2. 11 November 2015

3. Social science that makes a difference 1.Introduction 2.Target 1A: Halve between 1990 and 2015 the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day 3.Target 1B: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people 4.Target 1C: Halve between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger 5.Leave No Child Behind - Towards The SDGS 6.Recommendations

4. Outline Goal 1 MDG indicators and targets at a household level with implications on the poverty status of children in those households The lack of disaggregation by children in MDG Goal 1 indicators will help contextualise the child specific indicators being proposed for the SDGs With respect to MDG Goal 1, progress at close out shows that there is general consensus that a lot has been done towards poverty eradication in South Africa The post-apartheid pro-poor policy agenda as noted in Governments 20-Year review The World Bank (2014) notes that ssignificant progress has been made since 1994, through the use of the tax system, as part of SAs development programme in the fight against poverty and inequality. However more still needs to be done to satisfactorily address poverty.

5. Target 1.A set out to ‘halve between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income was less than $1.25 a day', which is the definition of extreme poverty Under this target, there were three internationally recognised MDG sub-goals, as follows: Half the proportion of the population below $1.25 (PPP) per day Half the poverty gap ratio ($1.25 (PPP) per day) Half the share of poorest quintile in national consumption. On top of these three international lines the MDG framework allowed for countries to use national poverty lines for monitoring country trends, where these were available.

6. South Africa added several domesticated national poverty lines Three new domesticated indicators were added in the final MDG reporting period based on a multidimensional poverty measurement framework

7. Source: IES, (2000, 2005/2006, 2010/2011); LCS (2008/2009), Statistics South Africa, *Domesticated Half the proportion of the population below $1.25 (PPP) per day: Achieved by 2011

8. The headcount poverty measure gives the impression that all people below the poverty line are equally poor. The poverty gap resolves this and is used to assess the depth of poverty and measures the average distance the poor are from the poverty line. Halve the poverty gap ratio ($1.25 (PPP) per day): Achieved by 2011 Source: IES, (2000, 2005/2006, 2010/2011); LCS (2008/2009), Statistics South Africa; *Target not achieved

9. Source: Income & Expenditure Survey 2000, 2005/2006 and 2010/2011 This indicator is a measure of inequality in the distribution of income, reflected in the percentage shares of income or consumption accruing to portions of the population ranked by consumption levels. Values can range from 0 to 20 with smaller values indicating higher inequality Given the trend below inequality will remain a challenge in the foreseeable future To double the share of poorest quintile in national consumption to 5.8%: Not Achieved

10. The current MDG indicators around poverty are largely based on money metric indicators This gives us an indication of who is income poor, but do not tell us how they are poor. We understand poverty as a multidimensional phenomena In 2014, South Africa developed a multidimensional poverty measure, the South African Multidimensional Poverty Index (SAMPI), using census data based on the Alkire and Foster approach This introduced three new domesticated indicators Proportion of households SAMPI poor (new indicator) Intensity of SAMPI poor (new indicator) SAMPI index score (new indicator) The SAMPI captures multidimensional poverty by capturing severe deprivations that each person or household faces with respect to three dimensions of poverty, health, education and standard of living

11. South African Multidimensional Poverty Index (SAMPI) dimensions and indicators Uses the same framework that is being proposed for the SDGs DimensionIndicatorDeprivation cut-off HealthChild MortalityIf any child under the age of 5 has died in the past 12 months EducationYears of Schooling If no household member aged 15 or older has completed 5 years of schooling School AttendanceIf any school-aged child (aged 7 to 15) is out of school Living Standards Fuel for lightingIf household is using paraffin/candles/nothing/other Fuel for heatingIf household is using paraffin/wood/coal/dung/other/none Fuel for cookingIf household is using paraffin/wood/coal/dung/other/none Water accessIf no piped water in dwelling or on stand Sanitation typeIf not a flush toilet Dwelling typeIf an informal shack/traditional dwelling/caravan/tent/other Asset ownershipIf household does not own more than one of radio, television, telephone or refrigerator and does not own a car Economic activity Unemployment If all adults (aged 15 to 64) in the household are unemployed

13. Identifying areas of prioritisation in the post 2015 agenda by assessing risk of being in poverty by demographic characteristics Likelihood of being poor: Location by gender of head of household (Reference is Urban – Male Head)

14. Likelihood of being poor: By population group (Reference is White population group)

15. Likelihood of being poor: Employment status (Reference is employed)

16. Likelihood of being poor: Educational level (Reference is matric)

17. Social science that makes a difference Indicators 1994 baseline (or nearest year) 2010 Status (or nearest year) 2013 Status (or nearest year) 2015 Current status (2014 or nearest year) 2015 2015 Target Target achieveme nt Status Indicato r type Target 1A: Halve between 1990 and 2015 the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day Proportion of population below $1.00 (PPP) per day11.3 (2000)5.0 (2006)4.0 (2011) No new data 5.7AchievedMDG Proportion of population below $1.25 (PPP) per day17.0 (2000)9.7 (2006)7.4 (2011)No new data8.5AchievedMDG Proportion of population below Lower-bound PL (R443 per month in 2009 prices) 42.2 (2006) 44.6 (2009)32.2 (2011)No new data No target NADOM Proportion of population below Upper-bound PL (R620 per month in 2009 prices) 57.2 (2006) 56.8 (2009)45.5 (2011)No new data No target NADOM Proportion of population below $2.00 (PPP) per day33.5 (2000)25.3 (2006)20.8 (2011)No new data16.8 Not achieved MDG Proportion of population below $2.50 (PPP) per day42.4 (2000)34.8 (2006)29.2 (2011)No new data21.1 Not achieved DOM Poverty gap ratio ($1.00 (PPP) per day)3.2 (2000)1.1 (2006)1.0 (2011)No new data1.6AchievedMDG Poverty gap ratio ($1.25 (PPP) per day)5.4 (2000)2.3 (2006)1.9 (2011)No new data2.7AchievedMDG Poverty gap ratio (Lower bound PL R443 per day)16.4 (2006) 18.9 (2009) 11.8 (2011)No new data No target NADOM Poverty gap ratio (Upper bound R620 per day)26.7 (2006) 27.9 (2009) 19.6 (2011)No new data No target NADOM Poverty gap ratio ($2.00 (PPP) per day)13.0 (2000)8.1 (2006)6.5 (2011)No new data6.5AchievedMDG Poverty gap ratio ($2.50 (PPP) per day)18.0 (2000)12.5 (2006)10.3 (2011)No new data9 Not achieved MDG Share of the poorest quintile in national consumption 2.9 (2000)2.8 (2006)2.7 (2011) No new data 5.8 Not achieved MDG Gini coefficient0.70 (2000)0.73 (2006)0.69 (2011)No new data0.3 Not achieved DOM

18. The focus on employment has been at the core of all of South Africa’s development policies. RDP (1994); GEAR (1996); ASGISA (2004); and NDP (2010) Vision 2030 Despite this South Africa has struggled to achieve its Target 1.B indicators This reflects a complex interplay of a number of factors: a post-apartheid labour force which is largely ill-equipped to participate in the skill-intensive services sector; structural challenges that have complicated the country's diversification agenda; and in recent times the protracted global economic recovery.

19. The first indicator is the growth rate of GDP per person employed which is equivalent to the growth rate of labour productivity. Before the crisis a 1% increase in growth was associated with a 0.64% increase in employment. Post-crisis a 1% increase in growth led to a decrease in employment of 0.16% (Bhorat, 2013) Almost achieved in the pre-crisis period The employment to population (EP) ratio measures the ability of an economy to provide employment for those willing to work. Low employment to population ratio indicates that a large proportion of the working age population are looking for work but can’t find it. Percentage growth rate of GDP per person employed 4.7 (2002) 1.9 (2009) 1.5 (2011) -1.1 (2013) 6 Not achieved MDG *1.5 Employment-to-population ratio 44.1 (2001) 41.8 (2010) 42.7 (2013) 42.8 (2014) 50-70 Not achieved MDG

20. The proportion of the working poor in total employment gives an indication of the lack of decent work in a country. The target of 0% had not be achieved by 2009 The employment status groups of own-account workers and contributing family workers are a measure of vulnerable employment. Target of halving it to 5% not achieved. % of employed people living below $1 (PPP) per day 2000 5.2 2009 3.9 2013 No Data 2014 No Data ~ 0 Not achieved MDG % of own-account and contributing family workers in total employment 2000 11.0% 2010 9.9% 2011 10.0% 2013 9.3% Target 5% Not achieved MDG

21. Challenges around food security South Africans rely on income as the main means of accessing food and are thus highly dependent on paid employment to access food (Jacobs et al, 2009). Furthermore, the scale of subsistence farming in South Africa is considerably lower (1.8 out of 10, Census 2011) than compared to other developing contexts This has its origins in the historical lack of support for and encouragement in enabling subsistence farming by households for own consumption, under apartheid. The inability to resolve challenges around unemployment, have an important bearing on the ability to achieve household food and nutrition security At a national level, South Africa is food secure, the same cannot be said for household food sufficiency

22. Self-reported insufficient food for adults and children from 2002 to 2013

23. Association of self-reported insufficient food for adults by sex of head of household and location

24. Prevalence of stunting in children under five years of age (%) – Dom Challenges in sourcing reliable and current data in respect of prevalence of stunting, wasting and underweight children The available data shows that children’s heights and weights have increased since 1993 and being stunted or underweight has become less common (PSLDS, 1993; NIDS, 2008). Despite this targets were not met This progress has however been marred by an increase in child headcount poverty Prevalence of stunting, wasting, underweight and poverty among children 6-59 months from 1993-2008. Source: PSLDS, 1993; NIDS Wave 1 2008 YearStuntingWastingUnderweight Poverty Headcount 199330.89.215.669.6 200824.64.88.873.4

25. Social science that makes a difference Indicators 1994 baseline (or nearest year) 2010 Status (or nearest year) Current status (2013 or nearest year) 2015 Current status (2014 or nearest year) 2015 Target Target achievability Indicator type Target 1C: Halve between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger % of people who report experiencing hunger29.9 (2002)No data12.9 (2011) No new data 15AchievedDOM Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age (%) 13.2 4 (1993) 10.2 (2005)8.3 (2008) No new data 4.7 Not achieved MDG Prevalence of stunting in children under five years of age (%) 30.3 (1993)No data23.9 (2008) No new data 15 Not achieved DOM Number of beneficiaries of social grants (millions) 2.6 (1997)14.1 (2010)14.9 (2011)16.6 (2015)No targetNADOM Proportion of households below Food Poverty (R305 per month in 2009 prices) with access to free basic services (%) WaterNo data 56.0 (2009) No new data No targetNADOM ElectricityNo data 65.0 (2009) No new data No targetNADOM Sewerage and sanitationNo data 23.3 (2009) No new data No targetNADOM Solid waste managementNo data 28.3 (2009) No new data No targetNADOM Percentage of indigent households receiving free basic services Water61.8 (2004)73.2 (2007)71.6 (2011) 73.4 (2013) No targetNADOM Electricity29.3 (2004)50.4 (2007)59.5 (2011) 51.0 (2013) No targetNADOM Sewerage and sanitation38.5 (2004)52.1 (2007)57.9 (2011) 59.3 (2013) No targetNADOM Solid waste management38.7 (2004)52.6 (2007)54.1 (2011) 62.3 (2013) No targetNADOM

26. Social science that makes a difference *1.9 Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption Indicators Target achievement Status Indicator type No. Target 1A: Halve between 1990 and 2015 the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day 1.1 Proportion of population below $1.25 (PPP) per dayAchievedMDG  1.2 Poverty gap ratio ($1.25 (PPP) per day)AchievedMDG  1.3 Share of the poorest quintile in national consumptionNot achievedMDG  Target 1B: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people 1.4 Percentage growth rate of GDP per person employedNot achievedMDG  1.5 Employment-to-population ratioNot achievedMDG  1.6 % of employed people living below $1 (PPP) per dayNot achievedMDG  1.7 % of own-account and contributing family workers in total employment Not achievedMDG  Target 1C: Halve between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger 1.8 Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age (%) Not achievedMDG  1.9 % of people who report experiencing hungerAchievedDOM*  3/9

27. The following proposals for child specific indicators in the SDGs was put together by a large consortium of partners who are working together to eradicate child poverty. (World Vision, IDS, SAVE the Children, UNICEF etc) Proposed indicators to measure child poverty in the SDG’s: Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere There is a need to include in the SDGs explicit targets to halve child poverty by national definitions by 2030 To monitor these targets the new SDGs should include specific child poverty indicators including both monetary and multidimensional child poverty The proposed child poverty indicators can be monitored post-2015 by using existing data sources Progress of the poorest and most vulnerable children should be monitored across all relevant SDG targets by disaggregating by income and other forms of inequality

28. Target 1.1: by 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day Proposed child specific indicator Percentage of population below $1.25 (PPP) per day, disaggregated by age to capture the child poverty rate Target 1.2: by 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions. Proposed child specific indicator(s) Proportion of children (aged 0-17) below the national poverty line Proportion of children (aged 0-17) living in multidimensional poverty

29. All other child-relevant Targets All child-level indicators used in the SDGs should be disaggregated by income quintiles, poverty and other forms of inequality There has to be an improvement in data collection for the most vulnerable children - who can be omitted from or bypassed in surveys and programmes

30. Recommendation 1: Target vulnerable groups to eliminate extreme poverty by introducing child specific poverty indicators The 'no one left behind' post-2015 principle suggests that South Africa will need to address poverty by targeting vulnerable groups such as child, particularly in female- headed households in rural areas. With respect to addressing aggregate poverty, the challenge will be to broaden its poverty interventions beyond the provision of basic services. Given the contribution of unemployment to poverty, there will be a need to strengthen policies around an industrial development path that can create employment opportunities for the people of South Africa.

31. Recommendation 2: Move from only reporting on employment levels to the number of children in households with unemployed working age adults. Given the challenges around South Africa meeting its MDG employment targets, there is a need to better understand the nature of unemployment in a way that allows a more comprehensive tracking of the problem. There is need for the introduction of indicators that will complement the current set of employment indicators that introduce the notion of unemployment deprivation that takes into account the exposure of children to households with this deprivation. Capture unemployment at the household level introduces a household dimension to the tracking of unemployment this is consistent with a broader welfare framework

32. Recommendation 3: Address availability and reliability of food and nutritional insecurity data and measurement with respect child nutrition. There is a need to improve food and nutrition security measurement tools and methods at household level Introduce policy and programme measures which prioritise children without adequate food and nutrition provision. This requires an understanding of the intra- and individual household food and nutrition needs and dynamics in order to respond to the issues appropriately. Undertake further research to understand how food access relates to dietary diversity, coping strategies and child outcomes

33. THE END THANK YOU