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