Geneva Updates
Our strategic presence in Geneva sets us apart as the sole NGO exclusively committed to economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights. This permits us to play a pivotal role in promoting and protecting these rights globally.
ESC Rights Update from Geneva: 26th of the UN Human Rights Council, Summer 2014
10 – 27 June 2014
The 26th session of the Human Rights Council saw States considering a broad range of economic, social and cultural rights and associated issues.
Special Procedures mandate holders in relation to the Right to Health, the Right to Education and Extreme Poverty and Human Rights all reported to the Council. One of the most hotly debated topics was the two competing resolutions on business and human rights put forward by Norway (and core group) and Ecuador (and South Africa), the latter of which proposed an inter-governmental working group to begin drafting a new treaty on transnational corporations.
Other ESC rights issues that received attention were the rights of peasants, the protection of the Roma population and human rights in post disaster and post conflict situations.
This session also involved a very welcomed number of resolutions and events on women’s rights including a large event on women’s economic empowerment, discussions about negative gender stereotyping, combating FGM, eliminating child early and forced marriage and the annual resolution on violence against women.
For a detailed report on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the 26th session of the Human Rights Council see HERE.
Report Highlights how Privatization of Education Negatively Impacts Girls in Many Parts of the World
Thirteen organizations today highlighted the discriminatory impacts of privatizing education on women and girls. The organizations submitted a brief to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) to inform its discussion on girls’ and women’s right to education. The organizations argue that privatization exacerbates gender discrimination and that States must ensure the full enjoyment of the right to education for all through a fully-accountable public education system.
Press release
Geneva, 7 July 2014
Today the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) held its General Discussion on the Right to Education for Girls and Women, the aim of which is to commence the Committee’s process of elaborating a “General Recommendation on girls’/women’s right to education.” The purpose of the general recommendation is to provide authoritative guidance to States on the measures they should adopt in order to respect, protect and fulfill the right of women and girls to education.
Thirteen organizations from around the world presented a written submission to CEDAW on ‘Privatization and its Impact on the Right to Education of Women and Girls,’ highlighting evidence from a range of countries showing that more boys are enrolled in schools than girls, a problem that is exacerbated by the increasing privatization of education. Privatization in many cases deepens gender discrimination in education because already marginalized and vulnerable groups, including women and girls, are more disadvantaged by private provision and are the least able to pay for services.
Lucy McKernan, UN Liaison with the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, one of the 13 organizations which today delivered a joint statement to the Committee, told Committee members that “for poor families, even low-fees charged by private schools are a massive disincentive to educating girls. This problem is also further compounded by problems such as lack of regulation and oversight of private educational institutions, which can result, in some cases, in a lack of accountability for sexual assault of girls by school teachers and administrators, promotion of gender stereotypes, and lack of access to sexual and reproductive health education, which also have disproportionate impacts on girls.”
The organizations also highlighted that to redress structural discrimination, States must provide quality, accessible, free public schooling so parents are not forced to choose between their daughters and sons, in line with their international human rights obligations
Privatization of education is on the rise globally, particularly within the context of economic crisis and the move by many States to implement austerity measures and make significant cuts to social services. It is this increasing trend that makes it an opportune moment for the CEDAW Committee to offer guidance around issues of privatization of education, and its potentially detrimental impacts for women and girls.
Research shows that this trend is putting at risk children’s right to education in many countries. Research projects such as the Privatization in Education Research Initiative have been documenting in the last years the risks posed by this privatization trend in terms of social justice, and this topic has been the subject of a side-event at the last session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva as well as of growing scrutiny from UN human rights bodies.
The organizations collaborating in this initiative are: Ação Educativa; ActionAid; the Arab Campaign for Education for All (ACEA); the Asia South Pacific Association for Basic and Adult Education (ASPBAE); the Brazilian Campaign for the Right to Education; Education International; the Equal Education Law Centre (EELC); the Global Campaign for Education (GCE); the Global Initiative for Economic Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR); the Latin American Campaign for the Right to Education (Campaña Latinoamericana por el Derecho a la Educación); the Education Support Program of the Open Society Foundations; the Right to Education Project; and SECTION27.
A copy of the report submitted to the CEDAW committee can be downloaded here:
Contacts:
Mayra Gomez (USA)
+ 1 218 269 0137
Lucy McKernan (Switzerland)
+41 79 103 77 19 or +41 22 919 71 06
Response to Report on corporate liability for gross human rights abuses
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights submitted a written response to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in response to the recent report entitled Corporate liability for gross human rights abuses: Towards a fairer and more effective system of domestic law remedies by Dr. Jennifer Zerk (the Zerk Report) and the report's call for consultations. The Zerk Report is aimed at furthering development of the business and human rights framework, but risks taking a too conservative and narrow approach that doesn't reflect the current state of international human rights law. The Global Initiatives response focused on five key areas of the report, namely:
-
Definition and limitations of ‘gross human rights abuses’ (section 2);
-
Role of civil society organisations (section 3)
-
Extra-territorial aspects of the State ‘duty to protect’ (section 4);
-
Extra-territorial jurisdiction as a barrier to corporations’ home State law enforcement (section 5); and
-
Treaty-based initiatives (section 6).
It is hoped that as the area of business and human rights continues to be developed that the framework includes within its scope violations of all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the extra-territorial obligations of States to ensure that corporate actors don't violate human rights abroad and, if such violations occur, provide accessible accountability mechanisms and effective remedies to victims of those violations.
As the report concludes: "In our view the solution to the problem of corporate accountability for human rights abuses will be a long-term, multi-pronged project involving extensive efforts to build domestic legal systems and capacities, increased home State regulation of business entities operating abroad, improved access for foreign victims to home State legal systems and an international instrument which imposes enforceable obligations on business entities including those operating across State borders."
The Global Initiative's submission can be found HERE.
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights scrutinizes China regarding extra-territorial obligations
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights welcomes the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' Concluding Observations on China, which include strong and detailed language on the issue of extra-territorial obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights successfully intervened with a Parallel Report laying out the extra-territorial obligations under the ICESCR and requesting that the Committee include scrutiny on those obligations within the periodic review of China. The Parallel Report relies in part on the Maastricht Principles on Extra-Territorial Obligations, which provide the clearest and most comprehensive reaffirmation of extra-territorial obligations under international human rights law. The Parallel Report was supplemented by a joint Parallel Report by the Global Initiative and the International Human Rights Clinic at Western New England University School of Law which provided factual examples of violations of China's extra-territorial obligations.
In its Concluding Observations, the Committee called upon China to adopt a human rights-based approach to its policies of international cooperation, by:
"(a) Undertaking a systematic and independent human rights impact assessment prior to making funding decisions;
(b) Establishing an effective monitoring mechanism to regularly assess the human rights impact of its policies and projects in the receiving countries and to take remedial measures when required; and
(c) Ensuring that there is an accessible complaint mechanism if violations of economic, social and cultural rights occur in the receiving countries."
The Committee also addressed the extra-territorial obligation to protect in the context of corporate accountability, expressing its concern "about the lack of adequate and effective measures adopted by the State party to ensure that Chinese companies both State-owned and private, respect economic, social and cultural rights, including when operating abroad" and recommending that China:
"(a) Establish a clear regulatory framework for companies operating in the State party to ensure that their activities promote and do not negatively affect the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural human rights; and
(b) Adopt appropriate legislative and administrative measures to ensure legal liability of companies and their subsidiaries operating in or managed from the State party’s territory regarding violations of economic, social and cultural rights in their projects abroad."
According to Bret Thiele, Co-Executive Director of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, "The Committee has made clear that the ICESCR includes extra-territorial obligations to respect, protect and fulfill human rights, including by regulating and otherwise holding corporations accountable to those obligations for their activities abroad and ensuring that any international cooperation and development cooperation includes systematic and independent human rights impact assessments prior to making funding decisions as well as the provision of an accessible complaint mechanism if violations of economic, social and cultural rights occur in the receiving countries."
Thiele added that "the Concluding Observations not only touch upon the extra-territorial obligation to respect by directly refraining from human rights violations and the extra-territorial obligation to protect in the context of corporate activities abroad, but should be interpreted as also addressing the extra-territorial obligation to fulfill by ensuring that human rights impact assessments also focus on how best to further the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights through bilateral and multilateral international cooperation and development assistance."
The Global Initiative hopes these conclusions and recommendations are followed by all States Parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and urges the Committee to apply similar scrutiny of extra-territorial obligations on a regular basis during periodic reviews.
The Global Initiative’s Parallel Report regarding the List of Issues can be found HERE
The List of Issues can be found HERE
The Global Initiative’s Parallel Report on the legal analysis for the periodic review can be found HERE
The Joint Global Initiative – International Human Rights Clinic at Western New England University School of Law factual Parallel Report can be found HERE
The Global Initiative’s oral intervention can be found HERE.
The Committee's Concluding Observations can be found HERE.
Consultation on the impact of the privatisation in/of education on girls' right to education
The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is preparing a General Recommendation on girls and women’s right to education, which is a document produced by the Committee to give guidance on the interpretation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. For this purpose, the Committee is holding a half-day discussion on the topic on 7th July.
Non-governmental organisations and experts are also invited to send written contributions by 20th June (more information here).
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Right to Education Project are preparing a contribution on the impact of the privatisation in/of education on girls' right to education. Both organisations have been conducting research and/or reflecting on privatisation in/of education from a human rights perspective and would like to draw to CEDAW’s attention some of the impacts privatisation has on girls’ education.
For the preparation of this contribution to the CEDAW, we are collecting thoughts, data, and comments, and we would like to invite all civil society organisations working in the education field to share with us information and evidence we could refer to in our paper. Your input will be crucial in informing the contribution we are putting together.
To facilitate this consultation, here is a list of guiding questions:
1. In your view, has privatisation in/of education led to the exclusion of women and girls from enjoying equal access to educational opportunities or otherwise impeded their ability to realise their right to education on equal footing with men and boys? If so, why? Do you have some examples?
2. Has privatisation in/of education resulted in other detrimental impacts on women and girls, such as the use of gender insensitive curricula or the propagation of gender stereotypes? If so, why? Do you have some examples?
3. Does your organisation have any specific research or case studies highlighting the impact of privatisation on women and girls?
4. What do you think are the key messages to communicate to the CEDAW Committee around the issue of privatisation in/of education and its impact on girls?
You can send your ideas via the Right to Education’s online forum here http://www.right-to-education.org/page/right-education-discussion-forum, or you can contact directly Delphine Dorsi (Right to Education Project)
NEW Practitioners Guide: the Human Rights-Based Approach to Development and the Right to Participation
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is pleased to release its latest publication aimed at strengthening the capacity of human rights advocates and development practitioners to advance rights globally.
The purpose of our latest Practitioners Guide, on the Human Rights-Based Approach to Development and the Right to Participation, is to provide an analysis of how to best incorporate the right to active, free and meaningful participation in development. The Guide also includes several case studies and provide lessons learned on how to better incorporate the right to participation into human rights-based development.
The human rights concept of empowerment is not something done to people or given to people. It is a participatory process that engages people in reflection, inquiry and action in order to understand the power they themselves have to influence and change their lives.
For participation to be truly rights based, development agencies and other actors need to include local stakeholders in every facet of the development process, ensure they understand and have the capacity to make decisions about the project, and respect the right of the local population to deny a project. Beyond being good practice, the concept of participation is firmly rooted in international law and results in more sustainable human development.
There are five major steps for development practitioners to incorporate participants according to a human rights based framework, and each of these are covered in detail within this Practitioner’s Guide.
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights thanks Kristin Frye and Katarina Deshotel and Professor Paul Nelson of the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh as well as Aled Dilwyn-Fisher for their substantial contributions to making this publication possible.
The Guide can be downloaded HERE.
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights scrutinizes China on extra-territorial obligations
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights scrutinizes China regarding extra-territorial human rights obligations
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), scrutinized China regarding its extra-territorial human rights obligations under the Covenant. China is appearing before the Committee at its May of 2014 session.
The Committee has made clear that the ICESCR includes extra-territorial obligations to respect, protect and fulfill human rights, including by regulating and otherwise holding corporations accountable to those obligations for their activities abroad.
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights successfully intervened with a Parallel Report laying out the extra-territorial obligations under the ICESCR and requesting that the Committee include scrutiny on those obligations within the periodic review of China. The Parallel Report relies in part on the Maastricht Principles on Extra-Territorial Obligations, which provide the clearest and most comprehensive reaffirmation of extra-territorial obligations under international human rights law.
The List of Issues recently adopted by the Committee, which defines the scope of review, requires China to “provide information on measures taken, including legislation, regulations, policies and guidance, to ensure that businesses respect economic, social and cultural rights throughout their operations – including when operating abroad –, in particular in the extractives sector and in commercial operations involving the appropriation of land.”
This examination of China provides advocates the opportunity to address the issue of extra-territorial obligations and provides the Committee the opportunity to more clearly articulate the extra-territorial obligations under the ICESCR, including specifically referencing the Maastricht Principles on Extra-Territorial Obligations. To that end, the Global Initiative and the International Human Rights Clinic at Western New England University School of Law submitted additional Parallel reports related to China’s extra-territorial obligations under the ICESCR as well as factual situations involved China’s violations of those obligations.
The Global Initiative’s Parallel Report regarding the List of Issues can be found HERE
The List of Issues can be found HERE
The Global Initiative’s Parallel Report on the legal analysis for the periodic review can be found HERE
The Joint Global Initiative – International Human Rights Clinic at Western New England University School of Law factual Parallel Report can be found HERE
The Global Initiative's oral intervention can be found HERE.
Oral Statement regarding China by GI-ESCR to Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
52nd Session (28 April – 9 May)
Consideration of State Party Reports:
Second Periodic Report of the People’s Republic of China
Oral Statement by Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
-
My statement on behalf of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, addresses the extra-territorial obligations of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) under the ICESCR and in particular in relation to:
-
the regulation of corporate entities domiciled within its territory and operating overseas;
-
entities acting under its authority outside its territory, including State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) operating overseas;
-
its policies on official development assistance, on international agriculture and trade and for State-Owned overseas investment or credit entities (including International Financial Institutions such as the proposed BRIC Development Bank) for decisions affecting human rights outside its territory.
-
The extra-territorial application of State obligations under human rights treaties is well established in international law: it is supported by the UN Charter[1], the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts[2] and the International Court of Justice.[3] The Committee has recently affirmed the extra-territorial obligations of States under the Covenant in its Concluding Obligations in respect of Germany[4], Austria[5] and Norway[6] and in its General Comments and Statements.[7]
-
The extent and nature of States’ extra-territorial obligations have been helpfully summarized in the Maastricht Principles on Extra-Territorial Obligations in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[8]
-
Non-state actors
-
In relation to business entities domiciled in the PRC, but acting outside its territory, we submit that the PRC has obligations to take measures to ensure that such entities do not nullify or impair the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights of persons outside its territory affected by the entity’s operations.[9]
-
Our supplementary report provides examples of Chinese domiciled companies that have operations overseas that have allegedly been involved in serious violations of the ICESCR in other countries. The lack of Chinese regulation or oversight of these companies has meant that there is no accountability for these human rights abuses.
-
Many Chinese companies operating overseas are SOEs and therefore acting under the State’s authority. Clearly the PRC has Covenant obligations to respect and protect human rights in respect of those entities’ overseas operations.
-
For instance Chinese transnational corporation Sinohydro which is wholly owned by the State is a partner in a hydroelectric dam construction project in Honduras, which has involved violent forced evictions in contravention of international law and violations of the rights to food, water and indigenous people’s rights. The projects failed to consult with local communities or obtain their free, prior and informed consent to the taking of their traditional lands, leading to loss of livelihoods and forcing the community into poverty.
-
We urge the Committee to affirm China’s extra-territorial obligations to respect and to protect Covenant rights abroad by, inter alia, regulating the activities of business entities domiciled in its territory, including State-Owned entities, for activities undertaken abroad and to ensure that accountability mechanisms and remedies are available to victims of those violations.
International development assistance and investments
-
The financial support and other development decisions of international financial institutions and investment entities such as the proposed BRICs Development Bank and the China Africa Development Fund can both contribute to the fulfillment of human rights as well as result in violations of human rights outside the territories of the member States.
-
Our report provides examples of serious ICESCR violations associated with development projects funded and supervised by Chinese State-Owned development and investment entities.[10] In part as a consequence of the PRC’s lack of human rights regulation, human rights impact assessment, monitoring mechanisms and complaints mechanism, there has been no accountability for those human rights abuses.
-
For example a number of oil exploration projects in Kenya financed by various Chinese SOEs, including the China Development Bank and undertaken by the China National Offshore Oil Company which was granted exclusive exploration rights to more than half of Kenya’s substantial exploration oil blocks. The project has involved forced evictions, and violations of the rights to food and water. Similarly, copper and cobalt mining projects in the DRC undertaken by Chinese SOEs and financed by Chinese development and investment banks have reportedly involved forced evictions of local communities into poverty and homelessness, violations of the right to food and water (depriving subsistence farmers of their land and water resources and forcing them into reliance on other food sources and into poverty) and appalling working conditions. They have also been connected to child labor.
-
These violations may have been prevented had China had in place, as is required by the Covenant, legislation and policies that require SOEs and Chinese officials representing the PRC in international development assistance and financing entities, to:
-
undertake human rights impact assessments prior to project/ funding approval;
-
put in place and implement effective monitoring mechanisms in respect of projects;
-
ensure the effective and accessible accountability mechanisms are in place and remedies available for victims of violations.
Conclusion
-
In summary, the GI-ESCR urges the Committee to make recommendations highlighting the PRC’s extra-territorial obligations to respect, to protect and, where relevant, to fulfill ICESCR rights in relation to:
-
entities acting under its authority outside its territory, including State-Owned Enterprises;
-
corporations and business entities domiciled in China, acting outside its territory; and
-
its policies on official development assistance, on agriculture and trade and State-Owned overseas investment or credit entities (including International Financial Institutions such as the proposed BRIC Development Bank) for decisions affecting human rights outside its territory - through human rights impact assessments and effective monitoring and complaint mechanisms.
5 May 2014
Bret Thiele Co-Executive Director Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
[1] Charter of the United Nations, Art. 55 & 56, 26 June 1945, 59 Stat. 1031, T.S. 993, 3 Bevans 1153, entered into force 24 October 1945.
[2] See, International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Arts. 1, 2 and 3 (adopted by the ILC in 2001).
[3] International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (9 July 2004).
[7] See: E/C.12/2002/11, General Comment 15 (2002) on the Right to Water; E/C.12/GC/18, General Comment 18 (2005) on the Right to Work; E/C./GC/19, General Comment 19 (2008) on the Right to Social Security; and E/C.12/2011/1, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ‘Statement on the obligations of States parties regarding the corporate sector and economic, social and cultural rights’ (2011).
[8] The Maastricht Principles are a restatement of law based on existing conventional and customary international law. They were adopted by leading experts from around the world, including a former member of the Human Rights Committee and members and former members of other treaty bodies. Drawn from international law, the Maastricht Principles clarify the content of extra-territorial State obligations to realize economic, social and cultural rights but also explicitly apply to the full spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.
[9] As was found by the Committee in respect of Norway in 2013 – see note 6 above.
[10] Such as the Export-Import Bank of China, the China Development Bank, the China Construction Bank and the China Africa Development Fund.
ESC Rights Update from Geneva: 25th of the UN Human Rights Council, Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights were well represented at the 25th session of the Human Rights Council in March. There were at least 5 resolutions directly dealing with ESC rights, on: economic, social and cultural rights; food; housing; cultural rights, and environment. Experts in relation to three of those rights also reported to the Council during this session, namely the: Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living; Special Rapporteur on the right to food; and Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment .[1] Whilst the Council was scheduled to appoint new mandate holders for the Special Rapporteurs on Adequate Housing and Food (and others), the appointments were postponed pending further negotiations amongst States. It is believed that some States were unhappy with the geographical spread of candidates nominated by the President.
Below is a summary of the activity relating to ESC rights generally, the right to food and the right to adequate housing at the 25th session of the UN Human Rights Council.
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The ESC rights resolution was again led by Portugal and was adopted without a vote[2] after some last minute amendments. The omnibus resolution entitled ‘Question of the realisation in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights’[3] again called on States to sign and ratify the ICESCR and whilst it ‘welcomed’ the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, the use of weak language, calling on States to ‘consider’ signing the OP was disappointing. The resolution also acknowledged the Secretary-General’s report on access to justice[4] and ESC rights and requested the Secretary-General to prepare a further report for 2015, this time focusing on social protection floors.
The resolution contained new language on access to effective remedies and referred to the joint UN Social Protection Floor Initiative and ILO recommendation 202 (2012) on that topic. The resolution also included new language on the post-2015 development agenda focusing States’ attention on some of the specific areas in which the human rights framework can strengthen the MDGs post-2015: ‘Underlining the imperative need to accelerate efforts towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, and recognizing the crucial importance of giving due consideration to the realization of [ESCRs] in the elaboration of the post-2015 development agenda’ and ‘to equality, social protection and accountability’.
Continuing with its outlier role vis-à-vis ESC rights, the US was the only State to explain its position in relation to this resolution. Not being a party to the ICESCR, the US pointed out that by joining consensus on this resolution it does not become bound by the Covenant. The US also ‘regretted’ reference to the ‘right to development’ which it says does not have an international understanding and which the US does not consider a human right in the legal sense. Finally, the US noted its view that the Human Rights Council is not the agreed venue for reaching consensus on the post-2105 development agenda and ‘nothing in the resolution should be construed as pre-determining’ it.
Right to Adequate Housing
The Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Raquel Rolnik, presented her final report[5] to the Council and engaged in an Interactive Dialogue, together with the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. Her report focused on security of tenure and presented 10 Guiding Principles on Security of Tenure for the urban poor. The report noted that globally, tenure insecurity was responsible for many millions of people living under daily threat of eviction, lack of access to services, or discrimination by public and private actors, and that the poorest bear the brunt of tenure insecurity. She emphasized that tenure rights extend beyond mainstream notions of private ownership and include multiple tenure forms including collective models.
The Report also included the Rapporteur’s two country reports for 2013: the United Kingdom and Indonesia. Following a controversial country mission to the UK last year, the UK Ambassador in her oral statement pointed out the UK’s disagreements with the Special Rapporteur’s report and that they do not consider the Guiding Principles on Security of Tenure to be appropriate for the UK.
In the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur, State interventions were generally positive and supported the Guiding Principles on Security of Tenure. The co-sponsors, Germany and Finland emphasized non-discrimination and the particular vulnerability of women to insecure tenure and the differential adverse impact on women. A couple of States pointed out the role played by non-State and business actors in protecting security of tenure.
After a break of two years since the last resolution on adequate housing, Germany and Finland, put forward a strong draft resolution, including new language on security of tenure. The resolution was adopted without a vote after being orally revised[6]. The final text was slightly weakened (compared with the original draft) although retained many strong provisions which advanced the Council’s pronouncements on this right. The resolution extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further 3 years and added a clause recalling the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate Holders and stressing compliance.[7]
New language expressed concern about: the numbers of people living in unserviced and unplanned urban poor settlements and their vulnerability to disease, disasters, unemployment and lack of education; the number of foreclosures in recent years and the inadequate protections for tenants in private rental; and the disproportionate impact of the deterioration in the general housing situation on a number of groups. Further, new language recognized the importance of security of tenure and the need to promote a variety of tenure forms in urban development, land management and land administration.
It was pleasing to see the post-2015 development agenda also received attention for the first time in this resolution which called on States to ‘give due consideration’ to the right to adequate housing in the elaboration of the post-2015 development agenda.
Finally, new language was introduced which strengthened the call on States to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur by calling for ‘constructive dialogue’ in relation to follow-up and implementation of her or his recommendations.
In negotiations, South Africa, Egypt, the US and the GRULAC States played a vocal role. There were anecdotal reports that the negotiations for this resolution were difficult. Many were disappointed in particular by the retrogressive stance taken by South Africa on this and other resolutions before the Council this session. In particular, a number of NGOs, including South African NGOs, commented on South Africa’s contribution in its first Council session since it became a member[8] and given its strong domestic protection of ESC rights.
Again, the US was the only State to provide an explanation of its position and it was very similar to that provided in relation to the ESC rights resolution. In addition, the US stated that it read references to ‘non-discrimination’ as referring to the defined term in international law, and, wrongly, that security of tenure is not a human right, nor it is an element of the right to adequate housing in international law.
Right to Food
The Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, presented to the Council his final report entitled ‘The Transformative Potential of the Right to Food’[9], including reports on his country visits to Malaysia and Malawi. The culmination of his six years work as Special Rapporteur, the report summarizes his previous recommendations, provides his diagnosis of the problems in fulfilling the right to food for all and proposes a new paradigm and way forward which involves a radical and democratic redesign of food systems. De Schutter advocates the movement away from a system that prioritizes efficiency and increased production, to one that pays attention to distribution, food sovereignty, support of small-scale producers, adequate nutrition and ecological sustainability. He emphasizes the need for monitoring and accountability mechanisms and participatory policy-making and for an international enabling environment which means reform by the North particularly in relation to international trade and agricultural policies.
In the Clustered Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs, many States took the floor to comment on De Schutter’s report and term as mandate holder. Comments were generally positive and supportive. Many pointed out the importance of food sovereignty and supporting small-scale producers and a number of countries also emphasized the central role of women in food security and that empowering women was a necessary precursor to eradicating hunger. Many countries of the Global South were eager to underscore the critical importance of an enabling international environment and in particular a shift in international trade and agricultural policies. These comments should be seen in the context of the December 2013 WTO Ministerial Meeting which agreed the ‘Bali package’ including a controversial ‘peace clause’ relating to developing country public stockholding programs for food security - a result widely seen as evidence that, unfortunately, free trade is still viewed by some as trumping the right to food.
The resolution on the right to food, led again by Cuba, was also adopted without a vote after oral revisions.[10] Despite efforts by some States to push for the ‘stream-lining’ of resolutions, the resolution remains 8 pages and 51 operative paragraphs in length.
The resolution extends the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further 3 years. It contains only a small amount of new language. Importantly, a definition of the right to food[11] was introduced in the preambular paragraphs. Some new language links work by the Human Rights Council with the UN Conference on Sustainable Development and that of the Committee on World Food Security which is developing voluntary and non-binding principles for responsible agricultural investments and refers to the 2013 FAO Report ‘The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2013’. Additional new language is also introduced relating to international cooperation support for adapted technologies, ‘research on rural advisory services’, ‘access to financing services’ and the ‘establishment of secure land tenure systems’ and also highlighting the need to facilitate access of small-scale food producers, to national and international markets and their empowerment in value chains.
The EU raised its on-going concern about the ‘causal linkage proposed in [OP15] between … current distortions in the agricultural trading system’ and ‘local producers and poor farmers to compete and sell their products’ which it says is a simplification and does not take account of the complexity of issues relating to food security.
The next session of the Council, in June 2014, will again consider ESC rights and the GI-ESCR will have a forthcoming update on those developments.
3 April 2014 Lucy McKernan
UN Liaison
[2] And with some 62 co-sponsors, although the co-sponsorship list had not closed at date of publication.
[5] A/HRC/25/54, Add.1–2 and Add. 4
[6] A/HRC/25/L.18/Rev.1 – co-sponsored by 63 States.
[7] This was one of a number of amendments proposed by Egypt and others, relating to the role of the Special Procedures mandate holders.
[8] See http://seri-sa.org/index.php/38-latest-news/237-press-statement-south-african-delegation-at-the-human-rights-council-may-weaken-the-international-status-of-the-right-to-adequate-housing-27-march-2014
[11] Taken from Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 12
