Overview INTERNATIONAL DE VELOPMENT IN FOCUS Adaptive Social Protection Building Resilience to Shocks Thomas Bowen, Carlo del Ninno, Colin Andrews, Sarah Coll-Black, Ugo Gentilini, Kelly Johnson, Yasuhiro Kawasoe, Adea Kryeziu, Barry Maher, and Asha Williams Overview I N T E R N AT I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T I N F O C U S Adaptive Social Protection Building Resilience to Shocks THOMAS BOWEN, CARLO DEL NINNO, COLIN ANDREWS, SARAH COLL-BL ACK, UGO GENTILINI, KELLY JOHNSON, YASUHIRO KAWASOE, ADEA KRYEZIU, BARRY MAHER, AND ASHA WILLIAMS This booklet contains the Overview from Adaptive Social Protection: Building Resilience to Shocks (doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1575-1). A PDF of the full book is available at https:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/ and http://documents.worldbank.org/; print copies can be ordered at www.amazon.com. Please use the full version of the book for citation, reproduction, and adaptation purposes. © 2020 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved 1 2 3 4 23 22 21 20 Books in this series are published to communicate the results of Bank research, analysis, and operational experience with the least possible delay. The extent of language editing varies from book to book. This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The ­ World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo. Under the Creative Commons Attribution license, you are free to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt this work, including for commercial purposes, under the following conditions: Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: Bowen, Thomas, Carlo del Ninno, Colin Andrews, Sarah Coll-Black, Ugo Gentilini, Kelly Johnson, Yasuhiro Kawasoe, Adea Kryeziu, Barry Maher, and Asha Williams. 2020. “Adaptive Social Protection: Building Resilience to Shocks.” Overview booklet. International Development in Focus. Washington, DC: World Bank. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO Translations—If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This translation was not created by The World Bank and should not be considered an official World Bank translation. The World Bank shall not be liable for any content or error in this translation. Adaptations—If you create an adaptation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by The World Bank. Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by The World Bank. Third-party content—The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content con- tained within the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of any third-party- owned individual component or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringement rests solely with you. If you wish to re-use a component of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that re-use and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images. All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover photo: © Steve McCurry / Magnum Photos. Used with permission of Steve McCurry / Magnum Photos. Further permission required for reuse. Cover design: Debra Naylor / Naylor Design Inc. Contents Foreword  v Acknowledgments  vii OVERVIEW A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection   1 Introduction  1 Resilience to shocks: The capacity to prepare, cope, and adapt   3 Poverty and vulnerability: Constraints to the capacity to prepare, cope, and adapt   4 Adaptive social protection: Building resilience by supporting the capacity to prepare, cope, and adapt   6 Notes  27 References  27 Figures O.1 Natural disasters: Increasingly frequent and devastating impacts, 1967–2017  2 O.2 Africa: Chronic and transient poverty   5 O.3 Social safety nets: Global coverage compared to World Risk Index ranking  8 O.4 Framework for adaptive social protection: Four building blocks   9 O.5 Africa: Safety net beneficiaries tend to use the transfers to save   12 O.6 Social protection programs: Vertical and horizontal expansion   14 O.7 Social protection delivery chain   16 O.8 Lesotho, Mozambique, Pakistan, and the Philippines: Social registry coverage and utility for shock response   18 O.9 Kenya: Modeling the cost of responding to drought   22 O.10 Risk layering: Financial instruments, by frequency and severity of a shock   22 O.11 ASP delivery approaches: A mix across national and humanitarian actors  26 Map O.1 Dominican Republic: The Vulnerability to Climate Hazards Index (IVACC)  20  iii iv | Adaptive Social Protection Tables O.1 The social protection system: Objectives and types of social protection and labor programs  6 O.2 Adaptive social protection: Supporting the capacity to prepare, cope, and adapt  7 ­ O.3 Summary of the key priorities and investments, by building block   10 O.4 Risk layering: Advantages and disadvantages of individual financial instruments  23 O.5 International humanitarian system: Features and implications for adaptive social protection  26 Foreword At the time of finalizing this publication on Adaptive Social Protection (ASP), the world entered the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has left no country unaffected by its sweeping impacts. Although the long-term trajectory of these widespread health, economic, and social impacts is uncertain, its immediate consequences have already resulted in significant losses in terms of lives and livelihoods. A period of prolonged, often extreme, hardship is being endured by many who are undergoing social distancing and experiencing reduced income and diminished consumption. This is especially true for the poorest among us, with the lowest capacity to cope. As the crisis has taken hold, policy makers have been reminded of the value of having strong social protection systems in place that are capable of reaching affected households with immediate assistance. Toward the end of April 2020, as many as 133 countries had planned, introduced, or adjusted social protection programs in response to COVID-19. At the same time, the crisis is shining a light on both the enabling and constraining factors that affect governments’ ability to leverage social protection systems to address large, covariate shocks of this sort. At the World Bank Group, we consider ASP to be a dedicated area of focus within the wider field of social protection, examining and identifying the ways in which social protection systems can be prepared and enhanced ahead of large covariate shocks like COVID-19 to build the resilience of poor and vulnerable households—before, during, and after such shocks occur. The report begins by highlighting how, when designed appropriately, social protection programs that are delivered to the poorest and most vulnerable households can have a transformative impact on their resilience to these kinds of shocks. Through the provision of transfers and services to the poorest and most vulnerable households, adaptive social protection directly supports their capacity to prepare for, cope with, and adapt to the shocks they face. Over the long term, by supporting these three capacities, ASP can provide a pathway to a more resilient state for households that may otherwise lack the resources to move out of chronically vulnerable situations. Further, the organizing framework for ASP that is articulated in this report provides insights into the ways in which social protection systems can be made more capable of building household resilience. Through its four building blocks—programs, information, finance and institutional arrangements, and  v vi | Adaptive Social Protection partnerships—the framework highlights both the e ­ lements of existing social protection systems that are the cornerstones for building household resilience to shocks, as well as the additional priorities and core investments that will be instrumental in enhancing these outcomes and making the social protection system more prepared in advance of the next crisis. By way of some key examples, the report highlights the need to modify tra- ditional targeting methods to factor in household vulnerability to shocks; inte- grate and layer programming among poor and vulnerable households in “hot-spot” areas of recurrent shocks; invest in delivery systems and contin- gency planning to enable the increased responsiveness of programs after a shock hits; expand coverage of social registries, with a focus on the inclusion of high-risk households; preposition risk financing to ensure funding is readily available to fund response programs in a timely manner; invest in fostering collaboration and coordination with nontraditional but essential partners across government—including those involved disaster risk management and climate change ­ adaptation—as well as nongovernment, humanitarian actors. These are only a few of the priorities within the four building blocks that are outlined in the report. As the COVID-19 pandemic eventually begins to recede, other shocks and crises will remain on the horizon, many of which will become increasingly severe under the influence of climate change. The framework in this report can provide directions along the path toward the development of ASP in advance of those shocks materializing in the future. Indeed, the World Bank Group is increasingly working with governments to develop ASP in some of the poorest and highest-risk countries around the world. The report provides the basis for a structured approach to implementing these engagements, each of which will, in turn, continue to inform our collective learning on this evolving and important agenda. Michal Rutkowski Global Director Social Protection and Jobs Global Practice The World Bank Group Acknowledgments This report is the product of a sustained conversation among colleagues within the World Bank Group’s Social Protection and Jobs Global Practice over the past several years. In particular, many of the concepts, as well as the framework out- lined here, were developed for the South-South Learning Forum 2018, “Building Resilience through Adaptive Social Protection.” The work conducted as part of the Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program has also been key in driving many of the ideas outlined in this report. As such, the report has benefited enormously from the myriad views, insights, and experiences related to the evolving concept of adaptive social protection that have been shared by these many direct or indi- rect contributors, not all of whom can be captured in this acknowledgments section. The report was prepared by a team that was led by Thomas Bowen (social protection specialist) and included coauthors Carlo del Ninno (lead economist), Colin Andrews (program manager), Sarah Coll-Black (senior economist), Ugo Gentilini (senior economist), Kelly Johnson (senior social protection specialist), Yasuhiro Kawasoe ( junior professional officer), Adea Kryeziu (social protection specialist), Barry Maher (senior financial sector specialist), and Asha Williams (social protection specialist). In addition to the research completed by the authors, in several places this report draws heavily on unpublished background papers prepared by Oxford Policy Management (OPM). The OPM background paper team was led by Valentina Barca and included coauthors Sarah Bailey, Rodolfo Beazley, Andrew Kardan, Gabrielle Smith, and Ana Solórzano. Catherine Fitzgibbon, an indepen- dent consultant, also contributed to the background paper related to finance. All background paper references are cited throughout the text and are noted in the chapter reference lists of the full report. Overall guidance and quality control for this report were provided by Michal Rutkowski (global director), Margaret Grosh (senior adviser), Anush Bezhanyan (practice manager), and Jehan Arulpragasam (practice manager) of the Social Protection and Jobs Global Practice. Comments received during the peer review process from John Blomquist (lead economist), Yashodhan Ghorpade (econo- mist), Aylin Isik-Dikmelik (senior economist), and Laura Rawlings (lead economist) helped to sharpen and enrich this report throughout. Cathy Ansell ­ (financial sector specialist), Evie Calcutt (financial sector specialist),  vii viii | Adaptive Social Protection Kenichi  Chavez (senior social protection specialist), Aline Coudouel (lead economist), Jesse Doyle (young professional), Matthew Hobson (senior social ­ protection s ­ pecialist), Phillippe Leite (senior social protection economist), Olivier Mahul (practice manager), and Ruslan Yemtsov (lead economist) were also key ­contributors to the development of many of the concepts outlined in this report. The team would also like to thank members of the Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program’s Partnership Council, who provided important insights and guidance related to the adaptive social protection building blocks and the ­ concept of resilience that proved instrumental in helping to develop this report, namely: Laura Garn, Heidi Gilert, and Harriet McDonald (Department for International Development—DFID); Daniel Longhurst, Ralf Radermacher, and Anne-Sophie Vollmecke (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit—GIZ); and Thibault Van Langenhove (Agence française de développement—AFD). The messages contained within this report do not neces- sarily reflect the opinions of these Partnership Council members or the positions of their respective organizations. Lastly, the authors would like to sincerely thank Darcy Gallucio for her thor- ough, patient, and precise editorial assistance; Nita Congress and Andres de la Roche, who provided graphic design support to finalize the publication; as well as Janice Tuten who led the finalization of the publication as part of the World Bank’s International Development in Focus series. This report was commissioned and financed by the World Bank’s Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). Overview A FRAMEWORK FOR ADAPTIVE SOCIAL PROTECTION INTRODUCTION Today’s global landscape is fraught with interconnected and often devastating covariate shocks such as natural disasters, economic crises, pandemics, con- flicts, and forced displacement.1 In the last 50 years, natural disasters have fol- lowed an increasing trend in terms of occurrence and human devastation (figure O.1).2 Climate change is expected to exacerbate these trends and, with- out climate-­ informed development, to push an additional 100 million people into extreme poverty by 2030 (Hallegatte et ­al. ­2016). Forced displacement also has hit record highs in recent years, with an estimated 20 persons fleeing their homes every 60 seconds and more than 64 million people being displaced worldwide in 2016 (UNHCR 2 ­ 016). In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic is providing a vivid reminder of the devastating potential impact of pandemics on the lives and livelihoods of those who are directly and indirectly a ­ ffected. Adaptive social protection (ASP) is a response to widespread demand for the use of social protection as a tool to build the resilience of poor and vulner- able households to these kinds of covariate ­ shocks. ASP is outlined in this report as a specific focus area within the wider field of social protection that is dedicated to identifying the ways in which social protection can be leveraged and enhanced to build household resilience to these kinds of ­ shocks. In doing so, this report draws inspiration and insight from the concept of ASP promul- gated by researchers at the Institute of Development Studies (for example, Arnall et ­ al. ­ al. 2010; Davies et ­ 2009, 2012). These authors first highlighted the value of integrating the often disconnected social protection, ­ disaster risk management (DRM), and climate change adaptation sectors for a mutually reinforcing approach to reduce household vulnerability and build household ­resilience. In equal measure, the report draws on the proliferating literature on and operational experiences related to shock-responsive social protection, especially the Oxford Policy Management shock-responsive social protection series, ­2015–18. Finally, the report draws on and adapts the Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters (BRACED) framework developed by Bahadur et ­ al. (2015), as the primary basis for its definition of household ­resilience.  1 2 | Adaptive Social Protection FIGURE O.1 Natural disasters: Increasingly frequent and devastating impacts, 1967–2017 700 700 600 600 Millions of people affected 500 500 Number of disasters 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 19 7 69 19 1 19 3 19 5 77 19 9 19 1 19 3 85 19 7 19 9 19 1 19 3 19 5 19 7 20 9 20 1 03 20 5 20 7 20 9 20 1 20 3 15 17 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 19 19 19 19 20 20 Number of disasters Number of people affected Number of disasters–trend Number of people affected–trend ­ ww.emdat​ Source: EM-DAT: The Emergency Events Database, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL)—CRED, w be, accessed May ­ .­ 2019. In response to this growing demand for ASP, this report outlines and elabo- rates on a concise framework to help inform its design and i ­mplementation. To do so the report first outlines a working definition of ASP that is anchored to a definition of household r ­ esilience. Building from these foundational definitions, the main contribution of the report is an organizing framework for ASP that is composed of four building blocks—programs, data and information systems, finance, and institutional arrangements and ­ partnerships. In developing this framework, the report highlights the specific priorities and core investments aligned to each building block that support the design and implementation of ASP. In this way, the report identifies several priorities and investments that are ­ above and beyond those that are business as usual for regular social protection, generated by the unique demands of building household resilience to covariate ­shocks. This report focuses primarily on elaborating this framework in relation to natural disasters and climate ­ change. Each type of covariate shock transmits its impacts to households in a different way: primarily, if not exclusively, through the labor market for economic shocks, through food insecurity for drought, and through asset loss for destructive shocks such as e ­ arthquakes. This implies dif- ferent policy and programmatic prescriptions to mitigate the impacts, including, for example, the timing of an intervention and the most appropriate type of ­ assistance. Natural disasters lay at the intersection of those covariate shocks where more is known on the role of social protection—such as economic and financial crises—and those where lessons are only beginning to emerge—­ including pandemics such as COVID-19 and forced d ­ isplacement. The building blocks and the priorities that are outlined in this report offer a foundation for a structured approach to advance ASP globally, across each type of s ­ hock. Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 3 RESILIENCE TO SHOCKS: THE CAPACITY TO PREPARE, COPE, AND ADAPT To understand how ASP can build household resilience to shocks, it is import- ant to first define ­resilience. The concept of resilience has enjoyed widespread adoption across (as well as outside of ) international development organiza- tions and sectors, from finance to health to infrastructure, to name but a f ­ ew. The concept has gained traction, significance, and influence in part because it highlights a positive capacity for a unit of analysis to manage adversity (that is, a system, a society, a community, a household, or a person; for detailed synopses, see Béné et ­ al. 2012; de Weijer 2013; and appendix ­ A of the full report). Definitions for resilience abound and any given two definitions are rarely the same across or even within i ­nstitutions. For conceptual clarity, in this report resilience is defined as: The ability for a household to prepare for, cope with, and adapt to shocks in a manner that protects their well-being: ensuring that they do not fall into pov- impacts. erty or become trapped in poverty as a result of the ­ A household’s resilience to a shock can be thought of as the product of its ­ t. Drawing inspiration from the capacity to prepare for, cope with, and adapt to i BRACED framework (Bahadur et  ­ al. 2015), conceptually, a more resilient household will possess three interlinked capacities that help to minimize and ­mpacts. The higher the household’s capacity to pre- resist a shock’s negative i pare, cope, and adapt, the lesser the implied impact of the shock on well-being and the increased likelihood that the household will “bounce back faster” (Schipper and Langston 2015), recovering to pre-shock levels of w ­ ell-being. By extension, vulnerability and resilience can be simplistically seen as “two sides of the same coin” (Jorgensen and Siegel 2019), where a household is vulnerable to a shock because of a limited capacity to prepare, cope, and adapt, translating into an inability to minimize and resist the negative impacts, bouncing back slowly, if at ­ all. For greater precision, taking each interlinked capacity in turn, a more resilient household can do the ­ ­ following. • Prepare for a shock: mitigating the impacts, informing and enabling ­coping and ­adaptation.3 First, the capacity to prepare is, to a large extent, deter- mined by a household’s access to information on the risks it faces, enabling a better understanding of the factors that drive its own exposure and vul- nerability to those risks (Bahadur et ­ 2015). Adequate information on al. ­ risk is essential for informing the actions needed to minimize exposure and vulnerability, including through preparing to cope with the immedi- ate impact of a shock, as well as strategies for long-term ­adaptation. At the same time, a more resilient household tends to have access to savings in the form of cash and assets to create a buffer that it can draw upon after a shock. Similarly, a more resilient household is typically more prepared as ­ a result of having access to a range of private (insurance) and public (social protection) instruments to draw upon when savings are depleted and/or a shock is especially ­severe. • Cope with a shock: minimizing the immediate impact of a shock on well-­ being in the short ­term.4 The capacity to cope with a shock is highly cor- related to the capacity to ­prepare. A more resilient household possesses a higher capacity to cope with the impact because it can draw upon its savings 4 | Adaptive Social Protection and leverage private (insurance) and public (social protection) resources as appropriate to smooth consumption and lost ­ income. Together, these strat- egies and instruments help to resist the negative impact on their well-being and enable households to bounce back to their pre-shock state as quickly as ­possible. • Adapt to a shock: reducing exposure and vulnerability over the long term, enabling a movement toward a more resilient s ­ tate. With sufficient adaptive capacity, a more resilient household can make investments that reduce both its exposure and vulnerability to shocks over the longer ­ term. This includes diversifying or adjusting livelihood portfolios away from sources of income that are especially vulnerable to the impacts of a shock; building a larger and more diversified asset base, including productive, financial, and human capital-related assets to enable these adjustments in livelihood portfolios; ­ and/or leveraging such assets to relocate away from an area of spatially con- centrated ­risk. Indeed, the ultimate expression of adaptive capacity may be the household’s ability to reduce its exposure to a shock altogether through relocation and planned migration when in situ adjustments to livelihood and assets portfolios fail and where remaining in place would lead to chronic vul- nerability and even ­ maladaptation.5 POVERTY AND VULNERABILITY: CONSTRAINTS TO THE CAPACITY TO PREPARE, COPE, AND ADAPT Shocks disproportionately impact poorer households, who tend to be partic- ularly exposed to shocks and more vulnerable to their impacts (Hallegatte et ­al. ­2016). The generalized vulnerability of poorer households to shocks can be ascribed to a deficit in terms of the capacity to prepare, cope, and ­ adapt. For example, it is widely documented that poorer households resort to “negative coping mechanisms” to smooth consumption, including by cutting ­ consumption, selling productive assets, and removing children from school ­ (Hill, Skoufias, and Maher 2 ­ 019). Poverty also can prevent the adoption of livelihood strategies and higher-risk investments in support of greater pre- paredness and longer-term adaptation, leading to a state of chronic vulnera- bility to shocks (Bahadur et ­al. ­2015). For many poorer households, the ability to bounce back to a pre-shock state of well-being is acutely limited, creating poverty traps and, at a societal level, undermining poverty reduction (UNISDR ­2015). Shocks routinely impoverish nonpoor households when their capacity to prepare, cope, and adapt is ­ overwhelmed. The data and research are replete with examples of how local and national poverty rates increase substantially after severe and less severe shocks (see appendix A ­ of the full report). Many households live close to the poverty line, meaning they are especially vulnera- ble to poverty as a consequence of even small variances in income and con- sumption (figure O.2). In this way, households that are vulnerable to poverty due to shocks often possess similar constraints as poor households to prepare, cope, and adapt to ­ shocks. Particularly severe shocks—especially those that are rapid-onset, destructive shocks such as earthquakes and severe typhoons—can erase assets and livelihoods and impoverish even wealthier ­ households. Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 5 FIGURE O.2 Africa: Chronic and transient poverty Congo, Dem. Rep. 77.3 Madagascar 24.2 Malawi 17.2 Mozambique 28.0 Rwanda 11.6 Burkina Faso 18.1 Zambia 16.2 Total population (millions) Togo 7.3 Sierra Leone 6.5 Average Uganda 39.0 Senegal 15.1 Ethiopia 99.4 Tanzania 53.5 Chad 14.0 Ghana 27.4 Eswatini 1.3 Côte d´Ivoire 22.7 Cameroon 23.3 Nigeria 182.2 Botswana 2.3 Mauritania 4.1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Chronically poor Downwardly mobile Upwardly mobile Never poor Source: Dang and Dabalen 2017, as cited in Beegle, Coudouel, and Monsalve 2 ­ 018. Note: Poverty statistics are from the latest household survey year for each ­ country. “Chronically poor” are households that were poor in both periods of the analysis; “downwardly mobile” are households that fell into poverty in the second period; “upwardly mobile” are those that were poor in the first period but not in the second; and “never poor” are households that were nonpoor in both ­periods. Further, within a household, women, children, the disabled, and the elderly are often found to be especially vulnerable to the impacts from shocks (see, for example, Holmes 2019; UNICEF ­ 2018). Adapting to shocks and “bouncing back better” after they hit is critical for poor and vulnerable ­ households. Priority 4 of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction emphasizes that reconstruction after a disaster offers an opportunity to build more resilient societies (Hallegatte, Rentschler, and Walsh ­2018). The concept of “building back better,” aligned to Priority 4, highlights the necessity of not r ­ e-creating the same vulnerabilities that exacerbated the impacts of the previous ­disaster. Applying the same principle in relation to household resilience, it is critical to ensure that poor and vulnerable households can “bounce back better” to a more resilient state of lower exposure and vulnerability (Frankenberger et ­ al. al. 2012; Manyena et ­ 2011). Further, under the influence of climate change, and alongside societal ­ adaptation initiatives, a household’s ability to adapt over the long term to increased uncertainty and worsening climatic conditions will become critical. The limited capacity of poorer households to adapt to increasingly ­ climate change means they are likely to be among the hardest hit by the worsening impacts (Hallegatte et ­ 2016). al. ­ 6 | Adaptive Social Protection ADAPTIVE SOCIAL PROTECTION: BUILDING RESILIENCE BY SUPPORTING THE CAPACITY TO PREPARE, COPE, AND ADAPT ASP can help to build the resilience of poor and vulnerable households to shocks ­ dapt. As such, the by directly investing in their capacity to prepare, cope, and a report defines ASP in the following way: Adaptive social protection helps to build the resilience of poor and vulnerable households by investing in their capacity to prepare for, cope with, and adapt to shocks: protecting their wellbeing and ensuring that they do not fall into poverty or become trapped in poverty as a result of the impacts. This definition of ASP promotes government-led investment in the three resilience capacities of households who are particularly vulnerable to shocks along the pre- and post-shock continuum, through social protection programs (table O.1). Together, social safety nets, social insurance, and labor market pro- grams constitute the social protection “system” along with the policies that guide them and the delivery systems that underpin them (ILO 2017; Robalino, Rawlings, and Walker 2012; World Bank ­ 2012). The pronounced ability of safety net programs in particular to build the resilience of poor and vulnerable households can be harnessed and enhanced in relation to covariate ­shocks. Unemployment insurance and social insurance programs are widely understood to be instruments that can help households to cope with the impacts of a shock, if they have access to these ­programs. That said, in many countries, the share of the formal labor force is limited, and access to unemployment insurance is highly constrained, especially among the poorest ­households. Safety nets, on the other hand, r ­ outinely reach among the TABLE O.1  The social protection system: Objectives and types of social protection and labor programs SOCIAL PROTECTION AND LABOR PROGRAM OBJECTIVES TYPES OF PROGRAMS Social safety nets/ Reduce poverty and • Unconditional cash transfers social assistance inequality • Conditional cash transfers • Social pensions Noncontributory • Food and in-kind support • School feeding programs • Public works projects • Fee waivers and targeted subsidies • Other interventions Social insurance Ensure adequate • Contributory old-age, survivor, and disability standards in the face of pensions Contributory shocks and life changes • Sick leave • Maternity/paternity benefits • Health insurance coverage • Other types of insurance Labor market Improve chances of • Active labor market programs: training, programs employment and employment intermediation services, and wage earnings; smooth subsidies Contributory and income support during • Passive labor market programs: unemployment noncontributory unemployment insurance and early retirement incentives ­ 018. Source: World Bank 2 Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 7 poorest households with various forms of noncontributory assistance—most typically unconditional or conditional cash transfers, in-kind support such as food and nonfood items, and public works programs. For these reasons, while there is ample room to explore the role of all types of social protection pro- grams in building resilience, the focus of this report is squarely on safety net ­programs. The impact of assistance delivered to a poor or vulnerable household through a safety net can be transformative across its resilience c ­ apacities. A cash transfer, for example, provides a supplementary source of income that can enable the beneficiary household to undertake preparedness measures (such as saving) and to invest in higher-risk, higher-return livelihoods, support- ing ­adaptation. If a shock hits, the beneficiary household is better able to smooth consumption and to avoid negative coping s ­ trategies. Moreover, after a shock, if preparedness measures are overwhelmed (for example, depleted savings), the continued provision of transfers can directly support the beneficiary house- hold’s capacity to c ­ ope. More specifically, table O.2 summarizes the impact of safety net programs across the three ­ resilience capacities—prepare, cope, and adapt—highlighting the ways ASP can build the resilience of poor and vulnera- ble ­households. TABLE O.2  Adaptive social protection: Supporting the capacity to prepare, cope, and adapt PREPAREDNESS COPING ADAPTATION A more resilient • More savings (cash, assets) to draw • Activates coping mecha- • Capable of making long-term household upon if a shock occurs nisms: acting on investments to reduce exposure and • Access to public (social protection) and information (including vulnerability over time private (insurance) instruments if early warning informa- • Adjustment of asset and livelihood needed after a shock tion), leverages savings, portfolios away from sources of risk • Access to information on their own assets, public and private and vulnerability exposure and vulnerability to shocks instruments to smooth • Planned movement and migration (including early warning information) consumption and to away from areas of spatially to inform action supplement lost income concentrated, chronic risk ­ Poor and • Limited savings and assets to draw on • In the absence of • Fewer resources with which to make vulnerable if a shock occurs adequate savings and long-term investments in adaptation households • Limited or no access to public (social access to social through adjustments in livelihood protection) and private (insurance) protection and/or and asset portfolios that can lead to instruments if needed should a shock private insurance, • Maladaptation and chronic occur resort to negative vulnerability • Limited access to information on their coping strategies—­ • Forced displacement and exposure and vulnerability (including cutting consumption, unplanned migration early warning information) to inform removing children from action school, distress sale of assets, among others ­ Role of safety • Increased access to safety nets among • Support to post-shock • Support to long-term adjustment of net programs in the poor and vulnerable, especially coping through asset and livelihood portfolios, supporting those identified as at-risk from shocks continued delivery including through cash, cash plus, preparedness, • Transfers to at-risk households before during and after a and productive inclusion coping, and shocks occur to support savings and shock to existing ­interventions adaptation asset accumulation beneficiaries • Community asset-building projects among the poor • Safety nets leveraged to transmit • Shock-responsive through public works programs that and vulnerable information on exposure and vulnera- programs capable of address key drivers of households bility, enabling the increased anticipa- adjusting benefit ­community-level vulnerability tion of shocks, and informing actions in package and tempo- • Support to human capital support of preparedness, coping, and rarily increasing the accumulation for intergenerational ­ adaptation number of beneficia- adaptation through increased ries as needed based opportunity on post-shock needs Source: World Bank. 8 | Adaptive Social Protection An overriding priority for ASP is the continued extension of access to safety net programs, especially for the households that are identified as being most vul- nerable to ­shocks. Recently, safety net coverage has increased dramatically, glob- ally (see, for example, Beegle, Coudouel, and Monsalve 2018; World Bank 2018), providing a strong platform for their use in building resilience to covariate shocks. However, while the rise of safety nets has been impressive and is at the ­ heart of several increasingly ambitious social protection–related agendas (including ASP), the undercoverage of and limited access to safety net programs, particularly among the poorest households, remain widespread (ILO 2017; World Bank ­ 2018). Low social protection coverage of those most vulnerable to covariate shocks inevitably limits the role of social protection in building resil- ience (Bastagli and Holmes 2 ­ 014). Indeed, many countries at high risk of natural disasters have especially low coverage, as highlighted in figure O.3. In that sense, the development of ASP is consistent with and integral to the advancement of the universal social protection agenda: access to social protection for all in need, when they need it, including in relation to ­ shocks.6 The remainder of this report highlights how specific priorities and core investments can enhance the ability of safety net programs to build household resilience to covariate ­ shocks. In order to highlight these priorities and core investments, the report outlines a framework that delineates four key building blocks for the development of ASP: (1) programs, (2) data and information systems, (3) finance, and (4) institutional arrangements and partnerships ­ (figure O.4). The full report is structured around these building blocks, with ­ each chapter dedicated to expanding on the key priorities and core invest- ments aligned to e ­ ach. In that way, chapter 1, “Programs: Design Considerations for Building Resilience,” focuses on some of the design features that can enhance the ability of safety net programs to build resilience by supporting preparedness, coping, and a ­ daptation. Chapter 2, “Data and Information: FIGURE O.3 Social safety nets: Global coverage compared to World Risk Index ranking 100 ASPIRE: Social safety net coverage, latest year (all programs) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 World risk index, 2016 (169 = Most at risk; 1 = Least at risk) Africa East Asia and the Pacific Europe and Central Asia Latin America and the Caribbean Middle East and North Africa South Asia Expon. (ALL) ­ ttp://datatopics.worldbank.org/aspire/; UNU-EHS ­ Sources: Atlas of Social Protection (ASPIRE), h 2016. Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 9 FIGURE O.4 Framework for adaptive social protection: Four building blocks Data and information Finance Programs Institutional arrangements and partnerships Source: World Bank. Understanding Risk and Household Vulnerability,” identifies some of the data and information requirements that underpin the design and implementation of programs. Chapter 3, “Finance: Applying a Disaster Risk Financing these ­ Approach,” then focuses on outlining the role of risk financing in enabling timely response to shocks with ­ A SP. Lastly, chapter 4, “Institutional Arrangements and Partnerships: Multisectoral Coordination and Humanitarian Linkages,” unbundles some of the multisectoral institutional arrangements and partnerships that are critical for ASP both across government line ministries as well as with nongovernment p ­ artners. These key priorities and core invest- ments are summarized in table O.3 and the remainder of this overview. ASP building block 1: Programs As noted, investing in a stronger, more comprehensive social protection system composed of multiple programs with high coverage provides the foundation for building ­household resilience. Moreover, beyond the traditional social protec- tion system itself, ASP highlights the need for strong coordination with the dis- parate programs working on building the resilience of households to s ­ hocks from other sectors. Take for example the many agriculture, human development (health and education), and disaster risk reduction programs that explicitly or 10 | Adaptive Social Protection TABLE ­O.3  Summary of the key priorities and investments, by building block BUILDING BLOCK PRIORITY/INVESTMENT DESCRIPTION Programs Strengthen the overall social A stronger social protection system with higher coverage across several protection system and expand programs provides more avenues for reaching poor and vulnerable households coverage with assistance before and after shocks Appraise and adjust the design Adjusting targeting approaches to integrate risk and household vulnerability parameters of existing programs into eligibility criteria and beneficiary selection, as well as fine-tuning within the system benefit parameters to enhance resilience-building outcomes among those households Design features to support Promote increased savings and financial inclusion; disseminate risk information preparedness within at-risk communities to inform strategies and actions for household preparedness, coping, and adaptation Design features to support Invest in preparing shock-responsive, flexible programs that are backed by coping adequate preparedness measures and contingency plans Design features to support Promote more productive and resilient livelihoods including through asset and adaptation livelihood diversification; support to human capital accumulation; building resilient community assets that address sources of vulnerability in the community Data and Household risk and vulnerability Integrating poverty and vulnerability data with disaster risk assessments for a information assessments spatial understanding of household vulnerability to shocks Social registries Expanding social registry coverage within high-risk areas, enabling more frequent updating and ensuring the data contained in registries are useful in the assessment of household vulnerability to shocks Early warning systems Linking to early warning systems as a basis for predicting needs and promoting timely action based on predefined triggers and thresholds for action Post-shock needs assessment Investing in the capacity to conduct post-shock assessments, or linking to assessment from other sectors, to ensure an up-to-date understanding of household needs—especially after less predictable, destructive shocks Data sharing platforms and Facilitating exchange of data between social protection and relevant line protocols ministries, including DRM, as well as nongovernment partners Finance Cost estimation of shock response Use historical shock data to analyze the predicted cost of future responses with social protection Preplanned risk financing and risk Preposition financial instruments to cover those costs, layering different layering for shock response instruments for different risks and ensuring timelier responses Linking to disbursement Ensure that programs and their payment platforms are prepared to efficiently mechanisms disburse available funds to beneficiaries once released Secure long-term financing in Financing for the expansion of long-term programs, supporting household support of resilience building resilience, including through preparedness and adaptation Institutional Government leadership Internalizing responsibility to build the resilience of poor and vulnerable arrangements households to shocks, owning the ASP agenda and setting government and objectives and strategy accordingly partnerships Policy coherence and cross-sector Especially among the core sectors of social protection, DRM, and those involved collaboration in climate change adaptation Institutional capacity Beyond policy coherence and coordination mechanisms: investing in the additional human, financial, and physical capacity required for ASP delivery Strategic partnerships with Pursuing a collaborative, coordinated approach with nongovernment partners nongovernment actors engaged in building resilience National and nongovernment Beyond simple dichotomies, identifying specific comparative advantages in actor specificity in roles and design and delivery of ASP programs across humanitarian/government divide responsibilities Source: World Bank. Note: ASP = adaptive social protection; DRM = disaster risk management. Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 11 implicitly seek to build household resilience to covariate s ­ hocks. Similarly, after a shock hits, many emergency response and recovery programs deliver from a multitude of ministries, departments, and agencies as well as from nongovern- mental and humanitarian organizations to help people cope with the i ­mpacts. Where such coordination, coherence, and integration of programming is achieved in practice, household gains in resilience building could be more significant and sustainable; see, for example, the integrated and layered pro- ­ grammatic approaches to building resilience undertaken by the World Food Programme (WFP 2015, ­ 2018). More specifically, traditional approaches to safety net beneficiary selection need to be re-evaluated to ensure coverage of the households that are most ­ vulnerable to s ­ hocks. Geographic targeting that is based on a spatial under- standing of risks and that prioritizes extending and/or deepening coverage within high-risk areas will enhance the ability of safety net programs to support resilience ­building. Within program eligibility criteria, measures of ­vulnerability to covariate shocks can further enhance the ability to identify and reach house- holds most vulnerable to shocks in support of preparedness, coping, and adap- tation (del Ninno and Mills ­ 2015). For example, climate-smart targeting incorporates area and household data to help identify the households v ­ ulnerable to natural hazards and climate-change risks (ADB 2018; Bastagli and Holmes 2014; World Bank ­ 2013). Appraising and adjusting existing program benefit package parameters can enhance their resilience-building i ­ mpact. Building on risk and vulnerability– informed beneficiary selection, an assessment of existing safety net program benefit packages can inform specific adjustments to maximize their impact on resilience ­building. For example, it is worthwhile considering how the benefit package design parameters—type (cash, vouchers, food), timing, frequency, duration, and amount—mediate their impact on preparedness, coping, and adaptation. Concretely, smaller, more frequent cash transfers in support of ­ consumption smoothing are associated with support to coping, especially when they are timed with predictable shocks such as lean ­ seasons. Larger, lump-sum, infrequent transfers are more likely to spur investments in support of adaptation and p ­ reparedness. More generally, where transfers are not pre- dictable and reliable, they will undermine resilience-building impacts, with beneficiaries more likely to continue to resort to negative coping strategies and not factor the transfers into longer-term investment decisions, hampering preparedness and ­ adaptation. Safety net support to the capacity to prepare for shocks Savings and financial inclusion can directly increase the preparedness of poor and vulnerable households, enhancing their ability to cope with and adapt to a ­shock. Financial inclusion can be explicitly supported where safety net beneficiaries are given access to a store-of-value transaction account (increasingly common practice for cash transfers) and encouraged to save and/or are given access to savings groups in their ­ community. Even where social protection does not explicitly support financial inclusion and saving, beneficiaries often use the transfer for this purpose, especially in contexts of recurrent c ­ rises. Recent evaluations of safety net programs indicate signifi- cant impacts on increased savings, improved creditworthiness, and reduced debt (Andrews, Hsiao, and Ralston 2018; Bastagli et ­ al. 2016; Hidrobo et ­al. 2018; Ulrichs and Slater 2 ­ 016). In Mexico, beneficiaries of the former national 12 | Adaptive Social Protection conditional cash transfer program (Prospera) who lived in communities highly exposed to droughts and hurricanes largely used the transfer “to save for the bad times” (Solórzano 2 ­ 016). In Africa, safety net beneficiary house- holds are 4–20 ­ percentage points more likely to save relative to comparable nonbeneficiary households (figure O.5); given the initial low savings rate among such households, this implies an expansion by a factor of almost two in the incidence of savings (Beegle, Coudouel, and Monsalve ­2018). Financial inclusion provides the additional benefit of making beneficiaries more easily reachable with swift electronic cash transfer assistance after a shock. Safety net programs can also provide channels for communicating early warning information, disaster preparedness training, and guidance on adapta- ­ ouseholds. Access to early warning systems is low and biased tion to recipient h against poor households in developing countries (Hallegatte et  ­ 2017). al. ­ FIGURE O.5 Africa: Safety net beneficiaries tend to use the transfers to save a. Percentage change in savings rate from baseline 300 250 Change from baseline (%) 200 150 100 50 0 –50 –100 Tanzania Kenya Zambia Kenya Ghana Sierra Leone Lesotho TASAF HSNP ZCGP CTOVC LEAP CFW LCGP Program impact 95% confidence interval of program impact Mean impact 95% confidence interval of mean impact b. Estimated change in savings rate 100 80 Savings rate (%) 60 40 20 0 –20 Tanzania Kenya Zambia Kenya Ghana Sierra Leone Lesotho TASAF HSNP ZCGP CTOVC LEAP CFW LCGP Impact estimate Baseline mean Source: Beegle, Coudouel, and Monsalve 2­ 018. Note: The mean value of the household transfer (in 2011 US$ purchasing power parity) is Tanzania Social Action Fund $48; Kenya’s Hunger Safety Net Program $47; Zambia’s Child Grant Program $27; Kenya Cash Transfer for Orphan and Vulnerable Children $71; Ghana’s Livelihood Empowerment against Poverty $24; Sierra Leone Cash for Work $83; and Lesotho Child Grants Program $34. Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 13 This deficit is notable insofar as households can only be so prepared without access to early warning ­information to anticipate the coming shocks. Safety net programs rely on a network of implementers who often reach into the poorest communities, including social workers and v ­ illage/community l ­eaders. Leveraging these networks and the behavioral change sessions that increas- ingly accompany program delivery within communities can provide the means and venues for communicating this ­ information. These venues can also be uti- lized to disseminate information on household and community disaster risk, risk reduction, and adaptation measures to beneficiary households and the wider community that are otherwise hard to reach (ADB ­ 2018). For example, in the Philippines, Family Development Sessions, an integral component of the national conditional cash transfer program (Pantawid Pamilya Pilipino Program), are used as a vehicle and venue for delivering disaster preparedness information to all beneficiaries (Bowen ­2015). Safety net support to the capacity to cope with shocks Safety net programs have well-documented, positive impacts on a poor house- hold’s capacity to cope with shocks, supporting food security and lessening the need to resort to negative coping alternatives (Ulrichs and Slater ­ 2016). Of the resilience capacities, safety nets tend to demonstrate the strongest impact on supporting a household’s capacity to ­ cope. Evaluations of safety net programs across six African countries describe “unambiguous” increases in the food security of beneficiary households (Asfaw and Davis 2 ­ 018).7 The receipt of transfers through Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme reduced the initial impact of a drought on beneficiaries by 57  ­ percent, eliminating the adverse impact on food security within 2 years (Hidrobo et ­ 2018). al. ­ In the context of covariate shocks, safety net programs can provide extraordi- nary support to help households cope with often devastating i ­mpacts. In their shock-responsive social protection framework, O’Brien et ­ al. (2018) outline five potential ways that social protection programs can be leveraged to respond to large-scale shocks: • Design tweaks are small adjustments to a routine social protection ­ program. They can introduce flexibility to maintain the regular service for existing ben- eficiaries in a shock (for example, by waiving c ­ onditionalities). Alternatively, they can address vulnerabilities that are likely to increase in a crisis, through adjustments to program coverage, timeliness or predictability (for example, by altering the payment schedule), without requiring a flex at the moment of the ­shock. • Vertical expansion is the temporary increase of the value or duration of a social protection intervention to meet the additional needs of existing ­beneficiaries. For such vertical expansions to be relevant, the program or pro- grams must have good coverage of the disaster-affected area and also of the neediest ­households. • Horizontal expansion is the temporary inclusion of new beneficiaries from disaster-affected communities into a social protection program, by extending geographic coverage, enrolling more eligible households in existing areas, or altering the enrollment ­criteria. • Piggybacking occurs when an emergency response uses part of an estab- lished system or program while delivering something ­new. Exactly which and how many elements of the system or program are borrowed will vary; it could 14 | Adaptive Social Protection be, for example, a specific program’s beneficiary list, its staff, a national data- base, or a particular payment ­mechanism. • Alignment describes designing an intervention with elements resembling others that already exist or are planned, but without integrating the ­ two. For example, this could be an alignment of objectives, targeting method, transfer value, or delivery ­ mechanism. Governments may align their systems with those of humanitarian agencies or vice versa, either because an existing inter- vention is not operational as needed in a crisis or because it may not yet exist (O’Brien et ­al. ­2018). Where a safety net exists and has a good degree of coverage among affected households, vertical expansion offers a relatively simple method of providing more assistance to existing beneficiaries that have been affected by a shock (­ figure O.6). Recent examples include the vertical expansion of the social pro- tection system in Fiji following Tropical Cyclone Winston in 2016 and of the national conditional cash transfer program in the Philippines, through addi- tional grants from humanitarian actors (the World Food Programme and UNICEF) following Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) and Typhoon Ruby. In the case of Fiji, an impact assessment, conducted 3 months after the disaster, found that households that received the vertical expansion were more likely to report ­ having recovered from the shock more quickly; for instance, they were 8–10 ­percent more likely to have recovered from housing damage than nonben- eficiaries (Mansur et ­ 2017). However, vertical expansions generally do not al. ­ reach shock-affected, nonbeneficiary households that may be in equal or greater need of assistance (Barca and O’Brien ­2017). As such, the ability to at least tem- porarily reach additional households that may be equally or more in need of support to their coping capacity but that may not be regular beneficiaries of social protection programs is critical for shock-responsive social ­ protection. FIGURE O.6 Social protection programs: Vertical and horizontal expansion Benefit amount Vertical expansion Temporarily increased benefit amount Regular social Regular protection Horizontal benefit(s) system expansion amount parameters Population Core Those not in beneficiaries receipt of of social regular benefits protection but affected system by a shock Source: World Bank. Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 15 This can be achieved through horizontal expansion, or dedicated emergency programs that may piggyback on social protection delivery systems. ­ Horizontal expansion enables a safety net program to temporarily expand its caseload after a shock to include new households based on eligibility from a shock’s impacts (figure O.6). Introducing the ability to horizontally expand in this manner is far more complex than undertaking vertical expansion to exist- ing ­beneficiaries. Horizontal expansion benefits from significant ex ante invest- ment in the processes and procedures for delivering the program, often in challenging ­ postdisaster ­ settings. Several countries have invested in the capac- ity to horizontally expand a safety net program, including most prominently Ethiopia with the Productive Safety Net Programme and Kenya with the Hunger Safety Net Program; each is prepared to undertake horizontal expan- sions based on ­ household needs generated by drought and related food insecurity in drought-prone parts of the country. ­ Some countries use a dedicated emergency program with characteristics similar to a safety net (cash, in-kind, and public works), which may piggyback on core safety net delivery systems and c ­ apacity. Emergency programs have dedicated response objectives and operate alongside an existing safety net ­ program. Such programs can be located within or outside of the social protec- tion ministries, departments, and agencies and can leverage underlying safety net delivery systems such as social registries, payment systems, and front-line social protection s ­ taff. In Pakistan, one such emergency program, the Citizen’s Damage Compensation Program, responded to widespread flooding in 2010 (World Bank ­ 2013). The Citizen’s Damage Compensation Program model has since been adopted as a permanent approach to reaching those affected by ­shocks in Pakistan. In the Sahel, Mauritania has developed a dedicated response program (“Elmaouna”) that piggybacks on existing social protection social registries and payment platforms for its ­ delivery. Whichever approach is taken, the timeliness of shock-responsive social pro- tection is critical for the protection of household well-being and is a function of adequate preparedness ­ measures. Specifically, contingency planning is a critical preparedness measure that enhances the timeliness of r ­ esponse. Indeed, opera- tional processes for shock response need to be clearly defined in advance—who does what, when—in relevant operational manuals, standard operating proce- dures, and the wider government shock response ­ plans. Ultimately, such plan- ning can better ensure faster, more effective, and more coordinated ­ implementation. To a large extent, social protection programs across countries rely on common phases of delivery to ensure that programs provide the right amount/composition of benefits and services, to the right persons at the right time. This “delivery chain” is centered on four implementation phases: assess, ­ enroll, provide, and manage (figure O.7). The delivery chain provides a useful schematic for considering the preparedness measures and contingency plans that are required at each phase of delivery to enable the operationalization of shock responsive social protection. These considerations for shock response along the social protection delivery chain are explored further in appendix ­ B of the full report. Safety net support to the capacity to adapt to shocks Alongside supporting short-term coping after a shock, governments can use safety nets to invest in the capacity for poor and vulnerable households to adapt to shocks over the long ­ t erm. There has been an increasing and 16 | Adaptive Social Protection FIGURE O.7 Social protection delivery chain Assess Enroll Provide Manage Eligibility Determine Assess and benefits Notification Benefits Beneficiaries, Exit decisions, Intake and needs and enrollment and service and and/or grievances, notifications, Outreach registration conditions decisions package onboarding services compliance case outcomes Recurring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 cycle Periodic reassessment al., ­ Source: Lindert et ­ forthcoming. justifiable focus on the role of shock-responsive social protection in support- ing post-shock c ­ oping. That said, ASP and the wider definition of resilience used here highlight the central importance of supporting a vulnerable house- hold’s ­ longer-term adaptation in order to reduce its vulnerability to a shock over ­ time. By broadening the focus in this way, safety net programs can pro- vide pathways toward a more resilient state for poor and vulnerable house- holds (see also Tenzing ­ 2 019). By extension, where successful, these investments may serve to reduce future post-shock needs over t ­ ime. Concretely, safety nets can support adaptive capacity when designed to help the poor and vulnerable households accumulate and diversify assets and live- lihoods (Bahadur et ­ al. 2015; FSIN 2015; Jorgensen and Siegel 2­ 019). The pro- motion of more productive and resilient livelihoods among poor and vulnerable households is one of the primary ways in which safety net ­ programs can support adaptive ­ ­ capacity. Interventions that promote more productive and resilient livelihoods have the potential for empowering beneficiaries to diver- sify their asset and livelihood portfolios and to reduce their exposure and ­ vulnerability to s ­ hocks. For example, a study by Macours, Premand, and Vakis (2012) found that the provision of vocational training or a productive invest- ment grant in addition to a cash transfer to beneficiaries vulnerable to drought in Nicaragua provided full protection against drought shocks 2 years after the end of the intervention (relative to a control group that only received a cash ­transfer). Similarly, safety nets can contribute to livelihood promotion through specific programs that link cash transfer recipients to complementary inter- ventions in other sectors (for example, agricultural inputs, training, and micro- finance), leading to positive—yet varied—impacts on production and diversification into on-farm and off-farm opportunities (FAO 2016; Mariotti, Ulrichs, and Harman ­ 2016). As such, productive inclusion programs are emerging as powerful instru- ments for supporting the adaptive capacity of the poorest by supporting t ransitions into more productive a ­ ­ nd resilient livelihoods. Productive ­inclusion complements and links the provision of routine transfers with other i nterventions. These other interventions include skills and micro-­ ­ entrepreneurship training tailored to livelihood opportunities; promotion of Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 17 and support for saving groups; provision of seed capital and productive grants; linkage to existing value chains and markets; and mentoring, behavior, and life skills to build confidence and reinforce existing skillsets, among others (Bossuroy and Premand 2016; PEI 2016; Roelen et ­ 2017). al. ­ Additionally, climate-sensitive public works programs enable beneficiaries to build assets that address structural vulnerabilities within their c ­ ommunity. When designed to do so, public works programs can engage communities in climate-smart agriculture and integrated natural resource management, including a focus on waste management, reforestation, rainwater harvesting, soil/water conservation, and drought-resistant horticulture, among o ­ thers.8 A series of case studies of India’s Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) found that it can help to build resilience to various climate ­ shocks. The MGNREGS was found to do so by providing inte- grated natural resource management and soil conservation infrastructure, agriculture-based investments, and other local infrastructures (Esteves et ­ al. 2013; Kaur et ­ 2017). al. ­ Lastly, safety net programs that contribute to building human capital can equip future generations with the tools to adapt to s ­ hocks. Promoting the accumulation of human capital among poorer households is critical in terms of connecting those households with the skills to adapt over the long t ­ erm. Indeed, human capital can empower the next generation with the means to move out of at-risk areas toward employment opportunities in lower-risk livelihoods or ­ lower-risk ­ areas. To encourage the accumulation of human capital among beneficiaries, safety net benefits often come with conditions such as, most prominently, those aligned to conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs. CCT programs typically provide cash transfers to households ­ when a household meets conditions related to investing in the education and health of its children. In cases where the capacity to monitor compliance with “hard” conditions in CCT programs may be lower, “soft” conditions are increasingly being used. For example, behavioral change sessions are increas- ingly accompanying cash transfer programs in Africa, delivered in the com- munity to transmit information on health, nutrition, and education to ­beneficiaries. ASP building block 2: Data and information Information on household vulnerability to shocks and their relative ­ capacity to cope and recover is crucial for the design and implementation of ASP ­ programs. Critical questions for ASP include: What kinds of hazards does the country face? How frequently? Where? Which assets and population groups are exposed, and among them, which are the most vulnerable? The analysis of disaster risk is a core pillar of work conducted by the DRM ­ sector. As high- lighted above, ASP will need to draw on these analyses and assessments of disaster risk, integrating them with assessments of household poverty and vulnerability to poverty to provide an informed, needs-based foundation for policy dialogue and program ­ design. Beyond foundational analyses of risk and vulnerability, the global expan- sion of social registries is framing much of the current discussion around the ASP information agenda (Barca 2017; Bastagli 2014; Bastagli et ­ al. 2016; IEG 2011; Kuriakose et ­ 2012). Social registries are information systems that al. ­ 18 | Adaptive Social Protection support outreach, intake, registration, and determination of potential eligi- bility for inclusion in one or more social ­ programs. While many technical considerations are involved in designing and implementing social registries, their role in social policy is simple: provide a “gateway” for potential inclu- sion of intended populations into social programs (Leite et ­ 2017). Social al. ­ registries have been noted as especially useful tools for estimating the effects of a disaster on a household and for providing information on social protec- tion beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries that can enable shock-responsive social ­protection. However, the business-as-usual expansion of social registries alone may not meet the information requirements for A ­ SP. Many countries operate reg- istries with “fixed lists” of registrants and program beneficiaries, and they generally update the lists every 4–5 ­ years. Thus, social registries often com- prise dated information and partial population coverage. For example, in Ecuador, only 15 ­percent of households in the database of affected households collected after the 2016 earthquake, Registro de Damnificados, were linked to the country’s flagship social assistance program, Bono de Desarrollo Humano (Beazley ­ 2017). Figure O.8 compares the coverage of social registries in four countries to demonstrate the varying population shares that are more or less easily identified and reached with post-shock ­ assistance. Even with a com- plete social registry, existing information may not be fully up to date or FIGURE O.8 Lesotho, Mozambique, Pakistan, and the Philippines: Social registry coverage and utility for shock response a. Lesotho b. Mozambique CGP beneficiaries 22% 100% Beneficiaries 100% NISSA 5% a. Lesotho across all 8% Mozambique social registry population program a. population b. c. c. c. Pakistan d. The Philippines 85% 20% 100% 75% 21% 100% NSER BISP Pakistan Listahanan Pantawid Philippines social registry beneficiaries a. population social registry beneficiaries population a. b. b. c. c. Social registry data Beneficiary data for noncontributory social protection program(s) Households potentially affected by shock Source: Barca and O’Brien 2­ 017. Note: BISP = Benazir Income Support Program; CGP = Child Grants Programme; NISSA = National Information System for Social Assistance; NSER = National ­ ountry. The original source material also referred to Socioeconomic Registry. Figures do not represent the totality of social protection databases in each c percent, which has since expanded to the 75 ­ Listahanan’s coverage in the Philippines as 60 ­ percent pictured ­ here. a = households that can be reached through vertical expansion or piggybacking (on the beneficiary databases); b = households that can be easily reached through horizontal expansion or piggybacking (on the social registry); c = households less easily reached through horizontal expansion or piggybacking (not covered by existing social protection databases). Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 19 accessible or may not be fully complete to reflect the multidimensional data requirements to inform a response after a shock (Barca and O’Brien 2 ­ 017). With that said, social registries can enhance their relevance for ASP by expanding into and within high-risk areas, updating information in those areas more frequently, and including variables related to household ­ vulnerability. The prioritization of identified hotspot areas, in tandem with the expansion of programming to those areas, can help to increase the rele- vance of the social registry for ­ASP. In Mauritania, the government developed a methodology to determine the ideal number of households in the social reg- istry in each commune to ensure it was more capable of informing response to drought. The analysis recommended including an additional 50,000 house- ­ holds that were expected to be food insecure. Additionally, the social registry data collected on households in those high-risk areas can be adapted to include key indicators related to their livelihoods and vulnerability to the hazards they ­ ­ face. In the Dominican Republic, the Vulnerability to Climate Hazards Index (Índice de Vulnerabilidad ante Choques Climáticos; IVACC) quantifies the likelihood of a household being vulnerable to hurricanes, storms, and ­floods. The index uses data from the country’s national social reg- istry, Sistema Unico de Beneficiarios, which covered approximately ­ 85.5 ­percent of the population in 2015 (UNDP-UNEP PEI 2018) (map O.1). ASP also highlights a significant need to link to information systems that are typically disconnected from the social protection ­ sector. Early warning systems continue to play a critical role in providing and monitoring informa- tion for response and in triggering early action, especially in a context of growing climate-related ­ risks.9 Drought–food security hybrid systems typi- cally use a range of information on food production, access, and livelihood outcomes from national agencies and international assessments (such as the Famine Early Warning Systems Network and the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification) and merge the information into an assessment of the food-­ security status and likely risk (Wilkinson et ­ 2018). More recently, al. ­ forecasts have started using a growing range of climate i ­ nformation. Systems using probabilistic forecast information typically draw on products from international, regional, and national forecasting ­ centers. Products from inter- national and regional forecasting centers are most common, as these are freely available and considered r ­ eliable. Where appropriate, these are comple- mented with products from national hydrological and meteorological ­services. Indeed, countries are already linking social protection responses to early warning information and developing index-based triggers for response, par- ticularly for slow-onset s ­ hocks. In Uganda, satellite data and the Normalized Difference Vegetation Anomaly Index provide the basis for triggering earlier response to d ­ rought through the Northern Uganda Social Action Fund’s (NUSAF) cash-for-work program. In addition to early warning systems, post-shock data collection can play a key role in reflecting socioeconomic conditions and household needs, espe- cially after fast-onset, less predictable, and destructive d ­ isasters. A postdisas- ter household assessment helps to gather real-time information and data for better understanding a disaster’s impact on household well-being and liveli- hoods, thereby informing the choice of response programs and the appropri- ate benefit ­package. Social registry information on households can help inform and can be informed by the postdisaster household assessment p ­ rocess. In Chile, for example, the electronic Basic Emergency Sheet (Ficha Básica de 20 | Adaptive Social Protection MAP O.1 Dominican Republic: The Vulnerability to Climate Hazards Index (IVACC) a. Zones, by level of vulnerability b. María Trinidad Sánchez province Vulnerability level Vulnerability level 0.35–0.46 0.56–0.59 0.60–0.65 0.47–0.55 0.60–0.65 c. Municipalities of María Trinidad Sánchez d. Neighborhoods of María Trinidad Sánchez Vulnerability level Vulnerability level 0.54 - Municipality of Cabrera 0.30–0.54 0.59 - Municipality of Río San Juan 0.55–0.69 0.62 - Municipality of Nagua 0.70–0.87 0.67 - Municipality of El Factor Source: UNDP-UNEP 2 ­ 018. Note: The Vulnerability to Climate Hazards Index has a scale of 0–1, where provinces, municipalities, neighborhoods, and households with values close to 0 are the least vulnerable, and those with values close to 1 are the most vulnerable. Emergencia—FIBE) collects and links postdisaster household assessment data to the social registry, providing a model for merging existing social regis- try data with up-to-date, post-shock needs assessments and for facilitating virtual, two-way data ­ flows. That said, when balancing the trade-off between a timely versus an accu- rate  shock response, speed is more ­ important. The literature on the topic is unequivocal: overall timeliness is more important than full targeting accuracy, especially in the first phase of assistance (Beazley, Solórzano, and Sossouvi 2016; Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 21 O’Brien et ­al. 2018; Pelham, Clay, and Braunholz ­ 2011). Specifically, inclusion errors can and should be tolerated in the short term, especially as they can con- tribute to controlling tensions within recipient ­communities. As shock responses evolve and refocus on longer-term recovery, more precise targeting of losses and needs will become increasingly important to identify the households most in need of longer-term ­ support. ASP building block 3: Finance Disaster risk financing is part of a global shift in thinking from seeing disas- ters as unpredictable humanitarian crises to predictable events that can be planned for and managed to minimize their ­ impact. This involves moving from a reactive approach that addresses the impact of shocks once they hap- pen to a more proactive approach, putting in place the required systems and financing to respond to shocks before they take p ­ lace. This approach high- lights the need for governments to develop risk financing strategies that enable funding to flow in the event of a shock and thus enable a faster response to ­disasters. The application of these principles and related risk financing instruments to ASP can transform the ability to mobilize a faster response through a social protection system. Indeed, this highlights a strong synergy: when disaster risk financing strategies are established, a shock-responsive safety net program represents a preprepared mechanism through which financial instruments can disburse directly to affected h ­ ouseholds. Conversely, the availability of the kinds of risk financing instruments outlined in this building block and the extent of their linkage to safety net programs will to a large extent determine the speed of the response to affected households. As a first step, financial modeling can better forecast the costs of respond- ing to shocks through safety net ­ programs. Leveraging a long time series of historic shock data, models can assess the retrospective incidence and scale of shocks to extrapolate future cost ­ scenarios. In Kenya, the Hunger Safety Net Program is capable of horizontally expanding to drought; using a 15-year time series, financial models were able to avail policy makers of the pro- gram’s cost implications to be planned for accordingly (figure O.9). Based on such analyses, a disaster risk financing strategy can be developed for shock-responsive social ­ protection. No single financial instrument can or should cover all risk financing r ­ equirements. Risk-layering considers how to meet the financial cost of response using a menu of financial instruments ­ (figure O.10). Each instrument has its own terms and conditions and, there- fore, advantages and disadvantages (table O.4). When assessing how to finance contingent liabilities from adaptive social protection, assessing which instru- ments are the most appropriate, adequate, and cost-effective is ­ critical. In most cases, multiple financial instruments will be required to meet the finan- cial cost of the anticipated response(s). Establishing effective disbursement mechanisms (that is, how funding reaches beneficiaries) and linking disaster risk financing instruments to them is as important as securing funds in the first ­ place. Having funds available in-country is of limited benefit if they cannot be transferred in a timely manner to the relevant institutions and, in turn, to the shock-affected households. A key factor affecting the disbursement of funds to affected households is the 22 | Adaptive Social Protection FIGURE O.9 Kenya: Modeling the cost of responding to drought 45 40 35 30 Million $ 25 20 15 10 5 0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Extreme payout Severe payout Average annual payout Source: Maher, Fitzgibbon, and Solórzano 2 ­ 018. Note: Annual scalability costs are totaled across the four Hunger Safety Net Program ­counties. FIGURE O.10 Risk layering: Financial instruments, by frequency and severity of a shock Hazard type Financing instrument Low frequency/ high severity Market-based instruments Risk transfer for assets such as property insurance or agricultural insurance and risk transfer for budget management like parametric insurance, catastrophe bonds/swaps Contingent financing Financial instruments that provide liquidity immediately after a shock High frequency/ low severity Budgetary instruments Reserve funds specifically designated for financing disaster-related expenditures, general contingency budgets, or diverted spending from other programs ­ 018. Source: Financial Protection Forum 2 existence of effective safety net payment ­ systems. Countries use different approaches for the deliv­ ery of cash-based emergency responses including manual systems (“over-the-counter”), electronic transfers to bank accounts, or via mobile phone payments. Indeed, e-payment systems are emerging as a ­ preferred option to deliver postdisaster assistance as they have the advantages of speed and flexibility, even in challenging environments (Maher, Fitzgibbon, and Solórzano ­2018). Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 23 TABLE O.4  Risk layering: Advantages and disadvantages of individual financial instruments TYPE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES BEST SUITED Ex ante Contingency/ • Can be cheap, particularly for frequent • Requires fiscal discipline Low risk layer such as reserve funds shocks • High opportunity cost of funds, given frequent low-level events • Fast high rates of return on other govern- (annual flooding, localized • Allows implementers to plan ment investments drought, conflict) • Approach has been used in many • Can be hard to defend given the contexts; thus, experience is available opportunity cost for countries to build upon Contingent • Can be cheap, particularly for midfre- • Has conditionality Mid-risk layer such as credit quency shocks • Opportunity cost of loan higher-magnitude, less • Fast, when conditions for dis- • Adds to country’s debt burden, must frequent events whose bursement are met be repaid damages exhaust the • Allows implementers to plan • Current low (but growing) uptake of resources of national • Can incentivize proactive actions to Cat DDOs as some countries prefer contingencies reduce risk (for example, policy actions investment projects guaranteed (widespread flooding, in disaster risk reduction and DRM) resources over contingent instruments hurricanes) Market-based • Can be cheap, particularly • Can be expensive for frequent shocks High-risk layer such as risk transfer for extreme shocks • Can be vulnerable to criticism and extreme, less frequent instruments • Can be fast “regret” events, less than every • Allows implementers to plan • Can miss need 5–10 years (severe • Supports fiscal discipline • Need a level playing field to negotiate droughts, hurricanes, • Risk diversification • Trade-off between the cost of earthquakes) premiums and the frequency or scale of the pay-out Ex post Humanitarian • Flexible—can respond to need • Can be slow to be mobilized Only as a last resort assistance • Doesn’t have to be repaid • Can be unreliable • Undermines preplanning Other ex post • Approach has been used in many • Can be slow Only as a last resort instruments contexts; thus, experience is available • Can have negative impact on long- for countries to build upon term development/investment programs • Can be expensive ­ 018. Source: Maher, Fitzgibbon, and Solórzano 2 Note: Cat DDO = Catastrophe Deferred Drawdown Option. Lastly, where finance for ASP is concerned, interventions that support people’s ­ longer-term adaptation could reduce future household needs, and by extension, response costs—but more evidence is ­ needed. Programs that support household adaptation over the longer term can be costly at scale (for example, in contexts of widespread chronic and severe poverty in high- areas). Yet, initial evidence indicates that more expensive investment risk ­ scenarios are broadly offset by the avoided cost of humanitarian response (Cabot Venton 2018; Wilkinson et  ­ 2 018). In Bangladesh, the Chars a l. ­ Livelihoods Program focused on building an annual contingency budget into its project design for disaster response, but the need for this contingency fund decreased over time because of the program’s specific focus on reduc- ing vulnerabilities and supporting the adaptation of poor households living in the chars to regular flooding (ADB 2 ­ 018). Where resources are limited, more evidence is needed on the cost-effectiveness of and trade-offs between ex ante r­ esilience-building interventions in support of adaptation and risk reduction at the household level over the long term versus the cost of ex post shock response to support ­ coping. short-term ­ 24 | Adaptive Social Protection ASP building block 4: Institutional arrangements and partnerships A defining feature of ASP is the many actors within government that may be involved in its ­ implementation. The inherent multidisciplinary and inter- agency nature of resilience building across the three capacities of prepared- ness, coping, and adaptation requires diversified expertise and coordination among ­actors. Indeed, the number of potential actors and complementary pro- grams aligned to ASP objectives calls for institutional arrangements that anchor the planning, management, and delivery of this ­ assistance. In practice, the development of ASP in many countries has shifted attention from a singu- lar focus on national social protection systems, the policies that guide them, and the organizations that deliver social protection programs to a wider focus inclusive of the policies, organizations, and programs involved in DRM and climate change ­ adaptation. Strong government leadership is necessary to ensure coordination of the often disconnected actors, based on a clear articulation of respective roles and ­responsibilities. Concretely, governments are required to lead the ASP agenda by setting resilience-related objectives in policies and strategies, including social protection, DRM, and climate change ­adaptation. Policy commitments can instill the necessary budgetary allocations for national ministerial structures to trans- late objectives into outcomes among poor and vulnerable h ­ ouseholds. In prac- tice, government leadership also includes establishing the standards and procedures to guide the integration of nongovernmental organizations and humanitarian actors into ASP ­ implementation. National social protection policies and strategies should provide the founda- ASP. Most countries have social protection policies and strategies that tion for ­ set out the government’s ­vision for the sector. The extent to which these policies and strategies are rooted in legislation varies (see, for example, Beegle, Coudouel, and Monsalve ­ 2018). The functions of social protection often are equity, which provides protection against deprivation; resilience, which is insurance against shocks; and, opportunity, which seeks to promote human capital and access to income earning opportunities (World Bank ­ 2012).10 Articulated in this manner, these policies and strategies provide a foundation for the aims of further elabo- ration of and commitment to ASP objectives. At the same time, the strategies of other sectors such as—prominently— DRM also can support the advancement of A ­ SP. This is particularly true given the ongoing shift from disaster response to disaster preparedness within the DRM community, as encapsulated in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk ­Reduction.11 In  Kenya, ASP emanated out of the government’s resolve to address poverty and vulnerability as a cause of and outcome from drought emergencies; a f ­ ramework developed by the government (Ending Drought Emergencies) laid the policy foundation for the Hunger Safety Net Program, which expands vertically and horizontally for drought ­emergencies. Where the political appetite for social protection is low, national DRM policies, and the DRM sector more broadly, can provide additional impetus for introducing A ­ SP as part of a comprehensive disaster risk management strategy. This suggests a government’s commitment to ASP can come from sectors other than social protection ­itself. Policy commitment for ASP, to be credible, needs to be backed with appropri- ate implementation capacity, financing, and ­accountability. To be effective, these Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 25 policies require enough capacity within the parts of government charged with delivery as well as clear roles and responsibilities, such as those set out in contin- gency plans and the decision-making in response to early warning d ­ ata (chapters 1 and 2 of the full report). In addition, they also need to be backed by ­ the levels of financing required to achieve the stated o ­ bjectives (chapter 3 of the full report). The source of this financing may be from national governments or development partners, depending on the prevailing context in the ­ country. Accountability mechanisms and feedback loops are central to help ensure that citizens are aware of available programs, inform governments when services are failing, and ultimately, hold governments accountable to their commitments and ­objectives. Additionally, in many contexts of limited national government capacity and/or especially severe shocks, the development and coordination of ASP with humanitarian actors is ­essential. However, humanitarian assistance tends to be provided in parallel to national ­ structures. Only 1 percent of global ­ .0–2.5 ­ humanitarian flows channel through host governments (Gentilini, Laughton, and O’Brien ­ 2018). Factors for this often include a risky operating environ- ment; the need for timely assistance in life-threatening situations; possible lack of government sovereignty over a territory in full or in part; legislation preventing domestic assistance to particular groups; concerns about the impartiality of governments, especially in relation to conflicts; low govern- ment capacity; and ensuring transparency and accountability of r ­ esources. The humanitarian Grand Bargain and the increasing shift to cash-based assistance are strengthening linkages with national social protection systems and providing impetus for closer ­ integration. The 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, and the resulting Grand Bargain, created high-level policy support to strengthen humanitarian linkages with social ­protection. The Grand Bargain is a series of 10 commitments to improve assistance to crisis-affected ­populations and included a commitment to “increase social protection programmes and strengthen national and local systems and coping mechanisms in order to build resilience in fragile contexts” (Grand Bargain 2016, ­ 14). Cash transfers are simultaneously on the rise in national social protection systems and humani- tarian programming. Cash now claims about 10 ­percent of global humanitarian assistance, highlighting a strong synergy with national cash transfer programs (CaLP 2018; World Bank 2016, 2 ­ 018). Table O.5 summarizes these and other features of the humanitarian system, along with their implication for A ­ SP. Identifying the precise roles and responsibilities of government and humani- tarian actors can help establish actionable, operational partnerships for the delivery of ­ASP. Conceptually, government and humanitarian actors are often viewed simplistically in “either-or” ­ terms. A framework laid out by Seyfert et ­ al. (2019) attempts to facilitate the identification of workable pathways for progress among national and humanitarian actors (figure O.11). Instead of falling back on the “either–or” choice, the framework lays out four strategic options (parallel systems, alignment, piggybacking, and national-led s ­ ystems). It also discusses how collaborations may emerge around select programmatic “functions” and the “degrees” of possible connection between national and humanitarian actors within a given ­ function. While a work-in-progress, such a granular analytical approach holds the potential to move beyond strategic dialogue and strategies in support of coordination; that is, coordination toward an operationally relevant delineation of roles and responsibilities based on relative comparative advan- tages in differing country ­contexts. 26 | Adaptive Social Protection TABLE O.5  International humanitarian system: Features and implications for adaptive social protection FEATURE CHARACTERISTICS IMPLICATIONS Policy commitments and High-level policy support for building resilience and Opportunities to advance aims of ASP but need the Grand Bargain increasing the role of social protection to be translated into more concrete and strategic actions Bifurcation of Humanitarian and development assistance often Divide between humanitarian and development humanitarian/ underpinned by different financing channels, systems may remain an obstacle; need for development and rise of coordination structures, mandates, and principles specificity on “resilience building” resilience building Humanitarian financing Very little direct funding goes to national Limited potential for humanitarian financing to governments; significant flows to fragile and conflict be channeled to governments for national safety settings, and year-on-year to the same places nets; scope to fund nongovernmental organizations operating within national Shares of humanitarian financing go to some areas frameworks for ASP in some countries and populations supported by national safety nets Humanitarian principles Humanitarian assistance is guided mainly by the four Humanitarian principles should inform the principles of humanity, impartiality, independence, response function of ASP to shocks; can be and neutrality referenced to advocate for a principled engagement around ASP with governments by Differing views on flexibility of principles exist, but humanitarian agencies they are not incompatible with working with governments Coordination Established mechanisms for coordination (see the Need for engagement of ASP at various levels of cluster system, chapter 4 of the full report) but humanitarian operational and strategic varying coordination approaches because of differing coordination and for bilateral engagement with levels of national involvement in those mechanisms major donors and aid agencies Increasing shift to cash Cash transfers increasingly accepted as mainstream Offers an entry point for engagement of national transfers tool of humanitarian response, but programs often ASP programs with humanitarian system fragmented and still represent only a small share of total assistance ­ 018. Source: Bailey 2 FIGURE O.11 ASP delivery approaches: A mix across national and humanitarian actors Parallel Piggy- National-led systems Alignment backing systems Financing Legal and policy framework Setting eligibility criteria and qualifying conditions Setting transfer type, level, frequency, duration Governance and coordination Outreach Registration Enrollment Payment Case management Complaints and appeals Protection VAM/M&E Information management al. ­ Source: Seyfert et ­ 2019. ­ valuation. Note: VAM/M&E = Vulnerability analysis and mapping/monitoring and e Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 27 NOTES  1. Shocks may be either idiosyncratic or covariate in n ­ ature. An idiosyncratic shock is felt by an individual or household, with the negative impacts to their well-being typically not shared more widely by others outside of the immediate h ­ ousehold. Idiosyncratic shocks include things such as ill health, injury, disease, disability, a death in the family, and job loss. Covariate shocks are larger in scale, affecting multiple individuals and households ­ at once, with the negative impacts to well-being spread across a (typically large) number of ­persons.  2. An undetermined share of this increase is undoubtedly due to better recording of events and their impact during that time ­ period.  3. This capacity also is referred to as “anticipatory” capacity in the BRACED 3As framework (Bahadur et ­ 2015). The term “preparedness” is used here to more explicitly reflect the al. ­ meaning of the capacity as used in this ­report. The capacity to anticipate a shock based on appropriate information is recognized as a critical component of the capacity to prepare, informing appropriate ­ action.  4. This capacity also is referred to as “absorptive” capacity in the BRACED 3As framework (Bahadur et ­al. 2015; similar in Béné et ­al. ­2012). The term “coping” is chosen here because of its widespread use in the social protection community and its interchangeability with the term ­“absorptive.”  5. Defined as a failure to adjust adequately or appropriately to a s ­ hock.  6. Led by the “International Labour Organization (ILO) and the World Bank Group (WBG), in partnership with the African Union, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the European Commission, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and its International Poverty Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and others, along with Belgian, Finnish, French, and German development cooperation, and international civil society organiza- tions such as HelpAge, the International Council of Social Welfare (ICSW), Save the Children, among others” (World Bank and ILO ­ 2018, 1).  7. The six African countries are Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, and Z ­ ambia.  8. These are sometimes classified as “soft resilience measures” typically low cost and adapt- able to deliver benefits in changing conditions (Cabot Venton et ­ 2012). al. ­  9. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction defines early warning systems as “an integrated system of hazard monitoring, forecasting and prediction, disas- ter risk assessment, communication and preparedness activities systems and processes that enables individuals, communities, governments, businesses and others to take timely action to reduce disaster risks in advance of hazardous events” ­ (www.unisdr.org/we​ /­inform/terminology). 10. See also Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler (2004), who set a similar framework of protec- tion, prevention, promotion, and ­ transformation. 11. Sendai Framework, ­ https://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/sendai-framework. REFERENCES ADB (Asian Development ­ 2018. “Strengthening Resilience through Social Protection Bank). ­ Programs.” Guidance ­ ­ Manila. Note. ADB, ­ ­ ., A Andrews, C ­ alston. 2 ­ . Hsiao, and ­L. R ­ 018. “Social Safety Nets Promote Poverty Reduction, Increase Resilience, and Expand O ­ pportunities. In Realizing the Full Potential of Social Safety Nets in Africa, edited by K ­ . Monsalve, 87–137. Washington, ­ . Beegle, ­A. Coudouel, and E DC: World ­ Bank. A., ­ Arnall, ­ M. Davies, ­ K. Oswald, ­ C. ­ T. Mitchell, and ­ 2010. “Adaptive Social Protection: Coirolo. ­ Mapping the Evidence and Policy Context in the Agriculture Sector in South ­ Asia.” IDS Working Paper, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, U ­ K. S., and ­ Asfaw, ­ Davis. ­ B. ­ 2018. “Can Cash Transfer Programmes Promote Household Resilience? Evidence from Sub-Saharan ­ Africa.” In Climate Smart Agriculture, edited by ­L. Lipper, N. McCarthy, D ­ S. Asfaw, and ­ ­ . Zilberman, ­ 227–50. Rome: Food and Agriculture G. Braca, ­ Organization of the United ­ http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7931e.pdf. Nations. ­ 28 | Adaptive Social Protection ­ ., ­K. Peters, ­E. Wilkinson, ­F. Pichon, ­K. Gray, and ­T. ­Tanner. ­2015. “The 3As: Tracking Bahadur, A Resilience across ­ BRACED.” Working Paper, Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters (BRACED), ­London. ­. 2 Bailey, S ­ 018. “Institutions for Adaptive Social Protection: External Linkages and the Humanitarian ­ Paper. Oxford Policy Management, Oxford, ­ Sector.” Background ­ UK. Barca, ­V. ­2017. Integrating Data and Information Management for Social Protection: Social Registries and Integrated Beneficiary ­ Registries. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and ­ Trade. ­https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications​ /­Documents/integrating-data-information-management-social-protection-full.pdf. V., and ­ Barca, ­ O’Brien. ­ C. ­ 2017. “Factors Affecting the Usefulness of Existing Social Protection Databases in Disaster Preparedness and ­Response.” Policy ­Brief. Oxford Policy Management, Oxford, ­UK. ­https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a942c50ed915d57d4d0ef98​ /­Policy-Brief-Factors-affecting-usefulness-existing-social-protection-databases.pdf. ­.2 Bastagli, F ­ rotection.” ODI ­ 014. “Responding to a Crisis: The Design and Delivery of Social P Working Paper, Overseas Development Institute, ­London. ­ ., J Bastagli, F ­ . Barca, G ­ . Hagen-Zanker, ­L. Harman, V ­.S ­ . Sturge, and T ­ 016. “Cash ­ chmidt. 2 Transfers: What Does the Evidence Say? A Rigorous Review of Programme Impact and of the Role of Design and Implementation F ­ eatures.” Overseas Development Institute, ­London. F., and ­ Bastagli, ­ Holmes. ­ R. ­ 2014. “Delivering Social Protection in the Aftermath of a Shock: Lessons from Bangladesh, Kenya, Pakistan, and Viet ­Nam.” Overseas Development Institute, ­London. Beazley, ­ 2017. “Study on Shock-Responsive Social Protection in Latin America and the R. ­ Caribbean: Ecuador Case ­Study.” Oxford Policy Management, Oxford, ­ UK. R., ­ Beazley, ­ ­ .­ A. Solórzano, and K 2016. “Study on Shock-Responsive Social Protection Sossouvi. ­ in Latin America and the Caribbean: Theoretical Framework and Literature R ­ eview.” Oxford Policy Management, Oxford, ­ UK. Beegle, ­ A. Coudouel, and E K., ­ Monsalve. ­ ­ .­ 2018. Realizing the Full Potential of Social Safety Nets in ­Africa. Washington, DC: World ­ http://documents.worldbank.org/curated​ Bank. ­ /­en/657581531930611436/pdf/128594-PUB-PUBLIC.pdf. Béné, ­C., ­S. Devereux, and ­R. ­Sabates-Wheeler. ­2012a. “Shocks and Social Protection in the Horn of Africa: Analysis from the Productive Safety Net Programme in E ­ thiopia.” IDS Working Paper 395, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, ­ UK. ­ ., R Béné, C ­ . Newsham, and M ­ . Wood, A ­ .­ ­ 012b. “Resilience: New Utopia or New Davies. 2 Tyranny? Reflection about the Potentials and Limits of the Concept of Resilience in Relation to Vulnerability Reduction ­Programmes.” IDS Working Paper 405, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, ­UK. T., and P Bossuroy, ­ Premand. ­ ­.­ 2016. “Boosting Productive Inclusion and Resilience of the Poor: Perspectives from the Sahel Adaptive Social Protection ­Program.” ­Presentation, World Bank, Washington, DC. T. ­ Bowen, ­ 2015. “Social Protection and Disaster Risk Management in the Philippines: The Case of Typhoon Yolanda ­ (Haiyan).” Policy Research Working Paper 7482, World Bank, Washington, ­DC. ­http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/681881468181128752/pdf​ /­WPS7482.pdf. C. ­ Cabot Venton, ­ 2018. “Economics of Resilience to Drought in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia: ­ ummary.” Center for Resilience, U Executive S ­ .S. Agency for International Development, Washington, ­DC. ­ . ­Dooley. ­2012. “The Economics of Cabot Venton, ­C., ­C. Fitzgibbon, ­T. Shitarek, ­L. Coulter, and O Early Response and Disaster Resilience: Lessons from Kenya and Ethiopia: Economics of Resilience Final ­ Report.” Department for International Development, ­London. CaLP ­2018. The State of the World’s Cash Report: Cash Transfer Programming in Humanitarian ­Aid. Oxford, ­UK. ­http://www.cashlearning.org/downloads/calp-sowc-report-web.pdf. ­ .-A., and A Dang, H ­ abalen. 2 ­ .D ­ 017. “Is Poverty in Africa Mostly Chronic or Transient? Evidence from Synthetic Panel ­ Data.” Policy Research Working Paper 8033, World Bank, Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 29 Washington, ­DC. ­http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/172891492703250779​ /­pdf/WPS8033​.pdf. Davies, M., C. Béné, A. Arnall, T. Tanner, A. Newsham, and C. Coirolo. 2012. “Promoting Resilient Livelihoods through Adaptive Social Protection: Lessons from 124 Programmes in South Asia.” Development Policy Review 31 (1): 27–58. M., ­ Davies, ­ J. Leavy, ­ B. Guenther, ­ T. ­ T. Mitchell, and ­ 2009. “Adaptive Social Protection: Tanner. ­ Synergies for Poverty ­ 105–12. Reduction.” IDS Bulletin 39 (4): ­ de Weijer, ­F. ­2013. “Resilience: A Trojan Horse for a New Way of Thinking?” ECDPM Discussion Paper 139, European Centre for Development Policy Management, ­ Maastricht. del Ninno, C ­ . Mills, e ­ ., and B ­ 015. Safety Nets in Africa: Effective Mechanisms to Reach the ­ ds. 2 Poor and Most V ­ ulnerable. Washington, DC: World B http://documents.worldbank.org​ ­ ank. ­ /­curated/en/869311468009642720/pdf/Safety-nets-in-Africa-effective-mechanisms-to​ -reach-the-poor-and-most-vulnerable.pdf. Devereux, ­ R. ­ S., and ­ 2004. “Transformative Social P Sabates-Wheeler. ­ ­ rotection.” IDS Working Paper 232, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, ­ UK. ­ ., K Esteves T ­ . Sinha, ­S. ­S. Roy, ­B. ­B. Rai, I ­ . ­V. Rao, B ­ . Sharma, S ­ . ­B. Rao, N ­ . Patil, ­I. ­K. Murthy, ­ . Rao, V J. Srinivasan, R ­ ­ .­K. Chaturvedi, J ­ . Sharma, ­ S. ­ K. Jha, ­S. Mishra, ­A. ­B. Singh, ­ H. ­ S. Rakhroy, ­ S. Rai, ­R. Sharma, ­ S. Schwan, ­ K. Basu, ­ N. Guerten, ­ N. Ranjan, ­ I. Porsché, ­ K. Tripathy, and K. ­ N. ­ ­ Ravindranath. ­ H. ­ 2013. “Environmental Benefits and Vulnerability Reduction through Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS): Synthesis R ­ eport.” Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), New ­ Delhi. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United N 2016. Adapting Agriculture to ­ ations). ­ Climate C ­ hange. FAO’s Work on Climate Change A­ daptation. Rome: F http://www.fao​ ­ AO. ­ .­org/3/a-i6273e.pdf. Financial Protection Forum. 2018. “Disaster Risk Finance: A Primer, Core Principles, and Operational Framework.” World Bank, Washington, DC. https://financialprotectionforum​ .org/publication/disaster-risk-finance-a-primercore-principles-and-operational​ -framework. Frankenberger, ­ T. Spangler, ­ T., ­ S. Nelson, ­ 2012. “Enhancing Resilience to Food M. ­Langworthy. ­ Insecurity amid Protracted C ­ risis.” United Nations High-Level Expert Forum, R ­ ome. ­http:// www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs_high_level_forum/documents/Enhancing​ _­Resilience_FoodInsecurity-TANGO.pdf. 2015. “Measuring Shocks and Stressors as Part of FSIN (Food Security Information Network). ­ Resilience ­ 5. Resilience Measurement Technical Working Measurement.” Technical Series ­ Programme. ­ Group, FSIN Secretariat, World Food ­ http://www.fsincop.net/fileadmin/user​ _upload/fsin/docs/resources/1_FSIN_­TechnicalSeries_5.pdf. Gentilini, ­ S. Laughton, and ­ U., ­ O’Brien. ­ C. ­ 2018. “Lessons on Better Connecting Humanitarian Assistance and Social P ­ 802. ­ rotection.” Social Protection and Labor Discussion Paper 1 World Bank, Washington, ­ http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/94640154​ DC. ­ 2689917993/pdf/Human-itarian-Capital-Lessons-on-Better-Connecting-Humanitarian​ -Assistance-and-Social-Protection.pdf. Grand ­ 2016. “The Grand Bargain: A Shared Commitment to Better Serve People in Bargain. ­ Need.” World Humanitarian Summit, I ­ ­ ttps://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int​ ­ stanbul. h /­files/resources/Grand_Bargain_final_22_May_FINAL-2.pdf. ­ . Fay, ­T. Kane, U Hallegatte, ­S., ­M. Bangalore, ­L. Bonzanigo, M ­ . Rozenberg, D ­ . Narloch, J ­ . Treguer, and ­A. ­Vogt-Schlib. ­2016. Shock Waves: Managing the Impacts of Climate Change on P ­ overty. Washington, DC: World ­ Bank. S., ­ Hallegatte, ­ B. ­ J. Rentschler, and ­ 2018. “Building Back Better: Achieving Resilience Walsh. ­ through Stronger, Faster, and More Inclusive Post-Disaster R ­ econstruction.” World Bank, Washington, ­DC. ­http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/420321528985115831​ /­pdf/127215-REVISED-BuildingBackBetter-Web-July18Update.pdf. S., ­ Hallegatte, ­ M. Bangalore, and ­ A. Vogt-Schilb, ­ Rozenberg. ­ J. ­ 2017. Unbreakable: Building the Bank. ­ Disasters. Washington, DC: World ­ Resilience of the Poor in the Face of Natural ­ https:// www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/publication/Unbreakable_FullBook_Web-3.pdf. 30 | Adaptive Social Protection ­ ., ­ Hidrobo, M J. Kumar, and M J. Hoddinott, ­ Oliver. ­ ­ .­ 2018. “Social Protection, Food Security, and Asset ­Formation.” World Development 101: ­ 88–103. R., ­ Hill, ­ B. ­ E. Skoufias, and ­ Maher. ­ P. ­ 2019. The Chronology of Disaster: A Review and Assessment of the Value of Acting Early on Household ­ Welfare. Washington, DC: World ­ http:// Bank. ­ documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/796341557483493173/pdf/The-Chronology-of-a​ -Disaster-A-Review-and-Assessment-of-the-Value-of-Acting-Early-on-Household​ -Welfare.pdf. R. ­ Holmes, ­ 2019. “Promoting Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Shock Sensitive Protection.” ODI Working Paper 549, Overseas Development Institute, ­London. Social ­ IEG (Independent Evaluation G ­ 011. Social Safety Nets: An Evaluation of World Bank ­ roup). 2 Support, ­2000–2010. Washington, DC: World ­ Bank. ILO (International Labour ­ 2017. World Social Protection Report 2017–19: Organization). ­ ILO. Goals. Geneva: ­ Universal Social Protection to Achieve the Sustainable Development ­ ­https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents​ /­publication/wcms_604882.pdf. ­ ., and P Jorgensen, S ­ iegel. 2 ­.S ­ 019. “Social Protection in an Era of Increasing Uncertainty and Disruption: Social Risk Management 2 ­ .0.” Social Protection and Jobs Discussion Paper 1930, World Bank, Washington, ­ h ttp://documents.worldbank.org/curated​ D C. ­ e n/2637​ /­ 61559643240069/pdf/Social-Protection-in-an-Era-of-Increasing-Uncertainty​ - and​ -Disruption-Social-Risk-Management-2-0.pdf. N., ­ Kaur, ­ A. Agrawal, ­ D. Steinbach, ­ C. Manuel, ­ S. Saigal, ­ A. Panjiyar, ­ A. ­ C. Shakya, and ­ Norton. 2017. “Building Resilience to Climate Change: MGNREGS and Climate-Induced Droughts ­ Sikkim.” IIED Issue ­ in ­ Paper. International Institute for Environment and Development, ­London. Kuriakose, ­A., ­R. Heltberg, ­W. Wiseman, ­C. Costella, ­R. Cipryk, and ­S. ­Cornelius. ­2012. “Climate- Responsive Social ­ Protection.” Social Protection and Labor Discussion Paper 1210, World Bank, Washington, ­ DC. ­ https://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION​ /­Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/430578-1331508552354/1210.pdf. Leite, ­ T. George, ­ P., ­ T. Jones, and ­ C. Sun, ­ 2017. “Social Registries for Social K. ­Lindert. ­ Assistance and Beyond: A Guidance Note and Assessment T ­ ool.” Social Protection and Labor Working Paper 1704, World Bank, Washington, ­ http://documents.worldbank​ DC. ­ .­o rg/curated​ /­e n/698441502095248081/pdf/117971-REVISED-PUBLIC-Discussion​ -paper-1704.pdf. ­ ishikawa. ­Forthcoming. A Sourcebook Lindert, ­K., ­T. George, ­I. Rodriguez-Caillava, and Kenichi N on the Foundations of Social Protection Delivery ­ Systems. Washington, DC: World ­ Bank. ­ ., ­ Macours, K ­ .­ P. Premand, and R ­ 012. “Transfers, Diversification and Household Risk Vakis. 2 Strategies: Experimental Evidence with Lessons for Climate Change A ­ daptation.” Policy Research Working Paper 6053, World Bank, Washington, D http://documents.worldbank​ ­ C. ­ .org/curated/en/275241468340175496/pdf/WPS6053.pdf. ­ ., C Maher B ­ .­ ­ . Fitzgibbon, and A ­ 018. “Emerging Lessons in Financing Adaptive Solórzano. 2 Social ­ Protection.” Background Paper for the World Bank, Oxford Policy Management, ­London. Mansur, ­ J. Doyle, ­ A., ­ O. ­ J. Gerome, and ­ 2017. “Social Protection and Humanitarian Ivaschenko. ­ Assistance Nexus for Disaster Response: Lessons Learnt from Fiji’s Tropical Cyclone ­Winston.” Social Protection and Labor Discussion Paper ­1701. World Bank, Washington, ­DC. ­http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/143591490296944528/pdf/113710-NWP​ -PUBLIC-P159592-1701.pdf. S., ­ Manyena, ­ P. O’Keefe, and ­ G. O’Brien, ­ Rose. ­ J. ­ 2011. “Disaster Resilience: A Bounce back or Bounce forward Ability?” Local Environment 16 (5): ­ 417–24. Mariotti, C ­ . Ulrichs, and ­L. H ­ ., M ­ 016. “Sustainable Escapes from Poverty through ­ arman. 2 Productive Inclusion: A Policy Guide on the Role of Social P ­ rotection.” CPAN Policy Guide 7. Chronic Poverty Advisory Network, ­London. ­ O’Brien, ­C., ­Z. Scott, ­G. Smith, ­V. Barca, ­A . Kardan, ­R. Holmes, ­C. Watson, and ­J. ­Congrave. 2 018. “Shock-Responsive Social Protection Systems Research: Synthesis R ­ ­ eport.” Overview: A Framework for Adaptive Social Protection | 31 Oxford Policy Management, Oxford, ­ https://www.opml.co.uk/files/Publications​ UK. ­ /­a 0408-shock-responsive-social-protection-systems/srsp-synthesis-report.pdf ?​ noredirect=1. ­ nclusion). ­2016. “Increasing the Income Earning Opportunities PEI (Partnership for Economic I of Poor and Vulnerable P ­ eople.” World Bank, Washington, D ­ ttps://www​ ­ C. h .­microfinancegateway.org/sites/default/files/announcement/pei-brochure.pdf. Pelham, ­L., ­E. Clay, and ­T. ­Braunholz. ­2011. “Natural Disasters: What Is the Role for Social Safety Nets?” SP Discussion Paper 1102, World Bank, Washington, ­ DC. ­ https://www.gfdrr.org​ /­sites/default/files/documents/Social%20Safety%20Nets.pdf. D., ­L. Rawlings, and ­ Robalino, ­ Walker. ­ I. ­ 2012. “Building Social Protection and Labor Systems: Concepts and Operational I ­ mplications.” Social Protection and Labor Working Paper 1202, World Bank, Washington, ­ DC. ­ http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION​ /­Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/430578-1331508552354/1202.pdf. K., ­ Roelen, ­ A. ­ S. Devereux, ­ B. Martorano, ­ G. Abdulai, ­ T. Palermo, and ­L. ­ Ragno. ­ P. ­ 2017. “How to Make ‘Cash Plus’ Work: Linking Cash Transfers to Services and S ­ ectors.” Innoncenti Working Paper ­ 2017-10. United Nations Children’s Fund Office of Research, F ­ lorence. ­ ., and ­L. ­Langston. 2 Schipper, E ­ 015. “A Comparative Overview of Resilience Measurement Frameworks.” ODI Working Paper 422, Overseas Development Institute, ­London. ­ K., ­ Seyfert, ­ U. Gentilini, ­ V. Barca, ­ S. ­ M. Luthria, and ­ 2019. “Unbundled: A Framework Abbady. ­ for Connecting Safety Nets and Humanitarian Assistance in Refugee S ­ ettings.” Social Protection and Labor Discussion Paper 1935, World Bank, Washington, D https:// ­ C. ­ openknowledge.worldbank.org/ bitstream/ handle/10986/32467/Unbundled-A​ -Framework​-for-Connecting-Safety-Nets-and-Humanitarian-Assistance-in-Refugee​ -Settings​.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Solórzano, ­A. ­2016. “Can Social Protection Increase Resilience to Climate Change? A Case Study of Oportunidades in Rural Y ­ ucatan, Mexico.” IDS Working Paper 465, Centre for Social Protection and Institute of Development ­ Studies, Brighton, UK. J. ­ Tenzing, ­ 2019. “Integrating Social Protection and Climate Change Adaptation: A R D. ­ ­ eview.” WIREs Climate Change 11 (2): ­ e626. M., and ­ Ulrichs, ­ Slater. ­ R. ­ 2016. “How Can Social Protection Build Resilience? Insights from Ethiopia, Kenya and ­ Uganda.” Working Paper, Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters (BRACED), ­London. UNDP-UNEP (United Nations Development Programme–United Nations Environment ­Programme). 2018. Vulnerability to Climate Hazards Index: Lessons Learned and System- atization of the Design Process and Application of the IVACC Index—Dominican Republic. Poverty-Environment Initiative. Panama City: Panama. Refugees). ­ UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for ­ 2016. “Global Trends in Forced ­Displacement.” UNHCR, ­Geneva. UNICEF. 2­ 018. “Resilience, Humanitarian Assistance and Social Protection for Children in Europe and Central ­ ­ .­ Asia.” Social Protection Regional Issue Brief: 2 https://www.unicef.org​ /­eca/media/2671/file/Social_Protection2.pdf. ­ eduction). 2 UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster R ­ 015. Making Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk Management: Global Assessment UNISDR. Reduction. Geneva: ­ Report on Disaster Risk ­ Security). ­ UNU-EHS (United Nations University–Institute for Environment and Human ­ 2016. Hilft. 2016. Berlin: Bündnis Entwicklung ­ World Risk Report ­ WFP (World Food ­ 2015. “Policy on Building Resilience for Food Security and Programme). ­ ­Nutrition.” ­WFP/EB.A/2015/5-C. WFP, ­Rome. ­https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups​ /­p ublic/documents/eb/wfpdoc063833.pdf?_ga=2.20959473.817428444.1582152603​ -752767465.1554223343. WFP (World Food Programme). ­ 2018. “Scaling Up for Resilient Individuals, Communities and Systems in the ­Sahel.” Fact ­Sheet. WFP, ­Rome. ­https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP​ -0000110238/download​/?_ga=2.26639604.817428444.1582152603-752767465​.15542​23343. 32 | Adaptive Social Protection E., ­L. Weingartner, ­ Wilkinson, ­ M. Bailey, ­ R. Choularton, ­ D. Kniveton, and ­ M. Todd, ­ C. Cabot Venton. 2 ­ ­ 018. “Forecasting Hazards, Averting Disasters: Implementing Forecast-Based Early Action at ­ Scale.” Overseas Development Institute, ­London. ­ ank. 2 World B ­ 012. “Resilience, Equity, and Opportunity: The World Bank’s Social Protection and Labor Strategy 2 ­ C. ­http://documents.worldbank. ­ 012–2022.” World Bank, Washington, D org/curated/en/443791468157506768/pdf/732350BR0CODE200doc0version0​ REVISED.pdf. 2013. Building Resilience to Disaster and Climate Change through Social Protection: World Bank. ­ Synthesis ­Note. Washington, DC: World ­ Bank. ­http://documents.worldbank.org/curated​ /­en/187211468349778714/pdf/796210WP0Build0Box0377381B00PUBLIC0.pdf. 2016. “Cash Transfers in Humanitarian Contexts: Strategic ­ World Bank. ­ Note.” World Bank, Washington, ­DC. ­http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/697681467995447727​ /­pdf/106449-WP-IASC-Humanitarian-Cash-PUBLIC.pdf. ­ 018. The State of Social Safety Nets 2 World Bank. 2 ­ ank. h ­ 018. Washington, DC: World B ­ ttps:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/ bitstream/ handle/10986/29115/9781464812545​ .­pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y. World Bank and ILO (International Labour ­ Organization). ­ 2018. Universal Social Protection: ­ SP2030. Washington, DC: Country ­Cases. Global Partnership for Universal Social Protection U World Bank and ­ ILO. ­https://www.social-protection.org/gimi/gess/RessourcePDF​ .­action?id=55072. ECO-AUDIT Environmental Benefits Statement The World Bank Group is committed to reducing its environmental footprint. In support of this commitment, we leverage electronic publishing options and print- on-demand technology, which is located in regional hubs worldwide. Together, these initiatives enable print runs to be lowered and shipping distances decreased, resulting in reduced paper consumption, chemical use, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste. We follow the recommended standards for paper use set by the Green Press Initiative. The majority of our books are printed on Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)–certified paper, with nearly all containing 50–100 percent recycled content. The recycled fiber in our book paper is either unbleached or bleached using totally chlorine-free (TCF), processed chlorine–free (PCF), or enhanced elemental chlorine–free (EECF) processes. ­ More information about the Bank’s environmental philosophy can be found at http://www.worldbank.org/corporateresponsibility. A daptive social protection (ASP) helps to build the resilience of poor and vulnerable households to the impacts of large, “covariate” shocks such as natural disasters, economic crises, pandemics, conflict, and forced displacement. Through the provision of transfers and services directly to these households, ASP supports their capacity to prepare for, cope with, and adapt to the shocks they face—before, during, and after they occur. Over the longer term, by supporting these three capacities, ASP can provide a pathway toward a more resilient state for households that may otherwise lack the resources to move out of chronically vulnerable situations. This report outlines an organizing framework for the design and implementation of ASP, providing insights into the ways in which social protection systems can be made more capable of building household resilience in this way. Through its four building blocks—programs, information, finance and institutional arrangements, and partnerships— the framework highlights the elements of existing social protection systems that are the cornerstones for building household resilience along with the additional investments that are central to enhancing their ability to generate these outcomes. In this report, the ASP framework and its building blocks have been elaborated primarily in relation to natural disasters and associated climate change. Nevertheless, many of the priorities identified within each building block are also pertinent for the design and implementation of ASP across other types of shocks, providing a foundation for a structured approach to the advancement of this rapidly evolving and complex agenda. SKU 33404