Rwanda SP System
HD Week
February 5, 2013
Background/Context – first ever national
level SP program launched in march 2007
• 1st PRSP (2002-2005) lacked national le...
Background/Context
• Sector has significantly evolved over the last six years:
– from a host of fragmented projects and pr...
Summary of main SP CT Programs
Program and
Components
Targeting
mechanism and
geographical
coverage
Number of
Beneficiarie...
Summary of main SP CT Programs
Program and
Components
Targeting
mechanism and
geographical
coverage
Number of
Beneficiarie...
Summary of main SP CT Programs
Program and
Components
Targeting mechanism and
geographical coverage
Number of
Beneficiarie...
Background
Evolution on public spending – from 2004 through
2011: increased more than 13 times [all SP]; 14 times [CTs]; 1...
SP allocations to the 4 main transfer programs has
mainly come from the Government budget - though
total Government budget...
Coordinated SP System
• National Social Protection Strategy and
Implementation Plan (Jan. 2011; August 2011; being
updated...
Coordinated SP System
• VUP has been institutionalized into Rwanda Local
Development Support Fund (RLDSF).
• VUP medium te...
Coordinated System: Gains Made
• SP is now defined as a sector with a strong strategic and
policy orientation [NSPS 2011; ...
Coordinated System: Gains Made
• VUP currently covers 36% (public works and financial services
for the poor) and 43% (dire...
Coordinated System: Gains Made
• NSPS Update sets enhanced priorities in
response to evidence on poverty
characteristics: ...
Coordinated System: Gains Made -
Focus on the VUP
Measure 2008/2009 2012/13
Coverage:
Geographical Sectors
[out of 416 Sec...
Challenges to a Sustainable
Coordinated SP System
• Fiscal sustainability – Capacity by Government to
finance its budget n...
Challenges to a Sustainable
Coordinated SP System
• Increasing and Sustaining coverage of social assistance and social
ins...
Key elements and factors of Success
• Government Commitment and policy level
leadership – vision, policy and strategy owne...
Key elements and factors of Success
• Increasing Government budgetary commitments
to the sector – see slide 5.
• Strong re...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Social Protection System in Rwanda

554 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
554
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Social Protection System in Rwanda

  1. 1. Rwanda SP System HD Week February 5, 2013
  2. 2. Background/Context – first ever national level SP program launched in march 2007 • 1st PRSP (2002-2005) lacked national level policy and/or strategy on Social Protection: was characterized by off-budget fragmented programs; significant financing with no means based targeting. • 2nd PRSP (2008-2012) – known as Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS) made up of 3 flagships, one entirely focused on SP namely: Vision 2020 Umurenge Program (VUP). • VUP constitutes PW, DS/UCTs and FS components - implemented with an annual gradual expansion plan over the last five years through a decentralized governance system. • Currently, main programs include: VUP, FARG, RDRP, RSSB, Children and labour programs/policies in the respective ministries.
  3. 3. Background/Context • Sector has significantly evolved over the last six years: – from a host of fragmented projects and programs with no strategic orientation to a set of programs defined by a single strategy and implementation plan. – from largely donor and NGO led projects to increasingly Government led and coordinated programs. – from mainly donor financed projects to increasingly Government financed and “on-budget” or “on-plan” programs – though government financing is largely enabled by GBS from donors.
  4. 4. Summary of main SP CT Programs Program and Components Targeting mechanism and geographical coverage Number of Beneficiaries Program Management & M&E VUP Component 1: Direct Support Community based targeting system; 180/416 Sectors [ July 2012] Number of VUP Beneficiary Households FY2010-11: 18,892 FY2011-12: 27,631 Implementing agency under Ministry of Local Gov: RLDSF M&E National MIS to be developed Component 2: Public Works Community based targeting system; 150 Sectors as of July 2012 Number of VUP Beneficiary Households FY2010-11:103,557 FY2011-12: 94,397 Implementing agency under Ministry of Local Gov: RLDSF National MIS is being developed
  5. 5. Summary of main SP CT Programs Program and Components Targeting mechanism and geographical coverage Number of Beneficiaries Program Management & M&E Component 3: Financial Services Ubudehe system; 150 Sectors as of July 2012 Number of FS loans granted under Financial Services FY2011-12: 55,326 (14,956 loans) Implementing agency under Ministry of Local Gov: RLDSF National MIS is being developed FARG Beneficiary selection and identification of genocide survivors at community level, facilitated by Sector Exe. Secretary. Transfers made to individuals FY2012- 13: 21,039; down from 23,360 (2011-12) and 80,000 (2008) Implementing Agency: FARG. M&E: MIS currently in excel format. MIS to use SQL Server 2008 and Visual Studio 2008 is under implementation to overcome weaknesses
  6. 6. Summary of main SP CT Programs Program and Components Targeting mechanism and geographical coverage Number of Beneficiaries Program Management & M&E RDRP Based on level of vulnerability of disabled former combatants and medical screening processes. Vulnerability is determined by Sector’s Social Affairs Executive Secretaries based on RDRP specific guidelines. Transfer beneficiaries under different categories in FY2012-13: Total: 25,000 (2011) Note: Less beneficiaries but transfers generally higher than VUP/FARG. Implementing agency: Rwanda Demobilization and Reintegration Commission (RDRC) M&E: A desktop application using a relational database using SQL Server 2005 and Visual Studio 2008 is under development. MINALOC decentralized Earlier days did not include specific criteria and relied on instructions from the center, program is now focusing on non VUP sectors targeting category 1&2 beneficiaries Ad hoc – makes it difficult to determine numbers – slowly being phased out into the VUP. Non- systematic monitoring is happening at the district level but problems with consolidation at central level.
  7. 7. Background Evolution on public spending – from 2004 through 2011: increased more than 13 times [all SP]; 14 times [CTs]; 17 times [basic health and education]
  8. 8. SP allocations to the 4 main transfer programs has mainly come from the Government budget - though total Government budget in FY13 was over 40% donor financed. GovernmentSPFinancing 2009/10(actual) 2010/11(actual) 2011/12(actual) 2012/13(budget) 2013/14(budget) MainSPPrograms inUS$ inUS$ inUS$ inUS$ inUS$ 1. VUP 16,541,353 18,045,113 22,957,625 33,634,311 38,174,943 2. FARG 23,934,371 28,360,922 31,811,598 33,160,878 36,821,401 3. RDRC 5,559,783 2,869,209 5,975,555 6,014,760 7,915,776 4. MINALOCDecentralized [vulnerable groups] 2,264,054 1,808,370 2,649,560 8,912,743 9,699,492 Total GovernmentFinancing 48,299,561 51,083,614 63,394,338 81,722,692 92,611,613 IDASupport CLSG-2 CLSG-3 SSPS-1* SSPS-2 SSPS-3 InUS$ 6,000,000 6,000,000 40,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 IDAas%of total SectorFinancing 12% 12% 63% 12% 11% Note:Exchangerate(asof November27, 2012): 665 *SSPS-1frontloaded atUS$40million. Hereassumed equaldistribution acrossyearunderthree-yearSSPS distribution. SOCIALPROTECTION GOVERNMENTFINANCING - AmountinRWf
  9. 9. Coordinated SP System • National Social Protection Strategy and Implementation Plan (Jan. 2011; August 2011; being updated) • Social Protection Sector Working Groups (SWG) dialogue every 1-2 months • Joint Sector Reviews (JSRs) every six months over the last five years to assess progress and plan ahead. • SWGs and JSR bring together VUP, RSSB, Genocide Survivors Fund (FARG), RDRP and mutual health and children’s programs in the MoH and
  10. 10. Coordinated SP System • VUP has been institutionalized into Rwanda Local Development Support Fund (RLDSF). • VUP medium term Scale-up plan to increase its coverage was developed; is being implemented. • A harmonization policy was developed to strengthen linkages and integration of SP programs and mainstream most of the PW and DS interventions under the VUP. • An MIS (to include a unified registry) has been designed and is due for development and implementation in 2013.
  11. 11. Coordinated System: Gains Made • SP is now defined as a sector with a strong strategic and policy orientation [NSPS 2011; NSPS update 20113; Visibility in the EDPRS1 and EDPRS2] • A strong and evolving coordination structure exists under a single ministry with policy lead responsibility [ oversight] for most of the main SP programs - except the RSSB which falls under public service. • The VUP into which most SP programs are envisaged to be harmonized has steadily expanded in coverage – geographically and by household numbers.
  12. 12. Coordinated System: Gains Made • VUP currently covers 36% (public works and financial services for the poor) and 43% (direct support or unconditional cash transfers) • VUP currently reaches an estimated 0.5 million people [over 110,000 poor households] with strong results on the ground– ambitious plans for country coverage. • A strategy for increasing pension coverage especially among the informal sector employees is being implemented. • Links with DRM is top on policy and implementation agenda to contribute to the desired sustainability – policy guidelines to link SP with DRM have been developed.
  13. 13. Coordinated System: Gains Made • NSPS Update sets enhanced priorities in response to evidence on poverty characteristics: enhanced targeting of poor households with large household size, and with more children. • EDPRS2 has retained SP as a priority sector – with a systems approach - strong inbuilt targeting, graduation, IE and MIS mechanisms.
  14. 14. Coordinated System: Gains Made - Focus on the VUP Measure 2008/2009 2012/13 Coverage: Geographical Sectors [out of 416 Sectors] 30 [7%] 150-180 [36-43%] Coverage: Poor Households [beneficiaries] <10,000 [50,000] 121,000 [500,000] –direct support and public works only Timeliness of payments At least 2 months from due date Monthly – desired effective payment is on completion of 2 weeks of work . Budget execution rate 28% >90%
  15. 15. Challenges to a Sustainable Coordinated SP System • Fiscal sustainability – Capacity by Government to finance its budget needs remains low; aid predictability has been poor recently; implications for sustained expansion and desired country coverage of social assistance programs might be big? • Inter-agency and inter-ministerial coordination demands policy decisions with more long term impact to maximize efficiency gains: social protection ministry; social protection agency; … brining together social assistance, social insurance, labour policies/programs together
  16. 16. Challenges to a Sustainable Coordinated SP System • Increasing and Sustaining coverage of social assistance and social insurance programs (VUP: 36-43%; Pension: +/-5%; mutual health insurance: >90%) • Tackling second generation challenges successfully – Robust impact evaluation to inform difficult policy choices – Operationalizing the envisaged management information system – Achieving a sustainable operational links with DRM. • Maximizing effectiveness and efficiency gains in existing programs to increase coverage, impact and results– low pension coverage at about 4-5% [can it extend to informal sector]; timeliness in payments to VUP beneficiaries [an average of about a month instead of 2-weekly envisaged payments period] etc.
  17. 17. Key elements and factors of Success • Government Commitment and policy level leadership – vision, policy and strategy ownership. • Donor support – financing, technical assistance and embracing Government coordination efforts; if this can be sustained. • Existence of structured and founded implementation arrangements – ministry and agency level coordination and monitoring; effective local governments and subnational administrations.
  18. 18. Key elements and factors of Success • Increasing Government budgetary commitments to the sector – see slide 5. • Strong results on the ground – delivery of benefits to households; increase in household assets; increase in cultivable land surface area • Strong accountability and governance arrangements – grievances mechanisms; value for money audits by the AGO; funds flow audits the MoF…….

×