Printer-friendly version

As has often been the case, Nick Freeland’s provocative and thoughtful analysis forces us to reflect on where we are in social protection – and why. We agree with Nick that better coordination among international development partners is necessary. What may be useful is to reflect on where these differences come from, and more importantly, how to move forward.

The truth is that there are reasons why these different approaches exist and that there are tensions between them. In part, these differences can arise from the pragmatic desire to make progress where it is possible and find solutions where need is greatest. Nonetheless, these well-intentioned aims can lead at their worst to pushing particular approaches and a lack of coordination.

The models of four horsemen also reflect political differences, different ways of seeing the world. To a certain extent, these differences are healthy. They foster debate, help to develop different policy options, and at their best push learning and improvement – forcing us to get better at supporting the people we’re supposed to be helping. The problem however is laid out in Nick’s article – in recent history, these differences have at times manifested in unhealthy competition, distracting from the mission and end goals which in theory we all share: reducing poverty and vulnerability, enabling disadvantaged and excluded people to participate in development and contribute to a society of their own making.

We would argue that we have been making some collective progress. At the global level, the SPF for example does gather the UN agencies and other partners under a common roof, despite its challenges. Although the constellation of partners varies, close collaboration of DFID, World Bank, ILO and UNICEF (among many others – including sometimes the IMF) can be found in countries such as Rwanda, Mozambique, Ethiopia and Kenya. We also think that there is emerging consensus among international agencies around issues such as focusing on systems development (as opposed to programs), strengthening institutions and capacity to deliver; building synergies with basic social service provision; improving evidence on how and why programmes work, and the importance of south-south lesson sharing.

There is still some homework to be done by each of us however. We need to look for where we have common ground, where we agree to disagree, and where we can learn together. Most importantly, we collectively need to make sure our focus is on jointly supporting national priorities in expanding and strengthening national social protection systems.

If we take our own case, it is true that in some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa UNICEF has been supporting cash transfer programmes that use community-based targeting to support very vulnerable children and families, particularly in contexts of low national income and high HIV prevalence. This was not meant to put them ahead of other poor households, but to rectify their disadvantage as they cannot take advantage of existing measures – like fertilizer subsidies or productive safety net programmes.

However, as an institution we are continuing to learn with our partners. Looking across the countries where UNICEF is supporting national governments in developing and strengthening social protection systems, we are supporting a diversity of models - for example, promoting and supporting universal/categorical transfers in South Africa, Nepal, Senegal; working with government on how to make productivist approaches more child- and gender-sensitive in Ethiopia and Rwanda; leading coalitions to support national governments in developing their own Social Protection Floor in Burkina Faso, Haiti, Thailand; and trying to collaborate with partners to assess whether and how community-based targeting and schemes for labour-constrained households fit within broader national systems in Malawi. We are also looking at how we can better support other social protection instruments in addition to cash transfers. As important as the instruments and models, UNICEF has been progressively more active in both supporting coordination of international partners and in strengthening national systems to progressively expand coverage. And the diversity of models in part reflects this approach – getting behind national leadership and different approaches that work best in different contexts.

UNICEF is currently in the process of developing a Strategic Framework for our work on social protection, which will be finalized by the beginning of 2012. The Framework will include UNICEF’s commitment to three overall principles:

1. Progressive Realization of Universal Coverage: in recognition of the different national capacities and priorities, UNICEF aims to work with governments to adopt strategies which build towards universal coverage over time
2. National Ownership and Context specificity: support to nationally-owned and led systems, as well as support in the identification of the most appropriate mix of policies and programmes given context-specific vulnerabilities, national priorities, and capacity
3. Inclusive social protection: ensuring social protection recognizes the different vulnerabilities and needs faced by populations due to social exclusion and discrimination, including children, women and girls, indigenous peoples, and people with disabilities

The Framework will also emphasize the importance of integrated social protection systems to address the multidimensional nature of children’s vulnerabilities. Together these balance UNICEF’s commitment to equity and human rights with recognition of our appropriate role in supporting social protection systems which are led by national governments and national citizens. In the autumn, we will launch a consultation process on the Strategic Framework, to seek feedback on what we are proposing, ask how we can support our national government counterparts better, and engage in a dialogue on where we can collaborate more closely with other international and regional actors.

We look forward to your participation in this process, as well as our ongoing day-to-day collaboration. We make the path by walking.

Gaspar Fajth
Social Policy Regional Adviser, UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office

Jenn Yablonski
Social Protection Specialist, UNICEF New York