International Development CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch is an independent, international human rights organisation. We document the denial and abuse of human rights in some 90 countries around the world. By human rights, we mean those existing, internationally-agreed core safeguards and entitlements set out in declarations and treaties like the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We use our research to draw attention to rights abuses and press governments to adopt policies to better respect, protect and fulfil these rights. We also press for those guilty of serious human rights abuses to be held accountable for their crimes. Here in the UK, Human Rights Watch works to raise awareness of human rights abuses in particular countries, especially through the media and with parliamentarians, and we press the UK government to use its influence in support of human rights around the world. This includes the Department for International Development, which has development programmes and real influence in many countries which deny or abuse the rights of their citizens.

Introduction

1. Human Rights Watch welcomes this inquiry. We believe that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have been an influential set of global targets for development, which have shaped the policies of many developing countries and international donors, as well as decisions around the allocation of resources. They have contributed to real progress in some specific areas of development, contributing to increased levels of primary school enrolment and large reductions in levels of under-5 mortality. But the MDGs have also been deficient in some significant respects, not least in their neglect of human rights concerns, both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights.

2. Human Rights Watch believes it is essential that the post-2015 debate and process be used to build support for a broad conception of development—one that is rights-respecting, inclusive, empowering and sustainable. Indeed, we suggest that development is best understood and defined in these terms: not as economic growth or even as progress against education and health indicators alone (important though these things are), but rather as the creation of conditions in which all people can realise their basic rights and freedoms, civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural ones. Human rights treaties create a relationship between those individuals and groups with claims to legal entitlements (the rights holders) and those with correlative obligations (the duty bearers). Governments have legal obligations to respect, protect and fulfil these rights, including when working through international organisations.

3. However, alongside these legal duties, there are a wider set of benefits that could result from framing development policy more explicitly and strategically around human rights, including through the incorporation of the key human rights principles of empowerment and participation, non-discrimination, attention to vulnerable and marginalised groups, and accountability. This approach to development should be captured in new goals, targets and policies in any post-2015 development framework, and provide clear mechanisms for governments and institutions to be held accountable for delivering against these.

4. Our submission highlights some of the costs and consequences of neglecting or marginalising human rights concerns in the MDGs and in many mainstream approaches to development. We identify some of the benefits that would result from integrating human rights into a new global development framework or new set of global development targets. Lastly, we make some specific recommendations to the Committee and the UK Government. Given David Cameron’s role as a co-chair of the High Level Panel, that will report to the UN Secretary General next year, the UK is well placed to influence the content and shape of any new global development framework.

The Costs of Neglecting Human Rights

5. These fall into two broad categories. Firstly, a lack of focus on human rights is one explanation for why development progress has not been more inclusive or equitable in many countries. Secondly, without respect for human rights principles, people can be harmed by policies carried out in the name of development, especially poor people and those from marginalised communities.

6. Many poor people have been denied the benefits of economic progress or access to services because of discrimination and exclusion linked to their gender, ethnicity, religion, status as indigenous peoples, caste, political opinion, HIV status or disability. Because the MDGs make little or no reference to these types of issues, there has been much less incentive or accountability for national governments, bilateral donors or international financial institutions to address them.

7. For example, the MDGs make no reference to disability. However, Human Rights Watch’s research on education in Nepal has documented widespread discrimination experienced by children with disabilities, who are prevented from getting access to school and realising their right to education by a range of barriers.1 These include inadequately trained teachers, a lack of appropriate materials, no transport provision and negative attitudes towards children with disabilities. As a result, children with disabilities represent a significant proportion of the 330,000 primary school age children who remain out of school in Nepal. These patterns are replicated elsewhere. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) estimate that children with disabilities represent more than one-third of the 67 million children who are out of school worldwide.

8. Similarly, in the area of maternal health, research carried out by Human Rights Watch in South Africa has documented a strong link between the neglect and abuse of women’s rights—during pregnancy and in labour—and poor maternal health outcomes.2 The way in which the health MDGs have been framed has encouraged a focus on rolling out proven maternal, newborn and child health interventions, but they have been less effective at promoting action to tackle more entrenched issues of discrimination that impact on maternal and child health outcomes, for example the practice of child marriage.

9. Discriminatory laws that may not commonly be associated with development can also undermine development efforts. For example, a recent Human Rights Watch report on Bangladesh’s discriminatory laws on marriage, separation and divorce demonstrates that these laws not only disadvantage Bangladeshi women, but push them and their children into poverty, creating a cycle of poverty.3 Despite progress on some MDGs in Bangladesh, many Bangladeshi women, especially those in female headed households, will not benefit from development efforts without legal and policy reforms that end discrimination in marriage laws.

10. There is no reference in the MDGs to people being hurt or disadvantaged by development efforts. Nor do many developing country governments, bilateral donors or the international financial institutions use a human rights framework for understanding, mitigating and remedying the harm that may result from development efforts. Again, an explicit focus within the MDGs and in development strategies on human rights and associated principles of transparency, consultation, participation and accountability could have helped to correct this. In practice, large numbers of people are affected negatively by economic development strategies across the world—especially where these strategies lack opportunities for participation, are not transparent, and are unresponsive and unaccountable to those affected by them.

11. For example, Human Rights Watch’s research in the Gambella region of Ethiopia has documented serious human rights abuses associated with the government’s so-called villagization programme.4 This programme is being carried out in the name of development—transferring tens of thousands of people from their existing homes to new model villages, where they will supposedly be provided with improved infrastructure and better services. The scheme is also described as a voluntary one. It is anything but. Our research shows that people are being forced to move against their will and government soldiers have beaten and abused those who have objected to the move. Fear and intimidation are widespread amongst affected populations. Despite government pledges, the land near the new villages still needs to be cleared, while food and agricultural assistance have not been provided. As a result, some of the relocated populations have faced hunger and even starvation.

12. Similarly, Human Rights Watch has documented serious human rights abuses experienced by child labourers working in artisanal gold mining in Mali.5 While the industry is seen by the Mali government as important to the development prospects of the country, the abusive and exploitative nature of this work is having disastrous consequences for the health of many of Mail’s children. Between 20,000 and 40,000 children work in Mali’s artisanal gold mining sector and many of them start as young as six years old. We have recorded a significant number of cases in which children have been subjected to injury, exposure to toxic chemicals and even death. While the Mali government has acknowledged the problem and pledged action to deal with it, our research highlights the tensions between a narrow definition of development (boosting gross national income) and the impact of poorly regulated, badly governed, unaccountable and non-transparent approaches to economic development on ordinary people.

13. In China, Human Rights Watch has documented the terrible effects of lead poisoning on children, resulting from rapid but very poorly regulated economic development in four of the country’s provinces: Shaanxi, Henan, Hunan and Yunnan.6 Underpinning this lead poisoning epidemic is a tension between the Chinese government’s ambitious goals for economic growth and its stated commitments to protect the health and well-being of the Chinese people. In the absence of institutions that can protect the rights of Chinese citizens and hold local officials accountable for abuses, these commitments are barely worth the paper they are written on, with hundreds of thousands of Chinese children left to suffer permanent mental and physical disabilities as a result of lead poisoning and with no one held accountable for this harm.

14. This research is an important corrective to the idea of China as a great development success story, in which millions of people have been lifted out of poverty over the last few decades. It is true that China has secured very rapid reductions in levels of income poverty over this period, plus major improvements in infrastructure and access to services for many Chinese. But if development is defined more broadly (as it should be) to encompass freedom from fear and violence, the opportunity to participate in public life, the chance to communicate and associate freely, and freedom from abusive employment practices, ill-health and life-threatening environmental pollution, China’s record is much less impressive.

15. These issues are also highly relevant to recent developments in the Middle East and North Africa. Up until the start of their popular uprising in early 2011, a country like Tunisia was viewed in many development circles as an international poster-child for the MDGs, a country making rapid progress against some of the MDG goals and on the UNDP’s Human Development Index. But for many Tunisians this progress was clearly insufficient—higher incomes and better services for some did not compensate for the ills and costs of corruption, repression, inequality and powerlessness nor satisfy their aspirations for greater justice, freedom and dignity.

What can human rights contribute to development and a post-2015 global development framework?

16. Governments have existing legal obligations to uphold and advance the human rights set out in international conventions and covenants they have signed up to, when working domestically, bilaterally or multilaterally, including through international institutions. These normative and legal arguments cannot be made too often or too forcefully. But it is also appropriate to demonstrate to the wider development community how better integration of human rights can contribute to improved outcomes in both human rights and development terms, making development more rights-respecting, inclusive and sustainable.

17. A human rights-based approach draws upon the principles and legal framework of human rights, and requires that respect for the human rights of those affected by aid or development programmes is central to planning and operationalising that activity. It recognises beneficiaries of aid as rights-holders with legal entitlements and identifies governments and their partners as duty bearers with correlating obligations to meet those entitlements. Making rights more integral to development would have the following additional benefits.

18. Attention to issues of inequality, discrimination and exclusion. People who have not benefited from existing development approaches are often subject to discrimination and exclusion on the grounds including gender, ethnicity, status as indigenous peoples, caste, class, disability, HIV status, religion, sexuality or political opinion. A human rights approach obliges those who make or support development strategies to confront these systemic and root-cause issues, with political, social and legal reforms.

19. A potential check on the abuse of power. As noted above, many people are harmed or lose out from development processes because those who wield power do so without any meaningful checks and balances and without accountability. This applies to policies pursued by the international financial institutions, development donors or corporations, as well as to the actions of national and local governments. A human rights approach to development provides a framework for checking their power and holding them accountable, in terms of the impact of their policies and actions on local people.

20. More inclusive development outcomes, through a focus on empowerment, participation, accountability and transparency. A rights approach necessarily gives priority to the empowerment of individuals and communities and to their participation and involvement in decision making. A human rights approach also gives emphasis to freedom of speech, association and assembly, which is essential if communities are to exchange ideas and hold their governments and international institutions to account. Because a rights approach emphasises access to information and media freedom, it makes it easier for citizens and journalists to uncover abuses and it creates space for public debate about better development strategies.

21. Greater clarity about what people are entitled to and what governments are obligated to provide. A top-down technocratic approach to development can hinder progress in the achievement of some existing economic, social and cultural rights, for example the right to food, water, housing and land. A rights approach could help secure these benefits for the poorest by making it clearer what protections people are already entitled to and what governments have committed to realise in the treaties they have ratified.

Policy Recommendations

Any new global development framework should be rooted in existing international human rights law and the obligations of governments and others to uphold their international rights commitments, including through key parts of the international human rights system, such as the UN Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Treaty Bodies, and the regional human rights bodies.

New sector-specific targets—for example in health, education, water and sanitation—should be linked to existing international rights commitments, with clear accountability mechanisms and include specific provisions to ensure that the poorest and most marginalised groups are included in strategies for improved outcomes in these areas.

National and international data on development should be disaggregated, so that it is possible to measure the impact of development interventions on women and girls, different income quintiles (particularly the poorest income groups), people with disabilities, ethnic and other social groups. These are the kinds of groups that can be overlooked by the existing MDG framework, which is largely based on national averages or aggregates.

Consideration should be given to a self-standing goal or set of goals (and accompanying indicators) on civil and political rights, which measure country performance on issues like women’s equality, non-discrimination, freedom of speech and association, access to information, and political participation. One critical element of this should be government’s adherence to the relevant international human rights conventions and agreements and a willingness to permit independent monitoring in these areas.

Donor countries should use their influence to promote human rights with recipient countries and account for the impact of their aid and other policies on human rights in these countries.

October 2012

Written evidence submitted by Camilla Toulmin, Director International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London

Summary

This note outlines the context and recommendations for IDC questions on the post-2015 panel’s work and design of the Sustainable Development Goals. For IIED, it is clear that these two processes need to be made as one. As a nation, we have an opportunity to engage in a debate globally and locally about building a set of goals that set an aspiration for the world to which all countries sign up. These goals need to be universal, given our interconnectedness. The world is a very different place today from the end of the 20th century when the MDGs were designed, and will evolve in further unpredictable ways by 2020, and 2030. SDGs will need to offer clear direction—a compass—for all nations as they struggle to build more prosperous economies and societies that can live within planetary limits. Close engagement with China, India, Brazil and other major drivers of economic transformation must be central to this effort. The UK has a pivotal role to play because of our long-standing presence within these global debates, the UK Prime Minister’s role in co-chairing the post-2015 panel, and UK government chairmanship of the G8 in 2013. However, the UK also needs to be listening and supporting other voices articulating an ambitious vision for the SDGs, such as the government of Colombia. The UK has a world-class grouping of non-governmental actors (science, business, thinktanks, charities, media, professional groups) who have much to contribute to policy debate and practical action.

1. In designing global goals for post-2015, we need to look forward to the challenges of the next 102–0 years. Even in 2000, when the MDGs were agreed, the division of the world into rich-poor, donor-recipient, and developed-developing did not properly reflect global circumstances then. As a representation of geo-politics today, they are even further adrift. Looking forward to the likely forces shaping the world of 2020 and beyond, we have to consider the rapid pace of change underway—economic, environmental, and political—so that we design a universal set of goals that can act as a compass pointing to more equitable and sustainable patterns of production and consumption. These should reflect the much more diverse range of countries evolving today, and the inter-locking set of challenges. The MDGs drew on the structures and mindsets of the 20th century, and combined a range of pre-existing targets from the 1960s onwards. The agenda post-2015, which must integrate SDGs and post-MDGs, needs a very different approach and set of principles, such as universality. We are “all in this together”. Thus, for example, the UK needs to set itself goals on its contributions to addressing over-consumption of the world’s resources, as well as identifying how its role as host to major global capital markets can serve broader sustainability.

2. Collective management of global commons must be at the heart of the post-2015 SDG process. Our common future and wellbeing rely on collective agreement to manage and protect the biophysical foundations for life on earth—atmosphere/climate, oceans, forests, biodiversity. We must establish a clear understanding of planetary boundaries, and agree a fair allocation of resources so we stay within these boundaries. Investment in national and global science is a key contribution we can make.

3. We will need to manage an increasingly volatile, uncertain planetary system, where the UK cannot insulate itself from the impacts. Examples include world food prices, access to energy, shifts in weather patterns, and fluctuations in key commodity markets/rare earths. The lack of progress on cutting greenhouse gas emissions to date means some observers expect we will face a rise of 3-4 degrees C in average temperatures over the next 50 years. Current adverse impacts from climate instability (floods, droughts) will likely be dwarfed by such changes. We need to address these adverse impacts on the development pathways of the most affected countries and help build resilience. Major commitments have been made to provide international climate finance, that far exceed current aid flows. In the next few years, we need to test out the best approaches to investments in reducing emissions and building resilience, and offer this evidence for broader lesson-sharing. In addition, we should consider joint action on dampening speculative flows which increase volatility—especially in commodity markets, and foreign exchange. Most people accept that something akin to the Financial Transactions Tax (FTT) makes sense, so it would be best for UK government to be ahead rather than behind on its design and introduction.

4. Lessons learned from the adoption of the International Development Targets and the Millennium Development Goals:

The issue of ownership by governments, civil society and the private sector is key. The MDGs were seen as being pushed by donors. The SDGs///post-2015 process has to be strongly driven by middle and low income countries. There are many thinkers in government, civil society and business from countries around the world who have much to offer this debate. UK government needs to be better at listening to them. One major challenge will be to ensure a focus on poor people, least developed countries, and those whose voices are rarely heard.

Targets: was the MDG “target-based” approach a success? Should it be retained? How should progress be measured? It is very important to get the targets right, while remembering that only some issues are amenable to “goal-shaped” solutions. There is huge value in moving beyond process to establish clear targets and outcomes—but there are always risks of an approach which over-simplifies very complex processes, distorts policy and targets resources at what’s measurable, which is not always the same as what’s important.

Financing global goals: are new mechanisms needed? The FTT along with several other revenue generating measures (such as bunker fuel levies, and aviation taxes) could generate significant additional resources for delivery of the SDGs.

What role for the private sector and other non-state organisations? One way in which the world has changed very significantly since 2000 is in the declining force of governments as actors driving progress on sustainable development. The Rio+20 summit outcome demonstrated a lack of appetite amongst state actors to take the lead, in contrast to business and civil society. Harnessing the latters’ readiness to engage and demonstrate commitment will be very critical in achieving strong buy-in.

Timescale: what period should the new framework cover? Was the 15-year timescale for the MDGs right? There is a danger that targets 15 years away allow too much breathing space, given the urgency of some issues and the need to instigate major changes now. The process should be less about achieving specified targets in 15–20 years so much as changing direction now, establishing a compass against which to guide action, and tracking incremental progress rigorously. Achieving greater accountability and transparency from government, business and civil society groups will be needed to build greater trust in commitments on paper being translated into real action.

The content of future goals: what would be a good set of global goals? What continuity should there be with the MDGs, and how should the unfulfilled MDGs be taken forward? Clearly there needs to be some continuity between MDGs and the new SDG set, because many of the problems have not been solved and there is strong feeling amongst some of the poorer nations that they do not want to have to abandon the work invested in focusing on the MDGs. The governments of Colombia, Guatemala and the United Arab Emirates have drawn up a list of possible fields to explore for the SDGs. The challenge will be to assure broad coverage, without too great a number. Each goal needs to be tested for its contributions to both economic wellbeing and prosperity, and how it addresses environmental constraints. This list of proposed SDGs is as follows:

Food security: production, access and nutrition.

Integrated water management.

Energy for sustainable development.

Sustainable and resilient cities.

Healthy and productive oceans.

Enhanced capacity of natural systems.

Improved efficiency and sustainability in resource use.

Enhanced employment and livelihood security.

5. It is strongly in the UK’s interest to contribute to economic development and prosperity within middle and low income countries. It is good for them and good for us, as they offer markets for UK goods and services. Such growth will also reduce migration pressure on the UK and EU, which has important domestic political benefits (though the economic benefit-cost ratio from receipt of migrants is often more positive than believed). This means a focus on building effective states, and strengthening good governance. Key elements are support for effective public administration, training police and army, setting up tax and revenue collection systems, gaining greater transparency in revenue from extractive industries. But UK government must acknowledge that you cannot reform countries from the outside, you can only help progressive forces in-country push things along in the right direction. Hence, there is a central role for support to press/media, civil society, and parliamentarians. Can governance and accountability be the focus for one of the SDGs, or run as a common thread through all?

6. The post-2015 process should prompt UK government to re-set its aid programme within a much broader context, recognising huge interdependence—environmental, economic, social—between people and nations. Thus, we need to find answers to questions such as:

How does the international aid agenda fit alongside UK/EU positions on foreign affairs, environment and climate change, defence, trade and investment? How can the UK/EU maintain a strong internationalist role at a time of fiscal austerity? This demands high level leadership and engagement with the UK public to argue and explain its importance. It will need firmness in pushing back on “little England” attitudes that we can somehow go it alone. The UK has huge advantages, due to historic connections, English language, extensive financial and commercial links, as well as shared legal and institutional ties. We stand to lose much of this unless UK government has a more joined-up approach. For example, by not being part of the Schengen area, the UK visa system acts as a barrier to many people wanting to visit Europe as a whole, since we require a more expensive and separate visa. The message given to the rest of the world from the recent actions against the University of London Met has also been damaging to future recruitment by UK Universities—a long term asset to our economy and global influence. Joined-up thinking and policy-making are ever more urgent in our globalised world.

7. The post-2015 process needs to review critically UK/EU based policy and practices which damage progress on global environment and development agendas. These include trade barriers and agricultural subsidies, money laundering, over-consumption of resources that then constrains development opportunities elsewhere, and UK business practices at odds with new global norms (such as Free Prior and Informed Consent). For example, should the UK follow the US in introducing legislation which aligns with the Cardin-Lugar Extractives Transparency amendment? The City of London offers a hugely valuable asset for the future, if it can set a forward looking agenda, that helps build a global low carbon economy which operates within planetary boundaries. After the deep and enduring damage from the financial crisis of 2008, how can the enormous investment flows generated by global capital markets be channelled in a more sustainable direction? The post-2015 agenda will be an important forum within which to challenge the financial sector to show how they can work to achieve global collective needs and aspirations.

October 2012