EDPRS2 Social Protection Strategy

2.1 Legal and Policy Context ...................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Institutional Overview of the Sector .................................................................................... 7

2.3 Sector Status Achievements and Challenges ..................................................................... 9

2.3.1 Key Achievements ............................................................................................................ 9

2.3.2 Challenges in the Sector ................................................................................................ 12

2.4 EICV3 and DHS4 findings and Implications for the Sector ............................................... 13

2.4.1 Poverty is geographically concentrated ........................................................................... 13 2.4.2 The poorest households tend to be larger than average and to include more children ... 13

2.4.3 The substantial reductions in household consumption poverty have not yet translated into major improvements in child nutrition....................................................................................... 14 2.4.4 Poverty levels are highest by far among those reliant mainly on farm wage labour ......... 14

2.4.5 Households headed by people with disabilities are more likely to be poor ...................... 15 Chapter three: THE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK ........................................................................ 16

3.1 Conceptual Approach for the Sector ................................................................................. 16

3.1.1 Social Protection and Graduation from Poverty............................................................... 17

3.2 Sector Priorities and Outcomes ......................................................................................... 18

3.3 Contribution to EDPRS 2 Thematic Areas/Priorities and Cross-Cutting Issues ............. 26

3.3.1 Thematic Areas............................................................................................................... 26

3.3.2 Cross-Cutting Issues....................................................................................................... 29

3.4 Strategies for Achieving Outcomes ................................................................................... 30 Chapter four: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN ................................................. 33

4.1 Institutional Framework ...................................................................................................... 33

4.1.1 Roles of Central versus Local Government ..................................................................... 33

4.1.2 Role of Private Sector ..................................................................................................... 34

4.1.3 Role of Civil Society and Other Organisations ................................................................ 35

4.1.4 Mechanisms for Co-ordination and Information Sharing between Stakeholders in the Sector ...................................................................................................................................... 36

4.2 Sequencing of Interventions .............................................................................................. 37

4.2.1 Sequencing within Core Social Protection Programmes ................................................. 38 4.2.2 Sequencing between Core and Complementary SP Programmes .................................. 38 1 4.2.3 Sequencing between policy actions and operational programmes to maximise impact .. 39

4.3 Risks .................................................................................................................................... 40 Chapter five: MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN .............................................................. 42

5.1 Sector Monitoring Arrangements ....................................................................................... 42

5.2 Sector Evaluation Plan ........................................................................................................ 43

5.3 Focused Analytical Work .................................................................................................... 43 Chapter six: COST AND FINANCING OF THE SECTOR STRATEGIC PLAN ............................. 44

6.1 Costs .................................................................................................................................... 44

6.2 Policy Choices and Trade-offs ........................................................................................... 46 TABLES Table 1: Ensuring Protection, Prevention, Promotion and Transformation: The Social Protection Sector and Its Linkages .................................................................................................................. 16 Table 2: Costs by outcome (RwF millions) ...................................................................................... 44 Table 3: Total and Unit Costs of Key Sector Programmes .............................................................. 44 ANNEXES ANNEX 1: Sector Priority and Outcome Matrix ............................................................................... 48 ANNEX 2: Sector Outcome Monitoring Matrix ................................................................................. 51 ANNEX 3: Sector Priority Policy Actions Matrix............................................................................... 54 ANNEX 4: List of Institutions and Individuals Consulted.................................................................. 61 ANNEX 5: Notes Responding to Checklist ...................................................................................... 65 ANNEX 6: Detailed costings (separate Excel worksheets) 2 Chapter one: INTRODUCTION Overview In the past five years, poverty in Rwanda has reduced by twelve percentage points from 57% to 45% and extreme poverty has dropped from 36% to 24% (EICV3). Data from the EDPRS1 flagship social protection programme, VUP, demonstrates how the social protection sector has contributed to this remarkable achievement. In particular, social protection has helped to reduce the proportion of the population categorised as Ubudehe 1 (the poorest) in VUP sectors and to increase the livestock holdings and durable assets of extremely poor beneficiary households1. This strategy establishes how the social protection sector will contribute to a range of EDPRS 2 objectives, both as a foundational sector and by delivering results under the Rural Development Theme. The social protection sector is concerned particularly with the poorest and, through implementation of this strategy, will contribute to the objectives of further reducing extreme poverty from 24% to 9% and poverty from 45% to below 30% by 2017/18. By reducing rural poverty, promoting equitable growth and supporting economic transformation, the sector will contribute to the achievement of the three primary objectives of the Rural Development Thematic Priority. The 2005 Social Protection Policy defines social protection, as “a set of public and private initiatives that provide income or consumption transfers to the poor, protect the vulnerable against livelihood risks and enhance the social status and rights of the marginalised; with the overall objective of reducing the social and economic vulnerability of poor, vulnerable and marginalised groups.” The mission of the social protection sector is to „ensure that all poor and vulnerable men, women and children are guaranteed a minimum standard of living and access to core public services, those who can work are provided with the opportunities for escaping poverty, and that increasing numbers of people are able to access risk sharing mechanisms that protect them from crises and shocks‟. The goal of the social protection sector is „to contribute to reduced poverty and vulnerability and to promote equitable growth‟, which links directly to the EDPRS 2 aim of ensuring a better quality of life for all Rwandans by promoting growth and reducing poverty. Rwanda‟s definition of social protection incorporates four principles: protection, prevention, promotion and transformation. Social protection is protective - it provides essential support to those living in poverty. It is preventive - it puts in place a safety net that can be activated to catch people in danger of falling into poverty. It is promotive – it supports poor people‟s investment so that they can pull themselves out of poverty. It is transformative – it aims to improve the social status and rights of the marginalised. The integration of these four dimensions of social protection will be critical in supporting many households to sustainably graduate out of extreme poverty, as well as in providing assistance to the long term vulnerable who cannot graduate (including the elderly and chronically ill). The purpose of this strategy is to guide the work of all social protection actors during the EDPRS2 period, supporting harmonisation of efforts behind a common set of objectives, in order to maximise impact. 1 VUP Intermediate Impact Assessment report (2012) 3 Process In developing this strategy, the sector took the existing approved National Social Protection Strategy (2011 – 2016) as the starting point and built on the substantial achievements of the sector during the EDPRS1 period. During the past five years major new programmes have been set up, including the EDPRS1 flagship VUP programme, and core social protection policy functions have been developed. To identify remaining challenges and new opportunities in the sector, recent data was analysed, including: EICV3 data on the evolution of poverty and vulnerability and the contribution of the social protection sector; health and demographic data from DHS4; the EDPRS1 Sector Self-assessment; Joint Sector Reviews and other sector specific assessments2;. On the basis of this analysis, the sector identified emerging priorities and innovations for the EDPRS2 period. The process of developing the Social Protection Strategy has been highly participatory. As a first step,the social protection sector held a two-day sector retreat for all stakeholders, including Government ministries and agencies, development partners and civil society (for a list of participants see Annex 4). At this retreat, the sources of evidence listed above were reviewed and debated and emerging priorities were agreed. The sector set up two multi-stakeholder teams to take forward the development of the strategy: a drafting team to write the strategy and a quality assurance team to review it. Drafts of the strategy were submitted to the four sub-committees of the Social Protection Sector Working Group (SPSWG) for further feedback and consultative workshops were held with District authorities. The final draft will be approved by the full SPSWG. Structure of Strategy The Social Protection Strategy is structured as follows: Chapter 2 explainsthe policy and institutional contexts of social protection in Rwanda and assesses the sector‟s achievements to date and remaining challenges. Chapter 3 sets out the definition of social protection in Rwanda and the mission and global objective of the sector. It goes on to detail social protection sector priorities and innovations for the EDPRS2 period and how the sector will contribute to EDPRS2 thematic priorities. This chapter also details the programmes that will be implemented to achieve sector objectives and demonstrates the linkages between desired results and budget programmes. Chapter 4 provides information on roles and responsibilities in implementation of the strategy, explains the key programme linkages that will be established to maximise impact and sets out the sector risk analysis. Chapter 5 explains how progress will be monitored and evaluated and includes the detailed results frameworks for the sector, demonstrating how sector outputs link to thematic outcomes. 2 These include the SWAp assessment (2011), the Social Safety Nets Assessment (2012), FARG Evaluation 1998-2010, VUP Annual Reviews and VUP Interim Impact Assessment2012. 4 Chapter 6 details the costs of implementing the strategy and the funds currently available, assesses the financing gap and outlines an action plan to address this. 5 Chapter 2: OVERVIEW OF THE SECTOR The Government has strengthened its commitment to social protection by developing a policy framework aligned with international and national commitments and institutional arrangements to promote effective and harmonised delivery.This chapter begins by setting out the numerous laws, conventions and policy commitments that underpin this strategy; it then reviews the institutional arrangements for policy development, co-ordination and programme delivery within the sector. It goes on to assess sector status, challenges and lessons learned; and finally outlines the implications of EICV3 and DHS4 findings for the sector.

2.1 Legal and PolicyContext Under the Constitution, Articles 14 & 28 are the driving force for the long-term vision for social protection3. Beneath the Constitution, Rwanda has made a range of legal and policy commitments related to social protection. International Commitments Rwanda has ratified several international conventions that establish the right to social security and protection. These include: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); and, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. At the heart of all of these conventions are the entitlements set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (specifically under Articles 22, 23.3 and 25). In addition, Convention 102 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) – of which Rwanda is a member – provides a widely accepted framework for social protection systems. the ILO has set the provision As a member of ILO, Rwanda has committed to the goal of “universal access” to social protection in order that all older people, children and people with disabilities enjoy income security. Millennium Development Goals The Government has put the Millennium Development Goals at the centre of its policy framework and,through the Vision 2020 Umurenge Program, has launched a major effort to achieve the targets. The social protection sector predominantly addresses MDG 1, “Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger‟ and also contributes to other MDG outcomes such as health and education. Specific targets relevant to the sector include halving between 1990 and 2015, “the proportion of the poor and those suffering from hunger” and also “the prevalence of under 5 malnutrition”. Regional commitments At a regional level, there are key agreements within which Rwandan social protection is framed. For example, Article 18 of the African Charter on Human and People‟s Rights stipulates that “the aged and the disabled shall also have the right to special measures of protection in keeping with their physical or moral needs.” Furthermore, the African Union‟s Social Policy Framework – ratified by Rwanda in 2009 – sets out commitments to build social protection systems, ideally based on a 3 Rwandan constitution 2003 6 social protection floor that provides benefits to old people, people with disabilities, children and the unemployed.4 Building on the regional consensus that providing social protection is a state obligation, an East Africa CommunityStrategic Plan for Gender, Youth, Children, Social Protection and Community Development was developed in November 2010. Rwanda‟s social protection policy, strategy and programmes are fully aligned with the commitments in this strategy. National commitments The revised Vision 2020 and 7 Year Government Plan targets in the table below are of particular relevance to the social protection sector, and the sector strategy is based around them. Indicator Current Status Vision 2020 target EDPRS Target 2017/18 % of population below the poverty line 44.9% 20% <30% % of population below extreme poverty line 24% Na 9% Gini-coefficient (measure of 0.49 0.35 na inequality) Child chronic malnutrition 44% 15% na % of adult population accessing financial services 47% 90% na Citizen satisfaction with service delivery 66% 80% 80% Source: MINECOFIN

2.2 Institutional Overview of the Sector Social protection policy objectives and programmes are delivered by a wide range of institutions, both Governmental and non-governmental. MINALOC has the overall policy lead on social protection and heads a Social Protection Sector Working Group (SPSWG), the responsibilities of which are to co-ordinate social protection actors and to oversee policy and strategy development and implementation. MINALOC also has oversight of a number of agencies that are directly responsible for delivering social protection programmes. These include:  The Rwanda Local Development Support Fund (RLDSF), the Social Protection Division of which manages theVision 2020 Umurenge Programme (VUP). Starting in 2008, VUP was a flagship programme of EDPRS1 and comprises three components: Direct Support which gives cash 4 The recent2010 Mwanza Declaration on Improvement of Social Protection Benefits for All East Africans calls for countries to develop national social protection policies that stipulate minimum benefits and the Social Protection Floor. 7 transfers to extremely poor households without labour capacity; Public Works which provides temporary community work opportunities for extremely poor households with labour capacity; and Financial Services that provides investment loans to poor households. The RLDSF also manages the Ubudehe programme, which has financially assisted poor households to invest in income generating projects and enabled communities across the country to undertake priority projects.  The Genocide Survivors Support and Assistance Fund (FARG), a para-statal organisation that supports needy genocide survivors. The resources of the Fund come from a Government contribution equivalent to 6% of its annual budget and other sources as identified by law; and the budget is spent on the core social protection direct support programme, as well as on programmes of education, health, shelter and support to income generating projects.  The Rwanda Demobilization and Reintegration Commission (RDRC),the programme of which includes support to eligible disabled ex-combatants in the form of a subsistence allowance (direct support), along with other benefits such as housing support, income generating activities and medical insurance. A number of other Institutions deliver social protection programmes. These include:  The Rwanda Social Security Boardwhich provides old age, disability and survivors’ pensions and medical insurance to members, who tend to be salaried workers in the formal sector, including permanent and temporary government officials. The social security policy adopted by the Cabinet in February 2009 stresses that the government will make contributions to enable members to enjoy meaningful retirement benefits and intends to extend the scheme to the informal sector.  The Ministry of Health in 1999 introduced a community-based health insurance (CBHI) scheme, the Mutuelle de Santé,with the aim of ensuring coverage for everyone without other medical insurance. The updated CBHI policy of 2010 incorporated lessons from experience of the system and reinforced the Government commitment to ensuring that the whole Rwandan population, in particular the most vulnerable, have access to quality health services.  The Ministry of Education‟s (MINEDUC) provides school feeding in around 300 schools,. (Traditional school feeding, as currently practiced, is likely to evolve into targeted school feeding linked to smallholder agriculture.)  The Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion(MIGEPROF) coordinates all support to the most vulnerable children under the Integrated Child Rights Policy and Strategic Plan of Action (2011- 2016). A national child care system will be established that will have strong linkages to the national social protection system.  The Ministry of Agriculture offers a number of programmes that provide – or subsidize – assets to rural households. These include: Girinka(the One Cow per Poor Family Scheme) in which poor families with more than 0.7 hectares are provided with a cow; a programme providing small animals (goats and rabbits) to poor households with little land; and fertilizer subsidies 8 and seeds. The Ministry of Agriculture also has a major public works programme to tackle erosion, but this is not provided with social protection objectives.  The Ministry of Trade and Commerce, in collaboration with the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MINECOFIN) and MINALOC, oversees Microfinance institutions that are established in the sectors (Savings and Credit Cooperatives (SACCOS)). These aim to help all members of society learn a culture of saving and to access affordable loans that will support them to venture into small business.  The National Institute of Statistics Rwanda provides support to the sector in terms of data and analysis.  District and Sector authorities have the key responsibility for delivery of social protection programmes, within Rwanda‟s decentralised governance structure. Districts‟ responsibilities include ensuring that budgets are accessed from central government – and from organisations such as FARG – to provide Sectors with the resources they require. District and Sector Joint Action Development Forums (JADFs) also have a key role in co-ordinating the activities of all partners.  A range of civil society actors are making important contributions to social protection programming, sometimes at large scale. Collectively, NGO livestock programmes are reaching9% of all households across the country5. CARE‟s Village Savings and Loans programme is reaching 145,000 poor people with community based financial services6.  Development partners also play key roles. In addition to the very substantial resources that they bring to the sector, they are also an important source of technical expertise in social protection. Many development partners in Rwanda can draw on sectoral expertise within their Rwanda country offices and/or in their respective HQs and can source technical assistance when required.

2.3 SectorStatus, Achievements and Challenges

2.3.1 Key Achievements The social protection sector has seen remarkable delivery achievements in the past five years. Major new programmes have been set up, coverage has been expanded and core policy functions have been developed. In addition, the sector architecture and policy framework has been strengthened and the sector has become far more harmonised. Whereas only a few years ago the social protection sector was characterised by a host of fragmented, un-coordinated and largely off- budget donor programmes, the sector is now aligned behind a common strategy and implementation programme and comprises large and growing Government-led programmes. 5 EICV Social Protection Thematic Report, 2012 6 Mapping and Rapid Assessment of Social Protection Sector in Rwanda, draft report, 2011, for ILO and MINALOC 9 Delivery: Scale-up The rapid scale-up of delivery is evident from just a few examples: By 2010/11:  The Girinka programme, together with civil society livestock programmes, had provided cows to over 13% of all households7 in the country  29% of households had received some kind of public benefit (educational scholarship, food relief or cash grant) within the last year8  The most extensive coverage of all was by health insurance. 69% of all households (and even 54% of the extreme poor) were covered by government health insurance9, largely as a result of the introduction of the community health insurance scheme. And by 2011/12:  Operational in just 30 of 416 sectors at its launch in 2008, VUP had scaled up to 120 sectors and was reaching over 77,000 eligible households (414,000 individuals10) with public works and approximately 27,000 households (63,000 individuals) with direct support11.  FARG was reaching 23,000 needy genocide survivors with direct support and 164,000 with health insurance12.  Ubudehe community projects had been carried out in 2000 communities13. Delivery: Impact EICV3 data confirms substantial reductions in poverty (from 57% to 45% of the population) and extreme poverty (from 36% to 24%) between 2005/6 and 2010/11; and there are indications that the VUP social protection programme has made substantial contributions to this in the Sectors where it is active. The VUP Intermediate Impact Assessment report (2012), commissioned by RLDSF, concludes that there has been a substantial reduction in the proportion of the population categorised as Ubudehe 1 (the poorest) in active VUP sectors. VUP‟s own household poverty survey report (2012) shows that extreme income poverty amongst VUP beneficiaries decreased between 2009 and 2011 and that extreme income poverty depth for VUP beneficiaries declined at a faster rate than for other households.In the Intermediate Impact Assessment, focus group respondents reported increased income and household assets. This is confirmed by survey data, which shows increases in livestock holdings and durable assets amongst VUP beneficiaries. It can be concluded that VUP is effectively reducing poverty for its beneficiaries. 7 EICV3 Social Protection Thematic Report, 2012 8 Ibid 9 Ibid 10 Number of individuals calculated on basis of average household size for households in Ubudehe categories 1 and 2 from EICV3 (2012) 11 JSR April 2012 12 FARG programme data 13 Ubudehe programme data 10 Delivery: Expenditure Adjusting for inflation, spending across all core and complementary social protection programmes (including Mutuelle subsidisation) increased by more than 13 times in real terms between 2004 and 20010/11. These real increases reflect not only an increase in the total resource envelope available to government: they also reflect an increased prioritisation. Both the system of cash transfers and social insurance (mainly Mutuelle subsidisation) each received 1.1% of the budget in 2010/11. Spending on social protection over time (excluding basic health and education in 2010/11 prices, RwF million)14 Sector Architecture and Policy Framework The increased harmonisation of the sector is evident from the fact that, despite not having a formal SWAP in place, the social protection sector received the most positive appraisal of any sector in the MINECOFIN Assessment of SWAp (2012). There is strong Government ownership in the sector, supported by an active partnership between Government, development partners and civil society. The EDPRS1 self-assessment concluded that all the EDPRS1 policy actions had been achieved and many of these relate to harmonisation. The National Social Protection Strategy was approved by Cabinet in January 2011 and the accompanying Implementation Plan was validated by the Sector Working Group in November of the same year. Implementation of the strategy is overseen and monitored by the Social Protection Sector Working Group (SPSWG), and its four sub- Committees on Policy, Learning and Capacity Building; Systems and M&E; Finance; and Early 14 Rwanda Social Safety Nets Assessment, July 2012. 2009 Mini Budget covered six months and thus has not been annualised. Data includes on-budget donor spending on VUP, but excludes any off-budget donor spending on other areas 11 Warning Systems. Institutional changes have been made to strengthen leadership and co-ordination of the sector. A Directorate in charge of community development and social affairs has been set up in MINALOC and a Director General appointed; and a Department of Social Protection has been established in the Rwanda Local Development Support Fund to support effective implementation of VUP, the flagship social protection programme.

2.3.2 Challenges in the Sector Despite the rapid progress, challenges remain. Key challenges in the sector can be summarised as follows:  Ensuring increased coverage of the extreme poor and of all vulnerable groups by the social protection system Programme data tells us that much remains to be done to increase social protection programmes‟ coverage of the extreme poor and vulnerable and that increased, sustained and predictable financial commitments will be necessary to achieve this. In addition,EICV3 shows that there is scope to further strengthen targeting to ensure that a larger proportion of available resources reach the extreme poor and vulnerable. (This issue is explored in more depth in section 2.4 below).  Addressing child poverty and vulnerability in the poorest households We know that young children face particular vulnerabilities related to their biological immaturity and that malnutrition in childhood has lifelong impacts on physical and intellectual capacity. Yet EICV3 shows that there is a particular challenge of ensuring that social protection benefits reach extremely poor, larger households with children (see section 2.4).  Strengthening systems and building capacities We know from experience that the sector will require stronger systems and capacities if it is to deliver on the objectives set out in this strategy. Both policy making and programme delivery capacitiesrequire substantial further strengthening; the M&E system needs reinforcement; improving timeliness and predictability of social protection payments is critical; and there is scope to improve efficiency by better co-ordinating all actors within the sector and harmonising elements of key programmes.  Measuring and Communicating Results and Impact The social protection sector in Rwanda has achieved a huge amount in a short period. These results, however, are not well communicated. In addition, the lack of robust evaluation data limits the visibility of these achievements at home and internationally. Without more detailed information on impacts of current programmes, it is difficult for the sector to make further evidence-based improvements to programme design.  Ensuring Sustainability Short term programmes are unlikely to realise the full poverty reduction potential of a sustained social protection system. If the desired impacts, as outlined in this strategy, are to be realised, it is critical that programmes promote sustainable graduation out of extreme poverty for households, through linked interventions,and also that the sector itself is institutionally and financially 12 sustainable.  Linking Social Protection and Disaster Risk Reduction We know that effectively managing risk is a key challenge for very poor rural households. When adverse climatic events cause a sudden drop in rural people‟s income, they sometimes have little choice but to adopt harmful coping strategies, such as withdrawing children from school or reducing family meals. Some linkages have already been made at policy level between the social protection and disaster management sectors, but to date these connections have been insufficiently systematised. For example, Districts generally fund disaster response from existing budgetary resources in parallel to existing social protection programming, thereby depleting funds available for other programmes. Many of these challenges have been highlighted in the EDPRS1 sector self-assessment, recent JSRs and sector-specific analytical work. EICV3 and DHS4 findings have raised a number of additional issues and these are detailed in the following section.

2.4 EICV3 and DHS4 findings and Implications for the Sector In addition to its overall finding that poverty, extreme poverty and inequality have all reduced very substantially in the past five years, EICV3 also provides updated detailed information about the characteristics of poor households and some information on how well current social protection programmes are reaching different categories of household. The key findings of EICV3 and DHS4 of relevance to the sector and their implications are discussed below.

2.4.1 Poverty is geographically concentrated  Poverty is much higher in rural than urban areas. 22% of the urban population are poor, compared to 49% of rural people.  There are marked regional differences in poverty, with Southern Province seeing the highest poverty rate at 57%, and Kigali City the lowest at 17%. Similar differences are seen in the extreme poverty rate, which is 31% in Southern Province, compared to just 8% in Kigali City. Within provinces there is large variation in poverty levels between districts. Implications of key finding 1 for Social Protection Sector: The substantial differences in poverty levels between Districts imply that, in order to maximize coverage of the extreme poor, there should be some geographical targeting of social protection. The VUP programme has always targeted the poorest Sectors in every District and is now further refining its geographical targeting to scale up faster in the Districts where the incidence of poverty is higher.

2.4.2 The poorest households tend to be larger than average and to include more children. The average household in the poorest quintile includes 3.5 people under the age of 20, compared to only 2.1 people of this age in households of the richest quintile. 65% of households in the poorest 13 quintile include a child under the age of 5, compared to only 42% of households in the richest quintile. The poorest households are less likely to include elderly people.

2.4.3 The substantial reductions in household consumption poverty have not yet translated into major improvements in child nutrition 44% of children under 5 are stunted due to chronic malnutrition according to DHS4 (higher than the Sub-Saharan African average of 38%) and stunting is highest in the Northern Province at over 50% of all children. Implications of key findings 2 and 3 for the Social Protection Sector: These findings have substantial implications for the social protection sector and pose a challenge for future programming. We know that VUP Direct Support households tend to be smaller than average at 2.2 people. Large households with children are much more likely to be eligible for public works than direct support, but there is a particular issue with coverage of public works. Even within Sectors that are covered, not all households eligible for public works actually get employment, because, unlike direct support, public works is not an entitlement, but depends on budget availability. In 2011/12 only 54% of eligible households had access to public works employment15. Thus there is a risk that some of the poorest households that are larger and include children are missing out on social protection benefits and will continue to do so if programmes are not adapted to better reach them. Furthermore, (unlike direct support) the amount received does not depend on household size. Thus, even those large households who do get access receive relatively low benefits per household member. As for nutrition, international evidence shows that social protection has much to contribute to reducing chronic child malnutrition, as part of a multi-sectoral approach. Providing social protection to support children‟s nutrition can prevent the irreversible damage to intellectual and physical development that occurs in the absence of proper nutrition at an early age (the 1000 days window). The implication of both findings 2 and 3 is that the sector needs both to expand social protection coverage of very poor households with children and to ensure that programmes are designed and linked with complementary interventions in ways that promote improvements in child welfare, including nutrition.

2.4.4 Poverty levels are highest by far among those reliant mainly on farm wage labour (77% of those whose primary occupation is farm wage labour are poor) followed by those working in agriculture (52% of those whose primary occupation is agriculture are poor). Poverty is much lower in other categories. Implications of key finding 4 for the Social Protection Sector: Given that poverty rates are highest amongst farm wage labourers, programmes should be designed such that social protection benefits complement and do not compete with available farm 15 JSR October 2012 14 work. For example, the agricultural calendar involves peaks and troughs of employment and so the benefits of public works to agricultural labourers can be maximised by timing them to coincide with periods of agricultural under-employment.

2.4.5 Households headed by people with disabilities are more likely to be poor. 50% of households headed by a disabled person are poor, compared to 44% of households with a non-disabled head. But, as members of households, people with disabilities are evenly spread across the income quintiles. Implications of key finding 5 for the Social Protection Sector: This finding supports the conclusion that a comprehensive assessment of the social protection sector should be carried out, which looks at how existing programmes are benefiting all vulnerable and socially excluded groups within the extreme poor, including people with disabilities. 15 Chapter 3: THE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK This chapter defines social protection in Rwanda and the mission and global objective of the sector; it goes on to set out social protection sector priorities and innovations for the EDPRS2 period and to explain how the sector will contribute to EDPRS2 thematic priorities; and finally it details the programmes that will be implemented to achieve sector objectives.

3.1 Conceptual Approach for the Sector The 2005 Social Protection Policy defines social protection as “a set of public and private initiatives that provide income or consumption transfers to the poor, protect the vulnerable against livelihood risks and enhance the social status and rights of the marginalised; with the overall objective of reducing the social and economic vulnerability of poor, vulnerable and marginalised groups.” Rwanda‟s definition of social protection incorporates four key principles of protection, prevention, promotion and transformation. Social protection is protective - it provides essential support to those living in poverty, protecting them from the worst consequences of that poverty. It is also preventive - it puts in place insurance mechanisms and safety nets that can be activated to catch people in danger of falling into poverty, for example as a result of falling ill or becoming unemployed. It is promotive – it supports poor people‟s investment so that they can pull themselves out of poverty. It is transformative – it aims to improve the social status and rights of the marginalised. The integration of the protective, preventive, promotive and transformative aspects of social protection will be critical to the success of the strategy in supporting households‟ graduation out of poverty and in contributing to poverty reduction. Table 1: Ensuring Protection, Prevention, Promotion and Transformation: The Social Protection Sector and Its Linkages Role Objective Focus on Current core social Linkages to other protection instruments instruments Protection To alleviate extreme The chronic, extreme Cash transfers Infant nutrition and early poverty by raising living poor through VUP and childhood development; standards FARG direct support, school feeding;Ubudehe and VUP public Credit Scheme and other works microfinance and savings programmes; Girinka and other programmes to distribute assets and inputs; Ubudehe community projects; free health and education Prevention To prevent shocks from The vulnerable poor, Cash transfers Risk insurance causing irreversible the transitory poor through VUP and mechanisms (weather- damage to the FARG direct support based crop; climate risk; productive capacities and VUP public health); free health and and human works. Mutuelle de education; social security development of santé. and pensions. vulnerable households 16 Role Objective Focus on Current core social Linkages to other protection instruments instruments Promotion To improve capabilities The economically Cash transfers Ubudehe credit scheme and opportunities for active poor through VUP and and other micro-finance poor and vulnerable FARG direct support, and savings programmes; households; to enable and VUP public Girinka and other hhs to avoid low risk, works programmes to distribute low productivity traps, assets and inputs; make investments and property rights; skills work their way out of development; early poverty childhood development, infant nutrition and school feeding. Transformation To change social Socially marginal and Cash transfers Improvements to relations that exclude excluded groups (eg through VUP and accountability of certain social groups people with FARG direct support politicians and service from economic disabilities, genocide and VUP public providers; education; opportunities and survivors, historically works (particularlyif accessible legal systems; access to public marginalised people, transformation assistance to collective services women) explicitly considered action and community in design); legislative organisation protection for workers; sensitisation campaigns Adapted from Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler(2004)

3.1.1 Social Protection and Graduation from Poverty The strategy recognises that social protection plays an essential role, but is not sufficient in itself to enable poor people to sustainably move out of (graduate from) poverty. Social protection has a key role to play in stabilising assets, incomes and capabilities in the poorest households, thereby enabling these households to take risks, make investments and start to accumulate assets, working their way out of poverty. But sustained graduation from poverty also requires linkages to other complementary programmes and services to help maintain households out of poverty and to enable them to further strengthen their livelihoods. Requirements for graduation include improvements in the quality of other public services, activities to enable poor people to access jobs or undertake investments (including training and skills building), and commitments to tackle discrimination and secure basic rights and entitlements (as illustrated in Table 1). Chapter 4 details how we will support the development of and ensure linkages to these complementary programmes. Of course, not all households can be expected to become self-reliant in the short term. In some cases (for example where all adults in the household are unable to work) graduation may be a longer term process, as social transfers enable investment in the nutrition and education of children at a critical stage in their development, ensuring that they grow up to be productive and self- sufficient adults. Other households without labour (for example those comprising only older people) may have little realistic prospect of graduating out of poverty at all. The social protection system will evolve to 1) graduate as many households out of vulnerability and poverty as possible 2) prevent inter-generational transmission of poverty by supporting the development of children in the poorest households and 3) cater for the long term support of different categories of chronically vulnerable and poor people who are unable to work. 17 Figure 2 below illustrates the graduation vision for the Government‟s flagship social protection programme, VUP,and the building of resilient livelihoods for targeted populations. VUP has initiated complementary measures such as training of beneficiariesand access to microfinance. The vision of graduation involves a process of building sufficient assets for the poor to enable them to manage risk and participate more actively in productive activities – at first enabling them to stabilise their assets and incomes and then start to accumulate additional assets. The green line in the figure shows a possible pathway out of extreme poverty. Extremely poor VUP beneficiaries have access to combinations of direct support, public works and financial services that can help them become less poor. They exit from the VUP‟s direct support or public works programmes once they move out of Ubudehe category 2 (a proxy for movement out of extreme poverty). Once exited from the VUP‟s social protection programmes, there are services available to help maintain the households out of extreme poverty and enable them to further strengthen their livelihoods. These include the VUP financial services, complementary programmes and market based credit. Figure 2: Social Protection and Livelihoods, Programme Exit and Graduation from the VUP Targeting and Graduation Guidelines VUP supported financial services Livelihood Services Sensitisation programme pathway Complementary services Direct support Market-provided credit Beneficiary status Public works Market linkages Asset Ubudehe Poverty accumulation category status Graduation sustained 6 Non-poor 5 4 Poor 3 Exit from VUP Asset 2 Extreme stabilisation 1 poor 3 . 2 Sector Priorities and Outcomes The overall objective of the sector is to „establish a social protection system that tackles poverty, inequality and vulnerability, and improves access to essential services and social insurance‟. The social protection sector will achieve this objective through: 18  Delivering core social protection programmes By continuing to build a public service of regular and predictable social transfers, the social protection sector will help prevent poverty, protect households from shocks, promote graduation from poverty and transform social relations. By directly providing temporary employment opportunities (through public works) and helping to promote labour standards in the private sector, the sector will help provide those who can work with the opportunities to escape poverty by their own efforts.  Building and strengthening linkages with complementary programmes The social protection sector will help extend access of the poor to essential public services (such as health, education, shelter and water and sanitation), as well as to financial services, skills development and agricultural inputs. It will enable increasing numbers of people to access risk sharing mechanisms that protect them from crises and shocks, for example, by linking social protection to disaster management and supporting the extension of contributory social insurance to the informal sector. On the basis of analysis of recent evidence16, the sector has identified key challenges (outlined in Chapter 2) and has defined priorities and innovations that respond to these and contribute to Rural Development Thematic Priorities. Some of these priorities will be completely new in the EDPRS2 period, whilst others are already planned, or have been recently introduced and will be operationalised or scaled up to deliver on EDPRS2 objectives. Foremost amongst the priorities for the sector is the need to scale up and improve coverage of social protection, in order to reach more of those households most in need of social protection across the country and, in particular, to ensure coverage of larger households with children. In the context of scarce resources and unmet needs, this will require us to sustain sector impacts, by enabling as many people as possible to graduate sustainably out of extreme poverty, providing long term protection for the chronically vulnerable and ensuring that the sector itself is institutionally and financially sustainable. In order to deliver social protection programmes and to innovate in the ways set out in this strategy, the sector has identified a need to strengthen systems and capacities for effective delivery, including by developing a SWAp, harmonising programmes, strengthening M&E, developing a social protection management information system and building staff capacities. There is also a clear need to better measure impact of social protection, both to inform policy and programme development and to underpin effective communications that improve visibility of sector achievements; and to strengthen linkages between social protection and disaster risk reduction, in order to enable very poor households to better manage climate-related risk. These priorities respond to the sector assessment in Chapter 2 and the challenges highlighted therein. 16 from EICV3, DHS4, EDPRS1 self-assessment, World Bank Social Safety Nets Assessment and programme reviews 19 Priority /Outcome one: Increased coverage of the extreme poor and vulnerable(continued priority) Because a large proportion of extremely poor and vulnerable people (and socially excluded groups within the extreme poor such as people with disabilities, genocide survivors and historically marginalised people) are not yet reached through existing programmes, we will:  Develop and implement a revised scale-up plan to 2017/18 and a financing strategy to support it. Scale up of both direct support and public works programmes will require increased, sustained and predictable budget commitments from both Government and development partners, against a revised scale up plan that is underpinned by a solid MTEF. The social protection sector will develop a financing strategy that will enable more of the poorest households to be reached by social transfer programmes.  Improve targeting of scarce resources on the extreme poor and vulnerable. In addition to increased resources, improved coverage also requires enhanced targeting, so that a larger share of the available resources reaches the extreme poor and vulnerable. EICV3 found that the Ubudehe classification mechanism is already reasonably effective in targeting the poorest households. The sector will ensure the robustness of targeting based on Ubudehe data by establishing independent verification of the Ubudehe system, for example through developing a system of spot checks. Given the substantial changes in living conditions since the Ubudehe criteria were first developed, they will also be updated through a participatory exercise, in order to ensure that they continue to reflect the key current determinants of social poverty status.  Improve geographical targeting. VUP will also revise its targeting approach to take account of the latest data on geographical concentration of poverty. Instead of scaling up evenly across the country, adding the same number of sectors each year in each District, the pace of scale up will be faster in the Districts where the incidence of poverty is higher (as measured by EICV3).  Strengthen appeals and complaints mechanisms.Well publicised, accessible and independent appeals and complaints mechanisms will be further developed and extended to all social protection programmes. These mechanisms will enable people to challenge selection decisions as well as to raise issues with programme delivery; and will ensure that all such complaints / appeals are fully investigated and that responses are clearly communicated. Priority / Outcome two: Child poverty and vulnerability in the poorest households addressed (new priority) As discussed in Chapter 2, the poorest households tend to be larger than average and are far more likely to include young children (EICV3), who are at risk of suffering the lifelong consequences of early malnutrition. In Rwanda‟s social protection system, large households with children are much more likely to be eligible to receive cash transfers through public works than direct support programmes, but there is an issue with the coverage of public works. In 2011/12 in VUP sectors, only 54% of eligible households actually had access to public works employment. To address these issues, the sector will i) increase the coverage of social protection public works programmes to reach more large households with children; ii) review the design of public works programmes to maximise their impact on child poverty and nutritioniii) create synergies with complementary programmes that promote child nutrition and well-being. 20 Specifically we will:  Expand the VUP public works approach to other programmes. The social protection sector will encourage and support the use of the VUP targeting approach, (based on Ubudehe categorisation) to select workers for other public works and infrastructure programmes. In this way, more of the poorest families will be able to access public works employment.  Broaden public works to suit a range of household characteristics. Pregnant and breastfeeding mothers could be given lighter work or more flexible hours, for example through employment as assistants and support staff within early childhood development centres, schools, crèches and health centres.Households could be given responsibility for maintaining a particular asset in their own time, working flexible hours. Such types of public work would also enable expanded employment of other people able to work but unable to undertake intensive physical labour (such as older people and people living with disabilities).  Increase the public works benefits received by large households to improve impact on household poverty levels. One way of increasing benefits to larger households with many dependents would be to allow more than one person from such households to participate in public works. An alternative would be to prioritise access to public works for large households with young children. The sector will consider options and pursue the most feasible.  Review other elements of the design of public works, in order to maximise impacts for children. Amongst other issues, this review will consider the arguments for and against the introduction of an employment guarantee scheme; and will look at whether the impacts for children are affected by whom within the household receives the public works payment. In addition:  VUP has a major education/ awareness-raising component and this will be used to reinforce nutritional knowledge, as well as knowledge of family planning, HIV and AIDS and communicable diseases17. MINISANTE has an important rolein helping VUP effectively deliver these messages.  MINEDUC and MIGEPROF support to Early Childhood Development can complement public works programmes. The setting up of ECD centres/crèches near public works sites would enable the full participation of mothers, without compromising the well-being of small children.  MINAGRI’s Girinka and other livestock programmes18will be further strengthened to maximise pro-poor impacts, including through the distribution of more small livestock to poor households with little land. Priority /Outcome three: Social protection system has sustainable impact on extreme poverty(continued, adapted priority) If the potential impacts of social protection programmes, as outlined in this strategy, are to be realised, it is critical that programmes support sustainable graduation out of extreme poverty and that the sector itself is institutionally and financially sustainable. The sector will:  Promote sustainable graduation out of extreme poverty for social protection beneficiary households who are able to work. Building on the VUP targeting and graduation guidelines, the 17 Adequate nutrition of pregnant women and infants depends not only on families having sufficient means to grow or purchase appropriate food, but also on knowledge about nutritional needs and methods of preparing cheap nutritious food. 18 Girinka currently benefits around 4% of households and NGO livestock programmes a further 9%. 21 sector will ensure that there are viable pathways out of poverty that enable people to progress from core social protection support to complementary social development programmes that continue to build their skills and resilience.  Build institutional sustainability of the social protection system.In particular, we will link formal social protection programmes with traditional informal social protection mechanisms, such as Umuganda, Kuremeraabacu, Kuragizanya, Kugabirana, Itorero, Kuzitura and Igikumba. Building on these mechanisms will further enhance cohesion of society, by involving the community in decisions on allocation of SP resources (e.g. choice of public works investments) and by providing opportunities for people to support the extreme poor and solve problems within their own communities.  Build financial sustainablity of the SP system. The sector will develop and implement a financing strategy that will ensure sufficient and predictable resource flows to the sector from all available sources (GoR, development partners, CSOs and the private sector). Priority /Outcome four: More effective, efficient and harmonised social protection sector(continued, adapted priority) Continuing to strengthen systems and capacities to underpin effective delivery of programmes will be critical to enabling the social protection sector to deliver on its objectives. We will:  Develop a formal social protection SWAP. This approach will strengthen coordination, harmonisation and accountability between all the policy and implementing institutions involved in the social protection sector, including Government, development partners and civil society.  Develop and implement a capacity building plan. The sector will develop and implement a capacity building plan to enable all those involved in social protection at central and decentralised levels to effectively play their respective roles in delivery of social protection outcomes  Harmonise core social protection programmes. Increased coherence between programmes will help avoid duplication and gaps and enable available resources and capacities to be used more efficiently. The sector will assess how best to harmonise elements of existing social transfer and income-generation programmes, (looking at targeting, delivery of payments, management and institutional arrangements, appeals and complaints).  Establish a comprehensive M&E system, supported by a Management Information System(MIS).The sector will establish a comprehensive M&E framework underpinned by a social protection MIS, with a unified registry of beneficiaries. This will enable the management of programme duplications and gaps, joined-up monitoring of social protection programmes and the provision of credible, disaggregated and timely information for monitoring and evaluation of the sector.  Ensure the timeliness and predictability of social protection payments to beneficiaries (direct support and public works). This will be key to maximising programme impact and efficiency, as regular and predictable payments have been found to be far more effective than ad hoc, unpredictable ones (independently of the size of payment).  Explore how the sector can best work in partnership with the private sector to promote social protection objectives.The private sector has key roles to play in creating jobs for the poor that respect labour standards, in delivering in-kind transfers and other services to the poor, and may also be able to offer technological solutions to key social protection delivery challenges 22 (e.g. electronic payments mechanisms, MIS, skills development). Recognising the value of the private sector, we will explore new opportunities for partnerships that can foster joint policy development and implementation.  Explore new technologies. The rapid spread and take up of information communication and the potential of new technologies will be harnessed to improve service delivery in the sector. We will explore the option of adopting mobile payment mechanisms and will also look at the communications potential of mobile phones as a medium for both transmitting key messages and soliciting feedback. Priority / Outcome five: Better measurement and visibility of social protection results and impact(new priority) The social protection sector in Rwanda has achieved a huge amount in a short period. However, the lack of robust impact analysis limits the visibility of these achievements at home and internationally. We will:  Implement a communication plan and improve communication using evidence based data. For effective communications with a range of audiences - including programme beneficiaries, policy makers, social protection programme staff and the general public - we will develop targeted messages and use communication tools adapted to the particular needs of each target audience.  Carry out a comprehensive evaluation. The sector intends to carry out a robust and comprehensive evaluation of social protection programmes in Rwanda, looking at impact on poverty and vulnerability. This will provide a solid basis for policy and programme decisions. We will aim for the evaluation to be of a standard to be published in a peer-reviewed international journal, which will increase the national and international profile of Rwanda‟s social protection sector and of its contribution to poverty reduction.  Undertake gender audits of key social protection programmes, starting with VUP. These will help the sector to understand the extent to which social protection programmes take account of the different roles of women and men and meet their different needs; as well as how programme impact might be improved by taking more account of these issues in programme design. Priority /Outcome six: Improved sector response to climate-related risks(continued, adapted priority) Effective risk management is critical to rural development and the poorest households are particularly vulnerable to risks, including from adverse climatic events. Given this, the sector will develop arrangements for an effective social protection response to natural disasters and, in the medium term,will promote climate-proofing of social protection programmes by including risk management into their design and implementation. The sector will:  Enhance institutional mechanisms for dialogue and information sharing between MINALOC and other institutions on the linkages between social protection and risk management.  Further link social protection and disaster responseat the policy and implementation levels. The sector will take measures to ensure that existing social protection programmes are better 23 able to respond rapidly to meet transitory needs in response to shocks. The sector will develop policyguidelinesfor social protection programmes to clarify how social protection programmes will respond to emergencies and shocks when they happen; and will also collaborate with other Ministries to ensure that the sector systematically uses all availableearly warning information to inform social protection planning and programming.  Link social protection more explicitly with risk management and disaster mitigation.A major problem faced by poor rural people is the way that their quality of life is threatened by the risk of adverse climatic events, as well as other risks, such as ill-health and food price changes. Based on an analysis of the context of risk and vulnerability, the sector will ensure that:  social protection programmes are designed in a way that helps poor people better adapt to, manage and cope with these risks  the programmes themselves are climate proofed to minimise risks associated with climate change. 24 Figure 1: Results Chain Establish a social protection system that tackles poverty, inequality Overall Objective and vulnerability, and improves access to essential services and social insurance Outcomes 1. Increased coverage of the extreme poor and vulnerable 2. Child poverty and vulnerability in the poorest households addressed 3. Social protection system has sustainable impact on extreme poverty 4. More effective, efficient and harmonised social protection sector 5. Better measurement and visibility of social protection results and impact 6. Improved sector response to climate-related risks Outputs 1. DS scaled up, VUP PW scaled up - SP targeting system improved - accessible appeals and complaints mechanism in place 2. VUP PW approach expanded - labour intensive PW policy developed and implemented - revised VUP awareness-raising component implemented 3. Home-grown SP mechanisms - linkages strengthened between core SP and complementary programmes - financial services delivered, adapted to the needs of the very poor/vulnerable - increased, predictable financial resources for the sector 4. SWAp developed - programmes harmonised - M&E system, underpinned by MIS - social protection policy updated - capacity building plan implemented - effective institutional arrangements in place - improved timeliness, predictability and cost-effectiveness of payments to beneficiaries 5. Evaluation - gender audits - communications strategy implemented 6. SP disaster response strengthened - climate-related risks mitigated 4. 1. Core: direct support, public works, analytical work, evaluation, capacity building, policy development, programme design and Activities development, sector harmonisation and co-ordination 2. Complementary: financial services, awareness-raising, skills development, community projects, ECD, nutrition 3. 345,882 m FRw Inputs 25

3.3 ContributiontoEDPRS2ThematicAreas/Priorities and Cross-Cutting Issues This section sets out how the social protection sector will contribute to:  EDPRS Thematic Areas - rural development (to which it is a key contributing sector); accountable governance; productivity and youth employment; and economic transformation  Cross-Cutting Issues of: disability and social inclusion; gender and family; environment, climate change and disaster management; and capacity building.

3.3.1 Thematic Areas Rural Development Thematic Area The sector will directly contribute to the achievement of three of the Vision 2020 targets to reduce rural poverty, namely: the food security score for the rural population; the number of off-farm jobs; and the percentage of the adult population accessing financial institutions. The social protection sector will also contribute to all three of the rural development primary objectives: rural poverty is significantly reduced in all Districts; proceeds of growth are equitable; and economic transformation occurs within the rural population. Rural Poverty is Significantly Reduced in all Districts The goal of the social protection sector is „to contribute to reduced poverty and vulnerability and to promote equitable growth‟. EICV3 shows that poverty headcount and depth is higher in rural than urban areas. By targeting the poorest, the social protection sector will contribute substantially to rural poverty reduction. Proceeds of Growth are Equitable Promoting equitable growth is also core to the social protection sector. Social protection redistributes the proceeds of growth in Rwanda to the extreme poor. In addition, social protection programmes enable extremely poor households to participate in economic activities, both through public works and though transfers that enable them to invest in agricultural and business assets. Economic Transformation Occurs within the Rural Population Not only does social protection directly benefit the poorest, but it can also have wider economic impacts. Evidence from Ethiopia and Malawi shows positive spillover effects from social protection programmes on local enterprise and trade. Contribution to Rural Development Priority Areas The sector will contribute to three of the four rural development priority areas, namely: Priority Area 3 Enabling Graduation from Extreme Poverty and Priority Area 4 Connecting Rural Communities to Economic Opportunity through Improved Infrastructure 26  Social protection directly reduces poverty depth. Social protection plays a key role in stabilising assets, incomes and capabilities in the poorest households.  Public works create rural employment. In VUP Sectors, households in the poorest two Ubudehe categories are eligible for public works employment.  Public works also create agricultural assets and other rural infrastructure. The majority of community assets constructed through VUP public works to date support agricultural livelihoods and will continue to do so. Anti-erosive ditches, radical terracing and agriculture projects account for the majority of VUP public works projects. The agricultural calendar involves peaks and troughs of employment and the benefits of public works can be maximised by timing public works to coincide with periods of agricultural under-employment.  Rural people invest social transfers in agriculture. Evidence in Rwanda shows that the extremely poor recipients of VUP cash transfers invest their transfers in productive assets, including livestock and farms19, contributing to both rural development and poverty reduction. Increasing the Productivity of Agriculture By enabling poor people to better manage the risks associated with adverse climatic events, social protection can contribute to productivity in two main ways:  Social protection can enable poor people to invest in higher-risk, more productive activities. In the absence of effective risk management, rural people tend to opt for low-risk, low-return activities that entrench a poor quality of life. Where social protection programmes exist, people know that, even if their business ventures fail, they will still have some minimum income, and this can encourage and facilitate entrepreneurship and productivity.  Social protection can protect rural people’s productivity in the face of shocks. When climatic events or ill-health cause a sudden drop in rural people‟s income, they sometimes have little choice but to adopt harmful coping strategies, such as withdrawing children from school or reducing family meals. The availability of social protection can help prevent this. People can ensure adequate nutrition for their infants, which is critical for their lifelong physical and intellectual development; and they can keep older children in school, boosting their skills and future productivity. Furthermore, four of the social protection sector outcomes will make a primary contribution to the rural development thematic outcomes. Social Protection Sector Outcomes 1 and 2 – increased coverage of the extreme poor and vulnerable and child poverty and vulnerability in the poorest households addressed - will make a major contribution to Priority Area 3 “Enabling Graduation from Extreme Poverty” of the Rural Development pillar. Social protection will be critical to enabling some of the poorest households to graduate out of extreme poverty in a sustainable way. Social Protection Sector Outcome 3 – social protection system has sustainable impact on extreme poverty – will make a substantial contribution to Rural Development Thematic Outcome 3.1 „Increased and sustained graduation from core social protection programmes by connecting economic opportunities and financial services’. 19 Devereux and Ndejuru 2009, Devereux 2010, Devereux 2011 27 Social Protection Sector Outcome 4 – more effective, efficient and harmonised social protection sector - will make a major contribution to Rural Development Thematic Priority 3.2 „Improved targeting and effectiveness of social protection interventions’. Accountable Governance Thematic Area Social protection will contribute to accountable governance in the following ways:  Through the establishment of appeals and complaints mechanisms, social protection programmes are providing poor people with mechanisms to exercise their rights. Such mechanisms are a key element of accountable governance, providing an independent channel for people to raise their concerns about programme targeting and other aspects of programme design and management.  By setting up a clear set of entitlements (for example of eligible households to direct support) and responsibilities of citizens, the social protection system is contributing to extending the notion of accountable governance to Rwanda‟s poorest citizens. One social protection sector outcome will also contribute directly to an Accountable Governance Thematic Outcome.  Social Protection Sector Outcome 3 (social protection system has sustainable impact on extreme poverty) output 3.1‘Home-grown social protection mechanisms supported and linked into SP system’ - will contribute to achievement of Accountable Governance Thematic Outcome 1.1 „Increased citizen participation in planning processes and solving their own problems’ with its focus on using “home grown” initiatives to promote citizen participation. Productivity and Youth Employment Thematic Area Social protection will contribute to productivity and youth employment through:  Employment on public works: Young people benefit substantially from public works: 22% of VUP public works participants are 24 years of age or younger. This means that by 2017/18, approximately 35,000 youth can be expected to be employed each year on VUP schemes alone.  The skills enhancing element of public works programmes. Participants in public works in Rwanda gain basic skills through public works employment and, as a result, may be more likely to gain subsequent employment in the private sector. VUP public works also involve training / awareness sessions on, for example, how to form a co-operative and access financial services, which should further boost economic engagement.  By improving food security and nutrition, social protection programmes will help boost the short term productivity of poor youth and adults. They will also increase the long term productive potential of Rwanda through ensuring the adequate nutrition of the next generation in the critical early years of their lives.  By increasing family income and enabling families to keep children longer in school, social protection can also boost the skills of young people and their employment prospects. 28 Economic Transformation Thematic Area Social protection will have a key role to play in:  Facilitating economic growth. Providing households with insurance against shocks allows them to move out of low-return activities and take entrepreneurial decisions. At an aggregate level, as households become better resourced, start to join the labour market, to employ other people and spend more money, the economy grows.  Ensuring that economic growth is equitable so that all sections of the population, including the poorest, benefit from the rapid economic growth envisaged over the EDPRS2 period. There is strong international evidence that social protection programmes contribute to reduced inequality and growing evidence that social protection can have positive spillover effects on local economic development.

3.3.2 Cross-Cutting Issues The social protection sector will focus strongly on the cross-cutting issues: of disability and social exclusion; gender and family; environment, climate change and disaster management; and capacity building.  The sector will evaluate the impacts of social protection programmes on the extreme poor and on all vulnerable groups, including disabled and socially excluded people. This will look at whether there are barriers to access to social protection programmes for people living with disabilities as compared to non-disabled people and, if so, whether these barriers are primarily economic or social and how they might be addressed. The results will then be used to improve coverage, thereby actively addressing the cross-cutting issue of disability and social exclusion.  The cross-cutting issue of gender and family will also be systematically addressed.Gender audits will be carried out in order to understand the extent to which social protection programmes consider the different roles of men and women and meet their particular needs; and the findings will be used to inform social protection policy and programming. Particular attention will be given to improving coverage of extremely poor families with children. In working out how best to address child poverty, the sector will take explicit account of gender dynamics within the household.  Outcome 6 - improved sector response to climate-related risks - will directly address the cross-cutting issue of environment, climate change and disaster management.  Under Outcome 4, the development and implementation of a capacity building strategy for the sector, covering both central and decentralised levels, will address the capacity building cross-cutting issue. 29 30

3.4 Strategies for Achieving Outcomes Outome 1: Increased coverage of the extreme poor and vulnerable We will build on and extend the four cash transfer programmes that currently operate - VUP Direct Support and Public Works programmes, FARG social assistance and RDRC subsistence allowances for vulnerable disabled ex-combatants – whilst improving efficiency by harmonising elements of programming wherever feasible. The VUP direct support grant will be scaled up to reach national coverage by 2015/16 and maintain this until the end of the EDPRS2 period. The scale-up plan will be revised so that, rather than adding one new sector in each District in each year, scale-up will be determined by poverty levels within a District (based on EICV3 data). In the poorest Districts VUP will be operational in a larger number of Sectors than in the better off Districts. VUP direct support will reach 105,000 households, and an estimated 231,000 people, in 416 sectors by 2015/16. The VUP Public Works programme will be scaled up to be implemented in 300 sectors by 2017/18, reaching 160,000 households and an estimated 848,000 peopleand providing, where feasible, at least 100 days work per year. Like direct support, decisions on where to scale up public works will be determined by poverty levels within a District. As well as scaling up provision, increased coverage of the extreme poor requires effective targeting and programme design. The sector will seek improvements in targeting of poverty and vulnerability in order to maximise coverage of the poorest households. This will include: finalising targeting and exit guidelines for social protection programmes; reviewing and updating Ubudehe criteria to ensure they reflect current social realities; periodic reviews of Ubudehe categorisation, including independent spot checks and comparison with data on poverty and vulnerability to ensure the continued integrity of Ubudehe as the basis for targeting; awareness raising of communities on targeting procedures and their entitlements; and well-functioning, well publicised and accessible appeals and complaints mechanisms in every Sector. Outcome 2: Child poverty and vulnerability in the poorest households addressed To reach the poorest households with young children, the sector will increase the coverage of public works programmes (since these types of households are much more likely to be eligible for public works than direct support payments). Some of the practical steps that will be taken are as follows: To expand the VUP Public Works targeting approach20 to other infrastructure projects, the sector will collaborate with District administrations and key ministries, such as the Ministry of Infrastructure. Specificguidance will be issued to Districts on how to include relevant clauses in contracts with private companies to ensure that they use labour from Ubudehe categories 1 and 2, whilst respecting workers‟ rights. In order to broaden VUP Public Works to a wider range of activities - for example, employment of public works beneficiaries as assistants and support staff in ECD centres, crèches, schools and health centres – the sector will work with local authorities and NGOs to learn lessons from the small 20 identifying the eligible labour force from Ubudehe categories 1 and 2 31 scale pilots currently underway. The sector will also carry out a thorough review of current public works programmes in order to support the development of a new labour intensive public works policy. Amongst other issues, this review will: examine the arguments for and against the adoption of an employment guarantee scheme; explore the options for increasing public works benefits received by large households; and assess the feasibility of consistently making public works payments to women workers, rather than their heads of household, in order to increase impact on children‟s nutrition. Several Ministries will have important roles to play in realising outcome one, and so effective collaboration will be essential. MINISANTE will be key in helping VUP reinforce messages about child nutrition. MINEDUC and MIGEPROF will have roles in supporting the expansion of public works and the development of crèches close to public works sites. Clear policy guidelines will be developed in order to ensure that these new policy directions are understood in the same way by all actors; and multi-stakeholder workshops will be held with staff from Ministries, Agencies, Districts and Sectors, as well as civil society, to capture creative and feasible ideas on how to take forward the policies in practice. Outcome 3: Social protection system has sustainable impact on extreme poverty To promote sustainable graduation out of poverty and ensure that there are viable pathways out of poverty, we will enable households that exit core social protection support to progress to complementary social development programmes that build their skills and resilience, including financial services and skills development. To enhance the sustainability of the Ubudehe Credit Scheme, a transition strategy will determine how the UCS will be delivered in EDPRS2 in a way that maximises the programme‟s impact and minimises risk to GoR. This will help to ensure that 400,000 people receive new loans and repay these in 240 sectors by 2017/18 and that 500,000 people receive financial literacy training. Additionally, combined efforts with the financial sector shall be undertaken to ensure that tailored financial services are targeted to the poor to allow them to graduate into using formal financial Services.Linkages to Informal Financial Channels such as VSLGs - Village Saving and Loan Groups shall be supported given their ability in providing a stepping stone to formal financial inclusion for the poor. To build institutional sustainability of the social protection system we will continue to build links between formal social protection programmes and traditional informal social protection mechanisms, such as Umuganda, Volunteerism, Kuremeraabacu, Kuragizanya, Kugabirana, Itorero, Kuzitura and Igikumba. Ubudehe community projects will continue to be an important complementary programme for the sector. To build financial sustainability of the SP system, the sector will develop and implement a financing strategy that will ensure sufficient and predictable resource flows to the sector from all available sources (GoR, development partners, CSOs and the private sector). Outcome 4: More effective, efficient and harmonised SP sector 32 To realise this outcome, the sector will take forward a number of critical policy actions. A formal social protection SWAp will be developed in order to strengthen coordination, harmonisation and accountability between all the policy and implementing institutions, including civil society organisations. To improve monitoring of programme performance and results, the sector will establish a comprehensive M&E system. This will be underpinned by a social protection management information system (MIS), with a unified registry of beneficiaries and interfaces at national, District and Sector levels. The sector will also develop and implement a capacity building plan to enable all those involved in social protection at central and decentralised levels to effectively play their roles in delivering results. A strong focus will be put on ensuring the timeliness and predictability of social protection payments (direct support and public works), since predictability is key to ensuring that these payments have their desired poverty impacts. The sector will also explore ways to improve its efficiency through: harmonising key elements of programmes; improving co-ordination between all Governmental and non-governmental actors in the sector; expanding partnerships with the private sector and exploring new technologies.ICT innovations shall also be explored such as mobile payment mechanisms to enhance timely payments to public works and direct support beneficiaries for instance. Outcome 5: Better measurement and visibility of SP results and impact Two key strategies will deliver this objective: The social protection communications strategy will be implemented, ensuring that communications are effectively tailored to a range of different audiences. Communications will be underpinned by improved information on results from the M&E system. A comprehensive evaluation of social protection programmes will be undertaken, to provide robust information on the impact of programmes on poverty and vulnerability. This will provide a solid basis for policy and programming decisions during the EDPRS2 period. It will also increase the national and international profile of the contribution of Rwanda‟s social protection sector to poverty reduction. In addition, we will undertake gender audits of key social protection programmes, starting with VUP. Outcome 6: Improved sector response to climate-related risks We will seek to strengthen dialogue and data exchange on climate related risks with key institutions involved in disaster risk management. An initiative by MINALOC to establish a cross Ministry technical working group on Social Protection and Early Warning Systems will be enhanced to enable timely and good quality information flow to the sector. This will help to inform sector programming and enable improved risk management. The sector will also develop policy guidelines for social protection actors, including District and Sector staff, on how social protection programmes will respond to emergencies and disasters that are commonly experienced in Rwanda e.g. floods, landslides, droughts, heavy rains and any others. We will also identify key risks and vulnerabilities, based on analyses conducted to date (eg CFSVA and the Environment Sector Vulnerability Assessment), in order to „climate proof‟ social protection 33 programmes and ensure that their implementation mitigates climate related risk. 34 Chapter 4: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SECTOR STRATEGIC PLAN This chapter sets out how the sector strategic plan will be implemented. It describes key stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities and explains the mechanisms for co-ordination in the sector. It sets out how interventions will interact with each other to reduce extreme poverty and promote „graduation‟ and discusses sequencing of key programmes. Finally, the chapter considers the main risks to achieving the sector objectives and presents mitigation strategies against these risks.

4.1 Institutional Framework

4.1.1. Roles of Central versus Local Government MINALOC has the social protection policy lead and the Ministry‟s seven core functions with respect to social protection are laid down as follows:  Develop and disseminate sector policies, strategies and programmes  Develop legal frameworks  Develop institutional and human resource capacities, including assessing and building the capacities of decentralised entities  Monitor and evaluate the implementation of sector policies, strategies and programmes  Oversee the functioning of institutions supervised by the Ministry  Promote effective intergovernmental relationships,  Mobilise resources for sector activities, including promoting partnerships for joint development efforts by stakeholders at local level. MINALOC will co-ordinate implementation of this strategy and will continue to lead the multi- stakeholder Social Protection Sector Working Group. In collaboration with partners, MINALOC will draw up an annual implementation plan for the sector and monitor progress against it, drawing on information from the new social protection MIS, the development and implementation of which the Ministry will also lead. MINALOC will lead the development of a formal SWAp, as well as the sector evaluation and other analytical work and the design of all new policies and sector-wide guidelines. The Ministry will oversee the operational programmes implemented by FARG, RLDSF and RDRC and will ensure that national and decentralised levels have the capacities required to deliver social protection strategy objectives. Other central Government Ministries will continue to be responsible for the implementation of their respective complementary programmes. For example, MINAGRI will continue to manage the Girinkaand other livestock programmes and MINISANTE the Mutuelle de Santé; MINEDUC will lead on basic education, early childhood development and school feeding and MIGEPROF on support to vulnerable children and families. Inter-Ministerial collaboration will ensure that synergies are maximised. The agencies of RLDSF, FARG and RDRC will be responsible for translating sector policies and strategies into detailed operational guidelines for programme delivery and for ensuring quality delivery of their respective programmes by decentralised government. Their responsibilities cover core direct support and public works social protection programmes, as well as complementary 35 financial services, community projects and skills development. The agencies will be responsible for ensuring that effective M&E frameworks and mechanisms are in place and that the findings of routine monitoring and impact assessments inform practical improvements in targeting and other aspects of programme design. They will also oversee programme financial management and ensure that frontline staff in Districts and Sectors are properly inducted and trained and have the skills required to deliver programmes. In planning programme-specific training they will liaise with MINALOC (which has overall responsibility for capacity building on social protection) to maximise synergies and efficiencies across the sector. Districts will be responsible for the delivery and financial management of all Government core and complementary social protection programmes and, in particular, for:  identification and selection of beneficiaries  hands-on support to and awareness-raising of beneficiaries  recruitment and management of frontline social protection staff  day-to-day monitoring of programmes, including inputting data to the social protection MIS  narrative and financial reporting to social protection agencies and central Government  handling complaints and appeals about targeting and programme delivery issues  channellingfeedback from the field on programme delivery challenges and recommendations for design improvements to agencies and central Government. Districts will have a critical role in coordinating and harmonising the social protection interventions of both Governmental and non-governmental actors at local level and in creating synergies between social protection and other sectoral programmes. This will include extending the use of Ubudehe classification for selecting beneficiaries of a wide range of labour intensive infrastructure projects in VUP and non-VUP sectors (in collaboration with MINALOC and MININFRA); and strengthening linkages between formal social protection and home grown initiatives.

4.1.2. Role of Private sector The private sector has key roles to play in support of social protection, including in the following areas:  creating jobs for the poor that respect labour standards  offering a range of appropriate financial services including savings and insurance  providing the technical skills required for the design of more complex public works projects and the skilled labour to work alongside unskilled public works beneficiaries in implementation  providing technological solutions to key social protection delivery challenges/instruments, which might include IT software for MIS and possibly mobile phone payment mechanisms  supporting effective communications in the sector drawing on the positive experience of m- health internationally  creating revenue-generating investment opportunities for pension and other formal social security funds Government will work increasingly in collaboration with the private sector in delivering social protection objectives and will explore new opportunities for partnerships. 36

4.1.3. Role of civil society and other organisations Civil Society Civil society organisations have key roles in social protection in Rwanda, including in: - Service delivery: providing social assistance (including cash transfers) directly to the extreme poor / vulnerable. Whilst most CSO projects are reaching only small numbers of people, the large number of active CSOs means that their collective contribution to service delivery will be substantial. - Innovation: Many NGOs are piloting new approaches in Rwanda, often drawing on lessons from international experience. Lessons from such pilots will be used to inform the on-going improvement of existing Government SP programmes. - „Ground-truthing‟: Many civil society organisations have large networks of staff working directly with poor communities and vulnerable people on a day-to-day basis. As such, their involvement in policy development will be an important way to „ground-truth‟ policy ideas, providing valuable insights on the practical feasibility of policy ideas and feedback on the operation of policies and programmes. Most of the numerous civil society organisations involved in social protection do not have national coverage (some work in only in a few Districts or Sectors) and their support is almost exclusively off- budget, which presents challenges for the sector in co-ordinating their contributions.On the other hand, there are opportunities on which the sector can build. NGO representatives already participate in both the SPSWG; and District and Sector JADFs. NGO registration is dependent on the regular provision of extensive information to Government at both national and decentralised levels and there may be opportunities to better harness this information in ways that are useful to the social protection sector. Going forward, the social protection sector will continue to engage civil society organisations in policy and strategy discussions at national level through their involvement in the SPSWG and its Sub-Committees. Key civil society networks, including NINGO, the Disability Forum and the Civil Society Platform will be permanently represented on the SPSWG. In addition, in order to maximise civil society input, specialist NGOs will be invited to participate in policy discussions on particular issues on which they have expertise. They will be invited to share experience from pilot programmesand there may be opportunities for GoR to extend current operational collaboration with NGOs in scaling up successful pilots. At District levels, civil society organisations intervening in the social protection sector will continue to actively participate in JADFs, including in the Social Commissions and Social Protection Sub- Commissions (once established), helping to ensure a co-ordinated approach to social protection delivery. Government will work together with civil society to strengthen Sector level JADFs, so that JADFs are enabled to undertake detailed co-ordination, including comparison and modification of beneficiary lists to minimise duplications and gaps in coverage. 37 Development Partners Development partners are very active in the SPSWG and its sub-committees and provide extensive technical support to the sector, as well as very substantial financial resources. The sector will work to sustain and further build upon the active partnerships already established with the EU, DFID the World Bank, SIDA and the One UN, as well as to encourage other development partners to increase their engagement in the sector. The sector will make full use of the resources and expertise available from development partners, ensuring that these are used in an efficient and harmonised way, aligned behind the common agreed strategy.

4.1.4. Mechanisms for co-ordination and information sharing between stakeholders and partners in the sector National level co-ordination The key mechanism for co-ordination and information sharing at national level between stakeholders and partners in the sector will continue to be the Social Protection Sector Working Group (SPSWG), which will meet at technical level six times per year and at leadership level twice per year throughout the EDPRS2 period. The chair of the SPSWG will represent the sector on the Rural Development Thematic Steering Committee. The SPSWG‟s responsibilities will include:  Ensuring the implementation and monitoring of the social protection strategy, including providing regular six-monthly reports on progress  Making recommendations on annual budgets for all activities set out in the strategy  Monitoring the execution of social protection budgets across government  Monitoring all social protection initiatives across government  Overseeing analytical work undertaken by Ministries on social protection The SWG‟s four sub-committees will continue to meet monthly and to support the SWG by providing a forum for early, in-depth discussion of priority issues. The sub-committees and their key areas of responsibility will be as follows: i) The Policy sub-committee will lead on outcomes 1 and 2 of the EDPRS2 social protection strategy: on expanding coverage of the extreme poor and addressing child poverty within the poorest households ii) The Systems Strengthening and M&E sub-committee will focus on outcomes3, 4 and 5 of the strategy: on building an efficient, harmonised and sustainable social protection system and on better measurement and visibility of social protection results. iii) The Early Warning Systems sub-committee will address outcome 6 of the strategy: improved sector response to climate related risks. iv) Finance. Given the importance of financing issues, there will be a dedicated sub-committee to support implementation of the financing strategy and to address financial management issues across the sector. 38 Decentralised co-ordination At decentralised levels, JADFs will play the key co-ordination role. The role of JADFs in overseeing social protection interventions will be strengthened through guidelines issued by MINALOC. Every year, each development partnerand non-governmental actorwill present to District authorities a detailed plan of theirsocial protection interventions in the District, disaggregated for each sector.The JADFs will ensure that these programmes are aligned with District development priorities and a District wide plan of social protection activities by Governmental and non- governmental actors will be elaborated as part of the District Development Plan. This process will be facilitated by the secretary to the District JADF, who is supported by the Rwanda Governance Board. Bringing together local government and civil society stakeholders, Sector JADFs will be strengthened in order that they have the capacity to play an effective role in detailed practical co- ordination, for example, in reviewing beneficiary lists of key Governmental and non-governmental social protection interventions in order to identify both inappropriate duplications of support and any gaps in coverage of extremely poor or vulnerable households. Once the social protection MIS is operational it will be used as a tool to facilitate this process. Lists of beneficiaries receiving support from Governmental and key non-governmental programmes will be entered into the MIS by District staff and the MIS will be used to easily identify and oversee the benefits that each household is receiving. Information sharing The social protection sector is developing a communications strategy and this will be implemented as part of the EDPRS2 strategy. In order to communicate sector policies and results as effectively as possible, the content of communications messages and the choice of media will be carefully tailored for each priority target audience. For example, community meetings (as part of VUP and Umuganda) and radio will be used to convey key information about social protection programmes in Rwanda to communities and beneficiaries. The MINALOC website will be improved in order to ensure that up-to-date policy information is accessible to those with internet access, including policy-makers, development partners and civil society organisations. 4.2Sequencing of Interventions Appropriate sequencing of interventions will be critical to achievement of the social protection strategy objectives. There are three elements to this:  sequencing within core social protection programmes to promote more efficient and effective delivery  sequencing between core and complementary programmes to support sustainable graduation out of poverty  sequencing between policy actions and operational programmes to maximise impact 39

4.2.1 Sequencing within core social protection programmes The sector has thought carefully about sequencing of interventions, aware that errors in sequencing can diminish the overall impact of programmes. Even the best designed programme will collapse if the staff capacities are not available at the right time to deliver it, so it is essential that staffing and capacity building commences alongside programme design. Likewise, targeting lists need to be ready before cash payments are due, as any interruption to regular timely payments is known to undermine the impact of cash transfer programmes. The technical infrastructure elements of public works programmes must be planned well in advance, so that work is available at the right time to provide work for the poorest households outside peak agricultural season. Appeals and complaints mechanisms need to be up and running at the start of any programme delivery cycle, so that households are able to challenge decisions on their eligibility status in a timely way. For these reasons, the delivery date for each action within the implementation plan has been designed to take account of the interactions between elements of the strategy and the need to ensure correct sequencing for effective delivery.

4.2.2 Sequencing between core and complementary SP programmes In order to fulfil its promotion objectives and to support households to sustainably graduate out of poverty, the social protection sector will work with others to effectively link core social transfer programmes with complementary ones, such as financial services, skills development and childcare. This will help ensure that there are viable pathways out of poverty for those with labour capacity. Former VUP direct support and public works beneficiary households who move out of Ubudehe categories 1 and 2 during an Ubudehe re-categorisation process will exit VUP support. Given that not all these households will be in a position to sustain a move out of poverty by their own devices, such households will be specially targeted for information and advice on how to access complementary services that promote economic activity. Genocide survivors who exit FARG direct support and vulnerable disabled former combatants who exit RDRC direct support will, likewise, be provided with clear information on how and where to access follow on services. Decentralised authorities will have key roles to play in creating practical links between social protection and related programmes and will be encouraged to take the initiative to develop linkages between sectoral programmes, in ways that are adapted to their local context and promote achievement of multiple DDP objectives. For example, linking childcare provision and public works employment could promote child development, gender equality and employment creation. Vocational training could be provided by local private sector contractors as part of public works programmes, supporting social protection, skills development and local economic development objectives. Given their responsibilities across all sectors, decentralised authorities will be well placed to identify additional potential linkages. To support decentralised authorities to play this role, MINALOC will, as part of the sector capacity building plan, hold workshops for District staff to share best practices, learn from pilot schemes and generate new ideas about linking social protection and complementary programmes. 40

4.2.3 Sequencing between policy actions and operational programmes to maximise impact The sector will establish stronger synergies between core operational programmes and sector- specific analytical work. Routine monitoring information collected through the new social protection sector MIS will be used to identify critical emerging issues that merit in-depth analysis. Policy studies will address these issues, thus ensuring that the limited resources available for analytical work will be focused on the most important issues for the sector. The evidence obtained from evaluations and studies will then be used to inform future programme design, serving to further build programme effectiveness and efficiency. The sector will also strengthen policy linkages to complementary programmes. Once the MINALOC social protection policy team is fully staffed, the social protection sector will provide technical inputs to the design of some key complementary programmes to ensure that social protection objectives are mainstreamed. For example, when programmes such as agricultural input subsidies, skills development, community development or early childhood development are being reviewed or designed, the social protection sector will provide advice on how to take account of the needs of the extreme poor and vulnerable and how to maximise access and benefits for these groups. The sequencing of policy actions will be thought through carefully and collectively by the SPSWG, so that, as far as possible, studies that inform major policy and institutional decisions are carried out in advance of analysis of issues of detail within the same area. For example, policy work on harmonisation of direct support programmes will be carried out before the start of the EDPRS2 period in order that decisions on this are made in time to inform detailed planning and budgeting of EDPRS2 direct support programmes.

4.3 Risks The key risks identified for the sector are as follows:  Insufficient financial resources available for increased and sustained coverage of social protection programmes Increased coverage of the extreme poor will require increased resource flows from both Government and donor sources that are both sustained and predictable. In the absence of such resources, sustainable scale-up will not be possible and coverage of the extreme poor, and of socially excluded groups within the extreme poor (including people with disabilities, genocide survivors, historically marginalised people etc.) will remain limited. In order to mitigate this risk, a financing strategy will be developed for the strategy during 2012/13, which will identify sources of funding to enable sustainable coverage.  Inadequate decentralised staff capacity to effectively and efficiently deliver programmes Frontline staff capacity is critical to effective and efficient delivery of social protection programmes. In the absence of sufficient trained staff at decentralised levels (especially in sector offices), resources risk being spent inefficiently, with substantial consequences for poverty impacts. 41 To mitigate this risk, a capacity building plan for the sector will be developed during 2012/13 and a staffing strategy will be developed for the VUP programme  Inadequate staff capacity for policy development and oversight of the sector within MINALOC and its agencies. Implementation of the strategy depends on increased Ministry capacity for policy development and oversight of programme implementation. In the absence of this, the progress of the sector to date is unlikely to be sustained. Effective delivery is also dependent on sufficient capacity and technical skills within agencies, in particular RLDSF. To mitigate this risk, a staffing plan for the Community Development and Social Affairs Directorate has already been developed and will be further discussed and validated once the staffing needs of the whole Ministry have been reviewed. In the meantime, steps are being taken to ensure that the existing staff complement is deployed as efficiently as possible to deliver the Directorate‟s range of objectives, including social protection. A draft staffing strategy has also been developed for RLDSF and this will be validated during 2012/13. Technical assistance to RLDSF will be procured and this will have a capacity building element to ensure that skills of the permanent team are sustainably built.  Lack of access to income-generating opportunities that would enable people to sustainably graduate out of poverty Sustained graduation out of poverty requires not only sufficient economic growth to create jobs and business opportunities, but also that the poor have the skills and information required to access these opportunities. In the absence of these opportunities, people risk repeatedly falling back into poverty, as soon as they exit from transfer programmes, creating a cyclical pattern, instead of a sustained pathway out of poverty. This risk will be mitigated through the creation of stronger linkages between transfer programmes and complementary skills enhancement and financial services programmes, as outlined in section 4.2 above. Through monitoring and evaluation, the sector will better understand how different types of social protection interventions can contribute to sustainable improvements in wellbeing.  Major conflict or natural disaster destroys programme impacts This strategy assumes that there is no major conflict or natural disaster over the lifetime of EDPRS2. Such an event would substantially erode expected impacts. Prevention of this risk is outside the control of the sector. However, progress on outcome six of the strategy (improved management of climate related risks) will help to mitigate the impacts of adverse natural events on the livelihoods of poor households.  Synergies between programmes do not materialise due to challenges of incentivising collaborative working 42 Incentives for staff to deliver specific work on which they lead may be stronger than incentives to collaborate to achieve joint objectives. Weaknesses in incentives for working collaboratively across programmes, Ministries and Agencies could inhibit effective programme synergies and undermine effectiveness. To mitigate this risk, the sector will encourage Ministries, Agencies and Districts to include, in staff performance contracts, specific objectives around collaborative working.  Political challenges around harmonisation lead to delays in key decisions with knock on effects on the sector‟s ability to move ahead with planning and implementation of programmes Currently direct support programmes have fundamentally different targeting criteria and separate delivery mechanisms, staffing, management and institutional arrangements. There is clearly scope for efficiency gains through harmonisation, but also some challenging issues to be negotiated. To mitigate this risk, analytical work to generate options for harmonisation has been carried out early in 2012/13. 43 Chapter Five: MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN The social protection sector has identified improved measurement of social protection impacts as a key priority under this strategy. The Systems and M&E Sub-Committee of the SPSWG, which comprises representatives of Government, development partners and civil society will support the development and implementation of the M&E system. This chapter outlines the keymonitoring and evaluation systems and processes in the sector and goes on to present the sector M&E frameworks. The M&E system comprises three main elements: monitoring; impact evaluation; and focused analytical work.

5.1 Sector Monitoring Arrangements Regular monitoring of performance will continue to be carried out through the Joint Sector Reviews which take place twice a year (backward and forward looking). These reviews assess performance against indicators and policy actions agreed by the SPSWG. The SPSWG and its sub-committees will also continue to assess progress of activities quarterly against the detailed sector implementation plan. Recognising the need for a strengthened monitoring and evaluation system,the social protection sector is already in the process of developing a more comprehensive system that better captures information on all programmes and initiatives across the sector using common indicators. Given the paucity of current data, the sector is having to think creatively about how to set up its EDPRS2 monitoring frameworks. Indicators and targets for early years willbe relatively narrowly defined and some will relate only to the VUP programme, for which much better data is available than for other programmes. However, given the plan to rapidly develop a comprehensive sector-wide M&E system, it should prove possible to bring some additional sector-wide indicators on-stream during the EDPRS2 period to complement and reinforce those that will be used from the outset. This will enable the sector to progressively capture more systematic information on all programmes across the sector. The sector M&E framework will be underpinned by a management information system (MIS). Design of this will be completed during 2012/13 and implementation will commence at the start of the EDPRS2 period. The MIS will pull together key data on core and complementary social protection programmes implemented by all Governmental and key non-governmental actors. All data will be disaggregated by sex, disability, age and household composition and specific vulnerable groups will be captured, for example genocide survivors. The MIS will thus enable the generation of a wide range of M&E reports and analysis to inform programme planning and management, as well as the refinement of programme design. There will be interfaces with the MIS at national and decentralised levels andit will be the responsibility of District authorities to ensure that information in the MIS is regularly updated. This will be critical in ensuring that the data generated is relevant and useful.Household exits from social protection programmes and graduation from extreme poverty will be monitored closely through information collected by the MIS. Such monitoring will help ensure that the sector developsan 44 understanding of the factors contributing to successful graduation and is able to build on these in designingprogrammes (both core and complementary) that promote graduation.

5.2 Sector Evaluation Plan In addition, by 2013/14, the sector will have begun a rigorous and comprehensive, mixed methods evaluation of the social protection system, looking at impacts on poverty and vulnerability (both short-term impacts and sustainable improvements/‟graduation‟). The evaluation will disaggregate data to look at the impacts on particular vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities, genocide survivors, historically marginalised people and vulnerable children. It will also consider unintended impacts, for example on intra-household and community dynamics and on local markets. This evaluation will be a critical input to the updating of the Social Protection Policy.

5.3 Focused Analytical Work The sector will also carry out some specific pieces of analytical work that respond to issues identified through routine monitoring and which support key priorities under this strategy. Planned analytical work includes the following:  Gender audits of key social protection programmes to help the sector understand the extent to which social protection programmes take account of the different roles of women and men and meet their different needs; as well as how programme impact might be strengthened by taking more account of these issues in programme design.  Analysis of the public works strategy and its revision to increase coverage of eligible households, especially extremely poor households with children Additional studies are expected to be carried out in response to issues emerging from routine monitoring in future years. 45 Chapter 6: COST AND FINANCING OF THE SECTOR STRATEGIC PLAN This chapter looksat the costs of delivering the strategy and includes a preliminary analysis of the policy choices and trade-offs that the sector will need to consider once detailed information on resources is available.

6.1 Costs Table 2 shows the summary of the social protection sector cost projections over the period 2013/14- 2017/18, broken down by strategy outcome and by year.Detailed costings are attached at Annex six. Table 2: Costs by outcome (RwF millions) Outcome/Year, m FRw 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Total cost 1) Increased coverage of the 35,955 45,785 53,969 57,722 61,199 254,882 extreme poor and vulnerable 2) Child poverty and vulnerability in the poorest 198 47 47 47 47 387 households addressed 3) Social protection system has sustainable impact on 18,009 18,659 18,900 16,451 16,350 88,368 extreme poverty 4) More effective, efficient and harmonised social protection 388 327 135 50 103 1,003 sector 5) Better measurement and visibility of SP results and 290 82 378 189 378 1,317 impact 6) Improved sector response to 44 25 25 25 25 145 climate-related risks Total cost 54,884 64,925 73,454 74,484 78,103 345,851 A number of observations can be made about the costs in table 2 above: By far the most costly outcome to deliver is outcome 1 (increased coverage of the extreme poor and vulnerable). This is unsurprising, given that the costs of scaling up both direct support and public works programmes are included under this outcome. Outcome 3 (social protection system has sustainable impact on extreme poverty) is also relatively costly. Again this is due to the inclusion of substantial operational programmes (financial services and Ubudehe) under this outcome. The costed activities under outcomes 2, 4, 5 and 6 consist, to a large extent, of analytical and policy work that will bring about improvements in programme quality and effectiveness, and thus delivery costs of these outcomes are substantially lower. Nonetheless the achievement of these outcomes is dependent (to a varying extent) on the implementation of programmes costed under outcome 1. For example, table two might give the misleading impression that outcome 2 (child poverty and vulnerability in the poorest households addressed) can be delivered for very little cost. However, as explained in Chapter 3, the 46 achievement of this outcome is highly dependent on the expansion of public works programmes, the cost of which is included under outcome 1 (and to avoid double counting is not included again under outcome 2). The activities costed under outcome 2 are analytical, policy and co-ordination initiatives necessary to ensure that the expansion of public works actually results in a reduction in child poverty and malnutrition and that social protection programmes are optimally linked to the child welfare and nutrition work of other sectors. Table 3 below provides further information on the unit and total costs of the key operational programmes included in the social protection sector strategy. Table 3: Total and Unit Costs of Key Sector Programmes Programme Unit Cost (k FRw) Total Cost (m FRw) % of Total Budget (may vary between years) VUP Public works 197 - 217 148,364 43% VUP Direct Support 195 - 196 94,345 27% FARG Direct Support 120 - 180 7,277 2% RDRC Direct Support 309 4,645 1% Ubudehe Credit Scheme 16 - 24 7,592 2% Financial Literacy Program 43 - 47 22,443 7% FARG IGA Program 235 6,816 2% Ubudehe community Program 693 (per village) 51,410 15% This table highlights the following issues of interest: VUP Public works makes up a massive 43% of the sector strategy budget. This is largely due to the fact that this instrument is expected to reach by far the largest number of people of all the interventions (over 800,000 by 2017/18). Although the difference in unit cost between this and direct support interventions is fairly small, the scale of public works means that even such small differences have substantial budgetary implications and so are worth exploring. The slightly higher unit cost per beneficiary of VUP public works, compared to VUP or FARG direct support, cannot be explained by a higher cash benefit to beneficiary households. Indeed average benefits received by public works beneficiary households are actually substantially lower than those received by direct support households21. The differences are likely to be explained by the other costs of public works (skilled labour, capital etc.). Furthermore there is a trend of rising unit costs of public works over the EDPRS2 period, as the supply of labour-intensive project opportunities 21 VUP Annual Review 2010-11. 47 declines and associated capital costs increase. On the other hand, we need to remember that there are benefits from public works beyond the cash payments to beneficiaries, in the form of community infrastructure built. A fuller analysis that quantified both costs and benefits would be required to meaningfully compare the value for money of public works and direct support. Table 3 also shows that unit costs of RDRC direct support are much higher that either VUP or FARG direct support, which can be explained by the substantially higher levels of benefit paid to beneficiaries of the RDRC programme. Unit costs of FARG IGA are also much higher than those of VUP financial services, and this is partly explained by the fact that VUP now has an established revolving fund and so does not need to fully capitalise new loans. This stark difference in unit costs does raise questions about the cost-effectiveness of setting up a new separate FARG IGA programme, rather than integrating support to genocide survivors within the existing VUP programme.

6.2 Policy Choices and Trade-Offs If forthcoming information on the resources available to implement this sector strategy reveal there to be a funding gap, difficult choices will need to be made. It will not be possible to complete this analysis until the information on resources is available. However, the costing information set out above already starts to indicate some issues and trade-offs that the sector will need to think about: 1) Scale versus quality/effectiveness. The costings data above demonstrate that scale-up of core operational programmes is by far the largest cost item in the sector strategy. If there is found to be a funding gap, a relatively small change in the pace of scale-up could enable the sector to fully cover priority investments in improving programme effectiveness. 2) Funding of complementary activities. Linking households that exit core social protection programmes to complementary forms of support is recognised as essential to enable sustainable graduation out of extreme poverty. However, this link does not necessarily have to be with complementary activities funded by the social protection sector itself. Improved co- ordination would enable the sector to more effectively link exiting households to programmes funded and managed by other sectors. Given the relatively high cost of delivering the complementary programmes under outcome 3, the social protection sector willneed to consider these options in prioritising limited resources. 3) Cost-effective programme design. There may be win-win opportunities to improve both coverage and effectiveness by improving cost-effectiveness of programme design. For example, there is clearly a trade-off between benefit levels and the numbers of people that can be covered with a given budget, and the sector might want to do value for money analysis on benefit levels. There may also be ways of adjusting the design of public works to improve its cost-effectiveness. For example, under an employment guarantee scheme, whilst beneficiaries must be available for work, they can receive the guaranteed payment in the form of direct support instead of public works employment, when no projects are available. This approach would enable Government to opt for a more cost effective direct support modality if and when the costs of delivering a public works project in a given locality outweighed the expected benefits of the project. 48 4) Institutional, staffing and administrative costs. Any analysis of choices and trade-offs based on the costing and resourcing data included in the sector strategy needs to bear in mind that the EDPRS sector strategy financial analysis does not look at Government recurrent costs. There may be cost-effective policy choices open to the sector that will not be picked up by an analysis which considers only programme costs. For example, most of the expected efficiencies arising from institutional integration of VUP, FARG and RDRC in the context of harmonisation would relate to recurrent institutional costs. 49

ANNEX 1: SECTOR PRIORITY AND OUTCOME MATRIX (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) THEMATIC AREA THEMATIC SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR OUTCOME OUTCOME PRIORITY OUTCOME INDICATOR 1) RURAL Increase the Number of eligible people benefiting from a core SP 2) 1) Increased coverage 22 DEVELOPMENT coverage of the programme (disaggregated by programme and by 3.2: Improved of the extreme poor extreme poor and men/women/children and genocide survivors) Priority Area 3: targeting and and vulnerable vulnerable by social 23 Enabling effectiveness of % of eligible hholds employed on VUP PW protection graduation from social protection programmes (disaggregated by FHH and MHH) extreme poverty interventions Average number of days work gained by eligible households employed on VUP PW Income poverty depth of VUP beneficiary households 3) 2) Child poverty and % of those eligible households including a child <5 that gain access to vulnerability in the 24 VUP PW poorest households addressed % of children <5 in Ubudehe categories 1 and 2 who are stunted % of children aged 6-23 months in households in bottom two quintiles 25 who are fed in line with minimum standards 4) More effective, Building an Timeliness of i) direct support and ii) public works payments - efficient and effective, efficient average number of days after due date that payments arrive in harmonised social 22 Aggregated VUP PW, VUP DS, FARG DS. VUP household numbers to be multiplied by estimated average household size to give estimated number of individuals. Once MIS is operational it should be possible to get accurate actual numbers. 23 Eligible households employed on VUP PW / total number of eligible households 24 Will show whether eligible hholds with children are getting more, less or equal access to PW employment. 25 As set out in DHS 2010. 50 (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) THEMATIC AREA THEMATIC SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR OUTCOME OUTCOME PRIORITY OUTCOME INDICATOR and harmonised protection sector beneficiary bank accounts (disaggregated by programme VUP/FARG social protection and District) sector % of SP sector strategy annual implementation cost that is predictably funded one year ahead 4) 3) Social protection RURAL 3.1 Building a Number and % of beneficiary hholds who move from Ubudehe system has sustainable 26 DEVELOPMENT sustainable social category 1 or 2 to categories 3-6 (measure of exit) 3.1; Increased impact on extreme protection system Priority Area 3: and sustained poverty Number and % of exited beneficiary hholds who are still in Ubudehe Enabling graduation from 5) categories 3-6 two years later (measure of graduation) graduation from core social 6) Human poverty index of SP beneficiary households extreme poverty protection programmes by connecting economic opportunities and financial services 7) 3.3 51 (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) THEMATIC AREA THEMATIC SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR OUTCOME OUTCOME PRIORITY OUTCOME INDICATOR Measuring and 5) Better measurement Number of articles on achievements of Rwanda social protection sector ACCOUNTABLE 1.2 published in international peer reviewed journals GOVERNANCE communicating SP and visibility of SP 1.2 Enhanced results and impact results and impact Number of presentations made on Rwanda social protection at information flows international conferences to, and participation of women and men Number of policy / programming improvements made as a result of through established evaluation findings and new channels Foundational Responding to 6) Improved sector Appropriate policy and institutional arrangements in place to link social climate-related risks response to climate- protection and disaster risk reduction (as assessed by SWG) related risks % of crises to which Districts mobilise a timely SP response in line 27 with policy guidelines 27 „Crisis‟ and „timely manner‟ to be defined in Policy Guidelines by Dec 2012. 52

ANNEX 2: SECTOR OUTCOME MONITORING MATRIX SECTOR SECTOR OUTCOME INDICATOR BASELINE Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Means of Reporting OUTCOME Verification (Yr) 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Responsibility Target Target Target Target Target 1) Increased 1. Number of eligible people 497,00028 677,000 807,000 939,000 1,017,000 1,096,000 VUP and FARG MINALOC coverage of the benefiting from a core SP programme (RLDSF, FARG) extreme poor programme (2011/12) monitoring, and vulnerable (disaggregated by programme and MIS (from by men/women/children and 2015/16) genocide survivors) % of eligiblehholds employed on 54% 57% 60% 64% 67% 70% VUP programme RLDSF VUP PW monitoring (2011/12) (disaggregated by FHH and MHH) District reports Sector MIS (from 2015/16) 2.Average number of days work 68 69 71 72 74 75 VUP programme RLDSF gained by eligible households monitoring (2011/12) employed on VUP PW Sector MIS (from 2015/16) Extreme Income poverty depth of 31.1% 27% 25% 23% 22% 20% EICV RLDSF and VUP beneficiary households NISR 2) Child poverty % of those eligible households No data Establish Defined Defined Defined Defined Ubudehe RLDSF and vulnerability including a child <5 that gain access available baseline and targets targets targets targets in the poorest to VUP PW approach to achieved achieved achieved achieved households measuremen addressed t. Define targets. 28 (programme disaggregation, 414,459 VUP PW, 62,854 VUP DS, 23,360 FARG DS) 53 SECTOR SECTOR OUTCOME INDICATOR BASELINE Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Means of Reporting OUTCOME Verification (Yr) 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Responsibility Target Target Target Target Target % of children <5 in Ubudehe Cat 1 60% Cat 1 48% CFSVA NISR categories 1 and 2 who are stunted 29 Cat 2 53% Cat 2 42% (2012) % of children aged 6-23 months in 12% 24% DHS NISR bottom two quintiles who are fed in line with minimum standards (2010) 3) Social Number and % of beneficiary hholds 9.8% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Household RLDSF protection who move from Ubudehe category 1 poverty survey system has or 2 to categories 3-6 30 (measure of (BL=2011) sustainable exit) impact on Number and % of exited beneficiary Not known tbd 40% 50% 60% 70% VUP Household RLDSF extreme poverty hholds who are still in Ubudehe poverty survey categories 3-6 two years later (measure of graduation) Human poverty index of SP 40.8% 35% 30% 27% 25% 20% VUP bi-annual RLDSF beneficiary households31 Household Poverty Survey 4) More 3.Timeliness of i) direct support and No data on Systems for Targets Targets Targets Targets VUP DS payroll, MINALOC effective, ii) public works payments - average timeliness measuring defined and defined and defined and defined and quarterly (RLDSF, FARG) efficient and number of days after due date that timeliness achieved achieved achieved achieved FARG payroll harmonised payments arrive in beneficiary bank developed, social protection accounts (disaggregated by approved and sector programme VUP/FARG and District) operational % of SP sector strategy32 annual 75%33 75% 75% 80% 80% 80% MTEF, SWAP SP Finance Sub- implementation cost that is arrangement Committee (2011) predictably funded one year ahead MINECOFIN 29 CFSVA 2012 based on self-reported Ubudehe category 31 Construct baseline asset index from VUP Household Poverty Survey 32 If we were to look only at core SP activities, rather than the whole strategy, the baseline would be 88% 33 In 2011, funds available for 2012/13 were $6.664m (complementary) +$36,917 (core). Cost of SP activities in 2012/13 was $16.184 (complementary) + $42,103 (core). From NSPS IP workbooks. 54 SECTOR SECTOR OUTCOME INDICATOR BASELINE Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Means of Reporting OUTCOME Verification (Yr) 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Responsibility Target Target Target Target Target 4. Number of SWAP criteria met No SWAP All 6 criteria All 6 All 6 All 6 All 6 JSR reports SP SWG met 5) Better EICV and SP SWG M and measurement evaluation E Sub- and visibility of reports Committee; Robust impact evaluation data SP results and available and disseminated Robust data Evaluation Analysis of EICV5 collects Analysis of RLDSF; NISR impact on poverty framework EICV4 to data of poverty EICV5 to impact of developed provide impact of VUP provide core SP and agreed evidence on evidence on programmes key key EICV4 lacking performance performance collects data and design and design on poverty questions questions impact of VUP Qualitative impact and process evaluation component designed and implemented to triangulate with EICV Number of policy / programming 0 0 1 2 3 3 Joint Sector SP SWG Policy improvements made as a result of Reviews (SWG) Sub-Committee evaluation findings 55 SECTOR SECTOR OUTCOME INDICATOR BASELINE Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Means of Reporting OUTCOME Verification (Yr) 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Responsibility Target Target Target Target Target 6) Improved . Appropriate policy and institutional policy Policy SWG judges SWG SWG SWG Joint Sector SWG sector response arrangements in place to link social guidelines guidelines policy and assesses that assesses assesses Reviews (SWG) to climate- protection and disaster risk reduction available. implemented. institutional lessons are arrangements arrangements related risks (as assessed by SWG) SWG sub- arrangements being learned to be working to be working committee to be and well in line well in line on EWS set appropriate incorporated in with with up. and working policy/ international international well. programming best practice best practice 5. % of crises to which Districts 0 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% MINALOC MINALOC mobilise a timely SP response in line reporting with policy guidelines 56

ANNEX 3: SECTOR PRIORITY/POLICY ACTIONS MATRIX THEMATIC SECTOR SECTOR PRIORITY/POLICY ACTIONS (ANNUAL OUTPUT) TOTAL OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTPUT BUDGET FOR Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 (Aggregated) 5-YR PERIOD m FRw RURAL SOCIAL 1.1 DS scaled up 57,000householdsin240 80,500householdsin3 105,000househ 105,000 hhs in 105,000 hhs in 254,882 m FRw DEVELOPMENT PROTECTION (VUP, FARG, RDRC) sectors benefit from 30sectors benefit oldsin416sector 416 sectors 416 sectors and implemented in VUP DS, 15,500 from from VUP DS, 12,400 s benefit from benefit from benefit from Priority Area: 1) Increased line with international FARG from FARG, VUP DS, 8,200 DS,6,800 from DS, 6,800 from Enabling coverage of best practice from FARG FARG FARG Graduation from the extreme Extreme Poverty poor and vulnerable DS scale-up plan 3.2 Improved revised targeting and effectiveness of 1.2 VUP PW scaled up 100,000householdsin18 115,000householdsin 130,000househ 145,000 160,000 hholds social protection and implemented in 0sectors participate in 210sectors oldsin240sector households in in 300 sectors interventions line with international PW participate in PW s participate in 270 sectors participate in best practice PW participate in PW PW PW scale-up plan revised 1.3 SP targeting system VUP targeting and Sector-wide improved graduation guidelines guidelines effectively implemented and implemented. expanded to SP sector as a whole Ubudehe targeting Ubudehe re- Graduation/exit Ubudehe re- Graduation/exit criteria updated. classification takes findings classification findings place usefully inform takes place usefully inform programming. programming. Graduation and exit Graduation and data analysed. exit data from analysed. Effective targeting spot 10,000 spot 10,000 spot check mechanism checks take checks take established to verify place in place in classifications. accordance with accordance with agreed agreed mechanism mechanism 57 THEMATIC SECTOR SECTOR PRIORITY/POLICY ACTIONS (ANNUAL OUTPUT) TOTAL OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTPUT BUDGET FOR Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 (Aggregated) 5-YR PERIOD m FRw 1.4 Accessible appeals System-wide appeals Full data on appeals and complaints and complaints and complaints mechanism in place mechanism operating available from MIS: effectively, in line with number and type of best practice. appeals/complaints; number of investigations; and outcomes 2) Child 2.1 VUP PW approach Workshops held with At least 20 sectors At least 80 75% of VUP 90% of VUP 387 m FRw poverty and expanded Districts / Sectors and have expanded VUP sectors have operational operational vulnerability in civil society to learn PW beyond manual expanded VUP sectors have sectors have the poorest lessons from pilots on labour to include PW beyond expanded VUP expanded VUP households expanding PW beyond service provision in manual labour PW beyond PW beyond addressed manual labour schools/ECD manual labour manual labour At least 80 centres/clinics Workshops held with sectors are At least 200 At least 300 MINIFRA and Districts At least 20 sectors using VUP sectors are using sectors are on expanding VUP PW are using VUP targeting VUP targeting using VUP targeting approach to targeting approach approach approach targeting other infrastructure appropriately to select appropriately appropriately for approach projects. labour for other for other other appropriately infrastructure projects infrastructure infrastructure for other Operational guidelines projects projects infrastructure developed and issued projects to Districts on both expansion issues 2.2 Labour intensive Updated PW policy that New PW policy rolled public works policy provides expanded out to all VUP finalised and gender-sensitive operational Sectors implemented flexible work opportunities integrated into new procedures manual 58 THEMATIC SECTOR SECTOR PRIORITY/POLICY ACTIONS (ANNUAL OUTPUT) TOTAL OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTPUT BUDGET FOR Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 (Aggregated) 5-YR PERIOD m FRw 2.3 Revised VUP Revised awareness- awareness-raising raising component component effectively implemented implemented in all VUP operational Sectors RURAL Scoping study Action plan 88,368 m FRw DEVELOPMENT completed on how to implemented 3) Social 3.1 Home-grown SP link formal SP with 3.1 Increased protection mechanisms supported home-grown and sustained system has and linked into SP mechanisms graduation from sustainable system core social impact on extreme Action plan developed protection poverty that identifies specific programmes by new linkages of benefit connecting to the extreme poor / economic vulnerable. opportunities and financial services 3.2 Linkages Guidance note Districts effectively And strengthened between developed on linking roll out approach. core SP and core and complementary complementary ACCOUNTABLE programmes programmes GOVERNANCE 1.4 Introduction 3.3 Effective financial UCS transition strategy At least of new Home services delivered that implemented 400,000 Grown Initiatives are adapted to the people receive FARG IGA harmonised for greater needs of the very poor and repay with UCS. impact and and vulnerable, in line loans ownership with international best At least practice. 500,000 people receive financial literacy training 3.4 Increased, Financing strategy predictable financial implemented resources generated for the SP sector 59 THEMATIC SECTOR SECTOR PRIORITY/POLICY ACTIONS (ANNUAL OUTPUT) TOTAL OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTPUT BUDGET FOR Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 (Aggregated) 5-YR PERIOD m FRw RURAL 4.1 Formal SWAp Formal SWAp MOU SWAp under At least 60% At least 70% At least 75% 1,003 m FRw DEVELOPMENT developed signed by Government, implementation analytical work analytical work analytical work 4) More civil society and at least carried out carried out jointly carried out 3.2 Improved effective, At least 50% five DPs jointly ? ? jointly? targeting and efficient and analytical work effectiveness of harmonised carried out jointly ? At least 80% At least 83% At least 83% social protection social ODA disbursed ODA disbursed ODA disbursed At least 80% ODA interventions protection against against against disbursed against sector scheduled scheduled scheduled scheduled commitments? commitments? commitments? commitments? 4.2 Cash transfer Roadmap for Approved Programmes programmes harmonisation harmonisation option fully harmonised developed and legal / under harmonised institutional frameworks implementation that and reviewed improves sector implemented by effectivenesss and a single efficiency institution 4.3 Comprehensive Comprehensive M&E Indicators and MIS provides M&E system system with common targets integrated in reliable, timely established, system-wide indicators MIS and underpinned by MIS and targets developed disaggregated data MIS piloted MIS rolled out to all MIS data At least two sectors across the analysed and examples of country used to inform policy/ policy and programming programming improvements based on MIS data 4.4 Social protection Policy design Policy finalised Policy policy updated commenced – and validated implemented using evaluation data 60 THEMATIC SECTOR SECTOR PRIORITY/POLICY ACTIONS (ANNUAL OUTPUT) TOTAL OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTPUT BUDGET FOR Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 (Aggregated) 5-YR PERIOD m FRw 4.5 Sector capacity Approved capacity At least 60 training At least 60 At least 90 At least 60 building plan building plan under courses delivered in training training courses training implemented implementation Districts for frontline courses delivered in courses staff and 4 induction delivered in Districts for delivered in Capacity building cadre courses Kigali. Districts for frontline staff and Districts for of 60 people set up and frontline staff 4 induction frontline staff trained. and 4 induction courses Kigali. and 4 induction At least 90 training 1750 staff trained courses Kigali. courses Kigali. courses delivered in and have appropriate 90% of staff in 90% of staff in Districts for frontline skills for their roles. post are post are staff and 4 induction 90% of new staff appropriately appropriately courses Kigali. formally inducted skilled; and skilled: have within 3 months of have been on been on joining. induction and induction and at least one at least one other training other training course. course. 4.6 Effective and MINALOC SP team of Effective teams Effective Effective agency Effective efficient institutional five policy staff maintained: (staff restructuring of under operation teams structures in place (in recruited and trained. replaced and new sector leads to with appropriate maintained: central Government, staff inducted as single agency staffing staff replaced RLDSF staffing Agencies and required). managing all structures and and new staff strategy under decentralised levels) to SP skills. inducted as operation in order to SPSWG and sub- implement strategy programming. required. strengthen VUP M&E committees continue SPSWG and and programme design to meet according to SPSWG and sub-committees SPSWG and capacities and agreed schedules. sub- continue to meet sub- decentralised frontline committees according to committees delivery capacity continue to agreed continue to meet schedules. meet SPSWG and sub- according to according to committees meet agreed agreed according to agreed schedules. schedules. schedules 61 THEMATIC SECTOR SECTOR PRIORITY/POLICY ACTIONS (ANNUAL OUTPUT) TOTAL OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTPUT BUDGET FOR Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 (Aggregated) 5-YR PERIOD m FRw 4.7 Timeliness, Reasons for extensive E-payment and predictability and cost- delays in DS payments payment effectiveness of SP (VUP and FARG) in harmonisation payments improved 2011/12 and 2012/13 options reviewed and analysed. Solutions payments strategy identified and developed. operationalized. ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNANCE 5.1 Comprehensive Phase 1 of evaluation Phase 2 of Phase 3 of Phase 4 of Phase 5 of 1,317 m FRw independent rolling carried out evaluation evaluation evaluation evaluation 5) Better 1.1 evaluation carried out in measurement Findings inform Findings Findings inform Findings accordance with Increased citizen and visibility programming and inform programming inform international standards participation in of SP results policy decisions. programming and policy programming planning and impact and policy decisions. and policy processes and decisions. decisions. solving their own problems 5.2 Gender audits and Findings of VUP Findings At least 3 At least 3 policy At least 3 other policy studies gender audit (carried appropriately inform policy studies studies carried policy studies carried out in out in 2012/13) inform revision of VUP carried out in out in response carried out in accordance with programming operational response to to emerging response to international standards guidelines emerging issues in the emerging Gender audits of other issues in the sector. issues in the programmes - FARG, , Gender training sector. sector. Girinka – carried out in module developed 3 high quality accordance with and delivered as part 3 high quality best practice 3 high quality international of capacity building best practice notes developed. best practice standards. plan (see output 4 notes notes above) developed. developed. 5.3 Communications Communications Findings of Implementation strategy (that responds strategy implemented evaluation and continues and to context and sector studies feed into is informed by specific challenges) is user-friendly comms further implemented products evaluation 62 THEMATIC SECTOR SECTOR PRIORITY/POLICY ACTIONS (ANNUAL OUTPUT) TOTAL OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTPUT BUDGET FOR Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 (Aggregated) 5-YR PERIOD m FRw findings Districts Districts t communications action communications plans developed action plans implemented 6) Improved 6.1 SP disaster risk Policy guidelines SWG judges policy SWG SWG assesses SWG 145 m FRw sector response strengthened implemented and institutional assesses that arrangements to assesses response to arrangements to be lessons are be working well arrangements climate- appropriate and being learned in line with to be working related risks working well and international best well in line with incorporated in practice international policy/program best practice ming 6.2 Social protection Using existing sources Districts plans Districts plans Districts plans programmes mitigate (eg. CFSVA and implemented implemented implemented Districts plans climate-related risks Environment Sector implemented Vulnerability Assessment) identify key risks and vulnerabilities Districts plans to mitigate risks developed 63

ANNEX 4: LIST OF INSTITUTIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED i) Drafting and Quality Assurance Teams The following individuals were responsible for drafting and quality assuring this strategy: Drafting team: CrisAyebare (MINECOFIN EDPRS Facilitator), Samantha Yates (DFID), TamsinAyliffe (Social Protection Adviser to MINALOC), Vincent Gahamanyi (RLDSF), Alex Kamurase (World Bank), Innocent Mutabaruka (ActionAid) Quality Assurance team: DG Francine Tumushime (MINALOC), DDG Justine Gatsinzi (RLDSF), Rachel Sabates-Wheeler (UNICEF), Rahul Malhotra (DFID), Sarah Challoner (VSO) and Diego Zurdo (EU). ii) Individuals and Institutions Participating in Social Protection Retreat in Rubavu 25th - 27th June 2012 1. Rahul Malhotra Social sector team leader DFID 2. Cyrille TURATSINZE Ex. Permanent secretary MINALOC 3. Claudine MUKAGAHIMA H,E& Nutrition professional MINEDUC 4. Carine NYIRIMANA Cattle development MINAGRI 5. Anthony RUBURIKA Ag. Coordinator JADF RGB 6. Sarah CHALLONER Disability Program Manager VSO 7. Theophile NYIRAHONORA SSF/HIV Project Manager Caritas Rwanda 8. Emmanuel MUNYANGONDO Planning M&E FARG 9. Innocent MUTABARUKA Programmer and policy Action Aid 10. Christian KIBIBI CBH/National Supervisor MINISANTE 11. Olivier MACHIELS Program officer EU Delegation to Rwanda 12. Seraphine MUKANKUSI Program officer EU Delegation to Rwanda 13. Francine TUMUSHIME DG Community Development and Social Affairs department MINALOC 14. Julienne MUNYANEZA PS MIGEPROF 15. Philippe HABINSHUTI Disaster preparedness Manager MIDIMAR 16. Xavier NGOMITUJE Statistician NISR 17. Frank KAGAME M&E MINALOC 18. Emmanuel NDAYISABA Executive Secretary NCPD 19. Vincent GAHAMANYI Director VUP RLDSF 20. Joseph MUDENGE Director Cooperate Planning RSSB 21. Alex KAMURASE Senior Social protection specialist World Bank 22. Samantha YATES Social Development Advisor DFID 23. Fredrick KAMUSIIME Trade Negotiator&Mainstreaming MINEAC 24. Justine SUGIRA Head of Medical Rehabilitation RDRC 25. Didas KAYITARE Research Officer RSSB 26. Alexander TWAHIRWA Director/ Labour Administration MIFOTRA 27. Rachel SABATES Social Protection Specialist UNICEF 28. AYEBARE Crispus Social Protection MINALOC 29. Olivier BUCYANA Project Officer SURF 30. Tamsin AYLIFFE Senior SP Advisor MINALOC 31. Delice NIBEZA Administrative Assistant to DG MINALOC 64 iii) District Institutions and Individuals Consulted The following list shows the individuals who participated in the consultation with District officials in charge of Social Affairs and Planning in Kigali on September 13th 2012 and the Districts they represented: Vice-Mayors of Social Affairs 1. Providence KIRENGA NGOMA 2. Anita MUTESI KAYONZA 3. Zephyrin NTAKIRUTIMANA GAKENKE 4. Dative MUKABARISA SIMBI KARONGI 5. Esperence UWIMPUHWE GATSIBO 6. Flora UWAMBAJEMARIYA BURERA 7. Emilienne NIWEMWIZA RULINDO 8. Clotilde NYIRANEZA NGORORERO 9. Jacqueline MUREKATETE KIREHE 10. Therese MUJAWAMARIYA GICUMBI 11. Donatha UWINGABIYE GISAGARA 12. Francoise NIRERE RUSIZI 13. Yvonne MUHONGAYIRE RWAMAGANA 14. Emile BYIRINGILO NYAMAGABE 15. Hope TUMUKUNDE KIGALI CITY 16. Christine NIWEMUGENI HUYE 17. Jolie Germaine MUGENI RUHANGO 18. Jacqueline NYIRABAGURINZIRA RUTSIRO 19. Marie Louise UWIMANA GASABO 20. Catherine GATETE NYAMASHEKE 21. Charlotte MUSABYIMANA NYAGATARE 22. Pierre KALISA NYARUGENGE 23. Florence UWAYISABA KICUKIRO 24. Leonille NARUMANZI BUGESERA 25. Marie Alice UWERA KAMONYI 26. Angelique NIREBERAHO NYARUGURU 27. Vincent NDAYAMBAJE MUSANZE 28. Fabien MUHIRWA NGOMA 29. Eugenie NIRERE RUBAVU 30. Violette MUDAHOGORA NGORORERO Social Affairs Officers 31. Francois RWAMUCYO NYABIHU 32. Albertine KANGABE RWAMAGANA 33. Goeffrey KWIZERA NYAGATARE 34. J.D NDAGIJIMANA BURERA 35. RWEGURWA A. GISAGARA 36. Eugene NKURIZA KICUKIRO 37. Vincent NDAYISABYE BUGESERA 38. Jacqueline UWIMANA NYANZA 39. Aline UWIMANA RUHANGO 40. Yvette KANAMUGIRE HUYE 41. Annonciatha NIKUZE HUYE 42. . Didas HABINEZA KIREHE 43. GASHUMBA Pacifique HUYE 44. Fred NSABIMANA KARONGI 65 45. Deogratias MWANAFUNZI GICUMBI 46. Alexia MUHOZA KAMONYI 47. MUVUNYI KIBOMBO City of KIGALI 48. Aurelie NYIRANSIKUBWABO GAKENKE 49. MUREBWAYIRE NYARUGURU 50. Agnes UWAMARIYA NYAMAGABE 51. Jean Nepo KAYIRANGA RULINDO 52. . Denise KAYITESI KAYONZA 53. Jeanne MUKATEGERI RUTSIRO 54. Patrice RUGAMBA MUHANGA 55. . Jean NIYOYITA NYARUGENGE 56. Janvier HABIYAREMYE RUSIZI 57. . Evariste MVUYEKURE KAYONZA 58. Dodos NDABAMENYEREYE NYARUGENGE Other Staff 59. Faustin MUGABO Dir Planning BUGESERA 60. Francois BYINSHI Dir Planning NYAGATARE 61. . Etienne HAVUGIMANA Dir Planning, M&E RUTSIRO 62. Claude RUZINDANA Dir Planning, M&E MUSANZE 63. Brigitte MUKANTAGANZWA Dir Planning, M&E NYANZA 64. Edouard SINDIKUBWABO Dir Planning, M&E KAMONYI 65. . Adelphine NYIRASAFARI GASABO 66. Eric BIZIMANA Dir Planning, M&E MUHANGA 67. Valentine MUKASE Dir Planning, M&E KARONGI 68. Come NIYOYITA Dir Planning, M&E NYAMASHEKE 69. Jean Paul BIRORIMANA Dir Planning, M&E NGORORERO 70. . Charles KABANO Dir Planning, M&E RUHANGO 71. Emmanuel UWIZEYIMANA Dir Planning, M&E NYABIHU 72. Jean Baptist HABYARIMANA Dir Planning, M&E GICUMBI 73. . Gervais KAYIGAMBA Head of Students KAMONYI 74. Kelly HABINSHUTI Head of Students KAYONZA 75. Jean Bosco NDIMURWANO Dir Planning, M&E GISAGARA 76. SIMPENZWE Thomas Planner GASABO 77. Alphonsine MUKAMANA Statistician NYAMAGABE 78. Martin KANAMUGIRE Dir Planning, M&E NYARUGURU 79. Nicolas MURENZI Professional MUSANZE 80. Stanislas MUJYAMBERE Dir Planning, M&E BURERA 81. Pascal HAGUMA Dir Planning, M&E RUBAVU 82. Claude BYUKUSENGE Dir Planning, M&E KIREHE 83. Jimmy MAKUZA Planner KICUKIRO 84. Karim NSHIMIYIMANA Dir Planning, M&E RULINDO 85. Emmanuel HABIYAREMYE Dir Planning, M&E RUSIZI Other Institutions 86. Jane KARERA Mainstreaming Officer ,RDRC 87. Christiane UMUHIRE Gender MIGEPROF 88. Laetitia NKUNDA Director General RLDSF 89. . Sylvie UWIMBABAZI Director of Cross-Cutting MINEDUC 90. . Eugene TWAGIRIMANA Social Rehabilitation NCPD 91. Oswald MUNYANDEKWE Director RSSB 92. Vedaste HAKIZIMANA Community Development and Project Analyst MINALOC 93. Fridah ABERA Community Development and Project Analyst MINALOC 94. KABASINGE Barnabe Advisor to Minister of State MINALOC 66 95. Justine MUKANDAKEBUKA Social Welfare MINALOC 96. Geoffrey KAGENZA UMUGANDA Community Mobilization MINALOC 97. Delice NIBEZA AA/DG CD&SA MINALOC 98. Eugene NIZEYIMANA Community Development and Project Analyst MINALOC 99. MUNYANGONDO E. Planner FARG iv) Other Ministries and Agencies: Individuals and Institutions Consulted DG NathanNTWALI, MIDIMAR DG Anna MUGABO, MIFOTRA PS Julienne MUNYANEZA, MIGEPROF DG Erasme RWANAMIZA, MINEDUC DG Elias TWAGIRA, RTDA DG RaphaelRURANGWA, MINAGRI DDG GilbertHABYARIMANA, RCA 67

ANNEX 5: NOTES RESPONDING TO CHECKLIST 1. Innovations in Strategy The following are the key innovations in the social protection strategy: i) Improve Geographical Targeting Instead of scaling up the VUP programme evenly across the country, adding the same number of sectors each year in each District, the pace of scale up will be differentiated according to the incidence of poverty per District. The social protection sector will use the new EICV3 District poverty index to determine how many new sectors will benefit from VUP in each District, ensuring that VUP interventions increasingly target the poorest areas of the country. ii) Expand the VUP Public Works Approach to other Infrastructure Programmes The social protection sector will collaborate with other sectors and with District authorities to encourage and support the use of the VUP targeting approach (selection of workers from Ubudehe categories 1 and 2) for other public works and infrastructure programmes. This will enable the expansion of coverage of public works programmes to cover more of the extreme poor, whilst also addressing infrastructural development objectives. iii) Broaden the range of public works beyond full-time physical labour Many of the poorest people are able to work, but are not able to carry out the full-time physical labour currently demanded by most VUP public works programmes, especially when these worksites are far from their homes. They may be pregnant, or be caring for babies and small children, be older and less strong than they used to be, or be poorly nourished. The sector will take forward two innovations:  The sector will work with Districts, RTDA and MININFRA to create as many flexible VUP and other public works opportunities as possible for households in Ubudehe categories 1 and 2, giving them the responsibility to maintain an asset (stretch of road or other infrastructure) in their own time. This initiative will learn lessons from the RTDA road maintenance programme, in particular regarding the importance of ensuring that workers receive timely payments.  The sector will work in collaboration with Districts, MINEDUC and MINISANTE to create additional VUP public works opportunities as support workers (eg cleaners, cooks and assistants) in ECD centres, schools and clinics. This will build on a successful pilot project in Rubavu sector. iv) Link to Early Childhood Development The social protection sector strategy and MINEDUC‟s ECD policy share the priority of improving the welfare, including nutrition, of children in the poorest households. The social protection sector will work closely with MINEDUC and District authorities to develop synergies between the two sectors. For example, as MINEDUC scales up its ECD centres to have one centre in every cell by 2017/18, this will increase the availability of ECD centres for women working on public works. It will also create an opportunity to employ increasing numbers of VUP public works beneficiaries in these centres (in line with iii) above). 68 v) Build on traditional, informal social protection mechanisms Building on traditional, informal social protection mechanisms, such as Umuganda, Kuremeraabacu, Kuragizanya, Kugabirana, Itorero, Kuzitura and Igikumba, the social protection system will promote social cohesion and sustainability of the social protection system. vi) Harmonise core social protection programmes Rwanda is ahead of many countries in thinking about how to integrate and co-ordinate its various social protection interventions. Through implementation of the harmonisation policy Rwanda will realise gains in both effectiveness and efficiency of social protection programming, enabling the sector to achieve a greater impact with the available resources. vii) Explore new technologies The rapid spread and take up of information communication and the potential of new technologies will be harnessed to improve service delivery in the sector. As discussed above, we will explore the option of adopting mobile payment mechanisms and will also look at the communications potential of mobile phones as a medium for both transmitting key messages and soliciting feedback. viii) Link social protection with disaster response and mitigation The social protection sector will collaborate with MIDIMAR and District authorities to develop practical mechanisms to link social protection to disaster response and mitigation. This might involve, for example: - extending the VUP direct support programme into adjacent non-VUP sectors, in the short-term, to provide cash to people affected by a disaster; - where clinics, schools or houses are located in flood plains and MIDIMAR is supporting Districts to re-construct them in safer areas, carrying out construction work as part of VUP public works programmes. 2. Cross-Cutting Issues The social protection sector will focus strongly on the cross-cutting issues of: disability and social inclusion; gender and family; environment, climate change and disaster management; and capacity building.  The sector will evaluate the impacts of social protection programmes on the extreme poor and on all vulnerable groups, including disabled and socially excluded people. The results will then be used to improve coverage of these groups, through the modification of existing programmes, or development of new programmes if necessary. In these ways the sector will actively address the cross-cutting issue of disability and social inclusion.  The cross-cutting issue of gender and family will also be systematically addressed.Social protection sector M&E indicators and targets are disaggregated by gender, as appropriate. Gender audits will be carried out in order to understand the extent to which social protection programmes consider the different roles of men and women and meet their particular needs; and the findings will be used to inform social protection policy and programming, as well as to develop a gender training module for incorporation in sector training courses. Improving coverage by social protection 69 programmes of extremely poor families with children is also a key priority of the sector strategy; and progress against this outcome will also be actively monitored, using carefully designed indicators.  The sector will directly address the cross-cutting issue of environment, climate change and disaster management through the implementation of Outcome 6 - improved sector response to climate-related risks.  The sector has developed and will implement a capacity building strategy for the sector, covering both central and decentralised levels, which addresses the capacity building cross-cutting issue. 3. Cross-Sectoral Issues A number of cross-sectoral issues are identified within the strategy and follow-up discussions with other Ministries have identified the following priorities, challenges and follow up actions: 1. Expanding the VUP public works approach to other public works and infrastructure programmes Extension of the labour-intensive public works approach is a shared priority of the social protection sector and MIFOTRA. Both MOFOTRA and MINALOC recognise that, in order to achieve this objective, contracts with private companies for infrastructure projects need to specify a level of labour intensity (eg number of people employed or % of budget spent on labour), as well as the need to adhere to minimum labour standards (minimum wage rate, hours of work etc.). The social protection sector also emphasises the need to ensure that households in Ubudehe categories 1 and 2 benefit from these work opportunities. The draft HIMO strategy developed by RLDSF starts to address some of these issues. On the other hand, RTDA and District authorities highlight some of the challenges involved in taking forward this approach. Private companies are often reluctant to employ labour from the poorest Ubudehe categories, preferring to employ the strongest who will complete work fastest and at minimum cost. RTDA‟s priority is that roads are constructed to the right standards and on time. They have encountered problems with a labour-intensive approach to road construction and maintenance, finding that workers were not always motivated to complete the work. This problem appears to have been in large part due to long delays in payment of workers, which led to their demotivation and abandonment of the work. It is proposed that a working group be established (if possible as a sub-committee of an existing group) to address the specific constraints to taking forward this priority and ensure that Districts are actively supported to take the action required. This group would comprise MINALOC (CD&SA Department), MININFRA, RTDA, MIFOTRA and District authority representatives and would address the following issues: - Resolution of payment delays and any other issues that have been identified as constraints to the success of RTDA‟s labour-intensive approach - Development of clauses for inclusion in contracts between District authorities and private contractors that will be legally binding and ensure that: infrastructure construction uses labour intensive approaches; that a significant proportion of labour from Ubudehe categories 1 and 2 is included; and that labour standards are respected. - Development of mechanisms to promote the upgrading of workers‟ skills through public works programmes. 2. Infant/Child Nutrition 70 MINISANTE, MINAGRI, and MIGEPROF all have nutrition amongst their priorities; and the EDPRS2 social protection sector strategy involves an increased focus on this issue for MINALOC and its agencies. Reducing the currently high level of stunting amongst children under five in Rwanda (which has lifelong impacts on their physical and intellectual development) is likely to require a mix of strategies, including:  strengthening households‟ economic ability to acquire sufficient food and a sufficiently varied diet (by growing food and/or purchasing it)  increasing knowledge of the nutritional needs of young children and how to prepare low-cost nutritious meals appropriate to these needs.  Improving health of infants (though preventative and curative services) Cash transfers provided to the poorest households can help them to improve the quantity and quality of food that they purchase for their children. VUP awareness-raising sessions, carried out in collaboration with community health workers, can also contribute to increasing nutritional knowledge. Increased collaboration between all the Ministries working towards this shared objective, in line with national policy on nutrition, will increase the impact of the work. 3. Supporting sustainable graduation from poverty through linking beneficiaries to complementary financial services and skills development A key shared priority for many sectors is to support people to sustainably graduate out of poverty. For the social protection sector this means linking people who have benefited from (and are exiting) core social protection programmes into complementary support that will enable them to sustain improvements in their livelihoods. There are many ways of developing such linkages and it will be important that sectors work together to identify those linkages that will be most useful to poor households. The following specific action points have already been identified:  MIFOTRA, MINALOC and RLDSF will work together on strengthening the skills development potential of public works programmes.  MINALOC, RLDSF and RCA will work together on developing an integrated social protection programme of support to income generating activities (incorporating VUP financial services, FARG IGA and MINALOC support to IGA through ear-marked funds).  MINALOC and MINAGRI will work together on ensuring that, before they exit core social protection support, beneficiaries are aware of agricultural extension services available to them and on how to access them through the new network of agricultural extension workers. 71