1. What is "0.1% for children"?
2. What needs of children are not being met?
3. How would additional funds help meet those needs?
4. Where would the funds come from?
5. Through what channels would the funds be spent?
6. How much money would be transferred?
7. Can developed countries afford this amount?
8. Are taxpayers in developed countries ready to give this amount?
9. Shouldn't developing countries be responsible for their own children?
10. Does it create a dependency on donors?
11. What are developed countries obliged to do?
12. Are funds really the answer?
13. Will this be enough to make a difference?
14. Why hasn't it been done before now?
15. How does it relate to the target of 0.7%?
16. Do the two targets of 0.7% and 0.1% mean a new target of 0.8%
17. Why should children be a priority for aid?
18. Would it take away from other important aid?
19. Does it reduce the flexibility needed for effective aid?
20. How would it affect the goal of 0.15 to 0.2% for LLDCs?
21. How does it relate to the 20/20 Initiative?
22. Why the specific amount of 0.1%?
23. How does it relate to calls for debt reduction or cancellation?
24. How does it relate to the process of globalization?
25. What would be counted as funds towards 0.1%?
26. How much do countries already give?
27. How can we make sure the funds are well used?
28. How would it be monitored?
29. What timeframe would be expected?
30. How can the proposal be promoted?
31. What could be the role of children?

1. What is "0.1% for children"?
It is a proposal that 0.1% of the GNP of wealthy countries be dedicated to meeting the basic needs of children in the developing world.

Top

 2. What needs of Children are not Being Met?
Despite the many promises the world community has made, millions and millions of children have to struggle through their young lives. Consider the following disturbing facts:

• 130 million children never have a chance to even start school.
• 250 million children are being exploited as child labourers.
• 10 million children die every year of preventable diseases and malnutrition.
• 2 million children died during the 90's as a result of armed conflict.
• Tens of millions of children are being physically and sexually abused every day.
  
  The challenge for all of us is not to accept this shameful situation, but to change it.

  Top

 3. How would additional funds help meet those needs?
The additional funds raised through this proposal could be used, for example, to:

• provide education for girls and boys who have been left out of school
• improve and expand programs for early childhood development
• offer meaningful alternatives for children relieved of child labour
• assist the demobilization of child soldiers
• protect children from trafficking and prostitution
• ensure the immunisation of all children against preventable diseases
• provide special care for children with disabilities
• protect the health of children at risk of malnutrition
• support programs to prevent child abuse
• ensure that every child is registered at birth

More broadly, the international community will be making a number of important promises to children at the UN Special Session on Children. These funds can help ensure those promises are met.

Top

 4. Where would the funds come from?
The funds would be contributed from the general revenues of the governments of wealthy countries.  These include the members of the OECD (i.e. most European countries, Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Korea) along with other countries classified as "high-income countries".

 5. Through what channels would the funds be spent?
Most of the funds would be given as bilateral aid, from country to country.  A significant portion of the funds would also be given through multilateral channels, including specialized UN agencies such as UNICEF and the UNDP.  When appropriate, the funds could also be channeled through development organisations in donor countries or grassroots organisations in the developing world.

 6. How much money would be transferred?
The total GNP of high-income countries in 2000 was an astounding $24 trillion, or $24 thousand billion. Of this total, 0.1% would be $24 billion.  In 2002 this amount should rise to just over $25 billion. This is the approximate amount that should be dedicated each year as aid for children in developing countries.

 7. Can developed countries afford this amount?
Can any country not afford a thousandth of its income for a vitally important issue?  Even in an age of shrinking budgets and tight fiscal policies, governments still need the wisdom and foresight to invest in the future.  An amount of 0.1% can easily be set aside through relatively minor economic adjustments once governments make a commitment to this cause.

 8. Are taxpayers in developed countries eady to give this amount?
One of the main reasons for this proposal is that in most developed countries, taxpayers would be very willing to contribute this amount.  Already there is strong public support for the cause of children, as shown by the popular support for UNICEF and other children's charities.  Millions of children in developed countries have even gone door-to-door to collect pennies and dimes for less fortunate children in other parts of the world.  It has been a missed opportunity that the public has not yet been asked to contribute more substantially as taxpayers.

 9. Shouldn't developing countries be responsible for their own children?
Families, communities and governments in the developing world are responsible for their own children.  They are the ones responsible for the care, nurturing, and protection of all their children.  They are also responsible for the vast majority of the financial burden of raising children.  There are, however, critical gaps between the needs of children and the funds available to meet those needs.   In a world where many countries are struggling with an overwhelming debt load, with ill-conceived structural adjustment programs, and grossly unfair terms of trade, it is no easy task to close the gap.  Admittedly, there is still much room for improvement in the way that resources are allocated within many developing countries, and over the next few years there will be increasing pressure on governments to make the needs of children a priority.  This is not, however, a reason for developed countries to forget their own responsibilities within the community of nations.

 10. Does it create a dependency on donors?
Of all the funds given as development aid, contributions for children are among those least likely to create long-term dependence on donors.  Investing in the development of children creates a new generation that is healthier, more educated, and better empowered to succeed on its own.  History has shown this to be one of the single most effective ways to reduce or remove dependence on donors.  In the 1950s and 1960s the West invested heavily in the basic education system of South Korea; today its citizens have the highest average level of education in the world and now they even give development aid to other countries.

 11. What are developed countries obliged to do?
While some may see this proposal as just another act of charity, its foundations are much deeper.  Several articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child call for member states to act within the framework of international cooperation to uphold specific economic, social, and cultural rights of children, with particular account to be taken for the needs of developing countries.  The Convention is a legally binding document, so for the countries that have ratified it, fulfilling this commitment is their obligation under international law.  The Convention specifies no exact monetary amount, but a good faith interpretation would require a level high enough to have a significant impact.  The target of 0.1% can be a useful benchmark to monitor compliance with the Convention.  The United States is the only developed country not to have ratified the Convention so it does not have any strictly legal obligations, but it did sign the Convention, which indicates a political commitment to its terms.

 12. Are funds really the answer?
Funds are not the whole answer, but they are an essential part of the solution.  Much can be done for children through community mobilization, through changes in social values, and improvements in the administration of government services, but this would not be enough in itself.  There would still be a fundamental gap in financing which must be bridged.  The infusion of considerable development aid funds now would be especially important for accelerating the process of meeting children's needs.  The formative years of children pass all too quickly and their lives can't be put on pause.  Clearly additional funds are urgently needed for children, which is reason enough to give them now.

 13. Will this be enough to make a difference?
A contribution of just 0.1% would make an enormous difference in the lives of millions of children.  This amount would be approximately $25 billion each year, of which an estimated $15 billion to $20 billion would be entirely new funds.  In comparison, one of the biggest expenses for children is providing quality schooling, and for this UNICEF has estimated a total additional requirement of $9 billion.  Providing universal immunisation with the latest vaccines would cost even less at $2 billion a year.  Just these two items alone would make a huge difference in the world.

 14. Why hasn't it been done before now?
There have been efforts by some governments and organisations to ensure greater aid for children, but there has not yet been a concerted and determined effort in this direction.  One of the reasons is that historically the needs of children have been seen as simply a charitable cause and not recognized as a fundamental part of the development process.  Many of the organisations that have been established to help children have struggled hard just to raise funds for their direct activities, without emphasizing the overall flow of resources for children.  Addressing the needs of children has also usually been seen as part of general community development, without recognizing critical child-specific needs, such as birth registration, routine immunisation, early childhood education, and protection from abuse.  Finally, few people realise how little development aid is actually going for children.  Often development projects for children are widely publicised by the donor country or agency, which gives the public the impression that a lot is being done while in reality children are receiving very little.

 15. How does it relate to the target of 0.7%?
The target for developed countries to give 0.7% of their GNP as official development assistance is fundamental to the whole effort to create a just and equitable world.  With the funds contributed in meeting this target, most of the men, women and children of this world would be able to drink clean water, live a decent life, protect their environment, and be secure in their future.  Meeting this overall target is one of the single most important challenges facing the international community today.  The target of 0.1% for children is in no way a replacement of the 0.7% target.  It is simply an identification of financing requirements for child-specific needs that have until now been seriously neglected in the development field.  Since meeting the 0.1% target will require substantial new development funds, it should help reverse the decrease in overall development assistance and contribute new momentum towards raising overall aid from its current level of 0.23% up to the 0.7% target.

 16. Do the two targets of 0.7% and 0.1% mean a new target of 0.8%?
No.  The target of 0.7% is the long-established UN target for development aid, and 0.1% for children would be a component of it.  It will require additional funds but these will help fill part of the gap between the current low levels of aid and the 0.7% target.

 17. Why should children be a priority for aid?
Parents around the world recognize the importance of protecting and nurturing their children.  Extended families and communities often come together to help children grow and achieve their full potential.  Would it not make sense for the international community to work together for the best interests of children?  Children have always been called the future of humanity, but these words should be matched by actions.  Imagine if a generation ago we had assured every child a quality education, protected their health during infancy and childhood, prevented their exploitation and promoted their development.  The world would be a very different place today.  Breaking the cycle of poverty is the fundamental challenge of development and what better place to start than investing in children.

 18. Would it take away from other important aid?
There may be some cases where increased aid for children comes at the expense of other worthwhile aid objectives, but this would be the exception instead of the rule.  Most of the current international aid is well protected by special interests.  Economic, political, and geographical interests combine to determine where the bulk of existing aid is allocated.  These interests are not likely to change soon, and thus such self-interested aid will not be changing either.  Since the needs of children have never been part of these interests, aid for children will usually require the commitment of fresh funds.

 19. Does it reduce the flexibility needed for effective aid?
The target of 0.1% for children would not mean a significant reduction in the flexibility of aid.  The amount of 0.1% is still only a seventh of the overall aid target of 0.7%, which should not be too much to allocate for a group that represents half the world's population.  This proposal is not a recommendation that all development aid be earmarked for different major issues, such as HIV/AIDS, women, water, agriculture, emergency relief, etc., as such a system would create serious constraints and inefficiencies for both aid donors and recipients.  The proposed 0.1% for children is just a single specific measure to correct a long-standing shortcoming in the development sector.

 20. How would it affect the goal of 0.15 to 0.2% for LLDCs?
The target of 0.15 to 0.2% of developed countries' GNP for aid to least developed countries has been set as an attempt to ensure that aid reaches the world's poorest people.  Ordinary taxpayers assume that their aid dollars are going to help people most in need, but in reality only one quarter of all aid is being spent in least developed countries.  The reason is that often these countries do not carry much clout or do not appeal to the political or economic interests that determine the allocation of aid.  It is hoped that the funds generated in meeting the proposed 0.1% target would go first towards the most urgent needs of children.  If this is the case, then it would result in substantial new funds for least developed countries, where the basic needs of children are greatest.

 21. How does it relate to the 20/20 Initiative?
The 20/20 initiative is a pioneering effort to ensure that aid is targeted for basic social services.  Adopted at the 1995 World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen, the initiative calls for donor governments to contribute 20% of their aid towards basic social services, while recipient governments pledge to allocate 20% of public expenditures for the same purpose.  The proposed 0.1% for children is in the same spirit of the 20/20 initiative as it emphasizes human needs as a foundation for development.  Almost all of the programs supported through the 0.1% proposal would be classified as basic social services and thus it could help many more governments reach the 20/20 target.  One difference between these two complementary efforts is that the 0.1% proposal is not expressed as a fixed percentage of existing aid as it recognizes the serious need for an overall increase in the level of aid.

 22. Why the specific amount of 0.1%?
0.1% is no magic number but it is a good guideline.  The amount is so small, only one dollar for every thousand, that it should be the very least that children in the developing world can expect is given in the name of helping them.  On the other hand, the total amount would be $25 billion, which is substantial.  When combined with increased budgetary allocations in the developing world, this amount should be enough to secure the basic needs of all children.

 23. How does it relate to calls for debt reduction or cancellation?
The campaign for debt relief and the proposed 0.1% for children are complementary approaches to achieving the same goal of improving the lives of poor children and their families.  Extensive debt reduction or cancellation for developing countries would allow national governments to commit much greater resources for basic social services.  The proposed 0.1% for children would match that with additional external funds for children's specific needs.

 24. How does it relate to the process of globalization?
Economic globalization and the increase in international trade is a process filled with tremendous uncertainty.  No one knows if it will bring greater prosperity or greater hardship to the world.  One thing that is certain, however, is if poor children in the developing world continue to be deprived of quality education, if they are kept illiterate and malnourished, then any kind of economic globalization will only result in an educated elite controlling and exploiting the rest of the world.  The proposed 0.1% for children is itself a form of globalization, a globalization of the concern and care for all children.  It should been seen as a minimum pre-condition for any economic globalization to have a hope of helping the poor.

 25. What would be counted as funds towards 0.1%?
In determining what aid should or shouldn't be counted towards 0.1%, it is essential to keep in mind that this target is a component of the broader target of 0.7% for overall aid.  Children have some needs that are specific to them and other equally important needs that they share with other members of their community.  For this reason is it recommended that funds contributing to basic education, birth registration, childhood immunisation, rehabilitation of child labourers, prevention of child abuse, care for HIV/AIDS orphans, assistance to children with disabilities, and other such programs be counted.  On the other hand, programs to provide clean drinking water, to empower women, to improve community health care, to assist refugees, to provide adequate shelter, and to achieve other vital development aims should be counted as part of the 0.7% target.  They are in fact, just as important to children as the items listed for the 0.1% target, but it is more efficient to administer and track them as part of the overall efforts towards sustainable development.  This distinction is open to debate, however, and an alternative approach could be to allocate a portion of such aid based on the proportion of child beneficiaries.  In the end it should be emphasized that the 0.1% target is simply a guideline towards the real goal of meeting every child's basic needs.

 26. How much do countries already give?
There is presently no global figure available on how much of official development aid goes for children, although the amount does seem to be much less than the target of 0.1% of GNP.  The total aid for basic education, for example, is only $700 million, which is less than 0.003% of developed countries' GNP.  One of the important first steps for this proposal is to start tracking more carefully the total aid for children.

 27. How can we make sure the funds are well used?
The proper use of these funds will be essential for maintaining the good will of taxpayers in developed countries and for ensuring that the greatest number of children are helped.  There is no single solution to this issue, but two key steps will be to make this process completely transparent and to involve civil society in monitoring the use and impact of the funds.  Taxpayers in developed countries and citizens--including children--in developing countries should know how much is being given for what programs, and who is accountable for the use of those funds.

 28. How would it be monitored?
The Development Aid Committee of the OECD is presently responsible for collecting statistics about the allocation of development aid.  As one of their reporting categories they can add "development aid for children".  In addition to this, as part of the follow-up mechanism to the UN's Special Session on Children, a monitoring committee could be formed to regularly check on the implementation of this and other commitments.  Finally, the success of "The Reality of Aid Project" provides a good model that child rights groups can follow to independently monitor the flow of aid to children.

 29. What timeframe would be expected?
Meeting children's needs is an urgent matter that should be addressed without delay.  From the time governments commit to this proposal, there should be a transition period of no more than 2-3 years as they scale up to meet the 0.1% target.

 30. How can the proposal be promoted?
The best way to promote this proposal is by convincing governments to support it.  This involves both getting governments of developed countries to commit to this target for their aid, and lobbying governments of developing countries to make children's needs a priority in their requests for aid.  Some of the methods to accomplish this include:  meeting with members of Parliament or Congress, writing to Ministers or Heads of State, writing opinion pieces for major newspapers, organizing public debates on this issue, or circulating a petition in support of the proposal.

 31. What could be the role of children?
Children in the developed world can be the driving force for this proposal.  Most are in fact taxpayers, from the sales taxes they pay, and they should have a right to decide how their taxes are spent.  The protection and development of children in the rest of the world will have an enormous effect on their own future, so they should have a say in what their country is doing for other children.  Similarly, children in developing countries have the right to say to their own governments that their needs should be a priority for both government expenditures and the aid their country receives.  Children can lobby as effectively as adults by writing letters, meeting with parliamentarians, organizing public events, and networking with children in other countries.