CASH TRANSFER GUIDELINES
Floods response 2015 – Myanmar
MODALITY SELECTION
These guidelines are aiming to remind global key best practices in cash transfer programs. More
detailed documents and tools can be found on the MIMU website as well as on the CaLP webpage.
http://www.themimu.info/emergencies/cash-based-programming-resources
http://www.cashlearning.org
Cash transfers are a transfer modality and not a project objective. Cash transfers might be sensitive.
Coordination and harmonization with other actors (including government) in a geographical area
of intervention is essential.
Communities, including men and women, have to be actively involved in all the decision processes
and an inclusive approach must be ensured in the different implementation steps. Projects must be
demand-driven and reflect the actual needs of the communities.
The Myanmar Government has not been involved in the development of this document and further
discussions and coordination need to be organized.
This tool focuses on the two steps of any cash transfer project implementation: the needs
assessments and the selection of the most appropriate type of modality according to the context
and the project objectives.
1. ASSESSMENTS
Assessment data for potential cash transfer programmes should include information on needs and
markets to inform potential benefit levels, security risks, financial transfer mechanisms, social
relations and power structure within the household and community, cost effectiveness, corruption,
coordination and political feasibility and institutional capacity. In conflict situations/volatile
environments, specific attention has to be paid to the prevailing and potential security risks and
the risk of disruption to markets.
Multidisciplinary teams (50% men-50% women), including one member who understands cash
transfer programming should undertake the assessment.
1
Targeted communities should be involved in every stage of the programming planning process.
Disasters and humanitarian crises have been drivers of cash transfers in Myanmar: in Rakhine as a
response to Cyclone Giri (2010); in the Delta as a response to Cyclone Nargis (2008) and in the Dry Zone
as a response to the Magwe flash floods (2011), including cash assistance provided by various government stakeholders and development partners (DPs). Unconditional cash transfers for emergency
response have had the objective of providing short- to medium-term relief to affected households,
enabling food security (e.g. by complementing food transfers). This contributes to decreasing negative
coping strategies of households such as indebtedness and cutting down on food consumption.
Understanding households coping strategies is therefore important to inform program design elements
such as frequency of payment.
2.
MODALITY SELECTION
Programme objectives must relate to specific needs identified.
Cash transfers do not necessarily replace other forms of assistance. Cash is one of the mechanisms
that can be used for providing support to those in needs. Cash can complement in-kind distributions
and other activities and must be demand driven.
A. Selection of modality
2
3
B. Selection of the most appropriate form of cash transfer
Cash transfers
Cash transfers (unconditional or conditional) are the best option if the objective is to ensure all
households basic needs are met (i.e. households affected by disaster differently) as they allow
flexibility in what beneficiaries choose to purchase to ensure all.
The selection between unconditional and conditional cash transfers is usually time driven. Early
stages of response may call for blanket support in affected areas on an unconditional bases.
Unconditional if:
-
Response calls for simple and flexible modalities of support that are easy to distribute on
a blanket manner in a well-known geographic area
Markets are functioning but people are unable to purchase items they need due to
shortage of income
The risk of inflation is low
Conditional if:
-
-
It is important to ensure that targeted groups complete certain actions (i.e. rebuild their
homes, keep children in school, attend training, access needed medical services) that can
support their longer term recovery
Large sums have to be distributed and accounted for in order to meet the identified needs
The risk of inflation is low
Advantages
Disadvantages
Quick to distribute and circulate in small scale Difficult to monitor usage after transfer
programs
(If the cash transfers have been implemented
based on a proper needs assessment, the use
Low administration cost compared to other
of cash will be on line with the project
modalities
objectives)
Provides flexibility for beneficiaries to meet
their needs
Stimulates local economic recovery in
disaster-affected areas
Perception of anti-social uses of cash
(Evidences are scarce compared to the extent
of the use of CTs worldwide, including in
Myanmar)
Limited payment systems can hamper large
scale cash transfers (case in Myanmar)
Misuse of funds within the HH
4
Vouchers
If:
-
It is important to ensure that people purchase a certain type of goods
Targeted groups cannot carry cash around with them safely
It is important to ensure basic needs are met even in markets with extreme price and
availability fluctuation or inflation
The program aims to achieve a specific goal such as improving nutrition or agriculture
production
Trade in a particular commodity needs to be encouraged
Advantages
Can be directed towards specific items to
purchase
Disadvantages
High administration costs and time
consuming (4-6 weeks to organize)
Security risks are sometimes lower than for
CFW or cash transfers
The program needs to monitor and ensure
supply along program duration, which adds to
program costs
Voucher exchange can be monitored
Risk of forgery
Agency can assume hardships associated with
minor inflation/devaluation
May create a parallel economy through resale
of vouchers
May need regular adjustment by agency to
protect from inflation
Cash for work
If:
-
It is a priority to complete meaningful labor intensive work projects that benefit the
community
Quality work and sustainable results can be achieved with unskilled workers
Equipment for and supervision of community works can be provided
There is capacity to maintain the assets created
Women and vulnerable groups can participate in a dignified and meaningful manner in a
way that does not reinforce traditional social roles
Alternative arrangements can be made for those unable to work
Advantages
May be more acceptable to donors, the
government and certain communities
Disadvantages
Reconstruction works may compete with local
labour and disrupt seasonal activities
5
Projects can contribute to long-term economic Besides debris removal activities, it is
recovery and disaster risk reduction
challenging to implement during a first phase
emergency as projects need to be identified,
Communities are involved in reconstruction
work schemes designed, equipment acquired
works and thereby have ownership of the
and beneficiaries trained
project
Risk of vulnerable groups (elderly;people
May be self-targeting as only households who with disabilities) being excluded from
are willing to work for the set wage will
participating
participate
Time consuming for field staff as work needs
Not as susceptible to corruption and fraud as
to be supervised and monitored
outputs are tangible
May raise issues of cultural acceptability as
Equal opportunity amongst men & women
CFW programs promote equal pay for mena
with labour capacity
and women but women do not usually earn
as much as men for the same type of work
Provides a good opportunity to work on local (construction, agriculture, etc) (case in
capacity and resilience building through
Myanmar)
trainings and sensitisations.
Higher budget required for
If timed correctly CFW projects have several supervision/monitoring costs and equipment
other transversal effects (providing income
costs
security during lean season and reducing
negative labour migration, thus assuring local Size of transfer limited by need to maintain a
labour availability at the onset of the
“reasonable wage”
cultivation season, for example)
Many work schemes are hastily designed
May be a useful tool for achieving multiwhich leads to less sustainable CFW projects
sectoral objectives (FSL, Wash, Shelter, etc)
and less of an impact for targeted
communities
N.B: Whether the work is paid in vouchers or cash is unrelated to the way in which a labour-based programme is designed and
implemented. Cash for Work (CFW) should therefore be understood to include Vouchers for Work.
6