Questionnaire
“The Role of ESC-SIs and Social Dialogue in Promoting
Social Protection Floors”
In light of the cooperation agreement between the International Association of Economic and
Social Councils and Similar Institutions (AICESIS) and the ILO, signed on 8 May 2012, the ILO
and AICESIS, in cooperation with the ESC of Spain, organized a first annual conference on the
role of ESC-SIs in the face of the global economic crisis, in Madrid, December 2013. Following
its success, a second conference will be organised in Seoul, South-Korea, on 20 and 21
November 2014 with the assistance of the Economic and Social Development Commission of
the Republic of Korea.
The topic of this year’s conference will be on Social Protection Floors. The Social Protection
Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202) was adopted in June 2012 by the International Labour
Conference to provide ILO Member States with guidance to “(a) establish and maintain, as
applicable, social protection floors as a fundamental element of their national social security
systems; and (b) implement social protection floors within strategies for the extension of social
security that progressively ensure higher levels of social security to as many people as possible,
guided by ILO social security standards”1. The recommendation stipulates that member states
“should formulate and implement national social security strategies, based on national
consultations through effective social dialogue and social participation” 2 , making the topic
especially suitable for this conference. Due to the nature of the subject, the ILO will be
represented jointly by the Social Dialogue and Tripartism Unit of the Governance and Tripartism
department (the direct partner of AICESIS within the ILO), and the Social Protection department.
To stimulate fruitful participation during the conference, a background report will be drafted by
the ILO in collaboration with AICESIS to provide a basis for discussion. To support this effort,
this questionnaire is being sent to all AICESIS members, and other selected tripartite institutions,
and should be seen as a vital exercise in collecting information on the role of Social Dialogue in
the area of social protection. The questionnaire is divided in four main parts: the involvement of
ESC-SIs in the policy process; social protection sector reforms in the past decade; the role of two
ILO social security instruments; and the challenges and future role of social dialogue in the area
of social protection.
1
Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202), §1. Available online at:
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:3065524
2
Ibid. §13(1).
It is strongly encouraged to answer the questionnaire with as much information as possible, as
the quality of the answers for a large part will ultimately determine the quality and depth of the
report and hence the conference discussion. The participants with the most interesting experience
will be invited to present their national experience at the conference. Please note that depending
on the type of question more than one answer is possible. Please attach any relevant policy
documents to the questionnaire.
Questionnaire
DEADLINE: 15 July, 2014
For further information and to return the completed questionnaire, please contact:
Ms. Samira AZARBA (AICESIS, + 32 (0)2 230 2878; samira.azarba@aicesis.org)
Ms. Yuka Okumura (ILO, +41 (0)22 799 6557; okumura@ilo.org)
Information concerning the ESC-SI
Country:
Name of the institution:
Website:
President:
Information concerning the focal point in the institution
Name:
Department and function:
Address:
E-mail:
Phone / Fax number
I. The extent of Social Dialogue in the area of Social Protection
1.
Do the policy areas of the ESC-SI cover social protection3?
☐ Yes
☐ No (skip to question 3.)
If the answer is yes, please indicate the extent of activities on this topic:
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Discussion
Advisory role in drafting legislation and developing policy or schemes
Negotiation of tripartite agreements/social pacts
Monitoring performance of policies and programs
Other, please specify
Please insert text here
2.
3
Does the ESC-SI encompass an expert group or special committee on social
protection?
☐ Yes
☐ No
There are varying definitions of the terms ‘social protection’ and ‘social security’, which frequently lead to some
confusion. In many contexts, the two terms may be used interchangeably. For the purpose of the questionnaire
the notion of social protection is used to covers all measures providing benefits, whether in cash or in kind, to
secure protection, inter alia, from
(a) lack of work-related income (or insufficient income) caused by sickness, disability, maternity, employment
injury, unemployment, old age, or death of a
family member;
(b) lack of access or unaffordable access to health care;
(c) insufficient family support, particularly for children
and adult dependants;
(d) general poverty and social exclusion.
The term thus encompasses a broad variety of policy instruments, including social insurance, social assistance,
universal benefits and other forms of cash transfers, as well as measures to ensure effective access to health care
and other benefits in kind aiming at securing protection.
This is in accordance with paragraph 9 of the adopted Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (no. 202).
For more details, see also ILO (2010) ILO World Social Security Report 2010/11 (Geneva, ILO): p.13-17. Available
online at http://www.ilo.org/gimi/gess/ShowTheme.do?tid=1985.
Please see the following two ILO reports for additional background information: International Labour Conference
(2011) General Survey Concerning Social Security Instruments in Light of the 2008 Declaration on Social Justice for a
Fair Globalization (Geneva, ILO). Available online at: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/--relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_152602.pdf ; ILO (2014) Report for the Recurrent Discussion on
Social Protection (Labour Protection) at the 104th Session (2015) of the International Labour Conference (Geneva,
ILO). Available online at: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/--relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_236262.pdf
If the answer is yes, please specify the composition of the expert group/special committee, and its
mandate:
Please insert text here
3.
Do the activities of the ESC-SI contribute to the development and/or
implementation of social protection policy? If so, how?
☐ No
☐ Securing political commitment or national tripartite consensus for reforms or policy
adjustments
☐ Securing national tripartite agreement on financing of policies and programs
☐ Coordinating the balance among different social protection schemes
☐ Formulating broad policy goals in a subarea of social protection
☐ Providing advice on policy coherence across multiple subareas of social protection
☐ Stipulating detailed frameworks for other levels/ministries to administer
☐ Other, please specify
Please specify for each checked box the contributions the ESC-SI has made
Please insert text here
4.
Has the ESC-SI taken any important initiatives in the field of Social Protection recently?
If so, in which following form(s)?
☐ No
☐ Report, advice and proposal
☐ Conference, event
☐ Others, please specify
Please specify for each checked box, the theme of the initiative taken by the ESC-SI.
Please insert text here
5.
Which social dialogue institutions (beside the ESC-SI) deal with social protection in
your country (e.g. institutions that are composed or managed by the social partners
within ministries, attached to pension funds or administrative bodies)? Please specify
name, composition, and institutional mandate below:
☐ Pension board/council
☐ Health insurance board/council
☐ Unemployment insurance board/council
☐ Social Assistance board/council
☐ Workers’ compensation board
☐ Other, please specify
Please insert text here
6.
Are there formal mechanisms that tie the ESC-SI to any of the institutions
mentioned in the previous question? (e.g. information sharing, coordinating policy
coherence between different institutions, etc.)
☐ Yes, please specify per institution
☐ No
Please insert text here
7.
How should the relation between ESC-SI and other Social Dialogue institutions in
the area of social protection be characterized (note: range from 1 to 5, with 5 most
satisfactory/extensive)?
Unsatisfactory/satisfactory
Limited/extensive
Please insert text here
☐1
☐1
☐2
☐2
☐3
☐3
☐4
☐4
☐5
☐5
II. The Social Protection system in the past decade
8.
Have there been any policies or schemes to extend social protection coverage created
or strengthened in the past ten years in at least one of the following areas4?
☐ Old-age, Disability and Survivors’ Pensions
☐ Health Insurance
☐ Unemployment Benefits
☐ Maternity Benefits
☐ Child and Family Benefits
☐ Other, please specify
Please insert text here
Please briefly summarize the reform for each respective subject indicated, and please list any
outcomes/results.
Please insert text here
4
As per above mentioned definition and in line with the Social Protection Floors Recommendation No. 202 (§9.),
benefits may include child and family benefits, sickness and health-care benefits, maternity benefits, disability
benefits, old-age benefits, survivors’ benefits, unemployment benefits and employment guarantees, and
employment injury benefits as well as any other social benefits in cash or in kind. Schemes providing such benefits
may include universal benefit schemes, social insurance schemes, social assistance schemes, negative income tax
schemes, public employment schemes and employment support schemes.
9.
Which of the policies or schemes extending social protection coverage developed in
the past ten years, as indicated in the previous question, have been subject to
consultation/concertation by the tripartite partners?
Within the ESC-SI
Outside the ESC-SI
☐ Old-age, Disability and Survivors’
☐ Old-age, Disability and Survivors’
Pensions
Pensions
☐ Health Protection
☐ Health Protection
☐ Unemployment Benefits
☐ Unemployment Benefits
☐ Maternity Benefits
☐ Maternity Benefits
☐ Child and Family Benefits
☐ Child and Family Benefits
☐ Other, please specify
☐ Other, please specify
Please insert text here
Please briefly summarize the extent of the role of the tripartite partners for each subject
indicated (and please specify the name of the respective social dialogue institution).
Please insert text here
10.
How have these social dialogue processes affected the dynamics between ESC-SI
and other social dialogue institutions?
☐ Increased cooperation
☐ No change
☐ Limited cooperation
☐ Other, please specify
Please insert text here
11.
How have the new or strengthened policies or schemes affected the dynamics
between the social partners?
☐ Increased cooperation
☐ No change
☐ Increased polarization
☐ Other, please specify
Please insert text here
12.
Has the ILO, or any other international institution, played a role to facilitate this
decision making process?
☐ Yes, please specify
☐ No
Please insert text here
III.
The role of International Instruments
13.
Is the ESC-SI aware of the following ILO instruments?
☐ The Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202)
☐ Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102)
14.
Has the Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202) been on the
agenda within the ESC-SI? Please specify the extent of this and list any subsequent
actions and results of its discussion.
☐ Yes, please specify
☐ No
Please insert text here
15.
Does your country have a national strategy for social protection extension, and is it
in accordance with the Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202)?
☐ Yes, national strategy in place (please specify)
☐ Yes, in place and has been brought in accordance with recommendation 202 (please
specify)
☐ No, please specify why not
Please insert text here
16.
If your country has ratified the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention,
1952 (No. 102), have the reports on application been shared with the national
stakeholders?
☐ Yes, please specify
☐ No, not shared
Please insert text here
17.
Has the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102) been on
the agenda within the ESC-SI? Please specify the extent of this and list any subsequent
actions and results of its discussion:
☐ Yes, please specify
☐ No
Please insert text here
IV.
The Social Dialogue in the area of Social Protection: challenges and
future
18.
Which of the following factors have hindered the ESC-SI, or social dialogue
mechanisms in general, to engage in social dialogue in the area of social protection?
☐ Lack of expertise/knowledge
☐ Lack of funding
☐ Lack of political will
☐ Lack of negotiation skills
☐ Lack of institutional/legal provisions stipulating ESC-SI involvement
☐ Other, please specify
Please insert text here
19.
What are the current challenges to the social protection system in your country?
Please elaborate in the box. Any documents, reports or opinions on this subject are very
welcome.
☐ Ageing population
☐ Contraction of public expenditures (austerity measures and other)
☐ Coverage gaps (certain population groups not covered)
☐ Fragmentation of, and lack of, institutional coordination with regards to social protection
programs, schemes and policies
☐ Inadequacy of benefits
☐ Limited voluntary contribution coverage
☐ Persistent poverty
☐ Rising Inequality
☐ Rising or high unemployment rates
☐ Rising public health problems
☐ Significant presence informal economy / informal unemployment
☐ (Financial) sustainability of existing schemes/funds
☐ Other, please specify
Please insert text here
20.
Which steps are the ESC-SI or the government taking to strengthen the role of
social dialogue in the area of social protection? Please do not hesitate to attach any
relevant documents.
Please insert text here
21.
What roles does the ESC-SI foresee it should play in the area of social protection?
☐ Advisory role in drafting legislation and developing policy or schemes
☐ Negotiation of tripartite agreements/social pacts
☐ Monitoring performance of policies and programs
☐ Administrating schemes or programs
☐ Other, please specify
Please insert text here
22.
What kind of input or support would the ESC-SI expect from the ILO to strengthen
the role of ESC-SIs, and social dialogue in general, in the area of social protection5?
Please insert text here
23.
What kind of input or support would the ESC-SI expect from the AICESIS?
Please insert text here
24.
During the Madrid 2013 Conference a number of recommendations for
strengthening the role of ESC-SIs were identified. On which of these has your ESC-SI
taken action? Please elaborate in the comment box.
☐ Collaborate with international institutions (e.g. AICESIS, ILO, World Bank, etc.)
☐ Collaborate with ESC-SIs from other states
☐ Develop sustainable policy alternatives
☐ Increase public visibility and reputation (e.g. through media, public session, etc.)
☐ Strengthen capacity and role of social partners
☐ None, and role weakened (please elaborate in the box!)
☐ Other, please specify
Please insert text here
25.
Please fill in below any additional comments that might be of use for drafting the
background report for the conference, as well as other issues that the ESC-SI feels
should be addressed during the conference.
5
e.g. capacity building and training through workshops or seminars, assistance in aligning national legislation with
conventions, actuarial studies, etc. For other examples of ILO assistance, including on the subject of social
protection systems in general, see International Labour Conference (2011) General Survey Concerning Social
Security Instruments in Light of the 2008 Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (Geneva, ILO): p.231243. Available online at: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/--relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_152602.pdf.
Please insert text here
______________
Thank you for your cooperation
Please do not hesitate to include any documents, reports, or opinions produced by your
ESC-SI on any of these topics and to contact us at the aforementioned addresses if anything
is unclear.