Annex 1: Review of existing theories linking social protection and humanitarian assistance Linking humanitarian assistance and social protection in response to forced displacement: An analytical framework Christina Lowe November 2022 publication of a review undertaken in March 2020 This Annex contains background information for Linking humanitarian assistance and social protection in response to forced displacement: developing an analytical framework. The information has been included in the peer review process but has not undergone extensive editing or formatting. 1 About this project The overall aim of this project is to better understand effective mechanisms for linking social protection programmes and humanitarian assistance. By providing clearer guidance about when, how and why different linkages might be considered, the project will develop the theory, evidence base and operational guidance on how social protection systems and humanitarian systems can work together to meet the needs of those affected by displacement crises, including not only displaced people but vulnerable households in their host communities as well. The research is grounded in three country contexts with a total of six study sites that present different contexts of displacement and humanitarian response: Greece (Athens and Ioannina), Colombia (Bogotá and Cúcuta) and Cameroon (Far North and East). The project is led by ODI, who work in close collaboration with the Centre for Applied Social Sciences Research and Training (CASS-RT) in Cameroon, the School of Government at the University of Los Andes in Colombia and the National Centre for Social Research (EKKE) in Greece. This work is part of the programme ‘Building the Evidence on Protracted Forced Displacement: A Multi-Stakeholder Partnership’. The programme is funded by UK Aid from the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), it is managed by the World Bank Group (WBG) and was established in partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The scope of the programme is to expand the global knowledge on forced displacement by funding quality research and disseminating results for the use of practitioners and policy- makers. This work does not necessarily reflect the views of FCDO, the WBG or UNHCR. About the author Christina (Christy) Lowe is a Senior Research Officer in ODI’s Equity and Social Policy programme. Readers are encouraged to reproduce material for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. ODI requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. For online use, we ask readers to link to the original resource on the ODI website. The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of ODI or our partners. This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 2 This Annex summarises the main findings from our March 2020 review of existing theories and frameworks linking social protection and humanitarian assistance, particularly in contexts of forced displacement. We undertook this review at the start of our project to identify the key conceptual thinking that the team could build on to develop our analytical framework (Lowe et al., 2022), and the remaining knowledge gaps that the project would need to fill. Significant work has been undertaken over the last decade to explore how social protection systems can be used to help respond to different types of crisis or shock. This work can be separated into two main categories: 1) Theories and frameworks to understand the range of approaches for using social protection systems to respond to humanitarian crises and shocks (i.e. the typology of integration options, and the entry points -or connection points- in the social protection system to which different integration options can be applied). 2) Theories and frameworks to help determine which approaches are optimal in a particular context, including: i) Understanding how contextual considerations influence the feasibility, desirability, suitability and effectiveness of different approaches; ii) Understanding the outcomes that an approach aims/expects to achieve, and against which potential approaches should be evaluated. While the first area of work is much more developed, the second area requires significant new research and testing in the context of displacement, to better understand the factors influencing the feasibility and desirability of various approaches in different displacement contexts, and to unpack the main aims of linking these two systems in various refugee and IDP settings. We summarise the main insights from each of these areas of literature below (in Sections 1 and 2 respectively), highlighting the contributions we can build on in our project and the outstanding gaps that remain to be filled. 3 1) Theories on the range of approaches for linking social protection and humanitarian assistance to respond to forced displacement Considerable effort has been invested in recent years to understand the typology of approaches for linking social protection and humanitarian systems to respond to different types of shocks. Although not specific to forced displacement settings, this existing body of research provides a useful foundation to build on. As early as 2007, research on improving long-term cash transfer programming in fragile contexts began to consider a ‘continuum’ of approaches for integrating humanitarian and development assistance with social protection systems, ‘with minimal state involvement at one end and state leadership at the other end’ (Harvey and Holmes 2007). At the first extreme, international aid agencies would play a more substantive role in implementation, but projects could ‘shadow align’ with state systems and involve governments in setting policy objectives to avoid undermining the state. At the other extreme, the delivery of assistance would be state-led, state-implemented and state-managed, with financing and delivery capacity augmented where necessary with support from international and local NGOs and UN agencies. Over time, detail was added to the typology of approaches for using national social protection programmes to respond to shocks. Considering the potential for governments to respond to crises through their social protection systems, Bastagli (2014) posited five main approaches: 1) the introduction of new policies to meet crisis needs; 2) the extension of coverage and duration of existing programmes; 3) the adjustment of transfer amounts; 4) the introduction of extraordinary payments or transfers; 5) modifications to programme rules and the relaxation of requirements to facilitate participation. Looking more from the humanitarian angle, Cherrier (2014) explored four ‘scenarios’ for linking humanitarian response with national social protection programmes in the Sahel: 1) vertical expansion of the national programme (increase the transfer amount / duration) 2) horizontal expansion (extend the coverage of existing programmes to new households or areas) 3) use of the national programme’s administrative framework as a vehicle to deliver a separate humanitarian aid programme 4) alignment of a parallel humanitarian response system: develop a parallel system for humanitarian response, but align this as closely 4 as possible with the existing or anticipated policy frameworks or strategies for national social protection schemes. These early typologies were then developed further in the most well- known and substantive work on the topic to date: the two-year DFID- funded ‘Shock-responsive social protection’ project, completed by an OPM- led research consortium of OPM, ODI, CaLP, INASP and independent consultants. The consortium’s typology added a fifth option to the four integration options proposed by Cherrier (2014). Initially, this additional option consisted of ‘Refocusing’: adjusting the social protection system to refocus assistance on groups most vulnerable to the shock, in case of a budget cut (O’Brien et al. 2015). Over time, this fifth option changed to ‘Design Tweaks’: adjusting the design of routine social protection interventions to take recent or potential shocks into consideration (O’Brien et al. 2018). The final typology is presented in the synthesis report (Ibid.): Source: O’Brien et al. (2018) The earlier and later versions of the OPM consortium’s typology have been cited frequently in subsequent work on the topic, including in USAID-commissioned work on social assistance in humanitarian contexts by the Cash and Learning Partnership (Kukrety 2016), in WFP- commissioned research on shock-responsive social protection in Latin America and the Caribbean by OPM (Beazley et al. 2016), in WFP’s shock- responsive capacity assessment tool (WFP 2019), and in UNICEF’s guidance on strengthening shock-responsive social protection systems (UNICEF 2019). In 2019, a ‘Social Protection across the Humanitarian-Development Nexus’ guidance package by the European Commission also expanded on the OPM consortium’s typology, discussing the prerequisites, advantages, disadvantages and risks of each option (European Commission 2019). Significantly for our research, the European Commission guidance also began to consider (briefly) the implications of each integration option for fragile and conflict-affected settings and contexts of forced displacement. These implications are shown in Box 1 below. 5 Box 1 Implications of shock-responsive social protection options in contexts of fragility, conflict and forced displacement • Certain options (design tweaks, horizontal and vertical expansion, piggybacking) may be possible where some institutions and social protection (SP) systems exist, and can help to maintain some of these systems during a crisis. However, they will have less relevance in those settings where SP is not yet well developed. • Conflict can mean government faces challenges in continuing to implement the routine SP programme (donor funds suspended, dangers to staff implementing programme) or that markets for goods and services are affected. This limits the feasibility of horizontal/vertical expansions, design tweaks and piggybacking options. • Working through administrative staff of state SP programmes could support access in insecure areas, or it may create barriers if the government is associated with the conflict. This affects the desirability of horizontal/vertical expansions, design tweaks and piggybacking options. • Piggybacking and alignment options can allow for working with and supporting existing national systems where donors cannot fund state actors due to the crisis. • Staff, institutions and processes of the SP system may not be accessible to and able to communicate with refugees/ IDPs, affecting the desirability of vertical/horizontal expansion, design tweaks and piggybacking options. For example: • Refugees are unlikely to be well represented in any existing SP beneficiary lists or registries for citizens. • Movement of IDPs may require updating of administrative records before payments can be made. • Movement of displaced populations may create challenges for identifying, enrolling and paying new beneficiaries. • If refugees are legally eligible to access SP, horizontal expansion may present a valid mechanism for providing assistance and for social integration – but perceptions of (ineligible) citizens would need to be carefully addressed. Alignment can be an interim measure to support refugees with a view to their full integration into existing national programmes for citizens, as political and financial space emerges. • Alignment efforts need realism about what is feasible – it is unlikely that in the most fragile contexts, alignment will transition into full ‘social protection’ in the short - to-medium term, but it will still be an improvement on the current ad hoc and fragmented way of working. Source: European Commission (2019) The European Commission’s initial consideration of integration options in forced displacement settings was soon followed by a more comprehensive World Bank publication presenting a typology of approaches for linking social assistance and humanitarian systems specifically in refugee contexts (Seyfert et al. 2019). This typology is a modified version of the OPM consortium’s typology, with the earlier approaches of Design Tweaks, Horizontal and Vertical Expansion grouped into a ‘national systems-led’ category and an additional option of an entirely standalone or ‘parallel system’ humanitarian response: 6 Source: Seyfert et al. (2019) Unlike the OPM consortium’s work on building shock-responsiveness into national social protection systems, Seyfert et al. (2019) are mainly focused on exploring options for integrating international humanitarian assistance with national social protection systems. In doing so, they build on thinking of Mitchell (2018), who describes the continuum from ‘internationally‐led and parallel humanitarian assistance’ through to ‘government led national systems that include displaced people’. Similarly, in Seyfert et al. (2019), they define a parallel system as one where “international agencies and NGOs set up a parallel and independent social protection system for a target population within a country (i.e. in a set district) – as a standalone humanitarian response”. A national systems-led approach is defined as one where “humanitarian assistance relies entirely on the national delivery system” (with the national social protection system at its core). The focus in Seyfert et al. (2019) on integrating the international humanitarian response and national social protection system is an important angle to explore, particularly for refugee settings, where most of the humanitarian assistance that affected populations receive is internationally-financed. However, in displacement contexts where the government is also providing nationally-financed humanitarian assistance, the same typology could also be applied, to look at the extent to which and ways in which this national humanitarian response is integrating with the national social protection system to assist affected populations. When considering the approaches for integrating the humanitarian and social protection systems, Seyfert et al. (2019) emphasise that the options on the continuum above are not mutually exclusive: you could use a nationally-led approach with regards to certain aspects of delivery (e.g. the national social protection governance and payments systems) but opt to piggyback in other aspects (e.g. using social protection outreach and registration mechanisms) and maintain a parallel system for other elements (e.g. taking an entirely separate approach to setting eligibility criteria, and designing protection mechanisms). Seyfert et al. refer to the components of the social protection system to which an option can be applied as the ‘entry points’. As shown below in Figure 1, these can be grouped into three broad groups, namely the policy level, programme (design) level and administration level. 7 Figure 1: Entry points for connecting social protection and humanitarian assistance Source: Barca (2019), drawing on Seyfert et al. (2019), Lindert et al. (2020) This conceptualisation of the set of entry points is based on strong foundations in existing social protection literature, including the World Bank Sourcebook on Social Protection Delivery Systems (Lindert et al., 2020) and ISPA Core Diagnostic Instrument tools (ISPA n.d.). It is also informed by the authors’ observations of integration experiences that had already begun to emerge in refugee settings prior to the publication of their working paper. Implications for our project: contributions from the literature and outstanding gaps Of the existing theories exploring the potential uses of social protection systems to help respond to shocks, the World Bank’s conceptualization of approaches (presented in Seyfert et al. 2019) holds the strongest relevance for our research, given our displacement focus. However, there is a need to refine and further extend the typology from Seyfert et al. (2019) in our research. As well as testing the existing framework using case studies from additional refugee settings and additional safety net schemes, we will also aim to explore the typology’s application to IDP settings and to other types of social protection schemes, for example social insurance programmes. This will allow us to consider if and how the existing typology could be better tailored to displacement contexts. 8 2) Theories analysing which approaches are likely to be optimal in a given displacement context 2.1. Contextual factors that influence the suitability and effectiveness of different approaches While there is considerable consensus in the shock-responsive literature on the range of approaches for linking social protection and humanitarian systems in different crisis contexts (including in refugee settings), there is much less theoretical agreement on how policymakers and practitioners should determine which approaches are likely to be most suitable and effective in a particular context, and even less established guidance when the context features forced displacement. To build a robust understanding of the range of potentially relevant considerations, our literature review has drawn on three related bodies of knowledge: a) The (very limited) theoretical literature on linking social protection and humanitarian systems to respond to forced displacement shocks. b) The wider theoretical literature on using social protection systems in broader crisis contexts, and in fragile and conflict- affected states (where substantial numbers of IDPs and refugees reside). c) The guidance currently used to inform humanitarian response in refugee and IDP contexts. This literature highlights the considerations that are deemed most critical when humanitarian agencies design their refugee/IDP assistance programmes, and that are therefore likely to be relevant when considering approaches for delivering this humanitarian assistance through an alternative system model. Table 1 below summarises the various considerations identified through each strand of the review, followed by a more detailed explanation for each literature field. 9 Table 1 Summary of the main contextual considerations identified through literature review 10 a) Existing theories and frameworks on linking social protection and humanitarian systems in forced displacement contexts Two main sources of guidance have emerged in this body of literature, both of which are referenced in a review of the topic by Cherrier (2019). One source is Mitchell (2018), who argues that optimal approaches for responding to forced displacement depend on three main considerations: First, the stage in the displacement cycle and resulting context of needs and impacts, will determine which part of the social protection system should be used. Mitchell (2018) describes the ideal cycle as being one where after the onset of the displacement (during the ‘response and mitigation’ stage), displaced and host populations are provided with emergency assistance through national social safety nets, topped up by humanitarian financing. During the subsequent ‘settle’ and ‘solve and prevent’ stages, the aim is to expand the use of the national social protection system, by enhancing displaced populations’ access to wider social protection benefits, starting with subsidised health insurance and then moving to contributory benefits and protection in the workplace (enabled by vocational training, financial inclusion, business and employment placement opportunities). Finally, in the ‘prepare’ stage, humanitarian actors can support the state to scale up social safety nets and build continency plans for future shocks, including a specific plan that opens up timebound access to the national system for displaced people, backed by a solid legal framework and a joint host‐government and international‐actor financing plan. Second, Mitchell (2018) discusses the complicity of states and the maturity and capacity of their social protection systems. He highlights that the high degree of integration described in the displacement cycle above will not be possible in low capacity or non-complicit states. In these cases, the aim should be to provide internationally-led assistance, in alignment with the current or future social protection system. When considering social protection maturity and capacity, he discusses how the level of integration of humanitarian assistance and social protection will depend on whether the national system offers the range of components required for the displaced to build self-reliance. Beyond basic cash and in- kind safety nets, these components include: family and child welfare/protection services; livelihood support and public works programmes that open up longer-term income-generating opportunities; health insurance; workplace protection and benefits; and formal labour opportunities. Third, Mitchell (2018) highlights the importance of the legal framework and application of policies regulating displaced people’s access to national social protection programmes (on paper and in practice). Where governments have not opened up their social protection programmes to displaced populations, internationally-led systems should align with the national system as much as possible, while also working with and seeking to strengthen informal social protection mechanisms (religious, community, family safety nets; informal labour markets; and pro-poor private sector products such as microcredit and microinsurance). As laws and policies become more open to the inclusion of displaced populations, a joint government-international actor roadmap and a joint financing plan can help to support the full integration of displaced into national systems. The other main theory exploring the feasibility of different alignment approaches for displacement-affected populations comes from UNHCR (2019): ‘Aligning Cash Assistance with National Social Safety Nets in Refugee Settings- Key Considerations and Learning’. This document highlights a number of pre-conditions for aligning humanitarian and national social protection systems, all of which relate to refugee and asylum seeker access to basic rights (including to documentation, land, employment, freedom of movement, education, and financial and other services). Where they do not enjoy their rights at par with nationals, alignment of all elements of assistance may not be appropriate, and should be preceded and/or accompanied by advocacy. UNHCR (2019) affirms that alignment should always be pursued to the greatest extent possible, and even where government capacity and social protection systems are very weak, alignment in some form should still be considered. However, the range of alignment approaches used in such contexts will be more limited, for example relying more on shadow alignment rather than piggybacking or full integration. The same guidance document also highlights various considerations that are likely to affect alignment decisions. Using the national system’s targeting approach may not be optimal for displaced populations if robust data on them does not exist, if it requires expensive proxy means test exercises, or if it relies on community leaders to identify beneficiaries in a context where refugees are not known to these leaders. Using the national system’s transfer design may not be appropriate if the transfer value or modality is insufficient to meet emergency needs, or if refugees do not have the same access as citizens to opportunities, support and protection mechanisms to supplement the transfer. However, providing a higher level of support to refugees than the level provided to citizens also needs careful consideration and communication, particularly in situations where the host population may be even more deprived than the displaced. Even in contexts where the displaced population has equal rights to the national social protection system, lack of access to other rights (on paper or in practice) may hinder their inclusion. This is especially true for documentation (lack of national ID cards) and financial services (lack of account to receive transfer). Furthermore, displaced populations may struggle to navigate the system due to language or bureaucratic hurdles. Where advocacy is insufficient to overcome these barriers, UNHCR (2019) proposes that providing a separate humanitarian assistance programme in close alignment with the national scheme may be considered. However, there should be a clear exit strategy for eventually integrating displaced populations into the national system, and care must be taken to avoid aggravating displaced-host relations in the interim (for example if the amount provided to the displaced is higher than the support provided to host populations through the social assistance system). 2 UNHCR (2019) also provides a detailed table of ‘key questions’ and simplified decision trees for determining the feasibility of alignment. The decision trees ask: whether refugees have accepted documents and access to their basic rights, and whether the existing/planned social protection schemes are aligned with the humanitarian response objectives, have coverage in the affected areas, and have the capacity to take on additional caseload. The more detailed table of key questions covers the following areas: - Preliminary needs assessment: o Which areas are refugees living in? o What are the characteristics of individuals/households? o What are the financial/material needs of refugees? o Are cash transfers appropriate to meet these needs? o What accompanying measures are necessary? - Key aspects to consider: o Does social protection have good coverage of affected areas? Could it expand to these areas? o Are there legal barriers for enrolling refugees in the programme? o In law, policy and practice: can refugees choose their place of residence? o Can they access bank services and loans? o Can they own or rent land for agriculture? o Are they allowed to work? o Do they have freedom of movement? - To what extent could the social protection programme be used? o Objectives – alignment of social protection and humanitarian system objectives? o Targeting criteria – overlap with refugees / potential to include refugees? o Database – nature and performance of ID, social registry, data protection systems? o Transfer value & frequency – current level, potential for increase? o Payments systems – current scope, performance, potential for expansion, non-nationals’ access to these systems? o Complementary services in social protection programme – nature, performance, capacity, non-nationals’ access to these services? o Existing shock-responsive mechanisms? - What is the system capacity to deliver additional programming (including opportunities to help strengthen national system, risks of overburdening the social protection system)? - Are there restrictions preventing transfer of funds to the government? Conclusions Although this does offer useful considerations for our project, there is no description in UNHCR (2019) of how each of the key questions affects the choice of integration approach. The analysis is also focused only on refugee/asylum seekers rather than considering IDP populations. While 3 Mitchell (2018) does consider displaced populations more broadly and offers some suggestions on how key factors influence the integration approach, it has limited detail since it is only an initial concept note rather than a robust framework. Furthermore, both Mitchell (2018), and UNHCR (2019) are heavily focused on the technical feasibility of linking social protection and humanitarian systems, with little to no consideration of the broader factors shaping the appropriateness and acceptability of different approaches (notably the political, economic and ethical dimensions). Therefore, while we will certainly build on both sources in our project, there are significant gaps for us to fill to develop a robust framework for determining optimal integration approaches in displacement contexts. b) Existing theories and frameworks on using social protection systems in broader crisis, fragile or conflict- affected contexts While guidance is extremely limited on using social protection systems specifically to respond to displacement challenges, there are many more theories to help assess potential uses of social protection systems in crises more broadly, and in fragile and conflict-affected states (which host around half of refugees and IDPs globally, per Crawford et al. 2015). In some cases, the guidance is aimed at international humanitarian agencies, to help them consider appropriate engagement with national social protection systems in their humanitarian response. In other cases, the analysis is aimed at national governments, to help them assess the potential for their social protection systems to respond to different types of shocks. Both fields contain relevant insights on the factors that could affect the appropriate use of social protection systems across a variety of crisis, fragile or conflict-affected contexts, including those featuring forced displacement. However, as in the case of the displacement-specific literature, the diverse analysis of contextual considerations has not yet been brought together into a single established framework that outlines the implications of each contextual factor for response decisions. The tools that have been developed (such as the diagnosis tool in O’Brien et al. 2018) instead focus on outlining key questions that decision-makers need to ask. In our research, we will need to explore how the answers to these ̶ and other ̶ questions about contextual considerations affect decision-making on optimal displacement responses. The considerations highlighted in this body of literature are listed below, alongside some examples of the implications of each consideration (drawn from across the sources studied): The characteristics of the shock: This includes the type, causes, speed of onset, size, location, frequency, complexity, duration or expected duration of the shock (Pelham et al. 2011, Slater et al. 2015, Kukrety 2016, Winder-Rossi et al. 2017, Ulrichs and Slater 2018, O’Brien et al. 2018, UNICEF 2019 and WFP 2019). 4 For example, in a slow-onset crisis or one that is chronic or recurrent in nature, there is more impetus to work with weak national systems, to strengthen them for future crises (Kukrety 2016). In a rapid-onset shock that seems to require only a short-term emergency response, a parallel system may be more justifiable, particularly where the social protection systems are weak or non-existent (ibid). A rapid-onset natural or conflict- induced shock is more likely to result in widespread displacement, the splitting of households and loss of key documents; therefore if relying on the social protection system to deliver assistance, this will likely require various design tweaks, including a verification exercise to get up-to-date household and payment information of beneficiaries in affected areas, and a relaxation of documentation requirements (UNICEF 2019). The profile and needs of the shock-affected population, and extent of overlap with the social protection caseload. This includes understanding the categories of affected people and their poverty and vulnerability profiles, relative to the social protection caseload (Pelham et al. 2011; Winder-Rossi et al. 2017; Slater et al. 2015; O’Brien et al. 2018; UNICEF 2019; WFP 2019). For example, if the social protection caseload significantly overlaps with the humanitarian assistance caseload, this increases the feasibility of working through the national system (Kukrety 2016). The population affected by rapid-onset, high-impact shocks (such as hurricanes or earthquakes) is often wider-ranging than for slow-onset, seasonal shocks, and typically includes better-off households who are rarely beneficiaries of routine social assistance programmes; this means horizontal expansion is more likely to be needed where assistance is channelled through the social protection system (Ulrichs and Sabates-Wheeler 2018). Meanwhile, if the shock has created distinct needs and vulnerabilities in the affected population (e.g. refugee protection risks), then rigid alignment with national systems may mean the support provided is not well-tailored to their risks (O’Brien et al. 2018). Affected communities’ own capacity, infrastructure and capabilities for coping with the shock. This includes the importance of understanding (and therefore designing programmes to build upon) the capabilities of the affected population, and the infrastructure and human capacity for coping with shocks (Pelham et al. 2011; Winder-Rossi et al. 2017). For example, existing social protection programmes should only be expected to support livelihoods in protracted crises if they are responsive to the skills, cohesion and human capital levels in affected communities (Winder-Rossi et al. 2017); if they do not build on these capacities then the design of these programmes needs to be tweaked, or new programmes need to be added. The social, economic and political situation of the affected area and the country, pre- and post-shock. The social context includes the demographics, social capital and social dynamics. For example, if the targeting approach used in routine social protection programmes violates social hierarchies among the shock-affected 5 population, it may need to be tweaked or an alternative approach used for the assistance programme (Pelham et al. 2011). The economic context includes the size or income classification of the national/local economy; the vitality and configuration of markets; price volatility; and labour market patterns, employment opportunities and access to livelihoods (Pelham et al. 2011; Slater et al. 2015; Kukrety 2016; Winder- Rossi et al. 2017). For example, where there is high inflation, relying only on routine cash transfers to support affected populations may be insufficient, since such programmes are rarely index-linked to food prices (Slater et al. 2015). If the government’s social protection provision is essentially limited to a flagship cash transfer scheme, it may be ineffective to rely on this if the affected population has poor market access and lacks a viable economic and security environment (Winder-Rossi et al. 2017). The political context includes a local and national analysis of levels of political unrest, the capacity of the state, and the governance structure, including the extent of decentralization for social protection and disaster risk management policy design/implementation (Pelham et al. 2011; Ovadiya et al. 2015; Long and Sabates-Wheeler 2017; Winder-Rossi et al. 2017; Gentilini et al 2018; UNICEF 2019). For example, in a post-conflict context, social protection systems must be used with caution, to avoid inadvertently contributing to conflict dynamics (Carpenter et al. 2012). Furthermore, using the government’s system to support certain shock-affected minority groups may be undesirable in contexts with a long history of sectarian and ethnic violence, depending on perceptions of government partisanship in these conflicts (Gentilini et al. 2018). The social protection system, nationally and in affected areas (pre-/ post-shock). This includes an exploration of the main stakeholders and mandates; overall system maturity; and overall institutional, technical and fiscal capacity for both general social protection provision and shock-responsive provision (Slater et al. 2015; Kukrety 2016; Gentilini et al. 2018; Ulrichs and Slater 2018; McCord 2013; OPM toolkit 2018; Bastagli 2014; UNICEF 2019; WFP 2019). If the social protection system is weak and programmes lack coverage of the neediest households in the disaster-affected areas, a nationally-led approach from the outset is likely to be undesirable, and simply tweaking or topping up a programme for existing beneficiaries will be inadequate to support the affected populations (O’Brien et al. 2018). If integrating into or piggybacking on the national system risks overburdening or undermining routine provision, it is not desirable to use the system in this way, and may be preferable to opt primarily for a shadow aligned or parallel response (O’Brien et al. 2018). Following the CODI Framework, the analysis of the social protection system may use a three-tier approach, at each tier analysing the current state of provision, the ability to sustain routine provision through a crisis, and the 6 flexibility and capacity to modify or expand different components in response to a shock: • At the system/policy level (legal/regulatory and policy frameworks; institutional arrangements and coordination mechanisms; financing arrangements). For example, if the social protection system is already being financed by the same donors who are financing humanitarian assistance, it may be more feasible to opt for closer integration with that system (Kukrety 2016). If the social protection laws/ policies already provide for rapid scale-up of assistance, this will increase the feasibility of a nationally-led approach (ibid). • At the programme level (objectives and underlying principles; targeting mechanisms and criteria, including exit criteria; transfer design- modality, amount, frequency, duration, use of conditions, linkages to other services (UNICEF 2019, WFP 2019; Harvey and Holmes 2007; Holmes 2009; Slater et al. 2015). For example, if the main social assistance programme in the affected area is a labour-intensive public works programme, this may be inappropriate if many shock-affected households do not have able- bodied beneficiaries (Pelham et al. 2011). The transfer value or conditionality requirements may also be inappropriate for a crisis response, requiring vertical expansion and design tweaks to provide adequate support to shock-affected populations (UNICEF 2019). • At the administrative/delivery system level (outreach, registration, enrolment, payments delivery, communication, complaints and feedback, monitoring) For example, the use (and in particular the horizontal expansion) of social protection systems to support shock-affected populations will not be feasible without strong and flexible delivery systems (Ulrichs and Sabates-Wheeler 2018). If the delivery systems can quickly incorporate a larger caseload (and potentially higher transfer amounts), this increases the feasibility of a nationally-led approach (Kukrety 2016; UNICEF 2019). Furthermore, it may be desirable to piggyback on strong delivery systems, even if the social protection programmes’ design is not appropriate for this particular crisis response (O’Brien et al. 2018). Consideration of shock-responsive flexibility and capacity should take into account any past experience or existing preparedness measures for shock response, and realistically assess the risk of overburdening the current system with additions/changes. For example, contingency plans, early warning systems and existing contingency financing in the social protection system all increase the feasibility of using it as a primary vehicle for a shock response (Slater et al. 2015). Where the shock has damaged otherwise functional social protection infrastructure, it may be desirable to work with the national systems for a longer-term response, but in the interim, a standalone but aligned response may be needed (Kukrety 2016; Ulrichs and Sabates- Wheeler 2018). 7 As well as understanding the state of social protection system components, it is also key to assess their performance, including against criteria such as coverage, reliability, timeliness/predictability, targeting effectiveness, leakage rates and any evidence of clientelism or political manipulation (Grosh et al. 2011, Carpenter et al. 2012, Slater et al. 2015, Kukrety 2016). For example, if the social protection system already has good coverage in the affected areas, this increases the feasibility of working through the national system (Kukrety 2016). If routine social protection systems are poor, it might make more sense to first strengthen their core protective functions to routine recipients, before adding shock-responsive elements (Ulrichs and Slater 2016). Social protection programming is inevitably driven -at least partially- by political incentives; depending on the nature of this politicisation, humanitarian actors may feel their humanitarian principles would be compromised by working too closely with the national system. Alongside analysis of the main social protection system features, it is also important to analyse the pre- and post-shock state and performance of foundational systems that are not the direct remit of the social protection agency. For example, where ID systems have good coverage -including of the shock-affected population-, this may increase the feasibility of piggybacking on or using this national system during beneficiary registration; where financial inclusion is very weak among the shock-affected population (for example because they are refugees who are prohibited from opening a bank account), it may not make sense to rely on routine social protection payment arrangements (UNICEF 2019). The government’s disaster response system, nationally and in the affected areas. This includes the main stakeholders, the governance and coordination mechanisms, legislative frameworks, preparedness policies and procedures, financing levels and mechanisms, and performance of national disaster risk reduction and disaster risk management (DRM) systems (UNICEF 2019, WFP 2019). For example, in countries where the DRM sector is strongly institutionalised and has high capacity to respond to natural disasters, it may be well- positioned to play a convening role in humanitarian response and to mandate service provision from other line ministries; in this case, a nationally-led approach may be feasible, with, the social protection providing assistance that has a focus on long-term vulnerability (UNICEF 2019). The humanitarian response, nationally and in the affected areas. This includes exploring the volume, recurrence, duration, financing and orientation of humanitarian aid to the country and the specific affected areas; the main stakeholders in humanitarian response; governance and coordination mechanisms; key programmes; and performance (access to and coverage of affected populations, effectiveness in meetings their needs, comparative costs). This should also consider the degree of existing engagement with the national government and use of national systems in the humanitarian response (Harvey and Holmes 2007, Harvey 2009, Pelham et al. 2011, Carpenter et al. 2012, Slater et al. 2015, Gentilini et al. 2016, Gentilini et al. 2018, O’Brien et al. 2018). 8 For example, if humanitarian actors already have a relationship with the social protection stakeholders and system, closer integration may be more feasible (Kukrety 2016). On the other hand, if a country has received little recent humanitarian aid but also has a limited social protection system, it may be more desirable to consider building resilience through the national system rather than establishing a parallel system from the outset (Gentilini et al. 2018). Potential restrictions on partnering with the government. Closer integration with national systems will be less feasible in circumstances where: • There are concerns about legitimising a particular government or authority, for example because of state violations of international humanitarian or human rights law (Harvey and Holmes 2007). • There are substantiated concerns about the intentions of the authorities towards affected populations, or about the state's intention to implement commitments in practice (Harvey and Holmes 2007; Harvey 2009). • There are significant risks of compromising humanitarian principles (Harvey 2009) • There is a hostile state or the government is unwilling to collaborate (Long and Sabates-Wheeler 2017; UNICEF 2019) • There are significant corruption risks (Ovadiya et al. 2015; Holmes 2009; UNICEF 2019) • There is significant public resistance to national service provision (Long and Sabates-Wheeler 2017) • The state is an active party or impartial actor in an ongoing conflict (O’Brien et al. 2018; Ulrichs and Sabates-Wheeler 2018; Gentilini et al. 2018; UNCHR 2019). Ulrichs and Sabates-Wheeler (2018) argue that in conflict contexts, ‘it would be inadequate to deliver humanitarian assistance through social protection systems, since the impartial and neutral delivery of aid could be obstructed, and vulnerable groups could be intentionally excluded (especially if they are fighting for the ‘wrong’ side)’. • The government lacks sovereignty over the territory in question (Seyfert et al. (2019) citing UNCHR (2019b) and Gentilini et al (2018) Institutional environment, coordination structure and political economy of linking social protection, DRM and international humanitarian / development systems. This includes an analysis of the organisations, mandates and coordination structures in place to align relevant national and international systems to use social protection systems for humanitarian assistance in protracted displacement contexts (Slater et al. 2015, Winder-Rossi et al. 2017, O’Brien et al. 2018, UNICEF 2019). It also includes an analysis of the extent to which different agencies’ underlying incentives and principles align (Slater et al. 2015, Ulrichs and Slater 2018), and the level of political will for using social protection systems to respond to displacement crises (O’Brien et al. 2018, WFP 2019). 9 For example, in countries where the main agency in charge of social protection is required to coordinate humanitarian response and DRM (as in the Philippines), it will be much easier to consider using social protection systems in response to shocks (Ulrichs and Sabates-Wheeler 2018). Without strong intra-agency coordination, approaches that more closely integrate with the national social protection system can be challenging, especially when aiming to expand the system to new beneficiaries (Slater et al. 2015). O’Brien et al. (2017) also underline the importance of political dynamics in agreeing the trigger mechanisms, targeting approach and transfer amount for shock-responsive social protection; if an agreement cannot be reached on the use of the social protection system to respond to shocks, a more integrated approach may not be feasible. Conclusions The length of this list demonstrates the range of considerations that may be relevant when analysing potential uses of social protection systems in response to different types of shocks. However, this guidance is spread across various sources and does not provide a framework that robustly considers the implications of different contextual considerations for response decisions. It also is not designed specifically for displacement contexts, and therefore lacks any detailed information about responding to this type of challenge. Our goal over the course of the project will therefore be to draw on the list above to build a framework that can be used to assess the context and the relevant implications, for displacement responses specifically. c) Existing theories and frameworks to guide humanitarian agencies’ decisions on assistance provision in forced displacement contexts While the existing shock-responsive social protection literature highlights many relevant contextual factors, it largely lacks a displacement focus and may therefore overlook certain considerations that are of critical importance when designing a suitable and effective refugee or IDP response. To understand these factors, we reviewed various tools and guidance used for programme design in refugee and IDP settings1. This analysis identified the following factors as particularly important for determining the design of an appropriate displacement response: ➢ Primary and underlying drivers of displacement, and extent to which these have been addressed ➢ Impact of driver/s of displacement on national/local capacity/ stability/ service / infrastructure provision (where the displacement is internal) 1 These include: UNHCR’s Needs Assessment Handbook (UNHCR 2017b); UNHCR’s Needs Assessment in Refugee Emergencies (NARE) (UNHCR 2018); Global Cluster for Early Recovery’s Durable Solutions in Practice (GCER 2017); UNHCR’s Policy on Alternatives to Camps (UNHCR 2014); UNHCR’s Protection of conflict-induced IDPs: Assessment for Action (UNHCR 2008); IASC’s Multi Sector/Cluster Initial Rapid Assessment (MIRA) (2015), which is not displacement-specific but is often used for IDP settings (IASC 2015); IASC’s Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO), which is also not displacement-specific but often used to highlight key needs e.g. in IDP settings (IASC 2019). 10 ➢ History, scope and scale of displacement: recurrence, duration, geographical scope, numbers affected ➢ Displacement setting: rural, urban; camp, informal settlement, non- camp, non-settlement ➢ Territorial control in displacement setting: is the area controlled by the host government or by non-State actors? ➢ Profile of the displaced and host populations, including demographics, socio-economic situation, access to services ➢ Needs / risks faced by affected populations and sub-groups, in terms of protection, physical/mental wellbeing, living standards, resilience ➢ Attitudes and dynamics within and between displaced and host populations ➢ Applicable international instruments, national laws, policies, programmes and practices relating to the displaced, including any legal or practical restrictions on the exercise of rights and freedoms • Are there any reports of refoulement, preventing access to territory, or harassment by authorities, restrictions on displaced land rights and land access, restrictions to freedom of movement? • Where conflict-induced displacement: are any peace processes in effect with provisions relating to durable solutions, or protection of specific groups? ➢ Institutional framework for displacement responses– national structures, state budget, coordination mechanisms, training of officials, monitoring mechanisms ➢ Protection context in local area for displaced and host population, including security conditions and specific protection risks (child protection, SGBV) • Are there attacks on the displaced/host communities? Do they experience other effects of hostilities? Are there armed elements inside or in the vicinity of displaced camps, settlements or communal centres? What risks do they armed elements pose for the displaced? Are there reports of forced recruitment or of extortion in support of armed groups? Who do these affect? What protective mechanisms have been put in place, and by whom? ➢ Political, socio-cultural, economic, environmental, infrastructure & technological context, nationally and in specific host area ➢ Response capacity and capabilities– among affected populations, at the national and local government level, at the non-governmental level, at the international level ➢ Humanitarian access to affected populations • Do humanitarian organisations have unimpeded access to all displaced populations? Has the authority requested/agreed to provide humanitarian agencies with access? On what terms? Is there a difference in access between government-controlled areas and areas controlled by non-State actors? ➢ Long-term outlook for durable solutions 11 • Are all stakeholders committed to find durable solutions from the outset? • Where humanitarian assistance is provided, is it done in a way that builds or strengthens capacities of national authorities, NGOs, of communities themselves? Is it provided without discrimination? • Are the protection of and solutions for displaced populations integrated into development instruments, e.g. CCAs, UNDAFs and PRSPs? • To what extent do national or regional development agendas take account of the particular protection concerns of displaced people, and the need for durable solutions? • Is there regular, structured dialogue with different members of displaced and host populations to hear their views and their proposed solutions? How are they involved in the planning process? Conclusions The considerations listed in the humanitarian literature above were not designed to inform decisions about shock-responsive social protection or integration approaches. Consequently, examples of the implications for our project are not listed here; however, each of these considerations have been incorporated into our analytical framework and potential implications are discussed below in Section 3.1.1 (Table 2). Implications for our project: contributions from the literature and outstanding gaps Our review of the literature found that there is not yet an established framework that we can use to assess the feasibility and desirability of different approaches to integrating social protection and humanitarian assistance in a given displacement context. However, while there is no consistently referenced framework on this topic, several related fields of literature highlight considerations that may be relevant. We bring these considerations together into a single framework in Section 3 below. We will build on this throughout our project, developing a deeper understanding of the implications of each contextual component for integration decisions in displacement settings, to support policymakers to analyse which approaches might be most feasible or desirable in their unique context. 12 2.2. The expected impacts of different approaches The OPM-led consortium presented various frameworks for evaluating the desirability and suitability of different shock-responsive social protection approaches (O’Brien et al. 2018). They acknowledged that certain existing evaluation approaches might be relevant, e.g. DFID's '4E's approach (Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Equity). However, the main framework that the OPM-led consortium propose was a six-criteria list developed specifically for evaluating different shock-responsive social protection options: • Meeting needs: impact; accuracy of targeting; adequacy and appropriateness of support • Coverage: percentage of population in need who are adequately supported • Timeliness: speed with which approach can be mobilized; ability to contribute to a timely response • Predictability: of funding for programme, of assistance for those in need • Duplication: ability to reduce duplication of programmes, delivery systems, processes; contribution to increased coordination and harmonisations of programmes, delivery systems, processes • Sustainability: contribution to organisational / state capacity-building; promotion of government ownership; sustainability of the approach over the long-term This six-criteria list has been a widely adopted approach for evaluating potential uses of social protection systems in crisis contexts and has been cited or extended by multiple future research projects (European Commission 2019; WFP 2019; UNICEF 2019; Seyfert et al. 2019). While the European Commission (2019) maintained the same list, WFP (2019) expanded upon the list, by adding ‘Cost’ to the ‘(Elimination of) Duplicated Systems’ criterion. UNICEF (2019) then modified the list further, adding an ‘Accountability to affected populations’ criterion. Finally, in their analysis of the implications of different alignment approaches for connecting with social safety nets in refugee settings, Seyfert et al. (2019) made two further additions, adding ‘Protection’ to the ‘Addressing needs’ criterion and adding ‘Political economy’ to the ‘Accountability’ criterion. These successive refinements produced the set of six criteria shown in Figure 2 below. Since Seyfert et al. (2019) do not explicitly define the criteria that they consider, we have drawn together some of the key dimensions associated with each criterion in their paper and in earlier literature, to help work towards a more clearly-defined list of criteria for assessing integration approaches in displacement settings. 13 Figure 2: Criteria for evaluating different approaches Source: Authors’ compilation, based on O’Brien et al. (2018), WFP (2019), UNICEF (2019), European Commission (2019) and Seyfert et al. (2020) Implications for our project: contributions from the literature and outstanding gaps The existing frameworks for evaluating potential uses of social protection have largely built on the six-criteria list from O’Brien et al. (2018). Although the original list was heavily technical, each iteration by WFP (2019), UNICEF (2019) and the World Bank (Seyfert et al. 2019) added important political, economic and ethical considerations. Furthermore, Seyfert et al. (2019) moved away from the focus on crisis contexts in general to specifically consider dimensions of importance in refugee contexts, making it particularly relevant for our research. The existing criteria list therefore provides a useful foundation for our project but there is still limited detail about what is meant by some of the criteria (e.g. ‘accountability’) and how certain criteria could be used quantitatively to compare approaches (e.g. on ‘political economy’ grounds). The existing literature also does not consider whether these criteria are equally valid for non-refugee (i.e. IDP) displacement settings, and when linking with the wider social protection system (rather than just social safety net programmes). Furthermore, there are certain dimensions that have not been looked at very closely in previous lists, such as how equitable a response is in meeting the differentiated needs of particular sub-sets of the population (e.g. based on gender, which heavily influences both the vulnerability to shocks and the impacts experienced as a result). These are all gaps that our research and analytical framework will aim to fill. 14 References Barca, V. 2019. “Webinar Presentation - Linking Cash and Voucher Assistance and Social Protection: Demystifying the entry points for humanitarians. Slide 17.” https://socialprotection.org/discover/publications/webinar-presentation-linking- cash-and-voucher-assistance-and-social-protection Bastagli, F. 2014. “Responding to a Crisis: The Design and Delivery of Social Protection.” London: ODI. https://www.odi.org/publications/8357-responding- crisis-design-and-delivery-social-protection Beazley, R., A. Solórzano, and K. Sossouvi. 2016. “Study on Shock-Responsive Social Protection in Latin America and the Caribbean: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review.” Oxford: OPM. https://www.opml.co.uk/projects/study- shock-responsive-social-protection-latin-america-and-caribbean Carpenter, S., R. Slater, and R. Mallett. 2012. “Social Protection and Basic Services in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations.” London: ODI. https://www.odi.org/publications/6883-social-protection-and-basic-services- conflict-affected-situations-what-do-we-know Cherrier, C. 2014. “Cash Transfers and Resilience: Strengthening Linkages between Emergency Cash Transfers and National Social Transfer Programmes in the Sahel.” CaLP, UNICEF, European Commission. http://www.cashlearning.org/downloads/cash-transfers-and-resilience--- discussion-paper.pdf Cherrier, C. 2019. “Operational Note No. 10: Forced Displacement. Social Protection across the Humanitarian-Development Nexus.” European Commission. https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/sp-nexus/documents/span-2019- operational-note-10-forced-displacement Costella, C., C. Jaime, J. Arrighi, E. Coughlan de Perez, P. Suarez, and M. van Aalst. 2017. “Scalable and Sustainable: How to Build Anticipatory Capacity into Social Protection Systems.” IDS Bulletin 48 (4). https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/scalable-and-sustainable-how-to-build- anticipatory-capacity-into-social-protection-systems/ Crawford, N., J. Cosgrave, S. Haysom and N. Walicki. 2015. “Protracted Displacement: Uncertain Paths to Self-Reliance in Exile.” London: ODI. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion- files/9851.pdf. European Commission. 2019. “Social Protection across the Humanitarian- Development Nexus. A Game Changer in Supporting People through Crises”. Tools and Methods Series Reference Document No. 26. https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/sp-nexus/documents/european-commission- 2019-tools-and-methods-series-reference-document-no-26-social Gentilini, U. 2016. “Sorting through the Hype: Exploring the Interface between Humanitarian Assistance and Safety Nets.” Washington DC: World Bank Gentilini, U., S. Laughton, and C. O’brien. 2018. “Human(Itarian) Capital? Lessons on Better Connecting Humanitarian Assistance and Social Protection.” Washington DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/790431468197396449/Sorting- 15 through-the-hype-exploring-the-interface-between-humanitarian-assistance- and-safety-nets Global Cluster for Early Recovery (GCER). 2017. “Durable Solutions in Practice.” http://earlyrecovery.global/sites/default/files/durable_solutions_in_practice_- _handbook_sept_2017_0.pdf Grosh, M., C. Andrews, R. Quintana, and C. Rodriguez-Alas. 2011. “Assessing Safety Net Readiness in Response to Food Price Volatility.” Washington DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/385461468177843041/Assessing- safety-net-readiness-in-response-to-food-price-volatility Harris, D. 2013. “Applied political economy analysis: A problem-driven framework.” London: ODI. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications- opinion-files/8334.pdf Harvey, P. 2009. “Social Protection in Fragile States: Lessons Learned.” London: ODI. https://socialprotection-humanrights.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/43280926.pdf Harvey, P. and R. Holmes (2007) The potential for joint programmes for long-term cash transfers in unstable situations. London: ODI. https://www.odi.org/publications/218-potential-joint-programmes-long-term- cash-transfers-unstable-situations Holmes, R. 2009. “Cash Transfers in Post-Conflict Contexts.” London: ODI. https://www.odi.org/publications/3507-cash-transfers-post-conflict-contexts Holmes, R., and C. Costella. 2017. “Shock-Sensitive Social Protection in Malawi.” London: ODI. https://www.odi.org/publications/11024-towards-shock-sensitive- social-protection-system-malawi IASC. 2015. “Multi Sector/Cluster Initial Rapid Assessment (MIRA) Manual.” https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/iasc-transformative- agenda/documents-public/multi-clustersector-initial-rapid-assessment-mira- manual IASC. 2019. “Humanitarian Needs Overview.” https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/humanitarian-programme-cycle- steering-group/documents/revised-humanitarian-needs-overview-and IDMC. 2019. “Global Report on Internal Displacement.” Geneva: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. http://www.internal- displacement.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/2019-IDMC- GRID.pdf. ILO. 2017. “World Social Protection Report 2017-2019”. Geneva: ILO. https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_604882/lang-- en/index.htm IOM. 2019. “Glossary on Migration.” Geneva: IOM. http://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/iml_34_glossary.pdf ISPA. n.d. “Core Diagnostic Instrument: What Matters Guidance Note.” https://ispatools.org/tools/CODI-What-Matters.pdf Kukrety, N. 2016. “Working with Cash Based Safety Nets in Humanitarian Contexts: Guidance Note for Humanitarian Practitioners.” USAID/ Cash and Learning Partnership. http://www.cashlearning.org/downloads/calp- humanitarian-pratitioners-guidance-notes-en-web-.pdf Kuriakose, A., T. Rasmus Heltberg, W. Wiseman, C. Costella, R. Cipryk, and S. Cornelius. 2012. “Climate-Responsive Social Protection.” Washington DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/13555 Long, K., and R. Sabates-Wheeler. 2017. “Migration, Forced Displacement and Social Protection.” GSDRC Rapid Literature Review. Birmingham: University 16 of Birmingham. http://www.gsdrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Migration- Forced-Displacement-and-Social-Protection-2017-06-20-BL.pdf Mccord, A. 2013. “Shockwatch and Social Protection: Shock Response Readiness Appraisal Toolkit.” London: ODI. https://www.odi.org/publications/7523-shock- response-readiness-appraisal-toolkit Mitchell, A. 2018. “Harnessing Social Protection for Forcibly Displaced People - Conceptual Overview” https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/file/81531/download?token=9V-x0ny2 O’Brien, C., R. Holmes, and Z. Scott. 2018. “Shock-Responsive Social Protection Systems Toolkit Appraising the Use of Social Protection in Addressing Large- Scale Shocks.” Oxford: OPM. https://www.opml.co.uk/projects/shock- responsive-social-protection-systems O’Brien et al. 2015. “Working Paper 1: Conceptualising Shock -Responsive Social Protection.” https://www.opml.co.uk/projects/shock-responsive-social- protection-systems Ovadiya, M., A. Kryeziu, S. Masood, and E. Zapatero. 2015. “Social Protection in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Countries Trends and Challenges.” Washington DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/951221468185039094/Social- protection-in-fragile-and-conflict-affected-countries-trends-and-challenges Pelham, L., E. Clay, and T. Braunholz. 2011. “Natural Disasters: What Is the Role for Social Safety Nets?” Washington DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/637011468137385397/Natural- disasters-what-is-the-role-for-social-safety-nets Peterman, A., J. de Hoop, J. Cuesta, and A. Yuster. 2018. “Evidence on Social Protection in Contexts of Fragility and Forced Displacement.” Florence: UNICEF Innocenti. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/IRB-2018- 22.pdf. Roelen, K., D. Longhurst, and R. Sabates-Wheeler. 2018. “The Role of Cash Transfers in Social Protection, Humanitarian Response and Shock- Responsive Social Protection.” Sussex: IDS. https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/the-role-of-cash-transfers-in-social- protection-humanitarian-response-and-shock-responsive-social-protection/ Seyfert, K., V. Barca, U. Gentilini, M. Luthria, and S. Abbady. 2019. “Unbundled: A Framework for Connecting Safety Nets in Refugee Settings,” no. 1935. Washington DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/970701569569181651/Unbundled- A-Framework-for-Connecting-Safety-Nets-and-Humanitarian-Assistance-in- Refugee-Settings Slater, R., S. Bailey, and P. Harvey. 2015. “Can Emergency Cash Transfers ‘piggyback’ on Existing Social Protection Programmes?” London: ODI. https://www.odi.org/publications/9713-can-emergency-cash-transfers- piggyback-existing-social-protection-programmes Tebaldi, R. 2019. “Building Shock-Responsive National Social Protection Systems in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region.” Brasilia: IPC -IG and Amman: UNICEF MENA https://www.unicef.org/mena/reports/building-shock- responsive-national-social-protection-systems Ulrichs, M., and R. Sabates-Wheeler. 2018. “Social Protection and Humanitarian Response: What Is the Scope for Integration?” 2018 (516). Sussex: IDS. https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/social-protection-and-humanitarian- response-what-is-the-scope-for-integration/ UN. 1998. “Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.” Geneva: UN. http://www.un-documents.net/gpid.htm 17 UNHCR. 2008. “Protection of conflict-induced IDPs: Assessment for Action”. https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/blog/document/protection-of-conflict-induced- idps-assessment-for-action/ UNHCR. 2013. “UNHCR Statistical Online Population Database: Sources, Methods and Data Considerations.” Geneva: UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/uk/statistics/country/45c06c662/unhcr-statistical-online- population-database-sources-methods-data-considerations.html UNHCR. 2014. “Policy on Alternatives to Camps.” Geneva: UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/protection/statelessness/5422b8f09/unhcr-policy- alternatives-camps.html UNHCR. 2016. “The power of cities”. Geneva: UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/innovation/the-power-of-cities/ UNHCR. 2017a. “Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2016.” Geneva: UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/5943e8a34 UNHCR. 2017b. “Needs Assessment Handbook.” Geneva: UNHCR. http://needsassessment.unhcr.org/ UNHCR. 2018. “Needs Assessment in Refugee Emergencies.” Geneva: UNHCR. https://emergency.unhcr.org/entry/50208/needs-assessment-for-refugee- emergencies-nare UNHCR. 2019. “UNHCR - Aligning Humanitarian Cash Assistance with National Social Safety Nets in Refugee Settings - Key Considerations and Learning.” Geneva: UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/5cc011417. UNICEF. 2019. “Programme Guidance : Strengthening Shock Responsive Social Protection Systems.” https://www.unicef.org/media/63846/file UNICEF. Forthcoming. “Social Protection System Readiness Assessment Tool.” UNOCHA. 2008. “Glossary of humanitarian terms”. https://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/resource/glossary-humanitarian-terms-0 UNOCHA. 2016. The grand bargain: A shared commitment to better service people in need. Istanbul: World Humanitarian Summit. Retrieved from https://www.agendaforhumanity.org/sites/default/files/resources/2018/Jan /Grand_Bargain_final_22_May_FINAL-2.pdf Winder-Rossi et al. 2017. “Social Protection and Resilience: Supporting Livelihoods in Protracted Crises and in Fragile and Humanitarian Contexts. FAO Position Paper.” http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7606e.pdf WFP. 2019. “WFP Basic Country Capacity Assessment: Shock -Responsive Social Protection.” World Bank. 2014. “The State of Social Safety Nets 2014.” Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/302571468320707386/pdf/879840 WP0FINAL00Box385208B00PUBLIC0.pdf. World Bank. Forthcoming. “Sourcebook on the Foundations of Social Protection Delivery Systems.” Washington, DC: World Bank. http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/725621575490392292/SPJCC19-SSN-D2S2- Blomquist-Delivery-Systems-Framework.pdf 18