1. Introduction
“Social investment (is) not an
add-on in times of plenty.It must be an integral part of the exit
strategy to the current crises.” Eurochild, March 2013
1. Child poverty is a phenomenon that some may remember
from 19th century novels by Charles Dickens or mostly associate
with the developing world, where UNICEF regularly states the highest
prevalence of child poverty.
However, it is also a sad reality
for numerous children in Europe, a continent which generally belongs to
the wealthiest regions of the world. Especially in the recent times
of economic crisis and budget austerity the most shocking living
conditions of children have been reported from various European
countries, which shows that the most extreme forms of poverty are
currently creeping back into Europe.
2. In a statement published in July 2012, the Commissioner of
Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Nils Muižnieks, warned about
the extent to which child poverty was on the rise in Portugal. The
combination of growing unemployment and cuts in salaries, increased
taxes and reduced social and unemployment benefits had resulted
in reduced incomes and growing poverty among many Portuguese families.
According to him, this situation of shrinking family incomes held
the risk of leading to a resurgence of child labour, notably in
the informal economic sector and agriculture. He therefore called
upon national authorities to be particularly vigilant and ensure
that programmes aiming at preventing child labour were continued.
3. The example of Greece recently showed that an increasing number
of European children were facing hunger or the risk of it. In 2012,
an estimated 10% of elementary and middle school students in the
country suffered from what public health professionals called “food
insecurity” and experts estimated that Greece had now fallen to
the level of some African countries. Illustrating these trends,
international press reports quoted school principals having observed
“children picking through school trash cans for food, needy kids
asking playmates for leftovers and [young children] bent over with
hunger pains”.
4. However, child poverty is not only an urgent issue for countries
mostly hit by the recent crises or for poorer European nations.
Dramatic statistics and reports on cases of extreme poverty reach
us daily from many countries, including from some of the wealthier
western European nations. Recent reports from the United Kingdom,
for example, have shown that child poverty in the country is expected
to be further on the rise from 2.4 million to an estimated 3.4 million
by 2020, despite the Child Poverty Act of 2010 holding the government accountable
for reducing child poverty. Recent studies have shown that poor
children in the country perform worse at every educational stage
and suffer from poorer health during their lifetime, and lower life
expectancy.
5. From these first examples, we can see that child poverty is
not only an issue of equal opportunities for children’s development
but one of sheer survival and access to the most fundamental resources,
and therefore an issue to be addressed urgently. Across Europe,
poverty and the extreme poverty that many children are facing should
be recognised as being amongst the main causes of various violations
of children’s human rights. Not only do many children suffer from
severe deprivation including lack of access to adequate food, safe drinking
water, decent sanitation facilities, health care, shelter and education,
but the precarious situation in which many families find themselves
also creates an environment conducive to sexual or commercial exploitation
of children.
6. Against this background, the present report takes stock of
the current situation of children in Europe, discusses policy responses
required and puts forward a number of recommendations. In this respect,
I would like to thank Professor Angela Abela, Associate Professor
for Family Studies of the Faculty for Social Wellbeing of the University
of Malta, who has made a major contribution to this study and the
analysis it contains. With the committee’s approval and in order
to obtain an overview on child poverty in member States of the Council of
Europe, a short survey was sent to member States via the European
Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD).
Thirty-five replies were received
and taken into account for the analysis presented below. However,
figures and examples given in the following memorandum are drawn
from the survey, media reports relating to the issue of poverty
as well as public data available in different member States.
2. Definitions
7. A widely-used definition of child poverty is the
one provided by Eurostat, namely the so-called “At-risk-of-poverty
or social exclusion indicator” (AROPE). According to Eurostat, this
indicator reflects the share of the population which:
- is at risk of poverty, defined
as the share of people with an equivalised disposable income (after
social transfer) below 60% of the national median equivalised disposable
income after social transfers; or
- is confronted with severe material deprivation, defined
as enforced lack of at least four out of the following nine material
deprivation items in the household in which the child lives: the
ability to afford unexpected expenses, to manage a one-week annual
holiday away from home, to pay arrears (e.g. mortgage or rent arrears),
to pay utility bills or hire purchase instalments, to provide a
meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day, to keep the home
adequately warm, to have a washing machine, to own a colour TV,
to use a telephone and to possess a personal car; or
- is living in households with very low work intensity,
that is equal or inferior to 20%.
8. The recent adoption of the three criteria above was considered
important in the context of the European Union given that monetary
relative poverty rates do not always give us a clear picture of
the poverty levels in a particular country. For example, between
2009 and 2010 the child deprivation index in Ireland indicated a
rise of 6.7%. However, falling salaries across the board gave the
impression that relative child poverty rose by less than 1%. In
this respect, the above-outlined list of deprivation indicators
adopted by the Indicators' Sub-Group (ISG) of the European Commission’s
Social Protection Committee (SPC) allows for a more comprehensive
and qualitative picture of the standard of living in different countries.
9. Quantitative national poverty thresholds may also vary widely
from one country to another. The Romanian relative poverty threshold,
for example, was set at $1.71 dollars in 2010 and was more of an
extreme poverty threshold given that it was below the $4-a-day established
by the World Bank for the transitional economies of the former Soviet
Union and eastern Europe.
Certain countries like
Montenegro, Serbia, the Republic of Moldova or Georgia tend to use
an absolute poverty line when referring to children living in poverty, whereas
the Russian Federation applies the “living minimum wage” concept
to measure child poverty.
10. The debate around the definition of poverty has also been
taken on board by Unicef. Besides relative monetary deprivation
with equivalent incomes below 50% of national median for countries
of the European Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD), in 2012 the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre
also included the 14 child-specific
deprivation
indicators
which Eurostat had introduced in 2009.
In their last publication, the Innocenti
Research Centre (2013) took a step further and focused on the well-being
of children rather than simply focusing on poverty, taking into
account other criteria such as health and safety, education, behaviour
and risks and housing and environment.
3. The prevalence
of child poverty in Europe
3.1. Overall figures
and determinants of poverty
11. Child poverty is an increasing phenomenon in Europe.
In 2011, 27% of young people under the age of 18 were at risk of
poverty and social exclusion in the EU–27, making children the most
vulnerable group when compared to adults and the elderly.
Moreover, European data show that
the described phenomena do not only touch a minority of children
or less wealthy countries, as one could think, but that child poverty
generally continues to be on the rise in Europe. According to UNICEF,
in 2012, roughly 13 million children in the European Union, plus
Norway and Iceland, lacked basic items for their development, and
30 million children across 35 countries with developed economies
lived in poverty.
Across
the European Union, 19% of children are currently estimated to be
at risk of poverty, compared to an average of 16% for the total
population. Some 15% of children leave school without completing
secondary education.
12. In 2013, Eurostat published national prevalence rates of children
at risk of poverty or social exclusion for EU–28 countries (without
Croatia because based on 2011 estimations).
Attention may be drawn to the European
Union statistics in addition to the figures obtained through the
survey carried out in the run-up to the current report, because
the official statistics correspond to the latest European Union
definition of poverty and are therefore more easily comparable (see
tables in the Appendix).
13. Children who were more likely to be living in poverty in 2011
were living in single-parent families or large households with dependent
children. Almost half of the households (45%) with low and very
low work intensity with dependent children were at risk of poverty.
Those children whose mothers did not attain upper secondary education,
as well as those with a migrant background, were also at risk of
poverty.
14. Already in 2007, thus before the outbreak of the current economic
crisis, UNICEF drew attention to the fact that Romani children,
in particular in south-eastern Europe, were amongst the groups most
vulnerable to poverty, deprivation, and lack of access to health
care and education. Even in countries where national action plans
in favour of Roma had been developed, focusing on housing, employment,
health and education, the specific needs of children had often been
neglected and targeted support for them was judged essential.
15. Eurochild, a network of European children’s rights activists
supported by the European Commission, confirms that the main groups
of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion are: children
in single-parent families, those in large families, those with unemployed
or underemployed parents, children in immigrant and ethnic minority
families, and children with disabilities.
However, the above quoted example
concerning the United Kingdom, shows that poor children are not
only found in “broken families”, that the majority of poor children
were living in working households, and that some counties were doing
better than others when it came to supporting single parenthood.
Stereotypes and generalisations should therefore
be avoided in this field, even though unemployment and the number
and level of family incomes are certainly determining factors when it
comes to fulfilling children’s needs.
3.2. Reports and figures
from individual countries
16. The matter of child poverty has been examined in-depth
in various European countries and reports on children living in
vulnerable and disadvantaged situations are regularly received from
numerous countries. As the present report does not allow for an
exhaustive overview of country situations, a few examples may serve to
illustrate how dramatic the situation is for certain children in
Europe.
17. In some European countries, families are confronted with difficulties
of sheer survival, such as in Greece, already mentioned in the introduction.
Similar examples
and alarming figures are also reported from other European countries:
In Spain, the regional government of Andalusia opened schools in
the summer of 2013 mainly to offer support to children who were
living in hardship because of the prolonged economic crisis. Similar programmes
were conducted on a smaller scale in Extremadura and the Canary
Islands. Last year, teachers noticed that children were falling
asleep from fatigue and lack of a proper diet. At the summer school,
children were provided with breakfast, lunch and an afternoon snack
which included fresh fruit, fish, meat and vegetables.
18. In 2013, UNICEF found that 20% of Spanish children from 0
to 7 were living in households whose equivalent incomes were 50%
below the median. Italy, Greece and Portugal came close behind.
In
the United Kingdom, according to a report published by the Institute
of Fiscal Studies in 2011, child poverty was predicted to begin
rising in 2013
and
increase by 41.6% by 2020.
19. Albania, after Kosovo
one of the youngest countries
in Europe, with more than 578 000 children under the age of 15 (2011
census) has many children in dramatic situations: According to the
latest official study of INSTAT (National Child Labour Survey),
7.7% of children between the ages of 5 and 17 are exploited for
hard labour and begging. There is evidence that, by being on the
street, these children are also at risk of being sexually exploited,
kidnapped and involved in prostitution or trafficking.
20. The situation is also dramatic in countries such as Romania
or the Republic of Moldova: here, many children are currently living
without parental care, because their parents were obliged to leave
them behind to find employment abroad and to ensure their families’
survival, and because they do not have any relatives to take care
of their children in their absence. This often concerns children
of a very young age who are left in the care of older siblings,
with limited access to basic resources and services such as adequate
food, health care or education.
The estimate is that 250 000 children
are in this situation in the Republic of Moldova alone.
21. In the specific area of health care, dramatic situations are
once again reported from Greece, where the economic crisis has deepened
since the country was bailed out by the international community
in 2010, leading to the sixth consecutive year of economic contraction
in 2013. Despite the rhetoric of “maintaining universal access and
improving the quality of care delivery” in Greece’s bailout agreement,
several policies shifted costs to patients, leading to reductions
in access to health care. This has also affected child health, due
to reduced family incomes and unemployment of parents, and led to
an increased proportion of children at risk of poverty with reduced
access to health services, a growing number of children receiving
inadequate nutrition and a 19% increase in the number of low-birthweight
babies between 2008 and 2010.
22. The current situation of children is serious in Georgia as
well
: 12% of children in the country
are currently living below the food poverty line and 28% under the
total poverty line. The deprivation items are different from those
considered by the European Union countries and include a television,
an iron, a refrigerator, a cell phone, a washing machine, a car
or a vacuum cleaner. Housing deprivation is also very common with
45% of poor children living behind windows with missing glass, and
31% with flooring in need of renewal or repair. In 27% of poor households,
part of the dwelling is destroyed, walls are cracked and damp and
electric lighting is absent in several or all rooms.
23. From the ECPRD survey it furthermore transpires that Georgia,
together with Montenegro and Serbia, were the only responding countries
which do not offer tutoring systems for children requiring special
support. In the Russian Federation, overall poverty has been halved
within a decade falling from 27.5% in 2001 to 13.2% in 2009. However,
child poverty is still high with a prevalence of 19.8% in 2009.
24. My own country, Azerbaijan, still faces various challenges
regarding the well-being of children. Despite much progress having
been achieved in recent years in the status and welfare of children,
and despite the fact that free education and health care are guaranteed
by our country’s Constitution, improvements can still be made. About
one million refugees present in the country are provided with all
necessary means of living required, such as schools for their children
or houses being built for them; nevertheless, economic wealth, largely
drawn from the oil industry, has unfortunately not yet reached the
whole population, so that poverty rates amongst a number of families
remain relatively high.
25. However, statistics and cases of child poverty are not only
reported from crisis-hit southern European countries or eastern
European countries whose economies are still in some kind of transition.
Wealthy western European nations also encounter situations of child
poverty. For Austria, every sixth child is reported as being at
risk of poverty,
in the Belgian region of Wallonia,
this rate even reaches one child
out of four, whilst in Germany almost 20% of all minors face income
poverty. Even though these statistics refer to relative poverty rates
– in reality many of these children are still living in wealthier
households than children in poorer nations –, the living conditions
behind these figures affect children, and many of them have fewer
chances of reaching good levels of education or are limited in their
physical and mental development.
26. These few unhappy examples reported from across Europe show,
in particular in the current economic and financial context where
families’ revenues are threatened and public benefits cut everywhere,
that there is urgent need for action in favour of children living
in poverty and that no single European country can be exempt given
that poor children can even be found in the wealthiest European
economies. Efforts and action by different stakeholders, including
governments, the private sector, non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) and individual volunteers should be combined to generate
tangible results for children in need.
4. Consequences of
poverty on children leading to the “poverty cycle”
27. The evidence presented above from various European
countries shows that the situation is dramatic and that action needs
to be taken urgently to improve the situation and well-being of
children across Europe. Poverty affects children’s confidence and
self-esteem and their relationship with others. Children living
in poverty tend to suffer from ill health, obtain lower levels of
education and therefore have limited employability and poor social
integration. There are five main pathways through which poverty
has an impact on the well-being of children. These include health
and nutrition, the mental health of the parents, the interaction
of the parent with the child, and the environment in the home and
in the neighbourhood.
28. Malnutrition effects neuro-cognitive functioning. The birth
weight of poor children is often low and this may be accompanied
by retarded growth. It may also have an effect on the children’s
cognitive development. There is a body of research which shows that
already by the age of two there is a significant cognitive difference between
children living in poverty and those who do not and this continues
to be visible and even increases over the years. Tests show that
the cognitive performance of advantaged children is 60% higher than
that of disadvantaged ones.
Even though further research into this
matter is certainly needed, some of the data available certainly
illustrates the need for the early intervention highlighted in Section
5 of this report.
29. Nurturing parents play a crucial role in the emotional climate
in the home and the children’s sense of well-being. The circumstances
of the parents have a direct impact on children and has an effect
on their performance at school, how they get on with their peers
and their sense of confidence. Some parents living in poverty tend
to get stressed, depressed and anxious. This can disrupt parenting
behaviour, they can become harsher and less consistent and may lack
the desired warmth and involvement that children need to thrive, although
such phenomena can, of course, also be observed in other social
strata. This should, however, not lead to the stereotype assumption
that poor parents are generally not in a position to be “good parents”.
30. One of the consequences for children living in poverty is
that many of them leave school before finishing secondary education.
Youth unemployment is about twice the average unemployment rate
for children who get caught in the poverty trap. It is through this
vicious cycle that the intergenerational cycle of poverty is perpetuated
from one generation to the next.
5. How the economic
context and budget austerity programmes are affecting children and
families
31. The collapse of one of the biggest global banks in
the United States in September 2008 led to the worst economic crisis
we have had to experience in 80 years. In Europe, the initial response
from governments to the financial crisis was to provide monetary
and fiscal stimulus and bailouts. Despite the large amounts of money
which the respective governments were pumping into the economy,
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported that 60% of government
debt that accumulated after the crash in 2008 were due to lower
income tax revenue, unemployment and automatic stabilisers (such
as unemployment benefits) rather than government spending on monetary
and fiscal stimulus and bailouts.
32. As soon as some of the countries in Europe got out of the
recession in 2010, they stopped stimulating their economies and
proceeded to introduce cuts. In the United Kingdom this brought
about a 3 percentage point drop in the budget deficit by 2013. Cuts
were even deeper in southern European countries. Whilst austerity
measures have a role to play at a macro-economic level, they may
have a major social impact and increase inequalities, both through
taxing (of wages or consumption) or reductions on social benefits.
Some researchers
argue that whereas budget consolidation is necessary, it should
not be at the expense of the poor.
These
dynamics have also been examined by the Parliamentary Assembly in
its work leading up to
Resolution
1884 (2012) “Austerity measures – a danger for democracy and social
rights”.
33. Most recently, in his latest issue paper, the Commissioner
for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks, has examined the link between
current austerity programmes and the enjoyment of human rights i.
He underlines that “public social spending has indeed been the primary
target of austerity measures in many member States”, and that this
involves “stricter accessibility conditions for a number of social
benefits, and other cuts to education and health-care systems”.
He further points out that “austerity measures related to child
and family benefits, generalised unemployment and rising food prices
are central issues affecting the well-being of children”, amongst
which poverty rates have increased even more sharply than for the
general population.
34. According to country-specific information collected by Eurochild
in 2011, the consequences of the financial crisis have been various
and have had a severe impact on children and their families.
These include a rise in absolute
poverty levels, a rise in unemployment which hit marginalised groups
more severely, such as migrants, salary cuts which continue to increase
in-work poverty levels and fewer opportunities for young people
to find work. Some of these young people are “Not in Employment,
Education or Training” (NEET). Ireland and Spain have NEET rates
of more than 10%.
In the United Kingdom,
it has been reported that the divide between the young people who
are better off and those who are not is of growing concern, with
those in poor areas sometimes resorting to crime and to informal
economies to survive.
35. Spending cuts have also been on the increase. In Lithuania,
child universal allowances have been abolished, in Denmark they
have been reduced by 5%, in Ireland a cut of 10 euros (20 euros
for the 3rd child) has been introduced. In Spain, a baby bonus subsidy
will be cut, whereas in the United Kingdom, child benefits have
been withdrawn from families with a higher income. In addition,
child benefits have been frozen and child tax credits have been
cut back. The commitment to increasing child credits by more than
the rate of inflation in 2012 and 2013 has been abandoned. According
to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS),
this
decision alone is likely to mean that another 100 000 children will
fall below the poverty line.
36. A whole range of other benefits have been under threat across
Europe. In Germany, cuts in 2010 included social care for those
looking for a job, housing subsidies and parental benefits. In Hungary,
a housing subsidy has been suspended, whereas in Denmark unemployment
benefits are available for two years rather than four. Likewise,
child and family services are also being dismantled. In Romania,
NGOs providing preventive work for children and their parents in
day centres no longer have the financial support to continue the
service. In Northern Ireland, a joint health and social care service
was dismantled leaving only the health service in place.
37. A recent Eurochild study confirmed that since the economic
and financial crisis began, several governments have introduced
social expenditure cuts that were directly felt by children and
their families, especially in areas such as child benefits, unemployment
benefits, statutory services providing support for children and
families, or health-care services. Such effects are regularly proved
by reports from specific countries, such as Latvia, where far-reaching
austerity programmes, praised as good examples on the international
scene, have clearly increased poverty and income inequalities and
had an impact on the most disadvantaged groups, such as children
in single-parent families, whilst children from middle- and high-income families
have been supported more generously (as noted by World Bank experts).
38. Already in 2009, the Overseas Development Institute in the
United Kingdom had suggested that “governments can do much to protect
children from the impacts of the economic crisis, but only if they recognise
the problem and plan accordingly”.
Whilst the phase of recognition of
the problem now seems to have been reached, at least at European
Union level (see below), it is high time to step up action in favour
of poor children affected by the crisis and take concrete measures
to break the poverty cycle threatening far too many of them.
6. Policy responses
given and required for effectively reducing child poverty
6.1. European strategies
and targets to fight against child poverty
39. As far as policy responses at the European level
are concerned, protecting children and upholding their fundamental
rights are amongst the priorities of the Council of Europe, in particular
through its programme “Building a Europe for and with children”
and its current Strategy 2012-2015. Already, in
Resolution 1800 (2011) on combating poverty, the Assembly called on member
States to commit to ending child poverty by 2025.
40. The European Union, in its “Europe 2020” Strategy, sets a
common European target to reduce the number of people at risk of
poverty and social exclusion by at least 20 million by 2020. In
its recommendation of 20 February 2013 entitled “Investing in children:
breaking the cycle of disadvantage”, the European Commission calls
for a children’s rights approach in the fight against poverty and
provides a common European framework for addressing this issue.
The document also provides a “greater visibility to the consensus
that has developed”
on the way forward and comprises
a set of policy guidelines on how best to tackle child poverty in
Europe. It advocates access to adequate resources, access to affordable
quality services (including good quality early childhood education)
and, last but not least, implementation of children’s right to participation.
The
European Union recommendation further notes that the importance
of fighting child poverty is a crucial investment in the future
of a society and of Europe given the long-term pervasive effects
of poverty on children. Early intervention and prevention are highlighted
and perceived as part of an integrated strategy that also takes into
account the successful employment of parents in work that pays.
The right to adequate health, education, housing and social protection
services is also highlighted.
41. The European Union document takes a rights-based approach
and is inspired by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child which has been ratified by all Council of Europe member
States. At the same time, it acknowledges the importance of families
in children’s lives. Indeed the quality of relationships in the
family is considered as the robust variable when gauging children’s
sense of well-being.
It
gives importance to integrated strategies that go beyond material
security for children and aims to promote equal opportunities for
all children. Special attention is given to “at risk” groups. Finally,
the importance of policy continuity and long-term planning is also
highlighted. The integrated strategies promoted by the European Union
are based on three pillars: 1) access to adequate resources; 2)
the need for quality services; and 3) the need for children’s participation.
6.2. Current challenges
in effectively eradicating child poverty
42. Many of the situations described above have shown
that the process of eradicating child poverty entails providing
comprehensive support to families whose distress is having a knock-on
effect on their children. Helping families to improve their living
conditions, for example by finding employment or decent housing, enables
them to raise their children in a healthy, stable environment and
breaks the intergenerational transmission of poverty. Effective
policies against child poverty also have to reach out to children
in the places where they live and where they can be assured equal
access to basic resources and services; next to the family environment
this also includes educational facilities. Taking as a grid the
three pillars for fighting child poverty as currently promoted by
the European Union (see paragraph 41), enables some of the remaining
challenges for national policies to be identified.
43. Firstly, adequate resources for families, as called for by
the European Union, require jobs that not only provide an adequate
income but are also respectful of family life. Jobs may need to
be complemented with effective redistribution policies where necessary.
,
Unfortunately,
the financial crisis has prompted governments to go for cuts on
social transfers and other forms of support for children and families,
which exacerbate social inequality. From the ECPRD survey launched
for the present report, it transpires that whereas all the participant
countries provided financial benefits to support families including
specific social assistance, a number of them do not offer specific
support to poor parents to help them enter the labour market. These
include eight countries belonging to the European Union as well
as Georgia, Iceland and Turkey.
44. The second pillar of effective strategies against child poverty
requires quality services for children. Quality public services
are, in particular, required for disadvantaged children whose parents
depend heavily on such support and cannot afford alternative private
services. The importance of quality services is also raised by UNICEF
which points out that there should be indicators to measure service
quality. In this respect, they consider the lack of such indicators
as a “glaring omission” that precludes us from the possibility of
auditing services and comparing them with those of other countries.
This emphasis on
evidence-based policies that guarantee the highest rate of return
for the investment made has become even more important in the context of
the current economic situation where resources are scarce and need
to be invested wisely.
45. From the above-mentioned ECPRD survey, it transpires that,
whereas a wide array of services is offered in schools to ensure
equal opportunity, early childhood education is still not offered
to all children in many countries in Europe in spite of the beneficial
effects especially to those children living in poverty. The targets agreed
at the 2002 Barcelona European Council for the Provision of Child
Care were that 90% of children aged three should attend nursery
schools whereas 33% of children under three (a target considered
low by some) should attend childcare institutions.
46. It is evident that introducing early childhood education services
without giving attention to the quality (and affordability) is not
the answer to introducing childcare and the issue of quality over
quantity cannot be stressed enough. We now know that the earliest
years play a pivotal role in the child’s cognitive and emotional development
and those living in poverty are riddled with disadvantage from this
very early age. It is therefore wise to invest in accompanying children
living in poverty and their parents by channelling resources and providing
more support during this crucially important time for the child’s
development.
48. Subsequent or in parallel to some of the above-mentioned European
standard-setting activities, many European countries have developed
national policies or strategies against child poverty today. However,
the major challenge in overcoming child poverty will be to bridge
the gap between the actual situation of children which tends to
worsen in a context of economic crisis and political intentions
and declarations on the one hand, and the effective implementation
of policies in favour of children on the other hand. As reports
from various countries have shown, national policies and measures
very often either fall short in protecting children against poverty,
because they are not sufficiently targeted, or even worsen the situation
of children when it comes to austerity measures, leading to cuts
in social benefits directly concerning children and families in
need.
49. In their analysis of the National Reform Programmes (NRPs)
of 2013, Eurochild
concluded
that, compared to previous years, modest improvements could be registered
from a child rights point of view. Certain countries had apparently
not taken account of problems arising from austerity cuts, unemployment
or the dire situation of the working poor. Some progress was recorded
in Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Romania and Spain as compared to 2012.
Nevertheless, the general situation of many children has not changed,
and fighting child poverty remains a very arduous endeavour.
50. A certain consensus seems to have been reached among the 28
European Union countries with regard to the deleterious effects
of poverty on children and their parents and on society in general.
However, the heterogeneity of the different countries in Europe,
including those countries that are not part of the European Union,
calls for recommendations that are applicable to all of Greater
Europe.
7. Conclusions
51. The European Union recommendation on child poverty
(mentioned above) was adopted and published in February 2013. It
contains very comprehensive guidelines aimed at eradicating child
poverty that could serve as a source of inspiration for all countries
of Greater Europe. It lists, amongst others, the following main measures
against child poverty:
- allow
families to access adequate resources by supporting parents’ participation
in the labour market and providing for adequate living standards
through a combination of benefits;
- allow all children and families to access affordable quality
services by reducing inequality at a young age by investing in early
childhood education and care, by improving the education systems’
impact on equal opportunities, by improving the responsiveness of
health systems to address the needs of disadvantaged children, by
providing children with safe and adequate living environments and
by enhancing family support and the quality of alternative care;
- promote children’s right to participate in recreation,
sport and cultural activities as well as in decision making that
affects their lives.
52. The recent adoption of the European Union recommendation was
very much welcomed by the European network Eurochild and other children’s
rights activists. The recommendation was perceived as an important document
that bridged the gap between the rhetoric of politicians and the
implementation of policy.
Following the
adoption of this document, Eurochild provided a number of recommendations
on how the European policy could be implemented. Amongst these,
the following are worth mentioning
and could complement the European
Union strategy when it comes to implementation:
- political will to fight child
poverty needs to be a priority in all European countries. In this
respect clear objectives and targets need to be set at the outset;
- tried and tested indicators monitoring outcome for the
children and their families should be the main tools for assessing
the successful implementation of policy. More research needs to
be carried out in this important area if policy is to be more evidence-based.
Indicators should also be common across countries in order to mutually
learn from good practice;
- especially for the poorer countries, additional sources
of funding are required to help bridge the gap between the different
countries;
- countries which are better equipped in terms of available
data can help others, including through knowledge transfer, in building
up national data bases;
- income distribution ratios need to be adjusted, especially
in countries where the difference between the richest quintile and
the poorest income is big;
- national planning needs to be long term and transversal
approaches and synergies developed among different ministries would
help to maximise resources.
53. Together with the European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN), Eurochild
has edited an excellent handbook entitled “Explainer on Child Poverty
in the European Union”, in which it identifies risk factors, causes
and myths surrounding child poverty, outlines the European Union
recommendation in an easy-to-understand manner and illustrates implementation
opportunities through examples of good practice. This handbook can
be warmly recommended to the stakeholders of any country wishing
to improve the effectiveness of its strategies against child poverty.
54. In its 2012 study on children and young people and the crisis,
Eurochild also underlined that it is the most vulnerable groups,
including children, who are most affected when social protection
systems are undermined, and that access to preventive support services,
health care and education that are affordable, available and of good
quality is an investment in the future and not a cost.
With regard to certain
categories of children, such as those belonging to national minorities
(Roma children and others), particular efforts will be required
to improve data collection on their situation (to enable monitoring),
to end discrimination facing their communities generally and to
guarantee them the same rights and support as other children.
In
general, children must also be protected against any harm and human
rights violations while living in poverty, for example against child labour,
physical or psychological violence, sexual abuse and exploitation
or trafficking – flaws that the Council of Europe is also fighting
through its own standard-setting action.
55. All children across Europe must be able to cover their basic
needs in accessing food, education and health care, but also to
enjoy equal opportunities for their development without facing social
exclusion or risks for their physical or moral integrity. The Assembly
should therefore call on all member States to resolutely pursue
the fight against child poverty through their strong commitment
to this cause and through targeted national strategies.
56. When it comes to the implementation of such strategies, the
involvement of all levels of government is of crucial importance.
Local authorities are amongst the main stakeholders and in the first
line of contact with disadvantaged groups of the population. They
must therefore be provided with sufficient levels of resources and
enabled to fulfil their responsibilities with regard to their local
communities,
not
least through local action plans.
57. In the current economic context, member States should in particular
continue, or if this is not done yet, start to question national
austerity programmes and their direct or indirect impact on the
well-being of children, and develop and implement national policies
which take into consideration the most urgent needs of children and
employ mechanisms ensuring that resources dedicated to child poverty
efficiently reach those most in need.
58. In his latest issue paper, the Council of Europe Commissioner
for Human Rights calls on member States to conduct “systematic human
rights and equality impact assessments of social and economic policies
and budgets”.
The Assembly should support this
proposal and go further by saying that any social expenditure cuts
should be closely supervised and assessed according to their possible
impact on the most vulnerable groups of society and in particular
the well-being of children. Supporting poor children now, and giving
them equal opportunities for their development, also ensures that
family and child poverty are not prolonged into the future and multiplied,
thus risking that our societies as a whole get poorer.