NON-GOVERNMENTAL REPORT OF FOLLOW-UP OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD. COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, URUGUAY. 2005.[1]
I. INTRODUCTION
Uruguay submitted the reports on the follow-up of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereinafter CRC) with considerable delay. 10 years ago Uruguay was subject to the first and only Observations and Recommendations made by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (hereinafter Committee). That is why we welcome the recent presentation of the Uruguayan state’s second report. We would also like to thank the Human Rights Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for providing us with a copy of said report at the time of its presentation before the aforementioned Committee.
Ten years later, the situation of childhood as far as the exercise and respect of their basic rights is still concerning. The Observations should have been included in the design and implementation of public policies. But, as it will be explained below, most of the situations observed by the Committee are still taking place, and in some cases, they have worsened.
The Report summarizes the Committee’s main reasons for concern, such as: “the insufficient measures adopted to harmonize national legislation with the principles and provisions of the Convention[...] The Committee is also concerned that new laws have not been enacted to address areas covered by the Convention, including laws on intercountry adoption, the prohibition of child-trafficking and the prohibition of torture”. The Committee also expressed its concern over the fact that “the Code of the Child adopted in 1934, which contains a number of provisions contrary to the Convention, has not yet been revised or amended”. The Committee also regretted that “a number of legal provisions contrary to the Convention are still in force, including in the areas of administration of juvenile justice, minimum age of access to employment and minimum age for marriage”.
In this scenario, the Committee is concerned at “...the insufficient measures taken to reflect in legislation and practice the general principles of the Convention, namely non-discrimination, the best interests of the child and respect for his/her views”.
The Committee, while recognizing the efforts undertaken by the authorities in the collection of data, “is concerned at the insufficient measures adopted to collect disaggregated data on the situation of all children, particularly those belonging to the most disadvantaged groups, including black children, disabled children, street children, children placed in institutions, including institutions of a penal nature, ill-treated and abused children or children from economically disadvantaged groups”. In this regard, the Report recommends “that further measures be taken to gather systematic quantitative and qualitative data, disaggregated” and it suggests that “further cooperation be ensured with UNICEF”.
Paragraph 9 of the Concluding Observations expresses “concern at the insufficient budget allocation for social expenditures, in particular in favour of children belonging to the most disadvantaged groups of the population”. It also noted with concern in 1996 “the trend towards the perpetuation of poverty amongst marginalized groups of children”.
The Committee is particularly concerned at the “persisting discrimination against children born out of wedlock, including in regard to the enjoyment of their civil rights”. It notes that the procedure for the determination of their name paves the way for their stigmatization and the impossibility of having access to their origins, and that when born to a mother or father who is a minor, these children cannot be recognized by that parent.
In regards to adolescent pregnancy, the Committee is concerned about “the high rate of early pregnancy, which has negative effects on the health of the mothers and the babies, and on the mothers' enjoyment of their right to education, hampering the school attendance of the girls concerned and causing high numbers of school drop-outs”.
In addition to the objections mentioned above, the Committee “is deeply concerned about the increasing incidence of abuse and violence within the family and the inadequacy of measures to prevent and combat such abuse and violence, and to rehabilitate the child victims”.
The Committee is also concerned at the prevalence in the country of the doctrine of ‘children in an irregular situation’ “which paves the way for the stigmatization and frequent institutionalization and deprivation of liberty of children on the basis of their economic and socially disadvantaged situation. The Committee regrets that the implementation of the provisions and principles of the Convention relating to the administration of juvenile justice has been given insufficient attention, both in legislation and in practice. In this regard, the Committee is concerned at the insufficient measures adopted to ensure, inter alia, that deprivation of liberty is only used as a measure of last resort, that children deprived of liberty are treated with humanity and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of their age, as well as that the rights to maintain contact with their families and to due process of law are ensured in conformity with article 40 of the Convention. Moreover, the Committee is concerned at the high number of institutionalized children and that insufficient measures have been taken to ensure effective alternatives to institutional care, and to promote their social reintegration”.
The Committee notes “with concern that child labour remains a problem in Uruguay and that measures taken to prevent it are insufficient. The Committee also notes with concern that the minimum age for employment in Uruguayan law is lower than the minimum age provided for in applicable international conventions, although Uruguay has ratified ILO Convention No. 138”.
Lastly, the Report adds that “The Committee notes with concern the insufficient measures taken to ensure that the provisions and principles of the Convention are made widely known to adults and children alike, in accordance with article 42 of the Convention. Moreover, insufficient attention has been paid to the training of professionals working with and for children, including teachers, health workers, social workers, lawyers, police officers, chiefs of police, staff in institutions where children are detained and officials of the central and local administrations, in order to change prevailing attitudes”. The Committee recommends that training programs on the rights of the child be conducted for professionals working for or with children.
The Committee suggests that steps be taken “to ensure effective coordination between the existing institutions involved in the protection and promotion of children's rights at the central and local levels, and that the establishment of an independent monitoring body (Ombudsman) competent in children's rights be given further consideration by the Government”.
II. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SITUATION OF CHILDHOOD AND ADOLESCENCE
1. CHILDREN, POVERTY AND SOCIAL PROTECTION
Poverty as an index of violation of rights. Measuring poverty in terms of income enables to differentiate between the homes with enough income to meet their basic needs (food and other basic goods and services not related with food); and the homes without enough income to meet those needs.
By considering the access to basic goods and services we are able to compare the levels of child poverty in a country that has assumed certain commitments by ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is provided in article 27 of the CRC:
1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child's development.
Regardless of the direct links that may be established between the access to basic goods and services and the achievement of an adequate standard of living, the importance of income in a market economy - as Uruguay- extend the concerns about children living below the poverty line also to the set of rights acquired by these children. Somehow, child poverty shows the existing gap between the rights recognized under the law and the actual exercise and enjoyment of those rights.
Aware of this reality, the Committee on the Rights of the Child in the 1996 Report expresses its concern at “the trend towards the perpetuation of poverty amongst marginalized groups of children, with almost 40 per cent of children under five years of age living in 20 per cent of the poorest households and 4 per cent of children in this age group suffering from severe malnutrition, while social and economic discrepancies persist as regards access to education and health services”.
We regret to inform the Committee that far from reverting, this trend has increased in the recent years. According to available figures, the percentage of children under five years of age that were poor increased more than 20 per cent between 1997 and 2003. In seven years, it went from 45.3% to 66.5%[2], a very eloquent figure.
The concerning figures in regard to poverty during that period are confirmed by the measurement of critical shortcomings such as the indigence (or extreme poverty) line. This measures the purchasing power of a family to afford the basic food basket (BFB) to cover the nutritional needs of all its members. According to available data, in the nineties the percentage of homes below the indigence line in Uruguay was quite low. However, since 2002 this index has experienced a systematic deterioration. In 2004, 7.9% of the children lived in homes below the indigence line. In other words, eight in 100 children under 18 years of age were indigent. What is more, the average number of indigent children in 2000 was 3.17%, the children living under the indigence line has almost tripled in only four years.
Children and adolescents: the poorest of the society and the most affected by the crisis. The recent deterioration of the social situation of children in Uruguay sparks concerns about their rights. The fact that most of the negative impacts affect children under 18 years old is also very concerning.
Actually, regarding indigence “…in 2002 nearly 12,000 children -which represent 5.4% of the child population- lived in homes that could not cover the nutritional needs. The same index for the rest of the population reached 1.9%”.
In 2004, while 65.1% of the children between 0 and 5 years old lived in poverty, only 18% of people over 64 years of age lived in the same situation.
These figures show that in Uruguay people under 18 years of age bear the brunt of poverty, since the proportion between general poverty and child poverty is always to the disadvantage of children. It almost usually doubles it. In addition to this, if we take children between 0 and 17 years old, the percentage of poverty increases in the younger groups. There is a clear division of poverty into age groups. The younger the Uruguayan child, the more chances he/she has of being poor or indigent.
In summary, the social situation of children not only deteriorated between 1997 and 2004, but children are still the ones that suffered the worse effects of social inequalities.
Two fundamental questions arise in light of these figures: How is such a negative evolution explained? And, What has the Uruguayan state done to revert this situation?
Regarding the first question, in order to explain the increasing effects of poverty on Uruguayan children there are both contextual and longstanding reasons. Although Uruguay still has a quite privileged position within Latin America, the living standards of its inhabitants –especially children- have deteriorated since 1999, the same year the economic recession began. Such recession mainly affected the most vulnerable households, which income depends almost exclusively on the labor market. The significant increase of unemployment during that period and the increase of inequality as a result of the reduction of the real wages led to the deterioration of the social situation in Uruguay.
In the recent “Human Development Report: Uruguay 2005”, the UNDP clearly exposes the main reasons for the increase of poverty and indigence in our country, as well as the reasons why they had a greater impact on children.
“Child poverty is a phenomenon that results from income problems in their homes, caused by the growth and distribution standards that emerge from the ruling development model.
The income of households made up by adults increased significantly until 1995, whereas households with children under 18 did not experience significant changes as regards to poverty. Although the 2002 crisis affected all the households, those made up by people over 64 years old are in a similar situation than at the beginning of the decade, while poor households with children to support experienced a significant income reduction.
Most of the children live in homes where adult members are prone to become unemployed, to have a low level of education which makes it more difficult for them to find employment and to live on their income. This explains the trend in Uruguay of a huge gap between the income of households where children are born and raised and the rest of the households. The situation of child poverty may have worsened as a result of an unfair application of public policies which usually favor older people.”[3]
The reference to public policies implemented by the Uruguayan state, faces us with the second question posed. Having considered the diagnosis and the main causes, the Uruguayan state was at a crossroads of either fulfilling its commitments by implementing the necessary structural reforms and strengthening the policies of social protection by allocating more budget or; trying to minimize the impact of the information and wait until economic growth changed this situation.
Now, watching the changes to the way of measuring poverty introduced during the crisis (in 2002), the evolution of the Public Social Expenditure destined to children, and the results of social protection policies, we may conclude that the steps taken by the Uruguayan state were closer to the second option. So if we take a close look at the progress report recently submitted by the Uruguayan state, we can see that –after a change of administration- the trends that resulted from this decision have not reverted yet.
Evolution of poverty and changes in the measurement methods.
In regard to the changes in the poverty line - although the threshold chosen for different studies until 2002 arises from a document written by the National Institute of Statistics (INE) published in 1997- INE began to apply a new poverty line in 2002 (PL 2002), which introduces some methodological changes to the previous one.
As it has been analyzed in a report published by the Institute of Economics of the School of Economics and Administration[4], the PL 2002 introduces three big changes. First of all, it removes alcoholic drinks and eating outside the home from the basic food basket (BFB), and it does not replace them with other goods or services. Secondly, the effect of economies of scale is introduced in the households, so the cost of the needs of an additional person in the household depends on the number of persons that live there. Also, the needs of people are considered according to their being under or over 18 years old. Finally, the adjustment of the price of the basic food basket changes. While in PL 2002 the adjustment was made according to the variation of food prices, the previous PL used a special price index that considered both food items and non food items[5].
The consequence of these changes is that in 2002, the poverty rate went from 32.5% of the people living below the PL in 1997, to 23.7% according to the new PL. The effect is similar for children under 5 years of age. The percentage of children under 5 who are below the poverty line went from 57% to 46.5% in the same year. Considering the debate on the methodological convenience of the changes is still open, and that the date chosen for the change has no justification whatsoever, a political explanation for the changes is expected.
The following chart shows the evolution of the population below the poverty line, according to age groups, and to both PL.
CHART 1[6]: Evolution of the incidence of poverty according to age. Urban areas (in percentage of people).
PL INE 19970 to 5 / 6 to 12 / 13 to 17 / 18 to 64 / Over 65 / Total
1997 / 45,3 / 39,7 / 35,2 / 20,4 / 8,3 / 24,6
1998 / 44,1 / 37,8 / 34,7 / 18,9 / 9,2 / 23,1
1999 / 42,7 / 38,6 / 32,6 / 21,2 / 7,3 / 22,2
2000 / 48,3 / 41,8 / 36,3 / 21,3 / 10,4 / 25,1
2001 / 50,3 / 45,7 / 37,7 / 23,3 / 8 / 27,3
2002 / 57 / 52,8 / 45,5 / 29,3 / 9,8 / 32,5
2003 / 66,5 / 61,5 / 53,8 / 38,4 / 17 / 41
2004 / 65,1 / 62,9 / 54 / 37,8 / 18 / 40,8
PL INE 2002
0 to 5 / 6 to 12 / 13 to 17 / 18 to 64 / Over 65 / Total
1997 / 36,4 / 30,5 / 25,8 / 14 / 4,8 / 17,2
1998 / 34,7 / 29,2 / 26,7 / 13,1 / 4,1 / 16,7
1999 / 32,5 / 28,3 / 22,7 / 12,5 / 3,4 / 15,3
2000 / 37,4 / 32,2 / 25,8 / 14,5 / 3,9 / 17,8
2001 / 38,3 / 35,4 / 27,7 / 15,3 / 3,9 / 18,8
2002 / 46,5 / 41,9 / 34,6 / 20,3 / 5,4 / 23,7
2003 / 56,5 / 50,2 / 42,7 / 27,8 / 9,7 / 30,9
2004 / 56 / 53,1 / 44,5 / 28,2 / 10,5 / 32,1
Source: Created based on INE’s Continuous Household Survey.
From a human rights approach the consequences implied by the decision seem concerning, in at least two different ways. Firstly, the change implies that thousands of children are no longer considered to be under the poverty line, without there being any substantial changes in their situation of vulnerability and as a result of an administrative measure. Secondly, it is obvious that reducing the general factors that determine poverty measurement undermine the phenomenon and reduce the chances of its being publicly addressed.
Evolution of Public Social Expenditure and protection policies destined to children. As regards to the Public Social Expenditure, a recent study conducted by the Institute of Economics of the School of Economics and Administration of the University of the Republic[7], has not only confirmed the observation made by the Committee on Human Rights in 1996, but it has proved that in all these years the Uruguayan state has done nothing to revert this situation.
Between 1999 and 2002 the public social expenditure (PSE) destined to children in Uruguay represented an average 4.9 points of the GDP, a figure similar to what the country pays annually in public debt interests. The research concludes: