emergency shelter and cash-based programming - powerpoint.v2

8/13/2019 Emergency Shelter and Cash-Based Programming - Powerpoint.V2

1/43

The Case for using Cash


2/43

Aim

To present the case forconsidering using cash

transfer as a modality in

emergency response


3/43

Session components

Introductions

What is it?

Perceptions

Why use it?

Specifics of cash and shelter


4/43

Session components

Case studies

Challenges

Lessons learned

What needs to be done?

References


5/43

What is cash transfer?

W F P / A m j a d J a m a l


6/43

Cash transfer?Cash interventions transfer resources to people bygiving them cash or vouchers (ODI Good PracticeReview)

Key point!!

Cash and vouchers are amodality for addressingneeds and achievingobjectives

Cash transfer is not aprogramme in itself


7/43

Cash and shelter - modalities

Cash grants

(conditional,unconditional e.g.cash for work,staged payments)

Vouchers (cash orcommodity based)


8/43

Conditionality and frequency ofpayments

Cash grants can be given inone payment or ininstallments depending on:

Project objectives

Security

Cost efficiency


9/43

Delivery Mechanisms


10/43

Cash transfers key message

A new tool, ratherthan a newapproach

Needs to beconsidered withina context

WFP/GMB Akash


11/43

Perceptions


12/43

Cash transfer is being consideredbecause it is new and fashionable

however it is not suitable for theshelter sector because of the hightechnical component needed.

1


13/43

2

It is not possible to implement cash

transfer, as part of an emergencyintervention, in contexts of conflict .

2


14/43

3

It is more cost effective to meet shelter

needs through cash than in-kindassistance.

3


15/43

4

Cash is more likely to lead to anti-

social use than in-kind assistance.

4


16/43

Why use cash transfer? W F P D i e g o f e r n a n d e z


17/43

Using cash transfer can provide Dignity

Flexibility and choiceCost efficient for agenciesand beneficiairies

Multiplier effects and linkwith recovery

Support or revitalise localtrade and economic recovery

WFP/Judith Schuler


18/43

Other examples of benefits of cash-based shelter responsesSupport community solidarity through recompensing hostfamilies

Encourages people out of camps

Choice in materials or labour to build temporary shelter,rebuild or repair permanent housing

Avoid contractor-driven reconstruction

Families or individuals get a bank account, often with noadministration fee


19/43

Prerequisites for considering cashAnalysis of:

Local and regional market systems

Available delivery mechanisms

Cost-efficiency and effectiveness

The prevailing security situation

The beneficiaries' acceptance of cash and/or vouchers as transfermodality.

Good coordination among implementers and support fromdonors, governments and local authorities in deploying CTPs.


20/43

Prerequisites for considering cashPolitical and community acceptance

Availability of well-functioning and reliablefinancial service providers

Institutional capacity

The presence of qualified staff who can bequickly mobilised

A reliable recipient identification system


21/43

Specifics of cash and shelter


22/43

Three key issues

Scale

Qualityassurance

Risk


23/43

Case studies


24/43

Cash for hosting families (SDC)Aceh 2005

In Aceh, SDC distributed cash

to 7,000 families hostingdisplaced people in BandaAceh and Aceh Besar, givingthem a one-off cash paymentof IDR900,000 (around $100).Payments were made throughan Indonesian bank, and werecollected by beneficiaries attheir local branch. The mostcommon purchases amonghost families were electricityand food; guest families spentmost on food.


25/43

Complementary programme (IFRC)Bangladesh 2007

In the aftermath CycloneSidr, IFRC providedstandard, disasterresistant core shelters,along with a cash grant tobuy additional materials

to further increase thesize of beneficiarieshomes as well as cashgrants to strengthen andrepair homes.


26/43

A menu of options - HaitiHaiti, 2010

After the earthquake the IFRCset up one of the few cashprogrammes combining shelterand livelihoods and providingpeople with multiple choiceswith the objective ofsupporting households inreturning to their places oforigin or finding a sheltersolution outside of the camp.


27/43

A menu of options - HaitiHaiti, 2010

It consisted of a menu of options that

people can decide from, combining aconditional grant for rents to anunconditional grant for setting upsmall business and restarting lives inand out of the cities.

Monitoring costs made up more than60% of the project costs as eachrental grant had to be individuallymonitored.


28/43

Cash grants (CARE)

Sumatra earthquake,2010

After the earthquake CAREIndonesia provided cash grants tokick start construction, andtherefore did not providecomplete funds forreconstruction. The grant (US220.00) could be spent on eitherlabour or materials.

People could build however theywanted according to guidelines(four basic designs) providedduring training and widelyavailable posters.


29/43

Vouchers (PRC)Philippines, 2009and 2010In response to typhoons in 2009and 2010 the Red Cross providedshelter materials for repairs andconstruction of shelters through acommodity based voucher system,

with each household allocated theequivalent of USD $ 190.00 worthof materials. Pre-selected suppliersensured a swift and effectiveimplementation of early recoveryactivities.


30/43

Pre-paid debit cards (CRC)Chile 2010

In response to the 2010earthquake, the Chilean RedCross (CRC) launched itsTarjeta RED debit cardprogramme. It assisted 8,400families rebuild, repair theirhomes or improve the livingconditions of their transitionalshelters by allowing them topurchase needed constructionmaterials and tools.


31/43

Cash for workPakistan, 2005

A project to build transitionalshelters according to one basicdesign. The shelters usedreclaimed materials as well asdistributed materials andtoolkits. Cash for work,carpenters, and technicalsupport were also provided.The project was a combinationof direct implementation by alead organisation with itspartner organisations.


32/43

Challenges

W F P / S e l l y M u z a m i l


33/43

Challenges

New technologies

Staff capacity to implement

Institutionalisation

Measuring cost and impactCoordination

Stand by agreements with private sector


34/43

Lessons learned


35/43

Lessons learned

Appropriate technical support and sensitisation is required to

complement cash grants

Traditional support roles will change (finance, ICT etc.) thesestaff need training

Good preparedness and contingency planning is essential forrapid response

Establish price monitoring systems

1


36/43

Lessons learned

Accurate beneficiary data is essential

Sensitisation on the use of cards or other paymentmethods is essential

Government acceptance and coordination are essential

Cash schemes can be complicated to administer

Widely appreciated by beneficiaries

2


37/43

What needs to be done? W

F P / P h i l B e

h a n


38/43


Awareness raising, particularly at the field level

Buy in by senior management, govt., privatesector partners, donors

Investment into preparedness e.g. stand byarrangements with financial institutions

More stringent response analysis

Adopting more complementary approach of cashand in-kind/technical assistance.

1


39/43


More research on multiplier effects (impacts and

measurements)Institutional SoPs

Recognition and capacity building for support staff

Formalised coordination mechanisms

Donor support and positioning

2


40/43

Current research


41/43

Cash publicationsGuidelines for Cash Transfer Programming (ICRC &IFRC 2007)

Implementing Cash-Based Interventions (ACF 2007)

Cash Transfer Programming in Emergencies (Oxfam2006)

Cash Workbook (SDC 2007)

Cash and Voucher Manual (WFP 2009)

Guidance for DFID country offices on measuring andmaximising value for money in cash transfer

programmes (DFID 2011)


42/43

Cash publicationsCash Transfer Programming inEmergencies - Good Practice Review

11 (HPN/CaLP 2011)The Use of Cash and Vouchers inHumanitarian Crises (DG ECHOfunding Guidelines 2009)

Cash and voucher in relief andrecovery: Red Cross Red Crescentgood practices (2006)


43/43

CaLP Research

www.cashlearning.org/what-we-do/research

emergency shelter and cash-based programming - powerpoint.v2

Documents