A/HRC/31/33 A. Making children visible in the budget 10. States must ensure that the achievement of children’s rights is a primary consideration when enacting the budget, and that children are prioritized in resource allocation and expenditure. A detailed budget enables different stakeholders – including children themselves – to see how much a Government allocates to budget line items that have a direct impact on children. Performance- and programme-based budget classification methods have been identified by many Governments and civil society actors as the most effective classification method to identify child-focused line items in a budget. Through performance- (or results-) and programme-based classification methods, budgets are formulated and presented in accordance with expected results and planned programmes. 11. In India, South Africa and Zambia, where performance- and/or programme-based budgeting has been embraced, it is easier to track child-focused budgetary allocations and expenditures. For example, the estimates for the 2014 budget of Zambia showed both expected results and programmes to be implemented under each result area; programme 5021 under “Equity” included programmes for “orphans and vulnerable children”, “school health and nutrition” and “HIV/AIDS impact mitigation”. 12. Where the basis for budgeting and the budget classification systems allow for the identification of child-focused budget allocation, some Governments have also summarized budget allocations that directly or indirectly benefit children in separate documents. For example, in India, Statement 22 summarizes provisions for expenditure on schemes that are mainly focused on children’s welfare. 7 In June 2015, the Government of Bangladesh announced the introduction of a “child budget” to be piloted in selected social sector ministries in the financial year 2015/16. B. Costing and analysis 13. Comprehensive, rights-based costing of child-focused programmes is – particularly for complex interventions such as child protection – central to ensuring that policies are translated into budgets and that budget planning is based on realistic estimates. For example, in 2009, UNICEF conducted a study to establish the economic costs of child abuse in Vanuatu. It found that the annual estimated cost of child abuse is equivalent to between 0.5 and -0.75 per cent of GDP for Vanuatu, while the life-long cost of child abuse was estimated at around 6.8 per cent of annual GDP. It also compared costs stemming from child abuse against savings resulting from government investment in legislative reform and the strengthening of child protection services. The findings of the study were used to make a case for strengthening child protection systems. 8 14. In 2010, another study revealed that, in the United States of America, $13 billion could be saved every year and an excess 900 deaths could be prevented if 90 per cent of families complied with medical recommendations to breastfeed exclusively for six months. 9 The cost-saving impact of breastfeeding practices was reaffirmed in a UNICEF report asserting that more than £17 million could be gained annually by avoiding the costs of 7 8 9 4 Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Budget provisions for schemes for the welfare of children, Expenditure Budget vol. I, 2015-2016 (available from http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub201516/eb/stat22.pdf). Jo Pollett and Steve Gurr Lifting the Financial Burden of Child Abuse: A Vanuatu case study (UNICEF Pacific, 2010). Melissa Bartick and Arnold Reinhold, “The burden of suboptimal breastfeeding in the United States: a pediatric cost analysis”, Pediatrics, vol. 125, No. 5, (2010), p. 1048.