Draft first regional report on the implementation of the Montevideo Consensus on Population and Development

<strong>Draft</strong> <strong>first</strong> <strong>regional</strong> <strong>report</strong> on the implementation of the Montevideo Consensus on Population and Development
Chapter III
Figure III.5
Latin America (18 countries): poverty and extreme poverty rates by age group, 2002, 2012 and 2016
(Percentages)
80
60
60.2
40
20
0
43.9
46.2
46.7
38.3
31.2
31.1
27.2
23.6
25.1
18.5
18.1 16.8
17.0
16.0
10.7
9.4
9.5
7.8
7.8 7.1
7.6
5.9
5.0
Poverty Extreme poverty Poverty Extreme poverty Poverty Extreme poverty
2002 2012 2016
Ages 0-14
Ages 15-29
Ages 30-59
Ages 60 and over
Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Social Panorama of Latin America, 2017 (LC/PUB.2018/1-P), Santiago, 2018; Social
Panorama of Latin America, 2016 (LC/PUB.2017/12-P), Santiago; Social Panorama of Latin America, 2002-2003 (LC/G.2209-P), Santiago; and special tabulations
of data from official household surveys.
Note: Weighted averages of the following countries: Argentina, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Plurinational State of Bolivia and Uruguay.
Besides the contribution of conditional transfer programmes to reducing poverty or mitigating its rise, as
described in section III.A, these programmes make further contributions in the case of this group because they
include other benefits directly targeted at children and adolescents (nutrition, health check-ups, birth registration,
identity documents, etc.), leading to improvements in these dimensions, which are covered by a number of other
priority measures of chapter B of the Montevideo Consensus on Population and Development, such as numbers
7, 9 and 10. In addition, because requirements are laid down for children and adolescents in exchange for benefits
(vaccination, school attendance, participation in training courses, etc.), they have also contributed to fulfilment of
other priority measures of the Montevideo Consensus on Population and Development. 21 Lastly, these programmes’
direct relationships and regular, multifaceted interactions with historically underdeveloped and excluded populations
have enabled them to act as a bridge towards incorporation into a wider network of protection and have multiplied
and broadened out this group’s opportunities for social integration and the exercise of rights (ECLAC, 2017a, p. 60).
The multidimensional character of these programmes (which was consolidated in the reference period) and
specific actions of a sectoral or thematic nature have contributed to fulfilment of priority measures 7, 9 and 10 of
the Montevideo Consensus on Population and Development, despite the adverse business cycle in the period
examined. This is the case with childhood mortality, 22 which declined systematically at the <strong>regional</strong> level from
18.7 per 1,000 in 2013 to 18.3 in 2014 and 17.9 in 2015; with child labour, which declined from 8.8% in 2012
to 7.3% in 2016; 23 and with primary and secondary education coverage, which expanded not only at the aggregate
21
There are also specific conditional transfer or support programmes for this age group, such as Youth in Action, which contributes to the maintenance of young
people receiving occupational training in institutions such as the National Apprenticeship Service (SENA) in Colombia, the Mi Beca Segura programme of study
grants in Guatemala and the Cuna Más national programme in Peru, which aims at improving the all-round development of children aged under 36 months.
22
Indicator B.1 of the Montevideo Consensus on Population and Development and 3.2.1 of the SDGs: under-five mortality rate.
23
Indicator B.2 of the Montevideo Consensus on Population and Development and 8.7.1 of the SDGs: proportion and number of children aged 5‐17 years engaged
in child labour, by sex and age. There are no trend data on the official site, so use was made of ILO, 2017, figure 6, p. 30.
61