1. Save the Children’s UPR advocacy: making children’s rights children’s reality Davinia Ovett Bondi, Advocacy Manager, Child Rights Governance Global Initiative (CRGI), Save the Children 61st Westminster Seminar Session 17: Parliament and NGOs, London, 8 March 2012

2. Save the Children is the world’s leading independent children’s organisation. We work in 120 countries, through Save the Children’s members and partners, to provide support and achieve change in children’s lives. Who are we?

3. In 2011, Save the Children reached out to 100 million children through our programmes in health, nutrition, education, protection and child rights and responded to over 30 emergencies. What do we do?

4. Save the Children envisages a world that respects, protects and fulfils children’s rights. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) is the foundation of our work. Common vision

5. Child rights governance is good governance:  Responsibility - to citizens, including children, in delivering services (health, education, nutrition, protection, etc)  Responsiveness and transparency - in decision-making processes  Equity - reaching the most vulnerable children  Inclusion and participation - children as agents of change  Accountability - for actions or inactions What is Child Rights Governance?

6.  Advocate for, support and strengthen structures and systems that institutionalise child rights governance  Enhance the knowledge, skills and willingness of government and civil society to monitor, implement and promote child rights What does Save the Children’s Child Rights Governance Global Initiative (CRGI) do? Photo: Anna Kåri

7. Save the Children promotes Child Rights Governance through 3 sub-themes: 1. Child Rights Monitoring2. Strengthening National Systems 3. Building awareness and capacity  UN human rights reporting: Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)  Legislation and national strategies  Child rights education for children and their communities  Resources: budget allocations  Children’s ombudspersons/ independent institutions  Capacity-building of professionals (judges, lawyers, social workers)  Documentation and monitoring: disaggregated data collection  Child-friendly administration and services  Capacity-building of civil society organisations (CSOs)  Effective structures and coordination

8.  International peer-review mechanism  Covers all human rights, including child rights  Political pressure through UPR recommendations can be used as an additional tool to leverage child rights at national level to achieve legislative reform, policy reform and budget allocations Universal Periodic Review (UPR):

9. Save the Children support for UPR reporting:  Capacity-building of child-led groups/ communities/ CSOs on using UPR  Support in drafting stakeholder submissions  Advocacy support and coordination at the national and international level  Follow-up and implementation Child Rights Monitoring: Universal Periodic Review (UPR) reporting

10. UPR 1st cycle (2008-2011):  Save the Children supported submission/advocacy on 31 countries  Overall child rights outcomes: 20% of UPR recommendations focus on child rights, especially education and health (source: CRIN)  Child health: 60% of Save the Children child health recommendations reflected in final UPR recommendations and accepted by State under review Child Rights Monitoring: Universal Periodic Review (UPR) reporting

11. Save the Children individual or joint submissions and advocacy on Commonwealth countries :  1st cycle (2008-2011): Australia, Fiji, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, the Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, UK and Zambia.  2nd cycle (2012): India, South Africa and the UK for the 13 th session (21 May – 1 st June 2012) and Pakistan and Zambia for the 14 th session (22 October – 5 November). Child Rights Monitoring: Universal Periodic Review (UPR) reporting

12. Considered at 10th UPR session (January 2011):  Historic capacity-building on UPR: 138 NGOs  Submissions: joint and individual  Coordinated advocacy and face-to-face meetings with embassies in Kathmandu and missions in Geneva  Nepalese NGO representatives attended UPR Working Group session in Geneva/ advocacy towards Nepalese State delegation and missions  Oral statement at adoption of UPR report  Follow-up: joint strategy and meetings with Prime Minister’s Office Case example: Nepal

13. Outcomes:  Save the Children key child rights recommendations reflected in UPR recommendations approved (11), pending (10), rejected (1)  Government finally accepted all pending child rights recommendation including recommendation 108.4 to: “Expedite the endorsement of long awaited child policy legislation, including the Child Rights Act, Education Regulation, Child Protection Policy, and minimum standards for child care homes, and take the necessary steps to ensure their full implementation” (Canada)  IMPACT: speeded up enactment of Child Rights Bill Case example: Nepal (cont.)

14. Considered at 11th UPR session (May 2011):  Capacity-building of Child Rights Coalition Sierra Leone (13 NGOs)  Joint submission  Coordinated joint advocacy towards missions in Geneva  Advocacy on pending UPR child rights recommendations: Attorney General, Franklin Bai Kargbo, met with children’s groups/ Child Rights Coalition and Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone  Joint oral statement at Human Rights Council  Follow-up: press release and press conference, briefing for media and embassies, meetings with Ministries  IMPACT: UPR recommendations used for advocacy on amendment of Child Rights Act Case example: Sierra Leone

15. To be considered at 13th UPR session (21 May – 4 June)  Save the Children ”Local to Global” project - empowering children, communities and healthworkers to advocate on maternal and child health at the local and international levels  Save the Children and World Vision joint UPR submission – focus on budget allocation to maternal and child health and frontline health workers  Indian Parliamentarian, Charles Dias (Congress Party, Kerala), identified as a ”champion” Case example: India

16.  Parliamentarian spoke at Human Rights Council joint side-event on child nutrition on 5th March 2012 in Geneva Case example: India (cont.)

17.  Parliamentarian advocated towards missions in Geneva to ensure UPR recommendations focus on budget allocations for maternal and child health, including frontline healthworkers Case example: India (cont.) Mr. Charles Dias, MP, and Dr. Rajiv Tandon, Save the Children India at the UN Human Rights Council, 5 March 2012

18. Parliamentarian has committed to:  Raise question in Parliament on the health budget at session on 12-30 March  Advocate with Sonia Gandhi and National Advisory Council to highlight maternal and child health in political manifesto  Meet with Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to ensure budgets focus on maternal and child health Case example: India (cont.)

19. Work in partnership with children’s groups and civil society on advocacy, follow-up and implementation of UPR recommendations:  Meet with key Ministries to highlight implementation of child rights UPR recommendations  Support adoption of child rights legislation referred to in UPR recommendations  Raise questions in Parliament on budget allocations for realization of child rights  Advocate for commitment to child rights and implementation of UPR recommendations in political manifestos What can Parliamentarians do to further child rights in the UPR?

20. Save the Children Child Rights Governance resource centre: http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/ CRG and UPR tools: