SESSION 1: WHAT IS SOCIAL PROTECTION?

2. SESSION 1: WHAT IS SOCIAL PROTECTION?

3. What is Social Protection? UNICEF: “…the set of public and private policies and programmes aimed at preventing, reducing and eliminating economic and social vulnerabilities to poverty and deprivation” (UNICEF Global framework 2012)

4. Vulnerability = Riskof an adverse event, or shock, occurring, + Impact of that shock (defined by the behavioral responses, or capacity of individuals or households to deal with the shock) This capacity is determined by access to capital assets and social networks • Economic vulnerability: negative impact on income or expenditure caused by illness; old age; unemployment; inflation; disaster; etc. • Social vulnerability: risks arising from gender inequality, discrimination and marginalisation • Some correlate with particular stages of the life cycle

5. Risk and vulnerability are both a cause and a consequence of chronic and transient poverty. Social Protection is therefore a critical tool in poverty reduction.

6. Components and dimensions Components • Social assistance ‘safety net’ • Social insurance • Social services • Active labour policies Function • Protection • Prevention • Promotion • Transformation

7. A Brief History of Social Protection – Social Transfers • Employment creation schemes (Rwanda, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, India…) • Poverty targeted (Kenya, Malawi, Zambia) • On going in kind food assistance (humanitarian) 20th Century: Europe and the Western “Welfare State” ‘Employment protection’, ‘unemployment protection’, ‘wage protection’, ‘social pension’, ‘child benefit’ A public service; often largest area of social spending (14% GDP or 1/3 expenditure) 2000s: Central and South America ‘Social pension’, ‘conditional cash transfers’ Mexico Opportunidades: first nation-wide, 2002, 25% of the population BrasilBolsaFamilia: largest CCT program; ~12m poor HH Brazil, Bolivia Social Pension Last 10 years: increased momentum for Cash Transfers in LICs especially Sub Saharan Africa Old age grants(South Africa, Namibia, Swaziland, Lesotho, Kenya, Nepal, Uganda…) Child grants (South Africa, Kenya, Zambia….) Disability grants (Rwanda…)

8. Cash Transfers • Targeting of individuals or household according to the criteria (e.g. Over 65) • Registration of eligible individuals or households on to the program • Regular, predictable cash payments are made at agreed periods (e.g. monthly) • Payments are collected from convenient pay point (e.g. bank account / post office / mobile payments agent) • Regular monitoring • Individuals or households exit from the program when a change of circumstances mean they have reduced risk and vulnerability (eg: become too old; become productively employed)

9. Functions of social protection Promotion Springboards Prevention Safety nets Protection

10. Social protection as investment The cash transfers “spending staircase”

11. The Case for Social Transfers, especially cash • Health • Nutrition • Education • Equality • Social cohesion

12. Lessons from Global Experience: Livelihood Promotion & Growth Zambia: 29% of the SCT was invested in production or enterprises. Households making investments quadrupled from 14% to 50%. 52% of households generated extra income. Bangladesh: in the Chars Livelihood Programme, a cash and asset transfer programme for ultra-poor women, value of the livestock provided is doubling every 18 months. Malawi: 50% of SCT recipients reported being more likely to produce crops. South Africa: households that were recipients of the pension and disability grant in South Africa had labour force participation rates 11-12% higher and employment 8-15% higher. Lesotho: 18% social pension recipients spent part of pension on creating jobs for others. Namibia: the social pension has increased the volume of trade for grocery stores, and contributed to the growth of marketing infrastructure and trade nationwide.

13. Lessons from Global Experience: Human development Zambia: Incidence of illnesses reduced from 42.8% to 35% for HH on the SCT Namibia: Monthly income at the local clinic in the BIG pilot area increased fivefold South Africa: HH with a pension more likely to have access to flush toilet and piped water South Africa: household receipt of a pension or child support grant is associated with a 20-25% reduction in the non-attendance gap. Lesotho: 50% of pensioners spend some of their transfer on education. Namibia: in the BIG pilot non-attendance due to financial reasons dropped by 42%, and drop-out rates fell from almost 40% to 5% in a year. Kenya : cash transfers to children increased secondary school enrolment by 8%

14. Lessons from Global Experience: Social cohesion Social protection addresses some of the root causes of social exclusion and discrimination. Countries that have recently emerged from conflict (Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Nepal) have developed social protection to contributes to lasting peace and security and rebuild the social contract between state and citizen. South Africa: Pensions, disability and child welfare grants have been key elements in citizenship and state building since the end of Apartheid. Botswana: the social pension is considered the government’s most effective mechanism at tackling poverty and supporting social stability encouraging the high investment behind Africa’s fastest growing economy.

15. Further Impacts Equality: • Cash transfers can keep girls in school longer and can delay early marriage and childbirth. • Cash transfers targeted towards women can increase women’s control over family resources and help them gain more decision-making power within the household. • Improve realisation of rights for marginalised groups including children and the elderly. Resilience/risk management: • Regular and predictable cash transfers enable people to protect assets against shock and prevent negative coping strategies, thus protecting longer term income potential and rapid recovery. • In situations of cyclical emergencies and protracted crises, moving towards institutionalised, predictable cash transfers in Kenya and Ethiopia has helped break the need for emergency food programmes

16. ILO Social Protection Floor • Lots of different vulnerable groups and risks – one programme is not enough to deal with all of them • Need for a set of integrated measures addressing different types/levels of risks & vulnerabilities • A systems approach • Progressive realisation of a Social Protection Floor – income support for children, working age, old, disabled; and access to social services

17. Child Sensitive Social Protection • Children at the core (very vulnerable and the key to reducing intergenerational transmission of poverty) • Direct and indirect impacts (since part of a household) • Avoid adverse impacts on children and reduce or mitigate direct social and economic risks • Intervene as early as possible in order to prevent irreversible impairment or harm to children • Consider age and gender specific risks and vulnerabilities • Mitigate the effects of shocks, exclusion and poverty on families • Make special provision to reach children who are particularly vulnerable and excluded • Include the voices and opinions of children, their caregivers and youth in programme design

18. Dispelling the Myths • Social protection is affordable: Even low income countries can afford a basic package of social protection, where scale up is managed incrementally as resources increase and impact of the investment is demonstrated. • Enforcing conditions is not essential to achieve human development goals: Most African cash transfers have not linked cash transfers to obligations in terms of school attendance or health seeking behaviour, yet evidence shows that there are still positive effects on health, schooling and nutrition. • Transfers do not create dependency: Well-designed cash transfers in developing countries do not create disincentives to work and save, in fact they have impact on livelihood promotion. • Including those provided to vulnerable people without labour such as old age pensions

19. International Lessons • Importance of a systems approach: Social protection programs perform better if important interactions between them are exploited, making the overall system a well-coordinated and integrated sector addressing risks throughout the life cycle. • Importance of a long term perspective: To impact on poverty reduction social protection needs to be of sufficient value and coverage and be timely and predictable. Achieving timely transfers in low capacity environments is possible, with investments in capacity building and monitoring. • Importance of national ownership: Programs which have been taken to scale are those which are nationally owned from the beginning, rooted in the national development strategy, with strong commitment of central government. • No targeting approach is without error: However poverty targeting in low income countries is particularly challenging. It is likely that a mixture of targeting approaches will be needed

20. Limitations Social Protection can not do everything Alignment with other complementary policies for livelihoods/employment; service delivery

21. UNICEF Support on social protection • Malawi: supported (financially and technically) the design and piloting of a social cash transfer programme. Built evidence around feasibility and impact of the pilot programme. Supported Government with resource mobilization efforts (both from national budget and external donors) to enable scale up and sustained implementation. • Kenya: supported design, piloting and scale up of an OVC grant in Kenya, targeting households who had been severely affected by HIV/AIDS. UNICEF mobilized resources and supported building of systems through an automated Management Information System (MIS) to improve data management. • Lesotho: supported design, piloting and scale up of a child grant social transfer programme which was fully absorbed into Government budget in 2013.