A Global Fund for Social Protection: Lessons from the diverse experiences of global health, agriculture and climate funds
Based on the study “A global fund for social protection. Lessons from the diverse experiences of global health, agriculture and climate funds” produced by a team of researchers, led by Professor Nicola Yeates at the Open University in the UK, and published by the ILO, this webinar presented experiences of setting up global funds across the health, climate and agriculture sectors and the lessons to be learnt from them that can guide further thinking about the implementation of a prospective global fund for social protection. Discussion focused on institutional governance arrangements of existing global funds carefully selected for their diversity in terms of origins, longevity, aims and institutional structures, and what they tell us about critical governance issues that need to be carefully navigated in the design and institutionalization of a global fund for social protection.
Read more about the webinar discussions and access the slide presentation: https://socialprotection.org/learn/webinars/global-fund-social-protection-lessons-diverse-experiences-global-health-agriculture
Speakers
Nicola Yeates, School of Social Sciences and Global Studies, The Open University
Chris Holden, University of York
Markus Kaltenborn, Institute of Development Research and Development Policy, Ruhr-University Bochum
Gita Sen, Ramalingaswami Centre on Equity & Social Determinants of Health, Public Health Foundation of India, Bangalore
Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
Alison Tate, International Trade Union Confederation
Pierre Vincensini, International Organization of Employers
Moderator: Shahra Razavi, International Labour Organization
_____________
About socialprotection.org
– Join our community of global social protection practitioners: http://socialprotection.org/
– Subscribe to our mailing list to be updated on future webinars and the latest social protection content: https://socialprotection.org/subscribe-our-webinar-alerts
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/socialprotectionorg/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SP_Gateway
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/socialprotection.org/
_____________
And I’m the director of the social protection Department of the international labor organization ILO based in Geneva but connecting with you today from the ILO office in New Delhi India now the objective of today’s webinar is to present a study commissioned by the social protection department on the experiences of setting
Up Global funds uh across the health climate and agricultural sectors and the lessons that can be gleaned from these very diverse experiences to really give us guidance for further thinking about the implementation of a potential Global fund for social protection now what do these experiences tell us about the
Governance issues that need to be navigated in the design and institutionalization of a global fund for social protection how can in-country engagement be pursued and what does meaning ful country ownership look like how can the quality of investment in Social protection be assured by really aligning it with human rights and international labor
Standards these were some of the questions that the paper addresses now before introducing the authors of the paper to you and asking them to present their findings uh allow me to give you a very rapid uh recap of the background to today’s uh webinar now the facts I think are very clear
More than 53% of the global population that is 4.1 billion people especially many of those being in low and middle- inome countries have no access to social protection this Stark fact we know is underpinned by serious underinvestment in Social protection itself the outcome of uh serious structural inequalities in
The global development and financial architecture now this situation we know is only getting worse in the current context when about 15% of low-income countries are already in debt distress and an additional 45% are at high risk of debt distress according to the IMF in the case of middle-income countries too
We know that servicing the public debt is rising at a higher rate than the public resources these countries are able to allocate to social protection as was recently reported by the economic commission for Latin America and the Caribbean so the idea of a dedicated Global fund for social protection where
Did this come from this entered the global policy arena with the publication in 2012 of a paper by the then un special reporter on Extreme poverty and human rights Magdalena Sepulveda and the un special rapporter on the right to food at that time Olivia desutter a global fund for social
Protection these two un reporters argued could address some of the constraints that prevented highly resourc constrained countries uh to uh that prevented these highly resourced constrainted countries from developing a social protection system a related issue is that these countries they argued are unable to really with understand the
Disruptive effect of major shocks be it climate related a major conflict or an economic crisis keeping in mind that in 2012 of course the global financial crisis was on everyone’s mind now as such a global fund for social protection would function a stabil as a stabilization mechanism uh sepulvada and
The scooter called this a reinsurance facility and it would increase the capacity of countries to really withstand the effects of such shocks uh the potential of it uh was really important if countries wanted to develop uh which was being advocated to have rights-based social Protection Systems if they were to have rights
Based social Protection Systems with entitlements that were really anchored in legislation and enforcable in ways that guarantee those rights in the long term then they needed to have this reinsurance facility to to be able to hold uh that promise and to deliver those uh legally anchored benefits now
These arguments that were made in 2012 of course regained uh and and saw renew traction during the co 19 crisis with which uh once again uh revealed very Stark gaps in Social Protection Systems around the world and highlighted the urgent need to build Universal systems so that countries were better able to withstand
Uh not only the day-to-day life cycle risks that people face but also future shocks be they climate related a pandemic or or otherwise so not surprising at the 2021 International labor conference which had a dedicated discussion a recurrent discussion on social protection IO constituents this includes governments workers and
Employers organizations asked the ILO and here I’m quoting to explore options for mobilizing international financing for social protection to complement the individual efforts of countries with limited domestic fiscal capacities based on International solidarity and initiate and engage in discussions on concrete proposals for a new International Financial financing mechanism such as a
Global social protection fund which could then complement the domestic resource mobilization efforts of countries now an important response I think to this call has been ilo’s contribution uh alongside other un agencies and development Partners in taking forward an initiative of the UN secretary generals the global accelerator on jobs and social
Protection for just transitions which includes both an integrated employment and social protection policy push to support countries in creating jobs decent jobs at scale in the green care and digital sectors and also extending social protection to more than half of the global population that is currently excluded backed by what the accelerator
Brings also an integrated financing strategy which has a foot in domestic resource mobilization but also bringing in that Global solidarity mechanism financing International financing to support countries this initiative is now being implemented in the first set of Pathfinder countries at the same time we also thought it was really important to
Commission a detailed and robust empirically based paper that would be that will be presented today to really identify key lessons from the very diverse experiences of global Health Agriculture and climate funds that can then guide the possible implement both of a global fund for social protection but also feed into the global
Accelerator initiative especially its governance mechanisms um so this is what brings us today to the discussion that we’re going to have the presentation followed by the discussion on some of the lessons to be learned from other Global funds so that we don’t reinvent the wheel and we
Really build on the lessons from other experiences so without further further Ado let me introduce you to our two lead authors of the paper uh as well as the five uh distinguished discussant who are here now in the interest of time I will keep the introductions brief and ask you
To please read the full bios of our of the participants and speakers in uh the events page our two lead authors are Nicola Yates and Chris Fen Nicola is Professor of social policy at the open University in the UK and Chris is Professor of international social policy
At the University of York also in the UK we also have with us today Marcus calborn professor of Public Law at the faculty of Law and co-director of The Institute of development research and development policy in rur University in bam Germany n sen honorary senior advisor and distinguished Professor ralen gwani
Center of equity and social determinance of Health in the public health Foundation of India based in Bangalore India Olivia Des scooter whose name you already heard who is now un special reporter on Extreme poverty and human rights as well as being professor of international human rights law at
European and European Union law and legal Theory at the University of Lan in L Lov in Belgium as well as at the College of Europe and at CPO in Paris we also have Pierre vincensini who senior advisor at the international organization of employers ioe and Allison Tate director of
Economic and social policy at the International Trade union Confederation it I would like to please ask you while you’re listening into the presentation of the paper to already start typing in your questions in the Q&A box questions that you want to address to Nicola and
Chris and then when we get into uh the discussions uh remarks please continue if you have questions and uh and do specify who the question is addressed to unless of course you’re addressing it to all of the speakers but otherwise please specify uh the speakers so that we can
Have a more structured uh discussion so let me now turn to Nicola and Chris the floor is yours and you have 20 minutes for your presentation over to you okay thank you thank you Shara thank you for that uh comprehensive introduction and context setting uh for the idea of the global social protection
Fund um uh I’m Nic Yates uh and co-presenting here today with Chris Holden we have other members of our research team and co-authors here at the webinar rousa lambin Carolyn Snell nabila Idris and Sophie mcka and at this page I’d really like to thank the ILO social protection department and socialprotection.org
For hosting uh this webinar and supporting the launch of this report and I’m really looking forward to the discussion that I feel we’re going to have um about these important issues so let me just say very briefly a little bit about the drivers of This research as Sha said earlier over half
Of the world’s population uh are excluded from from any form of social protection uh especially those living in low and middle- inome countries and of course as she also mentioned this is at least partly attributable to the structural gaps in the Global Financial and development architectures that have
Uh failed spectacularly to support the development of universal social Protection Systems and flaws so in undertaking This research we were asked to focus on the governance structures uh governance isn’t just part of the kind of operational side of any program or entity is absolutely core uh to the ways
In which an international financing mechanism for social protection or any other aspect is actually set up and the conditions under which it uh operates so it’s absolutely uh overarching or and maybe underpinning um as well so our re search focuses on the governance structures and in this we uh focused on the
Experiences of the setting up of other Global funds in other sectors and their practices and with a view to identifying the lessons that we could take forward in in deliberations about a implementation of ative gfsp and indeed uh an accelerator so there is clear evidence for looking at these particular
Form forms of international financing I.E the global funds so let me just share a um uh this slide with you uh this shows that Global funds have commanded a much greater and increasing proportion of development Aid in particular country programmable Aid uh over the period from 2007 to 2020 in
Fact it’s uh tripled uh most of this is attributable to Global funds in the health sector uh so the Blue Line we have the global fund on HIV AIDS TB and malaria and the gray line is gavy uh with a much smaller proportion being accounted for by the agricultural fund
And the climate funds which were much more recently set up so the focus of our research was squarely on these seven funds I’m not going to read them out um but just to say that we’ve selected them very carefully for the diversity in order to gain the broadest possible perspective
Um and just a note on the terminology before I proceed any further we use the term Global Fund in a generic sense um so it’s not to think that when we mention Global fund we’re always talking about the gfatm uh uh and it we should also note
That uh there are technically there are two sorts of uh ways of kind of financing uh these uh kind of uh entities uh one is fund the second is a financing facility technically we have both represented although for the purpose of today we’ll be uh referring
To them as funds there’s more detail in the report now in terms of our uh dimensions of governance this is the analytical framework uh that we use we had five key dimensions of governance all are essential all are critical but what to think about governance um uh so these are these determine conditions
Under which uh a fund would be set up who would be included who would have a voice where funds are where a finance is sourced from uh and the power relationships between all of those stakeholders in the fund uh which is necessary uh in order to uh inculcate
And assure continued ownership um of the fund um over time while all the while all the while uh being mindful of the need for high quality investment uh aligned with international human rights and labor standards and also of course not forgetting the need for a strong focus on data results learning and
Innovation it’s really important that a fund is um uh is very flexible it is mindful um in so fun as can be mindful it’s mindful aware of the wider circumstances and the change ing circumstances in which it uh is operating so those are the five Dimensions I’m now going to hand over to
Chris who will be uh presenting some of the key findings thank you okay thanks Nicola um so I’m going to um speak to um the headline findings on each of those five dimensions of governance um so starting first with um the First Dimension um and looking at the big
Picture in terms of the climate funds all of the um right all of the um climate funds that we looked at have their roots in un convention um and un framework convention on climate change um and that’s really important in facilitating synergies and high level political support um the health funds are really
Quite different because um the global fund for AHB and malaria which I’ll just call the global fund for now um the global fund and and Gabby were specifically set up as independent Global public private partnership so even though the wh um has a seat on the board of both of
Those and is involved in those arguably um that setting up of those funds as independent entities undermines the capacity of the wh as the the leading international organization in the health field um the other issue is that proliferation of different funds in health um can lead to
Fragmentation uh the World Bank plays a key role um for many of the funds that we looked at um and particularly for the global financing facility um which is exactly that a financing facility of the World Bank um uh the one really key issue in terms of governance is about the
Representation of developing countries um on the governing boards um of the funds um the adaptation fund is unusual in affording developing countries a clear a majority on its board other funds usually um have developing countries on their board um but they’re not usually a majority um informal
Practices we found are also important in affecting um kind of what rarely happens in practice if you like so uh in informal donor State corpuses prior to board meetings for example can be um influential um and um uh developing countries don’t necessarily have those um and then lastly scrutiny
From Civil Society organizations and independent experts is very important both on the boards and externally um so moving then to that second dimension of governance and looking splitting it into two and looking first of all um at the participation of an engagement with national stakeholders um we found that
The direct access model used by the adaptation fund and other funds um is important in facilitate facilitating both stakeholder participation and Country ownership so what this means is that National entities can apply for funds directly to the fund without having um to go through a a un organization as a
Mediator um for csos they need um a lot of technical support for things like bid development um as well as financed particip meetings and so forth um so some csos are better equipped than others and and so where that that kind of support isn’t available for csos then
The risk is that um csos that represent um more marginalized communities cannot participate effectively um and then moving on to the second aspect of of that second dimension which is country ownership and coordination with national authorities and donors um as I’ve said the direct access model is is key to bolstering
Country ownership um but it does raise issues of capacity and accountability so it needs to go hand inand with capacity building um the proliferation of Health funds creates the potential for dup duplication or conflicting goals uh as already said but this is mitigated um to some extent by coordinating mechanisms
Uh such as the global funds country coordinating mechanisms um and then lastly in terms of country ownership um I’ve already mentioned low income country representation on boards um but conditionality is also very important for Country ownership um in general where funds have uh more conditionality um that tends to undermine a sense of
Country ownership by uh lwi income countries so moving on to the third dimension of governance which is about resource mobilization and again splitting it into two so looking first at the crowding in of global funding sources um uh as we’ve said uh the global fund and Gabby were set up as um
Separate Global public private Partnerships and the purpose of that was specifically to Crow crowd in funding and ink kind donations from the private sector such as Pharma companies um and Foundations such as gays and they’ve been very successful in doing that um but that has led to a situation where
These private sector entities are given a formal role in the governance structures of the funds themselves which arguably undermines accountability um there’s also an argument that it tends to undermine the normative human rights based framework of of the wh because these funds are are um not situated within the who and
Private actors play a key role upon them uh in agriculture IED has been um much more conscious um cautious about private sector involvement so it’s interesting that IED um sees the potential for private sector involvement um to uh detract from its reputation so it’s very careful about how it manages that uh the
Climate funds do often use co-financing with the private sector um that tends to suit mitigation projects much better than adaptation projects um and then just a few points to finish on with this particular aspect um Innovative forms of Finance are often suggested as a a kind of solution to the funding gap for
Social protection um but we would urge caution on that that the extent of new money that can come from these forms of Finance is often overstated uh some actors and some of our respondents advocated International forms of Taxation and um so financial transaction tax for example or the
Scaling up at the global level of Airline taxes and carbon taxes um and then lastly um there is a good case for making uh climate um adaptation Finance available for social protection then to move on then to to the second aspect um of um this dimension of governance concerned with
Resource mobilization which is um the development of sustainable AAL systems and the crowding in of domestic funds um and the really important Point here is that a key aspect of the proposed Global fund for social um protection um is intended to ensure sustainable domestic funding to National
Social protection system so the idea is that um where a global fund um uh supported the building of social Protection Systems in low-income countries that that would be short short to medium term and but would would be withdrawn over the longer term and and um uh that that that Gap would be filled
In by um uh domestic sources of fundings themselves so that makes it different to some other funds um that we looked at so the climate funds for example um use co-financing with recipient governments but key difference with a global fund for social protection is that the climate funds are premised upon the
Principle of common but differentiated responsibilities between developed and developing countries so that means that that transfer of funds from high to low income countries um may be uh something that that continues over time in health the global fund is premised on responding to need um not domestic financing capacity um but there
Is a debate about whether it facilitates the development of sustainable country Level Health Systems or not um but having said that the global fund does aim at graduation away from support as countries move up the income ladder uh both the global fund and the global financing facility offer debt swap
Agreements with national governments um which is worth further investigation um and lastly domestic resources can be enhanced by the taxing or public bads so things like tobacco sugary Foods uh carbon at the national 11 and so forth and then to move on to um fourth dimension of governance which is about
The quality of investment and the alignment with human rights and international labor standards um the human rights emphasis in all of the funds that we looked at tends to be on gender and Indigenous people um with some mixed results uh interestingly for the health funds the broader human rights that affect health including
Those related to income security the right to health regardless of income and labor standards so the social dimensions of Health um those tend to um have received far less attention which perhaps relates back to the point about the normative role of the wh um and whether this might be undermined by
Freestanding Global public private Partnerships um and then lastly on this um in agriculture IAB sets a positive example Le by adhering to the 10 principles of the UN Global Compact and requiring all Investments and private sector Partners to join the compact um and to adhere to those
Principles and then for the for the fifth dimension of governance which is the focus on on data and so forth um of course all the funds that we looked at have monitoring and evaluation Frameworks the health funds in particular have clear metric based framework um but have successfully supplemented
That with Community Based engagement and evaluation um so then to um try to sum up some of the kind of headline conclusions and lessons from um uh the evidence from from these funds in these other sectors um uh clearly the financing gap for social protection
Needs to be closed and a global fund for social protection could be a key mechanism for that but there are risks and challenges um the experiences of the global health fund suggests that it’s necessary to have strong high level support um high level political support from the start um and large doners
Willing to commit funds and sustain them over time so one risk is that if that commitment isn’t there that um the fund could be created but but not really take off uh an additional Global fund could also PR funding to low-income countries further or create um parallel structures rather
Than contribute to the building of sustainable National social Protection Systems which is the core goal um there are clear accountability issues relating to the involvement of the private sector so the terms of Engagement with private sector funders and partners needs to be clear from the start uh embedding robust environment environmental social and
Governance norms and standards into a funds practices and investment strategy is essential um and lastly country ownership and stakeholder engagement are crucial to the success of the fund and its goals especially since sustained domestic funding will be needed in the long term so just to finish then with some selected recommendations um should
A global fund for social protection be created um we recommend that it should be clearly anchored in human rights instruments and international labor standards social partners and Civil Society organizations should be full and equal members of inclusive deliberative processes around the setting up of a
Fund and the form that it should take um seeking funding from the private sector and philanthropic foundations in no way implies that they should have a role in the governance structure of a global fund uh Innovative forms of financing and Partnerships with private actors we recommend should be premised on
Adherence to the principles of the UN Global compact um following the the example set by IAD uh and low-income countries should have a key role in the governance in the in the funds governance structures and on at least an equal basis with high and middle- inome countries open and widely accessible
Board meetings and robust monitoring and evaluation systems would further enhance transparency and accountability um and Country owners ship can be further enhanced by minimizing the use of explicit or implicit conditionality um and then uh penultimately a further consideration should be given to the way that recipient countries would access a
Global Fund in this significant way it should be given to the positive experiences and preferences of countries of the global South through a direct access model of allocating finance and then finally not withstanding any of the above recommendations Global funds should operate on the understanding that recipient low-income country governments are committed to
Progressively building their own social Protection Systems and mobilizing necessary resources for these over time so let me just um okay so I don’t think I’m sharing my screen anymore so I can hand back to you Shara yeah thank you very much much you still are sharing screen or maybe it’s
Gonna take some time yeah now it’s okay thanks very much Chris uh both to you and to Nicola thank you very much for a very very crisp and informative presentation we have a few questions and I know we are always having to watch the time especially since we do have our
Discussions and I do want to make sure that we give time to them for their Reflections uh but I just want to pick up a couple of questions that have come up and I leave it for you Chris and EA to decide amongst yourselves how you
Want to take it up I I saw one question about this whole issue about fragmentation the risk of further fragmentation especially if there is no new money being put uh being put up this is uh kind of speaks to uh what I think some of us have seen in this uh current
Moment of uh difficulties in seeing new money on the table so say say a little bit more about this risk of fragmentation um and also there was this is a question from Karen G from The Brookings Institute if I’m not mistaken and uh also there was the question from
Shay uh from uh if I’m from Issa who asked uh if you could uh say a little bit more about what you mean about uh this uh Innovative financing uh you know being a bit overstated what exactly are you looking at U what sources of funding
Were you looking at and and can you elaborate what you mean by by it being a bit overstated so maybe I will leave those two but you can also see other questions but for now uh back to back to you Nicola and Chris uh to to answer the
Few questions that we have thank you okay thank you thank you uh for those questions um uh I’ll um I’ll I think I’ll start with ADD dressing Karen’s uh question um about uh she asked whether we have a recommendation about Standalone fund versus embedding it in another
Institution um we we are agnostic um on that um uh the one thing that we would say and indeed it did say and recommend um is that uh really important factor here is political legitimacy and acceptability um of the of the fund um absolutely crucial is the ownership no
Issues of ownership um of the fund so that should be the driving force um of any decision as to whether this should be a standal loone entity or you know kind of embedded um in say a un institution or in the world bank or indeed um another institution beside uh
And I think we made that in recommendation number 16 uh which is a very last but not least uh recommendation um so uh so I direct your attention to that uh Karen um Chris do you have anything more to add to that um not on that particular point but
I I’m happy to come back on the questions that sh are asked okay okay yeah if you want to just say something about fragmentation either of you okay you want to take that should I uh uh well all I was going to say I mean
The risks are of no new money um are that uh you know half of the world’s population continues to not enjoy the kind of level of social protection that uh most of us here uh probably enjoy um I’m not quite sure uh what you’re thinking of uh beyond that uh to be
Perfectly honest um Chris do you have any thoughts yeah fragmentation I I think um it’s it’s a it’s a fairly well-known problem in development funding that that the where we have a proliferation of different funds the you know they can be they can be um uh channeling funds for programs in the
Same countries um but sometimes working to different goals or sometimes actually duplicating and working to the same goal but in different ways so where we have these kind of freestanding entities um we have money coming through various channels that is not really being um well well coordinated um one of our findings was
That that’s less the case for the climate funds because um they all fall under the UN framework convention on climate change which has its kind of annual um kind of governance mechanism through the conference of the parties that those funds um tend to be much
Better at at kind of um uh kind of working together Andor having a sort of effective division of labor rather than kind of um duplicating each other um I could also say something about about the issue of inative Finance um Innovative Finance is this kind of label that tends
To get applied to a whole range of different ways of trying to to raise money or or pull um uh development funding forward um which usually they will involve the private sector in one form or another um so one kind of example of that would be um where bonds
Or or in practice kind of contracts are made where by a private sector entity will provide um the funding for a program upfront but effectively what governments do is um uh kind of guarantee that future um funding streams from their um overseas development budgets will then go kind of
To pay back the the private entity so it doesn’t really produce new money but what it does do that particular example does do is kind of pull um overseas development Aid kind of forward so that it can be made use of um more quickly so so it doesn’t mean that those things are
Bad um but the um you know there’s we would sound a note of caution I think that um you know to think that everything can be solved through these Innovative forms of Finance is is really to miss the point you know there either is new money or there’s not and the
Money needs to come from from somewhere um and so ultimately you know that does mean that we need to um think about you know what the really s real source of the funding is which is which is why some of our respondents um had interesting things to say about
International forms of Taxation which which don’t yet exist um the the last thing that I would say on that in terms of no new money is that you know if if there isn’t new money um forth forthcoming um in just to go back to the question about fragmentation if there isn’t new money
Forthcoming um but we still have a kind of fragmented um kind of financing structure then then the problem there is that we just pull money the overseas um development Aid um flows are just pulled from one activity to another activity but we’re we’re not really increasing um
The the flow of Finance available so so I think I leave it there thank you very much uh I’m conscious of time I I there a lot of really interesting questions in the Q&A box that I would really recommend that uh maybe Nicola and Chris you try to
Answer some of those questions I’ll also try and draw on some of them in framing the questions that I want to address to our discussion so so that we don’t lose uh some of those really really good points that have uh come up so let me
Just now you know thank you again uh both uh Nicola and Chris and hopefully we’ll be able to hear a little bit more from you later uh but let me now uh turn to our discussions to hear their Reflections and thoughts uh I’m going to start with Marcus and uh and Marcus
You’ve uh been writing you know quite extensively about the kind of governance issues that Nicola and Chris have been talking about and in particular you’ve been raising kind of issues around how to comply with uh this principle of country ownership that they also highlight in allocation of funds and to
Have a governance structure that’s really oriented towards equal decision-making power of countries of the global South um uh also this is I have to say a key principle in ILO recommendation 202 on social protection floors this whole principle of of real country ownership so so what lessons can
We learn from the global fund experiences that we’ve uh just heard about very briefly from Nicola and Chris but also that are analyzed in more detail in the paper that I’m sure you’ve seen what do you see as uh kind of some some bright spots and and what are what
Are some of the major risks in this regard I’m afraid you only have eight minutes to answer this question but over to you marus okay thank you shra first of all I would like to thank Nicola Chris and the other authors of the study very much for presenting pres ing such a clear
Analysis of the experiences of other Global funds so far this is extremely helpful for the further development of the discussion on global social protection and thank you Shara that I get the opportunity to say something on governance aspects uh the discussion on the global fund for social protection
Has been very much advanced in the recent months by the efforts to put the global accelerator initiative in into practice the progress achieved so far is a major step forward but it is certain certainly only an interim step on the long road to Universal social protection it is no secret that many actors
Especially from Civil Society advocate for a much more ambitious financing mechanism whether this mechanism is then called a global fund or something else is not of great importance what is important is that the mechanism must be adequately funded that it can operate effectively and that it that it is
Designed in a fair and Equitable manner we can only hope that the general International framework or situation will soon improve again then perhaps there’s also a greater chance to actually Pro improve the social protection situation of people worldwide through a more ambitious Global solidarity initiative if we look at the
Effective coverage figures um we know how urgently this is needed now I would like to share just one slide with you all I hope that you can see it um but no matter how extensive international support may be and what institutional framework it may take some basic governance principles should be
Observed in any case country ownership inclusive partnership and accountability these principles are legal principles stemming from International Development law and international human rights law those actors who are working on a governance structure for the global accelerator or who are thinking about a structure for a future Global fund should comply with them particularly
Because this would be an important requirement for the new Global institution to gain broad acceptance and to work successfully these three principles are addressed several times also in the study the first one is country ownership the authors of the study were absolutely right when they made clear that both the
Eligib eligibility criteria and the way how access to funding is provided are crucial for the implementation of this of this principle country ownership means that funding should be based on Country needs and priorities mechanisms that follow the direct access model contribute more to National ownership than those that additionally involve an
Intermediary however the the authors also clarify that all Global funds which have been compared in the study work by financing specific time limit projects often on a performance or results based basis and it has pointed that for these funds stakeholders other than governments are at least in principle also eligible
Recipients but when it comes to International social protection we are dealing with a different situation unlike in the health or climate sector here it is always necessary necessary to provide financial support for entire systems systems that are organized and supervised by the state and that are long-term in nature because otherwise a
Rights-based life cycle approach to social protection cannot be real realized so what is the consequence of this country ownership in the governance structure of a global fund for social protection means that only the governments of the recipient countries should decide which social protection instruments they want to implement and
Whether for example non-state actors may also be integrated into the social protection system therefore at least in my view the question of funding eligibility should be based exclusively on whether the the resp respective country uses the funds to achieve STG 1.3 or in other words for a nondiscriminatory social protection flaw
That is implemented Nationwide and for the long term whether this is whether this actually happens needs to be monitored of course but in my opinion stricter eligibility criteria would not be compatible with the principle of ownership in this particular sector the second important governance principle is inclusiveness it has two components both
Of which are also briefly addressed in the study study the first is relevant for building Partnerships that can really be called equal Partnerships decisions in the bodies of the fin Financial mechanism must be made on an equal footing between the governments of the contributing States the donors on
The one hand and the countries that use the funds to build up their social Protection Systems the recipient countries on the other hand a necessary precondition for this is that both groups have the same voting rights there are still fund structures that do not implement this key principle of International Development law but
Instead favor the donors however and I have to make this quite clear this is a paternalistic you can also say a neocolonial approach that no longer reflects the Contemporary understanding of global cooperation and such a one-sided governance structure is particularly not comp not compatible with a feminist development policy a
Label that some countries are using for their specific policy approach in this context the authors of the study mention as a narrative example the global financing facility they speak of an undue influence that is granted to one side of the stakeholders because the decision the decision making powers are
Wased in trust fund investors only following to the World Bank procedures such fund structures also exist in the area of social protection and in my view there’s an urgent need to modify them the second component of the inclusiveness principle Is the participation of Civil Society I think
The authors of the study have very clearly worked out the different dimensions that are different that that are evident here in the existing Global funds Civil Society especially the affected people in the global South should be given a say and if possible even a right to vote in the governing
Body of the financing instrument Social Security is a human right so a minimum level of particip ation is essential not only at the local level but also in international bodies and in the special sector of social protection it is also necessary to involve the social Partners which means the employers and Trade
Union associations I will only very very briefly mention accountability the third governance principle this is a multi-dimensional obligation transparency and control must be guaranteed both in the relationship between the funding mechanism and the providers of the funds on the one hand and on the other hand in the
Relationship with the governments of the recipient countries this governance requirement will be crucial mainly for the Practical work of a global fund as it is the only way to establish the trust necessary for a global partnership these are in brief my comments I thank you very much for your
Attention thank you very much Marcus for a very clear uh remarks and and thanks also for that slide which I think captured the three key principles that you’ve elaborated um I hope that we can pick up on some of the key points in particular about you know uh that whole principle of country
Ownership that you talked about and that inclusive partnership and accountability uh and uh I’m sure we will hear more about the um the role of uh social Partners as we move down to the uh speakers who will be uh providing comments uh but a key question also
Comes up in terms of I’m curious to know of the funds that exist that do have these principles of country ownership and inclusive part partnership like the adaptation fund that was talked about how are they how do they compare to other funds in terms of attracting the
Quantity of funding that is needed I think that’s a that’s a key issue to to to look at um I want to now turn to our next um discussion to to gaita and really pick up again on this whole question of power dynamics and accountability uh GA that I know you
Have been grappling with in your work on International in the Public Health Arena uh from a perspective of gender equality and and women’s human rights and we heard a lot about the uh uh the the health uh vertical funds that exist now the question is really quite Broad and I
Want to know how these human rights and international Social Security standards can be adhered to uh in a policy Arena that also brings in powerful actors donors development Banks private sector entities that are often driven by other kinds of motivations I think this also speaks to one of the questions that was
In the chat box from Deborah Greenfield uh so how how do we how what kind of accountability Frameworks uh have worked in the global Public Health Arena that we can take inspiration from and what do you see as as some of the tensions here that are um in many ways inevitable over to
You thanks very much um Shara and and I’m going to start um by sort of setting a little bit of context for what is probably well not probably what is a very Broad and a quite complex question why do I think that the context is important here because we’re talking
About social protection in 2023 um and there are some aspects context which are um deeply affect what we may be able to do by way of social protection the first one of course is that currently austerity policies um an analysis of IMF expenditure projections show that The Adjustment shock through austerity
Policies is expected to impact no less than 140 3 countries of which 94 are developing countries in 2023 that is 85% of the world population that may say to us that we need more money in here but we also may need to look at whether the um intentions of whether the right hand
Knows what the left hand is doing or vice versa whether intentions of different actors and players are in fact um compatible with each other the second one is the massive increases in global inequality which is very much part of the context where economic inequality intersects which with inequality by
Gender by ethnicity disability and so on the third one which of course at the ILO you speak and write a lot about is the new information ality and precariousness that we know about but there’s a couple of elements of it that I think bear particular emphasis one this has had
Drastic effects on women’s work and labor force participation in my own country in India we’ve had a dramatic fall in women’s labor force participation rates not just as a result of the pandemic predating the pandemic and now continuing beyond that and it’s been made worse in a number of countries
By so-called labor reforms that have degraded worker protections lengthened hours of work worsened conditions in workplaces and we’re talking about social protection in this context as as well and finally coming to the health sector of course the biggest contextual challenge here is not just the pandemic
Which wh was greatly relieved to be able to say is over but everybody knows it’s not the only one that we’re going to see and we may see the next one fairly quickly but in the context of the pandemic despite much talk of Health Systems functioning strengthening the
Presence of major Global funds such as Gabi the vaccine Alliance there was very high inequality in the availability of an access to Diagnostics to protection equipment for health workers to vaccines and to Therapeutics for treatment during the pandemic what is it that a fund for social protection which includes
Universal health coverage in its very definition is going to be able to do that takes us Beyond this there’s been much criticism mainly from Civil Society but not only from Civil Society of the role of intellectual property rights in privatizing profits at public cost and making it very difficult to get access
Current pressures to retain the same or stronger intellectual property regimes in the pandemic instrument that’s currently under negotiation to deal with future pandemics we can the concerns for Equity that are inbuilt in the idea of social protection let me step back a moment and this gets at the heart of your question
Shara this part of context is that this is part of ongoing and long-standing tensions between the push for Primary Health Care that came out of almata through strong Health Systems focusing on equity universality and human rights versus and I say this partly with tongue and cheek what has been called The Gates
Approach I have nothing against Bill Gates believe me personally but it’s been called that an an attempt that focuses largely on technology with a dominating role for private for-profit corporations the question is where do the vertical Health funds fall what are their pluses and minuses and what happens to the health system six
Building blocks that wh spoke about when we have vertical funds um doing this that slice through the health system in the way that they do so what’s been the experience with the health funds I think the paper deals with this fairly well it certainly emphasizes the fact that the
Two big on ones gab and the global fund are so large that much much bigger than eat for instance and they point to the fact that seven of the 7 to8 billion of these seven funds in 2022 half of that was spent by Gabi and the global fund what are their
Pluses they certainly are able to pull together large sums which otherwise would may not be available including and probably very importantly from the private sector secondly theyve been said by different um actors to be more flexible than government health programs thirdly that they’re able to focus on critical needs such as child
Immunization maternal mortality HIV AIDS and so on but there have been a bunch of critiques that have been critically important for and these are long-standing critiques weak country ownership often under duress a weak meshing with and even subversion of health planning and processes at the country level the laser
Focus on a few diseases or Target groups has often meant that the root causes which lie in Weak Health Systems stay untouched next critique and this is crucial they’ve been much more expensive than they need to be because of weak synergies with the overall system and because of a lot of private profit
Driven decisions and there’s been weak learning from mistakes because of weak accountability to people and communities now these criticisms have been in place for quite some time the question is is it fair to Levy these criticisms in 2023 how much has changed to address these let’s look at gab and I’m just
Going to um address a few for each of the two for gab I’m going to look at performance equity and cost issues now gabas as well known is a public private partnership and in but in 2016 50% of all donor assistance in health and almost all of the aid for
Immunization went through Gabi that shows you how big it is but Gabi very much uses what I call tongue and cheek the gates approach private sector dominated technology focused and a med San s Frontier critique in 2012 said that Gabi tends to focus on costly new vaccines even though less
Expensive older ones are are available and important that pharmaceutical companies tend to be overly subsidized through the advanc market commitments that Gab promotes and poor health system strengthening I think coid 19 was a real Crucible for Gabi because this were the mo was the moment and Gabi was the a
Lead partner in the kovax facility for vaccine access and I’ll just give you one number that can tell you what the challenge was Gabi promised 2.1 billion vaccine doses in 2021 but actually only was able to deliver 0 9 billion less than half and that is serious underperformance by any
Standard also Gabi promised as a result of msf’s critique and the critique of others to allocate significant amounts for health system strengthening but really the critique continues to be that it has not delivered much there if we turn to the global fund and I’m going to look at questions of accountability and
Ownership because the global fund really tried and has claimed that it’s improved accountability and ownership and I’m just going to quote here from a paper in which I was a co-author in 2021 about accountability and inclusivity which was based on work done by Barbara MCPE and Anuj kapilash shami
And the quote is as follows Central to the global fund rules were multiple elements that are usually viewed as promoting participation and social as well as performance accountability but underneath what the authors call this public transcript was a hidden transcript in which real power differentials played out as a result of
Which Corners were cut on mandated participation rules and mechanisms all required procedures were accommodated and followed but a quite different hidden reality of delays in the sharing of information closed door NE negotiations epitomized the underlying tensions and mocked these claims of participation so what are the implications of this one more minute
Gcha sure what are the implications of this for what we’re trying to do here with the global fund for social protection a recognition of the power Dynamics in the design and management of such vertical funds is Central to their results and we need to go beyond simply calling for Country ownership because
Who manages the fund and what their um acceptability as well as whether they have multiple and conflicting in um intentions I don’t minimize the numbers of children immunized by Garvey or the impacts of the global fund on key diseases the question is question one at what cost question two is there genuine
Country ownership and who administers These funds and are the administrators all in institutions that are wedded to much more narrow approaches and three are root causes addressed or are they left untouched and possibly even exacerbated because most of the funds attention and leadership are too narrowly focused coid 19 was The
Crucible and I have to say that the health funds didn’t do terribly well there for a social protection flaw to work and this is really my last Point different elements must mesh together and this group knows this only too well only an approach built up from Primary Health Care can work and it’s
Also the only one that can release the energy and inventiveness of communities and people thank you yeah thanks very much P I think those were very useful lessons in terms of what these Health funds have done which you acknowledge in terms of bringing in maybe more resources but
Also several questions about you know the efficiency uh whether they’re really what kind of ownership what kind of accountability mechanisms and the extent to which they really mesh with and strengthen system building in the area of health of course uh rather than creating kind of parallel structures and making this problem of coordination
Which the paper also talks about a lot uh a serious one um yeah so we’ll leave it there I want to now turn to Olivier who’s been listening very patiently um I I want to just pose very briefly uh the question Olivia to you about the you
Know the moment when you first you know together with m Sava advocated for the global fund for social protection in 2012 it was of course you know a different moment and now we have this climate emergency in particular and some people see this kind of competing with resources for social protection whereas
I think uh one can make a very strong argument and there have been in the quest Q&A uh chat box you know questions about the way in which we need to link them because for really having you know climate adaptation and climate mitigation you need to have perhaps a strengthened and Universal social
Protection system so this is just my entry but I want to hear from you what you see as the signs of Hope and opportunities in this moment even though we’re very cognizant of the context of austerity the context of rising inequalities and and informality that GA referred to but still what are the
Bright spots and what are the issues that kind of keep you up at night that you worry about over to you well thank you very much sh for giving me the floor I’m I’m conscious of time I would like to first thank Nicola and Chris for their very um
Interesting paper and and and the qus of course and for their um presentation this afternoon I will be as brief as possible because I know we have little time left I’ll make U the following 10 brief remarks focused on the paper and in part answering your question because
When in 2012 we presented this proposal it was a context not so different as the one we have here this was just after the global financial crisis of 2008 2009 we had discovered then that uh people were left without protection despite the the job losses that resulted from the crisis
And the and the severe pressure on social Protection Systems and the co 19 pandemic just re United that debate in a context that is of course not identical but but raises the same question shows how vulnerable we are four billion people who are unprotected 53% of the
World’s population and my first my first remark is that for us collectively the key question should be um why is it that we are not managing to present the establishment of social protection flaws as a global public good deserving of more support what are the the political economy obstacles that result in that
Being underfunded and international solidarity between being insufficient in this regard now in their paper um Nicola and her co-authors identify that Gap at the same time they remark that a number of um funds such as the global financing facility for women children and and Adolescence or the global fund to fight
AIDS tuberculosis and malaria do have some social protection components but the reality is this is fragmented for the moment there’s no visibility there’s not enough money going to social protection and so although I hear some raise a fear of fragmentation fragmentation is what we have now without One financing facility
That focuses on social protection we should not fear fragmentation it is fragmentation that we have now and that as a result makes it very difficult for countries seeking to fund the establishment of social protection fls to seek support and to know where to go which fund to address themselves to so
That would be my my first remark I think um more than ever there is a need for some new facility to be EST lished to respond to this Gap and to establish more coherence instead of the current fragmentation my second remark is that the proposals for the global fund for
Social protection really include two Dimensions one is um providing funding as an incentive for countries to invest more in Social protection the other is to provide a reinsurance mechanism for countries to be supported in times of shock um economic shocks climate related shocks for example in order to allow
Them to be reassured that if they cannot fund the promises they make to the population They will receive support and maybe we need the the the second dimension to to to to be treated separately very often in these discussions the First Dimension takes precedence above the other yet the other
Poses specific issues and I think responds to the needs of small poorly diverse ified countries fearing that if they adopt rice-based social protection flaws they may be taken by surprise as a as a sudden increase of of the cost of oil may result in them being Finance constrained or or a sudden climate
Disaster striking them for example my my third remark is that the the vocabulary Global fund for social protection I think may be misleading what we really mean is a new financing facility and and that distinction is made at page 29 of the paper um but no one is actually
Thinking of a new separate organization with a separate legal personality um in fact in the report I presented in 2021 I’m very explicit that what we need to do is to provide more support to the ILO Flagship program on social protection for all we already have the ILO we already have the USB
2030 partnership co-chaired by World Bank and ILO we don’t need to reinvent the wheel and I think we may have made a mistake I see I say we Progressive actors working on on these issues in using the terminology Global fund because it creates I think a wrong impression and frankly it is not
Realistic to believe we’ll set up a new Global fund with a separate legal personality I think this is the result of the consultation I led in 2020 2021 my fourth remark is that um on page 30 there’s a distinction made between Global funds that are seen as restitution um owed to countries
Affected for example by climate disruptions on the one hand and donor Aid based on charity of donors on the other hand that’s an interesting disc distinction but the real difference is between um support given to countries on an ad hoc unpredictable annual basis or support that is multi-year predictable
And therefore allows country to invest in multi-year country programs to establish social protection flows that’s the major difference I don’t care whether donor countries feel they have a duty to provide support or whether they feel it’s a good thing for them to provide support what I do care about is
Predictability of funding and that is what the fund should provide the idea being that countries seeking support should provide multi-year plans to establish social protection flaw and increase domestic resource mobilization and be supported in exchange of that commitment my um my fifth remark concerns stakeholder participation I believe the USB 2030
Partnership um provides the adequate balance of stakeholders countries from regions plus Civil Society unions and so on and un agencies and the World Bank and I I I do think again we don’t need to reinvent the wheel we have there the kind of Alliance we need to ensure that
The governance will be participatory that is at least my view and and and this would be my response to that question of participation remark number six um lesson number five in the paper is that and I quote private sources of Finance can make substantial new funds available I’m skeptic I think the lesson
From private donor contributions to the sdgs is that it does not work I mean the mobilization possible is not sufficient so let us not put too many hopes in that quite apart from all the problems of capture by the private sector this may this may lead to my seventh remark um
There is in recommendation number eight a reference to the global compact as having to guide um in a human rights perspective the the the the the support from the private sector quite frankly and with great respect for the authors of the paper this is based on what the ifad has been
Doing since the global compact has been established but the global compact has lost much credibility and today the good reference is the guiding principles on business and human rights and and in any case that would only be useful if indeed the private sector plays an important role but I expressed in my earlier
Remark my skepticism Visa that hope we put in the private sector providing funding my eighth remark is that um uncond conditionalities this has been in my conversations with governments the major stumbling block governments from the global South fear and I understand this fear that donors will impose their
Conditions as to how the funds will be used but note that conditionalities typically in the history of global development since the 1980s have been linked to the downsizing of Public Service the reduction of funding to health and education um the the the fiscal sustainability of reforms that would reassure the international
Financial markets conditionalities here are the exact opposite they are a request that countries being supported work for the benefit of their population its conditionality is in reverse and the major source of funding we can hope for is Dept for social protection swaps uh we should recall and you recall this
Shara at the start of your introductory remarks that the public depth of developing countries if we exclude China is 11.4 trillion US dollar 45 developing countries put more money in paying back the interest on their debt than they invest in health expenditures The Debt Service of developing countries in 2022
Was 400 billion now if we have debt for social protection swaps as a major source of funding for financing social protection that I think is the way to go but you will not get the the creditors agree to giving a blank check to countries however the proposals should come from beneficiary countries
Presenting multi-year plans to establish social protection flaw I think this is um the way to go my ninth remark the paper suggests I quote on page 64 a potential un wide framework convention on global social social protection that the paper says may provide an even stronger legal and political Foundation
From which to springboard a gfsp I’m sorry but if we want to kill an idea the best way to do this is to uh call for a new international instrument that will be 15 years in the making we have today um the international Covenant on economic social and culture
Rights interpreted by General comment number 19 of the committee on economic social and culture rights ILO convention number 102 on Social Security minimum standards of 1952 recommendation 202 on social protection laws we have Target one three of the SGS we have all we need all we need in terms of what countries
Should do to protect their populations with strength and social protection we don’t need a new instrument what we need now is to move towards action and my 10th and final remark is I welcome this paper as a opportunity to reignite a debate on the global fund um but I think
Our priority should be now to move towards what is realistic which is to fund much better the actors that are already working on this issue to connect them with one another we have all the components of the system we need it to be more integrated and we need to make a
Strong proposal to the summit for the future in September 2024 to the world social Summit uh in 2025 and to the fourth International Conference on financing for Development I’ve been working on this issue since since 10 years I’ve seen enough papers I want now that we act thank
You thank you very much Olivia that for that call to action and I think uh um as well as highlighting and clarifying A number of issues around what you see as the key issues of consolidation and that this call for a financing facility as you put it it’s not necessarily a fund
But a financing facility more resources going to social protection is really going against this whole trend of fragmentation that we’ve all been lamenting and also highlighting uh the importance of potentially this debt for social protection swaps in the current moment uh I think all of that was
Extremely useful uh thanks also for that reminder of the guiding principle on business and human rights really being where we need to go rather than the global compact if it comes to that issue of accountability to of the private sector um many other points that were highlighted are building on existing
Institutions building on usd230 as already bringing together the key actors and the ilo’s global global Flagship program on social protection floors for all and I have to highlight here also the fact that we do have now the global accelerator on jobs and social protection with a financing pillar
That’s where resources can go which already brings together all of the key actors so a lot there um uh but as you said time for action and time for people to you know to really put uh put those resources that are badly needed into that system building which we can we can
All contribute to I I’m very conscious that we have very little time left but we do have our social Partners I have both um Pier and Allison who are here and I do want to give them time but to save on on on time I I will address you
Know the same question to both of them you were both very active your institutions I mean were and you yourselves personally very engaged in the 2021 ilc discussion that really asked the ILO to engage in discussions on concrete proposals for new international finance ing mechanism so what lessons for you are emerging from
The experiences of other Global funds and what are the key priorities in your view in moving forward in the way that Olivia just asked us to do to to Really move forward and and and have action I’m going to start uh if I may first uh with
Pierre and then I will hand over to um to Allison so Pierre over to you first and if you could maybe make it five minutes so that we can finish by the time thank you thank you Shara and good afternoon everyone um um well it’s has
Been useful to get a sense of global fund setting across different sectors and you know IE always push for Len learns what works what does not work to to be taken into a consideration before thinking about any direction or or decision um a global fund to close specific financing gaps makes sense from
The perspective that there are very significant gaps in Social protection across many countries uh and it is important to mobilize resources and respond to the needs of a wide number of countries where limited capacity compromise the the development of sustainable social Protection Systems um however we should avoid any new
Mechanism new layers parallel structures and I think we we were um some of us uh saying quite the same thing the establishment of new structures might not necessarily be effective and also why ILO as the expertise in Social protection and the trat conven power uh a direct technical
Cooperation arm in countries and a broad range of instruments io’s pasted initiative on establishing a global fund did not raise any funds so we should start by seeking Synergy with existing Global funds such as those referred to in the in the in the paper and work towards better cordination with them um
Therefore a careful analysis of existing and past initiative mechanism as well as the leveraging of existing should be conducted Let Me Now quickly turn to the research paper there are issues that needs to be carefully navigated in the thinking of a global fund for social protection if any and I would like to
Raise that we do not support all of the proposed recommendations let me highlight uh some of them first viability and under funding as the research paper also mentioned there are substantial risks in view of creating a new Global fund notably in term of underfunding and one significant risk is
That Global fund for social protection might not attract the level of funding that would be necessary for it to make a difference um furthermore the report underscores that the World Bank is the current key actor in global funds so it is regrettable that the World Bank was
Not interviewed uh and we believe that further consultation with the World Bank will be needed so Taxation and international initiatives on taxation there are reference in the report to the potential in establishing International initiatives on taxation financial transaction tax public bad taxes Global weals Taxes fature prominently in the
Recommendation we rather believe that high level of informality in many countries erod the tax base and prevent the expansion of social protection so a prerequisite to extending social protection coverage is reducing informality increasing domestic economic growth and expanding the tax base that also happens to be a key part of the
Solution to the debt crisis facing many of the same countries so addressing the issue of puring informality will therefore be key third Innovative forms of financing there is a problematic reference in the reports and recommendation to to a commitment from companies to Innovative financing models not to violate UNC principle un Global
Compact sorry principles the UNC is based on CEO voluntary commitments so imposing companies a conditionality via mandatory commitments will simply go against the essence of the UN guiding principles uh Olivier was touching upon just before and this you them not uh this you them from from joining the phones
In addition and I want to say that UNC does not represent business worldwide which IE and employee organization do we have another concern with the idea of requesting private sector partner to meaningfully promote access to Social Security for all their employee including workers in supply chain companies are used to doing business
Responsibly and social protection is part of the cor corporate responsibility the problem with the supply chain lies mainly with the domestic supply chain most of the time the states member states that should be protecting and guaranteeing this right are lacking four and this is the the last Point Financial sustainability we must
Be in mind the lack of domestic resource and fiscal space at the national level option to increase fiscal space exist such as expanding Social Security coverage and contributory Revenue notably through transition the informal to the formal sector some countries have made it possible to mobilize resources and create fiscal
Space to finance social protection even in the difficult context of multiple crisis however there is a growing burden of debt in many countries so the the ab the aspect of sustainability uh is absent from the analysis and the proposed recommendation it should be recalled because it was in your question
Sha that this aspect was one of the key consideration in the 2021 ilc discussion on social protection National level institutional development in similar absence as well as mechanism for policy engagement at the national level the strong pressure on the financial sustainability of social Protection Systems in many countries calls for reform that respond
To the social economic context we also need to strengthen coordination between International institutions to We believe that the ILO should coordinate better with World Bank and IMF for a better assessment of specific option to extend fiscal space um and I so I think we should keep on supporting any relevant areas for
Research to bring evidence and build the case for improved synergies between social protection and its financing one area for research could be to assess the use of multi-pillar approaches and we didn’t believe that we should explore all different finding options without any prejudices it’s important to leave
All option of financing open and finally in conclusion we should always keep in mind the need to Foster an enabling environment for job creation and sustainable Enterprises which will allow to expand the resource allocated to social protection and I leave it there thank you and sorry for the fast uh
Speak yeah thank you very much pier and you you did take less time than was originally allocated so I’m really grateful for that uh and thanks also for highlighting some of the key issues around formalization around expanding the tax base um and also the the responsibilities of businesses in terms
Of their social security contributions um so exactly that is very much those combination of taxes and social security contribution that is going to be what a lot of social Protection Systems that’s what’s going to be the real Make It or Break It for them International financing always useful as a
Complimentary measure but not the real backbone on that note I’m going to hand over to our um last speaker Alison Tate uh definitely not least because you have been a very active and uh vocal champion of the Need For This Global fund or global financing facility for social
Protection over to you Allison how many minutes do I have Shara well I’m afraid due to my bad time management we have zero minutes but I think if you could do it in five minutes that would be incredibly useful and then we can wrap up okay I won’t be
Presenting the PowerPoint I had prepared and I’ll try to do it in negative minutes but indeed from the union perspective we see this study as being very important to reinvigorate the discussion that as we’ve heard today has been a substantive discussion on real and realistic feasibility questions to
Establish a fund or a financing mechanism that takes investment in public policy and in building social Protection Systems to the next level after all these years of consultation and deliberation let’s do it so I’m really clear that from the 2021 ILO discussion where both trade unions and employer
Organizations gave a concrete gave an a mandate for concrete proposals on the development of a global social protection fund we now see and I ask that the ILO take the leadership on doing it the the strong mandate we’ve heard of all the issues around the failures the structural gaps of the Global Financial
And development architectures and we know that coverage is not just uh a huge challenge in many lowincome countries but the ilo’s great research done back in 2020 looking at fin financing gaps actually showed that low-income countries can Finance their own social Protection Systems once they have had the investment to
Kickstart those systems establishment so from domestic resource mobilization as the language that economists use we talk about that whether it be taxation sources or debt swap sources or other forms we need to seriously look at both the responsibility of the state of governments to fund and establish social
Protection Systems and then really look at this key concept of fostering ownership and coherence which is what the whole conversation about country ownership we’ve moveed way on from what is um a paternalistic or even colonialist attitude to funding this is about good development practice with meaningful and effective country
Ownership and of the actors within the country not only the finance Ministries or the development Ministries or the labor Ministries but indeed social Partners as my colleague from the IE and I represent at the global level we need that to be replicated also with commitments and capacities at the
National level to ensure that the accountability and the transparency of the design of the systems and the implementation of the systems are done in such a way that it meets the needs of people now we know that with the terrible escalating violence impacts of the climate crisis
And other economic shocks the Gap is only going to become wider not less Olivia has spoken very eloquently just now on the some of the Practical considerations to take into account around where International organizations can contribute how we as trade unions and employers and indeed Civil Society
Actors can and must and are ready and willing to contribute so I know that I have no time left and there’s much more to say but I just really reinforce that the financing of a fund at a global level that brings the kind of coherence
And is an act of solidarity as has been said by previous speakers must be undertaken without DeLay So let’s get to work on planning and setting it up and implementing it and monitoring its Effectiveness with all the skills and knowledge that we all as actors bring to this discussion and address the social
Dimensions of all the crises that the people and the planet are dealing with this is embedded in the work of the ILO and the USP 2030 structure as has been mentioned earlier is a way we can take this up so Shara I hand back to the ILO and say thank you
For your leadership and let’s take this up with your championship and let’s make it work great thank you so much Alison I I think those should have those should really be the last words uh I don’t think I have I would like to add much to
That except for I really do have some thanks that I want to please give and so please be patient for two minutes I I do want to say that I think we’re very clear that there are serious gaps in Social protection coverage and adequacy that need to be addressed and this call
For action and urgency I think we heard loud and clear the financing gap for social protection floor we know is not being reduced in fact we’re going to come up with new estimates in January or February of this year uh which um will will actually put numbers behind that
And relative to GDP we know that it’s particularly burdensome for the low-income countries you know something like 16% of their GDP to have uh that social protection floor additional financing for social protection we heard that there is great potential in mobilizing international financing we heard that from some of the uh existing
Uh climate funds in particular even if there is a real challenge around multiplication of funds because this poses challenges in terms of coordination and also in terms of uh duplication potential duplication but we also heard that in the area of social protection we don’t have that problem of of too many
Too many funds and too much fragmentation and in fact we do need consolidation uh so as well as recognizing that we don’t want to have new structures but really it’s important to build on what’s already there we have the USB 2030 as a very effective mechanism that brings together the
Countries the agencies the UN system the international financial institutions as a very strong sounding board board and governance mechanism and we do have ongoing initiatives like the global accelerator and the global Flagship program so we can build on those major challenges we heard about governance of global funds in terms of ensuring
Genuine country ownership and alignment with human rights and international labor standards also very important to highlight that really the climate crisis is not something that’s competing with the need for funding for Universal social protection but it reinforces the need for building those Universal social Protection Systems as a necessary kind
Of backbone for countries to have to ensure that everyone is protected and enable to navigate the major structural Transformations that lie ahead and that are already here for many countries ensuring that those transitions are just socially and politically sustainable and really that we need to think very seriously about the real business of
Building social Protection Systems which has to be about strength Ing and increasing taxation social contributions and doing it in a way that is fair and based on solidarity and burden sharing and does not give undue burden to those with very weak means so mechanisms of solidarity at the national level but
Also more solidarity at the global level although there’s a lot of devil in the detail that has to be sorted out when it comes to the those International financing mechanisms I want to thank all of you to Nicola and Chris but also I want to thank their co-authors who’ve
Been here some of whom have been here Russa lambin Caroline Snell nabila Idris and Sophie mackinder for doing this paper which I think has reignited the discussion on the need for greater financing for social protection let’s put it that way uh I want to also thank our uh excellent um discussions I want
To thank Marcus gaita Olivier Pierre and Allison for your very constructive and thought thought-provoking remarks we will have a recording of the session so we can listen again and take down those details and also the discussion that was in the chat and I want to thank all of
You for connecting with us and engaging in this discussion posing questions and last but not least great thanks to our Stellar social protection or team for really enabling us to come together and have this webinar and uh I wish you all a very good rest of Day evening
Afternoon and thank you very much and hope we can have ongoing conversation and greater action in this mon much needed area for creating greater social justice thank you and goodbye thank you to