UNESCO: JOINT EXPERT GROUP DEBATES RIGHT TO EDUCATION

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 007562 SIPDIS FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS FOR L/UNA - DAVID SULLIVAN FOR ECA - TOM FARRELL, MARIANNE CRAVEN DEPARTMENT PASS DEPT. OF EDUCATION - ROBIN GILCHRIST AND STEPHANIE WHELPLEY DEPARTMENT PASS USAID - JOE CARNEY E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: UNESCO SCUL PHUM LAW SUBJECT: UNESCO: JOINT EXPERT GROUP DEBATES RIGHT TO EDUCATION ¶1. Summary: Experts from UNESCO's Committee on Conventions and Recommendations (CR) and the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR) convened the fifth Joint Expert Group Session on the right to free education at UNESCO Paris on November 17, 2006. During discussions on the framework for the right to free education, Group members acknowledged diverging views on whether the term "primary education" or "basic education" should be used. Group members also debated mechanisms to monitor state compliance with legal obligations pertaining to the right to free education. The desired outcome of the meeting was to create a recommendation to submit to the CESCR and the UNESCO CR. End Summary. ¶2. The debut of the session focused on the analysis of the current legal framework related to free education, as well as the elaboration of a future plan of action to monitor state compliance. An expert from the CESCR noted that the legal framework for the right to free education exists through the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as other normative instruments. She urged that it is now time to begin assessing compliance as many developing countries still struggle to meet their legal obligations. ¶3. Throughout the session, CESCR experts repeatedly highlighted the necessity of state party compliance with their legal obligations as dictated by the Covenant in Articles 13 and 14. Dr. Alfred Fernandez of OIDEL, an NGO operating in the sphere of the right to free education, argued that education is not about meeting needs, but about respecting the law. In reaction, DCM Koss, who was attending as an observer, argued that for UNESCO, it is paramount that the focus rests on UNESCO's strengths: promoting capacity building and sharing best-practices. In this way, UNESCO is giving member states the tools needed to successfully achieve free education, as opposed to focusing on useless repercussions of not complying with their legal obligations under the Covenant. CESCR experts countered saying that while this aspect is important, legal obligations are the relevant flip side of the coin that must also be addressed. ¶4. Experts from UNESCO and the CESCR debated what levels of education this international right should entail. UNESCO Basic Education Division Head, Mrs. Ann Therese Ndong Jatta, argued that "primary education" should be the term of reference. However, the independent legal advisor noted that the Dakar Goals for the Education for All (EFA) campaign use the term "basic education," a term increasingly used within UNESCO. Experts from both sides agreed that free "primary education" as a right would be most acceptable as it would be the term most likely to garner consensus. In addition, this is the term used in the ICESCR, the document having an actual legally binding effect. ¶5. Stemming from this discussion, CESCR experts reiterated that at the fourth session, they requested an international consultation (to include experts, UNESCO member states, and state parties to the Covenant) to draw up definitions for primary, basic, and compulsory education. Although Mrs. Ndong Jatta was able to provide information on the levels generally encompassed in primary and basic education, debate continued throughout the day on the need to have an international consultation to create clear, consensus-based definitions. A date for the consultation was not decided, and the process for creating definitions is ongoing. Mrs. Ndong Jatta assured Group members that she will discuss the idea with Peter Smith, Assistant Director General for Education. ¶6. Portugal argued that UNESCO National Commissions should be included in the monitoring of state compliance. However, Mrs. Ndong Jatta countered that in many states, National Commission representatives are often government officials from the education sector. She noted that a conflict of interest could arise if National Commissions were relied upon to help ensure state compliance with international legal obligations. ¶7. The primary objective of the session was to create a recommendation, to be presented to the CESCR and to the UNESCO CR, concerning future action to achieve free education and to construct monitoring mechanisms. Building on the suggestion made by Mrs. Ndong Jatta, Group members agreed that in the recommendation, the first recommended step for countries should be to evaluate their own budgets to gauge available funds that can be reallocated to education. She then argued that the second step should be to identify vulnerable groups to whom free education would be the most beneficial. This discussion unfolded within the context of seeking to establish realistic goals keeping in mind the difficulties encountered by Malawi and Kenya as they made the transition to free education. Mrs. Ndong Jatta reminded Group members that a national plan of action for free education for each state is not necessary as the Dakar Goals for EFA already require UNESCO member states to formulate such a plan. She insisted that the national action plans for EFA should be utilized as platforms for free education as well. The recommendation has not yet been published, and will undergo a period of consultation and editing between Group members before being submitted to the CESCR and the UNESCO CR at the 176th Executive Board. ¶8. The next session, to take place in May 2007, will address the ongoing elaboration of definitions on primary, basic, and compulsory education to create a framework for what levels should be included when seeking to establish free education, as well as who should be responsible for guaranteeing access once it is made available. The next session will also begin addressing the non-discrimination aspect of the issue. ¶9. Comment: As happens so often, UNESCO's approach to a real-world problem is legalistic. Moreover, as also frequently happens, a large number of states have made legal commitments they cannot meet. Fortunately, the secretariat agreed with the U.S. observer's view that practical capacity building is more important than legal sanctions. Unfortunately, this will probably not deter those who are determined to examine this problem through a legalistic prism. End Comment. OLIVER