Exploring Protection Risks and Barriers in Cash Programming for Internally
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Review of the Red Cross (2019), 101 (911), 685–713. Children and war doi:10.1017/S1816383120000119 Safer cash in conflict: Exploring protection risks and barriers in cash programming for internally displaced persons in Cameroon and Afghanistan Julie Freccero, Audrey Taylor, Joanna Ortega, Zabihullah Buda, Paschal Kum Awah, Alexandra Blackwell, Ricardo Pla Cordero and Eric Stover* Julie Freccero is the Director of the Health and Human Rights Program at the Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. She served as the principal investigator on this study. Email: [email protected]. Audrey Taylor is a Research Manager with the Health and Human Rights Program at the Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Joanna Ortega is a Research Consultant with the Health and Human Rights Program at the Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. * This study was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this study are the responsibility of the University of California, Berkeley, and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the US government. © icrc 2020 685 J. Freccero, A. Taylor, J. Ortega, Z. Buda, P. K. Awah, A. Blackwell, R.P. Cordero and E. Stover Zabihullah Buda served as Quality Assurance Supervisor for the International Rescue Committee’s Safer Cash project in Afghanistan, and previously served as a Research Officer with New York University. Paschal Kum Awah is an Associate Professor of Medical Anthropology and Biomedical Ethics at the University of Yaounde, Cameroon. He served as Quality Assurance Supervisor for the Safer Cash project in Cameroon. Alexandra Blackwell is a Research Coordinator at the International Rescue Committee. Ricardo Pla Cordero is the Risk Mitigation and Inclusion Advisor for the Violence Prevention and Response Unit’s Strategic Initiatives Team at the International Rescue Committee Eric Stover is the Faculty Director of the Human Rights Center and Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. Abstract As cash increasingly becomes an essential part of humanitarian assistance, it is critical that practitioners are aware of, and work to mitigate, exposure to protection risks among the most vulnerable recipients. This article presents findings from qualitative research exploring protection risks and barriers that arise in cash programming for internally displaced persons at high risk of violence and exploitation in Cameroon and Afghanistan. The authors conclude with recommendations for mainstreaming global protection principles into cash programmes, as well as key considerations for designing and implementing cash programmes in ways that minimize existing risks of harm and avoid creating new ones. Keywords: cash-based interventions, protection, gender-based violence, intersectionality, internally displaced persons, persons with disabilities, older persons, conflict, Cameroon, Afghanistan. Introduction Cash is recognized as an essential part of humanitarian responses and is one of the fastest-growing forms of aid in humanitarian emergencies. Over the past decade, cash-based interventions (CBIs), programmes in which cash transfers or vouchers 686 Safer cash in conflict: Exploring protection risks and barriers in cash programming for internally displaced persons in Cameroon and Afghanistan for goods and services are directly provided to individuals, households or communities,1 have become an increasingly common strategy for supporting people displaced by conflict or natural disaster. CBIs are not a new form of relief – for example, American Red Cross founder Clara Barton used cash assistance during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870–71.2 Yet until recently, cash payments to the poor for social protection or disaster relief have largely been overlooked in favour of in-kind assistance. That began to change in the early 2000s, however, when, encouraged by the results of cash programming following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, aid organizations began larger-scale implementation and evaluation of cash programmes.3 Additionally, the global financial crisis of 2008 accelerated the transition to cash-based forms of aid, as countries reduced generalized subsidies on food or agricultural inputs in favour of more targeted means of supporting their poorest.4 By 2016, CBIs had gained acceptance to such an extent that donors and humanitarian agencies attending the World Humanitarian Summit were highlighting cash assistance, multipurpose and otherwise, as a preferred aid modality thanks to its cost efficiency and ability to promote dignity and autonomy and enable people to prioritize their most urgent needs. At the convening of the Summit, over thirty of the largest organizations came to an agreement, referred to as the “Grand Bargain”,to reduce the humanitarian financing gap and increase aid to those in need. Participating organizations also committed to increasing the regular use of cash alongside service delivery, in-kind assistance and other strategies.5 Following the Summit, several donors and aid agencies made bold commitments to significantly increase the proportion of aid delivered through cash programming.6 Research demonstrates that CBIs have positive impacts on food security, education and health, among other basic needs.7 Thus far, studies on cash programming in emergencies have focused primarily on assessing efficiency and effectiveness to meet basic needs when compared to food distribution and other 1 Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP), “Glossary of Terminology for Cash and Voucher Assistance”, available at: www.cashlearning.org/resources/glossary#Cash (all internet references were accessed in August 2019). Cash-based interventions can also be referred to as cash-based assistance or cash transfer programming. 2 Paul Harvey and Sarah Bailey, Cash Transfer Programming in Emergencies, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), 2011, p. 3, available at: https://odihpn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/gpr11.pdf. 3 Paul Harvey and Sarah Bailey, Cash Transfer Programming and the Humanitarian System, ODI, 2015. For syntheses of the evidence on the impacts of cash programming on various sectors, see also Paul Harvey and Sara Pavanello, Multi-Purpose Cash and Sectoral Outcomes: A Review of Evidence and Learning, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 2018; Anjini Mishra and Francesca Battistin, Child Outcomes of Cash Transfer Programming, Save the Children, 2018; Shannon Doocy and Hannah Tappis, Cash-based Approaches in Humanitarian Emergencies: A Systematic Review, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, 2016. 4 Isabel Ortiz and Matthew Cummins, The Age of Austerity: A Review of Public Expenditures and Adjustment Measures in 181 Countries, Working Paper, Initiative for Policy Dialogue and the South Centre, March 2013, p. 26, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2260771. 5 International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA), The Grand Bargain Explained: An ICVA Briefing Paper, March 2017, pp. 3, 7, available at: www.icvanetwork.org/resources/grand-bargain-explained- icva-briefing-paper-march-2017. 6 Ibid. 7 S. Doocy and H. Tappis, above note 3. 687 J. Freccero, A. Taylor, J. Ortega, Z. Buda, P. K. Awah, A. Blackwell, R.P. Cordero and E. Stover forms of in-kind aid, and on factors that can facilitate or inhibit the achievement of these objectives.8 Yet research on how cash programming may impact recipients’ and non-recipients’ exposure to protection risks,9 particularly in areas affected by conflict, is scarce. A few studies address protection outcomes from cash programming in humanitarian settings.10 For example, a 2018 review on sectoral outcomes of CBIs in humanitarian settings by Harvey and Pavanello found a small amount of emerging evidence on positive protection impacts on child protection and on sexual exploitation and abuse of women. A 2015 review by Berg and Seferis examined protection outcomes of CBIs in both development and humanitarian contexts and found mixed results regarding the impact of cash programming on protection risks at the individual, household and community levels.11 The study showed that cash programming can (though does not necessarily) increase rates of intimate partner, gender-based and inter- generational violence, worsen stigma towards beneficiaries, and aggravate social tension in communities. A third desk review conducted by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) discussed the potential for CBIs to exaggerate existing household or community tensions, in particular when women are selected as beneficiaries without regard for gender and resource-control dynamics.12 In general, however, most research focuses on children and on intimate partner or gender-based violence (GBV),13 as outlined by two of the aforementioned reviews,14 leaving protection concerns for other populations at 8 Ibid., p. 17. 9 The term “protection” as utilized in this article is defined by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) as “all activities aimed at obtaining full respect for the rights of the individual in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the relevant bodies of law (i.e. International Human Rights Law (IHRL), International Humanitarian Law, International Refugee law (IRL))”. This definition has been utilized and is reflected in the Four Protection Principles outlined in the Sphere Handbook, and we appreciate that these principles