Social Protection enhancement in the Eastern Caribbean: Lessons learned from EU interventions

1. Social Protection enhancement in the Eastern Caribbean: Lessons learned from EU interventions Koen Rossel-Cambier EU Delegation for Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean OAS Caribbean Conference on Horizontal Cooperation in Social Protection, Presentation 20 January 2011

2. Structure presentation • Background • EU interventions in social protection • The experience of social investment funds in the Eastern Caribbean • Lessons learned and ways forward

3. Background • EU: 27 countries • Various institutions: Council, Parliament, Commission and Agencies, Social Committee and Committee of Regions, • Intervention Modalities: • European Law and Policies • Programmes and funding • Collaboration mechanisms

4. EU concerted strategy for modernising social protection • Expenditure on social protection accounts for 28.5% of European Union GDP, • 63% of this amount is spent on pensions and health care. • Its role in the redistribution of income is immense: in absence of social transfer payments almost 40% of households would live in relative poverty, a figure which is reduced through tax and benefit systems to 17%.

5. EU concerted strategy for modernising social protection Promoting social integration “social protection systems should: • ensure effective safety nets, consisting of minimum income benefits and accompanying provisions; • focus on prevention, fostering active rather than passive measures and providing incentives and pathways to (re)integration into the labour market and society; • contribute to a comprehensive and integrated approach to fighting social exclusion, including all relevant policies and players.”

6. EU: A broader concept of social protection Beyond social security, includes most activities linked to prevention of and response to all social deficits; examples: • employment generation, • training, • access to micro-credit and - in a context of high informal economy -micro-insurance, • access to services to cover basic needs, and • other poverty reduction initiatives

7. EU developmentinterventions in social protection • The European Consensus on Development clearly indicates employment as a crucial factor to achieve high level of social cohesion. • The EC adopted over time a number of key policy documents to address employment, social protection and decent work for all • Financing instruments in the period 2007-2013: • The European Development Fund (ACP countries), • Global Programme “Investing in People” • SUGAR and BANANA accompanying measures (SFA) • EU MDG support initiative

8. EU initiatives on Social Protection in the Eastern Caribbean • Technical support to social protection reform: e.g. SKN, DOM • Budget support to PRSP: e.g. Dominica, Grenada • Support to vocational training and human resources development (e.g. SLU, BAR) • Social Investment Funds

9. The experience of social investment funds in the Eastern Caribbean • Social Investment funds: Financing mechanisms that promote/finance public investments in small-scale projects in a variety of sectors identified, and in many cases carried out, by local groups (communities, local governments and NGOs) • Eastern Caribbean: • Saint Lucia: over 4.5 million euro • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: 4.25 million euro (2006-2008) • Dominica: 4.4 million euro (2006-2009)

10. Example: Dominica SIF • 25 vulnerable plans and 10 community plans developed • 53 projects with each a training component • Beneficiaries: 7547 persons and 2300 households • 6 vulnerable groups: elderly, children at risk, youth at risk, women, Carib community, physically and mentally challenged • 20 communities • 591 cases of short term employment • 433 persons benefitting from 22 training activities on +management, ECD, proposal writing, leadership, financial management and MandE

11. Good practice from 3 countries • Outreach to low-income and vulnerable persons • Visibility: internet, TV and press • Participatory planning and implementation • Community contracting • Trickle down of funds for communities • Flexibility in implementation • Income generating or employment creation spin offs • Capacity building

12. Risks and challenges of SIFs • Selection of communities • Efficiency : start up, recruitment and capacity within project implementation period • Overlaps with parallel social funds and mandates of various ministries • Sustainability: • Project outcomes: maintenance by communities? • SIF: dependent on donor funding • Political interference • Depth but no breadth of poverty outreach • Little evidence of decrease of poverty attributed to SIF • Transaction costs

13. EU Evaluation of three SIFs • Relevance and sustainability of the project outputs and outcomes to the overall SFA framework • Efficiency and effectiveness by country of the respective social investment funds • Coherence in partnerships created and participatory approach. • Commonalities and differences between the three country approaches • Recommendations for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of future similar interventions

14. Questions at hand • How do SIFs fit into the larger picture of a national social protection framework? • Are they suitable to become a long-term tool for community-oriented social protection interventions? • Do SIFs alleviate intergenerational poverty and increase social protection?

15. Thank you for your attention