Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 10 - Evidence - June 2, 2014
OTTAWA, Monday, June 2, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 4 p.m. to examine and report on how the mandates and practices of the UNHCR and UNICEF have evolved to meet the needs of displaced children in modern conflict situations, with particular attention to the current crisis in Syria; and to study the international mechanisms toward improving cooperation in the settlement of cross-border family disputes, including Canada's actions to encourage universal adherence to and compliance with the Hague Abductions Convention, and to strengthen cooperation with non-Hague State Parties with the purpose of upholding children's best interests.
Senator Mobina S. B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the thirteenth meeting of the Second Session of the Forty-first Parliament of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.
[Translation]
We have a mandate from the Senate to study human rights issues in Canada and around the world.
I am Senator Mobina Jaffer, and as the chair of this committee, I am pleased to welcome you to this meeting.
[English]
I would like the rest of the members to introduce themselves, and I will go to the deputy chair, Senator Ataullahjan.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, and I represent Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Seidman: I'm Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Unger: I'm Betty Unger from Edmonton, Alberta.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, senator from Toronto.
The Chair: On May 6, 2014, the Senate passed the following order of reference:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to examine and report on how the mandates and practices of the UNHCR and UNICEF have evolved to meet the needs of displaced children in modern conflict situations, with particular attention to the current crisis in Syria.
As the members know, we have many people following our committee's work. We have heard from the government about the various mandates of the UNHCR and UNICEF, and also about the Syrian crisis. Today, our first witness after the government is Furio De Angelis, the representative of the UNHCR. Furio is not a stranger to our committee, and he has made himself available for the committee's work. I'd like to put on the record what we are looking at.
The UNHCR was created in 1950, and it was intended to be a temporary organization to assist European refugees displaced after the Second World War. It was only in 2003 that the UN General Assembly granted UNHCR a permanent mandate. The UNHCR is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.
UNHCR's work is underpinned by the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the status of refugees and its later protocols to work with the states to ensure that refugees have access to protection and are assured certain well-defined rights and ensuring that refugees have access to long-term, durable solutions, such as returning to their home country or settling in a new one.
In the early years, the UNHCR worked with refugees to protect the individuals who had crossed national borders due to well-founded fear of persecution and did not provide material assistance to individuals that the organization was helping.
Since that time, the UNHCR's work has certainly expanded, and we are all aware that the UNHCR has a very big task in front of it. At the moment it looks like a tremendous number of refugees.
We look forward to your presentation.
Furio De Angelis, Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
Honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the UNHCR, I would like to express my gratitude and thank the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights for inviting me to appear today.
The UNHCR is pleased to have the opportunity to address the committee on the issue of children displaced by the conflict in Syria.
Before I begin, however, I would like to give you a brief overview of the UNHCR's role and mandate.
The UNHCR is mandated to lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees worldwide and resolve refugee problems. The 1951 Refugee Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol form the very foundation of our work to protect refugees. Although our main mission is to guarantee the rights and well-being of refugees, our work has developed to now include vulnerable persons, internally displaced persons and stateless persons.
With a budget of over $4 billion, the UNHCR works in 126 countries and helps close to 35.8 million people.
[English]
Madam Chair, I will now turn to the situation in Syria. It is estimated that there are currently 9.5 million Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance. Since the beginning of the conflict in 2011, we have witnessed an outpouring of Syrian refugees across Syria's border to reach an estimated 2.8 million registered and unregistered refugees in neighbouring countries. In addition to refugees, an estimated 6.5 million Syrians have been internally displaced by the war.
The exodus of Syrian refugees accelerated dramatically in 2013. UNHCR data indicates that between May and November 2013 an average of 127,000 people were registered each month. Based on a recent analysis of population movements within and from Syria, UNHCR and its partners predict up to 4.1 million refugees in the region by the end of 2014. This would make Syrians the largest refugee population in the world under the UNHCR mandate.
In August 2013, the one millionth Syrian refugee children milestone was reached. Today, half of registered refugees in Syria's neighbouring countries are under 18 years of age. This means that today there are about 1.4 million Syrian refugee children, 75 per cent of which are under 12 years old. Jordan and Lebanon are hosting more than 60 per cent of all Syrian refugee children.
Last November, UNHCR published a report that reveals the devastating impact Syria's conflict is having on its children who have become refugees. It shows immense suffering and surveys a number of children's protection challenges, including physical and psychological trauma, child labour, children missing out on schooling, and unregistered births.
Madam Chair and committee members, I would like to briefly review these issues and give you a sense of how UNHCR and its partners are trying to respond to these challenges.
Physical and psychological trauma: The conflict in Syria has taken an acute physical and psychological toll on refugee children. They have witnessed unspeakable horror, which they struggle to forget. Bombs and missiles have destroyed their homes, communities and schools. Friends and family members were killed, sometimes before their own eyes. Children suffer from trouble sleeping, horrifying flashbacks, bed-wetting and even speech problems.
The most important support network for psychologically affected children is usually at home, yet Syrian refugee parents and caregivers, struggling with their own scars, can find it difficult to support their own children emotionally.
UNHCR and its partners, mainly UNICEF, provide psychosocial support to Syrian refugee children, including those subjected to sexual violence and early marriage. Our effort includes family counselling, psychosocial support in schools, and recreational activities at child- and adolescent-friendly spaces. Children also receive psychosocial support through NGOs and community centres, as well as at UNHCR registration centres where possible.
UNICEF estimates that one in ten Syrian refugee children in the region is engaged in child labour. A recent assessment found that nearly half of households with one or more working family members relied partly or entirely on the income generated by a child. Many children work intermittently, picking up short-term jobs that may change from day to day. Many children work long hours in hazardous or demeaning environments.
Child labour is directly linked to the basic survival of refugee families. Assessments on child labour, conducted both within Syria and in host countries, indicate that the primary reason children work is to support their families, mainly to pay for rent and food.
UNHCR efforts in order to address this complex problem include the provision of financial assistance to help vulnerable Syrian refugee families cover urgent and basic needs, including medical expenses and rent; the creation and maintenance of a functioning referral system to identify children who face protection risks, manage their cases and refer them to appropriate services; and the provision of social counselling and emotional support by case managers and social workers. All these efforts can prevent families from resorting to negative coping strategies, such as taking their children out of school to work.
In the education field, Madam Chair and committee members, a recent assessment found that 80 per cent of Syrian refugee children in Lebanon and 56 per cent in Jordan were not in school.
According to a recent World Bank report, failure and dropout rates among Syrian children are twice the national average for Lebanese children. UNHCR estimates that 20 per cent of Syrian refugee children drop out of school in Lebanon — the biggest problem being among children over 12 years old.
Despite the efforts of the governments and international community, the costs associated with going to school prevent some families from enrolling their children or to take the painful decision of choosing who should attend.
Classrooms in Jordan and Lebanon are also overcrowded, and the growing number of Syrian students is putting the national education system in both countries under considerable strain. For example, in Lebanon, there are currently over 200,000 school-aged refugee children who lack access to age-appropriate education due in part to the fact that the capacity of the public education system is overstretched.
To the extent that resources allow, UNICEF and UNHCR provide Syrian refugee children in Lebanon and Jordan with uniforms, books, bags and stationery. Also, in an effort to keep children in school, UN agencies and partners offer remedial classes in areas such as literacy, numeracy and languages.
Let me now address the important issue of birth registration. First of all, let me emphasize that birth registration is a right of all children under international law. In addition to proving a child's legal identity, birth registration also provides proof of age, which is critical for ensuring the enjoyment of rights and child-specific protections.
Families are increasingly forced to flee Syria with babies who have not yet been registered, or are facing barriers to registering their children born in exile. Unregistered refugee children can face increased risks of exposure to violence, abuse and exploitation. Birth registration can also help to prevent statelessness by documenting the child's parentage and country of birth, both of which are required by states to grant nationality to a child at birth.
While the Governments of Jordan and Lebanon permit Syrian refugees to register children born in their countries, many births are not registered for numerous reasons including the complexity of the birth registration processes and the inability to provide proper identification documents.
In Lebanon, levels of birth registration are low. As of May 24 of this year, UNHCR has registered over 20,000 Syrian children born in Lebanon. A recent sample survey has shown that up to 73 per cent of them do not have birth certificates. In Zaatari camp, Jordan, over 1,400 children born between the end of November 2012 and the end of July 2013 have not received birth certificates.
UNHCR and partners have been working with the authorities in both countries to ease the requirements of Syrian refugees to register births. UNHCR is also working with refugees to raise awareness about the significance of birth registration and the process.
Madam Chair, committee members, let me now conclude these remarks by saying that UNHCR acknowledges all contributions that have been made so far to address the humanitarian situation faced by Syrian refugees in general and by Syrian refugee children in particular. But let's be clear; we are currently not able to do enough given the magnitude of the needs and the complexity of protection challenges. That is why we continue to appeal for increased and sustained financial contributions. As of April 2014, only 24 per cent of UNHCR's funding requirements in relation to the Syrian crisis has been received. This means difficult choices have to be made and some needs go unmet.
UNHCR also urge the international community to provide more resettlement places to Syrian refugees for whom this is the only solution. States have so far responded quickly to UNHCR's call to provide resettlement places or other forms of humanitarian admission for Syrian refugees. Twenty countries have offered places towards meeting the goal of providing international protection to 30,000 of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees by the end of 2014. However, because of the gravity of the crisis, UNHCR recently called upon countries around the world to make multi-annual commitments towards a goal of providing resettlement and other forms of admission for an additional 100,000 Syrian refugees in 2015 and 2016. Such actions would not only provide a durable solution to the more vulnerable refugees but would also serve as a gesture of solidarity and as a practical way of helping to ease the disproportionate burden shouldered by neighbouring countries.
[Translation]
Canada is a strategic partner for the UNHCR, and we deeply appreciate the ongoing support that the Canadian government and Canadians have given to the UNHCR's humanitarian action around the world.
We sincerely hope that the situation in Syria improves and that Canada will play a major role in improving the fate of displaced Syrians.
Honourable senators, I thank you for having me here today.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's a dire situation. It's brutal, with a third of the children in Syria having been displaced and all of these other extreme statistics that you talk about and the very difficult working circumstances for UN agencies and for NGO agencies.
I want to talk for a moment about whether Canada is doing enough. We're the sixth largest in terms of total funding, I understand, for the Syrian crisis. We fund both UNICEF and UNHCR. But I note that the Minister of Immigration, just a couple of months ago, said we had only received 10 Syrian refugees. Only 10 have arrived. That's what he said at that point. I don't know if it's any better now. You said in your comments here that you're trying to get 30,000 placed by the end of this year. Do you have any indication that Canada is going to pick up on the numbers to a greater extent? Have you talked with officials about this?
Mr. De Angelis: As you and committee members probably know, last week, just a few days ago, the high commissioner in person, Mr. António Guterres was here in Ottawa, and had a three-day visit and meetings with senior officials, including Mr. Alexander. This appeal for resettlement and for the engagement of Canada was one of the main points made by the commissioner. There is surely attention. We are hopeful, and we welcome Canada's further engagement in resettlement activities. The needs are there, and we have been clearly told that Canada is part of this effort and has been part of it from the very beginning, with the first appeal of 30,000 to which Canada has pledged, as you know, 1,300 places.
Now, for the second appeal, according to the situation, which is deteriorating on the ground, UNHCR has launched an appeal for 100,000 resettlement places for the years 2015-2016. We have been told that Canada will be part of this international effort, and we are very confident that this will happen. We are expecting a good announcement from the government side soon.
I just want to underline how important it is that Canada remains in leadership during this process because, as you have said correctly, Canada is a very important global player in refugee affairs. Of course, it is one of the main resettlement countries, together with the U.S. and Australia. Its quota for resettlement has always been an important one within the global quota of resettlement areas.
Besides that, Canada is also an important player in global governance and in global refugee issues and has been a contributor to the Syrian humanitarian crisis for $353 million in respect of only humanitarian assistance. We are confident and positive that they will rise to the challenges of the moment.
Senator Eggleton: I'm sure Canada will be a contributor. As I pointed out, it is a major contributor in terms of money.
You mentioned 1,300 places; 200 extremely vulnerable Syrian refugees are part of that as well as 1,100 Syrians under the Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program. Thirteen hundred is a lot better than 10, but it still doesn't sound like a lot compared to what the problem is.
Let me move on to the situation in Lebanon. Lebanon has a no-camp policy, apparently — I didn't realize that until I read over my notes — which means that the Syrian refugees live in informal shelters, garages and tented places here and there.
I further understand that there is some violent reaction from the Lebanese people concerned about the Syrians, the concern being over, for example, water shortages and having to share water with these refugees and concern over the education system because apparently cooperation with the Ministry of Education in Lebanon is difficult. There are challenges over whether to teach Syrian or Lebanese curriculum, violence and discrimination in schools towards Syrians, and a lack of education beyond the ninth grade.
How are some of these problems going to be overcome? I particularly note that both of your main agencies, the UNHCR and UNICEF, don't have all the money they need to do everything. I don't know how you solve all of these problems, but there appears to be some tension rising in Lebanon with the way things are unfolding there. Could you talk about that?
Mr. De Angelis: Thanks for highlighting the situation of Lebanon because we all believe that Lebanon is really the symbol of this regional crisis. I usually say in the Canadian context that we should remember that Lebanon is a small country; it is twice as big as Prince Edward Island and at this moment has received almost 1.1 million refugees. This may give you an indication of the impact of the number of refugees on the population.
On the other side, we see the borders have remained open, and we see that despite the fact that at this moment 25 per cent of the population living in Lebanon are Syrian refugees, they have actually been integrated — have been welcomed, not integrated — into society, and this has happened peacefully so far. We have seen examples of villages in Lebanon where the number of refugees is much higher than the number of the villagers themselves.
So we are seeing an enormous generosity — we should use this word — an enormous capacity of the Lebanese people to really go into this problem and open up to the challenges it brings to their shores and to their places. This has to be said because I think the first point of gratitude, the first merit and credit, should really go to the populations that are able to absorb within these particular circumstances such challenges.
Having said that, of course concerns are there and they exist in all areas of refugee operations. You have made a good list of all the different sectors where refugee operations are taking place, first of all with registration and how it is important. There are thousands of people being registered every day, and all people registered have been verified after one year. You can imagine that after one year, everybody has to be verified again. Registration is very important because it's the entry door to the provision of services. Registration is also very important because it identifies those specific needs and situations that may require some targeted assistance, especially with respect to children, to unaccompanied minors, to families headed by women and certain situations of gender violence.
The impact on schools and health facilities are all programs that are being followed up. The most important point is that the assistance goes to the communities in order to then embrace, with the assistance, the refugees and the community that is hosting the refugees. As you said, in Lebanon there is a no-camp policy; 100 per cent of the refugees are there in the communities, so of course the assistance has to embrace all the people who are able to support the refugee assistance efforts.
Senator Ataullahjan: I just wanted to refer to the Lebanese foreign minister, who stated that Lebanon did want to establish camps of residential compounds near the Syrian border, which the UNHCR has opposed. Can you tell me why?
Mr. De Angelis: In principles of refugee law, camps should not be established close to international borders, I would say for obvious reasons; refugee camps are civilian in nature, and they have to be in places that are as far as possible from the conflict. Putting a refugee camp close to a border would open up the possibility of cross-border operations, as has happened in the past, by shelling from the conflict areas or infiltrations from the conflict areas with possible protection problems like, for instance, forced recruitment of children. Logistically and for protection problems, camps should not be located near international borders. We normally request that an area is identified to set up camps, which is inside the country enough to allow a peaceful environment.
The Chair: I have a supplementary. The reason that Lebanon is anxious about not having the camps is because it has a history, when it had refugees from Palestine. Am I correct?
Mr. De Angelis: I wouldn't be able to comment on the specific reasons at this very moment from the position of the ministry of Lebanon. I would say that Lebanon has a history, of course, of internal conflicts that we all know about and to which we are all sensitive. But the point of establishing camps near the international border for UNHCR, in all operations, including in all continents, has always been the same: International borders are not safe places to establish refugee camps.
Senator Eggleton: Just to finish on the point of Lebanon, I appreciate what you're saying about many Lebanese are welcoming the refugees. I think it's in their nature to be welcoming, but what I'm hearing from NGOs is that there is rising tension, rising conflicts. When you have a shortage of water and so many refugees overwhelming the education system, you can in fact see a spark of conflict and violence. I think that's something that needs additional attention.
Mr. De Angelis: Absolutely. When the number of refugees in Lebanon was half of today's number, we were already saying that Lebanon is just having an unbearable burden. Now we have doubled it, and of course we shouldn't be surprised there may be tension rising over provision of services, but this is the reason more for engaging and appealing for international assistance. So far I think the communities and international organizations have been able to maintain a peaceful refugee operation as it is, but of course the danger is always around the corner.
Senator Ataullahjan: We know there is pressure on host countries to provide health care to refugees, but I wanted to specifically ask about maternal health and child health in particular. What is the state of MNCH amongst refugee women and children and what programs are being directed towards them?
Mr. De Angelis: I'm not sure I will be able to go into the details of the program. If you want, I may be able to provide you those later on, but in general, as I said, the overall impact on the health infrastructure has been enormous; and of course, part of the assistance programs are going in the direction of reinforcing the infrastructure, on providing training for medical personnel and making sure that communities are able to take care and provide adequate medical facilities to the refugees who need that.
This is something very important, because the number of children is very high. Almost half of the refugee population in Lebanon is actually children, and we are seeing surely that specific program directions have to be designed and implemented on the basis of this data. That's why I was saying from the beginning how important it is that there is capacity to register and take the data as early as possible in any refugee operation. Reinforcing the capacity to make registration within the first days or weeks of arrival before the refugees that are waiting to be registered may disappear or go into the communities without being noticed; and the capacity to register and also verify the identity after a certain period of time is the entry door, is the primary function in order to then be able to address particular situations like maternal health and child health.
Senator Ataullahjan: I would appreciate it if you could send me some more information in written form. Thank you.
Mr. De Angelis: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Yu spoke about birth registration, which has become a big issue because there are so many births that are not recorded all around the world, not just in refugee areas but in the developing world. I read that one way to register births is using digital applications. Almost all people have a mobile phone. It is the fact of our new world. Has the UNHCR considered registering via the digital system at the camps?
Mr. De Angelis: The registration we are doing is done by data-collecting equipment. Biometrics has been implemented, and this is being updated accordingly. There are different systems for doing registration with biometrics, and these features are part of the registration.
It is very important. One of the challenges of registration, which also is part of this technical advancement, as you are saying, is that in Lebanon refugees are located in 1,700 different locations, so they are really scattered. This is one of the challenges of the no-camp situation. While camps may present different situations, no-camp situations, urban situations provide the challenge of refugees being scattered all around the country. Having 1,700 locations where refugees reside means also the capacity to have mobile functions and capacity to go and register in situations where refugees are not able to reach registration places.
Technology is increasingly a very important element of registration features, and we will surely see this grow as technology progresses.
Senator Seidman: Listening to the numbers you put before us of 127,000 people registered each month between May and November, the numbers of children at risk — not only all the Syrian refugee children but, as you say, the children in the host countries as well because of the burden — leaves us speechless, almost. The host countries are being very generous, but there is no question this is putting a huge burden on their society and resources, education and health systems; and so that part of the world risks a whole generation being lost, in many respects.
Listening to this, I have a sense of frustration. What can we do? I'm thinking about your mandate and how you work with UNICEF and other agencies and organizations in the region, not only on the most immediate humanitarian assistance but also on development and more long-term work, which is what this is going to require.
I would appreciate it if you could tell us something about how you do that work. What kind of coordination and integration do you have with other organizations in the region? How do you divide it up? Is there redundancy? Is there enough oversight and sharing of practices or sharing of workloads?
Mr. De Angelis: Thank you for this question; it is very important. I have seen in the last years how much the situation has changed and big improvements in terms of coordination among the UN agencies and the partners, not only the UNHCR, but the partners in general, international partners in addressing refugee emergencies compared to many years ago. This is made possible by, first of all, the sheer scale of these new emergencies.
Now more general, even going beyond Syria, the other emergencies we are facing in South Sudan, in the Central African Republic — just to name the new ones without forgetting the old crises which never die if we think about Somalia and Afghanistan — we keep on reading our newspapers, but there are still refugee crises. Somalia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, these are areas where refugees continue to come out. These enormous challenges have brought together agencies and partners to work in coordination, especially because, with the changing of times, conflict has changed in nature as well, and we have internal conflict. And in internal conflict, when dealing with internal displacement, UNHCR is part of a general UN approach, which is called a cluster approach to which UNHCR together with other UN agencies are part of a global system to address displacement emergencies within the country.
UNHCR being the refugee agency, we don't have a specific mandate to operate within the borders of the country. This is very important because it also highlights another important point, which is the relevance of development agencies vis-à-vis emergency agencies. This is the main point of success in cooperation — now speaking in details — between UNHCR and UNICEF. Since the mid-1990s, UNHCR and UNICEF have had a memorandum of understanding in order to bring together the different nature of the organizations. While UNHCR is purely an emergency operation, responding to emergencies, UNICEF is an emergency operation but also a development organization. It is an organization that also works in countries that are not plagued by emergencies or crises and works in the development field.
The high commissioner is very strong on this point. Without the assistance of development agencies, emergency response only is not enough. In a moment in which you address an emergency, you have to bring the seeds. You have to plant the seeds for tomorrow's development. Otherwise, you will never get out of emergency mode, and you will always remain in a responsive situation that is not sustainable in the long term or even in the medium term. That's why the cohabitation of development and emergencies concepts and approaches, at the early stage, to responding to displacement crises is absolutely crucial. It has been only a few years that this has been put in practice, but it is surely the way in which the organizations and the UN system at large, together with other international partners, will continue to operate.
Senator Seidman: If I could just try to understand how you work together — because I agree with what you're saying — you are a man of experience in this, so you're saying you can't just stay in emergency mode all the time, obviously. You need the development in order to get out of the emergency mode.
For example, one of the issues that you put forward, which clearly is critical, is birth registration and also child refugee registration. As you say, if these young children are not registered, they are non-persons. They are subject to terror and all kinds of exploitation, shall we say.
Taking the example of birth registration and child refugee registration, how would you share the emergency process and then the development process in order to try to deal with that and make it happen?
Mr. De Angelis: I think birth registration, as you said, is a typical example of how the mandates of UNICEF and UNHCR may successfully overlap because registering a child is a basic human right. It is the entry door to the enjoyment of all the rights that come together with belonging to that nation. On that side, UNHCR also has an added interest and value in terms of prevention of statelessness. As UNHCR is also the agency mandated with the prevention and reduction of statelessness, we are seeing, in birth registration, also an important and crucial moment for the prevention of statelessness.
In that respect, there is an interest from the mandate of both organizations because it's a basic human right in terms of being a citizen of that country and, therefore, being able to then develop within that country, which goes under the UNICEF development mandate. On the other side, there is also the prevention of statelessness, and, of course, in the case of child refugees, it is a major part of refugee protection.
In the field, the work will be divided. I cannot tell you exactly how, in the field, the agencies are dividing the work, but there will definitely be situations in which the work is divided and the two agencies bring together their resources, their knowledge and their capacity to operate, at the end, exactly the same, on the basis of different but complementary mandates with the same objective.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much.
Senator Eggleton: As a supplementary, you describe the relationship between UNHCR and UNICEF and the coordination that goes on, but there are a lot of other players in all of this. A lot of other UN agencies, the World Health Organization, et cetera, are involved, not to mention all of the NGOs. It seems to me that, given the lack of resources that many of your organizations have, coordination is particularly important to make this all effective. How tight is the coordination? How good is the coordination of all of this?
Mr. De Angelis: Coordination has increasingly improved, for obvious reasons. It's impossible to respond to this scale of emergencies and to — and rightly so — the focus of donor countries that operations are efficient, that the money is well spent, that there is no overlap or waste of resources. The level of scrutiny and the level of attention of donor countries is rightly making that "plus" that really makes the response to emergencies more and more coordinated.
For different reasons, one of the big turning points was the work on internally displaced persons with the change of geopolitics about 20 years ago, when the crisis started to unfold within countries, where UNHCR, for the first time, in the 1990s, was projecting itself to operate within the borders of the countries in new situations, not only waiting for refugees to come outside of international borders. At that moment, the cooperation and coordination with other agencies was important and crucial because, as I said, UNHCR was not made to work within countries but was made to work for refugees outside international borders. On that basis, the cooperation with other agencies and the work on internally displaced persons formed the basis for this present strengthened cooperation. Most important is that the scale of emergencies is so huge. The needs are so high, and the funding gap is very important to cover. If we want any chance to have more donations from donors and more attention from donors, we really have to be able to demonstrate not only efficiency but also that donations are well-spent and targeting the needs.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for bringing up the point that UNHCR was set up to receive refugees outside of the conflict zones and countries. You say that about 20 years ago this started to be more of the case, and that's true. We know that it is more and more the internal conflicts that are displacing people.
I guess this study, when I proposed it, was not to look at donations but to look at the agencies to see if their mandates and their work are up to date or if we need to now revisit them in a United Nations sense or a global sense, a more positive reality to what's happening on the ground.
You say you work in Syria. How do you get into Syria when your mandate is outside? Do you need the government of Syria to agree for you to come in, and how is that done? Is it on invitation, or is it a negotiation through the UN Security Council or other basis?
Mr. De Angelis: All work of the UNHCR within countries for internally displaced persons is done as part of a UN global approach. It is this UN system with all the different agencies and the humanitarian coordinator in charge of operations for internally displaced persons. This is divided into different areas of intervention for which different agencies have lead roles. While the UNHCR has a lead role on camp management, protection, core relief items, for instance, other agencies, the WFP or UNICEF, have roles on food or child education. The system works as one machine. Of course, it is the system of UN agencies like this that receives authorization from the government to operate within a country. The UN system always has authorization of the government in charge to operate within the country. Of course, parts of the country, especially when there is conflict, are outside government control. Then, there is engagement with all parties who are controlling territory. As you know, the main interest of the UN humanitarian organizations and assistance programs is to reach the people who are in need of humanitarian assistance.
In order to reach people who are in need of humanitarian assistance, there will be negotiations to gain access to those people and to bring delivery.
Senator Andreychuk: That's the point I don't understand. What's happening inside Syria at the moment where there is active conflict? The government forces are gaining territory and losing territory, opposition forces are gaining and losing territory, and civilians caught up in all of it.
How do you know from day to day who you're dealing with and who controls the area? How do you manage that? Do you become part of the difficulty? If I were sitting in a refugee camp and one day the Syrian forces are coming at me and the next day opposition forces, whom would I trust and rely on? How can you assure them that they're going to be safe and secure?
Mr. De Angelis: As you said, if warring factions are moving like this, humanitarian organizations bringing in humanitarian assistance will not be part of those warring factions. The neutrality of the humanitarian interventions has to be recognized by all warring factions. Our capacity on the ground is to understand the situation, identify the areas where humanitarian assistance must be brought and then negotiate safe passage with all levels of powers in the field. This has happened. The UNHCR and partners have brought assistance by negotiating entry into sieged cities, maybe agreeing to a ceasefire, and bringing assistance. This is happening by staying there and by negotiating with the local powers.
As a point of strength, we are not part of the conflict; we are part of the UN to bring humanitarian assistance, which is needed by the population. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it does not work. It's all linked to the volatility of the situation. Sometimes it's very dangerous and casualties among UN and humanitarian workers are unfortunately rising; and it's because of that situation.
Senator Andreychuk: The citizens inside Syria are the most vulnerable at the moment.
Mr. De Angelis: Absolutely. All conflicts these days in Syria, South Sudan and the Central African Republic are killing civilians. There are no more armed forces as we see in the movies. That doesn't exist any longer. It is just people killing people. There is no more distinction, especially in these emergencies coming out in Syria, the Central African Republic and South Sudan. The impact and death is largely if not virtually all civilians, who are trapped in the cross fire or targeted. Civilians are killed because they belong to a different ethnic or religious group. They are trapped in terrible situations for long periods of time; and sometimes we don't even have access to them. Not having access means not knowing what's going on there. People may be dying, but we don't know in certain situations.
Gaining access is the first and most important action of emergency and humanitarian assistance work.
Senator Andreychuk: All refugees who are out, how did you get a mandate to go into Lebanon? The others have received and set up camps in Lebanon. What is the process when a country is not going to engage in camps? What process allows you to go in?
Mr. De Angelis: The UNHCR was present in Lebanon before the crisis, as we are present in 126 countries, including Canada. We are there because we represent the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Our presence in Lebanon has been because of previous crises, so there has not been a new negotiation to open up a new operation in Lebanon. The UNHCR was working there during the crisis in the 1980s and has always been there. When a new crisis comes up, it is only a matter of the UNHCR offices together with other agencies to beef up capacity and increase resources and personnel to enlarge the operation. Of course the government has to be on board.
Senator Andreychuk: How does the government come on board? The other crisis was the 1980s. We know about the refugees settled there. Now you have not just a few refugees but over 1 million moving in. How does the government speak to you on that? Is it an informal or formal process to say that they will allow these refugees and allow you to expand your operations to that extent?
Mr. De Angelis: It is an open collaboration with the government; otherwise all this wouldn't be possible. It wouldn't be possible to have 1,700 locations where refugees are and where humanitarian operators have to reach. Of course, the government of Lebanon has an interest in receiving and cooperating with international organizations because it's a lifeline for humanitarian assistance to maintain stability, which, as we said before, is always in doubt because the sheer burden of the crisis brings additional fears and concerns. The government is a complete part of the operation.
Senator Andreychuk: I have a simple question on birth registrations. Maybe it has changed, but so many people in refugee camps are there because they want to go home. They don't want to be resettled in Canada but want to go home. However, time passes and it becomes increasingly difficult, so you have to talk about resettlement as opposed to returning home.
You will undertake birth registrations, but whose country will accept the registration? Are you registering them as Syrians? Is there a negotiation with the Syrian government to accept them? Are you talking about people's registration because they gave birth on land and are entitled to it?
Mr. De Angelis: There is the mere fact of having a document which says, "This child has this name and is a child of these parents and is born on this day in this place." This is a picture of the child, which is authenticated and verified in a registration process. This is the best that can happen in that particular situation. Of course, they will be registered as Syrians because they are Syrians; and they will be registered as being born in Lebanon in a refugee situation.
So this is the birth registration that is normally recognized for the resettlement process and is surely recognized by the Syrian government once there will be the possibility of return.
Senator Andreychuk: You said "surely." Does that mean that all of these registrations — they may be used for resettlement, but all those other millions are going to have a birth registration. Have you discussed with the Syrians or has the Syrian government accepted any of these birth registrations?
You say "once the conflict is ended." That puts a lot of people in limbo, especially young people. We know other camps and other places where they are born in a camp and spend most of their lives in camps, waiting to return. Is there no discussion with the Syrian authorities to recognize these people now?
Mr. De Angelis: I'm not sure I will be able to be completely clear on this. I don't have a memory of refugees being born and officially registered abroad, then having, let's say, a problem in recognizing their nationality in terms of being from that country after the refugee crisis.
Of course, as you said, most of the refugees go home. When we talk about resettlement, we are talking about a small number of people. The largest numbers of refugees go home. In refugee repatriations, in all refugee crises I may have in mind, I can't think of having a problem of the original government — countries of origin — not recognizing birth registrations when the birth registration was done as a refugee.
I really think that this should not be a problem.
Senator Andreychuk: Chair, it would be helpful if you can investigate this whole birth registration area, if there's some information you could give us. It has been raised as a difficulty to me personally in the past, so they may have been isolated, but I would certainly like to know.
My final question is this: You indicated that most settlements are in the U.S., Canada and Australia. That's true. Are there resettlement discussions with Europe?
Mr. De Angelis: Absolutely. At the moment there are more than 25 resettlement countries. We always mention the U.S., Canada and Australia because they take the largest number — maybe 90 per cent — of the more or less 80,000 places made available by resettlement countries. But the other countries in Europe have resettlement programs that are smaller but sometimes very helpful, because they may take some difficult, more specialized or medical situations — countries like Sweden, for instance.
Other countries may have quotas of 500, but also strategically used around the globe. In the first quota of 30,000 resettlement places for the year 2013-14, 20 countries have provided places, including Canada — the 1,500 we mentioned before — and another 20 countries were part of that exercise.
The big countries are surely not alone but they are definitely the biggest ones.
Senator Munson: In your statements you mentioned that in April 2014 only 24 per cent of UNHCR's funding requirements in relation to the Syrian crisis have been received. You use the words "this means difficult choices have to be made." What are those "difficult choices"?
These numbers are astronomical. As was said by another senator, it's hard to even think of them. Are children dying in these camps because difficult choices have to be made?
Mr. De Angelis: Yes. There are very difficult choices. Where funding levels in refugee operations are low and don't meet the targets, refugee assistance is scaled down. This is particularly serious with respect to funding to United Nations World Food Programme, WFP, for instance, which provides food. I've just been told that in Central African Republic, there are situations in which now, in refugee camps, only 900 calories are distributed instead of what should be a 2,000 minimum ratio of calories; the normal ratio of calories given in a refugee camp is 2,000.
If funding doesn't reach the level, even food rations are being reduced. When I say "food," you can imagine all the rest.
There is a reduction of refugee assistance across the board.
There will be less capacity to address health issues. It is a gradual reduction across the board; that's how it happens when there is low funding. It's not that one sector can be closed completely, because you cannot close hospitals immediately, let's say. But it's a general reduction of all assistance.
This is very painful, for obvious reasons. It can be very painful for the people.
Senator Munson: With that in mind, let us look at another part of your speech. You talked about UNHCR and its partners, mainly UNICEF, providing psychosocial support. In this environment, these are nice words. Efforts include family counselling, support in schools, recreational activities, and child- and adolescent-friendly spaces.
In this environment, how do you do that? It's still a war zone. How does that work? I just find that quite difficult.
Mr. De Angelis: Those activities are very important. However, as you might think, in case of crises, these are the activities that are normally being reduced. You go for the basic assistance; during this time of low funding, you first try to just feed the refugees and give basic assistance. When we come to psychosocial support and how important it is, especially in dealing with post-dramatic stress disorders — these are things when the funding level is very low, they can be reduced.
However, especially in the Syrian context, these are particularly relevant, because of the dramatic and violent nature of the impact upon the children. This is seen during the moment of registration; it is also the moment during which specific needs are gathered. There are specific forms to be filled out in order to identify that certain psychosocial needs are required there. Programs are then designed and put in place.
That's why, as I said, registration is such a crucial entry door for the rest of the humanitarian assistance.
Child-friendly spaces — it sounds nice, and it may be sound like a luxury, you may say, in certain situations, but vis- à-vis the context of the brutality of this modern context, and not only in Syria. If we go to South Sudan or the Central African Republic, brutality is enormous there, as well. This is an important remedy in order to hope that the children may be able to overcome the stress and the psychological trauma, with support.
Senator Munson: I have one other brief question. There are forgotten refugees. I notice in our working paper that there are 530,000 Palestinians for whom Syria is a home, and there are 68,000 refugees, mostly from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Sudan. What is happening to these populations given our focus on the Syrian refugees and to refugees in your own country?
Mr. De Angelis: Syria is a country where also the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, operated. The UN Relief and Works Agency is the UN agency that deals specifically with Palestinian refugees. They are working — for what they can do in Syria — for Palestinians and in other countries in the region where Palestinians reside.
When Palestinians are outside the region where the UNRWA agency operates, they are automatically under the mandate of UNHCR. But in the region where Syrian refugees are, in Lebanon, in Jordan, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which is a specific agency for Palestinian refugees, operates and the Palestinian refugees are under its mandate. Of, course there will be cooperation and overlapping of programs, and the Palestinian refugees, if they are Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, will be included in the same refugee program assistance as the other refugees. This is a legal distinction but, in fact, in terms of delivery of operations, there won't be differences.
The Chair: Our study is looking at the mandates of the UNHCR and UNICEF, with Syria as a case study and sometimes sort of a red herring. It's not so much on Syria, but it's just a case study.
Over the years, the mandate of the UNHCR has changed. In the 1960s and 1970s it expanded its geographic scope to include a growing number of countries outside Europe, and then it became involved in managing refugee camps and humanitarian assistance in the 1980s and 1990s. In the late 1990s, the organization gained some responsibilities for internally displaced persons. Now I understand that the UNHCR's agenda also includes stateless people, irregular migrants and victims of natural disaster.
How are these changes made? Who decides the mandate of the UNHCR is going to increase? How is the approval process done? How do you go about approving the increase of the mandate?
Mr. De Angelis: The UNHCR has been created by the General Assembly as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly. So it was created with a General Assembly resolution. The statute of the UNHCR is a General Assembly resolution. That was in December 1950, operating from January 1, 1951. That's our mandate as a refugee agency.
The other mandate that UNHCR has directly from the General Assembly as a resolution is the mandate for stateless people and for the prevention and reduction of statelessness. There were various General Assembly resolutions starting from the 1970s in order to identify a body that could address the problem of statelessness in general, because in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which Canada is a party, Article 11 it says that there will be an international organization that will assist the stateless persons to solve their problems vis-à-vis their governments. So that international organization, the General Assembly, that function has been given to UNHCR. So the two mandates for UNHCR, for refugees, from the General Assembly resolution of December 1950, and for stateless persons, from the General Assembly resolution in 1974, if I remember well, these are the full mandates of UNHCR. These are the two mandates of UNHCR.
When we talk about internally displaced persons, we don't have a full mandate from the General Assembly to work on internally displaced persons, but we have been recognized, because of our experience expertise, to have a capacity to assist in internal displacement. Therefore, UNHCR, together with other UN agencies, are dealing within a country with an internal displacement situation together, in a cluster approach, in a group approach, under the humanitarian coordinator of the United Nations, where different agencies bring their own expertise and mandate in a unified manner, different from refugees and stateless persons for which UNHCR can claim a specific, unique and global mandate. But for IDPs — internally displaced persons — UNHCR is one of the parties together with, as you said, not only UN agencies but other international parties and international NGOs to deal with internally displaced persons.
Madam Chair, you mentioned displaced persons from natural disasters. This we don't have. On natural disasters, UNHCR does not have a mandate because the mandate of UNHCR is linked to man-made disasters, to war and persecutions, to displacement caused by war situations, by acts of man. But when it comes to natural disasters, there is not yet an agency that is mandated in that respect.
In 2011, Norway took the lead in an international process called the Nansen process, which is working, in this particular moment, to create a legal framework to address the situation of people who are displaced internationally by natural disasters. This is in the works. It's being created. This part of international law is just being elaborated at this moment. People who are displaced by natural disasters within their own country fall within the internal displacement concept; but if people are displaced outside their country due to natural disasters, at the moment there is no international legal framework that can cover this particular situation, because they are not refugees accordingly to refugee law.
The Chair: I'm going to have to stop you because we've gone longer than anticipated. It's obvious that we are going to have to have your help again. There are some questions that have been asked of you, and I'd very much appreciate if you would give the responses to the clerk of the committee and then he will distribute those to all the members.
If I may add three more questions to the answers you will be providing, from what Senator Andreychuk was saying, I am still not clear as to how you deal with IDPs. If you can clarify: Who invites you? I understand you were saying negotiation may be useful. What is the process?
The second thing I would very much appreciate if we could receive from you: In my other life, my whole day was spent around the issue of the refugee definition, the definition being that you have to be out of the country and you have to have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a social group or political opinion. It has always been my issue, and that of many other people, that gender is not part of the definition. For years and years, whenever I've pushed it, people say, if you start talking gender, things will get worse for refugees.
Our country came up with a solution of having gender guidelines to deal with not having gender in the definition. I would appreciate if you would give us some idea of what other countries are doing. I understand many are dealing with it as it being part of the social group, but that's not the answer, because often you get derailed for that. I'd appreciate if you would give us some information on that.
I appreciate your coming here. I again want you to convey to headquarters that we were very disappointed that the high commissioner was here at a time when we are studying the UNHCR mandate and was not able to meet with us. We hope the next time he is here we are able to meet with him, because our committee is very committed to looking at the mandate of the UNHCR. We feel we missed an opportunity to hear from him.
You, of course, have done a very good job representing UNHCR. As always, you worked with us well and we look forward to working with you again
We will now be looking at our study on the Hague Abduction Convention. I have to say that I've been a member of this committee for many years, and once in a while we get a real treat. I feel that today is that kind of treat, when the Secretary General has found time. I want to thank Foreign Affairs for arranging for him to meet with us.
We are in the middle of a study on issues that you deal with all the time. To have you here before us empowers our work and gives us better knowledge of how things work. We look forward to hearing from you. I understand you have some remarks, and then we will have some questions.
Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General, Hague Conference on Private International Law: Madam Chair, honourable members of the committee, it's a real privilege and pleasure to be here today and to address the committee on the Hague child abduction convention. I would like to thank you wholeheartedly for the invitation you have extended to the Hague Conference, and I also extend my thanks to the Department of Justice and the Department of Foreign Affairs for having organized this particular meeting, but also a few other meetings while I'm in Ottawa.
It's all the more a pleasure to be here and talk about the Hague child abduction convention. As you certainly know, the Hague child abduction convention is a Canadian initiative; so it's all the more meaningful to be back in Canada to talk about the convention.
It is equally relevant in the sense that Canada continues to play a very important role in the ongoing promotion of the convention, talking to non-contracting states and encouraging them to join the convention. I'm referring here to the Malta Process. I understand you have a particular interest in the Malta Process, and I will be happy to address that, but also, in the general monitoring of the operation of the convention, and Canada plays a very active and helpful role in this work.
With your permission, Madam Chair, I thought it would be useful at this stage to talk for two or three minutes about the Hague Conference in general to set the scenery and give you some sense of the reality of the conditions in which the Hague Conference operates.
The Hague Conference on Private International Law is an intergovernmental organization, the origin of which goes back to 1893, so we have been around for quite some time. According to the statute, the mandate of the organization is to work for the progressive unification of private international law rules. What we mean by "private international law" is essentially the set of road signs — traffic signals — which tell you which way to go in a cross-border context. Imagine a cross-border commercial contract, cross-border family relationship or a cross-border financial transaction. In those circumstances, you want to know which court applies, which court has a jurisdiction to hear a dispute, and what you can do in terms of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Is there a cooperation mechanism in place among the relevant states to overcome the challenges of these cross-border situations, which are often complex and delicate in nature?
To address these challenges, the conference establishes the Hague Conventions. As we speak, there are 38 Hague Conventions on the books, so the Hague child abduction convention is one out of 38 conventions. I have asked the clerk to distribute to you three little documents. There is one in particular that shows the coverage of the Hague Conference. There is a first map that shows the membership of the organization, and the dark blue coloured states are members of the organization. Canada has been a member since 1968 and has been an active member ever since. As you can see at the bottom of the page, there are a few states also in the pipeline, if I may say so, which are in the process of joining the organization.
If you turn that map, you see on the other side the number of all the connected states, that is, the states that are, without being a member of the organization and thus without contributing to the budget of the organization, still party to at least one of our conventions. Overall, we have 144 connected states; they are either a member or otherwise party to at least one of our conventions.
The reason I'm telling you this is that it is a challenge to develop these new conventions for the world because legal systems are so different around the globe. It is equally a challenge to look after the proper operation of these conventions, the post-convention services, as we call them, because it's one challenge to develop the conventions. It is one thing to put them on the table; it's another thing to make sure they work in practice.
Among these 38 conventions that I have mentioned, not all of them are of equal importance; not all of them are actually in force. I would say there are about 12 to 15 core conventions that deal with family law relations, cross-border procedural issues and commercial and financial issues. Canada is party to four conventions. In addition to the child abduction convention, it's the trust convention, the adoption convention and the service of process convention.
There are a series of other conventions, which have been widely ratified and set international standards, that are not yet in force in Canada. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all the relevant authorities to continue their efforts to look into these other conventions and to assess their relevance for Canada. I do appreciate that a lot of work is ongoing in this field, in particular, also on the 1996 convention on the protection of children. There is the Apostille Convention that is under assessment. The Apostille Convention is the most widely ratified of all of our conventions with 106 contracting states around the world, but Canada is not yet on board. We continue, of course, to assist our colleagues in the relevant ministries with their assessment of these conventions.
The challenges are that our resources are limited. The overall budget of the organization is 3.8 million euros. We have a staff of about 30 people altogether at the office in The Hague, and we have regional offices in Buenos Aires and Hong Kong that help us with our work in these relevant regions. But there is sometimes a sense of frustration in the sense that we don't have the means, either financially nor human resources-wise, to do what we think should be and could be done to promote all these conventions effectively and ensure their proper operation and implementation in the various contracting states.
That was my little opening speech, Madam Chair. I'm happy to make a few remarks on the child abduction convention in particular. I understand from your previous hearings that you are very familiar with the nature, purpose and content of the convention. I would again from our perspective share a few thoughts as to what we see are the main challenges and objectives for the coming years.
One of the next big things for the child abduction convention is the special commission on the practical operation of the convention, which is a regular meeting of experts of all the contracting states coming together to discuss the operation, which is tentatively scheduled for the end of 2015, early 2016. That is still a mid- to long-term process, but we are already preparing that meeting. There are a few challenges in that respect.
For example, if you were to ask me what the statistics are in relation to the operation of the convention, how many child abduction cases there are on the convention around the world, I am embarrassed to tell you that, as the Secretary General of this organization, I cannot give you a reliable, comprehensive and updated answer as to what the statistics are. Why? It is because we are not getting information back from all the contracting states.
It is one of my priorities, as I have taken office in July of last year as Secretary General, to ensure that we have continuing feedback from all contracting states to know how many cases are ongoing under the convention, how long it takes to deal with these cases and what the actual outcomes are. Are we talking about a judicial return of the child, a voluntary return of the child, or is there a judicial refusal to return the child, in particular, based on the exception of Article 13.1(b), the grave risk exception, that I understand has been discussed in this room as well?
It would be wonderful if Canada could help us in this regard to encourage all other contracting states to provide us with these figures. We are developing software that we are about to send to all relevant central authorities to facilitate that flow of information as much as possible.
The second thing is that I would wholeheartedly encourage Canada to continue its immensely appreciated efforts to talk to non-contracting states and try to bring them into the convention. Canada has played a pioneering role in launching the Malta Process. Bill Crosbie, who has been here also, is the co-chair of the working group on mediation and the Malta Process and is doing a wonderful job in reaching out to non-contracting states.
I can tell you that we plan a joint mission, Canada-The Hague, if I may say so, sort of a "dream team," to go to the Middle East and Indonesia to talk to the relevant officials and encourage them to join the convention. These efforts are important, they are difficult, they are delicate and they take a lot of effort, time and patience, but they are absolutely worthwhile doing.
The third challenge is what I have already referred to, which is Article 13.1(b), the grave risk exception, which is applied in different ways and different forms among the various contracting states. We have established a working group with a view to developing a guide to good practice as to how to apply the grave risk exception, with a view to having as uniform as possible an operation of this exception, which was really designed to be an exceptional exception, if I may say so, and only applied in a very specific, limited number of cases. It has become a bit of a general exception, and we have to be very mindful of that. Again, Canada plays an active role in that group.
Personally, I believe that the best response to child abduction is not to let the abduction occur in the first place: prevention, prevention, prevention. There are a number of things that can be done, in our view, in this respect. I'm not talking here as a representative of the organization, but personally I do believe in the merits of what we call a model travel consent form. I'm saying this because I myself have a mixed marriage; my wife is actually Canadian. We live in the Netherlands, and my wife often travels with the kids back to Canada. I have established my own model travel consent form: "I hereby consent that my wife travel with" — the two kids — "back to Canada." Regularly, my wife would be asked by the immigration officer, "How come you're travelling alone with your kids?" She would show my consent form, incidentally written on Hague Conference stationery, and the immigration official would be rather impressed to see there is a consent written on a Hague Conference letterhead to allow the kids to travel.
There are various models out there already, including one developed by the Department of Foreign Affairs here in Canada, which can be downloaded from their website. I understand that since they have revised it, the number of hits and clicks has increased significantly, but I still believe that it would be useful to have a Hague Conference uniform, global travel consent form, which would certainly help to prevent a number of abductions.
I am following one in particular that has been developed by a foundation in the United States called the I CARE Foundation, which I personally think is a well-written document. We know from their experience that the document has already been used in about 500 cases, including in relation to Canada, both incoming and outgoing.
All kids have come back. In three instances, we know the parent travelling with the kids threatened not to come back, despite the fact that he or she had signed the consent form together with his or her partner or spouse. What could be done in those circumstances is simply telling the parent, "Listen, if you don't come back within 24 hours, we will have a return order issued in the state where you are, which will be immediately executed and the kids will come home." In all three instances, a return order did not have to be issued and the parent came back.
Again, this just shows the merits of such a model consent form. If only one abduction can be avoided by this form, I personally think it is worth the effort.
The other mechanism that has proven to be very useful is what we call the concentration of jurisdiction in the contracting states. That means that instead of having all general first instance courts being competent to hear Hague abduction cases, you would designate only a number of courts and give them competence jurisdiction to hear these cases. That has the obvious advantage of developing expertise within the relevant courthouse; it is always the same people who deal with these cases. They develop specific knowledge. It also has the advantage, then, to accelerate the processes because these people don't have to become familiar first with the Hague mechanism before they hear the cases. As you will have understood, time is of the essence in all of these cases.
I am not entirely certain as to what the situation is in Canada with concentration of jurisdiction. Please don't quote me on this, but I think there are at least three provinces that have a form of concentration of jurisdiction. However, it's not applied throughout the country, and maybe that's something that you may wish to recommend as well.
Finally, Madam Chair, I think the overall challenge of the convention is the uniform operation and interpretation throughout the world. We are now up to 92 contracting states from various parts of the world with various legal traditions, which makes it more and more challenging to ensure that the convention is applied in a uniform way. For that, we have these special commission meetings. They are very important. We have all sorts of publications that we have done to encourage and facilitate this uniform interpretation.
There is one challenge that we face in this regard. We have an electronic database with the case law from around the world on the Hague child abduction convention. It's called INCADAT. It is a free database accessible on our website that has about a thousand cases that are briefly summarized in both English and French and provides a short legal analysis of each case. Unfortunately, due to lack of resources, we've had to stop the contract of one of our external advisers. Quite honestly, I have to think about possibly pulling the plug on that website because we don't have the means to keep it up to date and to make it as comprehensive as it should be. We are making efforts to find some private funding or encourage contracting states to contribute to the supplementary budget of the organization to facilitate these types of efforts.
I apologize in making these comments, but I operate under the premise that what I don't tell you, you may not know. I would rather give you this reality check so you know within what sort of reality we are operating at the office. We are not the United Nations with a big building and hundreds of people working; we are not the European Union in a rather important means. No, we are small. Being small also has advantages. We do what we can; we do our best. It's a pleasure and an honour to work for this organization, but again, sometimes it's a bit challenging.
These are my opening comments.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's very interesting what you say about the consent forms because we know, for example, in Mexico, you cannot take a child without both parents signing a form. They will ask for it. Those are the kinds of things we can certainly look at.
We had Justice Chamberland here. We're very proud of what he and the Network of Judges do. I very much respect it's not something where we can have a parliamentary network because the treaty process, as we all know, is an executive one. I want to hear from you if you think Parliament has a role in — certainly we have a role because we are looking at this. For example, we have a good relationship with parliamentarians in Jordan, and we could work to encourage them on mutually beneficial issues. I would like your point of view as to what you think of parliamentarians getting more actively involved in promoting some of the issues you spoke about just now.
Mr. Bernasconi: Madam Chair, I applaud your efforts, both at this stage to review the operation but also your efforts to reach out to your colleagues in other jurisdictions and encourage them to look into the matter. There is just that much that we can do from our side, and I think a dialogue among members of Parliament is potentially a very fruitful way of encouraging the relevant authorities in the other states to at least look into the convention, assess it and eventually join it.
If you need more information as to the operation of the convention, information that you would like to share with your colleagues in the other states, we are always happy to help and assist in any way. I'm sure that it goes also for your colleagues here at the various departments.
I would certainly welcome such an initiative. We have some contacts with members of parliaments in other jurisdictions. There is no established network, as you say, but specific efforts on a bilateral basis, maybe even on a regional basis, could certainly lead to useful results.
The Chair: The other thing that the committee has been looking at and focused on is the Malta Process. We are pleased that Morocco has come in, and we are looking at how we encourage other countries that have practised sharia law or Islamic law and are reluctant to become part of the Hague community and the Hague Abduction Convention. I would like to hear your views as to where we are at, what progress we are making and how far we have to go.
Mr. Bernasconi: Thank you for the question.
I would start by saying we attach great importance to the Malta Process. It is a very significant initiative within the overall framework of the child abduction convention. Again I would like to thank Canada for the active role that it plays in facilitating this process.
We have had so far three Malta conferences in Malta, hence the name. There are no specific plans at this stage, concrete plans to have a fourth of these conferences in Malta because we thought at this stage that more dialogue is needed with the relevant countries in different parts of the world.
You may have heard recently that Iraq has acceded to the convention. That is not an accession that is the direct result of the Malta Process, but it's obviously very relevant to the Malta Process. I also refer to efforts we are conducting together with Bill Crosbie to reach out to Indonesia, the largest Muslim state on earth. It would be extremely relevant to bring Indonesia on board, indeed.
What we see within the Malta Process is, when you talk to sharia experts, the first challenge is that there is no single sharia law on these issues. There are various schools of interpretation and various forms of operating their principle in the given framework.
There seems to be an overall understanding that has recently been confirmed at a meeting we had in The Hague with sharia scholars saying there is nothing in the convention that would be fundamentally in contradiction with sharia law. Sharia law is also based on the idea of the best interests of the child. That is sort of the common entry point for a discussion with these states. Obviously the best interests of the child may then be interpreted in different ways in the sharia context, but I think it is absolutely crucial that we continue this dialogue with sharia-based, sharia-influenced states. I really would like to possibly achieve a situation where we have Morocco, Iraq and Indonesia on board. Then we have a critical mass that would allow to us continue our efforts and encourage other states to join as well.
I have to tell you, Madam Chair and honourable members, that this comes with challenges. It's not an easy process. The accession by Iraq came a bit out of the blue, if you allow me the expression. I am in regular talks with the Iraqi ambassador in The Hague. The convention enters into force in Iraq on June 1. They hardly know that they have to designate a central authority, so that shows how much work needs to be done to ensure first implementation and then operation of the convention under those circumstances.
We will certainly reach out to Iraq and encourage them to join the Malta Process, learn from the experience with other countries and see what we can do to help and assist them. The challenge is that Iraq is not a member of the organization. Since we have rather limited resources, we have to prioritize our technical assistance, and one of the criteria we apply is members of the organization get access to technical assistance on a priority basis as opposed to non-members of the organization.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for being here. My question was also to do with the Malta Process, but since you explained it, I will move to another area.
You said at a recent meeting of scholars that they decided there was no contradiction in the Hague convention with sharia law. What was the reaction of some of the Muslim states? Has this message been conveyed to them, that the best interest of the child is within the sharia law?
I'm a practising Muslim, and we had experts here, but by the end of it I was very confused as to what was sharia law with regard to the best interests of the child. I can imagine the confusion with people who are not Muslims about how it is to be understood. There don't seem to be any clear lines, and we heard different ages from different groups.
Egypt changed their laws in 1921, I think it was, and raised the age of the children that sharia law was applicable to. What has been the reaction from some of the Muslim states?
Mr. Bernasconi: Thank you for the question. It is obviously a crucial and very relevant question, and I have to preface my response by saying that I myself am not an expert on sharia law matters, and so I will be very general in my response because I don't want to say something that is potentially not correct.
The fact of the matter is that at this meeting in The Hague that analysis was made in front of other participants from Muslim states, and there was no general opposition to the statement, if I may say so. I think there is a wide-spread agreement that sharia law is based on the principle of the best interests of the child as well. As I say, this is the common entry point. The question then is what does it mean, the best interests of the child? You will find a number of sharia representatives who will say the best interests is if the child can grow up in a Muslim context, and that might be an obstacle to the return of the child under the convention.
What is really important, what is crucial is that we continue this dialogue, that we continue to learn from each other and see what can be done, because for me the ultimate goal of the Malta Process is still to see these states joining the convention. But I don't think that we are at the stage where we can develop more significant efforts to strongly encourage them to come into the convention.
I think we're still in the learning process. We still have to have these discussions. We still have to learn more from the Moroccan experience. The convention has been in force in Morocco for a while, and yet, quite honestly, we don't really know what the reality of the practical operation is in Morocco. The same goes for the 1996 convention in Morocco, which is also in force. That is why all of these meetings are important. Each time we learn something, we put a piece of the puzzle together. It is a long process. It is a time-consuming process, but I think this is a process that is very worthwhile to conduct.
Senator Ataullahjan: If I asked you what the current status of the Malta Process is, what would your response be?
Mr. Bernasconi: The current status is that the working group on mediation, which is a very important technique within sharia states to overcome the challenges of these challenging family situations, is very active. The dialogue is ongoing. We, the Permanent Bureau, have an excellent relationship with both co-chairs of the Malta Process, and we continue this dialogue. But we continue it on a case-by-case basis.
We recently had a meeting in Tunisia, for example, where a number of our Hague conventions were promoted through the Maghreb states and the states from the Middle East, and we took this opportunity to organize a side meeting of the Malta Process and the Mediation Working Group to talk just about Malta and mediation and the child abduction convention. We seized all of these opportunities to try to accelerate the process and, again, to have an ongoing dialogue.
My hope is that we can have a fourth Malta conference in the not-too-distant future, but I really can't give any precise indications as to when this would be because I think it really depends on how the situation with Iraq evolves and how the situation with Indonesia evolves.
We have had some rather promising discussions with the Philippines as well. I think they may come into the convention also in a reasonable future. We're also discussing the convention with Indian authorities.
I think, once we have reached the next stage of this discussion, when we have the feeling that, yes, there is really something new to be shared within the Malta Process, we will go for a real Malta conference. I'm very pleased to say that the Government of Malta continues to be very supportive also and would be willing to support such a conference.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for being here.
I think the Hague Conventions suffer from lack of knowledge among the public. They have not been in discourse, not even in the legal community. I think your presence here is very helpful.
You gave us all of the Hague Conventions. Do you have a sheet like this that has the date of when the conventions came in, the start of them? I say this because we have studied other conventions and found that some of them are out of date and perhaps would not be worthy of pursuing at this time because events have overtaken them, and then some others are worthy of investigating further. I look at this mass of conventions, and it would be nice if there was a crisp way and I wouldn't have to do all of the research.
Mr. Bernasconi: We could certainly provide you with these details.
Senator Andreychuk: I think it would be a good background for our material.
You say there's a model of consent. That's what I want to go to. Part of the problem with the model of consent that has been pointed out is the fact that, if you've got two parties who are working at their dissolution and are cooperative with children, that consent works. It certainly works when you're still together. But you sign a consent on the belief that the child will go out for this purpose, and then that parent takes the child in a different direction.
For example, you want to take that child to another country to visit with the in-laws and grandparents. It sounds reasonable for three weeks, but then, the fourth week, the child isn't back. The fifth week, he or she isn't back, and the child doesn't come back. You are saying that you've never seen those cases?
Mr. Bernasconi: No, not under the model consent form that I have in mind. It's a fairly new consent form but one that has been widely promoted and has been used in 16 different jurisdictions, and there are efforts to have it used in different jurisdictions around the world. I do not know in how many states it has been used, but it clearly fulfills its purpose because what you can do also with such a model consent form is have these return orders issued. Also, I think it would be a very interesting and effective way to limit Article 13.1(b) uses. You have all of these previous consents given and a promise to return with the child, and, depending on how detailed the model consent form is, you can also have a comment to the effect that there is no issue of domestic violence and what have you. Therefore, you have evidence to the effect that there is nothing wrong — quite to the contrary — with the child coming back.
Senator Andreychuk: In the 16 cases where the consent was used —
Mr. Bernasconi: No, there are about 500 cases.
Senator Andreychuk: Were the 500 cases with countries that are signed on to the convention, or are they other countries?
Mr. Bernasconi: They are both. Some are contracting states; some are non-contracting states.
Senator Andreychuk: Would the other non-contracting states be part of the Malta Process?
Mr. Bernasconi: I think some are, but I would have to verify this information with the promoters of this model consent form. It is a model consent form that we sort of keep an eye on, and we watch its development. Again, it was only recently launched, but I think it's a worthwhile initiative to keep an eye on.
Senator Andreychuk: Following up what our chair said, I know that in another convention we received a phenomenal number of ratifications after we had parliamentary involvement, and, certainly, we had to get resources for it worldwide. We would go in and meet with all parties and explain a convention because there are always these myths that grow up around the conventions, that you're taking away from national sovereignty, et cetera, if you go into an international convention. We were able to get the information into the hands of parliamentarians. Then good things happened and the convention was ratified.
Do you think this would be one that parliamentarians could take on, in some structure, to meet with their counterparts in a country like Indonesia, to break down the barriers about what this convention really does and does not do?
Mr. Bernasconi: I think so, absolutely, along the lines of my previous response. Unfortunately, there is not much effort ongoing in this respect — cross-border parliamentary exchanges — but I would certainly encourage those exchanges and discussions. Again, we stand ready to facilitate and support such exchange if you deem it necessary, absolutely.
Experience shows that when we try to promote the child abduction convention or any other convention, the first reaction is: The Hague Conference? What are you? Who are you? What are you doing? Then you try to explain, and they start to realize it's actually interesting that you mention that because they have the same issues. They have the same problems; they just didn't know there was a convention available to overcome these challenges. That's the first round. Then you have to do a second round of discussions, maybe with another set of experts or government authorities.
Sometimes members of parliament are involved in these discussions. It's very helpful to have early discussions with the members of Parliament. It can only facilitate a speedy procedure when the convention is presented to Parliament for accession or ratification. Whatever can be done upfront to facilitate the discussion later on is a worthwhile effort, indeed.
Senator Andreychuk: You pointed out that sharia law, at this time, is one of the difficulties in terms of attempting to get ratification or accession. Is there some other single topic or issue that preoccupies you? That seems to keep coming up; but is there another one?
Mr. Bernasconi: I don't think there is an impediment, an issue, a challenge or a problem with acceding to the convention, other than the political will to do so, obviously. Quite frankly, if we were to go to some parts of Africa or maybe some parts of the Asia-Pacific, they would not have heard of the convention. That's why I say the more voices that participate in this dialogue, including members of Parliament, the better it is.
The challenge really is Article 13.1(b) and continuing the dialogue with the sharia-based states. The other challenge is the general sort of uniform operation and application of the convention. It's our job, our mandate and our task to ensure that more states join this convention, which is an expression of basic human rights as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989.
Senator Unger: Thank you very much for your interesting presentation.
What are the key challenges and barriers that member states would face when trying to convince non-member states to join?
Mr. Bernasconi: From a purely operational point of view, you have to explain to potential new contracting states that they have to establish a central authority. They immediately think about resources, staffing and costs. Generally speaking, every state would have a family child support and protection division or agency in place or social services that could take over the role of a central authority. I don't think this is a real, fundamental obstacle.
The next challenge is to train the judges, who need to know how to properly operate this convention. This is where the use of the Hague Network of judges is so important.
I would like to applaud again the efforts that Canada is making in this regard and the active participation of Canadians, including Justice Jacques Chamberland from Quebec and Madam Justice Robyn Diamond from Manitoba. This network is a wonderful source of general information on how the convention is to operate.
Then you have a third challenge, which is the general training of practitioners and social services that may be involved in the operation of the convention. These basic challenges need to be overcome.
Senator Unger: I found myself wondering, when you mentioned that Iraq was interested in becoming a member, what challenges there would be to bring them along to a fully participating member in the Malta Process.
Mr. Bernasconi: The challenge is such that Iraq is an acceding state, which means that Iraq will have only treaty relationships under the convention if and when the other contracting states have accepted that accession. As long as Iraq has not designated a central authority — I don't see how you could accept the accession as long as Iraq has not completed the country profile that provides basic information on how the convention has been implemented with references to domestic law.
By the way, the country profile is another very helpful Canadian initiative. We have a basic questionnaire that we submit to newly acceding states for them to fill in. These are all things that the Iraqi authorities were simply not aware of. There is a lot of political goodwill to join the convention and be part of the community that protects the rights of children, but they definitely need support, help and assistance from the international community to make it work, because they don't have the expertise. They don't necessarily have the private international law culture and background that it takes to properly implement these conventions.
Hence I have made efforts with the Iraqi ambassador to encourage Iraq to become a member of the organization so that they would have access to technical assistance. We will facilitate, in cooperation with existing contracting states and members of the organization, basic technical assistance with Iraq. We'll see what we can do, even if they are not a member of the organization.
There is a certain limit to what we can do under those circumstances, so it's important that we encourage them to become a member of the organization, which, by the way, is what Tunisia has precisely chosen to do. They said that they will first become a member of the organization. I believe in October 2014, when the six-month period will be over, Tunisia will be a member of the organization. Then, they will reach out to us and to ask for technical assistance and your help, for example, on the child abduction convention, which has been widely promoted already in Tunisia, where there is a lot of interest. With Morocco and possibly Tunisia on board and then Iraq, Indonesia and the Philippines, the scenery will start to change and our joint efforts will bear fruit.
Senator Munson: It's always interesting when we talk about the rights of the child. I'll ask a couple of nuts-and-bolts questions.
In your opening remarks you seemed a little pessimistic. You used words such as "don't have the means to promote all these conventions and don't have the data on child abductions and enough statistics." You used the phrase "pulling the plug" perhaps on a website. What is your budget? What do you need to operate properly?
Mr. Bernasconi: Thank you very much for another relevant question.
We have two budgets. The regular budget covers salaries and the operation of the organization. As I said, we have about 30 people on that regular budget. The overall regular budget of the Hague Conference on Private and International Law is about 3.8 million euro. That's all we have to pay the salaries, some pensions and what have you. When we have meetings to negotiate these conventions, we do not meet in our offices because they are far too small. We go to the Peace Palace, where we rent office space. We pay interpreters. They are all sorts of annexed costs to the preparation of the convention, which put quite some pressure on the budget.
Luckily, we also have a second, supplementary budget, which is a voluntary budget, to which states can contribute either financially or in kind. Canada has in the past also contributed to that supplementary budget.
But it is a challenge even to present to the members of the organization a budget that would compensate for inflation. The budget of the organization in the past seven years, if my memory is correct, has not even compensated for inflation. The organization is basically shrinking, because we don't even compensate for inflation.
It's difficult for me to say what we would really need. If there were no Hague Conference and someone suddenly had this glorious idea that we should have an international governmental organization that deals with issues, be it family, financial, corporate, financial law, legal or procedural issues, I think you would easily come up with a budget that is properly three, four or five times the current budget to do the work that we think should be done.
If I may add, it's very challenging to have this discussion with the members, because the members are often themselves under pressure. Budgets are being cut in the relevant departments and what have you. So we are also making efforts to reach out to private donors, foundations and private foundations to possibly support the activities of the Hague Conference, in particular, these technical assistance activities, organizing seminars, training and what have you. But I personally believe that private funding is only a possibility if and when, and as long as, it comes with no strings attached whatsoever.
Essentially I'm looking for private donors who put the money on the table and say, "Good luck saving the world. You do with this money what you think is the right thing to do." I would not take any instructions as to what to do from anyone providing money.
I mentioned this INCADAT database which is facing real challenges because of a lack of resources. When I mentioned this with the legal community, the law firms and practitioners, they told me, "But we didn't know that, and we use INCADAT; it's one of our basic tools we use on an almost-daily basis. Tell us what we can do to support your efforts."
So I'm in the process of reaching out to a number of law firms to see if they can even put in 10,000 dollars or euros. One law firm here and there, and suddenly you have enough to pay a legal office for a full year to work on INCADAT and bring it up to date again.
Senator Munson: Thank you for that. It's important information for folks to know.
As parliamentarians, we're always interested in Canada's role here. There are four questions in our work paper today, but I'll try to put them all together. Canada's involvement right now, how does it compare with other countries? What's our financial contribution; is it up there with the others? Is it higher? What is our compliance record in comparison to other party states on the Hague Abduction Convention? What more could we do as a country to improve cooperation in the settlement of cross-border family disputes with both Hague and non-Hague states?
I know there are four or five questions there, but I'd like to get a picture of whether Canada has — A, A plus B, or C? Where are we in the good works you do?
Mr. Bernasconi: From our perspective, certainly we see Canada as a faithful, strong friend and supporter of the Hague Conference and, and we're grateful for that. The reality is also that Canada is among the top payers of the organization. Without giving you the full details, because I think they are both technical and rather boring, we have a system of units. There are members that pay one single budgetary unit. There are members that pay 3, 5, 10, 15, 25 and up to 33 units.
There are six big payers who pay 33 units, and Canada is one of those — Canada, the United States, the U.K., France, Germany and Japan. Those are the six big payers. They each pay 33 times 6,000 euro. I'll let you do the math. One unit is 6,000 euro, roughly. So Canada, essentially, pays something along the lines of 200,000 euro to the regular budget of the organization. There are other smaller states that pay one single unit, so we're talking about 6,000 euro as their regular contribution to the budget of the organization.
We don't have compliance reports, as such. We don't grade states and their performance with the operation of some of these conventions. I don't think we should do that. We are the secretariat; we don't have a policing role.
What has proven to be very useful are these special commissions, where all the contracting states come together. There have been instances in the past when there was a real problem with one contracting state saying that all the others would say, "You really have a problem and you should fix it." The relevant state would then go home with a message to bring the house in order and fix the issues.
In terms of what Canada could do, there are lots of things we could discuss: Support our efforts to develop what we call INCASTAT, which is the statistics software to gather all the relevant information on the number of cases and operation of the child abduction convention; please continue to support the efforts to reach out to new contracting states, which this is an extremely important, valuable contribution made by Canada; and a contribution to the supplementary budget would be extremely welcome.
In an ideal world, at least my view, the Hague Conference would have a judicial college, academy or some sort of a training centre where we could have groups of judges and practitioners come and benefit from training provided not just by us, the Permanent Bureau, because we have limited time for that, but where there are enough experts out there, practitioners, who could take this role over. It's really just a question of funding and bringing the people to The Hague, or having the relevant experts go to these countries where training is needed and just do it.
It's a question of resources. It's a question of finances; hence, our efforts to reach out to private donors. The message I get from the capitals of our embassies is that it's zero nominal growth throughout the budget; our budget is not going to increase. I do encourage states to contribute to the supplementary, voluntary budget. This is where you make a difference.
The Chair: Mr. Bernasconi, I have to end this because I know you have another commitment. I want you to know that you always have an open invitation to come and speak to us whenever you're in Ottawa. There's certainly a lot we can work together on. We can learn from you. I want to once again thank Justice Canada and DFATD for making sure they freed up enough time for you to come and meet with us. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bernasconi: Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we will convene the last panel of today's hearings. I'm pleased to present to you Yasmin Haque, from UNICEF, Deputy Director, Office of Emergency Programmes, by video conference; and François Ducharme, Emergency Specialist, Office of Emergency Programmes, also by video conference.
Ms. Haque, you have come to our rescue at very short notice. Obviously you are used to emergency situations, but for us it's really important that we hear from you. Not to interfere in any way with your opening remarks, we have spoken about Syria, but we are truly looking at your UNICEF mandate and at ways in which UNICEF is on the ground. We understand that you are humanitarian and now more into development.
If I may share a quick story with you, when I was in Darfur, Canada was the first country that went to Darfur when the crisis first started, and one of the women said to me that your work on education made the difference. Even if the children went hungry, the fact that you provide education in camps makes the difference. Everywhere I travelled in Sudan, I took your UNICEF boxes to the teachers. Many of us here are familiar with your work on the ground. What we want is your help with the mandates. What are the gaps in the mandate and what should we be looking at?
I understand you have kindly prepared some remarks for us.
Yasmin Haque, Deputy Director, Office of Emergency Programmes, UNICEF Headquarters: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. Greetings from New York and specifically from the Office of Emergency Operations.
It's really an honour for me to have this opportunity to, first, thank the government and the people of Canada for the very generous support they have provided for children who face crisis all over the globe, but in particular the children from Syria who now in various locations are facing a crisis.
It's also heartening for us to see that three years on, where we expected the people would begin to get weary of responding to this crisis, we are seeing the interest, the continued attention to the plight of children in Syria, and that really helps us a long way in the work that we do.
The fact is, when the crisis first started, for us it was clear that this is going to be a children's crisis, and that stands true today. It means children within Syria and in all the other countries where they have fled remain vulnerable; they remain exposed to risk; and our work to identify those risks, to minimize them and to make sure that we are meeting our obligations as stated in the UNICEF's core commitment to children in humanitarian crises remains true.
It means that our attempts are to reach children of Syria, all children everywhere. It is within the borders of Syria, within the countries that they and their families have fled to, and no matter what situation they find themselves in, we are able to provide the type of support that they need.
Madam Chair, I will go straight on to your question of mandate because I think this is an important one.
UNICEF does not make the distinction of children as to where they are. Our mandate is to reach children everywhere. The mandate comes very closely from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the way we have stated our obligations in the type of reach we would provide to children who face humanitarian crises.
In the case of Syria, the crisis means that we estimate about half of the 9.3 million people affected inside Syria, including the 6.5 million IDPs, are children. We estimate that of the 2.8 million Syrians who are refugees, the number of child refugees has increased tenfold in the last year alone. We estimate that 3.5 million people are trapped in areas classified as hard or almost impossible to reach, which includes hundreds and thousands of children, potentially a million children.
For us, one of the key areas that we focus on is that of child protection, because this is first and foremost a protection crisis. We know that children are at risk of being separated from their families. They are at risk of being affected directly by the armed nature of the conflict. They are at risk of being recruited by some parties to the conflict, and they face the risk of arrest, detention and ill-treatment.
We also know that the most basic of services that they are entitled to are not reaching all children. We have made gains in some of those areas, but in many of them we still have not been able to reach all the children we need to. I won't give details of that and I'll leave any specific questions that you have in that regard, but to give you an idea of the challenges we are facing on the ground, one is the lack of access to reach the difficult areas. We estimate, along with UN partners, that we are talking about 262 locations in which 3.5 million people are living.
We face a critical gap in getting health supplies especially to certain parts of the population in opposition-controlled areas, when it comes to such items as syringes. We have seen good positive results in getting the polio campaign going in those areas, but polio is working, through volunteers, with just two drops of a liquid that the children ingest. When it comes to vaccinations such as measles, we know we are not reaching children because the syringes themselves are difficult to transport.
The third major challenge we face is that of insecurity. As you may know, 16 UN staff have been killed since the beginning of the conflict. There have not been any UNICEF staff, but as a humanitarian community this poses a great challenge to us all.
The fourth is very complex access to negotiations and response planning that we have to go through, and managing that with a broad range of opposition groups with changing alliances. We keep seeing new parties coming into the fora.
The fifth major challenge this year is that of underfunding, where we estimate that only 30 per cent of funding against our requirements is yet available, and that is for Syria and all the neighbouring countries.
You asked a question about how our work is addressing or able to meet the needs of children. As I mentioned previously, it's really our mandate to reach them, to help keep children's rights in the forefront, and in a way to make sure that we mitigate the politicization of humanitarian aid. Through our wash programs, water flows through a pipe system. We have a greater access, and I mentioned with polio.
At the same time, the whole "No Lost Generation" initiative that we have worked with and which has been strongly supported by the Government of Canada, it's been really important that we not get caught in the daily humanitarian side of work and really take time to look ahead to see what it is we need to put in place today so the children affected by the crisis get the opportunity to realize their full potential. That's where the "No Lost Generation" initiative is very important in keeping an eye on the key issues of education, psychosocial support, child protection and working with young people so they can help rebuild the future that at the moment seems very bleak.
We have tried to look at how we can have a greater focus on equity in our response, and in whatever we do. We do have examples in Lebanon and Jordan where we have worked with partners and advocated quite successfully to look at targeting through identifying the most vulnerable children, and those who need the support the most. It's the most vulnerable of all children in the area, not just the children who have come out of Syria, but, for example, in the same places we have host communities and Palestinian refugees who are very vulnerable. Our aim is to look at children in a particular area and identify the most vulnerable and reach them to the best of our ability. The important part is our monitoring of grave violations of child rights, and that is something we report regularly to the Secretary General on.
It was mentioned that we have had to ramp up our advocacy efforts. We have had to examine the way we work. As an organization, UNICEF originally started as a relief organization, but it became very clear in the early days that we have to go beyond relief and address targets for children to help them survive, thrive, develop and to be in an environment that protects and nurtures them.
If you ask me whether UNICEF is a humanitarian or a development agency, I will say both. It depends on the situation we face, that we apply our programming, learning from our decades of experience and from what we have learned in facing various humanitarian crises on how we can be a better humanitarian partner on the ground.
It means we don't work on our own. We work with our partners, with our counterparts in government and very closely with civil society partners. It is important that we work with children and bring their perspective into our response, and for us to learn from them on the situation they face. That is a very important part of what we do, and our advocacy.
If I look at our operations, I've talked about partnerships. The other thing I should talk about is risk management. In situations like this, we have to make a very clear analysis of what the risks are to our programming and how we mitigate those risks. It's important that we strengthen our field presence.
It has been difficult, but we are further ramping up our presence in areas such as Homs, Tartous, Qamishli, Aleppo, and we are planning for Daraa. It is extremely important that we keep our dialogue and partnership with the governments, with the local authorities, and with the local parties on the ground, to build their trust and to really engage them in meeting the needs of children.
In places where we are unable to monitor our programs, we work through about 41 facilitators throughout 14 governments who do what we call third-party monitoring to help us get a better understanding of how our programs are meeting the needs of people.
Madam Chair, I think I'll stop there. I'm happy to take any questions or clarifications you might have, or any further figures that you might need.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's obvious to us as a committee that since you were established you have gone from being an emergency assistance program to broader development work, as you have already said. We have some idea, but why have your mandates changed over time? Who decides how your mandate changes?
Ms. Haque: I'll give you my understanding of it, Madam Chair.
We are operating within the framework on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. UNICEF's mandate is to support governments and to meet the rights of all children everywhere. The whole premise is that we work to progressively realize the rights of children. It is the rights of children, whether it is in a stable situation or in a humanitarian situation.
What we have done is very clearly clarify what results we would achieve in a humanitarian crisis situation. That has been important so that we can report back on the results that we are achieving, and also for us to measure whether we are making a difference or not.
The broader framework is the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every few years, and at moment for 2014 to 2017, we have our current strategic plan, which is a plan approved by our executive board, which highlights what UNICEF will be engaged in, what results UNICEF will be aiming towards, and how we plan to do it, how we will measure our progress, and how much we can expect it will cost.
We have pillars which look at our mandate relating to child survival, education, water and sanitation, nutrition, child protection and also the whole area of social inclusion. For us it's important that our humanitarian mandate be adequately reflected in these technical pillars.
Later on, if needed, I will forward you our board-approved strategic plan and the results framework on the basis of which we work. That is where we make a statement to the board, within our broad mandate on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, about what we will focus on over this four-year period.
I hope that gives a clearer picture.
The Chair: It does, and it's very helpful. Please send it to the clerk of the committee, and he will make sure we get it.
Are there any areas of assistance that are falling through the cracks or not being addressed sufficiently when it comes to children?
Ms. Haque: If you talk about Syria in particular —
The Chair: Not necessarily Syria; generally.
Ms. Haque: Generally, if we look at the trends over the past decades, we will see that "under-five" mortality has reduced. Severe acute malnutrition has reduced.
More children are going to school, have access to safe water and sanitation and are in environments which are addressing the grave violations they face.
Definitely there are improvements.
If we are to see where the challenges are, it's a situational challenge in that we see a greater part of the population globally is becoming an urban population. How we do better programming in urban situations is one area where we have to concentrate.
Within child protection, it's a huge mandate, and we look at everything from birth registration to children who are in conflict with the law. For us, it has been important that children don't fall through gaps in that process, that we do a diagnostic of the child protection systems as a whole, whether it's birth registration, children who face abuse and come to the health system, children who are out of school and thereby more vulnerable to being abused if they're out in the street, children who are in hazardous labour, or children who face sexual exploitation. These are the various areas which, in a way, are more difficult to get reports on, more difficult to address, and more difficult to get systems going to prevent. We can prevent vaccine preventable diseases by making sure the child gets their routine shots. But for some areas, it's very difficult.
The second key area is we manage to get children into school, and we've seen enrolment rates going up, but the issue is whether children are completing primary school, which is mainly the UNICEF focus, and when they're completing, is it quality learning they're coming out with? Are they able to graduate from primary school with the key learning objectives that we would expect them to reach? Quality of education is a big issue.
Then it's, of course, the transition from primary to secondary. More and more we see in the world that children are completing primary education, but how many of them are going into secondary education? That's where we see, especially when it comes to issues of youth and adolescents, being able to capture children who are going to school, making sure more young people are completing secondary education so they do have the opportunity to learn the skills and competencies that they need for surviving in a world which is getting more and more complex by the day, whether it's because of the economic complexity we face, whether it's because of the various conflict-related crises we face, or the threats of drugs, substance abuse, and even HIV/AIDS. It's very important that we see that transition moving forward.
Even if we do a careful analysis of where the greatest needs are, we are working with partners and governments to address them. It's the level of how much coverage we have and what quality we can reach them with. Also, are we reaching those who need it the most? I think focusing on that bottom 25 per cent, bringing it down to the bottom 5, that's where we face the biggest challenge. How can we reach the children who are most marginalized and who are not being reached?
That is where a lot of our programming focuses, and that, of course, is the focus of our executive director, who is personally very committed to looking at issues of equity and reaching the children we don't normally reach.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll now go on to the deputy chair to ask a question.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for your presentation.
Your "Under Siege" report on the Syrian crisis stated that 8,000 children arrive at Syria's borders without parents. What happens in these cases? What falls under UNICEF's mandate with regard to helping these children?
Ms. Haque: As I mentioned, one of the biggest threats children face in any conflict situation, or any situation where they're displaced, is being separated from their parents. That's where, when they cross the borders, we work very closely with our partner UNHCR in looking at registering children who have been separated and are unaccompanied, and then working through a system of family tracing and reunification to, as much as possible, reunify them either with their parents or with at least members of their extended family.
Our role is in working with partners. This is something that is typically a child protection issue. We work very closely with the ICRC and NGO partners on the ground to find ways of networking to reunite the children with their families.
We've also in recent years tried mobile technology to help us with what is called RapidFTR, whereby the whole process of registration and passing the information is enhanced in a timely manner so that we don't rely on a too cumbersome process of cumulating reports and verifying them.
That's how mainly, if I were to give you a short answer, we engage in reunifying children with their parents or their families.
Senator Ataullahjan: One of our witnesses last week called the Syrian crisis a "melting pot" of challenges for children, particularly with regard to exploitation. What is being done to avoid recruitment of children as child soldiers, sexual violence, rape or forced marriages, amongst other things? Is there one issue that is more prevalent than others?
Ms. Haque: These are the core issues that we really have challenges with. That's particularly in cases that either we have not been able to reach or that we have been not been able to reach through partners. We have been trying to strengthen that reporting mechanism, trying to get the evidence on it and making sure that we are talking about numbers.
If I were to say one is over the other, I think all of them are very challenging. You very rightly named them: the role of children being recruited, where children are facing arrest, detention, the use of heavy weaponry, which results in killing and maiming; victims of any alleged mass killings. Sexual violence, we understand, is under-reported, as in circumstances all over the crises we face. We have had reports that sexual violence does cause stigma, and it is affecting both boys and girls.
Attacks on schools have been reported. They are used as detention centres, and there have been targeted killing of teachers and medical personnel. That effects a grave violation against children, too, because then they are denied the right of access to those services. We also see attacks against health infrastructure, opposition-run facilities, and attacks against health personnel.
Among these violations none is more grave than the other. They are all within the purview of the Security Council resolution that names them as grave violations against children. So I would not try to put them in an order of priority but say that these are grave violations that children are facing, and we have to find ways of making the reports better but, importantly, preventing the violations and addressing them adequately.
Senator Ataullahjan: It's a very grim picture.
Ms. Haque: Could my colleague add something to that?
Senator Ataullahjan: Absolutely, yes.
François Ducharme, Emergency Specialist, Office of Emergency Programmes, UNICEF Headquarters: Thank you.
On child recruitment, something that UNICEF has been doing for some time is advocacy, along with the joint special representative office in Damascus, and also other member states of influence, to try to change the trends in terms of child recruitment in the region. High-level advocacy has been constantly done by UNICEF, both at the Damascus level and also at the HQ level.
Ms. Haque: If I may also highlight, the Secretary General's report that is published also focuses on it. Especially in light of Security Council Resolution 2139, it does highlight the importance of taking this advocacy further. We also acknowledge the strong voice that Canada has been putting forward on the whole issue of grave violations, especially with underage recruitment. It's something that we receive good support from.
Senator Ataullahjan: We're hearing about a grim picture, things looking really bad, and now polio has re-emerged in Syria and it has spread to Iraq. Polio was endemic in three countries; it had almost been wiped out. What is being done to control this disease? Have there been widespread vaccinations? What has been the reaction? Are people accepting the vaccination? In Pakistan, there's much fear and propaganda against the vaccinations. Are you seeing a similar situation, or are they accepting it?
Ms. Haque: That's a very important question. In any crisis, that's one of the key things we see. It's one of the tragedies of this crisis, that polio has re-emerged. It has taken a lot of effort, trust-building and advocacy to be able to raise it to the level of attention that is needed.
I think this is one area where we can report back that we are on a positive trend. We estimate that in the sixth round of country-wide campaigns — this is throughout Syria, the sixth round for this year — which was held May 4 to 8, we were able to reach about 2.8 million children, and this is an increase in the number from last year.
My colleague might correct me, but I think refusal has not been one of the main criteria for not reaching it; it's been the ability to negotiate access, to get the vaccines in place, to make sure the chain is maintained and to work closely with the governors and the local authorities. I think this is where we want to learn from our experience of increasing the coverage for polio to take it further.
You will also appreciate that measles is the next challenge we're facing. We cannot vaccinate measles orally; we need syringes for it. That is where we need a strong negotiation and a strong advocacy to ensure that we can get syringes across lines and that we see children are kept above politics and conflict so we can reach them with the measles vaccination. That is going to be our next big challenge.
Mr. Ducharme: If I may add, the vaccination campaign started last year, we're now in the sixth round. It doesn't cover only Syria but all neighbouring countries. So far, we have vaccinated over 24 million people in that region, including Egypt, with 14 million people by itself.
Inside Syria, the coverage, round by round, has been progressively increasing. So we're getting into these hard-to- reach areas more and more due to micro-planning done at the government level with local authorities on the ground.
You asked the question: What was the reaction from the people? Our third-party monitoring system tells us that the vast majority of the population was informed of the campaign itself, and we have no reason to think they rejected the polio vaccination due to the culture in Syria. It's a population that is used to being vaccinated. The vaccination coverage was very high before the crisis, so they welcomed the polio vaccination campaign.
Senator Ataullahjan: When you say 24 million people were vaccinated in these areas? What areas are you talking about or what countries are you talking about?
Mr. Ducharme: Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Egypt.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you for your presentation.
I do want to take this opportunity to note the presence of the Honourable Irwin Cotler, who I'm sure has been recognized earlier. He is a noted human rights activist, and it's good to see him here.
Let me pick up on this question of gaps that the chair raised because, obviously, some tough decisions have to be made in the programs that you operate. From what I understand, you don't seem to get the amount of funding that you really need. On the other hand, in response to that, you indicated a wide range of programming that you do and an extensive understanding of the needs. Is it fair to say that because you don't have enough resources, that it really is thinly spread and that you're not nearly able to cover the number of young people that you need to cover?
Ms. Haque: Thank you, senator. The short answer to your question is yes. It is also dependent upon the areas for which we do get contributions. Some contributions might come un-earmarked, and we can use them for any of the needs we see fit based upon the gaps that we face. Some of it comes very much earmarked for water and sanitation, for education or for polio immunization, so it's a combination of factors.
There we have to prioritize based upon the funding that we get. There are instances where if we have a severe gap and there is a need to cover a life-saving service, we find a way of providing an internal loan, with the anticipation that funding would become available in the near future, and we would be able to repay that internal loan. But choices are made upon some tough criteria.
Senator Eggleton: Is it a matter of further campaigning to get the donor countries to put up more money, or is there more that NGO organizations — although they probably get a lot of their money from the public purse as well.
You've talked about one creative way, this loan business, of trying to fill in the gap. Are there other things that could be done, or is it just a matter of the donor countries contributing more?
Ms. Haque: Sadly, it's an issue of the donor countries contributing more, as well as finding new and different donors. We had hoped through the conferences that we would get non-traditional donors, as we say, to be more engaged. We did have some success with it last year.
For us, it doesn't really matter whether the funding goes through a UN agency or through an NGO, as long as the service is reaching the children. That's the important part of it. For us, clearly there are some services that we will have to make sure, for example, if there are any vaccines to be procured, they would have to be procured either through UNICEF or WHO. It's important that we look at the comparative advantage areas of the UN agencies that are operating in this situation to try to take it forward.
It's also for us to advocate for more flexible funding for what many governments have signed onto as a good humanitarian donorship, where there will be fewer conditions attached to funding.
Also one of the challenges we face is that most humanitarian funding is of a very short duration; it will be for that specific budget year, so it is less predictable. Every year, we have to be out with our appeals and we have to come up with our estimates for our funded gaps. That's where the "No Lost Generation" is an important way of looking at continuity of services, such as education and child protection, so that we can be more predictable in those areas where we face the biggest challenges in getting funding.
Senator Eggleton: Let me ask you about education, which is one of your mandates. You say it's increasing, and yet when we had the UNHCR representative here earlier, he said 80 per cent of Syrian refugee children in Lebanon and 56 per cent in Jordan were not in school. Those are big numbers.
We know that a lot of these children are working. As much as we abhor child labour, there is the fact that these children, quite frequently, work to support their families, to pay for the rent and food, the basic necessities of survival. How do you cover that dilemma? Under those circumstances it would be very difficult to get those kids into school and out of the work that they're in, the child labour they're in. Is there a compromise that you work on? Can you try to get them to school some of the time? Can you work with the employers or the families? How do you deal with that dilemma?
Ms. Haque: Absolutely it is a big dilemma, senator.
Let me start with a clarification. When I talked about more children being enrolled in education, I meant globally, as the chair asked about our global mandate. In the Syria crisis, indeed, that's one of the key areas where we are not able to demonstrate the type of results we would want to achieve.
I had asked my colleagues to put together some of our human interest exposés that we have, and indeed we have the resumé from a 12-year-old boy called Annan, who says that he used to go to school and study and play when he was in Syria and now he studies and works. Indeed, work for the reasons that you said.
For us here, it is really important that we look at children not being engaged in hazardous labour, which means where they might face a severe physical or intellectual risk. As an example, if we look at the work that we have engaged in with the garment industry in countries like Bangladesh, it was through an MOU between the garment manufacturers and UNICEF and the government that they would gradually, not just throw the children out of the factories but reintroduce them into schooling and learning to give them the basic skills. Definitely that is one of the solutions.
The challenge with some of the children, most of the children in the areas that are facing conflict in Syria, is that choices are very limited. Also, in the children who are in a refugee situation, it is a highly stressed host population where they are also living. As you said, getting funding for that sort of activity that will engage young people, that will bring children more into learning, to have the opportunity to provide them with some psychosocial recovery, our experience globally is that even children having a routine brings back some of the normalcy. So getting up in the morning and going to school and having homework and having play time during school, the ability to draw, to sing, to dance, to take part in sport is so important in the routine of a child that it keeps some of the childhood going, which sadly many children, those who are not in school, are not exposed to. That is where, for us, one part of it is to have child-friendly spaces where, even if we are not able to get a formal education going, we have the opportunity to have recreational activities, to have them involved in some stimulation activities because even the youngest child needs that stimulation out of a family situation that also can be very stressed. It is important to have some time to come out and socialize with their peers and engage in something other than the hardship they face.
Senator Eggleton: I wish you well in doing the good work you are doing. It's a dreadful situation where 51 per cent of the Syrian refugees are younger than 18 years of age. Some one third of Syrian children have been displaced either within Syria or outside of Syria. Keep going and keep doing the great work you're doing.
Ms. Haque: Thank you, senator. Your support is very welcome. My colleague would like to add something.
Mr. Ducharme: Part of the answer to your question is already part of the plan processes taking place in Jordan and Lebanon. For example, in Lebanon the government just finalized the national residency plan, which includes an element on education and approaches on strengthening the education system itself. These systems are meant to tackle some of these same issues of child labour for children who remain out of school.
In Lebanon, a stabilization road map has been agreed upon with the government and agencies where they are involved. Attached or related to this is an education response plan or proposal under the leadership of Gordon Brown from the U.K. In that proposal there are specific solutions, such as double shifts in each of the classrooms across Lebanon that could rapidly increase the intake of Syrian refugees. These are tracks of the measures being developed.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you. I apologize as I had to step out so I missed some of your presentation. If I'm going over ground you've already covered, please let me know.
It seems to me that the Syrian situation is in some ways very unique but also more symptomatic of areas of conflict, particularly when the internal conflict continues and continues, and we're aware of some of the others.
You were referring to non-traditional funders. Who did you mean by that? Did you mean countries or did you mean new NGOs coming from different countries, et cetera?
Ms. Haque: By non-traditional donors I meant new countries, countries that do not normally come together as a forum to support humanitarian aid. We have seen strong leadership of the Government of Kuwait in bringing together a number of the Arab states to support the crisis that children are facing in that region.
Senator Andreychuk: I've received some material that our researchers have put together. It is very confusing to me, so it must be very confusing to people on the ground regarding who leads in what country and who supports. It's just a myriad of agencies that are attempting to work together. Is there some thought being given to a more coordinated approach on an emergency basis?
We hope that there aren't any more situations like this, but I'm not totally optimistic. It would seem to me it's taken about three years to settle down so that we are now beginning to understand what resources we need, how we approach these separate countries; but it is very complex and it's been evolving. Is there any thought of an emergency plan that wouldn't take as long? We're optimistic that the families would go back, that the crisis would resolve itself, but as we see in some of the ongoing crises, they erupt and erupt and erupt. Is there some forward planning on all of this?
Ms. Haque: Indeed, senator, I'm sure it does seem to be quite confusing. I will just try to address that a bit, especially when we look at a humanitarian crisis.
I first got involved with large-scale crises when the tsunami hit in 2004. It hit many countries. Nearly all nationalities of the world were affected by that crisis. Then we had the crisis of the earthquake in Haiti. We had the flooding in Pakistan, and in our experience in those crises it became clear that, as humanitarian agencies, whether it's the UN or non-governmental organizations, we had to find a formula by which we would be coordinating and a mechanism that would support us being more effective and efficient.
There has been a lot of work going into humanitarian reform. You may be aware of the Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA, which takes the lead in supporting us moving ahead, and there has been a clear division of labour of which agency will take the lead in coordinating which sector. We have looked at the various sectors based upon the needs faced by the people affected by a crisis. UNICEF plays the lead role for water and sanitation, for nutrition and for education, co-chaired with Save the Children and for the sub-cluster, as we call it, for child protection. Within that, our mandate is really to build partnerships, to agree upon standards and norms and to agree upon the core, basic plans that we would take forward in any situation and mechanisms for rapid, urgent deployment of people to support the people on the ground to be able to quickly ramp up the response.
As you can imagine, the Syrian crisis is a protracted one. From all indications, it is going to be protracted for a number of years to come. You will have heard from UNHCR that the average time a refugee is displaced is 17 years. Once you become a refugee, it takes a long time to reintegrate. When it's within country, the country humanitarian team comes together to coordinate, plan and address what needs are there. When it comes to a refugee situation, that's where we rely on the coordination of UNHCR, as they are the world refugee organization. It varies slightly upon context. In an in-country displacement context or an in-country crisis, we work through a humanitarian country team mechanism, and when it is a refugee situation, we work with UNHCR as the core coordinator.
A lot of work has gone into trying to make it simple for us to have a shared accountability and for us to be better prepared in planning. You may be aware that there have been some key planning documents, which we refer to as the SHARP and RRP, which are the Syrian Arab Republic Humanitarian Assistance Response Plan and the Regional Response Plan. It looks at the crisis faced not just by the refugees but also by the host communities. Through these crisis response plans, we come to agreement on the scenario, what our target population would be, what our strategies for reaching them would be and how much it would cost.
This is examined at mid-year, and then annually we have to update it. It is quite a laborious process for the UN and its partners. It is not just the UN agencies but very much our key NGO partners that are involved in it, as are the governments in the countries that we are trying to respond in.
Senator Andreychuk: I have a couple of follow-up questions.
In Afghanistan, when the issues arose, there was quite a difficulty sorting things out between the NGOs. Some had historically been there, and new ones came in to help, all good motives. There was a lot of difficulty in getting sorted out because it was layered with security issues at the same time. Was it the same in Syria, that there would be a response and that there are security issues? Did you have to go through sorting out that process? You're talking about your NGO partners and yourselves, that you are now under a plan. Was that the case in the first years?
Ms. Haque: I think there are two parts to your question. First, on security, yes, it was there in the beginning. It still remains an issue. I talked about it being one of the key challenges that we face, especially inside Syria.
When we started the response — and it's exactly for the reasons you talked about — we weren't sure. I can talk about times in Sri Lanka, where I was based, where we had NGOs flying in, all with the intention of supporting the people who had been affected by the tsunami, but at times we ran the risk of more confusion and less of a coordinated action. That's one of the key issues that humanitarian reform is trying to address.
I'll give the example of the water, sanitation and hygiene cluster, as we call it. UNICEF is the lead in that cluster, and the first thing that we do is to work with partners to map out who does what and where so that we are able to not just register partners on the ground to see through whom we can reach the population in need but also, importantly, to see if there are any areas where no partner is present, where we need to advocate for people to go forward. That is something we faced recently in the crisis in the Central African Republic, especially where we had very few NGOs on the ground. The advocacy went up to the level of our executive director really talking to the larger NGOs to establish a presence so that we can move forward.
I'll ask François to give his impression of the early days of the Syrian crisis.
Mr. Ducharme: During the first year, two factors affected our ability to effectively coordinate. Local authorities didn't recognize the need for humanitarian coordination and structure inside Syria. As a consequence, there was no humanitarian coordinator, officially, and therefore no humanitarian country team. Coordination was happening more on an ad hoc basis. It was still happening but not as it could. Also, as a result, the full-fledged cluster approach mechanism, which we would use in any major crisis, could not be activated as it could have been. This also affected the first two years, I would say, of the crisis.
Ms. Haque: You will have seen in the media and in our various reports that we, as a system, have flagged Syria as being a level 3 emergency. That level 3 emergency is a flag for all agencies to really put attention into getting the right people in the right place rapidly, to establishing coordination mechanism and structures, to rapidly coming up with a response plan and an ask of how much would be needed to put it in place, and to actively fundraising and reporting back on the results that we achieve.
That is one of the mechanisms that is based upon our experiences in other countries, where we hold ourselves accountable to the standards we set, the parameters we set, with a level 3 emergency. In the past year, we have seen that Syria continues to be a level 3 emergency.
We had one declared in the Philippines after Typhoon Haiyan. Fortunately, we saw very good action, response and resolution to that crisis. Now, it's more into an early recovery mode. Then came the situations in Central African Republic and South Sudan where the focus again is on getting the leadership right, in getting the service delivery right, in getting the coordination done and in advocating strongly for the funding and resources that are needed.
The Chair: It's heartbreaking what we hear when we talk about children generally. It must be even worse when it comes to children with disabilities. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been acceded to by Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt and also signed by Lebanon. Article 7 of the convention requires states parties to take all necessary measures to ensure that children with disabilities enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms as other children enjoy. How are displaced children with disabilities being treated in Syria and in the refugee- hosting countries?
Ms. Haque: First, Madam Chair, you put your finger on one of the key areas where we face one of the bigger challenges, especially when it comes to children who do not have a visible disability, so to say. We have tried within our programming to look at needs-based programming — the needs of the children and the profiles of the children affected by a certain crisis — to address children who have a disability across the board. For example, if we are looking at learning spaces, is it conducive to children who have a physical disability gaining access? We can make guesstimates of the proportion of children with disability we would face as we very much base our programming data upon nationally available population census data and any specific studies that might have been done to bring us data on disability.
It is probably one of the more challenging areas. That is where many of the child protection systems, especially when we face children with intellectual disability and how to make sure that their needs and vulnerabilities are addressed more, come into play.
I'll look to François, if he is any specific examples of what we have done in Syria.
Mr. Ducharme: Not in Syria, but I have examples outside Syria.
I know this target group of children with disabilities is one of the clearer target groups identified for the next regional response plan, RRP. UNICEF partners with UNHCR and others to look into this to see how we can do better. We all recognize that not enough has been done.
Taking the example of education in a camp like Zaatari, UNICEF is looking at transportation for children in the camps and also home schooling for some so they could have access to education.
Ms. Haque: Indeed, we can see if we have any further information.
The Chair: Please.
Ms. Haque: We'll relay that to you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: I appreciate that.
Every day you read about Syria and the whole situation. It just crushes your heart when you hear of young girls being sold so that families can be fed. It almost seems trite to say, but obviously girls are treated differently than boys. How are you addressing these issues?
You talked about the tsunami. I will never forget that some of the girls in south India were and still are in Bombay after being sex trafficked. Many groups are trying to get them released. What are you doing to help stop sex trafficking and the selling or marrying of young girls?
Ms. Haque: It is one of the biggest challenges. As I said when a senator asked a question on child labour, the solution is to make sure that girls are getting access to education and that they are going to school. That is one of the core solutions that we look at.
Going back to your question, the whole emphasis on identifying and registering children without parental care is crucial. Boys and girls, but especially girls, who are not with a family member, face a larger risk of sexual exploitation. It's important that we identify them quickly and reunite them with a family member, perhaps extended family, so they are not under the guise of being provided with a safer haven while actually facing exploitation.
It means creating awareness among the communities. Especially in the camps when it comes to such child protection issues, we have to work a lot with the local community leaders to identify who the best people are to keep an eye on what is happening and how they can report any sexual abuse. It means communities coming together.
After the tsunami, it was a case of seeing how the legislation provides those opportunities. The immediate solution was: "We have thousands of children who are orphans; let's take them and make sure they are adopted." For us, adoption is not the only answer. We have to look at fostering within the community so the children maintain their identity with their community.
Like I said, by registering children who are unaccompanied and separated, to prevent that way; by creating greater community awareness; by relying on community structures to help us report and prevent; and by making sure that educational facilities are available so that there is an alternative. As you correctly said, we have seen an increase in child marriage as a protective or coping mechanism by many families. We need to understand that better and address the needs they face to make sure that where a legal provision is required, it is exercised and that the legal provisions within the country are implemented, so to say.
There is no one quick answer. It's through a number of channels that we try to address this violation.
The Chair: We have just started our study. I'm sure we will be coming back to you for more information. I would appreciate if you would provide us with the information you said you would send. We look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you very much.
Ms. Haque: Thank you very much for the opportunity.
Mr. Ducharme: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)