NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ADDRESS COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS ON SITUATION IN BRAZIL, AUSTRALIA AND CAMBODIA

Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights
AFTERNOON


4 May 2009




The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon heard statements from a series of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on the situation of economic, social and cultural rights in Brazil, Australia and Cambodia.

In advance of the Committee’s review of the periodic reports of these three countries, NGO representatives spoke about, among others, the impact of violence, which impeded the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, due to the criminalisation of poverty; the use of genetically-modified organisms; the particular discrimination suffered by women and children due to their gender and age; the situation of Aboriginal peoples in Australia; and the need to ensure food security. The lack of progress in improving the situation of economic, social and cultural rights for the poorest in Brazil and for the Aboriginal peoples in Australia over the last years was also highlighted by several speakers.

The representatives of the following NGOs took the floor: International Disability Alliance, Center for Reproductive Rights, O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture, Justiça Global, National Movement of Street Boys and Girls, Via Campesina Brazil, National Movement for Human Rights, Platforme d'Esca, Parceiros Misereros do Brasil, Misereor, Human Rights Law Resource Centre, National Association of Community Legal Centres and Kingsford Legal Centre, Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, 3D and Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions.

During the present session, the Committee will also consider the reports of Cyprus and the United Kingdom, but no NGO representatives were present to speak about those countries.

The next meeting of the Committee will be at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 5 May, when it will consider the fourth periodic report of Australia (E/C.12/AUS/4). It is scheduled to consider the report of Australia for the next three meetings, concluding on Wednesday 6 May at 1 p.m.

General Statements

STEFAN TROMEL, of International Disability Alliance, said with regards to Draft General Comment 20 which the Committee was preparing, that the new Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities had recently come into force. There had not yet been an opportunity for the Committee against Torture to consult with the new Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Committee against Torture should ensure that the new General Comment was fully in line with the new Convention, in particular with regards to denial of appropriate accommodation for those with disabilities as a form of discrimination, which should be stressed in a more general way in the Comment. He offered two proposals which could improve paragraph 24 of the General Comment. Paragraph 29, which referred to health status, was hugely problematic, and instead of protecting those with a different health status, it opened the door to discrimination for example against those with mental health problems. The current draft did not address the issue appropriately. The Committee should review the wording of the draft General Comment.

EIBE RIEDEL, Committee Expert, responding to these comments, said that since last July there had been changes to the text of the draft General Comment, and all points raised, in particular reasonable education, had been discussed. On cooperation with the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, this was important, and the Committee would be looking into this as soon as possible, not least to ensure uniformity of approach.

Brazil

Ximena Andion, Center for Reproductive Rights, said on the situation of women's health in Brazil, particularly maternal health, Brazil had a high level of deaths in child birth, considerably higher than those in countries of lesser levels of development. The rates of maternal mortality had not decreased in the last 15 years, and were based with remarkable disparities on race, social status and economic situation. The situation reflected the failure of the Government to prioritise maternal health, and that interventions had been ineffective. The healthcare budget ignored disadvantaged sectors of the population. The Committee should ask the Government to take effective measures to combat maternal deaths, and should include the recommendation to prioritise and take measures to reduce the high levels of maternity deaths therein, and recommend that it eliminate the significant disparities and discriminations faced by Afro-Caribbean and low-income women in this regard.

OSCAR CABRERA, O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law of Georgetown University, said there was a connection between tobacco-control policies and health in Brazil. There was a specific situation of tobacco-control in relation to the right to health - the Government had implemented some policies, but was not fully complying with its duty to respect and promote the right to health. Serious failures to protect public health from tobacco continued. The Government, through its National Institute of Cancer, attributed seven deaths each day to passive or second-hand smoking. The Government had not met the requirement of ensuring that public indoor areas were smoke-free, posing serious health risk to customers and employees, amounting to a violation of the right to health. Closed environments should be 100 per cent free of tobacco smoke. The Committee should take this into account when drafting recommendations to the Brazilian Government.

TAMARA MOREIRA VAZ DE MELO, Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture, Justiça Global, National Movement of Street Boys and Girls, said based on the conviction that torture and other forms of cruel and inhuman treatment were often caused by disrespect for economic, social and cultural rights, it was shown that the impact of violence impeded the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, due to the criminalisation of poverty. The latter term referred to a clear and observable phenomenon, with the poorest elements of Brazilian society targeted by the Government and its agencies, prioritising armed confrontation over community dialogue, with the poorest facing the prospect of daily violence at the hands of the police, who were responsible for one out of every five killings in the country. The poor were also faced with violence at the hands of militias, prison guards, fire-fighters and others. Brazil's current system was a fundamental link in perpetuating the link between poverty and violence, such as riots. There were serious problems linked to insufficient nutrition, inadequate access to justice, and lack of educational and work activities. Women and children in poor and marginalised communities were exposed to specific forms of violence due to their gender and age. The police often focused on crimes by children, rather than crimes against children. Many impediments were placed before human rights defenders in Brazil, stopping them from carrying out their task. It was impossible to promote the economic, social and cultural rights of Brazil's poorest citizens without facing up to the violence that was a daily element of their lives, and the Government had failed to do this. The Committee should urge the Government to take this into consideration.

ANTONIO ANDRIOLI, Via Campesina Brazil, said with regards to the consequences of world development based on the use of genetically-modified organisms, that their use had caused an exponential rise in health problems. Natural resources could no longer be used by small farmers, and this was a dramatic violation of the economic, social and cultural rights and indeed human rights of the population of Brazil. In recent years, Brazil had seen economic growth, but the rural economy had shrunk. Genetically-modified soya had had negative consequences for rural farmers, with an increase in poverty and exclusion. Farmers were increasingly dependent on multinationals. The destruction of the livelihood of rural farmers, the destruction of arable land, exodus towards the cities, deforestation, these were just some of the consequences of the use of genetically-modified organisms in Brazil. People had lost their right to self-determination, and the situation could worsen, as the Government was increasing the use of the organisms, with a view to increasing profits. However, they destroyed natural resources and decreased yields. Rural peoples found it harder to subsist from their land. The situation threatened food security - a large proportion of the population was hungry, and the Government was simply sitting and waiting whilst resources were being threatened.

PAULO CESAR CARBONARI, National Movement for Human Rights, said the conclusions of the Committee in 2003 had been emphatic that a major problem in Brazil was inequality and social injustice, together with the consequences of structural adjustment. So a few years later, there was no reason to rejoice - inequality continued, with greater effects of structural adjustment. There was great inequality in Brazil. Inequality and unequal income distribution had continued, and there was a decrease in purchasing power for workers. Basing development on building large-scale projects did not build equality and justice. Brazil had still not recognised the universality of economic, social and cultural rights.

MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ, Platforme d'Esca, said the inequality experienced by Blacks, women, homosexuals, the young, and poor people was considerable - they were most likely to be the victims of violence, including murder. Murder amongst the young had grown by 63 per cent over ten years. The possession of land by the indigenous was not marked in land registers. In 2007, when considering the 10 per cent poorest of the population, 67.9 per cent were Black - and of the 10 per cent richest, only 21.9 per cent were Black. In 2008, 31 per cent of Brazilians were considered poor - and more than 41 per cent of the Black population were living below the poverty line. Indigenous people in all Brazilian regions were subject to daily persecution, threats, murder, displacement and land grabbing, being confined to tiny or road-side settlements.

JUREMA WERNECK, Parceiros Misereros do Brasil, said Brazil had ratified the majority of international instruments, and civil society hoped that it would ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights over the coming months. However, there was a huge gap with regards to implementation of the provisions of these texts. The concluding remarks of the Committee, for example, had not been translated nor circulated, and this made it difficult to monitor their implementation, as well as making them less effective. The Brazilian Institute for Human Rights was not particularly effective, given that it was only targeted at the complaints of violations and the implementation of programmes that lacked grass-roots participation. Brazil had not yet made any real headway in responding to institutional challenges ensuring that conditions were in place to achieve human rights.

DANIEL RECH, Misereor, said there were regular elections to Government and Parliament in Brazil - but there was Constitutional provision for three other instruments for direct participation, none of which were very heavily used. One of the main requests of civil society was to ensure greater transparency and access to information related to public bodies, in particular with regards to the State budget. Brazilian civil society was trying to democratise its democracy. In recent years, there had been insufficient action, and what had been done had been done thanks to social mobilisation. There were more and more cases of criminalisation of social leaders, with slander and criminal action brought against them for a whole range of reasons. The elite had devised new methods of repression, including police violence. There was increasing use of a strategy to legalise criminalisation of the poor and disadvantaged, and the situation of human rights defenders who were subject to this was criminalised. Public opinion still broadly upheld the views held during the military dictatorship, that human rights defenders were the defenders of delinquents or bandits. This issue had been tackled to a certain extent, but insufficiently so.

Committee Experts then raised a number of questions and issues, including, among other things, what were the reasons for the ineffectiveness of the national mechanism for human rights, and whether this was due to a lack of political will, of funding, or another issue; what was the assessment of the impact of all programmes to decrease the rate of poverty in Brazil since the State Party was last before the Committee; to what was the Government's lax position attributed; a request for specific figures on maternal mortality and whether there were any comparative statistics on variations between regions and income classes; and why was it that nothing positive had been said about the Government of Brazil.

Responding to these questions and others, NGO representatives said, among other things, that all the measures implemented had not done enough to tackle inequality. There was a colossal effort being made, but inequality remained and was very severe for certain specific groups such as the Afro-Caribbean and women. The Government was trying to make an effort and put in places policies to combat inequality, but there were structural issues, such as the lack of sufficient urban reform and of the urban housing question, which impeded progress. Brazil had a very complex society, with participation and a democratically-elected Government and democratic institutions, but there was a whole host of situations which had occurred in recent years, especially after the dictatorship, which had boiled down to a series of expectations. There was a World Bank study of 2005 which noted that Brazil's maternal mortality ratio ranged from three to ten times that of countries of comparable socio-economic development. The use of genetically-modified organisms was unconstitutional, as it did not respect three basic rights of environmental law. Brazil exported soya which it did not eat, and 70 per cent of food stuff in Brazil was produced by small rural farmers, and there was a growing group of the dispossessed among this class.

Australia

BEN SHOKMAN, Human Rights Law Resource Centre, said there had been some very positive developments over the last reporting period, but more remained to be done. The NGO document sought to raise additional issues that were not covered in the list of issues, but they were important issues that the Committee should take up with the Australian delegation. It also contained some proposed recommendations that should be included in the final observations of the Committee. This was an important and timely review - about 18 months ago there was a change in Federal Government, and the new Government had a much more positive disposition towards human rights, and was moving to re-engage with them at the national, international and domestic level. However, Australia remained without any legal provisions, and there had been primarily policy changes, rather than any legislative changes, and this was of concern. There had been no legislative commitments to provide for the equal protection and realisation of the economic, social and cultural rights of the Aboriginal peoples. Australia remained without comprehensive legal protection of human rights at the national level. Covenant rights were not directly enforceable or justiciable under Australian law. Equality was a serious issue, as there were numerous permanent and arbitrary detention hoc exemptions to anti-discrimination law, which allowed discrimination to occur without justification, and the Committee should issue a specific recommendation on comprehensive legislation to protect the right to equality and address all grounds for discrimination.

ANNIE PETITT, National Association of Community Legal Centres and Kingsford Legal Centre, said there were many areas in which there remained limited substantive progress in the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights for many Australians. There were major concerns with regards to social security in Australia - payments were inadequate and below the Henderson Poverty Line; the provision of social security was conditional on meeting certain mutual obligation requirements; and there was in some regions the introduction of a regime of compulsory income quarantining measures. The absence of paid parental leave and accessible and affordable childcare were problematic. Australian law still prohibited formal recognition of same-sex couples through marriage or civil unions. There were four extremely important areas affecting the right to an adequate standard of living: the extent of poverty, which remained a significant issue; homelessness; people with disability, who had limited access to appropriate housing; and the human rights impact of climate change. There were also three important areas relating to the right to health: mental health, which was significantly under-resourced; indigenous health, as the indigenous continued to experience much higher levels of ill-health, disease and death than non-indigenous Australians; and prisoners' health, as the latter faced major health issues. There was also a lack of adequate funding for early childhood education and at all levels of education, and indigenous children and young people had lower levels of access to education.

LES MALEZER, Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, said the Durban Review Conference invited the treaty bodies to take fully into account the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the outcome of the Review Conference. The report of Australia was insufficient under the requirements of the treaty: it was manifestly deficient in identifying and addressing the issues relating to the Aboriginal people; was misleading in relation to the extent of discrimination; failed to show any progress in the economic, social and cultural rights of the Aboriginal people since Australia became a State party; and failed to demonstrate adequate structural and capacity development efforts by the State Party to protect and promote the rights of the Aboriginal people. The report failed to provide guarantees and commitments for protection of the rights of the Aboriginal people of Australia. The situation of the Aboriginal people was at a lower point than it was in 1983, 16 years ago, when Australia first reported to the Committee.

Committee Experts then raised a number of questions and issues, noting that the NGOs from Australia had provided an example of best practice, providing fact sheets and keeping the work of the Committee focused; had the NGOs actually been involved and participated in the drafting of the report, and if so did the NGOs ask questions or try to resolve any of the problems they had raised with the Committee; and whether the Government recognised discrimination on four grounds alone.

Responding briefly to these questions, NGO speakers said the report had been prepared by the previous Government, and had been adopted but not changed by the new Government. During the previous Governments, there had been very little interaction between NGOs and the Government, and where interaction had taken place, no changes suggested by NGOs had been included. However, this appeared to be changing with the new Government, which was interacting to a much greater extent with civil society. On equality, there were only four pieces of anti-discrimination measures at the Federal level, and these left wide protection gaps.

Cambodia

ZOE GOODMAN, 3D, said Cambodia was a country wracked by food insecurity. The Committee should ask Cambodia to explain what measures were in place to ensure that a policy of leasing large quantities of land to produce food for export was compatible with its commitment to ensure the progressive realisation of the right to food of every person, including the poorest and most vulnerable, as well as what measures were in place to provide affected populations with alternative livelihood strategies that enabled them to fulfil their right to adequate food. The Committee should ask Cambodia to describe the steps it would take to assess the impact, particularly on vulnerable groups, of the land deal that was currently being negotiated with Kuwait, paying particular attention to the investment bills recently adopted in the Cambodian Parliament, as well as to the potential impact of the deal on the right to food.

DAVID PRED, Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions, said Cambodia ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1992. The ratification, followed by the first democratic elections, promised a new dawn of human rights. Since this time, many Cambodians had prospered, but many had seen their economic, social and cultural rights deteriorate. The absence of a rule of economic law and a functioning judicial system had had a negative effect on those living in the path of development. Cambodia was today a country for sale - the ruling elite had enriched themselves by selling off the natural resources of the country. More than one million hectares, or a quarter of the total arable landmass had been granted to major companies, and there were clear pretexts for clear-cutting. Cambodia had lost 29 per cent of its primary tropical forest cover in just five years, with devastating results on those who depended on the forest for their survival. Even where the Government and concessionaires had respected the legal and environmental framework, this had proved to be insufficient. Despite legal requirements, for the majority, local communities were not consulted, environmental and economic impact studies were not held, and there was no compensation or resettlement. There was an alarming erosion of the right to food due to the destruction of natural resources, and there were high levels of hunger and malnutrition in the country. In many areas communities had been evicted to make way for plantations. The development model had been particularly destructive for the indigenous population.

NATALIE BUGASKI, Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions, said the Cambodian Government had stated efforts to comply with its obligations under the International Covenant which were insufficient with regards to the right to an adequate standard of living. This had occurred particularly with regards to the right to adequate housing. There was also an epidemic of evictions and forced possession of land. At least 150,000 Cambodians lived under the threat of forced eviction - which the Government denied. The scale of evictions and land-grabbing had increased over last years. The instigators of forced evictions included Government authorities, private individuals, and foreign companies. Authorities were often actively involved in illegal land-grabbing. Evictions were carried out in the absence of special circumstances, and were often violently carried out by the police, military police, and private security forces, and were often not or inadequately compensated.

_________


For use of the information media; not an official record