CERD Follow-Up Issue Areas Shadow Report Template Instructions

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: NGO assessment of the implementation of follow-up recommendations – with the support of Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR Centre) and the US Human Rights Network (USHRN)

CERD Follow-Up Issue Areas Shadow Report Template Instructions:

For United States NGOs

Overview: The following is a suggested template for NGO follow-up shadow reports to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee) for U.S. review under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The U.S. combined seventh through ninth periodic report was reviewed by the UN in August 2014 and Committee recommendations (Concluding Observations) were issued on August 29, 2014. The recommendations outlined 3 issues: 1. (a) Investigate and Prosecute Excessive Use of Force 1. (b) Prevent Excessive Use of Force 2. Immigrants and 3. Guantanamo Bay, for the U.S. to provide updated information on implementation within one year (due August 29, 2015, theUSG follow-up reportwassubmitted September 21, 2015). Based on the general UN follow-up procedures for concluding observations and theCERD documentation for follow-up, NGOs can submit alternative follow-up, or shadow reports to the UN once the US Government has submitted their report. These follow-up shadow reports should be concise and only focus on the 3 recommendations identified by the Committee as outlined in the follow-up procedure. This template is for all 3 issue areas for follow-up. NGOs should only report on those issues they work on and delete sections not relevant to their work. The UN will analyze, discuss, and adopt a follow-up progress report on the U.S. in a public CERD Committee session in Geneva (most likely in April/May 2016).

Word Limit: Follow-up shadow reports should not exceed 5 pages (approximately 2,500 words max). The Committee appreciates concise and brief follow-up reports.

Content of the Submission: Shadow reports should contain information on the measures taken by the States Party (i.e. Government) to implement the follow-up recommendations since the concluding recommendations, and assess their impact and adherence.Meaning, describe briefly what action has the government taken on this issue since August 29, 2014 and critically analyze whether the information in the government follow-up report is accurate, inaccurate, or incomplete. When relevant brief references to the 2014 ICCPR (and ICCPR Follow-Up Report) and CAT Concluding Observations and the USG supported UPR Recommendations are encouraged for evidence of what action the government has and has not taken. The submission should include links to existing websites, reports, and other resources that further elaborate on the topic. The language used should be concise. Feel free to expand the boxes in the suggested template to fit each response. Also, the CERD Committee has not adopted a formal grading scale system like the Human Rights Committee for ICCPR follow-up, but welcomes civil society using the below grading scale in their reports if they like. If you choose to use the grading system, please insert your grades for the government action on each issue and sub-issue using the criteria set forth by the Human Rights Committee and outlined below.

Instructions for Submission: All reports should be in MS Word format and e-mailed to: nd cc’ .

Deadline: Reports should be submitted by November 20, 2015*updated date[two months after the US government follow-up report submission to the UN].

United States of America
NGO assessment of actions government has taken on issue since review / CERD/C/USA/CO/7-9
August 29, 2014 (adoption of the Concluding Observations)
August 29, 2015 (Deadline for the State follow-up report)
Current Status: State Report Submitted Sep. 21, 2015

Name of NGO(s)

Julia Perez, MSEE, Associate Director, The Harvest Documentary and former child laborer in the U.S.
Contact: , , +1-480-330-8239
Paragraph 18 (Immigration): sections (C) and (D)
Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights,
Contact: Sandeep Prasanna and Wade McMullen, , +1-202-463-7575 ext. 221
Paragraph 18 (Immigration): section (C)

Follow-up Recommendation Report will Assess: Paragraph 18, sections (C) and (D)

As of 20 / 11 / 2015

Assessment Grades of the Human Rights Committee for the State follow-up Reply/Action:[1]
Reply/Action of the State party satisfactory:
A: / Response largely satisfactory
Reply/Action of the State party partially satisfactory:
B1: / Substantive action taken, but additional information required
B2: / Initial action taken, but additional information and measures required
Reply/Action of the State party not satisfactory
C1: / Response received but actions taken do not implement the recommendation
C2: / Response received but not relevant to the recommendations
No cooperation with the Committee (NOT APPLICABLE FOR NGO REPORT)
D1: / No response received within the deadline, or no reply to a specific question in the report
D2: / No response received after reminder(s)
The measures taken are contrary to the Committee’s recommendations
E: / The response indicates that the measures taken are contrary to the Committee’s recommendations

TEMPLATE FOR ISSUE 2 contin.:
Recommendation by the Committee / (c) Reviewing its laws and regulations in order to protect all migrant workers from exploitative and abusive working conditions, including by raising the minimum age for harvesting and hazardous work in agriculture under the Fair Labor Standards Act in line with international labour standards, and ensuring effective oversight of labour conditions; and
Actions taken by the State party / Regarding child labor in agriculture, the State simply notes that there are labor laws in place and the policy exemptions which allow legal child labor apply to everyone. In doing so, the State fails to recognize the fact that the laws do not protect minors from inappropriate harvesting work and the disparate impact of this policy on the hundreds of thousands of Hispanic children who work in agriculture. On November 2, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) increased the minimum age for handling pesticides to 16 years.This is a positive step, but it does not go far enough: it does not address pesticide exposure faced by minors harvesting produce for long hours. In 2011, the Department of Labor proposed changes to its Hazardous Orders which would have protected minors from hazardous agricultural work, but the Department dropped the effort due to negative feedback, neglecting the significant feedback in support of the changes which would have protected children who are hired to work on farms. Even if the changes had been accepted, they would not have protected children who harvest produce, a significant number of children.
With regard to labor conditions for adult migrant workers, the State largely restates the positions and policies that it presented to the Committee in August 2014, indicating that the State has largely failed to make concrete steps toward reform. The EPA’s new rules regarding pesticide exposure represent a positive step toward protecting adult workers as well as children, but important gaps remain: for example, the new rules are not designed to protect workers from repeated low-level exposure to pesticides as a result of routine work. The Interagency Working Group for the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration Laws was established in November 2014 to coordinate efforts between the Department of Labor, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and National Labor Relations Board and ensure that all workers have adequate recourse for workplace violations. The Working Group has not yet released concrete recommendations.
The USG has not only failed to take significant action at the federal level, but ithas also largely abdicated its duty to fulfill its international obligations at the state level as well. A small minority of states have historically provided more protections to agriculture workers than are required by federal law, but the federal government continues to fail to use the policy tools at their disposal to encourage more states to take similar steps to confer full labor rights to agricultural workers under state law.
Current situation / Update of the Issue / According to the Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey, 89% of agricultural workers in the U.S. are racial or ethnic minorities.Hundreds of thousands of children, including an estimated 350,000-500,000 Hispanic minors, work in agriculture as a result of exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Actfor agricultural work and the State’s failure to update the laws to meet age standards used in other industries. These children’s health, education, and future are negatively impacted.
Impact of the Action of the State party (if any) / The EPA’s recent decision was well received by advocates for minors and workers in agriculture. However, given that exemptions for agricultural work remain in the Fair Labor Standards Act, children, just as adult workers, continue to be subject to pesticide exposure, heat, stoop labor, repetitive motions, and extremely harsh harvesting work.
Other Comments / The CARE Bill, which sought to equalize child labor laws, has failed to leave committee in the U.S. Congress since 2001. The Congress has failed to act, which means that activists must initiate legal challenges or wait for Presidential executive action. Grade C1/C2
Recommendation by the Committee / (d) Ratifying ILO Convention No.29 concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour and ILO Convention No.138 concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment.
Actions taken by the State party / The U.S. rejected the CERD and UPR recommendation to ratify this convention.
Current situation / Update of the Issue / Hundreds of thousands of children, including an estimated 350,000-500,000 Hispanic minors, work in agriculture as a result of exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Actfor agricultural work and the State’s failure to update the laws to meet age standards used in other industries and in international law. The health, education, and futureof these children are negatively impacted.
Impact of the Action of the State party (if any) / There has been no action in this regardthatbenefits the children hired to perform harvesting work, who are predominately poor Hispanic children.
Other Comments / Unless the U.S. government takes action to remove the exemption, child labor will remain legal in agriculture and impact predominately Hispanic children in a negative manner as outlined in the CERD and UPR reports. Grade: C2
Overall NGO Grades for the follow-up Action of the State party[2]:
A: Action largely satisfactory; B1: Substantive action taken, but further action desirable; B2: Initial steps taken, but substantial action required;
C1: Some actions taken, but recommendations are not really implemented; C2: No action taken; E: measures taken are contrary to the recommendations / C1/C2

[1] “In accordance with article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention and rule 65 of its amended rules of procedure, the Committee requests the State party to provide information,

within one year of the adoption of the present conclusions, on its follow-up to the recommendations contained in paragraphs 17(a) and (b), 18 and 22 above.” Para. 33 of the Concluding Observations of the HR Committee on the 7th-9th periodic report of the United States of America (CERD/C/USA/CO/7-9).

[2] The NGO Grades are made in accordance with the assessment grades of the HR Committee (see page 1) so that both grades can be directly compared.