money for latrine construction. Furthermore,
for its Cash for Shelter programmes, assessment reflected that building materials such as cement,
timber; door and window frames are accessible in the local markets.
For emergency programmes which address immediate needs of beneficiaries, NRC also provides
vulnerable households with fuel through CBPs. In cases where cash is distributed for fuel, the timing
was designed to coincide with winter and the market assessments showed that local markets of
specific areas were well stocked with a range of products such as wood, kerosene and liquid gas.
Therefore, if a CBP was to be designed beneficiaries could choose from a range of energy options.
In order to be in line with the global minimum standards in implementing and managing CBPs, NRC
uses a number of internal and external guidelines, some of which are listed below;
CTP Guidelines for Finance staff,
Cash for Work Guidelines by Mercy Corps,
Oxfam GB Cash Transfers Guidelines in Emergences,
Action Contre- le- Faim (ACF) CTP Guidelines
International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) CTP Guidelines
Calculating the Payments
Cash for work values was based on the casual labour market which ranges between USD 7- USD 8
per day and varies by seasons. The CfW amounts are usually lower than the labour rates prevailing
at the time of the works. . The objective for NRC is to provide short-term income and create a
positive community impact through the project. Specific aim is to assist in overcoming the shock of
an event on households by providing them with equivalent of one month's minimum wage in
Afghanistan. In an event the following may have occurred:
Loss of assets
Temporary food insecurity
55
Disruption of labour opportunities and/or livelihoods
Inability to cover health, clothing, transport, shelter, education or other costs
Recovery from the shock also presents an opportunity to assist households to reduce debt burdens
and purchase inputs to improve livelihood options. NRC ensures that all its cash interventions can be
used where markets exist, where households use the markets for their needs, and where the
intended purchases are available at a non-inflated cost and ad-hoc price increases. The amount paid,
the number of beneficiaries and the number of days worked varies depending upon:
the required outcome
the specific vulnerabilities and opportunities of households
the impact of the event the CFW is designed to overcome
On average the amount paid for CFW is expected to be $150 per HH representing:
$130 (one month's average wage for daily labour - 350AF per day for 20 days)
$20 to assist in the paying down of debt or purchase of livelihood inputs and including based on NRC knowledge of HH expenditure patterns from PDM.
$60 expenditure on food in line with average food-basket requirements for a family of six
$30 expenditure on health and education
$40 expenditure of non-food items (not shelter)
Payments are applied in the context of community acceptance and if access and security are
sufficient and acceptable. The NRC field team engages with Community Development Councils
(CDCs) to create useful outcomes in terms of required community improvements and projects
(roads, dams, irrigation, retaining walls, water intakes, and flood deviation). There is small social
contract side to guarantee that such community assets shall be properly executed and supervised
with adequate tools and payment by result.
For Calculations of Unconditional Cash Transfers, similarly objectives, aim and criteria apply in the
case of UCT as in CFW. In case of distribution of an NFI Kit, and where appropriate and justified, an
UCT of $110 is proposed based on an additional amounts to cover one month's expenditure on food
($60), health and education ($30) and to provide $20 for the debt repaying or purchase of livelihood
inputs. In cases where an NFI Kit is not distributed an UCT of $210 is proposed based on amounts to
cover one month's expenditure on food ($60), health and education ($30), to provide $20 for the
debt repayment or purchase of livelihood inputs, and with $100 for the replacement of lost assets.
56
Afghanistan Food Basket being used by NRC to determine payment amounts
Food Basket Calculations based on WFP food basket of 2,100 Kcal per person for one monthItem Kg Price AFN/ Kg Total AFN Source $ €
Wheat Flour 7.20 30.80 221.76 VAM Market Price Bulletin February 2013 4.11 3.16
Oil 4.50 83.00 373.50 VAM Market Price Bulletin February 2013 6.92 5.32
Pulses 10.80 75.00 810.00 Local market prices as of May 2013 15.00 11.54
Sugar 2.70 50.00 135.00 Local market prices as of May 2013 2.50 1.92
Salt 2.70 60.00 162.00 Local market prices as of May 2013 3.00 2.31
Rice 15.00 78.00 1,170.00 VAM Market Price Bulletin February 2013 21.67 16.67
Tea 1.00 200.00 200.00 Local market prices as of May 2013 3.70 2.85
Total 56.89 43.76
For its shelter programmes, the value of the cash payment per household was calculated based on
the amount required to purchase material to construct a basic shelter on temporary or permanent
basis. In addition to considering materials such as cement, bricks, doors & window frames and
roofing material the amount also included skilled labour costs. To ensure compliance, the money for
permanent shelter was distributed over four instalments; at foundation, super-structure, fittings and
roofing levels. Unconditional cash transfers were decided based on the Afghan food basket which
was estimated at between USD 100 and USD 140 per month. Households which benefited under this
scheme received a monthly allocation of USD120/month for four months. This cash was meant to
support the household to recover during the early days of an emergency.
Thinking around CTP staffing issues during the design Phase: - who does what, when, where,
NRC has 5 core competencies: Shelter, Protection, Education, ICLA and Emergency all headed by
International Program Managers who works with a national project coordinator then project
officers, team leaders and field officers. On CTP issues these core competencies teams are
technically supported by a Cash Expert who is housed in the Emergency department. NRC takes CTP
as the first line of response and is being implemented in its shelter, emergency and education
programs. To this end, NRC has a CTP Expert who is an international staff. The expert is also available
to other agencies and the wider community of practice for capacity building. For preparedness, NRC
has eight (8) staff trained on both Basic and Advanced CTP. NRC is in the process of establishing a
stand-alone Monitoring and Evaluation department.
57
NRC Program Team typical organogram
Gender Mainstreaming: - promoting women’s involvement right from the designing phase
To ensure that issues of gender equity were considered during programme design and
implementation, NRC hired a gender specialist to do a gender assessment in the areas in which it
operates. Results from this assessment informed this organisation to ensure gender mainstreaming
across all the projects including CTP. In its selection of beneficiaries for the various programmes,
women headed households were given first priority. However, NRC noted that women involvement
remains a challenge in the country because of cultural and religious barriers. Ways to promote
meaningful and full involvement of women in programmes is still an area which NRC is trying to
explore. Despite the religious and cultural constraints, anecdotal evidence shows that women are
being involved in decision making when spending the money.
How was cash delivered and what process was followed to choose and implement?
In choosing a payment mechanism, NRC carries out risk and security assessments, consults with
community leaders, beneficiaries, financial institutions such as banks, hawalas and mobile phone
companies. It then chooses the best option to use in beneficiaries payments after considering the
security concerns for staff and beneficiaries, beneficiary literacy levels, and the cost efficiency of the
delivery mechanisms among other factors.
Currently, NRC is using direct cash distributions and is also piloting the use of mobile phones with
Roshan mobile phone company and commodity vouchers working with WFP. In the past, direct cash
distribution has been the traditional way that NRC has
been using. This was based on the fact that the
interventions being implemented compelled NRC staff to
visit communities for monitoring and technical support
so it was easy to distribute the cash during those
operations.
However, NRC notes that this method is risky and will
remain so as long as security situation in the country continues to deteriorate. In 2013 NRC
therefore decided to experiment with secure payments. This compelled the organisation to pilot the
Program Manager
Project Coordinator
Monitoring and Evaluation
Officer
Project Logistics Officer
Project Team Leader
Community Mobilization
Officer Project Officers
Program Assistant
In 2013, NRC partnered with
ROSHAN Mobile Network
Company to pilot a Mobile
Money Payment System in
Rural Afghanistan.
58
use of mobile phones (M-Paisa) in making payments as well as the vouchers in its shelter and
education projects respectively. Currently (in 2013) NRC has a legal contract with Roshan Mobile
Phone Company for the piloting of Mobile Money (M-Paisa) payments for its cash based
programmes15.
Direct cash payments are still being used by NRC for its programmes. To ensure secure payments
under this system, NRC involves both the Finance and programme teams in making the payments.
Programme team (consolidates beneficiary lists); Finance (requests and processes the finances and
does the payment); Logistics (arranges for movement of the money). For its direct cash payments,
NRC developed some guidelines to follow which are attached here for your reference.
Feedback from PDMs
Post Distribution and Monitoring results from a few pilot programmes in previous years revealed
that most of the beneficiaries were satisfied with the cash support model. Because of this feedback,
NRC has adopted the same methodology to spread within its programmes including in emergence
shelter and in WASH.
A panel study carried by NRC in December 2012 shows that 30% of the unconditional cash
distributed was used for food; 15% for payment of debt, same for health expenses and for clothing
and blankets; 8% for transport and 7% and 5% for shelter and education respectively and 5% for
other household needs. 68% still appreciates cash intervention as the modality of choice in
Afghanistan according to a recent (2013) study by a FAO16 consultant.
A preliminary study by the NRC team shows that there were a number of benefits in moving from
the direct material support to ‘community-driven’ initiative through cash distributions. Some of the
benefits include:
Due to the reduced logistical protocols which come with CBPs, projects were implemented as per schedule,
Beneficiaries were able to include their personal preferences in projects for example in the shelter project,
ADVOCACY: - Promoting the best response options in humanitarian and development programmes
15 In mobile payments, Mobile Phone Operator (MPO) ensures that beneficiary data is protected and funds are transferred on
time. They also identify agents who will pay beneficiaries.MPO Agents – does the actual payments to beneficiaries in the field
therefore there is no handling of money by the implementing agency’s staff in any way- risk is transferred to the MPO.
16 The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)
NRC SOPs for Cash Deliveries
59
Strategies followed for internal and external advocacy on CTP,
NRC is a member of many clusters17, e.g., Food Security and Agriculture (FASC), WASH, Shelter and
Protection. In periodic meetings, within these clusters, NRC shares its lessons learnt in the
implementation of CBPs. In the CBP trainings which NRC staff facilitates, private companies such as
Mobile network providers as well as government line ministries are invited to be part of
presentations which have a bearing in CTPs.
In is advocacy strategy, NRC targets the following audience; Government of Afghanistan ( its line
ministries ), Private Sector including banks & mobile phone companies, Donors and the wider
humanitarian sector including UN agencies.
Lessons Learnt and Recommendations
1. Need to research on ways of meaningfully involving women in CTP programmes
2. More research and experiments to be done in order to improve on secure payments which
are technologically advanced- e.g. the mobile, VISA cards,
3. More to be done in terms of integration between CTPs and other sectors, e.g. WASH,
Nutrition, Protection and Shelter.
Contact persons in Afghanistan
(a) Prasant Naik – Country Director [email protected]
(b) Urayayi Mutsindikwa – Cash Learning Focal Point [email protected]
(c) ER – Neil Turner Emergency Programme Manager; [email protected]
(d) Shelter - Subhash Jadhav PM; [email protected]
(e) Education - Ariel Rivera Solari; [email protected]
17
NRC core-chairs the shelter cluster and is active in almost all UN key clusters. NRC was very active in the establishment of
the Cash and Vouchers Based Interventions Working Group in the country and provides technical support, moderates discussions and avail trainings to national and international agencies as well as GoA partners.
60
SOLIDARITÉS INTERNATIONAL
FAST FACTS
Implementing agency: Solidarités International
Location: Ruy-e-Doab District, Samangan Province, Afghanistan
Approach: Cash Based Intervention - Responding to Rapid onset emergency
Project duration: 10 to 30 of June 2012;
Summary:
Solidarités International (SI) used a Cash Transfer Programme (CTP) to respond to a flood which had occurred in Samangan Province, destroying some of the community infrastructures (irrigation canal, road) and part of the harvest. The objective of this project was to mitigate the impact in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. A CTP was recommended in order to secure what remains of the harvest, ensure access to basic social services and restore the existing livelihood. To reach these objectives, a Cash for Work (CfW) approach was chosen in combination with Unconditional Cash Transfers (UCT). The CfW activities were focused on the rehabilitation of the damaged agricultural community infrastructures and on the reopening of the road. At the same time, the cash injection through CfW and UCT enabled the affected families to re-purchase what they had lost during the flood (Food, NFI, etc.). Rationale and context for the intervention
During the spring of 2012, most of the northern provinces of Afghanistan, among them Samangan, were severely hit by seasonal floods. These natural disasters exacerbated the food insecurity already existing in these areas, due a combination of vulnerabilities suffered by the local livelihoods, and the lasting consequences of the 2011 drought. SI is currently the lead of the ECHO-funded Emergency Response Mechanism (ERM) in Afghanistan, which aims at assisting the most vulnerable communities who have borne the brunt of a natural or man-made disaster. The 2012 floods fell completely within the scope of the ERM mandate. After a series of floods hit the Ruy-e-Doab District, between 15and 25 May, the ERM SI team conducted a multi-sectorial rapid assessment in 38 CDCs18 in order to evaluate the direct impacts of these disasters on the living conditions of the local communities. The initial results of this evaluation showed that around 50% of the total crops were damaged and that 115 families have lost all their food stock. In addition, the floods had seriously damaged the irrigation systems (water intakes and irrigation canals) in the valley. A significant area of irrigated land was therefore threatened by the
18
Community Development Councils: the elementary administrative level in Afghanistan, corresponding roughly to 1 village.
61
lack of water. The combined loss of their food stock and agricultural production was putting the local communities at risk– unless humanitarian organizations intervened. The challenge was clearly to come up with a programme which could support the community in securing their livelihood asset while at the same time allowing the people to access food supplies. To reach these goals, it was required to simultaneously provide new financial capacities to the concerned households, while enabling them to gain access to the market so that they could recover from the shock. With this in mind, Solidarités International designed a Cash for Work (CfW) programme, with a dual objective: to provide support to the most in need populations through cash injection, in exchange of labor on the construction or rehabilitation of community assets such as irrigation canals or roads. The calendar of the activities did not undermine other crucial subsistence activities, as wheat and barley harvests take place between August and October (See annex 1) in this area. In parallel, the Extremely Vulnerable Individuals (EVI), such as women leading households, widows, orphans, disabled persons and elders, who are not physically able to work on a construction site, were the beneficiaries of the UCT. They were provided with the same amount given to the CfW workers. Implementation of CFW: - SI’s step by step processes
Staffing
Nine staff members were mobilized by SI to implement the 20 days-long project:
(i) 1 Emergency Coordinator, (ii) 1 Program Manager (PM), (iii) 1 Technical Field Officer (TFO), (iv) 1 Program Manager Assistant (PMA), (v) 2 Area Managers (AM), and (vi) 3 Field Officers (FO).
I. IDENTIFICATION OF THE VILLAGES WHERE CBI ACTIVITIES WERE TO BE IMPLEMENTED
Due to the limited resources of the ERM, the locations of the activities and the beneficiary communities had to be selected carefully. The following criteria were used for this purpose: (i) the magnitude of the global impact on the community, as measured by the quantity of land,
livestock and shelter damaged or destroyed;
(ii) the food security situation after the flood, i.e. the immediate availability of food and the forecasted volume of the agricultural production;
(iii) the capacity of the community to cope with the shock, and to recover from the loss of its livelihood assets.
The Khuram-Wa-Sarbagh District, at the center of the province, for example, didn’t fit with these criteria. The damages to infrastructures were limited in most villages. Moreover, most of the community members depended on rain-fed agriculture, which did not suffer from the flood and from which a good yield was expected, due to the high level of precipitation. Finally, it was observed that the ashar, an internal community support system, was already in place for cleaning the irrigation canals which were blocked by mud.
62
It was decided, therefore, not to destabilize the coping mechanisms existing in the community of the Khuram-Wa-Sarbagh District positive community coping strategy and to avoid creating a dependency on humanitarian relief. The situation was quite different in Ruy-e-Doab District, in the south of the Province, where the damage were substantial and the local communities, on average poorer than in neighboring Districts, didn’t always have the mean to cope with this new disaster. 2 geographical areas facing the most urgent needs were selected for an intervention:
- Doab Centre, where many families were still recovering from the 2011 droughts, in which all of the 11 water intakes had been damaged, and where the floods had washed out 50% of the arable land and sown crops.
- Ghojorto village where the impact of the 2011 drought was still faced by local community, and where the flood destruction of the only road accessing the village had significantly increased the community’s vulnerability to food insecurity.
II. BENEFICIARIES SELECTION: HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS
Lists of potential beneficiaries (including poor farmers, sharecroppers and EVI) were provided by the
Shurahs, as requested by the team at the end of the initial community meetings. The SI- ERM team
surveyed all of the registered households before finalizing the beneficiaries’ selection. To do so a
household survey was carried out, focusing on the understanding of how the recent floods had
impacted the food and income sources. Once the survey was completed, the TFO analyzed the data
and selected the beneficiaries. Overall, selection of the beneficiaries was based on the following
steps:
1) Monetize the existing assets
2) Determine the thresholds to include beneficiaries, with the following combined criteria:
(i) A livestock being worth less than 50,000 AFG, not allowing the household to sell some heads in order to cope with the situation
(ii) Less than 35,000 AFG a year (2 USD per day per person) generated by alternative incomes
(iii) A total of the asset values added to potential incomes (livestock, upcoming harvest, other sources of income) smaller than 70,000 AFG
In addition to the Unskilled Daily Workers (UDW), SI hired a small number of Skilled Daily Workers (SDW) in each CDC. The team accepted a maximum of one Shurah member among them in order to avoid community tensions and to reinforce our acceptance.
Item Price/Kg Cost for 1 month for 1
HH (7 individuals)
Wheat 17.86 1500
Rice 57.14 600
Peas 61 768.6
Oil 100 560
Salt 18 31.5
63
III. DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATION
10 irrigation channels (water intake and irrigation canal) on one hand, and 1 road on the other hand, were chosen as key community infrastructures to be rehabilitated. SI selected 109 and 42 daily workers to complete the work respectively for 15 and 12 working days.
As the aim was a combined objective of infrastructure rehabilitation and food security the total
amount given by beneficiaries was calculated to ensure a minimum of 1 month food ration.
The usual Daily Worker wage at this time of the year for construction is between 300 up to 350 AFN
per day. After consultations with other humanitarian organizations working in the same area the
daily CfW wage was set at 300 AFN (USD 6) for the unskilled daily workers and 600 AFN (USD 12) for
the skilled workers. The alternative consisting in paying 250 AFN per day but with the provision of
lunch, chosen by some NGOs, was rejected for logistical reasons.
Once the rehabilitation work was chosen and the number of potential beneficiaries forecasted, SI made a quick visual estimation of the quantity of tools and material required for the programme (Shovel, wheelbarrow, pick axe, gabion…). The tools were not purchased locally, due to stock shortage and a global lack of quality.
IV. CFW FIELD IMPLEMENTATION
(i) A document stating that the tools were a loan from SI to the Daily Workers was signed or thumb-printed by the latter. At completion of the tasks, they would submit the tools back.
(ii) A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in English and Dari stipulated the norms and procedures to be followed during the CfW activities; duties and responsibilities of the parties involved, working hours, daily wage rates, cut off age to participate in the activities etc. It was prepared then signed by both the Field Coordinator and the Shurah leaders (on behalf of the beneficiaries).
(iii) A civil engineer from another SI programme provided support to oversee each one of the CfW project.
V. PAYMENTS
(i) The CfW activities lasted around 2 weeks. The first installment was paid to each daily worker after the completion of 50% of the work, the second installment after final completion.
(ii) Daily attendance sheets were maintained on every CfW site. SI staffs cross-checked these sheets, and then prepared individual envelopes with the exact amount due to each beneficiaries, who acknowledged payments by either signing or thumb printing a receipt.
(iii) To minimize the risks, the payments were announced at the last minute and conducted directly at the work sites.
(iv) Payments to EVIs were performed CDC by CDC. The team gathered all the selected EVIs in a room then distributed the cash individually. Beneficiaries of this direct cash grant received 5,000 AFN (USD 100). This represents the total value of an estimated food basket for a whole family during 6 weeks. This duration was chosen in order to cover the hunger gap until the start of the harvest.
VI. MONITORING/EVALUATION
An impact survey was conducted within 3 months after the completion of the work. Focus groups discussions were carried out in the two targeted areas, as well as household surveys. For the latter a
3198.58
64
sampling of 10% was used, applying a random selection to the beneficiaries’ list. The following topics were monitored: (i) the community perception about the relevancy of the project, the selection criteria and the
modalities of payment;
(ii) the impact (positive or negative) of the project on community livelihoods;
(iii) the use of the cash received by beneficiary households: type of purchased items and total amount spent.
The results show that 96% of the beneficiaries found the activities both relevant and useful; 57% had managed to save part of their harvest thanks to SI intervention; 96% of the cash was spend on food and then per order of importance, hygiene related items (4%), health (3%), fuel (2%) and NFI (2%). Pictures
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Top-left: HH survey in preparation of the
beneficiaries’ selection.
Top-right: Daily workers in Doab Centre.
Middle-left: attendance checking on a work site.
Middle-right: After 2 weeks, the daily workers in
Doab have rehabilitated 10 water intakes, restoring
the irrigation of their lands.
Bottom-left: In Ghojorto, the daily workers excavate
the mountain to build a road around the lake
65
Lessons learned / Recommendations
a. CfW activities should take into consideration the seasonal calendar in order to make sure
that CfW activities will not take beneficiaries’ time out from their livelihood activities.
b. Community assets to be rehabilitated should be selected with close participation of the
community. their leaders and the beneficiaries- to promote community ownership of the
assets,
c. Beneficiaries’ targeting and selection should be done in a transparent manner to avoid
suspicions and conflicts in the community. Communities should be involved in coming up
with the selection criteria,
d. Beneficiary orientations and communication, explaining the aims and objectives of the
project is crucial- this ensures beneficiaries to have an understanding of the issues
concerning the programme.
ANNEXES
ANNEXE 1
Agricultural Calendar
Districts
Irrigation
crops
Rain Fed
Crops
Spring Summer Fall Winter
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
Ruy-i-
Doab
Wheat &
Barley
Wheat &
Barley
Alfalfa Alfalfa
Fodder
Potato
Vegetable
Fruit
Cultivation
time
Harvesting
Time
66
ACTION CONTRELA FAIM (ACF)
Cash Based Intervention in Ghor province -Flood Affects Recovery
Jun.2013
Livelihood Context:
The flood affected villages are located to the north and northeast of Chaghcharan city along
Harirood River and the population is mainly engaged in agriculture and livestock activities.
Background:
Flash floods occurrence in Chaghcharan, center of Ghor province in April 2013 led to the large-scale
destruction of Agricultural lands, Agricultural irrigation canals, Check dames and village roads in 5
villages and directly affected 2100 individuals (300 Households).
Afghanistan National Disaster Management Authority (ANDMA) was not able to respond the
recovery phase due to low capacity and shortage fund.
ACF began assessment in the affected villages of Chaghcharan immediately after the flash floods
occurred, and based on finding ACF supported the affected and high vulnerable population in
affected villages through Cash for work and unconditional cash distribution. Following the initial
emergency stage, an Emergency Response Mechanism (ERM) assessment was conducted in April
2013.
Key Findings:
The assessment exposed the following key issues in 5 affected villages:
The immediate needs were cleaning of 29 Km water canals and reconstruct of 16 check
dames to avoid the crop losses due to shortage of irrigation water for the affected
population
Income sources for affected population through cash for work.
Supporting the high vulnerable groups (Widow headed households, disables, very poor
families) through unconditional cash distribution
Reconstructing the irrigation canals which were irrigating approximately 600 Jeribs (120
Hectares) of Agricultural land and running an electricity power and providing electricity for
300 households
The irrigation canals were severely destroyed by recent floods and it causes that about 600
Jeribs of agriculture land to be dried and crops loses. Even the canal before the flood was in
a very bad condition and it was not able to carry enough water for irrigation.
67
Rehabilitation of 13 Km village roads were one another major needs of the affected
population to reach the services (schools, clinics, markets...)
Construction of 24 meters of construction walls in the areas which were more prone to flood
destruction
Cleaning 4 springs which were using for drinking and also irrigation
Why Cash Intervention:
Based on these findings, ACF decided to develop a cash-based intervention to support the
immediate and longer-term livelihood needs of affected communities. The decision to use cash was
based on the fact that functioning markets were easily accessible and credible, and needs were very
diverse.
It was beyond population economic capacity to clean the irrigation canals, rehabilitate check dames,
and construct protection walls and village roads.
Targeting and selection criteria:
Collecting base line information: ERM assessment done in floods affected 5 villages, based on assessment findings the mention flood affected villages were targeted for CBI as the response to humanitarian emergency situations Support to livelihood recovery and ensure long term social protection.
275 beneficiaries were selected for cash for work (CFW)
58 beneficiaries were selected as high vulnerable groups for free cash distribution (HVG).
A number of projects performed through CBI in above mentioned flood affected villages
Payment Method:
As Ghor is one of the remote provinces of Afghanistan and few banks are only functional inside the
Chaghcharan city, it was not accessible for the affected population, therefore the Hawala19 (money
transfer) system was chosen as one of the successful options.
Hawaladar (money dealer) was selected carefully; he was fully operational in remote and rural areas
of Ghor province and had cash distribution experience with other NGOs. Based on ACF’s protocol
Hawaladar was responsible to deliver the cash to the affected villages and do the distribution, and
100% payment and delivery rate of 3% paid to Hawaladar at the end of cash distribution.
Installments and Amount
Cash amount was established based on daily household food basket and local market prices
19
Hawala is a traditionnel and informal system in Afghanistan refers broadly to money transfer mechanisms that exist in the absence of, or parallel to, conventional banking channels.
68
As the cash for work activities were only for 15 days and the same beneficiaries were involved,
therefor the cash was paid at the end of the activities.
Environment Implication:
During the CBI activities cycle the No harm principles were respected. The CBI approach in affected
villages helped to save the existing crops and trees from drying. And also the livestock owners were
helped to have water for their animals inside the village
Outcome and Impacts:
CBI helped the flood affected population to be recovered from the shock, prior to choose negative
coping strategy the affected population got the ability to buy food for their families, avoid losing
their crops due to water shortage, having access to primary services (schools, clinics..) and also
protecting their agricultural lands, houses and other properties through construction of protection
wall in the areas which were prone to flash flood destructions. ACF succeed to accomplish the
fallowing projects which were selected by affected communities:
29 KM irrigation canal rehabilitated
16 check dams rehabilitated
24 M protection wall constructed
4 springs cleaned
13 KM village road rehabilitated
Lessons learned & Problem solving:
Contract with Hawala should be developed to include provisions in case of force majeure.
ACF experienced Delays in payment due to Kabul Airport attack June 10th that cancelled
flight to/from Ghor to deliver the essential documents and process the Hawala dealer
payments.
People from one CDC doesn’t want to work for area belongs to another CDC
In some cases people show lack of motivation to involve for cash for work and prefer to
receive unconditional cash or distribution
Occlusion & Recommendations:
CBI is one of affective intervention in Afghanistan during early recovery, it is cost effective and less
time consuming, if the markets are operational and cash delivery mechanisms are in place and
operative.
In case the other means of cash deliveries (Banks, M-Pisa...) are not in place, then Hawala
mechanism is one of the alternative and successful options to reach to the affected population
during early recoveries in Afghanistan remote areas. A clear protocol should be in place for
beneficiary’s selection, activities selection, coordination with other stakeholders/governmental
authorities, payment method, amount and installments.
69
70
References
1. Catherine Longley, Sophia Dunn and Mike Brewin ( September 2012), Cash and Voucher Monitoring Group Final monitoring report of the Somalia cash and voucher transfer Programme Phase I: September 2011–March 2012, available at: https://drc.dk/fileadmin/uploads/pdf/nyhederPDF/CVMG-Somali-cash-transfer-program-report1.pdf,
2. Harvey, P. Cash-based responses in emergencies. HPG Report 24, London: Overseas Development Institute, 2007, Available at: http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/papers/hpgreport24.pdf,
3. Harvey, P. (2007) Cash Based Responses in Emergencies. HPG Report 24. Humanitarian Policy Group. London: Overseas Development Institute,
4. International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement Guidelines for cash transfer
programming, Available at: http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/disasters/guidelines/guidelines-cash-en.pdf,
5. The use of Cash and Vouchers in Humanitarian crises DG ECHO Funding Guidelines:- March 2013, available at: http://www.DG+ECHO+funding+guidelines+March+2013%3A-,
Further resources can be found on: www.cashlearning.org. http://afghanctp.org/en/
www.nrc.no www.Rescue.org www.oxfam.org,
