A/HRC/25/56 52. Calls for inequality to be addressed more clearly are coming from a wide group of experts. On 21 May 2013 a group of 18 United Nations human rights mandate holders called for the post-2015 development agenda to be urgently refocused on equality, social protection and accountability.16 The statement highlighted that: The rise of inequality has severely undermined the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals … Future goals must be sensitive to who benefits and at whose expense, and must go beyond blunt, aggregate targets that allow us to pick the ”lowhanging fruit” and ignore the most vulnerable groups, while leaving systemic injustices untouched … Making equality a cross-cutting priority would mean every new goal will confront head on the systemic injustices that drive inequalities, from institutional discrimination against minority groups to uneven investments in social services in different regions of a country. The importance of disaggregated data 53. A major barrier in assessing and tackling disparities is the lack of data disaggregated by ethnicity, religion or language. Data is vitally important for effective poverty reduction and yet, within aid modalities on poverty, the collection of ethno-cultural disaggregated data is not uniformly supported. In 2005, UNDP published MDG Monitoring and Reporting: A Review of Good Practices, wherein it recommends that, “Whenever possible, disaggregated data should be used to highlight disparities across gender, ethnicity, geographical location, age or other dimensions of inequality”.17 In a few countries where disaggregated data exist, these reflect clearly the inequalities between majority and minority groups. Equally, they provide essential baseline data upon which to base targeted interventions and monitor progress. Each of the countries mentioned below has, to some extent, recognized the challenges facing minorities revealed by such data and established programmes targeted towards them. 54. In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, disaggregated data reveal patterns of ethnic poverty. Around two fifths of people from ethnic minorities live in income poverty, twice the rate for whites. The highest income poverty rates (in percentages) are found among Bangladeshis (65), Pakistanis (55) and black Africans (45 ). At 25–30 per cent, the rate among Indians and black Caribbeans is lower but still much higher than the 20 per cent among white people.18 In Brazil, census data show that on average, white and Asian Brazilians earned twice as much as black or mixed-race Brazilians. Black Brazilians are much more likely to be poor. Of the 16.2 million people living in extreme poverty (approximately 8.5 per cent of the population), 70.8 per cent are black. The average wages for black and mixed-race Brazilians are 2.4 times lower than those earned by citizens of white and Asian origin.19 16 17 18 19 14 Press release, “Equality or bust for post-2015 global development goals – UN rights experts”, Geneva, 21 May 2013. Available from www.ohchr.org/SP/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13342&LangID=E. Poverty Reduction Group, UNDP Bureau for Development Policy, 2005, p. 18. Peter Kenway and Guy Palmer, New Policy Institute, Poverty among ethnic groups: how and why does it differ? (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York, 2007), p. 11. Available from www.poverty.org.uk/reports/ethnicity.pdf. See http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/11/29/brazil-census-black-mixed-population/