CONTEXT SPECIFIC AND EVIDENCE BASED

The Commission will strive to provide flexible resources to support the use of the most appropriate and efficient combination of emergency response tools, including cash, vouchers, in-kind food aid, and other commodities or services.

The choice of the most appropriate intervention and transfer instrument (e.g. cash based or in-kind) must be a context-specific and evidence-based choice which is regularly reviewed. The relevance and comparative advantage of the proposed response option – and the combination of tools to be used – must be demonstrated for the specific situation, based on needs assessments and causal analyses that are as accurate and up to date as possible”, according to the urgency and complexity of the situation on the ground.

DELIVERY MECHANISM

With term delivery mechanism, ECHO refers to HOW the transfer is actually transferred to the beneficiary. Example of Cash delivery mechanisms include cash in envelope, by ATM card, by mobile phone, by bank transfers. Vouchers’ delivery mechanisms can be paper voucher, electronic voucher as card, mobile phone voucher, and so on. In kind commodities can be delivered by truck, by air drop, etc. The choice of the delivery mechanism may is very important and must take into account, among other things of protection aspects, costs, social acceptability, risk of exclusion, availability of the necessary expertise and technology infrastructure, frequency of the transfer envisaged.

Attention should be given to the fact that the choice of a specific delivery mechanism could:
– exclude certain groups among the most vulnerable. Children who head households may not have the right to have a bank account; women may have less access to mobile phones; marginalised groups may have difficulties in accessing documentation necessary for phone ownership or establishing accounts;
– expose people to risks; for instance delivery cash in envelope in unsafe environment.

BENEFICIARY PREFERENCES AND DIGNITY

The opinion and preference of the beneficiaries are very important for ECHO and its partners and must be taken into account in all interventions. Different groups, in different locations, at different times of year, may have different preferences. Some group may prefer a transfer modality while other group prefer another one. The same beneficiaries may have different preference in function of the period of the year: some people might prefer food in the hungry season, agricultural inputs at planting time, and cash after the harvest.

The preference for a modality vs. another may not be obvious and be associated to hidden social dynamics that have to be dig out by the implementing agency in order to choose the most appropriate response. Such preferences MUST be assessed through consultations with the beneficiaries and must be taken into account in any action funded by ECHO. This is particularly important also as far as beneficiaries’ dignity is concerned. To choose with them and to make them active part of a process is crucial.

“The right to food is not the right to be fed, but primarily a right to feed oneself in dignity”
(FAO 2005)

TARGETING

A variety of targeting mechanisms can be used. The choice of the methodology will be determined by the context and the nature of the crisis. In an emergency context, timeliness may prevail over efficiency. In a protracted crisis scenario, more elaborated, in-depth methods will be preferred.

Where an initial geographic targeting process will be followed by a household level targeting process using community-based methods, demographic, socio-economic criteria, self-targeting mechanisms or a combination of these approaches. Verification exercises, including home visits during implementation, are regarded as crucial to effective targeting.

Check here for more information.

SECURITY CHALLENGE AND CORRUPTION

For all modalities important pre-conditions must be fulfilled, including assessments to consider the security, protection and corruption implications of transporting, handling and distributing large quantities of cash.

Some of the more innovative distribution systems may be used to mitigate risks of corruption and security for the agency involved in distributions. Implementing partners must therefore carefully assess and select the most secure and effective transfer modality and delivery mechanism to avoid risk of related beneficiaries protection and corruption.

Cash can be easier to hide though and may be easier to distribute discreetly and thus could turn out to be a safer modality as compared with more visible commodities.

GENDER SPECIFIC RISKS AND POWER RELATIONS

Recognising the different needs, capacities and roles of women, girls, boys and men, the EU and its Member States will systematically seek to mainstream gender considerations within humanitarian food-needs assessments, in the design of humanitarian food assistance responses, and in analysing their impact.

Intra-household roles and relations must be considered. The decision on who to distribute to within the household should take into account:
– the household dynamics,
– the different roles each gender plays,
– the objective of the programme,
– the potential impact this may have on how the cash is spent.
Empowering women through a cash distribution can create potential risks or have potential benefits, which should be monitored and mitigated.
More information can be found in the specific topic.

NECESSARY SKILLS AND CAPACITY OF THE ORGANISATION

To implement a Cash and Vouchers program adequately, the partner organisation needs some basic skills.
In-house knowledge of cash and/or voucher programs, and ability to work across functions and sectors to ensure high-quality market-based program delivery are essential.
Knowledge of approaches for effective cash delivery should be always up to date. This can be done through constant update of the staff, and through capturing lessons learned in the application of cash or vouchers activities.