FAO.org

C7 - 4.1. What is social protection?

The Inter-Agency Social Protection Assessment (ISPA) notes that social protection encompasses all: sets of policies and programs aimed at preventing or protecting all people against poverty, vulnerability, and social exclusion throughout their lifecycles, with a particular emphasis towards vulnerable groups. (ISPA, 2016, p.1)

FAO, which places particular focus on rural populations, defines social protection as a set of policies and programmes that addresses economic, environmental and social vulnerabilities to food insecurity and poverty by protecting and promoting livelihoods (FAO, 2017). 

Social protection programmes, supported by appropriate policies and institutional frameworks, and managed by common or coordinated tools, should seek to address risks throughout the life cycle  in a coordinated and harmonized manner (Rawlings, Murthy, and Winder, 2013). A systematic approach is particularly important when considering the contribution of social protection to climate-smart agriculture. 

Traditionally, social protection has been understood as encompassing:

1. Social assistance, which refers to non-contributory transfer programmes targeted in some manner to the poor, excluded or vulnerable. These are cash and/or in-kind transfer programmes that seek to reduce poverty by redistributing wealth and/or protecting households against income shocks. Social assistance programmes are intended to ensure a minimum level of well-being and a minimum level of nutrition, or help households manage risk (FAO, 2003). These programmes vary from cash or near cash (vouchers) to in-kind transfers. Examples of social assistance schemes include: school feeding or mother/child supplemental feeding programmes; conditional or unconditional cash transfers; food vouchers; food and fuel price subsidies when targeted to the poor; labour-intensive public works schemes, and fee waivers for essential services (Grosh et al., 2008). Some of these instruments are detailed in section 6.2 of this module.
2. Social Insurance, which includes all contributory programmes from employees, employers or the state. The objective of these programmes is to protecting individuals or households against the harmful impact of shocks resulting from personal circumstances, life-cycle or livelihood risks. Examples include publicly provided or mandated insurance schemes against old age, disability, death of the main household provider; maternity and sick leave; and social health insurance. Agricultural insurance schemes, which cover policy holders against the loss of agricultural production due to natural hazards, are another example of social insurance. In all these cases, beneficiaries receive benefits or services in recognition of their contributions to an insurance scheme (Grosh et al., 2008) (FAO, 2015b). 
3. Labour market policies and interventions, which provide unemployment benefits, build skills and ensure better access to the workforce (FAO, 2015b). They are classified into active and passive labour market policy measures. Active measures refer to mechanisms, such as employment incentives, entrepreneurial support and microcredit for small enterprises.  Passive measures are policy or programme that aim to establish minimum standards for employment and ensure decent and inclusive work. (FAO, 2015b). Chapter C7-5 describes the contribution of labour market policies and programmes to climate-smart agriculture.

Research on the impact of social protection has demonstrated their positive impact on various dimensions of poverty. Beyond simply addressing financial deprivation, social protection can nurture social development and support livelihoods. The four functions traditionally attributed to social protection are: protection, prevention, promotion and transformation (Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler, 2004). As described by the 2015 State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA): 

"social protection can play a protective role in providing means (cash or in-kind) to access food and mitigate the impact of shocks. It can have a preventive function in averting deeper deprivation by strengthening resilience against shocks (and stresses) and preventing loss of incomes and assets. It can support the accumulation of resources to sustain livelihoods (e.g. through asset transfers and public works). Social protection can also play a promotive function by directly supporting investments in human resources (nutrition, health, education and skills development) and by reducing liquidity constraints and income insecurity to induce investments in farm and non-farm activities. It can also have a transformative function in the lives of the poor through reorienting their focus beyond day-to-day survival towards investments in the future, by shifting power relations within households (as social protection can empower women) and by strengthening the capabilities and capacities of those living in poverty to empower themselves." (FAO, 2015, p.15).

These functions of social protection in relation to climate-smart agriculture are further developed in chapter C7-4.2.

The role of social protection in disaster risk reduction has been recognized at the highest levels. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, adopted at the Third United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, highlighted the need to promote and support the development of social safety nets and social protection as disaster risk reduction measures linked to, and integrated with, livelihood enhancement programmes (FAO, 2017). At the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, the Social Protection Inter-agency Cooperation Board issued a statement recognizing the key role of social protection, and in particular its linkages with humanitarian action to bridge the gap between humanitarian responses and sustainable development. Reducing the exposure of vulnerable farmers to shocks, limiting the impact of these shocks and supporting adaptation measures is critical for climate-smart agriculture.

Before a climate-related shock even happens, social protection can play a key role in addressing the root causes the economic, social and environmental vulnerability to these shocks. Through its protective, preventive and promotive functions, social protection can also prevent losses of assets during an emergency. Access to social protection enhances the economic capacity of the poor. It allows them to accumulate assets, providing a cushion against shocks, which enables them to maintain levels of consumption and effectively manage risks (FAO, 2017). Specific prevention measures, such as social insurance, weather-based insurance, social transfers, and other instruments may help reduce vulnerability and decrease the impact of a probable risk by increasing the availability of coping strategies in the face of disasters (FAO, 2017). Agricultural insurance schemes, which may, for example, pay benefits based on a variety of indices, such as rainfall, average yields per area and satellite-monitored vegetation conditions, support the management of climate-related risks for farmers (FAO, 2015). For vulnerable small-scale farmers, however, taking advantage of these schemes can be difficult owing to a variety of factors, such as the cost of premiums, illiteracy and access to information, and a lack of trust in insurance providers. 

Social protection systems have proven useful in delivering post-disaster relief and recovery assistance. In these situations, they can meet the increased need of regular beneficiaries and expand their programs to protect a wider group of vulnerable people against the impact of a specific threat (FAO, 2017). In the risk preparedness process, responding to a shock is made easier when the existing social protection programmes include specific disaster response mechanisms, such as administrative systems and coordination mechanisms. An example is a national early-warning system that triggers built-in early action plans based on agreed standard operating procedures. These disaster response mechanisms scale up assistance beyond the core target group (usually the chronically poor) to include people who are particularly affected by the disaster. Achieving this will require the mobilization of resources and efforts, before and after disasters, to inform, register and enroll new beneficiaries, and deliver benefits quickly. Successful experiences in scaling up existing social protection schemes are detailed in Box C7.1.

Social protection systems, through their promotive and transformative functions, can strengthen the adaptive capacities of all relevant stakeholders beyond the short term.  They can directly or indirectly foster agricultural production and contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation in the longer term. Social protection programmes that include capacity development (see module C1) can be important entry points for promoting climate-smart practices. For instance, cash-for-work initiatives or productive safety nets can be designed in such a way as to engage communities in sustainable natural resources management and generate 'green jobs' (see chapter C7-5)  in areas, such as waste management, watershed management, reforestation and soil erosion prevention (FAO, 2017). Social protection also helps enable beneficiaries to invest their time and energy, and potentially their financial resources in adopting effective and innovative natural resource management practices.

One of the programmes that pioneered the integration of disaster risk management and social protection is the Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Programme. Launched in 2005, the Programme targets food insecure households in the most vulnerable areas of Ethiopia. It provides them with a package of services depending on their profile. Labour-constrained households receive food or cash assistance. Other households participate in labour-intensive public works, at times farm work is not an option, to improve community assets. Public works include small-scale irrigation, soil and water conservation, road building, and the construction of schools and clinics. The Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Programme is complemented by the Household Asset Building Programme, which was launched in 2010 to promote the diversification of household incomes and building of productive assets by providing training and supporting access to financing (World Bank, 2013). An evaluation of the third phase of the Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Programme has found that the programme has had positive impact in climate change mitigation and adaptation. It has helped households smooth consumption and kept them from having to deplete their assets when faced with shocks. The public works have reduced erosion, improved filtration in water tables and enabled the introduction of small-scale irrigation systems, which have strengthened household resilience (DFID, 2015). Based on the third phase evaluation, the fourth phase of implementation seeks to amplify the Programme's capacity to build household resilience to the impacts of climate change, particularly climate-related shocks. It will work to increase coverage to the chronically poor, expand contingency plans, and improve the planning of public works and the provision of livelihood support. This experience in Ethiopia has demonstrated the potential of an integrated approach that links social protection, disaster risk reduction, and the promotion of climate-smart agriculture. This has been achieved partly through the rehabilitation or construction of community structures that are conducive to climate-smart agriculture.

A growing body of evidence indicates that social protection interventions can also have a productive impact. By improving nutrition and health, and increasing educational attainment, social protection interventions can develop human capital and enhance labour productivity and employability, but can also have a more direct impact on production. For example, the evidence generated through the Protection to Production Project (see Box C7.2) shows that social protection interventions, in particular cash transfers, can influence the productive capacities of beneficiary households (Davis et al., 2016). Poor households have limited resources and lack the financial means and security to engage in productive activities. Poor farmers who are exposed to a number of natural risks, tend to opt for lower risk activities that may shield them from the negative impacts of potential shocks, but generate lower returns, which traps them in poverty (Rosenzweig and Binswanger, 1993). By providing regular, predictable cash transfers, social protection helps beneficiaries overcome these liquidity constraints and provides an insurance mechanism that covers them should potentially risky ventures fail. This allows vulnerable farmers to engage in higher-risk, higher-return agricultural practices. A recent study carried out in Zambia, analysed the effects of an unconditional cash transfer on risk taking and found that, not only did the transfer reduce the farmers’ risk aversion, but it also encouraged them to invest in modern inputs (Prifti et al., 2017). Through its promotive functions, social protection provides the complementary support that vulnerable farmers need to build the skills, acquire knowledge and gain access to the assets they require to engage in climate-smart agricultural practices (see module C1 on human and institutional capacity development for climate-smart agriculture). Evaluations of seven cash transfers programmes in sub-Saharan Africa found that the transfers enhanced agricultural activities among beneficiary households through the increased the use of agricultural inputs and built up livestock holdings. Beneficiaries also gained greater flexibility in how they were able to allocate labour, which led to a reduction in agricultural wage labour (Box C7.2).

The impact of social protection programmes on sustainable agricultural production can be further reinforced by a taking a pro-active approach that builds on social protection’s promotive and transformative functions.  Such an approach can boost livelihoods and productive capacities of beneficiary households by providing them with a combination of social cash transfers, productive assets, agricultural inputs and/or technical training and extension services. FAO refers to this approach as 'cash+' interventionsⁱⁱⁱ. The cash transfer component addresses basic household needs and protects the beneficiaries assets from being depleted or lost, while the component that provides productive assets, technical training and extension services, can help kick-start a virtuous cycle of income generation that leads to economic empowerment, which is the key to increasing asset ownership, food security and dietary diversity. 

Including a selection of nutrient-rich and adapted species and varieties (as addressed in detail in module B1 on crop production) as inputs will make cash+ approaches more nutrition-sensitive. These approaches should also ensure that women farmers are not overlooked in terms of the opportunities they provide and the benefits they deliver.

A cash+ approach has recently been implemented in Burkina Faso, Lesotho, Niger, Mali, Mauritania and Somalia. Evidence shows its potential to improve household incomes, assets, productivity, dietary diversity and food security. Social protection interventions that follow such an approach also reduce the pressures these household face to adopt negative coping strategies, which makes them less vulnerable to future shocks related to climate or other factors (FAO, 2016a). In Burkina Faso, Initial impact assessments conducted one and two years after the end of the transfers show positive trends in terms of increased adaptive capacity of households to respond to climate-related shocks because the beneficiaries were better able to avoid negative coping strategies, increase their income and improve their diet (Sawadogo et al., 2017). Whenever possible, this cash+ approach should be supported by governments through multisectoral policy and operational dialogue that brings together line ministries dealing with social protection, agriculture and livestock. As with other social protection systems, the implementation of social protection schemes that augment financial transfers with other inputs and services require support from appropriately designed policies and programmes.

Cash+ packages to stimulate the productive impact of social protection may be carried out by embedding the development of human capital and access to productive activities in the programme design. In Latin America, there has been a trend to make cash transfers conditional on school enrolment and health check-ups. Where services are lacking or of suboptimal quality, such conditions may not be a valid option. Recent evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa has also demonstrated that unconditional cash transfers have a similar impact on human capital outcomes. There may be options for developing schemes with conditions related to the adoption of sustainable practices. However, the complexities involved in implementing these schemes and the evidence of the relative effect of these conditions need to be taken into account.

Social protection has the potential to contribute to climate-smart agriculture by enhancing risk management and supporting climate change adaptation and, indirectly, climate change mitigation. This contribution can be further reinforced if social protection programmes are explicitly designed with these functions in mind, and are supported by appropriate tools, which are partly described in this chapter.

One challenge regarding social protection programmes is coverage in rural areas. More than 70 percent of the world's population lacks adequate coverage by social protection, with inadequate coverage especially pronounced in rural areas (ILO, 2015a). Even as programmes and investments expand towards universal coverage, their coverage often remains limited in fragile contexts. Governments need to adopt proactive measures to extend the coverage of social assistance and social insurance to those who are currently excluded from social protection. This will involve providing packages of programmes and services that area suited to rural areas and affordable and appealing to rural people.

Targeting is a method to select beneficiaries according to a program’s objectives while at the same time ensuring fiscal affordability of social assistance schemes. Most countries have established a targeting system based on a mix of geographic considerations, and proxy means testing and/or community participation that involves screening or validation. However, targeting also involves administrative, financial, social and political costs. Additionally, the methodology used for targeting is critical for determining whether the rural poor are included in the programme or not. Increasing criticism of proxy means testing (e.g. Brown, Ravallion, and Van De Walle, 2016; Kidd, Gelders, and Bailey-Athias, 2016) has paved the way for new tools that better encompass the multidimensional nature of rural vulnerability. To ensure that the social protection system is responsive to climate-related shocks, a targeting system may be need to be set up that is capable of differentiating chronically vulnerable beneficiaries from people who are temporally vulnerable after a climate-related disaster (Oxford Policy Management, 2016). 

To effectively manage shocks social protection programmes should be risk-informed. Experience has shown that the faster support reaches people affected by a disaster, the less likely they are to resort to negative coping strategies (Asfaw and Davis, 2017). Governments need to have social protection tools available to be deployed swiftly in face of a disaster. A rapid response is facilitated when existing social protection programmes include specific disaster response mechanisms. A national warning system that triggers a built-in disaster response is an example of such a mechanism. Disaster response mechanisms should scale up assistance beyond the core target group (usually the chronically poor) to include people who are temporarily impoverished as a consequence of the shock. This requires sufficient capacity on the ground to conduct assessments, inform, register and enrol new beneficiaries, and deliver benefits quickly. 

FAO supports the development of national capacities to design and implement shock-responsive and risk-informed social protection systems. For example, in partnership with the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, FAO has developed an interactive learning tool (Figure C7.3. Risk-Informed and shock-responsive social protection systems interactive learning game   to raise awareness about the linkages between policies on social protection, climate change and resilience, and build operational capacity in this area at the local and national level (FAO, 2016b).