Integrated Social Protection Systems: Enhancing Equity for Children

Integrated Social Protection Systems:
Enhancing Equity for Children
UNICEF Social Protection Strategic Framework
Report on External Consultation
I.
Introduction
UNICEF is a recognized global leader in child-sensitive social protection, contributing to an
increase in the visibility of the vulnerabilities faced by children and their families as well as
influencing social protection policy frameworks to effectively address these. UNICEF has
developed a Social Protection Strategic Framework to respond to the emerging global
challenges and increased demand for policy and guidance on social protection.
The Framework’s main objectives include:
- To provide clear framework for UNICEF’s work on social protection, that can be used for
communication with external partners and other audiences.
- To argue the case for social protection and children and to articulate UNICEF’s position
on key issues, providing clear arguments and evidence
- To outline a policy agenda for social protection and children, including UNICEF’s
contribution within a broader movement/agenda.
The Framework is intended to be a starting point for further policy dialogue and exchange of
practice. While building on practice and evidence to date, it also attempts to set out areas
that require either new or deeper experience and will require further joint learning and action.
II.
Consultation Process
Social protection interventions require a multi-dimensional and multi-sector approach. The
development of the Social Protection Strategic Framework entailed an integrated effort
involving the strong engagement and input of key partners in the formulation of pertinent and
adequate policies and programs. As such, the formulation process has been supported by a
multi-stakeholder consultation process. The objective of this process is to (i) contribute to the
formulation of an integrated approach to social protection; (ii) enhance the pertinence and
quality of the Framework; (iii) provide a platform for the discussion of key policy issues
around social protection, (iii) identify potential activities to be implemented after the approval
of the Framework, as well as (iv) create and strengthen channels for the participation of key
stakeholders in UNICEF’s social protection efforts.
1
Last updated: 15-Mar-12
The Social Protection Strategic Framework is being consulted internally and externally. This
report summarizes the comments and inputs received at the external consultation phase, as
well as how these have been incorporated into the final draft. The external consultation
phase involves strategic external partners at global and regional level. The main objective is
the gather inputs and feedback, as well as discuss potential partnerships, value added and
call for action in a broader social protection framework. A broader set of external actors,
including governments and civil society (local) organization will be reached in the roll-out
process of the Framework, once approved.
The external consultation included the following activities:
-
-
Concept note: Key message and Road Ahead (“Call for Action”): webinar-based
and meeting discussions with strategic partners were convened to get initial input and
feedback on the Framework’s main messages, as well to discuss UNICEF’s value
added, key social protection policy issues (global agenda), and potential joint
collaboration.
External website: Concept note and presentation (PPT) was posted in UNICEF’s
external website, to facilitate comments from different actors and sectors.
http://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/index_60921.html
During this phase, comments were delivered via written form (email) or provided during the
webinar-based consultation and meeting discussions.
Consultation Questions includes:
•
•
•
•
What are the key policy priorities for social protection?
What should be UNICEF’s contribution to the global social protection agenda?
In what key areas should UNICEF be engaging, including with partners? What
issues/areas should we prioritize in the Road Ahead?
What is your opinion of the proposed approach, principles and challenges?
• Integrated Social Protection Systems
• Progressive Realization of Universal Coverage
• National Ownership and Context Specificity
• Inclusive Social Protection
Invited Participants/Organizations
Table I includes actors involved in the external consultation process through webinar-based
discussions and/or face-to-face meetings.
UN-Partners
Bilaterals
Multilateral Agencies
Organization
United National development Programme (UNDP)
World Health Organization (WHO)
International Labour Organization (ILO)
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
World Food Programme (WFP)
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
(UNAIDS)
Department for International Development-UK (Dfid)
US Agency for International Development (USAID)
European Commission, Development Cooperation
Directorate
World Bank
2
Last updated: 15-Mar-12
Research / Academic
International NGOs
Inter-American Development Bank
Asian Development Bank
African Development Bank
Institute for Development Studies (IDS)
Oversees Development Institute (ODI)
Oxford Policy Management (OPM)
Young Lives-Oxford University
Economic Policy Research Institute(EPRI)
Save the Children-UK
Help Age International
Oxfam-UK
Timeline: The External consultation process was implemented from November 2011January 2012.
III.
Summary of Inputs and Comments: Phase 1
The comments received during the External Consultation phase helped to enhance the
Framework’s approach, as well as strengthen linkages with the broader social protection
agenda. Among the general themes we can include:
-
Broad consensus on the importance and relevance of promoting integrated systems
Strong support for UNICEF’s efforts and leadership in promoting economic as well as
social vulnerabilities as part of its definition and approach.
Areas considered and integrated include:
- How to develop and/or prioritize interventions conducive to integrated and
comprehensive systems in fiscally and budget-constrained contexts?
- How does UNICEF’s approach to social protection links with productivity, labor market
access and development, and economic growth?
- What are the key lessons learned of UNICEF practice and how have these informed the
Framework’s approach?
Table II presents, a summary of key comments and inputs and how these have been
integrated into the final draft document.
3
Last updated: 15-Mar-12
IV.
Table II: Summary of External Comments Received and UNICEF Responses, by theme
Comment
Response
General
-
Strong support towards the presentation and articulation of UNICEF’s position on social protection
Broad consensus on the importance and relevance of promoting integrated systems
Strong support for UNICEF’s efforts and leadership in promoting economic as well as social vulnerabilities as part of its definition and
approach.
Definition and components
- Definition and components of social protection:
Participants demonstrated strong support for UNICEF’s definition of
social protection, and components, as well as to its focus and
leadership in promoting a consideration of social vulnerabilities and
encouraged the strengthening of the rationale behind this.
Suggestions taken into consideration; the rationale was strengthened in
the “Definition and Conceptual Framework” section, in Chapter III, and
concept clarifications were made where necessary. More clarification as
to the different instruments, are provided in Chapter IV.
At the same time, participants suggested broadening the
understanding of “shocks” mentioned in the definition to other, noneconomic shocks (life-cycle, health, climactic, etc.).
Some proposed clarifying differences between “components,”
“objectives,” and “types of instruments.” Other participants also
suggested defining more clearly and explicitly the following
instruments: social insurance, child benefits, and employment rights.
There are some similarities between UNICEF’s Framework approach
on integrated systems and the strategy adopted by the other
agencies, including the WFP, World Bank, among others; thus,
harmonization of concepts and terminology (ie: safety nets,
coverage, access, integrated programs) would be valuable.
In agreement that agencies need to work together in order to harmonize
concepts. A follow-up meeting between UNICEF and the World Bank
will be arranged. A glossary is also provided in the Framework.
Integrated Social Protection Systems
Several participants commented on the relevance and timeliness of
In agreement. The Framework addresses the different stages at which
4
Last updated: 15-Mar-12
‘integrated systems’ approach (including alignment with widely
approaches supported by SPF, EU, G20 and others).
General agreement that countries’ current practice and situation
must be taken into account when proposing integrated systems and
that there is a value to highlighting the role of social protection as
part of on-going work – not simply as a response to crisis.
- Multi-sector approach:
Suggestion that Framework mentioned how social protection
provides a foundation that supports investment in services (the two
are complementary). At the same time, it was suggested that it be
clarified that social protection is not the only approach for generating
positive sector outcomes.
countries are when considering integrated systems in the “Sequencing
and Prioritization” section of Chapter VI. In the “Call for Action,” Chapter
IX, the Framework discusses the relevance of social protection for
addressing both structural determinants of vulnerability and increased
volatility and crises.
- Supply-side services:
Some confusion existed as to why the Framework does not focus on
the availability of services.
UNICEF’s definition of social protection does not include supply-side
investments. Social protection is seen as a set of policies and programs
that contribute to increase households’ capacity to respond to risk, while
ensuring access (determined by demand-side factors). However,
sustainable social protection integrated systems imply the promotion of
alongside supply side investments in order to achieve equitable
outcomes.
- Social protection providers – public and private:
Participants suggested elaborating on how the complementarity of
public and private social protection interventions can be ensured and
how formal mechanisms can avoid jeopardizing informal solutions.
A brief discussion of the role of non-state actors has been included.
In agreement; the Framework argues these points when suggesting that
an integrated approach is the best way to create synergies between
these social protection and supply-side efforts. A discussion of how
social protection should not be considered a silver bullet will be included
in the section, “Multi-sectoral approach: Social protection as a tool for
enhancing sector outcomes,” in Chapter V.
Principles
- Progressive realization of universal coverage:
Strong support for UNICEF’s central treatment of this principle.
Confusion as to what is meant by “universal coverage entails that
social protection programmes and schemes are available to
everyone according to need”: is this not paradoxical?
In agreement; text has been revised to enhance clarity.
- National leadership and context-specificity:
Support towards recognition that social protection is primarily a core
UNICEF’s approach is that interventions proposed are not determined
by growth trends but responsive to contexts of vulnerability, whether
5
Last updated: 15-Mar-12
concern of partner governments, while acknowledging the potential
rol of other actors.
Questions as to whether a specific set of social protection
interventions for all countries (regardless of growth and inequality
context) can be defined. Additionally, participants suggested
identifying some broad typologies and country models to better
articulate the different implications of context specificity for policy and
for the implementing agency’s involvement.
these are economic, shock-related, or structural. Different contexts are
discussed in the Framework, along with their respective social
protection, technical assistance, and financing needs. Reference is
made to other agencies’ typologies.
- Inclusive Social Protection:
Overall agreement that this section was important, valuable and
helpful. Strong support towards UNICEF’s equity approach, and the
need to focus the poorest, most marginalised and most vulnerable.
Some participants suggested that the “inclusive design” table focus
on other social protection components in addition to social transfers.
Participants also mentioned that the tension between mainstreaming
social inclusion and focusing on excluded groups may be worth
highlighting. A balance between making social protection sensitive to
excluded groups (HIV-, gender-sensitive, etc.) and making it focus
on broader equity objectives needs to be struck.
In agreement; The Framework recognizes the need to address common
and shared causes/determinants of vulnerabilities rather than focus on
specific groups when designing social protection policies. However, it
also acknowledges the need to recognize and consider the added and
specific vulnerabilities associated with the different dimensions of
exclusion to effectively reach the most vulnerable.
Table has been revised to integrate comments.
Design and Implementation
- Financing and fiscal space and growth:
Widespread agreement that the Framework is valuable and clear, as
well as timely given a fast-moving policy environment and the need
for counter-cyclical responses to crises. Some participants
suggested devoting a larger space to the topics of pro-poor growth
and economic distribution, as well as couching the rationale for
social protection in terms of its positive impacts on the economy.
Additionally, some participants proposed making the point that social
protection is often a transfer rather than a cost (GDP spending
figures overestimate the cost if the transfer shows up elsewhere in
the economy).
In agreement. The Framework includes a section on financing;
furthermore, a policy brief specifically on this topic is expected in 2012.
Moreover, a discussion on growth and productivity has been included in
the “Making the Case” section, in Chapter II.
A suggestion was made that the Framework includes a section on
6
Last updated: 15-Mar-12
financing options and approaches.
- Prioritization and sequencing:
Questions as to how to promote a ‘systems’ approach under
resource constraints and suggestion that, to address these contexts,
guidance on how to prioritize and sequence programs might be
included, as well as the possibility of considering a minimum set of
outcomes for children. Some participants also suggested explicitly
recognizing that cost constraints are linked with the politics of
financing.
A section on Sequencing and Prioritization has been included in
Chapter VI, entitled, “Key Policy Issues & Challenges in the
Implementation of Integrated Social Protection Systems.” The politics of
financing are further discussed under Chapter VI’s section “Social
protection financing.”
- Type of Transfer:
Suggestion that providing guidance on what type of social transfer is
appropriate in a particular context would be useful.
The Framework discusses key priorities in design and selection of
interventions, including the role of vulnerability assessments, targeting
methodologies and benefit size.
- Social Safety Nets:
Suggestion that UNICEF might serve as an advisor in contexts of
fiscal constraint, helping identify which social safety nets are best for
children.
While UNICEF considers that social safety nets may be appropriate in a
limited number of contexts (and works to ensure that they are childsensitive), it argues in the Framework that even where fiscal pressures
exist, comprehensive systems may be the most appropriate approach.
Issues are addressed in the section on Sequencing and Prioritization.
- Graduation and exit strategies:
Suggestion that these issues be added to the Framework with
special care to include a discussion of policy makers expectations
around graduation in order to prevent these issues from being linked
to dependency arguments.
A section on Graduation and Exit Strategies has been included in
Chapter III, including UNICEF’s position and approach.
- Conditionality:
Participants characterized the summary of the conditionality debate
that is provided in the Framework as “fair” and “very helpful.” They
also commented that conditionality is only referred to in the
narrowest of senses, when, in practice, most programs are
conditional. Additionally, a participant suggested that two other
issues related to conditionality be considered, namely: whether
behaviour is at the core of the problem addressed by the intervention
In agreement; suggestions will inform revisions. UNICEF has chosen to
discuss conditionality as it is most commonly used by programs (mainly
cash transfers).
7
Last updated: 15-Mar-12
and if political benefits/context may drive decisions to implement
conditionality.
- Targeting:
There was strong support around the Framework’s position and
discussion on universalism and progressive realization. They also
cautioned that program design (not simply coverage) should be propoor. Some participants shared concerns that narrowly targeted
programs may create animosity between groups.
In agreement. The Framework recognizes the need to address common
and shared causes/determinants of vulnerabilities rather than focus on
specific groups when designing social protection policies (see:
“Inclusive Social Protection” section). However, it also acknowledges
the need to recognize and consider the added and specific
vulnerabilities associated with the different dimensions of exclusion to
effectively reach the most vulnerable.
- Benefit size:
Language around trade-offs between benefit size and unintended
consequences, was considered helpful.
Life-cycle approach:
The importance of explicitly addressing the role of care givers was
brought up, as well as the relevance of discussing the intrahousehold distribution of benefits not targeted at children.
In agreement. Sections to highlight the role of caregivers, has been
included in Chapter 1, section C (“Investing in children now, reaping
long-term returns”)
Emerging Issues
- Urbanization:
Participants found this section useful in light of the evidence on the
rural bias of many existing social protection programmes.
- Climate Change:
Participants agreed that there was a strategic and practical need to
frame social protection as a tool for Climate Change Adaptation.
In agreement; Climate Change Adaptation has been included in
Chapter VIII.
UNICEF’s Role
Strong support to UNICEF as leader in promoting addressing
economic as well as social vulnerabilities in the context of children’s
well-being
In agreement.
General agreement that UNICEF should continue playing a
facilitating and convening role, as well as coordinating learning and
knowledge sharing between partners and among countries, including
8
Last updated: 15-Mar-12
strengthening evidence and impact evaluation on impact of social
protection on different outcomes. Suggestion that South-South
learning may be an area of potential collaboration.
Participants also recognized the need for UNICEF’s continued
support in promoting the Social Protection Floor, especially given its
strong presence in the field
Collaboration
A call for increased coordination between partners in preparation for
key global advocacy events such as the G-20 and the Social
Protection Floor Initiative was made while it was also recognized that
UNICEF and a number of agencies have been working closely
together with fruitful outcomes: ILO and UNICEF on the Social
Protection Floor (where UNICEF’s strong field presence is an asset);
and UNAIDS and UNICEF on HIV-sensitive social protection. It was
also acknowledged that UNICEF’s Framework would serve to inform
upcoming documents and strategies, such as USAID’s guidance
document on OVC Programs.
In agreement that more coordination prior to global advocacy events
would be beneficial. Plans to continue collaboration with all agencies
through different fora. This includes collaboration on the Social
Protection Floor and partnership with UNAIDS and with the HIV/AIDS
team in UNICEF with a view to launching a Joint Initiative on
operational research in Eastern and Southern Africa in 2012.
South-South collaboration:
Questions emerged as to how to identify the most effective
mechanisms, counterparts and proposals to collaborate with
UNICEF on developing South-South learning opportunities?
See “Call for Action” section in Chapter IX: “The Road Ahead.” In
agreement regarding collaboration.
Other
- Lessons Learned:
Suggestion that a “lessons learned” section, acknowledging process
and historic interventions, be added.
In agreement; section added.
- Evidence:
It was suggested that UNICEF’s role as developer of evidence on the
impact of social protection could be strengthened. Equally, evidence
on returns to investment were thought to be helpful. Participants
suggested linking social protection to productivity and suggested
closely monitoring the evidence emerging from LAC countries on the
In agreement. UNICEF is expanding work in this area and has
addressed returns to investment in the “Investing in Children” section of
Chapter II.
9
Last updated: 15-Mar-12
impacts of social protection on inter-generational transmission of
poverty and exclusion.
Consultation Process
Questions raised as to whether the Framework has been consulted
on with national governments and counterparts
Not explicitly. The Framework has been extensively discussed internally
and shared with strategic external partners. The Framework’s concept
note and presentation has been also posted in UNICEF’s external
website for comments. However, given the strong field presence of
UNICEF and the strong relationship between national offices and
counterparts, we believe that key government priorities and issues have
been reflected in the document based on inputs from regional
consultation (internal) phase.
Furthermore, the roll-out and dissemination phase will include
discussions on how to adapt/adjust main approaches to regional and
national contexts.
10
Last updated: 15-Mar-12
Participants


























Elliot Harris, Special Representative to the UN, International Monetary Fund
Griet Cattaert, Social Security Officer - Focal Point Social Protection Floor,
International Labour Organization
Arup Banerji, Director, Social Protection and Labor, World Bank
Laura Rawlings, Lead Social Protection, Specialist, Strategy and Results, Social
Protection and Labor, World Bank
Ugo Gentilini, Policy Officer, Policy, Planning and Strategy Division, World Food
Programme
Nicholas Taylor, European Commission- Development Cooperation Directorate
Jason Wolfe, Senior Household Economic Strengthening Advisor, USAID
Terhi Aaltonen, Technical Officer, Systems Integration, Department of Evidence,
Strategy and Results, UNAIDS
Claudia Vinay, Policy Specialist, United National Development Programme
Tim Conway, Senior Poverty Advisor, Poverty and Vulnerability Team, Growth and
Resilience Department, Dfid
Jen Marshall, Lead Social Development Advisor, Dfid
Mathew Greenslade, Economic Adviser, Poverty and Vulnerability Team, Dfid
Heather Kindness, Social Protection Adviser, Poverty and Vulnerability Team,
Growth and Resilience Department , Dfid
Katie Chapman, Research Department, Dfid
Mark Davies, Programme Manager for the Centre for Social Protection, Institute for
Development Studies (IDS)
Keetie Roelen, Research Fellow, Vulnerability and Poverty Reduction Team,
Institute for Development Studies (IDS)
Rachel Sabates-Wheeler, Research Fellow, Director for the Centre for Social
Protection, Institute for Development Studies (IDS)
Andrea McPherson, Social Protection Policy Officer, HelpAge International
Bethan Emmett, Social Protection Advisor, HelpAge International
Anna McCord, Research Fellow, Oversees Development Institute (ODI)
Nicola Jones, Research Fellow, Oversees Development Institute (ODI)
Paola Pereznieto, Research Fellow Oversees Development Institute (ODI)
Alex Hurrell, Senior Consultant, Poverty and Social Protection, Oxford Policy
Management (OPM)
Alex Rees, Livelihoods Capacity Building Adviser, Save the Children-UK
Paul Dornan, Senior Policy Officer, Young Lives (University of Oxford)
Michael Samson, Director, Economic Policy Research Institute(EPRI)
11
Last updated: 15-Mar-12