1

WORKING TOGETHERThe Human Rights Based Approach to Development Cooperation

Stockholm Workshop 16–19 October 2000

Part 1Report of the NGO workshop

16–17 October

Report prepared by André Frankovits and Patrick Earle, Human Rights Council of Australia forThe Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

The Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs andThe Swedish NGO Foundation for Human Rights

2

I believe we can say that the ultimate aim of

development is the stage where all human rights

are guaranteed and enjoyed by all. To achieve this,

we must work together to find ways of integrating

human rights with development programming —

ways of implementing, at all levels, a human

rights-based approach to development — an

approach based on the principles embodied in the

various international instruments on human

rights.

Statement by Mary RobinsonUnited Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

5 February 2000

3

Table of Contents

Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................................5

Executive Summary of NGO Workshop ..................................................................................................................7

Current State of Play – Overview by the Human Rights Council of Australia .......................................................9

The Human Rights Approach and NGO Experiences ......................................................................................... 11

Critical Appraisals of Donor Practice ................................................................................................................... 16

Working Groups ..................................................................................................................................................... 19

Exchanging Perspectives – Joint NGO-Donor Session .......................................................................................... 20

Recommendations from the NGO Workshop ....................................................................................................... 22

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Development Cooperation, by Michael Windfuhr, Executive Director,FoodFirst Information and Action Network ..................................................................................................................... 24

The Rights of the Child in Development Work, by Eva Geidenmark, Save the Children Sweden (Rädda Barnen) ........... 36

Rights-based Relief & Development Assistance: An Essay on What it Means for CARE, by Andrew Jones, ProgramAdvisor on Human Rights, CARE International ............................................................................................................. 38

INFID’s Experience with Human Rights Advocacy and Bilateral Donors, by Sugeng Bahagijo, InternationalNon-government Forum on Indonesian Development ......................................................................................................... 40

Human Rights and Humanitarian Emergencies, by Juan Almendares, Center for the Prevention, Treatment andRehabilitation of Torture Victims and their Relatives ....................................................................................................... 44

A Challenge to Donors: Accountability, Empowerment and Structural Change through Human Rights:The Case of El Niño in Ecuador, by Chris Jochnick, Legal Director, Centro de Derechos Económicos y Sociales ............. 49

Appendix 1 – NGO Workshop Agenda ................................................................................................................ 55

Appendix 2 – Report of Working Groups ............................................................................................................. 57

Appendix 3 – NGO Profiles .................................................................................................................................. 61

Appendix 4 – From Policy to Action: Promoting the Implementation of a Human RightsApproach to Development, Rights and Humanity .......................................................................................... 65

Appendix 5 – Materials Available at the Workshop .............................................................................................. 69

Appendix 6 – List of Participants .......................................................................................................................... 71

Appendix 7 – Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. 73

4

5

Foreword

In October 2000 the Swedish Ministry for ForeignAffairs, the Swedish International DevelopmentCooperation Agency (Sida) and the Swedish NGOFoundation for Human Rights convened a workshopon the human rights approach to developmentcooperation. The workshop was facilitated by AndréFrankovits and Patrick Earle of the Human RightsCouncil of Australia (HRCA).

Most of the bilateral and multilateral agenciesand non-governmental organizations that wereinvited already have policies on the inter-relationshipbetween human rights and development cooperation.However most of them are also grappling with whatchanges in practice flow from the increasing policyemphasis on human rights in general, and economicand social rights in particular.

The workshop, therefore, aimed to bring togetherdonor organizations and NGOs to share experiencesand lessons learnt in the process of mainstreaminghuman rights. Arising from these experiences andlessons, the workshop was designed to identifyobstacles to and explore practical ways ofimplementing a human rights based approach.

Held over four days, the workshop was dividedinto three complementary sessions. The first day anda half was devoted to NGOs so that they couldexchange experiences and ideas for applying thehuman rights approach to their own activities as wellas to identify areas where greater cooperation withdonors was possible and necessary. Following this, oneafternoon was set aside for an interaction betweenNGOs and donors, focusing on recommendationsarising from the NGO workshop. Finally, a day andhalf was allocated to donors’ examination of theissues. This was followed by a panel discussion open

to other Ministry and Sida officials, NGOs and widerpublic participation.

Participants represented the diversity oforganizations involved in development policy andpractice – bilateral donors, multilateral donors,consultants representing donor agencies, Ministry ofForeign Affairs officials, international developmentNGOs supporting the work of grassroots NGOs,international advocacy NGOs, and grassrootsdevelopment and human rights NGOs from Northand South.

This report is an account of the NGO part of theworkshop that took place on 16 and 17 October 2000and includes some of the presentations and backgroundpapers available at the workshop. Papers presented anddiscussed during the workshop appear in the body of thereport and those provided as background prior to theworkshop are in the appendices. The report should beread in combination with the report of the donor partof the workshop held over the next two days. The reporthas been drafted by André Frankovits and Patrick Earleand does not necessarily reflect the views of the SwedishGovernment, the Swedish NGO Foundation for HumanRights or of the other participating organizations.

In accordance with one of the recommendationsof the workshop, the report will be posted on the websites of Sida, the Swedish NGO Foundation forHuman Rights and HRCA and made available onother organizations’ sites. The report will also belinked to the Global Human Rights andDevelopment Forum web site. The hope is that thedissemination of the report will assist like-mindedinstitutions – in the words of Sweden’s policy forpoverty reduction – with the task of ‘mainstreaminghuman rights values in all cooperation programmes… which is a qualitative prerequisite for success in theglobal fight against poverty”.

6

7

Executive Summary of NGO Workshop

The workshop rationale was based on the assumptionthat the human rights approach brings somethingnew and different to existing development practice,that – in the words of many – it ‘adds value’ toexisting approaches, and that there is growingprogrammatic experience in applying the approach,experience that could be usefully drawn on toestablish some preliminary guidelines for donoragencies and to identify areas which need furtherelaboration and further experimentation.

NGOs welcomed the opportunity to participate insuch a clearly focused discussion on aid policy andpractice. Much of the focus of the workshop was onofficial donor agency policy and practice, althoughthere was recognition that the human rights approachalso has implications for NGO practice. While therange of NGO experiences and perspectivesrepresented was diverse, there was a remarkabledegree of unity on the value of the human rightsapproach and clarity on the changes in developmentpractice it calls for from donors.

One of the major ‘added values’ of the humanrights approach was identified as accountability forthe realization of human rights. This includes theaccountability, not only of recipient governments, butalso that of bilateral and multilateral donors, privatecontractors and other development actors, includingNGOs. One way of ensuring accountability is theestablishment of complaints mechanisms such as aidand humanitarian ombudsmen. NGOs expressedconcern that accountability in current policy andpractice is often equated with and limited to issues offinancial and other management by the recipient.

Participants gave considerable attention to therelationship between poverty and human rights.

There was agreement that looking at poverty throughthe human rights lens – as a denial of human rights –enables a richer understanding of the differentdimensions of poverty and encourages a morecomprehensive policy response to the structuralcauses of poverty.

Another added value was the common frameworkfor assessing and guiding sustainable developmentprovided by the established and accepted humanrights standards. Some concern was expressed at thevariety of interpretations of the human rightsapproach in development circles. While it wasimportant to build on good practice and encourageinitiatives on the ground, the need for clarity on theapproach and leadership from senior levels wasstressed. The value of using the human rightsframework was seen in the potential for consistencyand greater coordination between development actorsbut this depends, precisely, on clarity and commonunderstanding of the approach.

For NGOs working on the ground in oftendifficult conditions there was a sense that the humanrights approach could help provide a wider legitimacyto human rights and for those working andadvocating for their realization. A policy dialoguearound the need to realize economic, social andcultural rights can provide an entry point todiscussing the sometimes more sensitive issues of civiland political rights. The emphasis of the humanrights approach on participation as a human rightsissue is seen by NGOs as another value of adoptingthe human rights approach.

For many NGOs the workshop was their firstopportunity to focus on donor policy and practiceand to engage positively on these issues with donoragencies. So one of their strongest calls was forcontinuing participation and partnership with donors

8

as they seek to implement the approach. Inherent inefforts to ensure meaningful participation was theactive provision of information. The participantsstressed that to participate in applying the humanrights approach they needed adequate documentationand sufficient time to be able to examine relevantmaterials and that this should be an importantresponsibility of donors.

In particular, NGO participants felt that there wasinsufficient meaningful participation in programmedesign and the drafting of country strategies becauseof a lack of transparency of donor policy andpractice. This was seen as especially the case withrelation to multilateral agencies and presentedobstacles to meaningful participation in multilateralforums.

Participants agreed that a human rights analysiswas one essential component of the human rightsbased approach and that this should be based on thelegal framework as codified in the internationalhuman rights instruments and principles. NGOsrecommended that the General Comments andConcluding Observations of the Treaty Bodies andthe reports of the UN Special Rapporteurs should beessential reference materials for any human rightsanalysis. They also stressed the need for culturalsensitivity and reference to a country’s own humanrights commitments in order to avoid perceptions ofan imposition of foreign values.

It was seen to be important to build internalcapacity on the human rights approach in donoragencies – whether government or internationalNGO – and this pointed to the need for thedevelopment of training programmes in eachorganization.

There was concern expressed that the povertyfocus of agencies and poverty reduction strategies

were not linked to human rights. For example, thePoverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) of theWorld Bank did not take account of the human rightsbased approach and bilateral donor policycommitments to human rights were not reflected inthe PRSP framework or process. The nature andextent of participation in the formulation of PRSPswas also called into question. Similarly, the lack ofany formal process for the integration of humanrights in the OECD’s Development AssistanceCommittee’s work was seen as a problem that had tobe addressed as a matter of urgency.

Related to this was the need for greatercoordination among donors, with civil societyorganizations, across ministries in donor countriesand, importantly, with relation to the integration ofhuman rights in the work of the internationalfinancial institutions and the emerging trade andinvestment regulatory bodies.

NGOs acknowledged that a development policydialogue between partners based on sharedcommitments to human rights could be a highlysensitive issue and difficult for both donor andrecipient government for a range of reasons. Somepractical experiences on successful dialogues do exist– UNICEF’s and Save the Children’s programmingon the rights of the child, CARE’s advocacy inKenya, the HURIST project, INFID’s dialogue withthe Indonesian government – and these should bedrawn upon. NGOs also cited the experience ofdiplomacy and advocacy on civil and political rights –that persistence and consistency on the part of NGOsand governments had ensured that human rights wasa legitimate focus for discussion.

If there was one common regret among workshopparticipants it was that there were not yet sufficientpractical experiences to draw lessons from and that key

9

practical questions of implementation remain. NGOparticipants stressed the importance of documentingexperiences of applying a human rights approach.Again, successful examples do exist but they have notbeen recorded. Other instances that in fact apply thehuman rights approach are not being identified as such.

There was broad agreement that ethical and legalconsiderations had to be accompanied bydemonstrable practical outcomes if scepticalcolleagues were to be convinced of the value of thehuman rights approach. Consequently there was astrong view that the Stockholm workshop should beseen as the first of an ongoing series of workshopsand exchanges among like-minded government andnon-government organizations. To this endparticipants identified complaints mechanisms tohold donor and recipient governments accountable,the links between human rights and poverty, and theresponsibility of multilateral banks with relation tohuman rights as some of the issues that should bediscussed at greater length in forthcoming workshops.

NGOs agreed that the workshop had beenextremely useful as a first step in the promotion ofthe human rights approach to developmentcooperation and in clarifying the approach. It washoped that this workshop was merely the start of alearning process to address common challenges andto seek common solutions.

Current State of Play – Overview by theHuman Rights Council of Australia

There has been considerable progress in aid policiesgenerally and policies on human rights and aid inparticular in the past decade.

The general shift away from funding of majorinfrastructure projects toward sectoral programs withgreater emphasis on health and education sectors, themore singular focus on poverty and the adoption ofthe international development targets agreed at majorUN conferences in the 1990’s are all positive from ahuman rights perspective. Perhaps the mostsignificant shift has been within the UN.

The call of the Secretary General for humanrights to be integrated into all the UN’s work has hada real impact. Indicative of the shift is UNDP’sHuman Development Report 2000 which makes itplain that the human rights approach recognizesdevelopment as the process by which people realizetheir rights. There also appears to be a realcommitment to taking a human rights approach tothe formulation of the UN Development AssistanceFrameworks (UNDAFs) in many countries – in Nepal,for example, the UNDAF is specifically based on theInternational Bill of Rights which identifies the issuesof law, policy, resources and custom that need to beaddressed to overcome the denial of the rights tofood, shelter, social security and so on.

The emphasis of the High Commissioner forHuman Rights on economic, social and culturalrights and her advocacy of a human rights approachhas been influential. So has the adoption by UNICEFof the Convention on the Rights of the Child as itsmission statement.

The 1998 UNDP policy document on integratinghuman rights in sustainable human development hasled to a number of significant initiatives including theUNDP-OHCHR collaboration on the human rightsstrengthening project (HURIST).

The commitment of UN agencies to coordinatetheir efforts through the Common CountryAssessment (CCA) and through the UNDAF process

10

is indicative of a wider commitment to coordinationbetween agencies that is consistent with a humanrights based approach. This is also evident in theWorld Bank’s Comprehensive DevelopmentFramework (CDF) and the Poverty ReductionStrategy Papers (PRSP).

Official bilateral development agencies –particular among European donors – are alsoincreasingly giving emphasis and prominence tohuman rights in their policy statements. Britain’sDFID, for example, talks explicitly about itscommitment to a human rights based approach todevelopment. International donor NGOs also takeprincipled stands on human rights.

The increasing focus on economic, social andcultural rights, and a greater emphasis on support forcivil society and participation have become featuresof the policies of many bilateral and UNdevelopment agencies. Donors now make efforts toinvolve domestic and international NGOs andcommunity based organizations substantively and tomake country strategies and evaluations morepublicly available. Funding for justice programs, forhuman rights NGOs, for national human rightsinstitutions, and for human rights training for militaryand police forces has increased.

While there are individuals in all developmentagencies – including in international donor NGOs –committed to exploring the practical implications ofa human rights based approach, it is hard to findexamples of a human rights based approach that hasbeen applied in practice or where the practicalimplications are reflected in agency papers orguidelines.

It is a common complaint – especially fromNGOs – that participation is still more present inrhetoric than reality and that accountability is still

seen by donors principally as a financial managementissue. Only the World Bank has an independentmonitoring mechanism and its effective use alsoseems to depend on significant popular mobilizationand external pressure.

So why has real change proved so elusive?There have been attempts to outline the changes thatwould be needed in country programming by officialdevelopment agencies, notably the UNICEFprogramming guidelines, the Human RightsCouncil’s The Rights Way to Development Manual and thework of Rights and Humanity. There is a growingconsensus among these and other organizations that anecessary first step for human rights programming isa participatory human rights analysis that measuresthe status of each human right against the state’sobligation to respect, to protect and to fulfill each ofthe rights. Such an analysis makes it possible to setobjectives aimed at the realization of each right. Theanalysis and objectives can take account of legislativemeasures, enforcement mechanisms, the prioritizingof resources at all levels and the meaningfulparticipation of communities at each stage.

Sweden is as far as we know the only bilateraldonor to produce its own agency guidelines on howto conduct such an analysis. This example isparticularly valuable because the guidelines reflect thelessons from trying to apply the approach in difficultcircumstances – the Swedish country program inZimbabwe.

An increasing number of NGOs now focus andhave expertise on economic and social rights andadvocate the human rights approach. NGOs such asFoodfirst Information and Action Network (FIAN), Savethe Children, Rights and Humanity, Center for HousingRights and Evictions (COHRE), CARE International,

11

Minority Rights Group and grassroots organizations arerefining the approach, devising training programmesand promoting meaningful participation in their ownarea of expertise and operations.

The human rights approach still leaves manyquestions and concerns unanswered. Perhaps mostfundamentally there is still little empirical evidence todemonstrate that the approach will more effectivelyovercome poverty. This type of evidence does not comequickly and it can only come from implementation ofthe approach in piloted sectoral or country programs.Perhaps because much in the human rights approach(such as the emphasis on participation and bettertargeting of the most vulnerable) arguably reflects theevolution of best development practice, many of theremaining questions and concerns relate to changes atthe practical programming level.

However, there is enough information availablenow on the nature of these changes to suggest thatthe key challenge for the implementation of a humanrights approach to development is one ofcommitment by donors, a commitment to answer theoutstanding questions and concerns in partnershipwith NGOs and community representatives. NGOs,north and south, can have an important role to playin translating donor policy into practice and centeringdiscussion around the realization of human rights.

This leads to perhaps one of the mostfundamental principles of the human rights approach– the principle of human solidarity that underpinsthe universality and interdependence of humanrights. Calls for solidarity based on human rightscarry special moral and political weight. These arecalls that hold governments and others accountable topromises made.

Communities and NGOs concerned that thedevelopment aid coming to their country is not

reaching those most denied their human rights, orconcerned that aid (or the conditions for aid) arehaving negative effects on their rights, are in aposition to seek the solidarity of their partners in thedonor countries to change these programmes andpolicies by basing themselves on the internationalhuman rights framework.

The openings for more coordinated and effectiveadvocacy on human rights are there now in a waythat they were not a few years ago because of thepolicies of donors with regard to the realization ofhuman rights, to participation, to transparency and toaccountability.

Communities and NGOs in countries receivingaid are too often unaware of donor policies andprogrammes, and the opportunities for influencingthese. Increased familiarity with human rights – andeconomic, social and cultural rights in particular –can become an important tool of empowerment.

NGOs in donor countries are essential to theachievement of these objectives.

The Human Rights Approach andNGO Experiences

The diversity within the global NGO movement wasreflected in the NGO sessions of the Stockholmworkshop.

Participants were broadly representative of thevarious mandates of the NGOs working at thedomestic and international level on human rights anddevelopment. These included ones with a focus ondomestic human rights violations, domestic andinternational advocates of economic and social rights,applied policy research organizations, and

12

international development NGOs whose functions andactivities closely resemble those of the official donors.

This diversity of experience considerably enrichedthe discussions. One of the interesting dynamics wasbetween NGOs in the South and northern NGOs –the former often saw the latter as donors (rather thansimply as partner NGOs) sharing much in commonwith official donors. It also seemed as if southernNGOs had little involvement or engagement with thepolicy and practices of the northern NGOs. Bothseemed to find the exchange a very valuableexperience.

The focus of the discussion was on the potentialof the human rights approach to more effectivelyaddress NGO concerns, how different NGOs couldapply the approach to their own work and how theythought that official donor agencies could apply theapproach to their practices.

It was not surprising, therefore, that in aconstructive spirit the participants reflected somecritical perspectives on the practices of bilateral andmultilateral donors. Most NGOs were, however, ableto point to good and bad examples of donor practiceand the sensitivities facing governmental agencies inraising human rights concerns were generallyacknowledged. This constructive focus is reflected inthe NGO recommendations.

Presentations from the Human Rights Counciland FIAN provided a brief overview of the evolutionof the human rights approach to development and anintroduction to economic, social and cultural rightsand their relevance to the process of development.

FIAN characterized the human rights approachamong development NGOs as evolving from thelessons of long involvement of working with people –at first NGOs saw that people didn’t have water andwent in and dug them wells, then they realized it

would be better to teach people how to dig wells, nowthey had come to the conclusion they needed to workwith partners to lobby government to guaranteeaccess to clean water.

The human rights approach uses established andaccepted human rights standards as a commonframework for assessing and guiding sustainabledevelopment. Principles of universality,accountability and participation underpingovernment obligations to respect, protect and fulfilleach right. The core content of these rights has beenarticulated by the UN treaty monitoring bodies inGeneral Comments and in the UN Manual onHuman Rights Reporting.

The Human Rights Council of Australia, takingits lead from the treaty monitoring bodies and fromits experiences of working with the UN system inNepal has tried to clarify the practical import of theseprinciples. The principle of universality means thatresources, action and advocacy should focus as apriority on those most deprived of their rights. Theprinciple of participation (which is recognized as aright) means taking steps to facilitate participationincluding the provision of relevant information,guarantees of security, and meeting of costs. Theprinciple of accountability means opening the doorto full participation and providing avenues forchallenging and seeking redress for decisions oractions negatively affecting rights. As stated in theDeclaration on the Right to Development, peoplehave the right ‘to freely participate in developmentand in the fair distribution of its benefits’ so that theprinciple of accountability implies cooperation in thefulfilment of human rights. These principles apply asmuch to donor governments as to recipientgovernments and thus have programmaticimplications for both.

13

It is often argued by government officials andacademics that the realization of economic, socialand cultural rights implies an obligation to provideservices for all immediately which is an impossibilityand, hence, these rights are merely expressions ofaspirations. In fact, the Committee on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights and other experts havemade it clear that the realization of human rights isabout enabling and ensuring access – except in thosecases where people are unable to provide forthemselves and who should therefore receiveimmediate priority support. The United States andsome of its allies view economic and social rights asbeing vaguer and less precise in imposing obligationson state parties than civil and political rights.However the UN Treaty Bodies have clarified that theobligations to respect, protect and fulfill human rightsare the same for all rights. Economic, social andcultural rights provide a framework condition foraction by states on the road to development.Understanding the obligations of states for therealization of these rights enables the identification ofindicators of state behaviour.

While the argument is increasingly made thatglobalization is taking away the possibility of holdinggovernments responsible for the realization ofeconomic, social and cultural rights, this is all toooften an excuse for governments to do nothing. FIANargues that this needs to be pointed out by donors –at least by those who have accepted the human rightsapproach to development cooperation.

Time and again participants in the workshopreferred to the importance of stressing the principleof the indivisibility of all human rights andemphasized the link between development andeconomic, social rights and cultural rights – and thatthese should not be separated from civil and political

rights in the development dialogue. At the nationallevel NGOs had the impression that human rightswere seen as the “cherry on the development cake” –and very often the development cake was indigestibleand at odds with the small human rights anddemocratization cherry.

NGO participants with expertise in economic andsocial rights were unanimous that awareness of thenormative and core contents of economic, social andcultural rights is still very rudimentary among manydonor agencies, even though they are an essentialcomponent of the human rights approach. This is aclear barrier to implementation of the approach inpractice. Lack of knowledge and awareness of humanrights is also clearly a problem beyond just officialdevelopment agencies. NGOs, too, often do not takesufficient advantage of such opportunities as theexamination of periodic reports by the UNCommittee on Economic, Social and Cultural rightsto ensure that governments’ human rights obligationsinfluence or guide development decisions.

International development NGOs have found thatthis is just one of a number of problems encountered– that there are also genuine organizationaldifficulties associated with applying the approach.These can include an existing staff who either doesnot know how to do it or who because of training andbackground does not see its relevance to the practicalissues of delivery or transfer of resources or technicalexpertise that have been the traditional focus ofdevelopment assistance.

These issues were picked up more fully inpresentations from Save the Children and CAREInternational. Both organizations have adopted thehuman rights approach and both have experiencedsimilar obstacles and challenges to those facingofficial donors in implementing the approach.

14

Common concerns are how to internalize and gainacceptance of the approach among the staff andhow to manage change with relation to localpartners and governments. The changes requiredand the lessons learned by these two NGOs indealing with these issues were seen as havingconsiderable relevance to other NGOs and toofficial development agencies.

Save the Children is guided by the Convention onthe Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Conventionon the Elimination of All Forms of DiscriminationAgainst Women (CEDAW).

Helpfully both of these instruments includeeconomic, social and cultural rights and civil andpolitical rights without making any distinctionbetween them. However, while the instrumentsestablish the basic principles for the human rightsapproach, they fall short of providing programmaticdirection.

The shift to a human rights approach is a majorundertaking for both organizations. In the case ofCARE International, the decision to adopt theapproach was taken at the management level in orderto achieve a greater impact on poverty and socialjustice.

Echoing the concerns raised by staff in manyofficial development agencies, the human rightsapproach has been variously perceived indevelopment NGOs as implying a move away fromneutrality and respect for local cultures, as abureaucratic move to add yet another cross cuttingsectoral issue, or as a mere change in terminology –a new ‘buzz word’. Even acceptance that change isentailed needs to be clarified for the staff of bothNGOs. Staff in both organizations have tried avariety of strategies or techniques to address theseconcerns.

One is to try and clarify the nature of the changesrequired and the “added value” the approach willbring to the organization’s work for the poor and withits partners. These include the necessity to improveanalysis to look at root causes of poverty and toaddress issues of discrimination and marginalization.The human rights framework has clear advantages inthis respect. Another change has been an increasedemphasis on advocacy through lobbying and opinion-building, a willingness to work with a wider range ofpartners and to explore issues of the agency’saccountability to its partners.

These changes have demanded new capacitiesand competencies within the organizations and fromstaff and has required shifting resources around andsometimes away from program work to research,studies and better monitoring.

CARE International’s experience hasdemonstrated that while it is essential to have seniormanagement commitment to the approach, this willnot win over the sceptics who need to be convinced ofthe benefits of the changes demanded of them. Thereis a need, therefore, to design structured bottom-uptraining programmes for field staff with easilyunderstood guidelines that are based on evidencefrom real projects to bring the doubters on board.

Both organizations have had to face the dilemmaof operating in an environment in which humanrights principles may not be accepted by theauthorities or where they are perceived as animposition of ‘western values’. However, governmenthostility to human rights is not all pervasive and thereare always entry points for dialogue and advocacythat need to be uncovered. Here again, sensitizationand capacity building of staff is paramount indealing with difficult partners. Finally, theexpectations and understanding from the

15

organizations’ supporters is an issue that needs to beaddressed – it is harder to sell and show concreteresults from advocacy and capacity building thanfrom building wells and health clinics.

These issues were discussed in greater detail insmall working groups (see below) before the workshopcame back to listen to presentations on three countrysituations.

The three country-related examples at theworkshop reflected situations in which theinadequacies of development efforts that relegatedhuman rights to mere add-ons have had unfortunateoutcomes and where demands for immediate resultsand lack of meaningful participation have had anegative impact.

The International NGO Forum on IndonesianDevelopment (INFID) has since 1985 attempted toinfluence the practices of donors, initially withrelation to the World Bank-hosted Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia, and then withits replacement, the Consultative Group onIndonesia (CGI) created after Indonesia’s rejectionof aid conditionality imposed by the Netherlandsfollowing the Dili massacre. INFID has maintaineda consistent emphasis on human rights in itsadvocacy on people’s participation, poverty, landrights and women’s rights.

INFID argues that donors ignored the humanrights abuses occurring during Suharto’s reignbecause of their strategic and economic interests.They based their policies on positive assessments fromthe multilateral banks and focused their activities oneconomic growth and infrastructure development,largely ignoring issues of corruption and cronyism,drafting their country strategies without broadconsultation with emerging NGOs and civil societygroups.

According to INFID since the economic crisis in 1997and the consequent fall of the Suharto regime,donors have focused on economic recovery, socialsafety nets for the poor, good governance to controlcorruption and strengthening democracy. There is arenewed willingness to enable people’s participationand to at least begin to address the promotion andprotection of human rights.

However, INFID remains critical of both bilateraland multilateral donors because of the continuingbasic focus of these strategies and because they arestill resistant to involving civil society organizations inthe drafting of their country strategies. If they haddone this earlier they could have heeded the warningsigns of imminent collapse. As it is, INFID has beeninvited as observer at the World Bank CGI meetings,but at the request of former INFID member andcurrent Indonesian President Wahid rather thanthrough donor advocacy. The remaining challenge isto be admitted as a full partner and to be allowed toinject economic and social rights into the discussionof poverty, and donors should be supporting thisprocess. Human rights can thus become theframework which will bring donors together in acoordinated approach to development in partnershipwith civil society.

The Center for the Prevention, Treatment andRehabilitation of Torture Victims and their Relativesthat works on justice issues in Honduras is supportedby the international donors. In Honduras the donorcommunity rallied to assist the country following thedevastation of Hurricane Mitch. However, decisionsabout the directions of reconstruction were madewithout adequate participation. This is mainly due tothe reluctance of the Government to consult properlywith civil society. In fact democracy has become evenweaker after the hurricane with more demands on

16

resources by the poor and most disadvantaged beingmet with increasing repression by the Government.Decentralization, which is essential to ensure greaterdemocracy has slowed and the economic policiespromoted by the international community haveresulted in an increase of foreign debt and fewerresources for social programmes at a time when theseare needed more than ever.

The result of all this is that developmentcooperation had benefited the well-off most of all.The responsibility on donors therefore is to addressthe political dimension of development in order toeffect real structural change. This requires donors tolisten to the people and to strengthen and develop thepartnership with civil society.

The 1997/98 El Niño that devastated much ofEcuador’s coastline resulted in a very similar reactionfrom the donor community to that in Honduras afterthe hurricane. The Center for Economic and SocialRights has an office in Ecuador and, while itacknowledges the immediate rallying of the donorcommunity to provide assistance, it is highly criticalof the lack of foresight shown in the relief effort.Once again the action of donors tended toundermine rather than strengthen local capacity toplay an active role in determining development.Assistance was funneled through undemocratic andunaccountable institutions, leading the way to thetype of corruption that donors try so hard to combat.The focus was very much on rebuilding the largephysical infrastructure of the country which meantthat social infrastructure was to a large extentignored.

Just as in Honduras, the opportunity to take along-term view and address the inequalities inEcuadorian society was allowed to pass. Instead ofadopting a human rights approach based on the

principles of empowerment and accountability, thedonor community chose to rebuild along the sameunderdeveloped lines that existed prior to the disaster.In both Honduras and Ecuador it was argued thathad the response been based on recognition of rightsand the importance of participation the emergencyhumanitarian response could have more easily beenintegrated into longer term sustainable developmentprogramming.

The point was also made that neither were suddennatural disasters as commonly perceived. El Niño inparticular is a long term and increasingly understoodweather pattern that could have been planned for,while the effect of Hurricane Mitch was sodevastating because so many people had been madevulnerable by previous patterns of development.

Critical Appraisals of Donor Practice

Discussion of existing donor practice ran throughoutthe NGO workshop. Perceptions of donors reflectedthe different relationships of NGOs to donors.

NGOs at the domestic level in aid recipientcountries often have a funding relationship withdonors and most if not all had had positiveexperiences and enjoyed good relationships withparticular donor agencies. At the same they remainedcritical of the overall relationship between theircountry and donor nations – in relation to trade, debtand aid.

International development NGOs (INDGOs) fallinto two broad categories. Some such as NOVIB actas intermediaries between the governmental donorsand their local partners in the South in the deliveryof aid and as such are seen as donors in their own

17

right. Others, such as the major charitableorganizations develop programmes and projects withtheir partners in developing countries. INGDOs seethemselves as largely independent of government andoperating in partnership with the poor and therepresentatives of the poor. While they receive anincreasing proportion of funding from governmentthey have often not participated in, or sought to affecttheir government’s individual country strategies orindeed broader policies.

Finally, the policy research and advocacyorganizations are perhaps by their nature morecritical of policy and practice removed at one step asthey are from implementation of programme andindependent of government.

Appraisal of donor practice therefore rangedfrom the practical to the principle and from the localto the global.

Participants commented that official donoractivity is not oriented towards structural changes insociety and therefore inequities are bound to remain.Thus, when questions of the power relations betweengovernments and citizens are involved, donors willsupport the status quo or at the very least stay neutral.

This neutrality is perceived as tantamount tosupporting conditions where human rights aredenied. One example mentioned was the case ofbonded labourers in Nepal where the problem stemsfrom the issue of land rights and the system of landownership. Unless this is addressed, even when bondsare lifted and legislation is brought down to outlawthe practice – initiatives that donors support –labourers will return to bondage.

Again, in cases of civil conflict and humanitarianemergencies the focus of donors is on the provisionof the immediate necessities for survival. Yet, veryseldom is adequate thought given to structural issues

which may prevent recurrences in the future andcontribute to real development.

The poverty reduction approach – increasinglypopular among donors – can also have someunforeseen outcomes. For example, much has beenmade of the statistical fall in extreme poverty in Peru.Yet the statistics mask the reality that focusing on thepoorest and most marginalized has meant that theeconomic and social rights of the lower middle classwere undermined. While a human rights approachadvocates a focus on the poorest and mostmarginalized, the principle of non-retrogressionmeans that states must avoid winding back alreadyrealized social and economic rights. In Peru the levelof extreme poverty has been reduced but povertyoverall has increased.

Among aid professionals there seems to be aperception that poverty can be measured whereas it ismore difficult to establish clear benchmarks for therealization of human rights. They see the povertyreduction approach as more practical and not – likethe human rights approach – another fashionabletheory, and thus have a tendency to leave thepotential of the rights approach to address povertyunexplored.

The lack of mechanisms for donors to be heldaccountable by communities or individuals was alsohighlighted. Accountability is seen as a one-wayagenda where increasing accountability to the donoragency is demanded, even if this takes a form that ismore appropriate to the needs of the donor than tothe needs of the communities.

Donor governments and politicians – accountableto their constituencies – require prompt results fromthe provision of development assistance. Politicalpressure in the donor country, the need to justify theprogramme and the practical bent of most

18

development professionals who are used to concreteand immediate outcomes resulting from their work,all dictate urgency in the production of visible andconcrete development outcomes. By contrast, therealization of human rights and the processesrequired to ensure participation are time consumingand a long-term project.

For example, the Poverty Reduction StrategiesPapers of the World Bank are supposed to involveconsultation with civil society. However, in at leastone case cited civil society organizations were givenone day to read, discuss and comment on the PRSP.Concern was expressed that despite commitments toopenness and transparency the World Bank’s countryassistance strategies were still confidential documents.It was acknowledged that the greatest opposition tothese strategies being made public was often fromrecipient governments, but the policy commitmentsof donors to openness should count for something.

While there were positive and negativeexperiences of participation, the positive experiencestended to be at the local project level rather than atthe sectoral or country strategy level. The existingfocus of participation is too narrow.

Thus, even though donors profess a commitmentto people’s participation there are obstacles to thishaving any real meaning. One reason is that they feelobliged to deal with recipient governments that maynot be favourable to participation and insist onnegotiating through existing unrepresentativeinstitutions. Another is that there is seldom timeallowed for meaningful participation. It is unrealisticto imagine that a mission that is designed to establisha programme can consult with civil society in thetime normally allowed for this. This is allied to theissue of who the dialogue partners are. Donors relatedirectly to recipient governments and it is with these

that agreements are negotiated. Donors also relatemore closely to other donors and this createsproblems in terms of information sharing with civilsociety organizations. There is thus an ‘open’ and aclosed ‘agenda’ which is a hurdle for genuine people’sparticipation.

Many development professionals still equatehuman rights with civil and political rights,particularly with respect to gross abuses of rights.This is seen all too often in a situation analysis that isnarrowly confined to civil and political rights. Thisperception undermines the potential of aid topromote awareness and understanding of all humanrights. It also contributes to perceptions of humanrights being a very sensitive subject best left todiplomats, rather than aid professionals. Particularlyso, as discussion of civil and political rights violationsremains caught up in the negative conditionalitydebate. The potential of a dialogue on the fulfillmentof human rights to provide an entry point to discussissues of human rights violations remains largelyunexplored.

That is not to say that the relevance of theviolations approach to aid should be dismissedaltogether. Documentation of violations of economic,social and cultural rights can help in identifying areaswhere aid can be focused and provide some directionto advocacy. It can also help clarify understanding ofthe nature of these rights. This is the role that anumber of international NGOs have taken on anddonors should draw on the expertise of these andassist them and their partners in the South. However,identifying these types of violations is difficult becausethose who suffer them do not have the same access topublic attention as those elites who are mostly thetargets of violations of civil and political rights.Donors could provide financial and moral support to

19

NGOs in their efforts to expose violations ofeconomic and social rights and, in line with theirefforts to develop civil society, contribute to capacitybuilding among southern NGOs in this area. Donorscould also use and pay greater reference to theexisting monitoring systems for economic, social andcultural rights.

Working Groups

Two working group sessions during the workshopconsidered how NGOs can apply the human rightsapproach to their own work and how NGOs canencourage and assist donors with integratinghuman rights within their strategies andprogrammes.

The working groups noted that NGOs face manyof the same challenges in implementing the approachas the official donor institutions. The issue of how toensure that governments are held accountable for therealization of rights is a recurrent concern. Of greatimportance also is the need to consider accountabilityin the context of all the rights including economic,social and cultural rights.

NGOs should increase their capacity todocument violations of economic, social andcultural rights. One way to do this is throughcooperating on the formulation of shadow reportsto the UN treaty bodies. If this is done in agenuinely participatory manner, the reports willassist in the setting of necessary human rightsgoals. There is also the need to consider the impactof development assistance on civil, cultural,economic, political and social rights. A situationalanalysis should take account of the impact of aid

on various sectors dis-aggregated according togender and so on.

There is a need for advocacy on the human rightsapproach at the international level to focus on bothnorthern NGOs and donors in order to gain supportfor the human rights approach in the South. Humanrights language should be used in advocacy tostrengthen the message NGOs are trying to convey.

The human rights approach should apply toNGOs’ relationships with their partners as well as totheir own staff. Therefore, development NGO –international as well as local – should also consciouslybehave democratically and accept that they areaccountable to their partners and communities.

More generally, there is too little cooperationbetween human rights organizations anddevelopment organizations and greater effort shouldbe devoted to working together. It is important to alsobe flexible when operationalizing the approach and toavoid too great reliance on the legal aspects ofhuman rights. NGOs should be encouraged to findand promote examples of good practice.

There were numerous suggestions on how officialdonors could apply the human rights approach toprogrammes and strategies. Donors should integratehuman rights explicitly in discussions of ‘goodgovernance’ and other frameworks for aidcoordination such as the UNDAFs and the WorldBank’s CDF. They should make greater efforts toinclude civil society organizations and promoteNGOs as equal partners in decision making on aidstrategies, and respond more to the needs of civilsociety and less to those of the donors themselves forexample in timetabling of decisions and programs.This requires sharing information and knowledge.

Several NGOs proposed that NGOs and civilsociety organizations should be involved in establishing

20

criteria for aid decisions and in monitoring processesand more effort should go into building civil societycapacity to engage in dialogue around rights.

One important need is for those donors who haveadopted a human rights approach to developmentcooperation to open a dialogue with other donorswho are reluctant do so. This is important withrespect to systematic advocacy in multilateral forums.Both should accept that they are accountable for theimpact of their assistance and begin to establishappropriate complaints mechanisms to assesscompliance with human rights standards.

It would be helpful if donors could develop acommon understanding of the core elements of thehuman rights approach.

More work should be done by donors on integratingthe human rights approach across policy and programareas to ensure that trade and other policies are not atodds with the human rights objectives of the aidprogram. There needs to be a consistency of approachfrom donors in bilateral and multilateral forums.

Dialogue with partner governments canencourage ratification of human rights treaties and asimportantly engagement with the treaty monitoringprocesses. These processes can be used to encourageand facilitate greater dialogue between governmentand civil society on development priorities.

Exchanging Perspectives – JointNGO-Donor Session

Following the NGO workshop, non-governmentalorganizations met in a joint session withrepresentatives of bilateral and multilateral donorsattending the workshop to consider some of the

recommendations from the NGO workshop (seetable). Unfortunately, the time allocated to this sessionwas somewhat limited, yet it generated a goodexchange of views that raised some issues which werelater discussed in the donor workshop. Therecommendations were directed at donors but manywere applicable as well to international developmentNGOs from developed countries.

It was acknowledged that in the process ofglobalization the private sector has become animportant instrument for development and bilateraldonors should not be seen as the only ones responsiblefor the realization of human rights – primaryresponsibility, of course, still rests with nationalgovernments. However, the capacity of governments toprogressively realize rights is affected by the policies ofothers. For instance, the international financialinstitutions have been criticized for the way thatprivatization of state assets is equated to goodgovernance and seen as best practice. In too many casesthis leads to the state relinquishing the responsibility forthe realization of human rights. In response to thecriticism it is claimed that this is a matter of privatenegotiations and there is little opportunity to influencethe process. NGOs pointed out that it is important,therefore, that the bilateral donors begin to influencethese institutions to accept their responsibilities and towork to ensure appropriate accountability mechanisms.

The view was expressed by NGO participants thatsome of the European donors with strongcommitments to human rights are not pulling theirweight with the IMF to encourage an examination ofthe human rights impact of its policies and that someare actively opposing the evolution of internationalaccountability mechanisms.While the World Bank has adopted a participatoryapproach to the formulation of its Poverty Reduction

21

Strategy Papers (PRSP) for the poorest countries, ithas not integrated the human rights based approachnor is any reference made to human rights. It wassuggested by NGOs from both north and south thatin order to ensure more meaningful participationmore time should be allowed for civil society inputinto the PRSPs. INFID in particular argued that onthe basis of the Indonesian experience NGOs shouldbe invited as full partners to the Bank-hosted donorConsultative Group meetings. NGOs were of theview that the bilateral donors have an important roleto play in influencing the Bank to incorporate rightsin its analyses and programmes, injecting their ownhuman rights analyses in the preparation of thePRSPs. Indeed, the poverty reduction approach notonly needs to take account of human rights, but hasto make explicit that the denial of civil, cultural,economic, political and social rights is at the root ofpoverty.

NGOs argued that development agencies shouldexplicitly be assisting partner governments in meetingtheir human rights obligations and in becomingaccountable for their policies and practices. Thisassistance needs to include remedial action in casethings go wrong and this should apply equally todonors themselves. In this context it is important thatdonor countries do not send mixed messages and thusthere is a need to avoid the compartmentalization ofhuman rights within an isolated section ofgovernment. Rather, the development policies of thedonor government should impact across ministriesand departments, for example, trade and financeministries.

The importance of addressing economic socialand cultural rights had come up repeatedly in theworkshop and donors were encouraged to integratethese in their analyses. The reports of the UN treaty

bodies and accounts of the violations of humanrights by civil society organizations should help guidecountry strategy and programme design.Unfortunately, there are many government officialswho are not even aware of such sources ofinformation and are ignorant of the bodies thatgenerate them. UN representatives at the sessionpointed to the availability of this type of informationon various websites while the UNDP routinelyprovides it to its resident coordinators. Neverthelessthere is a need to build the capacity of bilateral donorstaff with relation to the UN system and thenormative and core content of rights.

To this end, appropriate human rights trainingwas strongly endorsed by both donors and NGOs.The experiences of CARE International and Savethe Children were particularly relevant in how tobring staff on board. The importance of a wideawareness and understanding of what the humanrights based approach is – standards, obligations,accountability, root causes of poverty – can not beover-stressed. This depends on a strong directionfrom senior management but cannot be left to thisalone. There is a need to emphasize the practicalrelevance of the approach while taking care not todeny the effectiveness of past approaches andemphasizing their continuity with the human rightsbased approach. Neither should the sensitivity ofadvocacy on human rights be underplayed.

The NGOs were in agreement with those donorswho advocated an improvement in coordination ofdevelopment efforts. To a certain extent this alreadyhappens with UN agencies through such mechanismsas the CCA and the UNDAFs. However, there is aneed for greater exchange of experiences with humanrights based approaches and sharing of human rightsanalyses among donors. While there are far too few

22

documented cases to take as models, there is a greatdeal of programming consistent with the humanrights approach already happening in the field andthe challenge is to adopt a ‘bottoms up’ approach toencourage and enthuse the higher ups. This is oneway of convincingly demonstrating to the sceptics thevalue-added of the approach.

The question of meaningful participationengaged both donor and NGO participants. NGOswere somewhat critical of the way that civil societyand non-governmental organizations were excludedfrom the decision making process. This certainlyapplied to the World Bank and the IMF but was alsorelevant to situational analyses and the drafting ofdonor country strategies.

A number of issues were raised by the donorrepresentatives. Genuine and meaningfulparticipation is perforce a time consuming exerciseand sometimes there is simply not the time to conductextensive consultation. As well, it is often the case thatbeneficiaries are not accustomed to taking part insuch decision-making and do not have the capacity todo so. This presents a special challenge to donors whohave the responsibility at the same time of buildingthe capacity to participate while also getting on withthe project. There is also the question of therepresentativeness of NGOs when some purport tospeak for communities that they do not evenrepresent.

There was general agreement that every effortshould be made to achieve greater participation butthat there were limits. For example, donors shouldstrive to ensure the widest possible participation in theanalytical work for the situational analyses in specificcountries. However, a problem similar to donorcoordination of country analyses arises here, namelyhow dependable is the information provided. There

are also constraints to participation in the drafting ofcountry strategies which are, after all, the specialpreserves of the relevant donor with a concomitantpolitical sensitivity.

One final point was stressed by NGOparticipants. They were complimentary of theinitiative to organize the workshop and to be giventhe opportunity to interact with the official donorcommunity. However, this should be seen as only thebeginning of a process and should not be left as aone off event. There was a strong recommendationto continue to hold such exchanges and to elaborateon this preliminary dialogue. In the meantime thereport of the workshop should be widelydisseminated including by way of Rights andHumanity’s Global Human Rights and DevelopmentForum.

Recommendations from theNGO Workshop

The discussions in the NGO workshop reflected thewide variety of views and experiences present amongthe participants. The following recommendations –grouped as they are rather arbitrarily – reflect onlyinadequately the range of expertise present at theworkshop and are distilled from the discussions andthe presentations in the course of the workshop. It isstriking how they resonate with those of the officialdonors.

Economic social and cultural rights– ESC Rights should be an integral part of any

human rights approach

23

– Donors should develop shared understandingof the normative content of human rights andof human rights obligations

– Violations of economic, social and culturalrights should guide programming

– Development actors should use the GeneralComments and Concluding Observations ofall the UN human rights treaty bodies and thereports of the Special Rapporteurs

– Support for drafting of ‘shadow’ reports to theUN human rights treaty bodies

Collaboration with civil society– Donors should promote inter-institutional

learning between official agencies anddevelopment NGOs

– Donors should encourage networking on thehuman rights based approach between agenciesand NGOs at the international, national andlocal level.

– Donors should work with NGOs and IGOs tofacilitate permanent mechanisms for dialogueto encourage policy development andaccountability

Coordination– Donors with experience in human rights-based

approaches should encourage other donors toopen a dialogue on the approach

– More work needed to integrate human rightsapproach across ministries (e.g. finance, tradeetc areas)

– Independent complaints and monitoringmechanisms within donor agencies (including‘aid ombudsmen’ and ‘humanitarianombudsmen’)

– Donors should promote the human rights-based approach in emerging frameworks forcoordinating aid (CCA, UNDAF, CDF, PRSP)

Staff development– Awareness-building within organization

essential

– An understanding of the normative contents ofrights and the obligations of states

– Initiating pilot projects as demonstration ofvalue-added

– Convincing, not coercing skeptics

– Senior management support is critical

Programming implications– Acceptance that HR advocacy can reflect

different approaches

– Participation requires active provision ofinformation – transparency

– The poverty reduction approach should beframed within the HR approach

– Civil society should be involved in the draftingof country strategies

– Integrate human rights and participation indialogues on good governance

– Encourage ratifications and officialengagement in treaty monitoring process

24

– Capacity building to enable civil societynetworks to become more inclusive,accountable and effective in negotiations

– Timetabling needs to respond more to civilsociety needs and less to donor programmingtimetable

Multilateral organizations– Donors should facilitate the participation of

civil society in Consultative Groups and otherconsultative processes hosted by the Bank

– Donors should advocate the integration ofhuman rights in the Poverty ReductionStrategy Papers

– Donors should carry commitments to the rightsinto multilateral forums – EU/World Bank/IMF/WTO

the issue. More and more governments and non-governmental development organisations (NGDO)are starting to consider human rights as frameworkconditions for their work. But we are still far from aclear definition: what elements a rights approach canand should cover, what it means methodologically fordevelopment cooperation. FIAN can contribute someideas and proposals to the search for a commonunderstanding based on its own experiences as aninternational human rights organisation working forthe implementation of the right to adequate food.

In recent years FIAN has repeatedly been askedto contribute to discussions on a human rightsapproach to development cooperation, focusing oneconomic, social and cultural rights (ESC-Rights).In 1997 we were asked by the Protestantdevelopment agencies in Germany to look throughtheir project portfolio and to study if and how manyof their projects were relevant from an ESC-rightsperspective and to make proposals how to betterintegrate ESC-Rights into their work. In 1998 wepresented the results of that work to the Ministry ofDevelopment Cooperation. Similar work was donein 1999, when FIAN was asked by the Böll-Foundation to write a concept paper on how ESC-Rights should and can guide land policies in CentralAmerica. In 1998 FIAN wrote a background paperon the “Role of international organisations in theimplementation of the rights related to food andnutrition” for the second expert consultation on theright to adequate food as a human rights, organizedby the FAO and the Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) as afollow-up to the world food summit.

A rights approach to development cooperationmust include all categories of human rights. Thispaper is focusing only on ESC-Rights because of the

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights andDevelopment CooperationMichael Windfuhr, Executive Director, FoodFirst Information

and Action Network (FIAN)

Introduction: The human rights approach todevelopment: A nessessary but new agenda

The human rights approach to development isincreasingly talked about and is becoming a centralelement in development discourse. UNICEF usesrights language and increasingly a rights basedapproach since the adoption of the Convention onthe Rights of the Child in 1989. The year 2000Human Development Report is entirely focused on

25

specific field of FIAN experiences and willconcentrate on the challenges that arise from takinga rights approach to development cooperation withrelation to ESC-Rights. Some challenges will besimilar to civil and political (CP-Rights) such asrequirements for access to justice or levels ofobligations under each right. Other things willrequire a specific approach to ESC-Rights. Forexample, monitoring will be totally different forESC-Rights since groups that are victim ofviolations differ and the required actions by stateswill involve other sectors or branches ofgovernment.

Beside the general misconceptions relating toESC-Rights – that they are costly to implement,that implementation can only be doneprogressively and that they are therefore not rightsat all but rather political objectives – oneadditional basic misunderstanding often comes upin discussions on how to integrate ESC-Rights intodevelopment cooperation, the concept thatdevelopment cooperation automaticallyimplements ESC-Rights because it is oriented toimprove the health or food situation of groups ofthe population. However, a rights approach meansforemost to talk about the relationship between astate and its citizens. The principal duty holder ofall human rights is the state. The state has tocomply with its obligations deriving from the rightscontained in the human rights Covenants.Development cooperation can assist states inimplementing their obligation. Moreover, theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights (ICESCR) also obligates states tointernational cooperation, meaning that states donot only have national but also internationalobligations.

Interlinkages between economic, social andcultural rights and development cooperation

Development cooperation in many donor countrieswas facing major changes at the beginning of thenineties. The end of the Cold War releaseddevelopment cooperation from any geopoliticalconstraints. Since then the trio of ‘goodgovernance’, ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ hasbeen the point of departure for the formulation ofdonor policies. All three parts of the trio describehow states should look. It is a programme for thedefinition of state action, for the description ofmeasures the state should refrain from and ofpolicies it should implement. In that programmehuman rights are an important part, becausehuman rights give concrete rules and guidance forstate action with relation to the people living on itsterritory. Nowadays donor policies in manycountries follow this basic orientation.Nevertheless, they vary a lot, because ‘goodgovernance’, ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ meandifferent things to different donors. Theunderstanding of ‘good governance’ varies forexample from a mere definition of absence ofcorruption or a very lean state to a description of astate that is responsible and accountable to itscitizens. The understanding of ‘democracy’ variesfrom a pure focus on elections to a broaderunderstanding as a participatory political system.‘Human Rights’ are also differently defined as onlycivil and political rights on the one hand and as allfive categories of civil, political but also economic,social and cultural rights on the other. Dependingon the respective definitions, donor concepts varyon how they describe the obligations and objectivesof states.

26

It is in this context that ESC-Rights have become sointeresting. If ‘human rights’ are understood as theyshould be, as indivisible, interrelated andinterconnected, all categories of human rights mustbe used to define the objects and the omissions forstate action. ESC-Rights help to define the role of thestate in economic and social policy making. This willbe the biggest value added of a rights approach todevelopment, in that it allows us to describe preciselywhat states should do and what type of action theyshall refrain from. In policy dialogues, criteria can beused which are beyond individual donor’s preferences.Moreover, in times of globalization it can be of greathelp if ESC-Rights give a direction on what issues orin what areas state action is still required.

The principal duty-holder of all human rights isthe state. The state has to comply with its obligationsderiving from the rights contained in the humanrights Covenants. The full implementation ofeconomic, social and cultural rights requires a stateorienting its policies to comply with its human rightsobligations. Human rights in general and ESC-Rightsin particular oblige the state to respect, protect andfulfil these rights for all citizens. These three differentlevels of state obligations have been described by theCommittee on ESC Rights (CESCR) in severalGeneral Comments. In General Comments No. 12,13, 14 on the right to adequate food, education andhealth the CESCR has developed a standardinterpretation of the different rights of the Covenantin (1) describing the content of the respective right,including a core content and (2) in clarifying thespecific state obligations following the three levels‘respect’, ‘protect’ and ‘fulfil’. This has led to greaterinterpretative certainty. Many misconceptions andmisinterpretations of ESC-rights have been the resultof the historically unequal treatment (missing clear

definition, missing text book representation, missingreferences in case law etc.) of these rights comparedto civil and political rights. I will now brieflyintroduce the definition and the state obligationsconcerning the right to adequate food as it iscontained in General Comment No. 12.

Elements of a rights approach towardsfood and nutrition

In Article 11 (1) the states parties “recognise the rightof everyone to an adequate standard of living forhimself and his family, including adequate food,clothing and housing, and to the continuousimprovement of living conditions”. The human rightto adequate food is therefore a distinct part of theright to an adequate standard of living. Hence theaccessibility of adequate food should not interferewith the enjoyment of other human rights and othercomponents which are necessary for an adequatestandard of living, such as shelter and education.From Article 11 (2) thus derives the fundamental rightof everyone to be free from hunger. In both parts ofthe article international cooperation is especiallymentioned.

The content of the rights to food and nutritioncan be described briefly as follows: The realisation ofthe right to adequate food requires the availability offood in a sustainable way for everybody, free fromadverse substances and culturally acceptable, in aquantity and quality which will satisfy the nutritionaland dietary needs of every individual. The ultimateobjective of the right to adequate food is to achievenutritional well-being. Nutritional well-being isdependent on parallel measures in the fields ofeducation, health and care. In this broader sense, the

27

right to adequate food is to be understood as the rightto adequate food and nutrition. Poverty is the majorcause of food insecurity and missing access toadequate food and nutrition. Therefore, theavailability of adequate food requires that everyindividual living alone or in community with otherhave access to productive resources, e.g. access toadequate land or natural resources like fish or thepossibilities of gaining an income in ways consistentwith human dignity.

The primary duty-holder under the right toadequate food is the state. States parties to theCovenant of ESC-rights have (1) to respect the right toadequate food under all circumstances for everyoneunder their jurisdiction. That means that states haveto respect physical and economic access to adequatefood or to a resource base appropriate for itsacquisition. The obligation to respect require alsothat the state must not take political or othermeasures destroying existing access by parts (speciallyvulnerable parts) of the populations to food or to aresource base like food producing resources. Secondly(2), the States parties have to protect everyone undertheir jurisdiction from having their access to foodundermined by a third party. The obligation toprotect includes the state’s responsibility to ensurethat private entities or individuals, includingtransnational corporations over which they exercisejurisdiction, do not deprive individuals of their accessto adequate food. This involves the protection of thefreedom to feed oneself and the use of resources toregulate other actors, through, inter alia, the adoptionof legislation and administrative measures thatprotect the access to adequate food. It means also toguarantee that the food available is healthy andculturally acceptable. Protection against nutritionaldisinformation also belongs to this level of obligation.

Finally (3), whenever an individual or group is unableto enjoy the right to adequate food, states have theobligation to fulfil that right. This requires first thatthe States parties identify vulnerable populationswithin their jurisdiction. Secondly the states have totry their utmost by using the maximum of theiravailable resources to ensure the long-term ability ofpeople to realise this right for themselves. States aremoreover under the obligation to immediately startwith the resources available to guarantee ESC-rights.All States Parties to the Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights are under the obligationto take immediate steps to fulfil their obligationsunder the Covenant. The obligation to achieveprogressively the full realisation of the right toadequate food (Art. 2, ICESCR) requires State Partiesto move as expeditiously as possible towards itsrealisation (Limburg Principles). This obligation alsoapplies to persons who are victims of natural or otherdisasters. Nevertheless, there will always be groups orindividuals who cannot make use of possibilities tofeed themselves. For this group the obligation to fulfilalso means providing adequate food. Failure toperform any one of these three obligations constitutesa violation of human rights. Economic, social andcultural rights must be guaranteed withoutdiscrimination as to national or social origin,property, race, gender, language, religion, political orother opinion.

Even in the case where a state faces severe resourceconstraints, whether caused by a process of economicadjustment, economic recession or other factors,vulnerable persons are entitled to be protected throughsocial programs directed to facilitate their access toadequate food and fulfil their nutritional needs. Allstates have the duty to satisfy a minimum coreobligation, which means that everyone is, as a

28

minimum, free from hunger. Additionally governmentsshould devise policies and programmes oriented to thefull realisation of the right to adequate food. Priorityshould be given, as far as possible, to local and regionalsources of food in planning food security policies,including under emergency conditions.

A rights approach for the work of developmentcooperation requires orienting development policiesor programmes in a way that they become fullysupportive of the requirements for theimplementation of the right to adequate food in adouble sense. First, development cooperation shouldguarantee that the majority of the resources investedin the food and nutrition field is directed towards therequirements mentioned above. Additionally, allprogrammes and policies should be developed in away consistent with the standards deriving form theright to adequate food. On the second level a rightsapproach requires use of the resources available bysupporting states to fully guarantee the right toadequate food. A rights approach also meansdevelopment of a dialogue with states that are notcomplying with their obligations under the right toadequate food.

International cooperation in the text of theCovenant (Articles 11.1, 11.2 and 2.1) refers to bothobligations that states parties have with respect totheir international cooperation concerning theimplementation of the right to adequate food in othercountries and to the responsibilities and roleinternational organizations have towards the fullrealization of the rights enshrined in the Covenant.

The role of development cooperation starts, whena state is not able to comply with its obligations, evenif the reason for the non-compliance is grounded inexternal shocks (economic, climatic ones, etc.) or oninternal problems caused by political, economic or

other developments. There are basically five rolesdevelopment cooperation can take in supporting theimplementation of the right to adequate food. Thefirst three roles are linked to positive elements ofsupport for the implementation of the right. The lasttwo describe the responsibilities of developmentcooperation in minimizing possible negativeoutcomes of policies or on the ability of states tocomply with their human rights obligations.

Positive and negative roles:

(1) Development cooperation can help states whichare resource poor and unable to guarantee theright to adequate food and the right to freedomfrom hunger for all its citizens, whethertemporary, periodic or long term. The supportcan be in kind or in cash, as technical or financialsupport or as advisory service. The possibility ofreceiving support should not help states – evenresource poor ones – to escape from theirimmediate obligations under the right to adequatefood to use the maximum of available resources asexpeditiously as possible.

(2) Development cooperation can give legal, politicalor administrative advice to states which are notcomplying with their obligations under the rightto adequate food, even if they could adoptadequate policies. The reasons for inadequatepolicies can be manifold such as influential lobby-groups, unwillingness to make necessary changes,missing knowledge about the possible impact ofcertain policies and programmes etc.

(3) The third role lies in the active support orpromotion of the right to adequate food.Development cooperation can promote activelythe full implementation of that right by advising

29

states, by analysing and making known problemswith the implementation of that right, byencouraging and supporting important actorsinside governments but also inside the societies.

(4) A fourth role would be that developmentcooperation has to ensure that donors’ ownpolicies and programmes do not limit states inimplementing the right to adequate food.Development cooperation can create options aswell as limiting choices of governments throughconditionalities. In that sense developmentcooperation influences the policies available togovernments and is under these circumstancestherefore co-responsible for the possible problemsin the implementation of the rights. Theresponsibility exists also with the governments’position and decisions in internationalorganisations, such as the World Bank, that mayinfluence country policies.

(5) On a fifth level development cooperation shouldmonitor donors’ own government policies andprogrammes in other policy fields like trade andfinance to guarantee that these do not contributeto violations of the right to adequate food in othercountries.

International organisations have co-responsibilities inthe implementation of ESC-Rights. There is so farlittle clarity about a precise description of what theCovenant demands of states in developmentcooperation. The CESCR is more and more precisein interpreting the provisions in a manner that definesdevelopment cooperation as a binding obligation.The CESCR is also encouraging states during statereporting procedures to highlight in which areas othereffects or actors are severely limiting states abilities to

implement these rights. These are the first steps ingetting a binding understanding on the content of theobligations to international cooperation contained inthe Covenant.

The increasing interdependence andinterrelatedness of national economies are increasingthe sensitivity and vulnerability of every society tointernational trends and developments. These trendscan even limit or diminish considerably the ability ofstates to deliver on national policies in a way that areconducive to the implementation of food andnutrition rights. On the other hand it is importantthat states do not misuse any globalisation rhetoric todistract from their own unwillingness to implementthe rights at home by using the “maximum of theavailable resources” in Article 2 as an excuse.

It is of utmost importance for an adequateunderstanding of ESC-Rights to clarify therelationship between ESC-Rights and economicdevelopment. Any rights approach to ESC-Rights isconfronted with some basic assumptions on thenature of the relation between economicdevelopment and the enjoyment of ESC-Rightswhich first have to be answered to create space for abetter understanding of ESC-Rights.

(1) The first is the traditional assumption thateconomic growth will in the long run help statesto foster economic and social development, but aslong as states are poor they need to have lowsocial standards as a comparative advantage.While implementing policies is obviously alwayseasier for wealthy than for poor states, theargument is still based on the trickle down myth,that economic growth will in the long runautomatically lead to social development and theend of poverty. This is neither true at national norat international levels. Growing income disparities

30

between and among nations have been a trend fora long period. To change that trend policydecisions are needed. As long as ESC-Rights areviolated and people are hungry or without shelter,it is not only a mere moral issue of social justicebut also a clear cut violation of human rightswhich requires governments to act. Moreover,talking about state obligations does not mean onlytalking about costly investments, it is first andforemost talking about respect and protection ofpeoples’ existing access to food etc. ImplementingESC-Rights is not an issue of comparativeadvantages but of respect for human rights.

(2) Very prominent is the second assumption thatthe implementation of ESC-Rights will alwaysbe costly and that like all policy decisions takenunder conditions of scarcity, one has to makehard decisions on the use of scarce resources i.e.to judge which of the ESC-Rights have to comefirst because poor states do not have theresources to implement all rights at the sametime. This argument has recently been promotedeloquently by Amartya Sen and has found itsway into the Human Development Report 2000(HDR) in the discussion of the rights approachto development. The use of this argument showsthat only the obligation to fulfill rights found itsway into the HDR with the limitedunderstanding of ESC-Rights as implementableonly progressively. This argument neglects theobligations under the ICESCR to protect rightsby not forcible evicting people, by notdiscriminating in the access to the health systemfor women or minorities and so on. These arenot costly – they only require policy makingbased on a human rights framework.

(3) The third of the economic development argumentsis often used publicly by the USA as a rationale forits opposition to ESC-Rights. The argument is thatthe implementation of ESC-Rights requires goodeconomic policies. If an enabling environment iscreated, the realization of ESC-Rights is seen asonly a matter of time. Therefore according to theargument the implementation of ESC-Rightscannot be seen as a binding obligation because itwould then limit the state’s possibilities to choosethe best policies for an enabling environment (e.g.the fastest growth). The argument neitherrecognizes the negative character of obligationslinked to ESC-Rights nor that ESC-Rights aredirectly justiciable. In case of hunger andmalnutrition, the states are obliged to immediatelyguarantee freedom from hunger. The GeneralComment on the right to adequate food points outthat states have to prove that they haveunsuccessfully sought to obtain international help ifthey are unable to implement the right to freedomfrom hunger immediately. Moreover, the centralpart of the argument is not convincing in claimingthat ESC-rights prescribe specific policies limitingstates’ options to choose the best policies. ESC-Rights do not require specific policy measures orprogrammes. They only require checking theresults of policies. If the number of violations of acertain ESC-Right is increasing, if theimplementation is not progressive, if maximumavailable resources are used not to implement therights, then other policies should be considered andused. Therefore ESC-Rights are also important fordevelopment cooperation, because they providecriteria to check the quality of government policieswith respect to their development orientation.ESC-Rights as guidelines for development policies

31

The role that ESC-Rights can play in providingdirection for development policies can be summarizedin seven elements of a rights approach.

1. ESC-Rights set minimum standards for statebehaviour, concerning rule of law, accountabilityof government actions etc. It is therefore areference framework for a policy dialogue or fornegotiation with a recipient country.

2. ESC-Rights are very relevant for specific groupsthat are vulnerable to violations or a neglect oftheir rights. Groups like indigenous communities,landless persons, the elderly are in some countriesoften victims of violations of the right to adequatefood. A rights approach will start out byidentifying the specific vulnerable groups withrespect to the implementation of a specific ESC-Right.

3. A rights approach to ESC-Rights will makedevelopment cooperation sensitive tocircumstances where certain actions will be criticalin ending violations of a specific right. Theimplementation of the right to adequate foodrequire in this respect a high sensitivity to issues ofland tenure, security of access to land, landdistribution and agrarian reform issues.

4. A rights approach needs as a precondition theright and the possibility of people concerned tocomplain and to hold their governmentaccountable. Access to complaints procedures isessential for accountability. Also essential are theprinciples of participation and empowerment toenable people to enter into a dialogue with theirgovernment.

5. A rights approach can be supported throughprojects which are specifically designed to help

victim groups or broader groups of affectedperson. These include legal aid projects, forexample, access to juridical or legal advisoryservices etc.

6. A rights approach can and should lead toadditional activities in the field of education,training and building of knowledge networks bothin developing countries and in the donorcountries. A rights based approach can thusincrease the legitimacy of development policybecause development cooperation is than basedon an internationally recognized and acceptedframework of human rights.

7. A rights based approach will requirecomplementary advocacy work to support thework of victims or other affected groups inholding their government accountable. It will alsorequire holding ones own development policiesand programmes accountable to ESC-Rights.

The seven areas require an integration of theseelements into project work. This will haveimplications for the design, the planning, the specificissues or target groups of projects. A rights approachrequires support for the interested actors indeveloping countries to hold their governmentsaccountable.

An illustrative list of issues that should beintegrated in the rights approach to the right toadequate food appears below. The implementation ofthe right to adequate food requires steps to be takenby all appropriate means, including in particular theadoption of legislative measures, supported by thenecessary administrative capacity. Developmentcooperation has normally already taken a bunch ofmeasures to promote food security at different levels.But very few measures are designed explicitly to

32

support the implementation of the rights to food andnutrition. The following list of means and measureswhich can help to better implement the right toadequate food focuses on those measures which couldbe explicitly linked to a rights approach.

The role of development cooperation in fosteringthe implementation of the right to adequate food canbe described more precisely by following the differentlevels of state obligations. The FAO in its backgroundpaper in December 1997 presented a food securitymatrix which also follows the three levels ofobligations. The FAO has used the food securitymatrix to assign its own policies and programmes tothe different levels of obligations.

(A) Concerning the obligation to respect

Production-related– Steps to ensure access to food producing resources

require establishing and maintaining of landregistries, respecting the usage of ancestral landsparticularly by indigenous peoples, and preventingforced eviction or resettlement. Developmentcooperation can help to develop a nationalmonitoring system, identify the most importantregions and areas with problems of access toproductive resources. If forced evictions haveoccurred, development cooperation can supportstates in relocating the affected group of thepopulation and in paying for adequaterehabilitation.

– Change and innovation in farming systems mustgive due respect to traditional farming practices.Measures must be adopted to ensure sustainablepatterns of production, preventing soil and waterpollution and protecting the fertility of the soil,

the biodiversity of genetic resources and theclimate. Development cooperation can supportstates in complying with these obligations.

– Access to productive resources should existwithout discrimination and with the availabilityof work with remuneration which provides for adecent living for wage earners and their families.Women should have full and equal access toeconomic resources, including the right toinheritance and the ownership of land and otherproperty, credit, natural resources andappropriate technology, if necessary guaranteedby legislative and administrative reforms. Allthese measures can be promoted by developmentcooperation.

Distribution-relatedDevelopment cooperation can become active both onthe national as well as the international level. At thenational level it can support, advice or recommendpolicies with objectives like:– Ensuring that local food producers have access to

markets for their products.

– Steps to ensure satisfactory access to food shouldinclude measures to respect and protect self-employment.

– The rights of vendors (like street vendors,hawkers, petty traders etc.) should bestrengthened.

– Ensuring that tax-policies do not negatively affectpeople living at the subsistence level.

At the international level it can help document andchallenge possible negative effects of trade embargosjeopardizing the vital food supply of other state’spopulation.

33

Consumption-relatedSteps to ensure adequate consumption of foodshould include measures to respect and promotetraditional food (production) patterns. The role ofdevelopment cooperation in respect to this objectivecan be major by giving technical (knowledge) andfinancial support.

(B) Concerning the obligation to protect

Production-relatedThe special tasks of development cooperation underthe obligation to protect could be manifold

– Support or promotion of land registers, ofminimum wage policies for workers and theirfamilies, of traditional farming, of the protectionof the right to adequate food of future generationby helping to safeguard the conservation of soil,fertility, biodiversity of genetic resources etc.

– A very important part of the problems of thenon-agricultural population are issues like theright to organize collectively and to join andestablish trade unions. Development cooperationcan help to create an atmosphere conducive tocivil-society participation.

– In their own policies and programmesdevelopment cooperation should guarantee thatno measures are implemented leading toresettlement without equivalent compensation.

Distribution-related– Dumping of food products from other countries

which undermine market opportunities for localproducers must be prevented.

Consumption-relatedDevelopment cooperation should help states andguarantee that their own programmes and policiesare pursued in a way to establish and implementlegislation for food safety control and for theprotection of consumers from nutritionaldisinformation and commercial fraud.

– Products included in international food aidprograms must be nutritionally safe and culturallyacceptable to the recipient population.

(C) Concerning the obligation to fulfill

Production-relatedDevelopment cooperation can help considerably tobetter the access to productive resources of groupscurrently having problems with this access or whichare excluded:

– Agrarian reforms must provide vulnerablesmallholders and landless peasants with access toland. Linked to agrarian reform are measures likeoffering credit facilities, marketing support etc. toproducers.

– Support for economic activities creating self-employment of persons and families living in theinformal sector.

Distribution-related– Local food storage and distribution should be

promoted and enhanced.

– The development of local and regional agro-industries stimulating the rural economy is animportant step towards the realisation of the rightto adequate food.

34

– Helping states and securing an end to corruptionand commercial fraud.

Consumption-relatedDevelopment cooperation can support states and canguarantee that in their own policies the infrastructurefor local food storage and distribution is functioningto allow rural and urban food systems to functioneffectively.

Development cooperation must never pressure astate or other international organizations to violatethe human right to adequate food. Developmentcooperation should be accountable under theinternational provisions relevant to the human rightto adequate food and should submit to similarstandards of transparency, public control andfreedom of information as individual states. People’saccess to adequate food must be respected andprotected by development cooperation. Moreover,development cooperation should support states inprotecting and fulfilling people’s access to adequatefood.

Development cooperation must guarantee thatwhile negotiating international treaties, donors’ owngovernments ensure that nothing in the treaties willoverride state obligations under the right to adequatefood or more general ESC-Rights.

One of the biggest challenges to developmentcooperation in a strategy for a better implementationof the right to adequate food will be to create betterco-ordination and coherence between the differentprogrammes and policies promoted by the samegovernment. Problems with coherence can occur onall levels, whether in macro economic policies or inregional or sectoral policies. Donor countries shouldinvestigate the option to establish complaintprocedures, which would allow victims of their own

foreign economic policies in other countries (like intrade policies) to complain.

An important part in a strategy for a betterimplementation of the right to adequate food wouldbe an active promotion of the rights approach. Thisinclude publications, regular documentation ofviolations of the right to adequate food, support tothe respective monitoring bodies of the UN humanrights system, support for new international legalinstruments to strengthen the rights to food andnutrition. Economic, social and cultural rights all stillfacing neglect inside the UN-system and also outside.To promote the right to adequate food in therespective environments can help to change theunderstanding of that right considerably. Nationalimplementation (e.g. in terms of legislation) is of theutmost importance in strengthening theimplementation of the right to adequate food. In thisrespect development cooperation can help states indeveloping adequate legislation and the respectiveadministrative skills. International organizations canalso widen the support to civil society groups whichare working in favour of implementing the right toadequate food.

ESC-Rights and other actors

Globalization has brought problems with therealization of ESC-rights in general and the right toadequate food in particular when the state’s abilityto implement human rights is diminished. There arebasically three processes which are contributing to adecline in states resources to implement ESC-Rights: (a) the development of a set of newinternational rules, regulations, policies andprogrammes, (b) the growing influence of policies of

35

other states on national development, (c) thegrowing importance of actors other than states,especially in the economic sphere. One loophole inthe international protection of human rights iscaused by the human rights system so farconcentrating on the state as the principal dutyholder under international law. If other actorsbecome more important, new regulations will haveto be found to bind their activities to theinternationally recognized human rights standards.

The influence of new rules, policies andprogrammes can have two directions: they can besupportive for the realization of ESC-rights, butthey can be at the same time of negative influenceon states’ capacity to guarantee ESC-rights. It wasthe Copenhagen Declaration and Plan of Actionthat specifically asked the international communityto ensure that the social and economic impact ofStructural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) wereminimized. Some endeavours have succeeded inminimizing the most negative impacts of thoseprogrammes but still the effects are often negative,whether in the overall amount of governmentmoney directed for social priority areas, or a toorapid approach to market liberalization, which can,for example, put small farmers at a very high riskof being forced out of production when theycannot compete with cheap imports. If noadequate support is given to the affected sectors ofsociety by those changes, especially vulnerablegroups of the society will be at much higher risksof poverty than before.

One has to also discuss possible negativeoutcomes on the enjoyment of human rightscaused by external policy effects of anothercountry. One example is the possible negativeeffects of EU agricultural trade policies on small

farmers’ access to markets in African countries.The EU policies are based on the use of hugeamount of export subsidies, putting small farmersin other countries at risk. The Committee on ESC-Rights has just started to discuss such policyimpacts when discussing the human rights reportof countries. So far violations of ESC-Rights as atransnational policy outcome has not been dealtwith in the human rights system.

The importance of private actors is alsoincreasing. They do have responsibilities under theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights to respecthuman rights. Their new importance comes fromtheir economic power, which may allow them topressure governments to adopt standards orlegislation more favourable for them and possiblyhindering governments in implementing theirhuman rights obligations. If governments are in avery competitive economic environment it may bedifficult for them to strictly abide by their humanrights obligations.

Most of the considerations presented in thispaper are not new. The basic premise is that arights approach is also needed for ESC-Rights. Arights approach needs to be taken carefully intoconsideration by each donor and has to be appliedto the different programmes and policiesimplemented by the respective donor country. It isimportant not to confuse a rights approach toESC-Rights with general economic developmentplanning. The most important single argument infavour of a rights approach is that it changes thesituation of the beneficiary or the beneficiarygroups. These are no longer aid recipients but theyare empowered to hold the responsible actorsaccountable to human rights standards. They thusbecome rights holders.

36

The Rights of the Child inDevelopment WorkEva Geidenmark, Save the Children Sweden (Rädda Barnen)

Introduction

Save the Children Sweden, (Rädda Barnen) wasfounded in 1919. We are a non-governmentalorganisation, independent of political party orreligion. Our funds come from membership fees,donors, sponsors and the Swedish government. Wehave a programme in Sweden mainly focussing onawareness-raising. Through our Europeanprogramme we support national NGOs in Easternand Central Europe. The aim is to develop skillswithin national child rights organisations. Also, agreat deal of work is presently being directed towardsinfluencing the European Union to put the rights ofthe child on their agenda, particularly in theenlargement process of new countries.

At the international level, outside of Europe, Savethe Children Sweden has nine regional offices and anumber of national offices in four continents. We seekpartnership with like-minded organisations and groupsof individuals in order to build a global movement forthe realisation of the rights of the child. Ourmembership in the International Save the ChildrenAlliance, represented in more than a hundred countriesaround the world, is an important part of this strategy.

Our work is based on the UN Convention on theRights of the Child (CRC), adopted by the UnitedNations in 1989 and ratified by 191 countries, all butthe USA and Somalia. The CRC rests on fourprinciples which forms an approach to the rights of thechild that should guide our work. All children shouldenjoy their rights, no child should suffer discrimination.In all actions concerning children their interests should

be seen as important. The child has not only the rightto survive but also to develop. And finally, the CRC statesthat the child has the right to express her or his views in allmatters affecting her and him and to be listened to.

One of Rädda Barnen’s tasks is to contribute tothe development of a strong civil society whichrespects and values each child. The civil society hasan important role to play as a watchdog for theimplementation of the rights of the child and inassisting governments to meet their obligations. Inour programme, there are interventions at all levels ofsociety: grassrots level, local government level,national level, regional level and global level.

Key features of the approach ofSave the Children Sweden

The international programme of Save the ChildrenSweden is divided into three sub-programmes:– Interpretation, dissemination, monitoring and

training on the Convention on the Rights of theChild (CRC)

– Children in armed conflict and displacement andin emergency situations, for example refugeechildren, separated children and child soldiers

– Socially and economically especially vulnerablechildren, for example children in harmful labour,children in conflict with the law and childrenexposed to violence

Children with disabilities are maintstreamed into theabove groups.

In relation to the first sub-programme“Interpretation, dissemination, monitoring andtraining on the CRC” one of its main objectives is to

37

ensure a child rights-approach in the internationalprogramme of Save the Children Sweden. Oneimportant tool in achieving this objective is childrights programming.

The principles underlying child rights programming,which in many aspects of course, are similar to thoseused in human rights programming, have been definedby Save the Children as being the following ones:

1. children are seen as holders of rights

2. the notion of duty bearers

3. the four principles of the CRC (see above)

4. the indivisibility of rights

5. the notion of non-conditionality

The work of Save the Children Sweden at any levelof society should be based on an assessment of thesituation of the rights of child made in relation to theabove-mentioned principles. When making theseassessments an important overall aspect is the culturalcontext and the understanding of traditions andother features that affect the way the rights of thechild are interpreted and understood.

Furthermore, in order to be able to make ourpriorities, we have elaborated strategies for the sub-programmes on Children in armed conflict anddisplacement and in emergency situations andSocially and economically especially vulnerablechildren mentioned above. These two strategies areunderpinned by a number of inter-linked operationalprinciples which should characterize ourinterventions. Among these principles the followingones could be highligthed:

– child–focus

– community-based

– rights-based

– participatory

– gender-sensitive

– mainstreaming of the right of thechild with disabilities

When we have made our priorities, our interventionsare undertaken in the following areas:

– studies and reports

– support to practical projects (mainlythrough local NGOs)

– advocacy

At advocacy level, we favour a multisectoral approachas often various sectors in society are responsible forthe non-fulfillment of the rights of the child. We alsotry to support and develop networks of local NGOsin order to gather knowledge and be able to makestrong and concerted efforts.

What changes has the rights-approach entailedfor Save the Children Sweden?

Save the Children Sweden is still in the process ofchanging from a mainly needs-based to a rights-basedorganisation. The changes that this shift of emphasishave entailed for Save the Children Sweden could befind at organisational level as well as when it comes tomethods of work, design of projects, etc. Some ofthese changes are summarized below:

– thematic approach instead of only countryfocussed

– choice of partners

38

– role of Save the Children, from implementingown projects to supporting local NGOs

– emphasis on lobbying and opinion-building

– research and studies

– documentation and dissemination of experiences

– networking

– other target groups than children and parents

– becoming more political

– new capacities and competencies within theorganisation

– new policies and procedures within theorganisation

Debates and dilemmas

It would be incomplete to talk about a child rights-based approach without mentioning some of thedebates and dilemmas that we have to face. One is“How can the Convention on the Rights of the Childbe implemented in places where there is no functionallegal system?” Another “How can the Convention onthe Rights of the Child be implemented where thegovernment capacity is very weak or almost non-existant?”. Or “Is there a contradiction between theidea of fixed universal human rights and the culturalattitudes to children?” “Are parents rights in conflictwith the rights of the child?” “The Convention onthe Rights of the Child is based on Western notionsof childhood”.

Another set of dilemmas that we have to confrontare those related to setting up realistic goals andmeasurable results that could be easily communicatedto and understood by our members, donors and

sponsors. They want to see the impact on the child,which in many cases is difficult to measure when youractivities are focussed on changes of legislation,policies and attitudes.

We try to constantly address questions like thesewhen adopting a child-rights approach. Thechallenge is to find appropriate ways of workingwhich take into account the complexities andspecificities of the situation without diluting the spiritof the Convention on the Rights of the Child as laiddown in the four general principles.

Rights-based Relief & DevelopmentAssistance: An Essay on What ItMeans for CAREAndrew Jones, Program Advisor on Human Rights, CARE International

What is a rights approach for CARE?

CARE is committed to integrating a human rights-based approach in all our programming. WithinCARE, such an approach has been defined asfollows: “A rights-based approach deliberately andexplicitly focuses on people achieving the minimumconditions for living with dignity. It does so byexposing the root causes of vulnerability andmarginalization and expanding the range ofresponses. It empowers people to claim and exercisetheir rights and fulfill their responsibilities. A rights-based approach recognizes poor people as havinginherent rights essential to livelihood security – rightsthat are validated by international standards andlaws.”

From CARE’s perspective, some basic elements ofa rights approach include the following:

39

1. Respecting and fostering the inherent dignity andworth of the human person. A rights approach ispeople-centered, recognizes the right of all peopleto be the primary architects of their own futures,and supports the full realization of humanpotential. It calls for the intended beneficiaries toplay an active, lead role – to the maximum extentpossible – throughout the program cycle. Thismeans a renewed commitment to informationsharing, consultation, and the accountability thatcomes from opening up to ongoing scrutiny, fromtaking the time to listen to the grievances, ideas,and aspirations of the people we serve.

2. Respecting and fostering the equal dignity andworth of all. A rights approach finds unacceptableand will challenge unequal opportunity,treatment, and access between different groups ina community or a society.

3. Raising awareness of human rights is prerequisiteto their achievement. Rights-based programmingrealizes this and promotes rights education anddialogue. Moreover, it calls for building localcapacities to engage all relevant actors in inclusive,participatory processes through which the rights ofall will be respected, protected, and fulfilled. Tofacilitate such processes, a rights approachpromotes decision-making structures – at all levels– which are transparent and accountable.

4. Appreciating that all rights impose duties, legallyon States and morally on all of us. A rightsapproach holds all of us responsible forrespecting, protecting, and fulfilling human rights.When rights are not respected, protected orfulfilled, a rights approach challenges duty-holdersto live up to their obligations. With primaryaccountability falling on States, this implies

confronting a range of harmful policies andpractices of government counterparts and donors.

5. Recognizing that injustices at all levels – i.e.failures to respect, protect, and fulfill humanrights – are often at the roots of poor anddisplaced persons’ insecurity, social isolation, andunderdevelopment. A rights approach calls forcareful assessment of why rights are not beinghonored and consideration of how thoseresponsible can be persuaded to take appropriateaction.

What are the practical implications ofembracing a rights approach?

The implications depend on how an organizationintegrates, in its operations, a commitment to humanrights. It may be helpful to consider two approaches.The first could be termed a “violations” and the seconda “promotional” approach. The former focuses ondenouncing violations of human rights and onenforcement through legal remedies. The latteremphasizes positive ways to engage governments,important non-state actors, civil society organizations,and poor, marginalized communities themselves in thepursuit of rights through cooperation, education,dialogue and advocacy. While both of theseapproaches are necessary, CARE generally is adoptingthe latter, promotional approach. Some logicalimplications of this approach, in terms of programevolution, are likely to include the following:

At a general level, CARE would make explicit itscommitment to respect, protect, promote, and fulfillhuman rights within an adapted set of principlesguiding its programs worldwide. This suggests that wewill hold ourselves accountable for the impact we have

40

both on people’s achievement of their economic andsocial rights and on their enjoyment of other rights.

Operationally, CARE would ally itself increasinglywith others in civil society to work, at all levels, towardshared understanding of rights and common rights-based relief and development goals. CARE and ourallies would advocate increasingly for institutions,cultural and legal norms, policies, and practices that aretransparent and socially responsible, and that respect,protect and fulfill the human rights of the people weserve. Even as CARE continues to value and practiceneutrality between warring or political parties, genuinerespect for local culture and, in general, collaborationwith governing authorities, we would hold thoseresponsible for rights abuses accountable by engagingthem in dialogue and working steadfastly for positivechange in their attitudes, policies, and practices.

At a more specific level, CARE would continue torefine program planning, assessment, design,monitoring, evaluation and reflection to incorporate arights perspective. This may include more explicit,systematic emphasis on:

– Developing additional mechanisms and guidancefor deepening community participationthroughout the program cycle;

– Examining human rights conditions, structuraland societal barriers to rights realization, andopportunities for addressing the gaps at theplanning and program design phases;

– Measuring impact (in the sector(s) of focus andcross-sectorally) against rights-based standards;

– Further disaggregating data – by sex, age,geographic, ethnic or social origin, etc. – todiagnose and monitor degrees of marginalizationand exclusion;

– Continuing to develop quantitative and qualitativeindicators for measuring program impact relatedto empowerment, participation, and legal andpolicy reform.

How is CARE integrating a rights approach?

Although a topic of discussion for several years,CARE officially launched a human rights initiative in1998. The initiative is intended to deepenorganizational understanding, ownership, andapplication of a rights approach. Activities areorganized under four strategic objectives: 1) Raiseawareness and promote shared understanding of arights approach as it applies to CARE’s work; 2) Buildstaff capacity to apply a rights approach in theformulation, design, implementation, and evaluationof CARE’s programs; 3) Ensure that CARE’sprinciples, policies, and systems facilitate rights-basedprogramming; and 4) Forge strategic alliances topromote mutual learning and further commonobjectives. For a recent update on activities underwayand progress toward achieving these four objectives,please see the attached report.

INFID’s Experience with Human RightsAdvocacy and Bilateral DonorsSugeng Bahagijo, International Non-government Forum on

Indonesian Development

Introduction

As soon as Soeharto assumed power in the late 1960s,donors set up the Inter Governmental Group on

41

Indonesia which consisted of major industrialcountries and was chaired by the Netherlands. TheIGGI which met regularly to evaluate the economicprogress of Indonesia and decide on further assistanceand loans, was dissolved in 1992 due to Soeharto’sanger over the Netherlands’s criticism of the Dilimassacre. It was replaced by the Consultative GroupOn Indonesia (CGI) chaired by the World Bank.

INFID (and then the INGI) was created in 1985largely because Indonesia’s growth was dependent onforeign support and the repressive political climatemade it extremely difficult for Indonesian NGOs todirectly influence the development policies of theirgovernment. Thus, an international forum likeINFID was necessary to pressure and speak directly tothe powers represented in IGGI, the World Bank andthe IMF.

The dialogue and co-operation among NGOsinside as well as outside Indonesia converge in theINFID Conference and facilitates a platform forcontact and dialogue with governments,multilateral development banks (MDBs) and otherinternational institutions, such as the WTO, APECand others.

INFID maintains a constant emphasis on humanrights issues since these rights in the fullest sense –social, economic, cultural and political – are integral toparticipatory development. INFID has argued that adevelopment model based on the denial of either civilor political rights or social, economic and culturalrights or both does not just violate internationalhuman rights standard, but is also a negation of thevery concept of development. INFID identifies theissue of human rights, people’s participation, poverty,land rights, labor rights, women, as the major issuesthat needs to be addressed, both by donors and theGovernment of Indonesia.

Indonesia and the donor community

For many of the officials donors Indonesia underSoeharto was an emerging market and an importanttrading partner. Indonesia was also a strategic ally inSouth East Asia and a target for democratization withthe human rights agenda falling underdemocratization. Regardless of his dismal records onhuman rights, officials donors preferred not toconfront Soeharto and his generals. The goodmotives and the interests of the donors need to bejudged not on their policy statements or theirrhetoric, but on actual practice. Had the donors puthuman rights above economic and businessopportunities, Indonesian history would have beendifferent.

The East Timor issue was the dominant humanrights case that moved the donors to act and changetheir approach. Canada suspended its aid, theNetherlands strongly protested to Soeharto, the USstopped military relations, etc. The establishment ofKomnasHam (the national commission on humanrights) was a result of the Dili Massacre and initiallywas used as a foreign policy instrument to reducecriticism.

In 1994, there had been efforts by the Belgiumgovernment to include human rights criteria in its aidbut the Belgium aid agreement was rejected by theIndonesian government as it contained these criteria.Belgium accepted this quietly.

Japan was the largest bilateral donor and tradingpartner. For more than 30 years its focus was oninfrastructure projects or the economic sector –ports, roads, etc. In 1996, new areas in the socialsector such poverty alleviation, public health,education was given another priority. Japan’s ODAcharter makes reference to human rights. But in

42

reality, it is difficult to see any concrete program inIndonesia.

The donors’ approach (by Europe, North Americaand Australia) was mainly to give funding andassistance to key human rights and developmentNGOs working on human rights, legal aid, landrights, etc.

The position of bilateral donors was also affectedor influenced by multilateral donors such as the WorldBank. Until the crisis in 1997, the Bank continued toprovide a good assessment of Indonesia’s economystatus and gave additional loans, despite gross andwidespread violations of human rights. The Bankmaintains that they fulfill economic and social rightsthrough the poverty and development program. TheBank also sees civil and political rights as ‘political’ andoutside their mandate.

Human rights concerns are sometime raised bycertain donors (the US and EU for instance) duringCGI meeting, but this has hardly stopped or changedanything. The Country Strategy focuses mostly oneconomy growth and infrastructure development. It isarrived at without broad consultation with NGOs andcivil society groups. Human rights are only secondaryconcerns in the donors’ Country Strategies. Includinghuman rights issues is perceived as an unwarrantedintervention and as risking the good relationship withIndonesia as was the case of the Netherlands in 1992.

The situation since the fall of Soeharto andthe economic crisis

In the post Soeharto era, Indonesia has enjoyed thepolitical freedom and civil liberties that had beendenied for 32 years. But Indonesia is also plagued bymuch instability that originates from the remnants of

Soeharto Era: the dominant role of the military, pasthuman rights violations, the KKN issue, the rise ofseparatism after three decades of centralization, etc.

At the same time, the effects of crisis havecontinued to be felt by the Indonesian people.Indonesia post crisis has 50% of households poor andnear poor (the World Bank). 30% (of 200 million)children under 5 are malnourished, 40 million poorpeople, more than 15% unemployed, more than 2million children will become “the lost generation”because of lack of food, lack of education (UNICEFreport 1999). The huge debt burden (100% of GDP)of public debt (external and domestic) service hasconsumed significant government revenues andmakes the government budget too small to protect thepoor and the disadvantage.

During the short Habibie period (1998–1999),INFID opposed any CGI meetings on the groundthat Habibie’s is not a legitimate government. Donorscontinued to hold the meeting on the grounds thatthe meeting will benefit the new government inNovember 1999. INFID also exposed corruptioncases (at least 53) of the Social Safety Net program(subsidized rice, micro credit, scholarship, schooloperational cost, etc) loaned by the World Bank thatforced the World Bank and Government to improvethe design and delivery system of the program.

After President Gus Dur came to power(November 1999), INFID was invited formally asobserver to the CGI meeting in February 2000.President Gus Dur himself is a former INFIDsteering committee and advisory board member. Inthe last CGI meeting in Tokyo, INFID was invited asan observer. Indonesian and donors are pleased withIndonesia’s transition to democracy: In Februarydonors pledged 4,7 billion. In 2001, donors areplanning to pledge around 4,8 billion.

43

Some observations:After the crisis, the focus of all donors was oneconomic recovery and protection for the poorthrough social safety net programs, improvedgovernance and strengthening democracy.

During Habibie’s time, most donors weresupporting the election process (civic education,election monitoring, etc).

The IMF and the World Bank played major rolein macro and donor coordination.

Some of the donors consulted INFID in buildingtheir country strategy. Donors now put emphasis ongovernance (including military and corruption),poverty and support for key civil society groups.

Donors are fully aware of the need and urgencyto include human rights. Donor also more articulateconcerning human rights. Despite support andfunding for KomnasHam (the National HumanRights Commission) and other NGOs/ working onhuman rights, there has not been a systematic effortto incorporate human rights into the over all countrystrategy.

Lessons and insights

Because of their limited influence inside Indonesia,Indonesian NGOs and their partners outsideIndonesia established INGI/INFID. Since then,INFID has been able to gain access and recognitionfrom the donors (bilateral and multilateral) to holdthem accountable.

Dialogue and communications with donors areimportant. But to convince donors to act positively onissues of concern is a challenge for INFID. INFIDhas used civil, political, economic and social rights asthe basis for accountability as well as indicators of

development for both donors and the government ofIndonesia. The ability to have access to governmentsand donors in industrialized countries – including tothe World Bank – is in itself an achievement given theIndonesian context. INFID believes that thisengagement needs to be maintained. But thechallenge is how to make better and strongerarguments and to make donors and governmentsaccountable for their policies.

In many case, INFID has not been able toconvince these. But working through alliances withlocal, national and international, NGOs havestrengthened their voice. As shown in the case ofKedung Ombo Dam advocacy, it is crucial to havenorthern allies to change donors’ minds or to pressthe donors to take positive steps.

The setting of donors’ country strategies mustinclude participation and consultation by allstakeholders including the NGOs of the country. Thequality and the quantity of aid and the motivation foraid should be based on internationally acceptednorms. The ICCPR and IESCR provides the legalbasis, which the donors and the recipient countriesshould uphold and implement. The dilemma betweennational ownership and the donors’ agenda can bebridged or reconciled by using existing internationalhuman rights standards.

During the time before the economic crisis,multilateral donors had an overly optimistic andmisleading picture of the Indonesian economy. Thecrisis provided the momentum for political change inIndonesia and a rethink of the national and globaldevelopment model. Human rights based developmentand people-oriented development could be relevantstarting point for the development community. Civiland political rights, and economic and social rights arevery much the relevant instruments to promote

44

development and to combat poverty. The right tohealth, education, job and housing are all legitimaterights, not just legitimate needs.

Democracy and the basic freedoms – freedom ofspeech, assembly and association – are necessary forthe people to participate in the development process.But it is imperative for genuine development that theybe complemented with the realizations of economicand social rights.

Practical recommendations for donors

There are ways to improve the quality and quantityof aid, and especially to integrate human rightsobjectives. In the case of Indonesia, donors could setup human rights partnership programs in acoordinated effort by all donors to promote humanrights – civil and political as well as economic andsocial rights. This program could be modeled on thepartnership programs on governance – civil servicereform, judiciary, anti corruption etc –initially fundedfrom grants from the World Bank and UNDP.

Donor’s country strategy should integrate andpromote the realization and protection of economicand social rights as a legal basis to address povertyand inequality by:

– including civil, economic, political and socialrights indicators in programs;

– budgeting for social spending, for example healthand education;

– taking account of the impact of debt servicing onpoverty, social spending and public investment.

Donors should consult civil society on the drafting oftheir country strategy and strengthen their own

capacity by appointing human rights officers inheadquarters as well as in country offices.

Donors should support and strengthen the workof civil society and people’s organizations inpromoting land rights.

Donors should establish trust fund for humanrights, initiate a public dialogue, research andadvocacy on economic and social rights.

Human Rights and HumanitarianEmergencies Juan Almendares, Center for the Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation of

Torture Victims and their Relatives

Purpose:

Our aim is to describe and explain briefly theHonduras situation before, during and afterHurricane Mitch and to consider the human rightssituation and the relation between government, civilsociety and the international donors.

We will use the concept of the body as theorganizing and conceptual structure that is a subjectof change, transformation from inside and outsideand is network of all its parts. A Body has both anessential nature and a history. With respect to theexternal environment it has relations of discontinuityand continuity.

Contents:

Description of Honduras, the Physical, Emotional,Mental, Economic, Political, Social, Ethical,International and Spiritual Bodies.

45

Description of Honduras:

We are situated in the heart of the Central Americaregion with a geographical area of 112.492 squarekilometers. There are six million inhabitants. Theeconomy depends on agricultural exports. Accordingto the World Bank, Honduras is the third poorestcountry in Latin America. Almost 80% of thepopulation is poor. Before Hurricane Mitch, theindigenous and black communities had an illiteracyrate of about 70%, and more than 60% of theinhabitants had no access to health services and manyof then had never been in contact with a medicaldoctor or a nurse.

In the historical sense, Honduras has been acountry in a state of permanent emergency;Hurricane Mitch put the country in an intensive careunit. After this tragedy, there are three possibilities forHonduras: to die; to recover with impairment,disability and handicap; or to be born again and tomeet the challenges of a new future of peace, justiceand respect for human rights. We are struggling forthe third alternative.

We cannot describe the human rights situationwithout considering the recent past and the presentgeopolitical role of Honduras in the Latin Americanregion as well as the ecological destruction beforeand after Hurricane Mitch. As a geopolitical zone,Honduras is close to Cuba, Miami, Chiapas(México), Puerto Rico, Panama and Colombia. Thecountry has frontiers with El Salvador, Guatemalaand Nicaragua. There are two coasts, the Atlanticand the Pacific. From the Caribbean it is close toColombia.

During the 80’s, Honduras became a relevantUS military base and a place for the operation ofthe counterrevolutionary forces of Nicaragua

(Contras). At the present time in spite of the peaceprocess in Central America, Honduras is one ofthe most important U.S. military bases in LatinAmerica. During and after the war in CentralAmerica, drug trafficking and arms smuggling havebeen important issues for this country. In the last 5years, several US military maneuvers have takenplace in Honduras.

The physical body:

This represents the organization and interaction ofthe populations (human, plants, animals and theenvironment). Social injustice reflects on the physicalbody. Before Hurricane Mitch the mostundernourished and diseased people were thecampesinos, the indigenous and the pobladores (poorneighborhoods). Among them the greater impact ofpoverty and violence has been on women andchildren.

Between 60 and 80% of the river basin has beendeforested. The lumber companies, monoculture(banana, cane sugar, coffee and others) and the miningindustry have also contributed to deforestation and thecontamination of the environment with heavy metalscyanide and pesticides.

Poverty creates the condition of violence eitherreactive or proactive. Land reform has been absent.The hungry are induced to sell their bodies andtheir land (prostitution, children traffic andcorruption).

Mitch’s impact was not only due to the intensityof the Hurricane but also to the result of previousdeterioration in ecological and political processes.Mitch killed more than 5,000 people and almost onemillion were left in need of relief. There was great

46

destruction of the basic infrastructure of the country(bridges, roads, banana, corn, beans, coffeeplantations). The cost of the tragedy was 2 billion U.S dollars.

The economic body:

In 1998 (the year of Hurricane Mitch) Honduras’External Debt was 32% (363 million US dollars) ofthe national budget (1147 million US dollars). Morethan 47% of the population lived with an income ofless than one dollar. The servicing of the ExternalDebt represented double the amount invested ineducation, almost four times the amount required forhealth and more than 140 times the investment inculture.

For the year 1999, according to the World Bank andthe Honduras Central Bank, the External Debt is over4400 millions US dollars. After Hurricane Mitch, theeconomic policy of the Honduras Government was toincrease External Debt; the reconstruction process isfavoring the wealthiest people, with more exclusion ofthe poor and a great potential for the development ofviolent confrontations between social groups.

The emotional body:

Resentment, humiliation, anger, fear, panic, terror,insecurity, lack of self-esteem and lack of self-assertive behavior has been the pattern for theHondurans due to poverty, repressive governments,militaristic policies and natural disasters (HurricaneFifi, Tropical Storms and Hurricane Mitch).

Hondurans will only become more confidentthrough partnerships, through face-to face actions and

solidarity, and through national and internationalcooperation with real participation of the people.

The mental body:

This is related to information, knowledge,communication, conscious decisions and will power.Because of the high rate of illiteracy and the limitof access of the poor to secondary or highereducation, the Honduran people are not wellinformed. The history of the authoritarian system,militarism, cultural, economic and politicaldependency have contributed to the manipulativebehaviors of the politicians that results in a lesscritical and participative society.

There is a poor communication between thegovernment and civil society. Usually this is top down.The people are fearful about giving opinions ongovernment policies.

Face-to-face communication with the grassroots is almost absent. The media is almostcompletely controlled by the traditional parties andthe government. This situation makes it moredifficult for the participation of civil society in thenational reconstruction process after HurricaneMitch.

There is no sharing in the decision makingprocess on governmental policies which areimposed from above. The people are informedafter the policies are decided. There is notransparency. Society has a lack of trust inpoliticians and in the government.

It is very common that the government calls civilsociety to a meeting only when there is someinternational pressure; but even under this conditionsthere is no true participation by civilian groups.

47

After Hurricane Mitch we have become a less“democratic” and participatory society. Socialorganization has become weaker with the exceptionof the indigenous, women and neighborhood groupswho are the most demanding sectors.

The political body:

After the end of the cold war, Honduras underwentimportant changes due to civilian and internationalpressure: the transformation of the military policeinto a civilian police, abolition of the obligatorymilitary service, the appointment of the PublicMinister (Attorney-General), the ComisionadoNacional del los Derechos Humanos (Ombudsman),the National Institute of Women.

However the decentralization of the governmentand the role of the municipalities has taken a verylow profile. The authoritarian and vertical model isstill prevalent. The military budget is over 7% of thenational budget.

After Hurricane Mitch, we have had anintensification of political activism, almost threeyears before the presidential elections. The politicalprocess has been in crisis, because the NationalTribunal of Elections is planning to change thedate of the elections and because there have beensome questions about the nationality of thepresidential candidates. Racism and chauvinism,and the manipulation of people have become themain issues. We are expecting a seriousconfrontation among the members of thetraditional parties.

Indigenous demonstrations have been subject tomilitary and police brutality during 1999. OnSeptember 8, 2000, more than one hundred

indigenous people (including children and women)were traumatized by the police and military forces.We presented the testimony to the Honduras HumanRights organizations, the Ombudsman, and theAttorney-General.In the last five years more than 40 indigenous andblack leaders have been killed with impunity. Otherhuman rights abuse have occurred before and afterHurricane Mitch and there is particular concern aboutthe extrajudicial executions of children and youngsters.Private security forces have increased in number, insuch a way that they constitute a parallel army greaterin number than the official armed forces. Paramilitarygroups, and civilian armed groups have beenorganized with connections to the military.

The rate of killing and kidnapping hasincreased in the past six months without anyexplanations by the authorities. Officials from thepolice and armed forces have been accused ofbeing involved in drug trafficking and thesmuggling of arms.

One of the most important issues related totorture and organized violence is the policy related toecology and land reform. In this the government hasdone poorly, because of the negative changes of thelaws on the environment and it has done virtuallynothing on land reform.

A few weeks after Hurricane Mitch, the HondurasGovernment made fundamental changes to the MiningCode in order to protect the interests of the miningcompanies from USA and Canada. In the last 4 yearsover 30% of the national territory has come under thecontrol of this industry. Potential contamination withcyanide and heavy metals is growing and theGovernment has not shown any concern.

At the same time, the Honduras State follows neo-liberal policies that increase the External Debt, raise

48

the level of poverty and reduce the budget on socialprograms – education, health and the improvementof living conditions.

The Government has taken some positivemeasures such as allowing human rightsorganizations to train police on the prevention oftorture and to work in prisons and police detentioncenters in order to prevent human rights abuses.Some police and militaries have been put in prisonfor human rights abuses. Members of human rightsorganizations have been able to join personnel fromthe Attorney-General in visits to police detentioncenters and prisons. There is more space fordiscussion on gender issues. However, we urgentlyneed to develop a policy on gender, children andyoungsters’ rights.

The social body:

Honduras needs more decentralization of thegovernment and coordination of local projects withnational policies. True participation of the communitiesat the municipal level in the decision making process isvital for development at the local districts.

Civil society participation is essential for changingthe policies of the state. Supporting NGO developmentprograms, rather than paternalistic actions, is morepositive for the democratization process.

The international body:

There is not doubt that international cooperationabsent neocolonialism is essential for the growth ofthe underdeveloped countries. True partnership isnecessary in order for us to respect each other.

We agree with the following observations in thestatement of the Group “Follow up Post Stockholm”on the reconstruction of Honduras after HurricaneMitch:• “Reduce ecological and social vulnerability” by

changing the present policies of the Hondurangovernment on these matters.

• “Reconstruction and transformation withtransparency and accountability” withparticipation of the people.

• “Consolidation of democracy” without torture,and an authoritarian and militaristic culture.

• Promotion of respect for human rights togetherwith equality of gender, the rights of children andof ethnic groups.

• Coordination of the efforts of the donors, basedon people’s needs and the priorities establishedthrough true participation of civil society and thegovernment.

In our personal experience before, during and afterHurricane Mitch we developed a true partnershipwith RCT-Danida on the prevention, treatment, andrehabilitation of the torture survivors, and also on theprevention of human rights abuse in prison, policedetention centers and organized violence in thecommunities.

Trocaire gave strong support in Honduras incommunity development, ecological issues, ahumanitarian program on health working in the areasof extreme poverty and promoting people’sparticipation.

In addition support was received from Save theChildren (UK) for poor children, communitydevelopment and participation; from INTERSOSfrom Italy; and from several NGOs, individuals and

49

religious groups from the USA; the followingcountries also provided assistance: Spain, Germany,France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland,UK, Holland and Italy; and from the Americas:Cuba, USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia,Venezuela and other countries.

We acknowledge and express our gratitude tothese organizations and countries for their solidarityin the tragedy of Hurricane Mitch.

The ethical body:

Transparency, sharing responsibility with civil societyand international cooperation are essential formaking progress on corruption and the exclusion ofthe poor.

The spiritual body:

Working with love together for a new society withjustice, respect for human rights an end to torture,organized violence and destruction of the planet isour mission and a dream for a more democraticsociety without racism, war, sexism and poverty. Ourfinal goal is to build a world with love, peace, justiceand non-violence.Note: The statements in this document are theresponsibility of the author and not of any organizationor persons that are mentioned in this paper.

References: Derechos Humanos: Dos años derealidades y retos (1998–1999) ComisionadoNacional delos Derechos Humanos.“Consulta Institucional sobre el proceso deReconstrucción y transformación Nacional”Agencias

de Cooperación Internacional (ACI) Tegucigalpa.septiembre del 2000. Autores: Nelson A. Mejia,Ileana Morales, Claudia Erazo y Teresa Leiva.Hurricane Mitch and Human Rights in process byJuan Almendares year 2000

A Challenge to Donors: Accountability,Empowerment and Structural Changethrough Human Rights: The Case ofEl Niño in EcuadorChris Jochnick, Legal Director, Centro de Derechos Económicos y Sociales

Human rights and international cooperation

The debates within the development field and thehuman rights field share in common the question ofstructural change. There is a strong current withinboth the human rights and development assistancefields that accepts traditional economic, political andsocial arrangements as given and are reluctant tosearch below the surface for the deeper roots ofhuman rights violations on the one hand anddevelopment problems on the other. Many humanrights advocates believe that democracy and civilliberties can be guaranteed within a context ofwidespread inequality and marginalization and manywithin the development field seem to believe similarlythat development assistance can be effectivelyemployed without addressing these same structuralissues.

Human rights serve two general ends:accountability and empowerment. A human rightsapproach to development assistance ought toincorporate the additional element of challengingstructural inequities. Digging into the structural

50

problems underlying poverty and questioning thecomplicity of international cooperation in thoselarger issues, provides the basis of a human rightsapproach for donors.

Human rights is then both new and old —transformative and common — for developmentwork. It is interesting to consider that apparentcontradiction in terms of the three reactions fromCARE folks that Andrew Jones mentioned yesterday— how two of the groups fell so far from oneanother. At one end were those who saw humanrights as nothing new, just another “buzz phrase”;and at the other, were those convinced that humanrights would bring a dramatic and threatening changeto their development work. While human rights anddevelopment share such similar goals as participationand empowerment, the tools and approach of humanrights is clearly something different.

Rights are insistent, provocative, and mobilizingand on that basis should not be confused withtraditional development work. I once taught agraduate course on economic and social rights inEcuador and half my students were high rankingmilitary leaders. In Ecuador, the military isresponsible for many development projects and themilitary officials would insist that they were alreadydoing economic and social rights work. When Ifinally asked them on the last day what they wouldtake away from the course – how would they useeconomic and social rights rhetoric and instruments,they seemed surprised and stated flatly (with rareassurance) that they couldn’t explicitly incorporateeconomic and social rights – that that would bringpeople out into the streets and threaten stability.

Where development and particularly relief workfocus much attention on the provision of goods andaccountability is often limited to questions of

efficiency, a human rights approach should look moreto processes and priorities. That move is especiallytough in the context of humanitarian crisis, whereoften there is little time or resources to think beyondthe immediate need to save lives. On the other hand,crises may offer rare opportunities for the localsociety to reconsider and challenge some of the largerstructural issues that perpetuate poverty andmaldeveloment. At the same time that they are morechallenging, crises may offer a silver lining oftransformative possibilities.

A human rights framework for internationalcooperation

A human rights approach to development assistancewould benefit greatly from human rights analyses ofparticular cases. The lack of a fully elaborated legalframework should not present an obstacle, rather theframework could follow from a practice of humanrights investigations and reports.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is not only statesthat are burdened by legal human rights obligations.Donor governments and multilateral banks (amongothers) also have human rights obligations underinternational law, which provide a basis forelaborating a human rights framework for theiractions (as private actors with generally lessinfluence/resources, private donor human rightsobligations are considerably weaker). The U.N.Charter, the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights and some of the recentU.N. Conference declarations (in addition tohumanitarian law) all establish obligation for theinternational community (including bothgovernments and multilateral bodies) to assist

51

developing countries and vulnerable populations andto ensure that rights are protected and promoted inthe process.

From that starting point, a framework based onthe traditional division of “respect”, “protect” and“fulfil” could be developed that would consider suchissues as:

Respect: A “do no harm” standard might beconsidered the most basic human rights obligation.Such a standard ought to measure overall benefitsagainst harm. Development projects backed byinternational assistance often bring negative impactsand some institutions, such as the World Bank, nowrequire special studies designed to mitigate the impactof loans on the environment and indigenouspopulations. The obligation to respect human rightsshould also consider the impact of assistance onbroader issues of corruption, inequality and increaseddebt burden as well as any “regressive” measures suchas arbitrary cut-backs in assistance. Some work ondeveloping a do no harm standard has been done bygroups working in the field of humanitarianassistance

Protect: The duty to protect should considerplanning and accountability mechanisms establishedby donors to ensure that their assistance and relationswith a country promotes human rights. Donorsshould have human rights standards in place to planand evaluate all assistance, as well as “complaint”mechanisms to encourage feedback from local NGOsand community representatives.

Promote: The obligation to promote human rightsis always the toughest to define and is all the morecomplicated by the varying capacities and influenceof particular donors. Donors should at least considerto what extent assistance:

• prioritizes vulnerable populations

• empowers beneficiaries

• promotes rights education

• strengthens rights advocates

• prioritizes sustainable development

• meets international assistance goals

A human rights study of internationalcooperation and El Niño

The three criteria of accountability, empowerment andstructural inequities offer a complementary approachto evaluating donor assistance from a human rightsperspective. I have based the study of the El Niño crisison this latter approach, trying to evaluate to whatextent international cooperation strengthened orundermined these three human rights principles. Giventime limitations, I will only point to some of the keyissues presented by this particular case. It is importantto underscore that the case study is based on a cursory,largely unconfirmed and anecdotal review and is onlyaimed at illustrating this potential approach. I focusprimarily on bilateral and multilateral donors and willgeneralize to make broad points at the risk ofexaggerating negative practices. It may well be thatsome of these practices were unavoidable, but they atleast merit some reflection/analysis.

The El Niño crisis in 1997/98 devastatedEcuador’s coastline and attracted much humanitarianassistance from international donors — bilateral,multilateral and private. Unfortunately, much of theassistance was squandered and little was directedtowards new and more sustainable development. Ahuman rights approach would have raised questions

52

about the aims and priorities of assistance as well asthe mechanisms by which it was planned, deliveredand monitored.

Ecuador is a small and struggling country of 12million people. Its political system is weak and fragilewith a great deal of clientalism/patronage and one ofthe highest levels of corruption in the world. It is themost highly indebted countries (per capita) in SouthAmerica and one of the most stratified. The coastalpopulation suffers high levels of poverty and illiteracy,and shrimp farms have stripped the coast of itsnatural environment (mangroves) and deprivedcommunities of traditional forms of employment.The El Niño crisis in 1997/98 was aggravated by asimmering military conflict along Ecuador’s borderwith Peru and complicated by national elections.

El Niño involves a warm water current thatappears cyclically (two or three times a decade) alongthe Ecuadorian and Peruvian coastline, causing largeamounts of rain and floods locally (and upsettingweather patterns around the world). The phenomenonhas become increasingly pronounced in recent years,presumably tied to global warming, and the 1997/98levels of rains were the highest in recent history. Therains and flooding in this case lasted over a year.The impacts in Ecuador were devastating:

• Close to 300 immediate deaths

• 2.3 million people with greater exposure toinfectious diseases (including cholera and dengue)

• 900,000 workers affected

• $. 5 billion in direct costs and $2.5 billion inoverall damages (as compared to a GDP of$18 billion)

Ecuador received both bilateral and multilateralassistance for El Niño, most of it from multilateralagencies and the vast majority in loans.

International assistance had the following impacts:

Empower: Donor practices tended to undermine ratherthan strengthen local capacity to play an active role indevelopment. Negative practices include:

• ignoring local groups and existing networks,sometimes in favor of private consultants

• providing little or no opportunity for theparticipation of local NGOs or communitygroups in planning or oversight

• working almost exclusively through ineffective andnon-democratic government institutions

• feeding into and strengthening clientalist relationsbetween communities and local leaders (especiallypronounced in neighboring Peru under theFujimori administration)

• failing to target vulnerable populations

• failing to ensure the decentralization of resourcesand planning

• failing to enforce conditions on loans (in the caseof the World Bank) requiring civil societyparticipation

Accountability: Donors failed to hold the government(and often themselves) accountable and contributed toa society-wide cynicism about governmentaccountability. Negative practices included:

• failing to incorporate human rights obligationsinto planning or oversight of assistance

• failing to create or promote effective oversight ofthe government

• undertaking limited evaluations, primarily focusedon financial criteria

53

• allowing/facilitating enormous corruption, withan estimated half of all assistance stillunaccounted for

• allowing/facilitating misuse of funds, contributingto more arms purchases and highly questionablespending to save private banks

Challenging structural problems: Donors missed a realpossibility to encourage greater reflection andfacilitate more sustainable and participatorydevelopment processes. Assistance was overwhelmingfocused on rebuilding along the same underdevelopedand vulnerable lines that existed prior to El Niño.Negative practices included:

• limiting funds to preparation for future disastersrather than long-term prevention

• limiting funds to rehabilitation and compensationrather than reconstruction (along new lines)

• focusing on rebuilding large infrastructure such asroads, rather than taking a more integralapproach to infrastructure and services

• failing to consider long term development issues,such as inequality, mono-industrial and destructivedevelopment models (e.g. Shrimp farming), andthe external debt burden

• strengthening traditional corrupt, centralized andanti-democratic government structures byproviding so much assistance with so littleconditions/oversight

• allowing assistance to be channelled to elite andurban areas

These are only some of the negative practices. Ofcourse, assistance was a mixed bag and some aid and

practices undoubtedly contributed positively tohuman rights (beyond basic needs). However, on thewhole, humanitarian assistance, while helping someareas and populations in the short term, did muchunnecessary harm to human rights understood interms of empowerment, accountability and structuralchange.

Notwithstanding the devastation and humansuffering caused by El Niño, the crisis provided agreat opportunity to promote long term human rightsin Ecuador. The inept and corrupt governmentresponse provided further impetus for reflection andmobilization, and did in fact lead to an indigenousuprising that succeeded in toppling the government(though little else). A human rights approach in thiscase would have identified and promoted ways inwhich donors could strengthen positive processes andavoid undermining the long-term human rightspotential of civil society.

54

55

Appendix 1 – NGO Workshop Agenda

“The Human Rights Based Approach toDevelopment Cooperation”, NGO meeting 16–17October 2000 in Stockholm

October 16Venue: Sveavägen 33, Sida'sconference center

1:00 TO 1:30 PM1:00 TO 1:30 PM1:00 TO 1:30 PM1:00 TO 1:30 PM1:00 TO 1:30 PMIntroduction of participants

1:30 TO 2:30 PM1:30 TO 2:30 PM1:30 TO 2:30 PM1:30 TO 2:30 PM1:30 TO 2:30 PMThe human rights approach todevelopment: Current state of playAndré Frankovits (Human RightsCouncil of Australia)

2:30 TO 3:00 PM2:30 TO 3:00 PM2:30 TO 3:00 PM2:30 TO 3:00 PM2:30 TO 3:00 PMEconomic, social and cultural rightsand development cooperationMichael Windfuhr (FIAN International)

3:00 TO 3:30 PM3:00 TO 3:30 PM3:00 TO 3:30 PM3:00 TO 3:30 PM3:00 TO 3:30 PMGeneral discussion

3:30 TO 4:00 PM3:30 TO 4:00 PM3:30 TO 4:00 PM3:30 TO 4:00 PM3:30 TO 4:00 PMAfternoon refreshments

4:00 TO 5:00 PM4:00 TO 5:00 PM4:00 TO 5:00 PM4:00 TO 5:00 PM4:00 TO 5:00 PMHuman rights programming bydevelopment NGOsEva Geidenmark (Swedish Save theChildren)Andrew Jones (Nairobi CARE humanrights office)

5:00 TO 6:15 PM5:00 TO 6:15 PM5:00 TO 6:15 PM5:00 TO 6:15 PM5:00 TO 6:15 PMBreak into working groups – Thegroups will be asked to apply theinformation from the previouspresentations to their owncircumstances

6:15 TO 7:00 PM6:15 TO 7:00 PM6:15 TO 7:00 PM6:15 TO 7:00 PM6:15 TO 7:00 PMReport back and discussion inplenary

7:007:007:007:007:00Dinner together at the ThaiRestaurant Sawadee, Olofsgatan 6

56

October 179:00 TO 9:30 AM9:00 TO 9:30 AM9:00 TO 9:30 AM9:00 TO 9:30 AM9:00 TO 9:30 AM

Human rights advocacy and bilateraldonors, including questions andcommentsSugeng Bahagijo (INFID)

9:30 TO 10:00 AM9:30 TO 10:00 AM9:30 TO 10:00 AM9:30 TO 10:00 AM9:30 TO 10:00 AMHuman rights and humanitarianemergenciesJuan Alemendares (Center for Prevention,Treatment and Rehabilitation ofTorture Victims)Chris Jochnick (Center for Economicand Social Rights)

10:00 TO 10:30 AM10:00 TO 10:30 AM10:00 TO 10:30 AM10:00 TO 10:30 AM10:00 TO 10:30 AMParticipants’ experiences of dealingwith donors – in plenary

10:30 TO 11:00 AM10:30 TO 11:00 AM10:30 TO 11:00 AM10:30 TO 11:00 AM10:30 TO 11:00 AMMorning refreshments

11:00 AM TO 12:15 PM11:00 AM TO 12:15 PM11:00 AM TO 12:15 PM11:00 AM TO 12:15 PM11:00 AM TO 12:15 PMBreak into working groups – How dowe influence donors to apply thehuman rights approach to theirprogramming?

12:15 PM TO 12:45 PM12:15 PM TO 12:45 PM12:15 PM TO 12:45 PM12:15 PM TO 12:45 PM12:15 PM TO 12:45 PMReports from working groups inplenary

12:45 TO 1:00 PM12:45 TO 1:00 PM12:45 TO 1:00 PM12:45 TO 1:00 PM12:45 TO 1:00 PMPreparation for afternoon session

1:15 TO 2:30 PM1:15 TO 2:30 PM1:15 TO 2:30 PM1:15 TO 2:30 PM1:15 TO 2:30 PMLunch (attended by NGOs anddonors)Venue: Teaterbaren at the CultureHouse/Kulturhuset at Sergels TorgNGO & donor discussion

Venue: Klara Konferenser, Vattugatan 6

2:45 TO 3:00 PM2:45 TO 3:00 PM2:45 TO 3:00 PM2:45 TO 3:00 PM2:45 TO 3:00 PMIntroduction of participants

3:00 TO 3:45 PM3:00 TO 3:45 PM3:00 TO 3:45 PM3:00 TO 3:45 PM3:00 TO 3:45 PMPresentations of issues identifiedduring previous days

3:45 TO 4:45 PM3:45 TO 4:45 PM3:45 TO 4:45 PM3:45 TO 4:45 PM3:45 TO 4:45 PMResponse from officials and generaldiscussion

4:45 TO 5:00 PM4:45 TO 5:00 PM4:45 TO 5:00 PM4:45 TO 5:00 PM4:45 TO 5:00 PMCoffee break

5:00 TO 6:15 PM5:00 TO 6:15 PM5:00 TO 6:15 PM5:00 TO 6:15 PM5:00 TO 6:15 PM

Where do we go from here together?

6:30 PM6:30 PM6:30 PM6:30 PM6:30 PMReception with NGOs, donors andinvited guests from Sida, the SwedishForeign Ministry and Swedish NGOsat Sheraton Hotel, Tegelbacken 6(Hagasalongerna)

57

Appendix 2 – Report of Working Groups

Working group 1

Groups were briefed as follows:‘After hearing from Save the Children and CAREInternational about their experiences of taking ahuman rights based approach to their work we wouldlike to explore other ideas and suggestions for how arights based approach can be applied by NGOs totheir work and any changes this might require.

Each group is asked to come back with at leasttwo specific recommendations for how NGOdevelopment organizations can apply the humanrights approach to their work. The only criteriashould be that the recommendations are practical andhelp clarify for development NGOs some steps thatthey can take or that can be shared with others.’

Report back to plenary

– Cooperation/links with human rights and developmentorganizations – joint work

– Flexible approach to human rights operationalization –not always legal

– Local ownership of rights – accountability

– Ensure democratic & accountable relations with localpartners & analyze and understand relation with donorand local government

– Demonstrate difference and value-added of HRapproach; sharpen/strengthen message with rightslanguage

– Consider impact of development assistance on fullrange of human rights; do situation/impact analysis ofaid, disaggregating impacts on groups, gender etc.

– Advocacy at the international (& northern) level

– Increase capacity of documenting violations ofeconomic, social and cultural rights

– Creating campaign which is

– International

– Inclusive

– based on realities

– Always link economic, social and cultural rights to civiland political rights in critical examination ofaccountability of states

– Creation of shadow reports to treaty bodies ensuringparticipation and setting goals

58

ReporReporReporReporReport back to plenaryt back to plenaryt back to plenaryt back to plenaryt back to plenary

Advice Encouragement

– provide a more precise framework for goodgovernance including participation and humanrights

– improve the quality of dialogue between donorsand recipient countries

– use the rights based approach in emergingframeworks for coordinating aid

– find and promote examples of good practice orhuman rights approach to development

– involve human rights organizations in developmentplanning (country strategy)

– improve NGO coordination on recipient countriesto advocate key messages on human rights anddevelopment

– involve members of parliament in hearings andadvice

– donors should work with intermediaries to facilitatepermanent mechanisms for dialogue – part of thepurpose of this dialogue should be to assumebetter policy and accountability

– donors should promote civil society participationof NGOs as legitimate partners, particularly withintheir own countries

– more open donors should encourage morereluctant donor to open dialogue

– human rights helps ensure that aid addressesissues from the bottom up, and thatimplementation is more effective

Working group 2

‘There seems to be a need both to provide donorswith• some specific recommendations for how they can

apply the human rights approach to theirstrategies and programs and

• some encouragement to apply policies on humanrights to practice

The working groups are therefore asked to discusswhat steps they would like donor agencies to take todemonstrate they are applying a human rightsapproach and how NGOs can most effectivelyencourage donors to take these steps.

Please report back at least one recommendation inrelation to each issue.’

59

Advice Encouragement

– aid allocation criteria macro economic, goodgovernance, democracy need for communitysector organizations involvement in establishingcriteria and assessing performance

– capacity building to enable economic and socialrights networks to become more inclusive,accountable and effective in negotiations (UN)

– timetabling – needs to respond to communitysector needs, less to donor programming

– dialogue with local government

– encourage ratification

– engage in treaty reporting process

– facilitate dialogue with community sector andpeople

– sharing experience & knowledge among donorsand NGOs

– concept of human rights approach

– what difference it makes

– common understanding on core elements of rightsapproach

– empowerment and interdependence of rights

– accountability

– focus on structural causes or barrier

– obligation of donor: respect, protect, fulfil

– long term strategy

– Human rights plan of action in donors

– Tactical innovation in human rights work

– promote inter-institutional learning

– networking at all levels (among community sectorand governmental actors)

– more work to integrate human rights approachacross aid ministries – not a sub-sector

– need to ensure that rights approach carried overconsistently to multilateral forums: the WorldBank/IMF/WTO – their policies cannot violatehuman rights obligations

– greater accountability – complaints mechanisms/ombudsman function to assess compliance withhuman rights standards

60

61

Appendix 3 – NGO Profiles

CARE InternationalAs a humanitarian organization, CARE promotesand protects the basic livelihoods of poor, oppressed,and displaced people – their rights to basic food,water, health, shelter, education, and participation.Reflecting increased organizational commitment tointegrating the human rights approach in its reliefand development work, CARE has hired a full-timeHuman Rights Coordinator to spearhead globalimplementation of its human rights strategy andplan. The coordinator reports to CARE USA’s SeniorVice President for Programs and, as of July 1999,works out of CARE’s regional office in Nairobi. Themove to Nairobi facilitates staff training and pilotingof a human rights approach and is intended tofurther ground the initiative in the field.

Center for Economic and Social RightsCESR was established in 1993 to address a critical gapin human rights advocacy. One of the firstorganizations to challenge economic injustice as aviolation of international human rights law, CESRbelieves that economic and social rights, can provide auniversally accepted framework for strengtheningsocial justice activism. CDES, the former LatinAmerica Program of CESR, is now an independentEcuadorian NGO with a regional-South Americafocus. Together, CESR and CDES have developed aneffective strategy that combines research, advocacy,collaboration, and education. The overall aim of theirwork is to help mobilize people and to support theirefforts to confront unjust economic and social policies.Among these activities, CESR and CDES research andmake recommendations to development agencies onthe promotion of economic and social rights.

Center for the Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation ofTorture Victims and their RelativesCPTRT efforts concentrate on the integralrehabilitation of victims of torture and institutionalviolence and their family members; prevention oftorture through generating awareness and knowledgeabout torture and human rights violations amongpenal system employees, heads of prisonerorganizations, police authorities, human rightsdefenders, health professionals and universitystudents; local capacity development throughinterdisciplinary team efforts enhancing he capacityto perform activities in the area of treatment,prevention and project development. Services areoffered to torture survivors as well as to familymembers of torture survivors, of individuals whohave been politically assassinated, of disappearedpersons, and of people who have been extrajudiciallyexecuted by the police. Training has been conductedfor 100 professionals. CPTRT co-operates nationallywith NGOs in the field of human rights as well aswith professional and governmental organizationsdealing with health education and imprisonment.

Center for Victims of TortureThe Center for Victims of Torture is the foremosttorture treatment center in the United States forsurvivors of politically motivated torture and theirfamilies. Based in Minneapolis, with offices in St Paul,Washington, DC and Guinea, West Africa theCenter’s mission includes multi-disciplinarytreatment, research, public policy and education. TheCenter works diligently through its advocacy—singularly and with other groups and organizations—to create a world without torture. The Center leads anational consortium of 20 torture treatment centersin the United States and is an internationally

62

recognized authority on the issue of the torturetreatment movement. CVT is celebrating over fifteenyears of Restoring the Dignity of the Human Spirit.

DITSHWANELODITSHWANELO, the Botswana Centre forHuman Rights, was established in 1993. TheCentre is an advocacy organisation that plays a keyrole in promotion and protection of human rightsin the BOTSWANA society. The Centre seeks toaffirm human dignity and equality irrespective ofgender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, socialstatus, or political convictions. In pursuit of thismission, it seeks to educate, research, counsel, andmediate on issues of Human Rights, with specificreference to the marginalized and disempowered.However, due to its commitment to the indivisiblenature of Human Rights, this mission extends toregional and international levels.DITSHWANELO has a management structurecentered on its Secretariat under which thefollowing programmes function: ActivismProgramme, Information Programme, ResearchProgramme, Paralegal Programme and a fieldOffice in Kasane (Northern Botswana). In additionto the programmes DITSHWANELO Secretariathosts the following networks: Southern AfricanHuman Rights NGO Network (SAHRINGON)Botswana Secretariat, Botswana network on HIV,ETHICS and LAW (for UNDP).

FIANThe Food First Information and Action Network isheadquartered in Germany with more than twentysections and coordinations around the world. Itpromotes the fundamental human right to food thatis enshrined in the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. FIANintervenes into violations of the right to feed oneself,alerts the general public about such violations,provides training on the right to adequate food ininternational law. It has consultative status with theUN and with the regional human rights systems. Insupports the work of the UN Committee onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights and advocatesa human rights approach with bilateral andmultilateral donor agencies.

Human Development InitiativesHDI was established in 1996 to provide legal andpsychosocial services to women and children,adolescents and children. It conducts trainingprogrammes, research, workshops on human rightsand development issues. HDI has in particular beenactive in promoting and protecting the reproductiverights of widows and adolescents by providing themwith empowerment information, counselling, freelegal service, and life skills (i.e training in small andhome cottage industries) for the several youngwidows, increasing in number due to the severe socio-economic situation of Nigeria. HDI’s work withadolescents involves reproductive health safetyinformation, HIV /AIDS education and preventionof violence against adolescents. Other activitiesinclude advocacy and lobbying for a children’s law inline with the International Convention on the Rightsof the Child.

INFIDThe International Forum for IndonesianDevelopment (INFID) was founded in 1985 byNOVIB and the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation. Itis an umbrella group of Indonesian and non-Indonesian NGOs whose original purpose was to

63

provide a forum for discussing human rights andsupporting the burgeoning NGO movement insideIndonesia. It has lobbied on development issues at theIndonesian donors’ forums (IGGI/CGI). INFIDorganizes conferences on such thematic issues as landrights, labour, people’s participation, human rights,women, etc. After Soeharto’s downfall, it has finallybeen invited by the Indonesian Government to attendthe World Bank-hosted Consultative Group onIndonesia as an observer. After the crisis in 1997,INFID re-positioned itself and now focuses on issuessuch as debt, trade and the role of IMF and theWorld Bank.

Minority Rights GroupMinority Rights Group (MRG) is an internationalnon-governmental organization working to securerights for ethnic, religious and linguistic minoritiesworldwide, and to promote cooperation betweencommunities. MRG researches and publishes reportsand other information about minorities around theworld; advocates for the rights of minorities at theUnited Nations, in Europe, with governments andelsewhere; and works with organizations and activistswho share its aims to build alliances, discuss ideas,develop skills and further minority rights worldwide.MRG was founded over 25 years ago. It’sinternational headquarters are based in Londonwhere it is legally registered both as a charity andlimited company in the UK, with an internationalgoverning Council. MRG has consultative status withthe UN (ECOSOC).

NovibNovib was set up in 1956 as the NetherlandsOrganization for International Development Co-operation. The Novib Method involves working to

realize the structural, sustainable alleviation ofpoverty in Africa, Asia, Latin America and EasternEurope through cooperation with over 800 partnerorganizations. These organizations may focus onareas as diverse as gender, integrated ruraldevelopment, education, the environment, setting upsmall businesses and human rights. In a constantdialogue with her partners, Novib encourages theorganizations to work on the direct alleviation ofpoverty, to link up with other actors in their societiesand to raise matters before their own government.Novib has an active advocacy-agenda in the North,influencing policy decisions in favor of the world’spoor. Thus Novib is at once a kind of NGO and adonor. For over 20 years Novib has been activelypromoting the integration of human rights indevelopment, from the belief that working onstructural causes of poverty cannot be done inseparation from work on the promotion and respectof human rights.

Rights and HumanityRights and Humanity, The International Movementfor the Promotion and Realization of Human Rightsand Responsibilities, has been working on elaboratinga human rights approach to the eradication ofpoverty since 1986. In 1997 the organization wasasked to write a discussion paper ‘A human rightsapproach to development’ in preparation for the UKGovernment’s White Paper on InternationalDevelopment. This was eventually published in bookform and has been influential in shaping the policiesof international donors. It advocates the integrationof human rights economic, social and cultural rightsas well as civil and political rights into national lawsand public policy and emphasizes local ownership ofdevelopment efforts. Rights and Humanity is the

64

convenor of the Human Rights and DevelopmentForum, a network of human rights organizations anddevelopment groups.

Save the ChildrenThe work of the Save the Children Alliance is basedon the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Arecent shift to child rights programming has affectedthe way the organization works in changing from aneeds-based to a rights-based approach. This hasmeant a move towards a more thematic approachrather than just a country focus, from implementingprojects to supporting local NGOs and in targetingother groups than children and parents. In practicethis shift of focus has resulted in an emphasis onlobbying and opinion-building and on thedocumentation and dissemination of experiences.The principles underpinning this change includeseeing children as the holder of rights, the obligationsrelating to duty bearers, the indivisibility of rights andthe notion of non-conditionality.

The Swedish NGO Foundation for Human RightsThe Swedish NGO Foundation for Human Rightswas set up in 1991. It is governed by a Board ofDirectors representing its principals, the four SwedishNGOs: the Church of Sweden, Diakonia, theSwedish Red Cross, Swedish Save the Children. Thework of the Foundation is intended to supplementboth the activities of these principals and theprogrammes of the Swedish InternationalDevelopment Cooperation Agency, Sida, in the fieldof human rights and democracy. The Foundation is apolitically and religiously independent non-profitfoundation. It bases its activities on existing humanrights law and emphasises that economic, civil,cultural, political and social rights are universal,

indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. TheFoundation considers that knowledge of humanrights is of vital importance for their implementation,emphasizing local and popular participation andsupport in this work. It aspires to gender balancebetween women and men in its programmes ofinternational development cooperation.

65

Appendix 4 – From Policy to Action:Promoting the Implementation of a HumanRights Approach to Development, Rightsand Humanity

Background

Rights and Humanity was established in 1986 toaddress the plight of people living in poverty andsocial isolation through the promotion andrealization of human rights and responsibilities. Weconsider that, whether or not human rights areregarded as a separate policy area, they must beintegrated into a wide range of national andinternational policies and action. For example,Rights and Humanity has played a particular role inthe integration of human rights into a multi-sectoralresponse to the HIV/AIDS pandemic, into good governance,health and cultural policies, and into internationaldevelopment co-operation. We have also worked topromote a human rights approach to globaleconomic governance

Rights and Humanity’s strategy is to establish aculture of respect for human rights and dignity and toachieve human development. Its tactic is to encouragewide ownership of the human rights agenda. Rightsand Humanity acts as a facilitator and consensusbuilder. It has been described as the “mortar betweenthe bricks”, linking different actors in concerted action.Rights and Humanity measures its success by thewillingness of others to take up the agenda as theirown, whether within the work of UN agencies,government policy or community response. Itsdiscretion and ability to act behind the scenes – beingprepared to stay invisible – is often critical to its abilityto influence change and promote action for progress.The growing consensus surrounding a human

rights approach to development reflects recognitionthat the approach is not limited to promotingwomen’s equality, children’s rights or goodgovernance, important thought these are. Such anapproach is also critical for instance in povertyelimination, and in the efforts to secure universalaccess to primary education, and health sectorreform. It is increasingly being recognized that theapproach is also pertinent in conflict prevention,emergency aid, and in ensuring peace andreconciliation with justice. Indeed, a human rightsapproach is pertinent in every aspect of humandevelopment.

The human rights approach to development isclearly a “work in progress” and needs constantevaluation and strengthening, drawing on theexpertise and experience of UN agencies and otheractors implementing such an approach.

Early obstacles

In attempting to implement a human rights approachto development in the 1980s Rights and Humanityfaced a number of obstacles including:

• the lack of priority paid to economic, social andcultural rights

• the assumption that human rights work waslimited to condemning violations rather thanproviding a positive framework for developmentpolicy and action

• the fact that human rights and developmenttheories have emerged from distinct disciplines,resulting in the application of different criteria forestablishing the cogency of theoretical models andfor measuring their success. This has sometimes

66

impeded dialogue and comprehension betweenthe two main professional groups involved,lawyers and development workers

• the perceived tension between the universality ofhuman rights and cultural diversity andparticularities

Part of the difficulty was found to lie in the tensionbetween the essential role of monitoring humanrights violations, on the one hand and the aim ofpromoting the realization of human rights as a basisfor development, on the other. Whilst the former,quite rightly, leads to criticism and censure,experience of the promotion and realization ofhuman rights in development indicates the need foran additional approach – one that is based onconstructive engagement and respect

In constructing a human rights approach todevelopment Rights and Humanity utilized some keyslogans in an attempt to build a new paradigm. Itsought to move the focus:

• from human wrongs to human rights

• from handouts to empowerment

• from charity to entitlements

Our human rights approach to development issimultaneously:

• a tool for analysis which focuses attention onglobal inequities and the inequalities anddiscrimination which underlie poverty andsocial isolation

• a foundation for a people-centered approach todevelopment, based on a coherent framework ofbinding legal norms and accountability

• a process which is holistic, participatory, inclusive,and multi-sectoral, and

• an outcome – the empowerment of individuals toachieve their full potential, and the freedom totake up opportunities.

It complements existing theories and models ofdevelopment, for example Amartya Sen’s entitlementsand capabilities theory. There is a naturalcomplementarity between the entitlement/capabilities approach which looks at the problem fromthe point of view of the poor and a human rightsapproach to development which combines a vision ofwhat ought to be with an emphasis on choices for people andsolutions in terms of the steps to be taken to achievehuman rights and thereby development.

Similar cross-fertilization of ideas between humanrights and development can be seen in recentstruggles for democracy and human rights within civilsociety in a number of countries, and in the goodgovernance policies introduced into development co-operation during the 1980s. Convergence of agendais also evident in the series of recent UN conferencesthat have specifically referred to the nexus betweenhuman rights and development.

In the context of integrating human rights intodevelopment, international human rights lawprovides the necessary foundation for the protectionof the rights of individuals and a basis forenforcement and redress in the case of abuse. It alsoprovides a framework for all those measures that mustbe in place to ensure that individuals enjoy theirrights in practice. Such measures could be seen toinclude:• the integration of international human rights

norms into national law, and into public policyacross a wide range of sectors;

67

• the promotion of the socio-cultural conditionswhich avoid negative stereotyping ordiscrimination on the grounds of sex, race orother status;

• the provision of education and training in humanrights and responsibilities;

• the introduction of specific measures to ensure therealization of human rights and to empowerindividuals to know, seek and enjoy their rights;

• the creation of supportive national andinternational economic environments; and

• the establishment of the national andinternational legal and policy environmentsnecessary to enable all individuals – women aswell as men – to participate in, contribute to andenjoy economic, social, cultural and politicaldevelopment.

Rights and Humanity considers that that the humanrights approach to development requires not justindividual freedoms, but also supportive nationaland international environments. The achievementof human development requires individuals to enjoythe full ambit of their human rights, personalfreedoms, opportunities and choices. This in turnrequires a supportive national environment based onthe rule of law, good governance, and the laws,policies, institutions, infrastructure and servicesnecessary to support human development. At theinternational level an enabling environment requiresdebt relief and equity in aid, trade and lending. ForRights and Humanity, human rights norms andstandards provide the framework for appropriatepolicies and action at all three levels, which togethercan be regarded as the human rights approach todevelopment.

The lessons learnt

The experience gained by Rights and Humanity inpromoting a human rights approach to povertyelimination, social cohesion and human developmentcould be of assistance to donor agencies in theintegration of human rights into developmentpolicies and programmes. It has learnt some keylessons since its establishment in 1986.

• the importance of ownership of the human rights agendarooted in the values, faiths and cultures of a givensociety in order to ensure that human rights arenot perceived as being imported values, or worsestill, as part of a dominance by western conceptsover traditional values

• the necessity for a participatory, inclusive approach –one which respects diversity and encouraged partnershipsbased on mutual respect

• the fact that the agenda for the realization of humanrights is an agenda for reform which requires thesupport and involvement of many sectors ofpublic service and society at large. Experience hasindicated that unnecessary criticism could risk anentrenchment of views and is rarely conducive toprogress. Rather, an understanding is required ofthe current obstacles to reform, so that anappropriate path can be mapped at a speed to suitthe local conditions.

• the benefit of illustrating that respect for human rightsis an effective policy across the various sectors ofgovernment

• the importance of identifying an appropriate entrypoint, linking a government’s own developmentpriorities with human rights concerns.

68

An example is seen in two successful entry points thathave been used to promote respect for human rightsin the response to HIV/AIDS. The recognition ofthe vulnerability of women to the risk of infection asa result of their disadvantaged legal, socio-economic,and cultural status provides an entry point to discusswith governments the urgency of ensuring equalitybetween men and women, both in law and inpractice. At the same time, the fact that respect forthe privacy of blood donors has been found to beessential to encourage voluntary blood donations andthe maintenance of the blood supply, provides anopportunity to call on ministries of health tostrengthen respect for human rights in health care.

Two further lessons have been learnt by Rights andHumanity. In encouraging the integration of humanrights into a wide range of public policy concerns, andinto professional work and corporate activity, it has beenfound helpful to synthesize key human rights norms intoa few simple concepts which people can readilyunderstand. The key concepts of dignity, equality, non-discrimination, participation, autonomy, freedom, andsolidarity are ones with which most people are easilyable to identify. This has been found to encourageindividuals to explore the relevance of human rights inthe context of their own work and daily lives, whilstmaintaining the strength and integrity of internationallyadopted human rights norms.

Finally, the experience gained by Rights andHumanity through its development projects has led itto recognize that the integration of human rights intodevelopment programming needs to be supported byefforts to promote the wider enjoyment of humanrights, as well as the establishment of enablingeconomic, political, social, cultural and legalenvironments at both the national and internationallevels.

69

Appendix 5 – Materials Available at theWorkshop

The Swedish Ministry for Foreign AffairsAfrica on the Move – Revitalizing Swedish Policytowards Africa for the 21st Century, 1997/98Democracy and Human Rights in Sweden'sDevelopment Cooperation, 1997/98Human Rights in Swedish Foreign Policy, 1997/98Our Future with Asia – A Swedish Asia Strategy for2000 and beyond, 1998/9Preventing Violent Conflict – A Swedish ActionPlan, 1999Sweden's policy for poverty reduction, 2000

SidaCountry analysis of Zimbabwe, 2000The Rights of the Child in Swedish DevelopmentCooperation, 2000

The Human Rights Council of AustraliaThe Rights Way to Development, Manual for AHuman Rights Approach to Development Assistance,1998 by André Frankovits and Patrick EarleThe NGO Action Pack

UN-materialBackground paper for HDR 2000; “Learning fromThose Who Act” by Nadia Hijab, 2000Extract from the UN Manual on Human RightsReporting, 1997General Comment 3 from the ICESCR Committeeon the nature of States parties obligations, 1990General Comment 13 from the ICESCR Committeeon the right to education, 1999The UN System and Human Rights, Guidelines andInformation for the Resident Coordinator System(ACC), 2000

“Nepal UNDAF project”:1. ToR for the Nepal “Towards UNDAF” position

paper2. “Towards UNDAF”, Draft Nepal UNDAF

position paper, 20003. Lessons learnt from a Rights-Based UNDAF

process and content in Nepal4. UNDAF: Executive Summary

UNICEF; Human Rights for Children and Women.How UNICEF helps make them a reality, 1999A Human Rights Approach to UNICEFProgramming for Children and Women, What it is,and some changes it will bring, 1998

United Nations High Commissioner for HumanRights; Development and Rights: The UndeniableNexus, 2000

The Swedish NGO Foundation for Human RightsAnnual Report, 1997–98

Papers by participants;

NGO-part of the seminar:Human Rights and Humanitarian Emergencies, JuanAlmendares (CPTRT), 2000

INFID Experience Human Rights Advocacy andBilateral Donors, Sugeng Bahagijo (INFID), 2000

Building a Culture of Rights (in NACLA Report onthe Americas, July/August 2000), Eduardo Cáceres(APRODEH – PERU)

The importance of the Economic, Social andCultural Rights (ESCR) for the social legitimation of

70

the HR discourse, Eduardo Cáceres (APRODEH –PERU)

The integrity and interdependence of human rights,Eduardo Cáceres (APRODEH – PERU)

The Rights of the Child in Development Work, EvaGeidenmark (Swedish Save the Children), 2000

Promoting a Human Rights Approach inDevelopment Cooperation, Human Rights Council ofAustralia – Patrick Earle, 2000

A Challenge to Donors: Accountability, Empowermentand Structural Change Through Human Rights- TheCase of El Niño in Ecuador, Chris Jochnick (Centro deDerechos Económicos y Sociales), 2000

Progress Report on Integration of a Rights Approachin CARE's Programming, Andrew Jones (CARE), 2000

Rights-Based Relief & Development Assistance: AnEssay on What It Means for CARE, Andrew Jones(CARE), 2000

From Policy to Action: Lessons Learnt from 14 yearsExperience Promoting the Implementation of aHuman Rights Approach to Development, Rights andHumanity, 2000

The Establishment of a Global Forum for InformationExchange, Identification of Good Practice and PolicyDevelopment concerning A Human Rights Approachto Development, Rights and Humanity, 2000

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights andDevelopment Cooperation, Michael Windfuhr (FIAN),2000

Donor-part of the seminar:Mainstreaming Human Rights in the United NationsDevelopment Assistance Framework: The Case ofNepal, Richard Bridle (UNICEF), 2000

Operationalizing the Human Rights Approach toDevelopment in UNICEF Nepal, Richard Bridle(UNICEF) & Charulata Prasada (consultant with UNICEFNepal April – October 2000)

Promoting a Human Rights Approach inDevelopment Cooperation (17-page-document),André Frankovits (Human Rights Council of Australia), 2000

Promoting a Human Rights Approach inDevelopment Cooperation, State of the Art (4-page-document), André Frankovits (Human Rights Council ofAustralia), 2000

Summary Report: Preparing the Swedish CountryStrategy for Zimbabwe from a Democracy and HRperspective, Anton Johnston (Sida), 2000

Promoting a Human Rights Approach inDevelopment Cooperation. Case: HURIST inYemen, 2000 (incl. Background material onHURIST and UNDP's Human Rights Policy), ThordPalmlund (UNDP)

Mainstreaming human rights in SDC countryprogrammes, Case study: Pakistan, Swiss Agency forDevelopment and Cooperation, 2000

A Rights-Based Approach to Development, The ILOExperience, Lee Swepston (ILO), 2000

Promoting a Human Rights Approach inDevelopment Cooperation. Case: Capacity Buildingfor Local Governance, South Africa, Patrick van Weerelt(UNDP), 2000

The Application of a Human Rights-BasedApproach to Development Programming, What is theAdded Value?, Patrick van Weerelt (UNDP), 2000

Copies of overhead- and power point presentations

71

Appendix 6 – List of Participants

AlemendarAlemendarAlemendarAlemendarAlemendares, Juanes, Juanes, Juanes, Juanes, Juan Center for the Prevention of Torturecptrt@sdnhon.org.hn Apartado Postal 5377

Tegucigalpa, M.D.C.Honduras

Algotsson, EmmaAlgotsson, EmmaAlgotsson, EmmaAlgotsson, EmmaAlgotsson, Emma ICJ – Swedish sectionsecretariat@icj-sweden.org Box 2039,

103 11 StockholmSWEDEN

Bahagijo, SugengBahagijo, SugengBahagijo, SugengBahagijo, SugengBahagijo, Sugeng INFIDsugeng@nusa.or.id Jl. Mampang Prapatan XI/23

Jakarta Selatan, 12790INDONESIA

Bell, BillBell, BillBell, BillBell, BillBell, Bill The Save the Children Fund (UK)b.bell@scfuk.org.uk 17 Grove Lane

London, SE5 8RDUK

Björk, TherBjörk, TherBjörk, TherBjörk, TherBjörk, Thereseeseeseeseese Swedish NGO Foundation for Human Rightstherese.bjork@swehr.a.se Drottninggatan 101

113 60 StockholmSWEDEN

BrBrBrBrBrouwerouwerouwerouwerouwer, Marjolei, Marjolei, Marjolei, Marjolei, Marjolein Novibmarjolein.brouwer@novib.nl Postbus 30 919

2500 GX Den HaagNETHERLANDS

BjurBjurBjurBjurBjuremalm, Helenaemalm, Helenaemalm, Helenaemalm, Helenaemalm, Helena Sidahelena.bjuremalm@sida.se Division for Democratic Governance

105 25 StockholmSWEDEN

CacerCacerCacerCacerCaceres, Eduares, Eduares, Eduares, Eduares, Eduardododododo APRODEHeduardo@aprodeh.org.pe Jr. Pachacútec 980

Lima 11PERU

Earle, PatrickEarle, PatrickEarle, PatrickEarle, PatrickEarle, Patrick Human Rights Council of Australia Inc.pearles@ozemail.com.au P.O Box L 23

S.Maroubra, N.S.WAUSTRALIA 2035

FeeneyFeeneyFeeneyFeeneyFeeney, T, T, T, T, Triciariciariciariciaricia Oxfamtfeeney@oxfam.org.uk 274 Banbury Road

Oxford OX2 7DZUK

Frankovits, AndréFrankovits, AndréFrankovits, AndréFrankovits, AndréFrankovits, André Human Rights Council of Australia Inc.andref@mpx.com.au P.O. Box 841

Marrickville, N.S.WAUSTRALIA 2204

FrFrFrFrFredriksson, Lisaedriksson, Lisaedriksson, Lisaedriksson, Lisaedriksson, Lisa Sidalisa.fredriksson@sida.se Division for Democratic Governance

105 25 StockholmSWEDEN

Geidenmark, EvaGeidenmark, EvaGeidenmark, EvaGeidenmark, EvaGeidenmark, Eva Swedish Save the Children Swedeneva.geidenmark@rb.se Rädda Barnen, Torsgatan 4,

107 88 Stockholm,SWEDEN

Gombe, SpringGombe, SpringGombe, SpringGombe, SpringGombe, Spring Rights & Humanityrandh3@pop3.poptel.org.uk 2 St. Peters Street

Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 1XBUK

Hedlund-Thulin, KristinaHedlund-Thulin, KristinaHedlund-Thulin, KristinaHedlund-Thulin, KristinaHedlund-Thulin, Kristina Ministry for Foreign Affairskristina.hedlund-thulin@ Dept. for International Development Coop.foreign.ministry.se 103 39 Stockholm

SWEDEN

Jochnick, ChrisJochnick, ChrisJochnick, ChrisJochnick, ChrisJochnick, Chris Center for Economic and Social Rightscjochnick@cesr.org Lizardo Garcia 512 y Almagro, 6to piso,

QuitoEcuador

Johansson, AgnetaJohansson, AgnetaJohansson, AgnetaJohansson, AgnetaJohansson, Agneta Ministry of Foreign Affairsagneta.r.johansson@ 103 39 Stockholmforeign.ministry.se SWEDEN

Johnson, DouglasJohnson, DouglasJohnson, DouglasJohnson, DouglasJohnson, Douglas (observer) Center for Victims of TortureDouglas_Alan_Johnson@ 714 East River Roadcompuserve.com Minneapolis, Mn 55455

USA

72

Johnston, AntonJohnston, AntonJohnston, AntonJohnston, AntonJohnston, Anton Sidaanton.johnston@sida.se Division for Democratic Governance

105 25 StockholmSWEDEN

Jones, AndrJones, AndrJones, AndrJones, AndrJones, Andrewewewewew CAREajones@africaonline.co.ke 151 Ellis Street, N.E.

Atlanta, GA 30303-2426USA

Klum, AnitaKlum, AnitaKlum, AnitaKlum, AnitaKlum, Anita Swedish NGO Foundation for HRanita.klum@swehr.a.se Drottninggatan 101

113 60 StockholmSWEDEN

LindgrLindgrLindgrLindgrLindgren, Annikaen, Annikaen, Annikaen, Annikaen, Annika ICJ – Swedish sectionsecretariat@icj-sweden.org Box 2039,

103 11 StockholmSWEDEN

Lund Madsen, HanneLund Madsen, HanneLund Madsen, HanneLund Madsen, HanneLund Madsen, Hanne Guldborgvej 17h.lund.madsen@ 4000 Roskildevip.cybercity.dk DENMARK

Mogwe, AliceMogwe, AliceMogwe, AliceMogwe, AliceMogwe, Alice Ditshwaneloalice.ditsh@info.bw Private Bag 00416

GaboroneBotswana

Nilsson, HilleviNilsson, HilleviNilsson, HilleviNilsson, HilleviNilsson, Hillevi Swedish Africa Groupshillevi.nilsson Tegelviksgatan 40@afrikagrupperna.se S-116 41 Stockholm

Sweden

Okunsanya, AriyoOkunsanya, AriyoOkunsanya, AriyoOkunsanya, AriyoOkunsanya, Ariyo Human Development Initiativeshdi@infoweb.abs.net 8 Fola Agoro Street

Shomulu,LagosNigeria

Pachecho, FernandoPachecho, FernandoPachecho, FernandoPachecho, FernandoPachecho, Fernando ADRAdg.adra@angonet.org Praceta Farinha Leitão N.o 27 – 1. Dt.o

Cx Postal, 3788LuandaANGOLA

PyakurPyakurPyakurPyakurPyakurel, Sushilel, Sushilel, Sushilel, Sushilel, Sushil National Human Rights Commissionsushil@ecomail.com.np Harihar BhawanLalitpur NEPAL

WWWWWindfuhrindfuhrindfuhrindfuhrindfuhr, Michael, Michael, Michael, Michael, Michael FIAN (International Secretariat)windfuhr@fian.org P.O Box 10 22 43

690 12 HeidelbergGERMANY

YYYYYoung, Rossoung, Rossoung, Rossoung, Rossoung, Ross Minority Rights Groupross.young@mrgmail.org 2nd floor, 379 Brixton Road,

BrixtonUK

WWWWWetteretteretteretteretterqvist, Ingridqvist, Ingridqvist, Ingridqvist, Ingridqvist, Ingrid Ministry for Foreign Affairsingrid.wetterqvist@ Dept. for International Developmentforeign.ministry.se Coop.

103 39 StockholmSWEDEN

73

Appendix 7 – Abbreviations

APEC Asia-Pacific EconomicCommission

CDF Comprehensive DevelopmentFramework

CEDAW Convention on theElimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination AgainstWomen

CESCR Committee on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights

CGI Consultative Group onIndonesia

COHRE Center for Housing Rightsand Evictions

CRC Convention on the Rights ofthe Child

DFID Department for InternationalDevelopment

EU European Union

FAO Food and AgricultureOrganization of the UnitedNations

FIAN FoodFirst Information andAction Network

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HRCA Human Rights Council ofAustralia

HURIST Human Rights StrengtheningProject

ICCPR International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights

ICESCR International Covenant onEconomic, Social and CulturalRights

IGO Inter-governmentalOrganizations

IMF International Monetary Fund

INFID International Forum forIndonesian Development

INGDO International Non-governmentDevelopment Organization

MDB Multilateral DevelopmentBanks

ODA Official DevelopmentAssistance

OECD Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development

OHCHR Office of the HighCommissioner for HumanRights

PRSP Poverty Reduction StrategyPaper

SAP Structural AdjustmentProgramme

UNDAF United Nations DevelopmentAssistance Framework

UNDP United Nations DevelopmentProgramme

UNICEF United Nations Children’sFund

WTO World Trade Organization