SOCIAL PROTECTION & JOBS DISCUSSION PAPER No. 2204 | APRIL 2022 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages with Examples from South Asia Steen Lau Jorgensen and Maria Virginia Ceretti © 2022 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: +1 (202) 473 1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: +1 (202) 522 2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Abstract retro geometric background: © iStock.com/marigold_88 Project 41595 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages With Examples from South Asia Steen Lau Jorgensen1 steen.lau.jorgensen@gmail.com Maria Virginia Ceretti mceretti@worldbank.org 1Steen Jorgensen is a short-term consultant in the Social Protection and Jobs Unit of the South Asia Region of the World Bank and former Director of the World Bank. Maria Virginia Ceretti is an extended-term consultant in the Social Protection and Jobs Unit of the South Asia Region of the World Bank. Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................ii Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................iv 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 2 Humanitarian Assistance and Social Protection: Concepts .................................................... 1 3 Commitments to Improve Coordination ................................................................................ 6 3.1 Why improve coordination? ............................................................................................ 6 3.2 Humanitarian Summit: Grand Bargain ............................................................................. 6 3.3 Social protection commitments at Humanitarian Summit .............................................. 9 4 Integrating Social Protection and Humanitarian .................................................................. 10 4.1 Degrees of program integration .................................................................................... 10 4.1.1 Vertical and horizontal expansion of nation-led programs .................................... 10 4.2 Degrees of integration with government across the delivery chain.............................. 11 4.3 Key considerations/issues for each degree of integration ............................................ 18 4.4 Mapping program examples across Table 3 .................................................................. 20 4.5 South Asia examples for Table 3 .................................................................................... 22 4.5.1 Afghanistan ............................................................................................................. 22 4.5.2 Bangladesh .............................................................................................................. 26 4.5.3 Pakistan ................................................................................................................... 32 5 Considerations for Better Integration................................................................................... 36 5.1 Broad agreement on issues ............................................................................................ 36 5.2 Political will..................................................................................................................... 37 5.3 Leadership matters ........................................................................................................ 38 5.4 High-level strategic commitments to integration .......................................................... 38 5.5 Crises as opportunities ................................................................................................... 39 5.6 Special considerations for refugees and noncitizens ..................................................... 40 5.7 We still do not understand each other .......................................................................... 41 5.8 Mandate of agencies and intra-UN challenges .............................................................. 42 5.9 ‘Participation revolution’ from Grand Bargain is lagging............................................... 43 5.10 Weak and/or party to conflict government ............................................................... 44 5.11 Timing: An issue that can be fixed .............................................................................. 45 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages 5.12 Scaling up and down needs to be done carefully....................................................... 45 5.13 Implementation issues ............................................................................................... 46 5.13.1 Beneficiary identification and targeting ................................................................. 46 5.13.2 Levels of benefits .................................................................................................... 47 5.13.3 Nature of benefit .................................................................................................... 49 5.13.4 Information systems ............................................................................................... 49 5.13.5 Monitoring and dispute resolution ......................................................................... 50 5.14 Internal World Bank issues ......................................................................................... 50 6 Way Forward: Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................. 51 6.1 Maintain and extend high-level commitments .............................................................. 51 6.2 Integrate commitments into agency policies and practices .......................................... 51 6.3 Building on practical successes in implementation ....................................................... 52 Annex 1: Implementation of Grand Bargain Commitments in Afghanistan................................. 53 References .................................................................................................................................... 58 List of Tables Table 1: Humanitarian versus rights- and poverty-based social protection .................................. 3 Table 2: Translating objectives ....................................................................................................... 9 Table 3: Considerations for integration with the government across the delivery chain ............ 12 Table 4: Key considerations for each level of alignment .............................................................. 18 Table 5: Mapping programs into Table 3 ...................................................................................... 20 Table 6: Levels of integration in Afghanistan ............................................................................... 24 Table 7: Levels of integration in Bangladesh ................................................................................ 28 Table 8: Levels of integration in Pakistan - The FATA case ........................................................... 33 List of Boxes Box 1: A humanitarian participation skeptic .................................................................................. 8 Box 2: Social Protection Commitments to Humanitarian Summit ................................................. 9 Box 3: Shock-responsive SP in the Caribbean ............................................................................... 36 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Abstract Traditionally social protection (SP) and humanitarian programs were quite distinct in their objectives, scope, and operations, but over time those distinctions have diminished and with that the gains from better integration. Humanitarian programs are committed to more involvement of national actors, more use of cash, and greater popular participation—all matters that are important for SP actors. On the other side, SP has gradually shifted into shock-responsive or adaptive SP that explicitly targets not only the poor but also those affected by shocks. Beyond presenting the divide and overlap of concepts, principles, and commitments from the SP and humanitarian realms, this paper attempts at unbundling a framework for humanitarian and SP integration across the delivery chain (based on the paper by Seyfert et al. 2019). Global experiences across the integration spectrum, as well as the practical application of the framework in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, are exemplified. The analysis shows how programs apply a ‘mix and match’ approach building on factors such as political will, technical capacity, and alignment of objectives across implementing agencies, donors, and the government. The paper identifies constraints and opportunities for better integration and proposes a set of actions to enhance benefits for affected populations. JEL Codes: H53, H84, I38, O19 Keywords: social protection, humanitarians, humanitarian assistance, safety nets, government, UN agencies, integration, coordination, commitment, delivery chain, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan i Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Abbreviations AAP Accountability to Affected Populations AAA WG AAP Working Group BCC Behavior Change Communication BISP Benazir Income Support Program CaLP Cash Learning Partnership CBT Community-Based Targeting CFC Citizen Facilitation Center CMC Central Monitoring Committee DP Displaced Population DRM Disaster Risk Management DRP Displaced Rohingya Population ECD Early Childhood Development EEC Ehsaas Emergency Cash ENETAWF Early Warning, Early Finance, and Early Action Project FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FATA Federally Administered Tribal Areas FATA TDP ERP FATA Temporarily Displaced Persons Emergency Recovery Project FDMA FATA Disaster Management Agency FDRAP Federal Disaster Response Action Plan GDP Gross Domestic Product GIHA-C Gender in Humanitarian Action Working Group for COVID-19 GoB Government of Bangladesh GoP Government of Pakistan GRS Grievance Redress System HCT Humanitarian Country Team HCTT Humanitarian Coordination Task Team HNO Humanitarian Needs Overview HRP Humanitarian Response Plan ICCT Inter-Cluster Coordination Team ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross IDA International Development Association ILO International Labour Organization INGO International Nongovernmental Organization IOM International Organization for Migration IPC Integrated Phase Classification IRC International Rescue Committee ISCG Inter-Sector Coordination Group LSG Livelihood Support Grant M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MIS Management Information System MoDMR Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief MoFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs MoSW Ministry of Social Welfare ii Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages MoU Memorandum of Understanding NADRA National Database and Registration Authority NAWG Needs Assessment Working Group NDMA National Disaster Management Authority NGO Nongovernmental Organization NRC Norwegian Refugee Council NSPS National Social Protection Strategy NSSS National Social Security Strategy NTF National Task Force OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs ODI Overseas Development Institute OSS One-Stop Shop PSP Payment Service Provider RCCE Risk Communication and Community Engagement REACH COVID-19 Relief Effort for Afghan Communities and Households SOP Standard Operating Procedure SP Social Protection SPACE Social Protection Approaches to COVID-19: Expert Advice SPIAC-B Social Protection Interagency Coordination Board TDP Temporarily Displaced Person TOR Terms of Reference UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organization iii Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Executive Summary Over time the distinction between humanitarian and social protection (SP) programs has diminished and with it the gains from better integration. Humanitarian programs (spanning from responses to political and climate shocks to full-scale refugee crisis) are committed to more involvement of national actors, more use of cash, and greater popular participation—all matters that are important for SP actors. On the other side, SP has gradually shifted into shock-responsive or adaptive SP that explicitly targets not only the poor but also those affected by a shock. In some countries, like Bangladesh, SP programs (outside of pensions) have always been seen as responsive to a shock. Some confusion and misunderstandings remain around the humanitarian principles, especially neutrality and independence, and how they can be met in practice if the government is discriminating or party to the conflict that is causing distress. There is broad agreement that better integration, defined, depending on context, from convergence to coordination and collaboration between humanitarian and SP programs and systems, is beneficial but needs to be made with clear views to feasibility, capacity, and respecting the humanitarian principles. This paper presents a framework (based on the ‘unbundling’ paper by Seyfert et al. 2019) for how to think through how each level of integration (parallel, alignment, piggybacking, and nation-led) across the delivery chain, from financing and policies to implementation, matters such as identification of beneficiaries, levels of payment, and grievance mechanisms. The paper proposes further unbundling several implementation issues that have proven important in the practical application of the framework. Table 3 presents this in a schematic form, incorporating lessons from newer literature. The table is meant as a guide or inspiration to think through each link in the delivery chain and see what is feasible or desirable in each context. The paper suggests five areas to consider as it is determined where on the spectrum the different links in the delivery chain should or can fall: • Government engagement and learning. Greater integration is better for government ownership and learning. Even where government capacity is low, programs should be designed to gradually involve government staff in the program implementation to help build their capacity. Some programs explicitly build this into their objectives over time, even if they start completely parallel. • Sustainability. Parallel programs tend to be less sustainable over time. This is not a problem for a short-term humanitarian intervention. However, many crises last for a long time (for example, displacement and refugees) or are repeating with shorter frequency (climate change droughts), and thus sustainability becomes an issue. For piggybacking or nation-led programs, government capacity may be overloaded, or the fiscal burden may be too large to ensure sustainability. • Timeliness and predictability. Traditionally many parallel humanitarian programs act more quickly, especially for ‘known’ crises such as earthquakes, droughts, and so on, where agencies can quickly mobilize and deliver critical standard packages of support. Working more with governments can delay action, although the COVID-19 response has iv Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages shown governments moving faster than other actors. Predictability is important to enable rational risk management and is best achieved with longer-term SP programs with clear triggers for crisis response. Localization of funding can also help speed up the response. • The cost of programs tends to be higher for less integrated programs given the need to fund multiple overheads and support systems. However, building a nation-led program from scratch is also expensive and often entails long delays. • Building the social contract is a key objective of government programs, helping build legitimacy and trust between citizens and the government. More government involvement throughout the delivery chain helps build the social contract. However, it is not beneficial to simply hand over a program for a government to run, if it is not ready to take it on. A government’s mismanagement of a previously well-run program will lead to less trust. In cases where the government is not recognized internationally, is a party to the conflict, or is seen as too discriminatory, it is not clear that programs should aim to build trust in the government. Based on these considerations, program design often does not fit neatly within one level of integration but rather adopts a ‘mix and match’ approach depending on the country’s circumstances and the objectives of the agencies involved. The paper schematically shows how a few programs map across Table 3, demonstrating the difference even across agencies within one country. A more detailed discussion of three South Asia cases shows the same mixed approach. Interestingly, programs like those in Bangladesh that appear to be mostly piggybacking, and are often presented as such in the literature, end up being spread across the degrees of integration depending on the step in the delivery chain. The literature review and key informant interviews identified several factors that facilitate better integration. • Broad agreement on the issues that can facilitate or hinder integration is the first step toward improved dialogue and thus collaboration. • Political will of the government and agencies is critical: o Political will of the government to work with agencies, to engage in reform of their SP system to make them more shock responsive o Political will of agencies to adjust their operating procedures to include the government and collaborate with others o The political will of donors to support longer-term reforms and sustain their efforts over time. Lack of ‘political will’ can be much too blunt a criticism. Decision-makers are faced with several difficult issues to address within numerous constraints not just a lack of ‘will’. • Leadership is critical. Even if the political will exists or especially when political commitment is lukewarm, leadership is critical: o Leadership within agencies to keep the ultimate beneficiaries in mind, even if it means less overhead funding or less well-known implementation modalities v Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages o Leadership within governments to accept a stronger role (at least early on) in implementation—leadership to drive the necessary reforms. Often assessments point to ‘personal factors’ as critical for success—this makes it hard to duplicate the experience. It is better to drill down to find the key leadership aspects that drove the success—those that can more easily be replicated. • Crises as opportunities. Many development agencies have created special policies to facilitate quicker response in emergencies and opened up for direct implementation by humanitarians with government approval. Most recently, the global response to COVID- 19 demonstrates several good, well-integrated responses. Similarly, the frequent weather-related events in Bangladesh and the refugee crises in the south of Bangladesh have driven well-coordinated and aligned programs. On the other hand, there are several constraints to better integration, including the following: • High-level commitments are not translated into practical guidance. There are some key commitments that help create space for local leadership to better integrate, such as the Grand Bargain commitments for humanitarians and the increased focus on risk management for SP agencies. Unfortunately, these high-level commitments are not translated into practical guidance for agency staff. Internal guidance, rules, and incentive structures are not geared to work better across the humanitarian-development nexus, putting more emphasis on local leadership to get the job done even though incentives might not be aligned. • Refugees create unique challenges. Given that needs are different between refugees and the local population, at times the benefits are set higher for refugees, which, in turn, creates mistrust with the local population who receive less support. Many governments do not want to include noncitizens in their SP programs, also creating barriers to more integration. Several countries have managed to do so well though, including Jordan. • There is still a lack of understanding. Despite much good work on ‘translating’ principles and technical jargon between humanitarians and SP actors, much remains to be done. SP practitioners, for instance, would like to better understand how humanitarian principles are applied in the field. This is an important area for knowledge work within and across agencies. • Mandate of agencies and weak intra-UN 2 coordination can create obstacles. For example, the World Bank group is explicitly mandated to provide development finance, not relief. Despite this, the World Bank has moved further into the recovery phase of a crisis and, within SP, has moved aggressively to support shock-responsive SP. Other agencies are purely humanitarian and it can be difficult to work across the nexus. Intra- UN coordination is also essential. • ‘Participation revolution’ of the Grand Bargain is lacking. Of all the elements of the Grand Bargain, this is widely seen as the one with the weakest implementation. Some go 2 UN = United Nations. vi Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages so far as to say that nothing has changed. At the same time, the participation of affected people has become a mainstay in many development agencies, which can create real tension. • Weak and/or ‘party to conflict’ government. When a government is a party to the conflict, it becomes difficult to align or integrate and still uphold the humanitarian principles of impartiality and neutrality. Similarly, if governments do not control significant parts of the territory, it becomes extremely difficult to deliver using government systems and still be impartial and neutral. It is easy to blame weak government capacity to justify not working with the government and implementing in a parallel manner. This reasoning is erroneous as it limits the sustainability of the programs and undermines any emerging political acceptance of the government. • Timing—an issue that may not be real. The contrast between the fast response of humanitarian and the slow pace of government SP programs is a valid concern, but it is not an excuse to stick with purely parallel programs with no government involvement, nor is it universally true. The literature is littered with examples of how ‘slow’ government programs have responded effectively to humanitarian crises. • Scaling up and down must be done carefully. Lowering SP benefits or limiting the eligible beneficiaries, once a crisis is over, is difficult politically. To help address this, many governments give programs that expand horizontally or vertically in a crisis a special name and make explicit from the beginning that this is a temporary program. Communication and participation are key. Finally, the report identifies several cross-cutting implementation issues that can create difficulty for better integration: • Beneficiary identification and targeting is a lively and ongoing debate within the SP community and across the humanitarian-development nexus. Recent work on targeting shows the need for pragmatism and practicality on both sides, so there is hope this problem will lessen in the future. • Levels of benefits. Humanitarian benefits have traditionally been in the form of a package of goods necessary for survival or its cash equivalent if conditions made it possible to obtain the goods locally. SP benefits also refer to a basic needs basket—but a more restricted basket and budget constraints often mean that actual benefits are lower. • Information systems. Almost all key informants mentioned the problem of parallel and proprietary information systems as an obstacle to better integration. Real progress needs to be made here across agencies considering data privacy and access issues. • Monitoring and dispute resolution. The weak implementation of the ‘participation revolution’ means that dispute resolution systems in many humanitarian programs remain weak. On the development side, this has been a focus for a longer time, so more programs have these built in. Similarly, there is uneven beneficiary participation in monitoring across humanitarian and SP programs. vii Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages 1 Introduction This paper presents concepts, experiences, and opportunities for improvement for collaboration between social protection (SP) and humanitarian agencies and SP operations in humanitarian space. The report has six sections. • Section 2 summarizes the conceptual underpinnings for SP and humanitarian assistance including definitions. • Section 3 presents international commitments for better integration of SP and humanitarian assistance as well as progress toward meeting those goals. • Section 4 presents a stylized form of different levels of integration and their application across the delivery chain based on a literature review, with a special focus on South Asian examples. • Section 5 addresses the key enablers and inhibitors for integration and SP operations in humanitarian space. • Section 6 discusses some potential recommendations that would further enhance the effectiveness of interventions by greater degrees of integration. 2 Humanitarian Assistance and Social Protection: Concepts Traditionally SP and humanitarian assistance were quite distinct in their objectives, scope, and operations but over time, those distinctions have blurred. According to the United Nations (UN), humanitarian assistance is “…aid that seeks, to save lives and alleviate suffering of a crisis affected population. Humanitarian assistance must be provided in accordance with the basic humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, and neutrality, as stated in General Assembly Resolution 46/182. In addition, the UN seeks to provide humanitarian assistance with full respect for the sovereignty of States.” (ReliefWeb 2008, 31–32) Other definitions include reference to the need to prevent and strengthen preparedness for crises, such as this one from 2003 by a group of humanitarian donors: 3 “The objectives of humanitarian action are to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain human dignity during and in the aftermath of man-made crises and natural disasters, as well as to prevent and strengthen preparedness for the occurrence of such situations.” (Authors’ emphasis) Some argue that prevention and preparedness are already included in the ‘save lives’ part of the first definition. In any case, explicitly including preparedness (‘resilience building’ in SP language) and prevention (‘risk reduction’ in SP language) helps clarify two opportunities for collaboration. 3Principles and Good Practice of Humanitarian Donorship, June 17, 2003. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/EN-23-Principles-and-Good-Practice-of-Humanitarian-Donorship.pdf 1 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages This paper considers the full span of humanitarian programs, from response to political and climate shocks; armed conflicts; internal displacement; or as in the case of the Rohingya, a full- scale refugee crisis. Each context implies a different principle of engagement and, with it, different implications and opportunities for systems integration. Traditionally SP was defined as poverty relief and/or social insurance against risks such as poor health, lack of income in old age, and unemployment. As discussed in Jorgensen and Siegel (2019), different agencies use different definitions of SP, generally reflecting their basic mandate. An interagency working group on SP, the Social Protection Interagency Coordination Board (SPIAC-B), co-chaired by the World Bank and the International Labour Organization (ILO), defines SP as “the set of policies and programmes aimed at preventing or protecting all people against poverty, vulnerability and social exclusion throughout their lifecycles, with a particular emphasis towards vulnerable groups.” (quoted by European Commission 2019, 10) Interestingly, the World Bank’s current definition is “Social protection systems help the poor and vulnerable cope with crises and shocks, find jobs, invest in the health and education of their children, and protect the aging population.” 4 It reflects a limited view of SP instruments that do not include the wide scope of SP programs supported by the World Bank. The definition reflects neither the whole risk chain (risk prevention, mitigation, and coping) nor the many different SP activities to help not just “cope with crisis and shocks” but also build resilience to shocks or insure against shocks. Over time, the World Bank has expanded its work from ‘static’ SP that helps assist the poor and vulnerable as well as social insurance for formal sector workers toward adaptive SP, that is, SP systems that adapt and respond to different shocks. Adaptive SP systems work across the risk chain to prevent, mitigate, and build resilience to shocks. Jorgensen and Siegel (2019) argue for a modernized and expanded view of SP rather than the one currently used by the World Bank in its formal definition. Such a modernized view of SP would better reflect today’s more chaotic and unpredictable world as well as the expanded array of SP instruments while maintaining the fundamental link between SP and social management of risk that has been the bedrock of the establishment and dramatic expansion of SP over the last 20 years. Many agencies use a rights-based approach to SP where the role of SP is to enable rights holders to access a basic minimum package of rights to livelihoods, health, and so on. Such approaches reflect the core principles of a human rights approach: 5 • “Participation—everyone is entitled to active participation in decision-making processes which affect the enjoyment of their rights. 4 https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/socialprotection/ 5 https://ennhri.org/about-nhris/human-rights-based-approach/ 2 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages • Accountability—duty-bearers are held accountable for failing to fulfil their obligations towards rights-holders. There should be effective remedies in place when human rights breaches occur. • Non-discrimination and equality—all individuals are entitled to their rights without discrimination of any kind. All types of discrimination should be prohibited, prevented and eliminated. • Empowerment—everyone is entitled to claim and exercise their rights. Individuals and communities need to understand their rights and participate in the development of policies which affect their lives. • Legality—approaches should be in line with the legal rights set out in domestic and international laws.” Many of these principles overlap with the humanitarian principles discussed above and should thus facilitate collaboration with humanitarian agencies. In cases where the government either is a party to a conflict or attempts to interfere with how agencies operate, the human rights principle of legality could conflict with the humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality. Table 1 summarizes the distinctive features of humanitarian, rights-based SP and poverty or risk- based SP. The table draws the distinguishing features more starkly that are often found for didactic purposes. Some agencies follow a rights-respecting but poverty-focused approach and in practice many programs share aspects of each approach. Table 1: Humanitarian versus rights- and poverty-based social protection (Vulnerability to) Poverty- Humanitarian Rights-based SP based SP Discourse Needs based Rights based Resilience building, risk management, poverty reduction Setting Normal livelihoods have Longer-term inequality or Transitory and longer-term been dramatically and exclusion poverty and vulnerability suddenly disrupted. Role of government Government role is limited The government role in Most programs work with by humanitarian principles setting a legal framework governments; sometimes of neutrality and is essential to the legalityimplementation is independence, especially if principle. contracted out to other the government is party to actors with Government underlying conflict. approvals. Duration of interventions Short term Medium to long term Medium to long-term, with and impact some short term for shock responsive SP Objectives Alleviate human suffering, Provide an SP floor; enable Enhance resilience (reduce maintain human dignity, rights holders to receive vulnerability) to poverty and provide basic needs. rights. and life cycle risks. Principles Humanity, neutrality, Leave no one behind. Equality of opportunity impartiality, independence 3 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages (Vulnerability to) Poverty- Humanitarian Rights-based SP based SP Financing Bi/multilateral donors, Bi/multilateral donors, Bi/multilateral donors, private foundations national/subnational national/subnational government financing government financing through taxes/other state through taxes/other state revenues, often supported revenues, often supported by donors by donors Financing horizon Typically, short-term, Often indefinite. Funding is Often indefinite. Funding is annual funding cycles, but often built into national often built into national Grand Bargain development planning. development planning. Implementing agencies Typically, Delivered primarily Delivered primarily nongovernmental through governments and through governments and (including international state institutions with civil state institutions but also nongovernmental society monitoring and/or community organizations organizations [INGOs]) or advocacy and nongovernmental multilateral (UN agencies); organizations (NGOs) working around governments with some coordination for implementation Target beneficiaries Specific populations Rights holders, universal Poor and vulnerable, affected by shocks categorical (age, disability, and so on) Coverage Areas affected by specific Universal in principle but Poor, vulnerable, or life shocks gradual realization in cycle, categorically practice as revenues and targeted in principle systems allow nationwide; gradual expansion as revenues and systems allow Engagement with crises Crisis response, immediate Expand programs if crises Resilience building, risk relief/rehabilitation undermine the realization reduction, risk mitigation of rights. (including planned coping), and risk coping Shock-responsive SP focus on crises Targeting methodology Driven by individual In principle universal (no For social assistance, program requirements and targeting). In practice income or asset poverty boundaries but generally universal within categories and vulnerability, often focused on the shock such as all elderly people, with a proxy means testing affected, including the children, people with newly displaced. Targeting disabilities, or all children Geographic poverty tends to be categorical or in a district targeting geographical and typically not focused only on the Categorical targeting, for poor. example, noncontributory pensions Social insurance for individual risks focused on formal sector workers. 4 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages (Vulnerability to) Poverty- Humanitarian Rights-based SP based SP Targeting performance 6 Targeting performance is Purists would argue that For social assistance, not typically easy to this is not applicable, as targeting performance is measure/assess benefits are universal. In well-monitored and tends systematically given the practice, universal benefits to be good with respect for scale and duration. mean both poor and non- inclusion errors. poor receive assistance. It may be inappropriate to Social insurance is mainly measure targeting to for the non-poor due to its poor/non-poor, given the link with formal labor objective of humanitarian markets. assistance. Categorically targeted have inclusion errors in relation to poverty. Traditionally reforms focused on minimizing inclusion errors but for adaptive SP gradually a greater focus on lowering exclusion errors. Reduction of inclusion/exclusion errors is less of an issue in low- income countries. Source: Ghorpade and Ammar 2021; Jorgensen and Siegel 2019. When objectives of SP include dealing with shocks and/or vulnerability to poverty, it opens the way for better coordination or collaboration across the humanitarian/SP divide. Similarly, as many donors fund both humanitarian and SP activities, this should also help with bridging the gap. However, Table 1 also indicates some of the key obstacles to better coordination such as • Selection of beneficiaries—only those affected by crises (humanitarian) versus only the poor and vulnerable affected by a crisis (vulnerability) or universality (human rights); • The implementing modality, where humanitarians value independence, whereas SP approaches tend to emphasize government oversight and/or implementation; and • Speed is of essence to humanitarians, which may not be the strength of SP, especially in weak or nascent systems. 6The literature distinguishes between two types of errors: (a) inclusion error: those who should not be included are included, for example, those not affected by crisis or not poor, and (b) exclusion error: those who should be included are not included, for example, poor or affected people not reached. 5 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages 3 Commitments to Improve Coordination 3.1 Why improve coordination? As cash is increasingly the preferred delivery mechanism for humanitarian assistance and the differences become less in terms of guiding principles, objectives, operational instruments, and timeliness, integration of humanitarian assistance and SP delivers better results. Case studies document significant efficiency with impact and sustainability gains when applying SP systems and approaches to crises. The increased severity and higher frequency of crises mean that humanitarian systems alone cannot cope. Well-developed SP systems develop crisis resilience for individuals and households and can reach disaster-affected households in a timelier, less costly, and more efficient manner than traditional humanitarian response. It is important to keep the national government in a leadership position to engage with assistance as it strengthens the national systems and the social contract between the government and the population. Where national institutions fail because of conflict or disaster and when the national structures are insufficient, the establishment of a parallel system may be necessary considering humanitarian imperative upheld and international law applied (Gentilini et al. 2018). Local engagement is important to improve the understanding of the local context and needs. Local engagement also supports the local economy delivering better long-term outcomes. 3.2 Humanitarian Summit: Grand Bargain At the Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul in 2016, a large group of donors and implementing agencies got together and pledged to update their approach to humanitarian assistance, often summarized in these points: 1. Greater transparency 2. More support and funding tools for local and national responders—localization, including a commitment to channel one-quarter of assistance to local and national responders 3. Increase the use and coordination of cash-based programming 4. Reduce duplication and management costs with periodic functional reviews 5. Improve joint and impartial needs assessments 6. A participation revolution—include the people receiving aid in making the decisions that affect their lives 7. Increase collaborative humanitarian multiyear planning and funding and reduce the earmarking of donor contributions 8. Harmonize and simplify reporting requirements 9. Localization, allowing local and national agencies to respond, would fit well with SP social assistance programs that work with national and local governments and 6 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages associations. Moving to cash for humanitarian activity, which is the main modality for SP, has already helped in closing the divide. Combining forces, for instance, on beneficiary identification and registries would help reduce duplication and lower the management costs for both SP and humanitarian agencies as would harmonize reporting. Moving humanitarian funding to be more multiyear and predictable will align it better with SP funding. Finally, the commitment to a ‘participation revolution’ fits squarely with the push for citizen engagement, feedback, and monitoring that many SP programs, especially those supported by the World Bank, have been building in recent years. A five-year review of the Grand Bargain by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) (Metcalfe- Houghtten et al. 2021) finds mixed progress across the different workstreams. The review finds good progress on the use of cash, highlighting that all signatories use cash and the important work done by Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP) and the many cash learning groups across the developing world that has helped facilitate local alignment with SP systems. 7 The total amount of cash and voucher assistance has doubled since 2016, from US$2.8 billion to US$5.6 billion in 2019 (or 17.9 percent of total humanitarian assistance), and it is an increasingly important tool in the humanitarian toolbox. However, the review also notes “…there is still no global agreement on predictable and accountable coordination of multi-purpose cash… This is despite mounting evidence of the impact this is having on operational efficiencies and effectiveness, including shortfalls in resources and delays, gaps, and duplications in responses. As a result, collectively aid organizations have been unable to realize the full potential of cash assistance in humanitarian contexts.” (Metcalfe-Houghtten et al. 2021, 7) According to the evaluation, the work on localization has also progressed well 8 with more funding allocated to local actors and innovations such as the Bangladesh Start Fund or the Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund, set up to finance local initiatives in a flexible and fast manner. In Bangladesh, a national evaluation finds that the availability of funding for local initiatives has not meant much progress toward the empowerment of local partner agencies. The areas with the weakest implementation are participation and harmonizing reporting. On participation, the review notes “…aid continues to be provided based on what agencies and donors want to give, rather than what people say they want and need.” (Metcalfe-Houghtten et al. 2021, 8) Practitioners raised both areas as inhibitors (Section 5.9), but they are also opportunities for learning—in this case, humanitarians learning from SP practitioners. To improve understanding of the resistance in the humanitarian community to participation, Box 1 summarizes the objections to participation by a skeptic and argues for learning from the broader development experience including from SP. 7 In Afghanistan, the former government was reluctant to move to cash as is the government in Bangladesh, in spite of the wishes of the recipients, and many SP systems around the world still rely on in-kind support or subsidies. 8 Although the 25 percent goal was not met. 7 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Box 1: A humanitarian participation skeptic A good example of a participation skeptic is the former head of policy at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). ICRC blog notes the opportunity for learning (Slim 2020), where they critically assess the philosophical underpinnings of the participation revolution and argue that humanitarians should learn from the experience of development actors on the benefits and limitations of popular participation. In their view, there are five key lessons from the participation experience in development. • “Community is not as happy as it sounds.” o Slim correctly reflects the hard-learned lessons that a community is not a cohesive group with common interests. However, he does not mention that participation techniques have evolved to specifically address this and ensure the widest possible inclusion. • “People can have a limited vision.” o Although people know their own situation well, they may not recognize the effect of a given intervention on others. Slim rightly suggests that “local participatory planning should always be plugged into district, regional and national planning” which is a common practice in the development community. • “People-powered development is emergent, not planned.” o Here Slim complains that outcomes are unpredictable and do not follow a neat plan. This used to be a common complaint in the development community but is actually a strength of participation, for instance, when targeting methods are shown by participatory processes to exclude the ultra-poor. • “People-based development is struggle.” o Slim is correct that participation shifts the focus of the aid agency to accompaniment instead of control, which has been a struggle in the SP and broader development community but has consistently led to better outcomes. • “People power takes a lot of time, effort and money.” o It is correct that participation takes time, which many poor and marginalized people already have too little of. This is an argument for smart and effective participation, not against participation. • “Allocation dilemmas persist.” o Slim is correct that there will always be tension between individual benefits and community-wide public goods, but studies have shown that teaching conflict resolution in a ‘learning by doing’ mode under community-driven development improves a community’s ability to manage conflict, in contrast with the fear expressed by Slim that such dilemmas lead to more conflict. Source: Slim 2020. Italicized bullets are quotes. Table 2 provides a ‘translation’ of the various humanitarian objectives to SP objectives (UNHCR 2019). As the table shows, humanitarian and SP actors may use different terms but their objectives map easily to each other. Nevertheless, using different languages and the need to develop more understanding among actors is a key constraint to better collaboration (Section 5.7). 8 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Table 2: Translating objectives Source: UNHCR 2019. 3.3 Social protection commitments at Humanitarian Summit A group of agencies involved in SP, SPIAC-B, co-led by the World Bank and ILO and similarly committed to work in coordination with humanitarian agencies, called for joint efforts and greater involvement of governments (Box 2). Box 2: Social Protection Commitments to Humanitarian Summit “We, representatives of governments, international organizations and bilateral institutions gathered within the Social Protection Inter-Agency Coordination Board, or SPIAC-B, join the strategic call from the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and humanitarian actors around the world, to develop common and innovative solutions to the challenges facing crises affected people and countries in the context of the first World Humanitarian Summit… In order to ensure that no one is left behind in the 2030 agenda and to accelerate the benefits of linking social protection and humanitarian actions, the following actions are needed: • Tangible commitment from governments and partners to move chronic humanitarian caseloads of affected populations into social protection programs and systems, incrementally over the 2030 lifetime. • Greater, more predictable, innovative and risk-informed financial resources to invest across the different contexts, before, during and after crises – for preparedness, to increase coverage of core social protection programs and systems, for building shock-responsive systems, for risk financing, and for greater investment in nascent safety nets systems in the most fragile contexts. • A coordinated operational and research agenda, including: o a common vision and jointly owned roadmap to assess and identify (i) effective mechanisms in humanitarian contexts that can be integrated into national social protection systems, as well as (ii) structures and mechanisms of social protection programs that could strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of assistance to people affected by humanitarian crises. o interventions in the most critical countries and sub-national contexts at risk from humanitarian crises and disasters, coordinated jointly by governments and both development and humanitarian communities.” Source: SPIAC-B 2016. 9 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages 4 Integrating Social Protection and Humanitarian 4.1 Degrees of program integration Most literature distinguishes between four degrees of integration. In this paper, we define integration as the convergence, coordination or mere collaboration between humanitarian and SP programs and systems across the delivery chain. Degrees of integration would vary by context. Figure 1 identifies the contractual and reporting processes and flows for program development and implementation. Parallel implementation is the least integrated representing stand-alone humanitarian assistance. Donors or the implementing agency (NGO or UN agency) defines, plans, and implements the humanitarian program (represented by green lines in Figure 1). Alignment is similar to that of parallel but with some Figure 1: Contractual and reporting flows in contribution from the government in terms of program development and implementation program design, represented by the red line in Figure 1. The government’s influence is limited and represented with a dotted line. Shadow alignment happens when the program’s system is set up to align with existing or future social assistance programs with the intent of integration and having the government take over the program in the long term. Piggybacking represents programs that build on alignment while utilizing national systems to meet program objectives (represented by blue lines in Figure 1). Nation-led programs are part of the national systems with the participants being part of the national caseload (represented by gray lines in Fig 1). Program expansion could take the form of budget support, the development of a new national program, or the expansion of an existing one. 4.1.1 Vertical and horizontal expansion of nation- Source: Based on Seyfert et al. 2019. led programs When nation-led programs expand to address a humanitarian crisis, they generally expand either vertically or horizontally. Vertical expansion delivers assistance to existing beneficiaries in the SP system (European Commission 2019). It increases either the value or the duration of an existing benefit. The 10 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages payment could be an extraordinary transfer or an increase in the regular social assistance payments. Horizontal expansion adds new beneficiaries into an existing SP system by expanding the criteria for eligibility. Predetermined targeting and screening parameters already built into existing systems can greatly assist horizontal expansion. 9 4.2 Degrees of integration with government across the delivery chain Table 3 summarizes the consideration of different levels of ‘unbundling’ integration across the delivery chain, mainly based on Seyfert et al. (2019). The original article focuses on SP and humanitarians in refugee situations but is just as relevant in other settings. The table speaks for itself and discusses special considerations mentioned in the literature. It can function as a guide for how to think through the opportunities for integration or coordination. For example, there might be cases where SP and humanitarian systems are largely parallel, with their own financing, abiding by their own legal frameworks, with minimal coordination among stakeholders. However, it would make sense for targeting methods and transfer value to be aligned even if implemented by different agencies or for payment mechanisms to be managed by one common financial service provider, building on existing mechanisms, thus proving that systems can present various degrees of integration with aspects of alignment and piggybacking within one or more links in the delivery chain. The key message is to think creatively about integration opportunities across the entire delivery chain and ‘mix and match’ the level of integration according to the political will, technical capacity, and alignment of objectives across implementing agencies, donors, and the government. 9Some authors include a third dimension, ‘technical tweaks’ or ‘technical adjustments’, but rarely define what those are. They all seem to be included in the different adjustments in Table 3. 11 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Table 3: Considerations for integration with the government across the delivery chain Increasing degree of integration with government Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Nation-led Notes Definition • Independent and • A stand-alone response • Donors and • Government is • See Figure 1 separate run by a humanitarian humanitarian responsible for the organizations are relief partner. implementing agencies national system. often set up and run • Governmental rely to some extent on • Assistance relies entirely by NGOs or UN counterparts offer input existing national social on the national delivery agencies with during design stages. assistance structures for system. minimal the delivery of governmental assistance. They might connection. not depend on these structures. Financing • Donors want to avoid • Donors want to avoid • Government delivers in- • National budget funds going directly funds going through kind contributions in financed, possibly with to governments or government agencies. form of staff, donor support through government • Government infrastructure, and the budget agencies. counterparts may potentially government • Funding flows participate in cash financial systems. directly to working groups. Donors remain the chief implementing • No governmental financiers. agencies. budget implication. • No governmental • No governmental budget implication if budget implication. donors cover needed governmental capacity development and expansion. Legal and • Implementing • National legislation and • When parts of national • National legislation and • Some nations do not policy agencies and donors SP policies are legislation can be policies cover the recognize SP as a human framework abide by national sufficiently strong and adapted and applied programmatic needs right and few national legislation but aligned with the (for example, ID for and/or the political will policies and strategies operation and program to fulfill the refugees or registration exist to change or reflect a link between planning are program objectives. in social register). expand legislation, humanitarian assistance independent and 12 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Nation-led Notes unbound by national • Full alignment can • Requires healthy and policies, and procedures and SP (Longhurst et al. SP policies. deliver an accountability strong collaboration as required. 2020). problem, as full between UN agencies • Donors may experience a alignment requires the and donors to manage dilemma in the implementing agency to strong relationships reconciliation of take responsibility for a with the relevant commitments to neutrality, program designed by government. independence, human the government. rights, and the necessary respect for the primary responsibility of the government. Targeting, • Donor and/or • Implementing agencies • Line ministries and • Line ministries set the • National politics may setting implementing coordinate with donors’ implementers agree on criteria through the hinder access to the eligibility agencies' wishes to align with the the criteria. national social system. targeted recipients for the criteria and independent criteria government’s approach • Established national Eligibility criteria may program. qualifying differ from those of or similar conceptual criteria may need need amendments to • National, integrated conditions the national social approaches potentially adjustment to cover cover new groups or vulnerability analysis is assistance system. with different eligibility. additional groups or situations. difficult and tends to move • Humanitarians situations. • Governmental from needs-based to seeking quick • Usually, stronger administrative entitlement or toward solutions in contexts Vulnerability Analysis processes for SP may universal basic income of urgency and with and Mapping and not be designed for (Longhurst et al. 2020). capacity constraints protection mechanisms emergency assistance • The integration delivers a often focus on than governments to (European Commission risk of diversion from a reducing inclusion abide by humanitarian 2019), for example, for weak SP program’s key error, but exclusion principles. conditional cash objectives. error could be the transfers, conditions • Risk of reproducing greater problem may be waived (Bastagli underlying government (Longhurst et al. and Lowe, 2021). system weaknesses in the 2020). added program. Setting • NGOs or UN agencies • NGOs negotiate and • Parameters negotiated • Transfer amounts are • Integration or lack of transfer type, possibly coordinated align with government between line ministries determined by national integration can lead to level, with the policies and ensure and implementers policies. confusion among frequency, humanitarian coherence with national depending on the recipients, for example, duration country teams levels of support. degree of piggybacking. who receives what (HCTs). amount, when, and why? 13 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Nation-led Notes • Variation in program • Potentially delivering • Potentially delivering transfers may lead to below the Minimum below the Minimum beneficiaries’ Expenditure Basket. Expenditure Basket. confusion and lack of • Once recipients register, clarity about the there are usually strong availability of various SP mechanisms. assistance. Governance • A steering committee • Steering committee • Steering committee • Line ministries are • Successful integration and including UN involving UN agencies, including UN agencies, responsible for the requires leadership and coordination agencies, NGOs, NGOs, and implementing agency, potential involvement of vision from governments maybe donors, governmental line and governmental line the senior cabinet. and international partners. community, and ministries. ministries. Government agencies • Linking stakeholder occasionally • The governmental role • Coordination-led by the coordinate. participation and decision- governments in an is strongest in the donor and • Donors may only have making has to be regular, advisory capacity design phase. governmental agencies. inputs through a inclusive, and steering committee. institutionalized right down to the local level, accepted by district authorities, communities, and implementers (Longhurst et al. 2020). Outreach • Often limited by • Likely led by • Either government or • Awareness campaigns implementing agency implementing agencies implementing agency are unlikely. Outreach working with social with the potential for led potentially with led by line ministries workers or governmental cross- support to national and their regional community-based program outreach providers designing offices. volunteers outreach campaigns. Registration • Implementing • Implementing agency • Government employee. • Subnational SP offices • Lack of the local agency. aligned with existing • Financing is possible by are possibly financed by community’s integration • Enrolment into the government processes a donor or through a donor or through into a governmental system can be technical assistance. technical assistance. national system can have a haphazard and • Opportunities for major impact on the level arbitrary. implementing agencies of integration possible. to support governmental systems. 14 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Nation-led Notes Enrolment • Implementing agency • Implementing agency • Governmental agencies • Government through • Governmental exclusion or the social registry inclusion errors may add to misalignment and not reaching the program’s targeted population. Payment • Various third-party • Various third-party • Preferable a similar • Government financial financial providers financial providers may payment provider as the provider or contracted are often chosen be the same as utilized government. The third-party provider. through competitive by the government. increased caseload may Existing systems might bidding. • If the donor requires require additional need support or competitive bidding, this support. upgrade due to might be the most • Usually, competitive increased caseload. integrated choice bidding is not possible. possible. Case • Implementing • The implementing • The national system is • Utilize the national • With increased integration, management agency. agencies would utilize adequate for program system with social the added caseload may (home visits, • This is staff intensive systems somewhat management. workers performing require system and staff validation, and limits the scope similar to that of the • The implementing case management. expansion. and so on) especially if the NGO government’s case agency may have limited is solely responsible. management protocols. access to case files. Complaints • Set by implementing • Implementing agency • Adaptation of the • National mechanism and appeals agency • Similar procedure as the national mechanism or managed by the government parts thereof, government—often implementing agency contracted out to an support to deal with the independent body increased caseload Protection • Done by the • The responsible party is • National social care • As piggybacking • Refugees' needs are likely implementing agency the implementing services, the health different from nationals dependent on agency. service, or alternative due to their social connections to • National protection national institutions are networks, ability to work, protection service systems might be adequate to handle asset ownership, language, providers. inadequate, and the social assistance and and so on. A stand-alone • Once the beneficiary NGO may choose to use social care services. system may better adapt is in the system, separate processes. assistance to needs. there are likely 15 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Nation-led Notes strong protection mechanisms for the most vulnerable. Monitoring • Implementing agency • Implementing agency • Governments rarely • Governments rarely and contracting out or contracting out or carry out impact carry out impact evaluation carrying out carrying out monitoring assessments of their SP. assessments of their SP (M&E) monitoring and and impact assessments • With donor funding, it policies unless required impact assessments as per donor might be required and a by donors. as per donor requirements third party could • Potentially national requirements perform the evaluation. audit or statistical • A risk of duplicate offices could monitor effort when multiple and evaluate. simultaneous • Public media may programs exist and deliver some ad hoc Grand Bargain monitoring. principles are not followed Information • The implementing • Implementing agencies • Government SP data • The government owns • Humanitarian assistance management agency typically owns typically own the systems and capacity the data, systems, and usually uses independently the information information. used with only limited capacity. Humanitarian designed systems system. • Building the case access, if any, to the agencies only have responding to donors and • Implementing management system humanitarian partner. access to data with program objectives versus agencies may choose can have a long-term • Requires robust government approval. national social registries to have separate objective to integrate governmental systems that aim to coordinate databases to avoid with government with full coverage of programs, define eligible governmental systems, handover, and program area (European households, and intercept. capacity building. Commission 2019). coordinate case management across programs. • Computer records introduce new forms of control and the potential for corruption, mismanagement, and discrimination (Longhurst et al. 2020). 16 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Nation-led Notes • Utilizing national systems can transfer underlying weaknesses of the system to the program (errors in beneficiary lists or household data, delays, staff capacity, and so on) (European Commission 2019). Reach • The target area may • Usually narrower in • Depending on the • Wide geographical be limited. scope and geographical mission, usually national reach—national reach depending on reach. funding and mission of • State programs could the implementing support access in agency. insecure areas or create • Coordinated case barriers if the management across government is implementing agencies associated with the will lead to better conflict (European coverage nationally. Commission 2019). Delivery • Typically cash • Many newer systems assistance or a rely on cash or basket of different vouchers. Many goods depending on countries retain food the crisis and may distribution or special need mixing or ration shops as part of switching to respond their safety net system, adequately to the especially in South Asia. situation Source: Predominantly based on Seyfert et al. (2019). 17 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages 4.3 Key considerations/issues for each degree of integration The determination within a given program of where on the spectrum each delivery chain element falls depends on some key issues. Table 4 summarizes four key issues across the different levels: government engagement, sustainability, timeliness, and costs. In any given circumstance, there will be a need to trade off and find optimal solutions depending on the importance of each issue (Gentilini et al. 2018). As demonstrated in the table, it is essential to try to engage the government as much as possible, even in less integrated situations to allow for learning and building longer-term regular SP systems. There is a tendency for more mature, nation-led systems to be more sustainable, if the additional caseload can be accommodated effectively. The flipside of this is that preexisting inequities and discriminations will also be sustained and can taint the crisis response. A key objective of any government program is to enhance the social contract between the population and government. For instance, in Pakistan, the nation-led SP program for the tribal areas was the first government program to ever reach the population. An important caveat is a situation where there is a great humanitarian need but where the government is not recognized internationally. In such circumstances, building the social contract should not be a consideration. Table 4: Key considerations for each level of alignment Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Nation-led • There is little • Government • Facilitates • Integration of Government incentive for the involvement in an government humanitarian engagement government to advisory setting has engagement and activities can lead to and learning engage. the potential to learning more adaptive SP • Integration and lead to reforms in systems. adaptation of the SP regulation. program lessons in legislation and government programs are less likely. • Usually not long- • Many implementing • There is a risk • As piggybacking. Long-term term sustainable. agencies can lead to associated with an • Adopting a targeting sustainability • Implementing multiple overheads existing system being framework that agencies’ tailoring of and an expensive overwhelmed. supports national a program can be system. • There is a risk that capacity building, less sustainable as it • The process of the system’s overall tends to have longer- tends to have more alignment and weaknesses may be term positive impacts hands-on case coordination transferred to an on the SP sector as a management and especially emergency system. whole. protection developing a mechanisms than platform across many government multiple NGOs is systems. challenging, time- consuming, and expensive. 18 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Nation-led • Potential for quick • Somewhere • Initiation is likely to • Requires long-term Timeliness mobilization between parallel take a long time planning of SP and if predictability considering and piggybacking depending on the done right can deliver humanitarian requirement for legal a degree of insurance operations standard and policy change. against shocks. delivery packages • Coordination with the • It may be swift or government may slow, depending on delay the process due government capacity to their decision- and the need for making and legal legislative changes. processes and implementation and capacity constraints. • Expensive due to • Relatively high due • Reduction in • Can make use of some Costs of multiple overheads to the potential of overheads and existing systems and program of different duplication of opportunities for institutions for time implementing overhead utilizing existing and cost savings. agencies’ parallel systems with time • Systems risk being systems and cost savings. overwhelmed with • Depending on the effects on costs and degree of long-term SP system. piggybacking, the • If programs have to government might be build from scratch, paid for program there are substantial implementation. upfront costs. • Completely parallel • Alignment improves • As for alignment • Best at building trust Building the systems do not build the trust between in governments, if the social a social contract the state and implementation of the contract between the citizens if the nation-led program government and alignment of includes population population. It will be humanitarian voice and important to find programs with participation, roles for government independent governments in the programs is explicit, grievance redress, and delivery chain at for example, in independent M&E least over time. outreach • In cases where the campaigns. current government has little or no international recognition, building trust in the government should not be a concern, so parallel systems are highly appropriate Source: Predominantly based on Seyfert et al. (2019). 19 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages 4.4 Mapping program examples across Table 3 Table 5 maps a few programs from outside South Asia into Table 3 to illustrate the ‘mix and match’ approach. Programs have been forced into cells, even though several of them show aspects of, for example, parallel and alignment within one link in the delivery chain. The next subsection will map three examples from South Asia in more detail. Table 5: Mapping programs into Table 3 Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Nation-led Financing • UNRWA 10 • Somalia (Palestinian territories) • Niger - UNICEF 11 • Niger - WFP 12 • Jordan - refugees Legal and policy • Niger - • UNRWA framework UNICEF (Palestinian • Niger - WFP territories) • Somalia • Jordan - refugees Targeting, setting eligibility • Jordan - • Somalia • UNRWA criteria refugees (Palestinian territories) • Niger - UNICEF • Niger - WFP Setting transfer type, level, • Somalia • UNRWA frequency, duration (Palestinian territories) • Niger - UNICEF • Niger - WFP • Jordan - refugees Governance and • Niger - WFP • UNRWA coordination • Jordan - (Palestinian refugees territories) • Somalia • Niger - UNICEF Outreach • Niger - WFP • UNRWA • Jordan - refugees (Palestinian • Somalia territories) • Niger - UNICEF Registration • Niger - WFP • Jordan - • UNRWA • Somalia refugees (Palestinian territories) • Niger - UNICEF Enrolment • Niger - WFP • Jordan - • UNRWA • Somalia refugees (Palestinian territories) • Niger - UNICEF 10 UNRWA = United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. 11 UNICEF = United Nations Children's Fund. 12 WFP = World Food Programme. 20 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Nation-led Payment • Niger - WFP • UNRWA Jordan - refugees (Palestinian • Somalia territories) • Niger - UNICEF Case management • Niger - WFP • UNRWA (home visits, validation, • Jordan - refugees (Palestinian and so on) • Somalia territories) • Niger - UNICEF Complaints and appeals • Niger – WFP • UNRWA • Somalia (Palestinian territories) • Niger - UNICEF M&E • Niger - WFP • UNRWA • Somalia (Palestinian territories) • Niger - UNICEF Information management • Niger - WFP • UNRWA • Somalia (Palestinian territories) • Niger - UNICEF Reach • Niger - WFP • UNRWA • Somalia (Palestinian territories) • Niger - UNICEF Delivery • Niger - UNICEF • UNRWA • Niger - WFP (Palestinian • Somalia territories) A quick scan of Table 5 reveals the varied responses. The reasons for the variety are not immediately clear. The case of Niger is especially interesting, because of the difference in implementation between different agencies, even within the same program. A complete analysis of each case is beyond the scope of this paper. Some of the issues driving the differing approaches are addressed in the forward-looking section at the end of the paper (Section 5). In the case of the Palestinian territories, the financing through UNRWA for refugees is parallel with the government but completely nation-led in targeting, eligibility, and complaint mechanisms. Similarly, in Niger, the UNICEF-supported financing for COVID-19 response is parallel but fully piggybacked in implementation using the same targeting, eligibility criteria, and information system as the government. In contrast, the WFP developed its support in Niger in a fully aligned manner during the planning stages including on benefit levels. The implementation however is parallel using WFP systems including tracking, payment, and monitoring. Somalia is an interesting example of a nascent program that is largely parallel due to the nonexistence of government programs, but serious efforts have been made to ensure more integration along with different links in the delivery chain (Al-Ahmadi and Zampaglione 2021). Examples of separate but aligned programs include United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Pakistan’s and UNICEF Jordan’s emergency cash transfers for refugees. These 21 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages agencies set the benefits at the same level as the government’s programs for its citizens. This meant that the real value of benefits for refugees was less due to their higher cost of living. In Jordan, this was subsequently adjusted (Bastagli and Lowe 2021). The response to the COVID-19 crisis is similar to other humanitarian interventions in that it responds to an external shock and provides short-term relief. Interestingly, even where programs were fully nation-led, qualifying conditions, especially conditionalities in conditional cash transfers, were temporarily waived, for instance, in Peru’s Juntos program and the conditional cash transfer in Bangladesh. Transfer levels have often been aligned. In Nigeria, the COVID-19- related, temporary urban transfer value was aligned with the previously rural-focused routine program. In terms of nation-led refugee programs, in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, the national social registry already listed many refugee households. This meant that they could immediately be included in relevant government programs. In the Republic of Congo, the lack of information on refugees (and many citizens) in its nascent social registry required a full round of identification and enrolment with the corresponding delay for refugees’ access. A similar ‘from the scratch’ identification and enrolment process was necessary for Afghanistan. UNHCR had similar issues in Pakistan and had to carry out a separate identification process (Bastagli and Lowe 2021). 4.5 South Asia examples for Table 3 To illustrate the ‘mix and match’ approach for integrating humanitarian and SP interventions, this section gives South Asia examples across the delivery chain. The countries depicted here include examples along the integration spectrum: Afghanistan (parallel), Bangladesh (alignment/piggybacking), and Pakistan (nation-led). As per Table 5, countries have been ‘forced’ into cells, even though they show distinct aspects of integration along the delivery chain. 4.5.1 Afghanistan Afghanistan lacks a predictable and fiscally sustainable SP system or established mechanisms to allocate and distribute both regular and emergency assistance. The current system does not possess the capacity nor the technical infrastructure to cushion the most vulnerable segments of society from poverty or the adverse effects of the recurring shocks. The few SP-related initiatives and programs are time-bound, fragmented in nature, reliant on off-budget programming, and not economically sustainable. The government spent less than 1.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on contributory and noncontributory safety nets, which did not target beneficiaries on a poverty basis. 13 While the overall coverage of contributory and noncontributory SP reached around 12.5 percent of the population (World Bank, 2021a), only 5.8 percent 14 of the bottom two quintiles of the population were covered by some type of social safety net. Humanitarian and development partners, who struggle to provide continuous assistance due to unpredictable funding and access constraints, funded 3.1 percent of the bottom two quintiles of the 5.8 percent total.15 13 Staff calculations based on FY1399 budget. 14 Staff calculations based on the NSIA IE-LFS 2019-20. 15 Staff calculations based on the NSIA IE-LFS 2019-20. 22 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Even before the Taliban takeover on August 15, 2021, the country had come to rely on international humanitarian agencies (UN and NGOs) to address its needs. The succession of climate and other types of crises, particularly the aftermath of the 2018 drought and the preparation of the COVID-19 response, have revealed the absence of functioning mechanisms to provide financial assistance to the poorest and most vulnerable in times of crisis and highlighted the need for a coherent and coordinated approach to SP interventions, strengthening the humanitarian-development nexus. The forging of stronger partnerships, a greater commitment to early recovery and resilience-building initiatives, and aligned planning between humanitarian and development actors were pivotal in helping vulnerable people transition from short-term, fragmented, and small-scale interventions to longer-term sustainable development assistance. Efforts to bridge the gap and transition toward a multisectoral development response have been part of the SP-humanitarian agenda in recent years—two cases exemplified as follows: • Afghanistan took concrete steps in 2019 to plan for the establishment of a shock- responsive safety net system to increase the food and nutrition security of the most vulnerable communities living in water-scarce rural areas and enhance their near-term resilience to drought. A stakeholder engagement, facilitated by the World Bank, in direct collaboration with Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and WFP, led to a series of consultations and meetings between the government, humanitarian and development communities, and civil society and the formation of a series of voluntary working groups spanning all stakeholders. An endorsed prototype resulted in the preparation of the Early Warning, Early Finance, and Early Action Project (ENETAWF). 16 The overall objective of this project was to provide the foundation for a cost-effective, ex ante, operational response to help rebuild and maintain the livelihoods of rural communities living in drought-prone rain-fed areas, converging on long-term development programming response to recurring shocks. • The preparation of the abovementioned operation was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in early 2020. The country needed to address the large co-variate loss of income shock caused by the pandemic through a nationwide emergency effort that could contribute toward establishing an SP system in the future. With no national social safety net that could deliver benefits to households, a flexible and pragmatic approach combining in-kind and cash relief was required, leveraging existing community-driven development platforms and programs and complementing the scarce humanitarian relief. The World Bank provided support to operationalize the government’s COVID-19 response strategy—the COVID-19 Relief Effort for Afghan Communities and Households Project (REACH). 17 It was designed to provide a one-time food/cash transfer to an estimated 93 percent of the population in close coordination with other development partners and humanitarian agencies while building a stronger nexus between the humanitarian and development support. 16Resilience in Dari. 17The President’s office named this project ‘Dastarkhan-e-Milli’, referring to the ‘national dinner cloth’ used for communal dining in Afghanistan which would be reflective of the government’s effort to build solidarity and respond to food insecurity. 23 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Disclaimer: At the time of publication, the Taliban takeover of August 15, 2021, led to a pause and/or cancelation of the World Bank portfolio in Afghanistan. The ENETAWF financing offer was officially withdrawn in October 2021. Table 6 presents an indicative analysis of the prior August 15-level of alignment of humanitarian assistance with government-led safety net systems and some ‘forward-looking’ notes of the reality after the Taliban takeover. Table 6: Levels of integration in Afghanistan Nation- Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Notes Looking ahead led Financing The REACH project was IDA and other donors’    financed by donors and resources to finance International humanitarian agencies Development Association and/or NGOs (avoiding (IDA) funding. ENETAWF funding a non- was supposed to follow recognized the same financing government) design. Legal and ANPDF 18 served as the Disrupted by recent  policy overarching institutional political events. framework framework for a wide Development partners range of development- to operate under the oriented programs, legal and policy poverty reduction framework of the initiatives, and policies, implementing including SP. organizations and/or donor agencies Targeting, The World Bank used a Align eligibility criteria   setting combination of and leverage existing eligibility community-based beneficiary lists. criteria and targeting (CBT), self- qualifying targeting, geographical conditions targeting, and categorical targeting. Humanitarians relied mostly on CBT. Setting transfer No coordination Harmonization of  type, level, transfer frequency, duration 18 Afghanistan National Peace and Development Framework 2016–2021. 24 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Nation- Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Notes Looking ahead led Governance The forging of stronger Coordination across   and partnerships, a greater humanitarian programs coordination commitment to early and World Bank- recovery and resilience- funded programs building initiatives, and implemented by third aligned planning between parties. Leveraging humanitarian and Cash and Voucher development actors were Working Group and pivotal to the design of other working groups ENETAWF and REACH. Outreach The COVID relief effort    was branded as a government initiative, with implementation responsibility from various agencies in their designated locations. Registration Parallel systems Leverage WFP SCOPE  for potential targeting overlap. The World Bank to develop a social registry. Enrolment Parallel systems. World Leverage WFP SCOPE  Bank ‘From the scratch’ for potential targeting identification and overlap. The World enrolment process for Bank to develop a COVID response social registry. Payment The payment system  disrupted. Leverage existing providers and expand bidding. Case Parallel systems The World Bank to  management develop a social (home visits, registry. validation, and so on) Complaints and Parallel systems  appeals Protection Parallel systems  M&E Some coordination for Third-party monitoring  common needs analysis under COVID-19 response Information Data sharing and data  Management harmonization agreements 25 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Nation- Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Notes Looking ahead led Reach Some coordination to  access hard-to-reach areas not controlled by the government Delivery Some coordination of Leverage existing   COVID relief packages implementation across the different structures and build on districts, particularly in new ones hard-to-reach areas where humanitarians had most access (and where government staff movement was likely to be restricted) Source: Authors’ indicative analysis using the framework in Table 3 adapted from Seyfert et al. 2019. Afghanistan falls mostly under a parallel level of integration, where the delivery of humanitarian assistance is stand-alone from national systems. A few efforts have been made along the delivery chain, mostly in terms of financing, governance, and coordination, targeting, and outreach during the COVID-19 relief response. Current political events have disrupted signs of progress made toward nexus but have opened an opportunity for better coordination between development partners and humanitarians in the absence of an internationally recognized government. Countries that have successfully exited fragility and violent conflict worked concurrently on short- term emergency assistance and medium- to long-term recovery efforts. The World Bank will thus play an instrumental role in responding to the humanitarian crisis in the short-term while adhering to its development mandate by maintaining development gains, national systems, and community platforms in the long term. 4.5.2 Bangladesh Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated and natural disaster-prone countries in the World. Most of its SP programs grew out of responses to shocks such as droughts or floods, making the SP system closely linked with disaster management. Initially, programs focused on poverty relief, but over the decades, the programs grew in scope, number, and objectives. Nonetheless, the SP system remains focused on rural areas, and allocations do not follow poverty patterns (World Bank 2021b). The Bangladesh National Social Security Strategy (NSSS), adopted in 2015, sets out to reform the system “by ensuring more efficient and effective use of resources, strengthened delivery systems and progress towards a more inclusive form of Social Security” (Hasan 2017, 29). The strategy aims to consolidate the management of different programs into fewer ministries and focus on six priority areas.19 19The strategy outlines six areas of focus (World Bank 2018): (1) establish a single registry, (2) establish a results‐based M&E system, (3) establish a mechanism for complaints and grievance, (4) strengthen processes for selecting recipients of social security schemes, (5) strengthen government‐to-person payment systems that promote financial inclusivity, and (6) support the Ministry of Social Welfare (MoSW) to implement life-cycle programs and coordinate with social security programs. 26 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Bangladesh allocated about 2.6 percent of GDP on all SP programs in FY2019/20 (World Bank 2021b); however, much of this spending goes to social insurance (41 percent) and social assistance (39 percent), with the latter presenting significantly lower expenditures than initial budgets. Total expenditures directed to transfers to households affected by shocks constitute only 3 percent of total expenditure across several programs. A significant share of the total budget (39 percent) goes to addressing the impacts of disasters, which is relatively high compared to other less developed countries, reflecting the history and geography of Bangladesh. There are a plethora of local and international actors in the humanitarian space in Bangladesh. Most, if not all, subscribe to the coordination mechanisms led by local and national governments and there are strong attempts at coordination. Given that much of Bangladesh’s SP system developed to respond to crises, it should be easier here to coordinate than in countries where the SP system grew out of more traditional social insurance-type programs. In practice, programs such as the Gratuitous Relief or the Vulnerable Feeding Program, although explicitly termed ‘humanitarian assistance programs’ and meant to respond to crises, have de facto become permanent, ‘regular’ SP programs supported by the Government of Bangladesh (GoB). The displaced population (DP) situation in Bangladesh is also worth noting. DPs account for about one-third of the total population in Cox’s Bazaar, an area that was already facing severe development challenges. The total Displaced Rohingya 20 Population (DRP) is more than 900,000, of which 85 percent live in camps, 13 percent in camps with host communities, and 2 percent in dispersed sites in host communities. The government responded well to the influx despite the many other serious past and present humanitarian crises, using its country systems to deliver some health, education, and water services. However, given the severity of the situation and the large number of DPs, humanitarian agencies are delivering most of the provided services. Under the overall leadership of the Government of Bangladesh, the humanitarian community engaged in needs assessments, consultations and strategic planning, which has resulted in a prioritized Joint Response Plan, which in 2021 sought some USD 943 million from 100+ partners to respond to the critical needs of Rohingya refugees and mitigate impacts on the host communities. It is also important to note that in the case of DRP, donors must abide by the policies of the GoB which are strictly humanitarian (year-on-year) without a development (medium-longer term) focus. In 2020, with the additional burden of dealing with COVID-19, the government (with funding from the World Bank’s IDA 18 Regional Sub-Window) expanded access to its flagship public works program to assist the host community 21 and mirrored the intervention design with a project executed by the WFP for the DRP and under the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief (MoDMR). The WFP implements under an output-based contract (as in Somalia and the Central African Republic), using completely aligned procedures. 20Minority fleeing conflict in neighboring Myanmar. 21As part of the host community side of the work, the GoB, with the support of the World Bank, developed and approved a new modality of the flagship public works program Employment Generation Program for the Poorest (EGPP). The new modality, called EGPP+, reformed the program guidelines to allow horizontal and vertical expansion during shocks, allowed the program to function outside the two lean seasons, introduced an unconditional modality for specific cases, established trigger parameters, and allowed for early warning actions. The targeting modality adopted by the EGPP+ has clear criteria for selecting DRPs and host community beneficiaries that participate in the public works, as well as for setting their benefit levels. 27 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Table 7 presents an indicative analysis of the Bangladeshi-level of alignment of humanitarian assistance with government-led safety net systems, all projects combined. Table 7: Levels of integration in Bangladesh Nation- Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Notes led Financing The EMRCR and SNSP, 22 both used as part of the    response to the Rohingya crises, leverage government staff and infrastructure for their implementation. As mentioned earlier, the government allocates a significant amount of the revenue budget annually to social assistance programs which include public works, unconditional cash transfers, and flood relief schemes. Bangladesh START fund 23 is the local source of financing for humanitarians. Legal and policy NGOs and donors abide by national legislation   framework but are not bound by national SP policies. Regarding the humanitarian response in Cox’s Bazar, the government established a National Task Force (NTF) headed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) and the MoDMR. The NTF is responsible for all policy decisions and all humanitarian agencies must align with national policy to operate in the DRP camps. Targeting, There is no standardized approach to beneficiary  setting eligibility selection in Bangladesh. Programs use a set of criteria and categorical and socioeconomic variables to qualifying determine eligibility. conditions Regarding the procedure, major social assistance programs implement a community-based approach in which union and upazila committees, in tandem, select and filter out applicants. Humanitarian partners that use a range of beneficiary selection methods normally do not adhere to or piggyback on these practices. 22 Both financed through the IDA18 Regional Sub-window for Refugees and Host Communities. The Emergency Multi-Sector Rohingya Response (EMRCR) project aims to strengthen the capacity of the GoB to respond to the Rohingya crisis by improving access to basic services and building disaster and social resilience in the Cox’s Bazar district. It is executed by three central Government Ministries. The Safety Nets System for the Poorest (SNSP) project provides income support to both host and Rohingya communities through public work schemes. This is implemented by the MoDMR. 23 Rapid Emergency Response Fund. 28 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Nation- Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Notes led Setting transfer For government programs, transfer type and   type, level, level are normally approved in the Central frequency, Monitoring Committee (CMC) on Social Security duration Programs, while frequency and duration by ministries’ steering committees. In the Rohingya response, transfer amounts’ frequency and duration are discussed and reviewed in the Inter-Sector Coordination Group (ISCG), of which the government is a part. The government, through the NTF, restricts or allows different types of benefits. Particularly in the case of income support, the NTF has restricted the use of cash, and hence the WFP is implementing the e-voucher scheme. About other benefits or services, the government implements some level of control through the coordination mechanisms or, in the case of NGOs, through the NGO Affairs Bureau of the Prime Minister’s Office. Governance and Bangladesh has a complex set of coordination   coordination mechanisms led by the MoDMR which are activated in the event of a shock (for example, Inter-Ministerial Disaster Management Coordination Committee and the Cyclone Preparedness Program). The mandate of these coordination mechanisms is not only to manage horizontal and vertical coordination for humanitarian response but also to coordinate with the NGOs and international humanitarian sector. In the case of the Rohingya response, the UN and the GoB established a coordination body called Inter-Sector Coordination Group which implements the UN cluster approach and integrates 59 UN organizations, 53 INGOs, 28 national NGOs, and 2 government ministries. This mechanism ensures that all activities in the camps are coordinated and aligned with the government’s prevailing policy on DRPs. Outreach Government programs have an established    mechanism that mobilizes upazila and union personnel to carry out information sessions at the village level, along with other local media campaigns. UN agencies and NGOs frequently piggyback on these mechanisms to inform their intended population of programs and activities. 29 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Nation- Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Notes led In the DRP response, most of the outreach has been carried out by the humanitarian agencies and their implementing partners. Registration Registration for national programs is fragmented  and normally conducted by local officials at the union and upazila levels. NGOs employ their registration mechanisms which are normally not aligned with the government’s procedures. Enrolment National programs conduct onboarding and   notification of beneficiaries once these are selected by the local committees. In Cox’s Bazar, agencies working in both host and Rohingya communities (such as WFP) use similar processes for enrolment. Payment Bangladesh uses a wide array of payment service   providers (PSPs) for cash transfers (state-owned banks, commercial banks, and mobile financial services (MFS)). Most recently Bangladesh has moved strongly toward the use of MFS. UN agencies and NGOs also tap into the same service providers as the government through separate arrangements. Case Case management is normally done in a  management fragmented manner program to program, each (home visits, with its own set of social workers. validation, and so on) Complaints and The GoB established a common grievance  appeals redress system (GRS) called ‘333’. This system has not been used by all SP programs, some of which still use fragmented GRS. NGOs regularly implement their own GRS. Protection In Cox’s Bazar, UNHCR is responsible for   assessing the protection framework. Referrals are conducted by UNHCR and ILO through their implementing partners on the field. These may be referred to other NGO services as well as a small fraction of national provided services. M&E In post-disaster time, there is an established   practice of joint needs assessment. The relevant ministries of the GoB usually track implementation progress for their corresponding programs. The Humanitarian Coordination Task Team (HCTT) monitors the GoB’s humanitarian assistance programs. 30 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Nation- Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Notes led In Cox’s Bazar, monitoring at the cluster level (ISCG) is shared with the government. Information A national household database is under  Management development but only meant for government programs. It is not intended for use by humanitarian partners. Data-sharing modalities to be prepared. The UN Humanitarian Cluster System has recently activated the Information Management Working Group that will be co-led by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics and the United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office to strengthen the quality of information for evidence-based and effective humanitarian, disaster risk reduction, and development action. Reach Bangladesh has over 120 SP programs. In terms   of geographical coverage, the major social assistance programs cover all 64 districts in the country and focus mostly on rural areas. In terms of coverage across the life cycle, Bangladesh has programs for early childhood development (ECD), working-age population, and the elderly. Delivery The GoB through its SP system provides a wide     array of support to households, including cash, in-kind transfers, behaviour change communication (BCC), and access to different type of services such as social care for persons with disabilities. Delivery is regularly operated through regional and local offices that include deconcentrated units at the subdistrict level (upazilas) and local units chaired by elected representatives at the union level. Most of the programs delivering cash do so using third-party payment services, including commercial banks and mobile financial service providers. Bangladesh is a case of a significant presence of both humanitarian and SP systems, with elaborate coordination mechanisms in place based on the existing systems for humanitarian assistance. Still, the GoB has a very clear policy of separating humanitarian assistance from development interventions. Opportunities of integration (understood in the Bangladeshi context as coordination and collaboration, but not convergence) exist and are evident by the Rohingya response. However, integration is not always preeminent. For example, INGOs that want to operate in the country require a project approval called FD-1 provided by the Prime Minister’s Office through the NGO Affairs Bureau. For some NGOs, this process is complex and time- consuming, leading them to piggyback on partner organization’s FD-1. The system is strained and incomplete given the many smaller voluntary organizations that provide essential but ad hoc support. Irrespectively, the dashboards provided by the humanitarian coordination group are 31 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages outstanding, identifying clearly who does what, where, and by how much. 24 Unfortunately, evaluations have found a lack of coordination between the separate UN, INGO, and national NGO systems. 4.5.3 Pakistan Pakistan is prone to numerous natural disasters and with some regions facing security and militancy challenges, amplifying the vulnerability of the population. Frequent shocks such as floods, droughts, and earthquakes have had dire effects on human capital formation and development gains made by the country over time. The country has shown signs of recovery in recent years, evidenced by lower rates of poverty and better economic growth. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced a new set of challenges. According to recent estimates, the pandemic has increased poverty by 2.3 percent, which translates into an additional 5.8 million being pushed into poverty. 25 To provide a cushion to poor and vulnerable households adversely affected, or at risk of being affected, by covariate shock, the Government of Pakistan (GoP) has made major investments in the SP system. In 2007, the government developed a National Social Protection Strategy (NSPS) with the vision “to develop an integrated and comprehensive social protection system, covering all of the country’s population, but especially the poorest and the most vulnerable.” 26 The strategy reviewed various SP initiatives, concluding that Pakistan’s safety net developed largely as a series of ad hoc responses to various challenges, with considerable duplication and fragmentation across programs. The strategy identified gaps and shortcomings and set out a more comprehensive approach to SP. The NSPS served as the foundation for launching the Benazir Income Support Program (BISP), Pakistan’s flagship safety net program. The GoP has also launched multisectoral human capital programs with a major focus on the SP system to cater to multidimensional poverty. However, with periodic shocks to the economy, whether natural or man-made, consistent progress has remained a serious challenge for the country. While the GoP has a rich history of delivering social assistance in the form of cash transfers for emergency relief and recovery since the last two decades, most initiatives have not been conceptualized as part of the wider SP architecture but have been delivered as stand-alone emergency interventions. Examples include the COVID-19 response under the Ehsaas Emergency Cash (EEC) program. In conflict areas, such as the erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan where service delivery has been weaker, the government introduced the FATA Temporarily Displaced Persons Emergency Recovery Project (FATA TDP ERP) 27 with the aim to reintegrate and support households displaced by conflict. The project consists of cash transfers, child health 24 For examples, see https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/210531_4w_final_englis h.pdf and https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/final_situation_report_- _rohingya_refugee_crisis_march_2021.pdf 25 Centre for Economic Research in Pakistan, 2021. “Economic Vulnerability Assessment” 26 Ibid. 27 World Bank engagement in the FATA has consistently involved and been initiated by requests from the GoP even though conflict in the province has been ongoing over the course of the operation, making the region inaccessible to WBG staff. 32 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages services, and building of an SP infrastructure in a landscape where there was none. The program is also an important tool to restore trust in the state, address deep-rooted drivers of militancy, and prevent recurrences of conflict. In this setting, implementation responsibilities have been distributed based on capacity and maneuverability on the ground after immense coordination efforts by different governmental and nongovernmental agencies. A challenge that remains is the transition from a post-conflict program to sustainable service delivery in erstwhile FATA. Humanitarian agencies and NGOs have also played a significant role in shock-responsive SP initiatives. For large-scale disasters beyond the capacity of national authorities, the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) issues international appeals and the UN is called upon for humanitarian assistance. The NDMA also hosts periodic coordination meetings for all humanitarian actors including members from donor agencies and members from relevant federal and provincial ministries. However, most initiatives led by humanitarian actors have been delivered on an ad hoc basis, rather than as part of an overarching adaptive disaster response. Despite a large number of initiatives, there are no guidelines to support their implementation, and the multiplicity of mandates and lack of coordination with BISP and the NDMA continue to be major challenges to emergency response. Table 8 presents an indicative analysis of the Pakistani-level of alignment between humanitarian assistance with a government-led safety net system in the tribal areas. Even though this exemplifies a fully nation-led level of integration, it may show distinct aspects of integration along the delivery chain. Table 8: Levels of integration in Pakistan - The FATA case Nation- Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Notes led Financing While the flagship BISP social assistance is almost     entirely GoP financed, the project is funded by IDA and supported by other development partners’ assistance (FATA/KP/Balochistan MDTF) with bilateral support from Turkey and China. Funds were routed through the national budget through supplementary grants. Legal and policy The Ministry of Economic Affairs housed the     framework project whereas the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) was the implementing agency. The project utilized the National Civil Registry for biometric verification, necessary for enrolment in the program. Targeting, The Civil Registry and National Socio-Economic     setting eligibility Registry are usually used. However, for this criteria and project, due to the type of shock, geographical qualifying targeting was used rather than poverty targeting. conditions Hence, the civil registry was used for target setting, eligibility criteria, and qualifying conditions. 33 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Nation- Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Notes led Setting transfer One-stop-shop (OSS)/Citizen Facilitation Center    type, level, (CFC) model: One-time Early Recovery Grant, a frequency, Livelihood Support Grant (LSG) to recover basic duration subsistence needs, and a conditional transfer component intended to improve child health and public health awareness. The cash transfer amounts were decided by the government in consultation with donors based on opportunity costs and transport costs. The transfer frequency of the CCT is based on quarterly fulfillment of conditionalities related to immunization and nutrition of children between 0 and 2 years of age. The LSG to temporarily displaced persons (TDPs) was aimed at providing consumption smoothing over four months while families restart livelihood activities upon return to the merged areas (FATA). Governance and The Ministry of Economic Affairs leads     coordination coordination across the government, donors, and stakeholders. Government SP and disaster risk management (DRM) have functioning institutionalized links and coordination (sharing data and information and coordinate on the response based on respective roles). There is considerable fragmentation and lack of coordination of government programs with the efforts made by humanitarian organizations and NGOs giving way to duplication, but in the FATA case complementarity of efforts is sought. Outreach The government used local administration (local    government) to assist outreach and dialogue with tribal chiefs. The implementation agency engaged an NGO with experience working in the tribal areas to deliver a tactical and conflict- sensitive mobilization campaign, including social mobilization mechanisms to ensure the inclusion of women. Registration The civil registry and ID system hosted by the     NADRA were key to registration. Biometric verification through OSS/CFC, matching against civil registry for all grants, and with a static master list of TDPs prepared by the FATA Disaster Management Agency (FDMA) for the LSG. Enrolment Enrolment of beneficiaries with verification from     the civil registry for cash working groups and with the FATA Disaster Management Authority for TDPs seeking LSG 34 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Nation- Factor Parallel Alignment Piggybacking Notes led Payment Cash disbursement through OSS/CFCs. OSS/CFCs  were also equipped with platforms of PSPs to deliver real-time electronic payments to beneficiaries using branchless banking infrastructure. Each OSS/CFC had an ATM for quick cash withdrawal as required by beneficiaries. Case The NADRA developed a strong management    management information system (MIS) which enabled efficient (home visits, case management and timely identification of validation, and issues and bottlenecks in implementation. so on) Complaints and Registration of grievances through OSS/CFC  appeals Protection National social care and health services are     utilized under the project. M&E  Humanitarians contributed to background and  vulnerability assessments for populations affected by emergencies, including the needs of DPs, as well as women and children (for example, FATA vulnerability assessment of 2017). Layered monitoring and project oversight system in place. The project supported operational review, spot checks, beneficiary feedback surveys, and an outcome-level evaluation. The implementation agency hired third-party firms for this purpose. In addition, the implementation agency used third-party auditors, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs was audited by the Auditor General for cash grants. Information    Strong MIS  Management The civil registry may be used by authorized agents for verification purposes with predefined standard operating procedures (SOPs). The socioeconomic registry remains protected, but access may be granted by BISP once data safety requirements are met—requests are approved on a case-by-case basis. For this project, only the civil registry was used. Reach    The NADRA has demonstrated the ability to  mobilize in any region of the country as required. Delivery    National systems (NADRA, BISP, or provincial SP  authorities) are used in most cases. While Pakistan is a case of full use of the national system, the country needs effective policies that enable the inoperability of the DRM system and SP system. SP programs and DRM projects funded by the government exist but work in their silos, resulting in cumbersome and ad hoc 35 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages coordination processes in the aftermath of shocks. Similarly, there is considerable fragmentation and lack of coordination of government programs with the efforts made by humanitarian organizations and NGOs giving way to duplication. Effective inoperability will not only ensure better use of resources but also allow technical expertise to be utilized more efficiently. In the context of a new administrative structure and a potential trust deficit, the FATA TDP ERP has been important for building citizens’ awareness of state entities more generally. According to the beneficiary survey conducted in 2018, most respondents came to know of the FATA TDP ERP informally, through word of mouth. Despite this, most survey respondents correctly attributed the management of the program to the GoP. Identification of accountable service providers and access to official grievance redressal mechanisms in the FATA are a significant shift from administration systems prevalent before FATA’s merger with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. A defining feature of the project, which has leveraged interagency cooperation to deliver services in a context with only limited public service provision, has been the presence of the CFCs. CFCs are managed by NADRA and are effectively one-stop shops for all services, including cash transfers, child health services, financial services, and vital registration, among others. By providing these services, the CFCs also contribute to (re)building the formal relationship between citizens and the state, which will eventually make it easier for other public services from a range of government actors. 5 Considerations for Better Integration As discussed in Table 3, opportunities and challenges exist for integration across the delivery chain. Based on the literature review, review of project documentation, and key informant interviews, this section summarizes some of the key opportunities and challenges for better SP engagement in humanitarian situations and with humanitarian actors. Most of the inhibitors identified represent opportunities for improvement and not immovable obstacles. 5.1 Broad agreement on issues Box 3: Shock-responsive SP in the Caribbean Key findings on shock-responsive SP in the Caribbean are as follows: • “Protecting people from shocks and risks is an inherent function of social protection… • Shock-responsive social protection is a relatively new term but not a new concept in the Caribbean… • Experiences in the Caribbean show that mature social protection systems and programs are not a prerequisite for responding to shocks and disasters. • The most important enabling factors for shock-responsive social protection are political will and financing… • A strong relationship between disaster risk management and social protection is essential for strengthening shock-responsive social protection.” Source: WFP 2020, “Key Messages.” A first step to improving levels of integration is to be clear about what the issues are. For a recent example, Box 3 presents findings of a review of adaptive SP in the Caribbean. The findings reflect, 36 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages to a large degree, alignment with the broader literature. The first point that all SP is inherently set up to deal with risk and shocks should be remembered in the rush to embrace the latest fad in the international debate. Dealing with risks is not a new item to add to the menu; it is core to SP’s objectives, even for social insurance. As to the second bullet point, the Bangladesh case also shows how SP developed as a response to drought and flood shocks, making the SP system closely linked with disaster management. That mature SP systems help but are not essential is borne out by the Afghanistan case as well as experience from Somalia and the Central African Republic where emergency assistance can be delivered by humanitarians in the short run and complemented by longer-term development funding support. What is essential (as discussed in Table 4) is that even the initial parallel implementation is done in a way that helps build government capacity and commitment to longer-term adaptive SP systems. Most analysts and practitioners would probably put political will as the first bullet point—it comes out consistently as the main factor driving more integration. The final bullet of linking DRM and SP is born out in the subsequent discussion. The integration/coordination across humanitarian, DRM, and SP is critical within governments and agencies. The elaborate system of coordination spelled out in Bangladesh’s national strategy is a good example of an attempt to do this. Similarly, the original intent of the Afghanistan integrated program showed a commitment to help build a nascent SP system learning from humanitarian, parallel systems. At an operational level, the many cash working groups, set up as a follow-up to the Grand Bargain commitments, have provided excellent coordination in many countries, most recently for the COVID-19 response (for an example see Annex 1). 5.2 Political will It is too easy to dismiss the possibility for reform or better integration by referring to a lack of political will. In reality, each actor is faced with a series of complex choices within a set of constraints that often get translated into ‘political will’. Still, political room to maneuver or political will is critical across several dimensions: • Political will of donors and humanitarian actors to channel money through governments or at least attempt alignment given their humanitarian principles • Political will of governments to set up or reform their SP system • Political will of governments to work with NGOs or the UN • Political will of all agencies involved to include refugees in programs and so on. Bangladesh is a clear example of government willingness to consolidate SP programs and integrate climatic risks into its designs as well as the inclusion of DPs. The GoP has also endorsed the integration between SP and DRM under the Federal Disaster Response Action Plan (FDRAP) of 2010. Afghanistan has proven during the COVID-19 response that it could work with the HCT, the Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund, and UN agencies to minimize duplication of efforts or miscommunication concerning the support provided to communities across the country. Donors’ political will can also get caught in their own built-in institutional barriers. In protracted crises, such as Somalia or Afghanistan, where SP and humanitarian links need to be especially 37 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages strong, donors’ institutional and budgetary constraints tend to restrict financing horizons or benefit sizable, short-term responses. More mature SP systems like Pakistan, however, attract increased funding support by international donors. 5.3 Leadership matters To enable any form of coordination and collaboration, it is essential to mention the critical role of leadership. Good leadership committed to delivering the best for beneficiaries can overcome any obstacle or inhibitor. With poor leadership or leadership focused on what is best for their own institution, any enablers can be disrupted. All the key informants mentioned this and it is a key finding of various reviews (for example, Gentilini et al. 2018). Key questions to answer include the following: • Is there the necessary leadership within the government to enable the development or reform of its SP system, even though implementation might be done in a more parallel way initially? • Can government play a leading role in coordinating the different agencies operating in the country? If not, is there another trusted agency that can do this? • Are there any given agencies willing to put the beneficiaries first and not their institutional interests, for example, agree that another agency or government is best at delivering services in a given context and thus forego the overhead funding that would otherwise come to the agency? Too often analyses of integration efforts point to the individual persons involved as the key drivers of success. Afghanistan’s extraordinary and ad hoc collaboration between the government, World Bank, and UN agencies through the COVID-19 response may have been dependent on individuals—this makes it impossible to replicate. Instead, the focus should be on what leadership those individuals showed, for example, local leaders of agencies who step forward and show leadership in engaging with governments and other agencies—that is, it is not one individual or another but rather individual leadership. 5.4 High-level strategic commitments to integration As a best practice, leadership should be backed by corporate follow-up in agencies to the commitments outlined in the Grand Bargain for humanitarian actors and the reemphasis on risk management in SP. The follow-up to the Grand Bargain, especially the cash learning groups, and the localization efforts have helped provide a practical, operational space for collaboration and coordination. On the SP side, the strong interest in adaptive or shock-responsive SP has helped convince skeptical humanitarians that SP may be a good partner. Unfortunately, the high-level commitments are not always followed up by practical guidance to staff and local offices.28 The change for some agencies, for example, to support national systems 28World Bank (2016b) is a good example of a practical guide that translates the Grand Bargain commitments on cash into ways forward, which is the good news. The bad news is that the recommendations still remain the same, indicating only limited progress. 38 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages instead of delivering aid directly, is such a big shift that it will require time and sustained effort to follow through. Donors can also complicate matters, if they remain focused on getting support delivered quickly and continue to downplay longer-term sustained support for national system development. For example, in its evaluation of its Bangladesh country program for 2016–2019 (WFP 2021), WFP’s evaluation office notes that the program was well aligned with the government’s strategy and the focus on building national systems as appropriate. The evaluation goes on to note “in practice, however, a focus on capacity-building per se rather than enhancing national systems affected WFP’s ability to influence the safety net programs.” (WFP 2021, iv). Practice in the field has not always followed the corporate shift toward national system development. For example, when the local UNICEF office in Yemen first considered helping implement IDA financing for cash transfers, it hesitated, noting its lack of experience in this area. However, corporate support from UNICEF headquarters including the appointment of an experienced team leader has helped make the program a success. In contrast, in Afghanistan the local office of WFP has reached out repeatedly, supporting the effort to establish a national SP system, where the obstacle has been in the government. However, in the post-August 15 political context in Afghanistan, the World Bank is considering leveraging the standard agreements with certain UN agencies to engage in basic needs delivery. Within the World Bank, staff also express appreciation for the corporate commitments for better coordination while noting the need for better support for how to do so in practice. 5.5 Crises as opportunities The COVID-19 pandemic and its socioeconomic consequences have meant large increases in needs for poor and marginalized people around the world. It has also brought about significant increases in funding for SP efforts to address those needs. Traditionally, development agencies such as the World Bank can deliver speedier support in emergencies than under regular circumstances and have developed internal systems to do so. 29 Often, emergencies mean a focus on quick results and streamlined procedures. This was also the case with the COVID-19 response. Several World Bank staff noted that the use of emergency procedures was critical to delivering appropriate and faster responses than during ‘normal’ times—a good example is the Central African Republic COVID-19 response (World Bank 2020). In some parts of the world, such as Afghanistan, Jordan, or Yemen, an urgent humanitarian crisis has evolved into a protracted crisis where destitution and humanitarian needs are indistinguishable from longer-term vulnerabilities and inequalities. Longhurst et al. (2020) find that in such situations there is less progress in finding the right combination of instruments to link humanitarian aid and SP. In contrast, this study has found that an extended crisis ‘blurs’ the line between SP and humanitarian space, making clear that the objectives of SP and humanitarian are similar (Table 3) and open opportunities for learning and cooperation. On the humanitarian side, the urgency for quick response transitions to concerns for sustained ability to help the target 29 ‘Speedier’ does not always mean fast. For instance, Spearing (2019) estimates the average historical time from crisis to commitment under IDA’s Crisis Response Window to be 216 days and the time from crisis to first disbursement 398 days. 39 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages population. For development actors and governments, it becomes clear that the problem is not transitory or ‘foreign’ but domestic, that requires longer-term solutions built on the humanitarian experience. In these protracted crises, funding also becomes much more of a constraint, as the initial news of the disaster and the resulting uptick in donations fades away over time. Afghanistan has been a remarkable deviation from this trend with sustained levels of humanitarian funding over time, now being redirected to address the looming humanitarian crisis. 5.6 Special considerations for refugees and noncitizens Any inflow of refugees complicates the alignment of approaches. In many places, refugees may exacerbate existing societal tensions and further weaken social contracts. Provinces that border conflict situations face spillovers of conflict damage and are often already vulnerable regions— such as the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province in Pakistan. If refugees are seen to receive help and the host community is not, this may further inflame tensions. For the host government, it can be a political risk to include refugees as part of the national caseload. Donors typically try to persuade governments to be more inclusive in their longer-term SP programs, even though donors often have short-term commitments and at times unpredictable funds. However, dilemmas can exist in the reconciliation of commitments to neutrality, independence, and the necessary respect for the sovereignty of governments. Many countries do provide SP for displaced people partly due to the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework and the Global Compact on Refugees. Although SP for refugees is commonly associated with conditionality such as restriction of movement, internally displaced peoples and refugees in SP systems require increased technical assistance to secure that staff, institutions, and processes are accessible and have the communication skills—language, cultural, distance barriers, and so on. When governments are involved, the transfer value provided to refugees is often below the Minimum Expenditure Basket, as the level will be set with considerations linked to host community perceptions (Seyfert et al. 2019, Longhurst et al. 2020). This is not inherently bad, especially if there is a view to aligning benefit levels with the local population, if refugees have access to the local labor market, or if there is a need to increase coverage within a given budget constraint. Despite these challenges, several countries have successfully integrated refugees. In Bangladesh, several nation-led social safety net programs have been expanded to include both displaced Rohingya and host communities. The government is using its country systems to deliver health, education, and water services, closely collaborating with humanitarian agencies for effective delivery. Some evaluations present a positive picture, praising the speed of response (UNICEF 2018) and finding both refugees and host communities feeling safe and respected and trusting in a humanitarian staff (Ground Truth Solutions 2020). However, lack of ‘localization’— international agencies tend to replace rather than reinforce local capacity (Van Brabant and Patel 2018)—and lack of coordination between the separate UN, INGO, and national NGO systems persist. 40 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Jordan is the second-largest host of refugees per capita worldwide. Within the 10.8 million 30 population, 34 percent 31 are migrants. A large portion of the refugees live in cities and towns outside of camps. Since July 2016, the Jordanian government has granted more than 100,000 work permits to Syrian refugees, allowing them to work legally and earn an income for their families (WFP 2020). Refugee assistance programs were effective in reducing poverty but unsustainable in the nurturing of self-reliance. UNHCR’s cash assistance program and the WFP food voucher program did reduce poverty but they relied on voluntary contributions from donors, so any funding decline would result in benefits for only the most vulnerable refugees. With no or limited access to labor markets and economic opportunities, SP lacked the ability for beneficiaries to transition to work and self-reliance (Ait Ali Slimane et al. 2020). The Jordan Compact intended to close this void as the international community committed US$300 million to advance employment opportunities for refugees as well as refugees. As a result, an increasing number of Syrians have received work permits to be able to access formal jobs and decent labor (World Bank 2016a). Initial rollout focused on granting Syrian employment with a lack of understanding for local needs of refugee and host populations. Over time, tweaking and expansions advanced the program’s success; these included access to better education, financial services, and expansion of the economic zones offering benefits for companies with 15 percent of their employees being refugees (Huang and Gough 2019). In 2019, Jordan had issued 200,000 work permits for Syrian refugees in specific sectors (European Commission 2019). A testament to its success was the London initiative of February 2019 expanding the Jordan Compact to advance international support for inclusive growth in Jordan as a host country and international strategic partner. As Venezuela experienced hyperinflation, a 30 percent contraction of the economy, and political and social disorder, an estimated 1.8 million refugees fled into Colombia in 2020 (Bodea 2021). To facilitate their ability to seek employment, residency, and access to health and social services, Colombia granted legal status protecting nearly 1 million Venezuelan refugees for 10 years in February 2021 (BBC 2021; Zeller 2021). Before this initiative, the Colombian government had developed a border mobility program to enable migrants’ move between the two countries and a special work permit known as the Permiso Especial de Permanencia, which has allowed hundreds of thousands to legally stay and work in Colombia for two years (Janetsky 2019). Historically the border has been open with crossings for job and market opportunities and services, and this transient community made it easier to accept the influx; however, as the immigration has intensified, so has the conflict between the local citizens and the newcomers. 5.7 We still do not understand each other Consistently, formal evaluations, as well as key informant interviews, bring up the need for humanitarian and development actors to improve understanding of each other’s concepts and processes. For instance, many World Bank staff noted the need to understand the humanitarian principles fully, especially how to address them in practice in a nation-led program. Humanitarian actors have noted that the language used by development actors seems foreign and that the 30 http://jorinfo.dos.gov.jo/Databank/pxweb/en/ 31 https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/JOR/jordan/immigration-statistics 41 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages development actors’ processes are exceedingly slow. In Afghanistan, understanding each other’s processes created a lot of miscommunication, delays, and even duplications while coordinating an integrated and sequential COVID-19 response. In a summary discussion note for the Grand Bargain Cash Working Group’s webinars in 2020, Kukrety notes, for instance, that practitioners and managers in humanitarian agencies wanted to learn more about some fundamental SP concepts. They found some serious gaps, even in fundamental areas, for example, that humanitarians would like to have a “Common glossary and/or frameworks for a joint understanding of concepts to identify entry points. In particular on: • What is SP (including a life cycle approach, social transfers versus cash transfers, etc.)? • The role of the government in SP and humanitarian response • What does shock-responsive mean/when is a system shock-responsive? • What does linking humanitarian cash to SP mean in different contexts? • Understand how SP links with development policies (i.e. macroeconomic and labor markets)” (Kukrety 2020, 2) Partly in response to this, socialprotection.org has developed a user-friendly glossary as part of its ‘social protection in crisis contexts’ community. To respond to the next crises, the opportunity exists to develop a joint framework with a clear distinction of roles and responsibilities to guide triggers for future collaboration, adopting commonly agreed principles of engagement, establishing common ‘red lines’, and harmonizing responses. By doing so, humanitarian and development actors will be better equipped to enact sustainable interventions that showcase resilience building. 5.8 Mandate of agencies and intra-UN challenges In some countries, the leadership of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) (Afghanistan and Haiti) has been essential as a coordinator of agencies that are more directly involved in implementation. According to key informant interviews and the authors’ experience, the coordination between the World Bank and UNICEF has often been smooth sailing. This may be because of UNICEF’s role as both a development agency (with a strong SP agenda) and a humanitarian agency. Part of UNICEF’s mandate is to build systems, so it tends to support full nation-led or piggybacking in many countries. The UN resident coordinator’s effectiveness varies greatly from country to country depending on their organizational affiliation and their personal leadership skills. In the Palestinian territories, for instance, the coordinator is independent and report directly to UN headquarters, making it easier to have a one-UN approach. For many agencies, humanitarian relief is their raison d’etre and adherence to the humanitarian principles is the only valid guidance. This can make it difficult to compromise and work with governments that explicitly exclude certain groups or do not recognize the rights of, for instance, refugees. UNHCR and the World Bank have managed to collaborate closely in either fully aligned 42 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages or piggybacking schemes in several countries (Niger, Cameroon, Ethiopia, and Jordan) that have aligned benefit levels and eligibility criteria, even though that can lead to diminished benefits for refugees (Section 5.6). Some agencies have both humanitarian (or crisis response) and development mandates, such as the European Commission, World Bank, or UNICEF. Anecdotally, sometimes conflicts emerge similar to those that occur between humanitarian and development agencies. A good practice example to overcome such potential conflicts is the European Commission program in the Palestinian territories, where coordination of requests for funding is done in a coordinated fashion up-front. 5.9 ‘Participation revolution’ from Grand Bargain is lagging World Bank staff also raised concerns about a lack of focus on the beneficiaries in some humanitarian agencies. Instead of asking ‘what and how?’ the best way to help is, some agencies prefer simply to do what they have always done and know how to do On the humanitarian side, the Grand Bargain's commitment to a ‘participation revolution’ is often recognized as not having been met. In a blog, Lough and O’Callaghan (2019) from the ODI are brutal in their critique, stating that “…after five years, there is no evidence of humanitarian action becoming more demand-driven.” In Bangladesh, the Needs Assessment Working Group (NAWG) report noted “…there was no evidence found that cyclone and flood-affected people were involved in the design, implementation, and monitoring of response. Rather both the responses were top-down and controlled with upward accountability only.” (NAWG 2021) These findings are consistent with the overall assessment of the lack of progress on this Grand Bargain aspect. However, it is worrisome that the effort is also falling short in Bangladesh with its strong community-based and local NGO structure. Other practical experiences from the field (for example, Ethiopia and Mozambique) show that humanitarians can learn from the civic engagement successes in SP. Many of the skeptical views expressed today in the humanitarian world are similar to the objections raised two decades ago in the World Bank (Box 1) about participation in World Bank-financed projects. Some countries have established locally led accountability structures, often supported by donors or indirectly by governments. A good example is the Mozambique NGO platform that provides a unified, independent view of both SP and humanitarian assistance. Organizing in a platform greatly facilitates international agencies and governments working with NGOs on the essential participation element. Similarly, decades’ worth of government investment in a nationwide social accountability program in Ethiopia (Campbell et al. 2020) with World Bank support ensures that social accountability can follow program expansion into new areas of assistance. 43 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages 5.10 Weak and/or party to conflict government When a government is a party to the conflict, it becomes difficult to align or integrate and still uphold the humanitarian principles of impartiality and neutrality. Similarly, if governments do not control significant parts of the territory as in Yemen and Afghanistan, it becomes extremely difficult to deliver using government systems and still be impartial and neutral. In Yemen (Al-Ahmadi and de Silva 2018), the long-established public agency the Social Fund for Development has managed to maintain its operations across the country irrespective of who controls the local area or the central government. The independent governance of the Social Fund for Development and its donor-funding of staff has meant that it has been able to keep operating throughout the conflict and still does. World Bank funding cannot be channeled through the government at the moment as the internationally recognized government limited control of key service delivery institutions in parts of the country is outside its control, including the fragmentation of the Central Bank which has affected its functions. Instead, the World Bank finances the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as the recipient of IDA funding while implementation continues through the Social Fund for Development as before but with oversight and fiduciary responsibility carried out by UNDP. The Social Fund for Development has a strong reputation for being nonpolitical and fair in its funding decisions, meaning that communities pressure local rulers to allow it to operate with minimal interference. 32 In contrast to the Social Fund for Development, the regular cash transfer program of the government under the Social Welfare Fund is a much more traditional government agency. During the conflict, it has been politicized and the risks of political manipulation and leakages of program benefits were assessed to be high. Fortunately, the social register still existed from before the conflict, and combined with the additional process of verification, a new registry did not have to be built to inform cash transfers. In this case, UNICEF stepped in and carries out the actual transfers with World Bank funding but still using the agreed social registry. UNICEF can operate across the country as an outside agency and by project design. UNICEF engaged the technical team of the Social Welfare Fund as feasible but without a role for the agency in direct implementation. In countries where the government is a party to the conflict (such as Yemen, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Mozambique, and the Central African Republic), it is difficult to both work with the government and keep the principle of neutrality. Existing valued agencies such as the Yemen Social Fund for Development can help, but they are rare in the developing world. National agreements on selection criteria and funding levels can help align programs for possible future integration as is happening in Niger. In Afghanistan, the HCT under OCHA’s has been instrumental in ensuring alignment. The Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund (OCHA 2018) also provides an opportunity for donors to pool their contributions to support the timely allocation and disbursement of resources to the most critical humanitarian needs defined in the Afghanistan Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) (OCHA 2020a). It is easy to blame weak government capacity to justify not working with the government and implementing in a parallel manner. This reasoning is erroneous as it limits the sustainability of 32Some observers claim that the Citizen’s Charter program in Afghanistan is also able to operate in rebel-controlled areas for similar reasons. 44 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages the programs and undermines any emerging political acceptance of the government. The revised humanitarian response strategy and the intent to operationalize the nexus in Afghanistan helped build the government’s system for SP, building on the humanitarian response by the UN and NGOs. The Pakistan program in the tribal areas is a great example of how the reach-out by an expansion of an existing SP system into a previously untouched area improves living standards and builds the governmental trust and credibility that peace and prosperity desperately need. 5.11 Timing: An issue that can be fixed33 The contrast between the fast response of humanitarian and the slow pace of government SP programs is a valid concern, but it is not an excuse to stick with purely parallel programs with no government involvement nor is it universally true. The literature is littered with examples of how ‘slow’ government programs have responded effectively to humanitarian crises, including BISP following the Pakistan earthquake, the Mexico conditional cash transfer program following the earthquake, and the Kecamatan Development Program in Indonesia following the tsunami. Experience has also shown that when development needs are not met on time, people who require resilience and recovery are at higher risk of slipping into increasingly severe humanitarian needs. For example, the delayed rollout of Afghanistan’s social safety net assistance by development actors in 2020 is a clear factor of the escalating humanitarian needs in 2021. As SP programs become more shock responsive and adaptive, they should increasingly be able to respond. A good example is Bangladesh’s response to a recent cyclone, where the nation-led program was the first to respond. Similarly, Beazley et al. (2021) show that for COVID-19 response, development partners took on average 123 days, while governments responded in less than half the time (49 days). Even when government programs are weak or nonexistent, it is critical to use the humanitarian response as a learning experience by involving governments in implementation, gradually expanding their role as their capacity and credibility build. Somalia’s nascent safety net system is a good example, where the WFP implements under a service contract with the government (financed by the World Bank) that includes handing over responsibility and systems to the government as a deliverable (Yusuf and McDowell 2020; World Bank 2019, July). Interestingly enough, so far only the World Bank has decided to channel money through the government, while other donors prefer to give directly to parallel programs because of mistrust of the Somali government. Similar direct transfers to parallel programs led by humanitarians are being explored in the post-Taliban takeover context in Afghanistan. 5.12 Scaling up and down needs to be done carefully Scaling back SP systems originally scaled up to address a crisis can be problematic. For vertical expansion, it is difficult to remove the newly included, and for horizontal expansion, it is difficult to reduce payments after the crisis. This is especially the case in settings with low coverage, where the newly included are probably still poor, just slightly less poor than the regular recipients are. Similarly, it can be hard to justify scaling payments back to ‘normal’ when even the scaled- up payments are insufficient to move a household out of poverty. If there is a political will to 33 See also Table 4. 45 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages keep the higher number of beneficiaries and/or the higher benefit amounts, coming out of a crisis might be the right time to do so. Maybe the crisis has shown the advantage of using a higher “vulnerability adjusted poverty line” that takes into account the probability of future crises. 34 In any case, excellent communication and grievance systems are essential to managing any transition. For example, the Ground Truth Solutions assessment in Bangladesh finds lower levels of satisfaction among host community members than DRPs, raising questions about a potential conflict. To avoid confusion, many countries opt for giving the expansion a different name than the regular SP programs to help with the politics of changing beneficiaries or benefits. 5.13 Implementation issues In addition to the broader issues of policy and principles discussed in the previous sections, several practical, implementation considerations need addressing to improve collaboration. Table 3 summarizes many of them across each level of integration. 5.13.1 Beneficiary identification and targeting Targeting and beneficiary selection is a long-standing debate within the SP community. A particularly contested issue revolves around the comparative advantages and limitations of poverty targeting in general, and of proxy means testing in particular. The latter is a method frequently used by governments and partners – as main criteria or in tandem with other methods – to predict poverty levels by measuring easily observable household assets. With limited funds, the country will first select the poorest geographic areas and then apply proxy means testing to identify the poorest in the poor areas. Others in the SP community continue to argue for universality, especially those following a human rights perspective. In practice, many SP programs use categorical targeting, such as age, disability, or public service.35 In addition, many countries maintain broad subsidies on bread, grain, or energy that benefit the whole population. Energy subsidies are almost all highly regressive. In contrast, humanitarian agencies are concerned with victims of a shock: those made homeless by a flood, starving because of a drought, or forcibly displaced by conflict. The distinction between ‘victims’ and ‘poor or marginalized’ peoples is watered down as a crisis persists: when displaced people remain displaced for decades, drought-affected peoples are left without sustainable livelihoods and so on. This should make discussions about targeting simpler, but it does not seem to be so. Some SP practitioners are beginning to question the need for detailed targeting of beneficiaries, especially in a crisis. If a generally poor community is affected by drought, traditionally both SP and humanitarian agencies would look for those who lost livelihoods because of the drought. If instead everyone in the community where rainfall had fallen below a certain threshold received assistance (parametric insurance in insurance-speak), this would not only alleviate the suffering but also reward those community members who had done better ex ante risk management. 36 Somalia locust response uses community-based identification of those whose livelihoods are 34 For a full discussion of this, see Jorgensen and Siegel (2019). 35 Such as Bangladesh’s program for veterans of the independence war or the Palestinian program for “freedom fighters.” 36 Jorgensen and Siegel 2019. Schnitzer and Stoeffler 2021. 46 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages affected but with a predefined simple measure of livelihood assets size (those of small land and/or small number of livestock and so on). The proposed Afghanistan drought response program followed a combination of targeting methods: CBT, self-targeting, geographical targeting, and categorical targeting. Interestingly, for the COVID-19 response, several developed countries, like the United States, decided to go with almost universal benefits in sending out checks to most of the population (only excluding the wealthiest), even though the data are available to do careful targeting or piggybacking on existing SP programs. Although inclusive social registries have been important to deliver quick assistance for the COVID- 19 pandemic (Section 4.4) and the relief program in Yemen (Section 5.5), an overreliance on infrequently updated registries can lead to poor targeting and a poor reflection of the actual situation. Some propose a simple application process for updating the system instead of waiting for a full census. Others argue that geographic targeting combined with parametric insurance triggers would probably be less costly and just as effective. This points to a broader issue as SP has traditionally been more concerned with inclusion errors, (that is, including people who should not be included) and less with exclusion errors (that is, excluding people who should be included). For humanitarians, exclusion errors are unacceptable—all victims deserve help, so a tradeoff is made by giving more people lower benefits. A gradual shift toward more concern with exclusion errors and thus more categorical targeting and less reliance on proxy means testing would be useful learning for the SP community. 37 5.13.2 Levels of benefits Humanitarian benefits have traditionally been in the form of a package of goods necessary for survival or its cash equivalent if conditions made it possible to obtain the goods locally. This works well for people in camps but is a problem where the victims are scattered within host communities. What is more, the lack of other forms of income/livelihoods for refugees can also create an equity issue. For example, in Ethiopia, the value of in-kind benefit given to refugees in camps is slightly higher than the benefit levels in the government safety net, so the inclusion of refugees in the safety net would give them more than double that of the host community—a situation that would raise substantial equity concerns within host communities. The cost of the benefits basket in the local markets is about half of the cost of the imported goods, so there is a strong incentive to move toward cash. In Yemen, the level of humanitarian support is seven to eight times the regular SP benefits. 38 This is due to the relative generosity of humanitarian transfers and the erosion of the real value of SP transfers. The politics of withdrawing food and basic necessities from displaced people in the middle of a conflict is problematic. In Niger and Cameroon, benefit levels have been harmonized, even though the programs run in parallel owing to strong government leadership and donor support including from the World Bank. 37 This would be consistent with basing SP on an updated social risk management framework as noted in Jorgensen and Siegel (2019) and with emerging practice, especially in poorer countries. 38 Ghorpade and Ammar 2021. 47 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Setting transfer levels and duration is the scope of several papers. An excellent recent example is McLean et al. (2021) from the Social Protection Approaches to COVID-19: Expert Advice (SPACE) program. The authors of the paper present a comprehensive discussion of how the inherently different objectives, duration, and constraints of humanitarian and SP programs influence the setting of benefit levels. The paper covers how humanitarians can or should harmonize with traditional SP when beneficiaries overlap and how SP programs can adjust when moving into humanitarian space, and end with a set of practical recommendations for alignment of transfer values. After the welcome warning that “it is neither feasible nor desirable to be prescriptive about setting transfer values in response to shocks” (McLean et al. 2021, 14), the authors continue with a set of “key considerations” (McLean et al. 2021, 15): • Severity, the impact of a shock and humanitarian principles. The authors argue that, especially for early response to severe crises, the transfers should be set to meet a basic package of needs as is common in humanitarian responses, whether the benefit is provided in parallel, through piggybacking or nation-led systems. • Coverage versus adequacy. This is a difficult trade-off, all too familiar to practitioners in both SP and humanitarian programs in their “regular” work, and gets even more difficult in considering joint approaches. Do you give fully adequate compensation to a few people or inadequate to many given your resource constraint? The authors, correctly, do not present a formula but suggest a process of jointly addressing the issue and having contingency plans in place for addressing complications. • Availability of different response instruments and potential for strategic coordination. A vertical expansion of a nation-led program to allow benefit levels to increase temporarily toward the basic needs basket is an ideal option to address a sudden onset crisis like a drought. However, the authors rightly note that this “requires a high level of coordination and reciprocal trust..., and the presence of organizations and systems to deliver, including interoperable databases or a single registry.” As discussed in Section 5.13.3, the latter point is in itself a serious constraint. • Evolution of emergencies over time and sustainability. Basically, the authors argue for joint consideration of exit strategies from humanitarian assistance including how to lower support to ‘normal’ SP levels after the crisis subsides—a difficult measure even in the most developed SP systems. • Maintaining adequate transfers in ‘routine’ social protection (for example, aligned to medium- to long-term inflation). It is a basic but too often forgotten point. Cash assistance in regular SP programs should keep pace with inflation. This then helps when a program includes additional support as the gap between the basic needs package and regular payments is less. • Pre-agreements across sectors on transfer values. If possible, it would be ideal to agree on transfer values before a crisis hits. Peru is experimenting with this according to Mclean et al. (2021). Another option is to use previous crises to set standard transfer levels adjusted for inflation, as after the 2014 Gaza War. 48 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages 5.13.3 Nature of benefit Most SP programs use one of two main types of benefits: • Cash transfers: depending on the availability of national financial services, these may take the form of cash-in-hand, commercial bank-based transfer or mobile financial service- based transfer—each with a different degree of transparency and accountability. • In-kind transfers, often the default of humanitarians 39: depending on the type of crisis, the timespan, and capacity of the humanitarian agencies, in-kind transfers may be provided in the form of a predetermined set of items physically delivered to each household or voucher mechanisms that allow each household to exchange for (locally produced or imported) goods and services in retail outlets. An obvious distinction between these two modalities is related to the ‘options’ or ‘freedom of use’ that each provides to the affected household. This issue becomes more relevant, particularly in long-term responses. In the Bangladesh example, humanitarian interventions have faced tensions with the use of cash and in-kind transfers. In 2017–2018, when the mass movement of DRP households was taking place, baskets of basic food items were being distributed by the WFP and other humanitarian agencies to those arriving in the Cox’s Bazar camps. As the context moved from emergency life-saving actions to settlement and basic service provision, the WFP, in coordination with UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), moved quickly to an electronic voucher approach. From the original predefined set of food and hygiene items, the DRP households were now receiving a fixed value in the form of electronic vouchers called ‘scope card’. This allowed the household to exchange the value in the scope card for a larger set of options available in the WFP’s partnering stores, in the amount and distribution adequate to the household’s consumption. In 2019, the World Bank-financed public works schemes provided additional income support to DRP households (in the form of value top-up in the scope card), in compliance with the prevailing government policy which prohibited the provision of cash to the Rohingya population. The pressure to move to cash has been mounting, which resulted in temporary ad hoc authorizations in the use of cash by NGOs, INGOs, and some UN agencies. The World Bank-financed project has maintained the use of the electronic voucher system, as agreed with the government—this has had an impact on the disposition of DRP households to participate in the public works subprojects. 5.13.4 Information systems Almost all key informants mentioned the problem of parallel and proprietary information systems as an obstacle to better integration. This also came up in the joint WFP-World Bank assessment of collaboration between the agencies in 12 countries (Gentilini et al. 2018). Many countries have established memoranda of understanding (MoUs) between the government and external agencies to combine forces, but the effective implementation of those agreements is mixed at best, at least for the early attempts that are the only ones that have been assessed. 39 Recent estimates put the share of cash benefits at only 20%, a dramatic increase from before, but in-kind transfers are still the default. 49 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Coordination efforts between governments, UN agencies, the World Bank as well as other agencies collecting data are underway. As an example, the highly effective WFP’s system, ‘SCOPE’, has been used for the implementation of humanitarian programs in an array of countries. In the absence of a governmental system, SCOPE could form the basis for a nascent SP information system. In practice, however, the lack of common understandings around proprietary source codes, data access, and legal data protection have limited the use of SCOPE as the basis for a government system. In Niger, for example, UNICEF, the WFP, and the government (with World Bank support) developed a nation- led program with agreed criteria, benefit levels, and so on. During implementation, the WFP chose to use SCOPE for operational reasons (Table 5). With no common understanding in place, data sharing with the government and the other partners remains minimal. In Somalia, the WFP is committed to handing over the information system to the government as part of the output- based agreement among the parties. In Afghanistan, the initial conversations with the WFP were positive, but an agreement could not be reached with the government. Full interoperability of information systems is generally a positive development but needs to be tempered or postponed in contexts where the government’s oversight is weak, data protection is weak, and/or government is a party to the conflict or otherwise may wish to misuse the data. 5.13.5 Monitoring and dispute resolution As noted in Section 3.2, the implementation of the participation revolution in the Grand Bargain is severely lacking. For the SP community, especially in the World Bank, the systematic application of citizen feedback, third-party monitoring, and grievance and complaint mechanisms are standard requirements of support for SP systems. This has led to difficulties, both with governments that do not trust humanitarian efforts without monitoring and feedback and among humanitarians who feel such monitoring intrudes on their independence and neutrality. In country contexts with UN implementation of World Bank-funded projects (for example, Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan, and so on), the implementing UN agency usually procures a third-party monitor that is specific to the project it is implementing. In Afghanistan, and in the specific context of the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, a consolidated portfolio-level third-party monitoring system is used. This unique arrangement could present difficulties in engaging with UN-implemented projects which usually have their own parallel monitoring systems. 5.14 Internal World Bank issues Key informant interviews and document reviews also identified internal issues to the World Bank, whose resolution could help the World Bank be a more effective partner in the humanitarian space. Issues included the need for speed, which can be difficult for all development agencies, and different language issues within the institutions across sectors, for instance, health, conflict and fragility, and SP. Some policies that work well for larger infrastructure development projects in relatively stable country settings may need to be adjusted. Finally, there was a strong demand for more knowledge sharing and learning around the agenda, which could possibly be done jointly with socialprotection.org or partners like UNICEF or WFP. 50 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages 6 Way Forward: Conclusions and Recommendations Increasingly, agencies and governments across the humanitarian and SP agendas are finding ways to better integrate programs based on the commitments in the Grand Bargain and SP’s move toward more shock-responsive and adaptive systems. On the side of governments, more and more countries reform or establish safety net systems—enabling higher levels of integration. The report finds much progress as well as some key constraints to higher levels of integration. This section discusses some potential actions that would further enhance the effectiveness of interventions by greater degrees of integration as the world faces increasingly severe and frequent shocks. 6.1 Maintain and extend high-level commitments Much progress has been made by senior leadership in implementing and financing agencies committing to better integration based on the Grand Bargain commitments. These commitments must be sustained and expanded to give lower-level leaders the room to innovate and collaborate. • Grand Bargain commitments must be adjusted and renewed based on the positive experience of the commitment to greater use of cash. • Donor agencies must reaffirm their willingness to find flexible, sustained sources of funding for crisis response, such as the Local Fund in Bangladesh and sustain support for SP reforms. • Development agencies must commit to continuing to expand their ability and willingness to engage constructively with humanitarian agencies and governments to further build adaptive SP systems. • Governments must expand their commitment to building adaptive, fair SP systems. 6.2 Integrate commitments into agency policies and practices The commitments have too often remained at high levels in organizations and not filtered down to operational managers and staff. Many agencies still retain their original policies and procedures that often are not appropriate for better integration across the delivery chain. • Funding and implementing agencies must review and revise their internal policies to ensure that the commitments to better integration are practically implementable. • Evaluation criteria should be adjusted to reflect the commitments. • Knowledge generation on practical ways forward in better integration and better SP in humanitarian settings should be a priority and shared widely, for example, on socialprotection.org. • Staff training is needed within and across agencies to better understand each other, learn from each other’s innovations, and create incentives for collaboration 51 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages 6.3 Building on practical successes in implementation Many programs have found innovative ways to deal with the implementation issues identified in Section 5.13. Such good practices need to be widely shared. • On targeting and beneficiary selection, good country examples can be found in Bangladesh, Jordan, and Niger. The key is flexibility and appropriateness for the given situation. The strong focus on errors of inclusion inherent in many SP operations probably should be relaxed for wide-ranging shocks in poor areas. • On information systems, the agreements reached between the government and WFP in Somalia to hand over information systems as a deliverable under the service contract should be monitored and assessed. It may also be useful to work more closely among agencies such as WFP, UNICEF, and the World Bank to develop best-practice examples of data protection and sharing. • On participation and M&E, there is much to learn from several key SP programs, and it would be important to collate these experiences and share them. 52 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Annex 1: Implementation of Grand Bargain Commitments in Afghanistan Principles Application in Afghanistan Greater transparency • Progress has been made to develop a list of active aid activities for Afghanistan shared through the International Aid Transparency Initiative— the list Includes both humanitarian and development activities. • More work needs to be done to increase the number of signatories to publish transparent funding and activity data. More support and funding • OCHA-managed Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund and the Central Emergency tools for local and national Response Fund-pooled funding supported national and local responders responders (representing 15 percent toward the 2019 HRP requirements). • Significant investments have been made to enhance engagements with national NGOs, supporting their critical role in hard-to-reach geographic areas: o New Joint Operating Principles are designed to form the framework for engagement in bilateral and joint negotiations with authorities and armed groups at the local, national, and international levels. The principles will build the capacity and confidence of field-based colleagues to engage directly in negotiations. • The Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief and Development twinning program, which pairs national NGO and international partners through peer mentoring schemes, supports the improvement of national organizations’ technical and core management skills and enhancement of their overall ability to operate within humanitarian principles. • The Humanitarian Access Group plans to build on the newly created National NGO Access Forum and provide improved capacity to the field through Regional Access Groups. Increase the use and • Coordination to gear up the cash programming includes coordination of cash-based o Revised terms of reference (TORs) for the Cash and Voucher Working programming Group and temporarily recruited CashCap adviser, reporting to the Inter- Cluster Coordination Team (ICCT). 40 • Recent main priorities include the following: o Operational coordination of cash-based Interventions among partners— including implementation standards and processes, common reporting platforms, harmonized assessments, and monitoring tools o Evidence-based advocacy and creation of a community of practice on Cash and Voucher Programming, including through joint advocacy around national or private sector regulations impairing effective cash- based assistance, and sharing of post-distribution monitoring data and data on various cash projects being implemented across sectors and partners o Mainstreaming of protection and accountability to affected population concerns in Cash and Voucher Programming o Capacity building of partners in Cash and Voucher Programming 40The ICCT is a cooperative effort among clusters and the HCT to ensure coherence in achieving common objectives, avoiding duplication and ensuring areas of need are prioritized. Intercluster coordination takes place at the national level on a monthly basis to coordinate the implementation of response through each step of the humanitarian program cycle. Guided by the HCT, intercluster coordination provides a platform for clusters to work together to advance the delivery of assistance to affected people effectively and efficiently. The ICCT oversees the Cash and Voucher Working Group and Emergency Preparedness Sub- Working Group. 53 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Principles Application in Afghanistan o Establishment of a common platform for engagement with government (advocacy) and private sector (contracting) and support harmonized strategic communications around Cash and Voucher Programming o Sharing of information, lessons learned, and best practice on Cash and Voucher Programming in Afghanistan (and beyond). • Launch of the Joint Market Monitoring Initiative by the Afghanistan Cash and Voucher Working Group and partners, in collaboration with REACH, to provide regular updates on prices of key items and market functionality to inform Cash and Voucher Assistance. • Pilot country for the Global Common Cash System to build cash expertise and use: o Global Common Cash System scope of work includes promotion of joint needs assessments, development of common vulnerability criteria, the establishment of common post-distribution monitoring tools, and enhancement of common payment mechanisms (by harmonizing information management approaches and systems interoperability). o Rollout of the Global Tripartite Data Sharing Agreement (UNICEF, WFP, and UNHCR) o Global Common Cash System is working closely with the Cash and Voucher Working Group to amplify advocacy with relevant stakeholders within financial and regulatory bodies to expand financial inclusion and simplify processes to utilize mobile money for humanitarian programs. Reduce duplication and • Innovative approaches to delivery: management costs with o Mobile teams to deliver health and nutrition services periodic functional reviews o Biometric and digital identity under WFP SCOPE. • Implementation of a new Mutual Accountability Framework between Kabul and the field with clarified reporting lines and increased support for management of cross-cutting issues in the response. • Development of HCT Data Sharing Protocol to outline the HCT’s commitment to strong data protection policies and practices and to provide guidance on core principles that signatories commit to working toward. The Data Sharing Protocol reflects existing humanitarian policies and established best practices for data use and outlines agreed on expectations and minimum standards for sharing of data between aid actors and the government. Improve joint and impartial Use and strengthening of comprehensive and multisectoral needs assessments needs assessments for timely decision-making: • The annual multisector ‘Whole of Afghanistan’ assessment collects views on the response preferences and service access challenges faced by affected people o Complimentary assessment to profile multi- and intersectoral needs in prioritized hard-to-reach districts. • Seasonal Food Security Assessment and Integrated Phase Classification (IPC) analysis for food security and vulnerability calculations. • Joint Inter-sectoral Analysis Framework looks holistically at the needs facing people in Afghanistan and measures the severity of these needs using a series of intersectoral indicators. • Joint Market Monitoring Initiative provides monthly updates on prices of key items and market functionality to assess if needs can be met through Cash and Voucher Assistance. • Emergency Response Mechanism Nationwide Post-Distribution Monitoring identifies national trends in how Emergency Response Mechanism 54 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Principles Application in Afghanistan multipurpose cash assistance has been utilized, beneficiary perspectives on sufficiency and gaps, and overall Emergency Response Mechanism partner performance. • IOM’s Displacement Tracking Matrix tracks mobility and determines population sizes of groups on the move, their reasons for displacement, places of origin, displacement locations, and times of displacement, including basic demographics, as well as vulnerabilities and priority needs. • Protection of Civilians report by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) is produced quarterly and monitors civilian casualties and other violations of international humanitarian and human rights law caused by the armed conflict in Afghanistan. • Household Emergency Assessment Tool assesses the multisectoral needs and vulnerabilities of shock-affected households to identify household eligibility for humanitarian assistance, suitability for referral, or the need for more in- depth assessments to be carried out. • Humanitarians also engaged with development actors to create a common needs analysis that identified the People in Need of social assistance. A participation revolution: Multiyear HRP remains committed to ensuring that people are at the center of Include people receiving aid humanitarian action and that agencies are accountable: in making the decisions • Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) coordination and response in affecting their lives Afghanistan was reinvigorated in 2020 with the recruitment of a dedicated AAP specialist in April, hosted by OCHA. With the support of the AAP specialist, the AAP Working Group (AAP WG) adopted a new TOR, a strategic framework, and a work plan to address accountability shortcomings identified in the 2019 Peer-2-Peer report. Activities include expanding collective feedback channels to complement the Awaaz call center; supporting AAP activities across clusters; building the AAP capacity of humanitarian staff in all regions; creating minimum standards, tools, and indicators for mainstreaming AAP and community engagement in all programming phases; and supporting collective analysis of information gathered from affected people. • Given the intensified need for robust community engagement efforts to raise awareness of COVID-19, in March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) launched the risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) Working Group (RCCE WG). The RCCE WG coordinated interagency efforts and supported the government’s RCCE efforts. Among other outputs, the RCCE WG developed a process for tracking rumors and correcting COVID-19 misinformation and developed an RCCE training module to build RCCE capacity throughout Afghanistan. The RCCE WG has been integrated as a sub-group within the broader AAP WG. • HCT compact sets out the key commitments of HCT members toward the Humanitarian Coordinator and one another to reinforce collective accountability to people in need of humanitarian assistance and protection. • Continued support for the Awaaz interagency feedback mechanism (call center) to monitor the views, complaints, and preferences of affected people (more work to raise awareness of the service). • Area-Based Response pilots to support a more intense field-level focus on AAP issues, aimed at improving the quality of assistance by breaking down sectoral siloes and applying a more people-centered approach to service 55 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Principles Application in Afghanistan delivery at the field level, help improve responsiveness to protection needs and accountability to affected communities. • Regular multisector needs assessments such as the ‘Whole of Afghanistan’ assessment and individual agency feedback mechanisms. • Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Taskforce will also continue its work on systemwide improvements to awareness and referral processes in the humanitarian response. • In April 2020, the HCT established the Gender in Humanitarian Action Working Group for COVID-19 (GIHA-C) to support implementation of gender- sensitive COVID-19 prevention and protection response activities. The GIHA- C was held up for an initial six-month period when members provided key messages and evidence-based recommendations to the HCT and the ICCT, technical support to clusters and thematic groups, particularly the RCCE WG and IPC Secretariat, and stronger gender analysis to inform the revisions to the HRP in mid-2020 and 2021. The HCT has since extended the mandate of the group, now the GIHA WG, into 2021 with a wider focus to support partners across the response. The working group is co-chaired by UN Women, 41 International Rescue Committee (IRC), and Medica Mondiale and continues to provide operational guidance on planning and practice, strengthening accountability to gender equality in humanitarian action. Increase collaborative Enhancing engagement between humanitarian and development actors: humanitarian multiyear • The need to respond to the multifaceted impacts of the pandemic has driven planning and funding and accelerated planning between humanitarian and development actors in reduce the earmarking of 2020, resulting in a new framework for a common needs analysis and an donor contributions agreement on the number of people in need of social assistance. This collaboration provided the targeting criteria for the government-World Bank relief operation. • Built internal capacity on humanitarian-development nexus through the recruitment of a recovery/transition adviser. • Initial mapping of development actors and draft of blueprint for a joint approach (steppingstone for a Humanitarian-Development Strategy to bridge leadership and coordination structures for humanitarian operations, peacebuilding, and development programs at the strategic level). • ICCT technical workshop in 2020 to engage with development counterparts. • ICCT to continue developing thematic preparedness plans for a range of emergencies. • Engage development actors in planning for new integrated Area-Based Response pilots. • The World Bank and UNDP are observers at the HCT to encourage common situational awareness and sharing of best practices. Harmonize and simplify Monitoring improvements are part of the country team’s effort to fulfilling its reporting requirements Grand Bargain commitments on harmonizing and simplifying reporting. Some actions are as follows: • Data sharing protocol developed by OCHA (issues raised included obligations under existing laws and policies, classification of personal data, data use and ownership protocols, third-party data sharing, complaints, and referral obligations). • ICCT held a series of capacity-building workshops in 2020 on themes including monitoring and reporting obligations and data submission 41 United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. 56 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Principles Application in Afghanistan procedures in terms of both response monitoring and the reporting of funding to Financial Tracking Service (due to late response in 2018 drought). • Partners have made significant strides in collecting, using, and analyzing gender and age specific data, ensuring that the gender with age marker is incorporated into the methodology and design of nationwide surveys such as the ‘Whole of Afghanistan’ assessment. • OCHA and REACH Initiative have committed to enhancing the representation of women in the household-level quantitative surveys for the ‘Whole of Afghanistan’ assessment in 2020. • HRP periodic monitoring reports published four times per year: Dashboards will be produced at the end of Q1 and Q3 and a full narrative report will be published at the midyear point. For the first time in 2020, the HRP midyear monitoring report was accompanied by an annex that monitors the new needs indicators from the Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO) (OCHA 2020b). • Monitoring of cash programming modalities streamlined in 2020, following some issues in 2019, which made it difficult to get a clear picture of cash use in the country. • The ICCT will also continue to monitor the need for thematic emergency preparedness plans at the national level, as was done for the drought and the atypical 2019 floods. 57 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages References Ait Ali Slimane, M., Allen, F., Kattaa, M., and Daru, P. 2020. New Economic Opportunities for Jordanians and Syrian Refugees. World Bank blogs, July 29, 2020. https://blogs.worldbank.org/arabvoices/new-economic-opportunities-jordanians-and- syrian-refugees Al-Ahmadi, A., and de Silva, S. 2018. Delivering Social Protection in the Midst of Conflict and Crisis. Social Protection and Jobs Discussion Paper 1801. https://doi.org/10.1596/30608 Al-Ahmadi, A., and Zampaglione, G. 2021. From Protracted Humanitarian Relief to State-led Social Safety Net System: Somalia Baxnaano Program. World Bank. Badra, Y., and McDowell, S. 2020. Somalia Social Protection Policy Implementation Framework. 10.13140/RG.2.2.27222.68160. Bastagli, F., and Lowe, C. 2021. Social Protection Response to COVID-19 and Beyond: Emerging Evidence and Learning for Future Crises. Accessed June 14, 2021. https://odi.org/en/about/our-work/social-protection-response-to-covid-19-and- beyond-lessons-learned-for-adaptive-social-protection/ BBC. 2021. Colombia to Grant Legal Status to Venezuelan Migrants. BBC News, BBC, February 9, 2021. www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55991551 Beazley, R., Marzi, M., Steller, R. 2021. Drivers of Timely and Large-Scale Cash Responses to COVID19: what does the data say? Social Protection Approaches to COVID-19 Expert Advice Service (SPACE), DAI Global UK Ltd, United Kingdom. Bodea, M. 2021. Colombia’s Exemplary Response to Venezuelan Refugee Crisis. The Organization for World Peace, April 1, 2021. theowp.org/reports/colombias-exemplary-response-to- venezuelan-refugee-crisis/ Campbell, L., Mulugeta, F. Z., Tsegay, A. H., & Wampler, B. 2020. Building the Foundation for Accountability in Ethiopia. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35081 European Commission. (2019). Social protection across the humanitarian–development nexus: A game changer in supporting people through crises (Tools and Methods Series, Reference Document 26). Brussels: European Commission. Gentilini, U., Laughton, S., and O’Brien, C. 2018. Human(Itarian) Capital? Lessons on Better Connecting Humanitarian Assistance and Social Protection. World Bank, November 2018. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/socialprotectionandjobs/publication/humanitarian -capital-lessons-on-better-connecting-humanitarian-assistance-and-social-protection Ghorpade, Y., and Ammar, A. 2021. Social Protection at the Humanitarian-Development Nexus: Insights from Yemen. Social Protection and Jobs Discussion Papers 2104. https://doi.org/10.1596/35421 58 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Ground Truth Solutions. 2020. Q1 2020 Bangladesh Strengthening Accountability to affected people. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/GTS%20Bangladesh%20report% 20R4.pdf Hasan, M. K. 2017. ABCD of Social Protection in Bangladesh. Cabinet Division and General Economics Division, Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh. Huang, C., and Gough, K. 2019. The Jordan Compact: Three Years On, Where Do We Stand? - Jordan. ReliefWeb, OCHA Services, March 19, 2019. https://reliefweb.int/report/jordan/jordan-compact-three-years-where-do-we-stand Janetsky, M. 2019. Here's Why Colombia Opened Its Arms to Venezuelan Migrants-Until Now. Foreign Policy, January 14, 2019. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/14/heres-why-colombia-opened-its-arms-to- venezuelan-migrants-until-now/ Jorgensen, S. L., and Siegel, P. B. 2019. Social Protection in an Era of Increasing Uncertainty and Disruption: Social Risk Management 2.0. Social Protection and Jobs Discussion Paper 1930. doi:10.1596/31812. Kukrety, N. 2020. Discussion Note on Knowledge Management and Learning needs for linking Social Protection and Humanitarian Cash. https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/grand-bargain-official-website/grand- bargain-cash-workstream-webinar-week-recordings-and-0 Longhurst, D., Harvey, P., Sabates-Wheeler, R., and Slater, R. 2020. Linking Social Protection and Human Cash and Voucher Assistance. www.calpnetwork.org, Cash Learning Partnership, Apr. 2020. www.calpnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/High-Level-Briefing-Paper-CVA- EN.pdf Lough, O., and Sorcha O'Callaghan, S. 2019. Five Years on from the World Humanitarian Summit: Lots of Talk, No Revolution. December 16, 2019. https://odi.org/en/insights/five-years-on-from-the-world-humanitarian-summit-lots-of- talk-no-revolution/ McLean, C., Carraro, L., Barca, V., and Alfers, L. 2021. Transfer Values: How Much Is Enough? Balancing Social Protection and Humanitarian Considerations. June 21, 2021. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/space-transfer-values-how-much-enough-balancing- social-protection-and-humanitarian Metcalfe-Houghtten, V., Fenton, W., Willitts-King, B., and Spencer, A. 2021. The Grand Bargain at Five Years: An Independent Review. https://odi.org/en/publications/the-grand-bargain-at-five-years-an-independent- review/ NAWG. 2021. Bangladesh 2020 Floods, Ongoing Emergency Response and Recovery Review Report. February 20, 2021. 59 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/20212002_nawg_emergency_r esponse_review.pdf NSIA, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 2020. 2019–20 Income, Expenditure and Labour Force Survey (IE-LFS). Kabul. https://www.nsia.gov.af:8080/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Income-and-Lobar-Force- Survey-2020-15.pdf OCHA. 2018. Afghanistan: Humanitarian Fund Operational Manual. December 2018. Kabul: OCHA. OCHA. 2020a. Afghanistan: Humanitarian Response Plan (2018–2021). June 2020 Revision. Kabul: OCHA. OCHA. 2020b. Afghanistan: Humanitarian Needs Overview. December 2020. Kabul: OCHA. REACH Initiative. 2019. Whole of Afghanistan Assessment. ReliefWeb. 2008. Glossary of Humanitarian Terms. Schnitzer, P., and Stoeffler, Q. 2021. Targeting for Social Safety Nets: Evidence from Nine Programs in the Sahel. Policy Research Working Paper No. 9816. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/36434 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. Seyfert, K., Barca, V., Gentilini, U., Luthria, M., and Abbady, S. 2019. Unbundled: A Framework for Connecting Safety Nets and Humanitarian Assistance in Refugee Settings. Social Protection and Jobs Discussion Paper No. 1935, World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/32467 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. Slim, H. 2020. People Power in Humanitarian Action. Humanitarian Law and Policy. https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2020/02/20/people-power-humanitarian-action/ Spearing, M. 2019. IDA’S Crisis Response Window: Learning Lessons to Drive Change. Center for Disaster Protection, UKAID. Retrieved December 4, 2021. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c9d3c35ab1a62515124d7e9/t/5ca5e9bec8302 509fba554a3/1554377182556/Centre_Policy_Brief2_pages_28March.pdf SPIAC-B. 2016. Leaving No One Behind: How Linking Social Protection and Humanitarian Action Can Bridge the Development-Humanitarian Divide A Joint Statement of Social Protection Actors to the World Humanitarian Summit (Statement). SPIAC-B. UNHCR. 2019. Aligning Humanitarian Cash Assistance with National Social Safety Nets in Refugee Settings: Key Considerations and Learning. Humanitarian Response, UNHCR, May 2019. www.humanitarianresponse.info/es/operations/cameroon/document/aligning- humanitarian-cash-assistance-national-social-safety-nets UNICEF. 2018. Evaluation of UNICEF’s Response to the Rohingya Crisis in Bangladesh. https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/evaluation-unicefs-response-rohingya-refugee- crisis-bangladesh 60 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages Van Brabant, K., and Patel, S. 2018. Debating the Grand Bargain in Bangladesh, How Are Grand Bargain Commitments Shaping the Response to the FDM/Rohingya Influx? March 9, 2018. https://coastbd.net/debating-the-grand-bargain-in-bangladesh-how-are-grand-bargain- commitments-shaping-the-response-to-the-fdm-rohingya-influx-6-march-2018-k-van- brabant-s-patel/ WFP. 2020. Shock-Responsive Social Protection in the Caribbean Synthesis Report. https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP- 0000122075/download/?_ga=2.173645923.1967470919.1623672916- 197569764.1623672916 WFP. 2021. Evaluation of Bangladesh WFP Country Strategic Plan 2016–2019. June 15, 2021. https://www.wfp.org/publications/evaluation-bangladesh-wfp-country-strategic-plan- 2016-2019 World Bank. 2016a. $300 Million to Improve Employment Opportunities for Jordanians and Syrian Refugees. World Bank. September 27, 2016. www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2016/09/27/300-million-to-improve- employment-opportunities-for-jordanians-and-syrian-refugees World Bank. 2016b. Cash Transfers in Humanitarian Contexts: Strategic Note. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/24699 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO./10986/24699 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. World Bank. 2018. Project Appraisal Document (PAD). World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/258451517626830719/pdf/BANGLADES H-PAD-01112018.pdf World Bank. 2019. Project Appraisal Document (PAD). World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/989731565575232490/pdf/Somalia- Shock-Responsive-Safety-Net-for-Human-Capital-Project.pdf World Bank. 2020. Project Paper on a Proposed Additional Grant in the Amount of SDR 11.40 Million (US$16.00 Million Equivalent) to the Central African Republic for the COVID-19 Response under the Service Delivery and Support to Communities Affected by Displacement Project. World Bank. World Bank. 2021a. Afghanistan Development Update April 2021: Setting Course to Recovery. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2021b. Bangladesh Social Protection Public Expenditure Review (PER). Dhaka and Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Zeller, K. 2021. Colombia Grants Legal Status to Venezuelan Refugees. Mission Network News, March 8, 2021. www.mnnonline.org/news/columbia-grants-legal-status-to-venezuelan-refugees/ 61 Social Protection & Jobs Discussion Paper Series Titles 2020-2022 No. Title 2204 Humanitarian and Social Protection Linkages with Examples from South Asia by Steen Lau Jorgensen and Maria Virginia Ceretti April 2022 2203 Cash in the City: The Case of Port-au-Prince by Olivia D’Aoust, Julius Gunneman, Karishma V. Patel and Caroline Tassot March 2022 2202 Tracing Labor Market Outcomes of Technical and Vocational Training Graduates in Saudi Arabia: A study on graduates from the Technical and Vocational Training Corporation (TVTC) by Nayib Rivera, Mehtabul Azam and Mohamed Ihsan Ajwad January 2022 2201 From Protracted Humanitarian Relief to State-led Social Safety Net System: Somalia Baxnaano Program by Afrah Al-Ahmadi and Giuseppe Zampaglione January 2022 2110 Early Lessons from Social Protection and Jobs Response to COVID-19 In Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Countries by Alex Kamurase and Emma Willenborg December 2021 2109 Migration in Bulgaria: Current Challenges and Opportunities by Daniel Garrote-Sanchez, Janis Kreuder, and Mauro Testaverde December 2021 2108 Social Protection and Labor: A Key Enabler for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation by Jamele Rigolini December 2021 2107 Intent to Implementation: Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 by Shrayana Bhattacharya and Sutirtha Sinha Roy June 2021 2106 Social Assistance Programs and Household Welfare in Eswatini by Dhushyanth Raju and Stephen D. Younger June 2021 2105 The Coal Transition: Mitigating Social and Labor Impacts by Wendy Cunningham and Achim Schmillen May 2021 2104 Social Protection at the Humanitarian-Development Nexus: Insights from Yemen by Yashodhan Ghorpade and Ali Ammar April 2021 2103 Review of the Evidence on Short-Term Education and Skills Training Programs for Out-of-School Youth with a Focus on the Use of Incentives by Marguerite Clarke, Meghna Sharma, and Pradyumna Bhattacharjee January 2021 2102 Welfare, Shocks, and Government Spending on Social Protection Programs in Lesotho by Joachim Boko, Dhushyanth Raju, and Stephen D. Younger January 2021 2101 Cash in the City: Emerging Lessons from Implementing Cash Transfers in Urban Africa by Ugo Gentilini, Saksham Khosla, and Mohamed Almenfi January 2021 2011 Building the Foundation for Accountability in Ethiopia by Laura Campbell, Fitsum Zewdu Mulugeta, Asmelash Haile Tsegay, and Brian Wampler January 2020 2010 Safety nets, health crises and natural disasters: Lessons from Sierra Leone by Judith Sandford, Sumati Rajput, Sarah Coll-Black, and Abu Kargbo December 2020 2009 A Reforma do Bolsa Família: Avaliação das propostas de reforma debatidas em 2019 by Matteo Morgandi, Liliana D. Sousa, Alison Farias, e Fabio Cereda November 2020 2008 The Role of Social Protection in Building, Protecting, and Deploying Human Capital in the East Asia and Pacific Region by Harry Edmund Moroz October 2020 2007 Boosting the Benefits of Cash Transfer Programs During the Early Years: A Case Study Review of Accompanying Measures by Laura Rawlings, Julieta Trias, and Emma Willenborg October 2020 2006 Expansion of Djibouti’s National Family Solidarity Program: Understanding Targeting Performance of the Updated Proxy Means Test Formula by Vibhuti Mendiratta, Amr Moubarak, Gabriel Lara Ibarra, John van Dyck, and Marco Santacroce August 2020 2005 Assessing the Targeting System in Georgia: Proposed Reform Options by Maddalena Honorati, Roberto Claudio Sormani, and Ludovico Carraro July 2020 2004 Jobs at risk in Turkey: Identifying the impact of COVID-19 by Sirma Demir Şeker, Efşan Nas Özen, and Ayşenur Acar Erdoğan July 2020 2003 Assessing the Vulnerability of Armenian Temporary Labor Migrants during the COVID-19 pandemic by Maddalena Honorati, Soonhwa Yi, and Thelma Choi July 2020 2002 Getting it Right: Strengthening Gender Outcomes in South Sudan by Samantha de Silva, Abir Hasan, Aissatou Ouedraogo, and Eliana Rubiano-Matulevich July 2020 2001 The Science of Adult Literacy by Michael S. C. Thomas, Victoria C. P. Knowland, Cathy Rogers January 2020 To view Social Protection & Jobs Discussion Papers published prior to 2020, please visit www.worldbank.org/sp. ABSTRACT Traditionally social protection (SP) and humanitarian programs were quite distinct in their objectives, scope, and operations, but over time those distinctions have diminished and with that the gains from better integration. Humanitarian programs are committed to more involvement of national actors, more use of cash, and greater popular participation - all matters that are important for SP actors. On the other side, SP has gradually shifted into shock-responsive or adaptive SP that explicitly targets not only the poor but also those affected by shocks. Beyond presenting the divide and overlap of concepts, principles, and commitments from the SP and humanitarian realms, this paper attempts at unbundling a framework for humanitarian and SP integration across the delivery chain (based on the paper by Seyfert et al. 2019). Global experiences across the integration spectrum, as well as the practical application of the framework in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, are exemplified. The analysis shows how programs apply a ‘mix and match’ approach building on factors such as political will, technical capacity, and alignment of objectives across implementing agencies, donors, and the government. The paper identifies constraints and opportunities for better integration and proposes a set of actions to enhance benefits for affected populations. ABOUT THIS SERIES Social Protection & Jobs Discussion Papers are published to communicate the results of The World Bank’s work to the development community with the least possible delay. This paper therefore has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate for formally edited texts. For more information, please contact the Social Protection Advisory Service via e-mail: socialprotection@ worldbank.org or visit us on-line at www.worldbank.org/sp