RHVP: RIP!

So it's official: RHVP's controversial Wahenga Comments "may occasionally have over-stepped the mark and caused offence"!

This is one of the findings of a recent assessment of RHVP, facilitated by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), which attempted to learn lessons about the degree to which RHVP had influenced social protection policy over the six years of its lifetime.

As RHVP draws to a close, this seems an appropriate opportunity to apologise to those we may have offended; but also, as the ODI assessment does, to consider the more positive influences to which the Programme may have contributed in some small way.

First, we tender our apologies. We were perhaps too strident in some of our campaigns, but they were ones that we genuinely believed in, and where – as a small programme trying to induce major shifts in policy – we were often pitted against entrenched opinions, vested interests and a stolid status quo. We apologise to World Food Programme (WFP), an early target in the food/cash debate ... though we are still not convinced that an organisation with such global expertise in emergency response should be diversifying into the development of national social protection policies. We apologise to the World Bank and its academic associates, especially for airing Sissy Teese's choleric rants ... though we still harbour serious reservations about a number of the Bank's prescriptions in an African context, for example its advocacy of proxy means testing and its fondness for conditionality. We apologise to UNICEF for tarring them with the "ten-percent" brush ... though we still reject a poverty-targeted approach in situations of widespread poverty such as those prevailing in sub-Saharan Africa. We apologise to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) for questioning the foundations of their social protection floor ... though we continue to believe that more work is needed to burnish its credentials as a support to truly national policies and priorities. And we apologise to any others we may have offended inadvertently along the way ... though – as the saying goes – you can't make mealie-meal without milling mealies!

Second, there is evidence of more positive RHVP impacts, even arising out of such transgressions! The ODI assessment suggests that RHVP's "strong and consistent messaging was a key strength in terms of taking a strategic approach to policy influencing ". It goes on to state that "the Programme stuck to strong, clear messages on social protection and took an ‘uncompromising’ approach which sometimes involved controversial or critical stances. In many cases this drew defensive reactions, but over the course of the Programme, not only were many of those messages vindicated, but the messages delivered can be linked to a number of concrete policy changes". The report cites a number of specific examples where "RHVP identified very early on a number of key tenets around social protection, and was consistent in adhering to those tenets throughout its lifespan". These include:

·       The supremacy of cash over food aid in most cases - e.g. Wahenga Comments as early as 2006; strong advocacy for cash-based responses in Lesotho and Swaziland in 2007 and Malawi in 2009; the organisation of an influential regional workshop on cash transfers in 2006.

·       The potential for innovation in delivery systems - e.g. our "Upwardly Mobile" Brief and Comment in early-2006 (before MPESA had even started!), predicting a key role for mobile phones; and the "Lesotho Ladies" initiative and Briefs beginning in 2006 through to the end of the programme.

·       The need to move away from piloting to supporting national programmes - e.g. our "Stop Experimenting" Comment in mid-2006, when pilots were still all the rage among donors and INGOs; and our criticism of two World Bank experiments in Tanzania in 2008 and 2010.

·       The deficiencies of public works programmes as a response to chronic hunger - e.g. our "Public Works Don't" Comment in early-2007.

·       The potential for direct transfers to individual households - e.g. our "Direct Aid" Comment in early-2007 (long before the 2010 book by Joseph Hanlon et al "Just Give Money to the Poor").

·       The weaknesses of poverty targeting, especially in situations of significant poverty - e.g. our "One out of Ten" and other poverty-targeting Comments in 2008; and our Frontiers of Social Protection (FoSP) Brief in 2009.

·       The uncertain evidence on the benefits of imposing conditions (NB not "conditionalities"!), especially in Africa - e.g. our "What's Wrong with Conditionality" Comment as early as 2006; an article in the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Journal in 2007; and the infamous "Sissy Teese" Comments in 2010 and 2011.

·       The considerable potential for South-South learning - e.g. our early contacts with International Poverty Centre in Brazil; drawing lessons from Bangladesh in 2009; and our promotion of social protection study tours within Africa.

·       The importance of promoting political buy-in whilst also building technical capacity - e.g. the "Institutional and Policy Context" Briefs in 2008; our initiation and support of the civil society Africa Platform for Social Protection from 2006; a targeted focus on the media from 2007; and our SADC Parliamentary Forum initiative and handbook aimed at parliamentarians from 2008 onwards.

As the ODI report makes clear, "many of these were controversial – even radical – ideas at the time they were first aired, and part of RHVP's visibility and impact has probably derived from its provocative (but unswerving) stance". And, even where RHVP itself may not have been directly responsible for changing policy, the report makes a compelling argument that "by taking this ‘radical’ and visible stance in the debate, RHVP opened the door for other more ‘moderate’ voices to find traction within institutions where they would otherwise have not". This in itself would represent a significant achievement of the Programme.

Finally, on this valedictory note, we would like to thank our paymasters, DFID and AusAID, who have made the Programme possible. Their staff (almost without exception!) have provided us with unstinting support and excellent guidance. They have also – more importantly – allowed us the freedom and independence to chart our own course and to fight our own battles. We are very grateful to have had these opportunities over a tumultuous six years, during which there has unquestionably been a paradigm shift in thinking around social protection. This shift cannot be arrogated to RHVP, of course; but it has been an appropriate (and exciting) time for the Programme to have been in existence, and we hope we have contributed in some small ways. Very many thanks to my fantastic colleagues on RHVP who have shared the adventure; and thanks - above all - to all of you that we have worked with along the way!