Cash Transfers Programming and Persons of Concern, Briefing Note

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Persons of Concern (POC)—including asylum seekers, refugees, stateless persons, internally displaced persons (IDPs) and returnees—are forcibly displaced by persecution, conflict, natural disasters and climate change. One of the most vulnerable groups in the world, their protection is further challenged by a lack of formal legal recognition and rights, access to basic services such as education and healthcare, and adequate opportunities for work.

Of an estimated 58 million POC globally in 2015, approximately 9.6 million (16 percent) are hosted in Asia (IDMC, 2015). The root causes of displacement in Asia are multi-dimensional and interconnected, and exemplified by the following: protracted refugee crises (e.g. Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran; Burmese in Thailand), and ongoing conflict and internal displacement (e.g. tribal agency of North Waziristan in Pakistan and near-border Afghanistan; Rohingyas in Myanmar).

While makeshift, tented camps may traditionally be a defining image of the POC situation, the reality is that a significant majority of POC in Asia are now living in non-camp, urban settings. Longer-term implications for assistance programmes for displaced persons have often been overlooked or even dismissed as being too complex or politically sensitive to consider interfering (ODI, 1998).

Nevertheless, the humanitarian community is faced with the task of responding in more complex environments, including a dramatic increase in the number of POC and those in need of international protection and assistance for protracted periods.

Against this backdrop, the uptake of cash transfer programming (CTP) in large-scale and prolonged crises has increased in recent years. Indeed, the UN Secretary-General’s Agenda for Humanity calls for a commitment to ‘use cash-based programming as the preferred and default method of support’ (UN, 2016). For POC in increasingly restrictive operational settings and with over-stretched resources, CTP presents an opportunity to address their diverse, protracted needs; to support livelihoods and resilience; and to increase the potential for social cohesion through engagement in local economies and communities.

The purpose of this briefing note is to demonstrate adaptive practices for providing essential assistance to the most vulnerable POC. The ten key lessons at the end of this executive summary, while not exhaustive, summarise the key points from desk research, discussions at a CaLP CTP and POC Workshop (Thailand, 2016) and pre- and post-workshop consultations with various stakeholders. They provide objective guidance for practitioners working with CTP and POC to enhance the assessment, design, delivery and monitoring of CTP in POC contexts in Asia and beyond.

KEY LESSONS

1. Analyse the POC context. While diverse, these can be generally distinguished by several factors: the legal and policy framework in operation; the stage of displacement; the status and profile of POC (i.e. whether they are IDPs/returnees or asylum seekers, refugees or stateless persons, etc.); and whether POC are in a camp or non-camp setting. All of these factors will influence the feasibility and appropriateness of CTP.

2. Contextualise the intervention. As with other forms of assistance, the feasibility of CTP will need to be assessed for each POC context. The following determinants are particularly important in POC contexts: government, beneficiary and host community acceptance; safe access to functional markets; access to appropriate cash-delivery mechanisms; and institutional capacity, as traditionally many implementers have experience of providing in-kind aid in closed camp settings.

3. Support advocacy through evidence and exchanges. While there may be legal and policy barriers to formal aid for POC, advocacy can be used to:

a. Build on evidence of the specific benefits of CTP. For example:

• Demonstrating the benefit of CTP for local markets and communities;

• Using CTP to promote livelihoods strategies that complement local redevelopment, fill local labour market gaps, enhance social cohesion and prepare POC for repatriation or resettlement; and • Considering integrating host communities into CTP to address disparities in the socioeconomic power of POC and host communities as a result of any assistance.

b. Learn from other successful examples of CTP-related advocacy for POC, for example:

• Building relationships between local authorities through workshops, training and exchange programmes to enhance understanding and acceptance of CTP in POC contexts (see Box 5, p17);

• Partnering with those within and beyond the humanitarian community—such as private sector actors and the media—to influence local authorities and communities; and • Incorporating POC participation into humanitarian emergency preparedness plans to frame POC within a humanitarian/protection lens, rather than a border/national security lens.

1. Build social cohesion with the host community. Building relationships between POC and host communities is essential for all forms of assistance, including CTP. There is evidence that CTP can enhance social cohesion between POC and host communities,2 by integrating POC representation and participation, fostering understanding with local authorities, and supporting practices for the betterment of the community as a whole. However, this requires that local authorities and host communities be sensitised to related issues, and that those planning CTP have clarity on targeting and a strong contextual and sociological understanding of group dynamics.

2. Listen to beneficiaries. Community-based approaches for management and targeting may be useful, particularly in camp and remote settings. They allow POC to participate in decisions that affect their lives and the lives of their family members and communities, as well as to identify the most vulnerable POC in order to determine eligibility for various levels of assistance (UNHCR, 2011a; TBC, 2013a).If communitybased targeting is not feasible, a blanket approach or geographical targeting may be appropriate initially— particularly in rapid-onset emergencies and in camp settings—followed by specific targeting for tailored interventions at a later stage.

3. Understand what level of market analysis is required. For camp settings, market systems analysis3 may be necessary, as market access and activity are typically limited. In non-camp settings, marketplace analysis4 is likely sufficient, as POC will be integrated into functioning market systems. Market analysis should include the identification (and analysis where feasible) of markets specific to POC, such as legal, regulatory, rental, labour, education and healthcare markets.

4. Evaluate suitable methods for cash delivery. Lack of documentation for POC can be a challenge to accessing cash through third party financial service providers. However, such constraints may be overcome through alternative methods, such as secondary documentation (for example, student ID cards), identification systems within international organisations and NGOs, or the use of intermediaries or informal payment systems. The collective bargaining power of humanitarian actors with government authorities, central banks and the private sector has proven to be successful in relaxing ID, or ‘know your customer’ (Levin et al., 2016), requirements in some contexts. The selection of delivery mechanisms for POC should consider issues relating to freedom of movement and any restrictions of access to markets and formal financial services.5 8. Consider specific protection issues and mitigation measures. Recent evaluations have disproven major concerns that CTP may increase some protection risks, such as the diversion of cash for anti-social purposes, corruption, security risks, and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). The ERC Protection Risks and Benefits Analysis Tool6 provides guidance and recommendations for programme design and monitoring to mitigate concerns around the following: safety and dignity; access; data protection and beneficiary privacy; individuals with specific needs or risks; social relations; household and community dynamics; fraud and diversion; and market impact and access.

5. Strengthen the capacity of humanitarians and localise efforts. Organisations will need to consider whether institutional capacity building specific to POC contexts is required and how to partner with or work through local organisations7 when appropriate. Particular aspects of concern are vulnerability targeting, and data protection and ID management, as well as sensitisation, consultation and training for POC. Specialist training modules for CTP and POC can be useful for building capacity of implementing agencies working with POC and sharing good practice.

6. Leverage the power of networks and solidarity. The community of CTP practitioners can benefit from information sharing and coordination with existing POC networks, including refugee representative networks; local and national NGOs; and advocacy and humanitarian networks that have established trust with communities and authorities.