9 April 2009
Commonwealth Secretariat Discussion Paper explores how governments and donors can help by implementing appropriate ‘social protection’ programmes
In order to reduce the dependence of poor women on their extended family, kin and clan groups in Papua New Guinea, the government has developed a draft child protection strategy.
This strategy includes a cash transfer programme, with the aim of reducing poverty, mitigating the impact of HIV and AIDS on affected children, empowering women and reducing domestic violence.
It is a policy approach that aims to promote efficient labour markets and at the same time reduce people’s exposure to risks from loss of income or other hazards.
Similarly, in India the government has set up a cash transfer and insurance scheme for girls, which aims to tackle gender-specific risks such as female foeticide, child marriage and dowry.
‘Social protection’ programmes such as these are explored in the third and latest discussion paper produced by the Commonwealth Secretariat. The previous two papers were on Local Governments and Climate Change, and Forest Carbon Finance.
This latest paper – ‘Gender and Social Protection’ - was adapted from a Good Practice Note prepared as part of ongoing work by the DAC Network on Poverty Reduction, which sits within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It was co-authored by Sarojini Ganju Thakur, former Head of Gender at the Secretariat, Catherine Arnold, UK Department for International Development, and Tina Johnson.
Commonwealth Secretariat Discussion Papers are tools to raise awareness and encourage thought and debate on an important issue. Their intended readership is researchers and policy advisers who know about the issue in similar depth to the author(s).
In the paper the authors suggest how governments and donors can help ensure there are appropriate ‘social protection’ responses available for women and men facing risks and vulnerabilities.
These suggestions include collecting and analysing data on everything from poverty rates to nutritional status to see how women and men are differently affected. Other suggestions are to support women’s organisations and awareness-raising efforts as well as design programmes that help redress inequalities preventing women and girls benefiting from or participating in programmes. The result should be policies that work better for both women and men.
They also propose that governments and donors could consider building up the skills of policy-makers in designing and implementing gender-sensitive policies and programmes.
“Ensuring a gender perspective in the design and implementation of different types of social protection policies and programmes can enhance effectiveness and efficiency and improve social protection outcomes for both women and men,” write the authors.