Social Protection and Nutrition Linkages in West Africa

The 32nd Annual meeting of the RPCA, 12-14 December 2016, Abuja (Nigeria)

Theory of change

Recognized role of social protection on nutrition

The 2nd International Conference on Nutrition recommended the implementation of social protection action for sustainable improved nutrition:

Incorporate nutrition objectives into social protection programmes and into humanitarian assistance safety net programmes;

Use cash and food transfers, including school feeding programmes and other forms of social protection for vulnerable populations to improve diets through better access to food; and

Increase income for the most vulnerable populations.

Why social protection is important for agriculture, food and nutrition security?

Social protection can play a role in: Improving quantity and quality of food consumption and increasing

dietary diversity, improved nutrition Improving smallholder agricultural production and crop diversification Improving access to services, health, sanitation, etc. Facilitating the economic insertion of the beneficiaries through the

diversification of activities and revenues sources. Minimizing negative coping strategies Consumption smoothing and risk management, thereby reduce food

insecurity and seasonal hunger Having a social protection system in place allows governments to

react quickly when a crisis occurs

Impacts on FS, consumption or diet diversityGhana 10pp reduction in proportion of children missing a meal for an entire day

Ethiopia 12% increase in diet diversity; 150 calories per week increase in food (6%)

Lesotho 11pp reduction in proportion of children who had to eat fewer meals because of food shortage; reduction by 1.5 in number of months hhld. had extreme shortage of food

Malawi 30% increase in consumption; 60pp increase in proportion of households eating meat or fish (diet diversity)

Kenya 10% increase in consumption (and improved diet diversity)

Zambia CGP 30% increase in consumption (and improved diet diversity). Increase in households eating more than one meal per day and 27pp decrease in households being severely food insecure

Zambia MCTG 20% increase in consumption. Increase in households eating more than one meal per day and 12pp decrease in households being severely food insecure

Zimbabwe 8% increase in consumption; 10% increase in diet diversity

Households invest in livelihood activities—though impact varies by countryZambia Malawi Kenya Lesotho Ghana Tanz.

Agricultural inputs +++ - ++ +++ (1)

Agricultural tools +++ +++ NS NS NS

Agricultural production

+++(2) NS ++(3) NS

Sales +++ NS NS NS - -

Home consumption of agricultural production

NS +++ +++ (4) NS NS

Livestock ownership All types All types

Small PIgs NS Small

Non farm enterprise +++ NS +FHH-MHH

- NS

Stronger impact Mixed impact Less impact

1) Reduction hired labor2) Overal value of production;

reduction in cassava3) Maize, sorghum and garden plot

vegetables 4) Animal products

What needs to change? Lack of Nutrition-sensitive design

Nutrition objectives and indicators Inclusiveness Adequacy of benefits, duration,

timing and predictability Integration of food and nutrition

education and promotion

Lack of coordination Similar goals, similar

beneficiaries but different approaches, interventions and delivery mechanisms

Lack of coordination mechanisms Political will but lack political

engagement still weak Limited impact on dietary diversity and nutrition Limited public expenditures on social protection and nutrition But alone social protection is not enough to move people out of

hunger and malnutrition: need to build the linkages and synergies

Combined approaches ‘Nutrition – Social Protection’ in response to shocks (1/2)

• Crises and shocks affect the productive capital of small farmers who constitute the majority of farmers in West Africa

• vulnerable families in shock adopt coping strategies that impact on their nutritional status, especially for the most vulnerable groups (women and children): ex. decapitalization; reduction in the number, quantity and quality of meals, reducing the use of basic services, etc.

• It becomes difficult for vulnerable families without external assistance to return to normality after a shock or crisis

• The food security system in emergency could incorporate a limited number of concrete nutrition actions (e.g management of acute malnutrition, women empowerment and nutrition education) in addition to those of social protection (e.g. Cash transfers, school meals)

Combined approaches ‘Nutrition – Social Protection’ in response to shocks (2/2)

Towards Nutrition Sensitive Social Protection policiesDesign and implementation

Integrating nutrition objectives into social protection policies, strategies and programmes

Ensure nutrition sensitive targeting and inclusive criteria (targeting of physiologically and socio-economic vulnerable groups (i.e. critical 1000 days, pregnant/lactating women, elderly, etc.)

Integration of food and nutrition education and promotion (feeding, care, hygiene practices)

Regular, predictable transfers of adequate value Cash plus:

Coordination between social protection and nutrition interventions Linkages to health, sanitation, education services Twin track approach – considering immediate needs and long term objectives

Complementary approaches for financing SP for nutrition; move from sole reliance on humanitarian social protection.