-Donors have done pretty much as they wished for quite some time now, and this has not been beneficial for the developing countries. (J. Cedergren)
-Some say that human rights goals can be achieved in programs that have not formally mainstreamed human rights. This, of course, is not even closely true.
-Realizing the fulfillment of human rights is also much more than just an outcome in development programming.
Let me start this Reader with a disclaimer: The systematic use of the word ‘rights’ instead of ‘human rights’ reflects a lack of understanding of their differences in human rights work. ‘Rights’ emphasize the moral aspect and often this does not refer to International Human Rights Law, while ‘human rights’ include both the ethical/moral and the international legal aspects. Human rights thus reflect both morality and legality; the former because they reflect universal moral codes; the latter because they are codified in international human rights law.*
*: A caveat is due here though: A disproportionate emphasis on the legal framework establishing obligations and entitlements and on legal avenues for claiming human rights (HR) can act as a barrier to open a transparent dialogue between claim holders and duty bearers involved in development efforts using the human rights-based approach.
Applying the HR-based framework to development planning
1. In line with the MDGs, and in pursuing greater social justice**, when we apply the HR-based framework, the ultimate challenge we face is to significantly sharpen our focus on disparity reduction while incorporating the human rights perspective in all interventions, i.e., a perspective that fully reflects the aspirations and demands of poor and marginalized people.
**: Although the concepts of justice and human rights are interrelated they are not the same, and their relationships are sometimes both complicated and controversial.
2. In this context, the analytical steps followed when applying the HR-based framework stand out clearly; this, primarily because they help us asking the right questions. But we know that most development programs are not prepared as human rights-based programs despite the fact that there is an unequivocal international agreement on the need to apply the HR-based framework in development programming. This being so, are the right questions being really asked right now? In this day and age, to ask and to respond to the latter question, development planners have no choice but to include ratified human rights treaties’ and general comments’ standards and principles in preparing their development plans.**
**: Perhaps one of the strongest aspects of the HR-based framework is the fact that most donor and partner countries have ratified international human rights covenants and conventions which are legally binding according to international human rights law. In the HR-based framework, there is no doubt about who is accountable and accountable for what! It reminds everybody that no one is above the law and that, therefore, no one should escape with impunity. (We are here further reminded that the preparation, implementation and monitoring of almost all Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers did not respect key human rights principles, in particular participation, inclusion and transparency).
3. Central to keep in mind in all of the above is:
• We need to set up many, many participatory dialogues that allow claim holders and duty bearers to analyze the obstacles to development that need to be overcome. There is plenty evidence that the active claiming of rights is an efficacious way of achieving better development outcomes. (These dialogues represent an indispensable contribution to the development of a social consensus about development outcomes and about the processes needed to reach those outcomes).
• We thus need –but have, so far, failed– to better and more widely explain to the different actors in development work why a human rights-based programming process has a better chance of achieving human rights and sustainable outcomes.
4. Why are these two key points central? Because governments’ relevant human rights commitments need to be explicitly included and referenced in their respective development plans –and also, importantly, included in the goals and in the process indicators they choose to pursue and monitor. There are good reasons for thinking that results-monitoring-systems that put the accent on results-as-rights or results-which-are-fulfilled-rights are more successful in mobilizing domestic pressures for better performance than systems that use the dry and technical language of the monitoring and evaluation tools of the World Bank. For example, as regards the MDGs, evaluating aid effectiveness needs to be integrally linked to supporting human rights, democratic governance, environmental sustainability and gender equality –which the Bank does not systematically do; (each of them separately is necessary, but not sufficient). There is thus the urgent need to change the development monitoring system and move it out of the realm of the World Bank and into the realm of human rights. Several tools, human rights indicators and benchmarks are now under development and piloting.***
***: As a priority, we have to ensure that indicators are framed in human rights terms, for example, by linking them to specific components of each identified violated human right.
5. As a corollary, we thus need to proactively promote the inclusion of an explicit human rights perspective in development programming, both through dialogue and through the promotion of broad-based national participation, including both a representative array of development and human rights organizations.
6. Moreover, despite the fact that human rights work focuses more on public sector reform than on public finances reform, there remains the challenge to align the financing of HR components in national development plans with the existing government budgetary system –and this will not always be easy in practice.
7. Finally, HR do establish that there should be citizen-based ownership (rather than government ownership). But although the human rights perspective is geared towards promoting citizen-based ownership, be reminded that there are several degrees of ownership, simply because optimal conditions require substantial institutional capacity that often does not exist at the base. (Yet another challenge for HR Learning here!). This then provides us guidance on how program ownership ought to be operationalized. In other words, modest human rights initiatives within the reach of existing capacity stand a better chance of success than grandiose schemes. (E. Pavignani)
8. On the one hand, the focus of our work must thus be on strengthening the relationship between the citizenry and the state –manifested by a growing bargaining power of claim holders. But, on the other hand, keeping in mind that the human rights perspective needs to strengthen country ownership rather than government ownership, we better never forget that Ministries of Planning or Finance do not represent the people!
Claudio Schuftan in Ho Chi Minh City
cshuftan@phmovement.org