CONSULTATION FOR STATES ON TREATY BODY STRENGTHENING NEW YORK, 2 AND 3 APRIL 2012 A COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING CALENDAR

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directed at them Large backlogs of reports ← delayed examination Wasted resources ← to translate and digest outdated reports and updating information Documentation problems – translations not the rule but a happy accident (replies to LOI’s are NOT processed for nearly all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 SP’s →YEAR 2 for SP’s →YEAR 3 for SP’s →YEAR 4 for SP’s →YEAR 5 for SP’s → CCPRCESCRCERDCEDAWCATCEDCRC CRC- OP’s CMWCRPD 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 193 SPs, 39 rep/yr avg 88 SPs, 18 rep/yr 45 SPs, 9 rep/yr 111 SPs, 22 rep/yr YEAR 1 for TB’s ↓ Afghanistan. ( ~ 40 SP’s). Cook Islands report due add info due dialogue m + 12 m (2015) m + 12 m (2015) m + 12 m (2016) m + 12 m (2016) m + 12 m (2017) m + 12 m (2017) m + 12 m (2018) m + 12 m (2018) m + 12 m (2019) m + 12 m (2019) YEAR 2 for TB’s ↓ Costa Rica. ( ~ 40 SP’s). Hungary report due add info due dialogue m + 12 m (2016) m + 12 m (2016) m + 12 m (2017) m + 12 m (2017) m + 12 m (2018) m + 12 m (2018) m + 12 m (2019) m + 12 m (2019) m + 12 m (2015) m + 12 m (2015) YEAR 3 for TB’s ↓ Iceland. ( ~ 40 SP’s). Montenegro report due add info due dialogue m + 12 m (2017) m + 12 m (2017) m + 12 m (2018) m + 12 m (2018) m + 12 m (2019) m + 12 m (2019) m + 12 m (2015) m + 12 m (2015) m + 12 m (2016) m + 12 m (2016) YEAR 4 for TB’s ↓ Morocco. ( ~ 40 SP’s). Somalia report due add info due dialogue m + 12 m (2018) m + 12 m (2018) m + 12 m (2019) m + 12 m (2019) m + 12 m (2015) m + 12 m (2015) m + 12 m (2016) m + 12 m (2016) m + 12 m (2017) m + 12 m (2017) YEAR 5 for TB’s ↓ South Africa. ( ~ 40 SP’s). Zimbabwe report due add info due dialogue m + 12 m (2019) m + 12 m (2019) m + 12 m (2015) m + 12 m (2015) m + 12 m (2016) m + 12 m (2016) m + 12 m (2017) m + 12 m (2017) m + 12 m (2018) m + 12 m (2018) [1] [1] 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

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