Final Summary of E-discussion:  How to Effectively Link MDGs and Human Rights in Development? (11 April-14 June 2006) 
(Prepared by Emilie Filmer-Wilson, HURITALK facilitator)

Overview of e-Discussion

The e-Discussion was divided into three parts. The first explored synergies between MDGs and human rights and their application in development work. The second addressed challenges in enhancing the existing linkages between MDGs and human rights, and looked into approaches to overcome them. And the third discussed ‘responses – realistic and appropriate actions’ to take this agenda forward.

The number and quality of contributions received proved the importance of this topic and the interest of members in exploring the question of linkages between human rights and MDGs in further detail. The descriptions of many kinds of experience in different countries, as well as analytical comments from various perspectives confirmed a number of issues: there are important benefits in making the links between human rights and MDGs; much more work and action needs to be done on how to make the link; innovative work exists at the country level from which we can learn from; and a more systematic approach is needed to mainstream human rights into the MDGs and development processes in general. 

Moreover, while over 65 contributions were received from UN agencies, civil society organizations, academics and bilateral partners, the voice of the un-persuaded was not heard. If we are to successfully move forward in linking MDGs and human rights, this detached group, (economists, engineers, technicians etc.) needs to be engaged, as they have a leading role to play in the MDGs. 

Background to the links between MDGs and human rights 

Before addressing the question of essential linkages, members stressed the importance of understanding the historical origins of the relationship between the MDGs, the Millenium Declaration (MD) and human rights (HR): 

i)	The MDGs are the continuation of the International Development Goals as established by the OECD DAC in the early 1990s. 
ii)	The MD is a political document created for a separate purpose in 2000 (Even though Chapt. 3 of the MD does include the MDGs, it is unclear why other goals that reflect the broader framework of the MD were not identified as MDGs). 
iii)	HR principles derive from a process of UN standard setting that began with the UDHR in 1948 and that for a long time was kept separate from the development context.  ( Robert Archer) 
 
The MD thus reflects UN thinking and upholds HR principles, whilst the MDGs reflect development thinking before HR were mainstreamed. MDGs and HR therefore cannot be conflated. They are not one and the same. Instead of seeking to examine how the HR and development traditions can be conceptually unified, we need to see how and where these can be mutually contributory. 

“The real link between MDGs and HR lies in the Millenium Declaration” (Sakiko Fukuda-Parr). Members strongly emphasised that the MDGs must be contextualized and implemented within the framework of the MD. At the heart of the MD is the concept of human dignity. As such, the MD champions the principles of human rights and democracy. Yet these principles and values are not explicitly enshrined in the MDGs. Understanding the MDGs within the broader context of the MD is crucial to strengthening practical linkages between HR and the MDGs. It will ensure that these principles are the route to achieving the MDGs. (Urban Jonsson). 

UNDP Mozambique often refers to the MD when they are asked why political governance issues do not feature in the MDGs, pointing out that the MDGs cannot be met if there are issues of massive corruption, absence of rule of law and weak corporate governance (Ngila Mwase). 

The added value of linking HR to the MDGs

 “The links are obvious, necessary and beneficial” (Mac Darrow). In discussing the ‘value added’ of linking HR and the MDGs, members underlined that HR are not just a useful tool. Applying HR to the MDG framework has both intrinsic and instrumental value. 

The intrinsic value of introducing HR into the MDG process is that it reconceptualises the policy and programming process. Fulfilling MDG obligations is more than just a moral duty deriving from the fact that people have needs. It is also a legal duty. People have rights to equal access to political, economic and social processes and services. These entitlements give rise to legal obligations on the part of others. 

A variety of instrumental benefits were identified by members. Mainstreaming HR adds value to both the process and outcomes of MDG strategies.  For the purpose of moving the HR/MDG agenda forward it was agreed that we need to focus on the KEY areas where HR and a HRBA adds value and work to apply these.  

The process of mainstreaming HR into the MDG process is known as a ‘human rights based approach to development (HRBA). Discussions around the HRBA revealed a number of misconceptions and confusion around what this practically implies. 

A Human Rights Based Approach to Development Cooperation: what it is and how it adds value to the MDGs: 

HRBA proponents were keen to underline that a HRBA does not reinvent development. Instead, HRBA adds to and builds on good development practice. HRBA should, therefore, be cognisant of other development strategies, and be understood as an integrated and trans-disciplinary approach, (Christian Haizl).

The key elements of a HRBA are neatly summed up in the UN Common Understanding on a HRBA, (UNCU) (see box 2). 

Box 2: UN Common Understanding on HRBA

1.     All programmes of development co-operation, policies and technical assistance should further the realization of human rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. 
2.     Human rights standards contained in, and principles derived from, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments guide all development cooperation and programming in all sectors and in all phases of the programming process. 
3.     Development cooperation contributes to the development of the capacities of ‘duty-bearers’ to meet their obligations and/or of ‘rights-holders’ to claim their rights.

As set out in the UNCU, the HRBA takes the international HR treaties as targets. Consequently, as the Rwanda UNCT pointed out, targets should not be based on available budget or feasibility. While MDGs are the first tangible and necessary targets in development plans, they are not a sufficient step in a HRBA to development.  

 The second central element of a HRBA, is that it entails strengthening the capacity of authorities (right holders) to deliver essential services, whilst assisting communities and individuals (right holders) to empower themselves and demand greater accountability. This leads to ‘planning from above and below’

Often programmes focus more on strengthening the capacities of duty bearers, rather than on building capacities of right holders to demand what they are entitled to.  In many parts of the world fundamental change will only happen when many people demand it. Taking decisive steps to supports shifts in power relations in society requires a change in the way that UN agencies traditionally do things; access to justice programmes, support for citizen participation in democratic governance are steps in the right direction. (Joachim Theis). Moreover, a HRBA ensures that more attention is given to effectively empowering right holders to lobby and negotiate at the local and national level to influence policy and hold authorities to account. 

Box 3: The Three Step Method to Build Capacities of Right Holders and Duty Bearers (Urban Jonsson)

The UN Common Understanding, clearly states: "Development cooperation contributes to the development of capacities of ‘duty-bearers’ to meet their obligations and/or of ‘right-holders’ to claim their rights." 
 
This implies (1) an analysis to identify the causes of the non-realization of a specific human right and the different 'actors' who are likely to enter into the roles of claim(right)-holders and duty-bearers., (2) identification of key claim-duty relationships, including claim(right)-holders and duty-bearers, (3) identification of capacity gaps of claim(right)-holders to claim their rights and of duty-bearers to meet their duties, (4) identification of actions that will contribute to reduce or close the capacity gaps of claim(right)-holders and duty-bearers and (5) aggregation of actions into projects and programmes. I see no possibility to reduce these steps further. In any case it is crucial that the analysis follows a bottom-up process. Individuals have human rights. That is why they have valid claims on others. And that is why these 'others' have duties or obligations etc.

Members stressed that right holders and duty bearers are roles into which individuals or groups enter as a consequence of being a subject or an object of a recognized HR. These roles are not fixed. A teacher has the duty to provide good quality teaching (duty bearer), but she/he also has a right to an acceptable salary (right holder). 

Box 4: UNDP Gambia’s experience in building capacity at both levels to reach the MDGs:

UNDP Gambia is making the link between MDGs and HRs by simultaneously reinforcing the capacity of local governments to deliver basic social services and the capacity of civil society to provide oversight of local governments’ public spending. To build the required capacities at both these levels, interventions have focussed on ensuring the participation of women and youth in decision making processes, supporting civil society organisations and promoting/advocating for human rights, as well as building the institutional capacity of local government structures. The objective of these activities is to create a conducive environment for transparent, accountable and efficient use of public resources.) 

Lastly, adopting a HRBA entails promoting HR principles in strategies to realise the MDGs, such as the principles of equality and non-discrimination, participation, accountability and the rule of law, and the indivisibility of rights.

Promoting the principles of non-discrimination and equality throughout the MDGs process ensures that the MDG agendas do reflect the concerns of women, ethnic minorities and other marginalized groups; that they are part of the process; and that a priority is given to ensuring that MDG outcomes improve the lives of poor and marginalized groups and redress inequalities.  Promoting these principles results in the framing of development strategies to enable the poorest and most excluded to participate in existing societal structures and national policy process, not only micro-development projects. “Ensuring the right to non-discrimination is key for most marginalized groups to meet the MDGs.   Unless specifically addressed, discrimination will prevent achievement of the MDGs for many groups”. (Caroline Lennox). 

Box 5: Experiences and strategies for promoting equality and non-discrimination in the MDG processes

Promoting the HR principles of equality and non-discrimination led UNDP Malaysia to disaggregate MDG indicators into sex, age and ethnicity. Through using a HR lens to analyse these disaggregated indicators, the magnitude of disparities between groups was identified; in particular the plight of indigenous communities. Identifying these issues led to a much more participatory development plan, the setting of ambitions equity targets and an emphasis on measures to reduce disparities. 

As the contribution from Minority Rights Group International highlighted, unless specifically addressed, discrimination will prevent the realisation of MDGs for many groups.  Effective practical means by which Governments and policy makers can address discrimination is by establishing legislation to both prevent and monitor discrimination and its effects; disaggregating data (on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status); conducting impact assessment of MDGs policies and programmes; and strengthening non-discriminatory laws. 

Equality: UNIFEM’s experience in linking the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) with the MDGs demonstrates both the benefit that a HR framework brings to the MDGs and provides practical lessons on how to better link human rights with the MDGs.
 
Reacting to the need to build up the gender elements of the MDGs, UNIFEM has carried out various initiatives to link CEDAW with the MDGs.  Its publication “Pathway to Gender Equality” provides practical guidance to make this link: it identifies how women’s human rights standards from CEDAW can be mainstreamed throughout the MDGs; how CEDAW obligations relate to each MDG area; and provides some basic tips on operationalizing the linages. Developing women’s HRBA indicators is a prime way to operationalize this link. Gender sensitive indicators can be used as a basis for tracking progress on gender equality and women’s HR across all of the MDGs; thereby paving the way for mainstreaming women’s human rights into all national development processes, including PRSPs.  

Participation: Participation from a human rights perspective to programming extends and deepens traditional concepts of participation. Under international human rights law, participation in public affairs is a fundamental human right. [1] Every person and all people have a right to be actively engaged in the development process affecting their lives. HR also define the quality of participation; as such it brings a shared understanding to the term. Under international human rights law, participation must be ‘active, free and meaningful’: participants must be able to shape and determine the decision making process, as well as to significantly contribute to the realisation and monitoring of the development programme/process itself. 

Moreover, HR standards, such as freedom of association, trade union freedoms, freedom of expression, right to information and right to remedies can strengthen participatory elements within development. 

 Accountability:  “HR are the birthright of all human beings as a matter of entitlement, with corresponding obligations and redress when rights are violated” (Mac Darrow).  HR can be enforced through law, both at international and national level. In contrast, the MDGs do not have legal status and depend on the good will and commitment of Governments. Yet most of the MDGs do enjoy the status of norms under customary law, (See box 6, as developed by the Rwanda UNCT), except MDG 8.  (Although in Sukio Fukuda-Parr’s paper: MDG 8: indicators for monitoring implementation” it is argued that we could use goal 8 to make a case for development friendly global policies - trade, technology, aid- as a human rights obligation, not just a matter of charitable humanitarianism.

Box 6: The MDGs and International HR Standards [1]	
All eight MDGs, which UN Member States have agreed to work to achieve by 2015, can be linked to treaty provisions and general comments (GCs) of the treaty bodies	
Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger: ICESCR (art. 11 & GC 12); CRC (arts. 24(2) & 27(3))	Goal 5: Improve maternal health: CEDAW (arts. 10(h), 11(f), 12(1), 14(b) & GC 24); CERD (art. 5 e iv); ICESCR (GC 14); ICCPR (arts. 3, 6(5) & 23(2)); CRC (art. 24(d))	
Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education: ICESCR (arts. 13, 14 & GC 11); CRC (art. 28(a) & GC 1); CERD (arts. 5 & 7)	Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases: Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and human rights; ICESCR (GC 14); CRC (arts. 24© & GC 3)	
Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women: CEDAW; ICESCR (art. 3 & 4(a)(i)); ICCPR (arts. 3, 6(5) & 23(2)); CRC (art. 22); CERD (GC 25) 	Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability: ICESCR (GC 4, 7, 14 & 15); CRC (art. 24© & GC 3)	
Goal 4: Reduce child mortality: CRC (arts. 6& 24(2)(a)); ICESCR (art. 12(2)(a), GC 14)	Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development: UN Charter (art. 1(3)); ICESCR (art. 2); CRC (art. 4)	

In providing legal recourse to poor and marginalized groups when their economic, social and cultural rights are violated, HR can be “the teeth of the MDGs”. (Marcus Baltze). In taking a legal recourse approach, however, litigation has to be used with care and prepared well. COHRE’s experience in this area shows that it is most effective when accompanied by social mobilization by affected groups and NGOs, to ensure full implementation of the judgements made. Human rights can serve as a tool for implementing MDGs, if national civil society capacity is built first (knowledge of human rights mechanisms and strategy, knowledge of HRBA etc.) to monitor and lobby for the implementation of human rights by States and donors.
 
Contributors were careful to clarify that legal mechanisms are not the only avenue for accountability.  Governments can be held to account in very practical ways too: through transparency, popular participation, advocacy, and periodic reporting processes. 

This line of argument emphasises a point made by a number of contributors: unless MDGs allow people to voice their claims, and ensure that duty-bearers are held to account, ” The MDGs might achieve little more than signposting the magnitude and perhaps inevitability of human development failures” ( Mac Darrow)

Situating MDGs in the HR framework also alerts and enable civil society to use HR accountability mechanisms to hold their government to MDGs commitments:  for example, National HR Institutions and HR treaty bodies could be much more engaged in monitoring progreds towards the MDGS and ensuring the strategies to do so are consistent with HR. 

 
Box 7: Accountability in the MDG process: UNDP Benin’s experience

the main tenet of UNDP Benin’s project to help monitor progress towards achieving the MDGs and the PRSPs, is a series of participatory diagnostics at the grass root level. Through a participatory assessment of people’s perception of the distribution of the national wealth and the implementation of public policies in various sectors, people will be able to rate the quality of public services and their access by marginalized and vulnerable groups. The finding from these assessments will identify the underlying issues resulting in inadequate levels of service and the roles and responsibilities of both duty bearers and right holders. The recommendations from the assessment will provide the basis from which to develop the national development plan.

The above points on integrating HR principles into development processes and strategies, highlight one of the key benefits of linking MDGs and HR: the process of achieving the MDGs is as important as achieving the goals themselves. 

HRBA provides a deeper and broader understanding of the root causes and consequences of poverty 
 
The MDGs can divert attention from the root causes of development problems which are often political.  Using a HR lens to assess the country context helps identify those most marginalised and discriminated against, as well as the inequitable power structures that lead to discrimination and lack of access to basic services. In giving an explicit focus to HR issues this can help re-orientate strategies towards reaching MDGs. Moreover, using the HR ‘tripartite obligations scheme’ (respect, protect, fulfil) can help assess where responsibilities lie for development problems. Unless the governance, power structures and issues of discrimination that are impeding a country’s development,  are identified and addressed, the MDGs and their corresponding targets will not be met; particularly in the case for women and vulnerable groups. 

The HRBA not only identifies and analyses these power relations, it also provides for an objective normative framework to mitigate power excess and elite capture. (Patrick van Weerelt). Whilst noted that other traditional development approaches do address power issues, members stressed that in a HRBA power analysis is no longer optional: it is obligatory. 

HR provide both minimum and broader standards for MDGs and the processes in which they are achieved:

HR provide the minimum standards for how the MDGs should be achieved; forcibly displacing a remote minority group in order to ensure they have access to health and education, for example, may not be consistent with HR standards . HR principles also strengthen steps to reach the targets; in promoting the right to information and non-discrimination and making information on HIV/AIDS available in minority languages could strengthen public education campaigns on the subject.  HR standards also enrich outcomes:  education is not just about the number of children in schools, for the Convention on the Rights of the Child  stipulates certain standards that need to be met, such as achieving equal access by boys and girls,  before the right to education can be said to be realised. For an elaboration of this argument, (see box 8: the MDGs and the HR to Housing). 

 Box 8: The MDGs and the HR to Housing 

The MDG concerning housing identifies the target to:  'Improve the lives of 100 million slum dwellers by 2015'. It is sometimes said that this MDG can be equated with the right to adequate housing. But a closer inspection of housing rights jurisprudence and practice indicates that this MDG does not necessarily reflect the core issues in the right to housing. In its General Comment No. 4, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights lists security of tenure as the first key element of the right and the Committee later devoted a single general comment to the theme (No. 7 on forced evictions). In practice, we find that slumdwellers and other marginalised groups will usually list security of tenure as their number one housing priority together with water and sanitation. The effects of forced eviction are devastating, undermining the realisation of most other rights.  Some researchers have found that the psychological effects of forced evictions on children are comparable to those caused by exposure to armed conflict. 
 
In this context, it is then surprising to see a MDG that not only relates to an extraordinarily small proportion of the world's homeless and inadequately housed (100 million of over billion persons), but a MDG that doesn't strategically focus on the core concerns of the poor. Admittedly, the first indicator used by UN-Habitat in measuring the MDG is security of tenure, but it is only an indicator (and therefore often lost in the discourse) and only relates to a small group of people. If a human rights approach had been more effectively used, and the target was provision of security  of tenure to all, then not only could have one addressed human rights and development concerns but we would have a MDG that was universally applicable and could be provided without significant cost. ( Malcome Lanford, COHRE).

Addressing the question of where HR adds value to MDG processes, it was argued that before such a question can be answered we need to know: “value added in comparison to what?”.. The next question is even more difficult to answer. “What value are we talking about?” That which is valued by Human Development scholars may be quite different from what Human Rights scholars value. Maybe one way out would be to ask two questions: (1) What is the value added, and (2) What is the value changed”. ( Urban Jonsson). 

The main challenges in linking MDGs and HR in development work

Trade offs:

  “… the key challenge is in doing the justice to core HRs principles on the one hand, while avoiding to get deadlocked by the analytical complexity of ‘all humans rights for all’’ on the other hand.’ ( Stefan Priesner) A central point in the discussion around challenges in linking HR and MDGs, is that given constraints in time and resources trade-offs between HR principles and targets must be made. This is particular acute in situations of extreme poverty, conflict, corruption, drought etc.

The debate around trade offs brought out a common misconception among practitioners that as ‘HR are indivisible, interdependent and for all, this means that they must be realised together.’ Members were quick to point out the error in this thinking:  there is no ‘absoluteness’ in economic, social and cultural rights.  Under the HR principle of ‘progressive realisation’, sequencing is possible. And where sequencing is an issue, HR principles provide a useful framework in which to make the trade offs, ( see box 9).  Whilst members admitted that HRBA does not accept trade-offs as easily as other development approaches, trade-offs will always have to be made in development practice. 

UNDP Rwanda: The process of making trade- offs – meeting three HR conditions: 

1. Participatory approach. The participation of a balanced representation of poor and marginalized groups ensures sustainable solutions. 

2. Minimum standards. Whatever the national development priorities, it is the responsibility of the state’s institutions to organize mechanisms that guarantee the respect for minimum standards of all targets set in step 1. 

3. Non-violation: procedural (political and civil) rights cannot be traded-off against rights requiring progressive realisation as they are a precondition for the possibility of making trade-offs between social and economic rights.

In dealing with the issue of priorities, conflicts among rights and trade-offs, members emphasised the needs for pragmatism and for compromise, especially in complex human rights contexts such as post-conflict situation. Moreover, there is a need for modesty, acknowledging that HR are not a panacea. They will not solve all problems. But they do provide an important contribution to development, especially through the conceptual and analytical strengths of HR. More systematic work needs to be done in looking at this. 

Lastly, in dealing with the issue of ‘indivisibility’ of rights, members highlighted how it is difficult if not impossible to achieve just economic and social outcomes in the absence of political and civil freedoms. To this, Robert Archer challenged members on whether they felt that the opposite is true: “Is it your experience that, where people cannot obtain their social and economic entitlements, they are usually unable to exercise their political and civil freedoms effectively? Put another way, can good governance be achieved when people are very poor, ill or uneducated?”  Robert Archer observed that the connections are more rarely explored this way round and they are becoming increasingly relevant as development professionals put more emphasis on effective political and financial governance and on active democracy. 

HR Language:    
 
“ Politicians like to talk about ‘poverty alleviation’, but prefer not to do so if the topics is human rights” ( Lenni Montiel).  Practitioners are often weary of using HR language, due to concerns that government partners find this language complicated, abstract and confrontational  Introducing HR as a practical tool that can have value added in the policy-making process, can be useful strategy for sensitizing government partners to HR and a HRBA. The experience of UNDP China illustrates that in a country where the words ‘HR’ are extremely sensitive, a HRBA can help to ‘decensize HR’ in everyday development work.  In promoting HR principles, such as those of equity and participation, in their work and interactions, but without flying the HR flag, UNDP was able to influence China’s Human Development Report for 2005. The key issue of the Report is promoting equity in development. The Report highlights and addresses important disparities in the country and advocates for change and greater participation. 

Participation: 

“Low level participation (informing and consulting) is usually ensured but high level participation (collaboration and empowerment) is difficult to achieve as it is a relatively new concept”. Not only is high level of participation a new concept for governments, creating the space for participation and building the capacity of right holders to participate at a level playing filed is a huge and time consuming task.  There will be a need for different formats of interaction between groups, different language, different skills, information etc. to reach this.   

Members recommended gradually increasing the level of participation in strategy developments, giving governments the time to gradually adjust to the increasing level of participation.   ( Robert Styck, Azerbaijan).  Showing results is laso an important way to move towards active, free and meanginful participation. ( Rozanne..) 

Framework overload:

“ UN staff have to juggle an ever increasing set of frameworks. Plans and programmes have
to be rights-based, results-based, genera-aware, etc”.  (Joachim Theis, UNICEF).  There is a need for greater integration of analytical tools and planning frameworks where possible. The number of overlapping and competing development frameworks that practitioners have to deal with when developing programmes is a cause to invest in some serious thinking towards the development of a programmatic framework of analysis that brings together the human rights based approach, gender analysis, conflict sensitivity, and environmental sustainability, for the achievement of programmatic goals, such as the MDGs.

Despite efforts to answer these question of challenges, we are still left with dilemmas and questions in how to link HR with the MDGs and development processes in general. These are reflected in the key questions posed by the moderators: 

1)   How to make human rights mainstreaming more systematic? 
2)   How can development and human rights practitioners work to one another’s strengths, rather than weaknesses?
3)   How do we include more un-persuaded voices into human rights and MDGs general debate, without losing focus?
4)   When does poor capacity become bad faith?( see Box 10). 
5)  How to make sure human rights provide cutting power at national or international level?  
6)  What is the majority view within UNCTs and how does this impact on practitioners efforts to bring MDG policies and human rights practice closer together? When they try to promote human rights, and link them to MDGs, what questions do their colleagues or interlocutors ask? Or is doubt and reserve mainly expressed “behind walls” (Lenni Montiel)?
7) How have UNCT’s and agencies taken the UNCU to heart, and how is it framing their work related to the MDGs?

Box 10: HR and the Paris Declaration (PD)

“ When I mentioned that the issue of bad faith and bad government will take on new life following the PD and HR methodologies, I was thinking that in the past donor governments responded to "bad government" by imposing sanctions. As the trustees of the money they granted, donors asserted their authority to penalise recipients who misused money they received. Earlier still, they asserted their rights to ask recipients to manage their programmes according to the models preferred by the donor. Critics continue to say that aid is accompanied by a big stick, and that aid is an instrument of donor policy and undermines principles of national sovereignty etc.
 
The Paris Principles are an attempt to respect national sovereignty. They plainly assert that national governments will develop policy and that donor governments will give aid to programmes that national governments have first identified. Pointedly, the PD say nothing about the content of those policies... and nothing in particular, about whether the policies that donors support should reflect human rights principles.
 
At the same time, donors declare they are committed to human rights principles and that they expect other states with which they collaborate to respect human rights as well.
 
It is not clear now what will happen. Do donors assume that recipient states will put human rights high on their list of priorities? Will they grant aid only to countries that do - and will they withdraw offers of aid to countries that don't? What would this say about national sovereignty? 
 
The problem is that donors cannot surrender the power to influence that their resources give them. Equally, countries that receive money cannot make themselves equal, simply by asserting the claim to national sovereignty. In the end, they will negotiate their relationship -- and the issues of bad faith on the part of donors as well as recipients will reappear, as it must politically; but because the PD say that donors will not impose their will, and because donors (and recipients) have committed themselves to certain human rights principles, the old argument will take new forms and generate slightly new dilemmas.” (Robert Archer) 

Suggestion to better link HR and MDGs in development work: 

Reporting Mechanism and Monitoring
The importance of reporting mechanisms and monitoring of the MDGs from a HRBA, which would include monitoring both the outcomes (the MDGs) and process (the degree to which the process adheres to HR principles), was strongly advocated.
 
i)                     Alternative reporting
Members suggested having more alternative or complimentary reporting on the MDGs. This, for example, is encouraged in the periodic progress reporting on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  (States report on the Convention every 5 years and civil society is encouraged to provide an alternative report). 
 
ii)	Include the HR principles and standards found in the Millennium Declaration in the official reporting process

An example of including these principles can be found in many official reports that go further than is required on disaggregating data to reveal inequality, not just in terms of income but also in terms of basic service access and health and education status.  
 
iii)                  Indicators 

Members strongly recommended developing indicators that reflected HR principles and standards in both MDG processes and outcomes. With no numbers/targets and indicators for the Declaration’s objectives for peach, human rights and democracy, it is difficult to have a balanced and human rights consistent targets. 

Data: It was also argued that statistical processes and data gathering support should be aligned with the international legally biding frameworks that do note allow for any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other statistic (Patrick van Weerelt), 

iv)         Costing templates

Contributors pointed out to the need to develop a set of costing templates in the areas of governance and human rights if these issues are to be included as goals. Yet it was also noted that developing costing templates for broadly defined civil and political goals is a major challenge; a standardised costing template for HRs and Governance would need more specific and quantifiable targets first. 

Training and awareness raising: 

Sensitize UN development practitioners on HR and provide more training on how to practically apply a HRBA: 
HR need to be demystified among the development community so that they are seen as being more than conventions and treaties and not as politically sensitive as many people fear. 

Better guidance on HRBA and implementing the approach is also need. In particular how to make a good HR analyis and how to focus interventions on strengthening right holders and duty bearers, as well as the importance of HR in UN’s development work. Contributors complained that UN/ UNDP core development framework documents such as the CCA/UNDAF guidelines give clear directions about using a human rights based approach, but do not specify how this approach should be implemented in policies and programmes

Members also pointed out an existing disconnect between poverty reduction and human rights specialists. Poverty reduction experts can be resistant to working on cross-cutting issues, especially on subjects they see as political in nature, such HR and governance because they might lack the capacity and mandate to do so. For the same reasons human rights and governance specialists can be unwilling to get engaged in poverty reduction work carried out by this sector. This resistance to work across different development sectors impedes the linkages between HR and the MDGs in development work. Without a better understanding among practitioners of the important links that exist between HR and poverty, operationalizing this link will not occur. 
 
This ‘bias’ and misunderstanding is reflected within government bodies. Many government officials do not see MDGs as being a governance issue and therefore part of their agenda. Instead, MDGs are seen as relevant only to those agencies that deal with social issues.

“Join forces with the PRSPs” (Bill Todd): Promoting complementarities and points of convergence between PRSPs and the MDGs, would create more opportunities and room to link effective and powerful national poverty reduction strategies with HR issues. Using the preparation, implementation and monitoring process of national development plans (which are both MDG and PRSP based) as vehicles for HRBA would be an important channel. 

Actions by UN System:

i)	Support from the senior staff of UN development agencies, particularly UNDP on mainstreaming HRs. 
ii)	Practice Note on MDGs and HR
iii)	      Integrated programming tools and framework: Developing a programmatic framework of analysis that brings together the human rights based approach, gender analysis, conflict sensitivity, and environmental sustainability
iv)	      Strengthen work with international and national human rights mechanisms  and specialists. The understanding and use of human rights standards, instruments and mechanisms is not well developed among UNCT. This requires major investments in strengthening staff capacity and in the systematic integration of human rights standards in programme frameworks.

Box 11: UNICEF’s work with CRC and CEDAW:

The CRC and CEDAW are the two most frequently used human rights treaties by UN agencies and NGOs. UNICEF and Save the Children, for example, have supported CRC training and awareness raising, CRC monitoring and reporting, using the Concluding Observations from the CRC Committee for identifying programme priorities, supporting efforts of the CRC Committee to develop General Comments (e.g. on children's participation), and assessing the implementation of the CRC.  UNICEF has developed the CRC Implementation Handbook, a 700 page compendium elaborating each of the CRC's articles. Over the years, the CRC has been operationalised in UNICEF programme frameworks, to the extent that it is no longer necessary to constantly refer to children's human rights. The same applies to agencies working on gender issues and on the rights of girls and women. No distinction is made between rights-based and non-rights based gender work. There is only one approach and this approach is based on the spirit and the letter of CEDAW. (Joachim Theis) 

There is also a need for more human rights specialists in UN country teams to promote a better understanding of human rights instruments and mechanisms. Related to this, there is a need for greater efforts by UN country teams to support the establishment and strengthening of independent national human rights institutions as part of the UN Country Programme.

v)	Clear definition of UNDP’s role in applying a HRBA and linking HR into development work. There is also a need to highlight clear issues where HRBA is applicable (Leisa Persh, UNDP). 
vi)	  Adopt a HRBA throughout national development plans
Contributors also suggested that as national development plans are now both PRSP-based and MDG-based, a useful strategy to better link HR and the MDGs would be to adopt a HRBA throughout the programming process of national development plans: i.e. in the preparation, implementation and monitoring/evaluation process.

Appendix:

Practical Tools and Methods for making the links between MDGs and HR, brought up during the e-discussion

1.	UNDP Malaysia and disaggregated indicators: UNDP Malaysia promoted the basic human right principles of equality and non-discrimination. It led naturally to the disaggregation of the MDG indicators according to sex, age, location and ethnicity.  Analysis of these indicators, using the human rights lens, revealed sharp spatial and ethnic differentials in social, health and economic outcomes.
 
2.	Philippines- developing a matrix for linking MDGs and HR: With the objective of pursuing the values enshrined in the MD, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHRP), used the various international human rights instruments as a framework for producing and validating a matrix entitled "Linking the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with Human Rights".  In the document, the matrix identifies the rights involved for each MDG, as well as, the relevant international standards. The guide was produces through consultation dialogues with Government and civil society partners. It serves as a guide to government in identifying legislative, administrative and programme measures for the realization of the MDGs. At the same time, the matrix also guides people with their understanding of their rights. 

3.	UNDP Gambia- Integrating the MDGs with support for decentralized governance and HR: Within the 2007-2011 UNDAF currently being finalized, UNDP envisages strengthening the links between the MDGs and HR through reinforcing the institutional capacities of local government structures to deliver basic social services related to the MDGs. 

4.	UNDP Benin: “ Putting in place a follow up mechanisms for the MDGs and the PRSP with a social HRBA”.  The UNDP in Benin has set up a partnership with the Ministry in charge of Planning, with the objective of realizing a series of participatory diagnostics at the grassroots level.  These diagnostics will be conducted in the form of a participatory assessment of the people’s perception of the distribution of the national wealth and the implementation of public policies in various sectors. This assessment will allow the people to rate the quality of public services, it access by the most vulnerable groups of people. The findings of theses assessments will be analyzed as to identify the major issues underlying and to spell out the rights and duties of each citizen, and each category of population. The recommendations of these assessments will be taken into account in the main axes of intervention through the relevant development programmatic document

5.	UNDP Nepal: Incorporating the national development process into the National Human Rights action Plan (2002-2003):          In Nepal the NHRAP process was from the outset aimed at incorporating the NHRAP with the government’s own Development Plan/the Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan (PRSP).  The MDGs were used in the formulation process as part of the envisioned goals for Nepal’s NHRAP. Equally to Nepal’s commitments and obligations derived from its ratified international Human Rights Conventions, the MDGs were brought into the consultative consultations at all levels: In establishing the baseline, the visionary process, and again when defining the actions, their priority and time-bounding. As a result, the actions identified through the NHRAP process were both in accordance with- and inclusive of - the MDGs. The NHRAP-formulation process in Nepal was based on nation-wide consultations.

6.	UNFEM-Harmonizing HR and MDG Indicators: UNIFEM has been developing women’s human rights based indicators to operationalize the link between CEDAW and the MDGs.  Gender sensitive indicators, where CEDAW indicators are harmonized with MDG indicators, have been used in countries such as Kyrgyzstan to monitor commitments to CEDAW and MDG Indicators.  In Kyrgyzstan the harmonized set of indicators became the platform for mainstreaming gender into national plans and socio-economic programs. 

7.	Participatory mechanisms at early stage of programme: Following a non-discriminatory analysis at the early stage of the RMAP process, where the most marginalized and vulnerable groups were identified,  efforts were made to incorporate these groups systematically, directly and indirectly (via focus groups), in the whole assessment and planning process and in the selection of priority projects for implementation. 

8.	UN-HABITAT- Using International HR mechanisms: In its work to address housing rights, UN-HABITAT supports UN mechanisms on housing rights (working with special rapporteurs, treaty bodies, and other specialized organizations). It also helps monitor and evaluate the progress of realisation of housing rights; (formulating a set of housing rights indicators to assist states reporting to the Committee for the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and to help the periodic evaluation of progress). 

9.	Integrate the MDGs with support for decentralized governance and human rights. UNDP Malaysia has been using this approach, within which it has activities have focused on issues of financial management, greater participation of women and youth in decision making processes, support to civil society organizations (particularly the media) and promotion/advocacy of human rights. Together these efforts create an environment conducive to transparent, accountable, efficient and effective use of public resources. The objective of these interventions is to reduce poverty through strengthening the capacity of state institutions to effectively deliver essential services, while assisting communities and individuals to empower themselves and demand greater accountability and thus ensure progress towards the attainment of the MDGs 

10.	Mongolia- creating an additional MDG on HR: Mongolia has established an additional MDG: MDG 9 focuses on HR and Democracy. Whilst it is clear that HR are essential for MDG 1-8 and vice versa, as they are still only implicitly, it was felt that rather than assuming that HR and democratic governance is important to achieving MDGs, it was more desirable to make this link explicit by signing up to an additional goal that can help achieve the other MDGs.  The main challenges of implementing MDG 9 is that it is an expression of aspiration rather than atime-bound and concrete target that Mongolia is committed to achieving by 2015.  

Goal IX.	Strengthen Human Rights and Foster Democratic Governance	
		
	Target 20 	
	Fully respect and uphold the Universal Human Rights Declaration and to ensure the freedom of media and the right of the public to have access to information 	
	Target 21 	
	Mainstream democratic principles and practices into life	
	Target 22	
	Develop a zero-tolerance environment towards corruption in all areas of society	
 
11.	UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovina- Rights-Based Checklist as an Analytical Tool: The RMAP project in Bosnia and Herzegovina has developed a ‘rights-based checklist’ which acts as a mapping tool for assessing the sectors of education, health, and social protection according to the standards established in the CESCR.  It builds on existing development practice. The ‘rights-based checklist’ guides staff and local partners on how to look at a given sector and what data to collect as basis for the assessment. 

12.	UNDP Uganda- Establishing a Parliamentary Committee on MDGs and HR:  UNDP Uganda has initiated a process of negotiation and lobbying with the Parliamentary Commission for the establishment of a Committee on MDGS and HR in the coming Parliament.  This will enable Parliament to play an active role in monitoring and evaluating the performance of the economy with particular attention to attainment of poverty reduction goals, as well as  progress towards the attainment of the MDGs from a HRBA perspective. 

13.	UNDP Egypt- Promoting the MDGs with Human Rights and Volunteerism project: UNDP Egypt’s UNV programme has prepared this  project, which is entitled: Sailing the Nile for the Millennium Development Goals). The project aims at guiding and inspiring local communities to start their own projects to realize the MDGs from a Human Right perspective and to volunteer in UN-led MDG projects.