Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Social Protection Budget BriefInvesting in inclusiveness in Rwanda2018/2019
© U
NIC
EF/
Mu
gw
iza
Rwanda
Social Protection Budget Brief: Investing in inclusiveness in Rwanda 2018/2019
© United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) RwandaNovember 2018
3
PrefaceThis social protection sector budget brief explores the extent to which the Government of Rwanda addresses the needs of children under 18 years of age. The brief analyses the size and composition of budget allocations to the social
protection sector for the fiscal year (FY) 2018/19, as well as the adequacy of past spending. The budget briefs aim to synthesize complex budget information and offer recom-mendations to strengthen budgeting for children.
Key messagesGovernment spending for social protection is increasing: Government spending for the social protection sector1 indicates an increase from FRW 73.1 billion in 2014/15 to FRW 138.3 billion in 2018/19. This is an increase of 89.3 per cent in the past five years – even though social protection expenditure as a ratio to gross domestic product remained constant (at 1.2 per cent). The increase in budget shows renewed commitment by the Govern-ment of Rwanda to strengthen social protection and promote inclusiveness. However, a further increase in public spending in social protection in the medium term is required for the govern-ment to achieve the expected level of scale-up and coverage of social protection services.
Changes of budgets; original and revised budgets show a fluctuation: Analysis of the initially approved budget and the revised budget for the social protection sector shows a fluctuating trend. In FY2017/18, the budget was revised downward by -3.4 per cent, while in FY2016/17 there was an upward revision of 3 per cent. Given the limited coverage of social protection services, there is a need to continue strengthening social protection plan-ning and budget execution to justify the case for more resource allocations in the sector during budget revisions.
Social protection budget execution has decreased over the past two years: The budget execution rate by central government and districts, respectively, declined from 92.5 per cent and 99 per cent in 2014/15 to 72.7 per cent and 86.3 per cent in 2017/18. The decrease in the budget execution rate is concerning and could potentially negatively influence the nominal increase in allocated budget. Therefore, there is a need to improve budget planning and execution to ensure full execution of allocated budgets.
Spending in key social protection programmes is increasing: Spending in key social protection programmes has increased in the past two years. Between 2016/17 and 2018/19: (i) Vision 2020 Umurenge Programme (VUP), Ubudehe and other family support interventions were allocated FRW 59.7 billion, up from 46.2 billion in 2016/17; (ii) allocations to nutrition-related interventions (milk support, early childhood development coordination, One Cow per Poor Family) increased from FRW 4.6 billion to FRW 26.3 billion; (iii) health financing/subsidization increased from FRW 5.6 billion to FRW 36 billion.
Budget allocation to child-focused social protection showed an upsurge in recent years: The child-focused social protection (nutrition and child protection) budget has increased significantly, from RWF 6.4 billion in 2017/18 to RWF 22.9 billion in 2018/19. As a share of the social protection budget allocation, it increased from 6.8 per cent to 22.9 per cent. However, there is no mecha-nism to document off-government budget interventions for social protection. There is thus a need to establish an integrated system to enable tracking of both government on-budget and non-govern-ment off-budget interventions for social protection programmes, particularly those targeting vulnerable women and children .
Decentralized budget for social protection programmes decreased over the past years: Social protection budgets allo-cated and executed by the districts (decentralized public entities) show a nominal increase from FRW 31 billion in 2014/15 to FRW 37.4 billion in 2018/19. However, the budget for decentralized entities, as share of total social protection budget, indicates a decrease from 39.6 per cent in 2014/15 to 27 per cent in 2018/19. It is thus necessary to review the social protection programmes with a view to further decentralization, to ensure that services are closer to the beneficiaries.
© U
NIC
EF/
Mu
gw
iza
4
1. Introduction
1.1 Understanding the social protection sector in Rwanda
The Rwanda’s National Social Protection Sector Strategy 2018–2024 and the updated Social Protection Policy of 2017 define social protection as: All public and private insurance and income transfer schemes as well as social care services that, together, ensure that all citizens, especially the most vulnerable and mar-ginalized, have income security, a dignified standard of living, are protected against life-cycle and livelihood risks and that the rights of all citizens are upheld.2 The mission of the social protection sector is to ensure that ‘All Rwandan citizens have a dignified standard of living, are protected from social exclusion, neglect and abuse, and are supported to access employment and other livelihood opportunities.’
The social protection sector is coordinated by the Ministry of Local Government (MINALOC) with support from various ministries and agencies.
As in other countries, the Rwandan Social Protection system is characterized by contributory and non-contributory schemes. This budget brief, however, focuses mainly on government budget allocated to non-contributory schemes. They comprise two major categories. The first constitutes the core programmes, which include VUP, the Genocide Survivors Support and Assistance Fund (FARG), and the Rwanda Demobilization and Reintegration Commission (RDRC). The second category constitutes com-plementary livelihood support services or cash plus initiatives, including:
• VUP financial services
• Ubudehe programme
• Income generating activities
• Old age, disability and survivors’ pensions
• Mutuelle de Santé
• Free basic education
• Support to orphans and other vulnerable children
• Girinka, the One Cow per Poor Family Scheme
• Fertilizer subsidies and seeds
• Support to people with disabilities
• Savings and credit cooperatives (SACCOs)
In addition to other complementary programmes, the Government of Rwanda implements a series of programmes supporting the nutritional status of children, including: one litre of milk per child for acutely malnourished children; One Cup of Milk Per Child pro-gramme implemented in primary schools; Fortified Blended Food distribution; and a recently launched nutrition-sensitive direct-sup-port cash-transfer initiative to pregnant mothers and children under 2 years from the poorest households. The programmes are implemented by different agencies – notably, the Rwanda Agricul-ture Board, Local Administration Development Agency (LODA), Rwanda Education Board, Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) and the National Early Childhood Development Programme (NECDP).
© U
NIC
EF/
Mu
gw
iza
5
Table 1: Overview of social protection programmes
Institutions Interventions
Ministry of Local Government (MINALOC)
• Developing and promoting a sector protection policy and implementation mechanisms
• Vulnerable group support
Local Administrative Entities Development (LODA)
• VUP direct support• VUP classic public works• VUP expanded public works• VUP expanded direct support• VUP nutrition sensitive direct
support• VUP financial services• VUP asset grants• Ubudehe• Milk support
Ministry of Education (MINEDUC)
• Free primary and post primary education (9YBE and 12YBE) 3
• School feeding• One Cup of Milk per Child
Programme in primary schools
The Genocide Survivors Support and Assistance Fund (FARG)
• Education assistance• Health assistance• Financial assistance • Shelter assistance
Rwanda Demobilization and Reintegration Commission (RDRC)2
• Direct support• Income generating activities
support• Shelter support
National Council of Persons with Disabilities (NCPD)
• Mainstreaming and advocacy of persons with disabilities
Ministry of Health • Nutritional support• Fortified blended food support
Rwanda Agricultural Board
• Nutrition support • One Cow per Poor Family
(Girinka)
National Commission for Children
• Child rights protection and promotion
National Early Childhood Development Programme
• Coordination and implementation of multi-sectoral nutrition-specific sensitive interventions
• Early childhood development interventions
Ministry of Disaster Management and Refugees (MIDIMAR)
• Returnees’ and refugees’ management
• Disaster management
Rwanda Social Security Board
• Pension• Community-based health
insurance support• Maternity leave benefits
© U
NIC
EF/
Bel
l
6
1.2 Key strategic documents and targets
Table 2: Strategic documents and targets
Strategic document National target and sector outcome
Rwanda Vision 2020 • Population under poverty line reduced from 44.9 per cent in 2012 to 20 per cent in 2020• Extreme poverty eliminated by 2020
National Strategy for Transformation (NST1) 2017–2024
• Move towards a poverty free Rwanda• Increased emergence from extreme poverty• Reduced poverty among Rwandans• Reduced malnutrition among children
Social Protection Strategic Plan: 2018/19–2023/24
• Eradication of extreme poverty, reduced poverty and malnutrition• Extreme poverty headcount and poverty headcount reduced from 16.3 per cent and 39.1
per cent in 2013/14 to < 1 per cent and 7.2 per cent in 2023/24. • Increased access to social security and income support programmes, particularly
among vulnerable older people, people with disabilities, households with low labour capacity and other poor families
• Enhanced contribution of social protection for reducing malnutrition• More effective social protection responses to shocks and crises• Strengthened social care service delivery for the most vulnerable• Extremely poor households have increased access to complementary livelihood
development services for economic empowerment• Greater awareness and understanding of social protection and more positive values,
attitudes and behaviours at all levels• Strengthened capacity for evidence-based policy and social protection service delivery.
© U
NIC
EF/
Ho
use
r
7
1.3 Achievements under social protection
1.3.1 Poverty and graduation from povertyThe poverty trend analysis4 conducted by the National Institute of Statistics between 2000/01 to 2013/14 revealed that:
• The poverty rate in 2013/14 fell from 58.9 per cent in 2000/01 to 39.1 per cent in 2013/14.
• Extreme poverty fell from 40 per cent in 2000/01 to 16.3 per cent5 in 2013/14 (Figure 1).
Statistics further showed that 46 per cent of the population avoided poverty between 2010/11 and 2013/14. However, social protection interventions are not the only factors contributing to reduction of poverty, as economic development has also been taking place over the past decade.
1.3.2 Multidimensional poverty of children The multidimensional poverty of children in Rwanda was meas-ured using DHS and EICV data by combining several dimensions of deprivation by different age groups of children. The dimensions considered are (i) health, (ii) nutrition, (iii) child protection, (iv) child development, (v) water, sanitation and housing, (vi) education.
The trend analysis of the 2010 and 2014/15 data indicated a decline in multidimensional poverty among the children aged less than 2 years. Fifty-one per cent were deprived in at least three dimensions in 2015, down from 60 per cent in 2010. there was an average drop in poverty rates of 10 per cent across different age groups. However, there was an exception among children aged 15–17 years for whom the multidimensional poverty dropped from 60 per cent to 44 per cent (Figure 2). When comparing multidimensional child poverty with monetary poverty, there was considerable overlap between the two poverty measures, with 19 per cent of children both monetarily poor and deprived of their well-being in three dimensions. Thirteen per cent of the children
Source: National Institute of Statistics, EICV Reports
Figure 2: Multidimensional child poverty
Source: MODA Report, UNICEF/NISR
59.9
47.7
39.2
60.2
2010 (left axis) 2014/15 (right axis)
Per
cen
tag
e
0–23 months
24–59 months
5–14 years
15–17 years
Per
cen
tag
e
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
50.8
32 29.2
44.2
Figure 1: Poverty trends and graduation
58.9 56.7
44.9 39.1 40.0
35.8
24.1
16.3
PovertyExtreme poverty
2013/142010/112005/062000/01
Per
cen
tag
e
10
20
30
40
50
60
© U
NIC
EF/
Bel
l
8
49.755.1
47.4
55.9
2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
Per
cen
tag
e
2016/170
20
40
60
Source: Social Protection Sector Joint Review Reports
Figure 3: Coverage of eligible population by core social protection programmes
were deprived in at least three dimensions of well-being, despite living in non-monetarily poor households, while 27 per cent of children living in monetarily poor households were not multidi-mensionally poor. Nationally, 39 per cent of children in Rwanda are multidimensionally poor (deprived of their well-being in three dimensions).
1.3.3 Social protection coverage
1.3.3.1 Coverage of core social protection programmes The core social protection programmes consist of VUP safety net interventions, Assistance to Vulnerable Genocide Survivors (FARG) and Demobilization and Reintegration (RDRC). The administrative data indicate that the eligible population covered by core social protection reached 55.9 per cent6 in 2016/17 (Fig-ure 3). The coverage is expected to significantly increase with the new Social Protection Strategy 2017/18-2023/24 and NST1 implementation.
1.3.3.2 Coverage of key selected complementary programmes: Health insurance and Girinka
The mutual health insurance – the solidarity scheme for health cost sharing – has maintained a high level of subscription and was 84 per cent in 2016/17. The Government of Rwanda, also ensures access to community-based health insurance services of poor households who are under Category 1 of Ubudehe.7 The EICV 4 (2013/14)8 showed that 83.5 per cent of households who benefited from VUP-direct support subscribed to mutual health insurance.
With the One Cow per Poor Family programme (Girinka), the per-centage of beneficiaries also increased from 5 per cent in 2011/12 to 10.3 per cent in 2016/17 (Figure 4).
Source: Social Protection Sector Joint Review Reports
Figure 4: Coverage of complementary community-based health insurance and Girinka
90.7
7381.6 84
Community-based health insurance subscribers (left axis)
Household beneficiaries of Girinka (right axis)
Per
cen
tag
e
2011/12 2013/14 2014/15 2016/17
Per
cen
tag
e
12
10
8
0
6
4
2
0
20
40
60
80
100
9.7
7.7
5.1
10.3
© U
NIC
EF/
Ho
usr
9
2.1 Size of government spending in the social protection sector
Government spending in the social protection sector9 shows an increase from FRW 73.1 billion in 2014/15 to FRW 138.3 billion in 2018/19, indicating an increase of 89.3 per cent in the past five years.
The social protection budget as a share of the total government budget increased from 4.2 per cent to 5.7 per cent during the same period (Figure 5). This shows a strong commitment by the
Government of Rwanda to strengthen the social sector and pro-mote social inclusion.
Despite a nominal increase in government budget allocated to social protection, social protection expenditure as a share of gross domestic product has remained constant (1.2 per cent) in the past two years (2016/17 and 2017/18) (Figure 6).
2. Trends in government spending for the social protection sector
Figure 5: Social protection budget and % share to national budget
Source: State Finance Laws
4.2 4.3 4.1
5.25.7
Social protection budget (left axis)
Social protection budget as % national budget (right axis)
Per
cen
tag
e
FRW
bill
ion
2015
/16
2016
/17
2014
/15
2017
/18
2018
/19 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
73.1 75.5 79.4
107.9
138.3
Source: State Finance Laws
1.51.4
1.31.2 1.2
2017/182016/172015/162014/152013/14
Per
cen
tag
e
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
Figure 6: Percentage share of social protection budget to gross domestic product
© U
NIC
EF/
Mu
gw
iza
10
2.2 Changes in social protection sector budgets
2.2.1 Original vs. revised social protection budgetsThe social protection budget revision realized a fluctuating trend in the past five years. In FY2017/18, the budget was revised down-ward by -3.4 per cent, while in the previous year there was an upward revision, which registered an increase of 3 per cent
(Figure 7). Given the limited coverage of social protection ser-vices, there is a need to continue strengthening social protection planning and budget execution to justify the case for more resource allocations in the sector.
2.2.2 Changes in social protection sector budget adjusted by inflation
When looking at the budget based on changing price levels and real inflation-adjusted figures, the social protection budget was not affected by inflation, since there was a nominal increase in the social protection budget and the inflation rate is relatively low in Rwanda. (Figure 8).
Source: State Finance Laws
Source: State Finance Laws
59.4
7.0
-4.6
9.415.4
49.4
2.5 -6.36.6 8.8
Nominal changes
Inflation-adjusted budget changes
Per
cen
tag
e
2014
/15
2015
/16
2013
/14
2016
/17
2017
/18
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
3.0
7.2
Original (left axis) Revised (left axis) Change (right axis)
FRW
bill
ion
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
Per
cen
tag
e
0
50
100
150
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
-3.4-1.1
73.1 78.3 75.5 74.7 79.4 81.794.3 91.1
138.3
Figure 7: Budget changes: original vs. revised law
Figure 8: Nominal and real budget changes
© U
NIC
EF/
Ru
dak
ub
ana
11
3. Composition of social protection sector spending
3.1 Budget allocation by social protection ministries
There is an increasing trend in social protection budgets across all spending agencies, with MINALOC, MINISANTE and districts taking the largest share of the budget between 2014/15 and 2018/19: (i) MINALOC leads the sector, with its budget for social protection increasing from FRW 29.1 billion to FRW 46.4 billion; (ii) MINISANTE’s spending for social protection increased from
FRW 16.6 billion to FRW 45.9 billion; (iii) The budget allocated to districts increased from FRW 31 billion to 37.3; (iv) Other minis-tries – namely, MINAGRI, MIGEPROF and MIDIMAR – have been allocated significant amounts, mainly for nutrition, child rights pro-motion and women’s empowerment, as well as disaster recovery, refugees and returnee interventions (Figure 9).
Source: State Finance Laws
29.1
0.3
5.5
30.5
0.45.1
2.0
20.3
32.9
0.3
8.4
2.05.6
46.4
9.813.0
5.9
45.9
1.4
8.9
31.0 31.5 33.836.1
3.6
9.3
1.6
16.6
35.6 37.3
MINALOC MINAGRI MIGEPROF MIDIMAR MINISANTE Districts
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2019/19
FRW
bill
ion
0
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 9: Social protection budget allocation by ministries
© U
NIC
EF/
Ho
use
r
12
Recent increase of investments in nutritional support programmes indicate firm commitment by the Government of Rwanda to eradicate malnutrition among children under 5 and pregnant mothers, particularly among the poorest populations.
There is a lack of mechanisms to document off-government budget interventions for social protection. There is therefore a need to establish an integrated system to enable tracking both government on-budget and non-government off-budget interventions for social protection programmes, particularly those targeting vulnerable women and children.
3.2 Budget allocation in selected social protection programmes
Between 2016/17 and 2018/19: (i) VUP and Ubudehe and other family support programmes were allocated FRW 59.7 billion, up from 36.5 billion in 2017/18; (ii) Allocations to nutrition-related inter-ventions (milk support, early childhood development coordination, One Cow per Poor Family) increased from FRW 4.6 billion to FRW 26.3 billion; and (iii) Health financing/subsidization increased from FRW 5.6 billion to FRW 36 billion. However, allocation to support
for genocide survivors showed a decrease from FRW 18.7 billion to FRW 15.8 billion, which can be attributed to the declining number of survivors of school-going age. Similarly, the allocation for the demobilization and reintegration programme has declined slightly, to FRW 4.3 billion in 2018/19, from FRW 4.7 billion in 2018/17 (Figure 10).
Figure 10: Social protection core programmes
2.3
2.0
5.7
18.7
4.6
5.6
2.8
1.6
4.7
18.0
3.6
16.6
1.8
3.7
4.3
15.8
26.3
36.0
Child rights protection and promotion
Disaster management and returnee support
Support to Genocide Survivors (FARG)
Nutrition and household support
Health service subsidization/financing
VUP, Ubudehe, family support
Demobilization and reintegration (NCDR)
36.546.2
59.7
2018/19 2017/18 2016/17
Percentage
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Source: State Finance Laws
13
3.3 Complementary child-focused social protection initiatives
8.56.8
22.9
Child-focused social protection (left axis)
Child-focused budget as % of social protection budget (right axis)
FRW
bill
ion
Per
cen
tag
e
2018/192016/17 2017/1800
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
5
10
15
20
25
6.9 6.4
31.7
Source: State Finance Laws
In 2017/18, the complementary child-focused social protection budget has increased significantly, from FRW 6.4 billion in 2017/18 to FRW 22.9 billion in 2018/19. As a share of social protection budget allocation, the child-focused budget increased from 6.8 per cent in 2017/18 to 22.9 per cent in 2018/19 (Figure 11). The increase is attributed to budget allocations to the newly created National Early Childhood Development Programme (NECDP) and increased allocation to interventions for eradication of malnutrition.
3.4 Social protection sector budget by recurrent and development classification
The share of development budget under social protection has increased from 40.9 per cent in 2017/18 to 57.4 per cent in 2018/19. Also, both recurrent10 and development budgets for social protection increased over the past three years (Figure 12). This increase could be explained by the recent increase in exter-nal financing for social protection, which is mainly recorded in the Budget Law under the development budget category.
Figure 11: Budget allocation to child-focused social protection interventions
Unlike nutrition support, which attracted an increase in funding in 2018/19, the child protection dimensions remained constant. There is a need to increase the budget for interventions aimed at strengthening child protection, particularly for initiatives focusing on adolescents.
Figure 12: Recurrent vs. development social protection budget
Source: State Finance Laws
48.355.6
48.540.9
57.4
Recurrent budget (left axis) Development budget (left axis) Development budget (right axis)
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
FRW
bill
ion
Per
cen
tag
e0
20
40
60
80
100
50
40
30
20
10
60
70
0
64.1
86.2
38.8 36.3 38.648.3
39.3 37.0
57.1
39.6
© U
NIC
EF/
Mu
gab
e
14
The social protection budget allocated at district level shows an increasing trend, from FRW 31 billion in 2014/15 to FRW 37.4 billion in 2018/19. However, the percentage share of the social protection budget allocated to districts, as a proportion of the total social protection budget, has decreased from 39.6 per cent in 2014/15 to 27 per cent in 2018/19 (Figure 13).
4. Decentralization and social protection sector spending
Figure 13: Social protection budget allocated to local government
Source: State Finance Laws
39.6 42.4 41.3
Local government social protection budget (left axis)
Share of local government social protection budget (right axis)
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19FR
W b
illio
n
Per
cen
tag
e
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 50
40
30
20
10
0
31.927.0
31.0 37.331.5 33.8 35.6
To strengthen decentralization of social protection services, there is a need to review social protection services and budget decentralization with a view to identifying new services and budgets in need of decentralization in line with the implementation of the National Strategy for Transformation (NST1) and the new Social Protection Strategic Plan.
© U
NIC
EF/
Mu
gw
iza
15
In the past four years, the budget execution rates for social protec-tion have shown a declining trend. The districts realized a better budget execution rate on average than the national agencies.
The social protection sector budget execution rate declined from 92.5 per cent and 99 per cent in 2014/15 to 72.7 per cent and 86.3 per cent in 2017/18 (Figure 14). Declining budget execution rates in the social protection sector could pose a challenge to potential increased allocations by the Government of Rwanda.
5. Social protection sector budget execution
Source: MINECOFIN budget execution reports
Figure 14: Budget execution rates: local and decentralized level
92.599.0 99.0 101.0
74.379.5
72.7
86.3
Central government Local government interventions
2014
/15
2015
/16
2016
/17
2017
/18
Per
cen
tag
e
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
© N
oo
ran
i
16
6. Financing the social protection sector
The external financing of social protection has shown an increas-ing trend over the past four years, from 13 per cent in 2015/16 to 58.2 per cent in 2018/19.
This could be explained by renewed sector prioritization by the Government of Rwanda and the increased interest of international financial institutions such as the World Bank (Figure 15).
Figure 15: Source of financing in social protection sector
Source: State Finance Laws
26.6
13.8
22.4 33.6
58.2
Domestic (left axis)
External (left axis)
Share of public financing (right axis)
2013
/14
2014
/15
2015
/16
2016
/17
2017
/18
FRW
bill
ion
Per
cen
tag
e
0
20
40
60
80
100
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70
56.5
20.4
77.2
12.3
62.4
18.0
69.2
35.0
60.5
84.3
To deal with unpredictable changes in foreign aid flows, the Government of Rwanda should design a sustainable financing strategy of social protection services to ensure proper targeting, equity and graduation from social safety nets.
© U
NIC
EF/
Nki
nzi
ng
abo
17
7. Key policy issues
• Coverage of social protection services remains low: The new Social Protection Strategy 2018–2024 foresees introduc-tion of many categorical direct transfers (e.g. disability and old age) that are expected to increase coverage of extremely vulnerable households and individuals in Rwanda. In addi-tion, nutrition-sensitive direct support for young children in extremely poor households is being rolled out. To be able to financially sustain the delivery of these measures over time, and expand the scope of direct support to other vulnerable categories, the Government of Rwanda will have to devise innovative financing mechanisms and increase public funding allocated to social protection programmes.
• Diversification of the social protection measures requires renewed focus on adequate case management, and mon-itoring and evaluation within the social protection sector: The ongoing revision and streamlining of the community work-force needs to be accelerated and capacities developed at community level to deliver integrated services through a solid case management and referral system. Further strengthening of the existing monitoring and evaluation systems is required to ensure effective routine monitoring of core social protection. Numerous complementary measures need to be instituted to accelerate eradication of extreme poverty, including the recently launched three-year Multi-Sector Joint Action Plan. In addition, the introduction of multiple measures under core social protection will require improved monitoring and more complex reporting and evaluation to enable the social protec-tion system to better understand the outreach and impact of measures on targeted households.
© U
NIC
EF/
Mu
gw
iza
© U
NIC
EF/
Ru
dak
ub
ana
18
Endnotes
1. This refers to general social protection as classified in Budget Law Annex VIII and includes the following budget lines: sickness and disability, genocide survivors, family and children, unemployment and social protection not classified elsewhere. It excludes nutrition under the health and agriculture sectors to avoid duplication in the total budget.
2. Ministry of Local Government, National Social Protection Strategy, 2011, Kigali, Rwanda also available at <www.MINALOC.gov.rw/fileadmin/documents/MINALOC_Documents/National_Social_Protection_Strategy.pdf>.
3. Or National Commission for Demobilization and Reintegration (NCDR).
4. <http://statistics.gov.rw/publication/poverty-mapping-report> – 2013–2014.
5. The total poverty line was computed at FRW 159,375 = US$195.5 per adult equivalent per year, and the food (‘extreme’) poverty line at FRW 105,064 = US$ 128.6. (NISR, 2016).
6. The coverage was measured by taking the total beneficiaries divided by total eligible population under Category 1 of Ubudehe, see <www.MINALOC.gov.rw/index.php?id=469&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=461>.
7. Based on Ubudehe Category 1 classification.
8. National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR), Social protection and VUP report, Kigali, Rwanda, November 2015
9. This refers to general social protection as classified in Budget Law Annex VIII and includes the following budget lines: sickness and disability, genocide survivors, family and children, unemployment, social protection not classified elsewhere. It excludes nutrition in the health and agriculture sectors to avoid duplication in the total budget.
10. Recurrent budget includes all payments other than for capital assets, including payments on goods and services (wages and salaries, employer contributions), interest payments, subsidies and transfers. Capital development budget includes payments for acquisition of fixed capital assets, stock, land or intangible assets (public infrastructure improvement or building).
© U
NIC
EF/
Mu
gw
iza
United Nations Children’s Fund Ebenezer House1370 Umuganda Boulevard KacyiruKigali
P O Box 381Kigali
Tel: +250 788 162 700Email: [email protected]: www.unicef.org/rwanda
www.facebook.com/unicefrw
twitter.com/unicefrw
www.instagram.com/unicefrwanda
