Batara slum in a Dhaka suburb. Credit: Naimul Haq/IPS

By Sabine Saliba
BEIRUT, Jul 31 2020 (IPS)

The Covid-19 pandemic seems to have spared children from the direct health effects of the virus but the crisis has affected their social and economic rights directly and indirectly beyond what we could have foreseen. And there’s no doubt that children who come from more vulnerable backgrounds will feel the long-term impact of the pandemic and the measures taken to prevent its spread the hardest.

Social and economic rights are crucial to ensure the fulfilment of basic rights like sustenance, housing, food, education, health, employment and freedom from discrimination. The enforcement of these rights is instrumental to properly respond to any economic crisis. But what are the challenges today to the fulfilment of these rights for children, and how can they be met during and after a pandemic?

Looking at the long-term risk

Masses of funding have been made available at national and international levels to recover from the economic crisis the Covid-19 pandemic has created, but how can they be allocated so that we don’t repeat the failures of past crises?

The Covid-19 pandemic has already exposed how things like unemployment, poverty and missing education can all give rise to other problems. For instance, recent estimates show that millions of children under 5 years of age risk suffering from wasting as a result of the socio-economic impact of the pandemic.

Migrant and displaced children are also a particularly vulnerable group during this crisis as they live in deprived urban areas or slums, overcrowded camps, settlements, makeshift shelters or reception centres, where they lack adequate access to health services, clean water, sanitation and access to nutrition.

According to UNICEF, 91 percent of the world’s children are also seeing their education interrupted, with girls and those relying on school-based nutrition programmes less likely to return when classrooms reopen.

Explaining why, Human Rights Watch says that “widespread job and income loss and economic insecurity among families are likely to increase rates of child labour, sexual exploitation, teenage pregnancy, and child marriage. […] As the global death toll from Covid-19 increases, large numbers of children will be orphaned and vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.”

The impact of unemployment should not be underestimated. Millions of parents are already struggling to maintain their livelihoods, with the International Labour Organization estimating that 25 million people may lose their jobs and that youth, older workers, women and migrants will bear a disproportionate burden of the job crisis.

We’ve seen these issues before in the aftermath of events that led to higher unemployment and poverty, but the fact that they’re happening again this time around raises the question of whether structural reform can help.

Today more than ever, any action to end child poverty should look at the structures that create poverty. Masses of funding have been made available at national and international levels to recover from the economic crisis the Covid-19 pandemic has created, but how can they be allocated so that we don’t repeat the failures of past crises?

Bailouts: saving the economy through corporations

Government and corporation bailouts seem to be the go-to solution for the crisis, with the focus being on saving the economy instead of finding solutions to poverty and financial hardship.

Countries around the world have approved more than US$11 trillion worth of emergency measures, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and big businesses and multinational corporations are receiving the largest share of the bailouts.

Human rights groups say that this approach has put concerns for human rights in the shadows and replicated the responses to the 2008 financial crisis, weakening “labour protections…buil[ding] regressive tax systems and impos[ing] austerity on the majority while providing subsidised prosperity for the elite few.”

The Center for Economic and Social Rights has also highlighted that, as many governments are focusing on bailing out for-profit corporations, there’s a major risk that the crisis will even be used by commercial companies as an opportunity to expand their markets and profits, including in sectors like education, where major global IT players are positioning themselves.

In fact, we’re already seeing how privatisation and commercialisation of education have increased during the 2020 pandemic. With mass school closures, commercial online educational tools have sprung up as “emergency respondents”.

So what kind of bailout could have social justice and human rights at its core? And is there room for children and young people in it?

Cash transfers: a people’s bailout

From a human rights perspective, the ultimate measure of any economic system or policy is its impact on people, particularly the most vulnerable. The rising critics of corporate bailouts have brought an old debate back to the table: Universal Basic Income (UBI).

UBI is a regular government payment that each member of society receives equally, to guarantee basic costs of living and financial security for everyone. The supporters of this model go way back; for instance in 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. supported “a guaranteed income” as a means of abolishing poverty.

A similar model has also been brought to the table: Universal Basic Services (UBS). Under this approach everyone receives free and unconditional access to basic services such as health care, education and transport, while other services like basic housing and nutritional programmes would only be accessible through an application process and restricted to those who need it the most.

But rather than being substitutes for one another, experts argue that UBS and UBI are both beneficial as “there is no contradiction between having some public quasi-universal basic services and a basic income”.

But these systems still face much opposition, especially towards UBI, on the basis that it would be too costly. In response to those who oppose UBI for this reason, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) explains that “the alternative will result in a greater surge in inequality, increasing social tensions that would cost governments even more and open countries to heightened risk of societal conflict”.

The UN agency also adds that “a new social contract needs to emerge from this [Covid-19] crisis that rebalances deep inequalities that are prevalent across societies [and] UBI promises to be a useful element of such a framework.”

Cash transfers for under-18s

Even though the UBI model is based on the individual rather than the household, children are rarely expected to be beneficiaries of a regular payment. Almaz Zelleke, a political science professor at NYU Shanghai, believes in including children as recipients because “only basic income that goes to children, as well as adults, can actually eliminate the poverty of families with only a single parent, or a single earner.”

In other words, if more members of a family beyond just the breadwinner receive a regular income, it can make the family more resilient to economic crises and the threat of job loss.

Similarly in a discussion with CRIN, Argentinian sociologist and teacher Santiago Morales explained the importance of giving children an income and the “recognition of the social contribution children make […] by having an income they can manage themselves”.

However, adults rarely give children’s capacities enough credit and the first argument against giving an income to children would probably be that they would waste it. According to Morales, this is a “typical adultist argument” because it’s based on the presumption that children lack capacity.

But, he explains, “we need to distinguish between capacity and know-how… If children don’t know how to manage money, it’s because they haven’t been taught.”

Excerpt:

Source: www.bloncampus.com

By Sabine Saliba
BEIRUT, Jul 3 2020 (IPS)

Reports of escalating violence against women and children made the news almost everyday in March and April following the announcement of lockdowns to control the spread of Covid-19. The main concern has been that victims cannot escape their abusers or seek help when they share a confined space and are under constant scrutiny and the threat of violence.

In countries where schools were shut, children experiencing violence in the home now have little to no recourse to protection, such as reporting abuse to their teachers.

There has been an average 32-percent increase in the number of calls to domestic violence helplines globally. Country figures range from a 12 percent increase in Spain and 27 percent in Montenegro, to a 33 percent rise in Singapore, 50 percent in Lebanon and 75 percent in Chile

Despite the concerns, we hear less about the issue now. But while the interest in the media may have decreased, it is doubtful that the reality for children has changed. As the United Nations warned in April, violence by caregivers is the most common form of violence experienced by children. And if we look away now, the problem will not disappear.

The rise and drop in numbers are of equal concern

Perhaps the best indicator of changes in domestic violence rates are national helplines, which have recorded both a rise and fall during lockdowns. Most helplines which have recently released figures have reported a sharp increase in reports of domestic violence generally.

According to a recent World Vision report that collated available data, there has been an average 32-percent increase in the number of calls to domestic violence helplines globally. Country figures range from a 12 percent increase in Spain and 27 percent in Montenegro, to a 33 percent rise in Singapore, 50 percent in Lebanon and 75 percent in Chile.

The data does not disagregate according to who the victims are, but we know that when children live in a home where violence against women is perpetrated, they are exposed to the violence and may also be victims of it.

Specifically concerning direct violence against children, some child helplines have also released disturbing figures. In only 11 days, India’s child helpline received more than 92,000 calls requesting protection from abuse and violence, which represent 50 percent more calls than usual. By mid-May, the Uganda Child Helpline had dealt with 881 cases since the lockdown began in late March – the average of cases received is usually 248.

The United Kingdom’s ChildLine noted an “unprecedented” rise in the number of calls in late March. Figures show that calls about children facing potential emotional abuse rose from 529 to 792 in the first month of the lockdown.

In April in Bangladesh, there was a 40 percent increase of calls to the child helpline, while cases of children being beaten by parents or guardians rose by 42 percent. And in Kazakhstan, in March alone, the national child helpline provided psychological, legal and social support to 16,310 children. The UN expert on violence against children explained that the “stress and anxiety parents and caregivers are feeling, including job loss, isolation, excessive confinement, and anxieties over health and finances – are a serious driver of violence in the home”.

Equally worrying is a decrease in reports of violence against children because it raises fears of children’s inability to report abuse. Bolivia reports an exponential drop in complaints of violence against women and girls since March compared to figures from last year.

To show the progression, there were 2.5 percent fewer complaints in January, 4.5 per cent fewer in February, 24.5 percent fewer in March, 65 percent fewer in April, and 59.5 percent fewer in May.

In Russia, the number of calls from children to the national helpline decreased during daytime hours, but increased during the night, which is thought to be because during the day children are in the company of their parents.

In March in the United States, despite the national hotline seeing a 23 percent increase in calls and a 263 percent increase in texts compared to the previous year, drops in complaints have been recorded in Colorado, Texas, Illinois and California. Caseworkers say the people trained to recognise abuse, like teachers and child care workers, were no longer able to see children after stay-at-home orders were announced.

When poverty leads to more violence

A particularly concerning cause of abuse is the growing financial crisis that many families are facing. In the Philippines, for instance, cases of online child sex abuse have tripled under the lockdown, with campaigners warning that cash-strapped relatives are among those exploiting children online for money in what has been called a “family-based crime”.

In almost three months, there were 279,166 cases of online child sex abuse in the Philippines, while there were 76,561 cases during this timeframe in 2019.

In other parts of the world, aid groups have warned that forced child marriages could be on the rise due to school closures, food insecurity and economic uncertainty triggered by the pandemic.

In Ethiopia, more than 500 girls have been rescued from forced marriages since March, while anecdotal evidence suggests spikes in other countries such as Afghanistan, India, South Sudan and Yemen. Faced with growing challenges to support their family, parents may marry off their daughters to reduce the number of mouths to feed or to access dowries.

“It really is a survival mechanism,” one expert said. The UN Population Fund has predicted 13 million more child marriages will take place in the next decade as a result of the anticipated economic consequences of the pandemic, as well as because of efforts to end child marriage being disrupted.

Positive responses

With many child protection services operating at a reduced level due to the infection, there is the risk that violence against children in the home will go unreported and therefore unnoticed. But some countries are trying to challenge this.

For instance, a few weeks into the lockdown, Germany classified child protection staff as essential workers who are allowed to continue working. Canada is investing in shelters for those fleeing gender-based violence. And in France, victims are being asked to report domestic abuse at pharmacies and to use code if they happen to be accompanied by their abusers, so that the pharmacies can in turn inform the police.

These are just some examples, but they represent the political will to not leave an ongoing social problem like domestic violence unchecked during a pandemic like Covid-19. We should not forget that domestic violence itself is an age-old pandemic that affects all societies.

Excerpt: