the Case of Sierra Leone - Institute of Development Studies

Social Transformation &
Economic Empowerment of
Vulnerable Populations: the
Case of Sierra Leone
Omotayo Daud’ Alabi
International Conference:
“Social Protection for Social Justice”
Institute of Development Studies, UK
13–15 April 2011
1

Social Transformation & Economic Empowerment of Vulnerable Populations:
The Case of Sierra Leone
Omotayo Daud’ Alabi
Abstract
70% percent of Sierra Leoneans are poor and about 50% are critically poor. The country is nearly
bottom of the Human Development Index (180/182 - UNDP 2009); the Government of Sierra Leone‟s
low internal revenue generation is outweighed by demand for services. Low on almost all human
development parameters, allocation of available resources to priority development sectors (health, food,
education and infrastructural development) means that the need of the extreme poor for social
protection hasn‟t been adequately addressed and the government‟s mandate to respond to the most
pressing needs of the chronically poor are not fulfilled. This paper argues that protecting basic needs
and wellbeing of the extreme poor is a human right and the collective responsibility of the state and
citizens. In the paper we underscore the fact that, integral to the success of any medium to longer term
social protection initiative is political understanding of the dimensions of poverty, political commitment to
poverty alleviation and support mechanisms in place to drive these processes.
An overarching policy framework supported by Concern Worldwide and DFID is in its incipient stage in
Sierra Leone. This is a precursor requirement and an important step towards sustainable development
and implementation of a nationally owned social protection system. Using a schematic framework this
paper demonstrates the potential of social assistance for supporting the most vulnerable through the
recovery phase in fragile states such as Sierra Leone. We support our argument by detailing ongoing
efforts of the GoSL to demonstrate that governments in fragile states, if committed, have capacity to
transform lives of citizens. The paper provides overview of the disparate social assistance initiatives
currently supported by GoSL including free health care for pregnant women and under fives, pilot cash
transfers to the elderly, free primary education for girls which, though still relatively small and
fragmented, are contributing significantly to the wellbeing of vulnerable people. It discusses the issues
which limit effectiveness of these schemes - fraught by a lack of coordination and rivalry within
government to pitch social protection control within their Ministry or Agency. The absence of an
overarching, systematic national social protection programme will ultimately impact on the progress in
and sustainability of the ongoing poverty alleviation programmes.
The paper draws on examples from Concern Worldwide‟s work in rural communities in Sierra Leone in
the last six years following the civil conflicts that engulfed the country from 1991 to2002, showing how
social protection elements have been mainstreamed across the three main intervention areas of
Education, Health and Food Income and Markets (FIM). Programmes have promoted and built upon
traditional coping strategies during the period whilst the policy formulation process for social protection
at national level was supported. These programmes have not only built capacity and transformed lives
of programme participants they also raised local awareness of the entitlements of some of the
community‟s most vulnerable people including orphans, widows, elderly and disabled people and
supported communities to address these needs through innovative, community-based social protection
mechanisms.
1

1. Introduction
The concept of “social protection” is derived from the visions of benevolent individuals, workers
and politicians in Europe which led to the policies and
schemes implemented over the last century known as
the western “welfare state”. Key initiatives associated
with this include „employment protection‟,
„unemployment protection‟, „wage protection‟ and
„social pensions‟. However, social protection initiatives
are also implemented in the traditional African context,
where support systems are usually the responsibility of
the community or the extended family.
Even though a variety of formal social protection
policies and initiatives appear to be widely adopted
throughout Africa (see Box 1), the debate on the
African state‟s capability to implement social protection
schemes is often limited by a pessimistic understanding
of the African state‟s financial and administrative
capacity. However, the transition from structural
adjustment programmes to the new development
agenda of reaching the 2015 Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) has refocused the debate on the
necessity of complementary ambitious state social
policies, rather than solely focusing on economic
capabilities (World Bank, 2009). It is recognized that
without the commitment of governments to promoting
social and human capital development and equitable
growth, development initiatives are unlikely to be
sustainable. Strong and effective social protection
policies are increasingly seen as necessary, if not a
condition, for equitable distribution of national wealth
and development benefit. Unfortunately though, social
protection is often not a state priority in the face of
competing needs and interests. The MDGs‟ emphasis
on the need to put in place functional policies has
assisted countries in refocusing on policies.
Box 1: Social Protection
Initiatives in Africa
In the Southern parts of Africa,
Namibia and South Africa rapidly
expanded their social pension
schemes following independence
in the early 1990s (Hickey 2007).
In East Africa, the Ethiopian
Government implemented their
Productive Safety Net Programme
in 2004 (Devereux 2006: 14) In
the West African region, Burkina
Faso and Cape Verde adopted
National Social Protection Plans
in 2007 and 2006 respectively.
Cape Verde has also embarked
on a Social Pension Scheme.
Ghana engaged in national health
insurance in 2003 and finalized its
National Social Protection
strategy in 2007.
Senegal also has one of the more
ambitious social protection
strategies, aimed at extending
health insurance to 50% of its
population.
Cash transfer programmes are at
the moment being tested on a
pilot stage in countries such as
Ghana, Sierra Leone, Kenya,
Uganda, Malawi and Zambia
(Anthony Hodges 2008).
Based on the understanding that government buy in to
this idea, and relevant national policies, are both
central to the success and upscale of social protection initiatives, this paper explores how the
Government of Sierra Leone approaches social protection, how far it has come in implementing its
initiatives and challenges faced. The discussion will focus on social protection policies and
initiatives directed towards the most poor and marginalised people in Sierra Leone. In order to
inform this discussion and provide empirically founded recommendations as to how these
2

initiatives can be strengthened, lessons learned from community-driven initiatives supported by
Concern will be discussed.
The paper challenges an often heard assumption with regard to social protection in Africa that poor
and under-developed countries are unable to provide an enduring social protection system which
provides for the most marginalized and vulnerable people whilst undertaking rehabilitation and
recovery of the economy of a failed state.
This paper aims, therefore, to answer two specific research questions:
- In which regard, and to what extent, has the Government of Sierra Leone shown initiative
and commitment towards assisting poor and marginalized people through their post war
policies
- Which recommendations and lessons learned can be derived from community-based
initiatives with regard to developing a stronger social protection framework in Sierra Leone
3

2. Background on Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone is currently considered to be one of the most peaceful countries in Africa, according
to the Global Peace Index 2010. However, the brutal ten year civil war ended less than a decade
ago, in 2002. Some of the dominant explanations of the root causes of the civil war are linked to
pre-war lack of opportunities for and protection of youths. Many youths were abused by political
elites and traditional chiefs, lacking opportunities to
make a better life in terms of access to land, education
and jobs. Such disgruntled youth who felt left out were Box 2:
easily mobilised in the civil conflict and made to
Socio-economic Indicators
perpetuate the mayhem that followed (Fanthorp 2001).
Social protection in Sierra Leone is, therefore, not only
a question of supporting basic needs of vulnerable
groups, but should also be understood as a
mechanism and tool for ensuring livelihood security for
marginalised people, which may help to further
consolidate peace and eventually mitigate the
chances of relapse into violence and conflict. In
addition, by providing social protection, the
Government will be seen to be serving the needs of its
population, and responding to the demands of
marginalised people, thus building a stronger contract
between state and citizen.
In less than ten years Sierra Leone has undergone a
remarkable post-war transition process. In 2007 the
first peaceful election without the presence of UN
peacekeepers was successfully held. In 2008 local
council elections were also held in line with the 2004
Local Government Act. This Act was established to
decentralise government power and devolve functions
and key responsibilities to local district councils. These
initiatives are indicative of Sierra Leone‟s transition
from a post-conflict rehabilitation phase to a period of
long term development. However, although progress
has been made along political dimensions, socioeconomic
indicators still show that Sierra Leone is in a
severe state of poverty (See Box 2).
Sierra Leone has moved from its emergency phase
into a recovery stage and now embarked on the path
to development. Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers,
the first covering 2005-2007 and the second from
2008-2012, were both entitled the “Agenda for
Change”: the general consensus is that these are solid
structures on which long term development could be
Despite a wealth of natural
resources such as gold, diamonds,
iron ore, bauxite and rutile, Sierra
Leone is ranked amongst the very
bottom countries listed in the
UNDP‟s Human Development
Index (in 2009 Sierra Leone was
ranked 180/182 and in 2010
158/169).
Other key indicators reveal the
same devastating picture. Life
expectancy at birth is 48 years (WB
2009), adult literacy is 40% (WB
2008), 1 in 5 children die before the
age of 5, and women have a 1 in 8
lifetime chance of dying in child
birth (UNICEF, 2009).
Public spending on health and
education is amongst the lowest in
the world.
Furthermore, only 47% of people
have access to improved water
sources (GoSL, 2010) and 70%
live under the national poverty line
of Le 2,111(ca. 0.5 USD) per day
(Statistics Sierra Leone, 2009).
26% of these are extremely poor.
4

ased. This is especially evident from the successful democratic national and local elections. The
decentralization process has already recorded elements of success and is widely seen as a key
driver for grassroots democracy. There is a steady economic growth rate of about 4% along with
single digit inflation rate (Statistics Sierra Leone Annual Economic Survey 2008, and IFC 2009).
Sierra Leone‟s remarkable post-war transition process, anchored in the consolidation of democracy
and peace, and supported by considerable investment in physical infrastructure development
estimated at over $1bn (SLIEPA, 2009) has been presented by many observers as a unique case
in Africa to understand and gather best practices from. This article will attempt to present a case
that Sierra Leone is also making progress in this direction in terms of exploring social protection
policies.
3. The concept of social protection
Concern understands social protection as all forms of social insurance and social security/social
welfare that governments regulate, provide, or otherwise make available to their citizens. These
policies should be predictable and reliable sources of protection, in the form of either cash
transfers, in-kind transfers, or a combination of both, that help people maintain a minimum
standard of living, as defined in each country (Concern, Social Protection Policy Paper, 2008). To
the International Labour Organisation (ILO) “social protection means access to essential services
and social transfer for the poor and vulnerable” (ILO 2010), while DFID conceptualises social
protection as “public action taken in response to level of vulnerability, risk and deprivation which
are seen as socially unacceptable within a given polity or society” (Conway, et.al 2000). UNICEF
views social protection as a basic human right and mentions how “governments have an obligation
to provide both economic and social support to the most vulnerable segments of their population”.
Therefore, in this regard Concern‟s definition of social protection compliments the widely held
views of other development actors.
In Sierra Leone, in the absence of a country level social protection policy, Concern proposes a
broad conceptual framework based on our understanding of the different initiatives currently under
development or being implemented. The framework is guided by the various global and regional
conventions and agreements that the Government of Sierra Leone is party to, and attempts to
capture the level and nature of the varied operational policies in place which act as the guidelines
for the Government. By so doing it aims to inform development of an eventual comprehensive
social protection policy.
The framework captures the driving forces and gives suggestions of outcomes running through
from the process up to the point where improved livelihoods options and improved standards of
living are reached. It shows that the main driver of any social protection intervention should be the
desire to unshackle those most economical and socially at risk, for whom it is most difficult to
recover from shocks and stresses. The national policies and initiatives currently implemented,
such as Free Health Care and cash transfers, all implemented through various ministries, are
identified in the framework as practical initiatives. The framework then emphasises the need for a
steady and continuous reflection on factors that may exert pressure, shocks and stresses. The
processes required to know and understand the sources, be it at strategy or activity level, will
constantly need to be monitored and reviewed.
5

DRIVING
FORCES:
Existence of
endemic
poverty,
marginalized
+ vulnerable
groups
Global and
regional
factors:
- Donor
policy and
practice
- Global
social trends
- Policy
trends
Social
factors:
- Public
attitudes
- Lobbying
National
policies:
- Free Health
care
- Education
- SCP
- PRSP
- Local
Government Act
NGO / CBO:
Country
Strategy
Plan
-
-
Risks and vulnerability
STRATEGIES
ACTIVITIES
National level:
Documentation:
- - Pilot cash transfer,
- Registry
- - National school feeding,
- Levels of
programme,
embarkment
- - Health fee waivers,
- Baseline
- - Smallholder
-Technology
commercialization
programme,
Targeting:
-Orphans,
- - Decentralization
-Widows,
-Handicapped,
Community level:
-Young children,
- Aged,
- - Distribution of seeds,
- Unemployed,
- - Solidarity groups,
- Chronically ill
- - Access to health and
education
- - Livestock,
- - DRR
Review + M&E
Review + M&E
Review + M&E
IMPACTS
Political impact e.g.
regime stability, dividend
of democracy, meeting
MDG goals
DISEMBARKMENT
improved livelihood
options as a result
of social protection
initiatives
Civil Society impact
e.g. broader
participation
-
Acknowledging that social protection is a relatively new concept in Sierra Leone, the Government
and other stakeholders, prompted by the “Livingstone process” 1 organised by the African Union,
are all developing their own understanding of it. Civil society organisations such as Concern are
using a combination of their involvement in policy formulation at national level, and experiences
and activities implemented in the field, to inform their approach. The broad framework above
reflects Concern‟s understanding of social protection in Sierra Leone and is presented as a tool to
inform our engagement with the Government, alongside other stakeholders, through membership
of the National Committee on Social Protection, to support development and advocate for adoption
of a national level framework, which will guide policy formulation and implementation.
The two following sections provide further information on a few national and community level
initiatives represented in the framework. As most of these initiatives are still in their infancy,
impacts may not be visible at the moment; it is, however, anticipated in the framework that the
collective impact of the individual initiatives will lead to impacts in political, civil society and
household spheres.
1 The Livingstone Process refers to the commitment made by heads of African governments in 2006 and 2008 to
further basic social protection in support of their most disadvantaged citizens, with special emphasis placed on
implementing cash transfer schemes, including social pensions and child grants.
6

3. National Level Initiatives
Sierra Leone still faced enormous challenges. For instance there is limited internal revenue
generated by the Government. Nearly half of the current revenue base is derived from bilateral
donor support (WB 2009). In spite of this, the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) has expressed
commitment to ensuring the welfare of poor and vulnerable populations by embarking on
developing various social protection and social assistance initiatives. Among others, these include:
launching of a pilot project for conditional cash transfers to vulnerable and marginalised
people across the country;
launching of free health care for children under five, pregnant women and lactating mothers
to reduce infant and maternal mortality;
introduction of a Smallholder Commercialisation Programme (SCP) that incorporates a
safety net component for small scale farmers; and
support to free primary education, waiving fees for girls as part of the commitment to
Universal Education for All in 2004.
3.1. Free Health Care
Free health care was launched by the GoSL on 27 th April 2010. It is intended to contribute to
overcoming and addressing the barriers to health care faced by poor, marginalised and vulnerable
people. Studies by Médecins Sans Frontières and Save the Children (MSF, 2005) and Concern
have shown that one of the primary barriers for extremely poor people to access health care was
user fees, which were being charged for both consultation and for obtaining medication. Other
reasons given were limited physical access to health-care facilities and low remuneration of health
workers.
This initiative built on the previous policy to provide free access to anti retro-viral therapy (ARVs)
for people living with HIV. Implementation of the free healthcare programme, 60% of funds for
which are provided by the national Government, with additional support mostly from the UK and
USA, is expected to benefit approximately 1.5 million people (lactating mothers, children under five
and pregnant women as direct beneficiaries). The initiative is estimated to cost the Government of
Sierra Leone nearly 19 million US dollars over an initial three years. This indicates a strong
demonstration of the Government‟s commitment to addressing the problem of infant and maternal
mortality. Concern Worldwide, along with other actors, supports the Government technically and
financially to actualise this ambitious plan. Salaries for health workers have been revised and
increased within the free health care package. Access to health facilities is being addressed
through the „rural feeder road development support‟ and „smallholder commercialisation
programme‟ supported by a number of actors such as the World Bank, European Union, Concern,
and the German International Cooperation (GIZ).
Concern‟s Health programme aims to support the development of sustainable health care systems
and practices through Government and community (civil society) mechanisms. A major component
is the huge support Concern provides to the Government‟s Free Health Care initiative. This is
particularly through procurement and supply of medical drugs to targeted clinics in our operational
area, and technical support to effective monitoring and evaluation to ensure that drugs reach the
7

most remote areas. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a positive impact is already being
witnessed, with clinics reporting an increase in attendance of pregnant women, new mothers and
children under-five.
32. Smallholder Commercialization Programme
The Smallholder Commercialisation Programme (SCP) is an integral part of the National
Sustainable Agricultural Development Programme (NSADP). The Government has made a
commitment to run the NSADP for 20 years (2010-2030), with allocation from its own budget and
grants from the European Union, Islamic Development fund and other donors; the overall
estimated project cost over five years is US$403 million. Two key pillars in the SCP are social
protection and safety nets for smallholding farmers. The safety net provides „food for work‟ to
farmers and youths doing labour intensive essential activities such as swamp development, feeder
road rehabilitation and culvert construction. The scheme intends to reach two million beneficiaries.
3.3. Cash Transfer Pilot project
The Government of Sierra Leone initially launched the National Social Security and Insurance
Trust (NASSIT) in 2001, a contributory programme to cater for workers in employment and lead
development of a social health insurance policy. However, NASSIT only provides for employees in
the formal sector: in Sierra Leone, as well as in many other African countries the non-formal sector
is significant and growing (UNCDF 2004).
The non-formal sector is comprised especially of unemployed youths and women who are not
benefitting from NASSIT. This category of the population remains marginalised and vulnerable to
shocks and stresses. The initiation of the six-month cash transfer pilot scheme, therefore,
represented hope, especially for the youths. Through this scheme, $11 was transferred monthly to
6,000 extremely poor people, with the purpose of alleviating their suffering; it has enabled
recipients to establish petty trading enterprises, pay school fees, and purchase essential
households commodities. Another 5,000 youths were provided with a $2 daily wage as part of a
cash-for-work initiative largely supported by GIZ and the Ministry of Education, Science, and
Technology.
3.4 Education for vulnerable girls
The Government of Sierra Leone recognises the challenges of accessing post-primary education
for girls: as a result in 2004 it initiated conditional incentives to keep vulnerable girls in junior
secondary school. The programme provides school uniforms, school fees and free books to girls in
junior secondary schools. This is part of promoting Education for All by the year 2015 and an
attempt to ensure that women are supported to acquire education, with an objective to narrow the
ratio between boys and girls in secondary schools.
8

3.5 Constraints
A number of factors are already being experienced which may hinder successful implementation of
some of the initiatives at national level. Relating to the SCP, the Government has identified the
following constraints: weak implementation capacity, procurement difficulties, weak extension
services, weak private sector linkages, possibility for gender and youth exclusion, political
interference in asset and fund management, and the potential change in political and economic
environment (NSADP Investment Plan 2010-2014). However, the Government has also put plans
in place to mitigate the likely effect of these constraints.
Referring to the Free Health Care initiative, some of the most significant constraints identified by
the civil society body “Health for All Coalition” are: the significant funding gap and risk of downward
change in donor financing, and delays in procurement and supply of drugs and consumables to
health facilities. It has also been observed (for example by the ECOWAS Nutrition Forum) that staff
in all facilities are overwhelmed as the number of patients has quadrupled a a result of the scheme.
Attitude of health workers is also cited as a challenge, which can be linked to demands for
increases in salary by junior health workers.
Although the evaluation of the Cash Transfer pilot programme is still to be finalised, key civil
society stakeholders are of the opinion that the scheme‟s impact will be more limited than was
anticipated due to poor planning, poor targeting, absence of a baseline, poor monitoring, and a
lack of coordination, which is indicative of a need for targeted capacity building. The GoSL is
currently reviewing the impact and implementation process of the pilot cash transfer and there is a
very strong commitment by the key involved actors (the Government, civil society and private
sector) to learn and improve the process.
Other general constraints common to the national level initiatives cited above include: corruption,
too rapid implementation, and poor collaboration between ministries in the implementation of
policies that require the involvement of all ministries. There is a need to improve the limited
technical capacity to implement policies. An overarching framework and social protection policy
that would guide design and implementation of initiatives is, therefore, essential.
A draft Social Protection policy exists, development of which has been supported by DfID and
Concern, and it is currently awaiting cabinet and parliamentary approval. When fully approved the
policy will ensure that those segments of the population most at risk and vulnerable will be
classified into three categories, so that initiatives are reaching the most in need. The classifications
proposed in the draft policy are: the chronically poor (i.e. economically unproductive, which
includes people with disabilities, people living with AIDS, the poor and elderly aged 65 years and
above, and the chronically ill; the economically at risk (poor farmers, un/under employed, petty
traders); and the socially vulnerable (vulnerable and excluded children, older people, single
parents, teenage mothers, unemployed and out of school youths). This is an ambitious policy that if
successful will provide social protection throughout the life cycle.
9

4. Community level initiatives
There are many notable non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and community-based
organisations (CBOs) implementing community level poverty alleviation projects in Sierra Leone.
All community level initiatives, in whichever sector, are designed in line with the Government of
Sierra Leone‟s national strategies, such as the poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP), and
sector based policies such as Education, Agriculture, Social Welfare and Health, through which the
Government in its traditional role provides the overarching policy and enabling environment. In the
section below we present some of the community-led initiatives supported by Concern‟s
programmes sectors, all of which are represented in the broad framework above. Social protection
is, for Concern, a cross-cutting approach and in a continuous state of development as learnings
are incorporated into programme design.
Integral to Concern are the beliefs that Governments have a responsibility to eradicate poverty and
that people living in extreme poverty must be specifically targeted. Even with inclusive
development programming it is evident that a percentage of the extremely poor will not be able to
access and benefit from our interventions. According to Evans (2008), who attempts to move the
debate beyond traditional quantification based on income, it is important, along with proper
understanding of the poverty continuum, that “in describing the nature of the lives of people living
in extreme poverty it is necessary to recognise the depth, duration and nature of poverty in order to
design the most appropriate interventions with and for extreme poor people”. These people require
alternative support in the form of social protection. In some cases such support is a permanent
requirement. In the long term it is the role of the Government to provide such support. However in
the interim, while Sierra Leone‟s national Social Protection policies and processes are under
development, Concern‟s programmes in Sierra Leone (which work closely alongside partners and
front line government officials) provide an example of community-led social protection possibilities
in the Education, and Food, Income and Markets (livelihoods) sectors.
4.1. Education
The overall objective of our Education programme in Sierra Leone is to strengthen the provision of
formal education among the poorer section of society, sustaining equitable access to improved
quality of primary education. The programme activities recognize that not all children of schoolgoing
age have the capability to gain an education because of costs and the need for children to
support their families. Orphans are identified as particularly vulnerable. A major component of our
Education programme is, therefore, support to School Management Committees to develop
income-generating activities (IGAs, such as agricultural projects), in line with their own school
development plans. Ten Concern supported SMCs choose in 2010 to employ the funds raised
through their IGAs to ensure that marginalized orphans in their community are able to attend and
remain in primary school (for example, through provision of school uniforms, food, text books and
other learning materials), reaching a total of 146 children (67 boys and 79 girls).
4.2. Food, Income and Markets
Concern‟s Food, Income and Markets (livelihoods) programme in Sierra Leone supports poor
households‟ to achieve adequate and sustainable access to and control over resources. This is to
enable them to achieve their livelihood rights without undermining the natural resource base. A
10

community-driven poverty alleviation activity undertaken by targeted beneficiary groups
incorporates a conditional social protection component into their undertakings. Through these
activities, more vulnerable people in their communities are reached. For instance, Concern support
a women‟s development group in Petifu Chain and a farming group in Mabekor (both in Tonkolili
district) with agricultural inputs, agronomic training, market linkages, and training in leadership,
equality and adult literacy. In return, the groups are encouraged to support other vulnerable
members of their community: from the profits made, a percentage is set aside to support
vulnerable girls who have completed primary schools in their community to continue education.
Although the girls benefit from the blanket government school fee waiver initiatives, support from
the Petifu Chain and Mabekor groups enables them to remain in their boarding schools at junior
secondary level. The cost of their food is covered and they are provided with pocket money to
meet other expenses. This is essential, given that all studies relating to girls‟ retention in school
emphasises their inability to sustain themselves when they are away from their villages. This is
also a dominant reason why many girls drop out of school, become pregnant and are pushed into
early marriage (Concern et al, 2010).
5. Lessons learned and challenges
If a long-term social protection initiative is to be achieved, an understanding of people‟s
circumstances based on risk and vulnerability is essential. The absence of a systematic and
inclusive Government social protection programme may set all on-going poverty alleviation
programmes on unstable ground. Concern acknowledges the good intention of the Government of
Sierra Leone to put in place policies that allow for free health care, cash transfer, safety net and
support for education of girls. This is remarkable because of low internal revenue generation and
the huge infrastructural requirements of the country following emergence from the protracted civil
conflict. The drafting and approval of the national Social Protection policy is of utmost importance
and it must be quickly passed into an Act. All Social Protection initiatives currently implemented by
the Government, though at incipient stages, are still very significant. However, improper
coordination and rivalry for control within ministries should be avoided, since it could undermine the
efforts and could make adoption of the policy framework very difficult. Technical support to improve
implementation capacity of the Government should be a priority for key stakeholders and
international partners, including the African Union. Concern recommends that a Social Protection
Commission should be established. This Commission should be placed either within the Office of
the President or the Office of the Vice President. By so doing, the emphasis and close oversight
required will be assured. This strategy has been very successful in terms of Disaster Management,
National Security and the HIV and AIDS secretariat.
Concern recommends that the national cash transfer initiative be extended to include 1/ conditional
cash transfers dependant on status, for example to unemployed youth, with clear entry and
disembarkment levels, as illustrated in the framework above, and 2/ unconditional cash transfers to
chronically poor categories of the population, such as elderly people, etc.. Both of these should be
determined by a systematic research process and need to be very well articulated and set within
the framework and eventual policy. NASSIT is a good example of a long term sustained approach
to caring for workers at old age, therefore the contributory pension scheme should remain in place
and to be well protected. Care must be taken to ensure that benefits are not eroded by inflation
11

and devaluation in the longer term, which would hence render the dividend economically worthless
by the time they will be dispensed.
Just as national level Government driven initiatives are ongoing, there is a need to be conscious of
the changing investment environment, with more and more large private sector companies
investing in Sierra Leone. The Government need to ensure that adequate regulations are in place
to, one the one hand, protect citizens and communities from exploitation, and on the other hand,
ensure corporate social responsibility. However, increased private sector investment also raises
the opportunity to increase revenue generation, that can support financial sustainability of national
level social protection initiatives; it is the role of the Government in that instance to encourage
contributions from companies and to launch an independent fund on social protection, managed by
the proposed Commission on Social Protection, with active participation of civil society to ensure
monitoring and allay worries.
Central to the sustainability of any programme is the ability of the Government to generate its own
funds internally. The drive must be stepped up to ensure that there is a reduction in reliance on
foreign donors for the provision of free health care, for instance.
Health insurance is a fantastic opportunity to ensure a productive and healthy workforce. As the
informal sector in Sierra Leone accounts for about 70% of the workforce (over 70% are engaged in
the agrarian sector, and in the urban areas about 70% are engaged in petty trading (UNCDF,
2004), if the scheme was extended to include the informal sector, as is Concern‟s
recommendation, it would benefit a significant proportion of the population. Therefore, marginalised
people, including groups like smallholding farmers, will benefit from the scheme and will be made
to contribute to the process of social protection. There is also a social benefit of esteem and
recognition by the beneficiaries through the process.
A corruption-free society is important in economic development. This cannot be over emphasised.
The anti-corruption commission must be seen to be independent, functional and trusted. The
leakages in the system that continue to pose challenges, for example to availability of the right
drugs in the clinics, must be checked.
Research must continue and piloting of technology be encouraged to ensure proper registry and
ensure that administrative costs for dispensing any social protection initiative are kept reasonably
minimal.
As indicated in the framework, community level initiatives can support and empower vulnerable
people whose needs are as yet unaddressed by national schemes. The participation of civil society
in the social protection system in this way should be further explored. Concern‟s experience in
community level initiatives shows that there is a need for proper monitoring of all activities and to
constantly build capacity at institutional, organisational and individual levels, for example, including
literacy training for beneficiaries. A focus is required on proper registration, impact, monitoring and
disembarkment of beneficiaries from any intervention so as not to overstretch social protection
systems of this nature. In this regard targeting, monitoring and evaluation are of key importance.
12

6. Conclusion
Despite Sierra Leone‟s heavily reliance on foreign donors, and given that the country is only ten
years out of a very brutal civil conflict, the country has clearly demonstrated the commitment to
alleviate poverty. The Government of Sierra Leone has equally demonstrated the ability and
willingness to care for the most needy, through people-centred policies, respect for global
agreements and conventions. It is the mandate of a government to provide for its citizens, hence
the need for a national level social protection framework and policy as discussed in this paper.
However, community level initiatives can be learned from so as to ensure that policies are
grounded in experience of practical implementation. Participation of civil society at all levels
ensures confidence, impartiality and transparency. It is important to upscale and ensure that all
national level initiatives reach every corner of the country and that they benefit people who wish to
avail of these services. According to Concern‟s value statement: “good stewardship ensures
trust...” which is crucial for development.
13

References
1. Adato, M. and Hoddinott, J. (2008) Social Protection – Opportunities for Africa. IFPRI Policy
Brief Vol. 5. International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington
2. Bank of Sierra Leone (2004) Microfinance programme development paper presented by Dr.
J.D. Rogers. 7th meeting of Sierra Leone development partnership committee: Freetown
3. Deverux.S. (2006) Cash transfers and social protection. Paper prepared for regional workshop
on “Cash transfers activities in Southern Africa”. Southern African Regional Poverty Network:
Johannesburg
4. ECOWAS Nutrition Forum (2010) www.pfnutrition.org/IMG/ppt/SierraLeone.ppt. Accessed 1st
March 2011.
5. Evans, D. (2008) Extreme poverty and EPAF. Concern Worldwide background paper.
6. Fanthorp, R. (2001) Neither citizen, nor subject Lumpen agency and the legacy of native
administration in Sierra Leone. African Affairs 100(363- 386). Royal African Institute.
7. Government of Sierra Leone (2010a) Millennium Development Progress Report 2010:
Freetown
8. Government of Sierra Leone (2010b) Social Protection Agenda 2010 – 2014: National
Committee for social action (supported by Concern): Freetown
9. Government of Sierra Leone (2010c) National Sustainable Agricultural Development
Programme Investment Plan: 2010-2014
10. Health for All Coalition Sierra Leone (2011) Report on Monitoring Activities Conducted Over the
First Quarter of the Free Health Care Initiative
11. Hickey, S. (2007) Conceptualizing the politics of social protection in Africa. BWPI Working
Paper 4: University of Manchester: Manchester
12. Hodges, A. (2008) Perspective for social protection of West and Central Africa. Child Rights
Information Network: London
13. Institute of Economics and Peace (2010): most peaceful cities in the world ranking
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/#/2010/scor
14. International Finance Cooperation (2009) IFC annual report.www.ifc.org, accessed 28 th
February 2011.
15. International Labour Organization (2010) ILO-UN Social Protection Floor Initiative: The role of
social security in crisis response and recovery, and beyond. www.Ilo.org
16. Kamerman, S. B. and Gabel, S. G. (2006) Social protection for children and their families: A
global overview. Paper presented at the UNICEF sponsored Conference; “Social protection
initiatives for children, women and families – An analysis of recent experiences. New School:
New York
17. Medecins Sans Frontiers (2005) Access to Healthcare in Post-War Sierra Leone.
18. Sierra Leone Investment and Export Promotion Agency (2009), Sierra Leone Conference Brief
www.sliepa.org/sites/default/files/documents/InfrastructureSector%20Brief.pdf, accessed 28 th
February 2011.
19. Statistics Sierra Leone (2009) 2008 Annual economic survey – Economic statistics division.
Vol. 1.
14

20. Tim Conway et. al. (2000) Social Protection – New directions of donor agencies. DFID paper:
London
21. UNDP (2009) Human Development Report 2009.
22. UNDP Human Development Report (2010) http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/SLE.
Accessed on 28th February 2011.
23. UNICEF (2009), State of the World‟s Children
24. United Nations Capital Development Fund ( UNCDF 2004) Development of a Sustainable Pro-
Poor Financial Sector in Sierra Leone (2004 -2009): New York
15