Last week, Rwanda hosted an international forum on social protection that sought the best practices to implement the programmes and improve the livelihood of citizens living below the poverty line.

Social protection mostly involves cash and assets transfers to vulnerable population in an attempt to see them graduate to become independent citizens in the long-term.

The New Times’ Collins Mwai spoke to Earnan Cleirigh, a development specialist, on the implementation of social protection programmes in the country. Excerpts;-

Social protection programmes are known to be capital-intensive as they involve regular cash transfers. Who is expected to fund the programmmes? 

Most of the funds in the long-term come from the government. It is a difficult thing for a government to do because once you begin doing so, it becomes very difficult to stop as people already depend on it and if you have to stop you threaten to undo all you have been keen on. However, the government needs to be confident about social protection programmes because in the long-term, they liberate a section of the population from poverty. 

The development partners also have a role in social protection to ensure that government is able to fulfill its commitment to it citizens and chip in where need be. The governmnet also makes the cash flow management and transfers regular and reliable. 

A good way to ensure that it doesn’t overwhelm the economy is by allocating specific taxes to go to social protection, with that the source of revenue is certain, studies have shown that a social protection programme can be run using between 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent of GDP. 

As much as you require commitments from donors, you also need commitment from the government as it is the major implementer of social protection.

Are there chances of the programmes breeding dependency because of the regular cash transfers involved? 

This has been a recurrent topic when discussing social protection not only in developing countries but also in developed ones that have social protection programmes. 

There are two things that we probably need to have in mind when putting up social protection programmes. The first is that there will be permanent dependency by a section of the population, with elderly people making it a permanent pension programme of sorts. You have to take a decision to provide pension for a section of the population who are not expected to ‘graduate’ sustainably to a higher economic class. 

Children, too, graduate but take longer, meaning they should also be classified in long term dependants but they eventually graduate. 

However, going by evidence in the implementation of social protection elsewhere across the world, there are very low chances of permanent dependency when the programmes are well implemented.  

There have also been fears that the funds involved in cash transfer are prone to misuse such as embezzlement, but evidence shows the contrary because the subject population is poor and already have needs and have a preference to make savings. 

Rather than worry about encouraging dependency, we should be keen on how to ensure that the graduation is firmly rooted and examine evidence on dependency brought forth. 

What would be the best way to identify priority persons to benefit from the social protection programmes? 

The decision on whom to be included among the beneficiaries is the decision of the people designing and implementing the programme.  

In the programme that has been used in Rwanda, the community itself decides on who are the most likely beneficiaries since they have the best knowledge of the community around them.  

The community then nominates the households to benefit from the programmes which are good because it is at that level that there is information about target beneficiaries including who is likely to misuse the funds. 

The procedure that is being used needs to be transparent  and the public needs to be informed on what that criteria is, objectives of the programmes and on what basis people are being brought on to the programme. They need to have enough information about it to say that they met the criteria and were not put on the programme.

Quite often, social protection programmes are linked to other policy objectives. For example, in trying to get more girls to go to school or trying to get pregnant women to take up antenatal healthcare, if the implementers figure that there are particular issues that require addressing, they can link them up with social protection.  

Providing direct cash transfers with poor households establish a connection between the state and the households and they could take advantage of that to achieve other development objectives.

What are some of the things we should brace ourselves for as we implement social protection? 

Focusing on delivering the cash transfer well, should be a priority area. Getting the transfers right to keep the beneficiaries confident about the programme is important. The cash transfers need to be reliable and regular such that they can be relied on.   

The selection of those to benefit from the programme is another area that requires keen attention for it to have a real impact in terms of facilitating the levels of poverty in a society. 

The cash amounts transferred should also be adequate, such that they are big enough to meet the needs of the target population and also in time to ensure people can take control of their own livelihoods allowing them not to be struggling to survive. 

There also needs to be additional services like agricultural extension services that focus on enabling the society members have their own income generation activities and are development oriented. This can be put up by getting a commonality of the target group.

What are the possible recommendations to be drawn from the conference? 

We make sure that what is done by the private sector and public sector compliment each other 

Although they are quite different in that NGOs focus on building the capacities of individuals while governments focus on building a more stable ground for communities, there are ways that the two can support each other. 

It is important that a government that is embarking on social protection top be aware of the role of NGOs and take account of it and maximize the benefits of complimentarity. Nongovernmnental organisations should on the other hand fill gaps that emerge in the implementation; governments may not have the money to provide cash transfers to everyone they target which would be a good area for NGOs to come in. 

For long, NGOs when designing their scope, have looked at enhancing personal capacities, it is time they looked at how they can strengthen government programmes for long term impacts. 

How much time should we give it before we can see impacts of social protection and graduation?

 The way I would look at social protection programmes is as a long term if not a permanent policy instrument of government. You look at any country in the world, you will notice that they have social protection programmes.   

However, that doesn’t mean that you should not expect impacts from the efforts. If you look at it from a perspective of somebody who is receiving cash transfers, the impact is immediate.

The long term impact which graduation seeks is whereby there is an exit from social protection to a sustainable way where they can cease to be dependent of government support. It is ambitious and it will be achieved more quickly for some people, slower for another group and not at all for others.  

It should not be about reaching a marked target of graduation, it should rather be about properly implementing the social protection programme to improving livelihoods of the population. There should be positive development impact which in turn grows over time and you should be able to notice graduation in the long term. 

I think it is blinding to pursue only graduation targets. It equates to only following the beneficiaries to the finish line without looking at the progress as they move up. if you are only keen on pursuing meeting a graduation target, you may notice in the long run that it is not very sustainable and few people can stand independently after passing the targeted mark. 

You do not have to be able to tell citizens that very many people transited from below poverty lines to above it, it is just as convincing when you can say and show that access to food or  healthcare has been  improved even without reaching the intended target.

We need to have ways of monitoring and evaluate the delivery of cash transfers and the progress being achieved. With that the implementers and those funding can tell how things are going.

The chances of people sliding back to poverty at the end of the programme? 

That is why we should insist of long term project models that have more sustainable impacts. A point that came out in this conference is the idea of what you graduate into not what you graduate from. With that kind of mentality there will be other programmes to ensure the sustainability of the development for example through development of agricultural extension services.

Any additional comments? 

Something that did not come in the conference was that one of the key reasons of putting up or developing social protection programmes is that they are supposed to act as a resilience mechanism for the whole society not only focusing on how households will deal with economic shocks but majorly on how society can deal with the shock.  

If you have a protection mechanism in place to deal with economic shocks, it is much more efficient as you can predict the shocks and mitigate the impacts and provide timely support for those who are vulnerable.