Participants shared consistent evidence of social protection as a driver of political and economic outcomes. They agreed with the Catalytic Agenda’s emphasis on its role in protecting livelihoods, strengthening social cohesion and legitimacy, and reducing reliance on reactive humanitarian responses, including to climate shocks.
The dialogue also set out the limits of social protection, agreeing that while social protection cannot do everything, it can contribute to stability by reducing grievances and harmful coping strategies, support education and livelihoods, and provide predictable support during shocks.
Participants also cautioned against treating social protection as a “container concept” for all expectations – especially as expectations can backfire if mismanaged, stressing the importance of proactive communications (which global actors can support local actors with).
The harder discussion focused on delivery: contexts differ and require sequenced, conflict‑sensitive and adaptive approaches, building where possible on existing foundations. Participants explored how to realise the benefits of social protection under real constraints, without worsening conflict dynamics or undermining humanitarian principles. The agreement was that many examples of ‘promising practices’ exist for this (as the High-Level Panel’s Enquiry showed), which should be leveraged and built upon.