COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS DISCUSSES RIGHT TO EDUCATION WITHIN THE DAKAR FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION

CESCR
28th session
14 May 2002
Afternoon



National Plans of Action on Education Recommended



The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon held a discussion on the role of States in the implementation of the right to education through national plans of action.
The Committee said that the preparation, implementation and evaluation of the national action plans were provided for in the Dakar Framework for Action and were also recommended in the general comments on articles 13 and 14 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
During the discussion, the role of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in promoting education rights in States parties was emphasized. The Committee's monitoring role in the implementation of the right to education and its recommendations on action plans on education was also highlighted.
Several speakers put emphasis on the justiciability of the right to education through constitutional and legislative provisions, which might make States accountable to their obligations. The Dakar Framework for Action provided for moral obligations, to which States might not be held responsible; speakers said that States could only be held responsible when there were legal obligations to the right to education.
Participating in the discussion were members of the Committee and representatives of UNESCO, the International Labour Office ( ILO), UNAIDS, and the University of Paris X.
Today's debate was a follow-up to the Committee's general day of discussion on the right to education, which is contained in article 13 of the International Covenant, and to the World Education Forum organized in cooperation with UNESCO in April 2000.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 15 May, it will meet in private for the day to discuss its draft concluding observations on country reports it has already considered at this session. At the beginning of its meeting, it will hold a discussion with representatives of States parties to the International Covenant.

Statements
VIRGINIA BONOAN-DANDAN, Committee Chairperson, introducing the theme of the debate, said that the Committee had the opportunity to look at the legislative and other measures undertaken by States parties during its consideration of country reports. States had been following the guidelines of the Committee set forth for reporting, so that they discharged their obligations in the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights. The guidelines, which were designed by the Committee, should reflect the follow-up of the Dakar Framework for Action. In initial reports of States, the Dakar Framework should be taken into account. According to the Framework, education should be treated at the national level and as action which should be taken by the State. The Committee had also issued a general comment on education to assist States parties in their effort to implement the provisions of the Covenant.
Ms. Bonoan-Dandan continued to say that the Committee's concluding observations, although they expressed concern about the past, should through the recommendations look at the future. The conclusions also called on States to pay attention to the Dakar Framework for Action.
GEORGES MALEMPRE, Representative of the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said that this occasion was a landmark event in the context of collaboration between the Committee and UNESCO, which had grown significantly during the past few years.
Mr. Malempre recalled that the objectives of the World Education Forum were to expand and improve comprehensive early childhood care and education, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children; ensuring that by 2015 all children, particularly girls, children in difficult circumstances and those belonging to ethnic minorities, had access to completely free and compulsory primary education of good quality; ensuring that the learning needs of all young people and adults were met through equitable access to appropriate learning and life skills programme; achieving a 50 per cent improvement in levels of adult literacy by 2015, especially for women, and equitable access to basic and continuing education for all adults; eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005, and achieving gender equality in education by 2015, with a focus on ensuring girls full and equal access and achievement in basic education of good quality, among other things.
Mr. Malempre further said that it would be most important to view how the State obligations relating to the right to education under the Covenant as well as under the Dakar Framework for Action were reflected in national legal systems; and how one could reinforce the constitutional and legislative bases of the right to education to make it accessible to all without discrimination or exclusion. In a globalized world, it was not only unacceptable, it was dangerous to allow a situation of educational haves and have-notes to persist.
A Committee Expert said that the right to education had been elaborated on in the two general comments adopted by the Committee. As noted in the Dakar Framework for Action, policies and legal obligations for States had been recommended in addition to the commitments for action. The Committee had been asking States about the actions they took under their commitments with regard to the Dakar Framework for Action.
Another Expert said that away from legal obligations, education should be seen from the development aspect; investment should be made by States themselves; if States were not investing on education, they penalized themselves for letting their people lag behind. Less expenditure on education would also penalize the future generation that would not get adequate education. At the expense of current consumption, education should be expanded for future generations. Another Expert added his voice in supporting the speaker, saying that education should be seen as an economic investment.
An Expert observed that besides the policy and legal obligations, the integration of human rights in education was not underlined. The Dakar Framework had also stressed the elimination of gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005, and achieving equality in education after ten years. However, the ingredients of human rights should be added to the provision of primary and secondary education.
ALFREDO SFEIR-YOUNIS, the World Bank, said that the World Bank continued to be the largest single external funding agency for education programmes. Since the education funding first began in 1963, the Bank had provided over $30 billion in loans and credits, and it currently financed 164 projects in 82 countries. The Bank's vision of reducing global poverty started with investing in people and, thus, education occupied a central place as a means to and an end in achieving that vision.
Mr. Sfeir-Younis said that the Bank had been involved in establishing a sound analysis of progress on the education for all policy to find a basis for its evaluation. Over the past three months, the Bank had constructed a standardized database of primary completion rates from 1990 to the most recent year possible, in 155 countries -- the first time education for all progress been measured in terms of primary completion rather than enrolment.
The particular needs of girls had been given growing attention and support, Mr. Sfeir-Younis said. In 1991, 28 of the Bank's education projects included specific interventions targeting girls' education. Twenty-three of those were international development assistance projects. By 1999, 63 of the Bank's education lending portfolios of 175 projects included interventions targeting girls' education.
MIRIAM MALUWA, UNAIDS, said that the success of various HIV/AIDS interventions had been shown to be directly proportional to the degree to which human rights were promoted and protected, including the right to education. In the countries most affected by the epidemic, the direct impact on education system personnel was significantly undermining the systems capacity to deliver educational services. The human resource base was being rapidly eroded, as were the number of individuals expected to seek and receive its services.
Ms. Maluwa said that on the one hand, the rights to education and information were crucial for effective prevention and care activities, Once the right to education was attained, literacy could reduce the negative impact of AIDS by establishing the conditions that would render the transmission of HIV less likely, such as poverty reduction and individual empowerment. In addition, the education sector had the infrastructure and human resources necessary to promote preventive behaviour and would create enabling environments.
MARY JOY PIGOZZI, UNESCO, said that the Dakar Framework for Action contained a minimum of moral obligations and there were no legal obligations involved; however, together with other obligations States had in the field of education, better results could be achieved. The economic development aspect of education should be thought of within the context of improving life. With regard to measures to integrate the human rights component in education, steps had already been made by UNESCO on a number of occasions. If children were beaten, if girls were raped, that situation was a violation of their rights. The practice of human rights was essential together with its teaching. With regard to HIV/AIDS, it was true that it had a direct effect on education and it had be addressed properly. Children had to know the effects of the disease.
KISHORE SINGH, UNESCO, said that the right to education was part of UNESCO's constitution; and in line with the Dakar Framework for Action, States were expected to design policies to implement that right. Public investment in education had been advocated by UNESCO as a common good and national governments were made aware of this.
A Committee Expert, speaking as a citizen of the world and not as a Committee Expert, said that during the last decade, there was decadence in the field of education in Romania; no funding was available; meagre wages were paid to teachers; school buildings were dilapidated; textbooks were out dated and worn out; and scholarships were non-existent. The problem was, of course, financing. However, corruption was taking place on a wide scale as did tax-evasion. Public institutions made commitments on paper but they were not fulfilled. Teaching materials were not even available; and there were no funds to buy school desks. What international financial institutions could do was to provide scholarships to students, and put conditionalities on States to fight corruption which was a factor in the backwardness of education.
Mr. SFEIR-YOUNIS, the World Bank, said that education was a private and public good. On the private aspect, the issue of fees was involved, where as on the public aspect that was not the case. Tax raising to find funds for education might have a negative effect on a State, thus, the choice was to look for outside financing, which would further indebt a country. At present, education for all could be fulfilled with smaller amounts of funds, while the expenditures for armaments and alcoholic consumption were much higher. In addition, the Bank had put into action a number of operational projects to expand education, and had built educational infrastructures, including satellite communications.
BILL RATTERE, the International Labour Organization (ILO), said that the ILO was improving the living conditions of teachers and was also fighting against child labour. The ILO, in collaboration with UNESCO and in accordance with the 1966 agreement, had taken measures to improve the status and teaching quality of teachers. The link of teachers' rights with the right to education had been stressed. Teachers were entitled to have associations and to enter into dialogue. It was also essential that States were invited to make more investments in education. The ILO had maintained that at least 6 per cent of national domestic product should go to education.
MARY JOY PIGOZZI, (UNESCO), said that already almost all countries had educational programmes. One of the lessons learnt during the last one year and half was that there were a number of areas when States needed help. The education for all policy concerned primary education, including adult education. The linkages between education for all and other mechanisms was that human rights were embodied in education. One other area was how compulsory education was defined. There were some States that will not have made national plans of action by the end of 2002. The plans took some time and States should be given that time.
PAUL HUNT, Committee Expert, said that according to the Dakar Framework for Action, States had until the end of this year to adopt a plan of action on education and in accordance with article 14 of the Covenant. The Committee had had difficulties in obtaining information from States on their adoption of national plan of actions, and UNESCO had also had the same problem. UNESCO, in its strategy, had attempted to convince States to strengthen their constitutional and legislative provisions on the right to education. The Committee also had been asking States to present their plans of action on education together with their periodic reports. He suggested that a group of experts from the Committee and UNESCO consider the plans of action of States and establish a report to be submitted to the Committee and UNESCO. The High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNESCO's Director-General might advise States to elaborate national plans of action on education.
Mr. Hunt said that primary education still continued to be paid for but fees should not be paid by the poor students. There was clear convergence between paragraph 9 of the Dakar Framework for Action and article 14 of the Covenant on compulsory education. The task of UNESCO was to support States in their endeavour to implementing the education for all policy. He suggested that the Committee continue to ask States parties about paragraph 9 of the Framework, including articles 13 and 14 of the Covenant as well as general comment no. 13 on the right to education.
Ms. PIGOZZI, UNESCO, said that the goal of the education for all policy was to provide education for everybody. There was little interest in building heavy infrastructure by States in promoting education for all. In addition to data collected at the national level, UNESCO was compiling data at the international level. The Committee's review of country reports was useful to UNESCO in establishing profiles on a given State.
EIBE RIEDEL, Committee Expert, said that the Committee had been examining country reports on the basis of information and data provided by the concerned States. However, it always recommended the supply of data and other information in its concluding observations. With regard to further cooperation with UNESCO, it was a good idea to form a group of experts from both sides to elaborate a report on States' plans of action, which would be useful for the Committee and UNESCO. The group could also examine the integration of the human rights component in the rights to education of each State.
Another Expert said that one had to ask what was happening in the field after the Dakar Framework for Action. States were the ones that had undertaken to provide education and to achieve education for all. In most countries, all institutions having a role in the promotion of education were represented. However, it was important to know if the representatives of each institution were forming teams to approach the respective governments.
ANDRE LEGRAND, President of University of Paris X , said that with the growing of immigration, Europe was at risk with the problem of socialization, and with young people raised with delinquencies. There was also a major problem in ensuring equality in education, with some young people lagging behind schedule. The organization had organized seminars to tackle some of these problems.
Mr. SINGH, (UNESCO), spoke on constitutional provisions on the right to education and developing national legislation in keeping with government responsibilities under the Dakar Framework for Action. He said that the Indian Supreme Court had ruled that, although it was not in the country's Constitution, education was part of human rights. That decision had led the Government to amend the Constitution and to include education as a human right. The implementation of the Dakar Framework should invoke constitutional evolution in order to ensure that obligations were fulfilled.
ARIRANGA GOVINDASAMY PILLAY, Committee Expert, said that the right to education had to be justiciable and for that reason, constitutions should provide provisions and legal instruments should be put in place. The meaning of free education had been well elucidated in the various documents elaborated by the Committee. There were many elements in the documents relating to the right to education. The Committee's documents and that of the Dakar Framework provided enough elements for States to include in their constitutions. However, the lack of political will and minimum moral obligations had been stressed in the Framework. If there was no legal basis for the right to education, there would be no remedy.
GIORGIO MALINVERNI, Committee Expert, said that it was not easy to amend constitutions as it required a long process. However, it was essential that provisions on the right to education should be raised at the constitutional level in order to bind the States to an obligation in fulfilling it. In addition, at the national level, States could adopt actions in order to set goals and objectives in the field of education. At the constitutional level, a number of elements could be included, for example to make the provisions of education free of charge, sufficient, compulsory and neutral. The right to education should be stressed as an instrument for the development of the individual. Private education should be considered as a share of responsibility between the State and civil society.
Mr. MALEMPRE, UNESCO, in conclusion, said that UNESCO had been assisting States to design their national education policies and was also carrying out other duties in the same countries. UNESCO's future steps in education were also guided by those who held the technology and those national actors, such as the non-governmental organizations.



* *** *