Cash and Markets In The WASH Sector

A GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER POSITION PAPER

December 2016

Prepared by the Global WASH Cluster Markets Technical Working Group: Oxfam, NCA, CRS, OFDA, German
Toilet Organisation, REACH, IRC, NRC and UNICEF
Reviewed by the Strategic Advisory Group of the Global WASH Cluster

TOP LINE CONCLUSIONS

1. The expansion of Market Based Programming (MBP) in general should be encouraged, in order
to improve understanding of market systems and to identify additional modalities that are well
suited to context and may offer increases in scale and efficiency. Information about relevant
market systems should be included as a routine part of context assessment and response
analysis in all WASH programmes.
2. Cash Transfer Programming (CTP) should be regarded as a programme modality that may be
effective in overcoming financial barriers to accessing WASH goods and services when
combined with complementary approaches in contexts with an enabling environment1.
3. In addition to the above, Multi-Purpose cash Grants (MPG) may be effective in meeting basic
WASH needs when part of a sufficiently resourced Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB)
developed with specialist technical WASH input as part of a strong multi-sectoral coordination
mechanism. MPGs should not be used in isolation but can play a role in the delivery of WASH
programmes alongside other modalities.

THE NEED FOR A POSITION PAPER

Market based programming is increasingly heralded as having a critical place in the future of
humanitarian programming. The proposed benefits of working through existing market systems
include improvements to speed, efficiency and effectiveness of programming and increased
beneficiary dignity and choice. Advocates for market based approaches claim that, where feasible,
they promote economic recovery, resilience, acceptance and sustainability2.

Implementing market based approaches is not new to the WASH sector; programmes have often
included for example: cash for work; vouchers for water trucking, hygiene kits and fuel; setting up

1 See, for example DG ECHO, Cash and Vouchers: Increasing efficiency and effectiveness across all sectors, Thematic Policy
Document (2013), available from ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/sectoral/them_policy_doc_cashandvouchers_en.pdf.
2 Oxfam & WFP, Executive brief engaging with markets in humanitarian responses, (2013).

Cash and Markets In The WASH Sector: A GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER POSITION PAPER - December 2016 [1]
water kiosks; capacity building of water traders; and supporting financial systems and processes as
part of regular programming. However, the global discussion around markets is increasingly focussed
on the promotion of cash as a cost-effective way of meeting multi-sector needs in humanitarian
settings. Whilst the Global WASH Cluster (GWC) supports the drive for a more appropriate and
human-centred humanitarian response, there is concern that without fully recognising the technical
complexity of the WASH sector, a push towards “cash-based programming as the preferred and
default method of support”3 risks focussing on the provision of WASH goods and services to the
detriment of more holistic rights based, and public health approaches.

This paper seeks to:

(i) locate CTP within the wider spectrum of market based approaches;
(ii) articulate the motivations and concerns around the use of MPG in the WASH sector;
(iii) make recommendations for addressing barriers and concerns;
(iv) initiate a pro-active role for the GWC in influencing and developing the global markets
agenda;

OPPORTUNITIES

• Improving quality: This paper advocates, above all, for WASH programmes that are more
effective at delivering WASH outcomes through a better understanding of context and an
expanded toolbox of possible response options. In order to be designed appropriately, WASH
programmes should always be based on an understanding of context that includes relevant
information on market systems.

• Market assessment: Basic market information should be collected as part of initial and ongoing
assessments using existing, or adapted, tools4. Support is available for implementing more
detailed and formal market analysis, however this level of detail is not always appropriate.
Awareness of local markets and an understanding of how these may be strengthened, or harmed,
by WASH programming is more important than expertise of any particular tool or approach.
• Complementary modalities: It is very unlikely that a single modality will be sufficient to deliver
effective WASH programmes that address the varying needs and vulnerabilities of the affected
population in any emergency setting. A combination of complementary activities including in-
kind assistance, technical support and capacity building, infrastructure development, advocacy
and community engagement will be required, in addition to market based approaches, to achieve
WASH outcomes. The appropriate balance and targeting of modalities should be based on an
understanding of context, with actions taken across the individual, household, communal and
institutional levels.

• Monitoring framework: The commitment to accountability for quality and adherence to agreed
minimum standards is independent of modality. Market based programmes should be measured

3 United Nations General Assembly (2016), One humanity: shared responsibility - Report of the Secretary-General for the
World Humanitarian Summit, A/70/709, available from undocs.org/A/70/709.
4 Austin, L. & Chessex, S., Minimum requirements for market analysis in emergencies, CaLP (2013), available from

cashlearning.org/resources/library/351-minimum-requirements-for-market-analysis-in-emergencies.
Cash and Markets In The WASH Sector: A GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER POSITION PAPER - December 2016 [2]
 against the same outcome-level indicators as any WASH programme. A monitoring framework
that is able to objectively measure the contribution of different modalities in progress towards
meeting programme objectives (including impact on local market functioning and cross cutting
issues) is a pre-requisite for programming that lives up to humanitarian commitments. Adequate
needs assessment, response analysis, monitoring and evaluation is needed regardless of whether
an in kind or market based programme is being implemented.

• Research agenda: Although there are concerns around the limited evidence base on the
effectiveness of MBP in humanitarian WASH responses, these should not necessarily prevent the
expansion of market based approaches. However, the gaps in evidence should be identified and
used to inform a collective research agenda, operational framework and capacity development
plan.
• Appropriate phasing: As with all programming, MBP should be phased to adapt to changing
context, from preparedness, emergency response through early recovery to development
programming. Whilst in-kind assistance may be most appropriate in the immediate response to
a rapid onset disaster, market assessment and analysis should be built into needs assessments
from the first phase in order to understand when MBP will be feasible. Extending in-kind
assistance longer than necessary risks harming market recovery.
• Linking emergency to development: A markets lens can be useful in linking preparedness,
response, early recovery, reconstruction and resilience stages of the disaster cycle, bringing
together humanitarian and development actors and contributing to risk reduction and resilience
strategies. Multi-functional response teams can incorporate long-term considerations into short-
term decision-making to bridge the humanitarian-development divide.

CHALLENGES AND RISKS

• Complexity: WASH programmes rely on many different market systems, often supporting
complex municipal level water supply and sanitation systems, and engage with a diverse range of
communities with different vulnerabilities in WASH.

• Infrastructure: WASH programmes work with systems and infrastructure at the communal and
institutional levels as well as at household and individual levels. WASH infrastructure is
technically complex, subject to regulation, expensive and dangerous if implemented badly –
quality control, technical expertise and due diligence are required to ensure they are effective
and adhere to ‘do no harm’ principles.

• Evidence: There is a lack of documented evidence supporting the use of MBP for addressing
WASH needs in emergencies. Whilst this should not prevent the continued use of these
approaches, strengthening the evidence base will support the development of quality standards,
guidance and good practice. Evidence is also needed on which to base strategy, policy and in
advocating for an enabling environment within the humanitarian space.

• Quality: Providing beneficiary choice does not negate the responsibility to ensure access to WASH
goods and services that meet minimum humanitarian standards. Willingness to pay for goods
and services that meet standards, as opposed to inadequate alternatives, should be monitored
as part of cash transfer programmes. Quality is a broad term that encompasses design and

Cash and Markets In The WASH Sector: A GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER POSITION PAPER - December 2016 [3]
 construction, health and safety, environmental and ethical considerations. An analysis of the
national WASH sector regulatory framework is also required to ensure the willingness and
capacity of authorities to enforce quality standards.

• Public health: Risks to public health, through significant communicable disease or severe
undernutrition, should be identified as part of context analysis. Where significant public health
risks exist, the health needs of the community should be prioritised over individual choice. In
some contexts, unconditional modalities may be ineffective in preventative public health
programming such as ensuring hand washing with soap or household water treatment and safe
storage. Where there is a risk that resources intended for improving public health will be used
instead to meet more immediate or individual needs, conditional, restricted or in kind transfers
should be used to achieve public health outcomes.
• Institutional capacity: Tools and approaches for implementing MBP have not yet been fully
adopted or adapted by the WASH sector. Capacity building, piloting and customisation of existing
tools are required to ensure that WASH programmes are routinely based on appropriate market
assessment and an analysis of available response options.

• Individual capacity: There is a lack of confidence, skill and experience amongst WASH
practitioners in relation to all aspects of market based programming. Although markets expertise
does exist outside of the WASH sector, the technical complexity of WASH programming makes it
imperative that programmes are designed by suitably qualified staff.

• Behaviour change: Where WASH programmes have identified risk factors related to knowledge,
attitude and practice, these need to be addressed specifically with appropriate complementary
activities. Community engagement activities that seek to understand socio-cultural issues, build
accountability and support healthy behaviour are a fundamental part of basic quality
programming and cannot be ignored in MBP.

• Monitoring & evaluation: A robust monitoring and evaluation framework is required to measure
both short and long term programme impacts on affected populations and critical market
systems. This requires skill sets and methodologies that are not currently mainstream in the
WASH sector. Input from economists, market specialists and the private sector will be required
to develop the required tools and approaches.

• Monetisation of public goods: MBP risks monetising public goods that are currently freely
accessible. Access to water and sanitation is recognised5 as a human right, which requires that it
should be enjoyed equitably by all. Inappropriate MBP in these contexts may lead to the
commoditisation of these public goods. This would especially marginalised or vulnerable groups
who may lose access under a monetised system.
• Private sector: When the private sector is directly engaged with the delivery of aid it is important
to ensure that the core humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality and independence are
upheld. Although there are benefits already demonstrated by working with the private sector,
there are also risks implicit in the expansion of these approaches. For example, the risk of conflict
of interest in using hygiene promotion to market specific brands of hygiene items. These risks
may be simple to overcome, by maintaining separation between behaviour and brand in hygiene

5 General Assembly resolution 64/292, The human right to water and sanitation, A/RES/64/292 (3 August 2010), available

from undocs.org/A/RES/64/292
Cash and Markets In The WASH Sector: A GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER POSITION PAPER - December 2016 [4]
 messaging for example, but identifying where these risks exist is not necessarily routine practice
for WASH practitioners.

PROSPECTS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: Strengthen programme decision making through the collection and

dissemination of sector evidence and learning
a) GWC members should promote, support and document experiences from existing projects and
evidence from operational research. Learning and good practice examples should be regularly
disseminated both within and across sectors to enable institutional capacity building.

b) GWC members should develop, and donors should invest in, projects that specifically contribute to
the development and dissemination of a MBP evidence base (independently as WASH, and/or with
other sectors), plus capturing lessons learnt through financing evaluations of the response. Evidence
should include reviews demonstrating both positive and negative impacts of in kind and market based
programming on WASH outcomes and local markets.

c) Donors should be willing to share the risk of testing new delivery mechanisms for WASH
programmes with implementing agencies and support the flexibility to adapt the balance of
complementary modalities as appropriate.

Recommendation 2: Promote systematic market assessment and analysis

a) GWC members should routinely carry out an initial market analysis as a minimum requirement in
the assessment of all humanitarian WASH programmes in all contexts.

b) GWC Markets Technical Working Group (TWG) should support this by reviewing, adapting and
disseminating the existing suite of market assessment tools and identifying capacity building
opportunities for WASH practitioners in carrying out assessments, in coordination with the GWC
Assessment TWG.

c) GWC National Coordinators and member agencies should include systematic market analysis as
part of preparedness planning in key priority countries experiencing protracted crisis or cyclical
shocks, as part of ongoing preparedness and contingency planning as well as informing longer-term
WASH development and vice versa.

d) Donors should require that the results of basic market assessment be routinely included as part of
the response analysis of WASH proposals, and shared with the rest of the sector

Recommendation 3: Addressing programme quality standards, monitoring and evaluation

a) GWC Markets TWG & member agencies should facilitate the development of a standardised WASH
and markets monitoring and evaluation framework, and promote the use of this framework to
monitor and evaluate all MBP.

b) GWC members should share good and poor practice examples of existing monitoring frameworks
used in both WASH and other sectors for collation by the GWC Markets TWG.

c) GWC members must routinely carry out and share with National WASH Coordinators the results of
Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) in all programming, whether using cash, vouchers or in-kind

Cash and Markets In The WASH Sector: A GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER POSITION PAPER - December 2016 [5]
transfers, in order to contribute to the understanding of beneficiary priorities, and direct/indirect
impacts on the market system in different contexts.

d) GWC CAST should work with other clusters to develop and disseminate joint guidance to ensure
that standards are harmonised across sectors e.g. with the health and nutrition clusters for disease
outbreaks, shelter cluster for urban programming and CCCM for camps.

e) GWC member agencies should collaborate actively across sectors to strengthen mutual
understanding of standards, priorities, capacity, and mandates and to identify opportunities and
challenges for multi-sector MBP (e.g. use of common delivery mechanisms, targeting and valuation of
MEBs for MPGs).

Recommendation 4: Capacity building

a) The GWC Markets TWG & members should support market specialists to develop trainings and
other capacity building opportunities that address gaps related to MBP across sectors (particularly
linking with the Shelter and Health clusters). These efforts should reflect current initiatives and trends
in the humanitarian sector, including CaLP6 and the Sphere 2018 revision project.

b) The GWC CAST should ensure that National WASH Cluster Coordinators and the Field Support
Team are equipped with the required knowledge and skills to effectively coordinate multi-sector MBP,
CTP and MPGs, including market assessment and response analysis, coordinating multi-purpose cash
transfers, monitoring and evaluation. To support this, GWC members should develop their own
markets capacity at institutional and individual levels.

c) Donors should support the capacity development and investment required for both WASH and
support staff through the allocation of funds for people, time and resources to both develop and
participate in appropriate capacity building initiatives (e.g. e-learning, case studies, tools, webinars,
training workshops). The donor community should also participant in markets capacity building.

Recommendation 5: Working with others

a) The GWC CAST, supported by GWC members, should take a pro-active role in influencing the
emerging ‘markets and cash agenda’, to ensure that policy takes account of the risks and challenges
noted above, particularly the need for multiple, complementary approaches alongside MBP in order
to meet programme outcomes.

b) GCW CAST should pro-actively engage with markets and cash actors (e.g. cash working groups,
donors, other cluster lead agencies, CaLP) at a global level to strengthen cross-sectoral coordination,
learning and strategy development.

c) The GWC CAST should ensure that National WASH Cluster Coordinators, and the Field Support
Team, have the required understanding of MBP to effectively coordinate with cash working groups
and other multi-sector coordination mechanisms at a country level. Training developed should also
be offered to staff of partner agencies.

c) The GWC Markets TWG should explore ways of engaging with key private sector actors at a global
level to develop guidance on ways of working with non-traditional partners.

6
The Cash Learning Partnership, cashlearning.org
Cash and Markets In The WASH Sector: A GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER POSITION PAPER - December 2016 [6]
Recommendation 6: Addressing ethical issues
All humanitarian actors should work to identify and share ethical concerns around the use of MBP.
Where necessary the GWC CAST should provide strategic and operational guidance on MBP that helps
agencies navigate ethical issues. Collaboration with other sectors will strengthen mutual
understanding and support us to break down boundaries and address common challenges to
successfully implementing MBP, CTP and MPG.

Cash and Markets In The WASH Sector: A GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER POSITION PAPER - December 2016 [7]
ANNEX 1: KEY DEFINITIONS

WASH Programme Approaches

Market Based Technical Community
Direct In Kind
Programming Support Engagement

Sub-contracted
Commodity Direct service Demand Side Supply Side Technical Behaviour change Hygiene Community
Works and Capacity building
Distribution provision Strengthening Strengthening supervision communication promotion mobilisation
services

Market Based Programming (MBP)

Strengthening
Demand Market supply
Cash Transfer Programming (CTP) Regulatory
Generation strengthening
Framework

Strengthening
Social Improving Capacity Market Support to Supply chain
Conditional CTP Unconditional CTP Advocacy
marketing market access Building Infrastructure Traders strengthening
and Services

Tranched
Cash For Work Sector Specific Multi-Sector Multi-Purpose
Construction
(CFW. Grants Grants Grants (MPG)
Grants

WASH programme approaches include a diverse set of modalities that need to be implemented in
combination in order to meet intended outcomes. Cash transfer programming, and multi-purpose
grants, have an important but limited role to play in overall programmes.

• Market: A formal or informal structure for the exchange of goods, labour or services (often,
though not always, a physical ‘marketplace’)

• Market system: A network of market actors supported by infrastructure and services,

interacting within a context of institutions or rules that shape the actors’ trading environment

• Market based programming (MBP): A range of programme modalities that are based on
understanding and supporting market systems local to the affected population

• Cash transfer programming (CTP): One specific example of market based programming
(encompassing cash grants, vouchers and cash-for-work, cash for training etc.)

• Multipurpose Cash Grant (MPG): One specific example of CTP where a regular or one off
unrestricted cash transfer is made corresponding to the amount of money a household needs to
cover a set of basic needs across sectors. The value of a MPG is determined through the cost of
a minimum expenditure basket (MEB) and other one-off or recovery needs.

Cash and Markets In The WASH Sector: A GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER POSITION PAPER - December 2016 [8]
• Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB): Defined as what a household needs – on a regular or
seasonal basis – and its average cost over time. The MEB is a critical component in the design of
MPG, which are designed to contribute to meeting the MEB, in addition to potentially covering
other one-off/recovery needs.

• Value voucher: A paper or plastic card that can be exchanged for cash or commodities up to a
defined value at specified suppliers. The traders are paid by the contracting agency upon
production of these vouchers or evidence of exchange between the trader and beneficiaries

• Commodity voucher: A paper or plastic card that specifies the commodities (and sometimes
their amounts/numbers) that can be exchanged against the voucher from specified local
shops/traders.

• Cash grant: A sum of cash given to beneficiaries at a regular interval over a period of time or
paid in lump sum. Cash grant can be conditional i.e. beneficiaries are required to fulfil conditions
on either accessing the grant i.e. work or utilising the grant i.e. use to buy buckets or food. Cash
grants can be unconditional also, especially if the grant is given to ensure beneficiaries are able
to meet a range of needs.

• Cash for Work: Refers to a form of conditional cash grant that requires beneficiaries to fulfil the
condition to `work’. Cash for work is different from employment because the primary purpose of
cash for work is to transfer income/resource to people and `work’ is a secondary purpose or a
means to achieve the primary purpose.

• Cash Working Group: A multi-sectoral, inter-agency, forum that aims to coordinate cash
transfer programmes at a national level. CWGs often aim to harmonise vulnerability criteria,
transfer values, modalities and schedules, assessment and monitoring activities.

Cash and Markets In The WASH Sector: A GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER POSITION PAPER - December 2016 [9]
ANNEX 2: UNCONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMS & MULTI-PURPOSE CASH GRANTS

There are voices calling for Cash Transfer Programming (CTP) to become the default modality for
humanitarian assistance7 8. The humanitarian community increasingly promotes CTP, and
particularly MPGs as a way to meet ‘basic needs’ across sectors in a cost effective way, especially in
contexts with high caseloads challenged by limited humanitarian space. Furthermore, there is
growing recognition of the harm that in-kind programming can do to markets and to economic
recovery more generally. Moreover, CTP has become an increasingly viable modality as
humanitarian operations focus more urban contexts and middle-income countries, and as financial
services become ubiquitous in many areas most in need of external humanitarian assistance.

There are many valid concerns regarding the SPECIFICITIES OF WASH PROGRAMMING
suitability of CTP in meeting WASH-specific WASH programmes rely on many different
outcomes. These concerns are overwhelmingly market systems, often supporting complex
specific to the unconditional use of multi-purpose municipal level water supply and sanitation
cash grants and are not a reason to hinder progress systems (for example), and engage with a
towards improving WASH programmes through the diverse range of communities with
wider gamut of market-based programming. different vulnerabilities in WASH.
Although MPGs are heavily promoted in general, WASH programmes also work with systems
there is very little evidence to show they are and infrastructure at the communal and
effective at delivering WASH outcomes in institutional levels as well as at household
humanitarian contexts. Because of the specificities and individual levels. WASH infrastructure
of WASH programming (see box, right) it is not is technically complex, subject to
sufficient to assume that what has been shown to regulation, expensive and dangerous if
work in other sectors will be effective for WASH. implemented badly, thus quality control,
Despite this, with high level support for expanding technical expertise and due diligence are
the role of cash transfers, MPGs are likely to required to ensure they are effective and
represent an increasingly important modality in the adhere to ‘do no harm’ principles.
resourcing of future humanitarian response.

The decision to utilise CTP as part of WASH programmes must be based on an analysis of local
markets (e.g. supply capacity and elasticity, access, quality of goods/services available), the enabling
environment, (e.g. access to markets and financial services, infrastructure, policy, regulatory
frameworks, currency stability), the humanitarian context (e.g. public health risks, WASH needs and
vulnerabilities, knowledge, attitude and practice), and household factors (e.g. financial literacy,
willingness to pay, household power dynamics, levels of debt, spending priorities).

CTP is suitable for interventions based on resource transfer, the ongoing focus on cash risks relying
too heavily on providing commodities at the expense of increasing access, quality and quality
through technical support, community engagement and infrastructure interventions. Furthermore,
CTP focusses exclusively on overcoming financial barriers faced by beneficiaries, without addressing
other barriers to access, or indeed to supporting supply.

With a multi-purpose (basic needs) approach, the objectives of one sector cannot be reliably met
unless all components of the Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB) are appropriately designed and
sufficiently resourced (e.g. if the MPG value is not sufficient to meet all basic needs, the WASH
component of the transfer may be spent on other needs, leaving WASH needs unmet). In-country

7
High level panel on humanitarian cash transfers, Doing cash differently: how cash transfers can transform humanitarian
aid, ODI (2015), available from odi.org/publications/9876-cash-transfers-humanitarian-vouchers-aid-emergencies.
8
United Nations General Assembly (2016), One humanity: shared responsibility - Report of the Secretary-General for the
World Humanitarian Summit, A/70/709, available from undocs.org/A/70/709.
Cash and Markets In The WASH Sector: A GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER POSITION PAPER - December 2016 [10]
coordination of multi-purpose cash grants often suffers from a lack of specialist WASH input. Where
there is a gap between the MEB and the value of the MPG, supporting approaches will be especially
critical to ensure that basic WASH needs are met equitably for all affected people.

In an environment increasingly pressured by limited funding, difficult decisions need to be made

between targeting coverage, assistance levels and the balance between multi-sector and sector-
specific interventions. This requires strong multi-sector coordination and a holistic approach to
understanding need. Post-distribution monitoring and analysis must go further than recording how
grants are spent, to show the impact on access and quality.

Effective multi-sector approaches rely on strong coordination and sound understanding of MPB
modalities that is able to objectively prioritise needs across sectors and develop targeting criteria
that identifies the full range of vulnerabilities in the affected population. This is especially pertinent
when unrestricted modalities such as cash are implemented in a multi-sector approach. Presently,
there is a need to improve coordination between WASH and multi-sector cash programming at both
national and global levels. Increasing the currently limited GWC engagement in cross-sectoral cash
fora will require the GWC and member agencies to develop a fluency with cash concepts and
terminology.

MPGs have been proposed as “a foundation upon which sector-specific interventions can be built,
enabling crisis-affected populations to use in-kind assistance and access services as they were
intended”9. The following tables show, for each subsector within WASH programmes, opportunities
for using MPGs and examples of the complementary activities that would be required in support of
MPGs in order to ensure a holistic and effective programme. In addition to the specific
complementary activities shown below, all WASH programmes should include: market assessment
and analysis; willingness to pay analysis; post-distribution monitoring and targeted in kind support to
reach vulnerable or marginalised beneficiaries who are unable to access markets, or who are not
empowered to influence spending decisions within a household.

Hygiene promotion
Possible MPG Complementary activities (examples)
Inclusion of key • Hygiene promotion messaging, behaviour change,
hygiene items into • Analysis of socio-cultural factors, knowledge, attitude and practice
MEB • Support to market traders to increase supply capacity and quality
• Analysis of health seeking behaviour
• Additional assessment and support for menstrual hygiene
• Monitoring of hygiene behaviour
• Monitoring of public health risks

Water supply
Possible MPG Complementary activities (examples)
Inclusion of water • Water availability mapping
costs (water • Community consultation
trucking, kiosks, • Technical and in-kind support to water suppliers to improve capacity and
municipal water water quality
fees etc.) into • Assessment of safe water chain
MEB • Technical and in-kind support for infrastructure repair
• Distribution of communal water storage

9
UNHCR, CaLP, DRC, OCHA, Oxfam, Save the Children, WFP, Operational Guidance and Toolkit for Multipurpose Cash
Grants (2015), available from cashlearning.org/downloads/operational-guidance-and-toolkit-for-multipurpose-cash-grants-
--web.pdf.
Cash and Markets In The WASH Sector: A GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER POSITION PAPER - December 2016 [11]
 • Water conservation messaging
• Support to the operation and maintenance of infrastructure
• Technical support on water governance, regulation and revenue
collection
• Water quality testing
• Community based water resource management
• Water source development
• Groundwater monitoring and protection
• Water use audits and monitoring

Excreta disposal
Possible MPG Complementary activities (examples)
Inclusion of • Household latrine construction (in-kind or using conditional CTP)
sanitation • Communal / emergency latrine construction
maintenance costs • Technical support for faecal sludge management
(desludging, • Technical and in-kind support for infrastructure repair, operation and
container based maintenance
sanitation service • Technical support for desludging operators on latrine assessments,
subscription etc.) health and safety
into MEB • Technical assessment of sanitation options for specific contexts
• Monitoring of latrine use, open defecation

Vector control
Possible MPG Complementary activities (examples)
Inclusion of LLITNs • Technical support for environmental sanitation campaigns
into MEB • Cash-for-work programmes targeting drainage
• Monitoring of vector risks

Solid waste management (SWM)

Possible MPG Complementary activities (examples)
Inclusion of • Support to increase coverage and quality of SWM services
municipal SWM • Cash-for work for clean-up campaigns
fees into MEB • Technical support for re-use and recycling programmes
• In-kind distribution of communal waste collection points
• Technical / in kind support for waste transfer and disposal sites
• Solid waste audit and monitoring

Cash and Markets In The WASH Sector: A GLOBAL WASH CLUSTER POSITION PAPER - December 2016 [12]