HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH EXPERTS ON FOREIGN DEBT AND ON THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING
The Human Rights Council in its midday meeting concluded its clustered interactive dialogue with Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt, and Leilani Farha, the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living. At the beginning of the meeting, Miguel Ruiz-Cabañas Izquierdo, Undersecretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, addressed the Council.
Miguel Ruiz-Cabañas Izquierdo, Undersecretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, said that public figures had a responsibility to ensure that their messages promoted tolerance, respect and culture of peace. Mexico shared a serious concern about the situation of extreme vulnerability of migrants, who were subjected to measures that violated their fundamental human rights. Widespread security measures targeting and criminalizing certain groups violated the rule of law. Walls between nations were walls between people, and Mexico would under no circumstances accept them.
The Council heard the presentation of reports by the Independent Expert and the Special Rapporteur on Wednesday, 1 March. A summary of their comments is available.
The European Union spoke as a party concerned by the report of the Independent Expert on foreign debt, while India and Portugal spoke as concerned countries on the report on adequate housing. The Ombudsman of Portugal also took the floor.
During the discussion on foreign debt, delegations asked the Independent Expert about how the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights could contribute to developing human rights guidelines specifically for financial actors operating in the housing system. Some delegations noted that developing countries were more vulnerable to external shocks and conflicts, and that programmes had to be compatible with certain challenges of the country.
On the right to adequate housing, speakers queried the Special Rapporteur about how developing countries could restructure slums, and also noted that treating housing as a commodity decreased access for vulnerable people. It was also observed that adequate housing had a direct bearing on social stability. Investment in housing had to take into account a social function, some said, while others asked the Rapporteur about best practices that small island developing nations could undertake. More effort was needed to protect the vulnerable individuals - it was a question of equality and non-discrimination.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Bohoslavsky explained that vulture funds were not authorized by international human rights law. Budget headings could be dedicated to offsetting financial crisis impacts with a specific human rights-based approach. There was a possibility of an additional positive change through the repatriation of funds.
Ms. Farha said that adequate housing was included in the New Urban Agenda of Habitat III. There was no investment agreement that recognized the right to adequate housing as paramount to investors’ rights. As for the ways to deal with slum upgrading, Ms. Farha urged that no one be displaced because of such actions.
Taking the floor were the European Union, El Salvador (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference), Sierra Leone, Finland, Greece, Brazil, Germany, Ecuador, Cuba, El Salvador, China, Libya, Benin, Algeria, Ethiopia, Malaysia, Morocco, South Africa, Maldives, Indonesia, Kuwait, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Bolivia, Paraguay, Ghana , Nigeria, Egypt, Spain and Venezuela.
Also speaking were the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Khiam Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture, Human Rights Advocates Inc., Alsalam Foundation, Save the Children International (joint statement), Centre Independent de Recherches et d’Initiatives pour le Dialogue, Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, Habitat International Coalition, and Caritas International.
The Council at 3 p.m. will hold a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Statement by the Undersecretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of Mexico
MIGUEL RUIZ-CABAŇAS IZQUIERDO, Undersecretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, voiced concern over those voices that questioned the legitimacy of multilateral institutions. The international community had to seriously assess such messages, considering their impact on the public. Public figures had a responsibility to ensure that their messages promote tolerance, respect and culture of peace. Populist rhetoric and unilateral measures should be countered and condemned because they undermined the universality of human rights. Mexico shared a serious concern over the extreme vulnerability of migrants, who were subjected to measures that violated their fundamental human rights. Ill-conceived security measures were a threat to migrants. It should be remembered that States always had an obligation to implement all their policies and measures couched in international humanitarian law and human rights. Widespread security measures targeting and criminalizing certain groups violated the rule of law, and stigmatization was contrary to human dignity. Combatting discrimination and stigmatization was the outcome of the twentieth century tragedies. Mexico reiterated that it would defend its nationals abroad and that it would use all legally available measures to achieve that goal. It would use relevant multilateral bodies to actively promote the defence of migrants. Walls between nations were walls between people, and Mexico would under no circumstances accept them. The Government of Mexico placed its confidence in multilateralism in order to promote global initiatives in the spirit of common good.
Statements by the Concerned Parties
European Union, speaking as a concerned party, said that the social impact of policies had always been a key concern in policy design in programme countries. At the same time, the ultimate responsibility for the design and successful implementation of the economic policy conditions attached to a programme lay with the respective European Union Member State Governments. Many of the observations and recommendations in the report failed to take into account that, due to the loss of access to sovereign debt markets, public sectors of the countries concerned were within weeks of defaulting on their obligations, and there was no time to engage in stakeholder consultations.
India, speaking as a concerned country, stated that the Special Rapporteur in her report had cited issues such as forced evictions, and noted a flagship project titled “Housing for All by 2022” which envisaged construction of 20 million new houses. Growing income inequality along with urbanization had made adequate housing one of the most vital concerns of our age. Recommendations such as adoption of national legislations on adequate housing and a national moratorium on forced evictions and demolitions of homes had to be reviewed based on national policies and practicability of those recommendations in the local context.
Portugal, speaking as a concerned country, said that the information gathered by the Special Rapporteur during her visit had enabled her to give a fair account of the conditions and policies pertaining to adequate housing in Portugal. Regarding her findings on informal settlements and “non-conventional” dwellings, it was noted that such settlements represented 0.1 percent of all dwellings in Portugal. The high-end luxury housing segment, also mentioned in the report, accounted for 0.06 percent of the total housing stock at national level. Portugal’s support for the mandate was unwavering, and at a time when the Human Rights Council saw its impartiality “ominously” questioned, Portugal pledged full cooperation.
Ombudsman of Portugal voiced concern over the poor housing conditions for the Roma and people of African descent. Public authorities cited financial constraints for implementing adequate solutions. Although the number of accommodation units in Portugal had risen considerably, the Ombudsman nonetheless called on the Government of Portugal make more efforts. Accordingly, the Government agreed to conduct a survey on housing shortage. The Ombudsman expressed hope that the survey would help the Government to meet its international obligations.
Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on foreign debt, Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, and the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, Leilani Farha
European Union asked the Special Rapporteur about her assessment of the New Urban Agenda of Habitat III, and about her thinking on how the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights could contribute to developing human rights guidelines specifically for financial actors operating in the housing system. El Salvador, on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, warned that housing was becoming an asset rather than a social function, which undermined the right to housing as a human right. Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, noted that external creditors and international lending institutions should not impose measures on States to curb labour rights. It asked the Special Rapporteur how developing countries could restructure slums. Sierra Leone said that the restructuring of foreign debt was one of the priorities for the Government. Providing affordable housing was not always feasible due to the overpopulation and a lack of resources. Finland encouraged the World Bank to expressly commit to human rights in its policies and standards. It asked the Special Rapporteur for her assessment of the World Bank’s new Environmental and Social Framework. Greece noted that it was imperative to grant it a debt relief so that it could restart and rebalance its economy for the mutual benefit of its citizens and its creditors and partners.
Brazil said that, while much had been written about the financialisation of housing, the subject had not been looked at from the perspective of human rights. With respect to labour reforms, Brazil was drafting a bill to modernise labour relations to strengthen collective bargaining. Germany said that it would propose a resolution which would extend the mandate of the biannual resolution on the right to housing by three years. Ecuador stated that the analysis of labour reforms adopted by countries as part of austerity measures made it clear that they were having adverse effects on human rights. Treating housing as a commodity increased the lack of access to vulnerable people. Cuba agreed with the Special Rapporteur that housing investments had to bear in mind housing in its social function and not solely as a tradeable good. In promoting labour reform, financial institutions had furthered the erosion of workers’ rights. El Salvador underscored the central role homes played as the greatest investment of many people; they also had a central social function. A participative approach to the assessment of housing was needed. China said that its foreign aid was directed at improving people’s lives, in line with recipient countries’ development priorities. Adequate housing had a direct bearing on social stability.
Libya stressed that adequate housing was a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other rights, at it should not be viewed as a mere shelter. It was important to always take into consideration the issue of foreign debt over time, especially given its impact on the rights of people worldwide. Benin underlined that Sustainable Development Goal 11 on adequate, safe and affordable housing was a noble objective and that was why it had adopted a national framework for sustainable housing and extended the invitation to national and foreign investments to contribute to projects within. Algeria said that austerity measures in the labour market by some countries were a human rights violation and that important efforts needed to be made to support vulnerable populations. Adequate housing was a priority for Algeria, and it was building social housing for modest-income families. Ethiopia said that the lack of resources in developing countries hampered the realization of the Sustainable Development Goal on adequate housing, and stressed that a market run by private actors alone could not bridge the existing gap in housing; what was needed was synergy between all actors. Malaysia noted that structural changes in housing market had driven growth in the country, and stressed the government regulation in that regard, adequate socioeconomic policies, and the effort to provide adequate housing to low-income groups and families.
Remarks by the Experts
JUAN PABLO BOHOSLAVSKY, Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, said that he would issue a series of principles to guide stakeholders in their measures in the area of fiscal regulation, while bearing in mind human rights and the principle of non-discrimination. Austerity had to be the last possible resort; all other possibilities needed to be considered and applied before austerity was used. Human rights had to be specifically taken into consideration by international financial institutions, which was why human rights assessments had to be carried out. Fiscal and financial stability were an important objective, agreed the Independent Expert, but cuts in the area of economic, social and cultural rights as a precondition to providing financing, had a disastrous impact on human rights, in the European Union and in a number of other countries. In the social impact evaluations in Greece, there had not been one single mention of human rights, stressed Mr. Bohoslavsky in closing.
LEILANI FARHA, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, on the issue of smart cities in India, said that she would look further into that programme, including into the issues of consumer protection and adjudication. A part of what the Special Rapporteur could offer in her work was a vision of what adequate housing might entail, and it was up to the States to define how it could look like in their reality. With regard to questions raised on guiding principles, Ms. Farha stressed that the focus of the report was to recognize that duties of investors ought to be determined by States in line with human rights: human rights obligations of States should regulate financial markets and its actors. That was not to suggest that the investment itself was problematic, but that it had to be guided and shaped in line with States’ human rights obligations. On due diligence issue, the Special Rapporteur said that there was much that could be used, for example impact assessment by investors should encompass not only civil and political rights, but economic, social and cultural rights as well. In terms of concrete ways to support slum rehabilitation, Ms. Farha referred to valuable contributions of her predecessor and noted the absolute prohibition of all forced evictions not in line with human rights, and in situ rehabilitation. The report on informal settlements would be forthcoming in 2018. Access to credit was important, but most marginalized groups needed to have access to it. There might be a need for new guidelines on obligations, including human rights obligations, of private investors in the housing market.
Interactive Dialogue
Morocco said, in connection to the foreign debt and the International Monetary Fund’s proposal to assist the country, that the Government had a strategy of employment in place to create jobs and address gender disparities. Concerning adequate housing, the Government agreed that investment in housing had to take into account social function. South Africa stated that it believed in human rights even at times of austerity. Conditions placed on the countries of the south by financial institutions would have an adverse impact on human rights. With regard to protection gaps, South Africa asked the Rapporteur whether there was a legally binding instrument to regulate that activity. Maldives said that adequate housing was an integral component to a life of dignity, security and inclusion. Maldives asked the Rapporteur about best practices that a small island developing nation could undertake. Indonesia said that its Government had developed programmes that promoted home ownership for low-income households and had established slum alleviation projects. Indonesia asked about ways to facilitate a high-level strategy to realize the goal of adequate housing by 2030. Kuwait had implemented several laws in the area of housing and called on international organisations to provide necessary technical assistance to ensure that adequate housing was provided to all citizens. Bangladesh said that developing countries were more vulnerable to external shocks and conflicts, and programmes had to be compatible with certain challenges of the country. Bangladesh asked the Rapporteur how countries could allocate the necessary budget when they had fiscal constraints.
For more than 40 years, providing adequate housing to all citizens was a priority in Saudi Arabia, which was developing a supportive environment through innovative financing solutions for citizens. Sudan stressed that foreign debt had an adverse impact on the rights of current and future generations, and that, despite efforts to reduce it, foreign debt continued to pose a serious burden. The population growth in Togo meant that the demand for housing was constantly on the increase; an estimated 500,000 new housing units were needed each a year. Togo had launched a pilot social housing project, but needed financial support from other States. In Tunisia, flexible labour regulations contributed to restarting the economy, in collaboration with unions and workers’ organizations, and agreed with the Independent Expert on the need to invest in social and economic rights. Bolivia said that global housing markets responded to the needs of investors and not to the needs of communities, and added that Bolivia had in place a financing plan based on the principle of solidarity, which favoured vulnerable individuals. Paraguay said that the adoption of Sustainable Development Goal 11 meant that States would support the realization of adequate housing and sustainable cities, stressing that more effort was needed to protect the vulnerable individuals. It was a question of equality and non-discrimination.
Ghana regretted that many of the interventions in response to the 2008 financial crisis had led to the empowerment of domestic and international financial institutions which promoted austerity-related labour law reforms rather than safeguarding human rights. As for adequate housing, States had to apply measures in line with the human rights standards. Nigeria stated that it had an extremely high urban growth rate, which caused a housing deficit. The Government had pledged to build additional housing units, while it had dealt with informal and illegal settlements in compliance with international laws and standards. Egypt stressed the importance of giving due importance to austerity measures, and the issue of smuggled assets. As for adequate housing, Egypt was legally committed to providing decent housing to all citizens. Spain stated that it had tried to stop eviction of families since the beginning of the global financial crisis and to help them through a social housing fund. Venezuela agreed that international financial institutions had promoted austerity policies which had created false expectations of economic growth and discrimination in the labour market. The housing market was used for profit-making activities rather than to serve the fundamental rights of people.
Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights said that, in order to address the crisis, the impact of financial markets on availability had to be assessed. Khiam Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture stated that Bahrain suffered from the indebtedness because of wrong choices by the Government, such as incorrect spending on the military. Human Rights Advocates Inc. said that most people struggled to manage their livelihoods, let alone their debts, adding that business operations were not helpful to economies without a progressive collection of taxes. Alsalam Foundation noted that a number of countries were facing demolition of housing, and expressed concern about plans to demolish important districts in Saudi Arabia which were more than 400 years old. Save the Children International, in a joint statement, noted that austerity policies often resulted in income inequalities across European Union Member States, calling on them to uphold the rights of the child and ensure no child was left behind, even in the face of a financial crisis. Centre Independent de Recherches et d’Initiatives pour le Dialogue asked about procedures for getting illicit funds returned, and, regarding Yemen, asked about the funds taken out of that country, noting that the Yemeni situation was of concern following the recent coup.
Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik reminded that poor governance and corruption had to be removed before the Sustainable Development Goal on adequate housing could be achieved. In Iran, the number of homeless women had increased, and homeless people had no shelter in winter. Habitat International Coalition urged the Human Rights Council to look into what was missing in the current financial regulation rules in order to come up with socially responsible habitats. Caritas International emphasized its support for the Special Rapporteur and her focus on the people excluded from adequate housing, as well as her assertion that the housing market had been turned into investment field.
Concluding Remarks
JUAN PABLO BOHOSLAVSKY, Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, explained that vulture funds were not authorized by international human rights law. Budget headings could be dedicated to offsetting financial crisis impacts with a specific human rights-based approach. There was a possibility of an additional positive change through the repatriation of funds. Tax competency between countries had to be put in place. As for the coordination of efforts between borrowers and lenders, in some way States had responded to that issue. The negative impact of tax reforms could be avoided through more progressive boost of the purchasing power of citizens.
LEILANI FARHA, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, said that adequate housing was included in the New Urban Agenda of Habitat III. There was no investment agreement that recognized the right to adequate housing as paramount to investors’ rights. States were often slapped with a big and expensive lawsuits when they tried to protect the right to adequate housing. It was important to include regulations in the operation of financial institutions. As for the ways to deal with slum upgrading, Ms. Farha urged that no one be displaced because of such actions. Turning to non-governmental organizations, she expressed her appreciation that they had highlighted the experience of marginalized groups in their reports and statements.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC17/013E