Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Input or Outcome?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply
Published

May 16 in Parallel Session 3A "Vulnerability & Volatility: Dealing with Local and National Shocks". Presented by Rachel Slater, ODI.

May 16 in Parallel Session 3A "Vulnerability & Volatility: Dealing with Local and National Shocks". Presented by Rachel Slater, ODI.

Published in Education , News & Politics
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
66
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Input or outcome? lessons from designing and implementing safety net programs to build resilience of poor people and vulnerable communities Dr Rachel Slater Presentation prepared for Building Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security Addis Ababa, 15-17 May , 2014
  • 2. Outline • Context – why social protection and resilience? • Is it specific types of social protection instruments themselves, or specific features of the programme design, or elements of programme implementation that have resulted in enhancing people’s resilience? Five programmes: - Meket Livelihoods Development Programme (MLDP) in Ethiopia - Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) in Ethiopia - Northern Uganda Social Action Fund 2 (NUSAF2) in Karamoja, Uganda - Hunger Safety Net Programme (HSNP) in Kenya - Protracted Relief Programme (PRP) in Zimbabwe 2
  • 3. ‘People are more resilient to the extent that they are able to meet more of their needs and have security that they will be able to meet future needs (access to health, education, water, sanitation, shelter) even in the face of modest shocks and stresses..’ Slater et al 2013
  • 4. Input or outcome? Social protection and resilience Social protection can play two linked but discrete roles in assisting households or people to meet their needs: • Enhancing livelihoods: social protection is an instrument that over time helps people build their ability to cope independently i.e. without assistance. (For example, social protection programmes may enable households to increase assets that either enable them to earn enough or which they can use to buffer themselves against shocks and stresses); • Guaranteeing consumption or support during difficult times: social protection can ensure that people’s basic consumption needs are met. Beyond this it can give people increased freedom from exploitation or from a need to engage in distress strategies if it gives them security, i.e. if they know in advance that they can rely on such social protection in times of crisis. 4
  • 5. Is SP alone is enough? Yes / No? 5
  • 6. What features contribute to resilience? • combining instruments or linking explicitly to other complementary instruments • longer programme duration allowing beneficiaries to receive transfers (and other support) over a longer timeframe. • capability to increase the level of benefits received during shock events such as drought.. • using a clear and realistic logic for achieving graduation.. • adaptation / flexibility matters 6
  • 7. What challenges undermine resilience through social protection? • Unrealistic expectations of asset accumulation given the duration, type and level of transfers. • Shocks, especially food price inflation. • Too limited a range of options for investments in livelihoods • Imbalance between the objective of maintaining consumption and that of promoting asset accumulation. 7
  • 8. Making it real: Priorities for policy-makers Q: What really matters for achieving resilience? A: A meaningful level of transfer, for a reasonable duration of time, in a reliable way, at the right time of year Have we ever given basic social transfers a chance? 8
  • 9. Conclusions • Avoid the general tendency across all the programmes to underestimate the complexity of graduation / resilience programming and to oversell what the programmes can deliver. (Note: overselling has tended to have taken place not at the local / programme level but at donor agencies headquarters where expectations have increased and become unrealistic) • How? Concentrate on getting the basic programme right - having as few objectives as possible; using simple social transfer instruments only with no ‘add- ons’, delivering on time and when you say you will. 10
  • 10. Thank you!