cash working groups: a preliminary mapping...country-based cwgs in their regions, and sharing best...
TRANSCRIPT
Cash Working Groups: a preliminary mapping
Global Cash Working Group
Geneva, 4 February 2016
Picture: WFP
Background
• Brief overview of the state of cash working groups in emergency settings to stimulate discussion
• Short questionnaire and follow-up interview with CWG coordinators where available
• 29 crisis-affected countries and six regional hubs surveyed
• 20 country-based and three regional cash working groups provided inputs
• Varied in structure, function and focus, but common themes and challenges
Where are country-based cash working groups active?
Active cash working
group
No CWG but
exploring
No CWG, not
exploring
Nepal
Myanmar
Philippines
Jordan
Iraq
Lebanon
oPt
N Syria (from
Turkey)
Chad
DRC
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Mali
Burkina Faso
Mauritania
Nigeria
Somalia (temporarily
integrated into West
Africa Regional group)
Ukraine
Afghanistan
Pakistan
South Sudan
CAR
Niger
Cameroon
Sudan
Fiji – feasibility study
under way
Ethiopia – plan to
establish CWG in
second quarter 2016
Cote d’Ivoire
Colombia
Eritrea
Of the 30 crisis-affected countries surveyed, 22 had some form of active cash working group, although these varied significantly. Of the eight countries surveyed who do not currently have an active cash working group, five are actively exploring the creation of such a group.
4
Active Country-based Cash Working groups
Regional cash working groups
• Of the six regional hubs surveyed, three had active cash working groups led by CaLP – Asia, East Africa and West Africa. Regional hubs serve the function of providing technical support and quality assurance to country-based CWGs in their regions, and sharing best practice from the regional and global levels.
• Dedicated CaLP capacity to strengthen cash programming across the region.
• These CWGs expressed frustration with the ad hoc nature of cash coordination in their regions and highlighted challenges with linking cash assistance with government social protection systems.
How long have cash working groups been active?
• Most of the groups have been established recently, with 5 of the 20 groups surveyed having been established in their current form in the last year. – Somalia’s cash working group is the longest standing,
established in 2008,
– The first meeting of Nigeria’s Cash Working Group in its current form was held in November 2015.
– Ethiopia is forming a cash working group which will meet in the second quarter of 2016.
Evolution over time
There has been a significant scaling-up in cash-based programming over the past 12 months, especially multipurpose. Guidance on how this should be harmonized, how technical standards should be assured and how lessons should be learned have not been forthcoming. Two broad trends:
1) Technical-> strategic 2) Focus food security -> multisector
Picture: CAFOD
(1) What are the structures/ models?
More technical More strategic
Less institutionalized
(no seat at HCT/ICCG,
NGO-led, smaller
membership)
Jordan
Bangladesh
oPt
Sierra Leone
DRC
More institutionalized
(including government and
private sector, clearly
linked to existing
architecture)
Chad
Mali
South Sudan
Liberia
Yemen
Myanmar
Nepal
Pakistan
Philippines
Iraq
Afghanistan
N Syria (evolving over time from a technical to a strategic group) Somalia
Ukraine
(2) What are the structures/ models?
Under food
security cluster
Formerly under
food security
cluster
Independent
multisectoral
(within
humanitarian
architecture)
Spontaneous,
informal
multisectoral
groups (outside
humanitarian
architecture)
oPt
South Sudan
Pakistan
Yemen
Chad
Burkina Faso
Yemen
Afghanistan
Nigeria
Liberia (formerly
under Early
Recovery cluster)
Myanmar
Ukraine
Philippines
Iraq (HRP
chapter)
Nepal
N Syria
Jordan
Sierra Leone
Mali
Somalia
DRC
Lebanon (part of Basic Assistance WG)
Chairing and leadership NGO chair UN chair NGO/UN co-chair Rotating NGO/UN/Govern
ment co-chair
Bangladesh (Oxfam)
Jordan (NRC)
oPt (ACF)
Turkey (SCI)
Chad (CRS/ Oxfam)
Sierra Leone
(ACDI/VOCA, SCI)
Nigeria (CCFN/ CRS)
Somalia (ADESO)
Myanmar (WFP)
South Sudan
(WFP - ordinarily
NGO-chaired)
Lebanon
(UNHCR)
Philippines
(OCHA, with
rotating co-
chair)
Ukraine (OCHA)
Iraq (UNHCR/
MercyCorps)
Yemen (WFP/
Oxfam)
Burkina Faso
(WFP, ACF)
Afghanistan (WFP,
NRC)
Nepal
Pakistan
DRC
Mali (WFP, Oxfam,
Social protection
ministry)
Liberia
(Government chair
with support from
UNDP)
Links with coordination architecture
Officially represented at
ICCG/ HCT
No ICCG seat but
systematic reporting to
HCT and ICCG through
chair
Ad-hoc reporting through
attendees with an HCT/
Inter-Cluster seat
Turkey (recent)
Yemen
Philippines
Ukraine
Nepal (ICCG now
disbanded)
Iraq
Philippines (during
emergency periods only)
Burkina Faso
Myanmar
Pakistan
Afghanistan
DRC
Bangladesh
Jordan
oPt
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Mali
Interaction with Government
Government regularly
participates
Some government
engagement
No government
engagement
Philippines
Lebanon
Yemen
Chad
Mali
Pakistan
Sierra Leone
Liberia
Bangladesh
Nepal
oPt
Burkina Faso
Afghanistan
South Sudan
Iraq
Myanmar
Jordan
Turkey
Somalia
South Sudan
Ukraine
DRC
Main activities and outputs
Info
sh
arin
g
Tech
nic
al
guid
ance
Har
mo
niz
ing
too
ls
MEB
Mar
ket
mo
nit
ori
ng
Fin
anci
al
serv
ices
map
pin
g
Test
ing
inn
ova
tio
n
Lin
ks w
ith
de
velo
pm
en
t
Ad
voca
cy
Co
ord
inat
ing
mu
ltip
urp
ose
cash
Act
ivit
y
map
pin
g (3
W)
Cap
acit
y
bu
ildin
g
PS/
Go
vt
inte
rfac
e
Cas
h s
trat
egy
Nepal X X X X X X
Bangladesh X X
Myanmar X X X X X X X X X X
Philippines X X X X X X X X X
Iraq X X X X X X X X X
Jordan X X
oPt X X X
N Syria X x X X X X x X x x X
Yemen X X X X
Chad X x X X X
Sierra Leone X X X
Liberia X X X
Burkina Faso X X X X X
Mali X X X X X
Nigeria X X X X X
DRC X X X X X X X X X
South Sudan X X X X X X
Somalia X X X X X X X X
Afghanistan X X X X X X X X X X X
Pakistan X X X
Ukraine X X X X X X X X X
Major Challenges
Fun
din
g
Att
end
ance
Co
ord
inat
ion
wit
h
gove
rnm
ent
Lin
ks w
ith
coo
rdin
atio
n
arch
itec
ture
Info
rmat
ion
shar
ing
Cap
acit
y-
bu
ildin
g
Imp
rovi
ng
too
ls a
nd
guid
ance
Ad
voca
cy
fin
anci
al
del
iver
y
mec
han
ism
s
Use
of
mu
ltip
urp
ose
cash
Bangladesh X X X X X
Nepal X X
Myanmar X X X X X
Philippines X X
Iraq X X X X X
Jordan X
oPt X
N Syria X X x X
Yemen X X X X X
Liberia x x
Sierra Leone X X
Nigeria X X
DRC X X X X X X
Mali X
Chad X X X X
Somalia X X X X X
South Sudan X X X X X
Pakistan X X
Afghanistan X X X
Ukraine X X X X
Support needed
• Funding and IM capacity to support CWGs • Guidance on use and coordination of multipurpose cash • Best practice/ lessons from other context • Standardized tools • Advocacy with donors on engagement with eg ECHO-
funded coalition of NGOs • Guidance on role of private sector • Guidance on linkages with development and social
protection • Support in better linking to existing coordination structures • Support is being provided through CaLP’s Regional Working
Groups Picture: CaLP
Any reflections?
Picture: OCHA