This report synthesises lessons learned from an evaluation of Norwegian and Swedish aid interventions that aimed to promote child rights in Guatemala, Kenya, Mozambique and Sudan. It notes that a child rights perspective is integrated to the extent that interventions embody the four main principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. More effort is needed to implement in particular the principle of the child’s right to express views and be heard, as child participation currently tends to be tokenistic. The strategies of mainstreaming a child rights perspective and of focusing interventions on children are complementary.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) contains four general principles: (i) non-discrimination; (ii) the right to life, survival and development; (iii) the right to express views and be heard; and (iv) the best interest of the child. General Comment no. 5 (2003) of the CRC treaty body explains these principles. Interventions supporting child rights should reflect the four principles. For example:
- The principle of non-discrimination addresses in particular children whose rights require special measures.
- The principle of the right to life, survival and development is covered by interventions advancing the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, psychological and social development in a holistic way.
- The principle of the best interest of the child is essentially one of mainstreaming.
The strategies of mainstreaming a child rights perspective and of focusing interventions on children are complementary. Mainstreaming is very ambitious, requiring the entire organisation to possess the requisite knowledge and practical skills to infuse every intervention with a child rights perspective. It is important, but donors underestimate the resources required to make it work. The merits of targeted interventions are comparatively quick results, while the main weaknesses are limited coverage, short duration and low sustainability. Mainstreaming is slower in producing results and more resource-intensive, though is more likely to produce long-term sustainability. Other findings include the following:
- In relation to the principle of the right to express views and be heard, child participation has been more tokenistic than substantial.
- The avoidance of detailed earmarking and abstention from micro-management are features of Norwegian and Swedish assistance that are highly appreciated by civil society partners.
- A functioning and sustainable system for ensuring child rights can only be state-based. This means that state-to-state cooperation is important. However, it tends to move slowly and be affected adversely by a volatile political environment.
- Civil society organisations independent of the government are needed to perform advocacy and watchdog functions.
The CRC, in particular the ‘Concluding Observations’ of the CRC Committee, should be used as an important source and guide for political dialogue as well as for aid programming to promote child rights. In addition, children need to become more involved in all project activities, from design to evaluation. Further:
- Exit strategies for interventions benefiting children need to be communicated well in advance.
- An appropriate balance is needed between investment in equipment/infrastructure and human resources.
- In situations of armed conflict and humanitarian crisis, child rights are at risk of being overlooked, and should be prioritised.
- Norad/MFA and Sida need to continue taking a long-term perspective in child rights interventions to enhance planning and enable flexible responses to shifting circumstances.
- Donor emphasis on producing quick results should not lead to advocacy activities being disadvantaged.
- Notwithstanding the importance of anchoring interventions in local communities to enhance sustainability, interventions that enjoy little support in local structures (which might promote harmful practices, such as FGM) could be justified if they are in conformity with the CRC.
- UNICEF has played a major role in supporting child rights in many countries. However, a multilateral agency acting as a conduit for bilateral funding to domestic CSOs might not actually cut overall administration costs. It might also constrain the autonomy of local CSOs and make civil society less pluralistic.
