CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING

BASIC (LEVEL ONE) TRAINING Report of the CaLP Basic Level 1 Training for the

Northern Region held in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan

28-30 April, 2013

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................ 1

About the Food Security and Agriculture Cluster ................................ 3

About NRC .............................................................................................................. 3

About the Author ................................................................................................ 3

INTRODUCTION & OPENING REMARKS .................................................. 3

A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 4

A. OPENING REMARKS ........................................................................................ 5

BREAKING THE ICE .............................................................................................. 6

B. INTRODUCTIONS & EXPECTATIONS .......................................................... 6

C. GROUND RULES ............................................................................................... 6

MODULE ONE: AN INTRODUCTION TO CTP IN EMERGENCIES ..... 7

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PRESENTATION .................................................... 7

PART 1 LILTON-BIGTON CASE STUDY : GROUP WORKS POINTS ........ 8

MODULE TWO: ASSESSMENT & ANALYSIS ............................................ 9

COMMON ASSESSMENTS FOR CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMES 10

KEY POINTS FOR CASH/VOUCHER ASSESSMENTS ........................... 10

PLANNING AND PREPARING CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING

ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................................... 11

GUIDELINES FOR CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING ASSESSMENTS 12

STEP 1: GEOGRAPHICAL MAPPING, DISCUSSION OF VULNERABILITY, AND LIVELIHOODS MAPPING ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

3

STEP 2: HOW TO CONDUCT A RAPID ASSESSMENT IN THE AFFECTED AREA? ....................... 13 STEP 3: HOW TO CONDUCT DETAILED MARKET ASSESSMENTS IN AFFECTED AREA? ........ 13 Option 1: Household Economy Analysis (HEA) .......................................................................................... 13

PART 2 LILTON-BIGTON CASE STUDY : GROUP WORKS POINTS ...... 15

WHEN IS CASH/VOUCHERS POSSIBLE .................................................................................................. 17

MODULE 3: DESIGNING, RISK MANAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY ......... 18

PART 3 LILTON-BIGTON CASE STUDY : GROUP WORKS POINTS ...... 19

TARGETING FOR CASH TRANSFERS...................................................................................................... 19 SEASONALITY AND CASH TRANSFERS ................................................................................................. 22 CONSIDER CASH FOR WORK ................................................................................................................... 22 DETERMINE WAGE LEVELS, AMOUNTS AND FREQUENCY ............................................................. 24 PAYMENT OPTIONS FOR CASH/VOUCHER RESPONSE PROGRAMMES ..................................... 26 EXPRIENCES FROM THE FIELD IN AFGHANISTAN ............................................................................. 28 MONITORING, EVALUATON AND EXIT OF CASH/VOUCHER TRANSFER PROGRAMS .............. 29

KEY POINTS FROM MODULE 3 ........................................................................ 30

THE AFGHANISTAN CTP WEBSITE ................................................................ 31

CLOSING REMARKS ........................................................................................... 31

A. ANNEX 1: THE TRAINING PROGRAMME AT A GLANCE ..................... 32

1

ACRONYMS

ACF Action Contre la’ Faim

ADA Afghan Development Association

AFN Afghans (Afghanistan currency pegged at USD 1.00=AFN 50.00 on average)

AOGs Armed Opposition Groups

BRC British Red Cross

CHA Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance

CTs Cash Transfers

CCTs Conditional Cash Transfers

CFT Cash for Training

CFW Cash for Work

CTP Cash Transfer Programming

DFID Department for International Development (now UKaid)

ECHO European Commission and Civil Protection

EMMA Emergency Market Mapping Analysis

ERM Emergence Response Mechanisms

FSAC Food Security and Agriculture Cluster

GBP Great Britain Pound

GoA Government of Afghanistan

HEA Household Economy Analysis

HH Household

IGA Income Generating Activities

IFRC International Federation of the Red Cross and Crescent Societies

MIFIRA Market Information for Food Insecurity Response Analysis

M & E Monitoring and Evaluation

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NGO Non Governmental Organisation

NRC Norwegian Refugee Council

OGB Oxfam Great Britain

PRB Partners in Revitalization and Building

ToT Training of Trainers

UCTs Unconditional Cash Transfers

UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

USD United States Dollar

WFP World Food Programme

2

List of Tables

Table 1: Analysis and Suggested Responses by Participants ………………………………..15

Table 2: Some of the Poverty (P) and Vulnerability (V) indicators for use when targeting for

cash/vouchers……………………………………………………………………………………..21

Table 3: Minimum conditions Advantages and Disadvantages of different delivery

mechanism…20

Table 4: Current cash payment rates being used in Afghanistan…..………………………...21

List of Figures

Figure 1: The Household Economy Analysis Framework……………………………………….8

Figure 2: Wheat flour market systems mapping, Sindh, Pakistan..…………..……………….13

Figure 3: Oxfam GB decision tree…….…………………….…………………………..…….....16

Figure 4: The continuum of poverty as defined by communities …………………..……….....17

Figure 5: An example of a Unconditional Cash Project timeline ……………………………....22

Figure 6: Ideal structure of a CfW site in the field…..…………………………………………...21

3

About the Food Security and Agriculture Cluster 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. Its main aim is to provide an action-oriented forum for bringing together national and international humanitarian partners to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of humanitarian assistance on the lives of crisis-affected population in Afghanistan.

About NRC The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) is an independent, humanitarian, non-profit, non-governmental organisation which provides assistance, protection and durable solutions to refugees and internally displaced persons worldwide. NRC provides the technical expertise on all Cash Transfer programmes in Afghanistan including facilitating CaLP Trainings. NRC is available to the wider Humanitarian Sector in the Region to capacitate frontline staff in Cash Transfer Programming.

About the Author Urayayi Gregory Mutsindikwa is Food Security, Livelihoods and Cash Transfers Specialist working for Norwegian Refugee Council in Afghanistan. He has designed, managed and evaluated cash transfer programmes in complex contexts in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Bangladesh, South Sudan and Afghanistan. Prior to joining NRC, Urayayi managed emergency and development programmes with Catholic Relief Services, Oxfam GB and Save the Children.

INTRODUCTION & OPENING REMARKS

Funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) through the World Food Programme (WFP) and the Food Security and Agriculture Cluster in Afghanistan (FSAC).

Disclaimer: This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the Food Security and Agriculture Cluster, FAO and the World Food Programme. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflects those of FSAC, FAO, UN-OCHA, WFP or NRC|| May 2013

4

A. INTRODUCTION By Urayayi Gregory Mutsindikwa,

Norwegian Refugee, Cash Transfer Programming Regional Focal Point

There is a general recognition and acceptance of cash transfer programming (CTP) as an alternative response amongst Humanitarian actors in Afghanistan and most international organizations are increasingly using cash and voucher transfers. A number of local NGOs have expressed interest to consider CTP as the first line of response. UN agencies including the FAO, World Food Programme and UN-OCHA have been on the forefront of encouraging the Afghanistan Humanitarian Sector to consider the use of CTP as the local markets across the country are generally functional in most instances. Afghanistan is a complex context with most of the areas having high levels of insecurity where access problems have led to a rethink of the traditional ways of delivering aid. This compounded by adverse environmental conditions mainly untimely and inadequate rain and snow seasons which generally increase food insecurity, vulnerability and poverty.

Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world due to decades of conflict, natural disasters and lack of development. Certain groups of people, such as inferior ethnic groups, women, the elderly, children and the disabled people are widely recognised to be especially vulnerable. Despite significant development gains recorded over the past decade, Afghanistan still score low across a range of humanitarian indicators. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world due to decades of conflict, natural disasters and lack of development1. In Afghanistan it is estimated that 7.3 million people (31%) of the total estimated population of 26 million2 are food insecure with another 5.4 million people (23%) vulnerable to food insecurity. There are almost half a million IDP’s, 1.7 million and 1.02 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran respectively (UNHCR Report 2011) and these compounds the population dynamics of the country. The country had the highest refugee returnees in the world, estimated at 5.7 million. A household’s ability to respond to shocks and the ability to cope with vulnerability depends heavily on the type of assets and support they have access to or the ones they own. The ability of Afghanistan’s most vulnerable people to access life-saving assistance from the conflict-affected south and east to the disaster-prone north is a result of a plethora of factors. Some of these poor and vulnerable households are targeted through various humanitarian responses. Literature distinguishes between risk-management (income-smoothing) and risk coping strategies (consumption-smoothing). The former attempts to reduce risk or impacts of shock (before the event), such as through income diversification and may call for investment in resiliency and preparedness interventions. Afghanistan as a complex context with most of the areas having high levels of insecurity where access problems is prevalent there is need for a paradigm shift, to rethink and shift from the traditional ways of delivering aid. It is therefore paramount for humanitarian agencies to take stock, reflect and probably diversify the type and size of aid.

CTP is defined by the ODI as Cash interventions transfer resources to people by giving them cash or vouchers. The scale of the response and the number of agencies involved has brought capacity building to the forefront of the discussion around cash transfer programming in the region. While other technical coordination groups and clusters such as Emergency Shelter and NFIs, Education, Protection, Food Security and Agriculture, WASH, Health, Nutrition etc in the region are functioning well, there hasn’t been any intentional efforts to ensure agencies

1 Source - ACAPS Secondary Data Review on Afghanistan, 20 July 2011, ACAPS, Geneva 2 Data cited in the ACAPS Secondary Data Review Afghanistan, as collected from the Afghanistan CSO, July, 2011.

5

implementing CTP are working together as such and they are implementing ad hoc cash programmes which are not linked to the broader humanitarian coordination system. There is need 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-disaster as the Afghanistan transition period gets underway and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) prepare withdrawal in most parts of the country in the near future.

With funding from ECHO, NRC is committed to improve CTPs in the country and region through trainings, lesson sharing, coordination, joint assessments and analysis, design, implementation and fundraising. The CaLP Level 1 and 2 trainings are some of the initiatives these agencies are supporting through training for key strategic partners such as NGOs, GoA, UN agencies and at times the private sector. This CaLP Level 1 is the first such regional training and coincided with the flood response in the northern region where cash and vouchers where being mooted as one of the options.

A. OPENING REMARKS By Kateb shams, head of Balkh DAIL, and Ahmad Zia Aria FAO RCO Mazar

Key points

Cash transfer programming technical training is very important event in North Region, as we know this region always suffering from the disasters, floods, earthquakes, drought and landslides are the main disasters which always happened in this areas.

After disasters is needed to rehabilitate agriculture land, irrigation canals, and other water resources, therefore, cash grant, cash for work and cash for vouchers are the main types of the cash which are require in different stages of the needy community.

This training workshop because is very useful for participants to lean on who we can use the cash during the disasters.

In the same time, proposal written is very important techniques to be learn , those who are working with the cash must be lean on proposal written.

In the same time, Mr. Ahmad Zia Aria, FAO RCO, added, that basically, the reduced and removes of hunger and poverty from the world is the main mandatory of FAO.

FAO is aimed to provide food through the provision of agriculture service to vulnerable farming families.

The cash transfer programming training will give chance to NGOs to timely proceeding in affected areas. They will complete need assessment and then will provide proposals, this is very important for us to lean about the cash.

6

BREAKING THE ICE The participants were asked to stand in a line in order of the amounts of money they were carrying that particular day. This exercise allowed participants to engage for the first time and to discuss such sensitive issues with colleagues they have met for the first time. It was a little comfortable for some of the participants and especially those at the end of the line.

B. INTRODUCTIONS & EXPECTATIONS Still in the line participants got into pairs and introduced each other by name, organisation, position and expectations for the training. Some of the key expectations identified were:

To understand when cash is appropriate To be able to lead or participate in market assessments To be able to write CTP proposals To be able to identify the best cash delivery mechanism in Afghanistan To understand how other organisations are dealing with gender issues To learn more about cash programming

C. GROUND RULES Respect Computers closed Mobiles on silent Attendance (unless sick) Punctuality Participation Listening Constructive feedback Time management

7

What is Cash Transfer Programming? ‘Cash transfer programming in emergencies is

one form of humanitarian response, which can be used to meet basic needs and/or protect, establish or re-establish livelihoods’

(CaLP CTP Level I Training)

‘Cash interventions transfer resources to people by giving them cash or vouchers’

(ODI Good Practice Review)

MODULE ONE: AN INTRODUCTION TO CTP IN

EMERGENCIES

This module provided the introduction to concepts of cash transfer programming in emergencies. Participants were made to understand the rationale, principles and risks associated with specifically cash transfer programmes as opposed to more traditional emergency programmes (such as food or non-food distribution). The aim was to introduce different types of cash programming as a response to humanitarian need, and describe the associated benefits and risks.

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PRESENTATION

Over 80% of the participants were coming from agencies who were implementing Cash and Voucher projects in emergence contexts and the other 20% were involved in recovery projects mainly to do with shelter projects and providing durable solutions for affected communities. They were all working in complex contexts predominated by a plethora of manmade and natural hazards such as conflict, droughts, harsh winter, flooding, and avalanches among others.

Why cash transfers?

The participants managed to identify the reasons why they were implementing cash programs in their respective agencies such as:

Dignity - cash can be better at maintaining the dignity of recipients. It may, for instance, be possible to avoid long, degrading queues as shared by ACTED, Action Aid and Afghan Aid. They used mobile phone transfers and this allowed secrecy and transparent transfers in the 2012 drought, winter and flooding responses.

Choice - cash allows recipients to decide what they should spend the money on. This enables people to choose what they most need, and allows for this to vary from person to person. This was often the case with all the unconditional cash transfers, cash for work and other conditional grants which allowed beneficiaries to choose certain suppliers over others based on quality of materials and goods, pricing, distance, willingness to negotiate etc.

Objectives of the Module

1. Describe the rationale for cash transfer

programming in a humanitarian context

2. Understand different types of cash transfer

programming and potential outcomes

3. Describe guiding principles in the design and

implementation of CTP

4. Identify advantages and disadvantages of CTP

and its potential risks

8

Power transfer - cash often allows recipients to make their own choices thereby increasing their power and control over how they respond to disasters. Although redistribution ( of aid- in this case cash received) was cited as a major concern by many participants, they all agreed that CTP allowed beneficiaries to gain some power and control of the aid targeted at them.

Links response to recovery - because of the multiplier effect of many cash projects the impact can continue into the recovery phase. For example NRC and Islamic Relief were implementing cash for shelter projects in Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif, Samangan, Kunduz and Balkh districts in the North and Jalalabad in the East. These were relief-to-recovery projects aimed at availing durable solutions and permanent and semi-permanent shelter for the affected populations.

PART 1 LILTON-BIGTON CASE STUDY : GROUP WORKS POINTS

Participants managed to identified that CTP was appropriate because:

Some markets were functional The affected population had varying needs and cash is flexible Cash is a quick response People lacked income opportunities and there was need for community works Financial institutions were available

CTP could be inappropriate in areas where markets had collapsed, and earth quake has blocked roads and there were access.

Primary benefits of using cash transfers are that households will access basic needs.

Secondary benefits were that the market would revive and the cash will have multiplier effects across the value chain.

Participants were able to justify CTP interventions based on the information provided.

How CTP can support an emergency response

Addresses the immediate consequences of humanitarian crisis - the over-riding humanitarian imperative - meeting basic needs

Planned in the short-term (usually up to six months, but may be longer in complex emergencies) to help people meet their basic needs

Targets those most affected by the crisis How CTP can support early recovery

Address needs beyond those of saving lives

Work in a way that contributes to rebuilding society, the State, the economy

Planned in the short- to medium-term (up to 1-2 years)

Support households’ livelihood, and recovery of previous livelihood and provision of basic servicesTarget families facing specific vulnerabilities who were hit by the emergency

Appropriate Conditions for CTP:

Functioning markets,

Availability of products, traders willing and able to participate,

Physical access to shops/markets,

Punctional and reliable payment system,

Political acceptance,

Community awareness and agreement and

Reliable recipient identification system

9

Objectives of the Module At the end of this session participants were able to: List key elements of an assessment for cash

transfer; Describe methodologies for carrying out an

assessment; Describe what data needs to be collected and

describe approaches to analysis; Describe the humanitarian conditions

conducive to running cash transfer programmes;

Outline the key baseline information needed to monitor and evaluate a cash transfer response.

MODULE TWO: ASSESSMENT & ANALYSIS Having defined what cash transfers is, and how it might be used as part of a general humanitarian response in Module 1, it was essential to establish the importance and sequence of proper assessment and analysis specific to cash transfer programming in order to ensure the eventual effective planning and delivery of such a programme. This was a highly practical session based on the case study introduced in module 1. The aim of the session was to describe why assessment and analysis at the earliest stage of any cash transfer programme is important, and to identify effective processes and tools in undertaking appropriate assessment and analysis. Participants were asked to be ready for active participation during the course of the module as it calls for practical examples and real life experiences. OBJECTIVES, KEY STEPS AND SUMMARY OF PROCESS Carrying out Assessments is not a new phenomenon in the humanitarian world. It is the recent emphasis on key assessments such as market analysis that has been recent in the relatively new modality of cash transfers, but it is relevant for all kinds of humanitarian response. Understanding how markets are affected by crises and how humanitarian response can both be informed by markets as well as impact markets is a fundamental part of continued development in systematic programme design. To implement cash transfer projects, practitioners need establish if there is a pro-cash environment or support the creation of one. OVERVIEW OF STEPS

1. Determine if a cash transfer strategy is appropriate by conducting an

initial rapid assessment 2. Conducting a Detailed Market assessments in affected area 3. Assessment Methodologies and Tools

SUMMARY OF THE PROCESS Any cash and voucher response is feasible where ever markets are functional or where markets are integrated and can easily be revived post disaster. What are markets? Markets are comprised of actors, institutions and policies that influence the production and consumption (hence the prices and quantities) of goods and services. A market for a single good can be extremely different from that for another, even if both goods are sold in the same physical market. Market analysis is not a new phenomenon in the humanitarian world. It can be traced back to the early 1950s when some developed countries wanted to dispose of their accumulated food surpluses. The recent emphasis on market analysis has been on its use in

10

the relatively new modality of cash transfers, but it is relevant for all kinds of agency response. Understanding how markets are affected by crises and how agency response can both be informed by markets as well as impact markets is a fundamental part of continued development in systematic programme design. In situations where markets are not functional and communities are not able to access traders it is important that comparisons be drawn to compare in-kind support such food or non-food items distribution be considered. There are times when assessment data points towards a combination of in-kind and cash/voucher response. In Afghanistan it is possible to implement any of the three responses as long adequate data is collected and analyzed and clearly informs response analysis. During an assessment post disaster it is important to engage with the affected populations and begin to explore an acceptable targeting framework to define a selection criterion. Data collected during a market assessment can be used as preliminary information to decide the number of beneficiaries and the size of the grant based on such information as prices, commodity diversity, the national food basket or the purpose of the grant for example shelter or latrine construction etc. This section of the guidelines discusses more specifically the methods used in implementing detailed assessments to qualify cash/voucher responses or other alternatives.

COMMON ASSESSMENTS FOR CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMES

There is a variety of common assessment tools and methodologies that are generally used to assess needs of affected communities post disaster. The summary of the most common assessment methodologies provided below includes notes on adapting the assessment formats for emergencies. In the following sections, a format for conducting a rapid urban assessment is described in detail, using forms and concepts from several of these assessment guidelines. This section emphasizes the need for preparation for conducting an initial rapid assessment, as well as participation in interagency and sector-specific assessments. Quick adaptation of tools used in other contexts will expedite the assessment planning process, and ensure quality results. Depending on time availability, assessments can be as rapid as 24-48 hours as is the case of the 48 Hour Tool and can be as late as 2 weeks as is the case of EMMA or more than one month as the case with MIFIRA and HEA. However in all cases having trained staff on standby accelerates assessments and this critical step in preparedness.

KEY POINTS FOR CASH/VOUCHER ASSESSMENTS

Agencies only sample a small proportion of the affected population. Without purposeful assessment of areas, such as host communities, poor neighborhoods, or marginalized groups humanitarian assessments may overlook acute problems in the population.

Some community leaders are not reliable sources of detailed information about family vulnerability, and may have hidden agendas.

1. Rapid Market Assessment

2. The 48 hour tool

3. Emergency Market Mapping Analysis (EMMA)

4. Market Information for Food Insecurity Response Analysis

(MIFIRA)

5. The Household Economy Analysis (HEA) baseline

11

Agencies are overwhelmed with the size of the affected population and do not know where to begin, sometimes concluding that an assessment is not feasible.

Assessments only ask about income and not expenses, resulting in a skewed understanding of urban household economics.

Most assessments utilize forms designed for in-kind support, silent on cash questions and producing low-quality analysis and information.

Note! Issues specific to Afghanistan

There are a number of aspects which are specific to Afghanistan which directly affects assessments and data collection and analysis, these includes:

Access: Violence and insecurity peaked in May 2011 with the highest recorded number of civilian casualties since the engagement of Coalition Forces in 2001 (ICG 2011). Conflict between multiple actors, insecurity, and ethnic grievances have caused a rapid rise in internal displacement since the beginning of 2011 with 59% of all displacement occurring in the south of Afghanistan. In June 2011, the total number of displaced was estimated to be 435,436 (USAID 11/07). The risk for secondary displacement remains high. Most of Afghanistan experienced an untimely snow season from December to February, negatively affecting movement. Humanitarian response remains hampered by a lack of security, highly restricted access.

Literacy and Reliability of the data: Lack of reliable data on population movements and humanitarian needs. This is compounded by low literacy levels in the country and hence data collection, capture and analysis is a mammoth task.

Capacity: Most agencies in Afghanistan lack the technical capacity to assess needs, design appropriate programmes, implement and monitor them, particularly for Cash Programming interventions. NRC continues to investment in learning and development activities around CTP based on evidence of how CTPs contribute to humanitarian programme aims. This learning is not be limited to emergencies, the coordination unit is reaching all other clusters to ensure direct links between social safety net systems and emergency responses involving CTP in Afghanistan, a country prone to emergencies need to be included.

Coordination: There is a distinct lack of overall coordination to provide an overview of CTP contributions in a given emergency. There is no clear UN lead on CTP. Dialogue and agreement on these needs to take place pre-disaster. Implementing agencies feel the need to better coordinate cash programming in the country. Donors such as ECHO and DFID who have been supporting cash-based interventions in Afghanistan are interested in seeing better coordination between International and national agencies, the UN, government partners and the private sector.

PLANNING AND PREPARING CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING ASSESSMENTS

Most agencies have vast experience with carrying out assessments, however often times they are silent on the…Decision makers. Cash is a possible form of humanitarian response, based on a proper identification of needs and vulnerabilities. Assessments can be:

Rapid (undertaken after a major change; normally takes one week or less; should be followed by a detailed assessment).

12

Rapid assessments are sometimes sufficient to

decide whether a cash transfer is the most

appropriate response, and are reliable enough to form

the basis for programme design. In other situations,

more detailed assessments may lead to the decision

to implement a cash transfer programme. But further

information may still need to be gathered before

designing the programme, particularly in relation to

markets, security, financial transfer mechanisms and

institutional capacity.

Detailed and Continuous Assessments (can follow a rapid assessment; undertaken when a situation is changing and more information is needed; when it is a new operational area; can take one month or more, when the movement is already operational in the area; provides updated information). Household Economy Analysis (HEA) is an example of detailed assessment which can be very effective in complex contexts such as Afghanistan.

Ideally, a multidisciplinary team with the following key skills should undertake the assessment

Knowledge of the affected population.

Emergency food security and livelihoods assessment skills.

Market analysis skills.

Programme design and management skills.

Finance/administration knowledge.

An understanding of cash programming. As with all assessments, the community should participate or at least be involved in discussions during the assessment process. When assessing whether to set up and carry out a cash transfer programme, make sure the following aspects are taken into consideration: market analysis, institutional capacity, security and corruption risks, and the food security situation.

GUIDELINES FOR CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING ASSESSMENTS

STEP 1: GEOGRAPHICAL MAPPING, DISCUSSION OF VULNERABILITY, AND LIVELIHOODS MAPPING

To understand the needs of the most vulnerable people, concentrate the assessment in areas where they live and their livelihoods sources. Dividing the affected environment into smaller geographic locations in order to define where you will conduct your assessment is advisable. Make use of existing maps on the internet, including Google Earth if available. This rapid assessment should be carried out to determine the appropriateness and feasibility of the response. This includes weighing the benefits against the risks, information analysis of older people’s household needs, food and income security, market and the security situation. The information gathered during an initial rapid assessment will not only assist in determining the impact of the disaster but is crucial in deciding whether a cash-based response is feasible and appropriate in the given context. Assessments should be conducted in consultation with the relevant national authorities, the UN cluster group and local and international NGO’s.

13

STEP 2: HOW TO CONDUCT A RAPID ASSESSMENT IN THE AFFECTED AREA?

The rapid assessment will also provide the baseline, or reference point for comparison, that enables meaningful conclusions to be drawn about effects of the crisis and priority responses. The rapid assessment should answer the following:

Location and accessibility of disaster site?

Number of those affected?

Are the needs of older people are being considered or met?

What NGOs, development actors, government officials, and local leaders are involved in the recovery and what are their plans?

How has the disaster personally impacted the elderly? (Conduct interviews, focus group discussions, etc.)

How has the disaster affected the following sectors? Food security, water and sanitation, access to health care, loss of livelihoods, shelter (homes and other buildings), local markets, loss of non-food, items, damage to infrastructure (electricity, water supply, roads, communications), security issues.

STEP 3: HOW TO CONDUCT DETAILED MARKET ASSESSMENTS IN AFFECTED AREA?

A market assessment is essential in order to determine whether a cash intervention is appropriate in any particular situation. At the very least it should establish whether markets are functioning or likely to recover quickly following a disaster, and whether the basic items that people need are available in the market. This can be done quickly in the first few days following a rapid-onset emergency, by visiting markets and interviewing traders. The market assessment

should answer the following:

Before the emergency were older people able to purchase a significant proportion of essential goods and services through market mechanisms?

Are sufficient food supplies and/or other goods available locally to meet the needs?

Are markets functioning and easily accessible to older people (consider road transport, restrictions on movements of goods, warehousing, etc.)?

Can food supplies and non-food items be delivered to the affected area if not available locally?

Option 1: Household Economy Analysis (HEA)

The HEA looks at a household as a unit of analysis and takes it as an economy with food sources, income and expenditure patterns varying by wealth groups defined by communities through wealth ranking. HEA uses a range of participatory rural appraisal tools such as proportional piling, pair-wise ranking, seasonal calendars, transact walks etc.

The 'Baseline' of HEA is a depiction of how people get by from year to year and the connections with other people and places that enable this. It has three components: livelihood zoning, wealth breakdown and analysis of livelihood strategies for each of the identified wealth groups. The 'Outcome Analysis' is the investigation of how baseline access to food and income might change as a result of a specific hazard or positive change. It consists of three steps: problem specification; analysis of coping strategy; and projected outcome. Such an HEA analysis that focuses on household income sources, expenditure patterns, employment opportunities, labour rates and the functionality of markets is critical as part of the detailed assessments even during and after the implementation of cash based initiatives.

14

Figure 1: The Household Economy Analysis Framework

Option 2: Emergency Market Mapping Analysis (EMMA) Figure 2: Wheat flour market systems map in Sindh, Pakistan

The Emergence Market Mapping and Analysis is a set of tools which encourages and assists front-line humanitarian staff in sudden-onset emergencies to better understand, accommodate, and make use of market systems. It does not offer a simplistic blue-print for action. In groups the participants studied the market situation after the Pakistan Flood and made observations and suggested responses.

BASELINE HAZARD + COPING = OUTCOME +

15

Table 1: Analysis and Suggested Responses by Participants

Issues Identified Suggested Responses

Major disrupt at medium and small-scale farmers

Cash grants for Agricultural recovery

Transport a critical issue because of destroyed infrastructure and high fuel prices. Roads and bridges partially destroyed

Cash for Work for labour-endowed households, Fuel coupons/vouchers for small millers and beneficiaries.

Major disruptions on at household level staple crops and storage facilities.

Commodity vouchers for staple crops and conditional cash transfers for storage facility reconstruction.

Critical issues with government price controls, quota system and importation ban.

Advocacy – Lobby with government and advocate for policy changes.

Critical issue millers in the rural areas. Cash vouchers for milling wheat for beneficiaries redeemable at local millers.

Option 3: Market Information and Food Insecurity Response Analysis (MIFIRA) MIFIRA is a market and response analysis tool that helps assessing appropriateness between in--‐kind food aid and cash transfers. The tool is based on two fundamental questions:

1. Are local food markets functioning well? a. Yes: Targeted CTP or jobs, not food aid b. No: Go to Question 2… 2. Is there sufficient food available nearby to fill the gap? a. Yes: Food aid through local purchases b. No: Food aid through imports The following subsidiary questions help in the decision making: a. Are local food markets functioning well? b. Are food insecure households well connected to

local markets? c. How will local demand respond to transfers? d. How much additional food will traders supply at or near the current costs? e. Do local food traders behave competitively? f. Do food insecure households have a preference over the form/mix of aid that they receive?

PART 2 LILTON-BIGTON CASE STUDY : GROUP WORKS POINTS

Participants were able to utilize the new information availed to qualify their CTP interventions selected in day 1, other modified their selections and others introduced new responses and in some cases dropped some initial selections.

Establishing the extent of the damage on the markets, banks, post offices was prioritized by all groups.

16

Three groups out of four were so much interested in exploring the possibilities of utilizing cash to rehabilitate damaged infrastructure such as roads, clearing debris, searching for and burying the dead, reconstruction of shelter and markets etc

Possibilities of vouchers for food, construction materials were also mentioned in the discussions and unconditional cash grants for vulnerable groups such as the disabled, chronically ill, elderly, the injured, pregnant and lactating mothers etc

They managed to brain storm on cash initiatives directed at specific livelihoods zones, for example cash for agricultural recovery in areas where they depended on crop and vegetable production, and livestock. Cash for supporting the fishery industry in areas along the river etc. This would call for additional data collection from specific areas on crop production, livestock data and information on fisheries.

They managed to prioritize visiting areas which had information gaps and also identifying rapid assessment tools of data collection, such as focus group discussions, observations, photography and key informant interviews.

Participants were also appraised on the use of PRAs during data collection, although 80% had no prior experience with the use of such participatory approaches.

They indicated that the little trading going on in the community required support.

Considerations were discussed to support key market players such as transporters between major trade routes.

One group suggested the importance of engaging stakeholders and the possibilities of forming a task force to manage the response which would include local leaders, government, NGOs and private sector to map existing capacities, response plans and gaps and fit CTP to support these initiatives.

17

WHEN IS CASH/VOUCHERS POSSIBLE

Cash and vouchers are not possible and applicable all the time and in all situations. Oxfam has developed a simple decision tree which can be used as a general guide on when it is ideal to consider cash and vouchers. Figure 3: Oxfam GB decision tree

18

MODULE THREE: DESIGNING & PLANNING

MODULE 3: DESIGNING, RISK MANAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY

Introduction Effective design and planning is essential in the delivery of cash transfer programmes, building on successful assessment and analysis. There are many elements to be covered within this area; therefore a structured, logical and comprehensive approach is vital to ensure that programmes are prepared to operate effectively on all these levels. An effective monitoring and evaluation system, that measures progress, process and impact in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of a programme and identify issues for remedial action needs to be developed. At the design stage of a cash transfer programme clear and measurable objectives and outcomes need to be developed. As cash transfer programming remains under scrutiny within the humanitarian sector as a whole and by donors, the monitoring of such programmes needs to be clear and credible and results need to be systematically documented and shared. The module was aimed at exploring, understanding and mimics the practicing of essential elements of effective design and planning in the implementation of a cash transfer programme.

OBJECTIVES, KEY STEPS AND SUMMARY OF PROCESS To generate information that will facilitate a detailed response analysis which is open to all possible options, or combinations, this leads to a project design process which is part of the project management cycle and the pre-planning process.

OVERVIEW OF STEPS Steps in Response Analysis

1. Understanding Response Analysis 2. Understanding Normative Frameworks 3. Linking Response Analysis to the CHAP 4. Linking Response analysis to donor guidelines 5. Institutionalization of Response Analysis

Steps in CTP project designing 1. Defining the targeting framework 2. Setting Objectives for Cash Based Response 3. Deciding on Payment Modality

Steps in Pre-Implementation Planning 1. Initial Planning Meeting 2. Form the programme team 3. Develop support Systems

Objectives At the end of this session participants will be able to:

Recommend different modalities in the design of

a cash transfer programme depending on the

context and the needs of the affected people

Identify and explain essential criteria to consider

when planning a cash transfer programme

Describe methods that will enable effective

design and planning

Review the setting of SMART objectives

Outline key questions that monitoring and

evaluation systems should try to address

19

Targeting the poor is at times likened to an attempt to hit a moving target.

SUMMARY OF THE PROCESS Identifying the most appropriate response from the wide range of available options requires a response analysis. A good response analysis ensures that institutional biases and formulaic responses do not dominate interventions, and that all possible options including cash are considered. The growing use of cash transfer programming in emergencies has made us more conscious of how important this step is, primarily as a result of the broader analysis necessary to ensure that markets can be used to support humanitarian response. Use of cash transfers as a response option has shifted programming logic from a focus on the distribution of outputs to defining the objectives of a programme in relation to needs and intended outcomes at the beneficiary level.

Once it has been determined that a cash-based response is appropriate and feasible, the project needs to be designed. This section discusses how to frame the project objectives, decide on the type of cash transfer intervention, set the value of a cash grant and its timing, complementary programming and linking with development, recovery and social protection. Vouchers and Cash for Work interventions raise additional issues for planning, designing and implementing responses. A well designed is informed by a market assessment, and covers key aspects of modality selection, payment methods and risk identification and mitigation. Pre-implementation steps address both internal and external issues before activities of a Cash/Voucher Transfer Program begin. Internally agencies should ensure that administrative and financial systems and policies are in place and reflect the new ways of doing business. Externally, they must develop relationships with partners, and sustainable systems of keeping them engaged. They must build trust and transparency from the start of the project.

PART 3 LILTON-BIGTON CASE STUDY : GROUP WORKS POINTS

Advocacy Task: Brief points for Director to convince donor to support cash initiatives – All groups

Market are functional in Lilton as there are many traders open for sales and with stocks;

Cash/Vouchers will help revive the market and will have multiplier effects

Transport is available and roads are cleared from village 1 up to village 6

There is tension in the camp and we need to remove populations and support returnees with vouchers for shelter to accelerate their recovery and stabilization at their homes.

Other NGOs are already supporting with in-kind support but still households are still in difficult circumstances.

TARGETING FOR CASH TRANSFERS

Like in many other humanitarian projects careful targeting is essential for cash/ voucher interventions given the high numbers of people below the poverty line, those perceived as poor by communities and the limited resources. Rural communities often show resistance to targeting by claiming that everyone is poor or by manipulating well established targeting criteria so that benefits are shared across the community anyway. This has been witnessed in some communities in Afghanistan where there issues of redistribution across the whole community the money paid to a beneficiaries drawn from the community. Community profiling builds on the

20

notion of active community involvement as the foundation of a good beneficiary targeting framework. There has to be maximum community involvement in profiling all facets of the community through the use of PRAs. Every agency intending to implement cash and voucher projects is expected to engage in this process to provide a basis for conducting their work and supporting community led interventions in a sustainable manner. Agencies are thus required to develop the necessary skills and knowledge in community based approaches. A usually cash/voucher-based intervention rests on the three pillars of the purpose, namely:

Prevention of destitution of the poor and vulnerable

Protection of existing livelihoods, and

Promotion of improved livelihoods The diagram below describes the continuum of poverty, illustrating the need for different solutions for different groups of the poor and vulnerable of which cash/vouchers is one of them. In its totality cash/voucher response aims to;

Push people up to surmount the survival threshold,

Support people via sustainable exit strategies to climb the ladder towards livelihoods protection, and

Empower people to identify ways of maintaining their threshold whereby they can weather shocks and unanticipated stresses.

In order for partners to identify and target the right beneficiaries the following are a pre-requisite;

Create and maintain beneficiary databases and use them

Ensure that all field staff receives training in community based approaches (CBA) or PRAs.

Develop a generic framework of targeting indicators for use by partner

Develop a self assessment tool that will be used by partners to assess their targeting and mainstreaming processes

Ensure that all Cash/Voucher projects indicators are mainstreaming sensitive. It is important to allow communities to participate in defining poverty and vulnerability indicators. Generally communities identifies three wealthy categories, chronically poor, transiently poor (fine but vulnerable to shocks) and the better off and in urban areas such as the Kabul Informal settlements they have four categories (destitute, chronically poor, transiently poor and better off). Figure 4: The continuum of poverty as defined by communities

21

Humanitarian workers should be cautious that at times there are significant discrepancies between the communities’ indicators of poverty and those agree at national level and adopted by NGOs. The rapidly changing socio-political situation in Afghanistan renders some of the global indicators of poverty less relevant such as the level of education. Furthermore NGOs tends to use vulnerability indicators more often in targeting, while communities typically identify poverty indicators. For example often NGOs use household headship as a proxy indicator whilst communities indentify food insecurity as a key poverty indicator. Table 2: 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.

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

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. Shura 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.

22

SEASONALITY AND CASH TRANSFERS

When in the year cash is delivered will influence how it is spent, and hence whether it is an appropriate response given the project’s objectives. Consider developing a seasonal calendar to map expenditure patterns, as part of the assessment process. Household expenditure priorities, sources of income, working/activity patterns and prices/availability of commodities vary at different times of the year. If cash is intended to help people meet basic needs, then it is likely to be most useful during hungry seasons or particularly difficult periods, but food prices may be higher than normal and the cash will buy less. In quick-onset emergencies, cash provided in the early stages may be spent on meeting basic needs and coping with the immediate aftermath of displacement. Cash provided later on may be spent on recovery, such as rebuilding houses or investing in livelihoods. In Cash for Work projects particular attention needs to be given to seasonal labour demands to avoid work requirements clashing with key household labour commitments such as agriculture (e.g. harvesting) and seasonal migration. It may be appropriate to consider direct cash grants over labour-based interventions if the timing of public works does not correspond with seasonal calendars or the main objective of the project. For instance, if the objective is to improve access to food during the hunger gap and public works can only be implemented after the harvest, then a direct cash grant during the hunger gap is likely to be more appropriate than a postharvest Cash for Work project.

Figure 5: An example of a Unconditional Cash Project timeline

CONSIDER CASH FOR WORK

Cash-for-Work is a short-term intervention used by humanitarian assistance organizations to provide temporary employment in public projects (such as repairing roads, clearing debris or re-building infrastructure) to the most vulnerable segments of a population. Originally, CfW was employed in famine and food-insecure regions as an alternative to FfW programs in post-disaster and conflict settings. CfW projects are usually managed by an NGO and while skilled labor may be paid for, CfW is not typically used for large contracted construction projects. Unskilled labor payments differ from CfW in that the actual project is the goal (i.e. construction of a school), skilled labor and materials may be contracted out to a construction company and the management of the paid labor is handled by the contractor. A mix is possible, whereby the NGO manages CfW as unskilled labor on a construction project in conjunction with a contractor or the NGO may stipulate as part of a construction contract that unskilled labor is taken from the immediate community. In this case, the unskilled labor payments are handled by the contractor.

Cash for Work should be used only when there is meaningful work to be done and those targeted by the project have the time and the capacity to undertake it. Because labour projects need to be identified, workers supervised and technical assistance/equipment provided, Cash for Work

23

Box 1: Cash for Work

Cash-for-Work programming is usually appropriate if….

• A well functioning market for essential goods and services existed prior to the emergency.

• A shock has resulted in a decline in food sources and income, resulting in people no longer able to meet their basic needs or adopting short-term coping strategies that are damaging to their long-term livelihoods, assets and/or dignity.

• Sufficient food supplies and/or essential goods are available locally to meet immediate needs.

• Markets are functioning and accessible.

• Cash can be delivered safely and effectively.

Cash-for-Work programming is usually NOT appropriate if….

• There are no accessible or functioning markets, in which case food aid or non-food items may be more suitable until markets can be restored or regular supplementary sources can be accessed.

• Beneficiaries are in non-cash based societies (such as those that utilize barter systems).

• There is a food shortage (i.e. through famine or drought); If this is the case, food relief might be required until local markets and stocks are restored.

• There is political instability and/or corruption where cash transfers could exacerbate violence and insecurity or could not be tracked closely enough to avoid corruption.

• It is an acute emergency, where in-kind life-saving relief items may be required before CfW projects can be started.

programmes typically require more agency resources than providing cash grants. They may be preferable if they are more politically acceptable than cash grants or if there is a need for manual labour as part of the emergency response.

One of the strongest advantages of CfW is that it enables people to determine their own choices and priorities. For example, monitoring studies of the use of emergency distributions have revealed that aid recipients often sell their food and non-food relief packages in order to obtain money for more urgent priorities such as health care, debt payments and education. This practice is highly inefficient, as beneficiaries are rarely able to obtain real market value for their relief packages, and sales of relief supplies can undermine local markets by encouraging commodity hoarding and causing price fluctuation.

Another advantage of CfW programming is that it can be implemented far more quickly and with fewer delays than food aid. Cash payments (as opposed to in-kind distribution or aid packets) empower the beneficiaries to buy food or other necessities for immediate use and according to the priorities of the individual. Conversely, food shipments may take up to four months to reach the country of destination, and late arrivals can have a destabilizing effect on the conflict or disaster-affected population. People in food-insecure areas may have to adopt negative coping strategies, such as incurring debt or selling off assets, in order to deal with the current crisis while waiting for food packages. A late arrival of food may also coincide with the harvest period, and subsequently produce a negative impact on producers and one local economy. Employment opportunities generated by CfW programming enable many individuals who would otherwise be forced into migration by emergency or conflict to remain in their homes and preserve their communities, families and neighborhoods. Cash-for-Work can be a powerful instrument for positive change—but it is not appropriate in all cases. Women are usually participants in the local market economy and can readily participate in CfW in ways that are consistent with cultural tradition. For example, women may work in exclusive female work crews, or be given lighter, socially acceptable tasks such as cooking lunches for laborers, babysitting, carrying water, guarding supplies. Tensions surrounding the role of women as

recipients of aid are not unique to CfW. Sensitivity to gender dynamics must be a central component

of all relief programs.

24

Figure 6: Ideal structure of a CfW site in the field

Area Supervisor oversees CfW projects in several communities (Annex 6); responsible for the entire project cycle and quality control.

• Site Supervisor (community member) supervises up to five group leaders, reviews work activity and monitors attendance and timesheet preparation. S/he is paid through CfW at a higher wage rate than laborers. S/he is often a village leader or someone of authority.

• Group Leader (community member) supervises up to 30 laborers and are responsible for the

day-to-day management of the work activity and maintenance of attendance records. They facilitate

payment to their work group on a weekly basis.

1. Ghost beneficiaries: Aid agency staff and community leaders should be attentive to the possibility of “ghost workers” – individuals who are reported as present on timesheets but are not actually working. Unannounced monitoring visits should be carried out as part of routine program management. If the monitoring staff find a discrepancy between names reported on the time sheets and workers physically present at the site, the problem should be documented in an incident report and addressed by the program manager. In case of repeated incidents, it may be advisable to suspend CfW activities in that work site, which sends a clear message to the local community about the consequences of widespread fraudulent activity on programmatic operations and helps maintain credibility in the project area.

2. Avoid child labour: Cash for Work can be viewed as an opportunity by all poor

and vulnerable community members including children, disabled persons, the elderly, pregnant and lactating mothers and the chronically ill. However, according to

International Labour Laws children under the age of eighteen are not supposed to be engaged. The design should however accommodate all the households who are labour

constrained through having unconditional cash grants or allocating them light duties such looking after children, distribute water for workers etc.

DETERMINE WAGE LEVELS, AMOUNTS AND FREQUENCY

The eventual success or failure of a CfW program is often a function of the care taken in setting the wage rate. It must be sufficient to inject needed cash flow into the local economy without causing unwanted economic ramifications such as price fluctuation, dependency, or competition with local producers. In order to minimize market distortion, the agency needs to ascertain wage rates for skilled and unskilled labor before and after the disaster through cooperation with government, local leaders, and/or local business people. The wage should usually be fixed at an

Area Supervisor

Site Supervisor

Group Leader

Group Leader

Group Leader

Group Leader

Work Group Avg. Size=25

Work Group Avg. Size=25

Work Group Avg. Size=25

Work Group Avg. Size=25

25

amount lower than the market rate to ensure that CfW projects attract the most economically disadvantaged individuals. A general target is 10%-20% lower than the regular market rate. If wages are too high, CfW projects may entice people away from their regular livelihood activities. However, in the immediate aftermath of a large-scale disaster, the majority of employment activities may be interrupted. In this case, it may be appropriate to adopt wage rates comparable or even superior to those previously in existence to rapidly reintroduce economic activity.

Surveys of the local economy, including an overview of market prices and the availability of employment, should be performed on a regular basis throughout the project to ensure that CfW wages stay at the appropriate level. In instances where local businesses continue to have difficulties hiring sufficient laborers because of competition with CfW programs, aid agencies should either restrict the number of participants; decrease the number of days worked or reduces wages. An inquiry into the condition of the local market and wage rate appropriateness should include the following steps:

• How much should we give people? • How much do people need to survive? • How much meeting these needs will cost? • Does the Cash/Voucher Transfer response trying to meet these costs in full/in part? • Purpose of the grant? • Shelter - what is the cost of building materials? • Set CFW rates below market labour rates allows for self targeting. • Must cover the food basket cost. • Accommodate predictable price increases and/or seasonality? • Contingency planning for most likely scenarios and make adjustments based on price

increases. • Target covering a sig.% of basic needs! • CFW – Local wages before/after disaster? availability of labour and cost of living

Establish market prices for basic commodities. Determining the prices for basic commodities helps ensure that the wages set by the agency are not too low to meet the basic needs of participating households. In disasters and emergencies, the cost of living often rises.

Compare the wages other agencies are providing for similar projects and ensure coordination. It is important to consult other agencies implementing CfW in the same areas about their CfW wage structure. Differences in wage levels may create disputes between communities.

Table 3: Current Cash Payment Rates being used in Afghanistan

Aspect Amount in Afs/$/€ Utilisation the information deciding payment amounts

Labour Rates/day Afs 200 - 400

$ 4 - 8

€ 3.30 – 6.60

Labour rates vary by location and season in Afghanistan. It is important to assess

the labour market dynamics during the time of implementation.

Food Basket in

Afghanistan/month Afs 4,000 – 6,000

$ 80 – 120

€ 66 – 99

Cash and voucher projects aimed at assisting household food needs. It is critical

to understand baseline household income, expenditure patterns and positive

coping strategies so that support complements rather than substitute these.

Cash payment

rates by NGOs

range/month

Afs 2,050 – 3,500

$ 41 – 70

€ 33 - 58

The current rates by NGOs covers between 51% - 87.5% of the food basket and

varies based on available resources, purposes of the grant etc

Current rates for

shelter projects. Afs 35,000 – 55,000

$700- 1,100

€578– 908

26

PAYMENT OPTIONS FOR CASH/VOUCHER RESPONSE PROGRAMMES

According to standard guidelines on methods of cash delivery and payment, there three main options for cash delivery mechanisms available and these are:

Using local banking systems.

Using local money transfer companies.

Direct payments by an implementing agency An aspect to consider includes: 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. 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 have 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. 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. 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. 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. The costs of transferring cash include:

The cost of the payment itself (multiplied by the number of beneficiaries and the frequency of deliveries).

The cost of administrative personnel (salaries and transfer-related expenses).

Transport costs (vehicles, fuel and maintenance).

The cost of office equipment (stationery, photocopying, computers).

Handling costs (security guards, insurance, fees). Using banks may appear to be more expensive because the costs are often more explicit – a percentage of the transfer or a flat fee.

27

Table 4: Minimum conditions Advantages and Disadvantages of different delivery mechanisms

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

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

Sensitization 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 CaLP II Training material – Revised

28

Box 2: Hawala System Field Experiences: ACF in Afghanistan.

ACF chose to use the Hawala system to transfer

cash to the project implementation sites. This is a system that is used by the Other NGOs and UN agencies in country, not only in CTP related projects but also to transfer funds to their sub offices. This system has worked well for ACF. It minimized the risk to ACF staff that carrying large sums of money into remote and in some cases insecure areas would bring. Cash was not directly handled by ACF staff, which built trust and transparency with the community through the development of the ACF cash committee. This committee, shura, was elected and represented the community for this particular project. The distribution was done per CDC (group of villages). The money would be delivered by the Hawalador in most cases to the shura in front of ACF staff. The shura would count it, verify it and hand it to ACF to verify. This would happen in the mosque while beneficiaries were waiting outside. After the verification process the cash was distributed systematically through a system of beneficiary cards (which were received two days prior to distribution). The money was given in manageable denominations, particularly for grants in Day Kundi (2 bills of 1,000 Afghanis), thus easy to monitor. The interviews with community members’ reveal that they were unaware of the hawalador or moneychanger,

which is critical for the safety of that individual. Only the committee knew their identity. The cash was successfully distributed, and the operation went smoothly. In the case of Afghanistan it seems there is really is no other option to distribute cash apart from using the Hawalador. As the closest banks to communities are at the regional capitals it would still require putting ACF staff at risk by carrying and transporting large amounts of money by ‘hand’. The Roshan telephone provider does have a

system of M-Paisa, where cash can be transferred by phone, however their geographical coverage is limited and does not cover ACFs current areas of intervention. The Cash Distribution Process itself is

one of ACF’s best practices. It is efficient and effective and targets those that have been selected without causing any conflict in the communities. Using the Hawalador works well. This means the actual system with beneficiary cards, a community shura, and public distribution, is transparent.

Box 3: M-Paisa in Afghanistan Evaluation

Preliminary Findings:

The DFID pilot test conducted in the four surveyed districts

has proven extremely successful, to many extents: 1)

beneficiaries of the DFID programme fit the criteria

stipulated in the programme terms of reference, namely

including “the poor among the poor”, women and

minorities, among others; 2) a positive impact on

beneficiaries’ households, who often reallocate these

additional resources not only in food items but also in

health, education, repayment of debts, etc. 3) a strong

popular acceptance and legitimacy; 4) reliable and

efficient partnering NGOs; 5) a remarkable technical

efficiency; 6) a relatively cheap option (Roshan vs Etisalat).

M-Paisa system is an absolutely reliable option to transfer

cash to rural and urban poor in a conflict situation like

Afghanistan. Overall, sending remittances through mobile

transfers in the four surveyed districts proves reliable,

targeted, secured and relatively cheap.

The only downsides are: 1) the inadequate format and content of the training sessions; 2) the fact that beneficiaries only withdraw cash and barely use any other M-Paisa services; 3) the risk – especially on the longer-run – that middle-men bypass or divert some cash, as many illiterate people or disadvantaged minorities ask other people to withdraw cash for them; 4) a potential inflationary impact of cash injection (as observed in the Almar district) in areas where security and/or access to other markets are poor.

Today, Roshan is still the cheapest option (-0.8%). Considering the relatively good services provided by Roshan, with the support of DFID implementing partners, there is no reason to immediately shift from one mobile operator to another at this stage. However, humanitarian agencies involved in CTP are bargaining power has increased, with Etisalat’s arrival on the market of mobile cash transfer.

A significant proportion of the participants did follow a training session on M-Paisa. However, illiteracy, travel cost, and poor overall understanding of the system, are strong barriers to the adoption of the M-Paisa system. Some participants were empowered with the withdrawal of other unable beneficiaries, most of the time not taking a commission. However, only a handful of beneficiaries initially (9%) knew how to use the system. The vast majority of beneficiaries rely on a third party to obtain the cash, this call for the need to invest more resources in beneficiary trainings.

EXPRIENCES FROM THE FIELD IN AFGHANISTAN

29

MONITORING, EVALUATON AND EXIT OF CASH/VOUCHER TRANSFER PROGRAMS

OBJECTIVE To check progress, showcase outputs and outcomes, and demonstrate impact of CTPs in a complete, efficient and logical way is very important. OVERVIEW OF STEPS

Steps in CTP Monitoring and Evaluation 1. Develop Monitoring and Evaluation Systems 2. Gather Baseline Information 3. Establish community-level M&E systems 4. Monitor Activities and outputs through post distribution monitoring 5. Evaluation of Effects and Impacts attributable to CTPs 6. Preparation of Donor Reports Steps in exiting CTP projects 1. Review the Exit strategy and operationalize it. 2. Exit meetings with communities 3. Exit meetings with stakeholders

SUMMARY OF THE PROCESS Monitoring is a periodic collection of information on progress. It regularly checks if activities and outputs are being achieved. Evaluation is the less frequent process of analysis that makes conclusions about the fulfillment of objectives (effects) and goals (impacts) of the programme. It is an opportunity for reflection and critical thinking about the successes and failures, strengths and weaknesses and opportunities and threats of CTP intervention(s). Together the process of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) provides a coherent information system and an opportunity for reflective practice; two critical parts of CTP programs are process and impact monitoring. Table 5: Process and impact monitoring indicators

A process monitoring indicator A impact monitoring indicator

An indicator that measures the inputs of a programme and progress toward the outputs to ensure that the programme is appropriate and relevant to people’s needs; that it is implemented in the way that was intended – in other words, that it is efficient and effective.

An indicator that measures the outputs and impact of a programme to ensure that the programme is having the intended impact and is minimizing negative impacts more effectively and efficiently than other types of programmes.

An M&E Plan is developed from the logical framework. Baseline information is collected before the implementation begins, using a variety of tools to capture a pre-programme scenario, HEA baseline is one such succinct tool. Monitoring tools facilitate regular review of work to date, and help plan and adjust activities. Evaluation also feed into planning of both current and future CTP projects, and allows donors and agencies to improve designs, expectations and policies. A good M&E plan is ideally quantitative and qualitative design and practice. Exit strategy implementation marks the end of a CTP project and handing over the project to the community or linking the project to other recovery and developmental projects.

30

Table 6: Examples of Process and Impact Monitoring

Cash Grants Cash for Work Vouchers

Process monitoring

Impact monitoring

Process monitoring

Impact monitoring Process monitoring

Impact monitoring

Were correct sums of money received by beneficiaries or suppliers? Were payments made on time? Satisfaction of beneficiaries with process and methods of implementation What else are beneficiaries receiving?

Have income and expenditure changed? Have sources of food or coping strategies changed? What was the cash used for? Were items available in the markets? Were there changes in market prices of key commodities?

Number and quality of projects completed? Enough people, adequate training, number of days invested Payments prompt, regular, timely and appropriate Number and type of direct or indirect beneficiaries Measures for equality and participation

Has the project affected livelihood strategies? Have beneficiaries saved some of the wages? How did HHs manage the cash they earned? Are people economically active again? Was there an impact on family relations, gender roles etc? Were projects useful and relevant? Would beneficiaries have preferred alternative interventions?

The voucher distribution process. The amount and quality of the commodities purchased by voucher recipients. Traders supplied agreed products. The voucher distribution process was transparent and understood. The use Satisfaction of the beneficiaries

What was the impact on commodities received on livelihoods, meeting of basic needs etc? What was the impact of the vouchers on the market prices etc? Use of income saved through provision of voucher Effect on traders’ livelihoods?

KEY POINTS FROM MODULE 3

There are many issues and elements to consider when undertaking such planning, and a variety of responses can be made to different contexts and situations resulting from a specific humanitarian need.

Effective planning will facilitate monitoring and evaluation in any context.

As in any humanitarian response, monitoring and evaluation are essential for accountability and learning within the sector, although this becomes more important in cash transfer programming as actors gather evidence to support the rationale for such interventions

Effective planning and design for a cash programme are as essential as for any other humanitarian project.

CTP becoming increasingly possible across wider contexts and sectors

In CTP your objectives may need to be much less strictly defined or sector specific

Modality and payment selection from considered analysis of broad options

Programme, finance and logistics staff should work together from beginning to design payments, data needs, controls, and avoid delays

All conditions set for CTs need to be justified

Controls should be appropriate to amount of transfer and degree of risk.

Measured analysis of risks and selection of appropriate conditions, controls and mitigation measures is essential

Risks often have simple mitigation measures, best achieved through coordination and inter-agency learning

Monitoring and evaluation of both process and impact is essential for CTPs. This entails detailed definition of indicators, development of M&E tools, training of staff on data collection methodologies and analysis.

31

CLOSING SESSION

THE AFGHANISTAN CTP WEBSITE

The Afghanistan Cash/Voucher Forum is a forum of practitioners from humanitarian, development organizations and government agencies that are either implementing or are interested in cash/voucher programmes. This forum was formed after Oxfam and ECHO realized that many organizations in Afghanistan use cash transfer programmes to respond to various emergency situations in food security and other sectors, but there was no coordination of cash transfer programmes/practitioners in Afghanistan to establish implementation standards for effectiveness improve preparedness and avoid duplication by implementing agencies.

It is from this backdrop that ECHO funded Oxfam GB (through a sub-contract with ACF) in the 2012/13 Emergency Response Mechanism project (ERM), to establish a coordination platform for cash programmes practitioners in Afghanistan. This forum is open to all ECHO funded partners such as the ERM II and members of the Food Security and Agriculture Cluster (FSAC) in Afghanistan.

The webpage can be followed on the link: http://www.afghanctp.org/en

CLOSING REMARKS By: Mr. Kateb Shams head of Balkh DAIL

Key points

I am sure that you are leant very useful topics on cash; cash will support our farmer’s community during the disasters.

Cash will support vulnerable farming families; they will get chance to continued life and renew livelihoods.

We leant about three types cash, each of them is using in separately cases, please after happened disasters, provides proposals and rescue needy community.

You will get certificates; you are can play role as trainers in other provinces.

32

A. ANNEX 1: THE TRAINING PROGRAMME AT A GLANCE

Basic CaLP Training in the North – Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan 28-30 April, 2013

Day One – 28 April, 2013 Day Two -29 April, 2013 Day Three – 30 April, 2013

Module 1: Session 1

An introduction

Module 2: Session 2

Assessment and analysis

Module 3: Session 3

Design and planning

Module 1: Session 2

What, when and why cash transfer

Module 2: Session 3

Baseline information

Module 3: Session 4

Design and planning

Lunch Lunch Lunch

Module 1: Session 3

Practical applications of cash transfer

Module 2: Session 4

Market analysis

Module 3: Session 5

Monitoring

Module 2: Session 1

Assessment and analysis

Module 3: Session 2

Advocacy Closing session

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP EVALUATION BY PARTICIPANTS Question Participants Responses What did you learn from this training?

Basic principles and practices of CTPs

That CTPs can complement or replace in kind support such as food aid and NFI distributions

Differences between conditional and unconditional CTs

Designs, Types and Methods of CTPs

Risk mitigation and management in CTPs

Aspects of CTP proposal writing

The importance of assessments with market and CTP questions

Effectiveness and efficiency of CTPs in Afghanistan

Monitoring and Evaluation

What did you like most during the training?

The facilitation, the facilitator was a good, friendly and accommodating

The attitude of the trainer, topics discussed and recaps sessions.

Facilitator explanations were great and clear

Group works, gave us chance to interact and practice

Case studies, they were very practical and allowed us to apply learnings

Enjoyed aspects on CTP modalities such as CFW, Cash Grants and Vouchers

What did you not like most during the training?

At times group works were time consuming

Short time - I think there was a lot to learn and feel the training would be great if there is an extra day allocated.

At times was fast when speaking

What suggestions do you have for future such trainings for the facilitator, organizers, other?

Advanced CTP training in future will be good follow up

Support in the field from the facilitator in the future will be great

Field demonstrations for some of the aspects of the training

To commence the training when it is not a holiday because some participants fail to attend the whole training as they were delayed on day 1.

33

ANNEX 3: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS List of the cash transfer training workshop participants Balkh/Mazar - 28 to 30 of April-2013

# Province Name Title Organization Email ID Mobile

1 Balkh Kateb Shams Head Balkh DAIL Kateb_Shams @yahoo.Com 0700215773

2 Balkh Ahmad Zia Aria FAO/RSO FAO Ahmad Zia.Aria@fao.org 0700288163

3 Balkh Hedayatullah TC Johannitar Hidayatgulzai@Yahoo.Com 0774181212

4 Balkh Ah.Jawed Director SORA Sora.afg@gmail.Com 0793300023

5 Balkh Jawid Agriculturalist JDA Jawidsafimazar@Yahoo.Com 0786121512

6 Saripul Mahbooba Proj. Manager ASDO b_Mahboob@Yahoo.Com 0777515305

7 Saripul Eng.Raz Mohd Director AAG aag-Mazar@Yahoo.com 0799173579

8 Balkh Ah.Masood Agriculturist MAAO aac.afg55@Yahoo.Com 0799200298

9 Balkh Evn Jnugyi OCHA HAO Yi2@un.Org 0793001115

11 Balkh S.Mansour OIC/Mazar I.R Mansour.ir.afg.org 0799150663

12 Balkh Eng.S. Atta Proc. Assistant ACTED Mazar.engineering@acted.org 0777531657

13 Balkh Nasir Ahmad Master Trainer AHEAD Mohammady.Nasir@gmail.Com 0796144202

14 Balkh Eve line HOSO OCHA Viehboecu@un.Org 0795878705

15 Balkh M.Hamed Accountant CARE hamed_orlan@Yahoo.Com 0789049144

16 Balkh Masoud Saqib NPO WFP masoud.saqib@wfp.org 0797662215

17 Jawzjan Tamim Sr.DRR SCI Tamim.Sabet@Savechildren.Org 0794492001

18 Jawzjan Azizullah P.M ASAARO Azizullahfarhad@Yahoo.Com 0796505401

19 Jawzjan M.Aman Agriculturist DACAAR North,rm@dacaar.org 0787327025

20 Baghlan Qumars Master Trainer FOCUS Qamars.Walizad@Focushuminitarian.org 0799289878

21 Baghlan Sediqullah P.M ORCD orcd.baghlan@gmail.Com 0786622665

22 Kunduz Zabihullah P.M AREA Zabi.Area@Yahoo.com 0777810852

23 Faryab Hashim Ashpari Head Office NCA Hashim.Ashpari@nca.no 0799124474

24 Faryab Ah.Zubair Project Officer SNWHO Swnho_Samadi@hotmail.Com 0798238591

25 Samangan Kamalodin Director AGDO Agdo2009@Yahoo.Com 0787387004

26 Samangan Ah.Gul M&E Officer HELVETAS Ahmadgoul.Ahmadi@Helvtes.org 0774076810

27 Samangan Sharukhi Admin Officer SRP Sharukhi-srp@yahoo.com 0777500160

28 Balkh Karyab SNA FAO Shairmohammad.Karyab@fao.org 0700544956

34

ANNEX 3: WORKSHOP PHOTO GALLERY Picture 1: The participants, Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan, April, 2013

Pictures 2 & 3: Participants listening and doing group presentations

Picture 4: Participants receiving certificate a CD with all the training materials

35

REFERENCES3 ACF (2007). Implementing Cash-based Interventions – ACF Food Security Guideline. A Guideline for Aid Workers.

Adams, L. and P. Harvey (2006) Learning from cash responses to the tsunami: Issue Paper 1 to 6. ODI Humanitarian Policy Group, London: Overseas Development Institute

<http://www.odi.org.uk/HPG/Cash_vouchers_tsunani.html>

Ali, D., F. Toure and T. Kiewied (2005) Cash Relief in a Contested Area: Lessons from Somalia. Network Paper. Number 50. ODI Humanitarian Practice Network, London: Overseas Development Institute. <http://www.odihpn.org/documents/networkpaper050.pdf>

ALNAP (2006) Evaluating humanitarian action using the OECD-DAC criteria: An ALNAP guide for humanitarian agencies, London: Overseas Development Institute.

Cash and Vouchers Seminar, Geneva 18 – 19 May 2006, July 2006 version 1.0, International federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

CIAT (2006) Enabling Rural Innovation in Africa Guide Series. A Market Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Agroenterprise Development, International Centre of Tropical Agriculture, <http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/africa/pdf/eri_guide2/contents.pdf> CRS, ICRISAT and ODI (2002) Seed Vouchers and Fairs: a Manual for Seed-Based Agricultural Recovery after Disaster in Africa, Catholic Relief Services, International Crop Research Institute

for Semi-Arid Tropics and Overseas Development Institute.

Harvey, P. (2007) Cash-based response in Emergencies, ODI Humanitarian Policy Group, London: Overseas Development Institute. <http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/papers/hpgreport24.pdf>

Knox-Peebles, C. (2001) Impact Assessment of Save the Children’s Cash for Relief Project in

Legambo and Meket (Wollo), Ethiopia, London: Save the Children.

Oxfam GB (2006) Cash-Transfer Programming in Emergencies: A Practical Guide, Oxford: Oxfam GB. < http://publications.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam/add_info_024.asp>

3 Participants were encourage to take time and read the materials referenced, some of which were provided on CD

issued to each participant.