Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: Report from working group 2 from the Day of General Discussion held on 21 September 2007 by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Main questions considered - Presentation from Mr Miloon Kothari, UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing - Recommendations As the theme of this year’s Day of General Discussion - Resources for children – responsibility of States’ – was broad, the Committee divided participants into two working groups. The second working group, which was chaired by Jean Zermatten, member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, focused on the ‘use of resources to the maximum extent’. Go here for the report on working group one: ‘available resources and their allocation to children.' Participants in working group 2 reflected on how to use resources to the maximum extent, and how this might be monitored, taking into account the role of States and NGOs. The main questions considered included: Mr Awich Pollar, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, questioned how the control of resources could be ensured. He said the there should be built-in mechanisms to guarantee resources can be used to the maximum extent. Is it possible to find out exactly what proportion of certain resources go to children? He noted many countries do not have independent ombudsmen. A representative from Everychild spoke about their work on the concept of ‘gatekeeping’, and States capacity to identify what constitutes an appropriate use of resources. This has especially focused on social support for children, and a holistic assessment of needs. They have particularly been looking at countries where residential care is widespread. The system of gatekeeping can ensure gaps in child rights are met, he said, and may also be instrumental in helping States to plan ahead by identifying appropriate uses of resources. States need to report on expenditure regarding residential care, as distinct from other forms of care. Mr Dainius Puras, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, noted bigger resources may increase problems instead of improving them. In Eastern Europe, there is the problem of the State dominating in communists States. He emphasised the need to explain this does not mean a monopoly of services by the State, and the full control of people. Totalitarian regimes were good at health, the problems came with the social and emotional development of children. He said this issue merits special consideration in this region. Mr Eibe Riedel, of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said accountability mechanisms should be tackled on two levels; the national level (human rights institutions and parliaments), but also at regional and local level. At the international level, there are four measures: He noted that the response is often to make a plan, but what are the outcomes of these plans? A delegate from Nicaragua noted he importance of checking that money the Government says is going to children, is in fact going to children. He also recommended the participation of children in designing budgets. Enakshi Ganguly Thukrai, from HAQ, India, drew attention to civil and political rights. She spoke of the importance of identity since 35 per cent of children in India do not have birth registration. This never gets reported in budget analysis, and the information is not readily available. Many children grow up in conflict, and are denied services, but no special budgets are allocated. She added countries are always reporting investments in children, but specific age groups are not identified and separated. The Children’s Law Centre in Belfast shared a model of child fiscal policy, although not considered perfect, practiced in Northern Ireland. In domestic legislation, fiscal policy is measured across nine groups, including children. As such, policy is screened according to these groups and the public authority must identify the differential impact. NGOs must be consulted. There is a need for training on how public authorities can consult with children. The Committee should recommend that economic, social and cultural rights are made justiciable and incorporated into domestic legislation. Children should be able to access independent legal services in order to enforce these rights. George Kent, professor at the University of Hawaii, touched on decentralisation. He noted this often became a means for maintaining inequality. It operates on a global level as well as national. Should there not be a minimum level throughout the world below which no child should fall? A child may be born into a poor country, but not a poor world. Mr Miloon Kothari, UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, began by saying that for housing policy across the world, any subsidies go to mostly middle and high income groups. Lower income groups do not get financial assistance. In developing countries, it is no excuse to say there are no resources for housing the poor; it is a question of reallocating the resources. In developed countries, there has been a gradual withdrawal of housing subsidies, creating homelessness, particularly affecting women with children. Women without adequate housing may be separated from their children. The issue of forced evictions: more people are being evicted from homes because of development and armed conflict. What is the psychological impact of having your home demolished? The psychological damage of evictions is rarely looked at, including the consequent needs of children. It is all very well to talk about allocation of resources, but what about when resources are taken away? He also spoke of the blind affiliation to liberal economic policies. What forces countries to privatise services? Mr Kothari noted the discussion needs to look at how existing resources are ill used. Delegate Chris Gardner spoke of the need to remember children in care, particularly state care. He noted no children in institutions were spoken to at all in Europe for the Violence study. He asked that children be brought to these discussions, asking why they could not be here this year if they were for the discussion last year. He believes the Forum needs to take a different form, where more interesting discussions can take place. He said when looking at CRC reports, the definitions of statistics must be checked, for example whether they refer to foster care or state care. He asked for attention to the outcomes of State care, taking into consideration for example the high suicide rate for those formerly in care institutions, as well as a high involvement in crime and drugs. Committee Chairperson Yanghee Lee said the Committee has become very concerned about privatisation and decentralisation. In most cases, she said, it is an excuse to dump responsibility onto local organisations and NGOs. She emphasised the management of resources as very relevant, and that countries often claim to have no resources. It is important to consider corruption and transparency, and that resources may not be going to the people who need it. Enrique Vasques, of the Pacific University in Peru asked how we can prevent waste of resources. One recommendation is to think how we can better monitor the use of resource. He talked about how they use results-based management: establishing goals each year and then deriving budgets based on these goals. He said that in this way they could monitor how they are achieving children’s rights. State parties should ensure programmes are for children, and that there is coordination. Also, there is the question of equity – how can we ensure resources are allocated in a fair way? It ss only when we know who these children are that we can provide for them. How can we ensure operative efficiency? Resources may be increased, but how can we ensure these reach the children? There may be a difference between what is planned and what is implemented. ECPAT International talked about state allocations, not just looking at whether they target children, but which children. They noted international cooperation could skew how allocations are made to States because of conditions. They also felt the issue of monitoring had not been adequately discussed, and neither had the role of the private sector, which can have a huge impact. . Mr Kothari said it is important to challenge States on where the fruits of international cooperation are going. Few countries pursue the indivisibility of rights when it comes to allocation of resources. For example, they may say ‘the next two years will focus on health’ yet it may be a country where there are lots of slums, so people may have better access to hospitals, but they are going back to a slum where there is no sanitation. There are contradictions in some international policies, for example the World Bank says focus resources where people can pay for them. The delegate from Nicaragua said there is a big difference between goals and reality. He asked the Committee what the next step forward will be. He suggested a world event in, say, three years where the importance of investment in children and young people can be discussed. Child rights advocate Bruce Abramson congratulated the Committee on involving a range of people in the discussion day, noting the usefulness of having a contribution from another monitoring body, as well as the inclusion of someone from the World Bank. He said the one disappointment was that WHO were not present, considering they have done plenty of work in this area. Mr Abramson was also pleased to see a large delegation from Latin America.. A member of the International Federation of Social Workers said she had never heard of budgets including preventative measures, even though they prevent many child rights violations occurring in the first place. She said we should do all we can do to help families and parents with children in practical and educative ways. Prevention is always cheaper than remedial action. Governments should always help with the minimum amount of hygiene and sanitation so children do not grow up sick. George Kent said to be cautious about the use of language in investment. The biggest harm to children is not from abuse but from neglect. Mr Hatem Kotrane summarised the discussions once the Committee had reconvened following the workshops. He noted the recommendations to be: While CRIN has endeavoured to write a fair and accurate report on proceedings, please email [email protected] with suggestions or corrections.