Transcript www.ipc-undp.org

Presentation of preliminary results of
ERD 2010
“Social protection as an integral part
of development policy”
Johannesburg, 11th October 2010
Giorgia Giovannetti
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European
University Institute, and University of Florence
The European Report on Development
(ERD): a one year process
Financed by EC and 7 member states
International Conference on “Experiences and lessons from
social protection programmes across the developing world: what
role for the EU?” Paris; 17-18 June 2010
International Conference on “Promoting Resilience through
Social Protection in Sub-Saharan Africa”. Dakar; 27-30 June 2010
International Workshop on “The ERD 2010 zero draft report
presentation” Florence, 17 September 2010
Second consultative activity organized by the DG Dev to
discuss the consolidated Draft Report, Brussels; November 4 2010
Also: Internal multidisciplinary brainstorming, jointly
organized with Max Weber Programme at EUI, Florence, May 5-7
Over 20 commissioned papers
Drafting team: A. de Haan, S. Dercon, S. Klasen, L. Prados,
R. Sabates Wheeler, T. Verdier, P. Vennesson
What conceptualization of social protection
fits better to the goal of the ERD2010?
• Working definition:
Social protection is a specific set of public
actions addressing the vulnerability of
people’s life via:
social insurance (offering protection against
risk and adversity throughout life),
social assistance (offering payments to
support and enable the poor), and
social inclusion efforts (enhancing the
capability of the marginalised to access
social insurance and assistance).
In the background: some facts
•
Forms of social protection (SP) exists in almost
every SSA country; SP has deep roots in Africa.
•
In the last decade, SSA countries have made
progress in their SP agenda (Africa Union).
•
SP in SSA follows different models depending on
nature of institutions, level of economic development
and specific country features (e.g. demographics).
•
SP helps enhancing productivity and Growth,
decreasing conflicts, reaching MDGs (evidence)
•
Countries with effective SP tend to be more resilient
to shocks (crises). For countries with less SP (or programs
not fully implemented), negative impacts tend to be longer
term and domestic consumption dampened. Importance of a
long run horizon (not only safety nets)
Moving from Short to long term policy
responses:
• Short term measures - even if focused on increasing social
expenditure - do not allow graduation out of structural
weaknesses.
• A longer term perspective is needed. SP is more than an
instrumental response to vulnerability.
• SP can leverage state building, reduce inequality, build
resilient livelihoods, bolster growth, promote social justice.
• But obstacles….
Major obstacles for moving from short term
to long term SP policies (in SSA)
 Low domestic borrowing and resource mobilization
 Identification of the Fiscal Space
 Re-prioritization of public sector spending: For example, prioritizing
social sectors over military spending.
 Macroeconomic policy framework for social and economic
recovery not “accommodating” (crises, deficits…)
 Need for external financing in transition phases (grants,
concessional borrowing, or debt relief) (Predictability)
 European Commission grant budget support; IMF’s rapid credit facility; World
Bank’s economic recovery loans; ADB’s countercyclical support facility…
Learning from around the world (also SSA):
experiences to support policy recommendations
– We evaluated programs through three main criteria: (I)
Preconditions (Fiscal sustainability, Administrative
capacity, Political commitment); (II) Impact; and (III)
Externalities;
– There are more options available for pro-active social
protection in African countries (even low-income ones)
than previously thought (cash transfers, public works
programs, supporting –through regulation and reinsurance- the
build-up of microcredit and microinsurance schemes);
– Case studies show that social protection programs are
feasible and sustainable and can have large poverty impacts
with relatively few disincentive effects.
Sub Saharan Africa: Examples social cash
transfer programs with government support
Old age
pensions
Child grants
Pov/community
based targeting
General/national
plans
Lesotho
(80,000)
Namibia
(108,000)
Malawi (24,000 hhs
and scaling up)
South Africa
(4 million)
South Africa
(8 million)
Zambia
Ethiopia
(8,000 hhs; scale up to (PNSP 1.6 million
22,000)
hhs; BOLSA 8000)
Namibia
(115,000)
Zambia (will scale up Zimbabwe
to 33,000 hhs)
(2,800 hhs in pilot)
Botswana
(91,000)
OVC /community
based targeting
Swaziland
(60,000)
Zambia
(4,500 hhs in
pilot)
Rwanda (25,000 hhs
and scaling up)
Pilots on
the way
Tanzania
(2,000 hhs in pilot)
Madagascar
(10,000 hhs planned)
Kenya OVC (70,000
hhs; scaling up to
125,000)
Kenya Hunger
(scaling up to 60,000
hhs)
Angola
(pilot under
discussion)
Lesotho
(1,000 hhs in pilot;
scale up to 10,000)
Mozambique
(170,000 hhs)
Uganda
(pilot approved)
Two questionnaires for a bottom-up approach
The Sub Saharan Africa
Questionnaire (SSAQ)
The EU questionnaire (EUQ)
sent to EU practitioners managing
Five sections – open and closeended questions
Who: EC, GDC, DFID circulated
the
questionnaire
to
their
representatives. As for BE, ES, IE,
LU, NL we contacted the people in
the field directly. Practitioners
from
9
EU
donors
(COM,
Germany,
UK,
Ireland,
Luxembourg,
France,
Spain,
Belgium, The Netherlands) have
participated in the initiative.
circulated to African
stakeholders and experts in
social protection (government,
civil society, academia,
international institutions etc)
How: Questionnaire
participants by e-mail
sent
to
Snowball sampling:
interviewed persons were asked
to nominate other experts to
create a network: i) Networking
ii) New ideas iii) Updated
information iii) Dissemination
Total
date
respondents:
50
to
their
donors’
social
portfolio in the field
protection
Where: The questionnaires cover
11 SSA countries (Burkina Faso,
DRC, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya,
Lesotho, Mozambique, Rwanda,
Senegal, Tanzania, Zambia) as
well as 6 non-SSA (Afghanistan,
Cambodia,
India,
Indonesia,
Nepal, Vietnam).
SSA Questionnaire:
“External donor programs suffer from a lack of follow-up once they have
been funded (e.g no capacity building, lack of long term financing)”
50.0
41.9
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.8
25.0
19.4
20.0
15.0
10.0
12.9
5.0
.0
Disagree
Neither Disagree or Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
An overwhelming majority (67.7%) agrees or strongly agrees that donor
programmes suffer from lack of follow-up, notably long-term financing. Lack of
sustainability is considered the “most harmful” aspect of donor intervention,
before lack of ownership .
Government commitment: We have asked respondents to identify the
main constraints to the improvement of social protection in SSA. Their
answers provide an interesting starting point for discussion.
In your opinion, is the gove r nm e nt com m itte d e nough (politically, financially) to
im pr oving s ocial pr ote ction?
60.0
50.0
54.8
40.0
35.5
30.0
20.0
10.0
9.7
.0
Y es, although social protection
coverage and systems still need to
be improved
No, because it lacks political w ill
No, because it lacks f unds
WITHOUT SENEGAL
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
.0
56.3
37.5
6.3
Yes, although social protection
coverage and systems still need to
be improved
No, because it lacks political will
No, because it lacks funds
Effectiveness of SP measures
In your opinion, which type of social protection measures are the most effective?
Other
6,0
Unconditional Cash Transf ers (UCTs)
16,0
Conditional Cash Transf ers (CCTs)
15,0
School f eeding
18,0
Public works
13,0
Community-driven schemes (traditional solidarities, informal
networks etc.)
13,0
Social pensions
19,0
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
Social Protection should be an integral
part of EU development policy
• Beyond description and analysis (e.g. 15 SSA have SP
in Constitution), ERD aims at understanding the
links and interplays between SP and development
• SP involves specific policies and is a good way to build
up long-term relationships between donors and
recipients, to generate mutual trust.
• We want to understand if and how can EU play a role
and be effective, whether it can help to identify
priorities and policy measures and to fill the gap
between programs and implementation
Implementing Social Protection has
also indirect effects….
• Because in every country some form of SP exist (if
not at the government level, at village or community
level), it is important to align donors development
policies with existing domestic SP policies;
• The indirect effect is to build partnership on specific
grounds.
• The mutual learning experience can empower
SSA countries
• The commitment to long term SP policies can
enhance the credibility of donors
ERD focuses on the EU role, argues that SP should
be an integral element of EU development policy
• Aims: Set perspective to EU’s development policy.
• Review what EU donors actually do (EU main donor).
Suggest that development policies and social
protection policies now dealt with separately (not only
at the EU level) should be integrated in a
comprehensive framework.
• Single out challenges that can/should be tackled at EU
level.
• Show both “capabilities” and “expectations” in order
to assess the “gap”.
• Provide adequate policy recommendations for EU
Summarizing: a role for international
donors (EU) in supporting SSA countries to
upscale social protection
• Why? For some SSA countries to only rely on their
(limited) domestic resources can be a barrier to
scaling up SP and achieving higher resilience
• How to intervene, given that social protection is
under state sovereignty?
• In the framework of political dialogue, it is crucial that
the EU (and its member states) promote nationalinstead of donor-driven initiatives, to ensure
ownership and sustainability
THANKS!
Where does the EU fit in the growing
interest for SP in Africa?
•
Interest in the EU’s SP experience: specific aspects of the EU-SP
models or in their lessons (e.g. role of middle class).
•
Demand for financial and technical support, interest in donors’
experience in SSA countries.
•
Yet, EU experiences and support are not necessarily the most
relevant.
•
Growing interest in South-South cooperation.
•
EU is relevant, but not unique.
•
EU will be more relevant if it understands its
complementary role.
EU donor engagement for social
protection
• Finding out what the EU already does in order to
reflect on what it should do.
• Mapping shows that EU involvement is
diversified, broad range of donor experience and
expertise.
• But still a lot of EU donors only tangentially
involved, or not involved at all.
• Activities fragmented and uncoordinated, lack of
EU dimension.
EU potential comparative advantage
• “European social model”, broadly understood as an
attempt to combine economic dynamism and social
justice notably through high levels of SP.
• Commitment to “social dimension of globalisation” and
greater role for social protection in development
policy.
• Wealth and breadth of EU national experiences in
designing, implementing and sustaining SP systems.
• EU donors might be better placed to help developing
and SSA countries develop their own systems.
Challenges for EU/traditional donors
1: Ownership
• “Promotion” of social protection sometimes akin to
“policy merchandising”, therefore pushing donor
priorities too far removed from partner country
preferences.
• Very limited impact of donor-driven schemes if
not appropriated by local stakeholders.
• Examples show that donors ought to:
(i) align behind home-grown efforts whenever possible;
(ii) foster conditions for government ‘buy-in’ by ensuring
long term commitment and support;
(iii) find ways to co-operate effectively in the joint design
and implementation of SP schemes.
• Main lesson: no success without ownership.
Challenges
2: Sustainability
3: Efficiency
• SP requires long-term • Risk of donors promoting
financial and political
conflicting approaches
commitment.
and programmes,
piecemeal approach,
• Shifting donor fads:
“single-issue” donors.
risk of sporadic
support and
subsequent
• Donor fragmentation
withdrawal.
subverts coherent policymaking and undermines
• Ownership and
national efforts.
sustainability go hand
in hand.
• Rationalise donor efforts
aligning on national
priorities and process.
Challenges for the EU
• Commitment challenge: need for comprehensive
and cohesive EU framework to promote SP in
development policy.
• Mapping and sharing challenge: need to know
what labour there is to divide, but also to learn
from each others’ experiences.
• Coordination challenge: considerable scope for
improvement, build on successful co-operations.
Need to balance EU and donor-wide levels.
• Leadership challenge: despite
its potential
comparative advantage, EU not a leader. Punches
below its collective weight.
Making the most out of the EU’s
strengths & opportunities
• Institutionalised
multi-level
framework
for
political
dialogue, privileged SSA partnerships (Cotonou, JAES) 
opportunities to engage.
• Tangible progress on DoL, ambitious commitments and Fast
Track Initiative. Novel approaches could be envisioned, for
example trilateral cooperation involving NMS.
• Innovative EU instruments (Food Facility, Vulnerability
Fund, MDGs Contract…)
• Seize opportunities-implementation of Lisbon Treaty &
EEAS, upcoming Green Paper on Modern EU Development
Policy, new programming cycle…- that could allow for more
concerted EU effort in support of social protection.
Universal benefits for vulnerable groups:
Social pensions in Lesotho
• (a) Reaches defined group and (b) is universal
• Cash delivery subcontracted to the post office: minimizes
delivery costs, post offices are familiar and “safe”
• Preconditions: the program rose entirely from the domestic
political agenda, is financed out of domestic resources; no
technical or financial support from external actors; high age
qualification was chosen to make it affordable. In 2005-2006,
126 million of Maloti (US$21 million), i.e 2.7% of the
government expenditure;
• Impact: 90% of household were living below the poverty line
compared before, 70% after the introduction of the program.
Also the effect on the average poverty gap was substantial as it
decreased from 135 Maloti per month to 90 Maloti (Bello et al.,
2007).
Emerging Contributions-based SP for better Health:
National Health Insurance Scheme in Ghana
• It solves (a) health risk = a key problem and (b)it is a
functioning contributions based system: NHIS is included in
national budget for health; is financed from V.A.T. originating
taxation (70-75%); formal sector contribution (20-25%) and
informal sector premia (5%). Regulated by the NHI Coucil at the
central level, which manages the NHI Fund.
• Preconditions: Operationalized at regional and district level.
Commitment very high. NHIS has originated from the National
Health Insurance Act that passed into law in 2003. One of the
pillars of the Social Protection Strategy of the Government,
which includes also an education grant and a conditional cash
transfer (LEAP) program.
• Impact: could contribute to address horizontal inequality with
equal contribution across country and risk pooling among
districts.
Targeted Rural Support at a Large Scale:
PSNP in Ethiopia
• (a) it offers targeted support to needy rural population with
productive aim (b) it shows large scale is possible (4830,000 2005; 7574,530-2009) in Africa PSNP budget equals 1.2% of
GDP; Government expected to provide 8.4% of total PSNP
cost, the rest donors. Threat to sustainability from food price
inflation eroding wages.
• Preconditions: Timeliness of payment improved significantly
2006-2009 (food & cash wages). Cash payment transfers
enhanced as computer-based system (PASS) addressed
bottlenecks; strong will to move away from emergency relief to
predictable support, to reduce chronic poverty and protect
assets; political preference for cash payment; PSNP has
covered 8 most food-insured regions.
• Impact: good overall, moderate on asset accumulation, strong
in terms of livestock assets.
Reaching Children when Vulnerable: School
feeding in Kenya
• (a) targets potentially vulnerable population (b) with plausible
productive consequences (better human capital formation)
According to the Boston Consulting group, cost of a school
meal,11 KES per student per day in 2008, 12.4 KES in 2009.
85 % of this cost in food procurement, storage, transportation
15% is for administrative costs (WFP, 2010).
• Preconditions: The program is managed by the Ministry of
Education but very strong and effective cooperation between
the Ministry & the WFP.
• Impact: Not measured yet but, according to some impact
analyses made on previous programs held in Kenya, school
meals allow households to save between 4 and 9 % of the
annual household income for feeding their children.
Developing Social Protection Plans: Vision
2020 Umurenge (VUP) in Rwanda
•
•
•
Included because it offers a comprehensive SP strategy
Precommitment: $ 72 per capita each year. $ 44 million
during the pilot phase; High levels of subsidiarity and bottomup approach; Political commitmente Strong. VUP is a
component of the PRSP of Rwanda for the fiscal period
2008/12
Impact: Positive impacts observed in the form of increased
consumption; spending on human capital; asset accumulation
and financial services (impact evaluation is a component of
the programme)
The EU questionnaire
(EUQ)
The Sub Saharan Africa
Questionnaire (SSAQ)
Zimbabwe
Kenya
Ghana
Burkina Faso
Mozambique
South Africa
Nigeria
Tanzania
Sénégal
0
5
10
15
20
Numbe r of que stionna ire s pe r donor
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
DE
UK
COM
IE
LU
ES
FR
BE
NL
Going forward: next steps
 Disseminate
countries
the
questionanires
to
more
 SSAQ - One person can open a whole
network: assistance from social protection
experts working in Africa of additional
countries
 EUQ - Suggestions from Danish,
Portuguese practitioners in the field.
Italian,
Summary of Preliminary Findings
Social Protection impacts on
the path to MDGs
• Given its potential impact on
structural poverty and
vulnerability, social
protection has a positive
impact on most of the MDG
indicators.
• Respondents to
questionnaires have been
unanimous in pointing out
that social protection is
instrumental to achieving
MDGs.
MDG-1
100%
MDG-4
88%
MDG-5
78%
MDG-2
78%
MDG-3
66%
63%
MDG-6
41%
MDG-7
• SP is especially useful to
achieve MDG -1 (eradicate
extreme poverty and
hunger) , while for the most
there is a weak linkage with
MDGs 7 and 8
MDG-8
34%
Donor interventions: The most popular option is technical assistance,
closely followed by sector budget support. Pilot cash transfer initiatives
get significant support, while research and political dialogue seem to be
perceived as necessary but not crucial. General budget support - the
option giving the partner government most leeway - is overwhelmingly
discarded.
“International donors are helpful when it comes to promoting
and implementing social protection measures”
50.0
45.2
45.0
38.7
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
12.9
15.0
10.0
5.0
3.2
.0
Disagree
Neither Disagree or Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Do you believe that information about social protection is adequately disseminated?
51.6
60.0
50.0
32.3
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
3.2
6.5
6.5
.0
Yes, the information The information is
is both easily
well disseminated
understable and
but difficult to
accessible
understand
The information is
No, potential
easy to understand beneficiaries are not
but it doesn’t reach adequately informed
everybody
Don't know
Dissemination of information regarding social protection programmes is
effective, and the targets (especially the poor) are usually reached.
40.0
30.0
29.0
29.0
22.6
16.1
20.0
3.2
10.0
.0
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither Disagree
or Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Government’s Transparency
The Government is honest in announcing/disseminating the outcomes
of a given program.
40.0
35.5
35.0
32.3
29.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
3.2
.0
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither Disagree or
Agree
Agree
Eu donors are leading the aid
effectiveness effort
With regards to aid effectiveness and division of labour, w ith w hich proposition do you
agree m ore?
45.0
38.7
40.0
35.5
35.0
30.0
25.0
19.4
20.0
15.0
10.0
6.5
5.0
.0
EU donors are uneffective
and fragmented: there has
been no noticeable progress
EU donors are uneffective EU donors have significantly
and fragmented, but there
improved and are leading
have been efforts to
the aid effectiveness effort
improve and some progress
Don't know
Key words in defining
social protection
Out of 31 respondents to the question “How
do you define social protection”:
-
4 mention both vulnerability and poverty
5 mention only poverty
5 mention only vulnerability
17 mention neither
Trends in defining social protection
Vulnerability and Poverty in experts’
responses to “what is social protection”:
Country
Affiliation
Definition (excerpts)
Nigeria
Academia
Social protection are measures put in place to ensure
that times or period of vulnerability does not translate
into conditions of intense poverty and enable them come
out of conditions of shock and stress.
Senegal
UNICEF
La protection sociale promeut l’acces aux services
essentiels ainsi qu’a des transferts sociaux pour les
pauvres et vulnerables.
Tanzania
NGO
In its broadest sense, it describes a set of public actions
that provide direct support to people to help address
risk, vulnerability and poverty.
Tanzania
Government
These are policies and programs that are designed to
reduce poverty and vulnerability by promoting efficient
labor markets, diminishing people's exposure to risks,
and enhancing their capacity to protect themselves
against hazards loss of income.
SP in constitution in SSA
• 15 countries SSA – some more incisively than others
– contain a solemn affirmation of this right, thus
imposing on the legislator a right to act, and on the
citizens a legitimate expectation of such an
intervention to receive access to basic social
security.
• 21 countries which either do not provide for any
specific right to social security; or simply limit
themselves to make a rather vague reference to the
objective of achieving social justice and protecting
those in need;