UNICEF’s role in cash transfers to emergency affected households

Contents

2

- History of UNICEF’s engagement in cash transfers to emergency affected households

- Challenges in shifting from small-scale / pilot approach to a full fledged component of our “toolkit

- Rationale for UNICEF engagement in cash transfers to emergency affected households

- Opportunities

A FEW DEFINITIONS (1)

3

Cash transfer programme

Emergencies vs Humanitarian Action

Core Commitments to Children (CCCs)

Emergency cash transfers vs. social protection cash transfers

A FEW DEFINITIONS (2)

4

Concept DefinitionCash grants 

Giving people money as a direct grant with no conditions orwork requirements. 

Conditional cashtransfers 

Giving people money, but with a condition that they dosomething (such as attend school, plant seeds or demobilise). 

Indirect cash transfers Grants or waivers to reduce the cost of basic services. Forexample, waivers for health care user fees, etc 

Cash for work Paying people in cash for taking part in a public worksprogramme, e.g. school construction or digging of latrines.Can be targeted at the most vulnerable. 

Voucher programmes Voucher programmes Giving people vouchers for a particular type of good (e.g. seeds) or bundle of goods. 

Main types of cash interventions in emergenciesadapted from: Harvey, P.

Scope of UNICEF humanitarian action

UNICEF supports countries to respond to over 250 humanitarian situations per year on average

52004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

100

150

200

250

300

350

175

317

282

230211

232

290

292

UNICEF humanitarian situation responses, 2004-2011*

Hum

anita

rian

resp

onse

s

* Data collection methodology based on country office phone interviews for 2004-2005, country office ques -tionnaire for 2006-2009, and country office annual report annex A questionnaire for 2010-2011.

6

Results in 2011

• 1.8 million severely malnourished children aged 6–59 months through therapeutic feeding programmes

• 52.3 million children aged 6 months to 15 years vaccinated for measles

• Over 18.5 million people with access to safe water to agreed standards

• Over 2 million children with safe access to community spaces for socializing, play, learning, etc.

• 8.76 million school-age children, including adolescents receiving formal and non-formal basic education

• 835,000 pregnant women with access to prevention, care and treatment including PMTCT

Supporting national and local systems to reach children in

emergencies:

History of UNICEF’s engagement

7

Challenges to scaling-up (1)

8

Managers raised concerns about risks around:

- Cost effectiveness- Security Risks- Corruption and Diversion Risks- Anti-Social Use- Gender- Market Impacts- Consumption / Nutrition- Targeting

9

Challenges to scaling up (2)

Cash vs. traditional supply-based responses:

- Comfort zone- Visibility- Established Systems

What is UNICEF’s comparative advantage?

Preparedness?

Response vs. Systems

10

The clear case for emergency cash transfer programmes

11

A Rationale for UNICEF Engagement

• Cash transfers have a direct and indirect impact on children• A tool to deliver on the CCCs : effective relief• An alternative in highly insecure and/or hard to reach areas• Beyond relief, transformative through increased demand in services• Cash transfers are consistent with HRBA (from charity to dignity) /

Equity promoting• Potential for increased accountability to affected populations• Limit negative coping strategies• Cash transfers are responsive to household needs (note that this

means they are less useful when affected populations are NOT convinced)

• Cash transfers can support / promote more integrated programme / emergency response

• Help build the link between humanitarian and development, a tool to promote / support post crisis recovery, resilience building

A few caveats

• What cash transfers to households cannot substitute for

• Cash / vouchers as a means, not an end

• Not all things to all people

• Importance of risk assessments

• Role of UNICEF can vary

12