4th Asia NGO Innovation Summit 10 October 2013

Cash Transfer Programming: Asia's Shared Concern

Basic Definitions: 4W’s of CTPs WHAT? A tool for meeting programme objectives • 2 of 3 main modalities for delivering assistance Who? Anyone (Un, GVT, NGO, CBOs) responding to emergencies

WHERE? CTPs can be used in emergency responses: • Used when market/ needs analyses show that cash-based approaches would be

appropriate to meet needs → Won’t always be appropriate... (but neither will other modalities, preconditions are important)

WHY? Humanitarian and Pragmatic reasons To meet basic needs To protect, establish or re-establish livelihoods On their own, or in combination

Dignity, choice and flexibility

Power transfer Link response to recovery Cost efficiency

Multiplier effects

Support to local trade Fewer costs for recipients

trends to date, Where we Are now?

• Before 2005. Cash-based responses not a key feature of humanitarian programming, policy and debate. • 2005-08. Research and debate on appropriateness of CTP increases substantially; ‘Case’ for CTP made via evaluations and guidelines. • 2009–12. Agencies and donors improve ability to provide and support CTP. • 2013 – onwards...?

Spending on CTPs increased from US$46 mil in 2008 to US$117 mill in 2012, peaking with US$262 mil in 2010 (due to Haiti, Pakistan res) (Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2013). Estimates: •Global figures – €215 mill, 14 mil beneficiaries, 411 projects •Asia figures – €83mill, 5 mil beneficiaries, 126 projects. (€ 14 mill 2010-13) •WFP alone (planned) Asia figures 2012-16 – US$155 mill, 4 mil beneficiaries Between 2007 and 2010, DG ECHO saw increase of 20% of number projects from NGOs including CTP component. ECHO removed the €100,000 ceiling. Routine consideration/use of CTP in emergencies remains far from norm (or at comparable scale to service provision/ in-kind distributions, e.g. CTP represents only 1-2% of overall global humanitarian assistance.

Who is CaLP ?

• Partnership between Oxfam GB, the British Red Cross, Save the Children, the Norwegian Refugee Council and Action Against Hunger / ACF International.

• 5 steering committee organisations came 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.

Rationale for CaLP

There is a growing recognition in the humanitarian sector that in an emergency, cash

transfers and vouchers can be appropriate and effective tools to support populations affected

by disasters in a way that maintains dignity and choice for beneficiaries while stimulating local

economies and markets.

CaLP’s objective is that “CTP is routinely considered as an appropriate emergency response option and, where implemented, is done so, in a high quality and timely manner and, when relevant, at scale”

Growing Awareness, increasing Evidence, Ongoing Learning

CaLP’s activities

Capacity building

Research

Advocacy, info sharing, coordination

+ In partnership with

Community of practice

Where we work

Action Against Hunger

Norwegian Refugee Council

Oxfam GB

British Red Cross

Save the Children

Steering Committee

member

Regional Focal Point (RFP)

Nairobi: East Africa

Bangkok:Asia Dakar: West Africa

Q: How does technology contribute to scale up social innovation and solve complex social challenges? How does technology connect people and bring impact to people lives? A: Technology is a means to an end. During emergencies, technology has the power to connect people to communicate where they are, if they are well/ in danger and transmit messages as well as send cash and assistance. Q: What are the best social innovation practices and its replication and sustainment strategies to

expand social innovation and technology in Asia? A: NGO/ UN and private sector relationships (e.g. WFP and Globe Telecom, Oxfam/ CaLP and

Visa, Telecommunication Sans Frontiere, WFP and Mastercard, Telenor in Myanmar). Also multi-sectorial responses! http://www.cashlearning.org/resources/video-library

Q: What are the key challenges and opportunities for technology in social innovation? How can

we create environment that fosters technology in social innovation? What are the enabling factors and support requirements?

A: Challenges are network coverage/ systems failure during emergencies. TSF provide solutions and support. Emergency preparedness, contingency plans and established positive relationships with governments, regional bodies (ASEAN, SAARC etc) and private sector are key.

“Social Innovation Meets Technology: Scale-up Impacts, Enrich People’s Lives”

F l o o d s i n P a k i s t a n

2 0 0 9 - 1 2

T yphoon i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s

UN Photo/Logan Abassi UN Photo/Evan Schneider

Philippines – Increasingly using CTPs since 2009, government developed 4P safety net

Sri Lanka – Agencies using cash and vouchers since the Asian Tsunami

Cambodia – Increasing CTP response since floods in 2012, government developing safety net with World Bank

Myanmar – Increasingly using CTPs namely in Kachin (not in Rakhine yet) and some in the South for refugee returns, low but increasing infrastructure

Bangladesh – Many agencies using CTPs namely BRAC and international UN/ NGOs, government also uses safety nets

Nepal – Long experience of CTPs increasingly using technology

Afghanistan – Agencies use of CTPs, insecure environments, concerns for next year

India – Large cash-based government safety net programmes, agencies supporting on the technical side

Pakistan – Several agencies (PEFSA) use CTPs, government developing BISP + other safety net, Zero Hunger

CTP Activities in Asia

The Cash Atlas: Innovative CTPs

South Asia: •Pakistan - UBL ‘Kash’ Cards WFP, OGB, GVT •Bangladesh - Mobile phones

South East Asia: •Philippines – ACF and Citibank, OGB and Visa, WFP and Globe Telecom

CaLP in Asia

Other contexts (e.g. Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Cambodia and learning from China and/ or India)

Myanmar

Afghanistan

Pakistan

Philippines

CaLP in Asia – Regional

Hub in Bangkok

Regional themes research: •Links with government safety nets •Refugees protracted displacement •Emergency preparedness •Urban response •Innovations, technology and private sector Cash Working Groups •Regional (BKK: 3 so far since June) •Country (MYA, PHL started; AFG, PAK ongoing) Trainings •Ongoing CaLP Level 2: Bangkok and Yangon, •Government trainings:(NEP, PHL or MYA or PAK) Learning Events

-Kuala Lumpur IFRC, Mercy Malaysia -Asia NGO Innovation Summit (ANIS) -Regional Humanitarian Partnership

Funding - co-funding with NGOs, UN agencies

1. ‘CTPs is Fit for Purpose’ - CTP is indirectly ‘raising the bar’ in humanitarian assistance ensuring needs are met in appropriate, effective, accountable ways.

2. ‘CTPs is Fit for the Region’ - CTP is cross-cutting and fit to issues of urban, emergency preparedness, safety nets, innovations/ technology. Domestic governments increasingly take a stronger role in response to crises, especially natural disasters, within their borders in this region. China and India were home to a reported 78% of all people affected by disasters between 2002-11 and received little international humanitarian assistance. CTP can enhance discussions w/ ASEAN, SAARC and SPC.

3. ‘CTPs is Fit for the Future’ – CTP promotes an increased discussion on coordination, engagement with governments, multi-sectoral approaches, accountability to beneficiaries, cost-effectiveness of humanitarian response and use of technology/ private sector/ innovative delivery mechanisms. The UN’s Transformative Agenda was designed to improve leadership, coordination and accountability. New technologies are being applied, not just talked about, in early warning, mapping and delivery.

Relevance of CTPs and New Technologies for Social Innovation?

Relevance of CTPs and New Technologies for Social Innovation?

Relevance of CTPs and New Technologies for Social Innovation?

It’s a Crowded Plain-Field Out there (or In here??), GHA Report 2010