“Are we asking too much of social protection?” reframed as “are we asking too little of ourselves?”
The “too much” question served as a proxy for deeper concerns about institutional behaviour. Participants acknowledged that social protection is being asked to deliver across multiple agendas but argued that the more uncomfortable reality is that international actors often demand unrealistic reforms from FCAS governments while maintaining rigid, fragmented and risk‑averse practices themselves.
Accountability to affected populations as a system function
Discussions repeatedly criticised system designs that prioritise donor accountability while neglecting accountability to people in crises, highlighting the tendency to treat people as passive recipients of aid rather than actors with agency in their own development.
How to engage with local solidarity mechanisms
Local mechanisms are central to how households in FCAS manage risk and survive shocks. Participants highlighted remittances, Zakat, and kinship networks as key sources of support, cautioning that formal social protection systems which ignore or displace them risk undermining trust and social cohesion. The dialogue emphasised that the challenge is not whether to engage with these mechanisms, but how. Rapid or coercive formalisation was seen as counterproductive, given that legitimacy rests on autonomy and community control. Instead, participants favoured gradual, transparent approaches that strengthen linkages where appropriate, including careful engagement with community‑based systems, strong data protection, and donor support that reinforces rather than crowds out local solidarity.
Geopolitics shape funding and feasibility
Geopolitics shapes funding flows, risk tolerance, and what is feasible in practice. Participants repeatedly noted that global geopolitics, in particular political incentives in donor countries influence how much and where resources flow, how risk is perceived, and the willingness to engage with national systems. Shifts in the international environment were seen to affect both financing levels and the space for country‑led approaches.
What would “success” look like in practice?
Success was consistently defined in practical terms: coherence and continuity. Participants described success as coherent incentives, financing, data systems, roles, and accountability, aligned around national systems rather than undermining them under delivery pressure. Success was also framed as financing and delivery that remain engaged through turbulence, shifting from risk avoidance to shared risk management. Finally, participants emphasised continuity of protection: ensuring people do not fall through gaps created by transitions, fragmented systems, or institutional disruption.