Policy brief:

Financing public spending on children: Going beyond business as usual

Child Rights Governance

Introduction By ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), States Parties made a commitment to take all neces-sary legislative, administrative and other measures to realize children’s rights (Article 4). With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall “undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international cooperation”1. This includes a commitment to mobilize all possible private and public, domestic and international resources to provide essential services to children and to ensure that institutions with a mandate or role in ensuring children’s rights are adequately resourced. Unfor-tunately, many governments often cite lack of sufficient resources as the reason for poor implementation of their child rights commitments.

All states, regardless of their economic status, have the obligation to take concrete measures to mobilize and al-locate resources, to the maximum extent possible, in order to ensure children’s rights are fulfilled. However, while acknowledging that it is the primary responsibility of every state to steer its own development and mobilize sufficient resources to invest in children, international support and cooperation is also required.

There are multiple ways a state can mobilize resources to finance child rights obligations. This policy brief highlights a few key areas: domestic revenue mobilization, combating illicit financial flows, innovative financing, responsible lend-ing and borrowing and aid. Although we acknowledge their importance, and the need to address them, this policy brief does not discuss issues such as diaspora remittances, private capital flows, micro-finance, reform of international finance institutions, trade and public-private partnerships.

1. Article 4 of the UNCRC

Photo: Louise Dyring/R

ed Barnet

2

Maximizing domestic revenueDomestic revenue, especially from tax, will continue to be the most significant and sustainable source of revenue for governments to finance public spending on children2. Effective tax policies that are equitable, broad-based and which do no harm to children, are essential for domestic revenue mobilization. The benefits of taxation to children and to development processes in general can be summarized in 4 ‘R’s’: 1) Revenue: to finance public services to children; 2) Representation: tax systems often create interest groups that often advocate for their rights as tax payers; 3) Re-pricing: increasing or decreasing the cost of products and services given their potential impact on society (e.g. increase in price of tobacco or fossil fuels and decrease in price of critical products and services to children); and 4) Redistribution: reducing inequality by collecting and utilizing taxes in an equitable way3.

Governments should seek to broaden their tax base so that more citizens pay taxes and, in turn, reap the benefits of increased public revenue. This may require that governments reform their tax policies and strengthen tax collec-tion systems. It is critical, however, that these reforms are transparent and in line with national and international laws. Lack of transparency breeds corruption, operational inefficiencies and leakages in revenue collection and sharing. In reforming tax policies and laws caution is required to make sure that tax rates are progressive - where the highest burden of taxation is placed on those most able to pay and do not weigh heavily on those that cannot pay4.

Taxation is therefore one way of addressing growing inequalities faced by many children all over the world. It is un-fortunate that the benefits of economic growth experienced by many economies across the world, especially middle income countries, have not been felt by all people. A recent study by Save the Children of 32 countries showed that a child in the richest 10% of households has 35 times available income of a child in the poorest 10% of households5. At the same, whilst in the past, the majority of poor children were found in low income countries nowadays they are in middle income countries6. A progressive tax system can therefore help address inequalities by redistributing income from the richest in society to help the poorest7.

Many developing countries are, however, yet to realize the full potential of tax. There are many reasons for this, which include: low tax morale, especially when citizens hold the perception that public money is not put to good use; generous tax incentives; inefficient tax collection systems; weak tax bases; corruption in revenue collection; informality of economies; as well as tax evasion and avoidance8. Tax evasion and avoidance is aided by tax havens and thrive in cases where there are weak tax collection systems.

Many developing countries offer generous tax incentives to foreign investors in sectors such as agriculture and min-ing owing to the perceived competition between countries to attract foreign direct investment (FDI). This is usually done without any clear cost benefit analysis9. Furthermore, tax incentives are sometimes offered in a non-transparent way and without opportunity for public scrutiny and oversight. Several researches have shown that tax incentives constitute a drain on resources, with little, if any, reciprocal benefit in terms of job creation or socio-economic devel-opment10. These and other issues, including mismanagement of tax revenues, limit the resources available to spend on children.

2. See for example: United Nations (8 August 2014), Report of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing Final Draft; OECD, (2014), Development Co-Operation Report 2014: Mobilising Resources for Sustainable Development, OECD Publishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2014-en (Accessed on 15 October 2014) and Action Aid, (2011), Ending aid dependency through tax: Emerging research findings, Johannes-burg, Action Aid3. Cobham A. (2005), Taxation Policy and Development, London, The Oxford Council on Good Governance4. Save the Children (2014), Tackling Tax and Saving Lives – children, tax and financing for development, London, Save the Children Fund5. Save the Children, (2012), Born Equal, How reducing inequality could give our children a better future, London, Save the Children Fund.6. See http://www.cgdev.org/files/1426481_file_Sumner_where_in_the_world_FINAL.pdf 7. See TJN-A, (2014), Africa rising? Inequalities and the essential role of fair taxation, NAIROBI, Tax Justice Network Africa and Action Aid8. See TJN-A, (2014), Africa rising? Inequalities and the essential role of fair taxation, NAIROBI, Tax Justice Network Africa and Action Aid and Save the Chil-dren, 2015, Missed Taxation Opportunities to improve investments in children in Africa (Unpublished report)9. BAN, TJN-A & NACE (2014), Losing Out: Sierra Leone Massive Revenue losses from tax incentives, Freetown, Budget Advocacy Network (BAN) and the National Advocacy Coalition on Extractives (NACE)10. See BAN, TJN-A & NACE (2014), Losing Out: Sierra Leone Massive Revenue losses from tax incentives, Freetown, Budget Advocacy Network (BAN) and the National Advocacy Coalition on Extractives (NACE). See also Action Aid, (2011), Ending aid dependency through tax: Emerging research findings, Johannesburg, Action Aid

3

While Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries get an average of 35% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from tax revenue, most developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia collect just below 14%11, while most countries in the Middle East and Latin America collect between 10.5 and 19.4%12. If all developing countries increased their tax to GDP ratio to 20%, additional US$190 billion tax rev-enue would be raised every year, enough to cover the estimated financial gap in education, health and social protec-tion13. A number of civil society organizations have also shown that a more than 20% contribution of tax to GDP will help governments meet most Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) target14.

Recommendations:

•Donors and multilateral institutions should support the strengthening of tax systems and fiscal policy reforms in developing countries in order to ensure that they contribute to efforts by governments towards more and better spending on children. This may include helping developing countries leverage information and communication technologies, reforming tax laws and enhancing staff capacities to handle complex issues such as taxation of Multi-National Companies (MNCs).

•Developing countries should strengthen their tax systems and ensure that tax policies are addressing income inequality and poverty, ensuring that tax is progressive and do not hinder the poorest families to invest in their children.

•Governments should review tax incentives offered to potential investors, especially MNCs, through cost-benefit analyses. If they are considered beneficial, tax incentives should be provided in a transparent way and according to national laws and policies. Reports of how much tax is lost due to tax incentives should be shared with elected representatives of parliament and made accessible to the public.

•Governments should ensure that tax policies are progressive. A progressive tax is one that places the great-est burden on those most able to pay, which is, tax rates rise as incomes increase, so that those who earn high income have a greater proportion taken as tax. Taxation is considered to be regressive if the tax burden is heavy on the poor.

•Governments should periodically conduct child rights impact assessments of tax policies to ensure that they reflect best interests of children and do no harm to them and other members of society.

•Governments should undertake measures to broaden their tax bases including through reassessing corporate tax rates and inclusion of sectors or individuals left outside the tax net, e.g small scale enterprises, real estates, online businesses and high-net worth individuals.

•Governments should crackdown on corruption in revenue collection and management including valuation, cus-toms offices, border agencies and in trade pricing.

•Governments should strengthen measures to combat tax evasion and avoidance by addressing issues such as transfer mis-pricing, mis-invoicing and other profit shifting tendencies, through strengthening national laws and fostering international cooperation on tax.

•Governments should ensure that revenue mobilization policies are designed and implemented within a transpar-ent and accountable framework. This includes strengthening transparency in crucial sectors such as extractive industries.

•Governments to strengthen mechanisms to regulate the private sector in order to fulfill its obligations to pay full tax in line with Human Rights and Business Principles of the United Nations.

11. World Bank, 2013, Financing for Development post-201512. United Nations, (2012), Tax structure and tax evasion in Latin America, United, Santiago, Macroeconomía del desarrollo Series, United Nations13. See UNDP, (2010) What Will It Take to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals? – An international assessment, June 2010 cited in Save the Children (2014), Tackling Tax, Saving Lives, London, Save the Children 14. See for example Fiona Chipunza (2010), ‘Taxation and MDGs’ editorial, Africa Tax Justice Spotlight, Tax Justice Network Africa, 2010 and TJN-A, (2014), Africa rising? Inequalities and the essential role of fair taxation, NAIROBI, Tax Justice Network Africa and Action Aid

4

Combating illicit financial flows and corruptionClamping down on illicit financial flows has the potential to offer huge development returns through, for example, in-creased tax revenues and subsequently increased spending on children – if spent right. The scale of illicit outflows is immense; large enough to finance the health and education budgets of many low- income countries many times over, or to provide the additional resources eradicate poverty and hunger15. According to Global Financial Integrity, the de-veloping world lost US$6.6 trillion in illicit outflows between 2003 and 201216. The European Union estimates that up to one trillion Euros are lost to tax evasion and avoidance in the European Community every year17. Illicit financial flows also include the payment of bribes and stealing of public money and then stashing it in secrecy jurisdictions. Between 2010 and 2012, OECD governments returned US$147 million and froze almost USD 1.4 billion of stolen assets through the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative18. Illicit financial flows through hamper efforts by governments to mobilize resources to invest in children.

No country can fight illicit financial flows alone. International support and cooperation is required. However, interna-tional initiatives to combat illicit financial flows have mostly been led by developed countries, within structures such as the OECD. Unfortunately, these initiatives do not fully take into account the contexts and needs of most develop-ing countries. Within the United Nations, tax related issues have been handled by the UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters. While the Committee provides valuable advice and recommendations, it is by nature an expert committee –not an intergovernmental body that is representative of diverse UN member states.

Recommendations:

•Governments should take concrete measures to crack down on tax havens through pressuring all jurisdictions to move towards automatic exchange of tax information, and implement public registers of the true owners of companies and trusts.

•Governments should require public country-by-country reporting by multinational companies on financial infor-mation, including key data on profits made, taxes paid; subsidies received; turnover; and number of employees.

•Governments should strengthen institutions that are established to fight money laundering and corruption such as anti-corruption commissions, relevant parliamentary oversight structures, anti-money laundering departments, revenue authorities and supreme audit institutions.

•Governments should commit to ensuring that developing countries have a meaningful voice in the design of international tax rules, and that these rules take the different capacities and needs of developing countries into account.

More targeted, effective and transparent Official Development Assistance (ODA)Although more and more developing countries are championing their own development, aid remains vital when used strategically and “smartly”19, especially for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) that have limited access to other sources of revenue. In 2013, ODA from OECD governments reached its highest level, in real figures, ever recorded of USD$134.8 billion20. In 2013, average net ODA from OECD countries stood at 0.3% of gross national income (GNI) compared to the target of allocating 0.7% of GNI to ODA. In the same year, only five OECD countries (Den-mark, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and the UK) met the 0.7% target. The Netherlands fell below 0.7% for the first

15. Save the Children (2014), Tackling Tax and Saving Lives – children, tax and financing for development, London, Save the Children Fund16. Global Financial Integrity (2014), Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries 2003-2012, Washington DC, Global Financial Integrity17. http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/tax_fraud_evasion/a_huge_problem/index_en.htm accessed on 17 December 201418. OECD, (2014), Development Co-Operation Report 2014: Mobilising Resources for Sustainable Development, OECD Publishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2014-en (Accessed on 15 October 2014)19. OECD, (2014), Development Co-Operation Report 2014: Mobilising Resources for Sustainable Development, OECD Publishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2014-en (Accessed on 15 October 2014)20. http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/aid-to-developing-countries-rebounds-in-2013-to-reach-an-all-time-high.htm accessed on 25 November 2014

5

time since 197421. Currently, aid to LDCs amounts to only 0.09% of GNI against a commitment by developed coun-tries to allocate 0.15 to 0.20%22. In LDCs, ODA could be used to leverage other sources of financing and to mitigate country specific risk. However, Middle Income Countries (MICs) should not be forgotten considering that 75% of the world’s extreme poor live in these countries. In these countries, ODA could be instrumental in catalyzing change that meets the needs of the poorest people whilst at the same time strengthening public finance systems, especially on tax collection.

The broad definition of ODA, by the OECD, which includes debt relief, several in-country costs like support to refu-gees, and concessional loans, is problematic. ODA given in the form of loans can, for example, increase debt vulner-ability. It is also important that ODA is untied to give developing countries, especially LDCs, the policy space to focus on the needs they have defined themselves.

Recommendations:

•Donor governments should reaffirm and meet their commitments to provide at least 0.7% of their GNI to ODA.

•ODA should be allocated to where it is needed the most, in particular, LDCs, Small Island Developing States and fragile states. Therefore, donor governments should dedicate at least 0.15-0.2% of GNI to LDCs in line with the Istanbul Programme of Action on LDCs.

•Donor governments and multilateral institutions should ensure ODA supports national led plans for investing in children, such as strengthening universal education, social protection, health and child protection systems, as well as strengthening national public finance management systems, especially on tax collection.

•Both donor and recipient governments as well as multilateral financial institutions should ensure that aid is deliv-ered and utilized within a transparent and accountable framework, in line with Paris, Accra and Busan principles.

•Donor governments to ensure ODA represents genuine transfers, including by ending aid tying, removing in-donor costs and debt relief, providing the majority in the form of grants, and reforming concessional lending by reflecting the real cost of loans to partner countries.

21. http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/aid-to-developing-countries-rebounds-in-2013-to-reach-an-all-time-high.htm, accessed on 25 November 201422. United Nations (8 August 2014), Report of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing Final Draft

Photo: Helle Kjærsgaard/Save the Children Denmark

6

Progressive, predictable and sustainable innovative financing To complement conventional sources of public finance, governments can explore new and additional sources of financing, popularly known as innovative financing. Innovative financing mechanisms come in various forms, which could be categorized into the following: 1) taxes and levies such as air ticket levy, 2) sector specific funds, 3) market based instruments for example carbon trading, 4) voluntary and citizens’ based initiatives such as remittances and 5) public-private partnership based mechanisms such as social impact bonds. Concrete examples include initiatives such as currency transactions tax; financial transaction tax on the sale of bonds, shares or derivatives; air flight ticket tax; dedicated funds in which both public and private players participate; social impact bonds23 and advance market commitments (AMC)24. If well-designed and effectively implemented innovative financing mechanisms can potentially reduce the resource gap left by traditional sources of public revenue notably taxation, Official Development As-sistance (ODA) and borrowing. Innovative finance should supplement rather than substitute traditional sources or constrain existing public revenue mobilization efforts. Policy safeguards should be put in place to ensure that specific initiatives do not unduly burden the poorest in society. Like tax policies, they should always be assessed for progres-sivity to ensure that the burden of generating additional finances is borne by those most able to pay.

To provide an example of innovative financing, nine countries: Chile, France, Madagascar, Mauritius, Niger, the Republic of Korea, Mali, Cameroon and Congo are currently implementing an air ticket levy25, coordinated by UNITAID26. The objective is to raise money to fund treatments and diagnostics for HIV and AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in LDCs. The levy is paid by individual air passengers when they purchase their tickets. Airlines are responsible for collecting and declaring the levy. The cost of the levy varies from country to country. Between 2007 and 2011, UNITAID raised US$1.2 billion through this mechanism, the majority of which originated from France27. Assuming Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam, which collectively have about 1.6 times the number of air passengers as France, implement the initiatives using the same airline ticket levy, they would raise around US$333 million per year28. The World Health Organization has estimated that a very low tax rate on internet traffic could raise about US$3 billion per year29. The European Parliament estimates that a Financial Transaction Tax could raise 200 billion euro per year within the European Community and US$650 billion at global level30.

Recommendations:

•Governments, in collaboration with other stakeholders, should assess proposed innovative financing mechanisms for technical viability, additionality, predictability, progressivity, and likely impacts on the implementation of children’s rights.

•Innovative financing mechanisms should be implemented in a transparent and accountable manner. Information on how much money is collected, how and for what should be available for public scrutiny and oversight.

•Innovative financing mechanisms by governments should have low transaction costs, be certain and progressive in order to ensure that the burden of mobilizing additional revenue is not imposed on the poor more than rich people.

23. Social Impact Bonds is a mechanism whereby investors pay for a particular project at the start, and then receive payments based on the results achieved by the project. See https://www.gov.uk/social-impact-bonds24. An AMC is a funding commitment, made in advance by donors to private sector (currently pharmaceutical companies), and designed to spur research, development and the creation of a market that does not yet exist or functions poorly. The private sector players are later expected, under the AMC agree-ment, to provide the product at an affordable retail price for a specified period to meet continuing demand (See http://www.leadinggroup.org/rubrique178.html)25. http://www.unitaid.eu/en/resources-2/events/9-uncategorised/401-innovation-levy (accessed on 23 September 2014)26. UNITAID is an innovative financing mechanism whose mission is to contribute to increasing access to drug treatments and diagnostics for HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, primarily in low-income governments27. http://globalhealthsciences.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/content/ghg/e2pi-unitaid-profile.pdf accessed on 19 October 201428. Policycures, (2010), Innovative financing mechanisms for South East Asia POLICY BRIEF 2: GLOBAL OR REGIONAL TAXES, Sydney, Policy Cures. http://www.policycures.org/downloads/Policy%20Brief%202%20-%20Global%20or%20Regional%20Taxes.pdf29. Consultative Expert Working Group on Research and Development: Financing and Coordination (WHO), “Research and Development to Meet Health Needs in Developing Governments: Strengthening Global Financing and Coordination”, 2012, http://www.who.int/phi/CEWG_Report_5_April_2012.pdf 30. Policycures, (2010), Innovative financing mechanisms for South East Asia POLICY BRIEF 2: GLOBAL OR REGIONAL TAXES, Sydney, Policy Cures. http://www.policycures.org/downloads/Policy%20Brief%202%20-%20Global%20or%20Regional%20Taxes.pdf

7

•For maximum benefit to children, innovative financing mechanisms should involve a certain degree of earmarking of child focused sectors such as health, education and social protection.

•Donor organizations should ensure that innovative financing mechanisms that rely on ODA do not negatively af-fect their capacity to honor existing and future commitments.

•Governments should expand existing innovative financing initiatives that have been proved to be effective, sustain-able and simple to implement whilst ensuring a strong focus on results, equity and effectiveness in the use of the available resources.

Responsible lending and borrowingDomestic and international loans, whether concessional or non-concessional are an important source of public finance, which also contribute to improvements in public spending on children. Borrowing in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, neither are debt repayment arrangements. It is the way in which borrowing and repayments are done that matter. To be sustainable, loan procurement and management should be undertaken within a transparent and accountable framework, ensuring due diligence and assessment of the best interests of the country. In addition, best interests of children should also be taken into account.

Both lenders and borrowers should have the responsibility of preventing and resolving unsustainable debt situations, dealing with illegitimate or odious debt, which may impact negatively on available resources to invest in children. They should also be held to account for any irresponsible decisions through formal accountability and oversight mecha-nisms. Debt relief initiatives such as the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) and Multilateral Debt Relief Initiatives significantly helped many LDCs to deal with unsustainable debt levels. These initiatives are now being phased out at a time when debt burdens are resurfacing. According to the International Monetary Fund, by August 2014, fifteen low income countries were facing a high risk of debt stress whilst two were already in debt stress31. This situation will sig-nificantly reduce the fiscal space for the respective governments to improve public spending on children. At the same time, a few developed countries, including Portugal, Spain and Greece are also experiencing severe debt problems. In 2012, the average ratio of public debt to GDP of LDCs amounted to 107.7%, vs. 26.4% for developing countries as a whole32. Unsustainable debt is also a risk in middle income countries as many of these countries rely on non-conces-sional and private borrowing to finance public investments.

Amidst all these challenges, there is currently no transparent international mechanism for dealing with debt crises. Sovereign debt crises are a recurring problem that involves very serious political, economic and social consequences. The restructuring of sovereign debt is therefore a frequent phenomenon in the international financial system. The debt crises within the Eurozone and the vulture funds lawsuits against Argentina are illustrative examples of the growing challenge of unsustainable debt situations. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution (A/68/L.57/Rev.2), in September 2014, which seeks to establish a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt management and the UNCTAD Principles on Promoting Responsible Sovereign Lending and Borrowing33, are there-fore steps in the right direction that should be supported by all governments34.

Recommendations35:

•Lenders and creditors should adhere to principles of responsible lending, borrowing and prudent management of public debt in order to avoid unsustainable debt burdens. These include mutual respect, obligations and re-sponsibilities; respect of national and international laws; fair interest rates; coordinated and coherent institutional frameworks; independent debt monitoring and oversight; public participation; limits to borrowing; inclusivity and information disclosure and respect for children’s rights.

31. https://www.imf.org/external/Pubs/ft/dsa/DSAlist.pdf accessed on 10 October 201432. United Nations (8 August 2014), Report of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing Final Draft33. http://www.unctad.info/upload/Debt%20Portal/Principles%20drafts/SLB_Principles_English_Doha_22-04-2012.pdf accessed on 16 October 201434. United Nations General Assembly Resolution (A/68/L.57.Rev. 2), Towards the establishment of a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restruc-turing processes, 4 September 201435. Most of the recommendations are drawn from Save the Children’s debt policy brief (2013)

8

•Lending institutions should also take responsibility for past mistakes. It is unfair for lenders to demand debt repay-ment of loans from new governments given to corrupt and dictatorial past regimes, which did not benefit the people. Debt originating from such irresponsible lending must be cancelled.

•Governments and multilateral institutions should establish mechanisms to ensure that lending and borrowing is transparent, with loan terms and conditions available for advance public scrutiny, including by parliaments.

•Recipient governments of debt relief should ensure that any additional fiscal space arising from debt relief is used to increase public spending on children where gaps still exists.

•Governments should periodically conduct audits of their external and domestic debt and also keep up to date records showing country debt profile, contracted loans, debt service obligations and balance of payments. This should also include child rights impact assessment of debt.

•Debt sustainability frameworks should take into account internationally agreed human rights obligations and environmental commitments. In the same vein, when assessing capacities of countries to service their debts, con-sideration should also be given to existing financial commitments to provide essential services to children for the progressive realization of their rights.

The need for strong public finance systems To effectively mobilize, equitably share and efficiently utilize public resources in order to implement children’s rights, strong, transparent and accountable public financial management systems and institutions underpinned by robust policy and legal frameworks are required. It is the responsibility of each government to ensure that comprehensive public finance management policies and independent public finance institutions, such as revenue authorities, plan-ning commissions, departments of finance/ treasuries, supreme audit institutions, procurement boards, parliamentary budget committees and budget consultative structures are functioning optimally. Public finance policies, including on taxation, should be periodically reviewed and assessed, including from a child rights perspective, to ensure best inter-ests of children as a primary consideration and to make sure that these polices do no harm to children. All children, particularly the most marginalized and disadvantaged, should be protected from the adverse effects of economic policies or financial downturns. Good public financial management requires governments to engender transparency and accountability in revenue mobilization, sharing and utilization.

Recommendations:

•Governments to strengthen national public finance institutions as well as role of accountability and oversight institutions such as parliaments, independent national human rights institutions, Debt Management Offices, Aid Coordination Institutions and Supreme Audit Institutions in public finance management.

•Governments to ensure availability of comprehensive, disaggregated, user-friendly and timely data to inform plans on resource mobilization, allocation and spending. Data should also be made publically available in a timely and user-friendly manner to facilitate for adults and children to hold their government to account. Without reliable data, financial decisions are likely to be less responsive to children’s rights and needs.

•Governments to strengthen national data collection/statistical systems in order to improve availability of quality disaggregated data required for effective public financial management.

•Governments to create opportunities for citizens, including children, to actively participate in fiscal processes and to hold governments to account for their decisions and actions.

•Governments to ensure close coordination between those arms of government engaged in implementing chil-dren’s rights and those responsible for financing and public spending decisions. In reality these are often far apart.

9

Conclusion Robust and sustained efforts are required to mobilize sufficient resources to implement children’s rights outlined in the CRC. Successful mobilization of resources to invest in children will however require an enabling domestic envi-ronment, including good governance, sound economic policies, strong and accountable institutions responsive to the needs of the people, improved infrastructure, rule of law and supportive national policies. This requires that govern-ments go beyond business as usual.

Increasing resources available to spend on children is however one side of the story. The other side is that the available resources should be equitably shared and effectively used to ensure no children are left behind in realizing their rights. Unless governments ensure that children get their fair share, increases in public revenue will amount to nothing for children, particularly the poorest and most marginalized. A range of context-specific social and economic policies, supported by robust resource mobilization and equitable public spending are needed to ensure every child has equal chance of enjoying their rights36.

36. Save the Children (2014), Leaving no one behind – embedding equity in the post-2015, London, Save the Children Fund.

For more information contact:Child Rights Governance Global Initiative Save the Children Email: ls@redbarnet.dk / blm@redbarnet.dk