Transcript

REPORT ON

SHARING LESSONS LEARNT

WORKSHOP

CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING IN AFGHANISTAN

23rd-24th of June 2013

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN

Funded by European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) - Emergency Response Mechanism (ERM II)

Page | 1

Acknowledgements

Oxfam Great Britain (Oxfam GB) in Afghanistan is serving as a consulting partner for the

Coordinating Cash Based Transfer Mechanisms project under the Emergency Response Mechanism

(ERM II), with support provided by ECHO and in partnership with Action Contre La Faim (ACF). Oxfam

GB wishes to thank the organisations that prepared and made presentations for this event, including

the Emergency Response Mechanism consortium members - Solidarites International, ACF, ACTED,

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, Martyrs & Disabled (MoLSAMD) and Norwegian Refugee Council

(NRC). We would also like to thank the individuals and representatives of organisations that

participated and contributed in the lessons learnt workshop.

Photo Credit Cover Page: Partners in Revitalisation and Building

Page | 2

Acronyms

ACF Action Contre La Faim

AOGs Armed Opposition Groups

CBA Community Based Approach

CBP Cash Based Program

CDC Community Development Committee

CfW Cash for Work

CTP Cash Transfer Program

ECHO European Commission and Civil Protection

ERM Emergency Response Mechanism

FSAC Food Security and Agriculture Cluster

GoA Government of Afghanistan

INGO International Non Governmental Organisation

DFID Department for International Development

NFI Non Food Items

NGO Non Governmental Organisation

NRC Norwegian Refugee Council

MoLSAMD Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, Martyrs & Disabled

M-PAISA Mobile Money

UN United Nations

UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

VSC Village Selection Committee

VVC Village Verification Committee

WFP World Food Program

Page | 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is a summary of the lessons learnt workshop on cash based interventions by

humanitarian agencies in Afghanistan. Eleven non-governmental organisations, three United Nations

(UN) agencies and one Afghan government ministry participated in the workshop and shared lessons

they have documented during the past few years. The objective of this two-day workshop included a

platform where delegates from the community of practice in Afghanistan interacted and shared

lessons they have learned in designing, implementing and monitoring CTPs in Afghanistan. This

event included twenty-two participants that shared their experiences and agreed that CTPs can be

successfully implemented in Afghanistan, despite the insecure and conflict sensitive environment.

In this report, at least two key discussion points are highlighted:

Targeting, designing and choosing the best type and modality of Cash Transfer programme; and

Choosing the most secure payment mechanism.

The report notes a critical fact that each modality and delivery mechanism has its own challenges. As

the context differs from region to region in Afghanistan, one modality, or delivery mechanism, cannot

be advised as a proper cash transfer mechanism for the entire country.

Page | 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 1

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................ 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE LESSONS LEARNT WORKSHOP ....................... 5

How to Institutionalize Lesson Learning ......................................................................................... 6

THE CASH TRANSFER IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES: LESSONS LEARNT IN AFGHANISTAN ................. 6

i. Factors to Consider on the Appropriateness of a Cash Transfer Programme: ........................ 6

ii. Identification and Targeting: .................................................................................................. 7

Targeting: Selection of Cash Transfer Beneficiaries in Conflict Sensitive Environments ................. 7

iii. Selection of the Most Appropriate Type of Cash Transfers: .................................................... 9

iv. Payment Mechanisms in Afghanistan: Ensuring Secure Payments ...................................... 10

v. Monitoring: Reflections on Post-Distribution Monitoring Results ........................................ 10

GROUP WORK: ...................................................................................................................................... 11

Is Cash Intervention Appropriate only to Food Insecurity Response? ................................................. 12

Challenges and Concerns ...................................................................................................................... 13

PLENARY SESSIONS – QUESTION AND ANSWER ................................................................................... 15

CASE STUDY GUIDELINES INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 15

RECOMMENDATIONS OF AND TO THE COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE IN AFGHANISTAN ........................ 18

1) On Cash Transfer Programming: ............................................................................................... 18

2) On Similar Future Events: ......................................................................................................... 18

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................... 19

Annex 1: Lessons Learnt Workshop Agenda ..................................................................................... 19

Annex 2: Sharing Lessons Learnt Participants List ............................................................................ 22

Page | 5

INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE LESSONS LEARNT

WORKSHOP

With support from ECHO and through partnership with ACF, Oxfam GB is supporting the

coordination mechanism of cash based interventions across the community of practice in

Afghanistan. According to the 3Ws mapping shared by the FAO-led FSAC, cash programming

interventions are increasingly being utilised in Afghanistan, with the current number of NGOs

implementing cash projects recorded at sixteen. Cash support has been targeted at achieving food

security, but during the past three years, there has been a marked increase of cash and voucher

utilization in other sectors such as shelter, nutrition, WASH, education, protection and health. This

diversity of cash programming has resulted in a number of new innovative ways of delivering cash to

vulnerable households in Afghanistan. Although most NGOs are still using direct cash distributions,

various stakeholders seem to be cautious of the challenges posed by such practices over time. Some

NGOs and UN agencies within the community of practice have piloted the use of mobile phones and

commodity vouchers. Based on the increase of cash programming efforts in country, lessons learnt

workshop allowed practitioners to share their experiences with conditional and unconditional cash

and voucher mechanisms in Afghanistan.

The lessons learnt workshop, held on the 23rd and 24th of June 2013 in Kabul, Afghanistan, is part of

this coordination process to share experiences with various cash distribution modalities. The event

aimed to facilitate a platform where organisations interacted and discussed how to improve

preparedness and strengthen design and implementation processes. The learning focused on

practical experiences from previous and current projects to feed into future interventions.

During this two-day workshop, participants interacted and shared lessons that they have

documented in their various CBPs within a conflict sensitive environment. The emphasis on lessons

that participants have learned included targeting, assessment, designing, response analysis,

selection of the best type of cash transfer modality(s), security and the implementation of CBPs in

NFI programs. The participants also engaged in discussions on the challenges that have been

experienced in implementing CBPs in Afghanistan. The workshop planners organized the session

around a central principle of integrating lessons and ideas from various organizations. The plenary,

thematic area discussions, group work and question and answer sessions created an opportunity for

participants to discuss undocumented lessons and clarify the documented lessons shared during

presentations.

The target audience included all members of the Afghanistan community of practice but also

specifically targeted consortium members from the ECHO-funded Emergency Response Mechanism

(ERM II). The community of practice is defined by all NGOs, UN agencies, governments, cash-based

social safety net projects and private sector companies that are recognized agencies implementing

CBPs. In total, 11 NGOs including ACF, ACTED, Oxfam GB, NRC, OHW, PIPAA, SFL, AIRO, PIN, AWSE

and Solidarités International, in addition to three UN agencies, FAO, UNOCHA and WFP and one

government line ministry, MoLSAMD, attended the event. As well, twenty-two individuals attended

the workshop. Whilst ERM consortium members including ACTED, PIN, SI and ACF shared lessons

Page | 6

based on presentation of CTPs within food security programmes, MoLSAMD shared information on a

social net framework.

This report summarizes the workshop, documents lessons learned, and offers recommendations for

improving CBPs in Afghanistan and on how to conduct similar future events. The workshop agenda

is attached as an appendix to this report (Annex 1) and the objectives of the workshop are outlined

below:

Objectives of the Sharing Lessons Learnt Workshop:

1) To allow organizations implementing CBPs in Afghanistan to share and document lessons learnt from cash programming and to learn from one another.

2) To compose recommendations which the community of practice in Afghanistan should consider when designing and implementing CTPs.

How to Institutionalize Lesson Learning

Participants discussed how organisations can institutionalize, document and utilise the lessons learnt

to improve the quality of CTPs. It was noted that learning can comprise the form of two approaches,

either positive or negative, and documenting both of these two approaches are recommended to

improve the quality of CBPs for future interventions. Scenarios for negative and positive approaches

to learning are identified as follows:

NEGATIVE APPROACH POSITIVE APPROACH

What were you doing under your CTP

projects in Afghanistan that you later

realized does not work very well?

How did you come to this realization?

What have you done to mitigate the

situation?

What have been the results so far?

What do you recommend?

What processes/systems have been very

successful, worked very well and

produced excellent results in your

cash/voucher projects?

THE CASH TRANSFER IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES: LESSONS LEARNT IN

AFGHANISTAN

i. Factors to Consider on the Appropriateness of a Cash Transfer Programme:

The participants discussed lessons on this topic through presentations prepared for the workshop.

ACF shared practical examples from the field on the subject and other presentations from ACTED, SI

and PIN also considered pre-conditions for cash/voucher responses. Participants documented

factors that should be considered when deciding to take CBI as an appropriate response in meeting

Page | 7

intended objectives in humanitarian programmes. Some of the lessons shared by participants

specifically for the Afghanistan contexts are as follows:

Markets and Programme Management

Communities are using markets to access basics needs in most parts of the country, and the market system at provincial and country level is generally well improved, especially during the last decade. Markets are well integrated with resources in country and regional level

Sufficient food supplies and other basic items can be accessed locally; each region in the country has a hub where most goods and services can be accessed

Markets functioning and accessible, although this is not applicable across the entire country

Cash interventions strengthen markets

Cost effectiveness: Reduce transportation, storage and support costs (support staff such as store keeper, logistics, etc.)

Beneficiaries

The impact of a shock results in a decline of food resources, loss of assets and income opportunities. In this situation, the needs of beneficiaries can be different in the same village. Therefore, cash will allow access to diversified food and other unmet needs of the population

Time efficiency: Beneficiaries apply their own calendar, which suits their seasonal business

Cash interventions enhance procurement capacity of beneficiaries

Maintain dignity of beneficiary

Security

Delivery is safe and secure: Reliable payment systems; and thus far, no major cases of robbery/theft or embezzlement have been reported. However, partners are now considering other options (M-Paisa) to mitigate the risks

Political Structure

Political acceptance: The Government of

Afghanistan is also involved in a safety

net project, which conveys the

acceptance of cash interventions as a

response by the national government.

ii. Identification and Targeting:

Targeting: Selection of Cash Transfer Beneficiaries in Conflict Sensitive Environments

Participants noted with concern that in some areas in Afghanistan there are no proper local

government structures. These locations are under jurisdiction and control of unauthorised and AoG

commanders from warring parties. In addition, there is no code of conduct for humanitarian

organisations to engage with these pseudo-authorities to access communities. Some issues noted as

lessons for targeting are as follows:

1. The ERM consortium shared challenges they have faced during CBI, especially cash for work

projects. For example, in one project the beneficiaries from another CDC were not

interested to work in an area that is not relevant for the community. ERM consortium

members discussed lessons on identification and targeting through community based

targeting instrument processes, which are summarized below:

Page | 8

Village Identification House hold Surveys

• Field visit in the affected village /district

• Brainstorming with the ERM team

• Identification of the most impacted and

vulnerable areas in the affected district

• Field visit in the targeted area

• The ERM team asked the CDC to provide

a list of potential beneficiaries, including

poor farmers and sharecroppers affected

by the disaster

• In order to select beneficiaries for Cash

for Work (CFW) activities, ERM members

conducted a household survey

• ERM team surveyed all the potential

beneficiaries one-by-one for cross

checking purposes

2. MoLSAMD, as a government line ministry, shared concerns about targeting beneficiaries for

its Social Safety Net program. In order to strengthen the beneficiaries targeting, selection

and registration, MoLSAMD needed to involve existing community structures as much as

possible. MoLSAMD discussed lessons on identification and targeting through community

based targeting instrument processes, which are summarized below:

MoLSAMD Identification and Targeting – Cash Programming Framework

Overview: CDCs play an important role in the implementation of CBPs, as they are the entry

point for development activities at the village level. With support from the implementing

organisations’ staff, CDCs can be strengthened to establish the Village Selection Committee and

the Village Verification Committee. The following information below details the assigned roles of

VSCs and VVCs:

Village Selection Committee Village Verification Committee

In line with the agreed vulnerability or selection criteria, prepare the initial list of eligible households / individuals

Provide any necessary assistance to the VVC in finalizing the list of beneficiaries and announcing/displaying the list in a public /gathering place

Provide members to assist in the collection of data from beneficiaries and completion of beneficiary registration forms; and submit to the implementing organisation and the VVC

During implementation, assist in maintaining order during cash distribution processes

Assist in the checking and verification of the list of eligible recipients prepared by the VSC

After proper verification and in consultation with the field staff of the implementing organisation and the VSC, make the final decision on the eligibility list - validating that the selected beneficiaries meet the criteria for selection

Address grievances of the beneficiaries post-beneficiary payment

Serve in an oversight/advisory role in the implementation of the CBP within their jurisdiction area

Page | 9

The table below indicates the paradigm shift that MoLSAMD incorporated into their manual on the

safety net program, based on the lessons they have learnt:

Conventional Shift

Target: Poor rural families with children,

disabled, widows and elderly

Poor rural families with a large number of

children and facing hunger

Poor children and mothers

Targeting Instrument: PMT and Community-

based

Only Community-Based

Provision: Consumption Support Consumption Support + N&H awareness

Coverage - 10% Coverage - 20%

Benefit: $40-$200 Benefit: $40-$120 / $50-$150

Child Age: 0-14 Child Age: Under 5

Administration: VSC&VCC Administration: VSC & VVC

MoU: Tri-partite Agreement Stakeholders Agreement

BG: Direct to CDCs account Mastoofiat and DoLSAMDs

Apart from these lessons above, participants also agreed that although the 3w format is available

and updated on a regularly basis, there is no proper system for geographically targeting locations

and there is need to improve it based on the prioritization by villages, districts and provinces with

the most vulnerable. By providing this type of mapping, this will help aid agencies shift their efforts

accordingly. The key points to consider during the targeting process include the following:

Participatory beneficiary selection criteria

Host a series of community and stakeholder sensitizations, to allow the key stakeholders to obtain an in-depth understanding of the program. This discussions should include local government authorities, community leaders such as CDC leaders, Mullahs and Shuras

In selected villages, targeted beneficiaries should include highly vulnerable groups (women, children, elderly, and PWD-headed HHs)

Establish memorandums of understanding that clearly outline the roles and responsibilities of each committee and any areas of overlap

iii. Selection of the Most Appropriate Type of Cash Transfers:

The participants shared their experiences with different types of cash transfer modalities. The

common types experienced by participating agencies are as follows:

Page | 10

Cash Grants

Unconditional and Conditional

Vouchers

Commodity/Cash Vouchers -- conditioned to meet specific programme objectives

Cash for Work

Community participation, asset creation, vulnerability considered, entitlement and seasonality

Social Transfers

Unconditional, predictable cash transfers provided to long-term or destitute households

Participants also discussed how to select appropriate types of cash transfer modalities in complex

contexts like Afghanistan. Attendees agreed that the type of modality to be selected for cash

transfer program should be based on the information derived from the initial assessment,

experience of other agencies, preferences of community, programme objectives, feasibility in the

targeted area, season of the year, market analysis, etc.

iv. Payment Mechanisms in Afghanistan: Ensuring Secure Payments

The workshop participants also discussed fears associated with implementing direct cash

distributions in insecure environments. The community of practice highlighted the issue of

movement to field locations with large sums of money for payments in insecure environments.

Secure options like mobile money (M-PAISA), Hawala and cash payment through banks were

discussed as options.

For example, ACF has implemented several CBPs through Hawala delivery and payment mechanisms.

The organisation has faced no major challenges, while others said that some donors did not accept

an informal delivery mechanism. In addition, one of the participants highlighted that the Hawala

dealers claimed abduction while transferring the cash to the targeted province.

Suggestions to Consider Prior to Cash Distribution – Recommendations of Workshop Participants

Hold a series of beneficiary sensitizations to inform beneficiaries on the direct cash payment processes

At organisation level, decide on a cash distribution plan that includes initial schedules, venue, and protocols (roles and responsibilities). Actual schedule should be announced to the communities one day before distribution

District governors’ offices informed on the day of actual distribution

Identification of official representatives from CDC and beneficiary committees to validate (visual confirmation) of beneficiaries conducted during actual distribution day

Where possible, use the existing traditional money transfer systems within the communities, e.g. Hawala- contract money dealers, to deliver cash to the distribution points

v. Monitoring: Reflections on Post-Distribution Monitoring Results

In most of the locations in Afghanistan where CBP is being implemented, ACTED noted that there is

generally an increase of market prices on distribution days. There is therefore a need, according to

Page | 11

participants, to conduct a market analysis at the time of the needs assessment to understand the

capacity of the supplying market. It is important to identify innovative ways of engaging traders in

such locations, in order not to affect price hikes.

GROUP WORK:

The participants organized into groups (Group A and Group B), and each group discussed their

lessons on a specific agenda and devised recommendations to mitigate risks. The following table

details the discussions based on each group and the topic of cash response analysis:

Group A Analysis – Cash Response Group B Analysis – Targeting and Assessment

Positive Aspects of Cash Response

Less operational time- good instrument for quick response if market is functional

Beneficiaries have the liberty to spend according to their real need

It primes, or triggers, the market to become more functional

A families basic needs are met if used for addressing food insecurity

Area of Improvement: CBI may lead to price increases Solutions:

Include market analysis prior to the designing of CTP.

Keep cash transfer private and without much publicity

CBI is associated with risk – Theft and insecurity to persons handling

Area of Improvement: Probability of corruption is high Solutions:

Use Hawala, M-Paisa, and bank transfer

Close follow up and regular monitoring, feedback from beneficiaries and tracking system

Area of Improvement: Redistribution Solutions:

Community sensitization, and proper selection of beneficiaries

Recommendations of the group in regards to assessment:

Questionnaires should be passed by PDMC members prior to the assessment in emergency situation, so that all agencies use the same tools, especially in joint assessment

Questionnaires should be simple and short for rapid assessment in emergency situations

Cultural issues should be considered in the questionnaires. For example, the number of meals is two per day in a normal year in a northeast province, and this situation should not be considered as a food insecure area

Assessments should be done by a couple - men and women - to obtain proper information from both women and men in the community

Questionnaires should be translated into two languages (Pashto and Dari) and the assessor should be fully able to speak, understand, read and write both languages

Community of practice should experiment with an electronic form of assessments in Afghanistan

Page | 12

Cover all eligible beneficiaries in the targeted community

Consider social justice Area of Improvement: Use of cash for anti-social activities (weapons, opium) Solution:

Try to transfer cash to women and include women in programming

Limited cash transfer instruments

Other instruments should be encouraged and experimented with

Area of Improvement: Dysfunctional banking systems Solution:

Refine the Hawala system with more checks and balances, and select experienced Hawala dealers

Is Cash Intervention Appropriate only to Food Insecurity Response?

The participants outlined that CBI can be used in almost all sectors to address food insecurity. The

sectors discussed with workshop attendees included the following:

Education Food

Security WASH

Shelter Nutrition Health

Social Protection

Page | 13

Challenges and Concerns

The participants shared challenges they have faced during cash based programs. To improve the

quality of CBPs, it is recommended to consider the following points when designing CBPs to mitigate

the risks:

Security

Limitations on Targeting: Targeting in conflict sensitive environments that are controlled by illegal armed forces can be very difficult

Power Dynamics Impacting of Programming: Commanders, mullahs and influential individuals trying to control the intervention. For example, sometimes redistributions are done as per their recommendation to the community members.

Accessibility of Target Areas: Insecurity discourages staff to go or transport cash to the field. In some insecure areas, AOGs forbid beneficiaries to receive aid from humanitarian agencies.

Operations

High Cost of Hawala Operations: At times, Hawala dealers charge the rate at the moment, which might be three percent of the total cash amount

High Operations Cost of Mobile Money (M-Paisa): Current charge rate at the moment is 150 AFs per transaction to one beneficiary and 750 AFs registration cost/beneficiary (this is negotiable and dependent on area)

CTP Value: No specific rate or rule for daily wage in CFW projects. Various organizations pay a different amount even in the same village and district. Some participants suggest that daily wage for CfW projects should be 25 percent lower than the prevailing local unskilled labor rate to avoid competition with local employers. However, some communities are used to the same prevailing local labor rates in previous CfW activities. The cash and voucher working group needs to work on this issue to specify a rate or a formula for daily wage.

Weak Banking System: Sometimes banks

Security

Operations

Mobile Money

Vouchers

Tradition

Page | 14

cannot transfer cash on time, which causes operational agencies and recipients to wait for several days.

Possibility of corruption by influential actors like Arbabs, Maliks and local commanders.

Taking cash directly to the field is a security threat for the program staff, as compared to taking in-kind materials

Mobile Money

Some beneficiaries did not receive cash in their cell phone due to technical difficulties of SIMs.

Out of Cell Phone Coverage Area: Most areas are out of cell phone coverage, which make cash transfer through mobile money inapplicable

The agents of M-paisa that pay cash to the beneficiary are local shopkeepers that face a shortage of cash on the day of distribution

Sometimes there are signal problems and the beneficiaries did not receive the SMS for receipt of cash

The cell phone company has not acquired the necessary number of agents, and hence, this causes problems with crowds on distribution day

Vouchers

Delay in voucher transportation from Kabul to project places

Some shop keepers resigned from the contract, as they noted that there are problems in receiving cash from the Kabul Bank

Some families migrated after two months and did not come to collect the voucher

Some lost the vouchers and came back to receive another one

Tradition

Redistribution of Money by CDCs: Redistribution means that community members gather all the distributed cash from eligible beneficiaries and redistribute them equally to all families in the village

Low Capacity and Functionality of the Supplying Market in some Rural Areas: The prices increase rapidly due to weak competition among traders and shopkeepers

Illiteracy and Tradition: Some people, especially women, do not know or communicate to the necessary people to withdraw his/her cash from shops/agent cell phone

Child labor in Cash for Work project

Involvement of women, especially in CFW activities, is impossible in some areas, as it is a sensitive issue

Wage sharing

Page | 15

PLENARY SESSIONS – QUESTION AND ANSWER

The intent of this session allowed participants a platform to interact with each other. The questions

and answers captured during these sessions are presented below, as they are part of the lessons

which were learnt by the various organisations:

CASE STUDY GUIDELINES INTRODUCTION

NRC provided a presentation on qualitative data collection utilising the Most Significant Change

Stories Technique for Case Studies, which outlined the importance of case studies and steps on how

to conduct and document a case study. The topics addressed are as follows:

Q: What is the process of Hawala delivery mechanism?

A: We sign a contract with them to distribute the specified amount of cash to beneficiaries that

have cards. They distribute their own money and the recipient gives them their cards. The Hawala delers receive their distributed cash, with three

percent interest.

A: The dealers are not allowed to distribute cash without consultation and presence of

staff from implementing agency.

Q: How did you ensure that gender is mainstreamed into your CBPs?

A: Gender is still a very sensitive area in Afghanistan, which should be treated with

caution.

A: We still respect the current situation, and gender mainstreaming should be done

carefully, and this is exactly what we are doing one step at a time.

Q: What, in your opinion, do you recommend should be done to avoid price hikes during payment days, since this is not only affecting beneficiaries of your programs, but also the

non-CTP beneficiaries in those areas?

A: We conduct market assessments and analysis, to understand the capacity of the

market.

A: We keep cash transfer private and without much publicity.

Page | 16

Qualitative Data Collection using the Most Significant Change Stories Technique for Case Studies:

The most significant change technique is a form of participatory monitoring and evaluation to

generate case studies.

Why MSC Stories/Case Studies? The Process

• It is participatory - many project stakeholders are involved both in deciding the sorts of change to be recorded and in analysing the data

• It is a form of monitoring because it occurs throughout the program cycle and provides information to help people manage the program

• It contributes to evaluation because it provides data on impact and outcomes that can be used to help assess the performance of the program as a whole

It Fortifies Quantitative Data Significant change (SC) stories emanating from the field level, and the systematic selection of the most significant of these stories by panels of designated stakeholders or staff

Significance? • Focus on significant changes • Consult with communities to identify ALL the

changes attributable to the project • Let them identify the MSC

It gives ability to recognize significant change! • Agencies tend to focus on what needs to be

done next, rather than searching for the impacts of what has already been done

• Many organisations struggle to demonstrate the impact of their work

It begins with you! • Do you see any changes in the communities

we serve? • Do you see any changes as a result of the

CTs project? • How much do you attribute the change to

the CTs project? Probing skills!

• So many things have changed! • What exactly is in the ‘MANY THINGS’??

Do not judge a book by its cover! • You need to ask questions to a diverse a

range of stakeholders who are involved - children, women, teachers, health workers, traditional local leaders, government workers, etc.

• When talking to these individuals, it will be impossible to write down everything people say.

• Keep your ears open for “quotes” that express a particularly interesting point. Try to write down these “direct quotes” as close as possible to how they are said.

Asking good questions! • There are just six basic questions you need

to keep in your mind when documenting a success or a lesson learned: When? What? Where? Who? How? Why?

• Photos are also an important method of documentation

Expect surprises! … CTPs have multiplier effects • …e.g. on local economies • …measuring multiplier effects in a

quantitative sense requires more data than normally collected BUT qualitative observations about impacts are critical

Final Writing of the Story Domains of Change

INTRODUCTION: Use a strong headline that will attract readers’ attention. • BODY: The body of your story should clearly

answer the “who, what, when, where, why and how” questions that explain and substantiate the success or learning

• CONCLUSION: The final paragraph of your

• Use 4-7 domains, for example: • Quality of Life Domain • Improved Social Status Domain • Empowerment Domain • Improved Social Relations • Community Level • Improved Social Cohesion

Page | 17

story should reinforce your success or learning and highlight any related or follow-up activities or events that are planned for the future

• EDITING: Once you write the first draft of your story, put it aside for a couple of days so that you can look at it again with fresh eyes and, if possible, also ask a colleague to review it for you. You and your colleague should edit the story.

• Community Level Improved Quality of Life • Negative Change Stories

Selection of Stories for Sharing

Aspect Max score

Clarity and Coherence 10

Credible Un-Expected - Impacts/outcomes noted 10

Credible Qualitative - Impacts/Outcomes noted 10

Consistency of key outcomes with other

observations (e.g. versus Quantitative data

findings)

10

40

Verification & Authentication

•Be sure of what you are putting down

•It is good practice to go back and authenticate stories

•Always seek consent from the interviewee or their parents, if they are minors

Story Sharing & Publication

•Colleagues and partners

•Donors, community members and national government

Meta-Analysis, Record Keeping &

Future Use

•Thematic issues for specific communities may emerge: 1) Feeds into future programming ; and 2) Fundraising and proposal development

Page | 18

RECOMMENDATIONS OF AND TO THE COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE IN

AFGHANISTAN

The following recommendations from the workshop are intended to help the community of practice in Afghanistan continue to improve its already successful efforts. They are also intended to reflect the reviews and workshop evaluations that follow below:

1) On Cash Transfer Programming:

a. Utilize existing Hawala money transfer system and the local remittance systems

b. Coordination with other organizations implementing CBPs is essential

c. A crucial observation made by some organizations, in remote areas where job

opportunities are scarce, is on the importance of considering CfW. It is recommended that

CfW programming be given top priority since it creates temporary job opportunities for

the most vulnerable community members. It also occupies idle youth, and in addition,

CFW improves community assets

d. In CBP cash payment mechanisms, the first priority should be given to secure options, e.g.

mobile money, bank, etc. If the infrastructure in that area will not allow such modalities to

be implemented, then cash transfer through Hawala is the secure mechanism of cash

payment, since implementing agencies have not faced any major challenges with this

mechanism. Attention should be paid to select an experienced and reputable Hawala

dealer. If Hawala is impossible, then the concerned organization should decide on which

modality is suitable for that area

e. Continuous cash tracking mechanism is required

2) On Similar Future Events:

a. For future exchange learning events, presenters should be specific on the topics under

discussion. As well, discussions should focus mainly on the lessons gathered in the specific

contexts.

b. Organizers should also invite participants from other clusters such as WASH, Shelter, etc.,

to share their ideas.

Page | 19

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Lessons Learnt Workshop Agenda

Agenda for 23rd June - First Day of Workshop

Session Title Presenter

Introduction George Bête

Presentation by Consortium Members

ERM Presentation

Presentation by Participating NGO

ACTED

Presentation by Participating NGO

PIN

PLENARY

Group Work - Assessment and Analysis (participants choose any of the three currency groups)

Afghanis Group: Experiences with Needs Assessment (Group to come up with examples of assessments they have had experiences with, etc.)

Participants will share the challenges in assessments leading to designs

A discussion of the lessons which they learnt ( best practices)

US Dollar Group: Is cash an option in Afghanistan? When, where and how? Cash feasibility assessment

Participants will share the challenges in designing CTPs

Factors which organisations have considered in implementing cash programmes

A discussion on lessons learnt on cash as a cross-cutting theme in all sectors (Cash is not for food aid only, what else—WASH, Nutrition, Social Safety Nets, and ?)

Euro Group: Lessons learnt on response analysis

Participants share challenges - limitations of tools and what are the constraints with quick response analysis?

What are some of the frameworks that have been used by organisations with good response options? For example, the Oxfam Decision Tree? Check lists? Have organisations designed any check lists? Can you share?)

Good practice in response analysis

Page | 20

PLENARY

CTP Programme Design (participants are given a chance to change groups if they wish)

Afghanis Group: What are the modalities being used in the country? Lessons learnt on modality selection including practical pros and cons.

Participants will share the challenges in using each modality, e.g. voucher, CfW, grants, etc.

What are the best practices they have learnt?

US Dollar Group: What are the lessons learnt from the current delivery mechanism selection and program design?

Participants will share challenges

How can organisations come up with secure payments in insecure environments: Experiments with technology? Mobile money? Visa cards? Improvements in direct cash payments? Vouchers? What are your lessons?

If we decide to implement technologically friendly payments, what are the challenges? Do you think we can engage the private sector (social corporate responsibility to partners with NGOs?

What are the perceived challenges of working with the private sector in CTPs - are there any other organisations to partner with besides private companies?

Euro Group: Given access, insecurity, corruption, etc., what arrangements work – Consortiums/Individual/Local-International partnerships -Lessons learnt on partner selection and contracting

Participants will share challenges. What are the principles of partnerships that are being followed by organisations?

Share good practices

PLENARY

Agenda for 24th June -Second Day of the Workshop

CTP Implementation and M&E (participants are given chance to change groups if they wish)

Afghanis Group: Targeting for cash is as difficult as shooting/taking aim at a moving target: Practical Lessons learnt on beneficiary and identification and registration in Afghanistan

Participants will share challenges

The involvement of community based structures - the pros and cons?

Any difficulties faced in conflict sensitive areas/ areas controlled by either the government or the AOGs?

Lessons learnt in limiting the inclusion and exclusion of errors

Whose voice is dominant in the

Page | 21

targeting - any ‘commanding ‘voices coming from ‘behind’ to influence the process? Lessons learnt to mitigate this?

US Dollar Group: What are the current contextual, programmatic and risks experienced in Afghanistan, and what lessons have been learnt on such aspects as planning and tracking.

Participants will share challenges

Fraud? Corruption in targeting, in voucher redemption, direct cash transfers, a shift in government policy regarding cash, threats from AOGs?

Euro Group: Are there impacts of CTPs we can showcase in Afghanistan to date? Lessons learnt on monitoring and evaluation of process and impacts

Participants will share challenges

Focus on project objectives which were met using cash as a tool in food, shelter, WASH, etc.

PLENARY

Contingency Planning and Preparedness (Participants to separate into two groups)

Oranges Group: What contingency plans can the Afghanistan community of practice put in place to implement cash transfers at scale and speed? Identify current delays and bottlenecks.

Participants will share challenges

Carry market assessments in shock prone areas?

Train staff? How?

Pros and cons?

Bananas Group: Ready or Not? Are we prepared for future disasters and can we safely say ‘We are ready to implement cash transfers’?

Participants will share challenges

CTP Technical guidelines for Afghanistan - what do you want included?

PLENARY

Case Study Guidelines Introduction

A tour of the case study guidelines developed and shared with the group. Do you understand it? A revised version?

Participant Comments

Participants

Page | 22

Annex 2: Sharing Lessons Learnt Participants List

ORGANISATION STAFF NAME TITLE EMAIL

1. OXFAM Abdul Habib EFSL- Humanitarian

Support Person [email protected]

2. OXFAM George Bete EFSL- Coordinator [email protected]

3. ACF Ezatullah Noori Deputy Head of

Department Food Security & Livelihoods

[email protected]

4. ACF Sabir Sahar FSL PM m-

[email protected]

5. PIPAA Safiullah Amini Project Assistant Safiullah.amini@peopl

einperil.sk

6. WFP Mudasir Nazar Program officer [email protected]

g

7. FAO Sediqullah "Rahmati"

FSAC Emergency Preparedness Officer

[email protected]

8. UNOCHA Megbaro Ayalew Humanitarian Finance

9. UNOCHA George HAO [email protected]

10. SFL Amiruddin Operation Officer [email protected]

11. AIRO Shgufa

G.I.A

kayo.takenoshita@wfp

.org,

12. PIN Gul Rahman

Deputy PM

[email protected]

13. ACTED CT Head of Programmes Ct.chidambaram@acte

d.org

14. MoLSAMD Noor Ahamad Programme Officer Noorahmad.hanifi@g

mail.com

15. UNOCHA Moqamuddin Siraj Officer [email protected]

16. SI Camile Brunet Roving FSL Officer [email protected]

17. SI Alireza Azizi ERM PM Assistant Erm.pm.assist@solidari

ties-Afghanistan.org

18. OXFAM Nawroz Ali Project Coordinator [email protected].

uk

19. AWSE Shafiullah Finance Assistant Awse.gulsoom@yahoo

.com

20. SI M. Sharif PM Assistant [email protected]

21. NRC Urayayi Mutsindikwa Regional CaLP Focal Point urayayi.mutsindikwa@

afg.nrc.no

22. OHW Fausto le Santis Programme Manager [email protected]


Recommended