Social Protection in Fragile and Conflict-affected Settings

Summary

In February 2026, following on from the High-Level Panel on Social Protection in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Settings (FCAS), 40 key stakeholders met to take forward some of the Panel’s recommendations as set out in the Catalytic Agenda[1], at both global and country levels. Convened by Wilton Park and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), participants included national government representatives, bilateral development and humanitarian partners, International Financial Institution representatives, humanitarian, climate and peace actors, and other key stakeholders. The event focused primarily on financing solutions and humanitarian–development transitions, with particular attention to Somalia (Annex 1) and Syria (Annex 2) to anchor the discussions, alongside the role of global and regional actors (Annex 3).

The dialogue took place at a critical juncture for Somalia, Syria and wider global debates. In Somalia, the social protection system has made significant progress and is being called on to respond to the current drought whilst also needing to be strengthened and sustained. In Syria, the political transition has created an opportunity for social protection to contribute to stability and recovery. Globally, there is growing recognition of the critical role social protection plays in meeting basic needs, strengthening resilience and building state-citizen trust in FCAS. However, so much more can be done to maximise this potential.

Over three days of interactive discussions participants aligned around a shared approach to strengthening social protection in FCAS, identifying strategies, forging partnerships and setting out priority next steps for engagement, to shift from ‘using a mop, to fixing the broken pipe’.

Outcomes of the dialogue

There was agreement that social protection in FCAS is both possible and necessary, but it remains marginal in these contexts where it is most needed. Participants discussed how social protection can stabilise societies, protect the most vulnerable people, and reduce reliance on repeated humanitarian surges, yet structural barriers keep it under‑prioritised and under‑financed. Key conclusions reached during the discussions were:

• The central challenge is not technical design alone, but misaligned incentives, risk aversion, fragmentation of financing, and political sensitivity of working with and through national systems in contested, conflict-affected and low‑trust environments.
• Humanitarian-social protection linkages and transitions need to be designed as two‑way ‘on and off-ramps’ or ‘bridges’, not one‑off handovers, with explicit pathways to and from nationally led or hybrid arrangements. This includes developing protocols for temporary shifts away from state delivery during acute turbulence and return when conditions allow – agreed at global level but implemented at local level.
• Both greater investment in social protection and improvements in how finance is structured are required. Short funding cycles, earmarking, and fragmented instruments produce projectised social protection provision and incoherent systems. The dialogue set out the case for more and better-designed pooled funding approaches – across social protection, transition, and hybrid models – designed from a government perspective and tailored to different FCAS contexts. Stronger links to climate finance, disaster risk financing, and strategies to expand domestic resources were also emphasised.
• Somalia and Syria have different entry points for investing in the national social protection system, but similar windows of opportunity. Somalia’s trajectory demonstrates that nationally anchored systems can be built amid fragility, while Syria’s transition highlights the importance of building legitimacy, trust, and robust data governance. In both contexts, progress depends on sustaining and aligning financing behind national systems. Moreover, building on existing workforce capacity, strengthening accountability to affected populations, and engaging constructively with local solidarity mechanisms are key factors in the foundational building blocks of inclusive and conflict-sensitive social protection.
• Too much is being asked of FCAS governments, and too little of donors and international institutions. Participants questioned whether risk frameworks, governance of aid allocations, and institutional incentives are compatible with the stated ambition to back national systems and sustain financing through turbulence. Identifying ways to re-calibrate and develop supportive approaches included investing through pooled funds and joint risk assessments.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-protection-for-stability-a-catalytic-agenda