Towards Adaptive
Social Protection
in Europe and
Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
March 2023
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Acknowledgements:
© 2023 International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development /
The World Bank
1818 H Street NW,
Washington DC 20433
Telephone: 202-473-1000 This paper has been prepared by Catherine Fitzgibbon, Sarah Coll-Black
Internet: www.worldbank.org and Lucian Pop. The analysis draws heavily on a set of background
papers authored by Maksimiljan Dhima, Juna Miluka, Adina Dragoman,
Zohar Ianovici, Maja Gerovska, Rade Rajkovchevski, G. Shopov and V.
Rights and Permissions Veleva, which were prepared under the guidance of Victor Sulla, Bojana
The material in this work is subject Naceva, Sarah Coll-Black and Lucian Pop. The report was peer reviewed
to copyright. Because The World by Manuel Salazar and Alanna Simpson and benefited from additional
Bank encourages dissemination of comments from Marina Petrovic, Asha Williams and Dhushyanth Raju.
its knowledge, this work may be
reproduced, in whole or in part, for This report has been made possible by the generous support of the
noncommercial purposes as long as Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR).
full attribution to this work is given.
Any queries on rights and licenses,
including subsidiary rights, should be
addressed to World Bank Publications,
The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street
NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA;
fax: 202-522-2625;
e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org.
ii
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Towards Adaptive Social
Protection in Europe and
Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Contents:
Acknowledgements ii
Abbreviations vi
Section 1. Introduction 1
Purpose of the Report 2
Methodology 2
Outline of the Synthesis Report 3
Section 2. Overview of Social Protection Systems and Key Issues 4
Issues Emerging in Adaptive Social Protection 9
Section 3. Disaster Risk and Rationale for ASP in Europe and
Central Asia 11
Rationale for ASP in Europe and Central Asia 12
Section 4. Country Case Studies - Key Findings 16
Building Block 1: Institutional Arrangements and Partnerships 16
Building Block 2: Program Design and Delivery Systems 20
Building Block 3: Data and Information Systems 24
Building Block 4: Finance 26
Section 5. Designing Social Protection Systems for Future Shocks 31
Key Finding 1. Analysis and understanding of household level
disaster risk and impact are limited 31
Key Finding 2. SP systems are not designed to respond
effectively to natural disasters. 31
Key Finding 3. There are significant gaps in understanding
and operationalizing ASP in both DRM and SP institutions 34
Key Finding 4. There are no comprehensive databases
iii
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
tracking the financial loss and damage of all disasters 34
Key Finding 5. Disaster Risk Financing mechanisms in place
to respond to disasters, including ASP, are inadequate 35
Annex 1. References 40
Annex 2. Country Case Studies - Research Methodology 43
List of Boxes
Box 1. Albania Country Summary 5
Box 2. Bulgaria Country Summary 6
Box 3. North Macedonia Country Summary 7
Box 4. Romania Country Summary 8
Box 5. Summary of Disaster Risk in the Case Study Countries 11
Box 6. Towards ASP in the European Union? 13
Box 7. Consolidating Social Assistance Programs
in North Macedonia 21
Box 8. Skopje Flash Flooding in 2016 27
Box 9. Using Existing Datasets to Understand the Impact
of Natural Disasters on Households 32
Box 10. Improving the Interoperability of Government Management
Information System 33
Box 11. ASP for Disaster Response – Australia’s Disaster Recovery
Payment and Allowance 34
Box 12. Nepal’s Post-Earthquake Rural Reconstruction Housing
Program 35
Box 13. Anticipatory Financing for Natural Disaster – The Caribbean
Example 36
Box 14. Homeowner Disaster Insurance in New Zealand 36
List of Tables
Table 1. Understanding the Rationale for ASP: Analyzing Disaster
Risk from the Household Perspective 15
Table 2. Summary of Institutions and Roles in the Delivery of SP
in Case Study Countries 17
Table 3. Summary of Lead DRM Organizations and Coordination
Bodies in Case Study Countries 19
iv
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Table 4. Assessing the Impact of Disasters on Households –
Typical Post-Disaster Assessments 26
Table 5. Primary Government DRF Mechanisms in Case Study
Countries 28
Table 6. Summary of Emerging Issues and Suggested Interventions 37
List of Figures
Figure 1. Disaster Impact Cycle 14
Figure 2. The Four Building Blocks for Adaptive Social Protection 16
Figure 3. Government SP Expenditure as a Proportion of Gross
Domestic Product In Albania, Bulgaria, North Macedonia,
Romania and ECA (Percent) 27
Figure 4. Matching Disaster Financing Instruments with Disaster
Risks 28
v
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Abbreviations
AGDRA Australian Government Disaster Recovery Allowance
AGDRP Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment
ALL Albanian Lek (unit of currency)
ASA Agency for Social Assistance (Bulgaria)
ASP Adaptive Social Protection
CAT-DDO Catastrophic Draw Down Option
Cash Benefit Management Information System
CBMIS
(North Macedonia)
CBO Community Based Organisation
CCA Climate Change Adaptation
CCRIF Caribbean Catastrophe Reinsurance Fund
CESA Centers for Employment and Social Assistance
CMC Council of Ministers
CMC Crisis Management Centre (North Macedonia)
CP Civil Protection
CSW Centers for Social Work (North Macedonia)
CTA Child State Allowance (Romania)
CVA Capacity and Vulnerability Assessment
DALA Damage and Loss Assessment
Directorate General - European Community Humanitarian
DG-ECHO
Office
DMI Differentiated Minimum Income
DMIH Differentiated Minimum Income for Heating
DPA Disaster Protection Act
DPP Disaster Protection Plans
DRF Disaster Risk Financing
DRM Disaster Risk Management
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
EA Employment Agency (Bulgaria)
ECA Europe and Central Asia
EQC Earthquake Commission (New Zealand)
EU European Union
EU-CPM European Union Civil Protection Mechanism
EUSF European Union Solidarity Fund
EWS Early Warning System(s)
General Directorate Fire Safety and Protection of the
GDFSCP
Population
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIES General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations
GIS Geographical Information System
Guaranteed Minimum Assistance (last resort grant in North
GMA
Macedonia)
vi
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Guaranteed Minimum Income (last resort grant in Bulgaria and
GMI
Romania)
GoA Government of Albania
GoB Government of Bulgaria
GoR Government of Romania
GoNM Government of North Macedonia
ISI Institute of Social Insurance (Albania)
LMP Labor Market Programs
LPP Livelihood Protection Policy
LRIS Last Resort Income Support
MIS Management Information System
MKD North Macedonian Denar (unit of currency)
Ministry of Labor and Social Policy (Bulgaria and
MLSP
North Macedonia)
MLSS Ministry of Labor and Social Solidarity (Romania)
MoHSP Ministry of Health and Social Protection (Albania)
MoI Ministry of Interior
Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration
MRDPA
(Romania)
NARU National Assessment and Relief Units
NCPA National Civil Protection Agency (Albania)
NCSES National Committee for Special Emergency Situations
NE Ndihma Ekonomike (last resort grant for poorest in Albania)
NER National Electronic Register (Albania)
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
National Institute of Hydrology and Water Management
NIHWN
(Romania)
NIS National Institute of Statistics
NIWA National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research
NRA National Reconstruction Agency
NSSI National Social Security Institute (Bulgaria)
ODRR Owner Driven Reconstruction and Recovery
OFA One-Off Financial Assistance
PAID Insurance Pool against Natural Disasters (Romania)
PDNA Post-Disaster Needs Assessment
PRD Protection and Rescue Directorate (North Macedonia)
PRS Protection and Rescue System (North Macedonia)
RON Romanian Leu (unit of currency)
SACP State Agency for Child Protection (Bulgaria)
SAD Social Assistance Directorate (Bulgaria)
SI Social Insurance
SILC Survey of Income and Living Conditions (European Union)
SMEs Small and Medium Size Enterprises
SOP Standard Operation Procedure
SP Social Protection
SSS State Social Services (Albania)
UNDRR United Nations Disaster Risk Reduction
URS Unified Rescue System (Bulgaria)
VPN Virtual Private Network
WB World Bank
vii
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Section 1. Introduction
The Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Region is vul- ances in the winter, and vulnerabilities, such as,
nerable to a variety of hazards, most significantly those addressed through social care services. These
floods, earthquakes, droughts, landslides and wild- programs and their supporting delivery systems
fires. In the past 30 years, 500 significant floods and were not purposefully designed to play a major role
earthquakes across the region have led to roughly in preparing for and mitigating the impact of covar-
50,000 fatalities and more than US$80 billion in iate shocks, such as natural disasters. Rather, they
damages (World Bank 2017). More recent research provide support indirectly when a natural disaster
(World Bank 2021a) estimates that natural disasters leads to the loss of a formal job, a fall into chronic
across the European Union (EU) between 1980 to poverty or another vulnerability covered by the SP
2020 have affected nearly 50 million people and system. As the number and intensity of natural dis-
have resulted in average economic losses of €12 bil- asters increases, larger swathes of populations will
lion per year. The frequency, scale and magnitude of likely be affected at the same time, drawing atten-
many of these hazards are only expected to increase tion to the role of SP systems in directly supporting
as a result of climate change. Describing the impact populations to cope with and recover from disasters.
of natural disasters in economic terms fails to fully
acknowledge the even greater impact they have on The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 placed the spot-
people’s well-being. light on the role of SP systems in response to major
covariate shocks. The pandemic resulted in a new
A growing body of evidence highlights the dis- and unprecedented economic shock that had large
proportionate impact of disasters such as floods and immediate impacts on household incomes. In
and earthquakes on the poorest in every country response, governments in ECA and across the world
around the globe (Hallegate et al. 2016). Although implemented a wide range of support measures
poor households have fewer assets and lower often by scaling or modifying existing SP programs.
incomes than better-off households, the poor These experiences have demonstrated the value of
incur disproportionate losses. The poor often live adapting SP systems in protecting populations in
in poorer quality housing and rely on land that is the face of major covariate shocks. They also have
exposed to recurrent disasters, such as floods and highlighted the limitations of SP systems, particu-
landslides. They also have fewer resources to rebuild larly in terms of reaching certain groups, such as
damaged homes and cope with losses in income informal sector workers. Against a backdrop of ever
and other assets. more frequent shocks, the application of adaptive
social protection prior to and during the COVID-
In the ECA Region, governments have spent dec- 19 crisis provides an important basis from which to
ades establishing comprehensive social protec- assess the scope for SP systems to respond purpo-
tion (SP) systems to support workers across the sively to climate-induced shocks.
life cycle and the poorest and other vulnerable
groups. These SP systems include varied and mul- “Adaptive” social protection (ASP) refers to an
tiple interventions for defined needs and groups agenda for preparing and using social protection
and at specific stages of the life cycle, including systems to enhance governments’ response to
old age pensions, unemployment benefits, disa- shocks and to build the resilience of poor and vul-
bility allowances and last resort income support nerable households. Effective ASP systems build the
(LRIS) programs.1 As a result, SP coverage in ECA is resilience of the poor and vulnerable by investing in
high. Although most countries have SP programs their capacity to prepare for, cope with and adapt
that can be activated in response to shocks, these to shocks. It involves ensuring that the well-being
are primarily designed as responses to changes in of populations with a high disaster risk is protected
formal employment status, such as unemployment so that they do not fall into poverty and/or become
and retirement, and idiosyncratic shocks, such as trapped in poverty because of disasters (Bowen
loss of incomes or assets or severe illness, through et al. 2020). In examining the potential for greater
social assistance programs. Other programs aim to investment in ASP in the ECA Region, this paper
respond to seasonal risks, such as, heating allow- draws on the World Bank’s ASP framework (Bowen
1
For a discussion of social protection in ECA see, Europe and Central Asia Economic Update, Fall 2022: Social Protection for Recovery (World Bank
2022a).
1
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
et al. 2020). The framework was developed to sup- and counselling) and extrapolating how these dif-
port governments and policy makers assess pro- ferent programs can be used by governments to
gress in developing robust ASP systems in response reach different populations with varying types of
to shocks, particularly natural disasters. The frame- support.
work comprises four building blocks, or pillars, each
representing the key areas of investment required In seeking to take a holistic approach, the report
to create a strong ASP system. Each building block considers how SP policies, procedures, data,
recognizes that the quality and capacity of any information and operational systems have been
‘adaptive’ SP system can only be understood in adapted in response to COVID-19 and other dis-
relation to a country’s existing SP and disaster risk asters. It examines countries’ disaster risk financing
management (DRM) systems. Hence, this synthe- (DRF) mechanisms to better understand the extent
sis report examines both SP and DRM legislation of considerations for the cost of financing disaster
and institutions as well as the delivery systems and response, including for ASP. The report does not
resources that underpin them. examine the wider challenges of financing SP gen-
erally or how social insurance funds would need to
be modified or recalibrated to finance a response to
Purpose of the Report large covariate shocks. It focuses on natural disas-
ters and their impact on households which, although
This report aims to assist governments and policy frequent, are often highly localized and therefore fail
makers in examining how SP systems can play a to attract the same attention as national economic
more purposeful role in building the resilience of shocks such as the COVID-19 epidemic.
households and responding to natural disasters.
It is based on the understanding that countries in The combined and cumulative impact of highly
the ECA Region will experience an increasing inci- localized disasters is similar and increasing. Thus,
dence of natural and climate-related disasters in the report makes practical recommendations for
the coming decades. This is forcing governments to policy makers. The recommendations encourage
expand their adoption of DRM policies, structures ex-ante consideration of how SP systems as a
and systems. It also draws attention to the role of whole, not just social assistance programs, could be
SP systems in supporting people to prepare for, further adapted or utilized in readiness for the inev-
cope with and adapt to shocks, raising questions itable future disasters.
about the design and delivery of the current suite of
SP programs. The report focuses on four case study
countries, purposively selected as two EU member Methodology
states and two accession countries.
The report is the synthesis of multiple studies and
Albania, Bulgaria, North Macedonia and Roma- reviews. Much analysis of SP systems is taken from
nia have been subjected to recent in-depth ASP the four country ASP case study reports. However,
assessments. They all experience relatively high it also draws on multiple DRM and SP studies on
levels of poverty and income inequality as well as the case study countries and the wider region. The
high exposure to natural disasters. They can be case studies were undertaken by teams of locally
considered an opportunistic sample of countries in based consultants following a framework method-
eastern Europe. All four have well developed social ology with guidelines drawing on the World Bank
protection systems, with variations across the range ASP framework. The assessments involved detailed
and mix of programs, and established DRM sys- desk reviews and in some cases, interviews, field
tems, undergoing varying levels of reform. The anal- visits and stakeholder workshops. The case studies
ysis of experiences in these four countries highlights were undertaken in the wake of the COVID-19 pan-
common challenges as well as examples of good demic and draw heavily, but not exclusively, on ASP
practice and innovation, which are likely to have rel- responses at that time. This is because, while the
evance elsewhere in the ECA Region. COVID-19 pandemic was a unique event, it offers
insights into how SP systems can respond to nat-
The report seeks to take a systems-wide approach ural disasters. Most field work had been completed
to SP with an expanded focus beyond post-dis- before the onset of the Ukrainian war and ensuing
aster social assistance programs. It includes refer- refugee crisis. Thus, there has been limited oppor-
ences to wider social insurance, social services and tunity to incorporate an analysis of the associated
labor market programs, recognizing that these pro- ASP responses. A summary of the terms of refer-
grams, as currently designed, can protect popula- ence for the case studies and activities undertaken
tions from indirect effects of a natural disaster (such in each country are summarized in Annex 2.
as, loss of a formal job, increase in heating prices,
2
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Outline of the Synthesis Report
The remainder of the report is structured into the following sections:
Section 2. Overview of Social Protection Systems and Key Issues
Provides a brief overview of each country case study highlighting the
structure of their social protection systems and the key issues emerging
in developing ASP.
Section 3. Disaster Risk and the Rationale for ASP in Europe and Central
Asia
Revisits the rationale for ASP in the ECA Region highlighting the impact
of disasters on the poor as well as gaps in the reviews where further
investigation may be required.
Section 4. Country Case Studies - Key Findings
Highlights key findings on ASP and DRM systems and capacity in the
case study countries using the four pillars of the World Bank’s ASP
framework: (i) institutional arrangements and partnerships; (ii) programs
and their delivery systems; (iii) data and information systems; and (iv)
finance.
Section 5. Preparing Social Protection Systems for Future Shocks
Summarizes key issues and proposes policy actions and illustrative
examples for governments and policy makers as potential next steps to
purposively develop ASP for effective DRM.
3
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Section 2. Overview of Social Protection
Systems and Key Issues
The case study countries highlighted in this report country in Europe with over 46 percent in poverty,
provide a relatively typical cross section of SP sys- more than double the EU average of 21 percent
tems in eastern Europe. The four countries were (Eurostat 2021).2 All four are experiencing declining
selected as they share many traits including wide- and aging populations driven by high rates of emi-
spread poverty and similar disaster risk profiles. They gration of working age adults. For example, Roma-
represent a mix of EU member states and accession nia’s population has fallen from 22.8 million in 2000
countries; Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU in to 19.1 million in 2021 (World Bank 2018a and SILC
2007 whilst Albania and North Macedonia are can- 2021) and Albania’s population has declined by 15
didate countries working towards compliance with percent since the late 1990s.
EU directives and standards. Romania and Bul-
garia are the two member states with the highest The four countries have well established SP sys-
share of the population at risk of poverty and social tems. In common with most SP systems in this
exclusion; Bulgaria has the highest inequality in the region, the systems in the four countries are char-
EU, as measured by the Gini coefficient of dispos- acterized by multiple benefits for the most vulner-
able income. Over 32 percent of North Macedonia’s able and extensive contributory social insurance
population is assessed as at risk of poverty or social schemes. With some overlap, programs and bene-
exclusion. Albania, despite consistent economic fits fall into the following broad categories of social
growth over the past 20 years, remains the poorest protection outlined below.
• Social Insurance (SI) programs include government benefits
that smooth income across the life cycle and are normally based on
individual contributions (that is, old-age pensions, disability pensions
and survivors’ pensions).3
• Social Assistance (SA) can encompass a wide range of
benefits to protect vulnerable individuals or groups from falling
into poverty and provide support at certain points in the life cycle.
Programs in this category are non-contributory and available,
normally on an on-demand basis, to those who meet the eligibility
criteria. Eligibility criteria may be categorical based on age, such as
child benefits, or a defined disability. Eligibility may also be poverty
related. Poverty-targeted benefits normally require applicants to
undergo a means-testing process. Each of the case study countries
has a ‘last resort’ SA program for the very poorest households or indi-
viduals.
• Labor Market Programs (LMP) aim to enhance employa-
bility and improve employment opportunities. Typical activities include
wage subsidy programs for vulnerable groups; on-the-job training
programs; internship programs; public employment programs (public
works); and self-employment support programs.
• Social Services (SS) include services provided directly to
individuals and families directly by the state or by (state-financed)
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community-based
organizations (CBOs). These could include orphanages, care homes
or home-based care services for the disabled, elderly or other vulner-
able groups.
2
Throughout this report, the date cited for Eurostat reflects the latest year of the data per country
and not the date of access.
3
In countries where SI depends on contributions, unemployment benefits are included in this category. 4
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
The boxes in this section provide summary information on the four countries, their primary SP programs
and a summary of the most common or recent ASP interventions, mostly in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. The core SP systems, experiences in adaptation and elements of each countries’ DRM systems
are assessed in Section 4.
Box 1. Albania Country Summary
Albania has a population of 2.8 million people (Eurostat 2021*) and attained a per capita GDP of US$6,494
(Eurostat 2021). With an at-risk of poverty and social exclusion rate of 46 percent, Albania ranks as one
of the poorest nations in Europe (Eurostat 2020). The country is an official candidate for accession to the
European Union. An estimated 56 percent of the labor force is classified as informal (ILOSTAT 2019). The
minimum wage is set at ALL 32.000 (€272) per month (Institute of Statistics Albania 2021).
Coverage of Total Population (2017) All Social Protection Coverage by Wealth Quintiles (2017)
Labor Market Programs 0.3% Q1 58%
Q2 55%
Social Assistance 7%
Q3 50%
Social Insurance 44%
Q4 45%
Social Protection 50% Q5 40%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Source: World Bank 2022e and SPEED Database 2017 (latest available figures).
Main Social Protection Programs
Social Protection Programs Recipients (No.) Amount and Duration
Social Assistance
~€30-~€100 monthly for max of 5 years
Ndihma Economike (NE) 63,000
(Varies depending on household size)
(Last-resort grant for poorest households, means tested)
Disability Allowance (individual)
147,000 ~€90 per month
(Categorical grant based on disability)
Old Age Social Pension
(Means tested for poor >70 years with no pension; non- 2,575 ~€75 per month
contributory)
Social Insurance
Old age, survivors and disability pensions 550,420 ~€130 per month
(Contributory for individuals)
Unemployment benefit (individual) ~€125 per month
6,300
(Maximum 12 months) (Pegged against minimum wage)
Labor market programs
€128-250 per month
Various wage subsidy, internship and training ~1,000
(Variable / fixed durations)
programs (individuals)
Experience of Adapting Social Protection Systems
Shocks and Natural Disasters
• Following a disaster, provided ad-hoc municipal-level grants to households or social services assistance.
• Following natural disaster, humanitarian assistance from civil protection agencies, Red Cross, etc.
Primarily in response to COVID-19:
• Doubled transfers of NE program for several months in 2020 and 2021.
• Made one-off payments to 16,000 families who had applied for NE but did not meet the criteria.
• Distributed in-kind packages of support to 600,000 households.
• Doubled unemployment benefits for three months from April to June 2020.
• Carried out major labor market interventions, including:
o Paid 1,161 informal workers half the minimum wage (plus social insurance contributions) for a total of
12 months; supported employers to provide subsidies to 65,674 formal workers for three months.
o Made one-off payment to 173,019 formal employees of large and small businesses. 5
• Provided destitute /vulnerable households municipal-level social services assistance.
* Eurostat/SPEED and ILO citations are online data bases, therefore dates quoted represent year of data for that country, not date accessed. 5
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Box 2. Bulgaria Country Summary
Bulgaria has a population of 6.8 million people in (Eurostat 2022) and attained a per capita GDP of US$11,635
(Eurostat 2021). Even though poverty has dropped markedly, with an at-risk of poverty and social exclu-
sion rate of 31.7 percent, Bulgaria ranks as the poorest country in the European Union (Eurostat 2021). The
country has been a member of the European Union since 2007. The minimum wage in 2021 is set at BGN
710 (€363) per month (Eurostat 2022).
Coverage of Total Population (2019) All Social Protection Coverage by Income Quintiles (2019)
All labor market 11% Q1 89%
programs
Q2 88%
All social assistance 49%
Q3 83%
All social insurance 55%
Q4 72%
All social protection 78% Q5 57%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: World Bank 2022e and SPEED Database 2019.
Selected Social Protection Programs
Social Protection Programs Recipients (No.) Amount and Duration*
Social Assistance**
Monthly Social Assistance Benefits (GMI) 77,205 ~€188 per month (average)
(2021)
(Last resort, means tested grant for poorest households)
Targeted Heating Allowance 283,680 ~ €50 per month
(Non-contributory, means tested allowance) (2020) November-March
Family allowances for Children 668,400 Between €20–€77 per month
(Low-income families, means tested) (2020) Varies by number of children
Social Old-Age Pensions 4,241
(2020)
~€72 (increased to 126 in 2022);
(Poor individuals >70 years, means tested)
Lump-sum social assistance allowance ~€192
14,629 Max once per year
(One-off financial assistance, households)
Social Insurance 2,153,662 Average = € 223 per month
(Contributory old age, survivors and disability pensions) (2020) Minimum = € 128 (2020)
Unemployment benefit 104,029 60 percent previous salary
(Maximum 12 months) (2021) Minimum = €260 per month
Labor market programs
Various wage subsidy, internship and training ~19,000 Variable (cash / in-kind)
programs (Individuals)
* NB All benefits are calculated individually and linked to the Differentiated Minimum Income (DMI) based on income and household size.
** Focus on cash programs rather than in-kind food package and hot lunch programs.
Experience of Adapting Social Protection Systems
Shocks and Natural Disasters:
• Targeted social assistance allowance payments to primarily GMI beneficiaries for personal crisis.
• Recently amended targeted social assistance to be provided when any state of emergency declared.
Primarily in response to COVID-19:
• Increased heating allowance.
• Provided top-up payments between €26 and €61 per month to all pensioners.
• Extended the minimum duration of the unemployment benefit from 4 to 7 months, and increased the
minimum value by 33%.
• Targeted Monthly Social Assistance Allowance provided to an additional 53,161 low-income families.
• Provided a grant of €369 monthly for three months for low income self-employed and freelance work-
ers (i.e. earning less than €512 per month).
• Provided a wage subsidy of 40 to 60 percent of wage costs to most affected businesses.
• Provided at least 270,000 persons, at high COVID-19 risk, social and health services.
• Distributed food packages to over 550,000 households. 6
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Box 3. North Macedonia Country Summary
North Macedonia has a population of 2.06 million people (Eurostat 2021) and attained a per capita GDP of
US$6,721 (Eurostat 2021). With an at-risk of poverty and social exclusion rate of 32.6%. North Macedonia
is one of the poorest states in the Western Balkans (Eurostat 2021). The country is an official candidate for
accession to the European Union. The unemployment rate in 2020 was 16.1% and an estimated 42.9% of
the labor force is classified as inactive. Informal employment accounts for 13.8% of all employment (ILOSTAT
2019). The minimum wage is set at MKD 21,770 (€353) per month (Eurostat 2021).
Coverage of Total Population (2017) All Social Protection Coverage by Wealth Quintiles (2017)
All Labor Market 2% Q1 53%
Programs
Q2 46%
All Social Assistance 11%
Q3 51%
All Social Insurance 42%
Q4 54%
All Social Protection 50% Q5 47%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Source: World Bank 2022e and SPEED Database 2017 (latest available figures).
Main Social Protection Programs
Social Protection Programs Recipients (No.) Amount and Duration
Social Assistance
>€74 per month (increases with size of
Guaranteed minimum assistance (GMA) 111,286
household)
(Last resort grant for poorest households)
Child / education allowances
Heating Allowances ~25,000 HHs Payments per child per month
(GMA households, social pension plus other means tested ~40,000 HHs Heating ~€18 per month (November-March)
assistance)
Allowance for assistance and care for another
114,025 ~€67 per month
person (Individual, non-means-tested)
One-off Financial Assistance (OFA) (Households) 4,299 Between €75 and €$500
Social security for the elderly
10,067 ~€95 per month
(Non-contributory social pension, individual)
Social Insurance
Old age, survivors and disability pensions 291,795 Between 30% and 250% of average net wage
(Contributory pension, individual)
~US$~€137 per month
Unemployment benefit (Individual) 5,279
(duration based on contributions, max 12 months)
Labor market programs
~25,500
Various wage subsidy, internship and training Variable –wage subsidy and in-kind
(Registered in 2020)
programs (Individual)
Experience of Adapting Social Protection Systems
Shocks and Natural Disasters:
• Provided one-off financial assistance via Centers for Social Work or local municipalities in response to
extreme hardship and local natural (or other) disasters.
• Provided social services for shelter and other emergency needs.
Primarily in response to COVID-19:
• Removed GMA eligibility criteria and extended duration of energy subsidy.
• Paid educational allowances without conditionality.
• Introduced wage subsidies for employees in the private sector.
• Introduced subsidies for compulsory social security contributions during a state of emergency (April to
June 2020).
• Relaxed eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits.
• Distributed payment cards and vouchers for vacation to low-income citizens to promote higher con-
sumption and develop domestic economic activities. 7
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Box 4. Romania Country Summary
Romania has a population of 19.2 million people (Eurostat 2021) and attained a per capita GDP of US$14,861
(Eurostat 2021). With an at risk of poverty and social exclusion rate of 35.6%, Romania has the highest pov-
erty rate of all European Union member states (Eurostat 2020). The country has been a member of the Euro-
pean Union since 2007. The minimum wage is approximately €515 (RON 2,503) per month (Eurostat 2020).
Coverage of Total Population (2016) All Social Protection Coverage by Wealth Quintiles (2016)
All Labor Market 1% Q1 95%
Programs
Q2 89%
All Social Assistance 56%
Q3 85%
All Social Insurance 40%
Q4 78%
All Social Protection 81% Q5 58%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: World Bank (2022e) and SPEED Database 2016 (latest figures available).
Main Social Protection Programs
Social Protection Programs Recipients (No.) Amount and Duration
Social Assistance
Payment varies as a percent of Social
Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) 176,674
Reference Index (SRI) set at ~€100 per month
(Last resort grant for poorest households)
Family support allowances ~€40 per month
163,462
(Means tested benefits for poor families with children) (also linked to SRI and number of children)
Child State Allowance (CTA) ~€40 -€85 per month
3,606,785
(Universal child allowance) (per child depending on age, up to 18 yrs)
Heating Allowances ~€6 per month linked to a reference value for
n/k
(Means tested subsidy on fuel bills) costs of different types of fuel
Financial and emergency aids 4,000
(One-off emergency assistance for shock-affected Variable dependent on shock
(2020)
households)
Social pension
172 ~€85 per month
(For older persons with no contributions)
Social Insurance
€360 (average) per month – varies by years
Contributory old age, survivors and disability 4,620,725
of contribution
pensions (individual)
Linked to SRI ~€100 per month based on
Unemployment benefit (Individual) 100,740
contributions. Paid monthly for 6-12 months
Labor market programs
n/k Mostly in-kind support
Various wage subsidy and training programs
Experience of Adapting Social Protection Systems
Shocks and Natural Disasters:
• Issued financial and emergency aid grants to primarily GMI beneficiaries for personal crisis and natural
disasters, fires and accidents.
Primarily in response to COVID-19:
• Subsidized salaries of suspended employees and some self-employed by providing 75% of the national
gross average salary (approx. €840), benefitting up to 1.2 million employees and 130,000 employers.
• Extended the duration of unemployment benefits by three months.
• Distributed six rounds of personal hygiene and food packages to beneficiaries of GMI and/or family
support allowance.
• Provided electronic vouchers up to €100 to school children at risk of dropping out.
• Reduced working time for the employed whose economic activity was affected by restrictions.
• Supported paid leave days for working parents of children under 12 during periods when schools /
kindergartens were closed. 8
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Issues Emerging in Adaptive Social This is an important lesson when considering nat-
Protection ural disasters which also affect many groups not
served by existing SP programs (such as small
Key issues emerging from the case studies include: farm holders, unemployed youth and Roma com-
munities).
SP systems are not geared towards natural
disasters. Analysis and understanding of the impact of
natural disasters on households is limited.
• Existing SP programs provide a good level of
adaptation to idiosyncratic or life-cycle risks and • The impact of natural disasters at the household
vulnerabilities but adaptation to natural disasters level in the short, medium and long term is not
is far less developed. SP systems in the four case well understood. The increasing frequency of nat-
study countries have been designed and devel- ural disasters is becoming apparent, with global
oped to provide life-cycle support to individuals and localized evidence calculating their actual and
and to address certain idiosyncratic vulnerabil- projected direct and indirect costs. Efforts largely
ities. They have not been designed to provide calculate the financial costs of disasters on public
automatic shock-responsive assistance to natu- assets and critical infrastructure, not the short-
ral disasters, such as earthquake or floods, other and long-term financial impacts on households. It
than to respond to unemployment for formal is not clear how disasters impact the consumption,
workers. This means existing SP systems can pro- earning potential and well-being of households in
vide a safety net to groups with certain risks or the months and years after a disaster. Without
vulnerabilities (such as, pensioners, the disabled this knowledge, it is difficult to design appropriate
and children) and against individual shocks (such and timely ASP interventions to reduce vulnera-
as, unemployment or invalidity). bility and build the resilience of households to dis-
asters. This issue is addressed in Section 3.
The systems, via their social insurance programs,
bias to specific groups and to the small formal SP and DRM operate in siloes.
economy and bias against minority groups and
the significant informal sector. The Roma, for • Progress in linking SP and DRM information,
example, are among the poorest minority groups systems and capacity is limited despite increas-
and live in some of the most marginal and disas- ing and recurrent disaster risks. SP systems have
ter-affected areas (such as flood plains). much to offer to DRM policy, planning and imple-
mentation, while SP agencies need to better rec-
SP programs have limited ability to expand ognize the impact of natural disasters on poor
horizontally. households. Currently, the cross-departmental
linkages between SP actors and DRM and other
• The economic shock arising from the COVID-19 government agencies are limited. For instance:
pandemic highlighted the limitations of SP sys- national SP systems collect and maintain valuable
tems for expanding horizontally to other highly data on vulnerable households and individuals;
affected groups. In common with much of the have frontline staff in (almost) all municipalities;
world, the COVID-19 crisis prompted the most and operate payment systems reaching large pro-
extensive ASP measures with each case study portions of the population. The case studies have
country scaling its SP system in response to its highlighted how SP staff have an imperfect under-
economic impact. Most countries responded by standing of DRM as a concept. Similarly, DRM
expanding the duration or amounts of benefits agencies' understanding of SP is limited. Conse-
provided through existing programs (that is, a ver- quently, SP organizations are often excluded from
tical scale-up to existing beneficiaries). This pro- national and local level policy making and plan-
grammatic approach to ASP can limit adaptation ning on disaster risk reduction despite the ongo-
and reinforce the bias towards existing groups ing efforts to promote a multi-sectoral approach.
served by the SP systems, which may not cover
all of the poorest or those most affected by the ASP is approached from a programmatic
nature of the shock. For example, most govern- rather than a systems perspective.
ments provided wage subsidies and expanded
unemployment benefits. However, there was no • Currently, the most established, and often only,
similar safety net for adults working in the infor- form of ASP in response to disasters consists
mal sector, a group that was identified across the of temporary/emergency one-off assistance
globe as one of the most highly affected by the (OFA) grants. OFA grants can directly respond
COVID-91 crisis. to the impact of natural disasters on households,
9
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
yet they are designed to address idiosyncratic
and localized covariate shocks. The COVID-19
response primarily consisted of incremental or
one-off scaling of individual programs. By consid-
ering ASP on a program-by-program basis, gov-
ernments and policy makers are failing to consider
how ‘adaptation’ of the SP system as a whole and
over the long term can make the whole popula-
tion less vulnerable and more resilient to disas-
ters. Evaluating how well the total and combined
contribution of SP programs (including contribu-
tory payments such as pensions) is achieving this
should inform national ASP policy and investment
rather than rely on one-off expansions of a single
SA program.
DRF mechanisms to support ASP and
household level responses are limited.
• ASP is only possible (and effective) if the resources
to act are available at the time required. Disaster
risk financing (DRF) for ASP refers to having sys-
tems in place to access and distribute resources
before natural disasters hit. The case studies
show that government capacities to fund dis-
aster response, recovery and rehabilitation are
inadequate, reflecting limited DRF resources and
mechanisms. Globally, ASP responses to COVID-
19 were constrained by limited resources but
highlighted the need for governments to consider
where and how large-scale resources could be
sourced in the face of major covariate shocks. It
remains a challenge for all governments to provide
adequate support for all losses experienced by
households due to natural disasters. However, the
case studies show that post-disaster assistance
to private households, where it exists, is provided
too little too late. A key issue is the inadequate
take up of private household and agricultural
insurance. Again, SP systems have the potential
to play a significant role providing this additional
layer of protection by linking the most vulnerable
households (including homeowners and farmers)
to appropriate insurance mechanisms.
10
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Section 3. Disaster Risk and Rationale for
ASP in Europe and Central Asia
Albania, Bulgaria, North Macedonia and Romania an extreme risk with the potential for immense
were, in part, selected due to their similarities in human and economic impacts.
terms of vulnerability to disaster risk. All four have
high exposure to and regularly experience a wide Given the increasing frequency and impact of
range of natural hazards, particularly floods, storms, disasters, there has been greater effort in recent
landslides, forest fires and earthquakes. Box 5 below years to improve disaster risk management (DRM)
provides a summary of recent disaster events and frameworks, systems and capacity. Often these
impact for each country. Multiple localized weather efforts have been driven by EU directives and reg-
and climate-related hazards occur somewhere ulations that require member and accession states
in each country every year, and their incidence is to put stronger DRM systems in place. They include
increasing. Earthquakes are less frequent but pose initiatives around flood risk management, mapping
Box 5. Summary of Disaster Risk in the
Case Study Countries
• Albania has the highest level of disaster risk in Europe according
to the World Bank (2020a). Over the period 1995–2015, 3,799
hazard events were recorded affecting more than 95 percent of
Albanian municipalities and an average of 30,000 people each
year. In 2019, Albania was hit by a severe earthquake affecting over
200,000 people and causing an estimated €985 million of damage
and losses (GoA 2020).
• Bulgaria, estimated damages from disasters between 2010 and
2019 amounted to $1.1 billion, which is equivalent to approximately
0.2 percent of its gross domestic product. During this same period,
around US$800 million was spent on recovery and over US$130
million was spent on rescue and emergency works (World Bank
2021b).
• North Macedonia has the highest flood risk in the Europe
and Central Asia Region. Between 1990 and 2015, North Macedonia
suffered 23 severe (principally flooding) disasters that caused more
than US$409 million in direct damages. In 2015, major floods
affected 170,000 people in 43 of 80 municipalities and caused
damages of €35.7 million. In 1963, a major earthquake in Skopje, the
capital, resulted in over 1,000 fatalities (World Bank 2018b).
• Romania has recorded 77 severe disaster events, including 44
floods, 15 extreme temperature events, 7 storms, 2 earthquakes, 1
drought and 1 landslide since 1990, resulting in more than US$3.5
billion of direct damages (World Bank 2018a). Over the last 100
years, 13 earthquakes resulted in 2,630 fatalities and affected more
than 400,000 people, with damages from the 1977 earthquake
alone exceeding US$2 billion (World Bank 2018a.)
11
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
of critical infrastructure and improved recording of (Kerblat et al. 2021) examined eight ECA countries
disaster losses on standardized databases (such and used historic disaster loss data to model the
as, Desinventar).4 Additionally, the EU, UN and well-being losses arising from severe flood and
World Bank have supported countries to undertake earthquake events as well as the socio-economic
post-disaster loss and damage assessments after resilience of different economic groups. In Albania,
major disaster events, such as the 2019 earthquake the average annual well-being losses from a flood
in Albania (GoA 2020) and the 2015 floods in North disaster are estimated at US$166 million, respec-
Macedonia (GoNM 2015). Damage and loss assess- tively compared to average annual asset losses of
ments help governments to understand the direct US$125 million. In Romania, it is estimated to take
costs of disasters and the indirect impacts on GDP an average of 5.8 years for all households to recover
growth and other development indicators. 75 percent of their assets following a 200-year
earthquake event. To date, however, governments
To date, the impact of disasters has been primar- in the region have been slow to recognize the value
ily framed as economic rather than as undermin- of this analysis and to collect data and to undertake
ing human development. The connection between research on the household impacts of disaster. With-
natural disasters, poverty and vulnerability is nei- out a clearly articulated analysis of disaster and its
ther clear nor well documented. Disaster damage impacts on poverty levels, household consumption
and loss assessments tend to focus on the recon- and well-being, it is difficult to design appropriate
struction and replacement costs of (mostly public) policy and program responses. Again, the COVID-
physical assets and infrastructure. This type of anal- 19 crisis has triggered studies and methodologies
ysis is important and valid and there is still much to to assess the impacts of the pandemic on poverty
be done in building systems to track losses in these levels and well-being around the world (Gentilini et
terms. Loss databases, where they exist, may record al. 2021; Abdoul-Azize and el Gamil 2021).
the numbers of houses damaged or destroyed by
disasters, but the actual costs of repair or recon- Rationale for ASP in Europe and
struction are rarely recorded. Recent studies (Hal-
legatte et al. 2016; Beazley and Williams 2021) have
Central Asia
sought to highlight the impact of disasters on the Despite the recent SP initiatives in response to the
well-being of individuals and families in the short, COVID-19 pandemic, the rationale for expanding
medium and long term. Currently, damage and loss and developing ASP systems in the four case study
assessments do not register the losses of the poor countries is not yet on the policy makers agenda.
as they may be small in relation to total figures; yet, The lack of national level data on the impact of
it is widely acknowledged that for the poor disasters disaster on poverty illustrates limited acknowl-
destroy bigger proportions of their assets. edgement of the link between disasters and pov-
erty. All four countries have well established social
The role of disasters in expanding and deepening protection systems, with programs responding (to
poverty in the case study countries, which all have varying degrees) to life-cycle vulnerabilities, such as
consistently high poverty rates, requires greater periods of unemployment and chronic poverty, and
recognition. It is not clear how long it takes poor some one-off assistance in the face of idiosyncratic
households to replace their assets, if ever, and the shocks or emergencies. However, the case studies
knock-on effects on indebtedness and livelihoods. have found that currently SP and DRM policy and
Evidence from around the world has confirmed that programs tend to operate in silos with little to no
disasters make poor people poorer and can drag overlap. This disconnect is not unusual, particularly
better-off households into poverty (Hill, Skoufias and in countries with established SP systems such as EU
Maher 2019). The poor are more likely to engage in member states (see Box 6).
informal or subsistence-based livelihoods, making it
harder to monitor how shocks affect their incomes. DRM agencies and staff often overlook the fact that
Some recognition of and evidence on the human SP systems represent an established infrastructure
impact of disasters in ECA is emerging. For exam- that can reach households and individuals. Social
ple, the post-disaster needs assessment (PDNA) assistance (SA) programs are specifically designed
of the 2019 earthquake in Albania found that pov- to identify, register and channel resources to the
erty rates increased in the affected regions by 2.3 poorest and most vulnerable. As highlighted in the
percent (GoA 2020). Qualitative and quantitative case studies, utilizing this infrastructure to build poor
research on the impact of disasters on specific poor households’ resilience to the much more frequent
communities, such as the Roma, is lacking. and recurrent natural disasters has been limited.
In most countries, well-being losses exceed asset SP programs can scale up rapidly in response to
losses after disasters. A recent World Bank report shocks provided the operational procedures and
4
Desinventar is a methodological tool for the generation of National Disaster Inventories and the construction of databases of damage, losses and, in
general, the effects of disasters. https://www.desinventar.net/whatisdesinventar.html
12
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Box 6. Towards ASP in the European Union?
The European Union (EU) has a strong commitment to enhancing disaster risk management (DRM) in all
member states. It has issued explicit directives and allocated associated funds relating to civil protection
and environmental hazards (see below). By comparison, responsibility for social protection (SP) is delegated
to member states which may account for the EU’s limited ASP policy.
For DRM, EU states and accession countries are subject to the mandates of the Directorate-General for
European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations and the European Union Civil Protection
Mechanism. States can also access the EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF). All three provide financial, operational
and in-kind assistance following emergencies and natural disasters. They are also driving progress in the
development of national and local disaster risk reduction strategies. Nonetheless, all three make limited
reference to ASP. Indeed, the EUSF has clear regulations guiding the use of funds which specify recipients
cannot use funds for ASP responses.
SP in the EU is guided by the Europe 2020 Strategy, which commits member states to targets on employ-
ment, skills and poverty reduction. SP programs are seen as central in reaching its key target of lifting
15 million people out of poverty and social exclusion. Annual updates are provided to the Social Protec-
tion Committee and recent reports have highlighted lessons learned in the COVID-19 and Ukrainian crisis.
However, these focus on better integration of SP and health and social services. There is no reference to the
role of (A)SP in response to natural disasters.
Source: European Commission Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion and European Commission EU Solidarity Fund.
requisite funding are set out in advance. Albania, magnitude. Before considering if and what ASP
Albania, Bulgaria, North Macedonia and Romania response is required, it is important to be clear about
relied on (tightly targeted) existing programs and on the level and coverage of disaster risk experienced
wage subsidies to (mostly) formal sector workers to by different households or populations. Technically
respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. This facilitated disaster risk is a function of hazard, exposure and
a rapid scale-up vertically and constrained a rapid vulnerability; consequently, the same hazard does
scale-up horizontally beyond beneficiaries of exist- not necessary generate the same disaster depend-
ing programs and formal sector workers. Further, ing on who and what is affected. Government dis-
they face fiscal constraints. There is minimal data aster risk assessments often generate national and
on how much governments have spent through the some localized maps for each hazard. However, they
DRM system to address household asset and con- do not overlay population numbers and vulnera-
sumption losses, even after large disasters. Post-dis- bility using socio-economic data. This means they
aster needs assessments, such as GoA 2020 and do not effectively highlight how disaster risk, rather
GoNM 2015, suggest the governments allocate than hazard risk, varies at the local level. Disaster risk
little funding in comparison with the losses incurred is much more commonly assessed in relation to the
(see Building Block 4 below). Right-sizing this will vulnerability of critical infrastructure and public ser-
require a strong rationale to support the allocation vices rather than that of private individuals.
of, already minimal, DRF instruments towards ASP.
Understanding the relative disaster risk facing dif-
A systematic analysis of disaster risk and SP sys- ferent households/populations requires localized
tems can make the case for greater commitment to disaster risk mapping. The higher the disaster risk
and investment in ASP. The process requires both the higher the income and asset losses experienced
SP and DRM stakeholders to analyze disaster risks by households. Effective ASP interventions should
from a household and individual perspective. This is support households to avoid and reduce these
essential to make the case or rationale for an ASP losses. To design ASP responses that make best
response and a basis upon which to identify and use of minimal resources, it is important to estab-
design better ASP policies and programs. A four- lish which disaster risks should be prioritized over
step approach is proposed. others. For example, drought may pose minimal
disaster risk to infrastructure but may be devastat-
Step 1: Identify and Prioritize Disaster Risks ing for small farm holders. Acknowledging this may
mean that a local disaster risk assessment may pri-
Different hazards will impact households differ- oritize one disaster risk over others in developing a
ently depending on their scale, frequency and local DRM response plan.
13
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Step 2: Understand Household Level Impacts agricultural areas, what is the impact of floods and
drought on the production and consumption of small
For each defined disaster risk, it is important to farmers? How does impact vary depending on when
understand the actual rather than the notional the disaster event occurs in the seasonal calendar?
socio-economic impacts on households and What proportion of people lose businesses or jobs
individuals. There is an implicit recognition after each type of disaster and for how long? Many
that disasters adversely affect households but businesses bounce back in days others may close
much less explicit evidence. The well-being loss forever. How long does it take households to recover
estimates calculated in Kerblat et al. (2021) are pre-disaster income levels? Which households
a useful attempt to quantify these impacts and cannot meet basic needs and for how long? Under-
provide useful international comparisons. However, standing the answers to these questions is essential
these are highly aggregated analyses drawn in making the case for an expanded ASP response.
from national macro-economic data. None of the
countries assessed has attempted to systematically
Step 3: Consider the Potential for an ASP
document the full financial impacts of different Response
hazards on households, particularly poor ones. Once there is a better appreciation of the impact of
Some post-disaster assessments record the respective hazards upon households and individu-
number of houses destroyed or damaged however als, the scope for appropriate ASP becomes clearer.
this is only quantified where financial compensation At the same time the analysis of household impact
claims are involved. These are not centrally collated also helps to recognize that ASP responses are just
or analyzed. Consequently, there is no clear picture one of multiple responses required in the face of
of the financial impacts of different disasters in disasters and may not always be the best conduit
terms of asset loss, incomes, consumption as well for response. For instance, when floods or landslides
as wider well-being in the short, medium and bring down power lines, affected households need
long term. Most disaster responses, including ASP their electricity restored not a cash transfer to help
interventions, tend to focus on the immediate them meet basic needs. Similarly, supporting private
aftermath, but disasters have many medium- and businesses to reopen after an earthquake, through
longer-term impacts on households’ assets, well- earthquake insurance or other support, may be
being and livelihoods. more effective to the local livelihoods than extend-
ing welfare payments to additional households.
Building a strong rationale for an ASP response
requires understanding and quantifying the actual That said, SP systems have a unique advantage
impact of different hazards upon local communi- in the existence of pre-established databases,
ties over the disaster cycle (see Figure 1). Issues to application and enrolment, and payment systems
examine could include: When families have homes that can be used to provide cash support almost
destroyed and damaged, which have the means to immediately as long as funding is in place. Sup-
rebuild or repair, which do not and why? What hap- porting households quickly and at key points in
pens to those that do not? How long do they remain the disaster cycle may be crucial to longer-term
in temporary or other forms of accommodation? In recovery and resilience. For example, ensuring a
Figure 1. Disaster Impact Cycle
FOCUS EMERGENCY RESPONCE RESTORATION REPAIR REPLACEMENT IMPROVEMENT
& RELIEF
Normal Ceased or changed Returned & Returned & Functioning at Improved &
activities Functioning pre-disaster levels or greater developed
Size & scope of activity
DISASTER
PREPAREDNESS SHORT TERM RECOVERY RECOVERY
ongoing days-weeks weeks-months months-years
Source: MacDonald et al. 2015.
14
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
family or individual can survive until local employ- agency effort, involving both SP and DRM actors.
ers are up and running again may be essential to Good DRM planning should break down sectoral
prevent the labor force moving elsewhere. Table 1 silos and encourage ex-ante thinking. Analysis of
provides an illustrative analysis of how mapping the household level impacts by hazard should be key
actual impacts of a flood event on a local popula- to all disaster risk assessments and civil protection/
tion could be used to stimulate thinking about the contingency plans, among other, at all levels. Thus,
role and appropriateness of ASP and potentially the analysis of disaster risk for ASP should ideally
other interventions at different stages of the disas- inform the guidance and training curricula of both
ter risk cycle. Some of the responses listed already DRM and SP sectors. The analysis of disaster risk
exist, but others represent potential opportunities. from an ASP perspective provides a sound basis
from which to assess the readiness and capacity
Step 4: Integrate SP Systems into Stronger of a country’s core SP and existing ASP systems to
and Coordinated Inter-Agency DRM Systems develop further.
Steps one to three above should not form one-off
activities but be incorporated into ongoing SP and
DRM planning processes. ASP is inherently an inter-
Table 1. Understanding the Rationale for ASP: Analyzing Disaster Risk from the Household Perspective
Household Level Impact and
Disaster Risk Stage Timescale Potential / Existing ASP Response
Needs
(1) Emergency Days • Immediate danger to life • Provision of emergency shelter
Relief and • Flooding damages/destroys • Provision of safe water, food/
Response homes and farms non-food items
• Loss of key assets • Emergency one-off cash
• No access to clear water or food payments to households
• Loss of power, water supply loss • Emergency transfer to
municipalities for bespoke social
• Loss of communication systems,
assistance support
roads and access to markets
(2) Recovery Weeks and • Living in temporary, poor-quality • Temporary housing
Period Months housing arrangements/rental allowances
• Loss of job or income due to • Payments for immediate repairs/
destruction/damage to places of losses
employment • Temporary/extended
• Loss of agricultural incomes unemployment or welfare
• Savings depleted to pay for payments
Flood Event
recovery • Additional child/school
• Debts/loans incurred allowances for affected children
• Disruption/withdrawal of • Public works programs for
children from education flood mitigation and temporary
employment
• Health impacts of above
(3) Reconstruction Months and • Costs of repair/rebuilding homes • Pre-agreed compensation
Years • Costs of replacing other lost / payments to households –
damaged assets based on pre-agreed flood risk
financing mechanisms
• Depletion of savings/increase in
debt • Other labor market programs
to retain/retrain into diversified
livelihoods
(4) Preparedness, Before and • Flood proof housing • SA registries used to identify/
Prevention and ongoing • Better located housing prioritize marginalized groups
Mitigation or households for replacement/
• Better quality housing
new social housing or flood
• Insurance against future floods preventions improvements
– for home and other assets,
• Payment of insurance premiums
agricultural or other livelihood
for poorest/most exposed
losses
households
Source: Author’s elaboration 2023.
15
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Section 4. Country Case Studies - Key Findings
This section highlights findings from the case Building Block 1: Institutional
study country reports on the readiness and capac- Arrangements and Partnerships
ity of each country to adapt SP systems in response
to shocks. Findings are structured around the World This building block considers the national legis-
Bank’s ASP Framework which identifies four pillars lative framework and bylaws and other approved
or ‘building blocks’ (see Figure 2) as the critical ele- policy documents that govern SP and DRM. It
ments of an effective ASP system. Each building assesses the extent to which they facilitate, con-
block encompasses sub-elements for review. Many verge or hinder ASP in response to shocks and
of these relate to ‘core’ SP institutions and systems disasters. It also assesses the capacity of the main
as well as to DRM systems. An underlying principle institutions and agencies responsible for the deliv-
is that ASP systems can only be as good as exist- ery of SP and DRM at national, regional and local
ing SP systems which form the foundations upon levels. This includes the mechanisms and capacity
which scaling or ‘adaptation’ to disaster risk is pos- that exists to coordinate cross-sectoral interven-
sible. The findings are primarily drawn from the four tions, including the role of non-state actors.
ASP case studies,5 which focus on SP programs with
some examination of DRM systems in each country. Legislative Framework, Policies and Plans
They also draw on wider desk reviews of other rele-
vant SP and DRM documents and follow up inter- The case study countries all have detailed and
views. In Albania and North Macedonia, the findings well-established laws and legislation covering both
draw on workshops and consultations held with key SP and DRM. All policy and implementation are sub-
SP and DRM stakeholders. ject to multiple layers of laws and legislation cover-
ing both SP and DRM in all countries. This means
Figure 2. The Four Building Blocks for Adaptive there is a rather fixed legal context within which to
Social Protection develop ASP. SP and DRM officials are not encour-
aged or permitted to interpret rules creatively to
better address needs arising from a crisis, beyond
the provisions allowed for in legislation.
Data Despite this, primary legislation, which is the hard-
and information est to revise, does not preclude ASP in any country
once governments declare formal states of emer-
gency. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, all
case study countries governments used emergency
powers to permit a range of adaptive measures.
Finance However, rather than using the COVID-19 experi-
Programs ence to set a precedent permitting ongoing flexi-
bility to scale SP programs in response to shocks,
changes to regulations were mostly temporary or
specific to the COVID-19 crisis. Governments have
Institutional taken steps to formalize some of these emergency
arrangements and measures. In September 2020, Bulgaria amended its
partnerships Social Assistance Law to introduce the new perma-
nent Targeted Monthly Social Assistance Allowance.
This non-contributory, income-tested allowance
can be granted when a state of emergency is
Source: Bowen et al. 2020. declared. North Macedonia provides another exam-
ple where a COVID-19 amendment to the Law on
Social Protection resulted in a permanent change
to the eligibility rules for its GMA grant (the last-re-
5
Note: most data and information provided in this section are drawn from the country case study reports:
Dhima, M., and J. Miluka. (2020). Towards Adaptive Social Protection in the ECA Region: Albania Country Report. Washington, DC: World Bank, draft.
Dragoman, A., and Z. Ianovici. (2022). Towards Adaptive Social Protection in the ECA Region: Romania Case Study. Washington, DC: World Bank, draft.
Gerovska, M., and R.Rajkovchevski. (2022). Towards Adaptive Social Protection: A Case Study of North Macedonia. Washington, DC: World Bank, draft.
16
Shopov,G., and V. Veleva. (2022). Bulgaria: Preparing Social Protection for Future Crises. Washington, DC: World Bank, draft.
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
sort SA benefit). Going forward, the eligibility crite- of DRR legislation and policy is often weak which
ria is modified (specifically, some property and asset undermines their overall purpose and objectives.
ownership criteria are disregarded) to allow a hori- Disaster risk assessments and DRR plans are not
zontal expansion in the “determined existence of a systematically in place, or updated, in most areas.
crisis situation, declared epidemic, pandemic, fires, The post-disaster needs assessment (PDNA) fol-
floods or other major natural disasters.” lowing the Albania earthquake found limited
enforcement of EU seismic safety standards in con-
Although national level SP strategies and/or action struction, which clearly compounded the disastrous
plans do not prevent ASP, support is implicit rather impact of the quake.
than explicit. SP strategy and policy documents
can be deemed to implicitly support ASP interven- Even where countries have approved or developed
tions through the inclusion of objectives that ‘seek draft DRM policy documents, reference to ASP is
to reduce poverty by providing safety nets’ and the limited but beginning to change. The more recent
inclusion of terms such as ‘building resilience.’ Gen- DRR strategies, often prepared with EU or World
erally, primary legislation and national strategies for Bank support, are starting to address this. This
SP do not clearly define the SP sector’s role in wider includes the proposed DRR Strategy for Romania
DRM or climate change adaptation (CCA) efforts (2022-2035) and the Albania (draft) National DRR
nor use the term ‘adaptive social protection.’ Explicit Strategy (2023-2030).
interventions are not cited and the instances where
primary legislation or strategies include protocols Institutional Capacity and Multi-Sectoral
permitting pre-agreed adaptation and/or scal- Coordination
ing of SA responses are quite limited and primar-
ily focus on one-off assistance programs and, to In all four countries, responsibilities for Social Pro-
some extent, social services, with the addition of the tection traverse ministries. The agencies respon-
recent changes made to LRIS programs in Bulgaria sible for different elements of SP are summarized
and North Macedonia noted above. in Table 2 below. Ministries and national agencies
develop regulations and policy and supervise the
All case study countries have multiple legal instru- management of wider systems. In some countries,
ments and strategic documents guiding DRM, but social insurance (SI) (that is, pensions) is managed
the application in practice is lacking. Most countries by autonomous agencies under different ministries,
have primary Disaster or Civil Protection Acts and such as the Institute for Social Insurance in Albania
related national plans or strategies. As EU member which falls under the Ministry of Finance and Econ-
states or accession countries, all case study coun- omy. Nationwide coverage means the SP programs
tries are guided by EU directives and regulations operate national networks of SP and (or sometimes
that require implementation of enhanced disaster combined with) employment offices and staff. In
risk reduction (DRR) strategies and plans in line with Albania, Bulgaria and Romania, SA programs and
the Sendai Framework. All countries are at various other social services are usually delivered by social
stages in the adoption of updated National Disas- workers, based in almost all municipalities. North
ter Risk Assessments, National DRR Strategies and Macedonia has a network of 34 Centers for Social
National Civil Emergency Plans (with some varia- Work (CSWs) where groups of social workers serve
tions). All national legislation dictates that equiv- multiple municipalities. For simplicity, these are
alent documents be produced at the regional and referred to collectively as SP ministries and institu-
municipality levels. Nonetheless, the enforcement tions going forwards.
Table 2. Summary of Institutions and Roles in the Delivery of SP in Case Study Countries
Social Protection
Country SP Area National Institution Local Level Delivery
Ministry of Health and Social Protection
Lead
(MoHSP)
Regional Directories of SSS
SA State Social Services (SSS)
Albania
Municipal Social Assistance Departments
Ministry of Finance and Economy (policy)
LMP with National Agency for Employment Regional employment offices
and Skills (NAES) (implementation)
NAES
Institute of Social Insurance (ISI) in
SI
Ministry of Finance and Economy
17
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Ministry of Labor and Social Policy
Lead
(MoLSP)
Regional and local Social Assistance
Directorates (SADs) managed by ASA
SA and SS Agency for Social Assistance (ASA)
Centers for Employment and Social
Bulgaria
Assistance (CESA)6
Employment commissions and Labor
Employment Agency (EA) Offices
LMP
(implementation) Employment Councils and Labor
Employment Bureaus
National Council for Employment
SI
Promotion (policy)
Lead
Macedonia
Ministry of Labor and Social Policy Centers for Social Work (CSW) and local
North
SA and SS (MoLSP) units for cash benefits
LMP Institute for Social Activities (ISA) Licensed social service providers
Ministry of Labor and Social Solidarity
SP (MoLSS)
Romania
SA National Authority for Payments and
Social Inspection (payments) Local employment offices
SI National House of Public Pensions
LMP National Employment Agency (NEA)
Source: Dhima and Miluka 2020; Dragoman and Ianovici 2022; Gerovska and Rajkovchevski 2022; and Shopoy and Veleva 2022.
Despite nationwide coverage, SP services are Disaster response falls within civil protection and,
subject to capacity constraints, especially in rela- hence, overall national responsibilities tend to lie
tion to numbers and quality of staff. Where SP ser- with Ministries of Interior or Defense. Table 3 below
vices are provided via municipal offices, small towns summarizes the main coordination or implementa-
and rural areas may rely on a single social worker to tion bodies associated with DRM and how respon-
deliver a wide range of tasks for multiple programs. sibility is devolved to regional or municipal levels.
They may also lack adequate professional training, Inter-ministerial councils and other multi-sectoral
IT equipment or even fuel for vehicles to undertake coordination bodies are usually only mobilized fol-
home visits for social assistance or social services. lowing a major disaster or crisis event. Day-to-day
This all acts to undermine motivation and innova- responsibility for pre-disaster planning and pre-
tion. The expansion of the GMA grant in North Mac- paredness normally lies with an agency under the
edonia during COVID-19 was hampered by a lack Ministry of Interior (or Defense), although North
of social workers to replace those falling sick or iso- Macedonia has an autonomous Protection and
lating due to COVID. That said, given the localized Rescue Directorate as National Civil Protection
nature of many disasters, during previous events, Authority. Responsibilities for risk assessment, early
additional staff (not just for SP) have often been warning and mitigation may fall under other agen-
deployed from elsewhere to provide surge capac- cies or be split across multiple organizations, often
ity. Following the 2019 earthquake in Albania, the by hazard. For example, in Romania, the manage-
MoHSP mobilized hundreds of staff and volunteers ment of flood risk lies with the Ministry of Water and
for the regional Directorates for Social Services Forests; seismic risk reduction falls under the Min-
to work closely with municipalities to assess and istry of Regional Development and Public Admin-
respond to immediate needs through social services istration (MRDPA); and, forecast and early warning
(GoA 2020). services fall under both the National Institute of
Hydrology and Water Management (NIHWM) and
The roles and responsibilities of the institutions the National Meteorological Administration.
and structures in place for DRM are less clear cut
than those for SP. This arises from the multi-sec- The national DRR strategies, assessment and plans
toral nature of DRM policies and interventions. in the four case study countries are not replicated
6
These is a new initiative to merge SADs and Employment Bureaus but it does not have full coverage.
18
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Table 3. Summary of Lead DRM Organizations and Coordination Bodies in Case Study Countries
Disaster Risk Management
Country National Institution Local Level Delivery
Ministry of Defense (lead ministry)
Regional and municipal Civil Protection
Council of Ministers (post-disaster coordination) Commissions (led by prefects / mayors)
Albania
Civil Protection Committee (CPC) Plus, local civil protection structures: police;
firefighters; Red Cross and other volunteer
National Civil Protection Agency (NCPA)
structures
(Implementation of DRR and CP)
National Assembly /Council of Ministers (CM) Regional and municipal Councils for Disaster Risk
(disaster coordination) Reduction
General Directorate "Fire Safety and Protection of Regional and municipal GDFSCPs (as required)
the Population" (GDFSCP) Operation of Unified
Bulgaria
Bulgarian Red Cross, other NGOs and volunteer
Response Service (URS)
structures
National Disaster Risk Reduction Council (policy
Regional and municipal Disaster Risk Reduction
and planning)
Councils (as required)
Interdepartmental Commission for Rehabilitation Regional and municipal Commissions for
and Assistance (recovery and compensation) Rehabilitation and Assistance
Protection and Rescue Directorate (PRD) Regional and local CMC offices
Macedonia
(operations, strategy and planning)
Regional PRD offices
North
Crisis Management Center (CMC)
Municipality’s HQ for protection and rescue
(Policy, decision-making and coordination within
Crisis Management System) Red Cross, professional and volunteer groups
Ministry of Internal Affairs Department for
Emergency Situation (DES) (policy)
County Centers for Intervention, Coordination and
National Committee for Special Emergency Management
Situations (NCSES) (strategic decisions following
Romania
Municipality – Local Committees for Emergency
disaster)
Situations
General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations
National Red Cross Society of Romania
(GIES) (planning and response operations)
Local employment offices
National Center for Integrated Disaster
Management (post-disaster)
Source: Dhima and Miluka 2020; Dragoman and Ianovici 2022; Gerovska and Rajkovchevski 2022; and Shopoy and Veleva 2022.
at local levels, despite most disasters being high- paredness down to municipality level. This reflects
ly localized. The limited coverage of local, con- where DRM planning and response lies in political
text-specific DRR assessment and response plans priorities. In small rural municipalities, where natu-
that align with national DRR strategies limits co- ral disasters are often common, there is also limited
herence in the approach and capacity to analyze personnel to prepare and update such plans even
disaster risk. That said, emergency response ca- if training and guidance were available. Firefight-
pacity is reasonably good given a strong culture ers, if they exist, usually represent the only agen-
of civil protection planning. Most local authorities, cy with any DRM responsibility beyond the mayor.
particularly those experiencing recurrent natural
disasters, have some form of civil protection/emer- Disaster response is the responsibility of institu-
gency response plan. These plans specify the roles tions under the control of Ministries of Interior or
and responsibilities of various individuals/agen- Defense and have established disaster manage-
cies in the event of a crisis. At best, these identify ment command and control structures to respond
SP agencies for the provision of emergency shelter to major disasters. In the first instance, response is
and other emergency social services and, in some mobilized by mayors at the municipality level with
countries, one-off emergency assistance payments support from neighboring authorities or high-
(discussed below). There is limited financing and er-level civil protection agencies as requested
capacity to develop the detailed tools and train- depending on the nature and scale of the disas-
ing required to cascade DRR planning and pre- ter. The operative capacity of emergency services
19
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
at the national level is generally good. All countries Multiple and complex pre- and post-disaster coor-
maintain emergency stockpiles of food and non- dination committees and structures are in place in
food supplies, including tents. Immediate disaster each of the four case study countries. Post-disas-
response is approached as a military operation and, ter national coordination committees do not always
hence, search and rescue personnel and equipment include representatives of the various ministries
are mobilized and deployed as required. This means of SP. In some countries, the composition is fixed
capacity to restore power supplies and roads and to (North Macedonia) but in others (Albania and Bul-
clear landslides, for example, is reasonably good. In garia) attendance is at the discretion of the minis-
many places, particularly rural areas which may be a ter/coordinator in charge, depending on the nature
long way from formal emergency services, volunteer of the disaster. The limited role for SP ministries
rescue and response teams play an important role. reflects the predominant association of disasters
For example, local volunteer fire fighting teams exist with civil protection, which is seen to have little rele-
in many parts of rural North Macedonia. Beyond vance to SP policy or programs. Yet, the SP engage-
the immediate aftermath, longer-term support ment at the local/municipality level is much stronger.
to disaster-affected households tends to fall back SP representatives, primarily social workers, are
to municipalities, which vary in their resources and often key players in crisis response coordination
capacity. Urban municipalities in large cities are far and assessment teams as the local coordinators
better placed to provide ongoing assistance and of social services and social assistance. Proposing
response than remote rural municipalities. the automatic inclusion of SP agencies in national
disaster response forums would seem premature,
National societies of the Red Cross play an impor- however, until both SP and DRM staff and agen-
tant role in disaster preparedness and response cies are clear as to the role and relevance of ASP in
in all countries. Red Cross agencies receive annual disaster response. Instead, SP sector representation
external funding from the IFRC as well as national is better served by engaging in national and local
governments. Thus, they have stronger local level DRM fora engaged in the development and review
DRM capacity than governments in terms of staff of DRM policies, assessments and plans. SP repre-
and volunteers involved in DRM training and plan- sentatives would first need to be able to articulate
ning. The Red Cross is often the only agency doing the rational for ASP and make concrete proposals.
local level disaster risk analysis and contingency
planning. The case studies mentioned the Red Building Block 2: Program Design
Cross undertakes standardized capacity and vul-
nerability assessments (CVA) in many disaster-af-
and Delivery Systems
fected locations in North Macedonia and Bulgaria. Building Block 2 examines the fundamental design
Red Cross volunteers are also active outside of dis- and operation of existing SP systems on reducing
aster periods and often organize food or non-food poverty and vulnerability, recognizing this inher-
distributions to poor and vulnerable households ently increases resilience to disasters. It examines
throughout the year. As such, they often maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of delivery systems
relatively comprehensive and current lists of vulner- and highlights existing mechanism to respond to
able households in each locality. covariate shocks. The recent COVID-19 pandemic
provides recent and significant examples.
This strong role in preparedness plus access to
external funding means the Red Cross are also Synthesis Findings
often critical in the provision of humanitarian and
other assistance in the wake of disasters. Despite Impact on Poverty and Vulnerability
this, Red Cross agencies are not always included Overall, coverage of SP programs is reasonably
in government-led post-disaster coordination for high in all four countries, but the impact on pov-
a at the national level (such as, the Inter-sectoral erty is more limited. In part, this reflects that most
Working Group in North Macedonia). At the local SP coverage is accounted for by SI programs (pri-
level, the role of the Red Cross can be invaluable, marily contribution-based old age pensions) which
especially in municipalities with limited resources. In by design are not poverty targeted. That said, the
all case study countries, Red Cross agencies often importance of pensions and other SI transfers on
play a key role on local crisis management commit- the overall impact of SP in reducing poverty is sig-
tees/ councils. Nonetheless, the case studies did nificant. Pensions represent a core replacement
not identify any examples of where national or local income for the elderly, and poverty would be much
governments use Red Cross resources or expertise higher without pensions.
to support or lead local government level training
on the preparation of DRM assessments or plan- The adequacy of SA transfers tends to be low and,
ning, outside of a disaster event. in some cases, benefits are time bound. In Bul-
20
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Box 7. Consolidating Social Assistance Programs in North
Macedonia
In 2019, North Macedonia introduced the monthly Guaranteed Minimum Allowance (GMA). This was part
of efforts to streamline and simplify earlier fragmented and often overlapping social assistance schemes.
The GMA grant provides payments indexed to the difference between household income and an estab-
lished minimum income threshold, which vary by household size. This approach widens the scope of house-
holds that are eligible and introduces flexible payment levels based on need, thus improving coverage and
adequacy. The GMA provides a useful basis for providing temporary social assistance to households in the
months following natural disasters or other shocks, in that it can be expanded to reach additional house-
holds. Indeed, the Government has introduced rules permitting expanded coverage of the GMA following
the declaration of a state of emergency.
Source: Gerovska and Rajkovchevski (2022)
garia and Romania, the impacts of social transfers Frontline staff are often required to complete com-
(excluding pensions) are among the lowest in the plex and lengthy application forms and to review
EU, even though these countries have the most or verify the long list of other supporting docu-
extensive SA programs of the four case studies. All ments. The efficiency and transparency with which
countries have a means-tested SA program provid- applications for social assistance are processed
ing ‘last-resort’ social assistance (LRSA) for the very varies by country. In Albania and North Macedo-
poorest (see Box 7 for the North Macedonia exam- nia, applications are immediately digitally uploaded
ple). Enrollment into these programs can provide onto national registries and subject to standard
automatic access to other benefits such as heat- means-testing processes. In North Macedonia, the
ing and child allowances. In most cases, because of income and assets of all adults in the household
the low benefit amounts, the overall benefits offer are digitally cross checked with other government
little more than the most basic safety net and a very databases to assess if the eligibility thresholds have
limited buffer against additional shock or disaster. been crossed. In Bulgaria and Romania, processes
The combined impact of all SP benefits in achiev- appear less digitally systematized. Applications
ing poverty reduction and building resilience to for unemployment benefits can be digitally cross
covariate shocks, such as natural disasters, requires checked with the tax registry to verify past employ-
greater examination. ment status but must be manually requested.
Given the bureaucratic application processes and
Delivery Systems the staffing capacity constraints, most countries
All four countries have established delivery systems would have limited ability to register large numbers
for all SP programs. Most SA benefits are on-de- of additional beneficiaries quickly for SA programs
mand; therefore potential recipients must actively or unemployment benefits in response to a disas-
apply. Application requirements can be compli- ter. A recognition of this prompted a relaxation of
cated, which may limit uptake and reduce coverage. some application requirements in case study coun-
Albania and North Macedonia have made efforts to tries during COVID-19. For example, all dropped the
streamline and simplify programs and processes. home visits requirement to validate applications.
Some SA benefits are means-tested, particularly the But modifications were relatively minimal and pri-
‘last-resort’ programs. Others are categorical grants marily driven by social distancing requirements. This
mostly relating to child or maternity benefits, the has not resulted in standardized guidelines or reg-
Romanian State Child Allowance being the largest ulations for fast tracking grant approval and pay-
example. Applications for benefits are normally done ment processes in the case of covariate shocks.
in person through local municipal officers or CSWs in
North Macedonia. All four countries support online In all countries, once applications are approved,
application, a key adaptation that was introduced payment systems are good with almost all SP pay-
during COVID-19, but uptake has been limited. The ments made electronically into individual bank
target groups tend to be the least computer liter- accounts. Some recipients are paid via post offices,
ate and require support to complete forms. Parallel which are in every municipality. Consequently,
application, enrollment and payment systems exist payments appear to be regular, convenient and
for social insurance programs. For example, unem- secure. In Bulgaria, North Macedonia and Romania
ployment benefits are accessed through employ- bank details are given when completing SA appli-
ment offices in Albania and North Macedonia. cation forms. This helps to speed up payments
21
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
upon approval. By primarily using electronic pay- In most cases, OFA payments provided by SP
ment mechanisms, SP transfers were uninterrupted agencies in response to disasters require benefi-
during COVID-19. Albania introduced a system to ciaries to complete an application form. This would
bring payments to the homes of isolating benefi- seem to add an unnecessary level of bureaucracy
ciaries. Payments are minimally affected by natu- and delay to a crisis, particularly if it is paper based.
ral disasters, as transfers continue to deposit into Affected households may be facilitated by response
accounts even if banks are temporarily inaccessible. teams in the field to ensure all affected households
can submit applications. There have been examples
Experiences in Scaling in Response to Shocks where the application has been dropped. In 2021,
Prior to the COVID-19 crisis, the most established Romania passed a directive waiving the flood-af-
(and often only) form of ASP in response to dis- fected households from submitting applications
aster was the temporary one-off assistance (OFA) and established response teams to identify a list of
and modifications to social services. Forms of OFA beneficiaries for payment that local mayors author-
grants administered by SP agencies exist in all case ized. This is an example of a pragmatic response to
study countries except Albania. Originally, most natural disaster. Greater ex-ante thinking could be
were designed to support individuals facing idio- applied to the most common natural disasters, and
syncratic shocks (such as, serious health emergen- legislation could codify automatic ASP responses
cies or household fires). Now, they are also used to once a state of emergency is declared.
assist victims of covariate shocks (such as, natural
disasters), including to many households during In theory, countries have technical/legal provi-
COVID-19. North Macedonia has the most exten- sions for rehabilitation grants or compensation for
sive regulations setting out four levels of OFA with homes damaged by natural disasters. In practice,
fixed payments ranging from €75 to €500. The individual pay outs are rare and even then, delayed
highest rate is usually paid to households experi- and inadequate. Compensation payments are pro-
encing extensive loss or damage following a natural vided outside the SP system, generally by munici-
disaster. In Bulgaria, current regulation permits OFA palities and the ministries responsible for DRM. In
(known as Lump-Sum Social Assistance Allowance) all four countries, there are mechanisms such as
payments once a year up to a maximum of €192. post-disaster damage and loss commissions to pre-
In Romania, the amount of an OFA (emergency aid) pare schedules of damage. This is explored under
payment provided by the Ministry of Labor can vary Building Block 3 on data and information systems.
depending on the need and the budget available. In
all case study countries, frontline social services are ASP Responses to COVID-19
normally involved in immediate disaster response, The economic crisis precipitated by the COVID-
most notably, in the prioritization and allocation 19 pandemic saw the implementation of the most
of temporary shelter, food parcels, child protec- extensive and diverse range of ASP measures in the
tion and psycho-social supports. During COVID- case study countries to date. The key measures in
19, all countries provided in-kind support packages each country are listed in Boxes 1-4 above. The pri-
or locally organized schemes to ensure vulnerable mary horizontal and vertical expansions7 are sum-
groups were supported to access food and medi- marized below.
cine, among other, as required.
• Vertical Expansions: Transfers to existing SP
In all countries, local authorities also often provide recipients were temporarily increased for a fixed
some form of OFA to households in the wake of dis- period or payments were extended for longer
asters. Local OFA payments can vary considerably than the standard period. Key responses include:
depending on the resources available. High profile
disasters may benefit from higher levels of central o Albania: NE program doubled the level of
government assistance and donations from the transfers for several months in 2020/21 and
public and/or elsewhere. This may enable munici- unemployment benefits were doubled for
palities to provide households with more generous three months.
payments than standard national OFA rates. The o Bulgaria: All old age pensioners received sup-
value and allocation of payments is likely to be sub- plementary payments for approximately 18
ject to local and ad hoc decision making. Although months; and some SA benefits amounts were
both national and local OFA payments are likely to increased (such as, family allowances, heat-
be helpful, the rates are likely to be far below than ing allowances and minimum unemployment
the damage and losses experienced. That said, no benefit).
clear data exists on this. There does not appear to
be post-disaster evaluations on the adequacy or o North Macedonia: Heating allowances were
use of OFA payments by households. paid for all year, not just winter months.
7
These reflect the purposeful scaling of a program or the establishment of a new program. It does not consider the natural increase in coverage of
on-demand programs that may have arisen, because more households became eligible as a result of COVID-19 (that is, unemployment insurance or
the LRIS). 22
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
o Romania: Unemployment benefits were for modifications as soon as a (pre-defined) disas-
extended for three months. ter occurs, such as have been introduced in Bulgaria
and North Macedonia, is smart planning.
• Horizontal Expansions: SP benefits were pro-
vided to new or additional beneficiaries. Key In common with many places, the scale of ASP
responses included: responses to COVID-19 in Albania, Bulgaria, North
Macedonia and Romania were not designed in
o Albania expanded the NE program 11 per- reaction to disaster risk but by considerations of
cent and made 16,000 one-off payments to feasibility and limited resources. The case studies
households in the NE database. do not describe any form of ASP disaster risk anal-
o Bulgaria started a Monthly Social Assistance ysis process (described in Section 3) undertaken in
Allowance for households where parents were the wake of COVID-19 or any other disaster. Con-
unable to work due to childcare and reached sequently, the horizontal expansions implemented
53,161 individuals; provided at least 53,000 were small and not commensurate with the level
individuals at risk of COVID-19 (many existing of shock. Clearly, scaling the response to fill the full
SP beneficiaries) integrated social and health poverty gap created by COVID-19 was not feasible
services at home; and distributed more than anywhere; yet, greater systematic analysis of risk
550,000 individual food packages to benefi- may have enabled better targeting of the available
ciaries. resources. It was immediately clear around the world
that the lockdowns hit informal workers hardest, as
o North Macedonia relaxed eligibility crite- they often lack formal safety nets such as unem-
ria, increasing the GMA grant coverage by ployment benefits. However, the most extensive
8,000 households; provided low-income ASP program implemented by case study countries
households with e-voucher cards of €150; was the supplementary payments provided to Bul-
and offered vacation vouchers to low-income garia’s 1.1 million pensioners for nearly 18 months.
households. Although this represents an excellent example of
ASP delivery by ‘piggybacking’ on an existing SP
o Romania distributed food and hygiene pack- payment system, it was targeted to a group that
ages to 240,000 vulnerable households and was not necessarily the most affected by the impact
e-vouchers to low-income individuals age 75 of the disaster.
years and older.
None of the ASP responses implemented have yet
• Further, the countries introduced unprece- been evaluated post-disaster to assess efficiency
dented labor market support measures for and effectiveness. This would help to inform the
employers and employees to avoid mass unem- design of future ASP interventions by assessing
ployment from businesses unable to operate due the comparative impact and cost of different inter-
to lock down. Simplified or relaxed application ventions. Mass distributions of food and non-food
and recertification processes were implemented packages were undertaken in most countries during
to speed up and facilitate access to SA benefits. COVID and following other disasters. There does
These included the ability to submit supporting not appear to have been any cost–benefit analysis
documents electronically or waiving condition- of different approaches. For example, in Romania,
alities such as school attendance or community six rounds of food and hygiene packages were dis-
works. Additionally, social services were reorien- tributed to nearly 250,000 beneficiaries of the GMI
tated and expanded to provide support to vul- and/or family support allowance. In Albania, up to
nerable groups made housebound by COVID-19 600,000 households received some form of in-kind
isolation requirements (such as, the provision of support, and in Bulgaria, 550,000 beneficiaries
food packages, hot meals and medical supplies). received individual food packages. The administra-
tive and logistical costs associated with purchasing
The COVID-19 adaptations to SP systems were and distributing these packages to households,
developed and implemented in a relatively timely which were already recipients of cash transfers,
manner. Legal frameworks that regulate SP need should be assessed against a cash top-up.
not act as a barrier in times of crisis. The requisite
ordinances, directives and other subsidiary leg-
islation were timely put in place once lockdowns
Building Block 3: Data and
hit; although the regulations permitting scaled up Information Systems
assistance or other modifications were temporary
and in response to the COVID emergency only. A Strong data and information systems are central to
DRM legal framework that makes ex-ante provision the ASP agenda. Areas assessed under this building
23
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
block fall into two broad categories. The first relates The process of digitizing and moving government
to the quality of management information systems services online is a key priority for all governments
(MIS) use to administer SP programs and their in the region, although progress in practice varies.
interaction with wider government data systems. In Albania and North Macedonia, SP systems
The second concerns the quality of data and have achieved higher levels of sophistication and
information on disaster risk, household vulnerability interoperability. In Albania, social workers will very
and how both are utilized to increase resilience to often directly enter SA application data into the
shocks. This section also examines how information National Electronic Register (NER). Application
is collected and used post-shock. data on NER contain comprehensive information
on the applicant and all household members.
SP Data and Information Systems The NER retains the data of all applicants, even if
ultimately not approved for the NER grant. This
Comprehensive, regularly updated SP management was a key factor enabling the horizontal temporary
information systems (MIS) that can interact with expansion of the NER grant to an additional 16,000
wider government MIS represent an important households during the COVID lockdown. In several
and unrecognized resource for DRM planning countries in the region, all SA applicants provide
and response. SP MISs can provide large data bank account details to facilitate fast and effective
sets of useful geographic, demographic and other payment systems.
information on households not held elsewhere by
governments. SP registries routinely record the Interoperability between SP and wider govern-
location/address of households, quality of housing ment MISs is most advanced in Albania and North
and household demographics such as presence Macedonia. In Albania, beneficiary data on the NER
of young children, people with disability or old can be cross checked and verified with other gov-
people. Such data could usefully inform local risk ernment department systems such as the Directo-
assessments and the prioritization of assistance in rate of Taxation and Institute for Social Insurance.
response to crisis. The data could also inform the In North Macedonia, the Cash Benefit Management
selection of households for other DRR initiatives Information System (CBMIS) managed by the Min-
outside of crisis periods (such as, subsidies for istry of Labor and Social Policy (MLSP) represents
household insurance premiums, retrofitting grants a comprehensive SP registry accessible to social
or energy efficiency measures). Where household workers in all CSWs. Officials believe it has signif-
data can be cross checked and updated across icantly simplified the application process, reduced
multiple government departments, it is more likely duplication and reduced the incidence of abuse.
to be current and correct. SP systems in the focus The CBMIS also enables real-time exchange of data
countries are linked to secure and effective payment with multiple government agencies to confirm key
channels serving large numbers of households. application data.
The case studies found that although all SP MISs By comparison, the interoperability of SP data
contain valuable data sets on large proportions management systems in Romania and Bulgaria are
of the population, these have not been utilized less advanced. In Bulgaria, the Agency for Social
to inform DRM risk assessment, planning or Assistance (ASA) maintains a digitized database
response. All countries have electronic application, that holds the personal data of nearly five million
registration and payment systems for SP programs individuals and families who have applied for SA
and recipients. There are normally separate MISs payment. The ASA MIS can be cross referenced with
in place for SA, SI and LMP programs reflecting wider databases, such as the National Social Secu-
their administration by different agencies, but all rity Institute (NSSI) responsible for pensions and the
countries also benefit from comprehensive national National Revenue Authority. Cross checks require
ID systems. Having an ID number for each citizen from individual requests for permission from the state
birth provides an ideal unique identifier in engaging e-government agency (through a special system
with any government services, avoiding duplication. for inter-register exchange – RegiХ). In Romania,
Its use is also widely accepted in cross checking the SP MIS was assessed as fragmented with two
personal information across departments. That said, main MIS systems that both feed into the National
the quality and comprehensiveness of digital SP Agency for Payments and Social Inspection (NAPSI).
registries varies as does their interoperability with There is also no electronic cross referencing with
wider government systems. Additionally, the value other government departments; hence burden-
of existing SP data sets is somewhat undermined by some application processes that rely on officials
the coverage of programs. Even the largest SP MISs checking supporting documentation.
only include a subset of populations and are not a
comprehensive register of all poor households.
24
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Data and Information on Disaster Risk grant assistance. It is not clear that national stand-
and Household Vulnerability ard operating procedures or other formal guide-
lines for household level post-disaster assessments
In all case study countries, multiple agencies are exist in any of the countries assessed. Following the
involved in collecting data on natural disasters and immediate humanitarian assessment, each disas-
other hazards. This has been encouraged by vari- ter may be subject to a wide variety of needs and
ous EU Directives which mandate the collection loss assessments. These vary in how well they com-
and monitoring of geo-spatial and hazard data, prehensively document or quantify damage and
including climatic data. Hazard mapping and mete- losses from a household perspective. A summary
orological systems at the national level are often of post-disaster loss and damage assessment pro-
good. Although multiple ministries and institutions cesses is summarized in this regard in Table 4.
are responsible for tracking and monitoring differ-
ent hazards, this information stays within the silo In practice, no country maintains a comprehensive
of the respective agency. Consequently, there are central database that financially quantifies loss
weaknesses in how well data from multiple sources and damage for all disasters including household
are combined, analyzed and disseminated to inform level impacts. Romania is in the process of develop-
planning and response. Hazard data must be com- ing damage and loss databases. If these record data
bined with localized data on vulnerability and expo- on household level damage and losses, they would
sure to develop effective disaster risk assessments, be a key resource advancing the ASP agenda. In
DRR strategies and emergency/response plans. The practice, all countries establish various commissions
case studies found a lack of comprehensive cover- post-disaster to assess local damage and losses.
age, with gaps in systems and training necessary to These form the basis of appeals by municipalities
ensure they are put in place. for national government funds for recovery and
reconstruction. Only in Romania is compensation
Another key challenge is the failure to use hazard to homeowners explicitly prohibited as households
monitoring and early warning systems (EWS), par- are expected to have statutory disaster insurance.
ticularly for climate related disasters, to inform Elsewhere, once authorized, post-disaster compen-
ex-ante analysis and pre-agreed responses. The sation is usually allocated to municipalities which
case study countries generally have good EWS are then responsible to allocate compensation pay-
in place for most flooding and climatic disasters. ments. In Bulgaria, only the poorest are eligible for
Romania has an advanced SMS-based ‘push noti- any available compensation. Again, this is usually
fication’ system in place to provide very quick and subject to locally negotiated and ad hoc processes
localized weather and other hazard information. rather than standardized guidelines, which does not
These EWS play an important role in saving lives necessarily mean allocations are unfair or not trans-
and preventing losses. However, with such good parent. Priority is often given to the rehabilitation of
meteorological and other remote sensing data sys- infrastructure and public buildings, though support
tems in place, it should be relatively straightforward to households and farmers can be provided. The
to set technical benchmarks for each hazard. These provision of household level compensation is not
indicators could be used to define different catego- universal and may arrive many months, if not years,
ries of disaster risk for each hazard and, hence, to after the event with amounts based on budget
establish thresholds or automatic triggers for pre- available rather than losses incurred.
agreed ASP (or any other) responses. For example,
this could be a payment of OFA grants to house- The example of Gazi Baba Municipality in Skopje,
holds once a specified flood disaster has occurred. North Macedonia, illustrates the value of having
Currently, there appears to be limited modelling of standard methodologies for immediate and
historic, technical data for specific hazards to inform longer-term compensation (see Box 8). Rather than
cross-sectoral ex-ante planning for (and resourcing provide cash to individuals, municipalities will often
of) disaster response. use reconstruction funds to support households
by making bulk purchases of construction materi-
The assessment of disaster impact and response is als or providing construction services. This reflects
still almost exclusively undertaken post-shock. As a reluctance to make large payments directly to
outlined above, initial post-disaster assessments households who it is feared may not use them for
are led by civil protection teams comprising mul- reconstruction or repair. No data exist on the aver-
ti-disciplinary members that focus on identifying age amount of compensation normally provided
emergency relief for affected households. These to households or on the timeline for payments to
teams focus on recovery and work with municipal arrive. Thus, it is difficult to ascertain the impact of
agencies to provide immediate in-kind assistance, this assistance on the long-term poverty and vul-
such as food parcels, temporary shelter and OFA nerability of affected households.
25
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Table 4. Assessing the Impact of Disasters on Households – Typical Post-Disaster Assessments
Assessment Type Timing Lead Information Collected on Household
Local
Number of households affected and in need of
Within hours/as governments
Immediate rescue/ evacuation or without power/water.
soon as disaster Local firefighters,
Assessments Immediate lists of food and non-food supplies
hits Red Cross teams,
required such as tents, blankets and hygiene kits.
volunteer teams
More detailed schedule of losses in terms of damage
to houses, assets damaged or lost, impact on
Rapid Needs Day/weeks of Headed by Crisis farmland and agricultural production.
Assessments disaster Response Agency
Albania is establishing Needs Assessment and
Referral Units (NARUs).
Comprehensive financial damage and losses
assessments (DALA) for each sector based
Multi-disciplinary
on internationally accepted methodologies.
team
Post-Disaster Infrastructure and asset losses often translated into
Needs Weeks/ months Led by national macro-level impacts upon GDP growth and in some
Assessments after disaster disaster response cases poverty levels.
(PDNAs) agency with
Time consuming and resource intensive; not feasible
multi-sectoral
after every localized disaster, rather for major
representatives
disasters such as 2019 earthquake in Albania and
the 2015 and 2016 floods in North Macedonia.
Local In many countries, multi-disciplinary independent
commissions commissions are established to assess local level
authorized by damage and losses as part of compensation and
Post-Disaster
central Ministry rehabilitation processes. In Bulgaria and North
Loss and Damage Months or years
/ Council of Macedonia, this includes assessment of household
Assessment after
Ministers of level damage and compensation claims. Romania
Commissions
subordinated does not provide homeowner compensation for key
governmental disasters because of its requirement to have disaster
commission insurance.
There EU/UN have broad requirements to map
disaster losses as part of the Sendai Framework,
but there are no publicly accessible disaster loss
databases for any of the four case studies. Only
National Disaster Months or years Specified DRM Albania submits data to the global Desinventar
Loss Databases after Agency (international disaster information registry). The
Albania report found Desinventar data to be
“unreliable in terms of economic damages and
losses and inconsistent due to the different data
collection methodologies across agencies and years.”
Source: Dhima and Miluka 2020; Dragoman and Ianovici 2022; Gerovska and Rajkovchevski 2022; and Shopoy and Veleva 2022.
Building Block 4: Finance and timely funding is available when needed and
not months or years later.
ASP interventions can only be effective if they are
backed by appropriate resources. This includes Government Expenditure on Social
overall government expenditure on SP and wider Protection
DRF mechanisms. Different ASP interventions are
required at different points in the disaster cycle. This Despite the extensiveness of SP systems in the case
requires an ex-ante approach to ensure adequate study countries, government expenditure on SP is
26
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
low by European standards. Figure 3 below shows Figure 3. Government SP Expenditure as a Propor-
government SP expenditure (by category) in these tion of Gross Domestic Product in Albania, Bulgaria,
countries as a proportion of GDP is higher than North Macedonia, Romania and ECA (Percent)
the ECA Region but below the EC average of 21.5
16%
percent of GDP for the same categories (Eurostat
2020). Figure 3 also shows that SI accounts for 14%
most SP expenditure in all countries. This is normal 12%
in middle- and upper-income countries and reflects
10%
the strong contributory SI mechanisms in place.
13%
Given the finding under Building Block 2 around the 8% 11%
role of pensions and wider SA programs in reducing 10%
6%
poverty, there is a strong case to expand govern- 7% 7%
4%
ment expenditure on SA programs that target the
poor. The funding allocated to SA programs rep- 2% 1.8% 1.3%
1.1%
resents just over 1 percent of GDP in Bulgaria and 0%
2%
1% 1% 1%
2%
Romania, which is lower than the ECA average of
ia
ia
ia
ia
ge
1.9 percent (SPEED database, World Bank 2022e).
an
on
ar
an
ra
lg
lb
m
ed
ve
Bu
A stronger case needs to be made in expanding
A
Ro
ac
A
A
M
government spending to enhance the coverage
EC
th
or
and adequacy of SA programs that most effectively
N
reduce poverty and, hence, vulnerability to disasters. Labor Market Programs Social Care Services
Social Assistance Social Insurance
Source: World Bank SPEED database.
Note: SPEED online database reflects the latest year of data
per country, not date of access. Data cited in the above Figure
are from variable datasets 2017-2021.
Box 8. Skopje Flash Flooding in 2016
In August 2016, the peri-urban municipality of Gazi Baba in Skopje expe-
rienced a significant flash flood that tore through the town and destroyed
or damaged over 200 houses. The mayor of the City of Skopje estab-
lished a Protection and Rescue Center headquarters to coordinate the
response. In the immediate aftermath, affected families were supported
by the municipality to access the maximum one-off assistance (OFA)
payment of €500. Some households were provided temporary shelter in
public buildings by the municipality while others moved in with relatives
or made temporary repairs to their own homes.
Following the disaster, several commissions comprising expert witnesses
were established under the Republic’s Commission for Damage Assess-
ment to quantify damage and losses. This included the Gazi Baba’s
commission to assess damage to housing using the Commission’s
standard methodology. A report was submitted to the central Commis-
sion and a compensation package agreed with the municipality which
oversaw the distribution of individual compensation payments. All
affected households received payments of between €1,500 and
€12,000 by November of the same year.
The speed and effectiveness of this response was a combination of the
high profile of the disaster – which occurred in the capital city - as well
as financial guidelines and resources available to respond. Skopje munic-
ipalities have established a solidarity fund to support financial interven-
tion to affected households in response to disasters, which is not the
case outside the capital.
Source: Field visit and interviews with Gazi Baba Officials in September 2022.
Photography by Robert Atanasovski, August 2016. 27
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Maturity of Government Disaster Risk to develop much more robust strategies and instru-
Financing Systems ments for disaster risk financing (DRF). Figure 4 lists
some of the most common DRF mechanisms used
In all countries, the current financing mechanisms for disasters of different frequency and magnitude.
for disaster response are inadequate to fund the In each case, the macro-fiscal modelling produces
estimated costs of covering the asset losses asso- disaster loss and damage calculations above the
ciated with disasters. Several external assess- current reserve budget or DRF instruments availa-
ments, primarily by the EU and World Bank, have ble in any of the four case study countries. Table 5
attempted to quantify the annual average costs of summarizes the main mechanisms currently used by
disaster risks in the case study countries. The World governments to finance disaster responses.
Bank’s “Overlooked” report (Kerblat et al. 2021)
assessed annual average disaster losses for Albania Local-level or municipality contingency or soli-
and Romania at US$125 million and US$1,429 mil- darity funds exist in most places, as prescribed by
lion respectively. DRF diagnostics have been pro- national laws. Yet, even where national regulations
duced with World Bank support for Albania (World exist on the percentage of annual expenditure to
Bank 2020a) and Bulgaria (World Bank 2021b), and be allocated to local reserves, such as in Romania
both reinforce the gap in DRF mechanisms availa- and Albania, they appear to be rarely observed or
ble. Box 9 on Bulgaria summarizes findings from an enforced. That said, municipalities that experience
EU and World Bank report (World Bank 2021a) that chronic disasters do attempt to maintain emergency
calculated disaster losses for EU member states. reserves. It is not clear that these are budgeted as
Such studies are used to encourage governments percentages of wider annual budgets or based on
Table 5. Primary Government DRF Mechanisms in Case Study Countries
Country Primary Central Government Disaster Financing Mechanism
Reserve Fund of the Council of Ministers.
Albania Line ministries and municipalities are supposed to earmark 2-4 percent of budget for DRR
and CP activities.
Reserve Fund of the Interagency Commission for Relief and Recovery to the Council of
Bulgaria
Ministers (Budget approximately €116 million per year).
Central Government Reserve Funds.
North Macedonia Law requires this should equate to 3 percent of national budget. In 2020, reserves amounted
to approximately €4m or 1.1 percent of total state budget.
Central Government Reserve Budget Fund and Intervention Funds.
Romania
Local governments to allocate up to 5 percent for local reserve funds.
Source: Dhima and Miluka 2020; Dragoman and Ianovici 2022; Gerovska and Rajkovchevski 2022; and Shopoy and Veleva 2022.
Figure 4. Matching Disaster Financing Instruments with Disaster Risks
Three-tiered disaster risk financing strategy
DISASTER RISKS DISASTER RISK FINANCING
INSTRUMENTS
Low Major
High risk layer Disaster risk insurance
(e.g., major earthquake, major
Frequency of event
Severity of impact
tropical cyclone)
Medium risk layer Contingent credit
(e.g.,floods, small earthquake)
Low risk layer Contingency budget,
(e.g., localized floods, national reserves,
High Minor landslides) annual budget allocation
Source: Ghesquiere and Mahul 2010.
28
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
historic or projected disaster risk, but likely more The lack of DRF mechanisms reflects the limited
a factor of what can be afforded. As mentioned in abilities of the case study governments to track
Box 8 above, the municipalities comprising Skopje, actual, or model future, costs in relation to differ-
North Macedonia, maintain a Solidarity Fund that ent types of disaster risk. As highlighted, govern-
they have even used to send assistance for disas- ments are not adequately collecting or aggregating
ters in neighboring countries, such as for the 2019 sufficient quantitative data on damages and losses
Albanian earthquake. At both the national and local to develop such models, for any disaster response.
levels, budget reallocation is acknowledged as a The costs of financing ASP responses have received
regular mechanism to finance disaster response. even less attention. The failure to quantify the
Like data on the costs of disasters, however, it is not recurrent or long-term costs of any form of ASP
clear that it is aggregated on an annual basis and if response reinforces the finding around the lack of
so, it is not publicly available. disaster risk analysis for ASP (set out in Section 3).
This can only be addressed by much further anal-
The allocation of local or national contingency ysis of the direct and indirect costs of disasters on
funds for ASP intervention must compete along- households and modelling the long-term financial
side all other post-disaster requirements. Where implications of alternative ASP responses.
they exist, national and local contingency/solidar-
ity funds are not governed by clear guidelines or Household Disaster Insurance
protocols. Therefore, when a disaster does hit, the
contingency reserves can be called on for every The coverage and uptake of all forms of disaster
element of a response leaving difficult, and often insurance is woefully low in all case study countries.
politically driven, decisions on the prioritization and This is despite regular recommendations and some
allocation of resources. This may mean marginalized important initiatives to address this gap. As men-
groups with the least political influence, such as tioned above, only Romania has a legal requirement
Roma, are unlikely to be a priority. Given the limited for mandatory insurance for all homeowners from
understanding of ASP and lack of analysis to quan- the government-supported Insurance Pool against
tify household level losses, DRF resources have only Natural Disasters (PAID). Legally, noncompliance
been provided for minimal OFA type assistance with the law is punishable by a fine; yet despite this,
and the limited compensation payments outlined insurance uptake is estimated at 20 percent. The
above. main reason seems to be a lack of enforcement. Other
weaknesses include the lack of a deductible, which
There is limited experience of adopting ex-ante encourages insurance fraud and increases the cost
financing mechanisms. In 2020, Romania’s Central of servicing the product; insufficient coverage limits;
Reserve Fund was topped up with a World Bank and priced such that it does not cover the long-
CAT-DDO of €400 million, which was drawn down term cost of the risk. Documenting this experience
to support early action in response to the COVID-19 would provide lessons for other governments going
pandemic. Romania and Bulgaria have drawn upon forward in a region where there is limited knowl-
the EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) which provides finan- edge or trust in insurance services. For example,
cial assistance to emergency and recovery opera- Albania is proposing to introduce a similar mandate.
tions in member states (and accession countries).
Romania received €47 million between 2007 and Nonetheless, Romania provides an excellent exam-
2016 for floods and a drought. The EUSF has clear ple of ASP by using SP systems to protect the
regulations guiding the use of funds which specify assets of the poor against disaster risk. The law on
recipients cannot use funds for ASP responses. The disaster insurance stipulates that local authorities
DRF diagnostics for Albania and Bulgaria recom- must pay the compulsory premium into the PAID
mend that countries develop financial risk-layering account for individuals benefiting from ‘social ben-
strategies to draw on instruments beyond national, efits.’ Data from the Institute of National Statistics
and limited, reserve funds. Suggested mecha- indicates that the number of households for which
nisms include capital market instruments such as compulsory home insurance was paid by local
catastrophe bonds or direct access to international authorities in 2019 (175,990) broadly equates with
reinsurance markets. There has been limited pro- the numbers enrolled on the GMI program, but it is
gress on this. DRF diagnostics have also recom- not clear if this is the only eligible group. It is also
mended strengthening SP systems so that they can not clear if any of these policies have ever been trig-
be used to channel funds quickly and securely to gered and who receives the payments. This repre-
poor households to minimize the immediate nega- sents a very interesting case study of pre-emptive
tive impacts in terms of consumption losses (World ASP involving significant cross-sectoral coopera-
Bank 2020a and 2021b). tion. As such, further analysis and sharing of lessons
learned would be valuable.
29
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Experience in introducing household or farm level
insurance elsewhere in the case study countries has
also seen lackluster results. Recent efforts to intro-
duce agricultural insurance in Bulgaria and North
Macedonia have seen very low uptake. The expan-
sion of disaster insurance is a priority in Bulgar-
ia’s National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction
(2018-2030). However, to date only one insurance
company has started providing parametric insur-
ance for farmers against drought (WB 2018c). North
Macedonia recently approved a Law on Compul-
sory Agricultural Insurance (2022). It is hoped that
this will accelerate efforts to ensure all farmers are
insured against climatic and other risks. To date only
four out of 11 insurance companies in the country
offer agricultural insurance and, even with govern-
ment subsidies of up to 60 percent on premiums,
uptake remains very low, with only 2-5 percent of
farmers covered most years. The case study report
attributes the slow progress and low interest down
to frequent interventions of the state in compen-
sating the damages of farmers.
30
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Section 5. Designing Social Protection
Systems for Future Shocks
This section highlights the key findings of this qualitative or ethnographic studies in disas-
synthesis review and suggests interventions to ter affected locations to yield deeper insights.
improve existing SP and DRM systems to respond
to increasing and inevitable natural disasters.8 1.2 Use assessment of household-level impacts
The key overarching issues, common to all coun- of natural disasters to improve the design
tries, are examined in more detail along with priority and expansion of government investments in
interventions required to address the critical barri- ASP. Quantification of household level disas-
ers preventing the purposeful use of SP systems in ter impact can then be used to demonstrate
response to natural disasters; this section does not how a failure to invest in SP and targeted and
provide granular recommendations for each of the timely ASP undermines other poverty reduction
case study countries, as these are found in the indi- efforts. It will also help identify which popula-
vidual case study reports. Table 6, at the end of this tions (both geographically and demograph-
report, provides a more systematic summary of key ically) are more vulnerable to various natural
findings and suggested responses organized around disasters. The improved analysis of popula-
the ASP Building Blocks used in the case study tions exposed to disaster risk will also improve
reports. These may not be relevant to all case study national and local disaster risk assessments and
countries but may well be relevant in some countries planning processes. For example, locally agreed
elsewhere in the region. Additionally, Boxes 9 – 14 protocols to trigger pre-agreed OFA payments.
in this section highlight a variety of ASP interven-
tions or programs from elsewhere in the world that
could be applied or modified by governments in this Key Finding 2. SP systems are not
region in ex-ante planning for natural disasters. designed to respond effectively to
natural disasters.
Key Finding 1. Analysis and All the case study countries have relatively compre-
understanding of household level hensive and mature SP systems, though designed
disaster risk and impact are limited. to address idiosyncratic or life-cycle vulnerabilities,
including those arising from job loss rather than
There is a severe lack of country-specific data and covariate shocks arising from natural disasters. The
analyses on the costs and impact of disasters on systems are heavily skewed towards social insur-
households. The inability to quantify how natural ance which favors those who work(ed) in the formal
disasters increase the level and depth of poverty sector, with a bias towards old-age pensions. Social
at local and national levels undermines the justifi- assistance benefits, although they have expanded
cation for investments in ASP. The failure to under- in recent years and respond to a range of vulner-
stand how different hazards impact upon different abilities across the life cycle, still have limited cov-
households in the short, medium and long term erage relative to poverty levels and, in some cases,
undermines efforts to design effective ASP and SP their adequacy is low. Social services respond to a
responses. This analysis would also enhance national range of vulnerabilities, although their coverage
and local DRM policy, planning and implementation. tends to be limited. Nonetheless, together, these
programs provide an important safety net to those
Proposed Policy Actions who receive them, particularly where households
can access multiple benefits and services. Currently,
1.1 Undertake additional research on the household most benefits are categorical or subject to tight
level impact of natural disasters. Leverage and eligibility requirements. During the pandemic gov-
compare existing quantitative datasets, such as ernments used SP systems to scale up vertically,
the EU-SILC, to enable analysis of changes to but there was and continues to be limited ability to
disaster-affected households’ well-being over expand horizontally quickly—should a shock affect
time (see Box 9). Quantitative analysis could large numbers of households not already registered
be supplemented with additional localized in or eligible for existing SP benefits.
8
It is anticipated that these recommendations will also strengthen the capacity of SP systems to respond to other types of shocks.
31
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Box 9. Using Existing Datasets to Understand the Impact
of Natural Disasters on Households
Robust evidence on the impact of (A)SP interventions in response to natural disasters is lacking, as the
unpredictable nature of natural disasters means it is hard to collect appropriate ex-ante household data.
Nonetheless, given that most upper- and middle-income countries collect regular detailed statistics through
multiple agencies on an exhaustive range of natural disaster topics, this challenge can be overcome. National
household living standards or income / expenditure surveys, such as the Survey on Income and Living Condi-
tions (SILC) carried out in the EU, play a key role here. In recent years, there has been increased efforts to use
(and augment) existing data collection processes to understand the household impact of natural disasters.
Following severe flooding across the country in Thailand in 2011, a set of questions was added to the annual
Thai Household Socio-Economic Survey (THSES) in 2012 and subsequent years. THSES is a detailed panel
survey that has enabled researchers to analyze household level welfare before and after the flood providing
new insights. Satellite imagery was used to corroborate which households were directly or indirectly affected.
The research identified that the economic impact on households indirectly affected was almost as large as
those directly affected by flooding. Urban households suffered greater impact than rural households which
suffer annual (though lesser) flooding and therefore have greater coping mechanism. SMEs suffered major
supply chain issues and loss of demand which reduced incomes more than any direct flood damage.
In Ireland, research into the impact of flood-related disruptions to the road network in Galway County drew
on existing Place of Work School Census of Anonymized Records (POWSCAR) alongside microdata sets
from Ireland’s SILC data. The analysis found that the floods had significantly reduced wage earnings, by up
to 39 percent in the worst affected areas, with low-income individuals being the most affected.
A study in New Zealand examined 13 economically significant flood events between 2000 and 2019 to
understand their impact on household incomes. The analysis drew on data from New Zealand’s Integrated
Data Infrastructure and Historical Weather Events Catalogue and compared it with National Institute of
Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) and combined this with Inland Revenue data on registered indi-
viduals in the affected areas. The study found almost no impact in incomes as result of flooding; the impact
of near universal disaster insurance on this finding is not clear.
Sources: Noy et al. (2021), Kilgarriff et al. (2019) and Roy (2022).
Proposed Policy Actions
2.2 Improve the interoperability of SP databases
2.1 Consider ASP from a wider SP systems per- and wider government management informa-
spective. This involves recognizing the poten- tion systems (MIS) to enhance service delivery
tial of the staff and the operational and delivery during crises and facilitate horizontal expan-
systems of the whole SP sector (not just SA) sion. Box 10 below outlines the benefits of
to enhance DRM responses. This includes SP interoperable e-government systems. Govern-
agencies’ knowledge and data on the poorest ments should examine (ex-ante) how existing
and most marginalized groups and individu- SP MISs, which contain large amounts of rela-
als. Examples of good practices (which in some tively current data on significant proportions of
instances are in place) include: the population, can be better utilized and inte-
grated with other government MISs containing
• DRM agencies explicitly defining the role of household/individual level data. Cross-depart-
SP staff in the registration of disaster-affected mental efforts on MIS design and data collec-
populations, delivery of (which) ASP responses, tion/updating can inform decision making in
their participation in the development of risk crises and, thereby, enhance responses (pre-
assessments, contingency planning and scaling and post-disaster) to disaster-affected popula-
responses. tions whether they are recipients of SP services
and benefits or not. Albania’s experience of
• Using SP data and staff to inform the prioriti- using previous SP applicant data to scale up
zation of households most vulnerable to natural during the Covid-19 crisis was a good start in
disasters in relation to wider DRM led infrastruc- using wider data sets to maintain ‘shadow’ reg-
ture works including retrofitting or resettlement. istries of potentially vulnerable households.
32
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Box 10. Improving the Interoperability of Government
Management Information Systems
While all government departments collect large amounts of data, duplicative information is collected by
different agencies, dispersed across fragmented registers and databases, stored in various formats and
managed in organizational silos. Many governments are aspiring to develop interoperable and connected
management information systems whereby data collected by any government entity may be available
where and when needed, with security and privacy centrally managed and safeguarded. Accessing and
merging data collected by different government agencies is extremely challenging and requires strategic
leadership and cross-cutting capabilities (legal, technical and organizational) to achieve.
Estonia’s X-Road system, developed in 2001, is a leading example of a government system that provides
unified and secure data exchange among organizations. As part of its ‘Zero Bureaucracy Initiative’ it uses
a single e-ID for all citizens. The e-ID can be used in applying or accessing any government and many
non-government services based on the ‘once-only’ principle. It enables the government to combine
different services and data sources in an easy and cost-efficient manner.
E-government systems using digital ID systems can dramatically improve the interoperability between SP
systems and wider government systems. The potential applications and benefits include:
• Enable cross-checking and validating an applicant’s eligibility for benefits and services in real time, either
means-tested or categorical.
• Reduce the time and paperwork required from applicants to access SP benefits and services.
• Enable SP recipients to be automatically referred to wider government services, such as education,
training, employment intermediation and health which can raise economic welfare.
• Enable other government agencies to refer non-SP recipients affected by disasters to SP providers for
ASP assistance, using GIS and other locator data.
• Effectively design and target appropriate early warning information and disaster information to citizens.
• Cross-reference spatial and socio-economic data to prioritize households for ex-ante DRM interven-
tions such as disaster insurance premiums, grants for disaster-resilient housing refurbishment, resettle-
ment, etc.
Source: World Bank (2022e).
2.3 Governments should ensure at least one exist- above) which would provide reasonable esti-
ing SA program is explicitly designated to pro- mates of the likely losses and gaps in consump-
vide flexible and temporary ASP assistance to tion experienced by households pose-shock.
households in the face of natural hazards. In For example, a disaster-affected household
most case study countries, one-off assistance losing their livelihoods for several months fol-
(OFA) grants, particularly at the local level, often lowing a disaster could be supported with a
fulfill this role but by default rather than design. one-off grant to reflect asset loss but also to
Legislation and guidelines should provide for provide a minimum income until their livelihood
OFA (or another) assistance to be both one-off is re-established.
and recurrent, as (and if) required, in recognition
of the longer-term needs of households arising 2.4 Ensure SP legislation and policies make explicit
from climate-induced shocks (see Box 11). The provision for pre-planned or automatic ASP
amount and duration of these payments could interventions in relation to pre-defined disas-
then be set at pre-agreed levels and linked to ter events. Consider how existing legal or reg-
pre-agreed triggers for different hazards and ulatory frameworks may need to be revised or
levels of severity. The appropriate size and modified to enable ASP interventions that sup-
duration of payments would draw on the anal- port a DRM agenda (such as those outlined in
ysis of household level disaster risk (discussed the Boxes in this section).
33
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Box 11. ASP for Disaster Response – Australia’s Disaster
Recovery Payment and Allowance
Australia has a long history of disasters, mainly linked to natural hazards. Its highly variable climate, with
temperature and rainfall fluctuating from season to season and year to year, can result in hot and dry
conditions associated with droughts and bushfires and with severe rainstorms leading to flooding. Austral-
ia’s emergency preparedness and emergency management infrastructure has evolved to respond to these
shocks. The Australian Government Crisis Management Framework is the overarching policy for coordi-
nating ‘whole of government’ (both federal and state level) crisis management. This framework was put in
place in 2012 and is regularly updated.
The Government of Australia has an established mechanism for delivering payments to Australian residents
affected by a major disaster through the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment (AGDRP)
and for those whose income has been affected by a disaster through the Disaster Recovery Allowance
(AGDRA). The Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management activates the AGDRP by
determining, in writing, that an event in a specified location is a major disaster. The written declaration will
describe how the disaster has adversely affected the area which in turn determines the eligibility criteria
for receiving an AGDRP. The Minister also determines whether there is a need for income support in the
form of the Disaster Recovery Allowance. This is authorized by considering the number of workplaces, and
hence jobs, that have been affected. Although the Department of Home Affairs has overall responsibility for
these payments, they are delivered by Services Australia which is the agency responsible for delivering the
majority of the government’s income support benefits.
Source: Sandford 2021.
Key Finding 3. There are significant training resources being used to cascade the
gaps in understanding and development of key DRM tools, such as disaster
operationalizing ASP in both DRM risk assessments, response plans, and damage
and loss assessments.
and SP institutions.
Government SP and DRM institutions tend to 3.3 Review and better integrate ASP provisions
operate in siloes. The main exception is local level and interventions into DRM legislation and
responses in the immediate aftermath and recovery policy. A good example in the region is North
phases of a formally declared disaster. ASP is a rela- Macedonia’s modification of its SP legislation
tively new concept and one that is poorly understood enabling the GMA to provide extended assis-
by government staff at all levels. The case study tance when a state of emergency is declared.
countries are all in the process of improving DRM Examples from elsewhere are shown in Boxes
legislative and policy frameworks to strengthen 9-14 in this section.
planning and delivery systems. However, the lack of
knowledge on ASP and weak analysis of household Key Finding 4. There are no
level disaster risk is limiting the explicit inclusion of comprehensive databases tracking
any significant ASP responses in any emerging DRM
systems at local or national levels. This misses the
the financial loss and damage of all
opportunity to harness the ability of SP systems to disasters.
quickly reach vulnerable populations with cash ben- The incidence and costs of disasters are increasing,
efits and social care services. placing greater fiscal pressure on governments,
while current government systems to monitor and
Proposed Policy Actions track both the direct and indirect financial impacts
of disasters are weak and fragmented. It is recog-
3.1 Develop training and awareness raising pro- nized that efforts are ongoing to strengthen these
grams and modules to enhance SP and DRM systems; however, to date no country maintains a
staffs’ understanding of ASP and its applica- comprehensive, central database that quantifies
tion in practice. loss and damage for all disasters in financial terms.
Without systematically tracking the costs of all dis-
3.2 Incorporate modules on household level dis- asters on infrastructure, firms and households, it is
aster risk analysis (as outlined in Section 3) impossible to quantify disaster risk and examine the
into the emerging national methodologies and options for disaster risk financing (DRF).
34
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Box 12. Nepal’s Post-Earthquake Rural Reconstruction
Housing Program
In April 2015, Nepal experienced a devastating earthquake that damaged or destroyed over 755,000 homes.
Given the scale of the destruction, the government established a national reconstruction agency (NRA).
Following a national Earthquake Household Damages and Characteristics (EHDC) survey, the NRA, with
donor support, established the Rural Housing Reconstruction Program. This provided eligible house-
holds with cash payments totaling NR 300,000 (approx. €2,100) paid in three tranches on completion
of pre-agreed construction milestones (such as, on completion of walls or roof) and compliant with earth-
quake resistant construction techniques. This approach ensured household grants were used to fund a
‘build-back-better’ approach in the replacement of lost housing.
Critical to the success was the adoption of a decentralized ‘Owner Driven Reconstruction and Recovery’
(ODRR) approach. This ensured remote communities were supported and trained by local NRA officers
or NGOs to meet earthquake compliance standards and to achieve efficiencies in the use of labor and
bulk procurement of materials. Households had a maximum of 24 months to complete all works to remain
eligible for payments.
Source: Suvedi 2020 and World Bank 2016.
Proposed Policy Actions and ensure that (some of) these are specifically
designed to finance ASP responses. The DRF
4.1 Governments should develop and maintain dis- diagnostic reports for Albania and Bulgaria,
aster damage and loss databases that record highlighted above, provide a good basis from
the financial impact of disasters using stand- which to develop these.
ardized guidance. These should include house-
hold level losses in addition to those related to 5.2 Governments could consider the automatic
infrastructure and other public assets. release of disaster-response budgets to local
government and stakeholders for SP responses
Key Finding 5. Disaster Risk in the wake of defined disasters. Municipalities
Financing mechanisms in place to and local organizations such as the Red Cross
respond to disasters, including ASP, play a key role in the provision of appropriate
are inadequate. and speedy assistance to households follow-
ing disasters. There is much merit in ex-ante
There are limited disaster risk financing (DRF) instru- consideration of how disaster budget alloca-
ments in place to finance current levels of disaster tions could be linked to pre-agreed triggers
risk, and none of the identified DRF instruments using hazard magnitude or intensity indica-
are specifically allocated or earmarked for ASP tors. Such pre-agreed disasters budgets would
responses. Current budget allocations to national be allocated by municipalities (or other actors)
and local reserve funds are far below the levels of according to pre-agreed and documented pro-
disaster risk indicated by current damage and loss cesses. Municipalities should be encouraged
estimates. Given the limited recognition of the role to develop guidelines ex-ante on the prioriti-
of ASP in disaster response, there have been no zation/allocation of the designated ASP grant
efforts to model the DRF requirements for ASP (as recommended above) for one-off as well as
responses to any disaster risk. In short, all govern- recurrent payments as appropriate.
ments and households lack sufficient DRF mecha-
nisms to cope with the current and future disaster 5.3 Efforts should be intensified to expand access
risks, placing an unsustainable reliance of budget to and take up of household and agricultural
reallocations when disasters hit. insurance. Romania has shown that legislation
mandating this is insufficient without appro-
Proposed Policy Actions priate enforcement. Further research analyzing
the reasons for the lack of take up of existing
5.1 All countries should develop national DRF schemes is required to ensure the lessons and
strategies that set out how disaster risks will experience elsewhere is built into any emergent
be financed. These should include an expanded schemes. See Boxes 13 and 14 on insurance
range of pre-agreed DRF instruments in place approaches in the Caribbean and New Zealand.
35
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
5.4 Subsidizing insurance premiums for the poor-
est households is an effective SP and DRF
intervention that should be expanded else-
where. Experience to date in Romania warrants
further examination to document the lessons
learned and to inform better practice in piloting
and rolling out similar schemes elsewhere.
5.5 Develop these ex-ante financial modeling
capabilities to estimate the financial require-
ments of various possible ASP responses. With
improved understanding of household level
disaster risk (as recommended above), govern-
ments should develop these ex-ante to assess
their relative costs.
Box 13. Anticipatory Financing for Natural Disaster – The
Caribbean Example
Each year, the 24 member states of the Caribbean Catastrophe Reinsurance Fund (CCRIF) facility purchase
tropical cyclone and / or earthquake and / or excess rainfall parametric insurance policies. Since its inception
in 2007, the Facility has made 58 pay-outs totaling US$260 million to 16 members. These payouts support
governments to assist their populations, communities, businesses and key sectors such as education,
tourism and agriculture. There are a range of parametric insurance policies available which make payments
based on the intensity of a natural hazard event (for example, hurricane wind speed, earthquake intensity
or volume of rainfall), the exposure or assets affected by the event and the amount of loss caused by the
event, calculated in a pre-agreed model. CCRIF does not need to wait for on-the-ground assessments of
loss and damage to make payouts, unlike with indemnity insurance. This enables the Facility to disburse
funds to members within 14 days of an event.
Several Caribbean states have worked with CCRIF and other donors to develop a parametric microinsur-
ance product called the Livelihood Protection Policy (LPP). Targeted at individuals, the LPP is designed to
help protect the livelihoods of vulnerable low-income individuals, such as small farmers, tourism workers,
fishers, market vendors and day laborers by providing quick cash payouts following extreme weather events
(specifically, high winds and heavy rainfall). The LPP is designed to reduce vulnerability and to sustain the
livelihoods of low-income communities. Policyholders (mainly small farmers) in Jamaica and Saint Lucia
have received payouts allowing them to get back on their feet and realize concrete earnings. For example,
following Hurricane Matthew in 2016, 31 individuals in Saint Lucia received payouts totaling US$102,000
on their Livelihood Protection Policies.
Source: Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility and German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation
and Nuclear Safety 2019.
Box 14. Homeowner Disaster Insurance in New Zealand
In New Zealand, the government’s Earthquake Commission (EQC) provides automatic first loss cover for
valid claims for all policyholders of residential fire insurance. Hazards covered comprise earthquake, natural
landslip, tsunami, volcanic eruption, hydrothermal activity, restricted storm or flood damage to residential
land and fire following any of the afore-mentioned events.
Premiums are collected through a compulsory levy added to all homeowner policies by private insurers
which transfer the levy to the EQC for investment by the Natural Disaster Fund. Owners of non-insured
property can expect no help from the government. An estimated 98 percent of all households are covered
by the EQC insurance.
Source: McAneney et al. 2016.
36
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Table 6. Summary of Emerging Issues and Suggested Interventions
EMERGING ISSUES SUGGESTED INTERVENTIONS
Building Block 1: Institutional Arrangements and Partnerships
Legal and Policy Framework • Integrate DRM provisions into SP legislation
and policies, at a minimum, allowing one social
• SP legislation and national policies rarely
assistance program to expand horizontally
explicitly mandate the use of ASP in enhancing
and vertically in response to climate-induced
DRM response, beyond post-disaster
shocks.
humanitarian response and emergency social
services. • Integrate ASP provisions into DRM legislation,
policies and plans to harness the SP system to
• Legal and regulatory framework does not
provide rapid support directly to households
provide much scope for automatically scaling
affected by disasters for their protection,
of SP programs in response to shocks.
recovery and rehabilitation.
Institutional Capacity and Multi-Sectoral
Coordination
• Establish high-level working committee to
• SP and DRM institutions operate in siloes and review and enhance the role of SP in DRM.
have limited understanding of ASP.
• Develop training and awareness raising
• SP involvement in inter-agency coordination programs and modules to enhance SP and
varies – weakest at level of DRM policy and DRM staffs’ understanding of ASP and its
planning. application in practice.
• Red Cross Societies play an important role in • Governments should utilize RCS experiences
disaster response in all countries and are often and capacity in rolling out DRM processes
the only agency working at municipality level including the development of ASP systems.
to undertake community level pre-disaster risk
assessments and contingency planning.
Building Block 2: Programs and Delivery Systems
Poverty and Vulnerability
• Lack of rigorous analysis of SP systems role
in reducing poverty and building resilience to
disaster. • Improve collection and analysis of poverty
• Overall coverage of SP programs is high but and vulnerability data, to include exposure to
dominated by SI programs. different disaster risks.
• Coverage of SA programs is far lower than the • Review eligibility criteria, registration processes
proportions of population in poverty in each and transfer amounts to ensure wider and
country. more impactful coverage of the poorest.
• Adequacy of SA transfers tends to be low, • Ongoing analysis of SP system to examine
although some countries allow receipt of impact on poverty reduction, including LMP
multiple benefits. interventions.
• LMPs have potential to build resilience but
have tiny coverage and impact is limited or not
robustly assessed.
37
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
EMERGING ISSUES SUGGESTED INTERVENTIONS
Delivery Capacity • Simplify and expedite application, registration
and validation processes.
• Nationwide delivery systems are established
and generally effective. • Cross check data using internal government
MIS to remove onus on applicant to provide
• There are capacity gaps particularly around
multiple documents, as is being done in some
staff in rural areas.
countries.
• Application processes can be long and
• Record payment information of all applicants
bureaucratic undermining access and coverage
at time of application to avoid secondary
of SA programs, although reforms are going
rounds of data collection.
to facilitate access and harness investments in
data systems. • Develop training and awareness raising
programs and modules to enhance SP and
• Payment systems are robust.
DRM staffs’ understanding of ASP and its
application in practice.
• Support organizations to put in place business
continuity plans to ensure the functioning of
essential staff, as well as surge capacity, during
times of crises.
Building Block 3: Data and Information Systems
SP Data and Information Systems • Improve data and information systems tracking
household poverty and vulnerability generally
• All countries are expanding e-government
(see examples in Box 9).
systems however some are more advanced
than others. • Examine how existing SP MISs can be better
utilized to identify, and potentially channel
• Little to no evidence of SP systems being used
responses to those with highest disaster risk.
to inform DRM planning or response.
• Examine the opportunities to expand the
• SA programs collect a wide range of very useful
inter-operability of wider government MIS
data that could inform DRM planning and
to enhance cross-sectoral/departmental
response; however sometimes these datasets
collaboration.
cover limited proportions of the population.
• SI programs have MISs that include much
larger proportions of the population but
limited data on poverty and vulnerability.
Data and Information on Disaster Risk and • Ensure locally-specify disaster risk assessment
Household Vulnerability and response plans exist in all areas and
include ASP responses.
• Systems for hazard mapping and early warning
are good however the coverage and quality • Undertake specific research/longitudinal data
of local level disaster risk assessment and collection systems to track the impact (and
contingency planning is poor. recovery) of households in the aftermath of
different disaster risks.
• There has been no/limited effort to use
extensive disaster risk mapping and • Use this data to inform the design (and
forecasting information to inform pre-agreed piloting) of improved ASP responses.
multi-sectoral responses – including ASP.
• Examination of the impact of post-disaster
assistance in reducing poverty and vulnerability
is lacking.
38
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
EMERGING ISSUES SUGGESTED INTERVENTIONS
Post-Shock Household Needs, Damage and Loss • Establish and maintain comprehensive disaster
Assessments damage and loss databases that also record/
quantify household level impacts.
• No country maintains a comprehensive central
database that financially quantifies loss and • Develop standardized methodologies for
damage for all disasters. recording loss and damage at household levels
including consumption and livelihood losses in
• Local commissions establish immediate losses
addition to asset losses.
– but focus on infrastructure, public buildings,
and productive premises. • Develop pre-agreed policies and guidelines on
household level compensation requirements
• Governments vary in the provision of
(in conjunction with policies on household level
compensation to households but when it exists
insurance – see below).
it is usually too little and too late.
Building Block 4: Finance
Government Spending on SP • Further expand and reorient SA expenditures,
to maximize poverty reduction impacts.
• SP expenditure is generally below the EU
Recognizing the existing fiscal strain of
average despite much higher poverty rates.
expanding pension liabilities.
• SP expenditure is highly skewed towards SI
rather than poverty targeted SA programs.
Maturity of DRF Systems and Quantification of • Governments should develop disaster damage
Disaster Risk and loss databases that quantify the costs of
disasters and include household level losses.
• All countries current DRF mechanisms are
inadequate to cover the estimated costs of • All countries should develop national DRF
covering the asset losses associated with strategies that expand the range of pre-
disasters. agreed DRF instruments in place and, ensure
that (some of) these are specifically designed
• National and local contingency/solidarity
to finance ASP responses.
funds are not governed by clear guidelines or
protocols. • Governments could consider the automatic
release of disaster-response budgets to local
• There is limited progress in developing ex-ante
government and stakeholders based on pre-
financing mechanisms.
agreed, objectively measured hazard indicators.
• The use and coverage of insurance in all
• Introduce/enhance interventions to expand
countries is woefully underdeveloped or not
access to and take up of household and
enforced; almost all poor households are
agricultural insurance.
completely uninsured.
• Further research analyzing the reasons for lack
• No evidence of use of parametric insurance
of take up to date on this is required.
products to insure government or certain
groups against specific hazards. • Subsidizing insurance premiums for the
poorest households is an effective SP and DRF
• Given the limited understanding of the role of
intervention that should be expanded.
ASP in disaster response there have been no
efforts to model the financial requirements of • Governments to develop ex-ante modelling
any ASP responses to any disaster risk. capabilities to estimate the financial
requirements of various possible ASP
responses in short and long term.
39
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Annex 1. References
Abdoul-Azize, H.T., and R. el Gamil. 2021. “Social Eurostat 2022 – Population Data: https://ec.europa.
Protection as a Key Tool in Crisis Management: eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00001/
Learnt Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic.” default/table?lang=en
Global Social Welfare, 8(1): 107–16. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40609-020-00190-4 Eurostat 2021 – AROP Data: https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/databrowser/view/ilc_li02/default/
Beazley, R., and A. Williams. 2021. Adaptive Social table?lang=en
Protection in the Caribbean: Building Human
Capital for Resilience. 360° Resilience Back- Gentilini, U., M. Almenfi, I. Orton and P. Dale.
ground Paper. Washington, DC: World Bank. 2021. Social Protection and Jobs Responses
to COVID-19: A Real-Time Review of Country
Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility and Measures. Washington, DC: World Bank.
German Federal Ministry for the Environment, h t t p s : //o p e n k n ow l e d g e.wo r l d b a n k .o rg /
Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. 2019. handle/10986/22787.
Linking Social Protection with Climate Resil- Gerovska, M., and R. Rajkovchevski. 2022. Towards
ience and Adaptation. Cayman Islands: CCRIF. Adaptive Social Protection: A Case Study of
Retrieved from: North Macedonia. Washington, DC: World Bank,
draft.
CCRIF_Linking_Social_Protection_Climate_Resil-
ience_and_Adptation.pdf Ghesquiere, F., and O. Mahul. 2010. Financial Protec-
tion of the State against Natural Disasters: A
Bowen, T., C. del Ninno, C. Andrews, S. Coll-Black, Primer. Policy Research Working Paper 5429.
U. Gentilini, K. Johnson, Y. Kawasoe, A. Kryeziu, Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents.
B. Maher and A. Williams. 2020. Adaptive Social worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-re-
Protection: Building Resilience to Shocks. Inter- ports/documentdetail/227011468175734792/
national Development in Focus. Washington financial-protection-of-the-state-against-nat-
DC: World Bank Group. ural-disasters-a-primer
Dhima, M., and J. Miluka. 2020. Towards Adaptive González Arreola, A. 2021. Towards Adaptive Social
Social Protection in the ECA Region: Albania Protection in the ECA Region. A Framework to
Country Report. Washington, DC: World Bank, Guide Country Specific Assessments in Albania,
draft. Bulgaria, North Macedonia and Romania. Wash-
ington, DC: World Bank.
Dragoman, A., and Z. Ianovici. 2022. Towards
GoA (Government of Albania). 2020. Albania:
Adaptive Social Protection in the ECA Region:
Post-Disaster Needs Assessment. Volume A
Romania Case Study. Washington, DC: World
Report/Tirana, February 2020. Tirana: Govern-
Bank, draft.
ment of Albania. https://reliefweb.int/sites/
reliefweb.int/files/resources/albania_post-dis-
European Commision. Employment, Social Affairs aster_recovery_a_v9.0.pdf.
and inclusion. https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.
jsp?catId=750&langId=en GoB (Government of Bulgaria). 2018. Assess-
ment of the Disaster Risk Management
European Commision. EU Solidarity Fund. https:// Sector. Sofia: Government of Bulgaria. https://
ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/solidari- www.moew.government.bg/static/media/
ty-fund_en ups/articles/attachments/DRM%20-%20
Full%20Report%20-%20First%20Draft%20
Eurostat 2022 – Minimum wage data https:// (2018-04-27)%20-%20EN%20-%20
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/earn_ for%20printing%20v2675c5b0db190d4aa-
mw_cur/default/table?lang=en 5dae48daf147c909.pdf.
40
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
GoNM (Government of North Macedonia). 2015. McAneney, D., R. Musulin, G. Walker and R.
Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment Report. Crompton. 2016. “Government-Sponsored
Skopje: Government of North Macedonia. Natural Disaster Insurance Pools: A View from
Down-Under.” International Journal of Disaster
GoR (Government of Romania). Risk Reduction, 15: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2015.11.004
Hallegatte, S., M. Bangalore, L. Bonzanigo, M. Fay, T.
Kane, U. Narloch, J. Rozenberg, D. Treguer and A. National Institute of Statistics (Albania). 2021.
Vogt-Schilb. 2016. Shock Waves: Managing the Income and Living Conditions in Albania 2020.
Impacts of Climate Change on Poverty, Climate Institute of Statistics (INSTAT) Tirana, Albania.
Change and Development. Washington, DC: (http://www.instat.gov.al/)
World Bank.
Noy, I., C. Nguyen and P. Patel. 2021. “Floods and
Hill, R., E. Skoufias and B. Maher. 2019. The Chro- Spill Overs: Households after the 2011 Great
nology of a Disaster: A Review and Assess- Flood in Thailand.” Economic Development and
ment of the Value of Acting Early on Household Cultural Change, 69(2): 829–868.
Welfare. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Roy, A. 2022. Income and Floods in New
ILO (International Labor Organization) 2022. Zealand, Environmental Hazards. DOI:
“North Macedonia: Raising the minimum wage 10.1080/17477891.2022.2142500
to combat working poverty”. Retrieved from:
https://www.ilo.org/budapest/whats-new/ Sandford, J. 2021. Social Protection Response to
WCMS_843455/lang--en/index.htm the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia. Wash-
ington, DC: World Bank.
International Labor Organization, “ILO
modelling estimates database.” ILOSTAT, Shopov, G., and V. Veleva. 2022. Bulgaria: Preparing
h t t p s : //w w w. i l o.o rg /s h i n ya p p s / b u l ke x- Social Protection for Future Crises. Washington,
plorer9/?lang=en&id=SDG_0831_SEX_ECO_ DC: World Bank, draft.
RT_A
Suvedi, M. 2020. "Significant accomplishment of
Kerblat, Y., A. Arab, B. Walsh, A. Simpson and the post-disaster housing reconstruction: A
S. Hallegatte. 2021. Overlooked: Examining community perspective from 2015 earthquake
the Impact of Disasters and Climate Shocks affected communities in Nepal." Contempo-
on Poverty in the Europe and Central Asia rary Research: An Interdisciplinary Academic
Region. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Journal, 4(1): 110–128.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
en/493181607687673440/Overlooked-Exam- World Bank. 2016. Nepal Rural Reconstruction
ining-the-Impact-of-Disasters-and-Climate- Housing Program: Frequently asked questions
Shocks-on-Poverty-in-the-Europe-and-Cen- on rural housing reconstruction grants. Nepal
tral-Asia-Region Rural Housing Reconstruction Program Multi-
Donor Trust Fund. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Kilgarriff, P., T.K. McDermott, A. Vega, K. Morrissey https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/
and C. O’Donoghue. 2019. “The Impact e n / 2 1 24 3 1 4 6 7 9 9 6 6 5 7 3 7 7/p d f/ 1 0 2 9 4 9 -
Off-Loading Disruption on the Spatial Distribu- W P- P 1 5 5 9 6 9 - N R H R P- FAQ s - 0 1-2 0 1 6 -
tion of Commuter’s Income.” Journal of Environ- Box394845B-PUBLIC.pdf.
mental Economics and Policy, 8(1): 48–64.
World Bank. 2017. Europe and Central Asia –
MacDonald, C., B. Davies, D. Johnston, D. Country Risk Profiles for Floods and Earth-
Paton, S. Malinen, K. Naswall, J. Kuntz quakes. Washington, DC: World Bank.
and J. Stevenson. 2015. A Framework for http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
Exploring the Role of Business in Community en/958801481798204368/ Europe-and-Cen-
Recovery Following Disasters. GNS Science tral-Asia-Country-riskprofiles-for-floods-and-
Report 2015/62, p. 22. https://www. earthquakes.
researchgate.net/figure/Recovery-contin-
uum-example-activities-by-phase-adapt- World Bank. 2018a. Romania Systematic Country
ed-from-CERA-2102-FEMA-2011_ Diagnostic Background Note; Climate and Disaster
fig1_307858163 Management. Washington, DC: World Bank.
41
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
World Bank. 2018b. Seizing a Brighter Future for
All: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia –
Systematic Country Diagnostic, Washington, DC:
World Bank.
World Bank 2018c. Bulgaria, Assessment of DRM
sector 2018. “Republic of Bulgaria - Advisory
Services on a National Climate Change, Adap-
tation Strategy and Action Plan”. ECA Regional
Office, World Bank. https://www.moew.govern-
ment.bg/static/media/ups/articles/attach-
ments/DRM%20-%20Full%20Report%20
-%20First%20Draft%20(2018-04-27)%20
-%20EN%20-%20for%20printing%20
v2675c5b0db190d4aa5dae48daf147c909.pdf.
World Bank. 2020a. “Disaster Risk Finance Diag-
nostic: Albania.” Washington, DC: World Bank.
https://www.financialprotectionforum.org/
publication/disaster-risk-finance-diagnostic-al-
bania.
World Bank. 2020b. Country Snapshot: Romania -
Understanding Disaster and Climate Impacts on
the Poorest and Most Vulnerable. June 2020.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. 2021a. Economics for Disaster Preven-
tion and Preparedness Financial Risk and Oppor-
tunities to Build Resilience in Europe. Wash-
ington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. 2021b. Development of a Diagnostic
and Roadmap Highlighting Necessary Actions
to Strengthen Disaster Risk Management and
in particular Preparedness, Prevention, Early
Warning and Response. Deliverable #1 of Project
on Accelerating Resilience to Disasters. Bulgaria
Country Team, Sofia, World Bank.
World Bank. 2021c. Bulgaria Social Assistance Policy
Note: Improve Effectiveness of Social Assistance
Benefits and Services. Internal Document. Wash-
ington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. 2022a. Europe and Central Asia
Economic Update, Fall 2022: Social Protec-
tion for Recovery. Washington, DC: World
Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
handle/10986/38098 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO
World Bank. 2022e. SPEED Database – Coverage
of SP Programs, https://www.worldbank.org/en/
programs/speed.
42
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Annex 2. Country Case Studies - Research
Methodology
Data collection for each of the case study countries was undertaken by teams of local consultants drawn
from both SP and DRM backgrounds. They were each guided by common terms of reference setting out
steps for reviewing ASP in respective countries. They were guided by a methodology developed by an
external consultant drawing on the World Bank ASP Framework (Bowen et al. 2020) entitled ‘Basic Guide-
lines for Adaptive Social Protection in ECA’ (González Arreola 2021). This set out a standardized approach
for each case study review that included the activities summarised below.
1. Programs: Review of existing SP programs
• Map and select SP priority programs for the ASP assessment
• Assess design features of priority programs to identify their
readiness and potential to support shock response
2. Data and Information Systems: Assessment
of data bases, registries and spatial data
mapping systems in country
• Review spatial multi-risk data/maps available from DRM
sector and spatial poor and vulnerability to poverty data/maps
available from SP sector
• Assess pre- and post-shock readiness to inform and respond
to household level needs
3. Finance
• Examine any budgets previously and currently available for SP
as well as emergency/ disaster response and preparedness
• Examine specifically costs/budget estimates (where they exist)
for SP shock responses
• Review ex-ante risk financing strategies, tools and mecha-
nisms for disbursement of resources for DRR (identifying any
provisions for ASP)
4. Institutional Arrangements and Partnerships
• Review legislation, policy and national guidance pertaining to
ASP from both SP and DRM sectors
Most of the work on the case studies was desk-based and involved the collection, review and analysis of
the most up-to-date information, legislation and other data available. Interviews and discussions were also
held with relevant government and other officials. In some countries, field visits were undertaken by con-
sultants and stakeholder workshops were held to discuss and review findings. Activities in addition to desk
reviews are outlined for each case study country in Table A2.1 below.
43
Towards Adaptive Social Protection in Europe and Central Asia
A Synthesis Report
Table A2.1. Consultations and Field Visits Carried Out in Case Study Countries
Country Non-Desk Based activities
▷ Interviews were conducted with representatives from:
• Ministry of Health and Social Protection (MoHSP)
• National Agency for Employment and Skills (NAES)
• DRM structures
Albania
• Regional representative of State Social Services (SSS)
▷ Workshop to review findings held in Tirana/online – 26th September 2022
• Attended by representatives from MoHSP, NAES and National Civil Protection
Agency, UNICEF and the EU.
▷
Interviews were conducted with representatives from:
• Ministry of Labor and Social Policy (MoHSP)
• National Agency for Employment and Skills (NAES)
• CMC and Protection and Rescue Directorate (PRD)
• Red Cross Society of North Macedonia
North
▷ Field visits to four municipalities: Skopje, Kochani, Veles and Pehchevo to
Macedonia
undertake interviews with representatives in the Centres for Social Work (CSW)
and municipality representatives including staff from Protection and Rescue
Departments
▷ Consultation and Review Workshop to discuss case study findings held in Skopje
on 29th September 2022
• Attended by 38 representatives from national SP and DRM agencies and
municipalities visited by consultants
▷ Interviews were conducted with representatives from:
• Agency for Social Assistance
• Agency for People with Disabilities
Bulgaria
• Assenovgrad Municipality
• General Directorate of Fire Safety and Civil Protection
• Bulgarian Red Cross
▷ Validation of the assessment results was carried out via interviews with key
stakeholders, including Ministry of Labor and Social Solidarity
Romania
▷ Field visit to Sector 1 Municipality Bucharest – meeting with Director of Social
Assistance
44
© 2023 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
/ The World Bank
1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433
Telephone: 202-473-1000
Internet: www.worldbank.org