cash transfer programming level two …...5 a. introduction by urayayi gregory mutsindikwa,...
TRANSCRIPT
CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING
LEVEL TWO TRAINING Report for Advanced CTP Training held in Kabul
24 –28 March, 2013
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
About ECHO ..................................................................................................................... 4 About NRC ........................................................................................................................ 4 About Oxfam .................................................................................................................... 4 About the ERM ................................................................................................................ 4 About the Authors ......................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION & OPENING REMARKS ............................................................ 4 A. INTRODUCTIO .............................................................................................................. 4 B. PARTCIPANTS INTRODUCTIONS ........................................................................... 6 C. EXPECTATIONS ........................................................................................................... 6 D. GROUND RULES ......................................................................................................... 6 E. THE TRAINING PROGRAMME AT A GLANCE ..................................................... 7 PROVACATIVE CTP DISCUSSIONS IN TRIPPLES ................................................... 9 GLOBAL CONTEXT OF CTP ........................................................................................ 10 CTP MODALITIES AND DELIVERY MECHANISMS ................................................ 11 NEEDS ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................................ 12 THE 48-HOUR ASSESSMENT TOOL – GROUP WORK ......................................... 14 TARGETING ...................................................................................................................... 15 CASH FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENTS ......................................................................... 18 RISK ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 20 RESPONSE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 23 DELIVERY MECHANISMS AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES ....................................... 23 DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES ............................................................... 27
Communication ........................................................................................ 27 Setting the value ...................................................................................... 28 Registration .............................................................................................. 28 Selecting and contracting partners ....................................................... 29
COORDINATION .............................................................................................................. 29 ADVOCACY ...................................................................................................................... 32 MONITORING ................................................................................................................... 33 EVALUATION ................................................................................................................... 35 CONTINGENCY PLANNING .......................................................................................... 37 PREPAREDDNESS ......................................................................................................... 37 ACTION PLANNING - THE WAY FORWARD ............................................................ 38 CLOSING REMARKS & CERTIFICATE PRESENTATION ..................................... 38 ANNEX 1: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................... 39 ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP EVALUATION BY PARTICIPANTS AND
FACILITATORS ........................................................................................................... 39 ANNEX 3: WORKSHOP PHOTO GALLERY .............................................................. 40
3
List of Tables
Table 1: CTP Level II Training Agenda Kabul 24-28 March, 2013 …………………………………7 Table 2: Provocative discussions in groups of three…………………………………………………9 Table 3: The 48-Hour Assessment Tool at a glance………………………………………………..14 Table 4: Poverty (P) and Vulnerability (V) targeting indicators for cash/vouchers……………….15 Table 5: Analysis and Suggested Responses by Participants …………………………………….18 Table 6: Examples of risk types and responses……………………………………………………..21 Table 7: Typical risks in Afghanistan…………………………………………………………………20 Table 8: Mitigating Risks in CTPs based emergency phase and amount………………………...21 Table 9: Advantages and Disadvantages of different delivery mechanisms…………………......25 Table 10: Dealing with payment systems associated risks…………………………………………26 Table 11: Communications in CTP projects………………………………………………………….28 Table 12: Summary of steps in the advocacy process…………………………………………......32 Table 13: Guidance on monitoring the impact of CTP on markets……………………………......34 Table 14: Assessing the multiplier effects of cash transfers……………………………………….34 Table 15: DAC evaluation criteria…………………………………………………………………….36
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Disaster Management Cycle………………………………………………………….8 Figure 2: Needs Assessments within the CTP Process…………………………………………….13 Figure 3: The Household Economy Analysis Framework……………………………………….....16 Figure 4: Measuring gaps for CTP value setting………………………………………………….....17 Figure 5: Post Flood Timber Market System Map in Freedonia Case Study……………………..17 Figure 6: Steps in risk analysis and management…………………………………………………..21 Figure 7: Risk Matrix……………………………………………………………………………………21 Figure 8: The UN cluster approach……………………………………………………………………30 Figure 9: Fitting into the Cluster Approach in Afghanistan………………………………………….31
4
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 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.
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 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 Solidarites 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 Authors Urayayi Gregory Mutsindikwa and Jessica F. Carson share significant experience between them mainly I capacity building and strategizing humanitarian programs in complex contexts. Urayayi is a 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. Jessica is the OHW Programme Development Manager prior to moving to Afghanistan she has worked the UNDP and a number of grassroots NGOs doing organizational capacity building and as a private consultant designing disaster simulation trainings for various UN agencies, NGOs and government departments.
INTRODUCTION & OPENING REMARKS
A. INTRODUCTIO
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of ECHO, CaLP, NRC, ERM and Oxfam|| February 2013
5
A. INTRODUCTION
By Urayayi Gregory Mutsindikwa, Norwegian Refugee, Cash Transfer Programming Regional Focal Point and Lead
Facilitator
This training was conducted using the draft CaLP Level II Training materials revised in
2013. The CaLP is today composed of Oxfam GB, the British Red Cross, Save the
Children, the Norwegian Refugee Council and Action Against Hunger / ACF
International. The 5 steering committee organisations have come together to support
capacity building, research and information-sharing on cash transfer programming as
an effective tool to help deliver aid in times of crisis. In 2010, the CaLP partnered with
the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies (IFRC) to
develop and implement new activities for 2011 with support from ECHO. As part of this
global partnership and support from CaLP Oxford Office, NRC, Oxfam GB and ACF in
Afghanistan with support from ECHO have adopted these training materials in as part
of the trial run and have embraced the current CaLP strategy to focus on:
Advocacy
Markets
Contingency Planning and Preparedness
The revised training material also covers the use of cash beyond Food Security, mainly Shelter and NFIs, Education, Protection, WASH, Health and Nutrition. Although the Cash/Voucher Working Group was formed at the end of 2012, it became active in January, 2013. This has seen increased interactions and experience sharing which has seen the contextualization of the trainings to address the needs of agencies and participants. With funding from ECHO, NRC and Oxfam GB are committed to improve CTPs in the country and region through trainings, lesson sharing, coordination, joint assessments and analysis, design, implementation and fundraising. The CTP Level 2 is a follow up to the Level 1 training held in February, 2013. The trainings continues to draw from the practical experiences from the participants and explore ways of adhering to the sphere standards and ensuring that cash interventions ‘do no harm’ in the current context. The focus is on cash transfer programming in Afghanistan because there is:
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 through various modalities.
Since this was the first time to use the revised CaLP Level II Training material the trainers will share their views and those of the participants when using this new set of user-friendly material.
6
B. PARTCIPANTS INTRODUCTIONS
The participants were asked a game of dominoes. Each participant was asked to divide
a blank page into two halves and put dots using a mighty marker depicting the number
of years he/she has been doing CTP ( CTP years of experience) and on the other side
the number of years doing humanitarian work (Humanitarian work years of
experience). The participants were instructed to put their papers on the floor and, as
with the game of dominoes, linking their paper with another participant creating a large
connected map of the participants’ experience. The most experienced CTP practitioner
was five years old and the oldest humanitarian was fifteen years in the practice. Each
participant was asked to introduce him/herself and share their expectations from the 5
day workshop.
C. EXPECTATIONS Some of the key expectations identified were:
To share ideas, experiences and best practices with other participants To understand when cash is appropriate To be able to lead or participate in market assessments To be able to write CTP proposals and design ‘sound’ CTP projects To identify the safest and best cash delivery mechanisms in Afghanistan To understand how other organisations are dealing with gender issues To learn more about cash programming especially how to mitigate risks To improve CTP communication and coordination To be able t o create strategic partnerships and relations for future joint
implementation plans To explore where CTP fits within the humanitarian continuum
D. GROUND RULES
Respect Computers closed Mobiles silent Attendance (unless sick) Punctuality Participation Listening Constructive feedback Time management
7
E. THE TRAINING PROGRAMME AT A GLANCE Table 1: CTP Level II Training Agenda Kabul 24-28 March, 2013
Timings Day 1
24 March
Day 2
25 March
Day 3
26 March
Day 4
27 March
Day 5
28 March
08:30 – 10:00
Module 1: ‘An Introduction to CTP’
Session 1.1:
Introductions Definitions and concepts
Session 2.3:
Tools for market analysis Mapping baseline market systems
Session 3.3:
Response analysis
Session 3.7:
Designing an implementation plan
Session 4.2:
Monitoring and evaluation
10:00 – 10:30 Break
10:30 – 12:00
Session 1.2:
Modalities and delivery mechanisms
Session 2.4:
Interpreting the impact on market systems
Session 3:4:
Delivery mechanisms and new technology
Session 3.8:
Coordination
Session 4.3:
Contingency planning and preparedness
12:00 – 13:00 Lunch
13:00– 14:30
Module 2: Assessment and Feasibility of Using CTP
Session 2.1:
Assessment and vulnerability targeting
Module 3: Selecting, Designing and Implementing CTPs
Session 3.1:
Risk analysis and mitigation measures
Session 3.5:
Design and implementation issues in CTP
Session 3.9:
Advocacy
Session 4.4:
Action planning and closing session
14:30 – 15:00 Break
15:00 – 16:30
Session 2.2:
Assessing the feasibility of using cash
Session 3.2:
Sharing experiences and learning
Session 3.6:
Designing an implementation plan
Module 4: Monitoring, Contingency Planning and Preparedness
Session 4.1: Monitoring
Each participant was issued with a Participant Workbook (PW) which contained all the
modules. The PW also contained handouts, and references that supported the training
and space throughout to write notes. Participants were encouraged to familiarize with
the A – Z of Cash Transfers so that they quickly understand the substance and content
of the training.
8
What is Cash Transfer
Programming?
“Cash transfer programming in emergencies is one form of humanitarian response which can be used to address basic needs and/or protect; establish or re-establish livelihoods.” (IFRC and ICRC Guidelines for 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)
Figure 1: The Disaster Management Cycle
Objectives of Module One o Define key CTP terms and
concepts, o Describe CTP modalities
o Discuss new developments in the application of cash transfer programming in different technical sectors
MODULE ONE: AN INTRODUCTION TO CASH
TRANSFERS The introductory module covered a session on Introductions and Assumptions and also Trends, Terms and Concepts in CTP.
The training was guided by the emergency response and
early recovery continuum. Cash and voucher response is
mainly to address immediate
livelihood needs at scale and
speed depending on the time
and phases of response. In real
life situation there is no clear
demarcation between relief,
recovery and development and
that these processes often take
place concurrently, just as there
is no clear demarcation
between the time when early
recovery finishes and
developmental activities start.
The Disaster Management
Cycle depicted here is taken from the IFRC Recovery Programming Guidance 2012.
Although it was greatly appreciated that cash has a role in protection this training did
not focus on use of cash in the shape of
social protection and safety net schemes
has been widespread for many years. Latin
America has well developed cash based
social protection schemes. Although social
assistance as the one being implemented
by the government of Afghanistan and
microfinance approaches such as Savings
and Internal Lending, Agro-Enterprise etc
apply similar modalities in terms of
assessment, design and implementation
but they have different objectives.
Cash Transfer Programming by definition
covers both cash and vouchers.
9
PROVACATIVE CTP DISCUSSIONS IN TRIPPLES
Table 2: Provocative discussions in groups of three
Provocative Issue Discussion Points
There is no reason to use cash if relief items are available in the warehouses.
It is important to understand how far are the stored items meeting the needs of the beneficiaries and find out if there are gaps which can be addressed with cash.
It is more cost effective to meet basic needs through cash than in-kind assistance
Generally true but there is need to do a detailed response analysis whenever possible and compare the different cost-benefit analysis.
Cash transfer is more likely to lead to beneficiaries buying items other than what is intended.
Conditional Cash Transfers can be considered or vouchers for specific items. The other option is to train communities to make informed decisions.
Using cash transfer can increase the security risk for beneficiaries and staff.
May true in some cases but this may apply to other forms of aid so there may be need to improve community consultations.
CTP modalities should always target women No, because at times an intervention may incline towards men e.g. cash for shelter. But decision making at household level is also key.
In programme response selection you should first consider cash. If cash is not possible then consider vouchers. Only if no CT modality is possible should you consider in-kind.
This is dependent on the detailed response analysis and at times it may be possible to implement one and not the other or both.
We already know what people need, so why give them cash?
Cash has many other benefits that meeting the needs such as dignity, empowerment and flexibility for choices.
Using cash means that we cannot guarantee the quality of goods or services for which it is intended.
In some cases beneficiaries can negotiate for better goods and services at low prices if given cash. Quality controls may help.
People will spend cash on alcohol and arms. Man is always rational. Conditional cash transfers with restrictions.
But I had to procure my shelter kits and NFIs yesterday, so we can’t do cash.
There is need to consider other the cash option in future projects at an equal footing as in-kind support.
CTP will make prices go up. Engage traders and consistent price monitoring
CFW will stop people from recovering by themselves in the future and they will be more dependent.
Cash transfer values should be based on established gaps and needs and should complement positive coping strategies.
Markets can’t cope with the scale of need. Market capacity assessment during surveys.
Beneficiaries don’t have the skills to build houses safely, that is strong and meets the regulations.
NGOs often avail technical capacity building training through engineers and monitors the construction process.
Livelihood cash grants will be spent on food and basic needs.
If the transfers are for specific objectives they can be conditional otherwise if it is unconditional food and basics are part of the priorities.
People will pay off debts so the money will just end up with loan sharks.
Depends on the objectives of the CTP, in cases where the loans are part of the coping mechanisms, it can be part of the unconditional expenditure otherwise put restrictions or conditions to meet objectives.
Giving money to women will cause arguments in the household.
Not always the case, but studies have shown that gender-based violence is high when there is no money and peace prevails when there is.
CFW will stop people from working in their farms and as labourers
Cash for work should be seasonal and planned to commence when communities are not busy, this can be through seasonal calendars.
People will just buy millet and staple foods of low nutritional value, not the micro-nutrients they need.
Conditional cash for fortified food, nutritious foods such as fruits, vegetables or specific foods for infants. Cash for nutrition training.
Infrastructure, roads and ports are blocked and damaged, so markets can’t re-stock.
If markets are not functional and cannot be revived consider in-kind support or support the recovery of markets.
People won’t spend money on what is/was designed for.
Conditional cash transfers with restrictions, use of vouchers and beneficiary trainings
10
GLOBAL CONTEXT OF CTP Cash Transfer Programming is generally a new phenomenon; however the 2004
tsunami was the first time we saw a large number of programmes including a cash
element, principally as so many resources were available. Many modalities were tried
by a number of agencies including INGOs and the UN. CTP is now routinely
considered as an option in humanitarian response. One aspect of this has been
demonstrated by the mainstreaming of cash into parts of the Sphere handbook,
specifically the technical chapter on food. UN examples:
The World Food Programme (WFP) has a unit (the Cash 4 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) Iraqi
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
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 CaLP. ECHO has a 100,000 Euro ceiling for
funding of NGO-implemented cash grants.
Private sectors are principally being involved in modalities that involve mobile
telephony, financial services or IT capacity. WFP have recently signed a global
contract with Visa for e.g.
11
CTP MODALITIES AND DELIVERY MECHANISMS Humanitarian Aid is now delivered through three modalities, cash, and vouchers and in-kind. Cash distribution can be unconditional grant that is money given without conditions attached, but still with an intended use in mind, such as buying materials for shelter or food items but allowing beneficiaries the choice of where they shop and what type of materials they buy. A conditional grant is linked to activities a beneficiary is expected to do, such as build the foundations for a temporary shelter or attend a health clinic, to receive the entitlement. Point out that CfW is a form of conditional transfer.
Vouchers are another option of delivering value to beneficiaries. There are two main types of vouchers, electronic and paper. Either can be restricted and/or conditional. A commodity voucher can be ‘restricted’ to certain specified commodities.
In-kind aid support is the traditional way of delivering aid which includes food aid and material support such as agricultural inputs, shelter construction material, medical facilities, educational support materials etc. In-kind modalities there could be two types: imported or locally procured. In all of these modalities there is no expectation of repayment from the beneficiaries. The use conditionality or restrictions in the design of the programme allows expenditure to be directed towards a defined objective and reduces abuse or misuse of the cash.
GROUP WORK - SECTORAL EXPERIENCE AND CTP
Sector Experiences from the participants
Food and
Nutrition
Well-established evidence on the use of CTPs as a primary form of resource transfer in this sector .
CTP cannot substitute high energy foods for supplementary feeding of the malnourished. CTP can
be complimentary, ensuring food goes to targeted children. CTP cannot substitute for therapeutic
feeding programmes, although. Underlying causes of malnutrition can be improved: Access to
more diverse foods, health environments and caring behaviours Good micronutrients through fresh
food vouchers. By meeting non-food needs can prevent sale of food aid, affecting nutrition
Shelter:
Risk of inflation or poor quality materials; Environmental concerns (sourcing timber); Need to
ensure DRR, standards and regulations met; Need to check skills of people building ; Design of
shelters – beneficiaries involved?; Cash for full or core rebuild? Instalments?
Land ownership, landless/tenant, host issues; Rental – high cost of monitoring
Health
Formal and informal fees are often charged for access to health and education . Rarely considered
directly in CTP because of concerns over quality. Assets and in-kind sometimes sold to pay fees.
Cash can prevent sales and improve access. Cash can be contrary to advocacy on freestate
subsidised health services. Fear that discretionary cash transfers will be allocated away from
medical purposes by recipient househol
Education
Concerns over quality of services. Has been used for short term grants for school fees (but same
concerns as within Health). CfW for school construction/repair etc.
Child
Protection
Not much evidence to date. However has been used to provide grants to carers of separated or
orphaned children. Also to support livelihood opportunities as a means to mitigate negative coping
(such as selling girl children)
WASH
Not so much experience. Experiments in Somalia with water vouchers redeemable with local water
retailers (water vouchers also used in Haiti). CfW has also been used however CfW projects are
often reported to be of poor quality, not well linked to arrangements for maintenance
12
Objectives of Module Two
Describe the stages in the CTP process
Identify additional information to collect to estimate if CTP would be feasible
Use the Oxfam 48 hour Assessment Tool
Define survival and livelihoods protection thresholds
Consider how to set targeting criteria for CTP programmes
Describe why market analysis is a critical factor in planning interventions
Describe the different approaches to market analysis (including EMMA and the Oxfam 48 hour tool)
Map and interpret baselines and emergency markets
Map and interpret emergency market systems
Anticipate the causes and effects of inflation and apply mitigation measures
Consider potential entry points for a responses
MODULE TWO: ASSESSING THE FEASIBILITY OF
USING CTP To make an informed decision focus should be on different areas of assessment that are necessary to be able to consider CTP as a programme modality. This call for the inclusion of markets functionality and access in the needs assessment, when estimating the gap and targeting criteria. Additional information (such as markets, social issues, financial institutional capacity, technological capacity, other agency plans etc.) that needs to be collected, apart from the needs assessment, in order to understand if CTP is a feasible response option. After defining 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.
NEEDS ASSESSMENTS Needs Assessment is an assessment carried out at various stages after an emergency to determine the affected people’s needs. It should be carried out at different times.Initial very rapid assessment (in the first days) to size the emergency, and start thinking about response options which can be done through a rapid assessment tool that has many other sectoriial questions. Collection of data may be through: primary data will mainly be collected using rapid checklists or questionnaires, interviews and focus groups, key informants interviews, observation through field visits. Secondary data (baseline data, reports, internet etc.) Initial assessment (1st weeks), understanding the emergency, its impact, evaluating response options
Information might be collected through sampling geographic area, sectorial questionnaires / FGD etc. Detailed assessment (1st months) to add specific information to inform programme design and implementation may be collected through detailed multi-sectorial assessments, coordinated and shared results of surveys, detailed methodologies such as Household Economic Analysis (HEA) or Emergency Market Mapping Analysis (EMMA) etc
13
Figure 2: Needs Assessments within the CTP Process
Needs assessment is one of the key first steps in the CTP process shown above and this is a general process within which some processes can occur simultaneously. Assessments overlap one another and it is a continuous and iterative process of collecting information to ensure that responses targeting is most appropriate in terms of people, objectives and design. Whilst good information does not guarantee a good programme, poor information almost certainly guarantees a bad one. Needs assessment are carried out regardless of planning for a programme using CT or in-kind, although additional information needs to be collected to keep CT as a programming option.
14
THE 48-HOUR ASSESSMENT TOOL – GROUP WORK
Table 3: The 48-Hour Assessment Tool at a glance
Criteria 48-Hour Assessment Tool
Context First days after a rapid-onset disaster
Preferred window to run the assessment
Within a week after the disaster, ideally in the first 48 hours
Criteria 48-Hour Assessment Tool
Duration of the assessment
Within a few days, ideally in 48 hours (including recommendation and report writing).
Staff expected to run the assessment
The assessment team is expected to have no or limited experience in emergency situation and /or food security and livelihood. It is expected that the team members would be either:
(i). Staff who are involved in sustainable livelihoods / development work (but with no, or limited, emergency experience), and/or
(ii). Emergency food security and livelihoods officers with no, or limited, experience in assessments, and/or
(iii). Managers with emergency experience but no, or limited, technical skills (e.g.: humanitarian programme managers).
However, it is also expected and recommended that the team will benefit from the support of an external technical staff (within country, regional office or headquarters) to conduct the analysis and draw the response recommendations from the assessment results.
Validity of data This assessment aims to support the design of the 1st phase response, i.e. the first 6 to 8 weeks after the disaster.
Type of response likely to be recommended
Mainly immediate food security response, including livelihood protection and early recovery measures when it is urgent to protect or to (re-)start critical livelihood activities within 2 months after the disaster (e.g.: based on the seasonal calendar Advocacy, Monitoring, Coordination.
It is for this reason and in this overall context that the 48-Hour Assessment Tool is basic in its approach to understanding the post-shock context. The emphasis is on getting a “quick and good enough picture” to start emergency programming in food security and livelihoods. In addition, as the majority of people who undertake these initial assessments tend not to be emergency technical staff; this tool avoids as much as possible complex, technical language and approaches. Designed for a very specific context and timeframe (the first days after a sudden-onset disaster), the 48-Hour Assessment Tool does not provide all the information necessary for a thorough situation analysis, rather its focus is on getting a good enough picture, fast. In addition, when the situation is highly volatile, the data collected with this tool could very rapidly become outdated. For this reason, Oxfam is currently investigating possibilities to complement the 48-Hour Assessment Tool at a later stage after a disaster (e.g.: 1 month after) in order to update and refine the data collected in the immediate aftermath of the disaster and/or to support data collection and analysis in other contexts (slow-onset crisis, second phase of an emergency response).
15
Targeting for CTP is at times likened to an attempt to hit a moving target.
TARGETING Targeting is the process of identifying geographical locations or beneficiaries for intervention. This does not only apply to CTP but also to other responses such as in-kind support.CTP is a tool not a sector, therefore in principle targeting should not be any different than for any other emergency response programme (although issues around registration and verification may differ). Other differences that have emerged are that it is not, for e.g., as usual to work with ‘communities’, ‘groups’ and ‘households’ directly, but often representatives of each
Generally with CTP considerations are made to target individuals. Although 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 similar will be needed to authenticate the individual. Targeting is based on poverty and vulnerability indicators as defined by communities. Some of the generic indicators are shown in the table below.
Table 4: 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.
16
Household Economy Analysis (HEA) Baseline 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. Figure 3: The Household Economy Analysis Framework
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.
In the broadest sense, the thresholds represent expenditure needs while the other items are the combined contributions of all food sources and income sources. The vertical axis represents currency units, but the specific currency is not relevant to the discussion. Importance is that, for the sake of illustration, all food sources and income sources have been converted to currency units. Key message for CTP, transfers need to keep households above survival thresholds and work towards fulfilling (or exceeding) livelihood protection threshold. These thresholds can be defined and analyzed by analytical frameworks such as the HEA. This leads to establish the gaps and the also identify the size and type of response. The same basic understanding can
BASELINE HAZARD + COPING = OUTCOME +
17
be used to draw comparisons between the baseline, mid-term and endline evaluations. Participants were given a number of examples for them to understand the concepts of:
Thresholds How and why they will be different across different wealth groups How this relates to possible CTP and the household targeting that goes with it
Figure 4: Measuring gaps for CTP value setting
It is fundamental that wherever possible for livelihoods protection be factored into transfer amounts so that households are not always back to survival levels only. The response amount also takes into consideration existing positive coping mechanisms. CT response should not destroy or substitute the existing household survival strategies but rather should complement them
Emergency Market Mapping Analysis (EMMA) The Emergence Market Mapping 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. Figure 5: Post Flood Timber Market System Map in Freedonia Case Study
18
Table 5: 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.
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: 1. Are local food markets functioning well? a. Are food insecure households well connected to local markets? b. How will local demand respond to transfers? c. How much additional food will traders supply at or near the current costs? d. Do local food traders behave competitively? e. Do food insecure households have a preference over the form/mix of aid that they receive? 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.
The 48 Hour Tool Participants were asked to go through case studies on the Freedonia Country profile, the newspaper articles, the map and the emergency food security assessment report. Each of the 6 groups were asked to complete specific sections of the 48 hour tool which using the information provided. This task was not very easy as most groups struggled to identify the information from the case study. However it was emphasized that the Freedonia case study provided a typical example of what normally happens in real life situations.
CASH FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENTS Make the point that markets can be physical or virtual, but both involve a system of suppliers, traders and consumers and the factors that affect the system. Explain the case study activity will provide guidance for answering the three broad questions while assessing cash and voucher appropriateness:
Are the goods and services that people need available locally?
Are markets able to respond to an increased demand for commodities?
Can cash be delivered and spent safely? Currently 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
19
considered too difficult and not agreeable for agencies because it requires specialised staff. However market information is essential if CTP is going to be considered as a modality. Information is collected in response to these questions. The objectives of analysing market systems in emergencies can be summarized as follows: 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 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 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 risks.
20
Objectives
Identify potential risks in CTPs
Describe a risk analysis process and apply it to
a set of issues specific to CTP
MODULE THREE: DESIGN & IMPLEMANTATION
ISSUES IN CTP
RISK ANALYSIS
Introduction Risk is the possibility that an event will occur and adversely affect the achievement of
objectives. Every day humans face risks. They range from small risks such as being caught up in traffic and getting to a meeting late, to the more serious risk of being robbed or caught up in a terrorist attack.
Many risks are accepted and others are avoided. Some risks are controlled by taking steps to reduce the likelihood or impact. And there are other risks that are worth transferring to somebody else such as insurance. It is the same principle in CTP. Having identified a particular risk, a decision is taken to respond by accepting the risk and get on with
things, or control it, avoid it or transfer it. Some organisations have a greater ‘appetite’ for risk than others and only make decisions about risk when a certain threshold is reached.
Table 6: Examples of risk types and responses
Risk Response Type Example of CTP Risk Response
Acceptance Accepting a risk means you do not think the impact will be of too great a consequence, or there is that great a likelihood of it occurring
Control Controlling a risk may include things like putting in financial controls, e.g. more than two people need to sign a form for release of money
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 e.g. asking a security company to insure the money
Participants were asked to work in pairs and identify risks they associate with CTPs in Afghanistan and post them in three categories. The three categories were contextual; programmatic and institutional. Contextual risks are those associated with the environment where the CTP intervention is implemented; programmatic ones are technical risks associated with the intervention implementation and institutional risks are associated with systems and institutions such as market systems.
21
Table 7: Typical risks in Afghanistan
Contextual
Risks of state failure return to conflict, development failure and humanitarian crises. Factors over which humanitarian actors have
not control.
Programmatic
Risk of failure to reach programme
aims and objectives. Risk of causing harm through intervention.
Institutional
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
This table 4 shows a process for analysing and managing risks. It is a generic process but can also be applied to CTP. Figure 6: Steps in risk analysis and management
Responding to risk is based on organisational risk appetite, that is the amount of risk that one agency is prepared to take before deciding which action is necessary such as accepting, controlling, avoiding or transferring it
Figure 7: Risk matrix
Many of the mitigation measures used to combat internal and external fraud will be control measures, and adequate organisational procedures. Controls should be largely in line with those applied to the real cost of in kind goods. The table below offers guidance on appropriate controls in the different phases of a humanitarian response.
22
Table 8: Mitigating Risks in CTPs based emergency phase and amount
Guidance on appropriate controls
Emergency Relief Recovery
Up to 20% or approximately 2 months income
Between 20-50% average income
Above 50% or approximately 6 months income
Level 1 - Up to $100 Level 2 - $100-$500 Level 3 - Above $500
Same as for equivalent cost in kind distribution. Informal checks and social verification
Minimum set of beneficiary selection, targeting and verification controls
Full needs and loss assessments Installments to ensure Q& regulations or compliance
Signatures, thumb prints Social verification, photos, existing ID checks
NIC/ Beneficiary ID, registration and unique identifiers
Blanket distributions where possible to avoid lengthy targeting
Targeting through simple criteria such as location or vulnerable groups
Full beneficiary selection, targeting, registration & verification (posting)
23
RESPONSE ANALYSIS UNDERSTANDING RESPONSE ANALYSIS
Response analysis is ‘a crucial but commonly neglected step between assessing needs and
planning an emergency response. 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: needs assessments must explicitly take into account markets and socio-economic factors, and must be designed to generate an understanding of community and household dynamics, gender and protection concerns and household preferences. This information can be generated from analysis of data collected during rapid or detailed market assessments or through an HEA, EMMA or MIFIRA study.
STEP 2: UNDERSTANDING NORMATIVE FRAMEWORKS
Key humanitarian texts, charters and standards provide the framework and principles that underpin response. The Humanitarian Charter, for example, emphasizes the principle of impartiality and commits us to implementing ‘effective, appropriate and accountable’ responses. Sphere Common Standard III underscores the importance of identifying the priority needs of disaster-affected people. Sphere Common Standard IV requires that the response meets those needs in relation to the context, the risk and the capacities of the population and the government. These principles and standards suggest that humanitarian actors should respond to priority needs in the most appropriate way possible. However, the humanitarian architecture has evolved such that aid agencies tend to select responses and modalities that reflect their specific mandates. This in turn has promoted internal technical expertise and the development of systems that are tailored for a particular type of response in Afghanistan and beyond. This agency specialization tends to lead to formulaic response choices that focus on outputs and resource delivery, rather than on the outcomes for beneficiaries. Cash transfer programming shifts decision-making power and responsibility to the beneficiary, who decides how and what resources and services will be accessed. This offers exciting new opportunities, but also raises challenges for specialized agencies. A clear analysis of beneficiary needs and priorities is essential to understanding how cash transfers will be used. In other words, programme outcomes are dependent on the extent to which agencies understand and support beneficiary priorities. While programming options exist to constrain how cash transfers are used (such as commodity coupons), a truly people-centered programme should aim to enable recipients to meet their priority needs. A proper needs and response analysis identifies the priority needs, the best modality to meet them and the best programming model to ensure that needs are met.
DELIVERY MECHANISMS AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES 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
24
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 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. In Muslim areas, whether an institution operates 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.
25
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DELIVERY MECHANISMS
Table 9: 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
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 CaLP II Training material – Revised
26
BASIC ELEMENTS OF PAYMENT SYSTEMS It is important, when considering the delivery mechanism, to think through the payment, redemption and reconciliation process, and the associated risks. Table 10: Dealing with payment systems associated risks Elements Risks Options
Creation of database of eligible beneficiaries
Incomplete register Inaccuracies Slow set-up
Involves collecting names and sometimes identity numbers, photographs or other biometrics
Can be collected manually or electronically e.g. with a PDA or laptop
Identification methods
Identity fraud Recipient lacks documentation Slow process
National IDs against govt. database, electoral rolls or other databases
Identification by community members
Method of authentication
Identity fraud Technology failure Recipient cannot operate technology (e.g. forgets PIN)
Visual authentication at Point of Payment, by community member or photograph
Biometric on chip card read by reader, fingerprint or verified visually
Barcode on card produced when identified
PIN number
Password
Currency Invalid – unable to exchange for goods Theft
The value that can be exchanged for goods could be:
Cash, voucher or e-money
Point of payment (PoP)
Fraud by merchant Lack of affordable accessibility – distance and opening hours
Can be more or less convenient, depending on time and geography
Can be at specified times
Can be money in envelopes, mobile pay out machine, cards, mobile ATMs Can use existing infra structure (such as banks, ATMs, mobile phone receiving money etc.)
Reporting and reconciliations
Failure to follow up errors or fraud Failure to identify problems quickly Loss of funds/cards Inability to produce accurate and timely reports
Automated or automated with delay (daily, weekly)
Internet real time, including ‘internet banking’ control over process
Card management inventory
Promotion, training, communications and customer support
Recipients unable to receive funds due to lack of understanding, lack of confidence Distrust due to lack of transparency
Call centre
Humanitarian agency personnel at pre-agreed points
Banners, posters, leaflets, videos etc.
27
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
Communication
Participants identified key CTP interventions stakeholders they need to communicate with and the means they communicate with as well as what type of information they share.
Table 11: 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 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
Communications also is also part of the accountability and complains mechanisms where facilities such as radio, hotline feedback forms, focus group discussions, and suggestion boxes and help desks are used. In the field partners are also using project committees, displays on bill boards at project sites such as cash for work schemes. Modern technologies such as twitter, facebook, frontline SMS, Ushahidi are also being used in other humanitarian projects and it is important for the Afghanistan CTP to adopt such new ways of communication. Videos of some of the communication channels were shared and others are being tried in other sectors of humanitarian response, for example Oxfam GB and partners are using the Frontline SMS to report water points breakdown or the number of households accessing them.
28
Definition of the size of the transfer is based on:
What is the objective? i.e. What is the total need in terms of quality and quantity of goods or services?
What can HHs provide for themselves? This is about how much of a gap you may need to fill at the HH level. What can
HHs provide themselves through their own income? What are they receiving from other agencies? Remittances from
extended family etc.?
Commodity or service prices – the equivalent transfer value should be factored into the equation, however do not make
the mistake of ONLY considering this as the transfer value
Transaction or transport prices – how much will it cost for beneficiaries to reach the PoP, are there transaction costs in
receiving the entitlement?
Market trends - this information is valuable as you may need to adjust your transfer for seasonal and/or atypical inflation
Seasonality – what will be the impact of seasons on working or activity patterns, sources of income, spending patterns
(e.g. educational expenses, holiday expenses etc.)
Recovery timeframe - interventions should continue until the targeted households are able to resume livelihood activities
or meet their needs themselves.
Setting the value
Setting values is based on a number factor.
Registration
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). In principle, cash interventions face the same issues as in any other registration process, unless different information is required for the cash distribution process, for instance bank account numbers. A particular question is whether women should be prioritised as the registered recipient of a grant within the household. This is often the approach taken in both cash grants and in-kind projects. Whether this is appropriate is context-specific; it should not be assumed.
Beneficiary Identification A system must be established for people to identify themselves as recipients. There are several options:
National ID cards/Taskira. If available, these should be used.
ID cards issued by another programme. It may be simpler to use existing cards as identification, for instance from UNHCR or WFP, but a solution will need to be found for recipients not in possession of these cards.
A unique programme ID card. Cards are issued by the agency.
Verification by the community/community leaders. No ID is presented and the community or community leaders are trusted to ensure registration and distribution to the right people. Recipients can also be asked verification questions based on registration criteria, such as number of dependants.
29
Selecting and contracting partners
Partnerships can be inter agency, as in an international NGO 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 insecure such the southern parts of the country. However if partners are weak they may fall prey to such negatives such corruption, bribery and nepotism. The other type of partnership critical is the NGO-Private sector partnership which entails working with private sector companies such banks, mobile phone companies etc. This type of partnership is very difficult to forge as it calls for a lot of compromises and negotiation, and at time entering into complex memorandum of understanding or contracts.
COORDINATION 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). Any cash transfer 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 should form part of the assessment process. 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. 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. Coordination is needed around many issues. Wage levels 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 needed 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.
30
FITTING INTO UNTO THE UN CLUSTER APPROACH Clusters are groups of UN and non-UN humanitarian organisations in each of the main sectors. They are designated by the IASC, with allocated responsibilities for coordination. Given the nature of cash and voucher projects it is at times very difficult to fit within the traditional clusters. Cash can be used multi-sectorally and therefore cash coordination should not be limited to food security and livelihoods, but should be integrated into a variety of sectoral discussions (also shelter, education, health, WASH, etc.), to improve the mapping of gaps and duplications of both cash and in-kind programming. Cash coordination focuses more on outcome rather than output, to measure not just the quantity of aid but also how needs are being met by all assistance (cash and in-kind). Technical working groups have frequently been independent of the clusters but in Afghanistan it is inclines to the Food Security and Agriculture Cluster in form of a Technical sub-Working Group which links it to the Inter-cluster
Figure 8: The UN cluster approach
31
Other Clusters
Shelter
WASH
Non Food Items
Protection
Nutrition
Health
Education
Figure 9: Fitting into the Cluster Approach in Afghanistan
The Cash Voucher-Based Interventions working group in Afghanistan is under the Food Security and Agriculture Cluster. It uses this strategic link to outreach other clusters in humanitarian sector. Although the Cash/Voucher Working Group was formed at the end of 2012, it became active in January, 2013. Three monthly meetings were held at Oxfam GB in January, February and March. A total of 20 organisations have joined the group at its formation and a few more have expressed interests to join. At its formation the WG selected Oxfam GB and Afghan Aid as co-chairs of the group, FSAC as the secretariat and NRC to provide technical support. The terms of reference for the Working Group were developed and adopted. The overall aim of the C/V WG was defined as to streamline the design, development and implementation of cash/voucher based responses in Afghanistan. The group will strive to improve programs and their ability to benefit most vulnerable groups (populations affected by natural and conflict –induced disasters, IDP, returnees, people with disabilities, Female heads of HH, aged people, orphan and families with malnourished children) in both urban and rural areas of Afghanistan. Although the WG will consider in priority C/V programming in transitory shocks (spring floods, earthquake, etc.), it will also give later on attention to the context of lean seasons and of the chronic vulnerability due to recurrent drought events. Key discussion points during the meetings were focused on the following:
Beneficiary targeting for cash and vouchers in Afghanistan Use of technology in cash focusing on the M-Paisa (use of mobile phones) How to share and harmonize data collection instruments and guidelines to generic
documents. Cash and Vouchers beyond food security- Exploring ways of engaging other clusters
such as shelter, WASH, Nutrition, Protection, Education and NFIs.
Inter Cluster
Mechanism
32
ADVOCACY An important point about advocacy is that it is a process and not an event; indeed it is often presented as a cycle. The key steps are shown below in linear form, but the whole process is iterative. Although the steps are shown in sequence, in practice some of them may be undertaken in parallel. The outline below is specific to encouraging agencies to have a stronger engagement with the cash transfer programming, but it can readily be adapted to other issues or external stakeholders. Table 12: Summary of steps in the advocacy process
Situation analysis
In the initial step consider the broader context, internal and external. Identify key stakeholders and clarify and understand the terrain in which the advocacy objective is to be addressed
Defining the purpose of the intervention
Step 2 tries to clarify the exact goal of the advocacy process, initially by trying to understand what barriers sit between the current organisational situation and a stronger engagement with CTP or what the concerns of external stakeholders might be.
These barriers might be human, institutional, legal, or take other forms. Identifying the barriers to change brings a focus to advocacy. At this stage ask the question: is there a window of opportunity? Or not?
Identifying the target audience
In this step clarify the critical decision-makers, leaders and influencers in your organisation or in the broader context. They are likely to be linked to, or have influence over the barriers to change. They may be figures from governance or from management, or they may be influential external figures. You will need to be able to access their time and attention.
Note that steps 1-3 are shown as being sequential and linear, while in practice they may well develop in parallel and feed off each other to a degree
Selecting the advocates
This step asks the question: who will undertake the actual process of advocacy. The individual must be able to gain and hold the attention of the target audience. They must bring sufficient personal technical experience and confidence to be persuasive, and to be able to respond to unplanned questions. Finding a person who meets both these criteria can be challenging – note that it could be more than one person. In external advocacy it would be worth involving a number of agencies for a message with greater impact.
Developing the approach
Now you have a hypothesis: you know the barriers to change you want to overcome, the people you need to influence to achieve that, and those who will do the influencing. You now need to consider what approach will be most effective. You can look at fears and concerns; you can focus on the positive aspects; or the strong alignment with policy and mandate. Your situation analysis will help you to select the right approach.
Finding and selecting evidence
Once the approach is defined, identify appropriate sources of evidence. The evidence should ideally be targeted to the context: the situation, the target audience and the key issues identified as barriers to change. Finding appropriate evidence can be challenging.
Identifying advocacy opportunities
In this step you need to identify opportunities for advocacy. This could be presenting messages at scheduled meetings, including coordination meetings. It could be meetings you set up. It could be crafting key messages that you insert in literature. The point is to identify as many opportunities as possible and to follow up.
Adapted from IFRC Leadership Module, Ben Mountfield, 2012
33
MODULE FOUR: MONITORING AND EVALUATION
MONITORING Monitoring market impact This table offers guidance on monitoring the impact of cash transfer programming on markets. Table 13: Guidance on monitoring the impact of CTP on markets
Issue Questions
Supply
Were traders always able to meet demand?
Have traders ever refused customers because of shortages?
If YES, why were they in short supply (transport problems, shortages at regional level, government restrictions, higher demand than usual, etc)?
Were these shortages ‘normal’ at that time of year?
For which items did these shortages occur?
Demand
How did the number of customers change? (Quantify if possible, but trend is sufficient.)
How did their level of activity change? (Quantify if possible, but trend is enough.)
What were the items for which demand increased or decreased more than usual (if any)?
Can traders explain the reasons for these changes?
Prices
How would traders qualify the current price situation?
Did they increase the selling price of certain items more than usual?
If YES, why and for which items did the inflation occur?
Competition
How did the number of traders in the market evolve (quantify and compare figures with baseline data)?
What impact did this change have on the market (prices, tensions, activity)?
Will the traders that moved in (if any) remain in the market or will they quit at the end of the project?
Impact of the project What is trader perception of project impact on their business?
What do traders recommend for future projects?
Note: The recall period for such questions can vary depending on the context. For example: In the past 2
weeks, in the past month, since the start of the project, etc.
Adopted from the CaLP II training materials revised in 2013 and is based on ACF (2007) Implementing Cash-Based Interventions: A guideline for aid workers. Action Contre la Faim: Paris. Measuring multiplier effects This table offers guidance on assessing the multiplier effects of cash transfers. Most project M&E does not look beyond initial beneficiary expenditure, but following cash flows further through local economies gives additional insight into who else benefits from transfers, whether cash remains in the local economy, and whether transfers encouraged greater production of goods and services. The depth of information required will depend on context, analytical needs of individual projects, agency and staff capacity, and data availability.
34
Table 14: Assessing the multiplier effects of cash transfers
Type of Information When How Sample Questions
Step 1: Livelihood groups, income, food, and expenditure
Patterns in food sources, income sources, and expenditure of livelihood groups
Baselines Household surveys
Level of household income/expenditure in ‘normal’ period or the previous month, disaggregated by livelihood group and market actors.
Baselines Focus groups Livelihood mapping based on Household Economy Analysis methodology.
Step 2: Market mapping
To identify the key markets that are affected by cash transfers
Baselines (ex-ante)
Household interviews, focus groups, key informants
What are the market systems for commodities and services that project participants most need?
In which market(s) is the target group is planning to spend its transfers?
Monitoring (ex-post)
Sample interviews
On which items has cash been spent? How much has been spent on each group of commodities or services?
Develop key market models
Baselines or monitoring
Focus group discussions and interviews with key informants, local market actors, project beneficiaries
Where (location) and how (activities and roles) are different groups involved in market systems?
Which market chains are most important in meeting beneficiary needs?
What forms of infrastructure and types of supporting services are especially important?
What are the rules, regulations, social norms, or practices that affect performance of key market systems?
Step 3: Use of cash transfers
First round of expenditure: beneficiary spending patterns
Post-distribution monitoring
Sample interviews with project beneficiaries; focus group discussions
On which commodities and services have the transfers been spent?
How much has been spent on each type of item or service?
From where and from which market actors have the different goods and services been purchased (farmers, local traders, local shops, wholesalers, etc)?
What is the origin of purchased products (local or imported)?
Second round of expenditure and beyond
Post-distribution monitoring
Sample interviews or focus groups with market actors
What product(s) or service(s) did the ‘local market actor’ provide to project participants?
From where did ‘local market actors’ provision the additional supplies of necessary commodities to meet increased demand?
What product(s) or service(s) did the ‘local market actor’ provide to project participants?
Second round of expenditure and beyond
Post-distribution monitoring
Sample interviews or focus groups with market actors
By how much has their business activity increase?
How have they spent their additional income? (This applies to third and subsequent rounds of cash transfers and expenditure.)
Step 4: Impact on primary and secondary beneficiaries
Local market actors Monitoring or final evaluation
Sample interviews or focus groups with market actors
Level of expenditure/income of main market actors compared with project baseline and ‘normal’ times.
Changes in the market system environment and services
Monitoring or final evaluation
Focus groups, interviews with key informants, local market actors, project beneficiaries
Changes in the number of actors (traders) in key commodity value chains.
Changes in the volume of business and types of goods in markets.
Changes in prices of key market commodities and services.
Changes in availability and accessibility of key market services.
Adapted from Creti, Pantaleo (2010) The Impact of Cash Transfers on Local Markets. Cash Learning Partnership: Oxford.
35
EVALUATION Given that donors are still skeptical about cash transfer programming, they require detailed, informative and evidence-based evaluations. They are interested in showcasing impacts and effects of CTPs on target populations, and overall success of implementation of such projects. Of late there have been calls for documenting comparison between CTPs and traditional methods of aid delivery. Evaluations can be internal or external but in either case they involve senior staff to avoid biased processes. Evaluations can be;
Mid-Term Evaluations done half way through the life of the project.
End-Term Project Evaluation done after the implementation of the project.
Impact Evaluation, done to draw comparison the before and after project or with or without project scenarios.
CTPs interventions like many other humanitarian aid projects is guided by the the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria. DAC evaluation criteria
DAC evaluation guide is an available resource and most NGOs are signatories to the methodology and CTPs are not in any case different.
This table below summarizes evaluation criteria established by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in relation to related issues and key questions to address in evaluating each theme. Evaluations will also want to assess accountability to beneficiaries and achievement of project indicators, outputs, objectives, and sustainability.
36
Table 15: DAC evaluation criteria
Theme Issues Key questions**
Appropriateness
Is the project in line with local needs and priorities (as well as donor policies)? Appropriateness is the tailoring of humanitarian activities to local needs, increasing ownership, accountability, and cost-effectiveness.
Were sufficient food and essential NFIs locally available for purchase? Were markets functional and accessible? Participants preferred cash to food?
Connectedness
The need to ensure that activities of a short-term emergency nature are conducted in a way that takes longer-term and interconnected problems into consideration.
How did CTP interact with other forms of assistance (project, NGOs, etc)?
Coherence
The need to assess security, development, trade, and military policies as well as humanitarian policies to ensure that there is consistency. It is equally important that policies reflect humanitarian and human rights considerations.
Was decision making evidence based? Were different aspects of the project (targeting, activities, and modalities) complementary for increased impact?
Coverage
The need to reach major population groups facing a range of contextual challenges, regardless their possible remoteness.
How were beneficiaries targeted? Was targeting perceived as fair? Did the use of cash/vouchers make targeting more difficult or complex? Was cash shared with households that weren’t targeted?
Efficiency
Efficiency measures the outputs—quantitative and qualitative—achieved as a result of inputs. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving an output to determine whether the most efficient approach has been used.
How efficient and appropriate were the delivery methods? Did the agency have sufficient skills and capacity to manage the project effectively? What were the management costs/requirements in implementing the project? What was the total cost of the project per beneficiary? What were the external costs borne by beneficiaries? What was the total cost of comparable in-kind projects per beneficiary?
Effectiveness
Effectiveness measures the extent to which an activity achieves its purpose, or whether this can be expected to happen on the basis of the outputs. Implicit within the criterion of effectiveness is timeliness.
Did people receive the right amount? Were distributions timely and efficient? Was cash delivered and spent safely? How were transfers spent? What costs were borne by beneficiaries in receiving and using the cash? Did beneficiaries see payment levels as fair and adequate?
Impact
Impact looks at the wider effects of the project: social, economic, technical, environmental, etc. It also includes changes related to gender, age, communities, and institutions. Impact can be intended or unintended, positive or negative, macro (sector) or micro (household or community).
What was the effect of the CTP on household livelihoods? What multiplier effects may have occurred due to the cash? What effect did the project have on local markets for key goods and services? Where and how accessible were the markets where cash was spent? How did households decide how to use cash and were there tensions between men and women or different generations? How has the cash project affected traditional community self-help mechanisms? How has the cash project influenced local debt and credit markets?
Adapted from a combination of ALNAP (2006) Evaluating Humanitarian Action Using the OECD-DAC Criteria: An ALNAP Guide for Humanitarian Agencies (Overseas Development Institute: London) & ACF (2007) Implementing Cash-Based Interventions: A guideline for aid workers (Action Contre la Faim: Paris). ** To be updated based on completion of Good Practice Review, forthcoming.
37
CONTINGENCY PLANNING Contingency planning is a management tool aimed at analyzing the potential impact of crises; plan for a variety of scenarios; allocate roles and responsibilities, all in order to deliver timely,
effective and appropriate responses. Context and risk analysis depends on detailed scenario building (needs, capacity and constraints); rresponse planning (strategies, management and coordination, roles) and preparedness needs. Is the implementation of the contingency planning process aimed at establishing a standing capacity to respond to potential scenarios and putting in place a broad set of measures based on capacity building, stand-by capacity, systems and procedures, stock-piling and pre-positioning, building base line information and establishing agreements with partners and service providers. Contingency planning involves developing strategies and procedures in anticipation of humanitarian crises. None of these steps means that agencies should automatically
choose to implement cash transfers in the event of a crisis merely that, if they choose to do so, arrangements are in place to ensure that cash reaches beneficiaries as promptly as possible, with the minimum of delay. A simple rule of thumb is that, if it does not cost money, an agency can do it before a disaster strikes. Contingency planning before a crisis helps ensure that, for the main predictable hazards (i.e. for the vast majority of humanitarian situations), a coordinated response strategy has been agreed between central and local governments, donors and implementing agencies; all the relevant actors have a good idea which kinds of interventions would be needed within that strategy, at which stage in a crisis or within a seasonal calendar; and they will be ready to begin rolling out those interventions with minimum delay. With good contingency planning and preparedness, for example, it should be possible for crisis affected populations to begin receiving a cash transfer within days of a crisis, if that were deemed the most appropriate response (in practice this almost never occurs). Agencies need to understand the kinds of shocks to which cash would be an appropriate response, the timescale and window of opportunity for a cash response, an approximate idea of the value of any transfers, the probable scale in terms of the number of beneficiaries, and how, if
at all, the agency might target assistance.
PREPAREDDNESS Rolling out large-scale cash-based programmes in a timely way requires investment in preparedness. Despite the growing use of cash transfers in emergencies, most agencies have not yet included specific cash programming elements in their contingency planning documents. Response times would be significantly improved if national and regional actors collaborated to address these gaps. In particular, aid agencies, governments and donors should work together to establish criteria to determine when cash-based responses should be used, and what levels of market information would be required. Logistical preparedness measures, including dialogue with potential private sector partners, pre-authorization of suppliers and contingency stocks, would also increase the speed of the response. Aid agencies must also develop their familiarity with existing market information, such as that provided by the Food Security and Agriculture Cluster. In addition to studying predictable trends,
38
such as seasonal variations in commodity or labour markets, humanitarian organisations, donors and governments should gather baseline data to inform emergency programming. This information can be used, updated and expanded through additional analysis in the lead-up to a crisis or after a disaster. Humanitarian actors should also engage in discussion with those involved in collecting long-term market data, to identify what information is required to support humanitarian decision-making, agree on early warning and recovery indicators and include predictable market scenarios in contingency planning. Emergency preparedness can be broader, and includes stocking up on key relief commodities, creating standby capacities and training staff. Just as agencies currently have stockpiles of key in-kind emergency items, so this may be useful in contexts where a cash-based response is likely to be appropriate to have pre-established mechanisms in place for delivering cash, such as draft agreements with banks and local traders, or at a minimum to have a plan for establishing the systems and partnerships necessary to implement a cash-based intervention. Agencies should initiate discussions with banks, mobile phone companies, cash-carrying companies, insurance companies and other possible partners before a crisis, and agree in principle what they can and cannot handle, and what the rough scale of costs would be. It may also be possible to design vouchers and beneficiary cards in advance.
ACTION PLANNING - THE WAY FORWARD Activity Timeline (2013) Responsibility
1. Lounge of natioanal CALP website End of March Oxfam GB/NRC
2. Publication of Technical Guidelines Beginning of April NRC
3. Technical Support, compliance monitoring field visits
On-going NRC/Oxfam GB
4. Case Studies, Videos/Publications On-going Oxfam GB/NRC
5. Regional CALP trainings Next phase of project
6. HEA baseline From end of April Solidarites International
7. Cash/Voucher Working Group Meetings Monthly FSAC/OGB/AfghanAid/NRC
8. Training Workshop Report Mid April NRC
CLOSING REMARKS & CERTIFICATE PRESENTATION By David Makin-Taylor, Deputy Country Director, Action Contre la’ Faim (ACF), Afghanistan
David greatly appreciated the desires and willingness by participants who attended the CTP II training and the respective agencies for supporting them to participate in the training. He explained that ACF is part of the ERM consortium in Afghanistan and also a member of the CALP partnership which functioning under a global steering committee and recognize the new strategy of 2013-15 which is focused on:
• Development of institutional capacity • Development of leadership and coordination structures and operational partnerships • Evidence base on impact of CTP
The CALP basic and advanced trainings are some of the activities that will feed into these broader objectives. Working and learning together will ensure that an improved quality of aid is availed to affected populations and cash becomes an integral response mechanism and picked as an ideal option of choice where ever feasible. ECHO is funding the ERM consortium and also many other agencies including NRC and Oxfam GB and this joint effort is greatly making a difference in the CTP landscape in Afghanistan.
39
ANNEX 1: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
No Agency Contact Names Designation Email
1 Oxfam GB Abdul Habib EFSL Coordinator [email protected]
2 Mediar Jonelle Armstrong ERM Project Manager – Data
3 PIN Gul Rahman Deputy PM [email protected]
4 Concern Dayan Rasikh District Manager [email protected]
5 Solidarites Acker Yuan ERM Program Manager
6 Solidarites Jawid Ahmad Omari ERM Area Manager [email protected]
7 Solidarites Ali Reza Azizi ERM PM Assistant [email protected]
8 IRC Durani Hamedullah Field Coordinator [email protected]
9 IRC Qudratullah Amiry HP- Manager Qudratullah. Amiry@afghanistan. theirc.org
10 Concern Naser Ahmad DM-TKN [email protected]
11 WFP Gity Rauf Mesbah Senior Programme Assistant
12 Islamic Relief Parwaiz Kharooti Senior Programme Officer
13 ACTED S. Najeebullah Balkhi Livelihoods Officer [email protected]
14 ACF Ezatullah Noori Grants Manager [email protected]
15 UN-WFP Dost Mohammad Kakar
Senior Program Assistant
16 Concern Rahman Rahman RDM-TKS [email protected]
17 AAD Sayed M. Kaloq Agriculturalist [email protected]
18 WFP Laurian Nicholus Finance Officer [email protected]
19 NRC Amamullah Mansoory Emergency Focal Point
20 NRC Ghulam Rahman Emergency Focal Point
21 NRC Gul Karim Hasrat Emergency Focal Point
22 FSAC Sediq Rahmati Emergency Preparedness Officer
ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP EVALUATION BY PARTICIPANTS AND FACILITATORS
All the participants enjoyed group works, the venue, and time management. The first part of the Freedonia Case study was not easy as the participants failed to identify
the required information to complete the 48-Hour tool. Videos were quite exiting but participants advised the facilitators to also explore the
possibilities of identifying local videos for sharing. Other parts of the case studies were fairly easy and enjoyable, especially the market
mapping and analysis and risk identification, analysis and management.
40
ANNEX 3: WORKSHOP PHOTO GALLERY Picture 1: Participants paying attention Picture 2: The string game on market systems
Picture 3: Assisting the group works Picture 4: Group Works in progress
Picture 5: Chart showing modality score card Picture 6: Gallery Walk
Picture 7: Participants Group Photo Picture 8: Receiving certificate from ACF Deputy CD