The need for shock-responsive social protection

SOCIAL protection programs were originally established for formal sector workers. In recent years, though, it has expanded to marginalized sectors, especially those in the informal economy. With the onset of food, financial, and fuel crises in 2008, there has been increased discussion on forging better coherence between humanitarian assistance and social protection measures to reduce the need for recurring humanitarian assistance and facilitate more effective responses in times of crisis.

How is humanitarian assistance different from existing safety nets in the social protection system? The general situation where humanitarian actors work is volatile and chaotic, whichimmediatelythreatensthelives of affected victims. Thus, humanitarian assistance programs have short time horizons and survival objectives, and government funds for such are usually augmented by development partners. However, safety nets are longer in duration and are usually funded by government budgets.

What is important to consider, though, is that, frequently, both programs have common target beneficiaries in a community. This is obvious, as the two usually prioritize the transient and chronic poor and share similar program elements (e.g., cash transfers), but they use different institutional and delivery platforms. Again, linking social protection and humanitarianassistanceisalsonecessary

from a financing standpoint. An increasing number of donors are keen to transfer “humanitarian caseloads” intosocialprotectionsystems,assome ofthecurrenthumanitarianfunctions may be delivered through safety nets more effectively and efficiently.

From the humanitarian assistance side, using an existing targeting mechanism and delivery platform may incur much less operational costs as compared to other parallel mechanisms. At the same time, social protection programs can readily provide mitigating mechanisms during shocks (e.g., micro insurance for shelter, crop insurance for damages incurred), reducing actual costs for recovery. Nevertheless, disaster or conflict shocks easily negate the gains provided by social protection programs on poor and near-poor households. Integrating humanitarian assistance in case of such shocks provides a cushion for these

From the humanitarian assistance side, using an existing targeting mechanism and delivery platform may incur much less operational costs as compared to other parallel mechanisms. At the same time, social protection programs can readily provide mitigating mechanisms during shocks (e.g., micro insurance for shelter, crop insurance for damages incurred), reducing actual costs for recovery.

households so that they can sustain their advance from a poverty or lowincome trap.

Thus, an existing national social protection system can be tapped in an emergency response more quickly and could even cover a larger number of people. At the same time, this engagement with social assistance systems to deliver humanitarian responses can contribute to strengthening the state system in dealing with emergencies and building resilience of households and communities. Across the developing world, practices linking social protection programs and humanitarian assistance have been increasing through a common listing of beneficiaries or joint delivery platforms for cash transfers.

Social protection, disaster risk response, and humanitarian assistance are programs that tackle the problems of poverty and vulnerability, two issues closely linked together. Synergy among these programs can lead to a sustained effort by government to lift millions of Filipinos out of the poverty trap. In the Philippines, there were specific instances where the platforms of 4Ps, a social protection program, were utilized in the emergency operations of two humanitarian and development partners: the World Food Programme and UNICEF. This was during the relief and rehabilitation efforts in the aftermath of Yolanda. There was, indeed, convergence between social protection and humanitarian assistance, and the government must build on these positive experiences.

The DSWD plays a prominent role in the national disaster risk management framework. It is the lead agency in disaster response activities, which include prevention and mitigation, preparedness, relief, recovery, and rehabilitation. Concurrently, it also co-chairs four coordinating clusters of the UN cluster system: food security, shelter, camp coordination and camp management,andprotection.another important factor is that the DSWD is theleadagencyinimplementingmany social protection programs, especially the 4Ps, and, at the same time, in the disaster response. Thus, it should be able to facilitate the linkage and convergence of more social protection, disaster response, and humanitarian assistance programs in collaboration with other relevant agencies.

Within DSWD itself, key elements for linkage and convergence are in place: a database of poor households for targeting, a network of field personnel all over the country implementing a social safety net program, a cash payment delivery system, a data and information management

system for disaster response (the virtual operations center), a cluster mechanism for multi-stakeholder coordination, and a financing conduit. While these platforms and systems are far from perfect, they have been operational—some for even more than five years. They are like pieces of a puzzle waiting to be put together in specific programs. At the same time, humanitarian assistance agencies may be able to tap into these frameworks during disasters. Thus, this shock-responsive social protection system that is linked to humanitarian assistance is really the way to go!