A Tool for Change? Reporting to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child

Transcription

1 briefing report A Tool for Change? Reporting to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child

2 A Tool for Change? Reporting to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Daniela Baro

3 Published by Save the Children 17 Grove Lane London SE5 8RD UK Tel:+44 (0) Fax:+44 (0) Save the Children 2003 All rights reserved.this publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee or prior permission for teaching purposes, though not for resale. For copying in other circumstances, prior written permission must be obtained from the publisher and a fee may be payable. Registered Charity No

4 Contents Acknowledgements...4 Executive summary...7 I. Introduction...7 II. State reporting to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child...8 III. Why this is an issue for Save the Children...12 IV. Save the Children UK s experience...12 V. Conclusions and proposals...14 A. Introduction B. Methodology C. Questions Does the reporting to the UNCRC Committee bring actual benefits? Do Save the Children s programmes benefit from getting involved in the UNCRC reporting? Does the reporting process benefit from Save the Children s involvement? a.Does Save the Children UK play a unique or distinctive role in the UNCRC reporting process? How could the impact of the UNCRC reporting be increased? a.Issues for advocacy with the Committee b.Suggestions to increase the impact of the reporting process...44 D. Conclusions and proposals Conclusions...55 Proposals...57 Annexes Annex I Tips for NGOs and Save the Children Annex II Briefing on the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Annex III Suggested reading Notes

5 Acknowledgements This work would not have been possible without the sustained participation, in a critical evaluation, and full support in my country visits, of Save the Children UK offices in Cambodia, Ghana, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Lesotho, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and the UK. I wish to thank the government representatives I interviewed in the above countries, who kindly offered their time to share openly their experiences in a real spirit of co-operation. The same is true of representatives from NGO coalitions, officers from UNICEF, the International Save the Children Alliance and other agencies. I am also most grateful to Laura Theytaz Bergman and Denise Allen, from the NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights the Child, Marcus Stalhofer from WHO, Ben Majekodunmi and Safir Syed from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ahmed Motala, Andrew Dunn, Bill Bell and Marta Foresti for their substantial input and comments to this paper. Daniela Baro February

6 Abbreviations and acronyms CAT CCPR CEDAW CERD CESCR CNCC CRP DCI EPOCH GNCC GTZ ICC ILO INGO IPEC JCHR JTC Lao PDR MSF NGO NGOC OHCHR OSCE PRSP UN UNCRC UNGASS UNICEF UNDP UNESCO UNIFEM UNFPA UNHCHR UNHCR WHO Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Cambodia National Committee for Children Child Rights Programming Defense for Children International End Physical Punishment of Children Ghana National Commission for Children Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit International Criminal Court International Labour Organization international non-governmental organisation International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour Joint Committee on Human Rights Juvenile Training Centre (Lesotho) Lao People s Democratic Republic Médecins Sans Frontières non-governmental organisation NGO Coalition (Lesotho) Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper United Nations United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children United Nations Children s Fund United Nations Development Programme United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation United Nations Development Fund for Women United Nations Family Planning Association United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees World Health Organisation 5

7 6

8 Executive summary I. Introduction Background to the review After achieving almost universal ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the real challenge lies now in the realisation of children s rights in their daily lives. The relevance of States reporting on their compliance with the UNCRC should be measured against its value in achieving this. Valid questions have been posed about the effectiveness of such State reporting to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (hereafter referred to as the Committee or UNCRC Committee) in bringing meaningful changes to children s lives. This in turn has led to questioning about the utility of Save the Children UK s investment in the UNCRC reporting process, especially when: it has an opportunity cost in relation to other programmatic priorities urgent needs often claim higher priority (eg, response to an emergency situation like armed conflict, famine, earthquake, etc) an International Save the Children Alliance member, other international nongovernmental organisations (INGOs), national organisation or UNICEF may be supporting or co-ordinating effectively the process, or local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are self-sufficient to do so. These valid concerns and dilemmas indicated the value of undertaking a review of Save the Children s experience in reporting on the implementation of the UNCRC to the Committee, in order to analyse the modalities and impact of both the reporting in the countries examined and of our involvement. A key goal of the review was also to consider possible ways in which both the reporting process and our participation could be more effective. Thus, through the review I tried to answer the following questions: 1. Does reporting to the UNCRC Committee bring actual benefits? 2. Do Save the Children s programmes benefit from being involved in the UNCRC reporting process (and thus increase their impact on children)? 3. Does the reporting process benefit from Save the Children s involvement and does the organisation have a unique or distinctive role to play? 4. How could the impact of the UNCRC reporting be increased? Methodology I studied the reporting process through visits to a number of countries over an eight-month period: Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Lesotho, 1 Cambodia, Tajikistan, Ghana and the UK. 2 I tried to include countries which were in the process of preparing for their country examination, or which had reported quite recently (for fresh institutional memory), as well as those which had done so more than five years ago (to evaluate impact in the longer term). Geographical distribution and coverage of a range of political and social contexts were also taken into account in the selection of countries. 7

9 Facts and opinions were gathered mainly through interviews with key informants from Save the Children UK, the International Save the Children Alliance, national NGO coalitions, relevant government officials, UN officials (especially from UNICEF) and some groups of children in the countries visited. I also held interviews with officers from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva and with experts in this field from child rights networks and UN agencies. I consulted pertinent documents, including States and NGOs reports submitted to the UNCRC Committee, the Committee s concluding observations and reports evaluating the work of national NGO coalitions. II. State reporting to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child There are several international human rights treaties which establish monitoring bodies or committees to oversee the implementation of the provisions of each treaty. The powers of these treaty-monitoring bodies vary, depending on the treaty but in general they review State reports and, when applicable, they receive communications submitted by or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the treaties. They also issue General Comments providing guidance on the implementation and interpretation of specific provisions of the treaty. The main task of treaty bodies is to review and comment on reports, submitted periodically (usually every four or five years) by State Parties, which indicate the steps the State has taken to implement the provisions of the treaty. During the sessions, representatives of the government under review are present and hold a dialogue with members of the treaty body. The treaty body publishes its concluding observations on the State s performance in respect of its obligations (mostly highlighting positive aspects, principal matters of concern, difficulties for implementation and recommendations for action). The principal treaty bodies are: 3 Human Rights Committee: monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) Committee against Torture: monitors the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: monitors the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: monitors the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Committee on the Rights of the Child: monitors the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Some human rights treaties 4 also provide for a system of individual petitions, 5 under which individuals or groups can submit complaints on human rights violations under such treaties (after having first exhausted, or been unable to rely on domestic avenues of redress). The Committee expresses its views (not binding judgements) on the violation found in the case. The Committees, therefore, have the capacity to build jurisprudence on the scope and application of different human rights provisions. 8

10 In particular, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, composed of 18 independent experts, 6 was established in 1990 with the purpose of examining progress made by States Parties towards realising their obligations under the UNCRC. 7 Among these obligations, States Parties undertake to submit to the Committee reports 8 on the measures adopted and progress made to give effect to the rights recognised in the UNCRC. The Committee also invites NGOs and specialised agencies to submit additional reports on the implementation of the Convention in areas falling within the scope of their activities. 9 Value of the UNCRC reporting system and reporting process As stressed above, the periodic reporting to the UNCRC Committee is a State obligation entailed by its voluntary ratification of the UNCRC it is not optional. Reporting is a legally endorsed landmark which allows periodic comprehensive reviews of the situation of children in the country, from a rights perspective and inclusive of civil society. 10 In fact, for some governments, it may be the only opportunity to come under scrutiny (in public) for their record on children s rights. Following the reporting process, many governments have undertaken steps to increase the protection of children s rights. These have included legal reviews, structural reforms (eg, setting up a special body to co-ordinate measures and monitoring of children s rights), juvenile justice reviews, the inclusion of children s rights in the school curricula, etc. Some have used the Committee s concluding observations as reference points for National Plans of Action which address the main gaps identified through the reporting process. Both specific measures and more ambitious and comprehensive plans have followed the reporting process on many occasions. The process itself, (ie, both the preparatory and follow-up stages), has proved to be a major learning and changing experience for many NGOs and various governments. The main benefits reported are: increased understanding of children s situations; new technical skills (eg, in data collection, advocacy); co-operation between NGOs; and working closer with the government. Increasingly, children s groups representation and self-advocacy in the process are noted amongst the main outcomes. Possibly one of the most beneficial results of the reporting is the creation or strengthening of national NGO coalitions, which submit alternative reports to the Committee. NGOs, gathered together in this way, have larger representation and outreach and have proved able to advocate (beyond the UNCRC reporting) with a stronger voice, more credibility and authority. The reporting is also an opportunity for NGOs to focus the country s attention on gaps in children s rights. The UNCRC expressly refers to NGOs participation in the reporting process 11 and, in practice, the Committee is very receptive to, and provides real space for, NGOs input and proposals. The Committee s concluding observations to governments largely take into account the concerns and suggestions submitted by NGOs. The Committee s concluding observations can therefore be especially useful for raising issues with the government on sensitive areas, or for approaching UNICEF (or UN agencies) for technical assistance, as often recommended in the Committee s concluding observations. So far, the reporting to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is the only international mechanism to monitor periodically States compliance with all children s rights. 9

11 Limitations of the UNCRC reporting system and the reporting process It must first be noted that State reporting to the UNCRC Committee is not exempt from many of the limitations of the broader UN human rights treaty body system. The UN human rights system is a long way from achieving States compliance with the international human rights standards to which they have signed up. The treaty bodies (Committees) in charge of monitoring the implementation of human rights treaties have no mandate (except for the Committee against Torture and CEDAW) or resources to undertake fact-finding missions or inquiry visits or obtain live witness testimony. When receiving individual complaints, after domestic avenues have been exhausted, the Committees issue their views, which normally cannot be enforced in domestic courts. Therefore, unlike the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter- American Court on Human Rights, States are likely to ignore or underestimate the Committees rulings. With regard to the periodic monitoring of compliance through the examination of State reports, the Committees enter into a dialogue with government delegations for several weeks, two or three times a year. Backlog is an issue for some Committees because Committee members do not meet for a sufficient amount of time each year to cover all countries responsible for reporting. This can be a drawback usually the situation has changed (significantly) since the preparation of the report and the momentum gained during such a process is diminished. Government delegations can thus get away without answering difficult questions, often promising to send the answers in writing later. As this is not full time job for the experts, it becomes difficult for Committee members to get an in-depth understanding of the actual situation in the countries examined. For instance, the UNCRC Committee relies largely on complementary data provided by children s rights NGOs in the countries concerned, and is thus susceptible to being influenced by their own prioritisation and perception of the situation on the ground. The discussions can become superficial or not focused on the principal country priorities. A survey of all UN treaty bodies showed that lack of follow-up to the Committees work is sometimes due to the lack of precision, practicality or clear prioritisation of the recommendations issued by the Committees, or due to a perceived failure to take local conditions into account. 12 The Committee on the Rights of the Child has been an exception to this and has made significant progress in producing more specific recommendations. The concluding observations are often discouragingly soft, expressing regret, disappointment or deep concern at unacceptable human rights violations. It needs to be noted, however, that the Committees operate within the UN system and are hence constrained, to some extent, by the limitations within the UN, such as avoiding strong criticism of its own State members. For example, although the Committees members are in principle independent experts, they are in many instances elected on the basis of diplomatic bargaining. 13 As for governments, too often they see treaty reporting as a formalistic requirement and/or an unavoidable burden due to the amount of work and, to a certain extent, the public scrutiny involved rather than as an opportunity for a constructive dialogue with the Committees and civil society. 10

12 Finally, as is increasingly pointed out, the reporting to treaty bodies is basically an accountability mechanism on States compliance. The actions of non-state actors, like UN agencies, NGOs or corporations, are not monitored, nor is there a mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of the UN human rights system. It must be noted that, at the time of writing this report, a review of the treaty monitoring system is taking place in order to improve its effectiveness and facilitate the reporting task for States. In his 2002 report, Strengthening the United Nations: an agenda for further change, the UN Secretary-General called on the human rights treaty bodies to consider two measures: first, to craft a more co-ordinated approach to their activities and standardise their varied reporting requirements; and second, to allow each State to produce a single report summarising its adherence to the full range of human rights treaties to which it is a party. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has been requested to undertake consultations on new streamlined reporting procedures, and submit his recommendations to the Secretary- General by September To this effect, the views of the treaty bodies, States parties, NGOs and other partners within the United Nations system have been sought. 14 In particular, with the UNCRC reporting process, a recurrent feature is that the level of cooperation and co-ordination ( momentum ) among NGOs achieved during the preparation of the UNCRC NGO and State reports often diminishes or is not sufficiently built upon afterwards to ensure an effective follow-up. The whole reporting process (preparation, during and principally after the session) needs to be increasingly recognised as a means for measuring and making progress. States and NGOs face various competing international reporting demands and, in practice, prioritisation can be quite donor driven. Also the purpose and potential value of the UNCRC reporting process are not always well understood by the government and NGOs. All of this results in poor ownership of the process. Finally, the UNCRC reporting activities are not sufficiently integrated in, or are actually dislocated from, national planning processes, such as National Development Plans, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), Education Plans, etc. Reporting is also not systematically included in NGOs and UN planning cycles, all of which leads to diminished resources and work invested in the process. From the above, we can see that the key arguments discouraging active participation in the UNCRC reporting would be: Governments have their own agendas. Reporting often becomes a legal formality, rather than an opportunity to evaluate and inform their own five-year agenda on children s rights. The UNCRC Committee is a relatively toothless body. There are other more effective ways of exercising stronger direct or indirect influence on governments, such as pressure from certain States, donors or multilateral institutions. However, it can be argued (as shown at the beginning) that, despite such limitations, State and NGO reporting to the Committee is a tool that can bring and has actually brought in many cases positive results for children. 11

13 III. Why this is an issue for Save the Children The UNCRC is at the heart of Save the Children s work. Monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the UNCRC in countries where we operate, therefore appears to be a logical component of our programme activities. Participating in the process would confirm or enhance Save the Children s coherence and credibility as a child rights organisation in the country. The reporting process is a concrete tool to promote States (and to some extent other duty bearers ) accountability for their obligations towards children s rights. It is also a tool to help Save the Children measure its own contribution and potential to advance children s rights in the country. The process is also a means of building the capacity of partners involved (including governmental bodies like parliament and the judiciary) to hold their government accountable. Save the Children UK can play a key role in such capacity-building; supporting and collaborating with NGO coalitions and young people during and after the reporting process. Save the Children UK s growing programmatic work on children s citizenship in many countries reflects a commitment to promote and facilitate children s participation in claiming their rights and in using accessible ways to hold their own governments accountable. Participating in the reporting is thus consistent with an institutional commitment to a rightsbased approach to our work, since accountability and the participation of rights holders, especially those most discriminated against or vulnerable, are central to a rights-based approach. Child Rights Programming (CRP), the Goals for Children and Global Impact Monitoring are organisational steps towards greater accountability and (children s) participation and citizenship. Concrete ways of applying such rights-based approaches to programming are: conducting a rights-based country situation analysis; strengthening governmental or social structures and mechanisms for children s rights; and building constituencies. 15 The UNCRC reporting involves all of these. At the country level, it can be an opportunity for Save the Children UK to work with the government on common objectives. In such cases, the reporting is not necessarily a means for criticising the government (and publicising) where it has not done enough. It is often a way of providing additional information and analysis to the authorities on children s rights issues and even sometimes contributing technical support in the preparation of the State report, (eg, Ghana). This can be the basis for subsequent collaboration with the government in follow-up action after the reporting (eg, law reform projects in Lesotho and Ghana; drafting of Plans of Action in Central Asia; Juvenile Justice project in Lao PDR). In view of the reduction in Save the Children UK s Global Portfolio, the exit strategy for country programmes that are closing down may consider the need to work on strengthening mechanisms and structures within and outside the government, such as NGO coalitions, for sustained accountability for children s rights. Finally, in cases of absence or weakness of independent local NGOs, the role of Save the Children UK in the reporting process and its follow-up is even more important (eg, Lao PDR). IV. Save the Children UK s experience The cases I studied provided real examples of achievements, shortfalls, dilemmas and practical difficulties encountered by Save the Children when engaging in the reporting process. The 12

14 purpose of undertaking such case studies was to learn from such experiences, not to draw impossible comparisons on the impact of the UNCRC reporting in different countries or among Save the Children UK s programmes. The level and approaches of programme involvement and the outcomes of each reporting process depend, in practice, on a number of factors. These are, for example: different political systems; the available national resources to fulfil children s rights; the relationship between NGOs and government; the space and scope of freedom or restrictions for NGOs to advocate; the commitment and capacity of civil society to undertake effective monitoring; and the political willingness to enter into open debate. 16 For example, while the UK Government has more resources to invest in children s rights, it was not as receptive, in its first session, as Ghana s was to international scrutiny or forthcoming in dialogue with the Committee. The main observations drawn from the case studies are as follows: On the reporting process The changes and benefits resulting from the process do not depend (or only minimally) on the effectiveness and capacity of the Committee. They depend on the ownership of the process by the government, local and international NGOs, wider civil society and UN agencies involved. Such ownership is reflected in a shared commitment to a sustained follow-up to achieve the changes needed, identified or sought through the process (the follow-up of course needs a strong build up during the preparatory process). A key to increased impact is to use the reporting process as an opportunity to: improve or initiate monitoring of children s rights at national and local levels; generate public debate on children s rights issues; and, above all, to identify priorities, set realistic objectives accordingly for the next five years and devise the main steps needed to meet those objectives. In this way, the UNCRC reporting can become part of both an ongoing and integrated process within existing planning cycles, (eg, National Development Plans and National Plans of Action on children), instead of being an ad hoc or parallel exercise every five years. In six out of eight cases, the UNCRC reporting process, within its limitations, brought direct or indirect benefits to children. Direct benefits were, for example: legal reform (Ghana, Lesotho); a new governmental structure responsible for co-ordination of children s rights (Tajikistan); National Plans of Action addressing priorities identified or enhanced through the reporting process (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan); breaking a culture of silence on, or increasing visibility of, certain child rights issues (like traditional practices in Ghana); greater understanding of and public attention towards children s participation and effective child rights structures in the country (UK, Lesotho); and specific measures or projects (eg, on juvenile justice in Lao PDR and Cambodia; on disabled children in Uzbekistan; the initiation of a children s group now replicated and very active in Cambodia). Children s participation in the process, 17 in cases like the UK and Lesotho, allowed the children involved to share responsibility in representation and advocacy. A common challenge is to ensure that children s groups also participate in follow-up actions on the issues they identified and reported on. The main indirect benefits were the creation and strengthening of NGO coalitions (in all cases except Lao PDR, where there are no really independent NGOs). This is perhaps the greatest achievement of the reporting process; the increased capacity of local NGOs 13

15 to hold their own governments accountable. This has brought more credibility and thus greater influencing capacity for NGOs (especially in Central Asia), even beyond the UNCRC reporting context (ie, through national channels, as with Parliament in the UK, or other international fora, like the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on Children in 2002). In all cases studied, Save the Children staff members indicated that the report preparation process had been a worthwhile experience for them, and was especially valuable in building stronger relations with NGOs and, on some occasions, with the government. It was also an opportunity to engage in a more comprehensive analysis of the children s rights situation in the country and to inform or strengthen their (shared) advocacy work On Save the Children s participation in the process In all countries, Save the Children has helped in the creation and/or ongoing functioning of national NGO coalitions. Save the Children has been more active in raising awareness and in co-ordinating work during the preparatory phase; less so in leading or promoting co-ordinated follow-up after the reporting period. The most distinctive roles Save the Children played in relation to the reporting process were: supporting the functioning of national NGO coalitions (this can be an important strategy in countries where Save the Children UK is phasing out, like Ghana) supporting and promoting children s participation in the process. Save the Children UK worked mostly with local NGOs and UNICEF, and in some cases with other INGOs. Where there was a strong International Save the Children Alliance presence in the country, it was a shared initiative (like in Cambodia). For reasons of costeffectiveness and greater impact, the involvement in the reporting process makes more sense as an Alliance effort, pooling resources and expertise. It is worth highlighting that Save the Children generally works in hardship or transition situations, where the national NGO community is more likely to be under-developed, new, inexperienced in reporting and advocacy or under-resourced. Hence, presumably, there will initially be further need for support in the UNCRC reporting process from international actors like Save the Children. This is reflected in the main focus of this study. However, there are many situations where the NGO community (and by extension national coalitions) has a very different experience. The UK scene is mixed, with Save the Children UK having a leading role in some NGO coalitions, and less in others. The NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights the Child, in networking with national coalitions, could help in tracking down successful cases in various countries, where Save the Children UK does not operate. V. Conclusions and proposals As a matter of principle, there is a strong case for Save the Children UK to participate in the UNCRC reporting process. It is consistent with the organisation s position on increasing the accountability of States for their obligations undertaken by ratifying the UNCRC, and with Save the Children s commitment to contribute to the fulfilment of the rights recognised in the Convention. Participating in the process enhances Save the Children UK s credibility as a child 14

16 rights organisation in the eyes of governments, other NGOs and the communities with which it works. Yet, due to the diversity of local (internal and external) capacity, opportunities and obstacles, it seems unrealistic to have a rule or uniform approach to country programmes involvement or a global recipe for the modality of engagement in the reporting process. Country programmes would need to engage in a balancing exercise, considering several factors in order to take a position on their involvement in the reporting process; to what extent and how to participate. Four main factors appear to be at stake: principles process impact Save the Children UK s specific role and responsibility. Principles This means a consideration on whether Save the Children UK country programmes should engage in the UNCRC reporting process as a matter of principle. As shown above, there are valid arguments about why, as a question of principle, it makes sense that Save the Children UK contributes to maximise the effectiveness of the process. The UNCRC reporting is the only international mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the whole range of children s rights in a country, particularly States efforts to comply in this regard. Save the Children UK in all countries undertakes advocacy and works with NGOs, children, and communities and often with governments to ensure children enjoy their rights. Process Instead of, or in addition to deciding on participation as a matter of principle, another factor to consider is the value of the process itself in advancing children s rights in the country. In other words, the comprehensive review and situation analysis exercise, the NGO mobilisation, the raising of public awareness, children s participation and inter-agency co-operation during and after the reporting are, in themselves, fruitful outcomes of the reporting. This is independent of whether government (or non-state actors) take action as a result of the Committee s recommendations and/or of NGOs advocacy linked to the reporting process. Impact Judgement on the process potential impact on children s lives would depend both on the preparedness of the government to engage in action or co-operation, and on the commitment of other partners (NGOs, UN, etc) to follow-up the issues raised in the reporting. It is clear that there are other complementary ways at the national (principally), regional and international levels to hold governments and individuals accountable (eg, national courts and quasi judicial bodies, independent institutions like the Ombudsman, parliament, the media, regional human rights courts or other international bodies, like the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the future). The option, however, may be not to choose between the UNCRC reporting and other mechanisms, but to use both more strategically (maximising the influencing potential of data, analysis or partners involved in the UNCRC reporting). Save the Children UK s role and responsibility in the country This factor is related to the presence, capacity and commitment in the country of other International Save the Children Alliance members, local NGOs, INGOs, UN agencies or UNICEF to engage in the reporting process. At a minimum, Save the Children UK should 15

17 consider its responsibility to co-ordinate or actively participate where there is no other agency with the expertise or mandate to do it effectively. In view of the reduction of Save the Children s UK s global portfolio and the exit strategy for several countries, there appears to be a strong argument in favour of engaging in the reporting process and its follow-up. In such cases, it seems even more crucial to invest in promoting and strengthening, if necessary, processes for accountability and sustainable monitoring of children s rights by local structures. Summing up, country programmes would need to balance: the fact that engaging in the reporting is an accountability and advocacy exercise consistent with Save the Children UK s identity and position as a rights-based organisation the necessity and/or value of the whole reporting process its potential or foreseeable impact on children within the country context our role and responsibility as eventually the leading child rights agency, vis a vis other NGOs, agencies, the government and the communities where we work. Some might judge that Save the Children UK s investment is more worthwhile where governments are open to internal and international criticism and have the political will to invest in children s rights. On the other hand, it is probably in those countries where governments are indifferent or reticent, or where local NGOs have less space to operate, that Save the Children may need to further participate in the process, although the tangible results may be less. It is also where civil society is weaker that UNICEF and Save the Children s involvement seems more crucial. Engaging with other NGOs and, when possible, with the government in the UNCRC reporting, would require commitment and resources. Both are linked to prioritisation. In relation to this issue of prioritisation a couple of challenges would need to be addressed: integration of the UNCRC reporting into country programmes operational plans and clear linkage to existing organisational frameworks, ie, the Goals for Children, Child Rights Programming, Global Impact Monitoring increased understanding by staff of the potential value of the UNCRC reporting process to influence or help in advancing changes which are being sought through their programme objectives. Suggestions for prioritisation and integration in organisational frameworks, as well as on support by Head Office to country programmes on the reporting are made in section C (4b). Suggestions are also proposed to country programmes, to the Committee and for larger scale advocacy, aiming at achieving greater impact of the reporting process. The main suggestions to programmes are to encourage ownership of the process by government and civil society; to work with the above in planning and implementing a follow-up strategy; and to use the information, analysis, alliances and the Committee s concluding observations resulting from the reporting process as advocacy tools. The main suggestions for the Committee are: to increase focus and prioritisation in its dialogue with and recommendations to governments; and to continue encouraging children s participation in the process. 16

18 Finally, there are innovative ways which could help the UNCRC reporting to have greater impact. To achieve this, four initiatives are proposed to help in increasing the effectiveness and ownership of the reporting process: Proposals For the Committee 1. Committee develops tools to assist governments in the reporting process The Committee has a mandated role to assist governments to implement the Convention. It has accordingly developed reporting guidelines for States to guide them in the preparation and content of their reports. Yet, there seems to be needed more guidance on a) the process itself, both its preparatory and follow-up stages, b) practical ways of implementing some of the Committee s recommendations. With this purpose, the Committee could produce tools, in particular: guidelines identifying ways of making both the preparation and follow-up process more inclusive of different actors and more strategic practical tools detailing processes and structures needed to implement specific Committee recommendations. For all partners involved 2. Issue guidelines on best practice for children s participation in the reporting process The meaningful participation of children in national reporting on children s rights is essential. It is not short of challenges though. Both States and NGOs would benefit from guidance on the best ways to facilitate children s involvement in the preparation and follow-up process. 3. Document and compile examples of good practice and lessons learned There is very little awareness of instances and ways in which the reporting process has been used as a tool to bring (directly or indirectly) positive changes for children. This is unfortunate since there are many examples of children s effective participation, NGOs increased capacity and successful advocacy, governments follow-up initiatives and inter-agency co-operation. Yet, these have not been systematically documented or shared. This pool of experience would be a motivating source for States and other parties involved in the reporting process. 4. Pilot integration of report preparation and follow-up into wider children s rights planning/implementation processes A multi-actor reporting and follow-up process, integrated into wider planning and monitoring on children s rights, could be piloted in a specific country. The UNCRC reporting could be thus a landmark to initiate or strengthen a national strategy for the implementation of children s rights in the country. Such a strategy could include a National Plan of Action to meet specific targets. Both the preparation for the UNCRC reporting and the follow-up of the gaps identified would become part of a continuum or dynamic process of a broader cycle of planning, monitoring and evaluation to implement children s rights in the country. Concretising the above proposals would require the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to provide the UNCRC Committee s Secretariat with the material 17

19 and human resources needed to support Sates in making the reporting process more effective and inclusive of children. They would also need to provide the OHCHR Support Services Branch s Treaty Bodies Recommendations Unit with the resources needed in order to support State Parties in implementing the Committee s recommendations. Save the Children could initiate or contribute to the above initiatives. It would be necessary to also have the involvement of UNICEF, the Liaison Officers of the NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other relevant UN agencies, like UNICEF and the World Health Organisation (WHO). 18

20 A. Introduction Several studies have been undertaken about the overall impact of the UNCRC in different countries, 18 identifying outcomes such as the increasing internalisation of children s rights in domestic legislation, policies and cultures. This paper will only focus on the impact of the reporting procedure to the monitoring body of the UNCRC, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 19 in advancing, directly or indirectly, the realisation of children s rights within countries. Reporting to the UNCRC Committee is potentially an opportunity for governments and civil society to co-operate in identifying gaps regarding the respect, protection and/or fulfilment of children s rights, as well as in developing and implementing solutions. However, it is seldom viewed in this way by governments and often not fully used by NGOs. A study on the implementation of the UNCRC 20 in six countries (Yemen, Nicaragua, Ghana, Sweden, The Philippines and Peru) was undertaken by Save the Children Sweden in to consider this. In the six countries studied it was indicated that the reporting process generally was not used as a catalyst for domestic review and debate about children s rights. No country used the UNCRC report preparation or the concluding observations as part of an overall strategy to advance children s rights. In practice, in the majority of cases, unless NGOs undertake the task of following up the process, governments tend to consider the reporting process has ended after the government s meeting with the Committee in Geneva. The role of NGOs is therefore not only crucial in submitting complementary views to the Committee, but also and principally in achieving sustained follow-up action and monitoring. The value of the UNCRC reporting and of Save the Children s involvement in the process is not consistently clear or supported across the organisation. Some field staff and senior managers have raised issues such as: is it worth the time and resources invested if the UNCRC NGO alternative reports end up shelved in Geneva? ; are there not more practical things to do? ; if UNICEF or another member of the International Save the Children Alliance is getting involved, why should we? ; the UN Committees are toothless, shouldn t we target governments directly or prioritise stronger bodies?. These concerns and, at the same time, some very positive and enthusiastic feedback from various country programmes, led me to undertake a study of a few cases where Save the Children UK did get involved in the reporting process. The purpose of such a review was to answer objectively the questions below and to share conclusions, especially with those in the organisation who are concerned by similar questions or dilemmas. Throughout this paper I will try to answer the following: 1. Does the reporting to the UNCRC Committee bring benefits to children s lives? 2. Do Save the Children s programmes benefit from getting involved in the UNCRC reporting process (and thus increase their impact on children)? 3. Does the reporting process benefit from Save the Children s involvement? Has Save the Children a unique or quite distinctive role to play in the process? 4. How could the effectiveness and impact of the UNCRC reporting be increased? 19

21 B. Methodology In order to address the above questions, I gathered facts and opinions mainly through interviews with key informants. I visited six countries to get direct contact with the sources; Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Lesotho, Cambodia, Tajikistan, Ghana and the UK. The criteria for the country selection were: countries which had reported to the UNCRC Committee in the last year or were preparing to do so (to avoid gaps in institutional memory) and where Save the Children UK was actively involved in the process countries less recently examined, to evaluate impact over the past five years geographical representation (except for Latin America) economic, political and cultural diversity, (eg, developed, UK; in economic/political transition, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan; politically closed, Lao PDR; post-conflict, Cambodia, Tajikistan; least developed, Ghana). During the visits interviews were held with key staff members from Save the Children UK and the International Save the Children Alliance, representatives from NGO coalitions, relevant government officials, UN officials, especially from UNICEF, and, in Central Asia, Cambodia and Lesotho, groups of children. Observations and suggestions relating to each case study were shared with the country programmes concerned. (For details on the process see the trip reports.) 22 I also interviewed in Geneva members of the UNCRC Committee s Secretariat, the Liaison Officers from the NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, WHO, and I discussed with members from child rights networks. I consulted pertinent documents, including concluding observations issued by the UNCRC Committee, States reports and NGO submissions to the Committee and reports evaluating the work of national NGO coalitions. Due to the length and purpose of this paper, I will only refer to examples from the case studies where they serve to substantiate or illustrate responses to the above leading questions. 20

22 C. Questions 1. Does the reporting to the UNCRC Committee bring actual benefits? It is not always possible or easy to measure which positive changes in a country result directly from the Committee s recommendations or the reporting process itself. Changes are often the fruit of a combination of factors and ongoing pressures. I will highlight, however, the more obvious key outcomes of the process identified in the countries studied. Then I will draw some general trends and conclusions. Key outcomes Cambodia After the session in Geneva, the governmental focal body for children s rights the Cambodia National Committee for Children (CNCC) organised a multi-actor forum to discuss and agree on action points addressing the main gaps identified in the UNCRC reporting. An Action Plan was thus drawn up around two priorities: law reform in the area of juvenile justice and a Children s Code; and child trafficking. These priorities basically responded to the UN and UNICEF s country strategy priorities (such as meeting the targets of Stockholm Plus 5 on sexual commercial exploitation). It must be noted though that the political weight of this child rights co-ordinating body is minimal and the real ownership by the Government of the child rights agenda at the time was poor. An NGO child rights coalition was set up, initially to work together on the UNCRC reporting process. The Coalition is still doing advocacy work, though it needs further support to have more influence and impact. A children s group was set up, as a member of the Coalition during the reporting process. Some of its members then created a youth group. Both are currently involved in self-developed projects. Ghana The legal scrutiny undertaken for the State report to the Committee showed the need for law reform, to bring conformity with the UNCRC and the 1992 Constitution. This ended in the drafting and adoption of the Children s Act, amendments to the Criminal Code and the drafting of a Juvenile Justice Bill. The Committee s concluding observations in 1997 confirmed the need for legal reform and encouraged this initiative, already underway, to be concretised in The initial reporting was a first step for more sustained monitoring by the Government of children s rights implementation. Save the Children UK supported the setting up of an evaluation unit within the Ghana National Commission for Children (GNCC), to collect information from decentralised departments at the assembly (local authority) level. Now the GNCC and the Department for Social Welfare compile periodic reports on the situation of children at national and district levels. 21

23 Government officials said the preparation of the State report was a fruitful exercise. It raised awareness within the Government on the broader scope of children s rights, traditionally narrowed to the main basic services, particularly health and education. It brought to the surface overlooked areas, such as the age of criminal responsibility, and broke the silence on controversial issues, such as informal child labour or child sexual abuse. At that point in time children s rights was not big on the development agenda, even for NGOs. The working group created to prepare the NGO report developed into an NGO national coalition, now composed of over 100 members from all over the country, with a co-ordinated advocacy programme for each region. The Committee s recommendations raised awareness and generated (certain) public debate on two specific issues: the unresolved question of trokosi; 23 and corporal punishment. Trokosi was spotted by the international media at the time of the session in Geneva. Its banning as a criminal offence was underway in Ghana at the time. Yet, reportedly, the fact that the Committee raised the issue persistently, emphasising the need for further action beyond legislation (eg, release and rehabilitation of girls), caught the attention of certain authorities who later on approached some NGOs for more intensive action. Although 2,800 girls and women have been released, the enforcement of the law and the release of all girls involved in shrines remained a challenge at the time of my visit. The Committee requested removal of caning from the Teachers Handbook. The GNCC subsequently successfully required the Ministry of Education to exclude corporal punishment from the reviewed text. However, this was not coupled with enough public debate to address rooted beliefs, attitudes and behaviour. Kyrgyzstan The State report was a serious political act; for the first time, the government engaged in a public report on children s rights in the country. It was the first opportunity for different ministries to exchange information on the existent situation regarding children s rights. The Committee s concluding observations have been used as a working document in the preparation of a National Action Plan for NGO members have seen that the Government has taken the Committee s recommendations as action points in a country strategy. They realise now the potential of NGOs working together instead of duplicating efforts to have a stronger voice. (For example, during one of the governmental consultations with NGOs on the National Action Plan, there was reportedly not always a common message from all NGOs, which weakened their position.) In Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, NGOs involved in the reporting process expanded their areas of research or advocacy (only a few were child-focused). Also a useful exercise was reportedly learning how to report objectively. Lao PDR It is difficult to identify links between the subsequent steps taken and the Committee s recommendations or with the preparatory process itself. The linkage seems minimal for reasons explained later. Measures were taken, though, which addressed issues identified in the UNCRC reporting process, for instance; concrete initiatives for improved practice 22