Management Development and Governance Division
Bureau for Development Policy
United Nations Development Programme

 

Implementing UNDPís Human Rights Policy"
Workshop Report
New York, 23 -24 April 1998


Table of Contents

Introduction and Summary
Next Steps
1. Background
2. Human Rights and Sustainable Human Development: CONCEPTUAL AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES
3. Human Rights and Goverenance Programming
4. Mainstreaming Human Rights in Sustainable Human Devlopment Programmes
5. National Policy Dialogue and Follow
6. The Right to Development
7. Modalities to Support in Country Programming
8. Upgrading UNDP's HR Capacities
9. Collaboration with the OHCHR and Implementation
10. Future Human Rights Workshops and Symposia*

MAINSTREAMING HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES
I. Human Rights and Development: Interdependence and Interlinkages
II. Linking Human Rights and Development
III. Mainstreaming Human Rights in SHD
IV. Concluding Observations
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3

WORKSHOP ON IMPLEMENTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY
Politicization of the right to development
Origins in the aftermath of the NIEO
The breakthrough of 1998
The role of UNDP
Five myths
Proposal of the Intergovernmental group of experts
Selected Bibliography

TOWARDS A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO HUMAN RIGHTS
Human Rights to Development
Reinforcing linkages between civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights
Human development - a strategy for promoting human rights
Promoting human rights

IMPLEMENTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY
1. Seminars, Conferences and Special Events
2. Regional Activities
3. Country Level Activities
4. Publications
5. Public Relations Activities
6. Memorandum of Understanding with OHCHR


Introduction and Summary

On 23-24 April 1998, the Management Development and Governance Division (MDGD) in the Bureau for Development Policy (BDP), UNDP, held a workshop on the implementation of UNDPís policy on human rights. The purpose of the meeting was to promote a common understanding of the policy among staff members at UNDP headquarters, and to provide ideas for how UNDP headquarters could support the implementation of the policy, particularly at the country level.

The programme of the workshop is attached (Annex 1). It was attended by staff from interested HQ units, as well as external experts and resource persons, including the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights. A list of participants is attached (Annex 2).

The major findings and conclusions were:

Human rights and sustainable human development are complementary, but not identical. The policy gives UNDP an advocacy role on human rights and adds a distinctive new element to SHD programming, mainly by providing a normative framework for development. Key concepts are human dignity, equity, participation and sustainability.

It is UNDPís responsibility to take a stand on human rights and to keep in mind the vision of the Charter of the UN with its three inter-related goals of peace, development and human rights. Trying to maintain neutrality would be a misguided goal. UNDP is impartial, not neutral.

A human rights based approach to SHD will strengthen UNDPís position in the policy dialogue with programme countries. It provides the organization with a powerful set of tools and benchmarks in its work: the international bill of rights and commitments made at recent global conferences.

The specific country context will always have to be taken into account. In some countries, raising the "red flag" of human rights may have to be avoided, but it should be done without loosing sight of human rights in the design and implementation of SHD activities.

Human rights should be mainstreamed in SHD programming in general and in governance programming in particular.

Mainstreaming in governance aims at the development of national human rights systems in the programme countries. The Vienna Recommendations and Plan of Action call for an adoption of national human rights plans, now actively promoted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Mainstreaming in SHD programming involves two tasks: the adoption of HR principles and guidelines for programming and the development of internal HR capacities. Here, practical lessons can be drawn from UNICEFís experience with the child convention.

The new policy makes the Declaration on the Right to Development central to UNDPís work.

The cooperation with the OHCHR will be expanded along the lines of the MOU. The co-operation will include the promotion of the right to development, the exchange of expertise and experience, and the development of indicators in the area of economic, social and cultural rights.

For the building of capacity and the development of a positive interest in working with human rights, training of staff is necessary, but not sufficient. There is also need for clear signals from headquarters and statements of expectations to bring the field staff along. A good deal of experience has already been built in UNDP. Training should ultimately aim at lowering the thresholds of indifference and anxiety among UNDP staff members.

The implications of the new policy will have to be specified further in the process of making it operational in programming countries. There is a need for simple methodologies and approaches for mainstreaming. Guidelines have to be developed for UNDP staff at headquarters and in the field, the legal human rights terminology has to be "demystified", indicators for program evaluation have to be designed, etc.

A number of concerns about UNDPís policy on human rights were expressed in the discussion before the workshop and to some extent also during some of the sessions. These are examples of the questions that have been raised:

Will the new policy affect the neutrality of UNDP and introduce conditionality?

Will the policy jeopardize UNDPís effectiveness in pursuing its mission of achieving sustainable human development and eradicating poverty?

Will there be new / additional resources available for its implementation?

Does UNDP have the human resources and the capacity to take this initiative forward?

Next Steps

further in-house consultations and briefing of staff;

preparation of the guidelines and modalities needed for the mainstreaming of human rights with sustainable human development;

further development of the HURIS programme;

a detailed review with the OHCHR regarding the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding;

development of a strategy for HR capacity-building within UNDP;

organization of four regional and one inter-regional workshop on the UNDP policy during 1998;

documentation and inventory of existing UNDP programmes at country level;

1. BACKGROUND

In January 1998, UNDP adopted its policy, "Integrating Human Rights with Sustainable Human Development". While the feedback from programme countries, resident representatives, donors and NGO networks has been generally very positive, four concerns have been expressed:

Will the policy affect UNDPís neutrality and create conditionality?

Will it cause a loss of focus by broadening the work of UNDP too much?

Will there be new/additional resources available for its implementation?

Does UNDP have the capacity to implement the policy?

Bearing these concerns in mind, the workshop was organized with five broad objectives:

to clarify the relationships between human rights (HR) and sustainable human development (SHD);

to identify opportunities and constraints for HR programming in governance;

to explore some approaches and methodologies for mainstreaming HR in SHD programming;

to critically review the HURIS global programme; and

to assess the strengths and weaknesses of UNDP's HR capacities.

2. HUMAN RIGHTS AND SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: CONCEPTUAL AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES

SHD is very much a part of the effort to realize HR. Indeed, HR and SHD are truly complementary. HR is concerned with the well

being of the human person. SHD is about building capabilities to enjoy human freedoms. SHD is a process of expanding choices through the realization of human rights. For both HR and SHD, people are at the center of efforts and processes. HR do not prescribe a model of development but rather provide the normative framework for development which must be equitable, participatory, and protect the rights of future generations through sustainability. However, HR and SHD are not one and the same. There is, therefore, the challenge to answer, "What's new?" about integrating HR with SHD.

HR can be viewed as a legal concept, raising issues of enforceability and justiciability. But HR must also be viewed as providing a principled framework for actions and decisions. HR principles of equity, nondiscrimination and social justice are important criteria to judge the quality of government policy and the equity of government provisioning - especially in poor countries.

Operationalizing HR through SHD is clearly a contextual matter. In some countries, and at some times, it may not be strategic to raise the "red flag" of HR. It may prove more strategic to talk of rights or even only of SHD. But even so, it is important not to lose the HR focus in SHD.

When working in the field, it is pertinent to ask: WHAT human rights are we talking about? The answer is often the right of survival and economic security, the right to basic social conditions

and, at times, the right to be left alone by government authorities. Equally important are the rights of participation and inclusion in policy-making and decisions and the right to develop and strengthen capacities to assert and realize rights. Most fundamental of all is the right to social and economic justice.

A second question is: WHOSE rights are we talking about? Clearly the rights of women and children. The rights of the excluded, the marginalized, the impoverished and those made vulnerable by development. The focus is on human rights to redress and prevent inhuman wrongs. The focus is on human rights as means to social justice through SHD. A related question arises. If HR are to be considered as objectives for SHD, then over what time horizons? and how determined?

It was stressed that the UNDP policy clearly emphasizes a promotional approach rather than a violations' approach. But such a distinction might be hard to make in practice, for example, in respect of evictions taking place in a country where UNDP programming is focusing on providing shelter and housing. Put in a different way, the distinction between monitoring and institution

building may not always be a clear and sharp one in practice. The issue of HR jeopardizing the neutrality of UNDP was confronted. Impartiality, rather than neutrality, it was stressed, was more relevant. UNDP must, through SHD, take a stand: for social justice.

It was queried whether UNDP needs to take a development approach to human rights rather than a human rights approach to development. It was also cautioned that certain concepts and practices of development, in fact, result in a "contamination" of HR. But it was also emphasized that perhaps, today, we stand at a historic moment to realize the VISION of the Charter of the United Nations and its three core, interrelated goals of PEACE, DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS. There has been a historic convergence both in the declarations of the UN global conferences on development and in the practices of UN specialized agencies, on the language of human rights. In the words of the former Secretary

General of the UN, "HR provide the common language of humanity".

A sobering note, however, was struck. Current efforts at promoting SHD are taking place in a global disabling environment characterized by the growing power of trans-national corporations and international institutions of finance and trade, that lack commensurate accountability. At the same time, the capacity of States to fulfill their obligations to protect and realize human rights is becoming weaker. How can the HR framework address issues of power and accountability of non

state actors?

3. HUMAN RIGHTS AND GOVERNANCE PROGRAMMING

Presentations from each of the regional bureaus (except RBAS) underscored the importance of contextualization of HR and governance programming, at both country and regional levels.

Africa

The responses from the country offices in the Regional Bureau for Africa to the UNDP policy on Integrating Human Rights with Sustainable Development have been clearly positive, but operational concerns and resource related problems were expressed in country offices and have been reiterated by the Regional Bureau. The concerns relate to neutrality, the diversion of scarce resources and the need for resource additionality. Pressing needs for programming relate to poverty, gender and governance. In the area of governance, there has been support for electoral reforms and elections as well as support for legislative capacity building and law reform. But in addition, conflict prevention, conflict management, peace making and post conflict peace building have also been important elements in governance programming. This, in turn, has led to a focus on job and livelihood creation for excombatants, both in rural and urban areas - as an integral component of disarming, and economic and social reintegration within a peace building process. Governance programming in post-conflict situations in Africa has addressed key SHD aspects crucial to peace:

gender equity - including programmes of legislative support to end discrimination, job creation empowering women and youth;

participatory development - with an emphasis on ownership of programmes and projects through, for example, national execution and direct execution.

The sentiment expressed from the Regional Bureau presentation was that, in the past, UNDP may not have been a sufficiently attentive listener. There was a lot to learn in the process of self

retooling. This workshop was viewed as a key to such efforts at relearning, refining and retooling.

Asia-Pacific

This region poses a particular challenge, since only 40% of the countries in the region have ratified the International Bill of Rights. Also, countries like India and Malaysia would prefer UNDP to stay with its poverty alleviation mandate and caution against the risk of aiming too high. They reiterate that while development itself is an inalienable human right, any efforts at mainstreaming HR in SHD should not result in the imposition of conditionalities.

UNDP's approach in this region has been to focus on economic, social and cultural rights without undermining the indivisibility of all human rights. Unrealized development is equated with social injustice and thus SHD, combined with a "rights approach" is used in efforts to eradicate poverty and promote social justice. The Cambodia programme is typical of UNDP's approach within the region. The programme focuses on the human right to development as being integral to achieving SHD. There is a strong focus on women's rights and gender equality. Mainstreaming of human rights has been successful in programmes on poverty alleviation and on HIV/AIDS. There is support for the judiciary and the legislative; electoral assistance; capacity

development of human rights NGOs; training of the police force on human rights aspects; and the introduction of human rights curricula in schools and in civic education. The Cambodia programme typifies the adoption of a promotional approach.

CIS and Europe

The presentation of the Moldova and Latvia experiences emphasized the importance of the country context and the regional context. In Moldova, several UN missions led to projects related to the constitution, election, the legislature, the judiciary, local governance, the police. There were also programmes directed against corruption and the strengthening of NGOs. These governance programmes were complemented by programmes on poverty and on women (including the creation of shelters for women encountering violence). Regional Conferences have complemented national activities in useful ways and there are plans for a forthcoming inter-regional, international conference in Yalta later this year. In Moldova there is debate over the respective merits of reactive institutions such as the Ombudsman and the more proactive role that national human rights centres can play.

In Latvia the institution of Ombudsman has been able to function in a proactive way and curb governmental lawlessness. The establishment of national institutions has been crucial. However, the the challenge lies not so much in their creation, but rather in ensuring and securing their independence. In Latvia, again, the country context is important. The human rights of non citizens is a sensitive issue but, even so, it has been possible to address this issue through SHD. Capacity strengthening in respect of preparation of national reports has been one priority. In the CIS region, it could be interesting to set up a system of rewards which would encourage risk taking in promoting HR through SHD programmes.

The discussion on HR in governance programming inevitably raises the neutrality issue. It was stressed that it is important for UNDP to unflinchingly state its principles even though this might lead to some difficult decisions. Adoption of a human rights approach was seen as empowering UNDP. It is simplistic to equate good SHD practice with HR. Adopting a HR approach provides a new way of looking at SHD including the political dimensions of SHD. It enables the tackling of a political agenda in a principled manner without having to adopt a confrontational approach. It enables constructive engagement rather than alienation.

Inevitably, the issue arose of how to deal with the situation of flagrant violations of HR within a country. The adoption of "advisory notes" and other strategies were discussed. It was agreed that it was crucial for UNDP not to "go it alone" but rather for the entire UN system in the country to adopt a common, unified, principled stand that was consistent and avoided selectivity.

The general sentiment, however, was that adopting HR in governance programming was empowering for UNDP and the UN system as a whole. It enabled the adoption of a Common Action Framework on Poverty Alleviation that was distinct from what the Bretton Woods institutions could adopt.

PRODERE

A CASE STUDY

PRODERE was a programme for local development, offering opportunities for interlinkages between peace, development and HR. It is not a recipe but rather a tool, a methodology to be constantly revisited. It was developed for the particular region and situation it addressed in six countries of the Central American region for a fixed period of time ending in 1995. Born of the wars in Central America, PRODERE evolved from an emergency humanitarian assistance programme, into a programme of mediation between government and guerrillas to open up humanitarian space for an SHD programme at local level. It was a participatory

based programme, supporting the organization of people, not depending on the authoritarian structures of the municipalities but rather working with "the local instances". PRODERE adopted a comprehensive approach to HR, focusing on the protection of life, the recuperation of work, the dissuasion of violence, fostering reconciliation, protection of HR and the documentation of identity for electoral purposes. The question, today, is how to sustain the programme, now that there is peace and the countries no longer hit the headlines. It is important that the countries choose to continue to undertake the programme as a regional programme and through the UN system rather than bilaterally and as national programmes.

4. MAINSTREAMING HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES

Mainstreaming HR in SHD programming makes practical sense given the complementarity between SHD and HR. Moreover, for an agency of the UN such as UNDP, it is mandated by the UN Charter which prescribed three interrelated goals of peace, development and human rights for the entire UN system. As the UNDP policy document recognizes, mainstreaming HR in SHD programming involves the undertaking of several complementary and mutually reinforcing tasks and activities. It involves mainstreaming of HR in UNDP policy dialogue and follow up to the global UN Conferences on development. Notably, it involves mainstreaming HR in UNDP's governance programming as well.

Before addressing the task of mainstreaming HR in SHD programming, it is pertinent to briefly explore what mainstreaming of HR in governance programming entails. It entails building up and strengthening of human rights capacities in three sets of institutions:

public sector institutions such as legislatures, judiciaries, law enforcement officials, bureaucracy, and civil service;

national human rights institutions such as ombudsmen and national human rights commissions, and

private sector institutions such as NGOs and CSOs.

The term "human rights capacities" relates to the range of tasks and functions involved in the promotion and protection of human rights: standard setting, promoting awareness, implementing, monitoring (both violations and progressive realization) and enforcing. Through the approach of strengthening human rights capacities in all of the above three sets of institutions, the goal is to develop a system of national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights. Such a national human rights system could, in turn, adopt a national human rights action plan which would embody the successful mainstreaming of human rights in the institutions of governance. The UN High Commissioner on Human Rights has set a high priority on encouraging the development of such national human rights action plans.

It is clear that mainstreaming HR in SHD will inevitably be a work in progress. The challenge is to develop methodologies and approaches which are contextual, participatory and empirically derived. The successful mainstreaming of HR in SHD will involve three clearly related tasks:

the adoption of human rights principles and standards in institution wide UNDP policies, guidelines and directives to serve both as criteria for internal accountability and to provide a framework for dialogue with governments;

the setting of HR goals and targets in SHD programmes, the development of indicators and measures, monitoring and evaluating such programmes and the establishment of participatory processes for the implementation of such programmes;

developing internal UNDP human rights capacities for accomplishing the above tasks.

There is a clear need to simplify the methodologies and approaches for mainstreaming and make them easy to operationalize. It will be important to demystify some of the legal terminology of human rights, e.g., the concepts of indivisibility, interrelatedness and interdependence of all human rights. It will be important to retain a holistic approach to human rights and avoid picking and choosing specific rights while at the same time, setting priorities in programming. National institutions and mechanisms have vital roles to play in partnership, not only with UNDP but with the entire UN system involved in HR in the country. It is essential that clearly visible results be achieved at the country level.

The role of the Resident Coordinator becomes especially important and there may be need to develop human rights guidelines for resident coordinators. The CCF process will provide opportunity for dialogue with partners. Human Rights training will clearly be necessary but, additionally, there will be a need to clarify understanding of what is expected and to set up mechanisms for both internal accountability and rewards.

Once again the challenge was posed to identify "what's new" in integrating HR with SHD. One response was that the policy makes UNDP outspoken regarding HR and SHD and places the human right to development on the agenda of UNDP. It stresses the contribution of governance to the realization of HR and could alter patterns of resource allocation. As was the case with UNICEF adopting a human rights approach, the adoption by UNDP of a rights based approach to development provides the organization with a stronger platform and a firmer voice. By promoting an organizational culture sensitive to HR, a sense of justice will be promoted within UNDP.

Integrating HR with SHD will also enable a new approach to national reports, using them to stimulate national debate and dialogue and using them as a diagnostic for programming entry points. UNDP, in turn, could thus help facilitate and strengthen the work of the human rights treaty bodies and might consider "adopting" and establishing a mutually supportive relationship with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. However, in all of this, it is important to avoid burdening further the already overburdened resident representatives and resident coordinators.

5. NATIONAL POLICY DIALOGUE AND FOLLOW

UP TO THE UN GLOBAL CONFERENCES ON DEVELOPMENT

The UN Global Conferences on Development represent an attempt at refocusing development after the Cold War. In these conferences, the human right to development has been placed at the centre of global development. Several of the conferences, e.g., Cairo, Beijing, Copenhagen, include human rights commitments and goals in their final declaration and programme of action. The Vienna World Conference on Human Rights specifically addressed the relationships between human rights and development and reiterated a global commitment for realization of the right to development. In these conference declarations and programmes of actions the governments took on responsibility for implementation of the conference aims and objectives. This offers UNDP unique opportunities, at country level, of capacity building for implementation. The conference goals represent benchmarks for monitoring progressive implementation. The importance of national reports is reiterated and UNDP can help, once again, to strengthen capacities for national reporting. UNDP can use its field presence, its daily access to key ministries, its capacity

building and coordination mandates and, above all, its SHD paradigm to significantly advance the conference agendas. The Programme Management Overview Committee can provide a forum for national policy dialogue and the Fund of the Regional Coordinator can be used to support specific follow up initiatives. The conferences served to provide a voice for the voiceless. NGOs participated and made significant contribution to the conference process. UNDP is in a position to sustain such voice and participation, at the national level, in post conference processes.

Ultimately, the value of such conferences depends upon what UNDP makes of them. It was urged that UNDP not let neutrality prevent itself from taking a strong stand on conference principles and agenda. It was also urged that UNDP focus on the post conference process more at the national level, seeking country anchored visible results rather than focusing only on the conference review process at the international level.

UNICEF and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is the centerpiece of UNICEF's work. UNICEF participated in the process of drafting CRC and ensured that it adopted an approach of gender balance. The CRC specifically recognizes and names UNICEF, giving a mandate under the convention. From the start, UNICEF has worked closely with the CRC committee to reinforce one another's work and effectiveness. UNICEF brings the Recommendations of the committee into its offices; facilitates the preparation of reports; provides systematic, technical assistance in support of the Recommendations of the committee; and strengthens national capacity for data collection and monitoring. UNICEF has promoted country visits by committee members: to promote ratification; before Reports are due; and after Reports have been made. UNICEF acts as facilitator: organizing meetings, bringing children's rights organizations together with other NGOs.

In 1994, UNICEF signed an MOU with the then UN Human Rights Centre. It made a commitment, at the World Summit on Social Development, to make children's rights universal and set time bound goals for implementation. It has participated, with similar objectives, in the other UN global conferences.

UNICEF draws its human rights framework and mandate from the UN Charter, the UDHR, the human rights Covenants, the CRC and the recent call by the Secretary

General to make HR a crosscutting theme in all UN activity. In implementing its human rights framework, UNICEF adopted (through its Executive Committee) a clear Mission Statement calling upon UNICEF to play an advocacy role regarding CRC and children's rights. It has also established Guiding Principles as to what a human rights approach means for its staff: understanding, tolerance, diversity, fairness, and nondiscrimination. The main principles guiding UNICEF include:

HR norms are mandatory and binding.

The principle of accountability of ratifying states is the starting point of UNICEF's work.

Universality of human rights must be achieved for all children: not just for the first five years of life but through adolescence; not just for boys, but for girls as well, for refugees and other minorities.

The interdependence and indivisibility of human rights necessitates a focus, not only on health and education, but on all civil rights and fundamental freedoms.

6. THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT

The human right to development (HRD) is a major priority in the UN global conferences, in the Secretary

General's plans for reorganizing the UN, and in the work that the High Commissioner has set for herself. UNDP is uniquely placed to remedy the twin defects surrounding HRD:

the politicization of the right to development;

the confusion regarding the context of the right to development.

The normative context of the right to development is clear:

development must be human

centered, participatory and nondiscriminatory;

development aims at the constant improvement of the well

being of the entire population and of all individuals, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be freely realized;

active, free and meaningful participation in development must be ensured;

there must be fair distribution of the benefits of development;

human rights violations are an obstacle to development and lack of resources cannot be a pretext for violation of human rights.

The MOU between UNDP and UNHCHR stipulates three areas of cooperation on the right to development:

promotion of the implementation of the right;

exchange of expertise and experience in the implementation of the right;

defining indicators in the area of economic, social and cultural rights and designing other relevant methods and tools for their implementation.

The Intergovernmental Group of Experts set up in 1996 was tasked with the elaboration of "concrete and practical resources for the implementation and promotion of the right to development". In its Report, the Group of Experts outlines "elements of a global strategy for the promotion and implementation of the right to development" which have several programmatic implications for UNDP:

States are called upon to "take measures to ensure that poor and vulnerable groups, including landless farmers, indigenous people and the unemployed, have access to productive assets such as land, credit and the means for self-employment.

"Coordinated measures to protect the indigenous knowledge and traditional knowledge of local communities, including humans and indigenous people".

Civil society organization (CSO) monitoring of the realization of the right to development.

Support to CSOs "to fulfill their countervailing role in representing the public interest and minimizing possible adverse social effects of the market".

A former UNDP focal point for human rights recalled that it has taken UNDP six years to get to where they are today regarding human rights and the right to development. It is important to understand the attitudes and conditions of UNDP staff suffering from conceptual fatigue, and the need for convincing them that mainstreaming HR makes sense and is UNDP's responsibility. Clarity about what is being mainstreamed would help direct resources. Clarity would also help to define roles and responsibilities. Unlike UNICEF that does have a specific convention to focus on, there is not similar convention for UNDP to work with. The Declaration on the Right to Development is a weaker instrument in the legal sense.

There was a call for "informed pragmatism" to address the "four perils": conditionality, criticality, additionality and capacity. In defining its promotional role, UNDP must not lose its assertiveness built on firmness and knowledge about the requirements of the international human rights instruments. Three strategies of pressure, support and persuasion through positive financial promise, can be applied in UNDP programming, policy dialogue and participation. UNDP's three entry points involve use of UNDP's national staff (respecting their rights to be protected); the division of labour within the UN system; and a shift to a joint UN stance based the mandate of the UN system, avoiding a confrontational approach. In making the shift from needs to rights, it is important to avoid artificial polarities.

The question is how can one advance the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development? Are there techniques for implementation that one could learn from other parts of the UN system? ILO does present a model for making its conventions real in the country, backed up by staff members, both in the field and at headquarters. There is a need for quiet effectiveness. There is a need to avoid taking a stance but rather developing flexible positions on which debate and negotiations can take place. There is a need to seek to understand the issues and problems and go forward. One must resist the temptation of new projects and new programmes in a new area like the right to development. UNDP must enhance its ability to learn from its own experiences. There is a need for staff training and strengthening staff capacity for informed assertiveness and global level advocacy and partnership.

7. MODALITIES TO SUPPORT IN COUNTRY PROGRAMMING

Although UNDP has been addressing some human rights issues for years, without saying so, there is still a need to make HR more visible and retool UNDP human resources to gain a better understanding of what the UN system means regarding HR. It is important to avoid a "baptism by fire" approach. Although UNDP stresses participation and ownership of programmes, at times these are sacrificed to the zeal to rush - denying people the right to do things for themselves - the right to think for oneself. There are fears and sensitivities in the field, about human rights priorities being imposed and pushed before being ready for it. The relationship between field office staff and human rights activists can be problematic, especially since the latter are themselves insecure and under threat. Human rights should not be feared but rather stressed, asserted and claimed, for example, by engaging in a dialogue with women. There is also need to engage in dialogue with human rights NGOs and activists. There is need for policy advocacy work on human rights. Although the gap between UNDP and OHCHR is being closed, there is a need to do more at the field level. There is also a need to work more closely with regional human rights institutions where they exist.

Key initiatives that UNDP can itself undertake include having a clear corporate position on HR and stating what UNDP does regarding HR. For that purpose it would be necessary to make an assessment of what is being done in the 137 UNDP field offices. What new ideas and new methodologies are emerging at country level. There is, of course, the ongoing need to clarify what a rights based approach to SHD entails, both at the conceptual and operational level. Internal (with local institutions and donors) and external alliances need to be made. It is important to build on work being undertaken by the government, e.g., regarding constitutional and legal reform. It is important to identify programming entry points such as women, children, decentralized participation including some hard entry points such as transparency and accountability in macro economic management, which can form the basis for a cooperational, promotional approach. There is a need to lower thresholds of anxiety but there is also a need to deal with thresholds of indifference. Programming with gradualism enables the beginning of a process, and the forging of relationships. Behavioral aspects of capacity building must be addressed. The technical/legal components of HR should not be neglected. The transformative nature of human rights must be kept in mind. Human rights are not only about power relationships but also, importantly, about human relationships.

8. UPGRADING UNDPís HR CAPACITIES

A variety of UN documents on human rights does exist, but this material needs to be tailored to the particular needs of UNDP. It is clearly recognized that training is a necessary but not sufficient element of capacity building, behavioral change and action. Clarity of signals and expectations is important. There may also be significant pre training and post training support needs. When addressing training at this moment, several key issues arise. The purpose of training is to build capacity to implement UNDP's policy - it is not to create HR experts. In terms of who should be trained, the answer would be everyone on the basics, and specialized training according to need. The content of the training should comprise a basic curriculum which lowers thresholds of anxiety and indifference, and addresses the basic questions regarding HR encountered in the field. It should deal with the basic HR concepts and the basic HR mechanisms. There could also be specialized curriculum according to need. The methodology adopted for training should demystify the legal language of HR; lend itself to a training of trainers' approach; provide access to additional materials and support; and identify networks of resource persons and institutions.

In summary, five concrete ideas were put forward:

preparation of a core HR curriculum;

preparation of specialized curriculum according to country, region or theme;

creation of a network of support;

monitoring of training packages;

undertaking joint training in countries with both UNDP and other UN agencies.

From the initial focus on training, it is important to move to capacity building, stressing:

cross fertilization of lessons learned and best practices;

constant and systematic flow of information;

periodic assessment of methodologies and ideas on how to make HR concepts operational;

creation of a focal point for HR in each field office for a limited time, to be a source of both information and knowledge.

A couple of caveats were struck about existing human rights education materials. They tend to be overly legalistic, human rights instrument

centered, focusing on content of laws and not sufficiently on the development of skills and strategies. HR capacity

-building for policy

making should not be neglected.

A number of existing UNDP resources were identified such as MAGNET, SURF's and global programmes. Regional or cluster meetings of Resident Representatives were mentioned and the role of the Regional Bureau Director and the Resident Representatives was recognized in helping the UNDP policy reach down within the bureaucratic hierarchy.

Decentralization of resources, improved use of technology, induction training, distance learning, capacity reinforcement, the development of modules and learning resources catalogues and the importance of leadership in line management for learning were among the topics also discussed.

9. Collaboration with the OHCHR and Implementation

The collaboration with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva constitutes an important element for the implementation of UNDPís human rights policy. The Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, who represented the OHCHR at the workshop, made a presentation on the cooperation between the OHCHR and UNDP. In the post-cold war era, not in the least in the context of the Decade for Human Rights Education, the potential for collaboration has expanded. UNDP was re-discovering basic UN policy instruments, which have gathered dust during past decades.

The OHCHR wants to see itself as a small and efficient centre of excellence. Its work in the field of human rights promotion focuses on the strengthening and professionalization of national institutions, including ombudsmen and local NGOs, the promotion of the rule of law, and the administration of justice. In its operations the OHCHR can use a "big stick" against human rights violators, but can only offer a small carrot to reward countries with an improving human rights record. For UNDP, the opposite is true: equipped with only a small stick, but a big carrot, it could provide a meaningful compliment to the operations of the OHCHR. To work out the details of this complimentarity on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding between both organizations was considered the central challenge in the next couple of months. This included also the question of what kind and level of assistance could be expected from OHCHR staff when operating from UNDP country offices. UNDP and OHCHR should also engage in the development of indicators and benchmarks for the realization of human rights. This initiative would be an important aspect of the promotion of the Right to Development and could also positively affect the work of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The OHCHR recognizes the linkages between its own operations and UNDPís mandate in governance. Therefore, the Office will seek to involve UNDP in all of its field operations from the beginning. Further, the Deputy High-Commissioner suggested that all technical assistance projects of the OHCHR have a duration of only two years maximum, in the hope that UNDP takes over these initiatives after this period of time. It was suggested that UNDP should systematically extend its technical assistance to the military, the police force and the penitentiary system, since those entities were among the harshest violators of human rights.

10. Future Human Rights Workshops and Symposia*

Four additional events are planned for 1998, with the purpose to discuss specific aspects of the policy:

The "Joint Symposium on Human Rights and Human Development" is being organized by the Human Development Report Office" for October 1998. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the mainstreaming of human rights with sustainable human development and how this can be reflected in the Human Development Report.

RBEC is organizing a regional meeting on human rights to take place on 2-4 September in Yalta, Ukraine, with the title: "Human Rights: Freedom from Poverty"

MDGD will host a seminar on human rights in post-conflict countries. The purpose of this workshop is to analyze how UNDP can adopt a human rights approach to post-conflict situations.

A "Symposium on HIV/Aids and Human Rights" will look at the challenges that HIV/Aids poses for UNDP with regard to the protection and promotion of human rights.

Attachments:

Workshop Programme

List of participants

Clarence Dias: "Mainstreaming Human Rights in Sustainable Human Development Programmes"

Stephen Marks: "The Right to Development and its Implementation."

Sakiko Fukuda-Parr: "Towards a Holistic Approach to Human Rights"

Readers of the report, who are interested in further background documents for the workshop can contact MDGD/BDP at UNDP. Fax: (212) 906 6471; Phone: (212) 906 6633 or send an email to Thord Palmlund (thord.palmlund@undp.org). Documents are also available on the MDGD/MagNet webpage at http://www.magnet.undp.org.

MAINSTREAMING HUMAN RIGHTS

IN

SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES

by

Clarence J. Dias

I. Human Rights and Development: Interdependence and Interlinkages

For much too long there has been reluctance on the part of developing country governments and multilateral and bilateral development assistance agencies alike, to recognize the varied relationships between development and human rights and to link human rights and development in mutually reinforcing ways. This reluctance has been prompted by the tendency to view the relationship between development and human rights as one of conditionality. The conditionality approach is one where development assistance may be threatened to be withheld or suspended in countries where the abuse of human rights is so gross, systemic and continuing as to justify such a measure. The conditionalities' approach, of course, is perhaps more appropriate for bilateral donors than for UNDP. At any event, developing country governments have been loud in rejecting efforts to link human rights and development through political conditionalities applied, all too often, in an arbitrary and selective manner. Bilateral development assistance agencies, too, have become increasingly aware of the limitations and lack of effectiveness of such conditionalities.

Today, there is growing recognition, conditionalities aside, that human rights and development are indeed interdependent and interlinked. Development practice reveals a variety of relationships between human rights and development:

The Human Right to Development (HRD). This has gained increasing recognition within the UN and in international law. Especially after Vienna, it is part of UNDP's mandate. Understanding the meaning of the UNHRD Declaration, its implications and strategies to implement the Declaration is of importance to UNDP.

Human Rights and Democratization of Development Processes. UNDP policies (reflecting concepts of SHD, participation, good governance) and UNDP management processes (such as environmental impact assessments) recognize various process related rights (e.g., the right to know, freedom of association, access to information, transparency, participation and nondiscrimination). Other UNDP policies aimed at strengthening civil society capacities have clear human rights implications as well.

The Human Rights of Development Victims. These include, for example, the rights of resettlement of persons displaced by development projects of dam building or infrastructure construction and other large scale development projects.

Humanitarian Assistance. In carrying out humanitarian assistance, UNDP has applied human rights standards (e.g., of nondiscrimination) in respect of both international refugees and internally displaced persons. Human rights are also implicated in the continuum from relief to rehabilitation to development.

UNDP's Capacity

Building Mandate. This could provide opportunities for strengthening the institutional infrastructure for promotion and protection of human rights, both in the institutions of the State (e.g., judiciary) and those of civil society (e.g., NGOs). The enabling environment for SHD, and for promotion and protection of Human Rights, have much in common so far as capacity building is concerned.

Promoting the progressive realization of human rights through development programmes. This is a proactive, preventive strategy to avert the reverse continuum: of poverty - dependency

exploitation

social unrest

conflicts

humanitarian emergencies. The rights selected could include nondiscrimination, freedom of expression and association, the right to work, the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living (including rights to food, health and shelter). Such rights are amenable to promotion through development programmes. Moreover, specific development programmes could be adopted in national programmes to address areas of chronic neglect, e.g., infant and child health and nutrition, adult illiteracy, economic empowerment of women.

The above range of alternatives enable UNDP not to focus on violations but rather on a more positive approach of promoting the progressive realization of human rights through SHD.

Over the last decade, bilateral development assistance agencies (especially in the so called "like minded donor countries") and UNDP have been increasingly aware of the interlinkages and interdependence between human rights and development and have been striving to formulate policies, projects and programmes reflecting such interlinkages and interdependence. But such efforts have been constrained by inconsistencies between how human rights issues are viewed in a country's Ministry of Development Assistance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ministry of Trade and Investment. Such inconsistencies have been addressed less through the consistent application of principles and law and more through the discretionary application of political expedience. It is vital that this approach be reversed and that issues of human rights and development be brought under a regime of "rule of law." After all, today, there does exist a body of international law on development (ILD) comprising the UN Charter; the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; the 1986 General Assembly Declaration on the Right to Development, the Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights; a variety of international human rights and environmental treaties; and the Declarations and Programmes of Action of a round of UN World Conferences from Rio to Rome. Indeed, one need not look beyond the Charter of the United Nations. In his Foreword to a Harvard Law School symposium commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the UN (Harvard Journal of International Law, Vol. 36, pp. 267, 272, 1995), Secretary

General Boutros

Boutros Ghali emphasizes:

"In 1945, the founders of the United Nations identified peace, development, human rights and international law, as the four cornerstones of the Charter. Increasingly, we have come to understand that these elements of the UN Charter are linked and intertwined."

It is indeed important to emphasize, as a matter of practical significance, these four "cornerstone" objectives:

Lasting peace must be built upon respect for the human rights of all people.

Development is the key to the progressive realization of human rights.

Human Rights provide the value framework and the criteria for accountability for all UN activities with respect to peace and development alike.

International law is the vehicle to achieve these purposes.

It is vital, therefore, that all those involved in the conduct of development activities as well as all those affected (beneficially or adversely) by such development activities understand, respect, and implement the principles and standards enshrined in ILD. Only then can human rights and concepts of "transparency," "good governance" and "accountability" become more than rhetoric. Only then can, in words of the UN Secretary General, "the most necessary of all political principles - the principle of the rule of law" be strengthened.

II. Linking Human Rights and Development

Initial efforts to link human rights to development cooperation took the form of political conditionalities involving the threat of withdrawal of development assistance to countries with human rights abusive regimes. Today, the imposition of such conditionality in bilateral development assistance is becoming increasingly replaced by policy dialogue at the national level, and by collectively introduced sanctions (e.g., by the European Union) at the multilateral level. Increasingly, the search is for proactive and preventive approaches which emphasize protection and promotion of human rights through development rather than using the sanction of withholding development assistance to enforce human rights by punishing violators.

In this shift, from enforcement to promotion of human rights, development assistance agencies have adopted the approach of developing several categories of discrete human rights projects (specifically labeled as such) which are viewed as positive measures to help create and sustain, in the words of the World Summit on Social Development, an "enabling environment" for protection, and promotion of the progressive realization of human rights. These positive measure projects for the promotion of human rights and development have included support of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government; support to help create and strengthen independent organizations of professionals, of lawyers and journalists; support for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and for national human rights institutions (such as Human Rights Commissions and Ombudsmen); and support for vulnerable, disadvantaged or excluded groups such as women, children, indigenous people, and the disabled. These human rights projects have been of undoubted importance and are being closely evaluated in terms of their relevance, effectiveness, impact, sustainability, viability and replicability.

The general sentiment among development agencies appears to be that such projects are necessary but not sufficient for securing human rights and democracy. The challenge being articulated is to move from human rights projects to human rights strategies in development assistance. Expressed differently, the challenge lies in mainstreaming human rights in all development activities. There is clear justification why "the stimulation of activities to promote and protect universally accepted human rights has formed part of development cooperation, either as specific human rights projects or as an integral part of mainstream development programmes... the interlinkage of human rights and development aid has increased the impact of development because human rights (i) empowers communities, (ii) holds governments responsible, and (iii) acknowledges the invaluable role of Non Governmental Organizations".

Past experience with development cooperation underscores the importance of specific human rights projects (directed towards specific vulnerable, disadvantaged and excluded groups) and specific human rights activities (directed towards institutional development and the creation of enabling environments). But it also underscores the importance of mainstreaming human rights in development through "human rights orientation of mainstream development programs."

But what does it mean to talk of mainstreaming human rights in development? There are those (including the former General Counsel of the World Bank) who view all development cooperation as promoting human rights (especially economic, social and cultural rights). Some see human rights as crucial to providing a continuum from humanitarian assistance to social development. For others, mainstreaming involves human rights impact assessment of mainstream development projects. After all, mainstream development projects, by their sheer volume, have a significant potential for improving the human rights situation of the country. But, perhaps, mainstreaming human rights in development can best be achieved (and defined) by promoting the progressive realization of the right to development as set out in the 1986 General Assembly Declaration on the Right to Development which has been reaffirmed unanimously (not by vote, but by consensus) at successive UN World Conferences in Vienna, Cairo, Copenhagen and Beijing.

A subsequent section of this paper further examines what mainstreaming might entail and how one might proceed with the task of mainstreaming. But there remains the threshold question why mainstream? To mainstream or not to mainstream, that is not the question. But rather, hidden behind that question is the mores basic question, "Why should human rights be linked to development?" Today, that question ought to be seen, at best, as being no more than a rhetorical question. But often, in development circles there remains reluctance (indeed, at times hostility) to linking human rights and development. Therein lies the rub.

The arguments against linking human rights to development range from the purely technical/legal to the expediently practical. The World Bank has long argued that Article IV (10) of the World Bank Charter prohibits it from linking human rights to development. Article IV (10) declares that the Bank "shall not interfere in the political affairs of any member" and "only economic considerations shall be relevant to its decisions". The Bank's Charter was written in 1945. Since then, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights has been adopted in 1948 and two International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights have come into force in 1976. A number of other basic human rights treaties (notably the 1979 UN Women's Convention and the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) have also come into force. Today, there is a clear international consensus (embodied in the 1993 Declaration and Programme of Action of the UN World Conference on Human Rights) that human rights are interdependent means as well as ends of development. That consensus is grounded in a body of international law which transcends the Bank's charter, just as it transcends national state law. At any rate, for an organization, like UNDP, functioning under the Charter and principles of the United Nations, promoting and protecting human rights in and through development is not just a policy option. It is an international mandate. It is the law. Moreover, there are powerful pragmatic reasons as well, indicating that there can be no development without human rights and no human rights without development.

In recognition of the above, UNDP has recently adopted its policy for integrating human rights with sustainable human development. Key features of that policy need to be highlighted:

The concept of human rights adopted by UNDP is a holistic one encompassing civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.

The human right to development is recognized in the policy as an inalienable human right and an integral part of fundamental freedoms.

The interdependence, interrelatedness and indivisibility of all human rights is a matter of principle that must be translated into practice by the development activities of UNDP.

UNDP has adopted the sustainable human development (SHD) paradigm. Human rights and sustainable human development are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.

SHD requires a comprehensive approach to human rights which stresses both the protection and promotion of human rights. While securing the rule and enforcement of law is crucial, so, too, is adopting measures that enable people to exercise and enjoy their rights under the law.

The three focus areas of UNDP's human rights capacities policy (namely strengthening the human rights capacities of institutions of governance, developing a human rights approach to SHD, and contributing to the human rights policy dialogue) are interrelated and interdependent and together enable the mainstreaming of human rights in SHD.

III. Mainstreaming Human Rights in SHD

As mentioned before, the question for UNDP is not whether to mainstream human rights in SHD. It is not whether to have separate human rights projects ("positive measures") or to mainstream. The answer is obviously to do both, as the experience with gender and with environment clearly demonstrates. Where necessary, separate development projects may be undertaken, focusing on specific concerns of gender or environment. But this does not preclude the effort to mainstream concerns about gender and environment in all SHD activities.

It should be stressed, at the outset, that mainstreaming any set of concerns (human rights gender, or environment) in development is not a simple, self evident task. It need not, and should not be, unnecessarily complex either. But it does involve the undertaking of several complementary and mutually reinforcing activities. The most obvious set of activities relates to programming. Human rights principles, standards, concerns, priorities need to be adequately and effectively reflected in the drawing up and implementation of SHD programmes. But even the most enthusiastic programmes will be limited and constrained if human rights principles and standards are not also reflected in UNDP's institution wide policies which serve to provide the authoritative backing to the programmes drawn up. Moreover, obviously, mainstreaming human rights in SHD programmes will not succeed in the absence of in house human rights capacity. Hence, mainstreaming involves at least three sets of interrelated tasks relating to capacity building, policy formulation and programme design and implementation.

There is another, often neglected, aspect of mainstreaming. National development institutions and agencies do not function in a vacuum. Their effectiveness is inevitably conditioned by the national environment of governing institutions. Many a development agency or programme has found itself frustrated by legislative inertia, executive indifference or judicial insensitivity.

For an organization like UNDP, mainstreaming human rights will take place primarily in policy making and programming for SHD. But having adopted its policy on governance and having developed important and growing programming on governance, UNDP has unique opportunities for mainstreaming human rights into its governance programme as well.

UNDP already has developed considerable experience with the separate human rights projects undertaken under its development and governance programme. However, mainstreaming human rights into its governance programme does entail more. This is clearly reflected, for example, in the development of UNDP's global programme on Human Rights Strengthening (HURIS).

One aspect of HURIS (as we will see later on in this workshop) focuses on strengthening human rights capacities, at national level, in three sets of institutions:

public sector institutions such as legislatures, judiciaries, law enforcement officials, bureaucracy, and civil service;

national human rights institutions such as ombudsmen and national human rights commissions; and

private sector institutions such as NGOs and CSOs.

The term "human rights capacities" relates to the range of tasks and functions involved in the promotion and protection of human rights: standard setting, promoting awareness, implementing, monitoring (both violations and progressive realization) and enforcing. Through the approach of strengthening human rights capacities, HURIS seeks to develop a national system of institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights which national system could, in turn, design and implement a national action plan for the promotion and protection of human rights. Such a national plan would embody the successful mainstreaming of human rights so far as national institutions of governance are concerned.

The challenge for UNDP, however, also lies in developing a human rights approach, as well, to SHD programming and to thereby help achieve the mainstreaming of human rights in the development institutions at national level. At the outset, three main human rights aspects of SHD policy making and programming identify themselves.

1. Processes: through which decisions are made. From a human rights mainstreaming point of view, it is imperative that such processes be participatory and adopt, to the extent feasible, the principle of subsidiarity contained in the Declaration and Programme of Action of the UN Conference on Environment and Development. The principle of subsidiarity ordains that "decisions should be made, as close as possible, to the levels at which they impact". It is also imperative, from a human rights mainstreaming point of view, that several key rights be respected and protected by such process, namely: rights of transparency and freedom of information; rights of participation and nondiscrimination in access; the right to accountability; the right to fair and non discriminatory treatment; and the right to redress. Appendix 2 contains a Draft Charter of Rights in the Development Process which attempts to codify and restate the procedural and processual rights set out in a number of international human rights instruments relevant to development. These rights should be reflected in policy at the national level providing an "enabling environment" for mainstreaming human rights in SHD.

2. "Project affected peoples" and development victims whose human rights are adversely affected by policies, programmes and projects of development, e.g., those displaced by mega - dam projects. There is need to institutionalize the practice of "human rights impact assessment" at every stage of the project cycle. Like environmental assessments, these should be designed to enable: protection of affected groups; redress for affected groups; and redesign of projects using human rights criteria. Pioneering work has been undertaken on human rights impact assessment by the Danish Human Rights Centre.

3. Promotion of human rights, primarily but not exclusively economic, social and cultural rights, through the incorporation of human rights goals and targets into SHD programming in poverty, employment, literacy, promotion of ethnic coexistence as well as in conventional development sectors such as food, shelter, health, education and cross sectoral subjects such as water. Rights most frequently encountered in UNDP's SHD activities (such as those set out on pages 17 and 18 of the UNDP Policy) should be carefully translated into goals and targets. This is, admittedly, no easy task and one approach may be to formulate a series of questions regarding each such right which would inform and be reflected in SHD policy at the country level. Appendix 1 contains an illustrative example of such an approach.

Keeping the above three core human rights concerns of process, protection and promotion, the task ahead involves developing a human rights approach to SHD programming. This will inevitably be a work constantly in process. But some steps to initiate the process may be indicated:

A. Mainstreaming Human Rights in SHD Policy

Making

The adoption and publication of UNDP's policy document Integrating Human Rights with Sustainable Human Development represents a broad policy framework and a declaration of intent. The task now is to elaborate that policy at both headquarters and field levels:

(i) UNDP Headquarters Level

One possible way of approaching the task would be for UNDP headquarters to take the lead in preparing several different documents detailing and further elaborating the UNDP policy and its essential sub

components:

an information policy,

a human rights impact assessment policy,

a Charter on process and process related rights,

a policy on participation (of NGOs and CSOs),

a policy on nondiscrimination,

a grievance handling policy along with the creation of appropriate mechanisms, e.g., review panel(s),

a policy on subsidiarity. UNDP Administrator, James Gustave Speth, in his welcoming statement to the International Conference on Governance for Sustainable Human Development (July 28, 1997) stressed, "Good governance is local; decentralizing governance enables people to participate more directly in governance processes and can empower people previously excluded from decision making". In his opening statement to the same Conference, UN Secretary

General, Kofi Anan, emphasized that, "good governance must be built from the ground up". So, too, must mainstreaming.

The above list is meant to be purely illustrative and suggestive. A variety of approaches are possible to elaborating such policies:

They could be expressed in the form of "Operating Principles" or Operational Guidelines". Thus, for example, the UNDP Administrator formulated the concept of good governance (in his welcoming statement to the above mentioned Conference) in the following terms, "The fundamental principles of good governance are universal: they include respect for human rights and women's rights, respect for the rule of law; political openness, participation and tolerance; accountability and transparency; administrative and bureaucratic capacity and efficiency. These are mutually reinforcing and cannot stand alone". The components in that formulation could be combined with core elements from UNDP's policy document on Governance and issued in the form of "Operational Guidelines on Governance".

Another approach would be to formulate "Operational Directives" on any one or more of the items contained in the above list (or indeed on other items not contained in such list) as the World Bank has done (in either the detailed format originally issued, or the more recently issued synthesized version).

Yet another approach is suggested by UNDP's Inter

Bureau Task Force on Sustainable Human Development who, in a September 1994 document, drew up "Suggested criteria concerns and best examples" to promote SHD.

Yet another approach still would be to develop a UNDP working paper on Mainstreaming Human Rights in SHD along the lines of the UNDP paper (and document kit) on "Programming Through the Lens of Gender".

In 1994, as part of UNDP efforts to promote Sustainable Human Development (SHD), an Inter

Bureau Task Force was established by the Administrator to develop "some tools for use by country offices who want to advocate this new approach to development or to evolve programmes that promote SHD". A similar approach may be adopted regarding mainstreaming Human rights in SHD.

It should also be stressed that the above list of policy topics draws upon some fifty years of development assistance experience. It represents an evolutionary process of recognition and incorporation of international human rights principles and standards into development agency policy and practice. Today, the international human rights principles and standards relevant to development are well encapsulated in the 1986 UN Declaration on the Right to Development which has received unanimous reaffirmation at several of the recent UN Global Conferences on Development. The above list is not to be viewed as a daunting set of preconditions pending which efforts at mainstreaming human rights must be deferred. Rather, it should be viewed as a set of principles and operating guidelines which carry institution wide backing and commitment; to be internalized institution

wide; and which will serve to secure internal accountability for mainstreaming human rights in SHD.

(ii) UNDP Country Office Level

Clearly, the task of further articulation and elaboration of UNDP's policy will need to be one undertaken through close collaboration with UNDP country offices and through a process which is fully interactive and not merely reactive to policy documents emanating from New York. It is only at field level that policy can be accurately contextualized and effectively operationalized.

B. Mainstreaming Human Rights in SHD Programming

Sakiko Fukuda

Parr, the Director of the UNDP Human Development Report Office, in commenting on a draft of the UNDP policy, perceptively stressed, "UNDP needs to recast SHD in a rights based framework, changing the language used to reflect the fact that SHD is a human right and targeting its programming activities in terms of "unrealized rights" rather than goals "achieved". "UNDP's efforts in SHD are, by definition, efforts to help countries realize the economic, social and cultural rights of their citizens", she stressed. A human rights approach to SHD implicates all human rights: economic, social, cultural, civil, political and the right to development. It involves SHD programming which selfconsciously seeks to:

Promote realization of human rights through programmes on health, education, housing, as well as through programmes aimed at poverty eradication, sustainable livelihood, employment creation and gender equality. It involves setting human rights defined goals and targets for such programmes.

Develop indicators and measures to monitor the progressive realization of such human rights goals and targets. In particular, UNDP has an important role in the monitoring of economic, social and cultural rights. Efforts to introduce SHD indicators are of central relevance for monitoring economic, social and cultural rights. Indeed, as Sakiko Fukuda

Parr put it, "These initiatives should be one and the same!" Methodologies and mechanisms for monitoring progressive realization of human rights need to be developed as has been already done for monitoring of human rights violations. For counties which have ratified the core international human rights treaties, there is the obligation of preparing country reports to comply with reporting procedures and requirements under such treaties. UNDP and the OHCHR can help build national capacity for improved reporting. The country reports would then serve not only for scrutiny by treaty bodies. They would additionally be important diagnostic tools for human rights based SHD programming. There is also a need to develop efforts at monitoring the follow up to the UN Conferences, especially in respect of the commitments made therein and progress in implementing the Conference programme of action.

Evaluate SHD programmes to determine whether they are, in fact, contributing to the respect and progressive realization of human rights and to ensure that they are not actually violating any of the rights in question. Better techniques of appraisal of project proposals and of evaluation of SHD programmes and projects will need to be evolved. Practical issues of management, administration and evaluation will arise in what is, after all, a still relatively new field - human rights in development assistance. Evaluating impacts of programs is important, but a fetish should not be made of "result based programming." Similarly, issues of replication and scale

up are, undoubtedly, important but should not be assigned too inflated an importance. Learning by doing and learning from doing are both viable and a "best practices" approach could be developed among development agencies.

Establish participatory processes for achieving the above. Ownership and responsibility for SHD programmes can be developed if the participatory processes are truly meaningful for all concerned, including NGOs and CSOs. Here, a balance needs to be struck between developing national and local "ownership" of the projects and programmes and retaining development agency rights and responsibilities of "oversight". There will also need to be fundamental rethinking of the conventional "hands off" approach. If the approach to human rights in development is one of conditionality in responding to violations, then one can understand the sensitivities behind a hands

off attitude. But if the approach to human rights in development assistance is one of promoting the progressive realization of human rights in areas where there is a commonality of interests with the recipient governments, then development agencies need not adopt so defensive a hands

off approach but rather participate, themselves, and promote the participation of communities and NGOs in such projects and programs. After all, promoting the progressive realization of human rights is not a subversive activity and does not require clandestine covertness. As a general rule, democratizing the processes of development and taking human rights seriously, in such processes, set useful precedents in the country and help catalyze processes of democratization in the society at large.

C. Mainstreaming Human Rights in SHD: the need for strengthening in house human rights capacities.

It is self evident that the tasks described above require human rights capacities and expertise that cannot be presumed to exist in the quantum needed. Manuals and reference source books will help, but cannot replace human rights capacity building and strengthening. Moreover, to meet the human rights capacity needs on the ground, unfashionable though it might be, there is no substitute for a "training of trainers" approach to human rights capacity building. Euphemisms for "training" may h~ politic. But such euphemisms must not be allowed to derogate from the pragmatic.

IV. Concluding Observations

UNDP has embarked upon a brave new venture in its bid to integrate human rights with sustainable human development and, thereby, stake a claim for being the lead UN agency to play an advocacy role in the promotion of economic, social and cultural rights and the human right to development. There is room for cautious optimism. Cautious only because misconceptions and misunderstandings abound with regard to human rights and development and there is need, therefore - both within the UNDP house, with UNDP partners in UNDAF and with host country governments for frank dialogue and constructive engagement to clear up the misconceptions and misunderstandings. There is also a clear need for human rights capacity and institution building at all levels, and for all partners, if such dialogue is to be meaningful. So far as human rights are concerned, UNDP must make a clear differentiation between roles relating to monitoring of violations and roles relating to promotion and protection of human rights. The latter is an easy role for UNDP to play. So far as the former is concerned, clearly UNDP should not attempt to monitor human rights violations in the country at large. That role is better played by other parts of the UN system and national and international human rights NGOs. But UNDP cannot abdicate roles and responsibilities for human rights violations that occur overtly, or tacitly, in the conduct of its own activities in the host country. This will involve both tact and diplomacy as well as principled resoluteness. The creation of mechanisms for grievance handling and conflict prevention, jointly with host country partners may not initially appeal to development bureaucrats - national and international. But, on deeper reflection, such a move is both feasible and highly desirable.

There is clear need for all parties involved to fully respect, but not be subservient to widely varying country contexts and situations. There is similar need for all parties involved to respect process. Mainstreaming human rights in sustainable human development necessitates an ongoing and participatory process in which there is no room for impatience. There are no easy answers or quick fixes. Policy can provide framework, it must not be allowed to degenerate into becoming a straight jacket. Models must not be treated as prescriptive panacea. Best practices should not be allowed to become the enemy of the good. Above all, principle must prevail over expediency. Only then can sustainable human development truly contribute to the realization of that most precious of all human rights - the right to be human.

Appendix 1

This Appendix suggests a possible approach to the setting of human rights goals and targets in SHD programming. It uses, as a reference point, the international human rights treaties of the UN. This reference point is relevant, both for countries which have ratified such treaties as well as for countries that have not, but are parties to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. An additional reference point would obviously be the Constitution of the country. The approach involves:

(i) framing questions to ascertain the state of present realization of the particular human right. These questions could partly be drawn from the reporting guidelines provided by the treaty bodies of the human rights Covenants and Conventions;

(ii)drawing upon a variety of sources of information, both national (e.g., State Party reports to treaty bodies, legislation, judicial decisions, national statistics, other national reports, nongovernmental information, etc.) and international (Human Development Report, UN Statistics Office, data from UN Specialized Agencies) to frame responses to the questions set above;

(iii)drawing up of SHD programmes aimed at promoting realization of such right including the capacity and institution-building required to effectively implement such programmes;

(iv) allocating resources needed to implement such programmes from government and donor sources;

(v) setting specific goals and targets to enable monitoring and evaluation of such goals and targets.

The above approach is illustrated below in respect of the right to work.

THE RIGHT TO WORK

Many developing country governments would argue that providing full employment to all its citizens (and non citizens as well) is a goal - an aspiration - rather than a right. And that, therefore, monitoring the right to work is an exercise in futility. However, such a position is clearly unacceptable. The right to work does exist in international law (in the Universal Declaration, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), and in a variety of ILO and other Conventions) and, therefore, like all other human rights, there is the duty of UN Member States to Protect and Promote the realization of the right to work and it is both the right and obligation of the international community to monitor States behavior in respect of the right to work.

In order to monitor, however, it is essential to clearly reiterate the content of the right to work and its component rights since that is what is "monitorable." Thus, the right to work has the following clear and unequivocal content:

1. The Right to employment and to Free Choice of Employment-"the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts" (Article 6(1) CESCR).

2. The Duty of the State to:

(a) "take appropriate steps to safeguard this right";

(b) to take steps "to achieve the full realization of this right" including "technical and vocational guidance and training programmes"; and

(c)to adopt "policies and techniques to achieve steady economic, social and cultural development and full and productive employment" (Article 6(2) CESCR).

3.The Duty of the State to provide such "full and productive employment under conditions safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual" (Article 6(2) CESCR).

4.The Right to Just and Favorable Conditions of Work including fair wages, equal pay for equal work, safe and healthy working conditions, equal opportunity of promotion, rent, leisure, limited working hours, and periodic holidays with pay (Article 7 CESCR.

5.The Right to Form and Join Trade Unions of one's choice (Article 8(1) (a) CESCR).

6.The Right of Trade Unions "to function freely" (Article 8(1) (c) CESCR) and "to establish national federations and confederations" and "join international trade union organizations" (Article 8(1) (d) CESCR).

7.The Right to Strike (Article 8 (1) CESCR).

8.The Right to Social Security including Social Insurance (Article 9 CESCR). This right is important as laying the basis, both for provision of unemployment insurance and for protection of traditional self

provisioning livelihoods as well as common property resource management systems.

9.The Right of Everyone to an Adequate Standard of Living for oneself and one's family (Article 11 CESCR and Article 7 UDHR).

10.The Right of Economic Self

Determination including the right to development and the right to livelihood (Article 1 of both CESCR and CCPR). "In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence".

11.Freedom from Slavery and Forced Labour (Article 4 UDHR).

12.Freedom of Movement and Residence within the borders or each State (Article 13 UDHR) which prohibits residence restrictions on access to jobs.

13.Protection Against Unemployment (Article 23(1) UDHR).

From the above enumeration of component rights of the right to work, it becomes self

evident that several (if not all) of those rights are capable of being monitored in respect of "progressive realization''.

For purpose of monitoring the right to work, it is useful to distinguish between the different roles that States and governments might play: protection, promotion, and progressive realization of the right. At least four specific aspects of government behavior merit monitoring in respect of the right to work:

1.Progressive realization.

2.Nondiscrimination.

3.Affirmative Action.

4.Duty to Protect existing jobs and livelihood.

Measures and Indicators can be developed in respect of:

(a)employment, underemployment and unemployment;

(b)terms and conditions of employment;

(c)worker health and safety conditions (especially in hazardous industries which often demand "voluntary suicides" and in situations of economic vulnerability where "job blackmail" is all too common);

(d)associational rights and the right to organize;

(e)discrimination: against women, minorities or migrant workers in respect of access to work;

(f)elimination of jobs through structural adjustment and privatization programs.

In many developing countries it may be vital to monitor not only the right to work but also the right to livelihood. Just as the World Bank recognizes that there are "risk

prone" development projects, so too, at national level, there are government policies and programs which may specifically endanger - or even eliminate

certain livelihoods, especially in the subsistence sector of the economy.

The Revised General Guidelines for States' parties reports, under Articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), suggest several measures, indicators and sources of data relevant to the right to work (and indeed relevant to several other economic, social and cultural rights):

(I)Ratification of International Human Rights Instruments.

(ii)Enactment of Incorporative Legislation.

(iii)Data on Implementation of such Legislation. Government Policy Statements.

(iv)Census and other statistical data.

The Revised Guidelines have several important and innovative aspects regarding the right to work and these must be taken seriously in State Party Reports.

1.A ten year and present day time frame is suggested for the Reports to enable assessment of progressive realization.

2. Special attention must be given to particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged groups as well as to children, women and the family.

3. Discrimination is to be carefully measured through identification of "distinctions", "exclusions", "restrictions" and "preferences".

4. "Overemployment" and "Overwork" is to be monitored as well.

5. Per capita GNP and poverty lines are to be used.

6. Methods used for wage fixation must be made explicit and, so too, the methods for drawing of poverty lines.

Job creation must be measured not only quantitatively but also qualitatively in terms of the job's capacity to ensure adequacy of standards of living.

The indicators and measures developed with regard to the right to work, could then be used to set human rights goals and targets in SHD programmes dealing with poverty alleviation, sustainable livelihoods, employment generation, gender equality, education, health, etc.

APPENDIX 2

The UN Declaration on the Human Right to Development calls for the promotion and protection of the human rights of all persons whose interests are affected by development activities, and it calls for adoption of legal measures by international and national development agencies to secure that objective.

The appended Notes for a Charter to Secure Human Rights in Development Processes represents a codification and restatement of principles and standards contained in existing international human rights instruments.

It is an NGO document compiled by the International Center for Law in Development for purposes of:

human rights education among communities facing development, as to their human rights in development processes;

awareness raising among development officials as to the international human rights principles and standards applicable to them;

encouraging international and especially national development agencies to adopt and incorporate such international human rights principles and standards into their policies, programmes and projects.

In a subsequent draft, each proposed Article will be annotated with an explanation of its purpose and with full citation of its source in existing international human rights law.

It is appended, herewith, to provide field offices with a check list of principles and standards which national executing agencies should be adhering to.

APPENDIX 3

NOTES for a CHARTER TO SECURE HUMAN RIGHT IN DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES and to set out THE HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES

1. Preamble and Premises

a)The promotion and protection of human rights are interdependent ends and means of development processes.

b) Development agencies engage in development activities which impact upon social and physical environments. They must promote and protect the rights of those affected by these interventions; they must enact and adhere to legal measures necessary to secure this objective, and be judged by their efforts to achieve it.

c) This Charter sets forth some principles which should inform and give content to legal measures which development agencies must adopt to meet their obligation to promote and protect the realization of internationally protected human rights in development processes.

2. Definitions

In this Charter, the term:

"Development agency" refers to governmental, intergovern

mental and private agencies which engage in development activities .

"Development activities" refers to programs and projects, usually promoted in the name of "development," which forseeably affect the interests of particular peoples or groups of people, and thus affect their rights.

"Affected peoples" refers to peoples whose basic interests and rights may, forseeably, be affected (adversely or otherwise) by a development activity.

"Accountable officials" refers to officials appointed by a development agency and vested, with all authority necessary to secure enforcement of the principles embodied in this Charter by the agency, both in respect to its overall activities and in respect to any particular development activity.

3. Rights to Planning Processes Which Undertake the Assessment of the Social Costs of Development Activities and Their Impact on Human Rights

A. Before undertaking any development activity it is the duty of a development agency to make an assessment of the clearly possible and probable social effects of the activity upon affected peoples including the projected social costs of the activity and its impact upon the human rights of affected peoples.

Special attention must be given to the social effects and human rights input of the activity upon women, children and other particular peoples who may be adversely affected;

This assessment must take account of all of the rights protected by this Charter.

B.The assessment must set out all measures to be undertaken, in connection with the activity, to prevent adverse effects on the human rights of affected people, and measures to promote the recognition, assertion and protection of their human rights by all categories of affected people.

C. It is the obligation of development agencies to assure that all affected peoples enjoy rights of participation in the making of the assessment, discussion of drafts of it (as specified in Article 4) and rights to challenge its accuracy and challenge the validity of the project in accordance with procedures set out in Articles 11 and 12 of this Charter.

4. Rights of Participation

a) It is the obligation of development agencies to promote and protect rights of participation of all affected peoples and to refrain from all practices which may deter or prevent exercise of these rights.

b)Rights of participation include all rights of association, assembly and advocacy which are necessary to enable affected people to understand, identify, assert and demand protection of all other rights which are or may be implicated by a development activity; these rights of participation include rights of affected peoples to:

receive timely notification at the earliest feasible juncture, and at all times relevant thereafter, concerning measures proposed, undertaken or likely to be undertaken in connection with a proposed development activity and all information necessary to understand the environmental and social implications and impact of the activity on the interests of affected peoples;

form their own associations, free from outside control and to use these associations, free from outside inter

vention as vehicles to:

(i) assemble, discuss and debate the merits of any proposed development activity and to determine the form and manner of their participation (if any) in the proposed activity;

(ii)secure access to responsible officials in development agencies and opportunity to participate fully and effectively in the formulation of the social impact assessment required by Article of this Charter; to demand termination of the activity, or processes leading to wider consultation with affected peoples, or modifications of the goals or plan of the activity, or changes in the structures and processes created to manage, monitor and control it including the creation of structures which enable affected people (through their freely and fairly chosen representatives) to share in or assume full responsibility for the design, management, monitoring or control of the development activity or any aspect of it;

(iii)secure recognition of and measures to secure protection of all rights set forth and guaranteed by this Charter;

(iv)seek assistance (including financial, technical legal and other forms of assistance) from other organizations in order to realize their rights of participation and to secure protection of all other rights guaranteed by this Charter;

(v)use all available media in accordance with recognized rights of freedom of speech and press, to publicize their grievances and proposals concerning a development activity, and to enjoy recognized rights of peaceful picketing and demonstration to publicize these concerns.

(c)It is the obligation of development agencies to establish and publicize procedures which encourage and enable affected peoples to understand and exercise rights of participation during every phase of a development activity.

Particular steps must be taken to assure the enjoyment of these rights by women, youth, minorities and other groups which have traditionally been the victims of discrimination and exclusion in respect to development activities.

5. Right of peoples to Secure Protection of Their Environments

a)It is the obligation of development agencies to recognize that:

harms to environments usually produce harms to people which violate their rights;

these harms are likely to occur and go unredressed where human rights (notably rights of participation) are abridged;

protection against these wrongs requires protection of human rights, and

where human rights are fully protected environments will more likely be better protected.

b) It is the obligation of development agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed development activities and to assure that all affected people enjoy rights of participation in these processes and adequate remedies in an independent tribunal to assure enforcement of appropriate environmental standards, in accordance with Article 12 of this Charter.

6. Rights to Food. Health and Economic Security

a) It is the obligation of development agencies, in planning and conducting development activities, to protect affected people from risks to:

their habitat;

their food security;

their health and physical safety;

community welfare and support structures;

the lands and means by which affected people derive their livelihood and subsistence;

their economic security, for example, risks of falling into systemic indebtedness or other forms of impoverishment caused by significant changes in existing systems of agricultural production or by other changes in the economy of their region.

7. Rights of People to Maintain Their Cultures

a) Subject to the overriding obligation to protect the basic rights of all people everywhere, it is the obligation of development agencies, in planning and conducting their

development activities, to prevent harms to a people's culture including:

involuntary displacement of a people from their ancestral lands;

disruption of land tenure systems;

interference with rights of peoples to maintain their language, educational institutions and processes and their family and other social structures which reproduce cultures.

8. Rights to Gender and Justice and Justice for Children

It is the obligation of development agencies to:

a)promote recognition and realization of the rights of women and children prescribed by international law, and particularly those rights which are implicated in development activities;

b)promote development activities designed to remove discriminations and exclusionary practices traditionally imposed upon women and youth; whether under the sanction of customary law, state law or otherwise.

c)promote the fullest possible exercise of rights of participation in all development activities by women and youth;

d)assure that the economic and social benefits of development activities are realized on an equitable basis by women and youth;

e)promote projects which are addressed to the particular needs of women, for example, in relation to education, and empowerment, reproduction, health and child care, access to credit, equitable rights of control over the use and benefits derived from family possession of land, access to food, water and other essential needs, and, in this context to promote the capacities of women to become fully empowered to make their own social and economic choices.

9. Rights of Workers

a) Where a development activity may affect the rights of workers it is the obligation of the relevant development agencies to assure protection of those rights of workers which are now guaranteed by international human rights law, including rights to:

form trade unions or other kinds of associations to promote the welfare of workers, secure rights of participation and other rights;

a workplace which is safe and free from any unusual risks to health;

wages and terms of employment which are fair;

be informed of all unusual risks to health and safety which are inherent in any industries created for or aided by the development activity; to participate in the framing of standards and processes to project themselves and others from these risks;

secure prompt remedies and fair compensation for work

related injuries, including remedies which impose absolute liability on employers who subject their workers to unusual workplace risks to health or safety.

b) It is the obligation of development agencies to take special steps necessary to assure protection to workers who have historically been exploited (for example, by virtue of physical handicap, youth, gender, caste, minority or alien status or other disabilities), whenever such groups appear to be affected peoples.

l0. Rights of Indigenous Peoples

a) It is the obligation of development agencies to identify peoples who are, or claim to be, indigenous peoples whenever these peoples may become "affected peoples," and to recognize, promote and protect their rights as indigenous peoples in accordance with the principles of international law now being developed on this subject.

b) This obligation includes recognition, promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples as a group to:

determine (through participatory processes of self

governance which respect rights protected by international law) the goals and character of the kind of social change (if any) they wish to take place in their societies and physical environments;

maintain control, use and full enjoyment of lands historically occupied by the group to the end that rights of others to use such lands in any way may only be granted on terms and subject to restrictions which are freely determined through participatory processes by the indigenous peoples as a group;

maintain their cultures in accordance with Article 7 of this Charter.

c)Indigenous peoples must enjoy all other rights prescribed and protected by this Charter.

11. Rights to Processes Enabling Affected People to Assert Their Rights and Secure Preventive Remedies or Redress When These Rights are Violated

a) It is a basic obligation of development agencies to recognize the universal rights of all peoples to enjoy fair and efficient processes enabling the enforcement of their rights including full and fair remediation of violations of these rights. Accordingly, development agencies should:

designate and inform all affected peoples of the names and means of communicating to the accountable officials to whom individual or group claims of rights violations may be presented for prompt, fair and effective resolution;

provide fair and efficient Processes designed to mediate claims of affected people asserting that a planned or existing component of a development activity, or the activity itself, constitutes, or may constitute, a violation of rights and obligations secured by this Charter;

provide for fair and efficient processes to prevent an imminent threatened violation of rights and obligations guaranteed by this Charter;

provide fair and efficient processes to assure prompt and full redress of all violations of rights and obligations guaranteed by this Charter, including fair compensation of all resulting harms which have been or may (more probably than not) be suffered by the aggrieved parties;

provide that, where there is probable cause to believe that a rights claim asserted by affected people may be valid, the burden of disproving or mitigating the claim shall rest with the agency;

provide, where necessary, legal assistance to persons or groups necessary to enable their effective enjoyment of their rights to the processes prescribed in this Article.

b)Where there exists no clear law vesting the courts, or some other independent tribunal or independent arbitrational process with jurisdiction to hear claims of violations of this Charter, it is the obligation of development agencies to provide for the submission of such claims to an appropriate court or independent tribunal or to arbitration under rules recognized as fair and efficient according to international standards.

To the extent necessary to achieve justice and the objectives of this Charter, development agencies must be deemed to have waived any claim of immunity for violations of rights protected by this Charter.

12. Rights to Remedies: Special Procedures Enabling Affected People to Challenge the Legality of a Proposed Risk Prone development Activity

A.This article applies to risk prone development activities, that is, any proposed developed activity which will, more probably than not, entail significant violations of rights of affected people, or entail the introduction of unusually dangerous conditions threatening the health, safety or lives of affected people. Examples of risk prone activities include projects such as the building of dams or other large scale infrastructure or the introduction of large

scale irrigation or commercial farming or ranching, or environmentally risk prone projects or large scale industrial operations or any other activities producing, inter alia, clear threats of displacement of peoples, economic insecurity, threats to food security, life, health, physical safety, culture and related harms.

B.Consistent with Articles 3,4 and 11 of this Charter, it is the obligation of all development agencies initiating or assisting risk prone activities to provide for a prompt determination, by independent, neutral persons, of the legality of such activities in accordance with the principles specified below.

C.Risk prone development activities will never be undertaken unless proponents of the activity can prove by clear and convincing evidence that:

the economic and social benefits of a proposed activity, notably the benefits to poor people, will significantly outweigh the costs which would be imposed on affected people as a result of violations of their rights, and that

these and all other costs of the activity have been fully and fairly estimated, and that

these assessments have been made as a result of the social impact study required under Article 3, and,

all affected peoples enjoyed rights of participation specified in Article 4 in this assessment.

D. Where the legality of a risk prone development activity is in dispute:

the accountable officials of the development agencies involved shall submit the controversy to an independent tribunal in accordance with the procedures specified in Article 11, provided that,

the burden of proving justification shall lie with the proponents of the project.

E.No development activity will be undertaken where it appears that the activity will inflict irreparable harms on significant numbers of affected peoples.

13. Rights to Secure Accountability for Compliance with this Charter

A.All affected peoples are entitled to the rights set out in this Charter.

B.It is the obligation of development agencies to prepare and make public and readily accessible the rules and procedures which the agency will follow to meet the obligations imposed by this Charter.

C.It is the obligation of development agencies to appoint accountable officials who shall be fully empowered, and legally obligated to secure enforcement of these rules and procedures and of the obligations imposed by this Charter.

WORKSHOP ON IMPLEMENTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY

UNDP, New York, 23-24 April 1998

The Right to Development and its Implementation

by Stephen P. Marks

Director, United Nations Studies Program, Columbia University

TOC \o "1-2"

Politicization of the right to development

GOTOBUTTON _Toc418914707

PAGEREF _Toc418914707

Origins in the aftermath of the NIEO

GOTOBUTTON _Toc418914708

PAGEREF _Toc418914708

The breakthrough of 1998

GOTOBUTTON _Toc418914709

PAGEREF _Toc418914709

The role of UNDP

GOTOBUTTON _Toc418914710

PAGEREF _Toc418914710

Underdevelopment of the right to development: Confusion regarding the content of the right to development

GOTOBUTTON _Toc418914711

PAGEREF _Toc418914711

Five myths

GOTOBUTTON _Toc418914712

PAGEREF _Toc418914712

Proposal of the Intergovernmental group of experts

GOTOBUTTON _Toc418914713

PAGEREF _Toc418914713

Conclusion

GOTOBUTTON _Toc418914714

PAGEREF _Toc418914714

Selected Bibliography

GOTOBUTTON _Toc418914715

PAGEREF _Toc418914715

The human rights policy of UNDP has been described by several participants as an "historic moment," and in many ways it is that. The aim of my observations is to explain why a positive UNDP policy on the right to development may be an essential ingredient of that historic moment.

The firm commitment to implementing the UNDP human rights policy is historic both because it is culmination of years of vague support for the abstract idea of human rights in development without any understanding about how human rights is part of the development process and because it involves, for the first time, a genuine partnership between the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNDP. Because the right to development is high on the agenda of the majority of Members States and a high priority in the High Commissionerís mandate, it may serve as the oil smoothing the integration of human rights into the daily work of UNDP at both the policy and program levels.

However, the right to development has been more than a rallying call of the G-77 (still called NAM) and a priority concern for the High Commissioner; it is also a matter of considerable controversy, due to two principal defects in the notion, namely, politicization (along a North-South divide) and vagueness (what academics call its "indeterminacy"). UNDP is in a position to remedy both defects. Let me begin by the first,

Politicization of the right to development

From the initiation discussions of the right to development in the 1970s, it served a political function in the North-South debate over the relative importance of development and human rights. It is only now that there is some hope for a positive interaction between the NAM and WEO countries on the implementation of this right.

Origins in the aftermath of the NIEO

The idea of the right to development emerged in the early seventies with a double motivation. First, the Commission had become highly charged with ideological positioning on practically every issue, with the socialist countries pushing for peace and disarmament, developing countries pushing for development, non-discrimination and anti-apartheid struggle, and Western countries exercising damage control or favoring machinery to scrutinize violations of civil and political rights. As the socialist countries launched the idea of the right of societies to live in peace, the NAM countries picked up on the idea of declaring development itself a human right. Second, the momentum for NIEO and CERDS had not been lost yet and NAM countries continued to have faith in the UN system to allow majority decisions of the GA to establish the normative basis and the blueprint for the creation of a more just international economic order. The hope was that the Declaration on the right to development would use the categorical imperatives of human rights to oblige those countries that dominate the international economy to accept greater responsibility for eliminating the causes of poverty and maldevelopment and pay more for raw materials extracted from developing countries, provide more aid, and improve the terms of trade in favor of developing countries.

The Commission on Human Rights began considering the idea of this right in 1977. A comprehensive report by the UN Secretary-General in 1979 presented the principal ideas and issues considered (UN doc. E/CN. 4/1334). However, by the time the drafting got started, Ronald Reagan was in the White House and Margaret Thatcher was in Downing Street. The message was communicated to the drafting committee from the get-go that, while a general moral (not legal) commitment to human development was acceptable, under no circumstances would they allow a text to come out of the committee that would either affirm any legal obligation to transfer resources from North to South or codify any specifics regarding any of the issues contained in the declaration. With support from other committee members from countries with market economies, they succeeded. The human right to development was proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 1986 in a Declaration on the Right to Development (UN GA Res. 41/128). The United States cast the only negative vote; eight other countries abstained. A considerable body of commentary has appeared in support of the declaration, mainly in human rights publications, but critical and skeptical views have also emerged in legal and political writings. A selective bibliography appears at the end of this note.

The NAM systematically used the right to development to try to influence the entire human rights programme of the UN. In its consensus resolution on the 1996-67 programme budget, the General Assembly added a requirement--that the High Commissioner establish "a new Branch, the primary responsibilities of which would include the promotion and protection of the right to development" (A/Res/50/214, par. 37). The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action called the right to development "a universal and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights" (Part I, par. 10). Besides the high priority in the Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action, the right has been given prominence in the mandate of the High Commissioner, the international conferences and summits, the structure of the OHCHR, and the annual resolutions of the Assembly and the Commission. However, all these decisions seem to be based on the misguided assumption that it must constitute a victory for the poor countries, a precious surviving feature of the NIEO. The Declaration does mention that "states should realize their rights and fulful their duties in such a manner as to promote a new international economic order," which is then rendered rather vague insofar as it is "based on sovereign equality, interdependence, mutual interest and co-operation among all states, as well as to encourage the observance and realization of human rights." that compromise language is rather far removed from mandated an altered international division of labor or terms of trade or aid. Nevertheless, the right to development is used rhetorically to amplify Third World demands on the industrialized world for a transfer of resources, in the form of foreign aid or debt forgiveness.

Regularly reaffirmed in the General Assembly and the Commission (with Washington regularly abstaining or opposing), the right to development has been the object of protracted debate. At the 1996 Commission, the resolution on the right to development was passed by consensus for the first time. This resolution established an intergovernmental group of ten experts with a two-year mandate to elaborate a strategy for implementing the Declaration on the right to development (res. 1996/15). At its 51st session, the GA noted the need for coordination and cooperation throughout the UN system for a more effective promotion of this right in line with the results of the World Conference on Human Rights. The High Commissioner was instructed to continue to work in conjunction with the Centre to draw upon all of the expertise in the entire UN system related to development issues, and in particular to consider carefully the first report of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts, that was given the mandate to elaborate a strategy for the implementation of this right. The resolution noted the establishment of a branch of the Centre with primary responsibility in this area. The Commission on Human Rights was called upon to continue to make proposals to the GA on the future course of action including comprehensive and effective measures to eliminate obstacles to its implementation of the right to development. (A/RES/51/99)

The breakthrough of 1998

At its 52nd session the GA, the debate was highly politicized. The resolution of 12 December 1997 was adopted by a vote of 129-12-32 (Report: A/52/644/Add.2) Among its controversial provisions was para. 7 by which it stressed "that human rights should not be used as an instrument of trade protectionism;" and para. 17 by which it affirmed "that the inclusion of the Declaration on the Right to Development in the International Bill of Human Rights would be an appropriate means of celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

The US, joined by many other Western countries, has been frustrated by the insistence of NAM countries to force their interpretation of this right on what is essentially the group of donor states. The Under Secretary-General for International Organization Affairs of the US State Department has voiced his genuine frustration at the waste of time and the sterility of the dialogue of the deaf over this right. Representatives of other Western states said in private that the West was bogged down on this issue, that the declaration has no value either for human rights or for development, that UNDP would be better off using the Covenants rather than the declaration in promoting its human rights policy with governments, that the right to development is "old wine in new bottles" and that their role in the debate as essentially damage limitation. If the US could consult more and if a real effort would be made to give positive content to the right, and if NAM could be convinced not to use the debate just to score points on a North-South confrontation, they felt it could be turned around.

It looked bad for this year in Geneva, especially if the Commission on Human Rights were to endorse the controversial points of the GA resolution. In fact, intense negotiations took place over three weeks as the EU sought to find a positive common ground with the NAM. In the end, a breakthrough occurred the day before this UNDP workshop.. On 22 April 1998, the Commission adopted by consensus a resolution on the right to development (E/CN.4/1998/L.19, which eventually became Commission Resolution 1998/72), recognizing that "the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provided an important opportunity to place all human rights at the top of the global agenda, and the right to development in particular," thus not expanding the international bill in one direction. The Commission also reiterated that the existence of widespread absolute poverty inhibited the full and effective enjoyment of human rights and rendered democracy and popular participation fragile; and reiterated that for peace and stability to endure, national action and international action and cooperation were required to promote a better life for all, a critical element of which was the eradication of poverty. The Commission affirmed that while a number of developing countries had experienced rapid economic growth in the recent past, at the same time the gap between developed and developing countries remained unacceptably wide and developing countries continued to face difficulties participating in economic globalization and many risked being marginalized and effectively excluded from its benefits; that democracy had raised development expectations everywhere and their non-fulfillment risked rekindling of non-democratic forces and that structural reforms that did not take social realities into account could destabilize democratization processes; and that participation of developing countries in international economic decision-making needed to be strengthened.

The Commission reaffirmed that universality, objectivity, impartiality, and non-selectivity of the consideration of human rights issues must be ensured; decided to recommend to the Economic and Social Council the establishment of a follow-up mechanism on the subject, initially for a period of three years, consisting of establishment of an open-ended working group to meet for five working days each year with a mandate to monitor and review progress, review reports and other information, and present a sessional report to the Commission; and the appointment by the Chairman of the Commission of an independent expert to present to the working group at each of its sessions a study on the current state of progress in implementation of the right to development.

The press release summarizes the end of the debate as follows:

"AUDREY GLOVER (United Kingdom) speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), said that in earlier interventions, the EU had urged all sides to make an effort to restore consensus on the right to development so as to allow the Commission to achieve practical steps forward. The EU very much welcomed this achievement and that it would be possible to adopt the draft without a vote. The EU was committed to the right to development and supported the follow-up mechanism, which it hoped would make the right to development more deeply realized. The EU paid tribute to the constructive spirit shown by all delegations involved to reach this consensus.

"SHIGEKI SUMI (Japan) also speaking on behalf of Australia, said the right to development was obviously one of those human rights which required strong commitment by every member of the international community. In that context, a consensus on the basis for action in which to realize the right to development was essential. Non-consensus resolutions were meaningless in that field and undermined rather than enhanced the international cooperation necessary to take the Commission forward. Japan welcomed the establishment of a follow-up mechanism designed to make further progress towards the implementation of the right to development consisting of an open-ended working group and an independent expert.

"NANCY RUBIN (United States) said the United States was pleased to join the consensus on L.19. Nevertheless, the delegation was disappointed that the co-sponsors could not accept a reference to freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want. It believed that the 'four freedoms', as expressed in the Universal Declaration, should be a cornerstone of any serious approach to human rights problems. Implementation of the right to development was predicated on governments meeting their obligations to promote universal human rights for each of their citizens so that each and every member of the society could reach his or her full potential."

The role of UNDP

The historical moment has thus arrived; UNDP has an opportunity to seize. Indeed, UNDP has already played a role in defusing the confrontational character of this debate. In fact, the UNDP policy paper was used by EU members to prepare its successful strategy in Geneva. In her statement, Mary Robinson told the Commission in Geneva on 19 March 1998:

"Recently, my office and UNDP signed a Memorandum of Understanding which will commit both organisations to strengthening and expanding our cooperation. I attach the highest priority to technical cooperation and advisory services, and am glad our own effectiveness will be enhanced by this agreement. The rights based approach will enhance the human dimension of UNDP strategies that, among others, focus on eliminating poverty, helping groups that require special protection, and strengthening institutions of governance and democracy. The right to development is all-encompassing, demanding the realisation of all human rights: civil, economic, political and social, and this approach understands the role of human rights as empowering individuals and communities. By protecting these rights, we can help prevent the many conflicts based on poverty, discrimination and exclusion that continue to plague humanity and destroy decades of development efforts."

Thus the value of the right to development to support mainstreaming human rights was a positive approach, as opposed to distorting the human rights program by making the right to development a sort of "super-human right." Now that consensus has been reached on the Commissionís resolution and that the Groups of Experts has received comments from governments, IGOs and NGOs and submitted its report, UNDP can move into the operational mode of contributing to the implementation of this right. Precisely because the right to development has been defined in excessively vague terms, UNDP can demonstrate through actual projects how the realization of development can be pursued differently by implementing the right to development. In this way UNDP can reverse the trend of the "underdevelopment of the right to development."

Underdevelopment of the right to development: Confusion regarding the content of the right to development

The confusion regarding the scope and meaning of the right as defined in the Declaration concerns both the normative pronouncements in the text and the potential modes of its implementation. If we can dispel the myths regarding the content of the right to development, we can focus on practical means of implementing it.

Five myths

Regarding the normative content, there are at least five myths that need to be dispelled:

1. Development takes priority over respect for human rights

The right, as defined in the 1986 Declaration, supports the opposite position, namely, that all human rights, including the civil and political, must be respected in development planning and implementation and that, consequently, underdevelopment and lack of resources cannot be a pretext for violation of human rights (Declaration on the Right to Development (hereafter DRD), Article 6(3)).

2. States determine whatever development policy suits them

The Declaration in fact implies a limitation on statesí determination of their development policy because it establishes the duty of states "to formulate appropriate national development policies that aim at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals, on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and the fair distribution of the benefits resulting therefrom." (DRD, Article 8(1)). The right to development could thus be interpreted to mean that development policies should be revised to meet the human-centered and participatory elements of the definition contained in the Declaration.

3. Support for development is a separate issue from human rights violations

It is understood that the promotional approach to human rights in the context of development is more appropriate than the violations approach, the Declaration on the Right to Development specifies that "states shall [not the more hortatory "should" used elsewhere in the Declaration] take resolute steps to eliminate the massive and flagrant violations of human rights of peoples and human beings affected by situations such as apartheid, racism," etc. (DRD, Article 5) Moreover, "state should take steps to eliminate obstacles to development resulting from failure to observe civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights." (DAD, Article 6(3)) Thus, the Declaration makes clear the violations of civil and political rights are an obstacle to development and that the removal of such violations are a necessary part of development.

4. Equity and distributive justice are not a necessary part of development

Reference to "fair distribution of the benefits of development" and nondiscrimination in development are part of the right and, if taken seriously, could be invoked to block or reduce support for projects that fail on either of these grounds.

5. Whether and how civil society is involved in the development process is not part of the right to development

The states' duty to ensure "active, free, and meaningful participation" (DRD, Article 2(3)) and "encourage popular participation in all spheres as an important factor in development" (DRD, Article 8(2)) could have a profound effect on democratization and the empowerment of civil society. If national policy and development agencies took seriously these principles, the result would not be the reinforcement of prerogatives of authoritarian states or of the claims of poor countries against rich ones, as some seem to fear.

In short, the Declaration is a more balanced text than the politicized debate would suggest. It is not "neutral" on the model of development but defines the essence of the "human" in SHD. As the High Commissioner concluded, taken seriously, the right to development "might just result in the accordance of the human rights programme with its rightful place in the United Nations development agenda. An agenda in which all human rights will figure." Her position echoes the recommendation of the Working Group on the Right to Development in 1994 that "the right to development is more than development itself; it implies a human rights approach to development, which is something new." (E/CN.4/1995/11, 4 September 1994, para. 44.)

The Annex to the Memorandum of Understanding between UNDP and UNHCHR stipulates three areas of cooperation with respect to the right to development. The first two refer to the promotion of the implementation of the right and the exchange of expertise and experience in the implementation of the right. The third area merits quotation in full:

"HCHR shall facilitate close cooperation between UNDP and the human rights organs, bodies and procedures, as well as examine with UNDP the possibilities of joint initiatives aimed at implementing the human right to development, in particular through defining indicators in the area of economic and social rights and designing other relevant methods and tools for their implementation."

Proposal of the Intergovernmental group of experts

So much for the normative content. What about implementation?

The Group proposed that minimum standards be respected for civil and political rights and be established for economic, social and cultural rights. The High Commissioner proposed in her "Note on the Right to Development" to assist "in clarifying the universal minimum core contents of economic, social and cultural rights." Here is where the sharing of expertise between UNDP and OHCHR mentioned in the MOU would usefully be implemented. Some progress has been made by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the relevant concluding observations and general comments of the Committee can assist UNDP.

Thus the role of UNDP with respect to the normative content of the Declaration is in two parts. First, inform Headquarters and field staff, and support education and training of stake holders in Member States about the requirement of the Declaration that development be participatory, people-centered, equitable, and respectful of all human rights. Second, cooperate with the OHCHR and with the treaty bodies to integrate to understanding and interpretation of the relevant human rights treaties into development planning at the country level. The objective of this suggestion is that UNDP staff and all interlocutors in the field expand their understanding of the terms civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights in the Declaration on the Right to Development in light of the two covenants and the racial, womenís, childrenís, and torture conventions.

The elaboration of "concrete and practical measures for the implementation and promotion of the right to development" was the mandate given to the Intergovernmental Group of Experts in 1996. In its submission to the Secretary-General pursuant to the same resolution concerning the Group of Experts, UNDP summarized the policy paper, stipulating that its four critical sustainable development programmes (eliminating poverty and sustaining livelihoods, promoting the advancement of women, protecting and regenerating the environment, and developing the capacities for good governance) "will greatly benefit from a more explicit human rights approach." (E/CN.4/1998/28, 16 February 1998, para. 33.) The submission also highlighted the MOU with the OHCHR and (HURIS) (Id., paras. 34-35.) The Group of Experts curiously failed to mention UNDP, except to consider the HDR and "important reference document" for the incorporation of economic, social and cultural rights into technical cooperation programmes. (E/CN.4/1998/29, 7 November 1998, p. 8.)

The Group of Expertís "elements of a global strategy for the promotion and implementation of the right to development" offer several useful suggestions for the UN system, for member states and or civil society. With respect to states, for example, it endorsed the concepts of obligations of conduct and obligations of results, and the obligations to respect, protect and fulfill. (Id., p. 11) The careful consideration of these obligations by UNDP in its dialogue with Member States in the context of preparation of CCF documents.

The call on states to "take measures to ensure that poor and vulnerable groups, including landless farmers, indigenous people and the unemployed, have access to productive assets such as land, credit and the means for self-employment" may reinforce UNDP priority objectives as part of the implementation of the right to development. (Id., p. 12.) The same may be said for the application of labour standards "particularly in the context of ensuring the social dimension of the globalization process" and the reference to "coordinated measures to protect the indigenous knowledge and traditional knowledge of local communities, including farmers and indigenous people" and to encouragement of national judges to apply international human rights law, to making corruption punishable, to petition procedures for alleged nepotism and other specifics that can be brought under the rubric of the right to development.

The implementation of this right, according to the Group, includes according civil society organizations, particularly those representing vulnerable groups and the public interest "effective roles and channels to communicate their interest in arenas of local and national decision-making (for example, in the Stateís formulation of the national budget, and in economic and social policies)". These organizations should also be engaged in monitoring the realization of the right to development and "in view of the expanding influence of financial and market forces," they should receive support "to fulfill their countervailing role in representing the public interest and minimizing possible adverse social effects of the market." (Id., p. 13.) Moreover, civil society organizations should, according to this report, "address the implications of transnational corporations and financial institutions especially in terms of the ethics of their behaviour, economic, environmental, health and cultural effects, effects on local firms and sectors, and on the right to development."

Although UNDP is not mentioned beyond what was indicated above, the report mentions, in relation to follow-up, participation of states, UN institutions and agencies, other intergovernmental organizations and NGOs in an international dialogue on the right to development and proposes a "mechanism" (the Commission on Human Rights, a high-level group of experts, or some other committee) to review progress and provide advice to the High Commissioner, to whom it would submit annual reports. As we have already seen, the Commission just opted for an open-ended working group and an independent expert appointed by its Chairman. UNDP should be regularly involved with these two follow-up mechanisms, especially the independent expert. Part of that expertís function should be to facilitate the full implementation of the objectives of the MOU and draw full benefit from the UNDPís new policy and the integration of human rights into sustainable human development.

Conclusion

UNDPís support for the right to development has the advantage of using the right to development to move from confrontation to collaboration and cooperation, building on the consensus reached in Geneva at the end of the 54th session of the commission on Human Rights. Its field experiences can provide the missing substance to implementation suggestions of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on the Right to Development at its second session. UNDPís methods are less threatening than special rapporteurs and other more intrusive mechanisms. It is perceived to be neutral. By drawing on the right to development to encourage governments to accept certain policies, it can be effective without suggesting or imposing conditionality.

Beyond the tremendous service UNDP will render to the HCHR and to Member States by removing the issue from its indeterminate and conflictive status to a more positive place, is the underlying rationale for UNDP to take this right seriously. As Upendra Baxi has written, "the right to development represents the quintessence of a more humane conception of development, stressing not just economic growth but values of social justice." (Baxi, Mambrinoís Helmet?, p. 33.) Let me conclude with his call to action: "There is an urgent need to give more content to the right to development through thought and analysis and to give more strength to the right to development through strategy and action. But in all of these tasks . . . it is vital to take the problems of human rights away from the tribe of self-professed experts and back to the people whose problems they really are." (Id., p. 52.)

Selected Bibliography

Philip Alston, "Revitalizing United Nations World on Human Rights and Development," Melbourne Univ. Law Review, vol. 18 (1991), p. 216 ff.

P. Alston, "Making Space for Human Rights: The Case of the Rights to Development," Harvard Human Rights Yearbook, vol. 1, (1988) p. 1 ff.

P. Alston, "Conjuring Up New Human Rights: A Proposal for Quality Control," American Journal of International Law.

Upendra Baxi, "The Development of the Right to Development," in Baxi, Mambrinoís Helmet?: Human Rights for a Changing World, Har-Anand Publication, New Delhi, 1994, p. 22 ff.

I. Brownlie, The Human Right to Development (pub. by Commonwealth Secretariat, 1989)

Y. Ghai and Y. R. Rao, Whose Human Right to Development (Commonwealth Secretariat, 1989)

M. Bedjaoui, "The Right to Development," in Bedjaoui, International Law: Achievements and Prospects, Unesco, 1991, p. 1177 ff.

J. Donnelly, "In Search for the Unicorn: The Jurisprudence and Politics of the Right to Development," Calif. Western International Law Journal, vol. 15 (1985), p. 4723 ff.:

A. Pellet, The Functions of the Right to Development: A Right to Self-Realization

Subrata Roy Chowdhury, Erik M.G. Denters, and Paul J.I.M. de Waart, The Right to Development in International Law, Nijhoff, 1992.

James C. N. Paul, The Human Right to Development: Its Meaning and Importance, The John Marshall Law Review, vol. 25, pp. 235-264.

Reports submitted to the General Assembly on the Right to Development:

A/52/473, issued on 16 October 1997, Right to development.

A/51/539, issued on 23 October 1996, Right to development.

Reports submitted to the Commission on Human Rights on the Right to Development:

E/CN.4/1998/29, issued on 7 November 1997, Report of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on the Right to Development on its second session.

E/CN.4/1997/22, issued on 21 January 1997, Progress report of the Intergovernmental group of Experts on the Right to Development on its first session

E/CN.4/1996/25, issued on 15 January 1996, Report of the Secretary-General on the question of the realization of the right to development.

E/CN.4/1996/24, issued on 20 November 1995, Report of the working group on the right to development on its fifth session

E/CN.4/1996/10, issued on 25 August 1995, Report of the working group on the right to development on its fourth session

E/CN.4/1995/27, issued on 11 November 1994, Report of the working group on the right to development on its third session

E/CN.4/1995/11, issued on 5 September 1994 , Report of the working group on the right to development on its second session

Other reports include:

E/CN.4/1994/21 and Corr.1 and 2

E/CN.4/1993/16

E/CN.4/1992/10

E/CN.4/1990/9/Rev.1, Report on the Global Consultation on the Realization of the Right to Development

E/CN.4/1987/10

E/CN.4/1985/11

Resolutions of the General Assembly on the Right to Development

52/136, adopted at the 52nd session (1997)

51/99, adopted at the 51st session (1996)

50/184, adopted at the 50th session (1995)

49/183, adopted at the 49th session (1994)

Previous General Assembly resolutions include:

48/130

48/41

47/123 (18 December 1992)

46/123 (17 December 1991)

46/95 (16 December 1991)

45/155 (18 December 1990)

42/117 (7 December 1987)

41/128 (4 December 1986)

37/200

37/199

37/55 (3 December 1982)

2542 (XXIV) (11 December 1969)

1161 (XII) (26 November 1957)

Resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights on the Right to Development

1997/72, adopted at the 53rd session (1997)

1996/15, adopted at the 52nd session (1996)

1995/17, adopted at the 51st session (1995)

1994/21, adopted at the 50th session (1994)

Previous Commission on Human Rights resolutions include:

1993/22

1992/13

1991/15 (22 February 1991)

1991/12 (22 February 1991)

1990/14 (23 February 1990)

1989/45 (6 March 1989)

1989/14 (2 March 1989)

1987/23 (10 March 1987)

1987/21 (10 March 1987)

1986/16 (10 March 1986)

1985/44 (14 March 1985)

36 (XXXVII) (11 March 1981)

4 (XXXV) (2 March 1979)

4 (XXXIII) (21 February 1977)

Resolutions of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities on the Right to Development

1996/22, adopted at the 48th session

1995/32, adopted at the 47th session

1994/37, adopted at the 46th session

Previous Sub-Commission resolutions include:

1993/36

1992/29

1991/27

PRIVATE

TOWARDS A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO

PRIVATE

HUMAN RIGHTS

It's time to reject the selective Cold War approach

November 1997

Sakiko Fukuda-Parr

Director

Human Development Report Office

United Nations Development Programme

New York

Tel: 212 906 3600; Fax 212 906 3677

e-mail: sakiko.fukuda-parr@undp.org

Towards a Holistic approach to Human Rights :

by Sakiko Fukuda-Parr

The movement for human rights is gaining momentum but is leaving behind economic, social and cultural rights, and rights to development.

In the post Cold War world, increasing attention is being paid to human rights as the basis of universal moral and ethical standards of the global community. But much of the international pressure for human rights is selective and partial, focussed on civil and political rights. Around the world, governments, international organizations, and NGOs have paid less attention to advocating economic, social and cultural rights. That development is a human right is often forgotten.

A more holistic approach to human rights is needed, recognizing:

that human rights - civil, political, economic, social and cultural - are all and each important in their own right;

that the development model that promotes human rights is not socialism but human centred, participatory and equitable development;

that there are inter-linkages between development and human rights, and these can be mutually reinforcing;

that promoting human rights is as important as protecting them and preventing its violations.

Are there trade offs and priorities among rights?

Starting with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), five groups of human rights and fundamental freedoms were recognized from the start as all five areas of rights were defined as indivisible and interdependent: They are ALL necessary conditions of human dignity. Deprivation of human dignity in any of these five areas is unacceptable and the full respect of human rights requires pursuit of each and every one of these rights. Thus, the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development dispels all notions of trade-offs between rights, and of assigning a hierarchy of priority.

But for the last five decades since the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, the debate on human rights has worked against taking a holistic approach.

First, they were split into legal frameworks: the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights. Legal scholars have dwelt on the differences in the nature of these two groups of rights.

Then there was an on-going debate on which rights were more important, and efforts to establish a hierarchy of importance among the different areas of human rights. Some, especially countries of the Eastern Block and many developing countries, argued that without progress in development and in furthering economic, social and cultural rights, the conditions for full enjoyment of civil political rights could not exist. Some implied or argued that civil and political rights should wait progress in socio-economic development.

This contrasted with the emphasis placed by Western governments on political and civil rights. There was a tendency to consider social, economic and cultural rights as secondary, non-enforceable and non-justiciable.

These views promoting a selective approach to human rights were heavily influenced by ideological and political interests. From the point of view of human dignity, the guarantee of political and civil rights is an end in itself, along with the achievement of social, economic and cultural rights. There is no need to justify one set of rights as conditions for - nor as a means to - another. A political prisoner can be well fed, healthy and well educated and even employed. Or on the other hand, a person can be free of political and civil restrictions, but still lack access to decent health care and education and be unemployed. Human rights are denied in both situations.

Human Rights to Development

The human rights-based approach to development has rarely been factored into debate on policy options for economic and social development.

Important exceptions do exist - gender equality as a human right has been a critical factor in moving development policy to that end. Human Rights have played an important role in promoting development for children, and in the rights of women to reproductive health.

But there is continued reluctance on the part of development economists to espouse rights to development. One reason for this is that human rights to development is a set of principles cast in a legal framework. A corresponding model of development, with a clear conceptual framework of objectives, measurement tools and analytical concepts, and defined policy options, has not been articulated. 'Human Rights based development' is advocated but its contents remain unclear.

Another reason may be the misguided association of a rights based approach to development with the socialist model of development. Too often, 'human rights to development' is thought to mean that the state must provide all people with 'an adequate standard of living' with a specific set of entitlements. Human rights-based development gives an impression of a welfare system taken to its extreme, with the state providing everything with no room for human creativity or initiative.

The impression is reinforced when socialist states have sometimes sought to legitimize their development models on the basis of the rights to development. This also reinforces the misguided view that there is an option between rights to development or rights to civil and political freedoms.

This interpretation ignores three important aspects of economic, social and cultural rights:

First, economic, social and cultural rights are not entitlements that can all be guaranteed today, but they are to be 'progressively realized'. Thus it is through development that these rights can be realized, and the right is as much as equal treatment in development process as it is to what development can deliver, such as education.

Second, human rights to development are to be promoted, not just protected. Efforts need to go to promotion of development, not monitoring violations. This goes against the grain of the human rights tradition of preventing violation.

Third, human rights to development, as all human rights, are rooted in the concept of the dignity of each and every person. The process of development must promote and protect the dignity of people, so that development as a process needs to recognize:

people as the central purpose of development;

equality of all people in their rights and freedoms;

participation of all people in all aspects of the development process, through having access to opportunities to develop their potential, such as through education, and to contribute to economic growth through employment.

The human rights-based approach to development is not just about the elements of an 'adequate standard of living defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but as much about the character of the development process. It is essentially about development that is people centred, participatory and equitable.

Reinforcing linkages between civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights

Even though civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights each deserve to be pursued as a goal in itself, there are important synergies between political and civil freedoms on the one hand and economic, social and cultural development. These inter-linkages need to be strengthened as part of a holistic approach to both human rights and to development.

For one thing, political freedom and civil rights are essential to participatory development. Participation means not only contribution to the labour force but participation in decision making about both individual and collective life.

While some argued that economic and social development was a pre-condition for political and civil rights, it is also increasingly recognized that people must be given the political freedoms and empowerment to demand that development is not tipped to favour the rich and powerful but promote the interests of the poor. Such political participation by all people - by the poor themselves, and their allies - is necessary in a democratic system, to ensure that development is centred around the interests of ALL people.

Development is also important for civil and political rights. For example, badly functioning and undeveloped institutions of judiciary, an inadequately developed legal system, a public that is illiterate and does not have access to legal information, lack of resources for organizing elections, are just examples of how lack of development undermines the protection of civil and political rights.

Human development - a strategy for promoting human rights.

While human rights are rooted in the concept of human dignity, human development is rooted in the concept of 'capability and functionings' - the valuable things that a person can do. These are not identical concepts but they share much in common. In particular, they both have the same point of departure - the concern with people as the central purpose of development efforts. And as such, the three basic principles of Rights to Development - people centred development, participation and equity - are also core aspects of human development. Freedom is an important condition of both.

In both frameworks, people are not only passive beneficiaries of development, but its essential actors. So the full development of peoples' potential as well as the participation of people are key components of both Human Development and Rights to Development.

Sharing these principles and concerns, it is not surprising then that the two concepts have more in common. The human development approach provides concepts, analytical tools and strategies for promoting and protecting rights to development. An example is the concept of poverty in the human development perspective, termed 'human poverty'. Human poverty extends beyond deprivation in incomes. It includes deprivation in the many dimensions of life - such as lack of access to knowledge, the likelihood of not surviving beyond middle age, exclusion from society, and lack of material means.

Promoting human rights

Protecting human rights through preventing violations has been a pillar of advocacy for human rights. Human rights activists have advocated a violations approach to economic, social and cultural rights and have shown that these rights can be enforceable. But a realistic approach needs to take into account the inter-linkages between development and all elements of human rights.

Advocacy for human rights needs to take a holistic approach, with priority given to the promotion of all human rights - civil, political, economic, social and cultural - through development that is people centred, participatory, and equitable.

PRIVATE

Box 1 Rights to Development and the International Law of Development: The Sources.

Starting with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, development has been an inherent part of guaranteeing the respect for human rights. Article 22 of the Declaration states:

"...everyone is entitled to realization of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable to his dignity and the free development of his personality. .... Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability,... or other lack of livelihood. Everyone has the right to education."

Articles 22, 23, 25, 26

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

These fundamental human rights defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are elaborated in:

- International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights;

- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;

- the Declaration on the Right to Development;

- the Convention on the Rights of the Child;

- the Convention to Eliminate all Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Governments commitments to ensuring their realization for all people have been reiterated in international consensus documents including those from conferences in Rio, Vienna, Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing and Istanbul.

PRIVATE

Box 2: Rights to Development - Development model that is people centred, equitable and participatory.

Human rights instruments recognize that economic, social and cultural cannot be guaranteed without development. These rights are to be progressively realised through development.

Development model that protects and promotes rights to development is one that is human centred, equitable and participatory:

"The human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development". (Article 2, Declaration on the Right to Development)

This is elaborated elsewhere, for example:

on development by the people:

.....States should encourage popular participation in all spheres as an important factor in development and the full realization of human rights. (Article 8, Declaration on the Right to Development. 1986)

.....It is essential for States to foster participation by the poorest people in the decision making process by the community in which they live, to promotion of human rights and efforts to combat extreme poverty. (Para 25, Vienna Declaration, 1993)

.....Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (Article 21, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948)

on development of the people:

.....Everyone has the right to education. ..Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality.

(Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 26)

on development for the people:

....States should undertake, at the national level, all necessary measures for the realization of the right to development and shall ensure, inter alia, equality of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources, education, health services, food, housing, employment and the fair distribution of income" (Article 8, Declaration on the Right to Development, 1986)

....The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the full enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health" (Article 12, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)

PRIVATE

Box 3Human Development - People Centred Development Approach

'People are the real wealth of a nation. The basic objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives. This may appear to be a simple truth. This may appear to be a simple truth. But it is often forgotten in the immediate concern with the accumulation of commodities and financial wealth'.

These are the opening lines of the first Human Development Report, published in 1990.

Human development is defined as the process of widening people's choices. Such choices are neither finite nor static. But regardless of the level of development, the three essential choices for people are to lead a long and healthy life, to acquire knowledge, to have access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living, and to enjoy political, economic and social freedom of opportunities for being creative and productive, and to enjoy self respect and the respect of others.

Human development has many important dimensions:

- equity;

- participation in decision making;

- sustainability or inter-generational equity;

- gender equity;

- human security.

Human development differs from other influential concepts in development as it reverses the means and ends of development; economic growth is a means and human development the end:

- human resources: this sees people as the means to economic growth while human development reverses this means:end relationship;

- basic needs: this focusses on the minimum needs of people rather than life choices, and people are consumers. Human Development emphasizes participation, and people as agents of development;

- human welfare: this approach is static and looks at people and the conditions of people's lives in isolation, without links to economic growth. It sees people as recipients of the development process rather than its participants and agents. Human development seeks to combine human welfare and economic growth in a single model.

IMPLEMENTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY

A UNDP Workshop.

UNDP approved in November 1997 a policy on human rights. The policy document Integrating Human Rights with Sustainable Human Development is presently being disseminated in the organization. A workshop will be organized by the Management Development and Governance Division (MDGD) to provide a forum to discuss the implementation of the policy.

Purpose: To promote a common understanding of the policy and to provide ideas for how UNDP Headquarters should support its implementation, particularly at the country level.

The Participants: At least five from MDGD and preferably two, sometimes one, from each of the following HQ units: other divisions of BDP, Regional Bureaux, ERD, AO, EO, HDRO, TCDC, DGO, DPA and LRC. The field should be represented but this may be achieved by HQ staff who recently held field positions in addition to one or two specially invited. Two or three could come from other UN agencies in New York like UNICEF and UNIFEM. The OHCHR should be invited to send somebody from Geneva or from its Liaison Office in New York, or both. In addition there will be external experts as resource persons.

Format: The workshop will be interactive. A good deal of time will be devoted to discussions. Presentations will take 15 minutes or less and give time for contributions from the floor. Colleagues who want to raise specific questions relating to the implementation of the UNDP policy on human rights are requested to do so under the appropriate heading, even if their specific issue has not been addressed in the introduction to the discussion.

Outcome: A short readable summary of what transpires with the main conclusions of the deliberations. This document will be widely distributed in UNDP.

Resource persons: Messrs Clarence Dias, Stephen Marks, B.G. Ramcharan, Jehan Raheem and Ms Elsa Stamatopoulou.

Time: 23-24 April, 1998

Venue: The Church Center, 44St/1Av. New York.

8.Background Papers:

Integrating Human Rights with Sustainable Human Development, UNDP 1998.

Mainstreaming of Human Rights in Sustainable Human Development Programmes, Clarence Dias.

9.Other Material to be provided:

UNDP contribution to HCHR analysis of human rights in the United Nations System, 1998.

The HURIS project document

Note on the Right to Development, HCHR, 17 November 1997.

Towards a Holistic Approach to Human Rights, Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Social Development Review, Vol. 1, No.6, 1997.

Direct Line No. 17 on human rights

UNDP and Human Rights - Questions and Answers, March 1998

The Workshop Programme

Thursday, 23 April, 1998

9.30Opening. Presentation of the policy paper, the reactions to it and the expected outcome of the workshop by Mr. G. Shabbir Cheema, Director, MDGD.

10.00A Holistic Approach to Human Rights in Development; Presentation by Ms. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Director, Human Development Report Office, Discussion.

10.45Break

11.00The First Focus Area: Governance

a)Human rights and governing institutions. Representatives from RBA and RBAP will make opening remarks (obstructions, opportunities, a case), Discussion.

b)Support of human rights organizations. Representatives from RBEC and RBAS will make opening remarks (obstructions, opportunities, a case), Discussion.

12.30Lunch

2.00The Second Focus Area: Mainstreaming

Mainstreaming Human Rights in Sustainable Human Development Programmes, Paper presented by Mr. Clarence Dias, Center for Law in Development, New York; Discussion.

4.00Break

4.15The Third Focus Area: Policy Dialogue and Conference Follow-Up

Introduction by Ms Eimi Watanabe, Director, Bureau for Development Policy. Discussion

5.15Prodere. A presentation by Mr. Oscar Yujnowski, RBLAC; Discussion

6.00End of day.

Friday, 24 April 1998

9.30The Three Focus Areas: A Summing-up of the previous day by Mr. Clarence Dias.

10.00The Right to Development. Introduction by Mr. Stephen Paul Marks, Senior Lecturer, Columbia University. Contribution on UNICEFís experience with the child convention by Ms. Martha Santos Pais. Comments by Ms. Nadja Hijab and Mr. Jehan Raheem; Discussion with a break.

11.45The HURIS Programme. Presentation by Mr. Thord Palmlund, MDGD; Discussion.

12.30Lunch

2:00Two working-groups:

a)Modalities for support to programming in programme countries. Opening remarks by Ms. Thelma Awori, Deputy Assistant Administrator and Director, RBA, and Mr. G. Shabbir Cheema.

b)Regional and global workshops on human rights in the autumn of 1998. Opening remarks by Ms. Fukuda-Parr, and Ms. Carina Perelli, Deputy-Director, MDGD. The group should draw conclusions from the present workshop for the Joint Symposium on Human Rights and Human Development and the Workshop on Human Rights in Post-Crisis Countries.

3.15Break

3.30Reporting from the working groups

3.45Cooperation with the OHCHR in the implementation of the policy. Presentation by Mr. Enrique ter Horst, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights; Discussion.

4.30Upgrading UNDPís Capacity in the field of Human Rights. Presentation by Ms. Elsa Stamatopoulou, Head of New York Liaison Office of HCHR, and Ms. Rosien Herweijer, LRC.

5.15Next Steps and Future Tasks, Mr. Cheema.

6.00End of Day

List of Participants

Workshop on Implementing the UNDP Human Rights Policy

New York, 23-24th April 1998

18-May-98

NameDivision

External / Resource Persons

Peter BluntConsultant

Clarence DiasInternational Center for Law in Development

Stephen MarksColumbia University

Jehan RaheemConsultant

B.G. RamcharanUN Secretariat

Marta Santos-PaisUNICEF

Elsa StamatopoulouOHCHR

Keiko SugaiColumbia University

Enrique Ter HorstOHCHR

UNDP

Victor AngeloRBA

Thelma AworiRBA

Hakan BjorkmannHDRO

Sarah Burd SharpsHDRO

G. Shabbir CheemaMDGD

Bertrand CoppensGeneva Office

Francois CoutuDPA

Colleen DugganERD

Sakiko Fukuda-ParrHDRO

Saule FunnaRBA

Marit GjeltenGeneva Office

Benjamin GurmanSEPED

Kristinn HelgasonMDGD

John HendraBREA

Roseen HerweijerLRC

Nadja HijabOA

Humayun KabirBPRM

Thierry LemaresquierSEPED

Jan MattssonBPRM

Aparna MehrotraRBLAC

Asako OsakiBREA

Hilda PaquiDPA

Thord PalmlundMDGD

Dimitri PapathanassiouMDGD

Carina PerelliMDGD

Jordan RyanOA

Mia SeppoRBEC

Kenneth SherperMDGD

Martin SteinmeyerMDGD

Pauline TamesisMDGD

Winston TempleRBEC

Kaarina ValtasaariEO

Cassandra WaldonDPA

Eimi WatanabeBDP

Kanni WignarajaRBAP

Oscar YujnovskyRBLAC

Integrating Human Rights with

Sustainable Human Development

UNDP Human Rights Activities in 1998

(updated 2 June,1998)

One of UNDPís goals in 1998 is to raise the consciousness of the international community on the inter-relatedness of human rights and sustainable human development. UNDP is convinced that sustainable human development can only be achieved if the human rights of all people are respected. This conviction is reflected in UNDPís human rights agenda for 1998.

Being a development organization with the mandate for the eradication of poverty, UNDP works for the full realization of the right to development. Poverty is considered a brutal denial of human rights. By supporting the antipoverty capacity of governments and civil society organizations, and by ensuring that United Nations operational activities for development are fully coordinated for the eradication of poverty, UNDP is fostering the implementation of the right to development.

Another central purpose of sustainable human development and the work of UNDP is to create an enabling environment in which all human beings can lead secure and creative lives. Thus, UNDPís concern for sustainable human development is directed towards the promotion of human dignity -- which requires the realization of all human rights: economic, social, cultural, civil and political.

UNDP is devoting nearly a third of its programming funds to the support of good governance. At the request of governments, UNDP is implementing programmes aimed at reforming legislatures, increasing efficiency of the executive and strengthening the judiciary. These activities promote the quality of governance and the rule of law and are thus directly supportive of human rights -- through programmes that are owned and supported by governments.

Below you can find a list of activities that UNDP is implementing in 1998 to support and strengthen human rights in connection with and in support of sustainable human development.

1. Seminars, Conferences and Special Events

Workshop on Programming for Human Rights23-24 April 1998

In collaboration with the Regional Bureaux, the Management Development and Governance Division (MDGD) of the Bureau for Development Policy (BDP) arranged a workshop on the implementation of UNDP policy for human rights, based on the policy paper "Integrating Human Rights with Sustainable Human Development." The participating UNDP staff members were joined by external human rights experts including the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights. A report is available.

International Day for the Eradication of Poverty October 1998

With this public event, UNDP wants to raise the awareness of the effects of poverty on the lives of people. Artists from developing and developed countries will address the issue of poverty from different angles, stressing that severe poverty has to be seen as a denial of basic human rights. Awards will also be given to development practitioners, who have done outstanding work to eradicate poverty in their communities. The International Day for the Eradication of Poverty is being organized by the Division of Public Affairs (DPA) in collaboration with the Social Development and Poverty Elimination Division (SEPED) of the Bureau for Development Policy (BDP).

Joint symposium on Human Rights 2-3 October 1998

and Human Development

The objective of this symposium is to discuss and exchange experiences on the inter-dependence and inter-relationship of human rights and their significance for sound and sustainable human development. The meeting will serve as a contribution to the on-going dialogue on the operational implications of mainstreaming human rights concerns into UNDPís development work and as a contribution to the on-going research and dialogue for future UNDP Human Development Reports. It will be organized by the Human Development Report Office (HDRO) supported by the Bureau for Development Policy (BDP) and in collaboration with OHCHR.

Workshop on Human Rights in Post-Crisis countriesNovember 1998

The development of governing institutions in post-crisis countries requires on the one hand that opportunities for dialogue exist for former opponents to come to terms with human rights violations of the past. On the other hand it has to be allowed for an institution building process to take place. The participants of this seminar will discuss the specific human rights issues that arise in such post-crisis situations. UNDP staff will be joined by external human rights experts and practitioners. The discussion will be hosted by MDGD in collaboration with the Emergency Response Division (ERD).

Human Rights Panel: Fifty Years After the 10 December 1998

Universal Declaration

This panel which is organized by the OHCHR will reflect on the successes and setbacks in the promotion of human rights in the 50 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The Administrator of UNDP will participate at this meeting as one of the panelists. UNDP/DPA will also provide concrete input to the preparation of the discussion and assist in its promotion.

2. Regional Activities

Campaign to End Violence against Women in Latin America January - December 1998 and the Caribbean

In this campaign UNDP, UNIFEM, UNICEF and UNFPA are joining forces to raise awareness about the scourge of violence against women and girls in Latin America and the Caribbean and to find ways to bring it to an end. The one year effort is being launched ahead of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The campaign involves media and public education drives that aim to foster civil society and government efforts. Nineteen governments have joined the effort.

Regional Workshop on Values and Governance, Malacca, 23-25 February 1998

Malaysia

The workshop analyzed the influence of values on governance processes in Asia. One question dealt with the extent to which the heritage of religious and cultural values have enabled Asian countries to address human rights issues. The conclusions of the workshop will provide input for the UNDP regional governance programme, which, among other things, aims at providing human rights education in the region. The seminar is organized by the Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific and MDGD. UNDP is also collaborating with the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), an Asian Human Rights NGO, based in Malaysia. The participants were senior government representatives, parliamentarians, civil society representatives, representatives from the private sector as well as leading thinkers of the Asia Pacific region. A report is available.

Regional Human Rights Conference, 2-4 September 1998

Yalta, Ukraine

The Regional Bureau for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (RBEC) is hosting this Conference in collaboration with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Association of Western European Parliamentarians (AWEPA) to mark the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The participants in the meeting will be parliamentarians from the region and prominent NGOs working on Human Rights issues. The national delegations will be headed by government representatives. The discussions will focus on gender equality, equal access to opportunities and democratic institution building. The conclusions and recommendations from the Yalta meeting, with essays winning national contests and illustrations from painting exhibitions accompanying the conference, will be published.

3. Country Level Activities

Direct Line to Country Offices on Human RightsFebruary 1998

Through a direct line, the Administrator introduced the UNDP policy paper "Integrating Human Rights with Sustainable Human Development" to the UNDP country offices. He encouraged the resident representatives to collaborate closely with the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights in the task of supporting the development of national capacity for the protection and promotion of human rights.

Global Sub-Programme on September - December 1998

Human Rights Strengthening (HURIS)

The Global Sub-Programme on Human Rights Strengthening (HURIS) will assist countries in building governmental and non-governmental capacities to protect and promote human rights in accordance with their international treaty commitments. In 1998, UNDP will design 5-7 innovative human rights programmes at the country level. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) will be available to UNDP country offices and governments to support the implementation of HURIS. At UNDP Headquarters, the Management Development and Governance Division (MDGD) is responsible for the programme and is collaborating with the Regional Bureaux in its promotion and management.

Cooperation of OHCHR and UNDP Country Offices

1998 marks the beginning of a closer cooperation between the OHCHR and UNDP. In a letter to the country offices on 10 November 1997, the Administrator encouraged the UNDP Country Offices to participate in the implementation of the OHCHR programme "Human Rights ACT" (Assisting Communities Together). In the year of the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this initiative helps national and local organizations to bring the message of the Universal Declaration to the people.

Survey of UNDPís Human Rights Related ActivitiesDecember 1998

In this survey, UNDP will reflect on its human rights programmes and activities that were implemented in the past. Specific examples and programme evaluations will be provided. The Management Development and Governance Division (MDGD) will be the focal point for this activity.

4. Publications

UNDP Policy Paper "Integrating Human Rights with January 1998

Sustainable Human Development"

With the Policy Paper "Integrating Human Rights with Sustainable Human Development", UNDP presented its policy strategy for an integrative approach on sustainable human development and human rights. The document outlines three areas for UNDP action. The first is providing support for capacity-building institutions of governance in the area of human rights. The second is developing a human rights approach to sustainable human development. The third is contributing to the human rights dialogue and UN conference follow-up. The policy paper has been widely distributed and has been in great demand.

5. Public Relations Activities

Journalist TripsFebruary 1998

DPA in collaboration with the Regional Bureaux organized trips of 40 international journalists to Albania, Angola, Cambodia, Nicaragua, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The purpose was to draw attention to human rights-related issues, such as the right to development and other concrete dimensions of human rights, such as landmines.

Human Rights Press KitJuly 1998

DPA in collaboration with MDGD will put together this compilation of materials to popularize UNDPís human rights-related views and activities. The kit will be used during UNDPís various human rights events, to inform the media and the general public about the new efforts that UNDP is undertaking in the area of human rights.

6. Memorandum of Understanding with OHCHR

Signing of Memorandum of UnderstandingMarch 1998

The Administrator of UNDP and the High Commissioner for Human Rights signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 4 March, 1998. Discussions about the implementation of the MOU are under way.

Prepared for the UNDP Workshop on "Implementing the Human Rights Policy," April 23

24, 1998, New York.

Marten Kjaerum, Human Rights From Projects to Strategies, paper prepared for the OECD Informal Experts Workshop, Paris 1996.

Walter Stolz, Donor Experiences in Support of Human Rights: Some Lessons Learned, paper prepared for the OECD Informal Experts Workshop, Paris 1996.

For a modest first attempt in this direction see this author's Re

viewing from Below, the View from the Summit which deals with monitoring the follow up to the UN World Summit on Social Development

English version in Law and Society Trust Review

November 1995, Spanish version in Volume 7 E1 Otro Derecho, page 127, 1996; and The Spirit of Our Age and the Realities of Our Time which deals with the five year review of the UN World Conference on Human Rights, in Volume 4 Human Rights Tribune, page 6, 1997.

Director, Human Development Report Office, UNDP. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not engage the organization of which she is a staff member.

 Return to MagNet - Send comments