Questions and comments from the audience. We invite you all to send your comments and let us know if you have any further questions on the topic.
Please note that questions are a mix of ‘regular’ cash and voucher assistance (which have been answered by the CaLP Network) and those that are on the links to social protection (these have been prioritised by the panelists to answer).
Question 1: Is it appropriate to deliver food to urban and peri-urban areas affected by lockdown, or is cash preferable? (from Edward Archibald).
Thank you for your question. This depends on the context; how are people accessing the markets, how will they receive cash, what measures are in place. Based on this, the appropriateness of the response can be determined (cash/in-kind/a combination of both/neither).
Question 2: Can we have any great lessons learned in terms of programs that were effectively targeted at vulnerable groups particularly people living with disabilities, children? (from Amonia Paul Rolle).
Thank you for your question. Save the Children and other protection actors have collected evidence on CVA outcomes for Children. Also, visit CaLP’s page on CVA for protection to know more about the state of evidence on CVA for specific groups. For people with disabilities, Humanity and Inclusion (Handicap International) had put together some learnings a few years ago.
Question 3: During this critical time, money is being given but monitoring is not being done because of COVID. How to ensure if poor families receive food and money? (from Zaheer Ahmed - Pakistan).
Thank you for your question. Many different ways are being implemented just now but there isn’t one easy answer. WVI, UNICEF and World Bank all have social accountability frameworks (pre-Covid). This is useful from the development side as communication and accountability on CVA is something we already focus on and these guides can help when having this discussion with the government when working together. Delivery mechanisms can also help with remote monitoring: Financial Service Providers like digital payments solutions or MNOs offer expertise and services for monitoring in such contexts.
Question 4: Was CVA tracked separately and not within the FSL cluster? What's good practice in terms of tracking CVA, especially during this pandemic? (from Clement Rouquette)
The CWG in Liberia was the overall and most appropriate coordinating mechanism that allowed the tracking of all CVA implemented by partners. Partners implementing CVA under the FSL cluster were also members of the CWG. Nonetheless, it was also important to ensure a partner from the CWG to the FSL cluster an assigned liaison. From the government side as National Coordinator, Gabriel, also attended since he was mandated as part of the government’s coordination of the epidemic. NB the principle of facilitating joint coordination government and humanitarian partners is strategically important.
Question 5: How to deal with challenges related to beneficiary targeting/ registration as the most vulnerable Urban poor may not necessarily register with health systems and whom we may not have their data as they have not been our traditional target in humanitarian assistance and at the same time ensuring the related social distancing protocols? (from Judith Munyao)
Many of the urban poor working in the informal sector are part of and often registered under an association, such as taxi, motorcyclist, market women and petty traders associations, and most will have a mobile phone. In this case, the example provided of Togo, where registration can be done by mobile, provides a good option.
This crisis is an opportunity to draw from complementarities of different targeting and registration processes used by development / humanitarian actors to expand registries; if HEA for instance and PMT used to generate conflicts in some countries over which targeting methods to use to build the social registry, now we see how these complementarities can be useful in covering the most vulnerable people (using humanitarian data) and people severely impacted by the COVID (loss of incomes). Government safety nets, prioritizing informal workers and vendors (like announced in Burkina Faso, Togo…) could then be complemented with humanitarian funding expanding support to people out of the system’s reach and who were the primary targets of hum interventions.
Question 6: Concerning work with/ outreach to local communities, esp. those who had opted for 'self-isolation' as a strategy to protect themselves from the outside, are there any lessons-learnt/ recommendations on how to establish real communication with/ and listen to them? (from Sigrid Kuhlke).
Thank you for your question. Please see the answer to question 3 and realistically speaking, as we see how limited resources are to deliver quick assistance, it’s not surprising that the feedback mechanism is overlooked at the moment.
Question 7: During COVID-19, is cash the resource to BNFs or is it cash for food items/health needs? How will humanitarian organizations organize and use FSPs to respond to this? (From Ogechi Law-Onyemah - Nigeria).
Thank you for your question. Cash is a tool and it is dependent on the context if it will be used to meet intended outcomes. Humanitarian organisations are trying to scale up existing agreements they have with FSPs and putting guidance in place for appropriate physical distancing measures. Please see relevant guidance on the CaLP page.
Question 8: To Mr Fernandez - What constituted the recovery plan? What investments did you make in the social protection system after the crisis? (from Uzma Nomani)
In the first instance, pre- Ebola crisis, Liberia had a national development plan with a social protection strategy, so as part of developing a recovery plan that strategy was recalibrated/ modified drawing on lesson learned from the Ebola response. The focus was on system building to make the social protection system more comprehensive taking it to scale, and resilient making it shock responsive. A Social Safety Net (SSN) project was developed with the support of the World Bank, and an IDA loan of $10 million was obtained. It is important to highlight that capacity building is seen as an important component of system building in this project. Further, as required for all external loans obtained by the government we had to obtain the approval of our Legislature (parliament). Finally, in addition to the World Bank loan, and as complementing funding, a USAID grant of $6.4 million was obtained but conditioned solely for the development of a National Household Social Registry.
Question 9: During the COVID-19, we see limited function of markets. To what extend were markets functional during the Ebola pandemic that made cash transfers effective? (from Utete Chikwara)
Food availability and security was an important part of the Ebola response, as I suspect it will be for COVID. Keeping markets functioning was an important part of our mitigation strategy to ensure livelihood, so prevention guidelines were provided and strictly implemented. For the poor food security is on a daily basis and critical to their livelihood. Loss of income with slowing down of business and job loss due to stigma made cash critical and transfers an important response in this context. However, in the rural areas during the initial phase of our mitigation protocol that restricted movement farming was affected, so post-crisis cash was also used to reactivate farming, and Farm Fairs organized to facilitate farm –to- market functions.
Question 10: How we can link the Social safety net to the COVID 19 humanitarian cash response? (from Abdullahi Mohamoud).
Thank you for your question. It is dependent on the maturity of the system and the coordination between actors to make this happen. This is different for each country. We recommend you watch the first webinar in the GB Cash Sub Group series to better understand how this can work. You can also have a look at this operational tool developed by the regional platform for Social Protection in West and Central Africa.
Question 11: Cash assistance in reference to the pandemic consequences related to dysfunctional markets, price hikes, currency inflation rates, limited outreach capacities of FSPs, inadequate digital payment services (both from supply and demand side) - how to ensure that beneficiaries can spend their cash assistance effectively and efficiently on time to address their critical needs? (from Sateesh Nanduri).
Thank you for your question. These are all valid points and all need to be taken into account BEFORE giving out cash to respond. If beneficiaries cannot spend their cash effectively and efficiently on time then cash may not be the feasible option. Also when looking at market assessments, we need to keep in mind that markets will inevitably be impacted by the crisis, but basic food items may still be available for further weeks and months, and CVA (including voucher) can actually be an efficient mechanism to help people cover their most basic needs and support the local economy (see this document from Markets in Crisis), preventing more people from falling into poverty. It is also to be assessed against other modalities’ feasibility, including in-kind distributions in a pandemic context.
As important as it is from a programme perspective to ensure effectiveness and efficiency, in an emergency, it's more important for poor households to have cash and evidence has shown from numerous studies that the poor are not irresponsible and will spend the cash on livelihood and basic needs. For instance, it could be just buying charcoal in urban areas to cook or to pay for labour to obtain basic needs such as water. Remember what Valentina pointed out in her framing webinar that it’s best to “pay now and validate later” in an emergency.
Question 12: Could you please both expand more on digital registration and payment mechanisms harmonised with Govt. SPs? Data protection/ privacy concerns and interoperability push for multi-stakeholder collaboration? Any social accountability mechanisms in place in West Africa where transfers are provided by Govt. SP? (From Kathryn Taetzsch, WVI).
Thank you for your question. Check with Togo and Cote d’Ivoire; two countries which I am aware that they are using digital registration and payment. I would distinguish two types of contexts: one that would comprise conflict-affected countries where the government is part of the conflict and where sharing beneficiary data is problematic (Nigeria, Cameroon, CAR) and another context where governments and hum actors have collaborated more openly on data sharing (Mali, Senegal…). In the second context, MoUs have been signed but we have no good example of interoperability, this has often been a tricky point as hum and gov are using different software, platforms…
Question 13: How can the issue of coverage be tackled in a densely populated country like Nigeria? (from Ezi Beedie).
Thank you for your question. This is an important topic and a difficult task just now. We hope this is through coordination of the different actors responding. Please contact the Cash Working Group in Nigeria for more details (or suggestions) on how this can be tackled there.
Question 14: How can humanitarian agencies delivery of cash transfer program where CWG not operational (as most countries were not humanitarian priority country but may be after COVID19)? (from Mujahid Hussain).
Thank you for your question. A simple answer is through coordination with the national systems that exist. It would, as with many things, depend on the context and if there is a national social protection working group or other coordination forums.
Question 15: What accountability measures are you seeing for these social assistance schemes for COVID-19? (or what have you seen in the past and what works or what's missing)? (from Larissa Pelham)
Thank you for your question. Civil society organizations have an important role in social accountability and the Civil Society Platform for Social protection in several African countries have attempted to play that role. Currently, there are over 25 Civil Society Platform on Social Protection in Africa. The regional office for the African Platform for Social Protection is based in Nairobi (see their webpage).
Question 16: What additional measures should we take to support markets and services? Fee waivers for services, vouchers? (from Ruby Khan).
Thank you for your question. These are good suggestions. It is recommended that any measures are synched with government schemes as many governments are scaling up labour market interventions as well. Please refer to the World Bank, ILO and UNICEF led weekly exercise that is tracking all government social protection schemes expanded for COVID which includes labour markets. Also, see recommendations from Markets in Crisis.
Question 17: In this context of the pandemic there is a greater need for reaching the IDP, but the worse thing is social distancing is not easier especially areas of unorganized settlements. In this case please advise how best we can reach considering the COVID 19?! (from Abdulkadir Khalid).
Question 18: How can cash transfer ensure safeguarding to beneficiaries in dealing with a third party (service provider)? what measures should be taken in place? (from Iaith Bsharat).
Thank you for your question. There are interesting recommendations from a CaLP’s workshop in Douala, Cameroon, identifying mitigation measures for risks related to FSPs abuses etc. A contextualized and integrated risk analysis should be led though, as a mitigation measure addressing a specific risk can amplify another one.
Question 19: In what circumstances is cash more appropriate than vouchers? And in what circumstances should one consider in-kind assistance - e.g. when markets cannot deliver? (from Silvia Baur-Yazbeck)
Thank you for your question. Cash offers more flexibility to beneficiaries and retailers, it’s usually quicker to implement than vouchers and so if there is no programmatic reason to restrict the use of Cash, it could be the preferred option. However, if for programmatic reasons you need to restrict goods and services to be accessed by your beneficiaries (for instance, for nutrition outcomes) then a part of restricted cash (like vouchers) could be relevant. Vouchers are also efficient in mitigating price volatility while continuing to support local markets. If all markets, including neighbourhood retailers are closed, or that all movements are forbidden, or for quarantined households, then in-kind can be the preferred option, as long as it can be delivered in a safe way and in close coordination with health services.
Question 20: Is it correct to forecast that the immediate or medium-term secondary impact of COVID-19 on market systems immensely; and the viability of MPCA or SSN program will be less relevant due to high inflations and commodities availability in local markets? Especially countries facing a protracted crisis (like Nigeria, Yemen) which mainly dependant on imports! (From Aslam Khatti)
Thank you for your question. Quite the contrary that when restoring livelihood becomes critical. Cash can also be used as an economic stimulus and injecting liquidity in the local economy. In Liberia post Ebola crisis, cash transfers were made to farmers to reactivate farming activities as well as petty traders.
Question 21: What additional funding sources and mechanisms may be available to help better bridge assistance provided through humanitarian systems and social protection systems? (from Isabelle Pelly)
Thank you for your question. The IMF has currently made available funding to middle and low-income countries to assist reactivate their economy. Also, recently the Finance Ministers of the G-20 has recently agreed on a relief package. The landscape is changing and evolving quite quickly as well.
Question 22: In the general context of COVID-19, the main challenges we are facing in some countries, many people don't have an internet connection and telephone. This makes difficult to operate (no skype meetings, cash transfer impossible).). How to operate in this context to save lives without risks and observing government taken measures? (From Fidèle Kayira).
Thank you for your question. This is indeed a difficult situation in many of the countries where we work. Agencies are developing guidance on how to carry out ‘field’ work in an era of physical distancing. There are more and more payment solutions that can work off / online. You can check the presentation of the Danish Refugee Council’s work in West and Central Africa at the last Regional CWG meeting. Please see CaLP guidance page for more information.
Question 23: When linking SP and Humanitarian, how can we avoid creating parallel databases when there is still no social registry in a country? The need for coordination is absolutely clear, but maybe expanding this a bit more in detail could be useful. (From Verena Damerau)
Thank you for your question. The use of CWG as a coordinating mechanism is useful first for strengthening partnership with government and building on that agreeing on supporting the building of a national household social registry. As partners in the CWG, explore how with roles and responsibilities this can be supported with MOUs that also addresses issues such as data entry, access and confidentiality. Also, the experience is that in many countries that are now developing safety nets, there were already humanitarian CVA being implemented. So it’s not that two systems are created in parallel, it’s two systems running in parallel – we can’t realistically ask governments to use humanitarian database (humanitarian themselves are not really coordinated and rarely use one system, it’s a separate database for each organization). So the issue is more on how to merge those systems (with regular interoperability issues) rather than avoiding creating parallel systems.
Question 24: Cash could also be a reason/source for virus transmission/spread during COVID Response, what is are the key elements, the SP experts are looking to minimize it? Considering the lockdowns and imposed curfews, is cash assistance still appropriate to support those communities in need? (From Nawab Ali)
Thank you for your question. Lockdown measures and impacts on markets are much less tough and radical than what we’ve seen in the Ebola crisis. Some local markets are closed, supply chains are impacted, but most people still get food from markets. In West and Central Africa, transports are limited and there are curfews, but broadly speaking going out to buy food is still authorized in most countries. On cash as a vector of virus propagation, it always depends on the delivery mechanism used. WHO has explained that with appropriate and recommended hygiene measures, currency can still be used. See this guidance from the Global Health Cluster.
Question 25: Drawing lessons from the past Ebola scenario in West Africa. looking at some countries regulations on cash drivers to minors. How did you ensure that minors were also included in the CVA in West Africa if it was? (Jimmy Latigo)
Thank you for your question. The principle of cash transfers is to head of households and to ensure the gender dimension we say to the head of the household responsible for household management such as food. Where minors are beneficiaries such as child grant the transfers is still given to the parent/guardian such as grandmothers. In some contexts, it has been seen that CVA had to be given to children who were head of households. Protection cluster in your country should have recommendations for this. Otherwise, you can also check question 2.
Question 26: How can we use cash in contexts where supermarkets for meeting basic needs are not available but where markets are outside and more precarious (tents etc)? What are we seeing in less developed countries in terms of access to markets in a context of social distancing? (From Carla De Lacerda).
Thank you for your question. If markets are not functioning, cash is not a feasible option and other alternatives to meet the intended outcomes must be thought of. We should not only provide cash transfers and limit it to accessing food. There many other basic needs for which cash is needed. In West and Central Africa, the most vulnerable people do not go to supermarkets but rather local and even informal markets/vendors. However, those are also impacted by the crisis and some are closed. But still, there are other needs that CVA can help cover if in-kind food distributions are necessary. It depends on payment systems and to what extent people can address their basic needs through cash – what is the alternative? Are there in-kind distributions planned for all sorts of needs at large scale? If not, CVA can still be considered a possible option to provide relief.
Question 27/COMMENT: Times of crisis are times of transformation ..And, to ensure that investment in resilience building takes place before, during, and after any shock both humanitarian /development actors need this matchup of their differing funding timespans, mandates and methodologies. Yet ‘Covid19’ is unlike any crisis witnessed and, as seen, the most advanced/developed countries (i.e. the global north) were the most impacted and we’re talking about systems/governance at large. How can both sectors collaborate/ share experiences to protect the vulnerable such as reporting and resources and the perceived role of the civil societies as they are the rising star of this crisis and can’t be ignored?’ (from Samia Qumri).
Thank you for your question. It’s through forums like this webinar and discussion that we seek to bridge and have the conversations. Additionally, at the country level, it’s the cash working group and national social protection forums that do exist that need to come together. In low-income countries, we know that resources are too limited to cover all the additional needs resulting from COVID. There is more than ever the need to ensure collaboration and complementarity of responses between gov (SP measures) and short term/life-saving interventions (hum).
Question 28: Amidst COVID19, how can the humanitarian agencies with high transfer value expand the coverage of this target prospective beneficiaries? (From Elisha Emmanuel Magaji).
Thank you for your question. This depends on the country context and plans within. In some countries, CWG are reviewing the Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB) to better address COVID specific needs, and discussions with governments are key to better align with safety nets amount and see how to maximize coverage.
Question 29: How Social Protection and Humanitarian support can work together effectively? (From Uzma Nomani).
Thank you for your question. This is the big question and we are working to figure out how through forming discussion groups and forum. Any suggestions are welcome.
Question 30: In linking government-sponsored SSN programs and Humanitarian CVAs do you think it will be necessary to collect data like Market price data? or it will be most appropriate to depend on the government statistics if available? (From Eddy Esezobor).
Thank you for your question. If there is trust in the market data provided by the government (and it’s accessible to all), it can be used (and it is more efficient this way). This was done in the British Virgin Islands in 2017 post-Hurricane Irma and Maria where government market data was used instead of humanitarian actors collecting their own. In Niger, the CWG is using market data provided by the government. Why do parallel data collection if it’s already available? Only complementary or local additional info may be needed, but let’s know waste time and resources and focus on delivery.
Question 31: How can we advocate governments successfully in order for them to consider social protection as an important response when they are overwhelmed with the health crisis and response and their only/ main focus is to re-start the economy and re-open shops etc? It would be great to hear experiences and thoughts. Personally, I see the crisis as a possible shift of economic and social models which is something, we are all I imagine hopeful for... (From Carla Lacerda).
Thank you for your question. Example of good practice can be provided such as Kenya in Africa. England is also another example of good practice extending social protection measures. Sure there are examples in Latin America. The strategy is to show good practice as a model. Togo, Benin, Cabo Verde, are inspiring examples for West Africa. However, the decision to deliver assistance through safety nets or direct food does not only rely on evidence, in the end, it can be very political. Though governments whose focus is to mitigate the impact on the economy and have it restarted as soon as possible are taking measured restrictions and trying to support the local economy to any possible extend.
Question 32: Are there initiatives that link microfinance customers to social registries? (From Carine Roenen, Fonkoze in Haiti)
Thank you for your question. This could be part of a Financial Inclusion strategy. Check UNCDF for examples.
COMMENT from Mujahid Hussain: Pakistan has also collecting and registering COVID19 social support through a voluntary registration with checklist and linking it with existing poverty surveyed data to determines who is eligible.
Thank you for this comment. And yes! The Ehsaas Emergency Fund is excellent practice and good examples of government expansion of cash assistance in an emergency.
Question 33: Could you share further examples, as Turkey´s one which specifically integrate refugee, migrants, IDPs into national social protection systems, particularly national databases? (From Verena Damerau)
Thank you for your question. We are aware that UNHCR and the WB are working together in CHAD and Cameroon to include IDPS in SSN. Also, Portugal has implemented measures for migrants (recently) to make sure they are afforded some social protection rights (and COVID assistance).
Question 34: How could older refugees be covered by humanitarian cash transfers? (From Evelyn Avalos)
Thank you for your question. CVA is often delivered based on eco-social targeting, sometimes coupled with status depending on contexts. Age can be criteria, but at the end, it’s all down to targeting and programmatic objective. For people with specific needs, CVA can offer tailored options, working around adapted delivery mechanism etc.
Question 35: Issue of targeting of vulnerable people in the context of COVID-19. Are there lessons to be shared? (From Fidèle Kayira, Haiti)
Thank you for your question. Different organizations have different interpretations of “vulnerability”… Depends on your mandate, your programme objective, are you working on life saving or development… Again, this is why complementarity of mandates and approaches should be maximized by effective coordination. See CaLP’s guidance for more info.
Question 36: Can the linkage not lead to the compromise from both parties? (From Zakariyau Yusuf from Nigeria, implementing cash transfer in north-west Nigeria)
Thank you for your question. It should be a partnership and all partnerships have elements of compromise but overall the adage that “there is strength in unity” is more important in reaching the greatest number of those made vulnerable from a crisis. Coordination does not necessarily mean alignment and harmonization; sometimes it’s about maximizing complementarity of different programmes.
Question 37: Are there examples of alignment between CVA and SP systems in regard to monitoring of cash transfers? Is this something we should be looking at as well in term of pursuing the linkage? (From Luca Sangalli)
Thank you for your question. In Liberia as Sierra Leone during Ebola CVA was largely implemented as part of the existing social protection system and implemented through national local institutions and systems. As part of the CWG post-distribution monitoring tools that included FGD were developed by ACDI/VOCA in Liberia and used by several partners.
Question 38 to Gabriel: How can cash interventions be administered to people with disabilities in this pandemic period? (From Elisha Emmanuel Magaji)
Thank you for your question. Mobile phone registry and payment comes to mind. In cases where illiteracy is an issue, a proxy can be used. In some countries, mobile providers are happy to provide mobile free to expand their clientele. The Ehsaas fund in Pakistan is another example where the government is hand-delivering cash to those with disabilities.
Question 39: How inclusive (particularly for persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups) are these accountability mechanisms that Calum mentions? (From Verena Damerau)
Thank you for your question. You can also have a look at Ground Truth Solutions’ work on accountability mechanisms, there are very good recommendations in there to ensure greater uptake and so inclusiveness of such mechanisms.
COMMENT from Kathryn Taetzsch: World Vision uses social accountability approach "Citizen Voice and Action" that we are testing now on social accountability effectiveness re Govt. led Social Protection/ transfer policies - holding duty-bearers accountable in a constructive and community empowering way.
Thank you for your comment and an excellent resource to have,
COMMENT from Sigrid Kuhlke: On civil society and SP - FYI, HelpAge, for example, is a member of the civil society Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors - so worth to get in touch with them.
Thank you for this and yes, they have excellent resources to use.
COMMENT from Valentina Barca: For sharing more widely on the use of existing social protection/social assistance information systems in a shock context and key questions to be asking: https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/building-government-... - for a summary see infographic and Table on page 51. Countries that have been using social registries for COVID response ALL had very high coverage of population and relatively inclusive approaches to registration guaranteeing up-to-date data (on demand) PLUS underlying interoperability with other government databases (often enabled by a strong ID system) - i.e. these are particular contexts. Having said that, they have enabled incredibly swift expansion of coverage led by government.
Thank you for sharing this (and other) valuable information.
Question 40: What is the scope for adding interventions to increase the impact of cash transfers on beneficiaries, e.g. improving financial skills through training via mobile phones? (From Margo Hoftijzer)
Thank you for your question. This is important as cash in itself is not sufficient. This is what we call Cash Plus and there are numerous studies (FAO impact studies, Ben Davis et al) that provide evidence on this such as the link between cash and agriculture. An assumption we often work with is that we’d need to build “beneficiaries’ capacities” so they are better equipped to use feedback mechanisms, delivery mechanisms etc. What if we changed the paradigm and try from the outset to use mechanisms and processes they are familiar with, strengthening those systems and trying to scale them up? See GTS’ work on this (Q39). On other skills and capacities, you can have a look at CaLP’s outcome analysis of the Ebola response, demonstrating how valuable were complementary activities to strengthen livelihoods of impacted households.
Question 41: Can any donor participate at the diverse WG and clusters that exist? I might be wrong, but sometimes it seems to me that there is no clear understanding of which cluster and WG exist in a country and who can take part of it and contribute to that table. (From Verena Damerau)
Thank you for your question. In fact, donors are encouraged to participate especially if they are funding implementation, but even where they are not they can bring certain expertise. In some countries, you have various coordinating mechanism as the UN Country Team, INGO umbrella organizations and Bilaterals. Participation happens as part of those coordinating mechanisms or individual donor but, generally, as a rule of thumb developing countries government would want as many donors to be included. Donors are very helpful in making the connection between emergency and development actors, as shared by Calum and also demonstrated in the Ebola experience. Yes, they are encouraged to participate and often do attend CWG meetings. Examples of this from the past include Lebanon and currently, Haiti.
Question 42: Can you a bit explain about targeting in the context of COVIC 19 with examples? (From Wondwossen Delelegne)
Thank you for your question. See questions 5, 34, 35
COMMENT by Anna McCord: I just wanted you to remind humanitarian actors that in most countries there are already existing Social protection coordination mechanisms in place for coordination by the ain development actors and government, working on social protection - humanitarian actors can seek to join these in many instances to contribute their skills and capacity to the national initiative.
Thank you! Important reminder
Question 43: In East Africa, the COVID-19 goes slowly if the breasting time is long what measure expect to take for both safety net beneficiary and others who left their livelihood? (From Solomon Assefa).
Thank you for your question. The ‘layering’ of interventions is a good point and any planning needs to take the short, medium and long term effects into account.
COMMENT by Aslam Khatti: The role of Cash Working group (as they are not mandated to link it to SSN) is very limited in terms of capacity building, policy reforms for the transition of humanitarian program. Thank you.
Thank you for the comment. In some instances, they are mandated to link. The ToRs for the CWG in Iraq and Bahamas made the specific link to SSN and SP. As was the case in Liberia and believe Sierra Leone, as well as NGO implementing cash transfers, followed a government SOP. Where it’s not this is an opportunity for the medium-long term strategy. In most countries of the Sahel, the CWG has in its ToRs to try to make the connection with SSN. But we should not necessarily approach this from the “capacity building” angle, it’s not because the government has different priorities or for instance targeting approaches that they are doing wrong, they are just doing differently, and it requests efforts and collaboration from both sides to build a coherent connection based on those different approaches: what should be aligned? What should remain complementary?