How can social protection best be achieved in situations of fragility? This paper argues that while the objectives for social protection in fragile states are essentially the same as in development contexts, social protection instruments, financing and delivery need to be adapted. In order to scale up social protection in fragile settings, it is important to use a wider range of social protection instruments; to provide longer-term, more harmonised and predictable funding; and to work with a broader range of actors.
Currently, funding for social protection in fragile states is short-term, unpredictable and uncoordinated. Delivery capacity is limited, and until recently, food aid has been the dominant response mechanism.
The transition from relief to development is rarely a clear-cut, linear progression. This makes it challenging to maintain a humanitarian space while also remaining committed to state-building objectives. Donors need to find ways of respecting both humanitarian and developmental principles simultaneously.
There is little research evidence on which to base guidelines for social protection in fragile states. However, emerging experience suggests the following elements of good practice in relation to instruments, actors and financing:
Consider the full range of social protection instruments
- Rather than restricting the range of instruments available, the focus should be on adapting them to fragile settings and applying them according to core humanitarian and development principles.
- Promising instruments include: cash transfers; agricultural support such as investments in infrastructure (irrigation and feeder roads, for example), support to markets, and subsidies to kick-start agricultural production; public policy measures to waive fees for health and education; insurance mechanisms; support for pastoralist livelihoods and livestock production such as destocking and fodder provision; and specific support for vulnerable groups.
- Safety nets or social assistance, in the form of cash or food, may need to be complemented with support for productive activities and markets.
Consider the delivery capacity of all actors, including governments, NGOs, UN agencies and the private sector
- Ideally, the state should play the primary role in social protection. However, international aid and non-state actors may become more involved in situations where the government is unable or unwilling to do so.
- Opportunities for engagement with the state may still be possible in situations where social protection is delivered primarily by non-state actors. Options include shadow alignment strategies that are compatible with existing or future state structures, and working with relevant line ministries and local government.
Consider using a wider range of financial instruments that allow for longer-term and more strategic, predictable and harmonised financing
- Mechanisms such as joint programmes and multi-donor trust funds may allow for engagement on a larger scale; however, monitoring how they work in practice is important.
- The long-term commitment of development partners, including donors, will be required to increase the scale of social protection in fragile states.
In fragile states, then, donors need to find flexible ways of using a wider range of instruments within broad social protection strategies. It is important to:
- Be pragmatic about who to work with and try to find the right balance between building up state capacity and maintaining access to basic services.
- Find principled ways of engaging with states to alleviate immediate suffering and move gradually towards longer-term support for state-led social protection.
- Understand that donor engagement can provide a crucial entry point to participate in and influence public policy on social protection.
- Undertake more in-depth research to enhance the evidence base on what works in practice in terms of social protection instruments, financing and delivery.
