Continue to engage with RCOs

• The existing concept note on deploying to RCOs in AP laid out an approach to CC engaging with RCOs in the AP region.
• The stocktaking did not find anything to indicate that CC allocating energy e.g. scoping, deploying experts etc, towards supporting RCOs, or working through them was futile, had reputation risk or other such negative considerations.
• It is important to separate out the rationale for engaging with RCOs:
  1. Finding a home for the cash coordination structure
     • When CCers are deployed to a non-IASC/refugee context to setup/reinvigorate a dormant cash coordination structure they are naturally seeking the most appropriate host/co-lead for the CWG and the new cash coordination model is only partially helpful (particularly when none or minimal OCHA presence). The precedent of Sri Lanka and Tajikistan shows that hooking the CWG to the RCO is a valid approach (RCO is inter-agency, has ties to national Gov, is sustainable and can be a fertile ground to enable cash coordination functions etc).
     • CC is the pioneer in making this happen and should continue to scope opportunities, particularly in the AP region to support CWGs to be setup with such structures (perhaps through Vlad’s role as Regional CWG Co-lead).
       • Note: this scoping may be framed around capitalising on contextual opportunities. As the initial request may be rooted in a specific need e.g. Sri Lanka economic crisis, Tajik preparing for Afg arrivals etc. Then the placements evolve e.g. beyond transition of the ‘crisis’ phase.
     • Engaging with RCOs as part of finding a home for the cash coordination structure is not much different to the ‘traditional’ CC work. It is a demand driven deployment focused on CVA coordination and technical support.
     • However, experience shows there are a few considerations to successfully make this happen, CC needs to:
       • Ensure the administrative hosting agency (most likely a UN agency who is CWG co-lead) is clear up front that the CCer may spend much or all of their time ‘sitting’ in another entity e.g. RCO.
       • Identify a deployee who is conversant in the language of cash coordination structures and can coherently articulate to stakeholders, including the RCO, the value of having an inter-agency host etc.
       • Support a writeup of the Sri Lanka & Tajikistan experiences with RCO+CWG (perhaps as part of Vlad’s Regional Cash Coordination role) to document the precedent and therefore make it easier for other contexts to follow.
     1. Supporting the RCO to be strategic cash champions

     • RCO - and the RC/HC the individual - can also be a strategic partner and/or targeted objective of CC.

       “RCOs are gate keepers - they have the power to open a gate and close a gate”.

     • Experience from the Philippines, and somewhat Sri Lanka, demonstrates the potential for the CC expert to use the RCO space to influence the strategic direction of the response, by:

       • Ensuring the RC/HC, RCO Chief of Staff and other senior decision makers are well informed on cash and therefore able to keep cash ‘top of the agenda’.
       • Identify cash linkages with other strategic initiatives such as localisation and AA, by being ‘in the room’ where these cross-cutting thematic spaces are being driven from.
       • Using the RCO relationships with Gov to open up doors to direct Gov support and/or inject cash into strategic policy or frameworks.
       • Because the RCO is not purely humanitarian, more effectively bridging the divide between the humanitarian and development spaces, including but not limited to linkages with social protection.
       • Use the ‘seniority’ of the RCO space to influence operational cash actors at their senior levels e.g. engage with the CD, Deputy CD (not just technical staff), UN in particular, to coordinate, support local actors etc.

       Example focus of a strategic partnership between CC X RCO

     • As a neutral inter-agency resource the CC & RCO partnership shows considerable promise. As it seems RCOs have limited resourcing, there is the GenCap & ProCap models to draw from, RCOs are willing partners and RCOs do not have an internal mechanism for cash capacity.

     • However, while the environment of the RCO is enabling, the value of the CC support (when not hooked to finding a home for the cash coordination structure*) is at risk of being ‘busy but not impactful’. An example of this being Mikolaj being requested by the RC/HC to produce many analytical pieces, but few of which moved off his desk into practice.

       • It will be important for CC to clarify the ambition level for these types of support roles - is ‘being able to operate within the strategic space and/or an extra pair of hands to help others to do XYZ’ the aim, or is it to ‘use the strategic space to drive collaborations that create tangible change in the policy environment as related to cash & xx’ the aim.
       • *Finding a home for the CWG can be the first phase of the engagement between CC & an RCO. The partnership can then evolve into a more strategic focus beyond cash coordination. As was the cash in the Philippines. There is also the potential for the relationship to start immediately with a strategic focus and light touch to cash coordination.

     • To enable success of this strategic arrangement with the RCO, CC should consider focus on how to create the ideal setup so a deployee has enough runway to figure out what is going on and move around the fluidity, with:

       • A senior CCer supporting a dedicated scoping exercise. Focused on identifying the specific scope and deliverables of the strategic partnership.
         • This scoping can be done prior to the deployment, at the transition between roster members and/or at the 100 day mark of a deployment.
       • Identifying a roster member with the capacity - skills, knowledge and experience - to effectively operate in the strategic realm of the RCO. Someone who understands and can influence the incentives of senior decision makers and the wider aid policy environment.
       • Ensuring ‘backend’ CC institutional support for the CCer, either through the Regional CCer and/or CRT with capacity to support the ‘political navigation’ the CCer needs to do (not just the cash or coordination technical activities).