PUBLICATIONS
Search by theme or free text for publications by STAAR and SPACE
Portfolio
Location
Theme
As Ukraine navigates through the complexities of 2023, marked by unprecedented challenges and transformative opportunities, this report presents an essential updated analysis of the Unified Information System of the Social Sphere (UISSS). Building upon our comprehensive 2022 study we delve deeper into the dynamic shifts in Ukraine’s social protection systems, with a specific focus on the pivotal developments within the UISSS. This study, grounded in an exhaustive review of internal Ukrainian government documents and enriched by discussions with key personnel from the Ukrainian Ministry of Social Policy, is designed to capture the most current strategic advancements in the UISSS. Addressing a diverse audience comprising civil society, government policymakers, social protection experts, and international stakeholders, including the UN, donors, and the World Bank, our report offers a thorough assessment of the UISSS’s critical role in the modernisation of Ukraine’s social protection framework. Amidst transformative national reforms, understanding the evolving landscape of the UISSS becomes imperative. This report not only provides insights into the system’s impact on service delivery and operational efficiency but also supports decision-makers in strategic planning for social protection reform and digital progression.
This case study looks at large-scale government-led shock-responsive social protection (SRSP) systems that aim to respond to rapid and slow-onset crises in Kenya. It aims to identify barriers and opportunities to improve SRSP by examining financing, exploring political economy and analysing implementation issues. Kenya launched its first National Social Protection Policy in 2011, a milestone that evolved from discussions that began during the 2002/03 elections. The first outcome of these was a parliamentary Orphans and Vulnerable Children group, which led to the Cash Transfer for Orphans and Vulnerable Children (CT-OVC) programme. Several other cash transfer programmes were then established in quick succession, including the Hunger Safety Net Programme (HSNP) that is the focus of this case study. Kenyan legislators have now produced the Social Protection Bill 2024, which, when finalised, will consolidate the fragmented legal framework for social protection in Kenya, including provisions for budgeting. This case study offers recommendations that could feed into the dialogue around the bill.
This Mauritania case study is part of a multi-country analysis, sponsored by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), focussing on Adaptive Social Protection (SRSP). The purpose of this case study is to provide a better idea of facilitating factors and political, programmatic and operational barriers to the complementarity between humanitarian and social protection programmes to better support households affected by shocks. This case study follows a targeted review of literature (Bibliography) and 19 semi-structured interviews with 23 key stakeholders in SRSP in Mauritania. (Figure 1) The results and recommendations were collectively reviewed during a workshop in Nouakchott on 28th May 2024, when about twenty national and international stakeholders met.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an entry point for discussion of -and practical engagement with- the potential for linking the Adaptive Social Protection and Decentralisation agendas, in the first instance by technicians and practitioners within the German Development Cooperation. The need to clarify the linkages and areas of convergence between these is evident for two key reasons. The paper lso endeavours to establish how decentralisation, localisation, and social protection – most specifically adaptive social protection – relate to each other conceptually. Building on that foundation, it seeks to outline a practical approach that might assist practitioners in engaging meaningfully with each other, and in dialogue with partner governments at different levels, about the scope for linking these agendas.
This evidence note looks into how governments in low and middle-income countries can develop high quality care and support systems for children, persons with disabilities and older persons, and their families that are rights abiding, gender responsive, disability inclusive, fiscally sustainable, and contextually relevant. Hence, it proposes a needed shift on how care and support systems are being discussed, in particular when it comes to low and middle-income countries. The evidence note defines what inclusive and comprehensive care and support systems entail – including some of the key building blocks- from a human rights and lifecycle perspective that is gender equal and disability inclusive.
The purpose of this paper is to offer an overview of the existing situation regarding the establishment of links between humanitarian cash initiatives and government social protection systems. It does so via providing an overview of the social protection systems of the government of Ukraine, identifying who is being covered and who is not, and then assessing the current alignment of humanitarian and social protection programmes. This paper is part of a series, which includes: Overview of the Ukraine Government’s Housing and Utilities Subsidy Programme and the Guaranteed Minimum Income Programme Overview of the Ukraine Government’s IDP Social Assistance Support Programmes Overview of the Unified Information System of the Social Sphere (UISSS) and the eDopomoga System
The Coronavirus pandemic has affected substantial proportions of the population raising questions about how social protection systems could be used to respond. One of the key policy questions emerging is how to deal with a sudden, large-scale increase in poverty levels. This paper relies on pre-existing microsimulations of the pandemic impact on poverty in Bangladesh, Georgia, Mongolia, Pakistan, and Sierra Leone. It assesses what type of social protection interventions would provide adequate support to households badly affected by the shock. Overall, the paper also finds that social protection interventions can have significant impacts on reducing poverty in response to shocks. It identifies two main strategic directions in the development of social protection policies to achieve this. First, the need to invest in social protection systems that can scale up rapidly through inclusive social registries or social protection floors. Second, the need to develop social registries, broader information systems, and approaches to determining eligibility that are more flexible and can capture chronic poverty as well as those affected by shocks.
As the humanitarian landscape has been changing over the past several years, it is now widely accepted that providing crisis-affected populations with Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA) is an efficient, effective, and dignified way of responding to humanitarian crises, enabling people affected by natural and man-made disasters to take agency in covering their needs, recovering from shocks, and in building resilience. Concurrently, CVA is strengthening local economy, creating multiplier effects. Against this backdrop, adoption of CVA in Nigeria has seen a steady rise since its early uses in 2013. While in 2016’s Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP), CVA represented only six percent of the related funding, in 2021 it grew to 56%. Concurrently, all CVA actors surveyed as part of the study declared that they can further scale their CVA programming. The present report, composed based on the evidence collected during an extensive qualitative and quantitative data collection exercise conducted by the consulting team and CWG in the lead up to the ratification of the NCVAP, presents the snapshot of the CVA landscape as of August 2023, outlining identified challenges, opportunities, recommendations, and related policy measures offered by the NCVAP. The snapshot can serve as a benchmark for future reference to ensure accountability in the operationalisation of the NCVAP and overcoming identified challenges.
This report sets out key current and recent initiatives by the main international actors taking forward the climate change and social protection agenda, prepared for the FCDO under the Social Protection Technical Assistance, Advice, and Resources Facility (STAAR). It sets out the focus areas of the bi and multi-lateral donor agencies and UN agencies currently leading work on social protection and climate change and the work they are involved in to take forward the climate and social protection agenda, with links to key initiatives, publications and events, but is not an exhaustive listing of all activity in the sector. It is intended to inform and support the development of social protection programming and policy which will accommodate to the growing challenge of climate change.
This brief sets out an explanation of a slightly revised version of a visual demonstrating how we can jointly maximise our contribution to addressing covariate risks. It introduces a typology for the paths by which the system may better cover the needs of people who are vulnerable to, or affected by, covariate shocks. It summarises the quantitative and qualitative criteria we should be collectively adopting to appraise our policy options across sectors and decide ‘what is best’. Obtaining clarity on the common end goal, the means to get there, the compromises required and the role of different sectors—all of which vary from country to country and shock to shock—is an essential element of a coordinated and efficient approach.
This analysis explores the effectiveness of shock-responsive social protection (SRSP) systems in four sub-Saharan African countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Mauritania. It examines the interaction between government-led SRSP initiatives and humanitarian cash and voucher assistance (CVA), focusing on aspects such as financing, operational preparedness and the political economy factors that will influence the long-term trajectory of SRSP capabilities. The study aims to assess how effectively government-led SRSPs can safeguard individuals during emergencies that necessitate humanitarian intervention, identifying successful elements from various case studies and areas needing improvement. Furthermore, it provides conclusions and recommendations for national and international stakeholders seeking to enhance investments in SRSP to maximise their potential impact.
FCDO Turkey commissioned SPACE to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the principal cash vehicles active in Turkey: Emergency Social Safety Net (ESSN) and Conditional Cash Transfers for Education (CCTE) programmes, both funded by the EU through the EUR 6 billion Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRiT) programme and managed by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and UNICEF respectively. For reasons of time, the learning exercise was divided into four key areas of investigation: i) Impact/Disruption caused by COVID-19; ii) Adaptations in programming; iii) Coordination and iv) Future Direction/Alignment with Government of Turkey (GoT) social protection approaches. SPACE interviewed key non-governmental stakeholders involved in delivering both the ESSN and CCTE. A standard set of questions were developed with the input/approval of FCDO Turkey, and these were adjusted depending on the institutional home of the interviewee.
This profile was developed with the available information between 26/04/2022 and 13/06/2022, as a supplement to the overarching briefing paper Humanitarian Assistance and Social Protection Linkages: Strengthening shock-responsiveness of social protection systems in the Ukraine crisis. Some key messages: There is no ongoing cash response at scale by aid agencies from the information that could be gathered. The Czech Republic set up its response, which helped 80,000 Ukrainians register for temporary protection, out of the 300,000 that have crossed the border. The Czech Republic has a strong social protection system in comparison with other EU countries, which results in a lower-than-average rate of people at risk of poverty, exclusion and deprivation. However, the country has pockets of the population living in extremely dire conditions, including one of the highest rates of homelessness (caused by personal debt) and persistent social exclusion of the Roma. Poverty remains concentrated among single parents, the elderly and people with disabilities. The social protection system, including the social care workforce, isn’t yet fully able to address this poverty and vulnerability. The World Bank has advised the Czech Republic to continue to reform its social benefits program to address deprivation. Shock responsiveness of the State social protection system would need to be considered as part of this reform. Despite a poor track record on refugee affairs, the Czech Republic has been largely welcoming to Ukrainians, even before the recent invasion. The country has been able to set up, in collaboration with UNHCR and the wide range of experienced local actors, a comprehensive response, which includes full integration into the Czech social protection system. Institutionally, the Czech Republic Social protection system has been able to deal with the increased arrival of refugees and respond to immediate needs by establishing a specific, yet temporary, scheme.
This short paper presents two complementary ‘Tools’ to guide thinking and decisionmaking on humanitarian programme design, providing the basis for conducting a comprehensive response analysis to inform decisions on linking HA-SP. These can be used to determine the likely feasibility and appropriateness of linking humanitarian action and social protection and the key considerations to bear in mind for different options for linking. Experience shows that linking can lead to a range of possible benefits such as increasing timeliness, enhancing sustainability, reducing costs, increasing coherence of responses led by governments and partners, and building and strengthening national systems. It also offers one possibility of an exit strategy for humanitarian actors. Realising these benefits depends on the right design for the context and consideration of possible trade-offs.
Digitalisation efforts are growing within humanitarian cash transfers and government-led social assistance. FCDO, among other donors, also increasingly expects humanitarian cash and voucher assistance (CVA) to more intentionally consider government-led social protection programmes in their designs. While encouraging the use of digital payments within humanitarian cash programmes is not new, doing so alongside expectations to strengthen social protection systems is. This guidance note thus sets out the potential benefits, risks, and suggested pre-requisites when wanting to transition humanitarian cash programmes to digital payments in an inclusive and sustainable manner, in contexts where social protection (SP) alignment is also a priority. NB: this primer is not intended to cover digital payment adoption within humanitarian CVA writ large, but rather the intersection of humanitarian CVA and social protection, with one area of alignment being approaches to digital payment.
The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the critical role of local actors, including governments, and local and national NGOs, in the design and delivery of programming. Movement restrictions and a rapid scale-up of humanitarian and social protection assistance to new populations have driven a greater focus on localisation than ever before. This short two pager looks to summise what has emerged across countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, what constrained donors in implementing compononents of the localisation agenda face , and what are the potential future entry points for persuing locally led interventions.
Despite strong evidence showing that broad-based cash transfers targeting pregnant women and young children reduce poverty, improve health, nutrition and education and increase economic growth, concerns are often raised among policymakers that these payments may increase incentives to have children, in order to gain or maintain program eligibility. There is already evidence from cash transfer programming in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa to dispel this narrative (Handa et al. 2018), this paper looks to discuss this issue based on evidence from the Asia and Pacific region.
This note compares the experiences of 53 low- and middle-income countries to identify drivers of timely and large-scale government social assistance responses to COVID-19. The analysis covers cash responses only and focuses on the capacity of the social protection sector and beyond. It compares response times (the first payment date) across countries and analyses their correlation with various potential drivers of timely response, including contextual, legislation and funding, social protection capacity, and service delivery factors. An important caveat is that, in most cases, the first payment date is an imperfect measure of when a response ‘starts’, because many beneficiaries (and often most of those who are poor and vulnerable) receive transfers later. This is to say, timely responses are not always inclusive and are not always timely for all. This note therefore supplements its initial wide-ranging, data-driven analysis with more detailed case studies that allow for further analysis of issues like the extent of coverage (where this data was available), along with lessons learned from these case studies.
This document was developed to summarise existing literature for decision-makers (most prominently Barca and Hebbar 2020) and situate that literature against opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned during COVID-19. It thus draws heavily on existing work by the authors and others. The key messages are: dynamic inclusion is essential to ensuring social protection programs meet changing needs and respond to shocks. It is a critical element to consider when supporting partner governments to build effective and responsive social protection systems; there are various approaches to dynamic updating which each have strengths and weaknesses; combining multiple, complementary approaches is often required. The growing practice of cross-referencing individual data between multiple data sources to verify eligibility creates privacy risks that must be mitigated; the surge in the use of dynamic approaches for updating during COVID-19, as countries extended programs to new people and groups, creates opportunities to embed the use of digital approaches and data interoperability into social protection systems for the future; practitioners should be supported through expert technical advice on how to design on-demand and dynamic systems for data updating, including to address privacy concerns.
The 2013 and 2018 Economics of Early Response and Resilience (TEERR) studies demonstrated the significant economic gains of investing in a more proactive response to crises. The first study was funded by DFID in 2013, followed by a more in-depth analysis in 2018 with USAID in three countries – Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia. The studies estimate the relative cost of a late humanitarian response, and compare this with the early humanitarian response, a safety net response, and a resilience-building scenario (each of these scenarios build on each other and the findings are cumulative), and were seminal in changing the way that both donors fund crises. This paper builds on those seminal studies to understand what the economic gains could have been of the COVID-19 social protection and humanitarian response, primarily focusing on the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) in Ethiopia.
This study, conducted by the Centre for Disaster Protection (hereafter, the Centre) in collaboration with the Social Protection Technical Assistance, Advice, and Resources (STAAR) Facility, investigates the potential opportunities, benefits and risks for linking disaster risk financing (DRF) and shock-responsive social protection (SRSP). It was commissioned by the United Kingdom’s Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Bureau for Resilience and Food Security Center for Resilience. This case study report contributes to a wider study that includes research across three country case studies (Jamaica, Malawi, and Mozambique) to consider the opportunities, potential risks, and benefits of channelling disaster risk financing instruments through national social protection systems.
This study, conducted by the Centre for Disaster Protection (hereafter, the Centre) in collaboration with the Social Protection Technical Assistance, Advice, and Resources (STAAR) Facility, investigates the potential opportunities, benefits and risks when linking disaster risk financing (DRF) and shock-responsive social protection (SRSP). It was commissioned by the United Kingdom’s Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Bureau for Resilience and Food Security Center for Resilience. This case study report contributes to a broader study that includes research across three country case studies (Jamaica, Malawi, and Mozambique) to consider the opportunities, potential risks, and benefits of channelling disaster risk financing instruments through national social protection systems.
This study, conducted by the Centre for Disaster Protection (hereafter, the Centre) in collaboration with the Social Protection Technical Assistance, Advice, and Resources (STAAR) Facility, investigates the potential opportunities, benefits and risks when linking disaster risk financing (DRF) and shock-responsive social protection (SRSP). It was commissioned by the United Kingdom’s Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Bureau for Resilience and Food Security Center for Resilience. This case study report contributes to a wider study that includes research across three country case studies (Jamaica, Malawi, and Mozambique ) to consider the opportunities, potential risks, and benefits of channelling disaster risk financing instruments through national social protection systems.
Eswatini’s social protection system seeks to address different vulnerabilities across the lifecycle including orphanhood, disability, and old age. This brief summarizes the findings of a comprehensive gender assessment conducted by STAAR to understand the extent to which gendered vulnerabilities are recognized and addressed within Eswatini’s social assistance policies and programmes.
This Strategy Decision Matrix was developed alongside others, as a technical tool used to structure an independent and unbiased analysis of COVID-19 response options. It does not necessarily represent DFID or GIZ own views or policies. The purpose of the Evaluating Delivery Systems Matrix is to help you think through potential COVID-19 response options/strategies via existing social protection programmes, or through leveraging social protection delivery systems and capacity. It facilitates swift evaluation of the strengths of existing social protection systems and specifically their constituent ‘building blocks’ – enabling timely decision-making on which/how these can be leveraged for your COVID-19 response.
Over the past decade, fragility and conflict have become central policy concerns for international development and humanitarian actors. There are more violent conflicts ongoing than at any time in the past 30 years and conflicts are becoming increasingly protracted. Conflict and fragility threaten to derail development gains, with extreme poverty increasingly concentrated in fragile and conflict-affected settings (FCAS) despite accounting for only 10% of the world’s population. Addressing this challenge requires sustained engagement and new approaches to aid provision in protracted crises and countries affected by conflict to maintain and strengthen basic services.
A forum on social protection in fragility and conflict was held in Rome in October 2024. Its aim was to strengthen social protection action in acute, rapid onset and protracted conflicts, recognising social protection as an essential component of the Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) nexus. The overarching objective of the forum was to strengthen buy-in among stakeholders that social protection in situations of fragility and conflict is not only possible, but imperative to meet basic needs and reduce the burden on the humanitarian system; and that it is essential to mobilise collective action, collaboration, and coherence across HDP actors to strengthen the delivery of social protection in these settings. Conflict is the main driver of humanitarian needs and a major impediment to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Core social protection systems have the potential to build the resilience of households, communities and societies to recurrent shocks, sustain investments in meeting basic needs, and to address food insecurity in times of conflict. Yet, there has been limited focus on the importance of building and sustaining social protection systems during conflict. The forum aimed to address this gap and seize an opportune moment to shift course on how the global aid architecture operates. The forum aimed to develop lessons from new approaches emerging from practice about how to better support local and national systems, integrate displaced people and develop more flexible, hybrid models to support social protection, even when working with governments is challenging – all in a context of increasing development financing and the commitment of a broad array of actors to do more in settings of fragility and conflict. The intersections between climate shocks and conflict, and the need for climate finance to reach those living in fragile and conflict-affected settings, are increasingly recognised. Policy processes, including the G20 Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty, Global Accelerator on Jobs and Social Protection for Just Transitions, the Global Network Against Food Crisis, COP28, the Global Refugee Forum, and USP 2030 all offer opportunities to take the agenda forward at global levels, and to reinforce country-level delivery through a stronger focus on fragility and conflict.
This document presents an initial framing developed to support analysis of separation of functions, Value for Money and risk, to help facilitate a shift from UN/INGO led programmes, to locally-led models that draw on the complementarities between UN, INGO and LNO key strengths. It also reports on the findings from the application of these frameworks to a major FCDO country investment (anonymised for reporting publicly). The intention is that these frameworks could be used across donors, international intermediaries and LNOs to critically assess options for flipping programme delivery models. It also presents a framework for considering how networks of local actors can complement more centralised Government programmes by establishing a strong social contract and enabling transparency and accountability.
The Social Protection Approaches to COVID-19: Expert Advice Helpline (SPACE) provides donors, governments and implementing partners with direct support in thinking through how to maintain or adapt existing systems and programmes to meet rapidly growing needs. Through a multi-disciplinary ‘ask-the-experts’ service, SPACE provides a sounding board for decision-makers in COVID-19 responses – challenging or affirming existing thinking and supporting innovation. You can find more information on SPACE and how to access the service here. The expert team behind SPACE has co-created a suite of evolving tools and brief reference documents to facilitate decision-making for the COVID-19 response. These ‘living documents’ can help you make sense of a broad body of global evidence on shock responsive social protection and humanitarian cash assistance – within your own operating context and in specific relation to your Covid-19 response (e.g. they build on past literature and global COVID-19 literature such as efforts by Socialprotection.org and Gentilini et al’s Living Paper). These documents can be used individually or in combination. They clearly signpost each other throughout to help you build your own bespoke toolkit reflecting your needs.
This paper analyses the potential contribution of social protection to a gender-transformative economic recovery over the medium term, defined as running from the present to the end of 2022. It builds on the existing Social Protection Approaches to COVID-19 Expert (SPACE) advice publication; SPACE Social Protection in the COVID-19 Recovery: Opportunities and Challenges. Over the next two years (2021-2), economic recovery in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis will be a key focus for governments and international organisations. Although taking place under challenging circumstances, including that of the climate crisis, this moment presents an important opportunity to design economic recovery plans that take into consideration the specific impacts of the crisis on women and put in place measures to support women in re-establishing economic security. This piece is intended as a tool for evidence-based, inclusive policy responses, and to equip gender equality and social protection actors to better advocate for a gender-transformative recovery.
Women and girls face specific – and often heightened – risks across the course of their lives. These risks increase the likelihood that women live in poverty, face increased vulnerability to shocks and violence, and reduce their life-time opportunities for improved socio-economic well-being. These risks also accumulate over time and persist for generations if the cycle is not broken. They are also compounded by multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, including disability, age, race, ethnicity, and nationality, and are exacerbated in crises contexts.
For social protection to be truly gender transformative, it must also seek to alleviate unpaid care activities, contribute to changing the dynamics of unpaid care and support work as well as promote a positive overarching discourse around care and support work. If care and support were integrated more fully within social protection provision as part of universal benefits, and not just linked to formal employment or poverty-targeting, it could contribute towards breaking down gender inequalities, adverse labour market incorporation, unequal income levels, and disability-based inequities.
Women and girls are at heightened risk from climate change and weather-related shocks due to pre-existing gender inequalities. Socio-cultural and gender norms also mean that women have fewer options and more limited decision-making on how to mitigate these risks. Women’s livelihoods are typically more dependent on natural resources and agriculture, making them particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Climate change increases women and girls’ care responsibilities, while the risk of gender-based violence may become more acute following climate-related disasters. Further, women often lack access to new technologies and climate-smart farming practices and are rarely represented in policy discussions and decision-making processes around climate. Climate change is also a key driver of humanitarian crises, forced displacement and migration – the effects of which are felt disproportionately by women and girls. All these risks are exacerbated for women and girls facing intersecting discrimination because of disability, LGBT+ status, race or ethnicity.
In 2022, over 100 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide, with refugees and internally displaced people living in increasingly protracted contexts. By 2030 nearly half of those living in extreme poverty will live in fragile and conflict-affected states. Women and girls face specific and heightened risks in crises, such as increased exposure to violence and insecurity, restrictions on their mobility, school drop-out, job losses and additional care, domestic and livelihood responsibilities. These vulnerabilities and risks are further exacerbated for women and girls facing intersecting discrimination because of disability, LGBT+ status, race or ethnicity.
Women and girls with disabilities experience significant discrimination and high rates of poverty. They are more likely to experience violence than other women and have higher unemployment rates. Girls with disabilities are more likely to be out of school than boys with disabilities and older women are more likely to have a disability than older men. Their economic situation is likely worse because of disability-related costs, reduced earning power and less access to pensions and savings. These challenges are exacerbated in the context of crises and climate change, and for women and girls facing intersecting discrimination because of LGBT+ status, race or ethnicity.
From a young age, girls face barriers to accessing and staying in quality education. Factors such as domestic work and prevailing negative attitudes towards girls’ education and life opportunities, as well as financial barriers, are key mediating influences. Adolescent girls are at particular risk of secondary school drop-out due to early pregnancy and early marriage, as well as unequal domestic and caring responsibilities. Dropping out of school has long-term impacts on their economic livelihoods and security. These challenges are exacerbated in the context of chronic poverty, crises and climate change, and for women and girls facing intersecting discrimination because of disability, LGBT+ status, race or ethnicity.
Health and nutrition are fundamental components for women and girls’ educational attainment and productive employment, providing greater economic security and well-being. Girls and women face heightened health and nutrition risks throughout the life cycle, such as vulnerability to malnutrition, risk of sexually transmitted diseases and face limited access to specialist sexual, reproductive and maternal health services. Women and girls’ health and nutrition are dependent on the availability and quality of food and services, as well as on social norms which may restrict women’s own decision-making over their health, body and well-being. These challenges are exacerbated in the context of chronic poverty, crises and climate change, and for women and girls facing intersecting discrimination because of disability, LGBT+ status, race or ethnicity.
Most violence experienced by women is perpetrated by an intimate partner, but violence against women and girls (VAWG) also includes broader forms of domestic violence, sexual violence perpetrated by non-partners, child marriage, modern slavery, trafficking, violence against children and sexual abuse and exploitation (SEA). Violence against women and girls has both immediate and long-term effects on the physical, sexual, and mental health of women and girls, hinders their participation in economic opportunities and society, puts greater strains on health care, and results in legal expenses and losses in productivity. Violence is exacerbated in the contexts of crises and instability, and for women and girls facing intersecting discrimination because of disability, LGBT+ status, race or ethnicity.
Women are more likely than men to work in informal jobs with low pay and limited or no social protection benefits. They shoulder a disproportionate share of unpaid care and domestic work, and face interruptions and inequalities in paid work. They have more limited access to financial resources, assets and services than men. Women’s ability to contribute to social insurance (e.g., pensions) throughout their lives is often disrupted, making it difficult for women to save for their old age. These challenges are exacerbated in the context of crises and climate change, and for women and girls facing intersecting discrimination, for example, because of disability, LGBT+ status, race and ethnicity.
Social protection can be a powerful tool for reducing women’s and girls’ poverty, improving their access to education, expanding economic opportunities, reducing exposure to violence, and lessening vulnerability to crises. However, social protection systems often fail to address gender inequalities, and those working to improve outcomes for women and girls may not always consider social protection as a key solution. This gender-responsive social protection brief, along with the supporting thematic briefs, aims to explain what gender-responsive social protection is, why it is crucial, and, where relevant, provide insight into the tools and skills needed to implement or influence gender-responsive approaches.
This guidance note is produced under the Social Protection Technical Assistance (STAAR) facility which is funded by FCDO and implemented by DAI Global UK. It was commissioned by GiZ on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) to advance the international discourse and provide actionable insights to practitioners on how to best integrate gender considerations in social protection policies and programming in crisis contexts. The guidance note was written by Rebecca Holmes (STAAR), and Paola Pereznieto (STAAR), with valuable inputs from Valentina Barca (STAAR), and Helene Juillard (Key Aid Consulting) and developed in consultation with members of the SPIAC-B gender working group. It provides design and implementation considerations for gender-responsive and transformative social protection in crisis contexts, consolidating existing evidence and short case studies into actionable guidance to address gender inequalities. As inequalities are exacerbated during crises, the guidance note identifies ways to implement actions that can help reverse, and even transform, the disadvantages faced by women and girls in these contexts. The guidance note is primarily designed for practitioners in the fields of social protection working in crisis contexts and humanitarian practitioners working on linkages with social protection. It is also useful for gender practitioners working in crisis settings, identifying relevant instruments to promote gender equality and transformation in these adverse circumstances.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the important role of social protection approaches in response to large covariate shocks. There is a lot to be learned from countries’ collective experience, including documenting what has happened to date and what this implies for the future. Even before more structured impact and process evaluations are taking place, academics, researchers, and practitioners have started the process of ‘Case Study documentation’. The learning that this brings will be maximised if such case studies are carried out comprehensively and comparably. Otherwise, there is a real risk that information generated could overwhelm potential users, get lost, and ultimately be ineffective at contributing to learning. This document offers guidance on how to ensure that information is documented systematically and with a particular focus on the COVID-19 response. It suggests a structure of the key areas and dimensions to consider, and detailed questions to answer under each heading.
Countries across the globe are using or adapting social protection and humanitarian cash assistance to respond to a range of immediate and medium-term impacts of COVID-19. Getting assistance to those who need it quickly is helping to safeguard the well-being of individuals and families – enabling them to meet unexpected health care costs and adopt necessary protective behaviours; compensating for the loss of income, and mitigating the impact of inflation – particularly increased food prices. This Background Note was developed alongside others – most importantly the Strategy Decision Matrix and the Delivery System Decision Matrix – as a technical tool used to structure an independent and unbiased analysis of COVID-19 response options. It does not necessarily represent DFID or GIZ own views or policies.
Disaster Risk Finance (DRF) focuses on arranging finance in advance so that appropriate levels of funds will reliably get to the people who need it most, when they need it. Whilst the financial instrument to be used is important (e.g. insurance, contingent credit or contingency budgets to name a few options), it is also critical to think through how to get the money efficiently and effectively to affected communities. For this reason, DRF is best when it is linked to a pre-agreed plan of how the money should be spent. Because of this, those working in DRF are increasingly considering Social Protection as a means to distribute emergency support, sometimes called ‘Shock-Responsive Social Protection’ (SRSP). This brief provides some initial guidance for those wanting to deepen their understanding of SRSP from a financing perspective; it is suitable for those involved in the design or funding of DRF instruments and approaches, who want to explore options of how to increase its impact and cost-effectiveness, for example through improved contingency planning. Given spiralling needs and the rising frequency and severity of climate disasters, it is imperative to make sure that every dollar of DRF support has the maximum possible impact on the lives of vulnerable people. SRSP offers some potential to help realise that aim.
This primer was developed to inform an evidence-based approach to incorporating social protection into policy and financing discussions concerning loss and damage – the negative effects of climate change that occur despite mitigation and adaptation efforts – and to provide recommendations on how social protection might be used to contribute to the objectives of the newly created Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD). The paper outlines how social protection instruments can be utilised to respond to climate-induced loss and damage, drawing on recent experiences to illustrate how social protection mechanisms can be adapted to facilitate efficient and targeted, nationally led responses to loss and damage. The paper gives a brief history of the development of the fund, and the ongoing process of institutionalisation, including the current start-up phase, (the Barbados Implementation Modalities or BIM), then explains what social protection is and how it is relevant to achieving the FRLD mandate, setting out how social protection can be used to address various aspects of loss and damage. Finally, the paper considers options for the way forward, based on interviews with loss and damage experts drawn from governments, international organisations and civil society, providing recommendations for the development of the fund, in terms of accommodating social protection in its financing portfolio, and also recommendations relating to the policy, programme design, operational and financing considerations that need to be addressed if social protection is to play an effective role in loss and damage response and that the fund may consider financing.
Persons with disabilities have worse education, health and employment outcomes and are more vulnerable to shocks than persons without disabilities. At the same time, they are less likely to be enrolled in social protection programmes, including those for which they are eligible (Ibid.). They can face significant barriers accessing information, getting to enrolment points, or even completing the necessary paperwork for enrolment (Ibid.). Acknowledging this, policy makers from low and middle-income countries and development agencies are seeking practical approaches to ensure that social protection systems are more inclusive of and shock-responsive for persons with disabilities. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that countries which have disability identification mechanisms and registries already in place have been in a better position to provide fast relief and expand shock responsive support to persons with disabilities and their families. This Guidance Note draws on experience from a range of these countries to provide examples of targeting mechanisms to identify and assess the needs of persons with disabilities for their inclusion in social protection programmes, and to describe the pros and cons.
This guidance is intended to inform the design or adaptation of the following social assistance interventions to make them more nutrition-sensitive (see Box 1): cash transfers, cash-plus, in-kind transfers, school feeding, and public works programmes.
In the context of the Ukraine conflict, which is seeing unprecedented population movement within and outside of the country, the Government of Ukraine and refugee host countries have very often been the first to respond. Countries welcoming refugees have State social protection systems that are mature and operational, as well as in some cases having available legal provisions. In parallel, humanitarian actors have responded through cash transfers, alongside other forms of assistance, to help address immediate population needs by providing opportunities for linkages between the governments and the international community’s response. This briefing paper, developed by the Social Protection Technical Assistance, Advice and Resources (STAAR) facility in response to a request by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), outlines key considerations and options for strengthening linkages between the humanitarian response to date and social protection systems, both with the aim of improving the response and supporting these systems to respond to shocks in future.
This profile was developed with the available information between 26/04/2022 and 13/06/2022, as a supplement to the overarching briefing paper Humanitarian Assistance and Social Protection Linkages: Strengthening shock-responsiveness of social protection systems in the Ukraine crisis. Some key messages: Hungary is run by a nationalist conservative government with little focus on vulnerability and marginalisation and explicitly against asylum seekers, although open to seasonal labour migration to fill gaps in the short term. The social protection system has proven capable of addressing poverty in comparison to neighbouring countries – but has major gaps in terms of enabling access to employment for mothers and in its ability to address specific vulnerabilities. So far, only a small proportion of Ukrainians have registered under the Temporary Protection Scheme.
This short note examines the relationship between the humanitarian assistance sector and the routine social protection sector in response to COVID-19. Whilst a variety of guidance is being developed to support humanitarian practitioners around the response to the pandemic, less material exists that guides humanitarian practitioners on how to practically link their responses to social protection (SP) systems and programmes in the COVID-19 response.