Human Rights Council
MORNING

1 June 2011

The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its clustered interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, and the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty.

Cephas Lumina, the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, in concluding comments, said that he and the Government of Australia had different views on some aspects of his report. The report had stated that some AusAID programmes addressed human rights issues and those activities did not constitute in themselves the human rights-based approach to development. The human rights-based approach emphasized the centrality of human rights to aid and development policies and programmes as opposed to seeing human rights as incidental to development as was the case with AusAID programme. On another question, Mr. Lumina said that while the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries debt relief approach had provided some relief for some countries, recent studies had indicated that this programme was unlikely to provide long-term benefits. On the question of the dissemination of the guidelines, their draft would be shared with international financial institutions involved in foreign debt, which had participated in the consultation process on the guidelines.

Maria Magdalena Sepulveda Carmona, the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, in concluding remarks, said it was difficult to enact a process in which to follow up on the recommendations issued in reports and thus she was pleased that the concerned countries had invited the Independent Expert to follow up on the recommendations with missions to the respective States. The Independent Expert noted that the use of a gender approach in recovery measures had been highlighted by several States, and emphasized that mainly women were disproportionally affected by the crises. Policy makers should consider recovery measures with a gender lens and enact implementation with an eye to addressing inequality based on gender. With regard to a question raised on food security and international financial reform, it was important that States came to a consensus on changes. States should look for alternative means of recovery and seriously consider a financial transaction tax, which would contribute to the costs of recovery from the financial and economic crises and provide an added resource in meeting development goals. International collective action, cooperation and assistance were essential to poverty alleviation.

In the interactive dialogue, with regards to human rights and foreign debt, speakers said that heavy debt burdens were an obstacle for developing countries and creditors should assist developing countries to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The report put forward a number of suitable recommendations, short-term measures to deal with the crises and long-term proposals to promote development and poverty reduction. Some speakers said they believed that the Council should not be addressing the issue of foreign debt as a human rights problem, as rules other than human rights law were more relevant to the contractual arrangements between States and lenders. Speakers noted that people throughout the region were rising up to push for institutional and constitutional reforms of governments. The burden of foreign debt hindered these efforts and the international community should consider debt forgiveness and other debt relief actions as a way to support reform in these countries and aid these States in pursuing development.

Concerning human rights and extreme poverty, speakers welcomed the report which reflected thorough discussions with stakeholders and provided important elements for reflection on how economic recovery could be promoted along with respect for human rights, with a particular focus on marginalized populations. States should not use economic crises to justify their inaction, and the Independent Expert was asked about the measures she recommended to the States in the post-crisis period. Some speakers said they did not share the view of the International Expert that it was solely up to States to pursue funds for recovery but it was also up to donor countries to pursue development assistance. Speakers concurred with the Independent Expert that developed States should not use the crises to justify cuts in development assistance. They noted that reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion required not only comprehensive national strategies but also an enabling international environment and international collective action to ensure equitable international regulatory measures, international assistance and cooperation.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were the European Union, Russian Federation, India, China, Belgium, France, Morocco, Pakistan on behalf of the organization of the Islamic Conference, United States, Sri Lanka, Bolivia, Uruguay, Cuba, Peru, Palestine on behalf of the Arab Group, South Africa, Algeria, Ecuador, Norway, Egypt, Iran, Thailand, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Luxembourg, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Uganda and Bangladesh.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, International Movement ATD Fourth World, North-South XXI, International Disability Alliance, and National Association of Community Legal Centres.

The two Independent Experts presented their reports to the Council on 31 May and the summary of their presentations as well as the comments from Australia, Ireland and Viet Nam speaking as concerned countries can be found in press release HR/11/68 of 31 May.

The Council today is holding back-to-back meetings from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. During its midday meeting, the Council will hold a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to health and the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children.

Interactive Dialogue

NICOLE RECKINGER (European Union) said that the report presented by the Independent Expert on extreme poverty and human rights reflected thorough discussions with stakeholders and provided important elements for reflection on how economic recovery could be promoted along with respect for human rights, with a particular focus on marginalized populations. The European Union indicated that 2010 was declared the “European year against poverty and social exclusion” and a number of successful initiatives had been undertaken and political commitment was renewed well beyond 2010 by establishing long-term objectives to free people from poverty and social exclusion by 2020. In the context of budgetary restrictions, the European Union asked the Independent Expert which sectors should governments dedicate their resources to. The European Union further asked the Independent Expert to indicate best practices regarding the dialogue between stakeholders suggested in her report.

VICTORIA GUSEVA (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation contributed to the settlement of the debt of developing countries and shared the views of the Independent Expert on human rights and foreign debt. The Russian Federation had studied the report of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty and believed that her activities were tangible contributions to the efforts of the international community in this area. States should not use economic crises to justify their inaction and that was why the Russian Federation was one of the countries that had increased financial support to its citizens during the latest economic crisis. In conclusion, the Russian Federation wished to hear more from the Independent Expert on the measures she recommended to the States in the post-crisis period.

GOPINATHAN ACHAMKULANGARE (India) noted that the report of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty analyzed States’ efforts to recover from the economic crisis and highlighted the shortcomings of these policies. India asked that the Independent Expert look into resources available internationally as well as in domestic contexts. India did not share the view of the International Expert that it was solely up to States to pursue funds for recovery but it was also up to donor countries to pursue development assistance. India noted that the International Expert investigated trends of development assistance in wake of economic crises, but asked for more information on trends of revenues across different sectors, including for traditional recipients of official development assistance. India requested more information on medium- to long-term recovery measures and asked for the Independent Expert’s thoughts on rising food prices, volatility in food and commodities markets, as well as food insecurity, in light of the economic crises.

YANG ZHILUN (China) said that heavy debt burdens were an obstacle for developing countries and creditors should assist developing countries to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. China noted the reference in the report of the Independent Expert to guidelines developed through consultations with countries from Latin America, Africa and the Asia Pacific region. China thanked stakeholders that took part in the consultations and emphasized the importance of equality and non-discrimination. China encouraged the Independent Expert to continue to seek the views of developing countries in discussions on the guidelines. The report put forward a number of suitable recommendations, short-term measures to deal with the crisis and long-term proposals to promote development and poverty reduction. China agreed with these recommendations and noted it had actively promoted development strategies to reduce poverty and had been one of the first countries to fulfill the Millennium Development Goal concerning poverty reduction. China provided aid to 161 developing countries, 80 per cent of which was delivered to countries in Asia and Africa.

YANNICK MINSIER (Belgium) said that tackling extreme poverty was one of Belgium’s priorities. Belgium fully shared the analysis of the Independent Expert by which the most vulnerable should not be sacrificed during an economic crisis. The Independent Expert stated that national strategies for poverty reduction were not sufficient and that there was a need for collective action at the international level, and Belgium asked what international institution would be most appropriate for those discussions. Also, Belgium asked the Independent Expert to elaborate on the introduction of participative mechanisms in order to ensure efficiency of social protection systems.

CAPUCINE MAUS DE ROLLEY (France) said France appreciated the analysis of the International Expert covering the impact of the financial and economic crises on marginalized and vulnerable populations, which described the diverse parameters of economic and social aspects of human rights. The fight against the scourge of poverty was a priority for the Council, and therefore France would, in the name of nine countries from different geographical groups, propose a resolution to renew the mandate of the Independent Expert for three years. France inquired what data was crucial to analyze extreme poverty in a satisfactory manner and which modalities States could prioritize in ensure gender equality. France asked the Independent Expert to further develop the aspect of the report assessing the role that the banking and financial sectors and, more generally, private individuals played in violations of economic, social and cultural rights.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco) commended the focus on economic recovery and human rights in the report of the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty. The crisis had strong effects on the economy and made access to human rights difficult for disadvantaged groups, in particular groups in extreme poverty. Economic recovery measures should be used to correct errors of the past and ensure benefits for the poorest. Morocco had taken measures to ensure economic recovery as part of the strategy of poverty reduction. Agricultural subsidies were implemented to prevent increases in food prices. Morocco had implemented subsidies on gas, sugar and other products. Dialogue with business sectors and unions were important to improve the situation of employees in the public sector and the Government had increased salaries of employees in the public sector. Morocco called upon States to actively participate in the upcoming consultation on the code on conduct.

MUHAMMAD SAEED SARWAR (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that extreme poverty and debt burden continued to be significant obstacles to development and attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. Some countries spent more annually on servicing debt than on their human, social and economic development. It was regrettable that despite the seriousness of the debt problem, the response of developed countries so far had been inadequate. Since the Independent Expert had entered the latest round of the consultations on draft guidelines, the Organization of the Islamic Conference proposed the following to be reflected in the final version: debt servicing should not be done at the expense of development; debt relief should not be considered official development assistance; obligations of the international community to provide for international cooperation; and devising of innovative financing mechanisms so as to enable developing countries to achieve their Millennium Development Goals. The Organization of the Islamic Conference agreed with the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty that economic crises should not be an excuse for cuts in official development assistance by developed countries.

JOHN C. MARIZ (United States) noted the most recent report by the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations and noted the relevant outcomes from the three regional multi-stakeholder consultations. The United States recognized the potentially harmful effects that excessive debt burdens could have on developing countries and it was a major advocate for debt forgiveness and grant programmes. The United States continued to believe that the Council should not be addressing the issue of foreign debt as a human rights problem, as rules other than human rights law were more relevant to the contractual arrangements between States and lenders. The United States noted the report of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, which cited some alarming numbers. To help address these challenges, the United States had announced a new United States Development Policy, the first of its kind.

A. H. M. V. NAWAZ (Sri Lanka) said economic freedom was an indispensible adjunct to the effective implementation of human rights. For this reason, the right to live with dignity must be given top priority and addressed earnestly. Sri Lanka challenged the global community to continue to work towards the elimination of poverty and urged countries endowed with resources to be generous. In order to avoid deliberate retrogressive measures, the principle of most favored nations must be assured to every member without compromise. Reducing poverty and social inclusion needed not only comprehensive national strategies but also international collective action to ensure equitable regulatory measures and international assistance. Sri Lanka’s Government had implemented subsidies on education, housing, medical care, transportation and recently resettled internally displaced persons in order to enhance living standards and stood ready to share experiences and best practices to eliminate poverty and promote human rights.

MAYSA URENA MENACHO (Bolivia) said that the lack of resources during times of economic crisis could not justify the introduction of discriminatory measures and violations of human rights. Some countries were reducing social protection provided to their populations and carrying out budget cuts that undermined international cooperation. The Government of Bolivia emphasised the issues of inclusion and protection of the population, particularly in the areas of health, access to basic services, pensions, and others. All the measures had been undertaken in consultation with civil society and had been aimed to eradicate poverty and ensure life in dignity for the Bolivian population. Unfortunately, due to the crisis of the capitalist system, Bolivia had not been able to fully achieve those goals. Bolivia supported the work of the Independent Expert, especially on the guidelines on extreme poverty and hoped to receive their draft form as soon as possible.

MARIA LOURDES BONE (Uruguay) thanked the Independent Expert for the analysis of the measures taken by States after the economic and financial crises. Despite these efforts, some countries were suffering more than others and thus a sustainable and integrated approach was needed, one which took into consideration the most vulnerable. Many years were still needed to overcome the impact on poverty of the economic crisis. Uruguay did not believe that social policies could replace economic policies but that the two should go hand-in-hand. However, Uruguay had prepared a plan of national priorities through special funds and grants to ensure direct access to economic, social and cultural rights through policies focused on health, culture, and literacy as well as the right to identity. This experience was reviewed by World Bank and recognized as one of the best plans implemented in South America. Other reforms in health, labour, education, housing, gender equality and fiscal policy had changed the distribution of income and alleviated the impact of the economic crisis in Uruguay.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA (Cuba) said the consultations carried out by the Independent Expert on human rights and foreign debt in Chile, Qatar and Addis Ababa had generated valuable ideas reflecting national experiences and perspectives. Cuba acknowledged the participation of States and civil society, and the support of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in this process but indicated that greater financial support and human resources were needed to achieve significant progress and expressed its intention to submit a draft resolution on the issue of human rights and foreign debt during the current session of the Council. Cuba noted the report of the Independent Expert on extreme poverty and asked for her opinion on the effects of economic recovery measures undertaken by European States on the enjoyment of human rights

CARLOS SIBILLE (Peru) said that the report of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty had focused on a framework that States must respect in times of crisis. All the crises that the world had been experiencing had had very deep social impacts that were continuing despite the beginning of the recovery cycle. The crises had affected the most vulnerable and their vulnerability increased as a consequence of cumulative effects of the crises. Designing of measures to address this situation must not be done without consideration of human rights and States must establish social protection systems based on human rights, create opportunities for decent work, and ensure that 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product was provided for official development assistance. Peru asked the Independent Expert about the role that States and the international institutions could play to ensure that policies of international financial institutions were consistent with human rights obligations.

IMAD ZUHAIRI (Palestine), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, thanked the Independent Expert on foreign debt, an important issue for the countries of the Arab Group. People throughout the region were rising up to push for institutional and constitutional reforms of governments. The burden of foreign debt hindered these efforts and the international community should consider debt forgiveness and other debt relief actions as a way to support reform in these countries and aid these States in pursuing development. Palestine supported the renewal of the Independent Expert’s mandate.

SUSAN WILDING (South Africa) welcomed the elucidation of the principles and modes of conduct underpinning the “progressive realization” of economic, social and cultural rights in the report of the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty. South Africa attached great importance to the realization of economic, social and cultural rights; for this reason, its Government implemented social protection programmes such as “No Fee Schools”, access to healthcare for children up to six years of age and pregnant mothers, and the provision of food in school with indigent children. South Africa emphasized the principles of participation by people living in conditions of extreme poverty, including in policy formulation. South Africa endeavored to eradicate poverty despite financial constraints and to this end the recommendations of the Independent Expert were very timely.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said that debt was heavily impacting the development of countries and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The experience of Algeria in the management of its foreign debt had been used in the dealings of Algeria with the African Union to find a solution on a global scale. Algeria thanked the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty on her report and said that Algeria had made significant progress in eradicating poverty in that country. Algeria fully shared the view of the Independent Expert on the interdependence of national efforts to eradicate poverty and those on international levels. Addressing rising food prices required urgent response of the international community as it had impacted not only the development of countries, but also their stability.

VERONICA AGUILAR (Ecuador) expressed Ecuador’s gratitude to the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty and the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt. Ecuador thanked the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt for the guidelines on human rights and foreign debt. Ecuador urged the Independent Expert to further undertake consultations and to cover more economic sectors in the future. Ecuador thanked the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty for the innovative and useful reports. Human rights, in any situation, should not be sacrificed. Ecuador, in the past years, had increased spending in priority areas, such as in social, health and tax policies, which had reduced inequalities throughout Ecuador. Ecuador encouraged the Independent Experts to investigate the possibility of new financing that would be positive for human rights but also for the environment.

MONIKA P. THOWSEN (Norway) said that 2011 was proving to be a year of economic hardship for the hundreds of millions in poverty. The Independent Expert made it clear that non-discrimination and equality must be secured and a focus on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups was needed, including children and indigenous peoples. Norway stressed the importance of international development assistance. Donors should strive to increase the international official development assistance. Norway had allocated more than 1 per cent of its GDP to international development efforts, to least developed countries and other low-income countries, in key sectors such as education and health. Norway saw climate policy and development policy as mutually supportive as a way of reconciling poverty reduction, increased economic growth, consumption and energy use. The report of the Independent Expert indicated that where social protection schemes were introduced, the social effects of the crisis on individuals and households were mitigated.

HEBA MOSTAFA RIZK (Egypt) said that developing countries were suffering the long-term impacts of the crises. On the report by the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and human rights, Egypt said that attention must be paid to the transformation currently going in a number of Arab countries and how their foreign debt obligations were affecting their capacity to address the transition to democracy and the promotion and protection of human rights in their countries. On extreme poverty, Egypt said that the role of international cooperation must be further highlighted.

SEYED HOSSEIN ZOLFAGHARI (Iran) said the economic and financial crises in 2007 had a devastating impact on poverty rates and presented a serious threat to the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people. Iran concurred with the Independent Expert that developed States should not use the crises to justify cuts in official development assistance. Reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion required not only comprehensive national strategies but also an enabling international environment and international collective action to ensure equitable international regulatory measures, international assistance and cooperation. Iran pursued the Millennium Development Goals in a wide social development framework and played a constructive role internationally, through providing financial support to the development activities of development countries through several international funds.

TERDSAK DUMKHUM (Thailand) said Thailand endorsed the view that human rights obligations should not be sacrificed to economic recovery as emphasized in the report of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and poverty. Since policy decisions could have adverse impacts on the most vulnerable groups and those living in extreme poverty, special emphasis should be placed to ensure that appropriate social protection systems were available to cushion various effects of the crisis. Thailand placed high priorities on providing comprehensive social safety nets and protection schemes grounded on a human rights-based approach and comprehensive and inclusive development strategies. Thailand urged States to implement recovery policies that placed human rights concerns at their core.

OSITADINMA ANAEDU (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the report of the Independent Expert on extreme poverty had provided insight into complex human rights challenges while recovering from the crises and had laid foundations for a more equitable and sustainable society. Resource constraints must not be ignored and many African countries found themselves faced with problems they could not escape on their own. Therefore the African Group called on the international community to support developmental needs and plans of developing countries. The African Group commended the report of the Independent Expert on human rights and foreign debt and reaffirmed its view that the situation which most African countries found themselves in was quite tragic, as many were caught in an inescapable and unsustainable debt as a result of unfair lending conditions and repayment mode. The indebtedness of African countries, particularly low-income ones, should be either fully cancelled or considerably reduced.

DANIEL DA CRUZ (Luxembourg), commenting on the recommendations of the Independent Expert on extreme poverty, said Luxembourg underlined that quality not just quantity was important in official development assistance, and highlighted that more than 40 per cent of its development assistance had gone to least developed countries. Luxembourg supported the recommendation that military spending be reduced. Luxembourg underlined the importance that the report gave to development of social protection and its recognition as having a role in the reduction of poverty. Luxembourg had implemented projects in Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Ghana focused on social security. Luxembourg was in favor of a tax on financial regulations and underscored the importance of improving productive capacities to create job opportunities, especially for young people. Luxembourg stated that trade regulations needed to be adapted for developing countries due to questions of international competitiveness. Luxembourg acknowledged that the majority of the world’s poorest and three-quarters of the malnourished were located in rural areas and thus importance should be assigned to issues in rural areas. Luxembourg asked what could be done to reduce inequalities between and among countries.

JOAO ERNESTO CHRISTOFOLO (Brazil) said that the crises had impacted the enjoyment of human rights by the most marginalized and excluded members of society. Even with limited resources States were bound to respect, protect and fulfill international human rights obligations, this proscribed particular modes of conduct regardless of their level of development. States must devote the maximum available resources to ensure the progressive realization of all economic, social and cultural rights as expeditiously and effectively as possible, including, avoiding retrogressive measures; ensuring non-discrimination and equality; allowing for participation, transparency and accountability; and addressing the needs of the most vulnerable. Reducing poverty and promoting social inclusions required not only comprehensive national strategies but also international collective action to ensure equitable international regulatory measures and international assistance and cooperation.

AHMED SULEIMAN IBRAHIM ALAQUIL (Saudi Arabia) said that Saudi Arabia was very interested in the conclusions of the report presented by the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty and added that increased cooperation was needed to address the impact of crises on poverty. The Government of Saudi Arabia had undertaken a number of initiatives to eradicate poverty and eradicate the debt of poor countries. The role of the world economy in stabilising oil prices was very important. Saudi Arabia had been providing assistance to developing countries beyond the United Nations-set obligations. Saudi Arabia supported all efforts to alleviate suffering of poor people and welcomed the recommendations from the reports and studies presented by the two Independent Experts on human rights and foreign debt and on extreme poverty.

ROSSETTE NYIRINKINDI KATUNGYE (Uganda) said Uganda believed that the outcome of consultations made as part of the mandate of the International Expert on the effects of foreign debt provided important insights on the draft guidelines on foreign debt and human rights. Uganda underscored the need to focus on the clear rights and responsibilities of debtors and creditors in light of human rights standards and the development needs of developing countries. Uganda would appreciate further study by the Independent Expert on the points brought forth in the report regarding loan negotiations, contraction, management and use, focusing on enhancing the capacity of parliaments to play an effective oversight role and on strengthening the relationship between parliaments and oversight bodies. With regard to the report of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, Uganda shared the view that economic growth was not sufficient for reducing poverty.

NAHIDA SOBHAN (Bangladesh) agreed with the conclusion that reducing poverty and promoting social inclusion required not only national strategies but also international collective action to ensure equitable international regulatory measures and international assistance and cooperation. Bangladesh said that the adoption of national pro-poor policies of developing countries had to be complemented by a non-discriminatory multilateral trading and financial system and this would be of crucial importance. Bangladesh noted that it had made important strides in fighting poverty. Bangladesh said that child mortality had been reduced; life expectancy had increased, as well as women’s economic participation. The enjoyment of economic and social rights could not be ensured for many countries if the debt problem could not be effectively resolved. Loans must be driven by national needs.

SHOLEH ZAMINI, of Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, said that inequality and poverty were mutually reinforcing and both evils could be overcome by helping the most vulnerable to ensure access to decent work. The right to work was an inseparable key to human dignity. It was incumbent upon Member States to introduce binding regulations governing conditions of work and the protection of workers’ rights. A meaningful minimum wage and decent working conditions that were characterised by non-discrimination and equality were among basic human rights of factory workers and the United Nations should include enforcement of a minimum living wage among human development indicators it propagated.

MEGUMI FURUBAYASHI, of International Movement ATD Fourth World, in a joint statement with several NHRIs1, said that the reports showed that social and economic policies based on human rights were crucial to protect the most vulnerable from the impact of crises. The International Movement ATD Fourth World strongly supported the idea of a social protection floor. In human rights terms this meant that all people had legal entitlements or social protection guarantees provided by States. The International Movement ATD Fourth World also particularly supported the recommendations of the Independent Expert for States to construct permanent structures and pathways for consultations, in particular with people living in extreme poverty.

CURTIS DOEBBLER, of North-South XXI, welcomed the reports of both Independent Experts and found the mandates to be essential to the fulfillment of human rights. North-South XXI appreciated the attention the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty paid to human rights and other human dimensions of extreme poverty. North-South XXI commended the Independent Expert’s conclusion that the financial and economic crises presented an opportunity to implement transformative solutions to alleviate poverty and fulfill human rights, but questioned whether that opportunity had already been lost due to the implementation of business-as-usual policies. North-South XXI underlined that the Independent Expert had recognized that the policies that had caused the crises had not been implemented by the developing States that suffered the most. North-South XXI asked whether developed States had thus more of a responsibility for the impacts of the economic crisis and what measures they should take for that reason. North-South XXI asked whether the failure of States to provide 0.7 percent of gross domestic product as official development assistance held consequences in terms of international law.

CRISTINA CAMPOS, of European Disability Forum, commended the attention given to people with disabilities in the report of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, as these people consisted of some of the poorest and most affected by the economic crisis. Programmes and services for people with disabilities were being reduced at a time when they were most necessary. International Disability Alliance recommended that States ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. International Disability Alliance recommended that the Independent Expert continue informing countries of measures that could be taken on behalf of people with disabilities, continue gathering information and strategies in that regard, continue to consult and visit countries, and make information available on how budget cuts had affected the rights of people with disabilities.

PHILIP LYNCH, of National Association of Community Legal Centres Inc., noted that the promotion, protection and realization of human rights should be a primary goal and instrument of Australian foreign policy. The report of the Independent Expert had made a range of concrete and practical recommendations. The National Association of Community Legal Centres deeply regretted that Australia’s statement yesterday focused on alleged inaccuracies in the report rather than substantively and seriously engaging with its recommendations. The National Association of Community Legal Centers urged the Australian Government to adopt a human rights based approach to aid and development, including by increasing official development assistance to the internationally agreed target 0.7% of GNI. Human rights should be central to Australia’s trade policy. The Independent Expert had considered the operation of vulture funds in the report. The National Association for Community Legal Centres called on the Australian Government to enact legislation to prevent profiteering by vulture funds.

Concluding Remarks

CEPHAS LUMINA, Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, in his closing remarks, said that he and the Government of Australia had different views on some aspects of his report. The report had stated that some AusAID programmes addressed human rights issues and those activities did not constitute in themselves the human rights-based approach to development. The human rights-based approach emphasized the centrality of human rights to aid and development policies and programmes as opposed to seeing human rights as incidental to development as was the case with AusAID programme. A rights-based approach would require AusAID programmes to recognise people as key participants in their own development, focus on marginalised and disadvantaged groups, focus on reducing disparity, and others. Concerning the need for greater use of partner Government systems, the Independent Expert said that in the report he had highlighted the recent efforts undertaken by AusAID to reform the way the aid programme used and remunerated advisers and noted that the delivery of aid through partner countries still fell short of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Assistance Committee average.

Turning to the comments by the delegation of the United States, Mr. Lumina said that while the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries debt relief approach had provided some relief for some countries, recent studies had indicated that this programme was unlikely to provide long-term benefits. The Independent Expert thanked the Government of Cuba for the traditional support for the mandate and said that there were some reports that austerity measures in some European countries had negative impact on the enjoyment of human rights and Mr. Lumina said he intended to further study this issue. On the question on the dissemination of the guidelines, their draft would be shared with international financial institutions involved in foreign debt, which had participated in the consultation process on the guidelines. In closing, Mr. Lumina said he remained open to discuss other questions that had not been raised at the Council today.

MARIA MAGDALENA SEPULVEDA PARADA, Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty, said in concluding observations that it was difficult to enact a process in which to follow up on the recommendations issued in reports and thus was pleased that the concerned countries had invited the Independent Expert to follow up on the recommendations with missions to the respective States. The Independent Expert noted that the use of a gender approach in recovery measures had been highlighted by several States, and emphasized that mainly women were disproportionally affected by the crisis. Policy makers should consider recovery measures with a gender lens and enact implementation with an eye to addressing inequality based on gender. With regard to a question raised on food security and international financial reform, it was important that States came to a consensus on changes. States should look for alternative means of recovery and seriously consider a financial transaction tax, which would contribute to the costs of recovery from the financial and economic crises and provide an added resource in meeting development goals. International collective action, cooperation and assistance were essential to poverty alleviation. States had an obligation to prioritize the rights of the poor and marginalized in all international forums.

__________

1Joint statement on behalf of: International Movement ATD Fourth World, Foodfirst Information and Action Network (FIAN), European Disability Forum, International Council of Women, International Commission of Jurists, and International Catholic Child Bureau.

For use of information media; not an official record