- Local policy brief notes the need for social protection programmes that address crisis-era poverty to be cognisant of importance of gender sensitivity
Among the priorities of the crisis affected Sri Lanka, should be ensuring that its citizens are protected through social protection programmes. While certain programmes were in place even before the crisis broke out and certain other initiatives were launched following the crisis, there are many aspects of the prevailing social crisis that are yet to receive adequate attention. One of the foremost steps in this regard is increasing the funds allocated for social protection programmes.
In a recently released policy brief titled “Social Protection for Sri Lanka: A Progressive Gender Sensitive Response to the Crisis”, it was further noted that in response to the above situation, a social protection programme that is gender sensitive and adequately addresses the pauperisation of Sri Lankans amidst an economic crisis must be of urgent priority. The policy brief was based on research on social protection policies in Sri Lanka, which aimed to better understand the impact of the crisis on the lives of the people and to identify an appropriate design for social protection in the context of the economic crisis, and which was conducted by the Feminist Collective for Economic Justice (FCEJ). It provided insights and recommendations for a gender sensitive social protection programme.
Social protection amidst the crisis
The policy brief noted that although Sri Lanka has taken a number of initiatives to strengthen social safety in the country, there is a need to strengthen, update, and in some cases, restructure them, in order to properly respond to the prevailing socio-economic conditions.
Adding that although the State Policy and investment in social protections had achieved significant results in the early years, the policy brief said that in recent years however, social protection systems that were demanded for and won by the people’s struggles and movements have been systematically dismantled by State policies oriented towards market ideologies and personal political gains. “A push to privatise the provision of social protection has also weakened the effectiveness of the schemes. For example, investing Employees Provident Fund (EPF) funds in the stock market, incurred losses, and the more recent push to disburse Samurdhi cash transfers via private banks poses the risk of excluding those who are on the Credit Information Bureau system from accessing much needed support. The targeted approach to social protection has long been misused by politicians and officials to discriminate against communities and individuals when selections are made.”
Discussing the ongoing crisis, the policy brief stressed that given that Sri Lanka is faced with the worst economic crisis since the 1930s and the devastating impact on most Sri Lankans, any social protection programme must respond to how the economic crisis has impacted communities. In this regard, it noted that - most Sri Lankans have fallen into poverty with estimates indicating that the overall poverty rate has doubled; inequalities have widened over the past two years; a severe crisis of food security has arisen with reports claiming that one third of the households in Sri Lanka are food insecure; basic, decent and secure living has become unachievable; the debt burden has increased; female contributions to the economy and also unpaid care work remains undervalued; and that disability benefits do not cover the number of persons living with disabilities.
However, despite the manner in which the said issues have emerged or worsened, the policy brief said that the Government’s response to those remains inadequate. “Sri Lanka spent the least on social protection among South Asian countries during the Covid-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the Sri Lankan Government has failed to set out a social protection policy in the face of the impacts of the pandemic and the prevailing economic crisis. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported that the expenditure on social safety nets last year (2022) was a mere 0.6% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and that this will be maintained this year (2023) as well. Government spending on social protection is hugely inadequate when compared with studies conducted in 2020 (before the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the economic crisis) that have shown the need for social protection for an aging population (0.86% of the GDP for old age pensions) and children (0.36% of child benefits) at risk and persons with disabilities (0.20% of the GDP) in Sri Lanka.
With regard to income insecurity and the cost of living increasing, the policy brief said that no meaningful response has been forthcoming, and that households in debt as a consequence of micro-finance loans have not been able to recover. Many reporting the loss of their assets, particularly gold, for survival, was noted. Discussing the Government’s response to food insecurity, the policy brief said that no programmes were launched for over a year to address the problem, although one year into the economic crisis, after reports of malnutrition and children fainting in schools, the Government promised to increase the school mid-day meal programme from 1.2 million to two million school children.
Effective and adequate social protection
The FCEJ recommended that gender sensitive social protection programmes should include a number of short, medium and long term elements.
Among the recommendations that were classified as immediate assistance were, expanding cash grant beneficiaries and increasing cash grants to meaningful amounts. Noting that the increase in poverty means an increase in the number of those needing support, the policy brief explained that given that poverty has doubled, there can be no rationale to narrow the base of people eligible for social security at this time. Stressing that food insecurity must be addressed as an immediate step, the policy brief said that cash grants must be supplemented with food distribution, school meal programmes, the availability of affordable food (price fixing expecting private vendors to keep prices to cost or subsidising costs is not effective), and the dissemination of nutrition promoting information. Providing an immediate moratorium on household debt payments for those who are unemployed, have a low income or are on social welfare schemes, was another recommended immediate form of assistance.
Having in place a plan for universal social protections and moving away from targeted programmes were other forms of recommendations, under which it was recommended to increase State spending on social welfare. In that regard, the policy brief raised concerns that when it comes to the percentage of the GDP spent on social welfare programmes, there is no acknowledgement of the enormity of the crisis on the people's lives and the impact this will have on the immediate and foreseeable future. In addition, ensuring decent living wages, decent working conditions and social protections for women’s labour were also among the recommendations. Investing in the free health and free education policy in Sri Lanka is a need of the hour, as per the policy brief, which underscored that State investment in these sectors has not been adequate, and that given the crisis, it is important to bolster support at a time when State hospitals are reporting shortages of medicines, a loss of staff and an increase in the health impacts on the population.
With regard to care work, the policy brief recommended: “A universal social protection scheme must also provide support for females who are primarily responsible for care work, and in the current economic crisis, bear the burden of the austerity measures including domestic violence. Programmes must include free day care centres, State run drop in care facilities for the elderly, State run drop in care facilities for those living with disabilities, State run residential facilities for the elderly, and safe houses for females who are experiencing increasing domestic violence and abuse. These programmes also complement labour policies.”
The policy brief recommended that social protection policies be framed as citizenship, employment and community based entitlements, regarding which it said: “Immediately cease political and public framing of social protection beneficiaries as poor, lazy, lying, and being unproductive. Reframe social protection programmes as citizenship, employment and community based entitlements that provide security for all citizens in Sri Lanka by addressing poverty and inequality. Prevent stigmatisation and discrimination. Guarantee human dignity to social protection beneficiaries. Recognise their contribution to the economy as informal sector workers, care work providers and working people.”
Consulting females, social welfare beneficiaries and vulnerable groups was also recommended, adding that effective social protection programmes can only be developed as part of safe and open consultations with those most affected.
The policy brief paid significant attention to the right to information and transparency related aspects of social protection programmes: “Many working people are unaware as to how or why savings are debited and how or why periodic debits are found on their passbooks. However, they fear retaliation and consequence from Samurdhi and other State officials if they ask for explanations, thus preventing them from demanding transparency. In an evaluation report conducted by the Auditor General in 2018, it was recommended that there should be a formal information system including a methodology in briefing the Samurdhi beneficiaries on the empowerment process and a direct methodology in identifying the problems caused to the Samurdhi beneficiaries within the programme. The State should publicly make available how the savings in the Samurdhi Banks have been invested. More importantly, what will happen to an individual’s savings once they are taken off the scheme? This clarity and transparency should be there about group savings. Furthermore, there should be clear information about loan repayment once people are taken off the schemes.”
What is more, with regard to data privacy and data protection for social protection beneficiaries, the policy brief said that the Government should publicly make available information on the measures that they have taken to ensure privacy and data protection, as data of over three million people have been collected through the ‘Aswesuma’ programme.