Press release: Human rights talks survive and advance despite EU’s pro-business attempts to derail

Geneva, July 10 — The first session of the historic United Nations negotiations towards a treaty on Transnational Corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises with regards to human rights concluded today, following five days of inspiring talks on the need for a legally binding instrument. Civil society, expert panelists and many States engaged constructively in the negotiations, despite intense EU efforts to derail the process.

During the opening session of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) the EU objected to the agenda for the meeting, suggesting last minute changes, and demanded an extension of the IGWG mandate agreed in UN Human Rights Resolution 26/9. The last minute demands, clearly lacking in good faith and contrary to democratic procedure, caused an impasse that was finally overcome when it became clear there was no consensus around the EU proposal.

Given the European Union’s recent position towards Greece in support of the rights of financial institutions along with its decision to protect the rights of Transnational Corporations through the ISDS provisions in the TTIP, it is clearly prioritizing business interests over human rights.

“The Treaty Alliance organizations came to Geneva to call for constructive State engagement and to ensure any future treaty will focus on accountability for TNCs and access to remedy and justice for people affected. With the shameful exceptions of the EU, USA and several other rich countries, the States who were present should be commended for their engagement with this vital process,” said Anne van Schaik, Sustainable Finance Campaigner with Friends of the Earth Europe. “People cannot wait for their rights. With our presence here in Geneva, we are reminding engaged States to stay the course, and insisting that absent or obstructive States get on board. We’re here to remind them that the world is watching!”

“The EU is working more as an ambassador of big corporations than a defender of international human rights law. A clear example of this disturbing position is the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the U.S. and Europe that could contain an investment protection mechanism giving economic interests primacy over human rights,” said Lola Sánchez, Podemos MEP. “But today we are full of hope because democracy can not be stopped. The referendum in Greece has shown that people are rejecting more austerity and are turning their backs on more neoliberal politics”.

“States should now continue meaningful intercessional consultation, particularly with people affected by TNC abuses, to ensure real progress in the next round of negotiations,” said Brid Brennan of the Transnational Institute and the Global Campaign to Dismantle Corporate Power and Stop Impunity. “As civil society organizations and social movements, present here at the UN, we protest the disruptive behavior of the EU, and we challenge its member states to declare their position on this matter. The wellbeing of millions of people globally who have endured systematic corporate violations of their human rights depend on the IGWG to be able to continue and to fulfill its mandate, despite EU actions,” she added.

The first session of the IGWG on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights convened in Geneva on July 6th to begin the task of elaborating a treaty for business and human rights.

For Media Enquiries please contact:

Anne van Schaik, anne.vanschaik@foeeurope.org +31 6 243 43968

Dominic Renfrey, drenfrey@escr-net.org

Brid Brennan, bridbrennan@tni.org

****************************************************************************************

Useful links:

• Treaty Alliance website: www.treatymovement.com
• Joint written submission by Friends of the Earth Europe, Brot für die Welt, SOMO, CIDSE IBFAN, IBFAN-GIFA and Global Policy Forum: http://www.gifa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IGWG-contribution-FoEE-BftW-GPF-CIDSE-IBFAN-SOMO_July-2015-FINAL.pdf

IBFAN’s oral statements:

• IBFAN’s oral statement – General Comments: http://www.gifa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/GIFA-Oral-Statement_GENERAL-COMMENTS1.pdf
• IBFAN’s oral statement on Panel IV – Scope-human rights coverage:http://www.gifa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/GIFA-Oral-Statement_PANEL-IV_HR-COVERAGE.pdf
• IBFAN’s oral statement on Panel V – ETOs: http://www.gifa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/GIFA-Oral-Statement_PANEL_V_CONTENT_ETOs.pdf

Oral statements by other organizations delivered on behalf of IBFAN:

• CIDSE’s oral statement on Panel II – Principles: http://www.gifa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CIDSE-oral-statement_Principles-1.pdf
• SOMO’s oral statement on Panel III – Scope/coverage of the instrument (TNCs vs all enterprises): http://www.gifa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SOMO-oral-statement-joint-submission-in-Panel-II-on-scope_final.pdf
• CIDSE’s oral statement on Panel IV – Scope/human rights coverage:http://www.gifa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CIDSE-oral-statement_Scope_Rights.pdf
• Friends of the Earth Europe’s oral statement on Panel V – ETOs: http://www.gifa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/FoEE-and-others_panel-V_ETOs.pdf
• Friends of the Earth Europe’s oral statement on Panel VI – Content: Obligations of TNCs and other business enterprises: http://www.gifa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Panel-VI-content-FOEE-with-others.pdf
• SOMO’s oral statement on Panel VII – Content: standards for legal accountability TNCs and what conduct? http://www.gifa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Panel-VII-on-liability-SOMO1.pdf
• SOMO’s oral statement on Panel VIII – Content: Mechanisms for Access to Remedy, including international cooperation: http://www.gifa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Panel-VIII-on-Remedy-SOMO-FOEE-CIDSE-BfdW-IBFAN-GPF.pdf

SOMO Oral Statement on Panel VIII - Content: Mechanisms for Access to Remedy, including international cooperation

Thank you Madam Chair, 

I am speaking on behalf of SOMO, Friends of the Earth Europe, CIDSE, Brot für die Welt, IBFAN, IBFAN-GIFA and Global Policy Forum, who made a joint submission to this intergovernmental working group. Our organizations are also members of the Treaty Alliance. 

If there is one thing states, civil society organizations and affected people agree on and have stressed continuously in the last couple of days, it is the fact that victims of business related human rights abuses are deprived from effective remedy and that corporate impunity prevails. Especially when abuses take place in weak governance zones and conflict affected areas, access to justice is extremely limited and the human rights regime does not function as intended, Prof John Ruggie already stated years ago.

The treaty needs to address the urgent need to provide access to justice and eliminate barriers that obstruct this fundamental human right. The point made yesterday by Prof. Surya Deva is also important here, which is that non-judicial remedies, as well as the Guiding Principles more broadly, would work better with a legally binding instrument in place. 

We want to make three suggestions for the treaty to address this major remedy gap: 

The first is that the State duty to provide access to remedy should include provisions on extraterritorial jurisdiction. The treaty should establish beyond a doubt that whenever victims cannot access effective judicial remedy in their own state, it is the duty of the home states to provide this access. This is in line with developments in international law. 

To respect state sovereignty, the Treaty could ensure complementarity between host and home state jurisdiction. Where host states are unwilling or unable to provide access to justice, home states have a duty to provide a remedy forum by exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction. This can include a ‘consultation clause’ that obliges a Home State to consult the Host State before exercising its extraterritorial jurisdiction. If the Host State refuses to pursue the case or does not respond, the Home State can proceed. Examples of such a system already exist, for example at the level of the International Criminal Court which only has jurisdiction if a state is ‘unable or unwilling’ to investigate and prosecute. 

The second suggestion is that the State duty to provide access to remedy should include mutual legal assistance. Extraterritorial jurisdiction risks being ineffective if the host State opposes the litigation and decides not to cooperate with an investigation. In international law it is increasingly acknowledged that, in transnational situations, States should cooperate in order to ensure that any victim of human rights violations caused by the activities of non-State actors, has access to an effective remedy. The treaty should build on this State duty to cooperate. This would facilitate in particular the collection of evidence, including the hearing of witnesses and access to financial records, the freezing and confiscation of assets; and the enforcement of judgments delivered against the corporations concerned.

Finally, and building on the ‘unable or unwilling’ rationale just before, the treaty should consider establishing a new monitoring and enforcement mechanism applying directly to transnational operations corporations. Signatory States then agree that the corporation has to respond to allegations before an international mechanism, unless the violation has been sufficiently addressed through legal remedies available within the State concerned. A Treaty thus conceived could provide a significant incentive for the State to improve the remediesavailable in the domestic legal order to victims of corporate human rights harms, as well as for the corporations concerned to prevent, and where necessary remedy, any such harm. 

I want to conclude this statement by stressing that for the binding instrument to deliver any real value for victims of business related human rights abuses, it needs to be accompanied by a robust enforcement mechanism.

 Thank you Madam Chair.

IBFAN Oral Statement on Panel V - Obligations of States to guarantee the respect of human rights by TNCs and other business enterprises, including ETOs

Thank you Chairperson. 

I am speaking on behalf of the International Baby Food Action Network, the Pesticide Action Network Asia and Pacific, Brot für die Welt, Friends of the Earth Europe and the Global Policy Forum, members of the Treaty Alliance, as well as on behalf of the Society for International Development.

Most violations of human rights derived from activities of corporations are occurring outside of their home countries. Let us take the example of the country which hosts this present session, Switzerland. Switzerland is home for many corporations with a transnational character, including the well known Syngenta and Nestlé. 

Syngenta produces a highly hazardous pesticide name “paraquat” which continuously poisons thousands of plantation workers and farmers who spray it without any protection and without having been trained to reduce risks. These workers suffer acute and chronic poisonings including chronic respiratory disease. Some of them even died after having used paraquat since there is no antidote. In addition, children who live around these plantations are also exposed and suffer negative effects. However, Syngenta continues to produce and sell this product knowing that it seriously endangers health, therefore violating the right to health of exposed communities. 

Meanwhile, Nestlé, Swiss industrial flagship and so-called “Health & Wellness” company, has been violating the WHO Code on the Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes since decades. Last year, IBFAN released a monitoring report in which Nestlé’s offences in this regard are presented in more than 40 pages. In 2013, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its General Comment No 15 on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, set a direct obligations on private companies, providing that « among other responsibilities and in all contexts » they should comply with the WHO Code and the relevant subsequent World Health Assembly resolutions. Even though Nestlé has been repeatedly informed about the systematic violations of the Code identified by IBFAN as well as about the obligation set by the General Comment No 15, the company did not improve its practices. 

Unfortunately, Switzerland has failed to regulate appropriately the conduct of corporations domiciled on its territory and/or jurisdiction and thus, has left Syngenta and Nestlé free to perpetrate their abuses abroad. 

States have the obligation to protect citizens against harm derived from the activities of companies based in their territory and/or jurisdiction. Children are particularly vulnerable and damages affecting them are often irreversible, as highlighted by Dr. Kotrane. Therefore, the Committee on the Rights of the Child has explicitly affirmed that obligations of States should include protection of child’s rights beyond their territorial borders. In particular, States must ensure that all business enterprises, including transnational corporations operating within their borders, are adequately regulated and do not adversely impact on children’s rights in foreign jurisdictions. Other HRTBs including the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, have also called upon States to regulate the extraterritorial actions of third parties registered in their territory. 

The Maastricht Principles further clarify extraterritorial obligations of States, in particular the obligation to protect. Therefore, a legally binding instrument should seek inspiration from Principles 24 and 25. Finally, a legally binding instrument should oblige States to ensure effective judicial remedy for those affected by corporate misconduct. 

Thank you.

Friends of the Earth Europe Oral Statement on Panel VI – Content: Obligations of TNCs and other business enterprises

Thank you Madam Chair.

I am speaking on behalf of Friends of the Earth Europe, SOMO, CIDSE, Brot für die Welt, IBFAN, IBFAN-GIFA and Global Policy Forum, who together made a joint submission to this intergovernmental working group. Our organizations are also members of the Treaty Alliance. 

We think a new binding instrument should ensure businesses comply with human rights due diligence requirements of the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines. Building on these existing norms, the treaty should establish a duty for States to transform the voluntary corporate responsibility to respect human rights into a mandatory corporate obligation to respect human rights throughout all their operations including transnational. 

A mandatory obligation to respect and remedy human rights should fix the gaps in the UNGPs while building on its achievement..The key aspects of this achievement are the human rights due diligence concept and the recognition that companies can impact on human rights in different ways. 

Let me briefly elaborate. Under the UNGPs, the process of human rights due diligence (HRDD) entails assessing the actual and potential human rights impacts from its operations; integrating and acting upon the findings made; tracking responses; and communicating how the negative impacts have been addressed. Of particular relevance is the obligation for business enterprises to consult with potentially affected groups and other relevant stakeholders to identify potentially adverse human rights risk. And address adverse impacts when they occur.

 The UNGPs state very clearly that companies can impact all human rights in a number of ways: not only by causing the violations, but also by contributing to it, or by being directly linked to the violations through its activities and business relationship. We see this for example in the role of financial institutions who provide financial services to companies which are engaged in landgrabbing, environmental degradation, violations of human rights and other. Or in the garment industry, where brands and retailers benefit from low production costs while workers in their supply chain face modern day slavery conditions. 

Human rights due diligence is key in preventing adverse human rights impacts. However, one of the biggest gaps left by the UNGPs is the lack of effective remedy mechanisms to redress human rights violations. Therefore, in order for the treaty to fill this gap, it needs to be combined with legal liability whether civil, criminal or administrative. Provisions onthe extraterritorial scope of due diligence regulation are also needed. 

We will elaborate further on corporate liability in tomorrow morning’s panel session.

 Madam Chair, we conclude by stressing again the importance of this week and the substantive discussions. We call on all states, including the EU, but also others whom we do not see here, to join these panel discussions and participate. These discussions will be heard and shared with NGOs, social movements and human and environmental rights defenders who are all hoping for a strong treaty for binding rules for businesses. 

I thank you for your attention. 

Friends of the Earth Europe Oral statement on Panel V – Extraterritorial obligations of States

Thank you Madam Chair.

I am speaking on behalf of Friends of the Earth Europe, SOMO, CIDSE, Brot für die Welt, IBFAN, IBFAN-GIFA and Global Policy Forum, who made a joint submission to this intergovernmental working group.

Our organizations are all members of the Treaty Alliance. We’d like to start by expressing our disappointment that we do not see the EU present here today and only 1 member state. Once again we call on the EU to attend these important panels and participate in a constructive way. 

The UN Guiding Principles state that it is the duty of States to clearly set out the expectation that all business enterprises domiciled in their territory and jurisdiction respect human rights throughout their operations. Yet the UNGPs state that there is no legal obligation to regulate the extraterritorial activities of business.

 Like Mr Orellana stated in his panel contribution, These formulations have now clearly been overtaken by the evolving nature of international human rights law. The obligation of a State to control the conduct of non-State actors where such conduct might lead to human rights violations outside its territory has been explicitly affirmed by various UN human rights treaty bodies, such as the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Committee on the rights of the child.

 The Maastricht principles on the extraterritorial obligations of States in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, endorsed in 2011, clarify the extraterritorial obligations of states on the basis of this developing international understanding. A legally binding instrument should seek inspiration from Principles 24 and 25 of the Maastricht Principles and be explicit about the extraterritorial scope of the state duty to protect. 

As stated in the second statement of the Treaty Alliance, the treaty should require States to adopt legislation and other measures requiring TNCs and other business enterprises to adopt policies and procedures aimed at preventing, stopping and redressing adverse human rights impacts wherever they operate.

These measures should also cover business operations and relationships in countries other than where the company may be domiciled or headquartered. States should ensure that companies conduct effective human rights due diligence to prevent human rights abuses, are held liable and are sanctioned when failing to do so, and provide remedy to victims when human rights violations occur. 

In addition, provisions for international legal and judicial cooperation among countries should facilitate the investigation and trial of cases of transnational nature. In addition, we urge you to ensure as well that the treaty should contain provisions requiring States to respect, protect and facilitate the work of human rights defenders and whistle-blowers. Environmental activists and the communities we work with often face the threat of injury and death just for standing up for their rights. A new case of corporate violence against environmental rights defenders is reported to us on average once a week. They need our protection. 

Madam chair, the discussions here are of crucial importance to human and environmental rights defenders, whistleblowers as well as affected people around the world. We are looking forward to seeing the results of these discussions and will communicate these with our supporters and other NGOs and social movements. 

I thank you for your attention.

IBFAN Oral Statement on Panel IV - Scope: Human rights to be covered under the binding instrument

1st session of IGWG on TNCs and human rights, July 7, 2015, 3-6PM

Thank you Chairperson. I am speaking on behalf of the International Baby Food Action Network and the Pesticide Action Network Asia, both members of the Treaty Alliance. 

As highlighted by human rights experts as well as by our networks engaged with communities on the ground, corporate abuses affect the whole range of human rights defined in the core human rights instruments, from civil and political to economic, social and cultural rights. 

Our organizations have documented a great number of cases in which people’s health has been negatively affected, children’s development has been jeopardized, food and water have been contaminated and natural resources depleted by activities of business enterprises. Their activities, which include the production and use of highly hazardous chemicals and pesticides, do not only cause direct harm to populations and damage the environment. They also lead to long-term negative impacts on health that are sometimes irreversible and intergenerational. 

Misleading marketing causes long-term effects on people’s health and development. For example, when baby food companies promote their breastmilk substitutes in violation with the WHO Code, they undermine breastfeeding optimal practices, therefore exposing infants and young children to a greater risk of mortality and compromising their future health, growth and wellbeing. 

We would like to reiterate that all human rights are universal and inalienable as well as interdependent and indivisible. A treaty that would cover only a narrow scope of human rights would be meaningless to the affected people. Therefore, the future treaty should incorporate all human rights contained in the core human rights conventions as well as the relevant ILO conventions, in particular those related to labour rights, maternity protection, rights of indigenous people, and agricultural and migrant workers. Thank you.

SOMO Oral Statement on Panel III - Scope/coverage of the instrument (TNCs vs all enterprises)

1st session of IGWG on TNCs and human rights, July 7, 2015, 10AM-1PM

Thank you Madam Chair. 

I am speaking on behalf of SOMO, CIDSE, Brot für die Welt, IBFAN, IBFAN-GIFA and Global Policy Forum, who together with Friends of the Earth Europe made a joint submission to this intergovernmental working group. Our organizations are also members of the Treaty Alliance, and are among the nearly 400 organizations from around the world who have signed the Treaty Alliance joint statement. 

With regard to the scope of the businesses the treaty would cover – the footnote discussion – we have identified a hybrid option that we would like to share with you. Before explaining this hybrid option, I would like to thank Dr. Surya Deva for advising us and developing this idea. In short, the hybrid option entails that, conceptually, the treaty would NOT exclude any specific type of business, but, in its substance, it would focus on developing provisions for transnational operations, thereby addressing the current challenges to hold transnational corporations to account. 

Let me briefly explain this idea. First of all, it is important to stress that the very reason to start negotiating the treaty is to address governance gaps related to transnational business operations and problematic home-host state dynamics that come with it, and that the bulk of the human rights impacts we seek to address occur in relation to such transnational operations. 

Nevertheless, the footnote poses a number of challenges. First of all, it lacks conceptual clarity, for all companies – even TNCs – are registered under domestic law of some country. A second and more problematic aspect is that any attempt to define TNCs is likely to prove futile, because an entity could be considered “transnational” in view of multiple alternative variables, such as shareholding, operations, business relations, location of offices, nationality of shareholders and directors. 

Our organisations fear that any attempt to limit the treaty’s scope by providing a definition of targeted corporations - thereby excluding a subset of companies - will inevitably result in lawyers advising enterprises how to bypass the given definitional contours, and would thus provide loopholes in the protection against business related human rights abuse. Therefore, the proposed international instrument in our view should not exclude any business category. 

That having said, the treaty’s main objective and focus needs to be on provisions for transnational operations of business, such as the obligation of states to regulate the extraterritorial activities of business, and to provide mutual assistance between states in investigating violations and in enforcing judgements. It is these types of provisions we are looking for in the treaty, which clearly go beyond the domestic level. 

To conclude: in our view this hybrid option could effectively avoid double standards and loopholes to escape the foreseen treaty regulation, while at the same time it would but put the energy where most of the pain is: at the level of transnational operations and TNCs. We hope this idea will constructively contribute to the debate. Thank you Madam Chair.

IBFAN Oral Statement on Panel IV - Scope: Human rights to be covered under the Instrument

Thank you Chairperson. 

I am speaking on behalf of the International Baby Food Action Network and the Pesticide Action Network Asia, both members of the Treaty Alliance. 

As highlighted by human rights experts as well as by our networks engaged with communities on the ground, corporate abuses affect the whole range of human rights defined in the core human rights instruments, from civil and political to economic, social and cultural rights.

 Our organizations have documented a great number of cases in which people’s health has been negatively affected, children’s development has been jeopardized, food and water have been contaminated and natural resources depleted by activities of business enterprises. Their activities, which include the production and use of highly hazardous chemicals and pesticides, do not only cause direct harm to populations and damage the environment. They also lead to long-term negative impacts on health that are sometimes irreversible and intergenerational.

Misleading marketing causes long-term effects on people’s health and development. For example, when baby food companies promote their breastmilk substitutes in violation with the WHO Code, they undermine breastfeeding optimal practices, therefore exposing infants and young children to a greater risk of mortality and compromising their future health, growth and wellbeing. 

We would like to reiterate that all human rights are universal and inalienable as well as interdependent and indivisible. A treaty that would cover only a narrow scope of human rights would be meaningless to the affected people. Therefore, the future treaty should incorporate all human rights contained in the core human rights conventions as well as the relevant ILO conventions, in particular those related to labour rights, maternity protection, rights of indigenous people, and agricultural and migrant workers. Thank you.

CIDSE Oral Statement on Panel I: Principles for an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises with respect to human rights

1st session of IGWG on TNCs and human rights, July 6, 2015, 1-3PM

Thank you Madam Chair. I am speaking on behalf of CIDSE, the international alliance of Catholic justice and solidarity organizations, who together with the organizations Friends of the Earth Europe, Brot für die Welt, SOMO, IBFAN and IBFAN-GIFA and Global Policy Forum, made a joint submission to this intergovernmental working group. We are also members of the Treaty Alliance, and are among the nearly 400 organizations from around the world who have signed the Treaty Alliance joint statement, many of whom are present this week both inside this room and outside in a wider mobilization. 

First I wish to say that our organizations have been calling for constructive engagement by all States in this process. Therefore we are pleased at the openness shown yesterday for an inclusive process, and as a number of our members are based in Europe we very much welcome the presence and a constructive participation from the EU and its Member States in this group’s work. 

We wish to highlight 3 sets of principles we believe to be fundamental to this treaty process. These have also been strongly raised in several cases during yesterday’s side event on the impact of transnational corporations and other businesses on grassroots communities, co-organized by several of our organizations.

The first is Accountability.

States have the duty to protect human rights by regulating the behavior of private (non-State) actors. States are expected to take all measures that could reasonably be taken, in accordance with international law, in order to prevent private actors from adopting conduct that may lead to human rights violations. I want to underline this aspect of prevention. Yesterday our colleague speaking about mining in Colombia emphasized that communities’ rights are being violated from the very beginning of corporate activities, for example their right to land by forced displacement for big mining projects, not to speak of their right to health by environmental contamination and their very right to life. Therefore the duty to protect includes both a duty to provide access to remedy, as well as a duty of preventative regulation and sanction.

The obligation of a State to control the conduct of non-State actors where such conduct might lead to human rights violations also outside its territory has been explicitly affirmed by various United Nations human rights treaty bodies, and in several opinions of the International Court of Justice related to environmental harms. 

The second is Equality and non-discrimination. 

As stated in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” The prohibition against discrimination is at the heart of human rights law and is clearly established in numerous human rights texts. Each State must ensure that all individuals subject to its jurisdiction are protected against corporate human rights abuse, without distinction of any kind.

Of key relevance here is the need to redress the current power imbalances between both States and affected peoples vis-à-vis transnational corporations. Affected communities face huge imbalances in trying to defend their rights and also in litigation against transnational companies, it was said yesterday, with unlimited resources and influence. States also experience such power imbalances in negotiating investment/trade agreements and attracting foreign direct investment. Here I want to underline the message from affected communities expressed in yesterday’s side event, that human rights for all must take primacy over the rights of some investors in the context of trade and investment agreements. 

The third is Participation and transparency. 

People have a right to participate in how decisions are made regarding protection of their rights. Affected people are also actors, not just States and companies. Transparency means that governments must be open about all information and decision-making processes related to rights. This should empower concerned actors by equipping them with information and creating a precondition for holding power-holders to account. Transparency has arguably already become a general principle of international law, for example within international environmental law and disarmament treaties.

Of key relevance here is Free, Prior and Informed Consent. As we heard yesterday from Victoria Tauli Corpuz, the very survival of indigenous peoples around the world is threatened by corporate activity. During the side event yesterday, we heard that the damages to cultures, to nature, are increasingly becoming irreversible and irreparable, so we must act urgently so that companies respect the autonomy of communities and their own, other conceptions of development and progress. International law has now recognized that FPIC is a legal norm imposing clear affirmative duties and obligations on States with regard to indigenous rights. The recent development of FPIC in national and international law is demonstrative of its widespread support as a principle of international law by the international community.

Madame Chair, our organizations work with communities and individuals currently suffering abuses and violations of their human rights a result of business activity. Our colleague from an indigenous communities in Canada put it very eloquently yesterday, when she said that this process is about “shining light where there’s only darkness on abuses of human rights.” Concrete measures are urgently needed to protect women and men seeking to defend their rights and the environment in the face of harmful corporate practice, and to address the denial of access to justice to communities in numerous countries. Thank you Madam Chair.

IBFAN Oral Statement - General Comments

1st session of IGWG on TNCs and human rights, July 6, 2015, 10AM-1PM

Thank you Chairperson. I am speaking on behalf of the International Baby Food Action Network, the Pesticide Action Network Asia and Pacific, Friends of the Earth Europe, SOMO and the Global Policy Forum, members of the Treaty Alliance. 

We welcome the opening of the first session of the open-ended intergovernmental working group for the elaboration of an International Legally Binding Instrument on Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with respect to human rights. We are very glad to see countries and civil society taking part in this crucial process and would like to encourage all States to engage constructively in the discussions. 

This is a historical step for all citizens, particularly for those affected by corporate abuses, who have struggled for many years for justice. Therefore, we urge you to ensure meaningful involvement of these affected communities in the treaty process in order to ensure that their needs are met. 

To date, millions if not billions of people are negatively affected by corporate activities. Abuses are more frequent and apparent in the South, although communities from the North are also suffering from corporate misconduct such as chemical contamination and promotion of unsafe or unhealthy food. In addition, negative external costs related to corporate activities, including adverse and irremediable impacts on health and environment, are often borne by affected communities themselves as well as by public institutions and national governments. Whenever the affected communities organize to claim their rights and seek for remedies, their leaders regularly face threats to their security and even to their life. 

Besides, whistle-blowers are often harassed or fired for having reported or disclosed information on a threat or harm to the public interest. Human rights defenders and whistle-blowers are at the forefront to get corporations accountable and thus should be provided special protection by the treaty. During a side event that took place yesterday, we had the opportunity to hear about the experience of a whistle-blower, Dr Yasmine Motarjemi, former executive in charge of global food safety at Nestlé, who denounced existing corporate strategies to continue putting business interests ahead of human rights with impunity. 

Therefore, we would like to stress the necessity to put in place adequate safeguards to guarantee that the treaty process is not unduly influenced by the private sector and thus, to ensure its independence, integrity and credibility. These safeguards should be set up as a priority, in a transparent manner, and should include concrete measures that help identify and eliminate risks of personal or institutional conflicts of interests. 

In conclusion, we would like to reiterate our support to this treaty process. We will continue to provide information to the intergovernmental working group and mobilize our respective networks at international, regional and national levels. Thank you.

69th Session of the CRC Committee: Recommendations related to Breastfeeding

The 69^th Session of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee) took place in Geneva from May 18 to June 5, 2015. The Committee reviewed the progress of the implementation of the Conventionon the Rights of the Child in 6 countries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, Mexico and Netherlands. IBFAN submitted alternative reports on the situation of infant and young child feeding in 5 of the reviewed countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, Mexico, and Netherlands).   The reports on Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, Mexico and Netherlands were prepared by the IBFAN groups in the countries. Spanish and French summaries of the alternative reports were prepared in order to inform Spanish- and French-speaking members of the Committee (see http://ibfan.org/reports-on-the-un-committee-on-the-rights-of-the-child).

In its Concluding Observations, the CRC Committee referred specifically to breastfeeding for 2 of the 6 countries under review (Ethiopia, Ghana and Mexico). Honduras and Netherlands did not receive any direct recommendation on breastfeeding, but they received recommendations on other specific health issues that are indirectly connected to breastfeeding.

General measures of implementation

The Committee has put an emphasis on the improvement of the data collection system in 5 of the countries under review (Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras and Netherlands) stressing the importance of collecting disaggregated for the the analysis on the situation of all children, particularly those in situations of vulnerability.

Then, a great focus was placed on the need to regulate the impact of the business sector on children’s rights. In its recommendations to Ethiopia, Ghana, Mexico and Netherlands, the CRC Committee expressly drew attention to its 2013 General Comment N° 16 on State obligations regarding the impact of the business sector on children’s rights, which specifically calls on States Parties to establish a clear regulatory framework on business conduct to ensure that the business sector do not have an adverse impact on child rights, imposing sanctions and providing remedies, when any violation occurred. Moreover, these four reviewed countries are recommended to require companies to undertake assessments, consultations, and full public disclosure of the environmental, health-related and human rights impacts of their business activities and their plans to address such impacts.

Regarding environmental health, the Committee recommended Mexico to require companies to assess air, water, soil and electromagnetic pollution on children and maternal health as a basis to design a well-resourced strategy to remedy the situation, prohibit the import and use of pesticides or chemicals and examine and adapt its legislative framework to ensure the legal accountability of business enterprises involved in activities having a negative impact on the environment. 

Health resources and budget

The Committee called for strengthening of resources allocated to health by urging Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras and Mexico to increase their allocations in the area of health to adequate levels. Likewise, the Committee urged Ethiopia to develop and implement policies to improve health infrastructures.

In particular, the Committee recommended Honduras to allocate adequate human, technical and financial resources to its immunization programme.

Preventive health

The importance of preventive health has been highlighted in several recommendations. While Ghana has been urged by the Committee to undertake all necessary measures to reduce mortality rates by improving prenatal care and preventing communicable diseases and finalize and operationalize the National New born Strategy and Action Plan, Netherlands was asked to take measures to prevent infant mortality by providing effective and quality neonatal care services among infants. The Committee also called Mexico to strengthen its efforts to reduce maternal and child mortality.

The need to provide equal access to health services in terms of coverage and quality was also stressed in the recommendations to Ethiopia, Mexico and Netherlands. Drawing attention to its General Comment No 15 (2013) on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, the Committee urged Honduras to progress in the adoption of a primary-health care strategy, allocate adequate resources to the immunization programme and improve the coverage and quality of services, paying particular attention to rural and indigenous neglected populations.

Finally, the Committee recommended Ethiopia, Ghana and Mexico to implement the OHCHR Technical guidance on the application of a human rights-based approach to the implementation of policies and programmes to reduce and eliminate preventable mortality and morbidity of children under 5 years of age (hereafter: OHCHR Technical guidance on child mortality), which includes specific recommendations on breastfeeding protection (including the implementation of the International Code) and promotion.

Malnutrition and safe drinking water

The Committee expressed concern over the persistent high rates of malnutrition, therefore, recommended Ethiopia to effectively address malnutrition in terms of stunting, wasting and low weight, particularly in rural and remote areas. Honduras was also urged to intensify its efforts to reduce chronic malnutrition, which affects twice as many children in rural as in urban areas.

In its recommendations to Mexico, the Committee highlighted the need to evaluate the initiatives to reduce malnutrition, overweight and obesity among children, and based on the results draft a national strategy on nutrition, which also includes measures to ensure food security, in particular in rural and indigenous areas. It also encouraged Ethiopia to develop public awareness programmes on food diversity.

The Committee expressed concerns over the significant numbers of overweight and obese children in Netherlands, asking the State to provide access to nutrition education and sufficiently nutritious food to all children in order to promote healthy eating habits.

The Committee also focused on nutrition, recommending Mexico to continue raising awareness at the national, federal and local level on the negative health impacts of processed food, and strengthen regulations to restrict advertising and marketing of junk, salty, sugary and fatty foods and their availability for children. It also called Ghana to expedite the approval of the National Nutritional Policy.

Finally, regarding safe drinking water, the Committee asked Ghana to improve the access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation facilities by resolutely finalizing and implementing the Water Sector Strategy Development Plan and investment plan and strengthening its efforts to continue implementing the Rural Sanitation Model and Strategy. The Committee also called Honduras for improving the access to water and sanitation in rural, indigenous and Afro Honduran areas.

HIV/AIDS

The Committee addressed the issue of mother-to-child HIV transmission by requesting Ethiopia to take all appropriate measures to prevent it and address geographic disparities regarding HIV infection and access to treatment, by enhancing free access to neonatal care, vaccination, prevention of transmission of HIV/AIDS from mother to child and anti-retroviral therapy. It also called for the improvement of the access to quality, age-appropriate HIV/AIDS, sexual and reproductive health services.

Honduras and Ghana were requested to sustain the measures in place to prevent mother-to-child transmissions of HIV/AIDS and were called to develop a roadmap to ensure the implementation of effective preventive measures. The Committee also recommended them to improve the follow-up treatment for HIV/AIDS-infected mothers and their children in order to ensure early diagnosis and initiation of the treatment, as well as the improvement to access to antiretroviral therapy for children, mothers and pregnant women.

Breastfeeding national strategy

In its recommendation to Ghana, the Committee stressed the need to expedite the approval of the National Nutritional Policy and strengthen monitoring of implementation of the Breastfeeding Promotion Regulation 2000 (BPR), implement a deterrent sanctioning system and ensure the Food and Drugs Authority commitment to enforce the BPR. The Committee also recommend Ghana to finalize and operationalize the National Newborn Strategy and Action Plan.

Breastfeeding protection

The Committee specifically urged Mexico to promote the adequate implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes and the Child-Friendly Hospital Initiative.

Breastfeeding promotion

Out of 6 reviewed countries, 3 were recommended to strengthen efforts to promote breastfeeding (Ethiopia, Mexico and Ghana). Ethiopia was encouraged to develop public awareness programmes on the benefits of breastfeeding while Mexico was recommended to increase efforts to promote breastfeeding through educational campaigns and training to professionals. Finally, Ghana was recommended to continue encouraging exclusive breastfeeding for six months with appropriate introduction of an infant diet thereafter, aimed at reducing neonatal as well as under-five mortality.

Breastfeeding support

Following the 69^th Session, no specific recommendations have been issued by the CRC Committee with respect to training on and support to breastfeeding.

Table 1. CRC Committee - Session 69/2015 – Summary of Concluding Observations on IYCF

	Country		IBFAN report	Summary of specific recommendations on IYCF
Session 69 – January 2015	1	Ethiopia (4th-5th periodic report)	yes	Indirect – General measures of implementation (§14, 22c): develop and implement a comprehensive framework of data collection which will cover all areas of the Convention and will be disaggregated […]; develop and implement a comprehensive framework on business conduct in order to ensure that business activities do not have adverse impact on human rights or endanger environmental and other standards, in particular those relating to children and women, and impose sanctions and provide remedies when violations occur. Health (§ 56a,b,c,e): raise the annual per capita expenditure on health and eliminate regional disparities in the provision of health services, including prenatal and postnatal care, immunization coverage […]; implement and apply the OHCHR Technical guidance on child mortality (A/HRC/27/31); develop and implement policies to improve health infrastructures, and intensify training programmes for all health professionals, including the pastoralist health extension workers; effectively address malnutrition in terms of stunting, wasting and low weight, particularly in rural and remote areas HIV/AIDS (§ 58a,d): take all appropriate measures to address geographic disparities regarding HIV infection and access to treatment; improve access to quality, age-appropriate HIV/AIDS, sexual and reproductive health services […]; improve access to quality, age-appropriate HIV/AIDS, sexual and reproductive health services […].   Direct (§ 56c): develop public awareness programmes on food diversity consumption of nutritious food and benefits of breast-feeding and engage with World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
	2	Ghana (3rd-5th periodic report)	yes	Indirect – General measures of implementation (§ 16, 20a-b, 50b, 50c, 50f, 50h): […] urges the State party to expeditiously improve its data collection system; establish clear regulations and a nation-wide legislative framework (...) requiring companies operating in the State party to adopt measures to prevent and mitigate adverse child rights impact of their operations in the country; require companies to undertake child rights assessments, consultations, and full public disclosure of the environmental, health-related and child rights impacts of their business activities and their plans to address such impacts […]. Health (§50a,b,c,f,h): allocate sufficient financial and human resources to health services, particularly to child health and nutrition, providing effective access to trained and qualified health care; finalize and operationalize the National New born Strategy and Action Plan; undertake all necessary measures to reduce mortality rates by improving prenatal care and preventing communicable diseases; expedite the approval of the National Nutrition Policy; implement and apply the OHCHR Technical guidance on child mortality (A/HRC/27/31). HIV/AIDS (§54b,d): improve follow-up treatment for HIV/AIDS-infected mothers and their children […]; improve access and coverage of antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected children, mothers and pregnant women […]. Direct (§ 50d,e):  continue encouraging exclusive breastfeeding for six months with appropriate introduction of an infant diet thereafter, aimed at reducing neonatal as well as under-five mortality; strengthen monitoring of implementation of the BPR, implement a deterrent sanctioning system and ensure the Food and Drugs Authority is committed to enforce the BPR.
	3	Honduras (4th-5th periodic report)	yes	Indirect - General measures of implementation (§ 16a-c): provide the adequate resources for the effective functioning of data collection systems; strengthen the capacity of State institutions to provide pertinent, high quality and timely information; ensure that data covers all areas of the Convention and is disaggregated […]. Health (§61a-c): progress in the adoption of a primary-health care strategy; allocate adequate human, technical and financial resources to the immunization programme; improve coverage and quality of services with particular attention to rural and indigenous neglected populations. HIV/AIDS (§67b-c): sustain measures in place to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS […]; improve follow-up treatment for HIV/AIDS-infected mothers and their infants […]. Nutrition (§ 69c): intensify its efforts to reduce chronic malnutrition;
	4	Mexico (4th-5th periodic report)	yes	Indirect – Health (§ 48c, e): Evaluate the initiatives taken to reduce malnutrition, overweight and obesity among children and based on the results draft a national strategy on nutrition, which also includes measures to ensure food security, in particular in rural and indigenous areas; continue raising awareness at national, federal and local level on the negative health impacts of processed food including and strengthen the regulations to restrict the advertising and marketing of junk, salty, sugary and fatty foods and their availability for children. Health services (§ 48a,b): ensure the availability and accessibility of quality health services for all children, in particular rural and indigenous children, including by allocation adequate resources; strengthen its efforts to reduce maternal and child mortality, including by implementing the OHCHR Technical Guidance on child mortality (A/HRC/27/31). Environmental health (§52a-c): Assess the impact of air, water, soil and electromagnetic pollution on children and maternal health as a basis to design a well-resourced strategy at federal, state and local levels (...) to remedy the situation and drastically decrease the exposure to pollutants; prohibit the import and use of any pesticides or chemicals that have been banned or restricted for use in exporting countries; examine and adapt its legislative framework to ensure the legal accountability of business enterprises involved in activities having a negative impact on the environment, in the light of its general comment No. 16 (2013) on State obligations regarding the impact of the business sector on children’s rights. Direct (§48d): Increase efforts to promote breastfeeding through educational campaigns and training to professionals, adequately implement the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes and the Child-Friendly Hospital Initiative.
	5	Netherlands (4th periodic report)	yes	Indirect - General measures of implementation (§17, 23a-b): improve its data collection system. The data should include both qualitative and quantitative indicators and cover all areas of the Convention and should be disaggregated […]; implement regulations to ensure that the business sector complies with international and national human rights […] particularly with regard to children’s rights ; establish a clear regulatory framework for the industries under the State party’s jurisdiction to ensure that their activities both at home and abroad do not negatively affect human rights […]; effective monitoring of implementation of these standards and appropriately sanctioning and providing remedies when violations occur […]. Health (§43a,c,d): take measures to prevent infant mortality by providing effective and quality neonatal and other care services for infants throughout the Kingdom; ensure that all children in the State party have access to free of charge basic health care […]; ensure that children without documentation have access to information on their rights, including their right to basic free health care.   Nutrition (§43b): provide access to nutrition education and sufficiently nutritious food to all children in the State party in order to promote healthy eating habits.
	6	Eritrea (4th periodic report)	no	Indirect - General measures of implementation: (§20a-b, 23a,c) collect data which covers all areas of the Convention and disaggregate them […]; ensure that data collection captures the situation of children in situations of vulnerability […]; take immediate action to allow human rights defenders and civil society organizations […] to exercise their right to freedom of expression, opinion and association without threats and harassment; involve all NGOs working in the field of children’s rights in the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of laws, policies and programmes related to children […]. Health (§56a-c,f-g): adopt, implement and monitor relevant national strategies on child health, including a national child survival strategy, a strategy on adolescent health and information services, and on HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases […]; focus its efforts on reducing disparities in achieving health and nutrition goals […]; intensify nutrition and health intervention targeting children affected by severe malnutrition; continue efforts to translate commitments made in the context of the Campaign for Accelerated Reduction of Maternal Mortality in Africa (CARMMA) into results-oriented action, and adequately train health personnel on the reduction of maternal mortality and morbidity; take into account the OHCHR Technical Guidance on child mortality  (A/HRC/27/31) as well as the OHCHR Technical Guidance on maternal morbidity and mortality (A/HRC/21/22). HIV/AIDS (§ 50b): […] support children affected by HIV/AIDS and their families. Direct (§56h): strengthen necessary laws and policies to promote exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months, including through the regulation of marketing of breast-milk substitutes.