150 likes | 293 Vues
This plenary meeting focuses on the financing aspects of agricultural social protection systems, highlighting common challenges faced by various countries. It addresses the significant role of external resources, the demographic gap, and the disparity between beneficiaries and contributors. Insights from experts reveal the diversity of financing mechanisms, the influence of state interventions, and the importance of solidarity within agricultural systems. Key discussions outline strategies for maintaining long-term social protection through effective governance and resource diversification.
E N D
ENASP Question of Common Interest Agricultural social protection systems’ financing: Various ways but common challenges? ENASP – Plenary Meeting Brussels Nov. 16th 2006
INTRODUCTION • Reminder : about Questions of Common Interest • Description : • A common theme interesting for all of us • Corresponding to an important stake in our systems’ activities • Extending over several experts meetings • Goals : • Information, knowledge of each other • Possibilities: common matters, or support to some members
INTRODUCTION • Analysis of financing: which interest? Ways of financing are very significant about the place and the role of social protection in a country • Which stakes for our systems? • To maintain the same level of social protection on a long term basis • To remain autonomous
A common context: demographic gap • Covered populations: More beneficiaries than active contributors… … Which is characteristic of agricultural populations
Financial Resources • Global level • Contributions are not sufficient • External resources represent an important share ( > 50 %) : • In every countries: State • Stable financings • And / or more insecure financings • In some countries: other social security schemes (most of the time the general scheme)
Financial Resources • Indicative proportions
Financial Resources • Various origins
Institutional and organisational issues • In some countries, the financing system is relatively unified • Some other countries have separate financing systems, by branches or risks Huge diversity between ENASP members in that field
Flows of money and functioning: Pattern of diagram Benefits Activities Kinds of financing Accountable funds Contributions Extra legal activities: social action, … State subsidies Taxes Management costs Other schemes Etc. Etc.
Example : KRUS (POLAND) Accountable funds Activities Kinds of financing Accidents Health Maternity Premium Contributions Pensions Pensions Management costs Administration State Prevention & Rehabilitation Prevention, rehabilitation… Incentive bonuses Motivation
Place and role of main actors in the financing • Insured people themselves (the covered population may be different according to the country) do not have a huge influence on the process • The State: • Strong interventions because agriculture is a sensitive file and because social protection is a tool of agricultural policy • A « dependence » with some political effects • The other social security schemes: often « difficult » relationships
Stakes and evolutions: which interpretations? • The financing of the whole social protection is questioned • Cf. ALOSS conference • Dependence on external financings • Our agricultural systems share a certain weakness in that field • Specific agricultural systems are often criticised
Stakes and evolutions: which interpretations? • Which solidarity? • Professional solidarity • Interprofessional solidarity (between schemes) • National solidarity • Diversification of resources: Insurance vs. assistance ?
CONCLUSION • A very political subject • A clear link with the question of contribution calculation • A common claim: external financings are not in contradiction to a specific and autonomous management • Financing vs. management-governance? • Europe : an help for our agricultural systems?
END Thank you for your attention !