A COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING CALENDAR

1. A COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING CALENDAR CONSULTATION FOR STATES ON TREATY BODY STRENGTHENINGNEW YORK, 2 AND 3 APRIL 2012

2. ADDRESSING the shortcomings • At the international level: • Unbalanced State Party reviews • barely 33% timelycompliancewithreporting obligations • 307 of the cumulative 1517 initial reports due under the treaties (20%) have never been submitted thosethat report faithfullywillsee more recommendationsdirectedatthem • Large backlogs of reports ← delayedexamination • Wastedresources ← to translate and digest outdated reports and updating information • Documentation problems – translations not the rule but a happy accident (replies to LOI’s are NOT processed for nearly all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)

3. 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

4. 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

5. ADDRESSING the ANOMALIES OF TREATY BODY RESOURCING • 4 weeks for CED to examine 30 States partieswith an active communications procedure (but no communications to date) • 4 weeksfor CMW to examine 45 SPswithno active communications procedure • 3 weeks of meeting time per yearalloted 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 reportson the OptionalProtocolsto 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 Continuousrequests to GA for additionalresourcesfromindividualCommittees

6. THE PROPOSAL: TREATY REPORTING AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE • A 5-year cycle of reportingunder the 10 treaties (CRC-OPAC & OPSC reports treatedtogether as 1 report), • Publishedwell in advance • Each SP to submit up to 2 reports per year • Each SP to engage in up to 2 dialogues per year on previouslysubmitted reports • Based on universaladherence • Preservingtimeliness - aftersubmission, 6 months for NIs/NGOs/others to submit info + 6 months more for Cte to prepare => 12 months for translations

7. [1] Not including the States parties that already submitted their reports due under the Optional Protocols..

8. Implications for States parties • Rationalisation of work pace of the involvedministries, momentumkept on the national drafting/consultation process • Encouragement of continuity and attention to treatyimplementationcreation of a naturalrecipient of technicalcooperation, building of institutionalcompetence and memory • Predictability – up to 2 reports due per year + up to 2 dialogues undertaken per year on previouslysubmitted reports • Total 12 months for preparations, including translations • Betteradvanced planning - no changes caused by (non) compliance of otherSPs

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. COSTS CAN BE OFFSET BY… • STATES adheringto page limitations of their reports • STATES streamliningthrough LOIPR, Common Core Documents, etc • STATES electingmembersthatcanwork in the samelanguage, sothattheymight sacrifice someworkinglanguages for interpretation and translations • STATES approving alternatives to summary records, esp webcasting • TREATY BODIES working in double chambersto minimise the neededfunding for travel and DSA for members • ALL reducing the need for follow-up work by having the reportingprocessacross the system serve as itsownfollow up

13. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION