Social Protection enhancement in the
Eastern Caribbean: Lessons learned from
EU interventions
Koen Rossel-Cambier
EU Delegation for Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean
OAS Caribbean Conference on Horizontal Cooperation in Social Protection,
Presentation 20 January 2011
Structure presentation




Background
EU interventions in social protection
The experience of social investment funds in the
Eastern Caribbean
Lessons learned and ways forward
Background



EU: 27 countries
Various institutions: Council, Parliament,
Commission and Agencies, Social Committee
and Committee of Regions,
Intervention Modalities:
 European
Law and Policies
 Programmes and funding
 Collaboration mechanisms
EU concerted strategy for modernising
social protection



Expenditure on social protection accounts for 28.5% of
European Union GDP,
63% of this amount is spent on pensions and health
care.
Its role in the redistribution of income is immense: in
absence of social transfer payments almost 40% of households would live
in relative poverty, a figure which is reduced through tax and benefit
systems to 17%.
EU concerted strategy for
modernising social protection
Promoting social integration
“social protection systems should:
 ensure effective safety nets, consisting of minimum income benefits
and accompanying provisions;
 focus on prevention, fostering active rather than passive
measures and providing incentives and pathways to (re)integration
into the labour market and society;
 contribute to a comprehensive and integrated approach to
fighting social exclusion, including all relevant policies and players.”
EU: A broader concept of social protection
Beyond social security, includes most activities linked to prevention of and
response to all social deficits; examples:
 employment generation,
 training,
 access to micro-credit and - in a context of high informal economy -microinsurance,
 access to services to cover basic needs, and
 other poverty reduction initiatives
EU development
interventions in social protection

The European Consensus on Development clearly indicates employment
as a crucial factor to achieve high level of social cohesion.

The EC adopted over time a number of key policy documents to address
employment, social protection and decent work for all

Financing instruments in the period 2007-2013:
 The European Development Fund (ACP countries),
 Global Programme “Investing in People”
 SUGAR and BANANA accompanying measures (SFA)
 EU MDG support initiative
EU initiatives on Social Protection in
the Eastern Caribbean

Technical support to social protection reform: e.g. SKN, DOM

Budget support to PRSP: e.g. Dominica, Grenada

Support to vocational training and human resources development
(e.g. SLU, BAR)

Social Investment Funds
The experience of social investment
funds in the Eastern Caribbean

Social Investment funds: Financing mechanisms that
promote/finance public investments in small-scale projects in a
variety of sectors identified, and in many cases carried out, by local
groups (communities, local governments and NGOs)

Eastern Caribbean:



Saint Lucia: over 4.5 million euro
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: 4.25 million euro (2006-2008)
Dominica: 4.4 million euro (2006-2009)
Example: Dominica SIF







25 vulnerable plans and 10 community plans developed
53 projects with each a training component
Beneficiaries: 7547 persons and 2300 households
6 vulnerable groups: elderly, children at risk, youth at risk, women,
Carib community, physically and mentally challenged
20 communities
591 cases of short term employment
433 persons benefitting from 22 training activities on +management,
ECD, proposal writing, leadership, financial management and
MandE
Good practice from 3 countries








Outreach to low-income and vulnerable persons
Visibility: internet, TV and press
Participatory planning and implementation
Community contracting
Trickle down of funds for communities
Flexibility in implementation
Income generating or employment creation spin offs
Capacity building
Risks and challenges of SIFs

Selection of communities

Efficiency : start up, recruitment and capacity within project implementation period

Overlaps with parallel social funds and mandates of various ministries

Sustainability:


Project outcomes: maintenance by communities?
SIF: dependent on donor funding

Political interference

Depth but no breadth of poverty outreach

Little evidence of decrease of poverty attributed to SIF

Transaction costs
EU Evaluation of three SIFs

Relevance and sustainability of the project outputs and
outcomes to the overall SFA framework

Efficiency and effectiveness by country of the respective social
investment funds

Coherence in partnerships created and participatory approach.

Commonalities and differences between the three country
approaches

Recommendations for the design, implementation, monitoring
and evaluation of future similar interventions
Questions at hand

How do SIFs fit into the larger picture of a national social
protection framework?

Are they suitable to become a long-term tool for
community-oriented social protection interventions?

Do SIFs alleviate intergenerational poverty and increase
social protection?
Thank you for your attention