Harare Cash Transfer Workshop, 2011

Transcription

1 Harare Cash Transfer Workshop, 2011 Determining the Value of Cash Transfers and Harmonising Governmental and Non- Governmental Cash-Based Responses 14 th 15 th Nov, 2011 The Cresta Oasis Hotel, Nelson Mandela Avenue, Harare Zimbabwe Author: Dr Deborah Gourlay, CaLP Country Coordinator, Zimbabwe Report written by: Lilian Mutiso, Debbie Gourlay and Glenn HUGHSON 5/15/2011

2

3 Workshop Report The Workshop... 5 Rationale:... 5 Workshop Agenda:... 6 Intended Outputs:... 7 Day 1: Determining the Value of Cash Transfers Overview of Presentations Presentation 1 : Dr Deborah Gourlay: Setting the Cash Amount Presentation 2 : Killian Mutiro, Determining the Value of Cash Transfers: Experiences from PRP Presentation 3 : Breanna Ridsdel: Good Practice Review: Cash Transfer Programming in Emergencies Case Study Exercises Presentation 4 : Daniel Matimba & Killian Mutiro : Beneficiary Perceptions and Experiences of the Value of Cash Transfers Setting the Cash Transfer Value : Group Work Exercises Setting the Cash Transfer Value : Summary of Key Recommendations Key Factors to Consider When Setting the Transfer Value Recommended Checklist for Calculating Survival / Basic Needs Recommended Checklist for Calculating Household Recovery Needs Recommended Checklist for Calculating Livelihood Support / Development Needs Group Needs During Recovery Data Requirements Proposed Steps in the Process of Setting the Cash Transfer Value Day 2: Harmonising Governmental and Non-Governmental Cash-Based Responses Overview of Presentations Presentation 5: Tapiwa Huye: Benefits and Challenges of Coordination: The Case of JI cash Transfers Presentation 6: Lovemore Dumba, Department of Social Services; The Design of the Harmonised Social Cash Transfer Scheme Presentation 7: Leonard Turugari; Locating Cash Transfers in the Broader national Policy Framework... 31

4 Government NGO Coordination Challenges, Opportunities and Actions Opportunities Challenges The Way Forward Appendix 1: Workshop Participants Appendix 2: Context for the Workshop... 40

5 The Workshop Rationale: The Zimbabwe Cash Transfer Working Group has identified a workshop on Determining the Value of Cash Transfers, with an additional element of Harmonizing Governmental and Non-Governmental Cash Transfer Approaches as a priority based on the following observations: Most cash transfers in Zimbabwe have for a period of several years set a default value of $20 - $25 for the transfer amount, even though the objectives of the cash transfer projects, geographical locations, and types of beneficiary targeted have varied considerably. Recent research under the Protracted Relief Program (PRP) has revealed wide variations in the cash amount needed to meet basic needs deficits in different geographical contexts due to variations in prices and ability to grow their own food, etc. (see attached report). The findings of this report included the following statement: Translating the food gaps into monetary terms we see that the additional annual amounts required to close the gaps range from $49 for very poor and $32 for poor, rural households, compared to $71 for very poor, $38 for poor, and $11 for better off, urban households. Recognition amongst CTWG members that the appropriate cash transfer amount for a long term safety net scheme providing ongoing support to beneficiaries (such as the Government of Zimbabwe Harmonised Social Cash Transfer Program), is likely to differ significantly from the amount appropriate to schemes implemented by NGOs, where support is of a temporary nature and needs to involve an exit strategy which will not involve beneficiaries lapsing back into their previous adverse situation. Recognition amongst CTWG members that the cash being distributed is in many cases no longer meeting beneficiary needs (e.g. basic food basket), and is in many cases failing to meet expectations in terms of food security and long term impacts on improving the situation of beneficiaries Denial of the fact that the cash distribution is coming to an end and nothing is being promised for the future is common amongst beneficiaries, and is exacerbated when transfer amounts are inadequate to enable the restoration / development of livelihood activities. As such there is a high risk of beneficiaries lapsing back into their previous situation once the program ends. In most cases, cash transfer amounts are insensitive to household size. The Zimbabwe Government is currently introducing a major social cash transfer program, the Harmonised Social Cash Transfer Program (ZHSCT). This forms part of the National Action Plan for Orphans and Vulnerable Children (NAP II for OVCs) and is technically and financially supported by UNICEF. A key program pillar of the NAP II for OVCs will be cash transfers to labour constrained households living below the poverty line. The ZHSCT aims to target 55,000 households with unconditional social cash transfers over the next 3 years, and is likely to be rolled out nationally thereafter. In order to harmonise with other Government programs, the average transfer amount is set at US $ 20 per household per month, with transfers to individual households varying according to household size at US$ 5 per head, up to a maximum total amount of US $ 25 per household. As a result of the implementation of the ZHSCT this year, the cash transfer context in Zimbabwe is about to change significantly. It is important for non-governmental organisations to harmonise their cash transfer activities and beneficiary selection to coordinate with the introduction of this major program of social cash transfers. 5 P a g e

6 Workshop Agenda: Session Description Presenter(s) DAY Arrival and Registration + Coffee on Arrival Welcome and overview of Workshop Objectives CaLP / CTWG Presentations of different perspectives on determining the transfer value Setting the Amount: Survival vs. Livelihood Protection Thresholds, Factors to consider in assessing basic needs Determining the Value of Cash Transfers Evidence from LIME / PRP Dr. D. Gourlay CaLP Killian Mutiro, GRM / PRP Coffee Beneficiary Perceptions of Cash Transfer Amounts Daniel Matimba / Killian Mutiro, GRM / PRP Zimbabwe Launch of the CaLP and ODI / HPN Good Practice Review on Cash Transfer Programming in Emergencies The Future of CaLP in 2012 and Beyond (incl. Q&A session) Breanna Ridsel CaLP Communications and Advocacy Officer CaLP HQ, Oxford, UK Workshop Discussions Group Discussions: Review of Key Considerations and how to incorporate them into value setting process: To include the following minimum sub-topics (others TBC) Lunch Objectives of the cash transfers-what are we hoping to achieve? These are important to articulate before the discussion of how to determine the value. To include consideration of a range of sectoral objectives food security, education, health, training, etc. Rural versus Urban situations Data requirements Facilitator CaLP, CTWG Plenary Discussion / Feedback All Including Coffee Group Discussions: Development of Guidance and Recommendations. To include: Key Determinants: o Minimum factors to consider o Additional factors (desirable) Data requirements Recommendations on the approach used to set the amount Identification and Summary of Key learning Points from Workshop Discussions All CaLP / GRM 6 P a g e

7 Session Description Presenter(s) DAY Welcome and overview of Today s Workshop Objectives Review of Previous Day s Key Learning Points and Agreement of Key Points for Inclusion in Guidance to CTP Practitioners on Setting the Cash Value Presentation from JI / Mercy Corps on Benefits and Challenges in Coordination (including Q&A) Group / Plenary Discussion on Opportunities and Challenges in Coordinating between NGOs All Tapiwa Huye JI / Mercy Corps All Coffee Presentation by Government on the Zimbabwe Harmonised Social Cash Transfer Program (ZHSCT) and Coordinating of the Role of NGOs with the ZHSCT (including question & answer session) Locating Cash Transfer Coordination in the Broader National Policy Framework Discussions on Opportunities and Challenges in Coordinating with the ZHSCT DSS / Government Leonard Turugari Consultant Facilitator: DSS Lunch Group Discussions on Coordination with ZHSCT All Feedback / Plenary Discussion on Key Principles of, and Requirements for Effective Coordination between NGOs and ZHSCT Facilitator: DSS All Coffee Identification of Key Learning Points from the Coordination Discussions All Looking Forward / Future Actions All. Intended Outputs: Development of a framework for setting the cash transfer amount in the Zimbabwean context Summary of key learning points on coordination of Government and NGO activities on Cash Based Programming Zimbabwe launch of the CaLP ODI/HPN Good Practice Review Outline Action Plan for the Way Forward 7 P a g e

8 8 P a g e

9 Harare Cash Transfer Workshop Day 1 Determining the Value of Cash Transfers 9 P a g e

10 Overview of Presentations Presentation 1 : Dr Deborah Gourlay: Setting the Cash Amount This presentation set the agenda for the day and outlined key questions and issues for participants to consider during workshop sessions. These included: What is the intervention trying to achieve? (program objectives) What costs are involved in meeting these objectives? What are the needs of the intended beneficiaries? o including non-food needs (firewood, cooking utensils, water, health, shelter, etc) the distinction between survival threshold and the livelihood protection threshold, the role of gap analysis in setting the transfer value i.e. considering what the beneficiaries can do for themselves, and help being provided from other sources. The gap between this amount and the amount required to reach the desired needs threshold is the relevant amount to consider when setting the transfer value. What is the context? (location (rural / urban), prices, existing resources) How should we be using this information when setting the transfer amount? What coping strategies are being adopted? o Are these corrosive / damaging or reversible? How will the stage of the humanitarian crisis affect data availability and approach to setting the transfer amount? Do we adapt amounts for household size? What is the program duration (long term / permanent or short term)? For short term projects, what is the exit strategy? 10 P a g e

11 Presentation 2 : Killian Mutiro, Determining the Value of Cash Transfers: Experiences from PRP Key messages included the importance of the following factors: Understanding households and the trajectory out of poverty as a basis for determining cash transfer values Program objectives as basis for determining the transfer value Understanding regional and location specific differences as basis for determining transfer value Understanding the gap and circumstances to establish the nature of the transfer Important to consider when determining the transfer value were identified as including: a) Who are we targeting? b) Why are we targeting this household? c) What are we going to provide? d) Where is this household to be targeted? e) When should the targeted household receive this transfer and for how long f) How should the transfer be provided to the household (frequency & delivery method)? The PRP Graduation Model was outlined, which incorporates the concept of 3 threshold levels: 1. Survival threshold 2. Livelihood protection threshold 3. Livelihood promotion threshold Each threshold was linked to a package of potential interventions as indicated in the following diagram: 11 P a g e

12 State of capital stock (fast variable) Two potential scenarios for achieving graduation were outlined: 1. A gradual progression from one wealth level to another 2. The need to provoke a jump (hysteresis) - a stepping up process B) Two alternate regimes + System state II System state I Hysteresis - Assumptions: Moving form A to B may not be so easy; these are two alternative system regimes; interventions need to provoke a jump (hysteresis) Discontinuity, irreversibility Underlying (controlling) variable Key elements important in achieving a transition to a higher wealth group were identified as including factors such as the number of female breeding goats (for pastoralists), and number of cattle. Debt was identified as an important factor to consider, especially in urban contexts (related to municipal rates for water and electricity charges). The way in which the transfer amount differs according to how it is paid. $20 paid every month will be utilised differently from the same amount paid in lumps e.g. half yearly. In the latter case, the larger amount is more likely to be used for larger livelihood investments linked to hysteresis, whereas monthly amounts may be more suited to meeting survival needs. Three elements were thus identified as components of setting the transfer amount: 1. Increasing household food security (Social Protection Objective) o 2. Livelihood Support Based on household size, price of staple foods, household energy deficit (gap), cost of cereal required to cover deficit - productive expenditure support 3. Debt Relief - Debt relief for poor households who are constrained by debt Conclusions were: 1. The objective of the cash transfer program should be clear ; Social protection vs livelihood support vs debt relief 2. Location matters; rural vs urban; different livelihood zones; 3. Design should consider the impacts of flexibility in playing around with the same transfer value but administered differently to increase and /or change impact. 12 P a g e

13 Presentation 3 : Breanna Ridsdel: Good Practice Review: Cash Transfer Programming in Emergencies The considerable variety of ways in which cash can be used in humanitarian interventions were outlined: Sector Examples of responses Education CCT for school attendance Health and nutrition Vouchers for fresh food CCT for vaccination CCT for health trainings / clinic visits Food security & livelihoods UCT, CCT, vouchers or CFW to promote access to food CCT for livelihoods recovery Shelter CCT for rebuilding homes Vouchers for shelter materials CFW to clear rubble WASH CCT for household WASH infrastructure CFW for communal WASH infrastructure Vouchers for hygiene items Returns & reintegration CCT or UCT as returns or reintegration packages The importance of the program objectives in setting the amount was outlined and the following steps identified in the process: 1. What are the program objectives? 2. How much will it cost for a Household to fulfill those objectives? 3. What other costs do we need to consider? 4. Will these costs fluctuate or remain the same throughout the project? Common mistakes in setting the transfer amount were identified as: Not setting the value based on the project objective Basing the grant value only on the value of what would have been distributed in-kind Not considering what needs HH s can meet on their own or are being met in other ways Not thinking through how costs may change during the project cycle Only obtaining prices in one project area Not including additional costs or fees Basing the transfer amount only on amount of funding received Getting the objective wrong in the first place! Based on the principles outlined, workshop participants were worked through the two case studied detailed below. 13 P a g e

14 Case Study Exercises Case Study 1 : Oxfam International - Typhoon Ketsana, Philippines 2009 Typhoon Ketsana struck the Philippines on 26 September 2009 when the ground was already saturated from four preceding storms. Laguna Lake spilled over its banks and flooded the densely populated urban areas of Laguna and Rizal. The flooding forced 156,431 families into just 1,080 evacuation centers (ECs). Areas of the towns closest to the lake, where the most vulnerable families already lived, were completely underwater for an extended period of time. Rapid assessments showed that: Families in EC s were receiving in-kind food aid, but in insufficient quantities Hygiene conditions were well below minimum standards and many people were suffering from health problems Markets were functioning normally although prices were slightly higher after the disaster. All basic commodities were available and markets were very close to ECs. Many people had lost their livelihoods: usually small shops or fishing enterprises Oxfam decided to implement an in-kind distribution of hygiene kits, and a complementary cash transfer programme with the following objectives: Phase 1 (10,000 beneficiaries): o Meet immediate food and non-food needs for vulnerable families for one month, as quickly as possible Phase 2 (5,000 beneficiaries): o Support vulnerable people to rebuild sustainable livelihoods In groups, workshop participants discussed and answered the following questions: Question 1: For phase 1, how would you calculate the transfer amount? Think about: o What kind of information would you need? o How would you get that information? o What factors would be the most important in deciding your transfer amount? For phase 2, how would you calculate the transfer amount? Think about: o What would you do differently from Phase 1? Participants Conclusions Phase 1 : Information Required Information to determine the gap in food and non food basic needs and social services Demographic information Market information (e.g. prices and availability) 14 P a g e

15 Phase 1 :Sources of information: the rapid assessment market survey household survey, FGDs, key informants Cross reference with data from other sources (e.g. secondary data sources, other informants, etc) Phase 1 : Factors determining the Amount Needs assessment / gap identification Budget for project Timeframe (duration) of the intervention Phase 2 : Changes to basis of Calculation of the Amount Increased contextual analysis Facilitate linkages to financial institutions Training and support for livelihoods Question 2: Post-distribution monitoring of the Phase 2 livelihoods grants revealed the following expenditure patterns: What does this chart say about the adequacy of the transfer amount to meet the programme objectives? Based on the chart, would you say that the livelihoods grant met the programme objectives? Figure 1: Allocation of Phase 2 Cash Grant Participants Conclusions: 1. The amount was inadequate. a. Beneficiaries are above the survival threshold but below the livelihoods protection threshold b. 25% is being spent on basic needs, and 10% on shelter. Because the amount was calculated on what was required for livelihoods (not basic needs) there is a deficit on livelihood expenditure. 2. Because of this, the program was not fully meeting its objectives. An integrated approach is required, incorporating survival needs as well as livelihood needs. 15 P a g e

16 Case Study 2: Concern Worldwide Niger Food Crisis 2010 In the context of a slow-onset food security and nutrition crisis affecting 7 million people in Niger (half the population), Concern s response focused on the two most chronically vulnerable districts in the country. An estimated half a million people were suffering extreme food deficits in the two rural districts of intervention and rates of malnutrition were well above emergency thresholds. Previous experience and baseline data from the region showed that: Close to 100% of households were already relying on local markets to meet their food needs The main cause of food deficit among the target group was extreme poverty, lack of income and high food prices during the lean season (6 months from May-September) Food supplies were adequate, provided that demand was sustained Concern was the only humanitarian organisation in the area Concern decided to implement a 6-month cash transfer programme with the objective of mitigating malnutrition (meeting basic food needs) among vulnerable families. In groups, workshop participants discussed and answered the following questions: Question 1: How would you calculate the transfer amount? What kind of information would you need? About markets? About households? How would you get that information? Participants Conclusions: Calculating the Transfer Amount Establish the objective Establish composition of basic needs basket, and the period that support should last Calculate daily individual requirements by age group (children / adults) Identify household sizes Use market information to identify prices of commodities Market Information Required Prices and price changes Supply chain (availability, quality, quantity) Accessibility Household Information Required Household size and composition (age, sex, etc.) Sources of income 16 P a g e

17 Expenditure patterns Basic needs Livelihood strategies How to obtain the information Household needs assessment Market assessment Questionnaires FGD Observations Key informants Question 2: Data from previous years indicates that during the 3 months immediately following the local harvest, more locally produced grains are available on the market, driving food prices down. Would this affect your transfer amount? If so, how? Participants Conclusions: Option Monthly adjustment of prices Fixed transfer based on average amount 3 months lower transfer amount then 3 months at a higher amount Conclusion Not appropriate due to price patterns identified. Incurs unnecessary administrative costs. Risks failing to meet program objectives as it requires beneficiaries to save a portion of 1 st 3 months transfer if they are to be able to afford the required amount in the 2 nd 3 months. As this is unlikely to occur, the project will not meet its objectives in the 2 nd 3 month period Preferred options as has most likelihood of meeting project objectives for least administrative complexity. 17 P a g e

18 Presentation 4 : Daniel Matimba & Killian Mutiro : Beneficiary Perceptions and Experiences of the Value of Cash Transfers A review of field experiences of beneficiary perceptions of the adequacy of cash transfer values under PRP was provided, including the impact of monthly versus lump sum distributions. Key points identified were: Pattern / frequency of payment of the cash transfer: There were cases where the $20 per month CT was delayed due to donor funds disbursements challenges and beneficiaries received backdated 2 to 5 months benefits as lump-sums of between $40 to $100 amount. For those who want to start income generating activities, $20 is not enough hence those who got $100 backdated lump-sum said they prefer quarterly rather than monthly disbursements. For pure welfare case beneficiaries who use the CT for their sustenance they prefer a predictable monthly $20. When breaks were experienced in the monthly CT disbursements, life became difficult for some vulnerable beneficiaries. Fluctuations in the transfer amount purchasing power: General price increases in 2011 have been reducing the value of the cash transfer e.g. after duty on basic goods was increased. Euro and pound based CT do not have a constant value as they experience exchange rate loses and gains from month to month. For Matabeleland beneficiaries, the value of the CT is not the same as of those in other parts of the country because of the use of the Rand/USD exchange rate loses. Both direct cash transfer, and transfers by cash cards etc necessitate beneficiaries travelling to the location / pay point with some needing to bus fares to do so. Timing of Cash transfers during the month, and impact on purchasing power / choice: Supermarkets observed that the timing of the cash disbursement has a bearing on the real value of the CT. During the busy periods (e.g. month-ends) most people would be getting their salaries and busy shopping. This was felt to be the wrong time for disbursing the CT, not only because it congests the supermarket but because most cheap product brands will be out of stock because of demand. These are the most popular brands to the vulnerable beneficiaries who have only $20 to spend. Impact of delivery mechanism on beneficiaries choice. Cash cards linked to one merchant / supermarket limit beneficiaries choice. A cash back facility is appreciated by beneficiaries, and increases choice. In Mutare, most beneficiaries prefer to use ZimSwitch to access cash, paying 50 cents for the transaction, as in the supermarket they must buy goods before they can get a cash back of $10. Impact of urban situations on needs: In Zvishavane, the Town Council reported that the average council rates (water and services) per household are around $17. For a vulnerable household with no other source of income, $20 is not enough to cover their basic needs. These are the households that owe Council huge amounts of money. Cutting water to these households would worsen their situations as some are caring for the bedridden. Other observations: The majority of both the rural and urban beneficiaries were unanimous that if the amount was increased to $50 per month their lives would change significantly. This would cover most of their monthly bills including school fees and levies. Others said this money could help them start income generating projects and even expand on their restocking of small livestock, 101 Days of Cash Transfers Report. 18 P a g e

19 Setting the Cash Transfer Value : Group Work Exercises Following the presentations, three Group Work Exercises were conducted, which results of which form the basis of the outputs and recommendations contained in the following sections. The format of the exercises was as follows: Group Work Exercise 1 1. What are the items which should be included in the survival or basic needs basket for calculating the transfer amount? a) In rural areas (Grp 1 & 2) b) In urban areas (Grp 3 & 4) c) Compile a suggested checklist of items to consider in setting the amount for basic (survival) needs Group Work Exercise 2 1. How should you calculate the transfer amount for: a) Emergency phase basic needs (Grp 1 rural, Grp 3 Urban) b) Recovery phase livelihoods protection / promotion (Grp 2 rural & 4) Think about: a) What are the data requirements? Are there gaps and how would you collect this data? b) Would you used a fixed or variable transfer rate? c) For how long and how frequently would you make the transfer? 2. What essential recommendations would you make? Group Work Exercise 3 1. What are the main things you have learned from today s session? 2. What are the key recommendations you would make to fellow practitioners on setting the transfer value? 19 P a g e

20 Setting the Cash Transfer Value : Summary of Key Recommendations Key Factors to Consider When Setting the Transfer Value Key considerations when setting the cash transfer value were identified as: The Cash Transfer value should be derived from the program objectives, and reflect the amount needed to meet those objectives. Consider the needs of the proposed beneficiaries. To quantify those needs: o Conduct a needs assessment (which may be a Rapid Assessment) o Identify requirements to meet the survival threshold o Identify requirements to meet the livelihoods protection / livelihoods development threshold o What are the capacities of beneficiaries: Identify what beneficiaries can do for themselves, or help they are receiving from other sources (including from other aid agencies, remittances from family, etc.) What assets / skills do they have which could form the basis of recovery of livelihoods? o Identify the gap or shortfall which is required to meet the program objectives. Consider the context, and the impact this has on needs and costs of basic items. In particular: o is it rural or urban? How is the cost of goods affected by rural / urban location How is the ability of beneficiaries to provided from their own resources (and thus the gap ) affected by location? e.g. scope for own production, casual labour, etc. may vary with location. Is support for shelter provision required? o Are beneficiaries displaced to a camp context. If so, is tent provision required, either through cash grants or in-kind? o In urban areas, do beneficiaries require support for accommodation (rentals, electricity, water rates, etc.)? Calculate the cost of the elements that are required to meet the program objectives, and thus will form the basis of the calculation of the Cash transfer amount. This should include consideration of: o Market information o Ongoing assessment (e.g. of price information) and the possible adjustment of the Cash Transfer value to reflect price changes When setting the Cash Transfer amount, consider any costs associated with the delivery mechanism to be used, such as: o Cost of transport to / from payment points o Transaction costs (e.g. for mobile phone transfers, bank charges, etc.) Identify and take into account other interventions within the target area / affecting the target beneficiaries. Based on this information: o Seek to identify and build on potential synergies with other interventions o Avoid duplication and / or conflicting activities. During initial emergency phase transfer amounts may be fixed, due to need for speed of response / lack of immediately available reliable data on household sizes. During recovery phase amounts should vary with household size to reflect costs of meeting basic needs. 20 P a g e

21 Recommended Checklist for Calculating Survival / Basic Needs Category Food and nutrition needs Non-food items Health Water, sanitation and Health (WASH) Shelter Transport Education 1 Capital Items (requiring a once-off grant) Components Cereal Oils / fats Protein source Vegetables / fresh food Salt Milling fees Soap Cooking fuel (wood, paraffin) Matches Sanitary ware (for women) Health services accessible? affordable? user fees? Safe water for drinking and hygiene needs does water require to be purchased? Are there user fees for use of water points? In situations of displacement / loss of shelter Rental costs (mainly in urban situations) Utilities (water rates, electricity) To access the cash transfer and / or markets Primary education (fees, school goods, etc) Utensils / cookware Water containers Clothes (where lost in an emergency) Blankets (if required by situation / climate) Recommended Checklist for Calculating Household Recovery Needs Category Shelter Water Sanitation and Health Education Health Components Reconstruction / Construction costs Bill of Quantities / Costs Water user fees Provision of support for basic primary education School fees School materials (stationery, uniforms, etc.) Health care user fees 1 It was recognised that in an emergency where the objective was survival this element may not occur until the situation had stabilised and recovery / development was being considered. Education was recognised as a basic need but not literally a survival need. 21 P a g e

22 Recommended Checklist for Calculating Livelihood Support / Development Needs Category CTs should be based on Livelihood Support Needs (i.e. vary by type of Income Generating Activity), but with a ceiling Possible fixed capital requirements (oneoff costs) There is a need to provide ongoing support until the livelihood protection / development strategy is self supporting Components One-off payment may be required to kick-start livelihood protection /development. Infrastructure (possibly including premises) Equipment Initial stock Agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizer, tools, livestock, etc.) Identify ongoing / follow-up support required to achieve self supporting status. Possible recurring costs components: Transport Licencing (e.g. of traders) Rentals Various items were identified as needs which required to be provided on a group (not individual) basis, and which therefore would not form part of the calculation of the individual transfer amounts. These items are specified in the Table below. They may however require additional funding provision (e.g. group grants, inkind provision, etc.), possibly as once-off grants. Group Needs During Recovery Category Water, sanitation and Health (WASH) Components Development of safe sources of water for drinking and hygiene needs Sanitation facilities (is destroyed / people displaced) Security Training provision Health facilities Provision of an adequately secure environment For livelihood development If required by the situation. 22 P a g e

23 Data Requirements Data requirements identified as necessary for calculating the transfer amount are summarised below. Category Components Needs Assessment Demographics of affected population(s) and Households Household Income and Expenditure Patterns Proportion of needs being met from own / other sources or interventions ( Gap analysis) Market Assessment Market prices o Current prices o Price trends o Seasonal price patterns o Other price variability Government Policies, Frameworks and Legislation Preliminary assessments of livelihood opportunities Product availability and quality Supply Chains Potential for market to respond to increased demand (inflationary risk) Accessibility of markets / costs in accessing markets (e.g. transport) Commodity pricing polices Trading restrictions Coordination / harmonization frameworks o Productive Community Works Policy Framework o Social Transfer Policy Framework Employment Legislation (Cash for Work) Contextual analysis Identification of existing skills / capacities / assets which could form the basis of livelihoods development Rank and prioritise possible interventions Assessment of market demand for livelihood outputs 23 P a g e

24 Proposed Steps in the Process of Setting the Cash Transfer Value Market Assessment: e.g. Price Information, Accessibility of goods Household Data e.g. Household size Other costs e.g. Transaction costs Transport, etc. Location Consider impact of location on cost of meeting needs Other Sources: Own production Casual labour Other Aid Programs Gifts / Community support Remittances Define the objective(s) of the intervention. This forms the basis for setting the transfer amount. Identify which needs the transfer must cover to meet the program objectives What is the duration of the Intervention? Is an exit strategy required to ensure needs are met after the program ends? How will this affect the transfer amount? Identify the cost of meeting these needs Identify other interventions and seek to build on synergies and avoid duplication Use information on other interventions in the "gap analysis" Identify what needs are being met from other sources (including beneficiaries' own resources) and use "Gap analysis" to identify unmet needs Needs Assessment Food and Nutrition Non food items Health WASH Shelter Transport Education Capital items Livelihood protection and / or development Other needs? Location Consider impact of location on needs gap / requirements What are other Agencies doing in the target area? NGOs Government (including Govt. Policy frameworks and regulations) Community Support structures Consider whether the amount of the transfer should vary or be fixed. Fixed or Variable Amount? Will the transfer vary, (e.g. in line with household size, price changes, vulnerability) or be a fixed amount Set the Cash Transfer Value based on assessments, and review / monitor to ensure it is effective / remains relevant to meeting the program objectives 24 P a g e

25 Harare Cash Transfer Workshop Day 2 Harmonising Governmental and Non-Governmental Cash-Based Responses 25 P a g e

26 Overview of Presentations Presentation 5: Tapiwa Huye: Benefits and Challenges of Coordination: The Case of JI cash Transfers Coordination was embedded in the program design of the Joint Initiative (JI) in order to achieve: Program integration Standardization and harmonization of approaches and reporting Synchronization of databases Key JI coordination platforms included the National Platform (CT Workshop Dec 2009), JI Sector Working Groups, Area Coordination Committees, and Extended Area Coordination Committees/ Urban Forums JI Coordination Model Justifications for the JI focus on coordination were: Improved targeting and mobilization Helps to avoid duplication and increases accountability Improves integration Improves effective and efficient utilization of resource (Value for Money) Smoother decision-making Cross fertilization of ideas and effective learning Promotes innovativeness by shared learning (e.g. on different cash distribution channels) Peer review is used by JI to monitor / evaluate projects. 26 P a g e

27 Key benefits of coordination were identified as: Ensures potential programming linkages & referrals Share plans and challenges (different CT modalities- voucher, banking, direct) Incorporating other stakeholders (e.g. local authorities & security agencies) into consultative process Promotes Goodwill Public benefit (other organizations can gain from success and approaches already tried and tested) More effective use of resources more milage from resources as no double dipping and oewnership of program by beneficiaries Key challenges in coordination included: Organizational culture Conflicting interest, activities, and agendas of organisations Differing local environments / contexts JI has the following resources which it is willing to share: Various harmonisation and coordination tools are available o e.g. Standardised report format Manual for targeting and mobilisation Household financial manual Other organisations in urban locations can share the JI framework for CT coordination 27 P a g e

28 Presentation 6: Lovemore Dumba, Department of Social Services; The Design of the Harmonised Social Cash Transfer Scheme The objectives of the HSCT are to: To lift extremely poor (food poor) people out of life threatening poverty To alleviate the poverty of people that suffer from any of the manifestations of poverty listed in the definition of poverty given above To reduce the vulnerability of people to falling into poverty Key features of the HSCT are: Bi-monthly unconditional cash transfers averaging $20/month/household Targets labour constrained food-poor Households Uses administrative two-tier targeting approach Employs CIT cash delivery method Outsources targeting and cash delivery to private companies Managed through a Harmonised MIS database Households targeted by HSCT are labour constrained food poor households, defined as: No able bodied HH member years to do productive work. Able bodied member present but has to care for more than 3 members less than 18 or above 59 who are sick. HH that can not benefit sufficiently from labor based interventions. Food Poor- Living below the food poverty line. Total household expenditure capacity inadequate to meet minimal food requirements (2100Kcal) Cannot purchase essential non food items e.g. soap, clothes Thus chronic hunger prevails Cash delivery method: Cash In transit will be used National Programme Office using MIS sends payment schedule to delivery agency and instructs bank to transfer respective funds to the payment agency Beneficiaries are issued with beneficiary cards Payment is made bi monthly CIT payments are done at one or two central pay points per ward using a fixed schedule Value of the cash transfers will vary with household size, up to a maximum of a 4 person household: 1 Person Household $10 2 Person Household $15 3 Person Household $20 4 Person and more $25 28 P a g e

29 Anticipated results from the HSCT are: Output level-strengthen the purchasing power of targeted households Outcome Level-empower targeted households to increase consumption above the food poverty line Impact level- Increase the consumption of goods and services (basic needs) =improved nutrition, health education reduced mortality The HSCT will be harmoinised with other Government policies as follows: Intervention Nature of Intervention Compliment HSCT Will Be Replaced BEAM School fees, exam fees X AMTOS Health vouchers X Public Works Cash for work & free cash X Free cash for labour constrained households will be replaced. Support to children in distress Monthly cash to children and material support X Cash components will be replaced. Anticipated targets and coverage of districts are as follows: Province District No. of wards Total No. of hhs No. of labour constrained food poor households Manicaland Makoni/Rusape 45 49,768 4,977 Mash Central Rushinga 19 13,427 1,343 Mash East Goromondzi 25 32,724 3,272 Mash West Kariba 12 7, Masvingo Chivi 25 31,088 3,109 Mat North Umguza 18 16,118 1,611 Mat South Mangwe 12 14,655 1,466 Midlands Zishavane 18 13,790 1,379 Harare Epworth 6 22,814 2,281 Bulawayo Bulawayo Wards 8,14,18,19,27, ,402 2,940 Totals ,657 23,166 Average 15 23,166 2,317 Source: Zimbabwe population census P a g e

30 Institutional arrangements and coordination is based on the following principles: The Government recognises the multi- sectoral nature of the social protection policy Different roles will be played by different stakeholders Stakeholders include individuals, state actors, non state actors, development partners and private sector. Roles of Development Partners will be : Government has the mandate to ensure social protection. NGOS will continue to do research on various modalities and share information. NGOs will continue to programme in social protection NGOs need to follow the Government methodology (e.g. beneficiary database format) for easy take over (e.g. of databases). NGOs need to report all cash transfer activities and targets through DSS sub-national offices All humanitarian NGOs in Zimbabwe are hosted by the DSS, so all communications should be copied through DSS, but if an NGO is doing program in a local area, they must contact local office. Is then easier for government departments to coordinate with local government on behalf of the NGOs. Everything done in social protection should thus be coordinated through the DSS offices. The MOU with NGOs states they must go through the Ministry of Labour and Social Service, not direct to local authorities. The entry point for such initiatives is the DSS office in local area. The DSS then reports to DA as head of local government. For unconditional cash transfers, NGOs should not give more then $25 as cash as this is the top end of government bands for the HSCT. No person shall be targeted by more than 1 cash based intervention, e.g. if a person is in the Government scheme they should not receive any other cash transfer from other agencies. This is the reason for the Government sharing its databases. However, NGOs can give non-cash items to same beneficiaries e.g. can give in-kind food aid, livelihood training, etc., but they cannot give cash. The HSCT Program will harmonise with other programs, such as PRP and WFP. The Government HSCT Scheme will focus on the chronically poor. NGOs main focus should be on the transitory poor, who can be assisted to transition out of poverty or crisis. 30 P a g e

31 Presentation 7: Leonard Turugari; Locating Cash Transfers in the Broader national Policy Framework Social Transfer Policy Framework Humanitarian Cash Transfers are Social Transfers, and as such their coordination falls within the ambit of the national Social Transfer Policy Framework. The overall goal of the STPF is: To strengthen the risk management capacities of vulnerable population groups to promote continuous improvements in living standards and prevent irreversible welfare losses throughout their lives. The STPF pursues the following objectives which are critical for achieving coordinated CT programming: Harmonize CT programmes for progressive impacts; Improve the relevance and adequacy of CTs to achieve intended policy impact whilst adhering to minimum quality standards; Increase efficient and effective institutional arrangements for cash transfer interventions; Establish a coherent framework for linking CTs to the country s social protection and broad national development policies; and Prescribe guidelines to all stakeholders in the design and implementation of CT programmes. STPF Focus Areas To adequately address the welfare needs of the poor and vulnerable target groups, the social transfers policy framework requires programmes to focus on six outcomes: Increased access to complementary welfare support; Restoration of sustainable livelihoods; Asset protection and creation; Human capital formation; Empowerment of marginalised groups and the most vulnerable; and Productivity enhancement All social transfers (including NGO cash transfers) will be required to target the above focus areas. Targeting of beneficiaries The STPF requires that programmes prioritise support for the following vulnerable groups: The chronically poor; The transitory poor; The poorest and most vulnerable children; People with disabilities; People with chronic illnesses; The elderly; and Internally displaced people. 31 P a g e

32 Coordination Framework for the STPF: At the national level Government will establish a National Steering Committee on Social Transfers (NSCST) consisting of accounting officers from the key social sector and economic ministries. All Programme Technical Committees/Working Groups established to oversee the implementation of Government and NGO ST programmes/projects shall be sub-committees of the NSCST. This includes the Cash Transfer Working Group (CTWG). At the subnational level, the implementation of this policy shall be facilitated through existing structures that include Provincial Development Committees, District Development Committees (DDCs) and community committees. The MoLSS will be responsible for administering and coordinating the social transfer policy implementation. Specialised social sector ministries and agencies, through their decentralized structures shall provide technical support to community level interventions. Policy Coordination and NGOs The STPF acknowledges the range of social transfer interventions being implemented by NGOs and the private sector. Therefore, the STPF provides for the institutionalisation of the roles of NGOs and private sector in its implementation by ensuring their participation in the design and implementation of social transfer programmes, and in the institutional, administrative and management structures of social transfer programmes envisaged by this policy. Policy Framework for Productive Community Works This policy is currently at the consultation stage. Key elements are: The PCW Programme is set to be the key CT programme for transferring incomes to nonlabour constrained households. In order to have a coordinated approach to PCW by both Government and NGOs, the Policy Framework seeks to harmonise the following: Geographical targeting Wage/CT rate Hours worked by beneficiaries Days worked per month Duration of employment and a guaranteed minimum number of days Types of permissible projects A multistakeholder PCW Technical committee will support the implementation of the PCW programmes All organisations should review the Government consultation document on the Policy Framework for Productive Community Works, and should seek to respond to this consultation. These Operational Guidelines for Productive Community Works (PCW) will provide a guide for managing and implementing PCW activities in Zimbabwe under the Government s PCW Policy Framework. The Guidelines apply to all activities implemented under the policy framework, including those funded by the Government, development partners, and the private sector. As such, this policy will provide the 32 P a g e

33 frameworks within which future NGO Cash for Work programs will have to operate, so it is important for stakeholders to participate in the development of the Policy Framework. Government NGO Coordination Challenges, Opportunities and Actions Participants worked in breakout groups to identify the key opportunities / benefits and key challenges associated with coordination between Government and non-governmental cash transfer programs. They then sought to: Identify key actions required to build on / maximize the potential benefits identified Identify key actions required to mitigate or overcome these challenges. Opportunities Opportunities / Benefits Effective utilisation of a single, harmonised database of beneficiaries / communities / projects Achievement of general consensus about the operational and policy environment Harmonised programming frameworks Cordial working relationships between NGO sector and central / local Govt. Sharing of information on Who is doing What, Where (3W) Reduced double-dipping (duplication of targeting) Enhanced information sharing and experience sharing Actions Required to Build upon Potential Benefits Share database Regularly update database Dialogue among stakeholders (Govt and NGO) Govt to engage NGOs and development partners Dialogue among stakeholders (Govt and NGO) Constructive engagement by all stakeholders Coordination forums of stakeholders at all levels Joint targeting and monitoring Regularise coordination meetings Share reports and best practices CTWG task force at district level Share databases Share plans Increased impact from synergies / Complementary effects Achieve greater value for money Activity coordination Effective use of resources Strengthen information sharing and dissemination Produce periodic update documents (e.g. newsletter like WASH cluster) Harmonising stakeholder relations Increased coverage / outreach and impact, due to a a broader distribution of assistance Strengthening the human capital base Reduced competition Collaboration to achieve greater effects Stakeholders meetings (frequent) Sharing databases and plans Refresher Courses / trainings Secondments Dialogue among stakeholders (Govt and NGO) Joint targeting Share plans Coordination meetings of stakeholders at all levels Responsible / Lead Agency DSS DSS CTWG DSS CTWG 33 P a g e