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.
Invitation à signer l'Appel de la société civile francophone contre la marchandisation de l'éducation [MAJ]
post mis à jour de juin 2016 / updated from June 2016: déjà plus de deux-cent signataires, et appel ouvert à signature jusque fin août! Après une période intense de mobilisation, d'écriture et de réflexion impliquant de nombreux partenaires, nous appelons à signer l'« Appel de la société civile francophone contre la marchandisation de l'éducation »: http://bit.ly/29l4rCC. Cet appel fait suite au séminaire de Paris du 15 mars, durant lequel un draft de l’appel avait été discuté, et de la consultation en ligne qui a suivi.
Cet appel a pour vocation d’alerter et de sensibiliser tous les acteurs de l’éducation aux dangers inhérents au processus de marchandisation de l’éducation, qui crée de l’injustice sociale et met en péril l'avenir de nos sociétés. Cet appel permettra de nous mobiliser collectivement, notamment en vue du prochain Sommet de la Francophonie qui aura lieu à Antananarivo en novembre 2016. Nous espérons qu’il pourra être la pierre angulaire pour mobiliser les Etats de l’espace francophone sur le sujet.
Pour cela, il est essentiel de se mobiliser fortement pour signer l’appel. Nous vous invittons tous les organisations francophones à signer cet appel et à le diffuser dans tous leurs réseaux jusqu'au 31 août 2016. N’hésitez pas à demander à tous vos contacts et membres s’ils souhaitent le signer, le plus nombreux on sera, le plus on aura de poids. Pour signer, veuillez cliquer sur ce lien : http://goo.gl/forms/ESJwKYbWqpaBaIQG2.
N'hésitez également pas à tweeter : #NeVendezPaslEducation
Coalition Education
CSFEF
FICEMEA
GI-ESCR
Right to Education Project
Solidarité Laïque
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: ETOs remain in context of IGOs
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Countries retain extra-territorial human rights obligations for decisions within inter-governmental organizations
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recently released the Concluding Observations on France. Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 deal with extra-territorial obligations (ETOs) in the context of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements and development assistance and investment. Importantly, for the first time, the Committee explicitly recognizes in Paragraph 11 that States Parties to the Covenant retain their respective Covenant obligations in the context of decisions made within inter-governmental organizations, such as the World Bank and IMF. Paragraph 9 mentions that France maintains its Covenant ETOs within European Union decision-making.
The official English version is not yet available, but paragraphs 9 and 10 in French follow as well as an unofficial translation:
Accords commerciaux et d’investissement bilatéraux et multilatéraux
9. Le Comité exprime sa préoccupation eu égard au manque d’attention apporté aux impacts sur les droits du Pacte dans les pays partenaires des accords commerciaux ou d’investissements bilatéraux et multilatéraux en cours de négociation ou conclus par l’État partie ou l’Union européenne. Le Comité est en particulier préoccupé de ce que les mécanismes de règlement de différends entre investisseurs et États prévus dans plusieurs accords pourraient réduire la capacité de l’Etat de protéger et de réaliser certains droits consacrés par le Pacte (art. 2(1)).
10. Le Comité appelle l’État partie à assumer pleinement ses obligations au regard du Pacte dans le cadre de la négociation et de la mise en œuvre des accords commerciaux et d’investissement bilatéraux et multilatéraux. Il l’encourage notamment à :
a) S’assurer que des consultations auprès des parties prenantes concernées, y compris les communautés concernées, soient engagées au cours des phases d’élaboration, de négociation et de ratification de ces accords, sur la base d’une évaluation des impacts attendus ;
b) S’assurer qu’une évaluation des impacts soit systématiquement menée au cours de leur mise en œuvre, afin d’adapter, le cas échéant, le contenu des engagements ; et
c) S’assurer que les mécanismes de règlement de différends ne compromettent pas la capacité de l’État partie de s’acquitter de ses obligations au titre du Pacte.
11. Le Comité engage l’État partie à prendre toutes les mesures possibles afin de s’assurer que les décisions et les politiques adoptés au sein des organisations internationales dont il est membre soient conformes aux obligations au titre du Pacte.
Here is an unofficial English translation:
Trade agreements and bilateral and multilateral investment
9. The Committee expresses concern with regard to the lack of attention given to the impacts on Covenant rights in trade agreements or partner countries of bilateral and multilateral investment being negotiated or entered into by the State party or the European Union. The Committee is particularly concerned that the resolution mechanisms for disputes between investors and States under several agreements could reduce the capacity of the State to protect and realize certain rights enshrined in the Covenant (art. 2 (1)) .
10. The Committee urges the State party to fully meet its obligations under the Covenant in connection with the negotiation and implementation of trade agreements and bilateral and multilateral investment. It encourages in particular:a) Ensure consultation with relevant stakeholders, including affected communities are engaged in the development stages of negotiation and ratification of these agreements, based on an assessment of expected impacts;
b) Ensure that an impact assessment is systematically conducted during their implementation in order to adapt, if necessary, the content of the commitments; and
c) Ensure that the dispute settlement mechanisms will not compromise the ability of the State party to fulfill its obligations under the Covenant.
11. The Committee urges the State party to take all possible measures to ensure that decisions and policies adopted within international organizations to which he belongs comply with obligations under the Covenant.
The Concluding Observations are available HERE.
A Collection of UN ETO Pronouncements is available HERE.
Protecting rural women human rights defenders
As originally published by International Service for Human Rights By Mayra Gomez, Co-Executive Director of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Rural women across the world remain amongst the most marginalised in terms of exclusion from political and economic power. They often face numerous violations of their human rights as a result of intersectional discrimination, poverty and lack of access to essential services. Yet, many rural women are also at the front lines of human rights advocacy, fighting for a better life for themselves, their families and communities. The obstacles that they face are often formidable, and the issues they raise often put them at risk of violence and abuse.
Last month, on 4 March 2016, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women issued its new General Recommendation No. 34 on the Rights of Rural Women. In it, the Committee highlights that 'Rural women human rights defenders are often at risk of violence when working, for example, to protect victims, transform local customs or secure natural resource rights.'
Rural women’s activism when it comes to land rights is an especially illustrative example. Land grabbing, unfair land distribution, development projects, environmental degradation, extractive industries, and climate change have all placed increased stress on many rural communities. In many cases, increasing contestation around land has resulted in mass displacement, which has particularly detrimental impacts for rural women. Rural women have been at the forefront of many of the efforts to resist unfair demands to concede their lands, and many have met with extreme and sometime even fatal violence.
Most recently, we have seen the tragic killing in Honduras of environmental and indigenous rights advocate Berta Cáceres, who on the same day that the General Recommendation was released was found shot dead inside the home where she lived in La Esperanza. But hers is the latest in what globally has been an upsurge in violence against land rights activists, many of whom are rural women. In fact, in their report 'Deadly Environment', Global Witness had previously warned that such violence was surging. The cases we see around the world have a striking similarity: on 19 October 2012, indigenous anti-mining activist Juvy Capion and her two young sons were shot dead by soldiers of the 27th Infantry Battalion in the Philippines. In Thailand, on 19 November 2012, activists Montha Chukaew and Pranee Boonrat were shot and killed for their work campaigning for the right to agricultural land. In Brazil, in August 2015, community leader Maria das Dores Salvador Priante, was kidnapped, tortured and murdered as a result of her land rights advocacy. The list goes on.
General Recommendation No. 34 not only highlights the problem, it also provides that States parties are obligated to '[i]mplement measures to prevent and address threats and attacks against rural women human rights defenders, with particular attention to those engaged on issues related to land and natural resources; women’s health, including sexual and reproductive rights; elimination of discriminatory customs and practices; and gender-based violence.' This new standard can be used by rural women human rights defenders and others to hold governments accountable for failing to protect them from violence, harassment and abuse. It also highlights that such efforts must be in line with two of the Committee’s previous General Recommendations: No. 19 on violence against women and No. 33 on access to justice.
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women is a body of independent experts mandated to provide guidance and assess compliance with the International Convention ion the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. A General Recommendation adopted by the Committee is recognised as an authoritative statement on the content, scope, application and implementation of rights under the Convention.
Mayra Gomez is Co-Executive Director of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Contact her at
New page on the hand-over of the Liberian education system to companies
Liberia announced early 2016 its intention to entirely outsource, and therefore privatise, its public pre-primary and primary school system to private actors, through a public-private partnership (PPP). The program is called "Partnership Schools for Liberia". Most of the schools would be handed over to a single private for-profit commercial firm, Bridge International Academies, in a contract estimated at $65 million over a five-year period. Only a pilot phase has been approved so far, which should start soon. It is expected to cost between S$10 to 13 million, and to be funded outside of government and be independently evaluated. This deal has created a huge controversy, and creates serious concerns for the realisation of the right to education in Liberia, with the UN Special rapporteur on the right to education declaring in March "Such arrangements are a blatant violation of Liberia’s international obligations under the right to education, and have no justification under Liberia’s constitution".
GI-ESCR has created a dedicated webpage to follow the debates in Liberia and highlight the human rights arguments at play. You can reach it here: http://bit.ly/PrivatEducLiberia
For more information about the role of private actors in education and human rights around the world, see our page: http://bit.ly/privatisationproject. To remain informed about key issues related to private actors and the right to education, sign-up to our mailing list here: http://bit.ly/privatnews.
Committee on ESC Rights adopts General Comment #22 on the Right to Sexual and Reproductive Health (Art 12)
Committee on ESC Rights adopts General Comment #22 on the Right to Sexual and Reproductive Health (Art 12) On 4 March, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted its General Comment No. 22 on the Right to sexual and reproductive health, addressing State obligations under article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The new General Comment recognizes that while the right to sexual and reproductive health is an integral part of the right to health, due to numerous legal, procedural, practical and social barriers, the full enjoyment of the right to sexual and reproductive health remains a distant goal for millions of people, particularly women and girls.
The General Comment specifically recognizes that the right to sexual and reproductive health entails a set of freedoms and entitlements. “The freedoms include the right to make free and responsible decisions and choices, free of violence, coercion and discrimination, over matters concerning one’s body and sexual and reproductive health. The entitlements include unhindered access to a whole range of health facilities, goods, services and information, which ensure all people full enjoyment of the right to sexual and reproductive health under article 12 of the Covenant.”
With this understanding, the General Comment addresses the social determinants of health, and the relationship between sexual and reproductive health with other human rights. It then goes on to specify the concrete elements making up the right to sexual and reproductive health, including:
• Availability of health care facilities, services, goods and programs; • Accessibility of health facilities, goods, information and services, including the dimensions of physical accessibility, affordability, and information accessibility; • Acceptability of all health facilities, goods, information and services; and, • Quality, so that facilities, goods, information and services related to sexual and reproductive health are evidence-based and scientifically and medically appropriate and up-to-date.
The General Comment also specifically addresses the themes of non-discrimination and equality, with emphasis on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons (LGBTI) persons and persons with disabilities; equality between women and men; and intersectional and multiple discrimination. The General Comment then goes on to address general as well as specific State party obligations, including the observations to respect, protect and fulfill the right to sexual and reproductive health. The Committee also identifies what violations of each of these obligations look like in practice, noting that States parties can violate their obligations through acts of omission as well as through acts of commission. Beyond this, the General Comment also lays out the following specific core obligations of States parties:
• To repeal or eliminate laws, policies and practices that criminalize, obstruct or undermine individual’s or particular group’s access to sexual and reproductive health facilities, services, goods and information; • To adopt and implement a national strategy and action plan, with adequate budget allocation, on sexual and reproductive health, which is devised, periodically reviewed and monitored through a participatory and transparent process, disaggregated by the prohibited grounds of discrimination; • To guarantee universal and equitable access to affordable, acceptable and quality sexual and reproductive health services, goods and facilities, in particular for women and disadvantaged and marginalized groups; • To enact and enforce the legal prohibition of harmful practices and gender-based violence, including female genital mutilation, child and forced marriages and domestic and sexual violence including marital rape, while ensuring privacy, confidentiality and free, informed and responsible decision-making, without coercion, discrimination or fear of violence, on individual’s sexual and reproductive needs and behaviours; • To take measures to prevent unsafe abortions and to provide post-abortion care and counselling for those in need; • To ensure all individuals and groups have access to comprehensive education and information on sexual and reproductive health, that is non-discriminatory, non-biased, evidence-based and taking into account the evolving capacities of children and adolescents; • To provide medicines, equipment and technologies essential to sexual and reproductive health, including based on the WHO Essential Medicines List; and • To ensure access to effective and transparent remedies and redress, including administrative and judicial ones, for violations of the right to sexual and reproductive health. There are also obligations of States parties with respect to international cooperation and assistance. In particular, this requires that “[d]onor States and international actors have an obligation to comply with the human rights standards, which are also applicable to sexual and reproductive health. To this end, international assistance should not impose restrictions on information or services existing in donor States, draw trained reproductive health care workers away from recipient countries or push recipient countries to adopt models of privatization.”
Finally, the General Comment also emphasizes the importance of access to justice, highlight that “States must ensure that all individuals have access to justice and to a meaningful and effective remedy in instances where the right to sexual and reproductive health is violated.”
General Comment No. 22 can be found HERE.
6 April 2016
Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Committee on ESC Rights adopts General Comment #23 on Just and Favourable Conditions of Work (Art 7)
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
General Comment #23 – Just and favourable conditions of work (Art 7)
30 March 2016
During its 57th session in March 2016, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, after a relatively swift gestation period, adopted its General Comment 23[1] on Article 7 of the Covenant, on just and favourable conditions of work.
The General Comment provides a comprehensive elaboration of the substantive content of Article 7 and States parties’ obligations under that Article. Whilst there are some issues that we might have expected to receive greater attention, such as the importance of unions/workers organisations, workers with disabilities and access to remedy, given the strict page limit, the document does a good job at highlighting all the key issues.
The General Comment begins by situating Article 7 within the context of the Covenant, emphasising the interrelatedness with other rights such as Articles 6 (right to work), 8 (trade union rights), 9 (social security), 3 (equality between men and women) and 11 (adequate standard of living, including housing, food etc). The importance and complementarity of the ILO Conventions and Recommendations are also underlined throughout the General Comment with continuous cross-referencing of relevant ILO standards.
By way of introduction the Committee also regrets the significant erosion of workers’ rights across the world, even in times of economic growth, the persistence of discrimination and inequalities in working conditions and the overall failure to realise this right. Further, the General Comment acknowledges that the concepts of ‘work’ and ‘workers’ are evolving and thus it includes consideration of issues perhaps not foreseen at the time of drafting of the Covenant, such as unpaid workers, the informal economy and migrant workers.
In discussing the ‘Normative Content’ of Article 7, the General Comment emphasises that it applies to ‘everyone’, meaning ‘all workers in all settings’ and that the list in Article 7 of fundamental elements to guarantee just and favourable conditions of work, is ‘non-exhaustive’ and will include other relevant factors including: prohibition of forced labour, exploitation of children, freedom from violence and harassment at work and paid parental leave.[2]
Particularly pleasing is the very strong gender-perspective throughout the General Comment and the emphasis on women’s substantive equality. The text repeatedly highlights both direct and indirect discrimination against women in the workplace, the de facto impact of laws and policies on women and the negative impact of stereotyped gender roles. For instance, in relation to rest, leisure, holiday and working hours, the Committee emphasises that policies should not reinforce stereotyped gender roles. In relation to flexible working arrangements, it treads carefully noting they ‘could contribute towards a better balance between work and family responsibilities’, but cautions that they should not be ‘used to undermine the right to just and favourable conditions of work’.[3] States are also encouraged to be aware of inter-sectional discrimination against women, to take a life cycle approach to the needs of women workers, to ensure access to adequate sanitation facilities that meet women’s specific hygiene needs[4], to address occupational segregation by sex and the under-valuing of work traditionally performed by women and to take positive measures, including ‘special measures’ to address ‘structural obstacles that perpetuate gender inequality’.[5]
Significant attention is given to the issue of ‘remuneration’ and a ‘living wage’. The General Comment emphasises that the minimum criteria for remuneration are: fair wages; equal remuneration for work of equal value; and provide a decent living for workers and their families.[6] It also stresses that the notion of a fair wage is not static and must be assessed against a range of factors and in the relevant context, including for instance: the position of women workers; the precariousness of contracts; and job insecurity. Whilst some may have hoped for a stronger statement on this, the Committee confirms that: ‘For the clear majority of workers, fair wages are above the minimum wage’.[7]
The General Comment helpfully unpacks the concept of ‘equal remuneration for work of equal value’ and provides guidance to States on how to objectively evaluate jobs to avoid indirect discrimination (including across sectors) and measures, including targets, to eliminate discrimination in this context.[8]
The concept of remuneration that provides a decent living is also discussed in detail and distinguished from ‘fair wages’ and ‘equal remuneration’ on the basis that the former is determined ‘by reference to outside factors such as the cost of living and other prevailing economic and social conditions’[9] and must be ‘sufficient to enable the worker and his or her family to enjoy other rights in the Covenant...’. In this respect the Committee explains that Article 7 requires States to adopt via legislation, in consultation with workers and employers, a periodically reviewed minimum wage, indexed to cost of living (and other factors) which is non-discriminatory applies ‘systematically’, is enforced, including via labour inspections and is subject to penalties and sanctions.[10]
Other subjects discussed under the heading of ‘Normative Content’ of Article 7 include: safe and healthy working conditions; rest, holidays and working hours; and equal opportunity in promotion.
The specific guidance to States on the legal obligations under Article 7 is also provided. States’ ‘General Obligations’ are described in detail, emphasising ‘core obligations’, the immediate obligation to take deliberate, concrete and targeted steps towards realisation of Article 7 and the obligation to ‘identify indicators and benchmarks to monitor the implementation of the right’.[11] The Committee explains that States have a ‘Core Obligation’ ‘to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels of the right’ and then outlines what this entails, including: a legislatively enshrined, non-discriminatory and non-derogable minimum wage; a comprehensive national policy on occupational safety and health; a national policy and laws prohibiting harassment at work, including sexual harassment; and legal guarantee of non-discrimination in respect of the exercise of the right.[12] Finally, an outline of States’ ‘Specific legal obligations’ is provided using the ‘respect, protect, fulfil (facilitate, promote, provide)’ framework.[13] Importantly the General Comment underlines the State obligation to protect, by, inter alia, ensuring the private sector does not interfere with the enjoyment of the right and comply with their obligations.[14]
The General Comment identifies a number of ‘Special topics of broad application’ which highlight the unique issues relating to certain groups of workers. In addition to the usual groups such as women, workers with disabilities and young and older workers, the General Comment includes the categories: informal sector workers, migrant and refugee workers and domestic workers.[15] The inclusion of these categories is important as it acknowledges the work and situation of hundreds of millions of workers around the world who have frequently been excluded from national laws and policies on working conditions, are often not counted in labour statistics and are therefore highly vulnerable to exploitation, abusive labour practices and harassment and violence in the workplace. The General Comment reminds States that these groups of workers have a right to just and favourable conditions of work on a basis of equality with other workers and the objective should be to formalise all work and in the meantime, to ensure these workers are afforded the same legal protections as all other workers.
Non-State actors are also addressed in the General Comment, specifically in relation to business enterprises, trade unions and international organisations.[16] The roles and responsibilities of business are elaborated, whilst emphasising that the Covenant obligations rest ultimately with States. The implications for workers and working conditions, of the cross-border nature of business is also recognised. The General Comment notes a State’s obligations to realise Article 7 rights in respect of the overseas operations of enterprises where the State owns or controls the enterprise or provides substantial support or services to the enterprise.[17] In addition, States should take measures to require enterprises domiciled in their territory to respect the right throughout their operations extra-territorially and to ensure accountability and access to remedy for victims. States should provide guidance to employers and enterprises in this respect.[18] The General Comment does not directly address the responsibility of business to ensure that Article 7 rights are respected throughout the supply chain. It does, however, require States to ‘refrain from procuring goods and services from individuals or enterprises who are abusing the right’.[19]
The General Comment also includes strong statements on international organisations, including international financial institutions and in relation to international agreements, such as bilateral, regional and multilateral trade and investment agreements, highlighting the importance of ensuring these actors and agreements do not negatively affect the enjoyment of Article 7. Specifically the General Comments says States should take Article 7 into account in lending policies and structural adjustment programs.[20]
Throughout the General Comment there is an important reiteration of the importance of consultation[21] with workers and workers’ organisations and of the role of such groups in monitoring working conditions ‘without fear of reprisals’.[22] There is specific reference to human rights defenders, noting that ‘States parties should respect, protect and promote the work of human rights defenders and other civil society actors towards the realisation of the right’.[23] Importantly, the paragraph adds that this includes facilitating access to information and enabling the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, and public participation’.
This General Comment is a very helpful addition to the Committee’s jurisprudence as it provides concrete guidance to States about their obligations under Article 7. It also advances the human rights understanding of just and favourable conditions of work and of the issues and groups requiring particular attention to ensure the full realisation of Article 7.
PRINTABLE VERSION AVAILABLE HERE.
[1] Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 23 (2016) on the Right to just and favourable conditions of work (article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), UN Doc E/C.12/GC/23, 8 March 2016
[2] Paragraphs 5 & 6
[3] Paragraph 46
[4] Paragraph 30
[5] Paragraph 47, 61
[6] Paragraph 9
[7] Paragraph 10
[8] Paragraphs 11 - 17
[9] Paragraph 18
[10] Paragraphs 20-24
[11] Paragraph 55
[12] Paragraph 65
[13] Paragraphs 58 - 64
[14] Paragraph 59
[15] Paragraph 47
[16] Paragraphs 74 - 76
[17] Paragraph 69
[18] Paragraph 70
[19] Paragraph 59
[20] Paragraph 71
[21] See for instance paragraphs 20, 25, 26, 56
[22] Paragraph 26
[23] Paragraph 49
Canada's extra-territorial human rights obligations scrutinized
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights welcomes the incorporation of extra-territorial human rights obligations (ETOs) in Canada's most recent periodic review by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Committee, which monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, reaffirmed that the ETO to protect requires States to: (1) regulate its transnational corporations for activities abroad to ensure that they do not violate Covenant rights; and (2) to ensure access to accountability mechanisms and remedies in the event of such violations. The Committee added that the ETO to protect also requires that those corporations "conduct human rights impact assessments prior to making investment decisions."
The Committee, however, went further with a welcomed focus on the ETO to fulfill. There, the Committee expressed its concern "about the lack of impact assessments explicitly taking into account human rights prior to the negotiation of international trade and investments agreements" and for the first time stated that the Covenant requires "that trade and investment agreements negotiated by Canada recognize the primacy of Canada's international human rights over investors' interests, so that the introduction of investor-State dispute settlement procedures shall not create obstacles to the full realization of Covenant rights."
The relevant Concluding Observations reads:
"15. The Committee is concerned that the conduct of corporations registered or domiciled in the State party and operating abroad are, on occasions, negatively impacting on the enjoyment of Covenant rights by local populations. The Committee is also concerned about the limited access to judicial remedies before courts in the State party by victims and that existing non-judicial remedial mechanisms, such as the Office of the Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor have not always been effective. The Committee is further concerned about the lack of impact assessments explicitly taking into account human rights prior to the negotiation of international trade and investments agreements.
16. The Committee recommends that the State party strengthen its legislation governing the conduct of corporations registered or domiciled in the State party in their activities abroad, including by requiring these corporations to conduct human rights impact assessments prior to making investment decisions. It also recommends that the State party introduce effective mechanisms to investigate complaints filed against these corporations, and adopt the necessary legislative measures so as to facilitate access to justice before domestic courts by victims of these corporations’ conduct. The Committee further recommends that the State party ensure that trade and investment agreements negotiated by Canada recognize the primacy of Canada's international human rights obligations over investors' interests, so that the introduction of investor-State dispute settlement procedures shall not create obstacles to the full realization of Covenant rights."
The full Concluding Observations are available HERE.
Respect rights of rural women, recognise their vital role in development and poverty reduction, UN experts urge
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Media Release
For International Women’s Day, Tuesday 8 March 2016
Respect rights of rural women, recognise their vital role in development and poverty reduction, UN experts urge
GENEVA (4 March 2016) – Ahead of International Women’s Day on Tuesday 8 March, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is calling for a focus on rural women and girls, and effective implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), many of which reflect on the situation of rural women. The Committee, which monitors implementation by States Parties of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, stresses the need to protect and promote the rights of rural women and girls in accordance with Article 14 of the Convention and in line with the General Recommendation No.34 it has just adopted on the Rights of Rural Women*:
“Rural women account for a quarter of the world’s population is rural women. Several UN Conferences recognised their significant contributions to rural development, food and nutrition, as well as poverty reduction. Nevertheless, they continue to face challenges including systemic and persistent barriers to the full enjoyment of their rights.
In many countries, their specific needs are not adequately addressed in laws, national and local policies and budgets. They remain excluded from leadership and decision-making positions at all levels, are disproportionally affected by negative stereotypes, gender-based violence and insufficient access to basic social services and resources.
In light of the particular situation of rural women and girls, the Committee urges the international community, including Governments to ensure through their empowerment, inter alia:
-Adoption of non-discriminatory legal frameworks and easy and affordable access of rural women to justice;
-Elimination of all forms of discrimination against rural women focusing on the particular needs of disadvantaged and marginalised groups;
-Creation of an enabling environment through temporary special measures, including programmes and policies targeted at improving the social and economic conditions of rural women;
-Elimination of negative stereotypes and harmful customs and practices including child and forced marriage, female genital mutilation, and discriminatory and customary laws on inheritance;
-Prevention of all forms of violence against women, including domestic violence, trafficking and forced labour;
-Meaningful participation in political and public life at all levels;
-Adoption of relevant policies and institutional structures for the full development and advancement of rural women;
-Access to quality and affordable education, healthcare services and facilities, employment opportunities, adequate housing, safe drinking water and sanitation, access to land and credit, new technologies including ITC; - Protection of rural women from the negative consequences of acquisition of land by national and transnational companies, and/or foreign countries, as well as due to extractive industries and megaprojects; and
-Protection and security of rural women and girls in the overall context of increased disasters linked to climate change, as well as other crises, including man-made disasters.
The Committee believes that addressing the situation of rural women will contribute to the development of societies, the strengthening of norms and standards of human rights, as well as the realisation of the Goals agreed upon by the international community.’
ENDS
*Download General Recommendation No 34 on the Rights of Rural Women: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/1_Global/INT_CEDAW_GEC_7933_E.pdf
For more information and media requests, please contact Liz Throssell +41 (0) 22 917 9466/+41 79 752 0488
Background CEDAW is composed of 23 independent human rights experts drawn from around the world. They serve in their personal capacity and not as representatives of States parties. The Committee’s concluding observations are an independent assessment of States’ compliance with their human rights obligations under the treaty. More information: http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/cedaw/pages/cedawindex.aspx
Committee on the Rights of the Child addresses privatization of education in Haiti and Kenya
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights welcomes the recent findings and recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child regarding the human rights impact of privatization of education in Haiti and Kenya. Regarding Haiti, the Committee expressed concern that:
"(d) Educational infrastructure is poor, schools are poorly equipped, particularly in rural and remote areas, few teachers are adequately qualified, and salaries are not regularly paid, leading to frequent cancellation of classes;
(e) The education sector is dominated by private schools, which are often not officially authorized and monitored by the authorities and charge high fees exacerbating existing structural discrimination in the access to education, particularly affecting children in poverty;
(f) “Ghost schools” have mismanaged funds received in the context of PSUGO; [PSUGO is a large-scale Public Private Partnership (PPP) programme set up by the government, based on a similar program initiated before by the World Bank and GPE]
(g) The Office National pour le Partenariat en Education (ONAPE), which is supposed to improve the public-private partnership is not operative.
59. The Committee reminds the State party its primary responsibility for guaranteeing and regulating education and urges the State party to provide for free access to primary education and to take all necessary measures to guarantee access to education for children in vulnerable situations. It also recommends that the State party:
…
(c) Increase the budget allocated to education, rehabilitate the infrastructure of the educational system, including by building additional schools, ensuring that schools are adequately equipped;
(d) Ensure that teachers are adequately qualified, expand and improve both pre-service and in-service teacher training, and provide adequate salaries for teachers paid in a timely manner;
(e) Establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for and regularly monitor private education providers, to ensure that they comply with quality standards, regularly report on their financial operations to relevant authorities, including on school fees and salaries, and that they do not engage in for-profit education;
(f) Ensure that public-private partnerships do not impede access to quality education for all children and guarantee that they do not serve private interests or entail any form of commercialization of education."
These pronouncements are significant as they address "structural discrimination" and that the Committee implies that the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires the State to provide for free access to primary education, which means it consider there’s an obligation to directly provide public education, which is an advance from previous statements. Additionally, the criticism of the public private partnership scheme indirectly critiques the World Bank's PPP schemes after which it was modeled.
Most strikingly, the Committee makes two ground-breaking statements on the nature of education: they consider that States should regulate private schools sot that they do not engage in for-profit education, and consider that PPPs should not entail any form of commercialization of education.
Regarding Kenya, the Committee stated:
“56. The Committee welcomes the increase in enrollment and completion rates at primary and secondary education. However, the Committee is concerned about:
…(d) Low quality of education and rapid increase of private and informal schools, including those funded by foreign development aids, providing sub-standard education and deepening inequalities.
57. With reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (2001) on the aims of education, the Committee:
(b) Guarantee the legal right to free mandatory education for all, without direct or hidden costs, including non-Kenyan citizens such as in particular refugee children. In doing so, prioritize free primary quality education at public schools over private schools and informal low cost schools and regulate and monitor the quality of education provided by private informal schools in line with the Convention;”
Significantly, this is the first time that foreign development aid has been discussed, thus bringing in the extra-territorial obligations of other States. The fact that Kenya is asked to regulate and monitor private non-formal schools is also very important and timely at the time where there’s a big debate around that in Kenya.
Finally, according to Sylvain Aubry of the Global Initiative for ESCR, "The request to 'prioritize' public schools over private and low-cost schools in guaranteeing the legal right to free mandatory education for all is the furthest we’ve seen a Committee going in promoting public over private education. The best we had before was in the concluding observations of Brazil, where the CRC was requesting to prioritise the public education sector 'in the distribution of public funds' only. "
***
The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is the body of 18 Independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by its State parties.
