Proceedings of Day One

Introductory presentation
Frans Lenglet, Director of Training, International Training Centre of the ILO, Turin

Mr. Lenglet welcomed the participants to the Centre, and recalled its long-standing interest in the informal economy.

Welcome address
Fred Fluitman, ILO Turin Centre

Mr. Fluitman welcomed the participants and described several practical arrangements. He called attention to the copies of the conclusions on decent work and the informal economy adopted by the International Labour Conference in June 2002, distributed along with other materials to the participants.

Presentation of Objectives of the Workshop[top]
Anne Trebilcock, Policy Integration Department

Ms. Trebilcock welcomed the participants on behalf of the Policy Integration Department, which she explained had been asked to promote cross-Office work on decent work and the informal economy to follow up on the resolution and conclusions adopted by the ILC. She presented the following PowerPoint presentation: "Workshop on decent work and the informal economy: purpose of workshop"

Presentation of the ILC conclusions [top]
Lin Lean Lim (Employment Sector), with comments by Mohammed Ould Sidi (Employers' Activities Branch) and Faith O'Neill (Workers' Activities Branch)

Ms. Lim presented the following PowerPoint presentation: "Presentation of ILC conclusions"

Mr. Ould Sidi (ACTEMP) notes that if we can act together in terms of concepts, means and choice of the same direction, we can accomplish a great deal. The International Labour Conference conclusions validated this approach. Now the question for the ILO is to how to follow up on those conclusions. Between 1972, when the ILO "discovered" the informal sector, up to the 2002 Conference, work did not advance much beyond that discovery. We know that the informal economy is there, that it is not inevitable, that it is not good, and that it represents a malfunctioning of macro level policies. Underdeveloped countries that maintain an informal economy are doomed to remain underdeveloped. If you want to marginalize a developing country, then help it continue its informal economy. Why is there so much informality in some countries and little in others? It is not simply a question of being a rich or a poor country, or a large or a small economy. It relates to good and bad policies. It cannot be said that informalization is always the result of globalization, since it is in fact the non-integration in the global economy that feeds the informal economy of some countries.

ACTEMP is acting at two levels in relation to the informal economy: strategically and operationally, asking what ACTEMP can do, what we can do with others, and what can be done through others. There is enough meat in the conclusions to feed everyone.

ACTEMP's work in relation to the informal economy proceeds along three lines: "Acceuil, accompaniment et assistance" (opening up/welcoming, accompanying measures and assistance). This occurs at two levels, ongoing needs and fundamental rights. It is important to act on the causes of informality. This has to be done in a balanced manner, to address structures, techniques and operations. ACTEMP is inserting informal economy issues into its seminars, and is setting up a think tank to bring together best practices. In an upcoming subregional meeting, ACTEMP is looking at the informal economy from the viewpoint of regional integration arrangements. Our constituents are looking for specific evidence of progress.

Ms. Faith O'Neill (ACTRAV) noted that the conference conclusions on the informal economy provide a comprehensive basis for moving forward on this issue. Overall, the conclusions represented a healthy balance. The issue of governance is especially important, since that permits addressing the underlying causes of informality and institutional frameworks. Even while ameliorative action was underway, sight should not be lost of these larger questions. The ILC conclusions call on the ILO to reach out and to liaise with other intergovernmental organizations to initiate dialogue. We should look strategically to work with our constituent base to push the elements involved in the conclusions.

The key idea is transformation, with assistance to workers in moving to levels of greater protection, enhanced rights, etc. How to do this is the excruciatingly difficult task that lies before us. From a worker perspective, the role of trade unions is key. There could be an institutional level campaign around the informal economy, with elements on institutional and regulatory frameworks, involving ILO technical expertise in finding solutions and strategies.

Presentation of the results of the mapping process [top]
Joanna Jackson (INTEGRATION/Employment Sector), with comments by Martha Alter Chen (Harvard University) and Ralf Hussmanns (INTEGRATION/STAT)

Ms. Jackson presented the following PowerPoint Presentation: "Presentation of the mapping results"

In discussion of the mapping, Mr. Alli (HIV/AIDS) noted that the Rapid Assessment Tool should be added to the list of tools. Mr. Bogui (EMAS, Dakar) referred to a project involving the informal economy with a website in French. It was agreed that both would be added to the inventory, and Ms. Jackson appealed to units at HQ and in the field that have not yet provided input into the mapping exercise to do so. She noted that this was an ongoing exercise and would need periodic updating. In reply to a question, she explained that the mapping exercise's look at LABORDOC had begun with 1995, in order to encompass the Interdepartmental Project on the Informal Economy.

Martha Alter Chen (JFK School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts), who has written extensively on the informal economy, provided an academic's viewpoint on the results of the mapping. She recalled the ILO's role historically with the groundwork in 1972, and more recently with the adoption of the 2002 ILC conclusions. The world was looking to the ILO for leadership on this issue.

In terms of how the ILO might frame its activities on the informal economy, she noted the importance of a dialogue with the economists who inspire many decisions that lie behind governance, legal, institutional and other action. The informal economy is only partially understood, and the move from referring to the informal "sector" to the informal "economy" has been helpful in reframing the concept. However, the way in which the informal economy is defined also complicates the task somewhat, since the self-employed and those with paid jobs in the informal economy often work under different conditions. There are a number of theories about why the informal economy exists and grows, and there would seem to be many causal factors. We need to be more nuanced, to look at specific points about the informal economy and see what is driving what. The approach of wanting to reduce decent work deficits was a promising one to make the ultimate goal clear. If we ask ourselves what we are aiming at, we are forced to become practical, whether in terms of organization, promoting entrepreneurship, improving jobs in the informal economy. However, we need to be ready with arguments from certain economists who will instantly claim that the desired changes will introduce labour market rigidities.

The identification of self-employment and informal jobs somewhat complicates what the ILO can do. A systematic approach to how policies affect different parts of the informal economy is needed. There are major problems with data that make it difficult to do proper analysis (it is often done based only on data on the self-employed). Many economists maintain that if you have aggregate growth, redistribution will end up reducing poverty. However, no amount of redistribution through social policies can make up for maldistribution in economic policies. The ILO should show economists why reducing decent work deficits in the informal economy is really the only way to achieve poverty reduction. Unfortunately, data on informality is inadequate. For example, within the Millennium Development Goals process, only two indicators relate to labour markets (the indicators on youth unemployment and on women's share of non-agricultural employment) - neither of which brings out the informal economy dimension.

Ralf Hussmanns (INTEGRATION/Bureau of Statistics), picked up on the data theme by describing statistics already available on the informal economy and exploring prospects for new tools. He noted the reference in the ILC conclusions to the importance of strengthening national statistical capacity. He pointed out the opportunities to improve this situation by including these elements in ILO country programmes.

Commenting that we are not starting from scratch, he recalled the 1993 resolution of the 15th International Conference of Labour Statisticians on the informal sector, which led to this being included in the system of national accounts. This made it possible to measure the informal sector in relation to the Gross Domestic Product. However, there was a price to pay, since the informal sector had to be defined in terms of production units, i.e. enterprises in which informal activity took place (rather than characteristics of people engaging in it). Since the early 1990s, STAT has provided training and technical assistance to member States, and lessons were also learned during the Interdepartmental Project on the Informal Economy (1994-95).

He distinguished between data collection and data dissemination in user-friendly format. We now have a lot of data collected, but less has been disseminated because users do not know about it. In addition, they find its format difficult to use, suggesting a need for improved dialogue between data producers and users. STAT has a data base on employment in the informal sector, covering 60 non-OECD countries. However, definitions used by these countries vary, and there is a need to improve the comparability of data and to make the data base more accessible.

In terms of a conceptual framework, extension to job-based data would be fairly easy, and STAT is working on methods to do this. There are external groups working on this too, such as the International Experts Group on Statistics on the Informal Economy, the Delhi Group, etc. The latter has tested some frameworks using data from the countries it covers.

Lin Lim (Employment Sector) expressed concern about using the term "informal sector" when the ILC had moved on to use "informal economy." Ms. Chen noted that we need to use terms that fit what the statistics say, and to use those terms with precision. The ILO is seen as the place for labour force statistics, but what is needed to get economists engaged is to provide them with data sets. Until we have economists using the informal economy data sets, we won't be able easily to see links between that and poverty. Mr. Hussmanns pointed out that the next International Conference on Labour Statisticians, scheduled for the end of 2003, included a working group on informal economy statistics. With regard to using the term "sector" he noted that this word has a different meaning in statistics than in general usage (such as manufacturing, mining, etc, which for statistics purposes are branches of economic activity). In statistics, "sector" refers to a set of production units/enterprises that have certain characteristics in common. So the two concepts are distinct and cannot replace each other. The underlying problem is that one cannot measure the contribution of jobs as such to GDP, but rather the contribution of enterprises to GDP. The need to focus on production units means that there is a need to supplement this with another concept.

Ms. Lubyova (MDT/Moscow) queried the distinction in the mapping process between action that was directly related to the informal economy, since many relevant things could be missed. Mr. Ueda (Employment Sector) noted the need to distinguish between informal economy (more general) and informal sector (referring more to informal jobs). Faith O'Neill recalled the emphasis to be placed on measuring decent work deficits, and queried how this was being addressed in terms of statistics. Anne Trebilcock (INTEGRATION) and Janine Rodgers (DECLARATION) mentioned the work being done on decent work indicators/indexes in INTEGRATION's Statistical Development and Analysis Group (which also chairs the office-wide Advisory Group on Statistics), Panorama Laboral (Labour Overview), the InFocus Programme on Socio-Economic Security, and DECLARATION. Ms. Chen pointed out that the purpose of indicators was to give a quick view, however, using the denominator of the entire work force, without a breakdown between the informal and formal economies. Mr. Hussmanns recalled the need to start to build up statistical series.

Linkages between the informal economy and decent work and poverty reduction [top]
Fred Fluitman, ILO Turin Centre, Pat Holden (INTEGRATION/NPG) and Peter Poschen (INTEGRATION/NPG)

Mr. Fluitman made the following PowerPoint presentation "Linking decent work deficits, poverty and the informal economy"

Pat Holden (INTEGRATION/National Policy Group) indicated that she was speaking from the perspective of work on the Decent Work Pilot Programme and on Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, both being led by the National Policy Group within INTEGRATION. She has been conducting a poverty mapping, mainly aimed to identifying what people in the ILO think they are doing at the country level. This has involved interchanges with work on the informal economy mapping as well as consultations on preparation of the Director-General's report to the ILC 2003, which focuses on decent work and poverty reduction.

Ms. Holden used the symbol of Veera, the poor woman identified within the Asian Region at an ILO meeting a few years ago as the "typical" beneficiary/target for ILO action. Ms. Holden noted that Veera typified the large number of people who fall outside what organizations generally have to offer. She described the deficits as well as the assets that Veera brings to bear for her survival and compared this to the types of ILO products that can be of assistance to her. These are shown in the document "Veera, the face of poverty".

She noted that these products tend to come predominantly from the Employment and Social Protection Sectors, and speculated on products that could be developed by the other sectors. She also asked how the ILO can have a more coherent approach, to identify what does ILO action add up to in relation to situations faced by someone like Veera. It was increasingly clear that the ILO's advantage lies at the policy level. What are the instruments for helping have Veera's problems understood in the policy dialogue? She referred to PRSPs, CCAs, UNDAF, etc. How can the ILO build up its country knowledge? How can it maximize the role of the social partners? What sort of collaboration (internally, with bilaterals, with IGOs and NGOs) is needed to do this work? These were the challenges of this workshop.

Peter Poschen (INTEGRATION/National Policy Group) described the Decent Work Pilot Programme in Ghana, in which the informal economy forms the centrepiece. With 40 percent of the population of the country classified as poor, poverty is the national priority that is reflected in the DWPP. The constituents considered action on poor farmers or on the informal economy, then opted for the informal economy since they saw this as where the ILO had a comparative advantage to carry out work. He noted that the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy had become the dominant policy framework, which was guided by the World Bank but with sectoral policies inserted by the Government's line ministries (including some labour issues). This was now the framework for the allocation of resources from the national budget and for donor funding in Ghana. Since the districts are supposed to be (although 95 % of the expenditure remains at the national level) the engines of poverty reduction, the ILO is working at this level to develop policy and tools, based on discussions with beneficiaries. Many enterprises are formal for some purposes and informal for others. They are characterized by low productivity and poor conditions. Decent work deficits don't tell us much, since one deficit may be predominantly important. More knowledge of the causes and effects, especially economic, are needed. The ILO is using a local economic development approach as a basis for dialogue at the district level, trying to offer assistance from the ILO in a reasonably coherent manner. Some of the issues to confront, such as lack of infrastructure and corruption, go beyond what the ILO itself can offer.

A heated discussion followed (involving Mr. Poschen, Mr. Levin (COOP), Ms. O'Neill, Mr. Salter, etc.), involving different views on whether subsistence agriculture could be excluded from the notion of the informal economy. The interlinkage between the failure of rural economies and the growth of the urban informal economy was highlighted by Ms. O'Neill. It was also noted that people can move in and out of both subsistence agriculture and the informal economy over the course of a year. Ms. Chen pointed out that statistics distinguished between agricultural and non-agricultural.

With regard to Ms. Holden's participation, Mr. Fluitman commented that we cannot look at poverty only from the perspective of target groups. Donors created pressure to do so, since they often want to measure the number of beneficiaries, but this risks forgetting the larger policy framework. In terms of the informal economy, policies at the municipality level are critical. It is important to look at the underlying causes of informality, and not just at the manifestations of informality.

Mr. Ould Sidi thought that Veera represented the extreme case, and as such was not a good basis for developing a strategy. The ILO acts through the social partners and institutions, rather than directly with poor women. He agreed with placing emphasis on causes, but noted that the ILO tends to run behind the agendas of other actors, be it PRSPs, NEPAD, etc. We have to show our own approach and capacity to help the social partners influence policy by making the Decent Work Agenda very visible. Mr. Fluitman remarked that policies should be based on knowledge of the situation of people.

Ms. Holden noted that the international community has signed on to the Millennium Development Goals, and that the ILO has to be able to show how it can contribute in particular to the goal of reducing by half the number of people living on less than $1 per day. Ms. Trebilcock referred to a document on developments in the UN system, submitted to the March 2003 session of the Governing Body, that sets out the ILO's approach to the MDGs. It emphasises that these goals cannot be reached without achieving the Decent Work Agenda.

Mr. Bogui (ILO/EMAS (Dakar) stressed the importance of recognizing the changing environment and the need to look for strategic alliances. We will always have limited capacity ourselves, but that should not limit the strategy on how to help the poor. He reported on work underway in Mali and Senegal to assist small business associations. Noting that one of the causes of poverty is lack of voice, Mr. Popello (ACTRAV) said that the goal is to turn beneficiaries into actors. The rights-based approach of the ILO, which is rooted in civil society through its social partners, constitutes the comparative advantage of the ILO that should be better exploited.

Ms. Rossignotti (IFP/SEED) commented that while local government plays a key role, interventions on this level do not work unless they are backed up by policies at the macro level. Referring to developments in Durban and Johannesburg, South Africa, she stressed the importance of linking local and national level policies.

Reflecting experiences with the Arab States Region, Ms. Bikhazi (ARMAT, Beirut) noted that when ILO work is very concentrated, we lose site of the bigger picture. Work can start using formal institutions, such as employers' organizations, which can exert pressure to have officially announced policies actually enforced. She agreed with the need for integrated policies at the macro, meso and local levels. Advocacy plays a key role as well.

The substantive discussion of the first day of the workshop ended with Lin Lim's observation that the real issue was complementarity - where, when and how to target interventions in relation to decent work and the informal economy.

Proceedings of Day Two [top]

Note: The latter part of the agenda for Day Two was changed to permit the Theme Groups to complete their work for presentation on the following day.

Identification of key themes for Group work
Based on the discussions of Day One and the first session, the Workshop identified the following themes as ways of looking at decent work and the informal economy in a cross-sectoral way: Governance, Representation/voice, Macro(economic) issues, Productivity/Market enhancement, and Addressing Vulnerabilities. Comments about the diversity of the informal economy were also recalled as a help in identifying target groups/beneficiaries. While it was agreed that there were a number of themes under which follow up to the ILC conclusions could be pursued, these five had been extracted from the discussion in an attempt to promote cross-sectoral thinking.

Ms. Thomet and Mr. Nadoll of the Development Cooperation Department (CODEV) provided a summary explanation of the logical framework approach and why it was useful. This included working with a problem tree to show cause and effect relationships, and clearing identifying client/beneficiaries. Both the horizontal and vertical logic of the framework was explained, along with an examination of linkages between client identification and project cycle management (with examples). They both stressed that the approach had been simplified to fit the limited time available, and referred participants to the Guide to prepare a logical framework (see separate document) for further information.

In outlining the steps that the Group work should follow (see separate document), Ms. Thomet clarified that the "statements" to be revised according to her document setting out a log-frame for the workshop were statements in the log-frames, not in the ILC conclusions. The conclusions themselves contained a mixture of objectives, outputs and activities, which made it impossible to apply the problem tree directly to them; hence the themes had been developed to orient the work of the Groups.

During the discussion, several remarks were made about confusion created by PROGRAM and CODEV using different terms and/or definitions in relation to objectives, etc. With all the stress placed by PROGRAM on strategies, there did not seem to be a direct call for them in the log-frame, one participant remarked. It was made clear that the CODEV officials could be called upon during the Group exercises for assistance in using the log-frame. Because of the time shortage, the Groups were asked to concentrate on problem analysis and on identifying target populations.

The participants then split into the following groups for the rest of Day Two:

Group 1: Rania Bikazi, José Luis Daza Pérez, Pat Holden, Germán López Morales, Henrik Moller, Sergey Popello

Group 2: Joanna Jackson, Mark Levin, Faith O'Neill, Mohamed Ould Sidi, Giovanna Rossignotti, Linda Wirth

Group 3: Christina Berendt, Sévérine Dalban, Ralf Hussmanns, Janine Rodgers, Peter Poschen, Takafumi Ueda

Group 4: Productivity/Market enhancement: André Bogui, Ann Herbert, Lin Lim, Konstantin Novikov, Mario Tueros

Group 5: Benjamin Alli, Craig Churchill, Andreas König, Martina Lubyova, Marc Soquet

(Ms. Thomet, Mr. Nadoll and Ms. Trebilcock circulated among the Groups.)

Proceedings of Day three [top]

The final half-day of the Workshop featured presentations by the five Theme Groups, general discussion including feedback from CODEV (Ms. Thomet and Mr. Nadoll), GENDER (Ms. Wirth) and INTEGRATION (Ms. Trebilcock), and a summing up session that included an outline of next steps. The presentations of the five Groups appear as Word or PowerPoint files under Resources, identified under the following headings (listed in order of presentation):

Addressing Vulnerabilities (presenter: Andreas König)
Representation/Voice (presenter: Mark Levin)
Macro Policies (presenter: Takafumi Ueda)
Productivity/Market enhancement (presenter: Lin Lim)
Governance (presenter: Pat Holden)

Overall, it was felt that each group had "discovered" how interrelated the issues involving the informal economy in fact were, and how necessary it was to link action taken at various levels, from the local to the global. In the oral presentations, the Groups referred to pertinent paragraphs of the ILC conclusions as guidance and/or a source of concrete ideas for work.

Comments made more specifically in relation to the presentation of each Group follow.

Addressing vulnerabilities (Group 5)[top]

The presentation followed the log-frame approach, which they had found useful in achieving focus. In response to a comment that there was no obvious reference to the constituents, it was stated that their involvement was reflected in paragraphs 35 and 37(l) and (m) of the Conclusions, which the group had cited. One participant commented that discrimination was presented only as an external force, whereas in fact more direct action on discrimination was needed to address vulnerabilities. The category "women" was seen as too broad, with better formulations being for instance, "poor women in X region". The distinct realities of young men and young women should also be taken into account. The difference between direct and indirect beneficiaries was discussed, and it was noted that the government could be seen as a target group. The Group explained that they had engaged in a discussion of representation issues, since this was clearly an important way towards empowerment of vulnerable target groups, but had seen this as an issue to be treated by another Theme Group.

Representation/voice (Group 2)[top]

Turning to that Theme Group, its presenter noted that "life is not a log-frame" and that their Group's presentation had thus not followed it exactly. The broader context of their discussions had been the idea of a continuum, with action to be directed at moving people up the continuum, from the informal to the formal. The Group's PowerPoint presentation sets out the approach taken.

In discussion, one commentator referred to "life outside the solar system," by which he meant the myriad of groups other than the social partners which are taking action on the informal economy. It would be useful if guidance could be given to technical units on how to recognize whether such partners were bona fide or not. The guidance already provided by the ILC conclusions on this point was highlighted: "democratic, independent, membership-based organizations of wage workers, own-account workers, self-employed persons or employers in the informal economy" (para. 17). This definition brought out to the key idea of having legitimate institutions of voice. The importance of working through the social partners was stressed, while it was noted that their capacity to organize in the informal economy was also needed. This would lead to a more inclusive, rounded system of social dialogue, rather than having ILO units running off in different directions. Within the ILO mandate, the constituents were the direct route, and it was through them that the indirect target groups could be reached. This would not always be easy, and the example of "hybrid" organizations along occupational lines (hairdressers, associations of truck owner-operators, etc. which did not always fit easily into trade unions or employer associations) was mentioned. The point was made that the conclusions do not state that there can be no organizations other than those of employers or workers; rather they stress that the best way for the ILO to work was through its constituents. For example, cooperatives are active in the informal economy, and the Employers and Workers have no difficulty with that. It was also recalled that the ILO supervisory procedures, i.e. the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, had established clear jurisprudence on identifying the representative nature of occupational organizations.

Macro policies (Group 3)[top]

The Group's approach to this issue is captured in its PowerPoint presentation. They had found it difficult to grasp the scope of the task assigned, and had limited it to policy at the national level. The discussion brought out certain dilemmas in relation to macro policy. For instance, a trade liberalization policy could in the short term help street vendors with access to cheaper imported goods, but the same policy could hurt domestic non-competitive producers in the informal economy. Is it a dichotomy to simultaneously pursue the goal of decent work and improvements in the informal economy? Here the notion of the continuum was recalled. Reference was made to the example of IPEC's work that seeks the abolition of child labour but also acts to improve conditions in the informal economy.

The Group had focused on increasing the quantity and quality of jobs for people now in the informal economy, thus highlighting employment policy. When queried as to why macro policy was being limited to employment policy when other aspects such as social protection had clear budgetary implications, the response from the Group was that employment policy was used as shorthand for employment and social policies. The Group had recognized that many other policies impact on employment, but that these were in the control of other, more powerful Ministries. The discussion brought out the fact that this was precisely the problem, and that decent work deficits will not be resolved by internal discussion among traditional ILO interlocutors. The issues need to be debated across governance structures, set in a larger context of development policies. If those policies are not pro-poor in their focus, the situation in the informal economy will only get worse. In the discussion, it was recalled that the Decent Work Agenda was the ILO shorthand for sound economic and social policies, and that reference to employment alone missed some importance dimensions. The different status of people in the informal economy (self-employed, etc.) suggests various lines of action. In response to a comment about the importance of the care economy and contribution of unpaid work to GNP, the Group noted that they had listed family members and dependents as beneficiaries.

Productivity/Market Enhancement (Group 4)[top]

This Group had used the time for a discussion which it too had found difficult to put into a log-frame. The presenter offered five general comments on the experience: (1) the experience had shown the very integrated nature of the problems (for example, questions of representation/voice had come up front); (2) the need to work at different levels; (3) in terms of clients, we cannot just focus on vulnerable target groups, since the problems need to be seen in a larger national and international context, and addressing other actors at the international level is important; (4) there is a need to distinguish between action the ILO can take itself and how to contribute to action to be taken by others; (5) the terms of reference, "productivity/market enhancement" were too confining since the critical issue was employment. The framework presented by this group combined Know How and Show How as means of carrying out the work. When the action to be taken to address the interrelated problems was seen as part of a programme of work, it became easier to see where complementarities exist so that different parts could complement and supplement each other, in logical sequencing.

A participant from another group remarked that the Productivity group's schema looked almost exactly like the Decent Work Pilot Programme in Ghana. In operationalizing such approaches, however, there were serious challenges in locating expertise to provide suggested solutions to the problems identified. In that country, for instance, a number of ILO programmes were operating, but virtually none was in the informal economy or in poor rural areas; pulling together to form a single ILO programme remains the goal.

Speaking from field experience, one participant noted the key points of lack of access to training and of basic occupational health and safety conditions as intimately related to low productivity in the informal economy. From a statistical point of view, it was important to bear the different target groups in mind in designing interventions. For instance, unpaid family workers - a numerically important group composed primarily of women and children - face problems that are somewhat different than those confronted by others. It was also noted that underemployment could have two faces, one characterized by very long hours, another manifesting itself by the performance of work that is far below a person's mental or physical capacity.

Another comment related to adding skills development/life-long learning to the activities that could be pursued. Comments in the same vein came in relation to the WISE (Work Improvement in Small Enterprises) programme and the elements of it that had been picked up within IFP/SEED. The advantages of using expertise that is available, rather than having programmes be seen as the property of a particular unit were stressed by a speaker from a Sector.

Several speakers noted the importance of taking the debate to a higher policy level, with a need for coherence between the macro, meso and micro levels. If the ILO just engages in isolated activities, it ends up acting like a range of charities with local effect, whereas real impact will be possible only through monetary and fiscal policies. The ILO niche has to be to show how the four strategic objectives make up a package that influences overall macroeconomic policy.

Governance (Group 1)[top]

This Group had used as its point of departure the definition of governance as used in the ILC conclusions, thus taking it in a narrower sense than sometimes understood in development circles (which could include, for instance, representation issues and macroeconomic policy). Their focus was thus on legal and institutional frameworks, and implementation of laws and policies. The Group had found the approach of various people from different parts of the ILO working together in new ways to be promising, an they wondered how this could be well managed. The results of their deliberations are set out in the accompanying document.

In the discussion, stress was placed on breaking the vicious cycle of informality, bearing in mind the final objective of reducing the number of people in poverty.

A query was raised about why stakeholders other than the social partners were listed as being involved in legislative reform; where labour law reform was concerned, only the social partners should be at the table. It was explained that the Group had differed over whether only labour legislation was at issue (in which case it would be the social partners only involved in consultations on its design) or whether the ILO should be involved in revision of commercial and property law. For that reason the word "labour" appeared in brackets in their presentation.

Another comment noted that the schema had placed emphasis on enforcement, but that more investigation should be made of incentives to encourage formality (e.g. access to credit, business development services being linked to registration, etc.). The ILO should not give up on the principle of enforcement, but the reality it faced was really quite stark.
It was suggested by another participant that the ILO should be more proactive in promoting labour legislation that would extend to the informal economy (rather than just responding to requests). It was also felt that there was a lack of analysis of what was out there in terms of solutions - greater draw should come on the work of others rather than pretending that the ILO could do it all.

General reflections on the process[top]

The summing up was preceded by a discussion of reflections on the outcomes of the Group work. It was generally felt that the Group working on productivity/market enhancement had in fact produced a framework that was much broader in scope, and could be used, in accordance with the schematic presentation and using the Decent Work Agenda as the backdrop, as the beginning of an integrated approach to the topic. The results of the Group that addressed representation/voice were seen as having made important progress in deepening the range of action to be taken on that subject and seeing its links to the broader picture. This was also seen as being the case for the work of the Group on addressing vulnerabilities, which had mostly closely and successfully used the log-frame tool.

The work of the Governance group had also revealed the interlinkages between the ILC's definition of governance, which focused on regulatory frameworks, and broader issues. Since the Macro policy group had focused exclusively on the national level, it was felt that more work was needed to pick up the points in the ILC conclusions that concern macroeconomic policy at the international level as they relate to decent work and the informal economy. This could be done, inter alia, by involving the International Policy Group of INTEGRATION and EXREL in further developing this aspect. The importance of visibility of ILO work on this topic was also stressed, suggesting the need to engage DCOMM as well.

Ms. Thomet of CODEV noted that the log-frame was a tool, not an end in itself. It did permit everyone to speak with the same language, and to produce something in a short time. The process itself had been interesting, and had produced a good start for a strategic framework. There was some overlap in the results of each group, and a clear need to identify the different levels at which they were pitched. Mr. Nadoll of CODEV noted that in some cases more work was needed on the cause/effect relationships and on the verification of assumptions. In other cases the design itself would need to address them, and it was suggested from some comments made during the workshop that the question of work with NGOs might benefit from more preparatory work as background for following up on the ILC conclusions. Important management issues remain to be worked out: who is responsible/accountable for which type of outputs? Priority setting is also essential, alongside sequencing and relating to ongoing activities. This often called for considerable negotiation, but that in turn resulted in greater buy-in.

Ms. Lim noted that the strategic framework sketched out in her Group was that of a programme of work rather than a physical structure. It would give us a means of thinking about issues in a more integrated way, using the strategic objectives in the Decent Work Agenda as the way the work is oriented, but in the context of a cross-sectoral approach . It could help us all think about how to mainstream work on the informal economy into other ongoing work, and to develop specific proposals that are more targeting informal economy issues. The means identified on the right hand side of the graphic - knowledge development, advocacy/communications and action at the international, national and local level would permit "know how" and "show how" to move in both directions to feed into one another. The mapping of tools was crucial, since this would permit leveraging the extensive work that has already been accomplished. With the Decent Work Agenda as the backdrop, Gender and Poverty Reduction could be seen as cross-cutting concerns in the framework.

It emerged from this discussion that this framework would be as a good starting point for a strategic framework for operationalizing the ILC conclusions in a programmatic way. In slightly modified form to reflect the plenary discussion, this is reproduced as a "Strategic framework for a programme of work on the informal economy" (LINK).

Questions were raised about why HIV/AIDS, international labour standards, social protection, employment, and social dialogue were not seen as "cross-cutting issues". In relation to HIV/AIDS, it was pointed out that this was a very general framework to be used at a global level; adapted to a country where HIV/AIDS dominated the policy agenda, it could well make sense to treat it as cross-cutting issue. As regards the other topics, which coincide with both strategic objectives and Sectors, it was pointed out that the purpose of the exercise is to develop a framework for integrated work which was by nature cross-sectoral. For this reason, the themes had been identified in a way that avoided using names of Sectors. From the perspective of social protection, for instance, this opportunity to see the issue in terms of linkages was quite helpful. Caution was urged in relation to the idea of mainstreaming, however; many countries were non-competitive because the informal economy had become their mainstream, which was in fact a gutter. The reference to mainstreaming actually should pertain to the ILO's own work. The idea of having work done in the individual sectors but brought together in addressing various issues was recalled, along with paragraph 35 of the ILC conclusions, which sets out parameters for this to occur.

A participant from a Region raised the issue of addressing field/HQ relations; he suggested that for progress to be made on following up the ILC conclusions, it was necessary to do not just a mapping of tools, but of resources dedicated by HQ and the Regions to this topic.

In addition, Group 2 had posed two larger questions to the Workshop: How would its results be validated and how would the results be operationalized through an "integrated and highly visible programme of work"? These were addressed in the final part of the workshop.

Summing up and next steps[top]

In the opening discussion of the final session, the sense of the Workshop was that its results should be built upon immediately, with the bulk of the discussion revolving around the current TC-RAM round and getting a wider buy-in to the framework identified in the Workshop as conceptual guidance for carrying out the follow-up to the ILC conclusions.

In relation to the TC-RAM process, CODEV pointed out that the calendar for this has been set independently of the scheduling of this workshop, and recalled that the actual proposals would be written in the field. The Regional Offices would be deciding on proposals, based on the concept notes as forwarded by CODEV. Sectors could merge proposals if they wished; 15 had been received in relation to the informal economy. CODEV also recalled the focus of this round of the TC-RAM on poverty reduction, in line with DFID priorities. It was the sense of the Workshop that an integrated concept note should be pulled together for forwarding to the Regions. In addition, the framework sketched out by the workshop could be used to avoid going in all directions once SPROUTS were under development. CODEV noted that in the current TC-RAM round the amount available was $11 million, which would not be that much once spread across the Regions - all the more reason for a more strategic approach to be taken.

Specific comments referred to the relevance of the Youth Employment Network in terms of poverty reduction, the possible creation of a general fund pooling different sources of funds (which CODEV noted the donors would not accept), the merger of 16 into 6 proposals that Sector 3 had forwarded to CODEV, and possible folding in of follow-up on the framework within an upcoming event at Turin with IFP/SEED regarding business development services.

It was stressed that within the framework for work, the ILO's role is not to be the only actor, but to mobilize constituents, other international organizations and academics to deepen work on decent work and the informal economy. It was suggested that one area for further development was the knowledge aspect, putting together the necessary elements such as statistics, data, and knowledge sharing. Another area in need of further exploration was the whole area of creating visibility for a coherent programme of work on the informal economy.

In summing up, Ms. Trebilcock noted the sense of the workshop that the framework attached to the graphic in the Productivity Group's presentation provided a good basis for pursuing an integrated approach to following up on the ILC conclusions on decent work and the informal economy. The contributions from the participants from the Regions, the Sectors, the Bureaux of Employers' and Workers' Activities, CODEV and GENDER, had made this positive outcome possible. No one pretended that it was perfect, or fully developed, but it had found wide resonance as a sound basis for moving forward.

Since there was a sentiment to have wider recognition of the framework, INTEGRATION would convene the Working Group on the Informal Economy for this purpose (the list of officials representing the Sectors and Regions is shown in an attached document). It would also be explored whether the framework and a summary of the results of this workshop could be brought to the attention of the Senior Management Team. In addition, a debriefing session at HQ would be organized to share the workshop outcomes. The possibility of bringing attention to the results would be also be explored in the context of various regional meetings. In this way, the framework could be used by the Sectors and the Regions as they plan their work. INTEGRATION and CODEV would support this through their respective roles in relation to policy integration and coherence in technical cooperation.

When looking at follow-up to be given to the ILC conclusions, it is important to keep the broader picture in mind. A number of frameworks and tools exist into which work on the informal economy can be built (citing in particular the guidance provided by paragraphs 35 ad 36 of the conclusions). The overall context, however, is of course the Decent Work Agenda, as shown in the modified Strategic framework. In the short-term, the Conference resolution accompanying the conclusions had targeted the Programme and Budget for 2004-05 and resources available during the current biennium (i.e. regular budget, RBTC, extra-budgetary and cash surplus) for work to be done on the informal economy. These would form the core for an "identifiable and highly visible programme of work with dedicated resources that is able to draw together relevant expertise including experts in workers' and employers' activities" (para. 36(c) of the conclusions). Under the cash surplus heading "strengthening tripartism," ACTEMP and ACTRAV are currently programming the funds received in relation to work on the informal economy, and the workshop results could be useful to them in this respect.

The proposals for the 2004-05 Programme and Budget (soon to be available as GB.286/PFA/9) contained a sprinkling of references to the informal economy across operational objectives, since several regions had identified this as among their top priorities for the period concerned. In addition, under Shared Objectives, there was a box recalling the need to provide for follow-up to the ILC conclusions and stressing the need to attract extra-budgetary resources to do so. The general questions of operationalizing this through results-based management and other ways could be raised with PROGRAM and/or the Senior Management Team. Questions also remained about how to incorporate informal economy issues in the context of country programming, where this was a local priority. As for funding through the TC-RAM process, the workshop results could provide some useful input into the development of more integrated proposals by the Regions (and possibly revised concept notes from the Sectors).

In terms of communication tools, the websites on the informal economy maintained by Sector 2 (www.ilo.org/infeco) and by the Turin Centre (training.itcilo.it/decentwork) were cited along with the unit objectives database maintained by PROGRAM and fed by all. Finally, the Working Group on the Informal Economy could be a forum for providing feedback and raising awareness about work pursued cross-Office on the informal economy, as well as for suggesting more developed strategies. Ms. Trebilcock thanked all the participants and the Turin Centre for their cooperative involvement in the workshop, which was a good example of teamwork. Now it was up to each participant to take the messages from the workshop back to their colleagues and to use the strategic framework as inspiration for seeing how their own work could be done in an integrated way.

Mr. Fluitman reiterated the willingness of the Turin Centre to be involved in further follow-up activities, with resources that the ILO itself could provide towards this end.

The Workshop mascot -- an aromatic, Turin Alpine pine cone composed of its independent, well-aligned parts and producer of healing resins and the promise of new pine cones -- served as an illustration of what can be produced when single elements combine to form a coherent whole. It was on view during Days 2 and 3 of the Workshop and is now in the safekeeping of INTEGRATION.

14.02.03