A/HRC/17/34 42. Social protection systems play an exceptionally important role in protecting the enjoyment of several economic, social and cultural rights of the poorest and most vulnerable during times of economic shock and other forms of crisis. Therefore, it is of concern that some States are now proposing reductions in funding to social protection systems as part of their recovery plans.23 These proposed reductions go against the repeated political commitments made by States to provide and promote comprehensive social protection systems as key measures for recovery.24 43. As part of the efforts to tighten spending, some countries are further curtailing already limited social protection schemes by reducing the level of benefits or by further targeting (reducing coverage).25 This is despite the reality that those living in poverty continue to suffer from the cumulative effects of the crises and should be protected as a matter of priority. 44. Cuts to social protection systems may violate the prohibition of retrogressive measures and seriously compromise the ability of States to ensure minimum essential levels of human rights for all, particularly the most vulnerable. By further targeting social protection mechanisms, States run a much higher risk of excluding those most in need of support, which would violate human rights principles regarding non-discrimination and equality and undermine the obligation to prioritize the most vulnerable. If targeting is adopted, Governments must comply with human rights principles that require, inter alia, minimizing exclusion errors and ensuring that targeting mechanisms are objective, transparent, open to scrutiny and do not stigmatize the beneficiaries. Targeted mechanisms should also be adopted within a long-term strategy of universal protection. B. Reducing wage bills 45. A significant percentage of post-crises austerity budgets have included proposals to limit the public wage bill by reducing the public sector workforce and cutting or freezing wages of public sector employees.26 Often these cuts are not progressively implemented, and therefore have a disproportionate impact on the lowest wage brackets. UNICEF has expressed concern that wage cuts or caps might translate into the reduction or erosion of the real value of salaries, as costs of living continue to rise, and may take the form of hiring freezes or employment retrenchment.27 The serious implications of such developments would be exacerbated by the fact that declines in real wages were already widespread owing to the effect of the global economic and financial crises on the labour market.28 46. Reductions in the public wage bill will severely impede the delivery of social services. If remuneration to the providers of basic education and health care is reduced, this could have a potentially drastic impact on individuals’ ability to easily and effectively have 23 24 25 26 27 28 Katerina Kyrili and Matthew Martin, “The Impact of the Global Economic Crisis on the Budgets of Low-Income Countries”, Oxfam International and DFID, 2010, p.18. See for example General Assembly resolution 65/1, paras. 23(f), 51 and 70(g); the G20 Seoul Summit Leaders’ Declaration, November 2010, para. 5; and the G20 Seoul Summit document, para. 51(f). Ortiz and others, “Prioritising Expenditures”, p.15. For examples of States reducing benefits, see the questionnaire responses of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Lithuania and Portugal. For examples of States further targeting social protection, see the questionnaire responses of Lithuania and the Republic of Moldova. See Ortiz and others, “Prioritising Expenditures”, p. 20. See also the questionnaire responses of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Jordan, Lithuania, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Ortiz and others, “Prioritising Expenditures”, p. 20. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, “Social and Political Dimensions of the Global Crisis: Implications for Developing Countries”, 2009, p. 1. 11