Don't be confused. When the world talks about cash assistance, they mean real cash for real people, not cash dispensed to governments by UN agencies through the infamous Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers (HACT).
I watched the progress of the tsunami relief effort with disbelief and growing annoyance. The needs were enormous, and so were the donations. More than one year after the event, UNICEF 🔗happily reported that two thirds of the tsunami contributions (including mine, I assume) to Indonesia and Sri Lanka had not left the UNICEF accounts - a that time staggering 220 million USD. UN specialists were busy coordinating and debating who would rebuild a health centre or a school or to whom to award a contract under which conditions, and discussing how to build back better, all while drawing good UN salaries. 🔗BBB became the mantra, was elevated in Sendai to a 🔗framework, and lasted into Covid-19 days and every climate conference ever since. To this day, I cannot fathom how a throng of mid-level UN workers will know, better than the victims of disasters themselves, how to “increase the resilience of nations and communities … [and revitalize] … livelihoods, economies and the environment”. Donors - like me - did not and do not expect UNICEF to sit on humanitarian donations for years.
Cash for people has become a staple of UNICEF policy advice for government-run social protection programmes. UN and other organizations are providing life-saving cash assistance to people in war-ravaged Gaza. UNICEF Switzerland undertakes an admirable effort to explain the 🔗importance of cash assistance provided by agencies. As I write and you read, ever more studies are done to prove that cash helps. 🔗Afghanistan, 🔗the EU, the 🔗IFRC and 🔗everybody are on the same page.
Flashback
I watched the progress of the tsunami relief effort with disbelief and growing annoyance. The needs were enormous, and so were the donations. More than one year after the event, UNICEF 🔗happily reported that two thirds of the tsunami contributions (including mine, I assume) to Indonesia and Sri Lanka had not left the UNICEF accounts - a that time staggering 220 million USD. UN specialists were busy coordinating and debating who would rebuild a health centre or a school or to whom to award a contract under which conditions, and discussing how to build back better, all while drawing good UN salaries. 🔗BBB became the mantra, was elevated in Sendai to a 🔗framework, and lasted into Covid-19 days and every climate conference ever since. To this day, I cannot fathom how a throng of mid-level UN workers will know, better than the victims of disasters themselves, how to “increase the resilience of nations and communities … [and revitalize] … livelihoods, economies and the environment”. Donors - like me - did not and do not expect UNICEF to sit on humanitarian donations for years.
I digress. Back to 2005:
I thought about the people in Indonesia and Sri Lanka, who had lived on or near the beach, who lost everything, including money and papers. They just needed a little money to hop on a bus that would take them from Banda Aceh to their relatives living on higher grounds. The beach vendors, who needed some pieces of timber to repair their stalls. The shop-owners who needed to replenish lost wares. The innumerable people who were living-in with their equally poor in-laws, unable to contribute even a little to the grocery bill. It really pissed me off.
Open-handed people throw coins into the hat of the homeless. This is cash assistance. Transfers by the diaspora to their relatives at home are cash assistance. I trust that both the diaspora and the recipients know what they are doing. 🔗Remittances amounted to 630 billion USD in 2022, more than three times the amount of 🔗Official Development Aid and 20 times as much as 🔗global humanitarian relief, of which 20 years after the Tsunami a small share has also become cash assistance.
I don’t want to hazard a guess how much of the UN emergency cash assistance reached real people, how much it cost to administer it and how much got stuck with partner aid agencies. It is a well kept secret. I am am almost certain that Western Union & Co. can do so much faster and at considerably lower fees than the UN.
Even Somaliland introduced mobile banking - called 🔗Zaad – in 2009, fifteen years ago. Somaliland might still be poor, but may well become the 🔗first cashless society. Nowadays even beggars hold up signs that show their telephone account for a few mobile cent.
How long will it take the UN to finish studying what people in need most need, and how to get it to them without further ado?
*****
More Insights from Outside the Bubble, by Detlef Palm
Detlef can be contacted via detlefpalm55@gmail.com
Well said. Remember the flood around and you insisted to send 100k to flood affected people. You explained it just like that.
ReplyDeleteSorry meant the flood in Shkodra, Albania - no one needed a jerry can or school kits or a safe area for kids - they needed some pocket money to take a bus to a relative on high ground - and/or the other things: fix their shop, buy some seeds to replant crops - all things you can do with cash. HACT to government or a CSO almost never ends up benefitting a family. The issue will always be - with all of our self imposed and donor imposed and IPSAS compliance - could we just dump a few million in to Western Union - and get back a report on disbursements we could actually understand and live with? We seem to be in love with the ever magical FACE form - like this terribly designed form has some legitimacy as well as the flimsy (but tedious) documents to back it up in case we do a spot check some day
DeleteEven funds sent to CSOs- i have reviewed 100s if not 1000s of PCA budgets - almost everytime their direct and indirect support cost and management cost and travel and office supplies and cars and office rental is well OVER half of the budget. And then there is the CSO contribution no on can ever measure and now the "capacity building fee" so we can give a chunk to national NGOs right off the top just like we do for INGOs - imagine a donor thinking this is a good model?
DeleteIt does make the world go round. Remember the 2013 tsunami emergency in the Phils, when the whole city of Tacloban was devastated with only a few structures still standing. One of the structures still up was bank with an ATM that was not functional as there was no power. A resourceful bank clerk, thought of connecting the bank wireless comms and the ATM machine to a small generator meant for their emergency lighting as their families lived in their offices, enabling the bank to function and city dwellers to draw their cash. In only 48 hours, the small market stalls were functioning, jeepneys and tricycles (tuktuks) were back and street food vendors were at full activity - faster than many CfW projects debated by the UN agencies which were still being discussed at the inter-agency level.
ReplyDeleteDear Detlef,
ReplyDeleteBased on my own experience, particularly as one time Governor of Khuzestan, I could not agree more with you. People based approaches, especially cash for real people, for dealing with disasters must be inculcated in minds and policies of UN technocrats and put into actual practice.
Perhaps you could lead on developing a workable and doable approach that can be put in place by those with considerable working experience and affinity with disaster prone communities. Maybe you can make this a subject of one of the special issues of views and news. Best, Baquer
How like so many Who-dunnit TV programmes where the mantra ‘Follow the money’ is often used. So, too, with this piece by Detlef. He seems to have put his finger firmly on what ‘works’ for communities at risk, and what doesn’t, and how frequently UNICEF seems to want to control the money (so that staff can ensure their continued personal (?) income stream) ?
ReplyDeletePerhaps UNICEF would do well to rid itself of things that simply don’t work for kids/families. Quetta in 1984/85 saw the Management entertaining the local administration lavishly (presumably using UNICEF funds), and providing cars, trucks, drilling rigs and infrastructure but a cursory analysis which any auditor could have shown was that this had virtually zero effect at village level. Why was it allowed to continue ? Turning it around to return to near ‘normal’ took close on 4 years and was according to the audit done in 1989, successful, so we understand. It seems that it didn’t last for too long. The Management that took over in 1989 started entertaining the local administration again. . . . . .
Should the Executive Board not take a more active role – perhaps in raising the influence of Internal Audit so that ineffective/corrupt systems don’t have to wait till a Nairobi occurs again before someone (13th Floor) has to intervene and change management and programme direction ? Or do we have to sit Outside the Bubble knowing what works but having no chance to help the kids who need it ?
Love the direction of the posts..Question are UN structures, strategies, processes mid century ones with a dash of digitization thrown in now fit for purpose? We need a UN even more than ever but in what incarnation? Influential states want safe leadership.Not always effective leadership and it's states not peoples who dominate .
ReplyDeleteAs long as the UN system does not haven't a reliable funding base, states will use control of purse strings to stifle initiatives they do not like.
Can you imagine the impact all the aid money spent over the past 60-70 years, amounting to trillions of dollars in today's money, would have had if it had gone straight into the pockets of the poorest 10 per cent of the world's population? Instead, we spent most of it on ourselves, and the poorest fell further behind. Perhaps a little reflection and soul-searching would be in place in the coming new year before we leave for the next reunion.
ReplyDelete