1 | PageCash Working Group – Philippines

24 March 2015

Cash Working Group-Philippines

YIAS, Tower 2 RCBC Plaza, Makati City

24 March 2015

AGENDA:

Time

/

Activity

/

Person/s Responsible

9:30-10:00 am

/

Registration

10:00-10:15 am

/

Opening Remarks

/

DAVID CARDEN

Head of Office OCHA-Philippines

10:00-10:30 am

/

Introduction of Participants*

Rationale of the Activity

/

AGNES PALACIO

NDRA, OCHA-Philippines

10:30-10:45 am

/

Innovative Solution for Disaster Recovery

Electronic Pre-paid Solution /

Oxfam

10:45-11:00 am

/

Innovations in Humanitarian Interventions:

Last Mile Mobile Solutions (LMMS)

/

World Vision

11:00-11:15 am

/

Updates on Cash Transfer and DSWD 4Ps (PantawidPamilyang Pilipino)

/

DSWD

11:15-11:30 am

/

Open Discussions

/

Plenary

11:30-11:45 am

/

Information Management Products – Typhoon Haiyan

-Infographics and FSP Mapping

/

NOEL VICTORINO

OCHA IM

11:45 – 12:15 pm

/

Agency and FSP Mapping

-Minimum information required

Knowledge Sharing Platform (for information)

Humanitarian ID

/

JOSEPH ADDAWE

OCHA IM

12:15-13:00 pm

/

Lunch Break

13:00-13:30 pm

/

Presentation and Finalization of TOR – Steering Committee

/

EILEEN TUFAY

WFP

13:30-14:00 pm

/

Presentation and Finalization of Proposed TOR – Cash Working Group

/

DEMOS MILITANTE

Coordinator, FSL

ACF

14:00-14:30 pm

/

Setting of Priority Preparedness Activities for 2015

/

WADEL CABRERA III

Capacity Building Officer

CALP

14:30 pm

/

Closing

/

AUGUSTO RODRIGUEZ

Chief, Social Policy Section

UNICEF

*Attendance is attached separately.

Business Proper:

This is the first meeting of the Cash Working Group- Philippines for 2015. This is also the 1st meeting, at the national level, post-Haiyan Emergency response. The meeting was presided over by OCHA. The agenda was followed as proposed.

The first part of the meeting was allocated for innovative solutions used by Oxfam and World Vision in providing CTP[1] assistance.

  1. Innovative Solution for Disaster Recovery –

Electronic Pre-paid Solution Oxfam and Visa: Electronic prepaid card

Attach Oxfam PPT

  • Conceptualized in July 2014 and is being piloted in the Haiyan- and Hagupit- affected areas since December 2014.
  • Programme goals: (1) to leverage PPP to improve disaster recovery CTP; and (2) to improve speed, security and transparency of CTP
  • Deliverables: (1) reduced admin cost, (2) improved security, (3) increased speed of distribution, (4) improved monitoring and targeting, (5) improved logistics and (6) reduced inflation impact (through speedy distribution).
  • Complementary capabilities through multi-stakeholder partnerships including payment program partners (Government, Oxfam, Visa, issuing and acquiring banks) and cash-out partners (merchants, payment processors, mobile companies, etc.)
  • Key accomplishments: (1) card user’s education and awareness, and (2) compliance to bank’s know-your-customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering policies
  • Among the challenges were: Previous challenges: documentary requirements for compliance (often washed away in storms/floods), speed and transparency
  • The results of the piloting period, December 2014 to March 2015:
  • Transferred USD 76,500+ through the use of 1,142 cards, yielding 100% successful transactions.
  • Approximately, 95% of beneficiaries using the cards at point of sale (POS).
  • The cards were used for saving, financial inclusion, household investment on disaster emergency fund, and increasing resiliency on disaster impact.
  • Two months after the pilot began; many cards were still “active” with savings left, with average of P500 per user.
  • Benefits:
  • For Oxfam: reduced admin cost, faster, safer, more transparent, etc.
  • For beneficiary: faster, safer, more transaction options and increased agency, etc.
  • For businesses/BSP: leverage skills, reduced reliance on cash, financial inclusion rather than CSR, accelerated BSP e-Master plan, etc.
  • Remaining challenge: commodity prices controlled by partner merchants. There is a need to get more partner-merchants to mitigate inflation and avoid monopoly.

Questions and Answers:

Q:How is this going to work immediately after the disaster when the telecom and electronic transfer system is down?

A: Through the use of mobile laptop and WIFI, satellite access, mobile ATM (operated by generator or by solar) and other banking services. During the first few days of response, merchants can still bring basic commodities and without cash they can already start using these prepaid cards distributed as part of the unconditional CTP. OCHA also shared that during Typhoon Hagupit, the telecom companies took down the connections as preparedness measure, which made reconnecting easier after the storm.

Q:How soon would it be available in the affected areas, including rural areas?

A: Pilots is run also in rural and highland areas, the system is so far working as long as there is a certain level of signal for mobile banking/shopping.

Q: What is the cost?

A:Set-up cost for the pilot was USD65,000. However, there was 50-60% reduction on Administrative costs compared to implementing direct cash payout.

Q:What is the transaction cost? Is there a computation for cost efficiency?

A:Once the system is there, the pilot is replicable in other regions. Transaction cost is shouldered by Oxfam for the first 4 transactions for the piloting. This is also estimated to be the number of tranches that the CTP will be released. As the card is designed as a savings tool, succeeding transaction costs will be shouldered by the beneficiary.

Transaction cost varies: P12/ATM withdrawal; P24 per transaction at the Philpost (post office)

Q:Is there an additional cost if merchants go to the affected communities?

A:Some companies do this for free (or bring customers to the store) as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Q:Was there any relaxation of KYC[2]?

A:There was reduction in the information required to fast-process the CTP. This can be integrated as part of preparedness measures, such as pre-arranged agreements between the Government and FSPs on the minimum KYC requirement during emergencies. Instead of the beneficiaries presenting Government-issued ID, when most of them lost their legal documents, a barangay certificate sufficed and was accepted by the FSPs.

Q:Was there a timeframe for monitoring transactions?

A:Revalidation of the disbursements or a PDM[3] was done after 2 weeks.

  1. Innovations in Humanitarian Interventions

World Vision Use of Last Mile Mobile Solutions (LMMS) and partnership with Mastercard

Attach PPT and LMMS video

  • A short video was shown about LMMS
  • The programme was originally developed for humanitarian beneficiary analysis and monitoring of in-kind assistance. In the last two years, it has been used for CTPs as well.
  • This technology is also being used by World Vision in Haiti and Yemen. In the Philippines, this was used for Hagupit-affected areas in Eastern Samar. Other partners that are using LMMS are: Oxfam, Save the Children, World Vision, among others.
  • The benefits, using LMMS, identified were: LMMS saves time and money, reduced administrative cost, less time in beneficiary analysis based on vulnerabilities, easier financial service distribution field monitoring and reporting.
  • Recommendation: This should be connected to DSWD’s Disaster Assistance Family Access Card (DAFAC) system, which does similar beneficiary analysis but manually.
  • The partnership with Mastercard:
  • The partnership is similar to the partnership between Oxfam and Visa, except for the following: 1)Mastercard does not use FSP, rather it is a tripartite partnership that includesWorld Vision, Mastercard and beneficiaries, (2) Mastercard is only providing financial transaction service through “point of sale” (POS), not direct cash payout, (3) World Vision profiles the beneficiaries, merchants and their pricing of goods (equated to points), and updating/monitoring card usage (points).No data is shared with Mastercard, therefore, World Vision still maintains data confidentiality.
  • The pilot period for the partnership with Mastercardin the Philippines isJanuary-September 2015. As this is still being developed, this is not commercially available. Yet other partners can do bilateral negotiations only. This same partnership mechanism is being piloted in Yemen.
  • Mastercard embeds its chips in the LMMS cards so it can be used for the POS transactions.
  • At the initial stage, World Vision approached the local government units first to help facilitate engagement with local businesses. Most of the partner merchants are local businesses.
  • With the Oxfam and Mastercard partnership, reporting on the usage of CTP is automatic. The users do not have to remember how they used the cash while coping with an emergency. The system captures which items were purchased using the card.

Questions and Answers:

Q:What is the cost of setting up such system, LMMS with Mastercard?

A:Basic equipment includes roaming server laptop (USD800), router, card printer, cards and mobile phones; installation, staff training, and licensing.

Q:How do you ensure protection and confidentiality of beneficiary data?

A:Both Oxfam and WV respect legal requirements, and beneficiaries have options to disclose certain data (e.g. photos). Implementing agency will be responsible for beneficiary data management and it is not shared with the private sector partner (Mastercard).

Q:What happens if the beneficiaries lose or have damaged cards?

A:Beneficiaries can report to the implementing agency or partner banks and get a replacement. No risk for the stolen cards being misused as the user is verified before each transaction (via photo, barcode, national ID#, etc.).

Q:Why did World Vision use a point system rather than peso value for items purchased using the card?

A:Mastercard did not want the complication involved in handling cash transfers but would rather provide the platform for point system and immediately make the system work for POS.

  1. DSWD Presentation: Emergency Unconditional Cash Transfer (EUCT)

Share PPT from DSWD

  • The government’s social protection programme named “PantawidsaPamilyang Pilipino Programme”, popularly known as 4Ps, is the 3rd biggest social safety net programme in the world.
  • Approximately, PhP152M released from July to December 2014. There are about 4.5M HHs benefited so far and it is continuing to expand. Based on NHTS data, there are additional 600,000 households to be included, based on recent validation.
  • The 4Ps has a well-established infrastructure that includes a grievance system, compliance monitoring and updating system. There are family development sessions (FDS) that are conducted every month to monitor the progress of the beneficiaries.
  • DSWD in partnership with UNICEF and WFP used Emergency UCT during the recovery phase of the Haiyan and Hagupit responses. UNICEF provided EUCT amounting to P4000m pe month, good for six months.
  • WFP covered 4Ps and non-4ps families, totaling to around 500,000 beneficiaries.
  • No actual cash transfer is made to DSWD from either UNICEF or WFP. Instead, DSWD’s role is to validate beneficiaries based on HH data and affected areas/communities), identify transfer networks and models (ATMs, banks, over the counter), assess market functions and monitor distribution.
  • The identified challenges in this CTP were:
  • Targeting was a major challenge during the Haiyan response, as some 4P beneficiaries received layers of UCT and CCT assistance while other poor HHs did not receive any.
  • For the UNICEF partnership with DSWD, the payout was made through Landbank of the Philippines (LBP). However, LBP lacks buffer funds to cover additional emergency payout. This resulted in a delay in distribution of cash to the beneficiaries by three months. It should have been the responsibility of Landbank (rather than DSWD) to report or liquidate the UCT fund. The partnership has no POS capability. The LBP payment system includes conduits such as ML Lhuillier, Smart Money, NATCCO- National Confederation of Cooperatives and PhilPostbut there is no existing MOU or policy on this which makes it more difficult to invoke accountability of conduits towards UNICEF or other partners of DSWD. Correspondingly, UNICEF and DSWD are looking for additional FSPs to expedite releases.
  • The DSWD Inclusion Request Facility is a way of including vulnerable affected families in the 4Ps. A list of vulnerable/poor households needs to be brought to DSWD for validation and eligibility.
  • On another note, DSWD is now updating the National Household Targeting System (NHTS) which is expected to be released in October. It will guide humanitarian agencies in beneficiary targeting as the data will vulnerability families and identify potential beneficiaries during emergencies.
  • World Bank and DSWD are working on a partnership to provide food assistance and money during emergencies through theDisaster Risk Reduction and Response Operations Office(DRR-ROO) led by Dir. Briones.
  1. Cash Information Management (IM)preparedness tools by OCHA

Provide link for infographics and FSP mapping

CWG information management is being firmed up during this preparedness period (non-emergency). Using existing resources and information during the Haiyan response, OCHA is supporting the CWG, to map out FSPs and do other IM products.

  • FSP mapping
  • The mapping exercise is part of the preparedness measures to map out location and capacity of cash transfer programming partners
  • The existing map, which was developed through the SIMM[4] Project under the USAID, So far data concentrated in Luzon (handed over by USAID), still being developed with more data in other regions of the country
  • Data already available on HDX website. Final version of the map will follow.
  • FSPs are now part of Cash WG and the focal points will continue to provide additional data
  • Cash Infographics
  • Comments to be sent to OCHA, deadline is 31 March 2015.
  • Knowledge sharing platform being developed to collectively manage data, maps, presentations, meeting minutes, etc. The OCHA IM unit will manage this for the CWG. Partners are encouraged to share their CTP materials or journals for wider circulation.
  • The IM team shared that during Haiyan, response, it was quite tedious to capture CTP assistance because there was no standard reporting for this that would feed into the different clusters. The reporting of cash was done by filtering/ searching similar keywords. There is a recognized need to improve reporting of CTP for future responses. The CWG agreed and recommended that a standard set of terminologies and guide to reporting should be created to better track cash activities.
  1. Terms of Reference (TOR) – CWG and Steering Committee

Attach: TORs

The draft TOR for both the CWG and Steering Committee were presented. Specific comments were:

  1. TOR of CWG
  • Under roles and responsibilities, include provision regarding CWG, when necessary, to do external engagements and advocacy with government agencies and other partners to advance CTP implementation.
  • Include decision making procedures for non-emergency phase. The determination of quorum is set at 50 plus 1. Voting is based on 2/3 of the members present during the meeting (either personal or via video conference).
  • For emergency phase, the CWG will determine if there is a need to establish a sub national CWG. Based on circumstances, the CWG may also decide to conduct cash coordination meetings at the sub national level, in lieu of an organized CWG. Either way, the coordination efforts should feed into the inter-cluster coordination mechanism at the hub level where there is active cash coordination.
  1. TOR of Steering Committee
  • Include a provision on decision making procedure for the Steering committee. Determination of quorum is set at 50 plus 1. On the other hand, voting is determined by 2/3 of members who are present (either personally attending or via video conferencing)
  • Membership of government agencies should be provided. The agencies will be left to decide how their membership will be, either full fledge or ex-officio with specific task team membership.

The determination of quorum and voting decision should be based on an actual number or membership, both number and representatives. It was agreed, therefore, that in-country membership should be developed. Correspondingly, a form shall be completed by the members that will also signify their intent to allocate time and effort in relation to the CWG.

The basis for appointing or voting the emergency chair at the sub national level should be based on capacity and resources, particularly designated focal point as well as longer presence in the area.

OCHA also shared that in areas where there is an OCHA sub office, the Head of the SO can take the lead of the local CWG during emergencies.

Action points:

  • For agencies that have other comments on the TORs, deadline for inputs is March 31, 2015, COB.
  • OCHA to come up with a membership form to be circulated among the members. OCHA will follow up with FSPs to become part of the CWG.
  1. Priority Preparedness Activities

The priority preparedness activities were presented by the Steering committee for the approval of the CWG. These are:

1. Finalization of TORs – CWG and Steering Committee

2. Develop common template for MOU

3. Firming up Information Management for CTP

4. Development of common market assessment tool

The proposed activities were approved. An additional activity was recommended by the body. This is on harmonizing beneficiary targeting. Based on the Haiyan response, the DSWD 4Ps infrastructure was used to provide cash assistance. However, there is recognition that there are families, not necessarily 4Ps beneficiaries, that were also affected and who have become vulnerable. There are other government data that can guide the CTP implementers to target vulnerable/ poor families. For one, the 4Ps family profiles are just a sub set of the NHTS[5]. OCHA and DSWD have signed a MOA for the use of the NHTS data.

Other Discussions:

  • IOM shared information sheets on Recovery Shelter Kit Programme and Transitional Shelter – Cash for Work. Please see attachments.
  • On the side of the FSPs attendees, they are interested to join the CWG subject to approval of their supervisor. LBC Express mentioned that it gives its full support to the CWG. Philpost is likewise interested.
  • PSBP is expanding to humanitarian response, pending management endorsement. Once this is finalized, PBSP will signify its membership to the CWG.
  • ICRC will attend the CWG as observer. ICRC, for the last two years, has been implementing CTP globally. Currently, it has its offices in Guiuan and Zamboanga City that do CTP.
  • Point for consideration for the CWG is how to encourage/ strengthen the partnership between the NGOs and government on CTP and humanitarian response. The UN and Philippine Government have existing bilateral agreement. However, there are limited arrangements between NGOs and government agencies.

The next CWG meeting will be within the 1st week of June – to be announced.