2020 social protection budget brief - unicef

June 2020

2020 Social ProtectionBudget Brief

ZIMBABWE

2 ZIMBABWE SOCIAL PROTECTION BUDGET BRIEF

Key Messages and Recommendations

v Monetary child poverty is prevalent, estimated at 61%. Government is urged to ramp up socialassistance programmes and thrive to increase the coverage of social protection programmes toabove the current 10%, with focus on the most vulnerable and marginalised children, includingpersons living with disabilities.

v To eradicate extreme poverty, enhance equity and build resilience in communities, Zimbabweneeds to put in place well-targeted and shock-responsive social protection programmes.Government should prioritise implementation of the recommendations of the Social ProtectionSector Review. Institutional strengthening is vital, including finalizing outstanding pieces oflegislation and policies that protect the vulnerable.

v Zimbabwe spends 1.2% of GDP or 7.3% of total national budget on social assistanceprogrammes which is inadequate compared to the current and emerging social protection needs.Zimbabwe should thrive to increase social spending to the levels of other regional peers of above2% of GDP on average.

v For the 2020 fiscal year, Social Protection was allocated US$117 million, with 85% budgetedfrom domestic resources and 15% from development partners. Though the increase in publicsector financing is commendable, there is need to further scale up domestic resourcemobilisation, to cover the gap created by declining donor support.

v From the total Social Welfare Budget, social benefits constitute 96% of the total allocation,leaving only 4% for operations and capital expenditures. The administrative budget for socialprotection programmes is inadequate to ensure uninterrupted and quality delivery of socialprotection programmes, and Government needs to consider boosting the operational budget asthe current situation poses risk to the smooth delivery of programmes.

v The capital budget for the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare is very lowconsidering the infrastructure gaps in most government rehabilitation institutions. Governmentis urged to increase the allocation to support rehabilitation institutions, which were allocatedUS$2.5 million for 2020.

v Although the weak budget execution can partly be attributed to limited fiscal space, weakcapacity of the MoPSLSW, particularly the Department of Social Welfare (DSW) is a majorstumbling block to budget execution. Capacity strengthening of the DSW should be prioritisedto ensure that the few resources availed by the Ministry of Finance are utilized for the benefit ofthe vulnerable and marginalised children and their households.

v Development partner support remains a key pillar of social protection sector financing.Reforming the sector in line with the recommendations of the Social Protection Sector Review iscritical, including strengthening public financial management, will be critical to attract developmentpartner financing in the sector.

UNICEF | JUNE 2020

2. BACKGROUND AND SITUATIONALANALYSIS

The current macroeconomic environment has generatedenormous socio-economic vulnerabilities. The COVID-19

pandemic will compound an already fragile situation, which has

for a long period been characterized by weak economic growth,

recurrent droughts and rising poverty. This comes at a time when

the country is still trying to recover from the devastating effects

of Cyclone IDAI. The fiscal consolidation process which is

inevitably crucial for the country to address macroeconomic

imbalances and create fiscal space for funding of critical social

protection programmes, has brought unintended negative effects

which further worsened the situation.

Social protection needs have increased. The World Bank

estimates that US$950 million is required for 2020 alone to fund

the entire social protection caseload. The 2019 Zimbabwe

Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) Report estimated

that more than half the population are food insecure and require

immediate assistance. Social Protection needs are increasing, as

the majority feel the impact of these socio-economic shocks, with

the poor and the vulnerable being the hardest hit.

Widespread and deep poverty is prevalent, and is on the rise,particularly in urban areas. The 2017 PICES findings show that70% of the country’s population fall below the Total Consumption

Poverty Line, and are deemed poor, with 29% being below the

1. INTRODUCTION

This Budget Brief explores the extent to which the 2020 Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare (MoPSLSW)budget addresses social protection needs of vulnerable and marginalized households in Zimbabwe. It gives an overview ofthe size and composition of budget allocations for social protection1, with the main objectives of informing stakeholdersand provide key messages to inform decision-making.It provides an analysis of the size and composition of the socialprotection budget, provides a synopsis of critical issues related to adequacy, allocative efficiency, effectiveness and equityof the current and past social protection spending.

ZIMBABWE SOCIAL PROTECTION BUDGET BRIEF 3UNICEF | JUNE 2020

1 This Brief focuses on non-contributory Social Protection Programmes funded by Government andDevelopment Partners.

Food Poverty Line and living in extreme poverty. As shown in

Figure 1, Zimbabwe is one of the countries with high levels of

both multi-dimensional and monetary child poverty rates,

estimated at 60% and 61% respectively. Well-targeted and shock-

responsive Social Protection programmes are thus a critical tool

to fight poverty, build resilience in communities and achieve

greater equity. Special attention should be given to the most

vulnerable and marginalized children and their households, as well

as persons living with disabilities.

Funding for social assistance is declining. Most Development

Partners are scaling back on their support. Funding from

government, has been decimated by increasing inflation and

depreciating exchange rate, and is no match to the increasing

social assistance needs. As a result, the main social protection

interventions, which include the Basic Education Assistance

Module (BEAM), Health Assistance and the Harmonised Social

Cash Transfer (HSCT) are facing increased needs against low real

value of allocations. As shown in Figure 2 total Development

Partner funding for social protection declined from US$24 Million

in 2019 to US$18 million in 2020. This represents 3% of total

Development Partner Support to Zimbabwe for 2020, down from

4% in 2019 (Figure 3).

7062 61 60 58

5246 45 43 42 40

35 3426

22

01020304050607080

Monetary Multidimensional Poverty

Figure 1: Multidimensional and Monetary Child Poverty Rates inSelected Countries (%)

Source:UNICEF ESARO, Child Poverty Report, 2018

316361

148

135

36

42514216

355

30

24

18

16

16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2019 Actual 2020 Projections

US$

Mill

ions

Health Agric GovernanceOther Education HumanitarianSocial Protection WASH

2019

Figure 2: Sectoral Distribution of Development Partner Support,2019 - 2020

Source: 2020 National Budget Statement

Notable, however, is the increased budget allocation for the Food

Deficit Mitigation (FDM) as the country continue to face recurring

droughts and other weather-related shocks in the recent past.

Scaling-up coverage of these programmes will be difficult given

the current funding challenges, which has been further

complicated by the COVID-19 outbreak. As shown in Figure 4,

coverage of social protection programmes is only 11%, one of the

lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa.


As recommended in the Social Protection Sector Review, theNational Social Protection Policy Framework (NSPPF) whichprovides the strategic guide for social assistance in Zimbabwe,requires refocusing and be aligned to the emerging socialprotection needs. Strengthening of the institutional and policy

framework is thus key for the delivery for social protection

services. As such, government should prioritise finalization of the

Disability Policy and other key legislative frameworks.

UNICEF | JUNE 2020

2019

74

63 6156

52 52

42

25 2216 13 11

7 6 62 2

01020304050607080

Percent

Figure 4: Coverage of Social Protection and Labour Programs (%)

52%

24%

6%

8%3%1%4%

3%

53%

20%

6%

6%

5%

4%3% 2%

Health Agric Governance OtherEducation Humanitarian Social Protection WASH

2020

Source: 2020 National Budget Statement

Figure 3: Share of Total Development Partner Funding, 2019 - 2020

Key Takeaways

l Monetary child poverty is prevalent, estimated at 61%.Government is urged to ramp up social assistanceprogrammes and thrive to increase coverage of socialprotection programmes to above the current 10%, withfocus on the most vulnerable and marginalised children,including persons living with disabilities.

Source:ASPIRE, Atlas of Social Protection

l To eradicate extreme poverty, enhance equity and buildresilience in communities, Zimbabwe needs to put inplace well-targeted and shock-responsive socialprotection programmes. Government needs to prioritiseimplementation of the recommendations of the SocialProtection Sector Review. Institutional strengthening isvital, including finalizing outstanding pieces of legislationand policies.

3. SIZE OF 2020 BUDGETALLOCATION

In the 2020 national budget Social Protection was allocated

US$222 million2, of which US$114 million is under the Ministry of

Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare (MoPSLSW), US$57.2

million under the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education

and US$51 million under the Ministry of Agriculture.

4. TRENDS IN SOCIAL PROTECTIONSPENDING

Social Protection spending has increased significantly comparedto the period before 2017. In nominal terms planned public social

protection spending for 2020 is US$222 million up from US$48.8

million in 2019 (Figure 5). In real terms, this is equivalent to

US$206 million in 2020 compared to US$45.7 million in 2019. For

the period 2014 – 2018, total nominal Social Protection spending

averaged US$12.3 million, which is US$11.6 million in real terms.

The increased social spending is in light of the increased social

vulnerabilities emanating from the recurring droughts, the

devastating cyclone Idai and deteriorating macroeconomic

environment which has worsened social vulnerabilities.


0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7

1.2 0.7

6.0

7.3

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Perc

ent

% of GDP % of budget

Source:Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and Author Calculations

Figure 6: Non-Contributory Social Spending: Percent of TotalBudget and GDP

-

50

100

150

200

250

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

US$

Mill

ions

Nominal expenditure Real expenditure

Source:Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and Author Calculations

Figure 5: Trends in Non-Contributory Social Protection Spending

2 This does not include the Presidential Input Scheme (US$50.5 million) and the PresidentialScholarship Scheme (US$5.1 million)

As a share of the total budget, social protection spending hasincreased from 6% in 2019 to 7.3% in 2020. On the otherhand, as a share of GDP, Social Protection spending in 2020 is

estimated at 1.2% up from 0.7% in 2019 (Figure 6). This is mainly

on account of two new social protection programmes under the

Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, namely the school

feeding programme (US$47.9 million) and the free sanitary wear

(US$9.3)

Although it is still inadequate considering the need, publicspending across all the key social assistance programmes hasincreased. Box 1 shows the trends in public expenditure on

the main social protection programmes. The Basic Education

Assistance Module (BEAM) has increased from an average of

US$4 million over the period 2015-2017 to US$20 million for 2020

(Figure 7). Similarly, the Harmonised Social Cash Transfer (HSCT)

has increased from US$1 million in 2017 to US$23 million in 2020

(Figure 9). In responding to the recurring droughts in the recent

years which have negatively impacted on food production,

government has increased the budget for the for the Food Deficit

Mitigation Programme from US$200,000 in 2014 to US$47 million

in 2020 (Figure 10).

6 ZIMBABWE SOCIAL PROTECTION BUDGET BRIEF UNICEF | JUNE 2020

BOX 1: Trends in Government Expenditure in Selected Social Protection Programs

Source:MOFED Budget Outturns and Author Calculations

5

10

7 7

2 2

23

16

21

5

9

6 6

1 2

17

12

16

-

5

10

15

20

25

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020P

US$

Mill

ions


Figure 7: Baisc Assistance Module Spending Trends

0 1 0 2

- 1 2

13

23

- 0 1 0 1 - 1 2

10

17

-

5

10

15

20

25

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020P

US$

Mill

ions


Figure 9: Harmonised Social Cash Transfer, 2012 -2020

0

1

1

1

-

1

0 0

0

0

0

1

1

-

0

0 0 0

00000111111

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020P

Mill

ions


Figure 11: Support to Disabled Persons, 2012 -2020

1 1

1

1

0 0

0

2 2

1 1

0 1

0 0 0

1 1

-

1

1

2

2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020P

US$

Mill

ions


5

Figure 8: Health Assistance, 2012 - 2020

0 0 4 2 1

11

47

0 0 3 1 1

9

36

-

10

20

30

40

50

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020P

US$

Mill

ions


Figure 10: Drought Mitigation and Community RecoveryProgram, 2014 -2020

Zimbabwe spends only 1.2% GDP on non-contributory socialassistance programmes. Public Expenditure on social protectionis low compared to other countries. Figure 12 shows public

expenditure as a percent of GDP for selected Sub-Saharan African

Countries. Zimbabwe should thrive to increase social spending to

the levels of other regional peers.


0.3 0.40.7

1.21.5 1.5 1.7

2.3

3.2 3.3

7.1

2.1

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Perc

ent o

f GD

P

Source:ASPIRE and 2020 Budget Statement and Author Calculations

Figure 12: Public Spending on Social Assistance Programmes (% of GDP)

80 98 98.1

10

1 1.1 1 1 0.5

020291028102 Social Benefits Goods and services Capital Exp Employment Costs

8

Source:Various Budget Statements and Author Calculations

Figure 13: Budget allocation by Economic Classification (% of Total)

5. COMPOSITION OF SOCIALPROTECTION SPENDING

Composition by Economic Classification

Out of the US$222 million Social Protection budget, 98% isearmarked for social benefits. The social benefits budget as ashare of the total budget has increased significantly compared to

2018. Figure 13 below shows the trend in economic composition

of non-contributory social protection budget for the period 2018 -

2020.

Key Takeaways

l Zimbabwe spends 1.2% of GDP or 7.3% of totalnational budget on social assistance programmes whichis inadequate compared to the current and emergingsocial protection needs. Zimbabwe should thrive toincrease social spending to the levels of other regionalpeers.

The total administrative budget allocated (employment and

operational costs) for delivering the social protection is low and

insufficient for effective delivery of social assistance programmes.

At 1.1% of the total social protection budget, the operational

budget seems very low to ensure the smooth running of the

various social assistance programmes.

Employment costs are unrealistically low, at 0.5% of the totalbudget, reflecting the extent of wage compression. As a shareof the total social protection budget, employment costs have

declined from 10% of the total Social Protection Budget in 2018

to 0.5% in 2020. This has a huge bearing on the implementation

of programmes as workers may likely to be disgruntled, and as a

result, execution of the other budget line items will be

compromised. Government needs to strike a balance between

expenditure rationalization aimed at reducing the wage bill and

ensuring that employees remain motivated to deliver social

services.

Similarly, capital expenditure is disproportionately low at 0.4%of the total MoPSLSW budget. Although social protection

programmes mostly are recurrent in nature, the capital budget

is extremely low. This is certainly inadequate to address the

infrastructure needs of the various rehabilitation and care homes

throughout the country. The construction works for some

rehabilitation centres (such as Longden) have gone for years to

complete due to lack of funding.


protection institutions (US$2.5 million), sustainable livelihoods

(US$$2.3 million), health assistance through the Assisted Medical

Treatment Orders (AMTO) (US$1.9 million), Social Protection

MIS (US$0.5 million), Children in Difficult Circumstances (CDC)

(US$0.6 million), and support to people living with disabilities

(US$0.5 million).

UNICEF | JUNE 2020

Composition by Programme

The Food Deficit Mitigation (FDM) programme was allocated

21% (US$ 47 million) of the total Social Protection budget (Figure

14). The MoPSLSW targets to distribute food to more than 7

million people in 2020. The School Feeding Programme under the

MoPSE was allocated US$48 million, which translates 22% of

total Social protection Spending. For the 2020/2021 agricultural

season, Government has set aside US$51 million for agricultural

inputs for the poor and vulnerable households, which constitutes

23% of the total social protection budget.

In 2020, Government plans to scale up HSCT coverage from the

current 23 districts to 33 in an effort to cushion vulnerable

communities. In the budget HSCT was allocated 11%(US$23.3 million). The districts that will not be targeted under

the HSCT will continue to be assisted under the Public Assistance

Programme.

The Basic Education Assistance Module (BEAM) budgetallocation was increased by 12% from US$16 million in 2019to US$20.9 million in 2020. Government targets to scale up

coverage of the programme from the current 415,000 to 700,000

children in 2020. With the rolling-out of the free basic education

under the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, there isneed to harmonise the targeting for the two programmes toensure maximum value and benefit to children. As indicated inthe budget, prioritizing the implementation of the Management

Information System becomes priority to stem out duplications.

As indicated in Figure 14, other Social Assistance Programmes

allocated funds in the 2020 budget are Decent Work Programme

(DWP) (US$14 million), sanitary wear (US$9.3 million) support to

disabled persons (0.3 million), support to Government social

Key Takeaways

l Social benefits constitute 96% of the total SocialProtection budget, leaving only 4% for operations andcapital expenditures. The administrative budget forsocial protection programmes is inadequate to ensurequality delivery of social protection programmes.Government should consider boosting the operationalbudget as skewed budget allocation poses risk to thesmooth delivery of programmes.

l The capital budget is very low considering theinfrastructure gaps in most government rehabilitationinstitutions. Government is urged to increase theallocation to the Support to the Government torehabilitation institutions, which was allocated US$2.5 million.

51 48 47 23 21 14 9 9

23% 22% 21%

10% 9%

6%4% 4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

05101520253035404550

PresidentialInputScheme

SchoolFeeding

DroughtMitigation

HSCT BEAM DecentWorkProgram

Sanitarywear

Other

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al

US$

Mill

ions

US$ millions Percent of Total (RHS)

Source: 2020 Budget Statement

Figure 14: Composition of 2020 Social Protection Budget byProgramme

6. BUDGET CREDIBILITY ANDEXECUTION

Execution of the of the overall Social Protection Budget is

improving, with the 2019 budget underperforming by 3% (Figure

15). Out of the US$49 million budget allocation in 2019, US$47.5

million was utilized. Figure 16 shows budget allocations and actual

expenditure over the period 2015 -2020.

of Finance are utilized for the benefit of the vulnerable and

marginalised children and their households. Low budget

execution, coupled with already inadequate budget allocation,

inevitably results in social protection weak outcomes.


Key Takeaways

l Overall budget execution has improved, however, it is not consistent across all programmes. There areinconsistencies among the various social protectioncomponents, characterized by huge deviations from theapproved budget. Low budget execution, coupled withalready inadequate budget allocation, inevitably resultsin poor outcomes of social protection results.

l The MoPSLSW needs to prioritise institutional capacitystrengthening for all sections within the Department ofSocial Welfare to ensure budget execution for allprogrammes is enhanced.

Overall program utilisation of the budget has improved, thoughwith some inconsistencies across the various programmes.Budget execution rates vary across the various social protection

components. For the period 2016 and 2017, BEAM actual

expenditure was below annual allocations, by margins of over

50%. For the period 2018 and 2019, there are budget overruns of

128% and 93% respectively (Figure 17). On the other hand,

execution of the Health Assistance Programme3, and Support to

Government Rehabilitation Institutions has improved significantly.

The Harmonised Social Cash Transfer has been persistently

underperforming, with an under expenditure of 61% in 2019.

Although the weak budget execution can partly be attributed to

limited fiscal space, the main challenge which was confirmed by

the Social Protection Sector Review is related to the weak

capacity of the MoPSLSW, particularly the Department of Social

Welfare (DSW). Capacity strengthening of the DSW should be

prioritised to ensure that the few resources availed by the Ministry

13 16 16

25

49

12 6 7

27

48

(1)

2

(1)

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

US

$ M

illi

ons

Source:Various Budget Statements and Author calculations

Figure 16: Budget Allocation Vs Actual Expenditure 2015 -2019

-150%

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

BEAM HSCT HealthAssistance

Support todisabled persons

GovernmentRehab

Institutions

Other

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Figure 17: Budget Execution of Social Protction Programmes

992

825

157

9 1

304

152 145

3 5 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Total Family, SP &Repatriation

Child Welfare Disability andRehab Services

Leadership &Management

Perc

ent

ZW

L$

Mill

ion

2019 Budget Allocation 2019 Act Exp to Sep Utilisation

Source: 2020 Budget Statement

Figure 18: DSW Budget Utilsation as as at end-September 2019

-8%

-62% -59%

9%

-3%

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Figure 15: Budget Credibility (Deviation of Actual from ApprovedTotal Programme Budget

The issues impacting implementation if not addressed, willcontinue in 2020, yet vulnerabilities affecting the poor andvulnerable households are increasing. As reveled by the SocialProtection Sector review, the Department of Social Welfare has

limited capacity to implement the various programmes under its

purview. As indicated in Figure 18, as at end September 2019,

overally only 36% of the allocated budget had been utilized. Of

concern is the Family, Social Protection and Repatriation budget

line item which had utilized 18% of the ZWL$825 million allocated

for the period under review.

3 Implemented through Assisted Medical aid Treatment Orders (AMTOs)

7. SOCIAL PROTECTION SECTORFINANCING

The total financing for Social Protection in 2020 amounts toUS$239 million, of which 93% (US$222 million) will comefrom the budget. Government financing has increased

considerably compared to the period prior 2017 when it averaged

approximately 32% of total social protection financing. The

increase in budget financing is commendable, though it is

inadequate considering the growing social protection needs. The

World Bank estimates that US$950 million is required in 2020 to

finance the various social assistance programmes. Figures 19 and

20 show the trend in social protection financing.

10 ZIMBABWE SOCIAL PROTECTION BUDGET BRIEF UNICEF | JUNE 2020

12 6 7 27 48

22

25 12 14 12

9

18

-

50

100

150

200

250

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

US$

Mill

ions

Budget Revenues Development Partners

Source:Various Budget Statements and Author calculation

Figure 19: Main Sources of Financing Social ProtectionProgrammes

32% 33% 32%

69%84%

93%

68% 67% 68%

31%16%

7%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Per

cent

of

Tot

al

Budget Revenues External Sources

Source:Various Budget Statements and Author calculation

Figure 20: Trend in Domestic and External Social Protection Sector Financing

Key Takeaways

l The 2020 Social Protection sector financing amount toUS$117 million, of which 93% is from domesticsources and 7% from development partners. Theincrease in public sector financing is commendable,however, there is need further scale up domesticresource mobilisation, to cover the gap created bydeclining donor support.

l Development partner support remains a key pillar ofsocial protection sector financing. Reforming the sectorin line with the recommendations of the Social ProtectionSector Review is critical, including strengthening publicfinancial management, will be critical to attractdevelopment partner financing in the sector.

Development Partners will contribute US$18 million, whichtranslates to 7% of the total social protection financing. Asshown in Figure 20, funding from development partners has

significantly declined compared to the period prior 2017. Social

protection sector funding has always been largely dependent on

donor financing, averaging 67% over the period 2015 -2017.

Beginning 2018, donor contributions have been declining, with

Development Partners increasingly calling for Government to play

a major role in the sector. Despite this decline, Development

Partner financing still remains a crucial part of the sector financing.

Addressing the concerns of the Development Partners, which

include strengthening the Public Financial Management, and

increasing the government counterpart financing is key to

attracting more resources.

Zimbabwe has to step-up domestic resource mobilisationconsidering the fiscal shock related to the COVID-19 outbreak,which will overstretch the purse of all traditional donorcountries globally. The funding gap in 2020, is likely to bewidened, as the traditional donors will face huge fiscal outlays in

fighting COVID-19 thereby reducing resources available for official

development assistance.

UNICEF 2020 Budget Brief

June 2020

2018 National Budget Brief

ZIMBABWE

An Overview Analysis

For further information, please contact:Tawanda ChinembiriChief of Social Policy & ResearchUNICEF ZimbabweEmail: [email protected]: +263 8677 020888

2020 social protection budget brief - unicef

Documents