Executive Summary

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is one of the UN system’s more obscure components, unfamiliar to most people and indeed to some development specialists. Its public profile is extremely low compared to those of development banks like the World Bank, economic institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), and other UN funding bodies and agencies such as the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Promoting the full implementation of the Conventions, United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) aims to ensure that children worldwide are given the best possible start in life and the opportunity to attain a good level of basic education, and that adolescents are enabled to develop their capabilities and to participate successfully in society. UNICEF works with the International Labour Organization and other partners to promote an end to exploitative and hazardous child labour, and supports special projects to provide education, counselling and care in developing countries. UNICEF promotes ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. Updated child mortality data is provided on an annual basis by the Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation, established in 2004 by UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the World Bank and the UN Population Division.

BackgroundDuring the last decades, North African countries have substantially improved economic, social and health conditions of their populations in average. In all countries, human development in general and life expectancy, literacy and per capita income in particular have increased. However, improvement was not equally shared between groups of different milieu, regions or level of income. Social inequalities and health inequity have persisted or even worsened. Data are generally scarce and few studies were devoted to this topic in North Africa as a region. In this paper, we carry out a comparative study on the achievements of these countries, not only in terms of human development and its components but also in terms of inequalities' reduction and health equity.MethodThis study is based on data available for comparison between North African countries. The main data sources are provided by reports released by the World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the World Bank, surveys such as Demographic Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) and finally recent papers published on equity in different countries of the region.Results and discussionThere is no doubt that education, health and human development in general have improved in North Africa during the last decades. Improvement was, however, uneven and unequally enjoyed by different socioeconomic groups. Indeed, each country included in this study shows large urban-rural disparities, discrepancies between advantaged and disadvantaged regions and cities; and unacceptable differences between rich and poor. Health inequity is particularly seen through access to health services and infant mortality.ConclusionDuring the last decades, North African decision makers have endeavoured to improve social and economic conditions of their populations. Globally, health, education and living standard in general have substantially improved in average. However, North African countries have still a long way to go to reduce social inequalities and health inequity at different levels: rural-urban, advantaged-marginalised regions and cities, between groups of different level of income and wealth. The challenge for the next decade is not only to improve economic, social and health conditions in average but also and mainly to reduce avoidable inequalities in parallel.

This study aims to compare Türkiye's early childhood education and care (ECEC) indicators, such as enrollment rates, duration of education, age of access, mandatory school start age, student-to-teacher ratios, and allocated budgets, with those of the top six European countries ranked in the United Nations Human Development Index 2024. The comparison is based on reports from UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund), OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), EU (European Union), UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) and the World Bank. The study group of the research consists of Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, which are among the top six countries determined according to the Human Development Index (HDI) specified in the United Nations Human Development Report (2024) in 2024, and Türkiye, which is ranked 45th. This study group was selected using the criterion sampling technique, one of the purposeful sampling methods. This descriptive study uses a qualitative approach. The findings indicate that Türkiye lags behind the compared countries in terms of ECEC enrollment and budget allocation. It is recommended that ECEC should be mandatory and free for at least one year.

Brief Report| June 01 2021 Brief Synopses of New Arabic-Language Publications: Annotated Arabic Bibliography: Brief English Reviews of New Arabic-Language Releases in Critical Arab Scholarship Gabi El-Khoury Gabi El-Khoury Librarian and Head of Documentation, Centre for Arab Unity Studies, Beirut Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Contemporary Arab Affairs (2021) 14 (2): 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1525/caa.2021.14.2.118 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Gabi El-Khoury; Brief Synopses of New Arabic-Language Publications: Annotated Arabic Bibliography: Brief English Reviews of New Arabic-Language Releases in Critical Arab Scholarship. Contemporary Arab Affairs 1 June 2021; 14 (2): 118–126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/caa.2021.14.2.118 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentContemporary Arab Affairs Search Heba Gamal El Deen M. El-Azab, Spiritual Diplomacy and the Abrahamic Interfaith: Colonial Plan of the New Century (Beirut: Center for Arab Unity Studies, 2021). 256 pp. ISBN 9789953829296 Many questions have been raised in recent years in the debate relating to the notion of “Abrahamic interfaith” as a major approach to global religious peace and a basis for eliminating extremism and violence, and even for eradicating poverty and achieving sustainable development. Interest in research and investigation into the concept of Abrahamic interfaith and its objectives has become prevalent as the notion has featured in the discourse of several American and Israeli circles in relation to the monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) in an attempt to politically exploit the common denominators between the three religions and use them in a larger framework of what has become to be known as “spiritual diplomacy.” The author argues that the concept of... You do not currently have access to this content.

Parasitic disease is a type of infectious disease caused by parasites in human body such as protozoa, worms, arthropod, annelida and mollusc. Parasitic disease prevails in warm and humid areas of tropical, subtropical and temperate regions. Particularly in developing countries, the prevalence of parasitic disease constitutes a threat to human life and health. Among the 10 globally important tropical diseases in the Special Program for Tropical Diseases jointly enacted by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), seven are parasitic diseases, including malaria, schistosomiasis, lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, leishmaniasis, African trypanosomiasis and chagas disease.

I would like to express my gratitude to diverse individuals and organizations who contributed to this study, particularly those who participated in interviews, focus group discussions, and other research methods utilized to gather the data that form the basis of this report. I am especially thankful to the staff of the various UN agencies operating in South Sudan, including the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMISS), International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) for their guidance. Special mention is due to Laura Nistri, Tracking and Monitoring Coordinator from IOM Juba, who generously made herself available to answer my many return and reintegration questions, both in person at IOM headquarters in Juba and by email upon my return at the University of Tennessee’s Center for the Study of Youth and Political Conflict, where I am currently based.

Infant mortality rate (IMR) is an important development indicator and a vital component of millennium development goals (MDGs) set by United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). According to UNDP, so far India has only fared moderately in reducing IMR (Goal 4 of MDGs). India (32) ranks 144th among 196 countries regarding IMR as per the 2017 data availed from World Development Indicators. Its adjacent countries such as Bhutan (25.6), Bangladesh (26.9) and Nepal (27.8) have fared much better regarding infant survival. Numbers within the parentheses indicate the IMR of the respective country. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has identified that IMR among families with better access to improved drinking water sources and toilet is much lower than those bereft of the same. This inference has been drawn from National Family Health Survey 3 data (NFHS III). The present study investigates into the aforementioned relation analysing NFHS IV data. The result depicts that contrary to UNICEF’s findings, IMR increases with better accessibility to improved water sources. Further to this, the article shows that an additional aqua-related practice together with improved drinking water sources might lead to the betterment of IMR for India.

Child Rights Organizations and Religious Communities: Powerful Partnerships for Children1 Stephen Hanmer The instinct to care for children comes from deep within the teachings and spiritual vision of all religious traditions, which motivates people of faith to make the commitment to take practical actions for children. Fulfilling these commitments requires the collaborations of religious communities with each other, and with other partners, because these challenges cut across all religions and are too great for any one group to handle alone.3 Religious communities play a key role for the care and protection of children and have been a key partner to the work of many child rights organizations. Throughout the world, child rights organizations, including the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), are working with religious communities of all faiths to address the well‐being of children in areas ranging from health care and education to HIV and AIDS to protection from exploitation and abuse. This article explains why it is important for child rights organizations to work with religious communities, provides examples of successful work with religious communities (in particular UNICEF’s work with religious communities), discusses the main challenges of such partnerships and proposes what can be carried out to further effective engagement. In this article, religious communities refers to both men and women religious actors and structures within religious traditions and organizations at all levels—from local to global. These include grassroots and local communities, leaders, scholars, practitioners, youth groups, women of faith networks, faith‐based organizations and denominational, ecumenical and intra‐religious umbrella organizations, and networks.4 Why partner with religious communities? As the United Nations Children’s agency responsible for promoting the care, protection, and rights of children all over the world, UNICEF works in all types of contexts and in areas ranging from health to nutrition, water and sanitation, to education, HIV and AIDs, and protection of children from violence, exploitation, and abuse. Partnerships with key actors, such as civil society, and government, are a central feature of UNICEF’s efforts to promote the rights of children. Indeed, it has long been recognized at UNICEF, as it has throughout the United Nations, that achieving the Millennium Development Goals depends on working in partnership with all sectors of society. Key among these essential partners is religious communities. With their extraordinary moral authority and power, religious communities are able to influence thinking, foster dialogue, and set priorities for members of their communities. As those who are often the first to respond to problems, religious communities have the trust and confidence of individuals, families, and communities.5 From the smallest villages to the largest cities, and from districts and provinces to national and international levels, religious communities offer large networks for the care and protection of children and the safeguarding of their rights. The role of religious communities tends to be especially important at the family and community levels, which international organizations and governments are generally less able to reach effectively.6 With almost five billion people belonging to religious communities, the potential for action is substantial. Child rights organizations, including UNICEF, are guided by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most comprehensive legal instrument for the protection of the rights of the child. There is often a misperception that the language of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is contrary to religious beliefs. But the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989 and ratified more quickly and widely than any other human rights instrument, was not created in a vacuum: The Convention on the Rights of the Child reflects a vision of children in which children are social actors, members of a family and a community, with rights and responsibilities appropriate to their age and stage of development. This holistic vision of the child, as well as the principles of justice, humanity and dignity articulated in the articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, corresponds with the visions and principles of the world’s religious traditions. As a universal statement of consensus about how children should be treated, the Convention on the Rights of the Child...

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the World Food Programme (WFP) or the World Health Organization (WHO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP or WHO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The designations employed and the presentation of material in the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP or WHO concerning the legal or constitutional status of any country, territory or sea area, or concerning the delimitation of frontiers. All reasonable precautions have been taken by FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO be liable for damages arising from its use.

Following the 1994 genocide, more than 4,500 children were held in Rwandan prisons, most accused of genocide-related crimes. Based on field research, this article examines how the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) negotiated the tension between pragmatism and principle in its approach to child génocidaires. It profiles the contextual approach adopted by UNICEF in interpreting international juvenile justice standards, drawing out tensions within UNICEF and between UNICEF and other actors over how best to implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child (particularly as regards detention). It then evaluates whether there was a risk of weakening the normative content in the desire to implement the standards in a socially-sensitive and context-specific way. I argue that by adopting a pragmatic yet principled approach UNICEF was, to some extent, able to enhance the rights of child perpetrators in the difficult context of post-genocide Rwanda

For decades, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund have recommended a single formulation of glucose-based oral rehydration salts (ORS) to treat or prevent dehydration from diarrhea of any cause and in individuals of any age (1,2). This product has proven safe and effective in worldwide use and has contributed substantially to the global decrease in mortality from diarrheal disease. More recently, solutions of reduced osmolarity (e.g., 75 mEq/L Na, 75 mmol/L glucose) have been investigated, because these solutions preserve the 1:1 molar ratio of sodium to glucose, but present less of an osmolar load to the intestinal tract than does WHO ORS (245 versus 311 mOsm/L). Animal (3) and human studies (4) indicate that solutions of decreased osmolarity are better rehydration fluids. Children receiving decreased osmolarity ORS have been reported to have less vomiting, less stool output, shorter duration of illness, and less need for supplemental intravenous fluid than those treated with standard WHO ORS. Therefore, should the WHO and others modify the ORS formulation that has long proven to be safe and effective? Two large clinical trials and a meta-analysis have recently shed light on this dilemma. In one trial of 300 adult cholera patients (5), subjects who received decreased osmolarity ORS had similar clinical outcomes compared with those who received standard WHO ORS (i.e., stool output, duration of diarrhea, need for unscheduled intravenous therapy, and treatment failures). Patients who received decreased osmolarity ORS had an increased incidence of hyponatremia (serum Na <130 mmol/L) (odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1–4.1), although the mean difference in serum sodium at 24 hours was only 1.2 mEq/L and none of the subjects had symptoms of hyponatremia. In a large multicenter trial of children with acute noncholera diarrhea (6), 675 children from five countries were randomized to receive standard ORS or decreased osmolarity ORS. Although stool output and vomiting did not differ between groups, the use of unscheduled intravenous fluids was greatly decreased in the group that received low-osmolarity ORS (10% versus 15%; OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4–1.0). The occurrence of hyponatremia did not statistically differ between groups (11% in the decreased osmolarity group and 9% in the standard group, OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.2–2.2). Finally, a meta-analysis published this summer (7) evaluated the effects of reduced osmolarity ORS in 15 randomized trials of nearly 2,400 patients (including the two trials noted above). Use of decreased osmolarity ORS was associated with less frequent use of unscheduled intravenous fluid (combined OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47–0.81) and less vomiting (combined OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55–0.92). In addition, a statistically significant reduction in stool output was noted. The incidence of hyponatremia in these trials was not significantly elevated in children who received decreased osmolarity ORS (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.93–2.26). Based on these studies, ORS of decreased osmolarity probably is more effective than the WHO ORS in children with noncholera diarrhea and shows no important trend for increased rates of hyponatremia. In adult patients with cholera infection, decreased osmolarity ORS is equally as effective as standard ORS, but its use is associated with increased rates of hyponatremia. However, the clinical significance of these laboratory outcomes is unclear. If a single solution continues to be the goal of WHO and other policy-making bodies, a solution with 75 mEq/L sodium should be adopted. Critics have argued that any change in the composition of ORS to a lower concentration of sodium will increase the risk of hyponatremia among cholera patients (8). Although in cholera, stool sodium losses can be as high as 120 to 150 mEq/L, even the current formulation of WHO ORS contains less sodium than may be required for adequate Na repletion. However, if proper nutritional and fluid repletion occurs during cholera treatment (i.e., a diet containing sodium), ensuing clinically significant negative sodium status seems less likely. This summer, an expert committee convened by WHO and the United Nations Children's Fund suggested that if a solution of decreased osmolarity (and therefore sodium) is used in areas in which cholera infection is common, a postmarketing surveillance study should be performed to assess the occurrence of clinically significant electrolyte abnormalities. In 1992, the European Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition recommended the use of decreased osmolarity ORS “for children in Europe” with acute gastroenteritis because concern was raised that a sodium concentration of 60 mEq/L was unsafe for children in developing countries with higher purging rates and poorer nutritional status (9). Based on the data now available, a solution with 75 mEq/L Na and 75 mmol/L glucose probably is optimal for all children. Should concerns about hyponatremia in adult cholera infections be proven valid, the production and distribution of two ORS solutions (one for children with noncholera infections and the second for cholera) should be considered.

Natural Resources ForumVolume 20, Issue 2 p. 163-165 Financing Agenda 21: the insurance market and the environment Ashok Nigam, Ashok Nigam This is an extract from a forthcoming paper ‘Financing Agenda 21: the insurance market and the environment – from concepts to impacts to actions’ by the author. Ashok Nigam is a Project Officer with the Office of Social Policy and Economic Analysis, United Nation Children's Fund (UNICEF), New York, NY 10017, USASearch for more papers by this author Ashok Nigam, Ashok Nigam This is an extract from a forthcoming paper ‘Financing Agenda 21: the insurance market and the environment – from concepts to impacts to actions’ by the author. Ashok Nigam is a Project Officer with the Office of Social Policy and Economic Analysis, United Nation Children's Fund (UNICEF), New York, NY 10017, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: May 1996 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.1996.tb00649.x AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume20, Issue2May 1996Pages 163-165 RelatedInformation

Sweden ranked first in the United Nations Children's Fund 2008 league table of early childhood education and care. In a book published 74 years previously, Crisis in the Population Question, Alva and Gunnar Myrdal outlined many of the features that were later assessed by the United Nations Children's Fund. Three aspects may have affected the implementation of Myrdal's ideas. First, the Social Democratic Party has been in power for 85% of the time since 1932. They often had to form coalitions with other parties that supported a nonpartisan stance. Second, according to evidence from the World Values Survey, Swedes are more individualistic than people in any of the other 64 societies included in that study. The State is expected to create social conditions on equal terms for individuals to realize their own goals. Finally, schools and other social services are managed by 290 semi-independent municipalities. Thus, reforms can be tested in a few municipalities before others follow suit.

M illennial winds are blowing through the field of global vaccinology. Fifteen years after the Bellagio Conference, which unlocked a new $100 million per year to bring the six most common infant vaccines to 80% of the world's children, the Villa Serbelloni (the Rockefeller Foundation's study center in Bellagio, Italy) was once again the site of a historic meeting. On 15 to 17 March 1999, the key United Nations (UN) agencies met with leaders of the vaccine industry, representatives of bilateral aid agencies and major foundations, and a few independent academics. The agenda: a new global partnership designed to save 40 million lives over the next 10 years at a cost that could approach $3 billion per year. Not surprisingly, such an ambitious agenda has created some curiosity and not a little controversy. The rumor mill has been working overtime, suggesting that the meeting failed to deliver. As chair of the meeting, I welcome this chance to set the record straight. As would be expected with 35 strong personalities in the room, the discussion was sometimes robust, and consensus could not be reached on every point. Nevertheless, real progress was made toward forging a global coalition and, in particular, industry was embraced as an active and equal partner. Each party made new pledges. The World Health Organization (WHO) has put extra staff and resources into its restructured immunization programs. Indeed, global immunization is by far the biggest technical program within WHO at headquarters, regional, and country levels. The UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) reasserted that it would invest more in immunization than in any other field: 56% of its discretionary health funds. The World Bank acknowledged that its total effort in immunization had not matched the promise of the field and vowed to do more. In the bank's “comprehensive development framework,” countries will be asked to outline their development plans in conjunction with bank professionals. Immunization outcomes could be incorporated as targets in resulting loan agreements. The bank lends about $1 billion per year for health programs, half of it essentially at zero interest, so if a substantial proportion of this went to immunization, it would make a big difference. The bank also offered to work with manufacturers to explore mechanisms that might reduce the risks of investing in global capacity. Industry pledged to be a full and active partner within an appropriate structure and offered to invest in adequate volumes of production of the newer vaccines. These would be made available to the poorest countries at the lowest possible price, provided efforts were made to prevent leakage of vaccine supplies to richer countries. Industry was also prepared to target more of its research effort to vaccines of predominantly Third World interest if the global coalition succeeds in creating a true, worldwide, public-sector market. Although the bilateral aid agencies and the foundations (particularly the new Bill and Melinda Gates Children's Vaccine Program) spoke encouragingly, no one came to Bellagio waving a magic wand. So it was agreed that the World Bank would convene and lead a working party on financing to consider a multifaceted approach, including the possibility of a large Global Vaccine Fund. Obviously, advocacy at the highest level will be required, and UNICEF will lead a working party on advocacy, including a strategy for a launch of the new global coalition by the heads of agencies and of industry in September/October 1999. Definite targets for introduction rates of new vaccines will be refined, and a new, small coordinating secretariat will be set up in Geneva, with the transition from the present Children's Vaccine Initiative still to be negotiated. The governing body of the partnership would be a small group of 8 to 10 members, representing developing countries as well as the partners. How one views the Bellagio meeting depends on whether one prefers to regard a glass as half empty or half full. It is clear that a huge task remains in building vaccine infrastructure in the poorest countries, motivating health authorities there, and raising funds to purchase the newer vaccines. It is also evident that a revitalized partnership with full UN commitment and industry participation has at least a sporting chance of bringing off the greatest public health achievement of the 21st century.