Introduction
World Summit: Follow-up actions
Resource mobilization for children
The reallocation of government budgets and official development
assistance and measures to reduce the burden of debt were among
the most important actions called for at the World Summit for Children.
The Summit Declaration and Plan
of Action included the promise that programmes for child survival,
development and protection would have a priority when public resources
were allocated. Developed countries promised to do the same in relation
to their development assistance budgets. It was envisaged that every
effort would be made to ensure that programmes for children are
protected in times of economic austerity and structural adjustment.
Partial evidence from national sources and international studies
suggests that there have been increases in budgetary allocations
to basic social services in at least some countries. Initiatives
were also undertaken to invest in child and human development by
drawing on international funding sources. Some Governments have
developed special sections within their budgets focusing on children,
to increase the visibility of children and encourage parliamentary
debate and awareness. Others have begun to build in "child
impact analysis" to assess the likely direct or indirect effects
for children of draft budgets, as well as of new legislation, policies
and programmes, including in such areas as taxation and social security,
which may not appear to be directly concerned with children. Development
of such systems of analysis can build on the experience of many
countries' gender and environmental impact assessments and also
have potential for increasing the "visibility" of children's
concerns in resource allocations.
These positive trends in some countries, however, have been far
too limited. Many low-income nations and countries in transition
have continued to report the lack of resources as the principal
constraint to improving the situation of children and women. In
some cases, investment in basic services for the poorest communities
has decreased alarmingly due to a combination of political and economic
crises, socially insensitive financial reforms or a general lack
of focus on poverty in national policies. Armed conflict has sometimes
been a massive drain on public resources, at the direct expense
of social and economic investment. Notwithstanding, there are countries
that managed to increase their budgetary allocations for social
development during or shortly after a major armed conflict. Ghana,
the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mauritius, Namibia and Tunisia are
other examples of countries which have prioritized social investments,
with positive results for children.
In 1995, the World
Summit for Social Development endorsed many of the goals of
the World Summit for Children and endorsed the 20/20 Initiative.
Full implementation of this Initiative could have helped to fulfil
the promise made at the World Summit for Children. However, a review
in 2000 of implementation found only limited progress.
At the same time, as outlined in part I, chapter II, of the present
report, donor countries, as a group, have not managed to achieve
or even move towards the long-standing 0.7 per cent global target
for ODA, despite unprecedented budget surpluses and economic growth
in several industrialized countries. Many least developed countries
have seen their share of ODA decrease, and progress was not achieved
in fulfilling the agreed target of earmarking 0.15 to 0.2 per cent
of GNP as ODA for least developed countries. Children in the poorest
countries have suffered the most from inadequate international assistance.
A promise was also made at the World Summit for Children to pay
urgent attention to an early, broad and durable solution to the
external debt problems facing developing debtor countries. Among
30 low-income countries studied during the 1990s, some two thirds
were spending more on external debt servicing than on basic social
services. Several were spending three to five times more on debt.
While important initiatives, such as Heavily
Indebted Poor Countries I and II, have been undertaken towards
this end, by early 2000 debt relief had been provided for just four
countries, while 22 countries had been declared eligible for relief
by end 2000. Major breakthroughs have certainly been made in the
last two years - but in the longer perspective of years since the
World Summit, adequate and timely debt relief has been slow in coming.
The 1990s were a time of extraordinary economic growth for the
global economy. However, many of the world's children in most need
have clearly not had the promised "first call" on the
allocation of resources. The major benefits of growth have accrued
to a minority, and the period has been one of growing inequality
and greater impoverishment of many families already at the lower
rungs of the income ladder.
Back to World Summit: Follow-up
actions
|
|
|
