PHM-Exch> Statement: High Level Panel recommendations fall short of the human rights litmus test

[Claudio Schuftan]

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Luke Holland <lholland at cesr.org> wrote:

> **
>
>
> *Statement: High Level Panel recommendations fall short of the human
> rights litmus test*
>
> This statement can be accessed in pdf format at:
> http://www.cesr.org/downloads/cesr_hlp_statement.pdf
>
>
> The Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the
> Post-2015 Development Agenda delivered its report on May 30 amid much
> expectation. CESR welcomes the Panel’s clear affirmation that the framework
> to replace the Millennium Development Goals in 2015 should be grounded in
> respect for universal human rights. However, the fragmented and
> inconsistent incorporation of human rights in its proposals, coupled with
> the prominence given to an outdated vision of market/business-led
> development, prevents the report from meeting its own stated aim of
> proposing a truly “transformative shift”.
>
>  CESR urges the Secretary General and UN member states in their coming
> deliberations to incorporate human rights and accountability more
> thoroughly and meaningfully into the vision, purpose and content of the
> post-2015 agenda, as well as in its implementation framework.
>
>
>
> There is much to be welcomed in the High Level Panel´s report. The HLP
> heeds the widespread call for a universal framework of goals applicable to
> all people in all countries, with targets tailored to national realities
> and with mechanisms that promote accountability at every level. It calls
> for a revolution in data gathering and statistical systems, which is of
> particular significance for tracking disparities and the policy efforts
> needed to realize human rights.  CESR particularly welcomes the Panel’s
> affirmation that “new goals and targets need to be grounded in respect for
> universal human rights” (p.5), reflecting one of the most prominent demands
> emerging from worldwide civil society consultations over the last year. The
> human rights to food, education, water and sanitation, and sexual and
> reproductive rights, as well as the rights to freedom of expression,
> information and association are all referenced in the report, and
> recognized, along with access to justice, as central to accountable
> governance. Nevertheless, the Panel’s rhetorical referencing of human
> rights does not carry through into the report’s operative recommendations
> and proposals, which fall short of the type of comprehensive human
> rights-centered development agenda being demanded the world over<http://www.cesr.org/downloads/HRsForAllByAllStatement.jun03.pdf>
> .
>
>
>
> For the new framework of goals, targets and indicators to meet the human
> rights litmus test, it must fully reflect the fundamental human rights
> principles of universality, indivisibility, equality, participation,
> transparency and accountability. It must also reinforce the duty of states
> to guarantee at least minimum essential floors of rights enjoyment, to use
> the maximum of their available resources to realize rights progressively
> for all, and to engage in international cooperation for this purpose.
>
>
>
> CESR welcomes the Panel’s conclusion that the post-2015 framework “is a
> universal agenda for which everyone must accept their responsibility”.
> While affirming at certain points that the framework must be grounded in
> respect for universal human rights, this is undermined by the assertion
> that goals should “where possible, be in line with existing commitments”.
> This is in clear disaccord with UN members states who agreed at Rio+20 that
> any new sustainable development framework should in all instances be
> “consistent with international law,” including human rights, humanitarian
> and environmental legal standards.
>
> Overall, the report exhibits a fragmented reading of human rights, at
> times reinforcing the outdated notion that civil and political freedoms are
> more “fundamental” than economic, social and cultural rights. In
> particular, the human rights to adequate health, to social protection and
> to decent work are undercut by their treatment as aspirational goals, whose
> fulfillment is contingent on national circumstances. While the report takes
> a welcome “zero target” approach in some areas, calling for an absolute end
> to hunger and extreme poverty by 2030, it is insufficiently ambitious in
> others, with its targets shying away from upholding the core human rights
> duty incumbent upon states to ensure universal minimum floors of healthcare
> and social protection.
>
>
>
> Likewise, rather than a universal human right, decent work (including
> workers’ protections and the right to work) is referred to pejoratively as
> a “one-size-fits-all” solution, to be substituted by a weakened and
> dangerously vague floor of “good jobs.” As well as undercutting
> international standards, this approach is also far less ambitious than the
> ILO/WHO Social Protection Floor Initiative recommendations, endorsed in the
> outcome document of the MDG Review Summit in 2010. Even more worrying, the
> report’s insistence on “flexibly regulated labor markets” is an open
> invitation for further weakening of under-protected labor rights. In view
> of the breadth and depth of setbacks in labor protections over the past 20
> years, a human rights vision post-2015 entails smart but rigorous
> regulation, and a zero tolerance policy for labor rights abuses equally as
> resolute as the zero tolerance shown for extreme poverty, hunger and
> corruption.
>
>
>
> Global consultations yielded a resounding call for the panel to address
> social and economic inequalities, and the systemic discrimination giving
> rise to them, in a far-reaching and cross-cutting way. The panel makes the
> welcome proposal that any new targets should only be considered achieved if
> they are met for all relevant income and social groups. However, given
> the widespread role rising income inequality has played in causing economic
> instability and impeding progress on extreme poverty, it is profoundly
> disappointing that the report argues against including commitments to
> reduce income inequality. Furthermore, gender equality, although more
> comprehensively addressed than under the current MDGs, is still framed in a
> reductive and instrumental way, and the proposed targets dimly reflect the
> range of measures states are already obliged to take to ensure the equal
> enjoyment of human rights by women, people with disabilities, indigenous
> people and others facing systemic discrimination.
>
>
>
> Human rights advocates have been particularly insistent that, alongside
> the environmental, economic, and social dimensions, a fourth pillar of
> sustainable development—accountable governance—is fundamental to putting
> in place the right institutions and effective incentives to translate
> international political commitments into lived realities. The report
> partially reflects this demand by proposing a stand-alone governance goal,
> and specific objectives which could help foster conditions for just and
> accountable governance, such as guaranteeing access to information and
> holding officials to account for bribery and corruption. However, the
> report does little to recognize the role of human rights mechanisms,
> particularly at the national level, in strengthening the fabric of
> accountable governance. Such mechanisms, whether judicial, quasi-judicial,
> administrative, legislative or social, play a critical role in holding
> officials and other duty-bearers to account for development achievements
> and abuses. The post-2015 framework should seek to strengthen their
> effectiveness, and make sure monitoring and accountability synergies are
> built in.
>
>
>
> Moreover, the report’s final recommendations do not fully take into
> account the widening accountability gaps which have both undermined the
> current MDGs and severely fractured trust in institutions of global and
> corporate governance.
>
>
>
> On global governance, the report is laudable in naming human rights and
> the right to development as principles that should guide a renewed
> framework of global partnership. The Panel calls on developed countries to
> “do more to put their own house in order”, both by honoring their aid
> commitments and also by regulating private finance, reforming trade,
> cracking down on illicit capital flows, stemming transnational tax evasion
> (including by businesses), returning stolen assets, and promoting
> sustainable patterns of consumption and production. It also recognizes the
> need to make structural changes in the world economy. But these welcome
> affirmations are barely made operational in the proposals, and the common
> but differentiated duties of all human rights duty-bearers are not clearly
> defined. While the recommendation to integrate commitments of global
> cooperation into each goal is welcome, the failure to model this approach
> in the illustrative goals risks opening the door to the same accountability
> failures that have beset the current MDG process. The danger that global
> commitments will once again be seen as secondary is heightened by the
> report’s failure to underline that states have binding obligations under
> international human rights law to ensure their bilateral and multilateral
> policies contribute to, or at least do not harm, the realization of human
> rights beyond their borders.
>
>
>
> The report is also particularly weak in addressing corporate
> accountability. Human rights norms are unequivocal in requiring that
> governments set up systems which guarantee the private sector respect human
> rights universally, irrespective of its contribution to development. In
> contrast, the report gives undue prominence to an outdated vision of
> market/business-led development. The Panel calls on governments to “work
> with business to create a more coherent, transparent and equitable system
> for collecting corporate tax, to tighten the enforcement of rules that
> prohibit companies from bribing foreign officials, and to prompt their
> large multinational corporations to report on the social, environmental,
> and economic impact of their activities”. But the report’s concrete
> proposals seem to assume this will happen through good intentions alone.
> The report promotes a woefully inadequate approach to business regulation,
> arguing that business should not be “hamstrung by unnecessarily complicated
> regulations”. The report also suggests integrated social and
> environmental reporting for large businesses, but argues for a voluntary
> ‘comply or explain’ regime under which companies would either report or
> explain why they are not reporting. Lessons from 20 years in the corporate
> accountability field show that to be effective, any integrated reporting
> regime must be mandatory for all large companies, must include a wide
> enough scope (ranging from social, human rights and environmental impacts
> to the areas of finance and taxation), must be reviewed by independent
> experts in partnership with communities affected, and must be accompanied
> by clear consequences for conduct which may violate human rights or
> undercut sustainable development. The report’s failure to promote
> adherence, at the very least, to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and
> Human Rights is another missed opportunity. The reference to the potential
> for raising domestic revenues through large-scale mineral projects in
> low-income countries, without acknowledgement of the need to guard against
> the harmful human rights impacts of extractive industries, betrays a view
> of corporate activity that is seriously detached from the experiences of
> communities and individuals affected by mineral exploitation and
> environmental harm it brings in its wake. Meanwhile, the inclusion of a
> target on people’s security of tenure to land and property is very welcome,
> but the concomitant prioritization of security of tenure for business
> presents very perverse incentives, especially in countries where corporate
> investments in land, water and natural resources conflict with local
> communities’ natural resource rights.
>
>
>
> These and other glaring accountability deficits which have hampered the
> current MDG process must be addressed in the design of implementation and
> monitoring infrastructure for the new goals. The Panel puts forward three
> proposals at the international level: a single locus at the UN for global
> reporting, a global high level political forum to review progress, advised
> by an independent committee, and regional-level reporting and peer review.
> These proposals must be considered in light of the limited effectiveness of
> the MDG’s voluntary reporting mechanisms, and good practice models for
> monitoring, review and accountability which have emerged in sectors such as
> women and children´s health should also be taken into account. While the
> report makes no mention of the international human rights monitoring
> system, these expert and peer review mechanisms can reinforce the
> accountability of national governments and supra-state bodies with regard
> to the new set of sustainable development commitments, thereby helping to
> bridge the transnational accountability gaps.
>
>
>
> The report rightly recognizes that “the post-2015 agenda must enable every
> nation to realize its own hopes and plans” through national planning and
> review processes. Yet, instead of re-affirming the imperative of putting
> people’s participation first, the HLP report proposes that governments
> “could receive input from” people in shaping national development plans (p.
> 21). Full and meaningful participation and peoples’ ownership over the
> development process is a central stepping-stone of a human rights-centered
> development framework, and is especially vital in the design of national
> plans and targets to domesticate any sustainable development goals.
>
>
>
> It is also critical that the framework foster mechanisms of public
> participation to ensure that resources for development are generated and
> deployed fairly and transparently. The Panel is to be commended for
> asserting that “we need a transparency revolution, so citizens can see
> exactly where and how taxes, aid and revenues from extractive industries
> are spent”. Yet the report misses the opportunity to outline other key
> fiscal policy arenas particularly needing a boost in public participation
> and transparency, such as budgeting, procurement, and other forms of
> taxation. Further, people have a right to participate in the full cycle of
> fiscal policy processes, not merely to observe from the sidelines.
>
>
>
> CESR acknowledges the efforts by members of the High Level Panel to
> integrate human rights language and concerns into its final report.
> However, a human rights-centered approach to development requires more than
> dressing the same policy prescriptions in the rhetoric of human rights. It
> requires a truly transformative set of commitments that can address the
> accountability shortfalls and asymmetries of power which perpetuate poverty
> and inequality, with ambitious targets and benchmarks of progress aligned
> with existing human rights obligations.
>
>
>
> With these issues in mind, CESR urges the Secretary General and UN member
> states in their coming deliberations to go beyond preambular references to
> human rights and incorporate human rights and accountability into the
> operative content of the post-2015 agenda. Human rights norms and
> principles should not be considered an optional extra. Instead, they
> represent the pre-existing and universal normative standards which must
> underpin all aspects of the agenda, from its guiding vision and goals, to
> targets and indicators, and systems of both implementation and review.
> Anything less than this risks resulting in yet another round of unfulfilled
> promises.
>
>
>
> * This statement can be accessed in pdf format at:
> http://www.cesr.org/downloads/cesr_hlp_statement.pdf
>
> * 'A Matter of Justice', CESR's report on the role human rights must play
> in the post-2015 framework, can be accessed at:
> http://cesr.org/downloads/who_will_be_accountable.pdf
>
> * 'Who Will be Accountabile', produced by CESR in collaboration with the
> Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, can be accessed at:
> http://cesr.org/downloads/who_will_be_accountable.pdf
>
> * 'Just Governance for the World We Need', coordinated by CESR and GCAP
> for the Beyond-2015 network, can be downloaded here:
> http://cesr.org/downloads/Beyond%202015_Governance_position_paper.pdf?preview=1
>
> * A joint statement, signed by 42 human rights and development
> organizations so far, calls of human rights to be fully incorporated into
> the future development agenda. See:
> http://www.cesr.org/article.php?id=1476
>
> * For more on CESR work on the pòst-2015 development agenda, see:
> http://cesr.org/article.php?list=type&type=157
>
> --
> Luke Holland
> Researcher/Communications Coordinator
> Center for Economic and Social Rights
> Telephone: +1.718.237.9145
>
>
>   __._,_.___
>   Reply via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INESCR/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwY2hiMmJlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI3NDM2NjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BG1zZ0lkAzQxNjQEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMzcwNTE4MDg3?act=reply&messageNum=4164>  Reply
> to sender
> <lholland at cesr.org?subject=Re%3A%20Statement%3A%20High%20Level%20Panel%20recommendations%20fall%20short%20of%20the%20human%20rights%20litmus%20test>  Reply
> to group
> <INESCR at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Statement%3A%20High%20Level%20Panel%20recommendations%20fall%20short%20of%20the%20human%20rights%20litmus%20test>  Start
> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INESCR/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcGp1cnUxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI3NDM2NjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM3MDUxODA4Nw-->  Messages
> in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INESCR/message/4164;_ylc=X3oDMTM0anJ0cGZuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI3NDM2NjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BG1zZ0lkAzQxNjQEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMzcwNTE4MDg3BHRwY0lkAzQxNjQ->(1)
> Recent Activity:
>
>
>  Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INESCR;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYjFtamltBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI3NDM2NjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM3MDUxODA4Nw-->
>  This is the general mailing list of the International Network for
> Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net)* Esta es la lista general
> de información de la Red Internacional para los Derechos Económicos,
> Sociales y Culturales (Red-DESC)
>
> For information on ESCR-Net visit*Para información sobre la Red-DESC
> visite www.escr-net.org
>
> Messages sent on this list represent the opinion of the sender, and not
> necessarily the opinion of ESCR-Net or participants on this list. Los
> mensajes enviados a través de esta lista de correo electrónico reflejan
> solamente la opinión de quien los envía y no  necesariamente la de la
> Red-DESC o de otr at s participantes de esta lista.  Les messages envoyés
> sur cette liste représentent l’opinion de l’expéditeur et ne reflètent pas
> nécessairement celles du ESCR-Net ou des autres inscrits.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to/Para terminar su
> subscripción a esta lista,
> envie un mensaje en blanco a/Pour annuler votre inscription à cette liste,
> envoyer un e-mail à:  INESCR-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
>  [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkN2g2YTRhBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzI3NDM2NjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MzA5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzcwNTE4MDg3>
> Switch to: Text-Only<INESCR-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> Daily Digest<INESCR-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> Unsubscribe <INESCR-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms
> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> • Send us Feedback
> <ygroupsnotifications at yahoogroups.com?subject=Feedback+on+the+redesigned+individual+mail+v1>
>    .
>
> __,_._,___
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20130607/baf0d844/attachment.html>