2020 social protection budget brief - unicef
Post on 03-May-2022
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
June 2020
2020 Social ProtectionBudget Brief
ZIMBABWE
2 ZIMBABWE SOCIAL PROTECTION BUDGET BRIEF
Key Messages and Recommendations
v Monetary child poverty is prevalent, estimated at 61%. Government is urged to ramp up socialassistance programmes and thrive to increase the coverage of social protection programmes toabove the current 10%, with focus on the most vulnerable and marginalised children, includingpersons living with disabilities.
v To eradicate extreme poverty, enhance equity and build resilience in communities, Zimbabweneeds to put in place well-targeted and shock-responsive social protection programmes.Government should prioritise implementation of the recommendations of the Social ProtectionSector Review. Institutional strengthening is vital, including finalizing outstanding pieces oflegislation and policies that protect the vulnerable.
v Zimbabwe spends 1.2% of GDP or 7.3% of total national budget on social assistanceprogrammes which is inadequate compared to the current and emerging social protection needs.Zimbabwe should thrive to increase social spending to the levels of other regional peers of above2% of GDP on average.
v For the 2020 fiscal year, Social Protection was allocated US$117 million, with 85% budgetedfrom domestic resources and 15% from development partners. Though the increase in publicsector financing is commendable, there is need to further scale up domestic resourcemobilisation, to cover the gap created by declining donor support.
v From the total Social Welfare Budget, social benefits constitute 96% of the total allocation,leaving only 4% for operations and capital expenditures. The administrative budget for socialprotection programmes is inadequate to ensure uninterrupted and quality delivery of socialprotection programmes, and Government needs to consider boosting the operational budget asthe current situation poses risk to the smooth delivery of programmes.
v The capital budget for the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare is very lowconsidering the infrastructure gaps in most government rehabilitation institutions. Governmentis urged to increase the allocation to support rehabilitation institutions, which were allocatedUS$2.5 million for 2020.
v Although the weak budget execution can partly be attributed to limited fiscal space, weakcapacity of the MoPSLSW, particularly the Department of Social Welfare (DSW) is a majorstumbling block to budget execution. Capacity strengthening of the DSW should be prioritisedto ensure that the few resources availed by the Ministry of Finance are utilized for the benefit ofthe vulnerable and marginalised children and their households.
v Development partner support remains a key pillar of social protection sector financing.Reforming the sector in line with the recommendations of the Social Protection Sector Review iscritical, including strengthening public financial management, will be critical to attract developmentpartner financing in the sector.
UNICEF | JUNE 2020
2. BACKGROUND AND SITUATIONALANALYSIS
The current macroeconomic environment has generatedenormous socio-economic vulnerabilities. The COVID-19
pandemic will compound an already fragile situation, which has
for a long period been characterized by weak economic growth,
recurrent droughts and rising poverty. This comes at a time when
the country is still trying to recover from the devastating effects
of Cyclone IDAI. The fiscal consolidation process which is
inevitably crucial for the country to address macroeconomic
imbalances and create fiscal space for funding of critical social
protection programmes, has brought unintended negative effects
which further worsened the situation.
Social protection needs have increased. The World Bank
estimates that US$950 million is required for 2020 alone to fund
the entire social protection caseload. The 2019 Zimbabwe
Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) Report estimated
that more than half the population are food insecure and require
immediate assistance. Social Protection needs are increasing, as
the majority feel the impact of these socio-economic shocks, with
the poor and the vulnerable being the hardest hit.
Widespread and deep poverty is prevalent, and is on the rise,particularly in urban areas. The 2017 PICES findings show that70% of the country’s population fall below the Total Consumption
Poverty Line, and are deemed poor, with 29% being below the
1. INTRODUCTION
This Budget Brief explores the extent to which the 2020 Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare (MoPSLSW)budget addresses social protection needs of vulnerable and marginalized households in Zimbabwe. It gives an overview ofthe size and composition of budget allocations for social protection1, with the main objectives of informing stakeholdersand provide key messages to inform decision-making.It provides an analysis of the size and composition of the socialprotection budget, provides a synopsis of critical issues related to adequacy, allocative efficiency, effectiveness and equityof the current and past social protection spending.
ZIMBABWE SOCIAL PROTECTION BUDGET BRIEF 3UNICEF | JUNE 2020
1 This Brief focuses on non-contributory Social Protection Programmes funded by Government andDevelopment Partners.
Food Poverty Line and living in extreme poverty. As shown in
Figure 1, Zimbabwe is one of the countries with high levels of
both multi-dimensional and monetary child poverty rates,
estimated at 60% and 61% respectively. Well-targeted and shock-
responsive Social Protection programmes are thus a critical tool
to fight poverty, build resilience in communities and achieve
greater equity. Special attention should be given to the most
vulnerable and marginalized children and their households, as well
as persons living with disabilities.
Funding for social assistance is declining. Most Development
Partners are scaling back on their support. Funding from
government, has been decimated by increasing inflation and
depreciating exchange rate, and is no match to the increasing
social assistance needs. As a result, the main social protection
interventions, which include the Basic Education Assistance
Module (BEAM), Health Assistance and the Harmonised Social
Cash Transfer (HSCT) are facing increased needs against low real
value of allocations. As shown in Figure 2 total Development
Partner funding for social protection declined from US$24 Million
in 2019 to US$18 million in 2020. This represents 3% of total
Development Partner Support to Zimbabwe for 2020, down from
4% in 2019 (Figure 3).
7062 61 60 58
5246 45 43 42 40
35 3426
22
01020304050607080
Monetary Multidimensional Poverty
Figure 1: Multidimensional and Monetary Child Poverty Rates inSelected Countries (%)
Source:UNICEF ESARO, Child Poverty Report, 2018
316361
148
135
36
42514216
355
30
24
18
16
16
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2019 Actual 2020 Projections
US$
Mill
ions
Health Agric GovernanceOther Education HumanitarianSocial Protection WASH
2019
Figure 2: Sectoral Distribution of Development Partner Support,2019 - 2020
Source: 2020 National Budget Statement
Notable, however, is the increased budget allocation for the Food
Deficit Mitigation (FDM) as the country continue to face recurring
droughts and other weather-related shocks in the recent past.
Scaling-up coverage of these programmes will be difficult given
the current funding challenges, which has been further
complicated by the COVID-19 outbreak. As shown in Figure 4,
coverage of social protection programmes is only 11%, one of the
lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa.
4 ZIMBABWE SOCIAL PROTECTION BUDGET BRIEF
As recommended in the Social Protection Sector Review, theNational Social Protection Policy Framework (NSPPF) whichprovides the strategic guide for social assistance in Zimbabwe,requires refocusing and be aligned to the emerging socialprotection needs. Strengthening of the institutional and policy
framework is thus key for the delivery for social protection
services. As such, government should prioritise finalization of the
Disability Policy and other key legislative frameworks.
UNICEF | JUNE 2020
2019
74
63 6156
52 52
42
25 2216 13 11
7 6 62 2
01020304050607080
Percent
Figure 4: Coverage of Social Protection and Labour Programs (%)
52%
24%
6%
8%3%1%4%
3%
53%
20%
6%
6%
5%
4%3% 2%
Health Agric Governance OtherEducation Humanitarian Social Protection WASH
2020
Source: 2020 National Budget Statement
Figure 3: Share of Total Development Partner Funding, 2019 - 2020
Key Takeaways
l Monetary child poverty is prevalent, estimated at 61%.Government is urged to ramp up social assistanceprogrammes and thrive to increase coverage of socialprotection programmes to above the current 10%, withfocus on the most vulnerable and marginalised children,including persons living with disabilities.
Source:ASPIRE, Atlas of Social Protection
l To eradicate extreme poverty, enhance equity and buildresilience in communities, Zimbabwe needs to put inplace well-targeted and shock-responsive socialprotection programmes. Government needs to prioritiseimplementation of the recommendations of the SocialProtection Sector Review. Institutional strengthening isvital, including finalizing outstanding pieces of legislationand policies.
3. SIZE OF 2020 BUDGETALLOCATION
In the 2020 national budget Social Protection was allocated
US$222 million2, of which US$114 million is under the Ministry of
Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare (MoPSLSW), US$57.2
million under the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education
and US$51 million under the Ministry of Agriculture.
4. TRENDS IN SOCIAL PROTECTIONSPENDING
Social Protection spending has increased significantly comparedto the period before 2017. In nominal terms planned public social
protection spending for 2020 is US$222 million up from US$48.8
million in 2019 (Figure 5). In real terms, this is equivalent to
US$206 million in 2020 compared to US$45.7 million in 2019. For
the period 2014 – 2018, total nominal Social Protection spending
averaged US$12.3 million, which is US$11.6 million in real terms.
The increased social spending is in light of the increased social
vulnerabilities emanating from the recurring droughts, the
devastating cyclone Idai and deteriorating macroeconomic
environment which has worsened social vulnerabilities.
ZIMBABWE SOCIAL PROTECTION BUDGET BRIEF 5UNICEF | JUNE 2020
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7
1.2 0.7
6.0
7.3
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Perc
ent
% of GDP % of budget
Source:Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and Author Calculations
Figure 6: Non-Contributory Social Spending: Percent of TotalBudget and GDP
-
50
100
150
200
250
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
US$
Mill
ions
Nominal expenditure Real expenditure
Source:Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and Author Calculations
Figure 5: Trends in Non-Contributory Social Protection Spending
2 This does not include the Presidential Input Scheme (US$50.5 million) and the PresidentialScholarship Scheme (US$5.1 million)
As a share of the total budget, social protection spending hasincreased from 6% in 2019 to 7.3% in 2020. On the otherhand, as a share of GDP, Social Protection spending in 2020 is
estimated at 1.2% up from 0.7% in 2019 (Figure 6). This is mainly
on account of two new social protection programmes under the
Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, namely the school
feeding programme (US$47.9 million) and the free sanitary wear
(US$9.3)
Although it is still inadequate considering the need, publicspending across all the key social assistance programmes hasincreased. Box 1 shows the trends in public expenditure on
the main social protection programmes. The Basic Education
Assistance Module (BEAM) has increased from an average of
US$4 million over the period 2015-2017 to US$20 million for 2020
(Figure 7). Similarly, the Harmonised Social Cash Transfer (HSCT)
has increased from US$1 million in 2017 to US$23 million in 2020
(Figure 9). In responding to the recurring droughts in the recent
years which have negatively impacted on food production,
government has increased the budget for the for the Food Deficit
Mitigation Programme from US$200,000 in 2014 to US$47 million
in 2020 (Figure 10).
6 ZIMBABWE SOCIAL PROTECTION BUDGET BRIEF UNICEF | JUNE 2020
BOX 1: Trends in Government Expenditure in Selected Social Protection Programs
Source:MOFED Budget Outturns and Author Calculations
5
10
7 7
2 2
23
16
21
5
9
6 6
1 2
17
12
16
-
5
10
15
20
25
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020P
US$
Mill
ions
Nominal expenditure Real expenditure
Figure 7: Baisc Assistance Module Spending Trends
0 1 0 2
- 1 2
13
23
- 0 1 0 1 - 1 2
10
17
-
5
10
15
20
25
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020P
US$
Mill
ions
Nominal expenditure Real expenditure
Figure 9: Harmonised Social Cash Transfer, 2012 -2020
0
1
1
1
-
1
0 0
0
0
0
1
1
-
0
0 0 0
00000111111
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020P
Mill
ions
Nominal expenditure Real expenditure
Figure 11: Support to Disabled Persons, 2012 -2020
1 1
1
1
0 0
0
2 2
1 1
0 1
0 0 0
1 1
-
1
1
2
2
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020P
US$
Mill
ions
Nominal expenditure Real expenditure
5
Figure 8: Health Assistance, 2012 - 2020
0 0 4 2 1
11
47
0 0 3 1 1
9
36
-
10
20
30
40
50
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020P
US$
Mill
ions
Nominal expenditure Real expenditure
Figure 10: Drought Mitigation and Community RecoveryProgram, 2014 -2020
Zimbabwe spends only 1.2% GDP on non-contributory socialassistance programmes. Public Expenditure on social protectionis low compared to other countries. Figure 12 shows public
expenditure as a percent of GDP for selected Sub-Saharan African
Countries. Zimbabwe should thrive to increase social spending to
the levels of other regional peers.
ZIMBABWE SOCIAL PROTECTION BUDGET BRIEF 7UNICEF | JUNE 2020
0.3 0.40.7
1.21.5 1.5 1.7
2.3
3.2 3.3
7.1
2.1
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Perc
ent o
f GD
P
Source:ASPIRE and 2020 Budget Statement and Author Calculations
Figure 12: Public Spending on Social Assistance Programmes (% of GDP)
80 98 98.1
10
1 1.1 1 1 0.5
020291028102 Social Benefits Goods and services Capital Exp Employment Costs
8
Source:Various Budget Statements and Author Calculations
Figure 13: Budget allocation by Economic Classification (% of Total)
5. COMPOSITION OF SOCIALPROTECTION SPENDING
Composition by Economic Classification
Out of the US$222 million Social Protection budget, 98% isearmarked for social benefits. The social benefits budget as ashare of the total budget has increased significantly compared to
2018. Figure 13 below shows the trend in economic composition
of non-contributory social protection budget for the period 2018 -
2020.
Key Takeaways
l Zimbabwe spends 1.2% of GDP or 7.3% of totalnational budget on social assistance programmes whichis inadequate compared to the current and emergingsocial protection needs. Zimbabwe should thrive toincrease social spending to the levels of other regionalpeers.
The total administrative budget allocated (employment and
operational costs) for delivering the social protection is low and
insufficient for effective delivery of social assistance programmes.
At 1.1% of the total social protection budget, the operational
budget seems very low to ensure the smooth running of the
various social assistance programmes.
Employment costs are unrealistically low, at 0.5% of the totalbudget, reflecting the extent of wage compression. As a shareof the total social protection budget, employment costs have
declined from 10% of the total Social Protection Budget in 2018
to 0.5% in 2020. This has a huge bearing on the implementation
of programmes as workers may likely to be disgruntled, and as a
result, execution of the other budget line items will be
compromised. Government needs to strike a balance between
expenditure rationalization aimed at reducing the wage bill and
ensuring that employees remain motivated to deliver social
services.
Similarly, capital expenditure is disproportionately low at 0.4%of the total MoPSLSW budget. Although social protection
programmes mostly are recurrent in nature, the capital budget
is extremely low. This is certainly inadequate to address the
infrastructure needs of the various rehabilitation and care homes
throughout the country. The construction works for some
rehabilitation centres (such as Longden) have gone for years to
complete due to lack of funding.
8 ZIMBABWE SOCIAL PROTECTION BUDGET BRIEF
protection institutions (US$2.5 million), sustainable livelihoods
(US$$2.3 million), health assistance through the Assisted Medical
Treatment Orders (AMTO) (US$1.9 million), Social Protection
MIS (US$0.5 million), Children in Difficult Circumstances (CDC)
(US$0.6 million), and support to people living with disabilities
(US$0.5 million).
UNICEF | JUNE 2020
Composition by Programme
The Food Deficit Mitigation (FDM) programme was allocated
21% (US$ 47 million) of the total Social Protection budget (Figure
14). The MoPSLSW targets to distribute food to more than 7
million people in 2020. The School Feeding Programme under the
MoPSE was allocated US$48 million, which translates 22% of
total Social protection Spending. For the 2020/2021 agricultural
season, Government has set aside US$51 million for agricultural
inputs for the poor and vulnerable households, which constitutes
23% of the total social protection budget.
In 2020, Government plans to scale up HSCT coverage from the
current 23 districts to 33 in an effort to cushion vulnerable
communities. In the budget HSCT was allocated 11%(US$23.3 million). The districts that will not be targeted under
the HSCT will continue to be assisted under the Public Assistance
Programme.
The Basic Education Assistance Module (BEAM) budgetallocation was increased by 12% from US$16 million in 2019to US$20.9 million in 2020. Government targets to scale up
coverage of the programme from the current 415,000 to 700,000
children in 2020. With the rolling-out of the free basic education
under the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, there isneed to harmonise the targeting for the two programmes toensure maximum value and benefit to children. As indicated inthe budget, prioritizing the implementation of the Management
Information System becomes priority to stem out duplications.
As indicated in Figure 14, other Social Assistance Programmes
allocated funds in the 2020 budget are Decent Work Programme
(DWP) (US$14 million), sanitary wear (US$9.3 million) support to
disabled persons (0.3 million), support to Government social
Key Takeaways
l Social benefits constitute 96% of the total SocialProtection budget, leaving only 4% for operations andcapital expenditures. The administrative budget forsocial protection programmes is inadequate to ensurequality delivery of social protection programmes.Government should consider boosting the operationalbudget as skewed budget allocation poses risk to thesmooth delivery of programmes.
l The capital budget is very low considering theinfrastructure gaps in most government rehabilitationinstitutions. Government is urged to increase theallocation to the Support to the Government torehabilitation institutions, which was allocated US$2.5 million.
51 48 47 23 21 14 9 9
23% 22% 21%
10% 9%
6%4% 4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
05101520253035404550
PresidentialInputScheme
SchoolFeeding
DroughtMitigation
HSCT BEAM DecentWorkProgram
Sanitarywear
Other
Perc
ent o
f Tot
al
US$
Mill
ions
US$ millions Percent of Total (RHS)
Source: 2020 Budget Statement
Figure 14: Composition of 2020 Social Protection Budget byProgramme
6. BUDGET CREDIBILITY ANDEXECUTION
Execution of the of the overall Social Protection Budget is
improving, with the 2019 budget underperforming by 3% (Figure
15). Out of the US$49 million budget allocation in 2019, US$47.5
million was utilized. Figure 16 shows budget allocations and actual
expenditure over the period 2015 -2020.
of Finance are utilized for the benefit of the vulnerable and
marginalised children and their households. Low budget
execution, coupled with already inadequate budget allocation,
inevitably results in social protection weak outcomes.
ZIMBABWE SOCIAL PROTECTION BUDGET BRIEF 9UNICEF | JUNE 2020
Key Takeaways
l Overall budget execution has improved, however, it is not consistent across all programmes. There areinconsistencies among the various social protectioncomponents, characterized by huge deviations from theapproved budget. Low budget execution, coupled withalready inadequate budget allocation, inevitably resultsin poor outcomes of social protection results.
l The MoPSLSW needs to prioritise institutional capacitystrengthening for all sections within the Department ofSocial Welfare to ensure budget execution for allprogrammes is enhanced.
Overall program utilisation of the budget has improved, thoughwith some inconsistencies across the various programmes.Budget execution rates vary across the various social protection
components. For the period 2016 and 2017, BEAM actual
expenditure was below annual allocations, by margins of over
50%. For the period 2018 and 2019, there are budget overruns of
128% and 93% respectively (Figure 17). On the other hand,
execution of the Health Assistance Programme3, and Support to
Government Rehabilitation Institutions has improved significantly.
The Harmonised Social Cash Transfer has been persistently
underperforming, with an under expenditure of 61% in 2019.
Although the weak budget execution can partly be attributed to
limited fiscal space, the main challenge which was confirmed by
the Social Protection Sector Review is related to the weak
capacity of the MoPSLSW, particularly the Department of Social
Welfare (DSW). Capacity strengthening of the DSW should be
prioritised to ensure that the few resources availed by the Ministry
13 16 16
25
49
12 6 7
27
48
(1)
2
(1)
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
US
$ M
illi
ons
Source:Various Budget Statements and Author calculations
Figure 16: Budget Allocation Vs Actual Expenditure 2015 -2019
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
BEAM HSCT HealthAssistance
Support todisabled persons
GovernmentRehab
Institutions
Other
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source:Various Budget Statements and Author calculations
Figure 17: Budget Execution of Social Protction Programmes
992
825
157
9 1
304
152 145
3 5 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Total Family, SP &Repatriation
Child Welfare Disability andRehab Services
Leadership &Management
Perc
ent
ZW
L$
Mill
ion
2019 Budget Allocation 2019 Act Exp to Sep Utilisation
Source: 2020 Budget Statement
Figure 18: DSW Budget Utilsation as as at end-September 2019
-8%
-62% -59%
9%
-3%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source:Various Budget Statements and Author calculations
Figure 15: Budget Credibility (Deviation of Actual from ApprovedTotal Programme Budget
The issues impacting implementation if not addressed, willcontinue in 2020, yet vulnerabilities affecting the poor andvulnerable households are increasing. As reveled by the SocialProtection Sector review, the Department of Social Welfare has
limited capacity to implement the various programmes under its
purview. As indicated in Figure 18, as at end September 2019,
overally only 36% of the allocated budget had been utilized. Of
concern is the Family, Social Protection and Repatriation budget
line item which had utilized 18% of the ZWL$825 million allocated
for the period under review.
3 Implemented through Assisted Medical aid Treatment Orders (AMTOs)
7. SOCIAL PROTECTION SECTORFINANCING
The total financing for Social Protection in 2020 amounts toUS$239 million, of which 93% (US$222 million) will comefrom the budget. Government financing has increased
considerably compared to the period prior 2017 when it averaged
approximately 32% of total social protection financing. The
increase in budget financing is commendable, though it is
inadequate considering the growing social protection needs. The
World Bank estimates that US$950 million is required in 2020 to
finance the various social assistance programmes. Figures 19 and
20 show the trend in social protection financing.
10 ZIMBABWE SOCIAL PROTECTION BUDGET BRIEF UNICEF | JUNE 2020
12 6 7 27 48
22
25 12 14 12
9
18
-
50
100
150
200
250
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
US$
Mill
ions
Budget Revenues Development Partners
Source:Various Budget Statements and Author calculation
Figure 19: Main Sources of Financing Social ProtectionProgrammes
32% 33% 32%
69%84%
93%
68% 67% 68%
31%16%
7%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Per
cent
of
Tot
al
Budget Revenues External Sources
Source:Various Budget Statements and Author calculation
Figure 20: Trend in Domestic and External Social Protection Sector Financing
Key Takeaways
l The 2020 Social Protection sector financing amount toUS$117 million, of which 93% is from domesticsources and 7% from development partners. Theincrease in public sector financing is commendable,however, there is need further scale up domesticresource mobilisation, to cover the gap created bydeclining donor support.
l Development partner support remains a key pillar ofsocial protection sector financing. Reforming the sectorin line with the recommendations of the Social ProtectionSector Review is critical, including strengthening publicfinancial management, will be critical to attractdevelopment partner financing in the sector.
Development Partners will contribute US$18 million, whichtranslates to 7% of the total social protection financing. Asshown in Figure 20, funding from development partners has
significantly declined compared to the period prior 2017. Social
protection sector funding has always been largely dependent on
donor financing, averaging 67% over the period 2015 -2017.
Beginning 2018, donor contributions have been declining, with
Development Partners increasingly calling for Government to play
a major role in the sector. Despite this decline, Development
Partner financing still remains a crucial part of the sector financing.
Addressing the concerns of the Development Partners, which
include strengthening the Public Financial Management, and
increasing the government counterpart financing is key to
attracting more resources.
Zimbabwe has to step-up domestic resource mobilisationconsidering the fiscal shock related to the COVID-19 outbreak,which will overstretch the purse of all traditional donorcountries globally. The funding gap in 2020, is likely to bewidened, as the traditional donors will face huge fiscal outlays in
fighting COVID-19 thereby reducing resources available for official
development assistance.
UNICEF 2020 Budget Brief
June 2020
2018 National Budget Brief
ZIMBABWE
An Overview Analysis
For further information, please contact:Tawanda ChinembiriChief of Social Policy & ResearchUNICEF ZimbabweEmail: tchinembiri@unicef.orgPhone: +263 8677 020888
top related