How can social protection reduce shocks and stresses in productive environments as well as for households? What are the connections between social protection and agriculture in terms of concepts, approaches and contexts? This paper argues that in relation to agricultural production, a well-managed social protection programme will seek to reduce both actual shocks and stresses, and agriculturists’ and labourers’ perceptions of likely shocks and stresses. It can thus minimise the loss of productive assets and encourage farmers’ engagement in new, potentially more productive, enterprises.
Concepts of social protection (SP) are broadening. The aims of SP extend beyond preventing the onset of shocks or stresses, mitigating their impact, and enhancing resilience to them; increasingly, SP includes longer-term, transformative goals of addressing vulnerabilities arising from social inequities and exclusion.
SP relevant to agriculture may impact on the poor as producers (such as via weather-related insurance), consumers (such as via cash transfers), or labourers (such as via health and safety regulations). SP measures can be introduced at different levels, via international and national level legislation, public investment and agriculture sector strategies, as well as measures at community levels. They can also take place at different points in commodity chains.
There are three main links between agriculture and social protection. SP can: 1) be generated by agriculture, as when agricultural growth leads to lower and more stable food prices; 2) include measures designed to promote agriculture; and 3) promote agriculture even when not specifically designed to do so.
- SP measures can promote agriculture by reducing risks associated with: fluctuations in production (such as via insurance against bad weather); or fluctuations in price caused by market conditions (such as via commodity price stabilisation funds)
- SP measures can also promote agriculture by increasing resilience at individual or broader levels through asset creation, such as via improved grain storage or improved infrastructure.
- Transfers to the poor are likely to boost local demand for staple products, benefiting agricultural producers indirectly.
- Public works programmes provide wage employment that is largely independent of agriculture, but may generate assets geared for agricultural growth.
The range of interventions through which SP and agriculture can complement each other is wide. In order to identify the most appropriate form of SP, policymakers must be familiar with the different mechanisms’ strengths and weaknesses, and have detailed local knowledge. Contextual factors that will influence the design and implementation of SP include:
- The current developmental status and prospects of agriculture, the non-farm economy and related markets – for example, if markets are too ‘thin’, then measures that seek to transmit SP via price mechanisms are unlikely to work.
- The current status of formal and informal SP mechanisms and the diversity of existing livelihood strategies.
- The extent to which farmers, labourers and other categories of the rural poor are registered in self-help groups, unions or other organisations (which could reduce SP transaction costs).
- The availability of resources and the capacity to implement new SP and agricultural policies.
