A/HRC/29/35 food, housing, and life and asset-saving information, accessible to all. The SPF Initiative emphasizes the need to guarantee services and transfers across the life cycle, from children to the economically active but with insufficient income, to older persons, paying particular attention to vulnerable groups, including people living with HIV/AIDS, migrants and populations exposed and highly sensitive to adverse external factors such as natural hazards, extreme weather events and other climate phenomena. The initiative also takes into account key characteristics that cut across all age groups, including gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and disability. 26 32. In June 2012, at its 101st session, the International Labour Conference adopted, by an impressive tripartite consensus, International Labour Organization (ILO) recommendation No. 202 (2012) concerning national floors of social protection. The recommendation established a new international labour standard, calling for a basic social protection floor for all through the provision of health care and income security. In adopting its recommendation No. 202, the ILO General Conference recognized the importance of social security in preventing and reducing poverty, inequality and social exclusion, and the role of social security systems as automatic stabilizers in times of crisis. The recommendation provides guidance to States on establishing and maintaining social protection floors as a fundamental element of their national social security systems. Social Floor Protection Initiative processes are country-driven, consultative, inclusive and participatory in nature, involving all stakeholders, including government representatives from the relevant agencies, social partners, parliamentarians and civil society through social dialogue. 33. The expansion of social protection has proved to be important in reducing inequality and poverty in a range of national contexts in both developing and developed countries. According to recent reports, some 30 developing countries have already taken measures to introduce elements of a social protection floor. Their experiences have shown that social security schemes are a vital and flexible policy tool to counteract and soften the social and economic consequences of financial shocks. They have also demonstrated the feasibility of building social protection floors and that, with the necessary political will, adequate resources for capacity-building and a sound implementation process, a strong national consensus in favour of social protection floor policies can be created and developed. 27 The Social Protection Floor Initiative is a way for people to earn sufficient income for adequate food, housing, water and sanitation, education and good health. It also paves the way for people to take part in cultural life, exercise their freedom of expression and share knowledge and ideas, all human rights to which everyone is entitled. The SPF Initiative contributes to more stable, fairer and cohesive societies by making those rights available and more accessible. At the same time, it strengthens the capacity of States to comply with their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, which is a defining attribute of international solidarity. 34. The International Conference on Financing for Development, held in Mexico in March 2002, was hailed as an exceptional event, different from other United Nations conferences, primarily because of the inclusion of all the stakeholders in the constructive interaction between developed and developing countries, and also because it was free from hostilities between the rich and the poor countries, which at that time was considered remarkable.28 The outcome document, known as the Monterrey Consensus, was a blueprint 26 27 28 International Labour Organization and WHO, Social Protection Floor Initiatives (2010), p. 3. A/HRC/28/68, p. 4. I.Haque and R. Burdescu, “Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development: response sought from international economic law”, in Boston College International & Comparative Law Review, Vol. 27, p. 219 (2004). Available from http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol27/iss2/4/. 13