The Committee on the Rights of the Child this afternoon held its thirteenth informal meeting with States, discussing the Committee’s backlog in reviewing reports caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the importance of a predictable review calendar, among others.
Mikiko Otani, Chair of the Committee, said that despite the many serious challenges during the pandemic, the Committee had continued to discharge its mandate for children and to carry out its work. The most negative effect of the pandemic had been on the review of States parties, and the backlog now stood at 78 reports.
Also providing opening statements were the following Committee Experts: Ann Skelton, Velina Todorova and Bragi Gudbrandsson. Speaking in the discussion were Benoit Van Keirsbilck, Velina Todorova, Benyam Mezmur, Bragi Gudbrandsson and Hynd Ayoubi Idrissi.
Canada, Japan, United Kingdom, Egypt, Uruguay, Slovenia and European Union participated in the discussion.
The Committee will next meet on Friday, 11 February at 5 p.m. to close its eighty-ninth session, during which it reviewed the reports of the Netherlands and Madagascar.
Opening Statements by Committee Experts
MIKIKO OTANI, Chair of the Committee, said that despite the many serious challenges during the pandemic, the Committee had continued to discharge its mandate for children and to carry out its work. It had reviewed eight reports of States parties and adopted general comment 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment. The Committee had also started the drafting process for a new general comment on children’s rights and the environment, with a special focus on climate change. The most negative effect of the pandemic had been on the review of States parties, and the backlog now stood at 78 reports. This year, the Committee was celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the entry into force of the Optional Protocols on the involvement of children in armed conflict, and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. Two events would be organised in March. As for the third Optional Protocol on individual communications, States, Ms. Skelton would brief on it.
ANN SKELTON, Committee Expert, reporting on the Optional Protocol on a communications procedure, said it was now 10 years since it had been adopted and it had come into operation in 2014. During these years, 48 States had ratified it. Despite the effects of the COVID pandemic, the Committee had managed to keep up pace on individual communications. It total, the Committee had registered 172 cases, and 103 decisions had been adopted.
VELINA TODOROVA, Committee Expert, said the Committee had decided to reinforce its efforts on environmental issues and the global climate crisis. At its eighty-seventh online session held in 2021, the Committee had committed to prepare its next general comment on children’s rights and the environment, with a special focus on climate change. The Committee hoped that the general comment would provide authoritative guidance to States on ensuring a child rights-based approach to addressing environmental issues, with a special focus on climate change. The aim was to finalise the general comment by 2023.
BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert, said the 2020 day of general discussion had been devoted to children’s rights and alternative care but in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, it had been held in September 2021. The process had been a great success. While the virtual nature of the discussion had prevented more in-depth and in person interactions, it had allowed for the participation of more than 1,000 stakeholders from around the world. A draft outcome document had been prepared and a draft paper articulating detailed and elaborated recommendations to States parties was now being processed.
Canada asked if there was a forward-looking plan for the appearance schedule that would be upcoming and how reviews would be prioritised?
Japan said as the backlog was 78 reports and as the pandemic was still ongoing, when would the Committee be able to start the eight-year cycle predictable calendar.
United Kingdom stressed the need for greater predictability for States’ review schedules as well as the importance to deal with the backlog of reports by all means possible.
Egypt attached great importance to upholding the rights of the child. The Committee’s primordial role in protecting children’s rights worldwide was commended.
Uruguay hoped that at the next session, States parties would be able to be present in Geneva, which would increase the quality of the review, if the sanitary conditions allowed it. The importance of a predictable review schedule was underlined. How did the Committee foresee the upcoming sessions taking place?
Slovenia asked the Committee Experts to identify examples of good practise of use of digital technologies that had positively impacted the work of the Committee in the past two years.
MIKIKO OTANI, Chair of the Committee, responding to questions on the backlog and the predictability of future reviews, said the Committee had already received an additional two weeks of meeting time, with one week to be added to the ninetieth session in May, which would now be five weeks, and one week to be added to the ninety-first session in August, which would now also be five weeks. The Committee was concerned about the backlog and was prioritising the reviews of States parties and reducing the backlog this year. The details of the workplan would be announced later on. The predictability of the review schedule, including the session dates and the programme of the session, in particular which State would be reviewed, was very important and the Committee was be trying to announce its programme as soon as possible.
European Union welcomed the Committee’s next general comment on the impact of environmental degradation and climate change on the rights of the child as this was a strong priority for the European Union at the moment. Children in alternative care was also a priority for the European Union. The Secretary-General last year had announced that the United Nations would work hard to ensure a system-wide approach to ensure the centrality of children’s rights. How would the Committee engage in this process?
MIKIKO OTANI, Chair of the Committee, said the Secretary-General’s decision was important to the Committee. The guidance note was an inter-agency note, but it was the Committee’s intention to closely consult with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to be updated on the progress made and on how the Committee could be invited to give its input.
BENOIT VAN KEIRSBILCK, Committee Expert, said all international and regional bodies had a new role to play in mainstreaming children’s rights in their regions and supporting States in fulfilling their commitments. For Europe, the Committee had appointed two focal points to ensure that there was a permanent dialogue between the Committee and the European Union and other European institutions.
VELINA TODOROVA, Committee Expert, said the Committee took its commitments very seriously and understood the urgency of the issue of children and the environment. The process had already started and the draft general comment would be available on the Committee’s webpage later this year. A child friendly version of the draft would also be made available.
BENYAM MEZMUR, Committee Expert, said concerning child rights mainstreaming by the United Nations, the Committee welcomed this long-overdue step. The decision of the Secretary-General, when implemented, would make the Convention on the Rights of the Child central to all United Nations policies and agencies. As for the question on digital technologies, these had had a positive impact on expanding child participation, including girls, children with disabilities, stateless children and others.
BRAGI GUDBRANDSSON, Committee Expert, said concerning child participation, it was a key right in the Convention, and the Committee had always placed importance on this right. The Committee encouraged participation in the reporting process and it had developed tools to ensure this.
HYND AYOUBI IDRISSI, Committee Expert, said the Committee was discussing how to address the backlog of reports. The Committee had a working group on working methods, and an ad-hoc committee had been created within the working group to discuss the backlog of reports. Some very good proposals had been made there.
Link:
