A/HRC/34/55 parties to the Convention.70 This may spur those determined to adopt at any cost to turn to non-States parties to the Convention. Accreditation and monitoring of adoption agencies 74. The 1993 Hague Convention allows adoption agencies to play a key role in mediating intercountry adoptions. It requires that they be accredited by the receiving country and authorized by the country of origin to operate in that country. An agency accredited to mediate intercountry adoptions should employ a sufficiently large multidisciplinary team of professional staff for its operations. Accredited bodies should be supervised by a competent authority at least as regards “their composition, operation and financial situation”, including the regular monitoring of their websites “to examine the quality, accuracy and currency of their information”.71 75. Attitudes towards the accreditation of adoption agencies vary among receiving States, with some accrediting a small number of bodies that have the resources to provide all the necessary professional services and can be monitored effectively, 72 and others having multiple and diverse accredited bodies.73Accreditation is no guarantee of professionalism, however. The fact that adoption agencies are not effectively monitored and vetted for their professionalism and ethics is a major problem. Limiting adoption agencies working in or with a country of origin 76. It is the joint responsibility of countries of origin and receiving countries to regulate the number of adoption accredited bodies wanting to engage in intercountry adoptions, as a means of limiting the number of adoptions to the number of legally adoptable children. 74 When the Government of a country of origin authorizes too many agencies to operate within its borders, such agencies must compete to identify and secure “adoptable” children, which in turn makes it difficult to monitor their activities effectively. When adoption bodies in one country partner with agencies in other countries, the resulting web of agency activities is all the more difficult to monitor effectively. Limiting the approval of prospective adoptive parents 77. Issuing “fitness-to-adopt certificates” to an unlimited number of prospective adoptive parents is dangerous when the number of adoptable children is relatively small. That discrepancy is not only a cause of frustration among prospective adoptive parents but may also contribute to a level of unsatisfied demand that can lead some prospective adoptive parents to consider options involving illicit practices. It can also fuel calls for greater efforts on the part of the authorities of receiving countries to identify more sources of adoptable children, generally in countries of origin that are not compliant with the 1993 Hague Convention. Restricting the transmission of adoption applications 78. Some central authorities in countries of origin consider the setting of quotas as a positive measure to filter demand and repel pressure from receiving countries. Others, however, argue that quotas are instituted to address the actual demand and consequently do 70 71 72 73 74 See www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/adopter-a-l-etranger/comment-adopter-a-l-etranger/le-guide-de-ladoption-a-l/. See https://assets.hcch.net/upload/adoguide2en.pdf. Denmark has one accredited body; Finland, Norway and Sweden each have three. The United States has 184 accredited bodies and France has 32 such bodies. See https://assets.hcch.net/upload/adoguide2en.pdf. 17