HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES RIGHT TO FOOD AND RULES OF PROCEDURE
The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this morning exchanged informal views with a representative from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the right to food. The Council also held a general debate on its rules of procedure.
Oldrich Andrysek, Chief of the Protection Policy and Legal Advice Section within the Division of International Protection Services of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said that UNHCR was increasingly concerned about the right to food of refugees. The difficulty now was to have the ability to provide food in view of the recent rises in food prices. Over the past short period, UNHCR's budget could not cope with the price increase to provide sufficient food to all of concern. The right to food was a primordial issue. Up to 80 per cent of refugees in some camps were undernourished or with clear signs of anemia.
In the discussion, two Experts of the Advisory Committee addressed the practicality of creating new norms and standards. Also, an Expert asked whether there were initial discussions with governments concerning interim solutions in emergencies. An Expert drew attention to the fact that food refugees were not recognized under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Further, Experts wanted to know how awareness could be raised.
Speaking on the issue of the right to food were the following Experts: Jean Ziegler, Ansar Ahmed Burney, Shigeki Sakamoto, Halima Embarek Warzazi, José Antonio Bengoa Cabello, Wolfgang Stefan Heinz, Mona Zulficar and Purificacion V. Quisumbing.
Earlier this morning, Experts discussed the setting up of a drafting group to work on the rules of procedures of the Advisory Committee. The majority said they preferred to have two sessions of the Advisory Committee annually instead of one session. Further, Experts supported the idea of setting up a drafting group to discuss the issue.
Speaking on the issue of rules of procedure were the following Experts of the Advisory Committee: Emmanuel Decaux, Chen Shiqiu, Purificacion V. Quisumbing, Wolfgang Stefan Heinz, José Antonio Bengoa Cabello, Shigeki Sakamoto, Jean Ziegler and Halima Embarek Warzazi.
Also speaking this morning were the delegations of Egypt, Bangladesh, Philippines and India.
The Advisory Committee will meet this afternoon at 3 p.m. to continue its discussion on its rule of procedure.
Discussion on Rules of Procedure of the Advisory Committee
CHEN SHIQIU, Advisory Committee Expert, said that his personal views were that their body was a new one and that thus it should have its own rules. The Council's resolutions were already setting up some rules, but not everything was included therein. Thus, the Advisory Committee, as a new organ, should establish its own special rules of procedures. The President had proposed that, at the next session in January or February, they could set up a drafting group on the subject of rules of procedure. But they could also start doing this right now. The Council had entrusted the Advisory Committee with several tasks and his view was that the Committee had to regulate how to conduct this work. When should they appoint someone or a drafting group on this issue? With regard to participation of other organizations in consultations, the Committee also needed to address the issue of how to implement their inputs. When and how should meetings be held? How could members of drafting groups communicate between them? Concerning the drafting of reports, should they have intermediate reports? On the submission of reports to the Council, what should the Advisory Committee do if the Council put them aside without further action?
It was also his opinion that the Advisory Committee could do its own work, without any mandate from the Council. As a think tank, they could submit their own views and opinions on the work of the Council. This initiative should be launched from the side of the Committee. Further, how should the Advisory Committee hold its meetings, asked Mr. Chen. What kind of format would be used for the results of the Advisory Committee meetings? Should they take the form of decisions, recommendations or resolutions? A unified format was needed. A report also had to be produced for the Council. But what should be its format? Would the Advisory Committee have a chance to have a member participating in the Council's discussions about the Committee's report? Would the President present the report orally to the Council, or should the report just be sent to the Council in written form? Should they always meet two weeks in a row? This would avoid repeated travel expenses and help save money for the United Nations.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, said that since there were different points of view concerning many issues the Committee was discussing, it was essential to have rules of procedure. How should these rules of procedure be prepared? There was no time for a detailed discussion. A first basis should be the resolution 5/1 of the Council concerning rules of procedure. It made sense to take this as a basis of work. Secondly, the rules of the Sub-Commission could be taken as a basis, since they provided a solution for many of the issues. The basic documents needed were the resolution 5/1 and the rules of procedure of the Sub-Commission.
Mr. Kartashkin asked what the quickest way was to solve the issue to adopt the rules of procedure. He suggested that a group had to be created consisting of five members of the regional groups to adopt the rules of procedure in order to reach a general agreement.
Another possibility would be to call upon the Human Rights Council to provide the possibility of a meeting three days before the winter session to develop rules of procedure that could be discussed at an open plenary meeting. Since it was unlikely to reach an agreement on most of the issues, it should at least be decided today to create a group to prepare a draft set of rules of procedure.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he shared many of the points of view expressed. The point of departure was the role of the Advisory Committee as an independent expert body. The importance of the independence had to be underlined. At the same time, they were a subsidiary body. All collaboration with the Council had been clearly described in the Council's resolutions. Collegiality was also important inside the body. They also had to have an overall view of human rights in order to ensure indivisibility and universality of human rights. Transparency was also important for the Advisory Committee. On the basis of these general ideas, their first primary role was to be inclusive. They had to work collegially in a variable geometry, they could appoint rapporteurs or a drafting group on specific topics, but it was the Committee as a whole that should propose the outcomes to the Council. The teams were subordinate to the Advisory Committee and were not subsidiary bodies.
Turning to interaction with other stakeholders, Mr. Decaux noted that international organizations, the United Nations family and regional organizations had a major role to play. They had to find the best way to interact with them. It could not only be in writing, the President had to attend meetings physically. Concerning the length of meetings, if they had two annual meetings, they could have a better follow-up of the Council's work. The way of communicating in between sessions should also be looked at. Concerning the form of their projects, they had to adapt deadlines to each study subject. They had to have time to consult with other stakeholders and to find a consensus. Non-papers, including ideas for discussion, were also needed. Concerning the working methods, he thought that, on certain subjects they could also have more that just five members included in working groups.
WOLFGANG STEFAN HEINZ, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he was happy to hear the many observations made by his colleagues. He agreed on establishing a drafting group or an extended drafting group, which would be preferable. Concerning the number of sessions, it would be more helpful to have two sessions annually, maybe in January and in August. The Committee needed to get a feeling for the interaction with the Council. Regarding the flexibility of working methods, different kinds of solutions were needed. According to the resolution of the Council, there were studies and research based advice. The latter seemed to be less heavy, more action-oriented and a flexible format for reaction.
PURIFICACION QUISUMBING, Advisory Committee Expert, said that some very good suggestions had been made. They definitely needed to put more thought into their rules of procedures. She seconded the recommendations of Mr. Heinz. She liked the idea of having a drafting group on rules of procedure. They also needed to have two sessions annually, at least in the beginning, in order to create a core spirit between the members. She thought that they could all manage two sessions a year. They should appoint a drafting group as soon as possible.
MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said that there were already rules of procedure in the resolution 5/1 from the Council. They could also draw upon the rules of procedure of other UN bodies and establish new rules of procedures. She also agreed on creating a drafting group on this issue and supported the idea of having two sessions annually in order to create a rhythm for the Committee.
SHIGEKI SAKAMOTO, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he agreed with Ms. Quisumbing's proposal to establish a drafting group and supported the idea of having two separate sessions a year.
MUNU MAHAWAR (India) said that India was not in favour of having very detailed rules of procedure for the Committee. The Committee was a think tank and should have certain flexibility. Rules of procedure would induce a certain degree of rigidity. Therefore, a working group should prepare only a short paper. The group could draw on the resolution of the Council and should add certain elements such as two sessions a year; the recommendations should be based on the resolution received from the Council. Broad parameters had been provided by the Council. A short paper restating what had been provided in the resolution by the Human Rights Council was needed now.
JESUS ENRIQUE GARCIA II (Philippines) said that the Philippines agreed with India that a set of codified rules of procedure was not exactly what was needed by the Committee. Flexibility and openness with other stakeholders was needed.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that Bangladesh agreed with the delegations of India and the Philippines. Some order was needed, but the Committee was a think tank and should not be bound by too many regulations. Flexibility should be part of the game and the rules should be generous which was reflected in resolution 5/1 by the Council.
CHUNG CHINSUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, said that there were two different views: one to create the drafting group right away and the other to create it next January. What were the views of the members on this issue?
PURIFICACION QUISUMBING, Advisory Committee Expert, said that her understanding had been that they would start working on their working procedures during this session. They could not wait until the next meeting. In their first week of work, they had been governed by some rules. They had to look into suggestions now, in order to adopt them in January. It was not possible to have an Advisory Committee with no idea on what rules were guiding it.
JOSE BENGOA, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he was confused in this discussion having listened to the government observers. Everybody had to have a system of rules of procedure and work procedures. He found it strange that somebody said that the Committee did not have to have such an order.
Mr. Bengoa said he agreed with what had been said by Mr. Chen. If the Committee was to have rules they had to be forthcoming from what had been discussed. Mr. Kartashkin had suggested setting up a group, which was self-evident from Mr. Bengoa's point of view. He did not understand how anyone could oppose this.
CHEN SHIQIU, Advisory Committee Expert, said that he supported setting up rules of procedure for this body. However, these should not be as detailed as those of the General Assembly. Government representatives said that they could save the time of setting up rules of procedure, they might loose more time on point of orders. What did they have in mind: a long term perspective in mind or a short term one? He was for having one session per year, but he was open to the ideas of the majority.
EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said that this work would neither happen immediately nor be chiselled in marble. Also, there were certain things to be clarified now. In the Committee, there was already agreement. Concerning the organization of the work, were they going to be talking about teams, working groups or drafting groups? The main thing was to have a vocabulary. The Committee had to carry out research, a term that had to be defined clearly. As far as a format was concerned, an extended drafting group was a good thing to have a great number of points of view, but Mr. Decaux tended to follow what the majority thought. He suggested that a list of problems should be drawn up in a private meeting this afternoon.
OMAR SHALABY (Egypt), on the question of rules of procedure, underlined that the Advisory Committee had already been in session for one week. They already had a lot of rules. Whether they needed these rules under the title of the Advisory Committee, this was up to them. But there was no such obligation. This should not be an exercise that would consume the Committee's time. The Committee could also present a recommendation to the Council, requesting the Council to enhance the proficiency of the Committee's proceedings. He urged not to make too much out of this exercise.
On the question of meetings, this was also up to the Committee. The current session was, in his view an exception. Ideally, the Advisory Committee should meet twice a year and not once. In the future, the Committee would receive requests from the Council after its March and September sessions. Thus, in order to be responsive, it would be ideal for the Advisory Committee to meet twice a year. One should also not forget that there was a provision allowing the possibility to have extra time.
JEAN ZIEGLER, Advisory Committee Expert, said concerning the agenda, the President had said that they were meeting with a representative of UNHCR from the Protection Unit. The Bureau had decided not to meet with the representative in the plenary. The decision had to be taken now.
JOSE BENGOA, Advisory Committee Expert, said that problems of procedures could be dealt with on many other occasions, thus he suggested to invite the person to the room, to talk about a topic that was much more important and vital for their work and for the entire world.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the statement of Egypt had been very interesting. In his view, it was important to create a drafting group on rules of procedures, which could prepare draft rules.
HALIMA WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, said that they had already heard the statement of the UNCTAD representative, which had been very interesting, thus it would be better to hear the UNHCR expert in the plenary.
Exchange of Views with UNHCR Expert on Right to Food
OLDRICH ANDRYSEK, Chief of the Protection Policy and Legal Advice Section within the Division of International Protection Services of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said that UNHCR was becoming increasingly concerned with the right to food, in particular the impact of the price rise. In general terms, International Organizations face a situation when persons of concern, be they refugees who had crossed an international border or internally displaced persons who had fled due to generalized violence, were often encamped and thus dependent on food rations.
Technically, on how many kcal were distributed, the norms and guidelines were clear. The difficulty now was to have the ability to provide food in view of the recent price rises. Over the past short period, UNHCR's budget could not cope with the increase in food prices to provide sufficient food to persons of concern. For example, in Ethiopia there had been a rise of 71 per cent in the cost of buying food and in Somalia of 146 per cent. This was also due to security problems, the delivery became expensive due to security arrangements that were needed. The right to food was a primordial issue and had a lot of effects on refugees and internally displaced persons, such as for example sexual services in exchange for food. Also, the levels of anemia were very high due to the low nutritional value of the food that was distributed. Up to 80 per cent of refugees in some camps were undernourished or with clear signs of anemia.
Mr. Andrysek also referred to an agreement with the World Food Programme (WFP) concerning the delivery of food items. But WFP had also lost a considerable percentage of its purchasing capability and it is increasingly stretched to deliver food as needed. Regarding the right to food as criterion for refugee status, Mr. Andrysek said that the reasons to obtain refugee status would not de jure include the right to food. Pursuant to the 1951 Refugees Convention the criteria were persecution for political, religious or ethnical reasons or the belonging to a particular social group. But there were many human rights conventions that had been developed during the years which implicitly guarantee the right to food.
In any operation, the list of matters addressed by UNHCR included first and foremost clean water, then sanitation, food and shelter. The right to food was thus a very basic yet 51 Convention implicit right. It was not an issue that could be taken lightly.
Mr. Andrysek said that the lack of access to food had a number of side impacts and important effects. The decreased quantity and quality led to health problems, especially for refugee children, regnant women and other vulnerable individuals. There were also security risks as lack of food can be a cause for riots in camp situations.
UNHCR was formulating a policy and responses regarding the situation. Apart from getting more funds, the High Commissioner was very committed to place more emphasis on longer term solutions. Camp situations are not in the long-term always the optimal solution UNHCR also wanted to increase the early warning alert capacity and think ahead. In addition, raising public awareness was needed to put political and legal mechanisms in place.
JEAN ZIEGLER, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the Advisory Committee had received a mandate from the Human Rights Council to come up with recommendations on how to strengthen the right to food. Nowadays, in refugee camps where the United Nations flag was flying and the people were under the protection of the international community, some 80 per cent percent were suffering from anaemia. The United Nations was keeping refugees in an ongoing state of under-nourishment because of the rises in the price of food. The Advisory Committee, responsible for producing norms and standards for the right to food, was before a big problem here. Precise recommendations were needed on how to come out of this spiralling crisis of prices and to provide adequate food rations.
Everyday, in the Mediterranean, hundreds of people were fleeing from hunger in Africa, and the European Union‘s military style protection of its borders was clearly unacceptable, Mr. Ziegler said. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was doing what it could, but their Convention did not allow them to protect food refugees, as they were not recognised. One could not touch the Convention nor revise it because UNHCR did not allow it. The Human Rights Council thus needed to create new norms in this regard. The resolution establishing the Council said that the Council had to create new international standards whenever they were needed. They should thus do a draft recommendation to the Council for the creation of a norm that would include in national policies a temporary non-refoulement provision of food refugees. Would such a norm help UNHCR in carrying out its work on protecting people? Their workers in Rome and Malta were already very active in protecting and saving refugees, even without legal basis.
ANSAR AHMED BURNEY, Advisory Committee Expert, said that concerning the importance of creating public awareness and advocacy, how could this be created, what were the speaker's suggestions?
SHIGEKI SAKAMOTO, Advisory Committee Expert, asked whether, when admitting a new category of refugees, States dealt with them on a collective or an individual basis.
HALIMA WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, said that it would be very interesting to create new norms and standards. But when one saw what difficulties UNHCR was already meeting, she wondered if such a norm should be accompanied with a 100 per cent assurance that the UNHCR would get the needed food rations to carry out its work.
JOSE BENGOA, Advisory Committee Expert, said that for Darfur, press articles indicated that stocks had been halved and people only had enough food for a fortnight. He asked how to deal with States obligations in order to provide minimal adequate nutrition to those monitored under the UN system. What arguments, what treaties and what means were available to bring forward the right to adequate food?
WOLFGANG STEFAN HEINZ, Advisory Committee Expert, asked if there were initial discussions being held between governments and UNHCR concerning emergencies. Were there initial discussions concerning the legal framework of this as well? He further inquired if there were emergency standards or interim solutions that could be suggested to governments. Also, he wanted to know what the political debate on this issue was.
MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said that new human rights standards and durable solutions were long term, but they were dealing here with a current crisis. There were human rights standards saying that in cases of necessity they could come up with resources necessary to satisfy the basic needs of refugees. She asked for an update on the funding gap and what States were doing to cover this gap.
PURIFICACION QUISUMBING, Advisory Committee Expert, asked who the duty bearer was if they were to produce new norms. The country of origin or the host country. Also, making new norms would take time. They needed to act now.
OLDRICH ANDRYSEK, Chief of the Protection Policy and Legal Advice Section within the Division of International Protection Services of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said that in its strategy plan for 2008 to 2012, UNHCR had listed 32 countries where there were populations of concern with an acute problem. A longer list of the FAO talked of 37 countries where there was an exceptional shortfall of food supply and other problems. Regarding Darfur, of the minimum 2100 kcal per person needed per day, it was rarely possible to meet the required standard for each person in need
Concerning a temporary protection including the right to food, there were no immediate good answers. According to Mr. Andrysek, 90 per cent of the problems could be solved if existing human rights standards were observed. Displacement was a result of mixed reasons, including for example climate change. Although he would not want to rule out new standards, he suggested not to tamper with the 1951 Convention and to rather implement the right to food through another mechanism/instrument.
He further explained that host countries had to understand that encampment was not an ideal situation. People lost survival skills and self-sufficiency quite quickly. UNHCR regularly appeal to States to allow refugees to be self-sufficient and feed themselves by for example farming the land. Of course burden-sharing was important for a receiving State, also one of roles for any UN body and it could be for the Committee to support in this regard.
UNHCR had a budget that was consolidated rather conservatively since voluntary funds are not always forthcoming. A more recent direction was to budget according to the actual needs and not according to what the amount of funds was expected to be. This was a pilot programme that was ongoing in eight countries.
For use of the information media; not an official record
AC08011E