Recommendations to Improve Cash Coordination in Borno State

CaLP mission to Nigeria 17 – 24 November 2016

This mission is a complement to CaLP’s technical support provided to Nigeria actors since 2014 and the work done by CaLP on cash coordination for the past years, at national, regional and global levels.Recommendations1 made are also in light of the Strategic Note developed by the World Bank on cash in Humanitarian context for the Principals of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee2. Recommendations to improve Cash coordination in Borno State 1) Clearer role and responsibilities of coordination mechanisms

Abuja based CWG should take the role of a national coordination mechanism. Doing so, it will focus more on strategic coordination of CTP, especially as setup of CWGs in Yobe and Adamawa States are being discussed:

- Collection at central level of decisions made at State level

- Advocacy for the design and development of safety nets at country level

- Engagement with sectors to enhance their contributions and reporting in the CWGs, to support MEB development

- Support mapping of CTP in all sectors (fill reporting gaps, encourage sectors to include CTP in their matrixes) anticipating needs to document cash use for HRP 2018

- Circulate information amongst CWGs

- Communicate on CTP policies and approaches to donors.

State based (here, Maiduguri) CWGs should focus on technical cash coordination. Expertise in CTP is more and more sitting at Borno State level. Cash actors in Borno have identified the following priority objectives for the group:

(Detailed time frame should be defined in the revised ToRs of the CWG)

Short term objective: mapping of CTP implemented across sectors, ideally being an aggregation of information from all sectors by the CWG lead, with the support of Abuja based CWG on sectors’engagement.

1 The following recommendations are based on a series of meetings and consultations led by CaLP in Abuja (USAID/FFP, USAID/OFDA, DFID, ICRC, Mercy Corps, OCHA, Action Against Hunger, Oxfam and Abuja CWG Steering Committee members (ICRC, WFP, CFFN, OCHA)) and Maiduguri (Save the Children, IRC, WFP, ZOA, CRS, IOM, OCHA, Action Against Hunger) consolidated and improved after a general debriefing in Abuja (contributions from OCHA, ICRC, Mercy Corps, USAID, DFID, WFP, UNHCR, Action Against Hunger, IOM, Save The Children, Caritas Nigeria, ICEED, Tearfund, IRC).

2 http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/697681467995447727/pdf/106449-WP-IASC-Humanitarian- Cash-PUBLIC.pdf Mid-term objectives:

Harmonization of PDM, vouchers format (features, safety…) …;

Definition of a “draft” rough MEB with a few key sectors;

Capacity building (identification of best practice, trainings);

Enhance market assessments (shared resources, define 1 common market assessment tool and share LGAs, FewsNet / WFP price monitoring guidelines…);

Centralization of CTP tools and resources for the group (Humanitarian Response, ensured by OCHA)

Longer term objective (ideally no later than end of 2017): Development of an inclusive MEB based on sector based calculators, covering basic needs (larger number of sectors if not all), to be included in HRP 2018

These priorities should be lead and related activities and discussions implemented at local level. Guidance, tool development, training need identification, technical decisions on cash programming should be taken at that level. Validation of technical decisions is made internally within each agency, so there is no approval needed from Abuja CWG. But strategic lead of the CWG in Maiduguri (OCHA) will make sure that decisions made, tools developed etc. are shared with Abuja.

As technical decisions will be made at State level (in areas of implementation) and because of the strategic priority of the Abuja based CWG itself, so far there is not a specific added value in having a Steering Committee for the Abuja based CWG. If other CWGs are set up, or if more cash is implemented, this may be re assessed.

2) Increase sector engagement on CTP and cash coordination: Technical / Strategic leads

To support achieving CWG objectives in Maiduguri (defining an MEB), there is a need for more engagement from sectors. Inter Sector Working Group in Maiduguri has a strong role to play in this, and INGOs should contribute to these discussions. Leads of the CWG should sit at the ISWG.

The ambitious objectives of the CWG calls for a full time technical lead, to kick off the work on MEB and strengthen the links with sector leads, supporting them in their sector calculator. Strategic lead of the CWG (OCHA) can help, but as the cash coordination in charge will not be full time based in Maiduguri, there is a need for more resource. This is a call to donors to assess their possibility to fund such a position, possibly through an implementing partner or through the INGO forum which has started discussions on this. Very importantly, the person should be based in Maiduguri. This person will work on developing tools, collecting expertise and circulating information among the CWG members, be the focal point for CaLP’s relationship and identify support needs. This will complement the work done by OCHA’s cash Coordinator who will lead on engagement of sectors, relations with the ISWG, liaison with Abuja.

3) Participants and structure

So far, the CWG in Abuja is led by OCHA and this makes sense considering its new focus on very strategic and cross sector issues.

In Maiduguri, now that a Cash Coordinator has been hired by OCHA it makes sense that OCHA continues to lead on strategic cash coordination while technical coordination should be led by another agency with strong cash expertise, ideally full time funded as recommended before. One of the key role of the CWG leads in Borno State will be to make sure that all key actors in cash are active members of the CWG. Not only those implementing, but those planning to, and agencies that have strong institutional expertise while maybe not implementing in Borno at the moment. Recommendations for cash transfer programming in Borno State 1) Assessments for response analysis and design should be done at LGA level

Several actors involved in the humanitarian response are implementing CTP in some LGAs in Borno State, demonstrating the feasibility of the modality and its appropriateness to respond to the crisis where ‘safe’ access to the populations is possible and market functional.

Response analysis should preferably be done at LGA level, as feasibility and appropriateness of cash is context specific and changing in time and from one LGA to another.. Functionality of markets, insecurity, mapping and capacity of service providers are very different amongst LGAs, and at the point of writing, delivery mechanism should be selected at micro level, which does not allow a large scale or unified response option.

This makes of NGOs very well placed actors to design response and select modality of intervention, given their capacity to lead assessments at local level and being more flexible to respond to a quickly evolving situation. As there are many potential and therefore increasing agencies using cash, strong technical and strategic coordination between these multiple partners is essential.

Though the process may be resource consuming, it’s important to carefully select the response option as choosing the wrong mechanism can cause harm. The use of cash is conditioned by feasibility assessments so as for in-kind distributions that can beharmful for markets that are still functioning, somehow, in many recently accessed LGAs.

2) Choose cash when feasible and appropriate, and work collectively towards multipurpose cash design

To assess appropriateness and feasibility of CTP, it should first be systematically considered as an option, to analyze its relevance in comparison to other modalities. Local economy and market functionality, cause of poor or no access to services and goods, security, beneficiaries’ access, implementation delays, capacities, beneficiaries’ preferences, national regulations, programmatic impact, cost efficiency, are examples of factors that will support teams to make decisions and select the most relevant modality.

The first PDMs3 lead by implementing partners show that cash is the preferred modality of beneficiaries when this option is feasible. Many delivery mechanisms (vouchers, cash in hand, mobile money and bank) and payment instruments (for example electronic vouchers either through online platforms (RedRose, Segovia…) or ATM cards (Diamond Bank), e-transfers with Airtel, cash in hand distributions) have been and continue to be piloted and tested, which needs to be documented when the CWG will be more functional. Actors are working in interesting partnerships with these service providers and trying to make the most of expertise available in the private sector around Maiduguri. Improved CTP coordination will enhance the ability of humanitarian actors to collectively engage in joined discussions, facilitate the integration of cross sector response integration with Unrestricted Cash Transfer Programs. . Selecting appropriate delivery mechanism can be a powerful mitigation to doing harm, creating security risks and beneficiary stigmatization. .

3 ICRC Preliminary analysis on the use of cash by beneficiaries demonstrate that the modality is supporting the access to a large range of goods and services, though food representing the majority of expenses4. This of course calls for a rapidly increased inter sector coordination in Maiduguri and a consideration of multipurpose cash grants to broaden the focus from food security to all basic needs. If cash remains sector focused, no appropriate assessment is possible to define the actual basket of needs it is responding to, to measure its impact, to monitor and report on multiplier effects. More importantly, if cash remains based on the food basket5 or an “improved food basket6” while being used to cover various sectoral needs, this will negatively impact its efficiency to ensure food security of the most vulnerable. It is urgent to start working on the definition of a “good enough” Minimum Expenditures Basket” based on a few key sectors where beneficiaries are spending cash, and to start working together on the design of an MPG. This means that each sector should start exploring the potential of cash in its sector, assess market and services to do so, understanding how beneficiaries could use the modality. It can take a reflection through each sector specific working group on what items are being provided that could be converted in cash as a contribution to the MEB, and think of a sector based calculator.

M&E and market assessments are often considered as key obstacles to MPG development as tools and expertise are missing. CaLP is working to develop M&E standards for MPG and sector specific to help practitioners. Scale and depth of market analysis should be carefully considered (check Minimum Requirements for Market Analysis in Emergencies) to ensure relevance of the analysis but not overwhelming the implementing actors with unnecessary analysis. Unexplored concept of MPG opens the door to a lot of learning opportunities and need a solid and inclusive coordination to support its design and implementation. Coordination is a challenge, but it is the solution to MPG. CaLP will continue to follow up on technical discussions on MEB definition and will support exploration of various methods to do so.

Market assessments should be done to evaluate impacts of all modalities (including but not restricted to cash) on the local market.

3) Risks to use of cash: mitigation measures

CTP, when appropriately designed allows more discrete assistance especially on delivery . Given the insecure context with a risk of bombing attacks (especially on markets and other gatherings) collective, visible distributions at fixed time and locations should be avoided as much as possible. CTP in such contexts allows to deliver individual assistance, to avoid organizing queues and collective distributions because the logistics are reduced (so no need to have a location to convene a large number of people, accessible and very exposed). and payment instruments can be more discrete (phones, bank cards, vouchers…). Fixed time and location imply communication about it and the logistics coming with it increases the exposure.

Data protection: Since November 2016 new governmental regulations imposed to all mobile phone companies in Nigeria (customer’s data registration upon purchase of a SIM card) are a challenge for beneficiaries’ privacy (though it is not specific to the crisis context). It was not possible to explore this more in depth during the mission, so the purpose for the collection of data, use and management of the data and the type of data collected by service providers and the government is not known in

4 Between 40% and 60% depending on actors.

5 15000 Na per month

6 17000 Na per month details by CaLP. Implementing partners should explore this further and take this information into consideration when selecting delivery mechanism. Communication with beneficiaries should also be transparent about it, and implementing partners should develop clear policies (either through the CWG or each agency individually) regarding data protection. Some alternatives are being used (by ICRC for example) and the collection of biometric data should be carefully worked on in close relation with the Protection working group. Some links are already established as IRC is an active member of the Borno CWG and WFP Protection officer also attends the meetings. It is highly recommended that UNHCR attends CWG meetings on a regular basis and that CWG leads also attends as often as possible the Protection working group meetings.

4) Enhance flexibility of the response

One of the key issue raised by actors is the impact of external factors on markets, like military decisions to close them temporarily, drastically and rapidly changing the possibility to do cash. Actors need to consider combining different modalities and get prepared to use them, and even more to switch from one to another. Complementarity of expertise among actors should be leveraged through increased coordination, to make sure that this expertise is shared and allows all actors to consider and implement timely response with the due modality. This, of course, requires that funding is available for technical coordination, preparedness activities (trainings for example) and contingency planning (contingency resources, prepositioned open contracts, HR skills, flexible budget and response design to save time when the decision is made to switch to a new modality).

Flexible funding in country which is managed by those who understand the micro context and its nuances. Currently operating independent cash transfer programs with funding to coordinate as a consortium from other donors. They are currently sharing data and learning and developing collective tools and frameworks and DFID are considering Investing in this ‘common delivery platform’ to support the scale up and harmonisation of cash programming in Iraq.

While unconditional cash transfers can be also used in sudden-onset emergencies, they are particularly well suited to protracted caseloads. Cash transfers tend to yield higher VfM than aid-in- kind, and can allow considerable savings in overhead costs. Cash-based mechanisms for the delivery of humanitarian aid are also relatively easy to integrate with government-owned social protection schemes, and can thus facilitate the eventual transfer of humanitarian caseloads to the national authorities.7 As delivery channels for cash transfers become better established, funding to this form of assistance will gradually increase. As discussions for a Country Based Pooled Fund come to light in Nigeria, considering including a Cash chapter within the Humanitarian Response Plan in 2018 will be important to profile and allow flexible funding to support the cash model.

5) Technical and Strategic coordination should work towards the definition of an MEB, across sectors in Borno State

The Minimum Expenditure Basket is a powerful programmatic tool, helping the design of a Multi Purpose Cash Grant, but also a strong advocacy tool when it comes to fundraising, budgeting, linking with recovery and safety nets… Depending on whether the MEB is aiming at covering survival needs or building resilience, it can be very different, but a first “rough” MEB, covering key sectors and helping define what is actually needed by beneficiaries to face this huge crisis is a key objective of the

7 Discussion with DFID on their Humanitarian Programme for an INGO Cash Consortium for Iraq CWG at short term. Each sector would have to assess what is the most appropriate modality(ies) to provide the best response possible and doing so, evaluating the appropriateness of cash in the sector to achieve their objective, and to contribute to the overall objective set up collectively through the MEB. It could base on initial reports mentioned above that identify sector based needs where Cash is being used by beneficiaries.

This should not prevent actors that are implementing cash at the moment to continue doing so, but coordination should be done towards that, and the terminology should be carefully used. At the moment, there is no cross sector MEB defined in Nigeria, so CTP as it is delivered at the moment is not covering basic needs of the targeted populations, even when it tries to take into consideration different needs. This should also be considered in relation with in-kind delivered and see how all modalities combined contribute to covering basic needs. For example, if in kind is distributed to cover 100% of food security needs, cash transfer amount is calculated to cover between 60 and 75% of the food basket. At that point, the Food Security Working Group should make sure that the Food basket that is used is technically approved by all and what it actually covers, and each sector should work on assessing what part of the response could be converted into cash, as a contribution to a collective MEB. Not one sector focused calculator can cover multi sector needs.

Because of the price differences between LGAs, it is very likely that different MEBs may be defined depending on LGAs. MEB transfer value should be based on a calculator and not an absolute value, but ways to elaborate the calculator may vary and different approaches can be explored as long as it gets the technical approval from the sector. Communication around MEB should be clear about it.