Global Public Enquiry:
Social Protection in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Settings

Call for Evidence

Deadline for submissions: 13 July 2025, 23:59 GMT

The High-Level Panel on Social Protection in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Settings is launching a Global Public Enquiry – and we want to hear from you. This is your opportunity to help shape an ambitious, evidence-based agenda for how social protection systems can better serve people living in some of the world’s most challenging contexts. 

We are seeking written evidence and insights from people who fund, design, deliver, evaluate or rely on social protection systems in fragile and conflict-affected settings. Whether you are a public official, frontline service provider, evaluator, researcher, donor, humanitarian actor or represent a community – your perspective is valued. 

We particularly welcome submissions that bring in underrepresented outlooks – including those of women, people with disabilities and displaced communities. We also encourage evidence that reflects on lived experience, country-level realities and practical lessons. 

Submissions can respond to one or more of the seven Enquiry Questions. They might take the form of written responses, uploaded documents, or links to existing resources. And can include research findings, evaluations, case studies, lived experiences, or reflections on policy and practice. 

Enquiry Questions

Click on each question to explore the context, key issues, and sub-questions you may wish consider in your submission. 

Context

In today’s challenging global environment—marked by rising humanitarian needs, funding shortfalls, and escalating conflict and climate-related shocks—making the case for social protection in fragile and conflict-affected settings is more urgent than ever. Yet despite its role in reducing poverty, strengthening resilience, and preventing conflict escalation, social protection still struggles to gain political traction or sustained investment in many of the contexts where it is most needed. A reframing is necessary. Social protection is not charity and should not be positioned as a temporary relief mechanism, but as a stabilising investment that delivers tangible economic, political, and social returns.

Key Considerations

In answering this high-level question, it may be useful to focus on any of the following issues and sub-questions (depending on your expertise and evidence). Some broad examples for reflection and support are provided, but do not feel constrained by these:

  • Competing demands, limited resources: In an era of austerity, what trade-offs or shifts in priorities are necessary to secure more funding for social protection in fragile contexts?
  • Economic and political value: How can the cost-effectiveness, multiplier effects, impact on irregular migration, and peacebuilding potential of social protection to both donors and domestic governments be better communicated?
  • Social cohesion and legitimacy: In divided or post-conflict societies, can social protection build trust in institutions and strengthen the social contract, strengthen household and community-level resilience, reduce dependency on international aid, and contribute to a more stable and self-reliant societies over time?
  • From aid to investment: How can the narrative shift from aid centric to leveraging aid and other sources of finance for long-term investment in stability and resilience?
  • Domestic prioritisation: What messages and incentives will encourage fragile-state governments to see social protection as a priority amid other pressing fiscal demands?
  • Global alignment: How can the case for social protection be better aligned with major global agendas – including climate adaptation, humanitarian reset, conflict prevention, and locally led development?

Context

Fragile states are typically low-income countries and struggle to mobilise resources for social protection domestically. International channels of financing are similarly scarce for the sector. More diversified and alternative sources are underexplored. For example, development financing to these settings (where risks of investments – both real and perceived – are higher) is currently not being channeled to social protection: in 2023 social protection made up only 3.4% of all official Overseas Development Assistance disbursements to high and extreme fragile contexts. Whilst at an all-time high, this is still far lower than other sectors such as health and education and under-prioritised compared to investments in humanitarian aid. Furthermore, even where international funds are released to the sector, they are often paused at times of political fragility and conflict when people need support the most.

Key Considerations

In answering this high-level question, it may be useful to focus on any of the following issues and sub-questions (depending on your expertise and evidence). Some broad examples for reflection and support are provided, but do not feel constrained by these:

  • Enhanced domestic financing: Over the medium to long term, how can domestically-driven financing for social protection be encouraged and supported?
    • E.g. Your answer may consider:
      • Public Financial Management (PFM) reform; better revenue mobilisation; informal financing channels/mechanisms such as Zakat; tapping into natural resource revenue via Sovereign Funds; debt restructuring; working on the demand-side via engagement of social partners, etc.
    • International financing and risk appetite:
      • How can donor appetite for investing in inclusive social protection in fragile and conflict-affected settings, and for maintaining these investments through periods of uncertainty, be increased?
      • How can World Bank and donor financing be made more flexible to ‘keep the taps running’ in settings of conflict and political fragility, when people need support the most?
      • E.g. Your answer may consider:
        • Strategies to address risk aversion and enhance risk-sharing – such as governance arrangements including pre-planned temporary pivots; accountability measures and addressing of fiduciary risk; improved PFM mechanisms; enhanced external implementation oversight; rigorous approaches for targeting and payments (guaranteeing support is not being instrumentalised to favour certain groups, as a political legitimiser), etc.
        • Strategies to improve the relative standing of social protection vis-à-vis other sectors in investment choices.
        • Strategies to pivot across funding streams and implementation partners; etc.
      • Further diversification of financing, including climate financing: What are other realistic options for strategically diversifying financing in these settings?
        • E.g. Your answer may consider:
        • The practical and political viability of climate financing, humanitarian financing, peacebuilding funds (etc).

Context

Development partners are risk averse when it comes to working with and through state institutions in fragile and conflict-affected settings. Investments are not being made in national systems and state capabilities to the same extent as in other low-income countries globally, with the national social protection workforce (crucial local actors, especially in cases of conflict escalation) have been particularly neglected. At the same time, social protection systems in these settings are far too often not being designed with fragility and conflict in mind, reinforcing the tendency towards risk aversion rather than risk anticipation and mitigation.

Key Considerations

In answering this high-level question, it may be useful to focus on any of the following issues and sub-questions (depending on your expertise and evidence). Some broad examples for reflection and support are provided, but do not feel constrained by these:

  • Investing in locally led and sustainable system strengthening, while mitigating risks:
    • How can donor appetite be built to engage more directly with and sustainably strengthen national (State) social protection institutions and systems in fragile and conflict-affected settings, including investing in the national workforce (especially at local/decentralised level)?
    • How can technical and operational partners be incentivised to support nationally owned social protection system building and workforce capacity building, shifting from risk aversion towards risk anticipation and mitigation?
    • E.g. Your answer may consider:
      • Differentiated strategies for different contexts (conflict and fragility as a spectrum), addressing red lines (especially in politically and militarily contested spaces) and catering to shifting operational needs over space and time.
      • Strategies to better identify, address and mitigate emerging risks and trade-offs, favouring sustainability and medium/long-term impact over short-term solutions, while ensuring social protection does not work to the advantage of any party (fuelling further conflict).
      • Strategies to shift away from project-specific to system-wide and nationally driven approaches, and away from investing in parallel systems and structures (such as ‘Project Implementation Units’) towards investing in national capacity (especially at the frontline) and fostering collaborative partnerships with non-State actors.
    • Developing conflict-sensitive systems: What can be done to embed conflict risk management and conflict sensitivity into social protection systems?
      • E.g. Your answer may consider strategies for:
        • Operational readiness based on conflict analysis and political economy analysis.
        • Staying engaged when conflict escalates (e.g. twin track, Third Party Implementation pivots, etc).
        • Ensuring flexibility of programming given continuously shifting context.
        • Avoiding instrumentalisation via sound governance, processes and procedures.
        • Ensuring inclusiveness, fairness and access (see separate Enquiry question), especially for those groups facing the highest barriers (e.g. women, people with disabilities, migrants/internally displaced/refugees, etc).
        • Shifting beyond ‘crisis response’ towards broader resilience and peacebuilding, including addressing the compounding role of the climate crisis and environmental degradation.

Context

The need to reduce fragmentation of aid across the humanitarian–development nexus in fragile and conflict-affected settings is well recognised. However, despite the social protection and humanitarian sectors often sharing common objectives, processes and delivery systems, coordination across the two often remains siloed, incentives misaligned, and transitions poorly managed – also because of the multitude of actors on the humanitarian side often operating independently. The key issue is not about re-channelling of humanitarian financing (which is already overstretched) towards social protection but designing humanitarian interventions in ways that leverage and support, rather than undermine, development of national systems – based on sound political economy and conflict analysis.

Key Considerations

In answering this high-level question, it may be useful to focus on any of the following issues and sub-questions (depending on your expertise and evidence). Some broad examples for reflection and support are provided, but do not feel constrained by these:

  • Adopting a ‘Social Protection First’ approach to crisis response: How can more systematic consideration of social protection systems and ways to support these (and not undermine them) be encouraged in humanitarian response planning, especially with a view to exit planning?
  • Upholding humanitarian and social protection principles: How can humanitarian actors engage with social protection systems in fragile and conflict-affected settings in ways that effectively acknowledge and uphold both humanitarian and social protection principles (embedded in Human Rights), enabling shared investments – and realistic transitions to state capacity over time?
    • E.g. Your answers to these questions may consider strategies to:
      • Avoid entirely parallel responses that do not build on, or engage with, national systems and medium-term vision.
      • Ensure a systematic assessment of entry points across all the policy, design and operational level dimensions of social protection systems, to identify areas for mutual reinforcement and medium-term improvements.
      • Ensure capacity and knowledge transfer, beyond delivery.
      • Leverage cash assistance, data sharing and digitisation as major enablers of ‘nexus programming’.
      • Address common assumptions and ‘myths’ on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each sector in conflict settings, to accelerate a constructive focus on joint outcomes.
      • Develop flexible support strategies that are able to shift governance and operational modality based on swiftly changing needs and risks.
      • Build towards transitions to national capacity and systems from the get-go of humanitarian programming.

Context

Implementing effective, inclusive social protection systems in fragile and conflict-affected settings requires navigating complex operational, political, and structural challenges. The current aid architecture, often fragmented and externally driven, can constrain national ownership and slow the transition toward sustainable, locally led systems. Managing transitions from humanitarian cash or parallel systems to government-led approaches is rarely straightforward. Risk aversion, limited frontline capacity, contested governance arrangements, and a lack of clarity around when and how to transition all serve as barriers. Yet there are also key enablers: predictable risk-sharing, integrated coordination, digital tools, and investment in frontline personnel. To build systems that are both functional and transformative, implementation strategies must be grounded in the local political economy, conflict-aware, and guided by practical criteria for readiness.

Key Considerations

In answering this high-level question, it may be useful to focus on any of the following issues and sub-questions (depending on your expertise and evidence). Some broad examples for reflection and support are provided, but do not feel constrained by these:

  • Operational readiness: What does “readiness” for national delivery look like, particularly in fragile states? How can critical workforce investments, such as in frontline social workers, be supported?
  • Transition triggers and planning: What should initiate a shift from humanitarian to nationally led systems? Can criteria be developed to guide such transitions, and how can they be planned for from the outset?
  • Aid architecture reform: How can humanitarian, development and peace coordination structures better enable alignment, collaboration, and national leadership across the nexus?
  • Risk recalibration: How can donors and implementing agencies shift from a mindset of risk avoidance to one of shared risk management and mitigation—without compromising accountability?
  • Digital innovation: What role can digital systems (e.g., payments, registration) play in supporting delivery, and how can they be made inclusive and conflict-sensitive, especially where identity is contested?
  • Governance arrangements: In politically complex environments, how should leadership and accountability for social protection be structured—especially when temporary or transitional governance is needed to avoid exacerbating tensions?
  • Solutions: What existing or potential solutions could be put in place to counter the above risks?

Context

Inclusivity must be at the core of social protection efforts in fragile and conflict-affected settings, yet too often systems fall short. Marginalised groups—including displaced populations, refugees, migrants, informal workers, people with disabilities, and ethnic or religious minorities—are frequently excluded due to structural, institutional, and logistical barriers. Women, in particular, bear a disproportionate share of crisis burdens while remaining underrepresented in programme design, and delivery. Gender-blind systems risk reinforcing inequalities and missing critical opportunities to empower women and strengthen community resilience. Local actors—such as civil society organisations, subnational governments, and community-based networks—play a vital role in building trust, identifying needs, and delivering inclusive support when conflict escalates. Yet these actors remain under-recognised and under-resourced in global financing and coordination mechanisms.

Key Considerations

In answering this high-level question, it may be useful to focus on any of the following issues and sub-questions (depending on your expertise and evidence). Some broad examples for reflection and support are provided, but do not feel constrained by these:

  • Accessibility by displaced people and migrants: How can social protections be built to ensure access by displaced populations (migrants, internally displaced persons, refugees, etc), who many not have the required documents, or even the required nationality, to access through regular pathways?
  • Reaching marginalised groups: How can systems be designed to proactively include informal workers, people with disabilities, and minority communities—especially in areas where state reach is limited?
  • Gender responsiveness: What changes are needed in the design and implementation of social protection to address gender inequalities and promote women’s leadership within the social protection workforce, given the constraints posed in conflict-contexts?
  • Local leadership: How can local actors be more systematically empowered and funded to lead inclusive delivery, and how should their contributions be recognised in national and international systems?
  • Equity and social justice: How can efforts to strengthen social protection systems be grounded in principles of equity from the outset, rather than treated as an add-on?
  • Data and analysis: What improvements are needed in data collection, disaggregation, and analysis to understand who is being included, who is being left behind, and why? (Linked to enquiry question 7).

Context

The evidence base for social protection in fragile and conflict-affected settings has improved significantly in recent years. However, the priority now lies in using this evidence more strategically—to challenge entrenched assumptions, shift narratives, and inform better decision-making both globally and locally. Critically, evidence must be actionable and tailored to different audiences, from international donors and multilateral institutions to domestic policymakers and frontline implementers. It must also be grounded in local realities and conflict-aware, capable of addressing persistent myths while promoting feasible solutions. In terms of delivery and implementation, South–South knowledge transfer and peer learning—especially among countries facing shared fragility and conflict dynamics, such as those in the G7+—could be powerful but as of yet underutilised sources of insight. These exchanges can offer concrete lessons, build solidarity, and generate political confidence in developing locally effective systems.

Key Considerations

In answering this high-level question, it may be useful to focus on any of the following issues and sub-questions (depending on your expertise and evidence). Some broad examples for reflection and support are provided, but do not feel constrained by these:

  • Critical assessment of the existing evidence base: What is already knows about the impacts and functioning of social protection in fragile and conflict-affected settings: what works and does not work, where and why?
    • E.g. Your answer may discuss evidence, (both positive and negative), on:
      • Outcomes of social protection in fragile and conflict-affected settings (social, economic, peacebuilding, etc), including vis-à-vis the role of social protection as a stabiliser, economic multiplier, migration-mitigator, etc.
      • Value for Money and cost-effectiveness of social protection in fragile and conflict-affected settings.
      • Addressing of key myths and misconceptions which drive political will (dependency, misuse, inflation, etc.).
      • Under what circumstances outcomes can and cannot be expected.
  • Addressing evidence gaps:
    • What are the additional critical assessments and data that can help build confidence to invest in social protection system building in fragile and conflict-affected settings?
    • What are the most critical priorities for a joint monitoring, research and learning agenda to advance social protection system building in fragile and conflict-affected settings?
  • From evidence to context-relevant learning, strategic uptake and politically informed use:
    • What are the most effective ways to support peer learning and cross-country (south-south learning) exchange in fragile contexts, and how can platforms like the g7+ be leveraged going forward?
    • What historical programmes and experiences can provide useful guidance on managing large-scale assistance in politically sensitive environments, and what lessons should be carried forward?
    • How can echo chambers be avoided, so that findings reflect diverse geographies, experiences, and institutional perspectives, including those from the global South and from frontline implementers?
    • How to ensure that the growing body of evidence is used to shape decisions, reframe narratives, and challenge outdated assumptions—especially among key stakeholders such as ministries of finance and multilateral development banks?
    • How should findings be communicated to different constituencies to influence policy and financing decisions, from domestic taxpayers to humanitarian actors?

Important Information Before You Submit

  • There are seven core questions for this enquiry. Each question is accompanied by a set of suggested sub-questions.

     

  • Submissions can address one or more enquiry question – you do not need to answer all the enquiry questions or sub-questions. You may also choose to focus your whole submission on a particular core question or sub-question. Click ‘next’ to skip over any questions you do not wish to answer.

     

  • You can move back and forth between the questions before you provide answers and submit, but your submission will not save if you exit before submitting.

     

  • We strongly recommend drafting your submission in a Word document or similar offline format before entering it into the online form. This helps avoid losing your work in case of internet connectivity issues. Once you’re ready, you can copy and paste the text for each question into the submission form provided.

     

  • You can upload up to two supporting documents/pieces of evidence per question, and add hyperlinks in the text box. The individual file size limit is 16MB. The following file types are supported: PDF, DOC, DOCX, JPEG.

     

  • Submissions are accepted in any language, noting that AI translation may be used for submissions which are not in English, Spanish or French.

     

  • TIP: You can expand and reshape the text box by dragging the bottom right-hand corner with your mouse.

     

  • For any enquires, or if you are having any issues in using the form, please email highlevelpanel@STAARfacility.org

     

  • For further information, please read the Frequently Asked Questions below.
Download the full question set here.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Enquiry aims to gather evidence, experiences, and insights from a broad range of stakeholders to inform the High-Level Panel’s recommendations on advancing social protection in fragile and conflict-affected settings. It’s your opportunity to help shape an ambitious, evidence-based agenda for future action. 

We welcome submissions from: 

  • Governments and policymakers 
  • Humanitarian and development agencies 
  • Peace actors  
  • Local and national NGOs 
  • Practitioners, researchers and think tanks 
  • Civil society and community groups 
  • Private sector  
  • Social Partners (e.g. Trade Unions) 

We particularly welcome submissions that bring in underrepresented outlooks – including those of women, people with disabilities and displaced communities.  

We’re using a multi-pronged outreach strategy to ensure broad participation, including: 

  • Personal outreach via Panel members’ networks 
  • Tailored invitations to select champions and stakeholders 
  • Sharing through key sectoral newsletters and networks 
  • A social media and LinkedIn campaign 
  • Engagement with organisations to ensure diverse perspectives 

You’ll be able to submit via a user-friendly online form, which is: 

  • Structured around the Enquiry’s key questions 
  • Offers guidance for each question 
  • Allows document uploads for additional evidence 

Submissions can range from detailed research and evaluations to shorter policy reflections, case studies, or commentaries. 

You can submit in any language. Please note that AI support for translation may be used for submissions which are not in English, French or Spanish. 

All kinds! We encourage: 

  • Quantitative and qualitative research 
  • Programme evaluations or case studies 
  • Policy briefs or opinion pieces 
  • Theoretical or conceptual contributions 

We also want to hear about what hasn’t worked – and why. The focus is on practical insights, lessons learned, and scalable solutions. 

We’ll follow a rigorous yet accessible four-step methodology: 

  • Mapping & Classification 
    Submissions will be coded by topic, geography, actor type, and relevance (e.g. conflict intensity, SP modality, gender/disability focus). This will help identify trends and gaps. 
  • Thematic Analysis 
    Findings will be organised by the Enquiry’s core questions, allowing for both expected and emerging themes. Special attention will be paid to what works, where, why, and at what cost. 
  • Quality Appraisal 
    We’ll use a simple evidence-quality framework to transparently rate the robustness of submissions. 
  • Synthesis for the Panel 
    A succinct, visual synthesis will be produced for Panel Members, including: 
    • Key themes per question 
    • Short case examples 
    • Comparisons with alternative policies 
    • Value-for-money insights where available 

We’ll apply strong quality assurance measures, including: 

  • Clear coding and transparency in evidence use 
  • Triangulation across sources 
  • Inclusion and diversity in outreach and participation 

The synthesis will prioritise what matters to decision-makers – real-world results, trade-offs, and scalable, politically viable options. 

All findings and recommendations from the Public Enquiry will feed directly into the High-Level Panel’s deliberations and final report, which will be publicly launched in November 2025. We will also share a summary of insights gathered through the Enquiry process, including case examples and key themes. These will be disseminated via: 

  • A public launch event (virtual and/or in-person) 
  • Email updates to those who opted into the mailing list. You can Sign up here. 
  • Our website and social media platforms 
  • Partner newsletters and networks 
  • A visual, easy-to-read brief summarising what we heard and what happens next 
  • Use of personal data. The online submission form asks for relevant personal data from the submitter (name, contact details, organisational affiliation and geographical data). By default, this data will only be used for internal purposes by DAI, the Secretariat and Panel members (“the Panel”) solely to manage and verify survey responses and to assist in interpretation and synthesis of submissions. Personal data collected will be handled in line with the UK’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and DAI Global LLC’s Privacy Policy. 
  • Publication and attribution. Submissions will not be published in full. However, the online submission form contains an option to provide general permissions for the Panel to publish and/or attribute selected content from submissions in its published reports, opting in will be at your discretion. If you chose not to provide permission, any submission content will be generalised in any public facing reports or documentation. Contact details will never be published.  
  • Safeguarding and sensitive content. If your submission raises safeguarding concerns, we may seek expert advice. Submissions containing potentially distressing material will be handled with care. 

The enquiry will be open until 13 July 2025, 23:59 GMT

Please email highlevelpanel@STAARfacility.org