Annex 1: The Joint Feasibility Assessment Framework and Toolkit

Transcription

1 Annex 1: The Joint Feasibility Assessment Framework and Toolkit Introduction... 1 Methodological framework... 3 Assessment Process... 5 Terms of Reference... 7 Guidance for Content Planning and Development Market Functionality Capacity of Service Providers Acceptance & Protection Implementing Partner Capacity Analysis Framework and Report Outline Joint CBT Feasibility Study Report Outline Workshop Materials Introduction Being prepared to provide effective assistance in an emergency (whether cash, vouchers or in kind) requires understanding the feasibility and appropriateness of different response options, including the respective risks and potential mitigation measures for each option. In the case of cash based transfers (CBT) this also requires understanding both the capacity of existing markets and services, the national capacities and systems in place, the availability of financial service providers and the internal or partner capacity to implement cash programmes. It also requires consideration of how each agency s use of CBT might impact or complement the use of CBT by other partners. As such, a joint feasibility assessment gives UN Agencies and partners a common understanding of the feasibility and appropriateness of using cash transfer programmes as part of the humanitarian response. Having a common understanding of such aspects may facilitate inter-agency discussions on the most feasible and appropriate response modality, while also highlighting the potential for complementary approaches helping them better prepare individually and collectively to use cash, vouchers and in-kind aid transfers. To support such endeavors, UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR and OCHA collaborated on the development of a common set of cash feasibility criteria, analytical framework and associated training package, as part of the DFID-funded project to Strengthen Preparedness in High-Risk Countries. The resulting outputs are made available to interested humanitarian actors in this toolkit, together with a facilitator s guide and related training materials for a four-day workshop on how to undertake joint cash feasibility assessments, as also developed and piloted through the project. 1

2 Objective of the Toolkit This CBT feasibility study toolkit is intended to help country offices set common parameters across participating stakeholders to learn about, prepare for, and conduct a joint feasibility assessment to identify the most suitable transfer modalities for the delivery of assistance in case of emergencies. The package includes a methodological framework intended to guide participating stakeholders through the design, implementation and results interpretation of the assessment, a facilitated learning and road-map planning workshop to agree on specific plans for the joint feasibility assessment and tools to support the coordination and planning of the assessment. Specific objectives of the Toolkit Facilitate the joint planning, design and implementation of a CBT feasibility assessment Facilitate the joint interpretation of assessment results and formulation of recommendations for management Facilitate the identification of risks, opportunities and other considerations for possible joint responses and/or preparedness actions in the country 2

3 Joint CBT Feasibility Methodological framework To facilitate agreement on the key factors to be taken into consideration when assessing CBT feasibility in a joint manner, the project identified the minimum common denominators in the participating agencies policy around determining the appropriate transfer modality for intervention. These are summarized in the below table as: (a) prerequisites for CBT to even be considered as a transfer modality to meet identified needs, and for inter-agency collaboration to be relevant; (b) basic feasibility criteria, i.e. determining factors that indicate CBT as being the appropriate modality for response; (c) elements that should be included in the analysis and recommendation justification. These common denominators represent the basis for the design of the feasibility planning workshop, as well as all other tools or templates guiding the feasibility study team through the process of this joint initiative. PREREQUISITE FEASIBILITY CRITERIA # Category/Criteria 1 Relevant to Target Population Needs and Agency Mandates 1.01 Have agencies agreed on a joint target location & populations and identified their likely needs? 1.02 Could CBT where feasible be used by recipients to meet their needs for goods & services? 1.03 Are the needs that could be met by CBT if feasible relevant to agency mandates & funding? 1.04 Ability of agencies to use common targeting and joint or complementary CBT payments? 2 Market System Function 2.01 Market systems for relevant goods & services (policy/social factors, supply chain, inputs)? 2.02 Market capacity & trends (availability/seasonality of goods & services, inflation/volatility)? 2.03 Market actor behaviour (willingness/ability to supply, competition & price-setting, etc.)? 2.04 Affected population likely market access, participation and goods/services preferences? 2.05 Possible market support options to address likely bottlenecks or capacity gaps in a crisis? 2.06 Possible impact of CBT (positive/negative) on the local market/economy? 3 Acceptance and Protection 3.01 Govt. policy/legal environment & acceptance of CBT assistance, and opportunity for advocacy? 3.02 Fit with/impact on govt. social protection systems & other current/planned assistance? 3.03 Community/recipient familiarity, acceptance, preferences for CBT modalities & mechanisms? 3.04 Possible impacts (positive/negative) on gender, household & community relations? 3.05 Possible impact on safety & security of recipients, staff & partners (violence, exploitation, etc.)? 4 Service Provider Capacity & Transfer Mechanisms 4.01 Coverage & capacity of govt. social protection system as possible CBT delivery mechanism? 4.02 Coverage & capacity, beneficiary access, services and costs of financial & ICT service providers? 4.03 Ability of agencies to share service providers and/or act as service providers for each other? 4.04 Likely presence & functioning of infrastructure for e-transfers/mobile banking (internet, etc.)? 4.05 Ability to ensure privacy & protection of beneficiary data? 4.06 Possibility of diversion or loss of assistance (fraud, corruption, theft or loss)? 4.07 Possibility of exclusion of particular groups (lack ID/bank account, mobile phone)? 5 Implementing Partner Capacity 5.01 Presence & coverage of potential Implementing Partners (IP) to deliver or support CBT? 5.02 Staff/organizational capacity of IPs to effectively implement in compliance with agency policies? 3

4 5.03 Ability of agencies to share common IPs and/or act as implementing partner for each other? 5.04 Possibility of loss, failure or other problems causing reputational/financial damage to agencies? ANALYSIS 6 Risk & Opportunity Analysis 6.01 Likelihood & severity of each identified protection/other risk or negative impact? 6.02 How can risks/negative impacts be mitigated, and at what effort, cost or other consequence? 6.03 Likelihood & benefit of each identified protection/other opportunity or positive impact? 6.04 How can opportunities/positive impacts be taken advantage of, and at what effort, cost, etc.? 6.05 Individual & collective risks & opportunities of joint/complementary approach to CBT? 7 Cost-Benefit Analysis 7.01 How cost-efficient are different CBT modalities & mechanisms (set up, risk mitigation, delivery)? 7.02 How cost-effective are CBT modalities & mechanisms (objectives, speed, other + impacts)? 7.03 Individual & collective costs of joint/complementary approach to CBT preparedness/response? 8 Response Options Analysis 8.01 Advantages, disadvantages & overall feasibility of each CBT modality & delivery mechanism? 8.02 Can joint/complementary approaches improve speed, reach or impact, or reduce risks or costs? 4

5 Joint CBT Feasibility Assessment Process The below process description gives an overview of the different steps requiring engagement from the stakeholders involved: Stage Steps Tasks/Decisions Prepare Agree on the purpose of assessment Agree on the goal of the assessment i.e. from gaining a common understanding to informing planning for joint CBT responses Agree on the context or contingency to assess i.e. likely crises where the feasibility (or not) of (joint) CBT programming is not already well understood Agree on the scope of the assessment What populations are likely to be affected by the expected crisis? What post-crisis needs (by sector or basic needs basket) could be met by CBT if relevant & feasible? From existing reports/practice, where is it known that (joint) CBT programming would be feasible (or not), and where is it not known? Define resulting geographic areas, beneficiaries, sectors to assess Define what level of detail is good enough to meet goals Agree on the process of the assessment Decide on internal & govt./other external stakeholders to involve Establish the assessment coordination structures Agree on agency resources (financial, human, logistical) to be made available Review/adapt the Response Options Analysis framework Agree on roles & responsibilities for design, conduct, analysis, info sharing, decision-making and communication of results Agree to follow up steps expected to be done after the assessment Design & Plan Identify data needs & tools Review/agree on feasibility criteria & questions to answer Review existing secondary data & identify information gaps Identify communities, key informants, markets, service providers, and govt. social protection or other 3rd party systems to assess in order to fill known information gaps Define methods & tools for data collection, analysis & reporting Plan data collection Plan staffing/logistics/training & funding for data collection Plan timeline & deliverables for collection, analysis & reporting Assess Collect & analyse data Collect data on community/beneficiary & govt. acceptance, market function & capacity, service providers, partner capacity, social protection systems, risks, opportunities & costs 5

6 Response Options Analysis Weigh pros & cons of each possible modality & mechanism Conduct individual agency & collective risk & cost analysis Develop recommendations for senior management Agree on clearance & reporting of assessment results Decide Management review & decision Decision on CBT feasibly by population/need/sector Decision on use of social protection system & other partners Decision on CBT feasibly by individual agencies & collectively Decision on joint/complementary approaches as appropriate Follow Up Preparedness for response Incorporate into contingency plans & advanced preparedness actions jointly and/or by agency/sector, including how to update feasibility assessment after expected shock Adapt current response Incorporate learning into existing responses/approaches jointly and/or by agency/sector 6

7 Joint CBT Feasibility Assessment Terms of Reference Once agreement on the overall process and theoretical framework is achieved, more detailed Terms of Reference, tying outputs to timelines and roles and responsibilities of different actors provide more specific guidance through the different stages of the joint feasibility study. The Terms of Reference outlined below can be adapted to the specific context and requirements of each country team. Scope of work/ Joint Assessment Process: Task 1: Preparation Building from past in-country Cash Transfer experiences, agree on the assessment purpose and scope, defining geographical area to be covered and population numbers, vulnerable groups and programmatic sectors to cover. Agree on the assessment process, establishing coordination structures, nominating agency focal points, country assessment coordinator, decide external stakeholders to involve (and their type/level of involvement) Agree on roles & responsibilities for design, conduct, analysis, info sharing, decision-making and communication of results Task 2: Design & plan Review/agree on feasibility criteria & key questions to answer Conduct secondary data review to identify information gaps and data needs Revise existing assessment tools and adjust them for the joint assessment Review/agree Response Options Analysis framework and steps to follow after assessment Define methodology for data collection (and minimum standards to follow), analysis and reporting Identify communities, key informants, markets, service providers, and govt. social protection systems / programs / business processes or other 3rd party systems to assess in order to fill known information gaps Plan staffing/logistics/training/funding and timeframe for data collection, analysis and reporting. Task 3: Field Assessment Work & response options analysis Collect data on community/beneficiary & govt. acceptance, market function & capacity, service providers, partner capacity, social protection systems, risks, opportunities & costs Weigh pros & cons of each possible modality & mechanism Conduct individual agency & collective risk & cost analysis Develop recommendations for senior management Agree on clearance & reporting of assessment results 7

8 Task 4: Decide & follow up stage Management review and decision on joint/complimentary approaches as appropriate by population/need/sector, use of implementing partners & service providers (including Government systems). Incorporate into contingency plans & advanced preparedness actions, including how to update feasibility assessment after expected shock Joint Cash Based Transfer Feasibility Assessment Categories & Methodology The agreed joint CBI feasibility categories are the following: Category Lead Agency/Working Group members Acceptance and Protection Market systems function Service provider capacity Implementing partner capacity For each category a lead agency should be nominated that will oversee the secondary data review, identify information gaps, finalize the assessment tools and define the methodology to follow for the field data collection, data analysis and reporting. The other agencies will participate to the working group and provide support as required throughout this process. The lead agency is not necessarily in charge of the technical tasks assigned to the working group such as completing the literature review, adapting the assessment tools, carrying out the data collection and finalizing the analysis these tasks may be carried out by one or more of the participants of the working group. The lead agency and group coordinator s role is primarily to ensure that activities are being implemented according to plan and that the outputs are collectively being reached. An overall coordinator, aligning the work of each individual working group and bringing the different assessment results together in a single coherent conclusion and recommendation should also be appointed. This may be a coordinator from one of the participating agencies, or an ad hoc recruitment for the fulfilment of this function. Expected outputs/ deliverables No. List of deliverables 1 Joint Cash Based Transfer Feasibility Assessment Plan 2 Joint Cash Based Transfer Feasibility Assessment Report 8

9 Timeframe/ Work-plan Activities/Task Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Task 1: Preparation deciding scope, etc. Task 2: Design & planning workshop & finalization Task 3: Field work & response options analysis Task 4: Decision-making & follow up Work-plan The following template intends to facilitate the division of tasks and responsibilities across participants in detail. It also allows to keep track of activities and outputs as the feasibility study is implemented: Terms of Reference (TOR) Tasks T.1 Task 1: Preparation Status/Result T.1.1 T.1.2 T.1.3 Building from past in-country Cash Transfer experiences, agree on the assessment purpose & scope, defining geographical area to be covered and population numbers, vulnerable groups and programmatic sectors to cover. Once programmatic sectors to cover are agreed then an agency/group should be appointed to lead on each (e.g. UNHCR on protection, WFP on food security, etc.) Agree on assessment process, establishing coordination structures, nominating agency focal points Agreed purpose & scope is: Agreed sector leads are: Agreed focal points are: T.1.4 T.1.5 T.1.6 T.1.7 Nominate a country assessment coordinator to provide overall leadership in country for the project Begin to conduct secondary data review to identify information gaps & data needs Share & review existing cash based transfer feasibility assessment tools Agree roles & responsibilities of focal points, assessment coordinator and others as appropriate for design, conduct, analysis, info sharing, decision-making and communication of results. Nominated assessment coordinator is: Status of secondary data review: Status of existing tools: Agreed roles & responsibilities are: 9

10 Terms of Reference (TOR) Tasks T.2 Task 2: Design & plan Status/Result Responsible T.2.1 Review/agree feasibility criteria & questions to answer. T.2.2 Finalise secondary data review and agree on information gaps and data needs. T.2.3 Revise existing assessment tools and adjust them for the joint assessment. T.2.4 Define methodology for data collection, analysis and reporting. T.2.5 Communities, KIs, markets, service providers, and govt. social protection/other 3rd party systems to assess. T.2.6 Staffing, logistics, training, funding & timeframe for data collection, analysis & reporting. T.2.7 Agree Response Options Analysis framework and steps to follow after assessment. 10

11 Terms of Reference (TOR) Tasks T.3 Task 3: Field Assessment & Response Options Analysis Status/Result Responsible T.3.1 T.3.2 T.3.3 Community, beneficiary & govt. acceptance, market function & capacity, service provider & partner capacity, social protection systems, and respective risks, opportunities & costs. Lead agency oversees data analysis and drafting of report on respective section to be shared with all agencies. Based on results agencies: Conduct individual agency & collective risk & cost analysis Weigh pros & cons of each possible modality & mechanism (Workshop by coordinator & focal points is good method.) T.3.4 Compile findings, risk & cost analysis, and modality & mechanism options along with conclusions & recommendations into report for submission to & approval/clearance by management. T.4 Task 4: Decide & follow up T.4.1 T.4.2 Management review and decision on joint &/or complimentary approaches Incorporate into contingency plans & advanced preparedness actions 11

12 Guidance for Content Planning and Development In addition to the above templates, which can be adapted to individual country contexts to guide the coordination and implementation process of the feasibility assessment, the below checklists developed for each of the agreed feasibility criteria intend to facilitate discussion and a common understanding of the type and depth of information required for each of the assessments components. The Working Group Coordinators may use these as guidance for coordination of the secondary data review, identification of information gaps and basis for development of joint data collection tools. Market Functionality Stakeholder Point Traders and market authorities General characteristics: trading experience, sectors of trade and products traded, 3 most important items traded Volumes and flows of the required items: Number of customers per day/week, origin of important items, seasonality of prices, demand and supply Constraints and response capacity: Constraints and bottlenecks in the market supply chain to increase sale volumes. Number of traders/retailers for each important item Credit to customers Market rules and regulations. What do you need to do to get a licence, any limitations or restrictions on trade, any protection provided Market taxes Security issues/ crime Access to credit and stock strategy Impact of disasters & conflict on markets: Days the market closed after disaster, impact on volumes/prices and origin of products. Coping strategy for each change Use of technology: Number of traders/retailers that accept electronic payments, type of payments they accept. Community Market location for most important items. Distance from home. Changes in market access during seasons and reasons for the change Security issues/ crime to go to the market and at the market Level of credit provided by retailers, credit cycle of households Use of electronic payments Impact of disasters on markets, preparedness actions taken by households/communities to mitigate/avoid negative impact of disasters 12

13 Capacity of Service Providers Stakeholder Point Gov. regulatory bodies & key informants of international financial institutions Service providers (commercial banks, Ms, Money transfer companies and MFIs) Government supervision Ease of entry Competition Financial inclusion Consumer protection Registration Strategy/ Market share/ target groups Products offered to clients/ cost Geographical location of branches, ATMs, POs Any mobile services (e.g. mobile ATMs in vans, etc) ID requirements/ KYC Training to clients/ financial inclusion programmes Protection: Languages used, access for people with impairments; Protection at cash points, code of conduct for staff, complain mechanism Previous experience on CBI, capacity and interest Reporting History of previous disasters: Impact on the network, signal, internet, branches, ATMs, POs, staff. Disaster preparedness measures and contingency plans Data protection & privacy: Share beneficiary data with UN/NGOs, Government or private sector Community Languages spoken Literacy rates in each language Livelihoods/income sources Monthly expenditure/ Minimum expenditure basket/ seasonal and geographical variations ID documents in the community and their use Assistance received in the community, who benefits? Exclusion errors Inclusion errors 13

14 Coping strategies and financial services used by the community, remittances Mobile phone usage Bank account access / financial illiteracy Previous history of disasters on the community, most affected groups Disaster preparedness measures Acceptance & Protection Stakeholder Point Government at National level Transfer modalities already in use by the government as part of their emergency response mechanism or social protection (in-kind, cash or vouchers) Government authorities overall vision on cash transfers when used by them and when used by someone else (UN, civil society). Potential restrictions on certain groups or geographical areas Previous history of Government intervention stopping or restricting CBI done by someone else Local authorities Potential restrictions on certain groups or geographical areas Previous history of local authorities stopping or restricting CBI done by someone else Communities Previous experience of target communities with relief aid in general and CBI in particular. This information has to be collected for each community according to their ethnicity and religion. Theft and extortion Freedom of movements Intra-household relations/ cash movements Social relations Preference of Transfer modality Concerns over cash Impact of cash transfers on child protection: Child labour Child abuse Negligence on child care 14

15 Implementing Partner Capacity Stakeholder Criteria Implementing partner Governance/leadership: CBI included in organisational strategy, Senior staff understands and supports CBI. Organisational management: CBI into strategy and preparedness, CBI funded, organisational learning on CBI Human resources management: Staff think CBI from all departments Staff learning and development in line with CBI good practices CBI included in JDs and requested in recruitment processes Financial management: Financial rules and systems are adapted to CBI Cash reserved for preparedness for emergency response Programme/project management: Policies and procedures/ Tools developed for all steps of programme cycle M&E frameworks and SOPs for implementation which are in line with best practices in the CBI sector External relations: Advocacy, coordination and communication with donors, private sector and civil society. 15

16 Analysis Framework and Report Outline Finally, once the secondary information sources have been reviewed and the primary data is collected and analysed, the different working groups must come together to weigh the findings relating to each of the feasibility against each other. Each assessment component is going to provide answers to some of the key questions which will ultimately define whether (a) the participating agencies consider CBT as feasible response option in a given scenario, and (b) whether the context allows for exploring joint response options which go beyond pure information sharing. In addition to external feasibility factors, the analysis should also cover expected efficiencies, potential risks associated with different transfer modalities and advantages and disadvantages of planning joint interventions. 16

17 Joint CBT Feasibility Analysis Framework Could the affected populations meet their identified needs by buying goods & services? Consider use of non-cbt alternatives to meet needs YE Could local markets reliably meet the demand? Could regional/national markets meet demand? YES Is CBT modality acceptable to all stakeholders? YES YE Could market support help ensure consistent supply? YES Can service providers offer suitable CBT delivery mechanisms? YES Could all stakeholder concerns be addressed? Consider in-kind assistance or direct service provision Could agencies/partners manage direct delivery? Consider more acceptable modalities YES YES Are there enough CBT-experienced & capable Implementing Partners available to work with (including other agencies)? First build partner &/or internal capacity YES Are market, security, protection, loss & other risks acceptable? Can unacceptable risks be realistically mitigated? Consider lower risk options YES YES Is CBT modality/mechanism cost-efficient & cost-effective compared to other options? Do the benefits outweigh costs? Consider lower cost options YES YES Consider the overall advantages & disadvantages to determine or rank feasibility of each remaining modality/mechanism for CBT Consider whether joint/complementary CBT across agencies could improve the overall speed, reach & effectiveness of response, or reduce individual agency & collective risks & costs 17

18 Joint CBT Feasibility Study Report Outline 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY a. Overall assessment findings b. Outcome of the response option analysis c. Conclusions and key recommendations 2. INTRODUCTION 3. IDENTIFIED NEEDS FOR THE CONTINGENCY 4. SCOPE OF FEASIBILITY STUDY 5. METHODOLOGY 6. FINDINGS 6.1 Market Market systems (Which national policies are likely to affect the market functionality? Are markets integrated? What are the key supply chains servicing the identified markets? What are the infrastructure and services supporting the supply chain?) Market capacity (What is availability of identified items in the market? Are prices for identified items stable? How does this vary across seasons? How will it be affected by a sudden increase in demand? Key bottlenecks in scale up capacity and how could they be addressed?) Market behaviour (Traders willingness to expand supply? Competition and price setting?) Access to Market (Current and anticipated physical and/or social access, participation and preferences? How may this access be affected in case of shock? ) How may all of the above they be affected in case of shock? 6.2 Acceptance Government Acceptance (What are the relevant policies and/or government programmes which could be expanded complemented by an emergency cash transfer? Are there national programmes to which an emergency cash transfer scheme should align? What are the relevant government policies concerning cash and/or voucher transfers? What are the categories of beneficiaries under 18

19 existing social protection and cash transfer programmes? What are the legal considerations to take into account? (Tax policy? Market policy? Labour policy? Data privacy policy? Know Your Customer (KYC)? ) Is there a government-approved basic needs basket in place. Policies and/or government programmes to which emergency CBT programmes should align? Government position on cash and/or voucher transfers? Legal constraints that may affect cash programming (Tax policy? Market policy? Labour policy? Data privacy policy? Know Your Customer (KYC)?) Community Acceptance (What are the existing support (formal and informal) mechanisms in place at the community level? Are basic services (education, health services) readily available? Have cash transfers been implemented in this community before? What mechanisms were used? Has there been any client feedback from previous cash transfer schemes? Has there been an AGD (agegender-disability) analysis conducted of the proposed scheme? Has there been a gender analysis conducted? How will the participation of women and girls be safeguarded and promoted? Will these transfers displace other forms of support? Will they put children (of any age) at-risk? Can these risks be mitigated? (Familiarity and preference of target group with different transfer modalities? Familiarity and comfort with different payment mechanisms? What are the differences across target group profiles (gender groups, age groups, ethnic groups). Will anyone feel stigmatised by these transfers? How high is the risk of inclusion/exclusion errors? Are there underlying tensions in the community? How might these transfers affect them? How can feedback and complaints mechanisms be incorporated into the transfer design? What provision can we make for accountability to affected populations? 6.3 Financial Service Providers (Presence and geographical coverage, including urban/rural areas (beneficiary areas)? Acceptance and familiarity of target group with proposed mechanisms? Services provided? Data protection and management? Associated costs? Reporting capacity and transparency? KYC?) 6.4 IT Service Providers (Available technologies in country? Presence and geographical coverage, including urban/rural areas (beneficiary areas)? Services provided? Acceptance and familiarity of target group with proposed technology? Data protection and management? Associated costs?) 6.5 Gender, Protection and other impacts and opportunities (Might the choice of transfer modality and/or delivery mechanism affect intra-household or intra-community relations (positively or negatively)? Does the transfer modality and/or delivery mechanism expose beneficiaries to safety or security risks? Risk of exclusion of 19

20 particular groups due to enrolment requirements? Risks associated with beneficiary data protection? Risks of fraud or resource diversion?) 6.6 Partner Capacity Assessment Government Social Protection Systems (Social Safety Net with cash transfers already in place? Which target areas/target group? Flexibility to increase or decrease target group? Delivery mechanism? Is it reliable and transparent? ) Other implementing partners (Geographical coverage of target area? Experience/expertise with various stages of CBT programme implementation cycle? Possibility of pooling resources?) 7. RISK ANALYSIS (What are the likelihood and likely impacts of the main risks identified during each previous criteria for CBT in general and/or for each modality or mechanism considered? What could be done to mitigate the risks? Would you recommend the resulting residual risks and the mitigation costs/effort required as acceptable given the likely benefit? For each risk establish a responsible actor) 8. COSTING ESTIMATION (Include transfer value and associated costs) 9. RESPONSE OPTION ANALYSIS (Consider the broad range of CBT modalities and mechanisms that might be possible to use in principle to meet identified humanitarian needs. Not all will be feasible or relevant to needs and/or practical to implement with acceptable risks & costs compared to the likely positive impact. Using the analysis framework flowchart and/or similar tools, identify which of the sectors, modalities and mechanisms could be feasible in the given context, and consider how joint or complementary preparedness and/or responses could reduce risks or costs or improve impact or provide other benefits. Include considerations of associated risks and possible mitigation measures; considerations of efficiencies, benefits and effectiveness (in addition to the cost) of each option. Do the benefits of using cash-based transfer modalities outweigh the costs? Do the benefits of joint approaches to feasibility analysis and response outweigh the costs? It should help you to organize your arguments for you final recommendation) 20

21 10. CONCLUSIONS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Key findings and conclusions (Based on the outcome of the response options analysis, identify key findings and conclusions in terms of the outcomes of the feasibility assessment and recommended response options in the areas covered. Include a note of any particular risks, as well as proposed mitigation measures essential for mitigating the risks and ensuring effective implementation. Include also the extent to which the results of the assessment may be relevant for other parts of the country.) Key recommendations to strengthen preparedness for joint response (Based on the outcome of the response options analysis, identify activities that will enhance the level of preparedness to implement joint responses. These may include further work to agree and establish Standard Operating Procedure with partner agencies on beneficiary selection, delivery mechanisms, transfer values, duration and frequency; as well as the development of SOPs and contracts with other key implementing stakeholders, including financial institutions, ICT companies, etc. - see e.g. list of Advance Preparedness Activities). Other recommendations (Based on the outcomes, consider any other key recommendations, including implications of results for the ongoing response, completing the assessment in additional geographical areas, etc.) 21

22 Workshop Materials The project package includes the materials necessary to plan and implement a four day Joint Feasibility Study Planning Workshop, aimed at seeking consensus on the assessment implementation among all participating stakeholders. Workshop Description The workshop is designed to accommodate up to 40 target country participants from different agencies and partners likely to be involved in the planning and analysis of the inter-agency Cash Based Transfer (CBT) feasibility assessments and response options. The workshop assumes that as agreed with country offices, the participants are already familiar with key principles & practice of CBT approaches per se, and therefore focuses directly on joint CBT feasibility assessment. Workshop Objectives By the end of the workshop, participants will have: 1. Understood key steps, criteria & tools for joint Cash Based Transfer (CBT) feasibility assessment 2. Identified the risks, opportunities & other considerations for possible joint CBT 3. Designed, planned & begun a joint assessment of CBT feasibility in their country Workshop Outline The workshop comprises both learning activities and actual design & planning exercises, involving a mix of plenary presentation /discussion & group work by table, agency, assigned working group, or inter-agency multi-functional team. Participants will address the key issues involved in joint CBT feasibility assessment as outlined in the following questions/topics: Day 1 CBT Feasibility Day 2 Design Day 3 Analysis Day 4 Planning What will this workshop achieve? What do we already know? What will we need to analyse? What do we need to plan for? Why a common view of CBT feasibility? What does joint CBT mean & look like? How can we prepare for joint CBT? What gaps do we need to fill? How to do joint risk analysis? Who, when & how will we do the joint CBT feasibility assessment? How to jointly assess CBT feasibility? What methods & tools can we use? What about costs & benefits? What answers do we need to get? How do we adapt our tools to fit? How to make recommendations? Decision-making & follow up? Summary &/or presentation to stakeholders Wrap Up & Closing 22

23 Materials Workshop materials include: Facilitator s Manual with project description, workshop outline, facilitator planning guidance & checklist, lesson plans & reference slides/hand-outs for each session, and list of resources PowerPoint slides for each session as needed to present content or prompt discussion Hand-outs of key guidance, analysis tools, templates and exercise materials & instructions, to be supplemented by updated assessment tools as developed Workshop evaluation form for participants & facilitators Lesson plans for each session outline the objectives/key topics, key messages, a session outline and preparation & resources required, and provide facilitator instructions/guidance and speaking notes for presenting content & managing exercises. All workshop materials are available in English and in French. 23