C The Cash Learning Partnership THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT – ANNEX: CASE STUDIES 5 NIGERIA – PILOTING TOOLS AND APPROACHES FOR MULTI-SECTORAL CASH RESPONSES In 2016, a consortium of international humanitarian agencies led by Save the Children, funded by the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations’ (ECHO) Emergency Response Capacity (ERC) budget line, began developing and testing tools and systematic approaches for interagency needs assessments, response analysis and monitoring of multi-purpose grants (MPG) for basic needs. The project aims to operationalize the MPG Operational Guidance & Toolkit produced under another ERC project in 2015 and identify good practice processes for taking MPGs to scale in a collaborative, effective and efficient manner. It intends to support the effective integration of MPGs into humanitarian response plans, in combination with and complementing other modalities and interventions. This is through two pilots in Nigeria (2017) and Ethiopia (2018). Experiences of the process to date in Nigeria have yielded valuable lessons. Multi-sectoral assessment and analysis tools have the potential to better inform the effective use of MPGs: The Basic Needs Assessment (BNA) methodology aims to generate a better understanding of changes that have occurred since the beginning of a crisis, the priority needs, capacities and preferences of affected people and constraints faced by people in securing what they need from local service providers and markets, and in the wider operating environment. Together with analysis of the operational environment (markets, service providers, financial service providers, etc.), the analysis of basic needs is fed into a response options analysis and planning (ROAP) process that involves all relevant clusters/sectors in a humanitarian response. The ROAP output identifies the most appropriate assistance modalities during response analysis, including identifying if and to what extent MPG can address needs and what additional complementary support (cash or otherwise) is required. Ultimately, the process aims to deliver an integrated, inter-sector response package, where MPG is one of the possible solutions, combined as required with other interventions to tackle all underlying factors of unmet needs. The BNA methodology facilitates assessment of household needs across sectors. Importantly, it recognizes that not all basic needs will be perceived by beneficiaries as equally critical, or contribute in the same way to living standards, and that this may vary by context, population group and geography. The tool seeks to understand the criticality of basic items from the point of view of the population, based on their contribution to three main dimensions: health/survival, dignity and personal development of family members, or a combination of those. In addition, the BNA recognizes that needs remain unmet for multiple reasons; that identification of these ‘underlying factors’ will inform the most appropriate type(s) of response; and that, when different but concurrent causes come into play, a combination of modalities may be required. When limited purchasing power is the reason that needs remain unmet, the ranking of a household’s expenditure priorities will give an idea of the needs that are likely to be most consistently met through an MPG. This places greatest flexibility in the hands of beneficiaries (assuming access to markets and services) whilst also making the case for additional modalities and complementary programming where this is needed to fill gaps. The pilot highlighted the importance attributed by the study population to food, health commodities, potable water, housing and shelter. The basic needs for which beneficiaries prioritized a cash response were food, health commodities (medicines, etc.) and housing and shelter commodities, and accounted for more than 50% of the Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB) for all groups in all areas. In-kind support (water distribution) or service provision (new water points) were more commonly requested to access potable water. The pilot highlighted the importance of allowing respondents to identify the items that they consider essential for their survival and minimum living standards, as well as the reasons why – in the current emergency context – they are unable to secure them for their families. For example, respondents highlighted agricultural inputs, which were not included in the initial list of ten essential items compiled from a meta-review of existing MEBs and living standards. 13