Social Protection in the Context of Sustainable Development: Challenges and opportunities

7/26/2019 Social Protection in the Context of Sustainable Development: Challenges and opportunities

1/16

32

SOCIAL

PROTECTIONFO

R

SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPM

ENT

-SP4SD

C H A P T E R 2

Social protection is a key tool

for social development policy.It has proven highly effective inreducing poverty and inequality.

Worker at the Warrap State Hospital, South Sudan. UN Photo/JC McIlwaine


2/16

33

Only recently have some importantshifts to broaden the application of

social protection to other development

considerations, including environmental

risks, been more marked.

Social Protection in the Context ofSustainable Development:Challenges and opportunities1

The world is set to embark upon a new developmentagenda that recognizes the need to pursuedevelopment in a balanced way in order toachieve economic and social progress while actingin harmony with the worlds ecosystems. Thistransformational and universal agenda aims to end

poverty and fight inequality; ensure healthy lives;build prosperous, inclusive and resilient economies;and protect both the quality and quantity of naturalresources for present and future generations. Socialprotection is increasingly being recognized as anessential tool for delivering on this very ambitiousagenda, which entails the management/mitigationof trade-offs between some of the goals. In theSustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted inSeptember 2015, social protection is identified underthe goals on poverty reduction (Goal 1), universalhealth coverage (Goal 3), gender equality (Goal 5)and reducing inequality (Goal 10).

Traditional models of social protection have soughtto reduce poverty and to create safety nets toprotect individuals and families in times of need andcrisis. Other models, such as the more universalizedprogrammes, have also aimed to redistribute wealthwithin the economy and have successfully reducedpoverty and narrowed gaps in areas includingeducation, health, food and nutrition. While social

protection programmes in general have contributedenormously to achieving several MillenniumDevelopment Goals, they have remained largelyseparate from environmental programmes. In manycountries, opportunities have been missed, as socialprotection programmes have been somewhat

limited in scope and scale and siloed as mostly thepurview of social ministries. Programme design oftenfails to address wider or more long-term concernsabout equity or social inclusion, or growing risksand vulnerabilities emerging from a changingenvironment. Even when they do contribute to sectoroutcomes in health and education, they are managedseparately, which leads to ineffi ciencies. They oftenalso fail to generate sustainable paths to ensure thatbeneficiaries stay above poverty and continue toimprove their well-being. Only recently have someimportant shifts to broaden the application of socialprotection to other development considerations,including environmental risks, been more marked.

This paper suggests that social protectionprogrammes can play a central role incontributing to all three dimensions of thesustainable development agenda. It also providesrecommendations for building more sustainable,inclusive, integrated and effective socialprotection systems.2

I N T R O D U C T I O N

1This paper was written by Almudena Fernandez, UNDP Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, and Romulo Paes-Sousa, Laura Hildebrandt, LaylaSaad and Leisa Perch, UNDP World Centre for Sustainable Development (RIO+ Centre).2 Social protection systems are the combination of social protection programmes and interventions that take a multi-prong, intersectoral and

coordinated approach to addressing the multiple and compounding deprivations and vulnerabilities faced by individuals.


3/16

34

SOCIAL

PROTECTIONFO

R

SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPM

ENT

-SP4SD

S O C I A L P R O T E C T I O N : S U P P O R T I N G A L L T H R E ED I M E N S I O N S O F S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T

Social protection is a key tool for social developmentpolicy. It has proven highly effective in reducingpoverty and inequality,3 and in providing safety

nets to help low-income and vulnerable householdscope with risks and shocks. By guaranteeing accessto essential goods and services such as health,education and nutrition, social protection plays akey role in generating opportunities for low-incomehouseholds and socially excluded groups. Evidencefrom Latin American countries (Lustig, Lpez Calvaand Ortiz-Juarez, 2011; Azevedo and others, 2013)and South Africa strongly suggests that largerand better-targeted conditional cash transferprogrammes were an important contributing factorto declines in inequality in these countries.

Social protection also contributes significantlyto economic growth in two main ways. First, byimproving access to health care, education andincome, social protection helps to unlock the fullproductive potential of a country, increase labourmarket participation and entrepreneurial activity, andsupport the structural transformation of an economyby redistributing economic activity across sectors(Samson, 2009). Secondly, social protection acts as astabilizer at times of economic upheaval: it preventsaggregate demand from dropping sharply, maintainsa minimum level of purchasing power and stopsunemployment from eroding human or productivecapital accumulation. Income transfers, for example,

help smooth household consumption and maintainaggregate demand, while building resilience throughasset accumulation and preventing negative coping

mechanisms from being adopted. By doing so, theyenable people to avert or to better overcome the riskof poverty and social exclusion during crises. Socialprotection also reduces vulnerabilities connectedto risk behaviours for example those related toHIV, teen pregnancy, crime, among others therebyensuring that human capital accumulation continues.

More recently, some innovative programmes havebeen providing evidence of the potential of socialprotection measures to support environmentalsustainability by strengthening resilience against

natural disasters, promoting adaptation andmitigation measures that protect ecosystemsfrom further degradation and facilitating quickrecovery. The latter is often a less explicit objectiveof social protection. Not only does a degradedenvironment threaten livelihoods and progress inpoverty reduction, it also exacerbates inequalities,which affects the poorest, vulnerable and excludeddisproportionately. It also hinders economic growthand future prosperity. At the same time, linking acrossthese areas can create opportunities for positivemultiplier effects for households, communities andfor nature. Examples of this multiplier effect fromSouth Africa and Brazil are presented below (seetable 1).

3LpezCalva and Lustig, 2010; Lustig, LpezCalva and Ortiz-Juarez, 2013; and United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the

Pacific, 2011.

UN Photo


4/16

35

PROGRAMME

SUMMARY

GROWTH

COBENEFITS

GENDER

COBENEFITS

POVERTY

COBENEFITS

ENVIRONMENTAL

COBENEFITS

UNIQUE

STRUCTURAL

ELEMENTS

1. Brazils ProgramaNacional de Produo

e Uso de Biodiesel

(PNPB, or BiodieselProduction andUse Programme)adopted an explicitpolicy to incorporatefamily farmers intothe biodiesel valuechain. Governmentincentives includeddistribution of seeds,technical assistance,credit and formalcontracts for small-scale family farmers.Special economicincentives targetthe less developedNortheast region.a

Structures thebiodiesel supplychain in Braziland expandsthe sources ofproduction.Linked toregulationsestablishingminimumrequirementsfor blendingbiodiesel intogasoline (of atleast 5 percent).

Gender has notbeen identifiedas an issuein the PNPBspolicy design.However,several womenare small-scalefarmers andtake part in theprogramme.

Directlyintegratessmall farmersinto newmarkets andprovides aguaranteedadditionalsource ofincome forthem and theirfamilies.

Expands low-carbon path ofdevelopment.

The Selo Social(Social Label)certificationprogrammefor purchasesgives partialtax exemptionsto refineriesthat purchasethe minimum

requiredamount fromsmallholderfarmers,and full taxexemptionto those thatpurchase fromfarmers inthe Northeastregion.

2. Originally calledWorking forWater in SouthAfrica (WfW), thisprogramme was latertransformed intoeleven programmes.It initially targetedwater lossescaused by invasiveweeds and theirsecondary effectson downstreamecosystems.b

Facilitatesgreaterparticipationby womenand the poorin productiveareas andreducesproductivitylosses caused byinvasive plantspecies.

A clear gender-directedpolicy onenvironmentalissues.

Containsunderlyingpovertyreductionstrategy andhas benefited119,000persons.

Reduces theharm of invasiveplant species onecosystems andaccess to water.

Throughthe fundingmechanism,thegovernmentcan act as anintermediary,buyer or asa marketregulatorto avoidunanticipated

consequences.

Source: Perch, Stahlberg and Potiara, 2010.aZapata and others, 2010.b Lieuw-Kie-Song, 2009.

TA B L E 1SELECT SOCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAMMES WITH CLIMATE CHANGE CO-BENEFITS


5/16

36

SOCIAL

PROTECTIONFO

R

SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPM

ENT

-SP4SD

Both programmes mentioned in table 1 have directand indirect impacts on the three main domains ofsustainable development: they improve householdlevel outcomes, have a positive effect on growthand generate positive environmental impacts. In theSouth African case, gender inequalities are tackleddirectly, whereas in the Brazilian programme, the

focus on structural inequalities, such as genderinequalities, is much less explicit. Changes to thePNPBs activities to focus more on social inclusionquadrupled smallholder involvement (2008-2010)and increased the amount of feedstock purchasedfive-fold. Other programmes in the same vein inSouth Africa such as the Expanded Public WorksProgramme entail the creation of 200,000 jobs, andskills training and formal accreditation to better

prepare participants for the long-term. It is alsoestimated that 200,000 hectares and 700 km ofcoastal land have been cleaned up, 40 wetlandsrehabilitated, 32 waste management programmescreated and 150 historical and community tourismprojects launched (Antonopoulos, 2008).

The path to merging social, economic andenvironmental goals is not always clear andsometimes conflicts arise between environmentaland social goals (Saad and Perch, 2014). Even so,these examples provide important lessons forexpanding the role of social protection in thepursuit of sustainable development, particularly asa tool for achieving environmental objectives andbridging these with social and economic concerns.

UN Photo


6/16

37

C H A L L E N G E S A N D O P P O R T U N I T I E S F O R S O C I A L P R O T E C T I O NI N T H E C O N T E X T O F S U S TA I N A B L E D E V E L O P M E N T

Despite its widespread adoption and expansion inrecent years, there are many definitions of socialprotection. Development agencies, governmentand academics all have their own take on whatsocial protection does and does not include. Thescope and areas of concern of social protectionhave evolved as the international developmentagenda shifted from a focus on poverty reductionto increasingly complex development challenges.Initially defined as safety nets to tackle extremepoverty and risks, it is now widely agreed that therole and potential impact of social protection goesfar beyond reducing poverty in the short-term. Itsset of objectives has steadily widened with evidenceshowing that the functions of social protectionrange from levelling consumption and economic

stabilization to improving health outcomes andprotection from environmental risks (both sudden-onset extremes and slow-onset challenges).

As we embark on the post-2015 agenda, UNDPadvocates for a broad approach to social protection,framed by the pillars of sustainable developmentand human rights. In this context, social protectionis conceptualized as a set of initiatives that providesocial assistance to the extreme poor; ensure accessto basic social services for all, especially groups thatare traditionally vulnerable or excluded; stimulate

productive inclusion through the development ofcapabilities, skills, rights and opportunities for the poorand excluded; and build resilience and protect peopleagainst the risks of shocks throughout their life cycle.

UNRISD makes the point that if our purpose is to gobeyond poverty reduction, then our approach mustchange. For countries that have been successfulin increasing the well-being of the majority oftheir population, long-term processes of structuraltransformation, not poverty reduction per se, werecentral to public policy objectives. Therefore, thechallenge for social protection is whether and how it

can play a transformative role and what adaptationsmay be necessary for it to do so. This includesanticipating conflicts and trade-offs, which could arisewhen development objectives that may not always becompatible are pursued simultaneously.

With this broader approach, social protection is wellpositioned to serve as a fundamental instrument forachieving the Sustainable Development Goals. However,there are some important challenges that need to beaddressed in order to meet these expectations.

Conceptualizing social protection from ahuman rights and SDGs approach

For social protection to contribute towards equityand sustainability, it needs to be grounded in theprinciples of human rights and based on the idea thatall human beings are born free and equal in statusand rights. The notion of social protection systems asan obligation is very well established under humanrights law. It flows directly from the right to socialsecurity and a decent standard of living, which isrecognized by articles 22 and 25 of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights and article 9 of theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights.4

At the United Nations Millennium Summit inSeptember 2010, Heads of State and Governmentreaffi rmed social protection as a human right intheir commitment to implement social protectionfloors (SPF). SPFs are defined as nationally set socialprotection systems and measures to guaranteeessential health care and income security for all.5More recently, on 14 June 2012, the InternationalLabour Conference adopted Recommendation No.202 concerning national floors for social protection,defined as nationally determined sets of basicsocial security guarantees aimed at preventing or

alleviating poverty, vulnerability and social exclusion(International Labour Organization, 2012).

Furthermore, the right to social protection isemphasized in the new development agenda that wasagreed upon in September 2015. In the SustainableDevelopment Goals, social protection and socialprotection floors are mentioned in four instances:(i) as a target within Goal 1 to eradicate extremepoverty and hunger; (ii) as a target of universal healthcoverage in Goal 3; (iii) in the equality goal (Goal 10)as a policy area that needs to be pushed to addressinequality and finally, (iv) in support of the gendergoal (Goal 5), as part of the care economy, which canbe monetarized through social protection transfers.

Even with these commitments, there are stillimportant challenges to incorporating a rights-basedperspective into social protection programmes.Some governments are resistant to explicitly definerights to social protection, as they argue their lowadministrative capacity makes it unfeasible to doso. Others deem it unaffordable given the fiscalconstraints often faced by developing countries,

4The right to social security is also enshrined in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, article 11; Convention

on the Rights of the Child, article 26; the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families,

article 27; and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, article 28.5United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 65/1, paragraph 51.


7/16

38

SOCIAL

PROTECTIONFO

R

SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPM

ENT

-SP4SD

namely least developed countries and fragilestates. Finally, governments might be wary aboutinstitutionalizing a rights-based approach to socialprotection, as it could make them vulnerable to legalclaims if they are unable to fund and deliver socialprotection to all.

Leaving no one behind: making socialprotection systems inclusive

Despite the global expansion of social protection,examples from all over the world show thatprogrammes often, albeit unintentionally, overlookpopulation groups such as women, the extreme poor,indigenous groups, ethnic minorities, people withdisabilities, those dependent on natural resources, thedisplaced, migrants and informal sector workers, toname a few. Furthermore, they are often inflexible andunable to rapidly incorporate those who experiencedeprivation due to shocks or crises. Guaranteeingbasic social protection remains a major developmentchallenge in many countries, with 73 percent ofthe worlds population living without access tocomprehensive social protection.6,7

Social protection can curb social exclusion if designedto overcome the barriers individuals face due tospecific characteristics such as gender, ethnicity,HIV status, geographic location and disability status.Programmes that do not directly address inclusion canactually reinforce existing inequalities and contributeto exclusion by leaving the marginalized behind.

For instance, education grants and school-basedmeal programmes may not increase girls access toschooling and might actually leave them in a moredisadvantaged position in relation to their peers ifinformal social norms continue to restrict femaleeducation. Similarly, targeting by social category canexacerbate social divisions by including some groupsand excluding others, and poverty targeting can resultin the stigmatization of beneficiaries. Critically, relyingon the mother for the transmission of grants can haveboth positive and negative implications for genderequality: while it may guarantee a more effective use

of grants, it can also confine women to the traditionalunpaid care role and further entrench the idea that thisis a role that women must play.

That said, much can be done to the design andimplementation of social protection to ensure that itsupports social inclusion. By acknowledging the factthat women and men face different constraints and byaddressing the barriers that often limit opportunitiesfor women and girls, including obstacles to womenseconomic advancement, social protection can promotegender equality. Similarly, evidence shows that HIV-sensitive social protection can reduce vulnerability

to HIV, improve and extend the lives of people livingwith HIV, and support individuals and households.Emerging evidence confirms that social protectioncontributes to HIV prevention and treatment uptakeand adherence (Joint United Nations Programme onHIV/AIDS, 2010; UNDP, 2014a).

Examples from a range of programmes highlightthe significant opportunities for social protectionprogrammes to advance inclusive and sustainabledevelopment. The challenge seems to be inmoving these from flagship innovations to part ofthe mainstream approach to both transformationand resilience building. In the four programmeshighlighted below, significant attention has beengiven to gender equality as a structural factor, thoughsuccess in reaching targets has been diverse. Theserepresent an important foundation to build on whenexpanding social protection beyond its current,somewhat narrow confines and crafting elements to

target multiple development objectives.

6Comprehensive social protection is defined as social protection in the various areas that matter to well-being and throughout an individuals

life cycle. In its most basic sense, comprehensive social protection will include coverage in health, education, food security and income forchildren, young adults, working age individuals, mothers and older persons.7International Labour Organization, 2014.

UNDP, IPC-IG/Reyner Araujo


8/16

39

COUNTRY,PROGRAMME

STATUS OBJECTIVENUMBER OFBENEFICIARIES

TIMINGPAYMENTMODALITY

FEMALE

PARTICIPATION%

Brazil, Bolsa Verde(Green GrantProgramme)

activesince 2011

anti-poverty36,384 families(as of February2013)a

year-round

cash 98b

Ethiopia,Productive SafetyNet Programme(PSNP)

activesince 2005

anti-poverty7.6 millionpeople (2009)

year-round

cash andfood

41c

India, MahatmaGandhiNational RuralEmployment

Guarantee Act(NREGA)

activesince 2006

guaranteeemployment

54.9 millionhouseholds(2011)

year-round

cash 49

South Africa,ExpandedPublic WorksProgramme(EPWP)

activesince 2004

anti-poverty,unemploymentreduction

467,785households(2004/05-2008/09)

year-round

cash60 (target)52 (WfW)d

a. According to the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment.b. Average for beneficiaries of the Bolsa Familiaprogramme.c. This average was derived on data from five regions, which was taken from Berhane and others, 2011.d. Working for Water programme. Data from the Department of Water Affairs of South Africa.

TABLE 2SCALE AND ATTRIBUTES OF SELECTED PUBLIC WORK PROGRAMMES8

8Burkolter and Perch, 2014.

Source: Subbarao and others, 2012.

Some of the challenges in delivering inclusive socialprotection also relate to affordability and institutionalcapacity. It is often more expensive to reach thosetraditionally left behind, as they may be cut off frominformation. It also requires having local capacities inremote and isolated areas. Furthermore, the sociallyexcluded often lack the voice or agency to contributemeaningfully to the shaping of decision-makingprocesses that affect their lives. This lack of agencyand political participation further entrenches socialexclusion and thus limits the transformative effectsof social protection interventions. Efforts are neededto make social protection everyones business andpromote it as a tool for many sectors.

Moving from social protection programmes toa system approach

Now more than ever, the development challengesfaced by governments and development partners are

complex and interrelated and do not come packagedaccording to the traditional mandates of ministries,sectors or agencies within the UN System.

Social protection programmes are often fragmentedand developed as a response to specific problemswithout building on or offering complementaritiesto other programmes in operation. In manycountries, non-governmental or grassrootsorganizations introduce projects and programmeswithout coordinating among themselves. Althoughsignificant advancements have been made bytackling development objectives separately andgreat expertise and problem-solving ability havebeen developed at the international and countrylevels, integrating social protection into systems andprogrammes that deal with issues simultaneously hasproven to be diffi cult.

Fragmentation occurs at various levels: (i) betweensectors (e.g. health, education and social security); (ii)in coverage for formal and informal workers; and (iii) atdifferent stages in the life cycle, when transitions fromone stage to another are left uncovered.

The danger of fragmented programmes is that even ifthey alleviate the immediate consequences of povertyat certain points in the beneficiaries lives, they fail


9/16

40

SOCIAL

PROTECTIONFO

R

SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPM

ENT

-SP4SD

to address the underlying causes of deprivation andexclusion and to ensure that individuals do not fallback when transitioning from one stage in life toanother. For example, education programmes that donot support the school-to-work transition process orestablish links to labour markets often do not succeedin enabling beneficiaries to increase their productivity

and accumulate the assets they need to escape povertyand deprivation in the long-term.

There seems to be a general understanding of thecrucial need for comprehensive social protection, andthat reducing fragmentation across programmes,actors and levels of government can decreaseineffi ciencies, enhance coverage and improveresponsiveness to risks. However, the challenges tosystemic social protection are substantial. For one, asocial protection programme that is set up quickly asan emergency response to a crisis must be developedwithin the system already in place in the country.

This is complicated, of course, since there may beinherent trade-offs between quick implementationand coordination with other programmes.

Coordinating actions among and within differentministries, actors, sectors and regions is alsochallenging and countries are still striving toimprove both operational and policy coordination.Experiences with conditional cash transfers thattackle various dimensions of well-being at the sametime, for example, show that effective cooperationbetween social assistance, health services and

education providers is very hard to achieve. Countriesthat have been successful have often resorted tocreating independent councils or boards with theobjective of strategically organizing, planning andcoordinating policies among the different ministriesinvolved. As ambitions to expand social protectionto cover additional dimensions such as ecosystems

services or climate resilience grow, so do therequirements and challenges for coordinationacross ministries. Existing programmes, namelythose that have linked environmental and socialaspects, provide critical lessons for moving beyondthese limitations and building a new comprehensiveframework for social protection.

The implementation of the SDGs can be used as awindow of opportunity for establishing a systemicapproach to social protection that contributes tomany goals simultaneously. In the SDGs, socialprotection is linked mainly to the social agenda i.e.

poverty reduction, gender equality and reducinginequality. Expanding into a broader approachwould better guarantee more comprehensiverisk management, social promotion and socialdevelopment, rather than just providing aid andrescue. Moreover, by linking environmental andsocial concerns, a number of silos and barriers topolicy convergence and coherence can potentiallybe broken down and ultimately eliminated. This iscritical in the current context where a significantamount of financing for development is driven byenvironmental concerns.

Expanding social protection into

a broader approach would better

guarantee more comprehensive riskmanagement, social promotion and

social development, rather than just

providing aid and rescue.


10/16

41

It is well established that the destruction of thenatural resource base as a result of environmentaldegradation aggravates deprivation. Deprivationand environmental degradation reinforce each

other, as the poor are often forced to resortto natural resource-based livelihoods, such asoverfishing, slash-and-burn agriculture, and othermeans for survival, which can further harm anddeplete the natural resources they depend on fora living. Moreover, the poor are more vulnerableto the early onset realities of environmentalchange. The erosion of watersheds coupled withtorrential rains attributed to climate changelead to flooding and landslides, which, in turn,increase the vulnerability of poor households.When comparing the impact of hurricanes on

the shared island of Hispaniola, devastation andloss of life tends to be much more severe in Haitithan in the neighbouring Dominican Republicdue, in part, to the much lower percentage ofremaining forest cover in Haiti following decadesof deforestation. Other differences in levels ofeducation, political stability and infrastructurealso have a compounding effect (Webersik andKlose, 2010).

There is a growing convergence between climatechange adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction(DRR) actions and programming, which are

typically associated with social protection policies.

Emergency employment schemes, cash-for-workprogrammes, education and training, insuranceschemes and cash transfers are all activities usedfor social protection purposes as well.

Unfortunately, the vital policy links between povertyand inequality reduction and the environmentare still more overlooked than integrated into themainstream in both industrialized and developingcountries. According to a study by the Instituteof Development Studies (IDS), DRR and socialprotection may be identical in terms of theiractivities and outcomes, differing principally intheir motivations and institutional homes (Daviesand others, 2008). Building on the successes ofBrazil, Ethiopia and South Africa, to name a few,

and linking with efforts to use economic/marketinstruments to generate environmental and socialbenefits could also help to better understandthe economic, social and political infrastructurethat is needed in order to make these links partand parcel of a new business as usual. The factthat the funding streams for DRR, CCA and socialprotection are very different creates furtherchallenges for collaboration between work beingdone on environmental and social issues. Evenso, the increasing convergence of these agendasin peoples lives, the market economy and publicpolicy clearly creates an opening for the adoption

of a new approach.

Including environmental concerns and vulnerability arising from a changing environment within thescope of social protection

UN Photo/Milton Grant


11/16

42

SOCIAL

PROTECTIONFO

R

SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPM

ENT

-SP4SD

Despite growing levels of political support anddemand for social protection, funding remainsa very important challenge for many countries.This is particularly the case in least developedcountries, fragile states or highly indebted

countries, where some argue that resources aretoo limited to be able to invest in social protectionprograms. This view is driven by the belief thatsocial protection is a policy option or handoutrather than a human right and an investment inproductivity and economic growth.

In spite of the rapidly growing evidence of theaffordability of basic social protection packagesthat expand income security and scale-up essentialhealth services even in the poorest countries(ILO, 2011), they are still often viewed as fiscallyunsustainable and believed to create dependency

among recipients. It is equally true, however, thatthis view is also contested by research and otherevidence. An assessment prepared for a group of100 developing countries suggests that the costof providing a basic universal pension equivalentto US$1 per day to all people over the age of 60would amount to less than one percent of grossdomestic product (GDP) per annum in 66 out of 100developing countries (United Nations Departmentof Economic and Social Affairs, 2007). I t would have

a positive impact on other household members aswell. Additionally, ILO costing studies on a basicpackage of social protection that includes old-ageand disability pensions and family allowances, butnot health care, for a select set of low- and low-

middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa andAsia show that the cost of the cash benefit packagewould be between 2.2 percent and 5.7 percent ofGDP (ILO, 2008). The annual cost of Ethiopias PSNPprogramme is equivalent to 1.2 percent of GDP.Safety net coverage in Kenya is equivalent to 0.80percent of GDP. Even if fiscal space can be createdto fund programmes in the short term, sustainingexpenditure in the long-term to meet the recurrentcommitment social protection requires can beextremely diffi cult.

Many countries have shown significant

commitment to social protection and have assigneda percentage of the national budget to socialprotection programming. Brazil is well known for itscommitment over the last 12 years to the ProgramaBolsa Familia (PBF, Family Allowance Programme).Similarly, the Government of Bangladesh hasshown clear commitment to social protection: in its2014-2015 budget, it allocated 5.6 percent of thetotal, up by over 23 percent from the previous year(Bangladesh Awami League, 2014).

Securing reliable long-term funding for social protection

UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe;


12/16

43

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O C I A L P R O T E C T I O N

Country conditions vary and the appropriateand politically feasible response to developmentchallenges will most likely differ across countries.However, as outlined earlier in this chapter, socialprotection is not only a right, but also a fundamental

tool for achieving sustainable development.

The post-2015 development agenda provides ahistorical opportunity to shift from developmentin silos to a more integrated approach that takeseconomic, social and environmental concerns intoconsideration. This view was reinforced by theRio+20 Outcome, the MDG Summit Outcome, andthe Secretary-Generals synthesis reports. Highlyvisible in the Sustainable Development Goals, socialprotection is positioned to provide a frameworkfor this integrated approach. An opportunity also

exists to rethink the social equity and environmentalsustainability intersections that lie at the core ofsustainable development, while paying specialattention to effectiveness of the new models andtheir effi ciencies. Not only does green policy requirea stronger social lens, but social policy itself alsoneeds to be more proactive in green policy efforts.This also calls for a re-examination of the economicdimensions and the interlinked goals i.e. lookingbeyond aggregates and poverty lines.

To meet these expectations, this paper sets forth the following recommendations:

Tailor social protection interventionsto country contexts

There is no one size fits all social

protection infrastructure and road map for

all countries. Some of the most successfulsocial protection programmes are those ledby the countries themselves, which theyhave designed and tailored to their specificcontext, while drawing on global experiences.The extent to which groups trust governmentinstitutions and relate to local and nationalactors, and their view on the scope of thegovernments responsibilities will determinethe success or failure of social protection.Similarly, a countrys fiscal capacity, thestrength of its institutions and the capacity of

its civil servants will influence the feasibility ofprogrammes.

Adopt a rights-based approach tosocial protection with a focus onsocial inclusion

Incorporate the right to social protection into

domestic legal frameworks: This means thatgovernments recognize that at least the veryminimum levels of social protection are not a policyoption, but a legal obligation under internationalhuman rights law. In that context, the right to socialsecurity should be incorporated into domesticlaws and, where possible, enshrined in nationalconstitutions. They should also be reinforced byan appropriate and adequately funded, long-terminstitutional framework. A rights-based focus willalso include legislation to ensure equity and accessto services without discrimination of any kind,

and pro-active actions to ensure access to thosewho suffer from structural discrimination, suchas women, persons with disabilities, indigenouspeoples, minorities and the elderly;

UN Photo/Tobin Jones


13/16

44

SOCIAL

PROTECTIONFO

R

SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPM

ENT

-SP4SD

Support vulnerable groups throughout

their life cycle: Implementing agencies mustacknowledge that the impacts of social protectionprogrammes are not neutral for certain groups,such as women, ethnic minorities, people livingwith HIV, people living with disabilities, youth andthe elderly. Thus, the design and implementation

of social protection strategies must address thespecific needs of vulnerable groups throughouttheir life cycle (childhood, adolescence, adulthoodand old age);

Collect disaggregated data for monitoring

purposes: One important step towards buildingsocial protection that promotes inclusion is todevelop and collect disaggregated data in relationto gender, age, ethnicity and disability to monitorand evaluate social protection programmes.

Move towards social protection systemsand build linkages to other economicand social sectors

Institutionalize integration and coordination

across sectors: An integrated and coordinatedsocial protection strategy that reducesfragmentation and ensures coordination acrossall multi-sectoral stakeholders (includingnon-governmental actors) can increase theeffectiveness of social protection, reduceduplication and ensure that no one is left behind;

Build social protection systems: A systemicapproach to social protection focuses onfostering linkages and coordination among socialprotection programmes and across sectors, whileaddressing power imbalances that drive andentrench poverty, vulnerabilities and inequality.It is also concerned with sequencing and timinginterventions to ensure that capacities are built atthe appropriate time;

Introduce social protection floors: The

introduction of social protection floors (SDGTarget 1.3) is a good first step towards ensuringcomprehensive social protection for all. It providesa coherent and coordinated policy frameworkthat addresses multidimensional vulnerabilities inan integrated and interconnected way. Nationalsocial protection floors can combine basicincome security guarantees with effective access

to essential social services. This would enhancelinkages and potential synergies across theeconomic, social and environmental dimensionsof sustainable development.

Include environmental concerns in the

design and implementation of socialprotection

Strengthen linkages between social protection

and natural resource management: In a globalcontext of recurrent droughts, floods and soilerosion, social protection needs to ensure thatthose dependent on natural resources for theirlivelihoods are protected and become moreresilient. At the same time, it must encouragebetter management of natural resources to reducetheir depletion and the likelihood of adverse

events. Sound environmental managementgoes hand in hand with poverty and inequalityreduction, and policies in these areas should bedesigned to reinforce one another. Risk-informedsocial protection holds significant promise forprotecting poor and excluded people from naturalevents and tackling increasing levels of risk andvulnerability;

Harmonize the implementation of social

protection programmes with climate/

disaster response: Linking social protectionto work on DDR and CCA has the potentialto build on synergies, avoid duplications,develop economies of scale and achieveoverall better results. If DRR actions aredelivered and coordinated by using socialprotection mechanisms already in place,important efficiency gains can save livesand minimize impacts of natural disasters.Furthermore, coordination between theseareas of work would prevent any offsetsthat programmes might have on each other.Greater interaction could produce socialprotection policies that help vulnerable

households escape poverty and becomemore resilient to the increasing number ofclimate-related shocks. Interdisciplinary andjoint planning, implementation and learningare key mechanisms for breaking out of thesilos in which social protection, DRR and CCAcurrently operate.


14/16

45

Make the case for social protectionfunding

Strengthen the value for money proposition:To ensure long-term and sustainable financing forsocial protection, it is important to make the casefor investment in social protection by promoting

its cost-effectiveness, sustainability and value formoney. Social protection has proven to be a sourceof resilience during shocks, as it supports growth,poverty reduction, social inclusion and increasesin productivity. It also fosters the accumulationof productive assets and can stabilize aggregatedemand at the macro-economic level;

Social protection is affordable (and highly

visible for the price): While there are manychallenges to creating fiscal space for socialprotection programmes, several recent studies

demonstrate that basic social protection packagesare affordable, even in the poorest countries;

Demonstrate the multiplier effect of

investments in social protection: Evidenceshows that every dollar invested in socialprotection can generate much larger payoffswhen increases in productivity and schoolattendance and the prevention of illnesses aretaken in to account. For example, one study foundthat in very poor countries, each dollar spent onnutrition-related interventions for children hasat least a 30-dollar payoff. In the United States

it is estimated that every dollar invested in earlychildhood interventions saves taxpayers 13dollars in the future. Analysis of the impact of cashtransfers on HIV outcomes provides evidence thatthe value of averted HIV infections far outweighsthe cost of the programmes;

Mobilize domestic resources: There are anumber of ways in which funding for socialprotection can be secured. They includemobilizing additional domestic resources throughtax reforms or enforcement; reallocating resources

from underperforming programmes that providedistorting general subsidies; reallocate debt

payment towards social protection using debtrelief initiatives such as the Heavily Indebted PoorCountry Initiative (HIPC) and the Multilateral DebtRelief Initiative (MDRI), or increased borrowing.Indonesia, for example, recently eliminated fuelsubsidies and used the resources to financenewly introduced universal health coverage.

The Philippines introduced taxes on tobaccoand alcohol to expand the scope of its universalhealth coverage and reduce health expendituresbrought on by mortality and morbidity associatedwith tobacco and alcohol consumption. Thailandissued government use licenses to access genericversions of medicines, which led to substantialprice reductions that enabled the government toprovide treatment to over 84,000 people;

Explore innovative and emerging funding

sources: Some innovative ways to raise fundingto finance the SDGs and social protection

include international solidarity levy on air tickets;debt conversions (e.g. Debt2Health, debt-for-environment and debt-for-education swaps);voluntary solidarity contributions (e.g. Product(RED), MASSIVEGOOD and the Digital SolidarityLevy); weather and commodity related insurance;diaspora bonds; counter-cyclical lending; climateadaptation funding; emissions trading andcurtailing illicit outflows of capital, among manyothers;

Start small to make the case and scale-up:

Some countries have been quite successfulin scaling up social protection programmes.The Government of Zambia, for example, hasbeen able to scale up its Social Cash TransferProgramme: the number of householdsreceiving benefits rose from 60,000 householdsin 2013 to about 150,000 by mid-2014, andthe number of districts covered from 19 to50. Following a strong commitment from thegovernment to end poverty and vulnerability,the budget allocation for the programmereceived an unprecedented 800 percentincrease. This means it went from US$4 millionin 2013, to nearly US$30 million in 2014.


15/16

46

SOCIAL

PROTECTIONFO

R

SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPM

ENT

-SP4SD

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Antonopoulos, Rania, Impact of Employment Guarantee Programmes on Gender Equality and Pro-Poor EconomicDevelopment: Case-Study on South Africa, The Levy Economics Institute Policy Brief, Levy Institute website, 2008.Available from http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/UNDP-Levy/South_Africa/Policy_Brief_EPWP_South_Africa.pdfAzevedo, Joo Pedro and others, Fifteen Years of Inequality in Latin America: How Have Labor Markets Helped?, PolicyResearch Working Paper 6384, The World Bank, 2013.

Babajanian, Babken and Hagen-Zanker, Jessica, Social Protection and Social Exclusion: an Analytical Framework to Assessthe Links, ODI Background Note, Overseas Development Institute website, October 2012. Available fromhttp://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/7864.pdf

Bangladesh Awami League, Budget 2014-2015 in Extending Social Protection, 11 June 2014. Available fromhttp://www.albd.org/index.php/en/resources/special-reports/1241-budget-2014-2015-in-extending-social-protection

Barrientos, Armando and Nio-Zaraza, Miguel, Social Assistance in Developing Countries Database Version 5.0, MunichPersonal RePEc Archive Paper 20001, University Library of Munich, Germany, 2010. Available fromhttp://econpapers.repec.org/paper/pramprapa/20001.htm

Berhane, Guush and others, Evaluation of Ethiopias Food Security Program: Documenting Progress in theImplementation of the Productive Safety Nets Programme and the Household Asset Building Programme. EthiopiaStrategy Support Program II (ESSP II) Ethiopian Development Research Institute Report, International Food PolicyResearch Institute, Washington DC., 2011. Available from http://essp.ifpri.info/files/2013/05/ESSPII_EDRI_Report_PSNP.pdf

Burkolter, Pablo and Perch, Leisa, Greening Growth in the South: practices, policies and new frontiers, South AfricanJournal of International Affairs,September 2014. Available from http://migre.me/u0rNG

Calman, Leslie J. and Tarr-Whelan, Linda, Early Childhood Education for All: A Wise Investment. Recommendations arisingfrom The Economic Impacts of Child Care and Early Education: Financing Solutions for the Future Conference, LegalMomentums Family Initiative and the MIT Workplace Center, New York, 2005. Available from http://migre.me/u0rOe

Davies, Mark and others, Adaptive Social Protection: Synergies for Poverty Reduction, Institute of Development Studies,IDS Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 4, 2008. Available from https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/13Davies39.4web.pdf

Hoddinott, John, Rosegrant, Mark and Torero, Maximo, Hunger and Malnutrition: Investments to reduce Hunger andUndernutrition, Paper prepared for 2012 Global Copenhagen Consensus, International Food Policy Research Institute,2012. Available from http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/hungerandmalnutrition.pdf

International Labour Organization (ILO), Can low-income countries afford basic social security?, Social Security PolicyBriefings, No. 3, Geneva, 2008.

ILO, Recommendation concerning National Floors of Social Protection (No. 202), 101st

Session, Geneva, 2012.

ILO, Social Protection Floor for a Fair and Inclusive Globalization: Report of the Advisory Group chaired by MichelleBachelet, Geneva, 2011. Available from http://migre.me/u0rQ4

ILO, World Social Protection Report, 2014/2015: Building Economic Recovery, Inclusive Development and Social Justice,Geneva, 2014. Available from http://migre.me/u0rR3

Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, UNAIDS Expanded Business Case: Enhancing Social Protection. Geneva,2010. Available from http://ow.ly/T2c7l

Lieuw-Kie-Song, Maikel R., Green Jobs for the Poor: A Public Employment Approach, Discussion Paper, UNDP, New York,2009. Available from http://www.undg-policynet.org/ext/economic_crisis/PG-2009-002-discussion-paper-greenjobs.pdf

LpezCalva, Luis F. and Lustig, Nora, Explaining the Decline in Inequality in Latin America: Technological Change,Educational Upgrading, and Democracy, in Declining Inequality in Latin America: A Decade of Progress?, BrookingsInstitution Press and UNDP, New York, 2010.

LpezCalva, Luis F. and Ortiz-Juarez, Eduardo, Deconstructing the Decline in Inequality in Latin America, TulaneEconomics Working Paper Series, Working Paper 1314, Tulane University, Department of Economics, 2013. Available fromhttp://econ.tulane.edu/RePEc/pdf/tul1314.pdf

Lustig, Nora; Lpez Calva, Luis F. and Ortiz-Juarez, Eduardo, The Decline in Inequality in Latin America: How Much,Since When and Why, Tulane Economics Working Paper Series, Working Papers 1118, Tulane University, Department ofEconomics, 2011.

Perch, Leisa, Stahlberg, Stephanie and Potiara, Carlos, A Co-Benefits Approach to Sustainable Development:strengthening equality and poverty reduction through climate change, Working Paper 75, International Policy Centre forInclusive Growth, Braslia, 2010. Available from http://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCWorkingPaper75.pdf

Remme, Michelle and others, Financing Structural Interventions: going beyond HIV-only value for money assessments,Offi cial Journal of the International AIDS Society, Vol. 28, Issue 3, 28 January 2014, pages 425434.

Saad, Layla and Perch, Leisa, Searching for the Social Engine of the Green Growth Locomotive: Green as Social in the NewGrowth Paradigm, Working Paper Series No. 1, UNDP World Centre for Sustainable Development (RIO+ Centre) website,2014. Available from https://riopluscentre.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/working_paper_final.pdf


16/16

47

Samson, Michael, The Impact of Social Transfers on Growth, Development, Poverty and Inequality in DevelopingCountries, in Peter Townsend (ed.), Building Decent Societies: Rethinking the role of Social Security in Development, PalgraveMacMillan, 2009. Available from http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9780230251052

Subbarao, Kalanidhi and others, Public Works as a Safety Net: Design, Evidence, and Implementation, World Bank,Washington DC., 2012.

UNDP, Discussion Paper: Cash transfers and HIV Prevention, New York, 2014a. Available from http://bit.ly/26yzWy8

UNDP, Discussion Paper: Innovative Financing for Development, A New Model for Development Finance? , New York,2012. Available from http://ow.ly/T29uT

UNDP, Human Development Report 2014. Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience,PBM Graphics, Washington DC, 2014b. Available from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-report-en-1.pdf

UNICEF, Fiscal Space for Strengthened Social Protection, West and Central Africa, UNICEF Regional Offi ce for West andCentral Africa, February 2009. Available from http://www.unicef.org/wcaro/wcaro_UNICEF_ODI_2_Fiscal_Space.pdf

UNICEF, Zambia Hosts Cash Transfer Meeting: Turning Social Cash Transfers into Social Protection, December 2014.Available from http://www.unicef.org/zambia/6831_15958.html

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Economic and Social Survey 2007: Development in anAgeing World, 2007. Available from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_archive/2007wess.pdf

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, The Promise of Protection: Social Protectionand Development in Asia and the Pacific, 2011. Available from http://migre.me/u0s0w

United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 65/1, paragraph 51.

United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Combating Poverty and Inequality: Structural Change, SocialPolicy and Politics, 2010.

Webersik, Christian and Klose, Christian, Environmental Change and Political instability in Haiti and the Dominican Republic:Explaining the Divide, Paper presented to the CSCW Working Group 3 Workshop, Oslo, 16 and 17 December 2010.

Zapata, Clovis and others, Retrofitting the Brazilian Biodiesel Programme: Implications for Policy Design, Policy ResearchBrief, IPC-IG website, 2010. Available from http://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCPolicyResearchBrief15.pdf

Documents

Social Protection in the Context of Sustainable Development: Challenges and opportunities