March/April 2020

Housekeeping + ground rulesPlease J• Keep yourselves on mute and keep your video off

• If intervening, switch your video on if connection allows, so people can see you as you speak, at least initially

• Remember to begin by introducing yourself (name, who you work for or represent)

• Make use of the chat function if you prefer to share inputs, comments or questions in writing

• Follow up bilaterally if a question, issue or concern is not fully dealt with, or requires further discussion or consideration – by writing to Helene (smithh@unhcr.org) and Azim (azim.noorani@wfp.org)

Agenda2pm to 3pm• Review of existing agenda items (pre-CoViD-19 arrival…)• CVA and CoViD-19 guidance – brief overview + orientation• Market assessment and analysis: existing + new initiatives• Common (+ more digital) cash in response to CoViD-19: initial thinking• Discussion / Q&A on the above

3pm• Session with Ground Truth Solutions:

• Key findings from GTS March 2020 Uganda refugee perception survey• Opportunity for wider discussion on communication + engagement with and

accountability to affected populations

• Agency (rapid) updates on CVA and CoViD-19

Review of existing agenda items(pre-CoViD-19 arrival…)

‘Business as usual’ from previous weeks and months Þ items for presentation and/or discussion now needing to be postponed: • Update from DRC• 100Weeks' work – and wider discussion on applications of the graduation

approach (AVSI; other partners)• Locusts…

vs. now:• Prioritising sharing information, updates + relevant guidance and best practice

regarding CoViD-19-related contingency planning + mitigation measures, specifically relating to CVA

• Specific requests for what you would like to see the Cash Working Group prioritise, discuss/exchange on, develop or otherwise try support on…?

CVA and CoViD-19 guidance• Summarises key points from crowd-sourced

live document aggregating guidance• Range of specific operational guidance,

considerations + measures across the project/programme cycle

Þ Best first place to start

“CVA is seen by some as a safer option for providing rapid relief where conditions allow.

We are seeing some organisations switch from in kind assistance to CVA which allows more

remote delivery, less clustering at distribution sites and can reduce transmission risk.”

CVA and CoViD-19 guidanceConsider prioritising: • Remote programming: management; delivery options; monitoring; community engagement

• Mobile, electronic and/or digital transfer mechanisms that most reduce the contact the beneficiary needs to have to receive and use their transfer

• Service providers which allow beneficiaries shorter transit time + more options for locations to redeem their assistance (e.g. adding cash out agents, MNO cash points, retailers etc.)

• Remote data collection to limit frequency, proximity, and quantity of person-to-person contact

• Increased frequency of price monitoring surveys focusing on basic goods included in the MEB• Adjusting transfer values if there are significant and consistent price changes

• Mitigating increasing/stringent mobility restrictions by considering lump-sum transfers / collapsing monthly transfers into a single up-front transfer to allow households to purchase goods while they can still access markets, or when they next can

• Communication and accountability • Ensuring effective communication about any programmatic changes and the reasons why• Importance of hotlines or other feedback mechanisms that don’t involve direct contact

CVA and CoViD-19 guidance

Criticality of market analysisÞ If all CVA is inherently market-based and necessarily market-sensitive,

then right now we are in a situation of multiple ‘known unknowns’

Assumptions?• Market functionality, accessibility, availability + price stability = key

enabler – or obstacle to – cash-based programming• New + increasing concerns and uncertainties with arrival of CoViD-19• Already seeing increasing restrictions, and reported impacts• BUT inherent + innate flexibility to, and responsiveness of, markets

(marketplaces and systems) and the people within them Þ We need to collectively invest in and step up our market monitoring

and analysis; and remain agile and flexible in how we use this to inform our considerations on cash-based programming

Market initiatives: existing + plannedMarket analysis task force formed• Sub-group working on behalf of and reporting to the Cash WG• Current members: WFP; DRC (on behalf of ECHO Cash Consortium); UNHCR; REACH;

CashCap; additional members welcome if willing + able to contribute JObjectives: • Collaborate on and coordinate relevant market analysis workstreams• Inform feasibility of existing and any future scaled up cash-based programming

Market analysis workstreams• Agency-specific existing price monitoring• Inter-agency MEB joint price monitoring initiative• VENA Market component: Market Overview + Refugee Settlement Market factsheets

= pre-CoViD-19 baseline• WFP-led CoViD-19 market functionality monitoring tool | mVAM data collection• ULEARN 3-month emergency support to CoViD-19 market analysis

CoViD-19 market

functionality monitoring tool:

mVAM data collection

http://mvam.org/info/methodology/

ULEARN emergency support to CoViD-19 market analysis

Þ Support to expand scope + increase frequency of joint MEB price monitoring for April to June 2020• Rapidly changing CoViD-19 situation = risk markets significantly affected + beneficiaries receiving

cash assistance unable to access critical goods• Need to support expansion of existing price monitoring to:

• gather information on market functionality and volatility• publish frequent information for actors to be able to inform decision making

ULEARN to: • Support expansion of tool design to monitor critical indicators on CoViD-impacts to markets

• Potential areas: rate of closure of businesses/vendors, reduction in number of customers, lack of supply for some items due to closure of borders, local farms and factories, or price volatility

• Supplement WFP planned mVAM remote data collection of market traders by conducting remote qualitative key informant interviews to provide more context/follow up (TBD)

• Support rapid analysis and product development• Potential products: Biweekly factsheet (building from existing price monitoring monthly bulletin)

and/or Tableau dashboard for real-time tracking

Further collaboration on market monitoring?

• Many of you are already monitoring markets + prices and collecting data

• If you have data to share via the market analysis task force, please let us know: azim.noorani@wfp.orgjoseph.kyanjo@wfp.org

Þ NB issue of harmonised / common methodology for data collection to ensure joint analysis

MEB joint price monitoring initiativeThe March 2019 reference MEB: • remains a key point of reference to inform cash-based

programming by agencies working in Uganda• was developed using both a rights-based + expenditure

approach, and via strong sectoral engagement• is split 60% for food + 40% for non-food items• combines recurrent/monthly with seasonal + one-off

expenses; one-off + seasonal expenses were estimated and then divided by 12 to produce a monthly figure

• is based on an average household size of 5 (NB therefore does not accurately account for larger or smaller household sizes)

• WFP’s monetised food cash transfer (to March 2020) at UGX 31,000 per person covered 72% of the reference MEB’s food component + 43% of the total reference MEB

Þ Why regular price monitoring? To inform how changing market conditions affect the cost of the total MEB

MEB price monitoring: current status

National averages extrapolated from settlement-specific data

So what happened…?• Fundamentally, we have more and better data compared to March 2019 J• NB key changes in the data collection methodology for 3 core food items:

Methodology• Data collected by enumerators using ODK, from refugee

settlement level markets most accessed by refugees• For items that are sold loose in the market, enumerators

purchase the items and weigh them to determine the actual price per kg of the item

• The purchase and weighing of the sold loose items is done every last week of the month (monthly or quarterly)

• At least three responses per item per settlement are collected to ensure representativeness of item prices at settlement level

• Average market prices of food commodities are used for analysis; median prices for non-food items

• The costs of clothing and livelihood component is updated using a Consumer Price Index (CPI) calculated based on monitored non-food items, in line with WFP best practice

• Methodology for the price monitoring was changed before the Oct 2019 monitoring, with a new system of actual purchase and weighing of sold loose items replacing the former estimation system

• Results from the improved and more accurate system of price monitoring from Oct 2019 onwards are therefore not directly comparable to results before Oct 2019

• There are significant price differences at settlement level between the two approaches, specifically relating to three food items: cassava; leafy vegetables; and smoked tilapia

• All non-food items have remained largely the same in data collection methodology and prices collected, with the exception of firewood and charcoal • The increase in firewood prices is likely due to seasonal

changes• Charcoal is not included in the MEB, but is monitored by the

energy sector because many refugees use charcoal instead of firewood

…and what does this mean?• The monthly cost of the food basket, when measured by the new and more correct

methodology, is greater than that in the 2019 reference MEB• However, food prices between Oct 2019 and Feb 2020 reflect typical seasonal trends,

and do not give rise to specific serious concerns• Firewood prices have increased, driving an increase in the Energy and Environment MEB

component• Meanwhile, other non-food MEB items either exhibit price stability, or have slightly

decreased in value

Typical seasonal price trends

MEB vs. Transfer Values• An MEB is an operational tool to identify and quantify the average cost of

the regular or seasonal basic/essential needs of a household that can be covered through the local market

• A collaborative + interagency MEB (as in Uganda) can allow agencies to:• inform assessment, programme design and monitoring• calculate cash grant transfer values• improve vulnerability analysis, monitoring + coordination

• The calculation of an MEB is not an exact science. The decisions on what to include or leave out may involve compromise + subjective judgements

• The MEB is simply a threshold calculation and can serve as the foundation for a quality response, but the MEB should not be critiqued for what is built on top and around it• There are many compromises to be made when defining what ‘the minimum’

is in and across sectors, but the trade-offs do not have to be on quality

• The design elements that accompany a multipurpose/unrestricted grant (also referred to as complementary activities, sector-specific interventions and ‘cash plus’) should enhance people’s ability to spend their money in a way that supports their own priorities + vision for the future

MEB vs. Transfer ValuesIn contrast, transfer values – whether multipurpose/unrestricted or sector-specific – depend on a range of factors:

• Combining the MEB with vulnerability and gaps analysis• The percentage of the MEB that the cash grant will cover, given above analysis• Programme objective + specific sectoral expertise (e.g. for food based on food

security + nutritional analysis; for NFIs; for education; for livelihoods recovery)• Additional requirements for HHs or individuals to be met with cash over and

above the MEB• Targeting strategy and criteria• Calculating transfer values in relation to minimum national and/or local wage

rates (e.g. Cash for Work)• Availability (value + coverage) of other humanitarian assistance, such as

government interventions

Common cash in response to CoViD?• WFP-led General Food Assistance (GFA)• Cash assistance provided by other actors (multipurpose or sector-specific)

Background and relevance to the Cash WG• Questions raised re: indication WFP will consider large-scale increase in its cash for GFA, and

that UNHCR + WFP now look to fast-track a joint procurement process for cash transfer services- GFA = life-saving and life sustaining (business continuity / criticality; concerns us all)- Already provided in significant proportion via cashÞ Bolting on of CBA to the WFP system is in one way or another the reality on the ground for other

agencies utilising cash programming in refugee settingsÞ Information sharing for purposes of transparency and accountabilityÞ To ensure the opportunity for other agencies to come together and collaboratively define how (i)

to feed into, and then (ii) benefit from this more common cash system if and as it evolvesÞ The intention to scale up digital cash – and in particular mobile money – likely represents a

major opportunity in line with existing strategic objectives for a number of other agencies, whether from a cash delivery and/or a financial inclusion + wider livelihoods perspective

Status update: General Food Assistance

Overarching objective: • Reduce risk of COVID-19 contamination in refugee hosting districts, while maintaining

operational continuity for provision of life-sustaining + life-saving humanitarian assistance

Approach:• Two-step approach: April according to existing approach but complementary measures;

exploring scale-up of digital cash from May

Status update: General Food AssistanceStep 1 | April 2020Provision of GFA in April 2020 adopts the existing approach: • c. 1.2 million refugees across 13 settlements and in Kampala receive assistance in-kind

or cash via WFP and partners• Unrestricted cash is provided to c. 480,000 refugees across 9 settlements, i.e. c.40% of the

total refugee population • The four settlements with no WFP GFA in cash are Bidibidi; Palorinya; Imvepi; and Palabek

• This assistance cycle is already affected by ration cuts due to funding shortages• Key reference doc: WFP, UNHCR and OPM’s Community Key Messages and FAQs on the

April 2020 ration cuts• all refugees and asylum seekers living in all settlements in Uganda will receive a 30 percent general

food assistance ration reduction from WFP until further notice. This applies to both in-kind food and cash assistance, and the reductions are the same for both.

• New arrivals will continue to receive a complete ration (100% in-kind or cash) for a period of three months from their registration onwards.

• Supplementary nutrition programmes for pregnant and breastfeeding women and infants at health centres will not be affected.

Status update: General Food AssistanceÞ The core concern is to deliver the April GFA as safely as possible, both for recipients and their

communities, and for the frontline staff administering distributions, in line with WFP’s Operational Guidelines for General Food Assistance in Response to COVID-19 – for April 2020

Developed to: • mitigate the high risk of transmission of COVID-19 during GFA activities• enable ongoing response to the food needs of individuals and communities in refugee settlements • contribute to coordinated multi-sectoral responses by other partners

Key components:• Revising set-up and process flows of assistance activities inside Final Distribution Points (FDPs)

• measures for physical distancing • Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures such as strict use of hand washing, disinfection of sites,

temperature checks and isolation facilities• temporary suspension of biometric identity verification through finger-print readers and Iris scans.

• In close collaboration with OPM, the MoH and UNHCR, WFP will reinforce zero-contact sensitisation and monitoring for GFA & Nutrition programmes, e.g. including bulk SMS, radio, use of helpline.

• Going forward, WFP will also consider distribution of multiple months of entitlements, to reduce contacts of Persons of Concern (PoC) and WFP/Partners staff, depending how the situation evolves

Step 2: scale digital cash to mitigate CoViD-19 from May 2020 onwards?

Common Cash task force formed• Sub-group working on behalf of and reporting to the Cash WG• Current members: WFP; UNHCR; DRC on behalf of ECHO Consortia and

the CCD; CashCap; open to others / optimal means of collaboration

Objectives: Þ Collaborate on and coordinate feasibility and operational dimensions of

potential scaling of cashÞ Enable agencies to (i) feed into, and (ii) benefit from a more common

cash system

If scaling cash: assumptions• Scaling up provision of cash-based assistance by digital

means of delivery – where technically and contextually feasible and appropriate, including where markets allow –will be significantly safer than providing monthly assistance according to the current system and set-up

• Any scaling of cash assistance remains contingent on required market functionality, accessibility, availability, stability of prices, + liquidity within the agent network

- This cannot be definitively answered as of now, but must be urgently prioritised for ongoing, regular and increased monitoring, assessment and analysis of markets

- There is nevertheless an inherent functionality and responsiveness intrinsic to markets and the humans within them, even in times of crisis; markets are very rarely entirely non-functional; and where this may temporarily be the case, they will respond or return – including when ‘incentivised’ by demand generated by injections of cash/liquidity

- Programme modality decisions related to shifting to, from or back to cash assistance need to remain flexible and informed by analysis and evidence to the extent possible

• Where possible, a single distribution or provision of multiple months of entitlements (e.g. rolling together 3 months’ assistance for May, June and July) may represent a safer option for beneficiaries by reducing their need to congregate at distribution points and attendant potential exposure to CoViD-19 transmission

• This depends on the delivery mechanism:- Cash in transit: in person for physical verification in month

#1 (May), one off cash received for three months- Agent banking and Mobile Money: in person for physical

verification in month #1 (May), cash out and/or digital payments can then be spaced out

• From WFP’s perspective, it is neither possible nor advisable to provide e.g. 3 months’ GFA in-kind at once

- Not possible due to the lack of the needed supply chain to provide this amount of assistance

- Not advisable due to protection concerns and beneficiary preferences: transport costs for beneficiaries; congregation of people; waiting times; lack of adequate storage facilities and risk of food getting spoiled/becoming unsafe for consumption over time

Four potential scenarios from May1. Continue with the current status quo: monthly distributions of in-kind food or cash as is, with attendant risks of exposure to CoViD-19

2. Mixed approach: scale up to full coverage with cash in the nine settlements where a proportion of GFA is already provided via cash; retain in-kind food in the other four settlements

3. Maximal cash: scale up to full or as close to full coverage with cash across all settlements

4. Pivot from cash to entirely in-kind: if total lack of market functionality, access, etc.

• Settlements with cash for GFA: Adjumani; Kiryandongo; Kyaka II; Kyangwali; Lobule; Nakivale; Oruchinga; Rhino Camp; Rwamwanja

• Settlements without cash for GFA: Bidibidi; Palorinya; Imvepi; and Palabek

If scaling cash – priorities:• Leverage existing payment systems /

delivery mechanisms for cash delivery:- Cash in transit: Post Bank, Centenary Bank- Agent banking: Equity Bank- Mobile money: MTN; Airtel – cover c.90% of

refugee market in terms of subscribers (Africell & others = negligible)

• Prioritise digital cash transfers wherever possible

• Expand existing systems wherever possible: for cash in transit now; when next possible via agent banking (currently on hold)

• Invest as a priority – and significantly – in scaling up mobile money

Mobile money:• Least developed but most potential for rapid expansion• Existing refugee profiles/case records in proGres contain

SIM card ownership + mobile telephone numbers where these are held and have been registered by refugees

• Mobile Network Operator (MNO) presence can be extrapolated from mobile numbers (MNO prefixes are pending)

• Existing data on MNO coverage per settlement can be both utilised and cross-referenced

• Recent temporary reductions in fees offered by MNOs can be leveraged: different mobile money fees waived –withdrawal fees; transfers between bank accounts; mobile wallets; transfers within the same MNO network

• Existing inter-agency experience and learning on using mobile money for humanitarian and development cash-based assistance, while limited, can be utilised

Þ Providing mobile money may be inherently safer for recipients

Next steps?WFP-UNHCR joint procurement of cash transfer services: • Existing contracts: Post Bank; Equity; plus potential new – MNOs (Airtel and MTN);

additional cash in transit options; Aggregators if needed

Opportunities for other agencies: Þ input/inform the technical criteria from a programmatic perspective and in line with

existing experience + individual agency business needs Þ benefit from agreements once signed in terms of access, common fee structures, etc.Þ leverage the evolving joint platform/system – via interoperability to enable:- joining/using/bolting on for programme implementation e.g.

- beneficiary identification/registration; verification; access to unified bank and/or mobile accounts for digital cash ⟹ ideally via access to and interoperability with proGres v4

- cash delivery building on GFA: additional/top-up and/or parallel/standalone cash assistance components – multisector or sector-specific

Channels to develop the above: Þ Via: CCD; bilateral engagement w/ CashCap/Azim; Common Cash taskforce

Leveraging proGres?• proGres v4 offers the functionality to record the assistance modality as one of the following: In kind, Cash,

Voucher, Deposit to card, Transfer, Mobile money, Referral• The system currently contains records of 406,189 individuals having valid phone numbers, consisting of

153,992 households in the settlements and an additional 40,980 urban population contacts• Of these, approx. 330,000 records were updated with the latest info shared from UCC Þ translates to 330,000 KYC confirmed phone numbers

If it is possible to enable access to proGres v4 for implementing partners via data sharing agreements…• Individual proGres records can all include selected modality and mechanism, and information on either phone

number or bank account number • Every partner in the refugee response would then use these official accounts for cash transfers• Partners that have already implemented activities that include cash transfers via any modality or mechanism

would report back to UNHCR with the accounts that they have been using• There would be 3 scenarios/actions:1. Reported account/number already in the database: we confirm the account and continue using it for transfers;2. Reported account/number is different to what’s in the database for that particular PoC: we determine/verify which

account will be used as official for all future transfers;3. Reported account/number is completely new and that PoC didn’t have any info previously: we update the database with

the new info and continue using it as official for all future transfersÞ In time this would generate a clean situation of one individual/HH linked to one bank account + one number J

Refugee perceptions• Key findings from GTS Uganda refugee perception survey (Mar 2020)• Wider discussion on communication + engagement with and

accountability to affected populations

Kai KameiProgramme Officer

Louisa SeferisSenior Programme Manager

Thank you