Child Wellbeing in Uzbekistan : Developing a Common Vision

1. Child Wellbeing in Uzbekistan:Developing a Common Vision Preliminary results of the country study in Uzbekistan 2-4 April 2008 Tashkent, Uzbekistan

2. Measuring approaches • Income-based poverty (low limit ofwages) • ‘Community-based’ self-assessment poverty (system of social protection through ‘makhalla’) • Consumption-based poverty (the calorie-based – 2100 k/cal) Living Standardsin Uzbekistan (1)

4. Public policy andmeasures • Social orientation of transition period (doctrine) • Full coverage of social policy to avoid sharp fall in living standards (in early years of transition) • The highest level of social policy expenditures among CIS countries and other transition economies • Targeted measures of public policy against individual groups of population • Narrowing of coverage, strengthening of targetness, increasing of volumes Living Standardsin Uzbekistan (2)

5. WIS – a comprehensive approach at the national level • Transition from ‘socially-oriented’ policyto ‘pro-poor’ macroeconomic and institutional reforms • Consolidation of all macroeconomic, sectoral and regional (territorial) programs into a single strategy to provide comprehensivity (complexity) and synergies • Attempting to reconsider macroeconomic policy – from ‘export-led’ growth to ‘investment-led’ growth Living Standardsin Uzbekistan (3)

6. Regionalization and localization of WIS • Localization of national priorities– a unified instrument for WIS implementation • Developing of regional development strategies: strengthening of local capacities, complexity, priorities • Strengthening of local (regional) capacities to ensure targetness of fiscal, monetary and social policiesfor improving living standards, especially vulnerable population groups • Examples: Republic of Karakalpakstan, Namangan, Ferganaand Kashkadaraya Viloyats (provinces) Living Standardsin Uzbekistan (4)

7. The most sensitive categories • C1: Children from big families • C2: Children from rural families, living in mountain and other remote regions • C3: Children from families with single parent • C4: Children with disabilities • C5: Children from families with no temporary or permanent registration • C6: Children in public care • C7: Street children • C8: Children of migrants • C9: Children whose parents are unemployed Child Wellbeing Profile in Uzbekistan(1)

8. Child Wellbeing Profile in Uzbekistan (2) • Analysis of Child Wellbeing through 3 segments: • S1: Household income and expenditure patterns: analysis of household priorities and their impact on child wellbeing • S2: Access to public services and resources: analysis of accessibility and quality of guaranteed public services and its implications for child wellbeing • S3: Welfare implications of government polices: decision-making and policy-making processes; institutional-legal framework

9. Child Wellbeing Profile in Uzbekistan (3) • Measurement and indicators • Availability and accessibility of statistical information, in particular, the key indicators of child wellbeing (e.g., the level and concentration of child wellbeing / poverty) • Data incompatibilities due differing definitions, data collection and processing methods (e.g., a lack of commonly accepted definition of child wellbeing / poverty) • Frequency, timeliness and disaggregation level of available data on child wellbeing / poverty

10. Child Wellbeing Profile in Uzbekistan (4) Note: Most of indicators mentioned above, mainly in Global Study, either not available or the quality is under question. Therefore there is a need for further study, including conducting a specialized survey.

11. Policy Environment and Institutions:policy priorities (1) Priorities of social and economic policies reflects the main components of human development doctrine Employment and income generation Targeted employment programs Private sector development Elasticity of employment with respect to economic growth is low. For every one percentage point change in the economic growth rate, there is, on average, a 0.3-0.4 percentage point increase in formal-sector employment. At the same time employment does not always protect from poverty. Strong focus on guaranteeing protection for the vulnerable groups Pensions, allowances and other transfers plays important role in supporting vulnerable groups, including poor families with children Some allowances are allocated specifically for families with children Despite wide coverage (1) targeting is good but can be improved, not all elements of social protection achieve the goal (2) the amount paid to a household can be inadequate to protect the family, (3) there are no guarantees that money paid to the family will be used in the best interest of the child.

12. Focus on development of education Considerable investments in infrastructure Almost universal access to primary and secondary education, high rates of literacy Focus on development of professional education At the same time the quality of services does it not meet the requirements of labor market. It limits the opportunities for productive employment. Focus on development of healthcare system Development of primary healthcare, particularly in rural areas Specific attention to the focus on reproductive and maternal health, and child health Balanced nutrition, access to drinking water and sanitation – focus on root causes, not on consequences. But, (1) accessibility and quality of health care services can be improved, (2) more efforts are needed to improve living conditions and health of the population. Policy Environment and Institutions:policy priorities (2)

13. No child poverty profile At the same time: In accordance with WIS and other strategic documents essential structural reforms will be continued to maintain long-term sustainability of the economy This implies trade-offs for particular groups of population Social policy will play an important role compensating those trade-offs, including protection of children Effective institutions are needed to improve social policy (situation analysis, policy formulation, implementation and revision) Policy Environment and Institutions:strategy and policy measures • policy measures no not address the needs of vulnerables • insufficient coverage of vulnerable groups • low efficiency of poverty reduction measures

14. Policy formulation: Lack of bottom-up signals and inadequate policies and inadequate policy measures Lack of capacities to assess policy implications on child wellbeing during policy formulation Inability to program clear outcomes Policy implementation: Insufficient and untimely financing Lack of institutional and human capacities on the local level Unclear distribution of powers and responsibilities Inability to localize policies and ensure that outcomes are achieved Program and strategy monitoring and assessment: Weakness/absence of monitoring systems Lack of flexibility in policy formulation and implementation, particularly on local level Policy Environment and Institutions: implementation mechanisms

15. Partnership in preparation of Country Study • Consensus building and coordination of efforts • Optimizationof policies and measures, strengthening of monitoring and evaluation system • Local capacity building