a comprehensive reporting calendar n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
A COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING CALENDAR PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
A COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING CALENDAR

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 13

A COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING CALENDAR - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 96 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'A COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING CALENDAR' - yaakov


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
a comprehensive reporting calendar

A COMPREHENSIVE REPORTING CALENDAR

CONSULTATION FOR STATES ON TREATY BODY STRENGTHENINGNEW YORK, 2 AND 3 APRIL 2012

addressing the shortcomings
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    • Wastedresources ← to translate and digest outdated reports and updating information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)
addressing the shortcomings1
ADDRESSING the shortcomings
  • At the national level:
    • Wastedresources ← long delays in examination, need to significantly update submissions
    • Lossof institutionalmemory← inavailability of the drafters by the time of the dialogue, continuousneed for repeatedcapacity building, loss of momentum on implementation obligations
    • Schedulingproblems – keeping up with convocations, postponements, etc, dialogues oftenfallingat the same time, difficulties for States parties and NI’s/NGO’s/others
why do they say that the system is under resourced
WHY DO THEY SAY THAT THE SYSTEM IS UNDER-RESOURCED?
  • Total reports reviewedannually: 320 reports shouldbeunderthe current system but actuallyonly120 reports reviewedper year
  • Total meeting time : 160 weeksare neededto make the current system functionalbut only68 weekscurrentlyapproved
  • Staffing : shortage of 11 posts for the treaty bodies identified in 2010 to meetthencurrentworkdemands; sincethenonly 6 obtained for new mandates and 2 new estimatedneededposts for communications shortagetoday of 13 posts
addressing the anomalies of treaty body resourcing
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)
  • 3 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

the proposal treaty reporting as it was meant to be
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
slide7

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

implications for states parties
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
implications for the system
Implications for THE SYSTEM
  • 100% compliance – predictability for all concerned
  • No need for continuous ad hoc requests for additionalresourcesfromCommittees
  • Total 12 months for preparations, including translations
  • Betteradvanced planning - no changes caused by (non) compliance of otherSPs
the needed resources
THE NEEDED RESOURCES
  • Total reports to bereviewed : 263 reports per year, compared to 320 reports under the current system and 120 reports actuallyreviewed per year
  • Total meeting time needed: 124 weeks per year, compared to 160 weeksneeded to make the current system functional and 68 weekscurrentlyapproved
not tied to
NOT TIED to …
  • Other TBS proposals(on the content/format of dialogue, concluding observations, LOIPR, Common Core Documents, etc) – they are compatible but independentfromthisproposal
  • The workloadstemmingfrominquiries – which are not subject to periodicity and are too few to distill trends atthis stage
  • The requirements of SPT, which must bereviewed in theirown right
costs can be offset by
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