Mission report – Maiduguri / Abuja 12-21 March 2018

Mission report

Strengthening the task team in Maiduguri to finalize the work on the MEB

CaLP’s RFP went to Maiduguri from 13 to 19 March 2018 and to Abuja on 19-20 March to hold meetings with key stakeholders engaged in cash response and cash coordination in Nigeria, to improve the set up to finalize calculation of a Minimum Expenditure Basket for the emergency response.

Please refer to the Terms of Reference for a more comprehensive understanding of the background and purpose of the mission, and to the Annex 1 for the details about meetings held. An exhaustive list of contacts met during the mission can be shared later.

At the end of the week in Maiduguri, the stakeholder meeting (Annex 2) gathered representatives from all sectors met bilaterally throughout the week (and from Education sector who appointed participants), participants of the CWG and members of the current MEB task team. The group came up with draft ToRs(shared with the report) and ways forward with a renewed task team to complement, improve and finalize the MEB work. This mission focused very much on coordination support, though some technical discussions took place punctually (see some key recommendations at the end of the report). Another mission, led by Abdoulaye Hamidou, Regional Capacity Building officer for CaLP, will complement this work, to work specifically with the task team on technical aspects and roadmap for the MEB process on 27-28 March.

Achievements made against the objectives of the mission are:

  1. Identify weaknesses and diagnose what have been the obstacles to finalize the work on MEB until now

Several parallel initiatives have been led since early 2017 to prepare the ground for MEB definition (ERC project, Oxfam-led task team on MEB…) but the lack of uptake from sectors and the CWG has not allowed those to finalize a good enough MEB. The set-up of a new task team dedicated to MEB work on the last quarter of 2017 did not comprise a balance of cash expertise and sector expertise, and the group was suffering from; a lack of involvement from actors, a lack of clear roadmap, process and leadership, and a lack of connection to sectors.

  1. Identify recommendations to set up a strong coordination mechanism, building on existing task team, CWG and sectors, to take the lead on this work. An ad hoc mechanism may not be necessary, and strengthening of the current task team will be explored, depending on findings of step 1.

It was decided to build on the task team set up at the end of 2017, which can be a good basis with Food security expertise and cash expertise, if each member plays their role and contribute to the expected level of engagement (attending meetings, actively share expertise in each meeting, channel discussions and expertise from the task team to the sectors and mobilize internal expertise at organizational level). ToRs were drafted for a renewed task team that comprises representatives of each sector to complement the cash expertise. The task team will build on the draft MEB, and here are some key technical recommendations specifically for the MEB development:

  • On the current draft MEB; the assumption that beneficiaries would need only 70% of it should be reviewed. A general assumption is not sufficient. The MEB is not transfer value, so it should be calculated over 100% of the identified basic needs.
  • Contributions already made by sectors (WASH, Shelter, Food Security, Education) should reviewed and supported by cash and market expertise, to see if this is still valid or need revision.
  • Each cost should bebroken down on their frequency (monthly / quarterly / annual basis). It’s not really realistic to include in the monthly MEB expenses that occur not so frequently (school expenses for example) hoping that beneficiaries will save that money to pay when time has come. One off complementary transfer might be more relevant, need to check with seasonal prices / lean season if it cannot be coupled (with appropriate communication) to avoid many one off payments.
  • The MEB should be based on a targeted group; some groups have specific needs. Need to have the protection sector’s inputs for this.
  • Because of the context, a Household approach is likely to be selected but should take into account the large range of size across beneficiaries. So better to go for a “high” average.
  • Some items included in the MEB may not be prioritized by beneficiaries and in spite of availability in the market, some in-kind distributions (locally purchased) may still be needed.
  • A “Survival” MEB is not necessary. The task team needs to clarify the objective of the MEB, to avoid using different MEBs.When defining the objective of the MEB, there are different options; helping beneficiaries to survive, or aiming at reaching SPHERE Standards, linking up with recovery and more sustainable assistance (with Livelihood component for example) etc. Clear objective collectively set up will help provide strong justification at later stage on items included in the MEB and final amount.
  • It’s okay if not all sectors contribute in the MEB (in quantitative contribution) if they feel there is no item to monetize or if those are already covered through other sectors. Still, it’s important to have them part of the task team to contribute in needs and vulnerability assessment, and to anticipate on the monitoring part of MPG (a sector may not contribute to the MEB directly but still expect the MPG to impact the sector outcomes).
  • Start with the pragmatic and good enough solution, that can be endorsed, understood by all actors, regardless of their technical expertise. Per capita approach for instance may be explored further, but is likely to be too sophisticated for the first version of the MEB.
  • Include a gender lens in the MEB and cash discussions broadly speaking. Not only from a protection angle, but how CTP can enhance women’s empowerment and other positive effects.
  • Strong technical leadership (ensure jointly by the CWG technical coordinator and IRC) will be needed throughout the process, to ensure the appropriate share of expertise happens at the task team level and across sectors, to validate and make decisions when consensus is reached etc.
  1. If time allows, work with identified members of this mechanism to develop a roadmap for MEB calculation.

CaLP CBO’s mission will work with the task team to finalize the process and decide clear deadlines for each step, to ensure that the MEB is finalized by mid-May (end of April if possible) and included in a possible mid-term review of the HRP. To achieve this, the task team will have to be focused and meet regularly in the coming weeks, ensuring progress is made in between two meetings at sector levels. A draft process is proposed:

a) Define coverage (3 LGAs? Borno State? Maiduguri?), target group, and objective of the MEB

b) Make technical improvements in the format of the MEB (see above recommendations)

c) Sectors that have already contributed to review their inputs and validation / propose new input to the task team. Sectors that have not yet contributed work in the task team to see if/which contribution could be done. 3 main questions to ask to identify the items to include:

- What are items and services that can address those needs?

- Are those items and services available locally, at reasonable distance and in good quality?

- Are those items and services likely to be prioritized by beneficiaries? (can find information on PDM)

d) The task team works across sectors to double check if there are duplication (for example access to water could be included in several sectors), rationalize costs (transports costs can come together) and think of additional costs that don’t belong to any sector (energy, clothes…).

e) VAM team collects related prices with support from task team members and sectors if needed.

f) Validation process starts.

TheToRs have been shared and the task team will hold a first meeting on Wednesday 21 March at 2.30 pm, upon invitation.

  1. As part of its wider mandate of circulating information and expertise on CTP, CaLP RFP should take this opportunity to visit CTP projects or other humanitarian interventions and meet with beneficiaries to the possible extent, in order to get updated information on operational constraints.

Two projects were visited by CaLP RFP; one delivering commodities vouchers through electronic platform, the other one delivering unrestricted cash in hand just beside the IDP camp. Here are some key recommendations for CTP implementation and moving towards MPG:

  • In some areas, evidence has helped build a consensus over appropriateness and feasibility of CTP (broadly speaking; Konduga, Jere, MMC, even though not all communities in those LGAs have equal access to good and services). E-vouchers seem to work well, and the huge efforts some partners put in sensitization, to the vendors, to the beneficiaries and communities, have been necessary and fruitful. This is probably a good practice to share with the CWG and to encourage actors to do it more (and donors to encourage it)
  • If cash is well covering food related needs, there are many other needs left uncovered, and for some of them, beneficiaries say the reason is lack of money; clothes, NFI and WASH items (water, detergent), Soap, firewood and charcoal, that can be easily found on markets. Medicine is also regularly mentioned by beneficiaries, though we need to be careful with quality, but many beneficiaries mention they know where to get them (in health centres managed by INGOs in other communities) and sometimes use the cash to use it or sell food to get them.
  • Some beneficiaries also mention that unrestricted cash would allow them to start a small business, and it’s critical as for the most vulnerable households met, they have no other source of income and they rely on assistance on a daily basis.
  • Cash delivery mechanism is a critical issue in the context; butusing retailers could be an option to explore, especially those who have been supported through e-voucher approach. In first stage a combination of delivery mechanisms can be considered; for instancee-vouchers for the core transfer (food, NFIs) and add a limited top-up of unrestricted that retailers could deliver to beneficiaries, for other items included in the MEB (school fees, water, transport etc).Further assessments and discussions on possible delivery models will be the next step and will request a similar collective process. It’s likely there will not be one feasible option across all targeted areas; creativity and partnerships will be critical. Possible mix of delivery mechanisms will be needed.
  • More evidence should be collected on how much difference there is between how beneficiaries spend the unrestricted cash received from some partners, and what items are purchased through commodity vouchers. If it turns out to be not significant, partners using commodity vouchers may consider switching to value voucher to give more flexibility to their beneficiaries (even for food, some would like to buy onions, fresh food, soup ingredient, which is more limited through e-vouchers).
  • If some beneficiaries are saying to manage to save or invest a part of the cash, or to pay school fees with it, it’s not the case for the most vulnerable households who are barely coping with food needs with the cash as it is calculated now.
  • MPG will not be a silver bullet and sector specific activities will need to continue (hence the need to have sectors on board whether they contribute directly to the MPG or not); specific in-kind distributions will still be needed.
  • Monitoring would request strong initial baseline, to ensure actors are not measuring (only) expenditures but actual outcomes of the MPG on global situations of targeted households (malnutrition rates, sources of income, school enrolment…)

Annex 1: Final programme of the mission

Time / Meeting / Involvement / Venue
Abuja 12 Tuesday
Dakar - Abuja
Maiduguri 13 Tuesday
Morning / Arrival in Maiduguri
Security Briefing / ACF / ACF Office
2:00 – 2:45 / Briefing with CWG coordinator / CaLP, OCHA / OCHA Office
3:00 – 3:30 / Meeting with Nutrition and Health Sectors / Nutrition and Health Sector coordinators, CaLP / UNICEF office
Maiduguri 14 Wednesday
11:00 – 1:00 / Review CWG presentation to the HCT / CaLP, OCHA / OCHA Office
1:00 – 1:30 / Lunch / Redroof / Redroof
1:40 – 3:50 / Meeting with Task Team / CaLP, OCHA, CRS / OCHA
4:15 – 4:50 / Meeting with WASH / WASH Sector, OCHA, CaLP / UNICEF office
Maiduguri 15 Thursday
9:00 – 10:00 / Meeting with Shelter/NFIs / Shelter/NFIsSector, CaLP / OCHA extension office
10:30 – 12:20 / Meeting with Maiduguri CWG / CWG, CaLP / OCHA
12:30 – 1:00 / Meeting with Cash ADRA / CaLP, ADRA, OCHA / ADRA office
1:00 – 2:00 / Lunch
Afternoon / Preparation of stakeholder meeting / CaLP, OCHA
Maiduguri 16 Friday
9:30- 12:30 / Meeting with all stakeholders / CaLP, Task team, CWG / OCHA Maiduguri
3:00 – 4:00 / Meeting with Food Security / CaLP, FSS / WFP Maiduguri
4:00 – 5:00 / Debriefing with OCHA Maiduguri / CaLP, OCHA / OCHA Maiduguri
Maiduguri 17 Saturday
Visit CTP project 8:30 – 14:00
Abuja 19 Monday
Afternoon / UNHAS Flight to Abuja / CaLP
Abuja 20 Tuesday
9:30 – 11:00 / Meeting with USAID / OFDA and FFP / CaLP, USAID / USAID office
11:30 – 12:30 / Meeting with VAM Team / CaLP, WFP / WFP Office
1:30 – 2:30 / Meeting with Abuja CWG / CaLP, Abuja CWG, / OCHA Abuja
3:00 – 3:30 / Meeting with OCHA / CaLP, OCHA / OCHA Abuja
4:00 – 5:00 / Meeting with Cellulant / CaLP, OCHA, Cellulant / Cellulant Office

Annex 2: Agenda of the stakeholder meeting

Stakeholder workshop: Supporting the MEB process in Borno State

16 March 2018 – Maiduguri, Nigeria

Objective:Strengthening the task team working on the Minimum Expenditure Basket to help finalize the process

09.30-10.45 /
  • Refresher of technical concepts: MEB / MPG
  • Review of the process to date, and update on CaLP’s mission

10.45-11.00 / Short break
11.00-12.30 / Developing Terms of Reference for the task team
  • Membership
  • Role
  • Decision making process and relation with the CWG
  • Next steps