By Joyce Chimbi
DUBAI, Dec 12 2023 – The United State’s contribution to the Loss and Damage Fund equals nine minutes of Pentagon spending, says Jeffrey D. Sachs, a world-renowned economist, bestselling author, innovative educator, and global leader in sustainable development.

While the Loss and Damage Fund promise was made at COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, this was the first major milestone announced at COP28 in Dubai. So far, pledged contributions by various countries to the World Bank-hosted Loss and Damage Fund have reached USD 700 million. While this is a major step in the right direction, there are concerns that the fund is too small and that powerful nations are not doing enough to halt the pace and rate of climate change.

“The COP process is still a formalism, not a breakthrough.  Yes, there is a new losses and damages fund, but it is tiny—USD 700 million pledged—compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars of climate-related losses each year,” Sachs says.

Estimates are that by 2030, the total estimate of loss and damage for developing countries could be between USD 290 billion and USD 580 billion; another says it is USD 400 billion per year and rising.

Africa is on the frontlines of the devastating effects of climate change, despite accounting for the smallest share of global greenhouse gas emissions—3.8 percent.

“The US pledged a measly USD 17.5 million, which equals nine minutes of Pentagon spending. All other financing remains tiny compared to the real needs.  The US and Europe are engaged in war, not in climate financing.  The wars in Ukraine and Gaza are the only things of interest to US foreign policy,” Sachs told IPS. “John Kerry is powerless in reality.  He is there to give speeches.  He has no authority to deliver any real policies.”

He says it is crucial to stop the wars; once that is done, real diplomacy could start.

“On to COP29, in a rapidly warming world of great danger.  The first priority is to stop the wars, and that requires the world community to tell the US to stop the warmongering and to force Israel to stop the ongoing ethnic cleansing in Gaza.  By stopping the wars, we could begin real climate diplomacy among the major fossil-fuel-producing countries.  The top three fossil-fuel-producing countries are China, the US, and Russia.  The three need to cooperate.  That depends on a fundamental change in US foreign policy.”

The Loss and Damage Fund refers to the economic, social, and cultural losses and damages caused by anthropogenic climate change to natural and human systems. It is a vehicle to deliver climate justice to communities disproportionately affected by climate change. The climate injustice lies in the fact that, despite a low carbon footprint, developing countries are facing the full force of climatic changes, slowly wiping out their biodiversity and destroying lives, livelihoods, and cultural heritage.

Climate change is the most serious threat facing culture today. Globally, World Heritage properties are bearing the brunt of climate change, from increasing ocean acidification, desertification, droughts, floods, and fires related to rising temperatures. Climate change is slowly eradicating the African coast and its cultural heritage; 20 percent of Africa’s heritage sites are in danger.

Communities uprooted by climate-induced disasters are losing their ways of life, including the preservation of traditions for future generations. This is the cultural cost of climate change for many vulnerable communities, particularly indigenous people, who are currently suffering greatly from severe and drastic changes in weather patterns.

Vulnerable developing nations face greater risk from climate change and lack the funds to recover from climate events that have become increasingly frequent and more severe. While some losses from climate-induced disasters are impossible to recover from, such as loss of life, the fund is expected to help build better infrastructure after a severe climatic event.

While there is wide applause for the loss and damage fund, there is also criticism that the fund’s contributions at COP28 thus far cover less than 0.2 percent of climate-induced losses in developing countries. Additionally, powerful nations are reluctant to address critical issues such as phasing out fossil fuels that could significantly slow down climate change, giving Africa and other vulnerable nations in the global South much-needed relief.

“The United States political class is not serious. China is more interested.  Only an end to the wars, followed by serious negotiations among the major fossil-fuel producers, will work. The top 10 fossil fuel producers are: China, US, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Australia, Canada, Iran, and Iraq. These 10 countries need to make serious, cooperative, and coordinated plans to phase out their production. They have not yet begun to hold such talks. In the meantime, funding for Africa is also seriously neglected,” Sachs says.

To reaffirm the 1.5°C-aligned energy transition, COP28 set out to firm up a number of ambitious goals, such as tripling global renewable energy generation capacity by 2030, doubling annual energy efficiency improvements by 2030, and an orderly decline in fossil fuel use demand by 2030, starting with no new coal plants.

The Summit further sought commitment from the oil and gas industry to align their strategies and investment portfolios with 1.5°C, with a focus on a 75 percent reduction in methane emissions by 2030. And financing mechanisms for a major scaling-up of clean energy investment in emerging and developing economies.

However, on Monday, December 11, 2023, the draft text of the agreement excluded the words “phase-out” or “phase-down” of fossil fuels, instead only promising to reduce oil and gas, and several countries, including Australia, the US, the UK, Canada, and Japan, said they would not sign what would essentially be “death certificates for many small island states.”

The first-ever global stocktake, released in October 2023 ahead of the Dubai Summit, revealed that the world is not on track to achieve the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. It is the first time that a UN climate summit has surveyed progress towards achieving the goals agreed in 2015, following the landmark Paris COP.

The stocktake report is akin to an inventory, as it looked at everything related to where the world stands on climate action and support. It provides a critical turning point. At COP28, UN member states will negotiate their response to the stocktake’s findings, looking at the state of planet Earth, and chart the best course for the survival of both planet and humankind.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Emilio Godoy
DUBAI, Dec 12 2023 – One of the most heated debates at the annual climate summit coming to a conclusion in this United Arab Emirates city revolved around the phrasing of the final declaration, regarding the “phase-out” or “phase-down” of fossil fuels within a given time frame.

This is an essential calculation on the decommissioning of refineries, pipelines, power plants and other infrastructure that, in some cases, have been in operation for years, as discussed at the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Experts who talked to IPS at the summit agreed on the magnitude of the bill, which for some Latin American nations could be unaffordable.”Financial support will be needed. There must be a differentiated approach, differentiated timing, and developed countries must come up with the resources.” — Fernanda Carvalho

Fernanda Carvalho of Brazil, global leader for Energy and Climate Policy at the non-governmental World Wildlife Fund (WWF), referred to the amount without specifying a figure.

“Financial support will be needed. There must be a differentiated approach, differentiated timing, and developed countries must come up with the resources,” the expert, who was present at COP28, held at Expo City on the outskirts of Dubai, told IPS.

COP28 engaged in an acrimonious debate between phase-out and phase-down, with a definite date, of oil, gas and coal, which has already anticipated a disappointing end in Dubai, that in line with the tradition at these summits extended its negotiations one more day, to conclude on Wednesday, Dec. 13.

The “phase-down” concept has been in the climate-energy jargon for years, but it really took off at the 2021 COP26 in the Scottish city of Glasgow, whose Climate Pact alludes to the reduction of coal still being produced and the elimination of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

Throughout the climate summits since 1995, developing countries have insisted on differentiated measures for them, in accordance with their own situation, the need for financing from developed nations and the transfer of technology, especially energy alternatives.

Enrique Maurtúa of Argentina, senior diplomacy advisor to the Independent Global Stocktake (iGST) – an umbrella data and advocacy initiative – said they hoped for a political signal to determine regulations or market measures regarding a phase-down or phase-out.

“If a target date is not set, there is no signal. If you set a phase-out for 2050, that is a pathway for the transition. With a deadline, the market can react. And then each country must evaluate its specific context,” the expert told IPS in the COP28 Green Zone, which hosted civil society organizations at the summit.

Available scientific knowledge indicates that the majority of proven hydrocarbon reserves must remain unextracted by 2030 to keep the planetary temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, the threshold agreed in the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement to avoid massive disasters.

On Sunday, Dec. 10 the non-governmental Climate Action Network (CAN) delivered at COP28 a dishonorable mention to the United States for its role in Israel’s carnage in Gaza, in the traditional Fossil of the Day award for “doing the most to achieve the least” in terms of progress on climate change at the summits. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS

Failed attempts

In the Latin American region there are unsuccessful precedents of fossil fuel phase-outs.

In 2007, the then president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa (2007-2017), launched the Yasuní-Ishpingo Tambococha Tiputini initiative, which sought the care of the Yasuní National Park in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest, in exchange for funds from governments, foundations, companies and individuals of about 3.6 billion dollars by 2024 to leave the oil in the ground.

The aim was to leave 846 million barrels of oil untouched underground. But a special fund created by Ecuador and the United Nations Environment Fund only raised 13 million dollars, according to the Ecuadorian government. So Correa decided to cancel the initiative in 2013, at a time when renewable energies had not yet really taken off.

In a referendum held in August, Ecuadorians decided to halt oil extraction in a block in Yasuní that would provide 57,000 barrels per day in 2022 – the same result sought by Correa, but without foreign funds.

The result of the referendum is to be implemented within a year, although the position of the government of the current president, banana tycoon Daniel Noboa, who took office on Nov. 23, is still unclear.

Meanwhile, in Colombia, President Gustavo Petro has put the brakes on new oil and coal exploration contracts, a promise from his 2022 election campaign.

In addition, the president announced on Dec. 2 in Dubai that his country was joining nine other nations that are promoting the formal initiation of the negotiation of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Colombia will thus become the first Latin American nation and the largest oil and coal producer to join the initiative that first emerged in 2015 when several Pacific Island leaders and NGOs raised the urgent need for an international mechanism to phase out fossil fuels.

For the undertaking of a just energy transition to cleaner fuels, Petro estimates an initial bill of 14 billion dollars, to come from governments of the developed North, multilateral organizations and international funds.

The latest summit of hope for the climate kicked off on Nov. 30 in this Arab city under the slogan “Unite. Act. Deliver” – the least successful in the history of COPs since the first one, held in Berlin in 1995.

The hopes included commitments and voluntary declarations on renewable energy and energy efficiency; agriculture, food and climate; health and climate; climate finance; refrigeration; and just transitions with a gender focus.

In addition, there were financial pledges of some 86 billion dollars, without specifying whether it is all new money, to be allocated to these issues.

Like many countries, the host of COP28, the United Arab Emirates, has had a pavilion in the so-called Green Zone, which hosts non-governmental organizations, companies and other institutions. The Emirati government bet a lot on the climate summit to deliver results, but without directly targeting the fossil fuels on which its economy depends. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS

Billions

Given the production and exploration plans of the main hydrocarbon producing countries in the region, the magnitude of the challenge in the medium and long term is enormous.

In October, Brazil, the largest economy in the region and the 11th largest in the world, extracted 3.543 billion barrels of oil and 152 million cubic meters (m3) of gas per day.

This represented approximately two percent of the domestic economy that month.

Mexico, the region’s second largest economy, extracted 1.64 million barrels and 4.971 billion m3 of gas per day in October, equivalent to 52 million dollars in revenues.

Meanwhile, Colombia produced 780,487 barrels of oil in the first eight months of 2023 and 1,568 cubic feet per day of gas, equivalent to 12 percent of public revenues.

“We have to think about decarbonization measures. We want Latin America to be a clean energy powerhouse,” said Carvalho.

As of September, Brazil’s state-owned oil giant Petrobras was working on obtaining 9.571 billion barrels of oil equivalent, according to the Global Oil & Gas Exit List produced by the German non-governmental organization Urgewald.

This represents an excess of 94 percent above the limit set by the 2015 Paris Agreement to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius.

Meanwhile, Mexico’s state-owned oil company Pemex is producing 1.444 billion barrels of oil equivalent, 56 percent above the threshold set by the Paris Agreement.

Finally, the public company Ecopetrol, mostly owned by the Colombian state, is working to obtain 447 million barrels, 98 percent above the Paris Agreement limit, according to Urgewald.

In addition, the cost of action against the climate crisis is far from affordable for any Latin American nation.

For example, Mexico estimated that the implementation of 35 measures, including in the power, gas and oil generation sector, would cost 137 billion dollars in 2030, but the benefits would total 295 billion dollars.

But Maurtúa says the budget question is only relative. “There is a lot of public money with which many things can be done,” complemented by international resources, he argued.

By Charlie Brown
WASHINGTON, Dec 12 2023 – As it strives to be the prototype environmental treaty of this era, the Minamata Convention on Mercury continues its razor-like focus on ending all major uses of mercury. Emerging as the force leading the charge is the Global South, particularly the Africa Region, whose proposals led to hard-charging changes addressing dental amalgam, mercury-based skin creams, and fluorescent lights.

At the Fifth Conference of the Parties to the Minamata Convention (“COP5”), concluding in Geneva on 3 November, countries debated the African Amalgam Amendment, calling for the phase out of amalgam. The Africa region, led by Roger Baro, the Environment Minister of Burkina Faso, strategically built alliances beforehand, starting with the crucial 27-nation European Union.

Civil society was inspired watching one delegate after another rising to support the phase out of mercury in dentistry: from West Asia (Saudi Arabia, Jordan) to South Asia (Pakistan) and Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Vietnam), from Oceania (Australia, Tuvalu) to South America (Argentina) and non-E.U. Europe (Norway, Switzerland).

But several dissenters, while agreeing action is needed, were not yet amenable to a phase out date. Emerging therefore was the worldwide consensus to take three giant leaps toward mercury-free dentistry:

• For the first time, the treaty recognizes that countries can phase out amalgam – and more and more have already succeeded!
• The nations amended the treaty to add a new requirement: those countries that have “not yet phased out dental amalgam” must submit an action plan or a report on their progress.
• Most exciting of all, the nations inserted into the treaty, in brackets, a phase-out date for amalgam – an action that is not legally binding but which automatically agendizes a debate and a vote, at COP6 in 2025, on whether and when to phase out amalgam.

The Africa Region led the movement to end the use of two other mercury products, gaining phase-out dates in the Minamata Convention for mercury in skin cream (UN Convention Agrees to Phase Mercury Out of Cosmetics by 2025 – Zero Mercury) and for all fluorescent light bulbs (https://www.clasp.ngo/updates/cop5-decision/).

Africans, both government and civil society, are grimly determined to protect its people from mercury exposure and not to let its continent be made a dumping ground for toxic products, including amalgam.

In the national capitals, the march to mercury-free dentistry continues unabated. In October, Gabon decided amalgam is no longer allowed – and huge credit here goes to Serge Molly of Libreville, a long-time leader at the Minamata Convention.

This month the European Parliament and the Council of Europe debate when—not if—to phase out amalgam in all 27 member states (a dozen already have). Other Parties are ending amalgam piecemeal . . . banning its use in children, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers . . . or in the military . . . or in government programs.

No consumer or parent these days wants amalgam; no one with the power to choose accepts a mercury implant in the mouth. Where choice reigns—the private sector—amalgam use is ending.

Well-ensconced inside government bureaucracies, the mercury lobby imposes amalgam outrageously on powerless consumers—the indigenous, the poor, the racial minorities, the immigrants, the institutionalized, the privates in the army and the seamen in the navy.

Unchecked by their superiors, the condemnable chief dental officers of the U.S. and Canada (1) ignore their legal duty to comply with the Minamata Convention Children’s Amendment, (2) violate their Hippocratic Oath daily by outright defiance of the recommendations against use by both Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and (3) maintain mercury-toxic workplaces for dental workers while they sit protected from mercury exposure in their plush government bureaus.

The great Minamata Convention had its genesis from studies showing mercury in the Arctic, drifting there via air or waterways, was harming indigenous peoples. In stark defiance of the spirit of Minamata, Health Canada dentists fly planeloads of mercury fillings daily into the Arctic and sub-Arctic, leaving the dental mercury behind to pollute the Tribal Lands.

Equally ignominiously, the U.S. Indian Health Service has ignored for seven years the resolution from the National Congress of American Indians to cease amalgam use on Tribal Lands.

To the profound disappointment of the environmental community, Canada’s Environment & Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault MP—despite his superb résumé fighting toxins while an NGO leader—does nothing to reduce amalgam use by Health Canada, even though his ministry is the lead at Minamata.

It is time for Minister Guilbault to condemn this wholesale usage of mercury fillings that is poisoning tribal lands. Inaction by ECC Canada portends another Grassy Narrows scandal in the making.

Rather than apply President Biden’s splendid priority of environmental justice to the U.S. Public Health Service, Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel Levine opts for physician-to-dentist professional courtesy—giving carte blanche to the pro-mercury chief dental officers to pollute Tribal lands, prisons, Army forts, Navy bases, and minority-dominated inner cities.

By the stroke of a pen, the 4-star Admiral could order the dentists under her command at the Public Health Service to end amalgam use—and the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry calls on her to do so now.

Dentists still implanting this colonial-era primitive device do so not because they need to; but because they want to. Inaction in Ottawa and Washington must end; these two federal governments are the major reason that North American oral health care remains two-tiered: choice for the middle class and mercury for the powerless.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Excerpt:

The writer is President, World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Dec 12 2023 – Last month the Saeima, Latvia’s parliament, passed a package of eight laws recognising same-sex civil unions and associated rights. The new legislation came in response to a 2020 Constitutional Court ruling that established that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to the benefits and legal protections afforded to married opposite-sex couples.

Equal marriage rights are still a long way away, and civil unions are only a first step in the right direction. But in one of Europe’s most restrictive countries for LGBTQI+ rights, activists view it as a significant shift, achieved after numerous attempts over more than two decades. Anti-rights forces agree, and they’re not going to let it happen quietly. They’ve already responded with an attempt to stop the new law being adopted by campaigning for a referendum.

The breakthrough

The first registered partnership bill was submitted by the National Human Rights Office in 1999 but rejected by parliament’s Human Rights and Public Affairs Committee and never debated. Initiatives accelerated in the mid-2010s but were all rejected – the latest attempts coming in 2020 and 2022.

On 29 October 2020, a popular initiative calling for the passage of a civil union law that had gathered more than 10,000 signatures was voted down by parliament. Campaigners immediately started a new initiative for the ‘legal protection of all families’, which attracted over 23,000 signatures – but that too was rejected by parliament in December 2022.

Following the 2020 parliamentary vote, however, two court rulings catalysed change. In November 2020, the Constitutional Court found the labour law in violation of the constitution because it didn’t provide for parental leave to the non-biological parent in a same-sex relationship.

As the result of a 2006 anti-rights initiative to ban same-sex marriage, the Latvian Constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The concept of family, however, isn’t explicitly defined in reference to marriage, and the court understood it more broadly as a stable relationship based on understanding and respect. It concluded that the constitution demanded protection for same-sex partners and gave parliament a deadline of 1 June 2022 to amend the law to provide a way for same-sex couples to register their relationship.

A year later, in December 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that if the deadline was missed, same-sex couples would be allowed to resort to the courts to have their relationship recognised.

Anti-rights backlash

The anti-rights reaction was quick in coming. Two months after the Constitutional Court ruling, parliament introduced a constitutional amendment that went further than ratifying the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, defining family as based on marriage.

To comply with the Constitutional Court’s ultimatum, in February 2022 the Ministry of Justice submitted a civil union bill and two months later, despite an attempted boycott to deny a quorum, parliament approved its first reading.

When it became apparent that the court’s deadline would be missed, same-sex couples started petitioning the courts for recognition as family units. The first of dozens of positive rulings was issued on 31 May 2022.

That same day a tight parliamentary vote resulted in the appointment of Latvia’s first out gay president. Momentum was building, and parliament finally passed a law to allow same-sex civil unions on 9 November 2023.

But conservative politicians managed to put the new law on hold as they seek to gather the signatures required to force a referendum that they hope will prevent its entry into force.

A long way to go

Even if it survives the challenge, the new law is no panacea. Ultimately, access to marriage is the only way to ensure LGBTQI+ couples have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Recognition of same-sex relationships is a step forward, but still leaves Latvia behind neighbouring Estonia, which legalised same-sex marriage in June.

If upheld, the new legislation will give registered same-sex couples some but not all the rights associated with marriage – they’ll have hospital visitation rights and tax and social security benefits, but not inheritance rights or the right to adopt children.

Beyond the legal sphere, the biggest challenge will come in influencing public attitudes, as signalled by Latvia’s scores on Equaldex’s Equality Index. This ranking combines a legal index that assesses key laws and a public opinion index that measures attitudes towards LGBTQI+ people. Latvia scores far lower for public opinion than for its laws. A 2019 Special Eurobarometer poll found that only 49 per cent of Latvians thought that LGBTQI+ people should have the same rights as heterosexuals.

The message is clear: changing laws and policies won’t be enough – and any legal victories will remain in peril unless social attitudes change.

Latvian LGBTQI+ organisations are fully aware of this, which is why they’ve worked on both fronts for many years. A centrepiece of their work to challenge prejudice is the annual Pride event, which Latvia pioneered for the Baltic region in 2005. As recounted by its organisers, Latvia’s Pride grew from 70 participants who faced 3,000 protesters in 2005 to 5,000 participants at EuroPride 2015, held in Latvia’s capital Riga, and 8,000 in the 2018 Baltic Pride, also held in Riga. Pride was repeatedly banned by Riga City Council, and it invariably faced hostile counter-protesters – but fewer each time, while the number of Pride participants has grown, boosting people’s self-confidence.

Global trends show progress towards the recognition of LGBTQI+ rights to be much stronger than regression. Latvian LGBTQI+ advocates will continue to push forward on both the policy and awareness-raising fronts. They’ll continue working to secure what they’ve already achieved while striving for more. They’re on the right course.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Naureen Hossain
NEW YORK, Dec 12 2023 – Child poverty persists even in some of the world’s richest countries, new findings from a UNICEF report reveals.

UNICEF’s Office of Global Insight and Policy’s latest report details the prevalence of child poverty in 39 EU and OECD countries. It reveals the extent of child poverty in these countries and how these cases vary from middle-to-high income countries. Titled Child Poverty in the Midst of Wealth, this report is the latest in the Innocenti Report Card series, which observe children’s well-being in high-income countries. Within these countries, over 69 million children were living in households earning less than 60 percent of the average national income level. Across these countries, there was a reported 8 percent decrease in poverty levels between 2014 to 2021. During this period of relative prosperity, countries took this as an opportunity to address child poverty with varying levels of success.
Of the countries assessed for this report, Slovenia, Poland, Finland and Denmark reported child poverty reduction rates that exceeded 30 percent. By contrast, higher-income countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and France, reported a high percentage of child poverty, and even saw these rates increase in recent years.

Determined by assessing and comparing child poverty rates through two metrics, the first was to compare the national income level and child poverty levels in the 39 countries. It was found that although the richer countries had higher national income levels, they did not have lower child poverty rates. This meant that a higher national income did not guarantee these countries’ ability to reduce child poverty. It only makes the contrast more striking when compared to countries such as Slovenia and Poland, which are not ranked among the wealthiest countries.

The second metric used to measure child poverty was what the report referred to as ‘non-monetary poverty’. This was determined through needs assessments where a person could not access certain services, or through seeking the opinions of those living through poverty. Poverty was measured through material deprivation, the absence or lack of services and goods, or housing security.

Credit: UNICEF / Alexandru-Saru

Multiple factors could attribute to high poverty risks in these countries. Poverty itself should be assessed through a multidimensional perspective. The report notes that since 2020, global events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and disruptions in the global supply chain have upended our way of life. These global events left already-vulnerable communities, including children, at greater risks of living in poverty. Economic relief programs that were either introduced or expanded on during the early pandemic era are at risk of not being renewed, or beyond its capacity to support the families that need them. The rise in living costs, from food to energy to housing, have put more pressure on low-to-middle income families. For single-income families and particularly single-parent households, this poses a greater challenge if they live in high-income countries, and if these families’ incomes are largely spent on these living costs.

It was observed that children experiencing persistent poverty, in that they have lived in poverty multiple times in their lives, are more likely to exhibit behavioral and learning difficulties. In the long-term, they do not complete schooling or earn lower wages as adults.

The report also notes that certain inequalities present greater poverty risks. Children living in single-parent or one-adult households are at least three times more likely to experience poverty. It was also noted that children from minority communities were more likely to live in income poverty. These communities included racial and ethnic minorities, children whose families had migrated to their host country, indigenous and Roma children, and children with disabilities. In the EU, for instance, 37.2 percent of children whose parents were migrants lived in income poverty. This contrasts with the 15.6 percent of children whose parents were citizens of the country.

Credit: UNICEF / Ashley-Gilbertson

Among some groups, the higher risk of poverty is only one indication of systematic disadvantages that they face, according to Gwyther Rees, Social and Economic Policy Manager at UNICEF Innocenti. Rees, who is one of the authors of the report, told IPS that the groups that need social protection are often not accessing them, in what is referred to as “non-take up”.

“Non-take up of social protection affects all groups, but paradoxically, it is most prevalent among the most marginalized, and therefore, most in need of social protection,” he said. “There are multiple reasons for this, including, for example, a lack of financial inclusion (such as having a bank account), stigmatization which discourages certain groups from accessing social protection benefits and complex application procedures and hurdles, to name a few.”

Based on this report, it is clear that comprehensive changes need to be made in how countries tackle poverty reduction. The report recommends the broad measures that countries should take, including expanding on social protections for children, improving access to essential services beyond financial support, expanding labor policies to ensure decent pay and working conditions for parents, and mitigating the inequalities in poverty risks. For children in minority groups, this will require ongoing action in making sure the barriers that prevent them from accessing these social protections are dealt with.

One noteworthy conclusion of the report is that children should be included in the discussion of poverty reduction. Children with lived experience would possess their own insights and perspectives. Just as children and adolescents have been proactive in environmental activism, there is the hope that they will be encouraged to act similarly on the issue of poverty reduction. Rees told IPS that UNICEF Innocenti have been conducting consultations with children on their views on poverty in six countries, with plans to share their findings in 2024.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);