Embracing grey areas: improving social assistance in protracted crises

On 30 March 2022, Better Assistance in Crises (BASIC) Research facilitated a virtual roundtable with 76 participants on the knowledge gaps and policy challenges for social assistance in protracted crises.

Watch the recording

Learning from current crises

One of the key learnings from current crises discussed was prioritising context – and embracing grey areas. A repeated theme was that effective social assistance in crises requires a nuanced approach that responds to context specificities. There is no blueprint for linking humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding efforts on social assistance (Carla de Lacerda, independent). Thus, donors need to invest time and resources in identifying the best linkages in a particular setting, and avoid rushing to binary ‘we’re in or we’re out’ responses to collaboration (Lotti Douglas, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) Moreover, Steven Were Omamo (New Growth International) challenged international actors to use less dogma when working in politically and operationally complex places, indicating a need to ‘embrace the grey areas’ that are both pervasive and profound.

As well as this view of grey areas, participants also discussed the importance of working with existing systems. Participants emphasised that the critical first step in an international humanitarian response is to understand what social assistance systems already exist, and then how to work effectively with those systems. Massimo La Rosa (European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO)) noted that there still tends to be a lack of systematic, shared analyses of the existing social protection systems in crisis situations (as addressed in the 2022 Directorate-General ECHO Cash Transfers Policy). Martin Greeley (Institute of Development Studies) queried a tension that emergency response faces: that of the response speed, which is urgent in respect to saving lives, but can be very slow with regard to building systems and states. Lotti Douglas and Rachel Slater (BASIC co-Research Director) argued that speed and working with existing systems do not have to be a trade-off. The response in Ukraine illustrates it is possible deliver support very quickly through social protection systems – faster than international agencies were able to provide emergency support. A recent blog and briefing examine this in more detail.

Knowledge gaps

There were seven key knowledge gaps on social assistance in protracted crises suggested by participants:

1. How crisis drivers – in particular conflict and climate change – intersect and impact on each other: While many countries in protracted crisis face both challenges, adaptive and responsive social protection remains tilted to natural shocks rather than conflict (Rachel Slater).
2. How international and domestic politics and power dynamics shape the provision of social assistance in crises (Rachel Slater): While a recent BASIC Research brief summarises the gaps in evidence on how politics shape social assistance and implementation, a pertinent point was also made by Steven Were Omamo that we need to better understand how systemic racism in the aid sector impacts how international aid agencies relate to crisis-affected governments.
3. How to build interlinkages with peacebuilding and social assistance (Foluke Ojelabi, UNICEF).
4. The customary mechanisms that people rely on to survive during crises: A number of participants highlighting the importance of recognising and including these approaches to humanitarian responses, and it was highlighted that clarity is needed on what exactly we mean by ‘customary’ and ‘traditional’ (Rachel Slater).
5. The extent of complementarities between different targeting mechanisms (e.g. proxy means testing) across the humanitarian system and government programmes: On this, Lotti Douglas highlighted that there is scope to learn from approaches in Iraq. A recent BASIC Research brief on targeting sets out key considerations for targeting social assistance in protracted crises.
6. The neglected role of the social service workforce and care workers in humanitarian response and social protection: More investment and training is required for people working in these roles, as Sarah Blin from Oxfam highlights.
7. The portability of benefits during crises: Learning is needed on how programmes can adapt to allow recipients to collect payments at a wider range of locations (inside and outside of beneficiaries’ home country) and/or move to new payment mechanisms (such as electronic transfers), especially where there are large movements of people, such as during the Ukrainian and Syrian crises.

Policy challenges

As well as gaps in what we know, a central point of discussion was the challenges with current policies and on-the-ground approaches to social assistance in crises. These challenges are:

• Lack of pragmatic responses and flexible systems: Steven Were Omamo articulated the need for pragmatic responses to the complexity and ‘grey areas’ faced in emergency and protracted crisis situations. His significant experience in this field indicates that usual/standard rules of operation do not always apply as there is uncertainty and fluidity across political, economic, and social domains when responding to crises. A pragmatic approach ensures that social assistance responses and systems are flexible in contexts that are highly fluid and uncertain.
• Unbalanced communications: The aforementioned need to embrace grey areas is also relevant to how constructing ‘good guy’/ ‘bad guy’ narratives, and limited understanding of local politics, impedes balanced communications during humanitarian response, which can limit operational space. Rather, embracing the grey areas can assist with dismantling these false dichotomies (Steven Were Omamo).
• Assumptions of low capacity: Several participants in the roundtable highlighted the need to challenge the blanket assumption of low institutional capacity in all situations of protracted crises in countries in Africa, which can become a ‘self-fulfilling narrative’ (Steven Were Omamo). This may drive an unhelpful ‘all or nothing’ approach to engagement with government on social assistance (Rachel Slater).
• A focus on short-term solutions: Massimo La Rosa emphasised the need for foresight and understanding of different types and sequencing, of interventions in protracted crises, as there is limited comparative evidence on the pathway to self-reliance. Zehra Rizvi (UNICEF) noted the need to unpack how life-saving social assistance and coverage of people’s minimum expenditure basket can be sustained over the longer term.
• Risk, corruption, and terrorism: Participants also raised the challenges of working with governments and local actors when constrained by counter-terrorism legislation, limited donor appetites to risk and stringent diligence requirements and potential double standards with regard to corruption.

Towards a more nuanced approach

There is still much to be understood about the best ways to improve social assistance in protracted crises. The issues raised at the roundtable illustrate what we know about working with existing systems and ensuring responses are flexible and adaptable to uncertainty. However, we still have a lot to learn about how best to apply this theory in fast-moving and complex crisis situations. BASIC Research is exploring the nuances of how to deliver effective social assistance in protracted crisis, focusing ensuring pragmatic responses can meet immediate needs, while strengthening national social protection systems in the longer term – and we endeavour to embrace the grey areas of theory and practice while conducting this research.

To keep up to date with the latest BASIC Research events and publications, be sure to follow our LinkedIn page.

In May, BASIC Research will be hosting a series of online discussion groups. We will share more information soon.

Finally, there is a bi-weekly Hangout on Social Protection in Crisis Contexts, as mentioned by Cécile Cherrier, which is an informal space to  meet and network.