D:52 BEFORE THE UN CESCR. Writing a parallel report on the situation of the Right to Adequate Food in co-operation with FIAN International

Transcription

1 D:52 PARALLEL REPORTING BEFORE THE UN CESCR Writing a parallel report on the situation of the Right to Adequate Food in co-operation with FIAN International

2 FIAN INTERNATIONAL Willy-Brandt-Platz Heidelberg, Germany Tel.: Fax: fian@fian.org Impressum Written by Sandra Epal-Ratjen October 2003 Revised version Sandra Ratjen May 2007 Editor: FIAN International, Heidelberg Printed on Recycled Paper In co-operation and with financial suppport of , the Belgian Coalition of the North-South Movement With the support of the FAO, Right to Food Unit

3 D:52 PARALLEL REPORTING BEFORE THE UN COMMITTEE ON ESC RIGHTS Writing a parallel report on the situation of the Right to Adequate Food in co-operation with FIAN International

4 Contents 1 Introduction 05 4 Writing a Parallel Report with THE support of Fian 18 2 Monitoring the Right to adequate Food The Right to Adequate Food States obligations States violations of the Right to Adequate Food The FAO Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food 2.2 Human rights based monitoring Monitoring mechanisms and the Voluntary Guidelines The way ahead: human rights-based monitoring 3 Using the UN Human Rights System UN system and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights What are parallel reports? Who is entitled to present a parallel report? Purpose of a parallel report Indirect benefits arising from the reporting procedure 3.2 Interaction NGOs /CESCR Procedure before the Committee The review step-by-step Making best use of the CESCR mechanisms 4.1 Gathering information The sort of information you require Obtaining the information 4.2 Writing the report Structure and Content Useful additional references and contact 5 Annex General Comment No. 12 of the UN CESCR E/C.12/1999/5 5.2 Clearance Sheet 5.3 Example of Questions and Checklists related to FIAN Monitoring Tool Guideline 3: Strategies

5 1 Introduction The purpose of this dossier is to provide a helpful tool for individuals or organisations who are writing Parallel Reports on the Right to Adequate Food under the coordination of, or with support of FIAN International. It gives some background information on parallel reports as a key output of civil society monitoring processes in favour of the right to food as it is guaranteed in international human rights law. It is also designed to give an indication of the sort of information that such a parallel report should include and how it should be presented. The present revised version of the dossier is published in addition to a series of various manuals to come out under a project of FIAN International with the support of the FAO and the German Agro Action. The other manuals are entitled: How to Use the Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food? An NGO Manual ; How to Document Right to Food Violations? ; Access to land and the Right to Food and The Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food as a Human Rights Based Monitoring Tool. An additional Manual was published by Rolf Künnemann and Sandra Epal-Ratjen within a research project in collaboration with AAAS/HURIDOCS. 1 This NGO Manual on the Right to Food can be of help in understanding and using the Human Right to Adequate Food as an instrument to fight the roots and patterns of hunger and chronic malnutrition in particular, and poverty in general. In the second Section, the concept of the Right to Adequate Food as well as of human rights based monitoring are presented. The third Section then proceeds to discuss the international enforcement and monitoring mechanisms in relation to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the purpose of Parallel Reports. The fourth Section is more practical and deals with the actual process of writing a Parallel Report. It describes not only what sort of information is required, but also how you can access it. The second part within this section deals with the actual writing of the report and the perspective which should be taken. 1 Accessible at =100&task=details&dl_docID=53 5

6 2 Monitoring the Right to Adequate Food 2.1 The Right to Adequate Food The Right to Adequate Food is a fundamental human right firmly established in international law. The predominant body of law surrounding the Right to Adequate Food centres around the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereafter the ICESCR or the Covenant). This treaty states in article 11 that The States parties to the present Covenant recognise the right of everyone to an adequate standard for himself and his family including adequate food... The States parties to the present Covenant recognising the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger (...). The Right to Adequate Food is realised when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement. The core content of the Right to Adequate Food implies: The availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable within a given culture The accessibility of such food in ways that are sustainable and that do not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights. 2 The ICESCR was adopted and opened for signature in 1966 and entered into force ten years later in It is the twin treaty of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which entered into force in the same year as the ICESCR. The two sets of rights were anchered in two dinstinct Covenants since the two political blocks in the Cold War used them in their ideological opposition. The ICESCR faced from the beginning on an unequal enforcement status. Two very concrete signs of unequal treatment of human rights are the facts that the ICESCR failed to create a body to supervise the application of the ICESCR, as the ICCPR did; and that no optional protocol to the ICESCR provide a body with the ability to receive complaints by individuals on violations of their rights, as it is the case for the ICCPR States obligations The nature of the general legal obligations of States parties is set out in Article 2 of the ICESCR. The principal obligation is to take steps to achieve progressively the full realisation of the Right to Adequate Food. This imposes an obligation to move as expeditiously as possible towards that goal, without discrimination of any kind and within the framework of international 2 See General Comment on the Right to Adequate Food (GC12), UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/5, Para. 6 & 8. Document annexed. 3 More on the current debate on both the standing of the CESCR as treaty-body and on the optional protocol providing for complaint mechanisms under the ICESCR in Section 3.1. cooperation. The State is obligated to ensure for everyone under its jurisdiction access to the minimum level of essential food which is sufficient, nutritionally adequate and safe, to ensure their freedom from hunger. The Right to Adequate Food, like any other human right, imposes three types or levels of specific obligations on States parties: the obligations to respect, to protect and to fulfil. In turn the obligation to fulfil incorporates both an obligation to facilitate and an obligation to provide. The obligation to respect existing access to adequate food requires States parties not to take any measures that result in preventing such access. The obligation to protect requires the States parties to protect individuals access to adequate food from the actions of third parties, for instance by creating and implementing relevant domestic legislation. The obligation to fulfil (facilitate) means the States must pro-actively engage in activities intended to strengthen people s access to, and utilisation of resources and means to ensure their livelihood, including food security. This is usually done by administrative measures and the creation of a legal framework, such as the drafting and implementation of laws on land ownership and agrarian reform, employment guarantee measures and minimum wages. This also implies that the state facilitate access of beneficiaries to programmes and information on these programmes. Furthermore, States are obligated to fulfil (provide) this right directly whenever an individual or group is unable for reasons beyond their control to enjoy the Right to Adequate Food by the means at their disposal. This obligation also applies to persons who are victims of natural or other disasters. The principle of maximum of available resources and progressive realization Art. 2 of the ICESCR states that each Member State to the Covenant commits itself to adopt measures to the maximum of its available resources to reach progressively the full realisation of the rights enshrined in the Covenant. The principle of maximum of available resources requires that governments co-operate internationally and make all possible efforts to realise the Right to Food. The principle of progressiveness implies the State obligation to show significant developments in relation to the realisation of Economic, Social and Cultural rights (ESC-Rights). When the incidence of chronic malnutrition increases the State is violating its obligation vis-à-vis the Right to Food. The principle of non-discrimination Art. 2.2 ICESCR establishes the principle of nondiscrimination. One of the categorical obligations in all human rights related-work is non-discrimination of 6 Parallel Reporting before the CESCR

7 religion, ethnic group or sex. Within the provisions of the ICESCR, this principle has special relevance in terms of transcending sexual discrimination against women and invoking equality of rights concerning property and equal wages for equal work. This is also true for all indigenous groups who have long been deprived of their land. The restoration of indigenous groups rights to ancestral land is part of the commitment by the State to overcome historical discrimination. General Comment 12 (1999) 4 on the Right to Adequate Food stipulates: (...) any discrimination in access to food, as well as to means and entitlements for its procurement, on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, age, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status with the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the equal enjoyment or exercise of economic, social and cultural rights constitutes a violation of the Covenant. States obligations at the international level In addition to their obligations vis-à-vis their own population, states parties to the ICESCR also have obligations at the international level. The work of defining what these international obligations exactly consist of has started but is still quite recent. Indeed, the debate and the development in international law on international or extraterritorial obligations of states goes hand in hand with the deepening of globalization. The human rights community (UN, experts and NGOs) have increasingly tried to give a human rights response to the more and more interdependent and complex relationships of states which exist nowadays. The extraterritorial obligations of states concern human rights commitments undertaken by states by ratifying the International Covenants on Human Rights, and in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. They try to address the legal loopholes generated by the acceleration and intensification of international economic, social and cultural relationships due to globalization. These obligations are of course still the subject of intense discussions. Civil society and academics try to get states to recognize these obligations. However, despite the solid argumentation in favour of the recognition by states of these obligations towards people outside their territories, there is still an enormous reluctance by states to cluster their international responsibility into human rights categories. However, the ICESCR itself stipulates that states should internationally co-operate to enable the enjoyment of the rights it enshrines for all human beings. Furthermore, as the UN Special Rappporteur on the Right to Adequate Food, Mr. Jean Ziegler, himself, stated, at the international or extraterritorial level, state have the same threefold obligation concerning the right to food 4 See General Comment on the Right to Adequate Food (GC12), UN Doc E/C.12/1999/5, Para 18. in Annex 5.1. as at the national level. From the perspective of the Special Rapporteur, to fully comply with their obligations under the right to food, States must respect, protect and support the fulfilment of the right to food of people living in other territories. The obligation to respect is a minimum obligation which requires States to ensure that their policies and practices do not lead to violations of the right to food in other countries. The obligation to protect requires States to ensure that their own citizens and companies, as well as other third parties subject to their jurisdiction, including transnational corporations, do not violate the right to food in other countries. The obligation to support the fulfilment of the right to food requires States, depending on the availability of resources, to facilitate the realization of the right to food in other countries and to provide the necessary aid when required. 5 Despite the reluctance of states to recognise their obligations vis-à-vis people outside their territory and jurisdiction, civil society has already started to monitor the activities of states under international cooperation in general. Several parallel reports have been presented to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereafter referred to as the Committee or the CESCR) in charge of supervising the implementation of the ICESCR States violations of the Right to Adequate Food Violations of the Right to Adequate Food occur when a state fails to comply with its national and international obligations and through its action or inaction threatens or destroys people s means of livelihood. 7 Respect bound obligation A breach of the respect bound obligation occurs when a state (or the community of states through its specialised agencies or financial institutions) obstructs a person s access to food. A state induced dismantling of current access to food is only permitted if adequate compensation and rehabilitation to the affected individuals is provided. Examples of this type of violation include situations where states have forcibly evicted families without the provision of adequate compensation and rehabilitation. 5 See Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Mr. Jean Ziegler to the 61st session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 2005, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/47, Para 48 6 See for instance FIAN parallel reports on extraterritorial obligations of Austria, Germany and Norway, accessible at see also Section See FIAN Handbook How to Document Right to Food Violations?, available on the FIAN web site, 7

8 Example of FIAN case: Ecuador fails to respect the right to food and water of thousands of peasant families by promoting a dam project May 2007 The livelihood of 30,000 peasants who use the waters of the Baba river for fishing and agriculture is threatened by the dam project which is promoted by the government in the province Los Ríos. In October 2004, the Baba Project was declared a national priority. In January 2006, the project was awarded to Consorcio Hidroenergético del Litoral (CHL). Even though this project has been qualified as multipurpose, its sole objective is to transfer 85% of the Baba basin waters to the dam Daule Peripa, in order to enable powerful groups to have at their disposal the water and energy generated. In December 2006, the Minister of Environment, Ana Albán, awarded the environment license to CHL, even though the environment impact study submitted was incomplete and contradictory. It highlights the fact that CHL is not allowed to transfer the water from the Baba basin and that according to the Law of Water Resources this permission can only be given by the National Water Resources Board. The organizations opposing the project predict serious environmental and social impacts in the Baba basin. In fact, the construction of the dam entails the risk that the river Baba and the wells, the only sweet water source partially apt for human consumption, will dry up for ever. The decrease of water levels and the subsequent pollution of rivers and wells, as well as the disappearance of the fish species will directly affect the populations living in the basin, that is, the ancestral users of this river. The Inter-American Development Bank intends to approve soon a loan, even though the project does not comply with the policies on environmental and social protection established by this Institution. The State of Ecuador is a State Party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and is therefore duty-bound under international law to respect the human right to food and water. Allowing the construction of this project without the agreement of the affected population and without a solid and complete study on the social and environmental impacts, the State fails to comply with its obligations to respect the right to food and to water. Protect bound obligation A breach of the protect bound obligation occurs if a state fails to prevent the obstruction of a person s access to food by a third party. Once again an individual s current access to food can only be dismantled if adequate compensation and rehabilitation is provided. Examples of this type of violation include situations where governments allow large corporations to get hold of peasants land by illegitimate means and without the provision of adequate compensation and rehabilitation. Example of FIAN case: Ghana fails to protect the right to food and water of rural communities against adverse activities of Gold Mining Companies March 2007 Mining giant AngloGold Ashanti, Iduapriem Limited prevents access and use of land by hundreds of subsistence farmers in Teberebie. The South African mining company AngloGold Ashanti is one of the biggest internationally. At Teberebie, where AngloGold Ashanti operates the Iduapriem mine, the intense blasting, vibrations, noise, dust, the increasing waste dumps and the loss of access to land and water, are taking a toll on community members. The waste rock dumps of the Iduapriem mine which are steadily growing in size are fast taking over lands that were previously used for farming, especially traditional and subsistence agriculture. For most people access to their farm lands is now an uphill task since almost all the routes to their farms have been blocked by tonnes of waste rock dumped in the area. Others also have to walk between six and nine kilometres to search for new farmlands. Neither the company nor the responsible state institutions have acted to guarantee access to land for farmers. The absence of replacement farmlands is affecting food security in the area. Furthermore, the people of Teberebie report that all nearby streams are contaminated with toxic substances that run off from the waste rock dumps. This massive blockade to fertile land and the failure to provide replacement land or adequate compensation violates the community s right to food. In addition, the failure of the state authorities to mitigate the loss of access to surface water sources and break down of boreholes constitutes a violation of the right to water. Ghana is a State Party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the African Charter on Human Rights and therefore is obliged by international law to respect and protect the rights of the communities in the Western region. The state of Ghana has to protect the Right to Food and Water of the communities affected by the activities of AngloGold Ashanti in its Iduapriem mine. 8 Parallel Reporting before the CESCR

9 Fulfilment-bound-obligation A breach of the fulfilment bound obligation occurs when the government fails to implement policies which are designed to secure vulnerable groups access to adequate food. More specifically the obligation to fulfil (facilitate) means that the States must pro-actively engage in activities intended to strengthen people s access to productive resources or to sufficient income so that they can feed themselves. Example of FIAN case: India fails to fulfil the right to adequate food of unorganised workers by not guaranteeing the payment of minimum wage March 2007 Women working in the informal sector of traditional handicraft are victims of exploitation, not being able to adequately feed themselves, in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) is highly populated with nearly 170 million people with a low per capita income under the Indian average of $ percent of the state population are settled in rural areas. 60 percent of the inhabitants depend on service with government departments and private enterprises, 35 percent depend on agriculture while 5 percent depend on the local handicraft called Chikan Kari. This activity, mainly undertaken by women, belongs to the informal sector and is very time-demanding. Women Chikan Kari workers generally earn INR 30 per day. They get work from stores through middlemen with no fixed rate for one piece. This arrangement reduces their bargaining capacity to get a better price for the handicraft and makes them vulnerable to exploitation. Due to illiteracy and lack of awareness the women are unable to demand their entitlement of a minimum wage of INR under the Minimum Wage Act of (1 Euro = 55 INR). On September 17, 2004, the Government of India established a national commission for the unorganized sector. This is an advisory organ, which should monitor the situation in the unorganised sector and send periodic reports to the government. However, presently this organ is not functioning. A labour inspector was in place to monitor workers conditions. But this position was abolished in 2003 although it is very important in order to safeguard and ensure the rights of the workers in the unorganised sector like Chikan Kari. As a state party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, India and therefore the state of Uttar Pradesh is duty bound to fulfil the Chikan Kari workers right to adequate food, by ensuring that they are paid according to the minimum wage with a fixed piece rate. An income below the minimum wage excludes the Chikan workers from accessing adequate food. 9

10 2.1.3 The FAO Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food After the ICESCR and General Comment 12, the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food represent the most recent international instrument concerning this human right at the UN level. As a response to the 1996 World Food Summit s call for clarification of the content of the right to food, FIAN International, WANAHR (the World Alliance for Nutrition And Human Rights) and the Institute Jacques Maritain elaborated the Draft Code of Conduct on the Right to Adequate Food in The text was discussed among experts and civil society actors and enabled to mobilise close to 1000 organisations and associations all over the world. This civil society mobilisation has been crucial throughout the process which led to the adoption in 1999 of the General Comment Nr. 12 on the right to adequate food by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and eventually to the adoption of the Voluntary Guidelines by the 187 FAO member states in November 2004 in Rome 8. These voluntary guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security (hereafter the Voluntary Guidelines or the Guidelines) recall the standards under the right to adequate food as it is enshrined in international human rights law and interpreted by the CESCR in GC12. They then proceed with giving a list of recommendations and strategies in different sectors relevant for right to food policies. Under the title Enabling environment, assistance and accountability, the Guidelines shall help states complying with their obligations under the right to food and realize this right as expeditiously as possible. They finally tackle the issue of international measures, actions and commitments, which are relevant for the progessive realization of the right to adequate food. Policy sectors in which guidance is provided for in the Voluntary Guidelines: GUIDELINE 1 Democracy, good governance, human rights and the rule of law GUIDELINE 2 Economic development policies GUIDELINE 3 Strategies GUIDELINE 4 Market systems GUIDELINE 5 Institutions GUIDELINE 6 Stakeholders GUIDELINE 7 Legal framework GUIDELINE 8 Access to resources and assets GUIDELINE 8A Labour GUIDELINE 8B Land GUIDELINE 8C Water GUIDELINE 8D Genetic resources for food and agriculture GUIDELINE 8E Sustainability GUIDELINE 8F Services GUIDELINE 9 Food safety and consumer protection GUIDELINE 10 Nutrition GUIDELINE 11 Education and awareness raising GUIDELINE 12 National financial resources GUIDELINE 13 Support for vulnerable groups GUIDELINE 14 Safety nets GUIDELINE 15 International food aid GUIDELINE 16 Natural and human-made disasters GUIDELINE 17 Monitoring, indicators and benchmarks GUIDELINE 18 National human rights institutions GUIDELINE 19 International dimension Elements of a national strategy to implement the Voluntary Guidelines The Voluntary Guidelines are specific in describing the five necessary elements of national strategies, which are a precondition for an effective implementation of the right to adequate food. Such a strategy has to start (1) with a careful analysis of the causes of hunger and be followed by (2) an assessment of the existing legislative and policy framework and identification of problematic legislation or areas in which adequate legislation is missing. Another element of the national strategy is that (3) all policy measures taken by governments need to be screened in order to make sure that they do not contribute to violations of the right to adequate food and ensure that the state is using the maximum of available resources to progressively implement the right and to direct its implementation particularly to those groups, which are extremely marginalized in the country. The next element (4) is that governments install a functioning monitoring mechanism which will help to identify victims of violations as well as progress over time. Finally (5) governments have to have in place effective recourse procedures which allow victims of violations of the right to adequate food to claim their rights and ask for meaningful remedies. 8 See Voluntary Guidelines to support states in the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security, accessible at 10 Parallel Reporting before the CESCR

11 2.2 Human rights based monitoring The last two steps of the strategy proposed by the Voluntary Guidelines are of utmost importance to the purpose of the present handbook. Indeed, parallel reports should entail both information emerging from the monitoring of state policies relevant to the right to food, as well as concrete cases of violations of this right. 9 In an empirical approach, documenting violations is a means (and probably the best and most convincing one) to identify patterns of violations and state policies which are not adequate to enable people to realize their right to food. Furthermore, and in a mutually reinforcing manner, violations of the right to adequate food can often been identified in the course of monitoring public policies. Civil society should thus undertake a watchdog function and evaluate state performance vis-à-vis the right to adequate food through monitoring state policies Monitoring mechanisms and the Voluntary Guidelines Monitoring mechanisms refer to all available tools and procedures in institutions in order to check the implementation or non-implementation of the commitments states (or other relevant actors) have agreed upon. Monitoring activities are key to holding states accountable. Furthermore, strong monitoring mechanisms are indispensable to achieve an effective implementation of the right to food. Civil society is called upon most urgently when states do not comply with their obligations under the right to food. Making cases of right to food violations public, naming the responsible institutions, identifying the inactive part of governments etc. are tools to move states to stop violations and to act in favour of victims of human rights violations. With the Voluntary Guidelines, civil society now has a strong instrument at its disposal to monitor state performance. The Guidelines can be used as a checklist to monitor whether the proposals made in the various subparagraphs are being followed by governments, and to assess if the policy measures taken are adequate to meet the objective of the respective paragraph. The five steps that the Guidelines set out can be framed in terms of the following questions: Do governments assess the hunger situation and the problems of the different vulnerable groups? (Guideline 13.2, 17.5) Do they check if their own legislation, administrative routines policies, programmes and projects contribute to violations? (Guideline 3.2, 17.2) Do they plan to update and improve legislation 4 5 and policy measures to better implement the right to food? How are governments monitoring the impact of such measures? Do states offer access to recourse mechanisms? In addition to providing a valuable frame of reference for the monitoring activities of civil society, the Guidelines themselves ( ) explicitly mention monitoring as an integral part of a national strategy to realize the right to food. 10 As for the institutional framework, Guideline 18.1 encourages states to establish independent human rights institutions or ombudspersons and give them the mandate to monitor the right to food. Civil society should push for the implementation of these provisions, and, in countries where such institutions exist, should seek cooperation and even when relevant bring cases of violations of the right to food to their attention. In this last case, the Guidelines can be very useful in order to appreciate to which extent right to food obligations have been breached The way ahead: human rights-based monitoring The international community of states has, in close cooperation with civil society, established necessary norms and legal instruments to promote and guarantee the right to food. Currently, there is a clear attempt at national and international levels to design provisions and tools for a proper monitoring of all those standards and commitments endorsed by states. The main step forward today is to find the right monitoring system. In this perspective, human rights-based monitoring is very promising and aims at controlling state performance in the light of the contracted obligations in human rights law. It goes beyond traditional monitoring exercises done by states through the statistical units within different ministries. Furthermore, the monitoring efforts per se belong to human rights obligations. General Comment 12 requires proper monitoring in its paragraph 31. Human Rights Based Monitoring is thus a monitoring process which analyses the government response to a given situation of the implementation of a human right. 11 Concretely and as already mentioned, the government first needs to know which the particularly affected segments in the society are, where they are located, and what the causes are for these people suffering from human rights violations or the non-fulfilment of certain rights. 9 See FIAN Handbook How to Document Right to Food Violations?, available on the FIAN web site, 10 See Guidelines 5.2, 10.3, 17, 18.1, Rights based Monitoring Lessons to be learned for the work on Indicators for the right to adequate food, 2006, Michael Windfuhr, FIAN & University of Mannheim, Heidelberg/Mannheim. 11

12 The identification is the first step in the set up of a right based monitoring : (1) Identification of marginalized and disadvantaged groups and the causes of the problems. (2) Measure progress: Monitoring is also needed to check if the measures taken by governments do have the intended effects or not. Such monitoring of progress in the implementation must be done by governments themselves in order to identify areas where corrective action must be taken. (3) Process monitoring: Evaluate if the implementation process itself is respecting human rights principles (which include participation, transparency, non-discrimination, etc.) (4) Monitoring as a precondition for accountability: Monitoring of the problems and the progress in implementation of a right should also be done by independent (human rights) institutions, such as national human rights commissions or ombudspersons, as well as by civil society actors in order to hold governments accountable. Various projects and initiatives have been developed over the last years which aim at developing and applying right based monitoring around the key elements which represent the set of indicators on the right to adequate food. Three projects (namely the IBSA project of FIAN and the Mannheim University 12 ; the FAO/Oslo University project in Brazil 13 and the project of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 14 ) have started simultaneously and are now carried out in close collaboration by the three teams. A set of indicators have thus been established which now will have to be tested in specific national contexts. Besides the set of indicators on the right to food, civil society organisations including FIAN and the German Agro Action as well as many national and local CSOs are developing and applying a Monitoring Tool based on the Guidelines. 15 Indeed, if the Voluntary Guidelines offer an interesting framework to monitor state perfomence towards the progressive realization of the right to food, they are not themselves shaped as a monitoring tool, but rather as a collection of ideas for good governance in the areas of nutrition and agrarian regimes. The Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food as a Human Rights Based Monitoring Tool The Monitoring Tool developed by FIAN with the support of the FAO and the German Agro Action follows the structure of the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food and addresses fundamental questions for each policy sector concerned in the progressive realization of the right to food. Under each Guideline two to three key questions are formulated to analyse whether scruntinised states design and implement their policies in the most conducive way for the progressive realization fo the right to adequate food. This means that the proposed questions address structures, processes and results related to each policy field, be it the institutional framework, the market system or the access to assets and resources among other fields. Under each of those key questions, checklists and text boxes are proposed in order to provide concrete guidance to answer the questions. Finally, crossreference are provided whenever cross-cutting issues are concerned such as gender or participation. 16 Finally, one of the outputs which should definitively emerge from these current initiatives is a new type of national reports to monitor the status of implementation of the right to adequate food. These reports can in turn be submitted to the CESCR as parallel reports to state official reports when the latter are on the agenda of this UN supervisory body. The CESCR is in fact in a process of revising its own reporting guidelines and much will happen in the next months and years in terms of international monitoring mechanisms and opportunities in the UN Human Rights system More information at =view&id=227&itemid= Right to Food Unit /Economic and Social Department of the FAO in collaboration with International Project on the Right to Food in Development IPRFD, University of Oslo/Akershus University College. 14 More information in Quantitative Human Rights Indicators A Survey of Major Initiatives, 2005, Rajeev Malhotra and Nicolas Fasel. 15 See FIAN Handbook The Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food as a Human Rights Based Monitoring Tool, available on the FIAN web site, org 16 See example of questions and checklists related to Guideline 3 of the Tool in Annex See CESCR Revised guidelines regarding the form and contents of reports to be submitted by states parties (...) UN Doc.: E/C.12/1991/1, please note that these Guidelines are being currently revised. To follow the debate, consult 12 Parallel Reporting before the CESCR

13 3 Using the UN Human Rights System 3.1 UN system and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights At the universal level, the main piece of legislation governing economic, social and cultural rights is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In 1987 the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was established by the UN ECOSOC as the monitoring body of the Covenant. It seeks to achieve three principal objectives, namely: a) b) Development of the normative content of the rights recognised in the Covenant Acting as a catalyst to state action in developing national benchmarks and devising appropriate mechanisms for establishing accountability, and providing means of vindication to aggrieved individuals and groups at the national level c) Holding states accountable at the international level through the examination of states periodic reports. Two actual debates within the UN Human Rights System are of particular relevance for the status of the ICESCR and for the supervision of its implementation: - The standing of the CESCR is being discussed by Member States of the United Nations through the debate intiated at the Human Rights Council with the resolution adopted by the Council on 28 March The resolution A/HRC/4/L.17 aims at revising the standing of the CESCR and to place it on the same footing as other treaty bodies in charge of supervising the implementation of other human rights treaties in the UN system The Optional Protocol providing for complaint and inquiry procedures to enforce the ICESCR has been debated since the early 1990s and is finally entering a concrete phase with a UN working group mandated with the drafting of such an optional protocol. Such a protocol would eventually allow to bring complaints to the UN level against violations of ESC-Rights. A broad civil society coalition works to ensure that the new complaint mechanism to be adopted will be useful to the victims of such violations What are parallel reports? As an international non-governmental organisation with consultative status with the United Nations, FIAN International is able to assist both the Committee and national civil society organisations to hold states accountable for violations of economic, social and cultural rights. Under the Covenant states are required to submit an initial report within two years of their ratification of the Covenant, periodic reports are required every five years thereafter. These reports are supposed to document the measures that state parties have adopted and the progress they have made in order to guarantee the realisation of all the rights included in the International Covenant. These reports, due to political bias, are unlikely to illustrate the whole picture. Governments are often reluctant to portray the exact situation regarding human rights in their own country. In order for the Committee to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the human rights situation in a country, more independent sources of information are required. In the best of cases, a state report should follow the guidelines issued by the CESCR. 20 However, more common, is that states provide either very brief and weak or very long but vague reports. CSOs and NGOs are able to provide the Committee with independent information through the submission of parallel reports (also called alternative or shadow reports). As such an international non-governmental organisation, FIAN is able to contribute in this manner to the Covenant s implementation procedure Who is entitled to present a parallel report? Articles 16 and 17 of the ICESCR introduce the supervision mechanism of the ICESCR which consists in the examination by the Committee of states' regular reports. In parallel to the submission of states' reports, national and international NGOs as well as UN agencies are invited to provide the Committee with additional information. The CESCR has even been the first treaty supervising body to allow NGOs to make oral submissions and to submit written statements regarding the situation of economic, social and cultural rights in the different states. Any individual on behalf of an NGO, national or international NGOs are welcomed to contribute to the works of the CESCR. There are various ways to participate in the monitoring activities of the Committee. You will find more details about this variety of means of action and interaction in section 3.2 below. The major rule to keep in mind is that everybody can send information to the CESCR and make oral submissions during the CESCR sessions, provided one has registered with the 18 See 19 See and 20 See CESCR Revised guidelines regarding the form and contents of reports to be submitted by states parties (...) UN Doc.: E/C.12/1991/1, please note that these Guidelines are being currently revised. To follow the debate, consult 13

14 CESCR secretariat. Only the written statements on the state report will have to be co-sponsored by a NGO with ECOSOC consultative status. FIAN International benefits from this status and has helped many NGOs to submit such written statements to the CESCR Purpose of a parallel report The submission of parallel report enables the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to obtain a more comprehensive picture of a State s compliance with economic, social and cultural rights. It gives an NGO the possibility to monitor and if necessary challenge government policy as well as present concrete cases of human rights violations to an intergovernmental organisation. These reports are able to provide a clear illustration of a government policy orientation towards the realisation of these rights. Moreover, they can be used to draw international and national attention to specific violations of human rights, and can influence the Committee s recommendations and pronouncements concerning a particular country Indirect benefits arising from the reporting procedure The impact these parallel reports can have on the work of the Committee is, however, only one aspect of the contribution they can make to the work towards the universal realisation of human rights. Using the monitoring mechanisms, offered by the CESCR at the international level, should be considered being part of the national strategy for the promotion of ESC-Rights. Unifying force The elaboration of this report can be undertaken in conjunction with other NGOs (local and national). It can therefore provide a unifying activity which will strengthen existing, as well as build new, alliances amongst nongovernmental and community based organisations. Human Rights education The elaboration of the report can be used as a means of educating local groups about economic, social and cultural rights. Workshops can be held. As well as useful for gathering information they will further educate people and raise awareness on the existence of economic, social and cultural rights. Public relations (PR) This report documents the government s human rights abuses and is presented at the United Nations. This document therefore has an important PR purpose. Press releases can be launched before and after the report is presented at the UN. Press conferences can also be held. The publicity generated can be useful on two counts. Firstly it is useful in terms of the organisation itself. The more well known an NGO becomes as an organisation actively working for the implementation of the Right to Adequate Food, the more effective it can become. Secondly the publishing of the report will increase awareness of economic, social and cultural rights amongst the local population. Awareness of these rights is an important factor in creating individual empowerment and an important ingredient in the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights. Policy dialogue with national governments The parallel report and the Committee s concluding observations can be important reference tools when participating in dialogue with, or lobbying, the national government. The parallel report provides a clear documentation of the State s behaviour on the Right to Adequate Food, while the concluding observations contain the Committee s recommendations concerning the future behaviour of the State. Example from FIAN work: Parallel Report Honduras, from November 2000 onwards The parallel report submitted by FIAN to the CESCR during its 24 th session in November 2000 is a good example of how the Committee s concluding observations, addressed to the State Party, can be influenced by NGOs. On the basis of concrete cases and FIAN interventions, the parallel report listed violations of the Right to Food in Honduras. These violations were classified into four categories, corresponding to four areas in which the Honduran government needed to take action. FIAN first documented cases of forcible evictions of peasant groups. FIAN then denounced discrimination against women and indigenous people with regard to the realisation of ESC-Rights, as well as violations of labour Rights, as a result of a minimum wage that did not allow people to satisfy their basic needs. The parallel report also called on the government to carry out agrarian reform in order to comply with its obligations under the Right to Food. The Committee took careful note of FIAN s concerns. In May 2001, the CESCR presented its concluding observations on Honduras s report, in which it recommended inter alia: better awareness and education concerning human rights, and especially ESC rights, among civil servants in the judiciary and the police force adoption of legislative and administrative measures to overcome discrimination against indigenous people as a vulnerable minority, and against women, particularly with respect to their work in the informal sector, working conditions, and representation in public services an increase in the number of labour inspectors pursuit of all necessary measures to carry out agrarian reform, and resolutions of land ownership 14 Parallel Reporting before the CESCR

15 problems, taking into account the needs and rights of peasants and indigenous people. Following the release of the Committee s concluding observations, FIAN-Honduras carried out successful press work, highlighting the Committee s support of the Right to Food in Honduras, which helped to draw significant public attention in Honduras to the plight of victims. Furthermore, in April 2003, FIAN has carried out follow-up activities on the basis of the first recommendation of the concluding observations by organising a seminar for judges and lawyers in Honduras. Under the title "The Right to Food as a challenge for justice", this seminar enabled to raise awareness and trained key actors on the Right to Food within the judiciary. Other initiatives of the same kind took place in the following years. Finally, as a result of this long-term and coherent effort by civil society groups, the latter are drawing from the provisions of the Voluntary Guidelines to elaborate national framework legislation. Such a national legal framework should enshrine the right to food and specify state obligations. In the case of Honduras, it should, inter alia, be based on the human rights principle of non-discrimination, in particular of women, it should assure policy coherence, provide access to resources and assets, and recognize the traditional rights of indigenous people and communities regarding their natural resources. To summarise, the procedure of states reporting before the CESCR provides an excellent opportunity for NGOs to comment on a government official version of its economic rights record and to provide parallel information. Local NGOs and CBOs (community based organisations) can expect the following benefits form the reporting procedure: Drawing international attention to specific violations of economic, social and cultural rights Obtaining pronouncements of the CESCR on these violations and the government general economic, social and cultural rights performance Using the UN attention and the CESCR pronouncements to create awareness in the national media Using this to promote solutions to economic, social and cultural rights problems in a national or international dialogue. 3.2 Interaction NGOs /CESCR 21 The major focus of this dossier is to give indications on all elements necessary to write a parallel report. However, there are various types of NGO interaction with the CESCR. Be it to submit questions to be officially directed by the Committee to the state or a long and comprehensive parallel report to the periodic state report, there are ways for all to get involved in the monitoring process as offered by the CESCR Procedure before the Committee The examination of a state report by the CESCR implies different procedural steps. The CESCR consists of 18 members who are independent experts, which means that they do not represent their government or the UN but are chosen according to their expertise in the field of economic, social and cultural rights and to a regional balance within the Committee. In addition to the lack of states political will, the CESCR s task to encourage states to meet their obligations faces a general lack of capacity and resources. It is therefore all the more crucial for NGOs to support and help its most active and inventive members and to feed the monitoring process with alternative, relevant and precise information. The Committee holds its sessions twice a year, a spring session (April-May) and an autumn session (November- December). It is the occasion to review the situation of ESC-Rights in about five states per session. Every session lasts three weeks and follows the following scheme : On the first Monday, NGOs are given the opportunity to make oral submissions to the Committee. Then, during the two first weeks, the CESCR undertakes the review of the report of each state on the agenda and questions state representatives on the report. This part of the session is also open to the NGOs but they are not allowed to intervene. In the last week of the session, the Committee holds closed meetings to write its comments on the reports it has examined during the session. These comments are called concluding observations. After the closure of the session, a restricted number of CESCR members meets in a so-called pre-sessional working group. This working group has the task to start the reviewing process of the received periodic reports which will be on the agenda for the next two sessions. The working group has one week to study the reports,and name for each a rapporteur among its members who will co-ordinate the review. The rapporteur will collect information on the state he or she is in charge of and will draft the documents the Committee will issue concerning the state. He or she is the main contact person for NGOs at the CESCR. 21 This section is based on FIAN s long years of experience with the CESCR and on the remarkable work of Allan McChesney (AAAS Handbook, Promoting and Defending Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). 15