Cash Working Group Meeting – Somalia Drought Response
17th February 2017 – Held at IFRC, Nairobi
Meeting Minutes
Attendees: Annex A
Agenda Item / Discussion
1)Update /
  • Food Security Cluster (FSC): Cash is increasingly a preferred modality, and the number of partners using cash transfers has grown. 26 actors undertaking cash response in 2016. FSC expects this to jump for 2017 response. Though important to note that other forms of assistance still play a significant role. We need to also ensure we’re keeping the balance.
-Challenges: Diversity in transfer value. Coordination of response within a given geographical area – conditional or unconditional, transfer type etc. To meet some of these challenges, the FSC formed a Cash and MarketsTask Force in 2015, and this group has worked on logic and guidance around transfer values. This is in the final stage of finalization and will then be able to be shared.
-This forum (CWG) which is inter-cluster is needed and can broaden/ increase our ability to coordinate the use of cash.
-Need to consider the consequences of our action when transferring cash, particularly on markets and livelihoods. Also need to consider livestock and other priorities of the household past the family.
-For MEB the latest figure available is up to December 2016, so likely it has since changed.
  • WASH cluster: Use of cash has been more limited, not yet at the scale of the FSC. Use of cash began 2 years ago in Mogadishu. At the moment vouchers are being used for water (Unicef with SCOPE, and other partners using other methods). There are challenges in accountability if you compare it with basic water tracking. The cluster plans to extend the use of water vouchers to top them up with cash, also looking at cash for work for dams around the Shabelleriver in order to restore water access to people and livestock at the same time.
  • OCHA: Will issue the operational plan for humanitarian scale up today. The intention being to look at the scale up of $825million for the first half of 2017 in order to prevent famine. Big increase from the initial request of $805million for the full year. Looking to avoid the situation that occurred in 2011 where many of the deaths had already occurred when famine was declared. The President asked this week in meetings with the Humanitarian Coordinator, discussions included what we will be doing with cash. Cash is also a key element that comes up often in engagement with donors. Specifically that there is a stronger system in place now than there was in 2011, but that it will require strong coordination.
  • IFRC: Been implementing emergency programming since March last year, including cash. In areas where work has been done in Puntland and Somaliland, cash has worked really well and are now looking at how response can be scaled up, with cash as a priority.
  • Concern: Implementing with DFID funding, 14,000 families to be targeted with cash transfers. Have used a standard transfer value based on information previously received from WFP. This has been followed also by the consortium they’re working through, so would like an update as soon as possible if there’s any changes to this.
  • Questions – To FSC – the current mapping does not feature local NGOs, only INGO.
  • Answer – this information is up to December 2016 so needs to be updated. One challenge of including local NGOs is that many receive funds via INGOs and so a danger of double counting. Noted that it could be possible to collect names of INGO partners. The hope is this CWG will really help in linking in and better reflecting actors and coverage.

2)Priorities for the CWG /
  • Setting up a coordination body – urgent
  • Combine coordination bodies as much as possible, rather than setting up a lot of different ones.
  • Geographical coverage. Who is doing what where.- urgent
  • If we can really try to go down to the village level, not just district, it’ll really help us with avoiding duplication. This is also important for understanding access.
  • NGO consortium circulated a document for organisations to fill in which could be helpful for us to map coverage.
  • Also important for contact points, and for covering gaps. Example FAO has a lot of freedom in selecting where to focus assistance, so can look to cover gaps that are not being covered by others.
  • Suggestion from OCHA to use 3Ws to help map cash across clusters/ sectors. This is an existing system, and would avoid confusion. However it only goes to the district level, so we’d need to look at how best to get down to village level.One of the challenges of village level is the multiple spelling of names etc which means a huge amount of time can be spent on just trying to agree names. Initially will need to get beneficiary data to district level. OCHA can step in to help here.
  • Sharing of beneficiary lists.
  • Information flow on the above and other topics? How do we get information shared effectively?
  • Need to find a way to send information out regularly on what is being done with cash, where the challenges are etc.
  • Need to increase the frequency of field level coordination to increase information flows each way.
  • Decision on the use of transfer (and the mechanism of transfer). Need to consider keeping markets functioning and what type of transfer is best at what level.
  • Is cash suitable in all areas? How do we reach rural areas? What is the best transfer to employ in different areas?
  • One of the lessons of 2011 was the urban pull – we need to focus on rural areas to avoid this, and we need better engagement of local NGOs to do so.
  • Are we looking also then at the inappropriate use of in-kind in areas where markets are strong?
  • There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach, access and appropriateness of response is fluid across the whole country
  • District level coordination can be done through our local partners by asking partners to identify and coordinate with all stakeholders there (FAO approach)
  • Transfer values- urgent
  • If we don’t have a rationale for this in the next week, organizations will go ahead and make these decisions separately, setting up separate logic models that will end up with different values in the same districts.
  • Many partners already using previously shared WFP approaches to this, but need update ASAP
  • FSC has one for food security, waiting on SAG feedback on this before sharing. However it will never be final as it will always be a living document, so will try to send out over early next week.
  • Other clusters do not feel it to be a top priority at this stage. But there is a need for this to ensure partners providing multipurpose cash can coordinate, and we have one holistic compendium of household needs and cash transfer values.
  • Changes in market rates and transfer values happen rapidly (lesson from 2011). Need to ensure we are adjusting transfer values rapidly enough.
  • Most NGO programmes already funded have their transfer value sets, so cannot change them in response to price changes. However there was a feeling that this could be negotiated with donors.
  • FAO approach is to check anticipated changes at the start and set value to projected CMB.
  • It was raised that the CWG may need to undertake advocacy with donors to allow for this flexibility. However others felt this is also something we can take onboard and build into our own programmes (example WFP automatically changes its value month by month if there’s a change 10% up or down, this is built into budget to donors, one or two others also noted their ability to adjust).
  • Market study to determine if markets can absorb a significant injection of cash with so many actors. This was done by WFP in 2011 and probably needs to be updated, to ensure we’re all aware of potential risks and can follow up later.
  • WFP will discuss this with their VAM team, but it will apply only to food security, not beyond.
  • BRICS consortium and some others also undertake market price monitoring, so this data could potentially also be helpful.
  • We need a centralized way of looking at market prices (across sectors if possible) as this will impact heavily on cash transfer values and can help to avoid duplications. - urgent
  • Concern expressed from some that we have oversold cash. MEB only looks at food basket, but are we considering livelihoods?
  • FAO providing in-kind agriculture inputs and cash. Everyone has a different mandate, so setting standards should be seen as guidance within which organisations consider their priorities and community needs.
  • We can also complement each other in the type and nature of assistance we provide.
  • Advocacy. Example, the cost of water. WASH cluster has done a calculation of the cost of water in Somaliland, Puntland, and South-Central. Found that the cost is 3X lower in Puntland than Somaliland and south central. Government there has also put a tentative ceiling on the cost of water. There are no rules, regulations, or control of cost.
  • Advocacy on this issue with local government is a priority. Seen in some areas as a ‘for profit’ area.
  • Information on financial tracking – is it possible to get this information from donors rather than all the very many partners they’re funding? Would require advocacy to push as has not been able to be done in the past.
  • Agreement that this is important but previous efforts to do this vis Somalia have not worked. As such, better to use alternative approaches to gathering information for now. Also, given other priorities, this is not the best forum within which to undertake this work at present.
  • Cash for Work – need to coordinate around infrastructure/ asset development priorities and what people are included in ‘cash for work’.
  • Agreement that this is important, but for right now not an urgent priority, and potentially this is not the best forum. Either create a technical working group for this, or leave it with the food security cluster.
  • Efficiency and Effectiveness – mechanism of transfers (hawala, voucher, cash in hand, mobile).
  • Planning with mechanism types – who is transferring through what mechanism and risk management of potentially overloading mechanisms. Need to assess this. Risk that if all go to the same providers they system will fail. Agreed that basic mapping of who using which provider should be gathered by FSC as they update beneficiary information. Urgent
  • We need to ensure vendors in markets are aware when money will be coming in so they can ensure they are stocked appropriately. Also need to ensure Hawalas are aware to avoid shortage of cash.

3)CWG Formation /
  • Agreement this group should focus on operational priorities and decisions
  • Review of TOR
  • Advocacy role missing
  • Add on to transfer value – understanding of each clusters approach to the transfer logic.
  • Coverage – can we add on GPS coordinates (if we have them).
  • Is it too late to harmonize transfer values? Add in that the CWG also needs to manage the ongoing difference in amounts that are already happening and how to mitigate the risks associated with this. However agreement that late or not, having a common logic moving forward is valuable.
  • Reporting lines – Reporting lines – who does the group report to? Suggestion to report toHCT (Humanitarian Country Team) and ICCG (Inter-Cluster Coordination Group). This links CWG in to the existing structures and ensures a system wide approach. OCHA offered to help to support on this.
  • Bring more local NGOs in to the membership.
  • Thematic sub-groups
  • Collective negotiation with service providers. Agreed this was needed but will first get information on the delivery mechanisms organizations are (or are planning) to use.
  • Monthly transfer value (through FSC).
  • Market price information. Preference for this to be shared electronically rather than forming a separate group. However initial meetings may need to take place first. WFP and FSNAU to take on leadership of this and contact BRICs and others who collect market information. Report back to CWG.
  • Coordination and information flows
  • Mapping of who is doing what where, and linkage to Somalia level groups. Use 3Ws and connect to existing state-level coordination groups. Add a component on ‘planned projects’ to 3Ws and have it be updated more regularly. Gives then the same access to same information at all levels.
  • Who is excluded by this process? – Diaspora remittances, OIC and Muslim charities. How do we pull them in?
  • FSC has information up to January, to include information on modality/ mechanism of transfer (per organization).
  • Chair and co-chair
  • OCHA recommends we have 1 UN and 1 NGO.
  • Chair will take responsibility to record detailed minutes which can then also be used as documentation of process and decisions.
  • Expressions of interest for the positions of chair and co-chair received from WFP, Adeso, and FAO.
  • Adeso will be NGO co-chair, WFP and FAO will work out an appropriate sharing arrangement.

4)Next Meeting /
  • Friday 24th10:30am.
  • Updates on:
  • Geographic coverage,
  • Transfer value,
  • Negotiation with service providers

Action Items
Action / Responsibility and timeframe
Request to ICCG on behalf of CWG to have 3Ws updated more regularly and include planned projects. / OCHA – before 24th February
FSC to share:
1)Mapping of what has been done and what is planned (and funded) up to June
2)Information on what kind of transfer delivery mechanism FSC members are planning to use.
3)Transfer value determination logic / FSC – before 24th February
WFP and FSNAU to kickstart market data collection process / WFP and FSNAU – before 24th February
Circulate revised TOR / WFP and CaLP – Tuesday 21stFebruary

Annex A: Attendees

Name / Organisation
1 / Karen Peachey / CaLP
2 / Martin Kenny / ICRC
3 / Glenn Hughson / ICRC
4 / Peter Muhangi / IFRC
5 / William Babumba / IFRC
6 / Vinay Sadavarte / Norwegian Red Cross
7 / Karen Peachey / CaLP
8 / Asha Sawyer / FAO
9 / Delphine Dechaux / WFP
10 / Emmanuel Odongo / WFP
11 / Danielle Trotter / WFP
12 / Sofie Garde Thomle / OCHA
13 / Audrey Khaleji / OCHA
14 / Ahmed Khalif / ACF
15 / Mohamednur Roble / ACTED
16 / Deqa Saleh / ADESO
17 / JenifferKavuti / COOPI
18 / Mercy Gitau / CWW
19 / Ben Grazda / IRC
20 / Joyce Kwatemba / NRC
21 / LemeriaKeillard / Solidarites
22 / Abdihakim Abdi / Southern Aid
23 / Mulugeta Shibru / Food Security Cluster
24 / Charles Hopkins / Food Security Cluster
25 / Patrick Laurent / WASH Cluster
26 / Sarah Oteri / Nutrition Cluster
27 / Daniel Molla / FSNAU