Transcript A COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING CALENDAR

A COMPREHENSIVE
REPORTING CALENDAR
CONSULTATION FOR STATES ON TREATY BODY STRENGTHENING
NEW YORK, 2 AND 3 APRIL 2012
ADDRESSING THE SHORTCOMINGS
• At the international level:
• Unbalanced State Party reviews
• barely 33% timely compliance with reporting obligations
• 307 of the cumulative 1517 initial reports due under the treaties
(20%) have never been submitted
those that report faithfully will see more recommendations
directed at them
• Large backlogs of reports ← delayed examination
• Wasted resources ← to translate and digest outdated
reports and updating information
• Documentation problems – translations not the rule but a
happy accident (replies to LOI’s are NOT processed for
nearly all TB’s)
ADDRESSING THE SHORTCOMINGS
• At the national level:
• Wasted resources ← long delays in examination, need to
significantly update submissions
• Loss of institutional memory ← inavailability of the drafters by
the time of the dialogue, continuous need for repeated
capacity building, loss of momentum on implementation
obligations
• Scheduling problems – keeping up with convocations,
postponements, etc, dialogues often falling at the same
time, difficulties for States parties and NI’s/NGO’s/others
WHY DO THEY SAY THAT THE SYSTEM
IS UNDER-RESOURCED?
• Total reports reviewed annually: 320 reports should
be under the current system but actually only 120
reports reviewed per year
• Total meeting time : 160 weeks are needed to
make the current system functional but only 68
weeks currently approved
• Staffing : shortage of 11 posts for the treaty bodies
identified in 2010 to meet then current work
demands; since then only 6 obtained for new
mandates and 2 new estimated needed posts for
communications
shortage today of 13 posts
ADDRESSING THE ANOMALIES OF
TREATY BODY RESOURCING
• 4 weeks for CED to examine 30 States parties with an active
communications procedure (but no communications to date)
• 3 weeks for CMW to examine 45 SPs with no active
communications procedure
• 3 weeks of meeting time per year alloted to CRPD to examine
111 SPs, with an active communications procedure
• CRC has 12 weeks per year to examine the reports of 193 SPs
to the main Convention plus 88 reports on the Optional
Protocols to CRC, the same as before the OPs
• CEDAW has 13 weeks per year to examine the reports of 187
SPs and about 10 communications
• HRC has 12 weeks per year to examine the reports of 167 SPs
and about 80 communications
Continuous requests to GA for additional resources
from individual Committees
THE PROPOSAL: TREATY REPORTING
AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE
• A 5-year cycle of reporting under the 10 treaties
(CRC-OPAC & OPSC reports treated together as 1
report),
• Published well in advance
• Each SP to submit up to 2 reports per year
• Each SP to engage in up to 2 dialogues per year on
previously submitted reports
• Based on universal adherence
• Preserving timeliness - after submission, 6 months for
NIs/NGOs/others to submit info + 6 months more for
Cte to prepare => 12 months for translations
YEAR
1 for
TB’s
↓
YEAR
2 for
TB’s
↓
YEAR
5 for
TB’s
↓
[1]
YEAR 2 for SP’s →
YEAR 3 for SP’s →
CCPR
CESCR
CERD
CEDAW
CAT
CED
167 SPs,
34 rep/yr
160 SPs,
32 rep/yr
175 SPs,
35 rep/yr
187 SPs,
37 rep/yr
150 SPs,
30 rep/yr
30 SPs,
6 rep/yr
YEAR 4 for SP’s →
CRCCRC
OP’s
avg 88
193 SPs,
SPs,
39 rep/yr
18 rep/yr
YEAR 5 for SP’s →
CMW
CRPD
45 SPs,
9 rep/yr
111 SPs,
22 rep/yr
Afghanistan
.
( ~ 40 SP’s)
.
report due
2014
2014
2015
2015
2016
2016
2017
2017
2018
2018
add info
due
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
Cook
Islands
Costa Rica
.
( ~ 40 SP’s)
.
dialogue
+ 12 m
(2015)
+ 12 m
(2015)
+ 12 m
(2016)
+ 12 m
(2016)
+ 12 m
(2017)
+ 12 m
(2017)
+ 12 m
(2018)
+ 12 m
(2018)
+ 12 m
(2019)
+ 12 m
(2019)
report due
2015
2015
2016
2016
2017
2017
2018
2018
2014
2014
add info
due
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
Hungary
dialogue
+ 12 m
(2016)
+ 12 m
(2016)
+ 12 m
(2017)
+ 12 m
(2017)
+ 12 m
(2018)
+ 12 m
(2018)
+ 12 m
(2019)
+ 12 m
(2019)
+ 12 m
(2015)
+ 12 m
(2015)
Iceland
.
( ~ 40 SP’s)
.
report due
2016
2016
2017
2017
2018
2018
2014
2014
2015
2015
add info
due
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
dialogue
+ 12 m
(2017)
+ 12 m
(2017)
+ 12 m
(2018)
+ 12 m
(2018)
+ 12 m
(2019)
+ 12 m
(2019)
+ 12 m
(2015)
+ 12 m
(2015)
+ 12 m
(2016)
+ 12 m
(2016)
report due
2017
2017
2018
2018
2014
2014
2015
2015
2016
2016
add info
due
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
dialogue
+ 12 m
(2018)
+ 12 m
(2018)
+ 12 m
(2019)
+ 12 m
(2019)
+ 12 m
(2015)
+ 12 m
(2015)
+ 12 m
(2016)
+ 12 m
(2016)
+ 12 m
(2017)
+ 12 m
(2017)
South Africa
.
( ~ 40 SP’s)
.
report due
2018
2018
2014
2014
2015
2015
2016
2016
2017
2017
add info
due
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
+6m
Zimbabwe
dialogue
+ 12 m
(2019)
+ 12 m
(2019)
+ 12 m
(2015)
+ 12 m
(2015)
+ 12 m
(2016)
+ 12 m
(2016)
+ 12 m
(2017)
+ 12 m
(2017)
+ 12 m
(2018)
+ 12 m
(2018)
YEAR
3 for
TB’s
↓
Montenegro
YEAR
4 for
TB’s
↓
YEAR 1 for SP’s →
Morocco
.
( ~ 40 SP’s)
.
Somalia
Not including the States parties that already submitted their reports due under the Optional Protocols..
IMPLICATIONS FOR STATES PARTIES
• Rationalisation of work pace of the involved ministries,
momentum kept on the national drafting/consultation
process
• Encouragement of continuity and attention to treaty
implementation
creation of a natural recipient of
technical cooperation, building of institutional
competence and memory
• Predictability – up to 2 reports due per year + up to 2
dialogues undertaken per year on previously submitted
reports
• Total 12 months for preparations, including translations
• Better advanced planning - no changes caused by
(non) compliance of other SPs
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SYSTEM
• 100% compliance – predictability for all concerned
• No need for continuous ad hoc requests for
additional resources from Committees
• Total 12 months for preparations, including
translations
• Better advanced planning - no changes caused by
(non) compliance of other SPs
THE NEEDED RESOURCES
• Total reports to be reviewed : 263 reports per year,
compared to 320 reports under the current system
and 120 reports actually reviewed per year
• Total meeting time needed: 124 weeks per year,
compared to 160 weeks needed to make the
current system functional and 68 weeks currently
approved
400
needs based on
current cycles
5-yr calendar
300
200
100
current allotment
0
reports
weeks
NOT TIED TO …
• Other TBS proposals (on the content/format of
dialogue, concluding observations, LOIPR,
Common Core Documents, etc) – they are
compatible but independent from this proposal
• The workload stemming from inquiries – which are
not subject to periodicity and are too few to distill
trends at this stage
• The requirements of SPT, which must be reviewed in
their own right
COSTS CAN BE OFFSET BY…
• STATES adhering to page limitations of their reports
• STATES streamlining through LOIPR, Common Core
Documents, etc
• STATES electing members that can work in the same
language, so that they might sacrifice some working
languages for interpretation and translations
• STATES approving alternatives to summary records, esp
webcasting
• TREATY BODIES working in double chambers to minimise
the needed funding for travel and DSA for members
• ALL reducing the need for follow-up work by having the
reporting process across the system serve as its own
follow up
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION