C The Cash Learning Partnership THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CASH REPORT the gender and age of the child, in line with the system used for Turkish beneficiary families. To cover the school supplies and other related expenses, the programme includes a 100 TL additional payment twice a year per child (at the beginning of each semester). The first country-wide payment for the ESSN began in December 2016, whilst the first payments on the CCTE were made in May 2017. Experiences to date yield valuable lessons to inform future operational models for CTP and the linking of humanitarian CTP to national systems. The policy and regulatory environment of donor and host governments must enable cash responses at scale, in coordination with national systems: In the context of the Turkey response, changes in the policy and regulatory environment of the government and donors were necessary precursors to establishment of the ESSN and CCTE. — A crucial aspect of the government’s involvement in the response has been in reforming the regulatory environment to increase refugees’ access to services and open opportunities for more durable solutions. In 2013, Turkey’s first asylum law, the Law on Foreigners and International Protection, was established to manage international protection and migration-related matters. It established a new agency, the Directorate General of Migration Management (DGMM) under the Ministry of Interior, responsible for the registration of Syrian refugees under Temporary Protection (TP), other nationalities under International Protection, and other nationals. Under Article 91 of the Law, a regulation was issued on TP for Syrian nationals, refugees and stateless persons from Syria seeking international protection in Turkey. Under this, those that register for TP are issued with a TP identification document which grants the right to stay in Turkey and to access public services including health, education and social assistance. — At the onset of the response, cash assistance to refugees by humanitarian actors was limited to the use of vouchers, due to the risk aversion of financial service providers (FSPs) to providing financial services to refugees and uncertainty among humanitarian agencies about the legality of their position with regard to 159 provision of financial assistance. This required further clarification and endorsement from the government, and some regulatory changes to overcome programming constraints. For example, as in many host countries, the opening of accounts by non-Turkish nationals usually requires registration in Turkey. The TP regulation introduced the formal identification card for refugees which is recognized by the banks. — In 2015, support for a durable solution in Turkey was in the interests of political leaders in Western Europe, given the increasing popular concern about the influx of migrants and refugees into Europe. Negotiations led to the adoption of the EU–Turkish Joint Action Plan (JAP) at the European Council, activated on 29 November 2015, part of a comprehensive cooperation agenda to increase support for Syrian refugees under TP and their host communities in Turkey and to prevent irregular migration flows to the EU. It opened the possibility of a source of more long-term, predictable financing for the crisis, and for provision of national budget support. Under the JAP, the Facility for the Refugees in Turkey (FRiT) was established, designed to ensure that the humanitarian and longer-term development needs of refugees and host communities are addressed in a comprehensive manner. The European Commission and Member States committed to provide €3 billion in 2016 and 2017; €1.4 billion is allocated for humanitarian needs and €1.6 billion for longer term structural assistance. It should be noted that, at the present time, ECHO funds must still pass to an intermediary, and neither the ESSN or CCTE funds are managed directly by the national government. Feasibility of linking to national systems must be carefully assessed: Donors and international organizations had to be convinced that linking to the Turkish national system was feasible. Factors considered included the political will for such collaboration, the regulations of governments and of donors, the strength, coverage and areas of focus of the national social protection system, programme design features, targeting criteria and processes, cash delivery processes, possible risks of linking and mitigation measures, and institutional capacity of the national social protection system. This took some time to complete. Clear enabling factors in Turkey were the presence of a strong and willing government, the presence of partners with knowledge of the Turkish social protection system, a well-established social protection system, and robust operating systems and processes. 159 C. Ward (2015) Overview: Cash and Voucher Assistance to Refugees in Turkey, Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe (DKH). 117