Child Rights Governance Global Initiative

Report
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
Who are we?
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.
What do we do?
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.
Common vision
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.
What is Child Rights Governance?
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 does Save the Children’s
Child Rights Governance Global Initiative (CRGI) do?
 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
Photo: Anna Kåri
Save the Children promotes
Child Rights Governance through 3 sub-themes:
1. Child Rights Monitoring
2. 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
Universal Periodic Review (UPR):
 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
Child Rights Monitoring:
Universal Periodic Review (UPR) reporting
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
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
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
13th session (21 May – 1st June 2012) and Pakistan and
Zambia for the 14th session (22 October – 5 November).
Case example: Nepal
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 (cont.)
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: Sierra Leone
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: India
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 (cont.)
 Parliamentarian spoke at Human Rights Council joint
side-event on child nutrition on 5th March 2012 in
Geneva
Case example: India (cont.)
 Parliamentarian
advocated towards
missions in Geneva
to ensure UPR
recommendations
focus on budget
allocations for
maternal and child
health, including
frontline
healthworkers
Mr. Charles Dias, MP, and Dr. Rajiv Tandon, Save the
Children India at the UN Human Rights Council, 5
March 2012
Case example: India (cont.)
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
What can Parliamentarians do
to further child rights in the UPR?
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
CRG and UPR tools:
Save the Children
Child Rights Governance resource centre:
http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/

similar documents