A/HRC/12/31* page 17 28. Implementing social assistance programmes by using human rights principles can enhance their effectiveness significantly. Firstly, with regard to programmes that target the most vulnerable rather than being universal in scope, definition of beneficiaries on the basis of a prior mapping of food insecurity can improve targeting significantly, and thus the contribution of social assistance schemes to improving food security and poverty reduction as well. Secondly, the clear definition of beneficiaries in legislation - making access to social assistance a right for the beneficiaries - may limit the risk of resources being diverted as a result of corruption or clientelism and can improve accountability of the administration responsible for implementation, particularly if courts are empowered to monitor implementation. Thirdly, the definition of the programme benefit as deriving from a right held by all citizens (even where the programme is targeted) can reduce the element of stigma attached to participating in the programme, which could otherwise reduce significantly the participation of eligible persons. Fourthly, the participation of beneficiaries in the design and implementation of programmes can improve their effectiveness. Fifthly, the gender dimension needs to be taken into account in the design of conditional social assistance programmes in particular, since such programmes can have both a positive and a negative influence on gender stereotypes, depending on how well the programmes are framed.22 29. While the conditional provision of social assistance - in which specific eligibility criteria must be satisfied - may be desirable from various standpoints (for example, to reduce overall programme costs or to increase programme benefits per person), unconditional or universal social assistance has much to be recommended in conditions of widespread deprivation, particularly in poorer developing countries, where the vulnerable population is a large proportion of the total population and administrative capacities may be weak, so much so that the costs of targeting could outweigh the benefits. At the same time, however, as noted by the independent expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty in a report recently submitted on cash transfer programmes (A/HRC/11/9), there is a need for continuous attention to be paid to the accessibility and adaptability of schemes to different physical, geographical, social and cultural contexts, taking into consideration the constraints faced by groups particularly vulnerable to discrimination. Where targeting is chosen because of fiscal constraints, it can be achieved either by means testing (transfers of in kind food aid, food vouchers or cash transfers conditional on personal characteristics or resources), or by transfers conditional on individual actions, as in programmes providing food vouchers or cash against work (cash/food-for-work programmes), which are “self-targeting”. Whichever the targeting method used, it is essential that targeting processes and eligibility criteria be fair, effective and transparent and that they safeguard against discrimination. 30. Conditional programmes are generally designed to address “long-term, structural poverty rather than income shocks, particularly if those shocks are expected to be short-term ones”; they are not the ideal instrument for dealing with transient poverty.23 The adoption in 2005, in India, of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act is worth noting because it presents features 22 23 ILO, “Gender Equality at the heart of decent work”, 2009, para. 160. Ariel Fiszbein, Norber Schady, “Conditional cash transfers: reducing present and future poverty”, World Bank policy research report, 2009, p. 197.