Presentation by the FAO. 32nd RPCA annual meeting/32e réunion annuelle du RPCA 12-14 December 2016, Abuja, Nigeria

1. Social Protection and Nutrition Linkages in
West Africa
The 32nd
Annual meeting of the RPCA,
12-14 December 2016, Abuja (Nigeria)

2. Theory of change

3. Recognized role of social protection on nutrition
The 2nd
International Conference on
Nutrition recommended the
implementation of social protection
action for sustainable improved
nutrition:
 Incorporate nutrition objectives into
social protection programmes and into
humanitarian assistance safety net
programmes;
 Use cash and food transfers, including
school feeding programmes and other
forms of social protection for vulnerable
populations to improve diets through
better access to food; and
 Increase income for the most vulnerable
populations.

4. Why social protection is important for agriculture,
food and nutrition security?
 Social protection can play a role in:
 Improving quantity and quality of food consumption and increasing
dietary diversity, improved nutrition
 Improving smallholder agricultural production and crop diversification
 Improving access to services, health, sanitation, etc.
 Facilitating the economic insertion of the beneficiaries through the
diversification of activities and revenues sources.
 Minimizing negative coping strategies
 Consumption smoothing and risk management, thereby reduce food
insecurity and seasonal hunger
 Having a social protection system in place allows governments to
react quickly when a crisis occurs

5. Impacts on FS, consumption or diet diversity
Ghana 10pp reduction in proportion of children missing a meal for an entire day
Ethiopia 12% increase in diet diversity; 150 calories per week increase in food (6%)
Lesotho 11pp reduction in proportion of children who had to eat fewer meals
because of food shortage; reduction by 1.5 in number of months hhld. had
extreme shortage of food
Malawi 30% increase in consumption; 60pp increase in proportion of households
eating meat or fish (diet diversity)
Kenya 10% increase in consumption (and improved diet diversity)
Zambia CGP 30% increase in consumption (and improved diet diversity). Increase in
households eating more than one meal per day and 27pp decrease in
households being severely food insecure
Zambia MCTG 20% increase in consumption. Increase in households eating more than
one meal per day and 12pp decrease in households being severely food
insecure
Zimbabwe 8% increase in consumption; 10% increase in diet diversity

6. Households invest in livelihood activities—though impact varies by coun
Zambia Malawi Kenya Lesotho Ghana Tanz.
Agricultural inputs +++ - ++ +++ (1)
Agricultural tools +++ +++ NS NS NS
Agricultural
production
+++(2) NS ++(3) NS
Sales +++ NS NS NS - -
Home consumption of
agricultural
production
NS +++ +++ (4) NS NS
Livestock ownership All types All
types
Small PIgs NS Small
Non farm enterprise +++ NS +FHH
-MHH
- NS
Stronger impact Mixed impact Less impact
1) Reduction hired labor
2) Overal value of production;
reduction in cassava
3) Maize, sorghum and garden plot
vegetables
4) Animal products

7. What needs to change?
 Lack of Nutrition-sensitive design
 Nutrition objectives and
indicators
 Inclusiveness
 Adequacy of benefits, duration,
timing and predictability
 Integration of food and nutrition
education and promotion
 Lack of coordination
 Similar goals, similar
beneficiaries but different
approaches, interventions and
delivery mechanisms
 Lack of coordination mechanism
 Political will but lack political
engagement still weak
 Limited impact on dietary diversity and nutrition
 Limited public expenditures on social protection and nutrition
 But alone social protection is not enough to move people out of
hunger and malnutrition: need to build the linkages and synergies

8. Combined approaches ‘Nutrition – Social Protection’ in
response to shocks (1/2)
• Crises and shocks affect the productive capital of small farmers who
constitute the majority of farmers in West Africa
• vulnerable families in shock adopt coping strategies that impact on
their nutritional status, especially for the most vulnerable groups
(women and children): ex. decapitalization; reduction in the number,
quantity and quality of meals, reducing the use of basic services, etc.
• It becomes difficult for vulnerable families without external assistance
to return to normality after a shock or crisis
• The food security system in emergency could incorporate a limited
number of concrete nutrition actions (e.g management of acute
malnutrition, women empowerment and nutrition education) in
addition to those of social protection (e.g. Cash transfers, school
meals)

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

10. Towards Nutrition Sensitive Social Protection policies
Design and implementation
 Integrating nutrition objectives into social protection policies, strategies
and programmes
 Ensure nutrition sensitive targeting and inclusive criteria (targeting of
physiologically and socio-economic vulnerable groups (i.e. critical 1000
days, pregnant/lactating women, elderly, etc.)
 Integration of food and nutrition education and promotion (feeding, care,
hygiene practices)
 Regular, predictable transfers of adequate value
Cash plus:
 Coordination between social protection and nutrition interventions
 Linkages to health, sanitation, education services
 Twin track approach – considering immediate needs and long term
objectives
Complementary approaches for financing SP for nutrition; move
from sole reliance on humanitarian social protection.