As part of UNICEF Innocenti's workshop on social protection in humanitarian settings, Hamidou Poufon of UNICEF Nigeria presented his views on "Social Protection Programming in Emergencies (Nigeria)". For more on this workshop and to access the seven papers released at the event, visit: https://www.unicef-irc.org/article/1829-evidence-on-social-protection-in-contexts-of-fragility-and-forced-displacement.html

1. © UNICEF/UNI197921/Schermbrucker
By Hamidou Poufon
Chief Social Policy, UNICEF Nigeria,
June 08th 2018
Social Protection Programming in
Emergencies (Nigeria)

2. 1. Overview of Emergency Situation
2. Application of social protection to address humanitarian
emergency
3. Evidence Gaps in Social Protection Interventions
4. Priorities and Opportunities
Content

3. Rivers
Ekiti
Osun
Lagos
Ogun
Oyo
Delta
Bayelsa
Ondo
Edo
Kogi
Niger
Kwara
Kebbi
Kaduna
Sokoto
Zamfara
AbiaImo
Anambra
Enugu
CrossRiver
AkwaIbom
Benue
Ebonyi
Taraba
Plateau
FCT
Nasarawa
a
Katsina
Kano
Jigawa
Bauchi
Yobe Borno
Inter Communal/Inter-Ethnic
Violence (affected pop:
29,376,232
1. Overview of Emergencies in Nigeria
Armed conflict and
Inter-communal
violence (4,464,610)
Flash floods & inter
communal violence
(6,015,633)
Armed Conflict (affected
pop: 14,173,089
▪ 7.7 Million people in need of
Humanitarian assistance from
which 4.5 Million are children
▪ 1.9 million people internally
displaced - Feb 2018
▪ 6% increase in num of IDPs
with 98,798 newly displaced
people
▪ Food identified as the most
unmet need (97.19% of
interventions on Food Security)

4. ▪ In 2016 Basic Needs Assessment (BNA) conducted by consortium of international agencies
on Multipurpose Cash Grants as a humanitarian response in the North East;
▪ BNA identified most deprived local government areas (mostly in Borno State – Jere, Konduga
and Maiduguri Metro Council). Recall, Nigeria has 36 States comprising 774 LGAs_
▪ 5 basic needs most mentioned as priority assistance by all affected groups are food, health
commodities (medicines), potable water, housing and shelter commodities. These items
commonly account for more than 50% of the minimum expenditure basket (MEB) for all
groups in affected areas. Most common size of one family is between 7 and 9
▪ Cash assistance favored as markets and systems of service provision are generally
functioning and 93% of the pop can access basic goods and services within a 2 hour journey
from their home. In-kind support preferred for potable water (water distribution or new
water points)
▪ As at December 2017, 203,000 people reached with cash and voucher through inter-agency
cash working group
2. Application of social protection to address humanitarian emergency

5. ▪ Limitation of generalization of BNA as the selection process for respondents was entirely
random, with the notable exception of IDPs in host families, for whom enumerators had to
use snowball effects to find next respondents. For example, respondents highlighted
agricultural inputs, which were not included in the initial list of essential items compiled from
a meta-review of existing Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB) and living standards;
▪ Need to establish a clear definition of MEB by the Government. Till date, no consensus on
household size in rural areas - no harmonized household size for rural areas and no
harmonized targeting criteria especially in hard to reach areas; use of basic vulnerability
criteria to reduce exclusion errors;
▪ No harmonized registry of beneficiaries: Discussions around WFP’s SCOPE platform being
used also by the National Cash Transfer Bureau of the Vice President’s Office. Challenge to
make it a Government platform;
▪ No systematic or specific targeting of IDP in interventions;
▪ No Coordination in terms of feedback from beneficiaries/accountability of affected
populations, linkage with government actors – National Emergency Management Agency
(NEMA) and Office of the Vice President’s National Cash Transfer Office
3. Evidence Gaps in Social Protection Interventions

6. 4. Priorities and Opportunities
▪ BNA showed the importance of allowing respondents to identify the items that they
consider essential for their survival and a minimum living standards, as well as the reasons
why – in the current emergency context – they are unable to secure them for their families.
▪ IOM Displacement Tracking Matrix which tracks IDP in the North East is an opportunity for
better identification of beneficiaries.
▪ Need to reinforce operational alliances with National and State Emergency Management
Agencies to improve data collection shedding light on displacement;
▪ Development of surveys improving comprehensive definition/identification of affected
population profile with significant level of disaggregation (socio-economic, displacement,
age,…) that would help to design more effective programs with relevant targets;
▪ Supporting States to integrate social protection response to emergency in their
Development Plans and make adequate budgetary provision – allocation and release -
▪ Strengthen liaison between UN agencies and other actors including and mainly the
Government, for effective design and implementation of social transfers programs in
response to emergencies

7. THANK YOU