1. Social protection:
the way forward …
for development partners?
24-25 May 2011
Johannesburg
Nicholas Freeland
Regional Hunger & Vulnerability
Programme

2. Outline
 The GOOD
 The BAD
 The U
 The FUTURE

3. The GOOD:
SP in the new development paradigm
 Traditional (the poor are the problem):
o Focus development on economic growth
o Wait for economic growth to reduce poverty
o Residual interim safety nets
o Donor (expensive) emergency assistance where necessary
… IS NOT WORKING (in Africa)
 Emerging (the poor are the solution):
o Provide comprehensive social protection
o Social protection will help to generate economic growth
o This will reduce poverty and the cost of social protection
o Reduced emergency assistance, freeing donor resources

4. The BAD:
Development partners working together

5. Four Horsemen of the Donor Apocalypse

6. The White Horse:
The Productivists
 Proponents
o World Bank
 Characteristics
o Proxy Means Testing
o Public Works Programmes
o Social Action Funds
o Conditional Cash Transfers
 Examples
o Latin America, Philippines, Tanzania
 Concerns
o 3Ps – but where is “provision”

8. The Red Horse:
The Ten-Percenters
 Proponents
o UNICEF (parts)
 Characteristics
o Community targeting
o Poorest ten percent (labour-constrained)
o Unconditional Cash Transfers
 Examples
o Zambia, Malawi, Liberia, Zimbabwe
 Concerns
o No Ps: no practical basis, no political support, no
potential

9. The Black Horse:
The Instrumentalists
 Proponents
o ILO, WHO, UN family, et al
 Characteristics
o Decent Work/Employment
o Social Protection Floor
• Access to health services
• Child/family support
• Income support for unemployed
• Income security for elderly and disabled persons
 Examples
o Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Bolivia, Sri Lanka,
Ghana, Haiti, East Timor, etc, etc, etc
 Concerns
o Which P?: Process or Prescription?

10. “There are no best solutions or ‘one-size-fits-all’
formulas to set up the SPF. Each country has
different social needs, development objectives and
fiscal capacity to achieve them, and will choose a
different set of policies. Through a coordinated
country response, the SPF facilitates and accelerates
the introduction or strengthening of sustainable
context-specific social protection systems. The
Initiative supports countries in their efforts in
building, expanding, extending or reorienting their
social protection systems by offering high-quality/
low-cost technical assistance to countries through a
mechanism of increased interagency collaboration”
social protection floor initiative

11. The 4 essential Social Security transfers:
• all residents have access to a nationally defined set of
essential health care services
• all children have income security, at least at the level of the
nationally defined poverty line level, through family/child
benefits aimed at facilitating access to nutrition, education and
care
• all those in active age groups, who are unable to earn
sufficient income on the labour market, should enjoy a
minimum income security through social assistance
• all residents in old age or with disabilities have income
security at least at the level of the nationally defined poverty
line through pensions for old age and disability
The SPF concept and definition

12. International
Labour
Office
12
The ILO Global Campaign to Extend Social Security to All
The social security component of the social
protection floor could consist of four essential
social security guarantees:
Universal access to health care
 all residents have …access to a nationally defined set of
essential health care services;
A minimum of income security over the life cycle
 all children have income security through family/child benefits
aimed at facilitating access to nutrition, education and care;
 all those in active age groups who are unable to earn sufficient
income on the labour markets should enjoy a minimum income
security through social assistance …in link with employment
policies
 all residents in old age and with disabilities have income security
through pensions for old age and disability.

13. • The SPF is not only an innovative global concept, it is already a
reality in an increasing number of countries
• This includes many emerging economies (G20): Mexico, Brazil,
Colombia, Argentina, Chile, South Africa, India, Indonesia, China,
Thailand, Philippines, Russia…
• Some leading countries have already a comprehensive SPF in
place: Mexico (Vivir Mejor- Seguro Popular), Brazil, Argentina,
Uruguay (El Plan de Equidad) , Chile ( La Red de protección social
:Protege), South Africa…
• Others have started implementing important building blocks:
India (RSBY, NGREGA), China (New Rural Cooperative Medical
Scheme), Colombia (“Regimen subsidiado de salud”)…
• Some low income countries are starting a SPF process: Bolivia,
Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay, El Salvador, Sri Lanka, Ghana…
Including some LDCs: Burkina, Togo, Benin, Senegal, Rwanda,
Haiti, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, Cambodia, East Timor,
Nepal, Laos, Maldives…
• A SPF is also relevant and exists in many high-income countries
• SPF is a flexible and relevant tool at any stage of development
The Social Protection Floor Global Initiative

14. The Pale Horse:
The Universalists
 Proponents
o INGOs, RHVP, some bilaterals
 Characteristics
o Rights-based
o Categorical targeting
o Employment Guarantee Schemes
o Unconditional Cash Transfers
 Examples
o Nepal, Uganda (partial), Zambia (partial)
 Concerns
o 3Ms: Money, money, money

15. Angels or demons?
New kids on the block
 European Commission
o ERD2010 – Social Protection for Inclusive Development
o Social Transfers Reference Document
 African Development Bank
o Social Protection Strategy
 AusAID
o G20 leadership on SP, with Indonesia
o “Triangular” support
• DP facilitation and funding
• MIC expertise (South-South learning)
• LIC benefit

16. The FUTURE:
where next for development partners?

18. Principles (“Ten Tennessus Tenets”)
1. Recognise the importance of social protection
2. Support national policy priorities
3. Minimise policy intrusion
4. Rationalise donor support
5. Encompass a diversity of approaches
6. Focus on vulnerability
7. Limit pilot projects
8. Find new levers of support
9. Involve participants
10. Focus on outcomes

19. Start from government programmes
and national visions
 Social protection works where you have strong
governments
o Ethiopia
o Rwanda
o Botswana
o South Africa
 It works where you have strong civil society
o South Africa
o Bangladesh
 It doesn’t work where you have strong donors
o Malawi
o Zambia
o Senegal

20. Examples:
1) Lesotho Old Age Pension
 What we should have done
o Supported the Government
o Offered funding to reduce the age from 70 to 60
o Helped Govt explore child benefit using same channels
o Improved delivery systems
o Supported M&E to inform policy and learn lessons
 What we did
o Said it was impossible and unsustainable
o Ignored it – no funding, no tech support, no M&E
o Set up separate OVC programme, using parallel systems

21. Examples:
2) Malawi Agricultural Input Subsidy
 What we should have done
o Supported the Government
o Monitored, and explored options for cash transfers to those
who sold their vouchers
o Explored integrated ways to extend social transfers to those
with no land or labour (cp. Ethiopia/Rwanda direct welfare
support)
o Explored innovative delivery systems
 What we did
o Said we didn’t like subsidies
o Insisted that a national social protection policy be approved
o Set up separate donor-funded SCT programme

22. Role for development partners
 Adhere to Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda
 Build capacity at national and sub-national levels
 Support civil society involvement in SP debate
 Fund one-off and start-up costs
o National identity systems
o Delivery systems
o Social audits and grievance procedures
o Leveraging private sector involvement
 M&E; impact assessment; evidence base
 Fund transfers – where necessary (CoD?)
 Expand transfers in response to shocks
 Support South-South exchange/lesson-learning

24. www.wahenga.net