financial service providers assessment - reliefweb · financial service provider assessment –...

Yemen

Report

January 2019

Financial Service Providers Assessment

Financial Service Provider Assessment – January 2019

2

Cover Image: © Wolfgang Gressmann https://ocha.smugmug.com/Countries/Yemen/Humanitarian-Crisis/i-fXFzk95

About REACH REACH facilitates the development of information tools and products that enhance the capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decision in emergency, recovery, and development contexts. All REACH activities make are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our in-country office: [email protected]. You can view all our reports, maps, and factsheets on our resource center: reachsourcecentre.info, visit our website at reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info.

https://ocha.smugmug.com/Countries/Yemen/Humanitarian-Crisis/i-fXFzk95

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.reach-initiative.org/


3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Cash and Market Working Group Partners

The following organizations contributed to the production of this report as members of the Cash and Market Working Group (CMWG).


4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assessment

In 2017, to understand the perceptions of the Yemeni population towards cash transfer programmes, the Cash and Market Working Group (CMWG), in collaboration with REACH, initiated the Inter-Agency Joint Cash Study.1 The study was designed to determine the suitability of cash-based intervention into the Yemen context, in response to the widespread liquidity shortages, price inflation, and falling of purchasing power. Little evidence was found to determine which method of financial assistance was the most suitable in the context of Yemen. As cash-based programming becomes increasingly prominent in the humanitarian response to the ongoing Yemen conflict, there is a growing need for the humanitarian community to build a more comprehensive understanding of the most suitable methods for delivering cash-based interventions, both in terms of the capacity of financial institutions and the feasibility of different transfer mechanisms. The Financial Service Providers (FSP) Assessment was designed to be a continuation of the CMWG and REACH Inter-Agency Joint Cash Study, with the aim of understanding the most appropriate method of cash-based interventions to be used by humanitarian actors.

Methodology

The methodology of the FSP Assessment was developed through the Yemen CMWG. Ahead of the data collection phase, participating partners were asked to identify FSPs operating in the districts and governorates in which they had operations. From this list, Key Informants (KIs) were selected by data collection partners for participation in the study. The assessment was implemented through a non-statistically representative KI survey administered across 45 districts and 9 governorates. A total of 76 FSP KIIs were interviewed for this study. Primary data collection took place between November 2018 and January 2019 and was facilitated by five CMWG partners.2 Finally, due to the explorative nature of the assessment and the above-mentioned limitation, all results should be understood as indicative, rather than statistically representative.

Research Scope

The following research questions are addressed in this report: 1. What is the capacity and experience of financial institutions to facilitate cash-based interventions at

the governorate and district level, and what delivery mechanisms are the most used? 2. Are there any specific groups that are at risk of being excluded from accessing financial assistance

due to the lack of identification papers, bank accounts, or electronic communication mechanisms? 3. What is the speed and cost of delivering cash transfers? 4. What are institutions’ resilience to change in context, what risks are likely to arise, and what mitigation

and monitoring protocols are in place? 5. What contextual factors will influence the feasibility of each cash delivery modality?

Limitations

Given the inherently volatile nature of the Yemeni political context, partners were often confronted with challenges that limited their access to FSP KIs, thus limiting the scope of data collection. Moreover, given the sensitivity of certain information, the assessed KIs asked for their responses to be anonymized, and the names of the assessed FSPs have also been excluded from the report. Therefore, this study only presents findings aggregated at the district and governorate level. Finally, due to the explorative nature of the assessment and the above-mentioned limitation, all results should be understood as indicative, rather than statistically representative.

1 REACH (2017), “Inter-Agency Joint Cash Study”. https://bit.ly/2WTJmDY 2 Data collection partners included: ADRA, Oxfam, Save the Children, Mercy Corps, and CARE International.

https://bit.ly/2WTJmDY


5

Findings

Capacity and experience

Based on the information provided by the KIs in the assessed areas, FSPs have a network of branches supported by mobile agents, the number of which varied according to their location. Moreover, all FSP KIs reported that, when necessary, their agency was able to recruit more agents to fit the needs of any cash-based initiative. Moreover, findings showed that financial capacity (defined as the amount of liquidity the FSP has and is able to harness at any given time) was not highlighted as a central issue. FSP KIs reported being able to access additional liquidity when necessary but noted that transporting funds between the central branch and local branches, or to agents located in hard-to-reach areas could represent a security risk. Overall, the study found that within the assessed areas, cash-based initiatives of any size and magnitude are possible and FSPs are able to harness the necessary liquidity and provide enough agents to reach beneficiaries living in remote areas. Physical cash distribution at the central or local branch was found to be the preferred method of cash delivery (reported by 100% of the assessed KIs), followed by direct transfer to bank accounts (reported by 50% of the assessed KIs), and mobile agents delivering money to beneficiaries directly (reported by 35% of the assessed KIs).3 Regarding the implementation of cash-activities in the past two years, all assessed governorates were reported to have had some cash-based programming, though the scale of these programmes differed across districts and governorates. KIs also reported that most assessed governorates currently have some form of active cash-programming, the most commonly reported being the Emergency Cash Transfer Program (ECTP).

Access to vulnerable groups

The majority of KIs reported providing training and customer services to beneficiaries. The quality and type of the reported services varied across governorates, but the majority of KIs noted that FSPs were providing a toll-free contact number, and would assist beneficiaries in setting up bank accounts, as well as training them on how to receive transfers. Where relevant, KIs reported that training on the financial service mobile app functionalities was also provided.4 In terms of identification documents, FSP KIs reported a preference for beneficiaries being able to provide an official ID such as a national ID, a verified family ID, or a passport in order to claim their cash assistance. However, the majority of KIs also reported that, in those cases where the beneficiary was not in possession of an official ID because it had been stolen, destroyed, or confiscated, they would accept a replacement ID so long as it had been provided by the organization managing the cash-distribution program, or another recognized authority. Moreover, in those areas where cash distribution at the local branch was not possible, most of the assessed FSPs noted being able to provide beneficiaries with agents that could visit them directly.

Cost and speed of delivering cash assistance

The time needed to respond to a call for tenders was reported to vary across governorates, with one-third of assessed KIs indicating that they could provide an initial response in one to two days. Overall, every assessed FSP KIs reported being able to formally respond to a call for tenders within one week. On the other hand, the periods needed to disburse payments were said to be affected by multiple factors, including the amount of cash to be disbursed, the number of agents involved, the total number of beneficiaries being served, and the location of the cash distribution. FSP KIs reported being able to prepare the necessary logistical arrangements at the main branch in less than one day, but the effective distribution of cash was reported to sometimes last up to a month depending on the above factors.

3 The assessed KIs were able to select multiple options. 4 Not all of the assessed FSPs reported being able to offer beneficiaries a mobile app. Those that are able to offer the option of an app also reported being able to provide training on how to use its functionalities.


6

The cost to the beneficiary in receiving cash payments – expressed in United States Dollars (USD) - was reported to be between 0 USD and 1.5 USD based on the most updated exchange rate monitored in the market5 and the type of methodology used for cash distribution. Physical cash distribution was always reported to have no added cost for the beneficiary. On the other hand, the cost for the FSP associated with distributing cash-assistance was shown to vary between 0.3 USD to 1.7 USD, depending on the methodology used. Moreover, while the majority of KIs reported that FSPs received funds in USD, they also reported not having any issues receiving funds in Yemeni Riyal (YER), with more than half of the assessed KIs reporting that they also accepted Saudi Riyals and other currencies such as Euros and Pound Sterling.

Risk assessment and risk mitigation

Regarding risks associated with cash-transfer programmes, FSP KIs reported the lack of security while transporting and distributing funds to be the main risk associated with any cash-based initiative. In terms of risk mitigation strategies and protocols in place to protect beneficiaries during funds disbursement, 89% of FSP KIs reported having in place special security protocols allowing beneficiaries to collect funds in a safe and secure manner. Among those that reported having in place security risk mitigation strategies, 53% of KIs reported using a closed-circuit camera system, trained security guards, and armored vehicles; 38% did not mention using guards or closed-circuit cameras but reported instructing their staff on how to organize distributions to avoid potentially dangerous situations. In terms of protecting beneficiary identities and private information, 86% of the assessed FSP KIs reported having in place a system to protect the privacy of beneficiaries. Access to the beneficiary information was reported to be restricted to management and to authorized staff only, or to the organization managing the cash program. Finally, in terms of monitoring and reporting, FSP KIs reported being able to provide signed receipts together with a copy of the beneficiary IDs whenever needed.

Factors influencing the delivery of cash assistance

Overall, assessed KIs identified insecurity and lack of access to distribution areas as the main factors influencing their ability to operate cash transfer programmes. Insecurity was highlighted as a primary concern across all governorates, while the lack of accessibility was most commonly reported in Amran, Amanat Al Asimah, and Al Jawf.

5 Exchange rates values and variation (as registered on the parallel market) are monitored monthly by REACH as part of the Joint Market Monitoring Initiative (JMMI) with the support of the Yemeni CMWG. The latest JMMI publication – February 2019 – can be found at the following link: https://bit.ly/2TNE3Jh

https://bit.ly/2TNE3Jh


7

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................................... 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 4

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................... 8

Geographical Classifications ............................................................................................................................. 8

Definitions ......................................................................................................................................................... 8

List of Figures, Tables, and Maps ..................................................................................................................... 9

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 10

METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................... 11

Research Objectives and Research Questions .............................................................................................. 11

Methodology Overview ................................................................................................................................... 11

Geographical Coverage ............................................................................................................................ 11

Data Collection and Processing ................................................................................................................ 13

Analysis Framework .................................................................................................................................. 13

Challenges and Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 13

FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................................... 14

1. Financial Capacity and Experience ..................................................................................................... 14

2. Accessibility ........................................................................................................................................ 19

3. Cost and speed of delivering cash assistance .................................................................................... 22

4. Risk assessment and risk mitigation ................................................................................................... 26

5. Factors influencing the delivery of cash assistance ............................................................................ 30

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 33

ANNEXES .............................................................................................................................................................. 34

Annex 1: Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 34

Annex 2: List of Assessed FSPs by District and Governorate ........................................................................ 35

Annex 3: Financial Service Provider Questionnaire ........................................................................................ 37

Annex 4: How to read a boxplot ...................................................................................................................... 43


8

List of Acronyms

CBI Cash-based intervention CMWG Cash and Market Working Group CSO Central Statistical Office CTP Cash Transfer Programming ECTP Emergency Cash-Transfer Program FSP Financial Service Provider FSAC Food Security and Agriculture Cluster FTS Financial Tracking Service KI Key Informant KII Key Informant Interview ID Identification document IDP Internally Displaced Person TOR Term of Reference SAR Saudi Arabia Riyal SWF Social Welfare Fund YER Yemeni Riyal UCT Unconditional Cash Transfer USD United States Dollar UN United Nations UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Geographical Classifications

Governorate Highest administrative boundary below the national level. District Second highest administrative boundary which comprises each governorate.

Definitions

Financial Service Provider (FSP) An entity that provides financial services, which may include e-transfer services. Financial service providers include e-voucher companies, financial institutions (such as banks and microfinance institutions) and mobile network operators (MNOs). FSPs includes many entities (such as investment funds, insurance companies, accountancy firms) beyond those that offer humanitarian cash transfers or voucher services, hence for the purpose of this study FSPs refers to those providing transfer services for humanitarian actors. Key Informant (KI) A KI is an individual whose informal or formal position gives them specific knowledge about other people, process, or events that is more extensive, detailed, or privileged than other individuals. Key Informant Interview (KII) A key informant interview is a structured or semi-structured conversation with people who have specialized knowledge (key informants) about the topic the assessment aims to study.


9

List of Figures, Tables, and Maps

Map 1 – Financial Service Providers: Geographical Coverage ............................................................................. 12

Table 1 - Number of KIs and district assessed in each governorate ..................................................................... 11 Table 2 - Mobile network, internet quality, and electricity supply by governorate .................................................. 22

Figure 1 – Reported average number of branches by Governorate ...................................................................... 14

Figure 2 – Reported total number of agents by governorate ................................................................................. 15

Figure 3 – Financial capacity of the assessed FSPs by governorate (in YER) ...................................................... 16

Figure 4 - Preferred cash delivery methodology .................................................................................................... 16

Figure 5 – Proportion of KIs reporting cash programmes conducted in the past two years by governorate .......... 17

Figure 6 - Average level of liquidity handled per project by governorate (in YER) ................................................ 17

Figure 7 - % of KIs reporting that their FSP was conducting a cash-based program at the time of assessment, by

governorate ........................................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 8 - % of KIs reporting each type of cash internvetions by governorate at the time of data collection ......... 18

Figure 9 - NGOs currently involved in cash activities as reported by KIs .............................................................. 19

Figure 10 - Provision of training to access financial service by governorate ......................................................... 19

Figure 11 – FSP having customer service policies by governorate ....................................................................... 20

Figure 12 - ID accepted by FSP for cash disbursement ........................................................................................ 20

Figure 13 – Reported availability of e-Money service by governorate ................................................................... 21

Figure 14 - Reported availability of mobile agents by governorate ........................................................................ 21

Figure 15 – Estimated average time needed to respond to a call for tenders, reported by KIs ............................. 23

Figure 16 - Time need to respond to a call for tenders by governorate ................................................................. 23

Figure 17 - Factors affecting the speed of the response to a call for tenders ........................................................ 24

Figure 18 - Average time needed to prepare for cash distribution among those able to report ............................. 24

Figure 19 - Time needed to start cash distribution by governorate ........................................................................ 25

Figure 20 – Reported cost of a cash transfer by governorate 9 (in YER) .............................................................. 25

Figure 21 - Alternative Currencies Accepted ......................................................................................................... 26

Figure 22 - Ability to facilitate an increase in programmes size by governorate .................................................... 26

Figure 23 - Condition needed to increase the size of the program ........................................................................ 27

Figure 24 - Most common risk faced by FSPs during cash distribution ................................................................. 27

Figure 25 - Security practices in place as reported by FSP ................................................................................... 28

Figure 26 - Organ having access to beneficiary information ................................................................................. 29

Figure 27 – How beneficiaries’ information is shared ............................................................................................ 29

Figure 28 - Monitoring and reporting method ........................................................................................................ 30

Figure 29 – Factors negatively influencing the delivery of cash interventions ....................................................... 30

Figure 30 – Factors negatively affecting cash intervention delivery by governorate ............................................. 31

Figure 31 - Most suitable cash modality according to KI perception ...................................................................... 31

Figure 32 - Most suitable cash modality by governorate ....................................................................................... 32


10

INTRODUCTION

Yemen has long been afflicted by poverty and political instability. According to the latest figures, the conflict in Yemen has left more than 3 million people displaced and over 79% of the total population is reported to be in need. As of February 2019, much of the population had lost their primary source of income, more than half lacked access to a free improved water source, and an outbreak of cholera had become the largest in modern history6. Before the conflict began, cash-based programmes were conducted through the Social Welfare Fund (SWF) in the form of unconditional cash transfers and through the Food Security and Agriculture Cluster (FSAC) using multiple modalities. Before March 2015, it was estimated that the Yemeni SWF, supported by the World Bank and the Dutch Government, reached about 1.5 million households and approximately 8 million people. While the SWF was halted in March 20157 as a result of the escalating conflict, the FSAC has been increasing CTP each year since 2012.8 Data from the Financial Tracking Service (FTS) places Yemen fifth (together with Sierra Leone) in terms of total number and value of cash-transfer programming receiving 4% of total cash-transfer funds between 2015 and 2016.9 In June 2017, a study from the Cash and Market Working Group (CMWG) in Yemen estimated that more than 250,000 households, equal to approximately 1.9 million people, had received humanitarian financial support in the form of cash transfers or vouchers.10 In the context of cash programming, Yemen had been part of humanitarian, development, and social protection programming by the United Nations (UN), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the Yemeni government for many years before the conflict began. Moreover, the same study found that financial services directly accessible to the population were common and widely trusted in Yemen, largely due to the long history of remittances present in the country. Hawalas are legal in Yemen, and most banks have relations with hawalas as an accepted part of the Yemeni financial system.11 Moreover, the community perceptions component of the study gave insight into varying levels of familiarity with mobile money, as mobile phone connections and electronic infrastructure are more reliable in some parts of the country than in others. The study also showed that post offices had largely closed across the country, and beneficiaries highlighted a concern that distribution programmes requiring them to travel would force the incurring of significant transportation costs, or risk the chance of theft while walking from the distribution point. The majority of respondents in the study stated that cash deliveries distributed by agents in the field or community level were the most practical from their perspective. As cash-based programming becomes increasingly prominent in the humanitarian response to the ongoing Yemen conflict, there is a growing need for the humanitarian community to build a more comprehensive understanding of the most suitable methods for delivering cash-based interventions, both in terms of the capacity of financial institutions and the feasibility of different transfer mechanisms. Moreover, past studies have focused their attention on the systemic capacity of the Yemeni context to sustain cash intervention, sometimes overlooking the geographical, demographic, and political differences amongst governorates and districts. This study conducted by REACH provides a more granular assessment of the feasibility of cash interventions, as well as to evaluate the capacity of financial service providers to support humanitarian cash-programming at the district and governorate level. The study will have the following structure: after introducing the methodology, the coverage, and the limitation encounter, findings will be presented divided by four main sections: financial capacity and experience, accessibility, cost and speed of delivery cash assistance, risk assessment and risk mitigation, and factors influencing the delivery of cash assistance. Finally, a brief conclusive chapter will be presented.

6 UNOCHA (2019), “2019 Yemen Humanitarian Needs Overview”. https://bit.ly/2Ueortv 7 The beneficiaries enlisted in the SWF were integrated into UNICEF’s “Emergency Cash Transfer Program”. 8 UNOCHA (2018), “2018 Yemen Humanitarian Response Plan’, Issue 28. https://bit.ly/2CVVGJD 9 The Financial Tracking Service (FTS), operating under the mandate of OCHA is a centralized source of curated, continuously updated, fully downloadable data and information on humanitarian funding flows. Website: https://fts.unocha.org/ 10 Yemen Cash and Market Working Group: 4W Map, June 2017. 11 Hawalas are a popular and informal value transfer system based not on the movement of cash, or on telegraph or computer network wire transfers between banks, but instead on the performance and honor of a huge network of money brokers.

https://bit.ly/2CVVGJD

https://fts.unocha.org/


11

METHODOLOGY

Research Objectives and Research Questions

The primary objective of the FSP Assessment was to inform humanitarian cash programming across Yemen by providing district and governorate level information on FSPs’ coverage, capacity, and experience in conducting cash-based interventions. The following research questions are addressed in this report:

1. What is the capacity and experience of financial institutions to facilitate cash-based interventions at the governorate and district level, and what delivery mechanisms are the most used?

2. Are there any specific groups that are at risk of being excluded from accessing financial assistance due to the lack of identification papers, bank accounts, or electronic communication mechanisms?

3. What is the speed and cost of delivering cash transfers? 4. What are institutions’ resilience to change in context, what risks are likely to arise, and what mitigation

and monitoring protocols are in place? 5. What contextual factors will influence the feasibility of each cash delivery modality?

Methodology Overview

The objectives, scope, and methodology of the FSP Assessment were developed through the Yemen CMWG. Ahead of the data collection phase, participating partners were asked to identify FSPs operating in the district and governorates in which they had operations. From this list, Key Informants (KIs) were selected by data collection partners based on their capacity, as well as based on the willingness of FSP KIs to disclose information regarding their participation in cash-based programming. The selected KIs were all governorate or district level managers and had an understanding of their organization’s service and programmatic activities in the area. The assessment was implemented through a non-statistically representative KI survey administered across 45 districts and 9 governorates. Primary data collection took place between November 2018 and January 2019 and was facilitated by five CMWG partners.12 A total of 76 FSP KIIs were interviewed for this study.

Geographical Coverage

The geographical coverage for the assessment was determined by two primary factors: the presence of FSPs in the area identified by partners as being able to conduct cash-based interventions; and the resources participating partners were able to contribute to the assessment. Therefore, the number of KI interviews conducted per district was determined by the number of FSPs identified as operating in each area, and the capacity of the partner organization (see Table 1). A detailed table showing the number of FSPs identified and assessed in each district can be found in Annex 2, and geographic coverage can be found in Map 1 on the following page.

Table 1 - Number of KIs and district assessed in each governorate

Governorate Name # of districts in governorate # of districts assessed # of KIs per district

Aden 8 8 18

Al Hudaydah 26 2 2

Al Jawf 12 1 3

Al Mahwit 9 6 6

Amanat Al Asimah 10 1 1

Amran 20 3 6

Hadramut 28 3 6

Hajjah 31 4 5

Lahj 15 3 4

Sana’a 15 1 1

Taizz 23 12 24

12 Data collection partners included: ADRA, Oxfam, Save the Children, Mercy Corps, and CARE International.


12

Map 1 – Financial Service Providers: Geographical Coverage


13

Data Collection and Processing

Primary data collection took place via semi-structured Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with representatives of multiple FSPs. Prior to data collection, REACH hosted multiple online training sessions and conducted a pilot study in the governorates of Taizz and Hajjah. Data collection was implemented by partner teams of mixed-gender enumerators under the supervision of organizational focal points, with technical and coordination support from REACH. The KII tool was based on questions related to the company’s profile, delivery of services, identification requirement for beneficiaries, the feasibility of electronic banking modalities, company experience of social cash transfers, completion time and project schedule, resilience and security, monitoring practices, financial arrangements, and local context. The full data collection tool can be found in Annex 3. Interview responses were recorded via paper forms and later inputted through Kobo Collect, a mobile-based data collection and aggregation tool designed to minimize data entry errors and store information online on password-protected servers. Data cleaning was conducted regularly by REACH, focusing on potential data entry errors, location accuracy, and translation from Arabic to English, with feedback provided to enumerator teams as necessary. All changes to the dataset values were logged in the data cleaning log and included within the published dataset.

Analysis Framework

The analysis was guided by REACH qualitative and quantitative data analysis guidelines, and the data analysis plan attached to the assessment Terms of Reference (ToR). Factors such as payment modalities currently in operation, constraints in the local context, risk mitigation strategies, and other quantifiable variables were broken down into categories and multiple choice options which simplified the process of data analysis. These quantifiable responses were later assessed using R statistical packages and Excel. For the remaining qualitative factors, qualitative coding was used to triangulate information from multiple sources using Excel. Finally, the results of the data analysis at the district level were aggregated at the governorate level, highlighting notable variations between governorates.

Challenges and Limitations

Given the inherently volatile nature of the Yemeni political context, partners were often prevented from accessing specific locations, or enumerators were prevented from conducting interviews with specific FSPs. Moreover, there were instances where the FSPs themselves were not able to disclose certain information and opted out of the assessment.

Given the sensitivity of certain information, the assessed KIs asked for their responses to be anonymized, and the names of the assessed FSPs have been excluded from the report. Therefore, this study only presents generalized findings aggregated at the district and governorate level.

Due to the above-mentioned challenges, data collection was extended by one and a half months compared to what was initially envisaged. Therefore, responses related to the exchange rate were affected by this protracted length of data collection.

Due to the explorative nature of the assessment and the above-mentioned limitation, all results should be understood as indicative, rather than statistically representative.


14

FINDINGS

1. Financial Capacity and Experience

Since cash-transfer programming (CTP) have been present in Yemen since before the escalation of the conflict, the country has a relatively well-established network of FSPs, though their geographic spread differs with regard to the number of branches and agents (which are individuals operating under the mandate of the FSP). Moreover, FSP capacity in terms of handling large amounts of cash, and their experience with cash or voucher distribution activities, were also found to vary according to where FSPs were based.

1.1 Geographical Coverage: Branches and Agents

FSP sub-national retail branches are the primary network by which FSPs reach beneficiaries. They are more often established in larger, populous districts, and can be directly accessed by beneficiaries. Branches can often be the only place where beneficiaries can open a personal bank account, and where beneficiary information is stored, and where all the processes to initiate cash programmes start. In terms of the presence of branches across assessed districts, the three districts that we identified having the highest number of active branches able to integrate CTPs were the districts of Al Wadhah and Tur al Bahah with 8 branches, and al Wazi’iyah with 7 branches (see the full table in Annex 1). For governorate presence (Figure 1), based on the assessed districts within the assessed governorates, Taizz was the governorate with the highest number of branches identified, 58, followed by Aden with 26 branches identified, and Hadramut with 25 branches identified.

Figure 1 – Reported total number of branches by Governorate

FSP KIs reported using agent networks instead of traditional branches in order to reach more customers at a lower cost in rural and/or hard-to-reach areas. Agent networks are, in fact, often established in remote and rural areas and may comprise an established distribution network, be built from independent, small-scale traders, or they operate within other retailers such as money exchanges. Agents are often able to conduct basic financial transactions, such as withdrawals, deposits, and transfers between accounts. Not all agents were reported to be able to open accounts, although some could collect the necessary documentation and expedite the process. Agent networks were said to have several advantages over branch networks, the most central of which being that agents

54

26 25

118 7 7 7

4 3 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


15

usually reside within the communities in which they operate, and are typically familiar with and trusted by their clients. Across all the assessed districts, the three districts with the highest number of agents were Amran (44 agents) in Amran governorate, Az Zaydiyah in Al Hudaydah governorate (30 agents), and Al Wadhah in Amanat Al Asimah governorate (25 agents). As shown in Figure 2, the three governorates with the highest reported number of agents were Amanat al Asimah, Al Hudaydah, and Amran. In the governorate of Sana’a, KIs did not report the presence of agents.

Figure 2 – Reported total number of agents by governorate

1.2 Financial Capacity and Preferred Cash Distribution Methodology

Not all FSPs were found to have the same capacity to accommodate cash transfer programmes with a high number of beneficiaries or large cash distributions. Overall, FSPs with a larger network of branches and agents were found to have a higher financial capacity and be more likely to be able to handle large cash distributions when compared to FSPs with a smaller network of branches and agents. To understand the variation between FSPs at the district and governorate level, KIs were asked the maximum amount of funds they were able to process and distribute in one week. Responses varied according to the size, location, and experience of each FSP, and did not show any specific trends. The three districts with FSPs reporting the largest cash-handling capacity were Az Zaidiyah in Al Hudaydah governorate, Craiter in Aden governorate, and Al Mukalla in Hadramaut governorate, with a maximum cash-handling capacity of 2 billion YER (~3.4 million USD), 1.2 billion YER (~2 million USD), and 1 billion YER (~1.7 million USD) respectively (more information at the district level can be found in the table in Annex 1)13. The boxplot represented in Figure 3 portrays the situation at the governorate level. As shown, the governorate of Al Hudaydah had the largest spread in terms of cash handling, from a minimum of just below 250 million YER (~400 thousand USD) to a maximum of 2 billion (~3.4 million USD), with a median of 1.1 billion YER (~1.8 million USD).

13 Exchange rates value and variation (as registred on the parallel market) are monitored monthly by REACH as part of the Joint Market Monitoring Initiative (JMMI) with the support of the Yemeni Cash and Market Working Group (CMWG). The latest JMMI publication – February 2019 – can be found at the following link: https://bit.ly/2TNE3Jh.

92

75

5045

26 26 2521

127

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



16

Figure 3 – Financial capacity of the assessed FSPs by governorate (in YER)14

Furthermore, KIs were asked what was, according to their knowledge and experience, the preferred method to deliver cash assistance to beneficiaries. Respondents were offered five options: physical cash payments over the counter at the main or local branch; mobile or e-money transfer through text messages without a formal bank account; direct electronic transfer linked to formal bank accounts; vouchers; and direct cash payments through mobile agents. KIs were able to select multiple options. As shown in Figure 4, all interviewed KIs reported physical cash payment over the counter to be the preferred method, followed by direct electronic transfers into formal bank accounts with just above 50%. According to KIs’ perception, physical cash distribution and electronic transfers are the less expensive type of distribution methods and those that are less prone to incur security risks. No notable variations were found at the district or governorate level.

Figure 4 - Preferred cash delivery methodology15

1.3 Experience with cash distribution programmes

In terms of past experiences with cash distribution programmes, FSP KIs were asked if there had been cash-based programmes conducted in the district where they were based in the past two years. Only the FSP KIs based in Al Mahwait in Al Mahwit governorate reported no cash distribution happened within the governorate in the past two years.16

14 The three dots outside the box-and-whiskers plots represent outliers found within each governorate. More information on how to read a boxplot can be found in Annex 4. 15 KIs were able to select more than one option. 16 However, partner organizations highlighted that for the past year the emergency cash distribution program has been running in all governorates, including Al Mahwit.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Physicalcash

Electronictransfers

Mobileagents

Mobilemoney

Vouchers


17

Figure 5 – Proportion of KIs reporting cash programmes conducted in the past two years by governorate

In terms of the type of programmes that were reported to have been implemented in each governorate, all FSP KIs but those based in Al Mahwit reported that the Emergency Cash-Transfer Program (ECTP) managed by UNICEF was running in the governorate where they were based.17 In terms of the amount of cash distributed, only 70% of the KIs interviewed were able to provide precise figures regarding the total amount of cash disbursed in the districts where they were based. Figures are presented below.

Figure 6 - Average level of liquidity handled per project by governorate (in YER)

Furthermore, KIs were asked if their FSP was conducting cash programmes at the time of assessment, to which 59% of the assessed KIs responded affirmatively, 36% responded negatively, and the remaining 5% did not know. Figure 7 shows the breakdown of these figures at the governorate level (information at the district level is presented in Annex 1), clearly highlighting that the majority of the KIs who reported active cash transfer programmes were located in Al Hudaydah, Amanat Al Asimah, Hajjah, and Lahj.

17 However, in this instance as well, partner organizations highlighted that for the past year the ECTP has been running in all governorates, including Al Mahwit.


18

Figure 7 - % of KIs reporting that their FSP was conducting a cash-based program at the time of assessment, by governorate

In examining the reported type of cash transfer programme currently being implemented in these governorates (Figure 8 below) at the time of assessment, it is clear the majority of cash-based interventions were related to emergency-related cash assistance, followed by cash-for-work assistance, and by another type of cash-support projects. The percentage of cash interventions grouped as others referred to cash assistance towards teachers’ salaries (Amant Al Asmah) and financial support to medical centers and the disabled (Aden and Al Jawf).

Figure 8 - % of KIs reporting each type of cash interventions by governorate at the time of data collection

Finally, KIs were asked if they knew the names of the organizations currently operating cash-related activities in their area. Figure 9 shows that the vast majority of cash interventions were reported to be associated with UNICEF (41%), followed by Save the Children (12%), and Mercy Corps and Norwegian Refugee Council (both 8%).

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


19

Figure 9 - NGOs currently involved in cash activities as reported by KIs

2. Accessibility

In order to better understand the ability of beneficiaries to interact with FSPs, KIs were asked a set of questions to highlight what types of policies they had in place to help beneficiaries understand the complexities of the formal banking system, as well as the specific complexities of each cash programme.

2.1 Training and customer service practices

In terms of training, 52% of KIs reported that their FSP provided beneficiaries with some level of training on how to access financial services and how to use them, 41% responded that they did not provide training to beneficiaries, and 7% did not know. Figure 10 provides an overview of the findings at the governorate level. KIs did not comment on why training was not provided.

Figure 10 - Provision of training to access financial service by governorate

When asked what types of training were provided to beneficiaries, the majority of those KIs who reported training being provided (48%) noted “direct training on how to receive cash payments” followed by types of “awareness training and publications” such as instruction manuals (30%). Where relevant, a small proportion (15%) responded that they were providing training on how to use e-money mobile application.

41%

12%

8% 8%6%

4% 4% 4% 4%2% 2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%


20

In addition, FSP KIs were asked if they had any customer service policies in place and which policies they had. Overall, 86% of KIs responded that their FSP did have customer services policies, compared to only 12% of KIs who said their FSPs did not have any customer service policies in place. Figure 11 shows the breakdown at the governorate level, with Al Hudaydah shown as the governorate with the lowest percentage of FSPs reporting having customer service practices in place, though KIs did not provide any details as to the underlying reasons.

Figure 11 – FSP having customer service policies by governorate

When asked what type of customer service policies were in place, 61% of KIs who reported having customer service policies reported providing some sort of direct contact line through toll free numbers or via SMS and social media, followed by 36% of KIs reporting having on-site customer service that supported customers and beneficiaries in multiple ways including opening bank accounts and sending and receiving transfers.

2.2 Access across different population groups

Moreover, the assessment sought to highlight possible access issues beneficiaries could face when registering for cash-based aid. To identify possible barriers to access, KIs were asked what form of identification the FSPs required to release cash transfer or payments to recipients. Figure 12 shows that all KIs responded that their FSP accepted the national ID as a valid identification system, followed by a verified family ID (93%) and a passport (92%).18

Figure 12 - ID accepted by FSP for cash disbursement

18 FSP KIs were able to select multiple options.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NationalID

Family ID Passport ElectionID

Military ID SocialWelfare

ID

Drivinglicense


21

In addition, KIs were asked if their FSPs had any flexibility for beneficiaries that had no identification card either because it had been lost, stolen, or destroyed. Overall, 82% of KIs responded that beneficiaries could register using other means of identification, of which 97% reported that the best way for beneficiaries without formal IDs to receive cash transfers was for them to be provided with IDs issued by the organization itself, or by the authorities working jointly with the organization providing the cash assistance.

2.3 E-Money and mobile banking

KIs were also asked if their FSPs offered either an e-money service or a service of mobile banking that beneficiaries could use to receive payments. For e-Money services, 60% of KIs responded that their FSP was able to provide these services. When asked if they were able to provide cash payments through mobile agents, 65% of the KIs responded that their FSP was able to do so. As shown in Figures 13 and 14, governorates had a similar trend in responding to both answers. The KIs reporting for the governorate of Sana’a were the only ones reporting no capacity to provide mobile agents as mobile agents were not reported to be employed by the same KIs (Figure 2).

2.4 Mobile network coverage, internet quality, and reliability of the electrical infrastructure

Finally, KIs were asked to provide a judgment on the mobile network coverage, internet speed and quality, and reliability of the electricity supply in their respective governorate. As shown in Table 1, the mobile network coverage

Figure 13 – Reported availability of e-Money service by governorate

Figure 14 - Reported availability of mobile agents by governorate


22

was generally reported as good in all governorates but Hajjah.19 Internet speed and quality were also, overall, generally good in all governorates, and the electricity supply and quality were only reported to be issues in Al Jawf and Amanat Al Asimah. However, KIs noted that in the case of electricity shortages, the FSP had access to generators.20

Table 2 - Mobile network, internet quality, and electricity supply by governorate

Governorates Mobile network coverage Internet quality Electricity supply

Do not know No Yes Do not know No Yes Do not know No Yes

Aden 0% 6% 94% 0% 0% 100% 0% 6% 94%

Al Hudaydah 70% 30% 0% 0% 30% 70% 0% 0% 100%

Al Jawf 0% 33% 67% 0% 33% 67% 0% 67% 33%

Al Mahwit 64% 0% 36% 82% 0% 18% 100% 0% 0%

Amanat Al Asimah 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%

Amran 0% 0% 100% 0% 14% 86% 0% 0% 100%

Hadramaut 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%

Hajjah 0% 56% 44% 0% 0% 100% 0% 50% 50%

Lahj 0% 0% 100% 0% 25% 75% 0% 25% 75%

Sana'a 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%

Taizz 0% 16% 84% 3% 9% 88% 3% 41% 56%

3. Cost and speed of delivering cash assistance

This section seeks to outline how quickly a new CTP can be launched, following the agreement of a new project, or how quickly an existing project can be expanded. In addition, it also examines the associated costs of each payment for both the sender and recipient.

3.1 Factors influencing the speed of cash distributions

In order to better understand the time necessary for a specific FSP to respond to a call for tenders to become CTP service providers, responses were categorized into five main groups, as shown in Figure 15. Overall, the majority of the assessed KIs reported being able to respond to call for tenders in one or two days, while 21% reported being able to respond in less than one day.

19 The questionnaire tool did not allowed for a “refuse to answer” options, therefore “do not knows” could potentially be associated to KIs not willing to disclose information regarding the network coverage in the area. 20 KIs were asked to provide their opinion based on their knowledge which could be different from the actual situation in each governorate.


23

Figure 15 – Estimated average time needed to respond to a call for tenders, reported by KIs

When disaggregated by governorate (Figure 16), all the assessed FSP KIs responding for the governorate of Al Mahwit and Amanat al Asimah answered that they would be able to respond to a call for tenders in one or two days, and all the FSP KIs in Sana’a reported being able to respond within one day. Data collection partners involved in the assessment indeed confirmed that FSPs are generally able to quickly respond to a call for tenders and that all the necessary procedures are completed within a week.

Figure 16 - Time need to respond to a call for tenders by governorate

The assessment further explored if the decision to participate in a CTP was something to be discussed at the national level, as well as the factors that would determine the amount of time needed to provide a response. The majority of the KIs interviewed were not able to provide a definitive answer to whether the decision to partake on a CTP had to be made at the national level, with 42% indicating that they did not know. Of those who were able to provide a response, 38% responded that it was not a national level decision, while 20% responded that it was.

32%

21%

15%

8%

24%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Betweenone and two

days

Less thanone day

Betweenthree and

seven days

More thanone week

Do not know


24

Figure 17 - Factors affecting the speed of the response to a call for tenders21

Figure 17 highlights the main reported factors capable of affecting the speed of the response to a call for tenders. For those who were able to provide a response to the question, liquidity and availability of cash (22%) was reported as the main factor affecting the speed of the response, followed by the payment modality used (19%), and the size of the programme in terms of the number of expected beneficiaries reached (19%). Moreover, KIs were asked how long it would take for a cash distribution to begin following the completion of the registration process. As shown in Figure 18, the majority of the assessed KIs (55%) reported that less than one day was needed to start distributing cash to beneficiaries, followed by those reporting between one and two days (21%) and between three and seven days (16%). These answers pertained mostly to the procedures at the main branch; KIs specified that, although true that the registration and logistical procedures to begin cash distribution could be completed quickly, those programmes involving multiple areas, branches, and/or mobile agents, could take up to a month before starting.

Figure 18 - Average time needed to prepare for cash distribution among those able to report22

Figure 19 below shows the reported average time needed to start cash distributions, disaggregated by governorate. Overall, all KIs assessed for the governorates of Al Jawf, Amanat al Asimah, Lajh, and Sana’a reported being able to distribute funds in less than one day.23

21 KIs were able to select multiple options 22 63 KIs were able to answer this question among the 76 interviewed. 23 These figures all reflect the capacity of the main branch to complete logistic procedure but not the actual time for the implementation in the field.

22%19% 19%

7% 7%

3%

24%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Liquidity Paymentmodality

used

Size of theprogramme

Location ofthe

programme

Security -Instability

Lack ofinformation

Do not know

55%

21%16%

6%2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Less thanone day

Betweenone andtwo days

Betweenthree and

seven days

More thana week

beweenone andtwo days


25

Figure 19 - Time needed to start cash distribution by governorate

Those KIs that reported a time longer than one day were also asked if this time period was dependent on the size and location of the program. In response, 62% of these KIs answered that it was not a factor, while 18% reported that it was. The remaining 20% reported that they did not know. Of those KIs who answered that the size and location were factors, the majority reported issues related to the security situation in the area, followed by the need to ensure that the necessary liquidity was present before beginning the cash distribution.

3.2 Average cost of sending and receiving transfers

Furthermore, assessed KIs were asked the average cost for sending and receiving a cash transfer. As shown in the boxplot in Figure 20, the reported cost incurred by the FSP varied, but the majority of the KIs reported to apply a median fixed rate that ranged between 200 YER (0.3 USD) and 600 YER (1.03 USD).24

Figure 20 – Reported cost of a cash transfer by governorate 9 (in YER)25

Relating to the cost for receiving a cash transfer (which is the cost a beneficiary will effectively have to sustain in order to receive assistance), in the majority of the assessed governorates, KIs reported that their agency does not apply any transfer cost. Overall, only FSP KIs in three governorates reported that their agency would apply some cost when the transfer was received: Al Hudaydah, with an average cost for the beneficiary of a 275 YER (0.46 USD); Al Jawf, with an average cost of 500 YER (0.86 USD); and Taizz, which although the average reported cost

24 Exchange rates value and variation (as registered on the parallel market) are monitored monthly by REACH as part of the Joint Market

Monitoring Initiative (JMMI) with the support of the Yemeni Cash and Market Working Group (CMWG). The latest JMMI publication – February 2019 – can be found at the following link: https://bit.ly/2TNE3Jh 25 More information on how to read a boxplot can be found on Annex 4.



26

was 0 YER, there were reported instances where the cost could rise up to 900 YER (1.54 USD) per transfer received.26 Moreover, when FSP KIs were asked if they would accept payments in Yemeni Riyals, 96% responded that they would, with only 4% responding that they would not due to the volatility of the currency. KIs interviewed were also asked if they would accept payments in currencies other than the Yemeni Riyal. Figure 22 shows the breakdown of these responses. The majority of KIs (80%) indicated that they would accept payments in USD and Saudi Riyals other than Yemeni Riyals, while 14% responded that they would accept all types of currencies, and 2% reported accepting USD, Euros, and Pound Sterling as well, other than Yemeni Riyals.

Figure 21 - Alternative Currencies Accepted

4. Risk assessment and risk mitigation

This section examines FSPs’ risk mitigation strategies, the protocols in place to protect beneficiaries’ data, and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances.

4.1 Capacity to increase the size of a program at short notice

When asked if their organization would be able to facilitate an increase in the size of a cash transfer programme at short notice, 93% of the KIs interviewed responded in the affirmative, compared to 2% who responded that they could not, and 5% who did not know. Figure 23 shows the breakdown at the governorate level.

Figure 22 - Ability to facilitate an increase in programmes size by governorate

26 Exchange rates value and variation (as registered on the parallel market) are monitored monthly by REACH as part of the Joint Market Monitoring Initiative (JMMI) with the support of the Yemeni Cash and Market Working Group (CMWG). The latest JMMI publication – February 2019 – can be found at the following link: https://bit.ly/2TNE3Jh

80%

14%

2% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

USD and SaudiRiyals

All currencies USD - Euro -Pound Sterling

Do not know



27

Relating to FSPs’ capacity to increasing the size of an active project, 59% of the assessed KIs responded that no conditions were needed to be met to proceed to an increase in the size of an active program, and that they were able to intervene in less than a week; 21% responded that they would be able to do so but the time was dependent on the number of beneficiaries involved in the cash distribution; 12% reported that it was dependent on the transfer method used; and 3% reported that it was dependent on the amount of money needed. The remaining 6% generally responded that it was dependent on the number of projects active at the same time.

Figure 23 - Condition needed to increase the size of the program

4.2 Risk management policies and practices

Moreover, to understand what types of risk management practices and protocols the assessed FSPs had in place to mitigate issues during cash interventions, KIs were asked about the most common issues that they anticipate during cash distributions. Responses were aggregated in common themes and are shown in Figure 25. Although 23% of the KIs interviewed responded that their FSP faced no risk and therefore do not prepare mitigation strategies, half of the respondents reported that lack of security in the distribution areas was the most prevalent issue. There was no notable variation between the district and governorate level.

Figure 24 - Most common risk faced by FSPs during cash distribution

Given that a lack of security in distribution areas was reported to be the most prevalent risk to cash distributions, KIs were also asked if the organization had in place any practices to allow the beneficiaries to safely pick up funds on the day of distribution, to which 88% of the assessed KIs responded in the affirmative. When disaggregated by

59%

21%

12%

3%6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Within a week(no conditions)

Depending onthe number ofbeneficiaries

Depending onthe transfer

methodologyused

Depending onthe liquidity

needed

Other (specify)

50%

23%

9% 9%3% 3% 1% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


28

governorate, the 12% of KIs answering “No” were divided between Al Mahwit (45%), Taizz (6%), and Amanat al Asimah (100%). In terms of the types of security practices in place, when aggregated by common themes (Figure 25), the majority (57%) of KIs reporting having in place security practices, reported having in place a formal security system such as closed-circuit cameras, trained security guards, and/or armored vehicles. An additional 35% reported not having in place a formal surveillance system but instead having an informal security system in place managed by staff trained in handling security events. Examples of these practices included preparing the amounts of cash to be distributed to each beneficiary beforehand, and increasing the number of agents or staff to speed up the distribution process.

Figure 25 - Security practices in place as reported by FSP

KIs were also asked if their organization had any form of information security in place or a secure way to store beneficiary data so that their privacy would be protected. Overall, 86% of the assessed KIs responded “Yes”, compared to 8% who did not know, and 6% who preferred not to answer this question. Therefore, no respondents answered “No”. When asked for further details, 85% of KIs reported their FSP has an “internal financial system”27 that assured that beneficiary information was safely stored. A further 15% reported having all beneficiary information stored inside a “database” that was backed-up automatically. Furthermore, 91% of KIs interviewed confirmed that data were retrievable in case of loss, with only 3% responding that this was not possible, and 6% reporting not knowing.

4.3 Privacy practices and access to private beneficiary information

As outlined above, beneficiary information was largely reported to be stored by the organization in ways that assured their retrievability and insulation from external access. Given the sensitivity of beneficiary information, KIs were asked who within the organization had access to this data, and how this information was shared both internally and externally. As shown in Figure 27, the majority (29%) of the KIs responded that beneficiaries’ information was shared internally only with “managers,” followed by “authorized staff only” (22%), and the “Head Office only” (20%).

27 None of the assessed FSP KIs described how this “internal system” functioned, nor its procedures.

57%

35%

8%

Formal security system

Informal security system

Do not know


29

Figure 26 - Organ having access to beneficiary information

Regarding the sharing of beneficiary information externally to the FSP, responses were aggregated in themes, with 71% of the assessed KIs responding that information could be shared, but with certain limitations. The reported limitations varied from being shared “only in person after proof of identity” to “only after a direct inquiry by the beneficiary himself and subsequent approval by the authorities or management.” Moreover, 16% of KIs responded that information was shared via email or social networks after the request without any limitations, 4% responded that information was not shared and 9% of KIs were not able to provide an answer.

Figure 27 – How beneficiaries’ information is shared

4.4 Monitoring and reporting

Finally, KIs interviewed were asked what kind of reports their organization offered in terms of monitoring and ensuring the cash transfers were successfully delivered to the intended beneficiaries. As shown in Figure 28, FSP KIs reported relying heavily on the signed receipts (61%) and copies of the beneficiary’s ID (14%) as a reporting method. Moreover, 7% of the KIs responded that they collect written statements signed by the receiver, and 14% reported providing other statements depending on the information needed.

22%20%

14%

7%

3%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Authorizedstaff only

Head Officeonly

Allemployees

but withrestrictedaccess

Customerservice

Beneficiaryonly

Do not know

71%

16%

4%9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Informationshared withlimitations

Informationshared without

limitations

No informationshared

Do not know


30

Figure 28 - Monitoring and reporting method

5. Factors influencing the delivery of cash assistance

This section focuses specifically on the context of intervention using KIs’ knowledge of the local areas. This information will build upon the knowledge gathered in the previous sections and directed towards humanitarian organizations wishing to implement cash transfer programmes in the area.

5.1 Factors influencing the speed and delivery of cash-interventions

To understand the main factors at the local level that can influence the delivery of cash-based transfers, KIs interviewed were provided with the following options: government regulations; insecurity in the area of intervention; possible shortages of liquidity; issues with access to the intervention area; none; and other factors not classifiable within these options. Overall, 49% of the KIs interviewed responded that no factors negatively affected the delivery of cash interventions, followed by 26% highlighting insecurity in the area of distribution, and 23% responding lack of access to the area of distribution. The 9% reporting other factors primarily noted lack of internet connectivity, power shortages, lack of agents, and having beneficiary lists with incorrect information.

Figure 29 – Factors negatively influencing the delivery of cash interventions

Overall, the only two governorates where all KIs indicated that no factors negatively influenced the delivery of cash interventions were Al Hudaydah and Sana’a. As we can see from Figure 30, insecurity and lack of accessibility were reported to be a prevalent issue in all governorates. Information at the district level can be found in the table in Annex 1.

61%

14% 14%

7%3% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Receiptsigned by thebeneficiary

Copy of thebeneficiary's

ID

Other(specify)

Writtenstatementfrom the

beneficiary

None Do not know

26%23%

19%

9%

3%

49%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Insecurity Lack ofaccessibility

Liquidityshortage

Other Governmentregulations

None


31

Figure 30 – Factors negatively affecting cash intervention delivery by governorate

5.2 Most suitable cash-delivery methodology

Furthermore, KIs were asked, according to their expert opinion, what would be the most suitable cash delivery modalities in the areas where they operate. Overall, the vast majority of the KIs interviewed (91%) responded physical cash payment at the branch to be the most suitable cash delivery modality in the areas where they operate, followed by direct electronic transfers to formal bank accounts (29%), mobile agents (18%), mobile money (18%), and vouchers (12%).

Figure 31 - Most suitable cash modality according to KI perception28

At the governorate level, physical cash transfers were largely reported as the preferred cash transfer modality, other than in Aden where the preferred methodology was said to be direct electronic transfers to formal bank accounts, and Al Mahwit where mobile money was highlighted as equally preferred. Furthermore, payment through mobile agents was only reported as a valid option in Al Mahwit, Amran, Hajjah, Lajh, Taizz, and Aden. Direct electronic transfers to formal bank accounts were reported in Aden, Al Hudaydah, Al Mahwit, Lahj, Amran, Hadramaut, and Taizz. Finally, vouchers were reported only in Al Hudaydah, Hajjah, Lahj, and Taizz. Information at the district level can be found in the table in Annex 1.

28 Assessed KIs were able to select multiple options

91%

29%

18% 18%12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Physical cashpayments

Electronictransfers

Mobile moneyMobile agents Vouchers


32

Figure 32 - Most suitable cash modality by governorate


33

CONCLUSION

The objective of the FSP Assessment was to inform humanitarian cash programming across Yemen by providing district and governorate level information on FSPs’ coverage, capacity, and experience in conducting cash-based interventions. The primary conclusion of this assessment is that, in terms of coverage, FSP KIs reported a well-established network of branches and agents that would likely be able to support cash programmes and reach beneficiaries in the areas of intervention. Moreover, the preferred delivery modalities were primarily reported to be the physical transfer of cash to beneficiaries, and direct transfers to formal bank accounts. Although these methodologies tend to be more formal, and therefore less agile, they are also those that are less dependent on mobile networks or electrical infrastructure. Moreover, according to KIs’ perceptions, physical cash distribution at the branch and electronic transfers are also safer and less expensive methods. Nevertheless, a good number of KIs reported that they believe their FSP would be open to using more agile modalities such as mobile money and mobile agents if these were able to better serve the needs of beneficiaries. In terms of access, the majority of the assessed FSP KIs noted that they were able to accept non-standard identification documents if these were provided to the beneficiaries by the implementing organization. Furthermore, the cost and speed of implementing a new cash program were seen to vary across governorates, and largely depend on the size and the amount of liquidity. The cost the FSP will have to sustain to transfer funds to beneficiaries was also seen to vary greatly according to the assessed areas, though the cost that a beneficiary will have to incur when receiving a transfer was found to be zero – or close to zero - in the vast majority of the assessed areas. Finally, because insecurity and lack of access were among the most reported issues faced by FSPs, the majority of KIs reported having in place risk management practices to allow for safe and secure cash distribution. On the other hand, there was less clarity on the safety and security of beneficiaries private information. Some FSP KIs reported sharing this data via email, and also via social networks. Given these findings, it is critical that implementing agencies continue to work with their FSP partners to ensure best practices are in place with regards to the protection of sensitive beneficiary information. The assessment provided a picture of the capacity of financial service providers across different governorates and districts in Yemen. Given the limitation encountered during the assessment, a larger, more generalizable picture was not achievable. Nevertheless, this assessment is a useful first step towards understanding the financial scenario in Yemen and could be used by practitioners to guide and inform the first stage of their operations. We suggest practitioners take into account all the aspects we included in this assessment while conducting their due diligence and before selecting any specific financial service provider. Moreover, we suggest the humanitarian community to conduct further assessments with the inclusion of a consumer side component to understand the needs and challenges experienced by beneficiaries.


13

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Tables

Governorate name District Name Number of

FPS assessed

Average number of branches

Average number of

agents Maximum financial capacity

Average cost for each cash transfer (sender)

Average cost for each cash transfer (beneficiary)

Average Exchange rate USD/YER (parallel market)

Amanat Al Asimah Al Wahdah 1 8 25 NA NA NA NA Lahj Tur Al Bahah 1 8 19 YER 100,000,000 YER 500 YER - YER 520 Taizz Al Wazi'iyah 2 7 7 YER 80,000,000 YER 425 YER - YER 539 Hadramaut Al Mukalla 3 7 11 YER 1,000,000,000 YER 467 YER - YER 507 Taizz Al Mudhaffar 1 5 1 NA YER 750 YER 750 YER 520 Taizz Al Qahirah 1 3 1 NA YER 750 YER 750 YER 520 Aden Craiter 3 2 5 YER 1,200,000,000 YER 533 YER - YER 496 Al Jawf Al Hazm 3 2 9 YER 85,000,000 YER 167 YER 500 NA Taizz At Ta'iziyah 2 2 6 NA YER 825 YER 825 YER 509 Hadramaut Ghayl Ba Wazir 2 2 0 YER 40,000,000 YER 500 YER - YER 508 Taizz Sama 2 2 2 YER 16,000,000 YER 300 YER 100 YER 513 Hajjah Wadhrah 1 2 2 YER 500,000,000 YER 200 YER - YER 525 Aden Dar Sad 1 2 4 YER 200,000,000 YER 600 YER - YER 505 Taizz Sabir Al Mawadim 1 2 0 YER 10,000,000 YER 750 YER 750 YER 500 Taizz Ash Shamayatayn 7 2 2 YER 140,000,000 YER 464 YER - YER 462 Aden Ash Shaikh Outhman 3 2 2 YER 213,000,000 YER 267 YER - YER 503 Aden Al Mansura 2 2 3 YER 325,000,000 YER 425 YER - YER 500 Amran Amran 3 1 44 YER 300,000,000 YER 217 YER - YER 517 Taizz Al Mawasit 3 1 9 YER 35,000,000 YER 433 YER 100 YER 507 Aden Khur Maksar 3 1 1 YER 400,000,000 YER 433 YER - YER 503 Aden Al Buraiqeh 3 1 1 YER 145,000,000 YER 417 YER - YER 468 Hajjah Abs 2 1 8 YER 800,000,000 YER 200 YER - YER 525 Aden Al Mualla 2 1 4 YER 443,750,000 YER 850 YER - YER 495 Lahj Al Hawtah 2 1 2 YER 220,000,000 YER 425 YER - YER 515 Amran Jabal Iyal Yazid 2 1 0 YER 90,000,000 YER 225 YER - YER 532 Taizz Mawiyah 1 1 3 NA YER 900 YER 900 YER 490 Al Mahwit Shibam Kawkaban 1 1 2 NA YER 250 YER - NA Al Mahwit Al Khabt 1 1 1 NA YER 250 YER - NA Al Mahwit Ar Rujum 1 1 1 NA YER 250 YER - NA Al Hudaydah Az Zaydiyah 1 1 30 YER 2,000,000,000 YER 300 YER 300 YER 630 Lahj Tuban 1 1 3 YER 500,000,000 YER 300 YER - YER 520 Al Hudaydah Bajil 1 1 20 YER 200,000,000 YER 400 NA NA Taizz Al Ma'afer 1 1 1 YER 100,000,000 YER 400 YER 450 YER 600 Aden Attawahi 1 1 0 YER 100,000,000 YER 500 YER - YER 494 Hajjah Ash Shaghadirah 1 1 2 YER 50,000,000 YER 300 YER - YER 685 Hadramaut Brom Mayfa 1 1 0 YER 50,000,000 YER 400 YER - YER 510 Amran Maswar 1 1 4 YER 20,000,000 YER 200 YER - YER 550 Al Mahwit Bani Sa'd 1 0 2 NA YER 250 YER - NA Al Mahwit At Tawilah 1 0 1 NA 0 YER - NA


13

Annex 2: List of Assessed FSPs by District and Governorate

Governorate Pcode

Governorate Name

District code District Name FSP

Identified

FSP Assessed

YE12 Abyan YE1211 Khanfir 2 0 YE12 Abyan YE1210 Zingibar 2 0 YE24 Aden YE2404 Al Buraiqeh 3 3 YE24 Aden YE2403 Al Mansura 2 2 YE24 Aden YE2406 Al Mualla 2 2 YE24 Aden YE2402 Ash Shaikh Outhman 3 3 YE24 Aden YE2405 Attawahi 1 1 YE24 Aden YE2407 Craiter 3 3 YE24 Aden YE2401 Dar Sad 1 1 YE24 Aden YE2408 Khur Maksar 3 3 YE14 Al Bayda YE1416 Al A'rsh 1 0 YE14 Al Bayda YE1410 Al Bayda 1 0 YE14 Al Bayda YE1409 Al Bayda City 1 0 YE14 Al Bayda YE1420 Al Malagim 1 0 YE30 Al Dhale'e YE3008 Al Azariq 3 0 YE30 Al Dhale'e YE3007 Jahaf 2 0 YE30 Al Dhale'e YE3003 Qa'atabah 2 0 YE18 Al Hudaydah YE1813 Al Marawi'ah 2 0 YE18 Al Hudaydah YE1808 Al Mighlaf 1 0 YE18 Al Hudaydah YE1807 Az Zaydiyah 3 1 YE18 Al Hudaydah YE1801 Az Zuhrah 2 0 YE18 Al Hudaydah YE1810 Bajil 7 1 YE18 Al Hudaydah YE1817 Bayt Al Faqiah 6 0 YE16 Al Jawf YE1605 Al Hazm 5 3 YE16 Al Jawf YE1602 Al Humaydat 1 0 YE16 Al Jawf YE1604 Az Zahir 1 0 YE16 Al Jawf YE1610 Bart Al Anan 5 0 YE16 Al Jawf YE1612 Kharab Al Marashi 5 0 YE27 Al Mahwit YE2704 Al Khabt 2 1 YE27 Al Mahwit YE2709 Al Mahwait 2 1 YE27 Al Mahwit YE2703 Ar Rujum 2 1 YE27 Al Mahwit YE2702 At Tawilah 2 1 YE27 Al Mahwit YE2707 Bani Sa'd 1 1 YE27 Al Mahwit YE2705 Milhan 2 0 YE27 Al Mahwit YE2701 Shibam Kawkaban 2 1 YE13 Amanat Al Asimah YE1306 Al Wahdah 7 1 YE13 Amanat Al Asimah YE1305 As Sabain 7 0 YE13 Amanat Al Asimah YE1304 Assafi'yah 7 0 YE13 Amanat Al Asimah YE1307 At Tahrir 7 0 YE13 Amanat Al Asimah YE1309 Ath'thaorah 7 0 YE13 Amanat Al Asimah YE1303 Az'zal 7 0 YE13 Amanat Al Asimah YE1301 Old City 7 0 YE13 Amanat Al Asimah YE1302 Shu'aub 7 0 YE29 Amran YE2904 Al Qaflah 1 0 YE29 Amran YE2915 Amran 3 3 YE29 Amran YE2914 As Sawd 2 0 YE29 Amran YE2913 As Sudah 2 0 YE29 Amran YE2920 Bani Suraim 1 0 YE29 Amran YE2902 Huth 1 0 YE29 Amran YE2912 Jabal Iyal Yazid 2 2 YE29 Amran YE2919 Khamir 4 0 YE29 Amran YE2916 Maswar 2 1 YE20 Dhamar YE2010 Anss 1 0 YE20 Dhamar YE2008 Dhamar City 5 0 YE20 Dhamar YE2002 Jahran 2 0 YE20 Dhamar YE2009 Mayfa'at Anss 1 0 YE20 Dhamar YE2005 Utmah 2 0 YE20 Dhamar YE2007 Wusab As Safil 1 0 YE19 Hadramaut YE1926 Al Mukalla 3 3 YE19 Hadramaut YE1925 Brom Mayfa 2 1 YE19 Hadramaut YE1917 Ghayl Ba Wazir 2 2


36

YE17 Hajjah YE1704 Abs 4 2 YE17 Hajjah YE1725 Ash Shaghadirah 3 1 YE17 Hajjah YE1712 Aslem 1 0 YE17 Hajjah YE1724 Bani Qa'is 3 0 YE17 Hajjah YE1729 Hajjah 1 1 YE17 Hajjah YE1722 Ku'aydinah 3 0 YE17 Hajjah YE1723 Wadhrah 1 1 YE25 Lahj YE2514 Al Hawtah 3 2 YE25 Lahj YE2513 Al Madaribah Wa Al Arah 5 0 YE25 Lahj YE2512 Al Maqatirah 2 0 YE25 Lahj YE2508 Al Milah 1 0 YE25 Lahj YE2509 Al Musaymir 2 0 YE25 Lahj YE2515 Tuban 3 1 YE25 Lahj YE2511 Tur Al Bahah 2 1 YE22 Sa'ada YE2215 Sa'adah 2 0 YE22 Sa'ada YE2211 Sahar 2 0 YE23 Sana'a YE2315 Al Husn 2 0 YE23 Sana'a YE2301 Hamdan 2 0 YE23 Sana'a YE2310 Manakhah 2 1 YE23 Sana'a YE2305 Sanhan 2 0 YE15 Taizz YE1521 Al Ma'afer 5 1 YE15 Taizz YE1522 Al Mawasit 3 3 YE15 Taizz YE1511 Al Misrakh 3 0 YE15 Taizz YE1517 Al Mudhaffar 2 1 YE15 Taizz YE1518 Al Qahirah 2 1 YE15 Taizz YE1515 Al Wazi'iyah 2 2 YE15 Taizz YE1514 Ash Shamayatayn 7 7 YE15 Taizz YE1520 At Ta'iziyah 2 2 YE15 Taizz YE1512 Dimnat Khadir 3 0 YE15 Taizz YE1508 Jabal Habashy 3 1 YE15 Taizz YE1509 Mashra'a Wa Hadnan 1 0 YE15 Taizz YE1501 Mawiyah 2 1 YE15 Taizz YE1510 Sabir Al Mawadim 2 1 YE15 Taizz YE1519 Salh 2 2 YE15 Taizz YE1523 Sama 2 2


37

Annex 3: Financial Service Provider Questionnaire

CMWG Assessment of Financial Service Providers in Yemen (District Tool) August 2018

0.1 Enumerator ID 0.6 Date of Survey

0.2 Enumerator Organisation 0.7 District Name

0.3 First Name of Key Informant 0.8 Governorate

Name

0.4 Key Informant's Financial Service Provider

0.5 Key Informant's position within the organization

1 RQ1) What is the capacity and experience of financial institutions to facilitate cash-based interventions at the governorate level, and what delivery mechanisms does the organization currently offer?

Section 1.1: What is the capacity of the Financial Service Provider within this district?

1.1a) Do you know when the organization first established a

branch or agent in this district? ⃝ Yes ⃝

No

1.1b) If yes, in what year?

1.1b) Do you know how many branches your organization

currently operates in this district? ⃝ Yes ⃝ No

1.1b) If yes, how many?

1.1c) Do you know how many agents your organization

currently operates in this district? ⃝ Yes ⃝ No

1.1c) If yes, how many?

1.1d) Do you have any further comments about the number

of branches or agents in this district?

1.1e) Do you know what is the maximum amount of cash which your organization is able to process for a cash

transfer programme in this district, per week?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No

⃝ Do not know ⃝ Do not want to answer

1.1e) If yes, how much?

Section 1.2: What cash transfer delivery mechanisms does the Financial Service Provider have experience within this district?

1.2a)

What delivery methods of cash transfer does your organization currently offer in this district?

⃝ Physical Cash Payments (Fixed location)

⃝ Electronic Transfers

⃝ Mobile Money ⃝ Vouchers

⃝ Mobile Agent Payments (in person delivery)

⃝ Other (please specify):

Section 1.3 What is the Financial Service Provider’s experience of cash-based transfers in this district?


38

1.3a) Has your organization conducted any cash-based

transfer programmes within the last two years in this district?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No

If yes, in partnership with which organization (s)?

If yes, has your organization, as part of these programmes, ever used other cash transfer delivery mechanisms than the ones you currently offer? (list

above)

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, with which organizations and for how long?

If yes, what level of liquidity was handled during each

of these previous programmes in this district, in an average one week period?

1.3b) Have vulnerable households or individuals registered

for your services within the last two years in this district?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes or no, please specify if you have any additional

comments about this topic:

1.3c)

To your knowledge, are there any ongoing humanitarian cash transfer programmes which your organization is currently working on, in this district?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, what is this programme?

If yes, what organization (s) are you working with?

If yes, in which districts is the programme

implemented?

1.3d)

Does your organization provide any training to teach targeted beneficiaries on how to use your services?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, what kind of training is provided to teach targeted beneficiaries on how to use your services?

1.3e)

Do you currently have customer service practices in place, and are customers able to contact your

organization for support?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, what customer service practices do you have in place?

Do you have any further comments as regards to your customer service practices and/or capacities?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


2 RQ2) Are there any specific groups which are at risk of being excluded from accessing financial assistance, due to a lack of identification papers, bank accounts, or electronic communication mechanisms? Is there any variation at the district level?

Section 2.1 What are the ID requirements to collect funds, and can any flexibility be negotiated on this?

2.1a) ⃝ National ID Card

⃝ Family ID Card and Verification


39

What forms of identification do your organization usually ask for to release cash transfers or payments

to recipients?

⃝ Election ID ⃝ Passport

⃝ Social Welfare ID

⃝ Other

If other, please state

2.1b)

Is it possible to arrange flexibility for individuals without national identification or bank accounts to

access payments

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, how could this work? For example, by using beneficiary ID cards distributed by NGOs?

Section 2.2: What electronic infrastructure is in place in this district, can this support e-transfers or mobile money payments?

2.2a)

Could your organization currently facilitate an e-transfer system for those who cannot physically access

the service, within this district?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, is it currently operational? If no, why not?

2.2b)

Could your organization currently facilitate a mobile banking system for those who cannot physically access

the service, within this district?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, is it currently operational? If no, why not?

2.2c) In your experience, is the quality and availability of

mobile network coverage in this district sufficient to support electronic banking and mobile money?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


2.2d) In your experience, is the quality and availability of

internet connectivity in this district sufficient to support electronic banking?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


2.2e) In your experience, is the electricity supply in this district sufficient to support electronic banking?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


2.2f)

Do you have any further additional comments as regards to the electronic infrastructure in place in this district and its ability to support e-transfers or mobile

money payments?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, please specify

3 RQ3) What is the speed and cost of delivering a cash transfer programme in this district, to both the sender and the recipient?

Section 3.1 What is the speed of implementing financial services and transactions after a new project begins?

3.1a) Ho long would it take for your organization to respond

to a call for tenders at the district level?

3.1b) Is there any factor that influences the speed of responding to calls for tenders for cash transfer

programmes?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, what?

3.1c) ⃝ Yes ⃝ No


40

Are these factors normally determined at a national level?


3.1d)

Do you know how long it would take after the registration of a new cash transfer programme before

beginning cash distribution?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, how long?

3.1e)

Does this vary based upon the scale fo project?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, what factors would influence the speed of the turnaround?

Section 3.2: What is the cost of social cash transfer services, to both the sender and beneficiary?

3.2a)

Would your organization be happy to receive social cash transfers in Yemeni Riyal?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If no, why not?

3.2a1) In which other currencies would you be willing to

receive payments? For example, US Dollars?

3.2b) What would be the average cost of each transfer be to the sender (In Yemeni Riyal, all fees included)? If it is a

percentage charge, please state the percent cost.

3.2c) What would be the average cost of each transfer be to the beneficiary (In Yemeni Riyal, all fees included)? If it is a percentage charge, please state the percent cost.

3.2d) What exchange rate does your organization offer between Dollars and Riyal? Does it depend on the

quantity of money?

3.2e)

Do you have any further comments as regards to the cost of delivering a cash transfer programme in this

district

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, please specify:

4 RQ4) What is each institution’s resilience to changes in context, what risks are likely to occur, and what mitigation and monitoring protocols in place, at the district level?

Section 4.1) What is the organization’s resilience to a change in the scale of the programme?

4.1.a)

Would your organization be able to facilitate an increase in the size of a cash transfer programme at

short notice?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, how many days would be required to do this? Does it depend upon the size of the programme, or

the payment modality in use? What processes do you have in place to increase the scale of a programme:

4.1b) Do you have any further comments as regards to your organization's resilience to a change in the scale of the

programme?


41

Section 4.2: What risks are associated with cash transfer programmes in this district, and how are these risks mitigated against?

4.2a)

Which specific risks do your organization prepare for in delivering a cash transfer programme, and how do you mitigate these problems? (include risks for both

the financial organization and the beneficiaries)

4.2.a1) How does your organization mitigate these problems?

4.2.a2) Does the organization have any steps in place to

ensure beneficiaries can safely pick up funds from distribution centers?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, what is the system in place?

4.2.b)

Does the organization have any steps in place for information security?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


If yes, what is the system in place?

If yes, is this system able to recover data in the event of a system failure?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


4.2.c) What actions do you take if you notice fraudulent

activity or receive an error reported by the beneficiary or intended recipient?

4.2.d) What data protection policies does your organization have in place in this district? E.g. access restricted to certain people only, safe storage of the information.

4.2d1) What security measures does your company have in place for sharing personal information of customers

and beneficiaries?

4.2.f) How is the personal information of customers and

beneficiaries information shared?

4.2.g) Who has access to the personal information of

customers and beneficiaries?

4.2h)

Do you have any further comments as regards to risks that are associated with cash transfer programmes?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No


Section 4.3: How does the Financial Service Provider ensure successful delivery of payments to beneficiaries?

4.3a)

What kind of reports can your organization offer in terms of monitoring and ensuring that the cash

transfers were successfully delivered to the intended beneficiaries? (Successful delivery of funds refers to the intended amount of funds being delivered to the

intended beneficiary, on schedule)

5 RQ5) What contextual factors at the local level will influence the feasibility of each cash delivery modality?

Section 5.1) What local contextual factors will influence the delivery of cash-based transfers per district?


42

5.1a) In your experience, what factors would limit the feasibility of a cash transfer programme in these

districts?

⃝ Government regulation

⃝ Insecurity

⃝ Liquidity shortage

⃝ Lack of accessibility


How do the mentioned factors present a challenge?

5.1c) In your experience, what would be the most suitable

delivery modality for providing cash-based transfers to recipients in this district?

⃝ Physical Cash Payments (Fixed location)

⃝ Electronic Transfers

⃝ Mobile Money ⃝ Vouchers

⃝ Mobile Agent Payments (in person delivery)

5.1d)

Are you aware of any cash-based transfer projects that have worked well previously, or are working well

currently?




5.1e)

Are different payment modalities more effective in reaching different population groups? (for example,

do some groups have more access to mobile networks)

⃝ Yes ⃝ No



5.1f)

Do you have any further comments as regards to contextual factors at the local level that influence the

feasibility of each cash delivery modality?

⃝ Yes ⃝ No



Section 5.2) If not already addressed, what variations are there between communities in this district?

5.2.a)

Are there any further differences between the communities in this district which have not previously

been addressed? (for example in terms of access to financial services, location, and challenges faced)

⃝ Yes ⃝ No



Final Comments

Are there any further comments which you would like to make?

Thank you very much for participation


13

Annex 4: How to read a boxplot

The following chart outlines how to read a boxplot.

financial service providers assessment - reliefweb · financial service provider assessment –...

Documents