Embed code
Note: this content has been automatically generated.
thank you so great it's it's really fantastic to uh to be able to join sorry
for the technical difficulties but well we've got we've got them that's sort of um
i i've been asked uh it's interesting i'm on the donor panel because of course
i'm not a donor anymore so you you could say i have a donor
informed perspective without it being a a donor exactly um but
that may make me a little more um i
can build a more controversial perhaps than i would've been able to be a few months ago of um
i so i i think this is a hugely important usually timely discussion um
and i don't need to tell this group that cash programming is one the most exciting and potentially transform it to
and disruptive interventions that's it humanitarian world and yeah and quite some time
and the question of how to scale it up further is very much on the donors mind
obviously it's something that uh that the donors law committed to through the grand bargain
there was quite a lot back and forth on how to how to word that um every precisely word of language
that we ended up using anagram bargain can then and um yeah i i i i think all that back and forth was
you know in part because it it is a a it is a threat
and there's a risk in some ways that we need to really begin grappling with as as a commentary community
it is cute there's huge potential but that disruption makes a threat
um and uh and so i wanna talk about i wanna talk about
that a bit um i also wanna talk a bit about how
how we view that when i was a i. d. and um both the potential
of limitations other some of that i think it's been covered by the channels
as well um so i'll be quick on that i think you we need to be
careful with some of the cast evangelism uh certainly with any within the us context
uh there is recognition of the potential for cash but also a lot of focus on the limitations of it
and uh the more we have an honest discussion on that i think the more traction
this discussion this dialogue gets with any us uh within us context
about it when i was a id we actually had total flexibility
within the office i ran to use cash when appropriate
um there were no we're there within the u. s. d. a. budget there was no
we're marking up by sector no remarking by population no we're marking a bike tool
so where it makes sense to use cash we have freedom to use cash and where it didn't
uh we had freedom to use other tool i think that's the ideal setup as um as one of the others set up
ultimately we're not talking just about increase cash we're talking about
increase in fact and um what we want is for
each donor appreciation see to have greater flexibility to
choose the most appropriate tool and when that's cash to be very for leaning in using cash
um and we don't want to remake the error we've traditionally
made with with tidy aid which is you set
added owner capital of particular level of assistance or particular tool and then
force the field to find a way to use that um but the the power of caches that flexibility is um
cash is the threat cash is that right so the way we normally do things and i mean that in the most positive sense
um but i think we need to also reckon with that as we
figure out how to scale but because it starts to disrupt
a lot of the traditional ways we've done things in ways that will put people on the defensive
put institutions on the defensive and so this question of how we scale cash is in part
like a question of how we navigate the politics how
we navigate the institutional equities the institutional crowded as
um of the actors who were pressing to make greater use of this tool
and it it it starts to were those lines very fundamental ways
it i'm patrick just on this in his remarks as well
i i it starts to call and a very fundamental question
the institutional roles that we've traditionally uh relied upon as the core the matter in architecture
it calls into question the way we have traditionally defined assistant sectors within the humanitarian architecture and that's
a very good thing i uh you know there's those sectors in those institutions or not
uh received on don't have what's from from uh from some very they are
things we've bill and um and if they if they don't fit what
we need then we need to look at that we need to re examined but that's a painful process in a difficult process and um
yeah and uh and we need to we need to recognise those institutional realities
and challenges as we as we figure out how we scale this tool
cash also calls into question the normal division of labour both within and between
the big agencies so your traditional model for for executing a program
whether it's of a un agency or an n. g. o. the it's sort of a
judge jury and executioner model uh the e. agency will generally conduct the assessments
carry out the program implementation and carry out the monitoring of the impact
for that program and the very cause well it's very close look
um it doesn't have much transparency to it it doesn't
give much voice or agency to the affected population
we catch programming call that the really fundamental question because it gives a lot more agency
to the affected population to the end user is you will of of the assistance
um but also doesn't have to rely on agency for the execution so
if you're going to do a test program particularly a multipurpose catch program do you need that to be run
by angie uh do you need that to be run by un agency
you don't necessarily uh you could look to private sector actor
uh to you go to a contractor you go to a bag and
so i it starts to put into focus what is the real
you know what are the core value as of the different institutions with them system insert into redefining
so you know maybe we're we're going maybe the way a feature here is we don't
need the un agencies anymore to deliver cash we need the un agencies to
conduct assessment to conductor to oversee assessment to develop strategy
to advise on targeting and then hand off the actual delivery to another actor
um i'm not saying that's where are necessarily going but cash capturing that into um
the cast puts that question on the table in a way we haven't seen quite so starkly for
uh like what is this the evaluation an oversight need to rest with
the actor doing the delivery uh not necessarily and maybe better if it doesn't and by
segmenting some of these functions the potentially a introduces greater transparency into the system
cash also uh uh it's threatens the the normal power distribution that
we we have within minutes and system so rather than
the uh the aid agencies having the prince of role
in defining needs and prioritising which needs are addressed
it sure saw that our to the the end users of the system to
the affected population and that's a good thing but it's very uncomfortable
uh for for the the traditional ways that we as as
humanitarian operators of of work and so i think
what we're seeing in heaven on a couple of the others uh a couple the other panelists already touched on you that that is
the political and institutional struggle to adapt to a
very disruptive tool and that's a good thing
but i think it's gonna be a painful process and we need to make sure
that we're looking at cash yeah well not just as a uh
not just as a matter of this is good programming therefore it will happen but um to grapple
with what this what this means in terms of institutional prerogatives and how we need to address
uh institutional roles and responsibilities in a new way of thinking about
those new way in order to really itchy scale on cash
cash is also rest in ways that were just beginning to um
we're just beginning to grapple with and i think that is a big constraint to scale potential uh
it's a risk because i'm gonna talk a bit about things that were very much on my mind when i was working on the donor site
um it's a risk because there are different perceptions different tolerance levels about diversion when
it comes to cash that i think we are used to within kind
so when i was managing us assistance program syria um you know we
would occasionally have attracted mattresses be diverted the still in awe and
it would be worth maybe five to ten thousand or something i mean so we would report that to the user inspector general
um and we would get on with life and generally that was not seen as a particularly you know seen as
part of the normal risk of operating then barman didn't get anyone's um
it can get anyone to worry because what is that that guy's going to do with the budget matters
cash would be a very it would play very differently in that scenario so if um if instead
the story was well we were you know we had five or ten thousand
dollars in cash get diverted to um to group a very bad guys
the political resonance so that it can be very different than any cooler value in kind it
and i'm a firm believer that the risks of the version with
cats are actually dramatically lower than they are within kind a
for a whole host of reasons um the logistics are easier the you you don't you don't need to
be moving large volumes of stuff it's it's easy to steal or volume stuff but then um
you have to hack into a a digital distribution system or something like that but the rest exist cash and um i
think we need to we need as a community as we're thinking about scaling up the more we scale attach
the more we inevitably raise the risk that at some point one of these programs will be corrupt will go wrong
and uh yeah and and there will be a very bad story in the daily mail
or another or another newspaper um about cast programming going it's pouring bad guys and
how are we gonna see how are we going to re obvious that respond to that um how
are we going to maintain confidence because i i think that the the the the the temptation
of people who like to demagogue eight on on on on a good day
but the temptation wants them to demagogue back kind of diversions can be very very great d. um
we need to also uh educated public more on why this is lower is
um educated only the donors and empirically congresses parliaments more on what
this is lower risk and build more buy in there because
the big you know a big cash scandal will come and if we don't have a good answer for it
we can develop a good compelling narrative around then i think it's going to really put the endeavour rose
i'm finally i've been asked to talk a little bit about where i think this agenda is headed in the
us under tramp and this is where it's useful but that i'm not important us government anymore ah
so i can be very frank oh i you know
it there's a lot of uncertainty uh i think the the trump administration
with the neutron campaign did not come in office with that particularly
developed set of policies on on him and turned vision development
um the the incoming us eight administrator who i hope we
will be confirm soon is very good sensible person
i it he he is a a great guy for that job and will be a good
leader for the agency um and i think it's someone who is amenable to being persuaded
um that this sort of programming is a is a good responsibility business
so i think with with the leadership us a idea i'm i'm pretty optimistic there
um i think there's a big there's big uncertainty of a budget levels so um there's a real push for right now
between what the white house is seeking in terms of humanitarian assistance and what the congress has been a
supporting in congress so far as the winning an argument um there was a very strong appropriation
of funding for two thousand seventeen um we will see what
happens in two thousand eighteen but the indication so far
our that congress continues to strongly support a smattering response programming and gold programming
and it's counsellor it's the budget not the white house at the end of the day but there is a
lot of uncertainty because of the enormous that's the raw instructions so that was that was something to watch
uh in terms of how can make the case you get the there's a high premium right now on efficiency
and uh in the administration and so if you look at some of the documents that have
come out of the way as budget officers that looking at government reorganisation and reform
they wanna they want to hear about duplication what here about fish and say they want
to find ways to stream on what we're doing cash cash as a great story
cash is much more efficient cash does streamlined uh
in challenge to put institutions and um
there is a a something i worked on before last day i see uh the
office of two two peas and the osbournes asked assistant didn't really teach
time on how we could better on our our own efforts driven by this
sort of question driven by the fact that thing tools like catch
we're calling into question why we need a full office uh not losses
and um there are rumours now that the administration may take it for and may merge those
two offices um i don't have any particular inside information i'll obviously but i think
a great idea and i think that's the sort of you know that's sort of institutional
we think that we as a community should be doing you know our our
the question to us is not how do we make cash fit within your architecture
but rather how do we need how how how does the eight architecture
enable maximal impact and if we're finding of what cash is doing is
forcing us to run with the fact that our institutional architecture does not enable maximal in that
then we should be asking some pretty tough questions about this the shape of that architecture
and that's what we were trying to do between a lefty and food for peace
uh towards the end of the abominable distraction then we'll see where that goes on the trial um uh but
efficiency arguments arguments mon around reducing duplication i think are powerful
ways um to resonate with with uh this administration
i think we also need to just think about how we talk about something catches an ideal term
and and that's not you need to try out i think just in a minute us context
cash conjures up images of sort of throwing dollar
bills um l. population and doesn't really reflect
the the regular and the professionalism without this tool is
been deployed so thinking about uh emphasising um
and with x. market driven the market responsive nature this kind of
programming i'm talking about it in those terms and maybe
trying to come up with a new shorthand even if that would make help uh have to change the acronym ah
uh would be we would potentially be helpful uh
to foster better intuitive understanding what the sort of programming actually is
um i think i'll stop there but happy to happy to take questions and and

Share this talk: 


Conference program

Opening
Nigel Timmins, Humanitarian Director, Oxfam International and Chair of CaLP Board
28 June 2017 · 9:09 a.m.
Formal Welcome
Manuel Bessler, Assistant Director General and Head of Humanitarian Aid Department, SDC
28 June 2017 · 9:48 a.m.
Looking to the future : Panel introduction
Christina Bennett, Head of the Humanitarian Policy Group, ODI
28 June 2017 · 9:56 a.m.
Looking to the future: Social Cash Transfer in Response to Ebola in Liberia
Gabriel Fernandez, National Social Protection Coordinator, Liberian Government
28 June 2017 · 9:56 a.m.
Looking to the future : MasterCard perspective
Ian Taylor, Vice President, Business Development, Government & Public Sector, MasterCard
28 June 2017 · 10:12 a.m.
Looking to the future : International Relations perspective
Jennifer Welsh, Professor and Chair in International Relations, European University Institute and Senior Research Fellow, Somerville College, University of Oxford
28 June 2017 · 10:30 a.m.
Q&A - Looking to the future
Panel
28 June 2017 · 10:37 a.m.
Operational Modalities : Panel introduction
Ben Parker, Senior Editor, IRIN
28 June 2017 · 11:08 a.m.
Operational Modalities : Sri Lanka experience
Sithamparapillai Amalanathan, Secretary, Ministry of Disaster Management, Sri Lanka
28 June 2017 · 11:10 a.m.
Operational Modalities : Turkish experience
Orhan Hac?mehmet and Jonathan Campbell, Resp: Coordinator Of Kizilaykart Cash Based Assistance Programmes, Turkish Red Crescent - Deputy Country Director, WFP, Turkey
28 June 2017 · 11:21 a.m.
Operational Modalities : Zimbabwe experience
Abel. S. Whande, Team Leader, Cash Transfer Program, Care International in Zimbabwe
28 June 2017 · 11:36 a.m.
Operational Modalities : UNHCR experience
Waheed Lor-Mehdiabadi, Chief of Cash-Based Interventions, UNHCR
28 June 2017 · 11:45 a.m.
Q&A - Operational Modalities
Panel
28 June 2017 · 12:01 p.m.
Scaling Up Cash In East Africa : Panel introduction
Christina Bennett, Head of the Humanitarian Policy Group, ODI
28 June 2017 · 1:32 p.m.
Scaling up Cash in East Africa: Nisar Majid
Nisar Majid, Independent Researcher, Consultant and Visiting Fellow, Feinstein International Centre, Tufts University
28 June 2017 · 1:32 p.m.
Scaling Up Cash In East Africa : ADESO perspective
Deqa Saleh, Cash and Social Protection Advisor, ADESO
28 June 2017 · 1:46 p.m.
Scaling Up Cash In East Africa : WFP perspective
Ernesto Gonzalez, Regional Advisor for cash-based programmes, WFP Bureau for Central and Eastern Africa
28 June 2017 · 1:52 p.m.
Scaling Up Cash In East Africa : Relief International perspective
Alex Gray, Global Humanitarian Director for Relief International
28 June 2017 · 1:58 p.m.
Cash Barometer and community perspectives of CTP in Afghanistan
Elias Sagmiester, Programme Manager, Ground Truth Solutions
28 June 2017 · 2:35 p.m.
First long-term trial of a Universal Basic Income, Kenya
Joanna Macrae, Director, European Partnerships, GiveDirectly
28 June 2017 · 2:44 p.m.
Changing from a pipeline to a platform
Paula Gil Baizan, Global Humanitarian Director Cash-Based Programming, World Vision International
28 June 2017 · 2:51 p.m.
Grand Bargain and GHD cash work streams
Emily Henderson, Humanitarian Adviser, DFID
28 June 2017 · 3:02 p.m.
Donor Perspectives : Panel introduction
Thabani Maphosa, Vice President for Food Assistance, World Vision International, World Vision US
28 June 2017 · 3:39 p.m.
Donor Perspectives : ECHO vision
Androulla Kaminara, Director, DG ECHO
28 June 2017 · 3:42 p.m.
Donor Perspectives : Office of Policy and Resources Planning's vision
Paula Reed Lynch, Director, Office of Policy and Resources Planning, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
28 June 2017 · 3:49 p.m.
Donor Perspectives : Norway vision
Ingunn Vatne, Minister Counsellor and Head of the Humanitarian team, Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva
28 June 2017 · 3:58 p.m.
Donor Perspectives : DFID vision
Patrick Saez, Senior Adviser, Humanitarian Policy and Partnerships, DFID, UK
28 June 2017 · 4:08 p.m.
Donor Perspectives : Centre for Global Development vision
Jeremy Konyndyk, Senior Policy Fellow, Centre for Global Development
28 June 2017 · 4:22 p.m.
Q&A - Donor Perspectives
Panel
28 June 2017 · 4:39 p.m.
Closing Remarks
Alex Jacobs, Director, CaLP
28 June 2017 · 5:27 p.m.