REPORT OF THE RAPID SURVEY OF CASH-BASED INTERVENTIONS (CBI) IMPLEMENTED IN GAZA

PREPARED BY CPWG LEAD WITH INPUTS OF FSS COORDINATORSEPTEMBER 11, 2018

INTRODUCTION Cash transfer programming (CTP) is widely recognised as one of the most significant areas of innovation in humanitarian assistance, with huge potential to meet more needs, more efficiently and more effectively. In recognition of CTP’s potential, many humanitarian actors, through the Grand Bargain1 and independently, have made public commitments to increase its use (CaLP, 2018). In Gaza Strip this matter played and will play an important role in the type of assistance offered to the most vulnerable people living in the enclave.This report aims to present the main findings of the Rapid Survey on Cash Modalities in Gaza carried out by the Cash Programing Working Group (CPWG) with its members who are implementing activities based on cash intervention. Through this exercise, the CPWG aimed:

o To map and to have a clear understanding of the different cash modalities implemented by different stakeholders.

o To harmonize tools used in order to have a better intervention, good practice and effective coordination for creating consensus on the work procedures and standards.

METHODOLOGYo Action Against Hunger, Première Urgence Internationale (PUI), Norwegian

People's Aid (NPA) and Oxfam conducted 5 technical meetings to set the rapid assessment application.

o Application was shared with the FSS coordinator to be revised.o Action Against Hunger took the lead to prepare the online interface which

was shared with all members (around 40) by email.o 21 members responded and filled the application (ANNEX 1: LIST OF

MEMBERS WHO FILLED OUT THE SURVEY). o Final report was prepared by the CPWG lead (Action Against Hunger) with the

support of FSS coordinator in Gaza.

1 The Grand Bargain is an agreement between more than 30 of the biggest donors and aid providers, which aims to get more means into the hands of people in need. https://www.agendaforhumanity.org/initiatives/3861

1

o The survey covered the 5 governorates of the Gaza Strip. The information was collected from July 2018 (data collection) to September 2018 (report preparation).

2

MAIN FINDINGS CASH BASED INTERVENTION COVERED AREAS:

Out of the 21 organizations who filled out the survey, 67% are international organizations, 24% are national organizations and the rest are United Nations Agencies (9%).

28% of surveyed NGOs are working in Gaza City. 6% are working only in ARAs area in Gaza Strip. 11% are working in different areas in Gaza and North governorates. 64% of surveyed NGOs are working in the 5 Gaza governorates. Almost all the localities which identified as refugee areas were covered while

there are gaps in mixed localities to be assessed.CASH BASED INTERVENTION TYPOLOGY AND MODALITY:

11% of the interviewed organizations are only implementing Unconditional Cash Transfer (UCT), 33% are implementing Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT), and 56% of the interviewed organizations are implementing a combination of both typologies. Within each typology analyzed there are different Modalities. The table below summarises the information per each one.

Typology Modality

Unconditional Cash Transfer (UCT)

Cash E-Vouchers (online) for food, Paper Vouchers for Nonfood items

(Hygiene kits, mattress, kitchen kit) and for livelihoods.

Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT):

Cash to improve IGA's Cash for Work Cash for education. Cash for training (internship) Cash to improve livelihoods Food in-kind Cash for Shelter Rehabilitation

Unconditional Cash Transfer (UCT) Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT):

Unconditional transfers are provided to beneficiaries without the recipient

having to do anything in return to receive the assistance. (CaLP, 2017).

A conditional transfer requires beneficiaries to undertake a specific

action/activity (e.g. attend school, build a shelter, attend nutrition screenings,

undertake work, etc.) to receive assistance; i.e. a condition must be

fulfilled before the transfer is received. Cash for work/assets/training are all forms of conditional transfer (CaLP,

2017).

3

A full glossary of Cash Transfer Programming (CTP) terminology found during the survey is attached in annex 3. The information is provided/adapted from CaLP.

4

SELECTION CRITERIA: 100% of the organizations have a clear selection criteria framework to select the

beneficiaries based on: o Degree of the vulnerability of the socio-economic indicators of Food

Security (CSI, FCS, HFIAS). o Protection status (war affected).o No source of regular income.o Priority for WHHs.o Have good business idea in case of IGAs.

CASH MODALITIES: RANGES AND WAGES Cash for Livelihood

o To improve IGA’s, ranges were between US$ 900 and US$ 2,000 USD per household.

Cash for Shelter: o To improve shelter, ranges were between 3,500 and 4,000 USD per

household (Shelter). Cash For Work:

o 60 NIS (unskilled)o 75 NIS (Skilled)/ working day.o 25 working days/round.o 7 hours/day of work.o Monthly payment from 1 to 4 months (Cash).

Cash for training (internship):o 11% of the surveyed NGOs are implementing this modality with different

ranges (3 $/day up to 13$/day).DONORS

In recent years, the use of cash transfer programming (CTP) in humanitarian assistance has grown significantly. In 2016, we estimate that $2.8bn in humanitarian assistance was disbursed through cash and vouchers, up 40% from 2015 and approximately 100% from 2014. CTP is widely recognised as one of the most significant areas of innovation in humanitarian assistance, with huge potential to meet more needs, more efficiently and more effectively. This has never been more vital. The gap between humanitarian needs and available funding has increased to over 40%. In recognition of CTP’s potential, many humanitarian actors, through the GRAND BARGAIN and independently, have made public commitments to increase its use. And many opportunities have been identified to align CTP with major reforms at every level, from achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, to strengthening social protection systems and realizing the UN’s New Way of Working (CALP, 2018). For Gaza Strip case, the below donors were identified that are supporting the CBI.

o ECHO.o USAID.o ICRC Programs

o EU.o Spanish donors (ACCD,

AECID).

5

o Qatar Charity. o OCHA/ERF.

o GAC/Canada.o SIDA.

6

PROGRAMS VALUESThe survey showed huge varieties in term of the amount of fund which depended on the following:

o Number of the beneficiaries in need for the proposed support.o Capacity of organization.o Donor mandates.

The scale started from one million USD up to 50 million USD for long term programs.

Number of beneficiaries were related to the available funds and capacity of different organizations.

Implementation period started from one year up to Five years.INTERVENTION SECTORS AND SCALABILITY:

Surveyed organizations are focusing on the following sectors:o Food security and livelihood. (38% of the organisations) o Cash for Education. (10% of the organisations)o Cash for shelter. (5% of the organisations) o Cash for health. (5% of the organisations)o 43% of the organisations did not provide the additional information

requested. All organizations mentioned that they have the capacity to scale up the type of

intervention and number of beneficiaries. UNRWA AND WFP PROGRAMS:

Both of them are covering the 5 governorates. Both are doing CCT and UCT. UNRWA is applying Job Creation Program (JCP) and Graduated Training Program

(GTP) while WFP focus on Online (E-Vouchers) (food). Both organizations are defining the working age to be from 18 to 60 years Both have the capacity to scale up during emergencies Selection Criteria:

o UNRWA is targeting refugees with high focus on applicants whose families have been identified as poor through the poverty benchmarking mechanism used by UNRWA.

o World Food Program (WFP) is applying Proxy Means Test Formula (PMTF) for the selection process.

Rates:o For UNRWA: Unskilled: NIS 39, Skilled: NIS 54, Professional NIS 74/ GTP:

Skilled: NIS 37, Professional NIS 47o For WFP: 10.3 USD per beneficiary per month.

RESPONSE CAPACITY: 100% of the organizations can respond during the emergency, after and during

recovery phase.

7

During Emergency : All surveyed NGOs used to implement the UCT modality during emergency with variable percentage. In addition to that, they have the capacity to distribute food parcels, health packages.

Post Emergency: Most of the surveyed NGOs have the capacity to implement post emergency activities such as: land and greenhouse rehabilitation and psycho-social support services. The household coverage in this period as below percentage

Early Recovery: In recovery stage, all surveyed NGOs are focusing on agriculture, livelihood and social recovery projects such as CFW, IGAs and agricultural assets rehabilitation.

PROTECTION MAINSTREAMING: 95% of surveyed NGOs define the working age 18 years or above, 5% are

following the Palestinian law standards which is define the working age 14 years or above.

83% of surveyed NGOs have a policy to enforce child protection, while 17% don’t have.

83% of surveyed NGOs already have Active mechanisms to prevent child labor, while 17% don’t have.

8

CONCLUSIONSAs a result of this exercise, the members provided to CPWG an important amount of information to build a guideline for Cash Transfer Programming (CTP) in the Gaza Strip. (ANNEX 2: GUIDELINES FOR CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING IN GAZA STRIP). This guideline provides step-by-step a path on how to design and implements cash interventions in the Gaza Strip. Through harmonized tools, members and other stakeholders will have a better intervention, good practice and effective coordination for creating consensus on the work procedures and standards. Additionally, a clear description and explanation of the different cash modalities implemented by different stakeholders in the Gaza Strip are included as well.It is therefore crucial that an organisation implementing humanitarian programming in the emergency context ensure children and young people in contact with those services are kept safe and protected. Based on the collected information under this survey, it has been identified A CHILD PROTECTION GAP associated with the delivery of activities and the working age that need to be strongly enforced.CTP is widely recognized as one of the most significant areas of innovation in humanitarian assistance, with huge potential to meet more needs, more efficiently and more effectively (CaLP, 2018). In recent years, in the Gaza Strip, the use of this tool in humanitarian assistance has grown significantly. Additionally, special interlink was created between job creation and families in need. Nevertheless, it seems important to enhance a clear definition/differentiation BETWEEN SKILLED LABOR JOBS AND UNSKILLED LABOR JOBS in order to have clear activities for each category.As part of the topics to be enhance, the information collected suggest that the beneficiary disaggregation needs to be more clear, we are talking about households or individuals. Similar improvements need to be done to clarify ranges in term of wages, number of working days and Currency.

9

CONTACTS FOR MORE INFORMATIONJairo PAIZANO POTOYChair CPWG on Behalf of Action Against Hungerjpaizano@pt.acfspain.org +972 (0)594 79 99 51

Anas MUSALLAMFSS Operations Coordinator, Gaza Stripanas.musallam@fscluster.org +972 (0) 059-203-0026

10

ANNEX 1: LIST OF MEMBERS WHO FILLED OUT THE SURVEY1 Oxfam2 Union of agricultural work committees (UAWC)3 International Orthodox Christian Charities4 Norwegian People's Aid5 Mercy Corps6 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)7 Première Urgence Internationale (PUI)8 Islamic Relief Palestine9 Save Youth Future Society (SYFS)10 Save The Children SCI11 MA’AN Development Center12 Agricultural Development Association PARC13 Catholic Relief Services14 Global Communities – CHF formerly15 Arab Center for Agricultural Development16 Action Against Hunger - Spain17 ACTED (Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development)18 Dan Church Aid /Norwegian Church Aid 19 UNRWA20 NRC21 WFP

11

ANNEX 2: MAIN HISTORICAL MOMENTS/FACTS ABOUT CTP INTERVENTIONS IN GAZA STRIPCash transfer programming (CTP) is widely recognised as one of the most significant areas of innovation in humanitarian assistance, with huge potential to meet more needs, more efficiently and more effectively. In recognition of CTP’s potential, many humanitarian actors, through the Grand Bargain2 and independently, have made public commitments to increase its use (CaLP, 2018). In Gaza Strip this matter played and will play an important role in the type of assistance offered to the most vulnerable people living in the enclave. The main historical moments/facts about CTP interventions in Gaza Strip are as follow: In 2006, 70,000 Gazans workers were prevented to entering Israel to work in different

sectors such as agricultural, industrial and services. Consequently, the unemployment rate increased and cash availability reduced. At that point, priority was given to Cash programming to help those families to access proper income thought Cash for Work (CFW). This experience, nevertheless, was implemented in limited steps.

During 2008, the Gazan’s industrial and agricultural infrastructures were destroyed by the Israeli military action named Operation Cast Lead. This situation increased the number of jobless workers who were not meeting their basic needs. At this moment, CFW programs were also implemented to rehabilitated community assets, agricultural roads and other municipal needs; while enhanced the access to services, food and other basic needs for the beneficiaries.

Between 2009 and 2014, discussions were held among the FSS partners about implementing CTP. The discussion aimed to find the best CTP modalities that can be more sustainable, create enough income to access basic needs and to help targeted families to enhance their resilience to cope expected and recurrent shocks. During this period, Cash for livelihood was one of the new modalities implemented focusing on the agricultural needs and to increase the productivity of the farmers. In addition to that CFW opportunities were created in the same sector as well. In parallel to that, additional technical discussions took place to find harmonized standards and unify the amounts of cash distributed through different modalities. The discussion wasn’t hard at that time due to the limited number of modalities implemented at that time.

In 2014 another military action (Operation Strong Cliff) affected the dynamic of the economy in Gaza. Large areas of cultivated lands have been either destroyed or substantially damaged during the war, causing a commensurate loss of income and damages of assets affected farmer households. The need for sheltering and accommodation were increased. This came to top up the increase of unemployment and destruction of property, crops and land. One again to rehabilitate the economy of Gaza CTP modalities were implemented. During this period the Cash Programing Working as part of the Food Security Sector was established.

Nowadays, Gazan households are faced with the challenge of financially support the household and identifying alternative livelihoods and income-generating opportunities in order to cope with increasing household economic insecurity. At this point, more priority is given to the CASH injection to fill the many gaps that the families are exhausted to meet. Different modalities are implementing including CFW, Cash for Shelter, Cash for livelihood. Also, the market functionality and the technology availability helped the key players to apply many different transfer mechanisms such as E-vouchers, vouchers, exchange offices and over the counter money.

2 The Grand Bargain is an agreement between more than 30 of the biggest donors and aid providers, which aims to get more means into the hands of people in need. https://www.agendaforhumanity.org/initiatives/3861

12

ANNEX 3: GUIDELINES FOR CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING IN GAZA STRIP

13

**The PowerPoint presentation document is attached as well.

14

ANNEX 4: GLOSSARY OF CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING (CTP) TERMINOLOGY

Cash (cash transfer)

The provision of assistance in the form of money (either physical currency/cash or e-cash) to beneficiaries (individuals, households or communities). Cash transfers as a modality are distinct from both vouchers and in-kind assistance

E-Vouchers (online) for food,

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

Paper Vouchers for Nonfood items (Hygiene kits, mattress, kitchen kit) and for livelihoods.

A paper, token or e-voucher that can be exchanged for a set quantity or value of goods, denominated either as a cash value (e.g. $15) or predetermined commodities or services (e.g. 5 kg maize; milling of 5kg of maize), or a combination of value and commodities. They are redeemable with preselected vendors or in ‘fairs’ created by the agency. Vouchers are used to provide access to a range of goods or services, at recognized retail outlets or service centers. Vouchers are by default a restricted form of transfer, although there are wide variations in the degree of restriction/flexibility different voucher-based programmes may provide. The terms vouchers, stamps, or coupons are often used interchangeably.

Cash to improve IGA's

Understood as a grant in the form of materials and equipment given to small community members to start up small businesses/projects to encourage community members to embark on economically viable projects that could be sustained in the long run.

Cash for Work

Cash payments provided on the condition of undertaking designated work. This is generally paid according to time worked (e.g. number of days, daily rate), but may also be quantified in terms of outputs (e.g. number of items produced, cubic metres dug). CFW interventions are usually in public or community work programmes, but can also include home-based and other forms of work.

Cash for education.

Cash-based interventions (CBIs), when paired with education programmes, have become a useful tool to address barriers to access education in a variety of contexts. (UNHCR)

Cash for training (internship)

Cash payments provided for participating in a specified training session or series of training sessions.

Cash to improve livelihoods

Cash transfers are being used in interventions whose primary objective is to enable the support and recovery of livelihoods. Livelihoods initiatives empower communities not only to recover from humanitarian crises, but also to prepare, resist and overcome shocks with their own means, increasing their resilience.

Food in-kindAfter a natural disaster, during lean seasons, or in conflict or displacement situations, when people are cut off from their normal sources of food and cannot access enough food to meet their needs, in-kind food assistance aims to fill the gap (WFP).

Cash for Shelter Rehabilitation

Cash to support vulnerable households living in substandard housing units, crisis affect households (natural/ manmade) living inadequate living conditions.

* The information come from the document “GLOSSARY OF CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING (CTP) TERMINOLOGY” produced by CaLP in 2011 and updated in 2017, WFP (http://www1.wfp.org/in-kind-food-distribution) and UNHRC (Cash for education: A global review of UNHCR programs in refugee settings)

15